text:
# Top Pair Production Beyond Double-Pole Approximation: 𝒑𝒑, 𝒑𝒑̄→ 6 Fermions and 0, 1 or 2 Additional Partons

## I Introduction

Since the discovery of the top quark in 1995 CDFD0 , the capabilities of ongoing and forthcoming collider experiments have improved significantly. Consequently, $`t\overline{t}`$ production will be abundant and studied intensely as a signal at Fermilab’s Tevatron collider and even more so at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC). With a decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ of about 1.5 GeV the top quark decays too rapidly to be observed directly, and is instead identified through characteristic detector signatures with isolated leptons and jets. These signatures would also be observed in the production of various hypothetical particles, so that top production constitutes an important background for many new particle searches. In light of the changed role that top production will play in the near future, the quality of corresponding theoretical predictions needs to be reviewed.

As is well known, a general, systematic and “natural” treatment of unstable particles in perturbative field theory is not straightforward.111Even limited, appealing schemes like the fermion-loop scheme become rather involved for all but the simplest applications Baur:1995aa ; fermionLoopScheme . Signal cross sections that are dominated by the production and decay of unstable particles with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/m1`$ can be calculated with good accuracy in narrow-width approximation (NWA). This and similar approximations, like the leading-pole approximation, focus on contributions on or close to resonance and thus greatly simplify calculations, since the production and decay of unstable particles (largely) factorises. They have been widely employed to predict inclusive and exclusive cross sections. Their use to determine background rates for experiments with restrictive selection cuts that eliminate resonant contributions and emphasise peripheral phase space regions can be problematic. In such cases, users of general-purpose event generators like PYTHIA pythia  and HERWIG herwig  have applied a suggestive procedure that combines results in NWA at the cross section level. For $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds, for example, $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`Wtb`$ results are added to account for double- and single-resonant contributions. Since $`t\overline{t}`$ calculations in NWA implicitly contain sub- and non-resonant contributions that have been integrated out, this procedure can lead to significant double-counting ttj . It also neglects interference effects: top pair production and associated top ($`Wtb`$) production are specialisations of one and the same process, since initial and final states of both “processes” are identical. Furthermore, calculations in NWA often do not include full spin correlations.

Examples of new particle searches at present and future hadron colliders with substantial $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`Wtb`$ backgrounds include $`HW^+W^{}`$ DittDrein ; CMS ; ATLAS\_TDR\_2 ; Trefzger\_Higgs ; KPRZ ; RZ\_WW  and $`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ ATLAS\_TDR\_2 ; RZH\_tau ; PRZ\_TauTau  decays, leptonic signals for cascade decays of supersymmetric particles SUSY , the Randall-Sundrum radion decays $`\varphi W^+W^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ radionWW  and $`\varphi hhb\overline{b}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ radiontautau , and searches for $`H^{}\tau _L^{}\nu `$ in models with a singlet neutrino in large extra dimensions chargedHiggsExtraDim . Reliable phenomenological studies of these searches require tools that allow accurate calculations of top pair production and decay in resonant as well as non-resonant phase space regions and that are not susceptible to the shortcomings mentioned above. The calculations should therefore employ complete matrix elements, i.e. the sum of all leading-order (LO) amplitudes. These matrix elements – in fact all resonant fixed-order amplitudes – exhibit unphysical singularities, and a finite-width scheme has to be applied to reflect that in field theory propagators of unstable particles acquire complex poles when self-energies are resummed to all orders. The set of higher-order contributions that has to be included to adequately model finite-width effects is not uniquely determined. Moreover, variations of higher order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/m`$, as well as exclusion of problematic phase space regions, e.g. thresholds, are permissible. Consequently, a variety of competing schemes exists simpleFiniteWidthSchemes ; overallFactorScheme ; complexMassScheme ; Baur:1995aa ; fermionLoopScheme .

The purpose of this paper is to compare leading-order $`t\overline{t}`$ cross sections calculated in narrow-width or double-pole approximation (DPA) to cross sections that take into account all sub- and non-resonant amplitude contributions, and to investigate the consistency of several practical finite-width schemes. The program we developed for this purpose is described in Section II, with particular emphasis of finite-width schemes and their implementation. In Section III.1 results for inclusive top pair production are presented, followed by results for important top backgrounds to new particle searches in and beyond the Standard Model (SM) in Sections III.2 and III.3, respectively. In Section IV, we conclude with a summary and outlook.

## II Program Description

We introduce a LO program for $`t\overline{t}`$ production at hadron colliders with up to two additional jets that is not specialised to resonant phase space regions and hence has to include complete tree-level matrix elements for the contributing $`26`$, $`27`$ and $`28`$ subprocesses. If the $`W^+W^{}`$ decay products are abbreviated as $`𝒲`$, $`t\overline{t}`$ production includes the subprocesses

$$ggb\overline{b}𝒲,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}𝒲,$$
(1)
$`t\overline{t}`$ \+ 1 jet production includes the subprocesses

$$ggb\overline{b}𝒲g,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}𝒲g,qgb\overline{b}𝒲q,\overline{q}gb\overline{b}𝒲\overline{q},$$
(2)
and $`t\overline{t}`$ \+ 2 jet production includes the subprocesses

$`ggb\overline{b}𝒲gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}𝒲gg,qgb\overline{b}𝒲qg,\overline{q}gb\overline{b}𝒲\overline{q}g,`$
$`ggb\overline{b}𝒲q\overline{q},q\overline{q}b\overline{b}𝒲q\overline{q},qqb\overline{b}𝒲qq,\overline{q}\overline{q}b\overline{b}𝒲\overline{q}\overline{q}.`$ (3)
The program contains subprocess matrix elements for the di-lepton, single-lepton and all-jet decay modes, or more specifically for the following $`W^+W^{}`$ decay final states:

$`𝒲_{\text{di-lepton}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^+\nu \mathrm{}^{}\nu ,`$ (4)
$`𝒲_{\text{single-lepton}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^+\nu q_d\overline{q}_u,`$ (5)
$`𝒲_{\text{all-jet}}`$ $`=`$ $`q_u\overline{q}_dq_d\overline{q}_u.`$ (6)
For the di-lepton and all-jet decay modes, the program allows to calculate different-flavor samples, e.g. with $`𝒲=e^+\nu _e\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, as well as same-flavor samples, e.g. with $`𝒲=e^+\nu _ee^{}\overline{\nu }_e`$. Additional amplitudes with ($`\gamma ,Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})\times (Z\nu _{\mathrm{}}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`(g,\gamma ,Zq_u\overline{q}_u)\times (g,\gamma ,Zq_d\overline{q}_d)`$ fragments contribute in the di-lepton and all-jet decay modes, respectively. Moreover, a finite-width scheme has to be chosen when formulating complete LO matrix elements with unstable particles to avoid unphysical singularities in resonant phase space regions that can be removed by including contributions to all orders in perturbation theory.222The Dyson resummation of top quark self-energy contributions is described in Ref. ttj . Since no known scheme is satisfactory in every respect, a cross section by cross section comparison of several schemes with complementary properties is suggestive, but requires more than one version of each subprocess matrix element defined above.

Evidently, the creation of all required matrix elements is a considerable task and calls for automation. While the program is generally written in C++ to permit greater code locality and expressiveness, we prefer faster Fortran code for the matrix element evaluation, since its speed determines the program runtime after initial adaptation. Furthermore, to minimize the matrix element code, the program should use helicity amplitudes in unitary gauge that neglect CKM mixing. MADGRAPH/HELAS MADGRAPH ; HELAS  is a matrix element generation system that matches our requirements and has recently been extended to processes with 8-10 external particles. Its output is used as starting point for the matrix element code in our program.

MADGRAPH/HELAS matrix elements use the fixed-width scheme (FWS).333 We use HELAS-3, which implements the fixed-width scheme. Note that the widely-used version 2 of HELAS implements step-width Breit-Wigner propagators, i.e. $`1/(p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta (p^2))`$. No notable deviations occur in general, since $`|p^2m^2|m\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if $`p^2<0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/m1`$.  In the FWS, all propagators of unstable particles are modified according to the following prescription:

$$\frac{1}{p^2m^2}\frac{1}{p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(7)
This substitution is easy to implement, but the resulting matrix elements with Breit-Wigner propagators are not gauge-invariant. As discussed in Refs. Baur:1995aa ; fermionLoopScheme ; ttj , calculations that employ gauge-variant amplitudes and receive sizable contributions from sensitive phase space regions can yield highly erroneous results. To remedy this deficiency, various approaches have been suggested in the literature that yield manifestly gauge-invariant matrix elements. The theoretically most appealing approach is arguably the fermion-loop scheme Baur:1995aa ; fermionLoopScheme . We do not consider it further here, since it is not applicable to processes with unstable particles that decay into bosons, including $`t\overline{t}`$ production. Even if it were applicable in the case at hand, it would require as prerequisite an analytic calculation of effective vertices that has not been automatised yet. Its implementation is therefore not straightforward for complex multi-particle processes with several types of unstable particles. For the studies in Section III we therefore implement two practical finite-width schemes that allow automatic matrix element generation for arbitrary processes and guarantee electroweak and $`SU(3)`$ gauge-invariant results: the complex-mass scheme (CMS) complexMassScheme  and the overall-factor scheme (OFS) overallFactorScheme .

The CMS introduces Breit-Wigner propagators in a gauge-invariant manner by replacing the masses of all unstable particles with a complex value as follows:

$$m\sqrt{m^2im\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(8)
This substitution is performed unconditionally and yields, for example, for the top propagator a different expression than the FWS: $`i(p/+\sqrt{m_t^2im_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_t})/(p^2m_t^2+im_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)`$. $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and dependent quantities also acquire complex values in this scheme, since $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _W=m_W/m_Z`$. The CMS matrix elements in our program use HELAS-CMS, a modified version of the HELAS library that we created by converting masses and widths from real to complex variables.444Complex widths are introduced since MADGRAPH output uses a real constant ZERO for both, vanishing masses and widths, as argument for HELAS calls. In CMS matrix element code we define ZERO as complex parameter and then also have to declare all widths as complex variables to be compatible. Note that all width variables are set to zero in CMS matrix elements, since the widths are contained in the mass variables.

The OFS conserves gauge-invariance while introducing Breit-Wigner behaviour by multiplying the complete LO matrix element (with singular propagators for unstable particles) with overall factors:

$$_{compl.}\times \frac{p^2m^2}{p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }}=_{res.,\text{BW-prop.}}+_{nonres.}\times \frac{p^2m^2}{p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(9)
For each unstable particle type, one factor is applied for every time-like momentum combination that occurs in propagators of that type. The propagators absorb the corresponding factor and transform into Breit-Wigner propagators:

$$\frac{1}{p^2m^2}\times \frac{p^2m^2}{p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{1}{p^2m^2+im\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(10)
Amplitudes that are non-resonant with respect to a particular momentum combination do not absorb the corresponding factor, as indicated in Eq. (9). To facilitate the automatic construction of OFS matrix elements a scripting-language program was written that scans MADGRAPH output, and analyses the structure of all contributing amplitudes. Potentially resonant propagators, where one side is only connected to final state particles, are identified and the required overall factors deduced. The script then constructs the overall factor product for each amplitude, and outputs Fortran code that calculates the OFS matrix element. To optimise the code, combinations of overall factors that occur multiple times are evaluated once and the results are reused.

The comparisons presented in Section III also require the calculation of cross sections in double-pole and narrow-width approximation. For that purpose, a second program – in nature similar to the one used to generate OFS matrix elements – eliminates all amplitudes that do not contain potentially resonant $`t`$ as well as $`\overline{t}`$ propagators, thus extracting all double-resonant amplitudes with respect to top decay. The generated Fortran code employs the fixed-width scheme and is used in our DPA calculations. The DPA matrix elements are also used in our NWA calculations. To preserve all spin correlations, we choose to implement the NWA directly by calculating with off-shell intermediate top quarks in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t0`$ limit. To that end, the top width is scaled down to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t,\text{eff}}=\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$, and $`||^2`$ is multiplied by $`\epsilon ^2`$ to restore the proper normalisation of the total amplitude. For one resonant propagator one has $`|_{\text{eff}}|^2=1/\epsilon \times ||^2`$. A setting of $`\epsilon =1/1000`$ is used in the program and yields excellent agreement with NWA implementations with on-shell intermediate top states. In DPA or NWA mode, the program uses a Breit-Wigner mapping for each resonant top propagator that covers a limited range of invariant top quark masses. Neglected contributions from outside this range introduce a non-statistical error. For the background calculations in Sections III.2 and III.3, off-shell top masses were generated in $`m_t\pm 65\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ limiting neglected contributions to approximately 1% (see Eq. (19) in Ref. ttj ). For the inclusive calculations in Section III.1, we increased the range factor to 6500, reducing this error contribution to 0.01%. A comparison of results given in Table 1 below with results in Table II in Ref. ttj  confirms that a range factor of 65 is not sufficient when a total error of less than 1% is desired.

When cross sections for $`t\overline{t}`$ production with additional jets are calculated with complete matrix elements, one finds that computational complexity increases by a factor of more than 10 for each additional final state particle beyond the $`t\overline{t}`$ level. Resulting program runtimes quickly exceed what would be considered acceptable for phenomenological studies. To obtain the $`t\overline{t}jj`$ results presented in Section III.2, it was therefore necessary to use state-of-the-art integration techniques and to develop a method to distribute the Monte Carlo sampling over a larger number of processors. The result is OmniComp, a Monte Carlo integration framework based on the adaptive multi-channel techniques introduced in Refs. VEGAS ; KleissMultiChannel ; OhlVEGAS  that allows to conveniently distribute the calculation over many processors in one or more computer clusters.555We successfully ran programs on up to 16 processors. OmniComp further accelerates the computation of hadron collider cross sections through adaptive Monte Carlo summation of subprocess $`\mathbf{}`$ helicity combination channels. The mapping of sub- and non-resonant phase space regions follows the approach laid out in Ref. KauerThesis . OmniComp and the phase space mapping library are described in more detail in Ref. TechnicalWriteUp . A number of tests were applied to verify the correctness of the program. First, the Lorentz-invariance of the MADGRAPH-generated FWS matrix elements was tested.666 The Lorentz-invariance of one and the equivalence of two matrix element routines was tested as described in Ref. ttj . CMS matrix elements were tested by comparison with corresponding FWS matrix elements after the complex masses and widths in HELAS-CMS had been set to their usual, real values. The automatic generation of OFS matrix elements was tested by comparing with the manually created OFS matrix elements of Ref. ttj . The DPA/NWA matrix elements were verified by comparing NWA cross sections with results from programs with on-shell intermediate top quarks. The phase space and PDF integration has been tested by comparing with known cross sections for the LHC and Tevatron. Moreover, the addition of hadron collider capabilities to the general purpose packages O’Mega & Whizard OMegaWhizard  and AMEGIC++ AMEGIC  reached the final stage this year, and a comparison of top production cross sections to cross-check our implementations is planned for the near future.

## III Numerical Results

In this section, we use the program described above to study the difference between cross sections with on-shell (NWA) and off-shell (DPA) intermediate top quarks, to determine the size of corrections when complete LO matrix elements are included, and to search for deviations between results obtained with different finite-width schemes.777 Note that all results calculated with our program include full spin correlations (see Section II). We first investigate these issues for inclusive top pair production and then turn to suppressed top backgrounds that are important for new particle searches in and beyond the Standard Model.

To cover the energy range of existing and future hadron colliders, cross sections are calculated for the Tevatron ($`p\overline{p}`$, $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 2 GeV), the LHC ($`pp`$, $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 14 TeV) and a Stage-1 VLHC ($`pp`$, $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 40 TeV). Unless otherwise noted, all calculations use the following parameters: $`m_Z=`$ 91.187 GeV, $`G_F=1.16637\times 10^5`$ GeV-2 and $`\alpha (m_Z)=1/128.92`$, which translates at tree-level to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ = 0.23105 and $`m_W`$ = 79.9617 GeV, as well as the masses $`m_t`$ = 175 GeV, $`m_b`$ = 4.4 GeV and $`m_H`$ = 115 GeV. LO formulas for the decay widths then yield $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=1.56`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W=2.01`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.42`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H=0.00323`$ GeV. CTEQ6L LO parton distribution functions are employed by default, with $`\alpha _s(m_Z)`$ = 0.118 and the NLO formula. Factorisation and renormalisation scales are fixed at the top mass, except for studies where cross sections with additional jets are taken into account (e.g. in Table 3). In this case, the factorisation scale is chosen as $`\mu _f=\mathrm{min}(m_T)`$ of the top quarks and additional jets. This factorisation scale definition avoids double-counting of contributions that have already been integrated out in the PDFs. The overall strong coupling constant factor is calculated as $`(\alpha _s)^n=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^n\alpha _s(m_{T,i})`$, again using the transverse masses of both top quarks and any additional jets as input. ATLAS detector resolution and $`b`$ decay effects are modelled as described in Ref. PRZ\_TauTau , but tagging efficiencies are not taken into account. Monte Carlo integration errors are 0.1% or less for inclusive cross sections and 1% or less for background cross sections.

### III.1 Inclusive Production

For Table 1, we choose inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$ production and decay into the di-lepton final state $`b\overline{b}e^+\nu _e\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, and compare cross sections in NWA to cross sections with complete matrix elements. First, the size of changes is compared for LHC and Tevatron collisions. Generally one would expect finite-width effects to be of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t/m_t=0.009`$, and the Tevatron correction is indeed less than 1%. The LHC cross sections, however, is enhanced by a significantly larger factor of 1.06. This effect is not caused by averaged v. exact spin correlations, since our NWA results include full spin correlations. Furthermore, less than 1% of the increase can be attributed to double-resonant off-shell effects (as seen in Table 2). The increase is mainly caused by previously omitted sub-resonant contributions. These contributions are also included for the Tevatron. That no sizable increase occurs there can be traced to the fact that the Tevatron cross section is dominated by quark scattering, while the LHC cross section is dominated by gluon scattering. As shown in the two rightmost columns, the large increase is specific to the gluon-initiated process. In fact, the $`q\overline{q}`$ cross section is slightly reduced when sub- and non-resonant amplitudes are included. A suggestive kinematical interpretation that relates the large increase to off-shell contributions at hard scattering energies below the on-shell top pair production threshold that are amplified by steeply falling PDFs is therefore misleading. A comparison of calculations with CTEQ4L and CTEQ6L shows that recent PDF improvements decrease cross sections uniformly by 18%, thus having little effect on the $`\sigma _{\text{FWS}}/\sigma _{\text{NWA}}`$ enhancement factor. For inclusive cross sections, differences between finite-width schemes are expected to be of higher order in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t/m_t`$. The third comparison in Table 1 shows that FWS, CMS and OFS yield results that agree when integration errors of 0.1% are taken into account.

Cross section changes when progressing from NWA to DPA and finally to complete LO matrix elements are displayed in Table 2 for the di-lepton, single-lepton and all-jet channels of inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$ production at three hadron colliders: Tevatron, LHC, and a Stage-1 VLHC with $`\sqrt{s}=`$ 40 TeV. In all cases the ratios $`\sigma _{\text{CMS}}/\sigma _{\text{NWA}}`$ and $`\sigma _{\text{CMS}}/\sigma _{\text{DPA}}`$ are very similar: Replacing on-shell with off-shell intermediate top quarks changes cross sections by no more than 1%. Effects are generally small at the Tevatron. At $`pp`$ supercolliders, on the other hand, cross sections increase uniformly by about 7% for all decay modes and collider energies.

### III.2 Backgrounds to SM Higgs Searches

The unexpectedly large increase of inclusive cross sections at $`pp`$ supercolliders when sub- and non-resonant contributions are included raises the question how large corresponding effects are for new particle searches with significant $`t\overline{t}`$ backgrounds. When optimised selection cuts are used to suppress top pair production, the dominant double-resonant $`t\overline{t}`$ contributions are typically suppressed by factors of order $`10^4`$ and the importance of contributions from sub- and non-resonant phase space regions can increase considerably. A central jet veto, e.g.

$$p_{Tj}>\text{15 GeV}\text{and}|\eta _j|<3.2,$$
(11)
is very effective in suppressing the $`t\overline{t}`$ background to inclusive $`HWW`$ searches at the LHC DittDrein ; CMS ; ATLAS\_TDR\_2 ; Trefzger\_Higgs . The veto of Eq. (11) reduces the inclusive cross section of 6 pb to 14 fb when the NWA or DPA is applied, whereas a calculation with complete matrix elements yields 26 fb. Sub- and non-resonant contributions increase the result by a factor 1.8. As in the inclusive case, moving from NWA to DPA or switching finite-width schemes changes the corresponding result very little in comparison. The distributions in Fig. 1 show this relationship for differential cross sections.

$`HWW`$ searches are usually tuned for intermediate Higgs masses around 170 GeV, where the $`HWW`$ branching ratio is large. In Ref. KPRZ , the search for $`HWW`$ decays in weak boson fusion at the LHC is studied for the light Higgs ($`m_H=115`$ GeV) favoured by LEP experiments lep2higgs . The additional forward jets in weak boson fusion permit powerful selection cut optimisations that make this search channel competitive – a $`5\sigma `$ discovery is possible with 35 fb-1 – even for relatively low Higgs masses where the $`HWW`$ branching ratio is small. In this search scenario, $`t\overline{t}`$ \+ jets production is the dominant background and its accurate determination is essential. The $`t\overline{t}`$ background is strongly suppressed, because for final states without additional jets both $`b`$ quarks need to be resolved as forward jets with wide separation in pseudorapidity and very large di-jet invariant mass. In Ref. KPRZ , complete matrix element corrections were calculated for the $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`t\overline{t}j`$ backgrounds using the OFS. As shown in Section III.3, OFS cross sections can be artificially reduced. Our program allows to calculate these corrections using the FWS, CMS or OFS. The results are given in Table 3 and show that the OFS is reliable in this case. Table 3 also displays first results for $`t\overline{t}`$+2 jets production calculated with complete LO matrix elements in the literature. Sub- and non-resonant amplitude contributions enhance the total top background by a factor of 1.1.

### III.3 Backgrounds to Beyond-SM Physics Searches

At the LHC, top backgrounds also play an important part in searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. In this section we focus on two studies where $`t\overline{t}`$ production constitutes the dominant background: the search for hadronic $`\tau `$ decay of a heavy charged Higgs in supersymmetric models and the radion decay $`\varphi hhb\overline{b}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, where one $`\tau `$ decays leptonically and the other hadronically.

The production of a charged Higgs with $`m_{H^\pm }>m_t`$ in supersymmetric models at high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ was analysed in Ref. chargedHiggs . Production proceeds through $`ggH^\pm tb`$ and is followed by the decays $`H^\pm \tau \nu `$ (with hadronic $`\tau `$ decay) and $`tjjb`$. Applying the selection cuts of this ATLAS study, we calculate $`t\overline{t}`$ background cross sections in NWA and with complete matrix elements to determine the enhancement factor. The results are shown in Table 4. Sub- and non-resonant amplitude contributions enhance the top background by a factor of 1.1. The ATLAS analysis takes sub-resonant contributions into account by combining $`t\overline{t}`$ and $`Wtb`$ results in NWA at the cross-section level. This procedure can lead to substantial double-counting of sub- and non-resonant contributions ttj . Our enhancement factor indicates that the actual top background is 23% lower than the estimate in Ref. chargedHiggs . In Ref. chargedHiggsExtraDim , the analysis was extended to the search for $`H^{}\tau _L^{}\nu `$ in models with a singlet neutrino in large extra dimensions, and we expect a similarly reduced top background if sub-resonant contributions are included at the amplitude-level.

In Table 5, enhancement factors are given for the top background to the decay $`\varphi hhb\overline{b}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ of a Randall-Sundrum radion with mass 300 GeV. The two $`\tau `$ leptons decay leptonically and hadronically, respectively. The selection cuts of the ATLAS analysis in Ref. radiontautau  are applied. Specific model parameters are given in the table caption. The effect of sub- and non-resonant amplitude contributions is small for this top background, in fact smaller than for inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$ production.

The OFS cross sections in Tables 4 and 5 are several percent lower than the corresponding FWS and CMS cross sections, which agree within the integration error of 1%. To understand why the OFS may not be suitable for all $`t\overline{t}`$ background calculations, we integrate the small phase space region where both top quarks and the intermediate $`Z`$ boson are close to resonance. More specifically, we require $`|m_{Wb}m_t|<2\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ and $`|m_{WW}m_Z|<2\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$. The results are shown in Table 6. The DPA is excellent and contributions from amplitudes with resonant $`Z`$ propagator are negligible. In the OFS, the dominant double-resonant top amplitudes are artificially suppressed by the overall factor $`|(p_Z^2m_Z^2)/(p_Z^2m_Z^2+im_Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z)|1`$. The resulting OFS cross section is consequently much smaller than CMS or FWS cross sections. This example illustrates that cross sections for multi-resonant processes cannot be calculated reliably with the OFS if sizable contributions arise from phase space regions where several amplitudes with different resonance structure compete. Artificially reduced cross sections can even occur for single-resonant processes, given that non-resonant contributions are sizable in phase space regions close to resonance. The authors of Ref. Baur:1995aa , for example, compared OFS and fermion-loop scheme cross sections for radiative $`W`$ production and found that OFS results are 30% lower close to threshold. Despite some effort999We considered, for example, the selections $`m_{Wb}>500`$ GeV, $`|\eta _b|>3.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{WW}<1.0`$ for collider energies up to 100 PeV., we were unable to find a phase space region, where CMS and FWS cross sections for $`t\overline{t}`$ production showed significant discrepancies. We therefore conjecture that calculations employing the gauge-variant fixed-width scheme may be used to obtain reliable predictions for the processes considered here. We note that the reliability of the fixed-width scheme has recently also been established for $`e^+e^{}6`$ fermion processes LUSIFER .

Our LO calculations do not include log-enhanced higher-order contributions from collinear $`gb\overline{b}`$ configurations for initial state gluons. An improved treatment would include $`gb`$ scattering matrix elements convoluted with the $`b`$ quark PDF. Then, a subtraction of the gluon splitting term would also be required to avoid double-counting gbContribution . However, the additional net contribution to inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$ production is less than 2% Boos\_SingleTop\_Followup  and can safely be neglected in our analysis in Section III.1. In the weak boson fusion Higgs search discussed in Section III.2, one or both $`b`$ quarks have no finite transverse momentum threshold, but collinear contributions are small within typical cuts ttj . For central jet veto suppressed top backgrounds, on the other hand, one would expect more pronounced collinear enhancement. The selection cuts for the $`t\overline{t}`$ background studies in Section III.3 require that the $`b`$ quarks are resolved with a transverse momentum of at least 15 GeV. The collinear region is thus avoided.

## IV Summary and Outlook

We presented cross sections for top quark pair production at hadron colliders with up to two additional jets resulting in 6-, 7- and 8-particle final states calculated with complete tree-level matrix elements. Our program includes di-lepton, single-lepton and all-jet decay modes, and implements three practical finite-width schemes, i.e. the fixed-width, complex-mass and overall-factor schemes, as well as the narrow-width and double-pole approximation for comparison. While our LO calculations are subject to substantial scale uncertainties, the obtained cross section ratios are expected to be robust. For inclusive production, advancing from NWA to DPA by replacing on-shell with off-shell intermediate top quarks, changes cross sections by 1% or less. The inclusion of sub- and non-resonant amplitudes increases NWA or DPA cross sections by 5–8% at the LHC and VLHC, but has little effect on Tevatron cross sections. Top backgrounds to new particle searches are often suppressed by optimised selection cuts that can enhance the importance of sub- and non-resonant contributions considerably. We updated on-shell $`t\overline{t}/Wtb`$ background estimates for the $`HWW`$ decay in weak boson fusion, the hadronic $`\tau `$ decay of a heavy $`H^\pm `$ and the $`\varphi hh\tau \tau b\overline{b}`$ radion decay at the LHC, and found corrections from 3% to 30%. All calculated FWS and CMS cross sections agree within errors. Gauge-violating effects of the FWS appear to be generally negligible for the processes considered here. Our calculations show further that the OFS may yield underestimated cross sections and should be applied with caution in studies with suppressed top backgrounds.

Because of the large scale uncertainties of LO cross sections, precise absolute predictions for top pair production at hadron colliders cannot be achieved with tree-level calculations. The extension of LO to NLO calculations in the framework of the narrow-width and double-pole approximations was first explored in the context of weak gauge boson production WWinNLOwithDPAforLinColl  and has recently also been carried out for top pair production at hadron colliders ttinNLOwithDPAforHadrColl . The results in Section III.1 imply that sub-resonant contributions need to be included in NLO calculations for inclusive $`t\overline{t}`$ production at $`pp`$ supercolliders to achieve a theoretical error of $`𝒪(5\%)`$. A common method to improve LO predictions for suppressed top backgrounds is to apply a reaction-specific $`K`$-factor, i.e. to rescale all LO results by multiplying with $`K=\sigma _{incl,\text{NLO}}/\sigma _{incl,\text{LO}}`$. When sub-resonant and non-resonant phase space regions contribute substantially to cross sections, the merit of such procedures has to be tested by comparing with fully differential NLO calculations that cover resonant and non-resonant phase space regions. The starting point for a complete NLO calculation of top pair production, i.e. a calculation that is not specialised to the double-resonant phase space region, would be the evaluation of the NLO corrections of the complete matrix element for the $`b\overline{b}W^+W^{}`$ final state. The calculation of the real emission corrections is straightforward, since the $`W`$ bosons are on-shell. However, the evaluation of the virtual corrections of this $`24`$ process involves 1-loop hexagon amplitudes, whose computation is still very challenging Hexagon . While the $`t\overline{t}+\text{jets}`$ program described in this paper allows to calculate the real emission component of a complete calculation of $`pp`$ 6 fermions at NLO in QCD, the evaluation of the virtual corrections for such $`26`$ processes is well beyond present capabilities. NLO predictions for many-particle processes with multiple scales can be further improved by resumming higher-order contributions with large logarithms, such as $`\alpha _s\mathrm{log}(m_t^2/p_{Tj}^2)`$ in the case at hand.

In addition to precise and accurate calculations for hard scattering subprocesses, a reliable comparison of theoretical predictions and experimental data also requires the proper inclusion of parton showering, hadronisation and detector effects. To standardise the co-operation of parton-level Monte Carlo programs (with full matrix elements) and showering and hadronisation event generators – which in turn produce input for detector simulations – a generic interface has been specified recently in Ref. LesHouchesEventGeneratorInterface . In the near future, we plan to implement this interface and to make our complete LO top pair production program available to interested experimental physicists.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank T. Stelzer for access to a recent version of MADGRAPH and T. Trefzger for helpful information.


format: text

text:
# Geometric Dual and Matrix Theory for 𝑆𝑂/𝑆𝑝 Gauge Theories

## 1 Introduction

A few months ago, a deep relationship between matrix models and supersymmetric gauge field theories has been pointed out in . In these papers, it was shown that exact glueball effective actions for supersymmetric gauge field theories can be calculated by planar diagrams of corresponding matrix models. Since then, a lot of works have been done to check this conjecture by explicit examples (e.g.  to , and  to ), from which some remarkable features of the new method have been demonstrated. For example, in  it was shown that different massive vacua of the mass deformed $`𝒩=4`$ theory are related to each other by $`SL(2,Z)`$ modular groups, so the Montonen-Olive duality is not an assumption, but rather a derived result. It was also shown that the matrix model can calculate not only the exact low energy superpotential, but also quantum corrections of classical moduli spaces.

Among these results, two papers  and  used purely the language of field theories to prove the DV conjecture. These two proofs are very useful because they do not rely on the geometric picture and explain why calculations of effective actions can be reduced to matrix models. They provide also bases to generalize to other interesting cases, for example, the double trace deformation studied in  or the $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups studied in .

With these developments, it seems that to prove the DV conjecture, the geometric picture is not really needed. However, the field theory proof is not very general at this moment and for theories which can be geometrically engineered and embedded into string theory, the geometric method has been proven to be a very useful alternative. One explicit example can be found in  for the $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ theory with one adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and arbitrary superpotential $`W=_{r=1}^{n+1}g_ru_r=_{i=1}^{n+1}g_rTr(\mathrm{\Phi }^r)/r`$. The proof in  was based on works of  where it was shown by large N duality that the calculation in the field theory is equivalent to the one in the dual geometry. So if we can derive the dual geometry (the spectral curve and periods of cycles) from the matrix model, by the link between the geometry and field theory, the relationship between the matrix model and field theory is established also.

In this paper, we will use the same logic to extend the proof of DV conjecture to $`𝒩=1`$ $`SO(N)/Sp(2N)`$ theories with one adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and arbitrary superpotential $`W=_{r=1}^{n+1}g_{2r}u_{2r}=_{r=1}^{n+1}g_{2r}Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^{2r})/2r`$. We will show first that the exact effective action calculated by field theory method is same as the one calculated by the dual geometry method. Then we derive the corresponding spectral curve from the matrix model and match physical quantities such as $`S_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ at two sides of the matrix model and dual geometry. Combining the first step, it will complete our proof of DV conjecture for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups.

The organization of the paper is following. In section two we provide the analysis in field theory. In section three we review the geometric dual picture and give a proof of the equivalence between the gauge theory and dual geometry. In section four, we present the derivation of the dual geometry from the matrix model, thus close the loop of our proof.111When submitting this paper, we noticed that two papers  and  have some overlaps with this paper.

## 2 The analysis in field theory

First let us analyze the classical moduli space of $`SO(2N)`$, $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`Sp(2N)`$ (the notation for $`Sp(2N)`$ is that the rank of the gauge group is $`N`$) with following superpotential

$$W=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}\frac{Tr(\mathrm{\Phi }^{2r})}{2r}.$$
(1)
By gauge transformations, we can rotate the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ into following form: $`diag(x_1i\sigma _2,\mathrm{},x_Ni\sigma _2)`$ for $`SO(2N)`$, $`diag(x_1i\sigma _2,\mathrm{},x_Ni\sigma _2,0)`$ for $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`diag(x_1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_N,x_N)`$ for $`Sp(2N)`$ with $`\sigma _2`$ the Pauli matrix. The supersymmetric vacua are given by solutions of F-terms, i.e., roots of

$$W^{}(x)=g_{2n+2}x\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x^2\pm a_i^2),\pm forSO/Sp.$$
(2)
If we choose $`N_i`$ $`x_i`$ to be the same value $`ia_i(a_i)`$ (with the convention that $`a_0=0`$), the gauge group is broken to

$$SO(2N)SO(2N_0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}U(N_j)$$
(3)
with $`_{j=0}^nN_j=N`$ for $`SO(2N)`$ (for $`SO(2N+1)`$ or $`Sp(2N)`$, $`SO(2N_0)`$ is replaced by $`SO(2N_0+1)`$ or $`Sp(2N_0)`$). At low energy, $`SO(2N_0)`$, $`SO(2N_0+1)`$, $`Sp(2N_0)`$ as well as $`SU(N_i)`$ develop a mass gap and confine, so there are $`n`$ massless $`U(1)`$ gauge fields left. It is the exact effective action for these fields we are looking for.

Since our theories are deformed from corresponding $`𝒩=2`$ theories by the superpotential (1), we can calculate the exact superpotentials for these deformed theories by using the well-known Seiberg-Witten curves . The method has been elaborated in .

The basic idea is that $`𝒩=2`$ theories deformed only by $`W`$ of (1) have unbroken supersymmetries on a submanifold of Coulomb branches, where there are additional $`l`$ massless fields besides $`u_r`$, such as magnetic monopoles or dyons. The exact low energy superpotential in these vacua is given by

$$W_{eff}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}$$
(4)
with $`u_{2r}`$ taking value in the submanifold where $`l`$ monopoles are massless. In other words, we require $`l`$ mutually local monopoles or dyons in the submanifold of Coulomb branches. This requirement put $`l`$ conditions in original Coulomb branches and $`u_{2r}`$ lie on the codimension $`l`$ submanifold.

Because $`u_{2r}`$ lie on the codimension $`l`$ submanifold, we can parameterize them by $`(Nl)`$ parameters. To get the low energy effective action, we need to minimize $`W_{eff}`$ in (4) regarding these parameters and substitute results back to $`W_{eff}`$. By this way, we get the low energy effective action $`W_{low}`$ as a function of $`g_{2r}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ only.

The above conditions can be translated into the requirement of proper factorization forms of corresponding Seiberg-Witten curves as shown in . For $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups, as remarked in , there are two forms of SW curves. One is as a hyperelliptic curve of genus $`N`$ in  and another is as a hyperelliptic curve of genus $`2N`$ with $`Z_2`$ symmetry in . It was found that to connect to the geometric picture, the second choice is more natural and will be used throughout the paper.

Let us see how it works by the example of $`SO(2N)`$. $`SO(2N)`$ can be embedded into $`U(2N)`$ and considered as the $`Z_2`$ quotient of later. With the superpotential (1) (2), $`U(2N)`$ is broken to $`2n+1`$ factors as

$$U(2N)U(2N_0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}U(N_{j+})\times U(N_j)$$

with $`2N_0+_{j=1}^n(N_{j+}+N_j)=2N`$ and the corresponding SW curve is factorized as

$$y^2=F_{2(2n+1)}(x)H_{2N(2n+1)}(x)^2.$$

However, to reduce to $`SO(2N)`$ group, we must take the $`Z_2`$ action which requires $`N_{j+}=N_j`$. The $`Z_2`$ action also maps $`U(N_{j+})`$ located at $`ia_j`$ to $`U(N_j)`$ located at $`ia_j`$ and projects $`U(2N_0)`$ located at $`0`$ to $`SO(2N_0)`$, so finally we get the breaking pattern

$$SO(2N)SO(2N_0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}U(N_j).$$

Considering the $`Z_2`$ action of the factorized SW curve, we get

$$y^2=P_{2N}(x^2,u)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4=(xH_{2N(2n+2)}(x))^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x),$$

where both $`H(x)`$ and $`F(x)`$ are functions of $`x^2`$. Knowing the factorized form, the gauge coupling constants of the remaining massless $`U(1)`$ fields can be calculated by the period matrix of the reduced curve

$$y^2=F_{2(2n+1)}(x^2;u_{2r})=F_{2(2n+1)}(x^2;g_{2r},\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(5)
As we will show shortly, the function $`F_{2(2n+1)}(x^2)`$ is related to the deformed superpotential and geometry by

$$g_{2n+2}^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x^2)=W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)$$

where $`f_{2n}(x)`$ with degree $`2n`$ is a function of $`x^2`$.

### 2.1 Rephrasing the problem

As shown in , the factorization and extremum can be restated into a pure algebraic problem which is well posed and has a unique solution: Find $`P_{2N}(x;u)`$ such that222Following discussions are under the assumption that the wrapping number $`N_i0`$ for all $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$ which is also used in . The discussion for more general cases is under investigation.

$`SO(2N):`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4=x^2H_{2N2n2}^2(x)F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$ (6)
$`=x^2H_{2N2n2}^2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{2n+2}^2}}(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)),`$
$`SO(2N+1):`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N2}x^2=x^2H_{2N2n2}^2(x)F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$ (7)
$`=x^2H_{2N2n2}^2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{2n+2}^2}}(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)),`$
$`Sp(2N):`$ $`[x^2P_{2N}(x^2,u)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}]^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4}=x^2H_{2N2n}^2(x)F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$ (8)
$`=x^2H_{2N2n}^2(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{2n+2}^2}}(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)),`$
where $`W^{}(x)=g_{2n+2}x_{i=1}^n(x^2\pm a_i^2)`$ (where $`+`$ for $`SO`$ and $``$ for $`Sp`$) is given, together with following boundary conditions at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ as

$`SO(2N):`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i},{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i=N,`$ (9)
$`SO(2N+1):`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i},{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i=N,`$ (10)
$`Sp(2N):`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2a_i^2)^{N_i},{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i=N,`$ (11)
Above boundary conditions mean that gauge groups are broken as

$`SO(2N)`$ $``$ $`SO(2N_0)\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}U(N_i),`$
$`SO(2N+1)`$ $``$ $`SO(2N_0+1)\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}U(N_i),`$
$`Sp(2N)`$ $``$ $`Sp(2N_0)\times {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}U(N_i).`$
Using same method as in  it can be proved that solutions for above problems are unique.

Once the low energy effective action

$$W_{low}(g_{2r},\mathrm{\Lambda })=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}$$

is obtained, we can calculate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{eff}}{g_{2r}}}`$ $`=`$ $`u_{2r},`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\widehat{N}})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}}.`$ (13)
where $`\widehat{N}`$ is $`2N2`$ for $`SO(2N)`$, $`2N1`$ for $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`2N+2`$ for $`Sp(2N)`$. The $`S_0`$ is the glueball superfield for $`SO(2N_0)`$, $`SO(2N_0+1)`$ or $`Sp(2N_0)`$ factor and $`S_i`$ is the glueball superfield for $`U(N_i)`$ factor. The $`b_{2n}`$ is the leading coefficient of the function $`f_{2n}(x)`$. We will give derivations of these results in next subsection.

### 2.2 The function $`F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$

As we mentioned above, the function $`F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$ is related to the deformed superpotential and geometry by

$$g_{2n+2}^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x^2)=W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x).$$
(14)
This result has been given in  for $`SO`$ groups. Here we adopt the method in  which will also enable us to show relation (13).

Let us start with the $`SO(2N)`$ gauge group. In this case, the SW curve is factorized as

$$P_{2N}(x^2,u)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4=(\stackrel{~}{H}_{2N2n1}(x))^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x)=(xH_{2N(2n+2)}(x))^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x)$$

Notice that since both the left hand side and $`F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$ are functions of $`x^2`$ and the degree of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{2N2n1}(x)`$ is odd, one factor $`x`$ must be factorized out in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{2N2n1}(x)`$, thus we can write $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{2N2n1}(x)=xH_{2N(2n+2)}(x)`$. For our convenience, we change it to

$$(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}=(H_l(x))^2x^2F_{4N2l2}(x),$$
(15)
with $`\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2}`$ a polynomial of $`x^2`$. As in , the problem of factorizing the SW curve and minimizing the superpotential under these constraints can be translated into minimizing the following superpotential

$$W=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}[L_i((\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})|_{x=p_i}2ϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2})+Q_i\frac{(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})}{x}|_{x=p_i}]$$
(16)
with $`ϵ_i=\pm 1`$ and variables $`u_{2r}`$ and Lagrange multipliers $`L_i,Q_i,p_i`$. In fact $`L_i,Q_i`$ conditions tell us that there are $`l`$ double roots at $`p_i`$ as shown by the factor $`(H_l(x))^2`$.

From the equation (16) we first get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{Q_i}}:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})}{x}}|_{x=p_i}=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}:`$ $`Q_i{\displaystyle \frac{^2(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})}{x^2}}|_{x=p_i}=0.`$
Since in general $`\frac{^2(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x^2})}{x^2}`$ is not degenerate, we get $`Q_i=0`$. Using this result we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_{2r}}}:`$ $`g_{2r}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}L_ip_i^{2N2j2}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{2j}}{u_{2r}}}=0,`$
$``$ $`g_{2r}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}L_ip_i^{2N2j2}s_{2j2r}`$
where we have used the expansion $`P_{2N}(x^2,u)=_{r=0}^Ns_{2r}x^{2N2r}`$ with $`s_0=1`$ and $`\frac{s_{2j}}{u_{2r}}=s_{2j2r}`$. Because the SW curve is an even function of $`x`$, roots $`p_i`$ must be in pairs as $`(p_i,p_i)`$ and we can write the sum as

$$g_{2r}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}s_{2j2r}$$
(17)
where we have assumed that $`l`$ is even number.

Now we calculate

$`W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}g_{2r}x^{2r1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}s_{2j2r}x^{2r1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}s_{2j2r}x^{2r1}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
where the $`L_{i=1}^{l/2}(L_{i+}+L_i)ϵ_i`$. It can be shown by taking $`\frac{}{L_i}`$ of (16) that $`ϵ_i=ϵ_{i+}=ϵ_i`$. Replacing $`_{j=0}^N`$ by $`_{j=\mathrm{}}^N`$ since these terms are of higher order, we get

$`W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}s_{2j2r}x^{2r1}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}x^{2N1+2j}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{r}jr:jN}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}s_{2\stackrel{~}{r}}x^{2N2\stackrel{~}{r}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j2}x^{2N1+2j}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`P_{2N}(x^2,u){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(L_{i+}+L_i)}{xp_i^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{p_i^2}{x^2}}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`xP_{2N}(x^2,u){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(L_{i+}+L_i)}{p_i^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2p_i^2}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3).`$
With the definition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}\frac{(L_{i+}+L_i)}{p_i^2}\frac{x^2}{x^2p_i^2}=\frac{B_l(x)}{H_l(x)}$$

we have

$$W^{}(x)=B_l(x)\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{xH_l(x)}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1+𝒪(x^3).$$
(18)
From this we can write

$`W^{}(x)+2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}x^1=B_l(x)\sqrt{F_{4N2l2}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^2}{H_l(x)^2}}}+𝒪(x^3).`$
Comparing the degree at two sides we find $`deg(B_l)=2n+1(2Nl1)0`$. If we set $`l=2N2n2`$, $`B_l(x)=g_{2n+2}`$ is just a constant, so finally we get the wanted relationship

$$g_{2n+2}^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x)=W^{}_{}{}^{}2(x)+4L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}g_{2n+2}x^{2n}+\mathrm{}=W^{}_{}{}^{}2(x)+f_{2n}(x)$$
(19)
Furthermore from the form (18), it can be seen that both $`H_l(x)`$ and $`F_{4N2l2}(x)`$ are functions of $`x^2`$.

There is another important relationship we can get. Differentiating (16) regarding to $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dW}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{u_{2r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_{2r}}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{L_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_i}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{W}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_i}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{\overset{l}{}}}L_iϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}`$
$`=`$ $`L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}`$
where in the third line we have used equations for $`u_{2r},p_i,L_i`$ and in the fourth line, the definition of $`L`$. From (19) we can read out the leading coefficient of $`f_{2n}(x)`$ to be $`b_{2n}=4L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}g_{2n+2}`$, so we get

$$\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4})}=\frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}$$
(20)
which has been advertised in (13).

#### 2.2.1 The $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`Sp(2N)`$ cases

Having done the case of $`SO(2N)`$ in detail, we will just scratch the $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`Sp(2N)`$ cases. For $`SO(2N+1)`$, we write the factorized SW curve as

$$(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x})^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N2}=(H_l(x))^2F_{4N2l2}(x),$$
(21)
and the corresponding low energy effective action

$$W=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}[L_i((\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x})|_{x=p_i}2ϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1})+Q_i\frac{(\frac{P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{x})}{x}|_{x=p_i}]$$
(22)
Using equations of $`Q_i,L_i,p_i,u_{2r}`$ we get

$`g_{2r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}L_i)p_i^{2N2j1}s_{2j2r}`$
and

$`W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}g_{2r}x^{2r1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}L_i)p_i^{2N2j1}s_{2j2r}x^{2r1}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`xP_{2N}(x^2,u){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(L_{i+}L_i)}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2p_i^2}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
with the definition $`L_{i=1}^{l/2}(L_{i+}L_i)ϵ_i`$. Defining

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}\frac{(L_{i+}L_i)}{p_i}\frac{x^2}{x^2p_i^2}=\frac{B_l(x)}{H_l(x)}$$

we can write

$`W^{}(x)+2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}x^1=B_l(x)\sqrt{F_{4N2l2}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N2}}{H_l(x)^2}}}+𝒪(x^3).`$
Setting $`l=2N2n2`$, $`B=g_{2n+2}`$ we finally get

$$g_{2n+2}^2F_{2(2n+1)}(x)=W^{}_{}{}^{}2(x)+4L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}g_{2n+2}x^{2n}+\mathrm{}=W^{}_{}{}^{}2(x)+f_{2n}(x)$$
(23)
Again, differentiating (22) by $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N2})`$, we get

$$\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N2})}=\underset{i}{\overset{l}{}}L_iϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}=L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}=\frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}$$
(24)
For the $`Sp(2N)`$ gauge group we write down

$$[x^2P_{2N}(x^2,u)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}]^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4}=(H_l(x))^2F_{4N2l+2}(x)x^2,$$
(25)
and

$$W=\underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}g_{2r}u_{2r}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}[L_i(x^2P_{2N}(x^2,u)|_{x=p_i}2ϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2})+Q_i\frac{(x^2P_{2N}(x^2,u))}{x}|_{x=p_i}]$$
(26)
where $`ϵ_i=0,2`$ which is different from the $`SO`$ case. From the $`W`$, we find

$`g_{2r}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}L_ip_i^{2N2j+2}s_{2i2r}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j+2}s_{2i2r}`$
and

$`W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}g_{2r}x^{2r1}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=\mathrm{}}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^{2N2j+2}s_{2j2r}x^{2r1}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`xP_{2N}(x^2,u){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2p_i^2}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
with the definition $`L_{i=1}^{l/2}(L_{i+}+L_i)ϵ_i`$. Writing

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{l/2}{}}(L_{i+}+L_i)p_i^2\frac{1}{x^2p_i^2}=\frac{B_{l2}(x)}{H_l(x)}$$

we get

$`W^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`B_{l2}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^2P_{2N}(x^2,u)}{H_l(x)}}2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}x^1+𝒪(x^3)`$
$`=`$ $`B_{l2}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}(\sqrt{F_{4N2l+2}(x)x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4}}{H_l(x)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}}{H_l(x)}})2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}x^1+𝒪(x^2)`$
$`=`$ $`B_{l2}(x)(\sqrt{F_{4N2l+2}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4}}{x^2H_l(x)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}}{xH_l(x)}})2L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}x^1+𝒪(x^2)`$
Setting $`l=2N2n`$ and $`B_{l2}(x)=g_{2n+2}`$, we have

$$g_{2n+2}^2F_{2(2n+1)}=W^{}(x)^2+4L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}g_{2n+2}x^{2n}+\mathrm{}=W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)$$
(27)
Differentiating (26) by $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4})`$ we found

$$\frac{dW}{d\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N+4})}=\underset{i}{\overset{l}{}}L_iϵ_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}=L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}=\frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}$$
(28)
### 2.3 The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit

To compare with the geometric picture, we need to discuss the solution in field theory at the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. In this limit, the factorization is easy to be solved. For example, for $`SO(2N)`$ gauge groups, we propose that

$`[P_{2N}(x,u)]^2`$ $`=`$ $`[x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}]^2`$
$`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}(x)^2}{g_{2n+2}^2}}]x^2[x^{2N_02}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i1}]^2`$
where the first line tells us that the proposed $`P_{2N}(x,u)`$ does satisfy the boundary condition. From this factorized form we can read out that $`f_{2n}(x)=0`$. In this limit the effective action is calculated as

$`W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}Tr[\mathrm{\Phi }^{2r}]={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}()^rN_ia_i^{2r}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}()^ra_i^{2r}={\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_iW(\alpha _i)`$
where we have used the from $`\mathrm{\Phi }=diag(0_{2N_0},(ia_i,ia_i)_{N_i})`$ and $`\alpha _i`$ are these eigenvalues.

Similar calculations can be done for other two gauge groups as

$`SO(2N+1):`$ $`[P_{2N}(x,u)]^2=[x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}]^2`$
$`=[{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}(x)^2}{g_{2n+2}^2}}]x^2[x^{2N_02}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i1}]^2,`$
$`Sp(2N):`$ $`x^4[P_{2N}(x,u)]^2=x^4[x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2a_i^2)^{N_i}]^2`$
$`=[{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}(x)^2}{g_{2n+2}^2}}]x^2[x^{2N_0}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i1}]^2,`$
with $`f_{2n}(x)=0`$. The effective action of $`SO(2N+1)`$ is same as $`SO(2N)`$, but for $`Sp(2N)`$ it is modified to

$`W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}Tr[\mathrm{\Phi }^{2r}]={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_ia_i^{2r}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_i{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2r}}{2r}}a_i^{2r}={\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_iW(\alpha _i)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=diag(0_{2N_0},(a_i,a_i)_{N_i})`$.

## 3 The geometric picture

The geometric duals to field theories are given in , where it was conjectured that low energy (holomorphic) dynamics can be calculated by geometric dual theories. Later in , this conjecture has been proved for $`U(N)`$ gauge groups with one adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The geometric dual theories have been generalized from $`U(N)`$ gauge groups to $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups in  and explicit examples to support this conjecture were given in . It is our aim in this paper to give a proof for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups.

### 3.1 Review

To have the geometric dual theory, first we need to geometrically engineer the $`𝒩=2`$ field theory deformed by superpotential (1). It can be done by wrapping D5-branes along two cycles in the non-compact, nontrivial fibrated Calabi-Yau threefold

$$uv+w^2+W^{}(x)^2=0,W^{}(x)=g_{2n+2}x\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x^2\pm a_i^2),$$
(30)
At each root of $`W^{}(x)`$ there is a blown up $`S^2`$ with $`N_i`$ D5-branes wrapped around this $`S^2`$. The geometric dual theory is obtained via the geometric transition  where $`S^2`$’s are blown down and $`S^3`$’s are blown up. At the same time, $`N_i`$ D5-branes wrapped around $`S_i^2`$ disappear and are replaced by $`N_i`$ units of $`H_{RR}`$ fluxes through the new nontrivial $`S_i^3`$. The transition to $`S^3`$’s corresponds to a complex deformation of the geometry as

$$uv+w^2+W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)=0,$$
(31)
From this, we can calculate the effective superpotential in the geometric dual theory by

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}W_{eff}=_{CY}H\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}_{A_i}H_{B_i}\mathrm{\Omega }_{B_i}H_{A_i}\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(32)
where $`H=H_{RR}\tau _{IIB}H_{NS}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the holomorphic three form on the CY 3-fold and $`A_i,B_i`$ the symplectic bases.

As did in  we can reduce the integration on the CY 3-fold to the integration on the reduced surface

$$y^2=W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)$$
(33)
with reduced one forms $`h`$ and $`dx\lambda _{eff}`$

$`dx\lambda _{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`dx\sqrt{W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)},`$ (34)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{S^2}}H,`$ (35)
so the effective action is simplified to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}hdx\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{a_i}}h{\displaystyle _{b_i}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}{\displaystyle _{b_i}}h{\displaystyle _{a_i}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}`$ (36)
with $`a_i`$ these compact one cycles and $`b_i`$, these corresponding non-compact dual one cycles.

When we discuss the $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups, we need to add the orientifold into the geometry. The orientifold action will have following contributions. Firstly it contributes $`H_{RR}`$ fluxes to the integration along the cycle around it. Secondly it pairs blown up $`S^3`$’s except the one fixed by the orientifold action in CY 3-fold. In other words, the orientifold action requires the deformation $`f_{2n}(x)`$ to be a function of $`x^2`$.

Above discussions provide us with a convenient way to look at the problem. We can work first at the double covering space, where the result of $`U(2N)`$ can be applied, with the condition that it preserves the $`Z_2`$ action of orientifold. Then by putting the $`Z_2`$ action back, we get the results for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups.

First let us discuss the choice of cycles in (36). These cycles are almost the same as these in  with only one extra condition that they preserve the $`Z_2`$ symmetry (see Figure 1). Since branch cuts are symmetric with one located at the center, it is not difficult to show

$$_{\alpha _k}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}=_{\alpha _k}𝑑x\lambda _{eff},_{C_k}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}=_{C_k}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}$$
(37)
For the second equation, it is worth to notice that $`C_kC_k=_{j=k,j0}^k\beta _j`$ and $`_{\beta _j}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}=_{\beta _j}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}`$.

Now we can identify cycles

$$_{a_k}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\alpha _k},_{b_k}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{C_k},$$

and following the physical quantities

$`S_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{a_k}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _k}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff},`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{b_k}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_k}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}.`$ (39)
Among these variables in (38) and (39), (37) indicates that

$$S_k=S_k,\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\mathrm{\Pi }_k.$$
(40)
Furthermore, using the fact that D5-branes have been replaced by fluxes, we get

$$_{a_k}h=\frac{1}{2}N_i,(k0),_{a_0}h=\frac{1}{2}2\widehat{N}_0,_{b_k}h=2\tau _{YM}.$$
(41)
There are several things to be remarked. First, because of the orientifold plane, every D5-brane in the covering space carries only half of physical brane charges. Secondly, the physical brane charges of orientifold planes are $`O5^{}=1`$, $`O5^+=+1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{O5}^{}=1/2`$, so $`2N_0`$, which mean initially total $`2N_0`$ D5-branes wrapped around the origin, are modified to $`2N_02`$ for $`SO(2N)`$ group, $`2N_01`$ for $`SO(2N+1)`$ group, and $`2N_0+2`$ for $`Sp(2N)`$ group. Thirdly, $`_{b_k}h`$ are independent of $`k`$, thus we require

$$_{C_kC_l}h=0_{\beta _j}h=0,j.$$
(42)
Fourthly, summing all $`\alpha _k`$ contours together, we get

$$_P\frac{h}{2\pi i}=\underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}_{\alpha _k}\frac{h}{2\pi i}=\underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}N_i=2\widehat{N},_Q\frac{h}{2\pi i}=2\widehat{N}$$
(43)
where $`2\widehat{N}`$ is $`2N2`$ for $`SO(2N)`$ gauge group, $`2N1`$, $`SO(2N+1)`$ gauge group and $`2N+2`$, $`Sp(2N)`$ gauge group. Later, we will find an 1-form $`h`$ on the surface (33) satisfied both (42) and (43). Finally putting every thing together we can write the effective action as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{a_i}}h{\displaystyle _{b_i}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}{\displaystyle _{b_i}}h{\displaystyle _{a_i}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N_i(2\mathrm{\Pi }_i)2\tau _{YM}S_i`$
$`=`$ $`2\widehat{N}_0\mathrm{\Pi }_0+({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}2N_i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)2\tau _{YM}(S_0+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_i)`$
where in the last line, we keep cycle integrations of upper half planes only.

### 3.2 Some properties of $`W_{eff}`$

Now let us discuss some properties of the effective action $`W_{eff}`$. First if we let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0e^{2\pi i}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ at the upper plane, for every $`C_k`$, it will anti-clockwised enclose all brunch cuts, so

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff})={\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{+n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi i}}\lambda _{eff}=2{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}S_i,`$
which means that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ must depend on the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\frac{2}{2\pi i}\underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}S_i\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{}$$
(45)
We can also find the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ dependence directly by calculating

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x\sqrt{W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x(W^{}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{2g_{2n+2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}))`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}(W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{2g_{2n+2}}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}))`$
From these two expressions we get a very important relationship

$$\frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}=\underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}S_i$$
(46)
In fact, this result can be obtained by summing all $`\alpha _k`$ cycles on the upper plane and push them to go around point $`P`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}S_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{+n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}\lambda _{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _P}𝑑x\sqrt{W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _P}𝑑x(W^{}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{2n}(x)}{2W^{}(x)}}+\mathrm{})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi i}}{\displaystyle _P}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{2g_{2n+2}x}}={\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}}`$
Notice that at the last step, we integrate around the point at infinite.

Now we put (45) back into the effective action and get

$`W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`2({\displaystyle \underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}}S_i)[2\widehat{N}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+2\pi i\tau _{YM}]+\mathrm{}`$
Absorbing the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ into the physical scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by $`2\widehat{N}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+2\pi i\tau _{YM}=2\widehat{N}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we get an important result

$$\frac{dW_{eff}}{d\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4\widehat{N}}}=\underset{i=n}{\overset{n}{}}S_i=\frac{b_{2n}}{4g_{2n+2}}$$
(47)
This equation is same as (20), (24) and (28) got by calculations in the field theory if the $`f_{2n}(x)`$ in the field theory side is identified to the one in the dual geometry. We will show it is true.

Using the result (46) we can rewrite (44) into

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}W_{eff}={\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}}N_k{\displaystyle _{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi i}}\lambda _{eff}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}\tau _{YM}}{2g_{2n+2}}}`$
In the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit, $`f_{2n}(x)=0`$ as well as $`b_{2n}=0`$. Thus we have

$$W_{eff}=\underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}N_k_{a_k}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}𝑑xW^{}(x)=\underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}N_kW(a_k)2\widehat{N}W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)$$
(48)
It is equal to the result (29) in the field theory up to a constant333There is a small difference between (29) and (48). In (48) $`N_0`$ are modified to $`\widehat{N}_0`$. However, in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ limit, $`a_0=0`$ and $`W(a_0)=0`$ so this difference does not effect anything..

Just like , here we have shown that for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups, the $`W_{eff}^f`$ calculated in the field theory and the $`W_{eff}^G`$ calculated in the dual geometry have the same value at the classical limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ and follow the same differential equation with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so they must be the same. These results finish the first step of proofs that the field theory is equivalent to the dual geometry.

### 3.3 The $`h`$ and Related Seiberg-Witten curve

To show the equivalence between the field theory and the dual geometry we need to find the one form $`h`$ satisfied conditions (42) and (43). To do so, first we rewrite the effective action as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\pi i}}W_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=n}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx\lambda _{eff}}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx\lambda _{eff}}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{C_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2\pi i}}`$
$`=`$ $`2\widehat{N}{\displaystyle _{C_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx\lambda _{eff}}{2\pi i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}\tau _{YM}}{2g_{2n+2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}2N_k({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx\lambda _{eff}}{2\pi i}}).`$
To reach the last step, we have used following facts $`C_k=_{j=1}^k\beta _k+C_0`$, $`C_k=_{j=1}^k\beta _k+C_0`$ and (42), (43). From this we get equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{eff}}{b_{2l}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{N}{\displaystyle _{C_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{eff}}{b_{2l}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{YN}}{2g_{2n+2}}}\delta _{l,n}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}2N_k({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{eff}}{b_{2l}}})`$ (49)
For $`l=n`$, since $`\frac{\lambda _{eff}}{b_{2n}}\frac{1}{2g_{2n+2}}\frac{dx}{x}`$ at large $`x`$ limit, the first two terms give $`\frac{2\widehat{N}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+2\pi i\tau _{YM}}{g_{2n+2}}`$ with a cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and we need to introduce some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (depending on $`b_{2r}`$) to satisfy the equation.

For $`l<n`$, notice that

$`dx{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{eff}}{b_{2l}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^{2l}dx}{2\sqrt{W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)}}}={\displaystyle \frac{x^{2l}dx}{2\sqrt{F_{2(2n+1)}(x)}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t^ldt}{4\sqrt{t\stackrel{~}{F}_{2n+1}(t)}}},t=x^2,\stackrel{~}{F}_{2n+1}(t)=F_{2(2n+1)}(x)`$
The equations of motion (49) can be rewritten as

$`\widehat{N}{\displaystyle _{C_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^ldt}{\stackrel{~}{y}}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}N_k({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\beta _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^ldt}{\stackrel{~}{y}}}),l`$ (50)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:\stackrel{~}{y}^2=t\stackrel{~}{F}_{2n+1}(t).$$
(51)
The curve (51) is, in fact, the related Seiberg-Witten curve after the $`Z_2`$ quotient from the covering space . Its genus is $`n`$ which corresponds to the fact there are $`N`$ $`U(1)`$ left in the field theory. The integrand $`\frac{u^ldu}{\stackrel{~}{y}}`$ $`l=0,\mathrm{},n1`$ are bases of holomorphic one forms on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and equations (50) mean that the left hand side is zero up to some periods on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. According to Abel’s theorem, there must be a meromorphic function on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with divisor $`\widehat{N}[PQ]`$ 444It maybe a little confusing that for $`SO(2N+1)`$ gauge group we have $`\widehat{N}=N1/2`$ not integer. The reason is that from the brane picture, there is a stuck D5-brane on top of the orientifold without the image, so the best way to discuss $`SO(2N+1)`$ is in the covering space.. Furthermore, $`h`$ is a holomorphic one form on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with certain properties.

Now we have translated field theory equations into the existence of a particular Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will show that if the factorization form holds, the particular Riemann surface exists. Let us start with $`SO(2N)`$ gauge group. Rewriting

$`(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x))x^2H_{2N2n2}(x)^2=g_{2n+2}^2(P_{2N}(x,u)^24\gamma ^2x^4)`$ (52)
with the boundary condition that $`P_{2N}(x,u)|_{\gamma 0}=x^{2N_0}_{i=1}^n(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{Nn1}(t)^2\stackrel{~}{y}^2=g_{2n+2}^2(\stackrel{~}{P}_N(t,u)^24\gamma ^2t^2)`$
and defining

$$zt=\stackrel{~}{P}_N(t,u)\frac{1}{g_{2n+2}}\stackrel{~}{y}(t)\stackrel{~}{H}_{Nn1}(t),$$
(53)
we get the equation satisfied by $`z`$

$$z\frac{2\stackrel{~}{P}_N(t,u)}{t}+\frac{4\gamma ^2}{z}=0$$
(54)
(please notice that $`\frac{2\stackrel{~}{P}_N(t,u)}{t}=\frac{2P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2}`$, so it is the polynomial of $`t`$). Notice that at this moment the $`\gamma `$ is an undetermined parameter which will be shown to be the dynamical scale in the Seiberg-Witten curve by independent derivations. From (54), we see immediately that $`z`$ has zeros of order $`N1`$ at $`P`$ and poles of order $`N1`$ at $`Q`$ and holomorphic elsewhere. Thus

$$h=\frac{dz}{z}$$
(55)
satisfies all conditions required by the geometry. To check this we lift to the covering space by replacing $`t=x^2`$. As noticed in , integration around $`\alpha _k`$ cycles does not depend on $`\gamma `$, so we can evaluate them by setting $`\gamma 0`$

$`{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}d(\mathrm{log}z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}d({\displaystyle \frac{2P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2}}|_{\gamma 0})=N_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\alpha _i}}d(\mathrm{log}(xia_i))`$
$`=`$ $`N_ifor(i0),or(2N_02),i=0`$
where we have used the boundary condition $`P_{2N}(x,u)|_{\gamma 0}=x^{2N_0}_{i=1}^n(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}`$ and the direction of cycles is clockwise. Furthermore

$`{\displaystyle _{C_iC_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}=0`$
since $`C_iC_j`$ cycles do not cross any branch cut of the logarithmic function. To determine the $`\gamma `$, we solve

$$z=\frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2}\pm \sqrt{(\frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2})^24\gamma ^2}$$
(56)
and integrate directly

$`2\tau _{YM}={\displaystyle _{C_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{a_k^+}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{log}(z)|_{a_k^+}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\pi i}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{2N2}}{\pm 2\gamma }}`$
where we have used the fact that at $`x=a_k^+`$, $`W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)=0`$, so by the factorization form we have

$$(\frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2})^2=4\gamma ^2.$$

Because we have required $`2\pi i\tau _{YM}+(2N2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=(2N2)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it gives immediately

$$\pm \gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N2}.$$
(57)
Results (52) and (57) prove that the complex deformation $`f_{2n}(x)`$ in the dual geometry is same as the $`f_{2n}(x)`$ in the field theory by factorization.

Similar calculations can be done for $`SO(2N+1)`$ and $`Sp(2N)`$ gauge groups. For $`SO(2N+1)`$, we take the factorized form

$$(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x))x^2H_{2N2n2}(x)^2=g_{2n+2}^2(P_{2N}(x,u)^24\gamma ^2x^2)$$
(58)
with the boundary condition $`P_{2N}(x,u)|_{\gamma 0}=x^{2N_0}_{i=1}^n(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}`$ and define $`z`$ by

$$z\frac{2P_{2N}(x,u)}{x}+\frac{4\gamma ^2}{z}=0$$
(59)
. Notice that $`\frac{2P_{2N}(x,u)}{x}`$ does not have poles at $`x=0`$. It is easy to see that $`z`$ has zeros of order $`2N1`$ at $`P`$ and poles of order $`2N1`$ at $`Q`$ (notice that now it is in the covering space). Defining $`h`$ as in (55) and doing same calculations, it is easy to show that $`h`$ satisfies all required conditions. Directly integrating $`h`$ along any $`C_k`$, it can be seen that

$$\pm \gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N1}$$
(60)
. For $`Sp(2N)`$ gauge group, we use

$$(W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x))x^2H_{2N2n}(x)^2=g_{2n+2}^2[x^2P_{2N}(x,u)+2\gamma ]^24\gamma ^2$$
(61)
with the boundary condition $`P_{2N}(x,u)|_{\gamma 0}=x^{2N_0}_{i=1}^n(x^2+a_i^2)^{N_i}`$ and define $`z`$ by the equation

$$z+\frac{4\gamma ^2}{z}2(x^2P_{2N}(x,u)+2\gamma )=0$$
(62)
with zeros of order $`2N+2`$ at $`P`$ and poles of order $`2N+2`$ at $`Q`$. Using $`h`$ as in (55) it is easy to check all required conditions for $`h`$ and determine

$$\pm \gamma =\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N+2}$$
(63)
### 3.4 The coupling constant matrix $`\tau _{ij}`$

Now the last piece we need to do is to check that the coupling constant matrix

$$\tau _{ij}=\frac{^2}{S_iS_j}$$

is indeed given by periods of the reduced Seiberg-Witten curve. Since we have shown that $`S_k=S_k,\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$, there are only $`n+1`$ independent $`S_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ which, for simplicity, can be chosen to be $`S_k,\mathrm{\Pi }_k`$ with $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$ with relations

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_k=\frac{}{S_k},k>0,\mathrm{\Pi }_0=2\frac{}{S_0}.$$
(64)
The reason for the second equation is that under the $`Z_2`$ action, $`S_0`$ is mapped to itself, so the physical glueball field $`S_0^f=S_0/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0=\frac{}{S_0^f}`$.

We define new bases of cycles as

$$\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{S}_0}=\frac{1}{4\widehat{N}}[4\widehat{N}_0\frac{}{S_0}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}2N_j\frac{}{S_j}],\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{S}_{i>1}}=\frac{}{S_i}\frac{}{S_{i1}},\frac{}{\stackrel{~}{S}_1}=\frac{}{S_1}2\frac{}{S_0}.$$
(65)
Then using equations of motion for the effective action (44)

$$\frac{}{S_k}[2\widehat{N}_0\mathrm{\Pi }_0+(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}2N_i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)2\tau _{YM}(S_0+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_i)]=0$$
(66)
we see immediately

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{S}_0^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\tau _{YM}}{4\widehat{N}}},\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{0,i0}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i\stackrel{~}{S}_0}}=0.`$
In fact, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{00}`$ is the coupling constant of central $`U(1)`$ in double covering $`U(2N)`$ gauge group. When we project the $`U(2N)`$ to $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups by orientifold, the $`U(1)`$ is broken to global $`Z_2`$ symmetry as discussed in . For other coupling constants

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i\stackrel{~}{S}_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_j\mathrm{\Pi }_{j1})={\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}}{\displaystyle _{C_jC_{j1}}}\lambda _{eff},i,j1`$
by taking $`b_{2r}`$ as new independent variables, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2r}}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{b_{2r}}}({\displaystyle _{C_jC_{j1}}}\lambda _{eff})+{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2n}}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{b_{2n}}}({\displaystyle _{C_jC_{j1}}}\lambda _{eff})`$ (67)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_{2r}}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{b_{2r}}}({\displaystyle _{C_jC_{j1}}}\lambda _{eff})`$
where the second term drops out because $`b_{2n}=4g_{2n+2}(S_0+2_{j=1}^n2S_j)`$ and $`\frac{b_{2n}}{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}=0`$. Using $`\lambda _{eff}=\sqrt{W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)}`$, it is easy to see that

$$dx\frac{\lambda _{eff}}{b_{2r}}=dx\frac{x^{2r}}{2\lambda _{eff}}=dt\frac{t^r}{2\stackrel{~}{y}(t)},r=0,..,n1$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ is given in (51) to be exactly the reduced Seiberg-Witten curve. Since $`dt\frac{t^r}{2\stackrel{~}{y}(t)}`$ with $`r=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$ form a bases of holomorphic one forms on the reduced Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\{\alpha _i,C_iC_{i1}\}`$ form a basis for $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },Z)`$, by (67) $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{ij}`$ are indeed given by the period matrix of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This completes the proof that the effective action and the coupling constants in the field theory can be equivalently calculated by the dual geometry using the large $`N`$ duality.

Before closing this section, let us remark the role of $`z`$ defined above. It can be shown that $`x\frac{dz}{z}`$ is exactly the Seiberg-Witten differential. For example, in the case of $`SO(2N)`$ gauge group, using (56) and $`y^2=P_{2N}(x^2,u)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4`$ we get

$`x{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`xdx({\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2})^{}}{\sqrt{(\frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^2})^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}}}})={\displaystyle \frac{xdx}{y}}[x^2({\displaystyle \frac{P_{2N}^{}(x,u)}{x^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{P_{2N}(x,u)}{x^3}})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{xdx}{y}}[P_{2N}(x,u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P_{2N}(x,u){\displaystyle \frac{(4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4)^{}}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{4N4}x^4}}]`$
which is indeed the Seiberg-Witten differential . In fact, $`\frac{dz}{z}`$ is nothing else, but the eigenvalue distribution function in the corresponding gauge field theory as emphasized in . Furthermore, in the classical limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$, we have

$$\frac{dz}{z}=dx(1\frac{2}{x}).$$
(68)
The term $`\frac{2}{x}`$ counts the contribution of the orientifold plane. It is rather strange that even in the classical limit the theory knows the presence of the orientifold plane.

## 4 The matrix model

Recalling the proof of matrix model conjecture for $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ given in , the first step is to show that from the corresponding matrix model, the spectral curve which is same as that in the dual geometry, can be derived. The second step is to match various integrations along compact and non-compact cycles at both sides (matrix model side and dual geometric side). The last step is to show that the relationship among these integrations are same at both sides. We will follow the same logic here for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups.

The matrix models for the $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups have been proposed in 555In previous version, we follow the orthogonal and symplectic ensembles matrix model in . However, from the point of view of field theory, it is more natural to use the matrix model proposed in . Our treatment in this section will follow these three papers. The partition function of the matrix model is given by

$$Z=\frac{1}{Vol(G)}𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }exp(\frac{1}{g_s}TrW(\mathrm{\Phi }))$$
(69)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in the adjoint representation of relative groups. The group measure has been given explicitly in  for general matrices. For these models, Feynman diagrams are unoriented double line diagrams which reflect the nature of $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups. Going to the eigenvalue integration we get

$$Z\underset{i}{}d\lambda _i[\underset{i<j}{}(\lambda _i^2\lambda _j^2)^2][\underset{i}{}\lambda _i^2]^s\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2}{g_s}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}TrW(\lambda _i))$$
(70)
where $`s=0`$ for $`SO(2M)`$ and $`s=1`$ for $`SO(2M+1)/Sp(M)`$. Putting the Vandermonde determinant to the exponential we get

$$S(\lambda )=\frac{2}{g_s}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}TrW(\lambda _i)\underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{log}(\lambda _i^2\lambda _j^2)^2s\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\mathrm{log}\lambda _i^2.$$
(71)
Saddle point approximation of (71) gives us equations of motion of eigenvalues

$$\frac{1}{g_s}W^{}(\lambda _i)2\lambda _i\underset{ji}{}\frac{1}{\lambda _i^2\lambda _j^2}\frac{s}{\lambda _i}=0$$
(72)
Define the resolvent to be

$$\omega (x)=\frac{1}{M}Tr\frac{1}{x\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{M}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{2x}{x^2\lambda _i^2}$$
(73)
where we have used the fact that both $`\pm \lambda _i`$ are eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for $`SO/Sp`$ gauge groups. With some algebraic operations we get

$$\omega (x)^2\frac{1}{M}[\omega ^{}(x)\frac{12s}{x}\omega (x)]\frac{4}{\mu ^2}f_{2n}(x)+\frac{2}{\mu }\omega (x)W^{}(x)=0$$
(74)
where

$$f_{2n}(x)=g_s\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{\lambda _iW^{}(\lambda _i)xW^{}(x)}{x^2\lambda _i^2}$$
(75)
and $`\mu =g_sM`$ which will be kept to be constant in the large $`M`$ limit. Notice that since $`W^{}(x)`$ is an odd function of $`x`$, $`f_{2n}(x)`$ will be an even polynomial of $`x`$ with degree $`2n`$. Also the difference between $`SO(2M)`$ and $`SO(2M+1)/Sp(M)`$ in (74) is counted by the $`(12s)`$ factor of $`𝒪(M^1)`$ order.

After taking the large $`M`$ limit, differential equation (74) becomes algebraic equation

$$\omega (x)^2\frac{4}{\mu ^2}f_{2n}(x)+\frac{2}{\mu }\omega (x)W^{}(x)=0$$
(76)
from which, if we define

$$y(x)=\frac{\mu }{2}(\omega (x)+\frac{W^{}(x)}{2})$$
(77)
we get the spectral curve

$$y^2=W^{}(x)^2+f_{2n}(x)$$
(78)
Curve (78) is exactly same form (33) as in previous section. $`y(x)`$ is related to the force of moving eigenvalues away from their equilibrium positions as

$$y(\lambda )=\frac{g_s}{2}[\frac{S(\lambda )}{\lambda }+\frac{s}{\lambda }]\frac{g_s}{2}\frac{S(\lambda )}{\lambda }|_{largeM}$$
(79)
Defining the eigenvalue distribution function as

$$\rho (\lambda )=\frac{1}{M}\underset{i}{}\delta (\lambda \lambda _i),𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )=1$$
(80)
we have

$$\rho (\lambda )=\frac{1}{2\pi i}(\omega (\lambda +i0)\omega (\lambda i0))$$
(81)
At large $`M`$ limit, eigenvalues are clustered around different critical points given by the superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and filling factors can be calculated as

$$\frac{M_k}{M}=_{\alpha _k}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )$$
(82)
Using the definition of $`y`$, we can get $`\rho (\lambda )=\frac{1}{\pi i\mu }(y(\lambda +i0)y(\lambda i0))`$, so

$$M_k=\frac{4M}{\mu }_{\alpha _k}𝑑\lambda \frac{y(\lambda )}{2\pi i}M_k=\frac{8}{g_s}S_k$$
(83)
by comparing with $`S_i=\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha _i}𝑑\lambda \frac{1}{2\pi i}y(\lambda )`$. Now changing filling factors by the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_i`$, the action is changed to

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{matrix}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_i{\displaystyle _{C_i/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y(x)}{g_s}}={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi i}{g_s^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }S_i{\displaystyle _{C_i/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y(x)}{2\pi i}}={\displaystyle \frac{32\pi i}{g_s^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }S_i\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$
and we get $`\frac{F_{matrix}}{S_i}=\frac{32\pi i}{g_s^2}\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$. So to match results in the dual geometry, we just need to identify

$$F_{matrix}=\frac{32\pi i}{g_s^2}F_{field}$$
(84)
Equations (78), (82) and (84) prove the equivalence between the matrix model and the dual geometry.

Before ending this section, let us give an important remark. In  it was suggested that the total contribution to $`SO/Sp`$ gauge theories should include both $`S^2`$ and $`RP^2`$ diagrams. Using this idea, explicit calculations have been carried out in  and it was found that at least up to order $`𝒪(S^4)`$, the whole result can be written as coming only from $`S^2`$ diagrams with modified color number. Later, a beautiful proof for $`SO`$ group was given in in . These observations are consistent with the result in the dual geometry where the integration of fluxes $`h`$ around the origin is modified by the presence of the orientifold plane.

## Acknowledgements

This research is supported under the NSF grant PHY-0070928. We owe a lot of thanks to Freddy Cachazo who explained his work carefully to us and gave a lot of insightful remarks. We also like to thank discussions with Vijay Balasubramanian, David Berenstein, Joshua Erlich, Yang-Hui He, Min-xin Huang, Vishnu Jejjala and Asad Naqvi.