format: text

text:
# Excited charmonium spectrum from anisotropic lattices

## I Introduction

The hadron spectrum is one of the most prominent non-perturbative consequences of QCD. Over the past two decades, enormous progress has been achieved in developing the non-perturbative techniques needed to predict these hadron masses from first principles. It is crucial that our theoretical techniques reproduce the observed hadron spectrum to justify predictions for more complicated quantities such as the weak matrix elements.

On the experimental front, data for the excited charmonium spectrum above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold are scarce, and no heavy hybrid signal has been observed yet, even though some potential candidates for light exotic hybrids have been found and discussed extensively . However, the situation will change dramatically in the next few years with more data from the $`B`$-factories PEP-II (Babar) and KEKB (Belle). Even more important results are promised by the focused charm physics programs proposed for the upgraded CLEO-c detector (expected to start running in early 2003) and the new BESIII detector  (expected in 2005-2006) at BEPC (Beijing Electron-Position Collider). Both CLEO-c and BESIII will collect large amounts of data for the charmonium spectrum above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold and provide badly needed, accurate results for the excited charmonium spectrum, including radially and orbitally excited conventional $`c\overline{c}`$ mesons and gluon-rich states (glueballs and hybrids). Better theoretical predictions, especially those from lattice QCD calculations, will provide important guidance for these experimental efforts.

In contrast to the light hadron spectrum, the heavy quark spectrum is much better understood theoretically with various phenomenological models such as the static potential models and, more reliably, with the low energy effective theories such as non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) . NRQCD has been the dominant approach to the study of heavy quark physics for many years and has been quite successful, especially for the bottomonium systems. However, it is rather difficult to control the systematic errors of NRQCD, including the relativistic corrections and the radiative corrections, which were shown to be quite large for charmonium , and still sizable for bottomonium . Of even greater concern are the finite lattice spacing artifacts that could not be controlled by taking the continuum limit because of the restriction: $`M_qa>1`$. Nonetheless, all these approximations to QCD provide important guidance and calibration for fully relativistic lattice QCD calculations and are quite useful for the understanding of systematic errors such as those arising from quenching and finite volume effects.

Our ultimate goal is to determine the heavy quark spectrum (extrapolated to the continuum limit) from fully relativistic lattice QCD. However, the large separation of energy scales ($`m_qv^2m_qvm_q`$) in the heavy quark system makes it prohibitively expensive to study heavy quarks on a conventional isotropic lattice. Earlier relativistic studies employed the “Fermilab approach” , which uses a space-time asymmetric, $`𝒪(a)`$ improved action to control the $`𝒪(M_qa)`$ errors on an isotropic lattice with equal lattice spacings in the space and time direction ($`a_t=a_s`$). In this study, we employ a newer approach called relativistic anisotropic lattice QCD, which is a generalization of the “Fermilab action” to an anisotropic lattice with $`a_t<a_s`$. The anisotropic lattice gauge action was developed in the 1980s , and has been used quite successfully for glueball spectrum calculations  and thermodynamic studies . However, it was not until the late 1990s that an improved relativistic anisotropic fermion action was implemented for Wilson-type quarks . Since then, the relativistic anisotropic lattice technique has been applied to calculate the heavy quark spectrum with unprecedented accuracy, including both charmonium  and bottomonium states .

In addition to conventional mesons made of a quark-antiquark pair (within the naive quark model), hybrid mesons containing valence gluons are also believed to be present in the nature ***We use $`q\overline{q}`$ to represent a conventional meson (a pure quarkonium) and $`q\overline{q}g`$ for a hybrid meson. . Phenomenological studies using the Born-Oppenheimer approximation , the bag model , the flux-tube model , and the QCD sum rules , have provided the theoretical evidence and given semi-quantitative estimates for these hybrid states, which are further confirmed by NRQCD  and standard lattice QCD calculations . In the naive quark model, not all $`J^{PC}`$ quantum numbers are available, since the parity (P) and charge conjugation (C) of a conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ meson are given by:

$$P=(1)^{L+1},C=(1)^{L+S},$$
(1)
where $`L`$ and $`S`$ are the orbital angular momentum and spin of the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair. Hybrid states possessing so-called exotic quantum numbers (eg. $`1^+`$, $`0^+`$, and $`2^+`$) have attracted considerable attention because such states do not mix with the conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons and therefore should be more easily distinguished in experiments than can non-exotic hybrids. More comprehensive reviews of hybrid excitations can be found in Ref. .

However, like all the other highly excited states, these hybrid mesons are difficult to measure accurately on a lattice because their signals are much nosier than those of the low lying mesons. Thus, it is crucial to have fine temporal resolution as well as highly optimized operators to collect as much information as possible from meson correlation functions even at short time seperation. The anisotropic lattice technique provides an efficient framework for such high precision calculations, because it allows independent control of the temporal and spacial lattice spacings, thereby permitting simulations with a very fine grid in the temporal direction.

In this work, we employ well optimized extended operators to study the excited charmonium spectrum, including the orbitally excited mesons (P-, D-, and F-wave) and hybrid mesons with exotic quantum numbers. This complements our group’s previous charmonium calculations on anisotropic lattices , which used only local operators and focused on the conventional low lying S-wave and P-wave $`c\overline{c}`$ mesons. This paper is a follow-up and complete analysis of our earlier work .

This paper is organized as follows. Sec. II describes the anisotropic lattice gauge action and fermion action. A discussion of the construction and optimization of meson operators is given in section III. Sec. IV contains the details of our simulations, including simulation parameters and some measures taken to improve computational efficiency. In section V, we present our spectrum results and discuss the systematic errors and the theoretical and experimental implications. Section VI contains concluding remarks. In the appendix, we describe the notation used in this paper, our meson naming convention, and some relevant properties of the hyper-cubic symmetry group.

## II Anisotropic lattice action

We employ an anisotropic gluon action , which is accurate up to $`𝒪(a_s^2,a_t^2)`$ discretization errors:

$`S=\beta \left(\xi _0^1{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mathrm{i}>\mathrm{j}}{}}P_{\mathrm{ij}}(x)+\xi _0{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mathrm{i}}{}}P_{\mathrm{i0}}(x)\right).`$ (2)
This is the standard Wilson action written in terms of simple plaquettes, $`P_{\mu \nu }(x)`$. Here $`0`$ labels the time component and the index $`i=1,2,3`$ runs over the three spatial directions. The parameters $`\beta `$ and $`\xi _0`$ are the bare coupling and bare anisotropy respectively, which determine the spatial lattice spacing, $`a_s`$, and the renormalized anisotropy, $`\xi `$, of the quenched lattice. The continuum limit should be taken at fixed anisotropy, $`\xi =a_s/a_t`$. For the heavy quark propagation in the gluon background we used the “anisotropic clover” formulation as first described in . The discretized form of the continuum Dirac operator, $`Q=m_q+D/`$, reads

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`m_0+\nu _sW_i\gamma _i+\nu _tW_0\gamma _0{\displaystyle \frac{a_s}{2}}\left[c_t\sigma _{0k}F_{0k}+c_s\sigma _{kl}F_{kl}\right],`$ (3)
$`W_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu (a_\mu /2)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu .`$ (4)
Here $`_\mu `$ is the symmetric lattice derivative:

$`\overline{q}(x)a_\mu _\mu q(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}(x)U_\mu (x)q(x+\mu )\overline{q}(x)U_\mu (x)q(x\mu ).`$ (5)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ is defined by $`a_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu q(x)U_\mu (x)q(x+\mu )2q(x)+U_\mu (x)q(x\mu )`$. For the field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ we choose the traceless cloverleaf definition which sums the 4 plaquettes centered at point $`x`$ in the $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ plane:

$$a_\mu a_\nu F_{\mu \nu }(x)\frac{i}{2}[P_{\mu \nu }(x)+P_{\nu \overline{\mu }}(x)+P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}(x)+P_{\overline{\nu }\mu }(x)h.c.],$$
(6)
where $`\overline{\mu }`$ indicates the negative direction $`\widehat{\mu }`$, so $`P_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}(x)`$ represents $`U^{}(x\widehat{\mu },\mu )U^{}(x\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu },\nu )U(x\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu },\mu )U(x\widehat{\nu },\nu )`$. This is indeed the most general anisotropic quark action including all operators to dimension 5 up to $`O(3)`$ symmetric field redefinition. We have chosen Wilson’s combination, $`W_\mu `$, of first and second derivative terms so as to both remove all doublers and ensure the full projection property. The five parameters in Eq. (4) are all related to the quark mass, $`m_q`$, and the gauge coupling as they appear in the continuum action. By tuning them appropriately we can remove all $`𝒪(a)`$ errors and re-establish space-time axis-interchange symmetry for long-distance physics. A more detailed discussion of these parameters can be found in Refs .

Classical values for these parameters have been given in Ref. :

$`m_0`$ $`=`$ $`m_q(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_sm_q)`$ (7)
$`\nu _t`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _s{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{2}a_sm_q}{1+\frac{1}{2}a_tm_q}}`$ (8)
$`c_s`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _s`$ (9)
$`c_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\nu _s+\nu _t{\displaystyle \frac{a_t}{a_s}}\right).`$ (10)
Simple field rescaling enables us to set one of the above coefficients at will. For convenience we fix $`\nu _s=1`$ and adjust $`\nu _t`$ non-perturbatively requiring that the mesons obey a relativistic dispersion relation ( $`c(\mathrm{𝟎})=1`$ ):

$`E^2(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`E^2(\mathrm{𝟎})+c^2(𝐩)𝐩^2+𝒪(𝐩^4)\mathrm{}.`$ (11)
We also choose $`m_0`$ non-perturbatively, such that the spin average of the lowest S-wave mesons ($`1S`$) matches its experimental value: $`\frac{3}{4}M(^3S_1)+\frac{1}{4}M(^1S_0)`$ = 3.067 GeV for charmonium. For the clover coefficients $`(c_s,c_t)`$ we take their classical estimates from Eqs. (9) and (10) and augment them by tadpole improvement.

$`c_s`$ $``$ $`c_s/(u_s^3)`$ (12)
$`c_t`$ $``$ $`c_t/(u_tu_s^2)`$ (13)
The tadpole coefficients have been determined from the average link in Landau gauge: $`u_\mu =1/3\mathrm{tr}U_\mu (x)_{\mathrm{Landau}}`$. For brevity we will refer to this as the Landau scheme. Any other choice for $`(c_s,c_t)`$ will have the same continuum limit, but with this prescription we expect only small $`𝒪(\alpha _sa)`$ discretization errors.

Our action is a generalization of the “Fermilab action” , which can be considered as a special case of our action with $`\xi =1`$. It has been demonstrated  that the mass dependence of the input parameters is much smaller for an anisotropic lattice ( $`\xi >1`$ ), which makes the tuning of the parameters easier in the anisotropic case.

## III Meson mass measurement

We extract meson masses from the time dependence of Euclidean-space two-point correlation functions, which is the standard procedure to determine hadron masses from lattice calculations. For the hadron source and sink, we use both local and extended meson operators constructed from fundamental bilinears in the form of

$$M(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(x)\mathrm{\Gamma }_i_j[U]_k[U]\mathrm{\Psi }(x),$$
(14)
here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is one of the 16 Dirac $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices and $`_j`$ is the symmetric spatial lattice derivative operator (see Eq. 5). To obtain the dispersion relation, $`E(𝐩)`$, we project the meson correlator onto several different non-zero momenta by inserting the appropriate phase factors, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱})`$, at the sink, and sum the sink over a spatial hyper-plane:

$$M(t,𝐩)=\underset{𝐱}{}M(t,𝐱)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}),$$
(15)
where

$$𝐩=\left(\frac{2\pi }{N_s}\right)𝐧\text{with }𝐧=(0,0,0),(1,0,0),(1,1,0),(2,0,0),(2,2,0),\mathrm{}$$
(16)
To vary the overlap of a meson operator with the ground state and excited states, we also implement a combination of various iterative smearing prescriptions for the quark fields and gauge links, which is described below.

For the quark fields, we use box sources to approximate the spatial distribution of the quark field. More specifically, we set the source to be unity within a spatial hyper-cube and zero elsewhere. This allows us to vary the extent in a rather straight forward manner. As such a formulation is not gauge invariant, we have to fix the gauge, and we choose the Coloumb gauge for convenience. Alternatively, we can use a gauge invariant formulation, where repreated action of the gauge invariant Laplacian generates a Gaussian-like distribution and provides finer control of the overlap with different states:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(x)=(1{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{n}}^2[U])^n\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ (17)
This scheme is referred to as Jacobi smearing.

For the gauge field, we apply the well established iterative APE-style link fuzzing algorithm :

$`X_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mu (x)+\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{staples}}{}}S(x,\mu )`$ (18)
$`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫_{SU(3)}X_\mu (x),`$ (19)
where $`\alpha `$ is the link fuzzing parameter, $`S(x,\mu )`$ is one of the six staples around the link $`U_\mu (x)`$, and $`𝒫_{SU(3)}`$ is a projection back to $`SU(3)`$ by requiring the new link $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ maximize:

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_\mu ^{}(x)X_\mu (x)\right).$$
(20)
The maximization is achieved by several Cabibbo-Marinari pseudo-heatbath update steps (fuzzing CM hits). We repeat the fuzzing step defined by Eq. 18 for N times (N is the fuzzing level). Link fuzzing is quite effective in suppressing gluon excitations and has been widely used in studies of glueball and hybrid hadrons.

This setup allows us to extract reliably both the ground state energies and their excitations from correlated multi-state fits to several smeared correlators, $`C^s(t)`$, with the same $`J^{PC}`$:

$$C^s(t,𝐩)M(t,𝐩)M^s(0,𝐩)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{fit}}}{}}a_i^s(𝐩)\left(e^{E_i(𝐩)t}+e^{E_i(𝐩)(N_tt)}\right).$$
(21)
Since we are working in a relativistic setting, the second term takes into account the backward propagating piece from the temporal boundary.

We construct meson operators that have definite lattice quantum number $`R^{PC}`$, in which $`R`$ is one of the five irreducible representations of the hyper-cubic group: $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`E`$, $`T_1`$, and $`T_2`$. A brief discussion of the hyper-cubic group is given in appendix C, including our choice of bases that carry the irreducible representations and some relevant Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. However, determining the continuum quantum number $`J^{PC}`$ of an operator is complicated by the fact that the mapping from the finite number of irreducible representations of hyper-cubic group to the infinite number of irreducible representations of the continuous rotation group is non-unique. Eq. 27 summarizes the mapping from $`R`$ to the first few $`J`$ numbers (up to 4).

$`\begin{array}{cc}A_1\hfill & J=0,4\hfill \\ A_2\hfill & J=3\hfill \\ T_1\hfill & J=1,3,4\hfill \\ T_2\hfill & J=2,3,4\hfill \\ E\hfill & J=2,4\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
In most cases, we are only interested in the lowest lying state, which can be extracted from a one-state fit at large time separation or from a multi-state fit at shorter time separation. However, the lowest state does not always correspond to the lowest $`J`$ number, the nature of a state (orbital excitation, radial excitation, gluonic excitaion, and etc.) must also be taken into account. A notable example is meson operator $`b_1\times D\mathrm{\_}T_2`$ (detailed in Table VII), which projects to both $`J=2`$ and $`J=3`$ according to table 27. The first guess is that the ground state has $`J=2`$ and is degenerate with the ground state of operator $`b_1\times D\mathrm{\_}E`$. However, $`2^+`$ is an exotic hybrid meson , which is much heavier than the non-exotic $`3^+`$ state. Therefore, the ground state of $`b_1\times D\mathrm{\_}T_2`$ should have quantum number $`J=3`$ and be degenerate with $`b_1\times D\mathrm{\_}A_2`$, which is confirmed by our calculation. Table VII summarizes all the meson operators used in this work and the quantum numbers (both lattice and continuum) of the ground states. Our naming convention is explained in appendix B 2.

Measuring meson correlators using extended operators is much more expensive than those using local operators, because more quark propagators are needed. We take some steps to improve the computational efficiency, which are explained in detail in section IV.

## IV Simulation details

The strategy and first results for charmonium have already been presented in . The basic idea is to control large lattice spacing artifacts from the heavy quark mass by adjusting the temporal lattice spacing, $`a_t`$, so that $`m_qa_t<1`$. We use $`\xi =2`$ lattices with $`\beta =`$ 5.7, 5.9, and 6.1. Table I summarizes the parameters of our simulations.

For the generation of quenched gauge field configurations we employ a standard heat-bath algorithm as it is also used for isotropic lattices. The only necessary modification for simulating an anisotropic plaquette action is to rescale all temporal links with the bare anisotropy, $`\xi _0`$. Depending on the gauge coupling and lattice size, we measure hadron propagators every 100-400 sweeps in the update process, which is sufficiently long for the lattices to decorrelate.

The renormalized anisotropy is related to the bare parameters through:

$$\xi =\eta (\xi ,\beta )\xi _0.$$
(28)
A convenient parametrization for $`\eta `$ is given in Ref.

$$\eta (\xi ,\beta )=1+(1\frac{1}{\xi })\widehat{\eta }_1(\xi )\frac{10.55055g^2}{10.77810g^2}\frac{g^2}{6},$$
(29)
where $`\widehat{\eta }_1(\xi )`$ is also determined non-perturbatively in Ref.  and $`\eta (\xi ,\mathrm{})=1`$ as it ought to be. We use this form to determine the appropriate $`\xi _0`$ for each value of $`\beta =6/g^2=`$ 5.7, 5.9, and 6.1 for $`\xi =2`$.

Although the fine temporal resolution of an anisotropic lattice increases the number of measurements at short time separations, optimization of the meson operators is also quite important. The correlation between measurements of correlation function at different time slices reduces the amount of “useful” information for a correlated fit (in the case of strong correlation between neighboring time slices, little can be gained by using a higher anisotropy). Using multiple operators (with different optimization parameters) and applying multi-state fits can provide stronger constraints for the fits. A source of added difficulty is the possibility that the short distance correlators may be dominated by excited state signals, which can generate a false plateau, causing incorrect identification of an excited state as the ground state. We observe that the hybrid states are rather insensitive to the box size or quark field smearing, but are highly sensitive to gauge link fuzzing. Appropriate link fuzzing suppresses excited states because fuzzing reduces short-distance fluctuations of the gauge field background. This should be particularly important for hybrid states which are expected to have a non-trivially excited gluonic component. We use multiple link fuzzing with the same quark smearing for hybrid states. In some cases, we employ fuzzing at the sink only to save computational time, tests are done to ensure good coupling to ground states.

Appendix B 1 describe in detail the calculation of meson correlators. First of all, we can reduce the number of quark propagators by reusing several basic quark propagators, since all the lattice derivative operators we use are linear combinations of basic derivative operators: unit($`I`$), first derivative($`_i(i=x,y,z)`$), symmetric second derivative ($`D_i=s_{ijk}_j_k`$), asymmetric second derivative($`B_i=ϵ_{ijk}_j_k`$), and symmetric diagonal second derivative $`D_i^{diag}=_i_i`$. It can be shown that we can construct all the meson correlation functions using these basic quark propagators. Furthermore, we can use a linear combination of these basic derivative operators to create a “white noise” source, which creates more than one quantum number, and rely on the sink operator to project to the quantum number of interest. Of course, using such “white noise” source saves computation time at the expense of an increased noise level. We carefully tested various combinations and chose those combinations that provide the best computational efficiency.

## V Results and discussions

We present our charmonium spectrum in Figure 1. A clear ordering of meson states according to orbital angular momentum and gluonic excitation is shown in Fig. 1, as well as the much smaller spin splittings. The low lying S-wave and P-wave mesons lie below the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold, while the D-wave and F-wave mesons are above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold. Even higher hybrid excitations (with exotic quantum numbers $`J^{PC}=1^+,0^+,2^+`$) are found above the $`D^{}D`$ threshold. A portion of the spectrum (the low lying $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$) is taken from Columbia group’s previous work (Ref.).

The lattice scale is set by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ splitting We use $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ instead of the spin averaged P-wave meson mass $`1P=1/9({}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}+3{}_{}{}^{3}P_{1}^{}+5{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{})`$ because $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ requires non-local operator which is much nosier and $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}`$ is extremely close to $`1P`$ ( $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1P=0.86`$ MeV $`1P1S`$). Alternatively, we can use the Sommer scale $`r_0`$ , which was employed in Ref. . Lattice scales from both methods (listed in Table I) agree well (within 2-4%) for charmonium, which, perhaps is not too suprising since $`r_0`$ is fixed from a potential model whose parameters were chosen specifically to reproduce the experimental charmonium spectrum. However, the discrepancy is rather large for bottomonium. We choose the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ scale for this study to be consistent with previous NRQCD calculations.

### A Extrapolation to the continuum limit

The continuum limit has to be taken to remove the lattice discretization errors. This is also a major advantage of relativistic over non-relativistic QCD approach.

The continuum extrapolation of higher excitations is carried out as follows. We first calculate the dimensionless ratio of splittings between an excited state and the $`1S`$ state (the spin-averaged mass of S-wave mesons): $`R(a_s)=(MM(1S))/(M(^1P_1)M(1S))`$ for each lattice spacing $`a_s`$, and then extrapolate the ratio $`R(a_s)`$ to the continuum limit $`a_s=0`$. In the end, the continuum result of the excited state is obtained by:

$$M|_{a_s=0}=R|_{a_s=0}(^1P_11S)_{exp}+M(1S)_{exp}$$
(30)
where $`(^1P_11S)_{exp}=458.2`$ MeV and $`M(1S)_{exp}=3067`$ MeV are experimental values. Because the splitting between an excited state and the $`1S`$ state is rather insensitive to the $`1S`$ mass (or the quark mass), the imperfect tuning of $`1S`$ to its experimental value has negligible effect on the physical values obtained from Equation 30. However, the incorrect running of the coupling in a quenched simulation will still cause a mismatch of scales perceived by excited states and by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ splitting. In contrast, the fine structure splittings are very sensitive to the quark mass, so the deviation of the $`1S`$ mass from its experimental value should be taken into consideration when quoting the physical values for the spin splittings.

Using tadpole improved coefficients, we are able to remove the leading $`𝒪(a_s)`$ errors, which has be shown by previous studies . Therefore, we extrapolate to the continuum limit assuming that the leading lattice spacing error is $`𝒪(a_s^2)`$.

### B Spin splittings

We first discuss our results for the spin splittings to demonstrate the necessity of a fully relativistic treatment, which is crucial for studying the fine structure of charmonium.

The Columbia group has studied in detail this spin splittings , but the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}`$ state was missing because only local operators were used. Here, we measure all three P-wave triplet states $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{J}^{}`$ ($`J=0,1,2`$) and calculate the P-wave triplet splitting ratio $`R_{fs}=(^3P_2^3P_1)/(^3P_1^3P_0)`$, which is highly sensitive to relativistic corrections but less affected by the systematic errors originating from fixing the overall scale in a quenched calculation. It has been shown that the velocity ($`v/c`$) expansion of NRQCD converges poorly for charmonium spin splittings . Our $`R_{fs}`$ results are given in table III. The result at $`\beta =6.1`$ has a large error because the plateau of the fit sets in at a rather large temporal separation. Our result for the P-wave triplet splitting ratio $`R_{fs}`$ is 0.47(13) in the continuum limit, which agrees well with the experimental value of 0.478(5). A comparison with a NRQCD calculation  is given in Figure 2. Our result is also consistent with CP-PACS result from anisotropic lattices with anisotropy $`\xi =3`$ . For a detailed discussion on the hyperfine splitting, we refer the reader to Ref. .

### C Excited states

We first discuss our result for exotic hybrid states, in particular the $`1^+`$ meson. Figure 3 is an effective mass plot of the exotic hybrid meson $`1^+`$, with each data set corresponding to a particular fuzzing parameter $`\alpha `$ as defined in Eq. 18. With a very fine temporal resolution, we are able to obtain many measurements at short time separations to facilitate multi-state fits and extract both the ground state and excited state masses more precisely. By employing different quark smearing and gauge link fuzzing parameters, we obtain different coupling to the ground and excited states (referred to as different “channels” later). With multiple channels, the multi-state fits are quite stable. We fit the data to 2-state and in some cases 3-state ansatz to obtain the ground state mass. Figure 4 shows the multi-state fits for meson $`1^+`$, the ground state mass obtained from 1-state fit at large time separation ($`t>7`$) is consistent with the results from a 2-state fit ($`t>4`$) and a 3-state fit ($`t>1`$), which rules out contamination of the ground state by excited states and clearly demonstrates the advantage of anisotropic lattices. For the hybrid states, we did not observe as strong a dependence on the quark field smearing as seen for the conventional $`\overline{q}q`$ mesons, which indicates that the excitation is likely to originate from the excitation of gluonic constituents. For a self-consistency check, we measured the $`1^+`$ exotic meson with 3 different operators ($`a_0^{}\times `$, $`b_1\times \mathrm{\_}T_1`$, and $`\rho \times B\mathrm{\_}T_1`$) and obtained consistent values. Fig. 5 shows the continuum extrapolation ($`𝒪(a^2)`$) using three different operators, with the continuum value being 4.428(41) GeV, 4.409(75) GeV and 4.41(18) GeV for $`\rho \times B\mathrm{\_}T_1`$, $`a_0^{}\times `$, and $`b_1\times \mathrm{\_}T_1`$ irrespectively. The operator $`\rho \times B\mathrm{\_}T_1`$ has the best signal and smallest statistical error, so we quote the final result 4.428(41) GeV for the $`1^+`$ mass from this operator.

Various models of QCD, such as the bag models , the flux-tube model , and the QCD sum rules  have been used to study these hybrid states. For the charmonium hybrid meson, the adiabatic bag model predicts a $`1^+`$ $`c\overline{c}g`$ state of 3.9 GeV  and the QCD sum rules predicts 4.1 GeV . We show the comparison of our $`1^+`$ result to previous lattice results  in Fig. 7. The result from isotropic lattices (MILC ) has large systematic uncertainties due to a possible contamination from excited states. Previous results from NRQCD calculations  are quite close to ours, which can be explained by the expectation that the quarks in a hybrid meson move more slowly than those in the lowest lying $`c\overline{c}`$ states (as indicated by the hybrid potential study ), thus making the relativistic corrections small. However, the NRQCD calculations are done on rather coarse lattices and the masses can not be extrapolated to the continuum limit to control the lattice discretization errors.

In addition to the exotic $`1^+`$ meson, we also measured two other exotic hybrid mesons: $`0^+`$ and $`2^+`$. They are heavier than the $`1^+`$ meson, with masses of 4.70(17) GeV and 4.895(88) GeV, respectively. No clear signal is obtained for $`0^{}`$, which is predicted by phenomenological models to be even more massive than the $`2^+`$ state. The QCD Sum rules gives an estimate of 5.9 GeV  for the $`0^{}`$ state, around 1 Gev above the $`2^+`$ state. Clearly it is challenging to extract such a huge excitation from the noise. Higher anisotropies may help, but a more efficient operator than our $`a_1\times \mathrm{\_}A_1`$ is probably also necessary.

Most of our meson operators which can potentially couple to non-exotic hybrid states actually mix strongly with the conventional $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons with the same quantum number $`J^{PC}`$, as indicated by the degenerate masses from different operators shown in Table II. For example, operator $`\pi \times B\mathrm{\_}T_1`$ has an explicit chromo-magnetic field, making it a potential operator for the hybrid meson $`1^{}`$. However, our calculation shows that it has the same mass as the conventional $`1^{}`$ (see Table II). The only exception we find is the $`2^+`$ signal from $`\rho \times B\mathrm{\_}T_2`$, which is a very good candidate for a non-exotic hybrid meson. First, its dependence on quark field smearing and gauge link fuzzing is identical to the exotic hybrid mesons $`1^+`$ from $`\rho \times B\mathrm{\_}T_1`$. Second, its mass is much larger than the conventional $`\overline{q}q`$ meson. However, further mixing test must be done to rule out the possibility that it is the radial excitation of $`L=2`$ conventional $`2^+`$.

A selection rule analysis  shows that the width of a charmonium hybrid meson is narrow if it lies below the $`D^{}D`$ threshold (4.287 GeV). Our result for the exotic hybrid $`1^+`$ is 4.365(47) GeV, slightly above the $`D^{}D`$ threshold, so the hybrid meson is expected to be broad. However, the conclusion is not final due to the ambiguity of scale setting procedure for quenched calculations.

As a new result from lattice QCD, we also obtain reliable predictions for higher, orbitally excited mesons with $`L=2`$ and 3 (D-wave and F-wave), which provide more information about the long range interaction than S-wave or P-wave mesons. The D-wave mesons ($`J^{PC}=2^+`$, $`2^{}`$, $`3^{}`$) are around 3.9 GeV, above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold (3.7 GeV), and F-wave mesons ($`J^{PC}=3^{++}`$, $`3^+`$) lie at 4.15 GeV, above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold, but still below the $`D^{}D`$ threshold.

### D Systematic errors

The excited states have larger spacial extent than the lowest lying states, so the results for excited states are more likely to suffer from finite volume effects than the lowest lying states. Therefore, we compare the masses of all excited states obtained from two different lattice sizes ($`N_s=8`$ and $`N_s=16`$ at $`\beta =5.7,\xi =2`$) and find almost no finite size effect, as shown in table IV. This is consistent with previous NRQCD study , which found no finite volume effect for a spacial extent larger than 1.2 fm. So we conclude that there is no discernible finite volume effect on our excited state masses.

The second source of error is the imperfect tuning of the bare velocity of light $`\nu _t`$, which is found to have a rather big effect on the fine structure . Using a $`\beta =5.7`$, $`\xi =4`$, $`8^3\times 64`$ lattice, we vary $`\nu _t`$ by about 10%, which corresponds to about 5% change in the renormalized velocity of light. The resultes are given in table V, the changes in excited masses are all less than 2% and negligible within errors.

The quenched approximation is the largest source of systematic error. The running of the coupling constant is not correct without the dynamic light quarks. The ratio $`R_{2S}=(2S1S)/(^1P_11S)`$ from our quenched lattices is 1.55(9), which is 15% higher than the experimental value of 1.34. It affects our result in two ways. First, we convert our lattice results to physical units with lattice scales set by the $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ splitting, which is ambiguous due to quenched approximation. Second, we tune our quark mass to the charmed quark mass by matching the $`1S`$ mass to its experimental value of 3.067 GeV using this $`{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{}1S`$ scale, which in turn may affect our final results. For our excited spectrum, the later can be neglected because the mass splitting between a excited state and lowest S-wave meson mass $`1S`$ is insensitive to quark mass. To demonstrate this mass insensitiveness, we measure the excited states on a $`\beta =5.7`$, $`\xi =4`$ lattice with two different quark masses $`m=0.32`$ and $`m=0.25`$ (corresponding to $`1S`$ mass of 3.383 GeV and 3.029 Gev) and find no mass dependence (as shown in table V. However, for the spin splitting which is approximately inversely proportional to the quark mass, the effect is large (eg. a 5% correction (increase) in scale will cause a 5% increase in the $`1S`$ mass, which makes the spin splitting in lattice units 5% smaller than what is should be, so the final result for the spin splitting is 10% larger).

## VI Conclusion

We have accurately determined the masses of many new and yet unobserved charmonium states (both conventional $`c\overline{c}`$ mesons and hybrid $`c\overline{c}g`$ mesons) from first principles using a fully relativistic anisotropic lattice QCD action. While all the new states are predicted above the $`D\overline{D}`$ threshold, we believe that the exotic hybrids may still be sufficiently long-lived to warrant an experimental search in the energy region near and above the $`D^{}D`$ threshold of 4.287 GeV. This will be an important effort to validate non-perturbative QCD at low energies. We add further evidence that a fully relativistic treatment of the heavy quark system is well suited to control the large systematic errors of NRQCD. In addition, the anisotropic lattice formulation is a very efficient framework for calculations requiring high temporal resolutions, which is crucial for the study of high excitations. The quenched approximation, which is the major remaining systematic error in our calculation, will be addressed by future full QCD calculation. Full QCD anisotropic lattice action has been implemented for staggered fermion and used for thermodynamics study . In addition to the heavy-heavy system, an anisotropic lattice is also a natural framework to study heavy-light systems.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Prof. Norman Christ for his constant support and many valuable. suggestions. We are grateful for many stimulating discussions with to Prof. Robert Mawhinney. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. Numerical simulations were conducted on the QCDSP super computers at Columbia University and Brookhaven RIKEN-BNL Research Center.

## A Conventions

In this section, we describe the conventions used in this paper. The variable $`x`$ specifies the coordinates in the 4-dimensional (space-time) volume, with extent $`N_s`$ along the spacial directions and $`N_t`$ along the time direction. The spacial physical lattice size are given by $`L_s=N_sa_s`$. $`𝐱`$ is the 3-dimensional spacial coordinate, and $`t`$ is the time coordinate. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ or $`q(x)`$ represents a fermion field.

The definitions of $`s_{ijk}`$ and $`S_{\alpha jk}`$ ($`\alpha `$=1,2) are:

$$s_{ijk}=|ϵ_{ijk}|$$
(A1)
$$S_{\alpha jk}=0(jk),S_{111}=1,S_{122}=1,S_{222}=1,S_{233}=1$$
(A2)
## B Meson correlator and meson operators

### 1 Meson correlator calculation

We describe how to construct meson correlators from quark propagators. For simplicity, we discuss the correlation function between sink meson operator $`(t)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t)\stackrel{}{O_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)`$, and source operator $`M(t_0)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\stackrel{}{O_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)`$, in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$ are a combination of Dirac $`\gamma `$-matrices, and $`\underset{i}{\overset{}{O}}`$ and $`\underset{j}{\overset{}{O}}`$ are lattice derivative operators. More generally, the source operator can be any operator (or a combination of different meson operators) that creates the state of interest.

The correlator is calculated as follows:

$`^{}(t)M(t_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{}(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}\underset{i}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{O}}}\gamma _4\mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\underset{j}{\overset{}{O}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)`$ (B1)
$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}\gamma _4\underset{i}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{O}}}\mathrm{\Psi }_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_2(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\underset{j}{\overset{}{O}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)`$ (B2)
$`=`$ $`\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}\gamma _4G_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta G(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)\underset{i}{\overset{}{\stackrel{}{O}}}`$ (B3)
$`=`$ $`\gamma _5\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}\gamma _4G_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \gamma _5[\underset{i}{\overset{}{O}}G(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)]^{}`$ (B4)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}G_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ^{}[\underset{i}{\overset{}{O}}G(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)]^{}`$ (B5)
Here, we first set up the source (box or smeared) and apply the derivative operator $`\underset{j}{\overset{}{O}}`$, then we calculate the quark propagator $`G(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_1(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)\underset{j}{\overset{}{O}}\mathrm{\Psi }_1(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)`$. Utilizing $`G(𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0;𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t)=\gamma _5G^{}(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)\gamma _5`$, we arrive at equation B1. Then we apply the sink derivative operator $`\underset{i}{\overset{}{O}}`$, insert gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}=\gamma _5\gamma _4\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha ^{}\gamma _4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta ^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \gamma _5`$, and do color and Dirac indices contraction. We need two quark propagators: $`G(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟏},t_0)`$ and $`G_2(𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐},t;𝐲_\mathrm{𝟐},t_0)`$. In practice, we can reuse the same quark propagators for multiple meson operators.

### 2 Meson operators and naming convention

Meson operators with no derivative operators are named $`a_0`$, $`a_0^{}`$ , $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`a_1`$, and $`b_1`$, as listed in the second row of table VI. A meson operator with a lattice derivative operator is named $`X\times Y\mathrm{\_}R`$, where X represents the gamma matrix, Y is the derivative operator ($``$, D or B), and R indicates the $`O_h`$ irreducible representation of the meson operator (R is usually omitted if it is unique).

## C Hyper-cubic group

The five irreducible representations of hyper-cubic group $`O_h`$ and our choice of basis vectors for these representations are:

$`A_1:`$ $`\psi ^1=`$ $`(x^2+y^2+z^2)`$ (C1)
$`A_2:`$ $`\psi ^2=`$ $`xyz`$ (C2)
$`E:`$ $`(\psi _1^3,\psi _2^3)=`$ $`(x^2y^2,y^2z^2)`$ (C3)
$`T_1:`$ $`(\psi _x^4,\psi _y^4,\psi _z^4)=`$ $`(x,y,z)`$ (C4)
$`T_2:`$ $`(\psi _{yz}^5,\psi _{xz}^5,\psi _{xy}^5)=`$ $`(yz+zy,zx+xz,xy+yx)`$ (C5)
The decomposition of often used direct products of hyper-cubic group irreducible representations:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}T_1T_1& =& A_1T_1T_2E\\ T_1T_2& =& A_2T_1T_2E\end{array}`$ (C8)
Clebsch-Gordon coefficients are defined as:

$`\psi (J,M)={\displaystyle \underset{m_1,m_2}{}}C(J,M|J1,m1;J2,m2)u(J1,m1)v(J2,m2)`$ (C9)
Table VIII, IX, are Clebsch-Gordon coefficients used to construct the meson operators in table VII


text:
# Pauli blocking factors in quantum pumps

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the Pauli blocking factor in quantum pumps using Floquet formalism. Even though the time dependent potentials in quantum pumping can not only cause inelastic scatterings but also break the micro-reversibility, i.e. $`T^+(E^{},E)T^{}(E,E^{})`$, the Pauli blocking factor is unnecessary when the scattering process through the scatterer is coherent. The well defined scattering states extending from one reservoir to the others form a complete non-orthogonal set. Regardless of the non-orthogonality one can obtain the pumped currents using the field operator formalism. The current expression finally obtained do not contain Pauli blocking factor.

\]

Quantum transport through artificially fabricated nano/mesostructures has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically during the past years. Conductances between two reservoirs through the nano/mesostructures can be calculated by using Landauer-Büttiker formalism  when no dephasing process occurs in the scatterer region. The current through the scatterer can then be obtained from

$$I=\frac{e}{h}𝑑E𝑑E^{}\left[T^+(E^{},E)f_L(E)T^{}(E,E^{})f_R(E^{})\right],$$
(1)
where $`T^+(E^{},E)`$ represents the transmission probability for scattering states incident from the left at energy $`E`$ and emerging to the right at $`E^{}`$, and $`T^{}(E,E^{})`$ is defined in a similar manner for the reverse direction. $`f_L`$ ($`f_R`$) is the Fermi-Dirac distribution in the left (right) reservoir. There has been some debate and confusion for using this formula  since Eq. (1) dose not contain the so-called Pauli blocking factors. The fermionic nature of the electrons is taken care of in an ad hoc way by factors $`1f`$ to suppress scattering into occupied states, so that the current is given by

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle }dEdE^{}\{T^+(E^{},E)f_L(E)[1f_R(E^{})]`$ (2)
$``$ $`T^{}(E,E^{})f_R(E^{})[1f_L(E)]\}.`$ (3)
Usually these two expressions Eqs. (1) and (3) give the same results since the difference between them, $`[T^+(E^{},E)T^{}(E,E^{})]f^L(E)f^R(E^{})`$, vanishes when $`T^+(E^{},E)=T^{}(E,E^{})`$, i.e., the micro-reversibility holds. The question can arise, however, if the system lack of this micro-reversal symmetry is considered. One of the relevant example is a quantum pump.

The quantum pump is a device that generates a dc current at zero bias potential through cyclic change of system parameters . Recently, adiabatic charge pumping in open quantum dots has attracted considerable attention , and was experimentally realized by Switkes et al. . After a cycle of the adiabatic shape change we return to the initial configuration, but the wavefunction may have its phase changed from the initial wavefunction. This is the geometric or Berry’s phase . The additional phase is equivalent to some charges that pass through the quantum dot, namely, pumped charge . In another point of view, the quantum pump is a time dependent system driven by (at least) two different time periodic perturbations with the same angular frequency and a phase difference. One can deal with this problem using not only adiabatic approximation but also Floquet approach . Recently, it has been shown that in the adiabatic limit with small strength of the oscillation potentials the Floquet and the adiabatic approach give exactly equivalent results .

More than two periodically oscillating perturbations with a phase difference ($`n\pi `$, $`n`$ is an integer) break the time reversal symmetry , and consequently $`T^+(E^{},E)T^{}(E,E^{})`$. Therefore, the currents obtained from Eq. (1) and (3) are different from each other in quantum pumps . The question immediately arises: which one is correct in quantum pumps? It is noted that this problem still exists even in the adiabatic limit, which will be shown below. We would like to make a conclusion first. Even though the time dependent scatterer like the case of quantum pumping can not only cause inelastic scatterings but also break the mico-reversibility, the Pauli blocking factor is unnecessary when the scattering process through the scatterer is coherent.

The existence of the Pauli blocking factors is intimately related to the “scattering states” . If we fill up the energy eigenstates with the electrons in both reservoirs independently and then transfer the electrons from one to the other reservoir, the Pauli blocking factors cannot be unavoided. If the transport is coherent across the scatterer, however, one can define a single wavefunction extending from one reservoir to the other (more precisely reflected and transmitted waves in every connected reservoirs) and then fill up these scattering states. In this consideration the concept of transferring the electron from one to the other reservoir is automatically eliminated, so is the Pauli blocking. The scattering states of the problem with static scatterer was proven to be orthogonal and complete .

Consider the Schrödinger equation $`i\mathrm{}(/t)\psi =H(t)\psi `$ for an elctron with mass $`\mu `$ and $`H(t)=^2/2\mu +U(x,t)`$, where $`U(x,t+T)=U(x,t)`$ and $`U(x,t)=0`$ at $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. For an energy $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/2\mu `$ ($`k>0`$) of the incoming particle the scattering states as a solution of the Schrödinger equation can be defined as

$`\chi _E^+(x,t)=`$ (4)
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikxiEt/\mathrm{}}+_{E_n>0}r_{E_nE}^+e^{ik_nxiE_nt/\mathrm{}},\hfill & x\mathrm{},\hfill \\ _{E_n>0}t_{E_nE}^+e^{ik_nxiE_nt/\mathrm{}},\hfill & x+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`\chi _E^{}(x,t)=`$ (8)
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{ikxiEt/\mathrm{}}+_{E_n>0}r_{E_nE}^{}e^{ik_nxiE_nt/\mathrm{}},\hfill & x+\mathrm{},\hfill \\ _{E_n>0}t_{E_nE}^{}e^{ik_nxiE_nt/\mathrm{}},\hfill & x\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
where $`E_n=E+n\mathrm{}\omega `$, $`k_n=\sqrt{2\mu E_n}/\mathrm{}`$, and the normalization is ignored. Here we have reflection and transmission coefficients $`r_{E_nE}^+`$ and $`t_{E_nE}^+`$, which can be obtained from unitary Floquet scattering matrices $`S`$ . The matrix $`S`$ has the following form

$$S(ϵ)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}𝐫_{00}& 𝐫_{01}& \mathrm{}& 𝐭_{}^{}{}_{00}{}^{}& 𝐭_{}^{}{}_{01}{}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝐫_{10}& 𝐫_{11}& \mathrm{}& 𝐭_{}^{}{}_{10}{}^{}& 𝐭_{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝐭_{00}& 𝐭_{01}& \mathrm{}& 𝐫_{}^{}{}_{00}{}^{}& 𝐫_{}^{}{}_{01}{}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ 𝐭_{10}& 𝐭_{11}& \mathrm{}& 𝐫_{}^{}{}_{10}{}^{}& 𝐫_{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where $`𝐫_{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`𝐭_{\alpha \beta }`$ are the reflection and the transmission amplitudes respectively, for modes incident from the left with an Floquet energy $`ϵ`$ which take continuous values in the interval $`[0,\mathrm{}\omega )`$; $`𝐫_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$ and $`𝐭_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$ are similar quantities for modes incident from the right. The above transmission and reflection coefficients are related to the matrix elements of $`S`$ in terms of $`t_{E_n,E}^+=\sqrt{k_\beta /k_\alpha }𝐭_{\alpha \beta }`$, etc. with $`E=ϵ+\beta \mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`\alpha =n+\beta `$.

For $`E^{}Em\mathrm{}\omega `$ ($`m`$ is an integer) the orthogonality of these scattering states can be immediately proven by using the orthogonality of the functions $`e^{\pm ik}`$. When $`E^{}E=m\mathrm{}\omega `$, however, we obtain at any fixed time

$`\chi _E^+|\chi _E^{}^{}`$ (13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{E_n>0}{}}\left(r_{E_n,E}^+t_{E_n,E+m\mathrm{}\omega }^{}+t_{E_n,E}^+r_{E_n,E+m\mathrm{}\omega }^{}\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k_\beta k_{\beta +m}}}{k_\alpha }}\left(𝐫_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}𝐭_{}^{}{}_{\alpha ,\beta +m}{}^{}+𝐭_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}𝐫_{}^{}{}_{\alpha ,\beta +m}{}^{}\right)`$ (15)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}s_{\alpha \beta }^{}s_{\alpha ,\beta +m}/k_\alpha ,`$ (16)
and

$`\chi _E^+|\chi _E^{}^+`$ (17)
$``$ $`\delta _{E,E^{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{E_n>0}{}}\left(r_{E_n,E}^+r_{E_n,E+m\mathrm{}\omega }^++t_{E_n,E}^+t_{E_n,E+m\mathrm{}\omega }^+\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{\beta ,\beta +m}+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{k_\beta k_{\beta +m}}}{k_\alpha }}\left(𝐫_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}𝐫_{\alpha ,\beta +m}+𝐭_{}^{}{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}𝐭_{\alpha ,\beta +m}\right)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\delta _{m,0}+\sqrt{k_\beta k_{\beta +m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}s_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}s_{\alpha ,\beta +m}/k_\alpha .`$ (20)
One can find the same result for $`\chi _E^{}|\chi _E^{}^{}`$ using the similar procedure used in Eq. (19). The unitarity of the Floquet scattering matrix does not guarantee the orthogonality of the scattering states. In the multichannel scattering problem with a static scatterer the orthogonality is drawn from the orthogonality of the channel eigenfunctions.

We consider the completeness of the scattering states. A solution of the time periodic Hamiltonian can be formally written as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ(x,t)=e^{iϵt/\mathrm{}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi _n(x)e^{in\omega t}.$$
(21)
Since the potential is zero at $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$, $`\psi _n(x)`$ is given by the following form

$$\psi _n(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}A_ne^{ik_nx}+B_ne^{ik_nx},x\mathrm{}\\ C_ne^{ik_nx}+D_ne^{ik_nx},x+\mathrm{},\end{array}$$
(22)
where $`k_n=\sqrt{2\mu (ϵ+n\mathrm{}\omega )}/\mathrm{}`$. One can immediately know that the linear combination of $`A_n\chi _E^++D_n\chi _E^{}`$ completely cover all Floquet type solutions. The scattering states form a complete set for describing the solution of a scattering problem with time periodic potential. We have shown the scattering states $`\chi _E^\sigma `$ form a complete non-orthogonal set.

We derive the current using these scattering states. The time dependent electron field operator can be obtained in the following form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)=\underset{\sigma }{}𝑑E\chi _E^\sigma (x,t)\frac{a_{\sigma E}}{\sqrt{hv(E)}},$$
(23)
where $`a_{\sigma E}`$ and $`v(E)`$ is an annihilation operator for electrons in the scattering states $`\chi _E^\sigma (x,t)`$ and the velocity, respectively. Even though the scattering states do not form othogonal bases we need only the completeness to be sure that the expansion of Eq. (23) is valid. Using this field operator the current operator is also expressed as

$`J(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(ie/2m)\mathrm{\Psi }^+(x,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)+H.c.`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E𝑑E^{}\mathrm{Im}(\chi _E^{}^\sigma ^{}\chi _E^\sigma )\frac{a_{\sigma E}^+a_{\sigma ^{}E}}{h\sqrt{v(E)v(E^{})}}}.`$ (25)
The quantum mechanical (or thermal) average of the current operator becomes

$`J(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\mathrm{Im}(\chi _E^\sigma \chi _E^\sigma )\frac{a_{\sigma E}^+a_{\sigma E}}{hv(E)}}`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{E_n>0,n0}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E}`$ (27)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{Im}(\chi _{E_n}^\sigma ^{}\chi _E^\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{a_{\sigma ^{}E_n}^+a_{\sigma E}}{h\sqrt{v(E)v(E_n)}}}.`$ (28)
We evaluate Eq. (27) taking $`x\mathrm{}`$ and averaging over space and time. One can then obtain the pumped current as following

$$I=\frac{e}{h}\underset{E_n>0}{}𝑑E\left[T_{E_nE}^+f_L(E)T_{E_nE}^{}f_R(E)\right],$$
(29)
where we exploit $`_{E_n}(k_n/k)|r_{E_nE}^{}|^2=1_{E_n}(k_n/k)|t_{E_nE}^{}|^2`$ and $`a_{\sigma E}^+a_{\sigma E}=f_\sigma (E)`$. The second term of the righthand side in Eq. (27) vanishes due to the unitarity of the scattering matrix . Here, $`T_{E_nE}^\pm `$ denotes $`(k_n/k)|t_{E_nE}^\pm |^2`$. The final result, Eq. (29), exactly corresponds to Eq. (1), i.e. the current without Pauli blocking factor.

Now we consider the adiabatic limit. The adiabatic condition in the quantum pump implies that any time scale of the problem considered must be much smaller than the period of the oscillation of an external pumping . We can then define the instantaneous scattering matrix with time dependent parameters, namely $`X_n(t)`$,

$$S_{ad}(E,t)=S_{ad}(E,X_1(t),X_2(t),\mathrm{}).$$
(30)
Due to the time periodicity of $`X_n`$’s, using Fourier transform one can obtain the amplitudes of side bands for

particles traversing the adiabatically oscillating scatterer with incident energy $`E`$ as following

$$S_{ad,n}(E)=\frac{1}{T}_0^T𝑑te^{in\omega t}S_{ad}(E,X_1(t),X_2(t),\mathrm{}).$$
(31)
The micro-reversibility condition in this expression is given by $`t_{ad,n}(E)=t_{ad,n}^{}(E+n\mathrm{}\omega )`$, where $`t_{ad}`$ and $`t_{ad}^{}`$ represent the adiabatic transmission amplitude for the forward and the backward direction, respectively.

We show, in Fig. 1, that $`t_{ad,1}(E)`$ and $`t_{ad,1}(E+\mathrm{}\omega )`$ for a simple model system, a 1D two harmonically oscillating $`\delta `$-function barriers with the strengthes $`X_1=\lambda \mathrm{cos}\omega \tau `$ and $`X_2=\lambda \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau +\varphi )`$ respectively, separated by a distance $`d`$ , are clearly deviated from each other, which implies the micro-reversibility of adiabatic quantum pumps is also broken. Note that in this model system $`t_{ad}(E)=t_{ad}^{}(E)`$. The Pauli blocking factor was ignored in Brouwer’s approach since Brouwer’s theory is based upon a formula due to Büttiker, Thomas, and Prêtre , where they obtained the current operator from the difference between the incoming and the outgoing distributions of the electrons without Pauli blocking factors. This current can also be acquied by using the scattering states, consequently without Pauli blocking factor .

Figure 2 shows the pumped currents obtained from Floquet approach with and without Pauli blocking factor, and Brouwer’s formula in the same model used above under the adiabatic regime (the Wigner delay time is much smaller than $`T`$ ) and with small amplitudes of the oscillating strength. It is clearly seen that the current with Pauli blocking factor deviates from that of Brouwer’s approach which nearly coincide with the current without Pauli blocking factor . It is worth nothing that qualitative behavior of the pumped currents with and without Pauli blocking looks quite similar: the pumped current $`I\lambda ^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ as shown in the insets of Fig. 2. In Ref. , however, the temperature dependence of the pumped currents was expected to be distinct.

Finally, it is noted that if any kind of dephasing such as electron-electron interaction and electron-phonon interaction is involved in the scattering processes it is still an open problem whether the Pauli blocking factor is required.

In conclusion, we have shown that the Pauli blocking factor is unnecessary in quantum pumps when the scattering process through the quantum pump is coherent. The well defined scattering states form a complete non-orthogonal set. One can obtain the pumped currents without the Pauli blocking factor using the field operator formalism with these scattering states. Even in the adiabatic limit the problem of Pauli blocking factor still exists. The Pauli blocking factor was ignored in Brouwer’s adiabatic formalism, so that in the adiabatic limit with small strength of the pumping potential the pumped currents obtained from the Floquet theory without Pauli blocking factor show good agreement with those drawn from Brouwer’s formula.

I would like to thank Henning Schomerus, Mikhail Titov, and Hwa-Kyun Park for useful discussions, and G. Cuniberti for careful reading of my manuscript.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since ’t Hooft introduced an idea  of the correspondence between the large $`N`$ gauge theory with certain string theory, many dualities had been discussed with this idea. One example of these dualities is the relation between Chern-Simons gauge theory and A-type topological strings . This duality between the topological theories can be embedded in type IIA/IIB superstring . The discussion for type IIB superstrings was extended in . The equivalence of effective superpotential for $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory with that of type IIB superstring theory on Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes  was proved in .

Recently Dijkgraaf and Vafa conjectured the correspondence between $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories with matrix models based on the reduction of B-type topological string theory with B-branes . They proposed the effective superpotentials for a large class of $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theories are computed from matrix models . In particular the effective superpotentials for the gauge theories are given by the genus zero free energies which are the summations of planar diagrams in matrix models. This perturbative sum of planar diagrams turns out to be a nonperturbative sum over fractional instantons in the $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory. For $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory they found the coincidence with those of field theory results. In  Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s proposal was tested further for a family of deformations of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory involving an arbitrary polynomial superpotential for one of the three adjoint chiral superfields.

It is important to check this proposal for $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory which is the deformed $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang-Mills theory by the superpotential for adjoint chiral superfields. In particular the models with cubic and quartic superpotentials are quite interesting, because the matrix model corresponding to these potentials have been studied well and the effective superpotential for the gauge theory was explicitly computed up to fourth order in glueball superfields from the dual closed string theory on Calabi-Yau manifold with RR fluxes . Therefore these models are appropriate for the check of the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture for $`𝒩=1`$ theories.

The elegant proof of this correspondence for $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang-Mills theory is given in . It is also very important to find the effective superpotential directly for this case and check this correspondence explicitly. In this note we explicitly compute the effective superpotentials for $`U(N)`$ and $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories with cubic/quartic tree level superpotentials around the classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ in the context of matrix model and the context of Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes. The condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ means the gauge symmetry remain unbroken. While preparing the manuscript for submission, we recieved  which overlaps with $`U(N)`$ gauge theory result in our work.

The organization of this paper is as follows: In section 2, we discuss the effective superpotential for the $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with cubic tree level superpotential. At first we review the Calabi-Yau manifold which is the dual of the gauge theory and compute the effective superpotential around the classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. Next we review the derivation of genus zero free energy of the Hermitean matrix model and compute its derivative with respect to $`S=g_sN`$. Comparing these results, we can check the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture exactly for this case. In section 3, we discuss the effective superpotential for the $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theory with quartic tree level superpotential as in section 2.

## 2 $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with the cubic superpotential

In this section we discuss the effective superpotential for the $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with cubic tree level superpotential around the classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. Since the equivalence of the effective superpotential for the gauge theory with that of type IIB superstring theory on Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes  was proved in , we concentrate on the Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes. At first we calculate the effective superpotential from the Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes. In the classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, since there is only one period of the Calabi-Yau manifold, which is identified with glueball superfield, we can obtain the exact result. Next we consider the effective superpotential from matrix model context in terms of the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture. The Hermitean matrix model with cubic action is also exactly solvable, therefore we can obtain the genus zero free energy exactly. Then we discuss the Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture with these results.

### 2.1 The analysis for the Calabi-Yau geometry with fluxes

We begin with the review of the effective superpotential from the Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes . We consider $`4d`$ $`𝒩=1`$, $`U(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory with tree level superpotential for adjoint chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$`W_{\mathrm{tree}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^3.`$ (2.1)
Since the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are given by the roots of $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}^{}=0`$, the gauge group is broken as

$`U(N)U(N_1)\times U(N_2),N_1+N_2=N.`$ (2.2)
The dual description of the gauge theory in this vacuum  was given by the following deformed Calabi-Yau manifold with RR-flux $`H^{RR}`$ and NSNS B-field $`H^{NS}`$,

$`W_{\mathrm{tree}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+y^2+z^2+w^2+f_1(x)=0.`$ (2.3)
where $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ is the tree level superpotential for the gauge theory and $`f_1`$ is a degree one polynomial. In this Calabi-Yau manifold we can form an integral basis of 3-cycles, $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, which form a symplectic paring

$`(A_i,B_j)=(B_j,A_i)=\delta _{ij},(A_i,A_j)=(B_i,B_j)=0,i,j=1,2`$ (2.4)
The above geometry have $`N_i`$ units of RR-flux through the $`A_i`$ cycle, and an NS-flux $`\alpha `$ through each of the dual noncompact $`B_i`$ cycles. $`\alpha `$ is identified with the complex bare gauge coupling of the gauge theory. The periods of the Calabi-Yau manifold is given by the integral of the holomorphic 3-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over these cycles. Since $`B_i`$-cycles are noncompact cycle, we need the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ for the integral of $`B_i`$-cycle

$`{\displaystyle _{A_i}}\mathrm{\Omega }S_i,{\displaystyle _{B_i}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Pi }_i.`$ (2.5)
The period integrals over $`A_i`$ cycle are identified with the glueball superfield $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi }\mathrm{Tr}W_\alpha W^\alpha `$ whose lowest component is the gluino bilinear. These period integrals of the holomorphic 3-form can be written as integrals of the effective one-form $`\omega `$ over projections of the cycles to the $`x`$-plane. The one-form $`\omega `$ is given by doing the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ integral over the $`S^2`$ cycle corresponding to the $`y,z,w`$ coordinates

$`S_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \omega },\mathrm{\Pi }_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\omega ,\omega =dx\sqrt{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+f_{n1}(x)}.`$ (2.6)
We want to consider the special vacuum in which the gauge symmetry is unbroken $`U(N)U(N)`$ 111In the dual gauge theory, this case correspond to all of $`N`$ D5-branes wrap only on the blown-up $`𝐒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ at the origin.. In this classical vacuum there is only one period and the $`x`$-plane have one brunch-cut. In this case the effective one form is written as

$`dx\sqrt{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+f_1(x)}=dxg(x+\mathrm{\Delta }+x_3)\sqrt{(x2x_1)(x2x_2)}.`$ (2.7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m/g`$. Comparing the coefficients of $`x^3`$ and $`x^2`$, we get the following relations

$`x_3=x_1+x_2,(x_1x_2)^2+2(x_1+x_2)[\mathrm{\Delta }+x_1+x_2]=0.`$ (2.8)
It is also convenient to introduce new variables given by $`\overline{\sigma }x_1+x_2,\mu x_1x_2`$. Using these variables, we can rewrite the latter relation of (2.8)

$`\mu ^2+2\overline{\sigma }[\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\sigma }]=0.`$ (2.9)
The period integral is explicitly evaluated,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{2x_1}^{2x_2}}𝑑x(x+\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\sigma })\sqrt{(x2x_1)(x2x_2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+2\overline{\sigma }}{4}}\mu ^2,`$ (2.10)
Using this result (2.10), we rewrite the constraint (2.9)

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}+\overline{\sigma }(\mathrm{\Delta }+2\overline{\sigma })(\overline{\sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta })=0.`$ (2.11)
$`\overline{\sigma }`$ is solved by a power series in S around $`\overline{\sigma }=0`$,

$`\overline{\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8S}{g\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left((3k1)/2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left((k+1)/2\right)}}.`$ (2.12)
The dual period is written as the function of $`\sigma `$ which have the constraint (2.11)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{2x_2}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}(x+\overline{\sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta })\sqrt{(x2x_1)(x2x_2)}𝑑x`$ (2.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }^2}{6}}(2\overline{\sigma }+3\mathrm{\Delta })+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}\left[\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(2\overline{\sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta })\right].`$
The effective superpotential generated from fluxes is given  by

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }}(H^{RR}+\tau H^{NS})=2\pi i(N\mathrm{\Pi }\tau S)`$ (2.14)
$`=`$ $`NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+{\displaystyle \frac{Ng\sigma ^2}{6}}(2\overline{\sigma }+3\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`+NS\left[\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}(2\overline{\sigma }+\mathrm{\Delta })\right]`$
where we ignored the irrelevant constant $`W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$. Thus we found the effective superpotential exactly. Substituting the power series result (2.12) to the exact result (2.14), we obtain

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8g^2}{m^3}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{S^{k+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3k/2)}{(k+1)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k/2+1)}}`$ (2.15)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+N\left[2S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{2}}S^3+{\displaystyle \frac{280}{3}}S^4+\mathrm{}\right].`$
The coefficients of first three terms agree with those of the result already known in .

### 2.2 Hermitean matrix model analysis

The matrix model describing the U(N) gauge theory with tree level superpotential (2.1) is discussed in . For this matrix model the partition function is given by

$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}\left(U(N)\right)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}W_{\mathrm{tree}}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)},`$ (2.16)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a $`N\times N`$ Hermitean matrix. This partition function is evaluated perturbatively by double line Feynman diagrams with orientation and has a consistent saddle-point approximation of the form

$`Z=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \underset{g0}{}}g_s^{2g2}_g(S),`$ (2.17)
in the ’t Hooft limit $`N1`$ and $`g_s1`$, while keeping finite the ’t Hooft coupling $`S=g_sN`$ . $`_g`$ is given by the sum of all diagrams with genus $`g`$. As discussed in ordinary quantum field theory, the exponentiation of the connected diagrams generates all diagrams, so the free energy contributes only from connected diagrams.

Since the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ $`(1iN)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ become continuous in the large $`N`$ limit, let us introduce a function $`\lambda (x)`$ such that $`\lambda _i=\lambda (i/N)`$. Then the genus zero free energy of the model may be given by the integral,

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{g_s}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2N}}\lambda ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3N}}\lambda ^3(x)\right)+g_s^2N^2{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{log}|\lambda (x)\lambda (y)|.`$ (2.18)
The second term comes from the Vandermonde determinant corresponding to the Jacobian. The details of the computation of this genus zero free energy have been discussed in .

First of all we introduce the density of eigenvalues $`\rho (\lambda )`$ defined by

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{d\lambda }}=\rho (\lambda ),{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )=2.`$ (2.19)
Outside the interval $`(2a,2b)`$ the value is zero. Using this quantity, we obtain the equation of motion in the large $`N`$ limit

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2={\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}d\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mu )}{\lambda \mu }}`$ (2.20)
where the bar of the integral means the principal part. The solution is obtained by introducing the resolvent,

$`\omega (\lambda )={\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mu )}{\lambda \mu }}`$ (2.21)
where complex $`\lambda `$ is defined outside of the real interval $`(2a,2b)`$. It behaves as $`2/\lambda `$ when $`|\lambda |`$ goes to infinity. The factor $`2`$ comes from the definition (2.19). When $`\lambda `$ approaches the interval $`(2a,2b)`$, it behaves as

$`\omega (\lambda \pm i0)={\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2i\pi \rho (\lambda ).`$ (2.22)
There is a unique function, which satisfies these requirements,

$`\omega (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}(a+b)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda \right)\sqrt{(\lambda 2a)(\lambda 2b)},`$ (2.23)
with the following constrains,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`2(a+b)\left[m+g(a+b)\right]+g(ba)^2`$
$`4g_sN`$ $`=`$ $`(ba)^2\left[m+2g(a+b)\right].`$ (2.24)
Since only the singular part contributes to the density of eigenvalues, we obtain the density of eigenvalues,

$`\rho (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}\left(\omega (\lambda +i0)\omega (\lambda i0)\right)`$ (2.25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}(a+b)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2\right)\sqrt{(\lambda 2a)(2b\lambda )}.`$
It is convenient to introduce the single parameter $`\sigma =\frac{g}{m}(a+b)`$. Using this parameter, we may rewrite the constraints (2.24) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2Ng_s}{m^3}}+\sigma (1+\sigma )(1+2\sigma )=0.`$ (2.26)
The expansion of $`\sigma `$ as a power series in $`g`$ is given by

$`\sigma ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8g^2Ng_s}{m^3}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }((3k1)/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }((k+1)/2)}}.`$ (2.27)
We rewrite the genus zero free energy in terms of these quantities as

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{2g_s}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2N}}\lambda ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3N}}\lambda ^3(x)\right)`$ (2.28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{4}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2b}}𝑑\lambda 𝑑\mu \rho (\lambda )\rho (\mu )\mathrm{log}|\lambda \mu |.`$
With the explicit expression (2.25), we can integrate out the $`\lambda `$.

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (3\sigma ^2+6\sigma +2)}{(1+\sigma )(1+2\sigma )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{2}}\mathrm{log}(1+2\sigma ).`$ (2.29)
This is the exact result of genus zero free energy. Using the relation (2.26),(2.27) we get the genus zero free energy as a power series in $`g_sN`$,

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{8g^2g_sN}{m^3}})^k{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3k/2)}{(k+2)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k/2+1)}}.`$ (2.30)
For the later discussion for the examination of Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture, we calculate the derivative of the genus zero free energy with respect to ’t Hooft coupling $`Sg_sN`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2S}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (3\sigma ^2+6\sigma +2)}{(1+\sigma )^2(1+2\sigma )^2}}S\mathrm{log}(1+2\sigma )`$ (2.31)
$`+S^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{S}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3+14\sigma +20\sigma ^2+12\sigma ^3+4\sigma ^4}{(1+\sigma )^2(1+2\sigma )^3}}.`$
Using the derivative of constraint (2.26) with respect to S

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+6\sigma +6\sigma ^2}},`$ (2.32)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{m^3}{6g^2}}\sigma ^2(3+2\sigma )S\mathrm{log}(1+2\sigma ).`$ (2.33)
Since $`\overline{\sigma }=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$, this result agree with the fractional instanton contribution part of the dual period integral $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (2.13) in the previous subsection.

### 2.3 The check of Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture for $`U(N)`$ case

In  the effective superpotential is given by the period $`S`$ of Calabi-Yau manifold (2.3)

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)=NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+N{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\mathrm{pert}}(S)}{S}},F_{\mathrm{pert}}(S)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}c_iS^i`$ (2.34)
where $`F_{\mathrm{pert}}(S)`$ is the prepotential for the special geometry of (2.3) and expanded perturbatively in terms of $`S`$. This superpotential corresponds to that of gauge theory in the confining phase by identifying the periods $`S`$ with the glueball superfield $`S=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}W_\alpha W^\alpha `$. Under this identification, the first two terms correspond to the Veneziano-Yankielowicz form  and $`\tau `$ is the bare complex coupling of the gauge theory.

In  it is conjectured that $`F_{\mathrm{pert}}(S)`$ equals to the free energy $`_0(g_s)`$ of the matrix model under the identification between the glueball superfield $`S`$ with the ’t Hooft coupling $`g_sN`$.

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+N{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}`$ (2.35)
$`=`$ $`NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+N\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3m^3}{2g^2}}\sigma ^2(3+2\sigma )+S\mathrm{log}(1+2\sigma )\right]`$
where the first two terms come from the volume factor in (2.16). The discussion of this volume factor is discussed in . This effective superpotential agrees exactly with the result (2.14) from the Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes. Furthermore, using the result (2.30) we have easily got the exact effective superpotential for the gauge theory with the tree level superpotential of (2.1)

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`NS\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{8g^2}{m^3}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{S^{k+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3k/2)}{(k+1)!\mathrm{\Gamma }(k/2+1)}}`$ (2.36)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+N\left[2S^2+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{2}}S^3+{\displaystyle \frac{280}{3}}S^4+\mathrm{}\right].`$
This is the exact effective superpotential summed up all instanton corrections and agrees perfectly with (2.15). Thus we find that $`F_{\mathrm{pert}}(S)=_0(g_s)`$ holds exactly. Therefore Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s conjecture is checked for the special vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

## 3 $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories with quartic superpotential

In this section we discuss the effective superpotential for $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories with quartic tree level superpotential around the classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. We proceed the discussion in the same way as section 3. But there are some differences. The geometry dual to the gauge theory has $`Z_2`$ identification. The matrix models corresponding to the $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories are not Hermitean but real symmetric and self-dual quaternionic respectively.

### 3.1 The analysis for the Calabi-Yau geometry with fluxes

We begin with somewhat general discussion for the $`SO/Sp`$ gauge theories for the later discussion of matrix model. In order to realize $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories, we need introduce orientifold-plane. When an orientifold-plane is introduced, the Calabi-Yau manifold must be invariant under the complex conjugation

$`(x,y,z,w)(\overline{x},\overline{y},\overline{z},\overline{w}).`$ (3.1)
Then we can only realize an $`SO/Sp`$ gauge theories with tree level superpotential of even function. The large $`N`$ dual of this theory is found via geometric transition . Through the geometric transition, the dual geometry for the $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories is given by

$`W_{\mathrm{tree}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}(x)+y^2+z^2+w^2+f_{2n2}(x)=0,W_{\mathrm{tree}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2k}}{2k}}x^{2k}`$ (3.2)
where $`W_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ is the tree level superpotential for the gauge theory and $`f_{2n2}`$ is a degree $`2n2`$ polynomial.

In the following we concentrate on the case with the quartic tree level superpotential,

$`W_{\mathrm{tree}}={\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^4.`$ (3.3)
As in the case of $`U(N)`$ gauge theory, we can define an integral basis of 3-cycles which form a symplectic paring and the periods of the Calabi-Yau manifold. In this case since we also consider the special classical vacuum $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, there is only one period and the dual period and the $`x`$-plane also have one brunch-cut. We write the effective one form as follows

$`2dx\sqrt{W_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+f_2}=2dxg(x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }+x_3)\sqrt{(x2\mu )(x+2\mu )}.`$ (3.4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=m/g`$. From the coefficient of $`x^4`$ we get the following relations, $`x_3=2\mu ^2`$. The period integral is explicitly evaluated,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{2\mu }^{2\mu }}𝑑x(x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mu ^2)\sqrt{4\mu ^4x^2}=6\mu ^4+2\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^2.`$ (3.5)
In terms of $`S/g`$, $`\mu ^2`$ can be solved

$`\mu ^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+6S/g}}{6}}.`$
The dual period is evaluated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i}{g}}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{2\mu }^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}𝑑x(x^2+\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mu ^2)\sqrt{4\mu ^4x^2}`$ (3.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0){\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2g}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2g}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2g}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2g}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2g}}\mathrm{log}\mu ^2.`$
The effective superpotential generated from fluxes  is given by

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }}(H^{RR}+\tau H^{NS})=2\pi i\left[\left(N+2\right)\mathrm{\Pi }\tau S\right]`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`\left(N2\right)S\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S`$
$`+(N2)\left[2S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+S\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{g}}+S{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}(\mu ^21)+S\mathrm{log}\mu ^2\right]`$
where we ignored the irrelevant constant $`W(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$. In the above expression, upper signs are taken for $`SO(N)`$ gauge theory and lower signs are taken for $`Sp(N)`$ gauge theory. We obtained the effective superpotential for the gauge theory with tree level superpotential (3.3). From the relation (3.5) $`\mu `$ is written as a function of $`S`$. Substituting to the effective superpotential, we obtain

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{N}S\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S\widehat{N}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3g}{2m^2}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{S^{k+1}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)!}{k!(k+1)!}}`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+\widehat{N}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4m^2}}\right)S^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8m^4}}\right)S^3+{\displaystyle \frac{45}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16m^6}}\right)S^4+\mathrm{}\right],`$
where $`\widehat{N}=N2`$. The coefficients of the first three terms agree with those of our result in our previous work .

### 3.2 Matrix model analysis

First we discuss somewhat general properties of real symmetric matrix model and self-dual quaternionic matrix model with the potential,

$`W={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}u_{2k}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2k}.`$ (3.9)
In this case the partition function of the corresponding matrix models is given by

$`Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}\left(G\right)}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{Tr}W(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)}`$ (3.10)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`N\times N`$ real symmetric matrix for $`G=SO(N)`$ and $`N\times N`$ self-dual quaternionic matrix for $`G=Sp(N)`$. For these matrix models, the Feynman diagrams become unoriented double line diagrams. So the large $`N`$-limit of this model may be described in terms of a simple $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory with single lines in which all non-planar diagrams are omitted.

In this case the analysis which is discussed for Hermitean matrix model in  is slightly changed. In fact the power of the Vandermonde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not squared and the partition functions become

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d\lambda _i\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}W(\lambda _i)\right)}\mathrm{for}SO(N),`$
$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}d\lambda _i\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )^4\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N/2}{}}2W(\lambda _i)\right)}\mathrm{for}Sp(N)`$ (3.11)
where $`N`$ is even for $`Sp(N)`$.

We proceed the discussion of loop equation as in .222Here we will concentrate on the $`SO(N)`$ case. For the $`Sp(N)`$ case there is slight change of the coefficient in (3.12), but they can be absorbed in the normalizations of $`f(x)`$ and $`y(x)`$. In the large $`N`$ limit the loop equation becomes

$`\omega ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mu }}\omega (x)W^{}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2}}f(x)=0`$ (3.12)
where $`\mu =g_sN`$ is the ’t Hooft coupling, $`\omega `$ is the resolvent and $`f(x)`$ is given by

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu }{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{W^{}(x)W^{}(\lambda _i)}{x\lambda _i}}.`$ (3.13)
We have an algebraic loop equation because of the large $`N`$ limit. Let us introduce a new variable,

$`y(x)=\mu \omega (x)+W^{}(x).`$ (3.14)
Using this variable we can rewrite the loop equation (3.12) as

$`y^2W^{}(x)^2+f(x)=0.`$ (3.15)
Thus we obtain a (singular) hyperelliptic curve in the $`(x,y)`$-space. The remaining analysis is the same as in . In the following, we will evaluate the derivative of the free energy $`_0(\mu )g_s^2\mathrm{log}Z`$ in terms of the ’t Hooft coupling $`\mu `$.

Let us remark about the hyperelliptic curve. As in  from the relation (3.13) we can obtain the coefficient of $`f(x)=_{k=0}^{n1}2\mu b_kx^k`$ explicitly,

$`b_{2k}=(2k+2)u_{2k+2}+{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(2k+2s)u_{2k+2s}{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{u_{2s2}}},b_{2k+1}=0,k=1,\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{2}}`$ (3.16)
where $`u_{2k}`$ is the coefficient of the tree level superpotential (3.9). If the tree level superpotential is even function, then $`f(x)`$ is also even function. This means that the heperelliptic curve obtained from this matrix model has $`Z_2`$ identification and equivalent to the geometry (3.2) obtained in the reduction of Calabi-Yau geometry.

We will consider the matrix models with the simplest potential

$`W_{\mathrm{tree}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\mathrm{\Phi }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g\mathrm{\Phi }^4.`$ (3.17)
We can calculate this genus zero free energy in the same way as in the case of $`U(N)`$ gauge theory along the derivation in . Since the eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ become continuous in the large $`N`$ limit, let us introduce a function $`\lambda (x)`$ such that $`\lambda _k=\lambda (k/N)`$ for $`SO(N)`$ and $`\lambda _k=\lambda (2k/N)`$ for $`Sp(N)`$. For real symmertic matric model and self-dual quaternionic matrix model, the free energies become same and they are given by the integrals

$`_0={\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{g_s}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2N}}\lambda ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4N}}\lambda ^4(x)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x𝑑y\mathrm{log}|\lambda (x)\lambda (y)|.`$ (3.18)
We introduce the density of eigenvalues $`\rho (\lambda )`$ defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{d\lambda }}=\rho (\lambda ),{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )=1.`$ (3.19)
As mentioned above, the geometry derived the matrix models with even function are symmetric. Then we put the interval as symmetric. The equation of motion is rewritten in the large $`N`$ limit as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^3={\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}d\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mu )}{\lambda \mu }}`$ (3.20)
where the integral means the principal part. The solution is obtained by introducing the new analytic function,

$`\omega (\lambda )={\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\mu )}{\lambda \mu }},`$ (3.21)
defined for complex $`\lambda `$ outside the real interval $`(2a,2a)`$. It behaves as $`1/\lambda `$ when $`|\lambda |`$ goes to infinity. When $`\lambda `$ approaches the interval $`(2a,2a)`$ it behaves as

$`\omega (\lambda \pm i0)={\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^3i\pi \rho (\lambda ).`$ (3.22)
There is a unique function, which satisfies these requirements

$`\omega (\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2\right)\sqrt{\lambda ^24a^2}`$ (3.23)
with the constraint

$`6ga^4+2ma^2=g_sN.`$ (3.24)
Since only the singular part contributes to the density of eigenvalues, we get explicit function for the density

$`\rho (\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}\left(\omega (\lambda +i0)\omega (\lambda i0)\right)`$ (3.25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{g_sN}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}a^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{g_sN}}\lambda ^2\right)\sqrt{\lambda ^24a^2}.`$
In terms of these quantities we obtain

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{g_s}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2N}}\lambda ^2(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4N}}\lambda ^4(x)\right]`$ (3.26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g_s^2N^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}{\displaystyle _{2a}^{2a}}𝑑\lambda 𝑑\mu \rho (\lambda )\rho (\mu )\mathrm{log}|\lambda \mu |`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{S^2}{48}}(b^21)(9b^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{S^2}{4}}\mathrm{log}b^2.`$
where $`b^2=\frac{2m}{g_sN}a^2`$. This is the exact result of genus zero free energy. Using the relation (3.24) we get the genus zero free energy

$`_0(g_s)={\displaystyle \frac{(g_sN)^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3gg_sN}{2m^2}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)!}{k!(k+2)!}}.`$ (3.27)
For the later discussion for Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s conjecture we also calculate the derivation of the genus zero free energy with respect to ’t Hooft coupling $`Sg_sN`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left[S(b^21)(9b^2)+S^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{S}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(b^23)(2b^2)}{b^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}\mathrm{log}b^2.`$ (3.28)
Using the derivative of constraint (3.24) with respect to $`S`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{3gb^4}{2m^2+6gSb^2}},`$ (3.29)
and substituting the constraint (3.24) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{4}}(b^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}\mathrm{log}b^2.`$ (3.30)
Since $`\mu ^2=a^2=\frac{S}{2g\mathrm{\Delta }}b^2`$, this result agree with the dual period integral $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ (3.6) in the previous subsection.

### 3.3 The check of Dijkgraaf-Vafa conjecture for $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ case

In  the Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s conjecture is generalized to the unoriented case. With the result (3.27) we can also write down the effective superpotential for $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge group 333In  the glueball superfield was identified with $`g_s(N2)`$. Since we have considered the large $`N`$ limit, we can ignored the $`2`$. Then we identified the glueball superfield with $`g_sN`$.

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{N}S\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+\widehat{N}{\displaystyle \frac{_0}{S}}`$ (3.31)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{N}S\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S+\widehat{N}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{S}{4}}(b^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{2}}\mathrm{log}b^2\right]`$
where $`\widehat{N}=N2`$ for $`SO(N)`$ and where $`\widehat{N}=N+2`$ for $`Sp(N)`$. This effective superpotential agree exactly with the result (3.7) from the Calabi-Yau manifold with fluxes.

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{N}S\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^3}}\right)2\pi i\tau S\widehat{N}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3g}{2m^2}}\right)^k{\displaystyle \frac{S^{k+1}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2k1)!}{k!(k+1)!}}`$ (3.32)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}+\widehat{N}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{4m^2}}\right)S^2{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{8m^4}}\right)S^3+{\displaystyle \frac{45}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^3}{16m^6}}\right)S^4+\mathrm{}\right],`$
This is the exact effective superpotential summed up all instanton corrections for the $`SO(N)/Sp(N)`$ gauge theories. As already mensioned this model is captured by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$-theory with single line in which non-planar d iagrams are omitted. The diagrams in Fig.1 give the contribution to the second term of (3.8).

This result also agree perfectly with (3.8). Thus Dijkgraaf-Vafa’s proposal for the unoriented case is explicitly checked for the perturbation around $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Norisuke Sakai and Katsushi Ito for useful suggestions. The authors are also obliged to Yoshiyuki Watabiki for stimulating discussions. H.F. is supported by JSPS research fellowship for young scientists.