Seiberg-Witten theory for the asymptotic free rank three tensors of SU(N)
Extracted source text ยท arXiv hep-th/0010233
\documentstyle[12pt]{article}
\textheight 210mm
\textwidth 160 mm
\pagestyle{plain}
\hoffset=-1.5 cm
%\voffset=-1.5 cm
%\voffset=1.5 cm
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.75}
%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
\newcommand{\pa}{_\parallel}
\newcommand{\pe}{_\perp}
%\evensidemargin +1.3 cm
%\topmargin -5 mm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% GREEK %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
\newcommand{\bet}{\beta}
\newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
\newcommand{\del}{\delta}
\newcommand{\ep}{\epsilon}
\newcommand{\epx}{\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\ze}{\zeta}
\newcommand{\th}{\theta}
\newcommand{\thx}{\vartheta}
\newcommand{\io}{\iota}
\newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
\newcommand{\ka}{\kappa}
\newcommand{\pix}{\varpi}
\newcommand{\rhx}{\varrho}
\newcommand{\si}{\sigma}
\newcommand{\six}{\varsigma}
\newcommand{\yp}{\upsilon}
\newcommand{\om}{\omega}
\newcommand{\phx}{\varphi}
\newcommand{\Ga}{\Gamma}
\newcommand{\De}{\Delta}
\newcommand{\Th}{\Theta}
\newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}
\newcommand{\Si}{\Sigma}
\newcommand{\Yp}{\Upsilon}
\newcommand{\Om}{\Omega}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% MATH MODE COMMAND %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\jt}{\tilde{J}}
\newcommand{\Ra}{\Rightarrow}
\newcommand{\lra}{\longrightarrow}
\newcommand{\Llra}{\Longleftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\pr}{\partial}
\newcommand{\ti}{\tilde}
\newcommand{\ng}{|0\rangle_{gh}}
\newcommand{\pj}{\prod j}
\newcommand{\pjt}{\prod\tilde{J}}
\newcommand{\prb}{\prod b}
\newcommand{\prc}{\prod c}
\newcommand{\bft}{|\tilde{\phi}>}
\newcommand{\bfj}{|\phi>}
\newcommand{\lan}{\langle}
\newcommand{\ran}{\rangle}
\newcommand{\bz}{\bar{z}}
\newcommand{\bJ}{\bar{J}}
\newcommand{\vacr}{|0\rangle}
\newcommand{\vacl}{\langle 0|}
\newcommand{\IFF}{\Longleftrightarrow}
\newcommand{\phr}{|phys\ran}
\newcommand{\phl}{\lan phys|}
\newcommand{\rar}{\rightarrow}
\newcommand{\da}{\downarrow}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% MISCELLANEOUS %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\ind}{\indent}
\newcommand{\np}{\newpage}
\newcommand{\hs}{\hspace}
\newcommand{\vs}{\vspace}
\newcommand{\nl}{\newline}
\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
\newcommand{\lef}{\left}
\newcommand{\rig}{\right}
\newcommand{\fra}{\twelvefrakh}
\newcommand{\Bb}{\twelvemsb}
\newcommand{\bT}{\bar{T}(\bz)}
\newcommand{\bD}{\bar{D}}
\newcommand{\bth}{\bar{\th}}
\newcommand{\bla}{\bar{\la}}
\newcommand{\bLa}{\bar{\La}}
\newcommand{\bga}{\bar{\ga}}
\newcommand{\bbet}{\bar{\bet}}
\newcommand{\bZ}{\bar{Z}}
\newcommand{\bA}{\bar{A}}
\newcommand{\Ai}{A^{-1}}
\newcommand{\Gi}{G^{-1}}
\newcommand{\Hi}{H^{-1}}
\newcommand{\gi}{g^{-1}}
\newcommand{\hi}{h^{-1}}
\newcommand{\hk}{\hat{k}}
\newcommand{\hkt}{\hat{\tilde{k}}}
\newcommand{\hJ}{\hat{J}}
\newcommand{\bC}{\bar{C}}
\newcommand{\bc}{\bar{c}}
\newcommand{\bB}{\bar{B}}
\newcommand{\bb}{\bar{b}}
\newcommand{\hJt}{\hat{\ti{J}}}
\newcommand{\dagg}{^{\dagger}}
\newcommand{\qd}{\dot{q}}
\newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}}
\newcommand{\hg}{\hat{g}}
\newcommand{\tb}{\bar{\th}}
\newcommand{\hh}{\hat{h}}
\newcommand{\hpg}{\hat{g}^\prime}
\newcommand{\htg}{\tilde{\hat{g}}^\prime}
\newcommand{\pri}{^\prime}
\newcommand{\lap}{\la^\prime}
\newcommand{\rhop}{\rho^\prime}
\newcommand{\Dgp}{\Delta_{g^\prime}^+}
\newcommand{\Dg}{\Delta_g^+}
\newcommand{\Pro}{\prod_{n=1}^\infty (1-q^n)}
\newcommand{\Pg}{P^+_{\hg}}
\newcommand{\Pgp}{P^+_{\hg\pri}}
\newcommand{\hmu}{\hat{\mu}}
\newcommand{\hnu}{\hat{\nu}}
\newcommand{\hrho}{\hat{\rho}}
\newcommand{\tla}{\tilde{\la}}
\newcommand{\tia}{\tilde{a}}
\newcommand{\xmk}{x_k^-}
\newcommand{\btla}{\bar{\tilde{\la}}}
\newcommand{\gp}{g^\prime}
\newcommand{\pp}{\prime\prime}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% REFERENCES %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\newcommand{\NPB}[1]{Nucl. Phys. B {#1} }
\newcommand{\IJMPA}[1]{Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A {#1} }
\newcommand{\PLB}[1]{Phys. Lett. B {#1} }
\includeonly{bibliography}
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{empty}
%\batchmode
\vs*{-25mm}
\begin{flushright}
SMT00/01\\
%\vs{8mm}
\end{flushright}
\begin{center}
{\Large{\bf Seiberg-Witten theory for the asymptotic free rank three tensors
of $SU(N)$}} \\
\vspace{.2in}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1}
\small
\normalsize
Henric Rhedin\footnote { henric.rhedin@celsius.se}\\
Celsius Consultants AB\\
Chalmers Teknikpark \\
S-412 88 G\"oteborg\\
Sweden\\
\vspace{.2in}
{\bf{Abstract}} \end{center}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
\small
\normalsize
\begin{quotation}
\baselineskip14pt
\noindent
We here give a first indication that there exists a Seiberg-Witten curve for
$SU(N)$ Seiberg-Witten theory with matter transforming in the
totally antisymmetric rank three tensor representation.
We present a derivation of the leading order hyperelliptic
approximation of a curve for this case. Since we are only
interested in the asymptotic free theory we are restricted to $N=6,7,8$.
The derivation is carried out by reversed engineering starting from the known
form of the prepotential at tree level. We also predict the form of the
one instanton correction to the prepotential.
\end{quotation}
\np
\setcounter{page}{1}
A lot of effort has been spent over the years in Seiberg-Witten theory and all
asymptotic free cases has been accounted for except $SU(N)$ with matter
transforming in the totally antisymmetric rank three tensor representation.
Curves have been derived by generalisations \cite{Everybody} of Seiberg and Wittens
original work \cite{SeibergWitten},
by first principles from M-theory \cite{Mtheory} and most recently by
reversed engineering \cite{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1}.
Furthermore, results that can be subject to tests of those curves have been
made available for all cases
\cite{DHokerKricheverPhong,EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer,EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1}.
Here we start a program to determine the Seiberg-Witten curve for $SU(N)$ with matter
transforming in the totally antisymmetric rank three tensor representation.
Up to this point no information has been presented for this case and fewer
clues are available than for e.g. the case of two antisymmetric two tensors
\cite{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1} that was derived by similar methods.
One of the essential ingredients that characterise the Seiberg-Witten theory is a
particular residue function denoted $S(x)$ below. For the case studied here there
is no obvious candidate for this function in contrast to e.g. the
rank two tensor representations for $SU(N)$. For the rank two tensor representations
there were also involutions symmetries which from a M-theory perspective implemented
themselves using known objects such as orientifolds.
This involution constrained the form of the curve. For the case at hand the realisation
of such a symmetry at M-theory level is not known and hence the form of the
curve seems less constrained.
Never the less one may use the known form of the prepotential at tree level and
simple arguments like dimension analysis to find a candidate for a
curve for the $SU(N)$ Seiberg-Witten theory with matter transforming in the
totally antisymmetric rank three tensor representation. This curve should be
regarded as the lowest order approximation of a full curve and as a first
step toward the true answer.
\\
The weights of the totally antisymmetric three tensor representation of SU($N$)
may be parameterised by
\be
e_i+e_j+e_k \hs{15 mm} i< j< k=1,...,N.
\ee
where $e_i$ are the weights of the defining representation. The Dynkin index of the
three tensor is given by
\be
I_{Dynkin}=\frac{(N-2)(N-3)}{2}
\ee
and hence asymptotic freedom, which requires $2N-I_{Dynkin}\geq 0$, restrict us to
$N=6,7$ and 8. We may also add up to 5 and 3 defining representations for $SU(6)$ and
$SU(7)$ respectively, while $SU(8)$ does not allow for any more matter.
Take the hyperelliptic curve
\be
y^2+2A(x)y+L^2B(x)=0, \hs{10 mm} L^2=\La ^{2N-(N-2)(N-3)/2},
\ee
where $\La$ is the dynamical scale of the theory.
It is sometimes convenient to use the alternative form
\be
y^2=(A(x))^2-L^2B(x)
\ee
and we will interchangeably use the notation hyper elliptic approximation for
either of those two forms.
The purpose of this paper is to find out whether or not there exists functions
$A(x)$ and $B(x)$ such that this curve reproduces the tree level prepotential using
the Seiberg-Witten method. The tree level part of the prepotential is proportional to
\be
\sum _{i,j=1}^N (e_i-e_j)^2ln\left (\frac{(e_i-e_j)^2}{\La ^2}\right )-
\sum _{i< j< k=1}^N (e_i+e_j+e_k)^2ln\left (\frac{(e_i+e_j+e_k)^2}{\La ^2}\right ).
\label{treelevel}
\ee
and starting from a hyperelliptic curve
there is a well known prescription \cite{DHokerKricheverPhong}
how to check this result. Here the objective is to revese this process.
We expect to be able to find appropriate functions for the
curve by reverse engineering following the
method developed in \cite{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1}. Reversed engineering makes use
of symmetries, functional forms, and dimensional restrictions to find a candidate
for a curve.
The restriction available apart from
the form of the tree level prepotential (\ref{treelevel}) is the R-parity of the
1-instanton
correction or equivalently the curve.
Although the form of the 1-instanton contribution to the
prepotential is not known it will follow from the
form of $A(x)$ and $B(x)$ and since the R-parity of the 1-instanton term is known
this puts restrictions on $A(x)$ and $B(x)$.
When integrating out the matter one should find pure Yang-Mills and hence we
expect the usual $\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)$ to be a
part of $A(x)$. The form of the weights indicates
that $B(x)$ should contain a factor of $\prod (x+e_i+e_j)$. Here there is no obvious choice
for the range of indices. Options available are $i,j=1,...,N$, $i\leq j=1,...N$ or
$i<j=1,...N$ and although there is no obvious candidate the minimal choice seems the
most attractive one for computational reasons. Hence we begin with
this choice and we will subsequently comment on the other possible choices.
By inspection it is clear that any of the
choices of $B(x)$ given above will give too many weights and those
have to be corrected for in some way.
Before we continue we must carry out the calculations to find what kind of
logarithmic terms follow from the choices
\be
A(x)=\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i) \hs{20 mm} B(x)=\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j).
\ee
where we for a moment forget R-parity restrictions. Following Seiberg-Witten
\cite{SeibergWitten} we would like to calculate the periods $a_i$ and
dual periods $a_i^D$
since the latter are related to the prepotential $F$ via
\be
a_i^D=\frac{\pr F}{\pr a_i}.
\ee
The periods and dual periods follow from the usual expression in terms of integrals
over the cycles $A_k$ and dual cycles $B_k$ as
\be
a_i=\oint _{A_k} \la dx \hs{20 mm} a_i^D=\oint _{B_k} \la dx \hs{20mm}
\la=\frac{dy}{y}.
\ee
The cycles follow from the shape of the curve and the full set of cycles is
not known without knowing the exact form of the curve. However, we can find a subset of
cycles and find their corresponding periods'
contribution to the tree level prepotential. Additional cycles
required to meet the constraints on R-parity and correct number of
weights will give us additional contributions.
In order to carry out the integrals we need the branchcut structure of the
curve. In its current form the curve have $N$ branchcuts and the branchpoints follow
from the constraint that those are the common points of the two sheets $y_+$ and $y_-$
where
\be
y_{\pm}=\sqrt{A^2(x)-L^2B(x)}.
\ee
For convenience we introduce the residue function
\be
S(x)=\frac{B(x)}{A^2(x)} \hs{20 mm} S_k(x)=(x-e_k)^2S(x).
\ee
In terms of this function the $2N$ branchpoints take the form
\be
x_k^{\pm}=e_k\pm L\sqrt{S_k(e_k)}+...
\ee
and we chose to let the corresponding $N$ branchcuts to run between $x^+_k$ and $x^-_k$.
We also chose the cycles $A_k$ to surround $x^+_k$ and $x^-_k$ on one sheet and
the dual cycles $B_k$ to run from $x^+_k$ to $x^-_k$ on one sheet and
back on the other sheet.
Note that there may be corrections at this order but since we will only
be interested in tree level prepotential we only use the zeroth order term
$x_k^{\pm}=e_k$ although we depend on the existence of a branch cut.
Standard integration gives the first orders of the periods as
\be
a_k=e_k+\frac{L^2}{4}\pr_kS_k+...
\ee
which may also have corrections at this order. We are, however, only keeping
the lowest order.
The interesting terms of the dual periods turns out to be
\be
2\sum_{i=1}^N(e_k-e_i)ln(e_k-e_i)-\sum_{i<j=1}^N(e_k+e_i+e_j)ln(e_k+e_i+e_j)
\ee
which should be compared to the derivative of the prepotential which is proportional to
\be
2\sum_{i=1}^N(e_k-e_i)ln(e_k-e_i)-\sum_{i<j=1,i,j\neq k}^N(e_k+e_i+e_j)ln(e_k+e_i+e_j).
\ee
The difference is given by terms of the form $(2e_k+e_i)ln(2e_k+e_i)$
$i=1,...N,\,\, i\neq k$ which must be corrected by a counterterm of opposite
sign. It seems obvious to change the residue function into
\be
S(x)=\frac{\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j)}{\prod_{i=1}^N(2x+e_i)\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)^2}
\label{firstsugg}
\ee
but this does not work for two reasons. It does not correspond to a hyperelliptic
type of curve since the denominator is not a perfect square. Furthermore, as we will
show below, there is no way to simultaneously
get the correct R-parity and weight count using this form.
Changing $(2x+e_i)$
into $(2x+e_i)^2$ gives a perfect square and may give correct R-parity but does not
provide a correct weight count. There is a
second possibility that satisfies the hyperelliptic curve demand namely
\be
S(x)=\frac{\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j)}{\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)^2\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)^2}.
\ee
Both these forms contribute additional terms to the logarithmic parts of the prepotential
by
\be
\sum_{i=1}^N(2e_k+e_i)ln(2e_k+e_i) \label{addons}
\ee
but they have distinct R-parity contributions. Furthermore, there is an over count in
(\ref{addons}) by $3e_klne_k$ which is corrected for by multiplication by $x^3$.
We hence suggest the form of the residue function
\be
S(x)=\frac{x^3\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j)}{\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)^2\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)^2}.
\label{almostdone}
\ee
The R-parity of $L^2S_k(x)$ should be 2 since we anticipate this form to contribute
to the 1-instanton correction of the prepotential. Using the R-parity
of $L^2$ which is $2N-(N-2)(N-3)/2$
we find the form above (\ref{almostdone}) to have the correct R-parity. Note that
the first suggestion (\ref{firstsugg}) would give R-parity of $L^2S_k(x)$ to be $2+N-3$.
We could have introduced an additional $x^{3-N}$ to ensure the correct R-parity but
this would ruin the weight count.
We now have a new form of curve with functions
\be
A(x)=\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i), \hs{20mm}
B(x)=x^3\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j).\label{almosttrue}
\ee
This suggestion has, however, a serious flaw. As can be seen from the branchpoints
discussion above this set of functions (\ref{almosttrue}) forces us to consider
more branchcuts centred on $x=-e_i/2$. This also means more cycles which will
yield additional contributions to the prepotential. A closer study of the curve
for the antisymmetric two tensor representation indicates a way out. If we multiply
$A(x)$ by another factor of $\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)$ and
$B(x)$ by $\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)^2$ then the ramification points where the
two sheets coincide will not require branchcuts and hence there are no
additional cycles. Furthermore, this does not change R-parity of the
residue function $S(x)$.
The final form of the hyperelliptic approximation is thus
\be
y^2+2A(x)y+L^2B(x)=0 & & \hs{5mm}{\rm where}\\
A(x)=\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)^2\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)& & \hs{5mm}
B(x)=x^3\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2)^2\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j).\label{done}\nn
\ee
This curve gives the correct 1-loop prepotential for $SU(N)$ with matter in the
totally antisymmetric three tensor representation. It is also clear that by introducing
a mass $m$ for the matter representation in the usual way by taking $x\lra x+m$
and $e_i\lra e_i+m$ one may as usual integrate out $m$ yielding the correct
pure Yang-Mills result.
Defining matter may be incorporated by multiplication of additional factors
\be
\prod_{i=1}^{N_f}(x+M_i)
\ee
to $B(x)$. Here $N_f\leq 5$ for $N=6$ and $N_f\leq 3$ for $N=7$ while $N=8$
does not allow for any defining matter.
We mentioned above the possibility to have another $B(x)$ with a wider range of
indices e.g. $i\leq j=1,...N$ or $i,j=1,...N$ instead of $i< j=1,...N$ as above.
We have not been able
to find a form of $S(x)$ that would yield the correct number of weights and at the
same time respect R-parity restrictions for any other choice of range of indices.
We now proceed by predicting the one instanton contribution to the prepotential.
Following the same line of reasoning as in \cite{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1} we
give that the following form of the one instanton contribution
\be
F_{1-inst}=\sum_{k=1}^N(S_k(e_k)-2\bar{S}_k(-e_k/2-3m/2))
\ee
where
\be
S(x)=\frac{(x+m)^3\prod_{i<j=1}^N(x+e_i+e_j+3m)\prod_{j=1}^{N_f}(x+M_j)}{
\prod_{i=1}^N(x+e_i/2+3m/2)^2\prod_{i=1}^N(x-e_i)^2}
\hs{10 mm} && \rm{and} \\
S_k(x)\equiv (x-e_k)^2S(x), \hs{10 mm}
\bar{S}_k(x)\equiv (x+e_k/2+3m/2)^2S(x). && \nn
\ee
This result has the following properties. It yields the correct pure Yang-Mills
and defining flavour results in the double scaling limit $m\rightarrow \infty$ and
$L^2m^{3+n(n-1)/2-2N}\rightarrow L^2_{new}$ where $L^2_{new}$ is the new scale of
the theory. Furtermore, it does not have any poles as $e_k=-e_l/2-3m/2$ for
some $l\in\{1,...N\}$, which is the fact for
a sum over $S_k(e_k)$ only. The precence of the sum over $\bar{S}_k(e_k)$ guarantees
that there are only poles in the appropriate places.
It is clear that this curve is not the full curve. It is expected to have subleading
(contributions with $L^2$ or higher order) terms in $A(x)$ as was the case for the
antisymmetric rank two tensor. Also, the curve itself is expected to have a higher
degree. We hope to be able to present more details on those issues in the near future.
\begin{thebibliography}{AA}
\bibitem{Everybody}A. Klemm, W. Lerche, S. Theisen, and S. Yankielowicz,
Phys. Lett. B344 (1995) 169;
A. Klemm, W. Lerche, and S. Theisen,
hep-th/9505150;
P.C. Argyres and A. Faraggi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1995) 3931,
hep-th/9411057;
P.C. Argyres and A. Shapere, Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 437,
hep-th/9509175;
M.R. Abolhasani, M. Alishahiha, and A.M. Ghezelbash,
Nucl. Phys. B480 (1996) 279,
hep-th/9606043;
P.C. Argyres and M. Douglas, Nucl. Phys. B448 (1995)
93, hep-th/9505062;
P.C. Argyres, M.R. Plesser, and A.D. Shapere,
Phys. Rev. Lett. B75 (1995) 1699, hep-th/9505100;
M. Douglas and S. Shenker, Nucl. Phys. B447 (1995) 271, hep-th/9503163;
J. Minahan and D. Nemeshansky, Nucl. Phys. B464 (1996) 3, hep-th/9507032;
U.H. Danielsson and B. Sundborg,
Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 273, hep-th/9504102;
Phys. Lett. B370 (1996) 83, hep-th/9511180;
A. Brandhuber and K. Landsteiner,
Phys. Lett. B358 (1995) 73, hep-th/9507008;
M. Alishahiha, F. Ardalan, and F. Mansouri, Phys. Lett. B381 (1996) 446,
hep-th/9512005;
I. Pesando, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10 (1995) 1871, hep-th/9506139;
A. Hanany and Y. Oz, Nucl. Phys. B452 (1995) 73, hep-th/9505075;
A. Hanany, Nucl. Phys. B466 (1996) 85, hep-th/9509176.
\bibitem{SeibergWitten}N. Seiberg and E. Witten,
Nucl. Phys. B426 (1994) 19,
erratum, {\it ibid} B430 (1994) 485, hep-th/9407087;
Nucl. Phys. B431 (1994) 484, hep-th/9408099.
\bibitem{Mtheory}
A.\ Hanany and E.\ Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B492 (1997)
152, hep-th/9611230;
E.\ Witten, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B500 (1997)
3, hep-th/9703166;
K.\ Landsteiner, E.\ Lopez, and D.\ Lowe,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B507 (1997) 197, hep-th/9705199;
A.\ Brandhuber, J.\ Sonnenschein, S.\ Theisen, and S. Yankielowicz,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B504 (1997) 175, hep-th/9705232;
Nucl. Phys. B502 (1997) 125, hep-th/9704044;
N.\ Evans, C.\ Johnson,
and A.\ Shapere,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B505 (1997) 251, hep-th/9703210;
S.\ Terashima and S.-K.\ Yang,
hep-th/9803014;
K. Landsteiner and E. Lopez,
hep-th/9708118.
\bibitem{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer1}I. Ennes, S.G. Naculich, H. Rhedin,
and H.J. Schnitzer,
Nucl. Phys. B 558 (1999) 41 , hep-th/9904078.
\bibitem{DHokerKricheverPhong}E. D'Hoker, I.M. Krichever, and D.H. Phong,
Nucl. Phys. B489 (1997) 179, hep-th/9609041;
Nucl. Phys. B489 (1997) 211, hep-th/9609145;
Nucl.\ Phys.\ B494 (1997) 89, hep-th/9610156;
E.\ D'Hoker and D.\ Phong, Phys.\ Lett.\
B397 (1997) 94, hep-th/9701055; hep-th/9709053.
\bibitem{EnnesNaculichRhedinSchnitzer}S.G. Naculich, H. Rhedin, and H.J. Schnitzer,
Nucl. Phys. B 533 (1998) 275, hep-th/9804105;
I. Ennes, S.G. Naculich, H. Rhedin, and H.J. Schnitzer,
Int. J. of Mod. Phys. A, Vol. 14 No. 2 (1999) 301, hep-th/9804151;
I. Ennes, S.G. Naculich, H. Rhedin, and H.J. Schnitzer,
Nucl. Phys. B 536 (1999) 245, hep-th/9806144;
I. Ennes, S.G. Naculich, H. Rhedin, and H.J. Schnitzer,
Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999) 260, hep-th/9901124.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}