text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories has proven important in understanding the more realistic theories such as QCD. This is because on one hand they share many common properties like chiral symmetry breaking, the existence of a mass gap, and color confinement in the infrared. And on the other hand, supersymmetry puts strict, though tractable, conditions on the dynamics of the theory which makes the theory easier to analyze. Therefore, a thorough understanding of supersymmetric gauge theories will help in unraveling the low energy phenomena, of the kind mentioned above, of the corresponding nonsupersymmetric theories. This is one, among many others, main reason that supersymmetric gauge theories are so appealing to study.

A remarkable advance in the understanding of supersymmetric gauge theories and their relations to Matrix models has recently been achieved through the work of Dijkgraaf and Vafa . Consider $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Lagrangian which consists of an $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet $`(A,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in the adjoint representation of the gauge group $`U(N)`$. Here $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are $`𝒩=1`$ vector and chiral multiplets respectively. Upon adding a superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ to the $`𝒩=2`$ Lagrangian, the supersymmetry gets reduced to $`𝒩=1`$. Dijkgraaf and Vafa have put forward the proposal that the low energy dynamics of this $`𝒩=1`$ theory can be completely determined by perturbative calculations of the free energy of a zero dimensional matrix model in the planar limit. The potential of the matrix model is taken to be the same as $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, but with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s regarded as constant $`M\times M`$ matrices in the Lie algebra of $`U(M)`$. The most important feature of this correspondence is that by perturbative calculations in the matrix model side one learns about the nonperturbative effects – mainly due to instantons – in the gauge theory side. Specifically, let $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ be a polynomial of degree $`n+1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The classical supersymmetric vacuum is then characterized by a constant diagonal matrix with elements $`e_i`$, the critical points of $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Let $`N_i`$ indicate the multiplicity of $`e_i`$ in the vacuum such that $`N=_i^nN_i`$. This choice of vacuum breaks the gauge symmetry as follows

$$U(N)U(N_1)\times U(N_2)\times \mathrm{}\times U(N_n).$$

The instantons contributions to the effective superpotential are then given by

$$W_{eff}^{\mathrm{inst}}=\underset{i}{}N_i\frac{_0}{S_i},$$

where $`_0`$ is the free energy of the matrix model in the planar limit, and $`S_i=g_sM_i`$.

Using the perturbative calculations in the matrix models, the effective superpotential of a wide class of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories has been obtained in complete agreement with the earlier results. Interestingly, one can go even one step further to extract information about the low energy dynamics of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory itself. This can be done as follows. One introduces a superpotential $`\alpha W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of degree $`N+1`$, with $`\alpha `$ a real parameter, breaking the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry down to $`𝒩=1`$. Since $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ has $`N`$ critical points, one can choose the vacuum as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{diag}(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_N),$$

therefore the $`U(N)`$ gauge group classically breaks to $`U(1)^N`$. By adding the superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, one in fact freezes the whole classical vacuum manifold $`C^N`$ of $`𝒩=2`$ theory to a point $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, the vacuum of $`𝒩=1`$ theory. In conclusion, one computes the effective superpotential of this theory and notices that there are some low energy quantities which are independent of the parameter $`\alpha `$, and hence must be identified with the corresponding quantities in the $`𝒩=2`$ theory. In this way, using the perturbative analysis of the matrix model, the prepotential of $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(2)`$ theory was rederived in . This method was further generalized for the gauge group $`U(N)`$, and again with complete agreement with the Seiberg-Witten solution of $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(N)`$ gauge theory . It is our aim in this paper to work out the Seiberg-Witten solution of $`𝒩=2`$ $`SO(N)`$ gauge theory by perturbative computations of the free energy of the corresponding matrix model.

In the above context of gauge theory/matrix model correspondence, $`𝒩=1`$ $`SO/SP`$ gauge theories have also been examined from different points of views . The perturbative matrix model language, though, has only been used to analyze the gauge theory in the trivial vacuum sector. To derive the $`𝒩=2`$ results, as mentioned above, we need to choose a vacuum which breaks $`SO(2N)`$ or $`SO(2N+1)`$ gauge group to $`U(1)^N`$ representing a typical point on the Coulomb branch of $`𝒩=2`$ vacuum moduli space, and then performing the perturbative calculations around the corresponding matrix model vacuum. This is what we will do in the next section.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we introduce the matrix model action including the fluctuations around the vacuum and their ghosts counterparts which are necessary for our special gauge fixing. In section 3, we calculate the free energy of the matrix model which consists of three parts; 1) the nonperturbative part including the contribution of the group volume and quadratic integrals, 2) two loop planar free energy and 3) unoriented planar graphs. In section 4, we derive the effective action, and show that the coupling constants $`\tau _{ij}`$ can be obtained from the free energy of the matrix model by a variant form of the Vafa-Dijkgraaf prescription. The result is then reexpressed in terms of the periods $`a_i`$’s. We conclude in section 5 and derive the Vandermonde determinant of the Fadeev-Popov ghosts in the appendix.

## 2 The Matrix Model Superpotential

In this section, we introduce a superpotential $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the scalar multiplet which is of degree $`2N+2`$ for the group $`SO(2N+1)`$. $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is chosen such that it has $`2N+1`$ distinct critical points $`e_i`$’s. To be explicit, let us introduce the superpotential as

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\alpha \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{s_{Nl}(e^2)}{2l+2}\text{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{2l+2},$$
(1)
where

$$s_m(e^2)=\underset{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_m}{}e_{i_1}^2e_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}e_{i_m}^2,$$
(2)
and $`\alpha `$ is a real parameter which, at the end, is scaled to zero to read off the effective $`U(1)`$ gauge couplings of the $`𝒩=2`$ effective theory. $`e_i`$’s are the critical points of $`W(x)`$

$$W^{}(x)=\alpha x\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}s_{Nl}(e^2)x^{2l}=\alpha x\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x^2+e_i^2)\alpha w^{}(x).$$
(3)
Taking the vacuum as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\text{diag}(0,e_1i\sigma _2,e_2i\sigma _2,\mathrm{},e_Ni\sigma _2),$$
(4)
will break the gauge group classically as

$$SO(2N+1)U(1)^N.$$
(5)
In the matrix model side, as mentioned before, one takes the same $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ playing the role of the potential of the model, but with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s now considered as constant $`2M\times 2M`$ matrices in the Lie algebra of $`SO(2M)`$.111Note that the size of the matrices $`M_i`$ in the matrix model are chosen to be large by multiplying $`N_i`$ by a large number $`k_i`$. For convenience, we have taken $`k_i`$’s to be even so that the matrix model we obtain is even dimensional. To set up the perturbation theory, let us expand the superpotential around the critical points of $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. This we do by substituting $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0+\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the vacuum

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\text{diag}(\mathrm{𝟎}_{2M_0\times 2M_0},e_1i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_1\times M_1},e_2i\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_2\times M_2},\mathrm{},e_Ni\sigma _2\mathrm{𝟏}_{M_N\times M_N}).$$
(6)
This choice of vacuum will break the gauge group of the matrix model as follows

$$SO(2M)SO(2M_0)\times U(M_1)\times U(M_2)\times \mathrm{}\times U(M_N),$$
(7)
so that

$$M=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}M_i.$$
(8)
Upon considering the small fluctuations around the vacuum (6), up to the second order in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`W(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ reads

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}M_iW(ıe_i)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}s_{Nl}\underset{m=0}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0^m\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{2lm})+𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi }^3).$$
(9)
Further, it is easy to show that the quadratic part is as follows,

$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha s_N\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00}\psi _{00})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}ls_{Nl}(ıe_i)^{2l}2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^2\psi _{ii}^2),`$
where we have decomposed the $`2M_i\times 2M_j`$ $`\psi _{ij}`$ matrices in terms of $`\sigma _\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3`$ matrices, with $`\sigma _i`$ the Pauli matrices and $`\sigma _0\mathrm{𝟏}_{2\times 2}`$,

$$\psi _{ij}\psi _{ij}^0\sigma _0+\psi _{ij}^1\sigma _1+ı\psi _{ij}^2\sigma _2+\psi _{ij}^3\sigma _3,$$
(11)
$`\psi _{ij}^\mu `$ are now $`M_i\times M_j`$ matrices.

The important point to notice here is that there are elements of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ which are absent in the quadratic part of the action. These include $`\psi _{ij}`$ for $`ij`$ and $`\psi _{ii}^\beta `$ for $`\beta =1,3`$. Therefore, these are not propagating fields and one should gauge them away. Note that the total number of degrees of freedom that we are going to gauge away is exactly equal to the number of broken gauge generators in (7), i.e.,

$$4M_0\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_i+4\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}M_iM_j+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_i(M_i1).$$
(12)
As we will show in the appendix, the gauge fixing can be implemented by introducing the Faddeev-Popov ghosts. The ghost action takes the following form

$$\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}B[\mathrm{\Phi },C]=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}B[\mathrm{\Phi }_0,C]+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}B[\mathrm{\Psi },C].$$
(13)
The kinetic part of the ghost action can be obtained by expanding the ghost action around the vacuum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}B[\mathrm{\Phi }_0,C]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(B_{i0}^1C_{0i}^3B_{i0}^3C_{0i}^1)(B_{i0}^0C_{0i}^2+B_{i0}^2C_{0i}^0)\right]e_i`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}\left[B_{ii}^1C_{ii}^3B_{ii}^3C_{ii}^1\right]e_i{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[B_{ji}^1C_{ij}^3B_{ji}^3C_{ij}^1\right](e_i+e_j)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[B_{ji}^0C_{ij}^2+B_{ji}^2C_{ij}^0\right](e_ie_j).`$
Let us then fix the gauge to $`\psi _{ij}=0`$ for $`ij`$, and $`\psi _{ii}^\beta =0`$ for $`\beta =1,3`$. Doing so, the interacting part of the ghost action becomes,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}B[\mathrm{\Psi },C]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}\mathrm{Tr}[(B_{ji}^\mu \psi _{ii}^0C_{ij}^\mu B_{ji}^\mu C_{ij}^\mu \psi _{jj}^0)`$ (15)
$`(B_{ji}^1\psi _{ii}^2C_{ij}^3+B_{ji}^1C_{ij}^3\psi _{jj}^2)+(B_{ji}^3\psi _{ii}^2C_{ij}^1+B_{ji}^3C_{ij}^1\psi _{jj}^2)`$
$`(B_{ji}^2\psi _{ii}^2C_{ij}^0B_{ji}^2C_{ij}^0\psi _{jj}^2)(B_{ji}^0\psi _{ii}^2C_{ij}^2B_{ji}^0C_{ij}^2\psi _{jj}^2)]`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(B_{ii}^3\psi _{ii}^2C_{ii}^1B_{ii}^1\psi _{ii}^2C_{ii}^3)+(B_{ii}^1\psi _{ii}^0C_{ii}^1+B_{ii}^3\psi _{ii}^0C_{ii}^3)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[(B_{i0}^3C_{0i}^1\psi _{ii}^2B_{i0}^1C_{0i}^3\psi _{ii}^2)+(B_{i0}^2C_{0i}^0\psi _{ii}^2+B_{i0}^0C_{0i}^2\psi _{ii}^2)\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(B_{i0}^\mu C_{0i}^\mu \psi _{ii}^0)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}(B_{i0}\psi _{00}C_{0i}).`$
The kinetic and interaction parts of the “bosonic” action, on the other hand, are found in this gauge to be

$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha s_N\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00}\psi _{00})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}(ıe_i)^{2l}ls_{Nl}2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^2\psi _{ii}^2)`$ (16)
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}2l(2l+1)(ıe_i)^{2l1}(ı)s_{Nl}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{ii}^{222}3\psi _{ii}^{200})`$ (17)
$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{s_{N1}}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00})^4\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(2l1)2l(2l+1)(ıe_i)^{2l2}s_{Nl}`$ (18)
$`\times 2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\psi _{ii}^{2222}4\psi _{ii}^{2200}2\psi _{ii}^{2020}+\psi _{ii}^{0000}),`$
where we have used the notation $`\psi ^{ab\mathrm{}c}=\psi ^a\psi ^b\mathrm{}\psi ^c`$ for $`a,b,\mathrm{}=0,2`$. Performing the sum over $`l`$ we obtain

$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00}\psi _{00}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^0\psi _{ii}^2\psi _{ii}^2),`$ (19)
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`ı\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{3,i}}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{ii}^{222}3\psi _{ii}^{200}),`$ (20)
$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{s_{N1}}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00})^4+\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _{4,i}}{4}}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{ii}^{2222}4\psi _{ii}^{2200}2\psi _{ii}^{2020}+\psi _{ii}^{0000}),`$ (21)
where use has been made of

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}ls_{Nl}(ıe_i)^{2l}=\frac{ıe_i}{2}\left[\frac{d}{dx}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x^2+e_k^2)\right]_{x=ıe_i}=e_i^2\underset{ki}{}(e_k^2e_i^2),$$
(22)
together with the following definitions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $``$ $`2e_i^2R_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_0s_N`$ (23)
$`\gamma _{3,i}`$ $``$ $`ıe_iR_i\left(3+4e_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_{ij}}}\right)`$ (24)
$`\gamma _{4,i}`$ $``$ $`R_i\left(1+8e_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_{ij}}}+4e_i^4{\displaystyle \underset{mi}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ni,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_{im}e_{in}}}\right)`$ (25)
$`R_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}(e_k^2e_i^2),e_{ij}e_i^2e_j^2.`$ (26)
The higher interaction vertices are given by

$$\gamma _{p,i}=\frac{1}{(p1)!}\left[\left(\frac{}{x}\right)^{p1}x\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x^2+e_j^2)\right]_{x=ıe_i}.$$
(27)
With the matrix model perturbative action in hand, now we can find the free energy of the matrix model by which the gauge theory effective action and other related quantities are found in the following sections.

## 3 Matrix Model Free Energy

In this section we calculate the free energy $`_0`$ of the matrix model which consists of two parts;
1) The non-perturbative part which comes from the volume of the gauge group and the integration over the quadratic part of the action.
2) The perturbative parts which are coming from the interacting parts of the matrix model. Having obtained the free energy $`_0`$, we use the prescription given by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  to write down the $`𝒩=1`$ effective superpotential $`W_{eff}(S)`$, which is

$$W_{eff}(S)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{_0}{S_i}+\lambda 𝒢_02\pi i\tau S_i\right),$$
(28)
where $`𝒢_0`$ is the contributions of the unoriented planar graphs to the free energy, and $`\lambda =4`$ for the $`SO(N)`$ group . $`\tau `$ is the bare coupling, and we have set $`N_i=1`$. Moreover, as in the case of $`U(N)`$, the effective $`U(1)`$ couplings can in principle be calculated through the formula

$$2\pi ı\tau _{ij}(e)=\left(\frac{^2_0}{S_iS_j}\right)_{S_i},$$
(29)
where $`S_i`$ are the vev of the gluinos obtained by extremizing the effective superpotential $`W_{eff}(S)`$. However, the case of $`SO(N)`$ group is a bit subtle and formula (29) needs modification.222This is also noticed in  for the case of $`U(N)`$ group with matter in (anti)symmetric representation. The reason for this is as follows. In the double line notation of t’Hooft, two index lines of the antisymmetric representations of $`SO(N)`$ group have the same orientation (as opposed to the case of adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$ group). On the field theory side, since gauge fields $`W^\alpha `$ act through the commutator on matter adjoint fields – antisymmetric representations of $`SO(N)`$ – one gets an extra minus sign when one moves one of the $`W^\alpha `$ to the outer index loop. These are the graphs contributing to the effective $`U(1)`$ couplings. In order to take into account this extra minus sign, in each loop diagram of (anti)symmetric field we assign an $`S_i`$ to one index loop and an $`\stackrel{~}{S}_j`$ to the adjacent index loop. All this amounts to modifying (29) to

$$2\pi ı\tau _{ij}=\left(\frac{^2_0(S,\stackrel{~}{S})}{S_iS_j}\right)_{S_i},$$
(30)
noticing that

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_i}{S_j}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(31)
And after differentiation setting $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i=S_i`$.

Knowing the effective $`U(1)`$ couplings we can proceed to calculate the prepotential of $`𝒩=2`$ theory. Recall that the $`𝒩=2`$ prepotential is expressed in terms of the periods $`a_i`$’s. Therefore, if we reexpress (30) in terms of $`a_i`$’s, we can work out the $`𝒩=2`$ prepotential $`(a)`$ by a double integration of the following formula

$$\tau _{ij}(a)=\frac{^2(a)}{a_ia_j}.$$
(32)
### 3.1 Nonperturbative Part of the Free Energy

The nonperturbative part of the matrix model free energy $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}`$comprises of three parts. These include the integral over the kinetic terms of $`\psi _{ii}`$’s, those of ghosts $`B_{ji},C_{ij}`$, and the volume factor of the broken gauge group. Let us discuss each part separately with some detail. First, the kinetic terms of $`\psi `$’s consist of three parts:

$$W_{\mathrm{kin}}(\psi )=\frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{00})^2\underset{\mathrm{i}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{N}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{\mathrm{ii}}^0)^2+\underset{\mathrm{i}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{N}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{i}\mathrm{Tr}(\psi _{\mathrm{ii}}^2)^2\right).$$
(33)
Accordingly, the Gaussian integral over $`\psi `$’s can be performed easily, giving the result

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s}W_{kin}(\psi )\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}M_0(2M_01)}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}M_i(M_i1)}`$ (34)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}M_i(M_i1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi g_s}{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}M_i}\}.`$
Taking into account the appropriate $`g_s`$ factors, and ignoring the linear terms in $`M_0,M_i`$ in the planar limit, gives rise to a contribution to $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}(S)`$ of the form

$$S_0^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\pi g_s}{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}S_i^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\pi g_s}{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_i}\right).$$
(35)
Now, we consider the ghost sector. There are three types of ghosts $`B,C`$ which correspond to the blocks $`(ii),(i0,0i),(ij,ji)`$ of the original matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. As explained in the Appendix, in the eigenvalue representation of the partition function, the integral over all types of these ghosts produces the correct Jacobian of the matrix model in the symmetry broken phase,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\lambda )=\underset{i}{}\underset{\alpha <\beta }{}(\lambda _\alpha ^{(i)}+\lambda _\beta ^{(i)})^2\underset{i}{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\left((\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)})^2(\lambda _\beta ^{(i)})^2\right)^2\underset{i<j}{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\left((\lambda _\alpha ^{(i)})^2(\lambda _\beta ^{(j)})^2\right)^2,$$
(36)
where $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(i)}`$ stands for the eigenvalues in the $`i`$-th block. Integrating the kinetic terms of the ghosts then amounts to replacing the vacuum values $`\lambda _\alpha ^{(i)}=e_i,\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)}=0`$ in the above expression. This will give

$$𝑑B𝑑C\mathrm{e}^{I_{\mathrm{kin}}(B,C;e)}=\underset{i}{}(2e_i)^{M_i(M_i1)}\underset{i}{}(e_i)^{4M_0M_i}\underset{i<j}{}(e_{ij})^{2M_iM_j}.$$
(37)
After inserting the $`g_s`$ factors and ignoring the linear terms in $`M_0,M_i`$, the ghost contribution to $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}`$ becomes

$$\underset{i}{}S_i^2\mathrm{log}(2e_i)+4S_0\underset{i}{}S_i\mathrm{log}e_i+2\underset{i<j}{}S_iS_j\mathrm{log}(e_{ij}).$$
(38)
Finally, let us turn to the volume factor $`(`$vol $`G)^1`$ for the broken (matrix model) gauge group $`G=SO(2M_0)\times U(M_1)\times \mathrm{}\times U(M_N)`$. Using the asymptotic expansion of the volumes of the groups $`SO(2N)`$ and $`U(N)`$ in the large $`N`$ limit (see ), we can write it as

$`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{vol}G)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{vol}SO(2M_0))+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{vol}U(M_i))`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`M_0^2\mathrm{log}M_0+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\mathrm{log}\pi \right)M_0^2+𝒪(M_0\mathrm{log}M_0)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_i^2\mathrm{log}M_i+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{log}2\pi \right)M_i^2+𝒪(\mathrm{log}M_i)\right].`$
We have kept the next to leading order terms in the above expansion as they are crucial in cancellation of some numerical factors appearing later. The contribution of the volume factor to $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}`$ thus becomes

$$M_0^2\mathrm{log}M_0+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}M_i^2\mathrm{log}M_i\left(\frac{3}{2}+\mathrm{log}\pi \right)M_0^2\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}2\pi \right)\underset{i}{}M_i^2.$$
(40)
Summing the above three contributions and the linear terms $`_iS_iW(e_i)`$ coming from the vacuum value of $`W(\mathrm{\Phi }),`$ we get the final result for the non-perturbative part of the free energy

$`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_iW(e_i)+S_0^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i^2\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_i}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}}\right)`$ (41)
$`+2S_0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e_i^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\right)+2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}S_iS_j\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e_{ij}}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\right),`$
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0,\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ are defined as follows

$`e^{3/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=R_0,`$
$`e^{3/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{2e_i^2}}=R_i,`$ (42)
and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is an arbitrary cut-off. Powers of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are inserted by hand in the above expression in a way to subtract the overall term $`\left(S_0+_iS_i\right)^2\mathrm{log}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ from $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}`$. This corresponds to a freedom in choosing the scale of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the original model. Indeed, by rescaling $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as $`\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ the overall measure of the the $`SO(2M)`$ matrix model scales as $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^{2M^2M}d\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This produces a change in the planar free energy as

$$\delta _0=g_s^2(2M^2M)\mathrm{log}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(43)
which in the t’ Hooft limit (with $`S=S_0+_iS_i`$ a finite quantity) has precisely the same form $`S^2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as we introduced in Eq. (41).

As stated earlier, to calculate the effective couplings, we have to rewrite the free energy (41) by replacing $`S_i`$ into $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i`$ wherever (anti)symmetric fields are present,333These include $`(B)C_{ii}^{1,3},(B)C_{ij}^{1,3}`$, which in the double line notation have index lines of the same orientation. But $`\psi _{ii}^{0,2}`$ or $`(B)C_{ij}^{0,2}`$ can be combined into matrices which have index lines of opposite directions. i.e.,

$`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{S_iW(e_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S_i}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i\stackrel{~}{S}_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2e_i^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}+2S_0\stackrel{~}{S}_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e_i^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}S_iS_j\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(e_ie_j)^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}S_i\stackrel{~}{S}_j\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(e_i+e_j)^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\}`$
$`+S_0^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0}}.`$
Notice that because of the symmetry breaking pattern in (5), a nonzero vev for $`S_0`$ does not make sense, and therefore we will eventually set it to zero. However, as we will see shortly, keeping $`S_0`$ will allow us to work out a simple rule relating the unoriented contributions $`𝒢_0`$ to the derivative of $`_0`$ with respect to $`S_0`$.

### 3.2 Two Loop Matrix Model

Having obtained the propagators and the interaction terms up to the forth order around the vacuum (6) in section 2, we are now in a position to do the perturbative calculations of the free energy $``$ in the planar limit and up to two vertices. Consider the two loops Feynmann diagrams in Figure 1 and those including ghosts in figure 2.

The result of the two loop free energy calculation is

$`_0^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Y_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)Y_iM_i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)^3\gamma _{3,i}^2M_i^3`$ (45)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)^2\gamma _{4,i}M_i^3{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e_i}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)M_i^2\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e_i+e_j)^2}}M_i^2\stackrel{~}{M}_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e_ie_j)^2}}M_i^2M_j\right)`$
$`4{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_i}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\right)M_iM_0^22{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_i}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)M_i^2M_0`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}\right)s_{N1}(2M_0)^3,`$
where

$$Y_i=\left(\frac{2}{2e_i}\right)\stackrel{~}{M}_i+\left(\frac{2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\right)ı\gamma _{3,i}M_i+\underset{ji}{}\left(\frac{2}{e_ie_j}M_j+\frac{2}{e_i+e_j}\stackrel{~}{M}_j\right)+\frac{4}{e_i}M_0,$$
(46)
can be calculated from the tadpole graph.

Restoring the coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`g_s`$, and taking $`S_i=g_sM_i`$ we find:

$`\alpha _0^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\gamma _{3,i}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2}}\gamma _{4,i})S_i^3+({\displaystyle \frac{2ı\gamma _{3,i}}{e_i(2\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8e_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}})S_i^2\stackrel{~}{S}_i`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}S_i\stackrel{~}{S}_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_i+e_j)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4ı\gamma _{3,i}}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e_i+e_j)}}\right)S_i^2\stackrel{~}{S}_j`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_ie_j)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4ı\gamma _{3,i}}{(2\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(e_ie_j)}}\right)S_i^2S_j`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_i(e_ie_j)}}\stackrel{~}{S}_iS_iS_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_i(e_i+e_j)}}\stackrel{~}{S}_iS_i\stackrel{~}{S}_j\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,ki}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_ie_j)(e_ie_k)}}S_iS_jS_k+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_i+e_j)(e_i+e_k)}}S_i\stackrel{~}{S}_j\stackrel{~}{S}_k\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j,ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_ie_j)(e_i+e_k)}}S_iS_j\stackrel{~}{S}_k\}+4({\displaystyle \frac{s_{N1}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}})(S_0)^3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{e_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}S_iS_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_i^2}}S_iS_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ı\gamma _{3,i}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2e_i}}S_i^2S_0+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i(e_i^2e_j^2)}}S_0S_iS_j\right\}.`$
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0s_N=_ie_i^2`$ and $`\left(\frac{s_{N1}}{s_N}\right)=_i\frac{1}{e_i^2}`$.

### 3.3 Unoriented Planar Contribution to the Free Energy

Here, we explicitly calculate the unoriented graphs contributions to the free energy. Notice that since $`\psi _{ii}`$ (as well as $`B_{ii}`$ and $`C_{ii}`$) matrices are antisymmetric, i.e., take value in the Lie algebra of $`SO(M_i)`$ , the corresponding propagators must accordingly be antisymmetrized

$$\psi _{\alpha \beta }\psi _{\gamma \delta }\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }\delta _{\alpha \gamma }),$$
(48)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},2M_i`$ indicate the matrix indices. Therefore, unoriented planar graphs, i.e., graphs with the topology of sphere with a crosscap, must also be considered in the computation of the free energy in the planar limit. This will modify the expression for the effective superpotential to

$$W_{eff}^{\mathrm{pert}}(S)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}N_i\frac{_0}{S_i}\lambda 𝒢_0,$$
(49)
Further, since in the case at hand the gauge group is broken to $`U(1)^N`$ in the gauge theory side, we set $`N_i=1`$ for $`i0`$.

We mentioned above that unoriented graphs come from the anti-symmetrization of the propagators for the antisymmetric matrices (more precisely from the second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (48)). In the present case, due to the decomposition in terms of the Pauli matrices and since $`\sigma _0,\sigma _1,\sigma _3`$ are symmetric while $`\sigma _2`$ is antisymmetric, the matrices $`\psi _{00}`$, $`\psi _{ii}^0`$, $`B_{ii}^{1,3}`$ and $`C_{ii}^{1,3}`$ become antisymmetric, whereas $`\psi _{ii}^2`$ is a symmetric one. Thus the propagator for $`\psi _{ii}^2`$ matrices will be,

$$\psi _{\alpha \beta }^2\psi _{\gamma \delta }^2\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }+\delta _{\beta \delta }\delta _{\alpha \gamma }).$$
(50)
As a result it can be seen that the contributions of $`\psi _{ii}^2`$ and $`\psi _{ii}^0`$ to the unoriented part in fact cancel each other. More interestingly, note that $`\psi _{ii}^2`$ and $`\psi _{ii}^0`$ can be put together to form a hermitian $`M_i\times M_i`$ matrix

$$\psi _{ii}=\psi _{ii}^2+i\psi _{ii}^0.$$
(51)
This is consistent with the symmetry breaking pattern in (7), and explains why these matrices do not have unoriented graphs.

Next, let us write down the result of the calculations of the unoriented contributions to the free energy. Effectively, these are coming from a twist on $`\psi _{00}`$, $`B_{ii}^{1,3}`$, and $`C_{ii}^{1,3}`$ propagators. The unoriented contribution reads

$`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}Y_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}S_i^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2e_i}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.`$ (52)
It is easy to show that the above unoriented free energy can be derived by taking the derivative of the oriented part with respect to $`M_0`$ , i.e.,

$$𝒢_0=\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{S_0}_0.$$
(53)
What we have done in this section is a nontrivial illustration of the above ‘derivative rule’ (53). This rule can be understood naively in some simpler examples. Putting a twist on a propagator reduces the number of index loops by one. This has to be done for each loop, and thus, starting with a graph of order $`S^n`$, we end up with a graph of order $`nS^{n1}`$ which is the derivative rule. In our case, however, this naive picture can not be applied. For example, we see that an unoriented graph can be constructed by a twist on $`B_{ii}C_{ii}`$ propagators, while it can be derived from the derivative of another graph with respect to $`S_0`$. But our result shows that this comes true!

## 4 Effective Superpotential and $`𝒩=2`$ Prepotential from Matrix Model

In the previous section, we derived the free energy of the $`SO(2M)`$ matrix model in the planar limit and up to two vertices. The prescription given by Dijkgraaf and Vafa  enables us now to write down the $`𝒩=1`$ effective superpotential $`W_{eff}(S)`$, using (28). In the following subsections, we write down the details of these calculations.

### 4.1 Coupling Constants from the Matrix Model

Let us start by computing $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ from (28) up to order $`𝒪(S^3)`$. After a little algebra we obtain

$`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(W(e_i)S_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{S_i}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_i+S_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_i^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}S_j\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e_{ij}}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\right)`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ı\gamma _{3,i}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma _{4,i}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3ı\gamma _{3,i}}{2e_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8e_i^2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}\right)S_i^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(e_i^2+e_j^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_{ij}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2ı\gamma _{3,i}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_i}{e_{ij}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_{ij}}}\right)(2S_iS_j+S_i^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4e_i^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ie_{ij}e_{ik}}}\right)(S_iS_j+S_iS_k+S_jS_k)+4𝒢_0.`$
Upon extremizing $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S),`$ it is found that

$$\frac{W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{S_m}=\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{S_m}{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\frac{4e_m^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+2\underset{jm}{}\mathrm{log}\frac{e_{jm}}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+\frac{1}{\alpha }\underset{j}{}A_{mj}S_j=0,$$
(55)
where $`A_{mj}`$ denote the coefficients of the quadratic part of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ in (54).

For small $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, we can solve the equation (55) by iteration to find the roots $`S_m=S_m`$. The result up to the second order is given by

$$S_m=\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{4e_m^2}{R_m}\alpha \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2\underset{j}{}A_{mj}\frac{4e_m^2}{R_m}\frac{4e_j^2}{R_j},$$
(56)
where we have defined the new cut-off $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{2(N+n_0)}\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\pi \tau _0\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2(N+n_0)}.$$
(57)
The real gauge theory cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the one defined by the last equality.

We note that the perturbative and $`d`$-instanton parts of $`\tau _{mn}`$ in the above decomposition come from $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}`$ and $`_0^{(d+2)}`$ terms in the matrix model side, respectively. By differentiating $`_0^{(\mathrm{np})}(S)`$ and $`_0^{(3)}(S)`$ according to the rules (30, 31), at the point $`S_i=S_i`$, one can find $`\tau _{mn}^{(\mathrm{pert})}`$ and $`\tau _{mn}^{(1)}`$ in terms of $`e_i`$’s,

$`2\pi ı\tau _{mn}^{(\mathrm{pert})}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}\left\{2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{e_{im}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_m^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\right\}+(1\delta _{mn})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(e_ne_m)^2}{(e_n+e_m)^2}},`$ (58)
$`2\pi ı\tau _{mn}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}\{({\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _{3,m}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{6\gamma _{4,m}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ı\gamma _{3,m}}{e_m\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e_m^2\mathrm{\Delta }_m}}){\displaystyle \frac{4e_m^2}{R_m}}`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{jm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_j^2}{R_j}}({\displaystyle \frac{2(e_m^2+e_j^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_me_{mj}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4ı\gamma _{3,m}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_m}{e_{mj}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8e_m^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_je_{mj}}}){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_{mj}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_m^2}{R_m}}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_j^2}{R_j}}\}`$
$`+(1\delta _{mn})\{{\displaystyle \frac{16e_m^2e_n}{\mathrm{\Delta }_mR_m}}({\displaystyle \frac{e_m}{e_{mn}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı\gamma _{3,m}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_me_{mn}}})+{\displaystyle \frac{16e_n^2e_m}{\mathrm{\Delta }_nR_n}}({\displaystyle \frac{e_n}{e_{mn}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ı\gamma _{3,n}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ne_{nm}}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{jm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8e_me_n}{\mathrm{\Delta }_me_{mn}e_{mj}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_j^2}{R_j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{jn}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8e_me_n}{\mathrm{\Delta }_ne_{nm}e_{nj}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_j^2}{R_j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{jm,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{8e_me_n}{\mathrm{\Delta }_je_{jm}e_{jn}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4e_j^2}{R_j}}\}`$
As expected, these quantities turn out to be independent of the parameter $`\alpha `$. Therefore, the coupling constants of the unbroken $`U(1)`$ factors of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory are given by the $`mn`$ components of the above equation.

### 4.2  Computation of the Periods within the Matrix Model

In ref. a method was proposed for the computation of the periods $`a_i`$ of the Seiberg-Witten curve. The method is in fact based on a purely perturbative calculation of the planar tadpole diagrams within the matrix model with no reference to the actual form of the Seiberg-Witten curve or differential. Here, within the same framework as in , we use a rather different method based on differentiating with respect to the variation of the potential of the matrix model by linear source terms. To be specific, let us consider the original matrix model with linear source terms of the form $`_iϵ_i`$Tr$`(\varphi _{ii}^2)`$, with $`ϵ_i`$ infinitesimal parameters. The planar free energy of this modified matrix model is given by the following equation

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{g_s^2}_0^{}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{G}}d\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{g_s}(W(\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{i}{}ϵ_i\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _i)))_{\mathrm{planar}},$$
(60)
where we have put444 Note that we do not need to consider a source for $`\varphi _{00}`$ block, since it is an antisymmetric matrix and has Tr$`(\varphi _{00})=0,`$ corresponding to $`a_0=0`$. Also $`\varphi _{ii}^0`$ has zero trace. $`\varphi _i\varphi _{ii}^2`$. After all, this implies a simple relation between the planar tadpole diagrams given by $``$Tr$`(\varphi _i)_0`$ and the free energy as555For the precise definition of the operators $`\frac{\delta }{\delta ϵ_i}`$ see below.

$$Tr(\varphi _i)_0=\frac{1}{g_s}\frac{\delta _0}{\delta ϵ_i}.$$
(61)
Adding the source terms amounts to replacing the block superpotentials by

$$\mathrm{Tr}w(\varphi _i)\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{w}_i(\varphi _i)\mathrm{Tr}w(\varphi _i)ϵ_i\mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _i),$$
(62)
in which

$`W(\varphi )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{Tr}w(\varphi _i)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{w}_i(x)`$ $``$ $`w(x)ϵ_ix.`$ (63)
This modification clearly changes the vacuum of the matrix model. The true shift in the vacuum can be easily obtained by going to the eigenvalue representation of the matrix model. In this representation the vacuum values of $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$’s in different blocks are determined by extremizing the associated superpotentials, that is for the $`ii`$ block by the equation

$$w^{}(x)=ϵ_i.$$
(64)
This change in the vacuum causes the zero point energies, the couplings, and the propagators of the original matrix model shift according to the following relations666 The $`l=2`$ choice in the last line of these equations corresponds to a modification of the propagators of $`\psi _i`$, while the $`l>2`$ choice gives the changes in their vertex factors.

$`e_i`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i=e_i+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}},`$
$`w(e_i)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{w}_i(\stackrel{~}{e}_i)=w(e_i)ϵ_ie_i,`$
$`w^{(l)}(e_i)`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{w}_i^{(l)}(\stackrel{~}{e}_i)=w^{(l)}(e_i)+ϵ_i{\displaystyle \frac{w^{(l+1)}(e_i)}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}},l2.`$ (65)
It is important to note that, although the quantities $`w^{(l)}(e_i)`$ are explicit functions of all $`e_i`$’s, in the above procedure, we have replaced only $`e_i`$ in the argument of $`w^{(l)}(x),`$ holding all its ($`e_i`$-dependent) coefficients fixed. Since the planar free energy $`_0`$ is in general a function of $`S_I`$ and the parameters $`e_i,w(e_i),w^{(l)}(e_i)`$, the above discussion indicates that the addition of the source terms has the net effect of changing $`_0`$ as follows

$$_0(S_I,e_i,w(e_i),w^{(l)}(e_i))_0^{}_0(S_I,\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{w}_i(\stackrel{~}{e}_i),\stackrel{~}{w}_i^{(l)}(\stackrel{~}{e}_i)).$$
(66)
In particular, this shows that the differential operator $`\frac{\delta }{\delta ϵ_i}`$ must be defined precisely as follows

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta ϵ_i}e_i\frac{}{w(e_i)}+\frac{1}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}\left(\frac{}{e_i}+\underset{l2}{}w^{(l+1)}(e_i)\frac{}{w^{(l)}(e_i)}\right).$$
(67)
Now, we turn to the calculation of the Seiberg-Witten periods. By the same line of reasoning as in , we define the periods $`a_i`$ in the matrix model using the following equation (It can also be computed in terms of the planar tadpole diagrams)

$$a_i=g_s\underset{K=0}{\overset{N}{}}n_K\left(\frac{}{S_K}Tr(\varphi _i)_0\right)_S,$$
(68)
where $`n_I`$ are defined as follows:

$`n_i=1,i=1\mathrm{}N`$
$`n_0={\displaystyle \frac{N_0}{2}}1.`$ (69)
Note that for $`SO(2N)`$, $`n_0=1`$, and for $`SO(2N+1)`$, $`n_0=1/2`$.

Upon expanding around the vacuum, $`\varphi _i=e_i+\psi _i`$, one sees that $`Tr(\varphi _i)_0=e_iM_i+Tr(\psi _i)`$. Eq. (68) now implies the expected expansion of $`a_i`$ as $`a_i=e_i+𝒪(S).`$ Using the relation $`Tr(\varphi _i)_0=\frac{1}{g_s}\frac{\delta _0}{\delta ϵ_i}`$ for the tadpole, we can rewrite $`a_i`$ as

$$a_i=\left(\frac{\delta }{\delta ϵ_i}\underset{K=0}{\overset{N}{}}n_K\frac{_0}{S_K}\right)_S.$$
(70)
Noticing the general formula for $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in terms of $`_0`$, we are led to the final general formula for $`a_i`$

$$a_i=\left(\frac{\delta W_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ_i}\right)_S=\frac{\delta }{\delta ϵ_i}W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S),$$
(71)
where in the last step, we have used the fact that $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}/S=0`$ at $`S`$. In using the above formula, we should be careful to use the full expression of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ in terms of $`e_i`$ and $`w^{(l)}(e_i)`$ without using the explicit forms of $`w^{(l)}(e_i)`$ in terms of $`e_i`$’s.

In the case of our interest, $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}(S)`$ can be expressed as functions of $`e_i`$, $`w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)`$, $`w^{(3)}(e_i)`$, and $`w^{(4)}(e_i)`$. Thus our formula (71) up to the order $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is simplified to

$$a_i=e_i\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}\left(\frac{}{e_i}+w^{(3)}(e_i)\frac{}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}\right)W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2).$$
(72)
where $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}^{(1)}`$ is the first order term of $`W_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Thus for $`a_i`$ we find

$$a_i=e_i\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}\left((24n_0)\frac{(e_i)^{14n_0}}{w^{\prime \prime }(e_i)}w^{(3)}(e_i)\frac{(e_i)^{24n_0}}{(w^{\prime \prime }(e_i))^2}\right)+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2).$$
(73)
Finally for $`SO(2N+1)`$ case, we find $`e_i`$’s in terms of $`a_i`$’s as follows:

$`e_i=a_i+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}f_i+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2),`$ (74)
where

$`f_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4a_iR_i^2}}\left(14a_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{ij}}}\right)`$ (75)
$`R_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}(a_ka_i).`$ (76)
For determining the prepotential $`(a)`$, we need to express $`\tau _{ij}(e)`$ in terms of $`a_i`$ instead of $`e_i`$ using (74). Thus we obtain,

$$\tau _{ij}(a)=\tau _{ij}^{(\mathrm{pert})}(a)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\tau _{ij}^{(1)}(a)+\underset{k}{}\frac{\tau _{ij}^{(\mathrm{pert})}(a)}{a_k}f_k(a)\right)+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2).$$
(77)
Here, $`\tau _{ij}^{(\mathrm{pert})}(a)`$ and $`\tau _{ij}^{(1)}(a)`$ are given by replacing $`e_ia_i`$ in (58) and (59). The final results are as follows,

$`2\pi i\tau _{mn}^{(\mathrm{pert})}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}\left\{2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{a_{im}}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4a_m^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\right\}+(1\delta _{mn})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_na_m)^2}{(a_n+a_m)^2}},`$ (78)
$`2\pi i\tau _{mn}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{mn}{\displaystyle \underset{jm}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{R_m^2a_{mj}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24a_m^2}{R_m^2a_{mj}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{24a_m^2}{R_j^2a_{mj}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{R_j^2a_{mj}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{16a_m^2}{R_m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{km,j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{mj}a_{mk}}}\right)`$ (79)
$`+(1\delta _{mn})\{{\displaystyle \frac{8a_ma_n}{a_{mn}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_m^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_n^2}})+16a_ma_n{\displaystyle \underset{jm,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_j^2a_{nj}a_{mj}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16a_ma_n}{a_{nm}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_n^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jn}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{nj}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_m^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jm}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{mj}}})\}.`$
It is easy to show that the above expression for $`\tau _{mn}(a)`$ can be integrated to give the following prepotential $`(a),`$ up to the one-instanton correction:

$`(a)^{(\mathrm{pert})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{4\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}((a_k+a_l)^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_k+a_l)^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}+(a_ka_l)^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{(a_ka_l)^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}})`$ (80)
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}a_k^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{a_k^2}{\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}}\},`$
$`(a)^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{16\pi ı}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{lk}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(a_k^2a_l^2)^2}}.`$ (81)
which is in agreement with the known results in the $`𝒩=2`$ theory .

## 5 Conclusion

We studied the $`𝒩=2`$ theory with the gauge group $`SO`$ using the Dijgkraaf-Vafa proposal of Matrix Model approach to the $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theories. This was done by adding a superpotential to the $`𝒩=2`$ theory which broke it to $`𝒩=1`$, then using the corresponding matrix model, we computed the effective action for $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory, with a nontrivial vacuum breaking the group into its maximal abelian subgroup. We chose this vacuum as we were interested in finding the $`𝒩=2`$ prepotential in the Coulomb branch. For this reason, and to derive the $`𝒩=2`$ effective couplings, we finally turned off the superpotential by sending its coefficient $`\alpha `$ to zero. As expected, the coupling constants $`\tau _{ij}`$ were independent of $`\alpha `$ and thus were identified with the $`𝒩=2`$ effective $`U(1)`$ couplings. At the end, $`\tau _{ij}`$ were integrated to find out the prepotential of $`𝒩=2`$ theory.

In the calculation of the effective action, we carefully considered the unoriented graphs of the anti-symmetric matrices, and observed that their contributions can be rederived from the derivative of planar graphs with respect to the supergluball field, $`S_0`$. This provided an interesting and nontrivial example for the ‘derivative rule’.

We also computed the periods of $`𝒩=2`$ theory by adding a source term to the matrix model action. This is equivalent to computing the tadpole graphs. However, the calculation of periods we did is general enough to be used in similar matrix models.

The extension to $`SP(2N)`$ and $`SO(2N)`$ gauge groups is straightforward. For $`SO(2N)`$ group, the calculation steps are very much similar to that of $`SO(2N+1)`$, though, a complication may arise due to the presence of Pfaff($`\varphi `$) in the superpotential.

Note Added. During the course of this investigation the paper  appeared which considers $`𝒩=1`$ $`SO/SP`$ gauge theories. They have derived the effective action.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank M. Alishahiha for useful comments and discussions. We are also grateful to C. Vafa for valuable discussions on his proposal.

## Appendix A Appendix

In this appendix, we will show that the Faddeev-Popov ghost action needed to fix the gauge to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}=0`$, $`ij`$ is the one given by (13). To begin with, let us first diagonalize the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by an orthogonal $`SO(2M)`$ transformation, and call the eigenvalues $`\lambda _I`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\text{diag}(\lambda _1i\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _Mi\sigma _2).$$
(82)
The superpotential (1) is thus

$$W(\lambda )=2\alpha \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{I=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{s_{Nl}(e^2)}{2l+2}\lambda _I^{2l+2}.$$
(83)
Further, if we define

$$\varphi _i\text{diag}(\lambda _1(i\sigma _2),\lambda _2(i\sigma _2),\mathrm{},\lambda _{M_i}(i\sigma _2)),$$
(84)
then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\text{diag}(\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _N).$$
(85)
The superpotential (83) can now be written as

$$W(\mathrm{\Phi })=\alpha \underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{I=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{s_{Nl}(e^2)}{2l+2}\text{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }_I^{2l+2}.$$
(86)
In diagonalizing the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ matrix, one also has to take into account the Vandermonde determinant, which appears in the measure as the Jacobian of the transformation. For the group $`SO(2M)`$, this determinant reads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{IJ}{\overset{M}{}}(\lambda _I^2\lambda _J^2)=\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)},$$
(87)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{I_1J_1}{\overset{M_1}{}}}(\lambda _{I_1}^2\lambda _{J_1}^2){\displaystyle \underset{I_2J_2}{\overset{M_2}{}}}(\lambda _{I_2}^2\lambda _{J_2}^2)\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{I_NJ_N}{\overset{M_N}{}}}(\lambda _{I_N}^2\lambda _{J_N}^2)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \underset{I_i,J_j(ij)}{}}(\lambda _{I_i}^2\lambda _{J_j}^2).`$ (88)
Let us now write the second part of the Vandermonde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ as an integral over ghosts. First note that for a fixed $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ we have

$$(\lambda _1^2\lambda _2^2)^2=𝑑B_{21}𝑑C_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left(B_{21}^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _1(i\sigma _2)_{\beta \alpha }C_{12}^{\alpha \beta }+C_{12}^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _2(i\sigma _2)_{\beta \alpha }B_{21}^{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(89)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$. Therefore

$`{\displaystyle \underset{I_1,J_2}{\overset{M_1,M_2}{}}}(\lambda _{I_1}^2\lambda _{J_2}^2)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I_1,J_2}{}dB_{J_2I_1}dC_{I_1J_2}}`$ (90)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{I_1,J_2}{\overset{M_1,M_2}{}}}B_{J_2I_1}^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{I_1}(i\sigma _2)_{\beta \alpha }C_{I_1J_2}^{\alpha \beta }+C_{I_1J_2}^{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{J_2}(i\sigma _2)_{\beta \alpha }B_{J_2I_1}^{\alpha \beta }\right).`$
Using definition (84), this can be written as

$$\underset{I_1,J_2}{}(\lambda _{I_1}^2\lambda _{J_2}^2)^2=𝑑B_{21}𝑑C_{12}\mathrm{exp}\left(\text{tr}_2(B_{21}\varphi _1C_{12})+\text{tr}_1(C_{12}\varphi _2B_{21})\right),$$
(91)
where the subindex $`i`$ indicates the trace is over $`2M_i\times 2M_i`$ matrices. It is also understood that $`B_{ji}`$ and $`C_{ij}`$ are $`2M_j\times 2M_i`$ and $`2M_i\times 2M_j`$ matrices, respectively. The Vandermonde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ now reads

$$\underset{I_i,J_j}{}(\lambda _{I_i}^2\lambda _{J_j}^2)^2=\underset{i<j}{}dB_{ji}dC_{ij}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i<j}{}\text{tr}_j(B_{ji}\varphi _iC_{ij})+\text{tr}_i(C_{ij}\varphi _jB_{ji})\right).$$
(92)
Therefore, the partition function turns out to be

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑B𝑑C\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha \underset{l,i}{}\frac{s_{Nl}(e^2)}{2l+2}\text{tr}\varphi _i^{2l+2}+\underset{i<j}{}\text{tr}_j(B_{ji}\varphi _iC_{ij})+\text{tr}_i(C_{ij}\varphi _jB_{ji})\right)}`$ (93)
where the measure is

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }dBdC=\underset{I}{}d\lambda _I\underset{I_1J_1}{\overset{M_1}{}}(\lambda _{I_1}^2\lambda _{J_1}^2)\underset{I_2J_2}{\overset{M_2}{}}(\lambda _{I_2}^2\lambda _{J_2}^2)\mathrm{}\underset{I_NJ_N}{\overset{M_N}{}}(\lambda _{I_N}^2\lambda _{J_N}^2)\underset{i<j}{}dB_{ji}dC_{ij}.$$
(94)
With the Vandermonde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ in the measure (94), one cannot go very far in perturbation theory. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(1)}`$ can be re-absorbed in the action; simply drop the determinant, and in effect change the $`\sigma _2`$-diagonal $`\varphi _i`$ matrices into some $`2M_i\times 2M_i`$ matrices $`\varphi _{ii}`$ with $`\lambda _{I_i}`$’s as their eigenvalues. At the end, the partition function will be

$$Z=\underset{i}{}d\varphi _{ii}\underset{i<j}{}dB_{ji}dC_{ij}\mathrm{exp}\left(W(\mathrm{\Phi })+\underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}\text{tr}_j(B_{ji}\varphi _{ii}C_{ij})+\text{tr}_i(C_{ij}\varphi _{jj}B_{ji})\right).$$
(95)
Noticing that $`B_{ji}=B_{ij}^T`$ and $`C_{ji}=C_{ij}^T`$ (as $`B`$ and $`C`$ are $`SO(2M)`$ Lie algebra valued), the ghost action can be written as

$$S_{\mathrm{gh}}=\frac{1}{2}B[\mathrm{\Phi },C],$$
(96)
which is the same action written in (13).