# Untitled Document

UCLA/99/TEP/3

Columbia/99/Math

LAX PAIRS AND SPECTRAL CURVES FOR CALOGERO-MOSER

AND SPIN CALOGERO-MOSER SYSTEMS <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>Research supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY-95-31023 and DMS-98-00783.

Eric D’Hoker<sup>1</sup> and D.H. Phong<sup>2</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Department of Physics

University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024

Institute for Theoretical Physics

University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106

<sup>2</sup> Department of Mathematics

Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

Abstract

We summarize recent results on the construction of Lax pairs with spectral parameter for the twisted and untwisted elliptic Calogero-Moser systems associated with arbitrary simple Lie algebras, their scaling limits to Toda systems, and their role in Seiberg-Witten theory. We extend part of this work by presenting a new parametrization for the spectral curves for elliptic spin Calogero-Moser systems associated with $`SL(N)`$.

Contribution to the issue of “Regular and Chaotic Dynamics”

dedicated to Professor J. Moser

on the occasion of his 70-th birthday

I. INTRODUCTION

Calogero-Moser systems are Hamiltonian systems with an amazingly rich structure. Recently, another remarkable property of these systems has been brought to light, namely their intimate connection with exact solutions of supersymmetric gauge theories.

The $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with a hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation was the first gauge theory to be linked with elliptic Calogero-Moser systems. In their 1995 work, based on several consistency checks, Donagi and Witten  had proposed that the Seiberg-Witten spectral curves for the low-energy exact solution of this theory were given by the spectral curves of a $`SU(N)`$ Hitchin system. Krichever in unpublished work, Gorsky and Nekrasov and Martinec  have recognized the $`SU(N)`$ Hitchin spectral curves as identical to the spectral curves for elliptic $`SU(N)`$ Calogero-Moser systems. That the $`SU(N)`$ elliptic Calogero-Moser curves do provide the Seiberg-Witten solution of the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory with matter in the adjoint representation was established by the authors in . In particular, it was shown in  that the resulting prepotential has the correct logarithmic singularities predicted by field theoretic perturbative calculations, and that it satisfies a renormalization group equation which determines explicitly instanton contributions to any order.

The major problem in Seiberg-Witten theory is to determine the spectral curves, and hence the integrable models, corresponding to an arbitrary asymptotically free or conformally invariant $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with gauge algebra $`𝒢`$, and matter hypermultiplets in a representation $`R`$ of $`𝒢`$. For reviews, see e.g. . It has been known now for a long time, thanks to the work of Olshanetsky and Perelomov , that Calogero-Moser systems can be defined for any simple Lie algebra<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>Other models associated to Lie algebras include the Toda systems, of which more will be said below, and the Ruijsenaars-Schneider systems, whose role in gauge theories is still obscure.. Olshanetsky and Perelomov also showed that the Calogero-Moser systems for classical Lie algebras were integrable, although the existence of a spectral curve (or Lax pair with spectral parameter) as well as the case of exceptional Lie algebras remained open. Thus several immediate questions were:

$``$ Does the elliptic Calogero-Moser system for general Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ admit a Lax pair with spectral parameter?

$``$ Does it correspond to the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with gauge algebra $`𝒢`$ and a hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation?

$``$ Can this correspondence be verified in the limiting cases when the mass $`m`$ of the hypermultiplet tends to $`0`$ and the gauge theory acquires an $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry and becomes exact, and in the limit $`m\mathrm{}`$, when the hypermultiplet decouples and the theory reduces to pure $`𝒩=2`$ Yang-Mills?

The answers to these questions turn out to be the following .

$``$ The elliptic Calogero-Moser systems defined by an arbitrary simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ do admit Lax pairs with spectral parameters. (In the case of $`E_8`$, we need to assume the existence of a cocycle).

$``$ The correspondence between elliptic $`𝒢`$ Calogero-Moser systems and $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`𝒢`$ gauge theories with matter in the adjoint representation is only correct when the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ is simply-laced. When $`𝒢`$ not simply-laced, we require new integrable models, namely the twisted elliptic Calogero-Moser systems introduced in .

$``$ The new twisted elliptic Calogero-Moser systems also admit a Lax pair with spectral parameter, except possibly in the case $`𝒢=G_2`$ .

$``$ In the scaling limit $`m=Mq^{\frac{1}{2}\delta }\mathrm{}`$, $`M`$ fixed, the twisted (respectively untwisted) elliptic $`𝒢`$ Calogero-Moser systems tend to the Toda system for $`(𝒢^{(1)})^{}`$ (respectively $`𝒢^{(1)}`$) for $`\delta =\frac{1}{h_𝒢^{}}`$ (respectively $`\delta =\frac{1}{h_𝒢}`$). Here $`h_𝒢`$ and $`h_𝒢^{}`$ are the Coxeter and the dual Coxeter numbers of $`𝒢`$ .

The main purpose of this paper is to review some of these developments. Although the case of the adjoint representation for arbitrary gauge algebras has now been solved, the correspondence between gauge theories and integrable models is still far from complete. In particular, one can wonder about the eventual role, if any, of other generalizations of elliptic Calogero-Moser systems such as the Ruijsenaars-Schneider systems  or the spin Calogero-Moser systems . Such questions require a better understanding of the spectral curves of these systems, and particularly of their parametrizations. Thus we have taken this opportunity to describe also a new parametrization for the spectral curves of spin Calogero-Moser systems. This new parametrization is suggestive of the order parameters for the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, and may be valuable in future developments. See also  for recent developments.

II. TWISTED AND UNTWISTED CALOGERO-MOSER SYSTEMS

The $`SU(N)`$ Elliptic Calogero-Moser System

The basic system in this paper is the elliptic Calogero-Moser system defined by the Hamiltonian

$$H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{}(x_ix_j)$$
$`(2.1)`$   
Here $`m`$ is a mass parameter, and $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ is the Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$-function, defined on a torus $`𝐂/(2\omega _1𝐙+2\omega _2𝐙)`$. As usual, we denote by $`\tau =\omega _2/\omega _1`$ the moduli of the torus, and set $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$. The well-known trigonometric and rational limits with respective potentials

$$\frac{1}{2}m^2\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{4\mathrm{sh}^2\frac{x_ix_j}{2}}\mathrm{and}\frac{1}{2}m^2\underset{ij}{}\frac{1}{(x_ix_j)^2}$$

arise in the limits $`\omega _1=i\pi ,\omega _2\mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2\mathrm{}`$. All these systems have been shown to be completely integrable in the sense of Liouville, i.e. they all admit a complete set of integrals of motion which are in involution .

Our considerations require however a notion of integrability which is in some sense more stringent, namely a Lax pair $`L(z)`$, $`M(z)`$ with spectral parameter $`z`$. Such a Lax pair was obtained by Krichever  in 1980. He showed that the Hamiltonian system (2.1) is equivalent to the Lax equation $`\dot{L}(z)=[L(z),M(z)]`$, with $`L(z)`$ and $`M(z)`$ given by the following $`N\times N`$ matrices

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill L_{ij}(z)=& p_i\delta _{ij}m(1\delta _{ij})\mathrm{\Phi }(x_ix_j,z)\hfill & \\ \hfill M_{ij}(z)=& m\delta _{ij}\underset{ki}{}\mathrm{}(x_ix_k)m(1\delta _{ij})\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x_ix_j,z).\hfill & (2.2)\hfill \end{array}$$

The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)=\frac{\sigma (zx)}{\sigma (z)\sigma (x)}e^{x\zeta (z)},$$
$`(2.3)`$   
where $`\sigma (z)`$, $`\zeta (z)`$ are the usual Weierstrass $`\sigma `$ and $`\zeta `$ functions on the torus $`𝐂/(2\omega _1𝐙+2\omega _2𝐙)`$. The function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)`$ satisfies the key functional equation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(y,z)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x,z)=(\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(y))\mathrm{\Phi }(x+y,z).$$
$`(2.4)`$   
It is well-known that functional equations of this form are required for the Hamilton equations of motion to be equivalent to the Lax equation $`\dot{L}(z)=[L(z),M(z)]`$ with a Lax pair of the form (2.2). Often, solutions had been obtained under additional parity assumptions in $`x`$ (and $`y`$), which prevent the existence of a spectral parameter. The solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)`$ with spectral parameter $`z`$ is obtained by dropping such parity assumptions for general $`z`$. It is a relatively recent result of Braden and Buchstaber  that, conversely, the functional equation (2.4) essentially determines $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)`$.

Calogero-Moser Systems defined by Lie Algebras

As Olshanetsky and Perelomov  realized very early on, the Hamiltonian system (2.1) is only one example of a whole series of Hamiltonian systems associated with each simple Lie algebra. More precisely, given any simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, Olshanetsky and Perelomov  introduced the system with Hamiltonian

$$H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}p_i^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha (𝒢)}{}m_{|\alpha |}^2\mathrm{}(\alpha x),$$
$`(2.5)`$   
where $`r`$ is the rank of $`𝒢`$, and $`(𝒢)`$ denotes the set of roots of $`𝒢`$. The $`m_{|\alpha |}`$ are mass parameters. To preserve the invariance of the Hamiltonian (2.5) under the Weyl group, the parameters $`m_{|\alpha |}`$ depend only on the length of $`|\alpha |`$ of the root $`\alpha `$, and not on the root $`\alpha `$ itself. In the case of $`A_{N1}=SU(N)`$, it is common practice to use $`N`$ pairs of dynamical variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$, since the roots of $`A_{N1}`$ lie conveniently on a hyperplane in $`𝐂^N`$. The dynamics of the system are unaffected if we shift all $`x_i`$ by a constant, and the number of degrees of freedom is effectively $`N1=r`$. Now the roots of $`SU(N)`$ are given by $`\alpha =e_ie_j`$, $`1i,jN`$, $`ij`$. Thus we recognize the original elliptic Calogero-Moser system as the special case of (2.5) corresponding to $`A_{N1}`$. As in the original case, the elliptic systems (2.5) admit rational and trigonometric limits. Olshanetsky and Perelomov succeeded in constructing a Lax pair for all these systems in the case of classical Lie algebras, albeit without spectral parameter.

Twisted Calogero-Moser Systems defined by Lie Algebras

It turns out that the Hamiltonian systems (2.5) are not the only natural extensions of the basic elliptic Calogero-Moser system. A subtlety arises for simple Lie algebras $`𝒢`$ which are not simply-laced, i.e., algebras which admit roots of uneven length. This is the case for the algebras $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$, $`G_2`$, and $`F_4`$ in Cartan’s classification. For these algebras, the following twisted elliptic Calogero-Moser systems were introduced by the authors in 

$$H_𝒢^{twisted}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}p_i^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha (𝒢)}{}m_{|\alpha |}^2\mathrm{}_{\nu (\alpha )}(\alpha x).$$
$`(2.6)`$   
Here the function $`\nu (\alpha )`$ depends only on the length of the root $`\alpha `$. If $`𝒢`$ is simply-laced, we set $`\nu (\alpha )=1`$ identically. Otherwise, for $`𝒢`$ non simply-laced, we set $`\nu (\alpha )=1`$ when $`\alpha `$ is a long root, $`\nu (\alpha )=2`$ when $`\alpha `$ is a short root and $`𝒢`$ is one of the algebras $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$, or $`F_4`$, and $`\nu (\alpha )=3`$ when $`\alpha `$ is a short root and $`𝒢=G_2`$. The twisted Weierstrass function $`\mathrm{}_\nu (z)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{}_\nu (z)=\underset{\sigma =0}{\overset{\nu 1}{}}\mathrm{}(z+2\omega _a\frac{\sigma }{\nu }),$$
$`(2.7)`$   
where $`\omega _a`$ is any of the half-periods $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, or $`\omega _1+\omega _2`$. Thus the twisted and untwisted Calogero-Moser systems coincide for $`𝒢`$ simply laced. The original motivation for twisted Calogero-Moser systems was based on their scaling limits (which will be discussed in the next section) . Another motivation based on the symmetries of Dynkin diagrams was proposed subsequently by Bordner, Sasaki, and Takasaki .

III. SCALING LIMITS OF CALOGERO-MOSER SYSTEMS

Results of Inozemtsev for $`A_n`$

For the standard elliptic Calogero-Moser systems corresponding to $`A_{N1}`$, Inozemtsev  has shown in the 1980’s that in the scaling limit

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m& =Mq^{\frac{1}{2N}},q0\hfill & (3.1)\hfill \\ \hfill x_i& =X_i2\omega _2\frac{i}{N},1iN\hfill & (3.2)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`M`$ is kept fixed, the elliptic $`A_{N1}`$ Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian tends to the following Hamiltonian

$$H_{Toda}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}e^{X_{i+1}X_i}+e^{X_1X_N}\right)$$
$`(3.3)`$   
The roots $`e_ie_{i+1}`$, $`1iN1`$, and $`e_Ne_1`$ can be recognized as the simple roots of the affine algebra $`A_{N1}^{(1)}`$. (For basic facts on affine algebras, we refer to ). Thus (3.3) can be recognized as the Hamiltonian of the Toda system defined by $`A_{N1}^{(1)}`$.

Scaling Limits based on the Coxeter Number

The key feature of the above scaling limit is the collapse of the sum over the entire root lattice of $`A_{N1}`$ in the Calogero-Moser Hamiltonian to the sum over only simple roots in the Toda Hamiltonian for the Kac-Moody algebra $`A_{N1}^{(1)}`$. Our task is to extend this mechanism to general Lie algebras. For this, we consider the following generalization of the preceding scaling limit

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m& =Mq^{\frac{1}{2}\delta },\hfill & (3.4)\hfill \\ \hfill x& =X2\omega _2\delta \rho ^{},\hfill & (3.5)\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`x=(x_i)`$, $`X=(X_i)`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ are $`r`$-dimensional vectors. The vector $`x`$ is the dynamical variable of the Calogero-Moser system. The parameters $`\delta `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ depend on the algebra $`𝒢`$ and are yet to be chosen. As for $`M`$ and $`X`$, they have the same interpretation as earlier, namely as respectively the mass parameter and the dynamical variables of the limiting system. Setting $`\omega _1=i\pi `$, the contribution of each root $`\alpha `$ to the Calogero-Moser potential can be expressed as

$$m^2\mathrm{}(\alpha x)=\frac{1}{2}M^2\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{2\delta \omega _2}}{\mathrm{ch}(\alpha x2n\omega _2)1}$$
$`(3.6)`$   
It suffices to consider positive roots $`\alpha `$. We shall also assume that $`0\delta \alpha \rho ^{}1`$. The contributions of the $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ summands in (3.6) are proportional to $`e^{2\omega _2(\delta \delta \alpha \rho ^{})}`$ and $`e^{2\omega _2(\delta 1+\delta \alpha \rho ^{})}`$ respectively. Thus the existence of a finite scaling limit requires that

$$\delta \delta \alpha \rho ^{}1\delta .$$
$`(3.7)`$   
Let $`\alpha _i`$, $`1ir`$ be a basis of simple roots for $`𝒢`$. If we want all simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ to survive in the limit, we must require that

$$\alpha _i\rho ^{}=1,1ir.$$
$`(3.8)`$   
This condition characterizes the vector $`\rho ^{}`$ as the level vector. Next, the second condition in (3.7) can be rewritten as $`\delta \{1+max_\alpha (\alpha \rho ^{})\}1`$. But

$$h_𝒢=1+max_\alpha (\alpha \rho ^{})$$
$`(3.9)`$   
is precisely the Coxeter number of $`𝒢`$, and we must have $`\delta \frac{1}{h_𝒢}`$. Thus when $`\delta <\frac{1}{h_𝒢}`$, the contributions of all the roots except for the simple roots of $`𝒢`$ tend to $`0`$. On the other hand, when $`\delta =\frac{1}{h_𝒢}`$, the highest root $`\alpha _0`$ realizing the maximum over $`\alpha `$ in (3.9) survives. Since $`\alpha _0`$ is the additional simple root for the affine Lie algebra $`𝒢^{(1)}`$, we arrive in this way at the following theorem, which was proved in 

Theorem 1. Under the limit (3.4-3.5), with $`\delta =\frac{1}{h_𝒢}`$, and $`\rho ^{}`$ given by the level vector, the Hamiltonian of the elliptic Calogero-Moser system for the simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ tends to the Hamiltonian of the Toda system for the affine Lie algebra $`𝒢^{(1)}`$.

Scaling Limit based on the Dual Coxeter Number

If the Seiberg-Witten spectral curve of the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with a hypermultiplet in the adjoint representation is to be realized as the spectral curve for a Calogero-Moser system, the parameter $`m`$ in the Calogero-Moser system should correspond to the mass of the hypermultiplet. In the gauge theory, the dependence of the coupling constant on the mass $`m`$ is given by

$$\tau =\frac{i}{2\pi }h_𝒢^{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m^2}{M^2}m=Mq^{\frac{1}{2h_𝒢^{}}}$$
$`(3.10)`$   
where $`h_𝒢^{}`$ is the quadratic Casimir of the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$. This shows that the correct physical limit, expressing the decoupling of the hypermultiplet as it becomes infinitely massive, is given by (3.4), but with $`\delta =\frac{1}{h_𝒢^{}}`$. To establish a closer parallel with our preceding discussion, we recall that the quadratic Casimir $`h_𝒢^{}`$ coincides with the dual Coxeter number of $`𝒢`$, defined by

$$h_𝒢^{}=1+max_\alpha (\alpha ^{}\rho ),$$
$`(3.11)`$   
where $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{2\alpha }{\alpha ^2}`$ is the coroot associated to $`\alpha `$, and $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha >0}\alpha `$ is the well-known Weyl vector.

For simply laced Lie algebras $`𝒢`$ (ADE algebras), we have $`h_𝒢=h_𝒢^{}`$, and the preceding scaling limits apply. However, for non simply-laced algebras ($`B_n`$, $`C_n`$, $`G_2`$, $`F_4`$), we have $`h_𝒢>h_𝒢^{}`$, and our earlier considerations show that the untwisted elliptic Calogero-Moser Hamiltonians do not tend to a finite limit under (3.10), $`q0`$, $`M`$ is kept fixed. This is why the twisted Hamiltonian systems (2.6) have to be introduced. The twisting produces precisely to an improvement in the asymptotic behavior of the potential which allows a finite, non-trivial limit. More precisely, we can write

$$m^2\mathrm{}_\nu (x)=\frac{c_\nu }{2}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{ch}\nu (x2n\omega _2)1},$$
$`(3.12)`$   
where $`c_\nu =\nu ^2`$. Setting $`x=X2\omega _2\delta ^{}\rho `$, we obtain the following asymptotics

$$m^2\mathrm{}_\nu (x)=c_\nu M^2\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\omega _2(\delta ^{}\alpha ^{}\rho \delta ^{})\alpha ^{}X}+e^{2\omega _2(1\delta ^{}\alpha ^{}\rho \delta ^{})+\alpha ^{}X},\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \text{ is long;}\hfill \\ e^{2\omega _2(\delta ^{}\alpha ^{}\rho \delta ^{})\alpha ^{}X},\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \text{ is short.}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.13)`$   
This leads to the following theorem 

Theorem 2. Under the limit $`x=X+2\omega _2\frac{1}{h_𝒢^{}}\rho `$, $`m=Mq^{\frac{1}{2h_𝒢^{}}}`$, with $`\rho `$ the Weyl vector and $`q0`$, the Hamiltonian of the twisted elliptic Calogero-Moser system for the simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ tends to the Hamiltonian of the Toda system for the affine Lie algebra $`(𝒢^{(1)})^{}`$.

This suggests that the twisted Calogero-Moser system is the integrable model solving the N=2 supersymmetric gauge theory with gauge algebra $`𝒢`$ since, in view of the work of Martinec and Warner , it is the Toda system for $`(𝒢^{(1)})^{}`$ which solves the corresponding pure Yang-Mills theory.

So far we have discussed only the scaling limits of the Hamiltonians. However, similar arguments show that the Lax pairs constructed below also have finite, non-trivial scaling limits whenever this is the case for the Hamiltonians. The spectral parameter $`z`$ should scale as $`e^z=Zq^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, with $`Z`$ fixed. The parameter $`Z`$ can be identified with the loop group parameter for the resulting affine Toda system.

IV. LAX PAIRS FOR CALOGERO-MOSER SYSTEMS

The General Ansatz

Let the rank of $`𝒢`$ be $`n`$, and $`d`$ be its dimension. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a representation of $`𝒢`$ of dimension $`N`$, of weights $`\lambda _I`$, $`1IN`$. Let $`u_I𝐂^N`$ be the weights of the fundamental representation of $`GL(N,𝐂)`$. Project orthogonally the $`u_I`$’s onto the $`\lambda _I`$’s as

$$su_I=\lambda _I+u_I,\lambda _Iv_J.$$
$`(4.1)`$   
It is easily verified that $`s^2`$ is the second Dynkin index. Then

$$\alpha _{IJ}=\lambda _I\lambda _J$$
$`(4.2)`$   
is a weight of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ associated to the root $`u_Iu_J`$ of $`GL(N,𝐂)`$. The Lax pairs for both untwisted and twisted Calogero-Moser systems will be of the form

$$L=P+X,M=D+X,$$
$`(4.3)`$   
where the matrices $`P,X,D`$, and $`Y`$ are given by

$$X=\underset{IJ}{}C_{IJ}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(\alpha _{IJ},z)E_{IJ},Y=\underset{IJ}{}C_{IJ}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}^{}(\alpha _{IJ},z)E_{IJ}$$
$`(4.4)`$   
and by

$$P=ph,D=d(h\stackrel{~}{h})+\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
$`(4.5)`$   
Here $`h`$ is in a Cartan subalgebra $`_𝒢`$ for $`𝒢`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is in the Cartan-Killing orthogonal complement of $`_𝒢`$ inside a Cartan subalgebra $``$ for $`GL(N,𝐂)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in the centralizer of $`_𝒢`$ in $`GL(N,𝐂)`$. The functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(x,z)`$ and the coefficients $`C_{IJ}`$ are yet to be determined. We begin by stating the necessary and sufficient conditions for the pair $`L(z)`$, $`M(z)`$ of (4.1) to be a Lax pair for the (twisted or untwisted) Calogero-Moser systems. For this, it is convenient to introduce the following notation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}& =\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(\alpha _{IJ}x)\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{}_{IJ}^{}& =\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(\alpha _{IJ}x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{JI}^{}(\alpha _{IJ}x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(\alpha _{IJ}x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{JI}^{}(\alpha _{IJ}x,z).\hfill & (4.6)\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the Lax equation $`\dot{L}(z)=[L(z),M(z)]`$ implies the Calogero-Moser system if and only if the following three identities are satisfied

$$\underset{IJ}{}C_{IJ}C_{JI}\mathrm{}_{IJ}^{}\alpha _{IJ}=s^2\underset{\alpha (𝒢)}{}m_{|\alpha |}^2\mathrm{}_{\nu (\alpha )}(\alpha x)$$
$`(4.7)`$   
$$\underset{IJ}{}C_{IJ}C_{JI}\mathrm{}_{IJ}^{}(v_Iv_J)=0$$
$`(4.8)`$   
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{KI,J}{}C_{IK}C_{KJ}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{IK}\mathrm{\Phi }_{KJ}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IK}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{KJ})& =sC_{IJ}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}d(v_Iv_J)+\underset{KI,J}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{IJ}C_{KJ}\mathrm{\Phi }_{KJ}\hfill & \\ & \underset{KI,J}{}C_{IK}\mathrm{\Phi }_{IK}\mathrm{\Delta }_{KJ}\hfill & (4.9)\hfill \end{array}$$

The following theorem was established in :

Theorem 3. A representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}`$, and coefficients $`C_{IJ}`$ with a spectral parameter $`z`$ satisfying (4.7-4.9) can be found for all twisted and untwisted elliptic Calogero-Moser systems associated with a simple Lie algebra $`𝒢`$, except possibly in the case of twisted $`G_2`$. In the case of $`E_8`$, we have to assume the existence of a $`\pm 1`$ cocycle.

Lax Pairs for Untwisted Calogero-Moser Systems

We now describe some important features of the Lax pairs we obtain in this manner.

$``$ In the case of the untwisted Calogero-Moser systems, we can choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(x,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)`$, $`\mathrm{}_{IJ}(x)=\mathrm{}(x)`$ for all $`𝒢`$.

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for all $`𝒢`$, except for $`E_8`$.

$``$ For $`A_n`$, the Lax pair (2.2-2.3) corresponds to the choice of the fundamental representation for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A different Lax pair can be found by taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be the antisymmetric representation.

$``$ For the $`BC_n`$ system, the Lax pair is obtained by imbedding $`B_n`$ in $`GL(N,𝐂)`$ with $`N=2n+1`$. When $`z=\omega _a`$ (half-period), the Lax pair obtained this way reduces to the Lax pair obtained by Olshanetsky and Perelomov .

$``$ For the $`B_n`$ and $`D_n`$ systems, additional Lax pairs with spectral parameter can be found by taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be the spinor representation.

$``$ For $`G_2`$, a first Lax pair with spectral parameter can be obtained by the above construction with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ chosen to be the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$ of $`G_2`$. A second Lax pair with spectral parameter can be obtained by restricting the 8 of $`B_3`$ to the $`\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`G_2`$.

$``$ For $`F_4`$, a Lax pair can be obtained by taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of $`F_4`$, viewed as the restriction of the 27 of $`E_6`$ to its $`F_4`$ subalgebra.

$``$ For $`E_6`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the 27 representation.

$``$ For $`E_7`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the 56 representation.

$``$ For $`E_8`$, a Lax pair with spectral parameter can be constructed with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by the 248 representation, if coefficients $`c_{IJ}=\pm 1`$ exist with the following cocycle conditions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill c(\lambda ,\lambda \delta )c(\lambda \delta ,\mu )=& c(\lambda ,\mu +\delta )c(\mu +\delta ,\mu )\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{when}\delta \lambda =\delta \mu =1,\lambda \mu =0\hfill & \\ \hfill c(\lambda ,\mu )c(\lambda \delta ,\mu )=& c(\lambda ,\lambda \delta )\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{when}\delta \lambda =\lambda \mu =1,\delta \mu =0\hfill & \\ \hfill c(\lambda ,\mu )c(\lambda ,\lambda \mu )=& c(\lambda \mu ,\mu )\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{when}\lambda \mu =1.\hfill & (4.10)\hfill \end{array}$$

The matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the Lax pair is then the $`8\times 8`$ matrix given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}=& \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta \beta _a=1}{\delta \beta _b=1}}{}\frac{m_2}{2}\left(c(\beta _a,\delta )c(\delta ,\beta _b)+c(\beta _a,\beta _a\delta )c(\beta _a\delta ,\beta _b)\right)\mathrm{}(\delta x)\hfill & \\ & \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta \beta _a=1}{\delta \beta _b=1}}{}\frac{m_2}{2}\left(c(\beta _a,\delta )c(\delta ,\beta _b)+c(\beta _a,\beta _a\delta )c(\beta _a\delta ,\beta _b)\right)\mathrm{}(\delta x)\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_{aa}=& \underset{\beta _a\delta =1}{}m_2\mathrm{}(\delta x)+2m_2\mathrm{}(\beta _ax),\hfill & (4.11)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\beta _a`$, $`1a8`$, is a maximal set of 8 mutually orthogonal roots.

We note that recently Lax pairs of root type have been considered  which correspond, in the above Ansatz (4.3-5), to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equal to the adjoint representation of $`𝒢`$ and the coefficients $`C_{IJ}`$ vanishing for $`I`$ or $`J`$ associated with zero weights. This construction yields another Lax pair for the case $`E_8`$. Spectral curves for certain gauge theories with matter in the adjoint representation have also been proposed in  and , based on branes and M-theory.

Lax Pairs for Twisted Calogero-Moser Systems

Recall that the twisted and untwisted Calogero-Moser systems differ only for non-simply laced Lie algebras, namely $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$, $`G_2`$ and $`F_4`$. These are the only algebras we discuss in this paragraph. The construction (4.3-4.9) gives then Lax pairs for all of them, with the possible exception of twisted $`G_2`$. Unlike the case of untwisted Lie algebras however, the functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}`$ have to be chosen with care, and differ for each algebra. More specifically,

$``$ For $`B_n`$, the Lax pair is of dimension $`N=2n`$, admits two independent couplings $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(x,z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z),\hfill & \text{if }IJ0,\pm n\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2(\frac{1}{2}x,z),\hfill & \text{if }IJ=\pm n\hfill \end{array}.$$
$`(4.12)`$   
Here a new function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x,z)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2(\frac{1}{2}x,z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{1}{2}x,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{1}{2}x+\omega _1,z)}{\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _1,z)}$$
$`(4.13)`$   
$``$ For $`C_n`$, the Lax pair is of dimension $`N=2n+2`$, admits one independent coupling $`m_2`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(x,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x+\omega _{IJ},z),$$

where $`\omega _{IJ}`$ are given by

$$\omega _{IJ}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }IJ=1,2,\mathrm{},2n+1\text{;}\hfill \\ \omega _2,\hfill & \text{if }1I2n,J=2n+2\text{;}\hfill \\ \omega _2,\hfill & \text{if }1J2n,I=2n+2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.14)`$   
$``$ For $`F_4`$, the Lax pair is of dimension $`N=24`$, two independent couplings $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\lambda \mu }(x,z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z),\hfill & \text{if }\lambda \mu =0\text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_1(x,z),\hfill & \text{if }\lambda \mu =\frac{1}{2}\text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_2(\frac{1}{2}x,z),\hfill & \text{if }\lambda \mu =1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.15)`$   
where the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x,z)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x,z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(x,z)e^{\pi i\zeta (z)+\eta _1z}\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\omega _1,z)$$
$`(4.16)`$   
Here it is more convenient to label the entries of the Lax pair directly by the weights $`\lambda =\lambda _I`$ and $`\mu =\lambda _J`$ instead of $`I`$ and $`J`$.

$``$ For $`G_2`$, candidate Lax pairs can be defined in the 6 and 8 representations of $`G_2`$, but it is still unknown whether elliptic functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{IJ}(x,z)`$ exist which satisfy the required identities.

V. CALOGERO-MOSER AND SPIN CALOGERO-MOSER

SPECTRAL CURVES

A Lax pair $`L(z),M(z)`$ with spectral parameter gives rise to a spectral curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(k,z);R(k,z)det(kIL(z))=0\}$$
$`(5.1)`$   
Since the matrix $`L(z)`$ is expressed in terms of the dynamical variables of the Calogero-Moser system, the family of spectral curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be parametrized by constants of motion of the system. However, to make contact with supersymmetric gauge theories, it is important to find parametrizations of the spectral curves in terms of the order parameters of the gauge theory. This problem was solved for the $`A_{N1}`$ Calogero-Moser systems in . Here we extend the solution given there to the more general class of $`SL(N,𝐂)`$ spin Calogero-Moser systems.

The $`SL(N,𝐂)`$ spin Calogero-Moser system introduced in  is the system with Hamiltonian

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2\frac{1}{2}m^2\underset{ij}{}(b_i^{}a_j)(b_j^{}a_i)V(x_ix_j)$$
$`(5.2)`$   
The terms $`a_i=(a_i)_\alpha `$, $`b_i=(b_i)^\alpha `$ are respectively $`l`$-dimensional vectors and $`l`$-dimensional covectors, and $`b_i^{}a_j`$ is their scalar product. The system (5.2) admits a Lax pair $`L(z)`$, $`M(z)`$ which is a generalization of (2.2). In particular, $`L(z)`$ is given by

$$L_{ij}(z)=p_i\delta _{ij}m(1\delta _{ij})f_{ij}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_ix_j,z)$$
$`(5.3)`$   
with

$$f_{ij}=b_i^{}a_j,f_{ii}=m.$$
$`(5.4)`$   
Krichever et al. have shown that the corresponding family of spectral curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`Nl\frac{1}{2}l(l1)`$-dimensional family of Riemann surfaces of genus $`g=Nl+1\frac{1}{2}l(l+1)`$. The defining equation $`R(k,z)=0`$ can be expressed in the form

$$R(k,z)=k^N+\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}r_i(z)k^i$$

where $`r_i(z)`$, $`0iN1`$, is an elliptic function with a pole of order $`Ni`$. Since elliptic functions can be expanded linearly in terms of $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}(z)`$, the family of spectral curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be parametrized by the coefficients of $`r_i(z)`$ in such an expansion. The number of these coefficients exceeds $`Nl\frac{1}{2}l(l1)`$ however, and Krichever et al.  show that the correct number of parameters can be obtained by imposing linear constraints on the coefficients.

We present now a different parametrization of the spectral curves of the spin Calogero-Moser systems, motivated by the order parameters of $`N=2`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories. As in , we introduce the functions $`h_n(z)`$ by

$$h_n(z)=\frac{_z^n\theta _1(\frac{z}{2\omega _1}|\tau )}{\theta _1(\frac{z}{2\omega _1}|\tau )},n𝐍.$$
$`(5.5)`$   
and set

$$f(k,z)=R(k+mh_1(z),z).$$
$`(5.6)`$   
Theorem 4. The function $`f(k,z)`$ can be expressed as

$$f(k,z)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{l}{}}_z^{p1}\left(\frac{\theta _1(\frac{1}{2\omega _1}(zm\frac{}{k})|\tau )}{\theta _1(\frac{1}{2\omega _1}|\tau )}H_p(k)\right)$$
$`(5.7)`$   
where $`H_p(k)`$ is a polynomial in $`k`$ of degree $`Np+1`$, for $`1pl`$.

The polynomial $`H_1(k)`$ is monic because $`R(k,z)`$ and $`f(k,z)`$ are. As for the polynomials $`H_p(k)`$ with $`p>1`$, their terms of order $`k^0`$ do not contribute in (5.7) and may be taken to be $`0`$. Thus we note that the total number of parameters for the $`l`$ monic polynomials $`H_p(k)`$ is $`_{p=1}^l(Np+1)=lN\frac{1}{2}l(l1)`$, which is indeed the dimension of the family of spectral curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the $`SL(N,𝐂)`$ spin Calogero-Moser system.

Proof of Theorem 4. It is easily seen from the transformation properties of $`h_1(z)`$ that the transformation properties for $`f(k,z)`$ are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f(k,z+2\omega _1)=& f(k,z)\hfill & \\ \hfill f(k,z+2\omega _2)=& f(k\beta m,z),\beta =\frac{i\pi }{\omega _1}\hfill & (5.8)\hfill \end{array}$$

Furthermore, the function $`f(k,z)`$ has poles at $`z=0`$, with the residue a polynomial in $`k`$ of degree $`Np`$ at a pole of order $`p`$. Now the functions $`h_n(z)`$ satisfy the monodromy conditions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h_n(z+2\omega _1)=& h(z)\hfill & \\ \hfill h_n(z+2\omega _2)=& \underset{p=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ p\end{array}\right)\beta ^{np}h_p(z).\hfill & (5.9)\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that the monodromies for their derivatives are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _z^sh_n(z+2\omega _1)=& _z^sh(z)\hfill & \\ \hfill _z^sh_n(z+2\omega _2)=& \underset{p=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ p\end{array}\right)\beta ^{np}_z^sh_p(z).\hfill & (5.10)\hfill \end{array}$$

(The $`p=0`$ term in the second identity does not contribute since $`h_0(z)=1`$.) Note also that $`_zh_1(z)=_z^2\mathrm{log}\theta _1(\frac{z}{2\omega _1}|\tau )=4\omega _1^2\mathrm{}(z)`$ is doubly periodic. Thus we may set

$$f(k,z)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{Np+1}{}}Q_{p,Np+1n}(k)_z^{p1}h_n(z).$$
$`(5.11)`$   
Next, we translate the monodromy transformations for $`f(k,z)`$ in terms of the polynomials $`Q_{p,Np+1n}(k)`$. We may write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f(k,z)=& \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}h_n(z)Q_{1,Nn}(k)\hfill & \\ & +\underset{p=2}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{Np+1}{}}_z^{p1}h_n(z)Q_{p,Np+1n}(k)\hfill & \\ \hfill f(k,z+2\omega _2)=& \underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ s\end{array}\right)\beta ^{ns}h_1(z)Q_{1,Nn}(k)\hfill & \\ & +\underset{p=2}{\overset{l}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{Np+1}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ s\end{array}\right)\beta ^{ns}_z^{p1}h_s(z)Q_{p,Np+1n}(k).\hfill & (5.12)\hfill \end{array}$$

But the functions $`h_n(z)`$, $`0nN`$, and $`_z^{p1}h_n(z)`$, $`1nN`$, $`2pl`$, are linearly independent. Thus we may equate coefficients and obtain for $`Q_{1,Ns}(k)`$ the relation

$$Q_{1,Ns}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ s\end{array}\right)\beta ^{ns}Q_{1,Nn}(k)$$
$`(5.13)`$   
Changing $`Nsp`$ and $`Nnn`$, this can be rewritten as

$$Q_{1,p}(k\beta m)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}Nn\\ pn\end{array}\right)\beta ^{pn}Q_{1,n}(k)$$
$`(5.14)`$   
This is a relation of the form studied in ,(3.9). We recall briefly the argument: the equation (5.14) is equivalent to the equation $`H(t+\beta ,k+\beta m)=H(t,k)`$ where $`H(t,k)=_{p=0}^Nt^{Np}Q_{1,p}(k)`$ is the generating function. Since $`H(t,k)`$ is a polynomial in both $`t`$ and $`k`$, this means that $`H(t,k)=H(0,ktm)`$ depends only on $`ktm`$. Setting $`H_1(k)=H(0,k)`$, it follows easily that

$$Q_{1,Nn}(k)=\frac{(m)^n}{n!}H_1^{(n)}(k).$$
$`(5.15)`$   
Next, we solve for the higher order terms $`Q_{p,Np+1s}(k)`$. They satisfy

$$Q_{p,Np+1s}(k\beta m)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{Np+1}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ s\end{array}\right)\beta ^{ns}Q_{p,Np+1n}(k)$$
$`(5.16)`$   
This is again a relation of the form (5.14), with $`N`$ replaced by $`Np+1`$. Thus there is again a polynomial $`H_p(k)`$, of degree $`Np+1`$ so that

$$Q_{p,Np+1}(k)=\frac{(m)^s}{s!}H_p^{(s)}(k).$$
$`(5.17)`$   
Substituting in (5.11), and noting that

$$\frac{\theta _1(\frac{1}{2\omega _1}(zm\frac{}{k})|\tau )}{\theta _1(\frac{z}{2\omega _1}|\tau )}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h_n(z)\frac{(m)^n}{n!}(\frac{}{k})^n,$$
$`(5.18)`$   
we obtain the desired expression (5.7).

Evidently, the coefficients of the polynomials $`H_p(k)`$ (or equivalently, their zeroes) are integrals of motion of the spin Calogero-Moser system. It would be valuable to express them directly in terms of the dynamical variables $`(p_i,x_i)`$ of the system. For the $`SU(N)`$ Calogero-Moser system, this problem was solved in .

Finally, we would like to note also that in the simpler case of the $`SU(N)`$ Calogero-Moser system, an alternative derivation of the parametrization in  is now available . It would be interesting to explore also generalizations of this new derivation.

REFERENCES

 Donagi, R. and E. Witten, “Supersymmetric Yang-Mills and integrable systems”, Nucl. Phys. B 460 (1996) 288-334, hep-th/9510101.

 Gorsky, A. and N. Nekrasov, “Elliptic Calogero-Moser systems from two-dimensional current algebra”, hep-th/9401021; N. Nekrasov, “Holomorphic bundles and many-body systems”, Comm. Math. Phys. 180 (1996) 587; Martinec, E., “Integrable structures in supersymmetric gauge and string theory”, hep-th/9510204.

 D’Hoker, E. and D.H. Phong, “Calogero-Moser systems in $`SU(N)`$ Seiberg-Witten theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 513 (1998) 405-444, hep-th/9709053.

 Krichever, I.M. and D.H. Phong, “Symplectic forms in the theory of solitons”, hep-th/9708170, to appear in Surveys in Differential Geometry, Vol. III.

 Lerche, W., “Introduction to Seiberg-Witten theory and its stringy origins”, Proceedings of the Spring School and Workshop on String Theory, ICTP, Trieste (1996), hep-th/9611190, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. B 55 (1997) 83.

 Marshakov, A., “On integrable systems and supersymmetric gauge theories”, Theor. Math. Phys. 112 (1997) 791-826, hep-th/9702083.

 Marshakov, A., A. Mironov, and A. Morozov, “WDVV-like equations in N=2 SUSY Yang-Mills theory”, Phys. Lett. B 389 (1996) 43, hep-th/9607109; “More evidence for the WDVV equations in N=2 SUSY Yang-Mills theory”, hep-th/9701123.

 Olshanetsky, M.A. and A.M. Perelomov, “Completely integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with semisimple Lie algebras”, Inventiones Math. 37 (1976) 93-108.

 Olshanetsky, M.A. and A.M. Perelomov, “Classical integrable finite-dimensional systems related to Lie algebras”, Phys. Rep. 71 C (1981) 313-400.

 D’Hoker, E. and D.H. Phong, “Calogero-Moser Lax pairs with spectral parameter for general Lie algebras”, Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 537-610, hep-th/9804124.

 D’Hoker, E. and D.H. Phong, “Calogero-Moser and Toda systems for twisted and untwisted affine Lie algebras”, Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 611-640, hep-th/9804125.

 D’Hoker, E. and D.H. Phong, “Spectral curves for super Yang-Mills with adjoint hypermultiplet for general Lie algebras”, Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 697-719, hep-th/9804126.

 Krichever, I.M. and A. Zabrodin, “Spin generalizations of the spin Ruijsenaars-Schneider model, non-abelian 2D Toda chain, and representations of the Sklyanin algebra”, hep-th/9505039.

 Ruijsenaars, S.N.M. and H. Schneider, “A new class of integrable systems and its relation to soliton equations”, Ann. Phys. (NY) 170 (1986) 370-405; S.N.M Ruijsenaars, Comm. Math. Phys. 110 (1987) 191; see also A. Gorsky and N. Nekrasov, “Relativistic Calogero-Moser Model as a gauged WZW model”, Nucl. Phys. B436 (1995) 582, hep-th/9401017; H.W. Braden and R. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 97 (1997) 1003.

 Krichever,I.M., O. Babelon, E. Billey, and M. Talon, “Spin generalization of the Calogero-Moser system and the matrix KP equation”, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 170 (1995) 83-119; J.A. Minahan and A.P. Polychronakos, “Integrable systems for particles with internal degrees of freedom”, Phys. Lett. B302 (1993) 265; “Interacting Fermion Systems from Two Dimensional QCD”, Phys. Lett. B326 (1994) 288, hep-th/9309044; A.P. Polychronakos, “Exchange Operator Formalism for Integrable Systems of Particles”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 703, hep-th/9202057; “Generalized Statistics in one dimension”, hep-th/9902157.

 Calogero, F., “Exactly solvable one-dimensional many-body problems”, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 13 (1975) 411-416.

 Moser, J., “Three integrable Hamiltonian systems connected with isospectral deformations”, Advances Math. 16 (1975) 197.

 Krichever, I.M., “Elliptic solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation and integrable systems of particles”, Funct. Anal. Appl. 14 (1980) 282-290.

 Braden, H.W. and V.M. Buchstaber, “The general analytic solution of a functional equation of addition type”, Siam J. Math. anal. 28 (1997) 903-923.

 Bordner, A., R. Sasaki, and K. Takasaki, “Calogero-Moser systems II: symmetries and foldings”, hep-th/9809068; A. Bordner and R. Sasaki, “Calogero-Moser systems III: Elliptic Potentials and Twisting, hep-th/9812232.

 Inozemtsev, I., “Lax representation with spectral parameter on a torus for integrable particle systems”, Lett. Math. Phys. 17 (1989) 11-17.

 Inozemtsev, I., “The finite Toda lattices”, Comm. Math. Phys. 121 (1989) 628-638.

 Goddard, P. and D. Olive, “Kac-Moody and Virasoro algebras in relation to quantum physics”, International J. Mod. Phys. A, Vol. I (1986) 303-414.

 Martinec, E. and N. Warner, “Integrable systems and supersymmetric gauge theories”, Nucl. Phys. B 459 (1996) 97-112, hep-th/9509161.

 Bordner, A., E. Corrigan, and R. Sasaki, “Calogero-Moser systems: a new formulation”, hep-th/9805106.

 Uranga, A.M., “Towards mass deformed N=4 $`SO(N)`$ and $`Sp(K)`$ gauge theories from brane configurations”, Nucl. Phys. B 526 (1998) 241-277, hep-th/9803054.

 Yokono, T., “Orientifold four plane in brane configurations and N=4 $`USp(2N)`$ and $`SO(2N)`$ theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 532 (1998) 210-226, hep-th/9803123.

 D’Hoker, E. and D.H. Phong, “Order parameters, free fermions, and conservation laws for Calogero-Moser systems”, hep-th/9808156, to appear in Asian J. Math.

 Vaninsky, K., “On explicit parametrization of spectral curves for Moser-Calogero particles and its applications”, December 1998 preprint.

 Nekrasov, N., Nucl. Phys. B531 (1998) 323; H.W. Braden, A. Marshakov, A. Mironov and A. Morozov, “The Ruijsenaars-Schneider Model in the Context of Seiberg-Witten Theory”, hep-th/9902205.