ScalingStacks

4.7 Monodromy representation [04Q9]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

4.7 Monodromy representation

We study the monodromy representation of the integral affine structure induce by π\pi on Sk⁡(X)∖Γ\Sk(X)\setminus\Gamma; we exhibit the explicit computations along loops in a neighborhood of the vertices p234p_{234} and p24p_{24}, as all the others are analogous. We then compare the matrices we obtain with the ones obtained in various constructions existing in the mirror symmetry literature.

Monodromy near p234p_{234}

We denote by CC the stratum curve D234=D2∩D3∩D4D_{234}=D_{2}\cap D_{3}\cap D_{4}, by τC\tau_{C} the corresponding 22-dimensional face, and by q1=C∩D1q_{1}=C\cap D_{1} and q5=C∩D5q_{5}=C\cap D_{5} the two components of the boundary of CC. We set Ui=Int​(τp1)∪Int​(τp5)∪Star⁡(vi)′U_{i}=\textrm{Int}(\tau_{p_{1}})\cup\textrm{Int}(\tau_{p_{5}})\cup\Star(v_{i})^{\prime}, for i=2,3,4i=2,3,4. The integral affine structure induced by π\pi over UiU_{i} identifies Star⁡(τC)\Star(\tau_{C}) with the 33-dimensional subset of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with vertices

v1=(1,0,0),v2=(0,1,0),v3=(0,0,1),v4=(0,0,0)v_{1}=(1,0,0),\quad v_{2}=(0,1,0),\quad v_{3}=(0,0,1),\quad v_{4}=(0,0,0)
v5=−v1−∑j=24(C⋅Dj)​vj=(−1,−(C⋅D2),−(C⋅D3))={(−1,4,−1) if ​i=2(−1,−1,4) if ​i=3(−1,−1,−1) if ​i=4.v_{5}=-v_{1}-\sum_{j=2}^{4}(C\cdot D_{j})v_{j}=\Big(-1,-(C\cdot D_{2}),-(C\cdot D_{3})\Big)=\begin{cases}(-1,4,-1)&\text{ if }i=2\\ (-1,-1,4)&\text{ if }i=3\\ (-1,-1,-1)&\text{ if }i=4.\\ \end{cases}

The intersection numbers (C⋅Dj)(C\cdot D_{j}) are computed in Section 4.5, accordingly to the minimal model whose Berkovich retraction induces the integral affine structure on each UiU_{i} for i=2,3,4i=2,3,4; for instance, π\pi coincides with ρ𝒳1345\rho_{\mathscr{X}_{1345}} over U2U_{2}, so (C⋅Dj)=(C⋅Dj)𝒳1345(C\cdot D_{j})=(C\cdot D_{j})_{\mathscr{X}_{1345}} on U2U_{2}.

There are three edges in Γ\Gamma having the vertex p234p_{234} as endpoint. We consider the monodromy along the three corresponding loops, which are oriented as described in Section 3.2.

τC\tau_{C}p234p_{234}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}v1v_{1}γ234,24\gamma_{234,24}γ234,23\gamma_{234,23}γ234,34\gamma_{234,34}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}v1v_{1}

By Proposition 3.2.2, the monodromy matrices are

Tπ​(γ234,34)≕T234,34=(100010501),T234,23=(100510−501),T234,24=(100510001);T_{\pi}(\gamma_{234,34})\eqqcolon T_{{234,34}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 0&1&0\\ 5&0&1\end{matrix}\right),\hskip 15.0ptT_{{234,23}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&0\\ -5&0&1\end{matrix}\right),\hskip 15.0ptT_{{234,24}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&0\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right);

we notice that T234,34​T234,23=T234,24T_{{234,34}}T_{{234,23}}=T_{{234,24}}, a relation which also follows from the corresponding equality at the level of loops inside π1​(Sk⁡(X)∖Γ)\pi_{1}(\Sk(X)\setminus\Gamma).

Monodromy near p24p_{24}

We consider the vertex p24p_{24} of the graph Γ\Gamma. As p24p_{24} is the endpoint of three edges of Γ\Gamma, respectively contained in the 22-dimensional faces τD234\tau_{D_{234}}, τD124\tau_{D_{124}} and τD245\tau_{D_{245}}, we compute the monodromy along the three corresponding loops, whose orientation is prescribed in Section 3.2.

τD234\tau_{D_{234}}τD124\tau_{D_{124}}τD245\tau_{D_{245}}p24p_{24}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}v1v_{1}v2v_{2}v3v_{3}v4v_{4}v5v_{5}v1v_{1}γ234,24\gamma_{234,24}γ124,24\gamma_{124,24}γ245,24\gamma_{245,24}

For i=2,4i=2,4, the integral affine structure induced by π\pi over Star⁡(vi)′\Star(v_{i})^{\prime} identifies Star⁡(τD234)\Star(\tau_{D_{234}}) with the 33-dimensional subset of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with vertices

v1=\displaystyle v_{1}= (1,0,0),v2=(0,1,0),v3=(0,0,1),v4=(0,0,0),\displaystyle(1,0,0),\quad v_{2}=(0,1,0),\quad v_{3}=(0,0,1),\quad v_{4}=(0,0,0),
v5=\displaystyle v_{5}= −v1−(D234⋅D2)​v2−(D234⋅D3)​v3−(D234⋅D4)​v4=\displaystyle-v_{1}-(D_{234}\cdot D_{2})v_{2}-(D_{234}\cdot D_{3})v_{3}-(D_{234}\cdot D_{4})v_{4}=
=\displaystyle= (−1,−(D234⋅D2),−(D234⋅D3))={(−1,4,−1) if ​i=2(−1,−1,−1) if ​i=4;\displaystyle\Big(-1,-(D_{234}\cdot D_{2}),-(D_{234}\cdot D_{3})\Big)=\begin{cases}(-1,4,-1)&\text{ if }i=2\\ (-1,-1,-1)&\text{ if }i=4;\\ \end{cases}

the intersection numbers are computed accordingly to the minimal model inducing the integral affine structure on Star⁡(vi)′\Star(v_{i})^{\prime}. By Proposition 3.2.2, the monodromy matrix along γ234,24\gamma_{234,24} is given in the basis ℬ=(v1,v2,v3)\mathcal{B}=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}) by

T234,24=(100510001).T_{{234,24}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&0\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right).

For i=2,4i=2,4, the integral affine structure induced by π\pi over Star⁡(vi)′\Star(v_{i})^{\prime} identifies Star⁡(τD124)\Star(\tau_{D_{124}}) with the 33-dimensional subset of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with vertices

v1=\displaystyle v_{1}= (1,0,0),v2=(0,1,0),v3=(0,0,1),v4=(0,0,0),\displaystyle(1,0,0),\quad v_{2}=(0,1,0),\quad v_{3}=(0,0,1),\quad v_{4}=(0,0,0),
v5=\displaystyle v_{5}= −v3−(D124⋅D1)​v1−(D124⋅D2)​v2−(D124⋅D4)​v4=\displaystyle-v_{3}-(D_{124}\cdot D_{1})v_{1}-(D_{124}\cdot D_{2})v_{2}-(D_{124}\cdot D_{4})v_{4}=
=\displaystyle= (−(D124⋅D1),−(D124⋅D2),−1)={(−1,4,−1) if ​i=2(−1,−1,−1) if ​i=4.\displaystyle\Big(-(D_{124}\cdot D_{1}),-(D_{124}\cdot D_{2}),-1\Big)=\begin{cases}(-1,4,-1)&\text{ if }i=2\\ (-1,-1,-1)&\text{ if }i=4.\\ \end{cases}

As above, the intersection numbers are computed accordingly to the minimal model inducing the integral affine structure on Star⁡(vi)′\Star(v_{i})^{\prime} and the monodromy matrix along γ124,24\gamma_{124,24} with respect to the basis ℬ\mathcal{B} is

T124,24=(100015001).T_{{124,24}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 0&1&5\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right).

For i=2,4i=2,4, the integral affine structure induced by π\pi over Star⁡(vi)′\Star(v_{i})^{\prime} identifies Star⁡(τD245)\Star(\tau_{D_{245}}) with the 33-dimensional subset of ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} with vertices

v1=\displaystyle v_{1}= (1,0,0),v2=(0,1,0),v5=(0,0,1),v4=(0,0,0),\displaystyle(1,0,0),\quad v_{2}=(0,1,0),\quad v_{5}=(0,0,1),\quad v_{4}=(0,0,0),
v3=\displaystyle v_{3}= −v1−(D245⋅D2)​v2−(D245⋅D4)​v4−(D245⋅D5)​v5=\displaystyle-v_{1}-(D_{245}\cdot D_{2})v_{2}-(D_{245}\cdot D_{4})v_{4}-(D_{245}\cdot D_{5})v_{5}=
=\displaystyle= (−1,−(D245⋅D2),−(D245⋅D5))={(−1,4,−1) if ​i=2(−1,−1,−1) if ​i=4.\displaystyle\Big(-1,-(D_{245}\cdot D_{2}),-(D_{245}\cdot D_{5})\Big)=\begin{cases}(-1,4,-1)&\text{ if }i=2\\ (-1,-1,-1)&\text{ if }i=4.\\ \end{cases}

The monodromy along γ245,24\gamma_{245,24} in the basis ℬ′=(v1,v2,v5)\mathcal{B}^{\prime}=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{5}) is

T245,24′=(100510001).T^{\prime}_{{245,24}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&0\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right).

By change of basis from ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime} to ℬ\mathcal{B}, we write monodromy along γ245,24\gamma_{245,24} with respect to ℬ\mathcal{B}:

P=(10−101400−1) and T245,24=P−1​(100510001)​P=(10051−5001).P=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&-1\\ 0&1&4\\ 0&0&-1\end{matrix}\right)\quad\text{ and }\quad T_{{245,24}}=P^{-1}\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&0\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right)P=\left(\begin{matrix}1&0&0\\ 5&1&-5\\ 0&0&1\end{matrix}\right).

We observe that T124,24​T245,24=T234,24T_{124,24}T_{245,24}=T_{234,24}, a relation which holds indeed among the corresponding loops.

Remark 4.7.1.

We will now show that the affine structure we constructed on Sk⁡(X)∖Γ\Sk(X)\setminus\Gamma is semi-simple polytopal in the sense of [RZ21a, Definition 4]. Integral affine manifolds with semi-simple polytopal singularities are the tropical analog of local complete intersections in algebraic geometry, and are the relevant class of affine structures on the base of the topological SYZ fibration in the context of the Gross–Siebert program. Indeed, given such a manifold BB, Ruddat and Zharkov construct a topological space YY and torus fibration Y→BY\rightarrow B with discriminant of codimension 2 in BB, inducing the given affine structure. In [RZ21a] the authors describe the strategy in the 3-dimensional case; the general results will appear in [RZ], building on the local constructions of [RZ21b].
In the case of the quintic 3-fold, let p=pi​j​kp=p_{ijk} be a vertex of the discriminant contained in the interior of a 2-face τ\tau, and q=pi​kq=p_{ik} a vertex contained in the interior of an edge ee of τ\tau. Up to relabelling, we may assume that the lattice LpL_{p} of invariant vectors around pp (i.e. the sections of the sheaf of integral affine tangent vectors on a small neighbourhood of pp) is freely generated by viv_{i} and vjv_{j}, in which case the three monodromy matrices around pp are of the form T=Id+5​vk∨⊗wT=\Id+5v_{k}^{\vee}\otimes w for some primitive w∈Lpw\in L_{p}. Hence, writing L⁡(p)=LpL(p)=L_{p} and L∨​(p)=5​Lp⊥L^{\vee}(p)=5L_{p}^{\bot}, as well as L⁡(q)=LqL(q)=L_{q} and L∨​(q)=5​Lq⊥L^{\vee}(q)=5L_{q}^{\bot} we see that we are in the setting of [RZ21a]: the singularities of the affine structure are semi-simple abelian. Moreover, the vertices pi​j​kp_{ijk} are negative, while the vertices pi​kp_{ik} are positive.
Note that τ\tau can be canonically realized inside LpL_{p}, sending the vertex vkv_{k} to the origin; in addition we set τ∨=<0,5​vk∨>\tau^{\vee}=<0,5v_{k}^{\vee}> to be the convex hull of 00 and 5​vk∨5v_{k}^{\vee} in ⊂L∨​(p)\subset L^{\vee}(p). The three loops described above are canonically indexed by the edges of τ\tau, and hence by the pairs (e,f)(e,f), with ee an edge of τ\tau and ff the edge of τ∨\tau^{\vee}. The upshot of working with 5​Lp⊥5L_{p}^{\bot} instead of Lp⊥L_{p}^{\bot} (and similarly for qq) is now that the monodromy along the loop γe,f\gamma_{e,f} is now simply given by the formula T⁡(γe,f)=Id+e⊗fT(\gamma_{e,f})=\Id+e\otimes f.
Similarly for qq, we realize the edge ei​ke_{ik} inside LqL_{q} as the unit segment, and set e∨=<0,5​vi∨,5​vk∨>⊂L∨​(q)e^{\vee}=<0,5v_{i}^{\vee},5v_{k}^{\vee}>\subset L^{\vee}(q). Then we may once again label the three loops around qq by pairs (e,f)(e,f) with e=ei​ke=e_{ik} and ff an edge of e∨e^{\vee}, so that the formula T⁡(γe,f)=Id+e⊗fT(\gamma_{e,f})=\Id+e\otimes f holds.
Since ei​ke_{ik} is a face of τ\tau, we conclude from this that our affine structure is semi-simple polytopal.

Remark 4.7.2.

In [Rua01], Ruan develops a symplectic method based on gradient flow and constructs a Lagrangian torus fibration for Fermat type quintic Calabi–Yau hypersurfaces

𝒳={z0…z4+t(z04+…+z44)=0}⊂ℙℂ4×𝔻,\mathscr{X}=\{z_{0}\ldots z_{4}+t(z_{0}^{4}+\ldots+z_{4}^{4})=0\}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}_{\mathbb{C}}\times\mathbb{D},

later extended to generic quintic hypersurfaces in toric varieties. The idea is to realize Sk⁡(𝒳)\Sk(\mathscr{X}) very explicitely as the boundary of the standard 4-simplex τ4={∑i=04wi=1}⊂ℝ⩾05\tau^{4}=\{\sum_{i=0}^{4}w_{i}=1\}\subset\mathbb{R}_{\geqslant 0}^{5}, and to spread the map:

F:𝒳0⟶∂τ4F:\mathscr{X}_{0}\longrightarrow\partial\tau^{4}
[z0:…:z4]⟼(|z0|2∥z∥2,…,|z4|2∥z∥2)[z_{0}:\ldots:z_{4}]\longmapsto\Bigg(\frac{\lvert z_{0}\rvert^{2}}{\lVert z\rVert^{2}},\ldots,\frac{\lvert z_{4}\rvert^{2}}{\lVert z\rVert^{2}}\Bigg)

to the nearby fibers using a gradient flow. This yields a Lagrangian fibration on the 𝒳t\mathscr{X}_{t}’s for small enough tt, which Ruan expects to be deformable towards a special Lagrangian fibration.
In addition, he describes the discriminant locus and the monodromy transformations of the expected special Lagrangian fibration, assuming that the singular locus is of codimension 22. The predictions in [Rua01, §4.4, §4.5] match precisely our computations above.

In [Gro01] Gross defines a class of topological 33-dimensional torus fibrations and proves they admit dual fibration. Building on Ruan’s description of monodromy, Gross shows that generic quintic threefolds in ℙ4\mathbb{P}^{4} can be endowed with such a fibration. It follows that the induced integral affine structure on the sphere 𝕊3\mathbb{S}^{3} coincides with the one in Section 4.7.

Note that both in Ruan’s and in Gross’ aforementioned works, the polyhedral decomposition on 𝕊3\mathbb{S}^{3} is induced by the intersection complex of the central fiber 𝒳0\mathscr{X}_{0} (i.e., vertices correspond to zero-dimensional strata of the special fiber and so on); we work instead with the dual intersection complex associated with 𝒳0\mathscr{X}_{0}, which is isomorphic to the intersection complex in the examples we are considering.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.