4. Geometry of Calabi-Yau toric hypersurfaces [03FD]
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. Geometry of Calabi-Yau toric hypersurfaces
A Calabi-Yau hypersurface is given by the closure of the set
in the toric variety . From now on we set and require it to be in a proper subcone of the secondary cone . Also, for non-zero , we set .
4.1. An embedding of into the model torus bundle
In [HZ02] we have used the GKZ machinery [GKZ94] for the monomial estimates in the equation of to establish an embedding of into . The same estimates can be used to find bounds on the discrepancy of this embedding from being holomorphic and isometric. Establishing these bounds will occupy the rest of the section.
To define the fibration we assume that is sufficiently far in the interior of , so that is small in the -scale.
Lemma 4.1.
The amoeba lies outside of . In particular, the foliation of induces the fibration by projection along the leaves.
Proof.
Note that for any , if , then . Hence the equation cannot have solutions for . ∎
From now on we will use the bi-PIKAS to identify with and fix the vector field and the foliation in . With this identification, given a subset we denote by the closure of the set in the toric variety (cf. [HZ02]). Then the smooth part of the hypersurface is defined as:
We define the map over the charts as the restriction to of the quotient map:
Note that if is in a boundary toric divisor , then and are not well defined, but and are. Hence, the map is well defined over . The meaning of this map is the choice of local coordinates for near (cf. [HZ02, Lemma 3.9]). Hence it is holomorphic.
Before defining the map over the charts let us first make some estimates in the spirit of Lemma 4.1. For an element we will write if the (standard Euclidean) distance from to 0 is less than . This inequality is vacuous for .
Lemma 4.2.
If a point of lies in , then
where as .
Proof.
First of all note that since , both and are well defined. Also by (2) of Lemma 3.2 the values of the vector field are in . Hence, for any the ray is in and the standard estimates on values of the monomials at apply:
Or putting them all together we have
Hence,
where as . Writing the equation of in as
or, equivalently,
will give the claimed estimates. ∎
Now, identifying the tangent spaces of the torus fibers with , we can pull back the vector field to get a (constant) vector field on . Then the map for the points in will be defined as:
Here if is large enough, i.e. , then according to the Lemma 4.2 there is a preferred continuous lift of to (the neighborhood of 0 in) . We use this lift to first define the value for in and then project it back to .
Since for the definition of the map over the charts is consistent with the above definition on possible overlaps . Thus, we have a well defined map which is an embedding [HZ02].
4.2. Estimates on complex structures and metrics
Let and denote the complex structure operators on the tangent spaces to and respectively. We would like to say that the embedding is holomorphic up to a small order terms.
We have already mentioned that is precisely holomorphic over the charts . To measure the discrepancy at we will fix some (Euclidean) norm on (they are all equivalent) to induce a norm on the tangent space . Let be the (uniform on ) bound for the bi-PIKAS metric written in the affine coordinates in .
Lemma 4.3.
As , the linear map
is of order .
Proof.
First we apply estimates similar to those in Lemma 4.2 to the differential , which we think of as an element in .
Note that the complex structures and would match exactly via if there were no terms (this is what happens in the charts where is constant).
According to (2) of Lemma 3.2 in . Hence the projection operator
has a norm of order 1 when restricted to , and the desired bound on will follow from estimating the terms.
The Kähler form on is defined as the restriction of the Kähler form on which in is given by:
where is a fixed (e.g., the Fubini-Study) Kähler form. We will compare the metric induced by with the (degenerate) scalar product on induced by the -bi-PIKAS.
To make these estimates we will need to introduce some bounds (in a Euclidean metric in ) all of which follow essentially from the definition of the bi-PIKAS family:
where as (all of) the corresponding parameters go to 0. The last inequality follows from , where the local potential is pulled back from the quotient.
Lemma 4.4.
Under the embedding the scalar products agree up to terms of order
Proof.
Let . Assuming we have
The difference between and consists of two terms. The first term appears from comparing at with at . The other term reflects the error in the alignment of the tangent spaces via the map in the proof of Lemma 4.3.
Now let . We will just need to check points in for . Note that is bounded in and is continuous at (in particular, the Hessian vanishes into the -direction at ). Hence the bound from above are also valid for the regularization . Namely,
with possibly different function . The discrepancy between and in is encoded in the term.
Finally, the term in can be bounded by . ∎
4.3. The Gromov-Hausdorff limits of one-parameter families
We will apply the results of the previous sections to the situation considered in [HZ02] to draw a consequence mostly related to the mirror symmetry conjecture. Let be an integral vector in the interior of the secondary cone . We consider an 1-parameter family of the hypersurfaces defined as closures in of
Choose an integral vector in the interior of and consider with the metric space structure given by the bi-PIKAS .
Also consider an one-parameter family of (non-compact) Kähler manifolds , whose metric and complex structure are induced from the bi-PIKAS.
Theorem 4.5.
As one can choose smooth portions of the hypersurfaces , the embeddings and a family of Kähler metrics on in the class such that the pairs converges to the pair in the Gromov-Hausdorff sense, and the maps identify (uniformly in ) the scalar products and the complex structures on the tangent spaces and up to terms of order .
Proof.
We consider the bi-PIKAS family in a neighborhood of and extend it by rescaling to (a neighborhood of) the ray in .
The -estimates for the bi-PIKAS considered in the bi-PIKAS metric (rather than in Euclidean) are equivalent to the corresponding estimates for the rescaled structure made in the Euclidean metric as before. This is because the Euclidean metric on is equivalent to the bi-PIKAS metric on . But to pass from to we will need to rescale all the parameters as well:
Or equivalently, we could apply the log map with the base as in [HZ02].
We saw in the proof of Lemma 4.4 that is degenerate along outside . This argument extended to the entire toric variety shows that up to terms of order , the set (which contains ) has distance from bounded by the diameters of the torus fibers . The size of the tori is determined by the norm of at the corresponding point, which is bounded by .
The rest of the proof consists of careful picks for asymptotics of the rescaled parameters to ensure that the following expressions
go to 0 as , where the first two lines take care of the Hausdorff convergence, and the last two give matching of the complex structure and the metric under the embedding
For instance, we can choose
And has satisfy (i.e. , which is needed for the proof of Lemma 4.4) and
which is possible due to the fast decreasing factor of when is changing slowly.
Finally, notice that the bi-PIKAS of type converges to the -bi-PIKAS. ∎
Remark.
We can rephrase the above theorem in terms of the alternate definition of the torus bundles associated to the given Kähler affine structure on . Then the statement of the theorem will coincide with the Conjecture 2 of [KS01].