ScalingStacks

6 Appendix on the Fukaya category [04GQ]

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

6 Appendix on the Fukaya category

This appendix is a brief reminder about Floer theory in the exact setting. There exist both excellent surveys on the Fukaya category of embedded Lagrangians, such as Auroux [9] and Smith [73], and many in depth treatments such as Seidel [69], Akaho-Joyce [7] and FOOO [33]. Our very limited goal is to recall some key notions prevalent in the main text, and explain some basic intuitions, but we will not get into the more technical aspects, such as the details of perturbation schemes, which are treated carefully in these standard references.

For the Thomas-Yau-Joyce program, one also needs to incorporate immersed Lagrangians. The canonical reference is Akaho-Joyce [7] for a treatment using virtual techniques, and Woodward et al [81][82] which avoids virtual counting by using stabilising divisors. The exact assumption affords some technical simplifications, for which a sketchy account is found in [41, section 4.1]. Another technical treatment in the exact setting, not allowing certain teardrop curves, is in Alston-Bao [6].

6.1 Fukaya category for embedded exact Lagrangians

Floer cohomology and A∞A_{\infty}-structure with mod 2 coefficients

Let (X,ω,J)(X,\omega,J) be a Stein manifold, namely a Kähler manifold with ω=−1​∂∂¯​ϕ\omega=\sqrt{-1}\partial\bar{\partial}\phi for a plurisubharmonic exhaustion function ϕ\phi. In particular, XX is an exact symplectic manifold, meaning ω=d​λ\omega=d\lambda, where λ\lambda is the Liouville 1-form. All almost complex structure perturbations are assumed to agree with the fixed complex structure outside some compact set.

Given two transversely intersecting exact embedded6262 62 In our terminology, embedded Lagrangians are always connected, while immersed Lagrangians can have disconnected domains. Lagrangians L,L′L,L^{\prime} with potential fL,fL′f_{L},f_{L^{\prime}}, namely d​fL=λ|Ldf_{L}=\lambda|_{L} and d​fL′=λ|L′df_{L^{\prime}}=\lambda|_{L^{\prime}}, and some extra brane data, one can associate an algebraic invariant called the Floer cohomology. A general feature of Floer theory, is that the constructions depend on many auxiliary choices, but the invariants depend on only a small number of data, and should always be invariant under global Hamiltonian isotopies.

We assume c1​(T​X)=0c_{1}(TX)=0 and let Ω\Omega be a complex volume form on T​XTX. We shall always assume the Lagrangians to be graded, namely the phase function θ=arg⁡Ω|L:L→S1\theta=\arg\Omega|_{L}:L\to S^{1} lifts to a real valued function. The grading is part of the brane data. Working first with ℤ2\mathbb{Z}_{2} coefficients, the Floer cohomology can be defined as the cohomology of a complex (C​F∗​(L,L′),d)(CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}),d). Here C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) is generated by the transverse intersection points p∈L∩L′p\in L\cap L^{\prime}, whose degrees are given by

μL,L′​(p)=1π​(∑ϕi+θL​(p)−θL′​(p))\mu_{L,L^{\prime}}(p)=\frac{1}{\pi}(\sum\phi_{i}+\theta_{L}(p)-\theta_{L^{\prime}}(p)) (63)

where we put the tangent planes of L,L′L,L^{\prime} inside Tp​X≃ℂnT_{p}X\simeq\mathbb{C}^{n} into the standard form

Tp​L=ℝn⊂ℂn,Tp​L′=(ei​ϕ1,…​ei​ϕn)​ℝn⊂ℂn,0<ϕi<π.T_{p}L=\mathbb{R}^{n}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n},\quad T_{p}L^{\prime}=(e^{i\phi_{1}},\ldots e^{i\phi_{n}})\mathbb{R}^{n}\subset\mathbb{C}^{n},\quad 0<\phi_{i}<\pi.

Notice if we reverse the role of L,L′L,L^{\prime}, then we can regard p∈C​F∗​(L′,L)p\in CF^{*}(L^{\prime},L), but this affects the degree by μL,L′​(p)=n−μL′,L​(p)\mu_{L,L^{\prime}}(p)=n-\mu_{L^{\prime},L}(p). For alternative formulations of the degree in terms of Lagrangian Grassmannians, see [68].

Remark 6.1.

The degree convention μL,L′\mu_{L,L^{\prime}} here follows Joyce [41], which corresponds to μL′,L\mu_{L^{\prime},L} in [69][9][73]. The advantage of this convention is its compatibility with the central charge formula Z⁡(L)=∫LΩZ(L)=\int_{L}\Omega in the Bridgeland stability. If instead one uses the convention of [69][9][73], then adding π\pi to the Lagrangian phase would correspond to the shift [−1][-1] in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X), so the central charge would be Z⁡(L)=∫LΩ¯Z(L)=\overline{\int_{L}\Omega}.

Remark 6.2.

For almost calibrated Lagrangians −π<θL−θL′<π-\pi<\theta_{L}-\theta_{L^{\prime}}<\pi, whence −1<μL,L′​(p)<n+1-1<\mu_{L,L^{\prime}}(p)<n+1. Since the degrees are always integers, we must have 0≤μL,L′​(p)≤n0\leq\mu_{L,L^{\prime}}(p)\leq n.

We consider the moduli space ℳ⁡(p,q,J,[u])\mathcal{M}(p,q;J,[u]) of finite energy holomorphic strips with ends at p,qp,q and boundary on L,L′L,L^{\prime}, in the homotopy class [u]∈π2​(X,L∪L′)[u]\in\pi_{2}(X,L\cup L^{\prime}):

u:Σ=ℝ×[0,1]→X,u(s,0)∈L,u(s,1)∈L′,lims→−∞u=p,lims→+∞u=q,∂su+J(t,u)∂tu=0,E(u)=∫u∗ω=∬|∂u/∂s|2dsdt<∞.\begin{split}&u:\Sigma=\mathbb{R}\times[0,1]\to X,\quad u(s,0)\in L,\quad u(s,1)\in L^{\prime},\quad\lim_{s\to-\infty}u=p,\quad\lim_{s\to+\infty}u=q,\\ &\partial_{s}u+J(t,u)\partial_{t}u=0,\quad E(u)=\int u^{*}\omega=\iint|\partial u/\partial s|^{2}dsdt<\infty.\end{split}

Index theory of the Cauchy-Riemann operator with Lagrangian boundary conditions implies this moduli space has virtual dimension deg⁡q−deg⁡p\deg q-\deg p. The holomorphic strip equation is invariant under domain translation in the ℝ\mathbb{R} direction. Using generic domain dependent almost complex structures which are fixed outside a large compact set, one can achieve suitable transversality on the moduli spaces, and in particular ℳ⁡(p,q,J,[u])/ℝ\mathcal{M}(p,q;J,[u])/\mathbb{R} are isolated points for deg⁡q−deg⁡p=1\deg q-\deg p=1. A key advantage of the exact setting is that the energy can be computed a priori by the topological formula:

∫Σu∗​ω=∫∂Σλ=∫−∞∞d​fL−∫−∞∞d​fL′=(fL−fL′)​(q)−(fL−fL′)​(p).\int_{\Sigma}u^{*}\omega=\int_{\partial\Sigma}\lambda=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}df_{L}-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}df_{L^{\prime}}=(f_{L}-f_{L^{\prime}})(q)-(f_{L}-f_{L^{\prime}})(p). (64)

By Gromov compactness, the number of isolated points is finite, and only finitely many homotopy classes [u][u] admit holomorphic strips. To save some notations, we sometimes write ℳ⁡(p,q)=⋃[u]∈π2​(M,L∪L′)ℳ⁡(p,q,J,[u])\mathcal{M}(p,q)=\bigcup_{[u]\in\pi_{2}(M,L\cup L^{\prime})}\mathcal{M}(p,q;J,[u]).

Remark 6.3.

The role of convexity assumptions at the infinity of XX (such as the existence of a plurisubharmonic exhaustion function) is to ensure that for a finite given collection of Lagrangians, all holomorphic curves remain inside a fixed bounded region. This is needed to apply Gromov compactness.

Remark 6.4.

More generally, one can add a Hamiltonian term in the Cauchy-Riemann equation, and replace transverse intersection points by Hamiltonian chords. The Cauchy-Riemann equation then gets modified to the Floer equation

∂su+J⁡(t,u)​(∂tu−XH)=0,\partial_{s}u+J(t,u)(\partial_{t}u-X_{H})=0, (65)

where XHX_{H} is a Hamiltonian vector field. This perturbation is not needed for Floer theoretic transversality statements if LL and L′L^{\prime} are already transverse, but is an essential ingredient in showing the Hamiltonian invariance of Floer cohomology.

Remark 6.5.

We generally distinguish between the s→−∞s\to-\infty end, and the s→+∞s\to+\infty end. The main difference is the ordering of the Lagrangians at the intersection point. Here we are following the Joyce convention [41], which is opposite to Auroux [9]. This is dictated by compatibility with the degree formula (63). Similarly, later the A∞A_{\infty} product also requires the Lagrangian boundaries to be ordered clockwise, as opposed to the counterclockwise convention in Auroux [9].

The Floer differential d:C​Fk​(L,L′)→C​Fk+1​(L,L′)d:CF^{k}(L,L^{\prime})\to CF^{k+1}(L,L^{\prime}) is d​p=∑np,q​q,dp=\sum n_{p,q}q, where np,qn_{p,q} is the mod 2 count of ℳ⁡(p,q)/ℝ\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R}. The key fact of Floer theory is that d2=0d^{2}=0. For this, one considers the holomorphic strips between p,rp,r with deg⁡r−deg⁡p=2\deg r-\deg p=2, modulo the translation invariance ℝ\mathbb{R} direction. This moduli space ℳ⁡(p,r)/ℝ\mathcal{M}(p,r)/\mathbb{R} is one-dimensional. Generally in Floer theory, the boundary of the compactified moduli spaces comes from disc breaking and disc and sphere bubbling. The latter is ruled out for energy reasons by the exactness assumption, and the former gives

∂(ℳ⁡(p,r)/ℝ¯)=⋃qℳ⁡(p,q)/ℝ×ℳ⁡(q,r)/ℝ.\partial(\overline{\mathcal{M}(p,r)/\mathbb{R}})=\bigcup_{q}\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R}\times\mathcal{M}(q,r)/\mathbb{R}.

In terms of mod 2 counts, ∑qnp,q​nq,r=0\sum_{q}n_{p,q}n_{q,r}=0, namely d2=0d^{2}=0. This fact allows one to take the cohomology, which is H​F∗​(L,L′)HF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}). Although suppressed in this notation, the homotopy classes of discs are additive under disc breaking. This fact allows one to introduce some extra weighting factors involving energy and holonomy of local systems.

The general strategy to show the Floer cohomology is independent of the choices of almost complex structures and Hamiltonian perturbations, is to consider continuity equations, whose counts define chain maps at the level of C​F∗CF^{*}, so descend to comparison maps between Floer cohomologies defined by different auxiliary data (cf. Auroux [8, section 1.5]).

Floer cohomology admits rich algebraic structures, but the deeper structure is better set up at the chain level C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}). We temporarily avoid the issue of signs and self Floer cohomology. The Fukaya category can be seen as the generalization of Floer cohomology in two directions:

  • •

    We allow the interplay of many (transverse) Lagrangians. Each Lagrangian is labelled by an object in the Fukaya category. This labelling is the main difference between an algebra and a category.

  • •

    The holomorphic strips are replaced by holomorphic polygons, with boundary segments mapped to a clockwise ordered sequence of at least three Lagrangians L0,L1,…​LkL_{0},L_{1},\ldots L_{k}, and clockwise ordered boundary marked points x0,x1,…​xkx_{0},x_{1},\ldots x_{k} mapped to the Lagrangian intersection points q∈L0∩Lk,p1∈L0∩L1,…​pk∈Lk−1∩Lkq\in L_{0}\cap L_{k},p_{1}\in L_{0}\cap L_{1},\ldots p_{k}\in L_{k-1}\cap L_{k}. We distinguish x0x_{0} as the output, and regard x1,…​xkx_{1},\ldots x_{k} as inputs. The marked points x0,x1,x2x_{0},x_{1},x_{2} on the boundary of the domain disc are fixed, while the other k−2k-2 marked points are allowed to move freely preserving their cyclic ordering.

    The moduli spaces of such polygons (with suitably domain dependent perturbations) are denoted as ℳ⁡(p1,…​pk,q)\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q). Moduli spaces with at least three marked points do not have the domain translation invariance, so there is no need to divide by ℝ\mathbb{R}.

Remark 6.6.

From the viewpoint of gluing theory, it is convenient to regard the boundary marked points of the holomorphic polygons as punctures, where the Riemann surface structure is locally modelled on strip like ends. The moduli of abstract holomorphic polygons with k+1k+1 marked points has a compactification known as the Stasheff associahedron ℛ¯k+1\overline{\mathcal{R}}_{k+1}. On account of the geometric picture of polygons in ℝ2\mathbb{R}^{2}, we often refer to the strip like ends as corners.

The energy formula (64) generalizes to the holomorphic polygon case:

∫Σu∗​ω=(fL0−fLk)​(q)−∑1k(fLi−1−fLi)​(pi).\int_{\Sigma}u^{*}\omega=(f_{L_{0}}-f_{L_{k}})(q)-\sum_{1}^{k}(f_{L_{i-1}}-f_{L_{i}})(p_{i}). (66)

The virtual dimension formula is

vdim​ℳ​(p1,…​pk,q)=deg⁡q−∑1kdeg⁡pi+k−2.\text{vdim}\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q)=\deg q-\sum_{1}^{k}\deg p_{i}+k-2. (67)

Here deg⁡q−∑1kdeg⁡pi\deg q-\sum_{1}^{k}\deg p_{i} comes from the index theory of the Cauchy-Riemann operator, and k−2k-2 comes from the freedom to move the marked points on the boundary. Under suitable domain dependent perturbation schemes, in this exact setting one can ensure transversality, so that the moduli space is smooth. For setting up the Fukaya category, the zero dimensional moduli spaces are particularly important, since counting points give rise to operations, and 1-dimensional moduli spaces are important for producing A∞A_{\infty}-relations. In the main text, we have also given considerable attention to (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional moduli spaces, since these are relevant for producing bordism currents.

Within the exact setting, disc and sphere bubbling is impossible. After compactification, the moduli space of holomorphic polygons can have two kinds of boundaries, due to two kinds of disc breaking:

  • •

    (Disc breaking at the corners) The disc may break at Li∩Li+1L_{i}\cap L_{i+1}. The polygons near the breaking limit are obtained from gluing polygons with corners mapped to p1,…,pl−1,r,pl+1,…,qp_{1},\ldots,p_{l-1},r,p_{l+1},\ldots,q, and strips with boundary on Ll−1,LlL_{l-1},L_{l} and two ends mapped to pl,rp_{l},r. (Of course, disc breaking can also happen at the outgoing corner qq.)

  • •

    (Disc splitting at the edges) When there are at least 4 Lagrangians, the domain disc can split into two discs with l+1≥3l+1\geq 3 and k+1−l≥3k+1-l\geq 3 marked points. The edges of one disc map to L0,…​Lj,Lj+l,…​LkL_{0},\ldots L_{j},L_{j+l},\ldots L_{k}, with cyclically marked points mapping to p1,…​pj,r∈Lj∩Ll+j,pl+j+1,…​pkp_{1},\ldots p_{j},r\in L_{j}\cap L_{l+j},p_{l+j+1},\ldots p_{k} and qq. The edges of the other disc map to Lj,…​Ll+jL_{j},\ldots L_{l+j}, with marked points mapping to pj+1,…​pl+jp_{j+1},\ldots p_{l+j} and r∈Lj∩Ll+jr\in L_{j}\cap L_{l+j}.

When disc breaking and disc splitting are taken into account, the moduli spaces can be compactified into ℳ¯​(p1,…​pk,q)\overline{\mathcal{M}}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q). We then have

∂ℳ¯​(p1,…​pk,q)=⋃ℳ⁡(pl,r)/ℝ¯×ℳ¯​(p1,…​pl−1,r,pl+1,…​pk,q)∪⋃ℳ¯(p1,…,pj,r,pl+j+1,…pk,q)×ℳ¯(pj+1,…pl+j,r).\begin{split}\partial\overline{\mathcal{M}}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q)=&\bigcup\overline{\mathcal{M}(p_{l},r)/\mathbb{R}}\times\overline{\mathcal{M}}(p_{1},\ldots p_{l-1},r,p_{l+1},\ldots p_{k},q)\\ &\cup\bigcup\overline{\mathcal{M}}(p_{1},\ldots,p_{j},r,p_{l+j+1},\ldots p_{k},q)\times\overline{\mathcal{M}}(p_{j+1},\ldots p_{l+j},r).\end{split} (68)

In particular, the (virtual) dimensions of both sides are equal, which constrains deg⁡r\deg r.

Remark 6.7.

More generally, disc breaking and disc splitting can happen in a bubble tree fashion. Such multiple splitting/breaking do not concern us, because under sufficient transversality conditions, they occur only in codimension at least two in the moduli space. To set up Fukaya categories in the exact setting, only zero and one dimensional moduli spaces are needed, so the multiple bubble trees do not occur. When we make use of higher dimensional moduli spaces in the main text, the bubble trees do occur, but the codimension two condition means the deeper boundary strata do not contribute to the boundary of the bordism current, in the sense of currents.

The A∞A_{\infty}-structure is the algebraization of the disc breaking/splitting phenomenon. It consists of multilinear maps

mk:C​F∗​(Lk−1,Lk)⊗…​C​F∗​(L1,L2)⊗C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗​(L0,Lk)​[2−k]m_{k}:CF^{*}(L_{k-1},L_{k})\otimes\ldots CF^{*}(L_{1},L_{2})\otimes CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{k})[2-k]

satisfying the A∞A_{\infty}-relation

∑l=1k∑j=0k−l±mk+1−l(pk,…,pj+l+1,ml(pj+l,…pj+1),pj,…p1)=0.\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-l}\pm m_{k+1-l}(p_{k},\ldots,p_{j+l+1},m_{l}(p_{j+l},\ldots p_{j+1}),p_{j},\ldots p_{1})=0.

Here m1m_{1} is the degree one Floer differential dd, and for k≥2k\geq 2 the operation mkm_{k} is defined by counting holomorphic polygons in moduli spaces of virtual dimension zero,

mk​(pk,…,p1)=∑q#​ℳ​(p1,…​pk,q)​q.m_{k}(p_{k},\ldots,p_{1})=\sum_{q}\#\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q)q.

Virtual dimension zero requires deg⁡q=∑1kdeg⁡pi+2−k\deg q=\sum_{1}^{k}\deg p_{i}+2-k, which explains the degree of mkm_{k}. The A∞A_{\infty}-relation is the direct translation of (68), with disc breaking at corners contributing the m1m_{1} terms, and disc splitting contributing the other terms.

The first few A∞A_{\infty}-relations have clear geometric meanings:

  • •

    The Floer differential squares to zero.

  • •

    The Floer product m2m_{2} satisfies the Leibniz rule. As such m2m_{2} descends to a product structure on the mod 2 coefficient Floer cohomology H​F∗​(L1,L2)⊗H​F∗​(L0,L1)→H​F∗​(L0,L2)HF^{*}(L_{1},L_{2})\otimes HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{2}).

  • •

    The m2m_{2} is associative up to a homotopy given by the m3m_{3} terms. In particular the Floer product is associative on cohomology.

The higher structures naturally lead to the Fukaya category of embedded exact Lagrangians. This requires some discussion on signs, brane structures, and self Floer cohomologies.

Self Floer cohomology

It is desirable to take Floer cohomology of LL with itself. One major feature of H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L) is that it contains units, at least at cohomological level.

One challenge to implement self Floer cohomology is that LL is not transverse to itself, so the Cauchy-Riemann equation needs perturbation. There are many frameworks to address this problem, and one idea dating back to Floer is to use the Hamiltonian invariance of Floer cohomology, to think of self Floer cohomology via H​F∗​(L,L)≃H​F∗​(L,ϕϵ​H​(L))HF^{*}(L,L)\simeq HF^{*}(L,\phi_{\epsilon H}(L)) where ϕϵ​H\phi_{\epsilon H} is the time one flow of the small generic Hamiltonian ϵ​H\epsilon H [9, section 1.6]. For ϵ≪1\epsilon\ll 1, the Lagrangian ϕϵ​H​(L)\phi_{\epsilon H}(L) can be identified as a graph over LL inside T∗​LT^{*}L, the transverse intersection L∩ϕϵ​H​(L)L\cap\phi_{\epsilon H}(L) are the critical points of H|LH|_{L}, and a suitable setup of the Floer trajectories (65) can be identified as Morse flowlines of HH. Thus H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L) is isomorphic to the Morse cohomology of LL, so H​F∗​(L,L)≃H∗​(L)HF^{*}(L,L)\simeq H^{*}(L). In the exact case, the ring structure on H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L) defined from perturbed holomorphic triangles agrees with the cup product ring structure on H∗​(L)H^{*}(L). The unit can be represented by the Morse generator of H0​(L)H^{0}(L), or more non-perturbatively via the Piunikhin-Salamon-Schwarz map.

It takes some effort to promote the self Floer cohomology to the Fukaya category framework, and ensure the consistency in the perturbation schemes (cf. Auroux [9, section 2.1] for a sketch and Seidel [69] for details). In applications it is often more convenient to avoid Hamiltonian perturbations as much as possible.

Example 6.1.

(Floer products involving the identity) We wish to heuristically explain a special case relevant to Joyce-Imagi-Santos (cf. section 2.3), concerning the geometric interpretation of the Floer product mod 2

H​F0​(L′,L)⊗H​F0​(L,L′)→H​F0​(L,L).HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L)\otimes HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime})\to HF^{0}(L,L).

Here L,L′L,L^{\prime} are assumed to be transverse. Hamiltonian invariance means we can alternatively think of

H​F0​(L′,ϕϵ​H​(L))⊗H​F0​(L,L′)→H​F0​(L,ϕϵ​H​(L)).HF^{0}(L^{\prime},\phi_{\epsilon H}(L))\otimes HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime})\to HF^{0}(L,\phi_{\epsilon H}(L)).

This is defined by the count of holomorphic triangles with input corners at C​F0​(L,L′)CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}), C​F0​(L′,ϕϵ​H​(L))CF^{0}(L^{\prime},\phi_{\epsilon H}(L)), and an output corner at C​F0​(L,ϕϵ​H​(L))CF^{0}(L,\phi_{\epsilon H}(L)). We may assume the Morse function H|LH|_{L} has only one maximum point rr on LL, which represents the unit of H​F∗​(L,L)HF^{*}(L,L). When ϵ→0\epsilon\to 0, then LL and ϕϵ​H​(L)\phi_{\epsilon H}(L) coincide, and the holomorphic triangles become holomorphic strips with ends at C​F0​(L,L′)CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}), C​F0​(L′,L)CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L) (alternatively seen as a degree nn output) and passing through the point r∈Lr\in L. This last incidence condition is independent of the position of rr on LL, since we can choose HH to have its maximum at any generic prescribed point. Notice in this strip interpretation, there is no longer any Hamiltonian perturbation. This interpretation featured in Lemma 2.7.

Sign issues and brane structures

To go beyond mod 2 coefficients, we need to orient moduli spaces. Good references can be found in Seidel’s book [69] and Abouzaid [3, Appendix]. All Lagrangians are assumed to be graded, with second Stiefel-Whitney class equal to the restriction of a fixed class in H2​(X,ℤ/2)H^{2}(X,\mathbb{Z}/2), and we equip the Lagrangians with relative spin structures. At any transverse Lagrangian intersection point p∈L+∩L−p\in L_{+}\cap L_{-}, there is a unique up to homotopy path Λp\Lambda_{p} of Lagrangian planes in Tp​X≃ℂnT_{p}X\simeq\mathbb{C}^{n} with graded lift interpolating T​L+TL_{+} and T​L−TL_{-}. We fix a relative spin structure on Λp\Lambda_{p}, compatible with the relative spin structure on L±L_{\pm}. We can associate a vector space opo_{p} as the determinant line of the Cauchy-Riemann operator DpD_{p} on the upper half plane with boundary data Λp\Lambda_{p}. The dual of opo_{p} is denoted op∨o_{p}^{\vee}, namely op⊗op∨≃ℝo_{p}\otimes o_{p}^{\vee}\simeq\mathbb{R} canonically. The orientation line |oy||o_{y}| is the free abelian group generated by the two possible orientations of oyo_{y} with the relation that their sum vanishes. Furthermore, we equip the Lagrangians LL with (rank one) local systems EE, and write the Floer cochain complex as the graded vector space

CF∗(L,L′)=⊕p∈L∩L′Hom(E|p,E′|p)⊗|op|.CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime})=\oplus_{p\in L\cap L^{\prime}}\text{Hom}(E|_{p},E^{\prime}|_{p})\otimes|o_{p}|.
Remark 6.8.

There are some variants on the coefficient ring/field of the local system. The simplest case is the trivial local system, in which case we simply delete the Hom\Hom factor. Other popular choices have parallel transport in ℚ∗,ℝ∗,ℂ∗\mathbb{Q}^{*},\mathbb{R}^{*},\mathbb{C}^{*}, or the units in the Novikov ring.6363 63 The U⁡(1)U(1)-local systems are popular in the physics literature, but appear rarely in Floer theory. Different choices could in principle lead to slightly different versions of the derived Fukaya category. The smaller the coefficient ring/field, the more stringent is the notion of derived isomorphism of objects. For the purpose of extending the Solomon functional (cf. section 20) to be real valued, we require all coefficients to be at least contained in ℝ\mathbb{R}, so we will usually work simultaneously with ℝ\mathbb{R}, ℚ\mathbb{Q} and ℤ\mathbb{Z} local systems. On the other hand, it is claimed in [81, Remark 4.5] that in the exact setting the immersed Fukaya algebras can be defined over the integers. The specific advantage of working over integers, as discussed in the main text, is primarily that the bordism current 𝒞\mathcal{C} between Lagrangians is then an integral current, rather than ℝ\mathbb{R}-linear combinations of integral currents.

Given a holomorphic polygon u:Σ→Xu:\Sigma\to X, with inputs x1,…​xkx_{1},\ldots x_{k} and output x0x_{0} mapping to p1,…​pkp_{1},\ldots p_{k} and qq, the det line of the linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator DuD_{u} can be computed from gluing kernel and cokernels:

det(Du​#​Dpk​…​#​Dp1)≃det(Du)⊗opk​…⊗op1.\det(D_{u}\#D_{p_{k}}\ldots\#D_{p_{1}})\simeq\det(D_{u})\otimes o_{p_{k}}\ldots\otimes o_{p_{1}}.

The role of the relative spin structure, is to specify a homotopically unique choice of isotopy between the glued operator Du​#​Dxk​…​#​Dx1D_{u}\#D_{x_{k}}\ldots\#D_{x_{1}} and Dx0D_{x_{0}} (i.e. an isotopy between Lagrangian boundary conditions), hence a preferred isomorphism

detDu≃oq⊗op1∨⊗…​opk∨.\det D_{u}\simeq o_{q}\otimes o_{p_{1}}^{\vee}\otimes\ldots o_{p_{k}}^{\vee}.

The tangent space of the moduli space of holomorphic polygons ℳ⁡(p1,…​pk,q)\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q) involves not only the linearized Cauchy-Riemann operator, but also the variation of the complex structure of the domain of the polygon, controlled by the Stasheff associahedron ℛ¯k+1\overline{\mathcal{R}}_{k+1}. Denote λt​o​p​(V)\lambda^{top}(V) as the top wedge product of a vector space VV. Then there are preferred isomorphisms depending on the relative spin structure choice

λt​o​p​(T​ℳ​(p1,…​pk,q))≃λt​o​p​(ℛk+1)⊗oq⊗op1∨⊗…​opk∨.\lambda^{top}(T\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k},q))\simeq\lambda^{top}(\mathcal{R}_{k+1})\otimes o_{q}\otimes o_{p_{1}}^{\vee}\otimes\ldots o_{p_{k}}^{\vee}. (69)
Remark 6.9.

Fixing an orientation on LL, then C​F0​(L,L′)CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) is naturally dual to C​Fn​(L′,L)CF^{n}(L^{\prime},L). The local system factor Hom⁡(E,E′)\Hom(E,E^{\prime}) is naturally dual to Hom⁡(E′,E)\Hom(E^{\prime},E). Given a Lagrangian path Λp\Lambda_{p} associated to a Lagrangian intersection pp, the reverse path is also associated with a determinant line bundle, which can be identified with

op∨⊗λ⁡(T​L),o_{p}^{\vee}\otimes\lambda(TL),

since the two half planes with Lagrangian boundaries can be glued to a disk, such that the det line of the Cauchy-Riemann operator is canonically isomorphic to λ⁡(T​L)\lambda(TL).

For k≥2k\geq 2, when the moduli spaces are zero dimensional, so carry canonical orientations, then a universal orientation choice for λt​o​p​(ℛk+1)\lambda^{top}(\mathcal{R}_{k+1}) determines an operator

|cu|:|opk|⊗…⊗|op1|→|oq|.|c_{u}|:|o_{p_{k}}|\otimes\ldots\otimes|o_{p_{1}}|\to|o_{q}|.

In our degree conventions the corners x0,x1,x2,…​xkx_{0},x_{1},x_{2},\ldots x_{k} on the domain disc boundary are ordered clockwise, so a natural orientation on the Stasheff associahedron can be obtained by fixing x0,x1,x2x_{0},x_{1},x_{2} and allowing the other corner points to move in the clockwise orientation. The parallel transports along the local systems contribute another factor

Hom⁡(Ek−1,Ek)|pk⊗…​Hom⁡(E1,E2)|p2⊗Hom⁡(E0,E1)|p1→Hom⁡(E0,Ek)|q.\Hom(E_{k-1},E_{k})|_{p_{k}}\otimes\ldots\Hom(E_{1},E_{2})|_{p_{2}}\otimes\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{p_{1}}\to\Hom(E_{0},E_{k})|_{q}.

Each pseudoholomorphic polygon contributes to the operation

mk:C​F∗​(Lk−1,Lk)⊗…​C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗​(L0,Lk)​[2−k]m_{k}:CF^{*}(L_{k-1},L_{k})\otimes\ldots CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{k})[2-k]

via the tensor product of the orientation factor |cu||c_{u}| and the local system factor, multiplied by another sign factor depending only on the degrees (cf. [69, equation (12.24)])

(−1)deg⁡p1+2​deg⁡p2+…​k​deg⁡pk.(-1)^{\deg p_{1}+2\deg p_{2}+\ldots k\deg p_{k}}.

In the case of holomorphic strips, we have a natural isomorphism

Tℳ(p,q)=ℝ(−∂s)⊕T(ℳ(p,q)/ℝ).T\mathcal{M}(p,q)=\mathbb{R}(-\partial_{s})\oplus T(\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R}). (70)

where −∂s-\partial_{s} is the translation vector field pointing towards the input point. When ℳ⁡(p,q)/ℝ\mathcal{M}(p,q)/\mathbb{R} consists of isolated points, it carries canonical orientations, whence by (69) we obtain

|cu|:|op|→|oq|.|c_{u}|:|o_{p}|\to|o_{q}|.

The local system parallel transport produces another factor

Hom⁡(E0,E1)|p→Hom⁡(E0,E1)|q.\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{p}\to\Hom(E_{0},E_{1})|_{q}.

Each pseudoholomorphic strip contributes to the Floer differential

d:C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗+1​(L0,L1)d:CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*+1}(L_{0},L_{1})

by the product of these two factors. We write

m1:C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗+1​(L0,L1),m1=(−1)deg⁡p1​d.m_{1}:CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*+1}(L_{0},L_{1}),\quad m_{1}=(-1)^{\deg p_{1}}d.

When the signs and local system weighting factors are taken into account, the A∞A_{\infty}-relation reads

∑l=1k∑j=0k−l(−1)†​mk+1−l​(pk,…,pj+l+1,ml​(pj+l,…​pj+1),pj,…​p1)=0.\sum_{l=1}^{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-l}(-1)^{\dagger}m_{k+1-l}(p_{k},\ldots,p_{j+l+1},m_{l}(p_{j+l},\ldots p_{j+1}),p_{j},\ldots p_{1})=0. (71)

where †=j+deg⁡p1+…+deg⁡pj\dagger=j+\deg p_{1}+\ldots+\deg p_{j}. The Fukaya category for the compact embedded Lagrangians comprises of the following data:

  • •

    The objects are embedded Lagrangians (with additional brane data, such as grading, Lagrangian potential, orientation, relative spin structure, and local system).

  • •

    The morphisms Hom∗⁡(L,L′)\Hom^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) are the vector spaces C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) (where LL can coincide with L′L^{\prime}).

  • •

    The A∞A_{\infty}-composition maps are the multilinear maps mkm_{k} satisfying the A∞A_{\infty} relations.

The Fukaya category is an example of an A∞A_{\infty}-category.

In particular, the Floer differential squares to zero, so we can define the Floer cohomology groups H​F∗​(L,L′)HF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) for embedded exact Lagrangian branes. The Floer product on cohomology is given by

[p2]∘[p1]=(−1)deg⁡p1​m2​(p2,p1)[p_{2}]\circ[p_{1}]=(-1)^{\deg p_{1}}m_{2}(p_{2},p_{1})

which is associative.

Example 6.2.

(Floer products involving the identity, continued) In the context of Example 6.1, the orientation isomorphism (69) for the holomorphic triangle is determined by whether the isotopy of the Lagrangian boundary conditions respects the relative spin structure. Since the relative spin structure on ϕϵ​H​(L)\phi_{\epsilon H}(L) is induced from LL, this problem is equivalent to the corresponding isotopy problem for the limiting holomophic strip. The holonomy factor of the local systems for the holomorphic triangle, is also reduced to that of the limiting strip.

In the simplest case when we are given closed elements α∈C​F0​(L,L′),β∈C​F0​(L′,L)\alpha\in CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}),\beta\in CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L) each involving only one intersection point, the local systems are trivial, and only one holomorphic curve contributes to the Floer product, then β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means that for the holomorphic strip from α\alpha to β\beta passing through a generically chosen point r∈Lr\in L, the Lagrangian boundary condition on the disk obtained by gluing T​L,T​L′TL,TL^{\prime} and the two Lagrangian paths at the two strip like ends, can be contracted to constant, respecting the prescribed relative spin structures on L,L′L,L^{\prime} and the two ends. More generally, many intersections points and holomorphic strips may contribute to the Floer product, and β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means a weighted signed count of holomophic strips is equal to one.

Under sufficient transversality assumptions, we can form the (n−1)(n-1) dimensional moduli space of holomorphic strips from α\alpha to β\beta, and thereby produce an (n+1)(n+1)-dimensional universal family 𝒞\mathcal{C}, as in the main text section 3.1. Using the relative spin structures on L,L′L,L^{\prime} and the Lagrangian paths associated with the ends, we use (69)(70) and Remark 6.9 to induce a canonical orientation on the moduli space from β⊗α∈C​F0​(L′,L)⊗C​F0​(L,L′)\beta\otimes\alpha\in CF^{0}(L^{\prime},L)\otimes CF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}). Using the complex orientation on the holomorphic curve Σ\Sigma, and inserting an extra minus sign, we obtain an orientation on 𝒞\mathcal{C}. This tricky minus sign accounts for the difference between the counterclockwise orientation of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma compatible with the complex orientation, and the clockwise orientation of ∂Σ\partial\Sigma compatible on the LL-boundary with the translation vector field −∂s-\partial_{s}. Putting everything together, β∘α=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)\beta\circ\alpha=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) means in the sense of weighted counts, that ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} passes once through a generic point r∈Lr\in L in the same orientation as λ⁡(T​L)\lambda(TL). In other words, the LL-boundary evaluation of ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} sweeps out the oriented cycle LL.

The same argument says that if α∘β=1L′∈H​F0​(L′,L′)\alpha\circ\beta=1_{L^{\prime}}\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}), then the moduli space of holomorphic strips from β\beta to α\alpha produces a universal family 𝒞′\mathcal{C}^{\prime}, whose L′L^{\prime}-boundary evaluation map sweeps out the oriented cycle L′L^{\prime}. The subtle point is that due to the reversal of the ℝ\mathbb{R}-translation vector fields, 𝒞′\mathcal{C}^{\prime} has the reverse orientation as 𝒞\mathcal{C}. Therefore, the L′L^{\prime}-boundary evaluation of ∂𝒞\partial\mathcal{C} sweeps out the oriented cycle −L′-L^{\prime} instead of L′L^{\prime}. Here ends the example.

Twisted complexes, distinguished triangles, derived category

A fundamental problem of the embedded Fukaya category is that it lacks enough geometric objects. Morally, Fukaya category is a construction that inputs the symplectic geometry of Lagrangian branes, and outputs the representation theory of an A∞A_{\infty}-category. Now the general feature of A∞A_{\infty}-module categories is that one can take cones and idempotent summands, two properties which are useful for classifying such categories, and desirable for mirror symmetry. The problem is that cones and idempotent summands are not obviously represented by embedded Lagrangian objects under the Yoneda embedding. The common solution is to sideline this issue by the formal algebraic construction of twisted complexes and idempotent completions. This is not quite adequate for the Thomas-Yau conjecture. However, we will discuss how the introduction of immersed Lagrangian objects geometrizes the twisted complexes (cf. section 6.2). The geometric meaning of idempotents is an open problem.

The formal algebraic constructions are well explained in [9, section 3] and [73, section 4], to which we refer the reader for more details. Given objects L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N} of the Fukaya category 𝒜\mathcal{A}, a twisted complex (L,bL)(L,b_{L}) consists of

  • •

    The formal shifted direct sum L=⊕1NLi[ki]L=\oplus_{1}^{N}L_{i}[k_{i}] with ki∈ℤk_{i}\in\mathbb{Z} formally keeping track of degrees (the geometric meaning of the shift [1][1] is to add a constant π\pi to the Lagrangian phase, which reverses the orientation of the Lagrangian, with a corresponding twist to the spin structure),

  • •

    and a strictly triangular differential bL∈End⁡(L)b_{L}\in\End(L), i.e. a collection of maps bi​j∈Homkj−ki+1⁡(Li,Lj)b_{ij}\in\Hom^{k_{j}-k_{i}+1}(L_{i},L_{j}) for i>ji>j,6464 64 In most symplectic references such as [9] the morphisms bi​jb_{ij} go in the opposite direction i<ji<j. This just amounts to reversing the ordering of L1,…,LNL_{1},\ldots,L_{N}. We find our reversed convention a little more convenient for the Harder-Narasimhan decomposition.

satisfying the equation

∑k≥1mk​(bL,…,bL)=0,​i.e.\sum_{k\geq 1}m_{k}(b_{L},\ldots,b_{L})=0,\quad\emph{i.e.}
∑k≥1∑i=i0>…>ik=jmk​(bik−1​ik,…,bi0​i1)=0.\sum_{k\geq 1}\sum_{i=i_{0}>\ldots>i_{k}=j}m_{k}(b_{i_{k-1}i_{k}},\ldots,b_{i_{0}i_{1}})=0.

Notice the strict triangularity implies the sum is finite. One can define morphisms between these twisted complexes, and assign A∞A_{\infty}-structures to make twisted complexes into an A∞A_{\infty}-category T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A}, into which 𝒜\mathcal{A} naturally embeds fully faithfully. Using the A∞A_{\infty}-structure, it makes sense to talk about closed morphisms and cohomologies, similar to the construction of Floer cohomology.

Given twisted complexes A=(L,bL),B=(L′,bL′)∈T​w​𝒜A=(L,b_{L}),B=(L^{\prime},b_{L^{\prime}})\in Tw\mathcal{A}, and a closed morphism f∈Hom0⁡((L,bL),(L′,bL′))f\in\Hom^{0}((L,b_{L}),(L^{\prime},b_{L^{\prime}})), the abstract mapping cone of ff is the twisted complex

Cone​(f)=(L⁡[1]⊕L′,(bL0fbL′)).\text{Cone}(f)=\left(L[1]\oplus L^{\prime},\left(\begin{matrix}b_{L}&0\\ f&b_{L^{\prime}}\end{matrix}\right)\right).

Generally, a mapping cone of ff is an object of T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A} quasi-isomorphic to Cone​(f)\text{Cone}(f). This gives rise to a distinguished triangle A→B→Cone​(f)→[1]AA\to B\to\text{Cone}(f)\xrightarrow{[1]}A. This illustrates the advantage of introducing twisted complexes: T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A} is a triangulated category.

The cohomological category of T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A} is commonly denoted Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X). This has the same objects as T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A}, but the Floer cochain spaces are replaced by their H0H^{0}, namely we remember the Floer cohomology.

Under the Yoneda embedding, T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A} embedds into its module category. The idempotent closure T​wπ​𝒜Tw^{\pi}\mathcal{A} is obtained by formally adding the direct summands of the Yoneda image of twisted complexes in T​w​𝒜Tw\mathcal{A}. The cohomological category of T​wπ​𝒜Tw^{\pi}\mathcal{A} is commonly denoted Dπ​F​u​k​(X)D^{\pi}Fuk(X). In the variant setting of compact XX, it is usually Dπ​F​u​k​(X)D^{\pi}Fuk(X) instead of Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) that shows up in mirror symmetry, since the derived category of coherent sheaves is automatically idempotent closed.

Remark 6.10.

Once immersed Lagrangians are admitted as objects of Fukaya categories, the twisted complexes are largely redundant. Joyce [41, conjecture 3.6] claims that by including immersed and singular Lagrangians with rank one local systems, then Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) is automatically idempotent closed, so there is no difference between Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) and Dπ​F​u​k​(X)D^{\pi}Fuk(X). However, it is highly nonobvious why direct summands are Yoneda represented by geometric Lagrangian objects,6565 65 There exist some wild speculations, such as incorporating coisotropic branes into the Fukaya category in order to have more geometric objects. so this claim is regarded by many experts as a weakness of Joyce’s proposal. For this reason, in our more restrictive proposal we stick with the more geometric Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X) (including immersed and singular objects, but not formal idempotent summands) in favour of Dπ​F​u​k​(X)D^{\pi}Fuk(X), and the idempotent closure problem does not falsify our program.

6.2 Immersed exact Lagrangians

According to Joyce’s LMCF program, immersed Lagrangians are a necessary part of any Fukaya category adequate for the Thomas-Yau conjecture. As far as the author is aware, only immersed Floer cohomology [7], rather than the full categorical framework, has been written down in the literature, although in the exact setting this is commonly believed to be a relatively routine matter, as sketched in [41, section 4.1]. Our limited goal is to highlight the main difference with the embedded case, namely the issues of obstructions and bounding cochains. Once these two issues are taken into account, what works in the embedded case will also work in the immersed case.

Teardrop curves and obstructions

The assumptions on (X,ω)(X,\omega) are as in the previous section. Immersed Lagrangians are immersions ι:L→X\iota:L\to X with ω|L=0\omega|_{L}=0, and all self intersections are transverse. The domain of LL is allowed to be disconnected, so the union of finitely many transversely intersecting embedded Lagrangians are examples of immersed Lagrangians. Each self intersection point of two local sheets L+,L−L_{+},L_{-} corresponds to two different points x±x_{\pm} on the domain of LL. It is important to distinguish x+x_{+} and x−x_{-}, because for the boundary of the holomorphic curve to pass through x+x_{+} in the clockwise direction means crossing from L+L_{+} to L−L_{-}, and x−x_{-} signifies the opposite crossing.

We say LL is exact, if there is a function fLf_{L} on the domain of LL, such that d​fLdf_{L} agrees with the Liouville 1-form restricted to LL. For energy reasons, this forbids nontrivial holomorphic disks with boundary on LL which never change local sheets at any boundary point. The caveat is that the relative homology class [ω]∈H2​(X,L)[\omega]\in H_{2}(X,L) may still be nonzero. The brane structures on LL are as in the embedded case. The construction of C​F∗​(L,L)CF^{*}(L,L) depends on the approach, but a common feature is that it includes

C​Fs​e​l​f∗​(L,L)=⨁self intersection pC​F∗​(L+,L−)⊕C​F∗​(L−,L+).CF^{*}_{self}(L,L)=\bigoplus_{\text{self intersection $p$}}CF^{*}(L_{+},L_{-})\oplus CF^{*}(L_{-},L_{+}).

generated by the local system factor Hom​(E+,E−)|p\text{Hom}(E_{+},E_{-})|_{p} (resp. Hom​(E−,E+)|p\text{Hom}(E_{-},E_{+})|_{p}) tensored with the orientation line.

The Gromov compactness discussion is largely similar to the embedded case. A new phenomenon is the teardrop curves, namely the holomorphic curves with boundary on LL and a single output corner at a self intersection point r∈C​F∗​(L+,L−)r\in CF^{*}(L_{+},L_{-}). Of particular importance is the case with μL+,L−​(r)=2\mu_{L_{+},L_{-}}(r)=2. The number 22 is intuitively explained by the 2 degrees of freedom of the domain Möbius transforms fixing the corner point A​u​t​(D2,1)Aut(D^{2},1), modulo which such teardrop curves occur in dimension zero moduli spaces.

Now if we attempt to run the usual argument for d2=0d^{2}=0 in Floer cohomology, we would consider the moduli space of holomorphic strips between p,qp,q with deg⁡q−deg⁡p=2\deg q-\deg p=2, modulo the translation ℝ\mathbb{R}. However, in addition to the usual strip breaking, the holomorphic strips can also break into a holomorphic triangle with inputs p,rp,r and output qq, and a teardrop curve with corner at rr. In summary, teardrop curves with corner at a degree 2 intersection point obstruct Floer cohomology.

The automorphism group A​u​t​(D2,1)Aut(D^{2},1) forbids the naïve domain dependent perturbation schemes, which in turn causes transversality problems. In the literature there are two approaches to solve this problem: Joyce and Akaho [7] use virtual perturbation techniques for bordered Riemann surfaces, while Woodward et al. [81][82] circumvent the virtual perturbations by utilizing stabilising divisors. Both approaches assign curved A∞A_{\infty} algebra structures (m0,m1,…)(m_{0},m_{1},\ldots) to the Floer cochain spaces C​F∗​(L,L)CF^{*}(L,L) of immersed Lagrangians. In the exact setting, the m0∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)m_{0}\in CF_{self}^{2}(L,L) term amounts to a count of teardrop curves with corner at degree 2 self intersection points, with weighting factors coming from the holonomy of the local system. Since in the main text the emphasis is on the automatic transversality assumption, we shall not dwell on the details of perturbation schemes, but only identify a few simplifications in the exact setting.

Remark 6.11.

The rough idea of Woodward et al. is to introduce interior marked points, constrained to lie on a Donaldson divisor DD disjoint from the Lagrangians. The virtual dimension is not affected by these divisor constraints, since each interior marked point increases it by 2, while each divisor constraint decreases it by 2. One needs to arrange DD to be of sufficiently high degree, so that each nontrivial pseudoholomorphic disk with boundary on the Lagrangians has at least one intersection with DD. On a teardrop curve, imposing the divisor constraint at interior marked points kills the domain automorphisms A​u​t​(D2,1)Aut(D^{2},1), so one can then introduce domain dependent perturbation of almost complex structures compatible with DD to achieve sufficient transversality to make sense of counts. The appealing feature of this approach, is that adding marked points does not alter the geometric interpretation of the holomorphic curves, so stays closer to geometry than the virtual approach.

The framework of Woodward et al. [81][82] is not restricted to exact settings, and works also for compact symplectic manifolds with rational [ω]∈H2​(X)[\omega]\in H^{2}(X). Producing the Donaldson divisor with the intersection properties is easier if [ω]∈H2​(X,L)[\omega]\in H_{2}(X,L) is a rational class, although the methods in [14, section 3.1] allows one to largely relax this assumption.

In exact manifolds, as mentioned in [81, Remark 4.5], one can avoid the spherical components of the treed disks. In the exact Lagrangian setting, the only bubbling happens at the self intersection points. These afford significant simplifications to the construction, and allows one to think of the treed disks in [14][15] [81][82] in terms of a tree of holomorphic polygons connected at the self intersection points. By avoiding the troublesome sphere bubbles, one can also relax the restriction of moduli spaces of dimension at most one.

Remark 6.12.

A very technical aspect of Akaho-Joyce [7] is that the A∞A_{\infty} structure is not constructed directly, but through a sequence of approximations involving energy cutoff scales. In the exact setting, the topological energy formula implies a priori energy bounds, so this complication would not arise.

Cancellation of obstructions

To make sense of Floer cohomology one needs to cancel the obstructions by introducing bounding cochains b∈C​Fs​e​l​f1​(L,L)b\in CF_{self}^{1}(L,L), which represents a formal sum of bp∈Hom​(E+,E−)|p⊗|op|b_{p}\in\text{Hom}(E_{+},E_{-})|_{p}\otimes|o_{p}| associated to degree one intersection points p∈C​F1​(L+,L−)p\in CF^{1}(L_{+},L_{-}). We require

  • •

    The Novikov positivity condition fL+​(p)≥fL−​(p)f_{L_{+}}(p)\geq f_{L_{-}}(p) for each of the intersection points appearing in bb.

  • •

    The Mauer-Cartan equation

    m0b=m0+m1​(b)+m2​(b,b)+…=0∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L).m_{0}^{b}=m_{0}+m_{1}(b)+m_{2}(b,b)+\ldots=0\in CF_{self}^{2}(L,L). (72)

Geometrically, the coefficients of q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)q\in CF_{self}^{2}(L,L) in the mk​(b,…​b)m_{k}(b,\ldots b) term represent the zero dimensional counts of holomorphic polygons with the inputs at the summands bpb_{p} of bb, and the output at qq, weighted by the holonomy and orientation factors. Using the Novikov positivity requirement of the bounding cochain, the topological energy formula (66) for the polygon then implies

∫Σω≤fL−​(q)−fL+​(q),\int_{\Sigma}\omega\leq f_{L_{-}}(q)-f_{L_{+}}(q),

where the boundary of Σ\Sigma passes from L+L_{+} to L−L_{-} at qq in the clockwise direction. By Gromov compactness, this uniform energy bound implies there are only finitely many terms involved in the Mauer-Cartan equation. When such a bounding cochain bb exists, we say (L,b)(L,b) defines an unobstructed Lagrangian brane. In this case, both the Akaho-Joyce and the Woodward-Palmer approaches assign self Floer cohomology groups H​F∗​((L,b),(L,b))HF^{*}((L,b),(L,b)), defined as the cohomology of a degree one operator

m1b:C​F∗​(L,L)→C​F∗+1​(L,L),m1b​(x)=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b,…​b⏟k′,x,b,…,b⏟k).m_{1}^{b}:CF^{*}(L,L)\to CF^{*+1}(L,L),\quad m_{1}^{b}(x)=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(\underbrace{b,\ldots b}_{k^{\prime}},x,\underbrace{b,\ldots,b}_{k}).

This cohomology is invariant under global Hamiltonian deformations. Two bounding cochains b,b′b,b^{\prime} on LL are said to be gauge equivalent, if there is h∈C​F0​(L,L)h\in CF^{0}(L,L) satisfying the Novikov positivity condition, such that

b−b′=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b′,…​b′,h,b,…​b).b-b^{\prime}=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(b^{\prime},\ldots b^{\prime},h,b,\ldots b).

Gauge equivalent bounding cochains give rise to isomorphic Floer cohomology.

Remark 6.13.

In the embedded case, there are no self intersections, so the Mauer-Cartan equation is vacuous, and the Lagrangian is automatically unobstructed, with zero bounding cochain. The unobstructed condition is not automatic in general for immersed Lagrangians, and a significant aspect of the Joyce program in [41] is that unobstructed Lagrangians ought to be better behaved in the LMCF.

Now suppose (L,b)(L,b) and (L′,b′)(L^{\prime},b^{\prime}) are two unobstructed Lagrangian branes, intersecting transversally avoiding the self intersections of LL and L′L^{\prime}. Then we can define the Floer cohomology H​F∗​((L,b),(L′,b′))HF^{*}((L,b),(L^{\prime},b^{\prime})). The Floer cochain space C​F∗​(L,L′)CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) is the same as in the embedded case, generated by the local system factor tensored with the orientation factor, associated to the transverse intersection points. The Floer differential is

m1b,b′​(p)=∑k,k′≥0mk+k′+1​(b′,…​b′,p,b,…​b),m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(p)=\sum_{k,k^{\prime}\geq 0}m_{k+k^{\prime}+1}(b^{\prime},\ldots b^{\prime},p,b,\ldots b),

where the sum has k′k^{\prime} insertions of b′b^{\prime}, and kk insertions of bb. The coefficient of q∈C​F∗+1​(L,L′)q\in CF^{*+1}(L,L^{\prime}) are morally defined by the weighted count of holomorphic polygons with boundary marked points mapping to the summands of b,…​p,b′,…,qb,\ldots p,b^{\prime},\ldots,q, arranged in clockwise order. A similar a priori energy bound argument shows the sum is finite.

It is instructive to see why (m1b,b′)2=0(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}=0. We consider the breaking of one dimensional moduli spaces, associated with p,r∈C​F∗​(L,L′)p,r\in CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) with deg⁡r−deg⁡p=2\deg r-\deg p=2. There are several mechanisms for disc bubbling and disc splittings:

  • •

    The polygon breaks into two parts, connected at a nodal point mapping to some q∈C​F∗​(L,L′)q\in CF^{*}(L,L^{\prime}) with deg⁡q−deg⁡p=1\deg q-\deg p=1. The sum of all such contributions give rise to ⟨m1b,b′​(p),q⟩​⟨m1b,b′​(q),r⟩\langle m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(p),q\rangle\langle m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}}(q),r\rangle, and summing over q,rq,r produces (m1b,b′)2​(p)(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}(p).

  • •

    The polygon bubbles off a teardrop curve at a self intersection point qq of degree 2 on either LL or L′L^{\prime}.

  • •

    The polygon splits into two parts, connected at a node mapping to a degree 2 self intersection point qq on either LL or L′L^{\prime}.

The combined effect of the last two contributions, is a sum of the weighted counts of polygons with boundary mapping to b,b,…​p,b′,…​q,b′​…​rb,b,\ldots p,b^{\prime},\ldots q,b^{\prime}\ldots r multiplied by the coefficient of qq in m0b′=m0+m1​(b′)+…∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L′,L′)m_{0}^{b^{\prime}}=m_{0}+m_{1}(b^{\prime})+\ldots\in CF^{2}_{self}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}) in the case of q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L′,L′)q\in CF^{2}_{self}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}) (the case with q∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)q\in CF^{2}_{self}(L,L) gives an entirely similar contribution related to m0b∈C​Fs​e​l​f2​(L,L)m_{0}^{b}\in CF^{2}_{self}(L,L)). By the unobstructed assumption m0b=0m_{0}^{b}=0 and m0b′=0m_{0}^{b^{\prime}}=0, so these contributions vanish. But the grand sum of all contributions from all boundaries of the moduli spaces should be zero, which implies (m1b,b′)2=0(m_{1}^{b,b^{\prime}})^{2}=0.

The generalization to many Lagrangians is a matter of bookkeeping. We have the A∞A_{\infty} compositions

mkb0,…​bk:C​F∗​(Lk−1,Lk)⊗…​C​F∗​(L0,L1)→C​F∗​(L0,Lk)​[2−k],m_{k}^{b_{0},\ldots b_{k}}:CF^{*}(L_{k-1},L_{k})\otimes\ldots CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to CF^{*}(L_{0},L_{k})[2-k],
mkb0,…​bk​(pk,…​p1)=∑ml​(bk,…​bk,pk,bk−1,…,pk−1,…,p1,b0,…​b0).m_{k}^{b_{0},\ldots b_{k}}(p_{k},\ldots p_{1})=\sum m_{l}(b_{k},\ldots b_{k},p_{k},b_{k-1},\ldots,p_{k-1},\ldots,p_{1},b_{0},\ldots b_{0}). (73)

In particular, this induces a product structure on Floer cohomology H​F∗​(L1,L2)⊗H​F∗​(L0,L1)→H​F∗​(L0,L2)HF^{*}(L_{1},L_{2})\otimes HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{1})\to HF^{*}(L_{0},L_{2}) (with bounding cochains suppressed in the notation),

[β]∘[α]=(−1)deg⁡α​m2b0,b1,b2​(β,α).[\beta]\circ[\alpha]=(-1)^{\deg\alpha}m_{2}^{b_{0},b_{1},b_{2}}(\beta,\alpha).

We say two unobstructed Lagrangian branes L,L′L,L^{\prime} are isomorphic in Db​F​u​k​(X)D^{b}Fuk(X), if there exist [α]∈H​F0​(L,L′)[\alpha]\in HF^{0}(L,L^{\prime}) and [β]∈H​F0​(L′,L)[\beta]\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L), such that their compositions are the cohomological units: [β]∘[α]=1L∈H​F0​(L,L)[\beta]\circ[\alpha]=1_{L}\in HF^{0}(L,L) and [α]∘[β]=1L′∈H​F0​(L′,L′)[\alpha]\circ[\beta]=1_{L^{\prime}}\in HF^{0}(L^{\prime},L^{\prime}).

The union of several components

In our convention an immersed Lagrangian can have several components. Of particular interest is the case where LL is the union of transverse immersed Lagrangians L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N} with bounding cochains b1,…,bNb_{1},\ldots,b_{N} respectively, and we have morphisms bi​j∈C​F1​((Li,bi),(Lj,bj))b_{ij}\in CF^{1}((L_{i},b_{i}),(L_{j},b_{j})) for i>ji>j. The key assumption here is that the morphisms only go in one direction from LiL_{i} to LjL_{j}, not vice versa. We assume that b=∑bi+∑i>jbi​jb=\sum b_{i}+\sum_{i>j}b_{ij} is a bounding cochain for the immersed Lagrangian LL, and in particular all intersection points in bi​jb_{ij} satisfy the Novikov positivity condition fLi≥fLjf_{L_{i}}\geq f_{L_{j}}. We can write out the Mauer-Cartan equation

m0+m1​(b)+m2​(b,b)+…=0m_{0}+m_{1}(b)+m_{2}(b,b)+\ldots=0

in component form: for any i>ji>j,

∑l∑k≤l∑i=i0>…>ik=jml​(bik,…​bik,bik−1​ik,…,bi1,…​bi1,bi0​i1,bi0,…,bi0)=0.\sum_{l}\sum_{k\leq l}\sum_{i=i_{0}>\ldots>i_{k}=j}m_{l}(b_{i_{k}},\ldots b_{i_{k}},b_{i_{k-1}i_{k}},\ldots,b_{i_{1}},\ldots b_{i_{1}},b_{i_{0}i_{1}},b_{i_{0}},\ldots,b_{i_{0}})=0.

The key observation is that this is precisely how one would define twisted complexes built on L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N}, in the presence of the bounding cochains b1,…​bNb_{1},\ldots b_{N} and the data bi​jb_{ij}, when no further degree shifts are involved (cf. the exact setting in section 6.1). In this sense, we say that ‘immersed Lagrangians geometrises twisted complexes’. In other words, if the unobstructed immersed Lagrangians are admitted into the Fukaya category, then there is no need to formally add twisted complexes.

Lemma 6.3.

(Blocking together connected components based on potential clustering) Assume LL is the finite union of transversely intersecting immersed Lagrangians, with a bounding cochain bb. Then LL can be decomposed as a twisted complex built from some L1,…​LNL_{1},\ldots L_{N}, such that infLifLi>supLjfLj\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}>\sup_{L_{j}}f_{L_{j}} whenever i>ji>j, and the Lagrangian potential fLif_{L_{i}} has connected range for each LiL_{i} .

Proof.

The decomposition can continue as long as there exists a real number cc, such that the Lagrangian components can be partitioned into two types, with Lagrangian potential strictly smaller than cc (resp. greater than cc). As long as infLifLi>supLjfLj\inf_{L_{i}}f_{L_{i}}>\sup_{L_{j}}f_{L_{j}} whenever i>ji>j, the Novikov positivity condition on the Lagrangian intersection points would imply that the entries bi​j∈C​F1​(Li,Lj)b_{ij}\in CF^{1}(L_{i},L_{j}) of bb can only go in the direction i>ji>j and not vice versa, so the immersed Lagrangian LL is necessarily of the twisted complex form. This algorithm stops in finitely many steps since there are only finitely many components involved. ∎

Orientation signs on bordism currents

In section 3.1, 3.1.2 we encountered the (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional moduli spaces such as ℳ⁡(b,…,b,α,b′,…,β)\mathcal{M}(b,\ldots,b,\alpha,b^{\prime},\ldots,\beta) and ℳ⁡(b,…,b,γ)\mathcal{M}(b,\ldots,b,\gamma). The special case of holmorphic strips was already mentioned in Example 6.2.

We now consider the moduli ℳ⁡(p1,…​pk)\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k}) of polygons with at least 3 corners p1,…​pkp_{1},\ldots p_{k}, all regarded as inputs, arranged in clockwise order on ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, each carrying the local system factors Hom⁡(E+,E−)|pi\Hom(E_{+},E_{-})|_{p_{i}} and the orientation factors |opi||o_{p_{i}}|. The clockwise composition of the local system hom factors and the parallel transport along ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, produces a holonomy factor around ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, which is a number in ℚ,ℝ,ℤ\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{R},\mathbb{Z} depending on the coefficient ring choice. Using (69) and Remark 6.9, as well as the clockwise orientation convention on the Stasheff associahedron, we acquire a (naïve) orientation on T​ℳ​(p1,…​pk)T\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k}). To assign orientation and weighting factors to ℳ⁡(p1,…​pk)\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k}), we take the product of the holonomy factor, the naïve orientation on T​ℳ​(p1,…​pk)T\mathcal{M}(p_{1},\ldots p_{k}), and another universal sign factor

(−1)deg⁡p1+2​deg⁡p2+…+k​deg⁡pk​(−1)deg⁡pk.(-1)^{\deg p_{1}+2\deg p_{2}+\ldots+k\deg p_{k}}(-1)^{\deg p_{k}}.

The appearance of this universal sign adjustment is a familiar convention in the open-closed map, cf. [2, eqn 5.24]. The notation ℳ\mathcal{M} is a shorthand for the weighted sum of all the (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional moduli spaces involved in the construction of the bordism current.

We equip the domain Σ\Sigma with the complex orientation, and together with an extra minus sign, the orientation on ℳ\mathcal{M} induces the orientation on 𝒞\mathcal{C}. This minus sign arises for the same reason as in Example 6.2, namely the discrepancy between our clockwise convention on ∂Σ\partial\Sigma, with the standard complex orientation on Σ\Sigma.

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