ScalingStacks

2. Ricci-flat metrics [05C9]

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

2. Ricci-flat metrics

2.1. Generalized Gibbons-Hawking ansatz

Suppose TnT^{n}, a nn-dimensional (real) torus, acts freely on an NN-(complex) dimensional Kähler manifold MM by Hamiltonian holomorphic isometries. Then MM can be considered as a principal TnT^{n}-bundle over a real manifold of dimension 2​N−n2N-n. The generalized Gibbons-Hawking ansatz expresses the Kähler and Ricci-flat conditions as differential equations in the nn moment map coordinates and N−nN-n holomorphic coordinates on the Kähler quotient.

Let 𝔱\mathfrak{t} denote the Lie algebra of the torus Lie group TnT^{n}, and let 𝔱ℤ\mathfrak{t}_{\mathbb{Z}} be the natural integral lattice in 𝔱\mathfrak{t}. We will fix a basis in 𝔱ℤ\mathfrak{t}_{\mathbb{Z}}. This defines affine coordinates uiu_{i} on the dual space 𝔱∗≅ℝn\mathfrak{t}^{*}\cong\mathbb{R}^{n}. Let YY be either ℂN−n\mathbb{C}^{N-n} or (ℂ∗)N−n≅ℝN−n×(S1)N−n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{N-n}\cong\mathbb{R}^{N-n}\times(S^{1})^{N-n}, with the affine complex coordinates ηp=xp+i​yp\eta_{p}=x_{p}+iy_{p}, where ypy_{p} are the phase coordinates on the torus (S1)N−n(S^{1})^{N-n} in the latter case.

Consider a principal TnT^{n}-bundle π:M→B∘\pi:M\to B^{\circ} over an open set B∘B^{\circ} in 𝔱∗×Y\mathfrak{t}^{*}\times Y, with coordinates (ui,ηp,η¯q)(u_{i},\eta_{p},\bar{\eta}_{q}). Denote by [ν][\nu] its integral Chern class as an element in H2​(B,𝔱ℤ)H^{2}(B,\mathfrak{t}_{\mathbb{Z}}).

Theorem 2.1 (cf. [PP91]).

Let Vi​jV^{ij}, respectively Wp​qW^{pq}, be real symmetric, respectively hermitian, positive definite matrices of smooth functions on B∘B^{\circ}, locally given by some potential function Φ\Phi:

(1) Vi​j=∂2Φ∂uj​∂uj,Wp​q=−4​∂2Φ∂ηp​∂η¯q,1≤i,j≤nn+1≤p,q≤N.V^{ij}=\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial u_{j}},\quad W^{pq}=-4\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial\eta_{p}\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}},\qquad 1\leq i,j\leq n\quad n+1\leq p,q\leq N.

Then the following 𝔱\mathfrak{t}-valued 2-form is closed:

(2) Fj=−1​(12​∂Wp​q∂uj​d​ηp∧d​η¯q+∂Vi​j∂ηp​d​ui∧d​ηp−∂Vi​j∂η¯q​d​ui∧d​η¯q).F_{j}=\sqrt{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}+\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}}du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}-\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}du_{i}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\right).

Suppose, in addition, that detVi​j=detWp​q\det V^{ij}=\det W^{pq} and (F1,…,Fn)(F_{1},\dots,F_{n}) is in the cohomology class 2​π​[ν]2\pi[\nu]. Then there exist a connection on the bundle M→BM\to B with associated 1-forms AiA_{i} and the curvature (F1,…,Fn)(F_{1},\dots,F_{n}) such that MM is a Kähler manifold with Ricci-flat metric given by

(3) h=(V−1)i​j​d​zi⊗d​z¯j+Wp​q​d​ηp⊗d​η¯q,h=(V^{-1})^{ij}dz_{i}\otimes d\bar{z}_{j}+W^{pq}d\eta_{p}\otimes d\bar{\eta}_{q},

where d​zj=Vi​j​d​ui+−1⋅Ajdz_{j}=V^{ij}du_{i}+\sqrt{-1}\cdot A_{j} and d​ηpd\eta_{p} form a basis of holomorphic 1-forms. The holomorphic NN-form and the Kähler form:

(4) Ω=∧j=1kdzj⋀∧p=1ldηp,ω=duj∧Aj+−12⋅Wp​qdηp∧dη¯q\Omega=\wedge_{j=1}^{k}dz_{j}\bigwedge\wedge_{p=1}^{l}d\eta_{p},\qquad\omega=du_{j}\wedge A_{j}+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\cdot W^{pq}d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}

are compatible in the sense that Ω∧Ω¯=c​o​n​s​t⋅ωN\Omega\wedge\bar{\Omega}=const\cdot\omega^{N}.

Proof.

First we note that the local potential description of VV and WW by (1) insures that

(5) d​Fj=−12⋅d⁡(∂Wp​q∂uj)∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q+−1⋅d(∂Vi​j∂ηp)∧dui∧dηp−−1⋅d(∂Vi​j∂η¯q)∧dui∧dη¯q=−12​(∂2Wp​q∂ui​∂uj+4​∂2Vi​j∂ηp​∂η¯q)​d​ui∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q=0.dF_{j}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\cdot d\left(\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}\right)\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ +\sqrt{-1}\cdot d\left(\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}}\right)\wedge du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}-\sqrt{-1}\cdot d\left(\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}\right)\wedge du_{i}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ =\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}W^{pq}}{\partial u_{i}\partial u_{j}}+4\frac{\partial^{2}V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}\right)du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}=0.

Moreover, if θj\theta_{j} denote the coordinates on the torus fiber such that ∂/∂θj\partial/\partial\theta_{j} are the Hamiltonian vector fields, then the connection 1-forms can be written up to exact forms on B∘B^{\circ} in terms of the local potential Φ\Phi:

(6) Aj=d​θj+−1​(∂2Φ∂uj​∂ηp​d​ηp−∂2Φ∂uj​∂η¯q​d​η¯q).A_{j}=d\theta_{j}+\sqrt{-1}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial\eta_{p}}d\eta_{p}-\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}d\bar{\eta}_{q}\right).

And one can see explicitly that Fj=d​AjF_{j}=dA_{j}.

The integrability of the complex structure follows from the fact that the differential ideal generated by (1,0)(1,0)-forms is closed:

(7) d⁡(d​zj)=d​Vi​j∧d​ui+−1⋅d​Aj=−∂Vi​j∂uk​d​ui∧d​uk−∂Vi​j∂ηp​d​ui∧d​ηp−∂Vi​j∂η¯q​d​ui∧d​η¯q−(12​∂Wp​q∂uj​d​ηp∧d​η¯q+∂Vi​j∂ηp​d​ui∧d​ηp−∂Vi​j∂η¯q​d​ui∧d​η¯q)=(12​∂Wp​q∂uj​d​η¯q−2​∂Vi​j∂ηp​d​ui)∧d​ηp,d(dz_{j})=dV^{ij}\wedge du_{i}+\sqrt{-1}\cdot dA_{j}\\ =-\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial u_{k}}du_{i}\wedge du_{k}-\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}}du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}-\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}du_{i}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ -\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}+\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}}du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}-\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}du_{i}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\right)\\ =\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}d\bar{\eta}_{q}-2\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}}du_{i}\right)\wedge d\eta_{p},

where we have only used ∂Vi​j∂uk=∂Vk​j∂ui\frac{\partial V^{ij}}{\partial u_{k}}=\frac{\partial V^{kj}}{\partial u_{i}}.

It is equally easy to verify the Kähler condition:

(8) d​ω=−d​uj∧d​Aj+−12⋅d​Wp​q∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q=−−1​(12​∂Wp​q∂uj​d​uj∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q)+−12​∂Wp​q∂uj​d​uj∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q=0.d\omega=-du_{j}\wedge dA_{j}+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\cdot dW^{pq}\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\\ =-\sqrt{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}du_{j}\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}\right)+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\frac{\partial W^{pq}}{\partial u_{j}}du_{j}\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}=0.

Finally, the Ricci-flatness is manifest since det(h)=detV−1⋅detW=1\det(h)=\det V^{-1}\cdot\det W=1 in the complex coordinates d​zj,d​ηpdz_{j},d\eta_{p}. ∎

We are interested in applying the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz to description of the metrics on the toric Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces. Given a torus fibration of such hypersurface near the large complex structure point one may approximate the true Calabi-Yau metric by non-compact solutions of GH equations over different regions of the base. Away from the discriminant locus a semi-flat metric gives a good approximation. We try to argue that as the tori shrink to zero size the metric behavior near singular fibers can also be approximated by certain yy-periodic solutions of GH ansatz. This local description is the main subject of the paper.

2.2. Example: toric orbifold

This is an important toy example which provides the local description of Gibbons-Hawking solutions for more interesting cases. Here for the standard toric orbifold metric one can actually write down an explicit solution to the Gibbons-Hawking equations.

First we set up the notations. Let N≅ℤn+1N\cong\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} be an integral lattice in a real vector space Nℝ=N⊗ℝN_{\mathbb{R}}=N\otimes\mathbb{R}. Denote by N∗⊂Nℝ∗N^{*}\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*} the dual lattice in the dual space.

Let τ\tau be an nn-simplex with vertices (w0,w1,…,wn)(w_{0},w_{1},\dots,w_{n}) in the lattice N≅ℤn+1N\cong\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}, whose affine distance from the origin is 1. That is, there is a vector ρ\rho in the dual lattice N∗N^{*} such that ⟨wi,ρ⟩=1\langle w_{i},\rho\rangle=1, all i=0,…,ni=0,\dots,n. Denote by 𝒯⊂Nℝ\mathcal{T}\subset N_{\mathbb{R}} the cone over τ\tau and by 𝒯∨⊂Nℝ∗\mathcal{T}^{\vee}\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*} the dual cone.

Let X𝒯:=Spec[zm:m∈𝒯∨∩N∗]X_{\mathcal{T}}:=\operatorname{Spec}[z^{m}\ :\ m\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}\cap N^{*}] be the associated affine toric variety (cf., e.g. [Ful93]). If ℤ⁡⟨w0,…,wn⟩\mathbb{Z}\langle w_{0},\dots,w_{n}\rangle denotes the (finite index) sublattice in NN generated by wiw_{i} and GG is the quotient group N/ℤ⁡⟨w0,…,wn⟩N/\mathbb{Z}\langle w_{0},\dots,w_{n}\rangle, then X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} is isomorphic to the orbifold ℂk+1/G\mathbb{C}^{k+1}/G.

The real torus Nℝ/NN_{\mathbb{R}}/N acts on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}. But we will be interested rather in the action of its subtorus Tn:=(Nρ)ℝ/NρT^{n}:=({N_{\rho}})_{\mathbb{R}}/{N_{\rho}}, where Nρ:={v∈N:⟨v,ρ⟩=0}N_{\rho}:=\{v\in N\ :\ \langle v,\rho\rangle=0\}. The nn-dimensional subspace (Nρ)ℝ⊂Nℝ(N_{\rho})_{\mathbb{R}}\subset N_{\mathbb{R}} can be naturally identified with the Lie algebra 𝔱\mathfrak{t} of TnT^{n}. The dual quotient space Nℝ∗/ρN_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho is identified with 𝔱∗{\mathfrak{t}}^{*}.

Let Qiτ⊂Nℝ∗/ρQ^{\tau}_{i}\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho denote the open normal cones to the vertices wiw_{i} of τ\tau. Define a polyhedral complex Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau) in Nℝ∗/ρN_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho to be the union of walls separating the QiτQ^{\tau}_{i}’s:

Π⁡(τ):=⋃i≠jwalli​j,\Pi(\tau):=\bigcup_{i\neq j}\mathrm{wall}_{ij},

with the orientation of each wall determined by the ordering of {i,j}\{i,j\}. Another way to look at Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau) is as being the image of the union of (n−1)(n-1)-dimensional cones in 𝒯∨\mathcal{T}^{\vee} under the quotient map Nℝ∗→Nℝ∗/ρN_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}\to N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho.

The vector ρ\rho lies in the interior of 𝒯∨\mathcal{T}^{\vee}, hence η=zρ:X𝒯→ℂ\eta=z^{\rho}:X_{\mathcal{T}}\to\mathbb{C} defines a regular function, which vanishes at the divisor in X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} corresponding to the boundary of 𝒯∨{\mathcal{T}}^{\vee}. Together with the moment map μ:X𝒯→𝔱∗\mu:X_{\mathcal{T}}\to{\mathfrak{t}}^{*} we have the torus fibration

(μ,η):X𝒯→Nℝ∗/ρ×ℂ,(\mu,\eta):X_{\mathcal{T}}\to N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho\times\mathbb{C},

whose restriction to B∘=Nℝ∗/ρ×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}B^{\circ}=N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} is a principal TnT^{n}-bundle π:M→B∘\pi:M\to B^{\circ}.

To describe the topology of this bundle note that the homology group H2​(Nℝ∗/ρ∖Π⁡(τ),ℤ)H_{2}(N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho\setminus\Pi(\tau),\mathbb{Z}) can be naturally identified with Λτ\Lambda_{\tau}, the (finite index) sublattice of NρN_{\rho} generated by the elements wi−wjw_{i}-w_{j} for all pairs of i,ji,j. Then the Chern class of this bundle

[ν]∈H2​(Nℝ∗/ρ∖Π⁡(τ),ℤ)⊗Nρ≅Hom⁡(Λτ,Nρ)[\nu]\in H^{2}(N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho\setminus\Pi(\tau),\mathbb{Z})\otimes N_{\rho}\cong\operatorname{Hom}(\Lambda_{\tau},N_{\rho})

is the element given by the natural inclusion ι:Λτ↪Nρ\iota:\Lambda_{\tau}\hookrightarrow N_{\rho}.

The final piece of notation before we describe the standard orbifold metric on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} is the (finite index) sublattice N′⊂NN^{\prime}\subset N generated by wiw_{i}’s. Let (N′)∗⊃N∗(N^{\prime})^{*}\supset N^{*} be its dual lattice. Let m0,…,mnm_{0},\dots,m_{n} be the minimal vectors in (N′)∗(N^{\prime})^{*} along the rays of 𝒯∨{\mathcal{T}}^{\vee}.

In polar coordinates the standard orbifold metric on the algebraic torus (ℂ∗)n+1⊂X𝒯(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\subset X_{\mathcal{T}} will be

h=∑i=0n(d​|zmi|+−1​|zmi|​⟨mi,d​θ⟩)⊗(d​|zmi​|−−1|​zmi|​⟨mi,d​θ⟩).h=\sum_{i=0}^{n}(d|z^{m_{i}}|+\sqrt{-1}|z^{m_{i}}|\langle m_{i},d\theta\rangle)\otimes(d|z^{m_{i}}|-\sqrt{-1}|z^{m_{i}}|\langle m_{i},d\theta\rangle).

The functions zmiz^{m_{i}} are defined only on the |G||G|-fold covering space of X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}, but |z|mi|z|^{m_{i}} are well defined on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} itself. So are the differential forms ⟨mi,d​θ⟩\langle m_{i},d\theta\rangle.

To write this metric in the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz we choose a basis {ei}\{e_{i}\} of Nρ=𝔱N_{\rho}=\mathfrak{t}. Evaluating the moment map on the basis vectors defines the coordinates ui=μ⁡(ei)u_{i}=\mu(e_{i}) on Nℝ∗/ρ=𝔱∗N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho={\mathfrak{t}}^{*}, thus giving an identification Nℝ∗/ρN_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\rho with ℝn\mathbb{R}^{n}. The metric on each phase torus T|z|:={z:|z|mi=c​o​n​s​t}≅Nℝ/NT_{|z|}:=\{z\ :\ |z|^{m_{i}}=const\}\cong N_{\mathbb{R}}/N is constant, and, hence, it is given by a quadratic form Q|z|Q_{|z|} on NℝN_{\mathbb{R}}. Let (V−1)i​j(V^{-1})^{ij} be the matrix of restriction of Q|z|Q_{|z|} to (Nρ)ℝ(N_{\rho})_{\mathbb{R}} in the basis {ei}\{e_{i}\}. Then the functions Vi​jV^{ij} and W=detVi​jW=\det V^{ij} give a solution to the GH equations.

Note that the top degree holomorphic form Ωτ\Omega_{\tau} coincide with the push forward under the projection ℂn+1→ℂn+1/G\mathbb{C}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{C}^{n+1}/G of the standard volume form on ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1}.

As an illustration free of orbifold complications let us write the ansatz for the standard Euclidean metric on ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1} explicitly. In this case, τ\tau is the standard nn-simplex in N:=ℤn+1N:=\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}, i.e. wiw_{i} form a basis in NN. We will fix the coordinates zi=|zi|​ei​θiz_{i}=|z_{i}|e^{i\theta_{i}} on ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1}. The action of the torus

Tn={(θ0,…,θn):∑θi=0}T^{n}=\{(\theta_{0},\dots,\theta_{n})\ :\ \sum\theta_{i}=0\}

on ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1} gives rise to a principal TnT^{n}-bundle over M=ℝn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}M=\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\}. Then, in the Gibbons-Hawking coordinates the metric on MM can be written as

h=(V−1)i​j​(Vk​i​d​uk+−1⋅Ai)⊗(Vk​j​d​uk−−1⋅Aj)+W​d​η⊗d​η¯,h=(V^{-1})^{ij}(V^{ki}du_{k}+\sqrt{-1}\cdot A_{i})\otimes(V^{kj}du_{k}-\sqrt{-1}\cdot A_{j})+Wd\eta\otimes d\bar{\eta},

where

ui=|zi|2−|z0|2,i=1,…,n,η=z0z1…zn,\displaystyle u_{i}=|z_{i}|^{2}-|z_{0}|^{2},\ i=1,\dots,n,\qquad\eta=z_{0}z_{1}\dots z_{n},
W−1=|z0​z1​…​zn|2​(1|z0|2+1|z1|2+⋯+1|zn|2),\displaystyle W^{-1}=|z_{0}z_{1}\dots z_{n}|^{2}\left(\frac{1}{|z_{0}|^{2}}+\frac{1}{|z_{1}|^{2}}+\dots+\frac{1}{|z_{n}|^{2}}\right),
(V−1)i​j=|z0|2+δi​j​|zi|2,\displaystyle(V^{-1})^{ij}=|z_{0}|^{2}+\delta^{ij}|z_{i}|^{2},
Aj=d​θj−W​|z0​z1​…​zk^​…​zn|2⋅d⁡(θ0+θ1+⋯+θn).\displaystyle A_{j}=d\theta_{j}-W|z_{0}z_{1}\dots\widehat{z_{k}}\dots z_{n}|^{2}\cdot d(\theta_{0}+\theta_{1}+\dots+\theta_{n}).

The above expressions degenerate whenever two or more of the coordinates ziz_{i} vanish. Thus, the discriminant locus D⊂ℝn×ℂD\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{C} is given by u∈Π⁡(τ)u\in\Pi(\tau) and η=0\eta=0. However, when written in the Euclidean coordinates the metric extends from MM to the standard flat metric h=∑i=0nd​zi⊗d​z¯ih=\sum_{i=0}^{n}dz_{i}\otimes d\bar{z}_{i} on ℂn+1\mathbb{C}^{n+1}.

2.3. Non-flat orbifold metrics

We start with a TnT^{n}-torus bundle π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} which has the same topology as the orbifold bundle above. It is convenient to encode the topological information about the bundle by rewriting the equation (5) for the curvature in a distributional form. Let γτj​(u)\gamma^{j}_{\tau}(u) be the NρN_{\rho}-valued 1-current supported on Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau) defined by

(9) γτ​(α)=∑i,j(wi−wj)​∫walli​jα,\gamma_{\tau}(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{i,j}(w_{i}-w_{j})\!\int\limits_{\mathrm{wall}_{ij}}\!\alpha,

for an (n−1)(n-1)-form α\alpha. Then adding the distributional equation

(10) −14​π​(∂2W∂ui​∂uj+4​∂2Vi​j∂η​∂η¯)​d​ui∧d​η∧d​η¯=γτj​(u)∧δ⁡(η)\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}W}{\partial u_{i}\partial u_{j}}+4\frac{\partial^{2}V^{ij}}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)du_{i}\wedge d\eta\wedge d\bar{\eta}=\gamma^{j}_{\tau}(u)\wedge\delta(\eta)

to the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz will automatically guarantee that the fibration π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} has the right Chern class. Here δ⁡(η)\delta(\eta) stands for the two-current associated to the origin in ℂ\mathbb{C} (the Dirac delta-function).

A remark on notation: γτ\gamma_{\tau} and δ\delta in (10) really mean the pull back of the corresponding currents to the product ℝn×ℂ\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{C}. We will continue to abuse this notation throughout the rest of the paper when there is no confusion possible.

Lemma 2.2.

Suppose we have a Gibbons-Hawking solution on Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\}, that is, a positive definite matrix function locally given by Vi​j=∂2Φ∂uj​∂ujV^{ij}=\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial u_{j}} such that W:=detVi​j=−4​∂2Φ∂η​∂η¯W:=\det V^{ij}=-4\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}, which satisfy the distributional equation (10) in Rn×ℂR^{n}\times\mathbb{C} and, in addition, ∫0∞Vi​j​(u,η,η¯)​d​ui=∞\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}V^{ij}(u,\eta,\bar{\eta})du_{i}=\infty. Then the total space of the torus bundle π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} can be compactified to the fibration π¯:M¯→Rn×ℂ\bar{\pi}:\bar{M}\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C} such that M¯\bar{M} is biholomorphic (in the orbifold sense) to X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} in a manner which respects the map

η:X𝒯→ℂ.\eta:X_{\mathcal{T}}\to\mathbb{C}.

In particular, such solution defines a complete Ricci-flat Kähler metric on the orbifold X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} with the standard holomorphic volume form Ωτ\Omega_{\tau}.

Proof.

The discriminant locus D=Π⁡(τ)×{0}D=\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} is of codimension 3 in Rn×ℂR^{n}\times\mathbb{C} and has a nice simplicial stratification. Using this stratification the topological compactification from MM to M¯=X𝒯\bar{M}=X_{\mathcal{T}} follows by extending the argument of [Gro01, Prop. 2.9] to arbitrary dimensions and including the orbifold singularities. To prove the matching of complex structure we will follow closely [LeB91] where the argument is given for the ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2} case.

Let ∂∂θj\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}} be the Hamiltonian vector fields generating the TnT^{n}-action on MM. Consider the commuting vector fields

(11) ξj=−12​(∂∂θj−−1​J​∂∂θj)=12​((V−1)i​j​∂^∂ui−−1​∂∂θj),\xi_{j}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}-\sqrt{-1}J\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left((V^{-1})^{ij}\frac{\hat{\partial}}{\partial u_{i}}-\sqrt{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}\right),

where

∂^∂ui=∂∂ui−Ak​(∂∂ui)​∂∂θk,\frac{\hat{\partial}}{\partial u_{i}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}-A_{k}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{k}},

denote the horizontal lifts of the ∂∂ui\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}, and J:T​M→T​MJ:TM\to TM is the complex structure. Since the ∂∂θj\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}} preserve both the metric and the complex structure, it follows that the ξj\xi_{j} are holomorphic vector fields. Moreover, the their flows are complete because

(12) ∫0∞Vi​j​(u,η,η¯)​d​ui=∞,\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}V^{ij}(u,\eta,\bar{\eta})du_{i}=\infty,

hence, the ξj\xi_{j} generate a holomorphic action of (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} on M¯\bar{M}.

The orbit structure of this action is easily seen to be identical with the toric (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}-action on the orbifold X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}. Namely, for each subspace

La={(u,η):η=a},L_{a}=\{(u,\eta)\ :\ \eta=a\},

the set π−1​(La)\pi^{-1}(L_{a}) is a union of orbits. For a≠0a\neq 0 the π−1​(La)\pi^{-1}(L_{a}) is a single orbit, where as the π−1​(L0)\pi^{-1}(L_{0}) decomposes into (n+1)(n+1) orbits isomorphic to (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} and a bunch of smaller dimensional orbits according to the polyhedral decomposition of Nℝ∗/ρN^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}/\rho induced by Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau).

Consider the following subsets of Nℝ∗/ρ×ℂN^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}/\rho\times\mathbb{C}:

Li:={(u,η):η≠0}∪{(u,η):u∈Qiτ}.L_{i}:=\{(u,\eta)\ :\ \eta\neq 0\}\cup\{(u,\eta)\ :\ u\in Q^{\tau}_{i}\}.

We can cover the space MM by (n+1)(n+1) open sets 𝒰i:=π−1​(Li)\mathcal{U}_{i}:=\pi^{-1}(L_{i}). Each map η:𝒰i→ℂ\eta:\mathcal{U}_{i}\to\mathbb{C} defines a holomorphic principal (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}-bundle over ℂ\mathbb{C}. Since ℂ\mathbb{C} is Stein and contractible we conclude that each 𝒰i\mathcal{U}_{i} is biholomorphic to the product (ℂ∗)n×ℂ(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C}.

Now notice that the bundle structures on 𝒰i\mathcal{U}_{i} agree on their intersection π:⋂i𝒰i→ℂ∗\pi:\bigcap_{i}\mathcal{U}_{i}\to\mathbb{C}^{*}. Thus, MM is biholomorphic to the quotient space

∐i((ℂ∗)n×ℂ∗)/∼,\coprod_{i}\left((\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C}^{*}\right)/\sim,

where the equivalence relation is of the form

(13) (ui,η)i∼(fi​j​(η)​u,η)j,0≤i,j≤n,(u_{i},\eta)_{i}\sim(f_{ij}(\eta)u,\eta)_{j},\quad 0\leq i,j\leq n,

for some cocycle fi​jf_{ij} with values in the holomorphic maps ℂ∗→Aut⁡(ℂ∗)n\mathbb{C}^{*}\to\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}. But any automorphism of the principal homogeneous space (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} is given by an nn-tuple of non-zero complex numbers. In other words, each fi​jf_{ij} is an nn-tuple of holomorphic functions ℂ∗→ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*}\to\mathbb{C}^{*}. Another choice of trivializations 𝒰i≅(ℂ∗)n×ℂ\mathcal{U}_{i}\cong(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C} amounts to modifying the cocycle fi​jf_{ij} by a coboundary. That is, the biholomorphism type of MM is determined by the singularities of fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) at η=0\eta=0.

Next we notice that if any of the fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) had an essential singularity at 0, then it would be possible to find a sequence of points in MM converging to several distinct points. Hence MM would not even be Hausdorff. Hence, every singularity has to be removable. But the orders of vanishing of the fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) can be read off from the residues of the 1-forms d​log⁡fi​jd\log f_{ij}, and this is a topological information given by the Chern class of the original TnT^{n}-bundle. THus, the claimed biholomorphism is established on MM, and it can be extended to M¯\bar{M} by an orbifold version of the Hartog’s theorem.

In order to show that the holomorphic volume form is necessary the standard one we will prove the following (stronger) statement. Given two sets of commuting vector fields ξi\xi_{i} and ζi\zeta_{i} generating the (ℂ∗)(\mathbb{C}^{*})-actions on η:M→ℂ\eta:M\to\mathbb{C} which agree topologically, there is a biholomorphism ϕ:M→M\phi:M\to M such that ϕ∗​ξi=ζi\phi_{*}\xi_{i}=\zeta_{i}. Then, taking XiX_{i} to be the standard action on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} yields the claim about the volume form.

Let {e1,…,en}∈N∗\{e_{1},\dots,e_{n}\}\in N^{*} together with ρ\rho form a basis of N∗N^{*} topologically compatible with ξi\xi_{i} and ζi\zeta_{i}. That is, if {αi,η}\{\alpha_{i},\eta\} and {βi,η}\{\beta_{i},\eta\} are the two sets of coordinates, such that in the respective coordinates ξj=αj​∂∂αj\xi_{j}=\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}} and ζj=βj​∂∂βj\zeta_{j}=\beta_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{j}} on the big toric orbit {η≠0}≅(ℂ∗)n+1\{\eta\neq 0\}\cong(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}, then the transition maps between these coordinates and the standard ones {zei,η}\{z^{e_{i}},\eta\} extends from (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} to the whole of MM without zeros/poles. As a consequence, if we write

αj​∂∂αj=Bjk​βk​∂∂βk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=B_{j}^{k}\beta_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{k}},

then the matrix BjkB_{j}^{k} is invertible and extends to MM.

The goal is to find a change of coordinates βj=αj​eψj\beta_{j}=\alpha_{j}e^{\psi_{j}} which would induce such a Jacobian matrix. Using the chain rule

αj​∂∂αj=(δjk+αj​∂ψk∂αj)​βk​∂∂βk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=\left(\delta^{k}_{j}+\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial\psi_{k}}{\partial\alpha_{j}}\right)\beta_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{k}},

this amounts to solving the differential system

(14) αj​∂ψk∂αj=Bjk−δjk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial\psi_{k}}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=B_{j}^{k}-\delta^{k}_{j},

which, in general, is overdetermined.

However, in our case there are several restrictions on BjkB_{j}^{k}. Namely, note that the forms

d​βjβj=Bjk​d​αkαk mod ​d​η\frac{d\beta_{j}}{\beta_{j}}=B^{k}_{j}\frac{d\alpha_{k}}{\alpha_{k}}\quad\text{ mod }d\eta

are closed and have to satisfy the periodicity requirements of the action:

12​π​−1​∫γkd​βjβj=12​π​∫02​πBjk​(α1,…,αk​e−1​θ,…,αn,η)​𝑑θ=δjk,\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\int_{\gamma_{k}}\frac{d\beta_{j}}{\beta_{j}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}B^{k}_{j}(\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{k}e^{\sqrt{-1}\theta},\dots,\alpha_{n},\eta)\,d\theta=\delta_{j}^{k},

where γk\gamma_{k} is the generating cycle in the kk-th factor of ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*} in (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}. Then, by writing BjkB^{k}_{j} in the power series form

(15) Bjk=∑m1​e1+⋯+mn​en+r​ρ∈𝒯∨(bjk)m,r​α1m1​…​αnmn​ηr,mj∈ℤ,B^{k}_{j}=\sum\limits_{m_{1}e_{1}+\dots+m_{n}e_{n}+r\rho\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}}(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}\alpha_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots\alpha_{n}^{m_{n}}\eta^{r},\quad m_{j}\in\mathbb{Z},

we conclude that (bjk)m,r=0(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}=0 for mj=0m_{j}=0, except for (bjk)0,0=δjk(b^{k}_{j})_{0,0}=\delta_{j}^{k}, and (bjk)m,r=0(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}=0 if there exists an i≠ji\neq j with mi≠0m_{i}\neq 0. Hence, one can simultaneously solve the equations

mj​(ak)m,r=(bjk)m,r,m_{j}(a^{k})_{m,r}=(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r},

for all m,r,k,jm,r,k,j, and write down the power series solution to (14):

ψk=∑m1​e1+⋯+mn​en+r​ρ∈𝒯∨(ak)m,r​α1m1​…​αnmn​ηr,\psi_{k}=\sum\limits_{m_{1}e_{1}+\dots+m_{n}e_{n}+r\rho\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}}(a^{k})_{m,r}\alpha_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots\alpha_{n}^{m_{n}}\eta^{r},

that converges on the same polydisk in MM as the power series (15) for BjkB^{k}_{j} does. These functions ψk\psi^{k} provide the desired coordinate change. ∎

It is an interesting problem to exhibit the existence (and abundance) of the Gibbons-Hawking solutions. For instance, one can try to deform the standard (flat) orbifold metric. Applying continuity method techniques (cf. [GT83, Ch. 17]) this amounts to inverting a second order linear elliptic differential operator – the linearization of the GH operator at the flat solution. The difficulty is that one of the eigenvalues of its symbol blows off as we approach the discriminant.

In two dimensions (the original GH ansatz [Haw77],[GH78]) the equation becomes the usual Laplace equation. Since there are no positive harmonic functions on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} except constants, any solution has the form

V=ℓ⁡(τ)2​u2+|η|2+a,V=\frac{\ell(\tau)}{2\sqrt{u^{2}+|\eta|^{2}}}+a,

where ℓ⁡(τ)\ell(\tau) is the length of τ\tau, and aa is a positive constant. This defines the famous Taub-NUT metric – the first example of a non-trivial complete Kähler Ricci-flat metric on ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2} and its quotients by cyclic groups.

2.4. Periodic solutions

The goal here is to set up the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz in such a way that the resulting complex manifold is identifiable with the local model for a Calabi-Yau toric hypersurface. There are no explicit solutions known in dimension higher than 2, unlike the orbifold case. But we will try to make use of the ansatz to get some information about the limiting behavior of solutions in certain degenerations.

We will adapt the notations from the orbifold example. Namely, τ={w0,…,wn}\tau=\{w_{0},\dots,w_{n}\} is a simplex (but now not necessarily of codimension 1) in the lattice N≅ℤn+l+1N\cong\mathbb{Z}^{n+l+1}, which has the distance 1 from the origin. Let σ={v0,…,vl}\sigma=\{v_{0},\dots,v_{l}\} be a simplex in N∗N^{*} such that ⟨σ,τ⟩=1\langle\sigma,\tau\rangle=1. In particular, it means that σ\sigma also has distance 1 from the origin. Let Nσ⊂NN_{\sigma}\subset N and Nτ∗⊂N∗N^{*}_{\tau}\subset N^{*} be the sublattices orthogonal to σ\sigma and τ\tau, respectively. And let

Nℝ∗/σ:=Nℝ∗/⟨v0,…,vl⟩,Nℝ/τ:=Nℝ/⟨w0,…,wn⟩N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\sigma:=N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\langle v_{0},\dots,v_{l}\rangle,\quad N_{\mathbb{R}}/\tau:=N_{\mathbb{R}}/\langle w_{0},\dots,w_{n}\rangle

be the corresponding (dual) quotients. The polyhedral complex Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau) provides a polyhedral decomposition of Nℝ∗/σN^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}/\sigma into cells QiτQ_{i}^{\tau} and γτ\gamma_{\tau} is the associated 1-current supported on Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau), as before. Also, we define the cone 𝒯:=cone⁡(τ)\mathcal{T}:=\operatorname{cone}(\tau) in NℝN_{\mathbb{R}}, its dual 𝒯∨⊂Nℝ∗\mathcal{T}^{\vee}\subset N^{*}_{\mathbb{R}} and let

X𝒯:=Spec[zm:m∈𝒯∨∩N∗]X_{\mathcal{T}}:=\operatorname{Spec}[z^{m}\ :\ m\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}\cap N^{*}]

be the associated affine toric variety.

Every vertex vi∈σv_{i}\in\sigma lies in the interior of 𝒯∨\mathcal{T}^{\vee}, and, hence the monomials zviz^{v_{i}} belong to the coordinate ring of X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}. Let Zσ,τZ_{\sigma,\tau} denote the closure of the affine hypersurface

{z∈(ℂ∗)k+l+1:∑i=0lzvi=1}\{z\in(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{k+l+1}\ :\ \sum_{i=0}^{l}z^{v_{i}}=1\}

in the toric variety X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}.

The real torus Tn:=(Nσ)ℝ/NσT^{n}:=(N_{\sigma})_{\mathbb{R}}/N_{\sigma} acts on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} and leaves the hypersurface Zσ,τZ_{\sigma,\tau} invariant. We assume that this action is a holomorphic isometry and denote by μ:Zσ,τ→Nℝ∗/σ\mu:Z_{\sigma,\tau}\to N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\sigma the corresponding moment map.

The natural inclusion Nτ∗⊂𝒯∨∩N∗N^{*}_{\tau}\subset\mathcal{T}^{\vee}\cap N^{*} gives the projection κ:X𝒯→Tτ\kappa:X_{\mathcal{T}}\to T_{\tau} onto the algebraic torus Tτ:=Spec[zm:m∈Nτ∗]T_{\tau}:=\operatorname{Spec}[z^{m}\ :\ m\in N^{*}_{\tau}]. A choice of ρ∈N∗\rho\in N^{*}, such that ⟨ρ,τ⟩=1\langle\rho,\tau\rangle=1, defines the polynomial

Pσ​(z):=z−ρ​∑i=0lzvi,P_{\sigma}(z):=z^{-\rho}\sum_{i=0}^{l}z^{v_{i}},

which can be thought of as a polynomial in TτT_{\tau}. The zero divisor of PσP_{\sigma} does not depend on the choice of ρ\rho and let Γσ\Gamma_{\sigma} denote the 2-current in TτT_{\tau} associated to it.

We will consider the map (μ,κ):Zσ,τ→Nℝ∗/σ×Tτ(\mu,\kappa):Z_{\sigma,\tau}\to N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\sigma\times T_{\tau} as a torus fibration with the discriminant locus D=Π(τ)×{Pσ(z)=0}D=\Pi(\tau)\times\{P_{\sigma}(z)=0\}. When restricted to a domain B⊂Nℝ∗/σ×TτB\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\sigma\times T_{\tau} it defines a torus fibration Zσ,τ​(B)→BZ_{\sigma,\tau}(B)\to B which is a principal TnT^{n}-bundle over B∘:=B∖DB^{\circ}:=B\setminus D. The Chern class is given, as before, by the inclusion ι:Λτ↪Nσ\iota:\Lambda_{\tau}\hookrightarrow N_{\sigma}.

If the torus action is a holomorphic isometry a Ricci-flat metric on Zσ,τ​(B)Z_{\sigma,\tau}(B) can be written in the Gibbons-Hawking form. Our main goal of this section is to prove the converse. That is if we have a GH solution with the right Chern class then it defines a Ricci-flat metric on Zσ,τ​(B)Z_{\sigma,\tau}(B).

To write everything in coordinates we choose a basis {ei}\{e_{i}\} in NσN_{\sigma} and a basis {mp}\{m_{p}\} in Nτ∗N^{*}_{\tau}. This will defines the coordinates ui:=μ⁡(ei)u_{i}:=\mu(e_{i}) on Nℝ∗/σ≅ℝnN_{\mathbb{R}}^{*}/\sigma\cong\mathbb{R}^{n} and ηp:=log⁡(zmp)=⟨mp,log⁡z⟩\eta_{p}:=\log(z^{m_{p}})=\langle m_{p},\log z\rangle on Tτ≅(ℂ∗)lT_{\tau}\cong(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{l}.

Definition.

Given a domain B{B} in ℝn×(ℂ∗)l\mathbb{R}^{n}\times(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{l} a (σ,τ)(\sigma,\tau)-type solution to the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz in B{B} are two positive definite matrix functions – a real Vi​jV^{ij} and a hermitian Wp​qW^{pq} – on B∘B^{\circ} locally given by a potential:

Vi​j=∂2Φ∂uj​∂uj,Wp​q=−4​∂2Φ∂ηp​∂η¯q,1≤i,j≤n,n+1≤p,q≤n+l,V^{ij}=\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial u_{j}},\quad W^{pq}=-4\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial\eta_{p}\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}},\qquad 1\leq i,j\leq n,\quad n+1\leq p,q\leq n+l,

such that detVi​j=detWp​q\det V^{ij}=\det W^{pq} and the distributional equation

(16) −14​π​(∂2Wp​q∂ui​∂uj+4​∂2Vi​j∂ηp​∂η¯q)​d​ui∧d​ηp∧d​η¯q=γτj​(u)∧Γσ​(η)\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}W^{pq}}{\partial u_{i}\partial u_{j}}+4\frac{\partial^{2}V^{ij}}{\partial\eta_{p}\partial\bar{\eta}_{q}}\right)du_{i}\wedge d\eta_{p}\wedge d\bar{\eta}_{q}=\gamma^{j}_{\tau}(u)\wedge\Gamma_{\sigma}(\eta)

is satisfied in B{B}.

The topological information about the bundle is again encoded in right hand side of the equation (16).

To state the compatibility with the desired holomorphic volume form we recall (cf., e.g., [Bat93]) that given an affine hypersurface Zf={f(z)=0}⊂(ℂ∗)N+1Z_{f}=\{f(z)=0\}\subset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{N+1} there is a distinguished top degree holomorphic form ΩC​Y\Omega_{CY} on ZfZ_{f}, which is defined as a Poincaré residue of the meromorphic (N+1)(N+1)-form

d​z0∧⋯∧d​zNf⋅z0​…​zN\frac{dz_{0}\wedge\dots\wedge dz_{N}}{f\cdot z_{0}\dots z_{N}}

on (ℂ∗)N+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{N+1} with a single pole along ZfZ_{f}. This form is special in the following sense. If the hypersurface ZfZ_{f} is compactified to a Calabi-Yau hypersurface in a projective toric variety, then ΩC​Y\Omega_{CY} is the restriction of the unique (up to a scalar multiple) non-vanishing holomorphic volume form on the Calabi-Yau manifold (orbifold).

Proposition 2.3.

Given a (σ,τ)(\sigma,\tau)-type Gibbons-Hawking solution on a domain BB, the total space of the torus bundle M→B∘M\to B^{\circ} can be compactified to the fibration M¯→B\bar{M}\to B such that M¯\bar{M} is biholomorphic (in the orbifold sense) to Zσ,τ​(B)Z_{\sigma,\tau}(B) in a manner which respects the fibration

π:Zσ,τ→Tτ.\pi:Z_{\sigma,\tau}\to T_{\tau}.

In particular, such a solution defines a Ricci-flat Kähler (orbifold) metric on Zσ,τ​(B)Z_{\sigma,\tau}(B) with the holomorphic volume form Ω=ΩC​Y\Omega=\Omega_{CY}.

Proof.

The topological compactification again can be drawn from [Gro01, Prop. 2.9]. All we need to show is that a GH solution with asymptotics determined by (16) produces the right complex structure on MM, which would then uniquely extend to M¯\bar{M} by the orbifold version of Hartog’s theorem. But this is a purely local question and it follows directly from Lemma 2.2 dropping the completeness condition (12) that becomes irrelevant.

To see matching of the volume forms let us choose local complex coordinates {η~1,…,η~l}\{\tilde{\eta}_{1},\dots,\tilde{\eta}_{l}\} on (ℂ∗)l(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{l} such that the local equation for {Pσ=0}\{P_{\sigma}=0\} is η~1=0\tilde{\eta}_{1}=0. In these coordinates the top degree holomorphic form on MM will be Ω=Ωτ∧d​η2∧⋯∧ηl\Omega=\Omega_{\tau}\wedge d\eta_{2}\wedge\dots\wedge\eta_{l}, where Ωτ\Omega_{\tau} is the standard orbifold volume form. Then, Ω\Omega is easily seen to coincide with the local expression for the distinguished form ΩC​Y\Omega_{CY} on Zσ,τZ_{\sigma,\tau}. ∎

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