format: text

text:
# Remarks on the Calculation of the Enhancement Factor in the 𝐾→2𝜋 Decay

## 1 Absolute Enhancement Factor in $`K2\pi `$ Decay

Let us first examine the potential approach. The effect of the final state interaction on the matrix element is just the wave function of the interacting final state hadrons evaluated at the origin.

We first want to show that the wave function at the origin does indeed have the strong interacting phase, it has the  *unsubtracted* Omnes form, and then we want to show that its magnitude is, however, model dependent.

Under some restrictions on the conditions on the integral of the interacting potential $`V(r)`$ as a function of the distance, namely:

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^mV(r)<\mathrm{}$$
(1)
where $`m=1`$ and $`m=2`$. These are the conditions on the short range behavior of the potential. Under these restrictions, some rigourous results are known on the wave function at the origin.

The wave function at the origin or the enhancement factor is given by the inverse of the Jost function $`f(k)`$, where k is the the relative momentum of the two-body system . In the energy plane, $`s=4(m_\pi ^2+k^2)`$, the inverse of the Jost function is analytic in the cut plane with a branch point at $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$; the zeros of the Jost function are on the real $`s`$ axis and correspond to the bound states. The phase of the inverse of the Jost function, $`1/f(k)`$, is the two-body elastic phase shifts $`\delta `$. For $`s\mathrm{}`$, the inverse of the Jost function has a well-defined limit: it is real and equal to unity.( For a review of the potential theory see ). Because of these conditions, the inverse of the Jost function, which is denoted in the following as $`1/D(s)`$, has the following integral representation (assuming that there are no bound states):

$$\frac{1}{D(s)}=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta (z)dz}{zsiϵ})$$
(2)
This equation can be derived by applying the Cauchy theorem for $`\mathrm{ln}(1/D(s))`$, using the fact that there are no bound states and hence the Jost function $`f(k)`$ has no zeroes in the $`s`$ plane and is equal to unity at infinity. The convergence of the integral in Eq. (2) is assured by the restriction of the potential which demands that the phase shifts tend to zero sufficiently fast as $`s\mathrm{}`$. At an energy $`s`$, the enhancement factor is just given by Eq. (2). The physical value of the matrix element is obtained by setting $`s=m_K^2`$ where $`m_K`$ is the Kaon mass. (If there were bound states, the expression for the wave function would be slightly more complicated and the variation of the phase shifts between zero and infinite energy must obey the Levinson’s theorem , $`\delta (0)\delta (\mathrm{})`$=(number of bound states)$`\pi `$, with $`\delta (\mathrm{})=0`$). Because there are no bound states in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, the S-wave $`I=0`$ phase shift at the $`2\pi `$ threshold is zero and has to go to zero at $`s=\mathrm{}`$ sufficiently fast.

From these considerations, a calculation of the absolute enhancement factor implies implicitly a variation of the $`1/D(s)`$ factor between $`s=\mathrm{}`$ where it is unity, and $`s=m_K^2`$. This is a very large energy region to calculate the variation of the enhancement factor, and hence it is difficult to get a reliable result.

This sensitivity can also be seen from the study of the scattering of two particles by a potential. Although this problem was studied by the authors of the reference  who claimed that the enhancement factor is insensitive to the constructed potentials, we wish to point out that the two potentials that they constructed are quite similar, one is the square well and the other is Gaussian. Because they are quite similar in both the short and long range behaviors, one cannot claim the insensitivity of the calculation of the enhancement factor.

In fact, it is well-known that the value of the wave function at the origin depends strongly on the behavior of the potential near the origin but the low energy behavior of the phase shifts does not. One can easily construct a potential with an inner repulsive core but with an outer attractive part to give approximately the same scattering length and effective range as those given by a purely attractive potential. Yet the wave functions at the origin are quite different for both cases. In the purely attractive potential the modulus of the enhancement factor is larger than unity. In the case of a more complicated potential, with an inner repulsive core and an outer attractive part, the modulus of the enhancement factor could be less than unity. In fact with an infinite repulsive core, the wave function at the origin is zero.

This result can also be seen from the integral representation of the inverse of the Jost function in terms of the elastic phase shifts, i.e from the *unsubtracted* form of the Omnes function, Eq. (2). It is clear that the enhancement factor evaluated at $`s=m_K^2`$ is sensitive to the asymptotic behavior of the phase shifts corresponding to the shorter range of the potential. A subtracted form of the Omnes function is less sensitive to the high energy behavior of the phase shifts due to the weight factor in the integral representation (see below).

Although some qualitative features of the potential approach may be correct, it is difficult to make the calculation scheme reliable because one has effectively to calculate the variation of the enhancement factor at $`s=m_K^2`$ compared to that at infinite energy (which is unity). Our viewpoint is therefore the unsubtracted form of the Omnes function or the absolute enhancement factor, being sensitive to the high energy behaviour of the phase shifts, should be avoided in theoretical calculations. It can however be used with confidence to study the energy dependence of the matrix element as will be shown below.

## 2 Current Algebra Low Energy Theorem: Relation between $`K2\pi `$ and the off-shell $`K\pi `$ transition

The above approach is in contrast with the calculation of the variation of the function $`1/D(s)`$ at low energy. This is a typical problem one has to deal with when Chiral Symmetry is relevant. To make this point clear, let us consider the chain $`K_{l4},K_{l3},K_{l2}`$. They are related to each other by the soft current algebra theorems and also by the Effective Lagrangian. Roughly speaking, in the limit of one the pion soft in the $`K_{l4}`$ decay, its matrix element is equal to the $`K_{l3}`$. This relation is independent of whether there is a strong final state interaction between the two outgoing pions or not.

Using this idea, the problem of relating the $`K2\pi `$ and the off-shell $`K\pi `$ transition, was examined a long time ago . There are recently questions how various formula in ref.  were obtained . A more detailed explanation can be found in . We briefly summarized here how these results were obtained. The effective Lagrangian for the $`K2\pi `$ is given by:

$$M(K_S(k)\pi ^+(p)+\pi ^{}(q))=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}Cf_\pi (2k^2p^2q^2)$$
(3)
and

$$M(K_L\pi ^0)=C\sqrt{2}f_\pi ^2q(\pi ).q(K)$$
(4)
Hence Eqs. (3, 4) are related to each other by a Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and a factor of $`f_\pi `$ in the limit of $`p_\mu 0`$. This is typically a current algebra low energy theorem. Unlike other current algebra results, the matrix elements given here are strongly energy dependent.

Let us consider the matrix element of $`K(k)\pi ^+(p)+\pi ^{}(q)`$ as function of the complex variables $`k^2=s`$ with first the two pion on their mass shell. This matrix element is an analytic function in $`s`$ with a cut starting from $`4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. The imaginary part of this matrix element can have contribution from the self energy graphs and also from the contribution from the unitarity relation $`2\pi ,4\pi `$,… intermediate states. Because it is an analytic function with a cut on the real axis from $`4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, this matrix element can be expanded as a power series in $`ss_0`$ where $`s_0`$ is outside the cut. Eq. (3) should be interpreted in this way and therefore includes the final state interaction effect.

Furthermore the Cabibbo-Gell-Mann Theorem  requires that the $`K2\pi `$ matrix element has to vanish in the $`SU(3)`$ limit which is clearly satisfied by Eq. (3). Using this condition, one has to take the expansion point at $`s_0=m_\pi ^2`$ .

The $`K2\pi `$ matrix element is therefore (with $`k^2=s`$ and the pions are on their mass shell):

$$M(K_S(s)\pi ^+\pi ^{})=\sqrt{2}Cf_\pi (sm_\pi ^2)\frac{1}{D(s,m_\pi ^2)}$$
(5)
while the $`K\pi `$ matrix element, with the pion on its mass shell, the Kaon off its mass shell and the weak hamiltonian carries no momentum, is:

$$M(K_L\pi ^0)=C\sqrt{2}f_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2$$
(6)
where

$$\frac{1}{D(s,m_\pi ^2)}=\mathrm{exp}(\frac{sm_\pi ^2}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\delta (z)dz}{(zm_\pi ^2)(zsiϵ)})$$
(7)
Eqs. (5, 6) give a relation between the $`K\pi `$ and the $`K2\pi `$ transitions. Physical value of $`K2\pi `$ is obtained by setting $`s=m_K^2`$.

Because of the subtracted form of the Omnes function in Eq. (5), defined in Eq. (7), the enhancement factor is not sensitive to the high energy behavior of the phase shift (or to the inner part of the S-wave $`\pi \pi `$ potential). Here one studies the variation of the enhancement factor between two near-by points, $`s=m_\pi ^2`$ and $`s=m_K^2`$.

## 3 Analogy with the Pion Form Factor Calculation

In the current algebra method, two apparently unrelated processes are related to each other by the current algebra soft pion theorem. Here the partially conservation of the axial current and the current commutation relations play an important role. Effective Lagrangian synthesizes these results in a simple manner.

It might be useful to compare the current algebra $`K2\pi `$ problem with the corresponding vector pion form factor V(s) calculation.

The conservation of the hadronic vector current, together with the usual commutation relations in field theory, enables us to demonstrate the Ward identity at zero momentum transfer for the vector pion form factor $`V(0)=1`$ . This condition sets the scale for the form factor calculation. The calculation of the vector pion form factor is therefore similar to the relation between $`K2\pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ mixing. It is of interest to see how the $`\pi \pi `$ final state interaction effect due to the potential approach would give.

Because the two pions are in the relative P-state, the first derivative of the interacting wave function at the origin is relevant in calculating the final state interaction effect. The enhancement factor is given by the inverse of the P-wave Jost function. The low energy theorem for V(0) as required by the Ward identity is violated because the inverse of the Jost function at $`s=0`$ is no longer equal to unity. It is however equal to unity at $`s=\mathrm{}`$ which is not required by any other general principle.

The potential approach to this problem has to be modified: one simply has to forget the condition at infinite energy, but taking into account of the Ward identity condition at zero momentum transfer:

$$V(s)=D_1(0)/D_1(s)$$
(8)
where $`D_1(s)`$ is similar to Eq. (2) with the S-wave phase shifts replaced by the P-wave phase shifts. Eq. (8) is the standard formula for the vector pion form factor $`V(s)`$.

## 4 Conclusion

In conclusion, the absolute enhancement factor for $`K2\pi `$ is model dependent, but the relation between $`K2\pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ using analyticity, unitarity and the effective Lagrangian or current algebra, is more reliable.


text:
# Semisimple Frobenius structures at higher genus

## Introduction

The genus $`g`$ GW-potential of a compact symplectic manifold $`X`$ is a generating function for genus $`g`$ Gromov-Witten invariants. It is a formal function

$$F_X^g(t):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{dH_2(X)}{}\frac{q^d}{n!}_{[X_{g,n,d}]}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(t)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ev}_n^{}(t),$$

on the cohomology space $`H^{}(X,𝐐\{\{q\}\})`$ over a suitable Novikov ring $`𝐐\{\{q\}\}`$. The coefficients are defined by integration over virtual fundamental cycles in the moduli spaces of degree $`d`$ genus $`g`$ stable pseudo-holomorphic curves with $`n`$ marked points. The cohomology classes $`\mathrm{ev}_i^{}(t)`$ are pull-backs from $`X`$ by the evaluation maps at the marked points.

One may use the natural contraction maps $`\mathrm{ct}:X_{g,n,d}\overline{}_{g,n}`$ to the Deligne – Mumford moduli spaces of marked Riemann surfaces in order to define more general potentials by integration over inverse images of boundary strata or of any other cycles.

The potentials $`F_X^g`$ and their generalizations are expected to obey some universal constraints, yet unknown explicitly (see however ), but encoded implicitly in the topology of the Deligne-Mumford spaces $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$. In a sense, the implicit constraints, to be considered as axioms of $`2`$-dimensional Topological Field Theory, are the subject of our study in this paper.

In this paper, we will compute genus $`g2`$ Gromov-Witten invariants and their generalizations with gravitational descendents in the context of equivariant Gromov-Witten theory of tori actions with isolated fixed points. Both formulas, with and without descendents, are stated in a form applicable to the axiomatic version of genus $`0`$ Gromov – Witten theory, namely — to semisimple Frobenius structures. Therefore the formulas can be considered as definitions extending the genus $`0`$ theory to higher genus in a way consistent — conjecturally — with the implicit axioms mentioned above. In (non-equivariant) Gromov-Witten theory, the formulas become conjectures expressing higher genus GW-invariants in terms of genus $`0`$ GW-invariants of symplectic manifolds with genericly semisimple quantum cup-product.

## 1. Definitions and examples

### 1.1.  Frobenius structures.

The axiomatic structure of $`2`$D TFT is understood well in genus $`0`$ due to R. Dijkgraaf – E. Witten , B. Dubrovin  and many others (see ) as the theory of Frobenius manifolds. By definition, a Frobenius structure on a manifold $`H`$ consists of:

(i) a flat pseudo-Riemannian metric $`(,)`$,

(ii) a function $`F`$ whose $`3`$-rd covariant derivatives $`F_{abc}`$ are structure constants $`(ab,c)`$ of a Frobenius algebra structure, i.e. associative commutative multiplication $``$ satisfying $`(ab,c)=(a,bc)`$, on the tangent spaces $`T_tH`$ which depends smoothly on $`t`$;

(iii) the vector field of unities $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of the $``$-product which has to be covariantly constant and preserve the multiplication and the metric.

Example 1. The genus $`0`$ GW-potential $`F=F_X^0`$ defines a Frobenius structure on the super-space $`H=H^{}(X,𝐐)`$ 111Formally speaking $`F_X^0`$ defines a Frobenius structure over $`𝐐\{\{q\}\}`$. However, due to the divisor equation, $`3`$-rd rderivatives of $`F_X^0`$ make sense at $`q=1`$ as formal Fourier series along $`H^2(X,𝐐)`$ and define a Frobenius structure over $`𝐐`$. We refer to  for discussions of these standard subtleties. In this example, the metric and the unit vector field are translation-invariant and defined by the Poincare intersection pairing and by the cohomology class $`1`$ respectively.

Example 2. Let $`f(x,t)`$, $`tH`$, be a miniversal deformation (with respect to the right equivalence) of the germ $`f(,0):(𝐂^m,0)(𝐂,0)`$ of a holomorphic function at an isolated critical point. Then the tangent spaces $`T_tH`$ are canonically identified with the algebras $`Q_t:=𝐂\{x\}/(f_x)`$ of functions on the critical schemes $`\mathrm{crit}f(,t)`$ and thus carry a natural multiplication $``$ with unity $`1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a holomorphic volume form on $`𝐂^m`$ possibly depending on $`t`$. The multiplication $``$ is Frobenius with respect to the residue pairing

$$(\varphi ,\psi ):=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^m}_{|f_{x_1}|=\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}_{|f_{x_m}|=\epsilon _m}\frac{\varphi (x)\psi (x)\mathrm{\Omega }}{f_{x_1}\mathrm{}f_{x_m}},$$

which is known to be non-degenerate on $`Q_t`$ (see ). According to the theory  of primitive volume forms there exists a choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the corresponding residue metric is flat and constitutes, together with the multiplication $``$, a Frobenius structure on $`H`$ (see also  for a new approach).

Frobenius manifolds of Examples $`1`$ and $`2`$ come equipped with one more ingredient — the Euler vector field $`E`$ such that $`,\mathbf{1}`$ and $`(,)`$ are eigenvectors of the Lie derivative $`L_E`$ with the eigenvalues $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`2D`$ respectively. Such Frobenius structures are called conformal, and $`D`$ is called their dimension. In the Example $`1`$, $`D`$ coincides with the complex dimension of the target manifold $`X`$, and the grading imposed by $`E`$ originates from grading in cohomology. In Example $`2`$, the Euler vector $`E(t)`$ is given by the class of the function $`f(,t)`$ in the algebra $`Q_t`$, and $`D=12/h`$ where $`h`$ is the so called Coxeter number of the singularity . Frobenius manifolds in the next example fall out of the conformal class.

Example 3. Let the Kähler manifold $`X`$ be endowed with a Hamiltonian Killing action of a compact group $`T`$. Then one can introduce equivariant GW-invariants  using $`T`$-equivariant cohomology and intersection theory in the moduli spaces $`X_{g,n,d}`$. The genus $`0`$ equivariant GW-invariants define on $`H:=H_T^{}(X,𝐐)`$ the structure of a Frobenius manifold over the ground ring $`H^{}(BT,𝐐)`$, the coefficient ring of the equivariant cohomology theory. On the other hand, grading in equivariant cohomology imposes homogeneity constraints on GW-potentials so that $`(,),\mathbf{1}`$ and $``$ do have degrees $`2\mathrm{dim}X`$, $`1`$ and $`0`$ with respect to a suitable Euler vector field $`E`$. Yet the Frobenius structure is not conformal since elements of the ground ring may have non-zero degrees and therefore $`L_E`$ is a differentiation only over $`𝐐`$ instead of the ground ring of the Frobenius structure.

A Frobenius manifold is called semisimple if the algebras $`(T_tH,)`$ are semisimple at generic $`t`$. Frobenius structures of Example $`1`$ are semisimple for, say, projective spaces and flag manifolds, and are not semisimple for Calabi-Yau manifolds. Let us assume now on that the group $`T`$ in Example $`3`$ is a torus acting on $`X`$ with isolated fixed points only. Then the cup-product in the equivariant cohomology $`H_T^{}(X,𝐐)`$ is genericly semisimple, resulting in the corresponding Frobenius structure being semisimple too. All Frobenius manifolds of Example $`2`$ are semisimple.

### 1.2.  The formula.

Our expression for the higher genus potentials $`F^g`$ of a semisimple Frobenius manifold $`H`$ has the form

(1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}e^{_{g2}\mathrm{}^{g1}F^g(t)}=\hfill & \\ =[e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}_{k,l=0}^{\mathrm{}}_{i,j}V_{kl}^{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{1/2}_{Q_k^i}_{Q_l^j}}_j\tau (\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_j;Q_0^j,Q_1^j,\mathrm{})]_{Q_k^i=T_k^i},\hfill & \end{array}$$

where $`V_{kl}^{ij},\mathrm{\Delta }_j,T_k^i`$ are certain functions of $`tH`$ defined at semisimple points, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}H`$, $`k,l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and $`\tau `$ is the following Kontsevich – Witten tau-function.

Let $`c^{(1)},\mathrm{},c^{(n)}`$ denote the $`1`$-st Chern classes of the universal cotangent lines over the Deligne – Mumford spaces $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, i.e. line bundles formed by cotangent lines to the curves at the marked points. We put $`Q(c)=Q_0+Q_1c+Q_2c^2+\mathrm{}`$ where $`Q_i`$ are formal variables, introduce the genus $`g`$ descendent potential of $`X=\mathrm{pt}`$

$$_{\mathrm{pt}}^g(Q)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}_{\overline{}_{g,n}}Q(c^{(1)})\mathrm{}Q(c^{(n)})$$

and define

(2)
$$\tau (\mathrm{};Q)=\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}^{g1}_{\mathrm{pt}}^g(Q)\}.$$

As it was proved by M. Kontsevich , $`\tau (Q)`$ provides an asymptotic expansion of the matrix Airy function and (modulo some re-notation) coincides, as it was conjectured by E. Witten , with the tau-function of the KdV-hierarchy satisfying the string equation.

In order to define the functions $`V_{kl}^{ij},\mathrm{\Delta }_i,T_k^j`$ we have to review the structural theory of semisimple Frobenius manifolds .

### 1.3. Canonical coordinates, Hessians and stationary phase asymptotics.

Given a germ of a Frobenius manifold, we introduce coordinates $`\{t^\alpha \}`$ flat with respect to the metric $`(,)`$, denote $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}`$ the corresponding frame in the tangent bundle, put $`g_{\alpha \beta }:=(\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\beta )`$ and $`(g^{\alpha \beta }):=(g_{\alpha \beta })^1`$.

The associativity constraint of the $``$-product is expressed by the WDVV-identity for the genus $`0`$ potential (we use the summation convention if possible):

$$F_{\alpha \beta \mu }g^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \gamma \delta }=F_{\alpha \gamma \mu }g^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \beta \delta }=F_{\alpha \delta \mu }g^{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \beta \gamma }.$$

It can also be interpreted as commutativity of the following connection operators $`_\alpha (z):=z_\alpha +\varphi _\alpha `$ on $`TH`$ and respectively — the compatibility property of the following linear PDE system on $`T^{}H`$ for any value of the parameter $`z0`$:

(3)
$$z_\alpha S_\beta =F_{\alpha \beta \mu }g^{\mu \nu }S_\nu .$$

The system plays an important role in the theory of Frobenius structures, and we ought to start with some remarks about its solutions. A fundamental solution to (3) can be found in the form of a power $`z^1`$-series $`1+z^1S_1+z^2S_2+\mathrm{}`$ satisfying the unitary condition $`S^{}(1/z)S(1/z)=1`$ (here “$`^{}`$” means “adjoint relative to $`(,)`$”). Such a solution $`S`$ is unique up to right multiplication by a constant matrix $`1+O(z^1)`$ satisfying the unitary condition. A choice of such a solution is the starting point in Dubrovin’s construction  of genus $`0`$ gravitational descendents of Frobenius structures. We will review this construction in the section $`3`$ and respectively will make use of such a fundamental solution in our description (22) of higher genus descendent potential. However, both higher genus formulas (with or without descendents) require another, asymptorical form of solution to the same system (3) which can be constructed for a semisimple Frobenius structure as follows.

Let us assume that the Frobenius manifold is semisimple. In a neighborhood of a semisimple point one introduces canonical coordinates $`\{u^i(t)\}`$ (see ). They are characterized uniquely up to reordering and additive constants by the property of $`_i:=/u^i`$ to form the basis of canonical idempotents of the $``$-product on $`T_tH`$. The flat metric $`(,)`$ is diagonal in canonical coordinates and is therefore determined by the non-vanishing functions $`(_i,_i)`$. We put $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i:=1/(_i,_i)`$. In singularity theory, $`u_i`$ are critical values of the Morse functions $`f(,t)`$ at the critical points, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are the Hessians at these points computed in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-unimodular coordinate systems.

Let $`U`$ denote the diagonal matrix of canonical coordinates $`\mathrm{diag}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_N)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ denote the transition matrix between the flat and normalized canonical bases: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{1/2}du^i=_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^idt^\beta `$. In particular, $`_i\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^i=g_{\alpha \beta },\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^ig^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ^j=\delta _{ij}`$.

Proposition (see ).

(a) Near a semisimple point the system (3) has a fundamental solution in the form of the matrix series :

(4)
$$S=\mathrm{\Psi }(R_0+zR_1+z^2R_2+\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}U/z$$

where $`R_k=(R_k)_i^j`$ are matrix-functions of $`u`$, and $`R_0=1`$.

(b) The series solution $`S`$ can be chosen to satisfy the unitary condition

(5)
$$(1+zR_1+z^2R_2+\mathrm{})(1zR_1^t+z^2R_2^t\mathrm{})=1$$

(c) The series $`R=1+zR_1+z^2R_2+\mathrm{}`$ in the solution $`S`$ satisfying the unitary condition is unique up to right multiplication by unitary diagonal matrices $`\mathrm{exp}(a_1z+a_2z^3+a_3z^5+\mathrm{})`$ where $`a_k=\mathrm{diag}(a_k^1,\mathrm{},a_k^N)`$ are constant.

(d) In the case of conformal Frobenius structures the series $`R`$ in a fundamental solution $`S`$ can be chosen homogeneous, and such $`R`$ is unique and possesses the unitary property automatically.

Proof. A proof of (d) and (a) is given in  and . We will remind below some details from  in order to justify the additions (b) and (c) needed here.

Substitution of $`S=\mathrm{\Psi }(1+\mathrm{})\mathrm{exp}(U/z)`$ into (3) yields a chain of equations $`(d+W)R_{k1}=[dU,R_k]`$, where $`W=\mathrm{\Psi }^1d\mathrm{\Psi }=[dU,R_1]`$, to be solved inductively starting with $`R_0=1`$. First, off-diagonal entries of $`R_k`$ are expressed algebraically via $`R_{k1}`$, then the diagonal terms of $`R_k`$ are found by integration from the next equation using the fact that $`[dU,R_{k+1}]`$ has zero diagonal entries. Compatibility conditions needed in this procedure are verified in .

In order to prove (b), let us introduce a temporary notation $`P_k=R_kR_0^tR_{k1}R_1^t+\mathrm{}(1)^kR_0R_k^t`$ for the $`z^k`$-term in $`R(z)R^t(z)=1+P_1z+P_2z^2+\mathrm{}`$. A short elementary computation shows that $`[dU,P_k]=dP_{k1}+[W,P_{k1}]`$. Assuming that $`P_{k1}=0`$ (or $`1`$ for $`k=0`$), we conclude that off-diagonal entries of $`P_k`$ vanish. This already implies $`P_k=0`$ for odd $`k`$ since such $`P_k`$ are obviously anti-symmetric. Now, taking in account that $`P_k`$ is diagonal and $`W=\mathrm{\Psi }^1d\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is anti-symmetric, we conclude from the next equation $`dP_k+[W,P_k]=[dU,P_{k+1}]`$ that the diagonal entries of $`P_k`$ are constant. For even $`k`$ we have $`P_k=R_k+R_k^t+\mathrm{}`$ and thus a unique choice of integration constants in the above procedure for finding $`R_k`$ will make $`P_k`$ vanish.

Yet the integration constants for diagonal entries of $`R_{2k1}`$ are totally ambiguous, and it is immediate to see, by induction on $`k`$, that this ambiguity is correctly accounted by the multiplication $`RR\mathrm{exp}(a_kz^{2k1})`$ described in (c).

In the conformal case, let $`E=u^i_i`$ denote the Euler field. The Euler formula $`R_k=(i_EdR_k)/k`$ shows how to recover diagonal entries of $`R_k`$ via their differentials by an algebraic procedure. This implies existence of a homogeneous solution $`R`$. Finally, the homogeneity condition leaves no freedom in the choice of the integration constants, but it also guarantees that the constant diagonal entries in $`P_{2k}`$ are zeroes. This proves (d).

Let $`S(z)`$ be the unitary fundamental solution to (3) singled-out in the proposition. We introduce a new matrix-function

$$[V^{ij}(z,w)]:=(z+w)^1[S_\mu ^i(z)]^t[g^{\mu \nu }][S_\nu ^j(w)].$$

It expands as $`V^{ij}(z,w)=`$

(6)
$$\frac{e^{u^i/z+u^j/w}}{z+w}\underset{s}{}R_s^i(z)R_s^j(w)=:e^{u^i/z+u^j/w}(\frac{\delta ^{ij}}{z+w}+\underset{k,l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{k+l}V_{kl}^{ij}z^kw^l).$$

This defines $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ as functions on the Frobenius manifold in a neighborhood of a semisimple point.

Next, in the semisimple Frobenius algebras $`(T_tH,)`$ we have :

$$1=\delta ^\mu \varphi _\mu =_j=\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{1/2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{1/2}_j).$$

We expand ”the first row” of $`S(z)`$

(7)
$$\delta ^\mu S_\mu ^i(z)=(\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_j^{1/2}R_j^i(z))e^{u^i/z}=:[1\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}T_k^i(z)^{k1}]\frac{e^{u^i/z}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}.$$

This defines $`T_k^i`$. In particular, $`T_0^i=T_1^i=0`$.

Perhaps, the nature of these formulas, the asymptotical solution $`S(z)`$ and the relationship between the two forms of fundamental solutions to (3) will become more transparent after the following two examples.

Example 4. In singularity theory, a fundamental solution matrix to the equation (3) is given by complex oscillating integrals of suitable $`m`$-forms over suitable $`m`$-cycles :

$$S_\mu ^i=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^i𝐂^m}e^{f(x,t)/z}\varphi _\mu (x,t)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

The cycles $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ can be constructed as in Morse theory for the function $`\mathrm{Re}\{f(,t)/z\}`$ and thus correspond to critical points $`x^i(t)`$ of the function $`f(,t)`$. To construct $`1/z`$-expansion of the integrals, one first expands the integrals over the levels $`f=f_{crit}\tau `$ near $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ and then describes the oscillating integrals via the Laplace transform. Say, for weighted-homeogeneous singularities

$$_{\gamma _i}\varphi _\mu (x,t)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{df(x,t)}=\tau ^{d_\mu }(A_{k,\mu }^i(t)\tau ^k),$$

where $`d_\mu `$ is the weight of the form $`\varphi _\mu \mathrm{\Omega }/df`$. Respectively,

$$S_\mu ^i=A_{k,\mu }^i_0^{\mathrm{}}e^{\tau /z}\tau ^{d_\mu k}𝑑\tau =z^{d_{\mu +1}}A_{k,\mu }^i(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d_\mu +1k)z^k.$$

Alternatively, one arrives to the expansion (4) via the stationary phase asymptotics of the oscillating integrals near non-degenerate critical points of Morse functions $`f(,t)`$:

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^i}e^{f(x,t)/z}\varphi _\mu (x,t)\mathrm{\Omega }e^{u^i/z}(\frac{\varphi _\mu (x^i,t)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}+\mathrm{})$$

where $`u^i=f(x^i,t)`$ is the critical value and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-Hessian at the critical point. In particular (7) is the stationary phase expansion

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^i}e^{f/z}\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{e^{u^i/z}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}}[1+T_2^izT_3^iz^2+\mathrm{}]$$

Example 5. In Gromov-Witten theory, a $`1/z`$-series solution to (3) satisfying the unitary condition is given by the following matrix of gravitational descendents:

(8)
$$\varphi _\beta ,\frac{\varphi _\gamma }{zc}:=\underset{n,d}{}\frac{q^d}{n!}_{[X_{0,2+n,d}]}\mathrm{ev}_0^{}(\varphi _\beta )\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(t)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ev}_n^{}(t)\frac{\mathrm{ev}_{n+1}^{}(\varphi _\gamma )}{zc^{(n+1)}}.$$

By definition, the constant $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is taken on the role of the ill-defined term with $`d=0,n=0`$. This solution is related to the two-point descendent

(9)
$$\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{zc},\frac{\varphi _\beta }{wc}:=\underset{n,d}{}\frac{q^d}{n!}_{[X_{0,2+n,d}]}\frac{\mathrm{ev}_0^{}(\varphi _\alpha )}{zc^{(0)}}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(t)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ev}_n^{}(t)\frac{\mathrm{ev}_{n+1}^{}(\varphi _\beta )}{wc^{(n+1)}}.$$

in the same way as $`S(z)`$ is related to $`V(z,w)`$:

(10)
$$\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{zc},\frac{\varphi _\beta }{wc}=\underset{\mu \nu }{}\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{zc},\varphi _\mu g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,\frac{\varphi _\beta }{zc}.$$

According to the mirror conjecture  the descendents (8) can be identified with oscillating integrals of the mirror partner. When this is the case the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^i`$ and $`T_k^i`$ can be extracted from the stationary phase asymptotics of the integrals. In Section $`2`$ (see also ), we will find that in the equivariant setting of Example $`3`$ when the fixed points of the toris action are isolated and respectively the classical equivariant cohomology algebra of the target space is semisimple, the series $`S(z)`$ and $`V(z,w)`$ essentially coincide with the descendents (8) and (9).

Conjecture $`1`$. With the notations (2,6,7) in force, the formula (1) represents higher genus GW-invariants of compact symplectic manifolds with generically semisimple quantum cup-product.

The main reason to believe in the conjectural formula (1) is the theorem in the next section and the miraculous coincidences which occur in the proof. We would like to mention here one more bit of evidence in its favor. Namely, in the case of conformal Frobenius manifolds of dimension $`N=2`$ (“two primaries”) our formula yields, after some computation, the following genus $`2`$ potential:

$$\frac{d(3d1)(d1)^2(3d5)(d2)}{2880}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{(u^+u^{})^3},$$

where $`d`$ is the conformal dimension, and $`u^\pm `$ are the canonical coordinates. This answer coincides with the result found in .

Note that the potential vanishes in the case $`d=1/3`$ corresponding to the singularity of type $`A_2`$. This fact agrees with the general conjecture that our formula (1), when applied to the Frobenius structures on the miniversal deformations of isolated critical points, should give rise to higher genus potentials which extend analytically through the bifurcation set (and therefore must vanish for $`A,D,E`$-singularities). For no apparent reason, the above formula is symmetric about $`d=1`$ (corresponding to GW-invariants of $`𝐂P^1`$). It would be interesting to find out what is behind this symmetry.

## 2. Computation in equivariant GW-theory

In this section, we formulate and prove Theorem $`1`$ confirming the conjectural formula (1) in the case of equivariant Gromov – Witten invariants of Hamiltonian tori actions with isolated fixed points. Roughly speaking, we will compute the GW-invariants using fixed point localization and will see how the formula (1) emerges from the combinatorial formalism of summation over graphs. We will first discard those factors in localization formulas which are due to the so called Hodge intersection numbers. This will lead us to a (wrong!) higher genus potential formula based on a matrix series $`R(z)`$ corresponding to some reference choice $`a_k^i=0`$ of the integration constants of the part (c) of Proposition. Then we will point out a new choice of the integration constants $`a_k^i`$ which compensates for the effect of the Hodge integrals and yields a right formula for the higher genus potential.

### 2.1.  Localization and materialization.

Let the torus $`T`$ act on $`X`$ with isolated fixed points only. Fixed points of the induced action of $`T`$ on the moduli spaces $`X_{g,n,d}`$ can be described as curves formed by legs$`1`$-dimensional orbits of $`T_𝐂`$ in $`X`$ or their multiple covers, — which are connected at joints — nodes or DM-stable curves mapped to fixed points $`X^T`$. Due to multiplicative properties of the Euler classes contributions of fixed points into localization formulas essentially factors into contributions of legs and joints . (We are assuming for simplicity that the $`1`$-dimensional orbits are also isolated. Beyond this assumption, our arguments remain valid but the leg contributions are to be found by integration over suitable orbit spaces.) Contributions of fixed point submanifolds can be arranged as the sum over strata in Deligne – Mumford spaces in accordance with images of the submanifolds under the contraction map $`\mathrm{ct}:X_{g,n,d}^T\overline{}_{g,0}`$. It is convenient to name some elements of $`T`$-invariant curves depending on their fate under the contraction map. We call vertices those joints of $`T`$-invariant curves in $`X`$ which contract to irreducible components of DM-stable $`(g,0)`$-curves. The genus $`0`$ trees of legs and joints which contract to (self-)intersection points of these components are called edges. The trees which contract to non-singular points are called tails.

Thinking of a $`T`$-invariant curve (may be disconnected) as a collection of vertices (DM-stable curves mapped to the fixed points $`X^T`$) with arbitrary number of tails attached and connected somehow by the edges, we arrive at the fixed point expression for the higher genus potential with the standard combinatorics (1) of Wick’s formula. Contributions of vertices will be expressible via intersection numbers (2) in Deligne – Mumford spaces, while the edge factors and tail factors should be extracted from genus $`0`$ GW-invariants of $`X`$.

A key point is that the genus $`0`$ data needed in the localization formulas can be written in abstract terms of semisimple Frobenius structures, and vice versa. For example, in the GW-theory of $`X`$, the sum $`u^i`$ of canonical coordinates enumerates elliptic curves with a fixed complex structure. Expressing the GW-invariant via the sum over fixed point components we can single out the sub-sum where the elliptic joint of the curve is mapped to the $`i`$-th fixed point in $`X`$. It turns out  that the sub-sum equals $`u_i`$. Another example: let $`\{\varphi _\alpha \}`$ be the basis of $`\delta `$-functions at the fixed points in localization of $`H_T^{}(X)`$, so that $`g^{\alpha \beta }=e_\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ where $`e_\alpha \varphi _\alpha `$ is the equivariant Euler class of $`TX`$. In the fixed point sum for $`F_{\alpha \alpha \alpha }^{(0)}e_\alpha ^{3/2}`$ (no summation) we single out contributions with the three distinguished marked points belonging to the same joint of the curve. The sub-sum turns out to coincide with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha ^{1/2}`$. We refer to  for further details of this materialization phenomenon in the theory of canonical coordinates. Our computation of higher genus potentials uses some of these results along with the standard fixed point localization technique  in the moduli spaces of stable maps.

The edge factors mentioned earlier are identified with $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$. First, in the fixed point expression for $`e_i\frac{\varphi _i}{\chi c},\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}`$ we single out contributions of those fixed point where the first and the last marked points belong to the same joint of the curve. The sum of such contributions turns out to coincide with $`e^{u^i(1/\chi +1/z)}/(z+\chi )`$ (see ). Therefore this expression occurs in the localization formula for the one-point descendent $`\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _i/(zc)`$ as the factor responsible for the contributions of the joints carrying the last marked point. The variable $`\chi `$ is to be replaced by the character of the torus action on the leg approaching the joint from the direction of the first marked point. Thus the dependence of the descendent on $`z`$ is transparent from the expansion of the factor: $`e^{u^i/z}[e^{u^i/\chi }(z)^k/\chi ^{k+1}]`$. We conclude that the matrix $`[\varphi _\alpha ,\frac{\varphi _j}{zc}\sqrt{e_j}]`$ (normalized this way) is a unitary solution $`S`$ of the part (b) of Proposition. It is one of the solutions described by the part (b) of Proposition. Among the total class of solutions (see part (c)), it is characterized by the property that the series $`R(z)`$ turns into $`1`$ in the limit of classical equivariant cohomology, that is when contributions of all non-constant stable maps are neglected. Eventually we will have to change this normalization of the solution $`S`$ in order to compensate the effect of Hodge integrals in localization formulas.

Processing similarly contributions of the joints carrying the first and last marked points in localization formulas for the two-point descendent (9), we extract the edge factors mentioned above:

(11)
$$\frac{\varphi _i}{zc},\frac{\varphi _j}{wc}\sqrt{e_ie_j}=e^{u^i/z+u^j/w}[\frac{\delta _{ij}}{z+w}+(z)^k(w)^l\text{(edge factor)}_{kl}^{ij}].$$

Taking into account (6) and (10) we conclude that the edge factors are identified with the coefficients $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ corresponding to the solution $`S`$. Note that the weights $`e^{u^j/\chi }`$ are incorporated into the edge factors.

Computing contributions of vertices, denote by $`\chi _r^i,r=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{dim}_𝐂X`$, the characters of the torus action on the tangent space to $`X`$ at the fixed point with the index $`i`$. The localization formulas require the following intersection numbers in the Deligne-Mumford spaces:

(12)
$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e_i^1}{n!}_{\overline{}_{g,m+n}}\frac{_{s=1}^g_r(\chi _r^i\rho _s)}{(x_1c^{(1)})\mathrm{}(x_mc^{(m)})}Q(c^{(m+1)})\mathrm{}Q(c^{(m+n)}).$$

Here $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _g`$ are Chern roots of the Hodge bundle with the fiber $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma })^{}`$, and $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_m`$ are formal variables. In localization formulas, these variables are replaced by some $`\chi _r^i`$ (or their fractions), the characters of the torus action on the $`m`$ edges adjacent to the vertex. The formula (1) accounts for this substitution by matching the factors $`c^kx^{k1}`$ in (12) with the corresponding edge factors $`V_k\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}`$ in (11).

The series $`Q(c)=Q_0^i+Q_1^ic+\mathrm{}`$ is to be substituted in the localization formulas by the localization factor of the tail approaching the $`i`$-th fixed point, and the next task is to interpret the factor in terms of abstract Frobenius structures. For this, we notice that the same series $`Q(c)`$ occurs — in the same role — in fixed point localization of genus $`0`$ invariants. In particular, the one-point descendent $`\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}=z1,\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}`$ is written as

$$\frac{z}{e_i}+\frac{Q(z)Q(0)}{e_i}+\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}_{\overline{}_{0,1+n}}Q(c^{(1)})\mathrm{}Q(c^{(n)})\mathrm{ev}_{n+1}^{}\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}.$$

When $`Q_0^i=0`$, it coincides with $`(z+Q(z))/e_i`$. This can be achieved by moving the series $`Q`$ by the string flow, and the time needed in order to make $`Q_0^i=0`$ is exactly $`u_i`$ (see , Section $`12`$, or ). Furthermore, both the descendent and the potential (12) are eigenfunctions of the string operator $`/Q_0Q_{k+1}/Q_k`$ (with the eigenvalues $`1/z`$ and $`1/x_1+\mathrm{}+1/x_m`$) and of the dilaton operator $`/Q_1Q_k/Q_k`$ (with the eigenvalues $`1`$ and $`2g2+m`$ respectively). Thus, moving along the string flow during the time interval $`u^i`$ and then along the dilaton flow during the time interval $`\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$ we make $`Q_0^i`$ and $`Q_1^i`$ vanish and find the final values $`Q_k^i=T_k^i`$ from (7). The toll to pay consists of the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{g1+m/2}`$ distributed in (1) among vertices and edges and the weights $`\mathrm{exp}u^i/\chi _r^i`$ already incorporated, as we remarked earlier, into $`V_k\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}`$.

### 2.2.  Compensating constants.

Yet, with our current definition of $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ and $`T_k^i`$ the formula (1) would represent correctly the fixed point localization of higher genus potentials only if the Hodge factors in (12) were replaced with the factor $`_{s,r}\chi _r^i=e_i^g`$ (which cancels with other occurrences of $`e_i`$ here and there). The Hodge factors should be digested as follows. Let $`N_k`$ denote Newton symmetric polynomials. It is known  that $`N_{2k}(\rho )=0`$. We rewrite

$$\underset{s,r}{}(\chi _r^i\rho _s)=e_i^g\mathrm{exp}[\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_{2k1}(1/\chi ^i)N_{2k1}(\rho )/(2k1)].$$

Let us redefine the fundamental solution $`S=[\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _i/(zc)e_i^{1/2}]`$ using the ambiguity described in the part (c) of Proposition:

$${}_{}{}^{new}S_{\alpha }^{i}:=S_\alpha ^i\mathrm{exp}[z^{2k1}\frac{N_{2k1}(1/\chi ^i)}{2k1}\frac{B_{2k}}{2k}].$$

Here $`B_{2k}`$ denote Bernoulli numbers, $`z/(\mathrm{exp}z1)=1z/2+_kz^{2k}B_{2k}/(2k)!`$ The coefficients $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ in (6) are redefined accordingly.

Theorem 1. In equivariant Gromov – Witten theory for Hamiltonian tori actions with isolated fixed points, we obtain the higher genus potential in the form (1) by taking $`{}_{}{}^{new}S`$ on the role of the fundamental solution $`S`$ in (6) and (7).

Remark. According to the Proposition, the unitary solution $`{}_{}{}^{new}S`$ is charachterized by the condition that the corresponding series $`{}_{}{}^{new}R(z)`$ turns into the diagonal matrix of the compensating constants $`\mathrm{exp}[z^{2k1}\frac{N_{2k1}(1/\chi ^i)}{2k1}\frac{B_{2k}}{2k}]`$ in the limit of classical equivariant cohomology. Thus Theorem $`1`$, under its hypotheses, coincides with Conjecture $`1`$ where the solution $`S`$ defined on the basis of Proposition is normalized in this particular way.

Example 6. In genus $`1`$, the differential of the GW-potential was computed by fixed point localization in . In our current notation

$$dF_X^1=\underset{i}{}[\frac{V_{00}^{ii}}{2}du^i\frac{N_1(1/\chi ^i)}{24}du^i+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{48\mathrm{\Delta }_i}].$$

The first summand represents contributions of cycles of rational curves, that is of graphs with one vertex (of type $`(g,m)=(0,3)`$) and one edge. The other two summands come from (12) with $`(g,m)=(1,1)`$. The middle term is due to the Hodge integral $`_{\overline{}_{1,1}}\rho _s=1/24`$. It can be interpreted as contributions of cycles of rational curves shrinking to a point and is incorporated into the first term as $`{}_{}{}^{new}V_{00}^{ii}=V_{00}^{ii}N_1(1/\chi ^i)/12`$. This change of notation agrees with the theorem since $`B_2/2=1/12`$. We arrive at the conjecture  making sense for arbitrary semisimple Frobenius manifolds:

$$dF^1=\underset{i}{}[\frac{V_{00}^{ii}}{2}du^i+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_i}{48\mathrm{\Delta }_i}].$$

In the case of conformal Frobenius structures the conjecture was proved in  by showing that this is the only homogeneous formula that agrees with Getzler’s equation .

### 2.3.  Hodge intersection numbers.

We have already explained why the formula (1) for higher genus potentials would arise if the Hodge factors in the vertex contributions (12) were neglected. To derive the theorem it remains to prove that the effect of Hodge factors is correctly accounted by the modification $`S^{new}S`$. For this, let us introduce the generating function for Hodge intersection numbers:

(13)
$$\lambda (\mathrm{};Q;s_1,s_2,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{exp}\{\underset{g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}^{g1}_{pt}^{g,n}(Q,s_1,s_2,\mathrm{})\}$$

where

$$_{pt}^{g,n}:=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}_{\overline{}_{g,n}}Q(c^{(1)})\mathrm{}Q(c^{(n)})e^{{\scriptscriptstyle s_kN_{2k1}(\rho )/(2k1)!}}.$$

We can introduce a family of fake higher genus potentials depending on the parameters $`\{s_k^i\}`$ by replacing the factors $`\tau (\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i;Q^i)`$ in (1) with $`\lambda (\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i;Q^i;s_1^i,s_2^i,\mathrm{})`$. The actual higher genus potential corresponds to $`s_k^i=(2k2)!N_{2k1}(1/\chi ^i)`$. We claim that the $`s`$-parametric deformation of (1) is identified with the $`a`$-parametric deformation of the fundamental solution $`S`$ described in the part (c) of Proposition by taking $`a_k^i=B_{2k}s_k^i/(2k)!`$ This obviously implies the Theorem.

Following (6) and (7) with scalar $`R(z)=\mathrm{exp}(a_1z+a_2z^3+\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, we introduce the operator $`P(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{2}v_{kl}(a)_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_k}_{\stackrel{~}{Q}_l}`$ where

(14)
$$\frac{1}{z+w}+v_{kl}(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{})(z)^k(w)^l:=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\{a_k(z^{2k1}+w^{2k1})\}}{z+w}$$

and define a substitution $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(Q,s)`$ by

(15)
$$z+\stackrel{~}{Q}(z):=[z+Q(z)]\mathrm{exp}[a_kz^{2k1}].$$

Lemma.

$$\lambda (\mathrm{};Q;s_1,s_2,\mathrm{})=[e^{\mathrm{}P(\frac{B_2}{2!}s_1,\frac{B_4}{4!}s_2,\mathrm{})}\tau (\mathrm{};\stackrel{~}{Q})]_{\stackrel{~}{Q}=\stackrel{~}{Q}(Q,\frac{B_2}{2!}s_1,\frac{B_4}{4!}s_2,\mathrm{})}$$

Our claim follows formally from Lemma. Indeed, the $`a`$-parametric modification $`{}_{}{}^{new}S=S\mathrm{exp}(a_kz^{2k1})`$ of the fundamental solution affects the values $`Q_k^i=T_k^i`$ by some linear transformation and also changes coefficients $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ of the differential operator in the exponent of (1). Instead of changing the values $`T_k^i`$ one can make the change of the variables $`Q^i\stackrel{~}{Q}^i`$ and leave the values $`Q_k^i=T_k^i`$ unchanged. The change of variables coincides with (15). The same change of variables in the differential operator accounts for the most of the change in the coefficients $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$. The only remaining discrepancy comes from the term $`\delta _{ij}/(z+w)`$ in (6) and is determined by (14) as $`{}_{}{}^{new}V_{kl}^{ij}=V_{kl}^{ij}+\delta _{ij}v_{kl}(a_1^i,a_2^i,\mathrm{})`$. Thus $`_i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_iP(a^i)`$ is added to the differential operator in the exponent of (1). According to Lemma the modification is equivalent to using $`\lambda (\mathrm{};Q;s)`$’s (instead of $`\tau (\mathrm{};Q)`$ in (1)) when $`a_k^i=B_{2k}s_k^i/(2k)!`$

Proof of the lemma. It is known , at least in principle, how to compute $`\lambda `$ in terms of $`\tau `$ using Mumford’s Grothendieck - Riemann - Roch formula  for the Chern character $`N_{2k1}(\rho )/(2k1)!`$ of the Hodge bundle. Moreover, the formula is interpreted in  as the PDE-system

(16)
$$\frac{}{s_m}\lambda =\frac{B_{2m}}{(2m)!}(\mathrm{}D_m+L_m)\lambda ,m=1,2,\mathrm{}$$

where $`D_m:=\frac{1}{2}_{k+l=2m2}(1)^k_{Q_k}_{Q_l}`$ and $`L_m:=_{Q_{2m}}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}Q_k_{Q_{k+2m1}}`$. The operators $`\mathrm{}D_m+L_m`$ commute pairwise. The vector fields $`L_m`$ on the space of power series $`Q(c)=Q_0+Q_1c+\mathrm{}`$ are linear with respect to the origin shifted to $`c`$. In fact they are given by the operators of multiplication by $`c^{2m1}`$. Therefore $`L_m`$ commute themselves and define the flow (15). Furthermore, for functions $`f(\stackrel{~}{Q})`$ we find by differentiation that $`[\frac{}{a_m}(Pf)](\stackrel{~}{Q}(Q,a))=D_m[f(\stackrel{~}{Q}(Q,a)]`$. The lemma follows: both sides satisfy the same PDE system (16) and coincide at $`s=0`$.

## 3. Generalization to gravitational descendents

The genus $`g`$ descendent GW-potential of $`X`$ is a formal function on the space of curves $`𝐭=t_0+t_1c+t_2c^2+\mathrm{}`$ in $`H`$ defined by

(17)
$$_X^g(𝐭):=\underset{n,d}{}\frac{q^d}{n!}_{[X_{g,n,d}]}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}𝐭(c^{(1)})\mathrm{}\mathrm{ev}_n^{}𝐭(c^{(n)}).$$

Here $`c^{(i)}`$ is the $`1`$-st Chern class of the universal cotangent line over $`X_{g,n,d}`$ at the $`i`$-th marked point, and $`\mathrm{ev}_i^{}`$ acts on coefficients $`t_m`$ of the series $`𝐭`$. We present here a conjectural formula for higher genus descendent potentials that makes sense for arbitrary semisimple Frobenius structures. For this, we have to review the construction  of genus $`0`$ descendents of Frobenius manifolds.

### 3.1.  Descendents in genus 0.

One starts with a fundamental solution $`1+z^1S_1+z^2S_2+\mathrm{}`$ to the system (3) satisfying the unitary condition and takes it on the role of the one-point descendent (8):

$$(\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\mu /(zc)g^{\mu \beta }):=1+\underset{k>0}{}z^k(\varphi _\alpha ,\varphi _\mu c^{k1}^{}g^{\mu \beta }):=1+\underset{k>0}{}z^kS_k.$$

We emphasize that the $`1/z`$-series solution is considered disjoint from the asymptotical solution $`S=\mathrm{\Psi }R(z)\mathrm{exp}(U/z)`$ of the Proposition. In particular, in equivariant GW-theory the one-point descendent correlators, defined intrinsicly, form the fundamental solution series in question, and this definition is not affected by the modification $`R^{new}R`$ of integration constants in the series $`R`$.

Next, one introduces the $`2`$-point descendent (9) using (10):

(18)
$$\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{zc},\frac{\varphi _\beta }{wc}=\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }}{z+w}+\frac{\varphi _\alpha c^m,\varphi _\beta c^l^{}}{z^{m+1}w^{l+1}}:=\varphi _\mu ,\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{zc}\frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{z+w}\varphi _\nu ,\frac{\varphi _\beta }{wc}.$$

The singular term is present to make the sum satisfy the string equation but it makes the symbol $`,`$ not entirely bilinear. We use here the notation $`,^{}`$ for the honest bilinear $`2`$-point descendents.

Furthermore, one considers the map

(19)
$$𝐭t(𝐭)=crit𝐭(c)c,1(t)$$

from the curve space to the Frobenius manifold defined by taking the critical point of the function $`𝐭(c)c,1:=(t_0,t)+𝐭(c)c,1^{}`$ of $`tH`$ depending linearly on the parameter $`𝐭=t_0+t_1c+\mathrm{}`$. One can show that the equation of the critical point takes on the form $`t^\alpha =t_0^\alpha +g^{\alpha \mu }\varphi _\mu ,(𝐭(c)𝐭(0))/c(t)`$ and thus admits a unique formal solution which turns into $`t=t_0`$ when $`t_1=t_2=\mathrm{}=0`$. Finally one puts

(20)
$$^0(𝐭)=\frac{1}{2}𝐭(c)c,𝐭(c)c^{}(t(𝐭))$$

As it is shown in , the formula (20) agrees with the string equation and the genus $`0`$ topological recursion relation and is the only deformation of $`^0|_{t_1=t_2=\mathrm{}=0}=F^0(t_0)`$ satisfying these conditions. Also, (20) agrees with the dilaton equation and is consistent with the definition (18):

(21)
$$_{t_m^\alpha }^0(𝐭)=\varphi _\alpha c^m,𝐭(c)c^{}(t(𝐭)),_{t_m^\alpha }_{t_l^\beta }^0(𝐭)=\varphi _\alpha c^m,\varphi _\beta c^l^{}(t(𝐭)).$$

We emphasize that all the two-point descendent correlators $`_{t_m^\alpha }_{t_l^\beta }^0`$ depend on the infinitely many variables $`𝐭`$ only via the substitution $`t(𝐭)`$.

### 3.2. Descendents in higher genus.

Our proposal for higher genus descendent potential has the same form as (1):

(22)
$$e^{_{g2}\mathrm{}^{g1}^g(𝐭)}=[e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝐕_{kl}^{ij}\sqrt{𝐃_i𝐃_j}_{Q_k^i}_{Q_l^j}}}\underset{j}{}\tau (\mathrm{}𝐃_j;Q^j)]_{Q_k^i=𝐓_k^i}.$$

The functions $`𝐕_{kl}^{ij},𝐃_i,𝐓_k^i`$ on the curve space are defined near a semisimple point $`𝐭(0)`$ in terms of genus $`0`$ descendents. The definitions are motivated by computation of higher genus descendent potentials in equivariant GW-theory in the presence of the torus acting on the target space with isolated fixed points. The result of the computation is stated in Theorem $`2`$ below. The proof of Theorem $`2`$ follows is identical to the proof of Theorem $`1`$ given in Section $`2`$, with one deviation which is discussed presently. In the part of the text preceeding the formulation of Theorem $`2`$ we assume that the reader is familiar with the details of Section $`2`$.

Let us remind from Section $`2`$ that the formula (22) with the combinatorial structure of a graph sum originates from the technique of fixed point localization in moduli spaces of stable maps, and that the edge and tail factors are to be extracted from the genus $`0`$ descendents. In particular the edge factors in localization formulas are extracted from the expansion (11) for $`2`$-point correlators on the curve space. Due to (21) all such $`2`$-point correlators coincide with the corresponding $`2`$-point descendents on $`H`$ lifted to the curve space by the change of variables (19). This also applies to $`u^i=u^i(t(𝐭))`$ (which can be described via $`2`$-point correlators, see ) and therefore — to the edge factors:

(23)
$$𝐕_{kl}^{ij}(𝐭)=V_{kl}^{ij}(t(𝐭))\text{where }t(𝐭)\text{ is defined by (}\text{19}\text{)}.$$

We stress that in the present context of fixed point localization the edge factors $`V_{kl}^{ij}`$ will eventually have to be the same as in Theorem $`1`$ (i. e. based on the solution $`{}_{}{}^{new}S`$ modified by the Bernoulli constants) in order to compensate the effect of Hodge integrals.

Similarly, the functions $`𝐃_i`$ and $`𝐓_k^i`$ in the localization formulas are found from the expansion of the $`1`$-point correlator on the curve space:

$$\sqrt{e_i}\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}(𝐭)=\frac{e^{u^i/z}}{\sqrt{𝐃_i}}(z+𝐓_k^i(z)^k).$$

However — and this is the point that makes the difference — $`\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}`$ no longer coincides with the $`2`$-point correlator $`z1,\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}`$ and respectively $`𝐃_i`$ and $`𝐓_k^i`$ are not obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`T_k^i`$ by the substitution $`t(𝐭)`$. We need (1821) in order to interpret them in terms of abstract Frobenius structures. Let us recall that the asymptotical solution $`S_\mu ^i(z)`$ in the context of fixed point localization actually coincides with $`\varphi _\mu ,\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}\sqrt{e_i}`$. We have

$$\sqrt{e_i}\frac{\varphi _i}{zc}=S_\mu ^i(z)g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,\frac{\varphi _\alpha }{wc}\frac{(𝐭^\alpha (w)\delta ^\alpha w)}{2\pi i(z+w)}𝑑w.$$

Computing the countur integral we arrive at the formula

(24)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{e^{u^i/z}}{\sqrt{𝐃_i}}(z+𝐓_k^i(z)^k)=_{\mu \nu }S_\mu ^i(z)_{t=t(𝐭)}g^{\mu \nu }\times \{\varphi _\nu ,1,𝐭(c)c+\hfill \\ \\ (z)\varphi _\nu ,1,1,𝐭(c)c+(z)^2\varphi _\nu ,1,1,1,𝐭(c)c+\mathrm{}\}_{t=t(𝐭)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`\varphi _\nu ,1,\mathrm{},1,f(c)(t)`$ coincide with multiple $`t`$-derivatives of $`\varphi _\nu ,f(c)(t)`$ in the direction of the vector $`1`$. Here the notation $`S_\mu ^i(z)=e^{u^i/z}((R_k)_j^iz^k)\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu ^j`$ in the context of localization formulas should eventually refer to $`{}_{}{}^{new}S`$, the fundamental solution matrix modified by the Bernoulli constants.

We take (23) and (24) on the role of definitions for $`𝐕_{kl}^{ij},𝐓_k^i`$ and $`𝐃_i`$ in the formula (22).

By definition $`𝐓_1^i=0`$ while $`𝐓_0^i=0`$ follows from the criticality condition in (19). It is straightforward to check that the definition reduces to (6,7) when $`t_1=t_2=\mathrm{}=0`$. With these definitions in force, and the compensating constants in $`R(z)`$ in place, we arrive at the following theorem.

Theorem 2. The formula (22) for higher genus descendent potentials holds true in equivariant GW-theory of Hamiltonian tori actions with isolated fixed points.

Example 7. We compute from (24) that

$$𝐃_i^{1/2}(𝐭)=\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{1/2}[\frac{u^i}{t^\mu }g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,1,1,c𝐭(c)](t(𝐭)).$$

Along the lines of Example $`6`$ we get $`d^1=`$

$$=(\frac{𝐕_{00}^{ii}}{2}du_i+\frac{d𝐃_i}{48𝐃_i})=d\{F^1(t(𝐭))\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{ln}[\underset{i}{}\frac{u^i}{t^\mu }g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,1,1,c𝐭(c)]\}.$$

This answer actually coincides with the well-known result

$$^1(𝐭)=F^1(t(𝐭))+\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{det}[\frac{t^\mu }{t_0^\nu }].$$

Indeed, differentiating the criticality condition $`\varphi _\delta ,1,c𝐭(c)=0`$ in (19) we find that $`g^{\alpha \epsilon }\varphi _\epsilon ,\varphi _\beta ,1,c𝐭(c)(t(𝐭))`$ form the matrix inverse to $`[t^\mu /t_0^\nu ]`$. On the other hand, the genus $`0`$ topological recursion relation (or WDVV-equation) implies

$$g^{\alpha \epsilon }\varphi _\epsilon ,\varphi _\beta ,1,c𝐭(c)=g^{\alpha \epsilon }\varphi _\epsilon ,\varphi _\beta ,\varphi _\mu g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,1,1,c𝐭(c).$$

In other words, $`[t/t_0]^1`$ coincides with the linear combination with coefficients $`g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,1,1,c𝐭(c)`$ of the commuting matrices $`[g^{\alpha \epsilon }F_{\epsilon \mu \beta }^0]`$ of quantum multiplication operators $`\varphi _\mu `$. Thus the eigenvalues of the matrix are the linear combinations $`(u^i/t^\mu )g^{\mu \nu }\varphi _\nu ,1,1,c𝐭(c)`$, and the determinant is their product.

Example 8. Consider GW-theory with the target space $`X=pt`$. Then $`u=t`$, $`1,1/(zc)=\mathrm{exp}(t/z)`$ and respectively $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$ and $`V_{kl}=0`$. We find the RHS in (22) equal to $`\tau (\mathrm{}𝐃;𝐓)`$ with $`𝐃`$ and $`𝐓_k`$ computed as follows. We have $`f(t;𝐭):=1,1,𝐭(c)c(t)=t_kt^k/k!t`$. The relation (19) turns into $`f(t(𝐭);𝐭)=0`$, while $`𝐃^{1/2}=f^{}(t(𝐭);𝐭)`$, and

$$𝐓_11=f^{}(t(𝐭);𝐭)\sqrt{𝐃},𝐓_2=f^{\prime \prime }(t(𝐭),𝐭)\sqrt{𝐃},𝐓_3=f^{\prime \prime \prime }(t(𝐭);𝐭)\sqrt{𝐃},\mathrm{}$$

Note that $`(t_k\delta _{k,1})^kf(t;𝐭)/t^k`$ is the string flow on the curve space so that $`𝐓`$ is obtained from $`𝐭`$ by applying the string flow until $`t_0=0`$ and then applying the dilaton flow until $`t_1=0`$. The potentials $`_{pt}^g(𝐭)`$ with $`g=0,1`$ vanish when $`t_0=t_1=0`$, and for $`g2`$ are preserved by the string flow and are homogeneous of degree $`22g`$ with respect to the dilaton flow. We conclude that indeed $`\tau (\mathrm{}𝐃;𝐓)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{exp}_{g2}\mathrm{}^{g1}_{pt}^g(𝐭)`$.

Finally, the formulas (2224) agree with our Lemma about Hodge intersection numbers in the following sense: the Lemma follows formally from our claim that, in the current setting with descendents as well, the $`s`$-deformation (13) of (2) is compensated by the modification $`\mathrm{exp}(u/z)\mathrm{exp}(u/z+B_2s_1z/2!+B_4s_2z^3/4!+\mathrm{})`$ described in the part (c) of Proposition.

Conjecture $`2`$. With the notations (2,23,24) in force, the formula (22) represents higher genus gravitational descendents of compact symplectic manifolds with generically semisimple quantum cup-product.

Remark. Generally speaking, the task of deriving Conjectures $`1`$ and $`2`$ from Theorems $`1`$ and $`2`$ by passing to the non-equivariant limit is open and non-trivial. We will show in  how to do this in the case of complex projective spaces and their products.

### 3.3. Concluding remarks.

The proposal (1,22) should be exposed to further tests. We expect it to be consistent with any relations in cohomology of Deligne–Mumford spaces (see  for some such ralations found in genus $`0`$ and $`2`$). In fact we hope that our Theorems $`1`$ and $`2`$ on equivariant GW-potentials impose some constraints on topology of Deligne–Mumford spaces so tight that the corresponding results in abstract semisimple GW-theory would follow. Respectively, it should be interesting to make such constraints as explicit as possible and to understand better the geometrical structure on Frobenius manifolds encrypted by (1) and (22). To this end, we should say that the formulas (1,22) can be rewritten differently. Using the Fourier transform they can be given a form of path integrals. Substituting matrix Airy integrals for the Kontsevich – Witten function (2) we can relate the formulas to multi-matrix models. Perhaps, the most useful is the representation-theoretic formulation , which automatically restores the (descendent) potentials of genus $`0`$ and $`1`$ and yields a formula for the complete tau-function $`\mathrm{exp}[_{g0}h^{g1}^g]`$. It enables us to show (see ) that the proposal agrees with the Virasoro constraints  and to derive the “Virasoro conjecture” for GW-invariants of complex projective spaces and their products. We also expect the formula for the tau-function to be helpful in the construction of the bihamiltonian structure of the KdV-like integrable hierarchy whose approximations are studied in .

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the National Science Foundation for financial support. A major part of the text has been completed during our stay at Ecolé Polytechnique and then at Schrödinger Institute whose hospitality is thus gratefully acknowledged. Many thanks are due to C. Faber and R. Pandharipande for their interest and especially for their generous help with some intersection numbers on Deligne – Mumford spaces needed in the early stages of this work to uncover the relation between the compensating constants and Bernoulli numbers.