text:
# Relativistic effects in proton-induced deuteron break-up at intermediate energies with forward emission of a fast proton pair

## Abstract

Recent data on the reaction $`pd(pp)n`$ with a fast forward $`pp`$ pair with very small excitation energy is analyzed within a covariant approach based on the Bethe-Salpeter formalism. It is demonstrated that the minimum non-relativistic amplitude is completely masked by relativistic effects, such as Lorentz boost and the negative-energy $`P`$ components in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ Bethe-Salpeter amplitude of the $`pp`$ pair.
PACS: 13.75.Cs, 25.10.+s

The investigation of hadronic processes at high energies, such as reactions of protons scattering off deuterons, provides a refinement of information about strong interaction at short distances. Nowadays, large research programs of experimental studies of processes with polarized particles are in progress. Important are setups with deuteron targets or beams kox0 ; preliminar ; cosyproposal , since the deuteron serves as a unique source of information on the neutron properties at high transferred momenta, the knowledge of which allows, e.g. to check a number of QCD predictions and sum rules. Additionally, the hadron-deuteron processes can be considered as complementary tool in investigating short-distance phenomena and also as a source of information unavailable in electromagnetic reactions. Of interest is the study of nucleon resonances, checking non-relativistic effective models, meson-nucleon theory, $`NN`$ potentials etc. In this line is the investigation of the deuteron break-up reaction with a fast $`pp`$ pair at low excitation energy, proposed in cosyproposal  and with first results reported in preprint\_komarov .

One motivation for the experiment preprint\_komarov  was the possibility to investigate the off-mass shell effects in $`NN`$ interactions. As predicted in preprint\_komarov ; preprint\_uzikov , at a certain initial energy of the beam protons, the cross section should exhibit a deep minimum, corresponding to the node of the non-relativistic $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ wave function of the two outgoing protons, provided the non-relativistic picture holds and the off-mass shell effects can be neglected. The recent data preprint\_komarov  exhibits, however, a completely different behavior: the cross section is smoothly decreasing; there is no sign of a pronounced minimum. Accounting for corrections beyond the one-nucleon exchange mechanism improve the agreement with data, however a quantitative description have not achieved preprint\_komarov .

It is clear, that the non-relativistic treatment of the process becomes inadequate because of the high virtuality of the proton in the deuteron at the considered kinematics. More realistic approaches which take into account relativistic effects and the off-mass shellness of the interacting nucleons are desired. The Bethe-Salpeter (BS) formalism can serve as an appropriate approach to the problem because the off-mass shellness of the nucleons is an intrinsic feature of the BS equation. Moreover, the solution of the BS equation, being manifestly covariant, incorporate genuine relativistic effects (Lorenz boosts, negative-energy components etc.), hardly accessible within the Schrödinger formalism. In the present note we use the BS approach to analyze the data preprint\_komarov  on deuteron break-up with the emission of a fast forward $`pp`$ pair foonote\_1 . We pay particular attention on relativistic effects in the wave function of two nucleons in the continuum. The model is based on our solution of the BS equation for the deuteron with a realistic one-boson exchange kernel solution . The final state interaction of the two protons is treated also within the BS formalism by solving the BS equation for the $`t`$-matrix within the one-iteration approximation ourfewbody ; nashi . In doing so, a big deal of off-mass shell effects and relativistic corrections are taken into account already within the spectator mechanism.

Let us consider the process

$$p+d=(p_1p_2)(0^0)+n(180^0)$$
(1)
at low excitation energy of the pair ($`E_x03`$ MeV) and intermediate initial kinetic energies $`T_p0.62.0`$ GeV corresponding to the conditions at the Cooler Synchrotron COSY in the experiment cosyproposal ; preprint\_komarov . In the one-nucleon exchange approximation this reaction can be represented by the diagram depicted in Fig. 1, where the following notation is adopted: $`p=(E_p,𝐩)`$ and $`n=(E_n,𝐧)`$ are the four-momenta of the incoming (beam) proton and outgoing (not registered) neutron, $`P_f`$ is the total four-momentum of the $`pp`$ pair, which is a sum of the corresponding four-momenta of the detected protons, $`p_1=(E_1,𝐩_1)`$, $`p_2=(E_2,𝐩_2)`$. The invariant mass of the $`pp`$-pair is $`M_{pp}^2=P_f^2=(2m+E_x)^2`$, where $`m`$ stands for the nucleon mass and $`E_x`$ is the excitation energy. Our calculations are performed in the laboratory system where the deuteron is at rest. For specific purposes, the center of mass of the pair will be considered as well, where all relevant quantities are superscripted with asterisks.

A peculiarity of the processes (1) is that the transferred three-momentum from the initial proton to the second proton in the pair is rather high. Moreover, from the kinematics one finds that the momentum of the neutron is also high ($`|𝐧|0.30.5`$ GeV/c), which implies that, since the outgoing neutron is on-mass shell, the proton inside the deuteron was essentially off-mass shell before the interaction. Correspondingly, it becomes clear that the process of $`NN`$ interaction in the upper part of the diagram is by far more complicate than the elastic interaction. For instance, let us consider a typical kinematical situation, say $`|𝐩|=1.22`$ GeV/c, $`\theta _1^{}4^0`$, excitation energy $`E_x=3`$ MeV and $`|𝐩_1|=0.765`$ GeV/c. This means that the neutron three-momentum is $`|𝐧|0.5`$ GeV/c, i.e., the four-momentum of the off-mass shell proton was $`q=(M_dE_n,𝐧)`$. Now, if one supposes that in the upper vertex there was an elastic process of two on-mass shell protons, then only one kinematical quantity would be necessary to describe the process, e.g., at given $`|𝐩_1|=0.765`$ GeV/c the scattering angle would be $`28^0`$ in the elastic kinematics (instead of $`4^0`$ in the full reaction); or at given scattering angle $`4^0`$, the momentum of the elastically scattered proton would correspond to $`|𝐩_1|=1.21`$ GeV/c ($`|𝐩_2|=0.334`$ GeV/c) instead of the detected momentum $`|𝐩_1||𝐩_2|0.765`$ GeV/c. This demonstrates that the $`NN`$ interaction in the upper part of the diagram has a quite complicate nature. It can be considered as consisting at least of two steps: (i) an inelastic process which puts the target nucleon on mass-shell, and (ii) an elastic interaction in the $`pp`$ pair in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ final state. Since a large amount of the transferred energy is needed to locate the second proton on mass-shell, the relativistic corrections can play a crucial role here.

The invariant cross section of the reaction (1) reads

$$d^6\sigma =\frac{1}{(4\pi )^5\lambda (p,d)}|M_{fi}|^2\frac{d𝐩_1d𝐩_2}{E_1E_2}\delta \left(E_0+E_dE_1E_2E_n\right),$$
(2)
where $`\lambda (p,d)`$ is the flux factor, and $`M_{fi}`$ the invariant amplitude; the statistical factor $`1/2`$ due to two identical particles (protons) in the final state has been already included. The covariant matrix element corresponding to the diagram in Fig. 1 can be written in the form

$$M_{fi}=\overline{u}(s,𝐧)(\widehat{n}m)\mathrm{\Psi }_d(n)\left[(\widehat{p}_2+m)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}}(p)(\widehat{p}_1m)u(r,𝐩)\right],$$
(3)
where $`u(r,𝐩)`$ ($`\overline{u}(s,𝐧)`$) stands for the Dirac spinor of the incident proton (outgoing neutron) with the spin projection $`r`$ ($`s`$) and 3-momentum $`𝐩`$ ($`𝐧`$), $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{D(^1S_0)}`$ denote the BS amplitudes for the deuteron and the $`pp`$-pair in the continuum, respectively. By using the spin angular basis to obtain the partial decomposition of the deuteron BS amplitude and the covariant form for the four partial components for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$-state nashi  of the $`NN`$ pair footnote\_2 , the invariant amplitude $`M_{fi}`$ is

$$M_{fi}=(1)^{\frac{1}{2}r}𝒦(^1S_0)\frac{1}{\sqrt{8\pi }(M_d2E_n)}\{\sqrt{2}C_{\frac{1}{2}s\frac{1}{2}r}^1(G_S\frac{G_D}{\sqrt{2}})+3\delta _{,0}\delta _{s,r}\frac{G_D}{\sqrt{2}}\},$$
(4)
where the contribution $`𝒦(^1S_0)`$ from the upper part of the diagram in Fig. 1 is

$$𝒦(^1S_0)=\sqrt{\frac{E_p+m}{E_n+m}}[h_1(E_n+m\frac{|𝐧||𝐩|}{E_p+m})h_3\frac{M_d2E_n}{m}(E_n+m+\frac{|𝐧||𝐩|}{E_p+m})].$$
(5)
$`G_{S,D}`$ denote the BS vertices for the deuteron, $`h_1,h_3`$ are the non-vanishing covariant partial components of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ configuration in the continuum. The relation of the amplitudes $`h_i(i=1\mathrm{}4)`$ to the partial solutions of the BS equation in the $`NN`$ center of mass $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{++},^1S_0^{},^3P_0^+,^3P_0^+`$ can be found, e.g., in ref. nashi . In what follows we neglect the contribution of the extremely small $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{}^{}`$ component, keeping only the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{}^{++}`$ component as the main one and the $`P`$ components as the ones providing purely relativistic corrections.

It is easy to check that for the unpolarized particles the cross section factorizes in two independent parts, i.e., $`\frac{1}{6}\underset{s,r,}{}|M_{fi}|^2|𝒦(^1S_0)|^2(u_S(𝐧)^2+u_D(𝐧)^2),`$ as it should be within the spectator mechanism with $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ $`(L_f=0)`$ in the final state (see also discussion in ref. ourdphi ); $`u_S`$ and $`u_D`$ are the BS deuteron $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves ourfewbody

In our numerical calculations we use the deuteron BS amplitude from solution . For $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state one should solve the inhomogeneous BS equation in the $`NN`$ center of mass to obtain the covariant amplitudes $`h_{1,3}`$. Note that in such a way the effects of the Lorentz boost are automatically taken into account (see, e.g., ourfewbody ). The partial ”$`++`$” components of the BS vertices in the $`NN`$ center of mass, for both the bound and the scattering states have a direct analogue with the corresponding non-relativistic wave functions. Moreover, at low intrinsic relative momenta the BS and non-relativistic wave functions basically coincide. Hence, due to the low excitation energy of the $`pp`$-pair, in expressing $`h_{1,3}`$ via the partial amplitudes at rest one may safely replace the ”$`++`$” vertex by its non-relativistic analogue. Relativistic effects are then included in boosting the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{++}`$ component to the deuteron center of mass system and also by taking into account the contributions of $`P`$ components in $`h_{1,3}`$. To find the $`P`$ waves we solve the BS equation for the pair in its center of mass within the one iteration approximation ourfewbody ; ourcharge , with the trial function as the exact solution for the $`t`$ matrix within a separable potential plessas . By defining new partial components $`g_i`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}4`$) as ”connected amplitudes”, i.e., the partial amplitudes without the free terms, we obtain for the $`P`$-waves

$`g_3(k)=ig_{\pi NN}^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_{pp}}{\sqrt{\pi }}}V_{31}(k,p^{})i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dpp^2}{(2\pi )^3}}V_{31}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{g_1(p)}{M_{pp}2E_p+iϵ}}\right],`$ (6)
where the partial kernel $`V_{31}`$ is $`V_{31}(k,p^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi m}{|𝐩^{}||𝐤|E_𝐩^{}E_𝐤}}\left\{|𝐩|^{}Q_1(y)|𝐤|Q_0(y)\right\}`$ with $`Q_L(y)`$ as Legendre function with the argument $`y=(|𝐩^{}|^2+|𝐤|^2)+\mu _\pi ^2k_0^2)/(2|𝐩^{}||𝐤|)`$ ourcharge ; nashi . In the first iteration the trial function $`g_1(k)`$ is expressed via the non-relativistic $`t`$ matrix plessas  as

$`g_1(k)=i(4\pi )^{5/2}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}t_{NR}(k,p^{}),`$ (7)
where the normalization of $`t_{NR}`$ corresponds to $`t_{NR}(p^{},p^{})={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi m|𝐩^{}|}}\mathrm{e}^{i\delta _0}\mathrm{sin}\delta _0,`$ where $`\delta _0`$ denotes the experimentally known phase-shift of the elastic $`pp`$ scattering in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state. By using the Sokhotsky-Weierstrass formula for the Cauchy type integrals one finally obtains

$`g_3(k)={\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\pi NN}^2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\left[M_{pp}V_{31}(k,p^{})\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi m|𝐩^{}|}{2}}t_{NR}(p^{},p^{})\right\}+m𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑pp^2V_{31}(k,p){\displaystyle \frac{t_{NR}(p,p^{})}{E_p^{}E_p}}\right],`$
where, due to the separable stricture of the chosen $`t_{NR}`$, further calculations of principal values of the relevant integrals can be carried out analytically.

In Figs. 2 and 3 we present results of numerical calculations of the five-fold cross section $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_2d|𝐩_1|`$ and the two-fold cross section $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ as the solid angle of the momentum of the neutron in the center of mass of the reaction), integrated over the excitation energy in a range $`E_x=03`$ MeV. The calculations have been performed with our numerical solution for the deuteron BS amplitude (inclusion of the $`P`$ components in the deuteron amplitude leads to negligibly small corrections, therefore here we do not discus these contributions). The dotted curves are results of non-relativistic calculations, while the dashed curves include pure Lorentz boos effects, i.e., relativistic calculations with including the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{++}`$ component only. It is clearly seen that the boost corrections are fairly visible: They cause a shift of the minimum of the cross section. The agreement at low initial energies becomes better, however, the cross section is still too small at large values of $`T_p`$. Fig. 3 reveals that an account for only $`\mathrm{"}++\mathrm{"}`$ components is not sufficient to describe data. An excellent description is achieved by taking into account all the relativistic effects, including the contribution of the negative-energy $`P`$ waves. Note, that as demonstrated in refs. ourfewbody ; nashi  in reactions of $`pd`$ and in threshold-near $`ed`$ disintegration, the inclusion of $`P`$ waves exactly recovers the non-relativistic calculation with taking into account the $`N\overline{N}`$ pair production effects. Hence, in our case this is a hint that covariant calculations within the relativistic spectator mechanism contains already some contributions beyond the one-nucleon exchange mechanism.

In summary we analyze the recent data preprint\_komarov  of the reactions $`pd(p,n)(pp)n`$ within a covariant approach based on the Bethe-Salpeter formalism. Relativistic effects (Lorentz boost, negative-energy $`P`$ components) are important and responsible for the smooth decline of the cross section, in contrast to predictions of non-relativistic models.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to H.W. Barz for valuable discussions. L.P.K. and S.S.S. acknowledge the warm hospitality of the nuclear theory group in the Research Center Rossendorf. The work has been supported by Heisenberg - Landau program, BMBF grant 06DR921 and RFBR 00-15-96737.


format: text

text:
# Ordinary Calabi-Yau-3 Crystals

## Introduction

Calabi-Yau manifolds of dimensions $`1`$ and $`2`$, i.e. elliptic curves and K3-surfaces, have a long and successful tradition in geometry and number theory. In the 1980’s, in connection with developments in string theory, Calabi-Yau manifolds of dimension $`3`$ moved to the forefront. Emphasis has been on their complex and symplectic geometry, and in particular on the variation of the Hodge structure for Calabi-Yau threefolds near the so-called large complex structure limit. This is the first of a series of papers in which we want to describe certain aspects of the arithmetic geometry of families of ordinary Calabi-Yau threefolds and analogies with complex Calabi-Yau threefolds near the large complex structure limit. More specifically, this paper discusses the associated crystals, i.e. modules with an integrable connection, like the Gauss-Manin connection on the cohomology of a family of Calabi-Yau threefolds. Crystals which originate from geometry come with a Hodge filtration, which is not preserved by the connection but instead satisfies Griffiths transversality. Crystals which originate from geometry in characteristic $`p`$ additionally carry an action of Frobenius operators behaving in an appropriate way with respect to the connection and the Hodge filtration: they are divisible Hodge $`F`$-crystals. For so-called divisible *ordinary* Hodge $`F`$-crystals the space of flat sections decomposes into eigenspaces for the Frobenius operators. The position of the Hodge filtration with respect to this eigenspace decomposition is the source for the canonical coordinates and the Yukawa coupling: see Theorems 1.8, 2.2, 2.4. The ordinariness requirement implies, exactly as the requirement of maximally unipotent local monodromy in the traditional analysis of complex Calabi-Yau threefolds near the large complex structure limit , that there is a *filtration which is opposite to the Hodge filtration and is invariant under the Gauss-Manin connection and whose associated graded is of Hodge-Tate type* (cf.  prop.1.3.6,  §6).

The theory of ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals has its origins in Dwork’s work on the variation of the zeta function in a family of varieties over a finite field  and in the work of Serre and Tate on the formal moduli of deformations of an ordinary elliptic curve over a field of positive characteristic. In  Deligne and Illusie present a general theory of ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals and apply it to investigate the formal moduli of ordinary abelian varieties and ordinary K3-surfaces. The general theory works equally well for ordinary CY3 crystals, i.e. crystals of the kind that arises as the crystalline cohomology of ordinary Calabi-Yau threefolds in characteristic $`p>0`$. Thus, exactly as in , there are canonical coordinates on the formal moduli space. In Section 1 we briefly recall the general theory of . In Section 2 we take the same algebraic path as Bryant, Griffiths, Morrison and Deligne  in their analysis of the variation of the Hodge structure of complex Calabi-Yau threefolds near a maximally degenerate ($``$ maximally unipotent local monodromy $``$ large complex structure) boundary point of the moduli space. In particular we find for ordinary CY3 crystals an exact analog of the cubic form of Bryant-Griffiths ($``$ Yukawa coupling). Interestingly, besides the standard characterization (2.25) of the prepotential of this cubic form we find a characterization (2.32) by means of the action of the canonical lift of Frobenius. The latter characterization remains valid if there are no parameters, i.e. if $`n=0`$ in (1.1), while in that case the former description is vacuous. Also for the canonical coordinates the formalisms in the ordinary and the large complex structure situations match very well, but the match is not perfect: in the ordinary case the canonical coordinates take the value $`1`$ at the origin of the deformation space (cf. (2.26)), whereas the canonical coordinates at the large complex structure limit point vanish.

The standard algorithms (cf. ) for computing canonical coordinates and Yukawa coupling for complex Calabi-Yau threefolds near the “maximally unipotent local monodromy boundary point” use special solutions of the Picard-Fuchs equations associated with the family of CY3’s and a nowhere vanishing global $`3`$-form. In Remark 3.4 we point out that in the ordinary case one has basically the same relation between canonical coordinates, Yukawa coupling and special solutions of the Picard-Fuchs equations (although explicit computations seem here out of reach).

The present paper is a survey of structures none which – except maybe (2.32) and (2.33) – is new by itself, but which appear in the literature in different contexts. So we hope that there is an inspiring and cross-fertilizing effect from putting them into one (con)text. For instance, being alerted that for the deformation theory of ordinary Calabi-Yau threefolds the cubic form of Bryant-Griffiths (Yukawa coupling) should be relevant, one may wonder how that shows up in connection with the Hodge-Tate decomposition of $`p`$-adic étale cohomology as in  p. 109.

The original motivation for our work was to find a general method of proof for the integrality conjectures in Mirror Symmetry by reducing them to known results or easy to check conditions on the crystalline cohomology for families of Calabi-Yau threefolds in positive characteristics: It has been observed in many examples in the literature on Mirror Symmetry for Calabi-Yau threefolds, that the coefficients in appropriate expansions of the canonical coordinates and of the prepotential of the Yukawa coupling are integers. In the famous example of the quintics in $`^4`$ (see ) one has for instance

$$q=t+770t^2+1014275t^3+1703916750t^4+3286569025625t^5+\mathrm{}$$

where $`t=\psi ^5`$ is the parameter and $`q`$ is the canonical coordinate of the family

$$X_0^5+X_1^5+X_2^5+X_3^5+X_4^5\psi X_0X_1X_2X_3X_4=0;$$

the Yukawa coupling $`Y`$ is given by

$$Y=5+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}\underset{n1}{}b_nn^3\frac{q^n}{1q^n},$$

$$b_1=575,b_2=121850,b_3=63441275,b_4=48493506000,b_5=45861177777525.$$

The prepotential $`Z`$ is defined (up to terms of order $`2`$ in $`\mathrm{log}q`$) by $`Y=\left(q\frac{d}{dq}\right)^3Z`$ and has an expansion

$$Z(q)=\frac{5}{6}\mathrm{log}^3q+5\underset{n1}{}b_n\mathrm{Li}_3(q^n)$$

where $`\mathrm{Li}_3(x)=_{j1}\frac{x^j}{j^3}`$ is the trilogarithm function. According to the Mirror Symmetry Conjecture  the number $`5b_n`$ is the number of rational curves of degree $`n`$ on a generic quintic hypersurface in $`^4`$. For the Integrality Conjecture one is interested in the less astonishing, but still highly non-trivial fact that these numbers are integers. Now one may note that the numbers $`5b_n`$ are integers if and only if for every prime number $`p`$

$$Z(q)p^3Z(q^p)_p[[q]]$$
(0.1)
where $`_p`$ is the ring of $`p`$-adic integers.

In this paper we show that $`p`$-adic analogues of the integrality conjectures, in particular an analogue of (0.1), hold true for ordinary CY3 crystals; see Formulas (2.29) and (2.33) 111 For some examples it has been proved in  that the expansion coefficients of the mirror map (i.e. the coordinate transformation to canonical coordinates) are really integers, in $``$.. Throughout this paper the prime $`p`$ is fixed and the constructions involve choices which may depend on $`p`$. For the integrality conjectures for families of Calabi-Yau threefolds, like the above quintics, one must however deal with all primes. Thus one is confronted with the challenge to ‘glue’ or to ‘synchronize’ those choices for the various primes $`p`$. In  we will describe the beginnings of such a synchronized set-up for “ordinariness”. The present paper starts at the fairly abstract heights of $`F`$-crystals and wants to find out from there whether the path of ordinariness leads to interesting vistas. In  we will start at a less abstract more geometric level.

## 1. Ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals

We recall the theory of ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals; the general reference is . We work over a perfect field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$ and explicitly keep track of which results require passing to the algebraic closure $`\overline{k}`$ of $`k`$. Let $`W`$ be the ring of Witt vectors of $`k`$ and $`K`$ the field of fractions of $`W`$. So $`W`$ is a local ring with residue field $`k`$; its field of fractions $`K`$ has characterisitic $`0`$; its maximal ideal is $`pW`$ and $`W`$ is complete and separated for the $`p`$-adic topology: $`W=\underset{m}{lim}W/p^mW`$. Moreover we need the rings of formal power series

$$A_0=k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]],A=W[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]].$$
(1.1)
A *crystal over $`A_0`$* is, by definition, a finitely generated free $`A`$-module $`H`$ together with a connection

$$:H\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1_AH$$

which is integrable and $`p`$-adically topologically nilpotent; this means that if we set $`D_i=(\frac{d}{dt_i}1):HH,`$ with the derivation $`\frac{d}{dt_i}`$ viewed as a linear map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1A`$, then $`D_iD_j=D_jD_i`$ and $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}D_i^m=0`$ in the $`p`$-adic topology on $`\mathrm{End}_W(H)`$.

On the characteristic $`p`$ rings $`k`$ and $`A_0`$ one has the *Frobenius endomorphism* $`\sigma `$ raising elements to their $`p`$-th power: $`\sigma (x)=x^p`$. On the perfect field $`k`$ this is an automorphism and it lifts canonically to an automorphism on $`W`$, also denoted by $`\sigma `$. There are many different *lifts of Frobenius on $`A`$*, i.e. ring endomorphisms $`\varphi `$ of $`A`$ which restrict to $`\sigma `$ on $`W`$ and reduce modulo $`p`$ to $`\sigma `$ on $`A_0`$. If $`H`$ is an $`A`$-module and $`\varphi :AA`$ is a lift of Frobenius we write

$$\varphi ^{}H=A_\varphi _AH$$

where $`A_\varphi `$ is $`A`$ viewed as an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule with left structure via the identity map $`id:AA`$ and right structure via $`\varphi :AA`$. The natural map

$$\varphi ^{}:H\varphi ^{}H,\varphi ^{}(h)=1h$$

is $`\varphi `$-linear, i.e. $`\varphi ^{}(a_1h_1+a_2h_2)=\varphi (a_1)\varphi ^{}(h_1)+\varphi (a_2)\varphi ^{}(h_2)`$.

Now let $`(H,)`$ be a crystal as above and let $`\varphi ,\psi :AA`$ be two lifts of Frobenius. Since $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are equal modulo $`p`$ the connection $``$ provides, via a kind of Taylor expansion, a canonical isomorphism of $`A`$-modules

$$\chi (\varphi ,\psi ):\varphi ^{}H\stackrel{}{}\psi ^{}H;$$

more precisely, the map $`\chi (\varphi ,\psi )\varphi ^{}:H\psi ^{}H`$ is given by the formula

$$\chi (\varphi ,\psi )\varphi ^{}(x)=\underset{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n0}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{p^{m_j}}{m_j!}\left(\frac{\varphi (t_j)\psi (t_j)}{p}\right)^{m_j}\psi ^{}(D_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}D_n^{m_n}(x)).$$

Note that for $`m1`$ the rational number $`\frac{p^m}{m!}`$ has $`p`$-adic valuation $`>m\frac{m}{p1}0`$.

###### Definition 1.1.

One says that a crystal $`(H,)`$ is an *$`F`$-crystal over $`A_0`$* if for every lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$ there is given a homomorphism of $`A`$-modules

$$F(\varphi ):\varphi ^{}HH$$
(1.2)
which is horizontal for the connection $``$, i.e. the square

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& H& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1H& \\ \hfill F\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^{}& & & & \varphi F\left(\varphi \right)\varphi ^{}\hfill \\ & H& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1H& \end{array}$$
(1.3)
is commutative, and such that for every pair of lifts of Frobenius $`\varphi ,\psi :AA`$

$$F(\psi )\chi (\varphi ,\psi )=F(\varphi ).$$
(1.4)
Moreover $`F(\varphi )_p:\varphi ^{}H_pH_p`$ should be an isomorphism.
If for one, and hence every, lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$ the homomorphism $`F(\varphi )`$ in (1.2) is an isomorphism one says that $`H`$ is a *unit $`F`$-crystal*.

Combining Formula (1.4) with the Taylor expansion formula for $`\chi (\varphi ,\psi )`$ one gets

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(x)=\underset{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n0}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{p^{m_j}}{m_j!}\left(\frac{\varphi (t_j)\psi (t_j)}{p}\right)^{m_j}F(\psi )\psi ^{}(D_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}D_n^{m_n}(x)).$$
(1.5)
The horizontality relation for $`F(\varphi )`$ and $``$ (1.3) makes it possible to solve the problem of finding $``$-flat sections (i.e. essentially solving differential equations) by finding $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}`$-fixed sections (i.e. essentially solving polynomial equations). Indeed, one has the following result.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Suppose $`eH`$ is such that $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}e=e`$ for some lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$. Then $`e=0`$ and $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}e=e`$ holds for every lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$.

###### Proof.

By definition there is for every $`aA`$ an element $`a_1A`$ such that $`\varphi (a)=a^p+pa_1`$. From this one gets by induction for every $`aA`$ and $`m1`$ elements $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_mA`$ such that

$$\varphi ^m(a)=a^{p^m}+pa_1^{p^{m1}}+\mathrm{}+p^ma_m$$

and hence $`\varphi ^m(bda):=\varphi ^m(b)d(\varphi ^m(a))p^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1`$ for every $`1`$-form $`bda`$.
If $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}e=e`$, then (1.3) yields for every $`m1`$

$$e=(\varphi ^m(F(\varphi )\varphi ^{})^m)ep^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1H.$$

Taking $`m\mathrm{}`$ we see $`e=0`$. The equality $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}e=e`$ for any lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ now follows from (1.5). ∎

Let $`H`$ be an $`F`$-crystal222For simplicity, we do not explicitly mention the connection $``$ and the maps $`F(\varphi )`$. and $`H_0=H_AA_0`$. For a lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$ and an integer $`i`$ we set

$`\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{xH_0|yH\text{ lifting }x\text{ s.t. }p^iy\mathrm{Im}F(\varphi )\},`$
$`\mathrm{Fil}^iH_0`$ $`=`$ $`\{xH_0|yH\text{ lifting }x\text{ s.t. }F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}yp^iH\}.`$
These are $`A_0`$-submodules of $`H_0`$. One can show that they are independent of the chosen lift of Frobenius $`\varphi `$; see  §1.3. Trivially, $`\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0=0`$ for $`i1`$ and $`\mathrm{Fil}^iH_0=H_0`$ for $`i0`$. Moreover, it can be shown that there is an integer $`N`$ such that $`\mathrm{Fil}_NH_0=H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{Fil}^{N+1}H_0=0`$. One then says that *$`H`$ is of level $`N`$*. Thus, one finds the filtrations

$`0=\mathrm{Fil}_1H_0\mathrm{Fil}_0H_0\mathrm{Fil}_1H_0`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{Fil}_{N1}H_0\mathrm{Fil}_NH_0=H_0`$ (1.6)
$`H_0=\mathrm{Fil}^0H_0\mathrm{Fil}^1H_0\mathrm{Fil}^2H_0`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{Fil}^NH_0\mathrm{Fil}^{N+1}H_0=0`$ (1.7)
(1.6) is called the *conjugate filtration* and (1.7) is called the *Hodge filtration*. The connection $``$ on $`H`$ induces a connection $`_0`$ on $`H_0`$. The conjugate filtration is horizontal for $`_0`$ and the Hodge filtration satisfies the *Griffiths transversality condition*, i.e. for all $`i`$:

$$_0\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{A_0/k}^1\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0\text{and}_0\mathrm{Fil}^iH_0\mathrm{\Omega }_{A_0/k}^1\mathrm{Fil}^{i1}H_0.$$

Let $`\mathrm{gr}_{}H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{gr}^{}H_0`$ denote the graded modules associated with the conjugate and Hodge filtrations respectively. If $`\mathrm{gr}_{}H_0`$ is a free $`A_0`$-module, then so is $`\mathrm{gr}^{}H_0`$ and for every $`i`$ the modules $`\mathrm{gr}_iH_0=\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0/\mathrm{Fil}_{i1}H_0`$ and $`\mathrm{gr}^iH_0=\mathrm{Fil}^iH_0/\mathrm{Fil}^{i+1}H_0`$ are canonically isomorphic. The rank of the free $`A_0`$-module $`\mathrm{gr}_iH_0\mathrm{gr}^iH_0`$ is called *the $`i`$-th Hodge number of $`H`$*.

###### Definition 1.3.

A *Hodge $`F`$-crystal* over $`A_0`$ is an $`F`$-crystal $`H`$ over $`A_0`$ equipped with a filtration by free $`A`$-submodules

$$H=\mathrm{Fil}^0H\mathrm{Fil}^1H\mathrm{}\mathrm{Fil}^iH\mathrm{Fil}^{i+1}H\mathrm{}$$
(1.8)
(called the Hodge filtration on $`H`$) which lifts the Hodge filtration from $`H_0`$ and satisfies Griffiths transversality, i.e. for every $`i`$

$$\mathrm{Fil}^iH_AA_0=\mathrm{Fil}^iH_0\text{and}\mathrm{Fil}^iH\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/W}^1_A\mathrm{Fil}^{i1}H.$$
(1.9)
###### Definition 1.4.

An $`F`$-crystal $`H`$ over $`A_0`$ is said to be *ordinary* if $`\mathrm{gr}_{}H_0`$ is a free $`A_0`$-module and the conjugate filtration and Hodge filtration on $`H_0`$ are opposite, i.e.

$$H_0=\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0\mathrm{Fil}^{i+1}H_0\text{ for every }i.$$

###### Proposition 1.5.

( prop.1.3.2) Let $`H`$ be an $`F`$-crystal over $`A_0`$ such that $`\mathrm{gr}_{}H_0`$ is a free $`A_0`$-module. Then $`H`$ is ordinary if and only if there is a filtration by sub-$`F`$-crystals

$$0=U_1U_0U_1\mathrm{}U_iU_{i+1}\mathrm{}$$
(1.10)
such that for every $`i`$

$$U_i_AA_0=\mathrm{Fil}_iH_0\text{ and }U_i/U_{i1}V_i(i)$$

where $`V_i`$ is a unit $`F`$-crystal and $`(i)`$ is Tate twist, i.e. $`V_i(i)`$ is the same $`A`$-module with connection as $`V_i`$, but for every lift of Frobenius $`\varphi `$ the map $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}`$ on $`V_i(i)`$ is $`p^iF(\varphi )\varphi ^{}`$ on $`V_i`$. The filtration (1.10) is unique. ∎

###### Proposition 1.6.

( prop.1.3.6) For an ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystal $`H`$ the filtrations $`U_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Fil}^{}H`$ are opposite, i.e. for every $`i`$

$$H=U_i\mathrm{Fil}^{i+1}H.$$

As a consequence one has a decomposition

$$H=_iH^i,H^i=U_i\mathrm{Fil}^iH.$$

The above proposition gives a first result on the structure of ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals. Stronger results (Theorem 1.8 below) can be obtained over the algebraic closure $`\overline{k}`$ of the base field $`k`$. Let $`\overline{W}`$ the ring of Witt vectors of $`\overline{k}`$ and

$$\overline{A}_0=\overline{k}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]],\overline{A}=\overline{W}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]],K^\mathrm{u}=\overline{W}[\frac{1}{p}].$$

One can base change an $`F`$-crystal $`H`$ over $`A_0`$ to an $`F`$-crystal $`\overline{H}`$ over $`\overline{A}_0`$ as follows. By tensoring with $`\overline{A}`$ one gets the free $`\overline{A}`$-module with connection

$$\overline{H}=\overline{A}_AH,:\overline{H}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}^1_{\overline{A}}\overline{H}.$$

If $`\varphi :\overline{A}\overline{A}`$ is a lift of Frobenius such that $`\varphi (A)A`$, then the $`A`$-linear map $`F(\varphi ):\varphi ^{}HH`$ gives the $`\overline{A}`$-linear map $`F(\varphi ):\varphi ^{}\overline{H}\overline{H}`$. If $`\psi :\overline{A}\overline{A}`$ is an arbitrary lift of Frobenius, the connection $``$ provides an isomorphism $`\chi (\psi ,\varphi ):\psi ^{}\overline{H}\stackrel{}{}\varphi ^{}\overline{H}`$ and we can define $`F(\psi )=F(\varphi )\chi (\psi ,\varphi ):\psi ^{}\overline{H}\overline{H}`$.

###### Definition 1.7.

Let $`\overline{H}`$ be a Hodge $`F`$-crystal over $`\overline{A}_0`$ with Hodge filtration $`\{\mathrm{Fil}^i\overline{H}\}_{0iN}`$. One says that $`\overline{H}`$ is *divisible* if for some lift of Frobenius $`\varphi `$

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\mathrm{Fil}^i\overline{H}p^i\overline{H}\text{for}i=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(1.11)
If $`p>N`$ and (1.11) holds for one lift of Frobenius, then it holds for every lift of Frobenius (see  §5.0).

Théorème 1.4.2 of  describes the structure of ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystals of level $`1`$. The following theorem generalizes that result to higher levels.

###### Theorem 1.8.

Let $`\overline{H}`$ be a divisible ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystal over $`\overline{A}_0`$ of level $`N<p`$ with filtrations $`U_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Fil}^{}H`$ as in (1.10) and (1.8) respectively. Then

$$\overline{H}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{H}^i,\overline{H}^i=\overline{U}_i\mathrm{Fil}^i\overline{H}$$

and there is a basis $`\{e_{im}\}_{0iN,1mh^i}`$ of $`\overline{H}`$ with $`e_{im}\overline{H}^i`$ for all $`i,m`$ and there is a matrix $`𝒯`$ with entries in $`K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$, such that

* $`𝒯=(\tau _{ij})_{0i,jN}`$ with $`\tau _{ij}`$ an $`h^i\times h^j`$-matrix, $`\tau _{ij}=0`$ for $`j<i`$,
$`\tau _{ii}=`$identity-matrix, the matrix $`\tau _{ij}(0)`$ has entries in $`p^{ji}\overline{W}`$.
* the matrix of the connection $``$ with respect to the basis $`\{e_{im}\}`$ is

$$𝒯^1d𝒯$$
(1.12)
* for every lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ the matrix of the map $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`\{e_{im}\}`$ is

$$𝒯^1P\psi (𝒯)$$
(1.13)
where $`P`$ is the diagonal matrix

$$P=\mathrm{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,p,\mathrm{},p,\mathrm{},p^j,\mathrm{},p^j,\mathrm{},p^N,\mathrm{},p^N)$$
(1.14)
with the entry $`p^j`$ repeated $`h^j`$-times.

###### Proof.

For $`i=0,\mathrm{},N`$ there is an isomorphism of $`\overline{A}`$-modules $`\overline{H}^i\overline{U}_i/\overline{U}_{i1}=\overline{V}_i(i)`$ with $`\overline{V}_i`$ a unit $`F`$-crystal. According to  prop.1.2.2 there is an $`\overline{A}`$-basis $`f_{i1},\mathrm{},f_{ih^i}`$ of $`\overline{V}_i`$ such that

$$f_m=0,F(\psi )\psi ^{}f_m=f_m\text{for}m=1,\mathrm{},h^i$$
(1.15)
for every lift of Frobenius $`\psi :\overline{A}\overline{A}`$. Lift the basis $`f_{i1},\mathrm{},f_{ih^i}`$ of $`\overline{V}_i`$ to a basis $`e_{i1},\mathrm{},e_{ih^i}`$ of $`\overline{H}^i`$. This gives the basis $`\{e_{im}\}_{0iN,1mh^i}`$ for $`\overline{H}`$.

Equations (1.15) and Griffiths transversality show that the connection matrix with respect to this basis has the following shape

$$M_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \eta _{01}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \eta _{12}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \eta _{N2,N1}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \eta _{N1,N}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1.16)
with $`\eta _{i,i+1}`$ a matrix of size $`h^i\times h^{i+1}`$ with entries in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}^1`$. Integrability of the connection implies for all $`i`$

$$d\eta _{i,i+1}=0\text{and}\eta _{i,i+1}\eta _{i+1,i+2}=0.$$
(1.17)
The entries of $`\eta _{i,i+1}`$ are closed $`1`$-forms and hence exact, by the Poincaré lemma. So there is a matrix $`\tau _{i,i+1}`$ of size $`h^i\times h^{i+1}`$ with entries in $`K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$ such that

$$\eta _{i,i+1}=d\tau _{i,i+1}.$$
(1.18)
Using the equations in (1.17) and induction on $`ji`$ one sees that for $`i+2jN`$ there exist matrices $`\tau _{ij}`$ of size $`h^i\times h^j`$ with entries in $`K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$ such that

$$\tau _{i,j1}\eta _{j1,j}=d\tau _{ij}.$$
(1.19)
For $`j<i`$ we set $`\tau _{ij}=h^i\times h^j`$-zero-matrix and for $`j=i`$ we set $`\tau _{ii}=h^i\times h^i`$-identity-matrix. We collect the matrices $`\tau _{ij}`$ into one (block structured) matrix

$$𝒯=(\tau _{ij})_{0i,jN}.$$

Then (1.18) and (1.19) are equivalent with

$$𝒯M_{}=d𝒯.$$
(1.20)
We fix the constants of integration by taking the constant term $`𝒯(0)`$ of $`𝒯`$ as in (1.22) below. Take the lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :\overline{A}\overline{A}`$ given by

$$\varphi (a_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n}t_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}t_n^{m_n})=\sigma (a_{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n})t_1^{pm_1}\mathrm{}t_n^{pm_n}$$
(1.21)
with $`\sigma `$ the standard Frobenius map on $`\overline{W}`$. Equations (1.15) and the assumption on divisibility show

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}e_{im}p^ie_{im}p^i\overline{U}_{i1}.$$

Therefore the matrix $`M_\varphi `$ of the $`\varphi `$-linear map $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}:\overline{H}\overline{H}`$ has the shape

$$M_\varphi =LP$$

with $`P`$ as in (1.14) and $`L`$ an uppertriangular matrix with entries in $`\overline{A}`$ and $`1`$’s along the diagonal. Let $`L(0)`$ denote the constant term of $`L`$. After these preparations we define $`𝒯`$ to be the unique matrix which satisfies the differential equation (1.20) and the initial condition

$$𝒯(0)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma ^m(P^mL(0)P^m);$$
(1.22)
this product (with the factors ordered from right to left for increasing $`m`$) converges since the matrix $`P^mL(0)P^mI`$ has entries in $`p^m\overline{W}`$.

The fact that $`F(\varphi )`$ is horizontal for the connection $``$ (see diagram (1.3)) is expressed by the matrix equation $`M_\varphi \varphi (M_{})=M_{}M_\varphi +dM_\varphi .`$ Multiplying this matrix equation by $`𝒯`$ and using Equation (1.20) gives

$$𝒯M_\varphi \varphi (𝒯)^1d\varphi (𝒯)=d(P^1𝒯M_\varphi )$$

and hence $`𝒯M_\varphi \varphi (𝒯)^1`$ is constant. Since $`\varphi (𝒯)(0)=P^1𝒯(0)M_\varphi (0)`$ by (1.22) we conclude:

$$M_\varphi =𝒯^1P\varphi (𝒯).$$

This shows that (1.13) holds for the particular lift of Frobenius $`\varphi `$. In order to check it for an arbitrary lift of Frobenius we first define the new basis $`\{\epsilon _{im}\}_{0iN,1mh^i}`$ for $`\overline{H}K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$ so that $`𝒯^1`$ is the matrix whose columns give the coordinates of the new basis vectors with respect to the old basis $`\{e_{im}\}_{0iN,1mh^i}`$:

$$\{\epsilon _{im}\}=\{e_{im}\}𝒯^1.$$
(1.23)
The triangular shape of the matrix $`𝒯`$ implies

$$\epsilon _{im}\overline{U}^iK^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]\text{for all}i,m.$$
(1.24)
The connection matrix with respect to the new basis is $`d(𝒯^1)+M_{}𝒯^1=0`$. So

$$\epsilon _{im}=0\text{for all}i,m.$$
(1.25)
The matrix of $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}`$ with respect to the new basis is $`𝒯M_\varphi \varphi (𝒯)^1=P`$. So $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _{im}=p^i\epsilon _{im}`$ for all $`i,m`$. This holds for the special lift of Frobenius $`\varphi `$ (1.21). If $`\psi `$ is any lift of Frobenius (1.5) and (1.25) show $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}\epsilon _{im}=F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _{im}`$. Thus for any lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ we have

$$F(\psi )\psi ^{}\epsilon _{im}=p^i\epsilon _{im}\text{for all}i,m.$$
(1.26)
The matrix $`M_\psi `$ of $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`\{e_{im}\}`$ is therefore

$$M_\psi =𝒯^1P\psi (𝒯),$$

as claimed in (1.13). To finish the proof of Theorem 1.8 we note that (1.22) implies that the matrix $`\tau _{ij}(0)`$ has entries in $`p^{ji}\overline{W}`$ for $`j>i`$. ∎

## 2. Ordinary CY3-crystals over an algebraically closed field

We now specialize the general result of Theorem 2.2 to crystals of the type that appears as the third crystalline cohomology of an ordinary Calabi-Yau threefold over the algebraically closed field $`\overline{k}`$. More precisely, we want to see what happens, if we combine the hypotheses in Theorem 2.2 with the hypotheses for the variation of Hodge structure of Calabi-Yau threefolds, which are explicitly stated in  §2. So *from now on $`p>3`$ and $`\overline{H}`$ is a divisible ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystal over $`\overline{A}_0`$ of level $`3`$* with filtrations

$`0\overline{U}_0\overline{U}_1\overline{U}_2\overline{U}_3=\overline{H}`$
$`\overline{H}=\mathrm{Fil}^0\overline{H}\mathrm{Fil}^1\overline{H}\mathrm{Fil}^2\overline{H}\mathrm{Fil}^3\overline{H}0.`$
such that in the decomposition $`\overline{H}=\overline{H}^0\overline{H}^1\overline{H}^2\overline{H}^3,\overline{H}^i=\overline{U}_i\mathrm{Fil}^i\overline{H}`$,

$$\mathrm{rank}\overline{H}^0=\mathrm{rank}\overline{H}^3=1\text{and}\mathrm{rank}\overline{H}^1=\mathrm{rank}\overline{H}^2=h;$$
(2.1)
$`\overline{H}^i`$ would be denoted as $`H^{i,3i}`$ in the Hodge theoretic setting of .
Moreover we assume that there is given a non-degenerate alternating bilinear form

$$,:\overline{H}\times \overline{H}\overline{A}$$

such that for all $`x,y\overline{H}`$ and for every lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :\overline{A}\overline{A}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x,y+x,y& =& dx,y\hfill \\ \hfill F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(x),F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(y)& =& p^3\varphi (x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
We also require the Riemann bilinear relations:

$$(\mathrm{Fil}^3\overline{H})^{}=\mathrm{Fil}^1\overline{H},(\mathrm{Fil}^2\overline{H})^{}=\mathrm{Fil}^2\overline{H}.$$
(2.3)
###### Definition 2.1.

An *ordinary CY3 crystal* over $`\overline{A}_0`$ is a divisible ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystal of level $`3`$ over $`\overline{A}_0`$ equipped with a non-degenerate alternating bilinear form $`,`$ such that (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) are satisfied.

In view of the Griffiths tranversality condition (1.9) the connection $``$ induces an $`\overline{A}`$-linear map

$$T_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}\mathrm{Hom}(\overline{H}^3,\overline{H}^2)$$
(2.4)
where $`T_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}^1,\overline{A})`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`p>3`$ and let $`\overline{H}`$ be an ordinary CY3 crystal over $`\overline{A}_0`$. Then there is a basis $`\{e_i\}_{i=0,\mathrm{},2h+1}`$, such that

$$e_0\overline{H}^0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_h\overline{H}^1,e_{h+1},\mathrm{},e_{2h}\overline{H}^2,e_{2h+1}\overline{H}^3.$$

and such that the Gramm matrix of the form $`,`$ with respect to this basis is

$$(e_i,e_j)_{0i,j2h+1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& I_h& 0\\ 0& I_h& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.5)
with $`I_h=h\times h`$-identity-matrix. Moreover there is a matrix $`𝒯`$ such that the matrix of the connection $``$ with respect to the basis $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$ is

$$𝒯^1d𝒯$$
(2.6)
and such that for every lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ the matrix of the map $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$ is

$$𝒯^1P\psi (𝒯)$$
(2.7)
with $`P`$ the (block) diagonal matrix $`\text{diag}(1,pI_h,p^2I_h,p^3)`$.

This matrix $`𝒯`$ factors as 333$`.^{}`$ means matrix transpose

$$𝒯=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \tau _{23}^{}& 0& 0\\ 0& I_h& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& I_h& \tau _{23}\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \tau _{13}^{}& Z\\ 0& I_h& \tau _{12}& \tau _{13}\\ 0& 0& I_h& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(2.8)
where $`Z,\tau _{23},\tau _{13},\tau _{12}`$ are matrices with entries in $`K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$ of respective sizes $`1\times 1`$, $`h\times 1`$, $`h\times 1`$, $`h\times h`$.

Assume in addition to the preceding assumptions that the map in (2.4) is an isomorphism, and hence $`n=h`$. Let $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _hK^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_h]]`$ denote the components of the $`h\times 1`$-matrix $`\tau _{23}`$:

$$\tau _{23}=(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _h)^{}.$$
(2.9)
Then the matrix

$$\left(\frac{\tau _i}{t_j}\right)_{1i,jh}$$
(2.10)
is invertible over $`K^\mathrm{u}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_h]]`$ and

$`\tau _{13}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\tau _1}},\mathrm{},{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\tau _h}})^{}`$ (2.11)
$`\tau _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2Z}{\tau _i\tau _j}}\right)_{1i,jh}.`$ (2.12)
###### Proof.

Take any $`\overline{A}`$-basis of $`\overline{H}`$ and matrix for which the statements in Theorem 1.8 hold and denote these as $`e_0^{},e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_h^{},e_{h+1}^{},\mathrm{},e_{2h}^{},e_{2h+1}^{}`$ and $`𝒯^{}`$ respectively. So

$$e_0^{}\overline{H}^0,e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_h^{}\overline{H}^1,e_{h+1}^{},\mathrm{},e_{2h}^{}\overline{H}^2,e_{2h+1}^{}\overline{H}^3.$$

Also take the basis $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _h^{},\epsilon _{h+1}^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h}^{},\epsilon _{2h+1}^{}`$ as in (1.24), related to the previous basis by the transformation with the matrix $`𝒯^{}`$; see (1.23).

Then $`\epsilon _i^{}=\epsilon _j^{}=0`$ and hence $`d\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}=\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}+\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}=0`$ for all $`i,j`$. This implies $`\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}\overline{W}`$ for all $`i,j`$. Moreover we have $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(\epsilon _i^{})=p^r\epsilon _i^{}`$ with $`r=\frac{i}{h}:=`$ smallest integer $`\frac{i}{h}`$, and $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(\epsilon _i^{}),F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(\epsilon _j^{})=p^3\sigma (\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{})`$. This implies $`\sigma (\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{})=\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}`$ and hence $`\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}_p`$ if $`\frac{i}{h}+\frac{j}{h}=3`$, whereas $`\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _j^{}=0`$ if $`\frac{i}{h}+\frac{j}{h}3`$. Now take the (block structured) matrix with entries in $`_p`$:

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& I_h& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (\epsilon _i^{},\epsilon _{j+h}^{})_{1i,jh}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _{2h+1}^{}\end{array}\right)$$

This matrix is invertible because the form $`,`$ is non-degenerate. We use it for the basis transformations

$`(e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_h,e_{h+1},\mathrm{},e_{2h},e_{2h+1})`$ $`:=`$ $`(e_0^{},e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_h^{},e_{h+1}^{},\mathrm{},e_{2h}^{},e_{2h+1}^{})M^1`$
$`(\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _h,\epsilon _{h+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h},\epsilon _{2h+1})`$ $`:=`$ $`(\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _h^{},\epsilon _{h+1}^{},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h}^{},\epsilon _{2h+1}^{})M^1`$
For the new basis $`\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1}`$, the (block structured) Gramm matrix is

$$(\epsilon _i,\epsilon _j)_{0i,j2h+1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& I_h& 0\\ 0& I_h& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.13)
We set

$$𝒯=M𝒯^{}M^1,$$

so that we have the basis relation

$$(e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_h,e_{h+1},\mathrm{},e_{2h},e_{2h+1})=(\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _h,\epsilon _{h+1},\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h},\epsilon _{2h+1})𝒯.$$

The block structure of the matrix $`𝒯`$ is

$$𝒯=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& \tau _{01}& \tau _{02}& \tau _{03}\\ 0& I_h& \tau _{12}& \tau _{13}\\ 0& 0& I_h& \tau _{23}\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2.14)
The statements contained in formulas (1.25), (1.26), (1.12), (1.13) are still valid with respect to the new bases.

The Gramm matrix of the form $`,`$ with respect to the basis $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$ is

$`(e_i,e_j)_{0i,j2h+1}=`$ (2.19)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill I_h& \hfill \tau _{23}\tau _{01}^{}\\ \hfill 0& \hfill I_h& \hfill \tau _{12}+\tau _{12}^{}& \hfill \tau _{13}+\tau _{12}^{}\tau _{23}\tau _{02}^{}\\ \hfill 1& \hfill \tau _{01}\tau _{23}^{}& \hfill \tau _{02}\tau _{23}^{}\tau _{12}+\tau _{13}^{}& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)`$
The Riemann bilinear relations (2.3) boil down to

$$e_i,e_{2h+1}=0\text{for }i1,e_i,e_j=0\text{for }i,jh+1.$$

In view of (2.19) this means firstly that the Gramm matrix is indeed as in (2.5) and secondly that

$$\tau _{23}=\tau _{01}^{},\tau _{12}=\tau _{12}^{},\tau _{02}=\tau _{23}^{}\tau _{12}\tau _{13}^{}.$$
(2.20)
The latter equalities are equivalent with the factorization of $`𝒯`$ as in (2.8), with

$$Z=\tau _{03}\tau _{23}^{}\tau _{13}.$$
(2.21)
From Equations (1.18), (1.19), (2.20) one gets immediately

$$d\tau _{13}=\tau _{12}d\tau _{23}$$
(2.22)
and with some straightforward extra calculation

$$dZ=d(\tau _{03}\tau _{13}^{}\tau _{23})=2\tau _{13}^{}d\tau _{23}.$$
(2.23)
Now assume that the map in (2.4) is an isomorphism. The partial derivations $`\frac{}{t_j}`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},h`$) constitute a natural basis for $`T_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}`$. A natural basis for $`\mathrm{Hom}(\overline{H}^3,\overline{H}^2)`$ consists of the maps $`e_{2h+1}e_{h+i}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$). With respect to these bases the map (2.4) is given by the matrix

$$\left(\frac{\tau _i}{t_j}\right)_{1i,jh}.$$
(2.24)
This matrix is therefore invertible. Equation (2.11) is an obvious restatement of (2.23), while Equation (2.12) follows from (2.22) and (2.11). ∎

In the preceding proof we have essentially followed the same algebraic path as Bryant and Griffiths in their analysis of the variation of the Hodge structure of (complex) Calabi-Yau threefolds . Formulas (2.21), (2.11), (2.12) are familiar from the theory of Bryant and Griffiths. The following computation shows that the equally familiar formula for the *cubic form of Bryant and Griffiths* (also known as *Yukawa coupling*) holds in the present situation as well:

###### Corollary 2.3.

In the situation of Theorem 2.2 one has

$$e_{2h+1},\left(\frac{^3}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}\right)e_{2h+1}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^3Z}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}.$$
(2.25)
here $`\left(\frac{^3}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}\right)`$ is shorthand for $`\left(\frac{}{\tau _i}1\right)\left(\frac{}{\tau _j}1\right)\left(\frac{}{\tau _k}1\right)`$.

###### Proof.

$`e_{2h+1},\left({\displaystyle \frac{^3}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}}\right)e_{2h+1}={\displaystyle \frac{^3\tau _{03}}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}}\tau _{23}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^3\tau _{13}}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{^3Z}{\tau _i\tau _j\tau _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau _j\tau _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\tau _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau _i\tau _k}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\tau _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau _i\tau _j}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z}{\tau _k}}.`$
All hypotheses and notations of Theorem 2.2 remain in force. The divisibility hypothesis (1.11) and Formula (2.7) imply that for every lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ the matrix $`𝒯^1P\psi (𝒯)P^1`$ has entries in $`\overline{A}`$. This means in particular

$$p^1\psi (\tau _i)\tau _i\overline{A}\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.$$

From Theorem 1.8 we also know that $`\tau _i(0)p\overline{W}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. By a lemma of Dwork this implies (see  cor.1.4.5) that, if we set

$$q_i=exp(\tau _i)\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h,$$

then $`q_i`$ is well defined and

$$q_i\overline{A}\text{and}q_i(0)1p\overline{W}.$$
(2.26)
 cor.1.4.7 now yields that $`p,q_11,\mathrm{},q_h1`$ is a regular system of parameters for the ring $`\overline{A}`$ i.e.

$$\overline{A}=\overline{W}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_h]]=\overline{W}[[q_11,\mathrm{},q_h1]].$$

The elements $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_h`$ are called the *canonical coordinates*. There is an associated *canonical lift of Frobenius*

$$\phi :\overline{A}\overline{A},\phi |_{\overline{W}}=\sigma ,\phi (q_i)=q_i^p\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.$$

For every lift of Frobenius $`\psi `$ the matrix of the map $`F(\psi )\psi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$ is given by Formula (2.7). A straightforward computation makes the entries of this matrix explicit. One then sees that exactly for the canonical lift of Frobenius $`\phi `$ this matrix takes the following elegant form:
*For the canonical lift of Frobenius $`\phi `$ the matrix of $`F(\phi )\phi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$ is*

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& p^2\phi (\tau _{13}^{})+\tau _{13}^{}& p^3\phi (Z)Z\\ 0& I_h& p^1\phi (\tau _{12})\tau _{12}& p^2\phi (\tau _{13})\tau _{13}\\ 0& 0& I_h& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& pI_h& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& p^2I_h& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& p^3\end{array}\right)$$
(2.27)
This formula generalizes  (1.4.7.1) to the CY3 case.

We summarize the preceding discussion in

###### Theorem 2.4.

All hypotheses and notations of Theorem 2.2 remain in force. Define

$$q_i=exp(\tau _i)\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.$$
(2.28)
Then

$$q_i\overline{A}\text{and}q_i(0)1p\overline{W}.$$
(2.29)
and $`p,q_11,\mathrm{},q_h1`$ is a regular system of parameters for the ring $`\overline{A}`$ i.e.

$$\overline{A}=\overline{W}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_h]]=\overline{W}[[q_11,\mathrm{},q_h1]].$$
(2.30)
The elements $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_h`$ are called the *canonical coordinates*. There is an associated *canonical lift of Frobenius*

$$\phi :\overline{A}\overline{A},\phi |_{\overline{W}}=\sigma ,\phi (q_i)=q_i^p\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.$$
(2.31)
Moreover

$$e_{2h+1},F(\phi )\phi ^{}(e_{2h+1})=\phi (Z)p^3Z$$
(2.32)
and

$$p^3\phi (Z)Z\overline{A}=\overline{W}[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_h]].$$
(2.33)
###### Proof.

(2.32) and (2.33) follow directly from (2.27) and the divisibility hypothesis (1.11). ∎

## 3. Ordinary CY3-crystals over a perfect field

Having a good hold on the structures when the base field is algebraically closed we now turn to a base field which is just a *perfect field* $`k`$. So:
*Let $`p>3`$ and let $`H`$ be a divisible ordinary Hodge $`F`$-crystal of level $`3`$ over $`A_0`$ equipped with a non-degenerate alternating bilinear form $`,`$ such that (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) hold and such that (2.4) is an isomorphism*, everything with $`H`$ in place of $`\overline{H}`$.

Let $`\overline{H}`$ be the Hodge $`F`$-crystal over $`\overline{A}_0`$ obtained from $`H`$ by base change from $`k`$ to $`\overline{k}`$. Then all results of Section 2 hold for $`\overline{H}`$. We use the notations of Section 2 for referring to matters of $`\overline{H}`$.

Fix a non zero element $`\omega _0`$ in $`\mathrm{Fil}^3H=H^3`$. Since the $`\overline{A}`$-module $`\mathrm{Fil}^3\overline{H}=\overline{H}^3`$ has rank $`1`$ with basis $`e_{2h+1}`$, there is an invertible element $`f\overline{A}`$ such that

$$\omega _0=fe_{2h+1}.$$
(3.1)
###### Lemma 3.1.

The element $`f`$ in (3.1) has the form

$$f=a\stackrel{~}{f}^1\text{with}a\overline{W},\stackrel{~}{f}A,\stackrel{~}{f}(0)=1.$$
(3.2)
###### Proof.

Let $`\widehat{\omega }V_3`$ and $`\widehat{e}_{2h+1}\overline{V}_3`$ denote the respective images of $`\omega _0`$ and $`e_{2h+1}`$ under the isomorphisms $`\mathrm{Fil}^3H\stackrel{}{}U_3/U_2=V_3,\mathrm{Fil}^3\overline{H}\stackrel{}{}\overline{U}_3/\overline{U}_2=\overline{V}_3.`$ Take the lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$ such that $`\varphi (t_i)=t_i^p`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. Then in the unit $`F`$-crystal $`V_3`$

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(\widehat{\omega })=cg\widehat{\omega }$$

with $`cW`$, $`gA`$, $`g(0)=1`$. The product $`\stackrel{~}{f}=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi ^i(g)`$ converges in $`A`$, because $`\varphi ^i(g)1mod(t_1^{p^i},\mathrm{},t_h^{p^i})`$. Moreover there is an element $`b\overline{W}`$ such that $`c=\sigma (b)b^1`$. Thus

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}(b^1\stackrel{~}{f}\widehat{\omega })=\sigma (b^1)\varphi (\stackrel{~}{f})cg\widehat{\omega }=b^1\stackrel{~}{f}\widehat{\omega }.$$

On the other hand, (2.7) implies $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}e_{2h+1}=p^3e_{2h+1}`$ and hence in the (untwisted) unit $`F`$-crystal $`\overline{V}_3`$ we have

$$F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\widehat{e}_{2h+1}=\widehat{e}_{2h+1}.$$

Since $`\widehat{\omega }=f\widehat{e}_{2h+1}`$ we see that $`\varphi (b^1\stackrel{~}{f}f)=b^1\stackrel{~}{f}f`$ and hence $`b^1\stackrel{~}{f}f_p`$. Thus $`f=a\stackrel{~}{f}^1`$ with $`a\overline{W}`$. ∎

We set for $`j=1,\mathrm{},h`$

$$\omega _j:=fD_j\left(\frac{1}{f}\omega _0\right)$$
(3.3)
where $`D_j:=(\frac{d}{dt_j}1)`$. Lemma 3.1 shows $`\omega _j=\stackrel{~}{f}^1D_j\left(\stackrel{~}{f}\omega _0\right)`$ and hence $`\omega _jH`$.
On the other hand, $`e_{2h+1}=_{i=1}^hd\tau _ie_{h+i}`$ implies

$$\omega _j=fD_j(e_{2h+1})=f\frac{\tau _1}{t_j}e_{h+1}+\mathrm{}+f\frac{\tau _h}{t_j}e_{2h}.$$
(3.4)
From (2.24) we know that $`\left(\frac{\tau _i}{t_j}\right)_{1i,jh}`$ is precisely the matrix of the isomorphism $`T_{\overline{A}/\overline{W}}\mathrm{Hom}(\overline{H}^3,\overline{H}^2)`$. Since $`\{e_{h+1},\mathrm{},e_{2h}\}`$ is an $`\overline{A}`$-basis of $`\overline{H}^2`$, we now see that $`\{\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _h\}`$ is an $`A`$-basis for $`H^2`$.

Next we set for $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i=f^1\frac{t_i}{\tau _1}e_1+\mathrm{}+f^1\frac{t_i}{\tau _h}e_h.$$
(3.5)
Then

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_i,\omega _j=\underset{m=1}{\overset{h}{}}\frac{t_i}{\tau _m}\frac{\tau _m}{t_j}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & ij\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & i=j\hfill \end{array}.$$
(3.6)
The form $`,`$ induces a duality between $`H^1`$ and $`H^2`$. This fact together with (3.6) shows that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_h`$ which a priori are in $`\overline{H}^1`$, lie in fact in $`H^1`$ and constitute the basis of $`H^1`$ dual to the basis $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _h`$ of $`H^2`$.

Finally we set

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0=f^1e_0.$$
(3.7)
Then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0\overline{H}^0`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\omega _0=1`$. So $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0`$ lies in fact in $`H^0`$ and gives a basis dual to the basis $`\omega _0`$ of $`H^3`$.

We summarize the preceding discussion in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Starting from $`\omega _0\mathrm{Fil}^3H=H^3`$ define $`f\overline{A}`$ by (3.1), define $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _hH^2`$ by (3.3) and define $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0H^0`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_hH^1`$ by (3.7) resp. (3.5). Write

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}=\omega _0,\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{h+i}=\omega _i\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.$$

Then $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}\}`$ is a basis for $`H`$ such that

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0H^0,\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_hH^1,\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{h+1},\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h}H^2,\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}H^3.$$

The matrix $`𝒮`$ in the basis transformation

$$(\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1})=(e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1})𝒮$$

(i.e. the $`j`$-th column gives the coordinates of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_j`$ with respect to $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1}`$) is

$$𝒮=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f^1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& f^1\left(\frac{t_j}{\tau _i}\right)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& f\left(\frac{\tau _i}{t_j}\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& f\end{array}\right)$$
(3.8)
Recall that in the proof of Theorem 2.2 we constructed a basis $`\{\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1}\}`$ from the basis transformation

$$(e_0,\mathrm{},e_{2h+1})=(\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1})𝒯.$$

The relation with the basis $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}\}`$ is therefore

$$(\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1})=(\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1})𝒯𝒮.$$

The virtues of $`\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1}`$ are

$$\epsilon _i=0\text{for}i=0,\mathrm{},2h+1$$

and for every lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$

$`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _0=\epsilon _0,F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _{2h+1}=p^3\epsilon _{2h+1}`$
$`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _i=p\epsilon _i,F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}\epsilon _{h+i}=p^2\epsilon _{h+i}\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},h.`$
Thus one finds the following analogue of formulas (2.6) and (2.7)

###### Corollary 3.3.

Let the hypotheses and notations be as in Proposition 3.2. Then the matrix of the connection $``$ with respect to the basis $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}\}`$ is

$$(𝒯𝒮)^1d(𝒯𝒮)$$
(3.9)
and for every lift of Frobenius $`\varphi :AA`$ the matrix of the map $`F(\varphi )\varphi ^{}`$ with respect to the basis $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}\}`$ is

$$(𝒯𝒮)^1P\varphi (𝒯𝒮)$$
(3.10)
with matrices $`𝒯`$ and $`P`$ as in Theorem 2.2 and $`𝒮`$ as in Proposition 3.2. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

Up to now we have discussed all structures in terms of a connection, to be thought of as the Gauss-Manin connection of a family of Calabi-Yau threefolds. In the literature descriptions of canonical coordinates and Yukawa coupling for complex Calabi-Yau threefolds near the large complex structure limit usually start from the Picard-Fuchs equations and their solutions. We want to point out how such a description can also be seen in our discusssion of ordinary CY3 crystals. The hypotheses and notations are as before in this section.

We start with a non zero element $`\omega _0`$ in $`\mathrm{Fil}^3H`$. In the geometric situation $`\mathrm{Fil}^3H`$ would be $`H^{3,0}`$ and thus $`\omega _0`$ is the analogue of a nowhere vanishing global $`3`$-form. The connection induces an action of differential operators (in $`\frac{}{t_1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{t_h}`$) on $`H`$. The differential operators which annihilate $`\omega _0`$ are called *the Picard-Fuchs operators*. We expand $`\omega _0`$ with respect to the basis $`\{\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1}\}`$:

$$\omega _0=f_0\epsilon _0+\mathrm{}+f_{2h+1}\epsilon _{2h+1}.$$

Since $`\epsilon _i=0`$ for all $`i`$, all $`f_i`$ are annihilated by the Picard-Fuchs operators, i.e. are solutions of the Picard-Fuchs equations. This set of solutions is split into subsets $`\{f_0\},\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_h\},\{f_{h+1},\mathrm{},f_{2h}\},\{f_{2h+1}\}`$ according to the action of Frobenius on the basis vectors $`\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1}`$. In the complex setting near the large complex structure point such a splitting of a basis of the solution space of the Picard-Fuchs equations is made according to the monodromy action, i.e. according to the degree of the logarithmic terms in the solution.

Since $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1}=\omega _0`$ and $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\omega }_{2h+1})=(\epsilon _0,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{2h+1})𝒯𝒮`$ the column vector $`(f_0,\mathrm{},f_{2h+1})^{}`$ is the last column of the matrix $`𝒯𝒮`$. Thus $`f=f_{2h+1}`$ and $`(\frac{f_0}{f},\mathrm{},\frac{f_{2h+1}}{f})`$ is the last column of the matrix $`𝒯`$. This is analogous to the step of dividing the solutions of the Picard-Fuchs equations by the unique solution which is holomorphic and has value $`1`$ at the large complex structure point.

From here on the algorithms for computing the canonical coordinates and the prepotential of the Yukawa coupling are identical for the ordinary case and for the large complex structure case.


text:
# Surface superconducting states and paramagnetism in mesoscopic superconductors

## 1  Introduction

The paramagnetic Meissner effect (PME) observed in small superconducting samples simply expresses the fact that the energy of those samples decreases upon an increasing magnetic field. A reentrant (H,T) phase diagram is one of the signals that characterizes this effect. This surprising effect has been seen both in conventional and in high Tc superconductors .

The behavior of nanometer-scale superconducting grains, which shows Pauli paramagnetism in addition to other striking properties of finite electron systems, is outside the scope of this work which relies on the Ginzburg-Landau equation.

Metastability is one of the major ingredients that have been put forward to explain PME in conventional superconductors . For example, in the Ginzburg-Landau approach of small size cylindrical samples at the upper critical field, the disbalance of the screening currents leads to a positive magnetic moment . But, in this case if the equilibrium transitions are only allowed, the PME disapears , and many mechanisms causing non equilibrium flux configuration have been proposed .

However PME is known to occur for minimal energy configurations of some mesoscopic objects: the Little-Parks  ring is the most simple example that shows an alternating sequence of diamagnetic and paramagnetic responses as the magnetic field is increased. On the theoretical side this general behavior is known to be shared by all loop-like samples and moreover that PME appears the be stable against thermic fluctuations .

In the framework of the London approximation of the vortex phase of small superconducting disks, we have obtained magnetization curves which showed a PME, in good agreeement with the experimental observation , and made the analogy with the Little-Parks ring to interpret such a behavior of stable configurations .

The aim of this paper is to give the reader a simple example of a mesoscopic ring-like superconducting film of which the paramagnetic response of the stable configurations can be tuned with the size of the central hole, and to show at which part of the ring (inner or outer) the nucleation of superconductivity is localized.

In Section 2 the upper critical field $`H_{c3}^{}`$ is calculated in the framework of the Ginzburg-Landau equation, and, if the size of the hole is large enough, the parts of the phase diagram where PME takes place are found. In Section 3 we show the two regions of the ring with opposite supercurrents which might give rise to a global positive magnetic moment. In Section 4 we give in more details our results for a ring with a small hole with $`width/Radius=0.75`$ for which there is only one paramagnetic domain and we also show the order parameter density profile that changes drastically when crossing the first order line. Our conclusions are drawn in the last section.

## 2 Nucleation of superconductivity near the edges of a ring

We shall follow quite closely the method of Bezryadin, Buzdin and Pannetier  in the case of a circular hole or of a disk, in order to obtain the phase diagram of a circular ring of external radius $`R`$ and width $`d`$ under a uniform magnetic field $`H`$ normal to the plane of the film sample.

In the case of a thin film of thickness $`ϵ`$ the effective screening length, $`\lambda _{eff}=\lambda ^2/ϵ`$ , becomes very large and we may neglect the magnetic field energy in the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) free energy functional:

$$F=\left(a\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2+\frac{b}{2}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^4+\frac{1}{4m}\left|\left(i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}\frac{2e}{c}\stackrel{}{𝐀}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2\right)𝑑V$$

where $`a=\alpha (TT_0)`$.

Moreover due to the small size of the sample, we can take for the vector potential $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ the potential of the uniform external applied field $`H`$ :

$$\stackrel{}{𝐀}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{𝐇}\times \stackrel{}{𝐫})$$

Using polar coordinates ($`\rho `$ ,$`\phi `$), the equation for the normalized order parameter $`\psi `$ is:

$$\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\psi +\frac{1}{x}\frac{d}{dx}\psi \left[\frac{i}{x}\frac{}{\phi }+\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}x\right]^2\psi +\frac{R^2}{\xi ^2}(\psi \psi ^3)=0$$

where $`x=\rho /R`$ , $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }/\sqrt{\left|a\right|/b}`$ , $`\xi ^2=\mathrm{}^2/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}m\left|a\right|`$, $`\varphi _0=\pi \mathrm{}c/e`$, and $`\varphi =\pi R^2H`$ is the flux of the magnetic field across the plain disk (with no hole).

In order to obtain the upper critical field $`H_{c3}^{}`$ , using the linearized version of the GL equation, we search for solutions of definite angular momentum $`n`$ of the form:

$$\psi _n(x,\phi )=f_n(x)\mathrm{exp}(in\phi ).$$

Then, in the present gauge, the super-current is tangent to the two circular insulating boundaries of the ring, and we may take the boundary conditions of the GL equation as follows:

$$\frac{d}{dx}f|_{x=1}=0\text{ , and }\frac{d}{dx}f|_{x=1d/R}=0\text{ .}$$

After reduction to Kummers’s equation, the general solution can be expressed as the linear combination of two confluent hypergeometric functions $`M`$ and $`U`$  as follows:

$$f_n(x)=x^n\mathrm{exp}(\frac{x^2}{2}\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0})\text{}\left\{AM(Y,n+1,x^2\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0})+BU(Y,n+1,x^2\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0})\right\}$$

where $`Y=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4}\frac{R^2}{\xi ^2}\frac{\varphi _0}{\varphi }`$ , and where the two constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ have to be determined using the boundary conditions.

In practice, we have first obtained the ratio $`A/B`$ in terms of $`\varphi `$ , $`R^2/\xi ^2`$ and $`n`$ using the first condition, while the second condition has been numerically solved and allows us to obtain $`R^2/\xi ^2`$ versus $`\varphi `$ for each $`n`$. Then, for a given flux $`\varphi `$ , the critical line $`T_c(\varphi )`$ is obtained by choosing the angular momentum value which minimizes $`R^2/\xi ^2`$ . The limiting cases of either a plain disk or a circular hole can be reached, using the same procedure, with $`B=0`$ in the first case and with $`A=0`$ in the second one. The Little-Parks ring  , can be recovered using a very small value of $`d/R`$ , as shown on figure 1 . We see that paramagnetism starts just after the transition between angular momentum states $`J1J`$ and disapears for $`\varphi /\varphi _0J`$, until the next transition occurs. On figure 2 we give the $`H_{c3}^{}`$ line for a ring with $`d/R=0.5`$. The cusps, associated to jumps of the angular momentum, are clearly seen and three small paramagnetic domains are located above these transitions. For sake of comparison the full disk $`H_{c3}^{}`$ curve is shown on figure 3 , on which no such domains are seen; such oscillations have been observed on micron-sized superconducting disks. Our results give $`d/R0.85`$ as the value under which paramagnetic domains are observed.

## 3 Magnetic moment and supercurrents

In the state $`f_n`$ of angular momentum $`n`$, the magnetic moment $`M=F/H`$ can be written as:

$$M=\frac{\varphi _0}{(2\pi \lambda )^2}\pi R^2ϵ_{film}_{1d/R}^1f_n(x)^2(n\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}x^2)x𝑑x.$$

In fact the local density of magnetic moment is related to the value of the supercurrent:

$$𝐉=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4m}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{})\frac{e}{2mc}𝐀\left|\mathrm{\Psi }\right|^2$$

of which the components are:

$$J_\phi =\frac{f_n(x)^2}{x}(n\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}x^2)\text{ and }J_\rho =0$$

For a given flux and angular momentum, and when the ring is crossed from the inner edge ($`x=1d/R`$) up to the outer one ($`x=1)`$, three various situations can be encountered acording to the sign of $`J_{\phi \text{ }}`$:

* The radial supercurrent density is negative everywhere on the ring for $`\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}>\frac{n}{(1d/R)^2}`$ . This gives a uniform standard diamagnetic response.
* The radial supercurrent density is positive everywhere on the ring for $`\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}<n`$ and gives a uniform paramagnetic response
* The current flows changes its sign at a point $`x_0=\sqrt{\frac{\varphi _0}{\varphi }n}`$ . Thus one can distinguish two different regions on the ring: the inner part which contibutes positively to the total magnetic moment and the outer part which gives a diamagnetic contribution, with currents in the two regions flowing in opposite directions.

Let us comment Figures 1-3 on this point. The ideal Little-Parks ring of Fig1 (with $`d/R0`$) shows a sequence of uniform responses: $`J=0`$ is diamagnetic, whereas the reentrant part of $`J=1`$ is paramagnetic, etc… and the supercurrent changes its sign for all half-integer values of $`\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}`$ . Fig2, which depicts the behavior of a thicker ring (with $`d/R=0.5`$), shows that apart the standard uniform diamagnetic response of the $`J=0`$ state, the $`J=1`$ state gives a uniform paramagnetic response for small fields $`\frac{\varphi }{\varphi _0}<1`$ . The magnetization of all the other states results of the competition between the inner and the outer currents. The case of the plain disk (Fig3) is interesting although no paragnetism is observed on the global magnetization: all the non-zero angular momentum states have a central paramagnetic response and a larger diamagnetic one located on the periphery of the disk.

## 4  <br>Paramagnetism in a disk with a small hole

In this section, we have choosen to treat more extensively the particular case of a small hole, $`d/R=0.75`$ , by solving the non-linear Ginzburg-Landau equation. This allows us to enter the superconducting region, and compute the densities of both the order parameter and the magnetization . In fact it can be shown that mixture of different angular momentum states can be neglected if only the lowest energy is searched for, so that we shall not consider such mixtures.

Because the two boundary conditions restrict $`\psi `$ at two different points, namely $`x=1d/R`$ and $`x=1`$, we have solved the non-linear GL equation in two steps. We have used standard numerical routines which allowed us to obtain $`f_n(x)`$ given the initial values $`f_n(1)`$ and $`df_n/dx|_{x=1}=0`$ , then $`f_n(1)`$ is found by solving $`df_n/dx|_{x=1d/R}=0`$ for $`f_n(1)`$.

The $`H_{c3}^{}`$ line for the ring with $`d/R=0.75`$ is drawn on Fig. 4. Only one small paramagnetic domain shows up for fluxes $`1.4\varphi /\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}`$ with $`J=1`$. On the inset of Fig 4, which is a zoom of the paramagnetic region, we have drawn a fixed temperature path (A-B) with $`R^2/\xi ^2=1.2`$ which crosses the first order transition line separating the $`J=0`$ and $`J=1`$ phases. A fixed flux path (C-B) with $`\varphi /\varphi _0=1.625`$ which lies entirely in the paramagnetic phase is also shown. The field dependence of the magnetization versus flux along the path (A-B) is given on Fig 5a, on which one sees the jump of the magnetic moment to a positive value when the first order line is crossed. This behavior should be compared with the smooth one of the magnetization along path (C-B), in the paramagnetic phase at fixed field and versus temperature, on Fig 5b.

We now give on Fig 6 the magnetization density at points A and B versus $`\rho /R`$ , i.e. when the ring is crossed from the inner circle to the outer one. As already explained in the prevoius section, one clearly sees that the inner part is paramagnetic while the outer one is diamagnetic and that the balance of the two results in a small PME effect. Let us stress that, following this line of argument, and as said for disks in the previous section, one should observe for disks with very small holes a small domain with a positive local magnetic moment (around the hole) while there is no global PME effect.

We discuss now the order parameter distribution across the ring. On Fig 7, comparing these densities, we find that the order parameter is larger in the inner part than in the outer part , at point A i.e. in the diamagnetic region. On the contrary, in the paramagnetic region, at points B , the order parameter is 30% larger in the vicinity of the outer edge than around the hole.

Figure 8 shows how the order parameter density profile changes when crossing the first order transition at $`\varphi /\varphi _0=1.4`$ at fixed temperature $`R^2/\xi ^2=1.2`$. We have plotted the values of $`|\psi _J|`$ on the two, inner and outer, boundaries of the ring for $`J=0`$ before the transition and for $`J=1`$ after.

It is worthwhile to notice that the regions of the ring where the order parameter is the largest, changes as the first order line is crossed, passing from the inner part before the transition to the outer one after. We have checked on the example of $`d/R=0.5`$ that this result should be general. In this last case it is observed that, sweeping the temperature range of $`J=1`$ from one transition point $`(J=0J=1)`$ to the next one $`(J=1J=2)`$, the order parameter profile $`|\psi _1|`$ evolves from more populated on the inner edge to more populated on the outer one. Let us note that, even though the superconducting parameter is maximal in this last region, a paramagnetic effect arises because of the large inner part of the disk in which the magnetization density is positive (see Fig. 6).

## 5 Conclusions

The paramagnetism of a mesoscopic object can obviously be due to any mechanism leading to non equilibrium configurations. However, at equilibrium, the PME depends strongly on the geometry of the sample and presumably can be observed in many cases much more involded than the toy model presented here. Here we have shown that the giant vortex state of a pierced disk can exhibit PME in minimal energy configurations. The size of the hole controls both the number and extension of the paramagnetic domains. Increase of the field at fixed temperaure to enter those domains causes the order parameter to jump from inner to outer localization. The present approach does not explain the PME seen on the surface superconducting states of 1:4 elongated ellipses  for which the PME in an asymmetric ring should be studied. Paramagnetic Meissner effect in a multiply-connected array of Josephson junctions has been reported  for which the diamagnetic current flows on the exterior plaquettes wheras the paramagnetic current flows in the inside of the sample; this is very similar to that we have described here.

## 6 Acknowledgements

A. Buzdin is warmly thanked for his interest in this work and for numerous and helpfull discussions.

Figure captions

Figure 1. The phase diagram of a very thin ring with $`d/R=0.01`$, versus normalized temperaure $`R^2/\xi ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}T/T_c`$ and flux $`\varphi /\varphi _0`$ in flux quantum units. The surface superconducting critical line $`Hc_{3\text{ }}`$ has been drawn for the first three angular momentum values.

Figure 2. The upper critical field $`Hc_{3\text{ }}`$for a ring with $`d/R=0.5`$. The first order lines which separate domains of different angular momentum are drawn as thin full vertical lines, whereas vertical dashed lines mark the expected boundary of each paramagnetic region. The present study is valid to the right hand side of the $`Hc_{2\text{ }}`$ line which has been shown for comparison ( for the bulk material) .

Figure 3. The upper critical field $`Hc_{3\text{ }}`$for full disk with $`d/R=1`$.

Figure 4. The phase diagram of a disk with a small hole $`d/R=0.75`$, in the vicinity of the upper critical fileld $`Hc_{3\text{ }}`$. The inset plot shows a zoom of the region $`1.2\varphi /\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}`$ in which a paramagnetic effect is expected.

Figure 5a. The magnetization at fixed normalized temperature $`R^2/\xi ^2=1.2`$ versus flux along the path A-B ( See the inset graph of Fig. 4 ). The magnetization jumps to small positive values after the transition.

Figure 5b. The magnetization in the paramagnetic region at fixed flux $`\varphi /\varphi _0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.6}`$ versus temperature, along the path C-B ( See the inset graph of Fig. 4 ).

Figure 6. The magnetization distribution across the ring, at point A (full line) and at point B (dashed line) ( for A and B see the inset graph of Fig. 4 ).

Figure 7. Order parameter density at point A, before the transition , and at point B, in the paramagnetic region, versus the radial variable $`1d/R<\rho /R<1`$ .

Figure 8. The order parameter density profile oscillation when crossing the first order transition at $`\varphi /\varphi _0=1.4`$ for a ring with $`d/R=0.75`$. The inner edge is more superconducting than the outer one before the transition, whereas the reverse situation occurs in the paramagnetic phase.