text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

With the advent of stable maps and quantum cohomology (Kontsevich-Manin ), there has been a tremendous progress in enumerative geometry. One subject of much research activity has been the characteristic number problem, notably for rational curves. Highlights of these developments include Pandharipande , who first determined the simple characteristic numbers of rational curves in projective space; Ernström-Kennedy  who computed the numbers for $`^2`$ using stable lifts — a technique that also allowed to determine characteristic numbers including a flag condition, as well as characteristic numbers of cuspidal plane curves; and Vakil  who used degeneration techniques to give concise recursions for the characteristic numbers also for elliptic curves.

With the notions of modified psi classes and the tangency quantum potential introduced in Graber-Kock-Pandharipande , conceptually simpler solutions were given to the characteristic number problem for rational curves in any projective homogeneous space, as well as for elliptic curves in $`^2`$ or $`^1\times ^1`$. Tangency conditions allow simple expressions in terms of modified psi classes, and then the solutions follow from standard principles in Gromov-Witten theory, e.g. topological recursion.

Having settled the question of characteristic numbers of nodal rational curves, a natural next problem to consider is that of cuspidal curves, or to impose higher order contacts, e.g. specified flex lines. Schubert  computed the characteristic numbers of cuspidal plane cubics, and in the 1980’s, a lot of work was devoted to the verification of his results, cf. Sacchiero , Kleiman-Speiser , Miret-Xambó , and Aluffi .

The techniques of stable lifts allowed L. Ernström and G. Kennedy  to determine the characteristic numbers of plane rational curves with cusp for any degree, and their joint paper with S.J. Colley  represents a big advance in the treatment of third order contacts.

The present note shows how the techniques of modified psi classes developed in Graber-Kock-Pandharipande  (henceforth cited as \[GKP\]), can also be used to solve the characteristic number problem for cuspidal rational curves in $`^2`$ or $`^1\times ^1`$ (as well as that of a single triple contact). To this end, a slight generalisation of the first enumerative descendants is needed, namely allowing a single factor of the top product to be a square of a modified psi class or a certain codimension-2 boundary class. Via topological recursions, the corresponding potentials are related to the usual tangency quantum potential. The locus of cuspidal curves and the locus of curves with triple contact are described in terms of these classes, whereafter the differential equations translate into equations for the sought characteristic numbers.

The constructions and computations do not pretend to be particularly deep or difficult; the raison d’être of this note is rather to illustrate the versatility of the methods developed in \[GKP\]. Results and notation from that paper are briefly reviewed in Section 1, and in 3.1 and 4.1.

The material of this note constituted Chapter 4 of my PhD thesis , and it is a pleasure here to thank the Departamento de Matemática da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco for four lovely years, and in particular my advisor Israel Vainsencher for his guidance and encouragement. I have also profited from conversations with Letterio Gatto and Lars Ernström.

## 1 Preliminaries

###### 1.1

The target space. Throughout we work over the field of complex numbers. Let $`X`$ denote a projective homogeneous variety, and let $`T_0,\mathrm{},T_r`$ denote the elements of a homogeneous basis of the cohomology space $`H^{}(X,)`$. In the applications $`X`$ will be $`^2`$ or $`^1\times ^1`$. Let $`g_{ij}`$ denote the Poincaré metric constants $`_XT_iT_j`$; we set also $`g_{ijk}=_XT_iT_jT_k`$. Let $`(g^{ij})`$ be the inverse matrix to $`(g_{ij})`$. It is used to raise indices as needed; in particular, with $`g_{ij}^k=_eg_{ije}g^{ek}`$, we can write $`T_iT_j=\underset{𝑘}{\overset{}{}}g_{ij}^kT_k`$.

###### 1.2

The deformed metric. (See Kock  for details.) Let $`𝐲=(y_0,\mathrm{},y_r)`$ be formal variables, and put

$$\varphi =\underset{𝐬}{}\frac{𝐲^𝐬}{𝐬!}_X𝐓^𝐬,$$

with usual multi-index notation, $`𝐬!=s_0!\mathrm{}s_r!`$, $`𝐲^𝐬=y_0^{s_0}\mathrm{}y_r^{s_r}`$, and $`𝐓^𝐬=T_0^{s_0}\mathrm{}T_r^{s_r}`$. Consider its partial derivatives $`\varphi _{ij}=_𝐬\frac{𝐲^𝐬}{𝐬!}_X𝐓^𝐬T_iT_j`$, and use the matrix $`(g^{ef})`$ to raise indices, putting

$$\varphi _j^i=\underset{𝑒}{\overset{}{}}g^{ie}\varphi _{ej},\text{ and }\varphi ^{ij}=\underset{e,f}{\overset{}{}}g^{ie}\varphi _{ef}g^{fj}.$$
(1)
The entities $`\varphi _j^i(𝐲)`$ are the tensor elements of ‘multiplication by the exponential’, precisely

$`\underset{𝐬}{\overset{}{}}\frac{𝐲^𝐬}{𝐬!}𝐓^𝐬T_p`$ $`=\underset{𝑒}{\overset{}{}}T_e\varphi _p^e(𝐲).`$ (2)
The deformed metric is the non-degenerate symmetric bilinear pairing $`H^{}(X,)[[𝐲]]`$ given by the tensor elements

$$\gamma _{ij}\text{:}=\varphi _{ij}(2𝐲).$$

The inverse of the matrix $`(\gamma _{ij})`$ is given by

$$\gamma ^{ij}=\varphi ^{ij}(2𝐲)=\underset{e,f}{\overset{}{}}\varphi _e^ig^{ef}\varphi _f^j.$$

We will also need certain derivatives of this,

$$\gamma _k^{ij}\text{:}=\varphi _k^{ij}(2𝐲)=\underset{e,f}{\overset{}{}}\varphi _e^ig_k^{ef}\varphi _f^j.$$

###### 1.3

Moduli of stable maps. Let $`\overline{M}_{0,S}(X,\beta )`$ denote the moduli stack of Kontsevich stable maps of genus zero whose direct image in $`X`$ is of class $`\beta H_2^+(X,)`$, and whose marking set is $`S=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\}`$. For each mark $`p_i`$, let $`\nu _i:\overline{M}_{0,S}(X,\beta )X`$ denote the evaluation morphism. The reader is referred to Fulton-Pandharipande  for definitions and basic properties of stable maps, Gromov-Witten invariants and quantum cohomology.

###### 1.4

Modified psi classes and diagonal classes (cf. \[GKP\].) The psi class $`𝝍_i`$ is the first Chern class of the line bundle on $`\overline{M}_{0,S}(X,\beta )`$ whose fibre at a moduli point $`[\mu :CX]`$ is the cotangent line of $`C`$ at $`p_i`$. On a moduli space $`\overline{M}_{0,S}(X,\beta )`$ with $`\beta >0`$, let $`𝝃_i`$ denote the sum of all boundary divisors classes having mark $`p_i`$ on a contracting twig. The modified psi class is defined as

$$\overline{𝝍}{}_{i}{}^{}\text{:}=𝝍_i𝝃_i.$$

A crucial observation is that $`\overline{𝝍}_i`$ is invariant under pull-back along forgetful morphisms.

The $`ij`$’th diagonal class $`𝜹_{ij}`$ is by definition the sum of all boundary divisor classes having $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$ together on a contracting twig. The diagonal classes appear as correction terms when restricting a modified psi class to a boundary divisor $`D`$ both of whose twigs are of positive degree. If $`D`$ is the image of the gluing morphism

$$\rho _D:\overline{M}_{0,S^{}\{x\}}(X,\beta ^{})\times _X\overline{M}_{0,S^{\prime \prime }\{x\}}(X,\beta ^{\prime \prime })\overline{M}_{0,S}(X,\beta )$$

then

$$\rho _D^{}\overline{𝝍}_i=\overline{𝝍}{}_{i}{}^{}+𝜹_{ix},$$

where $`x`$ denotes the gluing mark.

###### 1.5

The tangency quantum potential (cf. \[GKP\]). The integrals

$$\overline{\tau }_{k_1}(\gamma _1)\mathrm{}\overline{\tau }_{k_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta \text{:}=\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{k_1}\nu _1^{}(\gamma _1)\mathrm{}\overline{𝝍}{}_{n}{}^{k_n}\nu _n^{}(\gamma _n)[\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )]$$

($`\gamma _iH^{}(X,)`$) are called enumerative descendants. For the first enumerative descendants (exponent at most $`1`$ on modified psi classes) we employ the notation

$$\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚\overline{𝝉}_1^𝐛_\beta \text{:}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{𝑟}{}}(\overline{\tau }_0(T_k))^{a_k}(\overline{\tau }_1(T_k))^{b_k}_\beta .$$

Their generating function is called the tangency quantum potential:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐱,𝐲)=\underset{\beta >0}{}\underset{𝐚,𝐛}{}\frac{𝐱^𝐚}{𝐚!}\frac{𝐲^𝐛}{𝐛!}\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚\overline{𝝉}_1^𝐛_\beta .$$

The tangency quantum potential satisfies the topological recursion relations

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_kx_ix_j}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_k(x_ix_j)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_kx_i)x_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_kx_j)x_i}+\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_kx_e}\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_fx_ix_j}.$$
(3)
Here, and in the sequel, subscripts on potentials denote partial derivatives, e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_i}\text{:}=\frac{}{x_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and we set also

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_ix_j)}\text{:}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{𝑟}{}}g_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_k}\text{ and }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(y_ix_j)}\text{:}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{𝑟}{}}g_{ij}^k\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_k}.$$

## 2 Slightly enriched first enumerative descendants

###### 2.1

Pi classes. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ denote the sum of all codimension-2 boundary classes whose middle twig has degree 0 and carries the mark $`p_i`$, while the two other twigs have positive degree. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$ is compatible with pull-back along forgetful morphisms.

###### 2.2 Lemma.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_i`$, then

$$\overline{𝝍}{}_{i}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=0.$$

* Let $`x^{}`$ and $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ denote the two attachment points on the middle twig of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Now restrict $`\overline{𝝍}{}_{i}{}^{}=𝝍_i𝝃_i`$ to the moduli space $`M_i`$ corresponding to the middle twig: the psi class $`𝝍_i`$ restricts to give the corresponding psi class of the mark of the middle twig. Restricting $`𝝃_i`$ to $`M_i`$ corresponds to breaking off a twig containing $`p_i`$ but not $`x^{}`$ nor $`x^{\prime \prime }`$. In other words, the restriction of $`𝝃_i`$ is $`(p_ix^{},x^{\prime \prime })`$ on $`M_i`$, which is the well-known boundary expression for $`𝝍_i`$, so altogether the restriction of $`\overline{𝝍}_i`$ is zero. ∎

Let $`P^k`$ denote the generating function for top products of classes of type $`\overline{\tau }_0(T_i)`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_1(T_j)`$ and a single factor (say at the first mark) of type $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1\nu _1^{}(T_k)`$. Precisely

$$P^k(𝐱,𝐲)\text{:}=\underset{\beta >0}{}\underset{𝐚,𝐛}{}\frac{𝐱^𝐚}{𝐚!}\frac{𝐲^𝐛}{𝐛!}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\nu _1^{}(T_k)\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚\overline{𝝉}_1^𝐛_\beta .$$

(In view of Lemma 2.2, there is no reason for allowing also marks combining $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ with $`\overline{𝝍}`$.)

###### 2.3 Proposition.

The following differential equation relates $`P^k`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$P^k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_e}\gamma _k^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_f}.$$

* Among the components of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$, those with at least two marks on the middle contracting twig have zero push-down under forgetting $`p_1`$, so we need only consider components of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ where $`p_1`$ is alone on the middle twig. Each such component $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the image of a birational morphism from a triple fibred product $`\overline{M}_{0,S\{x^{}\}}(X,\beta ^{})\times _X\overline{M}_{0,3}(X,0)\times _X\overline{M}_{0,S^{\prime \prime }\{x^{\prime \prime }\}}(X,\beta ^{\prime \prime })`$. Therefore there is the following sort of splitting lemma, similar to Lemma 1.5 of Kock :

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _1^{}(T_k)\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚\overline{𝝉}_1^𝐛_\beta =\underset{p^{\prime \prime },q^{\prime \prime }}{\underset{p^{},q^{}}{}}\underset{𝐬^{},𝐬^{\prime \prime }}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐛^{}}{𝐬^{}}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝐛^{\prime \prime }}{𝐬^{\prime \prime }}\right)\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚^{}\overline{𝝉}_1^{𝐛^{}𝐬^{}}\overline{\tau }_0(𝐓^𝐬^{}T_p^{})_\beta ^{}\hfill \\ \hfill g^{p^{}q^{}}g_{q^{}kp^{\prime \prime }}g^{p^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }}\overline{\tau }_0(𝐓^{𝐬^{\prime \prime }}T_{q^{\prime \prime }})\overline{𝝉}_0^{𝐚^{\prime \prime }}\overline{𝝉}_1^{𝐛^{\prime \prime }𝐬^{\prime \prime }}_{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}.\end{array}$$

Translating this into a statement about the potentials yields the wanted differential equation. It is perhaps opportune to explain the appearance of the splitting factor $`\gamma _k^{ef}`$. At the gluing mark $`x^{}`$ on the one-primed twig there is (after expressing things in terms of potentials) a factor $`_𝐬^{}\frac{𝐲^𝐬^{}}{𝐬^{}}𝐓^𝐬^{}T_p^{}=_eT_e\varphi _p^{}^e`$, cf. (2). Arguing similarly on the two-primed twig we conclude that the splitting factor is

$$\varphi _p^{}^e\left(g^{p^{}q^{}}g_{q^{}kp^{\prime \prime }}g^{p^{\prime \prime }q^{\prime \prime }}\right)\varphi _{q^{\prime \prime }}^f=\varphi _p^{}^eg_k^{p^{}q^{\prime \prime }}\varphi _{q^{\prime \prime }}^f=\gamma _k^{ef}.$$

Note the presence of the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$, due to the fact that all the components of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ appear twice in the sum, depending on which of the two outer twigs we consider to be the one-primed and which is two-primed. In the very special case where $`p_1`$ is the only mark in play, there is no repetition in the sum since nothing distinguishes the two twigs, but this very symmetry means that the morphism from the fibred product is actually two-to-one, so in this case we divide by two for this reason. ∎

Let $`Q^k(𝐱,𝐲)`$ denote the generating function corresponding to first enumerative descendants allowing a single quadratic modified psi class, say at the first mark:

$$Q^k(𝐱,𝐲)\text{:}=\underset{\beta >0}{}\underset{𝐚,𝐛}{}\frac{𝐱^𝐚}{𝐚!}\frac{𝐲^𝐛}{𝐛!}\overline{𝝉}_0^𝐚\overline{𝝉}_1^𝐛\overline{\tau }_2(T_k)_\beta .$$

###### 2.4 Proposition.

The following differential equation relates $`Q^k`$ to the tangency quantum potential:

$$Q_{x_ix_j}^k=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_ix_j)y_k}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(y_kx_i)x_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(y_kx_j)x_i}+\underset{e,f}{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_kx_e}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_kx_e)}\right)\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_fx_ix_j}.$$

* The proof is similar to the proof of Equation (3) (see \[GKP\], 2.1.1 and , 3.4.) Let the mark $`p_1`$ correspond to the class $`\overline{\tau }_2(T_k)`$, and let $`p_2`$ and $`p_3`$ carry the extra classes $`\overline{\tau }_0(T_i)`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_0(T_j)`$ corresponding to the derivatives. Take one of the two modified psi classes $`\overline{𝝍}_1`$ and write it as sum of boundary divisors, to each of which the remaining factors are restricted. The first three terms correspond to boundary divisors with trivial degree splitting; compared to Equation (3), they each have a derivative with respect to $`y`$ instead of $`x`$ because there is now one modified psi class left on $`p_1`$. As to the quadratic term, it splits up in two, because the factor $`\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}\nu _1^{}(T_k)`$ restricts to give $`\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}\nu _1^{}(T_k)+𝜹_{1x^{}}\nu _x^{}^{}(T_k)`$, sending the evaluation class $`\nu _1^{}(T_k)`$ over to the gluing mark $`x^{}`$. This explains the factor $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_kx_e}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_kx_e)}\right)`$ in the quadratic term. ∎

Observe that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_e}\gamma _k^{ef}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_kx_m)}\gamma ^{mf}`$, so the last quadratic term is very similar to the terms of $`P_{x_ix_j}^k`$.

For $`k=0`$, there is a much simpler equation:

###### 2.5 Corollary.

$$Q^0=\frac{1}{2}\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_e}\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_f}.$$

* After using the dilaton equation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_0}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ twice, the equation of the proposition reads

$$Q_{x_ix_i}^0=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(x_ix_i)}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{y_ix_i}\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_e}\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_fx_ix_i}.$$

Now apply topological recursion to the second term and simplify, ending up with

$$Q_{x_ix_i}^0=\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_ix_e}\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_fx_i}\underset{e,f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_e}\gamma ^{ef}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x_fx_ix_i}.$$

Integrating twice with respect to $`x_i`$ yields the result. ∎

###### 2.6 Remark.

It is immediate from the formulae that $`P^0+Q^0=0`$. In fact, more generally, the classes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\overline{𝝍}_1^2`$ on one-pointed space $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$ have the same push-down in $`\overline{M}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$. Indeed, generally $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ pushes down to give the whole boundary. On the other hand, the push-down of $`\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}=𝝍_1^2`$ is the kappa class by definition (see Arbarello-Cornalba ), and according to Pandharipande , Lemma 2.1.2, the kappa class is minus the boundary. (That proof treats $`^r`$ but it carries over to the present case.)

## 3 Cuspidal curves in $`^2`$

In this section we consider $`X=^2`$, with its usual cohomology basis ($`T_0=`$ fundamental class, $`T_1=`$ line, $`T_2=`$ point). Set $`𝜼_i\text{:}=c_1(\nu _i^{}(T_1))`$.

###### 3.1

The characteristic number potential (cf. \[GKP\] §4). Let $`N_d(a,b,c)`$ denote the number of irreducible plane rational curves of degree $`d`$ which pass through $`a`$ general points, are tangent to $`b`$ general lines, and are tangent to $`c`$ general lines at a specified point, and define the number to be zero unless $`a+b+2c=3d1`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ denote the classes corresponding to these three conditions, then (at mark $`p_1`$, say) we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝜼_1^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=𝜼_1(𝜼_1+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{})`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }=𝜼_1^2\overline{𝝍}_1`$. The characteristic number potential

$$G(s,u,v,w)=\underset{d>0}{}\mathrm{exp}(ds)\underset{a,b,c}{}\frac{u^a}{a!}\frac{v^b}{b!}\frac{w^c}{c!}N_d(a,b,c)$$

is related to the tangency quantum potential $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by

$`G(s,u,v,w)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2),`$
subject to the change of variables:

$$x_1=s,x_2=u+v,y_1=v,y_2=w.$$
(4)
For simplicity we set $`x_0=y_0=0`$ throughout.

For the deformed metric we have

$$(\gamma ^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 2y_1\\ 1& 2y_1& 2y_1^2+2y_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 2v\\ 1& 2v& 2v^2+2w\end{array}\right),$$

so in terms of the two differential operators

$`\text{L}_{}`$ $`\text{:}=\frac{}{s}+2v\frac{}{u},`$
$`\text{P}_{}`$ $`\text{:}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}v\frac{}{s}+(2v^2+2w)\frac{}{u},`$
the topological recursion relations satisfied by the characteristic number potential can be written

$`G_{vs}`$ $`=G_{us}G_u+\frac{1}{2}\left(G_{ss}\text{L}_{}G_s+G_{us}\text{P}_{}G_s\right),`$ (5)
$`G_{wss}`$ $`=G_{uu}+\left(G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{uu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$ (6)
###### 3.2

The slightly enriched potentials. Combining Propositions 2.3 and 2.4 with the above coordinate changes, we can express the slightly enriched potentials in terms of the characteristic number potential. We have

$$(\gamma _1^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 2y_1\end{array}\right)\text{ and }(\gamma _2^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

so from Proposition 2.3 we get

$`P_{x_1x_1}^1`$ $`=G_{us}G_{ss}+G_{uss}G_s+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s,`$ (7)
$`P_{x_1x_1}^2`$ $`=G_{us}G_{us}+G_{uss}G_u.`$ (8)
Here we have taken double derivative with respect to $`x_1`$, anticipating the applications.

Similarly, for the $`Q`$-potential, Proposition 2.4 gives these three equations:

$`Q^0`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\left(G_s\text{L}_{}G+G_u\text{P}_{}G\right),`$ (9)
$`Q_{x_1x_1}^1`$ $`=G_{vu}2G_{ws}G_{wss}+G_sG_{uss}+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+\left(G_{vs}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right),`$ (10)
$`Q_{x_1x_1}^2`$ $`=G_{wu}+G_uG_{uss}+\left(G_{ws}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{wu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$ (11)
(In deriving (10), the chain rule enters non-trivially, producing five extra terms which are exactly minus the right hand side of Equation (6), which is then used backwards.)

###### 3.3

The locus of marked cusp. In the space $`M_{0,1}(^2,d)`$ of irreducible maps with a single mark $`p_1`$, Consider the locus of maps such that $`p_1`$ is a critical point, i.e. the differential vanishes at $`p_1`$. The locus of non-immersions is of codimension 1, so requiring further that the mark is critical gives codimension 2. Let $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ denote the closure of this locus in $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^2,d)`$, the locus of maps having a cusp at $`p_1`$. In spaces with more marks, $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ is defined as the pull-back of the one in $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^2,d)`$ via the forgetful morphism.

###### 3.4 Proposition.

The class of this marked cusp locus is

$$\mathrm{K}_1=3𝜼_1^2+3𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1.$$

* We start out with a family of stable un-pointed maps

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& 𝔛\hfill & \stackrel{𝜇}{}& ^2\\ \hfill \pi & \hfill & & \\ & B\hfill & & \end{array}$$

where $`B`$ and $`𝔛`$ are smooth, and the locus $`N𝔛`$ of singular points of the fibres is of codimension 2. Let $`I𝒪_𝔛`$ be the ideal sheaf of $`N`$. The exact sequence

$$0\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_B\mathrm{\Omega }_𝔛I\omega _\pi 0$$

yields the relation of total Chern classes $`c(T_𝔛)=\pi ^{}c(T_B)\left(1K_\pi +[N]\right),`$ and thus

$$\frac{\pi ^{}c(T_B)}{c(T_𝔛)}=1+K_\pi +K_\pi ^2[N].$$
(12)
Here, $`K_\pi \text{:}=c_1(\omega _\pi )`$, and we also set $`H\text{:}=\mu ^{}c_1(𝒪(1))`$.

Denote temporarily by $`D`$ the class of the locus of points in $`𝔛`$ where the differential $`T_𝔛(\pi \times \mu )^{}T_{B\times ^2}`$ fails to have rank $`2`$. By Porteous’ formula, $`D`$ is the degree-$`2`$ part of the total Chern class

$$\mu ^{}c(T_^2)\frac{\pi ^{}c(T_B)}{c(T_𝔛)}=(1+3H+3H^2)(1+K_\pi +K_\pi ^2[N]),$$

by (12). In other words,

$$D=3H^2+3HK_\pi +K_\pi ^2[N]$$

All this is basically §4.d of Diaz-Harris .

Now equip the family with a section $`\sigma _1:B𝔛`$ that transversely intersects $`N`$. The marked-cusp class of the family is just $`\mathrm{K}_1=\sigma _1^{}D`$. Now $`\sigma _1^{}H=𝜼_1`$ and $`\sigma _1^{}K_\pi =𝝍_1=\overline{𝝍}_1`$, so we get

$$\mathrm{K}_1=3𝜼_1^2+3𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\sigma _1^{}[N].$$

(In a family with more sections, we must pull back these constructions; therefore the modified psi class is the correct one to use.) This family of marked maps is not stable, but there is a well-defined stabilisation. It only remains to notice that the locus $`\sigma _1^{}[N]B`$ of the unstable family is the same as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ of the stabilised family. ∎

###### 3.5

An alternative construction, also given in , describes $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ as the locus of maps $`\mu :C^2`$ such that a whole pencil of lines in $`^2`$ are tangent to $`\mu (C)`$ at $`\mu (p_1)`$. In other words, it is the degeneracy locus of the map of vector bundles $`\sigma _1^{}V^3\sigma _1^{}L^2`$, where $`V^3`$ is the $`\mu `$-pull-back of the complete linear system $`H^0(^2,𝒪(1))`$, and $`L^2`$ is the sheaf of first principal parts of $`\mu ^{}𝒪(1)`$. But then it is necessary to correct for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ afterwards.

###### 3.6 Remark.

For $`d=1`$, the locus is empty, so in this case Porteous’ formula yields the relation $`3𝜼^2+3𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}=0`$. Under the natural identification of $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^2,1)`$ with the incidence variety $`I^2\times \stackrel{ˇ}{}^2`$ of points and lines in $`^2`$, this relation is equivalent to the well-known relation $`h^2+\stackrel{ˇ}{h}^2=h\stackrel{ˇ}{h}`$.

For $`d=2`$, the multiple-covers occur already in codimension 1. On the other hand, there are no birational maps in degree 2 with a critical point, so for $`d=2`$ the locus $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ consists of all the double covers such that the mark is one of the ramification points.

For $`d3`$, the locus of multiple-covers is of codimension at least 2, so the extra condition of having the mark as one of the ramification points prevents these curves from contributing. So in this case the locus $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ consists generically of birational maps.

###### 3.7

Further cusp conditions. Consider the codimension-3 condition of the marked cusp mapping to a given line. The class $`\mathrm{Kl}_1`$ of this condition is obtained simply by cutting with $`𝜼_1`$:

$$\mathrm{Kl}_1=3𝜼_1^2\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}𝜼_1\mathrm{\Pi }_1.$$

Similarly, the locus of maps with marked cusp mapping to a specified point is

$$\mathrm{Kp}_1=𝜼_1^2\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}𝜼_1^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1.$$

These two loci can also be constructed by the approach of 3.5, replacing the complete linear system by smaller systems, cf. .

###### 3.8

Tangency conditions in cuspidal environment. Suppose we are inside the locus $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ and want to impose the condition of being tangent to a given line $`L`$ at another mark, say $`p_2`$. Since for the general map in $`\mathrm{K}_1`$, the differential vanishes only simply a $`p_1`$, the arguments of \[GKP\] 3.1 and 3.3 show that the locus of maps which are not transversal to $`L`$ at $`p_2`$ is reduced of class $`𝜼_2(𝜼_2+\overline{𝝍}{}_{2}{}^{})`$. However, contrary to the case of nodal curves, this locus has two irreducible components. In addition to the locus of honest tangencies, there is a component consisting of maps such that the $`p_1`$-cusp maps to $`L`$ and the two marks have come together, i.e., $`\mathrm{K}_1𝜼_1𝜹_{12}`$. We do not want to count these maps as tangencies, so in conclusion, the class of $`p_2`$-tangency in $`p_1`$-cuspidal environment is

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_2^{}=𝜼_2(𝜼_2+\overline{𝝍}{}_{2}{}^{})𝜼_1𝜹_{12}.$$
(13)
Similarly, in $`p_1`$-cuspidal environment the class of $`p_2`$-tangency to a given line at a specified point is

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_2^{}=𝜼_2^2\overline{𝝍}{}_{2}{}^{}𝜼_1^2𝜹_{12}.$$

We can now apply these conditions iteratively, and the top intersections will be the characteristic numbers for cuspidal plane curves.

Using the generating functions for the slightly enriched first enumerative descendants, and their relation to the tangency potential, it is straightforward to derive differential equations determining the cusp characteristic numbers from the nodal ones. Let $`C_d(a,b,c)`$ denote the number of cuspidal plane curves passing through $`a`$ points, tangent to $`b`$ lines, and tangent to $`c`$ lines at specified points. Let $`CL_d(a,b,c)`$ be defined similarly but requiring the cusp to fall on a specified line, and let $`CP_d(a,b,c)`$ denote the numbers where the cusp is required to fall at a specified point. Let $`K(s,u,v,w)`$, $`KL(s,u,v,w)`$ and $`KP(s,u,v,w)`$ be the corresponding generating functions (the formal variables being defined as in 3.1).

###### 3.9 Proposition.

The cusp potentials $`KP`$, $`KL`$, and $`K`$ are determined by the characteristic number potential $`G`$ through the following equations.

$`KP_{ss}`$ $`=G_{wu}G_{us}G_{us}+\left(G_{ws}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{wu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right),`$ (14)
$`KL_{ss}`$ $`=+G_{vu}+2G_{wss}vKP_{ss}2G_{ws}G_{us}G_{ss}G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s`$ (15)
$`+\left(G_{vs}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right),`$
$`K`$ $`=3G_vvKL(\frac{1}{2}v^2+w)KP\left(G_s\text{L}_{}G+G_u\text{P}_{}G\right).`$ (16)
* The main point is to eliminate the diagonal classes. In each term of the expansion of the top product, the diagonal class $`𝜹_{1i}`$ is alone at mark $`p_i`$, so we can push down forgetting $`p_i`$. The push-down formula is simply $`\pi _i{}_{}{}^{}𝜹_{1i}^{}=1`$ (cf. \[GKP\], 1.3.2.).

Since $`𝜼_1^3=0`$, and since all diagonal classes come accompanied by a factor $`𝜼_1`$, only few diagonal class terms survive the expansion of the top product. In the presence of a factor $`\mathrm{Kp}_1=𝜼_1^2(\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1)`$, all the diagonal classes of the top product vanish. Thus,

$$KP(s,u,v,w)=(Q^2P^2)(x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2).$$

Now take double derivative with respect to $`s=x_1`$ and apply Equations (11) and (8). This establishes (14).

In the integral corresponding to (15), since there is a factor $`𝜼_1`$ in $`\mathrm{Kl}_1`$, there is room for at most one diagonal class in each term of the expansion. So we get

$`d^2CL_d(a,b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`d^2\mathrm{Kl}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{c}`$
$`=`$ $`d^2\mathrm{Kl}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^cd^2b\mathrm{Kp}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^{b1}\mathrm{\Xi }^c.`$
Here $`\mathrm{Kp}_1`$ arises as $`𝜼_1\mathrm{Kl}_1`$. The last term explains $`vKP_{ss}`$ in the formula. In the first term we plug in $`\mathrm{Kl}_1=3𝜼_1^2\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}𝜼_1\mathrm{\Pi }_1=3\mathrm{\Xi }_1+𝜼_1(\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1)`$. Thus

$$KL_{ss}=vKP_{ss}+3G_{wss}+(Q_{x_1x_1}^1P_{x_1x_1}^1).$$

The result now follows from Equations (7) and (10).

Finally in the expansion of the integral corresponding to (16), we get $`b`$ terms corresponding to one diagonal class from $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$, further $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{2}\right)`$ terms with two diagonal classes from $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$, and finally $`c`$ terms with one diagonal class from $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$:

$`C_d(a,b,c)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\mathrm{\Xi }_{}^{}^c`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^cb\mathrm{Kl}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^{b1}\mathrm{\Xi }^c+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{2}\right)\mathrm{Kp}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^{b2}\mathrm{\Xi }^cc\mathrm{Kp}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^{c1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^cbCL_d(a,b1,c)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{2}\right)CP_d(a,b2,c)cCP_d(a,b,c1).`$
The last three terms explain $`vKL(\frac{1}{2}v^2+w)KP`$ in the formula. The first term is expanded to

$$\mathrm{K}\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^c=3N_d(a,b+1,c)+(\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1)\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^c,$$

and this last term corresponds to $`Q^0P^0`$ which is then expanded using Lemma 2.6 and Equation (9). ∎

These differential equations are very similar to the recursions used in Ernström-Kennedy  (found with completely different methods), and are presumably equivalent (modulo Equations (5) and (6)), but I have not been able to identify all the terms of their recursion.

###### 3.10 Remark.

Setting $`v=w=0`$ (corresponding to considering only incidence conditions) and then differentiating with respect to $`s`$ yields

$`K_s`$ $`=`$ $`3G_{vs}\frac{}{s}G_s^2(mod(v,w))`$
$`=`$ $`3\left(G_{us}G_u+\frac{1}{2}G_{ss}^2\right)\frac{}{s}G_s^2(mod(v,w)),`$
which is equivalent to the recursion of Proposition 5 in Pandharipande .

## 4 Cuspidal curves in $`^1\times ^1`$

###### 4.1

Set-up for $`^1\times ^1`$. Let $`T_0`$ be the fundamental class; let $`T_3`$ be the class of a point; and let $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ be the hyperplane classes pulled back from the two factors. A curve of class $`\beta `$ is said to have bi-degree $`(d_1,d_2)`$, where $`d_1=_\beta T_1`$ and $`d_2=_\beta T_2`$. A curve of bi-degree $`(1,0)`$ is called a horizontal rule, and a curve of bi-degree $`(0,1)`$ a vertical rule.

Let $`N_{(d_1,d_2)}(a,b,c)`$ denote the characteristic numbers of irreducible rational curves in $`^1\times ^1`$ of bi-degree $`(d_1,d_2)`$ passing through $`a`$ general points, tangent to $`b`$ general curves of bi-degree $`(1,1)`$, and tangent to $`c`$ such curves at specified point. The classes corresponding to these three conditions are, respectively: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{\tau }_0(T_3)`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=2\overline{\tau }_0(T_3)+\overline{\tau }_1(T_1)+\overline{\tau }_1(T_2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\overline{\tau }_1(T_3)`$.

Let $`G(u_1,u_2,u,v,w)`$ be the corresponding generating function ($`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ being the formal variables corresponding to the partial degrees $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$). Then we have $`G(u_1,u_2,u,v,w)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1,x_2,x_3,y_1,y_2,y_3)`$, with $`x_1=u_1`$, $`x_2=u_2`$, $`x_3=u+2v`$; $`y_1=v`$, $`y_2=v`$, $`y_3=w`$. For convenience, put also

$$s\text{:}=u_1+u_2,$$

the formal variable corresponding to $`T_1+T_2`$. We have

$$(\gamma ^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 2y_1\\ 0& 1& 0& 2y_2\\ 1& 2y_1& 2y_2& 4y_1y_2+2y_3\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 2v\\ 0& 1& 0& 2v\\ 1& 2v& 2v& 4v^2+2w\end{array}\right).$$

Define three differential operators corresponding to the three last lines of this matrix,

$`\text{L}_1`$ $`\text{:}=\frac{}{u_2}+2v\frac{}{u},`$
$`\text{L}_2`$ $`\text{:}=\frac{}{u_1}+2v\frac{}{u},`$
$`\text{P}_{}`$ $`\text{:}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}v\frac{}{u_1}+2v\frac{}{u_2}+(4v^2+2w)\frac{}{u},`$
and for convenience put also
$`\text{L}_{}`$ $`\text{:}=\text{L}_1+\text{L}_2=\frac{}{s}+4v\frac{}{u}.`$
Equations (25) and (26) of \[GKP\] read

$`G_{vs}`$ $`=2G_{us}2G_u+\frac{1}{2}\left(G_{su_1}\text{L}_1G_s+G_{su_2}\text{L}_2G_s+G_{us}\text{P}_{}G_s\right),`$ (17)
$`G_{wss}`$ $`=2G_{uu}+\left(G_{uu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{uu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{uu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$ (18)
###### 4.2

Differential equations for the slightly enriched potentials. We have

$$(\gamma _{(12)}^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1& 2y_1+2y_2\end{array}\right)\text{ and }(\gamma _3^{ef})=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Now applying the coordinate changes to Propositions 2.3 and 2.4 we get:

$`P_{x_1x_1}^{(12)}`$ $`=G_{us}G_{ss}+G_{uss}G_s+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s,`$ (19)
$`P_{x_1x_1}^3`$ $`=G_{us}G_{us}+G_{uss}G_u,`$ (20)
$`Q^0`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\left(G_{u_1}\text{L}_1G+G_{u_2}\text{L}_2G+G_u\text{P}_{}G\right),`$ (21)
$`Q_{x_{12}x_{12}}^{(12)}`$ $`=2G_{vu}4G_{ws}2G_{wss}+G_sG_{uss}+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}`$ (22)
$`+\left(G_{vu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{vu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$
$`Q_{x_{12}x_{12}}^3`$ $`=2G_{wu}+G_uG_{uss}+\left(G_{wu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{wu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{wu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$ (23)
The derivation of these formulae follows the same arguments as in 3.2.

###### 4.3

Differential equations. Deriving equations for the cusp potentials for $`^1\times ^1`$ similar to those of 3.9 is now straightforward. Since the tangent bundle has total Chern class $`1+2(T_1+T_2)+4T_3`$, the locus of cusp at mark $`p_1`$ is

$$4\nu _1^{}(T_3)+2(\nu _1^{}(T_1)+\nu _1^{}(T_2))\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_1.$$

Let $`KP`$ be the potential corresponding to cusp mapping to a specified point, (and further $`a`$ conditions of passing through a point, $`b`$ conditions of being tangent to a $`(1,1)`$-curve, and $`c`$ conditions of tangenciating such a curve at a specified point). Then

$`KP_{ss}`$ $`=2G_{wu}G_{us}G_{us}+\left(G_{wu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{wu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{wu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$
Let $`KL`$ be the generating function for such characteristic numbers, but with the cusp mapping to a specified $`(1,1)`$-curve. Then

$`KL_{ss}`$ $`=2G_{vu}4G_{ws}2vKP_{ss}+2G_{wss}G_{us}G_{ss}G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s`$
$`+\left(G_{vu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{vu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right).`$
And finally, let $`K`$ be the generating function for the characteristic numbers of cuspidal curves in $`^1\times ^1`$, with the cusp varying freely. Then

$`K`$ $`=2G_vvKL(v^2+w)KP\left(G_{u_1}\text{L}_1G+G_{u_2}\text{L}_2G+G_u\text{P}_{}G\right).`$
###### 4.4

Enumerative significance. A priori these numbers count also reducible curves, one of whose twigs is a multiple cover of a rule. In fact, already the locus $`\mathrm{K}_1`$ is not irreducible: it has a component for each boundary divisor corresponding to degree splitting $`(m,n)=(i,0)+(mi,n)`$. For each of these divisors, the one-primed twig is always a multiple-cover of a horizontal rule, and forcing the mark to a ramification point produces the ‘cusp’ already in codimension 2. The other ramification points can then satisfy tangency conditions, giving contribution in the characteristic number. (Similarly of course for maps comprising a cover of a vertical rule.)

However, when there are no conditions on the cusp, all solutions are in fact irreducible curves. This happens because one degree of freedom (that of varying the position of the ramification point marked $`p_1`$ which counts as the cusp), is useless for the sake of satisfying tangency (or incidence) conditions, since we have already excluded the case where the tangency condition is fulfilled at $`p_1`$. Now the dimension count is easy: The multiple-cover twig has $`2i2`$ ramification points, of which $`2i3`$ can be used for satisfying tangency conditions. The twig can satisfy a single incidence condition (which completely fixes the support of the curve). The honest twig (of bi-degree $`(mi,n)`$) can as usual satisfy $`2m2i+2n1`$ conditions. Thus we get a total of $`2m+2n3`$ degrees of freedom, while the number of conditions imposed is $`2m+2n2`$. So no reducible curves can contribute.

The situation is different in the cases where the cusp is required to fall on a $`(1,1)`$-curve or at a point. In these cases, the cusp can account for one condition in addition to just being a cusp. For example, in the case where the cusp is required to fall on a given point: The given point fixes the rule supporting the image of the $`p_1`$-twig, and this must be a ramification point. Then further $`2i3`$ ramification points can account for as many tangency conditions. On the other twig there is room for $`2m2i+2n1`$ conditions. Total: $`2m+2n4`$, which is exactly the number of conditions imposed. So the potential $`KP`$ encodes also reducible curves. A similar observation applies to $`KL`$.

Correcting for these reducible curves is a case for the techniques described in \[GKP\] §5. Since the unwanted contribution are multiple covers, the correction terms involve the (genus zero) Hurwitz numbers.

###### 4.5

Hurwitz numbers and multiple-covers of a rule. (Cf. \[GKP\] §5.) Consider $`X=^1`$ (with $`T_0`$ = fundamental class, $`T_1`$ = class of a point). The invariants $`N_d(b)=\overline{\tau }_1(T_1)^b_d^^1`$ are the simple genus zero Hurwitz numbers (the number of $`d`$-sheeted coverings $`^1^1`$ simply ramified over $`b=2d2`$ given points). The corresponding potential,

$$H(t,v)=\underset{d>0}{}\mathrm{exp}(dt)\underset{b}{}\frac{v^b}{b!}N_d(b).$$
(24)
satisfies the topological recursion relation $`H_{vt}=vH_{tt}H_{tt}`$.

For $`^1\times ^1`$, the generating function for the covers of a horizontal rule is

$$I(u_1,u,v,w)=uH_{u_1}+(v^2+w)H_v,$$
(25)
where $`H=H(u_1,v)`$ is the Hurwitz potential of (24). Indeed, the supporting rule for an $`i`$-sheeted map is fixed by either one incidence condition, two tangency conditions, or one flag condition. Once the supporting rule is fixed, the Hurwitz potential encodes the number of possible coverings. For the incidence condition, there are $`i`$ choices for the mark; this explains the factor $`uH_{u_1}`$. For the case of $`2i1`$ tangency conditions, the rule must pass through one of the two intersection point of two of the given curves. This gives $`2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2i1}{2}\right)`$ choices for the supporting rule, explaining the term $`2\frac{v^2}{2!}H_v`$. Finally, for one flag condition and $`2i3`$ tangency conditions, the flag fixes the supporting rule and translates into an extra $`v`$ condition on the covering of that rule.

For coverings of a vertical rule, we similarly find the generating function

$$J(u_2,u,v,w)=uH_{u_2}+(v^2+w)H_v,$$
(26)
with $`H=H(u_2,v)`$.

Now the correction term corresponding to the fake reducible cusps counted in $`KP`$ is described by:

###### 4.6 Proposition.

The generating functions $`K^{\mathrm{irr}}`$, $`KL^{\mathrm{irr}}`$, and $`KP^{\mathrm{irr}}`$ for the characteristic numbers of irreducible cuspidal curves in $`^1\times ^1`$ are related to $`K`$, $`KL`$, and $`KP`$ like this:

$`K^{\mathrm{irr}}`$ $`=K,`$
$`KL^{\mathrm{irr}}`$ $`=KL\left(I_{vu_1}\text{L}_1G+J_{vu_2}\text{L}_2G+(I_{vu}+J_{vu})\text{P}_{}G\right),`$
$`KP^{\mathrm{irr}}`$ $`=KP\left(I_{wu_1}\text{L}_1G+J_{wu_2}\text{L}_2G\right).`$
* It has already been shown that $`K^{\mathrm{irr}}=K`$. For the others, the correction term has an $`I`$-part coming from multiple-covers of the horizontal rule and a $`J`$-part corresponding to covers of a vertical rule. Let us explain the $`I`$-part. The arguments of \[GKP\] §5 show that

$$I_{u_1}\text{L}_{}{}_{1}{}^{}G+I_u\text{P}_{}G$$
(27)
is the generating function for the numbers of the reducible maps comprising a multiple-cover of a horizontal rule. In the present situation $`p_1`$ is a ramification point on the twig covering the horizontal rule. Therefore, requiring further that $`p_1`$ maps to a given line is equivalent to requiring tangency to that line at $`p_1`$, so the $`I`$-potentials in (27) acquire a derivative with respect to $`v`$. This accounts for the $`I`$-part of the correction term to $`KL`$. Concerning $`KP`$: requiring the ramification point $`p_1`$ to map to a given point is equivalent to imposing a flag condition on $`p_1`$, so in this case the $`I`$-potentials in (27) acquire a derivative with respect to $`w`$. It remains to note that $`I_{wu}=0`$ since a multiple-cover of a rule cannot pass through two given general points. ∎

###### 4.7 Example.

Setting $`v=w=0`$ in the equation for $`K`$ yields an easy expression for the numbers $`C_{(m,n)}`$ of (irreducible) cuspidal curves in $`^1\times ^1`$ of bi-degree $`(m,n)`$ that pass through $`2m+2n2`$ general points, in terms of the corresponding numbers $`N_{(m,n)}`$ of nodal curves:

$$C_{(m,n)}=\frac{4(d1)}{d}N_{(m,n)}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2d2}{2d^{}1}\right)\frac{(m^{}n^{\prime \prime }+n^{}m^{\prime \prime })(d^{}d^{\prime \prime }d)}{d}N_{(m^{},n^{})}N_{(m^{\prime \prime },n^{\prime \prime })},$$

where the sum is over degree splittings $`m^{}+m^{\prime \prime }=m`$ and $`n^{}+n^{\prime \prime }=n`$. For short we have set $`d=m+n`$, $`d^{}=m^{}+n^{}`$, and $`d^{\prime \prime }=m^{\prime \prime }+n^{\prime \prime }`$.

## 5 Characteristic numbers of curves with <br>a prescribed triple contact

Let $`VX`$ be a general, very ample hypersurface, given as the zero scheme of a section $`f`$ of a line bundle $`L`$, and set $`𝜼_i\text{:}=c_1(\nu _i^{}L)`$.

###### 5.1

Components mapping into $`V`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{I}_1=\mathrm{I}_1(V)`$ (the closure of) the locus of maps such that $`p_1`$ is on a non-contracting twig that maps entirely into $`V`$. Note that we define $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ only on set-theoretic level and not as a cycle. In general, this locus has irreducible components in various codimensions. The locus of irreducible such maps $`\mathrm{I}_1M_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$ is the zero scheme of a regular section of the vector bundle $`\pi _{}\mu ^{}L`$, so the codimension is $`\mathrm{dim}H^0(^1,\mu ^{}L)`$ (or it is empty).

However, commonly the component consisting of irreducible such maps is not the one of lowest codimension: For example, if $`X=^r`$ and $`V`$ is a hypersurface of degree $`z`$, then the locus $`\mathrm{I}_iM_{0,n}(^r,d)`$ is of codimension $`dz+1`$, while the locus of reducible such maps having $`p_i`$ on a twig of degree $`1`$ is of codimension $`z+2`$. So for $`d2`$ or $`z2`$, the locus $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ is always of codimension at least 3. The only situation in which we need to worry about codimension 2, is $`d=z=1`$: in this case $`\mathrm{codim}\mathrm{I}_1=2`$, and of course these maps are irreducible.

###### 5.2

Enumerative irrelevance of $`\mathrm{I}_1`$. Note first of all that $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ is compatible with inverse image under forgetful morphisms, since in the definition we have excluded the case of $`p_1`$ belonging to a twig contracting to a point in $`H`$.

Now in the locus $`\mathrm{I}_1`$, the mark $`p_1`$ has not been fixed: it can be any point of the twig mapping into $`V`$, and since this twig is not just a contracting twig, different choices of where to put the mark on the twig are non-isomorphic. The consequence of this observation is that $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ has zero push-down under forgetting $`p_1`$ (whatever the multiplicities attributed to the components of it). This is turn implies the vanishing of any top product where $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ is up against pull-back-compatible classes belonging to other marks.

With these remarks we are in position to describe the locus of maps having a triple contact with $`V`$. For the argument to work we must impose the following condition on the moduli space and on $`V`$:

* The general map tangent to $`V`$ is only simply tangent to $`V`$.

The easiest example violating this condition is $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,1)`$ when $`V`$ is a hyperplane: every line tangent to $`V`$ is actually contained in $`V`$.

###### 5.3 Proposition.

With ($``$) satisfied, let $`\mathrm{F}_1`$ denote the closure of the locus of irreducible immersions having a triple contact to $`V`$ at the mark $`p_1`$. Then its class is

$$\mathrm{F}_1=𝜼_1(𝜼_1+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{})(𝜼_1+2\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{})[\mathrm{I}_1]_3𝜼_1\mathrm{\Pi }_1,$$

where $`[\mathrm{I}_1]_3`$ denotes the codimension-3 part of $`\mathrm{I}_1`$.

* We can assume there is only one mark $`p_1`$. Consider the zero scheme of the section $`\sigma _1^{}_\pi ^2\mu ^{}f`$ of the bundle of second jets, $`\sigma _1^{}J_\pi ^2\mu ^{}L`$. It follows from the standard jet short exact sequence that the class of this locus is

$$c_3(\sigma _1^{}J_\pi ^2\mu ^{}L)=𝜼_1(𝜼_1+\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{})(𝜼_1+2\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{}).$$

It is the codimension-3 locus of maps such that the pull-back of $`f`$ vanishes to order 3 at $`p_1`$. If it happens isolated at $`p_1`$, then we are in $`\mathrm{F}_1`$. Note that there is no contribution from $`p_1`$-marked cusps: the locus of such cusps mapping to $`V`$ is of codimension 3, but in general the differential vanishes only simply and thus the first jet vanishes but not the second.

If $`\mu ^{}f`$ vanishes identically on the twig carrying $`p_1`$ then either this twig is of degree zero, and then we are at $`𝜼_1\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ (or in higher codimension); or the twig is of positive degree, and that means it maps entirely inside $`V`$ and then we are in the locus $`\mathrm{I}_1`$. (By the condition ($``$), no component of $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ can have codimension lower than 3. There may be components of higher codimension but since a section of a rank-3 vector bundle cannot vanish isolated along such a component, we conclude that these loci are in fact already contained in one of the codimension-3 loci, which must then be $`\mathrm{F}_1`$. In other words, such maps are limits of honest triple contacts.)

To establish multiplicity-1 along $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ it is enough to construct a $`1`$-parameter family running inside the locus of maps tangent to $`V`$ at $`p_1`$, and check that the section of the second jet bundle vanishes with multiplicity $`1`$ along the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ of this family. For simplicity we perform the argument only in the case $`X=^2`$.

Let $`B𝔸^1`$ be a small open neighbourhood of $`0`$, and consider the rational map

$`\mu :B\times ^1`$ $``$ $`^2`$
$`(b,[s:t])`$ $``$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}b^df\\ b(ts)^2\left(b^{d1}g+s^{m1}t^{n1}\right)\\ s^mt^n+b^mt^d+b^ns^d\end{array}\right].`$
where $`m+n=d`$. As to the other symbols: $`f`$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $`s,t`$ of degree $`d`$, and $`g`$ is homogeneous of degree $`d2`$, with roots distinct from $`(ts)`$.

Equip the map with the constant section

$$\sigma _1(b)\text{:}=(b,[1:1]).$$

The map has two base points in the central fibre $`C`$ (equation $`(b=0)`$), namely $`[0:1]`$ and $`[1:0]`$. (The rest of $`C`$ is contracted to the point $`[0:0:1]`$ in $`^2`$.) The map has been constructed such that a single blow-up resolves the map. The result is a family over $`B`$ of $`1`$-pointed stable maps of degree $`d`$, whose central fibre is an element in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ (with degree splitting $`m+n=d`$). Since we are interested only in what happens at the section, we can forget about the blow-up.

Let $`V_{[x:y:z]}^2`$ be the line with equation $`y=0`$, then clearly all members of the family are tangent to $`V`$ at the first mark. More precisely, $`\mu ^{}V=2\sigma _1+C+R`$, where $`R`$ is some residual curve not passing through the point $`(0,[1:1])`$. The coefficient $`1`$ in front of $`C`$ is the exponent of $`b`$ in the second coordinate function. The vanishing of the second jet is read off in the family as the intersection of $`\sigma _1`$ with $`\mu ^{}V2\sigma _1=C+R`$. This is just the transverse intersection at $`(1,[1:1])`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ has multiplicity $`1`$. ∎

###### 5.4 Remark.

Note that we are not excluding the possibility that all maps in $`\mathrm{F}_1`$ are in fact contained in $`V`$. This happens for example in $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^3,1)`$ when $`V^3`$ is a quadric surface.

Since the general map in $`\mathrm{F}_1`$ is not a cusp, we can now impose further tangency conditions without necessity of extra corrections. Thus we are in position to compute the characteristic numbers of rational curves having a triple contact with $`V`$.

###### 5.5 Example.

The projective plane. Fix a general curve $`V^2`$ of degree $`z`$. Let $`NF_d^z(a,b,c)`$ denote the number of rational curves of degree $`d2`$ that have triple contact with $`V`$, are tangent to $`b`$ lines, tangent to $`c`$ lines at specified points, and furthermore pass through $`a`$ specified points, ($`a+b+2c=2d3`$). Then

$$NF_d^z(a,b,c)=_{\overline{M}}\mathrm{F}_1\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^c.$$

When expanding the class of $`\mathrm{F}_1`$, we can ignore $`\mathrm{I}_1`$ since it’s push-down is zero, so we find

$$=3z^2\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^c+2z𝜼_1\overline{𝝍}{}_{1}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{a}\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^cz𝜼_1\mathrm{\Pi }_1\mathrm{\Omega }^a\mathrm{\Theta }^b\mathrm{\Xi }^c.$$

If we let $`F^z`$ be the generating function for these numbers we see that

$$F^z(s,u,v,w)=3z^2G_w(s,u,v,w)+2zQ^1(𝐱,𝐲)zP^1(𝐱,𝐲)$$

subject to the usual change of variables, cf. 3.1. Now take double derivative with respect to $`s`$ and use the expressions for $`P^1`$ and $`Q^1`$ (given in Equations (10) and (7)):

$`F_{ss}^z`$ $`=z((3z2)G_{wss}+2G_{vu}4G_{ws}+G_sG_{uss}+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}G_{us}G_{ss}G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s`$
$`+2(G_{vs}\text{L}_{}G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss})).`$
Perhaps the most interesting case is when $`z=1`$ so we are talking about curves with a specified flex line.

###### 5.6 Remark.

Exploring the finer geometry of $`^2`$, through the space of stable lifts to its second Semple bundle, Colley-Ernström-Kennedy  have recently given a much more comprehensive formula. Not only does their formula allow any number of triple contact conditions to given curves, but the given curves are also allowed to have double points and cusps! The only drawback of their formula is that the given curves are not allowed to be lines or to have linear components.

###### 5.7 Example.

The quadric surface $`X=^1\times ^1`$. Continuing the notation from Section 4, let $`NF_{(m,n)}(a,b,c)`$ be the number of rational curves of bi-degree $`(m,n)`$ which have triple contact with a given curve of bi-degree $`(1,1)`$, are tangent to $`b`$ other curves of bi-degree $`(1,1)`$, tangent to $`c`$ such curves at specified points, and furthermore passing through $`a`$ specified points, ($`a+b+2c=2m+2n3`$).

Let $`F`$ be the generating function for these characteristic numbers. Then the arguments of the preceding example show that

$$F=6G_w+2Q^{(12)}P^{(12)}$$

subject to the usual variable changes $`x_1=u_1`$, $`x_2=u_2`$, $`x_3=u+2v`$, $`y_1=v`$, $`y_2=v`$, and $`y_3=w`$. Taking double derivative with respect to $`s=u_1+u_2=x_1+x_2`$, and using Equations (22) and (19) we get the formula

$`F_{ss}`$ $`=2G_{wss}+4G_{vu}8G_{ws}+G_sG_{uss}+G_u\text{L}_{}G_{ss}G_{us}G_{ss}G_{us}\text{L}_{}G_s`$
$`+2\left(G_{vu_1}\text{L}_1G_{ss}+G_{vu_2}\text{L}_2G_{ss}+G_{vu}\text{P}_{}G_{ss}\right),`$
which effectively determines the characteristic numbers of curves in $`^1\times ^1`$ with one triple contact to a $`(1,1)`$-curve, from the usual characteristic numbers.


format: text

text:
# Charge superselection rule does not rule out pure states of subsystems to be coherent superpositions of states with different charges

## Abstract

We consider a huge quantum system that is subject to the charge superselection rule, which requires that any pure state must be an eigenstate of the total charge. We regard some parts of the system as “subsystems” S1, S2, $`\mathrm{}`$, SM, and the rest as an environment E. We assume that one does not measure anything of E, i.e., one is only interested in observables of the joint subsystem S $`\mathrm{S}_1+\mathrm{S}_2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{S}_M`$. We show that there exist states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ with the following properties: (i) The reduced density operator $`\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ is completely equivalent to a vector state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{S}\phi |`$ of S, for any gauge-invariant observable of S. (ii) $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ is a simple product of vector states of individual subsystems; $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}=|C^{(1)}_1|C^{(2)}_2\mathrm{}`$, where $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ is a vector state in Sk which is not an eigenstate of the charge in Sk. Furthermore, one can associate to each subsystem Sk the vector state $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ and observables which are not necessarily gauge invariant in each subsystem, and $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ is then a pure state. These results justify taking (a) superpositions of states with different charges, and (b) non-gauge-invariant operators, such as the order parameter of the breaking of the gauge symmetry, as observables, for subsystems.

In quantum theory, some superpositions of states are not permitted as pure states . In particular, the charge superselection rule (CSSR) forbids coherent superpositions of states with different charges . Namely, any pure state must be an eigenstate of the total charge $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. However, it is customary to take such superpositions when one discusses the breaking of a gauge symmetry. Superconductors and superfluids are typical examples. If the system size $`V`$ is infinite, this does not conflict with the CSSR because $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ becomes ill-defined as $`V\mathrm{}`$, and the CSSR becomes inapplicable. In real physical systems, however, phase transitions practically occur for finite ($`V<+\mathrm{}`$) systems as well. In particular, phase transitions have been observed in relatively small systems, including small superconductors , Helium atoms in a micro bubble , and laser-trapped atoms . The meaning of the symmetry breaking in such systems has been a subject of active research . The purpose of this paper is to present a general discussion which justifies taking coherent superpositions of states with different charges for finite quantum systems subject to the CSSR, such as charged particles and massive bosons. Furthermore, we also justify taking non-gauge-invariant operators such as the order parameter of the breaking of the gauge symmetry, as observables of subsystems.

We consider a huge quantum system that is subject to the CSSR. We regard some parts of the system as “subsystems” S1, S2, $`\mathrm{}`$, SM, and the rest as the environment E. We assume the usual situation where (i) E is much larger than the joint subsystem S $`\mathrm{S}_1+\mathrm{S}_2+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{S}_M`$, and (ii) one is not interested in (thus, one will not measure) degrees of freedom of E, i.e, one is only interested in S (or some parts of S). The Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of the total system is the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of S1, S2, $`\mathrm{}`$, SM and E; $`_{\mathrm{tot}}=_\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{E},`$ where $`_\mathrm{S}_1_2\mathrm{}_M.`$ The total charge (in some unit) $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is the sum of the charges of S1, S2, $`\mathrm{}`$, SM and E;

$$\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\widehat{N}_k+\widehat{N}_\mathrm{E}.$$
(1)
Products of eigenfunctions $`|N_1n_1_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`|N_Mn_M_M`$, and $`|N_\mathrm{E}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{E}`$ of $`\widehat{N}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\widehat{N}_M`$, and $`\widehat{N}_\mathrm{E}`$, respectively, form complete basis sets of $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. Here, $`N_k`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$) and $`N_\mathrm{E}`$ are eigenvalues of $`\widehat{N}_k`$ and $`\widehat{N}_\mathrm{E}`$, respectively, and $`n_k`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote additional quantum numbers.

The CSSR requires that any pure state of the total system must be an eigenstate of $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, i.e., superposition is allowed only among states with a fixed value of the eigenvalue $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{tot}}`$. Consider the following state that satisfies this requirement:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}=\underset{N_1,n_1}{}\mathrm{}\underset{N_M,n_M}{}\underset{\mathrm{}}{}C_{N_1n_1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}C_{N_Mn_M}^{(M)}C_{N_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{}}^{(\mathrm{E})}|N_1n_1_1\mathrm{}|N_Mn_M_M|N_{\mathrm{tot}}N_\mathrm{S},\mathrm{}_\mathrm{E},$$
(2)
where $`N_\mathrm{S}=_kN_k`$, and the superposition coefficients are normalized as

$$\underset{N,n}{}|C_{Nn}^{(k)}|^2=\underset{\mathrm{}}{}|C_{N_\mathrm{S}\mathrm{}}^{(\mathrm{E})}|^2=1.$$
(3)
For this state, the probability of finding $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}N_\mathrm{S}`$ bosons in E takes almost the same values for all $`N_\mathrm{S}`$ such that $`|N_\mathrm{S}N_\mathrm{S}|<\delta N_\mathrm{S}^2^{1/2}`$ . This property seems natural for a huge environment. Since we assume that one will not measure degrees of freedom of E, we are interested in the reduced density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ of S, which is evaluated as

$`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{E}(|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{tot}}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{N_1^{},n_1^{}}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{N_M^{},n_M^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{N_1,n_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{N_M,n_M}{}}\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}}C_{N_1^{}n_1^{}}^{(1)}\mathrm{}C_{N_M^{}n_M^{}}^{(M)}C_{N_Mn_M}^{(M)}\mathrm{}C_{N_1n_1}^{(1)}`$ (5)
$`\times |N_1^{}n_1^{}_1\mathrm{}|N_M^{}n_M^{}_M_MN_Mn_M|\mathrm{}{}_{1}{}^{}N_1n_1|.`$ (6)
We can easily show that $`(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S})^2\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ unless

$$\underset{n}{}|C_{Nn}^{(k)}|^2=\delta _{N,N_0^{(k)}}\text{ for all }k$$
(7)
for some set of numbers $`N_0^{(1)},\mathrm{},N_0^{(M)}`$. We exclude this trivial case (where the CSSR is satisfied in each subsystem) from our consideration. Then, $`(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S})^2\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$, and one may say that $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ represents a mixed state. However, the relation $`(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S})^2\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ only ensures that for any vector state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ ($`_\mathrm{S}`$) there exists some operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_\mathrm{S}`$ (on $`_\mathrm{S}`$) for which

$$\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{S}\left(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_\mathrm{S}\right){}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}\phi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_\mathrm{S}|\phi _{\mathrm{S}}^{}.$$
(8)
Note that such a general operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_\mathrm{S}`$ is not necessarily gauge-invariant. Hence, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_\mathrm{S}`$ might not be an observable, which must be gauge-invariant. In fact, we first show that $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ is equivalent to a vector state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ for all gauge-invariant (thus physical) observables on $`_\mathrm{S}`$. This statement might not sound surprising because a vector state is not necessarily a pure state . \[Here, we use the precise definition of pure and mixed states , rather than misleading definitions such as $`\widehat{\rho }^2=\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }^2\widehat{\rho }`$.\] In fact, the equivalence of $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ to $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ means that the vector state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ is a mixed state. In other words, $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ is a vector state in a reducible representation of the algebra of gauge-invariant observables .

Actually, we first show a stronger statement: $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ is a simple product of vector states of individual subsystems;

$$\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}\text{ is equivalent to }|\phi _\mathrm{S}=|C^{(1)}_1|C^{(2)}_2\mathrm{}|C^{(M)}_M\text{ for any gauge-invariant observables in }_\mathrm{S},$$
(9)
where $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ is a coherent superposition of states with different charges;

$$|C^{(k)}_k=\underset{N,n}{}C_{Nn}^{(k)}|Nn_k.$$
(10)
To see this, we recall that one will not measure degrees of freedom of E. This means that one measures only observables which take the following form;

$$\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E},$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ is an operator on $`_\mathrm{S}`$, and $`\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E}`$ denotes the unity operator on $`_\mathrm{E}`$. Note that $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}\widehat{1}_\mathrm{E}`$ must be gauge-invariant because of the gauge invariance of the total system, hence $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ must also be gauge-invariant. This requires that $`N_\mathrm{S}`$ ($`=_kN_k`$) should be conserved by the operation of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$. Hence, the matrix elements of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ should take the following form;

$${}_{1}{}^{}N_1n_1|\mathrm{}{}_{M}{}^{}N_Mn_M|\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}|N_M^{}n_M^{}_{M}^{}\mathrm{}|N_1^{}n_1^{}_{1}^{}=\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}}A_{N_1^{}n_1^{}\mathrm{}N_M^{}n_M^{}}^{N_1n_1\mathrm{}N_Mn_M}.$$
(12)
Hence, the expectation value of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ for $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ is evaluated as

$`A_\mathrm{S}=\mathrm{Tr}_\mathrm{S}\left(\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}\right)`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{N_1^{},n_1^{}}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{N_M^{},n_M^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{N_1,n_1}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{N_M,n_M}{}}C_{N_1^{}n_1^{}}^{(1)}\mathrm{}C_{N_M^{}n_M^{}}^{(M)}C_{N_Mn_M}^{(M)}\mathrm{}C_{N_1n_1}^{(1)}\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}}A_{N_1^{}n_1^{}\mathrm{}N_M^{}n_M^{}}^{N_1n_1\mathrm{}N_Mn_M}`$ (14)
$`={}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}\phi |\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}|\phi _{\mathrm{S}}^{},`$ (15)
and Eq. (9) is proved. The point is that Eqs. (6) and (12) contain the same Kronecker’s delta, $`\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}}`$. Although this factor in Eq. (6) makes $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ different from $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{S}\phi |`$, the difference becomes totally irrelevant to $`A_\mathrm{S}`$ because of the same factor in Eq. (12). (Recall that $`(\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}})^2=\delta _{N_1+\mathrm{}+N_M,N_1^{}+\mathrm{}+N_M^{}}`$.)

Moreover, we can easily show that $`\widehat{\rho }_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{M}}\mathrm{Tr}_M[\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}]`$ is also equivalent to a vector state, $`|C^{(1)}_1|C^{(2)}_2\mathrm{}|C^{(M)}_{M1}`$, where $`\mathrm{Tr}_M`$ denotes the trace operation over $`_M`$. This result is easily generalized: For states of the form of (2), its reduced density operator for any set of subsystems is completely equivalent to a vector state, which is a simple product of vector states of the individual subsystems, if one measures only gauge-invariant observables of the subsystems. Note that there is no ‘entanglement’ between any subsystems . In general, the absence of entanglement among subsystems means the ‘separability’, i.e., it is possible to control quantum states of individual subsystems independently by local operations . Hence, one can control the state $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ of each subsystem by local operations, without perturbing the other subsystems .

For example, for interacting many bosons, which are confined in a large but finite box, one may take $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ to be the ‘coherent state of interacting bosons’ (CSIB), which is defined by

$$|\alpha _k,\mathrm{G}_k=e^{|\alpha _k|^2/2}\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _k^N}{\sqrt{N!}}|N,\mathrm{G}_k,$$
(16)
where $`\alpha _k=|\alpha _k|e^{i\varphi _k}`$ is a complex amplitude, and $`|N,\mathrm{G}_k`$ denotes the ground state that has exactly $`N`$ bosons, which we call the ‘number state of interacting bosons’ (NSIB) . One may also take $`|C^{(l)}_l`$ as $`|\alpha _l,\mathrm{G}_l`$, where $`\alpha _l=|\alpha _l|e^{i\varphi _l}`$. Then, $`\widehat{\rho }_\mathrm{S}`$ is equivalent to

$$|\phi _\mathrm{S}=\mathrm{}|\alpha _k,\mathrm{G}_k\mathrm{}|\alpha _l,\mathrm{G}_l\mathrm{}$$
(17)
This state has an almost definite value of the relative phase $`\varphi _{kl}`$ between two condensates in Sk and Sl. To see this, we may define the operator (acting on $`_k_l`$) corresponding to $`e^{i\varphi _{kl}}`$ by

$$\widehat{e^{i\varphi _{kl}}}\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}(\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}})^{}.$$
(18)
Here, $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$, acting on $`_k`$, is not an exponential of some phase operator $`\widehat{\varphi }_k`$, but is defined by

$$\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}(\widehat{b}_{0k}^{}\widehat{b}_{0k}+1)^{1/2}b_{0k},$$
(19)
where $`\widehat{b}_{0k}`$ denotes the operator $`\widehat{b}_0`$, which is defined in Ref.  as a nonlinear function of free operators, for Sk. This operator is a linear combination of the cosine and sine operators of Ref. . In the same way, $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}}`$, acting on $`_l`$, is defined using $`\widehat{b}_{0l}`$, which is $`\widehat{b}_0`$ for Sl. By similar calculations as in Ref. , we can show that $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$, $`(\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}})^{}`$, and $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _{kl}}}`$ have almost definite values, and we can regard $`\varphi _{kl}\varphi _k\varphi _l`$. Hence, the state (17) has the almost definite value of the relative phase. It should not be confused with states of the following form, which have been frequently discussed in the literature ;

$$|\phi _{\mathrm{ent}}_\mathrm{S}=\underset{N}{}C_N\underset{N_k}{}\mathrm{}e^{iN_k\varphi _k}R_{N_k}|N_k,\mathrm{G}_k\mathrm{}e^{i(NN_k)\varphi _l}R_{NN_k}|NN_k,\mathrm{G}_l\mathrm{},$$
(20)
where $`C_N`$ is a complex coefficient and $`R`$’s are real ones. This state also has an almost definite relative phase if $`R`$’s are appropriately taken. However, since Sk and Sl are strongly entangled in this state , one cannot control the state of Sk by local operations on Sk, without perturbing the state of Sl. In contrast, this is possible for the simple product state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$. Moreover, we now show that $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ allows us to treat observables of individual subsystems separately.

As exemplified by $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _{kl}}}`$ above, $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ is generally a sum of products of operators of subsystems ;

$$\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}=\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{},$$
(21)
where $`\widehat{A}_k`$ ($`\widehat{A}_l`$) is an operator on $`_k`$ ($`_l`$), and the sum is over combinations of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{}`$. For the product state $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$, the expectation value of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ is simply evaluated from the expectation values of individual subsystems as

$${}_{\mathrm{S}}{}^{}\phi |\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}|\phi _{\mathrm{S}}^{}={}_{k}{}^{}C^{(k)}|\widehat{A}_k|C^{(k)}_{k}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}C^{(l)}|\widehat{A}_l|C^{(l)}_{l}^{}\mathrm{}.$$
(22)
From Eqs. (9) and (22), we can consider each subsystem separately from the other subsystems. Namely, for subsystem Sk, we can consider that its state is the vector state $`|C^{(k)}_k`$, and that $`\widehat{A}_k`$ is one of its observables. When the expectation value of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ for the set of subsystems is necessary, it can be evaluated from the expectation values of individual subsystems, as Eq. (22). Note that the gauge invariance of $`\widehat{A}_\mathrm{S}`$ does not require the gauge invariance of $`\widehat{A}_k`$ of each subsystem: It rather requires that only gauge-invariant combinations of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{}`$ should appear in the sum. \[Namely, each $`N_k`$ can vary by the operation of $`\widehat{A}_k`$, whereas $`N_\mathrm{S}`$ ($`=_kN_k`$) is conserved by the operation of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{}`$.\] For example, $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _{kl}}}`$ is gauge invariant, whereas neither $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$ nor $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}}`$ is. Hence, by considering $`\widehat{A}_k`$ as an observable of Sk, we can include non-gauge invariant operators into the set of observables in $`_k`$, with the restriction that among various combinations of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{}`$ we must take only gauge-invariant ones as physical combinations: Results for other combinations should be discarded. This formulation gives correct results for all gauge-invariant (thus physical) combinations. The vector state $`|C^{(k)}_k`$ then becomes a pure state of an irreducible representation of the algebra of observables of Sk, because non-gauge invariant observables are now included in the algebra . We have thus arrived at non-gauge invariant observables and a pure state which is a superposition of states with different charges, for each subsystem.

The restriction that we must take only gauge-invariant ones among various combinations of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l\mathrm{}`$ has the following physical meaning: If $`\widehat{A}_k`$ is a non-gauge invariant observable of Sk, then its value can only be defined relative to some reference observable $`\widehat{A}_l`$ of some reference system Sl. When $`|\phi _\mathrm{S}`$ takes the form of Eq. (17), for example, we can consider that Sk is in a pure state $`|\alpha _k,\mathrm{G}_k`$, and that the phase factor $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$ is one of observables on $`_k`$. However, like the classical phase factor, the quantum phase factor $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$ can only be defined relative to some reference (such as $`(\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}})^{}`$ of Sl). In contrast to the position observable, which also requires a reference system but it can be any system composed of any material, the reference system of the phase factor should contain particles of the same kind as the particles in Sk. Hence, the system of interest (Sk) and the reference system (Sl) should be subsystems of a larger system of the same kind of particles. When the larger system contains a huge system(s), of which we are not interested in, we may call it an environment E, and the present model is applicable. When one is only interested in Sk, the reference system Sl may be considered as a part of the external systems, which include an apparatus with which one measures $`\varphi _{kl}`$. In this case, the reference system Sl can be regarded as a part of the measuring apparatus. (In the case of measurement of the position, for example, a material which defines the origin of the position coordinate can be considered as a part of the measuring apparatus of the position.) Although $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}`$ is not gauge invariant, results of measurement is gauge invariant because $`\widehat{e^{i\varphi _k}}(\widehat{e^{i\varphi _l}})^{}`$ is gauge invariant. In general terms, although results of any physical measurements must be gauge invariant, it does not necessarily mean that any observables of a subsystem must be gauge-invariant, because the gauge invariance of $`\widehat{A}_k\widehat{A}_l`$ (which ensures the gauge invariance of results of measurements) does not necessarily mean the gauge invariance of $`\widehat{A}_k`$.

Finally, we present some significant applications of the present results. First, Our results give a natural interpretation of the order parameter $`\widehat{O}`$ of a finite system, which can exhibit the breaking of the gauge symmetry in the infinite-volume limit. Although one might suspect that $`\widehat{O}`$ must be excluded from observables since it is not gauge invariant, our results allow one to include it among observables as one of $`\widehat{A}_k`$’s. Second, one might also suspect that the CSSR would forbid a pure state which has a finite expectation value of $`\widehat{O}`$ because its expectation value vanishes for any eigenstate of $`\widehat{N}`$. However, our results show that such a pure state is allowed as a state of a subsystem, $`|C^{(k)}_k`$, which is not entangled with states of the other subsystems The absence of entanglement allows the preparation of such a pure state of a subsystem without perturbing the other subsystems (with perturbing the environment only). For interacting many bosons, for example, the order parameter of the condensation is usually taken as the field operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$ of bosons. The present work justifies taking such a non-gauge-invariant operator as an observable of a subsystem. The expectation value of $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is finite only for superpositions of states with different numbers of bosons. The present work justifies taking such a superposition as a pure state of a subsystem. More concretely, the expectation value of $`\widehat{\psi }`$ is finite for the CSIB, $`\alpha ,\mathrm{G}|\widehat{\psi }|\alpha ,\mathrm{G}=𝒪(1)`$, whereas it vanishes for the NSIB, $`N,\mathrm{G}|\widehat{\psi }|N,\mathrm{G}=0`$ . Although both the NSIB and CSIB have the off-diagonal long-range order , the gauge symmetry is broken, in the sense that $`\widehat{\psi }=𝒪(1)`$, only for the CSIB . Since the state vectors of the NSIB and CSIB are quite different, they have different properties. The most striking difference is that the NSIB decoheres much faster than the CSIB when bosons have a finite probability of leakage into a huge environment, whose boson density is zero . Moreover, it was shown that the CSIB has the ‘cluster property,’ which ensures that fluctuations of any intensive variables are negligible, in consistency with thermodynamics . Although the CSIB may look against the CSSR, the present work justifies taking it as a pure state of a subsystem, which, unlike the NSIB, is robust, symmetry breaking, and consistent with thermodynamics. In particular, generalizing Eq. (17), one can take CSIB’s for all subsystems. In this case, the joint subsystem S is in a pure state in which each subsystem is in a CSIB. Namely, the state vector of S behaves locally as a CSIB, which is robust, symmetry breaking, and consistent with thermodynamics. Moreover, unlike Eq. (20), one can controle states of individual susbsystems independently by local operations. These justify macroscopic theories such as the Ginzburg-Landau theory and the Gross-Pitaevskii theory, which assume, sometimes implicitly, that the order parameters can be defined locally, and that their fluctuations are negligible, and that the state vectors are robust against weak perturbation from environments, and that local operations do not cause global changes. We consider that such a locally-CSIB state should be (a good approximation to) a quantum state of real physical systems at low temperature, except for extreme cases such as bosons in a perfectly-closed box at a ultra-low temperature. Finally, we remark that we have not assumed that the particles in the environment are in (or, not in) a condensed phase.

We thank H. Tasaki and M. Ueda for discussions.