text:
# Operads and algebraic homotopy II: Suspensions

## 1. Introduction

The present paper forms a continuation of . Since that paper has not appeared, we begin by summarizing some of its relevant results.

The easiest way to convey the flavor of this paper’s results is with a simple example. Suppose $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are pointed, simply-connected, 2-reduced simplicial sets. There are many topological invariants associated with the chain-complexes of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ — including the coproduct and *$`S_n`$-*equivariant *higher coproducts* (used to define Steenrod operations):

$`\mathrm{R}S_nC(X)`$ $``$ $`C(X)^n`$
$`\mathrm{R}S_nC(Y)`$ $``$ $`C(Y)^n`$
for all $`n>1`$, where:

1. $`\mathrm{R}S_n`$ is the bar-resolution of $``$ over $`S_n`$.
2. $`()^n`$ denotes the $`n`$-fold tensor product over $``$ (with $`S_n`$ acting by permuting factors).

Now suppose we know (from a purely *algebraic* analysis of these *chain-complexes*) that there exists a chain-map inducing homology isomorphisms

$$f:C(X)C(Y)$$

and making

(1.1)
commute for all $`n>1`$ (requiring exact commutativity is unnecessarily restrictive, but we assume it to simplify this discussion).

Then our theory asserts that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are homotopy equivalent via a geometric map inducing a map chain-homotopic to $`f`$. In fact, our theory goes further than this: if $`f`$ is *any* chain-map making 1.1 commute for all $`n>1`$, there exists a map of topological realizations

$$F:|X||Y|$$

inducing a map equivalent to $`f`$ (see \[5, theorems 9.5 and 9.7\] for the exact statements). Essentially, Steenrod operations on the *chain-level* determine:

* the homotopy types of spaces and maps,
* *all* obstructions to topologically realizing chain-maps.

I view this work as a generalization of Quillen’s characterization of rational homotopy theory in  — he showed that rational homotopy types are determined by a commutative coalgebra structures on chain-complexes; we show that integral homotopy types are determined by coalgebra structures augmented by higher diagonals.

In \[5, § 2\], we define a category of m-coalgebras, $`𝔏_0`$ and a localization of it, $`𝔏`$ by a class of maps called elementary equivalences. This gives rise to a *homotopy theory* of m-coalgebras in terms of which we can state this paper’s main result:

*Theorem*  *:The functor*

$$𝒞():\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Homotop}}_0𝔏^+$$

*defines an equivalence of categories and homotopy theories (in the sense of ), where $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Homotop}}_0`$ is the homotopy category of pointed, simply-connected CW-complexes and continuous maps and $`𝔏^+𝔏`$ is the subcategory of topologically realizable m-coalgebras. In addition, there exists an equivalence of categories and homotopy theories*

$$𝒞():F𝔉^+$$

*where $`F`$ is the homotopy category of finite, pointed, simply-connected simplicial sets and $`𝔉^+`$ is the homotopy category of finitely generated, topologically realizable m-coalgebras in $`𝔏_0`$ localized with respect to finitely generated equivalences in $`𝔏_0`$.*

In the spirit of our initial statement, one corollary to this result is

*Corollary 9.20 of : Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be pointed, simply-connected semisimplicial sets and let*

$$f:𝒞(X)𝒞(Y)$$

*be a chain-map between canonical chain-complexes. Then $`f`$ is topologically realizable if and only if there exists an m-coalgebra $`C`$ over $`𝔖`$ and a factorization $`f=f_\beta f_\alpha `$*

*where $`f_\alpha `$ is a morphism of m-coalgebras, $`\iota `$ is an* elementary equivalence *— an injection of m-coalgebras with acyclic, $``$-free cokernel — and $`f_\beta `$ is a chain map that is a left inverse to $`\iota `$. If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are finite, we may require $`C`$ to be finitely generated.*

The present paper will study *stable homotopy* theory using similar techniques.

In § 3, we define the important concept of suspension of operads and characterize suspensions of spaces in terms of m-coalgebras. This leads to the definition of the operad $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$, which can be thought of as an infinite desuspension of the operad $`𝔖`$. The main result of this section is:

*Corollary 3.24: Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be pointed, simply-connected semisimplicial sets. Then there exists an integer $`k0`$ and a pointed map of topological realizations $`f:|S^kX||S^kY|`$ if and only if there exists a morphism $`g:𝔭_0^{}𝒞(X)^+𝔭_0^{}𝒞(Y)^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$ (the category of coalgebras over $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$). In this case, the following diagram commutes in $`𝔏`$*

(1.2)
*where*

1. *$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ denotes suspension of chain-complexes and base-operads. This is suspension in the sense of dimension-shifting.*
2. *$`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}()`$ denotes the 2-reduced singular complex functor.*
3. *$`||`$ denotes topological realization functor.*
4. *$`\iota _X:𝒞(X)𝒞(\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(|X|))`$ is the canonical (injective) equivalence.*

*In particular $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are stably homotopy equivalent if and only if $`𝔭_0^{}𝒞(X)^+`$ and $`𝔭_0^{}𝒞(Y)^+`$ are equivalent in the category $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$.*

In future papers, we will apply these results to Boardman’s *stable homotopy category.* The stable homotopy category contains much more than suspensions of spaces — for instance, it also includes arbitrary “formal desuspensions” of spaces and “idealized” space-objects that characterize generalized homology theories. Even *spaces* behave differently in this category — as though already “infinitely suspended.” The objects of this category are *spectra* — sequences of spaces with maps from the suspension of each term of the sequence to the next term.

## 2. Definitions

In this section, we recall some of the relevant definitions from .

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be two graded $``$-modules. A map of graded modules $`f:C_iD_{i+k}`$ will be said to be of degree $`k`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

For instance the differential of a chain-complex will be regarded as a degree $`1`$ map.

We will make extensive use of the Koszul Convention (see ) regarding signs in homological calculations:

###### Definition 2.3.

If $`f:C_1D_1`$, $`g:C_2D_2`$ are maps, and $`abC_1C_2`$ (where $`a`$ is a homogeneous element), then $`(fg)(ab)`$ is defined to be $`(1)^{\mathrm{deg}(g)\mathrm{deg}(a)}f(a)g(b)`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

This convention simplifies many of the common expressions that occur in homological algebra — in particular it eliminates complicated signs that occur in these expressions. For instance the differential, $`_{}`$, of the tensor product $`_C1+1_D`$.

Throughout this entire paper we will follow the convention that group-elements act on the left. Multiplication of elements of symmetric groups will be carried out accordingly — i.e.

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 2& 3& 1& 4\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 4& 3& 2& 1\end{array}\right)=$$

result of applying $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 2& 3& 1& 4\end{array}\right)`$ after applying $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 4& 3& 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ or n$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 4& 1& 3& 2\end{array}\right)`$.

Let $`f_i`$, $`g_i`$ be maps. It isn’t hard to verify that the Koszul convention implies that $`(f_1g_1)(f_2g_2)=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}(f_2)\mathrm{deg}(g_1)}(f_1f_2g_1g_2)`$.

We will also follow the convention that, if $`f`$ is a map between chain-complexes, $`f=f(1)^{\mathrm{deg}(f)}f`$. The compositions of a map with boundary operations will be denoted by $`f`$ and $`f`$ — see . This convention clearly implies that $`(fg)=(f)g+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}(f)}f(g)`$. We will call any map $`f`$ with $`f=0`$ a chain-map. We will also follow the convention that if $`C`$ is a chain-complex and $`:C\mathrm{\Sigma }C`$ and $`:C\mathrm{\Sigma }^1C`$ are, respectively, the suspension and desuspension maps, then $``$ and $``$ are both chain-maps. This implies that the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C`$ is $`_C`$ and the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1C`$ is $`_C`$.

###### Definition 2.5.

We will use the symbol $`T`$ to denote h transposition operator for tensor products of chain-complexes $`T:CDDC`$, where $`T(cd)=(1)^{dim(c)dim(d)}dc`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be chain-complexes. Then there exist isomorphisms

$$L_k=_{CD}^k(_C^k1_D):\mathrm{\Sigma }^kCD\mathrm{\Sigma }^k(CD)$$

sending $`cd\mathrm{\Sigma }^kC_iD_j`$ to $`cd\mathrm{\Sigma }^k(CD)_{i+j}`$, r , $`dD_j`$, and

$$M_k=_{CD}^k(1_C_D^k):C\mathrm{\Sigma }^kD\mathrm{\Sigma }^k(CD)$$

sending $`cdC_i\mathrm{\Sigma }^kD_j`$ to $`(1)^{ik}cd\mathrm{\Sigma }^k(CD)_{i+j}`$, for $`cC_i`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }^kD_j=D_{j+k}`$.

###### Definition 2.7.

Let $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers whose sum is $`|\alpha |`$. Define a set-mapping symmetric groups

$$\mathrm{T}_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n}:S_nS_{|\alpha |}$$

as follows:

1. for $`i`$ between 1 and $`n`$, let $`L_i`$ denote the length-$`\alpha _i`$ integer sequence:
2. ,where $`A_i=_{j=1}^{i1}\alpha _j`$ — so, for instance, the concatenation of all of the $`L_i`$ is the sequence of integers from 1 to $`|\alpha |`$;
3. $`\mathrm{T}_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n}(\sigma )`$ is the permutation on the integers $`1,\mathrm{},|\alpha |`$ that permutes the blocks $`\{L_i\}`$ via $`\sigma `$. In other words, $`\sigma `$ s the permutation

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{}& n\\ \sigma (1)& \mathrm{}& \sigma (n)\end{array}\right)$$

then $`\mathrm{T}_{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n}(\sigma )`$ is the permutation defined by writing

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& \mathrm{}& L_n\\ L_{\sigma (1)}& \mathrm{}& L_{\sigma (n)}\end{array}\right)$$

and regarding the upper and lower rows as sequences length $`|\alpha |`$.

###### Remark 2.8.

Do not confuse the $`T`$-maps defined here with the transposition map for tensor products of chain-complexes. We will use the special notation $`T_i`$ to represent $`T_{1,\mathrm{},2,\mathrm{},1}`$, where the 2 occurs in the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ position. The two notations don’t conflict since the old notation is never used in the case when $`n=1`$. Here is an example of the computation of $`\mathrm{T}_{2,1,3}((1,3,2))=\mathrm{T}_{2,1,3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 2& 3\\ 3& 1& 2\end{array}\right)`$:$`L_1=\{1\}2`$, $`L_2=\{3\}`$, $`L_3=\{4,5,6\}`$. The permutation maps the ordered set $`\{1,2,3\}`$ to $`\{3,1,2\}`$, so we carry out the corresponding mapping of the sequences $`\{L_1,L_2,L_3\}`$ to get $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& L_2& L_3\\ L_3& L_1& L_2\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\{1,2\}& \{3\}& \{4,5,6\}\\ \{4,5,6\}& \{1,2\}& \{3\}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& 6\\ 4& 5& 6& 1& 2& 3\end{array}\right)`$ (or $`((1,4)(2,5)(3,6))`$, in cycle notation).

###### Definition 2.9.

A sequence of differential graded $``$-free modules, $`\{𝒰_i\}`$, will be said to form an *operad* if they satisfy the following conditions:

1. there exists a *unit map* (defined by the commutative diagrams below)

$$\eta :𝒰_1$$
2. for all $`i>1`$, $`𝒰_i`$ is equipped with a left action of $`S_i`$, the symmetric group.
3. for all $`k1`$, and $`i_s0`$ there are maps

$$\gamma :𝒰_{i_1}\mathrm{}𝒰_{i_k}𝒰_k𝒰_i$$

where $`i=_{j=1}^ki_j`$.

The $`\gamma `$-maps must satisfy the following conditions:

the following diagrams commute, where $`j_t=j`$, $`i_s=i`$, and $`g_\alpha =_{\mathrm{}=1}^\alpha j_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`h_s=_{\beta =g_{s1}+1}^{g_s}i_\beta `$:

the following diagrams commute:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{}& \text{}\end{array}$$

the following diagrams commute:

where $`\sigma S_k`$, and the $`\sigma ^1`$ on the left permutes the factors $`\{𝒰_{j_i}\}`$ and the $`\sigma `$ on the right simply acts on $`𝒰_k`$. See 2.7 for a definition of $`\mathrm{T}_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_k}(\sigma )`$.

where $`\tau _sS_{j_s}`$ and $`\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _kS_j`$ is the block sum.

###### Remark 2.10.

The alert reader will notice a discrepancy between our definition of operad and that in  (on which it was based). The difference is due to our using operads as parameters for systems of *maps*, rather than $`n`$-ary operations. We, consequently, compose elements of an operad as one composes *maps*, i.e. the second operand is to the *left* of the first. This is also why the symmetric groups act on the *left* rather than on the right.

We will frequently want to think of operads in other terms:

###### Definition 2.11.

Let $`𝒰`$ be an operad as defined above. Given $`k_1k_2>0`$, define the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ *composition*

$$_i:𝒰_{k_2}𝒰_{k_1}𝒰_{k_1+k_2}$$

as the composite

(2.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i^{\text{th}}\text{factor}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}𝒰_{k_2}\mathrm{}}}𝒰_{k_1}\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i^{\text{th}}\text{factor}}{\underset{}{𝒰_1\mathrm{}𝒰_1𝒰_{k_2}𝒰_1\mathrm{}𝒰_1}}𝒰_{k_1}𝒰_{k_1+k_21}\end{array}$$

where the final map on the right is $`\gamma `$.

These compositions satisfy the following conditions, for all $`a𝒰_n`$, $`b𝒰_m`$, and $`c𝒰_t`$:

$`(a_ib)_jc=a_{i+j1}(b_jc)`$

$`a_{i+m1}(b_jc)=(1)^{mn}b_j(a_ic)`$

$`a_{\sigma (i)}(\sigma b)=\mathrm{T}_{\underset{i^{\mathrm{th}}\text{ position}}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},n,\mathrm{},1}}}(\sigma )(a_ib)`$

###### Remark 2.12.

In , I originally *defined* operads (or formal coalgebras) in terms of these compositions. It turned out that I’d recapitulated the historical sequence of events: operads were originally defined this way and called *composition algebras.* I am indebted to Jim Stasheff for pointing this out to me.

Given this definition of operad, we recover the $`\gamma `$ map in 2.9 by setting:

$$\gamma (u_{i_1}\mathrm{}u_{i_k})=u_{i_1}_1\mathrm{}_{k1}u_{i_k}_ku_k$$

(where the implied parentheses associate to the right). It is left to the reader to verify that the two definitions are equivalent (the commutativity condition, here, is a special case of the equivariance condition).

Morphisms of operads are defined in the obvious way:

###### Definition 2.13.

Given two operads $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒱`$, a *morphism*

$$f:𝒰𝒱$$

is a sequence of chain-maps

$$f_i:𝒰_i𝒱_i$$

commuting with all the diagrams in 2.9 or (equivalently) preserving the composition operations in 2.11.

Now we give some examples:

###### Definition 2.14.

The operad $`𝔖_0`$ is defined via

1. Its $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ component is $`S_n`$ — a chain-complex concentrated in dimension $`0`$.
2. The composition operations are defined by

$$\gamma (\sigma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i_k}\sigma )=\sigma _{i_{\sigma (k)}}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i_{\sigma (k)}}\mathrm{T}_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}(\sigma )$$

###### Remark 2.15.

This was denoted $`M`$ in .

Verification that this satisfies the required identities is left to the reader as an exercise.

###### Definition 2.16.

Let $`𝔖`$ denote the $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-operad with components

$$\mathrm{R}S_n$$

— the bar resolutions of $``$ over $`S_n`$ for all $`n>0`$. This is an important operad and \[5, § 2.3\] is devoted to it.

###### Remark 2.17.

This is the result of applying the “unreduced bar construction” to the previous example.

###### Definition 2.18.

$`\mathrm{Coassoc}`$ is an operad defined to have one basis element $`\{b_i\}`$ for all integers $`i0`$. Here the rank of $`b_i`$ is $`i`$ and the degree is 0 and the these elements satisfy the composition-law: $`b_i_\alpha b_j=b_{i+j1}`$ regardless of the value of $`\alpha `$, which can run from $`1`$ to $`j`$. The differential of this operad is identically zero.

Now we define two important operads associated to any $``$-module.

###### Definition 2.19.

Let $`C`$ be a DGA-module with augmentation $`ϵ:C`$, and with the property that $`C_0=`$. Then the *Coendomorphism* operad, $`\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)`$, is defined to be the operad with:

1. component of $`\mathrm{rank}i=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(C,C^i)`$, with the differential induced by that of $`C`$ and $`C^i`$. The dimension of an element of $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(C,C^i)`$ (for some $`i`$) is defined to be its degree as a map.
2. The $``$-summand is generated by one element, $`e`$, of rank 0.

###### Remark 2.20.

Both operads are unitary — their common identity element is the identity map $`\mathrm{id}\mathrm{Hom}_{}(C,C)`$. One motivation for operads is that they model the iterated coproducts that occur in $`\mathrm{CoEnd}()`$. We will use operads as an algebraic framework for defining other constructs that have topological applications.

In like fashion, we define the endomorphism operad:

###### Definition 2.21.

If $`C`$ is a DGA-module, the *endomorphism operad*, $`\mathrm{End}(C)`$ is defined to have components

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{}(C^n,C)$$

and compositions that coincide with endomorphism compositions.

Now we consider a special class of operads that play a crucial role in the sequel:

###### Definition 2.22.

An operad $`𝒰=\{𝒰_n\}`$ will be called an $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-operad if $`𝒰_n`$ is a $`S_n`$-free resolution of $``$ for all $`n>0`$.

Given these definitions, we can define:

###### Definition 2.23.

Let $`𝒰`$ be an operad and let $`C`$ be a DG-module equipped with a morphism (of operads)

$$f:𝒰\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

Then $`C`$ is called a *coalgebra* over $`𝒰`$ with structure map $`f`$. If $`C`$ is equipped with a morphism of operads

$$f:𝒰\mathrm{End}(C)$$

then $`C`$ is called a *algebra* over $`𝒰`$ with structure map $`f`$.

###### Remark 2.24.

A coalgebra, $`C`$, over an operad, $`𝒰`$, is a sequence of maps

$$f_n:𝒰CC^n$$

for all $`n>0`$, where $`f_n`$ is $`S_n`$-equivariant. These maps are related in the sense that they fit into commutative diagrams:

for all $`n,m1`$ and $`1im`$. Here $`V:𝒰_nC^mC^{i1}𝒰_nCC^{mi}`$ is the map that shuffles the factor $`𝒰_n`$ to the right of $`i1`$ factors of $`C`$. In other words: The abstract composition-operations in $`𝒰`$ exactly correspond to compositions of maps in $`\{\mathrm{Hom}_{}(C,C^n)\}`$. We exploit this behavior in applications of coalgebras over operads, using an explicit knowledge of the algebraic structure of $`𝒰`$.

In very simple cases, one can explicitly describe the maps defining a coalgebra over an operad:

###### Definition 2.25.

Define the coalgebra, $`I`$*the unit interval* — over $`𝔖`$ via:

1. Its $``$-generators are $`\{p_0,p_1\}`$ in dimension $`0`$ and $`q`$ in dimension $`1`$, and its adjoint structure map is $`r_n:\mathrm{R}S_nII^n`$, for all $`n>1`$.
2. The coproduct is given by $`r_2([]p_i)=p_ip_i`$, $`i=0,1`$, and $`r_2([]q)=p_0q+qp_1`$.
3. The higher coproducts are given by $`r_2([(1,2)]q=qq`$, $`r_2([(1,2)]p_i)=0`$, $`i=0,1`$ and $`r_2(aI)=0`$, where $`a\mathrm{R}S_2`$ has dimension $`>1`$.

###### Remark 2.26.

This, coupled with the operad-identities in $`𝔖`$ suffice to define the coalgebra structure of $`I`$ in all dimensions and for all degrees.

###### Proposition 2.27.

Coassociative coalgebras are precisely the coalgebras over $`\mathrm{Coassoc}`$.

###### Remark 2.28.

There are some subtleties to this definition, however. It is valid if we regard $`\mathrm{Coassoc}`$ as a non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ operad. If we regard it as an operad with *trivial* symmetric group action, then we have defined coassociative, *cocommutative* coalgebras.

We can define tensor products of operads:

###### Definition 2.29.

Let $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$ be operads. Then $`𝒰_1𝒰_2`$ is defined to have:

1. component of $`\mathrm{rank}i=(𝒰_1)_i(𝒰_2)_i`$, where $`(𝒰_1)_i`$ and $`(𝒰_2)_i`$ are, respectively, the components of $`\mathrm{rank}i`$ of $`𝒰_1`$ and $`𝒰_2`$;
2. composition operations defined via $`(ab)_i(cd)=(1)^{dim(b)dim(c)}(a_ic)(b_id)`$, for $`a,c𝒰_1`$ and $`b,d𝒰_2`$.

We conclude this section with

###### Definition 2.30.

An operad, $``$, will be called an *operad-coalgebra* if there exists a co-associative morphism of operads

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:$$

###### Remark 2.31.

Operad-coalgebras are important in certain homotopy-theoretic contexts — for instance in the study of the bar and cobar constructions. The $`𝔖`$-operad is a particularly important operad of this type.

## 3. Suspensions

### 3.1. Chain-complexes and operads

In this section, we will compute the effect of a suspension in some detail. We begin with a word on notation. There is the well-known concept of suspension of a chain-complex: this is just the given chain-complex with dimensions shifted up or down. In , we defined the concept of suspension of an m-coalgebra that corresponded to the topological notion of suspension. Now the problem: although m-coalgebras are also chain-complexes, their suspensions as *chain-complexes* are *not* the same as their suspensions as *m-coalgebras*.

We will consequently use the notation $`SC`$ for the supension of $`C`$ as an *m-coalgebra* (this is the suspension that has topological significance).

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`C=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the chain-complex concentrated in dimension $`1`$ and define $`\mathrm{Susp}=\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)`$, the *suspension operad.* In like fashion, we can define $`\mathrm{Susp}^1=\mathrm{CoEnd}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)`$, the *desuspension* operad.

###### Remark 3.2.

Note that $`\mathrm{Susp}_n`$ is a chain-complex concentrated in dimension $`n1`$ equal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{n1}`$, with compositions defined by

$$s_n_is_m=(1)^{(i1)(n1)}s_{n+m1}$$

where $`s_n\mathrm{Susp}_n`$ is the canonical generator. The $`S_n`$-action on $`s_n`$ is defined by

$$\sigma s_n=(1)^{\mathrm{parity}(\sigma )}s_n$$

where $`\sigma S_n`$.

Note that there are two distinct, but canonically isomorphic, ways of defining $`\mathrm{Susp}`$. We have selected the definition that corresponds to composing maps $`f,g\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)`$ to have $`f_ig`$ mean “the map $`g`$ *followed by* the map $`f`$.”

This definition was motivated by

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`C`$ is a chain-complex

$$\mathrm{CoEnd}(\mathrm{\Sigma }C)=\mathrm{Susp}\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

###### Remark 3.4.

Note that the suspensions here are those of *chain-complexes* (i.e., simple dimension-shifting) rather than the (topologically motivated) notion of *m-coalgebra* suspension defined in \[5, 3.36\]. We will connect these two notions later in this section.

For the component of degree $`n`$, the isomorphisms in question are precisely $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(,\underset{n\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}})`$, which lower dimension by $`n1`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C=\mathrm{\Sigma }C`$. The conclusion follows from the injective operad-morphism (see \[5, Proposition 3.4\])

$$𝔈:\mathrm{CoEnd}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)\mathrm{CoEnd}(\mathrm{\Sigma }C)$$

which is an isomorphism in this case (since $`D=\mathrm{Susp}`$ has finitely generated components). ∎

We can use this to define the concept of *suspension of an operad:*

###### Definition 3.5.

Given an operad $`A`$, we define its suspension $`\mathrm{\Sigma }A`$ to be the operad $`\mathrm{Susp}A`$ and its *desuspension,* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1A`$, to be the operad $`\mathrm{Susp}^1A`$. The *suspension isomorphism* $`:A\mathrm{\Sigma }A`$ is a set of isomorphisms

$$_n:A_n(\mathrm{\Sigma }A)_n$$

of degree $`n1`$ (i.e., $`_n`$ raises dimension by $`n1)`$ for all $`n>0`$ such that:

1. The identity

$$_n(gx)=(1)^{\mathrm{parity}(g)}g_n(x)$$

holds for all $`n>0`$, all $`xA_n`$ and all $`gS_n`$.
2. The identity

$$_{n+m1}(a_ib)=(1)^{(m1)dima+(n1)(i1)}_n(a)_i_m(b)$$

holds for all $`n,m>0`$, all $`aA_n`$ and $`bA_m`$, and all $`0im`$.

Although suspension-isomorphisms are not operad-morphisms (they do not even preserve dimension) they clearly define a functor from the category of operads to itself.

###### Definition 3.6.

Let $`k0`$ be an integer and define define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏`$ to be the category of DG-coalgebras over the operad $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖`$ that are $`k`$-fold desuspensions (in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-sense) of m-coalgebras. Define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏=\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏_0[H^1]`$ where $`H`$ is the class of morphisms of coalgebras over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖`$ inducing *homology isomorphisms* of underlying chain-complexes.

By *definition*

###### Proposition 3.7.

Desuspension defines isomorphisms of categories

$$^k:𝔏\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏$$

for all $`k0`$.

### 3.2. m-coalgebras

For the remainder of this section, we will focus on m-coalgebras over the operad $`𝔖`$ and consider suspensions of m-coalgebras as defined in \[5, 3.36\].

There are important differences between suspending m-coalgebras and arbitrary coalgebras over an operad. For instance m-coalgebras contain a sub-coalgebra isomorphic to the *trivial m-coalgebra,* $``$ — the *basepoint*. In addition, there exists a canonical surjection of coalgebras

$$C$$

that is a left-inverse to inclusion of the basepoint. The basepoint does *not* participate in suspension.

###### Definition 3.8.

Let $`k`$ be an integer $`0`$, and let $`C`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏_0`$. Then we define $`C^+=C/\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k=C_k`$ is the (desuspended) basepoint.

###### Remark 3.9.

By \[5, 2.35\], this quotient is a coalgebra over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖`$.

###### Definition 3.10.

Let $`k`$ be an integer $`0`$, and let $`C`$ be an object of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏_0`$ with structure-map

$$a:\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

We will call $`C`$ *reduced* if its coproduct is trivial – i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=a(\mathrm{\Sigma }^k[])(x)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^k1x+x\mathrm{\Sigma }^k1$$

for all $`xC`$, where $`1C_k`$ is the (desuspended) basepoint.

The following is immediate:

###### Proposition 3.11.

Let $`k`$ be an integer $`0`$, and let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be reduced objects of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏_0`$. Then $`CD`$ if and only if $`C^+D^+`$.

Now we are in a position to begin to calculate the $`S`$-suspension of m-coalgebras.

###### Proposition 3.12.

Let $`[0,1]`$ denote the standard 1-simplex, with vertices $`\{[0],[1]\}`$, and let $`\mathrm{Susp}`$ be the operad defined in 3.1. *Then there exists a surjective operad-morphism*

(3.1)
$$\tau :\mathrm{CoEnd}(𝒞([0,1]))\mathrm{Susp}$$

###### Proof.

This is just the morphism of $`\mathrm{CoEnd}()`$-operads induced by the chain-map

$$𝒞([0,1])𝒞([0,1])/𝒞([0,1])_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

###### Proposition 3.13.

There exists a surjective operad-morphism

$$𝔙:𝔖\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔖$$

that makes the following diagram commute

###### Remark 3.14.

The morphism $`𝔙`$ coincides with the *determinant map* defined in . Note that \[5, Proposition 2.26\] does not apply since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔖`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1𝔖`$ are not $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$-operads. Although the $`\{𝔙_n\}`$ do not induce homology isomorphisms, they do define cohomology classes

$$\{\alpha _nH^{n1}(S_n,)\}$$

for all $`n>0`$.

###### Proof.

Identify $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔖`$ with the operad $`\mathrm{Susp}𝔖`$, by 3.5. Now form the composite

(3.2)
where

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝔖𝔖𝔖`$ is the canonical coproduct defined in ,
2. the morphism $`\tau `$ is defined in 3.1,
3. $`U=𝒞([0,1])`$,
4. $`u:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(U)`$ is the structure map of the m-structure of $`𝒞([0,1])`$.

We will use this to describe the m-structure of suspensions.

###### Proposition 3.15.

Let $`C`$ be an m-coalgebra over $`𝔖`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }C^+=(SC)^+$$

as chain-complexes.

###### Proof.

Recall that

$$SC=𝒞(S^1)C=𝒞(I)C/([0]C^++[1]C^++[0,1]^+p)$$

where $`pC_0=`$ is the basepoint and $`[0]`$ is the basepoint of $`[0,1]`$. This means that the basepoint of $`SC`$ is $`[0]p`$ and $`(SC)^+=[0,1]C^+=\mathrm{\Sigma }C^+=\mathrm{\Sigma }C^+`$. ∎

The following result relates our two distinct notions of suspension

###### Theorem 3.16.

Let $`C`$ be an m-coalgebra over $`𝔖`$ with structure map

$$a_C:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

whose suspension (as an m-coagebra) is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C`$ with structure map

$$a_{SC}:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(SC)$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C^+=(SC)^+`$. Suppose that the corresponding reduced m-coalgebras have the structure maps

$$a_C^+:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(C^+)$$

and

$$a_{SC}^+:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}((SC)^+)=\mathrm{CoEnd}(\mathrm{\Sigma }C^+)$$

respectively. Then the following diagram commutes

(3.3)
where all vertical maps are operad-morphisms and the the $``$-maps are suspension-isomorphisms of operads (see 3.5).

###### Proof.

This follows from 3.13 and the definition of the m-structure of the (geometric) suspension. Let $`C`$ be an m-coalgebra over $`𝔖`$ with structure map

$$a:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

and let the structure map of the unit interval $`I=𝒞([0,1])`$ be

$$u:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(I)$$

Then the suspension has a structure map that is the composite

(3.4)
Where

1. $`𝔈:\mathrm{CoEnd}(I)\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)\mathrm{CoEnd}(IC)`$ is the operad morphism defined in \[5, Proposition 3.4\]
2. $`q:\mathrm{CoEnd}(IC)\mathrm{CoEnd}((SC)^+)`$ is induced by the quotient map $`ICIC/([0]C^++[1]C^++[0,1]^+p+[0]p)=(SC)^+`$

Now observe that the left column is $`𝔙`$ and that the right is the structure map of $`(SC)^+`$.

###### Corollary 3.17.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be m-coalgebras over $`𝔖`$ with reduced structure morphisms

$$a_C:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(C^+)$$

and

$$a_D:𝔖\mathrm{CoEnd}(D^+)$$

respectively. Then a morphism $`f:SCD`$ gives rise to a commutative diagram

(3.5)
###### Proof.

Just desuspend the left square of diagram 3.3 (and interchange its columns) to get

and splice in the commutative square representing a morphism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1f:\mathrm{\Sigma }^1SC\mathrm{\Sigma }^1D`$ (in $`𝔏_0^1`$)

The “outer rim” of the result is precisely 3.5. ∎

The following is straightforward, but should be said

###### Definition 3.18.

Given a coalgebra $`C`$ over an operad $`_1`$ with structure map

$$a:_1\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

and a morphism of operads

$$f:_2_1$$

the *pullback*, $`f^{}C`$ is defined to be the coalgebra over $`_2`$ with structure map

$$af:_2\mathrm{CoEnd}(C)$$

We have two distinct ways of converting objects of $`𝔏`$ into objects of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏`$: by desuspending, as in 3.7, or by pulling back structure morphisms over

$$𝔘^k=\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔙^k:\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖𝔖$$

as in 3.17.

The first method desuspends the underlying chain-complex (so we get a chain-complex that extends into negative dimensions), and the second does not. These two functors are related by:

###### Theorem 3.19.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be m-coalgebras over $`𝔖`$ with structure-maps $`a_C`$ and $`a_D`$, respectively, let $`k`$ be an integer $`>0`$. Then $`S^kC`$ is equivalent to $`S^kD`$ in $`𝔏`$ if and only if $`(𝔘^k)^{}C^+`$ is equivalent to $`(𝔘^k)^{}D^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏`$.

###### Proof.

This follows by an inductive application of 3.16. ∎

###### Definition 3.20.

Consider the inverse system of operads

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖\mathrm{\Sigma }^{i+1}𝔖\mathrm{}𝔖$$

whose maps are

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔘:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{i1}𝔖\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖$$

Denote the corresponding inverse limit by $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$. The morphism $`𝔘:\mathrm{\Sigma }^1𝔖𝔖`$ induces an operad-endomorphism

$$𝔘:𝔖_{\mathrm{}}𝔖_{\mathrm{}}$$

In addition, $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ comes equipped with canonical operad-morphisms

$$𝔭_n:𝔖_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^n𝔖$$

###### Remark 3.21.

We may think of $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ as “$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔖`$” and the projections $`𝔭_n`$ as “$`𝔘^\mathrm{}n`$”. This makes some sense if one notes that all of the $`𝔘^n`$ maps are *surjective* so that there are isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^n𝔖F^n\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖\}$$

where $`F^n\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖\}`$ is a “finite” portion of the inverse limit — the sub-operad of

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^i𝔖$$

composed of sequences $`\{\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _n\}`$ with $`\alpha _i=𝔘(\alpha _{i+1})`$ for all $`i<n`$.

###### Definition 3.22.

Let $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ denote the category of coalgebras over $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ and let $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}=𝔏_{\mathrm{}}^{}[H^1]`$, where $`H`$ is the class of morphisms inducing homology-isomorphisms.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏_0𝔏_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ be the subcategory with the property that each object, $`O`$, of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏_0`$ is of the form $`𝔭_k^{}Z`$,

1. where $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏_0`$ for some value of $`k`$, and
2. $`𝔭_k:𝔖_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔖`$, as defined in 3.20.

Given an object $`O`$, of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏_0`$ of the form $`𝔭_k^{}Z`$, we will call the integer $`k`$ the *level* of $`O`$. In addition, define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏_0[H^1]`$, where $`H`$ is the class of morphisms inducing homology isomorphisms. Then morphisms $`m:O_1O_2`$ are diagrams of the form

$$O_1Z_1\mathrm{}Z_nO_2$$

with each $``$ representing a morphism to the left or right, and all left-pointing arrows inducing homology equivalences. We will define the *level of the morphism* $`m`$ to be

$$\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{level}(O_1),\mathrm{level}(Z_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{level}(Z_n),\mathrm{level}(O_2)\}$$

###### Corollary 3.23.

Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be m-coalgebras. Then there exists an integer $`k>0`$ and a morphism $`S^kCS^kD`$ in $`𝔏`$ if and only if there exists a morphism $`𝔭_0^{}C^+𝔭_0^{}D^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$. The two morphisms induce identical maps of chain-complexes. In particular, there exists an integer $`k>0`$ such that $`S^kC`$ is equivalent to $`S^kD`$ in $`𝔏`$ if and only if $`𝔭_0^{}C^+`$ is equivalent to $`𝔭_0^{}D^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$.

###### Proof.

We begin by proving the *if*-part: If there exists a morphism $`S^kCS^kD`$ then, by 3.19, $`(𝔘^k)^{}C^+(S^kC)^+`$ and $`(𝔘^k)^{}D^+(S^kD)^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏`$. Since $`𝔭_k𝔘^k=𝔭_0`$, the morphism $`S^kCS^kD`$ induces a morhism

$$𝔭_0^{}C^+𝔭_0^{}D^+$$

in $`𝔏_{\mathrm{}}`$.

One the other hand, suppose there exists a morphism $`𝔭_0^{}C^+𝔭_0^{}D^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$, of level $`k`$ (see 3.22). Then there exists a sequence

(3.6)
$$𝔭_0^{}C^+Z_1\mathrm{}Z_t𝔭_0^{}D^+$$

where each arrow, $``$, points to the left or right and the left-pointing arrows induce homology isomorphisms. Suppose $`Z_i=𝔭_{k_i}^{}W_i`$, where $`W_i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{k_i}𝔏_0`$. Then $`k=\mathrm{max}\{k_i\}`$. We convert 3.6 into a sequence

$$(𝔘^k)^{}C^+(𝔘^{kk_1})^{}Z_1\mathrm{}(𝔘^{kk_t})^{}Z_t(𝔘^k)^{}D^+$$

which defines a morphism $`(𝔘^k)^{}C^+(𝔘^k)^{}D^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k𝔏`$. The conclusion follows by 3.19. ∎

###### Corollary 3.24.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be pointed, simply-connected semisimplicial sets. Then there exists an integer $`k0`$ and a pointed map of topological realizations $`f:|S^kX||S^kY|`$ if and only if there exists a morphism $`g:𝔭_0^{}𝒞(X)^+𝔭_0^{}𝒞(Y)^+`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$. In this case, the following diagram commutes in $`𝔏`$

(3.7)
where

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^k`$ denotes suspension of chain-complexes and base-operads. This is suspension in the sense of dimension-shifting.
2. $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}()`$ denotes the 2-reduced singular complex functor.
3. $`||`$ denotes topological realization functor.
4. $`\iota _X:𝒞(X)𝒞(\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}(|X|))`$ is the canonical (injective) equivalence.

In particular $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are stably homotopy equivalent if and only if $`𝔭_0^{}𝒞(X)^+`$ and $`𝔭_0^{}𝒞(Y)^+`$ are equivalent in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}𝔏`$.

###### Remark 3.25.

Note that $`𝔏`$ is the localized category $`𝔏_0[H^1]`$, so that the commutativity of 3.7 in $`𝔏`$ implies its *homotopy* commutativity in $`𝔏_0`$.

Note that the basepoints have fallen out of the picture: the stable homotopy type of $`X`$ is determined by the reduced m-coalgebra $`𝒞(X)^+`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from 3.23, which implies that $`S^k𝒞(X)`$ is equivalent to $`S^k𝒞(Y)`$ in $`𝔏`$ and \[5, Theorem 9.9\]. ∎


format: text

text:
# Some Navigation Rules for D-Brane Monodromy

## 1 Introduction

There has been something of an evolution in our ideas about how a D-brane should be considered. For the purposes of this paper we are interested only in the even-dimensional branes in a type II string (so-called “B-branes”). The sequence of a ideas have progressed roughly as follows

1. A D-brane is something on which an open string may end.
2. A D-brane is a $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ gauge theory living on a subspace with scalar fields spanning the normal bundle.
3. A D-brane should be viewed as coming from K-theory .
4. A D-brane should be viewed as an object of the derived category111In this paper the derived category will always be bounded at both ends. of coherent sheaves  (see also ).

We could also add that for non trivial $`H`$ field a D-brane should be viewed as an object of the derived category of sheaves of modules over an Azumaya algebra . We will assume $`H`$ is trivial and so view D-Branes as an object of the derived category of coherent sheaves. We will consider our target space to be a Calabi–Yau threefold $`X`$ and we denote the derived category in question as $`𝐃(X)`$. For the purposes of this paper we ignore any issues concerning the stability of D-branes. Our D-branes, which are objects of $`𝐃(X)`$, were called “topological D-branes” in  where issues of stability were discussed.

The reason that $`𝐃(X)`$ is “better” than K-theory is that it contains so much more information. For example any 0-brane on $`X`$ corresponds to the same single element of K-theory whereas the object of $`𝐃(X)`$ corresponding to a 0-brane knows where this point is. That is, K-theory measures the charge of the D-brane but $`𝐃(X)`$ tells us more and possibly all we could wish to know about a particular D-brane.

As well as being knowledgeable about D-branes, $`𝐃(X)`$ is also very knowledgeable about $`X`$ itself. This shouldn’t be too surprising as if we know about all the 0-branes on $`X`$ then we know about all the points on $`X`$ and so we should know about $`X`$ itself. Indeed for a very large class of algebraic varieties it was shown by Bondal and Orlov  that $`X`$ is completely determined, as an algebraic variety, by $`𝐃(X)`$. While this process doesn’t quite work for Calabi–Yau varieties it is easy to speculate that adding such data as the spectrum of central charges while in a “Calabi–Yau phase” may provide the missing information. This would allow the target space to be constructed only given worldsheet information. Clearly therefore the derived category should be of great physical as well as mathematical interest.

An interesting question, also studied in , concerns in how many ways one may associate a derived category to a fixed $`X`$. An “autoequivalence” of a derived category is a map from the category to itself preserving all the intrinsic algebraic structure associated to the category. Such a map need not preserve D-branes themselves. For example an object representing a 2-brane may become something which more resembles a 4-brane under such a transformation. In terms of string theory, these autoequivalences can arise from monodromy in the moduli space of the complexified Kähler form as first observed by Kontsevich . Indeed, the fact that this monodromy action on $`𝐃(X)`$ can be understood at all is one the appealing aspects of the derived category. It was suggested in  that the derived category should play a rôle in the heterotic string for similar reasons.

Since many interesting questions about $`𝐃(X)`$ are associated to these monodromies, the purpose of this paper is to explore some of the aspects of these monodromies. The analysis of monodromies when the moduli space of complexified Kähler forms has only one complex dimension is pretty easy as we review in section 3. Most of the interesting properties of monodromy do not appear until we explore higher-dimensional moduli spaces. We do this in the later sections.

One should note that many of these problems can be, and have been, performed using the method of solving the Picard–Fuchs equations and using analytic continuation (see  etc.). These methods have been used in the context of D-branes in such papers as . Instead we will use the language of derived categories where, we believe, the structure is much simpler to understand. In this way, computation of the monodromy is extremely easy (at least on the cohomology classes) and does not require the aid of a computer. Note that we are not being at all original in using the derived category — computations along these lines have been done in  for example. Our work differs from the latter only in the way we probe more deeply into the moduli space addressing such questions as monodromy around Landau–Ginzburg points in multi-parameter examples. Monodromy using the derived category approach has also been studied recently in papers such as .

Some interesting papers  have appeared recently which compute the finite monodromy associated to orbifold theories by using the method of “helices and mutations of exceptional sheaves”. One of the motivations of this paper was to better understand this construction in the language of the derived category. We discuss the connection (and differences) in section 4. We also study the case of reducible exceptional divisors in section 6.2 which appears, at least at first sight, to lie somewhat outside the method of helices.

At least in the context of Batyrev-type Calabi–Yau varieties associated to toric geometry , it seems possible to rigorously classify all types of monodromy. Indeed Horja  has achieved this in the neighbourhood of the large radius limit. Rather than attempt such a classification we will simply go through some examples which appear to demonstrate most of the interesting things which can happen.

Our analysis is closely tied to the “phase picture”  of the moduli space. One has various limit points in the moduli space each of which lies in the centre of some phase. There are naturally embedded $`^1`$’s in the moduli space which connect adjacent limit points. We are concerned with monodromy within, or almost within, such $`^1`$’s. Most of the “interesting” questions one could ask about monodromy appear to be contained in this structure.

In section 5 we exhaustively study a two-parameter example obtaining all interesting monodromies associated to this model. In section 6 we study some aspects of another couple of examples which exhibit some properties not seen in section 5.

Because of the prominent rôle played by the 0-brane in the construction of Bondal and Orlov, we discuss some of its properties under monodromies in section 7.

## 2 Autoequivalences and the Fourier-Mukai Transform

In this section we will quickly review the language we use for the derived category. See  for more information about the derived category itself and  for more on some of the notation used below.

Douglas  has argued that the even-dimensional D-branes on a Calabi–Yau $`X`$ should be associated with objects in the derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$. The morphisms in this category are associated to open strings. Given a particular object $`\mathrm{K}`$ of $`𝐃(X\times X)`$ we associate projections

(1)
and the Fourier–Mukai transform

$$T_\mathrm{K}(\mathrm{F})=𝐑p_2(\mathrm{K}\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_1^{}\mathrm{F}),$$
(2)
for any object $`\mathrm{F}`$ of $`𝐃(X)`$.

If $`\mathrm{K}`$ is chosen carefully (see  for details) then the Fourier–Mukai transform will be an “autoequivalence” of $`𝐃(X)`$. Namely it maps $`𝐃(X)`$ back to itself while preserving the important algebraic structure associated to the “distinguished triangles”. What this means for us is that the physics should remain invariant under such a transformation.

There are two cases of such $`\mathrm{K}`$’s which are of particular interest which will be denoted $`\mathrm{K}^B`$ and $`\mathrm{K}^K`$. First let $`L`$ be a line bundle (or invertible sheaf) over $`X`$ and let $`j:XX\times X`$ be the diagonal embedding. Then let $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ (where the superscript $`B`$ stands for “$`B`$-field” for reasons to become clear) be the object of $`𝐃(X\times X)`$ given by

$$\mathrm{}0j_{}L0\mathrm{},$$
(3)
such that the nontrivial term is at the 0th position.

Now consider the object of $`𝐃(X)`$ given by a sheaf at 0th position:

$$\mathrm{}00\mathrm{}$$
(4)
If we apply to (4) the Fourier–Mukai transform associated to $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{}0L0\mathrm{}$$
(5)
To relate this to string theory, let $``$ be a sheaf supported over some subspace of $`X`$. That is, we have a D-brane wrapping this subspace. All we have done by applying this transform is to change the field-strength of the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ gauge bundle over the D-brane. Gauge invariance forces the combination $`FB`$ to be appear in the action of the D-brane. The above transformation must therefore be equivalent to $`BB+L`$. (Note that we use $`L`$ to denote the line bundle, the associated divisor class and the dual 2-form $`c_1(L)`$.) Thus we may assert (as was also done in ) that the transformations associated to $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ are those of a $`B`$-field shift $`BB+L`$.

Another transformation of interest is that of Seidel and Thomas  given by

$$\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K=\text{Cone}\left\{\mathrm{E}^{}\mathrm{E}j_{}𝒪_X\right\},$$
(6)
where $`𝒪_X`$ is the structure sheaf of $`X`$. The superscript $`K`$ stands for “Kontsevich” who was the first to use this kind of transformation in the context of string theory . Here the notation $`AB`$ is short for $`p_1^{}Ap_2^{}B`$. The object $`\mathrm{E}`$ is any object of $`𝐃(X)`$ which satisfies the sphericity conditions given in . We refer to  for a nice description of the cone construction.

Now the associated Fourier–Mukai transform simplifies to the following :

$$T_{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K}(\mathrm{F})=\text{Cone}\left\{\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{E},\mathrm{F})\mathrm{E}\stackrel{f}{}\mathrm{F}\right\},$$
(7)
where $`f`$ is the obvious evaluation map.

It is worth pointing out a subtle but potentially important point. The cone construction is not a particularly well-defined functor in the context of the derived category. We refer to section 1.4 of chapter 5 of  for a discussion of the problems. By writing the transformation in the form (7) we potentially expose ourselves to such ambiguities. One should always bare in mind however that the transformation exists as a Fourier–Mukai transform (2) which yields a perfectly well defined functor from $`𝐃(X)`$ to itself. In particular the cone appearing in (6) is only defining $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ as an object and no functorial properties of the cone are required there.

It is difficult to understand the physical meaning of the transformation associated to $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ working directly in the derived category. Instead we take Chern characters to see the effect on cohomology. From (7) one deduces that

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(T_{\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K}(\mathrm{F}))=\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{E},\mathrm{F}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}),$$
(8)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{E},\mathrm{F}& =\underset{i}{}(1)^idim\mathrm{Hom}^i(\mathrm{E},\mathrm{F})\hfill \\ & =_X\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}^{})\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_X),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
and $`\mathrm{T}_X`$ is the tangent sheaf of $`X`$.

Now it is generally believed that the (skew-symmetric) inner product $`\mathrm{E},\mathrm{F}`$ on $`X`$ is equal to the (equally skew-symmetric) intersection form for 3-cycles on the mirror $`Y`$ . According to this analogy, the transformation (8) is nothing more than a Picard–Lefschetz transformation that one would associate to monodromy around a vanishing 3-sphere in $`Y`$ . Because of this it seems natural to expect this kind of transformation to be associated to monodromy in the moduli space of complex structures around some parts of the discriminant locus.

## 3 A One Parameter Case

In this section we will review a computation apparently first done by Kontsevich .

We consider the case where $`X`$ is the quintic hypersurface in $`^4`$. As is very well-known  the moduli space of complexified Kähler forms can be taken to be $`^1`$ with three interesting point. These point are as follows:

* The Gepner point. Metrically it lies at an orbifold point $`/_5`$.
* The “conifold point”. The mirror of $`X`$ acquires a conifold singularity. The conformal field theory associated to $`X`$ is singular.
* The large radius limit. This point is an infinite distance away from the above two points.

Let $`H`$ denote the homology class of the 4-cycle given by the hyperplane section of the quintic 3-fold. We will also use $`H`$ to denote its Poincaré dual which generates $`H^2(X,)`$. We then have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_X)& =\frac{\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{1e^H}}\right)^5}{\left({\displaystyle \frac{5H}{1e^{5H}}}\right)}\hfill \\ & =1+\frac{5}{6}H^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
and

$$_XH^3=5.$$
(11)
The monodromy around $`P_0`$ is expected to be of order 5 because of the $`_5`$ quantum symmetry of the Gepner model. The monodromy around $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is known to correspond to $`BB+H`$. In other words we expect it to be given by the transformation $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪(H)}^B`$. We will denote this by $`\mathrm{K}_H^B`$ for short.

Kontsevich conjectured that the monodromy around $`P_1`$ is given by the Fourier–Mukai transform $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ of the previous section where $`\mathrm{E}`$ is given by the structure sheaf $`𝒪_X`$. We denote this $`\mathrm{K}_0^K`$ for short. We will return to this conjecture in a more precise form in section 5.

It follows from the topology of a sphere with 3 punctures that the product222Note that we are required to take the loops around $`P_1`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the “same direction” in order for their product to be a loop around $`P_0`$. Throughout this paper we will have orientation problems such as this. We will not concern ourselves at all with such details. In all the examples we do, we simply find the right combination which gives the expected results. of the monodromy around $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the monodromy around $`P_1`$ should equal the monodromy around $`P_0`$ and hence should be of order 5. We may verify that this is consistent with the Chern character of any starting D-brane.

Let us start with $`\mathrm{F}`$ given by $`𝒪_X`$ and apply the desired sequence of monodromy transformations. From (8) we obtain the following:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})& =1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{K}_H^B\mathrm{F})& =e^H\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_H^B\mathrm{F})& =e^H5\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{K}_H^B\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_H^B\mathrm{F})& =e^{2H}5e^H\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}& \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}((\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_H^B)^5\mathrm{F})& =1+(e^H1)^5=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
as $`H^4=0`$ in $`X`$. This is therefore consistent.

It would be interesting to check that $`(\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_H^B)^5`$ gives the identity transform when applied directly to $`𝐃(X)`$ rather than just applied to cohomology. We will not attempt this here.

Note that it is easy to apply the same method to other one parameter examples as listed in  for example.

## 4 Helices and Mutations

The purpose of this section is to briefly point out similarities and differences between the above computation for the quintic and the notion of helices and exceptional sheaves. The reader who is not directly interested in such things can skip this section.

It is easiest to describe mutations and helices directly in the derived category. See  for example for more information. Let us consider the space $`V=^4`$ and let $`H`$ denote the hyperplane class. Now consider the exceptional collection of sheaves $`\{𝒪,𝒪(H)\}`$. We may use a mutation to pull $`𝒪(H)`$ to the left through $`𝒪`$. Let $`\mathrm{E}(H)`$ denote the resulting object in $`𝐃(^4)`$. One can compute $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}(H))=e^H5`$.

Similarly we may begin with the set $`\{𝒪,𝒪(H),𝒪(2H)\}`$ and pull $`𝒪(2H)`$ through $`𝒪(H)`$ and $`𝒪`$ to obtain $`\mathrm{E}(2H)`$ etc. The result of such mutations appears remarkably similar to the monodromy transformations we considered in the previous section. Indeed one obtains

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}(nH))=\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}((\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_H^B)^n\mathrm{F}),\text{for }n=0,\mathrm{},4\text{.}$$
(13)
This correspondence fails for $`n=5`$ however. In this case we have $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}(5H))=0`$. This disagreement should come as no surprise. The language of mutations of helices can be recast in the form of the Fourier–Mukai transforms of section 2. The key point however is that the algebraic variety in question is the ambient $`^4`$ itself rather than the Calabi–Yau hypersurface $`X`$. Indeed exceptional sheaves cannot exist on $`X`$.

A Fourier–Mukai transformation does not yield an autoequivalence of $`𝐃(^4)`$ as it fails the canonical class constraint of . That is why the fifth application of the supposed monodromy transformation can kill the object in $`𝐃(^4)`$.

The language of mutations of helices was used in  successfully to obtain monodromies because equation (13) holds true. Note however that the procedure of going from $`\mathrm{E}(nH)`$ to $`\mathrm{E}((n+1)H)`$ cannot generally be identified with monodromy around the Gepner point because of the more general failure of this relation.

## 5 A Two Parameter Case

The structure of monodromies becomes considerably more interesting when one starts to look at moduli spaces of more than one dimension. In this case, the “discriminant locus” of bad conformal field theories is a subvariety of the moduli space with dimension one or more.

We wish to see if the Fourier–Mukai transforms considered above can also be applied in these more complicated situations. Note that this problem has been studied by Horja  and by Seidel and Thomas . Horja gave extensive results for monodromy loops which are “close” to the large radius limit in some sense. We will be interested in relations obtained by venturing further into the moduli space. The Fourier–Mukai transforms we will consider follow closely the construction by Seidel and Thomas . The paper  has appeared very recently which shows that these methods are essentially a special case of Horja’s construction.

Our goal in this section will be to obtain a similar result to section 3 in a two parameter example. Namely, can we find a sequence of monodromies which give a loop around some point which looks like a Gepner point, and hence has finite order?

Because the moduli space is two-dimensional there is no notion of “monodromy around a point”. Given a complex curve in our moduli space we can define a monodromy. We will use two notions extensively in the text below and we wish to emphasize the difference here to avoid confusion. We will often refer to monodromy around a curve for a loop in the two-dimensional moduli space which lies external to the curve. We will also refer to to the completely different notion of monodromy within the curve around a specific point. The words “around” and “within” will always have the above meaning.

Our example is where $`X`$ is a blown-up hypersurface of degree 18 in the weighted projected space $`_{9,6,1,1,1}^4`$. This space was studied extensively in  and analyzed in relation to D-branes in . The two generators of $`H^2(X,)`$ (and their Poincaré dual divisors) will be called $`H`$ and $`L`$ consistent with . If we put homogeneous coordinates $`[z_1,\mathrm{},z_5]`$ on $`_{9,6,1,1,1}^4`$ then the divisor class of $`z_1=0`$ is given by $`3H`$, the class of $`z_2=0`$ is given by $`2H`$. The class of $`z_3=0`$ or $`z_4=0`$ or $`z_5=0`$ (after the blow-up) is given by $`L`$. This weighted projective space has a curve of singularities which intersects the hypersurface at one point. Locally this point looks like the orbifold $`^3/_3`$. We blow this up to produce an exceptional divisor $`E^2`$. In terms of homology classes, $`E=H3L`$.

The remaining topological information for $`X`$ required is as follows. $`H^2`$, $`HL`$, $`L^2`$ live in $`H_2(X)`$ or $`H^4(X)`$ subject to the constraint $`H(H3L)=0`$. $`H_0(X)`$ or $`H^6(X)`$ has a single generator we denote $`p`$, and $`H^3=9p`$, $`H^2L=3p`$, $`HL^2=p`$, $`L^3=0`$. Obviously any monomial of degree 4 or higher in $`H`$ or $`L`$ vanishes. Finally

$$\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_X)=1\frac{1}{2}L^2+\frac{1}{4}HL.$$
(14)
The mirror, $`Y`$, of $`X`$ has defining equation

$$a_0z_1z_2z_3z_4z_5+a_1z_1^2+a_2z_2^3+a_3z_3^{18}+a_4z_4^{18}+a_5z_5^{18}+a_6z_3^6z_4^6z_5^6.$$
(15)
The “algebraic” coordinates on the moduli space are then given by

$$x=\frac{a_1^3a_2^2a_6}{a_0^6},y=\frac{a_3a_4a_5}{a_6^3}.$$
(16)
We may then define the discriminant as an expression in $`x`$ and $`y`$ which vanishes when $`Y`$ becomes singular. If the data can be presented torically as in this case then section 3.5 of  gives a nice efficient way of computing this discriminant. In our example, the discriminant factorizes into two parts:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_0& =6^{12}x^3y+(432x1)^3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }_1& =27y+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
We want to picture the moduli space in two different ways. First we use the “phase” description of . See also section 3 of . We project the discriminant into $`^2`$ by plotting $`\mathrm{log}|y|`$ against $`\mathrm{log}|x|`$. We show the result in figure 1. The result is that the 2-plane is divided into four “phases”. We chose our algebraic coordinates (16) so that the Calabi–Yau phase appears in the positive quadrant. The limit point of this phase is the large radius limit. The positive quadrant may also be viewed as the Kähler cone of $`X`$ where the class $`H`$ gives the horizontal direction and $`L`$ gives the vertical direction.

The other phases are pictured as follows. There is an orbifold phase whose limit point has the orbifold singularity $`^3/_3`$ but the Calabi–Yau has infinite volume. There is a $`^2`$ phase where $`X`$ collapses onto a $`^2`$. This can happen as $`X`$ is an elliptic fibration over $`^2`$. In the limit, this elliptic fibre has zero area and the $`^2`$ has infinite volume. Finally we have a Landau–Ginzburg phase with the Gepner point as the limit point.

The other way of drawing the moduli space is as a complex surface. The phase picture in figure 1, i.e., the secondary fan of $`X`$, is viewed as the fan of a toric variety $`\mathrm{M}`$ as described in . The coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ are then naturally coordinates over a patch of the moduli space $`\mathrm{M}`$.333This is identified by associating the dual of the cone in the positive quadrant with $`\mathrm{Spec}[x,y]`$. In this case $`\mathrm{M}`$ is a surface with two quotient singularities. The discriminant is a divisor in $`\mathrm{M}`$.

We sketch $`\mathrm{M}`$ in figure 2 by drawing complex dimensions as real. Our limit points appear as dots in the diagram. We draw the curves $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_4`$ as the $`^1`$’s joining adjacent phase limits. Torically these curves are associated to the lines in figure 1 which separate the phases. Figure 2 also shows how the discriminant intersects these curves. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ are themselves smooth curves in $`\mathrm{M}`$. The extra circles around the LG and orbifold point denote the fact that both of these points lie at a quotient singularity of the form $`^2/_3`$ in $`\mathrm{M}`$.

If we followed the analysis of  we would now blow-up $`\mathrm{M}`$ so that it was smooth and that the intersections of the discriminant with the curves $`C_i`$ were transverse. This requires several blow-ups. Rather than do this, we find it easier to work directly in $`\mathrm{M}`$.

We would now like to take each of the curves $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_4`$ in turn and do a similar computation to that of section 3 within that curve (or nearly so) to check our monodromy predictions. Note that each curve $`C_i`$ has three special points on it — the two limit points and a third point where the discriminant hits the curve in some way. Thus, just as in section 3, we will show that the product of the monodromy around one of the limit points and around the discriminant is equal to the monodromy around the other limit point.

### 5.1 $`C_1`$

Let us fix a basepoint near the large Calabi–Yau limit point. Because we have identified the cone of this phase with the Kähler cone of $`X`$ we immediately know the monodromies around $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$. Each must be a shift in the $`B`$-field. To be precise, a loop around $`C_1`$ will correspond to $`BB+L`$ and hence corresponds to $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$. Similarly a loop around $`C_2`$ is given by $`\mathrm{K}_H^B`$.

Since $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ intersect transversely, the monodromy around the Calabi–Yau point within $`C_1`$ corresponds to going around $`C_2`$ and is thus given by $`\mathrm{K}_H^B`$. In other words $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})e^H\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})`$.

What about the monodromy within $`C_1`$ around the point in the middle where the discriminant hits? A method for computing this was presented in  but we will proceed a little differently. First we need to decide how to go around a generic part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the irreducible component of the discriminant corresponding to the appearance of singularities in (15) for nonzero $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_5`$. This was dubbed the “$`A`$-discriminant” in .444Perhaps rather confusingly,  uses the term “principal $`A`$-determinant” for the full discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Even more confusingly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ has sometimes been called the “principal component” of the discriminant . We will call it the “primary” component of the discriminant. One could also define this as the component which is computed by finding solutions to equation (3.45) of . We then state the following conjecture which appears to be due to Horja, Kontsevich and Morrison in some form or another .

###### Conjecture 1

For a suitable choice of basepoint near the Calabi–Yau limit point, a loop around the primary component of the discriminant is given by $`\mathrm{K}_0^K=\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$, with $`\mathrm{E}=𝒪_X`$.

This is certainly consistent with section 3 where the primary component was the entire discriminant.

Assuming this conjecture to be true we still have a complication that makes the computation a little less straight-forward. Namely, $`C_1`$ does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ transversely but rather intersects it tangentially with multiplicity 3. This means that we cannot say that the monodromy within $`C_1`$ around the discriminant is given by the above conjecture.

To proceed with the computation we can put a small 3-sphere $`S^3`$ around the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`C_1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`C_1`$ are both smooth it follows that $`L_1=S^3C_1`$ and $`L_2=S^3\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ are both unknotted circles. Because of the tangential intersection, these circles are linked three times. We may remove a point of $`S^3`$ and imagine the link in $`^3`$. We show this in figure 3.

Next we need to describe $`\pi _1(S^3(L_1L_2))`$. To do this we use the Wirtinger presentation (see  for example). Imagine fixing a basepoint above the sheet of paper. The arrow $`a`$ in figure 3 then represents the element of $`\pi _1`$ looping under the left circle in the direction indicated by the arrow. Similarly we define $`b`$ for the right circle. We then have further elements $`e_i`$ as shown in the figure. Crossing relations then determine555Our order convention is that $`ab`$ represents the path $`b`$ followed by the path $`a`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_1& =b^1ab\hfill \\ \hfill e_2& =b^1a^1bab\hfill \\ \hfill e_3& =b^1a^1b^1abab\hfill \\ \hfill e_4& =b^1a^1b^1a^1babab\hfill \\ \hfill e_5& =b^1a^1b^1a^1b^1ababab,\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
but clearly $`e_5=a`$ which yields the relation

$$ababab=bababa.$$
(19)
Indeed $`\pi _1(S^3(L_1L_2))`$ is given by the group on two generators $`(a,b)`$ subject to the single relation (19).

Deform the path within $`C_1`$ around the discriminant point a little so that it lies outside $`C_1`$. This is the path around which we wish to compute the monodromy. This is the (clockwise) path which follows closely the circle $`S^3C_1`$. Such a path is homotopic to $`e_1e_3e_5=b^2ababa`$. But $`a`$ is nothing more than a generic loop around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and so is given by $`\mathrm{K}_0^K`$, and similarly $`b`$ is given by $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$. Therefore we claim that monodromy around the discriminant point within $`C_1`$ is given by $`(\mathrm{K}_L^B)^2\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_L^B\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_L^B\mathrm{K}_0^K`$.

Let $`Q_1`$ denote the monodromy within $`_1`$ around the $`^2`$ limit point. As this is equal to the combined monodromy around the discriminant point and the Calabi–Yau limit point, we have $`Q_1=\mathrm{K}_H^B(\mathrm{K}_L^B)^2\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_L^B\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_L^B\mathrm{K}_0^K`$.

Passing from the Calabi–Yau limit point to the $`^2`$ limit point represents collapsing a large radius elliptic fibre to a Landau–Ginzburg orbifold theory in a manner very similar to the collapse of the quintic in section 3. This Landau-Ginzburg theory is a $`_6`$-orbifold and thus has a $`_6`$ quantum symmetry. It should therefore follow that $`Q_1^6=1`$ in complete analogy with the Landau–Ginzburg point in section 3. This is a highly nontrivial check of our picture:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_X)& =1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_1𝒪_X)& =e^H3e^{HL}+3e^{H2L}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_1^2𝒪_X)& =e^{2H}3e^{2HL}+3e^{2H2L}e^H\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_1^6𝒪_X)& =e^{6H}3e^{6HL}+3e^{6H2L}e^{5H}e^{4H}+3e^{4HL}3e^{4H2L}+3e^{3HL}\hfill \\ & 3e^{3H2L}+e^{2H}+e^H3e^{HL}+3e^{H2L}\hfill \\ & =1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
### 5.2 $`C_2`$

So far we have only used $`\mathrm{E}=𝒪_X`$ in the Fourier–Mukai transform $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$. In this section we use a less trivial choice. The curve $`C_2`$ represents the process of blowing-up up the $`^3/_3`$ singularity while keeping the rest of the Calabi–Yau at infinite volume. We will attempt to “localize” the computations to around the exceptional divisor $`E^2`$.

Let us consider the general case of an irreducible exceptional divisor $`E`$ in a Calabi–Yau space $`X`$ of arbitrary dimension. Let the normal bundle be denoted by $`N`$. Let us assume that the zero locus of a generic section of $`N^{}`$ gives an irreducible variety $`WE`$ of complex dimension two less than $`X`$. $`W`$ is automatically Calabi–Yau. In our example, $`W`$ would be a cubic curve in $`^2`$. We therefore have two inclusions

$$i:EX,j:WE.$$
(21)
Now consider two objects $`\mathrm{E},\mathrm{F}𝐃(E)`$ associated to sheaves on $`E`$. In terms of our inner product on $`X`$ we may apply the Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch theorem to yield the following localization:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{}\mathrm{E},i_{}\mathrm{F}_X& =_X(\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(i_{}\mathrm{E}))^{}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(i_{}\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_X)\hfill \\ & =_E(\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(i_{}\mathrm{E}))^{}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_E)\hfill \\ & =_W(\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(j^{}\mathrm{E}))^{}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(j^{}\mathrm{F})\frac{\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_E)}{\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(N^{})}\hfill \\ & =_W(\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(j^{}\mathrm{E}))^{}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(j^{}\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(\mathrm{T}_W)\hfill \\ & =j^{}\mathrm{E},j^{}\mathrm{F}_W.\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
Therefore we may compute the inner product between objects of $`𝐃(X)`$ which are $`i_{}`$ of something in $`𝐃(E)`$ purely in terms of the local geometry of the blow-up.

We may now apply conjecture 1 to $`W`$. In our example $`W`$ is an elliptic curve and has only one deformation of complexified Kähler form. The discriminant is then a point and therefore primary with respect to $`W`$. The associated Fourier–Mukai transform for monodromy is then given by $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ for $`\mathrm{E}=𝒪_W=j^{}𝒪_E`$. This naturally motivates the following

###### Conjecture 2

The monodromy around a component of the discriminant associated with an irreducible divisor $`E`$ collapsing to a point is given by $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ for $`\mathrm{E}=i_{}𝒪_E`$, where $`i`$ is the inclusion map.

Note that $`i_{}𝒪_E`$ is the structure sheaf of $`E`$ extended by zero over the rest of $`X`$. It can thus be denoted by $`𝒪_E`$ itself.

In our example we therefore associate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ with $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{E}^K`$ for $`\mathrm{E}=𝒪_E`$ where the class of $`E`$ is given by $`H3L`$. Let us use $`\mathrm{K}_1^K`$ to denote this transform. Another application of Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch quickly yields

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_E)=1e^{3LH},$$
(23)
(and so $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_E^{})=1e^{H3L}`$).

We are now in a position to compute all the monodromies for $`C_2`$. Around the Calabi–Yau limit we have $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$. The component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ hits $`C_2`$ transversely and so the monodromy around the discriminant point is given by $`\mathrm{K}_1^K`$.

Let us use $`Q_2=\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ to refer to monodromy around the orbifold limit point. A $`^3/_3`$ orbifold has a $`_3`$ quantum symmetry so one might naïvely guess that $`Q_2^3=1`$. Instead we find

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_X)& =1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_2𝒪_X)& =e^L\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_2^2𝒪_X)& =e^{2L}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_2^3𝒪_X)& =e^H.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
This suggests the relation $`Q_2^3=\mathrm{K}_H^B`$. To see why this is so let us examine more carefully the geometry of the moduli space near the orbifold limit point. As mentioned earlier this point is actually locally the singularity $`^2/_3`$. We may therefore surround this limit point, not by a sphere, but by a lens space $`M=S^3/_3`$. Now $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are both smooth curves and therefore they intersect $`M`$ in unknotted circles.

Consider the free $`_3`$ quotient map $`q:S^3M`$. The intersection of $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ with $`M`$ both lift to single circles in $`S^3`$ under $`q^1`$. These circles are linked once and so $`\pi _1`$ of the complement of these circles in $`S^3`$ is the abelian product $`\times `$. Let $`G`$ denote $`\pi _1`$ of the complement of $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ in $`M`$. Since $`q`$ is a normal cover we have

$$1\times G_31.$$
(25)
A more detailed analysis of the geometry shows that $`G\times `$ where there is a particular element $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}G`$ which cannot be lifted to a loop in $`S^3`$ but such that $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}^3`$ lifts to a loop in $`S^3`$ which loops around both $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$.

To understand the monodromy we need to deform the loop “inside” $`C_2`$ around the orbifold point a little so that it doesn’t intersect $`C_2`$ or $`C_3`$. There is no unique way to do this. The homotopy class of such a deformation is given by $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ times an arbitrary number of windings around $`C_2`$. One might argue that the most natural lift is the reduce this extra winding around $`C_2`$ and say that the desired loop is simply given by $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

Identifying $`Q_2`$ with $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ it should then follow that the monodromy $`Q_2^3`$ is given by a loop around $`C_2`$ followed by a loop around $`C_3`$. We see that $`Q_2^3=\mathrm{K}_H^B`$ is entirely consistent with this so long as the monodromy around $`C_3`$ is trivial. We also see that our natural deformation of the loop within $`C_2`$ is the correct one.

We have therefore understood the monodromy in (24) and argued that the monodromy around $`C_3`$ is trivial.

For a true localization to the orbifold point we may put $`H=0`$. This has the effect of sending that component of the Kähler form of to infinity. Thus the target space looks like a resolution of $`^3/_3`$. In this case the monodromy around the orbifold point really is of order three. This fact was also determined directly using the Picard–Fuchs system in . Note also that any object of $`𝐃(X)`$ which can be written as $`i_{}`$ of something in $`𝐃(E)`$ is brought back to itself exactly after looping three times around the orbifold point.

### 5.3 $`C_3`$

Consider first the loop around the orbifold point within $`C_3`$. In order to understand the monodromy we need again to deform this loop a little as in section 5.2. It turns out that the simplest deformation of this loop is homotopic to the same class $`g_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ as above. Figure 2 certainly makes this statement counterintuitive! At first sight it looks like a loop within $`C_2`$ is like a loop around $`C_3`$ and a loop within $`C_3`$ looks like a loop around $`C_2`$ and these are certainly not equal. It is the quotient singularity which stops this argument working. Both the loop within $`C_2`$ and the loop within $`C_3`$ must deform to elements of $`G`$ which map to the same element of $`_3`$ in (25). The most natural deformation of these two loops actually makes the loops homotopic.

Therefore monodromy around the orbifold point within $`C_3`$ is given by $`Q_2=\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_L^B`$. The loop around the discriminant point within $`C_3`$ is easy. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ intersects $`C_3`$ transversely, the monodromy is given by $`\mathrm{K}_0`$. The monodromy around the LG point is then given by

$$Q_3=\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_L^B.$$
(26)
What properties should we expect for $`Q_3`$? The geometry around the LG point is very similar (up to orientation questions) to the geometry around the orbifold point. In particular one may show that the loop corresponding to $`Q_3`$ is such that its third power is homotopic to a loop around $`C_3`$ and $`C_4`$. Now we know that a loop around $`C_3`$ induces no monodromy from section 5.2. The fact that $`C_4`$ intersects $`C_1`$ transversely at a smooth point in $`\mathrm{M}`$ tells us that the loop around $`C_4`$ is given by $`Q_1`$ from section 5.1. Thus $`Q_3^3`$ should have the same properties as $`Q_1`$. We saw in section 5.1 that $`Q_1`$ was of order 6. It follows that $`Q_3`$ is of order 18.

We may confirm this explicitly. E.g.:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_X)& =1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3𝒪_X)& =e^L3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^2𝒪_X)& =e^{2L}3e^L+3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^3𝒪_X)& =e^H3e^{2L}+3e^L1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^4𝒪_X)& =e^{H+L}3e^H+3e^{2L}e^L\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^5𝒪_X)& =e^{H+2L}3e^{H+L}+3e^He^{2L}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^6𝒪_X)& =e^{2H}3e^{H+2L}+3e^{H+L}e^H1\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^7𝒪_X)& =e^{2H+L}3e^{2H}+3e^{H+2L}e^{H+L}e^L+3\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(Q_3^{18}𝒪_X)& =e^{6H}3e^{5H+2L}+3e^{5H+L}e^{5H}e^{4H}+3e^{3H+2L}3e^{3H+L}+3e^{2H+2L}\hfill \\ & 3e^{2H+L}+e^{2H}+e^H3e^{2L}+3e^L\hfill \\ & =1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
Comparing closely (20) and (27) we see that $`Q_3^3`$ is not quite the same thing as $`Q_1`$ although their effect is very similar. As we have described the loops corresponding to these transformations, they actually differ by a change in basepoint and so $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3^3`$ are only equivalent up to conjugation.

The sequence of transformations given in (27) is identical to the sequence predicted by  in the language of helices and mutations. There one begins with a sequence of exceptional sheaves on $`_{\{9,6,1,1,1\}}^4`$ of the form $`\{𝒪,𝒪(L),𝒪(2L),𝒪(H),𝒪(H+L),𝒪(H+2L),𝒪(2H),\mathrm{},𝒪(5H+2L)\}`$. One then mutates all the bundles to the left to reverse their order giving a sequence of objects whose Chern characters are exactly given by (27). It is not hard to see why this is so. Roughly speaking the transformation $`Q_3=\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ may be described as follows. $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ takes the sheaf $`𝒪(nL)`$ to $`𝒪((n+1)L)`$. Next $`\mathrm{K}_1^K`$ leaves $`𝒪(mH+L)`$ or $`𝒪(mH+2L)`$ invariant but takes $`𝒪(mH+3L)`$ to $`𝒪((m+1)H))`$. Finally $`\mathrm{K}_0^K`$ is a “left mutation” just as it was for the quintic in section 4.

This gives a natural explanation for the funny “jump” seen in the required sequence of exceptional sheaves from $`𝒪(mH+2L)`$ to $`𝒪((m+1)H)`$. It is effectively caused by the action of $`\mathrm{K}_1^K`$. Note again the following shortcoming of the method of using sheaves on $`_{\{9,6,1,1,1\}}^4`$. If we extend this process by adding $`𝒪(6H)`$ to the above sequence of sheaves then the 18th transformation of $`𝒪`$ would have Chern character equal to 0 rather than 1. Again this is because the corresponding Fourier–Mukai transform on $`_{\{9,6,1,1,1\}}^4`$ is not invertible.

### 5.4 $`C_4`$

Finally we do the monodromy computation within $`C_4`$. This actually yields nothing new. Let $`Q_4`$ be the monodromy given by the loop within $`C_4`$ around the LG point. Because the LG point is an orbifold point, one can show that this loop (or at least a small deformation of it) is the same as the loop within $`C_3`$ around the LG point for reasons essentially identical to the discussion in section 5.2. This immediately implies $`Q_4=Q_3`$.

Indeed monodromy around the $`^2`$ point within $`C_4`$ is given by $`\mathrm{K}_L^B`$; and monodromy around the discriminant point requires loops around both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ as seen in figure 2. Thus we see $`Q_4=\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_L^B`$ consistent with the above paragraph.

Consider trying to generalize the results of this example. One can show that the specific structure of the monodromy seen in this example depends mainly on the fact that $`X`$ is a fibration. For example we could consider a more complicated example with 3 Kähler moduli such as the resolved hypersurface of degree 24 in $`_{\{1,1,2,8,12\}}^4`$. This is an elliptic fibration over a Hirzebruch surface which itself is a $`^1`$-fibration over $`^1`$. In this example one has a curve in the moduli space which is the analogue of $`C_4`$ above. It connects the Landau–Ginzburg phase with the $`^1`$ phase. Monodromy around the LG point can then be shown to be of a form $`\mathrm{K}_0^K\mathrm{K}_1^K\mathrm{K}_2^K\mathrm{K}_L^B`$. This will then reproduce the results of section 9.3 of  for example. Note however that the fibration structure is essential here.

## 6 Other Examples

The example of section 5 demonstrated many features of monodromy but there are many other important possibilities which did not appear. In this section we discuss some examples which do exhibit these effects.

### 6.1 Surfaces shrinking to curves

All the monodromies around components of the discriminant have been given by a Fourier–Mukai transform of the form (6) studied by Seidel and Thomas. Here we discuss an example that falls outside this class.

Let us consider the resolved hypersurface $`X`$ of degree 8 in $`_{\{2,2,2,1,1\}}^4`$. We refer to  for extensive details of this model. The space $`X`$ can be thought of as a K3-fibration over $`_1`$ or as the resolution of a singular space with a curve of singularities of the form $`^2/_2`$. This model has the same moduli space as that of section 5 except for the following aspects:

* The $`^2`$ phase is renamed a $`^1`$ phase as this is the base of the fibration.
* The LG and orbifold limit points are now at orbifold points locally of the form $`^2/_2`$.
* The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ component of the discriminant now intersects $`C_1`$ at a point of multiplicity two rather than three.

When we compute the monodromies around the discriminant the real difference appears when we consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Let $`E`$ be the exceptional divisor in $`X`$ coming from the resolution of the curve of singularities. $`E`$ is a product of a genus 3 curve $`Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. We associate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ with the collapse of $`E`$ down to $`Z`$. The discussion in section 5.2 concerned an exceptional divisor contracting to a point and so cannot be applied to monodromy around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

The computation of the monodromy on Chern characters was computed in . The result may be rephrased as follows. For a divisor $`E`$ collapsing to a curve $`Z`$ of genus $`g`$, monodromy around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})𝒪_E+(1g)𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{F}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma })+𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{F}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝒪_E),$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ is the inverse image of a point for the blow-down.

The Fourier–Mukai transform given by (6) is incompatible with (28). A more general form which is consistent is given by Horja in .666I thank P. Horja for confirming that his construction is consistent with (28). We refer to these references for more details.

Given the form of the monodromy (28) it is easy to reproduce all the corresponding results of section 5 for this example.

### 6.2 A reducible exceptional divisor

One might have got the impression from the localization argument in section 5.2 that we can understand the monodromy associated to an orbifold singularity by studying the little Calabi–Yau $`W`$ living inside the exceptional divisor $`E`$. Indeed this argument shows that the analysis we did in section 5 for a Calabi–Yau threefold would also apply locally to a Calabi–Yau fivefold which has a $`_{18}`$ orbifold singularity given by the action

$$(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(\alpha ^9z_1,\alpha ^6z_2,\alpha z_3,\alpha z_4,\alpha z_5),$$
(29)
where $`\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/18)`$. This is because the resolved $`_{\{9,6,1,1,1\}}^4`$ is the exceptional divisor for this five-dimensional orbifold.

While this is useful in some circumstances it does not mean that any orbifold analysis can be reduced to a Calabi–Yau computation in lower dimensions. The problem is that the exceptional divisor for an orbifold singularity may be reducible. Indeed one generically expects an exceptional divisor be to reducible. In this case the notion of the Calabi–Yau “inside” the exceptional divisor makes no sense.

At least in the context of toric cases we can make some general statements about the difference between a reducible and irreducible exceptional divisor. The impression one might have been left with from the above examples is that each particular exceptional divisor $`E`$ is associated with its own component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ of the discriminant divisor. In this case one then associates monodromy around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_E`$ with a process involving the collapse of $`E`$.

In the Batyrev  way of describing Calabi–Yau $`n`$-folds, one has a set of points, $`𝒜`$, lying in a hyperplane in $`^{n+2}`$. Vectors from the origin to these points generate the one-dimensional edges of a fan. By the usual algorithm in toric geometry this fan gives the canonical line bundle over some $`(n+1)`$-dimensional variety $`V`$. $`X`$ is then the “little Calabi–Yau” living inside $`V`$.

Let $`Q`$ by the convex hull of $`𝒜`$. One can show (see chapter 10 of ) that the irreducible components of the discriminant are determined by faces of $`Q`$ of various dimensions. For a nontrivial component we require at least $`k+2`$ points in a $`k`$-dimensional face.

If each face of $`Q`$ has at most one point in its interior then each divisor associated to this interior point gets its own component of the discriminant. This was the case for the examples studied above and was the case for all the examples studied in . It is precisely when we have a reducible exceptional divisor that this fails.

We will consider an example of this. For a change we will use a K3 surface rather than a Calabi–Yau threefold. The results generalize easily to the threefold case.

Consider the surface $`X`$ of degree 12 in $`_{\{4,3,3,2\}}^3`$. This has $`^2/_2`$ singularities at 3 points and $`^2/_3`$ singularities at 4 points. Each $`_2`$ singularity is resolved by a single $`^1`$ and each $`_3`$ singularity is resolved by a sum of two $`^1`$’s intersecting at a point. The fact that the K3 is embedded in the given ambient space ties the blow-ups of the points of similar type together. There are in fact only four Kähler degrees of freedom — the overall size of the initial weighted projective space, one blow-up of all the $`_2`$ fixed points and two blow-ups for all the $`_3`$ fixed points.

We list the coordinates of the points $`𝒜`$ in table 1. We also show the divisor classes in terms of a basis $`(H,A,B,C)`$ associated to these vectors. These divisor classes restrict to form a partial basis of $`H_2(X)=H^2(X)`$. We then demand that the Kähler form of $`X`$ lies in the span of these generators. This basis has been chosen so that the resulting slice of the Kähler cone is the positive orthant.

We will only concern ourselves with monodromies associated to the $`_3`$ blow-ups. To do this we only consider variations in the $`A`$ and $`B`$ components of the Kähler form. The two divisor classes of interest are those associated to $`a_5`$ and $`a_6`$ having classes $`2H2A+B`$ and $`A2B`$ respectively. These each intersect $`X`$ in four copies of $`^1`$. Each $`^1`$ from one set intersects one member from the other set of $`^1`$’s in one point. Together these form the resolutions of the four $`_3`$ fixed points. Note that the set $`\{a_4,a_5,a_6,a_1\}`$ lies on a straight line.

Let us fix algebraic coordinates

$$x=\frac{a_4a_6}{a_5^2},y=\frac{a_1a_5}{a_6^2}.$$
(30)
In terms of these, the component of the discriminant associated with the line $`\{a_4,a_5,a_6,a_1\}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1=27x^2y^218xy1+4x+4y.$$
(31)
There are two other components of the discriminant — the primary component and one associated to the three $`_2`$ fixed points. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is the part intrinsically associated to the $`^2/_3`$ resolution.

The discriminant (31) divides the $`(\mathrm{log}x,\mathrm{log}y)`$ into four phases as shown in figure 4. One has the resolved phase, the $`_3`$ orbifold phase and two phases where one of the pair of $`^1`$’s has been blown up to partially resolve the $`_3`$ fixed point to something that looks locally like a $`_2`$ fixed point. We will call the latter two phases $`_2^{(A)}`$ and $`_2^{(B)}`$ since they are associated to blowing down using the $`A`$ or $`B`$ component of the Kähler form respectively.

Note again that there is only a single irreducible component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, of the divisor associated to this picture. The same component of the discriminant is responsible for blowing down either of the $`^1`$’s.

Now, of course, the moduli space is really four dimensional. We want to think of figure 4 as representing a slice of the moduli space, where the $`H`$ and $`C`$ components of the Kähler form have been taken to infinity. Equivalently, think of figure 4 as the toric fan of a two-dimensional subspace of the moduli space associated to this limit.

Let $`𝒪_{a_5}`$ be the sum of the four structure sheaves of the $`^1`$’s associated to $`a_5`$. Similarly $`𝒪_{a_6}`$ is supported only over the four $`^1`$’s associated to $`a_6`$. Now consider the $`^1`$ in the moduli space connecting the large radius limit to the $`_2^{(A)}`$ limit point where the $`^1`$’s associated to $`a_5`$ are blown down. Let us denote this by $`C_A`$. We know the monodromy around the large radius limit within $`C_A`$ multiplies the Chern characters by $`e^A`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ hits $`C_A`$ transversely we expect that monodromy around the discriminant point is given by $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K`$ which induces

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\frac{1}{4}𝒪_{a_5},\mathrm{F}𝒪_{a_5},$$
(32)
where the factor $`\frac{1}{4}`$ appears because $`𝒪_{a_5}`$ is associated to four irreducible divisors.777It is not hard to convince yourself that such a factor is necessary to get the monodromies to come out correctly. It would be nice to explain this factor more completely. Presumably this is similar to a asking for a better understanding of (28).

The $`_2^{(A)}`$ limit point is associated to a $`_2`$ orbifold point and so we expect going twice around this point gives something simple. One can show that applying $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K\mathrm{K}_A^B`$ twice induces multiplication by $`\mathrm{exp}(2H+B)`$ on the Chern characters. This should be viewed in the same way as section 5.2.

What about the curve $`C_B`$ which connects the large radius limit to the $`_2^{(B)}`$ limit point? In this case the discriminant point induces monodromy given by $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K`$ which induces

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{F})\frac{1}{4}𝒪_{a_6},\mathrm{F}𝒪_{a_6}.$$
(33)
One can then show that applying $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K\mathrm{K}_B^B`$ twice induces multiplication by $`\mathrm{exp}(A)`$ on the Chern characters.

This is all very well except that $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K`$ are both monodromies around the same component of the discriminant. The reason they are different is that if we fix a base point near the large radius limit then the loop around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ inside $`C_A`$ is not homotopic to the loop around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ inside $`C_B`$. This can happen because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ itself is not smooth. It has a cusp at the point $`(x,y)=(\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{3})`$. If we draw an $`S^3`$ around this cusp then we obtain a trefoil knot in the intersection. It is well-known that, for a fixed basepoint, loops around different parts of this knot are not homotopic to each other. This allows for the difference between $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K`$. Note that this is the very same cusp as the one studied by Argyres and Douglas .

Finally let us see how to compute the effect of monodromy going three times around the $`_3`$ limit point. Let $`C_{A2}`$ be the curve connecting the $`_2^{(A)}`$ limit point to the $`_3`$ limit point. The monodromy within $`C_{A2}`$ around the $`_2^{(A)}`$ limit point is identical to the monodromy within $`C_A`$ around the $`_2^{(A)}`$ limit point for the reasons given in section 5.3. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ component of the discriminant intersects $`C_{A2}`$ transversely. Since this is associated with collapsing the divisor associated to $`a_6`$ we will assume that monodromy around this discriminant point is given by $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K`$. We therefore claim that monodromy with $`C_A`$ around the $`_3`$ limit point is given by $`\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K\mathrm{K}_A^B`$.

We may check that this cubes to something nice. Indeed the effect on the Chern characters implies that

$$(\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_6}}^K\mathrm{K}_{𝒪_{a_5}}^K\mathrm{K}_A^B)^3=(\mathrm{K}_H^B)^4.$$
(34)
One can show that this is consistent with the global geometry of the moduli space and so our monodromies all have the expected properties.

## 7 Discussion of the 0-Brane

We have given various rules for how to compute the effect of monodromy on the Chern character of a D-brane. In this last section we will discuss the consequences for a 0-brane.

The 0-brane is of particular interest as it is the basic object used in the construction of Bondal and Orlov  to build the target space from the derived category. The fact that the 0-brane can transform into something else under monodromy is one reason why the Bondal and Orlov construction is ambiguous for a Calabi–Yau space.

Note again that the following results could have been guessed using the Picard–Fuchs differential equations. In that language the 0-brane often appears as a constant solution to the differential equations . The derived category provides a much simpler picture however.

For a Calabi–Yau threefold $`X`$, let $`P`$ be an object in $`𝐃(X)`$ which corresponds to a 0-brane. This immediately implies that $`\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(P)=p`$, where $`pH^6(X)`$ is Poincaré dual to a point. Under monodromy about $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p& p+_Xp\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(X)\hfill \\ & =p+1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
That is, the 0-brane always picks up a 6-brane charge upon an orbit around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

Now consider the other monodromies in this paper. They all involve taking the structure sheaf $`𝒪_E`$ of some collapsing cycle $`E`$ and computing $`𝒪_E,p`$. If $`E`$ is of dimension less than 6 then this inner product is always zero. Thus the 0-brane undergoes no monodromy about these kinds of components in the discriminant.

We therefore make the following

###### Conjecture 3

The 0-brane undergoes monodromy if and only if we circle the primary component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, of the discriminant.

If we begin in a large radius smooth Calabi–Yau phase, which other phases may we visit without crossing a wall in the phase diagram which contains $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$? In other words, over what area of the phase diagram can we fix a choice of 0-brane without worrying about monodromy? The answer consists of the so-called “geometric phases” or “partially enlarged Kähler moduli space” of .

The phases correspond to triangulations of Batyrev’s reflexive polytope . The statement that a phase is geometric corresponds to every simplex in the triangulation having the unique point in the interior of the polytope as a vertex.

Comparing to the example in section 5 for example, the geometric phases consist of the Calabi–Yau phase and the orbifold phase where we have a three complex dimensional picture of the target space. Indeed, these phases are separated only by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ around which the 0-brane has no monodromy.

The geometric phases consist of those reached from the Calabi–Yau phase only by blowing down subspaces. If one reduces the overall dimension of the target space then one must cross a wall containing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. There are also exotic “exoflop” transitions  where part of the target space remains three-dimensional but a lower-dimensional part grows out of the side of the target space. These exoflops also involve crossing a $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ boundary and are not considered geometric.

Proving the statement about these phases is an application of the combinatorics discussed in chapter 11 of . There is an object $`\eta _T`$ which is a function on the cones of the secondary fan. If $`\eta _T`$ changes as you pass to a neighbouring cone then the wall contained $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. It is easy to show that $`\eta _T`$ changes as you pass from a geometric phase to a non-geometric phase. This result is essentially contained in corollary 4.5 of chapter 11 of . It is a more tedious exercise to show that passing between geometric phases of threefolds keeps $`\eta _T`$ constant.

This result appears to jibe nicely with the Bondal and Orlov construction. We may consistently tie the derived category to a target space interpretation so long as we confine ourselves to geometric phases. Once we leave these phases then the 0-brane undergoes monodromy and we acquire an ambiguity in the way we construct the target space.

Finally we should note that there can still be an ambiguity in what exactly is called a 0-brane in the geometric phases. If there are two or more smooth phases related by flops then each phase has its own 0-branes. The exact way these branes are related to each other was given by Bridgeland .

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank M. Douglas, A. Lawrence, D. Morrison, R. Plesser, E. Sharpe, M. Vybornov and M. Stern for useful conversations. I am particularly grateful to P. Horja for giving me an advanced copy of  while this paper was being prepared, and discussing the results with me. The author is supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0074072 and a research fellowship from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The author is also grateful to the ITP, Santa Barbara for hospitality while this paper was being completed with support from NSF grant PHY99-07949.