text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The periods are the building blocks, e.g., for getting the prepotential in $`𝒩=2`$ type II theories compactified on a Calabi-Yau that in turn determines the gauge and the Yukawa couplings, as well as getting the superpotential in the context of $`𝒩=1`$ type II theories on (orientifolds of) Calabi-Yau with(out) branes/fluxes. It is in this regard that the Picard-Fuchs equation satisfied by the periods, become quite important. In the context of toric geometry, the Picard-Fuchs equation has been obtained in the past essentially based on two approaches \- one based on , and the other based on  followed in . It is  that will be somewhat closer in spirit to the way we derive the solution to the Picard-Fuchs equation for the degree-24 Fermat hypersurface in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$ corresponding to the compact $`CY_3(3,243)`$, away from its orbifold singularities. However, in the literature, it is largely the large complex structure limit in the moduli space that has been considered where one has to either actually evaluate the integral 222The Griffiths definition of the period () for, e.g., one-paramater hypersurface $`p(x_i;\psi )`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4`$ is: $`\frac{1}{(2i\pi )^5}_{\gamma _1\times \mathrm{}\gamma _4}\frac{x_5_{i=1}^4dx_i}{p(x_i;\psi )}|_{x_5=1}`$ =$`\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^5}_{\gamma _1\times \mathrm{}\gamma _5}\frac{_{i=1}^5dx_i}{p(x_i;\psi )}`$ where $`\gamma _i:|x_i|=\delta `$. The integral is then evaluated in the limit:$`\psi \mathrm{}`$. We however do not restrict ourselves to this limit (besides, we are largely interested in Fermat hypersurfaces as the $`p`$), and hence we do not wish to directly evaluate the integral. or solve the indicial equation to get the “fundamental period” and then generate other (logarithmic) solutions from it by the action of derivatives. Part of the motivation for this work is to follow the alternative formulation of  for deriving the Picard-Fuchs equation for a definition of period integral more suited to evaluating BPS mass formulae, and to obtain solutions valid in the large and small complex structure limit. The reason for studying $`CY_3(3,243)`$ is not arbitrary. It stems from the following. In , we had obtained at the level of spectrum matching, an $`𝒩=1`$ triality between Heterotic on the self-mirror Voisin-Borcea Calabi-Yau $`CY_3(11,11)`$, $`M`$ theory on the ‘barely $`G_2`$-manifold (i.e., with $`SU(3)\times 𝐙_2`$ holonomy) constructed from a freely acting antiholomorphic involution on $`CY_3(3,243)\times S^1`$, and $`F`$ theory on an elliptically fibered 4-fold whose base was $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$ Enriques surface333There was an apparent puzzle raised in  on the $`F`$-theory side - the Hodge data of the expected 4-fold does not match the Hodge data of the freely acting orbifold of $`CY(3,243)\times T^2`$ that one would naively have guessed on the basis of known dualities between type $`IIA`$, Heterotic and (and definition of) $`F`$ theory. Of course, the 4-fold with the derived Hodge data and fibration structure, has to exist, because the $`F`$-theory dual has to exist.. We would like to be able to strengthen this triality by matching interesting calculable quantities on all sides. In this paper, we take a small step in that direction by first heuristically arguring a null superpotential on the $`F`$-theory and Heterotic sides, and then explicitly verifying the same in type $`IIA`$, though for this work, away from the orbifold singularities of the Fermat hypersurface in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$.

Hence, to summarize, we wish to study the compact $`CY_3(3,243)`$ as well as a particular freely acting involution thereof (using which one can get the $`𝒩=1`$ type $`IIA`$ background of , and its $`M`$-theory uplift of ), from the point of view gauged linear sigma model (and mirror symmetry).

The plan of the rest of the paper is as follows. In section 2, we describe the basics relevant to gauged linear sigma model and its mirror Landau-Ginsburg model, and set up the definition of the period integral for compact Calabi-Yau manifolds, using . In section 3, we derive the Picard-Fuchs equation as well as study the Meijer basis of solutions in the large and small complex structure limits (on the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side) of the Calabi-Yau. We also study the Picard-Fuchs equation at a MATHEMATICAlly interesting point, which in terms of rescaled coordinates, corresponds to the usually troublesome $`z=1`$ point. In section 4, we give a plausibility argument, to begin with, to expect a null superpotential in the aforemetioned free orientifold of type $`IIA`$, and then explicitly check the same using mirror symmetry arguments of . Section 5 has the conclusion as well as future directions including a brief discussion on the gauged linear sigma model and the mirror Landau-Ginsburg model corresponding to the resolved $`CY_3(3,243)`$.

## 2 The Gauged Linear Sigma Model and the mirror Landau Ginsburg Model

Consider the Calabi-Yau 3-fold given as a degree-24 Fermat hypersurface in the weighted projective space $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$:

$$P=z_1^{24}+z_2^{24}+z_3^{12}+z_4^3+z_5^2=0.$$
(1)
This is transverse, as $`P=\frac{P}{z_{i=1,2,3,4,5}}=0`$ has only $`(0,0,0,0,0)`$ as the solution, which does not belong to the hypersurface. However, $`P`$ has a $`𝐙_2`$-singularity curve and a $`𝐙_4`$-singularity point. To see this, in the defintion:

$$(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(\lambda z_1,\lambda z_2,\lambda ^2z_3,\lambda ^8z_4,\lambda ^{12}z_5),\lambda 𝐂^{},$$
(2)
set $`\lambda =1`$ to see that one gets a $`𝐙_2`$-singularity along $`(0,0,z_3,z_4,z_5)`$ which is a curve in the Calabi-Yau, and if one sets $`\lambda =i`$, one gets a $`𝐙_4`$-singularity along the point $`(0,0,0,z_4,z_5)`$. The singularity resolution can be summarized by the following. The $`𝐙_2`$-singularity is blown up by a $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ so that the Calabi-Yau is a $`K3`$-fibration over this $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$, and the $`𝐙_4`$ singularity is resolved by taking the $`K3`$ fiber itself to be an elliptic firbation over another $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$. This gives the smooth $`CY_3(3,243)`$ 444Using Greene-Plesser’s prescription, the mirror $`CY_3(243,3)`$ is obtained by $`\frac{P}{𝐙_6\times 𝐙_{12}}`$ the generators of the orbifolds being given by:    $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(z_1,e^{\frac{2i\pi }{12}}z_2,e^{\frac{2i\pi }{12}}z_3,z_4,z_5)`$    $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(e^{\frac{2i\pi }{24}}z_1,e^{\frac{2i\pi }{24}}z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)`$  . In this paper, except for the last section, we assume that one is away from the orbifold singularities mentioned above. In the section on Conclusion and Future directions (section 5), we briefly discuss the gauged linear sigma model and its mirror Landau-Ginsburg model for the resolved $`CY_3(3,243)`$.

Type IIA theory on the above Calabi-Yau can be described, based on , by a gauged linear sigma model by six chiral superfields $`𝒳_i,i=1,\mathrm{},6`$ with $`U(1)`$ charges (1,1,2,8,12,-24) satisfying the following constraint:

$$|𝒳_1|^2+|𝒳_2|^2+2|𝒳_3|^3+8|𝒳_4|^2+12|𝒳_5|^224|𝒳_6|^2=r,$$
(4)
with the linear sigma model superpotential $`W`$ given by

$$W(𝒳_i)=X_6P(𝒳_{1,\mathrm{},5}).$$
(5)
The mirror Landau-Ginsburg (LG) theory will be given in terms of a vector multiplet with field strength $`F`$ and twisted chiral superfields $`Y_i,i=1,\mathrm{},6`$, satisfying the constraint:

$$Y_1+Y_2+2Y_3+8Y_4+12Y_524Y_6=t(=r+i\theta ),$$
(6)
with

$$Re(Y_i)=|𝒳_i|^2.$$
(7)
The mirror LG superpotential $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{LG}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{LG}=(W_{LG})\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}e^{Y_i}+F(\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}w_iY_it),$$
(8)
where $`w_i,i=1,\mathrm{},6`$ are the weights. The constraint (6) can be solved by:

$$e^{Y_i}=X_i^{\frac{24}{w_i}}.$$
(9)
Solving for $`Y_6`$, one gets:

$$e^{Y_6}=e^{\frac{t}{24}}e^{(\frac{Y_1}{24}+\frac{Y_2}{24}+\frac{Y_3}{12}+\frac{Y_4}{3}+\frac{Y_5}{2})}=e^{\frac{t}{24}}X_1X_2X_3X_4X_5.$$
(10)
Hence,

$$W_{LG}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}e^{Y_i}+e^{\frac{t}{24}}e^{_{i=1}^5\frac{w_i}{24}Y_i}.$$
(11)
The period integral as defined in  for compact manfiolds is:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(t)d(\mathrm{dimensionality}\mathrm{ofhypersurface})\frac{d}{dt}dF\underset{i=1}{}dY_ie^{\stackrel{~}{W}_{LG}}.$$
(12)
For the Calabi-Yau under consideration, one thus gets:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(t)=24{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Y_6\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}w_iY_i24Y_6t)e^{W_{LG}}}`$
$`=24{\displaystyle \frac{(24)^5}{\mathrm{1.1.2.8.12}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{}\frac{dX_i}{X_i}e^{_{i=1}^5X_i^{\frac{24}{w_i}}e^{\frac{t}{24}}_{i=1}^5X_i}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(24)^5}{\mathrm{1.1.2.8.12}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}dX_ie^{_{i=1}^5X_i^{\frac{24}{w_i}}e^{\frac{t}{24}}_{i=1}^5X_i}}.`$ (13)
## 3 Picard-Fuchs Equation

In this section we derive the Picard-Fuchs equation from the gauged linear sigma model on the Calabi-Yau given by (1). To obtain the Picard-Fuchs equation, following , consider:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\{\mu _i\})\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}dY_i\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}w_iY_it)e^{_{i=1}^5\mu _ie^{Y_i}}$$
(14)
such that:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\{\mu _i=1\})\mathrm{\Pi }(t).$$
(15)
Writing:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(t)=24\frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t),$$
(16)
and then defining a corresponding $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t,\{\mu _i\})`$, one then obtains the following Picard-Fuchs equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}\left(\frac{}{\mu _i}\right)^{w_i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t,\{\mu _i\})=e^t\left(\frac{}{\mu _6}\right)^{w_6=24}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t,\{\mu _i\}).$$
(17)
One notes that (See ):

$$\underset{i}{}dY_i\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}w_iY_it)e^{_i\mu _iY_i}\stackrel{Y_iY_i+ln\mu _i}{}\underset{i}{}dY_i\delta (\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}w_iY_it^{})e^{_iY_i},$$
(18)
where

$$t^{}=tln\left(\frac{\mu _1\mu _2\mu _3^2\mu _4^8\mu _5^{12}}{\mu _6^{24}}\right).$$
(19)
Hence, one sees that:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(t,\{\mu _i\})=\mathrm{\Pi }(t^{},\{\mu _i=1\}).$$
(20)
If

$$\frac{}{\mu _i}\frac{w_i}{\mu _i}\frac{}{t^{}},$$
(21)
then

$$\frac{^{M_i}}{\mu _i^{M_i}}|_{\frac{}{t^{}}\mathrm{\Theta }}\underset{j=0}{\overset{M_i1}{}}(m_j\mathrm{\Theta }j),$$
(22)
using which one gets:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu _{1,2}}}\mathrm{\Theta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mu _3^2}}2\mathrm{\Theta }(2\mathrm{\Theta }1),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^8}{\mu _4^8}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{7}{}}}(8\mathrm{\Theta }j),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{12}}{\mu _5^{12}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{11}{}}}(12\mathrm{\Theta }j),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^{24}}{\mu _6^{24}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{23}{}}}(24\mathrm{\Theta }j).`$ (23)
Using (22), one gets the following Picard-Fuchs equation:

$$(\mathrm{\Theta })^2(2\mathrm{\Theta })(2\mathrm{\Theta }1)\underset{j=0}{\overset{7}{}}(8\mathrm{\Theta }j)\underset{j=0}{\overset{11}{}}(12\mathrm{\Theta }j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t^{})=e^t^{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{23}{}}(24\mathrm{\Theta }j)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t^{}).$$
(24)
### 3.1 Solution to the Picard-Fuchs Equation

In this subsection, we discuss the solution to the Picard-Fuchs equation (24). We will do so around (a) $`e^t^{}z=0,\mathrm{}`$ which could be interpreted as the large and small complex structure limits (on the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side), respectively, and (b) $`e^t^{}=2229025112064`$ \- a “MATHEMATICA”lly interesting point.

#### 3.1.1 Solution around $`e^t^{}=0,\mathrm{}`$

One notes that $`ze^t^{}=e^t\frac{_{i=1}^5\mu _i^{w_i}}{\mu _6^{_{j=1}^5w_j}}`$ can be made small by, e.g., taking $`\mu _6\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to the large complex structure limit on the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side. On the other hand by, e.g., taking $`\mu _60`$, corresponding to the small complex structure limit (on the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side), one can make $`|z|>>1`$. It is usually the large complex structure limit that has been largely dealt with in the literature. Additionally, for finite values of the complex structure deformation parameters $`\mu _i`$’s, $`|z|<<1`$ can alternatively correspond to large size of the Calabi-Yau, parameterized by (large) $`t`$. In this work, we solve for both the limits with equal ease, following . The method has the additional advantage that the solutions with logarithmic terms corresponding to the large complex structure limit, do not have to be obtained by any process of differentiation of solutions with some additional parameter that is eventually set to zero. One gets them as naturally as the one without the logarithmic terms.

By setting $`e^t^{}z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_zz\frac{d}{dz}`$, one sees that the Picard-Fuchs equation (24) can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_z^2\mathrm{\Delta }_z(\mathrm{\Delta }_z\frac{1}{2})\underset{j=1}{\overset{8}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_z\frac{j1}{8})\underset{j=1}{\overset{12}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_z\frac{j1}{12})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}=z\frac{(24)^24}{(2^2.8^8.12^{12})}\underset{j=1}{\overset{24}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_z+\frac{j1}{24})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}.$$
(25)
The numerical factor on the RHS can be absorbed into $`z`$ after a suitable rescaling and noting that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z`$ remains invariant under such a rescaling. Comparing (25 with the following differential equation for a generalized Hypergeometric function (See )555We thank C.I.Lazirou for bringing  to our attention. $`{}_{p}{}^{}F_{q}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2& \alpha _3& \mathrm{}.\alpha _p\\ \beta _1& \beta _2& \beta _3& \mathrm{}.\beta _q\end{array}\right)`$:

$$\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_z\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\beta _i1)z\underset{j=1}{\overset{p}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+\alpha _j)\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}=0,$$
(26)
one notes:

$`p=24,q=23;`$
$`\beta _1=\beta _2=1,\beta _3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\beta _i={\displaystyle \frac{9i}{8}},i=4,\mathrm{},11,\beta _i={\displaystyle \frac{13i}{12}},i=12,\mathrm{},23;`$
$`\alpha _i={\displaystyle \frac{i1}{24}},i=1,\mathrm{},24.`$ (27)
One solution to (25) can be written in terms of the following generalized hypergeometric function

$$_pF_q\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & \\ 0& \frac{1}{24}& \frac{2}{24}& \frac{3}{24}& \frac{4}{24}& \frac{5}{24}& \mathrm{}.\frac{23}{24}\\ 1& 1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{5}{8}& \mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}& \frac{1}{12}& \mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
From the above solution, using properties involving the generalized hypergeometric function $`{}_{p}{}^{}F_{q}^{}`$ and the Meijer function $`I`$:

$`{}_{p}{}^{}F_{q}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ \alpha _1& \alpha _2& \alpha _3& \mathrm{}.\alpha _p\\ \beta _1& \beta _2& \beta _3& \mathrm{}.\beta _q\end{array}\right)(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _i)}{_{j=1}^q\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _j)}}I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 0& \alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _p\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _q\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (35)
$`I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ a_1\mathrm{}a_A& b_1\mathrm{}b_B\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ c_1\mathrm{}c_C& d_1\mathrm{}d_D\end{array}\right)=I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ a_1\mathrm{}1d_l\mathrm{}a_A& b_1\mathrm{}b_B\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ c_1\mathrm{}c_C& d_1\mathrm{}\widehat{d}_l\mathrm{}d_D\end{array}\right)(z),`$ (42)
one generates the following additional 23 solutions that together with (3.1.1) forms the Meijer basis of solutions to the Picard-Fuchs equation (25):

$`(a_1)I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 00& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& 1\frac{1}{2}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (46)
$`(a_2)I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \frac{1}{2}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (50)
$`(a_3)I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (54)
$`(a_4)I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{8}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \frac{4}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.`$
$`(a_{11})I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{8}\frac{4}{8}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{8}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (62)
$`(a_{12})I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{8}\frac{4}{8}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{8}\frac{11}{12}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& 0\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (66)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..`$
$`(a_{23})I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{8}\frac{4}{8}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{8}\frac{11}{12}1\frac{13}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{22}{12}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& .\end{array}\right)(z).`$ (70)
Now, to get an infinite series expansion in $`z`$ for $`|z|<1`$ as well as $`|z|>1`$, one uses the following Mellin-Barnes integral represention for the Meijer’s function $`I`$:

$$I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ a_1\mathrm{}a_A& b_1\mathrm{}b_B\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ c_1\mathrm{}c_C& d_1\mathrm{}d_D\end{array}\right)(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_\gamma 𝑑s\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{A}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(a_is)\underset{j=1}{\overset{B}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(b_j+s)}{_{k=1}^C\mathrm{\Gamma }(c_ks)_{l=1}^D\mathrm{\Gamma }(d_l+s)}z^s,$$
(71)
where the contour $`\gamma `$ lies to the right of the poles at $`s+b_j=m𝐙^{}\{0\}`$ and to the left of the poles at $`a_is=m𝐙^{}\{0\}`$ (See Fig 1).

Given that one is interested in the region $`|z|<1`$, one can deform the contour $`\gamma `$ to $`\gamma ^{}`$ in Fig 2 below:

In the following we evaluate the Mellin-Barnes integral for the Meijer basis of solutions based on the techniques of .

(a)

$`I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 0& 0\frac{1}{24}\frac{2}{24}\frac{3}{24}\frac{4}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& 11\frac{1}{2}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)=`$ (77)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+s)}{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s)]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+s)_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i}{8}+s)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+s)}}(z)^s`$ (78)
Using $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s)^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+1)};\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=()^{m+1}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s+m+1)}{(sm)(sm+1)_m}`$ implying a pole of order 2 at $`s=0`$ and a pole of order 1 at $`s=m𝐙^+`$, and the fact that the pole at $`s=0`$ will not contribute to the residue because the residue will involve multiplication of a finite quantity 666The finite quantity being: $`_{j=1}^{23}\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{j}{24})+ln(z)+2\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{1}{2})_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{k}{8})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{l}{12})`$. with $`\frac{_{j=1}^{23}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8})_{l=10}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12})}`$ implying that there will be a $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)^2}`$ factor nullifying the contribution to the residue Hence, the final answer is:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{j}{24})z^m()^{m+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{1}{2})_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{k}{8})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{l}{10})m^2m!(m1)!}}`$
$`\times [{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }(m+{\displaystyle \frac{j}{24}})+ln(z)1\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }(m+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{8}}){\displaystyle \underset{l=10}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{l}{12}}+m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}\mathrm{\Psi }(m+1)]`$ (79)
Similarly, for $`|z|>1`$, by deforming the contour $`\gamma `$ to the one $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$, and on using that $`Res(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+s)|_{s=m(𝐙^{}0)\frac{j}{24}}=\frac{()^m}{m!}`$, one gets the following result:

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m)()^m\underset{jk=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{kj}{24}m)}{m!(m+\frac{j}{24})\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\frac{j}{24}+1)_{k=2}^8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}m\frac{j}{24})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}m\frac{j}{24})}(z)^{m\frac{j}{24}}.$$
(80)
We explicitly evaluate below the solutions $`(a_1),(a_3),(a_{12})`$, the others following suit.

($`a_1`$)

$`I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 00& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& 1\frac{1}{2}\frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (84)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+s)_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i}{8}+s)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+s)}}(z)^s`$
For arguments similar to the one in (a) above, again the pole of order 3 at $`s=0`$ does not contribute to the residue 777For the sake of completeness, the finite term that gets multiplied by $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)^2}`$ this time is: $`\left[_{j=1}^{23}\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{j}{24})+ln(z)+2\gamma 2_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{k}{8})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Psi }(\frac{l}{12})\right]^2`$ $`+2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1)+_{j=1}^{23}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\frac{j}{24})+4_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\frac{k}{8})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\frac{l}{12})`$..The final answer is:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{M=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m!)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{1}{2})_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}+m)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+m)}}(z)^m`$
$`\times [2\gamma +{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{j}{24}}+m)\mathrm{\Psi }(m+1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{k}{8}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{l}{12}}+m)+ln(z)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}]`$ (86)
Similar to $`(a)`$ above, for $`|z|>1`$, one gets the following result:

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m))^2()^m\underset{jk=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{kj}{24}m)}{m!(m+\frac{j}{24})_{k=2}^8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}m\frac{j}{24})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}m\frac{j}{24})}z^{m\frac{j}{24}}.$$
(87)
($`a_3`$)

$`I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& \frac{5}{8}\mathrm{}\frac{2}{8}\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (91)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)]^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}{_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{i}{8}+s)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+s)}}(z)^s`$ (92)
Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=\frac{\pi }{ssin(\pi s)}`$, and arguments above, one can show that the pole of order 4 at $`s=0`$ does not contribute to the residue, and the pole of order 3 at $`s=m𝐙^+`$ and a simple at $`s=n(𝐙^+\{0\})+\frac{1}{2}`$, contribute the following to the residue:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^m}{(m!)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m)}{_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}+m)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+m)}}`$
$`\times [\{2\gamma 2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{j}{24}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{j}{8}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{j=10}{\overset{1}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{j}{12}}+m)+ln(z)\}^2`$
$`2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1)+2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{j}{24}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{j}{8}}+m){\displaystyle \underset{j=10}{\overset{1}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{l}{12}}+m)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{m+\frac{1}{2}}()^{m+1}}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\frac{1}{2})]^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{1}{2})\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+\frac{j}{24}+\frac{1}{2})}{_{k=2}^5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}+\frac{1}{2}+m)_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}+\frac{1}{2}+m)}}`$ (93)
For $`|z|>1`$, one gets the following result:

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m))^2\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{j}{24}+m)()^m\underset{jk=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{kj}{24}m)}{(\frac{j}{24}+m)sin[\pi (\frac{j}{24}+m)]m!(m+\frac{j}{24})_{k=2}^8\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{8}m\frac{j}{24})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}m\frac{j}{24})}z^{m\frac{j}{24}}.$$
(94)
($`a_{12}`$)

$`I\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 000\frac{1}{2}\frac{3}{8}\mathrm{}.\frac{10}{8}\frac{11}{12}& 0\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{}.\frac{23}{24}\\ & \\ & \\ & \\ .& 0\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{}\frac{10}{12}\end{array}\right)(z)`$ (100)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)]^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}s)\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{8}s)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11}{12}s)\underset{j=1}{\overset{13}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+s)}{_{j=1}^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{12}+s)}}(z)^s`$
The integral (100) has a pole of order 3 at $`s=0`$ and simple poles at $`s=\frac{1}{2}+m,\frac{n}{8}+m,\frac{11}{12}+m,m𝐙^+\{0\}`$, and the final answer is:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^m(z)^m}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}m)\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{8}m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11}{12}s)}{_{k=1}^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{12}+m)}}[\{3\gamma 3{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m)+ln(z)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{n}{8}}m)\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}m){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }({\displaystyle \frac{k}{12}}+m)\}^2`$
$`+3\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(1)+3{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j^2}}+\psi ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m){\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{n}{8}}m)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{11}{12}}m){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{10}{}}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}({\displaystyle \frac{k}{12}}+m)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^{m+1}(z)^{m+\frac{1}{2}}}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\frac{1}{2})\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{8}m\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{12}m)}{_{k=1}^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{12}+m+\frac{1}{2})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^{m+1}(z)^{m+\frac{n}{8}}}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(m\frac{n}{8})]^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}m\frac{n}{8})\underset{n^{}=3n}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n^{}\frac{n}{8}m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11}{12}\frac{n}{8}m)}{_{k=1}^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{k}{12}+m+\frac{n}{8})}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{()^{m+1}(z)^{\frac{11}{12}+m}}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11}{12}m)]^3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{6}m)\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{8}\frac{11}{12}m)}{_{k=1}^{10}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{(k11)}{12}+m)}}`$ (102)
For $`|z|>1`$, one gets the following result:

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{23}{}}\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{j}{24}+m))^3\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{j}{24}+m)()^m\underset{jk=1}{\overset{23}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{kj}{24}m)\underset{n=3}{\overset{10}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{8}+\frac{j}{24}+m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11}{12}+\frac{j}{24}+m)}{m!(m+\frac{j}{24})_{l=10}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{l}{12}m\frac{j}{24})}z^{m\frac{j}{24}}.$$
(103)
The appearance of log in the above solutions is indicative of the degeneracy in the indicial equation corresponding to the Picard-Fuchs equation. Note the absence of $`(lnz)^3`$ terms in the solutions above.

The Picard-Fuchs equation can be written in the form:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{24}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{23}{}}𝐁_i(z)\mathrm{\Delta }_z^i\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)=0,$$
(104)
where the 23 $`𝐁_i`$’s after rescaling $`z`$ such that the coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z^{24}`$ is $`1z`$, is given in Appendix A. The Picard-Fuchs equation in the form written in (154) can alternatively be expressed as the following system of 24 linear differential equations:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_z\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_z)^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ \mathrm{}\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_z)^{23}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\end{array}\right)=`$ (111)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}0& 0\\ .& .& .& \mathrm{}.& .\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}0& 1\\ 0& 𝐁_1(z)& 𝐁_2(z)& \mathrm{}𝐁_{22}(z)& 𝐁_{23}(z)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_z)^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\\ \mathrm{}\\ (\mathrm{\Delta }_z)^{23}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)\end{array}\right)`$ (124)
The matrix on the RHS of (111) is usually denoted by $`A(z)`$.

If the 24 solutions, $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{I=1,\mathrm{},24}\}`$, are collected as a column vector $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)`$, then the monodromy matrix $`T`$ for $`|z|<<1`$ is defined by:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(e^{2\pi i}z)=T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z).$$
(125)
The basis for the space of solutions can be collected as the columns of the “fundamental matrix” $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ given by:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=S_{24}(z)z^{R_{24}},$$
(126)
where $`S_{24}(z)`$ and $`R_{24}`$ are 24$`\times `$24 matrices that single and multiple-valued respectively. Note that $`𝐁_i(0)0`$, which influences the monodromy properties. Also,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1(z)& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{24}(z)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1(z)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{24}(z)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_z^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2(z)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Delta }^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{24}(z)\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_z^{23}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1(z)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Delta }_z^{23}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{24}(z)\end{array}\right)_{ij},$$
(127)
implying that

$$T=e^{2\pi iR^t}.$$
(128)
Now, writing $`z^R=e^{Rlnz}=1+Rlnz+R^2(lnz)^2+\mathrm{}`$, and further noting that there are no terms of order higher than $`(lnz)^2`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(z)`$ obtained above, implies that the matrix $`R`$ must satisfy the property: $`R^m=0,m=3,4,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Hence, $`T=e^{2\pi iR^t}=1+2\pi iR^t+\frac{(2\pi i)^2}{2}(R^t)^2.`$ It is not possible to evaluate all the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A(0)`$ (using the expressions for $`B_i(z)`$ in Appendix A) using Mathematica because of the degree-24 characteristic equation that one would require to solve. Mathematica does predict a 4-fold degenerare null eigenvalue though. Irrespective of whether or not the distinct eigenvalues of $`A(0)`$ differ by integers, one has to evaluate $`e^{2\pi iA(0)}`$. Using Mathematica, one gets a very complicated expression, whose form in terms of powers of $`\pi `$ and the null entries are given by:

$`e^{2i\pi A(0)}=`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & \\ 1& 2i\pi & (..)\pi ^2& (..)\pi ^3& (..)\pi ^4& (..)\pi ^5& (..)\pi ^6& \mathrm{}(..)\pi ^{22}& (..)\pi ^{23}\\ 0& 1& 2i\pi & 2i\pi ^2& \frac{4i\pi ^3}{3}+& (..)\pi ^4+& (..)\pi ^5+& \mathrm{}(..)\pi ^{21}+& (..)\pi ^{22}\\ & & & & (..)\pi ^{23}& (..)\pi ^{23}& (..)\pi ^{23}& (..)\pi ^{23}& \\ 0& 0& 1& 2i\pi & 2\pi ^2& (..)\pi ^3& (..)\pi ^4+& (..)\pi ^{20}+& (..)\pi ^{21}+\\ & & & & +(..)\pi ^{22}& +(..)\pi ^{22}& (..)\pi ^{22}+& (..)\pi ^{22}+& (..)\pi ^{23}\\ & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{23}& (..)\pi ^{23}& (..)\pi ^{23}& \\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 2i\pi & (..)\pi ^2+& (..)\pi ^3+& \mathrm{}(..)\pi ^{19}& (..)\pi ^{20}+\\ & & & & & (..)_i\pi ^{21}& _{i=21}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& +_{i=21}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& (..)\pi ^{22}\\ & & & & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{23}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 2i\pi & (..)\pi ^2& \mathrm{}(..)\pi ^{18}& (..)\pi ^{19}+\\ & & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{20}& +_{i=20}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& _{i=21}^{23}(..)\pi ^i\\ & & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{22}& & \\ & & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{23}& & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 2i\pi +& \mathrm{}(..)\pi ^{17}+& (..)\pi ^{18}+\\ & & & & & +(..)\pi ^{19}& _{i=19}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& _{i=19}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& _{i=20}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i\\ ..& ..& ..& ..& ..& ..& ..& ..& ..\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& (..)\pi ^2+& \mathrm{}.& \mathrm{}1+& 2i\pi +\\ & & & & & _{i=4}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& \mathrm{}.& _{i=2}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& _{i=3}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& e^{i\alpha _1}((..)\pi +& e^{i\alpha _2}\times & \mathrm{}e^{i\alpha _{17}}\times & 1+\\ & & & & & _{i=3}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i)& _{i=1}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& _{i=1}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i& +_{i=2}^{23}(..)_i\pi ^i\end{array}\right)`$ (150)
Under the change of basis (See ): $`U(z)U^{}(z)=M^1U(z)`$, and by choosing $`M`$ such that $`S^{}(0)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{24}`$, one gets $`T=Me^{2i\pi A(0)}M^1`$. In principle, one could try to evaluate $`M`$ using techniques given in .

#### 3.1.2 The MATHEMATICAlly interesting point $`e^t=2229025112064`$

We now discuss Picard-Fuchs equation about a certain point, where curiously, using Mathematica, one is able to solve for the eigenvalues of the 24$`\times `$24 matrix “$`A(0)`$”, and one finds that they differ by integers implying that the monodromy matrix can not be given by $`e^{2i\pi A(0)}`$. There is not much known about solutions to the Picard-Fuchs equation about $`z(e^t^{})=1`$, and after rescaling, the abovementioned point, in terms of the rescaled $`z`$, corresponds precisely to solving the Picard-Fuchs equation about (rescaled)$`z=1`$. To be able say something definite about the monodromy, will help in understanding the solution as well. It is in this regard that this (sub)subsection is quite relevant.

If one does not make the substitution $`e^t^{}=z`$, then the Picard-Fuchs equation can be written in the following form:

$$\left[(e^t^{}2229025112064)\frac{d^{24}}{dt^{}^{24}}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{23}{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_i(t^{})\frac{d^i}{dt^{}^i}\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t^{})=0,$$
(152)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i(t^{})`$’s are regular. After the shift: $`t^{}t^{}+ln(2229025112064)`$, and using:

$$t^{}{}_{}{}^{m}\frac{d^m}{dt^{}^m}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{m1}{}}(t^{}\frac{d}{dt^{}}n),$$
(153)
one can rewrite the Picard-Fuchs equation (152) as:

$$\left[\left(t^{}\frac{d}{dt^{}}\right)^{24}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{23}{}}𝐁_i(t^{})\left(t^{}\frac{d}{dt^{}}\right)^i\right]\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t^{})=0,$$
(154)
where

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{C}_i(t^{})}{22902511064(e^t^{}1)}𝐁_i(t^{})=b_i^0+\frac{\underset{j=1}{\overset{24i}{}}(b_j^1+e^t^{}b_j^2)t^{}^j}{(e^t^{}1)}.$$
(155)
One hence notices that $`t^{}=0`$ is a regular singular point of the differential equation (154). The expressions for the 24 $`𝐁_i^{}s`$ (from where one can read off $`b_j^{0,1,2}`$’s) is given partly for the sake of completeness and partly to verify the structure of terms as given on the RHS of (154) and to read off the expressions for $`𝐁_i(0)^{}s`$ necessary for determining the matrix $`A(0)`$, is given in the appendix. The matrix $`A(0)`$ is given by:

$`A(0)=`$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}0\\ .& .& .& \mathrm{}\\ 2248001455555215360000& 9420954286448517120000& 17660770126877316096000& \mathrm{}255\end{array}\right)`$ (161)
The reason why $`t^{}`$(before the shift)=$`ln(2229025112064)`$ is MATHEMATICAlly interesting is that Mathematica is able to determine the eigenvalues of $`A(0)`$ ! They are given by $`0,1,(2)^2,3,\mathrm{},23`$ \- they differ by integers. As a consequence, one can not set $`R_{24}`$ to $`A(0)`$ (See ).

The matrix $`e^{2i\pi A(0)}`$ is given by:

$$e^{2i\pi A(0}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ 1& i\pi X_1& i\pi X_2& \mathrm{}& i\pi X_{23}\\ 0& 1+2i\pi X_1& 2i\pi X_2& \mathrm{}& 2i\pi X_{23}\\ 0& 2^2i\pi X_1& 12^2i\pi X_2& \mathrm{}& 2^2i\pi X_{23}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 2^{23}i\pi X_1& 2^{23}i\pi X_2& \mathrm{}& 1+2^{23}i\pi X_{23}\end{array}\right)$$
(163)
where

$`\{X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,X_6,X_7,X_8,X_9,X_{10},X_{11},X_{12},X_{13},X_{14},X_{15},X_{16},`$ $`X_{17},X_{18},X_{19},X_{20},X_{21},X_{22},X_{23}\}`$ $`=\{462i\pi ,\frac{57279591i}{33592}\pi ,\frac{7757553775549i}{2793510720}\pi ,\frac{287102134746031i}{106661318400}\pi ,\frac{3311858525015123i}{1882258560000}\pi ,\frac{2399093587319011i}{2887073280000}\pi ,`$ $`\frac{1282161754601213i}{4330609920000}\pi ,\frac{100177907111227i}{1222760448000}\pi ,\frac{54926206286431i}{3056901120000}\pi ,\frac{542316429868939i}{171186462720000}\pi ,\frac{38813357767589i}{85593231360000}\pi ,\frac{26600161411i}{501645312000}\pi ,`$ $`\frac{140203969733i}{27590492160000}\pi ,\frac{39051524303i}{97820835840000}\pi ,\frac{2508239171i}{97820835840000}\pi ,\frac{91643431i}{68474585088000}\pi ,\frac{19239707i}{342372925440000}\pi ,\frac{517891i}{277159034880000}\pi ,`$ $`\frac{4439i}{92386344960000}\pi ,\frac{5819i}{6319225995264000}\pi ,\frac{23i}{1858595880960000}\pi ,\frac{23i}{221172909834240000}\pi ,\frac{i}{2432902008176640000}\pi \}.`$ Again, as in 3.1.2, for a suitable $``$, the monodromy matrix is given by $`T=e^{2i\pi A(0)}^1`$.

## 4 Superpotential Calculation

In , at the level of spectrum matching, it was shown that Heterotic on the self-mirror Calabi-Yau $`CY_3(11,11)`$ is dual to $`M`$ theory on the ‘barely’ $`G_2`$-Manifold $`\frac{CY_3(3,243)\times S^1}{𝐙_2}`$ where the $`𝐙_2`$ involved the Enriques involution times a reflection of the $`S^1`$. It was also shown that the expected $`F`$-theory dual for the above must involve an elliptically fibered $`CY_4`$ that has the Hodge data: $`h^{1,1}=12,h^{2,1}=128,h^{3,1}=108`$ and which has a trivially rationally ruled base given by $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1\times `$Enriques surface888As mentioned in the footnote on page 2, there was a puzzle raised in the context of the $`F`$-theory dual, namely, the required 4-fold could neither be obtained as a free involution (to guarantee a null Euler characteristic, because there are no $`F`$-theory 3-branes as there are no nonperturbative Heterotic 5-branes in Heterotic on $`CY_3(11,11)`$) of $`CY_3(3,243)\times T^2`$, nor is it possible to construct it as a hypersurface in a toric variety explaining its absence in the (incomplete) list of $`CY_4`$’s obtained as hypersurfaces in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^5`$ in ..

In this section, we first give a heuristic argument to show that there can no be no superpotential generated on the type IIA side that got uplifted the abovementioned ‘barely’ $`G_2`$-manifold, by indicating that there can be no superpotential on the $`F`$ theory and Heterotic sides. Then, using mirror symmetry, away from the orbifold singularities of $`CY_3(3,243)`$, we show explicitly that indeed, there is no superpotential on the freely acting orbifold of $`CY_3(3,243)`$ as used in .

As per the work of Witten in , if one considers $`F`$-theory on an elliptically fibered $`CY_4`$ $`X_4`$ with the holomorphic map $`\pi :X_4B_3`$ having a 6-divisor $`D_3`$ as a section such that $`\pi (D_3)=C_2B_3`$, then in the limit of vanishing size of the the elliptic fiber, 5-branes wrapped around $`D_3`$ in $`M`$-theory on the same $`X_4`$ obeying the unit-arithmetic genus condition:

$$\chi (D_3,𝒪_{D_3})=1,$$
(164)
correspond to 3-branes wrapped around $`C_2`$ in type $`IIB`$, or equivalently $`F`$-theory 3-branes wrapped around $`C_2B_3`$. In other words, only 3-branes contribute to the superpotential in $`F`$-theory. Since, there are no 3-branes in the $`F`$-theory dual that we have, this implies that there can be no superpotential generated on the $`F`$-theory side.

Now, given that F-theory 3-branes correspond to Heterotic instantons, one again expects no superpotential to be generated on the Heterotic theory side on the self-mirror $`CY_3(11,11)`$ based on the $`𝒩=2`$ type IIA/Heterotic dual of  where the same self-mirror Calabi-Yau figured on the type IIA side and the self-mirror nature was argued to show that there are no world-sheet or space-time instanton corrections to the classical moduli space.999We thank W.Lerche for pointing this out to us. Now, if the abovementioned triality is correct, then one should be able to show that there is no superpotential generated on type $`IIA`$ side on the freely-acting antiholomorphic involution of $`CY_3(3,243)`$. We will, in this paper, look at the Fermat’s hypersurface of section 2 away from the orbifold singularities discussed in the same section. The freely acting antiholomorphic involution $`\omega `$ is defined as:

$$\omega :(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4,z_5)(\overline{z}_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_3,\overline{z}_4,\overline{z}_5).$$
(165)
As discussed in , $`\omega `$ has the interesting property that as an action on the cohomology of $`CY_3(3,243)`$, it reflects $`H^{1,1}`$ and complex conjugates $`H^{2,1}`$ in general, and in the large base ($`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$) limit of $`CY_3(3,243)`$, as in , $`\omega `$ reflects the Kähler form and complex conjugates every element of $`H^{2,1}`$ precisely, i.e., not just up to total differentials.

In the following, the arguments similar to those of  will used. Now, on the mirror type $`IIB`$ side, the superpotential $`W`$ is generated from domain-wall tention, the domain wall being $`D5`$-branes wrapped around supersymmetric 3-cycles embedded in Calabi-Yau 3-folds. The expression for the superpotential is given by:

$$W_{IIB}=_{C:C=_iD_i}\mathrm{\Omega }_3,$$
(166)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ is the holomorphic 3-form for the Calabi-Yau 3-fold, and $`D_i`$’s are 2-cycles corresponding to the positions of $`D5`$-branes or $`O5`$-planes, i.e., objects carrying $`D5`$ brane charge. From the world-sheet point of view, the $`D5`$ branes correspond to disc amplitudes and $`O5`$-planes correspond to $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2`$ amplitudes101010If $`z_{1,2}`$ are used for the homogenous coordinates of the $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$ in the $`CY_3(3,243)`$ regarded as $`K3`$-fibration over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$, then one gets an $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ from $`\frac{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1}{\omega }`$. As there are no branes in our theory, we need to consider only $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2`$ amplitudes. Now, type $`IIA`$ on a freely acting involution of a Calabi-Yau with no branes or fluxes can still generate a superpotential because it is possible that free involution on type $`IIA`$ side corresponds to orientifold planes in the mirror type $`IIB`$ side, which can generate a superpotential. An example of this is that a freely acting orientifold of $`IIB`$ on $`S^1`$ involving a shift along the $`S^1`$ alongwith world sheet orientation reversal is T-dual to an $`O8^+/O8^{}`$ pair at antipodal points on the dual circle, as given in 111111We thank M.Aganagic for pointing this out to us..

Now, the $`𝒩=1`$ Landau-Ginsburg superpotential $`W_{LG}`$ enters as:

$$d^2\theta W_{LG}.$$
(167)
Now, the measure is reflected under the world-sheet orientation reversal $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence, for (167) to be invariant under $`\mathrm{\Omega }.\omega `$,

$$\omega :W_{LG}W_{LG}.$$
(168)
From the discussion in section 2, one knows that

$$W_{LG}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}e^{Y_i},$$
(169)
where $`Y_i`$’s are the twisted chiral superfields (of the mirror to the $`U(1)`$ gauged linear sigma model). Now, promoting the action of $`\omega `$ given in (165) to the one on the chiral superfields $`X_{i=1,\mathrm{},6}`$:

$$\omega :(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,X_6)(\overline{X}_2,\overline{X}_1,\overline{X}_3,\overline{X}_4,\overline{X}_5,\overline{X}_6),$$
(170)
and using $`Re(Y_i)=|X_i|^2`$, one gets the following action of $`\omega `$ on the twisted chiral superfields $`Y_i`$’s:

$`\omega :Y_1Y_2+i\pi ,Y_2Y_1+i\pi ;`$
$`Y_{3,4,5,6}Y_{3,4,5,6}+i\pi .`$ (171)
The action of $`\omega `$ on $`Y_{3,4,5,6}`$ implies that $`\omega `$ acts without fixed points even on the twisted chiral superfields, further implying that there are no orientifold fixed planes, and hence no superpotential is generated on the type $`IIA`$ side away from the orbifold singularities.

## 5 Conclusion and Future Directions

In this paper, we considered type $`IIA`$ and a free-orientifold of it on the compact $`CY_3(3,243)`$ expressed as a degree-24 hypersurface in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$, away from its orbifold singularities, from a gauged linear sigma model point of view. We first derived the Picard-Fuchs equation, and obtained its Meijer basis of solutions in the large and small complex structure limits (on the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side) of the Calabi-Yau. We made some comments about the monodromy properties of the solutions, including at the special point, $`|z(`$ rescaled$`|=1(`$ “original” $`z=1/(2229025112064)`$). Then, we argue both indirectly and then directly, that there can be no superpotential generated in type $`IIA`$ on the aforementined free involution of the Fermat hypersurface (that gets smoothed out to $`CY_3(3,243)`$). So far, the argument has been given in the moduli space of the Calabi-Yau away from the orbifold singularities of the hypersurface in $`\mathrm{𝐖𝐂𝐏}^4[1,1,2,8,12]`$. One has to see, how to improve the argument to consider the resolved manifold with a $`K3`$ fibration over a $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$, and the $`K3`$ itself being an elliptic fibration over another $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$. In this direction, one notes that after resolving the $`𝐙_2`$ and $`𝐙_4`$ singularities discussed in section $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$, one ends up introducing two new chiral superfields corresponding to the two $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^1`$’s that are required to be introduced in blowing up the singularities. One then has to consider three instead of a single $`C^{}`$ action, and the $`CY_3(3,243)`$ 121212The $`CY_3(3,243)`$ considered in this paper will be an elliptic fibration over the Hirzebruch surface $`F_2`$. can be expressed as a suitable holomorphic quotient corresponding to a smooth toric variety. To be more specific, one considers the resolved Calabi-Yau $`CY_3(3,243)`$ as the holomorphic quotient: $`\frac{C^7F}{(C^{})^3}|_{\mathrm{hyp}\mathrm{constraint}}`$, where the diagonal $`(C^{})^3`$ actions on the seven coordinates of $`C^7`$ are given by:

$$x^j\lambda ^{iQ_j^a}x^j,\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}\mathrm{over}j;a=1,2,3,$$
(172)
where the three sets of charges $`\{Q_{i=(0,),1,\mathrm{},7}^{a=1,2,3}\}`$ (the ”0” being for the extra chiral superfield with $`Q_i^0=_{i=1}^7Q_i^a`$) are give by the following 131313We are deeply grateful to A.Klemm for discussions on material presented here on the resolution.:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & \\ & 𝒳_0& 𝒳_1& 𝒳_2& 𝒳_3& 𝒳_4& 𝒳_5& 𝒳_6& 𝒳_7\\ & & & & & & & & \\ Q_i^{(1)}:& 0& 1& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ Q_i^{(2)}:& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 2\\ Q_I^{(3)}:& 6& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 3& 1\end{array}$$
(173)
where on noting:

$$Q^{(1)}+2Q^{(2)}+4Q^{(3)}=\begin{array}{cccccccc}24& 1& 1& 0& 2& 8& 12& 0\end{array},$$
(174)
one identifies $`𝒳_{3,7}`$ as the two extra chiral superfields introduced as a consequence of singularity resolution.

To write the superpotential, one can start with the ansatz:

$$W=\underset{e_{0,1,\mathrm{},7}}{}a_{e_{0,1,\mathrm{},7}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{7}{}}𝒳_i^{e_i},$$
(175)
where in order to guarantee invariance under each of the three $`C^{}`$ actions, one gets the following three constraints on the eight chiral superfields:

$`e_1+e_22e_3=0`$
$`e_3+e_42e_7=0`$
$`6e_0+2e_5+3e_6+e_7=0,`$ (176)
in which by keeping, say, $`e_{0,1,2,5,6}`$ arbitrary, one gets:

$$W=\underset{e_{0,1,2,5,6}}{}a_{e_{0,1,,2,5,6}}𝒳_0^{e_0}𝒳_1^{e_1}𝒳_2^{e_2}𝒳_3^{\frac{e_1+e_2}{2}}𝒳_4^{\frac{e_1+e_2}{2}+2[6e_0(2e_5+3e_6)]}𝒳_5^{e_5}𝒳_6^{e_6}𝒳_7^{6e_0(2e_5+3e_6)},$$
(177)
where one has to ensure that the resulting $`W`$ is transverse. One could perhaps, set $`e_0=1`$, so as to rewrite $`W=𝒳_0\stackrel{~}{W}`$, as in . The form of $`W`$ will help determine the antiholomorphic involution of the smooth $`CY_3(3,243)`$ for the $`𝒩=1`$ type IIA theory.

On the mirror Landau-Ginsburg side, for the $`𝒩=2`$ type IIB theory, one notes that it will be given by a $`U(1)^3`$ gauge theory with field strengths $`F^{(a=1,2,3)}`$ with a superpotential $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{LG}`$ given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{LG}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}F^{(a)}(\underset{i=0}{\overset{7}{}}Q_i^{(a)}Y_it^a)+(W_{LG})\underset{i=0}{\overset{7}{}}e^{Y_i}$$
(178)
which after integrating out the $`F`$’s, gives the three constraints:

$`Y_1+Y_22Y_3=t_1`$
$`Y_3+Y_42Y_7=t_2`$
$`6Y_0+2Y_5+3Y_6+Y_7=t_3.`$ (179)
One thus gets:

$$W_{LG}=\underset{i=0,1,2,5,6}{}e^{Y_i}+e^{\frac{t_1}{2}}e^{\frac{Y_1+Y_2}{2}}+e^{\frac{t_1}{2}t_2}e^{\frac{Y_1+Y_2}{2}2[6Y_02Y_53Y_6]}+e^{t_3}e^{[6Y_02Y_53Y_6]}.$$
(180)
One can also look at the special Lagrangian submanifolds on the type IIA side and their mirrors on the type IIB side. We will do so in the context of $`𝒩=2`$ theories. The special Lagrangian submanifolds (See ) are characterized by charges “$`q_\alpha `$” which satisfy:

$$\underset{i}{}q_i^\alpha =0,$$
(181)
and which restrict the chiral superfields $`𝒳_i`$’s to:

$$\underset{i}{}|𝒳_i|^2q_i^\alpha =c^\alpha ,$$
(182)
for some constant $`c^\alpha `$’s. Using $`Re(Y_i)=|𝒳_i|^2`$, one sees the following equation for the mirror of the special Lagrangian submanifolds:

$$\underset{i}{}e^{Y_iq_i^\alpha }=e^{i_iq_i^\alpha Im(Y_i)}e^{c^\alpha }ϵ^\alpha e^{c^\alpha }.$$
(183)
Consider, for the resolved $`CY_3(3,243)`$,

$$q^1=(1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0),$$
(184)
implying the following special Lagragian submanifold:

$$|𝒳_1|^2|𝒳_0|^2=c^1.$$
(185)
Now, using the following $`D`$-term constraint (there are three, of which one considers the one involving $`𝒳_0`$):

$$6|𝒳_0|^2+2|𝒳_5|^2+3|𝒳_6|^2+|𝒳_7|^2=r^3,$$
(186)
one gets the following Lagrangian submanifold equation:

$$6|𝒳_0|^2+2|𝒳_5|^2+3|𝒳_6|^2+|𝒳_7|^2=r^36c^1\stackrel{~}{c}^1.$$
(187)
Hence, from (187), one sees that an equivalent charge vector is:

$$\stackrel{~}{q}^1=(0,6,0,0,0,2,3,1).$$
(188)
The mirror corresponding to the Lagrangian submanifold (187) and (188) is:

$$e^{6Y_12Y_53Y_6+Y_7}=ϵ^1e^{\stackrel{~}{c}^1}.$$
(189)
Returning back to the question of superpotential for the the $`𝒩=1`$ theory, what needs to be worked out is the antiholomorphic involution on the type IIA side, its image on the mirror type IIB side, and one should then be able to show that just like there were no O-planes and hence no superpotential away from the orbifold singularities before the singularity resolution, shown in section 4, there can be no superpotential generated even after resolving the orbifold singularities. Additionally, it will be interesting to evaluate and match the Kähler potential on the Heterotic and $`M`$ theory sides, and to take its $`F`$-theory limit.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank M.Aganagic and D-E.Diaconescu for useful communications and clarifications, W.Lerche for discussion and C.Lazaroiu for bringing  to our attention. Its a pleasure to thank A.Klemm for very useful discussions. We also thank D.Lüst for going through a preliminary version of the manuscript. This research work was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

## Appendix A $`𝐁_i`$’s for PF around $`|z|<1`$

In this appendix, we give the expressions, obtained from Mathematica, for the 23 $`𝐁_i`$’s that figure in the Picard-Fuchs equation for points near $`z=0`$.

$`𝐁_1(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2505147019375z}{5385144351531158470656\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_2(z)={\displaystyle \frac{149679187975625z}{3590096234354105647104\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_3(z)={\displaystyle \frac{160288719172038625z}{96932598327560852471808\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_4(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1897375316911910575z}{48466299163780426235904\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_5(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(3638250+\frac{15191740560751946323z}{429981696}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_6(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(214589025+\frac{88158910649831337151z}{214990848}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_7(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(5736960255+\frac{96816543515895571753z}{26873856}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_8(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(92797915786+\frac{331544607220340363311z}{13436928}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_9(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(1021883387656+\frac{2788771435559577853z}{20736}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{10}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(8165125067584+\frac{55246113744858429349z}{93312}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{11}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(49226099800176+\frac{2756809280714517083z}{1296}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{12}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(229685725831200+\frac{4070384057007569521z}{648}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{13}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(948851467387776+17223196429221419z\right)}{63403380965376\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{14}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(2463325189511168+\frac{277614451589633648z}{9}\right)}{56358560858112\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{15}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{11\left(2043640448992+18227621504883z\right)}{220150628352\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{16}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(21034217831392+137272511800831z\right)}{110075314176\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{17}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(13645602646+66672816001z\right)}{47775744\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{18}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{19\left(425415838+1587345023z\right)}{23887872\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{19}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{361\left(576063+1670053z\right)}{663552\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{20}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(73644729+168423871z\right)}{331776\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{21}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(66827+122199z\right)}{576\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{22}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(12139+17963z\right)}{288\left(1+z\right)}}`$
$`𝐁_{23}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\left(19+23z\right)}{2\left(1+z\right)}}`$
## Appendix B The Expressions for $`𝐁_i(t)^{}s`$

In this appendix, we give the expressions for $`𝐁_i(t)`$’s obtained using Mathematica that figure in the Picard-Fuchs equation (154).

$`𝐁_{23}(t)=(276+{\displaystyle \frac{(23+19e^t)t}{2(1+e^t)}})+`$
$`𝐁_{22}(t)=(35926{\displaystyle \frac{253(23+19e^t)t}{2(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{288(1+e^t)}})+`$
$`𝐁_{21}(t)=(2932776+{\displaystyle \frac{30107(23+19e^t)t}{2(1+e^t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{77(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{96(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{576(1+e^t)}})+`$
$`𝐁_{20}(t)=(168423871{\displaystyle \frac{2240315(23+19e^t)t}{2(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{25025(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{288(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{35(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{96(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(168423871+73644729e^t)t^4}{331776(1+e^t)}})`$
$`𝐁_{19}(t)=(7234669596+{\displaystyle \frac{58448313(23+19e^t)t}{1+e^t}}{\displaystyle \frac{563255(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{96(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{20615(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{576(1+e^t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{95(168423871+73644729e^t)t^4}{165888(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{361(1670053+576063e^t)t^5}{663552(1+e^t)}})+`$
$`𝐁_{18}(t)=(241276443496{\displaystyle \frac{2273023599(23+19e^t)t}{1+e^t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{6643483(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{24(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{69825(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{32(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5605(168423871+73644729e^t)t^4}{110592(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6859(1670053+576063e^t)t^5}{73728(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{19(1587345023+425415838e^t)t^6}{23887872(1+e^t)}})+`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`𝐁_2(t)=(96538966652493066240000{\displaystyle \frac{2074238389667727360000(23+19e^t)t}{1+e^t}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{646683370764480000(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{1+e^t}}{\displaystyle \frac{15196090341600000(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{1+e^t}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1300772650275(168423871+73644729e^t)t^4}{1+e^t}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{24348032073225(1670053+576063e^t)t^5}{2(1+e^t)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{140122891475(1587345023+425415838e^t)t^6}{144(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{426397825(66672816001+13645602646e^t)t^7}{288(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{209257475(137272511800831+21034217831392e^t)t^8}{5308416(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{451117205(18227621504883+2043640448992e^t)t^9}{31850496(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5729965(17350903224352103+1385620419100032e^t)t^{10}}{9172942848(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{430105(17223196429221419+948851467387776e^t)t^{11}}{18345885696(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{418555(4070384057007569521+148836350338617600e^t)t^{12}}{126806761930752(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{701195(145095225300764057+3357738175843584e^t)t^{13}}{253613523861504(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7129(55246113744858429349+761904150306398208e^t)t^{14}}{36520347436056576(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{761(2788771435559577853+21189773926434816e^t)t^{15}}{8115632763568128(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{121(331544607220340363311+1246918912966545408e^t)t^{16}}{7011906707722862592(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{49(96816543515895571753+154174243770593280e^t)t^{17}}{42071440246337175552(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{137(88158910649831337151+46134676456243200e^t)t^{18}}{6058287395472553279488(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{275(1381067323704722393+142216445952000e^t)t^{19}}{12116574790945106558976(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{20871128486031016325t^{20}}{48466299163780426235904(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{160288719172038625t^{21}}{32310866109186950823936(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{149679187975625t^{22}}{3590096234354105647104(1+e^t)}})`$
$`𝐁_1(t)=(25852016738884976640000+{\displaystyle \frac{562000363888803840000(23+19e^t)t}{1+e^t}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{177399104762880000(17963+12139e^t)t^2}{1+e^t}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4223788208640000(122199+66827e^t)t^3}{1+e^t}}{\displaystyle \frac{366648282000(168423871+73644729e^t)t^4}{1+e^t}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3483158679000(1670053+576063e^t)t^5}{1+e^t}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{282907625(1587345023+425415838e^t)t^6}{1+e^t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{875875(66672816001+13645602646e^t)t^7}{2(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{875875(137272511800831+21034217831392e^t)t^8}{73728(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1926925(18227621504883+2043640448992e^t)t^9}{442368(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{25025(17350903224352103+1385620419100032e^t)t^{10}}{127401984(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1925(17223196429221419+948851467387776e^t)t^{11}}{254803968(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1925(4070384057007569521+148836350338617600e^t)t^{12}}{1761205026816(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3325(145095225300764057+3357738175843584e^t)t^{13}}{3522410053632(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{35(55246113744858429349+761904150306398208e^t)t^{14}}{507227047723008(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{35(2788771435559577853+21189773926434816e^t)t^{15}}{1014454095446016(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{35(331544607220340363311+1246918912966545408e^t)t^{16}}{5258930030792146944(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5(96816543515895571753+154174243770593280e^t)t^{17}}{10517860061584293888(1+e^t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{5(88158910649831337151+46134676456243200e^t)t^{18}}{504857282956046106624(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{11(1381067323704722393+142216445952000e^t)t^{19}}{1009714565912092213248(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1897375316911910575t^{20}}{8077716527296737705984(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{160288719172038625t^{21}}{48466299163780426235904(1+e^t)}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{149679187975625t^{22}}{3590096234354105647104(1+e^t)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2505147019375t^{23}}{5385144351531158470656(1+e^t)}})`$ (191)


format: text

text:
# Statistical Properties of The First Excited State of an Interacting Many Particle Disordered System

(Mar. 3, 2003, version 3.1)

## Abstract

The distribution $`P_1`$ of the first many-body excitation energy of a weakly and moderately interacting electron gas in a finite conductor (in the diffusive regime) is calculated. As the interaction is increased, $`P_1`$ crosses over from Wigner-Dyson to Poisson. We characterize this transition through the inverse participation ratio in Hilbert space, and examine its manifestation in a projected $`2`$-dimensional space.

One of the most important physical quantities used to characterize finite conductors is energy level statistics. Not only does it provide an efficient mathematical framework to study such systems, but it is also correlated with other physical observables (conductance, spectral correlations, absorption spectrum, orbital magnetization, heat capacity when the number of electrons is fixed, etc.). This, in principle, allows for the “measurement of level statistics”. In weakly disordered conductors (“diffusive disorder”, as well as in chaotic cavities), it is known that the single electron energy levels obey the Wigner-Dyson (WD) statistics.

One can further investigate the many-body spectra of such systems. Let us first take the interaction strength to vanish. In this case the distribution of the normalized energy gap between the ground-state ($`|0`$) and the first-excited ($`|1`$), $`s(E_1E_0)/E_1E_0`$, follows the WD distribution (a single particle-hole pair at the Fermi energy is involved). Hereafter $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average taken over disorder realizations. Once we consider the gap between the $`m^{th}`$ and the $`m+1^{st}`$ many-body states with $`m>>1`$, we expect the statistics to follow the Poisson distribution. This is due to the fact that, typically, the $`m^{th}`$ and the $`m+1^{st}`$ many-body states correspond to mutually very different particle and hole configurations. Since they are not connected with each other through a single-particle operator, level repulsion is greatly reduced. Once we turn on electron-electron interaction, we expect the gap between the $`m^{th}`$ and the $`m+1^{st}`$ many-body states ($`m>>1`$) of such a system to satisfy the WD distribution. Indeed, the motivation behind the introduction of random matrix theories was to account for high-lying spectra of interacting systems. Table 1 summarizes the existing knowledge regarding the statistics of the excitation spectrum of a non-integrable electron gas. For the sake of definiteness we shall consider hereafter spinless electrons moving under the influence of weak disorder which renders the motion of a single electron diffusive.

The item in Table 1 which is marked by a question mark represents the distribution of the first excitation energy of a (weakly or moderately weakly) interacting electron gas, $`P_1(s)`$. This quantity is indeed the main object of our investigation. Earlier studies pichard  of $`P_1`$ have addressed different parameter regimes, or were at times inconclusive.

The main results of our analysis are:

1. We find numerically that as the electron-electron interaction strength is increased, the statistics of the first excitation energy crosses over from WD to Poisson (cf. Fig. 1). We characterize this transition quantitatively (cf. Fig.2 and Eq.4).
2. We relate the WD-to-Poisson transition to the statistics of the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of an effective $`2\times 2`$ matrix, depicting the mixing of the many body-sates $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ (Fig.5 and Eqs. Statistical Properties of The First Excited State of an Interacting Many Particle Disordered System,7,8).
3. We show how the WD-to-Poisson crossover is manifest in the distribution of the participation ratio, i.e., the structure of the many-body wave function in Hilbert space.
4. Finally, and very importantly, we show that as the interaction is increased the first excited state, which originally (at zero interaction) corresponds to a single particle-hole excitation, involves an increasing number of particle-holes. But this is up to a certain value of the interaction ($`r_s1`$). Upon further increase of the interaction strength this trend reverses. This picture is obtained by computing (numerically) the inverse participation ratio of the ground and first-excited states (in Hilbert space) as function of the interaction (cf. Fig. 3)

The model. We consider the following tight-binding Hamiltonian, describing spinless interacting electrons moving in the presence of a random potential:

$`\widehat{H}={\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}ϵ_{k,j}n_{k,j}V{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}[a_{k,j+1}^{}a_{k,j}+a_{k+1,j}^{}a_{k,j}+h.c.]`$
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}n_{k,j}n_{k\pm 1,j\pm 1}.`$ (1)
Here $`\{k,j\}`$ denotes a lattice site, the number operator is $`n_{k,j}`$ and $`ϵ_{k,j}`$ is the site energy, selected randomly and uniformly over the interval $`[W/2,W/2]`$. We study two-dimensional arrays with periodic boundary conditions. Only nearest-neighbor interactions $`U`$ are considered fn0 ; fn1 .

We present numerical results pertaining to $`N=48`$ electrons residing on $`4\times 4`$ lattices with $`M=16`$ sites ($`\nu N/M`$). Data for larger systems appeared to be compatible with our results. The disorder strength $`W=8V`$ was chosen so that the single-particle localization length is larger than the system size, with spectral correlations following the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) on small energy scales (i.e., for energy differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ<\mathrm{}/t_{flight}`$ ; $`t_{flight}`$ is the time-of-flight of the electron throughout the system). The motion of the electron is diffusive or marginally diffusive, $`l_{el}L`$, with $`L`$ being the quantum dot’s linear size and $`l_{el}`$ – the elastic mean-free-path.) Varying the electron density in the experiment amounts to varying the dimensionless parameter $`r_s`$, fn3 . We have carried out exact diagonalization of the many-particle Hamiltonian using the Lanczos method, and obtained the eigenvalues $`E_\alpha `$ and eigenvectors $`|\alpha `$, $`\alpha =0,1`$.

To establish a useful frame of reference for discussing the results of our analysis, it is convenient to study the self-consistent Hartree-Fock (SCHF) Hamiltonian corresponding to this system. This Hamiltonian reads

$`\widehat{H}_{HF}={\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}ϵ_{k,j}n_{k,j}V{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}[a_{k,j+1}^{}a_{k,j}+a_{k+1,j}^{}a_{k,j}+h.c.]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}n_{k,j}Un_{k\pm 1,j\pm 1}_0{\displaystyle \underset{k,j}{}}a_{k,j}^{}a_{k\pm 1,j\pm 1}Ua_{k\pm 1,j\pm 1}^{}a_{k,j}_0,`$ (2)
Here $`\mathrm{}_0`$ denotes a quantum average taken over the ground state, the latter being calculated self-consistently. The SCHF single-electron eigenvectors $`\{|\psi _n\}`$ and eigenvalues $`\{\epsilon _i\}`$ are obtained through a self-consistent diagonalization of the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian.

The exact many-body states may be expressed in terms of Fock determinants :

$`|\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N}{}}C_{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N}^{(\alpha )}c_{i_N}^{}\mathrm{}c_{i_2}^{}c_{i_1}^{}|\mathrm{vac},`$ (3)
where the sum is over all possible permutations of $`N`$ states out of $`M`$ with $`Mi_N>i_{N1}>\mathrm{}>i_2>i_11`$, $`c_n^{}`$ is the creation operator of the $`n^{th}`$ single-particle HF state and $`|\mathrm{vac}`$ is the vacuum state. For the non-interacting case, as well as for the case for which the SCHF provides an exact solution, the ground state (the first excited state) corresponds to $`C_{1,2,\mathrm{},N}=1`$ ($`C_{1,2,\mathrm{},N1,N+1}=1`$) while all other coefficients are equal to zero. This is compatible with a Koopmans-like picture. In this case the participation ratio (see below) is equal to $`1`$.

An important quantity which is particularly suitable to describe scenarios intermediate between the WD ($`\eta =0`$) and the Poisson ($`\eta =1`$) limits is fn2

$`\eta _1={\displaystyle \frac{_0^{0.4729}P_1(s)𝑑s_0^{0.4729}P_{wd}(s)𝑑s}{_0^{0.4729}P_p(s)𝑑s_0^{0.4729}P_{wd}(s)𝑑s}}.`$ (4)
WD to Poisson crossover. The distribution of $`s`$ as function of the interaction strength for $`1000`$ different realizations of disorder is plotted in Fig. 1. It is seen that $`P_1(s)`$ crosses over from a Poisson-like to a WD-like distribution as the interaction strength is increased, with the canonical signatures of such a transition in finite systems. The functional $`\eta `$ is depicted in Fig. 2. Each curve represents averaging over $`10000`$ different disorder realizations. In all cases $`\eta `$ increases (the distribution becomes more “Poisson-like”) as the interaction strength $`U`$ is increased. This increase in $`\eta `$ becomes more pronounced the higher the filling factor, and tends to saturate at higher interaction strengths. At filling factors $`\nu >1/4`$ (and $`\nu 1/2`$) our data suggest that $`\eta `$ collapses onto a single scaling function up to $`\nu `$-specific values where saturation takes place.

Comparison with a SCHF scheme. It is known AGKL  that in zero-dimensional systems the low-lying many-body states are made of combinations of a finite number of Slater determinants (each made up of single-particle SCHF states). This motivates the use of such a basis to describe the exact $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ states. We invoke the participation ratio in the Hilbert space spanned by all possible Slater determinants:

$`\stackrel{~}{P}={\displaystyle \underset{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N}{}}|C_{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_N}^{(\alpha )}|^4.`$ (5)
Koopmans’ variant of the HF approximation asserts that the effective single-particle states remain unmodified under a change of the occupancy of these states. As long as the HF-Koopmans-like picture holds fn3  $`\stackrel{~}{P}=1`$, whereas if this picture breaks down completely we approach $`\stackrel{~}{P}({}_{N}{}^{M})^2`$, signaling delocalization in Hilbert spaceAGKL .

Our results are depicted in Fig. 3. There we plot the disorder-averaged inverse participation ratio as function of the interaction for the ground-state and the first excited state, with $`N=4`$ and $`N=7`$. It can be seen that $`1/\stackrel{~}{P}U^2`$ for weak interactions for both states.

We note that there is some nontrivial physics taking place: the cusp of the curve $`1/\stackrel{~}{P}`$ vs. $`U`$ for the first excited state, as it departs from the $`U^2`$ behavior (at $`U=0.5`$ for the $`N=4`$ case). This cusp becomes more pronounced as $`N`$ becomes larger; the $`N=7`$ case is a manifestation of the system becoming more localized ( in Hilbert space) with interaction strength exceeding $`U=2`$. foot  Studying the distribution of $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ (cf. Fig 4) reveals that as the interaction strength is increased, the original sharp peak at $`1`$ is initially smeared, but the function then evolves into a doubly peaked distribution.

In this context it is also useful to consider the quantity $`K1|c_{N+1}^{}c_N|0`$. We note that in the Koopmans limit $`K=1`$, implying that both the ground and the first-excited states are given respectively by a single Slater determinant (they differ from each other by a particle-hole excitation). In that limit, as discussed above, the inverse participation ratio $`1/\stackrel{~}{P}=1`$. As we turn on the interaction $`1/\stackrel{~}{P}`$ increases concomitantly with the decrease in $`K`$. The behavior of the average $`K`$ is depicted in Fig 3.

A two-level model. To further characterize the phenomena discussed here, we resort to the philosophy behind the Wigner surmise, and try to study the manifestation of the crossover in a truncated $`2\times 2`$ Hilbert space. The latter is spanned by $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ (in a certain realization).

If the Koopmans-like scenario holds alhassid01 ; piechon01 ; alhassid99  $`K=1`$ while $`1|c_N^{}c_N|0=0`$. Under such a scenario the Wigner distribution should hold: consider an arbitrary perturbation $`\widehat{F}=_{ij}\alpha _{i,j}c_i^{}c_j`$,

$`0|\widehat{F}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<N+1}{}}\alpha _{ii}`$
$`1|\widehat{F}|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<N}{}}\alpha _{ii}+\alpha _{N+1,N+1}`$
$`1|\widehat{F}|0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{N,N+1},`$ (6)
corresponds (up to a constant matrix $`\widehat{}\times _{i<N}\alpha _{ii}`$ subtracted, where $``$ is the unit matrix) the $`2\times 2`$ matrix:

$$\widehat{F}_{HFKoopmans}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _{N+1,N+1}& \alpha _{N,N+1}\\ \alpha _{N+1,N}& \alpha _{N,N}\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The distribution of the HF states over disorder realizations obeys RMT. Likewise, the distribution of $`\{\alpha _{ij}\}`$ will follow RMT (Gaussian), and will lead to the energy spacing $`E_1E_0`$ obeying the WD distribution.

Going now beyond the Koopmans limit, and employing the basis of the exact ground and first-excited states, the 2-level matrix is

$$\widehat{F}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1|\widehat{F}|1& 1|\widehat{F}|0\\ 1|\widehat{F}|0& 0|\widehat{F}|0\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
The WD $``$ Poisson crossover is now manifest through $`\widehat{F}`$. We first subtract a constant, proportional to the unit matrix, to render the resulting matrix $`\delta \widehat{F}`$ statistically traceless. We are left to compare the fluctuations of the diagonal matrix elements, $`\delta ^2F_{\alpha ,\beta }=F_{\alpha ,\beta }^2F_{\alpha ,\beta }^2`$ with $`\alpha =\beta `$, with those of the off-diagonal entries, $`\delta ^2F_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ with $`\alpha \beta `$. (We note that the ensemble average of the off-diagonal entries vanishes). This is shown in Fig. 5 for two values of electron number, $`N`$. It is clearly seen, especially for the larger $`N`$, that as the interaction strength is increased (beyond $`U2`$ which is equivalent to $`r_s=U/V\sqrt{4\pi \nu }`$), the diagonal entries win over the off-diagonal, marking the suppression of level-repulsion and the cross-over to Poisson statistics. This cross-over appears to be quite sharp for our larger system.

We acknowledge very useful discussions with and comments by B. Spivak, and with N. Taniguchi on possible diagrammatic analysis of this problem. We acknowledge support from the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, The Israel Academy of Science, the German-Israel Foundation and the Minerva foundation.


text:
# Superconductivity of the two-component non-stoichiometric compounds with incommensurate sublattices.

## I.

Being stretched, a lattice formed from divalent metal atoms can transit into the dielectric state due to ceasing of the electronic bands overlapping and opening of the energy gap.

### 1.

A MeB6 -kind compound is a typical example. If Me stands for a divalent atom, the MeB6 compound will be a dielectric, while it will be a metal in the case of a monovalent metal (at the room temperature) bib6 . Metal atom sublattice not just doping ions is introduced into voids between B6 octahedrons. Stretching of the matrix, when the atomic diameter $`d_0`$ exceeds the MeB6 lattice constant $`D`$, indicates this. (See also point II 3). The $`D/d_0`$ ratio takes on the values for Me = Ce, La, Ca, Sr, Ba: Ce (0.414/0.326); La (0.415/0.374); Ca (0.415/0.395); Sr (0.419/0.430); Ba (0.427/0.434). The Ca sublattice is stretched and CaB6 is a dielectric. All of these compounds have close melting temperatures $`T2200`$K, which are determined by the matrix B6 bib7 .

Interatomic distances in the most of typical ionic compounds are assumed to be equal to the sum of ionic radii, which can be determined in a variety of ways (according to Pauling, Goldschmidt, etc.). However, even in such a compound as NaCl, the sum of ionic radii $`0.092+0.154=0.246`$ is near to the sum of atomic radii $`0.172+0.073=0.245.`$ This implies that the Na atoms can demonstrate ”atomic” properties even in the NaCl. The mentioned above ionic radii are rather arbitrary values bib7 . The ionic radius values, calculated later quantum-mechanically bib8 , appeared to be noticeably less than the previously assumed: $`0.087+0.074=0.151<0.245.`$ This confirms reality of the atomic states even in such stoichiometric compound as NaCl (see, for example, the paper by Laves in bib6 ). This is all the more valid for non-stoichiometric compounds. This approach to Na-WO3 changes the electronic states picture in the crystal used in bib4 .

Stretching of the monovalent metal lattice by the matrix can lead to forming of the specific unique state intermediate between metal and dielectric bib5 .

## II.

If the lattice of monovalent metal atoms, located in the voids of diameter $`D`$ larger than the atomic diameter $`d_0`$ $`(Dd_0=h>0)`$, is stretched, then the atoms can occupy one of a few positions. Doubling of the metal sublattice period can occur in this case due to forming of the Me2 \- molecules from the atoms in the neighboring voids. Their binding energy can be essentially lower than the metal cohesive energy. Nevertheless, the symmetry lowers and the energy gap appears in the vicinity of the Fermi level. The question arises if this gap is just dielectric or it is related to superconductivity bib9 .

### 1.

Monovalent metals are not usually superconductors. However, superconductivity of the Na-WO3 compound appears due to introducing of the Na monovalent metal atoms into the WO3 matrix. This controversy can be eliminated, if we take into consideration that the period doubling is accompanied by forming of the molecular-like Na2 structures; their binding energy is determined by a contribution of the molecular orbital with two paired electrons.

We can calculate the energy gain at transition from usual monovalent metal to the ”slightly stretched” one and estimate the energy gap magnitude. The cohesive energy of the stretched metal Na is $`E_s1/D`$, while we have for the usual Na metal $`E_01/d_0`$. The cohesive energy difference at the displacive phase transition Na1\- Na2 is about

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_0h/(Dh)E_0h/d_0;(Dd_0)=h>0$$
(1)
Using the conventional values for parameters of the system Na-WO$`{}_{3}{}^{}:E_0=1`$ eV, $`D=0.378`$ nm, $`d_0=0.372`$ nm, $`h=0.006`$ nm, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.016\mathrm{eV}187`$K. The molecular binding energy 0.35 eV is lowered up to 0.016 eV when Na2 molecule embedded into the WO3 medium. This well corresponds to dielectric susceptibility of about 20 both for NH3 and NdBa2Cu3O7

The available experimental data on Na-WO3 are in a good accordance with the considered above scenario. For example, the symmetry lowering by the lattice period doubling is really observed at transition from WO3 to Na-WO3 according to the x-ray study bib1 ; bib4 . Tetragonal phase domains appear in the cubic WO3 bib1 ; bib4 . The superconducting energy gap has been measured by the electron spin resonance technique and appeared to be equal 160-180K bib4 . This confirms the presented above estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E,`$ which has been done using only the crystallographic parameters of the system and the energy $`E_0.`$ In addition, a suppression of the superconductivity at $`h<0`$ (see eq.1) has been found experimentally as well. The compounds Rb-WO3 and Cs-WO3 demonstrate superconductivity only below 6K bib4 . Rb ($`d_0=0.496`$ nm) and Cs ($`d_0=0.532`$ nm) atoms are strongly compressed in the WO3 voids. Cesium! , for instance, have $`T_c2`$K at $`P=10`$ GPa bib10 . The parameter $`h>0.06`$ nm for the Li or Ag atoms ($`d_00.308\mathrm{nm},`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E_00.1`$), but it is related to surprisingly high $`T_c`$. At a large crystallographic misfit, phase transitions of a different kind are possible, which change the matrix structure.

### 2.

Repeated attempts to discover superconductivity of the Na-NH3 solutions have been made according to bib11 . The dramatic story of this study is described in bib12 . Such solutions can be metastable at various stages of the phase segregation and contain groups Na2, Na3, ….. bib5 . Possibly, just this feature allowed to freeze-in the magnetic flux in the sample only using fast cooling. Numerous attempts to obtain ”diluted” metals vaporizing them at the NG atmosphere failed because of the fast phase segregation at the substrate.

### 3.

A similar scenario of the Jahn-Teller-Peierls transformations can be effected also in the case, when the introduced component stretches the matrix (see point I. 1) and its lattice constant $`D_0`$ increases up to $`D`$. We have in this case

$$\mathrm{\Delta }EE_0h/D_0;(DD_0)=h>0$$
(2)
The fullerides Me$`{}_{n}{}^{}\mathrm{C}_{60}^{}`$ give an example of such system. Clusters MenC60, located in the octahedral voids of the molecular crystal C60 expand the lattice of C60 spherical molecules and the lattice constant increases from $`D_0=1.37`$ nm to $`D`$ due to a decrease of the packing density bib2 . The relation (2) is valid for a wide variety of the alkali metals for $`n=3`$. $`T_c=40`$K (Fig.3 of Ref.bib2 ) at $`D=1.47`$ nm, $`E_00.1`$ eV. $`(E_0`$ \- part of intermolecular interaction ehergy determined by the electronic doping). Moreover, if $`n=4`$ or 6, the MenC60 crystal is dielectric bib2 . The transition temperature $`T_c`$ of fullerides is proportional to $`h/D_0`$. ( For the tungsten-bronzes with Na, Rb, or Cs, $`T_c>0`$ at $`h>0,`$ and $`T_c0`$ for $`h<0)`$.

### 4.

The high temperature superconductors of the YBCO type also have a perovskite matrix composed from the CuO5 and CuO6 polyhedrons with voids filled by the metal atoms. For instance, $`D_ad_0=0.390.36=0.03\mathrm{nm};\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{d}_0=0.02`$ nm for Nd atoms in NdBa2Cu3O$`{}_{7}{}^{}(T_c95`$K). The Cooper pair binding energy can also depend upon dynamics of the ”stretched” atoms in the matrix voids.

The totality of considered experimental data on superconductivity of a variety of systems of the matrix-filling type does not contradict a scenario, where a weak modulation of the monovalent metal lattice constant ($`h/d_0\mathrm{\Delta }E/E_00.016`$ for Na-WO3) leads to forming of the bound electronic states of the molecular type and the energy gap. There are parallels between this result and both weak coupling BCS superconductivity and the Peierls transition, which is usually assumed to be only a transition to the dielectric state .


text:
# Non-Positivity of the Wigner Function and Bounds on Associated Integrals

## 1 Introduction

Since its introduction  in 1932, the Wigner distribution function has proved an important tool in many areas of quantum physics and chemistry. Recently, in quantum tomography , the Wigner function has been reconstructed from experimentally measured probabilities associated with a quantum system in a definite state. Given a finite amount of data, it is clear that such a reconstruction must inevitably be limited to a finite region of phase space. And here there arises a problem peculiar to quantum tomography. In the classical case, if the probability density has been reconstructed on a finite region, and if its integral over that region, the ‘probability mass’ on the region, is close to 1, then it is certain that the density on the remainder of phase space is small, in the sense that the probability mass there must be small. But in the quantum case, because the Wigner function takes negative as well as positive values in general, the ‘quasiprobability mass’ on regions of phase space outside one particular region may be large positive or negative, even when the quasiprobability mass on that particular region is known to be close to 1. This is the primary motivation for our study, which aims to provide best possible upper and lower bounds on the integral of the Wigner function over any given region $`S`$ of phase space.

In previous work , it has been shown that this is equivalent to finding the greatest and least eigenvalues of a corresponding Hermitian operator $`\widehat{S}`$, which we refer to as the ‘region operator’ for $`S`$. It is an operator analogue of the classical characteristic function $`\delta _S`$, which has the value $`1`$ for points inside $`S`$, and $`0`$ for points outside. Here we describe some exact results and the basis on which they can be obtained, and indicate some directions of possible generalization.

## 2 Mathematical background and results

For a system with one degree of freedom, the invertible mapping from functions $`A(q,p)`$ on the phase plane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to linear operators $`\widehat{A}`$ on Hilbert space is accomplished with the help of Weyl’s kernel operator ,

$`\widehat{W}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{i[p^{}(q\widehat{q})q^{}(p\widehat{p})]/\mathrm{}}𝑑q^{}𝑑p^{},`$
$`\widehat{A}={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }}A(q,p)\widehat{W}(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p,`$ $`A(q,p)=2\pi \mathrm{}\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{W}}(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})).`$ (1)
Here Tr denotes the trace, and $`\widehat{q}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$ are canonical operators. The generalizations to many degrees of freedom are obvious. From this point we work with dimensionless variables, in effect setting $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

As special cases, we have the Wigner function $`W_\rho (q,p)`$ coresponding to the operator $`\widehat{\rho }/(2\pi )`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the density operator defining the state of the quantum system; and the region operator $`\widehat{S}`$, corresponding to the characteristic function $`\delta _S(q,p)`$ of a given 2-dimensional region $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ :

$$W_\rho (q,p)=\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{W}}(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})\widehat{\rho }),\widehat{\mathrm{S}}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta _\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})\widehat{\mathrm{W}}(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})\mathrm{dq}\mathrm{dp}=_\mathrm{S}\widehat{\mathrm{W}}(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})\mathrm{dq}\mathrm{dp}.$$
(2)
In the last step we have used the defining property of the characteristic function.

Given a smooth contour $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is natural to define also an associated ‘contour operator’ $`\widehat{C}`$ by

$$\widehat{C}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{W}(q,p)\delta _C(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p.$$
(3)
Here $`\delta _C(q,p)`$ is the ‘characteristic (generalised) function’ for the contour, defined by the property that, for every smooth function $`F`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }F(q,p)\delta _C(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p=_CF𝑑l,$$
(4)
where $`dl`$ the element of length on $`C`$. Then we can write

$$\widehat{C}=_C\widehat{W}𝑑l.$$
(5)
For example, if the contour is defined by the graph of a simple function, such as $`p=F(q)`$, $`a<q<b`$, then $`\delta _C(q,p)=\delta (pF(q))`$ for $`a<q<b`$, and $`\delta _C(q,p)=0`$ elsewhere. Going one dimension further down, we can define the ‘point operator’

$$\widehat{P}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta _P(q,p)\widehat{W}(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p=\widehat{W}(q_0,p_0).$$
(6)
corresponding to the point $`(q_0,p_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The characteristic function for the point, $`\delta _P(q,p)=\delta (qq_0)\delta (pp_0)`$, is more singular than that for a contour $`C`$, which is more singular than that for a 2-dimensional region $`S`$ in the plane. Clearly these notions can be generalized to regions $`R`$ of dimensions $`2f`$, $`2f1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`0`$ in the $`2f`$-dimensional phase space of a system with $`f`$ degrees of freedom, with the introduction of corresponding characteristic functions $`\delta _R`$ of increasing singularity, and corresponding region operators $`\widehat{R}`$.

Critical to what follows is Wigner’s observation  that, when the quantum system is in the state $`\widehat{\rho }`$, the mean value of any operator (such as $`\widehat{R}`$) is given in terms of the corresponding phase space function (in this case $`\delta _R`$) and the Wigner function, by

$$\widehat{R}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta _RW_\rho 𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }=_RW_\rho 𝑑V,$$
(7)
where $`dV`$ is the volume element in $`R`$. Since the expectation value $`\widehat{R}`$ must lie between the greatest and least eigenvalues of $`\widehat{R}`$ (or more generally, between the best possible upper and lower bounds on its spectrum), the same must be true of the last integral in (7). Moreover, the bounds are attained (or more generally, approached arbitrarily closely) if $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is a pure state corresponding to the associated (generalized) eigenvector of $`\widehat{R}`$. In short, if we can solve the eigenvalue problem for $`\widehat{R}`$, we have best possible bounds on the last integral in (7), and we know when and how those bounds are attained.

The circular disk of radius $`a`$, centred on the origin in the phase plane is invariant under canonical transformations generated by the classical harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian $`H=p^2+q^2`$, and it follows that the corresponding region operator $`\widehat{S}_a`$ commutes with the quantum oscillator Hamiltonian operator, and has the same eigenvectors, namely the number states $`|n`$, $`n=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{}`$. This is significant for quantum tomography, where such states are amongst the easiest to measure . The eigenvalue of $`\widehat{S}_a`$ on $`|n`$ is

$$\lambda _n(a)=(1)^n_0^{a^2}L_n(2u)e^u𝑑u,$$
(8)
where $`L_n`$ is the Laguerre polynomial. For a given $`a`$, it is then possible to see which eigenvalue is smallest (say $`\lambda _N(a)`$), and which is largest (always $`\lambda _0(a)`$), and hence what are the lower and upper bounds on the integral of the Wigner function over the disk. These bounds are attained when the system is in the pure state $`|N`$ or $`|0`$, respectively. The eigenvalues of the contour operator $`\widehat{C}_a`$ corresponding to the boundary of the circular disk are, again on the number states, $`\mu _n(a)=d\lambda _n(a)/da`$. There is a remarkable Lie-algebraic structure  associated with these spectra.

For the contour operator $`\widehat{C}_L`$ corresponding to a straight line segment of length $`L`$ in the phase plane, say the segment along the $`p`$-axis from $`p=L/2`$ to $`p=L/2`$, we find  a continuous spectrum and generalized eigenfunctions:

$$\mu (k)=\pm \frac{1}{k\pi }\mathrm{sin}(kL),(0k<\mathrm{});\phi _k(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{cos}(kx)}{\mathrm{sin}(kx)}.$$
(9)
This segment is invariant under canonical transformations generated by the free-particle Hamiltonian $`H=p^2`$, and also under the parity transformation which sends $`q`$, $`p`$ to $`q`$, $`p`$, hence the appearance of the common eigenfunctions of the quantum free-particle Hamiltonian operator and parity operator in (9).

From these simple results for disks, circles and straight segments we can build up results for more complicated regions in phase spaces of higher dimensions. For example, in the 4-dimensional phase space of a 2-dimensional quantum system, we can find best possible upper and lower bounds on the integral of the Wigner function on the rectangle $`L_1/2<q_1<L_1/2`$, $`L_2<q_2<L_2/2`$ within the ‘Poincaré section’ $`p_1=p_2=0`$; or on the cylinder $`q_1^2+p_1^2a^2`$, $`L/2<p_2<L/2`$, $`q_2=0`$; or on its surface, and so on.

Investigations continue towards a “spectral theory” of quasiprobability mass for bosonic systems, and into analogous results for spin and other finite dimensional quantum systems, with expected applications in quantum tomography.

## Notes

Email:

a. ajb@maths.uq.edu.au b. ellinas@science.tuc.gr c. jgw@maths.uq.edu.au