text:
# UNIL-IPT-03-3 DESY 03-045 April 2003 Quarks and Leptons between Branes and Bulk

## Abstract

We study a supersymmetric SO(10) gauge theory in six dimensions compactified on an orbifold. Three sequential quark-lepton families are localized at the three fixpoints where SO(10) is broken to its three GUT subgroups. Split bulk multiplets yield the Higgs doublets of the standard model and as additional states lepton doublets and down-quark singlets. The physical quarks and leptons are mixtures of brane and bulk states. The model naturally explains small quark mixings together with large lepton mixings in the charged current. A small hierarchy of neutrino masses is obtained due to the different down-quark and up-quark mass hierarchies. None of the usual GUT relations between fermion masses holds exactly.

The explanation of the masses and mixings of quarks and leptons remains a challenge for theories which go beyond the standard model . In principle, grand unified theories (GUTs) appear as the natural framework to address this question. However, as much work on this topic has demonstrated, all simple GUT relations for fermion mass matrices are badly violated and, within the conventional framework of four-dimensional (4d) unified theories, a complicated Higgs sector is needed to achieve consistency with experiment.

In this paper we shall address the flavour problem in the context of a supersymmetric SO(10) GUT in six dimensions compactified on an orbifold . A new ingredient of orbifold GUTs is the presence of split bulk multiplets whose mixings with complete GUT multiplets can significantly modify ordinary GUT mass relations . This extends the well know mechanism of mixing with vectorlike multiplets . Several analyses of the flavour structure of orbifold GUTs have already been carried out (cf., e.g., -). In 5d theories large bulk mass terms can lead to a localization of zero modes at one of the two boundary branes, which can explain fermion mass hierarchies . In this way a realistic ‘lopsided’ structure of Yukawa matrices can be achieved .

‘Lopsided’ fermion mass matrices, mostly based on an abelian generation symmetry , have received much attention in recent years (cf. -). In the context of SU(5) GUTs they introduce a large mixing of left-handed leptons and right-handed down quarks, which leads to small mixings among the left-handed down-quarks. In this way the observed large mixings in the leptonic charged current can be reconciled with the small CKM mixings in the quark current. The mechanism of flavour mixing, which we describe below, is also based on large mixings of left-handed leptons and right-handed down quarks. However, these mixings do not respect SU(5) and they are not controlled by a single hierarchy parameter. In this way a different pattern of mixings is achieved with several characteristic predictions for the neutrino sector.

Let us now consider SO(10) gauge theory in 6d with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry compatified on the orbifold $`T^2/(Z_2^I\times Z_2^{PS}\times Z_2^{GG})`$ . The theory has four fixed points, $`O_I`$, $`O_{GG}`$, $`O_{fl}`$ and $`O_{PS}`$, located at the four corners of a ‘pillow’ corresponding to the two compact dimensions (cf. fig. 1). At $`O_I`$ only supersymmetry is broken whereas SO(10) remains unbroken. At $`O_{GG}`$, $`O_{fl}`$ and $`O_{PS}`$ SO(10) is broken to its three GUT subgroups GGG=SU(5)$`\times `$U(1)X, flipped SU(5), Gfl=SU(5)’$`\times `$U(1)’, and GPS=SU(4)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$SU(2), respectively. The intersection of all these GUT groups yields the standard model group with an additional U(1) factor, G$`_{SM^{}}`$= SU(3)$`\times `$SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)$`{}_{Y}{}^{}\times `$U(1)X, as unbroken gauge symmetry below the compactification scale. $`BL`$, the difference of baryon and lepton number, is a linear combination of $`Y`$ and $`X`$.

The field content of the theory is strongly constrained by the required cancellation of irreducible bulk and brane anomalies . Motivated by the embedding of all field quantum numbers into the adjoint representation of $`E_8`$ , we have 6 10-plets, $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_6`$, and 4 16-plets, $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^c,\varphi ,\varphi ^c`$ as bulk hypermultiplets, accompanied by 3 16-plets $`\psi _i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}3`$, of brane fields. Vacuum expectation values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ break $`BL`$. The electroweak gauge group is broken by expectation values of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$.

Compared to  we have added an additional pair of bulk 16-plets, $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^c`$ together with two 10-plets, $`H_5`$ and $`H_6`$, to cancel bulk anomalies. This is still compatible with the embedding in $`E_8`$, and it corresponds to the largest number of bulk fields consistent with the cancellation of anomalies. Note that both the irreducible and reducible 6d gauge anomalies vanish.

The parities of $`H_5`$, $`H_6`$ and $`\varphi `$ are listed in table 1. $`\varphi ^c`$ has the same parities as $`\varphi `$. The corresponding zero modes are

$`L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _4\hfill \\ e_4\hfill \end{array}\right),L^c=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _4^c\hfill \\ e_4^c\hfill \end{array}\right),G_5^c=d_4^c,G_6=d_4.`$ (5)
The zero modes of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, $`H_1\mathrm{}H_4`$ are given in . They are the color triplets and singlets $`D^c`$, $`N^c`$, $`D`$, $`N`$, $`H_1^c`$, $`H_2`$, $`G_3^c`$ and $`G_4`$.

Fermion masses and mixings are determined by brane superpotentials. The allowed terms are restricted by R-invariance and an additional U(1)$`_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ symmetry . The corresponding charges of the superfields are given in table 2. The fields $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, which aquire a vacuum expectation value, have vanishing R-charge. All matter fields have R-charge one. Since $`\psi _i`$ and $`\varphi `$ have the same charges we combine them to the quartet $`(\psi _\alpha )=(\psi _i,\varphi )`$, $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}4`$. The most general brane superpotential up to quartic terms is then given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`M^dH_5H_6+M_\alpha ^l\psi _\alpha \varphi ^c+M_{12}H_1H_3+M_{23}H_2H_3`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta H_2+f_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\psi _\alpha H_6+f_5\mathrm{\Phi }^c\varphi ^cH_5`$
$`+f^D\mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_3+f^G\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }H_4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{\alpha \beta }^N}{M_{}}}\psi _\alpha \psi _\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^c\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{M_{}}}H_1^2H_5^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{M_{}}}H_1H_2H_5^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_3}{M_{}}}H_2^2H_5^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_4}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_1H_3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{k_5}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^cH_2H_3+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha ^d}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^c\psi _\alpha H_5H_1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_\alpha ^u}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^c\psi _\alpha H_5H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{g^d}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi ^cH_5H_1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^u}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi ^cH_5H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha ^d}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^c\psi _\alpha \varphi ^c+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\alpha ^l}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^c\psi _\alpha \varphi ^c+{\displaystyle \frac{k^l}{M_{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi ^c\varphi ^c,`$
where we choose $`M_{}>1/R_{5,6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GUT}`$ to be the cutoff of the 6d theory, and the bulk fields have been properly normalized. All the volume factors due to the 6d fields are absorbed into the unknown couplings and we will not use them to explain the hierarchies. When the bulk fields are replaced by their zero modes only 9 of the 23 terms appearing in the superpotential remain. Although we have written the superpotential in terms of SO(10) multiplets, on the different branes the Yukawa couplings $`h^{(1)}`$ and $`h^{(2)}`$ split into $`h^{(d)},h^{(e)}`$ and $`h^{(u)},h^{(D)}`$, respectively. Some of these couplings are equal due to GUT relations on the corresponding brane.

The main idea to generate fermion mass matrices is now as follows. We consider the case that the three sequential 16-plets are located on the three branes where SO(10) is broken to its three GUT subgroups. As an example, we place $`\psi _1`$ at $`O_{GG}`$, $`\psi _2`$ at $`O_{fl}`$ and $`\psi _3`$ at $`O_{PS}`$. The three ‘families’ are then separated by distances large compared to the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$. Hence, they can only have diagonal Yukawa couplings with the bulk Higgs fields. Direct mixings are exponentially suppressed. However, the brane fields can mix with the bulk zero modes for which we expect no suppression. These mixings take place only among left-handed leptons and right-handed down-quarks. This leads to a characteristic pattern of mass matrices which we shall now explore.

If $`BL`$ is broken, as discussed in , $`\mathrm{\Phi }^c=\mathrm{\Phi }=v_N`$, and the bulk zero modes $`N^c`$, $`N`$, ($`D,G^c`$) and ($`D^c,G`$) aquire masses $`𝒪(v_N)`$. After electroweak symmetry breaking, with $`H_1^c=v_1`$, $`H_2=v_2`$, the remaining states have the following mass terms,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`d_\alpha m_{\alpha \beta }^dd_\beta ^c+e_\alpha ^cm_{\alpha \beta }^ee_\beta +n_\alpha ^cm_{\alpha \beta }^D\nu _\beta `$ (7)
$`+u_i^cm_{ij}^uu_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_i^cM_{ij}n_j^c.`$
Here $`m^d`$, $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ are $`4\times 4`$ matrices,

$`m^d=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_{11}^dv_1& 0& 0& g_1^d\frac{v_N}{M_{}}v_1\\ 0& h_{22}^dv_1& 0& g_2^d\frac{v_N}{M_{}}v_1\\ 0& 0& h_{33}^dv_1& g_3^d\frac{v_N}{M_{}}v_1\\ f_1v_N& f_2v_N& f_3v_N& M^d\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
$`m^e=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_{11}^dv_1& 0& 0& h_{14}^ev_1\\ 0& h_{22}^ev_1& 0& h_{24}^ev_1\\ 0& 0& h_{33}^dv_1& h_{34}^ev_1\\ M_1^l& M_2^l& M_3^l& M_4^l\end{array}\right),`$ (17)
$`m^D=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}h_{11}^Dv_2& 0& 0& h_{14}^Dv_2\\ 0& h_{22}^uv_2& 0& h_{24}^Dv_2\\ 0& 0& h_{33}^uv_2& h_{34}^Dv_2\\ M_1^l& M_2^l& M_3^l& M_4^l\end{array}\right),`$ (22)
whereas $`m^u`$ and $`m^N`$ are diagonal $`3\times 3`$ matrices,

$`m^u=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}h_{11}^uv_2& 0& 0\\ 0& h_{22}^uv_2& 0\\ 0& 0& h_{33}^uv_2\end{array}\right),m^N=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}h_{11}^N\frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}& 0& 0\\ 0& h_{22}^N\frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& h_{33}^N\frac{v_N^2}{M_{}}\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
In the matrices $`m^d`$, $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ we have neglected corrections $`𝒪(v_N/M_{})`$. The diagonal elements satisfy four GUT relations which correspond to the unbroken SU(5), flipped SU(5) and Pati-Salam subgroups of SO(10).

The crucial feature of the matrices $`m^d`$, $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ are the mixings between the six brane states and the two bulk states. The first three rows of the matrices are proportional to the electroweak scale. The corresponding Yukawa couplings have to be hierarchical in order to obtain a realistic spectrum of quark and lepton masses. This corresponds to different strengths of the Yukawa couplings at the different fixpoints of the orbifold. The fourth row, proportional to $`M^d`$, $`M^l`$ and $`v_N`$, is of order the unification scale and, we assume, non-hierarchical.

The mass matrices $`m^d`$, $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ are of the form

$`m=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mu _1& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\\ 0& \mu _2& 0& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_2\\ 0& 0& \mu _3& \stackrel{~}{\mu }_3\\ \stackrel{~}{M}_1& \stackrel{~}{M}_2& \stackrel{~}{M}_3& \stackrel{~}{M}_4\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
where $`\mu _i,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i=𝒪(v_{1,2})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i=𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GUT})`$. To diagonalize the matrix $`m`$ it is convenient to define a set of four-dimensional unit vectors as follows,

$`(\stackrel{~}{M}_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{M}_4)=\stackrel{~}{M}e_4^T,e_\alpha ^Te_\beta =e_{\alpha \gamma }^Te_{\beta \gamma }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }.`$ (35)
Using the orthogonal matrices ($`\alpha ,\beta =1\mathrm{}4`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}3`$),

$`V_{\alpha \beta }=(e_\beta )_\alpha ,U_{\alpha \beta }=\delta _{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{M}}}\delta _{\alpha 4}(e_{4i}\mu _i+e_{44}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i)\delta _{\beta i}+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}}\right),`$ (36)
we can now perform a change of basis which yields for the mass matrix,

$`m^{}=U^TmV=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{m}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{M}\end{array}\right)+𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^2}{\stackrel{~}{M}^2}}\right),`$ (39)
where the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`\widehat{m}`$ is given by

$`\widehat{m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu _1\widehat{e}_1^T+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1\widehat{e}_4^T\\ \mu _2\widehat{e}_2^T+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2\widehat{e}_4^T\\ \mu _3\widehat{e}_3^T+\stackrel{~}{\mu }_3\widehat{e}_4^T\end{array}\right).`$ (43)
Here the three-vectors $`\widehat{e}_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}4`$, are determined by the four-vectors $`e_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}3`$, with $`(\widehat{e}_\alpha )_i=(e_i)_\alpha `$. Note that $`\widehat{m}`$ is composed of three row vectors of hierarchical length, a structure familiar from lopsided fermion mass models.

The hierarchy of the row vectors suggests to perform a further change of basis such that all remaining mixings are small. Three orthogonal three-vectors $`\overline{e}_i`$, $`\overline{e}_i^T\overline{e}_j=\overline{e}_{ik}\overline{e}_{jk}=\delta _{ij}`$, can be defined by writing the matrix $`\widehat{m}`$ in the following form

$`\widehat{m}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\mu }_1(\gamma \overline{e}_1^T+\overline{e}_2^T+\beta \overline{e}_3^T)\hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_2(\overline{e}_2^T+\alpha \overline{e}_3^T)\hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_3\overline{e}_3^T\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (47)
The parameters $`\overline{\mu }_i`$ are $`𝒪(\mu _i,\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i)`$ and therefore again hierarchical. With respect to this new basis the matrix $`m`$ has triangular form,

$`\overline{m}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mu }_1\gamma \hfill & \overline{\mu }_1\hfill & \overline{\mu }_1\beta \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \overline{\mu }_2\hfill & \overline{\mu }_2\alpha \hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & \overline{\mu }_3\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (51)
For our discussion of mass eigenvalues and mixing angles we shall need the two matrices $`mm^T`$ and $`m^Tm`$, which in the basis $`\overline{e}_i`$ are both hierarchical,

$`mm^T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mu }_1^2(1+\beta ^2+\gamma ^2)\hfill & \overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_2(1+\alpha \beta )\hfill & \overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_3\beta \hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_2(1+\alpha \beta )\hfill & \overline{\mu }_2^2(1+\alpha ^2)\hfill & \overline{\mu }_2\overline{\mu }_3\alpha \hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_1\overline{\mu }_3\beta \hfill & \overline{\mu }_2\overline{\mu }_3\alpha \hfill & \overline{\mu }_3^2\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (55)
$`m^Tm=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\mu }_1^2\gamma ^2\hfill & \overline{\mu }_1^2\gamma \hfill & \overline{\mu }_1^2\beta \gamma \hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_1^2\gamma \hfill & \overline{\mu }_2^2+\overline{\mu }_1^2\hfill & \overline{\mu }_2^2\alpha +\overline{\mu }_1^2\beta \hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_1^2\beta \gamma \hfill & \overline{\mu }_2^2\alpha +\overline{\mu }_1^2\beta \hfill & \overline{\mu }_3^2+\overline{\mu }_2^2\alpha ^2+\overline{\mu }_1^2\beta ^2\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (59)
Consider now the up-quark mass matrix. We concentrate on the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_150`$, such that $`h_{33}^dh_{33}^u`$. The diagonal elements of the mass matrices (12), (17), (22) and (29) are partially connected by the GUT relations which hold on the different branes. For simplicity, we therefore assume universally,

$`\mu _1:\mu _2:\mu _3m_u:m_c:m_t.`$ (60)
It is well known that the hierarchy of down-quark and charged lepton masses is substantially smaller than the up-quark mass hierarchy. Given the scaling (60) of the diagonal elements and the structure of $`m^d`$ and $`m^e`$ this implies that the down-quark and charged lepton mass matrices must be dominated by the off-diagonal elements. Hence, we assume again universally,

$`\mu _1\overline{\mu }_1\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1,\mu _2\overline{\mu }_2\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2,\mu _3\overline{\mu }_3.`$ (61)
The parameters $`\overline{\mu }_{1,2}`$ of the matrix $`\overline{m}`$ are then dominated by the mixing terms $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{1,2}`$, i.e. $`\overline{\mu }_{1,2}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_{1,2}`$.

Since the up-quark matrix $`m^u`$ is diagonal the CKM quark mixing matrix is given by the matrix $`V`$ which diagonalizes $`m^dm^{dT}`$. From eq. (55) one reads off for the two larger masses

$`m_b\overline{\mu }_3,m_s\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2,`$ (62)
and for the mixing angles

$`V_{us}=\mathrm{\Theta }_c{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}},V_{cb}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_3}},V_{ub}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_3}}.`$ (63)
Using $`m_b`$, $`m_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_c0.2`$ as input one obtains for the two remaining mixing angles

$`V_{cb}{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}2\times 10^2,V_{ub}\mathrm{\Theta }_c{\displaystyle \frac{m_s}{m_b}}4\times 10^3,`$ (64)
in agreement with analyses of weak decays  up to a factor of two, which is beyond the predictivity of our approach.

The smallest eigenvalue vanishes in the limit $`\mu _1,\mu _20`$, since in this case two vectors of the matrix $`\widehat{m}`$ become parallel, with $`\beta =\alpha `$ and $`\gamma =0`$. Choosing, for simplicity, $`\mu _1/\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1<\mu _2/\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2`$, one has for non-zero $`\mu _1,\mu _2`$,

$`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_b}{m_tm_s}}0.1.`$ (65)
This relation will also be important in our analysis of the neutrino masses. For the down-quark mass one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_d}{m_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}}\mathrm{\Theta }_c{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_b}{m_tm_s}}0.03,`$ (66)
consistent with data .

The charged lepton mass matrix $`m^e`$ is very similar to the down-quark mass matrix. The main difference is that now there are large mixings between the ‘left-handed’ states $`e_i`$. To obtain the contribution of the charged leptons to the leptonic mixing matrix we consider the matrix $`m^{eT}m^e`$ as given in eq. (59) in the basis $`\overline{e}_i`$. For the two large eigenvalues of $`m^e`$ one has $`m_\tau \overline{\mu }_3m_b`$ and $`m_\mu \overline{\mu }_2m_s`$. These relations are consistent with data within our accuracy. A potential problem is the smallness of the electron mass, i.e. $`m_e/m_\mu 0.1m_d/m_s`$. The smallest eigenvalue of $`m^e`$ is again given by $`m_e/m_\mu (\mu _2\stackrel{~}{\mu }_1/\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2^2)`$. However, in our model the usual SU(5) relations don’t hold for the second row of the mass matrices. Hence, the electron mass is not determined by down quark masses.

Using the diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the mass matrices as determined from up- and down-quark mass matrices, we can now discuss the implications for neutrino masses. The heavy Majorana neutrinos scale like up-quarks (cf. (29)),

$`M_3:M_2:M_1m_t:m_c:m_u.`$ (67)
The light neutrino masses are given by the seesaw relation

$`m_\nu =m^{DT}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^N}}m^D.`$ (68)
The structure of the charged lepton and the Dirac neutrino mass matrices (cf. (17),(22)) is the same. Both matrices lead to large mixings between the ‘left-handed’ states. In order to determine the leptonic mixing matrix we discuss the Dirac neutrino matrix in the basis $`\overline{e}_i`$ where the remaining mixings of the left-handed charged leptons is small by construction (cf. (59)).

The Dirac neutrino mass matrix can be written as (cf. (43)),

$`\widehat{m}^D=\left(\begin{array}{c}\rho _1\widehat{e}_1^T+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1\widehat{e}_4^T\\ \rho _2\widehat{e}_2^T+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2\widehat{e}_4^T\\ \rho _3\widehat{e}_3^T+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_3\widehat{e}_4^T\end{array}\right).`$ (72)
Here the parameters $`\rho _i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i`$ are expected to have the same hierarchy as $`\mu _i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_i`$. However, in general these parameters will differ by factors $`𝒪(1)`$ since there the entries of $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ arise from different Yukawa couplings in the superpotential. This implies for the matrix $`\widehat{m}^D`$, with respect to the vectors $`\overline{e}_i`$,

$`\widehat{m}^D=\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{\rho }_1(A\overline{e}_1^T+D\overline{e}_2^T+\overline{e}_3^T)\hfill \\ \overline{\rho }_2(B\overline{e}_1^T+E\overline{e}_2^T+\overline{e}_3^T)\hfill \\ \overline{\rho }_3(C\overline{e}_1^T+F\overline{e}_2^T+\overline{e}_3^T)\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (76)
where $`\overline{\rho }_i\stackrel{~}{\rho }_i`$. Hence, with respect to the basis $`\overline{\mu }_i`$ the matrix $`\widehat{m}^D`$ has no longer triangular form,

$`\overline{m}^D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A\overline{\rho }_1\hfill & B\overline{\rho }_1\hfill & \overline{\rho }_1\hfill \\ C\overline{\rho }_2\hfill & D\overline{\rho }_2\hfill & \overline{\rho }_2\hfill \\ E\overline{\rho }_3\hfill & F\overline{\rho }_3\hfill & \overline{\rho }_3\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (80)
Generically, the parameters $`A\mathrm{}F`$ are all $`𝒪(1)`$. All we know is that for $`\mu _{1,2}=\rho _{1,2}=0`$ the first two row vectors are parallel, with $`A=B=C=0`$ and $`D=E`$. For $`\mu _{1,2},\rho _{1,2}0`$ one has analogous to the charged lepton mass matrix (cf. (65)),

$`A,B,C,DE{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _2}{\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }_2}}\gamma 0.1.`$ (81)
From eqs. (68) and (80) one now obtains for the light neutrino mass matrix,

$`\overline{m}_\nu =\overline{m}^{DT}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^N}}\overline{m}^D=`$ (82)
$`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}A^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+B^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+C^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & AD\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+BE\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+CF\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & A\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+B\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+C\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill \\ AD\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+BE\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+CF\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & D^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+E^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+F^2\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & D\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+E\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+F\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill \\ A\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+B\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+C\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & D\frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+E\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+F\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill & \frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}+\frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}+\frac{\overline{\rho }_3^2}{M_3}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$
Using eq. (81) one immediately sees the order of magnitude of the different entries,

$`\overline{m}_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\gamma ^2\hfill & \gamma \hfill & \gamma \hfill \\ \gamma \hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \\ \gamma \hfill & 1\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)m_3,`$ (89)
where $`m_3`$ is the largest neutrino mass, i.e. $`m_1m_2m_3`$. It is well known that such a matrix can account for all neutrino data. It has previously been derived based on a U(1) family symmetry  and also by requiring a compensation between the Dirac and Majorana neutrino mass hierarchies .

Consider now the parameters in the matrix (82). The mass matrices $`m^d`$, $`m^e`$ and $`m^D`$ have the same structure with large off-diagonal entries. For simplicity, we therefore assume for the mass parameters $`\overline{\mu }_i`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_i`$ have a similar hierarchy, approximately given by the down-quark masses, i.e. $`\overline{\rho }_1:\overline{\rho }_2:\overline{\rho }_3m_d:m_s:m_b`$. One then obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }_2^2}{M_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{\overline{\rho }_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_s^2m_t}{m_b^2m_c}}0.2,{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\rho }_1^2}{M_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_3}{\overline{\rho }_3^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_d^2m_t}{m_b^2m_u}}0.2.`$ (90)
This corresponds to the picture of sequential heavy neutrino dominance . It yields large 2-3 mixing, $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{23}1`$. The largest neutrino mass is $`m_3m_t^2/M_3`$. Identifying $`m_3`$ with $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}0.05`$ eV one obtains for the heavy Majorana masses $`M_310^{15}`$ GeV, $`M_23\times 10^{12}`$ GeV and $`M_110^{10}`$ GeV. The second neutrino mass is $`m_20.01`$ eV, which is consistent with data within our accuracy.

Since the 2-3 determinant is small the matrix (82) can also account for the LMA MSW-solution of the solar neutrino problem . As all neutrino masses are rather close to each other, with unknown coefficients $`𝒪(1)`$, a precise prediction of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}`$ and the smallest neutrino mass is not possible. Generically, one has $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}\gamma m_3/m_2`$ and $`m_1=𝒪(\gamma m_3,m_2)`$. On the other hand, a definitive prediction of the matrix (82) is a rather large 1-3 mixing angle, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}\gamma 0.1`$.

Decays of the lightest right-handed neutrinos may be the origin of the baryon asymmetry of the universe . In addition to the mass $`M_110^{10}`$ GeV the relevant quantities are the CP-asymmetry $`\epsilon _1`$ and the effective neutrino mass $`\stackrel{~}{m}=(m^Dm^D)_{11}/M_1`$. One easily obtains $`\epsilon _10.1M_1/M_310^6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_10.2m_3`$. These are the typical parameters of thermal leptogenesis .

Starting from three sequential families located at three different fixpoints of an orbifold, we have shown that the mixing with split bulk multiplets can lead to a characteristic pattern of quark and lepton mass matrices which can account for small quark mixings together with large lepton mixings in the charged current. Correspondingly, the quark mass hierarchies are large whereas the small neutrino mass hierarchy follows from the difference of down-quark and up-quark mass hierarchies. The dynamical origin of the hierarchy of Yukawa couplings at the different branes remains to be understood.

We would like to thank A. Hebecker and D. Wyler for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Computations with moduli of perverse point sheaves

## 1. Introduction

We work with schemes of finite type over $``$.

### 1.1. Setup and Bridgeland’s results

Let $`f:XY`$ be a projective birational contraction satisfying the following two assumptions:

1. $`f_{}𝒪_X=𝒪_Y`$, and
2. $`dimf^1\{z\}1`$ for every $`zY`$.

In , T. Bridgeland constructs a moduli space $`(X/Y)`$ of perverse point sheaves on $`X/Y`$. This moduli space admits a natural morphism $`(X/Y)Y`$, and there is an irreducible component $`W(X/Y)(X/Y)`$ \- the main component of $`(X/Y)`$ \- such that $`W(X/Y)Y`$ is birational.

In the main result of , one further assumes that $`X`$ is a smooth threefold and $`XY`$ is a flopping contraction. In this situation it is shown that $`W(X/Y)Y`$ is isomorphic to the flop $`X^+Y`$, and further that the correspondence given by the universal perverse point sheaf gives an equivalence of derived categories $`D_{coh}(X^+)D_{coh}(X)`$. This result was generalized by the second author in  to the case where $`X`$ is a terminal Gorenstein threefold. Further results on equivalence of derived categories were proven by Bondal and Orlov , Kawamata, e.g.  and others.

In this note we collect some results orthogonal to the derived category discussion about Bridgeland’s moduli space of perverse point sheaves. Some of these are used in the paper \[AC\], to which this note is a companion.

### 1.2. The main result

Let $`f:XY`$ be a projective birational contraction, and let $`M`$ be an $`f`$-ample line bundle on $`X`$. If the sheaf of $`𝒪_Y`$-algebras

$$A^+:=\underset{i0}{}f_{}M^i$$

is finitely generated, we denote

$$X^+=𝒫roj__YA^+.$$

As part of the minimal model program, it is conjectured that $`X^+Y`$ exists, in other words, $`A^+`$ is finitely generated, whenever $`f`$ is a flipping or flopping contraction (or, more generally, a log-flipping contraction with respect to a suitable divisor); in such situation $`X^+Y`$ is called the flip, respectively flop, of $`XY`$.

Now assume $`f:XY`$ satisfies conditions (B1)-(B2) above. It is tempting to ask if $`W(X/Y)`$ is always isomorphic to $`X^+`$, or, at least, for criteria for comparing $`W(X/Y)`$ with $`X^+`$. It turns out that the normalization $`W^n`$ of $`W(X/Y)`$ is more approachable.

The first result concentrates on the case when $`XY`$ and $`WY`$ do not contract divisors:

###### Proposition 1.2.1.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a birational morphism satisfying (B1) and (B2) above. Let $`M`$ be an $`f`$-ample invertible sheaf. Denote by $`W`$ the main component of the moduli space of perverse point sheaves on $`X/Y`$, and let $`W^nW`$ be the normalization.

Assume further that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are normal algebraic verieties and the exceptional loci of $`XY`$ and $`WY`$ have codimension $`>1`$. Then

$$W^n=𝒫roj_Y_{i0}M^i.$$

We denote by $`U`$ the open set where $`XY`$ is an isomorphism. The following flatness criterion has been applied in :

###### Proposition 1.2.2.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a projective birational morphism of normal varieties, satisfying (B1)-(B2) above.

Let $`WY`$ be the main component of the moduli space of perverse point sheaves on $`X/Y`$. Then

1. the ideal sheaf $`_{X\times _YW}`$ of the fibered product $`X\times _YW`$ inside $`X\times W`$ is flat over $`W`$,
2. the universal perverse point sheaf on $`X\times W`$ is the structure sheaf of the fibered product $`X\times _YW`$, and
3. if $`V`$ is a scheme and $`h:VY`$ is a morphism such that every associated component of $`V`$ intersects $`h^1U`$, then $`h`$ factors through $`WY`$ if and only if the ideal $`_{X\times _YV}`$ of the fibered product $`X\times _YV`$ in $`X\times V`$ is flat over $`V`$.

Combining the two propositions we obtain:

###### Corollary 1.2.3.

let $`XY`$ be a small birational contraction. Assume $`X^+`$ exists and the ideal sheaf of $`X\times _YX^+`$ is flat over $`X^+`$. Then $`W^n=X^+`$.

### 1.3. Computations

To illustrate the possible applications of our propositions we use our results to test some basic cases of birational contractions.

The first case of interest is that of a surface contraction $`XY`$. This case does not fall under Proposition 1.2.1, but we can still use the flatness criterion1.2.2 to study the situation.

We have the following basic cases:

###### Proposition 1.3.1.

1. Suppose $`XY`$ is a proper birational map between smooth surfaces. Then $`W=Y`$.
2. Suppose $`XY`$ is a contraction of an irreducible (-2)-curve on a smooth surface $`X`$. Then $`W^n`$ is isomorphic to $`X`$.

We remark that in case (2) above, and indeed for an arbitrary crepant contraction of surfaces with canonical singularities, the results of  imply that $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`X`$.

The first case of a threefold flip is described in , page 39: it is the Francia flip $`X_nY_nX_n^+`$ of index $`n`$.

We have:

###### Proposition 1.3.2.

1. $`W^n(X_n/Y_n)=X_n^+`$.
2. The morphism $`X_2Y_2`$ does not factor through the moduli space $`W(X_2^+/Y_2)`$.

Part (2) is a natural example of a log-flip (i.e. the inverse of the Francia flip) which is not directly related to Bridgeland’s construction. It should not be difficult to show that the same holds when $`2`$ is replaced by $`n>1`$.

In higher dimensions we have:

###### Proposition 1.3.3.

Let $`Y`$ be the cone over the Segre embedding of $`^1\times ^k`$. Let $`XY`$ be the small resolution having $`^1`$ as the exceptional locus. Then $`W^n(X/Y)=X^+`$, the other small resolution.

### 1.4. Related work

1. In , the second author treats the case of a terminal treefold flopping contraction $`XY`$ with hypersurface singularities. In that case the full analogue of Bridgeland’s theorem is shown.
2. In , the Francia flip of index $`n`$ is treated in detail. It is shown that by endowing $`X^{}`$ with a natural smooth stack structure $`𝒳^{}`$, and using perverse point sheaves of perversity $`(1,0)`$ instead of the definition of , one gets an isomorphism $`W^{(1,0)}(𝒳^{}x/Y)=X^+`$ and a fully faithful functor on derived catogories $`D_{coh}(X^+)D_{coh}(𝒳)`$.
3. In  the general case of a toric flip is considered without moduli spaces. It is shown that, again using natural orbifold (or stack) structures, that, in a wide variety of cases one obtains a fully faithful functor of derived categories.

### 1.5. Acknowledgements

We thank Tom Bridgeland, David Eisenbud and Johan de Jong for helpful discussions.

## 2. Proof of Proposition 1.2.1

### 2.1. Perverse point sheaves and perverse ideal sheaves

In , the moduli space $`(X/Y)`$ is defined via an exotic $`t`$-structure on $`D_{coh}(X)`$, whose heart is the category of perverse coherent sheaves $`Per(X/Y)`$. However, for what we say below we only need the following:

###### Definition 2.1.1.

A perverse point sheaf (PPS) for $`𝒳/Y`$ is a complex $`E=[F𝒪_𝒳]`$, with $`𝒪`$ positioned in degree 0, where

1. the sheaf $`f_{}(F)`$ is an ideal sheaf of a point in $`Y`$, with an embedding $`f_{}(F)𝒪_Y`$ induced by pushforward from $`E=[F𝒪]`$, and
2. the natural map $`f^{}f_{}(F)F`$ is surjective.

The sheaf $`F`$ is called the perverse point-ideal sheaf (PPIS) associated to the PPS $`E`$.

We note that, by the naturality of $`f^{}`$ and the fact that $`f^{}𝒪_Y=𝒪_𝒳`$ we have that the composition of $`f^{}f_{}(F)F`$ with the given $`F𝒪_𝒳`$ coincides with the map $`f^{}f_{}(F)𝒪_𝒳`$ obtained by pulling back $`f_{}(F)𝒪_Y`$.

### 2.2. Brief account of Bridgeland’s construction

In , section 5, the moduli space of perverse point sheaves is constructed as the moduli space of the corresponding perverse point-ideal sheaves using geometric invariant theory. Let $`UX`$ be the open set where $`f:XY`$ is an isomorphism, and pick a point $`xU`$. The maximal ideal sheaf $`F_0=I_x`$ is a perverse point-ideal sheaf associated to the perverse point sheaf $`𝒪_x`$. Pick an ample line bundle $`L_Y`$ on $`Y`$, and write $`L=f^{}L_Y`$. One considers the vector space

$$V=Hom(L_Y^1,f_{}F_0)=H^0(Y,L_Yf_{}F_0).$$

It is shown that every perverse point-ideal sheaf $`F`$ is a quotient of $`VL`$. Such a quotient is characterised by the surjective linear map

$$H^0(X,VLM^n)H^0(X,FM^n),$$

for a sufficiently large integer $`n`$. Such a map corresponds to a point is a Grassmannian $`𝔾`$. It is shown that, for large $`n`$, the moduli space is the GIT quotient of the set of semistable points $`𝒵`$ on a closed subset $`\overline{𝒵}𝔾`$, linearised through the tautological line bundle $`𝒪_^N(1)`$ of the Plücker embedding $`𝔾^N`$. All these semistable points are strictly stable.

### 2.3. Comparison of line bundles

Denote by $`(^N)^s`$ the locus of semistagble points, and similarly $`𝔾^s𝔾`$. We use the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\overline{𝒵}& & 𝔾& & ^N& \\ & & & & & \\ 𝒵& & 𝔾^s& & (^N)^s& \\ & & & & & \\ (X/Y)& & \stackrel{i}{}& & 𝐐& \end{array}$$

where $`𝐐`$ is the projective spectrum of the ring of invariant sections on $`^N`$. By construction we have that the pullback of $`𝒪_𝐐(1)`$ to $`(^N)^s`$ is the same as the restriction of $`𝒪_^N(1)`$.

We keep the notation $`UX`$ for the open set where $`f:XY`$ is an isomorphism. There is a natural embedding $`j:U(X/Y)`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.1.

Consider the composite morphism

$$h=ij:U𝐐.$$

Then there is an integer $`k`$ and an isomorphism

$$h^{}𝒪_𝐐(1)j^{}(L^kM^n).$$

Proof. The universal perverse ideal sheaf on $`U`$ is the ideal sheaf of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ of $`j:UX`$ in $`U\times X`$. Denote the two projections by $`\pi _U:U\times XU`$ and $`\pi _X:U\times XX`$. Since $`L_Y`$ is sufficiently ample and $`f`$ is isomorphic over $`U`$, we have an exact sequence

$$0\pi _U(I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}\pi _X^{}L)𝒪_UH^0(X,L)j^{}L0.$$

Denote the sheaf on the left hand side of the sequence

$$𝒱:=\pi _U(I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g}\pi _X^{}L)$$

and its rank by $`𝔪=\mathrm{Rank}𝒱`$. It follows that $`c_1(𝒱)=j^{}L^1`$.

Let $``$ be the total space of $`Hom(𝒪_U^𝔪,𝒱)`$ and $`g:U`$ the natural projection. There is a tautological determinant section $`sH^0(,g^{}L^1)`$, whose non-zero locus is the principal frame bundle of $`𝒱`$:

$$𝒫:=div(s),$$

on which $`𝒱`$ is trivialized. Note the isomorphism of invertible sheaves $`𝒪_{}(div(s))g^{}L^1`$.

The morphism $`𝒫𝐐`$ lifts to a morphism $`𝒫𝔾^N`$ through the quotient

$$g^{}(𝒱\pi _U\pi _X^{}(LM^n))g^{}\pi _U(I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\pi _X^{}M^n)).$$

The pullback of $`𝒪_^N(1)`$ is the determinant of $`g^{}\pi _U(I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\pi _X^{}M^n).`$ Using the exact sequence

$$0\pi _U(I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\pi _X^{}M^n)𝒪_UH^0(X,M^n)j^{}M0$$

we see that

$$g^{}h^{}𝒪_^N(1)g^{}j^{}M^n.$$

Since $`U`$ is an affine bundle we have an isomorphism $`g^{}:\mathrm{𝐏𝐢𝐜}(U)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{𝐏𝐢𝐜}()`$, and the excision sequence gives

$$Pic(𝒫)=\mathrm{𝐏𝐢𝐜}()/[𝒪_{}(div(s))]=\mathrm{𝐏𝐢𝐜}(U)/[j^{}L].$$

The Lemma follows.

### 2.4. Conclusion of proof

Since $`XU`$ has codimension $`2`$ and $`X`$ is normal, every section of $`(M^nL^k)^i|_U`$ extends to a section on $`X`$, and similarly for $`W^n`$. The proposition follows. ∎

## 3. The flatness criterion

### 3.1. Torsion-freeness of flat sheaves

We say that an open subscheme $`UW`$ is schematically dense if it contains all associated primes of W. We use the following well-known lemma:

###### Lemma 3.1.1.

Let $`\pi :ZW`$ be a morphism of schemes, and let $`Q`$ be a coherent sheaf on $`Z`$, flat over $`W`$. Assume there is a schematically dense open subscheme $`UW`$ such that $`Q_{\pi ^1U}`$ is torsion-free. Then $`Q`$ is torsion-free.

Proof. We argue by contradiction. The question is local, so we may replace $`Z`$ and $`W`$ by affine schemes. If $`s`$ is a torsion section of $`Q`$, then the image $`TW`$ of its support is disjoint from the dense open $`U`$. Let $`f`$ be a function on $`W`$ which vanishes on $`T`$. Since $`U`$ is schematically dense, $`f`$ is not a zero divisor in $`𝒪_W`$, thus the sequence

$$0𝒪_W\stackrel{f}{}𝒪_W𝒪_{V(f)}0$$

is exact. Since $`Q`$ is flat we have that the sequence

$$0Q\stackrel{f}{}QQ_{V(f)}0$$

is exact. But $`s`$ is in the kernel of the homomorphism $`Q\stackrel{f}{}Q`$, which is a contradiction.∎

### 3.2. Proof of the proposition

Let $`[F𝒪_{W\times X}]`$ be the universal perverse point sheaf. The sheaf $`F`$ is flat over $`W`$ by definition. Over the open set $`U`$, this coincides with the natural embedding $`[I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}𝒪_{U\times X}]`$, and the sheaf $`I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}`$ is clearly torsion free. By the lemma $`F`$ is torsion free. Also, since $`[I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}𝒪_{U\times X}]`$ is injective, the kernel of $`F𝒪_{W\times X}`$ is torsion, therefore it vanishes. Thus $`F𝒪_{W\times X}`$ is injective and $`F`$ is an ideal sheaf. The pushforward $`(id\times f)_{}F𝒪_{W\times Y}`$ is the ideal sheaf of the graph of $`WX`$, thus the image of the pullback

$$(id\times f)^{}(id\times f)_{}F𝒪_{W\times X}$$

is the ideal sheaf of $`W\times _YX`$. But, as we have seen in 2.1, this sheaf homomorphism factors through $`F𝒪_{W\times X}`$. Since the latter is injective we have that $`F`$ coincides with the the ideal sheaf of $`W\times _YX`$, which proves (1). Part (2) of the proposition follows since $`[I_{W\times _YX}𝒪_{W\times X}]=[𝒪_{W\times _YX}]`$ in the derived category.

We show the “only if” implication of part (3): suppose $`ZW`$ is given such that the composite $`ZY`$ satisfies the assumption in part (3). The pullback of $`F=I_{W\times _YX}`$ to $`Z\times X`$ is flat over $`Z`$, by the lemma it is torsion free, and as above it injects to $`𝒪_{Z\times X}`$, therefore it is an ideal sheaf, which coincides with the ideal of $`Z\times _YX`$ by right exactness of the tensor product.

Assume conversely that $`I_{Z\times _YX}`$ is flat over $`Z`$. Its direct image on $`Z\times Y`$ is the ideal $`I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ZY}}`$ of the graph of $`ZY`$, and by definition the inverse image of $`I_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ZY}}`$ surjects onto $`I_{Z\times _YX}`$. Thus $`I_{Z\times _YX}`$ is a perverse point-ideal sheaf, and therefore $`ZY`$ factors through $`W`$, proving the “if” implication of part (3). ∎

## 4. Surface contractions and Segre cones

We now address Proposition 1.3.1.

### 4.1. Smooth surface contractions

First let $`f:XY`$ be the contraction of smooth surfaces. By the flatness criterion, to show that $`W=Y`$ it suffices to show that the ideal of the graph of $`f`$ in $`X\times Y`$ is flat over $`Y`$. The problem being local in the étale topology, we may assume $`Y=𝔸^2`$, with coordinates $`x,y`$, and $`X=𝔸^2`$, with coordinates $`u,v`$, with $`x=f_1(u,v)`$ and $`y=f_2(u,v)`$. Then the ideal $`I`$ is generated by

$$xf_1(u,v),yf_2(u,v).$$

The ideal is complete intersection, with Koszul resolution

We use the local criterion for flatness. To check that $`I`$ is flat over $`Y`$ it suffices to check that $`Tor_1^{𝒪_Y}(I,E)=0`$ where $`E`$ is the structure sheaf of the center $`P`$ of blowing up, with maximal ideal $`(x,y)`$, and for this it suffices to show that

is still injective. The latter coincides with the map

$$\text{},$$

which is injective since $`f_i`$ is not identically 0. This proves part (1) of Proposition 1.3.1.

### 4.2. Contractions of $`(2)`$ curves

Now let $`XY`$ be the contraction of a $`(2)`$-curve. To show $`W^n=X`$ it suffices to show that the

1. ideal of $`X\times _YX`$ is flat over $`X`$, and
2. that the ideal of the graph of $`f`$ is not flat over $`Y`$.

Again we can work étale locally, and reduce to the case where $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}[x,y,z]/(xyz^2)`$. one chart of the blow up is $`X=\mathrm{Spec}[u,v]`$, with the morphism given by

$$x=u,z=uv,y=uv^2.$$

For the other chart we have

$$y=u,z=uv,x=uv^2.$$

To prove (a) we need to consider several affine charts on the product. We describe one, leaving the others as an easy exercise to the reader. Consider the affine chart on $`X\times X`$ with coordinates $`u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2`$, where the ideal is

$$I_{X\times _YX}=(u_1u_2,u_1v_1u_2v_2,u_1v_1^2u_2v_2^2).$$

Note that the first two generators already generate the ideal, so $`I_{X\times _YX}=(u_1u_2,u_1v_1u_2v_2)`$. The Koszul resolution gives the result as in part (1).

For (b), the ideal of the graph is generated by

$$xu,zuv,yuv^2.$$

It is a straightforward, though a bit tedious, to check that it fails to be flat over $`Y`$. Alternatively, one can use the following Macaulay 2 code:

```
        R=QQ[x,y,z,u,v]/(x*y-z^2);
        J=module(ideal(x-u, z-u*v,y-u*v^2));
        K = R^1/module(ideal(x,y,z));
        Tor_1(J,K)==0

```

Of which the result is:

```
        o4 = false

```

This completes the proof of Proposition 1.3.1.

### 4.3. Other surface contractions

Proposition 1.3.1 leaves out many interesting cases of surface contractions, in particular the case of arbitrary crepant contractions of surfaces with only rational double points.

The latter class of contractions turns out to follow from the work of the second author . Indeed, any such crepant contraction locally admits a one-parameter deformation deformation $`𝒳𝒴C`$, so-called simultaneous partial resolution, which on the total space is a threefold terminal flopping contraction, where $`𝒳^+`$ is the other simultaneous partial resolution. In  it is shown that $`W(𝒳/𝒴)=𝒳^+`$. It is also shown that the central fiber of $`W(𝒳/𝒴)`$ is $`W(X/Y).`$ Finally it is known that the fibers of the simultaneous partial resolution $`𝒳^+`$ are isomorphic to those of $`𝒳`$, which shows that $`W(X/Y)=X`$.

### 4.4. The Segre cone

We now address Proposition 1.3.3. Again, it suffices to show that the ideal of $`X\times _YX^+`$ is flat over $`X^+`$. Equivalently, it suffices to show that the structure sheaf of $`X\times _YX^+`$ has $`Tor`$-dimension 1. We can work locally on $`X^+`$, where an affine chart can be taken as $`𝔸^{k+2}`$, and the inverse image of this chart in $`X\times _YX^+`$ is the blowing up of $`𝔸^k\times \{0,0\}`$. The fact that this has $`Tor`$-dimension 1 follows from the case of a smooth surface (Proposition 1.3.1, part 1), or can be seen directly: an affine chart for $`X\times _YX^+`$ is the hypersurface in $`𝔸^{k+2}\times 𝔸^1`$, with coordinats $`z_1,\mathrm{}z_n,x,y,t`$ given by equation $`y=xt`$. We thus have a resolution

$$0𝒪_{𝔸^{k+2}\times 𝔸^1}𝒪_{𝔸^{k+2}\times 𝔸^1}𝒪_{X\times _YX^+}0,$$

giving the result.

## 5. The Francia flips

We now address Proposition 1.3.2 about the Francia flips of index $`n`$. This is used in the paper .

### 5.1. The setup

We follow the notation in Kollár-Mori , page 39: denote by $`Y_1`$ the usual threefold quadratic singularity $`xy=uv`$, and let $`X_1Y_1`$ be one of the two small resolutions, blowing up $`(x,v)`$, so $`X_1Y_1`$ is the standard flopping $`(1,1)`$ contraction. We denote by $`X_1^+Y_1`$ the other resolution, blowing up the ideal $`(x,u)`$. Denote by $`C_n`$ the cyclic group of $`n`$ elements, acting on $`Y_1`$ via $`(x,y,u,v)(\zeta x,y,\zeta u,v)`$, which lifts to an action on $`X_1`$ and on $`X_1^+`$. The quotients of $`X_1,Y_1,X_1^+`$ are denoted $`X_n,Y_n,X_n^+`$ respectively.

In the proposition, we need to prove that $`W^n(X_n/Y_n)`$ is $`X_n^+`$.

### 5.2. Flatness of the ideal

By Corollary 1.2.3 it suffices to verify that the ideal of $`X_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+`$ is flat over $`X_n^+`$.

The case $`n=1`$ follows from the main result of Bridgeland  (and can easily be checked by an explicit calculation). We thus have that the ideal of $`X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+`$ is flat over $`X_1`$. Since $`X_n`$ is smooth and $`X_1X_n`$ is finite, we have that $`X_1X_n`$ is flat, therefore the ideal of $`X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+`$ is flat over $`X_n`$ as well.

We have an exact sequence of $`𝒪_{X_1\times X_1^+}`$-modules

$$0I_{X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+}𝒪_{X_1\times X_1^+}𝒪_{X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+}0.$$

Consider the diagonal action of $`C_n`$ on $`X_1\times X_1^+`$. Taking invariants in the exact sequence above we get a sequence

$$0I_{(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_n}𝒪_{(X_1\times X_1^+)/C_n}𝒪_{(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_n}0,$$

which is still exact (since taking invariants of a finite group is exact in characteristic 0). Since the morphism $`X_1\times X_1^+X_1^+`$ is equivariant, we get an induced morphism $`(X_1\times X_1^+)/C_nX_n^+`$. Since $`I_{X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+}`$ is flat over $`X_n^+`$, and since the module of invariants $`I_{(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_n}`$ is a direct summand, the latter is also flat over $`X_n^+`$. This means

$$Tor_1(I_{(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_n},M)=0$$

fro every $`𝒪_{X_n^+}`$-module $`M`$, or, equivalently,

$$Tor_2(𝒪_{(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_n},M)=0.$$

The Lemma below says that $`(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_nX_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+`$ is an isomorphism. This means that

$$Tor_2(𝒪_{X_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+},M)=0,$$

which in turn implies that

$$Tor_1(I_{X_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+},M)=0,$$

so the ideal is flat ∎

We used the following:

###### Lemma 5.2.1.

The natural morphism $`(X_1\times _{Y_1}X_1^+)/C_nX_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+`$ is an isomorphism

Proof. The morphism is finite and birational, so it suffices to show that $`X_n\times _{Y_n}X_n^+`$ is normal. We check this by direct computation.

We have $`Y_1`$ given by the equation $`xyuv`$, therefore

$$Y_n=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{x^n\right\},\left\{x^{n1}u\right\},\mathrm{},\left\{xu^{n1}\right\},\left\{u^n\right\},y,v]/R$$

where $`R`$ is some ideal of relations. Here, as well as later, expressions in braces are variables, and the expression inside the brace is the image in the function field of $`Y_1`$

We have two affine charts for $`X_1`$:

$$X_1(1)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{x}{v}\right\},y,v],X_1(2)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{v}{x}\right\},x,u]$$

giving the following charts on $`X_n`$:

$$X_n(1)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{x^n}{v^n}\right\},y,v],$$

$$X_n(2)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{x^n\right\},\left\{x^{n1}u\right\},\mathrm{},\left\{xu^{n1}\right\},\left\{u^n\right\},y,v,\left\{\frac{v^n}{x^n}\right\}]/R^{}$$

where

$$R^{}=(\mathrm{},\left\{\frac{v^n}{x^n}\right\}\left\{x^n\right\}v^n,\mathrm{},\left\{\frac{v^n}{x^n}\right\}\left\{u^n\right\}y^n)$$

We have two affine charts for $`X_1^+`$:

$$X_1^+(1)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{x}{u}\right\},y,u],X_1^+(2)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{u}{x}\right\},x,v]$$

giving the following charts on $`X_n^+`$:

$$X_n^+(1)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{x}{u}\right\},y,\left\{u^n\right\}],X_n^+(2)=\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{\frac{u}{x}\right\},\left\{x^n\right\},v].$$

We have the following charts on the fibered product:

$`X_n(1)\underset{Y_n}{\times }X_n^+(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{v^n}}\right\},y,\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x}{u}}\right\}]`$
$`X_n(1)\underset{Y_n}{\times }X_n^+(2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x^n}{v^n}}\right\},v,\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x}}\right\}]`$
$`X_n(2)\underset{Y_n}{\times }X_n^+(1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{v^n}{x^n}}\right\},\left\{u^n\right\},y,\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{x}{u}}\right\}]/\left(\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{v^n}{x^n}}\right\}\left\{u^n\right\}y^n\right)`$
$`X_n(2)\underset{Y_n}{\times }X_n^+(2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Spec}[\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{v^n}{x^n}}\right\},\left\{x^n\right\},v,\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x}}\right\}]/\left(\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{v^n}{x^n}}\right\}\left\{x^n\right\}v^n\right)`$
The first two are smooth, the last two are a product of $`𝔸^1`$ with an $`A_{n1}`$-surface singularity, which is normal. ∎

### 5.3. Non-flatness of the ideal

The second part of the proposition boils down to showing that $`I_{X_2\times _{Y_2}X_2^+}`$ is not flat over $`X_2`$. This can be done by a direct calculation, e.g. the following Macaulay 2 code. The first output line verifies the result already proven, namely flatness over $`X_2^+`$. The second shows non-flatness over $`X_2`$:

```
R = QQ[E,G,H,A,B,C];
S = QQ[e,g,h];
F = map(S,R,{e^2,g^2,h^2,e*g,e*h,g*h});
T = QQ[a,b,c] ** image F ;
J = module(ideal(E-a^2*c,G-c,A-a*c,C-b,B-a*b));
K = T^1/module(ideal(a,b,c));
L = T^1/module(ideal(A,B,C,E,G,H));
Tor_1(J,K)==0
Tor_1(J,L)==0

```

with output

```
o8 = true
o9 = false

```