IPMU??-????

TUW-??-??

BCOV propagators for two-parameter models

Mauricio Romo∗1

∗Kavli Institute for the Physics and the Mathematics of the Universe
The University of Tokyo, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa 277-8583, Japan

Abstract
Here goes the abstract

1
mauricio.romo-at-ipmu.jp
Contents
1 Holomorphic limit and rational functions 2

2 An idea 4

3 Consistency with the ambiguities from F 1 7

4 Further ambiguities 7

1 Holomorphic limit and rational functions

We want to study the consistency of the equations coming from the special geometry relations.
For a Kähler manifold with metric Gij̄ = ∂i ∂ j̄ K, we use the Levi-Civita connection

Γjkl = Gj m̄ ∂k Gm̄l (1.1)

which has the opposite sign as the one used in the original BCOV paper, therefore the speacial
geometry relation reads
mj
∂ j̄ Γjkl = Gj̄k δlj + Gj̄l δkj − Cklm C j̄ (1.2)

Integrating this equation gives

Cijk S kl = Kj δil + Ki δjl − Γlij + slij (1.3)

now, we focus in the two-parameter case, we define z 0 := z and z 1 := w we write:

 zz
S zw
 
kl lk lk S Cizz Cizw
Cijk S = S Cikj = S (Ci )kj = (1.4)
S wz S ww Ciwz Ciww

so, we define the matrices

   
Czzz Czzw Czzw Czww
Cz = Cw = (1.5)
Czzw Czww Czww Cwww

The explicit expression for the Yukawa couplings is given by:

fzzz fzzw fzww fwww
Czzz = Czzw = Czww = Cwww = (1.6)
z 3 ∆1 ∆2 z 2 w∆1 ∆2 w2 z∆1 ∆2 w 3 ∆1 ∆2
where

∆1 = (1 − w)4 − 2(w2 + 6w + 1)z + z 2

∆2 = −(1 − w)8 + 4(1 − w)4 (w2 − 34w + 1)z
− 2(3w4 + 372w3 + 1298w2 + 372w + 3)z 2 + 4(w2 − 34w + 1)z 3 − z 4
fzzz = −4(1 − 2w + w2 − z)(1 − 2w + w2 + z)(5 − 20w + 30w2 − 20w3
+ 5w4 + 54z + 212wz + 54w2 z + 5z 2 )
fzzw = 4(−5 + 20w − 140w3 + 350w4 − 420w5 + 280w6 − 100w7 + 15w8 − 12z − 380wz

2
 + 480w2 z + 840w3 z − 1420w4 z + 372w5 z + 120w6 z + 34z 2 + 60wz 2 − 60w3 z 2
− 34w4 z 2 − 12z 3 − 212wz 3 − 96w2 z 3 − 5z 4 )
fzww = −16(1 + 2w − 22w2 + 34w3 + 20w4 − 106w5 + 118w6 − 58w7 + 11w8 − 2z + 62wz
+ 476w2 z − 564w3 z − 474w4 z + 438w5 z + 64w6 z − 34wz 2 − 94w2 z 2 − 94w3 z 2
− 34w4 z 2 + 2z 3 − 30wz 3 − 40w2 z 3 − z 4 )
fwww = 8(−1 − 16w + 20w2 + 112w3 − 230w4 + 16w5 + 276w6 − 240w7 + 63w8
+ 4z + 64wz − 1380w2 z − 4224w3 z + 2332w4 z + 2944w5 z + 260w6 z − 6z 2 − 80wz 2
− 564w2 z 2 − 688w3 z 2 − 198w4 z 2 + 4z 3 + 32wz 3 − 124w2 z 3 − z 4 ) (1.7)

we are interested in working in the topological/holomorphic limit. Then, we define, in terms

of the periods:
(a)
Π1 (0) (1)
ta = a = 0, 1 ~π = (Π0 , Π1 , Π1 ) (1.8)
Π0
with this we define the matrix (which is basically the holomorphic limit of the W-P metric,
but, not quite so)
 0
∂z t ∂w t0

M= (1.9)
∂z t1 ∂w t1

then, recall
 −1  
∂t ∂t
= M −1 ∂α M

Γα top = ∂α (1.10)
∂z ∂z
we also need the topological limit of Kl , for this, recall

K  = − ln(Π0 )top
(1.11)

so, we have
e i )lj := Kj δil + Ki δjl
(K (1.12)
then, we can write
   
ez = − 1
K
2∂z Π0 ∂w Π0 ew = − 1
K
∂ w Π0 0
(1.13)
Π0 0 ∂z Π0 Π0 ∂z Π0 2∂w Π0

now we define the following 3 × 3 matrices:

m = (~π ∂w ~π ∂z ~π ) ma(b,c) = ma(c,b) = (~π ∂a~π ∂b ∂c~π ) (1.14)

and also εab :

εzw = −εwz = 1 (1.15)

then, we can write the matrices Γa − K

e a in a very compact form (this I got from directly
looking at the Maple output)

εda det(ma(b,c) )
e b )dc =
(Γb − K (1.16)
det(m)

3
so, for example
!
1 det(mw
(z,z) ) det(mw
(z,w) )
Γz − K
ez = (1.17)
det(m) − det(mz(z,z) ) − det(mz(w,z) )

now, the equations for the propagators can be written as

SCi = −(Γi − K
e i ) + si (1.18)

consistency conditions implies that

e z )(Cz )−1 − (Γw − K
(Γz − K e w )(Cw )−1 (1.19)

must be a matrix of rational functions. This is hard to see since it depends on the periods ~π
and its first and second derivatives. One can use the Picard-Fuchs equations:

p11 zw∂z ∂w ~π + p00~π + w(p01 + p02 )∂w ~π + z(p10 + p20 )∂z ~π + p02 w2 ∂w
2
~π + z 2 p20 ∂z2~π = 0(1.20)

to express, say ∂z ∂w ~π in terms of {~π , ∂a~π , ∂a2~π }:

1
∂z ∂w ~π = (p00~π + . . .) (1.21)
wzp11
this can be used directly on the det(ma(b,c) ) variables to write:

1
det(ma(z,w) ) = ~π · (∂a~π × (∂zw
2
~π )) = − (z 2 p20 det(ma(z,z) ) + w2 p02 det(ma(w,w) ) + fa det(m))
zwp11
fz = −w(p01 + p02 ), fw = z(p10 + p20 ) (1.22)

Using this substitution for ∂z ∂w ~π and replacing the explicit expressions for the Yukawa cou-
plings and the pij ’s is enough to show that the components of (1.19) are indeed rational
functions. There is no need to replace any explicit expression for the periods. Moreover, the
terms involving the functions ∂a2~π all cancel. So one can read the rational functions, in terms
of arbitrary values of Cijk and pij just by setting to zero all the ∂a2~π terms in (1.19).

There is though, an additional problem, by consistency, the following matrix

 T
(Γa − Ke a )(Ca )−1 − (Γa − K
e a )(Ca )−1 (1.23)

must also be a matrix of rational functions, but an analogous approach fails for this. It seems
there is some extra relation needed, or can we bypass this somehow?

2 An idea
We can explicitly solve for si for i = w, z the eqs (1.19):
e z )(Cz )−1 − (Γw − K
(Γz − K e w )(Cw )−1 − sz (Cz )−1 + sw (Cw )−1 = 0 (2.1)

by noting that
e z )(Cz )−1 + (Γw − K
−(Γz − K e w )(Cw )−1

4
 −(p10 + p20 )Czzw w−1 (p10 + p20 )Czzz w−1
 
−1
= (det(Cz )p11 )
−(p01 + p02 )Czzw z −1 (p01 + p02 )Czzz z −1
−1 −(p + p )C −1
 
−1 (p10 + p20 )Cwww w 10 20 zww w
− (det(Cw )p11 ) (2.2)
(p01 + p02 )Cwww z −1 −(p01 + p02 )Czww z −1

in the current GN example one can show that these eqs can be solved for example by imposing
constraints on szwz , sw z w w z z w
wz , szz and szz and writing them completely in terms of (szw , szw , sww , sww ).
We write these constraints here, for completeness:

szwz = szzw sw w
wz = szw (2.3)

((−p11 wszzw − p10 − p20 )Czzw − p11 wCzzz szww )Czww

szzz =
p11 wdet(Cw )
p11 wCzzw sww + Cwww Czzz (p11 wszzw + p10 + p20 )
2 z
+ (2.4)
p11 wdet(Cw )

((−p11 zsw w
zw − p10 − p20 )Czzw − p11 zCzzz sww )Czww
sw
zz =
p11 zdet(Cw )
p11 wCzzw sww + Cwww Czzz (p11 zsw
2 w
zw + p10 + p20 )
+ (2.5)
p11 zdet(Cw )

all these constraints are well defined as long as det(Ca ) 6= 0, etc. Denote the si functions
satisfying these constrains by s̃i .
We can also write (2.2) in a more explicit form for our GN example, we define:

q1 := w2 − 2w − 5z + 1
q2 := 5w2 − 10w − z + 5
q3 := 23w4 − 32w3 − 58w2 z − 2w2 + 56zw + 3z 2 + 8w − 6z + 3 (2.6)

note q1 q2 = 2p02 and q3 = p20 . And the following polynomials:

r11,1 := 25w4 − 80w3 − 116w2 z + 90w2 + 156zw + 15z 2 − 40w − 40z + 5

r11,2 := 15w8 − 100w7 + 120w6 z + 280w6 + 372w5 z − 34w4 z 2 − 420w5 − 1420w4 z − 60w3 z 2 − 96w2 z 3
+ 350w4 + 840w3 z − 212wz 3 − 5z 4 − 140w3 + 480w2 z + 60wz 2 − 12z 3
− 380wz + 34z 2 + 20w − 12z − 5
r12,2 := 11w8 − 58w7 + 64w6 z + 118w6 + 438w5 z − 34w4 z 2 − 106w5 − 474w4 z − 94w3 z 2 − 40w2 z 3
+ 20w4 − 564w3 z − 94w2 w2 − 30wz 3 − z 4 + 34w3 + 476w2 z − 34wz 2 + 2z 3 − 22w2
+ 62wz + 2w − 2z + 1
r21,1 := 53w4 − 92w3 − 154w2 z + 28w2 + 152wz + 9z 2 + 8w − 12z + 3 (2.7)

with all these functions defined, we have:

z 2 r11,1 r11,2 4zwr11,1 r12,2

 
e z )(Cz )−1 + (Γw − K
e w )(Cw )−1 = 1
−(Γz − K (2.8)
8q1 q2 q3 2zwr21,1 r11,2 w2 r21,1 r12,2

5
Next, we can write the propagators as
e z )(Cz )−1 + s̃z (Cz )−1 = −(Γw − K
Se = −(Γz − K e w )(Cw )−1 + s̃w (Cw )−1 (2.9)

The propagators S,e even though they now don’t depend on the choice of z or w, it does still
suffer from the problem that they are not symmetric, this is because:
 T 
1 −1

−1
−(Γa − Ka )(Ca ) + (Γa − Ka )(Ca )
e e = −Aa (2.10)
2

!
zwr1
0 8q3
Aw = (2.11)
− zwr
8q3
1
0

where

r1 = 66 w8 − 274 w7 + 325 w6 z + 380 w6 + 3112 w5 z − 211 w4 z 2 − 102 w5 + 731 w4 z − 618 w3 z 2

− 177 w2 z 3 − 220 w4 − 4272 w3 z − 478 w2 z 2 − 44 wz 3 − 3 z 4 + 194 w3 − 45 w2 z − 98 wz 2
+ 7 z 3 − 36 w2 + 152 wz − 3 z 2 − 10 w − 3 z + 2 (2.12)

!
zwr2
0 8q1 q2
Az = zwr2 (2.13)
− 8q1 q2
0

where

r2 := −10 z 4 − 45 z 3 + 51 z 2 + 9 z − 5 − 424 z 3 w + 90 z 2 w − 572 zw + 10w

− 171 z 3 w2 + 485 zw2 + 70w2 − 90 z 2 w3 + 1680 zw3 − 350w3 − 51 z 2 w4 − 2365 zw4 + 700w4
+ 556 zw5 − 770w5 + 207 zw6 + 490w6 − 170 w7 + 25 w8 (2.14)

so, Aa is an antisymmetric matrix of rational functions. In general, it could be difficult to write

Aa explicitly in any form, and we will have its entries only as infinite series. Still some things
that can be checked explicitly : the dependence on ln z and ln w drops of Aa automatically
(actually without any need of using Picard-Fuchs eqs.), so one can convince himself that the
entries of Aa are rational functions. Note that, at least in the GN example, Az 6= Aw . There
seems to be a pattern on the possible singularities of Aa , however, in our case they correspond
to very specific rational coefficients of the Picard-Fuchs equations. Specifically, by p02 and
p20 which are the leading coefficients of the second order PF eq. (recall that the PF system
of the GN CY has a third and a second order eq.). This suggest that the matrices Aa should
satisfy a differential equation with these coefficients as the leading order ones. Since we know
the matrix Aa explicitly for this example we are left with one constraint:

T
−2Ai + s̃i Ci−1 − s̃i Ci−1 =0 i = w, z (2.15)

Eqs. (2.15) corresponds to only one constraint (instead of 2), since we are using the s̃i ’s. This
means that after solving all the constraints coming from consistency of the S ij propagators
we can write all the 8 functions slij only in terms of 3 of them. In the following I will outline

6
an idea to fix the ambiguities of S ij , assuming we don’t have access to Aa explicitly. Consider
the symmetrized propagators:
1  e eT  e z )(Cz )−1 + Az + 1 (s̃z (Cz )−1 + s̃z (Cz )−1 T )


S+S = −(Γz − K
2 2
e w )(Cw )−1 + Aw + 1 (s̃w (Cw )−1 + s̃w (Cw )−1 T )


= −(Γw − K
2
(2.16)
and the new matrices of rational functions s0i by solving
1
T
s0a (Ca )−1 = Aa + (s̃a (Ca )−1 + s̃a (Ca )−1 ) (2.17)
2
0
note that, the solutions for sa always exist. Then define S,
1  e eT  e z )(Cz )−1 + s0 (Cz )−1
S := S+S = −(Γz − K z
2
= −(Γw − K e w )(Cw )−1 + s0w (Cw )−1 (2.18)
this is our propagator, we only need to know that the rational functions s0a exist, since S+
e SeT is
w z z w
completely known for us. Moreover we are left with (szw , szw , sww , sww ) as arbitrary functions
we can still choose. In other words we just show that solving (1.19) and then symmetrizing
is a consistent way to obtain propagators for the BCOV eqs.

3 Consistency with the ambiguities from F 1

There is a consistency eq:
1  χ
∂j F 1 = Fj1 = Cjkl S kl + 1 − Kj + fj1 (3.1)
2 24
the LHS of this equation, we already know it completely. More specifically, we can write
1 χ 1 1
Fj1 = 3+n− Kj − ∂j log det G + s0ljl + fj1 (3.2)
2 12 2 2
where there is sum over l and s0 denotes the ambiguities after we have imposed the constraints
from previous sections. We have two new ambiguities fj1 , j = w, z coming from the integration
of the genus 1 BCOV equation. On the other hand, using the gap conditions we have fixed:
1 χ 1 17 1
F1 = 3+n− K − log det G + f 1 + f¯1 f 1 := − (ln zw) − ln ∆1 ∆2 (3.3)
2 12 2 6 12
so, the consistency condition we have to satisfy is:
1
∂j f 1 = s0ljl + fj1 j = w, z (3.4)
2
which fix the fj1 ’s.

4 Further ambiguities
Suppose we have solved the ambiguities for S ij . Then, we need to solve for S i . S i must
satisfy the equation
∂ ī S i = Gīj S ij = ∂ī Kj S ij (4.1)
where there is only sum over j.