This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Cohomological splitting over rationally connected bases

Shaoyun Bai MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139, USA shaoyunb@mit.edu Daniel Pomerleano University of Massachusetts, Boston, 100 William T, Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02125, USA Daniel.Pomerleano@umb.edu  and  Guangbo Xu Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, Hill Center–Busch Campus, 110 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019, USA guangbo.xu@rutgers.edu
Abstract.

We prove a cohomological splitting result for Hamiltonian fibrations over enumeratively rationally connected symplectic manifolds. As a key application, we prove that the cohomology of a smooth, projective family over a smooth (stably) rational projective variety splits additively over any field. The main ingredients in our arguments include the theory of Fukaya–Ono–Parker (FOP) perturbations developed by the first and third author, which allows one to define integer-valued Gromov–Witten type invariants, and variants of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith’s global Kuranishi charts tailored to concrete geometric problems.

D.P. is supported by NSF DMS-2306204.
G.X. is supported by NSF DMS-2345030.

1. Introduction

This paper is concerned with the classical Leray spectral sequence in the context of symplectic and birational geometry. Recall that for any fibration πP:PB\pi_{P}:P\to B of topological spaces with fiber MM, for any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}, one has a Leray spectral sequence

E2p,q:=Hp(B;𝐑qπP(𝕜))Hp+q(P;𝕜).E_{2}^{p,q}:=H^{p}(B;{\bf R}^{q}\pi_{P}({\mathbb{k}}))\Longrightarrow H^{p+q}(P;{\mathbb{k}}). (1.1)

A recurring theme in the literature is that the rigidity of symplectic or complex geometry often forces the spectral sequence to degenerate at the E2E_{2}-page. This is the case, for example, when πP\pi_{P} is a smooth projective morphism between smooth complex projective varieties and when 𝕜\mathbb{k} is of characteristic zero, according to a celebrated result of Blanchard and Deligne [Bla56, Del68]. In symplectic topology, Lalonde, McDuff, Polterovich [LMP99, McD00, LM03] have shown that degeneration in characteristic zero also holds for certain Hamiltonian fibrations, though it is a more flexible category than projective fibrations. In fact, for the Hamiltonian fibrations they consider, Lalonde, McDuff, Polterovich prove something a priori stronger than degeneration; they prove that there is a cohomological splitting:

H(B;)H(M;)Hp+q(P;).\displaystyle H^{*}(B;\mathbb{Q})\otimes H^{*}(M;\mathbb{Q})\cong H^{p+q}(P;\mathbb{Q}). (1.2)

Recently, Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS21] proved a cohomological splitting result for Hamiltonian fibrations over S2S^{2} in all characteristics as applications of remarkable advances in symplectic geometry.111See also the work of [BX22b] for an alternate proof of the theorem of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith. The purpose of this article is to exhibit a broader class of situations in both the symplectic and algebraic categories when this cohomological splitting occurs for coefficient fields with positive characteristic. The main condition we need, roughly speaking, is that the base BB is rationally connected, a concept from algebraic geometry. Rationally connected varieties are often considered to be the “correct higher dimensional analogs of rational curves”(c.f. [Kol01, p. 425]). The main tools that we use are from symplectic enumerative geometry: moduli spaces of stable maps and Gromov–Witten invariants.

1.1. Statement of results

We now give a precise definition of the rational connectedness hypothesis we need in our first result. Recall that an algebraic variety is called rationally connected if every two points in this variety are connected by a rational curve. For example, all smooth Fano varieties are rationally connected by a famous theorem of Kollár–Miyaoka–Mori [KMM92] and Campana [Cam92]. A conjecture of Kollár [Kol98, Conjecture 4.2.7] which says that rational connectedness is symplectic deformation invariant, as well as work on this conjecture by Voisin [Voi08] and Z. Tian [Tia12, Tia15], motivates the following symplectic definition of rational connectedness.

Definition 1.1.

Let (B,ωB)(B,\omega_{B}) be a closed symplectic manifold. We say that BB is symplectically or enumeratively rationally connected if there exists k0k\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} such that it admits a genus 0 Gromov–Witten invariant

GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak)0,\mathrm{GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\cdots,a_{k})\neq 0, (1.3)

where [pt]Htop(B;)[{\rm pt}]\in H^{\rm top}(B;{\mathbb{Q}}) is the Poincaré dual of the point class, aiH(B;)a_{i}\in H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{Q}}), and AH2(B;)A\in H_{2}(B;{\mathbb{Z}}) is a curve class.

To state our first result, we focus on monotone symplectic manifolds, i.e., those whose first Chern class is a positive multiple of the symplectic class. These manifolds are the symplectic counterparts of Fano varieties. In this case, we can assume in Definition 1.1 that the GW invariant is an integer with aiH(B;)a_{i}\in H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{Z}}) (cf. [RT95, MS04]).

Theorem A.

Let (B,ωB)(B,\omega_{B}) be a compact, monotone, and enumeratively rationally connected symplectic manifold with a nonzero Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak)\mathrm{GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\cdots,a_{k}). If (M,ωM)(M,\omega_{M}) is a compact symplectic manifold and

M\textstyle{M\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}P\textstyle{P\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}πP\scriptstyle{\pi_{P}}B\textstyle{B}

is a Hamiltonian fibration, then for any coefficient field 𝕜\mathbb{k} whose characteristic does not divide GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak)\mathrm{GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\cdots,a_{k})\in{\mathbb{Z}}, there is an isomorphism of graded 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-vector spaces:

H(P;𝕜)H(B;𝕜)𝕜H(M;𝕜).H^{*}(P;\mathbb{k})\cong H^{*}(B;\mathbb{k})\otimes_{\mathbb{k}}H^{*}(M;\mathbb{k}). (1.4)

Returning to our original algebro-geometric situation, Theorem A implies the following result.

Corollary 1.2.

Let πP:PB\pi_{P}:P\to B be a smooth, projective morphism from a smooth complex projective variety PP to a smooth complex projective base BB which is Fano and enumeratively rationally connected. Then for any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}, H(P;𝕜)H(B;𝕜)𝕜H(M;𝕜)H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}})\cong H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{k}})\otimes_{\mathbb{k}}H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}) provided that there is a genus zero primary Gromov–Witten invariant of BB with at least two point insertions which is not divisible by char(𝕜){\rm char}({\mathbb{k}}).

Proof.

By the theorem of Kollár–Miyaoka–Mori [KMM92] and Campana [Cam92], π1(B)=0\pi_{1}(B)=0. On the other hand, as PP is projective, there is a Kähler form ωPΩ2(P)\omega_{P}\in\Omega^{2}(P); as πP\pi_{P} is a holomorphic submersion, each fiber is a complex, hence symplectic submanifold. Then by [MS98, Lemma 6.2] (or see [BGS88, Theorem 1.7] for Kähler fibrations), the map πP:PB\pi_{P}:P\to B admits the structure of symplectic fibration. Then by [LM03, Theorem 1.1], such a symplectic fibration reduces to a Hamiltonian fibration. Therefore, Theorem A implies the splitting result. ∎

Note that we do not impose any positivity condition on the fiber (M,ωM)(M,\omega_{M}). At this level of generality, Theorem A was only known for B=1B=\mathbb{CP}^{1} by Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS21, Theorem 1.1] (see the work of the first and third author [BX22b] for an alternative proof), and BB being a product of Grassmannians by a result of the first and second author [BP24, Lemma 2.8]. To compare these previous results with Theorem A, note that for 1\mathbb{CP}^{1}, the Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,21,[1]([pt],[pt])=1\mathrm{GW}_{0,2}^{\mathbb{CP}^{1},[\mathbb{CP}^{1}]}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}])=1 because itself is the unique line connecting two points; for the Grassmannians, as discussed in [Hu19, Example 3.10], there is a nonvanishing Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,3B,A([pt],[pt],a)=1\mathrm{GW}_{0,3}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a)=1, so (1.4)\eqref{eqn:coh-splitting} holds for any field 𝕜\mathbb{k} when BB is either 1\mathbb{CP}^{1} or a Grassmannian directly from Theorem A.

Remark 1.3.

In Section 6 below, we provide an example of a projective fibration over a smooth Fano variety whose cohomology does not split in characteristic 22. We expect, but do not prove, that this variety admits a genus zero primary Gromov–Witten invariant with two point insertions which is equal to 22.

In proving Theorem A, the monotone condition of the base can be relaxed as long as the nonzero GW invariant is realized by a transversely cut out moduli space (see Theorem 4.1). This seemingly technical extension has a noteworthy consequence. Recall that a complex projective variety BB of dimension mm is stably rational if B×rB\times\mathbb{CP}^{r} is birational to m+r\mathbb{CP}^{m+r}. It is not difficult to see that stably rational varieties are rationally connected [Har01]. By combining the above methods with certain topological arguments from [LM03, BP24], we are able to show:

Theorem B.

Suppose BB is a smooth stably rational projective variety. Then for any Hamiltonian fibration PBP\to B (in particular, any smooth algebraic family PBP\to B with PP projective) and any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}, there is an isomorphism of graded 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-vector spaces

H(P;𝕜)H(B;𝕜)𝕜H(M;𝕜).H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}})\cong H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{k}})\otimes_{\mathbb{k}}H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}).
Remark 1.4.

Historically, the study of cohomological splitting of Hamiltonian fibrations over 1\mathbb{CP}^{1} was initiated by Lalonde–McDuff–Polterovich [LMP99] and McDuff [McD00] using holomorphic curve methods, building on Seidel’s work on Seidel representations [Sei97]. For general symplectic fibers, Lalonde–McDuff [LM03] used various “soft” topological arguments to establish the cohomological splitting over {\mathbb{Q}} for Hamiltonian fibrations over a large class of manifolds, and proposed the relation between cohomological splitting and enumeratively rational connectedness [LM03, Section 4.2]. They established cohomological splitting over {\mathbb{Q}} for any Hamiltonian fibration over blowups of n\mathbb{CP}^{n}. The Lalonde–McDuff proposal was partially realized by Hyvrier [Hyv12], who proved the cohomological splitting with {\mathbb{Q}} coefficients for Hamiltonian fibrations over symplectically rationally connected bases under certain restrictive assumptions. Theorem A and Theorem B are the first general results along this line of inquiry and also incorporate torsion classes in cohomology.

1.2. Discussion of the proof

Because we work over a field, by the Leray–Hirsch theorem, we know that our result about the splitting of cohomology follows from the surjectivity of the restriction map

H(P;𝕜)H(M;𝕜),H^{*}(P;\mathbb{k})\to H^{*}(M;\mathbb{k}),

or equivalently the injectivity of the inclusion of homology. We prove this injectivity via a certain non-vanishing result of 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued Gromov–Witten invariants of the total space. The Hamiltonian fibration structure induces a closed extension of the fiberwise symplectic form to the total space PP, which becomes a symplectic form after adding a multiple of the pullback of the symplectic form on the base BB. When char(𝕜)>0{\rm char}({\mathbb{k}})>0, the 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued Gromov–Witten invariants can be defined via the integral Gromov–Witten pseudocycle defined in [BX22b] following the idea of Fukaya–Ono [FO97]. Based on this, Theorem A follows from the following nonvanishing result. To illustrate the idea of the proof without getting into the details we assume that k=0k=0 so the base BB admits a nonvanishing integral Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,2B,A(pt,pt)0{\rm GW}_{0,2}^{B,A}({\rm pt},{\rm pt})\neq 0.

Theorem 1.5.

(See a more general version as Theorem 5.2) Under the same assumptions as in Theorem A while assuming k=0k=0, for any nonzero homology class β0H(M;𝕜)\beta_{0}\in H_{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}), there exists a homology class βH(M;𝕜)\beta_{\infty}\in H_{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}) and a curve class A~H2(P;)\tilde{A}\in H_{2}(P;{\mathbb{Z}}) such that

GW0,2P,𝕜;A~(PD(ι(β0)),PD(ι(β)))0,\mathrm{GW}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}_{0,2}\Big{(}{\rm PD}(\iota_{*}(\beta_{0})),{\rm PD}(\iota_{*}(\beta_{\infty}))\Big{)}\neq 0, (1.5)

where the above Gromov–Witten invariant is the 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued version induced from the integral Gromov–Witten invariants.

We provide a heuristic explanation of this result and indicate the technical difficulties. Very ideally, the moduli space of two-pointed stable genus 0 maps to BB representing the second homology class AH2(B;)A\in H_{2}(B;{\mathbb{Z}}), denoted by ¯0,2(B,A)\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(B,A), is smooth and compact, with the evaluation map

ev:¯0,2(B,A)B×B{\rm ev}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(B,A)\to B\times B

a local diffeomorphism of finite degrees. In this case, for any pair of distinct points p1,p2Bp_{1},p_{2}\in B, the Gromov–Witten invariant is a signed sum of the finitely many rational curves in ¯0,2(B,A)\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(B,A) which pass through p1p_{1} and p2p_{2}. If A~H2(P;)\tilde{A}\in H_{2}(P;{\mathbb{Z}}) is a lift of AA, then we see that the composition with πP\pi_{P} defines a map between the moduli spaces of stable rational curves

¯0,2(P,A~)¯0,2(B,A).\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(P,\tilde{A})\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(B,A).

The preimage of an element ev1({p1}×{p2})¯0,2(B,A){\rm ev}^{-1}(\{p_{1}\}\times\{p_{2}\})\in\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,2}(B,A), if can be represented by a smooth rational curve CC in BB, can be identified with the moduli space of stable genus 0 holomorphic “sections” of the fibration over the projective line, P|CP|_{C}. Then, in this ideal situation, we can appeal to the nonvanishing result of Gromov–Witten section invariants of fibrations over 1\mathbb{CP}^{1} [Sei97, McD00] to find the desired invariant, at least for the {\mathbb{Q}}-valued version.

The technical difficulties of carrying out the above sketch in general are of a familiar kind: to compactify the moduli space of rational curves using stable maps, one needs to introduce maps with nodal domains; also, the moduli spaces are “stacky” in nature, which means that the nontrivial automorphisms of stable maps forbid one to go beyond characteristic zero when defining enumerative invariants following the traditional approach to Gromov–Witten theory.

We resolve these obstacles using tools from symplectic topology, both classical and modern. In the monotone setting as Theorem A, one uses the classical regularization method written up systematically by McDuff–Salamon [MS04] to find a generic almost complex structure on BB compatible with ωB\omega_{B} to ensure that only smooth curves in ¯(B,A)0,2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}(B,A) contributes to the relevant Gromov–Witten invariant. In the situation of Theorem B where BB is not necessarily monotone, we reduce the consideration to the case that BB is a blowup of n\mathbb{CP}^{n}, which has a nonzero Gromov–Witten invariant realized by a single transverse smooth rational curve. In order to allow the field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}} to have positive characteristic, we appeal to the Fukaya–Ono–Parker (FOP) perturbation method developed by the first and third author [BX22b, BX22a] to develop a theory of Seidel elements in finite characteristic and find the required nonzero Gromov–Witten type invariant. These two regularization methods are combined fruitfully via variants of the global Kuranishi charts of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS21, AMS23].

Finally, we note that the approach of [AMS21] goes via Morava KK-theories. It is an interesting open problem to see whether one can prove Theorem A using Gromov–Witten Morava KK-theory invariants. We expect that to make progress along these lines, one needs to revisit the Baas–Sullivan approach [Baa70] to generalized cohomology theories to establish a dictionary between ordinary Gromov–Witten invariants and these generalized Gromov–Witten invariants. There are other motivations to investigate this question: via chromatic lifting techniques, one may go beyond additive splitting of ordinary cohomology. We note that [BP24, Lemma 2.8] implies that for any smooth projective family PBP\to B over a product of Grassmannians and any complex oriented cohomology theory 𝔼\mathbb{E}^{*}, we have:

𝔼(P)𝔼(M)𝔼(pt)𝔼(B).\displaystyle\mathbb{E}^{*}(P)\cong\mathbb{E}^{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{E}^{*}(pt)}\mathbb{E}^{*}(B). (1.6)

It would be interesting to know whether a similar splitting held in the stably rational case.

1.3. Outline of the paper

In Section 2, we review the definition of integer-valued Gromov–Witten invariants given in [BX22b] via the Fukaya–Ono–Parker (FOP) perturbation method, as well as the reduction to fields of finite characteristic. In Section 3, we define the 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued graph Gromov–Witten invariants for Hamiltonian fibrations over S2S^{2} and the corresponding Seidel map using the FOP perturbation method. In Section 4, we state the main technical result (Theorem 4.1), which implies both Theorem A and Theorem B. In Section 5, we prove Theorem 4.1. In Section 6, we provide an example of a projective fibration over a Fano manifold whose cohomology does not split in characteristic 22.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Sasha Kuznetsov for some help with Theorem 6.1, Jørgen Vold Rennemo for a helpful email exchange concerning Remark 6.4, and Ziquan Zhuang for a discussion on weak factorizations. D.P. would like to thank Paul Seidel for an inspiring discussion at the start of this project.

2. Integer-valued Gromov–Witten invariants

In this section, we review the genus zero integer-valued Gromov–Witten invariants constructed in [BX22b]. The ordinary GW invariants of a general symplectic manifold fail to be integers because of the orbifold nature of the moduli spaces of stable maps. The integer-valued GW invariants originated from the insight of Fukaya–Ono [FO97], where they observed the possibility of using a particular kind of single-valued perturbations on Kuranishi structures on the moduli spaces of stable maps. A crucial point is that the moduli spaces carry (stable) complex structures. On the technical level the idea was further explored by B. Parker [Par13] who clarified crucial properties needed for the special kind of perturbations Fukaya–Ono proposed. Eventually, the first and the third author [BX22b] polished the ideas of Fukaya–Ono and B. Parker and rigorously constructed the {\mathbb{Z}}-valued GW invariants in genus zero.

2.1. Derived orbifold charts and FOP pseudocycle

A derived orbifold chart (D-chart for short) is a triple

𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}})

where 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} is a smooth orbifold, 𝒰{\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{U}} is an orbifold vector bundle (known as the obstruction bundle), and 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} is a continuous section such that 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0) is compact. A morphism of D-charts from 𝒞1{\mathcal{C}}_{1} to 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}_{2} consists of a map ι21:𝒰1𝒰2\iota_{21}:{\mathcal{U}}_{1}\to{\mathcal{U}}_{2} and a bundle map ι^21:12\widehat{\iota}_{21}:{\mathcal{E}}_{1}\to{\mathcal{E}}_{2} covering ι21\iota_{21} such that

ι^21𝒮1=𝒮2ι21.\widehat{\iota}_{21}\circ{\mathcal{S}}_{1}={\mathcal{S}}_{2}\circ\iota_{21}.

There are the following typical types of morphisms.

  1. (1)

    Shrinking/open embedding induced by shrinking 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} to an open neighborhood of 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0) and restricting {\mathcal{E}} together with 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}.

  2. (2)

    Stabilization by a vector bundle. Namely, there is a vector bundle π:𝒰1\pi_{\mathcal{F}}:{\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{U}}_{1} such that 𝒰2{\mathcal{U}}_{2} is the total space of {\mathcal{F}}, 2=π1π{\mathcal{E}}_{2}=\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{E}}_{1}\oplus\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{F}}, and 𝒮2=π𝒮1τ{\mathcal{S}}_{2}=\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{S}}_{1}\oplus\tau_{\mathcal{F}} where τ\tau_{\mathcal{F}} is the tautological section; moreover ι21\iota_{21} is the inclusion of the zero section and ι^21\widehat{\iota}_{21} is the embedding of 1{\mathcal{E}}_{1} into the first summand of 2{\mathcal{E}}_{2}.

Moreover, a strict cobordism from 𝒞1{\mathcal{C}}_{1} to 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}_{2} is a D-chart with boundary 𝒞~=(𝒰~,~,𝒮~)\tilde{\mathcal{C}}=(\tilde{\mathcal{U}},\tilde{\mathcal{E}},\tilde{\mathcal{S}}) together with identifications

𝒞~=(𝒰~,~|𝒰~,𝒮~|𝒰~)𝒞1𝒞2.\partial\tilde{\mathcal{C}}=(\partial\tilde{\mathcal{U}},\tilde{\mathcal{E}}|_{\partial\tilde{\mathcal{U}}},\tilde{\mathcal{S}}|_{\tilde{\mathcal{U}}})\cong{\mathcal{C}}_{1}\sqcup{\mathcal{C}}_{2}.
Definition 2.1.

We say that two D-charts 𝒞1{\mathcal{C}}_{1} and 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}_{2} are equivalent if 𝒞1{\mathcal{C}}_{1} can be connected to 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}_{2} by a zig-zag of open embeddings or stabilizations; 𝒞1{\mathcal{C}}_{1} and 𝒞2{\mathcal{C}}_{2} are called cobordant if they are equivalent to a strictly cobordant pairs.222The relation induced by the shrinking morphisms is a special case of the cobordism relation. We keep the shrinking morphisms explicit because they naturally arise from transversality arguments in the geometric construction of D-charts for moduli spaces of JJ-holomorphic curves. By [Par21, Proposition 5.1], the cobordism relation defines an equivalence relation among D-charts.

We expect the zero locus 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0) to carry a fundamental class which is invariant under cobordism relations. This is the case in rational coefficients and the fundamental class is roughly the Poincaré dual of the Euler class of the obstruction bundle {\mathcal{E}}. Equivalently, a fundamental cycle can be obtained from the zero locus of a multi-valued transverse perturbation of 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}. Fukaya–Ono’s idea to obtain a fundamental class with integer coefficients is to carefully choose single-valued perturbations satisfying a more refined version of the transversality condition, although the topological nature of such a fundamental class is not completely clear.

To carry out the Fukaya–Ono–Parker (FOP) perturbation scheme, one needs a version of complex structures on orbifolds and the obstruction bundles. A normal complex structure on an effective orbifold 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} associates to each orbifold chart (U,Γ)(U,\Gamma) and each subgroup HΓH\subset\Gamma an HH-invariant complex structure on the normal bundle NUHUHNU^{H}\to U^{H} of the HH-fixed point set UHUU^{H}\subset U such that orbifold coordinate changes respect these complex structures. If 𝒰{\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{U}} is an orbifold vector bundle, a normal complex structure on {\mathcal{E}} associates to each bundle chart (U,E,Γ)(U,E,\Gamma) (where (U,Γ)(U,\Gamma) is an orbifold chart and EUE\to U is a Γ\Gamma-equivariant vector bundle) and each subgroup HΓH\subset\Gamma an HH-invariant complex structure on the subbundle EˇHE|UH\check{E}^{H}\subset E|_{U^{H}} (which is the direct sum of nontrivial irreducible HH-representations contained in E|UHE|_{U^{H}}) such that the bundle coordinate changes respect these complex structures. A normal complex structure on a D-chart 𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) consists of a normal complex structure on 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} and a normal complex structure on {\mathcal{E}}. The notion of derived cobordism can be defined for normally complex D-charts if we require that stabilizations are via complex vector bundles.

Theorem 2.2.

[BX22b] Given any normally complex and effective orbifold 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} and a normally complex orbifold vector bundle 𝒰{\mathcal{E}}\to{\mathcal{U}}, there is a class of (single-valued) smooth sections, called FOP transverse sections which satisfy the following conditions.

  1. (1)

    The FOP transversality condition is local; moreover, over the isotropy-free part of 𝒰\mathcal{U}, 𝒰free𝒰{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}\subset{\mathcal{U}} (which is a manifold), being FOP transverse is equivalent to being transverse in the classical sense.

  2. (2)

    The condition that a smooth section 𝒮{\mathcal{S}} is FOP transverse only depends on the behavior of 𝒮{\mathcal{S}} near 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0). In particular, any smooth section 𝒮{\mathcal{S}} is FOP transverse away from 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0).

  3. (3)

    Given a continuous norm on {\mathcal{E}}, for any continuous section 𝒮0:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}_{0}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} and any δ>0\delta>0, there exists an FOP transverse section 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} such that

    𝒮0𝒮C0δ.\|{\mathcal{S}}_{0}-{\mathcal{S}}\|_{C^{0}}\leq\delta.
  4. (4)

    (CUDV property) Given any closed subset C𝒰C\subset{\mathcal{U}} and a smooth section 𝒮0:O{\mathcal{S}}_{0}:O\to{\mathcal{E}} defined over an open neighborhood OO of CC, if 𝒮0{\mathcal{S}}_{0} is FOP transverse near CC, then there exists an FOP transverse section 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} which agrees with 𝒮0{\mathcal{S}}_{0} near CC.

  5. (5)

    (Stabilization property) Suppose π:𝒰\pi_{\mathcal{F}}:{\mathcal{F}}\to{\mathcal{U}} is an orbifold complex vector bundle and τ:π\tau_{\mathcal{F}}:{\mathcal{F}}\to\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{F}} is the tautological section. If 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} is an FOP transverse section, then the section

    π𝒮τ:ππ\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{S}}\oplus\tau_{\mathcal{F}}:{\mathcal{F}}\to\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{E}}\oplus\pi_{\mathcal{F}}^{*}{\mathcal{F}}

    is a also an FOP transverse section.

  6. (6)

    If 𝒵𝒰{\mathcal{Z}}\subset{\mathcal{U}} is a closed and proper sub-orbifold whose normal bundle is an ordinary vector bundle (i.e., the fibers as representations of stabilizers are a direct sum of trivial representations, which implies 𝒵{\mathcal{Z}} is also normally complex), and if 𝒮:𝒵{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{Z}}\to{\mathcal{E}} is an FOP transverse section, then there exists an FOP transverse extension of 𝒮{\mathcal{S}} to 𝒰{\mathcal{U}}.

  7. (7)

    For any FOP transverse section 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}}, the isotropy-free part of the zero locus

    𝒮1(0)free:=𝒮1(0)𝒰free{\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0)_{\rm free}:={\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0)\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}

    is a transverse intersection in the classical sense. Moreover, its boundary

    𝒮1(0)free¯𝒮1(0)free𝒰𝒰free\overline{{\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0)_{\rm free}}\setminus{\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0)_{\rm free}\subset{\mathcal{U}}\setminus{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}

    is the union of images of smooth maps from manifolds of dimension at most dim𝒰rank2{\rm dim}{\mathcal{U}}-{\rm rank}{\mathcal{E}}-2.

Now if we are given a normally complex effective derived orbifold chart (𝒰,,𝒮)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}), we can choose an FOP transverse section 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime} which agrees with 𝒮{\mathcal{S}} outside a compact neighborhood of 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0). Then (𝒮)1(0)({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0) is compact and the isotropy-free part

(𝒮)1(0)free({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)_{\rm free}

is a pseudocycle 333The notion of pseudocyle in orbifolds is defined in [BX22b]. of dimension dim𝒰rank{\rm dim}{\mathcal{U}}-{\rm rank}{\mathcal{E}}. Hence if 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} and {\mathcal{E}} are oriented, this pseudocycle represents an integral homology class in 𝒰{\mathcal{U}}. Moreover, given any two FOP transverse perturbations 𝒮1,𝒮2{\mathcal{S}}_{1}^{\prime},{\mathcal{S}}_{2}^{\prime}, the two pseudocycles (S1)1(0)free(S_{1}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)_{\rm free} and (S2)1(0)free(S_{2}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)_{\rm free} are cobordant. Therefore the integral homology class, which we call the FOP Euler class

χFOP(𝒞)H(𝒰;),\chi^{\rm FOP}({\mathcal{C}})\in H_{*}({\mathcal{U}};{\mathbb{Z}}),

is well-defined.

One typically needs to push forward the homology class into another space. To connect with classical cobordism theory, we restrict to the case when the derived orbifold charts are stably complex, meaning that the virtual vector bundle T𝒰T{\mathcal{U}}-{\mathcal{E}} has a stable complex structure (see [BX22b, Definition 6.11, 6.14]). In particular, if T𝒰T{\mathcal{U}} and {\mathcal{E}} are both complex vector bundles, then 𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) is automatically stably complex and normally complex. In the special case when 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} is a manifold and 𝒮:𝒰{\mathcal{S}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to{\mathcal{E}} is transverse, then a stable complex structure on (𝒰,,𝒮)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) induces a stable complex structure on the manifold 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0). On the other hand, if a derived orbifold chart 𝒞{\mathcal{C}} is stably complex, then via a stabilization, it is equivalent to a normally complex one.

For any topological space XX, the stably complex derived orbifold bordism group

Ωkder,(X)\Omega^{{\rm der},{\mathbb{C}}}_{k}(X)

is the abelian group generated by isomorphism classes of quadruples (𝒰,,𝒮,f)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},f) where (𝒰,,𝒮)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) is an stably complex D-chart of virtual dimension dim𝒰rank=k{\rm dim}{\mathcal{U}}-{\rm rank}{\mathcal{E}}=k and f:𝒰Xf:{\mathcal{U}}\to X is a continuous map, modulo the equivalence relation induced from stabilization by complex vector bundles and cobordism respecting the stable complex structures. The assignment Ωder,()\Omega^{{\rm der},{\mathbb{C}}}_{*}(-) actually defines a generalized homology theory. Then the pushforward of the FOP pseudocycle (and its homology class) induces a natural transformation of generalized homology theories

Ωder,()H(;).\Omega^{{\rm der},{\mathbb{C}}}_{*}(-)\to H_{*}(-;{\mathbb{Z}}).

In fact, when the target space is a manifold, this natural transformation factors through pseudocycles. As we do not know if pseudocycles up to cobordism is a homology theory or not, we only consider the naive properties. Namely, for any manifold XX, one has a group homomorphism

Ωkdeg,(X)k(X)\Omega_{k}^{{\rm deg},{\mathbb{C}}}(X)\to{\mathcal{H}}_{k}(X) (2.1)

where k(X){\mathcal{H}}_{k}(X) is the abelian group of kk-dimensional oriented pseudocycles up to cobordism (see Appendix).

2.2. AMS charts and the integer-valued GW invariants

Let (X,ω)(X,\omega) be a compact symplectic manifold and JJ be an ω\omega-compatible almost complex structure. Given k0k\geq 0 and AH2(X;)A\in H_{2}(X;{\mathbb{Z}}), consider the moduli space of stable JJ-holomorphic spheres with kk marked points in class AA, denoted by

¯0,k(X,J,A).\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(X,J,A).

There is a continuous evaluation map

ev:¯0,k(X,J,A)Xk.{\rm ev}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(X,J,A)\to X^{k}.

A D-chart lift of (¯0,k(X,J,A),ev)(\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(X,J,A),{\rm ev}) is a tuple

(𝒰,,𝒮,ψ,ev~)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\psi,\widetilde{\rm ev})

where (𝒰,,𝒮)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) is a D-chart, ψ\psi is an isomorphism of orbispaces from 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0) to ¯0,k(X,J,A)\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k}(X,J,A), and ev~:𝒰Xk\widetilde{\rm ev}:{\mathcal{U}}\to X^{k} is an extension of the evaluation map to 𝒰{\mathcal{U}}. In [AMS21, AMS23] (see also [HS22]) a class of global Kuranishi charts (see Definition 3.2) on ¯(X,J,A)0,k\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k}(X,J,A) were constructed, inducing a class of derived orbifold charts lifts (which we call AMS D-charts). Moreover, for such a chart, one can make sure that both T𝒰T{\mathcal{U}} and TT{\mathcal{E}} are complex vector bundles. In particular, the AMS D-charts are stably complex. The construction of an AMS chart depends on various choices but the equivalence class does not. Hence the quadruple (𝒰,,𝒮,ev~)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\tilde{\rm ev}) induces an element of Ωi(A)der,(Xk)\Omega_{i(A)}^{{\rm der},{\mathbb{C}}}(X^{k}) where i(A)i(A) is the expected dimension of ¯(X,J,A)0,k\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k}(X,J,A). Moreover, if (ω,J)(\omega,J) can be deformed to a pair (ω,J)(\omega^{\prime},J^{\prime}) via a smooth path (ωt,Jt)(\omega_{t},J_{t}), then the resulting AMS charts are derived cobordant. Therefore the corresponding element in Ωi(A)der,(Xk)\Omega_{i(A)}^{{\rm der},{\mathbb{C}}}(X^{k}), only depends on the deformation class of ω\omega. By applying the map (2.1), we obtain a cobordism class of oriented integral pseudocycles

GW0,k(X,A)virk(X).{\rm GW}^{\mathbb{Z}}_{0,k}(X,A)^{\rm vir}\in{\mathcal{H}}_{k}(X).

2.2.1. Reduction to characteristic pp

For the purpose of this article, we would like to reduce the integral cycle and invariants to characteristic pp. Let 𝕜{\mathbb{k}} be a field. For any nn-dimensional compact oriented manifold YY, there holds the Poincaré duality

Hk(Y;𝕜)Hom(Hk(Y;𝕜),𝕜).H_{k}(Y;{\mathbb{k}})\cong{\rm Hom}(H^{k}(Y;{\mathbb{k}}),{\mathbb{k}}).

Abusing the notation, the cobordism class of the integral Gromov–Witten pseudocycle induces a well-defined integral homology class

GW0,k(X,A)virHi(A)(Xk;).{\rm GW}_{0,k}^{\mathbb{Z}}(X,A)^{\rm vir}\in H_{i(A)}(X^{k};{\mathbb{Z}}).

By the discussion in Appendix A, the associated integral pseudocycle also defines a pseudocycle with characteristic pp coefficients, which induces a homology class with 𝕜\mathbb{k}-coefficient

GW0,k𝕜(X,A)virHi(A)(Xk;𝕜).{\rm GW}_{0,k}^{\mathbb{k}}(X,A)^{\rm vir}\in H_{i(A)}(X^{k};{\mathbb{k}}).

Hence we can define the correlator in 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-coefficients as

GW0,k𝕜(α1,,αk)=GW0,k𝕜(X,A)vir(α1××αk),α1,,αkH(X;𝕜).{\rm GW}^{\mathbb{k}}_{0,k}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k})={\rm GW}^{\mathbb{k}}_{0,k}(X,A)^{\rm vir}\cap(\alpha_{1}\times\cdots\times\alpha_{k}),\ \forall\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k}\in H^{*}(X;{\mathbb{k}}).
Remark 2.3.
  1. (1)

    When char(𝕜)=p{\rm char}({\mathbb{k}})=p, even when all αi\alpha_{i} come from integral cohomology, the above 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued GW invariants are not necessarily the mod pp reductions of the corresponding {\mathbb{Z}}-valued GW invariants, as αi\alpha_{i} might be a pp-torsion class in integral cohomology. In this situation, the correlator over {\mathbb{Z}} has to vanish.

  2. (2)

    When 𝕜={\mathbb{k}}={\mathbb{Q}}, the above invariants do not necessarily match the ordinary GW invariants. They do match when the symplectic manifold (X,ω)(X,\omega) is semi-positive.

3. Seidel maps

In this section, we define a version of Seidel representations in finite characteristic. First recall the original construction. Given a loop of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms ϕ=(ϕt)tS1\phi=(\phi_{t})_{t\in S^{1}} on a compact symplectic manifold (M,ωM)(M,\omega_{M}), one can construct a Hamiltonian fibration

πϕ:M~ϕS2\pi_{\phi}:\tilde{M}_{\phi}\to S^{2}

with fibers being MM and clutching function along the equator being ϕt\phi_{t}. Endowing S2S^{2} with the standard complex structure JS2J_{S^{2}}, we can choose an almost complex structure J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi} on M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi} such that the projection πϕ\pi_{\phi} is pseudo-holomorphic, the vertical tangent spaces are invariant under the action of J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi}, and the fiberwise almost complex structure is tamed by the fiberwise symplectic form. One can consider the moduli space of J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi}-holomorphic graphs, namely sections

u~:S2M~ϕ\tilde{u}:S^{2}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi}

such that

J~ϕdu~=du~JS2.\tilde{J}_{\phi}\circ d\tilde{u}=d\tilde{u}\circ J_{S^{2}}.

Let π2graph(M~ϕ)\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) be the set of homotopy classes of sections of M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi}, i.e., elements in π2(M~ϕ)\pi_{2}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) whose composition with (πϕ)(\pi_{\phi})_{*} represent the generator of π2(S2)\pi_{2}(S^{2}). For each A~π2graph(M~ϕ)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}), let

¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A})

be the moduli space of stable J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi}-holomorphic graphs of class A~\tilde{A} with two marked points that are fixed to be z0=0,z=z_{0}=0,z_{\infty}=\infty in the domain S2S^{2}. The way to compactify the graph moduli space is to view the bubbles as holomorphic spheres in the fibers. Then there are evaluation maps

ev:=ev0×ev:¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2graphM~ϕ|z0×M~ϕ|zM×M.{\rm ev}:={\rm ev}_{0}\times{\rm ev}_{\infty}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A})\to\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{0}}\times\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{\infty}}\cong M\times M.

If we assume that (M,ωM)(M,\omega_{M}) satisfies the 𝐖+\mathbf{W}^{+} condition, a condition slightly stronger than semi-positivity (cf. [Sei97]), then one can choose J~\tilde{J} such that ev{\rm ev} defines a pseudocycle. Using isomorphisms

H(M~ϕ|z0;)H(M;)H(M~ϕ|z;),H^{*}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{0}};{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H^{*}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{\infty}};{\mathbb{Z}}),

and the intersection numbers between transverse pseudocycles, one can define the graph Gromov–Witten invariants

GW~(α0,α)0,2M~ϕ,A~,α0,αH(M;)\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2}^{\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}}(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{\infty})\in{\mathbb{Z}},\ \alpha_{0},\alpha_{\infty}\in H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{Z}})

which is independent of the choice of almost complex structures and pseudocycle representatives: see the original construction [Sei97].

If we drop Seidel’s 𝐖+{\bf W}^{+} condition on MM, one can construct a graph virtual cycle with rational coefficients (cf. [McD00]), leading to {\mathbb{Q}}-valued graph Gromov–Witten invariants. These GW invariants can be made into a generating series which leads to an invertible element in quantum cohomology of MM, and from different homotopy classes for Hamiltonian loops, they can be shown to define a group homomorphism

π1(Ham(M,ωM))QH(M)×,\pi_{1}(\mathrm{Ham}(M,\omega_{M}))\to QH^{*}(M)^{\times},

known as the Seidel representation.

In this paper, we will consider a variant of the graph moduli space. Suppose 𝐳=(z1,,zk){\bf z}=(z_{1},\ldots,z_{k}) is a kk-tuple of distinct points of S2{0,}S^{2}\setminus\{0,\infty\}. One can consider the moduli space

(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A})

of J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi}-holomorphic graphs u:S2M~ϕu:S^{2}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} with fixed marked k+2k+2 marked points, 𝐳{\bf z} together with z0=0z_{0}=0 and z=z_{\infty}=\infty. Its compactification, denoted by ¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}), is not exactly identical to ¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}). There is still the evaluation map

ev:=ev0×ev:¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graphM~ϕ|z0×M~ϕ|zM×M{\rm ev}:={\rm ev}_{0}\times{\rm ev}_{\infty}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A})\to\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{0}}\times\tilde{M}_{\phi}|_{z_{\infty}}\cong M\times M

which pushes forward an integral virtual fundamental cycle that we will construct shortly.

3.1. Global Kuranishi charts for graph moduli spaces

To define graph Gromov–Witten invariants for general symplectic symplectic manifolds in arbitrary field coefficients, we would like to adapt the Abouzaid–McLean–Smith construction of global Kuranishi charts to the graph moduli spaces.

Proposition 3.1.

There is a derived orbifold chart 𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) with stable complex structure and a submersion

ev~:𝒰M0×M.\tilde{{\rm ev}}:{\mathcal{U}}\to M_{0}\times M_{\infty}.

such that (𝒰,,𝒮,ev~)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\tilde{{\rm ev}}) is a D-chart lift of (¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph,ev)(\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}),{\rm ev}).

Our construction resembles that of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS23]. That is, we first construct a global Kuranishi chart (defined below) and then reduce to a derived orbifold chart.

Definition 3.2.

Let {\mathcal{M}} be a topological space.

  1. (1)

    A smooth (resp. topological) global Kuranishi chart for {\mathcal{M}} is a tuple

    K=(G,V,E,S,Ψ)K=(G,V,E,S,\Psi)

    where GG is a compact Lie group, VV is a smooth (resp. topological) GG-manifold with at most finite isotropy groups, EVE\to V is a smooth (resp. topological) GG-equivariant vector bundle, S:VES:V\to E is a continuous GG-equivariant section, and Ψ:S1(0)/G\Psi:S^{-1}(0)/G\to{\mathcal{M}} is a homeomorphism.

  2. (2)

    An almost complex structure on a smooth global Kuranishi chart K=(G,V,E,S,Ψ)K=(G,V,E,S,\Psi) consists of a GG-invariant complex structure on the bundle TV𝔤TV\oplus{\mathfrak{g}} and a GG-invariant complex structure on EE.

  3. (3)

    A singular global Kuranishi chart over {\mathcal{M}} is a tuple KK satisfying the same conditions for topological global Kuranishi chart as above except that VV is not required to be a topological manifold. KK is said to be regular/smooth over a GG-invariant open subset VVV^{\prime}\subset V if VV^{\prime} is a topological/smooth GG-manifold. KK is said to be almost complex over a GG-invariant open subset VVV^{\prime}\subset V if (G,V,E|V,S|V,Ψ|V)(G,V^{\prime},E|_{V^{\prime}},S|_{V^{\prime}},\Psi|_{V^{\prime}}) is a smooth global Kuranishi chart with an almost complex structure.

The notion of singular global Kuranishi charts will not be used until the proof of the main theorem in the next section.

One can see that given a smooth global Kuranishi chart as above, the quotient

𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮,ψ):=(V/G,E/G,S/G,Ψ/G){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\psi):=(V/G,E/G,S/G,\Psi/G)

is a derived orbifold chart. Moreover, if the given global Kuranishi chart has an almost complex structure, the resulting derived orbifold chart is stably complex.

3.1.1. Construction of global Kuranishi charts

We describe how to construct an Abouzaid–McLean–Smith style global Kuranishi chart for the moduli space ¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}).

First, we need to modify the topological energy. Upon choosing a Hamiltonian connection on M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi}, one obtains a coupling form ω~ϕΩ2(M~ϕ)\tilde{\omega}_{\phi}\in\Omega^{2}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) which is closed and whose fiberwise restriction is the symplectic form of MM. The cohomology class of ω~ϕ\tilde{\omega}_{\phi} in M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi} may not be rational. We find a rational approximation, i.e., a closed 2-form Ω~ϕΩ2(M~ϕ)\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}\in\Omega^{2}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) which is sufficiently close to ω~ϕ\tilde{\omega}_{\phi} and whose cohomology class is rational. One can guarantee that the fiberwise restrictions of the almost complex structure J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi} is still tamed by the fiberwise restrictions of Ω~ϕ\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}. Then after an integral rescaling, one can assume that the cohomology class of Ω~ϕ\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi} is integral.

Next, consider the moduli space of stable genus 0 holomorphic sections of the trivial fibration d×11\mathbb{CP}^{d}\times\mathbb{CP}^{1}\to\mathbb{CP}^{1} whose projection to the d\mathbb{CP}^{d} factor represents dd times the generator of the second homology group, and we endow the parametrized domain with k+2k+2 fixed marked points, two of which are identified with 0 and \infty and the other kk marked points are denoted by 𝐳=(z1,,zk){\bf z}=(z_{1},\ldots,z_{k}), being a kk-tuple of distinct points of S2{0,}S^{2}\setminus\{0,\infty\}. This moduli space is denoted by

¯(d,d)0,2,𝐳graph.\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d).

Let B~d¯(d,d)0,2,𝐳graph\tilde{B}_{d}\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d) be the subset of curves whose images under the projection to d\mathbb{CP}^{d} are not contained in any hyperplane of d\mathbb{CP}^{d}. Then B~d\tilde{B}_{d} is a smooth complex manifold with an action by Gd:=U(d+1)G_{d}:=U(d+1) via projective linear transformations. The universal curve

C~dB~d\tilde{C}_{d}\to\tilde{B}_{d}

is naturally GdG_{d}-equivariant. For each ρB~d\rho\in\tilde{B}_{d}, let CρC~dC_{\rho}\subset\tilde{C}_{d} be the domain of the fiber, which is a prestable genus zero curve with a parametrized componennt (called the principal component). Consider smooth maps u:CρM~ϕu:C_{\rho}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} such that after composing with M~ϕS2\tilde{M}_{\phi}\to S^{2}, it contracts all components except that it identifies the principal components with the base S2S^{2}. To each such map uu there is an associated section

¯J~ϕuΩ0,1(Cρ,uTvertM~ϕ).\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{J}_{\phi}}u\in\Omega^{0,1}(C_{\rho},u^{*}T^{\rm vert}\tilde{M}_{\phi}).

We follow [AMS23] to thicken up the moduli space. Let C~dC~d\tilde{C}_{d}^{*}\subset\tilde{C}_{d} be the complement of nodes and marked points, which is a smooth GdG_{d}-manifold. A finite-dimensional approximation scheme on C~d\tilde{C}_{d} is a finite-dimensional complex GdG_{d}-representation WW and a GdG_{d}-equivariant linear map

ι:WCc(C~d×M~ϕ,ΩC~d/B~d0,1TvertM~ϕ)\iota:W\to C^{\infty}_{c}\Big{(}\tilde{C}_{d}^{*}\times\tilde{M}_{\phi},\Omega^{0,1}_{\tilde{C}_{d}^{*}/\tilde{B}_{d}}\otimes T^{\rm vert}\tilde{M}_{\phi}\Big{)}

(where, in contrast to [AMS23], we do not require that the image of ι\iota surjects onto the obstruction space). Then for each eWe\in W and ρB~d\rho\in\tilde{B}_{d}, one obtains a section

ι(e)|CρCc(Cρ×M~ϕ,ΩCρ0,1TvertM~ϕ).\iota(e)|_{C_{\rho}}\in C^{\infty}_{c}(C_{\rho}^{*}\times\tilde{M}_{\phi},\Omega^{0,1}_{C_{\rho}}\otimes T^{\rm vert}\tilde{M}_{\phi}).

For any u:CρM~ϕu:C_{\rho}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi}, the restriction to the graph of uu

ι(e)(u)Ω0,1(Cρ,uTvertM~ϕ)\iota(e)(u)\in\Omega^{0,1}(C_{\rho},u^{*}T^{\rm vert}\tilde{M}_{\phi})

lies in the same space as where ¯J~ϕ(u)\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{J}_{\phi}}(u) lives in.

Now we define the so-called pre-thickening. For d=d(A~)=Ω~ϕ,A~d=d(\tilde{A})=\langle\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi},\tilde{A}\rangle\in{\mathbb{Z}}, consider triples (ρ,u,e)(\rho,u,e) where ρB~d\rho\in\tilde{B}_{d}, u:CρM~ϕu:C_{\rho}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} is a smooth graph, and eWe\in W satisfying 1)

¯J~ϕu+ι(e)(u)=0,\overline{\partial}_{\tilde{J}_{\phi}}u+\iota(e)(u)=0,

and 2) the homotopy class of the graph uu is A~\tilde{A}. Denote by V~pre\tilde{V}^{\rm pre} the moduli space of such triples endowed with the topology induced from the Hausdorff topology of closed subsets in Cρ×M~ϕC_{\rho}\times\tilde{M}_{\phi} using the graph of uu. There are natural maps

S~pre:V~preW,S~pre(ρ,u,e)=e\tilde{S}^{\rm pre}:\tilde{V}^{\rm pre}\to W,\ \tilde{S}^{\rm pre}(\rho,u,e)=e

and

Ψ~pre:(S~pre)1(0)¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph,(ρ,u,e)[Cρ,u].\tilde{\Psi}^{\rm pre}:(\tilde{S}^{\rm pre})^{-1}(0)\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}),\ (\rho,u,e)\to[C_{\rho},u].
Lemma 3.3.

There exists a finite-dimensional approximation scheme (W,ι)(W,\iota) such that V~pre\tilde{V}^{\rm pre} is a topological manifold near (S~pre)1(0)(\tilde{S}^{\rm pre})^{-1}(0) of dimension j(A~)+dimB~d+dimWj(\tilde{A})+{\rm dim}\tilde{B}_{d}+{\rm dim}W where

j(A~)=dimM+2c1(TvertM~ϕ)(A~)j(\tilde{A})={\rm dim}M+2c_{1}(T^{\rm vert}\tilde{M}_{\phi})(\tilde{A})

is the expected dimension of the moduli space of holomorphic graphs in the class A~\tilde{A}.

Proof.

[AMS23, Lemma 4.2] guarantees the existence of finite-dimensional approximation schemes which can eliminate all cokernels of the linearized operators. ∎

Next we consider the analogue of framings on the graph moduli space. Any smooth section u:CρM~ϕu:C_{\rho}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} of homotopy class A~\tilde{A} pulls back a 2-form uΩ~ϕΩ2(Cρ)u^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}\in\Omega^{2}(C_{\rho}) whose integral over each component is an integer. Then there exists a unique Hermitian holomorphic line bundle (up to unitary isomorphism) on CρC_{\rho}, denoted by LuCρL_{u}\to C_{\rho} whose curvature form is 2π𝐢uΩ~ϕ-2\pi{\bf i}u^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}. The total degree of LuL_{u} is d=d(A~)d=d(\tilde{A}). A framing over uu is a basis

F=(f0,,fd)F=(f_{0},\ldots,f_{d})

of the space H0(Lu)H^{0}(L_{u}). For each framing FF, define a Hermitian matrix H(F)H(F) with entries

Hij(F):=Cρfi,fjuΩ~ϕ.H_{ij}(F):=\int_{C_{\rho}}\langle f_{i},f_{j}\rangle u^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}.

Each framing (which must be base point free) also defines a holomorphic map

ρF:Cρ1×d,\rho_{F}:C_{\rho}\to\mathbb{CP}^{1}\times\mathbb{CP}^{d},

whose projection to the 1\mathbb{CP}^{1}-component contracts all components except for mapping the principal component isomorphically to 1\mathbb{CP}^{1}, and the projection to the d\mathbb{CP}^{d} component is given by ρF(z)=[f0(z),,fd(z)]\rho_{F}(z)=[f_{0}(z),\ldots,f_{d}(z)]. In particular, ρF\rho_{F} defines an element in ¯(d,d)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d).

Let V~\tilde{V} be the space of quadruples (ρ,u,e,F)(\rho,u,e,F) where (ρ,u,e)V~pre(\rho,u,e)\in\tilde{V}^{\rm pre} and FF is a framing over uu. This is the base of the AMS chart. Notice that V~V~pre\tilde{V}\to\tilde{V}^{\rm pre} has the structure of a GdG_{d}-equivariant principal Gd=GL(d+1)G_{d}^{\mathbb{C}}=GL(d+1)-bundle where GL(d+1)GL(d+1) transform the framing linearly. Moreover

dimV~=j(A~)+dimW+dimB~d+2dimGd.{\rm dim}\tilde{V}=j(\tilde{A})+{\rm dim}W+{\rm dim}\tilde{B}_{d}+2{\rm dim}G_{d}.

The obstruction bundle of the AMS chart is the direct sum

E~=WπV~/B~TB~d𝔤d\tilde{E}=W\oplus\pi_{\tilde{V}/\tilde{B}}^{*}T\tilde{B}_{d}\oplus{\mathfrak{g}}_{d}

where πV~/B~:V~B~d\pi_{\tilde{V}/\tilde{B}}:\tilde{V}\to\tilde{B}_{d} is the forgetful map (ρ,u,e,F)ρ(\rho,u,e,F)\mapsto\rho, while WW and 𝔤d{\mathfrak{g}}_{d} denote the trivial bundle with fibers WW and the Lie algebra 𝔤d{\mathfrak{g}}_{d} respectively. One can see

dimV~rankE~dimGd=j(A~)=dimvir¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph.{\rm dim}\tilde{V}-{\rm rank}\tilde{E}-{\rm dim}G_{d}=j(\tilde{A})={\rm dim}^{\rm vir}\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}).

To define the Kuranishi section S~:V~E~\tilde{S}:\tilde{V}\to\tilde{E}, we choose a GdG_{d}-invariant Riemannian metric on B~d\tilde{B}_{d} so that the exponential map expB~d\exp_{\tilde{B}_{d}} identifies an open neighborhood Δ+(B~d)\Delta^{+}(\tilde{B}_{d}) of the diagonal Δ(B~d)B~d×B~d\Delta(\tilde{B}_{d})\subset\tilde{B}_{d}\times\tilde{B}_{d} with a neighborhood of the zero section of the tangent bundle TB~dT\tilde{B}_{d}. By abuse of notations, shrink V~\tilde{V} to the open subset of quadruples (ρ,u,e,F)(\rho,u,e,F) such that (ρ,ρF)Δ+(B~d)(\rho,\rho_{F})\in\Delta^{+}(\tilde{B}_{d}) and such that the Hermitian matrix HFH_{F} is invertible. Denote this open subset still by V~\tilde{V}. Then define

S~:V~\displaystyle\tilde{S}:\tilde{V} E~\displaystyle\to\tilde{E}
(ρ,u,e,F)\displaystyle(\rho,u,e,F) (e,expB~d1(ρ,ρF),expH1(H(F))).\displaystyle\mapsto\Big{(}e,\exp_{\tilde{B}_{d}}^{-1}(\rho,\rho_{F}),\exp_{H}^{-1}(H(F))\Big{)}.

Here expH\exp_{H} is the exponential map of matrices; expH1(H(F))=0\exp_{H}^{-1}(H(F))=0 is equivalent to that FF is a unitary basis. The AMS global chart for ¯(M~ϕ,A~)0,2graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}) is the tuple

K~=(Gd,V~,E~,S~,ψ~)\tilde{K}=(G_{d},\tilde{V},\tilde{E},\tilde{S},\tilde{\psi}) (3.1)

where ψ~\tilde{\psi} is the natural map

ψ~:(S~)1(0)/Gd¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph.\tilde{\psi}:(\tilde{S})^{-1}(0)/G_{d}\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}).
Lemma 3.4.

The map ψ~\tilde{\psi} is a homeomorphism.

Proof.

This is the same as the case of [AMS23]. We first prove that ψ~\tilde{\psi} is a bijection. Given any point of ¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}) represented by a stable graph u:CM~ϕu:C\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} where CC is a smooth or nodal genus zero curve with a parametrized principal component, consider the pullback bundle LuCL_{u}\to C. Then as J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi} is tamed by Ω~ϕ\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}, the pullback form uΩ~ϕu^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi} is positive on effective components of CC. Consider any unitary framing FF of LuL_{u} with respect to the L2L^{2} inner product induced from uΩϕu^{*}\Omega_{\phi}. Then FF induces a stable map ρF:C1×d\rho_{F}:C\to\mathbb{CP}^{1}\times\mathbb{CP}^{d} whose projection to the second component is of degree d=d(A~)d=d(\tilde{A}), hence represents a point of B~d\tilde{B}_{d}. One can then identify uu with a holomorphic graph uF:CρFM~ϕu_{F}:C_{\rho_{F}}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi}. Therefore,

(ρF,uF,0,F)S~1(0)(\rho_{F},u_{F},0,F)\in\tilde{S}^{-1}(0)

and is sent by ψ~\tilde{\psi} to the point represented by the given uu. Therefore ψ~\tilde{\psi} is surjective. To show that ψ~\tilde{\psi} is injective, suppose ψ~\tilde{\psi} sends (ρ1,u1,0,F1)(\rho_{1},u_{1},0,F_{1}) and (ρ2,u2,0,F2)(\rho_{2},u_{2},0,F_{2}) to the same point of the graph moduli. Then the two stable graphs u1:Cρ1M~ϕu_{1}:C_{\rho_{1}}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} and u2:Cρ2M~ϕu_{2}:C_{\rho_{2}}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} are equivalent. Therefore, there exists a biholomorphic map φ:Cρ1Cρ2\varphi:C_{\rho_{1}}\to C_{\rho_{2}} which is the identity on the principal component such that

u1=u2φ.u_{1}=u_{2}\circ\varphi.

Therefore, φu2Ω~ϕ=u1Ω~ϕ\varphi^{*}u_{2}^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}=u_{1}^{*}\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}, implying that Lu1=φLu2L_{u_{1}}=\varphi^{*}L_{u_{2}} and φF2\varphi^{*}F_{2} is a unitary framing of Lu1L_{u_{1}}. Therefore, there is an element gGdg\in G_{d} such that F1=gφF2F_{1}=g\varphi^{*}F_{2}. This implies that (ρ1,u1,0,F1)(\rho_{1},u_{1},0,F_{1}) and (ρ2,u2,0,F2)(\rho_{2},u_{2},0,F_{2}) are on the same GdG_{d}-orbit. Hence ψ~\tilde{\psi} is injective. Lastly it is straightforward to see that ψ~\tilde{\psi} is continuous and a homeomorphism because the Gromov topology on stable maps agrees with the C0C^{0}-topology. ∎

We also notice that there is a well-defined GdG_{d}-invariant evaluation map

ev=(ev0,ev):V~M0×M,ev(ρ,u,e,F)=(u(0),u()){\rm ev}=({\rm ev}_{0},{\rm ev}_{\infty}):\tilde{V}\to M_{0}\times M_{\infty},{\rm ev}(\rho,u,e,F)=(u(0),u(\infty))

which extends the evaluation map on the moduli space.

3.1.2. Stable smoothing

Next we need to put a smooth structure on the AMS Kuranishi chart. As the smoothing procedure will be carefully engineered in the proof of the main theorem (c.f. the proof of Proposition 5.4), we provide more details here, despite the fact that for the situation treated in this section it is almost identical to the original argument of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS21].

First we recall a few notions related to smoothing. Let GG be a compact Lie group and YY be a topological GG-manifold. A GG-smoothing on YY is a smooth structure on YY such that the GG-action is smooth. A stable GG-smoothing on YY is a GG-smoothing on the product Y×RY\times R where RR is a finite-dimensional representation and GG acts on Y×RY\times R diagonally.

Any topological GG-manifold YY has its GG-equivariant tangent microbundle TμYT_{\mu}Y (see [Mil64]). A necessary condition for YY to admit a GG-smoothing is the existence of a GG-equivariant vector bunde lift of TμYT_{\mu}Y, i.e., a GG-equivariant microbundle isomorphism

FμTμYF_{\mu}\to T_{\mu}Y

where FYF\to Y is a GG-equivariant vector bundle and FμF_{\mu} is the induced microbundle. The crucial ingredient in the smoothing procedure in [AMS21] is the stable GG-smoothing theorem of Lashof [Las79] which says that once the tangent microbundle YY admits a GG-equivariant vector bundle lift, then YY admits a stable GG-smoothing. In addition, there is a canonical one-to-one correspondence between stable GG-isotopy classes of GG-equivariant vector bundle lifts of TμYT_{\mu}Y and stable GG-isotopy classes of stable GG-smoothings of YY.

The technical result regarding smoothing the AMS chart is stated below.

Lemma 3.5.

There exists a stable GdG_{d}-smoothing on V~\tilde{V}, or equivalently, a GdG_{d}-smoothing on a product V~×R\tilde{V}\times R where RR is a GdG_{d}-representation.

One can use the trivial bundle R¯V~\underline{\smash{R}}\to\tilde{V} to stabilize the Kuranishi chart so the base of the new chart is smooth. On the other hand, equivariant continuous vector bundles are always isomorphic to equivariant smooth vector bundles. Hence the Kuranishi chart stabilized by R¯\underline{\smash{R}} is smooth.

Proof of Lemma 3.5.

The proof is essentially the same as the argument of [AMS21, Section 4]. The space V~\tilde{V} is a topological GdG_{d}-manifold. The projection

πV~/B~:V~B~d\pi_{\tilde{V}/\tilde{B}}:\tilde{V}\to\tilde{B}_{d} (3.2)

is a topological submersion (see [AMS21, Definition 4.18]) whose fibers are canonically smooth manifolds. Moreover, the smooth structures on fibers vary sufficiently regularly (known as Cloc1C^{1}_{loc} GG-bundles, see [AMS21, Section 4.5] and [AMS21, Corollary 6.29]) so that there is a vertical tangent bundle

TvertV~V~T^{\rm vert}\tilde{V}\to\tilde{V}

whose restrictions to fibers of πV~/B~\pi_{\tilde{V}/\tilde{B}} are the tangent bundles of the fibers. Moreover one can construct a GdG_{d}-equivariant vector bundle lift

(TvertV~πV~/B~TB~d)μTμV~(T^{\rm vert}\tilde{V}\oplus\pi_{\tilde{V}/\tilde{B}}^{*}T\tilde{B}_{d})_{\mu}\to T_{\mu}\tilde{V} (3.3)

(see [AMS21, Corollary 4.26]). Hence by the theorem of Lashof [Las79], there is a representation RR and a GdG_{d}-smoothing on V~×R\tilde{V}\times R. ∎

Remark 3.6.

We also remark that although the GdG_{d}-equivariant vector bundle lift is manually constructed, the stable GdG_{d}-isotopy class of the GdG_{d}-smoothing is canonical. In other words, up to a stabilization by a GdG_{d}-representation, any two stable smoothings of V~\tilde{V} built from the vector bundle lift (3.3) are equivariantly isotopic.

Proof of Proposition 3.1.

By Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5, after a stabilization and taking the quotient by GdG_{d}, the global Kuranishi chart (3.1) gives rise to a derived orbifold chart of the moduli space ¯(M~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}). As explained in [AMS23, Corollary 4.31], we see that this derived orbifold chart is stably complex. Finally, using [AMS21, Lemma 4.5], possibly after a further stabilization, we can make sure that the extension of the evaluation map to the ambient orbifold of the derived orbifold chart is a smooth submersion. ∎

3.1.3. Invariance

We briefly comment on the independence of the chart (𝒰,,𝒮,ev~)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\tilde{{\rm ev}}) from Proposition 3.1 on the choices made in the construction.

The tuple K~\tilde{K} from (3.1) defines a global Kuranishi chart of ¯(M~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}). It depends on the following auxiliary data:

  1. (1)

    the integral 22-form Ω~ϕ\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi};

  2. (2)

    the finite-dimensional approximation scheme (W,ι)(W,\iota);

  3. (3)

    the GdG_{d}-invariant Riemannian metric on B~d\tilde{B}_{d} in the definition of S~\tilde{S}.

To construct the stable smoothing, one needs to choose:

  1. (1)

    a vector bundle lift (3.3);

  2. (2)

    a GdG_{d}-representation RR such that V~×R\tilde{V}\times R admits a GdG_{d}-equivariant smooth structure;

  3. (3)

    an identification of the stabilized vector bundle EE with a smooth GdG_{d}-equivariant vector bundle.

By a now-standard doubly framed curve argument (cf. [AMS21, Section 6.10] and [AMS23, Section 4.9]) and the independence properties of the GdG_{d}-equivariant smoothing discussed in Remark 3.6, we see that for different choices, the resulting derived orbifold charts (𝒰,,𝒮)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}}) are equivalent. Furthermore, using [AMS21, Section 6.11], we conclude that the derived orbifold bordism class over M×MM\times M represented by (𝒰,,𝒮,ev~)({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\tilde{{\rm ev}}) is independent of J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi} and all the data above.

3.2. The Seidel map via FOP transverse perturbations

Now we can use the FOP perturbation scheme to construct the Seidel map. For the graph moduli ¯(J~ϕ,A~)0,2,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}), let

𝒞~=(𝒰~,~,𝒮~,ψ~)\tilde{\mathcal{C}}=(\tilde{\mathcal{U}},\tilde{\mathcal{E}},\tilde{\mathcal{S}},\tilde{\psi})

be the derived orbifold chart obtained in Proposition 3.1. By choosing an FOP transverse perturbation of 𝒞~\tilde{\mathcal{C}}, via the evaluation map, one obtains a well-defined homology class in the product M0×MM_{0}\times M_{\infty} (with coefficient in the field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}). By pairing with cohomology classes one obtains the graph GW invariant

GW~(α0,α)0,2,𝐳M~ϕ,A~𝕜,α0,αH(M;𝕜).\widetilde{\rm GW}{}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}}(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{\infty})\in{\mathbb{k}},\ \alpha_{0},\alpha_{\infty}\in H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}).

We write the Seidel map as a generating series in the Novikov variable. Let the Novikov field be

Λ={i=1aiqλi|ai𝕜,limiλi=+}.\Lambda=\Big{\{}\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}a_{i}q^{\lambda_{i}}\ |\ a_{i}\in{\mathbb{k}},\ \lim_{i\to\infty}\lambda_{i}=+\infty\Big{\}}.

Let Ω~ϕΩ2(M~ϕ)\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}\in\Omega^{2}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) be the coupling form associated to the Hamiltonian fibration M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi}, whose cohomology class does not depend on a Hamiltonian connection. Then define a linear map

S𝐳(ϕ):H(M;Λ)H(M;Λ)S_{\bf z}(\phi):H^{*}(M;\Lambda)\to H^{*}(M;\Lambda)

by

S𝐳(ϕ)(α)=A~π2graph(M~ϕ)qΩ~ϕ(A~)β,γGW~(α,eβ)0,2,𝐳M~ϕ,A~gβγeγS_{\bf z}(\phi)(\alpha)=\sum_{\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi})}q^{\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}(\tilde{A})}\sum_{\beta,\gamma}\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}}(\alpha,e_{\beta})g^{\beta\gamma}e_{\gamma}

where {eβ}\{e_{\beta}\} is a basis of H(M;𝕜)H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}) and gβγg^{\beta\gamma} is the inverse of the intersection matrix gβγ=eβ,eγg_{\beta\gamma}=\langle e_{\beta},e_{\gamma}\rangle.

We expect that the collection of linear transformations S(ϕ)S(\phi) (the version with 𝐳\mathbf{z} being empty) defines a representation of π1(Ham(M,ωM))\pi_{1}({\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M})) into the invertibles of quantum cohomology defined by the FOP perturbaion scheme. However the proof of this statement (which is essentially equivalent to the associativity of quantum cup product) is beyond the current understanding of the FOP perturbation method. For the purpose of this paper we only prove the invertibility of each S𝐳(ϕ)S_{\bf z}(\phi) without fully verifying the homomorphism property.

Theorem 3.7.

The map S𝐳(ϕ)S_{\bf z}(\phi) only depends on the homotopy class of ϕ\phi and the number of fixed marked points. Therefore, we can denote it by Sk(ϕ)S_{k}(\phi).

Proof.

Except for the discussion in Section 3.1.3, we first need to remove the dependence on 𝐳{\bf z}. Indeed, any two distinct tuples 𝐳{\bf z} and 𝐳{\bf z}^{\prime} can be connected by a path. One can use standard methods construct a cobordism between the corresponding derived orbifold charts. On the other hand, a homotopy of ϕ\phi can be extended to a homotopy of geometric data (almost complex structures etc.), and in turn, a cobordism of the derived orbifold charts of the moduli spaces. As the FOP pseudocycles are cobordism invariants, the induced map S𝐳(ϕ)S_{\bf z}(\phi) on cohomology is invariant under homotopies of ϕ\phi. ∎

Theorem 3.8.

The map Sk(ϕ)S_{k}(\phi) is invertible for all ϕ:S1Ham(M,ωM)\phi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}).

Proof.

See Subsection 3.3. ∎

Accordingly, we immediately have

Corollary 3.9.

For each ϕ:S1Ham(M,ωM)\phi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}), the bilinear pairing

(β0,β)β0,βk,ϕ:=A~π2graph(M~ϕ)qΩ~ϕ(A~)GW~(β0,β)0,2,𝐳M~ϕ,A~Λ(\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty})\mapsto\langle\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty}\rangle_{k,\phi}:=\sum_{\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi})}q^{\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}(\tilde{A})}\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}}(\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty})\in\Lambda

is nondegenerate. ∎

3.3. Proof of Theorem 3.8

We first prove that Sk(1)S_{k}(1) is invertible, where k0k\geq 0 is any nonnegative integer and 11 is the constant loop in Ham(M,ωM){\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}) at the identity Hamiltonian diffeomorphism. The corresponding fibration M~1\tilde{M}_{1} is the trivial product M×S2M\times S^{2}. The moduli space of constant pseudo-holomorphic graphs is cut out transversely, and its induced map on cohomology is the identity. So, the derived orbifold chart constructed in Proposition 3.1 is a stabilization of a manifold, thus the FOP pseudocycle agrees with the pushforward of the fundamental class of the moduli space under the evaluation map. Hence Sk(1)S_{k}(1) is the identity map plus a higher order term in terms of the valuation on the Nokikov field Λ\Lambda. We do not know how to prove the vanishing of the higher order term which counts parametrized holomorphic spheres in MM. Nonetheless, it follows that Sk(1)S_{k}(1) is invertible.

3.3.1. Floer and Morse flow categories

The difficulty of proving the expected property of the Seidel map

Sk(ϕ)Sl(ψ)=Sk+l(ϕ#ψ)S_{k}(\phi)\circ S_{l}(\psi)=S_{k+l}(\phi\#\psi)

where ϕ#ψ\phi\#\psi is the product loop in Ham(M,ωM){\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}) is that it is a nontrivial task to identify the contribution of nodal configurations using the FOP perturbation scheme. To bypass this difficulty, we use Floer and Morse models; the corresponding moduli spaces can be viewed as certain real blowups along the codimension two divisors defined by nodal curves via introducing real framings on the nodes.

Introduce the discrete monoid

Π={ωM(A)|Aπ2(M)}.\Pi=\{\omega_{M}(A)\ |\ A\in\pi_{2}(M)\}\subset{\mathbb{R}}.

Fix a nondegenerate 1-periodic family of Hamiltonian HtH_{t} (reminder: this is a datum independent of the Hamiltonian loop ϕt\phi_{t}). The critical point of the action functional 𝒜Ht{\mathcal{A}}_{H_{t}} are equivalence classes of capped 1-periodic orbits, where two cappings are regarded equivalent if their difference has vanishing symplectic area. Fix an S1S^{1}-family of ωM\omega_{M}-compatible almost complex structures JtJ_{t}. The Hamiltonian Floer flow category of the pair (Ht,Jt)(H_{t},J_{t}), denoted by 𝔽Floer{\mathbb{F}}^{\rm Floer}, has objects being equivalence classes of capped 1-periodic orbits, while for any pair of objects (p,q)(p,q), the morphism space is the compactified moduli space ¯pqFloer\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{pq}^{\rm Floer} of solutions to the Floer equation for (Ht,Jt)(H_{t},J_{t}) connecting pp and qq. There is a natural free Π\Pi-action on this flow category.

On the other hand, fix a Morse–Smale pair (f,g)(f,g) on MM. The Morse flow category, denoted by 𝔽Morse\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse}, has objects being pairs (a,p)(a,p) where aΠa\in\Pi and pcritfp\in{\rm crit}f, while for any pair ((a,p),(b,q))((a,p),(b,q)), the morphism space is the moduli space ¯pqMorse\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{pq}^{\rm Morse} of possibly broken unparametrized Morse trajectories connecting pp and qq. One can choose the pair (f,g)(f,g) such that each morphism space is an oriented smooth compact manifold-with-corners such that the composition maps are smooth embeddings compatible with the orientations (see [Weh12]).

The Morse flow category naturally induces a chain complex (over any coefficient ring) with differential defined by counting 0-dimensional morphism spaces with signs. Let Λ\Lambda be the Novikov field with ground field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}. Then the chain complex derived from 𝔽Morse\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse} coincides with

CM(f,g)Λ.CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda.

The homology is equal to H(M;Λ)H_{*}(M;\Lambda). For the purpose of this paper, we do not need to consider grading.

On the other hand, to define the Floer chain complex from the Floer flow category 𝔽Floer\mathbb{F}^{\rm Floer}, one must regularize the moduli spaces. In [BX22a, BX24] the first and third author constructed a class of so-called Kuranishi lifts of the Floer flow category 𝔽Floer\mathbb{F}^{\rm Floer} which admits stable complex structures444In fact there is one technical step called “outer-collaring” which modifies the original Floer flow category by extending the boundary and corner strata outward.. By using the FOP perturbation scheme, one obtains a Floer complex (over any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}), denoted by

CF(Ht,Jt;Λ).CF_{*}(H_{t},J_{t};\Lambda).

The resulting homology, HF(Ht,Jt)HF_{*}(H_{t},J_{t}), as a finite-dimensional Λ\Lambda-vector space, is independent of (Ht,Jt)(H_{t},J_{t}). A crucial fact we need in this paper, proved in the upcoming [BX24], is the following.

Theorem 3.10.

[BX24] When 𝕜{\mathbb{k}} is a field, dimΛHF(M;Λ)=rankH(M;𝕜){\rm dim}_{\Lambda}HF_{*}(M;\Lambda)={\rm rank}H_{*}(M;\mathbb{k}).

Before we define various alternate versions of the Seidel map, we need to recall the general notion of flow bimodules. If 𝔽{\mathbb{F}} and 𝔾{\mathbb{G}} are two flow categories, then a bimodule 𝕄{\mathbb{M}} over (𝔽,𝔾)({\mathbb{F}},{\mathbb{G}}) consists of, for each pair pOb𝔽p\in{\rm Ob}{\mathbb{F}} and qOb𝔾q\in{\rm Ob}{\mathbb{G}}, a stratified topological space Mpq𝕄M_{pq}^{\mathbb{M}} whose boundary and corner strata, roughly speaking, come from degenerations of morphism spaces of 𝔽{\mathbb{F}} and 𝔾{\mathbb{G}}. For example, the union of codimension 1 strata of Mpq𝕄M_{pq}^{\mathbb{M}} is the union of products

pOb𝔽Mpp𝔽×Mpq𝕄qOb𝔾Mpq𝕄×Mqq𝔾.\bigcup_{p^{\prime}\in{\rm Ob}{\mathbb{F}}}M^{\mathbb{F}}_{pp^{\prime}}\times M_{p^{\prime}q}^{\mathbb{M}}\cup\bigcup_{q^{\prime}\in{\rm Ob}{\mathbb{G}}}M^{\mathbb{M}}_{pq^{\prime}}\times M_{q^{\prime}q}^{\mathbb{G}}.

Examples of flow bimodules include moduli spaces of Floer continuation maps or Piunikhin–Salamon–Schwarz (PSS) maps.

Flow bimodules can be composed (see the definition in [BX24] and the discussion in the abstract setting [AB24, Section 4]). For example, the composition of two flow bimodules corresponding to two continuation maps is the bimodule whose moduli spaces are those of “two-stage” continuations (whose top strata has one breaking). There is also a notion of homotopy between bimodules. For example, the above-mentioned composed bimodule corresponding to concatenations of two continuation maps is homotopic to the bimodule corresponding to a single continuation map with data coming from “gluing.”

As one expects, a flow bimodule should induce a chain map. In [BX22b], we defined a chain map induced from the PSS construction

ΨPSS:CM(f,g)ΛCF(Ht,Jt;Λ)\Psi^{\rm PSS}:CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda\to CF_{*}(H_{t},J_{t};\Lambda)

and a chain map in the opposite direction (which we call the SSP construction)

ΨSSP:CF(Ht,Jt;Λ)CM(f,g)Λ.\Psi^{\rm SSP}:CF_{*}(H_{t},J_{t};\Lambda)\to CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda.

In addition, we proved that (cf. [BX22b, Theorem C]) the composition

ΨSSPΨPSS:CM(f,g)𝕜CM(f,g)Λ\Psi^{\rm SSP}\circ\Psi^{\rm PSS}:CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes{\mathbb{k}}\to CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda

is invertible (but whether the other composition is invertible is currently unknown). It follows from Theorem 3.10 that on the homology level, for field coefficients, the PSS and SSP maps are isomorphisms of Λ\Lambda-vector spaces. More generally, in the forthcoming [BX24], we construct a chain map induced from a continuation map (which we do not need here) between two choices of Floer data (Ht,Jt)(H_{t},J_{t}) and (Ht,Jt)(H_{t}^{\prime},J_{t}^{\prime}) which induces an isomorphism on homology.555This result already follows from the exisiting construction in [AB24, Appendix A] because the FOP perturbation scheme can be applied to the regularizations of flow bimodule constructed from the moduli spaces of continuation maps discussed in loc.cit., which induces the desired chain maps between Floer complexes defined by different data.

3.3.2. Alternate Seidel maps

Now consider a bimodule over (𝔽Morse,𝔽Morse)(\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse},{\mathbb{F}}^{\rm Morse}), denoted by 𝕄𝐳Morse(ϕ)\mathbb{M}^{\rm Morse}_{\bf z}(\phi), where 𝐳{\bf z} is a kk-tuple of distinct marked points on S2{0,}S^{2}\setminus\{0,\infty\}. First, for each class A~π2graph(M~ϕ)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) and each pair of critical points y0,yy_{0},y_{\infty} of the Morse function f:Mf:M\to{\mathbb{R}}, consider the moduli space of pearly object, consisting of a downward gradient ray ξ0:(,0]M\xi_{0}:(-\infty,0]\to M starting from y0y_{0}, a J~ϕ\tilde{J}_{\phi}-holomorphic graph u:S2M~ϕu:S^{2}\to\tilde{M}_{\phi} of class A~\tilde{A}, and a downward gradient ray ξ:[0,+)M\xi_{\infty}:[0,+\infty)\to M ending at yy_{\infty}, such that

ξ0(0)=u(z0),ξ(0)=u(z)\xi_{0}(0)=u(z_{0}),\ \xi_{\infty}(0)=u(z_{\infty})

(for which we fix identifications M0MMM_{0}\cong M\cong M_{\infty}). One can compactify this moduli space by allowing breaking of gradient rays and bubbling of holomorphic spheres in the fibers of M~ϕ\tilde{M}_{\phi}, while keeping the fixed marking 𝐳{\bf z}. Denote the moduli space by

¯(J~ϕ,A~)y0y,𝐳graph.\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{y_{0}y_{\infty},{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}).

Then to each pair ((a,p),(b,q))((a,p),(b,q)) of objects of 𝔽Morse\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse}, define

M(a,p)(b,q)𝐳Morse(ϕ)M_{(a,p)\ (b,q)\ {\bf z}}^{\rm Morse}(\phi)

to be the union of ¯(J~ϕ,A~)pq,𝐳graph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{pq,{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{\phi},\tilde{A}) for all A~π2graph(M~ϕ)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}) with Ω~ϕ(A~)=ba\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}(\tilde{A})=b-a. It is straightforward to see that this provides a bimodule over (𝔽Morse,𝔽Morse)(\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse},\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse}), denoted by 𝕄𝐳Morse(ϕ)\mathbb{M}_{\bf z}^{\rm Morse}(\phi).

To define a chain map, notice that one has already constructed a derived orbifold chart for each degree A~\tilde{A} for the graph moduli space. One can choose a FOP transverse perturbation for each such derived orbifold chart such that the evaluation maps restricted to the zero locus (in the free part) is transverse to (un)stable manifolds of critical point. Hence one obtains (well-defined) counts

npq(A~).n_{pq}(\tilde{A})\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

Sending these integers to the field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}} and weight them by qΩ~ϕ(A~)q^{\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}(\tilde{A})}, one obtains a chain map

S𝐳Morse(ϕ):CM(f,g)ΛCM(f,g)Λ.S_{\bf z}^{\rm Morse}(\phi):CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda\to CM_{*}(f,g)\otimes\Lambda.

Denote the induced map on homology still by

S𝐳Morse(ϕ):H(M;Λ)H(M;Λ).S_{\bf z}^{\rm Morse}(\phi):H_{*}(M;\Lambda)\to H_{*}(M;\Lambda).
Lemma 3.11.

On homology level, S𝐳Morse(ϕ)S_{\bf z}^{\rm Morse}(\phi) is independent of 𝐳{\bf z} thus only depends on the number of markings kk. Hence we can denote it by SkMorse(ϕ)S^{\rm Morse}_{k}(\phi). Moreover, SkMorse(ϕ)=PDSk(ϕ)PDS_{k}^{\rm Morse}(\phi)={\rm PD}\circ S_{k}(\phi)\circ{\rm PD}.

Proof.

The independence on 𝐳{\bf z} is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.7. For different choices with the same number of markings, the induced flow bimodule are homotopic to each other. Therefore, the induced maps on homology agree. Next we compare the Morse-theoretic Seidel map and the Seidel map constructed in the previous subsection. In integer coefficients, for any Morse cycle, the (weighted) union of unstable manifolds defines a pseudocycle (see [Sch99]). The same argument can be applied to the case of 𝔽p\mathbb{F}_{p} coefficients. On the other hand, the pairing between homology and cohomology with 𝔽p{\mathbb{F}}_{p} coefficients can be identified with the count of transverse intersection points between representing pp-pseudocycles. Hence the identity holds for 𝕜=𝔽p\mathbb{k}=\mathbb{F}_{p}. For general finite field 𝕜\mathbb{k} this follows from the universal coefficient theorem. ∎

Now we define a bimodule 𝕄𝐳PSS(ϕ)\mathbb{M}_{\bf z}^{\rm PSS}(\phi) over (𝔽Morse,𝔽Floer)(\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse},\mathbb{F}^{\rm Floer}), and another bimodule 𝕄𝐳SSP(ϕ)\mathbb{M}_{\bf z}^{\rm SSP}(\phi) over (𝔽Floer,𝔽Morse)(\mathbb{F}^{\rm Floer},\mathbb{F}^{\rm Morse}). When ϕ=1\phi=1, they are the same as the PSS and SSP bimodules considered in [BX22a, BX24]. For a general loop ϕ:S1Ham(M,ωM)\phi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}), the defining equation (over a disc with a cylindrical end) just includes the twisting by the loop ϕ\phi and the moduli space only has the additional ingredients of the fixed marking 𝐳{\bf z} on the domains. Therefore, the construction of an associated Kuranishi chart lift and the chain map is completely analogous to the special case when ϕ=1\phi=1. Therefore, one obtains linear maps between homologies

S𝐳PSS(ϕ):H(M;Λ)HF(M;Λ),S𝐳SSP(ϕ):HF(M;Λ)H(M;Λ).S_{\bf z}^{\rm PSS}(\phi):H_{*}(M;\Lambda)\to HF_{*}(M;\Lambda),\ S_{\bf z}^{\rm SSP}(\phi):HF_{*}(M;\Lambda)\to H_{*}(M;\Lambda).
Proposition 3.12.

On the homology level, the maps S𝐳PSS(ϕ)S_{\bf z}^{\rm PSS}(\phi) and S𝐳SSP(ϕ)S_{\bf z}^{\rm SSP}(\phi) do not depend on 𝐳{\bf z} but only the number of markings kk. Hence we can denote them by SkPSS(ϕ)S_{k}^{\rm PSS}(\phi) and SkSSP(ϕ)S_{k}^{\rm SSP}(\phi). Moreover,

SkSSP(ψ)SlPSS(ϕ)=Sk+lMorse(ϕ#ψ),ϕ,ψ:S1Ham(M,ωM).S_{k}^{\rm SSP}(\psi)\circ S_{l}^{\rm PSS}(\phi)=S_{k+l}^{\rm Morse}(\phi\#\psi),\ \forall\phi,\psi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}).
Proof.

The left hand side can be viewed as the numerical output of composing two flow bimodules and the equality can be viewed as the homological consequence of a homotopy of bimodules. The proof, which relies on constructing Kuranishi lifts and FOP perturbations, is completely analogous to the case of [BX22a] which proves the equality for ϕ=ψ=1\phi=\psi=1. ∎

Proposition 3.13.

For any ϕ:S1Ham(M,ωM)\phi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}) and k0k\geq 0, the maps SkPSS(ϕ):H(M;Λ)HF(M;Λ)S_{k}^{\rm PSS}(\phi):H_{*}(M;\Lambda)\to HF_{*}(M;\Lambda) and SkSSP(ϕ):HF(M;Λ)H(M;Λ)S_{k}^{\rm SSP}(\phi):HF_{*}(M;\Lambda)\to H_{*}(M;\Lambda) are both invertible.

Proof.

Proposition 3.12 implies SkSSP(ϕ1)SlPSS(ϕ)=Sk+l(1)S_{k}^{\rm SSP}(\phi^{-1})\circ S^{\rm PSS}_{l}(\phi)=S_{k+l}(1) which is invertible. It implies that the PSS maps are injective and the SSP maps are surjective. By Theorem 3.10, when the ground ring RR is a field, as Λ\Lambda-vector spaces, HF(M;Λ)HF^{*}(M;\Lambda) is isomorphic to H(M;Λ)H^{*}(M;\Lambda). Hence the PSS and the SSP maps are both invertible. ∎

Proof of Theorem 3.8.

By composing SkSSP(ϕ)S_{k}^{\rm SSP}(\phi) with SPSS(1)S^{\rm PSS}(1), it follows from Proposition 3.12 again that SkMorse(ϕ)S_{k}^{\rm Morse}(\phi) is invertible. Therefore, by Lemma 3.11, we conclude that Sk(ϕ)S_{k}(\phi) is invertible. ∎

4. Cohomological splitting

We prove the main theorems of this paper assuming the follwoing technical statement, whose proof is deferred to Section 5.

Theorem 4.1.

Let (B,ωB)(B,\omega_{B}) be a compact symplectic manifold with a nonzero Gromov–Witten invariant

GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak)0{\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\ldots,a_{k})\neq 0

for a1,,akH(B;)a_{1},\ldots,a_{k}\in H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{Z}}) and a curve class AH2(B;)A\in H_{2}(B;{\mathbb{Z}}). Moreover, suppose there exist a compatible almost complex structure JBJ_{B}, points p0,pBp_{0},p_{\infty}\in B, and pseudocycle representatives

fi:WiBf_{i}:W_{i}\to B

of the homology classes PDB(ai){\rm PD}_{B}(a_{i}) satisfying the following conditions.

  1. (1)

    Inside the set of simple curves (JB,A)0,k+2simple¯(JB,A)0,k+2{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm simple}(J_{B},A)\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A) there is an open subset 0,k+2reg(JB,A){\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) which is cut out transversely.

  2. (2)

    There holds

    ev(¯(JB,A)0,k+2)({p0}×{p}×i=1kfi(Wi)¯)=ev((JB,A)0,k+2reg)({p0}×{p}×i=1kfi(Wi)){\rm ev}\Big{(}\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A)\Big{)}\cap\Big{(}\{p_{0}\}\times\{p_{\infty}\}\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\overline{f_{i}(W_{i})}\Big{)}\\ ={\rm ev}\Big{(}{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)\Big{)}\cap\Big{(}\{p_{0}\}\times\{p_{\infty}\}\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}f_{i}(W_{i})\Big{)} (4.1)

    and the intersection on the right hand side is transverse.

In particular, the Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak){\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\ldots,a_{k}) is an integer. Then for any Hamiltonian fibration PBP\to B with fiber (M,ωM)(M,\omega_{M}) and any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}} whose characteristic does not divide this Gromov–Witten invariant, there is an isomorphism of graded 𝕜\mathbb{k}-vector spaces

H(P;𝕜)H(B;𝕜)𝕜H(M;𝕜).H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}})\cong H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{k}})\otimes_{\mathbb{k}}H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}).
Proof of Theorem A.

If (B,ωB)(B,\omega_{B}) is monotone, it is standard that for a generic compatible almost complex structure JBJ_{B}, the moduli space (JB,A)0,k+2simple{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm simple}(J_{B},A) is regular, the evaluation map restricted to (JB,A)0,k+2simple{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm simple}(J_{B},A) is a pseudocycle, and the Gromov–Witten invariants are defined via counting transverse intersections of pseudocycles (see [MS04, Chapter 6]). Thus Theorem A follows from Theorem 4.1. ∎

4.1. Proof of Theorem B

Let BB be a smooth and stably rational projective variety of complex dimension nn, meaning that B×rB\times\mathbb{CP}^{r} is birational to n+r\mathbb{CP}^{n+r}. We first notice that by Lalonde–McDuff’s “surjection lemma” ([LM03, Lemma 4.1]), it suffices to prove for the case that BB is rational. In this case, there is a rational map n\dashedrightarrowB\mathbb{CP}^{n}\dashedrightarrow B. By Hironaka’s theorem on resolution of indeterminacies (see [Hir64, Main Theorem II]), there is another smooth projective variety B~\tilde{B} fitting in a commutative diagram

B~\textstyle{\tilde{B}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}π1\scriptstyle{\pi_{1}}π2\scriptstyle{\pi_{2}}n\textstyle{\mathbb{CP}^{n}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}B\textstyle{B}

where π1\pi_{1} is the compositions of blowups with smooth centers and π2:B~B\pi_{2}:\tilde{B}\to B is a genuine (birational) morphism. Then π1\pi_{1} identifies a Zariski open set of B~\tilde{B} with nZ\mathbb{CP}^{n}\setminus Z where ZZ is the union of subvarieties of complex codimension at least two. Let Aπ2(n)A\in\pi_{2}(\mathbb{CP}^{n}) be the line class. As a general line avoids ZZ, there is a natural lift Aπ2(B~)A\in\pi_{2}(\tilde{B}).

Lemma 4.2.

Let ¯(JB~,A)0,2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}(J_{\tilde{B}},A) be the moduli space of genus zero 22-marked stable maps in class AA and ev:¯(JB~,A)0,2B~2{\rm ev}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}(J_{\tilde{B}},A)\to\tilde{B}^{2} be the evaluation map.

  1. (1)

    There is an open subset (JB~,A)0,2reg(JB~,A)0,2simple{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm reg}(J_{\tilde{B}},A)\subset{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm simple}(J_{\tilde{B}},A) which is transverse.

  2. (2)

    For a general pair of points (p,q)B~(p,q)\in\tilde{B}, the preimage ev1((p,q)){\rm ev}^{-1}((p,q)) is a single point contained in (JB~,A)0,2reg{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm reg}(J_{\tilde{B}},A) and the intersection is transverse.

  3. (3)

    GW0,2B~,A([pt],[pt])=1{\rm GW}_{0,2}^{\tilde{B},A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}])=1.

Proof.

This statement is an easy extension of [LM03, Proposition 4.15]. For any pair of points (p,q)B~×B~(p,q)\in\tilde{B}\times\tilde{B}, there is a unique line connecting π1(p)\pi_{1}(p) and π1(q)\pi_{1}(q) in n\mathbb{CP}^{n} which underlies a regular stable map from 1\mathbb{P}^{1}. As B~\tilde{B} and n\mathbb{CP}^{n} are isomorphic over a Zariski open set, when (p,q)(p,q) is general, the line is unique and avoids the subset ZnZ\subset\mathbb{CP}^{n}, hence corresponds to a curve in B~\tilde{B} in class AA. This provides the regular open subset (JB~,A)0,k+2reg(JB~,A)0,2simple{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{\tilde{B}},A)\subset{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}^{\rm simple}(J_{\tilde{B}},A). For a fixed general (p,q)(p,q) this curve is the only one in ¯(JB~,A)0,2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2}(J_{\tilde{B}},A) passing through pp and qq. ∎

Corollary 4.3.

For any Hamiltonian fibration P~B~\tilde{P}\to\tilde{B} and any coefficient field 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}, the cohomology H(P~;𝕜)H^{*}(\tilde{P};{\mathbb{k}}) splits.

Proof.

It follows from Lemma 4.2 that we are in a special situation of Theorem 4.1. As the GW invariant is 1, one concludes the cohomological splitting for any Hamiltonian fibration over B~\tilde{B} in all characteristic. ∎

Proof of Theorem B.

Now we derive the cohomological splitting property of BB from that of B~\tilde{B}. Remember that there is a birational morphism π2:B~B\pi_{2}:\tilde{B}\to B. Then by [BP24, Lemma 2.6], because any Hamiltonian fibration over B~\tilde{B} satisfies cohomological splitting over any field because of Corollary 4.3, it also holds for BB. ∎

Remark 4.4.

The main theorem of [GHS03] asserts that for a dominant morphism of varieties PBP\to B, if both BB and the general fiber are rationally connected, then PP is also rationally connected. On the other hand, the topological arguments in [LM03] show that for a fiber bundle MPBM\hookrightarrow P\to B, if every Hamiltonian fibration over BB and MM satisfies cohomological splitting, then the same holds for PP. This showcases further potential relation between rational connectedness and cohomological splitting.

5. Proof of Theorem 4.1

Now we start to prove the main technical result of this paper. First we need to make a notational modifications related to the topological type of rational curves. The Hurewicz map

π2(B)H2(B;)\pi_{2}(B)\to H_{2}(B;{\mathbb{Z}})

may not be injective. Therefore, a priori a Gromov–Witten invariant of BB with a fixed homological degree may come from different homotopy classes of holomorphic spheres. However, it is straightforward to see that for each homotopy class of holomorphic sheres, the corresponding Gromov–Witten invariant is well-defined. Therefore, the non-vanishing condition of the GW invariants in a fixed homological degree in Theorem A implies that for some homotopy class, the invariant is nonzero and not divisible by char(𝕜){\rm char}({\mathbb{k}}). Hence without loss of generality, from now on the curve class AA labelling Gromov–Witten invariants of the base BB are homotopy classes rather than homology classes.

We would like to relate Gromov–Witten invariants of the base and Gromov–Witten invariants of the total space. We first consider the correspondence of between homotopy classes of spheres.

Lemma 5.1.

The natural map (πP):π2(P)π2(B)(\pi_{P})_{*}:\pi_{2}(P)\to\pi_{2}(B) is surjective.

Proof.

Suppose Aπ2(B)A\in\pi_{2}(B) is represented by a smooth map u:S2Bu:S^{2}\to B. The pullback fibration uPS2u^{*}P\to S^{2} is then a Hamiltonian fibration. Let {ϕt}tS1\{\phi_{t}\}_{t\in S^{1}} be clutching function, which is a loop of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms. Now consider the long exact sequence

\textstyle{\cdots\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}π2(uP)\textstyle{\pi_{2}(u^{*}P)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}π2(S2)\textstyle{\pi_{2}(S^{2})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}π1(X)\textstyle{\pi_{1}(X)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}\textstyle{\cdots}

The map π2(S2)π1(X)\pi_{2}(S^{2})\to\pi_{1}(X) sends the generator of π2(S2)\pi_{2}(S^{2}) to the homotopy class of the loop ϕt(x)\phi_{t}(x) for any point xx, which is always trivial (see [MS04, Corollary 9.1.2]). Therefore, the map π2(uP)π2(S2)\pi_{2}(u^{*}P)\to\pi_{2}(S^{2}) is surjective. It follows that the class AA lies in the image of (πP)(\pi_{P})_{*}. ∎

5.1. The non-vanishing result of 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued GW in the total space

The main object to consider is the 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued Gromov–Witten invariants of the total space PP of the fibration. To start, one needs to choose a symplectic form on PP. As PBP\to B is a Hamiltonian fibration, there exists a Hamiltonian connection and hence a coupling form (see [MS98, Section 6]) ΩP0Ω2(P)\Omega_{P}^{0}\in\Omega^{2}(P) which is a closed extension of the fiberwise symplectic form. Let ωB\omega_{B} be the symplectic form on BB. For sufficiently large κ>0\kappa>0, the 2-form

ΩPκ:=ΩP0+κπωBΩ2(P)\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}:=\Omega_{P}^{0}+\kappa\pi^{*}\omega_{B}\in\Omega^{2}(P)

is a symplectic form whose deformation class is independent of κ\kappa and the Hamiltonian connection.

Let GW0,kP,𝕜{\rm GW}_{0,k}^{P,{\mathbb{k}}} denote the 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}-valued kk-pointed genus zero GW invariants of the space (P,ΩPκ)(P,\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}). More precisely, for α1,,αkH(P;𝕜)\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k}\in H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}}),

GW0,kP,𝕜(α1,,αk)=A~π2(P)qΩPκ(A~)GW0,kP,𝕜;A~(α1,,αk).{\rm GW}^{P,{\mathbb{k}}}_{0,k}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k})=\sum_{\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}(P)}q^{\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}(\tilde{A})}{\rm GW}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}_{0,k}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k}).

This invariant depends on the real number κ\kappa. However, if we fix a homotopy class

Aπ2(B)A\in\pi_{2}(B)

of the base, then we can consider the contribution

π(A~)=AqΩPκ(A~)GW0,kP,𝕜;A~(α1,,αk)=qκΩB(A)π(A~)=AqΩP0(A)GW0,kP,𝕜;A~(α1,,αk).\sum_{\pi_{*}(\tilde{A})=A}q^{\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}(\tilde{A})}{\rm GW}_{0,k}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k})=q^{\kappa\Omega_{B}(A)}\sum_{\pi_{*}(\tilde{A})=A}q^{\Omega_{P}^{0}(A)}{\rm GW}_{0,k}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}(\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k}).

It is qκΩB(A)q^{\kappa\Omega_{B}(A)} times of a κ\kappa-independent term.

Theorem 5.2.

Under the same setting as in Theorem 4.1, suppose char(𝕜)=p{\rm char}({\mathbb{k}})=p and

m=GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],α1,,αk)p.m={\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k})\notin p{\mathbb{Z}}.

Let

(πPαi)𝕜H(P;𝕜)(\pi_{P}^{*}\alpha_{i})_{\mathbb{k}}\in H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}})

is the image of πPαi\pi_{P}^{*}\alpha_{i} under the natural map

H(P;)H(P;𝕜).H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{Z}})\to H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}}).

Then for any β0H(M;𝕜)\beta_{0}\in H_{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}), there exists βH(M;𝕜)\beta_{\infty}\in H_{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}) such that

π(A~)=AqΩP0(A~)GW0,k+2P,𝕜;A~(PDP(ι(β0)),PDP(ι(β)),(πα1)𝕜,,(παk)𝕜)0.\sum_{\pi_{*}(\tilde{A})=A}q^{\Omega_{P}^{0}(\tilde{A})}{\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}\Big{(}{\rm PD}_{P}(\iota_{*}(\beta_{0})),{\rm PD}_{P}(\iota_{*}(\beta_{\infty})),(\pi^{*}\alpha_{1})_{\mathbb{k}},\ldots,(\pi^{*}\alpha_{k})_{\mathbb{k}}\Big{)}\neq 0. (5.1)

The finite characteristic case of Theorem 4.1 follows immediately; the characteristic zero case follows by considering a prime pp such that the homology groups do not have pp-torsions.

5.2. Proof of Theorem 5.2

To prove Theorem 5.2, we translate it into a more specific statement relating the GW invariants of PP with the graph GW invariants of certain Hamiltonian fibrations over S2S^{2}. By the assumption of Theorem 4.1, one can assume that the intersection (4.1) consists of m~\tilde{m} points q1,,qm~(JB,A)0,k+2regq_{1},\ldots,q_{\tilde{m}}\in{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) represented by marked smooth spheres

(ul,𝐳l=(zl,0,zl,1,,zl,k,zl,)),l=1,,m~(u_{l},{\bf z}_{l}=(z_{l,0},z_{l,1},\ldots,z_{l,k},z_{l,\infty})),\ l=1,\ldots,\tilde{m}

with signs sign(ul,𝐳l){±1}{\rm sign}(u_{l},{\bf z}_{l})\in\{\pm 1\}. The total sum of these signed counts is the Gromov–Witten invariant GW0,k+2B,A([pt],[pt],a1,,ak){\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{B,A}([{\rm pt}],[{\rm pt}],a_{1},\ldots,a_{k}). Each ulu_{l} pulls back a Hamiltonian fibration

ulPS2,l=1,,m~.u_{l}^{*}P\to S^{2},\ l=1,\ldots,\tilde{m}.

Then there are natural maps

π2graph(ulP)(πP/B)1(A)π2(P)\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(u_{l}^{*}P)\to(\pi_{P/B})_{*}^{-1}(A)\subset\pi_{2}(P)

(which may not be injective). Now consider arbitrary β0,βH(M;𝕜)\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty}\in H_{*}(M;{\mathbb{k}}). Denote

β0P=ι(β0),βP=ι(β)H(P;𝕜)\beta_{0}^{P}=\iota_{*}(\beta_{0}),\beta_{\infty}^{P}=\iota_{*}(\beta_{\infty})\in H_{*}(P;{\mathbb{k}})

be the pushforward induced by the inclusion of a fiber.

Proposition 5.3.

One has

π(A~)=AqΩPκ(A~)GW0,k+2P,𝕜;A~(PDP(β0P),PDP(βP),(πP/Bα1)𝕜,,(πP/Bαk)𝕜)=qκΩB(A)l=1m~sign(ul,𝐳l)A~π2graph(ulP)qΩ~ulP(A~)GW~(β0,β)0,2,𝐳lulP,A~Λ.\sum_{\pi_{*}(\tilde{A})=A}q^{\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}(\tilde{A})}{\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}\Big{(}{\rm PD}_{P}(\beta_{0}^{P}),{\rm PD}_{P}(\beta_{\infty}^{P}),(\pi_{P/B}^{*}\alpha_{1})_{\mathbb{k}},\ldots,(\pi_{P/B}^{*}\alpha_{k})_{\mathbb{k}}\Big{)}\\ =q^{\kappa\Omega_{B}(A)}\sum_{l=1}^{\tilde{m}}{\rm sign}(u_{l},{\bf z}_{l})\sum_{\tilde{A}^{\prime}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(u_{l}^{*}P)}q^{\tilde{\Omega}_{u_{l}^{*}P}(\tilde{A}^{\prime})}\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{u_{l}^{*}P,\tilde{A}^{\prime}}(\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty})\in\Lambda. (5.2)

As all ulu_{l} are in the same homotopy class, the Hamiltonian fibrations ulPS2u_{l}^{*}P\to S^{2} can be identified with M~ϕS2\tilde{M}_{\phi}\to S^{2} for a fixed ϕ:S1Ham(M,ωM)\phi:S^{1}\to{\rm Ham}(M,\omega_{M}) and all coupling forms Ω~ulP\tilde{\Omega}_{u_{l}^{*}P} are in the same homology class of a fixed coupling form Ω~ϕΩ2(M~ϕ)\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}\in\Omega^{2}(\tilde{M}_{\phi}). Therefore the right hand side of (5.2) is equal to

mqκΩB(A)A~π2graph(M~ϕ)qΩ~ϕ(A~)GW~(β0,β)0,2,𝐳M~ϕ,A~mq^{\kappa\Omega_{B}(A)}\sum_{\tilde{A}^{\prime}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{M}_{\phi})}q^{\tilde{\Omega}_{\phi}(\tilde{A}^{\prime})}\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}}^{\tilde{M}_{\phi},\tilde{A}^{\prime}}(\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty})

for some fixed marking 𝐳{\bf z}. As mm is not divisible by pp, hence invertible in 𝕜{\mathbb{k}}, Theorem 5.2 now follows from Proposition 5.3 and Corollary 3.9. ∎

5.3. Proof of Proposition 5.3

The proof of Proposition 5.3 is carried out by carefully constructing a global Kuranishi chart on the moduli space of stable maps into the total space and choosing a good FOP transverse perturbation.

Let JBJ_{B} be the almost complex structure given in the assumption of Theorem 4.1. We first choose an almost complex structure JPJ_{P} on the total space PP which is tamed by ΩPκ\Omega_{P}^{\kappa} and such that the projection (P,JP)(B,JB)(P,J_{P})\to(B,J_{B}) is pseudo-holomorphic. For each class A~π2(P)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}(P) such that π(A~)=A\pi_{*}(\tilde{A})=A consider the moduli space of stable maps

¯(JP,A~)0,k+2.\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}).

Then there is a natural projection map

πP/B:¯(JP,A~)0,k+2¯(JB,A)0,k+2.\pi_{P/B}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A})\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A).

Denote

¯(JB,A)0,k+2sing:=¯(JB,A)0,k+2(JB,A)0,k+2reg\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm sing}(J_{B},A):=\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A)\setminus{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)

where we switch the notation (JB,A)0,k+2reg=(JB,A)0,k+2simple{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)={\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm simple}(J_{B},A), and

¯(JP,A~)0,k+2reg=(πP/B)1((JB,A)0,k+2reg),\displaystyle\ \overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},\tilde{A})=(\pi_{P/B})^{-1}({\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)),\ ¯(JP,A~)0,k+2sing=(πP/B)1(¯(JB,A)0,k+2sing).\displaystyle\ \overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm sing}(J_{P},\tilde{A})=(\pi_{P/B})^{-1}(\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm sing}(J_{B},A)).

For the m~\tilde{m} specific points ql=[ul,𝐳l](JB,A)0,k+2regq_{l}=[u_{l},{\bf z}_{l}]\in{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A), their preimages

πP/B1(ql)¯(JP,A)0,k+2\pi_{P/B}^{-1}(q_{l})\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},A)

is naturally identified with the (disjoint) union of

¯(JP|ulP,A~)0,2,𝐳lgraph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{\rm graph}(J_{P}|_{u_{l}^{*}P},\tilde{A}^{\prime})

with A~π2graph(ulP)\tilde{A}^{\prime}\in\pi_{2}^{\rm graph}(u_{l}^{*}P) sent to A~π2(P)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}(P). By abuse of notation, denote by

¯(JP|ulP,A~)0,2,𝐳lgraph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{\rm graph}(J_{P}|_{u_{l}^{*}P},\tilde{A})

this disjoint union.

Proposition 5.4.

There exist the following objects.

  1. (1)

    A smooth almost complex global Kuranishi chart

    K=(G,V,E,S,Ψ)K=(G,V,E,S,\Psi)

    for ¯(JP,A~)0,k+2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}). Denote the induced derived orbifold chart by

    𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮,ψ),{\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\psi),

    then it is equivalent to (see Definition 2.1) the derived orbifold chart induced from an AMS global Kuranishi chart.

  2. (2)

    A singular global Kuranishi chart

    Kvert=(G,Vvert,Evert,Svert,Ψvert)K_{\rm vert}=(G,V_{\rm vert},E_{\rm vert},S_{\rm vert},\Psi_{\rm vert})

    which restricts to an almost complex smooth global Kuranishi chart for the open subset ¯(JP,A)0,k+2reg¯(JP,A)0,k+2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},A)\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},A) with a GG-equivariant commutative diagram

    Evert\textstyle{E_{\rm vert}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ι^\scriptstyle{\widehat{\iota}}E\textstyle{E\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Vvert\textstyle{V_{\rm vert}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ι\scriptstyle{\iota}Svert\scriptstyle{S_{\rm vert}}V\textstyle{V\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}S\scriptstyle{S} (5.3)

    where ι\iota is a GG-equivariant continuous embedding covered by the bundle homomorphism ι^\widehat{\iota}, which restricts to a GG-equivariant embedding over VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} compatible with the almost complex structures.

  3. (3)

    A GG-equivariant complex vector bundle πhor:WhorVvertreg\pi_{\rm hor}:W_{\rm hor}\to V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}, a GG-invariant neighborhood WhorregWhorW_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}\subset W_{\rm hor} of the zero section, and a GG-equivariant commutative diagram

    πhorEvertπhorWhor\textstyle{\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}E_{\rm vert}\oplus\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}W_{\rm hor}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}θ^hor\scriptstyle{\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}}E\textstyle{E\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Whorreg\textstyle{W_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}θhor\scriptstyle{\theta_{\rm hor}}V\textstyle{V} (5.4)

    where θhor\theta_{\rm hor} is a homeomorphism onto an open subset extending the embedding of VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} into VV and θ^hor\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor} is a bundle isomorphism to θhorE\theta_{\rm hor}^{*}E. Moreover, if we write the WhorW_{\rm hor}-component of SS restricted along the image of θhor\theta_{\rm hor} as ShorS_{\rm hor} and write the tautological section of πhorWhorWhorreg\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}W_{\rm hor}\to W_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg} as τWhor\tau_{W_{\rm hor}}, then

    θ^horτWhor=Shorθhor.\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}\circ\tau_{W_{\rm hor}}=S_{\rm hor}\circ\theta_{\rm hor}.
  4. (4)

    A GG-invariant smooth submersive map

    π~vert:Vvertreg(JB,A)0,k+2reg\tilde{\pi}_{\rm vert}:V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) (5.5)

    which makes the following diagram commute

    𝒮vert1(0)Vvertreg\textstyle{{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{-1}(0)\cap V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒮vert1(0)/G\textstyle{{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{-1}(0)/G\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Vvertreg\textstyle{V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}¯(JP,A~)0,k+2\textstyle{\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}(JB,A)0,k+2reg\textstyle{{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}¯(JB,A)0,k+2.\textstyle{\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A).}

    Furthermore, for each point ql=[ul,𝐳l](JB,A)0,k+2regq_{l}=[u_{l},{\bf z}_{l}]\in{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A), denote the fiber of VvertregV^{\rm reg}_{\rm vert} by Vvert,qlregV_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg}, then the restriction of KvertK_{\rm vert} to Vvert,qlregV_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg} is equivalent to an AMS global Kuranishi chart on the graph moduli space ¯(J~P|ulP,A~)0,2,𝐳lgraph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{P}|_{u_{l}^{*}P},\tilde{A}) constructed in Section 3.

The proof of Proposition 5.4 is deferred to the next subsection.

Now we can prove Proposition 5.3. We first choose pseudocycle representatives of the constraints. For each pseudocycle fi:WiBf_{i}:W_{i}\to B, denote W~i\tilde{W}_{i} the total space of the pullback of PBP\to B and

f~i:W~iP\tilde{f}_{i}:\tilde{W}_{i}\to P

the induced map. It is easy to see that f~i\tilde{f}_{i} is again a pseudocycle and represents the class PDP((πPai)𝕜){\rm PD}_{P}((\pi_{P}^{*}a_{i})_{\mathbb{k}}). On the other hand, choose pp-pseudocycles

f0:W0M,resp.f:WMf_{0}:W_{0}\to M,\ {\rm resp.}\ f_{\infty}:W_{\infty}\to M

representing the classes β0\beta_{0} resp. β\beta_{\infty}. The composition with the inclusions ι0:MP|p0\iota_{0}:M\to P|_{p_{0}} resp. ι:MP|p\iota_{\infty}:M\to P|_{p_{\infty}} we obtain pp-pseudocycles

f~0=ι0f0:W0Presp.f~=ιf:WP.\tilde{f}_{0}=\iota_{0}\circ f_{0}:W_{0}\to P\ {\rm resp.}\ \tilde{f}_{\infty}=\iota_{\infty}\circ f_{\infty}:W_{\infty}\to P.

Let the induced derived orbifold chart of KK be

𝒞=(𝒰,,𝒮,ψ):=(V/G,E/G,S/G,Ψ/G){\mathcal{C}}=({\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{S}},\psi):=(V/G,E/G,S/G,\Psi/G)

and also denote

𝒞vertreg=(𝒰reg,vert,𝒮|,ψvert):=(Vvertreg/G,Evert/G,Svert/G,Ψvert/G).{\mathcal{C}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}=({\mathcal{U}}_{\rm reg},{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert},{\mathcal{S}}_{|},\psi_{\rm vert}):=(V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}/G,E_{\rm vert}/G,S_{\rm vert}/G,\Psi_{\rm vert}/G).

Consider the m~\tilde{m} specific points ql=[(ul,𝐳l)]U(JB,A)0,k+2simpleq_{l}=[(u_{l},{\bf z}_{l})]\in U\subset{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm simple}(J_{B},A) contributing to the Gromov–Witten invariant of BB and the fibers

𝒰vert,qlreg:=π~vert1(ql)𝒰vertreg.{\mathcal{U}}^{\rm reg}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}:=\tilde{\pi}_{\rm vert}^{-1}(q_{l})\subset{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}.

Then the quadruple

𝒞vert,ql:=(𝒰vert,qlreg,vert,𝒮vert){\mathcal{C}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}:=({\mathcal{U}}^{\rm reg}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}},{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert},{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert})

is a stably complex derived orbifold chart for the graph moduli ¯(J~P|ulP,A~)0,2,𝐳lgraph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{\rm graph}(\tilde{J}_{P}|_{u_{l}^{*}P},\tilde{A}), where we abuse the notations by writing vert=(Evert/G)|𝒰vertreg(ql){\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert}=(E_{\rm vert}/G)|_{{\mathcal{U}}^{\rm reg}_{\rm vert}(q_{l})} and 𝒮vert=(Svert/G)|𝒰vertreg(ql){\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}=(S_{\rm vert}/G)|_{{\mathcal{U}}^{\rm reg}_{\rm vert}(q_{l})}. Choose a distance function on 𝒰{\mathcal{U}}. For any δ>0\delta>0, let

𝒰vertreg,δ(ql)𝒰vertreg{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{{\rm reg},\delta}(q_{l})\subset{\mathcal{U}}_{{\rm vert}}^{\rm reg}

be the δ\delta-neighborhood of 𝒰vert,qlreg{\mathcal{U}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg} inside 𝒰vertreg{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}.

Now, fix FOP transverse perturbations for each qlq_{l}

𝒮vert,ql:𝒰vert,qlregvert.{\mathcal{S}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\prime}:{\mathcal{U}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg}\to{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert}.

Claim. One can extend 𝒮vert,ql{\mathcal{S}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\prime} to a FOP transverse perturbation

𝒮vert:𝒰vertregvert.{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}:{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert}.

Proof of the claim. Notice that 0,k+2reg(JB,A)¯0,k+2(JB,A){\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A) is a manifold rather than an orbifold, the normal bundle of 𝒰vertreg(ql){\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}(q_{l}) inside 𝒰vertreg{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}, which is the pullback of the tangent space Tql0,k+2reg(JB,A)T_{q_{l}}{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) under the projection map (5.5), is a vector bundle whose fibers are trivial representations of the isotropy groups. Then by (6) of Theorem 2.2, one can extend the FOP transverse perturbation to a FOP transverse perturbation

𝒮vert:𝒰vertregvert.{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}:{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert}.

This finishes the proof of this claim.

Next, look at the “further thickened” chart 𝒰:=V/G{\mathcal{U}}:=V/G which contains 𝒰vert{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert} by the diagram (5.3). As WhorVvertregW_{\rm hor}\to V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} is a GG-equivariant vector bundle, it descends to an orbifold vector bundle

𝒲hor𝒰vertreg.{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}\to{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}.

By (3) of Proposition 5.4, inside 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} there is an open subset identified with 𝒲horreg𝒲hor{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}\subset{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor} which contains 𝒰vertreg{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}. By choosing an appropriate metric on the bundle 𝒲hor{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}, we may assume that 𝒲horreg{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg} is the open disk bundle of radius 2ϵ2\epsilon for some ϵ>0\epsilon>0, denoted by 𝒲hor2ϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{2\epsilon}.

Claim. There exists an FOP transverse extension of 𝒮vert{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime} to the open subset 𝒲hor2ϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{2\epsilon}, denoted by 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}, satisfying the following conditions.

  1. (1)

    Over 𝒲horϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon}, the section 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime} is given by the stabilization of 𝒮vert{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime} by the tautological section.

  2. (2)

    (𝒮)1(0)=(𝒮vert)1(0)({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)=({\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime})^{-1}(0).

Proof of the claim. We introduce some notations for the argument. Let xx be the coordinate on 𝒰vertreg{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} and yy be the fiber coordinate on 𝒲hor{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}. We can write any extension 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime} as

𝒮(x,y)=(𝒮vert(x,y),𝒮hor(x,y)){\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}(x,y)=\Big{(}{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}(x,y),{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm hor}^{\prime}(x,y)\Big{)}

where the first component takes value in πhorvert\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}{\mathcal{E}}_{\rm vert} and the second one takes value in πhor𝒲hor\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}. The value of 𝒮vert(x,0){\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}(x,0) has been fixed. Withint 𝒲horϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon}, we define

𝒮(x,y)=(𝒮vert(x,0),y){\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}(x,y)=({\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}(x,0),y) (5.6)

where yy is regarded as the tautological section of πhor𝒲hor\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}. Then by (5) of Theorem 2.2 (stabilization property), 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime} is FOP transverse and obviously (𝒮)1(0)=(𝒮vert)1(0)({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)=({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}_{\operatorname{vert}})^{-1}(0). To extend to 𝒲hor2ϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{2\epsilon}, we keep 𝒮hor{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm hor}^{\prime} to be the tautological section and extend 𝒮vert{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime} arbitrarily. This will not create any more zeroes and hence still FOP transverse. End of the Proof of the claim.

Lastly, by the the “CUDV property” of Theorem 2.2, one can find an FOP transverse perturbation on 𝒰{\mathcal{U}} which agrees with 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime} over θhor(Whorϵ¯)\theta_{\rm hor}(\overline{W_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon}}) constructed above. By abuse of notation, still denote the perturbation by 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}. Notice that by (2) of Theorem 2.2, one can assume

𝒮𝒮C0δ\|{\mathcal{S}}-{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}\|_{C^{0}}\leq\delta

for any δ>0\delta>0.

Now we look at the intersection numbers. Consider

((𝒮)1(0)𝒰free)evP1(f0(W0)×f(W)×i=1kf~i(W~i))\Big{(}({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}\Big{)}\cap{\rm ev}_{P}^{-1}\Big{(}f_{0}(W_{0})\times f_{\infty}(W_{\infty})\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\tilde{f}_{i}(\tilde{W}_{i})\Big{)}

whose signed count coincides with the GW invariant

GW0,k+2P,𝕜;A~(PDP(β0P),PDP(βP),(πP/Bα1)𝕜,,(πP/Bαk)𝕜).{\rm GW}_{0,k+2}^{P,{\mathbb{k}};\tilde{A}}\big{(}{\rm PD}_{P}(\beta_{0}^{P}),{\rm PD}_{P}(\beta_{\infty}^{P}),(\pi_{P/B}^{*}\alpha_{1})_{\mathbb{k}},\ldots,(\pi_{P/B}^{*}\alpha_{k})_{\mathbb{k}}\big{)}.

Also, obviously

((𝒮)1(0)𝒰free)evP1(f~0(W~0)×f~(W~)×i=1kf~i(W~i)){x𝒰|πP/B(ev0(x))=p0,πP/B(ev(x))=p,πP/Bevi(x)fi(Wi)B}\Big{(}({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}\Big{)}\cap{\rm ev}_{P}^{-1}\Big{(}\tilde{f}_{0}(\tilde{W}_{0})\times\tilde{f}_{\infty}(\tilde{W}_{\infty})\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\tilde{f}_{i}(\tilde{W}_{i})\Big{)}\\ \subset\Big{\{}x\in{\mathcal{U}}\ |\ \pi_{P/B}({\rm ev}_{0}(x))=p_{0},\pi_{P/B}({\rm ev}_{\infty}(x))=p_{\infty},\ \pi_{P/B}\circ{\rm ev}_{i}(x)\in f_{i}(W_{i})\subset B\Big{\}}

As inside 𝒰{\mathcal{U}}, the perturbed zero locus (𝒮)1(0)({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0) can be arbitrarily close to 𝒮1(0){\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0), the above intersection points can be arbitrarily close to points in 𝒮1(0)¯(JP,A)0,k+2{\mathcal{S}}^{-1}(0)\cong\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},A) which project to the points ql=[ul,𝐳l]q_{l}=[u_{l},{\bf z}_{l}]. In particular, the above intersection points are in the open subset

l=1m~𝒲horϵ|𝒰vertreg,δ(ql)𝒲horϵ.\bigcup_{l=1}^{\tilde{m}}{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon}|_{{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{{\rm reg},\delta}(q_{l})}\subset{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon}.

By our construction of 𝒮{\mathcal{S}}^{\prime}, within the disk bundle 𝒲horϵ{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm hor}^{\epsilon} the perturbation is a stabilization of 𝒮vert{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime}, hence

((𝒮)1(0)𝒰free)evP1(f~0(W~0)×f~(W~)×i=1kf~i(W~i))=l=1m~((𝒮vert)1(0)free𝒰vert,qlreg)ev01(f~0(W~0))ev1(f~(W~)).\Big{(}({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}\Big{)}\cap{\rm ev}_{P}^{-1}\Big{(}\tilde{f}_{0}(\tilde{W}_{0})\times\tilde{f}_{\infty}(\tilde{W}_{\infty})\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\tilde{f}_{i}(\tilde{W}_{i})\Big{)}\\ =\bigsqcup_{l=1}^{\tilde{m}}\Big{(}({\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)_{\rm free}\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg}\Big{)}\cap{\rm ev}_{0}^{-1}(\tilde{f}_{0}(\tilde{W}_{0}))\cap{\rm ev}_{\infty}^{-1}(\tilde{f}_{\infty}(\tilde{W}_{\infty})).

As the fiber 𝒰vertreg(ql){\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}(q_{l}) arises from a derived orbifold chart of the moduli space ¯(JP|ulP,A~)0,2,𝐳lgraph\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{\rm graph}(J_{P}|_{u_{l}^{*}P},\tilde{A}) and the restriction of 𝒮vert{\mathcal{S}}_{\rm vert}^{\prime} to 𝒰vertreg(ql){\mathcal{U}}_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}(q_{l}) is an FOP transverse perturbation, the signed count of the above intersection set is (up to signs) equal to the graph GW invariant

GW~(β0,β)0,2,𝐳lulP,A~𝕜.\widetilde{\rm GW}{}_{0,2,{\bf z}_{l}}^{u_{l}^{*}P,\tilde{A}}(\beta_{0},\beta_{\infty})\in{\mathbb{k}}.

The detailed sign verification is given in Subsection 5.5. Summing over all the points in ((𝒮)1(0)𝒰free)evP1(f~0(W~0)×f~(W~)×i=1kf~i(W~i))\Big{(}({\mathcal{S}}^{\prime})^{-1}(0)\cap{\mathcal{U}}_{\rm free}\Big{)}\cap{\rm ev}_{P}^{-1}\Big{(}\tilde{f}_{0}(\tilde{W}_{0})\times\tilde{f}_{\infty}(\tilde{W}_{\infty})\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\tilde{f}_{i}(\tilde{W}_{i})\Big{)}, we obtain the desired statement. ∎

5.4. Proof of Proposition 5.4

5.4.1. The AMS construction

As before, the first step of construction a global Kuranishi chart is to approximate the symplectic form ΩPκ\Omega_{P}^{\kappa} by a rational one, denoted by ΩPΩ2(P)\Omega_{P}^{\prime}\in\Omega^{2}(P). When ΩP\Omega_{P}^{\prime} is sufficiently close to ΩPκ\Omega_{P}^{\kappa}, JPJ_{P} is still tamed by ΩP\Omega_{P}^{\prime}. After rescaling, one may assume that ΩP\Omega_{P}^{\prime} is integral. For the curve class A~π2(P)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{2}(P), denote

d(A~)=ΩP,A~.d(\tilde{A})=\langle\Omega_{P}^{\prime},\tilde{A}\rangle\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

Second, for each d>0d>0, consider the moduli space ¯0,k+2(d,d)\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d) (of unparametrized stable maps). The group Gd=U(d+1)G_{d}=U(d+1) acts on ¯0,k+2(d,d)\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d). There is a GdG_{d}-invariant subset Bk+2,d¯0,k+2(d,d)B_{k+2,d}\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}(\mathbb{CP}^{d},d) consisting of configurations whose images are not contained in any hyperplane. Bk+2,dB_{k+2,d} is a smooth complex GdG_{d}-manifold. Then consider the universal curve

Ck+2,dBk+2,d.C_{k+2,d}\to B_{k+2,d}.

Let Ck+2,dCk+2,dC_{k+2,d}^{*}\subset C_{k+2,d} be the subset of points which are not marked points or nodal points of fibers.

Similar to the AMS construction for the graph moduli, one consider the following objects.

Definition 5.5.
  1. (1)

    A finite-dimensional approximation scheme on Ck+2,dC_{k+2,d} is a representation WW of GdG_{d} together with an equivariant linear map

    ι:WCc(Ck+2,d×P,ΩCk+2,d/Bk+2,d0,1TP).\iota:W\to C^{\infty}_{c}(C_{k+2,d}^{*}\times P,\Omega^{0,1}_{C_{k+2,d}^{*}/B_{k+2,d}}\otimes TP).
  2. (2)

    Given A~π1(A)\tilde{A}\in\pi_{*}^{-1}(A) and a finite-dimensional approximation scheme (W,ι)(W,\iota) over Ck+2,dC_{k+2,d} for d=d(A~)d=d(\tilde{A}), the pre-thickening is the set

    Vpre={(ρ,u,e)|ρBk+2,d,u:CρP,eW,¯JPu+ι(e)|Cϕ=0,[u]=A~}.V^{\rm pre}=\Big{\{}(\rho,u,e)\ |\ \rho\in B_{k+2,d},\ u:C_{\rho}\to P,\ e\in W,\ \overline{\partial}_{J_{P}}u+\iota(e)|_{C_{\phi}}=0,\ [u]=\tilde{A}\Big{\}}. (5.7)
Definition 5.6.

We say that a finite-dimensional approximation scheme (W,ι)(W,\iota) is regular over an open subset U¯0,k+2(JP,A~)U\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}) if for each yUy\in U and each (ρ,u,0)Vpre(\rho,u,0)\in V^{\rm pre} sent to yy by the forgetful map, the linearization of the equation ¯JPu+ι(e)=0\overline{\partial}_{J_{P}}u+\iota(e)=0 is surjective.

Recall that we have a natural projection πP/B:¯(JP,A~)0,k+2¯(JB,A)0,k+2\pi_{P/B}:\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A})\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{B},A).

Lemma 5.7.

One can choose a finite-dimensional approximation scheme (Wvert,ιvert)(W^{\rm vert},\iota^{\rm vert}) (called the vertical obstruction space) satisfying the following two conditions.

  1. (1)

    For all eWverte\in W^{\rm vert}, ιvert(e)\iota^{\rm vert}(e) lies in TvertPT^{\rm vert}P.

  2. (2)

    For any compact subset K¯(JB,A)0,k+2regK\subset\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A), (Wvert,ιvert)(W^{\rm vert},\iota^{\rm vert}) is regular near πP/B1(K)\pi_{P/B}^{-1}(K).

Proof.

This is because downstairs away from multiple covers and nodal curves the moduli space is already regular. Therefore obstructions only lie in the vertical direction, so we can choose a sufficiently large finite dimensional approximation scheme lying in the vertical direction of the tangent bundle of PP. ∎

We first use the vertical obstruction space to construct a Kuranishi chart which is a manifold only away from certain bad locus. We may shrink the open subset (JB,A)0,k+2reg{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) given by the assumption of Theorem 4.1 to a precompact neighborhood of the points p1,,pm~p_{1},\ldots,p_{\tilde{m}}. Then we may assume that there is a finite dimensional approximation scheme (Wvert,ιvert)(W_{\rm vert},\iota_{\rm vert}) as in Lemma 5.7, such that it is regular over the corresponding open subset of ¯(JP,A~)0,k+2reg\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},\tilde{A}). Let the pre-thickening obtained from such data be VvertpreV_{\rm vert}^{\rm pre}.

To proceed, we use framings to construct the actual AMS chart. For each triple (ρ,u,e)(\rho,u,e), the pullback form uΩPΩ2(Cρ)u^{*}\Omega_{P}^{\prime}\in\Omega^{2}(C_{\rho}) has integral being d=d(A~)d=d(\tilde{A}), hence there is a Hermitian holomorphic line bundle LuCρL_{u}\to C_{\rho}, unique up to unitary isomorphism, whose curvature form is 2π𝐢uΩP-2\pi{\bf i}u^{*}\Omega_{P}^{\prime}. A framing on (ρ,u,e)(\rho,u,e) is a basis of H0(Lu)H^{0}(L_{u})

F=(f0,,fd).F=(f_{0},\ldots,f_{d}).

Then define

Vvert:={(ρ,u,e,F)|(ρ,u,e)Vvertpre,Fisaframing}V_{\rm vert}:=\Big{\{}(\rho,u,e,F)\ |\ (\rho,u,e)\in V_{\rm vert}^{\rm pre},\ F\ {\rm is\ a\ framing}\Big{\}}

which has the structure of a GdG_{d}-equivariant principal GdG_{d}^{\mathbb{C}}-bundle. Define the obstruction bundle EvertVE_{\rm vert}\to V as

Evert=WvertπV/BTBk+2,d𝔤d.E_{\rm vert}=W_{\rm vert}\oplus\pi_{V/B}^{*}TB_{k+2,d}\oplus{\mathfrak{g}}_{d}.

Choosing a GdG_{d}-invariant Riemannian metric on Bk+2,dB_{k+2,d} and denote the exponential map by expB\exp_{B}, which identifies a neighborhood Δ+(Bk+2,d)\Delta^{+}(B_{k+2,d}) of the diagonal in Bk+2,d×Bk+2,dB_{k+2,d}\times B_{k+2,d} with a neighborhood of the zero section of the tangent bundle of Bk+2,dB_{k+2,d}. Shrink VV to the open subset where (ρ,ρF)Δ+(Bk+2,d)(\rho,\rho_{F})\in\Delta^{+}(B_{k+2,d}) and where the Hermitian matrix HFH_{F} with entries

Cρfi,fjuΩP\int_{C_{\rho}}\langle f_{i},f_{j}\rangle u^{*}\Omega_{P}^{\prime}

is positive definite. Define the Kuranishi section Svert:VvertEvertS_{\rm vert}:V_{\rm vert}\to E_{\rm vert} as

Svert(ρ,u,e,F)=(e,expB1(ρ,ρF),expH1(HF)).S_{\rm vert}(\rho,u,e,F)=\Big{(}e,\exp_{B}^{-1}(\rho,\rho_{F}),\exp_{H}^{-1}(H_{F})\Big{)}. (5.8)

If Svert(ρ,u,e,F)=0S_{\rm vert}(\rho,u,e,F)=0, we see u:CρPu:C_{\rho}\to P is a genuine JPJ_{P}-holomorphic map. Then define the GdG_{d}-equivariant map

ψvert:Svert1(0)/Gd¯(JP,A~)0,k+2,ψ~(ρ,u,0,F)=[u:CρP].\psi_{\rm vert}:S_{\rm vert}^{-1}(0)/G_{d}\to\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}),\ \tilde{\psi}(\rho,u,0,F)=[u:C_{\rho}\to P].

Similar to Lemma 3.4, one has

Lemma 5.8.

ψvert\psi_{\rm vert} is a homeomorphism. ∎

Therefore one obtains a singular global Kuranishi chart

Kvert=(Gd,Vvert,Evert,Svert,ψvert)K_{\rm vert}=(G_{d},V_{\rm vert},E_{\rm vert},S_{\rm vert},\psi_{\rm vert})

which is regular over (JP,A~)0,k+2reg{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},\tilde{A}).

One can then choose another finite-dimensional approximation scheme (Whor,ιhor)(W_{\rm hor},\iota_{\rm hor}) over Ck+2,dC_{k+2,d} (called the horizontal obstruction space666Although the corresponding sections do not necessarily take value in the horizontal part of the pulled-back tangent bundle, we hope that this notion will not cause any confusion.) and denote

(W,ι)=(WvertWhor,ιvertιhor)(W,\iota)=(W_{\rm vert}\oplus W_{\rm hor},\iota_{\rm vert}\oplus\iota_{\rm hor})

so that it is regular everywhere in the sense of Definition 5.6. Notice that WhorW_{\rm hor} defines a GdG_{d}-equivariant vector bundle

πhor:WhorVvert\pi_{\rm hor}:W_{\rm hor}\to V_{\rm vert}

Parallel to the previous discussions on the singular global Kuranishi chart, now we can construct a global Kuranishi chart for ¯(JP,A~)0,k+2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}). Using the finite-dimensional approximation scheme (W,ι)(W,\iota), the pre-thickening VpreV^{\rm pre} is defined as in (5.7). We obtain a global Kuranishi chart

K=(Gd,V,E,S,ψ)K=(G_{d},V,E,S,\psi)

where V={(ρ,u,e,F)|(ρ,u,e)Vpre,Fisaframing}V=\{(\rho,u,e,F)\ |\ (\rho,u,e)\in V^{\rm pre},\ F\ {\rm is\ a\ framing}\}; E=WπV/BTBk+2,d𝔤dE=W\oplus\pi_{V/B}^{*}TB_{k+2,d}\oplus{\mathfrak{g}}_{d}, which differs from EvertE_{\rm vert} by the direct summand WhorW_{\rm hor}; the Kuranishi section SS is defined using the same formula (5.8); the map ψ\psi is defined similarly to ψvert\psi_{\rm vert}, which gives rise to a homeomorphism Svert1(0)/Gd¯(JP,A~)0,k+2S_{\rm vert}^{-1}(0)/G_{d}\xrightarrow{\sim}\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}).

Lemma 5.9.

Away from the horizontally singular locus, VV is a stabilization of VvertV_{\rm vert}. More precisely, there is a GdG_{d}-invariant open neighborhood VvertregVvertV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\subset V_{\rm vert} of ψvert1(¯(JP,A~)0,k+2reg)\psi_{\rm vert}^{-1}\left(\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},\tilde{A})\right) which is a topological manifold, a GdG_{d}-invariant open neighborhood of the zero section of Whor|VvertregW_{\rm hor}|_{V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}}, denoted by WhorregW_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}, a GdG_{d}-equivariant bundle map θ^hor\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor} covering a GdG_{d}-equivariant map θhor\theta_{\rm hor}

πhorEvertπhorWhor\textstyle{\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}E_{\rm vert}\oplus\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}W_{\rm hor}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}θ^hor\scriptstyle{\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}}E\textstyle{E\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Whorreg\textstyle{W_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}θhor\scriptstyle{\theta_{\rm hor}}V\textstyle{V} (5.9)

satisfying the following conditions.

  1. (1)

    θhor\theta_{\rm hor} is a homeomorphism onto an open subset whose restriction to the zero section coincides with the embedding VvertregVV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\hookrightarrow V.

  2. (2)

    Let Shor:VWhorS_{\rm hor}:V\to W_{\rm hor} be the WhorW_{\rm hor}-component of the Kuranishi map S:VES:V\to E and let τWhor:WhorregπhorWhor\tau_{W_{\rm hor}}:W_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg}\to\pi_{\rm hor}^{*}W_{\rm hor} be the tautological section. Then

    θ^horτWhor=Shorθhor.\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}\circ\tau_{W_{\rm hor}}=S_{\rm hor}\circ\theta_{\rm hor}.
Proof.

Consider the forgetful map VBk+2,dV\to B_{k+2,d}. The fiber of this forgetful map at ρBk+2,d\rho\in B_{k+2,d}, denoted by V(ρ)V(\rho), is the zero locus of a smooth Fredholm map from the pseudoholomorphic graph equation over the smooth or nodal curve CρC_{\rho}. Hence V(ρ)V(\rho) is naturally a smooth manifold. There is a subset Vvert(ρ)V(ρ)V_{\rm vert}(\rho)\subset V(\rho) which is a submanifold near the regular locus. The normal bundle can be identified with the bundle WhorW_{\rm hor}.

We can choose a GdG_{d}-invariant family of fiberwise Riemannian metrics on V(ρ)V(\rho) which varies continuously in ρ\rho. This is possible as the vertical tangent bundle TvertVT^{\rm vert}V exists. Then the map θhor\theta_{\rm hor} can be constructed using the fiberwise exponential map. Indeed, it follows from the construction and the regularity assumption that for any point in vVvertregVv\in V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\subset V over ρ\rho, the vertical tangent space of VV at this point admits a decomposition TvvertV=TvVvertregWhorT_{v}^{\rm vert}V=T_{v}V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\oplus W_{\rm hor}, where TvVvertregT_{v}V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} is well-defined due to the regularity of the singular global Kuranishi chart near vv. Then the fiberwise normal bundle of VvertregVV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\subset V is identified with WhorVvertregW_{\rm hor}\to V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}. So, for any tangent vector lying in WhorW_{\rm hor} with sufficiently small norm, we can define θhor\theta_{\rm hor} using the exponential map at vv. By varying over ρ\rho, we see that θhor\theta_{\rm hor} defines a homeomorphism onto an open subset which agrees with the embedding VvertVV_{\rm vert}\hookrightarrow V along the zero section. As the diagram (5.9) commutes along VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}, one can use parallel transports to construct the bundle map θ^hor\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}.

Now by the implicit function theorem, the restriction of ShorS_{\rm hor} to the fibers of WhorregW_{\rm hor}^{\rm reg} is a homeomorphism onto a small disk bundle of WhorEW_{\rm hor}\subset E. By reparametrizing the map θhor\theta_{\rm hor}, and accordingly, θ^hor\widehat{\theta}_{\rm hor}, one can ensure that ShorS_{\rm hor} agrees with τWhor\tau_{W_{\rm hor}} after being pulled back by θhor\theta_{\rm hor}. ∎

5.4.2. Smoothing

We need to construct smooth structures on the base of the Kuranishi chart VV which contains a smooth submanifold VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}. The basic idea is as follows. First, following the argument of [AMS21], by using the topological submersion VvertregBk+2,dV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to B_{k+2,d}, one can construct a stable smoothing on VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}. Then as VV is locally a bundle over VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}, one obtains a natural smooth structure of the thickening. Finally, we use a relative smoothing procedure to obtain a smooth structure on VV.

The first stage of this construction is similar to the situation of Lemma 3.5. The forgetful map

VvertregBk+2,dV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to B_{k+2,d}

is a GdG_{d}-equivariant topological submersion with fiberwise smooth structures varying sufficiently regularly, a Cloc1C^{1}_{loc} GG-bundle. This allows us to construct a vector bundle lift of the tangent microbundle TμVvertregT_{\mu}V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}. Lashof’s theorem777Note that Lashof’s smoothing theorem only requires finitely many orbit types rather than the compactness of the ambient topological manifold. implies the existence of a stable GdG_{d}-smoothing, i.e., a smooth structure on Vvertreg×RV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\times R for some GdG_{d}-representation RR. One can indeed include RR into the vertical obstruction space WvertW_{\rm vert} such that RR is mapped to zero by ιhor\iota_{\rm hor}. We can then assume VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} is a smooth GdG_{d}-manifold.

We need the smoothing be compatible with the smooth structures on the moduli space of holomorphic curves in the base BB. Notice that since the obstruction space WvertW_{\rm vert} is in the vertical direction of the fibration PBP\to B, there is a natural GdG_{d}-invariant projection map

Vvertreg(JB,A)0,k+2regV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) (5.10)

where the codomain has a natural smooth structure. The compatibility of smooth structures is achieved by [AMS21, Lemma 4.5], which ensures that the above projection map is a smooth submersion by stabilizing the domain. We keep the same notations for the subsequent discussions.

Next, as the bundle WhorVvertregW_{\rm hor}\to V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} is trivial, it is automatically a smooth GdG_{d}-equivariant vector bundle. The homeomorphism θhor\theta_{\rm hor} in (5.9) then induces a GdG_{d}-smooth structure on the image of θhor\theta_{\rm hor}, which is an open subset of VV.

We would like to extend the smoothing onto the whole of VV using the relative version of Lashof’s smoothing theorem proved in [BX22a, Appendix B]. We need to specify a neighborhood of the singular region where we modify the existing smoothing. The region is selected properly in order to compare the GW invariants of the total space PP with the GW invariants of the base BB.

Choose a GdG_{d}-invariant distance function on the base VV of the Kuranishi chart. Choose a GdG_{d}-invariant distance function on VV. For any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, define

Vsing+ϵVV^{{\rm sing}+\epsilon}\subset V

be the open ϵ\epsilon-neighborhood of Ψ1(¯(JP,A~)0,k+2sing)\Psi^{-1}(\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm sing}(J_{P},\tilde{A})). Notice that for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0, the union

Vϵ:=Im(θhor)Vsing+ϵV^{\epsilon}:={\rm Im}(\theta_{\rm hor})\cup V^{{\rm sing}+\epsilon}

is a GdG_{d}-invariant open neighborhood of S1(0)S^{-1}(0) in VV. One can fix ϵ>0\epsilon>0 such that

πP/Bk+2(evP(Vsing+ϵ))({p0}×{p}×i=1kfi(Wi))=.\pi_{P/B}^{k+2}\Big{(}{\rm ev}_{P}\big{(}V^{{\rm sing}+\epsilon}\big{)}\Big{)}\cap\Big{(}\{p_{0}\}\times\{p_{\infty}\}\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}f_{i}(W_{i})\Big{)}=\emptyset.

Then using the relative version of Lashof’s theorem [BX22a, Theorem B.3], one can construct a stable smoothing on VϵV^{\epsilon} which coincides with the smooth structure on Im(θhor){\rm Im}(\theta_{\rm hor}) taking product with the corresponding GdG_{d}-representation away from Vsing+ϵV^{{\rm sing}+\epsilon}. By absorbing the additional representation of GdG_{d} needed for the stable smoothing into the obstruction space WvertW_{\rm vert}, one may assume that the stable smoothing is actually a smoothing.

On the other hand, the obstruction bundle can always be identified with a smooth vector bundle. Hence we obtained a smooth global Kuranishi chart for ¯(JP,A~)0,k+2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},\tilde{A}), denoted by

Kϵ=(Gd,Vϵ,E,S,Ψ).K^{\epsilon}=(G_{d},V^{\epsilon},E,S,\Psi).

5.4.3. Wrapping up the proof

With the above preparations, we can finish the proof.

Proof of Proposition 5.4.

Fixing an ϵ>0\epsilon>0, we can use the global Kuranish chart K=KϵK=K^{\epsilon}. As discussed in the proof of Proposition 3.1, by choosing all the involved stabilizations to be complex, the fact that the vertical tangent spaces can be identified with the index of Cauchy–Riemann operators ensures that we can build an almost complex KK. As this chart is built from the finite-dimensional approximation (W,ι)(W,\iota) after stabilization and shrinking, it follows from the construction that KK is equivalent to an AMS global Kuranishi chart. This proves (1).

The singular global Kuranishi chart Kvert=(Gd,Vvert,Evert,Svert,ψvert)K_{\rm vert}=(G_{d},V_{\rm vert},E_{\rm vert},S_{\rm vert},\psi_{\rm vert}) for ¯(JP,A)0,k+2\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}(J_{P},A) from (5.4.1) is regular over the open subset ¯(JP,A)0,k+2reg\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},A). Then the commutativity of (5.3) and (5.4), and the agreement of ShorS_{\rm hor} and τWhor\tau_{W_{\rm hor}}, follow from (5.9), and the compatibility of smooth structures, in particular, the assertion that ι:VvertregV\iota:V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to V is a smooth embedding, follows from the relative smoothing construction in Section 5.4.2. Because the map ι:VvertregV\iota:V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg}\to V covers the identity map on the complex manifold Bk+2,dB_{k+2,d}, and for each fiber over ρBk+2,d\rho\in B_{k+2,d}, a homotopy of the linearized Cauchy–Riemann operator of an element vVvertregv\in V_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} to a complex linear operator can be extended to such a homotopy viewing vVv\in V, the fact that we can choose WhorW_{\rm hor} to be a complex vector space implies that the embedding is compatible with the almost complex structures. This proves (2) and (3).

As for (4), the submersive property follows from a technical lemma of Abouzaid–McLean–Smith [AMS21, Lemma 4.5]. Indeed, for the projection (5.10), upon choosing a further stabilization of the chart VvertregV_{\rm vert}^{\rm reg} by the bundle

πP/BT(JB,A)0,k+2reg\pi_{P/B}^{*}T{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A)

which admits a GdG_{d}-invariant smooth structure, we can find a GdG_{d}-invariant smooth submersive extension of the map πP/B\pi_{P/B} to (JB,A)0,k+2reg{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A). The commutativity of the diagram follows from the construction. The differences between the restriction of KvertK_{\rm vert} to Vvert,qlregV_{{\rm vert},q_{l}}^{\rm reg} and the global Kuranishi chart arising from the proof of Proposition 3.1 are

  • the (approximations of) the coupling 22-forms,

  • the finite dimensional approximation scheme which regularizes the moduli spaces,

  • the Riemannian metrics required in the definition of the exponential maps on the base.

Up to equivalence of global Kuranishi chart, these differences can be removed again from the doubly framed curve construction (cf. [AMS21, Section 6.10] and [AMS23, Section 4.9]). Because of the isotopic uniqueness of stable smoothing, this finishes the proof. ∎

5.5. Sign comparison

5.5.1. Linearized operators

Here we show that the linearization of the nonlinear Cauchy–Riemann equation into the total space PP is “block upper-triangular.” Consider the fibration πP:PB\pi_{P}:P\to B. The Hamiltonian connection we have specified provides a decomposition

TPTvertPThorPTP\cong T^{\rm vert}P\oplus T^{\rm hor}P (5.11)

where TvertPTPT^{\rm vert}P\subset TP is a canonical subbundle and ThorPT^{\rm hor}P is isomorphic to the pullback πPTB\pi_{P}^{*}TB. Then, we can choose the almost complex structure JPJ_{P} to be the form

JP=JPvertπPJB.J_{P}=J_{P}^{\rm vert}\oplus\pi_{P}^{*}J_{B}.

To linearize the corresponding ¯\overline{\partial}-operator, one needs to specify a (complex-linear) connection on TPTP and a way to identify nearby maps (an exponential map); see details in [MS04, Section 3]. As the almost complex structure JPJ_{P} respects the splitting (5.11), one can choose a complex linear connection TP\nabla^{TP} of the form

TP:=TvertPπPTB.\nabla^{TP}:=\nabla^{T^{\rm vert}P}\oplus\pi_{P}^{*}\nabla^{TB}.

On the other hand, choose a Riemannian metric on PP of the form

gTP=gTvertPπPgTB.g^{TP}=g^{T^{\rm vert}P}\oplus\pi_{P}^{*}g^{TB}.

Given any point xPx\in P and ξTxP\xi\in T_{x}P, write ξ=ξvert+ξhor\xi=\xi^{\rm vert}+\xi^{\rm hor}. Then define

exp~xξ=expexpxvert(ξvert)(ξ^hor)\widetilde{\exp}_{x}\xi=\exp_{\exp_{x}^{\rm vert}(\xi^{\rm vert})}(\hat{\xi}^{\rm hor})

where expvert\exp^{\rm vert} is the fiberwise exponential map with respect to the fiberwise metric gTvertPg^{T^{\rm vert}P} and the vector ξ^hor\hat{\xi}^{\rm hor} is the image of ξhor\xi^{\rm hor} via the parallel transport along the path expxvert(tξvert)\exp_{x}^{\rm vert}(t\xi^{\rm vert}) with respect to the connection πPTB\pi_{P}^{*}\nabla^{TB}. Obviously, exp~x\widetilde{\exp}_{x} is a local diffeomorphism. One can see that both the connection and the exponential map preserve fibers. The connection and the exponential map induce the linearization of the Cauchy–Riemann operator. One can see the following lemma is true because the linearized Cauchy–Riemann operator is compatible with the connection.

Lemma 5.10.

Let u:ΣPu:\Sigma\to P be a smooth map. Then with respect to the horizontal-vertical decomposition (5.11), the linearized operator DuD_{u} is of the form

Du=[Duvert0Duhor].D_{u}=\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}D_{u}^{\rm vert}&*\\ 0&D_{u}^{\rm hor}\end{array}\right]. (5.12)

If we only deform in the fiber direction, then it is easy to see that the DuvertD_{u}^{\rm vert} coincides with the linearization of the equation for pseudoholomorphic graphs. Moreover, we can verify that the horizontal part is the same as the linearized operator on the base.

Lemma 5.11.

Denote u¯:=πPu:ΣB\underline{\smash{u}}:=\pi_{P}\circ u:\Sigma\to B and let Du¯:Γ(u¯TB)Ω0,1(u¯TB)D_{\underline{\smash{u}}}:\Gamma(\underline{\smash{u}}^{*}TB)\to\Omega^{0,1}(\underline{\smash{u}}^{*}TB) be the linearization corresponding coming from the JBJ_{B}-linear connection TB\nabla^{TB}. Then one has

Duhor=πPDu¯.D_{u}^{\rm hor}=\pi_{P}^{*}D_{\underline{\smash{u}}}.
Proof.

Let ξhor\xi^{\rm hor} be a vector field along uu taking values in ThorPT^{\rm hor}P. For t[0,1]t\in[0,1], let γ(z,t)=expu(z)(tξhor)\gamma(z,t)=\exp_{u(z)}(t\xi^{\rm hor}) be the family of maps from Σ\Sigma to PP. Let

Φt:Tγ(z,t)PTu(z)P\Phi_{t}:T_{\gamma(z,t)}P\to T_{u(z)}P

be the parallel transport along the curve γ(z,t)\gamma(z,t) with respect to the chosen connection TP\nabla^{TP}. Then by the definition of the linearized operator and the properties of the connection (and hence the associated parallel transport)

Duhor(ξhor)(DefinitionofDu)=ProjThorP(ddt|t=0Φt(¯JPγ(z,t)))(Φtiscomplexlinear)=(ProjThorP(ddt|t=0Φt(dzγ(z,t))))0,1(horizontalverticaldecomposition)=(ProjThorP(ddt|t=0Φt(dzhorγ(z,t)+dzvertγ(z,t))))0,1(Φtpreservesthedecomposition)=(ddt|t=0Φt(dzhorγ(z,t)))0,1(propertyofdzhor)=(ddt|t=0Φt(dz(expu¯(z)(tξhor)))hor)0,1(ThorP=πPTB)=Du¯(ξhor).\begin{split}&\ D_{u}^{\rm hor}(\xi^{\rm hor})\\ ({\rm Definition\ of\ }D_{u})\ =&\ {\rm Proj}_{T^{\rm hor}P}\left(\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi_{t}\left(\overline{\partial}_{J_{P}}\gamma(z,t)\right)\right)\\ (\Phi_{t}\ {\rm is\ complex\ linear})\ =&\ \left({\rm Proj}_{T^{\rm hor}P}\left(\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi_{t}(d_{z}\gamma(z,t))\right)\right)^{0,1}\\ ({\rm horizontal}-{\rm vertical\ decomposition})\ =&\ \left({\rm Proj}_{T^{\rm hor}P}\left(\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi_{t}(d_{z}^{\rm hor}\gamma(z,t)+d_{z}^{\rm vert}\gamma(z,t))\right)\right)^{0,1}\\ (\Phi_{t}\ {\rm preserves\ the\ decomposition})\ =&\ \left(\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi_{t}(d_{z}^{\rm hor}\gamma(z,t))\right)^{0,1}\\ ({\rm property\ of\ }d_{z}^{\rm hor})\ =&\ \left(\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\Phi_{t}\left(d_{z}(\exp_{\underline{\smash{u}}(z)}(t\xi^{\rm hor}))\right)^{\rm hor}\right)^{0,1}\\ (\nabla^{T^{\rm hor}P}=\pi_{P}^{*}\nabla^{TB})\ =&\ D_{\underline{\smash{u}}}(\xi^{\rm hor}).\end{split}

Here in the second last line, (dz(expu¯(z)(tξhor)))hor(d_{z}(\exp_{\underline{\smash{u}}(z)}(t\xi^{\rm hor})))^{\rm hor} is the horizontal lift. ∎

5.5.2. Sign verification

Now we turn to the sign verification. Abbreviate =(JB,A)0,k+2reg{\mathcal{M}}={\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{B},A) and ~=¯(JP,A~)0,k+2reg\tilde{\mathcal{M}}=\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,k+2}^{\rm reg}(J_{P},\tilde{A}). Identify the domain of the pseudocycles fi:WiBf_{i}:W_{i}\to B resp. f~i:W~iP\tilde{f}_{i}:\tilde{W}_{i}\to P with their images. Suppose

q~evP1(W~0×W~×i=1kW~i)~\tilde{q}\in{\rm ev}_{P}^{-1}\left(\tilde{W}_{0}\times\tilde{W}_{\infty}\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}\tilde{W}_{i}\right)\subset\tilde{\mathcal{M}}

which projects down to the points

qevB1({p0}×{p}×i=1kWi).q\in{\rm ev}_{B}^{-1}\left(\{p_{0}\}\times\{p_{\infty}\}\times\prod_{i=1}^{k}W_{i}\right)\subset{\mathcal{M}}.

If qq is represented by a smooth JBJ_{B}-holomorphic map u:S2Bu:S^{2}\to B with kk markings 𝐳{\bf z}, then q~\tilde{q} corresponds to an element in the graph moduli

~vert:=¯(uP,JP|uP,A~)0,2;𝐳graph.\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{\rm vert}:=\overline{\mathcal{M}}{}_{0,2;{\bf z}}^{\rm graph}(u^{*}P,J_{P}|_{u^{*}P},\tilde{A}).

To identify the signs, it suffices to consider the case that all moduli spaces are transverse. In this case, the tangent spaces are kernels of the corresponding linearized operators. Then by Lemma 5.10 and Lemma 5.11, there is a natural exact sequence

0Tq~~vertTq~~Tq0.\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\kern 5.5pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\kern 0.0pt\offinterlineskip\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&&&&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-5.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 29.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 29.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{\rm vert}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 86.3927pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 86.3927pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 133.62537pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 133.62537pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{q}{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces.

As the off-diagonal term in (5.12) can be turned off in a one-parameter family, one has a canonical orientation-preserving isomorphism

detTq~~detTq~~vertdetTq.\det T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\cong\det T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{\rm vert}\otimes\det T_{q}{\mathcal{M}}.

Furthermore, let us consider the differential of the evaluation maps which are isomorphisms onto corresponding normal spaces to the constraints, which are abbreviated using NN. Then there is a commutative diagram

0Tq~~vertDq~evvertTq~~Dq~evPTqDqevB00N~vertN~N0.\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\kern 5.5pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\kern 0.0pt\offinterlineskip\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&&&&\\&&&&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-5.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 29.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 29.5pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{\rm vert}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 86.3927pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 15.80647pt\raise-20.19444pt\hbox{{}\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-0.94722pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{D_{\tilde{q}}{\rm ev}^{\rm vert}}$}}}\kern 3.0pt}}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 45.94635pt\raise-28.44444pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 86.3927pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 133.62537pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 71.64554pt\raise-20.19444pt\hbox{{}\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-0.94722pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{D_{\tilde{q}}{\rm ev}_{P}}$}}}\kern 3.0pt}}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 98.00903pt\raise-30.16667pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 133.62537pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{T_{q}{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 146.17545pt\raise-20.19444pt\hbox{{}\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-1.57222pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{D_{q}{\rm ev}_{B}}$}}}\kern 3.0pt}}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 146.17545pt\raise-30.55559pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-5.5pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 35.33856pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 35.33856pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{N}^{\rm vert}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 92.23125pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 92.23125pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\tilde{N}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 138.61296pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 138.61296pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{N\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 182.72552pt\raise-40.3889pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{0}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces.

By taking determinants, one obtains a commutative diagram

detTq~~\textstyle{\det T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}det(Dq~evP)\scriptstyle{\det(D_{\tilde{q}}{\rm ev}_{P})}detN~\textstyle{\det\tilde{N}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}detTq~~vertdetTq\textstyle{\det T_{\tilde{q}}\tilde{\mathcal{M}}^{\rm vert}\otimes\det T_{q}{\mathcal{M}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}det(Dq~evvert)det(DqevB)\scriptstyle{\det(D_{\tilde{q}}{\rm ev}^{\rm vert})\otimes\det(D_{q}{\rm ev}_{B})}detN~vertdetN\textstyle{\det\tilde{N}^{\rm vert}\otimes\det N}

where vertical arrows are orientation preserving. Now the top horizontal arrow has a sign sign(q~){\rm sign}(\tilde{q}) contributing to the GW invariant of PP, the bottom arrow has a sign sign(q~vert)sign(q){\rm sign}(\tilde{q}^{\rm vert})\cdot{\rm sign}(q) with the factors contributing to the graph GW invariant and the GW invariant of the base. It follows that

sign(q~)=sign(q~vert)sign(q).{\rm sign}(\tilde{q})={\rm sign}(\tilde{q}^{\rm vert})\cdot{\rm sign}(q).

6. A fibration which does not split

The cohomological splitting stated in Theorem A and Corollary 1.2 potentially fails for certain characteristics, if we drop the the non-divisibility assumption on the Gromov–Witten invariant. Here we provide such an example.

Theorem 6.1.

There exists a smooth Fano variety BB (hence rationally connected) and a smooth projective family MPBM\hookrightarrow P\to B such that

H(P;𝔽2)H(B;𝔽2)H(M;𝔽2).H^{*}(P;{\mathbb{F}}_{2})\neq H^{*}(B;{\mathbb{F}}_{2})\otimes H^{*}(M;{\mathbb{F}}_{2}).

We first collect some relevant topological arguments from [Eke09].

Definition 6.2.

Let GG be a complex reductive Lie group. A topological space XnX_{n} is called an nn-th cohomological approximation of the classifying space BGBG if there is a map XnBGX_{n}\to BG inducing an isomorphism

Hj(BG;)Hj(Xn;)H^{j}(BG;{\mathbb{Z}})\to H^{j}(X_{n};{\mathbb{Z}})

for all jnj\leq n.

Following the argument of [Eke09, Proposition 2.1], one has the following non-splitting result.

Lemma 6.3.

Let GBorelGG_{\rm Borel}\subset G be a Borel subgroup and F:=G/GBorelF:=G/G_{\rm Borel} the flag variety. Suppose Hj(BG;)H^{j}(BG;{\mathbb{Z}}) has pp-torsion for some jj. Then for nn sufficiently large and any nn-th cohomological approximation XnX_{n} of BGBG, if PnXnP_{n}\to X_{n} is the pullback GG-bundle and Yn:=Pn×GFY_{n}:=P_{n}\times_{G}F, then

H(Yn;𝔽p)H(F;𝔽p)H(Xn;𝔽p).H^{*}(Y_{n};{\mathbb{F}}_{p})\neq H^{*}(F;{\mathbb{F}}_{p})\otimes H^{*}(X_{n};{\mathbb{F}}_{p}).
Proof.

Consider the universal FF-fibration Y:=EG×GFY_{\infty}:=EG\times_{G}F. When nn is sufficiently large, the natural map YnYY_{n}\to Y_{\infty} induces an isomorphism

Hj(Y;)Hj(Yn;).H^{j}(Y_{\infty};{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H^{j}(Y_{n};{\mathbb{Z}}).

On the other hand, let TGBorelT\subset G_{\rm Borel} be the maximal torus. One has

Y=EG×GFEG/GBorelBGBorelBTY_{\infty}=EG\times_{G}F\cong EG/G_{\rm Borel}\simeq BG_{\rm Borel}\simeq BT

whose cohomology is a polynomial algebra and has no torsion. However, Hj(Xn;)Hj(BG;)H^{j}(X_{n};{\mathbb{Z}})\cong H^{j}(BG;{\mathbb{Z}}) has pp-torsion. Hence

H(Yn;)H(F;)H(Xn;)H^{*}(Y_{n};{\mathbb{Z}})\neq H^{*}(F;{\mathbb{Z}})\otimes H^{*}(X_{n};{\mathbb{Z}})

as the right hand side has pp-torsion. The conclusion follows from the universal coefficients theorem. ∎

Proof of Theorem 6.1: Ottem–Rennemo [OR24] constructed a sequence of cohomological approximations of the classifying spaces for a reductive group G=GO(4)G=GO(4)^{\circ} by a sequence of smooth projective varieties XnX_{n} (see [OR24, Proposition 3.5]) with algebraic GG-bundles PnXnP_{n}\to X_{n}. Their computation ([OR24, Corollary 3.6]) shows H3(BG;)=/2H^{3}(BG;{\mathbb{Z}})={\mathbb{Z}}/2. On the other hand, by [OR24, Theorem 4.1], XnX_{n} is Fano. Forming the associated F=G/GBorelF=G/G_{\operatorname{Borel}} bundle gives a fibration YnXnY_{n}\to X_{n} with fiber the flag variety FF. To see that that YnY_{n} is projective, choose a GG-equivariant embedding F𝐏(𝕍)F\hookrightarrow\mathbf{P}(\mathbb{V}), where 𝕍\mathbb{V} is some linear representation of GG. The variety Zn:=𝐏(𝕍)×GPnZ_{n}:=\mathbf{P}(\mathbb{V})\times_{G}P_{n} is projective, since it is the projectivization of the vector bundle 𝕍×GPn\mathbb{V}\times_{G}P_{n} over XnX_{n} and the projectivization of any vector bundle over XnX_{n} is projective (over XnX_{n} and hence over \mathbb{C}) [Sta24, Tag 01W7]. The variety YnY_{n} is a closed subvariety of ZnZ_{n} and is thus also projective. Hence, this provides the example required by the statement of Theorem 6.1.

Remark 6.4.

We sketch an alternative construction of a fibration PBP\to B satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1. The base BB will be again be one of the smooth Fano varieties XnX_{n} from [OR24]. There is a non-trivial 1\mathbb{P}^{1}-bundle over XnX_{n} whose Brauer class represents the non-trivial element bH3(Xn,)b\in H^{3}(X_{n},\mathbb{Z}) (see [OR24, A.8]). Let hH2(1,)h\in H^{2}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{Z}) be the hyperplane class. It follows from the general theory of Brauer classes that on the E3E^{3} page of the Leray spectral sequence, we have

d3(h)=b.d^{3}(h)=b.

In particular, the spectral sequence fails to degenerate. This construction applies more generally to smooth rationally connected projective varieties with torsion in H3(Xn,)H^{3}(X_{n},\mathbb{Z}).

Appendix A Pseudocycles in characteristic pp

For semi-positive symplectic manifolds, Gromov–Witten invariants are defined via intersections of pseudocycles (see [RT95][MS04]). One can show that pseudocycles up to cobordism are in one-to-one correspondence with integral homology classes (see [Zin08]). Moreover, as intersection numbers are cobordism invariant, the Gromov–Witten invariants are functions of integral homology classes (modulo torsion).

We would like to consider the analogue of Zinger’s theorem in finite characteristic. The results are well-known to experts (cf. [Wil24]), and we include the discussion for completeness.

Definition A.1.

Let pp be a prime number. An oriented kk-dimensional pp-pseudocycle in a smooth manifold XX is a smooth map f:WXf:W\to X from a kk-dimensional oriented manifold with boundary WW to XX satisfying the following property:

  1. (1)

    f(W)f(W) is precompact in XX.

  2. (2)

    There is a pp-fold oriented covering WV\partial W\to V and a smooth map g:VXg:V\to X such that f|Wf|_{\partial W} is the pullback of gg.

  3. (3)

    The frontier is small. More precisely, the Ω\Omega-set of ff is

    Ωf:=KWcompactf(WK)¯.\Omega_{f}:=\bigcap_{K\subset W\ {\rm compact}}\overline{f(W\setminus K)}.

    We require that it has dimension at most k2k-2.

In particular, a pseudocycle is a pp-pseudocycle with W=\partial W=\emptyset.

Let ~k(p)(X)\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{(p)}(X) be the set of all oriented kk-dimensional pp-pseudocycles. It has the structure of an abelian group where the sum of two pp-pseudocycles is their disjoint union and the inverse of a pp-pseudocycle is the same map with domain orientation reversed.

Definition A.2.

Two oriented kk-dimensional pp-pseudocycles f0:W0Xf_{0}:W_{0}\to X, f1:W1Xf_{1}:W_{1}\to X are said to be pp-cobordant if there exists another smooth map g:VXg:V\to X from an oriented kk-dimensional manifold VV without boundary, a smooth map f~:W~X\tilde{f}:\tilde{W}\to X from an oriented k+1k+1-dimensional manifold W~\tilde{W} with boundary with

f~(W~)isprecompact,dimΩf~k1,\tilde{f}(\tilde{W})\ {\rm is\ precompact},\ {\rm dim}\Omega_{\tilde{f}}\leq k-1,

an oriented diffeomorphism

W~IntW0IntW1W\partial\tilde{W}\cong-{\rm Int}W_{0}\sqcup{\rm Int}W_{1}\sqcup W^{\prime}

where WW^{\prime} is a kk-dimensional manifold without boundary (having the induced orientation) such that the restriction of f~\tilde{f} to IntW0{\rm Int}W_{0} resp. IntW1{\rm Int}W_{1} coincides with f0f_{0} resp. f1f_{1}, and an oriented pp-fold covering WVW^{\prime}\to V such that f~|W\tilde{f}|_{W^{\prime}} is the pullback of gg.

One needs to do some simple modifications to make certain naive operations satisfy the above definition. For example, a pp-pseudocycle f:WXf:W\to X is pp-cobordant to itself. However, the naive map

f~:W×[0,1]X,f~(x,t)=f(x)\tilde{f}:W\times[0,1]\to X,\ \tilde{f}(x,t)=f(x)

is a pp-cobordism only after removing the corner W×{0,1}\partial W\times\{0,1\}.

It is clear that pp-cobordant is an equivalence relation and respect the additive structure. Let k(p)(X){\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{(p)}(X) be the set of pp-cobordant classes of pp-pseudocycles, which is an abelian group. As pp times of any pp-pseudocycle is pp-cobordant to the empty set via the empty pp-cobordism, k(p)(X){\mathcal{H}}_{k}^{(p)}(X) is indeed an 𝔽p{\mathbb{F}}_{p}-vector space.

Before we discuss the relation between pseudocycles and homology classes, we define the intersection pairing between pseudocycles in finite characteristic.

Let

f1:W1X,f2:W2Xf_{1}:W_{1}\to X,\ f_{2}:W_{2}\to X

be two oriented pp-pseudocycles in XX of complimentary dimensions. When they intersect transversely, meaning that f1(W1)¯f2(W2)¯=f1(IntW1)f2(IntW2)\overline{f_{1}(W_{1})}\cap\overline{f_{2}(W_{2})}=f_{1}({\rm Int}W_{1})\cap f_{2}({\rm Int}W_{2}) and the intersection is transverse, the signed count of intersection points, modulo pp, is defined to be the intersection number. One can see easily that this intersection number is invariant under pp-cobordism, provided that the pp-cobordism is in general position.

In addition, if f1:W1Xf_{1}:W_{1}\to X is pp-cobordant to the empty set via a pp-cobordism f~1:W~1X\tilde{f}_{1}:\tilde{W}_{1}\to X, and if f~1\tilde{f}_{1} and f2f_{2} are transverse, then f~1(W~1)f2(W2)\tilde{f}_{1}(\tilde{W}_{1})\cap f_{2}(W_{2}) is a compact oriented 1-dimensional manifold with boundary being

(f~1(W~1)f2(IntW2))(f~1(IntW~1)f2(W2)).\Big{(}\tilde{f}_{1}(\partial\tilde{W}_{1})\cap f_{2}({\rm Int}W_{2})\Big{)}\sqcup\Big{(}\tilde{f}_{1}({\rm Int}\tilde{W}_{1})\cap f_{2}(\partial W_{2})\Big{)}.

Besides the intersection f1(IntW1)f2(IntW2)f_{1}({\rm Int}W_{1})\cap f_{2}({\rm Int}W_{2}), other boundary intersections contribute to a multiple of pp.

In general, if relevant intersections are not transverse, then one can perturb via ambient diffeomorphisms to achieve transversality. This allows us to define intersection numbers between any pair of pp-pseudocycles of complementary dimensions and prove the independence of the choice of perturbations, as all nearby diffeomorphisms are homotopic. Therefore, we have defined a bilinear pairing

(p)(X)(p)(X)𝔽p{\mathcal{H}}^{(p)}(X)\otimes{\mathcal{H}}^{(p)}(X)\to{\mathbb{F}}_{p}

Next we will define the map from homology to pseudocycles. Recall that one also has an abelian group k(X){\mathcal{H}}_{k}(X) of genuine kk-dimensinoal pseudocycles up to genuine cobordism. There is an obvious group homomorphism

(X)(p)(X).{\mathcal{H}}_{*}(X)\to{\mathcal{H}}_{*}^{(p)}(X).

Zinger [Zin08] constructed a natural isomorphism

Φ:H(X;)(X).\Phi_{*}:H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})\cong{\mathcal{H}}_{*}(X).
Theorem A.3.

There is a natural map

Φ(p):H(X;𝔽p)(p)(X)\Phi^{(p)}_{*}:H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{F}}_{p})\to{\mathcal{H}}_{*}^{(p)}(X)

satisfying the following conditions.

  1. (1)

    The following diagram commutes.

    H(X;)\textstyle{H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{Z}})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Φ\scriptstyle{\Phi_{*}}(X)\textstyle{{\mathcal{H}}_{*}(X)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}H(X;𝔽p)\textstyle{H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{F}}_{p})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Φ(p)\scriptstyle{\Phi_{*}^{(p)}}(p)(X)\textstyle{{\mathcal{H}}_{*}^{(p)}(X)} (A.1)
  2. (2)

    Suppose a homology class aH(X;𝔽p)a\in H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{F}}_{p}) is represented by a smooth cycle f:WXf:W\to X where WW is a compact oriented manifold with boundary such that f|Wf|_{\partial W} is a pp-fold oriented covering of a map g:VXg:V\to X from a compact oriented manifold VV without boundary; in particular, ff is a pp-pseudocycle. Then Φ(p)(a)\Phi_{*}^{(p)}(a) is represented by ff.

  3. (3)

    The map Φ(p)\Phi_{*}^{(p)} intertwines the Poincaré pairing on H(X;𝔽p)H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{F}}_{p}) with the intersection pairing on (p)(X){\mathcal{H}}_{*}^{(p)}(X).

Proof.

For the purpose of this paper, we do not need to show that Φ(p)\Phi_{*}^{(p)} is invertible. We just need to consider the case that p>2p>2 as it is known that for p=2p=2 any homology class can be represented by a closed submanifold (see, e.g., [BH81, Theorem B])

We follow the same approach as Zinger [Zin08]. Consider the complex of singular chains with 𝔽p{\mathbb{F}}_{p}-coefficients. A homology class in 𝔽p{\mathbb{F}}_{p} coefficients is represented by a singular cycle

C=i=1NaihiC=\sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{i}h_{i}

where ai𝔽pa_{i}\in{\mathbb{F}}_{p} and hi:ΔkXh_{i}:\Delta_{k}\to X is a continuous map from the kk-simplex Δk\Delta_{k}. We can always choose the representative such that each hih_{i} is smooth. Let δj(hi)\delta^{j}(h_{i}) be the jj-th face of hih_{i}, which is a k1k-1-simplex. Moreover, let a~i{1,,p1}\tilde{a}_{i}\in\{1,\ldots,p-1\} be a lift of aia_{i} in {\mathbb{Z}}. For any smooth map g:Δk1Xg:\Delta_{k-1}\to X which may appear as a face of hih_{i}, consider

Δi,g±(C)={j|δj(hi)=±g}\Delta_{i,g}^{\pm}(C)=\Big{\{}j\ |\delta^{j}(h_{i})=\pm g\Big{\}}

and

Δg±(C)=i=1N(Δi,g±(C)Δi,g±(C)a~i)\Delta_{g}^{\pm}(C)=\bigcup_{i=1}^{N}\left(\underbrace{\Delta_{i,g}^{\pm}(C)\sqcup\cdots\sqcup\Delta_{i,g}^{\pm}(C)}_{\tilde{a}_{i}}\right)

Then since CC is a cycle, one has

#Δg+(C)#Δg(C)p.\#\Delta_{g}^{+}(C)-\#\Delta_{g}^{-}(C)\in p{\mathbb{Z}}.

Without loss of generality, assume #Δg+(C)#Δg(C)\#\Delta_{g}^{+}(C)\geq\#\Delta_{g}^{-}(C). Then choose an injection Δg(C)Δg+(C)\Delta_{g}^{-}(C)\hookrightarrow\Delta_{g}^{+}(C) and glue the corresponding (interior of) faces, and removing all codimension two or higher facets from the simplexes, one obtains a topological kk-manifold with boundary N(C)N(C) together with a map f:N(C)Xf:N(C)\to X. Notice that the boundary of N(C)N(C) can be identified as pp copies of a manifold. If we fix a certain standard way of gluing standard kk-simplexes along a face, N(C)N(C) is then equipped with a canonical smooth structure. One can perturb f:N(C)Xf:N(C)\to X to a smooth map, and hence a smooth pp-pseudocycle. The cobordism class of the pseudocycle ff is independent of the choice of the perturbation.

On the other hand, by using the same method as Zinger [Zin08, Lemma 3.3], one can show that two homologous cycles induce cobordant pp-pseudocycles. The details are left to the reader. Hence we have constructed the map

Φ(p):H(X;𝔽p)(p)(X).\Phi_{*}^{(p)}:H_{*}(X;{\mathbb{F}}_{p})\to{\mathcal{H}}_{*}^{(p)}(X).

It is easy to see that this is an 𝔽p{\mathbb{F}}_{p}-linear map making the diagram (A.1) commutative and satisfying (2) of Theorem A.3. Moreover, by comparing the definition of the Poincaré pairing (which is essentially counting transverse intersections of cycles) and the intersection pairing, (3) of Theorem A.3 is also true. ∎

References

  • [AB24] Mohammed Abouzaid and Andrew Blumberg, Foundation of Floer homotopy theory I: flow categories, http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03193, 2024.
  • [AMS21] Mohammed Abouzaid, Mark McLean, and Ivan Smith, Complex cobordism, Hamiltonian loops and global Kuranishi charts, http://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14320, 2021.
  • [AMS23] by same author, Gromov–Witten invariants in complex-oriented cohomology theories, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.01883, 2023.
  • [Baa70] Nils Andreas Baas, Bordism theories with singularities, Proceedings of the Advanced Study Institute on Algebraic Topology (Aarhus Univ., Aarhus, 1970), Vol. I, Various Publications Series, vol. No. 13, Aarhus Univ., Aarhus, 1970, pp. 1–16.
  • [BGS88] Jean-Michel Bismut, Henri Gillet, and Christophe Soulé, Analytic torsion and holomorphic determinant bundles. II. direct images and Bott–Chern forms, Communications in Mathematical Physics 115 (1988), 79–126.
  • [BH81] Sandro Buoncristiano and Derek Hacon, An elementary geometric proof of two theorems of Thom, Topology 20 (1981), 97–99.
  • [Bla56] André Blanchard, Sur les variétés analytiques complexes, Annales scientifiques de ENS (1956), no. 2, 157–202.
  • [BP24] Shaoyun Bai and Daniel Pomerleano, Equivariant formality in complex-oriented theories, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.05821, 2024.
  • [BX22a] Shaoyun Bai and Guangbo Xu, Arnold conjecture over integers, http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08599, 2022.
  • [BX22b] by same author, An integral Euler cycle in normally complex orbifolds and \mathbb{Z}-valued Gromov–Witten type invariants, https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02688, 2022.
  • [BX24] by same author, Integral Hamiltonian Floer theory, Upcoming, 2024.
  • [Cam92] Frédéric Campana, Connexité rationnelle des variétés de Fano, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 25 (1992), no. 5, 539–545.
  • [Del68] P. Deligne, Théorème de Lefschetz et critères de dégénérescence de suites spectrales, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1968), no. 35, 259–278. MR 244265
  • [Eke09] Torsten Ekedahl, Approximating classifying spaces by smooth projective varieties, http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1538, 2009.
  • [FO97] Kenji Fukaya and Kaoru Ono, Floer homology and Gromov–Witten invariant over integer of general symplectic manifolds - summary -, Proceeding of the Last Taniguchi Conference, 1997.
  • [GHS03] Tom Graber, Joe Harris, and Jason Starr, Families of rationally connected varieties, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), no. 1, 57–67.
  • [Har01] Joe Harris, Lectures on rationally connected varieties, avalaible at: https://mat.uab.cat/ kock/RLN/rcv.pdf, 2001.
  • [Hir64] Heisuke Hironaka, Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero: I, Annals of Mathematics 71 (1964), no. 1, 109–203.
  • [HS22] Amanda Hirschi and Mohan Swaminathan, Global Kuranishi charts and a product formula in symplectic Gromov–Witten theory, https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.11797, 2022.
  • [Hu19] Jianxun Hu, Gromov-Witten invariants and rationally connectedness, Gromov-Witten theory, gauge theory and dualities, Proc. Centre Math. Appl. Austral. Nat. Univ., vol. 48, Austral. Nat. Univ., Canberra, 2019, p. 23.
  • [Hyv12] Clément Hyvrier, A product formula for Gromov-Witten invariants, J. Symplectic Geom. 10 (2012), no. 2, 247–324.
  • [KMM92] János Kollár, Yoichi Miyaoka, and Shigefumi Mori, Rational connectedness and boundedness of Fano manifolds, Journal of Differential Geometry 36 (1992), no. 3, 765–779.
  • [Kol98] János Kollár, Low degree polynomial equations: arithmetic, geometry and topology, European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. I (Budapest, 1996), Progr. Math., vol. 168, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998, pp. 255–288.
  • [Kol01] by same author, Which are the simplest algebraic varieties?, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 38 (2001), no. 4, 409–433. MR 1848255
  • [Las79] Richard Lashof, Stable G{G}-smoothing, Algebraic Topology Waterloo 1978, Springer, 1979, pp. 283–306.
  • [LM03] François Lalonde and Dusa McDuff, Symplectic structures on fiber bundles, Topology 42 (2003), no. 2, 309–347.
  • [LMP99] François Lalonde, Dusa McDuff, and Leonid Polterovich, Topological rigidity of Hamiltonian loops and quantum homology, Inventiones Mathematicae 135 (1999), no. 2, 369–385.
  • [McD00] Dusa McDuff, Quantum homology of fibrations over S2S^{2}, Internat. J. Math. 11 (2000), no. 5, 665–721.
  • [Mil64] John Milnor, Microbundles Part I, Topology 3 (1964), no. Suppl. 1, 53–80.
  • [MS98] Dusa McDuff and Dietmar Salamon, Introduction to symplectic topology, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.
  • [MS04] by same author, J{J}-holomorphic curves and symplectic topology, Colloquium Publications, vol. 52, American Mathematical Society, 2004.
  • [OR24] John Ottem and Jørgen Rennemo, Fano varieties with torsion in the third cohomology group (appendix by jános) kollár, Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) (2024), no. 0.
  • [Par13] Brett Parker, Integral counts of pseudo-holomorphic curves, arXiv: 1309.0585, 2013.
  • [Par21] John Pardon, Orbifold bordism and duality for finite orbispectra, Geom. Topol. (to appear) (2021), 1–74.
  • [RT95] Yongbin Ruan and Gang Tian, A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology, Journal of Differential Geometry 42 (1995), 259–367.
  • [Sch99] Matthias Schwarz, Equivalences for Morse homology, Contemporary Mathematics (1999).
  • [Sei97] P. Seidel, π1\pi_{1} of symplectic automorphism groups and invertibles in quantum homology rings, Geom. Funct. Anal. 7 (1997), no. 6, 1046–1095.
  • [Sta24] The Stacks project authors, The stacks project, https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2024.
  • [Tia12] Zhiyu Tian, Symplectic geometry of rationally connected threefolds, Duke Math. J. 161 (2012), no. 5, 803–843.
  • [Tia15] by same author, Symplectic geometry and rationally connected 4-folds, J. Reine Angew. Math. 698 (2015), 221–244.
  • [Voi08] Claire Voisin, Rationally connected 3-folds and symplectic geometry, Astérisque (2008), no. 322, 1–21, Géométrie différentielle, physique mathématique, mathématiques et société. II.
  • [Weh12] Katrin Wehrheim, Smooth structures on Morse trajectory spaces, featuring finite ends and associative gluing, Proceedings of the Freedman Fest, Geometry & Topology Monographs, vol. 18, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 2012, pp. 369–450.
  • [Wil24] Nicholas Wilkins, A survey of equivariant operations on quantum cohomology for symplectic manifolds, https://sites.google.com/site/nwilkinsmaths/a-survey-of-equivariant-quantum-operations?authuser=0, 2024.
  • [Zin08] Aleksey Zinger, Pseudocycles and integral homology, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 360 (2008), 2741–2765.