harvmac ‘@=11 \#1

\#1\#2

0=0-\#1

-0to0[0]{}

\#1

=ł=Ł=ø=Ø=¶=§==c=i===[1.5pt]{} ==============i====ł=Ł=====¶========§=========

======= == ====\#1\#1 \#1\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3[[\^2\#1\#2\#3]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[[\^3\#1\#2\#3\#4]{}]{} =cmr8 (\#1)[\#1]{} \#1[0= -.025em0-0 .05em0-0 -.025em.0433em0]{} \#1[\#1|]{} \#1[| \#1]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1[|\#1|]{} \#1["7017[\#1]{} 23\#1]{} \#1\#2[[\^[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1\#2[[\_[\#1]{}]{}]{} \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1 @b@x \#1[@b@x= ]{} \#1[@b@x= ]{} \#1\#2[[\#1\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2[ $\frac{#1}{#2}$]{} \#1 plus 1000pt minus 1000pt \#1 \#1[= to]{} \#1[= to]{} =cmss10 =cmss10 at 7pt

=cmr10 scaled \#1 \#1[\^[\#1]{}$^{#1}$]{} \#1[\^[\#1]{}${\rm P}^{#1}$]{} \#1\#2[\^[\#1]{}\_[\#2]{}$^{#1}_{#2}$]{} \#1\#2[ ]{} \#1 \#1\#2 \#1\#2[H\^[\#1]{}([M]{},[\#2]{}) $H^{#1}({\cal M},{#2})$]{} \#1[\^[\#1]{}$^{#1}$]{} \#1[\^[\#1]{}$\IC{\rm P}^{#1}$]{} \#1 ====

\#1[[*ibid.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*J.Phys.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Z.Physik*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys.Rev.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Nucl.Phys.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys.Lett.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys.Rep.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1 University report*]{}]{} \#1[[*University of \#1 report*]{}]{} \#1[[*J.Math.Phys*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Ann.Phys.(N.Y.)*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Rev.Mod.Phys.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Mod.Phys.Lett.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{}

‘@=12 \#1[8mu([mod]{}\#1)]{}

\#1

=13.6 pt plus 2pt minus1pt

=-40pt

Classical [*vs.*]{} Landau-Ginzburg

Geometry of Compactification

=0

Per Berglund

-.2ex

*Theory Division, CERN*

-.4ex

*CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland*

-.4ex

and

-.4ex

*Theory Group, Physics Department*

-.4ex

*University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712*

.1in

Brian R. Greene

-.2ex

*Physics Department, Cornell University*

-.4ex

*Ithaca, NY 14853*

0ex .05in

and

.05in

Tristan Hübsch[^1] [On leave from Institute “Rudjer Bošković”, Zagreb, Croatia.]{}

-.2ex

*Departments of Mathematics and Physics*

-.4ex

*Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138*

-.4ex

ABSTRACT

.8ex

Much work has been expended over the last few years on understanding the geometrical content and interpretation of conformal field theories, motivated largely by the equivalence of the latter structure with static classical string vacua. This has yielded a satisfying and to some extent unexpectedly close connection between geometrical and conformal field theoretical constructs. In the present paper we examine one perhaps somewhat technical aspect of this fruitful correspondence.

In particular, we examine the physical manifestation of a well known mathematical possibility initially studied in the context of string compactifications in Ref. : situations exist for which there are obstructions to faithfully representing all elements of the $(2,1)$-cohomology group of a  manifold via polynomial deformations. If such a Calabi-Yau manifold has a Landau-Ginzburg interpretation this means that not all of the chiral primary fields on the manifold are to be found in the (untwisted) chiral ring ${\cal
R} \subset P[X_i]/\Im$ where $P[X_i]$ is the ring of polynomials in $X_i$ and $\Im$ is the ideal generated by the gradients of the Landau-Ginzburg superpotential. This is no surprise as we know that such Calabi-Yau manifolds are related to [*orbifolds*]{} of Landau-Ginzburg theories  and hence the conformal theory has twisted sectors in addition to the Jacobian ring mentioned above. On general grounds, the correspondence between Calabi-Yau manifolds and Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds assures us that, in the end, these twisted sectors will account for the missing cohomology. This is somewhat reminiscent of what happens in the study of singular Calabi-Yau spaces such as toroidal orbifolds in which ‘blow-up modes’ in twisted sectors of the conformal field theory account for the additional cohomology associated with the resolution of singularities. In the present case, however, we are dealing with twisted cohomology arising from cohomological obstructions in the context of [*smooth*]{} manifolds.

Our intent here is to go beyond the by now universally accepted belief that the mathematical and physical analyses converge to the same answer, and determine to what extent the detailed structure of graded twisted sectors in conformal theories finds expression in the mathematical machinery of exact and spectral sequences. We find a remarkably close parallel between the ‘mathematical’ and ‘physical’ descriptions which gives rise to a canonical map between the two. In fact, a natural and isomorphic ring structure may be imposed on the elements in each formulation . Furthermore, our Koszul complex calculations are seen to provide the direct mathematical version of the analysis of Intrilligator and Vafa , who used spectral flow to find explicit representatives for the modes in  models. In essence, then, we gain new insight into the mathematical significance of twisted sectors in conformal field theory. Simultaneously, the success of our comparison shows that a careful analysis of the point-field limit continues to reveal surprisingly many details of the stringy theory. We also briefly emphasize the [*presentation*]{} dependence of whether a particular mode arises from a twisted or an untwisted sector. Namely, a given abstract Calabi-Yau manifold can be realized as embedded in different ambient projective spaces, being cut out by different sets of defining equations. Although the manifolds being described are isomorphic, twisted modes in one presentation can arise as untwisted modes in the other, and vice versa. We explicitly illustrate this phenomenon.

In particular, we show : [**1.**]{} the  analysis copes gracefully with the situations in which the na"ve polynomial deformations are ineffective : all extra states and reparametrizations show up in the twisted sectors; [**2.**]{} the grading in the particle spectrum provided by the twisting in the  analysis is recovered in the geometric analysis and provides analogous selection rules; [**3.**]{} the above provides a natural correspondence between all elements of the $(c,c)$ and $(a,c)$ rings obtained via the spectral flow arguments of Refs.  and the cohomology elements obtained as particular tensor fields in the Koszul complex formalism.

One further point of interest has to do with the mathematical approach , to understanding the mirror manifold constructions of Ref. . This approach is firmly rooted in having an explicit understanding of the cohomology of a given example in terms of polynomial representatives. The brief study presented here together with Refs.  indicates that numerous theories, in which na"ve polynomial deformation methods fail, submit to a generalized polynomial representation. This may well be helpful in extending the methods of Ref.  beyond the limited class to which it presently applies.

Rather than burying ourselves in the notational complexity of the general case, we present a rather non-trivial model which exhibits all of the essential features common to examples of this sort. We proceed as follows. In section 2, we present the charged matter and moduli sector of a rather non-trivial model from both the classical geometry and the  point of view. To save some space, we refer the reader to Refs.  for the  analysis and to Refs.  for the computational techniques of classical geometry. In section 3, we describe the geometry of the , aiming to explain the high degree of agreement which we find. Finally, in section 4, we discuss the present results and comment on some related issues.

As a representative example, consider the  manifold where $x,y,z$ are homogeneous coordinates on the space $\CP3 \times
\CP2 \times \CP1$; in the [*configuration matrix*]{} notation above, it is represented by the left most ‘bra’-like column listing the dimensions. The ‘ket’-like degree matrix to the right of ‘$\|$’ represents the constraints : the first column for $f(x)$, a cubic in 3, the second column for $g(x,y)$—of bi-degree (1,2) in $\CP3
\times \CP2$ and the third column for $h(y,z)$—of bi-degree (1,2) in $\CP2 \times \CP1$. Clearly, the coefficient tensor $f_{abc}$ is totally symmetric, $g_{a\,\b\g} = g_{a\,\g\b}$ and $h_{\a\,rs} =
h_{\a\,sr}$. From Ref. , we have that $\EU=-48$, $b_{1,1}=9$ and so $b_{2,1}=33$.

Polynomial deformations are easily checked to parametrize only 24 of the [**27**]{}’s and the three Kähler forms of 3, 2 and 1 span only one third of the [**27**]{}’s. We therefore expect some higher forms to represent both the nine missing [**27**]{}’s and the six missing [**27**]{}’s.

As mentioned above, the cohomology of the  manifolds is obtained using the Koszul complex and the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem, which relies on the fact that It follows that all homogeneous bundles over are specified by $U(1) \times U(n)$ representations while all cohomology on is specified by $U(n{+}1)$ representations. This then implies that harmonic forms on $\cal M$, and thus the [**27**]{}’s and [**27**]{}’s, correspond to certain [*components*]{} of $U(4) \times U(3) \times
U(2)$ tensors, as listed below. For details of this technique see Refs. . Notation : we use indices $a,b,\ldots$ for $U(4)$, $\a,\b,\ldots$ for $U(3)$ and $r,s,\ldots$ for $U(2)$; so for example $\f^{(ab)}$ is a totally symmetric rank-2 contra-variant $U(4)$-tensor; note that contra- and co-variant (upper and lower) indices must be distinguished.

Upon the straightforward calculation (following Refs. ), we obtain that the [**27**]{}’s are parametrized by $J_x$, $J_y$, $J_z$, (the pullbacks of) the three Kähler classes from 3, 2 and 1 and the six tensor components As for the [**27**]{}’s, the Koszul complex computation represents as The variables $\l_a{}^b$, $\l_\a{}^\b$, $\l_r{}^s$ and $\l^\a$ are ‘reparametrization’ degrees of freedom which can be used to ‘gauge away’ 16, 9, 4 and 3 components, respectively. Given our choice of $f_{abc}$, $g_{a\,\b\g}$ and $h_{\a\,rs}$ in , a convenient basis is provided by the following 33 tensor components Contracting with $x$’s, $y$’s and $z$’s, the above representatives are dual to the monomials As the complementary factor in the holomorphic part of the total volume form, $\ve^{01} \sim (z\rd z)$ is dual to $(x\rd^3x)(y\rd^2y)$.

The first $24$ representatives are the usual polynomial deformations. The last nine and also the six ones in , however, arrive as elements of higher cohomology groups.

We now consider the superpotential corresponding to the system . We check that the origin in the field-space is the only critical point and that the central charge is $c=9$, since $q(X_a) = q(Y_\a) = q(Z_r) = \inv3$. Also, the non-vanishing of which guarantees the existence of the highest weight field in the superconformal field theory into which the  renormalizes.

We now analyze the spectrum of light charged matter fields following Refs. . We will need the general formula for the charges of the Ramond vacuum in the $\ell^{th}$ twisted sector : where $\Q_i(\ell)$ is the twisting angle of the $i^{th}$ field in the $\ell^{th}$ sector. The matching $\big|0\big\rangle^{(\ell)}_{(c,c)}$ and $\big|0\big\rangle^{(\ell+1)}_{(a,c)}$ vacua are obtained by spectral flows ${\cal U}_{(1/2,1/2)}$ and ${\cal U}_{(-1/2,1/2)}$, of charges $({3\over2},{3\over2})$ and $(-{3\over2},{3\over2})$, respectively; note the $\ell\to\ell+1$ shift in the ${\rm
Ramond}\to(a,c)$ flow.

As in Ref. , we can find a holomorphic transformation with constant Jacobian to identify the necessary $\ZZ_n$-twist. Since all fields scale with $q=\inv3$, a $\ZZ_3$-twisting would seem appropriate. In fact however, one must twist by a $\ZZ_{12}$ which can be found by a careful analysis as was done in Ref. ; in section 3, we will give a coordinate-independent and general definition of this twist group. Suffice it here that we need the $\ZZ_{12}$ identification for the Landau-Ginzburg model to correspond to the  manifold $\cal M$. To distinguish from the scaling charges $q_x=q_y=q_z=\inv3$, we will write $\q_x=\inv3$, $\q_y={5\over6}$ and $\q_z=\inv{12}$. We also record $n_x=n_y=n_z=1$ and $d=3$ and that now $\Q_a(\ell)=\ell q_x$, but $\Q_\a(\ell) = \ell\q_y \ne\ell q_y$ and $\Q_r(\ell) = \ell\q_z
\ne\ell q_z$.

[**The untwisted sector**]{}:  From Eq. , we have that the left-moving and right-moving $U(1)$ charges of the untwisted Ramond vacuum are $J_0
\big|0\big\rangle^{(0)}_R = \Jb_0 \big|0\big\rangle^{(0)}_R = -{3\over2}
\big|0\big\rangle^{(0)}_R$. Spectral-flowing to the N.S. sector, we get a charge-(0,0) $(c,c)$ vacuum. All fields have classical solutions and we list explicit representatives from To obtain states of $(J_0,\Jb_0)$-charge (1,1) from the untwisted charge-(0,0) vacuum, we need elements from $(X \oplus Y \oplus
Z)^{\otimes3}$. Requiring also integrality of the total $\Q$-twist then leaves These 24 representatives match [*state-by-state*]{} the first 24 representatives from , the polynomial deformations.

[**The twisted sectors**]{}: For $\ell=1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11$, no field is left invariant under the $\Q$-twist and there are only the twisted vacua in these sectors. The $\ell=2,7,11$ yield charge-($-1,1$) $(a,c)$-states which we identify with (linear combinations of) $J_x$, $J_y$ and $J_z$. For $\ell=3$, the $\Jb_0$-charge of the $(c,c)$- and $(a,c)$-vacuum is ${4\over3}$ and is too high to produce marginal $(c,c)$- or $(a,c)$-states.

In the sector $\ell=6$, the $X_a$’s and the $Y_\a$’s are left invariant and so have classical solutions. The $J_0$- and $\Jb_0$-charges of the Ramond vacuum are both $-{7\over6}$, yielding a $(J_0,\Jb_0)$ charge-$(\inv3,\inv3)$ vacuum. Clearly, we need fields from $(X \oplus Y)^{\otimes2}$ to create marginal $(c,c)$-states. Using Eq.  replacing however $q_i
\to \q_i$, we find both the left and the right $\ZZ_{12}$-twist of the $\ell=6$ Ramond vacuum to be 3, giving rise to $\Q
\big|0\big\rangle^{(6)}_{(c,c)} = \bar{\Q}
\big|0\big\rangle^{(6)}_{(c,c)} = {11\over6}
\big|0\big\rangle^{(6)}_{(c,c)}$. For marginal $(c,c)$-states of integral $\ZZ_{12}$-twist, we can therefore use only These nine states are in precise state-by-state correspondence to the nine additional contributions in . Furthermore, $\Q((x\rd^3x)(y\rd^2y)) = {23\over6}$, which is indeed congruent, modulo integers, to the $\Q$-charge of the $\ell=6$ twisted $(c,c)$-vacuum. Thus, $\ve^{01}\big|0\big\rangle^{(0)}_{(c,c)} \sim
\big|0\big\rangle^{(6)}_{(c,c)}$, that is, $\ve^{01}$ acts as the $\ell=6$ twist-field.

Finally, the Ramond vacuum in the $\ell=9$ twisted sector has $(J_0,\Jb_0)$-charges $(-\inv6,-{7\over6})$, yielding a charge-$(-{5\over3},\inv3)$ $(a,c)$-vacuum. Again, we need quadratic fields to produce marginal $(a,c)$-states. The $(\Q,\bar{\Q})$-twists now coincide with the $(J_0,\Jb_0)$-charges and we easily list The six additional tensors in  all feature $\ve^{0123} \sim (x\rd^3x)$. Now, indeed, $\Q(x\rd^3x) = {4\over3}
\id \inv3 \pmod{\ZZ}$, in accord with our identification : $\ve^{0123}\big|0\big\rangle^{(0)}_{(c,c)} \sim
\big|0\big\rangle^{(9)}_{(c,c)}$, that is, $\ve^{0123}$ acts as the $\ell=9$ twist-field.

The upshot of this discussion is that the $\ve$ factors [*formally*]{} act as twist fields, creating the twisted vacua from the untwisted one. Their twist charge, computed from their dual monomial representation, precisely equals the charge of the associated twisted vacuum. Thus, we have a direct correspondence between these conformal field theoretic twisted sectors and the higher cohomology elements which account for the obstructions to polynomial deformation analysis. Determining the precise details of this relation between the $\ve$ factors and the twist fields of superconformal field theory appears worthwhile, but we defer this to future work. Suffice it here to note that the ‘mathematical’ and ‘physical’ analyses, although vastly different in origin, present precisely isomorphic data.

The reader might have been lulled into believing that the untwisted sector of a  is synonymous to polynomial deformations in classical geometry, whereas the twisted $(c,c)$-states give rise to “higher” deformations of the complex structure and of course, to the Kähler variations in the $(a,c)$-sector. Rather than appeal to general arguments why this need not be the case, we suggest analyzing the superpotential which corresponds to The erudite reader may have noticed that this is an “ineffective split”  of the previous model, $\cal M$, where the ‘ineffective split’ means that although the ambient space has been enlarged and the set of defining equations altered, nevertheless ${\cal Y} = {\cal M}$.

The matter spectrum now contains the untwisted charge-$(1,1)$ states (with suitable restrictions on the indices) a single $\ell=6$ charge-$(1,1)$ state, $\{ Y_2 \}_1$, and nine twisted charge-$(-1,1)$ states : Of these, the first 23 in  are realized as polynomial deformations. The remaining nine untwisted and the one twisted charge-$(1,1)$ modulus cannot be realized as a deformation of the embedding ${\cal Y} \into \CP3 \times \CP2 \times \CP1_z \times
\CP1_v$ although, of course, all 33 charge-$(1,1)$ moduli correspond to independent deformations of the complex structure.

The Koszul complex computation again lists the last nine untwisted charge-$(1,1)$ moduli as stemming from higher cohomology and they are of the form In fact, comparison with the results for $\cal M$ shows that $(Z_0
Z_1)$ plays the rôle of a twist field. That is, which agrees with the respective charges and $\ZZ_{12}$-twists (modulo $\ZZ$, of course).

The main utility of this phenomenon lies in the possibility to represent the twisted $(c,c)$-moduli of the  $\cal M$ as untwisted moduli of the “ineffectively split” variant thereof, $\cal Y$, at the expense of one untwisted $(c,c)$-modulus of $\cal M$ which becomes twisted in $\cal Y$. Since untwisted fields can be added to the superpotential to deform the complex structure, we may study such deformations by examining the effect of even though the last nine terms do not represent conventional polynomial deformations.

The diligent reader will have noticed a possible embarrassment in identifying the classical model based on the manifold  and the  with the superpotential . In both cases, the states are described as certain polynomials modulo some ideal. In general, the generators of the ideal are rather different in the two approaches as soon as there is more than one constraint and this calls for a closer look.

On one hand, the states in the  analysis are polynomials in those superfields which satisfy the twist conditions for the particular twisted sector, taken however modulo the ideal generated by the gradients of the superpotential.

On the other hand, the quotients in  involve the ideal generated by $\vd f(x)$, $\vd g(x,y)$ and $\vd h(y,z)$. To see this, simply note that $$\eqalignno{
  f_{d(ab} \l_{c)}{}^d\cdot x^a\, x^b\, x^c
 &= \l^a(x)\,\vd_a f(x)~,\qquad\hskip3.7mm
           \l^a(x) = \l_b{}^a\, x^b~,               & \eXXX a \cr
  g_{d\,\b\g} \l_{a}{}^d\cdot x^a\, y^\b\, y^\g
 &= \l^a(x)\,\vd_a g(x,y)~,                         & \eXXX b \cr
  g_{a\,\d(\b} \l_{\g)}{}^\d\cdot x^a\, y^\b\, y^\g
 &= \l^\a(y)\,\vd_\a g(x,y)~,\qquad
           \l^\a(y) = \l_\b{}^\a\, y^\b~,           & \eXXX c \cr
  h_{\b\,rs} \l_{\a}{}^\b\cdot y^\a\, z^r\, z^s
 &= \l^\a(y)\,\vd_\a h(y,z)~,                       & \eXXX d \cr
  h_{\a\,t(r} \l_{s)}{}^t\cdot y^\a\, z^r\, z^s
 &= \l^r(z)\,\vd_r h(y,z)~,\qquad
     \l^r(z) = \l_s{}^r\, z^s~.                     & \eXXX e \cr}$$ Clearly, $\l^a(x)$, $\l^\a(y)$ and $\l^r(z)$ span linear reparametrizations. This would seem to imply that all fields proportional to $\vd f(x)$, $\vd g(x,y)$ or $\vd h(y,z)$ become ‘gauged away’, that is, that fields are taken modulo the ideal $\Im[\vd_a f, \vd_a g, \vd_\a g, \vd_\a h, \vd_r h]$.

The full ideals $\Im[\vd_a W,\vd_\a W,\vd_r W]$ and $\Im[\vd_af, \vd_a g, \vd_\a g, \vd_\a h, \vd_r h]$ can be listed easily and their difference (on states of unit scaling charge) is generated by So these two ideals indeed differ substantially while, in contrast, the list of massless states had been obtained completely identical.

The resolution of this lies in the simple fact that there are only $16{+}9{+}4$ degrees of freedom for such ‘gauge choices’ in  and that there were distinct but equivalent ‘gauge’ choices. This ambiguity was taken care of in the Koszul complex by noting that the map $\bigoplus_{a=f,g,h} {\cal E}_a\con \to {\cal
O}_{\cal W}$ has ‘gauge degrees of freedom’—a kernel represented by $\{ {\cal E}_a\con \wedge {\cal E}_b\con\}_{a,b=f,g,h}$. Finally, the map $\wedge^2{\cal E}_\star\con \to \bigoplus_a{\cal E}_a\con$ itself has a kernel, represented now by $\bigwedge_{a=f,g,h}{\cal E}_a\con$.

In other words, not all elements of the ideal generated by $\vd f
\oplus \vd g \oplus \vd h$ are effective—only those which are non-trivial modulo $[\vd_a f-\vd_a g]$ and $[\vd_\a g-\vd_\a h]$. But precisely this redundancy is the difference between the na"ve ‘classical’ ideal and $\Im[\vd W]$ . So, the true classical ideal, as implemented by the Koszul complex, [*precisely equals*]{} the  ideal, whence the spectrum of states naturally becomes equal. Thus, not only do the massless fields as found by classical geometry and by the  techniques match one–to–one, a natural and isomorphic ring structure may be imposed on each. As mentioned earlier, an interesting question is to work out the relationship of such a ring structure with the one determined by conformal field theory. This has only been done so far in the untwisted $(c,c)$ sector in which they are identical.

The analysis so far has revealed a striking similarity between the classical description of and the quantum description of the corresponding fields. We now discuss this a little further and provide an explanation of it.

Although we have demonstrated this only in an explicit example, it is generally true that both and of a complete intersection manifold $\cal M$ in products of (weighted) homogeneous spaces admit a parametrization of the form For each $k$, $P_k[x_i]$ is a polynomial ring in certain suitable variables $x_i$, $\Im_k$ is an ideal and $k$ labels a grading. This is so for example in the Koszul complex computation of Refs. .

The general analysis of N=2 supersymmetric conformal field theories shows that the moduli fields also span such structures, the so-called chiral and twisted-chiral rings , which in cases of s, feature a grading  similar to the one found above. A crucial point in the  analysis is however that the ideals $\Im_k$ are in fact all parts of one ideal generated by gradients of a [*single*]{} function, the superpotential. On the other hand, given a complete intersection, the Koszul complex computation yields the analogous ideal(s) rather differently. We are therefore led to conclude the following general fact :

(A function is critical where its inverse is singular.)

Note that the variables $x_i$ in  become coordinates in the corresponding  even if they were merely formal variables parametrizing the cohomology. In fact, the above statement generalizes the results of Ref.  in the sense that a  is assigned to a  space $\cal M$ based on the cohomology parametrization —independently of any particular embedding of $\cal M$ and even if no embedding is known. Through the geometric description below, this may provide (perhaps a different realization) of the  manifold that we started from.

Ref.  lists several necessary conditions for the existence of a  corresponding to a given complete intersection in products of complex projective spaces and provides a construction of the appropriate superpotential. Unfortunately, however, explicit analysis of a special class of complete intersections (even just in products of complex projective spaces) shows that these conditions are not sufficient  and that the construction of Ref.  may yield degenerate s. We have now shown that the problem lies in integrating the generators of the ideal(s) $\Im_k$ to a single function and we hope to return to this and provide at least a partial solution in a future account.

We now analyze the  construction in terms of classical geometry in order to explain the structural and very detailed identification presented above.

Rather crucially, the kinetic terms are ignorable in the analysis of Refs.  and the scalar component-fields are maps from the world sheet into an [*affine space*]{}. For example, in Eq. , the $(X_a,Y_\b,Z_r)$ map into $\IC^9 \approx \IC^4
\times \IC^3 \times \IC^2$. The IR regime of the Landau-Ginzburg model concentrates on the hypersurface $W=0$, which is a [*cone*]{} in $\IC^9$.

The classical description instead relates to the  manifold ${\cal M}
\subset \CP3 \times \CP2 \times \CP1$; of course, $\CP{n} \approx
\{(\IC^{n+1}-0) / \IC^*\}$, where $\IC^*$ denotes homogeneous scaling by $\l\ne0$. So, $\cal M$ corresponds not to the Landau-Ginzburg cone in $\IC^9$, but to the quotient thereof by the $\IC^*_x \times
\IC^*_y \times \IC^*_z$-action. However, $W$ is invariant only with respect to a finite subgroup $\Q \subset \IC^*_x \times \IC^*_y
\times \IC^*_z$, the action of which is found as the solution to $\l_x{}^3 = \l_x\,\l_y{}^2 = \l_y\, \l_z{}^2 = 1$.

This then finally defines the correct twist group for the  : $\Q$ is simply [* the maximal finite subgroup of the rescaling group $\prod_i \IC^*_i$ which leaves the superpotential strictly invariant*]{}. The so defined twist group for the  is [*exactly the same*]{} as the one defined in Ref. . There, one performs a change of variables which turns redundant coordinate fields into Lagrange multipliers, requiring that the Jacobian be field-independent; in fact, the Jacobian [*equals*]{} $|\Q|$, the order of the twist group, indicating that the field-space has been orbifolded into $|\Q|$ copies of a fundamental domain. Finally, the same twist group can also be defined by requiring that the field-space of the  admit a global (path-)integration measure .

It may appear unexpected that $\Q$ is required to leave the superpotential, defining the cone in $\IC^9$, [*strictly*]{} rather than just [*projectively*]{} invariant. This follows from two different, although perhaps not unrelated points of view.

On one hand, a standard trick  for computing the cohomology of hypersurfaces $W(x_i)=0$ in an affine embedding space is to : (1) consider level sets $\{ W(x_i) = \m,~ \m\in\IC\}$ for $\m$ a new variable, then (2) reinterpret this as a hypersurface $W(x_i)-\m=0$ in $\IP(x_i,\m)$. In the patch $(\m\ne0)$, rescale $\m\to1$ obtaining $W(x_i)=1$, while at the “infinity” of that patch $(\m=0)$ the original $W(x_i)=0$ is recovered. Since results in different patches are related, we must preserve $W(x_i)=1$, hence the requirement of [*strict*]{} rather than [*projective*]{} invariance with respect to $\Q$ and our above definition of $\Q$ follows.

From a field theory point of view, for every complete intersection manifold $\cal M$, there is a constrained $\s$-model . The supersymmetric action is $K_r(X,\Xb)$ is the scale-invariant Kähler potential for and $w^r$ is its relative “size”; the scale-invariance can be made explicit by introducing a gauge superfield $V_r$ for each . $P^a(X)$ is the $a^{th}$ constraint polynomial and $\L_a$ the corresponding Lagrange multiplier superfield. Path-integration over the $\L_a$ enforces $P^a(X)=0$ and restricts $\prod_r\CP{n_r}$ to $\cal M$.

Without the constraints, the $\s$-model describes $\prod_r\CP{n_r}$, is invariant under the $\prod_{r=1}^m \IC^*_r$ gauge symmetry and, as usual in field theories, we must divide out the action of this group. The constraints break the $\prod_{r=1}^m \IC^*_r$ gauge symmetry [*explicitly*]{} to the maximal subgroup which leaves the full action $S_{\cal M}$, thus each polynomial [*strictly invariant*]{}. As the $P^a(X)$ are non-linear, $\Q$ is inevitably finite; it depends only on the degrees of $P^a(X)$ and the weights of $X_i$. Being a remnant of a gauge symmetry, $\Q$ must be “modded out”.

In the gauge where $V_r=0$ and $\L_a=1$, $S_{\cal M}$ becomes the standard Landau-Ginzburg action . It is easy to see that $\Q$ is precisely that symmetry of the Landau-Ginzburg action which has been modded out in the approaches of Refs.  and .

There is one more point requiring clarification before we finish this section, regarding the occurrence of twisted modes. In the above analysis, twisted modes have shown up as related to certain cohomological obstructions whereas in Coxeter orbifolds , they occur corresponding to exceptional divisors in a blow-up. We here suggest another possible viewpoint, in which twisted modes indeed correspond to exceptional divisors. At present, this point of view is easily adopted for simple models like the quintic hypersurfaces in 4, but we feel that a more universal treatment may be developed in time.

In the spectrum of the  orbifold associated to the quintic in 4, there are four twisted states, all in the $(a,c)$-sector and one of which is marginal, i.e., has charge-$({-}1,1)$. This “Kähler twisted state” corresponds to the pull-back of the Kähler form of 4 and so to the intersection of the quintic hypersurface with a hyperplane in 4. So far, this does not appear to be the exceptional divisor of any blow-up.

However, recall that the dual of the hyperplane bundle, ${\cal O}({-}1)$ over is in fact the blow-up of $\IC^{n+1}$ at the origin. The total space of ${\cal O}({-}1)$ over is non-compact and has $\IC^1$-like fibres; itself is the exceptional divisor created by blowing up. Moreover, away from the origin, $\IC^{n+1}$ looks just like the total space of ${\cal O}({-}1)$ away from the . Next, the total space of ${\cal O}({-}k)$ looks the same, except that the fibres at $x\in\CP{n}$ vary as a degree-$k$ rather than a linear polynomial in $x$ and are hence related to the original ${\cal O}({-}1)$ fibres in a $k$–1 manner: only up to a $\ZZ_k$-twist. Again, itself is the exceptional divisor which replaced the origin.

Consider now a quintic hypersurface in 4, $\cal M$. The would involve the corresponding quintic in $\IC^5$, $M$. Blowing this up at the origin, we obtain $\Tw{M}$, a quintic in the total space of ${\cal O}({-}1)$, which is also a quintic in ${\cal O}({-}5)$ upon a $\ZZ_5$-twist and which is easily seen to be a fibre space with open $\IC^1$-like fibres over $\cal M$. Therefore, the (co)homology ring of $\Tw{M}/\ZZ_5$ is essentially the same as that of $\cal M$. The quotient of the quintic in $\IC^5$, $M/\ZZ_5$, which occurs in the , is then seen as the orbifold limit of the blown-up quintic, $\Tw{M/\ZZ_5}=\Tw{M}/\ZZ_5$, which is at the same time also a quintic in ${\cal O}({-}5)$, which in turn contracts to $\cal M$ and so has identical (co)homology and homotopy; see also Ref. . Since 4 itself is the exceptional divisor in ${\cal O}({-}5)$, its intersection with the quintic (and a hyperplane) is the sought for exceptional divisor corresponding to the “Kähler twisted state”.

It is not hard to generalize this to hypersurfaces in weighted 4’s, but warped cases such as the one discussed earlier and complete intersections in general pose a more difficult task. Given a  complete intersection $\cal M$, we consider $\Tw{M}$, the corresponding complete intersection in $\prod_r {\cal V}_r$, where ${\cal V}_r$ is the appropriate generalization of the total space of ${\cal O}({-}5)$ to the (weighted) factor . We next realize that $\Tw{M}$ is a blow-up of $M$, the corresponding complete intersection in $\IC^N$, where $N$ is the total dimension of the product of the total spaces of ${\cal V}_r$. The (co)homology ring of $\cal M$ is essentially the same as that of $\Tw{M}$ and the refers to $M$, the orbifold limit of $\Tw{M}$. Note also that $M$ looks like a (multi-)cone the (complex-projective) base of which is $\cal M$ and that the action of $\Q$ is non-trivial only along the generators. We then expect the twisted states to occur as the intersection of the (multi-)cone and the exceptional divisor in $\prod_r {\cal V}_r$.

In the foregoing analysis, we have been using (various) duality relations quite often and rather freely; the careful reader might have been worried whether this was always warranted and well-defined. Let us here ward off such fears by noting that the entire discussion is most appropriately set in the framework of the Hilbert spaces, in which we focus on the subspace of massless states, and which was implicitly the case throughout the article. The scalar product there provides a perfectly canonical duality relation allowing the freedom which we have utilized.

As we have mentioned, our analysis reveals a natural and manifest isomorphism between the chiral and antichiral ring representatives (both untwisted and twisted) as found via spectral flow arguments in  models  and the tensor representatives found via Koszul complex calculations. An interesting question is to try to pursue this correspondence to the level of ring structures. Our discussion above makes it clear that there is a natural ring structure—a Jacobian ring structure—which can isomorphically be imposed on the mathematical cohomology and conformal field theoretic states. Furthermore, Jacobian this ring structure exactly matches the one supplied by the operator product expansion of conformal field theory in the untwisted $(c,c)$ sector. It would be interesting to find some direct method of calculating the conformal field theoretic ring structure from the twisted chiral primary field representatives studied here and in Refs. .

Given that elements of can also be described by the Koszul complex computation, our present analysis indicates that a similar comparative derivation of these $E_6$ singlet fields is possible. However, given the subtleties which we encountered in the case of the simpler cohomology groups, we also expect this comparison to be far from straightforward. These and other related issues are being examined currently and we hope to report the results in a subsequent article.

[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We happily acknowledge the helpful discussions with R. Plesser, C. Vafa and S.-T. Yau. P.B. has been supported by the Fulbright Program, the Robert A. Welch Foundation and the NSF Grant PHY9009850. B.R.G. is supported in part by the National Science Foundation. T.H. was supported by the DOE grant DE-FG02-88ER-25065.

[^1]: $^{\spadesuit}$
