1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: %\usepackage[notref, notcite]{showkeys}

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,theorem,graphicx,color}

4: 

5: \setlength{\textwidth}{165mm}

6: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.51cm}

7: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0mm}

8: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0pt}

9: \setlength{\textheight}{218mm}

10: \usepackage[all]{xy}

11: 

12: %%%%%% to help proofreading

13: \usepackage{color}

14: \definecolor{dblue}{rgb}{0,0,.7}

15: \definecolor{indigo}{RGB}{50,0,105}

16: 

17: \usepackage[dvips, hyperindex=true,

18: colorlinks=true, linkcolor=dblue,

19: citecolor=indigo, pagecolor=dblue,

20: bookmarksopen=false, urlcolor=dblue,

21: linktocpage]{hyperref}

22: 

23: \def\P{{\mathbb P}} \def\O{\mathcal{O}}

24: \def\C{{\mathbb C}}

25: \def\ff#1#2{{\textstyle\dfrac{#1}{#2}}}

26: \def\CY{Calabi-Yau} \def\c#1{\mathcal{#1}}

27: \def\R{{\mathbb R}} 

28: %%%%%%%%%% Some commands  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

31: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}

32: %

33: \def\H{\operatorname{H}}

34: \newcommand{\Aphys}{{A^{(phys)}}}

35: \newcommand{\bAphys}{{{\bar A}^{(phys)}}}

36: \newcommand{\Amath}{{A^{(math)}}}

37: \newcommand{\bAmath}{{{\bar A}^{(math)}}}

38: %

39: \newcommand{\bbc}{{\mathbb C}}

40: \newcommand{\bbz}{{\mathbb Z}}

41: \newcommand{\bbf}{{\mathbb F}}

42: \newcommand{\bbr}{{\mathbb R}}

43: \newcommand{\rk}{{\text{ rk} }}

44: \newcommand{\Aut}{{\operatorname{Aut}}}

45: \newcommand{\vol}{{\text{vol} }}

46: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\text{ Tr}~ }}

47: \renewcommand{\Re}{{\text{ Re}~ }}

48: \newcommand{\End}{{\text{ End}~ }}

49: \newcommand{\Coh}{{\text{ Coh} }}

50: \newcommand{\effective}{{\text{effective} }}

51: \newcommand{\ch}{{\text{ch} }}

52: \newcommand{\sgn}{{\text{sgn}\,}}

53: \newcommand{\KC}{{\it KC}}

54: \newcommand{\tH}{{\tilde H}}

55: \newcommand\ba{\bar{a}}

56: \newcommand\bb{{\bar{b}}}

57: \newcommand\bc{\bar{c}}

58: \newcommand\bd{\bar{d}}

59: \newcommand\bz{\bar{z}}

60: \newcommand\bZ{\bar{Z}}

61: \newcommand\bW{\bar{W}}

62: \newcommand\bD{\bar{D}}

63: \newcommand\bA{\bar{A}}

64: \newcommand\bB{\bar{B}}

65: \newcommand\bR{\bar{R}}

66: \newcommand\bS{\bar{S}}

67: \newcommand\bT{\bar{T}}

68: \newcommand\bU{\bar{U}}

69: \newcommand\bPi{\bar{\Pi}}

70: \newcommand\bphi{\bar{\phi}}

71: \newcommand\balpha{{\bar{\alpha}}}

72: \newcommand\bbeta{{\bar{\beta}}}

73: \newcommand\bOmega{\bar{\Omega}}

74: \newcommand\bpartial{\bar{\partial}}

75: \newcommand\bj{{\bar{j}}}

76: \newcommand\bi{{\bar{i}}}

77: \newcommand\bk{{\bar{k}}}

78: \newcommand\bm{{\bar{m}}}

79: \newcommand\btheta{\bar{\theta}}

80: \newcommand\bpsi{\bar{\psi}}

81: \newcommand\bF{\bar{F}}

82: \newcommand\bs{{\bar{s}}}

83: \newcommand\bt{\bar{t}}

84: \newcommand\bv{\bar{v}}

85: \newcommand\bx{\bar{x}}

86: \newcommand\by{\bar{y}}

87: \newcommand\btau{\bar{\tau}}

88: \newcommand\bC{\bar{C}}

89: \newcommand\bX{\bar{X}}

90: \newcommand\bY{\bar{Y}}

91: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{{\langle}#1|}

92: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}

93: \newcommand{\bbra}[1]{{\langle\langle}#1|}

94: \newcommand{\kket}[1]{|#1\rangle\rangle}

95: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle{#1}\rangle}

96: %

97: \newcommand{\nch}{{\text{ch}}}

98: \newcommand{\td}{{\text{td}\; }}

99: \newcommand{\pt}{{\text{pt} }}

100: %

101: \newcommand{\cp}[1]{{\mathbb P}^{#1}}

102: \newcommand{\op}[1]{\operatorname{#1}}

103: \newcommand{\ocp}[1][]{{\mathcal

104: O}_{\cp{1}}{#1}}

105: \newcommand{\ocpn}[2][]{{\mathcal

106: O}_{\cp{#1}}{#2}}

107: \newcommand{\oy}[1][]{{\mathcal O}_B{#1}}

108: \newcommand{\oz}[1][]{{\mathcal

109: O}_{B^{'}}{#1}}

110: \newcommand{\ox}[1][]{{\mathcal O}_X{#1}}

111: \newcommand{\om}{{\mathcal O}_M}

112: \newcommand{\MW}{{\mathbb M}{\mathbb W}}

113: \newcommand{\mw}[1]{[#1]}

114: \newcommand{\Pic}{\op{Pic}}

115: \newcommand{\FM}{\boldsymbol{F}{\boldsymbol{M

116: }}}

117: \newcommand{\fm}{\boldsymbol{f}\boldsymbol{m}

118: }

119: \newcommand{\T}{\boldsymbol{T}}

120: \newcommand{\ct}{\boldsymbol{t}}

121: \newcommand{\D}{\boldsymbol{D}}

122: \newcommand{\num}[1]{{\#}\text{\bfseries #1}}

123: \newcommand{\rhom}{R^{\bullet}{\mathcal H}om}

124: \newcommand{\cH}{{\mathcal H}}

125: \newcommand{\cL}{{\mathcal L}}

126: \newcommand{\cV}{{\mathcal V}}

127: \newcommand{\cW}{{\mathcal W}}

128: \newcommand{\heck}{\boldsymbol{H}\boldsymbol{

129: e}\boldsymbol{c}

130: \boldsymbol{k}\boldsymbol{e}}

131: \newcommand{\hup}[2]{\heck^{+}_{(#1)}(#2)}

132: \newcommand{\hdown}[2]{\heck^{-}_{(#1)}(#2)}

133: \newcommand{\homsh}[3]{{\mathcal

134: H}om_{#1}(#2,#3)}

135: \newcommand\Hom{{\rm Hom}}

136: \newcommand\Ext{{\rm Ext}}

137: \newcommand{\p}[1]{{\mathbb P}(#1)}

138: \newcommand{\bl}[2]{\operatorname{Bl}_{#1}#2}

139: \newcommand{\ses}[3]{\xymatrix{

140: 0 \ar[r] & {#1} \ar[r] & {#2} \ar[r] & {#3}

141: \ar[r] & 0 \\ }}

142: 

143: %%%%%%%%%  Theorems and the like  %%%%%%%%%

144: \newtheorem{theo}{Theorem}[section]

145: \newtheorem{lem}[theo]{Lemma}

146: \newtheorem{cor}[theo]{Corollary}

147: \newtheorem{prop}[theo]{Proposition}

148: \newtheorem{defi}[theo]{Definition}

149: \newtheorem{conj}[theo]{Conjecture}

150: {\theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}

151: \newtheorem{remark}[theo]{Remark}}

152: 

153: % Put preprint number in top-right.

154: \def\pplogo{\vbox{\kern-\headheight\kern

155: -29pt

156: \halign{##&##\hfil\cr&{\ppnumber}\cr\rule{0pt

157: }{2.5ex}&\ppdate\cr}}}

158: \makeatletter

159: \def\ps@firstpage{\ps@empty

160: \def\@oddhead{\hss\pplogo}%

161:   \let\@evenhead\@oddhead}

162: \def\maketitle{\par

163:  \begingroup

164:  \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

165:  \def\@makefnmark{\hbox{$^{\@thefnmark}$\hss}

166: }

167:  \if@twocolumn

168:  \twocolumn[\@maketitle]

169:  \else \newpage

170:  \global\@topnum\z@ \@maketitle

171: \fi\thispagestyle{firstpage}\@thanks

172:  \endgroup

173:  \setcounter{footnote}{0}

174:  \let\maketitle\relax

175:  \let\@maketitle\relax

176:  \gdef\@thanks{}\gdef\@author{}\gdef\@title{}

177: \let\thanks\relax}

178: \makeatother

179: 

180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

181: %%%

182: 

183: \begin{document}

184: \setcounter{page}0

185: \def\ppnumber{\vbox{\baselineskip14pt

186: \hbox{hep-th/0612075}}}

187: \def\ppdate{RUNHETC-2006-32} \date{}

188: 

189: \title{\bf \LARGE 

190: 	Numerical Calabi-Yau metrics

191: \\[10mm]}

192: \author{\bf 

193:      {Michael R. Douglas$^\&$,

194:      Robert L.~Karp, 

195:      Sergio Lukic}\\

196:      {\bf and Ren\'e Reinbacher} \\

197: [10mm]

198: \normalsize  Department of Physics, Rutgers

199: University \\

200: \normalsize Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019  USA

201: 		\\	[10mm]

202: \normalsize $^\&$ I.H.E.S.,  Le Bois-Marie,

203: Bures-sur-Yvette, 91440 France}

204: 

205: {\hfuzz=10cm\maketitle}

206: 

207: \vskip 1cm

208: 

209: \begin{abstract}

210: \normalsize

211: \noindent

212: We develop numerical methods for approximating Ricci flat metrics on

213: Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in projective spaces.  Our approach is based

214: on finding balanced metrics, and builds on recent theoretical work by

215: Donaldson.  We illustrate our methods in detail for a one parameter

216: family of quintics.  We also suggest several ways to extend our

217: results.

218: \end{abstract}

219: 

220: \vfil\break

221: 

222: \tableofcontents

223: 

224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

225: %%%%%%

226: \section{Introduction}    \label{s:intro}

227: 

228: Calabi-Yau manifolds were proven to admit Ricci flat metrics in

229: \cite{Yau}.  Explicit expressions for such metrics would have many

230: applications in mathematics and in string compactification; however it

231: is widely thought that for compact Calabi-Yau manifolds

232: no closed form expression exists,

233: except in trivial cases (tori and orbifolds).

234: Thus it is useful to develop methods for constructing and working with

235: approximate Ricci-flat metrics; and for the solutions of related

236: equations, such as hermitian Yang-Mills, and the other equations of 

237: string compactification.

238: 

239: One such approximating method is finding the balanced metric on an

240: embedding of the manifold into complex projective space,

241: given by the sections of a holomorphic line bundle.

242: This method was

243: suggested by Yau in the early 90's, and was proven to work in a

244: fundamental paper by Tian \cite{Tian:metrics}. Since then many people

245: have worked on the problem of balanced metrics in various contexts

246: \cite{Bourguignon:Yau,Luo:Toper,Zelditch:Szego,Donaldson1,Donaldson2},

247: just to name a few.  A recent result of Donaldson

248: \cite{Donaldson:numeric} shows that this approximation scheme is both

249: mathematically elegant and relatively easy to implement

250: numerically.  It can also be directly generalized to find approximate

251: hermitian Yang-Mills connections on vector bundles \cite{en:Mike1},

252: which can in turn be used to compute metrics on moduli spaces, and the

253: kinetic terms in $N=1$ string compactifications \cite{en:Mike3}.

254: 

255: In this work we develop numerical methods for approximating Ricci flat

256: metrics on Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces based on these ideas.  This also

257: supplies a detailed analysis of the numerical methods used in

258: \cite{en:Mike1}. We study the effectiveness of our approach in the

259: example of a one parameter family of quintics in $\C\P^4$.  As we

260: review in section \ref{s:T}, we work with a space of approximating metrics

261: parameterized by an $N\times N$ hermitian matrix; the balanced metric

262: is then the fixed point of the so-called ``T map'' on this space,

263: defined in \eq{T}.

264: 

265: The main computational problem in implementing the T map numerically

266: is the evaluation of a large number of integrals on the manifold.

267: More precisely, given a Calabi-Yau $n$-fold

268: $X$, with its corresponding holomorphic $n$-form 

269: $\Omega \in

270: \Omega^{n,0}(X)=\Lambda^{n}(T^*X)^{1,0}$, and

271: volume form $d\mu_{\Omega} = \Omega\wedge

272: \overline{\Omega}$,

273: one needs to compute integrals of the type

274: \begin{equation}\label{e1}

275: \int_{X}f \; d\mu_{\Omega},

276: \end{equation}

277: where $f\colon  X\to \C$ is a smooth complex

278: valued (but not holomorphic) function.

279: Consequently, the heart of the paper (section 3) will

280: be devoted to developing a numerical

281: approximation scheme to efficiently

282: and accurately compute these integrals.

283: 

284: A second technical point, which is very valuable in simplifying these

285: computations, is to take advantage of the discrete symmetries of the

286: manifold.  We discuss this in section \ref{s:sym}.

287: 

288: Our explicit numerical results appear in section \ref{s:NR}, where

289: we also provide a general discussion of the

290: efficiency and accuracy of the algorithm, comparisons with alternatives,

291: and suggestions for future work.

292: 

293: Before we begin, let us briefly set out the problem.

294: Denote the Ricci flat metric on $X$ (which is unique 

295: given a complex structure

296: and K\"ahler class) as $g_{RF}$.  We want to propose a set of

297: approximating metrics $g_h$ parameterized by  parameters $h$, and

298: give a numerical procedure to 

299: find the ``best'' approximation to $g_{RF}$ within this set.

300: 

301: The criteria that a best approximation should satisfy include

302: \begin{enumerate}

303: \item {\bf Accuracy}: we want to minimize the error

304: $\epsilon=d(g_h,g_{RF})$, where $d$ is some measure of the

305: distance between the approximate and true metrics.

306: A simple and natural choice for $\epsilon$

307: in the present context is to consider the function

308: \begin{equation}\label{define-eta}

309: \eta_h = \frac{\det \omega_h}{\Omega\wedge\bar\Omega}

310: \end{equation}

311: on $X$, where $\omega_h$ is the K\"ahler form for $g_h$.

312: For a Ricci flat metric, this will be the  constant function.  We then take \footnote{

313: We consider only compact varieties, hence both the minimum and 

314: the maximum are attained.}

315: \begin{equation}\label{define-error}

316: \epsilon = 1-\frac{{\rm min}_{x\in X}~\eta_h(x)}{{\rm max}_{x\in X}~\eta_h(x)} .

317: \end{equation}

318: Of course, one could use other norms, such as 

319: $||\eta_h-\frac{1}{{\rm vol}~X}\int\eta_h||_p$, or curvature integrals.

320: \item {\bf Control}: we want an explicit bound on the error,

321: \begin{equation}\label{control-eta}

322: \epsilon(g_h,g_{RF}) < \epsilon_{max},

323: \end{equation}

324: depending on the parameters of the problem.

325: \item {\bf Systematic improvement}: we would like to have a control

326: parameter $k$, such that by increasing $k$, we can bring the error estimate

327: $\epsilon_{max}$ down to any desired accuracy.

328: \item {\bf Mathematical naturalness}.

329: Our experience with string theory (and more

330: generally in mathematics and physics) 

331: has been that in exploratory work such as this, 

332: rather than trying to incorporate all known aspects of a problem and

333: find a ``best'' solution, we can learn far more 

334: by studying a well chosen simplification in depth.  This favors a scheme

335: in which one makes the smallest possible number of arbitrary or

336: {\it ad hoc} choices not inherent in the original statement of the problem.

337: \end{enumerate}

338: Of course the approximation

339: should be efficiently computable as well.  We will comment

340: on these various aspects as they arise.

341: 

342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

343: %%%%%%%%%%%%

344: \section{T-map}    \label{s:T}

345: 

346: In  this section we review the construction

347: of balanced metrics, which in turn lead to a

348: convenient approximation of the Ricci flat

349: metric on Calabi-Yau threefolds. Our

350: presentation is based on \cite{en:Mike1},

351: which in turn was deeply inspired by

352: \cite{Donaldson:numeric}. We refer to these

353: papers, and the references therein, for more

354: details.

355: 

356: We start with a holomorphic line bundle $\cL$

357: on a K\"ahler manifold $X$, 

358: with $N$ global sections. This fact is

359: usually phrased as $\H^{0}(X,\,

360: \mathcal{L})=\C^N$. 

361: Let $\{s_\alpha\}_{\alpha=1}^N$ be a basis of

362: this vector space, and consider the map

363: $$

364: i\colon X\longrightarrow \cp{N-1}

365:  \qquad i(Z_0,\ldots,Z_n) =

366: (s_1(Z),s_2(Z),\ldots,s_N(Z)).

367: $$

368: The geometric picture is that each point in

369: our original manifold $X$

370: (with coordinates $Z_i$)

371: corresponds to a point in $\bbc^{N}$

372: parameterized by the sections

373: $s_\alpha$.  Since choosing a different frame

374: for $\cL$ would produce

375: an overall rescaling $s_\alpha\rightarrow

376: \lambda s_\alpha$, the overall

377: scale is undetermined. Granting that 

378: $s_1(Z),s_2(Z),\ldots,s_N(Z)$ 

379: do not vanish simultaneously, this gives us a

380: map into $\P^{N-1}$. 

381: 

382: We want this map to be an

383: embedding, {\it i.e.} that distinct points on $X$

384: map to distinct points on $\mathbb{P}^{N-1}$, and that tangent vectors

385: are also separated.  In general, we can

386: appeal to the Kodaira embedding

387: theorem, which asserts that for $\cL$ ample

388: this will be true for all powers $\cL^k$,

389: starting with some $k_0$.  As an example, for

390: non-singular quintics in $\P^4$, $\mathcal{O}_{X}(k)$

391: is both ample and very ample for all $k\ge

392: 1$.  

393: 

394: Next we consider the $N^2$-parameter family  of  K\"ahler

395: potentials on $\cp{N-1}$, 

396: \be\label{Ks}

397: K_{h} = \log \left(\sum_{\alpha,\bbeta}

398: h^{\alpha\bbeta}

399:  s_\alpha \bs_\bbeta \right)\equiv \log

400: ||s||^2_h\, ,

401: \ee

402: parametrized by the $N$ by $N$ hermitian matrix $h$.  These

403: give rise to a family of K\"ahler metrics on $X$

404: by restriction, and

405: we will seek a ``best'' approximation to the Ricci flat metric

406: within this space of approximating metrics.

407: Note that it is the

408: inverse of $h$, $h^{\alpha\bbeta}$, that

409: appears in \eqref{Ks}. The reason for this will become clear

410: shortly.

411: 

412: Mathematically, the simplest interpretation

413: of \eqref{Ks} is that it

414: defines a hermitian metric on the line bundle

415: $\cL $.  This is a sesquilinear map 

416: from $\bar\cL\otimes \cL$ to smooth functions

417: $C^\infty(X)$, here defined by

418: $$

419: (s,s') = e^{-K_{h}}\cdot\bar s\cdot s' =

420:  \frac{\bar s\cdot s'}{\sum_{\alpha,\bbeta}

421: h^{\alpha\bbeta}

422:  s_\alpha \bs_\bbeta} .

423: $$

424: Notice that a change of frame, which acts on

425: our sections

426: as $s_\alpha\rightarrow \lambda s_\alpha$,

427: cancels out in this expression.

428: 

429: This metric allows us to define an inner

430: product between the global sections:

431: \begin{equation}\label{T1}

432:  \vev{s_\beta|s_\alpha} = \int_X 

433: \frac{s_{\alpha}\bs_{\bbeta}}{||s||^2_h} \;

434: d{\vol_X}.

435: \end{equation} 

436: Note that this  inner product  depends on $h$

437: in a nonlinear way, since $h$ appears in the

438: denominator, and $||s||_h$ involves the

439: inverse of $h$.

440: Here $d\vol_X$ is a volume form on $X$, which

441: has to be chosen.  

442: 

443: One choice which makes sense for any $X$ is

444: $d{\vol_X}=\det\omega_h$, the standard volume form $\sqrt{\det g_h}$.

445: For $X$ a Calabi-Yau variety, we can instead use

446: $d{\vol_X}=\nu= \Omega\wedge \bar{\Omega}$. The latter is 

447: significantly simpler, mainly

448: because it is $h$-independent. Our numerical procedure will use a discrete

449: approximation to this volume form.

450: 

451: The explicit form of the expression in

452: \eqref{T1} suggests that one studies the map

453: \begin{equation}\label{T} 

454: T(h)_{\alpha\bbeta} = \frac{N}{\vol(X)}\int_X

455: \frac{s_\alpha

456: \bs_\bbeta}{||s||^2_h}\, {d\vol_X},

457: \end{equation} 

458: dubbed the ``T-map'', which acts on the

459: space of hermitian matrices  in a non-linear

460: way.

461: 

462: A fixed point of this map, $T(h) = h $,

463: the pair $(h,s_{\alpha})$ is called a {\em balanced} embedding, and the 

464: metric on $X$

465: associated to the corresponding K\"ahler

466: potential \eqref{Ks} is called the balanced

467: metric.\footnote{In a more precise nomenclature, which we will

468: not use here, the term ``balanced embedding'' is reserved for the

469: definition with $d{\vol_X}=\det\omega_h$, while

470: the alternate definition with $d{\vol_X}=\nu$

471: is referred to as the ``$\nu$-balanced embedding.''  

472: Also, there are several other equivalent ways of

473: defining the notion of balanced metric, which

474: are closely linked to the notion of stability

475: in Mumford's sense, but this utilitarian

476: definition will suffice for our purposes. For

477: reviews of this topic we recommend 

478: \cite{Thomas:GITrev,Mabuchi}.}

479: As it turns

480: out, the balanced metric is unique,

481: up to $U(N)$ transformations of the basis of sections and

482: rescaling, provided that the manifold in

483: question has no continuous symmetries. This

484: is certainly the case for a \CY\ variety, and

485: in particular our quintics.

486: 

487: It turns out that the T-map is contracting, so

488: the simplest way to find a fixed point of the

489: T-map is to iterate it. 

490: We have the following

491: \begin{theo} (see, e.g. ,\cite{Sano,Donaldson1};

492: and \cite{Bourguignon:Yau,Donaldson:numeric} for the $\nu$-balanced case)

493: Suppose that $\Aut(X,L)$ is discrete. If a

494: balanced embedding

495: exists, then, for any initial hermitian

496: matrix $G_0$,  as

497: $r\to \infty$ the sequence $T^r(G_0)$

498: converges to a fixed point.

499: \end{theo}

500: 

501: The importance of balanced metrics stems from

502: a theorem that goes back to Tian

503: \cite{Tian:metrics} and Zelditch

504: \cite{Zelditch:Szego}.

505: Let us consider the sequence of balanced metrics associated to

506: the bundles ${\mathcal L}^k$ (defined in terms 

507: of the Fubini-Study metric $\omega_k^{FS}$ from \eq{Ks}):

508: \begin{equation}

509: \omega_k=\frac{1}{k}\, i_k^*(\omega_k^{FS}) .

510: \end{equation}

511: The rescaling is made so that 

512: the cohomology class of the K\"ahler form

513: $[\omega_k]= c_1(\cL)\in

514: \H^2(X,\mathbb{Z})$ is independent of $k$.

515: With this definition one has 

516: \begin{theo}\label{theo2}

517: Suppose $\Aut(X,\cL)$ is discrete and

518: $(X,\cL^k)$ is balanced for

519: sufficiently large $k$. If the metrics

520: $\omega_k$ converge

521: in the $C^\infty$ norm to some limit

522: $\omega_\infty$ as $k\to \infty$, then

523: $\omega_\infty$ is a K\"ahler metric in the

524: class

525: $ c_1(\cL)$ with {\em constant} scalar curvature.

526: \end{theo}

527: 

528: The constant value of the scalar curvature is

529: determined by $c_1(X)$.

530: In particular, for $c_1(X)=0$ the scalar

531: curvature is zero.  Thus,

532: the balanced metrics $\omega_k$, in the large

533: $k$ limit, converge to

534: the Ricci flat metric. Furthermore, in this

535: case the $1/k$ convergence is enhanced to a 

536: $1/k^2$ convergence. We will see this

537: explicitly in Section~\ref{s:NR}.

538: 

539: One may ask where the complex

540: structure and K\"ahler moduli enter in this setup. 

541: The complex structure enters implicitly through the basis

542: of holomorphic sections

543: $s_\alpha$.  As for the K\"ahler

544: class, this is $c_1(\cL)$.  Of course, the

545: Ricci flatness condition is scale

546: invariant, so the overall scale is

547: irrelevant; however the point of

548: this is that if $h^{1,1}>1$, then by

549: appropriately choosing $\cL$ we

550: choose a particular ray in the K\"ahler cone.  

551: 

552: Therefore, if we can find the unique balanced metric for a given

553: $\cL$, we have a candidate approximation scheme.  Let us evaluate it

554: by our criteria.  One great advantage is that we have a control

555: parameter $k$, which is easy to implement and is mathematically

556: natural.  The balanced metric is natural in many respects,

557: which should make it possible to get error bounds like

558: \eq{control-eta}, though this has not yet been done.

559: 

560: On the other hand, the balanced metric is not in general the

561: most accurate approximation within this class of metrics

562: to $g_{RF}$.  As discussed in

563: \cite{Donaldson:numeric}, one can find other series of metrics which

564: converge to $g_{RF}$ faster than $1/k^2$.  

565: 

566: As an illustration, once we choose our measure of accuracy

567: $\epsilon$, say \eq{define-error}, we can propose a simple

568: scheme which is guaranteed to be the most accurate possible.  It is a

569: two-step procedure in which we take the balanced metric as the

570: starting point for a numerical search in the space of parameters

571: $h$ for the metric which minimizes

572: $\epsilon$.  As we discuss a bit later, 

573: standard numerical optimization routines will work for this purpose

574: if the starting point is close enough to the actual minimum.

575: This would not be the most efficient possible approach; one could 

576: improve the efficiency by using information about the linearized

577: problem, as discussed in \cite{Donaldson:numeric}.

578: 

579: For the applications we have in mind, for example being able to detect

580: anomalously large or small numbers in observables (perhaps having to

581: do with singularities), control, mathematical naturalness and ease of

582: programming are more important than accuracy, and thus we stick to the

583: balanced metric in our present work.

584: 

585: As another simple physical illustration, suppose that by using the

586: techniques of \cite{en:Mike3} we could use these results to get

587: canonically normalized fields and physical Yukawa couplings in

588: quasi-realistic compactifications.  At this point we would probably be

589: much happier to have results for quark and lepton masses in a variety

590: of models which were guaranteed accurate to within a factor of $2$,

591: than to have ``probable'' $10\%$ accuracy in one model.  Of course

592: this is a rather long term goal, but the point should be clear.

593: 

594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

595: %%%%%%%%%%%%

596: \section{Numerical integration on \CY\

597: varieties}

598: 

599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

600: %%%%%%%%%%%%

601: \subsection{Basic setup}\label{s:nm}

602: 

603: It is clear from the outset that analytic evaluation of the

604: integrals appearing in the T-map \eqref{T} is not possible. On the

605: other hand, if the integrands are smooth and relatively slowly varying

606: functions, it will be possible to evaluate the integrals using Monte

607: Carlo methods.  This is clear for the sections themselves.  Since $h$

608: is positive definite, the denominator in \eqref{T} is strictly

609: positive, mitigating (though not eliminating) the possibility of

610: numerical blow-ups.

611: 

612: Let $X$ be a compact Calabi-Yau

613: $n$-fold,\footnote{Although most of what we

614: present generalizes to varieties other than

615: \CY , we restrict attention to these spaces

616: due to their importance in string theory. } 

617: with its corresponding holomorphic $n$-form 

618: $\Omega \in \Lambda^{n,0}(X)$. The volume

619: form $\Omega\wedge \overline{\Omega}$

620: determines a natural measure $d\mu_{\Omega}$

621: on $X$ in the sense that

622: \[

623:  \int_{X}f \,d\mu_{\Omega}=\int_{X}f

624: \;\Omega\wedge \overline{\Omega}.

625: \]

626: From now on we will not distinguish between a

627: top form and the associated measure.

628: 

629: We can use $d\mu_{\Omega}$ to measure

630: volumes. For an open set $\mathcal{U}\subset

631: X$ the indicator or characteristic function

632: $\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{U}}$ is defined by

633: \begin{displaymath}

634: \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{U}}(x) = 

635: \left\{ \begin{array}{lll} 

636: 1 && \text{if $x \in \mathcal{U}$}\\

637: 0 && \text{if $x \notin \mathcal{U}$}.

638: \end{array}

639: \right.

640: \end{displaymath} 

641: The measure of $\mathcal{U}$ is its volume

642: \begin{equation}\nonumber

643:  \mu_{\Omega}(\mathcal{U})=\int_{X}

644: \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{U}}\,d\mu_{\Omega}

645: =\vol(\mathcal{U}).

646: \end{equation}

647: 

648: To do a Monte Carlo integration,

649: one would ideally like to produce samples of

650: points on $X$ which are uniformly 

651: distributed according to the measure

652: $d\mu_{\Omega}$. This means that for every 

653: sample of points $\{ q_i\in X

654: \}_{i=1}^{N_p}$,

655: the expected number of points within each

656: open subset $\mathcal{U}\subset X$ is

657: \[

658: \sum_{i=1}^{N_{p}} \mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{U}}(q_i) =

659: N_p\frac{\mu_{\Omega}(\mathcal{U})}{\mu_{

660: \Omega}(X)}.

661: \]

662: Using this, we can estimate integrals as finite sums:

663: \begin{equation}\label{e3}

664: \int_{X}f d\mu_{\Omega}\approx

665: \mu_{\Omega}(X)\frac{ 1

666: }{N_p}\,\sum_{i=1}^{N_p} f(q_i),

667: \end{equation}

668: The statistical error of such an

669: approximation is of order

670: ${1}/{\sqrt{N_p}}$ times a quantity

671: proportional to the mean of the $f(q_i)$'s.

672: \cite{NR}.

673: % \sigma(f) \approx \sqrt{\sum_i \big( E(f)-\vol(X)\times

674: %f(q_i)\big)^2},

675: 

676: In practice, producing samples of points which are distributed

677: according to the measure $\mu_{\Omega}$ is not so easy.

678: One way to overcome this problem is by producing

679: points which are uniformly distributed

680: according to another auxiliary measure, say

681: $d\mu_A$. Let us assume that $d\mu_A$ is

682: associated to the global top form $A$.

683: The ratio $\Omega\wedge \overline{\Omega}/ A$ is a

684: global function on $X$, which we call the {\em mass function} $m_A$.

685: At a point $x$ it is defined to be the ratio of the two top forms

686: evaluated at $x:$

687: \begin{equation}\label{e33}

688:  m_A(x) = \frac{\Omega\wedge

689: \overline{\Omega}(x)}{A(x)}.

690: \end{equation}

691: In general this function is neither constant nor holomorphic.

692: 

693: While one could use this information to generate a sample distributed

694: according to $d\mu_\Omega$ ({\it e.g.}, by rejection sampling or MCMC),

695: it is simplest to explicitly put the mass function into the integrand.

696: Thus,

697: given a sample of points distributed according to $d\mu_A$,

698: and the mass function, we can estimate \eq{e1} as

699: \begin{equation}\label{e2}

700: \int_{X}f d\mu_{\Omega} = \int_{X}f

701: \,\frac{d\mu_{\Omega}}{d \mu_{A}} \,d\mu_{A}

702: \approx \frac{\mu_{\Omega}(X)}{\sum

703: m_j}\sum_{i=1}^{N_p} f(q_i) m(q_i),

704: \end{equation}

705: The presence of the mass function increases the statistical error.

706: On the other hand, the generic values of our mass function are

707: order one, and this is a very mild penalty.

708: 

709: Rather than regarding the Monte Carlo as a way to estimate the

710: original T-map, an alternate point of view is to regard the right-hand

711: side of \eq{e2} as defining a new measure $\nu$ and a new T-map,

712: leading to a new $\nu$-balanced metric which approximates the desired

713: $\Omega\wedge\bar\Omega$-balanced metric.  An advantage of this point

714: of view is that in \cite{Donaldson:numeric} it is shown that (under a

715: very mild hypothesis on $\nu$) the new T-map is contracting, and the

716: new $\nu$-balanced metric is unique.  Thus, numerical pathologies will

717: not enter at this stage, provided that we use the {\em same} sample of

718: points throughout the computation of the balanced metric.  This is also

719: advantageous for efficiency reasons, so we always do this.  One can

720: then repeat the computation with different samples to estimate the

721: statistical error.

722: 

723: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

724: %%%%%%%%%%%%

725: \subsection{Generating the sample}

726: 

727: We now discuss how to efficiently generate points according to a known

728: simple distribution.  In this paper we restrict to the case of $X$

729: a degree $d$ hypersurface in $\P^{n+1}$. For definiteness let $X$

730: be defined as the zero locus of the degree $d$ homogenous polynomial

731: $f$. The case of a complete intersection is a straightforward

732: extension. Our main interest will be in $d=n+2$, but we can be more

733: general for the time being.

734: 

735: First, it is easy to generate random points distributed according to

736: the Fubini-Study measure (for any $h$) in the ambient $\P^{n+1}$.  We

737: simply generate uniformly distributed points on $S^{2n+3}$, a standard

738: numerical problem, and then mod out the overall phase.

739: 

740: Using this distribution, one approach to generating points on $X$

741: would be to keep only the points that lie sufficiently close to $X$,

742: in other words satisfy the defining equation of $X$ with a given

743: precision, and then use a root finding method (say Newton's method) to

744: ``flow'' down to $X$. In essence this is a rejection-type algorithm. 

745: We implemented this strategy, but it has some

746: problems.  First, it is hard to control the emerging distribution on

747: $X$ (this depends on details of the root finding method).  Second, it

748: is an order of magnitude slower than the second method we are about to

749: describe.

750: 

751: The approach we use starts by taking a pair of independently

752: chosen random points $(X,Y)\in \P^{n+1}\!\times\! \P^{n+1}$, which define

753: a random line in $\P^{n+1}$.  By Bezout's theorem, a generic complex

754: line in $\P^{n+1}$ intersects $X$ in precisely $d$ points, and we take

755: these $d$ points with equal weight.  Repeating this process $M$ times

756: generates some random distribution of $N_p=dM$ points.

757: 

758: One advantage of this approach is that finding all $d$ roots of $f(z)=0$

759: numerically is not much harder than finding one root.  But the main 

760: advantage, as we  show in Section~\ref{s:ec} 

761: using results by Shiffman and Zelditch on

762: zeroes of random sections, is that that the resulting points are

763: distributed precisely according to the Fubini-Study measure restricted

764: to $X$.  The mass function \eqref{e33} is then computable quite efficiently.

765: 

766: A possible disadvantage for some applications is that the resulting 

767: sample will have correlations between the points in each $d$-fold subset.

768: For our purpose of Monte Carlo integration, this is not a problem, as

769: \eqref{e2} is the expectation value of a function of a single random

770: variable, and does not see these correlations.  If one were considering

771: functions of several independent random variables, one would probably

772: want to further randomize the sequence (say by permuting points

773: between subsets) to remove these correlations.

774: 

775: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

776: %%%%%%%%%%%%

777: \subsection{Expected values of

778: currents}\label{s:ec}

779: 

780: Let us start with a smooth compact algebraic

781: variety $X$, and an ample line bundle $\c L$

782: on $X$. As reviewed in Section~\ref{s:T},

783: this means that $\c L^k$ defines an embedding

784: $i_k$ into projective space for any $k\geq

785: k_0$, for some positive integer $k_0:$

786: \begin{equation}\label{e4}

787: i_k \colon X \longrightarrow\P \H^{0}(X,\,

788: \mathcal{L}^k)^{\ast}.

789: \end{equation}

790: The idea is to consider {\em random} global

791: sections of  $\c L^k$, distributed uniformly

792: according to a natural measure, and look at

793: the expected value of the zero locus that

794: they cut out in $X$. For this it is

795: convenient to use the Poincare dual

796: formulation, where the divisor associated to

797: a section becomes a form, and ask what is the

798: expected value of the random forms. Shiffman

799: and Zelditch answer this question, and the

800: more general one when we intersect $l$ such

801: divisors, in full generality using the

802: language of currents. This section is a brief

803: review of some aspects of their work

804: \cite{Shiffman:Zelditch1,Shiffman:Zelditch2}.

805: For brevity we adapt their results to fit our

806: needs, rather than reproducing them verbatim.

807: 

808: The space of global sections

809: $\Gamma=\H^{0}(X,\, \mathcal{L}^k)$ is a

810: complex vector space of dimension $d_k$. If

811: we choose a basis for it, then it

812: automatically defines a hermitian inner

813: product, with respect to which the basis in

814: question is orthonormal. Conversely, given a 

815: hermitian inner product $\langle \cdot, \cdot

816: \rangle$ on $\Gamma$, there is an orthonormal

817: basis $\c B=\{s_1,\ldots,s_{d_k}\}$ on

818: $\Gamma$. Now given $s\in\Gamma$, we can

819: expand it in the basis $\c B$, and the inner

820: product induces a complex Gaussian

821: probability measure on $\Gamma$:

822: \begin{equation}

823: d\gamma(s)=\frac{1}{\pi^m}\,e^{-||c||^2}d^{

824: d_k}c\,,\qquad \txt{where

825: $s=\sum_{j=1}^{d_k}c_js_j$ and 

826: $||c||^2=\sum_{j=1}^{d_k} |c_j|^2$ }\,.

827: \end{equation} 

828: Given a metric $h$ on the line bundle $\c L$,

829: as explained in \eqref{T1}, $h$  defines a

830: hermitian metric on $\Gamma$. This is the

831: inner product that we are going to use on

832: $\Gamma=\H^{0}(X,\, \mathcal{L}^k)$

833: throughout this section.

834: 

835: Given a random variable $Y$ on the

836: probability space $(\Gamma, d \gamma)$,  

837: the expected value of $Y$ in the

838: probability measure $d \gamma$ is

839: \begin{equation}\label{e66}

840:  E(Y) =\int_{\Gamma}Y d \gamma.

841: \end{equation}

842: 

843: We can think of the probability space

844: $(\Gamma, d \gamma)$ in a slightly different

845: way. Consider the unit sphere 

846: \[

847:  \c S \Gamma= \c S \H^0(X, \c L^{k})=\{s\in

848: \H^0(X, \c L^{k})\colon\langle s, s \rangle

849: =1\}.

850: \]

851: The Gaussian probability measure on $\Gamma$

852: restricts to the {\em uniform} measure $d

853: \mu$ on $\c S \Gamma$. The 

854: expected value of $Y|_{\c S\Gamma}$ is

855: $E(Y) =\int_{\c S\Gamma}Y d\mu $. On the

856: other hand, the uniform measure on the sphere

857: $\c S \Gamma$ descends to the Fubini-Study

858: measure on the projectivization $\P \Gamma$. 

859: This alternative view will be very useful later on.

860: 

861: If we choose a section $s\in \Gamma=  \H^0(X,

862: \c L^{k})$, then there is a divisor $Z_s$

863: associated to it, which, roughly speaking, is

864: the zeros of $s$ minus the poles of $s$.

865: Since we work with $\c L^{k}$ very ample,

866: $Z_s$ consists of only the zero locus of $s$.

867: Given the probability measure $d \gamma$ on 

868: $\Gamma$, we can choose  $s$ randomly, and 

869: ask what is the expected value of the random

870: variable $Z$ (defined by $s\mapsto Z_s$).

871: This same question can be asked in an

872: equivalent form using Poincare duality. The

873: Poincare dual of $Z_s$ is a $(1,1)$ form

874: $T_s$, and it is more convenient to work with forms in this 

875: context than to work with divisors. In general $T_s$ is not a

876: $C^\infty$-form on $X$, but it can be given

877: an explicit expression using the notion of

878: currents, i.e., distribution valued forms.

879: 

880: Currents are defined as it is customary in the

881: theory of distributions.\footnote{For a nice

882: introduction to distributions and currents 

883: in algebraic geometry the reader can consult

884: \cite{GH}, Chapter 0 resp. Chapter 3.} 

885: Let $\Omega^{p,q}_0(X)$ be the space of

886: compactly supported $C^{\infty}$

887: $(p,q)$-forms on $X$, and for now we assume

888: that $\dim X=n$. The space of

889: $(p,q)$-\emph{currents} is the distributional

890: dual of $\Omega_0^{n-p,n-q}(X)$:

891: $\mathcal{D}^{\, p,q}(X) =

892: \Omega_0^{n-p,n-q}(X)^\prime$.

893: An element of $\mathcal{D}^{\, p,q}(X)$ is a

894: linear functional on $ \Omega_0^{n-p,n-q}(X)$

895: which continuous in the $C^{\infty}$  norm.

896: 

897: The usefulness of currents in our context

898: stems from the fact that Poincare dual

899: $T_{Y}$ of an algebraic subvariety $Y$,

900: defined by 

901: $$

902: \int_{X}T_{Y}\wedge \alpha =

903: \int_{Y}\iota^{\ast}(\alpha) ,

904: \qquad\mbox{for any $\alpha\in \Omega_0^{\dim

905: Y,\dim Y}(X)$},

906: $$

907: oftentimes has an explicit form in terms of

908: currents ($\iota\colon Y\hookrightarrow X$ is the embedding). 

909: Let us focus on the case when $Y$

910: is a hypersurface, or more generally the zero

911: divisor of a section $s\in \Gamma=  \H^0(X,

912: \c L^{k})$. In this case the current is given

913: by the \emph{Poincare-Lelong} formula:

914: \begin{equation}\nonumber

915: T_{s} =

916: \frac{i}{\pi}\,\partial\bar{\partial}\,\log

917: \langle s, s \rangle\,\, \in \mathcal{D}^{\,

918: 1,1}(X).

919: \end{equation}

920: $T_s$ is also known as the zero current of

921: ${s}$. Thus, the {Poincare-Lelong} formula

922: induces a map

923: $$

924: T\colon\P \H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k) \longrightarrow

925: \mathcal{D}^{\, 1,1}(X),\qquad s\mapsto T_s.

926: $$

927: 

928: As discussed earlier, the Fubini-Study

929: measure makes $\P \H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$ into a

930: probability space, and we can also view $T$

931: as a random variable. Since the currents form

932: a linear space, we can inquire about their

933: expected value in this probability measure

934: $$

935: E(T) = \int_{\P \H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)}T_s\;

936: d\mu_{FS}(s),

937: $$

938: As it happens oftentimes in the theory of

939: distributions, although $T_s$ is not a

940: $C^{\infty}$ form, $E(T)$ is, and we have the

941: following proposition:

942: 

943: \begin{prop} (\cite[Lemma

944: 3.1]{Shiffman:Zelditch1}) \label{p:1}

945: With $X$ and $\c L$ as above, for $k$

946: sufficiently large so that Kodaira's map

947: $i_k$ associated to $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$, as

948: defined in \eqref{e4}, is an embedding, the

949: expected value of the random variable $T$

950: representing the zero current is

951: $$E (T_s) = \frac{1}{k}\, i_k^{\ast} \;

952: \omega_k^{FS},$$

953: where $\omega_k^{FS}$ is  the Fubini-Study

954: 2-form on $\P\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$, and

955: $i_k^{\ast}$ is pullback of forms (in this

956: case restriction).

957: \end{prop}

958: 

959: This result generalizes to the case when we

960: intersect several divisors, and this will be

961: the case of main interest to us. Since

962: intersection of subvarieties is Poincare dual

963: to the wedge product, there is an obvious

964: guess how Prop.~\ref{p:1} should generalize. 

965: Let $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ be sections of

966: $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$, and consider the zero

967: current $T^{(m)}_{s_1,\ldots,s_m} $

968: associated to the set

969: \[

970:  Z_{s_1,\ldots,s_m} = \{x\in X\colon

971: s_1(x)=\cdots = s_m(x)=0\}.

972: \]

973: It is obvious that if we consider any $m$

974: linear combinations of $s_1,\ldots,s_m$

975: (which are themselves linearly independent),

976: then they determine the same zero set

977: $Z_{s_1,\ldots,s_m}$. Hence

978: $Z_{s_1,\ldots,s_m}$ is really associated to

979: the $m$-plane spanned by $s_1,\ldots,s_m$ in

980: $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$. Therefore the

981: probability space is the Grassmannian of

982: $m$-dimensional subspaces of $\H^0(X,\c

983: L^{k})$, with its natural Haar measure

984: $d\mu_{Haar}$ (a generalization of the

985: Fubini-Study measure). So we can ask what is

986: the expected value of this zero current,

987: computed with $d\mu_{Haar}$.

988: 

989: \begin{prop} (\cite[Lemma

990: 4.3]{Shiffman:Zelditch1}) \label{p:2}

991: In the notation of Prop. \ref{p:1}, the

992: expected value of  the zero current

993: $T^{(m)}$, associated to the simultaneous

994: vanishing of $m$ random sections of

995: $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$, distributed according

996: the Haar  measure of the corresponding

997: Grassmannian, is

998: \begin{equation}\label{e7}

999: E(T^{(m)}) = k^{m-1}\,\big( i_k^{\ast} \;

1000: \omega_k^{FS}\big)^m

1001: \end{equation}

1002: \end{prop}

1003: 

1004: Note in particular, that unlike in Prop.

1005: \ref{p:1},  the distribution is according to

1006: the Haar measure, but the final result still

1007: involves the Fubini-Study form on

1008: $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$. This is in fact

1009: natural, given that an $m$-tuple of sections,

1010: each distributed according to Fubini-Study on

1011: $\H^{0}(X,\, \c L^k)$, is the same thing as

1012: one $m$-plane, distributed according to Haar

1013: on the Grassmannian.

1014: 

1015: As usual, besides having expected values,

1016: random variables also have variance. The zero

1017: current $T^{(m)}$ is no different in this

1018: respect. Its variance has been computed

1019: recently in \cite[Theorem

1020: 1.1]{Shiffman:Zelditch2}. In particular, it

1021: was shown that the ratio of the variance and

1022: the expected value goes to zero as $k$ is

1023: increased

1024: $$\frac{\left[ \operatorname{Var}\big(T^{(m)}

1025: \big) \right]^{1/2}}{E\big(T^{(m)} \big)}

1026: \sim  k^{-\frac{ m}{2} -\frac {1}{4}}.$$

1027: 

1028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1029: %%%%%%%%%%%%

1030: \subsection{The \CY\ case}

1031: 

1032: In this section we put all the pieces

1033: together, and explicitly show how to build

1034: the numerical measure

1035: $\{ q_i\in X,\, m(q_i) \}_{i=1}^{N_p}$

1036: introduced in Section~\ref{s:nm}. We will

1037: focus on a smooth Calabi-Yau hypersurface $X$

1038: in  $\P^{n+1}$ of degree $n+2$. Let $X$ be

1039: given by the zero locus of the degree $n+2$

1040: homogeneous polynomial $f$, and let $(Z_{0},

1041: Z_{1},\ldots Z_{n+1})$ be the homogeneous

1042: coordinates on $\P ^{n+1}$. We denote the

1043: embedding by

1044: \[

1045:  i \colon X=\mathcal{Z}(f)\hookrightarrow\P

1046: ^{n+1}.

1047: \]

1048: 

1049: Our approach is to generate random points on

1050: $X$ using random lines on $\P ^{n+1}$,  by

1051: looking at the intersection of these random

1052: lines with $X$. We can view  a random line as

1053: the intersection of $n$ random hyperplanes.

1054: This allows us to compute the expected value

1055: of the corresponding zero current using the

1056: techniques of Section~\ref{s:ec}.

1057: 

1058: For computational purposes, designing an

1059: algorithm to generate points on $X$ in such a

1060: fashion is straightforward. To generate a

1061: random line on $\P ^{n+1}$ we generate two

1062: random points, which lie on the unit sphere

1063: $\mathrm{S}^{2n+3}\subset\C^{n+2}$, and are

1064: distributed uniformly on this sphere.

1065: For instance, to generate random points 

1066: uniformly on $\mathrm{S}^{2n+3}$ we can start

1067: with the unit cube in $\R^{2n+4}$, i.e.,

1068: $[-1,\,1]^{2n+4}\subset \R^{2n+4}$.

1069: Using a good quality random number

1070: generator

1071: %\footnote{It is well known in

1072: %computational circles that random

1073: %number generators built into languages are

1074: %usually low quality.}

1075: we generate an uniform distribution of points

1076: in $[-1,\,1]^{2n+4}$. Now take {\em only}

1077: those points which 

1078: fall within the unit disk

1079: $\mathrm{D}^{2n+4}$, and then project them

1080: radially 

1081: to the boundary $\partial \mathrm{D}^{2n+4}

1082: =\mathrm{S}^{2n+3}$. 

1083: 

1084: The intersection of the random line with $X$

1085: can be computed by restricting the defining

1086: polynomial $f$ to the line.

1087: As a result, computing the common zero locus

1088: reduces to solving for the roots of a 

1089: polynomial of degree $n+2$ in one variable.

1090: We  find numerically the $n+2$ roots using

1091: the Durand-Kerner algorithm \cite{Durand,Kerner}, 

1092: which is a refinement of the multidimensional 

1093: Newton's method applied to a polynomial. 

1094: This whole approach turns out to be

1095: very efficient  in practice, in that one can

1096: generate a million points on a quintic in a

1097: matter of seconds.

1098: 

1099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1100: %%%%%%%%%%%%

1101: \subsubsection{The expected zero current}

1102: 

1103: We chose to work with the hyperplane line

1104: bundle $\c L=\O_X(1)$ on $X$. $\O_X(1)$ is

1105: ample, and its global sections are in one to

1106: one correspondence with the homogeneous

1107: coordinates of the ambient $\P ^{n+1}$

1108: (restricted to $X$). The associated Kodaira

1109: embedding is precisely the defining one:

1110: \[

1111:  i_1 \colon X\hookrightarrow\P

1112: ^{n+1}=\P\H^{0}(X,\, \O_X(1))^*.

1113: \]

1114: If we take $n$ sections of $\c L=\O_X(1)$,

1115: and look at their common zero locus, then by

1116: Bezout's theorem this is generically $n+2$

1117: points (degenerations might occur).

1118: Therefore, considering random $n$-tuples of

1119: sections will give random $n+2$-tuples of

1120: points on $X$. But now we can tell how these

1121: points are distributed, provided that the

1122: sections were distributed according to the

1123: Fubini-Study measure on $\P\H^{0}(X,\,

1124: \O_X(1))=\P ^{n+1}$. Using Prop.~\ref{p:2} we

1125: know that the expected value of the zero

1126: current associated to the $n+2$ points of

1127: intersection is $\big( i_1^{\ast} \;

1128: \omega^{FS}_{\P ^{n+1}}\big)^n$. This is an

1129: $(n,n)$ form on $X$, and plugging it into

1130: \eqref{e33} we obtain the mass formula

1131: \begin{equation}\label{f2}

1132:  m(x)=\frac{\Omega\wedge

1133: \overline{\Omega}}{\big( i_1^{\ast} \;

1134: \omega^{FS}_{\P ^{n+1}}\big)^n }(x).

1135: \end{equation}

1136: 

1137: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1138: %%%%%%%%%%%%

1139: \subsubsection{The numerical mass}\label{s:nM}

1140: 

1141: Let us look at the two differential forms

1142: involved in \eq{f2}. For this we first

1143: choose affine coordinates

1144: $w_{a}=Z_{a}/Z_{0}$, $i=1,2,\ldots,n+1$ on 

1145: $\P^{n+1}$. The Fubini-Study 2-form on

1146: $\P^{n+1}$ is

1147: \begin{equation}\label{e6}

1148: \omega^{\P ^{n+1}}_{FS} = \Bigg[ 

1149: \frac{\sum \mathrm{d}w_{a}\wedge

1150: \mathrm{d}\bar{w}_{a}}{1 + \sum

1151: w_{a}\bar{w}_{a}} -

1152: \frac{\big(

1153: \sum\bar{w}_{a}\mathrm{d}w_{a}\big)\wedge

1154: \big( \sum w_{a}\mathrm{d}\bar{w}_{a}\big)}

1155: {\big(1 + \sum w_{a}\bar{w}_{a} \big)^{2}}

1156: \Bigg].

1157: \end{equation}

1158: The pullback $\big( i_1^{\ast} \;

1159: \omega^{FS}_{\P ^{n+1}}\big)^n

1160: \in\Omega_0^{n,n}(X,\mathbb{Z})$ is a top

1161: form on $X$. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ be local

1162: coordinates on $X$. Then 

1163: \begin{equation}\label{f1}

1164:  \big( i_1^{\ast} \; \omega^{FS}_{\P

1165: ^{n+1}}\big)_{i\bar\jmath}=

1166: \frac{\partial w_a}{\partial x_i} \; \big(

1167: \omega^{FS}_{\P ^{n+1}}\big)_{a\bar b}  \;

1168: \overline{\frac{\partial w_{\bar b}}{\partial

1169: x_{\bar\jmath}}},

1170: \end{equation}

1171: and $\big( i_1^{\ast} \; \omega^{FS}_{\P

1172: ^{n+1}}\big)^n$ is proportional to the

1173: determinant of this matrix. For obvious

1174: reasons we need to evaluate this determinant.

1175: Let us outline how this can be done, paying

1176: attention to some of the numerical aspects.

1177: 

1178: The idea is to choose local coordinates on

1179: $X$ that are convenient to work with. Let us

1180: start with the point $P$ on $X$ with

1181: homogenous coordinates $Z_i$. To minimize the

1182: numerical error we go to the affine patch

1183: where $|Z_i|$ is maximal.

1184: Without loss of generality let us assume that

1185: this happens for $i=0$. The  affine coordinates are

1186: $w_{a}=Z_{a}/Z_{0}$. 

1187: 

1188: Let $p$ be the affine form of $f$, i.e.,

1189: $p(w)= f(1,w_{1}, w_{2},\ldots, w_{n+1})$.

1190: This equation determines one of the $w_{a}$-s

1191: in term of the others, as an implicit

1192: function. Let us assume for the sake of this

1193: presentation that $\partial p/ \partial

1194: w_{n+1}(P)\neq 0$. The implicit function

1195: theorem then tell us that in an open

1196: neighborhood of $P$ $w_{n+1}$ is a function

1197: of the remaining variables:

1198: $w_{n+1}=w_{n+1}(w_{1}, w_{2},\ldots,

1199: w_{n})$. This allows us to choose the

1200: coordinates $w_{1},\ldots, w_{n}$

1201: to be the local coordinates $x_1,\ldots,x_n$

1202: on $X$.

1203: 

1204: This choice of coordinates is quite

1205: advantageous for computing \eqref{f1}. All we

1206: need is to compute $\partial w_{n+1}/\partial

1207: x_i$, as $\partial w_j/\partial x_i=\delta_{i

1208: j}$. This can be done algebraically, without

1209: explicitly solving the $p=0$ equation.

1210: Namely, using the fact that 

1211: \[

1212:  p( w_{1},\ldots, w_{n},w_{n+1}(w_{1},\ldots,

1213: w_{n}))\equiv 0

1214: \]

1215: is the identically zero function, its

1216: derivative with respect to any $w_{i}$

1217: vanishes identically, for $i=1,\ldots, n$. As

1218: a result we have that 

1219: \begin{equation}\label{df}

1220:  \frac{\partial w_{n+1}}{\partial w_i}(P)=

1221: -\frac{\partial p}{\partial

1222: w_i}(P)/\frac{\partial p}{\partial

1223: w_{n+1}}(P).

1224: \end{equation}

1225: For  numerical stability one should always

1226: solve for the variable for which

1227: $|{\partial p}/{\partial w_i}(P)|$ is the largest.

1228: 

1229: The second differential form entering

1230: \eqref{f2} is $\Omega\wedge

1231: \overline{\Omega}$. The holomorphic $n$-form

1232: $\Omega\in \Omega^{n,0}(X,\mathbb{C})$ can be

1233: represented using the Poincare residue map 

1234: \cite[Section 1.1]{GH}

1235: \begin{equation}\label{omega}

1236: \Omega = (-1)^{i-1}

1237: \frac{\mathrm{d}w_{1}\wedge

1238: \mathrm{d}w_{2}\ldots \wedge

1239: \widehat{\mathrm{d}w_{i}}\wedge\ldots \wedge

1240: \mathrm{d}w_{n}}{\partial p(w)/\partial

1241: w_{i}}. 

1242: \end{equation}

1243: where $\widehat{\mathrm{d}w_{i}}$ means the

1244: omission of $\mathrm{d}w_{i}$ in the wedge

1245: product.

1246: 

1247: These explicit expressions allow us to perform integrals

1248: numerically on elliptic curves, $K3$ surfaces and 

1249: more interestingly,  quintic 3-folds. 

1250: 

1251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1252: %%%%%%%%%%%%

1253: \subsubsection{Symmetries}\label{s:sym}

1254: 

1255: Suppose our Calabi-Yau $X$ is preserved as a complex manifold

1256: by the action of a discrete group $\Gamma$.  Then a Ricci flat

1257: metric whose K\"ahler class $\omega$ is preserved by $\Gamma$ will

1258: also be $\Gamma$-invariant, because it is unique.  As we will see in this section,

1259: the same statement applies to the balanced metrics as well.

1260: 

1261: A general hermitian $N$ by $N$ matrix has $N^2$

1262: independent real coefficients.  On the other hand, if the Calabi-Yau

1263: $X$ has discrete symmetries, then we expect to find symmetry

1264: relations between the matrix elements of $T(h)$.

1265: Taking advantage of these relations can drastically reduce the size of

1266: the problem.

1267: In this section, we argue that these symmetry relations are respected

1268: by the balanced metric and the T-map, and explain how we used them

1269: in the  examples of Section~\ref{s:NR}.

1270: 

1271: Next, let us review the symmetries of 

1272: $X$ defined as a

1273: hypersurface in  $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ by the 

1274: degree $n+2$ homogenous polynomial

1275: \be\label{defX}

1276: f=\sum_{i=0}^{n+1}Z_{i}^{{n+2}}-(n+2)\psi

1277: \prod_{i=0}^{n+1}Z_{i}.

1278: \ee

1279: Here $\psi$ controls the complex structure of the hypersurface. Using the fact that $X$

1280: is

1281: Calabi-Yau, the symmetry group is

1282: finite.

1283: To find the symmetries of $X$ we  consider two natural  group actions 

1284: on $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$, and impose conditions such that these group actions descend to $X$.

1285: 

1286: We start with the abelian group 

1287: $$

1288: \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n+1}

1289: \mathbb{Z}_{p} \subset GL(n+2)

1290: $$

1291: that acts by independently rescaling the $n+2$ homogenous coordinates $Z_{i} \mapsto { \alpha_{i}}

1292: Z_{{i}}$, where $\alpha_{i}$ are  $p$th roots of unity. Since the projective coordinates are defined only up to overall rescaling, we have to mod out by the diagonal action ${\triangle\mathbb{Z}_{p}} $ and  find the group

1293: $$

1294: \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n+1}

1295: \mathbb{Z}_{p}/{\triangle\mathbb{Z}_{p}} \subset \mathbb{P}GL(n+2)

1296: $$

1297: acting on $\mathbb{P}^{{n+1}}$. 

1298: In order for this group to descend  to $X$,

1299: it must leave the defining equation \eqref{defX}

1300: invariant. In the Fermat case, that is

1301: $\psi=0$, we set $p=n+2$ and find that the

1302: Calabi-Yau is invariant under 

1303: \be\label{abelian}

1304: \bigoplus_{i=0}^{n+1}

1305: \mathbb{Z}_{n+2}/{\triangle\mathbb{Z}_{n+2}}\cong

1306: \left( \mathbb{Z}_{n+2}\right)^{n+1}.

1307: \ee

1308: For non-vanishing $\psi$, the $\alpha_{i}$

1309: have to obey the  additional constraint 

1310: $

1311: \prod_{i=0}^{n+1}\alpha_{i}=1.

1312: $

1313: This shows that the symmetry group is a subgroup of 

1314: $\mathbb{Z}_{n+2}/{\triangle\mathbb{Z}_{n+2}}\cong

1315: \left( \mathbb{Z}_{n+2}\right)^{n+1}$, given by the kernel of the 

1316: product map $(\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{n+1})\mapsto \prod_{i=0}^{n+1}\alpha_{i}$.

1317: We call this group $Ab_{n+2}$, and it is clear that there is an isomorphism 

1318: $Ab_{n+2}\cong \left( \mathbb{Z}_{n+2}\right)^n$.

1319: For example, in the case of the torus defined by our

1320: cubic in $\mathbb{P}^{2}$, 

1321: $Ab_{3}\cong\mathbb{Z}_{3}$. At the

1322: Fermat point this group is enhanced to

1323: $\mathbb{Z}_{3}^{2}$.

1324: 

1325: The second symmetry group we consider is the

1326: symmetric group on $n+2 $ elements $\mathbb{S}_{{n+2}}$. 

1327: This group acts by

1328: permuting the coordinates of

1329: $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$. Since \eq{defX} is

1330: invariant under permutations, $\mathbb{S}_{n+2}$ is a symmetry

1331: of $X$ as well.

1332: 

1333: To see how these actions on the coordinates

1334: of $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ induce an action on

1335: $\{s_{{\alpha}}\}$, the global sections of

1336: the line bundle ${\cal L}^{k}$ on $X$ defining the

1337: embedding in $\mathbb{P}^{N-1}$, we can use some simple algebraic geometry. 

1338: The fact that $X$ is given by a hyperplane in

1339: $\mathbb{P}^{n+1}$ gives a natural way to

1340: parameterize the global sections of ${\cal

1341: L}^{k}=\O_X(k)$. We start with the short exact sequence (SES) defining $X$:

1342: \[

1343: \xymatrix@1{0 \ar[r] & \O_{\P^{n+1}}(-n-2) \ar[r]^-{\cdot f} & \O_{\P^{n+1}} \ar[r] & \O_X \ar[r] & 0}

1344: \]

1345: Tensoring with $\O_{\P^{n+1}}(k)$, and using the fact that $\H^1(\mathbb{P}^{n+1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^

1346: {n+1}}(k-n-2))=0$, for $k>0$, we get another SES:

1347: \be\label{Mike1}

1348: \xymatrix@1{0 \ar[r] & 

1349: \H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{n+1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^

1350: {n+1}}(k-n-2))  \ar[r]^-{\cdot f} & 

1351: \H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{n+1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^

1352: {n+1}}(k))  \ar[r] &  \H^{0}(X,{\cal L}^{k}) \ar[r] & 0

1353: }

1354: \ee

1355: which shows that the global sections of

1356: $\H^{0}(X,{\cal L}^{k})$ can be parameterized

1357: by  degree $k$ monomials in $n+2$

1358: variables modulo the ideal generated by $f$. Therefore

1359: the sections inherit an obvious group action.

1360: 

1361: In particular, we also find that  

1362: \[

1363: N=\dim \H^{0}(X,{\cal L}^{k})=

1364: \binom{n + k+1}{k}-\binom{k-1}{k-n-2}.

1365: \]

1366: In addition, note that the map $i_k\colon

1367: X\hookrightarrow{\mathbb{P}}^ {N-1}$

1368: factorizes 

1369: \be\label{factor}

1370: \xymatrix{*++{X} \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^-i

1371: \ar@/_2pc/[rr]^-{i_k} & *++{\P^{n+1}} \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^-v & *++{\P^{N-1}} }

1372: \ee

1373: The second embedding, $v\colon\P^{n+1}

1374: \hookrightarrow{\mathbb{P}}^ {N-1}$, is the (Veronese) map associated to

1375: the incomplete linear system on $ \P^{n+1}$ induced by the complete 

1376: linear system $|{\cal L}^{k}|$ on $X$.

1377: 

1378: We will now consider the consequences of these actions on the $T$-map

1379: and the sequence of hermitian matrices $\{T^{l}(h)\}_{l=1,2,\ldots }$.

1380: First we consider the action of $Ab_{n+2}$. We assume that $T^{0}(h)$

1381: is invariant under the group action. This is a choice we can always

1382: make.  Since $Ab_{n+2}$ is an abelian group, its irreducible

1383: representations are one dimensional, and can be labeled by the

1384: characters.  Each section $s_{\alpha}$ transforms under a character

1385: $\chi_{{\alpha}}$. The operator $T$ is defined in terms of the

1386: sections, and the $Ab_{n+2}$ will force some of the

1387: $T(h)_{\alpha\bbeta}$ matrix elements to be zero. To better understand

1388: this we look at a toy example: the integral of an odd function $a $ on

1389: $\mathbb{R}$. The group $G$ in question is $\mathbb{Z}_2$, and acts on

1390: $\mathbb{R}$ by $x\mapsto -x$. $\mathbb{Z}_2$ has only one nontrivial

1391: representation, and being odd, $a $ transform in this irrep. Now we

1392: have that

1393: $$

1394: \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}a(t)\,dt=

1395: \int_{+\infty}^{-\infty}a(-x)\,d(-x)=-\int_{

1396: -\infty}^{+\infty}a(x)\,dx,

1397: $$

1398: where we used a change of variable $t=-x$. This implies that

1399: $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}a(x)dx=0$. 

1400: 

1401: More generally, in $\mathbb{R}^n$ for a function $a$, a group $G$, and an element $g \in G$, we can do the change of coordinates $t=g\cdot x$ and then

1402: \begin{equation}\label{c1}

1403: \int_{X} a(t)\, dV(t) = \int_{g\cdot

1404: X} a(g\cdot x)g^{{*}}\, dV(x)=

1405: \int_{X} a(g\cdot x) \, dV(x)\,.

1406: \end{equation}

1407: Here we assumed the measure to be $G$-invariant.

1408: 

1409: Applying \eq{c1} for $G= Ab_{n+2}$,

1410: and using the fact that $s_\alpha$ transform as a character of

1411: $G= Ab_{n+2}$, it gives that

1412: \begin{equation}

1413:  T(h)_{\alpha\bbeta}

1414: =\frac{N}{\vol(X)}\int_X \frac{

1415: \chi_{{\alpha}}(u)s_\alpha

1416: \overline{\chi_{{{\bbeta}}}(u)} \bs_\bbeta}{||s||^2_h} \, d\mu_\Omega

1417: =\chi_{{\alpha}}(u)\overline{\chi_{\bar{\beta}}(u)}\, T(h)_{

1418: \alpha\bbeta}.

1419: \end{equation}

1420: We  used the fact that $X$ is

1421: invariant under that action of $Ab_{n+2}$,

1422: and so is the measure $\Omega\wedge\bar{\Omega}$, and the

1423: denominator $||s||^2_h$. (The latter follows by induction from the

1424: initial choice of $ T^{0}(h) $ being invariant.) In particular,  if

1425: $\chi_{{\alpha}}(u)\overline{\chi_{\bar{\beta}}(u)}\neq 1$, for any

1426: $u\in Ab_{n+2}$,

1427: then the corresponding $T(h)_{\alpha\bbeta}$ has

1428: to vanish.

1429: In our numerical routine we impose this

1430: vanishing condition on all the matrices 

1431: $T^{l}(h)$.

1432: 

1433: A similar argument applies for $G= \mathbb{S}_{n+2}$. 

1434: Since $\mathbb{S}_{n+2}$ is not

1435: abelian, and hence its generic irreducible

1436: representations are not one dimensional, this

1437: constraint does not result in vanishing rules, but rather sets a priori

1438: independent coefficients of $T(h)$ equal to each other. To see how

1439: $\mathbb{S}_{n+2}$ acts, recall from \eq{Mike1} that

1440: $$  \H^{0}(X,{\cal L})\cong

1441: \H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{n+1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^

1442: {n+1}}(1))=\C^{n+2}$$

1443: is the fundamental representation of $\mathbb{S}_{n+2}$, call it $F$. Then 

1444: $\H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{n+1},\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^

1445: {n+1}}(k))$ is the $k$th symmetric tensor power of $F$, 

1446: $Sym^k\,F$, and by \eqref{Mike1} $\H^{0}(X,{\cal L}^{k})$ 

1447: is a quotient of this. Now we can return to \eq{c1}.

1448: Once again,

1449: we choose $T^{0}(h)$ to be invariant under $\mathbb{S}_{n+2}$, and then 

1450: induction and \eq{c1} tell us which matrix elements of $T(h)$

1451: equal each other. 

1452: 

1453: Therefore, imposing the symmetries of  both

1454: finite groups, the number of independent components of 

1455: $T^{l}(h)$ (for any $l$) reduces significantly. To illustrate this we consider 

1456:  $k=12$ on the quintic in $\P^4$, i.e., $n=3$ (this was the largest $k$ we computed).

1457: In this case $N=1490$. This means that $T(h)$ is a hermitian matrix with 

1458: 2,220,100 components. Taking into account the $Ab_5$ and $\mathbb{S}_5$

1459: relations, one is reduced to computing 9800 components. This simplification 

1460: speaks for itself.

1461: 

1462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1463: %%%%%%%%%%%%

1464: \section{Numerical results}\label{s:NR}

1465: 

1466: In this section we present our explicit  numerical results. 

1467: The main object that we compute is the balanced metric

1468: associated to the embedding of the quintic threefold

1469: defined in \eq{defX}. For definiteness we chose to work with $\psi=0.1$, but also tested other values of $\psi$. We also considered the case of elliptic curves ($n=1$) and K3 surfaces ($n=2$). In all these cases we obtained results similar to the ones to be presented here.

1470: 

1471: To find the balanced metric we study the associated $N\times N$ matrix

1472: $h_k$ for several values of $k$, from $k=1$  to $k=12$.

1473: We use $h_k$ to construct the associated

1474: K\"ahler form $\omega_k$ on $X$, and check how well it approximates

1475: the Ricci flat metric. We do this in several ways.

1476: 

1477: First, one can study the function defined in \eq{define-eta}

1478: $$

1479: \eta_k = \frac{\det\,\omega_k}{\Omega\wedge\bar{\Omega}}\colon X\longrightarrow \R.

1480: $$

1481: For a good approximation $g_k$ to the Ricci flat metric

1482: $g_{RF}$ the function $\eta_k$ is almost constant.

1483: We study the behavior of $\eta_k$ statistically, by summing  over

1484: all the regions of $X$, and also locally paying attention to certain

1485: special regions of the threefold.

1486: 

1487: Second, one can compute the Ricci tensor of $\omega_k$.

1488: To check pointwise how close to zero the Ricci tensor is, we need a diffeomorphism invariant

1489: quantity. We chose to work with the Ricci scalar. We also perform this

1490: analysis for several values of $k$, and show how the Ricci

1491: scalars decrease pointwise with $k$.

1492: 

1493: Before presenting the results let us comment on the errors coming from

1494: Monte Carlo integration. We estimate them by computing the balanced

1495: metrics associated to different samples of points, and then looking at the mean and variance

1496: of each individual matrix element.

1497: Ideally, one would like to produce samples of points with minimal induced error.

1498: Constructions that reduce the standard deviation of the integrals

1499: are refinements to the theory of numerical

1500: integration presented here. 

1501: Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques, construction

1502: of lattices on Calabi-Yau varieties, and of quasi-random points on such manifolds are

1503: different approaches that one could consider.

1504: 

1505: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1506: \subsection{Approximating volumes v.s. \CY\ volume}

1507: 

1508: Here, we consider the way the function

1509: $$

1510: \vert \eta_{k}-1_X\vert\colon X\longrightarrow \R_+,\qquad  x\mapsto  \vert\eta_{k}(x)-1 \vert

1511: $$

1512: behaves on $X$. As argued earlier, we expect $\vert \eta_{k}-1_X\vert$ to approach the constant zero function.

1513: One can study the deviation of

1514: $\vert \eta_{k}-1_X\vert$ from the zero function

1515: by computing the integral

1516: \begin{equation}\label{Aeta}

1517: \sigma_k = \int_{X} \vert \eta_{k}-1_X\vert\,  d\mu_{\Omega}\,.

1518: \end{equation}

1519: We compute this integral by our Monte Carlo method, which introduces an error, and this error can be estimated by

1520: \begin{equation}\label{SIGeta}

1521: \delta \sigma_k = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_p}}\left(

1522: \int_{X} \left(\vert \eta_{k}-1_X\vert-\sigma\right)^{2}\, d\mu_{\Omega}

1523: \right)^{1/2},

1524: \end{equation}

1525: where $N_p$ is the number of points used to perform the Monte Carlo

1526: integration in \eqref{Aeta}.

1527: 

1528: \begin{figure}[h]

1529: \begin{center}

1530: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1531:    \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{Eta.ps}&

1532:    \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{RicciScalar.ps}

1533: \end{tabular}

1534: \end{center}

1535:     \caption{$\sigma_k$ and Ricci scalars.}	\label{f:eta}

1536: \end{figure}

1537: 

1538: In Fig. \ref{f:eta} we plot the values  $\sigma_k$ defined in \eqref{Aeta}

1539: for $k=3,\ldots, 12$. The error bars for each value are the

1540: corresponding standard deviations \eqref{SIGeta}. 

1541: We also see how the errors decrease, along with $\sigma_k$, for higher and higher $k$.

1542: The fit in Fig. \ref{f:eta} is a curve of  type

1543: $$

1544: \sigma_k = \frac{\alpha}{k^2} +\frac{\beta}{k^3}  +\mathrm{O}\left(\frac{1}{k^4}\right),

1545: $$

1546: as we expect from the theory.

1547: 

1548: We can also study the local behavior of $\eta_k$

1549: by restricting it to a subspace. Given our quintic 3-fold, we consider the rational curve defined by

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \label{ratcuv}

1552: ( Z_0 = z_0,\, Z_1 = -z_0,\,Z_2 = z_1,\,Z_3 =

1553: 0,\,Z_4 = -z_1 ),

1554: \end{equation}

1555: where $Z_{i}$ are homogeneous

1556: coordinates on $\mathbb{P}^4$, while

1557: $(z_{0},\, z_1)$ are homogeneous coordinates

1558: for $\mathbb{P}^1$.

1559: This rational curve lies on every quintic

1560: defined by \eq{defX}.

1561: 

1562: \begin{figure}[h]

1563: \begin{center}

1564: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

1565:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{1.eps}&

1566:     %\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{2.eps}&

1567:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{3.eps}&

1568:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{4.eps}&

1569:    \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{5.eps}\\ \\

1570:     %\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{6.eps}&

1571:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{7.eps}&

1572:     %\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{8.eps}\\ \\

1573:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{9.eps}&

1574:     %\includegraphics[width=1.2in]{10.eps}&

1575:    % \includegraphics[width=\textwidth , bb= 20 20 575 575]{/home/karp/p/ss/11.jpg}&

1576:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{11.eps}&

1577:     \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{12.eps}

1578: \end{tabular}

1579: \end{center}

1580:     \caption{The values of $\eta$ on the rational curve, for 

1581: $k=1$,  3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and  12.}

1582:     \label{plots}

1583: \end{figure}

1584: 

1585: In Fig. \ref{plots} we plot the values of function $\eta_{k}$ restricted to

1586: the rational curve defined above for 12

1587: different values of $k$,

1588: ranging between $1$ and $12$. 

1589: More concretely, given the embedding \eqref{ratcuv}, we choose

1590: the local coordinate system on $\mathbb{P}^1$

1591: defined by

1592: $t=z_1/z_0$, and take the stereographic

1593: projection of

1594: the $t$-plane. Using spherical coordinates $(\theta,\, \phi)$

1595: on

1596: $\P^1\equiv S^2$ we embed it into  $ \mathbb{R}^3$,

1597: by the parameterization

1598: $$

1599: z_0 = \sin\theta\,\cos\phi,\qquad

1600: z_1 = \sin\theta\,\sin\phi + i\,\cos\theta.

1601: $$

1602: In the radial direction of $\mathbb{R}^3$ we

1603: plot the function $\eta_{k}$. As expected, $\eta_k$ approaches

1604: the constant function 1 as $k$ increases.

1605: 

1606: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1607: \subsection{Ricci scalars}

1608: 

1609: Next we discuss how we compute the

1610: Ricci scalar on $X$.

1611: The K\"ahler potential on $X$ is given by the

1612: restriction of the K\"ahler potential

1613: \eqref{Ks}, which is associated to a balanced metric. The metric and Ricci curvature on

1614: $X$ are given by

1615: \begin{equation}\label{r4}

1616:  g_h=\partial\bar{\partial} K_{h}

1617: ,\qquad

1618: Ric =\partial\bar{\partial} \det{g_h}.

1619: \end{equation}

1620: 

1621: To compute these quantities  we

1622: need the first and second derivatives  of the sections

1623: $s_{\alpha}$ with respect to the

1624: coordinates of $X$. 

1625: We can compute these derivatives algebraically,

1626: using the ideas outlined in Section~\ref{s:nM}.

1627: To get the actual value of

1628: $g$ and $Ric$, at a specific point $x \in X$, we

1629: evaluate our numerical expressions at

1630: this point. Let us stress that this way $g$ and $Ric$

1631: are evaluated algebraically, without numerical derivatives.

1632: 

1633: Let us now discuss the effect of the parameter $k$ on the Ricci scalar $R$. The theoretical estimate predicts a vanishing of $R$ for large $k$ as

1634: \be\label{vanR}

1635: ||R_k|| < \frac{\gamma}{k} + \frac{\delta}{k^2}+\cdots, 

1636: \ee

1637: where $\gamma $ and $\delta$ are constants, in any $C^r$ norm. We can see this pointwise, after a short statistical analysis. Let us pick $100$ randomly chosen points $P_i$ on the 3-fold, and compute the associated sets of Ricci scalars $R_{k}$, for $k \in [3,\dots, 10]$. To obtain a normalized set $\tilde{R}_{k}$ of Ricci scalars we rescale all $R_{k} $ by $1/R_{3}$, and we do this for every point. This  normalization leads to a more meaningful comparison between the different points.

1638: 

1639: We are only interested in points where $\tilde{R}_{k}$ shows a generic behaviour. For this we compute the expectation value of $|\tilde{R}_{10}|$ ($k=10$ gives a good accuracy)

1640: $$

1641: \langle |\tilde{R}_{10}| \rangle = \frac{1}{100}\sum_{i=1}^{100} |\tilde{R}_{{10}}(P_i)|=0.48.

1642: $$

1643: We consider a point $P$ generic if it lies at a distance of order one from the mean $\langle |\tilde{R}_{10}| \rangle$, that is

1644: $$

1645: |\tilde{R}_{{10}}(P)-\langle |\tilde{R}_{10}| \rangle |<0.5.

1646: $$

1647: We find that $95$ points out of $100$ obey this condition. We use these $95$ points for our statistical check of \eq{vanR}.

1648: In Fig.~\ref{f:eta} we plot $ \langle |\tilde{R}_{k}| \rangle$ as a function of $k$. We do a least square fit for both $\gamma $ and $\delta$, and obtain very good agreement.

1649: 

1650: \begin{figure}[h]

1651: \begin{center}

1652: \begin{tabular}{cc}

1653:    \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{histo.eps}&

1654:     \includegraphics[angle=0,width=3in]{Scatter.ps}

1655: \end{tabular}

1656: \end{center}

1657:     \caption{Histogram of Ricci scalars, and scattered plot of mass versus the Ricci scalars.}	

1658:     \label{f:Histogram}

1659: \end{figure}

1660: 

1661: We can obtain a visual picture of how the Ricci scalars decrease with $k$ by plotting them on a histogram. We use the same $100$ points from above. To keep the picture simple we plot only six $k$ values: 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12. Unlike earlier, here we do not normalize the Ricci scalars pointwise, instead we reorder them decreasingly. This ordering is done for no other reason but to enhance the visual clarity. Accordingly, in the first graph of Fig.~\ref{f:Histogram} we plotted the value of the Ricci scalar for every point (the $y$ axis is the absolute value of Ricci scalar, while on the $x$ axis we have the points from 1 to 100). We did this for the $k$ values indicated above, and used different colors to distinguish them (e.g., yellow corresponds to $k=3$, while $k=12$ is blue). It is evident from this graph that by going from $k=3$ to $k=12$ the Ricci scalars decrease by an order of magnitude, in line with the theoretical expectation.

1662: 

1663: One observes that for any $k$ there are a few anomalously large Ricci scalars. To understand this we can do a scattered plot of the mass of that point versus the Ricci scalar in question (we present this for $k=12$), using $1000$ random points. This is the second graph in Fig.~\ref{f:Histogram}. The picture shows a correlation between large values of the Ricci scalar and large values of the mass (large in a logarithmic sense). In other words, in regions where our point generator needs large correction, via the mass, the balanced metric is a less accurate approximation of the Ricci flat metric, compared to points with smaller mass. This fact is then amplified by the formula for the Ricci tensor in \eq{r4}, where the logarithmic scale is also supplied.

1664: 

1665: Finally let us note that $1/\eta_1$ is 

1666: %up to a global constant 

1667: precisely the mass function \eqref{e33}. This is because the $k=1$ balanced matrix is proportional to the identity, a consequence of the discrete symmetries present for our quintic. This leads to an alternative interpretation for the first graph ($k=1$) in Fig.~\ref{plots}, as depicting the inverse masses of the points on that rational curve.

1668: 

1669: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1670: \subsection{Discussion}

1671: 

1672: We will discuss further applications of these results elsewhere; here we

1673: discuss the advantages and limitations of this approach compared to

1674: others, for example position space methods \cite{Headrick:Wiseman}.

1675: 

1676: The runtime of a computation of the balanced metric can be approximated

1677: as

1678: $$

1679: T = N_{it} \times N_p \times S^2 ,

1680: $$

1681: where $S$ is the number of independent sections 

1682: (taking into account discrete symmetry),

1683: $N_p$ is the number of points used in the Monte Carlo integration,

1684: and $N_{it}$ is the number of iterations of the T-map

1685: required for convergence.  Since convergence is exponential,

1686: this leads to a rough scaling with the accuracy as

1687: $$

1688: T \sim \frac{\log \epsilon}{\epsilon^2} S^2 .

1689: $$

1690: 

1691: The value of $S$ required for a given accuracy depends on the

1692: symmetries and dimension.  For the balanced metrics, we expect

1693: to need $k\sim 1/\sqrt{\epsilon}$; as discussed in section 2

1694: this could probably be improved by choosing a different scheme

1695: if accuracy were paramount.  For hypersurfaces in $n$ complex dimensions, 

1696: we then have $S \sim N \sim k^{n+1}$, leading to a rough overall scaling

1697: of $T \sim 1/\epsilon^{n+3}$.  This might be compared with a (naive)

1698: $T \sim 1/\epsilon^{2n}$ for position space methods, so the two appear

1699: generally competitive.  However, along with the other

1700: advantages we mentioned, we believe the approach we are discussing is

1701: far easier to program, and requires relatively little effort to adapt

1702: to different manifolds, and related problems such as hermitian Yang-Mills.

1703: 

1704: Since the sections $s_\alpha$ of $\mathcal{O}_{X}(k)$ are degree $k$

1705: polynomials, this basis is a simple type of Fourier or momentum space

1706: basis.  Very roughly speaking, a degree $k$ basis should be able to

1707: represent arbitrary structures on length scales down to $1/k$.  They

1708: are particularly well suited for approximating smooth functions, as

1709: the Fourier coefficients of such a function fall off faster than any

1710: power of $k$ (see the appendix of \cite{Donaldson:numeric} for more

1711: precise statements).  This is advantageous as the Ricci flat metric is

1712: smooth, suggesting that other approximation schemes could do better

1713: than $\epsilon\sim 1/k^2$.

1714: 

1715: On the other hand, in some limits (say a conifold limit) the metric

1716: can develop structure on small scales, which might not be well

1717: represented by a fixed $k$ basis.  This is also a problem for position

1718: space methods with a fixed lattice; there one deals with it by multi-scale

1719: methods, for example allowing the lattice spacing and structure to vary

1720: over the manifold.  This is very powerful but also very intricate to 

1721: program.  In the present context, rather than increase $k$, one might

1722: look for analogous simplifications; either a multi-scale method which uses

1723: different $k$ in different regions (or even some sort of wavelet-inspired

1724: method).  Or, since we have many explicit expressions for Ricci flat

1725: metrics near singularities, it might be useful to develop 

1726: a way to patch these solutions into the global approximate solutions

1727: we discussed.

1728: 

1729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1730: \subsubsection*{On the computer code}

1731: 

1732: Our numerics is based on code that has been written entirely in C++. Our experience shows that these computations must be done in a compiled language, rather than an interpreted one. We have made extensive use of the following Boost libraries: uBlas, random, bind and thread. These libraries are on par with Fortran code, due to implementation techniques using expression templates and template metaprograms. The computations were done on an Athlon 64 4800+ dual core machine, with 4GB memory. The computational time ranges from minutes, for low $k$, to hours, and eventually 2 days (for $k=12$).

1733: 

1734: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1735: \subsubsection*{Acknowledgments}

1736: 

1737: This research was supported in part by the

1738: DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40949. 

1739: 

1740: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1741: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1742: 

1743: %\bibliographystyle{/home/karp/lat/physics}

1744: \bibliographystyle{/home/karp/lat/utcaps}

1745: %\bibliography{/home/karp/lat/BIB}

1746: \input p.bbl

1747: 

1748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1749: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1750: \end{document}

1751: