1: %
2: \documentclass[twoside,draft,reqno]{birkart}
3: %
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: %%\nofiles
6: %%\writetoctrue
7: %%\input defs
8: \def\BC{{\bf C}}
9: \def\BP{{\bf P}}
10: \def\BR{{\bf R}}
11: \def\BZ{{\bf Z}}
12: \def\CM{{ M}}
13: \def\CN{{ N}}
14: \def\CO{{ O}}
15: \def\CW{{ W}}
16: \def\II{{II}}
17: \def\WP{{WP}}
18: \def\grad{{\rm grad\ }}
19: \def\Tr{{\rm Tr\ }}
20: \def\Im{{\rm Im\ }}
21: \def\Ext{{\rm Ext}}
22: \def\Hom{{\rm Hom}}
23: %
24: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
25: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
26: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
27: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
28: \newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
29: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
30: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
31: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
32: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
33: \newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
34: %
35: \newenvironment{Proof}{\removelastskip\par\medskip
36: \noindent{\em Proof.} \rm}{\penalty-20\null\hfill$\square$\par\medbreak}
37: %
38: \newenvironment{Proofx}{\removelastskip\par\medskip
39: \noindent{\em Proof.} \rm}{\par}
40: %
41: \begin{document}
42: \setcounter{page}{1}
43: %
44: \title[D-Branes on CY Manifolds]
45: {D-Branes on Calabi-Yau Manifolds}
46: \author[M.~R.~Douglas]{Michael~R.~Douglas}
47: %
48: \address{%%
49: Department of Physics and Astronomy,\br
50: Rutgers University,\br
51: Piscataway, NJ 08855--0849\br
52: and\br
53: I.H.E.S.,\br
54: Le Bois-Marie, Bures-sur-Yvette, 91440 France}
55: %
56: \email{mrd@physics.rutgers.edu}
57: %
58: \begin{abstract}
59: We give an overview of recent work on Dirichlet branes on Calabi-Yau
60: threefolds which makes contact with Kontsevich's homological mirror
61: symmetry proposal, proposes a new definition of stability which is
62: appropriate in string theory, and provides concrete quiver categories
63: equivalent to certain categories of branes on CY.
64: \end{abstract}
65: %
66: \maketitle
67: %
68: \section{Introduction}
69: Dirichlet branes, discovered by Dai, Leigh and Polchinski in 1989,
70: have been a central part of the dramatic progress in superstring theory
71: of recent years. They are the simplest solitons in string theory;
72: the basic definition of Dirichlet brane (D-brane)
73: is that it is an allowed boundary condition for a string. \cite{Pol}
74:
75: Although they play many physical roles, from a mathematical point of
76: view their most salient feature is that they provide the natural
77: context in which Yang-Mills theory is embedded in string theory.
78: This has allowed physicists to rederive and better understand some
79: of the most beautiful mathematical constructions which have been
80: discovered in this area, such as the ADHM construction of instantons and
81: Nahm's construction of monopoles.
82:
83: D-branes on Calabi-Yau (CY)
84: manifolds have been the focus of a number of recent
85: works (see \cite{Doug2,DD} for additional references).
86: Early on it was realized that this theory had a close
87: connection with mirror symmetry and especially
88: Kontsevich's homological mirror
89: symmetry proposal \cite{Kont},
90: which interprets mirror symmetry as an equivalence between
91: the derived category of coherent sheaves (naturally associated to
92: Yang-Mills on K\"ahler manifolds) and a derived category proposed
93: by Fukaya, associated to isotopy classes of Lagrangian submanifolds.
94: These two classes of objects (usually called ``B'' and ``A''-type
95: branes respectively) correspond
96: to the two classes of supersymmetry preserving (or BPS) branes on a CY,
97: and thus the physical understanding of mirror symmetry indeed should imply
98: such an equivalence.
99:
100: In physical terms, Kontsevich's proposal addresses only the structure
101: of topologically twisted open string theory (we explain this below),
102: while one expects more structure to appear in discussing the full
103: open string theory which governs the physics of D-branes.
104:
105: One approach to this extra structure is to study the additional conditions
106: on the D-brane world-volumes which follow from space-time supersymmetry.
107: In the large volume limit, these two conditions are the hermitian Yang-Mills
108: equations (for B branes) and the special Lagrangian condition (for A branes).
109: In this context, Strominger, Yau and Zaslow formulated mirror symmetry as
110: the statement that the mirror $\CW$ to a CY $\CM$
111: could be obtained as the moduli space of a
112: particular A brane mirror to the B brane which is the point on $\CM$.
113: \cite{SYZ}
114: This brane is expected to come in families which give a $T^3$ fibration
115: structure to $\CM$, a claim which has been proven in many cases by
116: Gross and by Ruan. \cite{Zhar,Gross,Ruan,Morr}
117:
118: Although this approach clearly captures some essential part of the truth,
119: it should be realized that the specific additional conditions which were
120: used, the hermitian Yang-Mills and special Lagrangian conditions, are not
121: believed to be the correct physical conditions except in the large volume
122: limit. This is related to the point that in string theory, CY manifolds
123: are not really Ricci-flat manifolds except in the large volume limit; the
124: Einstein equations are known to be corrected. Indeed, the
125: stringy version of CY K\"ahler moduli space, which is best thought of
126: as the complex structure moduli space of the mirror,
127: looks quite different from the conventional geometric version.
128:
129: The correct replacements for either Ricci-flatness or the
130: supersymmetry conditions on D-branes are not known at this writing,
131: but some things are known, which we summarize here. In particular,
132: one has strong reasons to believe that the metric defined by the SYZ
133: construction (which is the ``D$0$-metric'' of \cite{Doug1}
134: on the mirror manifold) is {\it not} Ricci-flat.
135:
136: Having cast doubt on the usual mathematical starting point for the
137: discussion of D-branes, we are obliged to say something about what
138: replaces it. Now the fundamental physical definition is
139: quite clear -- a D-brane is a boundary condition in the world-sheet
140: conformal field theory (CFT); the A and B branes each correspond to boundary
141: conditions preserving a particular half of world-sheet supersymmetry.
142:
143: This definition has some conceptual advantages; notably, as in the
144: discussion of Greene and Plesser \cite{GP}, mirror symmetry is manifest.
145: The problem with it is that it is rather hard to make precise contact
146: with geometry except in the large volume limit. However, a number of
147: general results have been obtained, which we outline. In keeping with
148: the CFT framework, we freely use mirror symmetry in our considerations,
149: while regarding the precise connection with geometry as following from
150: subsequent considerations which are not yet completely understood.
151:
152: An example of a geometrical statement which is on a sound footing in
153: string theory is the statement that the holomorphic properties of
154: B branes are independent of K\"ahler moduli, and thus are ``the same''
155: as in the large volume limit \cite{BDLR,Doug1}. The precise meaning of
156: ``same'' turns out to be subtle however and this is the point where
157: the derived category must enter the discussion.
158: A recent development is a precise contact with the graded categories
159: which appear in Kontsevich's proposal, which shows that (if we consider B
160: branes), as the K\"ahler moduli are varied, the gradings undergo a
161: ``flow'' determined by the variation of certain phases associated with
162: the branes (in A brane language, the phase appearing in the special
163: Lagrangian condition). \cite{DFR2,Doug3}
164:
165: This puts us in a position to explain perhaps the simplest physical
166: structure carried by D-branes which is not already implicit in
167: \cite{Kont}. This is the concept of ``marginal stability'' which
168: governs the possible variation of the spectrum of BPS branes. This
169: concept reduces to variation of $\mu$-stability for B branes in the
170: large volume limit and based on this analogy, the work of Joyce on
171: such transitions for A branes \cite{Joyce}, and many other
172: considerations, a deformation of stability called $\Pi$-stability was
173: proposed in \cite{DFR1} which governs the spectrum of BPS branes on
174: arbitrary CY's in string theory. This proposal has undergone a number
175: of tests; we also briefly describe work in progress which attempts to
176: complete the proposal by associating natural $t$-structures to regions
177: in K\"ahler moduli space.
178:
179: Another front on which physical considerations have made progress is in
180: the explicit construction of these BPS branes and their moduli spaces.
181: A particularly simple class of constructions are the orbifold
182: constructions. These can be exactly solved for orbifolds of flat
183: space, and provide a physical context which contains the structures
184: found both in orbifold resolution by quiver varieties \cite{Kron} and
185: in the study of the generalized McKay correspondence
186: \cite{BKR,IN,Reid},
187: including generalizations of Beilinson's construction of
188: holomorphic bundles on $\BP^n$. \cite{Beil}
189:
190: More recently, it has been found that results from the study of
191: explicit Gepner model boundary states \cite{RS} can be rederived starting
192: with a ``Landau-Ginzburg orbifold theory.'' \cite{DD}
193: Geometrically, this uses
194: an embedding of the CY in a weighted projective
195: space, and describes bundles on CY by
196: using the generalized McKay approach to describe bundles
197: on the ambient space, and then restricting. One new point which emerges
198: is that the physical construction naturally contains moduli which
199: appear only on restriction. Another striking result from this approach
200: is an explicit prediction for the connection formula which
201: relates the natural bases of
202: periods at the large volume and Gepner points.
203:
204: \section{Background on CFT on Calabi-Yau}
205:
206: The most general definition of a Dirichlet brane in weakly coupled
207: type \II\ string theory is that it is a conformal boundary condition
208: in the world-sheet CFT. This definition is
209: discussed at this level of generality in \cite{Pol}. It is quite
210: analogous to the discussion of branes in a geometrical framework as
211: calibrated submanifolds carrying appropriate vector bundles in the
212: sense that they are auxiliary objects; one requires some description
213: of the ambient space (the CY for us) to get started on their
214: definition.
215:
216: In the most general case, where we take as the ``ambient space'' an
217: abstract CFT defined in terms of a Hilbert space, Hamiltonian and
218: operator product coefficients, our starting point is a priori
219: non-geometric: it does not come with any local coordinates or other
220: conventional geometric data. On general grounds, the CFT's which are
221: easy to describe in this abstract way are ``highly stringy'' -- the
222: conventional equations of physics such as the Einstein and Yang-Mills
223: equations will not be valid (except in special cases with high
224: symmetry) but will be drastically modified in string theory (we will
225: say more about this below). In some cases, such as the Gepner models,
226: we can argue that they are still connected to solutions of Einstein's
227: equations by varying parameters (this is the ``large volume limit''),
228: and the interesting question is then
229: what aspects of this conventional geometrical interpretation survive
230: the stringy modifications and how do other aspects change. However,
231: there are other cases such as asymmetric orbifolds \cite{NSV} where we
232: have no such large volume limit or other geometrical interpretation at
233: present. In these cases, the abstract definition of D-brane makes
234: sense, but the identification of D-branes with cycles carrying bundles
235: on some space cannot even get started.
236:
237: Although general, these remarks are intended to make the point that
238: many of the statements about branes which are taken as definition or
239: otherwise manifest in the mathematical treatments, actually require
240: proof or at least justification in the physical discussion starting
241: from string theory. While we don't want to belabor this point, it
242: should be kept in mind.
243:
244: We now specialize to the particular case of string compactification on
245: a Calabi-Yau threefold, for which the CFT is a $(2,2)$
246: superconformal field theory with $\hat c=3$. These have been
247: discussed in
248: \cite{CK,Dijk,Morr,Voisin} and elsewhere. The notation $(2,2)$
249: means there are two independent $N=2$ superconformal algebras describing
250: left and right-moving excitations on the string world-sheet. Each $N=2$
251: algebra has two supercharges $G^+$ and $G^-$ which anticommute to produce
252: the Hamiltonian and a $U(1)$ charge $J$, which provides a grading on the
253: Hilbert space.
254:
255: A distinguishing feature of the $\CN=2$ algebra is that it admits
256: a topological twisting, a redefinition of the generators after which one
257: of the supercharges can be used as a ``BRST charge,'' a differential $Q$
258: which squares to zero. The cohomology of the sum $Q_L+Q_R$ of these
259: operators in the two $N=2$ algebras is finite dimensional and is the
260: Hilbert space of the topologically twisted theory. This Hilbert space
261: also parameterizes a space of ``operators'' in the theory which correspond
262: to linearized deformations of the theory; these always turn out to
263: integrable in the $(2,2)$ case so these theories come in families
264: with locally smooth moduli spaces.
265:
266: Physicists are particularly interested in these models not because they
267: admit topological twisting but because they lead to string theories with
268: space-time supersymmetry. Seeing this requires discussing a bit more
269: structure, namely the ``bosonized $U(1)$.'' The
270: main point here is that there are natural ``spectral flow'' operators denoted
271: $e^{i\hat c\phi/2}$
272: (on left and right) which provide automorphisms between sectors of
273: different $U(1)$ charge $q$ and $q+\hat c/2$. Sectors with integral
274: (resp. half-integral) $U(1)$ charge correspond to space-time bosons
275: (fermions) and this one-to-one relation guarantees space-time supersymmetry.
276: The topologically twisted world-sheet theories are important in this context
277: mainly because their observables correspond to certain distinguished
278: amplitudes in this space-time supersymmetric theory.
279:
280: The case of threefolds
281: with $\hat c=3$ is further distinguished in that the correlator of
282: three operators (the ``Yukawa coupling'')
283: is always well-defined; one can further show that such correlators
284: are the third derivatives of a function on moduli space $F$
285: known in the physics literature
286: as the ``$\CN=2$ prepotential'' and in the math literature as the
287: ``Gromov-Witten potential.'' We will discuss the physical interpretation
288: of this potential below.
289:
290: One made a choice in this construction of whether to identify $G^+$ or
291: $G^-$ as the BRST operator $Q$; it turns out that only the relative
292: choice between the two $N=2$ algebras matters in the final result.
293: This choice distinguishes ``A'' and ``B'' topologically twisted
294: theories, which although they arise from the same CFT, need have
295: little else in common. On the level of abstract CFT, one can also
296: exchange $G^+$ and $G^-$ in one of the $\CN=2$ algebras to define a
297: ``new'' CFT, all of whose physical predictions would be the same, but
298: in which the A and B twisted theories would be exchanged. Thus there
299: is no a priori difference between A and B, and this is the sense in
300: which mirror symmetry is manifest in CFT.
301:
302: This formalism arises from several more concrete constructions.
303: Contact with geometry and the large volume limit is most direct in
304: what is called the ``nonlinear sigma model'' definition. This starts
305: from a Calabi-Yau threefold with Ricci-flat metric $g^{(0)}$,
306: and maps of the string world-sheet into this ``target space.''
307: The Ricci-flat metric is determined by a choice of complex structure (let
308: the moduli space of these be $MC(\CM)$) and complexified K\"ahler class
309: (moduli space $MK_0(\CM)$); physical arguments strongly suggest that
310: this produces a $(2,2)$ CFT determined by these moduli.
311: The two gradings provided by left and right $U(1)$ charge essentially
312: correspond to the bigrading of Dolbeault cohomology, and the B and A
313: twisted theories as above correspond respectively to a theory
314: describing variation of Hodge structure (the Yukawa couplings are the
315: second derivatives of the periods of the holomorphic three-form) and to
316: the ``quantum cohomology theory'' whose prepotential generates the
317: Gromov-Witten invariants.
318:
319: Mirror symmetry equates the A model on $\CM$, which sees only $MK(\CM)$,
320: with the B model on its mirror $\CW$, which only sees $MC(\CW)$.
321: In particular, the complexified K\"ahler cone $MK_0(\CM)$
322: is only a large volume approximation to the ``true'' stringy K\"ahler
323: moduli space $MK(\CM)$, which is best defined simply as $MC(\CW)$.
324: Much work has been done on the physical
325: interpretation of this point. \cite{Greene}
326: Since there is such a close connection between these
327: topologically twisted theories and the complex geometry, the claim that
328: these originate from physical CFT's for which mirror symmetry is manifest
329: places this formulation of mirror symmetry essentially beyond
330: doubt; various explicit arguments have confirmed this. \cite{Morr}
331:
332: Beyond these results which can be convincingly justified in the
333: topologically twisted string theory, what one actually has in this
334: definition is a way to compute general observables as a series
335: expansion in powers of the curvature of the metric $g^{(0)}$
336: multiplied by a distinguished scale of length $l_s$, the ``string
337: length.'' One also has prescriptions for adding ``instanton''
338: corrections associated to non-trivial holomorphic maps from
339: world-sheets of various genus into the CY. It should be realized that
340: this expansion by itself does not provide a very convincing argument
341: for existence of these models on finite size CY, because such series
342: expansions often do not converge. However, given evidence from other
343: directions that models do indeed exist, we can interpret them
344: as valid descriptions at least of the asymptotics of these observables
345: for large CY's. (Whenever we talk about ``large'' CY's in the following,
346: we simply mean the case in which the leading terms are good approximations.)
347:
348: Perhaps the most basic
349: observation one can make from these results is that
350: a CY is actually not Ricci flat in string theory \cite{Grisaru}.
351: One traditionally
352: derives Ricci-flatness as the condition for ``zero beta function''
353: required for conformal invariance; however this is just the leading term
354: and one sees the next correction at order $l_s^6$; the true condition
355: takes the form
356: \begin{equation}\label{beta-function}
357: 0 = {\partial\over\partial \mu} g^\beta_{ij} =
358: R_{ij} + l_s^6 (R^{(4)})_{ij} + \ldots .
359: \end{equation}
360: with the term $R^{(4)}$ given in \cite{Grisaru},
361: and a higher order
362: term shown to be non-zero in \cite{JJP}. It has also been shown that the
363: corrections are such that a solution can be found
364: at each order in the series \cite{NS}.
365:
366: A conceptual argument that Ricci-flatness is not to be expected is simply
367: that the structure of the K\"ahler moduli space predicted by mirror
368: symmetry is quite different from the geometric K\"ahler cone or a naive
369: complexification of this, and we would expect the ``true'' stringy metric
370: to depend naturally on this true moduli space; the space of Ricci-flat
371: metrics does not.
372:
373: However, it is difficult to go further with this definition, simply because
374: neither the equation (\ref{beta-function}) nor the metric $g^\beta$ it
375: describes are canonically defined; the theory of renormalization which
376: led to it does not distinguish in any convincing way
377: between $g^\beta$ and any other metric
378: $g^{\beta'}$ which would be produced by an arbitrary local functional
379: redefinition $g\rightarrow g + \alpha_1 R + \alpha_2 R^2 + \ldots$.
380:
381: The study of D-branes will provide a better definition of the metric,
382: which we discuss in the next section. Let us turn now to alternatives
383: to the non-linear sigma model. The most famous of these is the Gepner
384: model, also described in the references above.
385: This starts off from completely non-geometric data, but is believed
386: to be equivalent to the ``analytic continuation'' of the CY non-linear sigma
387: model to a specific highly stringy point in the true K\"ahler moduli space.
388: The fact that such models do exist and are described by the $\CN=2$
389: formalism is our best reason to believe that the series expansions
390: described earlier can indeed be summed in some way to
391: define the models under discussion.
392:
393: The best understanding we have at present of how the Gepner model is
394: connected to the geometric picture comes through Witten's ``linear
395: sigma model'' definition
396: (\cite{Witten}; see \cite{GJS,HIV} for work on D-branes in this framework).
397: One can think of this as defining the CY
398: through a specific embedding in $\BC^6$. This embedding is described
399: in two steps. First, one constructs a weighted projective space
400: as a symplectic quotient of $\BC^6$ by a $U(1)$
401: action, in coordinates $z^i \rightarrow e^{iw_i\theta} z^i$ for chosen
402: weights $w_i$. One then defines the CY as a complex hypersurface in
403: this ambient space.
404: (One can similarly get more general toric varieties, etc.)
405:
406: The symplectic quotient is the ordinary quotient by $U(1)$ of the
407: stable points in the preimage $\pi^{-1}(0)$
408: of a moment map $\pi:\BC^6\rightarrow\BR$
409: defined by
410: $$
411: \{z^i\} \rightarrow -\mu + \sum w_i |z^i|^2 .
412: $$
413: To get weighted projective space with weights $w_i$, one takes
414: $w_i\ge 0$ for $1\le i\le 5$, $w_6$ such that $\sum_i w_i=0$, and $\mu>0$.
415: Actually, the quotient is a line bundle $\CO_{\WP}(w_6)$ over the
416: weighted projective space; one then imposes the complex equations
417: $\grad W =0$ with $W= z^6 f(z^i)$, which reduce
418: to $z^6=0$ and $f(z^i)=0$ within this zero section.
419:
420: The important point is now that one can argue that varying the true
421: K\"ahler parameter to the Gepner point corresponds to an analytic
422: continuation to the ``Landau-Ginzburg phase,'' the limit $\mu<<0$.
423: Here the symplectic quotient is rather different: it is the orbifold
424: $\BC^5/\BZ_{-w_5}$, and the equations $\grad W=0$ now constrain the
425: coordinates to $z^i=0$ for $1\le i\le 5$. Although on the surface this
426: looks quite different from the original nonlinear sigma model,
427: since the orbifold is birational to the
428: original line bundle, from the point of view of complex geometry the
429: two phases are not so different, and further physical considerations
430: bear this out, leading to a moduli space $MK$ covering both phases
431: with only isolated singularities, and no immediately evident distinction
432: between the phases.
433:
434: This discussion motivates the idea that a good starting point for
435: defining CY is orbifold resolution, and indeed an even simpler class
436: of CY's can be defined this way, as the resolution of orbifolds $\BC^3/\Gamma$
437: with $\Gamma$ a discrete subgroup of $SU(3)$. This produces non-compact
438: CY's, which have also been much studied as local models of singularities
439: in CY's, with the general conclusion being that mirror symmetry and
440: almost all of the qualitative features of CY physics are visible in these
441: simpler examples. The simplest case is $\BC^3/\BZ_3$, studied in
442: \cite{DGM,DG,DFR2}.
443:
444: \section{Dirichlet branes and stability}
445:
446: The coarsest classification of boundary conditions in CFT is according
447: to the portion of the superconformal algebra they preserve. One way
448: to specify a boundary condition is in terms of a linear transformation
449: implementing the ``reflection'' from left-moving to right-moving
450: excitations; this transformation must contain an automorphism of the
451: entire symmetry algebra and thus we need to know these.
452:
453: In the $(2,2)$ context, there are two basic automorphisms one can use
454: to relate left and right moving algebras. \cite{OOY}\ The trivial choice
455: $G^{\pm}_L = G^\pm_R$ and $J_L=J_R$ is referred to as a ``B-type''
456: boundary condition as it is compatible with the B topological
457: twisting.\footnote{This twisting is defined in open string conventions.}
458: Such boundary conditions can be obtained in the non-linear sigma model
459: by fixing the boundary to sit on a holomorphic submanifold of the CY
460: carrying a holomorphic bundle. The other basic choice
461: is $G^{\pm}_L = G^{\mp}_R$ and $J_L=-J_R$ or ``A-type,'' which is
462: obtained by fixing the boundary to sit on a Lagrangian submanifold,
463: carrying a flat bundle.
464:
465: This is all the data which is required to specify a boundary condition
466: in the topologically twisted open string theory \cite{Wittentop},
467: and in this context mirror symmetry
468: can be interpreted as a one-to-one equivalence between the two classes
469: of boundary conditions and all topological correlators. This is the
470: physical background behind Kontsevich's proposal; however there is much
471: more to say about its physical underpinnings and meaning which has only
472: been addressed recently.
473:
474: From a physical point of view, the most basic question is what
475: physical observables could one compute if one knew something about
476: the derived category of coherent sheaves or its mirror.
477: This question is not entirely trivial as the categorical framework
478: is quite different from the usual physics language, which
479: assumes that the objects involved come in moduli spaces with explicit
480: coordinatizations, etc.
481:
482: There are various physical realizations of the BPS branes we are
483: talking about, depending on what string theory we use and how many
484: flat dimensions the brane extends in. All are essentially identical
485: in terms of the underlying string theory; the primary distinction is
486: between those which can be treated purely classically (so, objects are
487: solutions of equations of motion derived from some action),
488: and those in which quantum effects
489: are taken into account (so objects are zero energy wave functions or
490: typically harmonic forms on the classical moduli space).
491: In any case, they will
492: have half of the supersymmetry available in the original type \II\
493: theory on CY, because in that theory left and right-movers led to
494: independent supersymmetries, which are now related by the boundary
495: conditions.
496:
497: Two realizations seem to be particularly useful to keep in mind. In
498: the first, the physical picture is of open strings free to move in the
499: $4=10-6$ dimensions not taken up by the Calabi-Yau; this leads
500: to a world-volume theory with $\CN=1$ supersymmetry in $4$ dimensions,
501: which we treat classically.
502: These theories are gauge theories and the basic specification of such
503: a theory is a choice of gauge group (a semi-simple Lie group) $G$, a
504: K\"ahler manifold $X$ of ``chiral matter'' configurations admitting a
505: $G$-action by isometries, a $G$-invariant holomorphic function
506: $W:X\rightarrow \BC$ called ``superpotential,'' and finally moment
507: maps for the $G$ action.
508:
509: Although all of this data is physical, for the primary question of
510: finding the BPS branes and their moduli space (as a complex variety),
511: the data only gets used in the following way: a configuration of the
512: brane system is a solution of $\grad W=0$ in the symplectic quotient
513: $X//G$. We refer to the set of these as the moduli space of brane
514: configurations.
515: Since quotient commutes with restriction, one can also think
516: of this as the symplectic $G$-quotient of the variety $\grad W=0$.
517:
518: The second realization takes the branes to be particles in the extra
519: $4$ dimensions. This description is related to the first as follows:
520: given a moduli space of simple brane configurations (i.e. with endomorphism
521: group $U(1)$); one identifies particles with zero energy states in
522: a supersymmetric quantum mechanics on this moduli space.
523: By standard arguments, these will be cohomology
524: classes. (If the moduli space is singular, it turns out that the
525: quotient/restriction definition gives it a natural embedding in a
526: non-singular space, which can be used to make the definition.)
527: These are the ``BPS branes'' of \cite{HM,GV} etc.
528:
529: From now on we will consider only the first realization of brane, but use
530: the second to define what we will call ``BPS central charge'' and explain
531: the concept of marginal stability. It can be shown \cite{Dijk} that
532: in an $\CN=2$ supersymmetric theory (such as type \II\ on CY),
533: the mass of a particle (in the usual space-time sense) satisfies a bound
534: \begin{eqnarray}\label{bps-bound}
535: M &\ge |Z(Q)|; \cr
536: Z(Q) &= q_i z^i + m^i {\partial F\over\partial z_i}
537: = \int_\Sigma \Omega
538: \end{eqnarray}
539: with equality attained only for BPS particles. The quantity $Z(Q)$ is
540: the ``BPS central charge'' and depends only on the ``charge'' or
541: topological type of the brane and on the CY moduli.
542: It does not depend
543: on the particular point or cohomology class in the moduli space
544: of brane configurations.
545:
546: For A branes, $Z(Q)$ is the integral of the holomorphic three-form over the
547: the Lagrangian submanifold,
548: and thus depends only on the homology class of the submanifold
549: and the moduli $MC$. The BPS bound is the same as that coming from
550: the calibrated geometry of special Lagrangian submanifolds. \cite{Harvey}
551:
552: For B branes, $Z(Q)$ is defined in terms of the prepotential $F$, a function
553: on $MK(\CM)$, usually computed by invoking mirror symmetry, and depends
554: on the K-theory class of the brane and the moduli $MK$. From now on, when
555: we speak of ``CY moduli space'' we mean the part ($MC$ or $MK$) which appears
556: in these considerations, and ``brane charge''
557: means the homology or K-theory class.
558:
559: The most basic physical role of this prepotential is its appearance in
560: (\ref{bps-bound}). Implicit in this setup is a flat (Gauss-Manin)
561: connection on the CY
562: moduli space, related to the choice of a fixed basis on homology.
563: This allows transporting a BPS brane between points in moduli space
564: and following the variation of its central charge.
565:
566: Naively, this transport allows us to identify the complete spectrum
567: (list) of BPS branes at each point in moduli space. However, this
568: is not true, because of the existence of
569: ``lines of marginal stability'' on which the spectrum changes.
570: There is a strong constraint on these changes:
571: a brane with charge $Q$ can undergo a decay (and thus
572: disappear from the spectrum) into constituents
573: with charges $Q_i$ (satisfying $Q=\sum Q_i$) only if the phases
574: \begin{equation}\label{phase-def}
575: \varphi(Q_i) \equiv {1\over\pi}\Im\log Z(Q_i)
576: \end{equation}
577: are equal. (The normalization factor $1/\pi$ will be explained later.)
578: This follows from energy conservation,
579: which implies that $M\ge \sum M_i$, and (\ref{bps-bound}), and
580: no other assumptions. We will return to this point; for now we stress
581: that the spectrum of BPS branes does change with moduli, in both
582: realizations. In the first realization, it will turn out that this
583: is the direct generalization of ``wall crossing'' phenomena related
584: to the behavior of $\mu$-stability under variations of K\"ahler class.
585:
586: Once we know that moduli spaces of brane configurations exist,
587: of course it would be
588: quite interesting to know more about them and in particular to find their
589: K\"ahler metrics. In particular, the problem of how to give a canonical
590: definition of the metric of a CY in string theory has a natural answer
591: in this context: it is just the moduli space of the ``D0-brane,'' the
592: B brane which embeds in a point. \cite{Doug1}
593: This presupposes that such a brane
594: exists and has a moduli space which is the CY, which although manifest
595: at large volume cannot
596: be taken for granted on a string-scale CY. Furthermore, there might not be
597: a unique candidate; one can choose one by using the flat connection of
598: K\"ahler moduli space to carry the large volume D0-brane along some
599: path to the point of interest, a prescription which in general is path
600: dependent.
601:
602: Anyways, assuming that such a D0-brane exists, we stress that for each
603: point in the true K\"ahler moduli space (the complex structure moduli
604: space of the mirror), there exists a canonical K\"ahler metric on the
605: CY, which away from the large volume limit is not expected to be Ricci
606: flat (we will mention some explicit results bearing this out below
607: \cite{DG}). This metric can also be thought of as the metric on
608: the moduli space of the D3-brane wrapped on the $T^3$ fibration of SYZ
609: mirror symmetry; again from this point of view, except in special
610: limits, it has no reason to be Ricci flat. (In the explicit computations
611: of \cite{SYZ}, this would come about after instanton corrections.)
612: It is not even clear that
613: it has the same K\"ahler class as the original metric; indeed once
614: one goes from $MK_0(M)$ to $MK(M)$ one loses any clear sense of what
615: this would mean.
616:
617: This metric or even the question of what equations determine it seems
618: rather inaccessible at present and we return to the question of what
619: Kontsevich's ideas should help physicists to compute. In some sense,
620: the answer is the space $X$, group $G$ and superpotential $W$; however
621: it has taken some time for physicists to recognize any of this data in
622: Kontsevich and Fukaya's rather abstract derived categories, and indeed
623: this relation has not been completely spelled out in the literature.
624: The most basic point is simply that brane configurations can naturally
625: be thought of as objects in a category whose morphisms are the
626: linearized variations of the gauge theory data described above
627: (tangent vectors to a point in $X$ modulo gauge directions) associated
628: to the system which is the direct sum of two brane subsystems. The
629: superpotential enters because such variations typically correspond to
630: obstructed deformations; the non-trivial point seems to be that in
631: cases associated to Calabi-Yau threefolds this obstruction theory can
632: always be summarized in terms of gradients of a potential. This point
633: has been recognized in numerous special cases -- for example, the
634: functional $W$ for holomorphic bundles is the holomorphic Chern-Simons
635: functional, and for holomorphic curves is the functional proposed in
636: \cite{DT,WittenSuper} -- but a mathematical argument as
637: simple and general as the physical argument based on $\CN=1$ supersymmetry
638: does not seem to have appeared in the literature.
639:
640: Having seen what Kontsevich's framework can describe, we also can see
641: in this language what it does not describe: namely, the details of the
642: symplectic quotient which are determined by the specific moment maps.
643: In particular, not all holomorphic objects (solutions of $\grad W=0$)
644: correspond to points in this quotient; only stable objects do (in
645: the GIT sense, which depends on the specific moment maps). Thus, the
646: question of characterizing stable BPS branes (in the physical sense)
647: could be answered by proposing the mathematical stability
648: condition which they satisfy. One can show by physical arguments that
649: just as the derived category of coherent sheaves does not depend on
650: the K\"ahler structure of the CY, the moment maps
651: should only depend on the K\"ahler structure and
652: not on the complex structure. \cite{Doug3}
653:
654: On large CY's, branes correspond to bundles satisfying the hermitian
655: Yang-Mills equations, so the stability condition is just the one given by the
656: Donaldson and Uhlenbeck-Yau theorems, which is slope or $\mu$-stability:
657: a bundle $E$ (or coherent sheaf) is $\mu$-stable if, for all subsheaves
658: $E'$, one has $\mu(E')<\mu(E)$ with the slope $\mu(E)=c_1(E)/{\rm rank}(E)$.
659: This condition depends on both K\"ahler and complex structure but in a
660: clearly separated way: $\mu$ depends on K\"ahler structure, and the
661: subobject relation on complex structure. This will be the
662: prototype for our stringy stability condition.
663:
664: A first step towards such a condition is to consider
665: a deformed hermitian Yang-Mills equation derived from string theory
666: by Marino et. al. \cite{MMMS} as the
667: condition for unbroken supersymmetry from the ``Born-Infeld action.''
668: Their equation is a deformation of the Yang-Mills action which involves higher
669: powers of the Yang-Mills curvature $F$, and takes the form
670: \begin{equation}\label{MMMS-equation}
671: 0 = \mu_{d,\theta} \equiv \Im e^{i\theta} \Tr (\omega + i l_s^2 F)^d
672: \end{equation}
673: on a $d$-fold with K\"ahler form $\omega$. Considerations of geometric
674: invariant theory in \cite{Leung,Thom}
675: show that such an equation will have a solution
676: for ``$\mu_\theta(E)$-stable'' bundles; i.e. a stability condition with
677: $\mu_\theta \equiv \int \mu_{d,\theta}$ playing the role of the slope.
678:
679: Although very explicit, this equation only takes into account power-like
680: corrections in $l_s$, while it is known that further instanton corrections
681: are present. Related to this, it is not clear which K\"ahler form one
682: should take for $\omega$ (the Ricci-flat or some stringy version.)
683: This point could also be addressed by D-brane considerations, but it is
684: not clear that this is the best approach to take as
685: one would prefer to have a condition which depends not on
686: $\omega$ but on the point in $MK(M)$, i.e.
687: on the complex structure of the mirror.
688:
689: One can identify the precise quantity which generalizes slope
690: by appealing to mirror symmetry to relate this question to work of Joyce
691: on invariants counting special Lagrangian manifolds. \cite{Joyce}
692: Among the many results of this work is an analysis of the local stability
693: of a special Lagrangian manifold under variations of the complex structure;
694: this is determined by an inequality involving (in physics language)
695: the phase of the BPS central charge (\ref{phase-def}). This fits
696: very well with the known physical considerations on marginal stability,
697: and the sign of the inequality is new information from this point of view.
698:
699: This brings us to the proposal of \cite{DFR1}, that the BPS branes
700: at a specific point in (true) K\"ahler moduli space are the ``$\Pi$-stable''
701: branes, i.e. each brane based on a holomorphic object $E$ such that for
702: all subobjects $E'$ one has $\varphi(E')<\varphi(E)$. Compared to Joyce's
703: criterion, the main difference is to use morphisms and subobjects in the
704: definition. There is also a conceptual difference: instead of working
705: with special Lagrangians, we take the stability condition back to the B
706: picture and apply it there. This has the great practical advantage that
707: the definition of subobject is fairly clear in the B picture (though we
708: will have to say more about this below) while computing the morphisms in
709: the A picture is a harder and still not fully understood problem.
710:
711: Besides the arguments we cited, in \cite{DFR1} the proposal is
712: compared with more explicit results in the large volume and in
713: orbifold limits (more below) and finds agreement. It was studied in
714: the example of the $\BC^3/\BZ_3$ orbifold and its resolution in
715: \cite{DFR2}, about which more below, and seems to produce sensible
716: results there. As we mentioned, on physical grounds it is impossible
717: for the spectrum to change except on lines of marginal stability as
718: defined earlier, and it is hard to come up with any competing proposal
719: which satisfies this constraint. Having said this, the proposal has
720: two ill-defined points. First, one must lift the phases from the
721: interval $[0,2)$ (which is what (\ref{phase-def}) gives us) to $\BR$.
722: The geometry underlying this (in the A picture) is explained in
723: \cite{Seidel}; in our work we have only postulated this lifting ad
724: hoc. Second, it requires objects to live in an abelian category (as
725: do all GIT notions of stability), but the only universal category
726: associated to a Calabi-Yau seems to be the derived category used by
727: Kontsevich, which is not abelian. The two points are connected and we
728: will come back to them below.
729:
730: For completeness, we should say that (in our opinion) the assumption
731: that A branes are in fact special Lagrangian submanifolds is on less
732: firm a footing than most of the other elements of the picture. The
733: basic problem is the one that we mentioned, that the appropriate
734: definition of the metric and K\"ahler form of the CY in string theory
735: has not in fact been settled, but is almost certainly not the Ricci
736: flat metric. One possibility is that one still has
737: the special Lagrangian condition but with respect to a preferred non
738: Ricci flat K\"ahler form, possibly the D0-metric described above.
739: Some evidence for this idea can be found in the work of Leung, Yau
740: and Zaslow \cite{LYZ} which shows that the special Lagrangian condition is
741: related to the MMMS equation (\ref{MMMS-equation}), in which the metric
742: could be derived from D-brane considerations, by a Fourier-Mukai
743: transform of the type which should describe T duality in string theory.
744: At present however this is just a guess, and more physical work is
745: needed to understand this point; for example it is clear that with
746: some work a series expansion analogous to (\ref{beta-function}) could
747: be found for the corrections to the special Lagrangian condition.
748:
749: \section{Flow of gradings}
750:
751: We now turn to a point which emerges quite clearly from physics and CFT
752: but does not seem to have appeared in the mathematical discussion, namely
753: a ``flow of gradings'' which is induced under variation of K\"ahler
754: moduli (in the B picture) or complex structure (in the A picture).
755:
756: Consider the B branes for definiteness; in the large volume limit
757: each brane corresponds to some stable coherent sheaf
758: and thus for each pair of branes $E$ and $F$ we have
759: graded morphisms $\Ext^n(E,F)$. One often denotes this space as
760: $\Hom(E,F[n])$, a notation which finds its justification in homological
761: algebra.
762:
763: Suppose we now follow a general path in K\"ahler moduli space
764: between two points $K$ and $L$.
765: The new claim is that a morphism of degree $n$ at the starting point $K$
766: will undergo ``flow of grading'' determined by the phases (\ref{phase-def}):
767: its degree at the point $L$ will be
768: $$
769: n' = n+\varphi_L(F)-\varphi_K(F)-\varphi_L(E)+\varphi_K(E)
770: $$
771: (This is the reason for the $1/\pi$ in (\ref{phase-def}), which first
772: appeared in \cite{PZ}.)
773: In particular, the gradings are $\BR$-valued. This rule can be expressed
774: more simply by saying that the grading of objects varies with $\varphi$,
775: so that the starting $\Hom(E[\varphi_K(E)],F[n+\varphi_K(F)])$ turns into
776: $\Hom(E[\varphi_L(E)],F[n+\varphi_L(F)])$.
777:
778: In itself this is just a definition but it can be checked physically if
779: we have more than one definition of the underlying CFT. As we discuss
780: in the next section, this check has been made between large volume and
781: orbifold points in various models. The phases are known from mirror
782: symmetry results and flow by integers between these points, and
783: the gradings of morphisms agree with these predictions.
784:
785: The argument for the flow from CFT is quite simple. \cite{Doug3} It
786: relies on the identification of a morphism with a ``winding string in
787: the bosonized $U(1)$,'' and has the following intuitive picture. One
788: can think of each brane as having location $\varphi$ on a circle of
789: circumference $2$ (the bosonized $U(1)$) and a morphism as an open string
790: stretched between the pair of branes; grading corresponds to length,
791: so the flow is simply induced by motion of the branes on the circle.
792:
793: Once we grant this point, we quickly see that no single abelian
794: category (such as the category of coherent sheaves) could possibly
795: describe the branes throughout K\"ahler moduli space. This is because
796: a general path will cause gradings to flow below zero, and convert
797: objects from even to odd grading, both of which lead to violations of
798: the axioms of an abelian category. However, the derived category and
799: its distinguished triangles still make sense with these flows. This
800: is perhaps the fundamental reason why one is forced to the derived
801: category in these considerations. Recent work of Seidel
802: and Thomas and of Horja \cite{ST,Horja}
803: provides even more concrete motivation for this point;
804: they show that the monodromies associated to general paths
805: in true K\"ahler moduli space act naturally on the derived category,
806: not the category of coherent sheaves.
807:
808: One does not have a notion of subobject in the derived category and
809: thus no GIT definition of stability can apply in this context. The
810: most direct way out of this problem is to propose that each point in
811: K\"ahler moduli space comes with a preferred abelian category. This
812: could be defined by a choice of $t$-structure \cite{BBD}, which might
813: be determined by the phases as well: one basically wants to keep all
814: objects whose phases lie in the interval $(-1,0]$ and which are not
815: involved in morphisms of negative degree. This point is presently
816: under investigation.
817:
818: \section{Orbifolds}
819:
820: The most accessible physical definitions of Calabi-Yau manifolds are the
821: orbifolds $\BC^3/\Gamma$ and the Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds described
822: in the introduction. As it turns out, the basic constructions
823: involved in defining D-branes in these theories are already fairly
824: standard in mathematics and thus we can be relatively brief.
825:
826: For B branes, one clearly wants to take some sort of
827: $\Gamma$-equivariant bundles on $\BC^n$, and this can be implemented
828: in physical terms by starting with the gauge theory Lagrangian for
829: branes in $\BC^n$ and applying a quotient which acts simultaneously on
830: $\BC^n$ and in the gauge group. \cite{DM}
831: This leads directly to the quiver
832: theories which appear in the constructions of Kronheimer and
833: subsequent work. \cite{Kron} In particular, B branes are objects in a
834: ``McKay'' quiver category, whose primitive objects (nodes) correspond
835: to irreps of $\Gamma$, whose links correspond to terms in the tensor
836: product with the representation defining the $\Gamma$ action on
837: $\BC^n$, and with specified quadratic relations.
838:
839: The physical application requires $\Gamma\subset SU(n)$ and such orbifold
840: singularities can often be resolved (always for $n\le 3$) to smooth
841: manifolds. This resolution is visible as the moduli space of a
842: D0-brane and one can even compute the metric (actually, a controlled
843: approximation in the small blow-up limit); for $\BC^3/\Gamma$ one obtains
844: explicit non-Ricci-flat metrics of the type discussed earlier. \cite{DG}
845:
846: More generally,
847: the question arises of how B branes as quiver objects or
848: irreps of $\Gamma$ are related to the large volume definition of B branes
849: as coherent sheaves.
850: In recent mathematical work \cite{BKR,IN,Reid},
851: a generalization of the McKay correspondence
852: has been developed, which in particular provides a natural basis for
853: K theory with compact support (thus supported on the exceptional divisor)
854: labelled by irreps of $\Gamma$. The natural conjecture is that this
855: is the physical correspondence we are looking for. \cite{DD}
856:
857: This conjecture can be tested against results
858: from mirror symmetry which determine the Gauss-Manin connection on
859: K\"ahler moduli space and lead to a connection formula which
860: relates the orbifold ``charge'' basis to the large volume basis. This
861: gives an explicit expression for the Chern character of the bundle
862: corresponding to each irrep, and this has been checked to agree with
863: the conjecture for $\BC^3/\BZ_3$. \cite{DFR2}
864: A somewhat more intricate version
865: of this applies to the Landau-Ginzburg orbifolds; one uses the McKay
866: correspondence to get the natural basis for the K theory of the
867: weighted projective space, and then restricts this to the Calabi-Yau.
868: Again one can compare with results from mirror symmetry and find
869: agreement. \cite{DD}
870:
871: These constructions are intimately related to and generalize
872: Beilinson's construction of quiver categories from sheaves on $\BP^n$
873: \cite{Beil},
874: and it is these categories of quiver representations which are compared
875: to the category of coherent sheaves in the test of ``flow of gradings''
876: mentioned above. More generally, all this
877: provides a fairly concrete relation between the problems of
878: classifying coherent sheaves and of solving certain $\CN=1$
879: supersymmetric gauge theories. Although neither problem is easy in
880: general, the second problem is not only more familiar to physicists
881: but is a more appropriate language for the subsequent considerations
882: than an explicit classification of sheaves would have been. It would
883: be even more valuable if such constructions could be found for all
884: sheaves, not just those which arise on restriction from the ambient space.
885:
886: The first step in this generalization already appears in the physical
887: theories -- it turns out that these include additional moduli
888: which can be shown to correspond to linearized deformations of bundles
889: which appear after restriction to the CY. \cite{DD2}
890: Presumably one could go beyond this linearized level by computing
891: exact superpotentials; this may be possible using physical methods.
892:
893: It would be quite interesting to know more about the variation of
894: the spectrum of BPS branes with K\"ahler moduli. Some simple
895: results of this type were found for $\BC^3/\BZ_3$ in \cite{DFR2};
896: for example it was shown that there are lines of marginal stability
897: arbitrarily close to the large volume limit, by constructing bundles
898: which were $\epsilon$ away from violating slope stability.
899:
900: It would clearly be important to find a microscopic derivation of
901: the stability condition, either from geometry (see \cite{Tstable}
902: for work in this direction) or perhaps CFT or string field theory.
903:
904: Our general conclusion has to be that Kontsevich's proposal, coming as
905: it did before the study of D-branes, has turned out to be remarkably
906: prescient. Although it has taken physicists some time to catch up,
907: we are finally extending this picture to provide both more concrete
908: pictures of branes on Calabi-Yau manifolds and new concepts which should
909: be of interest to mathematicians.
910:
911: \medskip
912:
913: We would like to thank D.-E. Diaconescu, B. Fiol and C. R\"omelsberger
914: for enjoyable collaborations, and
915: F. Bogomolov, M. Kontsevich, M. Marino, D. Morrison,
916: A. Polishchuk, P. Seidel, and R. P. Thomas for valuable discussions.
917: We thank R. P. Thomas for comments on the manuscript.
918:
919: This work was supported by the Clay Mathematics Institute and
920: by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40959.
921:
922:
923: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
924:
925: \itemsep=\smallskipamount
926:
927: \bibitem{Beil} A. A. Beilinson,
928: {\em Coherent sheaves on $P^n$ and problems of linear algebra,}
929: Funct. Anal. Appl. {\bf 12} (1978) 214--216.
930:
931: \bibitem{BBD} A. A. Beilinson, Bernstein and P. Deligne,
932: {\em Faiseaux Pervers}, Asterisque {\bf 100} (1982).
933:
934: \bibitem{BKR} T. Bridgeland, A. King, and M. Reid,
935: {\em Mukai implies McKay,}
936: math.AG/9908027.
937:
938: \bibitem{BDLR} I. Brunner, M. R. Douglas, A. Lawrence, and C. R\"omelsberger,
939: {\em D-branes on the quintic,}
940: to appear in J. High Energy Physics, hep-th/9906200.
941:
942: \bibitem{CdFKM} P. Candelas, X. de la Ossa, A. Font, S. Katz, and
943: D. R. Morrison,
944: {\em Mirror symmetry for two parameter models -- I,}
945: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B416} (1994) 481, hep-th/9308083.
946:
947: \bibitem{CdGP} P. Candelas, X. C. de la Ossa, P. S. Green, and L. Parkes,
948: {\em A pair of Calabi--Yau manifolds as an exactly
949: soluble superconformal theory,}
950: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B359} (1991) 21.
951:
952: \bibitem{CK} D. A. Cox and S. Katz,
953: {\em Mirror Symmetry and Algebraic Geometry,}
954: Mathematical Surveys {\bf 68}, 1999, AMS.
955:
956: \bibitem{DLP} J.~Dai, R.~G.~Leigh and J.~Polchinski,
957: {\em New Connections Between String Theories,}
958: Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A4}, 2073 (1989).
959:
960: \bibitem{Dijk} R. Dijkgraaf,
961: {\em Fields, Strings and Duality,}
962: in {\em Les Houches LXIV, Symetries Quantiques,} eds. A. Connes,
963: K. Gawedzki and J. Zinn-Justin, Elsevier (1998).
964:
965: \bibitem{DT} S. Donaldson and R. Thomas,
966: {\em Gauge Theory in Higher Dimensions,}
967: in {\em The Geometric Universe; Science, Geometry, and the Work of
968: Roger Penrose}, Oxford University Press, 1998.
969:
970: \bibitem{DM} M. R. Douglas and G. Moore,
971: {\em D-branes, Quivers, and ALE Instantons,}
972: hep-th/9603167.
973:
974: \bibitem{DGM} M. R. Douglas, B. R. Greene, and D. R. Morrison,
975: {\em Orbifold resolution by D-branes,}
976: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B506} (1997) 84, hep-th/9704151.
977:
978: \bibitem{DG} M. R. Douglas and B. R. Greene,
979: {\em Metrics on D-brane orbifolds,}
980: Adv.\ Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 1}, 184 (1998) hep-th/9707214.
981:
982: \bibitem{Doug1} M. R. Douglas,
983: {\em Two Lectures on D-Geometry and Noncommutative Geometry,}
984: in {\em Nonperturbative Aspects of Strings, Branes and Supersymmetry,}
985: World Scientific (1999),
986: hep-th/9901146.
987:
988: \bibitem{Doug2} M. R. Douglas,
989: {\em Topics in D-geometry,}
990: Class. Quant. Grav. {\bf 17} (2000) 1057, hep-th/9910170.
991:
992: \bibitem{DFR1} M. R. Douglas, B. Fiol, and C. R\"omelsberger,
993: {\em Stability and BPS branes,}
994: hep-th/0002037.
995:
996: \bibitem{DFR2} M. R. Douglas, B. Fiol, and C. R\"omelsberger,
997: {\em The spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi--Yau,}
998: hep-th/0003263.
999:
1000: \bibitem{DD} M. R. Douglas and D.-E. Diaconescu,
1001: {\em D-branes on Stringy Calabi-Yau Manifolds,}
1002: hep-th/0006224.
1003:
1004: \bibitem{Doug3} M. R. Douglas,
1005: {\em D-branes, Categories and $N=1$ Supersymmetry,}
1006: to appear.
1007:
1008: \bibitem{DD2} M. R. Douglas and D.-E. Diaconescu, to appear.
1009:
1010: \bibitem{FM} B. Fiol and M. Marino,
1011: {\em BPS states and algebras from quivers,}
1012: JHEP 0007 (2000) 031, hep-th/0006189.
1013:
1014: \bibitem{GV} R. Gopakumar and C. Vafa,
1015: {\em M-Theory and Topological Strings--I,}
1016: hep-th/9809187.
1017:
1018: \bibitem{GJS} S. Govindarajan, T. Jayaraman, and T. Sarkar,
1019: {\em World sheet approaches to D-branes on supersymmetric cycles,}
1020: hep-th/9907131.
1021:
1022: \bibitem{Greene} B. R. Greene,
1023: {\em String theory on Calabi-Yau manifolds,}
1024: hep-th/9702155.
1025:
1026: \bibitem{GP} B. R. Greene and M. R. Plesser,
1027: {\em Duality in Calabi-Yau Moduli Space,}
1028: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B338} (1990) 15.
1029:
1030: \bibitem{Grisaru} M.~T.~Grisaru, A.~E.~van de Ven and D.~Zanon,
1031: {\em Two-Dimensional Supersymmetric Sigma Models On Ricci Flat
1032: Kahler Manifolds Are Not Finite,}
1033: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B277} (1986), 388.
1034:
1035: \bibitem{Gross} M. Gross,
1036: {\em Topological Mirror Symmetry,}
1037: math.AG/9909015.
1038:
1039: \bibitem{Harvey} F. Reese Harvey,
1040: {\em Spinors and Calibrations,}
1041: Academic Press (1990).
1042:
1043: \bibitem{HM} J.A. Harvey and G. Moore,
1044: {\em On the algebras of BPS states,}
1045: Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 197} 489 (1998), hep-th/9609017.
1046:
1047: \bibitem{HIV} K. Hori, A. Iqbal, and C. Vafa,
1048: {\em D-branes and mirror symmetry,}
1049: hep-th/0005247.
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Horja} R.~P.~Horja,
1052: {\em Hypergeometric functions and mirror symmetry in toric varieties,}
1053: math.AG/9912109.
1054:
1055: \bibitem{IN} Y. Ito and H. Nakajima,
1056: {\em McKay correspondence and Hilbert schemes in dimension three,}
1057: math.AG/9803120.
1058:
1059: \bibitem{JJP} I.~Jack, D.~R.~Jones and J.~Panvel,
1060: {\em Six loop divergences in the supersymmetric Kahler sigma model,}
1061: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A8}, 2591 (1993); hep-th/9311117.
1062:
1063: \bibitem{Joyce} D. Joyce,
1064: {\em On counting special Lagrangian homology 3-spheres,}
1065: hep-th/9907013.
1066:
1067: \bibitem{KKLM} S. Kachru, S. Katz, A. Lawrence and J. McGreevy,
1068: {\em Mirror Symmetry for Open Strings,}
1069: hep-th/0006047.
1070:
1071: \bibitem{Kont} M.~Kontsevich,
1072: {\em Homological Algebra of Mirror Symmetry,}
1073: Proceedings of the 1994 ICM, alg-geom/9411018.
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Kron} P. B. Kronheimer,
1076: {\em The construction of ALE spaces as hyper-K\"ahler quotients,}
1077: J. Diff. Geom. {\bf 29} (1989) 665.
1078:
1079: \bibitem{Leung} N. C. Leung,
1080: {\em Einstein Type Metrics and Stability on Vector Bundles,}
1081: J. Diff. Geom. {\bf 45} (1997) 514.
1082:
1083: \bibitem{LYZ} N. C. Leung, S.-T. Yau and E. Zaslow,
1084: {\em From Special Lagrangian to Hermitian-Yang-Mills
1085: via Fourier-Mukai Transform,} math.DG/0005118.
1086:
1087: \bibitem{MMMS} M. Marino, R. Minasian, G. Moore and A. Strominger,
1088: {\em Nonlinear Instantons from Supersymmetric p-Branes,}
1089: JHEP 0001 (2000) 005, hep-th/9911206.
1090:
1091: \bibitem{Morr} D. R. Morrison,
1092: {\em Geometric Aspects of Mirror Symmetry,}
1093: math.AG/0007090.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{NSV} K.S. Narain, M.H. Sarmadi and C. Vafa (Harvard U.),
1096: {\em Asymmetric orbifolds,}
1097: Nucl. Phys. B288 (1987), 551.
1098:
1099: \bibitem{NS} D.~Nemeschansky and A.~Sen,
1100: {\em Conformal Invariance Of Supersymmetric Sigma Models
1101: On Calabi-Yau Manifolds,}
1102: Phys. Lett. {\bf B178} (1986), 365.
1103:
1104: \bibitem{OOY} H. Ooguri, Y. Oz and Z. Yin,
1105: {\em D-branes on Calabi-Yau spaces and their mirrors,}
1106: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B477}, 407 (1996), hep-th/9606112.
1107:
1108: \bibitem{Pol} J. Polchinski,
1109: {\em TASI Lectures on D-branes,}
1110: hep-th/9611050.
1111:
1112: \bibitem{PZ} A. Polishchuk and E. Zaslow,
1113: {\em Categorical Mirror Symmetry: The Elliptic Curve,}
1114: Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf 2} (1998) 443-470, math.AG/9801119.
1115:
1116: \bibitem{RS} A. Recknagel and V. Schomerus,
1117: {\em D-branes in Gepner models,}
1118: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B531} (1998) 185, hep-th/9712186.
1119:
1120: \bibitem{Reid} M. Reid,
1121: {\em La correspondance de McKay,}
1122: S\'eminaire Bourbaki (novembre 1999), no. 867, math.AG/9911165.
1123:
1124: \bibitem{Ruan} W.-D. Ruan,
1125: {\em Lagrangian torus fibration and mirror symmetry of
1126: Calabi-Yau hypersurface in toric variety,}
1127: math.DG/0007028.
1128:
1129: \bibitem{Seidel} P. Seidel,
1130: {\em Graded Lagrangian submanifolds,}
1131: math.SG/9903049.
1132:
1133: \bibitem{ST} P. Seidel and R. P. Thomas,
1134: {\em Braid group actions on derived categories of coherent sheaves,}
1135: math.AG/0001043.
1136:
1137: \bibitem{SYZ} A. Strominger, S.-T. Yau and E. Zaslow,
1138: {\em Mirror Symmetry is T-Duality,}
1139: Nucl.Phys. B479 (1996) 243-259, hep-th/9606040.
1140:
1141: \bibitem{Thom} R. P. Thomas,
1142: {\em D-Branes and Mirror Symmetry},
1143: to appear in the proceedings of the 2000
1144: Clay Mathematics Institute school on Mirror Symmetry.
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Tstable} R. P. Thomas, to appear.
1147:
1148: \bibitem{Voisin} C. Voisin,
1149: {\em Mirror Symmetry,}
1150: SMF/AMS Texts {\bf 1}, AMS 1999.
1151:
1152: \bibitem{Witten} E. Witten,
1153: {\em Phases of $N{=}2$ theories in two dimensions,}
1154: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B403} (1993) 159, hep-th/9301042.
1155:
1156: \bibitem{Wittentop} E. Witten,
1157: {\em Chern-Simons gauge theory as a string theory,}
1158: hep-th/9207094.
1159:
1160: \bibitem{WittenSuper} E. Witten,
1161: {\em Branes and the Dynamics of QCD,}
1162: Nucl. Phys. B507 (1997) 658; hep-th/9706109.
1163:
1164: \bibitem{Zhar} I. Zharkov,
1165: {\em Torus Fibrations of Calabi-Yau Hypersurfaces in Toric Varieties
1166: and Mirror Symmetry,}
1167: math.AG/9806091.
1168:
1169: \end{thebibliography}
1170:
1171:
1172: \end{document}
1173: