format: text

text:
# Quantum Lefschetz Hyperplane Theorem

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Statement of the main results

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety. Let $`T_k`$ be a basis of $`H^{}(X)`$, $`T_0=1,T_i=p_i,i=1,\mathrm{}N`$ and let $`t_k`$ be the dual coordinates of $`T_k`$. Let $`g_{mk}:=_XT_mT_k`$ the intersection pairing and $`(g^{mk})`$ is the inverse matrix of $`(g_{mk})`$. Let $`E:=(_jL_j)`$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$, where $`L_j`$ are pull-backs of convex/concave (see below) line bundles on $`P`$. Define the generating function of genus zero one-point gravitational Gromov–Witten invariants on $`X`$ to be

(1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_X(q,\mathrm{}):=& e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta J_X(\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill :=& e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta \mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\hfill \\ \hfill =& e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\underset{mk}{}T_mg^{mk}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta _{[\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}}\mathrm{ev}^{}(T_k)\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\hfill \end{array}$$

and for $`EX`$:

(2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_X^E(q,\mathrm{}):=& e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta J_X^E(\beta ):=e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )},\hfill \end{array}$$

which will be called *$`J`$-function* of $`X`$ and $`EX`$ respectively. It is easy to see that

$$_XJ_X^E=\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta _{[\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}}\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\mathrm{ev}^{}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}.$$

For a line bundle $`L:=i^{}(𝒪_P(l))`$ on $`X`$ define

$$H_\beta ^L:=\underset{k=0}{\overset{c_1(L),\beta }{}}(c_1(L)+k\mathrm{})$$

for $`L`$ convex and

$$H_\beta ^L:=\underset{k=c_1(L),\beta +1}{\overset{1}{}}(c_1(L)+k\mathrm{})$$

for $`L`$ concave. Here a vector bundle $`EX`$ is called *convex* if for any stable map $`f:CX`$, $`H^1(C,\pi _{}f^{}(E))=0`$. $`E`$ is *concave* if $`H^0(C,\pi _{}f^{}(E))=0`$ for any $`f`$. Introduce another generating 0 of Gromov–Witten invariants on $`X`$ (modified by $`H^L`$’s)

(3)
$$I_X^E(q,\mathrm{}):=e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+_ip_it_i)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta J_X(\beta )\underset{j}{}H_\beta ^{L_j}$$

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety embedded in $`P=^{r_i}`$ (see *Notations.*) and $`E=_jL_jX`$ be the sum of line bundles $`L_j`$ which are the pull-backs of convex and concave line bundles on $`P`$ such that

$$c_1(T_X)\underset{L_j\text{convex}}{}c_1(L_j)+\underset{L_jconcave}{}c_1(L_j)$$

are non-negative. Then

$$_XJ_X^E(q,\mathrm{})_XI_X^E(q,\mathrm{}),$$

where $``$ means equivalence up to a *mirror transformation*, which is a special kind of change of variables described in § 4.3.

In fact, there are many situations when the above mirror transformations are unnecessary. The following theorem contains the main examples.

###### Theorem 2.

$`_XJ_X^E=_XI_X^E`$ if

1. $`E`$ is concave and $`\mathrm{rank}(E)2`$.
2. $`E`$ is convex and $`c_1(T_X)_{L_j\text{convex}}c_1(L_j)`$ is Fano of index $`2`$.
3. Direct sum of the previous two cases.

In the case when $`E:=(_jL_j)`$, all $`L_j`$ are *convex*, Theorem 1 has the following interpretation.

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`i_Y:YX`$ be the smooth zero locus of a section of $`E`$ (i.e. a complete intersection in $`X`$).

* 1.

$$_X(i_Y)_{}J_Y=_XJ_X^E.$$

In particular, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 relate the Gromov–Witten invariants of $`Y`$ to Gromov–Witten invariants of $`X`$.
* 2. Suppose that $`H^{}(X)`$ is generated by divisor classes, and $`\mathrm{rk}(E)=1`$, i.e. $`Y`$ is a hypersurface. Then all $`n`$-point gravitational Gromov–Witten invariants of $`i_Y^{}H^{}(X)`$ can be reconstructed from one-point gravitational Gromov–Witten invariants of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

The part 1 is nothing but the statement that for any $`\omega H^{}(X)`$

(4)
$$[\overline{M}_{0,1}(Y,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}},i_Y^{}(\omega )=[\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ),\omega ,$$

which can be found in e.g.  and references therein. See also § 1.2. The second part is a corollary of the first part plus a reconstruction theorem proved in , which states that one can reconstructs $`n`$-point descendants provided that $`H^{}(X)`$ is generated by divisor classes and one-point descendants are known. ∎

###### Remark 1.

(Local mirror conjecture) When $`E`$ is concave, there is also an interpretation of the Gromov–Witten invariants of $`EX`$: the invariants of the total space of vector bundle $`EX`$. For example $`𝒪(1)𝒪(1)^1`$, is the “tubular neighborhood” of $`^1`$ embedded in a Calabi–Yau threefold with normal bundle $`𝒪_^1(1)𝒪_^1(1)`$.

###### Remark 2.

Whenever $`X`$ carries a group action by $`G`$, one could carry out the whole work to $`H_G^{}(X)`$ (instead of $`H^{}(X)`$) without any change. In this case, only localization of $`^{}`$-action on graph space is needed.

Combining the quantum differential equation  and the above theorems, one can easily see the following interesting phenomenon. When $`X`$ is a toric variety this is a corollary of Givental’s *quantum Serre duality* theorem .

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`E=_{j=1}^{\mathrm{rk}(E)}L_j`$ be a concave bundle with $`\mathrm{rk}(E)2`$. Then111The restriction $`\mathrm{rk}(E)2`$ is shown unnecessary in the joint work with A. Bertram.

(5)
$$_Xc_{\mathrm{top}}(E)e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}J_X^E(q,\mathrm{})_X\frac{1}{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E^{})}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}J_X^E^{}(q,\mathrm{}),$$

where $`E^{}`$ is the dual vector bundle and $``$ means equivalence up to mirror transformations (and a factor of power series in $`q`$).

An interesting consequence of (5) is that one can prove the mirror conjecture of convex bundles by concave bundles. For example the proof of mirror conjecture in the case of quintic three-fold can be carried out222Here we are not very precise. (5) is valid only if $`\mathrm{rk}(E)2`$. However, we could use $`E=𝒪(5)𝒪(1)`$ on $`^5`$ instead of $`𝒪(5)`$ on $`^4`$. The reason is that quintic three-fold can be described as complete intersections in $`^5`$ of the bundle $`𝒪(1)𝒪(5)`$. by using $`𝒪(5)`$ instead of $`𝒪(5)`$ on $`^4`$. See  §5 for an example. Here of course, this comes as a cyclic argument as we have used the proof of mirror conjecture in convex case to deduce this result. It is therefore desirable to have a direct proof of (5) and refine the statement. We plan to elaborate on this in a future paper (jointly with A. Bertram).

### 1.2. Relation to quantum cohomology

Lefschetz hyperplane theorem (LHT) asserts that a projective smooth variety $`X`$ contains essential (co-)homological information of its hyperplane section $`Y`$. The quantum Lefschetz hyperplane theorem (QLHT) verifies this assertion in quantum cohomology. It was proposed by A. Givental and formulated in the present form by B. Kim .

More precisely, our theorems state that the $`J`$-function of the complete intersection $`Y`$ (of classes $`i_Y^{}H^{}(X)`$) can be obtained from the $`J`$-function of $`X`$ by multiplying suitable cohomology classes and possibly a well-defined change of variables. The central roles of $`J`$-function in quantum cohomology theory is explained by the theory of *quantum differential equation* developed by Dijkgraaf and Givental . It says, first of all, that $`J`$-function is a flat section of the Dubrovin connection on the A-model side, parallel to the Picard-Fuchs equation on the B-model side. This is related to the mirror symmetry discussed in the next subsection. Secondly, it gives a nice way to obtain the essential information of small quantum ring $`QH^{}(X)`$ from $`J`$-function (*quantum $`𝒟`$-module*). For example, one can easily obtain the relations in quantum cohomology from $`J`$-function. Moreover, a result in  states that it is possible to reconstruct n-point descendants from one-point descendants when $`H^{}(X)`$ is generated by divisor classes. Therefore our theorem even implicitly relates their big gravitational quantum cohomology algebras under this condition.

Many important special cases of QLHT, including the celebrated quintic three-fold, have been worked out by A. Givental ( and references therein), B. Kim  and Liu–Lian–Yau . In the case of quintic three-fold, the ambient space $`X=^4`$ and $`E=𝒪(5)`$. Since it is very easy to compute the Gromov–Witten invariants of $`^4`$, QLHT is therefore the central part of the proof of mirror conjecture which will be discussed in the next subsection.

### 1.3. Relation to mirror conjecture

In a seminal paper  Candelas, de la Ossa, Green and Parkes applied the mirror symmetry to the quintic three-fold and derived, in a string-theoretic way, the celebrated formula which predicts the number $`n_d`$ of rational curves on the quintic three-fold of any degrees. This formula was then named *mirror conjecture*, or mirror identity to distinguish itself from more fundamental physical principle of mirror symmetry. This conjecture basically says that a generating function of $`n_d`$ is equivalent to a hypergeometric series up to a mirror transformation. Their result soon stimulated a lot of mathematical work in enumerative geometry. Among different groups working on the proof of their prediction, there have been notably two different approaches. One approach is trying to mathematically justify the string-theoretic mirror symmetry and therefore obtain mirror conjecture as a corollary. The other is to attack the enumerative consequence directly by developing new mathematics inspired from physics. Gromov–Witten theory is partly inspired by this second approach which we will give a brief discussion333The following is not meant to be a precise historical account..

The first major progress came from M. Kontsevich . As is well known in algebraic geometry, an enumerative problem can usually be formulated as an intersection-theoretic one on suitable moduli spaces. Kontsevich introduced the moduli space of stable maps and formulated the mirror conjecture as follows. Let $`𝒪(5)_d^{}:=\pi _{}\mathrm{ev}^{}(𝒪(5))`$ be the vector bundle on $`\overline{M}_{0,0}(^4,d)`$, then the enumerative problem was equivalent to computing the integral

(6)
$$N_d:=_{\overline{M}_{0,0}(^4,d)}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d^{}),$$

and $`N_d`$ can be related to $`n_d`$ by Aspinwall-Morrison Formula. By using torus action on $`^4`$ and fixed point localization method, he was able to reduce the integral (6) to summation of trees, but failed to complete the complicated combinatorial problem. Another (conceptual) drawback of this approach was that it did not explain the presence of hypergeometric series.

Then came A. Givental’s proof followed by other approaches and generalizations by Lian-Liu-Yau and Bertram. The new innovations include, among other things, the introduction of equivariant quantum cohomology and graph space. The quantum cohomology of Calabi-Yau manifold $`X`$ is not semisimple, which makes the structure of quantum ring, like associativity relation, not very useful in computing $`n_d`$. By introducing equivariant quantum cohomology one produces a family of Frobenius structure over $`H_G^{}(pt)`$ whose generic fibre carries semisimple Frobenius structure while the special fibre $`H^{}(Y)`$ does not. Therefore $`QH^{}(Y)`$ for Calabi-Yau manifold $`Y`$ may be considered as a limiting case of semisimple Frobenius manifold. This explains, in one way, why the structure of quantum cohomology of Calabi-Yau manifolds play a role in enumerative problem. On the other hand, to properly explain the presence of hypergeometric series, the graph space $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ was introduced and was shown to have a natural birational morphism $`u`$ to the toric compactification space, or linear sigma model, $`_d^r:=^{(r+1)d+r}`$ (see § 2.1 for details). It was earlier found by E. Witten  and Givental, etc. (from different approaches) that some suitable correlators on $`_d^r`$ actually produce the desired hypergeometric series. However, neither $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ nor $`_d^r`$ is the right space to perform the integral (6). The way to resolve this issue was to identify $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d)`$ as a fixed point component of $`^{}`$-action on $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$. One then uses the birational morphism $`u:\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)_d^r`$ to pass the above correlators from $`_d^r`$ to $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ and then pass to $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d)`$. In the quintic three-fold case, $`r=4`$ and the correlator obtained from this procedure is

(7)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_^4^{𝒪(5)}(d):=& \mathrm{ev}_{}\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d)}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{ev}_{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d)+\mathrm{}^3\mathrm{ev}_{}(c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d)\psi )+\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`\mathrm{}^2`$ term in Laurent series expansion, when integrated over $`^4`$, will be (see )

$$_^4\mathrm{ev}_{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d)=_{\overline{M}_{0,1}(^4,d)}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d)=_{\overline{M}_{0,0}(^4,d)}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪(5)_d^{})$$

which is exactly (6).

There are now four approaches to mirror conjecture (known to us) by Givental, Lian-Liu-Yau, Bertram, and Gathmann. The interested reader can find valuable information in  and references therein.

###### Remark 3.

Compare (7) with (1), one sees that our results can be interpreted as a generalization of mirror conjecture.

###### Acknowledgements.

My special thanks go to Aaron Bertram. The current proof is based on his work  and I benefit a lot from our collaboration. I am also thankful to Bumsig Kim444B. Kim informed us that he had previously obtained a special case of Theorem 2 case 2., Rahul Pandharipande for numerous useful discussions.

###### Update.

Gathmann has recently posted his proof of mirror theorem , where he proved the mirror theorem in the case $`E`$ is a convex line bundle (i.e. when $`Y`$ is a very ample hypersurface). The relation between his approach and ours is, roughly, the following. While we tried to sweep the classes $`e_\nu `$ in Theorem 5 “under the carpet” by dimensional constraints, he explicitly studies these relative classes and found a nice formula to relate these classes to ordinary Gromov–Witten classes.

## 2. Graph space in Gromov–Witten theory

*The Picard number of $`X`$ is assumed to be one throughout the rest of the paper, to avoid complicated notations. The generalization to the arbitrary Picard number is usually a matter of bookkeeping and is left to the reader.*

### 2.1. Graph space and one-point invariants

The $`n`$-pointed *graph space* of $`X`$ of degree $`\beta `$ is defined to be $`\overline{G}_{0,n}(X,\beta ):=\overline{M}_{0,n}(X\times ^1,(\beta ,1))`$, where the degree $`(\beta ,1)`$ is the element in $`H_2(X)H_2(^1)`$. It is a compactification of the space of maps from parameterized $`^1`$ to $`X`$. This space $`\overline{G}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$ carries a natural $`^{}`$-action induced from the action on $`^1`$.

When $`X=^r`$ there is another (toric) compactification, $`_d^r`$ (*linear sigma model*), of the space of parameterized map of degree $`d`$. It is constructed in the following way. Consider the projective space of $`(r+1)`$-tuple of the degree $`d`$ (symmetric) binary forms of $`(z_0:z_1)`$. When there is no common factors of positive degrees among these $`(r+1)`$-tuples, it represents a morphism from $`^1^r`$. We may compactify it by simply allowing the common factors and taking quotient by $`^{}`$-action. It is easy to see that this space is equal to $`^{(r+1)(d+1)1}`$.

By construction $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ is birationally isomorphic to $`_d^r`$. In fact,

###### Theorem 3.

*(Givental’s Main Lemma )* There exists a natural birational $`^{}`$-equivariant morphism $`u:\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)_d^r`$.

This morphism $`u`$ can be described as follows. Consider a stable degree $`(d,1)`$ map $`f:C^1\times ^n`$. There exists a unique irreducible component $`C_0C`$ (called *parameterized component*) such that $`f|_{C_0}`$ has degree $`(d_0,1)`$ where $`d_0d`$. The image $`f(C_0)`$ is the graph of a map $`^1^r`$ of degree $`d_0`$. The map is given by the binary forms $`(p_0:\mathrm{}:p_r)`$ of degree $`d_0`$ with no common factors and determines the forms uniquely up to a non-zero constant factor. The curve $`\overline{CC_0}`$ has $`s`$ connected *unparameterized components* which are mapped to $`^1\times ^r`$ with degrees $`(d_1,0),\mathrm{},(d_s,0),d_1+\mathrm{}+d_s=dd_0`$, and the image of $`i`$-th component is contained in the slice $`(a_i:b_i)\times ^n`$. We put $`u(C,f)=_{i=1}^r(a_iz_0b_iz_1)^{d_i}(p_0:\mathrm{}:p_r)`$. For a detailed proof in algebro-geometric terms see  and .

Of course we can also find simple birational models for $`\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d)`$. A particular useful one is $`(^1)^s\times _d^r`$. There is also a morphism $`u_s:\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d)(^1)^s\times _d^r`$. The first factor is defined by the composition

$$\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d)\stackrel{\mathrm{ev}_i}{}(X\times ^1)^s\stackrel{p_2}{}(^1)^s$$

and the second factor is the composition of the forgetful morphism $`\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d)\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ and $`u:\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)_d^r`$ defined in Theorem 3.

From the above description, it is clear that two spaces $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ and $`_d^r`$ differ on certain boundary strata. The *comb type strata*, denoted $`D_\mu `$ where $`\mu :=(d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_s),d_0+d_1+\mathrm{}d_s=d`$, play an important role in our discussion. The (domain) curve of a generic element in $`D_\mu `$ has one parameterized component and $`s`$ nodes, and $`(d_0,1)H_2(^r\times ^1)`$ is the degree of the parameterized component. These strata have substrata, called *hairy comb type strata*, which are obtained by further degenerating the unparameterized components. Note that different permutations of $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_s`$ represent the same $`\mu `$. For example $`(d_0,d^{},d^{\prime \prime })=(d_0,d^{\prime \prime },d^{})`$. For such a stratum $`D_\mu `$ there is a finite birational morphism

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu :=\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d_0)\times _{(^r)^s}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_m)D_\mu .$$

To simplify our notation, we will denote $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu `$ also by $`D_\mu `$ henceforth. There are also useful morphisms from $`D_\mu `$ to simple spaces:

(8)
$$u_\mu :D_\mu =\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d_0)\times _{(^r)^s}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_m)(^1)^s\times _{d_0}^r,$$

defined by the composition

(9)
$$D_\mu \stackrel{p_0}{}\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d_0)\stackrel{u_s}{}(^1)^s\times _{d_0}^r.$$

Let $`X\stackrel{𝑖}{}^r`$ be an embedding described earlier. For the notational convenience, we define the divisors $`D_\nu :=i_G^{}D_\mu `$ of $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$ (indexed by $`\nu :=(\beta _0,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _s)`$) for future reference. The relation is described in the following commutative diagram:

(10)
The reason to introduce the graph space in Gromov–Witten theory is to obtain one-point descendant invariants. The graph space $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$ carries a $`^{}`$ action induced from the $`^{}`$ action on $`^1`$, and $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$ is a fixed point component. It is summarized in the following commutative diagram:

(11)
where the left upper square is a commutative diagram such that $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$ and $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(P,d)\overline{G}_{0,0}(P,d)`$ are fixed point components of $`^{}`$-action on the graph spaces and $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$ is the only fixed point component mapping to $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d)`$ by $`i_M`$. The same can be said about the right square: $`^r_d^r`$ is a fixed point component such that $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d)`$ is the only fixed point component mapping to $`^r`$.

###### Remark 4.

The above setting actually works for product of projective spaces $`P:=^{r_i}`$. There are only small changes in this adjustment. First, all $`d,\mu `$ etc. should stand for multi-index. Second, the birational morphism in Theorem 3 should be replaced by

$$u:\overline{G}_{0,0}(P,d)\underset{i}{}_{d^i}^{r_i}.$$

### 2.2. Virtual localization on graph space

First recall the Graber-Pandharipande virtual localization formula :

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`X`$ be an algebraic scheme with a $`^{}`$ action and $`^{}`$-equivariant perfect obstruction theory. Then the virtual localization formula holds:

$$[X]^{\mathrm{vir}}=j_{}\frac{[X_j]^{\mathrm{vir}}}{e(N_{X_j|X}^{\mathrm{vir}})}$$

in $`A_{}^{^{}}(X)[\lambda ,\frac{1}{\lambda }]`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the generator of the $`A_{}^{^{}}(pt)`$.

An immediate consequence of this theorem is the *correspondence of residues* ( Lemma 2.1 and ):

###### Corollary 3.

Suppose that $`f:X_1X_2`$ is a $`^{}`$-equivariant map of two algebraic schemes and $`j_1:F_1X_1`$ and $`j_2:F_2X_2`$ are two fixed point components of $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ respectively, such that $`F_1`$ is the only fixed point component mapping into $`F_2`$ as in the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X_1& \stackrel{f}{}& X_2\\ j_1& & j_2& & \\ F_1& \stackrel{f|_{F_1}}{}& F_2.\end{array}$$

Then

(12)
$$f|_{F_1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{j_1^{}(\omega )[F_1]^{\mathrm{vir}}}{e(N_{F_1|X_1}^{\mathrm{vir}})}\right)=\frac{j_2^!f_{}(\omega [X_1]^{\mathrm{vir}})}{e(N_{F_2|X_2}^{\mathrm{vir}})}$$

for any $`\omega H_{^{}}^{}(X_1)`$.

Apply this result to our case: Let $`X_1=\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$, $`X_2=\overline{G}_{0,0}(P,d)`$, $`F_1=\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$, $`F_2=\overline{M}_{0,1}(P,d)`$ and $`\omega =c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)`$, as displayed in the upper left square of (11). Since $`j_X^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)=c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )`$, one has

(13)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\right)=& \mathrm{PD}i_{M}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}[\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{\mathrm{PD}j_P^!i_{G}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{j_P^{}i_{G}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the generator of $`H_{^{}}^{}(pt)`$ and $`\psi `$ is the first chern class of the tautological line bundle $`_1`$ on $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$ or $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(P,d)`$. The one small difference between (12) and (13) is that $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(P,d)`$ and $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(P,d)`$ are orbifolds and Poincaré duality makes sense there.

###### Remark 5.

The functorial properties of virtual fundamental classes used in this article can be found in   .

## 3. Decomposition of the virtual fundamental classes

Recall that there is a birational morphism $`u_{X,1}:=u_1i_G`$ (see (8)) from the universal curve $`\overline{G}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$ of the graph space $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$ to $`^1\times _d^r`$. Given a line bundle $`L:=i^{}𝒪_^r(l)`$ on $`X`$ one could produce two line bundles $`\mathrm{ev}^{}L`$ and $`u_{X,1}^{}𝒪_{^1\times _d^r}(dl,l)`$ on $`\overline{G}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$. These two line bundles are isomorphic on the open subset $`U:=\overline{G}_{0,1}(X,\beta )_{\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)}C_\nu `$, where $`C_\nu `$ is the universal curve of the *unparameterized* component over $`D_\nu `$. The reason is that $`C_\nu `$ are exactly the exceptional divisors of $`u_1`$. More explicitly, there is a rational map $`b:^1\times _d^r^r`$ such that $`b`$ is well-defined on $`u(U)`$ in the following commutative diagram:

It is easy to see that $`b`$ is a morphism on $`u(U)`$, of degree $`d`$ in the first factor and linear in the second. Namely

$$b|_{u(U)}^{}𝒪_^r(l)=𝒪_{^1\times _d^r}(dl,l).$$

Therefore

$$\mathrm{ev}_X^{}(L)=u_{X,1}^{}(𝒪_{^1\times _d^r}(dl,l))𝒪\left(\underset{\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)}{}c_\nu C_\nu \right).$$

It is easy to see that $`c_\nu `$ is negative as $`\mathrm{ev}_X^{}(L)𝒪_{^1\times _d^r}(dl,l))`$ by restricting a section of $`\mathrm{ev}_X^{}(L)`$ to $`U`$ and then extending this section on $`_d^r`$ by Hartog’s lemma. The actual coefficients555In fact, we will only need to know $`c_\nu `$ is negative. $`c_\nu `$ can be determined by the following observation. The degree of $`f^{}(L)`$ on the *unparameterized* component of the universal curve over the divisor $`D_\nu `$ (at a generic point) has degree $`c_1(L),\beta _1`$. This leads to $`c_\nu =c_1(L),\beta _1`$. The same argument applies to $`n`$-pointed graph space:

###### Lemma 1.

On the universal curve $`C`$ over the graph space $`\overline{G}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{ev}_{1,X}^{}(L)\hfill \\ \hfill =& u_{X,n}^{}(𝒪_{^1\times (^1)^n\times _d^r}(dl,0,\mathrm{},0,l))𝒪\left(\underset{\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)}{}c_1(L),\beta _1C_\nu \right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`C_\nu `$ is the universal curve of the unparameterized component over $`D_\nu `$.

###### Corollary 4.

For $`L`$ convex let

$$L_\beta ^G:=R^0\pi _{n+1}\mathrm{ev}_{n+1}^{}(L_l)$$

$$F_\beta ^G:=u_X^{}\left(H^0(^1,𝒪(dl))𝒪_{(^1)^n\times _d^r}(0,\mathrm{},0,l)\right).$$

One has equivariant maps of vector bundles on graph space $`\overline{G}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$

$$\sigma _0:L_\beta ^GF_\beta ^G.$$

For $`L`$ concave let

(14a)
$$L_\beta ^G:=R^1\pi _{}e^{}(L_l(x_1\mathrm{}x_n))$$

(14b)
$$F_\beta ^G:=u_X^{}\left(H^1(^1,𝒪(dl)(\chi _1\mathrm{}\chi _n))𝒪_{(^1)^n\times _d^r}(0,l)\right).$$

One has

$$\sigma _1:F_\beta ^GL_\beta ^G.$$

Here in (14b) $`\chi _m:(^1)^n_d^r^1`$ are the projections to the $`m`$-th factor of $`^1`$ (considered as “marked points”). In equation (14a), $`x_m`$ are the marked points on the universal curve.

###### Proof.

It is clear that the vector bundles in this lemma are the push-forwards of two line bundles on the universal curve $`C`$ considered in Lemma 1. When the coefficient $`c_\nu `$ is negative, one has the following inclusion

(15)
$$\mathrm{ev}_X^{}(L)u_{X,n}^{}𝒪_{^1\times (^1)^n\times _d^r}(dl,0,d).$$

$`\sigma _0`$ is then obtained by pushing-forward the above inclusion of line bundles to $`\overline{G}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$.

$`\sigma _1`$ can be obtained in a similar way. When $`L`$ is concave, $`c_1(L),\beta _1`$ is positive so that the arrow of (15) is reversed. ∎

The equation (4) indicates that the QLHT boils down to the study of the top chern class $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )`$ on $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,\beta )`$, which is in turn the pull-back $`j_X^{}(c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G))`$ of top chern class from $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )`$. From the above discussion

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)=u_X^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(F_\beta ^G)+\text{boundary terms},$$

where the boundary terms are supported on the comb type strata $`D_\nu `$. Notice that the “main term” $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(F_\beta ^G)`$ is the (equivariant) top chern class of direct sum of line bundles on the projective space and can therefore be easily computed. In fact, we will see in the next section that this part gives rise to the factors $`H_\beta ^E`$ in (3). It remains to have a close look of the boundary terms. A key observation of  is that boundary contributions can be explicitly computed using MacPherson’s graph construction for vector bundle morphisms.

###### Proposition 1.

When $`X=^r`$ and $`E=𝒪_^r(l)`$ a line bundle,

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪_^r(l)_d^G)=u^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{dl}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})+\underset{\mu }{}\frac{1}{s!}\phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu u_\mu ^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{d_0l}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})\right),$$

for $`l`$ *positive* and

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪_^r(l)_d^G)=u^{}\underset{k=dl+1}{\overset{1}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})+\underset{\mu }{}\frac{1}{s!}\phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu u_\mu ^{}\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s\underset{k=d_0l+1}{\overset{1}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})\right),$$

for $`l`$ negative. Here $`s`$ is the number of unparameterized components for a generic curve over $`D_\nu `$, $`H`$ is the hyperplane class of $`_d^r`$ and $`\xi _m`$ is the point class of $`m`$-th $`^1`$ in $`(^1)^s\times _d^r`$. The equivariant class $`e_\mu `$ is defined in (23).

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`E=_jL_j`$, $`L_j=i^{}(𝒪_^r(l_j))`$. The virtual fundamental class $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}`$ decomposes as follows:

For *convex* bundle $`E`$

(16)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& u_X^{}\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=0}{\overset{c_1(L_j),\beta }{}}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\hfill \\ \hfill +& \underset{\nu }{}\frac{1}{s!}\phi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\left(e_\nu u_\nu ^{}\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=0}{\overset{c_1(L_j),\beta _0}{}}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})\right)[D_\nu ]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

For *concave* $`E`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& u_X^{}\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=c_1(L_j),\beta +1}{\overset{1}{}}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}\hfill \\ \hfill +& \underset{\nu }{}\frac{1}{s!}\phi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\left(e_\nu u_\nu ^{}\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=c_1(L_j),\beta _0+1}{\overset{1}{}}\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})\right)[D_\nu ]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

In the case $`\mathrm{rk}(E)=1`$, $`e_\nu :=i_G^{}e_\mu `$. In general, it is defined inductively.

###### Proof.

It is easy to see that the theorem follows from the above proposition by the formula $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta ^G)=_jc_{\mathrm{top}}((L_j)_\beta ^G)`$ and the excess intersection theory. Note that $`c_{\mathrm{top}}((L_j)_\beta ^G)=i_G^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪_^r(l_j)_d^G)`$. ∎

###### Proof.

(of Proposition 1)

I. (*Convex case*) The convex case of the proposition is Lemma 4.4 of . For the convenience of the reader and future references, we reproduce Bertram’s proof.

As remarked above, it is clear from Lemma 1 that the equivariant virtual class has its “main” contribution from

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(u^{}𝒪_{^1\times _d^r}(ld,l))=\left(u^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{ld}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})\right).$$

It is also clear that other contributions to $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(𝒪_^r(l)_d^G)`$ come from the boundary strata $`\mu `$ (and possibly its substrata). It remains to study the boundary terms. This can be done by MacPherson’s graph construction of vector bundle morphisms.

Let $`_d:=𝒪_^r(l)_d^G`$ and $`_d:=H^0(^1,𝒪(dl))u^{}𝒪_{_d^r}(l)`$ be vector bundles on $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$. By Corollary 4 there is a homomorphism $`\sigma _0:_d_d`$ of vector bundles of the same rank $`dl+1`$. Let $`G:=\text{Grass}_{dl+1}(_d_d)`$ be the Grassmann bundle over $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$, with universal bundle $`\zeta G`$ of rank $`dl+1`$. There is a canonical embedding

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)\times 𝔸^1G\times ^1$$

taking $`(z,\lambda )`$ to $`(\text{graph of }\lambda \sigma _0(z),(1:\lambda ))`$. Let $`W`$ be the closure of the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and let

$$W_{\mathrm{}}=i_{\mathrm{}}^{}[W]=m_\delta [V_\delta ]$$

be a cycle in $`G`$ of dimension equal to $`dim(\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d))`$, where $`m_\delta `$ is the multiplicity of $`V_\delta `$. Let

$$\eta _\delta :V_\delta GZ_\delta \overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)$$

be the map induced by projection, and $`Z_\delta `$ be the image of $`\eta _\delta `$. The philosophy of the graph construction is that different components $`Z_\delta `$ are responsible for different types of degeneration of $`\sigma _0`$. Since $`\sigma _0`$ is generically of full rank, there is one component $`V_0Z_0\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$ in $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ with multiplicity one such that $`Z_0`$ embeds in $`G`$ via the fibre of $`_d`$. Other $`V_\delta `$ map to proper sub-varieties $`Z_\delta `$ of $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$. It follows that (, Example 18.1.6)

(17)
$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(_d)=u^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{dl+1}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})+\underset{\delta }{}m_\delta \eta _{\delta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(\zeta ).$$

To calculate the contributions from $`V_\delta `$, further study on the behavior of $`\sigma _0`$ on boundary strata $`D_\mu `$ is needed. Let $`f:C^r`$ be a generic stable map in strata $`\mu =(d_0,\mathrm{},d_r)`$. $`\sigma _0|_{D_\mu }`$ can be described fibrewisely (at a generic point) as:

(18)
$$H^0(C,f^{}𝒪_^r(l))H^0(C_0,f^{}𝒪_^r(l)|_{C_0})H^0(^1,𝒪(d_0l))H^0(^1,𝒪(dl)),$$

where $`C_0^1`$ is the parameterized component of $`C`$. The first map is simply the restriction and the last map is defined by multiplying a factor $`_{m=1}^s(a_mz_0b_mz_1)^{ld_m}`$, where $`(a_m:b_m)`$ are the nodal points on the parameterized $`^1`$ and $`(z_0:z_1)`$ the homogeneous coordinates on parameterized $`^1`$. It follows that $`\sigma _0`$ drops ranks only on the comb strata of types $`\mu `$ described in the previous section. Any hairy comb substrata obtained from $`\mu `$ by further degenerating the unparameterized components will not further reduce the rank of $`\sigma _0`$. Moreover, it has the following *transversality* property: $`\sigma _0`$ has generic corank $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ along $`D_{\mu _1}`$ and $`D_{\mu _2}`$ respectively. Then $`\sigma _0`$ has generic corank $`n_1+n_2`$ along the intersection of two strata.

The above fibrewise description actually holds globally. Namely, on the strata $`D_\mu `$, $`\sigma _0`$ is the following composition

(19)
$$\phi _\mu ^{}\sigma _0:\phi _\mu ^{}_dp_0^{}_{d_0}\stackrel{p_0^{}\sigma _0}{}p_0^{}_{d_0}\phi _\mu ^{}_d,$$

where $`p_0:D_\mu \overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d_0)`$ is the projection (see (9)), $`_{d_0}`$ and $`_{d_0}`$ on $`\overline{G}_{0,s}(^r,d_0)`$ are defined in Corollary 4. The last map in (19) is the push-forward (along the first $`^1`$) of the following map

$$𝒪_{^1\times (^1)^s\times _{d_0}^r}(d_0l,0,\mathrm{},0,l)𝒪_{^1\times (^1)^s\times _{d_0}^r}(dl,d_1l,\mathrm{},d_sl,l).$$

One can now apply the above study of degeneration type of $`\sigma _0`$ to the graph construction. Since the rank of $`\sigma _0`$ decreases only on the strata $`D_\mu `$, (17) becomes

(20)
$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(_d)=u^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{dl}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})+\underset{\mu }{}m_\mu S_\mu .$$

Namely, the only $`Z_\delta `$ in (17) are $`D_\mu `$ and $`S_\mu =\eta _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(\zeta )`$. To write down $`S_\mu `$ explicitly in terms of characteristic classes in $`\sigma _0|_{D_\mu }:\phi _\mu ^{}_d\phi _\mu ^{}_d`$ one would need a filtration of the above setting. Let us first deal with the simplest case when $`\mu =(d_0,d_1)`$, i.e. $`D_\mu `$ is a divisor. The universal curve on $`D_\mu =\overline{G}_{0,1}(^r,d_0)\times _^r\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_1)`$ (generically) consists of one parameterized and one unparameterized components. The kernel of $`\sigma _0`$ can be identified with $`p_1^{}_{d_1}^1`$, where $`p_1:D_\mu \overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_1)`$ and $`_{d_1}^1`$ is the kernel of the evaluation morphism $`e`$ of bundles on $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_1)`$

(21)
$$0_{d_1}^1\pi _2\mathrm{ev}_2^{}𝒪_^r(l)\stackrel{𝑒}{}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}𝒪_^r(l)0,$$

where $`\mathrm{ev}_2:\overline{M}_{0,2}(^r,d_1)^r`$ and $`\pi _2:\overline{M}_{0,2}(^r,d_1)\overline{M}_{0,1}(^r,d_1)`$ forgets the second marked point. The kernel $`_{d_1}^1`$ can be further filtered by the order of zeros of $`e`$:

(22)
$$0=p_1^{}_{d_1}^{d_1l+1}p_1^{}_{d_1}^{d_1l}\mathrm{}p_1^{}_{d_1}^1\phi _\mu ^{}_d$$

where $`_{d_1}^k`$ consists of those sections of $`\mathrm{ev}_2^{}𝒪_^r(l)`$ which vanishes at least to the $`k`$-th order at the marking. Similarly we can filter $`\phi _\mu ^{}_d`$ by the span of the image of $`\sigma _0|_{kD_\mu }`$ on $`^1\times _{d_0}^r`$:

$$_{d_0}^k:=H^0(^1,𝒪(d_0l+k1))𝒪_{^1\times _{d_0}^r}(k1,l)$$

such that

$$p_1^{}_{d_0}=u_\mu ^{}_{d_0}^1\mathrm{}u_\mu ^{}_\mu ^{d_1l}\phi _\mu ^{}_d$$

is a filtration of $`\phi _\mu ^{}_d`$ on $`D_\mu `$. Now for each $`D_\mu `$ there are $`d_1l`$ components $`V_\mu ^kW_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\eta _\mu :V_\mu D_\mu `$) because the infinitesimal property of $`\sigma _0`$ along $`D_\mu `$. Each of $`V_\mu ^k`$ is a birational image of a $`^1`$-bundle over $`D_\mu `$. By a local computation (), $`V_\mu ^k`$ has multiplicity666The explicit multiplicity is actually irrelevant to our result. $`k`$, and the tautological bundle on $`V_\mu ^k`$ can be expressed in terms of the filtration of $`_d`$ and $`_d`$:

$$0p_0^{}u_\mu ^{}_{d_0}^kp_1^{}_{d_1}^{k+1}\zeta _{V_\mu ^k}𝒪(1)0.$$

The contribution $`S_\mu `$ from the boundary strata $`\mu =(d_0,d_1)`$ can be therefore written as

$$S_\mu =\phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu c_{\mathrm{top}}(u_\mu ^{}_{d_0}^1)\right)=\phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu u_\mu ^{}\underset{k=0}{\overset{d_0l}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})\right)$$

where

$$e_\mu =\underset{k=1}{\overset{d_1l}{}}(k)p_{d_1}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{d_0}^{k+1})u_\mu ^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{d_0}^k/_{d_0}^1).$$

This is exactly what we are looking for.

When $`\mu `$ is not a divisorial stratum we may use the above transversality property (of $`\sigma _0`$ concerning the intersection of two boundary strata). Since every $`D_\mu `$ is the intersection of divisors, and the corank of $`\sigma _0`$ at intersection is equal to the sum of the coranks generically, we can then obtain $`S_\mu `$ for general $`\mu `$ inductively. Let $`\mu _1=(d_0,d_1)`$ and $`V_{\mu _1}^kW_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the $`^1`$-bundle over $`D_{\mu _1}`$. Now apply graph construction to the following vector bundle morphism on (pulled back to) $`V_{\mu _1}^k`$

$$\phi _\mu ^{}_d/p_1^{}_{d_1}^1p_0^{}_{d_0}\stackrel{p_0^{}\sigma _0}{}p_0^{}_{d_0}=u_\mu ^{}_{d_0}^1.$$

(Some obvious pull-backs will be omitted.) Then the components of $`W_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ over $`V_{\mu _1}^k`$ obtained from this construction map birationally to the components of $`W_{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$. For example, components of $`V_\mu ^{}^mW_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ corresponding to boundary strata $`\mu ^{}=(d_0d^{},d^{})`$ of $`\overline{G}_{0,1}(^r,d_0)`$ map to the components of $`V_\mu ^mW_{\mathrm{}}`$ over the boundary strata $`\mu =(d_0d^{},d^{},d_1)`$ on $`\overline{G}_{0,0}(^r,d)`$. This implies that $`V_\mu `$ for any $`\mu =(d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_s)`$ with a fixed ordering of $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_s`$, $`V_\mu ^k`$ are (birationally) towers of $`^1`$-bundles over $`D_\mu `$ (by first doing $`\mu _1=(d_0+\mathrm{}+d_{s1},d_s)`$ then $`\mu _2=(d_0+\mathrm{}+d_{s2},d_{s1},d_s)`$, etc.). An explicit expression of $`e_\mu `$ can therefore be obtained:

(23)
$$e_\mu =\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\underset{k_m=1}{\overset{d_ml}{}}(k_m)p_{d_m}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{d_m}^{k_m+1})u_\mu ^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^{k_m}/_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^1)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m:=_{a=0}^{m1}d_a`$ and $`_{d_m}^k`$ is defined to be the filtration of kernel on the $`m`$-th unparameterized component, similar to that defined in (22) and $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^1_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^{k_m}`$ is the push-forward of the inclusion of line bundles on $`^1\times (^1)^s\times P_{d_0}`$ to $`(^1)^s\times P_{d_0}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒪& (\underset{a=1}{\overset{m1}{}}d_al,d_1l,\mathrm{},d_{m1}l,0,\mathrm{},0,l)\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒪& (\underset{a=1}{\overset{m1}{}}d_al+k_m1,d_1l,\mathrm{},d_{i1}l,k_m1,0,\mathrm{},0,l).\hfill \end{array}$$

This completes our proof of the convex case.

II. (*Concave case*) The proof of the concave case can in general be carried out in a similar way. However, some crucial modifications will be necessary. Now $`_d=R^1\pi _{}\mathrm{ev}^{}𝒪_^r(l)`$ and $`_d=H^1(^1,𝒪(dl))u^{}𝒪_{_d^r}(l)`$ (with $`l`$ negative). Corollary 3 guarantees that there is a bundle map $`\sigma _1`$ between $`_d`$ and $`_d`$. We may apply Serre duality and find $`\sigma _1^{}:(_d)^{}(_d)^{}`$. Carry out the graph construction to $`\sigma _1^{}`$. The equation (18) (on $`D_{(d_0,\mathrm{},d_s)}`$) should be replaced by

$$\begin{array}{c}H^0(C,\omega _Cf^{}L^1)H^0(C_0,\omega _{C_0}(\chi _1+\mathrm{}+\chi _s)f^{}L^1|_{C_0})\hfill \\ \hfill H^0(^1,\omega _^1(d_0l)𝒪(\chi _1+\mathrm{}+\chi _s))H^0(^1,\omega _^1(dl)).\end{array}$$

Here $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _s`$ are the nodal points on the parameterized $`^1`$ (see Corollary 3) and $`\omega _C`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`C`$.

A similar modification to (20) should also take place:

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_d)=u_X^{}\underset{k=c_1(L),d+1}{\overset{1}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})+\underset{\mu }{}m_\mu S_\mu .$$

For the filtration of the kernel of $`\sigma _1^{}`$, we may use the following exact sequence (see (21))

$$0_{d_1}^1\pi _{}(\mathrm{ev}_2^{}𝒪_^r(l)\omega (x_1))\stackrel{res}{}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}𝒪_^r(l)0,$$

where $`\mathrm{res}`$ is the residue at $`x_1`$. Again we can further filter $`_{d_1}^1`$ by the order of zeros of $`\mathrm{res}`$, (as did in (22)). Similar filtration can be defined on $`\phi _\mu ^{}_d`$. Namely

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{d_0}^{k_m}=& \omega _^1\left(x_1+\mathrm{}+x_s+\underset{a=1}{\overset{m1}{}}d_a(l)+k_m1\right)\hfill \\ & 𝒪_{(^1)^s\times P_{d_0}}(d_1(l),\mathrm{},d_{m1}(l),k_m1,0,\mathrm{},0,(l)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now a similar computation leads to

(24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_\mu =& \phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu c_{\mathrm{top}}(u_\mu ^{}_{d_0}^1)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \phi _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\mu u_\mu ^{}\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s\underset{k=d_0l+1}{\overset{1}{}}(lH+k\mathrm{})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The rest is straightforward and is left to the reader. ∎

## 4. Conclusion of the proofs

### 4.1. Main contribution term

777Here instead of going through the diagrams (25) (26), it might be possible to proceed by another (equivalent) way using Givental’s double construction formula , which reads
$$𝒢:=\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta _{[\overline{G}_{0,0}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}}e^{Pt}c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )=_XJ_X^E(qe^\mathrm{}t,\mathrm{})e^{pt}J_X^E(q,\mathrm{}),$$
where $`P=u_X^{}(𝒪_{_d^r}(1))`$. This should give us $`J_X^E(q,\mathrm{},t_0,t)`$ (see (36)) from formulas in Theorem 5.

Set $`\mathrm{ev}=i\mathrm{ev}_X`$ and

$$J_X^E(\beta )=J_X^E(\beta ,\text{main})+\underset{\nu }{}J_X^E(\beta ,\nu ).$$

In order to show that $`_XJ_X^E_XI_X^E`$ it is sufficient to show $`i_{}J_X^Ei_{}I_X^E`$ because

$$_Xe^{pt}\omega =_^re^{ht}i_{}\omega $$

by the projection formula.

Recall that our goal is to compute $`\mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}}`$. From (11) we have

(25)
We can easily get, by correspondence of residues (12), the “main term”:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i_{}J_X^E(\beta ,\text{main})=& \mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}\left(\frac{j_X^{}u_X^{}_j_{k_j}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t^{}u_{X}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}u_X^{}_j_{k_j}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})}{e(N_{^r|_d^r})}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t^{}u_{X}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}1}{e(N_{^r|_d^r})}t^{}\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j}{}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}(\frac{1}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )})\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j}{}(l_jh+k_j\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \hfill =& i_{}I_X^E.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`I_X^E`$ is really the main term of $`J_X^E`$. We will see that the boundary terms are of special forms and can be taken care of by a change of variables due to the *non-negativity* condition (on the tangent bundles of complete intersection $`Y`$ in $`X`$) stated in Theorem 1.

### 4.2. Boundary terms and dimension counting

Before we start our discussion, we should remark that the term “dimension” here means *virtual dimension*.

Consider the commutative diagram (see (11))

(26)
$$\text{}_.$$

In the convex case (see (16)),

(27)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& i_{}J_X^E(\beta ,\nu )\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}\left(\frac{j_X^{}_\nu \phi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{s!}\left(e_\nu u_\nu ^{}_j_{k_j=0}^{d_0l_j}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})[D_\nu ]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t^{}\mathrm{PD}u_{X}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(_\nu \phi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\frac{1}{s!}\left(e_\nu u_\nu ^{}_j_{k_j=0}^{d_0l_j}(l_jH+k\mathrm{})\right)[\overline{G}_{0,0}]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)}{_{k=1}^d(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t^{}_\nu \frac{1}{s!}\psi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu _j_{k_j=0}^{d_0l_j}(l_jH+k\mathrm{})\right)}{_{k=1}^d(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Here we have used (13) and the left square of the above commutative diagram (27).

Similar results holds in concave case:888We have chosen to use small font for the discussion in the convex case in this subsection.

$$\begin{array}{cc}& i_{}J_X^E(\beta ,\nu )\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{ev}_{P}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\frac{j_X^{}_\nu \phi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(e_\nu u_\nu ^{}_j_{m=1}^s\xi _m_{k_j=d_0l_j+1}^1\left(l_jH+k\mathrm{}\right)\left[D_\nu \right]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)}{\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{}\psi \right)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t^{}_\nu \frac{1}{s!}\psi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu _j\left(\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s_{k_j=d_0l_j}^1\left(lH+k\mathrm{}\right)\right)\right)}{_{k=1}^d\left(h+k\mathrm{}\right)^{r+1}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Apply the correspondence of residues (12) to the right commuting triangle of (26)

one has

(28)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{t^{}\psi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}w}{_{k=1}^d(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \frac{t_\nu ^{}w}{\mathrm{}^s_{k=1}^{d_0}(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}},\hfill \end{array}$$

Then equation (27) becomes, by (28),

(29)
$$i_{}J_X^E(\beta ,\nu )=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{_j_{k=0}^{d_0l_j}(l_jh+k\mathrm{})t_\nu ^{}u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu }{s!\mathrm{}^s_{k=1}^{d_0}(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}}.$$

Similarly in the concave case ($`l_j<0`$)

(30)
$$i_{}J_X^E(\beta ,\nu )=\underset{\nu }{}\frac{_j\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s_{k=d_0l_j+1}^1\left(l_jh+k\mathrm{}\right)t_\nu ^{}u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu }{s!\mathrm{}^s_{k=1}^{d_0}\left(h+k\mathrm{}\right)^{r+1}}.$$

*Therefore it remains to compute $`u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu `$.*

First let us work on the hypersurface case, i.e. $`E=L`$ and $`L`$ convex. Define $`L_\beta ^k:=i_G^{}(_d^k)`$ for the notational convenience. From Proposition 1

$$e_\nu =\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{d_ml}{}}(k_m)p_{\beta _m}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _m}^{k_m+1})u_\nu ^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^{k_m}/_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^1)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m=d_0+d_1+\mathrm{}+d_{m1}`$. Again, to simplify the notations, let us start with the divisorial strata, i.e. $`\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)`$. In this case,

$$e_\nu =\underset{k=1}{\overset{d_1l}{}}(k)p_{\beta _1}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})u_\nu ^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\beta _0}^k/_{\beta _0}^1).$$

Therefore

$$u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu =\underset{k=1}{\overset{d_1l}{}}(k)u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}p_{\beta _1}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\beta _0}^k/_{\beta _0}^1).$$

It is easy to see that

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\beta _0}^k/_{\beta _0}^1)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(l(h+d_0\mathrm{})+m\xi )$$

where $`\xi `$ is the equivariant point class of $`^1`$. Thus we only have to know $`u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}p_1^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})`$, which is in turn $`\mathrm{PD}u_{X,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(p_1^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})[D_\nu ]^{\mathrm{vir}})`$ because the morphism $`u_\nu :D_\nu ^1\times _d^r`$ factors through $`p_0`$

$$D_\nu \stackrel{p_0}{}G_{0,1}(X,\beta )\stackrel{u_X,1}{}^1\times _d^r.$$

For this, consider the fibre square:

(31)
so that

$$p_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(p_1^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})[D_\nu ]^{\mathrm{vir}}\right)=\left(\mathrm{ev}_G^{}\mathrm{ev}_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})\right)[\overline{G}_{0,1}(X,\beta _0)]^{\mathrm{vir}}.$$

However, by dimension counting, $`\mathrm{ev}_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})`$ has the cohomological degree $`2k+c_1(L)c_1(X),\beta _1`$, which is at most one for $`k=1`$ and at most zero for $`k=2`$. It vanishes otherwise. It is also obvious that if $`c_1(L)c_1(X),\beta 2`$ for any $`\beta `$, i.e. the case Fano of index $`2`$, then all boundary contributions vanish.

From our assumption that $`i:X^r`$ induces an isomorphism $`i^{}:NS(^r)NS(X)`$, the above degree one algebraic cohomology classes lies in the image of $`i^{}`$ and we may conclude that

$$\mathrm{ev}_G^{}\mathrm{ev}_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1})=i_G^{}\mathrm{ev}_{\overline{G}_{0,1}(^r,d_0)}^{}(c_\nu ^0+c_\nu ^1h)$$

for $`c^i`$. However, as shown in Lemma 1 that

(32)
$$\mathrm{ev}_{\overline{G}_{0,1}(^r,d_0)}^{}h=u^{}(H+d_0\xi )ϵ,$$

where $`ϵ`$ is the exceptional divisor of $`u`$. Summing up, the boundary term for the strata $`\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)`$ is (see (29))

$$\begin{array}{cc}& i_{}J_X^L(\beta ,\nu )=\frac{_{k=0}^{d_0l}(lh+k\mathrm{})}{_{k=1}^d(h+k\mathrm{})}t_\nu ^{}u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu \hfill \\ \hfill =& i_{}\left(J_X(\beta _0)H_{\beta _0}^L\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{d_0l}{}}\left(c_\nu ^0(l(h+d_0\mathrm{})+\mathrm{})+c_\nu (h_i+d_0^i\mathrm{})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`c^0,c^i`$ are independent of $`\beta _0`$ from the above discussion, this proved the part *(a)* of the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`L`$ be a convex line bundle on $`X`$ induced from $`P`$, and let $`\lambda _\nu (p,\mathrm{})`$ be defined by the following formula

(33)
$$i_{}\left(J_X(\beta _0)H_{\beta _0}^L\lambda _\nu (p,\mathrm{})\right):=\frac{_{k=0}^{d_0l}(lh+k\mathrm{})t_\nu ^{}u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu }{_{k=1}^{d_0}(h+k\mathrm{})^{r+1}},$$

which is $`i_{}J_X^L(\beta ,\nu )`$.

(a) If $`\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1)`$, then $`\lambda _\nu (p,\mathrm{})`$ is linear and satisfies

$$\lambda _{(\beta _0,\beta _1)}(p,\mathrm{})=\lambda _{(0,\beta _1)}(p+d_0\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$

(b) for $`\nu =(\beta _0,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _s)`$, we have

(34)
$$\lambda _\nu (p,\mathrm{})=\lambda _{(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\beta _1)}(p,\mathrm{})\lambda _{(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,\beta _2)}(p,\mathrm{})\mathrm{}\lambda _{(\mathrm{\Sigma }_s,\beta _s)}(p,\mathrm{}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m=_{a<m}\beta _a`$.

###### Proof.

(of part *(b)*) The equation (34) requires only to compute $`t_\nu ^{}u_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu `$, with $`e_\nu `$ described by (29)

$$u_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu =\underset{m}{}\underset{k_m}{}(k_m)u_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}p_{\beta _m}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(L_{\beta _m}^{k_m+1})c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^{k_m}/_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^1).$$

Using the same argument to the following diagram

(35)
one obtains that

$$c_{\mathrm{top}}(_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^{k_m}/_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}^1)=\underset{a=1}{\overset{k_m1}{}}\left(lh+l\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{}+\underset{b=1}{\overset{m1}{}}ld_b\xi _b+a\xi _m\right).$$

Dimension counting and (32) gives us the proof of part *(b)*. ∎

In the concave case a similar modification goes through.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`L`$ be a concave line bundle and let $`\lambda _\nu `$ be defined as in (33). Then part (a) and (b) hold. Furthermore, $`\lambda _\nu `$ depends only on $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

From (30) for $`J_P^L(\beta ,\nu )`$, we only have to compute $`u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu `$. A straightforward modification, by fibre square (31) and dimension counting, will lead to the conclusion that only degree zero (constant) terms survives in $`\mathrm{ev}_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}\left(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1}\right)`$. The difference is that the cohomological degree of $`\mathrm{ev}_{M}^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}c_{\mathrm{top}}\left(L_{\beta _1}^{k+1}\right)`$ is only $`k+c_1\left(L\right)c_1\left(X\right),\beta _1`$, because the rank of $`L^{k+1}`$ in this case is one less than that of $`L^{k+1}`$ in convex case.

Therefore $`\lambda _\nu =constantt_\nu ^{}_{m=1}^s\xi _m=constant\mathrm{}^s`$. This allows us to set $`\lambda _{(\beta _0,\beta _1)}=constant\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.

The same is true when the rank of $`E`$ is greater than 1.

The proof uses the inductive property of $`e_\nu `$ and is completely analogous to the above argument.

Summarizing the above discussion, we have

###### Theorem 6.

(36)
$$i_{}J_X^E=i_{}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta \underset{\nu }{}\frac{J_X(\beta _0)H_{\beta _0}^E_{m=1}^s\lambda _{\beta _m}(p+\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{},\mathrm{})}{s!\mathrm{}^s}$$

such that $`\lambda _{\beta _m}(p,\mathrm{})`$ are linear form in $`p,\mathrm{}`$ and is independent of the total degree $`\beta `$ in the background.

###### Proof.

Set $`\lambda _{\beta _m}(p,\mathrm{})=\lambda _{(0,\beta _m)}(p,\mathrm{})`$ and apply Propositions 2 and 3. ∎

### 4.3. Mirror transformation

*In this subsection we will omit the push-forward symbol $`i_{}`$. All equalities are assumed to hold after pushing-forward to $`^r`$.*

Now we are ready to find a change of variables (mirror transformation) between $`J_X^E`$ and $`I_X^E`$. Note that we will use $`\beta `$ both as an element in $`H_2(X)`$ and a number. In the case $`Pic(X)=1`$, this should not cause confusion.

$$\begin{array}{cc}& t_0t_0+f_0(q)\mathrm{},\hfill \\ & tt+f_1(q),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`f_0(q),f_1(q)`$ are formal power series in $`q`$. After the change of variables, $`e^{(t_0+pt)/\mathrm{}}I_X^E(q,\mathrm{})`$ becomes

(37)
$$e^{f_0(q)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}pf_1(q)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}I_X^E(qe^{f_1(q)},\mathrm{}),$$

*which we would like to equate to $`J_X^E(q,\mathrm{})`$*.

Let us set $`f_1(q)=_\beta a_\beta q^\beta `$ and $`f_0(q)=_\beta b_\beta q^\beta `$. Then (37) can be expanded as:

(38)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& e^{f_0(q)+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}hf_1(q)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}I_X^E(qe^{f_1(q)},\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{\beta _0}{}q^{\beta _0}e^{f_0(q)+(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)f_1(q)}I_X^E(\beta _0)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{\beta }{}q^\beta \underset{_{m=0}^s\beta _m=\beta }{}\frac{1}{s!}I_X^E(\beta _0)\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(b_{\beta _m}+a_{\beta _m}(\beta _0+\frac{p}{\mathrm{}})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to prove Theorem 1 we need to find $`a_\beta ,b_\beta `$ so that (38) is equal to $`J_X^E(q,\mathrm{})`$. The following simple lemma in  is useful:

###### Lemma 2.

Let

(39)
$$Q(q)=\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta \underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m=\beta ,d_m0}{}\frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=0}{\overset{s}{}}\left(y_{\beta _m}+x_{\beta _m}B_{m1}\right),$$

where $`B_{m1}:=_{k=1}^{m1}\beta _k`$, $`(B_0=0)`$. Then $`\mathrm{log}(Q(q))`$ is a linear function of $`y_\beta `$.

###### Corollary 6.

Use the notation from the above lemma. Define $`z_\beta `$ by

(40)
$$Q(q)=\mathrm{exp}(\underset{\beta 0}{}z_\beta q^\beta ).$$

Then

(41)
$$z_\beta =\underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m=\beta }{}\frac{1}{s!}y_{\beta _1}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}x_{\beta _m}B_{m1}$$

###### Proof.

Expand equations (40) and (39). The $`q^\beta `$ term is

(42)
$$\underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m=\beta }{}\frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}z_{\beta _m}=\underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m=\beta }{}\frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}(y_{\beta _m}+x_{\beta _m}B_{m1}).$$

By Lemma 2 the right hand side of (42) is linear with respect to $`y_\beta `$. The linear in $`y_\beta `$ term on the RHS is exactly (41). ∎

Back to the proof of Theorem 1. We wish to equate (36) to (38). Set $`\lambda _\beta =c_\beta ^0\mathrm{}+c_\beta ^1p`$, then (36) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_X^E(q)=& \underset{\beta _0}{}\underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m^{}=\beta ^{}}{}q^{\beta ^{}+\beta _0}J_X(\beta _0)\left(\underset{j}{}H_{\beta _0}^{L_j}\right)\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(\left(c_{\beta _m^{}}^0+c_{\beta _m^{}}^1(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)\right)+c_{\beta _m^{}}^1B_{m1}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{\beta _0}{}q^{\beta _0}J_X(\beta _0)\left(\underset{j}{}H_{\beta _0}^{L_j}\right)\hfill \\ & \underset{_{m=1}^s\beta _m^{}=\beta ^{}}{}q^\beta ^{}\frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(\left(c_{\beta _m^{}}^0+c_{\beta _m^{}}^1(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)\right)+c_{\beta _m^{}}^1B_{m1}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Apply Corollary 6, we find a new variables $`z_\beta ^{}`$ such that $`z_\beta ^{}`$ are linear in $`c_{\beta _m^{}}^0+c_{\beta _m^{}}^1(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)`$ and polynomial in $`c_{\beta _j^{}}^1`$. Therefore there are constants $`b_\beta ^{},a_\beta ^{}`$ such that $`z_\beta ^{}=b_\beta ^{}+a_\beta ^{}(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)`$, and $`b_\beta ^{},a_\beta ^{}`$ are independent of $`\beta _0`$. This implies that

$$J_X^E(q)=\underset{_{m=0}^s\beta _m=\beta }{}q^\beta I_X^E(\beta _0)\frac{1}{s!}\underset{m=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(b_{\beta _m}+a_{\beta _m}(\frac{p}{\mathrm{}}+\beta _0)\right),$$

which is exactly (38). One can easily see from the above proof that the case $`E`$ being a direct sum of convex and concave bundles requires little modification. Our proof of the Theorem 1 is therefore complete.

### 4.4. Proof of Theorem 2

The proof of case 2 is very easy. As we have seen in § 4.2 that the use of fibre square (31) (35) and dimension counting guarantees that $`u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu =0`$. Therefore $`J_X^E(\beta ,\nu )=0`$.

The proof of case 1 goes a slightly different way.999It is also possible to prove the convex case in this way. . As we have seen in the proof of Proposition 3 that $`u_{\nu }^{\mathrm{vir}}{}_{}{}^{}e_\nu `$ contains only constant terms. Therefore the boundary contribution should come from

$$\overline{G}_{0,s}(X,\beta _0)\stackrel{u_s}{}(^1)^s\times P_{d_0}\stackrel{\psi _\nu }{}_d^r,$$

and should be of the form

$$\psi _{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left((constant)(u_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{}1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{rk}(E)}{}}\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _s\underset{k_j=c_1(L_j),\beta _0+1}{\overset{1}{}}(l_jH+k_j\mathrm{})\right),$$

which has cohomological dimension greater than $`J_X^E(\beta ,\text{main})`$. Therefore $`constant=0`$.

The proof of direct sum case is the combination of the above arguments.

### 4.5. Proof of Corollary 2

To simplify our notations, set

$$J^{}:=i_{}c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}J_X^E(q,\mathrm{}),$$

and

$$J_{}^{}:=i_{}\frac{1}{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}J_X^E^{}(q,\mathrm{}).$$

Notice that $`J_{}^{}`$ is actually well defined as $`J_X^E^{}(q,\mathrm{})`$ always has a factor $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E^{})`$. More precisely, consider the exact sequence

$$0R^0\pi _{}(\mathrm{ev}^{}(E^{})𝒪(x_1))R^0\pi _{}\mathrm{ev}^{}(E^{})\mathrm{ev}^{}E^{}0.$$

Then in fact

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill J_{}^{}=& i_{}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta \mathrm{ev}_{}^{\mathrm{vir}}\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm{top}}\left(R^0\pi _{}\left(\mathrm{ev}^{}(E^{})𝒪(x_1)\right)\right)}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\psi )}\right)\hfill \\ & =i_{}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}J_X^E^{}\frac{1}{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E^{})}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Similar interpretation holds for $`J^{}`$: it is the $`J`$-function of the bundle $`R^1\pi _{}(\mathrm{ev}^{}(E)𝒪(x_1))`$, multiplied by $`e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}`$. Notice that the ranks of the two bundles $`R^0\pi _{}(\mathrm{ev}^{}(E^{})𝒪(x_1))`$ and $`R^1\pi _{}(\mathrm{ev}^{}(E)𝒪(x_1))`$ are the same.

It follows from Theorems 1 and 2

$$J^{}=I^{}:=e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta J_X(\beta )\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=1}{\overset{c_1(L_j),\beta }{}}(c_1(L)+k\mathrm{})$$

and

$$J_{}^{}I_{}^{}:=(1)^{\mathrm{rk}(E)}e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta J_X(\beta )\underset{j}{}\underset{k_j=c_1(L_j),\beta +1}{\overset{0}{}}(c_1(L)+k\mathrm{}).$$

Notice the change of limits in the products of $`k`$ due to $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E^{})`$ and the possible sign coming from the ratio of $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)`$ and $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E^{})`$.

The difference between $`I^{}`$ and $`I_{}^{}`$ can be easily figured out by using the quantum differential equation .

###### Claim.

There is a power series $`\varphi (q)`$ such that

(43)
$$\varphi (q)I^{}=I_{}^{}.$$

We now sketch the proof of (43). Fix a basis $`\{e_a\}`$ of the vector space $`H^{}(X)`$ with $`e_1=1`$. Let

$$S_{ab}:=\underset{\beta }{}q^\beta (e_a,e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}\frac{e_b}{\mathrm{}\psi })_{0,2,\beta }$$

be a matrix of genus zero two-point Gromov–Witten invariants via the “fundamental class” $`c_{\mathrm{top}}(E_\beta )c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta )]^{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Note that we have identified $`t_i=\mathrm{log}q_i`$. Givental’s theory of quantum differential equation says

(44)
$$\mathrm{}\frac{}{t_i}S=p_iS,$$

where $`p_i`$ is the quantum multiplication matrix. By the (virtual) dimension counting $`J_X`$ is a polynomial in $`\mathrm{}^1`$ of the form $`1+O(\mathrm{}^{c_1(E),\beta })`$. Therefore

$$I^{}=J^{}=(1+O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{rk}(E)}))e^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}(t_0+pt)}.$$

Notice that $`S_{1a}=J^{},e_a`$. This implies that the first row $`S_{1a}`$ of $`S`$ has the same order in $`\mathrm{}^1`$.

Set $`v_j:=c_1(L_j)`$ and $`_j`$ be the directional derivative on the direction $`v_j`$. First of all $`(_{j=1}^{\mathrm{rk}(E)}_j)(I^{}/c_{\mathrm{top}}(E))=I_{}^{}`$ by simple derivations. Now apply induction on the order $`m`$ of the differential operator $`𝒟_m:=_{j=1}^m\mathrm{}_j`$. I claim that

(45)
$$𝒟_m(S)=\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}v_j\right)S$$

for $`m<\mathrm{rk}(E)`$.

The case $`m=1`$ is true by (44). Suppose that (45) is true for some $`m<\mathrm{rk}(E)1`$. This implies that $`𝒟_mS=(_j^mv)+O(\mathrm{}^1)`$. Therefore $`((_j^mv))_{1a}`$ are independent of $`t`$ from LHS. Now differentiate one more time:

(46)
$$𝒟_{m+1}S=(\mathrm{}_{m+1}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}v_j\right))S+(\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}v_j\right)v_{m+1})S.$$

and the first row of RHS will be $`(_{j=1}^mv_j)v_{m+1},e_a+O(\mathrm{}^1)`$. Because the first row of the LHS modulo $`\mathrm{}^1`$ is independent of $`t`$, we have again $`(_{j=1}^mv_j)v_{m+1}=_{j=1}^{m+1}v_j`$. Thus (45) holds. If $`m=\mathrm{rk}(E)1`$, then the first row of LHS of (46) would be certain power series $`\varphi (q)`$ of $`q`$ (mod $`\mathrm{}^1`$). Since the first row of first term on RHS still vanishes (mod $`\mathrm{}^1`$), we have the first row of (46) equal to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (q)I^{}=& \varphi (q)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{rk}(E)}{}}v_j\right)\left(\frac{I^{}}{c_{\mathrm{top}}(E)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{rk}(E)}{}}(v_j)\right)I^{}=𝒟_{\mathrm{rk}(E)}I^{}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \pm I_{}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$