text:
# Study on the family of 𝐾3 surfaces induced from the lattice (𝐷₄)³⊕⟨-2⟩⊕⟨2⟩

## 0 Introduction

In 1992 K.Matsumoto, T.Sasaki and M. Yoshida  studied the period mapping for a family of $`K3`$ surfaces of type $`(3,6)`$, that is the family of double sextic surface over $`𝐏^2`$ ramified along 6 lines in general position, and Matsumoto  gave the description of the inverse mapping in terms of theta constants. It gives the modular mapping for the 4 dimensional Shimura variety in the Siegel upper half space $`_4`$ derived from the family of 4-dimensional abelian varieties with generalized complex multiplication by $`\sqrt{1}`$. So we call it MSY modular mapping. Shiga showed an arithmetic application of MSY modular mapping in . This story is the consequence of the eventual coincidence of 2 different bounded symmetric domains between $`D_{IV}^4`$ and $`I_{2,2}`$. There are a few (finite) such exceptional coincidences. The highest one is the (analytic) equivalence between $`D_{IV}^6`$ and $`D_{II}(4)`$ ( in terms of Lie algebra $`so(2,6;𝐑)so(4,𝐇)`$) and it contains the above coincidence of MSY case.

Our present study is the first step to get the extended model of the MSY modular mapping using this equivalence.

Let us consider the rank 14 lattice $`P=D_4^322`$. We define a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ of type $`P`$ with the property that $`P\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ (see Definition 2.1), where $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ indicates the Picard lattice of $`S`$. In this article we study the family of $`K3`$ surfaces of type $`P`$ with a certain fixed multi-polarization. And we do not discuss the representation of the inverse of the period mapping.

We mention that our family is already appeared in the work  ( in section 7) and they obtained the differential equation coming from this family standing on a different view point.

Throughout this article we work on the field $`𝐂`$.

In Section 1 we study the family $``$ of double covering surfaces over $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ branching along 4 bidegree $`(1,1)`$ curves imposed with a certain generality condition. The element of $``$ is called a double $`4H`$ surface ( see Definition 2.2). Such a surface is given in the affine form

$$S=S(x):w^2=\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}(x_1^{(k)}st+x_2^{(k)}s+x_3^{(k)}t+x_4^{(k)}),$$

where we use the notation

$$x_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1^{(k)}& x_2^{(k)}\\ x_3^{(k)}& x_4^{(k)}\end{array}\right)M(2,𝐂).$$

We set up the view point that a general member $`S`$ of $``$ to be an elliptic fibred surface (Proposition 1.1). It becomes to be a $`K3`$ surface. Then we construct the basis of the transcendental lattice $`\mathrm{Tra}(S)`$ of a general member $`S`$. Fortiori we know the structures of the Picard lattice $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$:

### Theorem 1

For a general member $`S`$ of $``$ it holds

$$\mathrm{Tra}(S)U(2)^22^4.$$

By making its orthogonal complement in the $`K3`$ lattice $`L`$ we get the Picard lattice

$$\mathrm{Pic}(S)D_4^322.$$

In Section 2 we show that a $`K3`$ surface $`X`$ of type $`P`$ can be realized as a double covering surface studied in Section 1 provided a certain fixed polarization (Theorem 2).

In Section 3 we define a fixed marking of $`S`$ of a $`K3`$ surface of type $`P`$. First we study the period domain for the family of such marked surfaces. That is a 6 dimensional domain given in the form

$$D^+=\{\eta =[\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8]𝐏^7:{}_{}{}^{t}\eta A\eta =0,{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{\eta }A\eta >0,\mathrm{}(\eta _3/\eta _1)>0\},$$

where $`A=U(2)U(2)(2I_4)`$. It is a bounded symmetric domain of type IV. Next we determine the modular group for the isomorphism classes of the marked surfaces. It is given as the principal congruence subgroup $`G^+(2)`$ of level 2 in the full group

$$G^+=\{gPGL(8,𝐙):{}_{}{}^{t}gAg=A,g(D^+)=D^+\}$$

of the positive isometries for the lattice $`U(2)^22^4`$. The exact statement is given in Theorem 3.

In Section 4 we consider a general form of the period

$$u(x)=_C\mathrm{\Omega }=_C\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}(x_1^{(k)}st+x_2^{(k)}s+x_3^{(k)}t+x_4^{(k)})^{1/2}dsdt,$$

where $`C`$ indicates an element of $`H_2(S(x),𝐙)`$. We describe the differential equation for $`_C\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a multi-valued analytic function of $`16`$ variables $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_4)`$, where we use the notation

$$x_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1^{(k)}& x_2^{(k)}\\ x_3^{(k)}& x_4^{(k)}\end{array}\right)M(2,𝐂).$$

That is a certain type of GKZ hypergeometric differential equation ( Proposition 4.1 and 4.2) that is not so called Aomoto-Gelfond type ( compare with ). We show the regularity of the system outside some divisor in the parameter space as stated in Theorem 4. We show the regular holonomicity of the system and make the calculation of the rank based on the theory of  . The exact statement is given in Theorem 5. We determine the monodromy group for our system in Theorem 6.

In Section 5 we construct the family $`\{KS(\eta ):\eta D^+\}`$ of Kuga-Satake varieties corresponding to $``$. That becomes to be equivalent with the family of $`8`$ dimensional Abelian varieties with the Hamilton quaternion endomorphism structure (Theorem 7).

## 1 Lattice structure of a double $`4H`$ surface

### 1.1 Setting up the situation

We consider an algebraic surface $`S^{}`$ obtained as a double cover over $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ ramifying along 4 different rational curves $`H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4`$ of bidegree $`(1,1)`$. Here we suppose the following generality condition:

(g1) $`H_i(i=1,2,3,4)`$ is irreducible,

(g2) $`H_iH_j(ij)`$ consists of 2 different points,

(g3) For any different 3 indices $`i,j,k`$ we have $`H_iH_jH_k=\mathrm{}`$.
We denote $`\pi `$ the projection $`S^{}𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Set $`L_i=\pi ^{}H_i`$. The surface $`S^{}`$ has 12 singular points of type $`A_1`$ corresponding to the intersections $`L_iL_j(ij)`$. By the desingularization procedure we get a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$.

If we have the condition

(e1) the algebraic variety $`S^{}`$ has at most simple singularities
instead of $`(\mathrm{g1}),(\mathrm{g2}),(\mathrm{g3})`$, we obtain a $`K3`$ surface by the same procedure. Henceforth we describe the curve $`H_k=H(x^k)(k=1,2,3,4)`$ in the form

$$(s,1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1^{(k)}& x_2^{(k)}\\ x_3^{(k)}& x_4^{(k)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ 1\end{array}\right)=0$$

with a matrix

$$x^k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_1^{(k)}& x_2^{(k)}\\ x_3^{(k)}& x_4^{(k)}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)$$

and an affine coordinate $`(s,t)`$ of $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Let $`S^{}=S^{}(x)`$ be the algebraic variety obtained from $`H(x^1)\mathrm{}H(x^4)`$ by the above way, and let $`S(x)`$ be its desingularization. Set

$$X^{}=\{x=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)^4:H(x^1),\mathrm{},H(x^4)\text{satisfy}(g1),(g2),(g3)\},$$

and set

$$X^{}=\{x=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)^4:S^{}\text{has at most simple singularities}\}.$$

###### Definition 1.1.

We call a double $`4H`$ surface the $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ obtained as $`S=S(x),xX^{}`$. An extended double $`4H`$ surface is a $`K3`$ surface obtained as $`S=S(x),xX^{}`$. Let $``$ denote the totality of double $`4H`$ surfaces:

$$\{S(x):xX^{}\}$$

We use the following notations.

L: the $`K3`$ lattice $`E_8^2U^3`$,where $`E_8`$ denotes the negative definite even unimodular lattice of rank 8 and $`U`$ denotes the hyperbolic lattice $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. The basis of $`L`$ is fixed once and always.

$`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$: the Picard lattice of $`S`$,

$`\mathrm{Tra}(S)`$: the transcendental lattice of $`S`$. That is defined as the orthogonal complement of $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ in $`H^2(S,𝐙)`$

###### Remark 1.1.

We consider $`X^{}`$ to be the parameter space of $``$, but it contains many abundant parameters. Our family $``$ contains 6 essential parameters. We shall discuss the problem of abundance in Section 2 and Section 3.

### 1.2 Elliptic fibration

In this section we determine $`\mathrm{Tra}(S)`$ and $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ for a general member of $``$. For this work we always consider the problem in the dual lattice $`H_2(S,𝐙)`$ and we observe a special member of $``$.

Let $`s,t`$ be the affine coordinates of $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Henceforth we denote the $`s`$-space ($`t`$-space ) by $`𝐏^1(s)(𝐏^1(t))`$, respectively. Set

$$f_1(s)=s,f_2(s)=\frac{16}{s},f_3(s)=\frac{5s+2}{2s+5},f_4(s)=\frac{3s+64}{4s+27}$$

Consider the following four $`(1,1)`$ curves :

$$H_i:t=f_i(s)(i=1,2,3,4),$$

and make the double $`4H`$ surface :

$$S_0:w^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(tf_i(s))$$

that is derived from the above system $`\{H_1,\mathrm{},H_4\}`$. Let $`\pi _1`$ be the projection from $`S_0`$ to $`𝐏^1(s)`$. For a generic point on $`𝐏^1(s)`$ we obtain an elliptic curve $`\pi ^1(s)`$. So we get an elliptic surface $`(S_0,\pi _1,𝐏^1)`$.

It is easy to observe the following.

###### Proposition 1.1.

The elliptic surface $`(S_0,\pi _1,𝐏^1)`$ has 12 singular fibres corresponding to the intersections $`H_iH_j(ij)`$. Every singular fibre is of type $`I_2`$ ( according to the Kodaira classification of the singular fibres). These are situated over real points :

$`s=\pm 4(=H_1H_2),\pm 1(=H_1H_3),2\mathrm{and}8(=H_1H_4),`$
$`2\mathrm{and}8(=H_2H_3),\pm 12(=H_3H_4),\pm \sqrt{19}(=H_3H_4).`$
We denote these 12 points by $`s_j(j=1,\mathrm{},12)`$ according to the ascending order and set $`\mathrm{Sing}=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_{12}\}`$.

We fix a base point $`s_0=4\sqrt{1}`$ and set $`E_0=\pi _1^1(s_0)`$. It is given by

$$w^2=(tf_1(4i))(tf_2(4i))(tf_3(4i))(tf_4(4i)).$$

So this is a double cover over $`𝐏^1(t)`$ branched at 4 points $`t=f_k(4i)(k=1,2,3,4)`$. On $`E_0`$ we take a basis $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ of $`H_1(E_0,𝐙)`$ with the intersection multiplicity $`\alpha _1\alpha _2=1`$ as in Fig.1.

The fundamental group $`\pi _1(𝐏^1\mathrm{Sing},)`$ acts on $`H_1(E_0,𝐙)`$ as the monodromy group. We describe the generator system for it. Let $`\gamma _i(i=1,\mathrm{},12)`$ be a loop starting from $`s_0`$ and goes around $`s_i`$ in the positive sense on the upper half plain except the circuit around $`s_i`$ (see Fig.2 ).

By a direct observation we can calculate the monodromy transformation $`T_j=T(\gamma _j)`$ of $`H_1(E_0,𝐙)`$ along $`\gamma _j`$ with respect to the basis $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2\}`$.

###### Proposition 1.2.

The circuit matrices for $`T_j=T(\gamma _j)`$ are given by the following table. Here $`T_j`$ acts from right to the system $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2\}`$.

| $`s_j`$ | $`\pm 4,\pm \sqrt{19}`$ | $`\pm 1,\pm 12`$ | $`8,2`$ | $`2,8`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`T_j`$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 2& 3\end{array}\right)`$ | $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ |
| vanishing cycle | $`\alpha _1`$ | $`\alpha _2`$ | $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$ | $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ |

We choose a fixed point $`\underset{¯}{s}`$ in the lower half plane of $`𝐏^1(s)`$. Make cut lines $`c_i`$ by the line segment between $`\underset{¯}{s}`$ and $`s_i(i=1,\mathrm{},12)`$. By restricting $`(S_0,\pi _1,𝐏^1)`$ on $`𝐏^1_{i=1}^{12}c_i`$ we have a topologically trivial fibration. So we can determine the cycles $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ of $`H_1(\pi ^1(s),𝐙)`$ for any $`s𝐏^1_{i=1}^{12}c_i`$ using this trivialization. If we make the continuation of the system $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2\}`$ passing through the line $`c_i`$ from left to right, It is transformed according to Table 1.

### 1.3 Two systems $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\}`$ and $`\{C_i\}`$ of $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)`$

Let $`r`$ be an oriented arc on $`𝐏^1(s)`$ starting from $`s_0`$. We make a 2-chain on $`S_0`$ by the continuation of a starting 1-cycle $`\alpha H_1(E_0,𝐙)`$ along $`r`$, and denote it by

$$r\times \alpha .$$

Here we define its orientation as the ordered pair of the ones of $`r`$ and $`\alpha `$. Using this notation we make a system $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\}`$ of 8 elements in $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)`$ (see Fig.3, Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.6):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1=\gamma (7)^1\gamma (8)^1\gamma (9)^1\gamma (11)^1\gamma (12)^1\times \alpha _1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=\gamma (4)^1\gamma (5)^1\gamma (6)^1\gamma (7)^1\gamma (8)^1\gamma (9)^1\times \alpha _2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3=\gamma (5)^1\gamma (6)^1\gamma (7)^1\gamma (8)^1\times \alpha _1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4=\gamma (2)^1\gamma (3)^1\gamma (4)^1\gamma (5)^1\times \alpha _2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\gamma (12)\times (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)+\gamma (10)^1\gamma (11)^1\gamma (12)^1\times (\alpha _2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6=\gamma (6)\times (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)+\gamma (4)^1\gamma (5)^1\gamma (6)^1\times (\alpha _2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7=\gamma (9)\times (\alpha _1\alpha _2)+\gamma (7)^1\gamma (8)^1\gamma (9)^1\times (\alpha _1),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8=\gamma (3)\times (\alpha _1\alpha _2)+\gamma (1)^1\gamma (2)^1\gamma (3)^1\times (\alpha _1).`$
where the composite arcs are performed from right to left.

We note that any of $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\}`$ is a 2-cycle according to the monodromy action in Table 1. So we regard them a system in $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)`$. Let $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denote the sublattice $`𝐙\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$.

Next we construct another system that is dual to $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Let $`r(i)`$ be the oriented line segment from $`s_0`$ to $`s_i`$. Using this notation we construct 8 elements in $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)`$ ( see Fig.7):

$`C_1=(r(6)r(7))\times \alpha _2,`$
$`C_2=(r(9)r(10))\times \alpha _1,`$
$`C_3=(r(7)r(12))\times \alpha _2,`$
$`C_4=(r(4)r(9))\times \alpha _1,`$
$`C_5=r(10)\times \alpha _1r(11)\times (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)r(12)\times \alpha _2,`$
$`C_6=r(4)\times \alpha _1r(5)\times (\alpha _1+\alpha _2)r(6)\times \alpha _2,`$
$`C_7=r(7)\times \alpha _2r(8)\times (\alpha _1\alpha _2)r(9)\times \alpha _1,`$
$`C_8=r(1)\times \alpha _2r(2)\times (\alpha _1\alpha _2)r(3)\times \alpha _1.`$
We note that any element of $`\{C_1,\mathrm{},C_8\}`$ ends with a vanishing cycle at the terminal point of the base arc. So it is a 2-cycle on $`S_0`$. Let $`L(C)`$ denote the sublattice $`𝐙C_i`$.

###### Proposition 1.3.

We have the the matrices of the intersection numbers $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_j`$ as follows :

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right).`$
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_j)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$
\[Proof\]. We can calculate all the intersection numbers by a direct observation of the cycles. For example we consider $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. They have 2 intersections on a vertical line between $`4`$ and $`\sqrt{19}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ saying $`p_1,p_2`$ (see Fig.8).

At the upper intersection $`p_1`$ the base arcs intersect with a negative sign, and the fibre cycles $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ intersect with a positive sign. By considering the definition of the orientation on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ we get there intersection number $`+1`$. The situation is quite the same for the intersection in the lower half plane. So we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=2`$. We can proceed this type of calculation until we get the full intersection matrices.

q.e.d.

###### Remark 1.2.

1) By using the conventional notations $`U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`U(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& k\\ k& 0\end{array}\right)`$, we have

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)=U(2)U(2)2^4.$$

2) We note that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_j)`$ is a unimodular matrix. So we can find a generator system $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8\}`$ of $`L(C)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_j=\delta _{ij}`$.

###### Lemma 1.1.

$`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`L(C)`$ are nondegenerate rank 8 lattices. $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a primitive sublattice in $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)L`$.

Proof\]. The first statement is a direct consequence of the fact that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_iC_j)`$ is a unimodular matrix.

Suppose $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is not primitive. It means that there is an element $`\lambda LL(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with $`k\lambda L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for some integer $`k`$.Put

$$k\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}k_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i.$$

Then we have

$$k(\lambda \stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i)=(k\lambda )\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i=k_i.$$

It indicates $`kk_i(i=1,\mathrm{},8)`$. So it is deduced $`\lambda L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. This is a contradiction.

q.e.d

### 1.4 The algebraic sublattice

For the moment we study the divisors on the reference surface $`S_0`$. Let $`P_{ij}^\pm `$ denote two intersections $`H_iH_j(1i<j4)`$, here we distinguish them by the signature of the $`s`$-coordinate ( see Proposition 1.1). The surface $`S_0`$ has an exceptional curve corresponding to every intersection $`P_{ij}^\pm (1i<j4)`$. We denote them by $`E_{ij}^\pm `$. Let us consider the projection $`\pi :S𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Let $`F_s`$ denote the pull back $`\pi ^{}(𝐏^1(s))\times \{t\})`$ of the generic $`s`$-coordinate line, and let $`F_t`$ denote the pull back of the generic $`t`$-coordinate line. Set

$$G_i=\frac{1}{2}(\pi ^{}H_i\underset{ji}{}(E_{ij}^++E_{ij}^{})),(i=1,2,3,4).$$

This is the reduced divisor coming from the 4 sections $`H_i`$ of the elliptic fibration $`(S_0,\pi _1,𝐏^1(s))`$.By an easy observation we have the following.

###### Lemma 1.2.

We have intersection numbers among $`E_{ij}^\pm `$, $`G_i`$, $`F_s`$, $`F_t`$ :

$`G_iG_i=2,F_sF_t=2,G_iF_s=G_iF_t=1,`$
$`G_iE_{ij}^+=G_iE_{ij}^{}=1,E_{ij}^+E_{ij}^+=E_{ij}^{}E_{ij}^{}=2,`$
and all the other intersections are 0. We let $`L(div)`$ denote the sublattice of $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)=L`$ generated by $`E_{ij}^\pm ,G_i,F_s,F_t`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

If we observe the construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$, we can show that $`L(div)L(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}`$. Where $``$ indicates the orthogonal complement in the full lattice $`H_2(S_0,𝐙)L`$.

###### Proposition 1.4.

We have

$`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}=L(div)=E_{ij}^\pm ,G_i,F_s,F_t`$
$`(D_4)^322`$
on the reference surface $`S_0`$.

Proof\]. Set the sublattices $`L_i(i=1,2,3)`$ as follows:

$`L_1=G_1,E_{14}^+,E_{14}^{},F_tE_{23}^+,`$
$`L_2=G_2,E_{24}^+,E_{24}^{},F_tE_{13}^+,`$
$`L_3=G_3,E_{34}^+,E_{34}^{},F_tE_{12}^+.`$
They are isometric with the lattice

$$D_4=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 2& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 2& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right),$$

and they are perpendicular each others. Set

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=F_s+F_tE_{12}^+E_{13}^+E_{23}^+,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=G_1+G_2+G_3G_4+F_s+3F_tE_{12}^+E_{13}^+E_{23}^+,`$
then we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2,\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2=0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_2=2.$$

Now we put

$$P=L_1L_2L_3\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2.$$

Then it holds

$`PL(div)L(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{},`$
$`\mathrm{rank}P=14,\mathrm{discr}P=2^8.`$
On the other hand we have $`\mathrm{discr}L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=2^8`$. By considering the fact that $`L`$ is unimodular and $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a primitive sublattice, we get the conclusion that $`P=L(div)=L(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{}`$.

q.e.d.

Now we extend Proposition 1.4 to the general situation.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`S`$ be a double $`4H`$ surface. If we have $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{Pic}(S)=14`$, then it holds

$`\mathrm{Tra}(S)U(2)U(2)(2I_4),`$
$`\mathrm{Pic}(S)D_4D_4D_422.`$
\[Proof\]. We note that the family $`=\{S(x)\}`$ is fibred over the parameter space of $`\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)^4`$ . This fibration is locally topological trivial on a Zariski open subset in $`X^{}\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)^4`$. Using this trivialization we can proceed the same argument for a general member as for the specialized element $`S_0`$.In fact always $`L(div)`$ and $`P`$ are defined as a sublattice in $`\mathrm{Pic}(S(x))`$. We have the systems $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`L(C)`$ also. So Proposition 1.4 is valid for every $`S`$ of $``$. If the condition is satisfied, then $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ cannot contain any divisor class. Hence we obtain the required conclusion.

q.e.d

###### Remark 1.4.

As we will see in Section 2, we have $`\mathrm{rank}\mathrm{Pic}(S)=14`$ for a general member of $``$.

## 2 Family $``$ as that of lattice $`K3`$ surfaces

### 2.1 General properties

In this section we show the converse of Theorem 1. Before starting this argument we state some general properties of a $`K3`$ surface.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface that is given by a minimal nonsingular model.

1) For an irreducible curve $`C`$ on $`S`$, $`C^20`$ or $`C^2=2`$.

2) If $`D\mathrm{Pic}(\mathrm{S})`$ satisfies $`D^22`$, then either $`D`$ or $`D`$ is an effective class ( that is given by an effective divisor).

This is deduced from the Riemann-Roch theorem by a routine argument.

###### Definition 2.1.

We call an element $`D\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ is nef when it holds $`DC0`$ for any effective class $`C`$.

###### Proposition 2.1 (Pjateckiĭ-Šapiro and Šafarevič ).

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface, then we have the following:

1) Suppose $`x\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ satisfies $`x0,x^2=0`$. Then there exists an isometry $`\gamma `$ of $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ such that $`\gamma (x)`$ becomes to be effective and nef.

2) Suppose $`x\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ is effective, nef and $`x^2=0`$ then $`x`$ is a multiple class of an elliptic curve (i.e. $`x=m[E]`$ for a certain $`m𝐍`$ and an elliptic curve $`E`$ on $`S`$).

3) The linear system of an elliptic curve $`C`$ on $`X`$ determines an elliptic fibration $`S𝐏^1`$.

### 2.2 A lattice $`K3`$ surface and its realization as a double $`4H`$ surface

Let us consider the lattice

$`P=D_4^322,`$ (2.1)
and we let $`(,)`$ denote the bilinear form on an abstract lattice $`P`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

We say a $`K3`$ surfaces $`S`$ is $`\mathrm{of}\mathrm{type}P`$ if

$`(\mathrm{a})S`$ admits an embedding $`P\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$,
and $`S`$ is $`\mathrm{of}\mathrm{exact}\mathrm{type}P`$ if

$`(\mathrm{a}^{})S`$ admits an isomorphism $`P\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$.

By the argument in Section 1 we can find the generator system of $`P`$:

$`f_s,f_t,g_i(i=1,\mathrm{},4),e_{ij}^+,e_{ij}^{}(ij,1i,j4),`$ (2.2)
with the following properties among them :

(p1)

$`(g_i,g_i)=2,(f_s,f_t)=2,(g_i,f_s)=(g_i,f_t)=1`$
$`(g_i,e_{ij}^+)=(g_i,e_{ij}^{})=1,(e_{ij}^+,e_{ij}^+)=(e_{ij}^{},e_{ij}^{})=2,`$
and all other intersections equal $`0`$,

(p2)

$`f_s+f_t=2g_i+{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}(e_{ij}^++e_{ij}^{}).`$
We note that this system is determined uniquely up to isometries of $`P`$.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface of type $`P`$ with the property:

(n) $`f_s,f_t`$ are nef classes under the identification in $`(\mathrm{a})`$.
Then $`S`$ has a representation as an extended double $`4H`$ surface.

When $`S`$ is of exact type $`P`$ with the above conditioin $`(\mathrm{n})`$, $`S`$ has a representation as a double $`4H`$ surface.

\[Proof\]. Always we regard the element of $`P`$ under the identification in $`(\mathrm{a})`$ or $`(\mathrm{a}^{})`$. We show the first assertion.

(Claim 1) We can assume that every $`e_{ij}^\pm `$ is effective.

Let $`e`$ be one of the twelve elments $`e_{ij}^\pm `$. Since $`ee=2`$, either $`e`$ or $`e`$ is effective. If $`e`$ is effective then we perform the reflection $`\gamma `$ on $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$ determined by $`e`$. And we can use

$$\gamma (f_s),\gamma (f_t),\gamma (g_i),\gamma (e_{ij}^\pm )$$

instead of the system $`(2.2)`$. According to the orthogonality of the system $`\{e_{ij}^\pm \}`$ we can iterate this procedure until we get the required effective system. Since we have $`\gamma (f_s)=f_s,\gamma (f_t)=f_t`$, the nef property for $`f_s,f_t`$ is always satisfied throughout this process.

(Claim 2) We can find a double covering $`S^{}`$, that is birationally equivalent with $`S`$,

$$\pi =(\pi _1,\pi _2):S^{}𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1,$$

ramified along a bidegree $`(4,4)`$ curve $`B`$. $`S^{}`$ has at most simple singularities coming from the singular points of $`B`$.

By Proposition 2.1 $`f_s,f_t`$ are multiple classes of elliptic curve. Observing the assumption $`g_if_s=g_if_t=1`$ we know that they are reduced classes. Again by Proposition 2.1 $`f_s`$ and $`f_t`$ determine two different elliptic fibrations $`\pi _1:X𝐏^1`$ and $`\pi _2:X𝐏^1`$, respectively. Set

$$\pi =(\pi _1,\pi _2):S𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1.$$

This map is surjective and of degree 2, because we have $`\pi _1^1(x)\pi _1^1(y)=f_sf_t=2`$ for any $`(x,y)𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Let $`L_s,L_t`$ be two lines $`𝐏^1\times \{\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`\{\mathrm{}\}\times 𝐏^1`$, respectively. So we obtain a double covering $`\pi =(\pi _1,\pi _2):S𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Generic fibers $`\pi _1^{}(x)`$ and $`\pi _2^{}(y)`$ are elliptic curves realized as double coverings over $`𝐏^1`$. So each of them has four branch points. Consequently, the branch locus $`B`$ of $`\pi `$ is a curve of degree $`(4,4)`$. Since $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface, the canonical class $`K_S=0`$. Hence $`B`$ has at most simple singularities.

(Claim 3) Let $`G_i`$ be the effective divisor representing $`g_i`$.Then $`H_i=\pi _{}G_i`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-curve $`(i=1,2,3,4)`$.

Since $`g_ig_i=2`$, either $`g_i`$ or $`g_i`$ is effective. But $`f_s`$ is nef and has intersection $`f_sg_i=1`$, then we know that $`g_i`$ is effective. By the projection formula, we obtain

$$\pi _{}G_iL_s=G_i\pi ^{}L_s=g_if_s=1.$$

By the same argument, we get $`\pi _{}G_iL_t=1`$ also. Hence we obtain the required property.
(Claim 4) The effective class $`e_{ij}^\pm `$ is obtained by an exceptional divisor coming from the singularity of $`B`$.

Let $`E_{ij}^\pm `$ be the effective divisor representing $`e_{ij}^\pm `$. Since $`(e_{ij}^\pm ,f_s)=(e_{ij}^\pm ,f_t)=0`$ we get $`\pi _{}E_{ij}^\pm =0`$. It indicates that every $`E_{ij}^\pm `$ is an exceptional divisor derived from the singularity of $`B`$.
(Claim 5). We have $`B=H_1+H_2+H_3+H_4`$

We consider the $`(1,1)`$ curve $`H_i=\pi _{}G_i`$. As a divisor class $`\pi ^{}H_i`$ equals to $`f_s+f_t`$. By the starting assumption $`(\mathrm{p2})`$, $`\pi ^{}H_i`$ and $`2G_i+_{ji}(E_{ij}^++E_{ij}^{})`$ are linearly equivalent. So there exist a principal divisor $`D`$ such that

$$\pi ^{}H_i=2G_i+\underset{ji}{}(E_{ij}^++E_{ij}^{})+D.$$

Then

$$2H_i=\pi _{}\pi ^{}H_i=2\pi _{}G_i+\pi _{}D=2H_i+\pi _{}D.$$

This is an equality as divisors itsselves (not as divisor classes), so we get $`\pi _{}D=0`$. This implies that $`D`$ is an sum of exceptional divisors. But $`D`$ is principal, so we must have $`D=0`$. By observing the equality

$$\pi ^{}H_i=2G_i+\underset{ji}{}(E_{ij}^++E_{ij}^{})$$

we know that $`\pi ^{}H_i`$ has six components of the form $`E_{ij}^\pm `$, note that we don’t have any cancellation with an effective divisor $`G_i`$. Hence $`H_i`$ meets six different singular points on $`B`$. The sum of intersection numbers at these double points exceeds the number $`(B,H_i)=8`$. In case $`H_i`$ is irreducible it must be an irreducible component of $`B`$. In case we have $`H_i=\mathrm{}_1+\mathrm{}_2`$ with a $`(0,1)`$ curve and a $`(1,0)`$ curve, at least one component, saying $`\mathrm{}_1`$, is contained in $`B`$. If $`\mathrm{}_2`$ is not contained in $`B`$, we have $`\mathrm{}_2(B\mathrm{}_1)=3`$. So $`\mathrm{}_2`$ contains only one $`\pi (E_{ij}^\pm )`$. Namely $`\mathrm{}_1`$ contains 5 others. Observing $`\mathrm{}_1(B\mathrm{}_1)=4`$ we know that is too many. So we have $`H_iB`$. Hence we obtained the claim.

According to the above arguments we obtained the double covering $`\pi :S𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. realizing the extended double $`4H`$ surface.

Next let us prove the second assertion using the condition $`(\mathrm{a}^{})`$. It is enough to show

(Claim 6) $`S^{}`$ has exactly 12 singular points of type $`A_1`$ on $`\pi ^{}B`$.

Let $`L(exc)`$ be the sublattice generated by the system $`\{e_{ij}^\pm \}`$ in $`P=\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$, this is isometric with $`2^{12}`$. Suppose $`xP`$ is a class of irreducible $`(2)`$-curve with $`\pi _{}x=0`$. We can describe $`x`$ in the form

$$x=m_sf_s+m_tf_t+e+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_ig_i,eL(exc)$$

with the coefficients $`m_s,m_t,m_i𝐙`$. By assumption it holds $`\pi _{}xL_s=\pi _{}xL_t=0`$, so we obtain

$$m_s=m_t,2m_s+m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4=0.$$

According to the starting condition $`(\mathrm{p1}),(\mathrm{p2})`$, we have

$`2(xe)`$ $`=`$ $`2(m_s(f_s+f_t)+m_1g_i+m_2g_2+m_3g_3+m_4g_4)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_i(2g_if_sf_t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}m_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}(e_{ij}^++e_{ij}^{})`$
So we have $`2xL(excep)`$. By assumption we have $`(2x,2x)=8`$. But such an element in $`L(exc)`$ should be the form $`\pm 2e_{ij}^\pm `$ or $`\pm e_1\pm e_2\pm e_3\pm e_4`$. Where $`\{e_i(i=1,2,3,4)\}`$ are distinct four elements of $`\{e_{ij}^\pm \}`$. In the case $`2x=\pm 2e_{ij}^\pm `$, we conclude $`xL(excep)`$.

In the later case, we obtain

$$\pm e_1\pm e_2\pm e_3\pm e_42e=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}m_i\underset{ji}{}(e_{ij}^++e_{ij}^{}).$$

Observe the right hand side, the number of the odd coefficients of $`e_{ij}^\pm `$ should be one of $`0,6,8`$. It does not attained in the left hand. So this case does not happen. Hence we obtained the claim.

q.e.d

## 3 Modular group and marking with a multi-polarization

### 3.1 Congruence subgroup $`G(2)`$

Let $`L`$ be the K3 lattice with the fixed basis as defined in Section 1 and $`(,)`$ be the corresponding bilinear form. We consider the sublattice $`P=(\mathrm{D}_4)^322`$ with the fixed generator system $`\{f_s,f_t,e_{ij}^\pm ,g_i\}`$ as in Section 2. Set $`T=P^{}=\mathrm{U}(2)^22^4`$ with the fixed basis so that $`A=U(2)U(2)(2I_4)`$ be the intersection form. We denote the group of isometries of a lattice $`M`$ by $`\mathrm{O}(M)`$. Set $`G=\mathrm{O}(T)`$ and

$$\mathrm{O}(L,P)=\{g\mathrm{O}(L):g(x)=x\text{for}xP\}.$$

Note that we have $`g(T)=T`$ for $`g\mathrm{O}(L,P)`$. So we can regard $`\mathrm{O}(L,P)`$ as a subgroup of $`G`$. Now G is given as

$$G=\{gM(8,𝐙):{}_{}{}^{t}gAg=A\}.$$

Set

$$G(2)=\{gG:gI\text{mod}2\}.$$

Let $`\alpha T`$ be a $`(2)`$element, that is $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=2`$. It determines a reflection $`\gamma _\alpha \mathrm{O}(L,P)`$ by putting

$$\gamma _\alpha (x)=x+(x,\alpha )\alpha .$$

###### Remark 3.1.

According to  and , we know that $`G(2)`$ is generated by the reflections of the above form $`\gamma _\alpha `$. So it holds $`G(2)\mathrm{O}(L,P)`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

We have

$$G(2)=\mathrm{O}(L,P)$$

.

\[Proof\]. It is enough to show $`\mathrm{O}(L,P)G(2)`$. Here we use the notations and results in . Let $`q_T:A_T𝐐`$ (resp. $`q_P`$) be the discriminant form of $`T`$ (resp. $`P`$), where $`A_T=T^{}/T`$.

(Fact): $`H=L/TP`$ is a maximal isotropy subgroup for $`q_Tq_P`$ in $`A_TA_P`$. Namely it holds $`(q_Tq_P)_H0`$ and $`H`$ is maximal with this property. Moreover the canonical projections $`HA_T`$ and $`HA_P`$ induce the isomorphism

$$A_THA_P.$$

Hence we have

$$\mathrm{O}(L,P)Ker\{G\mathrm{O}(q_T)\}$$

, where $`G\mathrm{O}(q_T)`$ indicates the canonical map. We can easily show that

$$G(2)=Ker\{G\mathrm{O}(q_T)\}.$$

q.e.d

### 3.2 Marking with a multi-polarization

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface with an embedding $`P\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$. The triple $`(S,\phi ,P)`$ is a $`P`$-marking of $`S`$ provided

1) $`\phi :H_2(S,𝐙)L`$ is an isometry,

2) $`\phi ^1(f_s),\phi ^1(f_t),\phi ^1(e_{ij}^\pm ),\phi ^1(g_i)`$ are effective and $`\phi ^1(f_s),\phi ^1(f_t)`$ are nef.

According to Theorem 2 we have the double covering representation $`\pi :S𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$ and the class

$$\pi _{}(\phi ^1(g_1)+\mathrm{}+\phi ^1(g_4))$$

gives the class of the ramification divisor.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`(S,\phi ,P)`$ and $`(S^{},\phi ^{},P)`$ be $`P`$-markings of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, respectively. An isomorphism $`\rho :SS^{}`$ is an isomorphism between these markings provided $`\phi =\phi ^{}\rho _{}`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Because we have $`\rho _{}\phi ^1(f_s)=(\phi ^{})^1(f_s)`$ and $`\rho _{}\phi ^1(f_t)=(\phi ^{})^1(f_t)`$ , such an isomorphism $`\rho `$ preserves the covering structure over $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$.

Namely we have the following commutative diagram with an element $`\sigma \mathrm{PGL}_2(𝐂)\times \mathrm{PGL}_\mathrm{𝟐}(𝐂)`$ :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}S& \stackrel{\rho }{}& S^{}\\ \pi & & \pi ^{}& & \\ 𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& 𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1\end{array}`$
###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`H=(H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4)`$, $`H^{}=(H_1^{},H_2^{},H_3^{},H_4^{})`$ be ordered sets of four curves of bidegree $`(1,1)`$. We say that $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are equivalent if there exists $`\sigma \mathrm{PGL}_2(𝐂)\times \mathrm{PGL}_\mathrm{𝟐}(𝐂)`$ such that $`\sigma (H_i)=H_i^{}(i=1,2,3,4)`$.

###### Remark 3.3.

Let $`(S,\phi ,P)`$ and $`(S^{},\phi ^{},P)`$ be $`P`$-markings of $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, respectively.

(1) If these two $`P`$-markings are isomorphic then we have the same equivalent class of the ordered sets $`H=(H_1,H_2,H_3,H_4)`$.

(2) But we don’t have the converse of (1).

### 3.3 Modular group

Let $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\}`$ be the basis of $`T`$ such that $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)=A`$. We have elements $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8\}`$ in $`L`$ such that $`(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_j)=\delta _{ij}`$. The system $`\{\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i\}`$ is uniquely determined modulo $`P`$.

Let $`(S,\phi ,P)`$ be a $`P`$-marking of a surface $`S`$. We consider the period

$$[_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{}:_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\mathrm{\Omega }]𝐏^7$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a holomorphic 2-form on $`S`$. The bilinear relation

$$_S\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }=0,_S\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{\Omega }>0$$

implies that the period belongs to the domain

$$D=\{\eta 𝐏^7:{}_{}{}^{t}\eta A\eta =0,{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{\eta }A\eta >0\}.$$

The domain $`D`$ has two connected components

$$D=D^+D^{},D^\pm =\{(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8)D:\pm \mathrm{Im}(\eta _3/\eta _1)>0\}$$

and we can take $`D^+`$ as the period domain for the family of isomorphism classes of marked surfaces $`\{(S(x),\phi ,P):xX^{}\}`$ .

###### Remark 3.4.

Two domains $`D^\pm `$ are complex conjugate. That is

$$[_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{}:_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\mathrm{\Omega }]D^+[_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}:\mathrm{}:_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}]D^{}.$$

The group $`G`$ acts on the domain $`D`$. Set

$$G(2)^+=\{gG(2):g(D^+)=D^+\}.$$

It is a subgroup of $`G(2)`$ with index 2.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`(S,\phi ,P)`$ and $`(S^{},\phi ^{},l_s^{},P)`$ be $`P`$-markings of extended double $`4H`$ surfaces $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ , respectively. Let $`\eta ,\eta ^{}D^+`$ be corresponding periods. Then these markings are isomorphic if and only if

$$g(\eta )=\eta ^{}$$

for some $`gG(2)^+(=\mathrm{O}^+(L,P):=\{g\mathrm{O}(L,P):g(D^+)=D^+\})`$.

###### Proof.

Assume $`g(\eta )=\eta ^{}`$ for some $`gG(2)^+`$. According to Proposition 3.1 there exist an element $`\widehat{g}\mathrm{O}(L,P)`$ such that $`\widehat{g}|_T=g`$. Then we have

$$[_{\phi ^1\widehat{g}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{}:_{\phi ^1\widehat{g}(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\mathrm{\Omega }]=[_{(\phi ^{})^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:\mathrm{}:_{(\phi ^{})^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ indicates the holomorphic form on $`S^{}`$. Consider the composition

$$f=(\phi ^{})^1\widehat{g}^1\phi :\mathrm{H}_2(S,𝐙)LL\mathrm{H}_2(S^{},𝐙).$$

The above composite isomorphism induces the dual map

$$f^{}:\mathrm{H}^2(S^{},𝐙)\mathrm{H}^2(S,𝐙)$$

with $`f^{}(\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(S^{}))=\mathrm{H}^{2,0}(S)`$. Moreover, $`f^{}`$ preserves ample classes. Hence the Torelli theorem for K3 surfaces assures that there exists the unique isomorphism $`\rho :SS^{}`$ such that $`\rho _{}=f`$. It is obvious that $`\rho `$ is an isomorphism of marked surfaces.
The converse is derived by the same argument. ∎

## 4 The hypergeometric differential equation for the periods

Let us take an element $`CH_2(S_0,𝐙)`$, and let $`C(x)H_2(S(x),𝐙)`$ denote its continuation to $`x=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)X^0`$ ( that is multivalued and depends on the paths to $`x`$ in $`X^{}`$). Now we investigate the differential equation for the period

$`u(x)={\displaystyle _{C(x)}}\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle _{C(x)}\{\underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}(x_{11}^p\xi _1\eta _1+x_{12}^p\xi _1\eta _2+x_{21}^p\xi _2\eta _1+x_{22}^p\xi _2\eta _2)^{1/2}\}\omega }`$ (4.1)
$`\omega =(\xi _1d\xi _2\xi _2d\xi _1)(\eta _1d\eta _2\eta _2d\eta _1),`$ (4.2)
where $`[\xi _1,\xi _2]`$ and $`[\eta _1,\eta _2]`$ denote the homogeneous coordinates of $`𝐏^1(s)`$ and $`𝐏^1(t)`$, respectively. Note that this integral does not depend on the affine representatives of the homogeneous coordinate of $`𝐏^1(s)`$ and $`𝐏^1(t)`$.

There are left and right actions of $`\mathrm{GL}(2,𝐂)`$ and a multiplicative action of $`(𝐂^{})^4`$ on $`X^0`$. They induce the following actions on the period $`u(x)`$ :

$`u(gx)=u(gx^1,\mathrm{},gx^4)g\mathrm{GL}(2,𝐂),`$
$`u(xh)=u(x^1{}_{}{}^{t}h,\mathrm{},x^4{}_{}{}^{t}h)h\mathrm{GL}(2,𝐂),`$
$`u(\lambda x)=u(\lambda _1x^1,\mathrm{},\lambda _4x^4)\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _4)(𝐂^{})^4`$
###### Lemma 4.1.

We have the following equalities.

$`(1)`$ $`u(\lambda x)={\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda _p^{a_p1}u(x).`$ (4.3)
$`(2)`$ $`u(gx)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{det}(g)}}u(x),u(xh)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{det}(h)}}u(x).`$ (4.5)
###### Proposition 4.1.

The integral $`u(x)`$ satisfies the following systems :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1j,k2}{}}x_{jk}^p{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x_{jk}^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u(x)(p=1,2,3,4),`$ (4.6)
$`E_1:{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}x_{lj}^p{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x_{mj}^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{lm}u(x)(\mathrm{},m\{1,2\}),`$ (4.8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}x_{jl}^p{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x_{jm}^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{lm}u(x)(\mathrm{},m\{1,2\}),`$ (4.10)
$`E_2:{\displaystyle \frac{^2u}{x_{ij}^qx_k\mathrm{}^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2u}{x_k\mathrm{}^qx_{ij}^p}}(i,j,k,\mathrm{}\{1,2\},p,q\{1,2,3,4\}),`$ (4.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2u}{x_{11}^qx_{22}^p}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2u}{x_{21}^qx_{12}^p}}(p,q\{1,2,3,4\}).`$ (4.12)
\[Proof\] Differentiate the first equality (4.2) in Lemma 4.1 with respect to $`\lambda _i`$ and put $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3,\lambda _4)=(1,1,1,1)`$. Then we get the first equality (4.4).

Differentiate the second equality (4.3) in Lemma 3.1 for the left action with respect to the $`ij`$-component $`g_{ij}`$ of $`g`$ and put $`g=I_2`$. Then we get the second equality (4.5). We get the third equality by using the equality for the right action of $`\mathrm{PGL}(2,𝐂)`$ with the same method. The system $`E_2`$ is deduced from the direct computation and the commutativity of the partial differentiations and the integral.

q.e.d.

Now we show the system $`E_1+E_2`$ is a holonomic system on $`X^0`$. We consider the variety $`B`$ in the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(X^{})`$ defined by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1j,k2}{}}x_{jk}^p\xi _{jk}^p`$ $`=`$ $`0(p=1,2,3,4),`$ (4.13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}x_\mathrm{}j^p\xi _{mj}^p`$ $`=`$ $`0(\mathrm{},m\{1,2\}),`$ (4.14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}x_j\mathrm{}^p\xi _{jm}^p`$ $`=`$ $`0(\mathrm{},m\{1,2\}),`$ (4.15)
$`\xi _{ij}^q\xi _k\mathrm{}^p\xi _k\mathrm{}^q\xi _{ij}^p`$ $`=`$ $`0(i,j,k,\mathrm{}\{1,2\},p,q\{1,2,3,4\}),`$ (4.17)
$`\xi _{11}^q\xi _{22}^p\xi _{21}^q\xi _{12}^p`$ $`=`$ $`0(p,q\{1,2,3,4\}),`$ (4.19)
where $`\xi _{jk}^p`$ stands for $`\frac{u}{x_{ij}^k}`$. We regard $`B`$ as a fiber space over $`X^{}`$ in the product of $`X^{}`$ and a space of symbols $`\xi =(\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3,\xi ^4)`$ for

$$\xi ^p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi _{11}^p& \xi _{12}^p\\ \xi _{21}^p& \xi _{22}^p\end{array}\right).$$

The characteristic variety itself does not necessarily coincide with $`B`$, but it contains $`B`$, which we will call the fake characteristic variety. We will prove that the fake characteristic variety consists of only $`\{0\}`$ (zero-section) on $`X^0`$. It implies that any solution of $`E_1+E_2`$ on a simply connected domain in $`X^0`$ is holomorphic.

Let us fix an arbitrary point

$`x=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)X^0,x^p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_{11}^p& x_{12}^p\\ x_{21}^p& x_{22}^p\end{array}\right)(p=1,2,3,4).`$
Put

$`H_p:f_p=x_{11}^p\xi _1\eta _1+x_{12}^p\xi _1\eta _2+x_{21}^p\xi _2\eta _1+x_{22}^p\xi _2\eta _2=0,`$
and set

$`D(pq)=\mathrm{Det}(x^p)\mathrm{Trace}((x^p)^1x^q)=x_{11}^px_{22}^q+x_{22}^px_{11}^qx_{12}^px_{21}^qx_{21}^px_{12}^q.`$
We set

$$M_{pqr}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_{11}^p& x_{12}^p& x_{21}^p& x_{22}^p\\ x_{11}^q& x_{12}^q& x_{21}^q& x_{22}^q\\ x_{11}^r& x_{12}^r& x_{21}^r& x_{22}^r\end{array}\right),p,q,r\{1,2,3,4\},$$

and let $`(ijk)`$ denote the $`3\times 3`$ minor determinant of $`M_{pqr}`$ induced from the $`i,j,k`$-th column vectors. Put

$$D(pqr)=(234)(123)(134)(124).$$

###### Lemma 4.2.

We have the following :

(1) $`D(pq)=D(qp),D(pp)=2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}(x^p)`$

(2) $`H_p`$ is irreducible if and only if

$$D(pp)0$$

(3) Let $`H_p`$ and $`H_q`$ be different and both irreducible . Then they have different intersection points if and only if

$$D(pq)^2D(pp)D(qq)0.$$

(4) We have $`H_pH_qH_r=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`D(pqr)0`$.

\[Proof\].

The first two claims are obvious. So we consider the third statement.

$`H_p`$ is expressed in the form

$$\frac{\xi _2}{\xi _1}=\frac{x_{11}^p\eta _1+x_{12}^p\eta _2}{x_{21}^p\eta _1+x_{22}^p\eta _2}.$$

So we obtain the intersections $`H_pH_q`$ from

$$\frac{x_{11}^p\eta _1+x_{12}^p\eta _2}{x_{21}^p\eta _1+x_{22}^p\eta _2}=\frac{x_{11}^q\eta _1+x_{12}^q\eta _2}{x_{21}^q\eta _1+x_{22}^q\eta _2}.$$

Then the intersection comes from the eigen vector of $`(x_p)^1x^q`$. Hence we get the required condition.

Next we examine the last statement. Generally we have

$$M_{pqr}\left(\begin{array}{c}(234)\\ (134)\\ (124)\\ (123)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$

Note that we have $`H_pH_qH_r\mathrm{}`$ if and only if there exists a solution $`\zeta ={}_{}{}^{t}(\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\zeta _3,\zeta _4)`$ with $`\zeta _1\zeta _4\zeta _2\zeta _3=0`$ for

$$M_{pqr}\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta _1\\ \zeta _2\\ \zeta _3\\ \zeta _4\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$

If $`\mathrm{rank}M_{pqr}<3`$ we can find easily such a solution $`\zeta `$. In case $`\mathrm{rank}M_{pqr}=3`$ we have 1 dimensional solution space for $`M_{pqr}\zeta =0`$. So $`{}_{}{}^{t}((234),(134),(124),(123))`$ becomes a required solution only when $`D(pqr)=0`$.

q.e.d

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`x=(x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4)\mathrm{M}(2,𝐂)^4`$ be a point on $`X^0`$, namely $`x`$ satisfies the conditions:

(g1). Any $`H_p`$ is irreducible i.e. $`D(pp)0`$,

(g2). $`H_p`$ and $`H_q`$ have 2 different intersections i.e. $`D(pq)^2D(pp)D(qq)0`$ for any $`ij`$

(g3). $`H_pH_qH_r=\mathrm{}`$ i.e $`D(pqr)0`$ for any $`(pq)(qr)(rp)0`$

Then any local solution of the system $`E_1+E_2`$ around the point $`xX^0`$ is locally holomorphic.

\[Proof\]. We show $`B_x=\{0\}`$ in several steps.

(Step1 ). Let us consider the Segre embedding

$$\psi :𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1𝐏^3,$$

that is defined by

$$[\xi _1,\xi _2]\times [\eta _1,\eta _2]\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi _1\eta _1& \xi _1\eta _2\\ \xi _2\eta _1& \xi _2\eta _2\end{array}\right).$$

Note that the point $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi _{11}& \xi _{12}\\ \xi _{21}& \xi _{22}\end{array}\right)𝐏^3`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{Im}(\psi )`$ if and only if $`\xi _{11}\xi _{22}\xi _{12}\xi _{21}=0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the diagonal map

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:𝐏^3𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3,P(P,P,P,P).$$

Set

$$\xi ^p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi _{11}^p& \xi _{12}^p\\ \xi _{21}^p& \xi _{22}^p\end{array}\right),$$

and regard $`\xi =(\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3,\xi ^4)`$ as a homogeneous coordinate on $`𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3\times 𝐏^3`$. Then the system $`E_2`$ in Proposition 4.1 determines exactly the image of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi `$.

(Step 2). Let $`\xi =(\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3,\xi ^4)`$ be a point on $`B_x`$. Then at least two of $`\{\xi ^p\}`$ should be $`O`$. Suppose in contrary three of them , saying $`\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3`$, are not equal to $`O`$. According to the argument in Step 1 they have the pull backs in $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$, and these are the same point $`P=([\xi _1,\xi _2],[\eta _1,\eta _2])`$. Replace $`\xi ^p`$ by $`\psi (P)`$ in (4.9), which yields $`PH_p`$. Hence we obtain $`PH_1H_2H_3`$. This contradicts $`(\mathrm{g3})`$.

(Step 3). Let $`\xi =(\xi ^1,\xi ^2,\xi ^3,\xi ^4)`$ be a point on $`B_x`$. If three of $`\{\xi ^p\}`$ are $`O`$, then all of them equal $`O`$.

Suppose $`\xi ^2=\xi ^3=\xi ^4=0`$. Then the equation (4.10) reduces to

$$x^1{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{1}=O.$$

Because $`x^1`$ is assumed to be invertible, we obtain $`\xi ^1=O`$.

(Step 4). We don’t have the case $`\xi ^10,\xi ^20,\xi ^3=\xi ^4=0`$.

Suppose it happens, then we have $`\xi ^2=c\xi ^1`$ for some constant $`c(0)`$. The two equations (4.10) and (4.11) are expressed in the form

$$x^1{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{1}+x^2{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{2}=0,{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{1}x^1+{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{2}x^2=0.$$

Because we supposed $`x^2`$ to be invertible, we have

$$(x^2)^1x^1{}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{1}={}_{}{}^{t}\xi _{}^{1}x^1(x^2)^1.$$

So we get 4 linear equations for 4 unknowns $`\xi _{11}^1,\xi _{12}^1,\xi _{21}^1,\xi _{22}^1`$. Together with the 2 equations coming from the first equation (4.9) for $`p=1,2`$ we obtain the system of linear equations

$$M\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi _{11}^1\\ \xi _{12}^1\\ \xi _{21}^1\\ \xi _{22}^1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)().$$

By a direct calculation we have

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}x_{12}^1x_{21}^2x_{21}^1x_{12}^2& x_{12}^1x_{22}^2x_{22}^1x_{12}^2& x_{22}^1x_{21}^2x_{21}^1x_{22}^2& 0\\ x_{11}^1x_{12}^2x_{12}^1x_{11}^2& 0& x_{11}^1x_{22}^2x_{22}^1x_{11}^2& x_{12}^1x_{22}^2x_{22}^1x_{12}^2\\ x_{21}^1x_{11}^2x_{11}^1x_{21}^2& x_{22}^1x_{11}^2x_{11}^1x_{22}^2& 0& x_{22}^1x_{21}^2x_{21}^1x_{22}^2\\ 0& x_{11}^1x_{12}^2x_{12}^1x_{11}^2& x_{21}^1x_{11}^2x_{11}^1x_{21}^2& x_{21}^1x_{12}^2x_{12}^1x_{21}^2\\ x_{11}^1& x_{12}^1& x_{21}^1& x_{22}^1\\ x_{11}^2& x_{12}^2& x_{21}^2& x_{22}^2\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`(i,j,k,\mathrm{})`$ denote the $`4\times 4`$ minor of $`M`$ obtained by taking $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$-th row vectors. By assumption the system ($``$) has a nontrivial solution $`\xi ^1`$, so every $`(i,j,k,\mathrm{})`$ should be $`0`$. By a direct calculation we have the following:

$`(1256)=(x_{12}^1x_{22}^2x_{22}^1x_{12}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
$`(1356)=(x_{22}^1x_{21}^2x_{21}^1x_{22}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
$`(1456)=(x_{21}^1x_{12}^2x_{12}^1x_{21}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
$`(2356)=(x_{11}^1x_{22}^2x_{22}^1x_{11}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
$`(2456)=(x_{12}^1x_{11}^2x_{11}^1x_{12}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
$`(3456)=(x_{11}^1x_{21}^2x_{21}^1x_{11}^2)(D(12)^2D(11)D(22)),`$
and other $`4\times 4`$ minors are $`0`$. Here recall the 2nd assumption for $`x`$. So we have $`(D(12)^2D(11)D(22))`$ is not $`0`$. Hence we obtain

$$x_{ij}^1x_k\mathrm{}^2=x_{ij}^2x_k\mathrm{}^1$$

for any indices $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}\{1,2\}`$. It means $`x^2=cx^1`$ and $`H_1=H_2`$. This is a contradiction.

By the combination of the above arguments we obtain $`B_x=\{0\}`$.

q.e.d.

The system of partial differential equations $`E_1+E_2`$ is closely related to the GKZ hypergeometric system introduced by Gel’fand, Kapranov and Zelevinski. Let us explain the relation and evaluate the dimension of the solution space of $`E_1+E_2`$.

Define a set of operators $`E_1(\mathrm{},m)`$ and $`E_1^{}(\mathrm{},m)`$ by

$`E(\mathrm{},m)`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,j}{}}x_\mathrm{}j^p_{mj}^p+\delta _\mathrm{}m,`$
$`E^{}(\mathrm{},m)`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,j}{}}x_j\mathrm{}^p_{jm}^p+\delta _\mathrm{}m.`$
Let $`D`$ be the Weyl algebra

$$𝐂x_{11}^1,x_{12}^1,x_{21}^1,x_{22}^1,x_{11}^2,\mathrm{},x_{22}^4,_{11}^1,_{12}^1,_{21}^1,_{22}^1,_{11}^2,\mathrm{},_{22}^4.$$

Consider the GKZ-hypergeometric ideal $`H_A(\beta )`$ in $`D`$ associated to the matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

and $`\beta =(1/2,1/2,1/2,1/2,1,1)`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Our system of partial differential equations $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ consists of three groups of operators

$$A\theta {}_{}{}^{t}\beta ,$$

$$I_A=\{^u^vAu=Av,u,v𝐍_0^{16}\},$$

$$E_1(\mathrm{},m)\mathrm{and}E_1^{}(\mathrm{},m)(\mathrm{}m).$$

Here, we denote by $`\theta `$ the column vector $`(x_{jk}^i_{jk}^i)`$ of Euler operators of length 16.

The GKZ-hypergeometric ideal $`H_A(\beta )`$ is the left ideal in $`D`$ generated by $`A\theta {}_{}{}^{t}\beta `$ and $`I_A`$. Since the toric ideal $`I_A`$ is homogeneous, the $`D`$-module $`D/H_A(\beta )`$ is regular holonomic on $`X=𝐂^{16}`$ (Hotta’s theorem, see, e.g., \[14, p.82\]). Our toric ideal $`I_A`$ satisfies the following properties:

1. The initial ideal of $`I_A`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic order is generated by square free monomials.
2. The toric ideal is Cohen-Macaulay.
3. The multiplicity of $`I_A`$ is $`20`$.
4. The variety $`V(I_A)`$ admits a natural action of $`(𝐂^{})^4`$ and $`V(I_A)/(𝐂^{})^4`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )`$ in Theorem 4.

The first statement can be easily checked by Buchberger’s criterion. The second fact follows from the first (see, e.g., \[14, p.153\]). The third fact can be shown by computing the Hilbert polynomial of $`I_A`$ on computers. Therefore, by theorems due to Gel’fand, Kapranov and Zelevinsky, the rank of the solution space of $`H_A(\beta )`$ is $`20`$ and the singular locus agrees with the zero set of the principal $`A`$-determinant (see, e.g., \[14, p.173\]).

We denote by E the left ideal in $`D`$ generated by first order operators $`E_1(\mathrm{},m)`$, $`(\mathrm{}m)`$ and the GKZ-hypergeometric ideal $`H_A(\beta )`$.

###### Theorem 5.

The $`D`$-module $`D/E`$ is regular holonomic on $`X`$, and the rank of the solution space of $`E=E_1+E_2`$ is equal to 8.

\[Proof\]. Since $`H_A(\beta )E`$ holds and the GKZ system is regular holonomic, the $`D`$-module $`D/E`$ is also regular holonomic on $`X`$. The differential operators $`E_1(\mathrm{},m),(\mathrm{}m)`$ are used to extract the space of the period maps from the $`20`$ dimensional solution space of the GKZ system.

Next let us show the second statement. Already in Section 3 we constructed 8 independent periods. So it is enough to say that ”at most 8 dimensional”. Although it is possible in principle to evaluate the rank by computer and Oaku’s algorithm (see, e.g., \[14, p.31\]), we could not evaluate it because of an exhaustion of memory. So, we try to find sufficiently many initial terms for the left ideal $`E`$ and a suitable weight. For this system, we chose a weight $`w^1=1w,w^2=4w,w^3=9w,w^4=16w`$, $`w=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\\ 0& 4\end{array}\right)`$. Put $`W=(w^1,w^2,w^3,w^4)`$. The initial ideal generated by $`\mathrm{in}_{(W,W)}(E_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{in}_{(W,W)}(E_2)`$ has the rank $`20`$, which means that we do not have sufficiently many initial terms. We computed a partial Gröbner basis of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ with the weight $`(W,W)`$ up to the degree 7 in the homogenized Weyl algebra. The ideal generated by the initial terms of the partial Gröbner basis has rank $`8`$. It follows from Theorem 2.5.1 of  and the argument of the regular holonomicity that the rank is bounded by $`8`$.

q.e.d.

According to Theorem 4 and Theorem 5 the solution space of $`E_1+E_2`$ looks like a vector bundle over $`X^{}`$ of rank 8. Let us take a $`P`$-marking $`(S(x_0),\phi ,P)`$ , then we can choose the basis for the solution space of $`E_1+E_2`$

$$\{_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)}\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{},_{\phi ^1(\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8)}\mathrm{\Omega }\}$$

at $`x_0X^{}`$. So the system $`E_1+E_2`$ induces a representation of $`\pi _1(X^{},x_0)`$ over $`GL(8,𝐙)`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

The monodromy group Mono for $`(,X^{})`$ is the image of this representation.

###### Remark 4.1.

Set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(GL(2,𝐂)X^{}/GL(2,𝐂))/(𝐂^{})^4`$. According to Lemma 4.1 we have the same period along the orbit of the actions of $`GL(2,𝐂)`$ and $`(𝐂^{})^4`$. So the above monodromy representation reduces to that of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$.

Let $`B_r`$ be the sublattice of $`L`$ generated by the elements $`f_s,f_t,g_i(i=1,\mathrm{},4)`$. Put

$$O(L,Br)=\{gO(L):g(P)=P,g_{Br}=\mathrm{id}\}.$$

We define

$$O^+(L,Br)=\{gO(L,Br):g_T(D^+)=D^+\}.$$

The group $`\pi _1(X^{},x_0)`$ acts on $`LH_2(S(x_0),𝐙)`$ by the natural way, and the branch locus is fixed under this action. So $`\mathrm{Mono}`$ is identified with a certain subgroup of $`O^+(L,Br)`$.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`(S_1,\phi _1,P)`$ and $`(S_2,\phi _2,P)`$ be $`P`$-markings, and let $`x_1,x_2`$ be corresponding points on $`X^{}`$. Suppose there is an isomorphism $`\rho :S_1S_2`$ such that we have $`\phi _2\rho _{}\phi _1^1O^+(L,Br)`$. Then the points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ determine the same point on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(GL(2,𝐂)X^{}/GL(2,𝐂))/(𝐂^{})^4`$.

\[Proof\].

Because we have $`\rho _{}\phi _1^1(f_s)=\phi _2^1(f_s)`$ and $`\rho _{}\phi _1^1(f_s)=\phi _2^1(f_s)`$, the isomorphism $`\rho `$ preserves the covering structure over $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$. Moreover we have $`\rho _{}\phi _1^1(g_i)=\phi _2^1(g_i)(i=1,2,3,4)`$. Hence $`\rho `$ preserves the branch locus with the same numbering order. So $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ have the required property.

q.e.d.

###### Theorem 6.

We have

$$O^+(L,Br)_T=\mathrm{Mono}.$$

\[Proof\]. It is enough to show that $`O^+(L,Br)_T\mathrm{Mono}`$. Let us fix a $`P`$-marking $`(S_0,\phi _0,P)`$ corresponding to the initial point $`x_0X^{}`$. Let $`g`$ be an arbitrary element of $`O^+(L,Br)`$, and put $`g^{}=g_T`$. Let $`\eta _0D^+`$ be the period point determined by $`(S_0,\phi _0,P)`$, and set $`\eta _1=g^{}(\eta _0)`$. Let us take an oriented arc $`r`$ in $`D^+`$ that starts from $`\eta _0`$ and ends at $`\eta _1`$. Because of the surjectivity of the period map, we can find a $`P`$-marking $`(S(\eta ),\phi (\eta ),P)`$ for every point $`\eta `$ on $`r`$. Set $`(S_1,\phi _1,P)`$ be the terminal marking and let $`x_1`$ be the corresponding point on $`X^{}`$. Because of the injectivity of the period map we have $`(S_1,\phi _1,P)=(S_1,\phi _1g^1,P)`$. Then by virtue of the above Lemma $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ determine the same point on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Hence we get unique closed arc $`\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponding to $`r`$. It means that $`g^{}`$ is the monodromy transformation coming from the arc $`\gamma `$.

q.e.d.

## 5 Periods and Kuga-Satake varieties

In this section we construct the abelian variety attached to the extended double $`4H`$ surface starting from its period. The reader will find the method in  and . The detailed calculation and argument is exposed in  also.

Let us consider the lattice $`T`$ defined by the intersection matrix $`A=U(2)U(2)(2I_4)`$ and put $`V_k=Tk(k=𝐑\mathrm{or}𝐐)`$. Let $`Q(x)`$ denote the quadratic form on $`T`$ and at the same time on $`V_k`$. Let $`Tens(T)`$ and $`Tens(V_k)`$ be the corresponding tensor algebras. And we let $`Tens^+(T)`$ and $`Tens^+(V_k)`$ denote the subalgebras composed of the parts with even degree in $`Tens(T)`$ and $`Tens(V_k)`$ respectively. We consider the two sided ideal $`I`$ in $`Tens^+(V_k)`$ generated by the elements of the form $`xxQ(x)`$ for $`xV_k`$, and the ideal $`I_𝐙`$ in $`Tens(T)`$ by the same manner. The corresponding even Clifford algebra is defined by

$$C^+(V_k,Q)=Tens^+(V_k)/I.$$

By the same manner we define the even Clifford algebra over $`𝐙`$ by

$$C^+(T,Q)=Tens^+(T)/I_𝐙.$$

We note that $`C^+(V_𝐑,Q)`$ is a $`128`$ dimensional real vector space and $`C^+(T,Q)`$ is a lattice in it. So we obtain a real torus

$$𝒯_𝐑=C^+(V_𝐑,Q)/C^+(T,Q).$$

Let $`𝐅`$ denote the quaternion algebra

$$𝐐𝐐i𝐐j𝐐ij$$

with $`i^2=j^2=1`$. By some routine calculations of Clifford algebra we obtain the following.

###### Proposition 5.1.

We have the isomorphism of algebras $`C^+(V_𝐐,Q)\mathrm{M}(4,𝐅)\mathrm{M}(4,𝐅)`$.

Let a complex vector $`\underset{¯}{\eta }=(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8)`$ be a representative of a point $`\eta =[\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8]D^+`$. So it has an ambiguity of the multiplication by a non zero complex number. Put $`\underset{¯}{\eta }=s+it(s,t𝐑^8)`$. If we impose the condition $`(st)^2=1`$ in $`C^+(V_𝐑,Q)`$, the representative is uniquely determined up to a multiplication by a complex unit. We denote it by

$$\underset{¯}{\eta }=m_1(\eta )+im_2(\eta ),$$

and put

$$m(\eta )=m_1(\eta )m_2(\eta ).$$

It is uniquely determined by $`\eta `$ without any ambiguity. According to the imposed condition the element $`m(\eta )C^+(V_𝐑,Q)`$ defines a complex structure on $`C^+(V_𝐑,Q)`$ by the left action. It induces a complex structure on the real torus $`𝒯_𝐑`$ also. We denote this complex torus by $`(T,m(\eta ))`$.

Let $`\{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _8\}`$ be the basis of $`T`$ with the intersection matrix $`U(2)U(2)(2I_4)`$. And let $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_8\}`$ be a orthonormal basis of $`V`$ given by

$$(e_1,\mathrm{},e_8)=(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon )(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right)(I_4)).$$

Then the corresponding intersection matrix takes the form $`I_2(I_2)(2I_4)`$.

Let $`\iota `$ be an involution on $`C^+(V,Q)`$ induced from the transformation

$$\iota :e_{i_1}e_{i_2}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}e_{i_k}\mathrm{}e_{i_2}e_{i_1}$$

for the basis. Set $`\alpha =4e_2e_1`$. According to the method in \[St\] we know that

$$E(x,y)=tr(\alpha x^\iota y)$$

determines a Riemann form on $`(L,m(\eta ))`$. We denote this abelian variety by $`A^+(\eta )`$, that is so called the Kuga-Satake variety attached to the $`K3`$ surface corresponding to the period $`\eta `$. In this way we can construct a family of abelian varieties

$$𝒜^+=\{A^+(\eta ):\eta D^+\}$$

induced from the lattice $`T`$ parameterized by the domain $`D^+`$. We can construct the ”conjugate family”

$$𝒜^{}=\{A^{}(\eta ):\eta D^{}\}$$

parameterized by

$$D^{}=\{\eta =[\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8]:{}_{}{}^{t}\eta A\eta =0,{}_{}{}^{t}\overline{\eta }A\eta >0,\mathrm{}(\eta _3/\eta _1)<0\}$$

by the same procedure with the Riemann form $`E^{}(x,y)=\mathrm{tr}(\alpha x^\iota y)`$. The right action of $`C^+(V_𝐐,Q)`$ on $`(V,T,m(\eta ))`$ commutes with the left action of $`\alpha (\eta )`$. So we have

$$C^+(T_𝐐)\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{A}^\pm (\eta ))𝐐$$

for any $`A^\pm (\eta )`$. For a general member $`\eta 𝒟^+`$, the endmorphism ring is given by

$$\mathrm{End}_𝐐(\mathrm{A}(\eta ))=\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{A}(\eta ))𝐐\mathrm{C}^+(\mathrm{V}_𝐐).$$

According to Proposition 5.1 we obtain

###### Theorem 7.

For a general member $`\eta 𝒟^+`$, $`A^+(\eta )`$ is isogeneous to a product of abelian varieties $`(A_1(\eta )\times A_2(\eta ))^4`$ where $`A_1(\eta )`$ and $`A_2(\eta )`$ are 8-dimensional simple abelian varieties with $`\mathrm{End}_𝐐(\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{i}(\eta ))=𝐅(\mathrm{i}=1,2)`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

Here we describe the relation between $`A_1(\eta )`$ and $`A_2(\eta )`$. Now we define the linear involution $``$ on $`V_𝐑`$ by

$$e_1^{}=e_1\mathrm{and}e_i^{}=e_i(i=2,\mathrm{},8).$$

It can be extended on $`C^+(V_𝐑,Q)`$ as an autmorphism of algebra. We define an involution $`\sigma `$ on $`𝒟`$ :

$$\sigma :𝒟𝒟,(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _8)(\eta _2,\eta _1,\eta _3,\mathrm{}\eta _8).$$

So we have $`𝒟_+^\sigma =𝒟_{}`$. It is easy to check that we have

$$A_2(\eta )A_1(\eta ^\sigma ),A_1(\eta )A_2(\eta ^\sigma ),$$

where $``$ indicates the isogenous relation.

T. Tsutsui

Department of Mathematics and Informatics

Faculty of Science

Chiba University

Yayoi-cho Inage-ku Chiba 263-8522, JAPAN

K. Koike, H. Shiga

Graduate School of Science

Chiba University

Yayoi-cho Inage-ku Chiba 263-8522, JAPAN

N. Takayama

Department of Mathematics

Faculty of Science

Kobe University

Rokko Kobe 657-8501, JAPAN


format: text

text:
# Entropy using Path Integrals for Quantum Black Hole Models

## Abstract

Several eigenvalue equations that could describe quantum black holes have been proposed in the canonical quantum gravity approach. In this paper, we choose one of the simplest of these quantum equations to show how the usual Feynman’s path integral method can be applied to obtain the corresponding statistical properties. We get a logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as already obtained by other authors by other means.

In the early seventies, in his insightful work Bekenstein  proposed the quantization of a black hole. He suggested that its surface gravity is proportional to its temperature and that the area of its event horizon is proportional to its entropy. In his remarkable work he conjectured that the horizon area of non-extremal black holes plays the role of a classical adiabatic invariant. He concluded that the horizon area should have a discrete spectrum with uniformly spaced eigenvalues. Another result at that same time, was the discovery of the mechanical laws in the framework of general relativity, that govern non-extremal black holes by . These laws have a striking analogy with those of thermodynamics. This similarity was not well understood until Hawking, in his seminal work  a year later, discovered that black holes evaporate, they radiate as black bodies with a temperature proportional to the surface gravity. One can then argue that the laws of black hole mechanics have a real thermodynamical meaning and that the entropy of a black hole is one fourth of its horizon area.

These remarkable results of nearly three decades ago, point out to a deeper relation among classical gravitation, quantum mechanics and statistical properties. Hawking’s semi-classical calculations allowed to interpret the relation between classical black hole mechanics and its thermodynamics leading to the celebrated entropy area expression.

During these years, different approaches have emerged to try to understand the interplay between the quantum and classical descriptions, and the statistical properties of black holes. We briefly mention the main quantum gravity non-perturbative formalisms. String theory, whose building blocks are essentially D-branes , loop quantum gravity , and canonical quantum gravity, having as elementary constituents the quantum excitations of the geometry itself . These proposals emerge essentially from different principles. String theory is sought to be fundamental, it provides the precise expression for the temperature and entropy. Loop and canonical gravity do not provide the corresponding proportionality constants unambiguously. These, however, deal directly with the curved black hole geometry. In string theory, one carries out, for example, the calculation of Hawking´s radiation in flat space. Moreover, in string theory these calculations have been up to now, only possible for extremal and nearly extremal black holes .

In this paper, we are interested in canonical quantum gravity treatments where a Hamiltonian quantum theory of spherically symmetric vacuum spacetime can be defined  (for our purposes we could also consider a ball or shell of dust collapsing to a black hole ). On the other hand, supposing a uniformly spaced area spectrum , the Schwarzschild black hole has been treated as a microcanonical ensemble . Also considering a mini-superspace approach and by means of statistical techniques previously used in hadron physics, the usual area of black hole thermodynamics is recovered . Moreover, assuming that the area spectrum of the black hole is uniformly spaced, a grand canonical ensemble has been considered with the ADM mass (the Hamiltonian) and the horizon area as separately observables . It is argued that in this way the partition function is not divergent. However, the result in that work, a logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, is the same already obtained by Kastrup  by means of an analytic continuation approach.

We will take into account the results mentioned in the previous paragraph, and that the quantum Hamiltonians defined to study spherically symmetric vacuum spacetime should describe, for an observer at rest far away, the quantum mechanics of a black hole . We could have taken also models of a shell or ball collapsing on its way to a black hole formation . In our procedure it is not absolutely necessary that the resulting area spectrum is uniformly spaced. However we need and eigenvalue equation for the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of the hole or its horizon area, which we do not consider independent variables. We will proceed, with one of the most simple examples, by taking the Hamiltonian operator defined by Mäkela and Repo , taking $`Q=0`$, for the Reissner- Nordström black hole Hamiltonian. Our approach is straightforward, an eigenvalue equation has been defined for a particular parametrization of the variables of interest, where for a Schwarzschild black hole a certain factor ordering has been chosen. The quantum-mechanical model is represented by an eigenvalue equation for a linear harmonic oscillator. For such quantum equations, we already know how to obtain the corresponding statistical mechanics . For $`Q0`$ and other variable parametrizations and factor orderings, the same method outlined here can be followed. We show how to proceed, with a simple example.

With Hamiltonians involving only momenta and coordinates, we can use path integrals to get the corresponding statistical properties. The equation of interest, in this paper, can be obtained from that in Mäkela and Repo , for $`Q=0`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2G^2}{c^6}a^{s1}\frac{d}{da}\left(a^s\frac{d}{da}\mathrm{\Psi }(a)\right)=(a\frac{2GM}{c^2})\mathrm{\Psi }(a),$$
(1)
where $`a`$ and $`P_a^2=`$ -$`\frac{\mathrm{}^2G^2}{c^6}a^s\frac{d}{da}\left(a^s\frac{d}{da}\mathrm{\Psi }(a)\right)`$ are phase coordinates obtained from the phase space coordinates $`m`$ and $`P_m`$, by means of an appropriate canonical transformation and $`m(t):=M(t,r)`$ and $`p_m(t):=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rP_M(t,r)`$. The variable $`m`$ can be defined as the mass $`M`$ of the hole when Einstein’s equations are satisfied , $`s`$ is a factor ordering parameter. In particular, if we choose $`s=2`$ and identifying $`R_s=\frac{2GM}{c^2}`$, one gets

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2G^2}{c^6}\frac{1}{a}\left(\frac{d^2}{da^2}+\frac{2}{a}\frac{d}{da}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }(a)=(aR_s)\mathrm{\Psi }(a).$$
(2)
We now transform

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(a)=\frac{1}{a}U(a)\mathrm{and}x=aR_s,$$
(3)
where the variable $`x`$ describes the gravitational degrees of freedom of the Schwarzschild black hole. We also introduce the appropriate constants and consider the fact that the energy of “excitation” associated with the variable $`a`$ is not positive; the physical reason for this is simply that the total energy of the black hole is included and the ADM energy is equal to zero. Then, the quantum equation (2) transforms into

$$\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}^2E_p\mathrm{}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\frac{E_p\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}^2}x^2\right)U(x)=\frac{R_s}{4\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}}E_sU(x),$$
(4)
where $`E_s=Mc^2`$ is the black hole ADM energy and $`\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}=\sqrt{\frac{G\mathrm{}}{c^3}}`$ and $`E_p\mathrm{}=\sqrt{\frac{c^5\mathrm{}}{G}}`$ are Planck’s length and energy respectively. Being (4) a quantum linear oscillator, one immediately gets

$$\frac{R_s(n)}{4\mathrm{}_p\mathrm{}}E_s(n)=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)E_p\mathrm{},$$
(5)
this result coincides with Beckenstein’s proposal .

Our procedure can be summarized as follows. We start with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the Schwarzschild black hole (4), we then use Feynman´s path integrals approach to statistical mechanics. This will allow us to calculate the free energy and the partition function. So that the statistical properties of the black hole, temperature and entropy will be deduced.

The classical partition function for the harmonic oscillator is given by

$$Z_{class}=\frac{1}{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(6)
Applying the path integral formalism, the changes in the potential function due to quantum mechanical effects can be included by means of the use of . The “corrected” potential for the oscillator is

$$V=\frac{m\omega ^2}{2}\left(x^2+\frac{\beta \mathrm{}^2}{12m}\right),$$
(7)
which gives the partition function

$$Z_{approx}=\frac{e^{\frac{(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^2}{24}}}{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(8)
It should be pointed out that this result is for the Euclidean space.

We now utilize this method, that has been so successful in quantum mechanics, in the quantum gravity model of interest. Obviously, we do not have a quantum theory of gravity, but we have a quantum harmonic oscillator eigenvalue equation for the Schwarzschild black hole (4), that provides the expected energy eigenvalues (5) . We should note that the Schrödinger equation (4) for black holes, corresponds to a quantum oscillator in Lorentzian space. Consequently, we need to modify the partition function defined in (8) to go from the Lorentzian to the Euclidean world. After a rotation $`\beta i\beta `$, which is equivalent to a Wick rotation $`ti\tau `$, the partition function has the following form

$$Z_{approx}^{}=i\frac{e^{\frac{(\beta \mathrm{}\omega )^2}{24}}}{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(9)
As already stated by Kastrup , this analytic continuation should be used to get the thermodynamical properties of interest, so we have for the internal energy

$$\overline{E}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(ImZ_{approx}^{})}{\beta }=Mc^2,$$
(10)
which should be the internal gravitational energy of the black hole. According to equation (4) the frequency of our harmonic oscillator results in $`\mathrm{}\omega =\sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi }}E_p\mathrm{}`$, so from equations (9) and (10), we get

$$\frac{E_p\mathrm{}^2}{8\pi }\beta ^2Mc^2\beta 1=0,$$
(11)
the positive solution for this equation for the case $`E_p\mathrm{}Mc^2`$ leads to

$$\beta =\frac{8\pi Mc^2}{E_p\mathrm{}^2}\left[1+\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(\frac{E_p\mathrm{}}{Mc^2}\right)^2\right]=\beta _H\left[1+\frac{1}{\beta _HMc^2}\right],$$
(12)
which is Hawking´s temperature $`\beta _H=\frac{1}{kT_H}`$, plus a small correction, that is the same as that obtained by Kastrup . This calculation is straightforward, that is because the quantum equation corresponds to a linear oscillator, but even if we would have a more complicated equation, we would only need to calculate a more difficult path integral. This would be the case, for example, for the Reissner-Nordström black hole $`Q0`$ .

The entropy for the model, can be obtained again, by means of the rotation $`(\beta i\beta `$, $`kik)`$, we get

$$Im\left(\frac{S}{ik}\right)=\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(ImZ_{approx}^{}\right)+\beta \overline{E}\right],$$
(13)
at $`\beta \mathrm{}\omega =\beta \sqrt{\frac{3}{2\pi }}E_{pl}`$. By putting the expression in terms of the partition function

$$Im\left(\frac{S}{ik}\right)=\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(ImZ_{approx}^{}\right)\beta \frac{\mathrm{ln}(ImZ_{approx}^{})}{\beta }\right],$$
(14)
and substituting equation (8) we get

$$\frac{S}{k}=\frac{A_s}{4l_p\mathrm{}^2}\left[1+\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{E_p\mathrm{}^2}{\left(Mc^2\right)^2}\right]^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{A_s}{4l_p\mathrm{}^2}\left[1+\frac{1}{8\pi }\frac{E_p\mathrm{}^2}{\left(Mc^2\right)^2}\right]^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(24)1,$$
(15)
where $`A_s=4\pi R_s^2`$ is the area of the horizon.

In terms of the Bekenstein-Hawking relation $`\frac{S_{BH}}{k}=\frac{A_s}{4l_p\mathrm{}^2}`$ and ignoring terms of higher order, we finally obtain the logarithmic correction as previously obtained by Kastrup  and recently by Gour  using different procedures.

$$\frac{S}{k}=\frac{S_{BH}}{k}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{S_{BH}}{k}\right).$$
(16)
We should mention that it has already been shown in  that the black hole thermal fluctuations are small (and the same results follow in our case). Consequently the thermal interactions with the heat bath are small and, a canonical statistical treatment seems justified. The above previous results would then be understood as to provide the conditions on the heat bath  if it is to be in thermal equilibrium with the back hole.

In this paper, we have shown how the Feynman method to obtain the statistical mechanics of a system from its fundamental quantum mechanics can be applied to some quantum black hole models. For this purpose, as an example, we have chosen one of the simplest  Wheeler-DeWitt equations proposed in the literature to describe the quantum mechanics of a black hole. For any Hamiltonian in terms only of momenta and coordinates, the path integral method provides us with a powerful tool to describe physical properties of the system of interest. So, the procedure can be generalized to a wide variety of Wheeler-DeWitt equations that have been or could be proposed for black holes. One can consider models describing collapsing dust or a shell on the process to form a black hole , or those concerned with spherically symmetric vacuum spacetime . The proposals can be for black hole metrics including charge, angular momentum and even other possible physical properties. Even in these more general cases, the minisuperspace approach leaves out, necessarily, degrees of freedom that are not considered in the quantum model and for some physical purposes it will probably been unable to provide some particular desired physical results that may require to take into account, for example, particle interactions and (or) higher angular momentum modes . We have chosen an equation in minisuperspace (4) that has been parametrized in such a way that it provides Bekenstein area spectrum (5) . These area eigenvalues have been used directly, by other authors  to get Hawking´s entropy and the logarithmic correction. For the purpose of getting the temperature (12) and the black hole entropy and its logarithmic correction (16), we have shown here that the minisuperspace approach, by means of Feynman´s method, gives the expected physical properties already obtained by other means .Some other Hamiltonians for more general metrics, with and without matter and their supersymmetric generalizations, are under study and will be reported elsewhere.

Acknowledgments

We thank Carlos Martinez and Pedro Ludwig for several remarks. This work was supported in part by CONACyT grant 28454E, and CONACyT-NFS grant.