text:
# Special Lagrangian submanifolds and Algebraic Complexity one Torus Actions

## 1 Introduction

In our previous paper  we have shown how to use torus actions on non-compact Calabi-Yau manifolds to construct SLag submanifolds. In all the ensuing discussions by SLag submanifolds we mean the following: Let $`(M^{2n},\omega ,\phi )`$ be a complex manifold with a Kahler form $`\omega `$ and a non-vanishing holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-form $`\phi `$. Then a submanifold $`L^n`$ of $`M`$ is SLag if it satisfies $`\omega |_L=0,Im\phi |_L=0`$. We refer the reader to  and  for a discussion of SLag submanifolds. In the first part of this paper we develop one general setup, which generalizes all examples in :

Consider a compact algebraic manifold $`M^{2n}`$ with an algebraic $`(n1)`$-torus action (this is an algebraic complexity one space). We will show (see Theorem 1) that there is a meromorphic section $`\sigma `$ of the canonical bundle of $`M`$, which is invariant under the $`T`$-action. Any such $`\sigma `$ defines a divisor $`D`$ and on the complement $`M^{}=MD`$ $`\sigma `$ gives a trivialization of the canonical bundle. Let $`H^1(M^{},)=0`$. Take any $`T`$-invariant Kahler form $`\omega `$ on $`M^{}`$. From  we deduce that $`M^{}`$ has a SLag fibration with respect to $`\omega `$. We will investigate how the fibers compactify in $`M`$. We treat 2 cases : If $`\omega `$ is the induced metric from $`M`$, then Lemma 1 of Section 2.1 covers “most” fibers; For $`\omega `$ a Ricci-flat metric on $`M^{}`$ we study one family of examples in Section 2.2.

We will also give examples of SLag fibrations on $`M^{}`$, including some cases there $`H^1(M^{},)0`$.

In the second part of this paper we investigate Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in $`M`$. We assume that the anti-canonical bundle of $`M`$ is ample and has a $`T`$-invariant holomorphic section $`\eta `$ (with a corresponding meromorphic section $`\sigma =\eta ^1`$ of the canonical bundle). We also assume that near the smooth part $`D^{}`$ of the zero set $`D`$ $`\eta `$ is transversal to zero. This gives a natural trivialization $`\phi ^{}`$ of the canonical bundle of $`D^{}`$. Consider the induced metric $`\omega `$ from $`M`$ on $`D^{}`$. We assume that the $`T`$-action on each connected component $`D_0`$ of $`D^{}`$ has a finite stabilizer. For $`D_0`$ one can choose an angle $`\theta _0`$ s.t. orbits of the $`T`$-action are SLag submanifolds of $`(D_0,\omega ,e^{i\theta _0}\phi ^{})`$. Consider transversal sections $`\eta _j`$, which converge to $`\eta `$. Their zero sets $`D_j`$ are smooth Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces. Near compact, $`T`$-invariant subsets $`N`$ of $`D_0`$ the manifolds $`D_j`$ converge to $`N`$ as $`\eta _j\eta `$. We will show (see Theorem 3) that one can perturb our SLag fibration on $`N`$ to SLag fibrations on the corresponding subsets of $`D_j`$ (all fibrations are SLag for metrics, induced from $`M`$).

We will see that this construction applies for $`M=P^4`$ and $`D_j`$ being quintics; and for $`M=G(2,4)`$ (the Grassmanian of 2-planes in $`^4`$) and $`D_j`$ being Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in $`M`$.

We will also show that this can generalized from hypersurfaces to complete intersection Calabi-Yau submanifolds of a Kahler manifold $`M`$ with a higher complexity torus action (see Corollary 1 and Section 3.4).

Acknowledgments : This paper is a part of author’s work towards his Ph.D. at MIT. The author is grateful to his advisor, Tom Mrowka, for continuing support; and to Shing-Tung Yau for a helpful discussion.

Research is partially supported by an NSERC PGS B Award

## 2 Algebraic Complexity one Spaces

### 2.1 Fibration on M’ and it’s compactification

Let $`M^{2n}`$ be a compact algebraic manifold with an effective algebraic $`T^s`$-action. The fact the the action is algebraic is equivalent to saying that there is a very ample line bundle $`L`$ on $`M`$, and $`T`$ acts on it’s total space. We can use $`L`$ to construct a meromorphic section of the canonical bundle $`K`$ of $`M`$:

###### Theorem 1

For $`k`$ large enough there is a holomorphic section $`\sigma _1`$ of $`KL^k`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ of $`L^k`$ s.t. the section $`\sigma =\sigma _1\sigma _2^1`$ is a meromorphic, $`T`$-invariant section of $`K`$.

Proof: Consider the representation $`\rho `$ of $`T`$ on $`H^0(L,M)`$. We split it into a direct sum of irreducible representations, i.e. we find sections $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d`$ of $`L`$ s.t. $`T`$ acts on $`span(\alpha _i)`$ with a character $`\xi _i`$. W.l.o.g we can assume that $`\xi _1`$ is a trivial character (otherwise we divide the action of $`T`$ on $`L`$ by $`\xi _1`$).

We can view $`\xi _j`$ as living in the character lattice of the dual Lie algebra $`𝒢^{}`$ of $`T`$. The condition that the $`T`$-action is effective on $`M`$ implies the $`\xi _i`$ $``$-span the character lattice of $`𝒢^{}`$. Indeed suppose $`\xi _i`$ do not span the character lattice of $`𝒢^{}`$. Then we can find an element $`e1`$ of $`T`$ s.t. $`\xi _i(e)=1`$, i.e. $`e`$ acts trivially on $`H^0(L,M)`$. But then $`e`$ acts trivially on $`M`$. Indeed suppose $`mM`$ and $`e(m)=m^{}m`$. Since $`L`$ is very ample, there is a section $`\beta `$ of $`L`$ s.t. $`\beta (m)=0,\beta (m^{})0`$. But then $`e`$ doesn’t act trivially on $`\beta `$\- a contradiction.

For $`l`$ large enough $`L^lK`$ has a holomorphic section. So $`H^0(L^lK,M)`$ is nontrivial. We can find a section $`\lambda `$ of $`L^lK`$ s.t. $`V=span(\lambda )`$ is $`T`$-invariant and $`T`$ acts on $`V`$ with a character $`\varphi `$. We can write $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Sigma }a_i\xi _i,a_i`$. We will consider only $`a_i0`$ and we divide them into subsets $`a_i^+`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ of positive and negative values. We will have a section $`\sigma _1^{}=\lambda \alpha _i^{a_i^{}}`$ of $`L^{k_1}K`$ and a section $`\sigma _2^{}=\alpha _i^{a_i^+}`$ of $`L^{k_2}`$. The $`T`$-actions leave $`V_i=span(\sigma _i^{})`$ invariant and $`T`$ acts on $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ with the same character. Also $`T`$ preserves $`\alpha _1`$. So tensoring $`\sigma _1^{}`$ and $`\sigma _2^{}`$ with powers of $`\alpha _1`$ we deduce that for $`k`$ large enough we can find sections $`\sigma _1`$ of $`L^kK`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ of $`L^k`$ s.t. $`T`$ acts on $`\sigma _i`$ with the same character. Q.E.D.

From now on we assume that $`s=n1`$, i.e. $`M`$ is an algebraic complexity one space. We refer the reader to  and  for discussion of complexity one spaces. Let $`\sigma `$ be any $`T`$-invariant meromorphic section of the canonical bundle of $`M`$. It defines a divisor $`D`$. Let $`M^{}=MD`$. Take $`\omega `$ to be any $`T`$-invariant Kahler form on $`M^{}`$ s.t. the $`T`$-action is Hamiltonian. We assume that $`H^1(M^{},)=0`$. From  we get the following result (a similar result was also obtained in ):

###### Theorem 2

() $`M^{}`$ has a calibrated fibration $`\alpha `$ over an open subset of $`^n`$. Moreover for a generic point $`p`$ (outside of a countable union of $`(n2)`$-planes in $`^n`$) the fiber $`\alpha ^1(p)`$ is a smooth SLag submanifold. Connected components of smooth fibers are diffeomorphic to $`T^{n1}\times `$. If $`mM^{}`$ is a regular point of the torus action (i.e. the differential of the action is injective at $`m`$), then $`m`$ is a smooth point of the fiber $`L_m`$ through $`m`$ and the fiber $`L_m`$ is a SLag submanifold near $`m`$. Singular fibers have singularities of codimension at least 2 and near singular points they are diffeomorphic to a product of a cone with a Euclidean ball.

The fibration is defined as follows: Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{n1}`$ be a basis for the Lie Algebra of $`T^{n1}`$ and $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1}`$ be the corresponding flow vector fields on $`M`$. Let $`\sigma ^{}=i_{X_1}\mathrm{}i_{X_{n1}}\sigma `$ be the $`(1,0)`$-form on $`M^{}`$, obtained by contraction of $`\sigma `$ by vector fields $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n1}`$. Then from  we know that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a holomorphic $`(1,0)`$-form on $`M^{}`$ and $`\sigma =df`$ for a $`T`$-invariant, holomorphic function $`f`$ on $`M^{}`$. Let $`\mu `$ be a moment map for the $`T`$-action on $`M^{}`$. Then the fibers of the SLag fibration are given as level sets of the function $`\alpha =(\mu ,Imf)`$.

The closure of a connected component $`L^{}`$ of any smooth SLag fiber $`L`$ on $`M^{}`$ must intersect $`D`$ (for otherwise $`L^{}`$ would be compact, but it is diffeomorphic to $`T^{n1}\times `$). In order to further understand how the fibers of our SLag fibration on $`M^{}`$ compactify in $`M`$ we will have to make assumptions on the Kahler form $`\omega `$. First we treat the case then $`\omega `$ is induced from a Kahler form on $`M`$.

We decompose $`D`$ into $`D=D_+D_{}`$ corresponding to the meromorphic and holomorphic parts of $`\sigma `$. Consider the function $`f`$ near a point $`d`$ in $`DD_{}`$. Then the differential $`df=\sigma `$ is bounded, and so will be $`f`$. By Riemann extension theorem, $`f`$ extends to a holomorphic function near $`m`$. So $`f`$ extends to a holomorphic function on $`MD_{}`$. Also $`\mu `$ is smooth on $`MD_{}`$ and so our fibration extends to a fibration by level sets of $`(\mu ,Imf)`$ on $`MD_{}`$. Finally we wish to understand how the fibers compactify near $`D_{}`$. We have the following Lemma:

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\nu `$ be a value of the moment map s.t. $`T`$ acts freely on $`D_\nu =\mu ^1(\nu )D_{}`$. Consider a fiber $`L_t=(\mu =\nu ,Imf=t)`$ of the fibration over $`MD_{}`$ for some $`t`$. Then the boundary of $`L_t`$ in $`M`$ is $`D_\nu `$

Proof: Obviously the boundary of $`L_t`$ is contained in $`D_\nu `$. To prove the other inclusion we first note that the $`T^{n1}`$ action on $`M`$ induces the complex torus $`T^c=(^{})^{n1}`$ action on $`M`$. Indeed the flow vector fields $`X_v`$ give rise to the vector fields $`JX_v`$. The flow of $`X_u`$ preserves $`X_v`$ and commutes with $`J`$, hence it preserves $`JX_v`$, i.e. $`[X_u,JX_v]=0`$. Finally the vector field $`[X_uiJX_u,X_viJX_v]`$ is of type $`(1,0)`$, but it’s equal to $`[JX_u,JX_v]`$. So $`[JX_u,JX_v]=0`$ and all the vector fields $`X_u,JX_v`$ commute, and this induces the $`T^c`$-action on $`M`$ (with the real torus $`T^{n1}`$ being the product $`S^1\times \mathrm{}\times S^1`$ of unit circles in $`T^c`$). We have

$$_{JX_v}\sigma =d(i_{JX_v}\sigma )=id(i_{X_v}\sigma )=i_{X_v}\sigma =0$$

So the $`T^c`$-action preserves $`\sigma `$, and so it preserves $`D,D_+,D_{}`$. Also since $`f`$ is holomorphic then $`JX_v(f)=iX_v(f)=0`$, i.e. $`T^c`$ preserves $`f`$.

Let now $`dD_\nu `$. Since $`T`$ acts freely on $`D_\nu `$ then in particular the differential of the $`T`$-action on $`d`$ is injective. So the orbit $`L^c`$ of $`T^c`$-action on $`d`$ is a smooth complex submanifold of $`D_{}`$ of complex dimension $`n1`$. Since $`T^c`$-action preserves $`D_{}`$ then it is clear that near $`d`$ $`D_{}`$ coincides with $`L^c`$. Also the differential of $`\mu |_{L_c}`$ is surjective, so near $`d`$ $`D_\nu `$ coincides with the orbit $`L`$ of the $`T^{n1}`$-action on $`d`$.

Consider the level set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu `$ of $`\mu `$ on $`M`$. Then near $`D_\nu `$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu `$ is smooth. Also $`T^{n1}`$ acts freely on $`D_\nu `$, hence it acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu `$ near $`D_\nu `$. We consider the symplectic reduction $`M_{red}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu `$ in a $`T`$-invariant neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`D_\nu `$. Then $`M_{red}`$ will be a smooth complex 1-dimensional manifold. Let $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu M_{red}`$ be the quotient map. Then $`\pi (L)=d^{}`$ is one point in $`M_{red}`$ (here $`L`$ is the $`T^{n1}`$-orbit of $`d`$). Also in a sufficiently small neighbourhood $`U^{}`$ of $`d^{}`$ in $`M_{red}`$, $`\pi ^1(U^{}d^{})D_{}=\mathrm{}`$.

The function $`f`$ descends to a holomorphic function on $`U^{}`$. Suppose that $`f`$ has a singularity in $`d^{}`$. Then the image of $`f`$ covers a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $``$. Hence the image of $`Imf`$ assumes all real values on $`U^{}d`$, in particular it assumes the value $`t`$. Hence the SLag fiber $`L_t`$ in $`MD_{}`$ intersects the neighbourhood $`\pi ^1(U^{})`$. From this we easily deduce that $`d`$ is in the closure of $`L_t`$ in $`M`$.

So we need to prove that $`f`$ has a singularity at $`d^{}`$. Suppose not. Then $`|f|`$ is bounded by some constant $`C`$. So $`|f|<C`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu D_{}`$ near $`d`$. Now the $`T^c`$-action preserves $`f`$. The orbit of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu `$ under the $`T^c`$-action fills a neighbourhood $`W`$ of $`d`$ in $`M`$. On $`WD_{}`$ we have $`|f|<C`$. By Riemann extension theorem $`f`$ extends to a holomorphic function on $`W`$. So the norm of it’s differential $`|df|<C^{}`$ for some other constant $`C^{}`$, i.e. $`|\sigma ^{}|<C^{}`$. But $`\sigma ^{}=i_{X_1}\mathrm{}i_{X_{n1}}\sigma `$. We choose a local section $`\phi `$ of the canonical bundle of $`M`$ near $`d`$ s.t. $`|\phi |=1`$. Then $`\sigma =g\phi `$ and $`|g|`$ is not bounded since $`\sigma `$ has a singularity at $`d`$. But the vector fields $`X_i`$ are linearly independent and $`\omega `$-orthogonal to each other. Hence one easily deduces that $`|i_{X_1}\mathrm{}i_{X_{n1}}\phi |`$ is uniformly bounded from below - a contradiction. So $`f`$ is singular at $`d^{}`$ and we are done. Q.E.D.

Remark 1: The conclusions of Lemma 1 apply only for those values of $`\mu `$ on $`D_{}`$, on whose level sets $`T^{n1}`$ acts freely. In example 1 in Section 2.2 we’ll have that for all non-regular values $`\nu `$ on $`D_{}`$ the level set $`D_\nu `$ will not intersect the closure of any SLag fiber in $`MD_{}`$.

Ricci-Flat metrics Another interesting class of metrics on $`M^{}`$ are $`T`$-invariant, complete Ricci-flat metrics. We refer the reader to ,  for some existence results. If $`H^1(M^{},)=0`$ then from Theorem 2 we get a SLag fibration on $`M^{}`$. In this case the compactification of the fibers in $`M`$ is quite different from the case of induced metrics. We will consider one case of this setup in example 1 in Section 2.2.

### 2.2 Examples

1) K(N) () We will demonstrate a family of examples for the construction in Section 2.1. For those examples we will write down Ricci-flat metrics on $`M^{}`$ and we show how fibers of the SLag fibration on $`M^{}`$ compactify in $`M`$. We will also write down some metrics on $`M^{}`$, induced from metrics on $`M`$. We will show that for those metrics the conclusions of Lemma 1 do not apply for non-regular values of the moment map $`\mu `$ on $`D_{}`$ and thus Lemma 1 is sharp.

Let $`N^{2n}`$ be a toric Kahler-Einstein manifold with positive scalar curvature $`t`$. Consider $`K(N)`$ to be the total space of it’s canonical bundle. Then $`K(N)`$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold with a natural holomorphic $`(n+1,0)`$-form $`\phi `$. We refer to  for definitions and properties of all relevant structures on $`K(N)`$. We will however give a Calabi construction of Kahler metrics on $`K(N)`$, since we will need them in further discussion. Let $`r^2:K(N)_+`$ be the square of the length of elements in $`K(N)`$. Take any positive function $`u`$ on $`_+`$ s.t. $`u^{}>0`$. Define the metric $`\omega _u`$ on $`K(N)`$ as follows: Let $`\omega `$ be the K-E metric on $`N`$. The connection on $`K(N)`$ induces a horizontal distribution for the projection $`\pi :K(N)N`$. We define the horizontal and the vertical distributions to be orthogonal. On the horizontal distribution we define the metric to be $`u(r^2)\pi ^{}(\omega )`$. On the vertical distribution the metric is $`t^1u^{}(r^2)\omega ^{}`$. Here $`\omega ^{}`$ is the induced metric on the linear fibers. The K-E condition ensures that $`\omega _u`$ is closed. If we choose $`u(r^2)=(tr^2+l)^{1/n+1}`$ for some positive constant $`l`$, then $`\omega _u`$ is Ricci-flat.

Let now $`W`$ be a 2-plane bundle over $`N`$, obtained by adding a trivial bundle to $`K(N)`$. Let $`M`$ be the projectivization of $`W`$. The $`T^n`$-action on $`N`$ induces an action on $`W`$ and on $`M`$. $`K(N)`$ naturally sits inside of $`M`$ and $`M`$ is obtained by adding to $`K(N)`$ a copy $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`N`$ at infinity. The holomorphic $`(n+1,0)`$-form $`\phi `$ on $`K(N)`$ becomes a meromorphic $`T^n`$-invariant section of the canonical bundle of $`M`$, which defines a divisor $`D=D_{}=N_{\mathrm{}}`$. $`\phi `$ has singularity of order 2 at $`D`$ and we get $`M^{}=MD=K(N)`$.

In  we considered the SLag fibration on $`K(N)`$ with respect to the Ricci-flat metric on $`K(N)`$ (i.e. then $`u(r^2)=(tr^2+l)^{1/n+1}`$). We have shown that all fibers are asymptotic at infinity to a certain conical fiber $`L_0`$. Moreover the boundary in $`M`$ of each fiber is a certain minimal Lagrangian submanifold $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`N_{\mathrm{}}`$.

We wish to consider a metric on $`K(N)`$, induced from a metric on $`M`$. This can be done by choosing a different function $`u`$ : Consider a function $`w(x)=x^2u^{}(1/x)`$. This is a smooth positive function for $`x>0`$. Suppose it extends to a smooth positive function $`w`$ for $`x0`$. So in particular $`u^{}(y)`$ is asymptotic to $`1/y^2`$ at infinity and $`u^{}`$ integrates on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$. Thus we have a limit $`u_{\mathrm{}}>0`$ of $`u`$ at infinity. One can easily show that the metric $`\omega _u`$ compactifies to a smooth $`T^n`$-invariant metric $`\omega _u`$ on $`M`$.

In  we have computed a specific moment map $`\mu `$ for the $`T^n`$-action on $`N`$. Moreover we have shown that the moment map of the action on $`K(N)`$ was $`\mu ^{}=u(r^2)\pi ^1(\mu )`$. This of course compactifies to a moment map on $`M`$. Let $`\nu `$ be a regular value of the moment map $`\mu `$ on $`N`$. Then $`\nu ^{}=u_{\mathrm{}}\nu `$ is a regular value of the moment map on $`D=N_{\mathrm{}}`$. Lemma 1 tells us that the level set $`D_\nu ^{}`$ of $`\mu ^{}`$ on $`D`$ is a boundary in $`M`$ of any SLag submanifold of the form $`(\mu ^{}=\nu ^{},Imf=c)`$ on $`K(N)`$. Let $`\nu `$ now be a value on the boundary of the moment polytope of $`N`$. Then we know from  that $`0`$ is in the open part of the moment polytope. Hence by convexity of the polytope we deduce that a multiple $`\lambda \mu `$ is not in the moment polytope for any $`\lambda >1`$. Consider now the value $`\nu ^{}=u_{\mathrm{}}\nu `$ of $`\mu ^{}`$ on $`D`$. Then $`\nu ^{}`$ is not attained by $`\mu ^{}`$ on $`K(N)`$. Hence the level set $`D_\nu ^{}`$ does not intersect the closure of any element of our SLag fibration on $`K(N)`$. Hence the statement of Lemma 1 is sharp.

2) Toric Varieties: In section 2.1 we assumed that $`H^1(M^{},)=0`$. We will now demonstrate a class of examples there this condition doesn’t hold but we nevertheless have a SLag fibration on $`M^{}`$.

Let $`M`$ be toric i.e. $`T^{n1}T^n`$ and there is a $`T^n`$-action on $`M`$. From Theorem 1 we know that there is a section $`\sigma `$ of $`K(N)`$, which is invariant under $`T^n`$-action. First we prove the following Lemma, which will also be useful later:

###### Lemma 2

Let $`N^{2n}`$ be a connected complex manifold with a (non-zero) holomorphic $`(n,0)`$ form $`\sigma `$ and a Kahler form $`\omega `$. Suppose that we have a holomorphic $`T^c=(^{})^n`$-action on $`N`$ s.t. the action of the real torus $`T^n`$ is effective, preserves $`\sigma `$ and Hamiltonian with respect to $`\omega `$. Then the $`T^c`$-action is free and $`N`$ is biholomorphic to $`T^c`$ under the action. $`\sigma `$ is non-vanishing and equal to a constant multiple of the form $`dz_i/z_i`$ on $`T^c`$. Moreover for a choice of $`\theta `$ we have that orbits of the $`T^n`$-action give a SLag fibration on $`(N,\omega ,e^{i\theta }\sigma )`$.

Proof: Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ be a basis for the Lie algebra of $`T^n`$ and let $`X_i`$ be the flow vector field of $`v_i`$ on $`N`$. Let $`g=i_{X_1}\mathrm{}i_{X_n}\sigma `$. As we saw in , $`dg=0`$, i.e. $`g`$ is locally constant, and since $`N`$ is connected $`g`$ is constant. Since the action is effective, the differential of the action is injective at some point $`p`$, in which $`\sigma (p)0`$. The vectors $`X_1(p),\mathrm{},X_n(p)`$ span a Lagrangian plane, so $`g=g(p)=g_00`$. So $`\sigma `$ is non-vanishing and the differential of the $`T^n`$-action is everywhere injective. We can choose $`\theta `$ s.t. $`e^{i\theta }g_0`$ is real, and we get that orbits of the $`T^n`$-action are SLag submanifolds of $`(N,\omega ,e^{i\theta }\sigma )`$.

The differential of the $`T^c`$-action is an isomorphism everywhere. Orbits of the $`T^c`$-action are open, and since $`N`$ is connected, there is one orbit. So if $`H`$ is a stabilizer of some $`pN`$ under $`T^c`$-action, then $`H`$ is the stabilizer of $`N`$ under this action. We wish to prove $`H`$ is trivial. Let $`1hH`$. Then $`h=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ with $`z_j=a_j+ib_j0`$. Since the $`T^n`$-action is effective, not all $`b_j`$ are equal to $`0`$. The action of $`h`$ is given by a time 1 flow of the vector field $`X=\mathrm{\Sigma }a_jX_j+b_jJX_j`$. Let $`\mu `$ be the moment map of the $`T^n`$-action. Consider a function $`\kappa =\mathrm{\Sigma }b_j\mu (v_j)`$. Then one easily shows that $`X(\kappa )>0`$, hence the time 1 flow of $`X`$ cannot return to the same point- a contradiction. Hence $`H`$ is trivial, the action is free and $`T^c`$ is biholomorphic to an $`N`$ under the action.

In the proof of Lemma 1 we showed that $`\sigma `$ is invariant under the $`T^c`$-action since it is invariant under the $`T^n`$-action. Consider the form $`\sigma _0=dz_j/z_j`$ on $`T^c`$. Then both the pullback of $`\sigma `$ under the action and $`\sigma _0`$ are $`T^c`$-invariant. Hence one is a constant multiple of the other and we are done. Q.E.D.

We return now to the toric manifold $`M`$. Consider $`N=MD_{}`$ with a holomorphic $`(n,0)`$-form $`\sigma `$ on it. We have a $`T^c`$-action on $`M`$, and it leaves $`MD_{}`$ invariant, hence it induces a $`T^c`$-action on $`N`$. From Lemma 2 we deduce that $`\sigma `$ is non-vanishing, i.e. $`D_+=\mathrm{}`$. Also for a choice of $`\theta `$ orbits of the $`T^n`$-action give a SLag fibration on $`(MD_{},\omega ,e^{i\theta }\sigma )`$.

We remark that $`M^{}`$ coincides with the regular points of the $`T`$-action. Indeed points in $`MD_{}`$ are regular points of $`T^n`$-action. Also every point $`dD_{}`$ is a singular point of the $`T`$-action (since otherwise the $`T^c`$-orbit of $`d`$ is open in $`M`$, and it cannot be contained in $`D_{}`$).

3) The Grassmanian G(2,4): This is yet another example, for which $`H^1(M^{},)0`$ but we can construct a SLag fibration on $`M^{}`$. Consider the Grassmanian $`G(2,4)`$ of complex 2-planes in $`^4`$, which we identify with a quadric hypersurface $`M=(z_1z_2+z_3z_4+z_5z_6=0)`$ in $`P^5`$ (see  and ). The fourth power $`(\gamma ^{})^4`$ of the hyperplane bundle on $`P^5`$ restricted to $`M`$ is the anti-canonical bundle $`\overline{K}(M)`$. Thus polynomials of degree 4 give rise to holomorphic sections of $`\overline{K}(M)`$. There is a complex 3-torus $`T^c=(^{})^3`$-action on $`M`$ given by

$$(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _3)(z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)=(\lambda _1z_1,\lambda _1^1z_2,\mathrm{},\lambda _3z_5,\lambda _3^1z_6)$$

This action of course contains the action of the real torus $`T^3(^{})^3`$. We would like to find a homogeneous polynomial $`p`$ of degree 4 on $`^6`$ s.t. $`p`$ defines a $`T^c`$-invariants section of $`\overline{K}(M)`$. To do that we will carefully set up the $`T`$-equivariant identifications between various bundles we use.

First on $`P^5`$ there is a constant bundle $`C=^6`$. It contains a universal bundle $`\gamma `$ as a sub-bundle. The tangent bundle to $`P^5`$ is isomorphic to $`\gamma ^{}(C/\gamma )`$. There is a short exact sequence

$$\gamma \gamma ^{}C\gamma ^{}(C/\gamma )\gamma ^{}$$

Taking the canonical bundles of the elements in the sequence we get $`K(P^5)K(C)\gamma ^6`$. Of course the bundle $`K(C)`$ is trivial, but the isomorphism $`K(P^5)\gamma ^5`$ is not $`GL(6,)`$-equivariant, but it is $`SL(6,)`$-equivariant. Since our torus $`T^c`$ is in $`SL(6,)`$, we are fine.

Next consider the quadric $`M`$, which can be viewed as a zero set of a section $`\eta `$ of $`(\gamma ^{})^2`$. The canonical bundle of $`M`$ is isomorphic to $`NK(P^5)`$. Here $`N`$ is the normal bundle to $`M`$ in $`P^5`$ and the isomorphism is given by $`v\phi i_v\phi |_M`$. Also $`N`$ is isomorphic to $`(\gamma ^{})^2`$ with an isomorphism given by $`v_v\eta `$. Since $`\eta `$ is $`T^c`$-invariant, this isomorphism is $`T^c`$-equivariant. So overall we get that $`K(M)NK(P^5)(\gamma ^{})^2\gamma ^6\gamma ^4`$. Dually $`\overline{K}(M)(\gamma ^{})^4`$ and this isomorphism is $`T^c`$-equivariant.

Consider a polynomial $`p=(z_1z_2)^2+(z_3z_4)^2(z_5z_6)^2`$. Then it defines a $`T^c`$-invariant holomorphic section of $`\overline{K}(M)`$, and dually it defines a $`T^c`$-invariant meromorphic section $`\sigma `$ of $`K(M)`$, which defines a divisor $`D=D_{}`$, which is the zero set of $`p`$. Let $`M^{}=MD`$ and pick a $`T^3`$-invariant Kahler metric $`\omega `$ on $`M^{}`$ s.t. the action is Hamiltonian (e.g one can pick the induced metric from $`P^5`$). We would like to get a SLag fibration for $`(M^{},\omega ,\sigma )`$. We will see that $`H^1(M^{},)0`$, but we can still do that if we replace $`\sigma `$ by a multiple $`e^{i\theta }\sigma `$.

Let $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ be a basis for Lie algebra of $`T^3`$ and $`X_i`$ be corresponding flow vector fields on $`M`$. Let $`\sigma ^{}=i_{X_1}\mathrm{}i_{X_3}\sigma `$. Then from  we know that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a holomorphic $`(1,0)`$-form on $`M^{}`$. Moreover suppose that for some choice of $`\theta `$ we have $`Im(e^{i\theta }\sigma ^{})`$ is an exact 1-form on $`M^{}`$, i.e. it is equal to $`dh`$ for some function $`h`$. Then we saw in  that $`(M^{},\omega ,e^{i\theta }\sigma )`$ has a SLag fibration on it with fibers given as level sets of $`(\mu ,h)`$ (here $`\mu `$ is a moment map for the $`T^3`$-action on $`M^{}`$).

To find this $`\theta `$ consider the following map $`\beta :M^{}P^1`$ given by $`\beta (z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)=(z_1z_2,z_3z_4)`$. We will show that $`\beta `$ is well-defined and compute it’s image. First we claim that on $`M^{}`$ we can’t have $`z_1z_2=0`$ or $`z_3z_4=0`$. Indeed suppose $`z_1z_2=0`$. Then $`z_3z_4=z_5z_6`$, hence $`p(z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)=(z_1z_2)^2+(z_3z_4)^2(z_5z_6)^2=0`$ and we are on $`D`$ and not $`M^{}`$. So we deduce that $`\beta `$ is well-defined and it’s image lies in $`C^{}=P^1((1,0)(0,1))`$.

Next we show that $`\beta `$ is surjective onto $`C^{}`$. Indeed $`\beta `$ has local inverses $`\alpha (a,b)=(a,1,b,1,ab,1)`$ into $`M^{}`$ (here $`(a,b)`$ is in $`C^{}`$). $`p(a,1,b,1,ab,1)=2ab0`$ and so indeed $`(a,1,b,1,ab,1)M^{}`$.

The map $`\beta `$ is $`T^c`$-invariant. Take now $`(a,b)C^{}`$ s.t. $`a+b0`$ i.e. $`(a,b)(1,1)`$. If $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)\beta ^1((a,b))`$ then all $`z_i0`$. One easily deduces that $`\beta ^1((a,b))`$ is in fact the orbit of $`\alpha (a,b)`$ under $`T^c`$-action. Moreover because of the local inverse $`\alpha `$ the differential of $`\beta `$ is surjective at all points of $`\beta ^1((a,b))`$. So we get a principal fiber bundle $`M^{\prime \prime }=\beta ^1(C^{}(1,1))`$ over $`C^{}(1,1)`$ with the fiber being $`T^c`$.

Now the form $`\sigma ^{}`$ is $`T^c`$ -invariant. Moreover the tangent space to the orbits of $`T^c`$ is in the kernel of $`\sigma ^{}`$. From this we easily deduce that there is a holomorphic $`(1,0)`$-form $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }`$ on $`C^{}(1,1)`$ s.t. $`\beta ^{}(\sigma ^{\prime \prime })=\sigma ^{}`$. We claim that $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }`$ compactifies to a holomorphic $`(1,0)`$-form on $`C^{}`$. Indeed we have a local inverse $`\alpha `$ near $`(1,1)`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(\sigma ^{})=\sigma ^{\prime \prime }`$.

Now $`C^{}`$ is $`^{}`$, so $`H^1(C^{},)=`$. So one can find an angle $`\theta `$ s.t. $`Im(e^{i\theta }\sigma ^{\prime \prime })`$ is an exact 1-form on $`C^{}`$. We claim that also $`Im(e^{i\theta }\sigma ^{})`$ is an exact 1-form on $`M^{}`$. Indeed take a loop $`\gamma `$ on $`M^{}`$. Then one easily sees that

$$_\gamma Im(e^{i\theta }\sigma ^{})=_{\beta \gamma }Im(e^{i\theta }\sigma ^{\prime \prime })=0$$

and we are done.

## 3 Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces near a large complex limit Hypersurface

### 3.1 Deformation of SLag fibrations

In this section we wish to study Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces in an algebraic complexity one space $`M`$. We will assume that the anti-canonical bundle $`\overline{K}`$ of $`M`$ is ample and has a holomorphic section $`\eta `$, invariant under the $`T`$-action. Let $`D^{}`$ be a smooth part of the divisor $`D`$ of $`\eta `$. We will assume that $`\eta `$ is transversal to $`0`$ at $`D^{}`$. This defines a natural $`T^{n1}`$-invariant trivialization $`\phi ^{}`$ of the canonical bundle of $`D^{}`$. Indeed the canonical bundle of $`D^{}`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`KN`$. Here $`N`$ is a normal bundle to $`D^{}`$ and the isomorphism is explicitly given by $`\phi vi_v\phi |_D`$. Also the normal bundle $`N`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`\overline{K}`$, with isomorphism given by $`v_v\eta `$.

Take a connected component $`D_0`$ of $`D^{}`$. We assume that the $`T^{n1}`$-action on $`D_0`$ has a finite stabilizer $`H`$. We have an action of the quotients $`T_0=T^{n1}/H`$ and of $`T_0^c=T^c/H`$ on $`D_0`$. But $`T_0`$ is isomorphic to $`T^{n1}`$. Also the isomorphism between $`T_0`$ and $`T^{n1}`$ induces a biholomorphic isomorphism between $`T_0^c`$ and $`T^c`$. From these isomorphisms we get a holomorphic $`T^c`$-action on $`D_0`$, and this action preserves $`\phi ^{}`$. Also the corresponding $`T^{n1}`$-action is effective and it is Hamiltonian with respect to the metric $`\omega `$, induced from $`M`$. From Lemma 2 we deduce that the $`T^c`$-action is free and $`D_0`$ is biholomorphic to $`T^c`$. Also we can choose an angle $`\theta _0`$ s.t. orbits of the $`T^{n1}`$-action give a SLag fibration on $`D_0`$ for $`(\omega ,e^{i\theta _0}\phi ^{})`$. We have the following theorem :

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\eta ,D,D^{},D_0`$ be as above. Take $`N`$ to be any $`T`$-invariant compact subset of $`D_0`$ and $`U`$ a tubular neighbourhood of $`N`$ in $`M`$. Then there is a neighbourhood $`U_N`$ of $`\eta `$ in $`H^0(\overline{K}(M),M)`$ s.t. for $`\eta _pU_N`$ there is a SLag fibration of the neighbourhood $`U_p`$ in $`D_p`$ with respect to $`(\omega _p,e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{})`$.

Here $`D_p`$ is the zero set of $`\eta _p`$, $`U_p`$ contains $`D_pU`$, $`\omega _p`$ is the induced metric on $`D_p`$ from $`M`$, $`\phi _p^{}`$ is the natural trivialization of the canonical bundle of $`D_p`$, given by the section $`\eta _p`$ and $`\eta _p\theta _p`$ is a smooth function.

Proof: Choose a compact, $`T`$-invariant $`ND_0`$ and pick a compact, $`T`$-invariant neighbourhood $`N^{}`$ of $`N`$. Let $`U^{}`$ be a tubular neighbourhood of $`N^{}`$ in $`M`$.

For any $`\eta _pH^0(\overline{K}(M),M)`$ let $`D_p`$ be it’s zero set. The part of $`D_p`$ in $`U^{}`$ has a trivialization $`\phi _p^{}`$ of it’s canonical bundle, induced from the section $`\eta _p`$. Also one can choose a neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`\eta `$ in $`H^0(\overline{K}(M),M)`$ s.t. there is a map $`\alpha :N^{}\times VU^{}`$ so that $`D_pU^{}=\alpha (N,\eta _p)`$ for $`\eta _pV`$.

We wish to deform the SLag torus fibration on $`N^{}`$ to a SLag torus fibration on $`D_pU`$ for a tubular neighbourhood $`UU^{}`$ of $`N`$. To set up the deformation theory we consider $``$\- the connected component of the moduli-space of of $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ embeddings of $`T`$ into $`N^{}`$, which contains embeddings given by orbits of the $`T`$-action on $`N^{}`$. This is a Banach manifold, whose local chart at a particular (smooth) embedding are $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ sections of the normal bundle of the embedded $`T`$. We consider the space $`^{}=\times V`$, which can be thought as a space of embeddings of $`L`$ into various $`D_p`$ (with $`(f,\eta _p)\alpha (f,\eta _p)`$ for an embedding $`f`$).

So let $`(f,\eta _p)^{}`$ and $`\alpha (f,\eta _p)`$ be the corresponding embedding of $`T`$ into $`D_p`$. Then for a fixed $`\eta _p`$, various embeddings corresponding to different $`f`$’s are all isotopic in $`D_p`$, so they all carry the same isotopy class $`L_p`$ in $`D_p`$. The cohomology class $`[\omega ]`$ of $`\omega `$ restricted to $`D_p`$ is the cohomology class induced from $`\omega `$ on $`M`$. Also the image of $`\alpha (f,\eta _p)`$ is isotopic in $`M`$ to an orbit of the $`T`$-action on $`N^{}`$ and $`\omega `$ restricts to $`0`$ on the orbits. So $`[\omega ]|_{L_p}=0`$. Also on $`N`$ $`\phi ^{}`$ evaluated on orbits was not zero. By continuity $`\phi _p^{}(L_p)0`$. So we can choose $`e^{i\theta _p}`$ s.t.

$$Im(e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{}(L_p))=0$$

This $`e^{i\theta _p}`$ is defined up to a sign, and we can choose it to be a smooth function of $`\eta _p`$.

We want to consider the subset $`SLag^{}`$ of those embeddings $`(f,\eta _p)`$ s.t. the forms $`\omega `$ and $`Im(e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{})`$ restrict to $`0`$ on $`\alpha (f,\eta _p)`$. Let $`\pi :^{}V`$ be the projection onto the second factor. We also have a space $`S_0`$ of $`T`$-orbits in $`N^{}`$, and we will think of $`S_0\pi ^1(\eta )SLag`$. We have the following:

###### Lemma 3

The space $`SLag`$ near $`S_0`$ is a smooth manifold $`SLag_0`$ of dimension $`n1+2dim(H^0(\overline{K}(M),M))`$. Moreover the differential of the projection $`\pi `$, restricted to $`SLag_0`$ is surjective.

We claim that the statement of the Theorem follows from this Lemma. Indeed $`SLag_0`$ will be a fibration over $`V^{}`$ for sufficiently small neighbourhood $`V^{}`$ of $`\eta `$. If we choose any metric on $`SLag_0`$ (for instance the one induced from the product metric on $``$ and $`V^{}`$), then we have a horizontal distribution for the projection $`\pi `$ on $`SLag_0`$. For $`\eta _pV^{}`$ we can look at a line $`t\eta +t(\eta _p\eta )`$. This line induces a flow $`\rho _p(t)`$ on $`SLag_0`$, s.t $`\rho _p(1)`$ sends $`\pi ^1(\eta )`$ to $`\pi ^1(\eta _p)`$. It is an easy exercise in differential topology that one can choose a smaller neighbourhood $`U_N`$ of $`\eta `$ in $`H^0(\overline{K}(M),M)`$ s.t for $`\eta _pU_N`$ the image of $`S_0`$ under $`\rho _p(1)`$ gives a SLag fibration, which covers the neighbourhood $`UD_p`$.

Now we prove the Lemma: Since $`S_0`$ is compact, it is obviously enough to prove our claim near a point $`LS_0`$ (here we think of $`L`$ as an orbit of the $`T`$-action in $`N^{}`$). A neighbourhood $`Y`$ of $`L`$ in $``$ can be thought as a small ball in the space of $`C^{2,\alpha }`$ normal vector fields to $`L`$. There is a Banach vector bundle over $`^{}`$, given by the direct sum of exact $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ 2-forms with exact $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ $`(n1)`$-forms on $`T^{n1}`$. There is a section $`\sigma `$ of this bundle over $`Y\times V`$, given by $`\sigma (f,\eta _p)=(\alpha (f,\eta _p)^{}(\omega ),\alpha (f,\eta _p)^{}(Im(e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{})))`$. The space $`SLag`$ precisely corresponds to the zero set of this section.

We have shown in  that one can slightly generalize the argument of  to prove that the differential of this $`\sigma `$ is already surjective then restricted to the tangent space $`T_LT_L^{}`$ and the kernel of $`d\sigma `$ in $`T_L`$ is of dimension $`n1`$ (in our case the kernel in $`T`$ corresponds to vectors fields, which realize deformations of the orbits). So one deduces that $`SLag`$ is smooth of dimension $`n1+2dim(H^0(\overline{K}(M),M))`$ near $`L`$ and the differential of $`\pi `$ restricted to $`SLag`$ is surjective. Q.E.D.

Remark 2: Suppose $`D^{}`$ has several connected components. For each connected component we have a SLag fibration on a corresponding neighbourhood of $`D_p`$. But those fibrations are with respect to holomorphic volume forms $`e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{}`$ on $`D_p`$, there $`\theta _p`$ are potentially different for various connected components of $`D^{}`$. Suppose $`D_p`$ is smooth. Then $`\phi _p^{}`$ is a holomorphic volume form on $`D_p`$. It is clear from the proof that $`\theta _p`$ will coincide if the corresponding isotopy classes $`L_p`$ coming from different connected components of $`D^{}`$ define the same homology class in $`D_p`$. We will see two examples (3.2 and 3.3), in which this holds. Thus in particular we will produce SLag fibrations on subsets of $`D_p`$, whose complements have arbitrary small volume in $`D_p`$.

We would like to point out that Theorem 3 generalizes to complete intersections on a Kahler manifold $`M`$ with a $`T`$-action of complexity larger then 1. Indeed let $`(M^{2n},\omega )`$ be a Kahler manifold. Suppose that the anticanonical bundle $`\overline{K}(M)`$ is a tensor product

$$\overline{K}(M)L_1\mathrm{}L_d$$
(1)
Suppose we have a $`T^{nd}`$-action on $`M`$ s.t $`T^{nd}`$ also acts on the total space of each $`L_i`$. Moreover we assume that the action is equivariant with respect to the isomorphism (1). Suppose we have sections $`\eta _i`$ of $`L_i`$, which are invariant under the $`T`$-action. Let $`D`$ be their common zero set and $`D^{}`$ be the smooth part of $`D`$. We assume that $`(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _d)`$ is transversal to $`0`$ along $`D^{}`$. Thus we get a trivialization $`\phi ^{}`$ of the canonical bundle of $`D^{}`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ is invariant under the $`T`$ and the $`T^c`$-actions (here $`T^c`$ is a complex torus of dimension $`nd`$).

Let $`D_0`$ be a connected component of $`D^{}`$. Assume that the $`T`$-action on $`D_0`$ has a finite stabilizer $`H`$. We have, as before, the actions of the quotients $`T/H`$ and $`T^c/H`$ on $`D_0`$. The $`T^c/H`$ action will be free, $`D_0`$ is biholomorphic to $`T^c`$ and we can choose an angle $`\theta _0`$ s.t. orbits of the $`T`$-action will be SLag submanifolds of $`(D_0,\omega ,e^{i\theta _0}\phi ^{})`$. We will also have the following result, which generalizes Theorem 3:

###### Corollary 1

Let $`\eta =(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _d),D,D^{},D_0`$ be as above. Let $`N`$ be a compact, $`T`$-invariant subset of $`D_0`$ and $`U`$ be it’s tubular neighbourhood in $`M`$. Then we can choose a neighbourhood $`U_N`$ of $`\eta `$ in $`H^0(L_1,M)\times \mathrm{}\times H^0(L_d,M)`$ s.t for any $`\eta ^p=(\eta _1^p,\mathrm{},\eta _d^p)U_N`$ we have a SLag torus fibration on a neighbourhood $`U_p`$ of $`D_p`$ with respect to $`(\omega ,e^{i\theta _p}\phi _p^{})`$.

Here $`D_p`$ is the common zero set of $`(\eta _1^p,\mathrm{},\eta _d^p)`$, $`U_p`$ contains $`UD_p`$, $`\omega `$ is the induced metric on $`D_p`$, $`\phi _p^{}`$ is the trivialization of the canonical bundle of $`D_p`$, given by the section $`\eta _p`$ and $`\eta _p\theta _p`$ is smooth.

The proof of the Corollary is analogous to the proof of Theorem 3.

In Sections 3.2-3.4 we consider some examples there Theorem 3 and Corollary 1 apply.

### 3.2 Fermat type quintics in $`P^4`$

Consider $`P^n`$ with a $`T^c=(^{})^{n1}`$-action given by

$$(c_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1})(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n+1})=(c_1z_1,\mathrm{},c_{n1}z_{n1},c_j^1z_n,z_{n+1})$$

This action of course contains a $`T^{n1}T^c`$-action. Consider the following polynomial $`f_\lambda =z_j\lambda (z_{n+1})^{n+1}`$. Then for every $`\lambda `$ this polynomial defines a section of the anti-canonical bundle $`\overline{K}(P^n)`$, which is invariant under the $`T^c`$-action. There are essentially 2 distinct cases $`\lambda =0`$ or $`\lambda =1`$.

$`\lambda =\mathrm{𝟎}`$: $`D`$ has $`n+1`$ connected components $`D_j`$, given by $`D_j=(z_j=0)`$. Let $`D_j^{}`$ be the smooth part of $`D_j`$ in $`D`$, i.e. $`D_j^{}=(z_j=0,z_i0forij)`$. Consider the following 1-parameter family $`f^t=f_0+t\mathrm{\Sigma }z_j^{n+1}`$. Then $`n=4`$ the zero sets $`D_t`$ are Fermat type quintics. From each component $`D_j^{}`$ we get a SLag fibration on a corresponding part of $`D_t`$, but the fibrations are SLag for potentially different holomorphic volume forms on $`D_t`$ for different components $`D_j^{}`$ (see Remark 2). We will show that the isotopy classes $`L_t^j`$, coming from components $`D_j^{}`$, give the same homology class in $`D_t`$. Thus SLag fibrations will be with respect to one holomorphic volume form $`\phi _t`$ on $`D_t`$.

W.l.o.g it is enough to show that $`L_t^1`$ and $`L_t^2`$ define the same homology class in $`D_t`$. To show this consider a different $`T^{n1}`$-action on $`P^n`$, given by

$$(e^{i\theta _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _{n1}})(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n+1})=(z_1,z_2,e^{i\theta _1}z_3,\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _{n1}}z_{n+1})$$

This action has a moment map $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{n1})`$ with

$$\mu _j=\frac{|z_{j+2}|^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }|z_i|^2}$$

Consider the level set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mu ^1(1/2n,\mathrm{},1/2n)`$ restricted to $`D`$. It’s intersection with each of $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$ it will be 1 smooth orbit $`L_i`$ in the interior ($`i=1,2`$). Also $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will not intersect $`D_j`$ for $`j>2`$. Also $`L_i`$ are easily shown to coincide with the orbits of the original $`T^{n1}`$-action on $`D`$.

Consider now $`D_t`$ and $`\mu |_{D_t}`$. Then the level set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t=\mu ^1(1/2n,\mathrm{},1/2n)`$ on $`D_t`$ will also have 2 smooth components. Also clearly those components will be in the isotopy class of $`L_t^1`$ and $`L_t^2`$. Now the level set of any map to a non-compact manifold carries a trivial homology class. So $`L_t^1`$ and $`L_t^2`$ (with corresponding orientations) will have the same homology class in $`D_t`$ and we are done.

Remark 3: We have constructed Special Lagrangian fibrations on large parts of quintics near the large complex limit quintic. If one forgets about the Special condition and studies Lagrangian fibrations, then one can say more. In fact W.-D. Ruan has constructed in  and  Lagrangian tori fibrations on general quintics and also constructed symplectic mirrors to those fibrations.

$`\lambda =\mathrm{𝟏}`$: The singular points of $`D`$ are points there $`z_{n+1}=0`$ and $`z_1\mathrm{}z_n=0`$. The set of smooth points $`D^{}`$ will have 2 connected components: $`D_1^{}=(z_{n+1}=0,z_j0forj<n+1)`$ and $`D_2^{}=(z_j0)`$. $`D_1^{}`$ will be the orbit $`(1,\mathrm{},1,0)`$ under the $`T^c`$-action; $`D_2^{}`$ will be the orbit of $`(1,\mathrm{},1,1)`$ under $`T^c`$-action.

We have a moment map $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _{n1})`$ for the $`T^{n1}`$-action on $`P^n`$ with $`\mu _j=\frac{|z_j|^2|z_n|^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }|z_j|^2}`$. One easily sees that the preimage $`\mu ^1(0,\mathrm{},0)`$ doesn’t intersect the singular points of $`D`$. Also it intersects each component $`D_j^{}`$ in one smooth orbit of the $`T^{n1}`$-action. So we use the same trick as before to show that the isotopy classes $`L_t^1`$ and $`L_t^2`$ define the same homology class on $`D_t`$. Thus from Theorem 3 we get SLag fibrations on large parts of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces near the complex limit hypersurface $`D`$.

### 3.3 Calabi-Yau Hypersurfaces in the Grassmanian $`G(2,4)`$

Consider the Grassmanian $`M=G(2,4)`$ of 2-planes in $`^4`$, which we continue to identify with a quadric hypersurface $`z_1z_2+z_3z_4+z_5z_6=0`$ in $`P^5`$. We have a $`T^3`$ and a $`T^c=(^{})^3`$-action on $`M`$ as in Section 2.2. The polynomial $`f=(z_1z_2)^2+(z_3z_4)^2+(z_5z_6)^2`$ defines a $`T^c`$-invariant section of the anti-canonical bundle $`\overline{K}(M)`$.

The singular part of the zero set $`D`$ of $`f`$ corresponds to points $`z_{2j1}z_{2j}=0`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$. Let $`D^{}`$ be the smooth part of $`D`$ and $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)D^{}`$. We can assume w.l.o.g. that $`z_1z_2=1`$. Let $`z_3z_4=a`$. Then $`z_5z_6=a1`$ and $`a`$ satisfies $`a^2+a+1=0`$. We get 2 values $`a_i=\frac{1\pm \sqrt{3}i}{2}`$. For each $`a_i`$ we have a point $`b_i=(1,1,1,a_i,1,1a_i)`$ on $`D^{}`$. The orbits of $`T^c`$ through $`b_i`$ give 2 connected components $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$ of $`D^{}`$ (explicitly $`D_i^{}`$ are given by $`z_3z_4/z_1z_2=a_i`$).

The $`T^3`$-action has a moment map $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3)`$ with $`\mu _i=\frac{|z_{2i1}|^2|z_{2i}|^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }|z_j|^2}`$. The preimage $`\mu ^1(0,0,0)`$ doesn’t intersect the singular part of $`D`$. Also it intersects each of $`D_j^{}`$ at one smooth orbit. We use the same argument as in Section 3.2 to prove that the isotopy classes $`L_p^1`$ and $`L_p^2`$ on $`D_p`$ give the same homology class. Thus we can use Theorem 3 to obtain SLag fibrations on large parts of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces $`D_p`$, which are zero sets of polynomials $`f_p`$ of degree 4 for $`f_p`$ sufficiently close to $`f`$.

Remark 4: In  we gave an example of a SLag submanifold on a Calabi-Yau hypersurface in $`G(2,4)`$.

### 3.4 Complete intersection of two degree 3 hypersurfaces in $`P^5`$

In this section we want to illustrate an application of Corollary 1. Let $`M`$ be $`P^5`$. We decompose it’s anticanonical bundle as

$$\overline{K}(M)L_1L_2$$
(2)
Here $`L_1=L_2=(\gamma ^{})^3`$. We have a $`T^3`$-action on $`M`$, given by

$$(e^{i\theta _1},\mathrm{},e^{i\theta _3})(z_1,\mathrm{},z_6)=(e^{i\theta _1}z_1,e^{i\theta _2}z_2,e^{i\theta _3}z_3,e^{i(\theta _1+\theta _2)}z_4,e^{i(\theta _1+\theta _2\theta _3)}z_5,e^{i(\theta _1+\theta _2)}z_6)$$

Then $`T`$ acts on $`\overline{K}(M),L_1,L_2`$. Since the linear action of $`T`$ on $`^6`$ is in $`SL(6,)`$, the $`T`$-action is equivariant with respect to the isomorphism (2) (see example (3) in Section 2.2). We have 4 monomials $`g_1=z_1z_2z_4,g_2=z_3z_4z_5,g_3=z_1z_2z_6,g_4=z_3z_5z_6`$, which can be viewed as $`T`$-invariant sections of $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$. We pick $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _2`$ to be some of their linear combinations s.t. conditions of Corollary 1 hold. Thus we get SLag fibrations on large parts of complete intersections of 2 hypersurfaces of degree 3 in $`P^5`$ near $`(\eta _1,\eta _2)`$.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

E-Mail : egold@math.mit.edu


format: text

text:
# Achieving a wide field near infrared camera for the Calar Alto 3.5m telescope

## 1 SCIENTIFIC MOTIVATION

There are numerous scientific projects which would benefit from large area infrared surveys. Most fit into the category of discovering and characterising new objects. An example is a survey for very low mass stars, brown dwarfs and free floating giant planets in open clusters and star forming regions. All of these objects are cool ($`\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{eff}}`$$`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3000}`$) and have a significantly larger J than R or I band flux. They can thus be detected with their optical–infrared colour, or even their Z–J colours obtainable on the same HgCdTe detector.

Other areas of science which would benefit from surveys include: the initial mass function of star forming regions; the dark matter content and the age of the Galaxy from cool white dwarfs in the Galactic disk and halo; Galactic structure traced via K and M giants (which, due to the lower extinction in the near infrared, can be traced to larger distances); galaxy surveys at low Galactic latitudes; quasar surveys; star formation history and damped Lyman alpha galaxies; high redshift galaxies; gravitational lenses and the cosmological constant.

To serve these scientific goals, we plan to build a wide field near infrared (0.8–2.5$`\mu `$m) imaging camera for doing large area surveys. Given the nature of the Calar Alto Observatory as a resource for German and Spanish astronomers, this camera (Omega 2000) is intended for use in common-user mode rather than undertaking pre-defined surveys.

Some projects are less concerned with area coverage than with volume, in which case deep ‘pencil-beam’ surveys are more suitable. This may be the appropriate strategy when searching for objects at a range of distances, and in some cases may be more efficient than shallower wide field surveys . A list of current and future near infrared survey facilities is given in Table 1.

The rest of this paper is as follows. After giving the important characteristics of the detector, we discuss the general issues influencing the design of the instrument. Much attention is paid to baffling schemes to minimise thermal radiation from the telescope structures. The chosen optical design for Omega 2000 is then presented, a long with a brief discussion of the electronic and software systems and readout modes required for this high data rate instrument.

## 2 INFRARED DETECTOR

The detector is a major factor influencing the design of an infrared camera, largely because of the limited choice and high cost of the available arrays. The largest near infrared science grade array currently available are 1K$`\times `$1K. These are in use in a number of existing cameras, such as the Omega Prime and Omega Cass cameras at Calar Alto. Omega 2000 will use the next generation HAWAII-2 2K$`\times `$2K HgCdTe array from Rockwell . This is very similar to the HAWAII array, except that it has slightly smaller pixels (18.0$`\mu `$m instead of 18.5$`\mu `$m) and 32 rather than 4 outputs, allowing a faster readout (Table 2). The arrays are expected to have a very high filling factor (i.e. essentially no ‘dead area’ between the pixels). Due to the background limited observing conditions, the detector will be operated with a 1 V reset voltage to increase the full well capacity to about 200,000 electrons.

## 3 DESIGN ISSUES

### 3.1 General Considerations

The primary science goal which Omega 2000 must address is wide field imaging, and for a fixed size array this demands that we should have the largest feasible pixel scale (acrseconds per pixel). “Feasible” in this case means (1) compatible with one of the focal stations (prime or Cassegrain) on the 2.2m or 3.5m telescopes at Calar Alto; (2) able to produce high quality images; (3) producible within an acceptable timescale ($`<`$2 years) and budget ($`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}`$1 million DM). The timescale is set by the need to bring new technology into prompt scientific use and the delivery time of the science grade array (summer 2001).

Optical design problems aside, the upper limit on the pixel scale is set by requiring a sufficient sampling of the PSF to permit accurate photometry. Too large a pixel scale means that the PSF is undersampled, resulting in increased photometric errors. A low filling factor of the arrays would increase errors further. The size of the PSF is set by the seeing rather than diffraction at these wavelengths and this aperture size. Only limited seeing statistics are available for the 3.5m on Calar Alto: over the period 1993 to 1995, the median near infrared seeing was 1.0′′, and only better than 0.8′′ 22% of the time. (These values may be slightly optimistic as they rely on integration times of less than 3s.) Sampling theory specifies that at least two pixels should span the FWHM of the PSF. However, in order to remove the variable background level common to infrared imaging, it is usually necessary to take multiple images of a given field with non-integer pixel offsets (dithers) between them. This enables a reconstruction of the PSF through sub-pixel sampling, using methods such as those employed with the undersampled WFPC2 camera on HST (e.g. the ‘drizzle’ algorithm ). Thus pixel scales of between 0.4$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix and 0.5$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix were considered for Omega 2000 on the grounds that they would only give a slight undersampling for a small fraction of the time.

The financial constraints of this project require that the instrument make use of existing telescope optics. Furthermore, as this will only be one of several instruments on the telescope, modifications to the telescope itself are not permitted. The design of our system is therefore limited to ‘conventional’ prime or Cassegrain focus solutions. If these constraints are relaxed, more sophisticated optical designs which allow good optical quality across a large (c. 1 deg.) field-of-view become possible. An example is a three-mirror telescope combined with a Schmidt-type corrector plate, as will be used by the wide field near infrared camera for UKIRT (WFCAM, see Atad-Ettedgui et al., these proceedings) and the dedicated infrared/optical survey telescope VISTA (Table 1). Although the former has made use of an existing telescope it requires a new f/9 secondary mirror, and has some other drawbacks (see section 3.2).

The dominant noise source for ground-based infrared imaging cameras is usually photon noise from the background. A significant part is from the bright sky, which (at night) is predominantly OH airglow (below 3$`\mu `$m) or thermal emission (above 3$`\mu `$m) . However, thermal radiation from the warm (0–15 C) telescope mirrors, structure and dome is significant longwards of about 2.2$`\mu `$m, i.e. for the K band . Therefore, as much of the optics as possible should be enclosed in a cold environment (a dewar). Often, the pupil is reimaged onto a cold Lyot stop to minimise the amount of radiation reaching the detector from structures around the mirror surfaces. However, the complex optics required for pupil reimaging can degrade the optical quality of the image to unacceptable levels as the field of view and/or pixel scale is increased. Nonetheless, a wide field of view can be achieved by dispensing with the reimaging optics and working at low f-ratio, for example at prime focus, but at the expense of a larger background in the K band.

There is, therefore, a trade-off between K band sensitivity, field-of-view (or pixel scale) and optical quality. This trade-off can be seen with the Omega Prime and Omega Cass infrared cameras at Calar Alto (Table 1). The former at prime focus has 1.8 times the field of view of the latter at Cassegrain focus, but is less sensitive in K. We stress that this trade-off is only relevant for the K band. In the J and H bands, thermal radiation from the warm surfaces is negligible compared to the OH emission from the sky. Thus if we only wanted a wide field imaging camera which operated up to about 2$`\mu `$m, prime focus would be the best option.

Weighing up these opposing factors is difficult, especially for a common-user instrument which will be used for a whole range of science projects. However, the scientific emphasis is on wide field imaging, and provided the K band problem is not too severe (see section 3.2) a large field was felt to be a more significant requirement. Furthermore, a reimaging Cassegrain focus solution would require more optics (minimum of 8 aspherical lenses) and probably a non-standard dewar, increasing project time and cost by about 50%.

We also investigated a non-reimaging Cassegrain focus design. As with the prime focus design, extra background from around the pupil can be seen by the detector. If the secondary mirror is undersized then the secondary is the pupil, and the extra background comes from the cold sky. This is a much lower background flux than the warm floor/dome, although the beam from the primary is vignetted by the undersized secondary. If an exact-sized secondary mirror is used the beam is not vignetted, but the camera would see some floor/dome via the secondary. However, in both cases the reduction of the beam from f/10 (from the existing secondary mirror) to f/2.35 (to achieve 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix) gave extremely poor optical quality, so this design had to be rejected.

### 3.2 Baffling a Non-reimaging Camera

The remaining design choices for Omega 2000 are therefore a Cassegrain focus camera with a cold Lyot stop and a no-cold stop prime focus camera. In this section we investigate the relative sensitivities and survey speeds of such cameras and as well as different baffling schemes for prime focus cameras.

Each detector pixel receives all the light from the $`2\pi `$ steradians (hemisphere) in the direction of the dewar window. Most of this is cold, dark dewar which contributes negligible radiation. With a Lyot stop, the rest of the light is from the pupil, but when it is omitted, radiation from the warm surfaces (telescope structure, floor/dome etc.) around the pupil reaches the detector, and the noise in this radiation lowers the instrument’s K band sensitivity.

This radiation can be reduced in a prime focus design by placing a cold annular baffle between the detector and primary mirror (Fig. 1). The further this baffle is from the detector (and the nearer it is to the pupil), the smaller is the solid angle subtended by warm surfaces at the detector. The ideal place for the baffle is at the primary mirror, but a cold baffle of 3.5m radius is not feasible! The only practical place is therefore inside the detector dewar, and its maximum distance from the detector is set by one or more of the following:

1. not vignetting the beam reaching the primary mirror from the sky,
2. the optical quality, mechanical stability and availability of the large dewar window,
3. the cost of and heat load on the increasingly larger dewar.

Typically one would use a baffle which is just large enough so as not to obstruct the view of the primary mirror from any point on the detector. This condition we call critical vignetting. Note that the larger the field-of-view, the larger this baffle must be in order to not vignet, and so the larger the solid angle of warm floor/dome which can be seen. This puts a sensitivity penalty on large pixel scales at prime focus. As the baffle is decreased in radius from its critically vignetting size, the floor/dome solid angle is reduced but at the expense of vignetting the light from the primary mirror (Fig. 2). Note that the amount of primary mirror which can be seen by a given pixel depends on the location of that pixel on the detector. This gives rise to differential vignetting across the field of view. As the baffle is made smaller still, there comes a point at which no floor/dome can be seen from any point on the detector and there is nothing gained in reducing the baffle radius further. This condition we refer to as super vignetting, and has the advantage of uniform vignetting across the whole field of view.

We have done some simulations to see how the sensitivity of an instrument on the 3.5m varies between these two extreme vignetting conditions. With a 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix prime focus camera and a cold baffle fixed 0.8m from the detector, its inner radius is varied between 160mm (critical vignetting) and 82mm (super vignetting). The calculation assumes that the background is due to thermal radiation from the primary mirror (r=1.75m, $`ϵ`$=0.06) and its central hole (r=0.325m, $`ϵ`$=1.0), and the signal is proportional to the area of the primary which can be seen (minus its hole). Sources are assumed to be black bodies at ambient temperatures. The cold baffle is in the dewar so contributes negligible radiation. Radiation from the primary support structure has also been neglected. We further assume that OH emission from the sky contributes an equal111This is what is expected in summer. In winter the thermal radiation from the optical surfaces in a perfectly baffled camera only accounts for about 20% of the total background, the rest being sky OH emission. Thus in winter the performance of the prime focus camera relative to a Cassegrain focus one will be better than that shown here. amount of background radiation as the thermal emission from the primary mirror (McCaughran et al., unpublished). Thermal emission from the sky at these wavelengths is negligible compared to the OH emission. Fig. 3 shows how the sensitivity of the instrument relative to a perfectly baffled Cassegrain focus camera changes with baffle size. This perfect camera has only thermal emission from the primary mirror and hole, plus thermal emission from an exact-sized secondary mirror with an assumed emissivity of 0.03. As a reimaging Cassegrain focus camera would have several more lenses, it would have a slightly lower throughput, so the sensitivities of the prime focus systems relative to this are slightly conservative.

These simulations show that the prime focus camera is almost always less sensitive than a perfectly baffled Cassegrain focus camera in the K band. Interestingly, however, the performance of the prime focus camera is improved (sometimes considerably) by using an undersized baffle. The optimum baffling radius is different for different points on the detector, because the projection of the baffle onto the primary mirror is different for each detector point.

The situation can be improved by adding a warm baffle further away from the detector. The ideal case would be to put a 3.5m diameter high reflectivity ring around the primary mirror which looks through the dome slit at the cold sky. But as it would need an outer radius of almost 4.6m, it would be very expensive and highly impractical. Hence the warm baffle must hang as far below the dewar window as is possible without vignetting the beam from the sky, which is about 1.7m for the Calar Alto 3.5m (see section 4.1). As in Omega Prime, the warm baffle is a polished ellipsoidal annulus which looks into the dewar window to avoid collecting radiation from warm surfaces . Gold coating will further lower its emissivity, but we conservatively assume $`ϵ`$=0.10 here. Fig. 4 shows how the sensitivity varies as we change the size of this baffle. Note that a critically vignetting cold baffle is also included to reduce the amount of the warm baffle seen by the detector. Because the warm baffle is further from the detector, the variation in sensitivity both for different pixel positions and baffle sizes is less than in Fig. 3. Moreover, the sensitivity relative to the perfect Cassegrain focus camera is better. Uniform sensitivity across the whole field-of-view is usually desirable for a survey instrument, so in practice the super vignetting case may be preferred to intermediate vignetting.

As mentioned earlier, a larger field of view requires a larger baffle for any given vignetting mode, and therefore a reduced camera sensitivity. To get a quantitative idea of this, we repeated the above calculations for the super and critical vignetting modes but for two different pixel scales, 0.40$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix and 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix, and with baffles at various distances. The results are shown in Table 3 and indicate that for a given pixel scale and baffle distances, super vignetting provides better sensitivity than critical vignetting. Having the cold baffle 1.0m rather than 0.8m from the detector gives only a relatively small improvement, and the extra demands this places on the system (e.g. larger dewar window) are probably not worth it. When super vignetting with the warm baffle, the 0.40$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix camera is 1.18 times faster for a single shot than the 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix camera. However the 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix scale covers a large area 1.27 times faster, with the net result that the 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix scale is slightly faster for K band surveys. Of course, in the J and H bands super vignetting should never be used, so implementation of super vignetting requires a baffle which can be rapidly (and automatically) moved. Note that the 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix camera in super vignetting mode should have the same K band sensitivity as the current Omega Prime camera (which has a critically vignetting warm baffle). Interestingly, Omega Prime camera should be about 15% faster if it had a super vignetting warm baffle. Such a baffle has been made, but attempts to test it on the telescope have so far been foiled by bad weather.

The 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix camera is still 2.2 times slower than a perfectly baffled Cassegrain focus camera. However, as a pixel scale of only about 0.35$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix with good optical quality could be achieved at Cassegrain focus, the survey speed of the perfect Cassegrain focus camera is only about 1.3 times faster in K, and 1.7 times slower in J and H. It should be emphasised that these figures are rather sensitive to the assumptions laid out above, in particular with regard to the emissivity of the optical surfaces and the fraction of OH emission from the sky. Lowering the emissivity or temperature of the warm baffle in particular leads to much better sensitivity.

A three-mirror Cassegrain focus camera similar to that which will be used by WFCAM on UKIRT (3.8m f/2.5 primary) would be possible for the 3.5m at Calar Alto. However, although the current WFCAM design has a cold Lyot stop, it has a vignetting transmission of 73% in all wavebands (WFCAM web pages, ATC, Edinburgh). This is very similar to the K band transmission of Omega 2000 when using the super vignetting warm baffle. Additionally, WFCAM has a center-to-corner distortion of 0.5%, or 42 pixels. However, the super vignetting Omega 2000 design does not appear to be extendible to the much larger field-of-view obtainable with WFCAM.

## 4 OMEGA 2000 DESIGN

### 4.1 Optical Design

Following all of the considerations described in section 3.1, we decided to place Omega 2000 at the prime focus of the 3.5m telescope with a 0.45$`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }/`$pix scale. The optical system consists of four lenses (Fig. 5) and has excellent optical quality (Figs. 6, 7 and 8). Three filter wheels are envisaged, each with slots for six 3 inch (7.6cm) diameter filters. The parameters for the system are given in Table 4.

The very low distortion of $`<`$0.06% is less than 1 pixel center-to-corner, permitting images to be overlaid with a simple x,y shift. As demonstrated in the previous section, the sensitivity will be very similar to Omega Prime: with a two minute integration in 1′′ seeing, the central pixel of a point source is 5$`\sigma `$ above the background noise at limits of J=19.2, H=18.1 and K’=17.5 magnitudes . This compares with a mean sky brightness of approximately J=15.2, H=13.6 and K’=13.0 (MAGIC instrument web pages, Calar Alto).

### 4.2 Mechanical Design

All of the optics will be enclosed in a dewar cooled with liquid nitrogen. The design will be similar to that of Omega Prime  with two nested tanks to ensure a stable temperature of 77 K. The optimal baffling was discussed in section 3.2. A fixed critically vignetting cold baffle is on the inside of the dewar window. The window has a radius of 350mm. The cylindrical dewar will be about 0.6m in diameter and between 1.5m and 2.0m long: the exact figure will depend on the final cryogenic design. The heat load on the dewar is large, approximately 300W. A second warm baffle shaped as an oblate ellipsoid sits 1.1m from the dewar window (i.e. 1.7m from the detector). This distance corresponds with the bottom of the existing light shield attached to the bottom of the front ring. This shield actually slightly vignets the beam from the sky, but as it is required for other instruments it cannot be removed. Although the exact design has not yet been worked out, the warm baffle will be moveable between the critical and super vignetting modes (or may consist of two separate baffles). The former mode will be used for the J and H bands, and the latter for the K band. The projection of the super vignetting baffle onto the primary mirror (as seen from the detector) has a diameter of 3.0m, so does not threaten to diffraction limit the instrument at the longest wavelength (2.5$`\mu `$m).

### 4.3 Electronics and Readout Modes

A general readout electronic system is being developed in house. This will be used for a number of different instruments currently under development at MPIA, including Omega 2000 and the MIDI interferometer for the VLT. Only small modifications are required for different detector types.

The HAWAII-2 detector works either with 1 signal channels per quadrant or with 8 signal channels per quadrant simultaneously. All four quadrants can be operated in parallel. The pixels can be clocked at up to 1 MHz which will deliver 1 Megapixels per second per signal channel, with each pixel represented as 16 bits. The minimum integration time is given by the frame readout time, which is the normal state for arrays with integrate-while-read working mode. When working with all 32 channels, the data rate will be 64 Mbyte/sec and the full frame rate is about 8Hz. With only 4 channels (1 per quadrant) the data rate is 4 Mbyte/sec and the full frame rate is about 1Hz.

The background limit will be reached in broadband imaging with the HAWAII-2 array on Omega 2000 in a few seconds. Many images (“repeats”) are therefore required to achieve sufficient SNR, so it is very important that the array can be read out quickly with minimum dead time. It is also not necessary to use readout modes which greatly reduce the read noise. There are three different double correlated readout (DCR) modes suitable for detectors with non-destructive readout modes, such as the HAWAII detectors, and each give very different readout efficiencies:

1. Double correlated read. This is the most conservative mode, in that it passes throught the whole array three times to achieve a single image. The first time the whole array is reset, in the second the whole array is read to determine the pixel bias (offset) values, and finally the third read measures the integrated (light-exposed) values. The difference between the integrated and bias values for each pixel is the signal. At minimum integration time the efficiency (as measured by the ratio of integration time to total cycle time required to achieve an image) is 33%. To achieve an integration time longer than the minumum, there is a pause after the second reading of the whole array.
2. Double correlated read with fast reset. This is the current standard readout mode for MPIA instruments. In this mode the whole array must be clocked twice to achieve a single image. First, the whole array is clocked line by line, in which a fast reset is applied to the line followed immediately by a read of that line to determine the pixel biases. Then the whole array is clocked line by line a second time at the same speed as the first array clocking to read the integrated pixel values. The efficiency is 50% for the minimum integration time.
3. Full MPIA mode. The problem with the previous mode is that as soon as the array has been clocked the second time to read the integrated pixel values, those pixels continue to integrate: they are only reset once the first clocking (reset-read) of the next cycle is started. Full MPIA improves upon this by having only a single type of pass through the whole array. The array is clocked line by line starting with a read of the integrated pixels of a line, followed by a fast reset of that line, and then a read of the pixel bias values of that line. These bias values are those which will be subtracted from the integrated pixel values obtained the next time the whole array is read. Once the whole array has been read, there is a pause (if the integration time is above the minimum) and the cycle repeated for as many images (“repeats”) as required. Essentially no time is now wasted, and for any integration time the efficiency of this mode is almost 100%.

Whereas the first mode is a completely array-oriented approach, the full MPIA mode is a completely line-oriented approach. DCR with fast reset is essentially a mix of the two. Full MPIA mode is more efficient because each line is reset and the bias values read immediately after reading the integrated pixel values: DCR mode with fast reset waits until the whole array has been read before reseting. To obtain just a single image, DCR with fast reset takes the same time as full MPIA mode, but for a sequence of many repeats, full MPIA mode is much quicker (Table 5). The relative speeds for different integration times of the three modes has been empirically determined at MPIA using HAWAII arrays (Fig. 9). Note that the minimum integration time with full MPIA mode is twice that of DCR mode with fast reset (0.25 rather than 0.125s for the HAWAII-2), but this is not a problem for Omega 2000.

### 4.4 Data Acquisition and Control Software

The MPIAs GEneric InfraRed camera Software (GEIRS)  will also be used for Omega 2000. The new challenge is the 26 times higher data rate compared to the 1K$`\times `$1K HAWAII detector on existing instruments. The data acquisition software must be able to sustain this data rate continuously, apply necessary preprocessing tasks, have data visualization control and save the data in time to non-volatile storage disks. The data are acquired by either one or two 30 MHz 16bit parallel interfaces.

The handling of the increased data rate can only be organised in a current state of the art symmetrical multiprocessor system (e.g. a SPARC Ultraserver 450), where nearly the full memory bandwidth is consumed for the basic tasks needed to control the camera system and human interfacing. The software package is already optimised for minimal usage of memory by sharing data memory between all processes. To keep the jobs synchronised without loss of efficiency, further parallelization making optimal use of the multiprocessing capabilities has to be implemented. The granularity of the shared memory buffers for the parallel processing also has to be reorganised to make more efficient use of the increased internal working memory. Although this can be done with standard computer architecture, there remains the option of using distributed processing on standard hardware with distributed memory (the so-called “multiple instructions on multiple data” organization).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A linear collider with both beams polarized will be an excellent tool not only to discover supersymmetric particles but also to determine the underlying SUSY model. Associated neutralino production $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ could be the first kinematically accessible process that may allow a discrimination between the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) and its nonminimal extensions. Polarization of both beams will clearly facilitate this challenging task.

An extensive analysis of polarization and spin effects in neutralino production and subsequent decay including the complete spin correlations in the MSSM has been performed in . This study also includes extended SUSY models: the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) with an additional Higgs singlet superfield and an $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ inspired model with a Higgs singlet and a new $`\mathrm{U}(1)^{}`$ gauge boson. Significant differences between the MSSM and SUSY models with gauge singlets arise by the neutralino singlet components which do not couple to (scalar) fermions and standard gauge bosons. Within a special scenario, where the masses of the light neutralinos were fixed in the three SUSY models and the lightest neutralino had a large singlino component in the extended models, the cross sections for neutralino production at an $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider with polarized beams have been discussed in , and complete different polarization asymmetries have been found.

Now the study of the polarization effects is extended to a large region of the parameter space where the lightest neutralino is mainly a singlino. Comparing the longitudinally polarized cross sections we identify the parameter regions where polarization effects may help to specify nonminimal supersymmetric models. Of course for an exact determination of the SUSY parameters and discrimination between SUSY models a precise analysis also of the decay characteristics is indispensable. For a special scenario this was done in , the extension to the whole parameter space is planned.

In the following sections 2 and 3 we introduce the considered SUSY models and show the unpolarized cross section for the neutralino production. Crucial for the understanding of the polarization effects are the couplings of the left and right selectrons to the produced neutralinos that will be discussed in section 4. A comprehensive comparison of the longitudinally polarized cross sections in the MSSM and the extended models in section 5 concludes our contribution.

## 2 Extended SUSY: NMSSM and E6 model

We shortly present the parameters and the neutralino sectors of the supersymmetric models. In the MSSM the neutralino sector depends on the gaugino mass parameters $`M_2`$ and $`M_1`$, the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$. In this paper we assume the GUT-relation $`M_1/M_2=5/3\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W`$ and scan over the $`M`$-$`\mu `$ plane with fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3`$. The longitudinally polarized cross sections for neutralino production are compared with two extended SUSY models.

The NMSSM is the simplest extension of the MSSM by a Higgs singlet field with vacuum expectation value $`x`$ and hypercharge $`0`$ . The masses and couplings of the five neutralinos depend on $`M_2`$, $`M_1`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`x`$ and the trilinear couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ in the superpotential. Within the NMSSM, a light singlino-like neutralino cannot be experimentally excluded by LEP . In order to obtain a light singlino-like neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ we choose in the following $`x=1000`$ GeV and $`\kappa =0.01`$. Then nearly independently of the other parameters the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ has singlino character and a mass between about 9 and 28 GeV while the masses and mixings of the heavier neutralinos correspond to the MSSM with $`\mu =\lambda x`$.

Models with additional U(1) factors in the gauge group are a further extension of the MSSM beyond the NMSSM. They can be motivated by superstring theory  and imply an $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ group as effective GUT group, which is broken to an effective low energy gauge group of rank 5 with one additional $`\mathrm{U}(1)^{}`$ factor. This $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model contains one new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ and an extended Higgs sector with one singlet superfield with vacuum expectation value $`x`$ as in the NMSSM . To respect the experimental mass bounds of new gauge bosons  the vacuum expectation value of the singlet must be larger than 1 TeV.

The extended neutralino sector in the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model contains six neutralinos, one $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ gaugino and one singlino $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ in addition to the MSSM . The $`6\times 6`$ neutralino mass matrix depends on six parameters: the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}`$, U(1)Y and $`\mathrm{U}(1)^{}`$ gaugino mass parameters $`M_2`$, $`M_1`$ and $`M^{}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`x`$ and the trilinear coupling $`\lambda `$ in the superpotential. With the GUT relation $`M^{}=M_1`$ between the U(1) gaugino mass parameters the four lighter neutralinos always have MSSM-like character if the MSSM parameter $`\mu `$ is identified with $`\lambda x`$ , and the two heaviest neutralinos have large $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ components. Assuming $`|M^{}|x,M_1`$, however, the lightest neutralino can be a nearly pure singlino . Then $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_5^0`$ have MSSM-like character and the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_6^0\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ has a mass $`𝒪(M^{})`$. Such scenarios where the spectrum of the lighter neutralinos is similar to the NMSSM will be discussed in the following.

Table 1 gives an overview over the described fixed parameters, while the remaining parameters $`M_2`$ and $`\mu `$ (or $`\lambda x`$) were scanned in the region $`0M_2500`$ GeV, $`500\mu (\lambda x)500`$ GeV observing the experimental bounds from the unsuccessful chargino and neutralino search at LEP2 . Also shown are the masses and singlino components of the lightest neutralino in the extended models which do not extensively vary over the scanned parameter region. The selectron masses $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}=176`$ GeV and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}=132`$ GeV are motivated by the DESY/ECFA reference scenario  and are fixed in all three models, for comparison.

## 3 Unpolarized cross sections

In this section we address the question if a neutralino with a dominant singlino component can be directly produced with a sufficient cross section at a linear collider.

The neutralino production cross section in the MSSM is well known . Fig. 1(a) shows the contour lines for the unpolarized cross section $`\sigma ^{(00)}`$ of $`e^+e^{}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ at a c.m.s. energy $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV in the $`M_2`$-$`\mu `$ parameter space. Depending on the masses and mixing characters of the light neutralinos it takes values up to 200 fb over most of the parameter space. Note the discontinuities (bold lines) for both positive and negative $`\mu `$ where $`m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0}=m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_3^0}`$ and therefore the mixing character of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ changes .

In the NMSSM with a light singlino-dominated neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ the unpolarized cross section (Fig. 2(a)) is significantly smaller since the singlino component does not couple to the $`Z`$ boson and the selectrons. It is only the small contribution from the other components of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ that accounts for the cross section. Nevertheless one gets even for a neutralino with a singlino component larger than 90 % production cross sections up to 30 fb which are expected to be clearly visible at a high luminosity linear collider ($`=500/`$fb) . The use of polarized beams can still enhance these cross sections as we discuss in the following sections.

In the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model we explicitly study the dependence of the unpolarized cross sections on the parameter $`M^{}`$ in Figs. 3(a) – 5(a). For the large negative value $`M^{}=50`$ TeV (Fig. 3(a)) the masses and the mixings of the light neutralinos are similar as in the NMSSM. Therefore one also obtains similar cross sections up to 9 fb. For positive $`M^{}`$ (Figs. 4(a), 5(a)), however, the singlino component is larger than $`99.4\%`$ in the whole parameter space. Thus the cross sections are reduced to maximum values of about 0.2 fb for $`\lambda x<0`$ and 0.5 fb for $`\lambda x>0`$ leading to at least 100 respective 250 events at the expected high luminosity linear collider.

## 4 Neutralino couplings to selectrons and electrons

If apart from the singlino component which does not contribute to the production process both produced neutralinos $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ have dominant gaugino components, the contribution of $`Z`$ exchange can be neglected for energies above the $`Z`$ peak. Then for longitudinally polarized beams the cross section consists of two terms describing the exchange of left and right selectrons $`\sigma =\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}+\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$. The structure of $`\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}}`$ is

$$\sigma _{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}}=(f_{e1}^{L/R}f_{e2}^{L/R})^2\left[(1P^{}P^+)(P^{}P^+)\right]\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(s,m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_{L/R}},m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{1/2}^0})$$
(1)
where $`P^{}`$ and $`P^+`$ are the longitudinal polarizations of the electron and positron beam, respectively, and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is a function of the beam energy and the particle masses. For selectron masses of the same order of magnitude $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ the polarization behavior is significantly determined by the ratio

$$r_f=\frac{(f_{e1}^Rf_{e2}^R)^2}{(f_{e1}^Lf_{e2}^L)^2}$$
(2)
of the couplings of the produced neutralinos to the left handed and right handed electrons and selectrons $`f_{ei}^{L/R}`$ . The effects of different masses, especially the extreme cases $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}()`$ $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$, are shortly mentioned in the following section.

In this contribution we consider longitudinal beam polarizations of $`P^{}=\pm 0.85`$ for electrons and $`P^+=\pm 0.6`$ for positrons . The solid lines in Figs. 1(b), 4(b) and 5(b) show the contour for $`r_f=1`$. In the NMSSM and the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with negative $`M^{}`$ (Figs. 2(b) and 3(b)) it is always $`r_f>1`$. This contour line clearly separates the gray shaded regions with maximum cross sections for polarization configurations $`(+)`$ (right handed polarized electrons and left handed polarized positrons) or $`(+)`$ (vice versa) in the MSSM (Fig. 1(b)) in the gaugino region ($`M_22|\mu |`$). In the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model (Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)) the situation is more complicated because the higgsino components of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ are larger than the gaugino components in the whole parameter space. Nevertheless the contour $`r_f=1`$ approximately describes the polarization behavior. The polarization effects in detail are discussed in the following section.

## 5 Polarized cross sections

We compare the longitudinally polarized cross sections $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ and $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ where $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ denotes the polarization configuration $`(P^{}=+0.85,P^+=0.6)`$ and $`(P^{}=0.85,P^+=+0.6)`$, respectively. These polarization asymmetries may help to distinguish between the SUSY models. Figs. 1(b) – 5(b) present the regions where the different polarizations $`(+)`$ or $`(+)`$ lead to maximum cross sections. Polarization configurations with both beams polarized in the same direction or only one beam polarized are always smaller.

The following remarks apply to all models: If the gaugino-character of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ is not too small (which is the case in the MSSM for $`M_22|\mu |`$) $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ dominates if the gaugino-coupling of the left selectron is larger than that of the right one, $`r_f<1`$, and the mass difference between the selectrons is rather small. Analogously for $`r_f>1`$, $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ turns out to be the dominating cross section.

This situation may change for other selectron masses. If $`m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_L}()m_{\stackrel{~}{e}_R}`$ the exchange of the left (right) selectron in the neutralino production is strongly suppressed and $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ ($`\sigma ^{(+)}`$) dominates in the whole gaugino region, cf. .

If the gaugino components of the produced neutralinos can be neglected, the ratio of the neutralino-selectron-electron couplings plays no role and the asymmetry in the MSSM and NMSSM

$$\frac{\sigma ^{(+)}\sigma ^{(+)}}{\sigma ^{(+)}+\sigma ^{(+)}}\frac{|P^{}|+|P^+|}{1+|P^{}||P^+|}\frac{L^2R^2}{L^2+R^2}>0$$
(3)
depends only on the electron-$`Z`$ couplings $`L=1/2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`R=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. So $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ is generally largest in the MSSM higgsino region $`M_22|\mu |`$, whereas in the NMSSM the gaugino components of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ always cause $`\sigma ^{(+)}>\sigma ^{(+)}`$ for $`M_2<500`$ GeV. In the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model formula (3) becomes more complicated due to $`Z^{}`$ exchange.

Because of $`r_f>1`$ in the NMSSM and in the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with $`M^{}=50`$ TeV $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ dominates in the whole parameter space. In the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with positive $`M^{}`$ both cases $`r_f>1`$ and $`r_f<1`$ occur. Thus $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ as well as $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ can be largest. The form of the respective parameter regions crucially depends on the value of $`M^{}`$ (compare Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)) and is only approximately given by the contours $`r_f=1`$ because here the higgsino character of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is always rather large.

In all models the cross sections for both beams polarized are more than two times larger than the unpolarized cross sections in a large fraction of the parameter space. To describe this fact we define the ratio

$$r^{(\pm )}=\frac{\sigma ^{(\pm )}}{\sigma ^{(00)}}.$$
(4)
In the MSSM for $`M_22|\mu |`$ (gaugino-region) one nearly always obtains $`r^{(+)}>2`$ or $`r^{(+)}>2`$ in the respective regions. In the NMSSM and the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with negative $`M^{}`$ it is always $`r^{(+)}>2`$ and even $`r^{(+)}>2.7`$ (NMSSM) or $`2.9`$ ($`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model) in a large fraction of parameter space. And also for positive $`M^{}`$ $`r^{(+)}>2`$ or $`r^{(+)}>2`$ holds in large parameter regions. Thus polarization of both beams is an important tool to increase the event rates.

Finally we describe the parameter regions ($`0M_2500`$ GeV, $`500\text{GeV}\mu ,\lambda x500`$ GeV) where significant differences between the SUSY models arise in neutralino production at a linear collider if both beams are polarized. In the extended models with a light singlino-like neutralino ($`m_{\chi _1^0}30`$ GeV) the polarization configuration $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ dominates for $`\lambda x>0`$, while in the MSSM $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ is largest apart from a narrow band between $`M_2\mu `$ and $`M_22\mu `$. If the mass of the singlino-like neutralino, however, increases also the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with $`M^{}=35`$ TeV allows $`\sigma ^{(+)}>\sigma ^{(+)}`$ in some parameter regions. In the MSSM, NMSSM and $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with negative $`M^{}`$ the situation for $`\mu `$ or $`\lambda x<0`$ is similar to $`\mu ,\lambda x>0`$. In the $`\mathrm{E}_6`$ model with positive $`M^{}`$ the polarization asymmetries strongly depend on $`M^{}`$. For $`M^{}=50`$ TeV with a lighter singlino $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ dominates for $`M_2\lambda x`$ and $`M_2\lambda x`$ contrary to the MSSM, whereas for $`M^{}=35`$ TeV $`\sigma ^{(+)}`$ dominates only for large $`M_2`$.

## 6 Conclusion

We summarize our results in two points:

* A high luminosity linear collider is sufficient for the direct production of neutralinos with dominant singlino components in extended supersymmetric models. Polarization of both beams is an important tool to increase the event rates by a factor of 2 or 3.
* The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model and extended supersymmetric models show a significant different polarization behavior for neutralino production in wide regions of the parameter space.

## Acknowledgment

We thank G. Moortgat-Pick for many valuable discussions. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under contract No. FR 1064/4-1, by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) under contract No. 05 HT9WWA 9 and by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung of Austria, project No. P13139-PHY.