format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

After the mathematical foundation of quantum cohomology was established during last decade, see \[RT1\], now the focus of the research is on its computation and application. We think that the fundamental problem in quantum cohomology is the quantum naturality problem\[R1, R2, H\]: Define “ morphism” of symplectic manifolds so that quantum cohomology is natural. Qin and Ruan \[QR\] showed that the quantum cohomology is not natural for fibrations. Their results also shows that possible “morphism” must be very rigid. The existence of these rigid morphisms will set apart quantum cohomology from ordinary cohomology and gives it its own identity. Although this result let us feel depressed, the result of \[LR\] discovers some amazing relations between quantum cohomology and birational geometry. Their result said that threefolds which are connected by a sequence of flops have isomorphic quantum cohomology. This gives us some suggestions to look for the suitable “morphism” from some birational transformations.

In the study of higher dimensional algebraic geometry, the famous “minimal model program” initiated by Mori is one of the main research topics. So far the existence problem of minimal models is still completely open in dimensions higher than three. Moreover, in contrast to the two dimensional case, the minimal model is not unique in higher dimensions. It is then an important question to see what kind of invariants are shared by all the birationally equivalent minimal models, and more generally, are preserved under certain elementary birational transformations.

It is well-known that the crepant resolutions are not unique in dimensions higher than three. But Wang \[W\] showed that the different crepant resolutions are connected by “K-equivalence”. Two smooth complex manifolds $`X,Y`$ are K-equivalent if and only if there is a common resolution $`\varphi :ZX`$ and $`\phi :ZY`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}K_X=\phi ^{}K_Y`$. Batyrev \[B\] and Wang \[W\] showed that two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same betti number. It is natural to ask if they have the same cohomology ring structure. Unfortunately, they usually have different ring structures. About this problem, Wang \[W, W1\] proposed his following conjecture:

Wang’s conjecture: For K-equivalent manifolds under birational map $`f:X\mathrm{}X^{}`$, there is a naturally attached correspondence $`TA^{dimX}(X\times X^{})`$ of the form $`T=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_f+_iT_i`$ with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_fX\times X^{}`$ the cycle of graph closure of $`f`$ and with $`T_i`$’s being certain degenerate correspondences (i. e. $`T_i`$ has positive dimensional fibers when projecting to $`X`$ or $`X^{}`$) such that $`T`$ is an isomorphism of Chow motives.

In other words, Wang’s conjecture implies that for K-equivalent manifolds $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, the canonical morphism $`\phi _{}\varphi ^{}:H^{}(X,Q)H^{}(X^{},Q)`$ gives rise to an isomorphism with some modification in the middle dimension. In the case of hyperkähler manifolds, using Bishop’s theorem \[Bi\], Huybrechts \[Huy1, Huy2\] proved this conjecture by showing the existence of the correction cycles $`T_i`$. In this paper, for arbitrary projective manifolds connected by Mokai flops, we proved that $`\phi _{}\varphi ^{}`$ gives rise to an isomorphism of cohomology rings of $`X,X^{}`$ with an explicit expression of the correction cycles $`T_i`$(see the definition of the map $`T`$ in section 3).

We will concentrated our attention on a special kind of birational transformations–Mukai Flops \[Mukai\]. Here we first recall the definition of certain known flops.The simplest type of flops are called ordinary flops. An ordinary $`𝐏^r`$-flop(or simply $`𝐏^r`$-flop) $`f:XX^{}`$ is a birational map such that the exceptional set $`ZX`$ has a $`𝐏^r`$-bundle structure $`\phi :ZS`$ over some smooth variety S and the normal bundle $`N_{Z/X}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪(1)^{r+1}`$ when restricting to any fiber of $`\phi `$. The map $`f`$ and the space $`X^{}`$ are then obtained by first blowing up $`X`$ along $`Z`$ to get $`Y`$, with exceptional divisor $`E`$ a $`𝐏^r\times 𝐏^r`$-bundle over $`S`$, then blowing down $`E`$ along another fiber direction. Ordinary $`𝐏^r`$-flops are also called classical flops. Three dimensional classical flops are the most well-known Atiyah flops over $`(1,1)`$ rational curves.

Another important example is the Mukai flops $`f:XX^{}`$. In this case it is required that the exceptional set $`ZX`$ is of codimension $`r`$ and has a $`𝐏^r`$-bundle structure $`\phi :Z=𝐏_S(F)S`$ (for some rank $`r+1`$ vector bundle $`F`$) over a smooth base $`S`$, moreover the normal bundle $`N_{Z/X}T_{Z/S}^{}`$, the relative cotangent bundle of $`\phi `$. To get $`f`$, one first blows up $`X`$ along $`Z`$ to get $`\varphi :YX`$ with exceptional divisor $`E=𝐏_S(T_{Z/S}^{})𝐏_Z(F)\times 𝐏_S(F^{})`$ as the incidence variety. The first projection corresponds to $`\varphi `$ and one may contract $`E`$ through the second projection to get $`\varphi ^{}:YX^{}`$.

In this paper, we will only consider the following simplest Mukai flops:

Definition: Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold of complex dimension $`2n`$. A Mukai flop from $`(X,Z)`$ to $`(X^{},Z^{})`$ is the following birational transformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& EY& \\ & \varphi \phi & \\ \hfill Z𝐏^nX& \mathrm{}& X^{}Z^{}(𝐏^n)^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`E`$ is the incidence correspondence between $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$. We also call $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are connected by a Mukai flop.

Throughout this paper, we will call this simplest Mukai flops as Mukai flops.

In the study of birational geometry, one of the most important problems is to find that what kind of cohomology is preserved by K-equivalene. For this purpose, Ruan \[R3\] proposed

Quantum Minimal Model Conjecture: Two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same quantum cohomology.

In dimensions higher than three, quantum minimal model conjecture seems to be a difficult problem. We think the difficulty comes from the fact we used all quantum information involving the GW-invariants. So Ruan proposed that we should consider another kind of cohomology with a minimal set of quantum information involving the GW-invariants of exceptional rational curves. We call this new cohomology as Ruan Cohomology, and will give its definition in section 2. In section 4, we will also prove Ruan cohomology is invariant under Mukai flops.

Our main theorem in this paper is

Theorem: Two compact projective manifolds which are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops have isomorphic cohomology and Ruan cohomology.

We will divide the proof of the theorem into two cases: ordinary cohomology and Ruan cohomology. In section 3, we will prove that $`X,X^{}`$ have isomorphic cohomology, see Theorem 3.2. In section 4, we will prove that for $`X,X^{}`$ the quantum correction all vanish. So they have isomorphic Ruan cohomology, see Theorem 4.4.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Prof. Yongbin Ruan, Prof. Weiping Li for their many-hour-long suggestive discussion and encouragement. The first author would like to Prof. Banghe Li and Yaqing Li for their discussion and help during my visiting The Hongkong University of Science and Technology. Thanks also to the organizer of the satellite conference“ Stringy orbifolds” of ICM2002 in Chengdu for inviting us to announce our results.

## 2 Ruan Cohomology

In \[R3\], Ruan defined his quantum corrected cohomology with respect to a birational map. Suppose that $`X,X^{}`$ are K-equivalent and $`\pi :X\mathrm{}X^{}`$ is the birational map. Denote by $`\pi ^1:X^{}\mathrm{}X`$ the inverse birational transformation of $`\pi `$. Let $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_k`$ be an integral basis of the homology classes of exceptional effective curves. We call $`\pi `$ nondegenerate if $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_k`$ are linearly independent. Then the homology class of any exceptional effective curve can be written as $`A=_ia_iA_i`$ for $`a_i0`$. For each $`A_i`$, we assign a formal variable $`q_i`$. Then $`A`$ corresponds to $`q_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}q_k^{a_k}`$. We define a 3-point function

$$<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_{qc}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_k)=\underset{a_1,\mathrm{},a_k}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_A^X(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )q_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}q_k^{a_k},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_A^X(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is Gromov-Witten invariant and $`qc`$ stands for the quantum correction and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma H^{}X`$. We view $`<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_{qc}(q_1,\mathrm{},q_k)`$ as analytic function of $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_k`$ and set $`q_i=1`$ and let

$$<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_{qc}=<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_{qc}(1,\mathrm{},1).$$
(2)
We define a quantum corrected triple intersection

$$<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_\pi =<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >+<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_{qc},$$

where $`<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >=_X\alpha \beta \gamma `$ is the ordinary triple intersection. Then we define the quantum corrected product $`\alpha _\pi \beta `$ by the equation

$$<\alpha _\pi \beta ,\gamma >=<\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma >_\pi $$

for arbitrary $`\gamma `$. Another way to understand $`\alpha _\pi \beta `$ is as follows. Define a product as the ordinary intersection product corrected by $`\alpha _{qc}\beta `$. Namely,

$$\alpha _\pi \beta =\alpha \beta +\alpha _{qc}\beta .$$
(3)
It is easy to see that the quantum corrected product gives rise to a ring structure on the cohomology group of $`X`$, Denote this cohomology ring as $`RH_\pi ^{}(X,𝐂)`$.

Definition 2.1: Define the quantum corrected cohomology ring $`RH_\pi ^{}(X,𝐂)`$ as Ruan cohomology of $`X`$.

Ruan computed some examples of his cohomology in \[R3, R4\]. About this cohomology, Ruan \[R3\] proposed the following conjecture

Cohomological Minimal Model Conjecture: Suppose that $`\pi :XX^{}`$ and its inverse $`\pi ^1`$ are nondegenerate. Then $`RH_\pi ^{}(X,𝐂)`$ is isomorphic to $`RH_{\pi ^1}^{}(X^{},𝐂)`$.

Example 2.2: The first example is the flop in dimension three. This case has been worked out in great detail by Li-Ruan\[LR\]. For example, they proved a theorem that quantum cohomology rings are isomorphic under the change of the variable $`q\frac{1}{q}`$. Notes that if we set $`q=1`$, $`\frac{1}{q}=1`$. We set other quantum variables zero. Then, the quantum product becomes the quantum corrected product $`\alpha _\pi \beta `$. Hence, Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture follows from LI-Ruan’s theorem. In fact, it is easy to calculate the quantum corrected product in this case and verify the Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture without using Li-Ruan’s theorem.

## 3 Isomorphism of ordinary cohomology

In this section, we will consider the cohomology of compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $`2n`$ connected by Mukai flops. Suppose that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $`2n`$, and $`(X,𝐏^n)`$ and $`(X^{},(𝐏^n)^{})`$ are connected by a Mukai flop. Now the normal bundle of $`𝐏^n`$ in $`X`$ is its cotangent bundle $`T^{}𝐏^n`$. So we have the following Mukai transformation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& E\stackrel{~}{X}& \\ & \varphi \varphi ^{}& \\ \hfill Z𝐏^nX& & X^{}(𝐏^n)^{}Z^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is the blowup of $`X`$ along $`Z=𝐏^n`$ and $`E`$ is the incidence correspondence between $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$, i.e.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill E& =& \{(P,L)PL\}𝐏^n\times (𝐏^n)^{}\hfill \\ \hfill p& & q\hfill \\ \hfill P𝐏^n& & L(𝐏^n)^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Before we prove our theorem, we want to first introduce some notations and preliminary results. Let $`X`$ be a regularly embedded subscheme of a scheme $`Y`$ of codimension $`d`$ with normal bundle $`N`$. Let $`A_k(X)`$ be the group of $`k`$-cycles modulo rational equivalence on $`X`$. Denote by $`s(X,Y)A_{}(X)`$ the Segre class of $`X`$ in $`Y`$, for its definition see Section 4.2 of \[F\], so $`s(X,Y)`$ is the cap product of the total inverse Chern class of the normal bundle with $`[X]`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ be the blowup of $`Y`$ along $`X`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{X}=𝐏(N)`$ be the exceptional divisor. We have a fiber square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{X}& \stackrel{j}{}& \stackrel{~}{Y}\\ g& & f\\ X& \stackrel{}{i}& Y.\end{array}$$
(5)
Since $`N_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}=𝒪(1)`$, the excess normal bundle $`\xi `$ is the universal quotient bundle on $`𝐏(N)`$:

$$\xi =g^{}N/N_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y}=g^{}N/𝒪(1).$$

Then we have the following Blowup formula, which is the Theorem 6.7, see P. 116, of \[F\],

Proposition 3.1: Let $`V`$ be a $`k`$-dimensional subvariety of $`Y`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ be the proper transform of $`V`$, i. e. the blow-up of $`V`$ along $`VX`$. Then

$$f^{}[V]=[\stackrel{~}{V}]+j_{}\{c(\xi )g^{}s(VX,V)\}_k$$

in $`A_k\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. In particular, for all $`xA_kX`$,

$$f^{}i_{}(x)=j_{}(c_{d1}(E)g^{}x).$$

In our proof, we will use Borel-Moore homology as a tool. Therefore we first want to briefly introduce some basics of Borel-Moore homology, see \[CG, F\]. Borel-Moore homology can be defined using singular cohomology. If a space $`X`$ is imbedded as a closed subspace of $`𝐑^n`$, then we define the Borel-Moore homology with rational coefficients

$$H_i^{BM}X:=H^{ni}(𝐑^n,𝐑^nX)$$

where the group on the right is relative singular cohomology with rational coefficients. From the difinition, it is easy to know if $`X`$ is compact then the ordinary homology of $`X`$ and the Borel-Moore homology of $`X`$ coincide. In this paper, we will reserve the symbol $`H_{}`$ for the ordinary homology.

If $`X`$ is the complement of $`U`$ in $`Y`$, $`i:XY`$ the closed imbedding, there is a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}H_{i+1}^{BM}UH_i^{BM}X\stackrel{i_{}}{}H_i^{BM}Y\stackrel{j^{}}{}H_i^{BM}UH_{i1}^{BM}X\mathrm{}.$$
(6)
In this section, we will prove the following theorem

Theorem 3.2: Suppose that non-singular compact projective manifolds $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ of complex dimension $`2n`$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have isomorphic cohomology rings.

Proof: By the Poincare duality, it is sufficient to prove that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have isomorphic intersection rings. In fact, we want to prove the following morphism $`T:H_{}XH_{}X^{}`$ given by

$$T(\alpha ):=\{\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}\alpha ,\hfill & \text{if}dim\alpha 2n\hfill \\ \varphi _{}^{}(\varphi ^{}\alpha +(1)^{n+1}\alpha (𝐏^n)[p^1(𝐏^1)]),\hfill & \text{if}dim\alpha =2n\hfill \end{array}$$

is a ring isomorphism, where $`\alpha (𝐏^n)`$ is the topological intersection number of $`\alpha `$ with $`𝐏^n`$ and $`𝐏^1`$ is a line in $`𝐏^n`$. It is obvious that $`T`$ is a linear map.

First of all, we want to prove that the restriction of $`T`$ to $`i_{}H_k(𝐏^n)`$ is an isomorphism from $`i_{}H_k(𝐏^n)`$ to $`i_{}^{}H_k((𝐏^n)^{})`$. By the linearity of $`T`$, we only need to prove that $`T`$ maps a basis of $`i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$ to a basis of $`i_{}^{}H_{}((𝐏^n)^{})`$. Since all elements in $`i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$ are algebraic, so we may apply proposition 3.1. In our case, we have the following blowup fiber square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E& \stackrel{j}{}& \stackrel{~}{X}\\ p& & \varphi \\ 𝐏^n& \stackrel{}{i}& X.\end{array}$$
(7)
where $`i`$ embedded $`𝐏^n`$ into $`X`$ with its cotangent bundle $`N_{𝐏^n|X}T^{}𝐏^n`$ as the normal bundle and $`E`$ is the exceptional divisor. The excess normal bundle $`Q`$ is the universal quotient bundle on $`E`$

$$Q=\frac{p^{}T^{}𝐏^n}{𝒪_E(1)}$$

i. e. we have the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_E(1)p^{}T^{}𝐏^nQ0$$

According to Proposition 3.1, we need to compute the Chern class $`c_{n1}(Q)`$. Since $`c(p^{}T^{}𝐏^n)=c(Q)c(𝒪_E(1))`$, so we have

$`c(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c(p^{}T^{}𝐏^n)}{c(𝒪_E(1))}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{2n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=k}{}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)(p^{}H)^ic_1(𝒪_E(1))^j`$
where $`H`$ is the hyperplane class of $`𝐏^n`$. Therefore

$`c_{n1}(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=n1}{}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)(p^{}H)^ic_1(𝒪_E(1))^j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{ni1}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ni1\\ j\end{array}\right)(q^{}H^{})^{nij1}(p^{}H)^{i+j}.`$
where $`H^{}`$ is the hyperplane class of $`(𝐏^n)^{}`$ and we used that $`c_1(𝒪_E(1))=p^{}H+q^{}H^{}`$.

Choose $`i_{}[𝐏^k]`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$ as a basis of $`i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$. For arbitrary $`1k<n`$, i. e. $`x=i_{}[𝐏^k]i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$, by Proposition $`3.1`$, we have

$`\varphi ^{}(i_{}[𝐏^k])`$ $`=`$ $`j_{}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{ni1}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ni1\\ j\end{array}\right)(q^{}H^{})^{nij1}(p^{}H)^{i+j}p^{}[𝐏^k]\}`$
$`=`$ $`j_{}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{ni1}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ni1\\ j\end{array}\right)(q^{}H^{})^{nij1}p^{}(H^{i+j}[𝐏^k])\}.`$
Therefore, we have

$`\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}(i_{}[𝐏^k])`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ni\\ ki\end{array}\right)\}i_{}^{}([(𝐏^k)^{}])`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`(1)^ki_{}^{}([(𝐏^k)^{}])`$ (18)
where we used the facts that for any $`k2`$ the maps $`\varphi ^{}:p^{}[𝐏^k](𝐏^n)^{}`$ have positive dimensional fibers.

For the case $`k=n`$, i. e. $`x=i_{}(𝐏^n)i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$, we have

$`\varphi ^{}(i_{}[𝐏^n])`$ $`=`$ $`j_{}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{ni1}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}ni1\\ j\end{array}\right)(q^{}H^{})^{nij1}(p^{}H)^{i+j}p^{}[𝐏^n]\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ i\end{array}\right)p^{}[𝐏^1]`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{n+1}np^{}[𝐏^1].`$
Therefore,

$$\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}(i_{}(𝐏^n))=(1)^{n+1}n\varphi _{}^{}(p^{}[𝐏^1])=(1)^{n+1}ni_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}.$$
(21)
Furthermore, by the definition of the map $`T`$, we have

$$T(i_{}(𝐏^n))=(1)^ni_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}.$$
(22)
Since $`i_{}^{}(𝐏^k)^{}`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},n`$ is a basis of $`i_{}^{}H_{}((𝐏^n)^{})`$, so the restriction of $`T`$ to $`i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$ is an isomorphism from $`i_{}H_{}(𝐏^n)`$ to $`i_{}^{}H_{}((𝐏^n)^{})`$.

Next we want to prove that $`T`$ is an isomorphism of additive homology.

Denote $`U:=X𝐏^n`$ and $`U^{}:=X^{}(𝐏^n)^{}`$. Since $`H_i^{BM}𝐏^n`$ has at most one generator for all $`i`$, then, from $`(6)`$, we have the following exact sequences:

$`0i_{}H_k^{BM}𝐏^n\stackrel{}{}H_k^{BM}X\stackrel{j^{}}{}H_k^{BM}U0`$ (23)
$`0i_{}H_k^{BM}(𝐏^n)^{}\stackrel{}{}H_k^{BM}X^{}\stackrel{j^{}}{}H_k^{BM}U^{}0.`$ (24)
Since $`H_k^{BM}𝐏^n`$, $`H_k^{BM}X`$, $`H_k^{BM}U`$, $`H_k^{BM}(𝐏^n)^{}`$, $`H_k^{BM}X^{}`$, $`H_k^{BM}U^{}`$ all are free Abelian groups, so we have

$`H_k^{BM}X`$ $``$ $`i_{}H_k^{BM}𝐏^nH_k^{BM}U`$ (25)
$`H_k^{BM}X^{}`$ $``$ $`i_{}H_k^{BM}(𝐏^n)^{}H_k^{BM}U^{}.`$ (26)
Here we used the following elementary fact from extension theory:

Proposition 3.3: (\[Bott\], P. 168)  In a short exact sequence of Abelian groups

$$0ABC0,$$

if $`A`$ and $`C`$ are free, then $`BAC`$.

In fact, the previous proof shows that the restriction of $`T`$ to $`i_{}H_k^{BM}(𝐏^n)`$ is an isomorphism from $`i_{}H_k^{BM}(𝐏^n)`$ to $`i_{}^{}H_k^{BM}((𝐏^n)^{})`$. On the other hand, since $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are the identity map outside $`𝐏^n`$ and $`(𝐏^n)^{}`$ respectively, i. e. $`UU^{}`$, the restriction of $`T`$ to $`H_k^{BM}U`$ is also an isomorphism from $`H_k^{BM}U`$ to $`H_k^{BM}U^{}`$. By the linearity of $`T`$, from $`(13)`$ and $`(14)`$, we have that $`T`$ is an isomorphism from $`H_k^{BM}X`$ to $`H_k^{BM}X^{}`$ as additive groups. Since $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are compact, Therefore, $`T`$ also gives an isomorphism from the ordinary homology $`H_kX`$ to $`H_kX^{}`$ as additive groups.

Now it remains to prove that $`T`$ preserves the multiplication, i. e. for any classes $`\alpha ,\beta H_{}X`$, we have

$$T(\alpha \beta )=T(\alpha )T(\beta ).$$
(27)
By the transverality theorem, for any homology classes $`\alpha ,\beta `$, we may choose their representatives $`M`$(for $`\alpha `$) and $`N`$(for $`\beta `$) respectively such that they transversally intersect, i. e. $`dim(MN)=dimM+dimN4n`$. In the rest proof of this theorem, we will use the same symbol to denote the homology class and its representatives.

Since $`T`$ is linear and the intersection product is distributive, we only need to prove $`(15)`$ holds for generator classes. From the fact that the intersection product is a map from $`H_kXH_lX`$ to $`H_{k+l4n}X`$, we know that $`(15)`$ holds if $`dim\alpha +dim\beta <4n`$. Therefore, we may assume that $`dim\beta 2n`$. Since $`U:=XZ`$ is isomorphic to $`U^{}:=X^{}Z^{}`$, we have that the map $`T`$ is the identity map on $`H_{}(XZ)`$. Therefore, If at least one of the supports of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ does not intersect with $`𝐏^n`$, then $`(15)`$ holds. Therefore, we only need to consider the following four cases.

Case I: $`dim\alpha <2n`$, $`\beta `$ is an arbitrary class.

In this case, we may choose a representative submanifold $`\alpha `$ with support away from $`𝐏^n`$. Therefore, by the construction of the intersection product and the fact that $`T`$ is an identity map from $`H_{}(U)`$ to $`H_{}(U^{})`$, we have

$$T(\alpha \beta )=T(\alpha )T(\beta ).$$

Case II: $`dim\alpha =2n`$ and $`dim\beta =2n`$.

From $`(13)`$ and the distributivity of intersection product, we only need to consider the case: $`\alpha =i_{}(𝐏^n)`$ and $`\beta =i_{}(𝐏^n)`$. In this case, we have

$$T(\alpha \beta )=T((n+1)[pt])=(n+1)[pt]=i_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}i_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}=T(\alpha )T(\beta ).$$

Case III: $`dim\alpha >2n`$ and $`dim\beta >2n`$.

Here we first prove the following claim:

Claim:If $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ is the blowup of $`X`$ along a subvariety, then $`\varphi ^{}\alpha \varphi ^{}\beta =\varphi ^{}(\alpha \beta )`$ for any classes $`\alpha ,\beta H_{}X`$.

In fact, by definition, we have

$`\varphi ^{}(\alpha \beta )`$ $`=`$ $`PD\varphi ^{}PD(\alpha \beta )=PD\varphi ^{}(PD(\alpha )PD(\beta ))`$
$`=`$ $`PD(\varphi ^{}PD(\alpha )\varphi ^{}PD(\beta )=PD\varphi ^{}PD(\alpha )PD\varphi ^{}PD(\beta )`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}\alpha \varphi ^{}\beta `$
where $`PD`$ stands for Poincare dual.

Since $`\varphi ^{}:\stackrel{~}{X^{}}X^{}`$ is the projection of blowup, so we have $`\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}\alpha =\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha H_{}X^{}`$. From the definition of $`T`$, we have $`\varphi ^{}T(\alpha )=\varphi ^{}\alpha +\xi `$, $`\varphi ^{}T(\beta )=\varphi ^{}\beta +\eta `$ where $`\varphi _{}^{}\xi =\varphi _{}^{}\eta =0`$, i. e. $`\varphi ^{}_\xi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}_\eta `$ have positive dimensional fiber. Therefore, if $`dim(\alpha \beta )2n`$, from the above claim and the projection formula, we have

$`T(\alpha \beta )`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}(\alpha \beta )=\varphi _{}^{}\{\varphi ^{}\alpha \varphi ^{}\beta \}`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi _{}^{}\{\varphi ^{}T(\alpha )\varphi ^{}T(\beta )\varphi ^{}T(\alpha )\eta \varphi ^{}T(\beta )\xi +\xi \eta \}`$
$`=`$ $`T(\alpha )T(\beta ).`$
If $`dim(\alpha \beta )=2n`$, i. e., $`dim\alpha +dim\beta =5n`$, without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\alpha \beta =ki_{}𝐏^n`$ and $`dim\beta <4n`$. By the definition of $`T`$ and the intersection product, we also may assume that $`T(\alpha )T(\beta )=mi_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}`$. Choose a $`l`$-dimensional class $`\gamma `$ where $`l`$ satisfies $`dim\beta +l4n<2n`$ and $`l<2n`$. Then from the associativity of the intersection product and Case I, we have the triple intersection equality.

$$T(\alpha \beta \gamma )=T(\alpha )T(\beta \gamma )=T(\alpha )T(\beta )T(\gamma ).$$

Since $`T(\alpha \beta \gamma )=T((\alpha \beta )\gamma )=T(\alpha \beta )T(\gamma )=(1)^nki_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}T(\gamma )`$ and $`T(\alpha )T(\beta )T(\gamma )=mi_{}^{}(𝐏^n)^{}T(\gamma )`$, so we have $`m=(1)^nk`$. Therefore $`(15)`$ holds.

Case IV: $`\alpha =i_{}𝐏^n`$, $`dim\beta >2n`$ and $`\beta `$ transverally intersects with $`𝐏^n`$.

Since all odd-dimensional classes in $`𝐏^n`$ are homologous to zero, without loss of generality, we may assume that $`dim\beta `$ is even. Suppose that $`\gamma `$ is any $`(6ndim\beta )`$-dimensional class in $`H_{}X`$. Then the intersection product $`\beta \gamma `$ is a $`2n`$-dimensional class in $`H_{2n}X`$. From the associativity of the intersection product and Case II and III, we have the triple intersection equality

$$T(\alpha \beta \gamma )=T(\alpha )T(\beta \gamma )=T(\alpha )T(\beta )T(\gamma ).$$
(28)
Suppose that $`𝐏^n\beta =mi_{}[𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}]`$ and $`(𝐏^n)^{}T(\beta )=ki_{}^{}([𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}]^{})`$. Then by Case I we have

$`T(\alpha \beta \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`mT(i_{}[𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}]\gamma )`$
$`=`$ $`mT(i_{}[𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}])T(\gamma )=(1)^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}mi_{}^{}([𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{}n}])^{}T(\gamma ).`$
On the other hand,

$$T(\alpha )T(\beta )T(\gamma )=ki_{}^{}([𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}])^{}T(\gamma ).$$

Therefore we have $`m=(1)^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}k`$. Therefore

$`T(\alpha \beta )`$ $`=`$ $`mT(i_{}[𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}])=(1)^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}kT(i_{}[𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}])`$
$`=`$ $`ki_{}^{}([𝐏^{\frac{dim\beta }{2}n}]^{})=(𝐏^n)^{}T(\beta )=T(\alpha )T(\beta ).`$
So we proved the equality $`(15)`$. This proves Theorem $`3.2`$.

## 4 Isomorphism of Ruan Cohomology

In this section, we will study Ruan cohomologies of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$. From the previous section, we know that in order to prove isomorphisim of Ruan cohomology for the pair ,$`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, we need to calculate the quantum corrected product coming from exceptional effective curves on $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ respectively. In fact, we will prove vanishing of the exceptional Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the definition of quantum corrected product by localization technique.

### 4.1 Introduction to Localization

The calculation of the exceptional quantum product is local in nature, i.e. only a neighborhood of the embeded $`𝐏^n`$ in $`X`$ or $`X^{}`$ is relevant to the quantumn product with base homology being exceptional curves living in the embeded $`𝐏^n`$. Similar local invariants appeared in the study of local mirror symmetry. As explained in \[CKYZ\], local mirror symmetry refers to a specialization of mirror symmetry technique to study geometry of Fano surfaces inside Calabi-Yau manifolds.

Following \[CKYZ\], we first briefly describe the calculation setup. Let $`\overline{}_{0,0}(𝐏,d)`$ be Kontsevich’s moduli space of stable maps of genus 0(could be of higher genus) with no marked points. Denote a point in the space by $`(C,f)`$, where $`f:C𝐏`$ ($`𝐏`$ is some toric variety ), and $`[f(C)]=dH_2(𝐏)`$. Let $`\overline{}_{0,1}(𝐏,d)`$ be the same but with one marked point. Consider the following diagram

$$\overline{}_{0,0}(𝐏,d)\overline{}_{0,1}(𝐏,d)𝐏,$$

where the first arrow denotes the forgetting map $`\rho :\overline{}_{0,1}(𝐏,d)\overline{}_{0,0}(𝐏,d)`$ which forgets the marked point following stablization of the domain curve and the second arrow denotes the evaluation map $`ev:\overline{}_{0,1}(𝐏,d)𝐏`$ sending $`(C,f,x_1)`$ to $`f(x_1)`$.

Let Q be Calabi-Yau defined as the zero section of a convex bundle $`V`$ over $`𝐏`$ (here convex means $`H^1(C,f^{}V)=0`$ for any stable map $`(C,f)`$). Then $`U_d`$ is the bundle over $`\overline{}_{0,0}(𝐏,d)`$ defined by

$$U_d:=\rho _{}ev^{}(V).$$

The fiber of $`U_d`$ over a point $`(C,f)`$ is $`H^0(C,f^{}V)`$. And the Kontsevich numbers (Gromov-Witten type invariant) are defined to be

$$K_d:=_{\overline{}_{0,0}(𝐏,d)}c(U_d)$$

where $`c`$ is the appropriate Chern class in the context.

In case the bundle $`V`$ is also concave (meaning $`H^0(C,f^{}V)=0`$ for any stable map $`(C,f)`$), there is also an induced bundle over the moduli space of maps whose fiber over a point $`(C,f)`$ is given by $`H^1(C,f^{}V)`$. In particular if $`V`$ is the normal bundle of $`𝐏`$ with respect to certain embedding of $`𝐏`$, the induced bundle is usually called the obstruction bundle.

In the same spirit of the above setup, there is another well known example (the multiple cover contribution) which we now describe.

Let $`C_0=𝐏^1`$ be a smooth $`𝐏^1`$ embedded in a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $`M`$ with balanced normal bundle $`𝒪(1)𝒪(1)`$. The moduli space of stable maps $`\overline{}_{0,0}(M,d[C_0])`$ has a connected component $`\overline{}_{C_0}`$ isomorphic to $`\overline{}(𝐏^1,d[𝐏^1])`$ consisting stable d-fold covers of $`C_0`$. This component has dimension $`2d2`$ while the virtual dimension is $`0`$. So to correctly count the number of maps (or to define the corresponding Gromov-Witten invariant), we have to consider the obstruction bundle $`U_d`$ whose fiber over $`(C,f)`$ is given by $`H^1(C,f^{}N_{C_0|M})=𝐂^2H^1(C,f^{}𝒪(1))`$. Note that the rank of the obstruction bundle is also $`2d2`$. And the contribution of $`\overline{}_{C_0}`$ is given by

$$M_d:=_{\overline{}(𝐏^1,d)}c_{2d2}(U_d).$$

The above definition is proposed by Kontsevich who also derived a graph summation formula for it. And the value is checked by Y. Manin to be $`\frac{1}{d^3}`$. ( there is difficulty in summing up all the contributions from admmisible graphs).

The essence in both examples described above is to determine and evaluate certain cohomology class (over the space of stable maps) which come from bundles induced from bundles over the target space. And solutions to both problems come out of application of localization techniques. Since the target space is toric, the moduli space of maps together with the induced bundles inherit torus action ( action on space of maps by translating maps). Hence the classes under consideration can be localized to the fixed points loci and become much more accessible.

In \[CKYZ\], the authors considered the cases where the bundle $`V`$ is a direct sum of line bundles, while in this paper we will consider the case where the target space is $`𝐏^n`$ and the bundle $`V`$ is the cotangent bundle of $`𝐏^n`$ which is a natural example of concave bundles. It is of interest also because it demonstrate rather different phenomena from the examples described above. We will describe obstruction bundle induced from cotangent bundle of $`𝐏^n`$ and define related Gromov-Witten type invariants. Surprising we will see that all these invariants are $`0`$.

The essential fact used in the proof is the following observation: let $`C`$ be a smooth $`𝐏^1`$ mapping onto a line ($`𝐏^1`$) inside $`𝐏^n`$ with degree d. Denote the map by $`f`$. Standard torus action (diagonal action) on $`𝐏^n`$ naturally lifted to $`T^{}𝐏^n`$ induces an action on the vector space $`H^1(C,f^{}T^{}𝐏^n)`$. Calculate the weights of the action, we see that there is a $`0`$ weight piece.

This observation of the $`0`$ weight piece also leads to other interesting applications. For instance, by utilizing it, we can calculate all the Gromov-Witten invariant, hence determine the quantum cohomology ring structure of the projective bundle $`𝐏(T^{}𝐏^2𝒪)`$ over $`𝐏^2`$. Again the difficulty lies in how to sum up, granted with the graph summation machinery developed by Kontsevich. And the simple observation we have will greatly simplify the summation procedure.

The rest of this section is organized as follows: In subsection $`4.2`$, we define our invariant and state the vanishing theorem. In subsection $`4.3`$, we introduce the Bott’s residue formula and Kontsevich’s graph summation formula for computing the invariants. In subsection $`4.4`$, we prove our vanishing theorem and our result about isomorphism of Ruan cohomology.

### 4.2 Definition of invariants

In this subsection we define our invariants. Let $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$ be the moduli space of stable maps from genus $`g`$ curves with $`k`$ marked points into $`𝐏^n`$ which carries the fundamental class $`d[𝐏^1]H_2(𝐏^n)`$. Denote a typical element in $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$ by $`(C,f,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$. The cotangent bundle of $`𝐏^n`$ induces an obstruction bundle over $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$ whose fiber at $`(C,f,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ is $`H^1(C,fT^{}𝐏^n)`$. Its Euler class ( denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$) plays an important role in defining our invariants.

There are also other cohomology classes on $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$. For instance there is the evaluation maps $`ev_i:\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)𝐏^n`$, sending $`(C,f,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ to $`f(x_i)`$, So we can pull back cohomology classes from $`𝐏^n`$ via the evaluation maps. Also there is the forgetting map $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)\overline{}_{g,k}`$ by forgetting the map $`f`$ of $`(C,f,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ where $`\overline{}_{g,k}`$ is the Deligne-Munford space of stable curves with $`k`$ marked points. So we can also pull back classes from $`\overline{}_{g,k}`$.

Integrating polynomials in these classes over the moduli space $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$, we get numbers.

In particular, if $`𝐏^n`$ is embedded in a variety $`X`$ with normal bundle naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle, then to correctly define Gromov-Witten invariant out of the moduli space $`\overline{}_{g,k}(M,d[𝐏^1])`$, we have to take acount of the Euler class of the obstruction bundle as described above.

So we want to consider the integrals where the class $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ appears in the integrand. Formally, we have

Definition 4.1: $`K_{(k,g,d,\mathrm{\Theta })}:=_{\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a polynomial in Chern classes of certain equivariant vector bundles over $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$.

For example, let us consider the case of mukai flop. It is well known that the normal bundle of the embeded $`𝐏^n`$ is actaully naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle because of the existence of holomorphic 2-forms.

Definition 4.2: $`K_{(3,0,d,ev^{}(\alpha )ev^{}(\beta )ev^{}(\gamma ))}:=_{\overline{}_{0,3}(𝐏^n,d)}ev^{}(\alpha )ev^{}(\beta )ev^{}(\gamma )\mathrm{\Phi }`$. where $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$,$`\gamma `$ are any cohomogy classes of $`𝐏^n`$ with appropriate degrees, i.e.

$$\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+\mathrm{deg}(\beta )+\mathrm{deg}(\gamma )+\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi })=dim_{0,3}(𝐏^n,d).$$
(29)
Note that the invariant defined above includes all qauntum correction coming from exceptional effective curve in the case of mukai flop.

About these invariants, we have the following vanishing theorem

Theorem 4.3: The invariants $`K_{(k,g,d,\mathrm{\Theta })}`$ all vanish regardless of the flexibility of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

### 4.3 Bott’s residue formula and normal bundle contibution

In this subsection, we introduce the technique we use to compute the invariants as defined in previous subsections. The basic ideal is to consider torus action and use the Bott’s residue formula to reduce the integral to fixed points loci of the action.

Starting from \[K\], a lot of work has been done towards localization techniques applied to the computation of Gromov-Witten invariants and verification of mirror symmetry predictions. In the most general case, one has to consider localization of virtual classes as done in \[GP, LLY\]. In \[CKYZ\], the authors developed effective ways to compute similar invariants involving Euler classes of obstruction bundles. But they mainly treat direct sums of line bundles. For our computation, the machinery introduced by \[K\] suffices. Here we will follow the presentation in \[K\] closely. To keep notation simple, we will only consider integration formula in genus zero case. The proof of vanishing of the invariants in higher genus case will be almost identical. We will point out the slight difference later.

Before proving theorem $`4.3`$, we first want to introduce Bott’s residue formula:

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex projective manifold (orbifold allowed) and $`E`$ a holomorphic vector bundle (or orbibundle) over $`X`$. Suppose $`T:=(C^{})^{n+1}`$ a complex torus acts on $`(X,E)`$. Denote the fixed points loci by $`X^T`$ and its connected components by $`X^\gamma `$. Since the irreducible representations of torus are dimensional one, over $`X^\gamma `$ the bundle $`E`$ splits into direct sum of line bundles $`E^{\gamma ,\lambda }`$ twisted by character $`\lambda :TC^{}`$, $`\lambda T^{}=ZZ\mathrm{}Z`$. The normal bundle of $`X^\lambda `$ (denoted by $`N^\lambda `$) also splits into sum of line bundles $`N^{\gamma ,\lambda }`$ over characters $`\lambda T^{}\{0\}`$.

By splitting principle, we suppose the Chern classes of bundle $`E`$ are given by homogeneous symmetric polynomials in degree 2 generators $`e_i`$’s as follows:

$$\underset{k0}{}c_k(E)=\mathrm{\Pi }_i(1+e_i),e_iH^2(X,Q).$$
(30)
Analogously, we add generators $`e_i^{\gamma ,\lambda }`$ and $`n_i^{\gamma ,\lambda }`$ to $`H^2(X^\gamma ,Q)`$.

Let $`P`$ be a homogeneous symmetric polynomial. Then the Bott’s residue formula reads:

$$_XP(e_i)=\underset{\gamma }{}_{X^\gamma }\frac{P(e_i^{\gamma ,\lambda }+\lambda )}{\mathrm{\Pi }(n_i^{\gamma ,\lambda })}.$$
(31)
The right hand side of the above formula is considered as rational function in $`\lambda `$’s. It turns out to have homogeneous degree 0 ( actually a constant independent of choice of $`\lambda `$’s). The numerator of r.h.s. is actually the equivariant extension of the pullback of class $`P(e_i)`$ to $`X^\gamma `$. The denominator is the equivariant Euler class of normal bundle of $`X^\gamma `$.

Now, we want to calculate the fixed points in the moduli space of stable maps in order to apply the Bott’s residue formula.

Let $`T=(C^{})^{n+1}`$ acts diagonally on $`𝐏^n`$ with generic weights $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n+1}`$. The fixed points are projectivization of coordinate lines of $`C^{n+1}`$, denoted by $`p_i`$. And the only invariant curves are lines connecting the fixed points labeled by $`l_{ij}=l_{ji}`$, where $`ij`$.

The action of $`T`$ on $`𝐏^n`$ induces an action of $`T`$ on the moduli space of stable maps $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$ by moving the image of the map. Let $`(C,f,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ be a fixed point in the stable map space. Then the geometric image of the map is fixed. So we have

1. The contracted components, the marked points, the ramification points, the nodes all are mapped to the fixed points $`p_i`$’s in $`𝐏^n`$.
2. A non-contracted component is map onto one of the lines $`l_{ij}`$’s, ramifying over the two fixed points(end points of the line ), thus is forced to be rational and completely determined by its degree.

We associate with each fixed map a marked graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as follows. The vertices of the graph $`vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ correspond to the connected components $`C_v`$ of $`f^1(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_{n+1})`$. Here the component can be either a point or union of irreducible components of the curve $`C`$. The edges $`\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ correspond to non-contracted component of $`C^\alpha `$ of genus $`0`$ mapping onto the $`l_{ij}`$’s. There are also tails on the vertices coming from the marked points. We also mark the graph by the following labels:

1. Label the vertices numbers $`f_v`$ from $`1`$ to $`n+1`$ defined by $`f(C_v):=p_{f_v}`$. Also label a vertex by $`g_v`$ (the genus of the $`1`$-dimensional part of $`C_v`$, for a point the genus is $`0`$) and a set $`S_v\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$ the indices of the marked points.
2. Label the edges by the mapping degree $`d_\alpha N`$

The claim is that the connected components of $`\overline{}_{g,k}(𝐏^n,d)^T`$ are isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\overline{𝐌}_{g_v,val(v)}/\text{Aut}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and can be identified as equivalent classes of connected graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with labeling satisfying the following conditions:

1. For $`\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ connecting vertices $`u,vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, then $`f_uf_v`$,
2. $`1\chi (\mathrm{\Gamma })+_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}g_v=g`$,
3. $`_{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}d_\alpha =d`$,
4. $`_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}S_v=\{1,2,\mathrm{},k\}`$.

From now on we only consider the integration formula for genus $`0`$ case. We first want to give some notations:

1. For a graph, we define an incident pair of vertex and edge $`(v,\alpha )`$ to be a flag $`F=(v,\alpha )`$ and denote by $`w_F`$ the expression $`\frac{\lambda _{f_v}\lambda _{f_u}}{d_\alpha }`$ where $`uv`$ is the other vertex of the edge $`\alpha `$.
2. Recall that $`\overline{}_{0,k}`$ is the Deligne-Mumford space of marked stable curves. For each marking $`i`$, there is a line bundle $`L_i\overline{}_{0,k}`$ with fiber $`T_{C,p_i}^{}`$ over the moduli point $`C`$. Define $`\psi _i:=c_1(L_i)`$.

Now we describe the normal bundle of the fixed points components. For an equivariant bundle $`E`$, denote by $`[E]`$ its class in the corresponding equivariant K-group. Also we denote $`\overline{}_{0,k}(𝐏^n,d)`$ by $`\overline{}`$ for simplicity and often denote a bundle by its geometric fiber at a point $`(C,f)`$.

To keep notation simple, we ignore the marked points as in \[K\] and explain the difference along the way.

The class of normal bundle for a component $`\overline{}^\gamma `$ having graph type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$[N_{\overline{}^\gamma }]=[T_\overline{}][T_{\overline{}^\gamma }]$$
(32)
$$[T_\overline{}]=[H^0(C,f^{}(T𝐏^n))]+\underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta }{}[T_y(C^\alpha )T_y(C^\beta )]$$

$$+\underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha \beta }{}([T_y(C^\alpha )]+[T_y(C^\beta )])\underset{\alpha }{}[H^0(C^\alpha ,TC^\alpha )]$$
(33)
The first summand corresponds to infinitesmal deformation of the map $`f`$ from $`C`$. The second summand corresponds to smoothing of nodes. And the third comes from deformation of the curve $`C`$ fixing the singular points. If there is a marked point $`x`$ on $`C^\alpha `$, it should also be fixed and in the third summand there would be an additional term $`_\alpha [H^0(T_x(C^\alpha ))]`$. (Same remark applies to the formula below).

$`[T_{\overline{}^\gamma }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha \beta :\alpha ,\beta Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}[T_y(C^\alpha )T_y(C^\beta )]`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha \beta :\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}[T_y(C^\alpha )]{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}[H^0(C^\alpha ,TC^\alpha )].`$
where the first term corresponds to smoothing of nodes which are intersection of two contracted components. The second term and the third come from deformation of the components preserving singular points.

So we have the following formula

$$[N_{\overline{}^\gamma }]=[H^0(C,f^{}(T𝐏^n))]+[N_{\overline{}^\gamma }^{abs}]$$
(35)
where

$$[N_{\overline{}^\gamma }^{abs}]:=\underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha \beta :\alpha ,\beta Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[T_y(C^\alpha )T_y(C^\beta )]$$

$$+\underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma }),\beta Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[T_y(C^\alpha )T_y(C^\beta )]$$

$$+\underset{yC^\alpha C^\beta :\alpha \beta :\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[T_y(C^\alpha )]\underset{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[H^0(C^\alpha ,TC^\alpha )].$$
(36)
In the formula for $`[N_{\overline{}^\gamma }^{abs}]`$ above the first and third summand are trivial bundles twisted with characters of the torus. The term $`[H^0(C,f^{}(T𝐏^n))]`$ and the classes from the bundle $`E`$ restricted to $`X^\gamma `$ in our application later have same nature. When we take the Chern classes of these summand, we just get weights of torus action on the fibers of these bundles (expressed in terms of $`\lambda _i`$’s), hence can be pulled out of the integral. In the second summand, the tangent space of the non-contracted component at $`y`$ is fixed but twisted, while the tangent space of the contracted component at $`y`$ is moving without twisting. Taking equivariant Chern class we get a sum of certain tangential weight and the $`\psi `$ class over suitable space of pointed stable curves. This reduce the integral on the right hand side of Bott’s formula integral to integral of $`\psi `$ classes over space of pointed curves for which the answer has been conjectured by Witten and verified by Kontsevich rigorously. Thus we have a contribution (as rational function in $`\lambda `$’s) from each of the admissible graphs. The invariant is given by a graph summation collecting all these contributions:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma });v_1,v_2:verticesof\alpha }{}}({\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{d_\alpha }(\frac{d_\alpha }{\lambda _{V_1}\lambda _{V_2}})^{2d_\alpha }}{(d_\alpha !)^2}})`$ (37)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{kf_{v_1},kf_{v_2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b0:a+b=d_\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{a}{d_\alpha }\lambda _{f_{v_1}}+\frac{b}{d_\alpha }\lambda _{f_{v_2}}\lambda _k}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}}\{({\displaystyle \underset{flags:F=(v,\alpha )}{}}w_F^1)^{val(v)3}\times {\displaystyle \underset{flags:F=(v,\alpha )}{}}w_F^1`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jf_v}{}}(\lambda _{f_v}\lambda _j)^{val(v)1}\}.`$
Here the valence of a vertex includes the counts of the number of tails. The detailed calculation of the weights can be found in \[K\] which we refer the interested readers to.

### 4.4 Proof of the vanishing theorem.

In this subsection, we prove the vanishing theorem stated in Section 4.2. We show the calculation for the specific example defined in Definition 4.2  with n=2. The proof for the general cases is almost identical. We will briefly explain the difference at the end of the proof.

Proof of Theorem 4.3: First of all, note that the invariant is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\text{Aut}(\mathrm{\Gamma })|}}\times (\text{contribution from }ev^{}(\alpha )ev^{}(\beta )ev^{}(\gamma ))`$ (38)
$`\times `$ $`(\text{contribution from}\mathrm{\Phi })\times (\text{formula}(25)).`$
Here the contribution of the second and the third terms are just a product of the weights of induced torus action on the corresponding vector bundles. We show that the contribution from the Euler class $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the obstruction bundle restricted to the fixed point component is zero and thus conclude.

To deal with nodal curves, we need the following normalization sequence. First let us consider the simple case where $`𝐂=𝐂_\alpha 𝐂_\beta `$. There is an exact sequence of maps of sheaves (of the holomorphic functions):

$$0𝒪_C𝒪_{C_\alpha }𝒪_{C_\beta }𝒪_{C_\alpha C_\beta }0.$$
(39)
Here all the maps except the last one are obtained from inclusions. And the last one maps $`(f_1,f_2)`$ to $`f_1f_2`$.

In general we have the normalization sequence resolving all the nodes of $`𝐂`$ which are forced by a graph type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`0𝒪_C`$ $``$ $`\left(_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}𝒪_{C_v}\right)\left(_{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}𝒪_{C_\alpha }\right)`$ (40)
$``$ $`_{FFlag(\mathrm{\Gamma })}𝒪_{x_F}0,`$
where $`x_F=C_vC_\alpha `$ for a flag $`(v,\alpha )`$, and the last map sends $`(g|_{C_V},h|_{C_\alpha })`$ to $`gh`$ on the intersection point.

Twist the above sequence by $`f^{}T^{}𝐏^2`$ and take cohomology to get

$`0`$ $``$ $`H^0(C,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$ (41)
$``$ $`\left(_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}H^0(C_v,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)\right)\left(_{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}H^0(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)\right)`$
$``$ $`_{FFlag(\mathrm{\Gamma })}T_{f(x_F)}^{}𝐏^2H^1(C,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$
$``$ $`\left(_{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}H^1(C_v,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)\right)\left(_{\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)\right)`$
$``$ $`0.`$
The first term in the third line follows since $`x_F`$ is a point, which is why the last term in the last line is 0. Note that $`f^{}T^{}𝐏^2|_{C_v}`$ is trivial since $`C_v`$ is mapped to a point , hence $`H^0(C_v,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)=T^{}𝐏^2|_{P_{f(v)}}`$ and $`H^1(C_v,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)=H^1(C_v,𝒪)f^{}T^{}𝐏^2`$. Since we are considering genus zero case, $`H^1(C_v,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$ is also zero( In general, it can be expressed in terms of the first Chern class $`C_1`$ of Hodge bundle over space of pointed curves). Because of the concavity of $`T^{}𝐏^2`$, $`H^0(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$ is zero. And by looking at the maps in the first line of $`(29)`$, we see $`H^0(C,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$ is also zero. So we have

$$[H^1(C,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)]=[\underset{vVert(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}T_{p_{f(v)}}^{}𝐏^2]+[\underset{aEdge(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)].$$
(42)
The contribution from the l.h.s is the product of those of the two terms on the r.h.s.

Since a non-contracted component is rigid, $`[H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)]`$ is a trivial bundle when restricted to fixed point components. To compute the weights, we consider the following description of the cotangent bundle of $`𝐏^2`$ by an exact sequence of bundles over $`𝐏^2=𝐏(V)`$ where $`V`$ is a complex vector space of dimension 3. First we have

$$0𝒪(1)VQ0,$$
(43)
where $`V`$ represents the trivial bundle with vector space $`V`$ as fiber and $`𝒪(1)`$ is the universal bundle. Tensoring with $`𝒪(1)`$, we have

$$0𝒪𝒪(1)V𝒪(1)Q0,$$
(44)
where $`𝒪(1)Q=\mathrm{𝐓𝐏}^2`$. Dualizing we have

$$0T^{}𝐏^2𝒪(1)V^{}𝒪0.$$
(45)
Pulling back by $`f`$ over $`C_\alpha `$ and taking cohomology, we have

$`0`$ $``$ $`H^0(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪(d)V^{})`$ (46)
$``$ $`H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪)H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$
$``$ $`H^1(C_\alpha ,𝒪(d)V^{})H^1(C_\alpha ,𝒪)0.`$
Note that $`C_\alpha `$ is rational. $`H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪(d)V^{})`$ and $`H^1(C_\alpha ,𝒪)`$ are both $`0`$. So we have

$$0H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪)H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)H^1(C_\alpha ,𝒪(d)V^{})0.$$
(47)
So the contribution of $`[H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)]`$ is given by a product of weights on $`H^1(C_\alpha `$, $`𝒪(d)V^{})`$ and weight on $`H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪)`$. Obviously the weight on $`H^0(C_\alpha ,𝒪)`$ is zero. So the contribution of $`[H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)]`$ is zero for each $`\alpha Edge(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

From $`(30)`$, we see that the total contribution of the Euler class $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is zero. Thus we conclude our proof of the genus zero case.

In the general case of higher genus, formula $`(26)`$ needs to be modified. $`\lambda `$ classes (coming from the deformation of the complex structures on $`𝐂)`$ and hence Hodge integrals will appear in the computation of the normal bundle contribution and the details can be found in \[GP\]. But the point is that the contribution of Euler class $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is still zero, since there is a 0 weight coming from $`H^1(C_\alpha ,f^{}T^{}𝐏^2)`$ for each non-contracted component (necessarily rational as explained earlier). So Theorem $`4.3`$ still holds.

Theorem 4.4: Suppose that non-singular projective manifolds $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ of complex dimension $`2n`$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomologies.

Proof: By theorem 4.3, we have that all Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the right hand side of $`(1)`$ vanish. Therefore, we have that for $`X,X^{}`$ their quantum corrections all vanish. Thus their quantum cohomology are the same as their ordinary Chow ring. By theorem 3.2, we know that $`X,X^{}`$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomology. This proves the theorem.

Corollary 4.5: For Mukai flops, cohomological minimal model conjecture holds.

Finally, we present a well known proposition to point out that local existence of a holomorphic symplectic 2-form implies natural isomorphism of the normal bundle and the cotangent bundle for a embedded $`𝐏^n`$.

Proposition 4.6: (see \[Mukai\]) Suppose that $`𝐏^n`$ is embedded in a smooth variety $`X`$ with a neighborhood $`N`$ admitting a holomorphic symplectic 2-form $`\omega `$, then we have the following

1. $`\text{codim}_X𝐏^nn`$.
2. In case $`\text{codim}_X𝐏^n=n`$, there is a natural isomorphism $`T^{}𝐏^n=N_{X|𝐏^n}`$.

Proof: Since $`H^{2,0}(𝐏^n)=0`$, $`\omega _{𝐏^n}=0`$. Thus $`T_p𝐏^n(T_p𝐏^n)^{}`$ for any point $`p𝐏^n`$, where $`T_p𝐏^nT_pX`$ is considered as a subspace of $`T_pX`$. Hence codim$`{}_{X}{}^{}𝐏_{}^{n}=dim(T_p𝐏^n)^{}dimT_p𝐏^n=n`$. In case equality holds, $`T_p𝐏^n=(T_p𝐏^n)^{}`$.

$`\omega _{T_pX}`$ is nondegenerate, so there is an isomorphism $`\varphi :T_pX=(T_pX)^{}`$. Thus we have $`T_p𝐏^n=(T_p𝐏^n)^{}=\text{Ann}(T_p𝐏^n)=N_{X𝐏^n}^{}`$, where the second isomorphism is via the map $`\varphi `$.

Email address: stsjxhu@zsu.edu.cn


text:
# 𝑱/𝝍 couplings to charmed resonances and to 𝝅

## I Introduction

This paper is devoted to the study of the strong couplings of $`J/\psi `$, low mass charmed mesons and pions. The interest of this study stems from the possibility that $`J/\psi `$ absorption processes of the following type

$$\pi +J/\psi D^{()}+\overline{D}^{()}$$
(1)
play an important role in the relativistic heavy ion scattering. Since a decrease of the $`J/\psi `$ production might signal the formation of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) in a heavy ion collision, it is useful to have reliable estimates of the cross sections for the processes (1) that provide an alternative way to reduce the $`J/\psi `$ production rate. Previous studies of these effects can be found in cina1 ; c0 ; Deandrea:2002kj . The relevant couplings needed to compute (1) are depicted in Fig. 1.

Besides the $`DD^{}\pi `$ coupling, see Fig. 1a, whose coupling constant $`g_{D^{}D\pi }`$ has been theoretically estimated theor , report  and experimentally investigated exp , to compute the amplitudes (1) one would need also the $`JD^{()}D^{()}`$, see Fig. 1b, and the $`JD^{()}D^{()}\pi `$ couplings, see Fig. 1c. In an effective Lagrangian approach the latter couplings provide direct four-body interactions, while the former enter the amplitude via tree diagrams with the exchange of a charmed particle $`D^{()}`$ in the $`t`$channel. These couplings have been estimated by different methods, that are, in our opinion, unsatisfactory. For example the use of the $`SU_4`$ symmetry puts on the same footing the heavy quark $`c`$ and the light quarks, which is at odds with the results obtained within the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET), where the opposite approximation $`m_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ is used (for a short review of HQET see report ). Similarly, the rather common approach based on the Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) should be considered critically, given the large extrapolation $`p^2=0m_{J/\psi }^2`$ that is involved. A different evaluation, based on QCD Sum Rules can be found in qcdsr  and presents the typical theoretical uncertainties of this method. In this note we will use a different approach, based on the Constituent Quark Meson (CQM) model nc ,nc1 , which takes into account explicitly the HQET symmetries. We gave a preliminary report of the present study in Deandrea:2002kj  where we presented the results for some of the couplings (1). Here we complete the analysis and compare our results with the existing literature.

## II Constituent Quark Meson model

The CQM model is a quark-meson model arising from an extension of Ref. Ebert:1994tv  to exploit fully HQET and chiral symmetries in the interactions of heavy and light mesons. A survey of these methods can be found in nc ,nc1 . Here we limit to those aspects of the model that are relevant for the interactions of $`J/\psi `$, low mass charmed mesons and pions. The model is an effective field theory whose effective fields are light and heavy quarks as well as light and heavy mesons. The Feynman rules for the model are explicitly written down in nc , nc1 . The transition amplitudes containing light/heavy mesons in the initial and final states as well as the couplings of the heavy mesons to hadronic currents are computable via quark loop diagrams where mesons enter as external legs. The model is relativistic and incorporates, besides the heavy quark symmetries, also the chiral symmetry of the light quark sector.

To show an example of the calculation in the CQM model we consider the Isgur-Wise (IW) function defined e.g. by

$$D(p^{})|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c|D(p)=m_D\xi (\omega )(v+v^{})^\mu $$
(2)
where $`p^\mu =m_Dv^\mu `$, $`p^\mu =m_Dv^\mu `$ and $`\omega =vv^{}`$. We note that the Isgur-Wise function obeys the normalization condition $`\xi (1)=1`$, arising from the flavor symmetry of the HQET. The explicit definition of the Isgur-Wise form factor is:

$$H(v^{})|\overline{c}\gamma _\mu c|H(v)=\xi (\omega )\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{H}\gamma _\mu H\right).$$
(3)
Here $`H`$ is the multiplet containing both the $`D`$ and the $`D^{}`$ mesons report :

$$H=\frac{1+\gamma v}{2}(P_5\gamma _5+\gamma P),$$
(4)
and $`P_5,P^\mu `$ are annihilation operators for the charmed mesons. One gets

$$\xi (\omega )(v+v^{})^\mu =Z_H\frac{3i}{16\pi ^4}d^4\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{Tr}\left[(\gamma \mathrm{}+m)\gamma _5(1+\gamma v^{})\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma v)\gamma _5\right]}{4(\mathrm{}^2m^2)(v\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_H)(v^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_H)},$$
(5)
where $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ are the $`4`$velocities of the two heavy quarks that are equal, in the infinite quark mass limit, to the hadron velocities,

$$\frac{1+\gamma v}{2(v\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_H)}$$
(6)
is the heavy quark propagator of the HQET, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H=m_Dm_c=vk`$ in the limit $`m_c\mathrm{}`$; $`k`$ is the meson residual momentum, defined by $`p^\mu =m_cv^\mu +k^\mu `$. The numerical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H`$ is in the range $`0.30.5`$ GeV nc . If we consider a $`D^{}`$ meson instead of a $`D`$, a factor $`\gamma _5`$ must be substituted by $`\gamma ϵ`$, $`ϵ`$ being the polarization of $`D^{}`$. The constant $`Z_H`$ is the heavy meson field wavefunction renormalization constant giving the strength of the quark-meson coupling (more precisely the coupling is $`\sqrt{Z_Hm_D}`$). $`Z_H`$ is computed and tabulated in nc . One gets for the IW function:

$$\xi (\omega )=Z_H\left[\frac{2}{1+\omega }I_3(\mathrm{\Delta }_H)+\left(m+\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }_H}{1+\omega }I_5(\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\omega )\right)\right],$$
(7)
where the $`I_i`$ integrals are given by:

$`I_3(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{reg}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta }+iϵ)}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{1/\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^{3/2}}}e^{s(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}\left(1+\mathrm{erf}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{s})\right)`$
$`I_5(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{reg}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)(vk+\mathrm{\Delta }_1+iϵ)(v^{}k+\mathrm{\Delta }_2+iϵ)}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}dx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2x^2(1\omega )+2x(\omega 1)}}\times `$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{6}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{1/\mu ^2}}ds\sigma e^{s(m^2\sigma ^2)}s^{1/2}(1+\mathrm{erf}(\sigma \sqrt{s}))+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{1/\mu ^2}}dse^{s\sigma ^2}s^1],`$
where

$$\sigma (x,\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1\left(1x\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_2x}{\sqrt{1+2\left(\omega 1\right)x+2\left(1\omega \right)x^2}}.$$
(10)
The ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the infrared cutoff $`\mu `$ and the light constituent mass $`m`$ are fixed in the model nc  to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.25`$ GeV, $`\mu =0.3`$ GeV and $`m=0.3`$ GeV. Other integrals to be used later are

$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{reg}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu ^2}})`$ (11)
$`I_4(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iN_c}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{reg}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(k^2m^2)^2(vk+\mathrm{\Delta }+iϵ)}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}^{1/\mu ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^{1/2}}}e^{s(m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2)}[1+\mathrm{erf}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{s})]`$
The calculation of the $`g_{D^{}D\pi }`$ coupling constant for the matrix element

$$\pi ^+(q)D^0(p)|D^+(p^{},ϵ)=ig_{D^{}D\pi }ϵq$$
(13)
in the CQM proceeds along similar lines and can be found in nc . We reproduce for reference’s sake since it is an important element of the amplitudes (1). In the soft pion limit (spl) one gets nc :

$$g_{D^{}D\pi }^{spl}=13\pm 1.$$
(14)
The experimental situation is as follows: CLEO results exp  give $`g=0.59\pm 0.07\pm 0.01`$ where $`g`$ is related to the constant in eq. (14) by $`g_{D^{}D\pi }^{spl}=2m_Dg/f_\pi `$ ($`f_\pi 130`$ MeV); on the other hand, in general, QCD sum rules predict smaller values, see for a review report .

## III $`JD^{()}D^{()}`$ couplings

The calculation of the Isgur-Wise we have described above is a crucial ingredient to the computation of the $`JD^{()}D^{()}`$ vertexes of Fig. 1b. It corresponds to the evaluation of the l.h.s. of Fig. 2, while, via a VMD ansatz, the r.h.s. gives the desired coupling. Concerning the use of the VMD for the charm system one has to note that it is not based on the hypothesis that all higher order resonances give contributions smaller than the J/$`\psi `$, but on the fact that the higher states give contributions of alternating sign that tend to cancel. This sign difference follows from an evaluation via the saddle point method of the WKB approximation altern .

The Isgur-Wise function can be computed for any value of $`\omega `$ and not only in the region $`\omega >1`$, which is experimentally accessible $`via`$ the semileptonic $`BD^{()}`$ decays; $`\omega `$ is related to the meson momenta by

$$\omega =\frac{p_1^2+p_2^2p^2}{2\sqrt{p_1^2p_2^2}},$$
(15)
where $`p_1,p_2=`$ momenta of the two $`D`$ resonances.

Let us now consider the r.h.s. of the equation depicted in Fig. 2. For the coupling of $`J/\psi `$ to the current we use the matrix element

$$0|\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c|J(q,\eta )=f_Jm_Jϵ^\mu $$
(16)
with $`f_J=0.405\pm 0.014`$ GeV. As to the strong couplings $`JD^{()}D^{()}`$, the model in Fig. 2 gives the following effective Lagrangians

$`_{JDD}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{JDD}\left(\overline{D}\stackrel{}{}_\nu D\right)J^\nu ,`$ (17)
$`_{JDD^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{JDD^{}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }J_\mu _\nu \overline{D}_\beta D_\alpha ^{},`$ (18)
$`_{JD^{}D^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{JD^{}D^{}}[\overline{D}^\mu \left(_\mu D_\nu ^{}\right)J^\nu D^\mu \left(_\mu \overline{D}_\nu ^{}\right)J^\nu `$ (20)
$``$ $`\left(\overline{D}^\mu \stackrel{}{}_\nu D_\mu ^{}\right)J^\nu ].`$ (21)
Here $`D^{()}\overline{D}^{()}`$ can be any of the pairs $`D^{0()}\overline{D}^{0()}`$, $`D^{+()}D^{()}`$ or $`D_s^{()}\overline{D}_s^{()}`$ (neglecting $`SU_3`$ breaking effects). As a consequence of the spin symmetry of the HQET we find:

$$g_{JD^{}D^{}}=g_{JDD},g_{JDD^{}}=\frac{g_{JDD}}{m_D},$$
(22)
while the VMD ansatz gives:

$$g_{JDD}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p^2)=\frac{m_J^2p^2}{f_Jm_J}\xi (\omega ).$$
(23)
Since $`g_{JDD}`$ has no zeros, eq. (23) shows that $`\xi `$ has a pole at $`p^2=m_J^2`$, which is what one expects on the basis of dispersion relations arguments. The CQM evaluation of $`\xi `$ does show a strong peak for $`p^2(2m_c)^2`$, even though, due to $`𝒪\left(1/m_c\right)`$ effects, the location of the singularity is not exactly at $`p^2=m_J^2`$.

This is shown in Fig. 3 where we plot $`g_{JDD}(p_1^2,p_2^2,p^2)`$ for on shell $`D`$ mesons, as a function of $`p^2`$ (the plot is obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H=0.4`$ GeV and $`Z_H=2.36`$GeV-1). For $`p^2`$ in the range $`(0,4)`$ GeV2, $`g_{JDD}`$ is almost flat, with a value

$$g_{JDD}=8.0\pm 0.5.$$
(24)
For larger values of $`p^2`$ the method is unreliable due to the above-mentioned incomplete cancellation between the kinematical zero and the pole. Therefore, we extrapolate the smooth behavior of $`g_{JDD}`$ in the small $`p^2`$ region up to $`p^2=m_J^2`$ and assume the validity of the result (24) also for on-shell $`J/\psi `$ mesons. On the other hand in the $`p_1^2,p_2^2`$ variables we find a behavior compatible with that produced by a smooth form factor. Also the result from Ref. cina1  in the Table, is based on a VMD assumption; a previous determination based on the same assumption is matinyan , with similar results ($`g_{JDD}=7.7`$).

In Table 1 we compare our results with those of other authors. We observe that our results for $`g_{JDD}`$ and $`g_{JDD^{}}`$ agree with the outcomes of Ref. cina2  and with the QCD sum rule analysis of qcdsr ; in particular the smooth behavior of the form factor found in qcdsr  for $`g_{JDD}`$ agrees with our result. This is not surprising, as cina2  uses a VMD model as well.

As for the QCD sum rules calculation, it involves a perturbative part and a non perturbative contribution, which is however suppressed. The perturbative term has its counterpart in CQM in the loop calculation of Fig. 2 and the overall normalization should agree as a consequence of the Luke’s theorem. On the other hand we differ from Ref. cina1  for a sign and from haglin  both in sign and in magnitude. The sign difference may be due to an overall phase in the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ wavefunction. It is however of no effect in the computation of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ absorption cross section, which is the main application of the present calculation. Finally Ref. cina2  obtains a value for $`g_{JDD^{}}`$ using results from the decay $`J/\psi \rho \pi `$. This seems to us too strong an assumption due to the fact that $`J/\psi \rho \pi `$ could proceed via gluonic decay of the $`J/\psi `$, which is not the case for $`J/\psi DD^{}`$.

| Coupling | Our work | Ref. cina1 | Ref. haglin | Ref. cina2 | Ref. qcdsr |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`g_{JDD}`$ | $`8.0\pm 0.5`$ | -7.64 | $`4.93`$ | 7.71 | 7.36 |
| $`g_{JDD^{}}`$(GeV-1) | $`4.05\pm 0.25`$ | - |  | $`8.02\pm 0.62`$ | - |
| $`g_{JD^{}D^{}}`$ | $`8.0\pm 0.5`$ | -7.64 | $`4.93`$ | 7.71 | - |

Table 1. Comparison of theoretical results for the couplings $`g_{JDD}`$, $`g_{JDD^{}}`$ and $`g_{JD^{}D^{}}`$. Ref. cina1  and Ref. cina2  use a VMD model similar to the one used in the present paper for the couplings $`g_{JDD}`$, $`g_{JD^{}D^{}}`$. For $`g_{JDD^{}}`$ Ref. cina2  uses VMD together with data from relativistic quark model Colangelo:1994jc  to get the coupling of a hadronic current to $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$. Ref. haglin  uses a chiral model to compute the coupling constants $`g_{JDD}`$ and $`g_{JD^{}D^{}}`$. The coupling $`g_{JDD^{}}`$ is not included in Ref. cina1 . Ref. qcdsr  is based on QCD sum rules; the result we report for $`g_{JDD}`$ is computed at the same value $`p^2=2`$ GeV2 as in our work.

## IV $`JD^{()}D^{()}\pi `$ couplings

Let us now consider the $`JD^{()}D^{()}\pi `$ couplings of Fig. 1c. We write the effective Lagrangians for the $`J\pi ^+D^{}D^0`$ coupling (other couplings can be obtained by use of symmetries):

$`_{JDD\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_0}{m_D}}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }J_\mu (_\nu \pi )_\alpha D_\beta \overline{D},`$ (25)
$`_{J\overline{D}^{}D\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`J_\mu (_\nu \pi )\{g_1[g^{\mu \nu }\overline{D}_\lambda ^{}^\lambda D+2D^\mu \overline{D}^\nu ]g_2[\overline{D}^\mu ^\nu +D^\nu \overline{D}^\mu ]`$ (26)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{m_D^2}}[\left(^\nu \overline{D}^\lambda \right)^\mu _\lambda D\left(^\nu _\lambda D\right)^\mu \overline{D}^\lambda ]\}+h.c.,`$ (27)
$`_{J\overline{D}^{}D^{}\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`m_DJ^\mu (^\nu \pi )\{g_4ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \lambda }D^\rho \overline{D}^\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha _\nu D^\beta \right)\overline{D}^\lambda `$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_6}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(_\nu D^\alpha \right)^\lambda \overline{D}^\beta `$ (29)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_7}{m_D^2}}[ϵ_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }\left(_\lambda ^\alpha D^\beta \right)\overline{D}^\lambda 2ϵ_{\mu \alpha \lambda \beta }\left(^\alpha D^\lambda \right)^\beta \overline{D}^\nu `$ (30)
$`+`$ $`2ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }D^\lambda _\lambda ^\alpha \overline{D}^\beta +ϵ_{\alpha \nu \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha D_\mu ^{}\right)^\lambda \overline{D}^\beta `$ (31)
$`+`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }ϵ_{\alpha \beta \rho \lambda }\left(^\alpha D^\beta \right)^\lambda \overline{D}^\rho 2ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \lambda }D^\alpha ^\lambda _\mu \overline{D}^\beta ]`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_7^{}}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha D_\nu ^{}\right)^\lambda \overline{D}^\beta `$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_8}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }D^\alpha ^\lambda _\nu \overline{D}^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{g_9}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\beta D^\alpha \right)_\nu \overline{D}^\lambda `$ (34)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha _\mu D^\beta \right)\overline{D}^\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{g_7^{\prime \prime }}{m_D^2}}ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha D^\beta \right)^\lambda \overline{D}_\mu ^{}`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_9}{m_D^4}}\left[ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha _\nu D^\rho \right)^\lambda _\rho \overline{D}^\beta +ϵ_{\alpha \rho \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha _\nu D^\rho \right)^\lambda _\mu \overline{D}^\beta \right]`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_9^{}}{m_D^4}}[ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha D^\rho \right)_\rho _\nu ^\lambda \overline{D}^\beta +ϵ_{\alpha \rho \beta \lambda }\left(^\alpha D^\rho \right)^\lambda _\mu _\nu \overline{D}^\beta ]\}.`$ (37)
While in these formulae 13 coupling constants appear, the number of the independent couplings is only 5. As a matter of fact they can be written in terms of the independent couplings $`A_1,A_2,A_4,B,K`$ defined by the formulae

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle d^4\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{}^\alpha \mathrm{}^\beta }{(\mathrm{}^2m^2)[(\mathrm{}+q)^2m^2](v\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })(v^{}\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })}}=A_1g^{\alpha \beta }+`$ (38)
(39)
$`+A_2\left(v^\alpha v^\beta +v^\alpha v^\beta \right)+A_4\left(v^\alpha v^\beta +v^\alpha v^\beta \right),`$ (40)
(41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle d^4\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{}^\alpha }{(\mathrm{}^2m^2)[(\mathrm{}+q)^2m^2](v\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })(v^{}\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })}}=B\left(v^\alpha +v^\beta \right),`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3i}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle d^4\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}^2m^2)[(\mathrm{}+q)^2m^2](v\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })(v^{}\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Delta })}}=K.`$ (43)
The dependence of the $`g_k`$ on these couplings is in Table 2.

| Coupling | CQM formula |
| --- | --- |
| $`g_0`$ | $`\beta [(4m+2\mathrm{\Delta }_H)Bm^2K]`$ |
| $`g_1`$ | $`\beta [2A_1+2A_2+2\omega A_44mB+m^2K]`$ |
| $`g_2`$ | $`\beta [2A_1+2\omega A_2+2A_42(1+\omega )mB+m^2K]`$ |
| $`g_3`$ | $`2\beta [A_2A_4mB]`$ |
| $`g_4`$ | $`\beta [2A_1+2A_2+2\omega A_4(1+\omega )mB+m^2K]`$ |
| $`g_5`$ | $`\beta [2A_2mB]`$ |
| $`g_6`$ | $`\beta [2A_1+2A_4mB+m^2K]`$ |
| $`g_7`$ | $`\beta mB`$ |
| $`g_7^{}`$ | $`g_1+2g_7`$ |
| $`g_7^{\prime \prime }`$ | $`g_1+g_7`$ |
| $`g_8`$ | $`2\beta [(1\omega )A_2A_4]`$ |
| $`g_9`$ | $`2\beta A_4`$ |
| $`g_9^{}`$ | $`g_5+g_7`$ |

Table 2. Relations between the coupling constants $`g_k`$ and the constants $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`A_4`$, $`B`$ and $`K`$. Units are GeV-2; $`\omega `$ is defined in eq.(15), with $`p_1^2=p_2^2=m_D^2`$ and $`p^2=2`$ GeV2 for $`g_0,g_1,g_4,g_7`$ and $`p^2=5`$ GeV2 for $`g_2,g_3,g_5,g_8,g_9`$.In this table

$$\beta =\frac{m_J^2p^2}{f_\pi f_Jm_J}Z_H,$$
(44)
and explicit formulae for $`A_1,A_2,A_4,B,K`$ can be found in Section V. These results have been obtained by a VMD ansatz similar to Fig. 2, but now the l.h.s is modified by the insertion of a soft pion on the light quark line (with a coupling $`q_\pi ^\mu /f_\pi \gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$). Let us discuss in some detail one of these couplings, $`g_0`$. The numerical results for on-shell $`D`$ mesons, in the soft pion limit as a function of the $`J/\psi `$ virtuality show a behavior similar to that of Fig. 3. By the same arguments used to determine $`g_{JDD}`$ in Fig. 3 we choose $`p^2=2`$ GeV2 and we get

$$\frac{g_0}{m_D}=125\pm 15\mathrm{GeV}^3(\mathrm{soft}\mathrm{pion}\mathrm{limit}).$$
(45)
In order to include hard pion effects we write the general formula

$$g_k(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)=g_k(0)f_k(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |),$$
(46)
where $`f_k(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)`$ is a form factor. We will discuss it in the next section. For the time being we report the values of all the coupling constants in the soft pion limit in Table 3.

| Coupling | Results (GeV-2) | Coupling | Results (GeV-2) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`g_0(0)`$ | $`+234\pm 45`$ | $`g_5(0)`$ | $`274\pm 49`$ |
| $`g_1(0)`$ | $`235\pm 38`$ | $`g_6(0)`$ | $`+104\pm 16`$ |
| $`g_2(0)`$ | $`126\pm 19`$ | $`g_7(0)`$ | $`+30\pm 5`$ |
| $`g_3(0)`$ | $`252\pm 38`$ | $`g_8(0)`$ | $`106\pm 22`$ |
| $`g_4(0)`$ | $`165\pm 25`$ | $`g_9(0)`$ | $`63\pm 37`$ |

Table 3. Results for the coupling constants $`g_j(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)`$ in the soft pion limit $`q_\pi 0`$.

In computing this table we have adopted a criterion of stability in $`p^2`$ analogous to the one used for $`g_0`$. For $`g_0,g_1,g_4,g_7`$ we find stability at the $`J/\psi `$ virtuality $`p^2=2`$ GeV2. For $`g_2,g_3,g_5,g_8,g_9`$ we find stability at $`p^2=5`$ GeV2. The technical reason for this difference is that, in the latter case, the equations do not determine the five constants for $`p^20`$; therefore the stability region lies around the center of the $`p^2`$ interval $`(0,m_J^2)`$. For $`g_6`$ we do not find stability and we derive it by consistency equations derived from Table 2. To the error arising from the stability analysis we have added a further theoretical uncertainty of $`\pm 15\%`$ in quadrature.

An attempt to compute quadrilinear couplings via $`SU_4`$ symmetry relations can be found in cina1  and in cina2 . For example, the result for $`g_0`$ obtained in cina2  is 30 GeV-2. The difference with Table 3 is due to the large $`SU_4`$ violations of our model $`(m_c>>m_u,m_s)`$.

## V Form factors

The coupling constants $`g_j`$ can be expressed in terms of the constants $`A_j`$, $`B`$ and $`K`$ using the results of Table 2. These constants, for $`|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |0`$, are expressed in terms of parametric integrals $`I_j`$ as follows:

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(1\omega ^2)2C_3+2C_2\omega }{2(1\omega ^2)}},`$ (47)
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_1(\omega ^21)6C_2\omega +2C_3(2+\omega ^2)}{2(\omega ^21)^2}},`$ (48)
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_2(2+4\omega ^2)+\omega (C_1(1\omega ^2)6C_3)}{2(\omega ^21)^2}},`$ (49)
$`B(q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\omega }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[I_4(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ))\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi )K(x,q_\pi )],`$ (50)
$`K(q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xK(x,q_\pi ),`$ (51)
where

$`C_1(q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[I_5(\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi ),\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ),\omega )+m^2K(x,q_\pi )],`$ (52)
$`C_2(q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`I_2{\displaystyle _0^1}dx[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi )I_4(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ))+\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi )I_4(\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi ))`$ (53)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi )K(x,q_\pi )],`$ (54)
$`C_3(q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega I_2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x[(\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi )+\omega \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ))I_4(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ))\mathrm{\Delta }^2(x,q_\pi )K(x,q_\pi )],`$ (55)
$`K(x,q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{m^2}}I_5(\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi ),\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi ),\omega ),`$ (56)
and we have defined

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\pi x,`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x,q_\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_\pi x\omega .`$ (58)
To compute the integrals we have applied the Feynman trick with the shift $`\mathrm{}+qx\mathrm{}^{}`$ where the pion momentum is $`q_\mu =(q_\pi ,0,0,q_\pi )`$. $`\omega `$ is computed by eq. (15) with the appropriate value of $`p^2`$, according to the discussion above. Moreover we have used the approximation:

$$v^\mu =\omega v^\mu ,$$
(59)
which has the correct normalization at $`\omega =1`$ and also satisfies the constraint $`\omega =vv^{}`$. Using (59) we assume that at least one of the two charmed resonances is off-shell, simplifying considerably the numerical computation. A numerical calculation of the integrals in these equations leads to a general fit of the form factors as follows:

$$f_k(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)=\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |}{m_k}}},$$
(60)
with approximately the same value for all the form factors:

$$m_k=0.20\pm 0.05\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(61)
It is useful to compute the corrections to the soft pion limit also for the $`DD^{}\pi `$ coupling constants whose value for $`q_\pi 0`$ was computed in nc  and reported in eq. (14). Using the same technique employed above we make the substitution

$$\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}^2m^2)^2}\frac{1}{(\mathrm{}^2m^2)[(\mathrm{}+q)^2m^2]}$$
(62)
and compute the integrals appearing in eq. (63) of nc  by the Feynman method as above. The result of this calculation is plotted in Fig. 4. The dependence can be fitted by a formula similar to eq. (60) with a mass $`m_\chi =0.37`$ GeV:

$$g_{D^{}D\pi }(|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |)=\frac{g_{D^{}D\pi }^{spl}}{1+\frac{|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |}{m_\chi }}.$$
(63)
It is useful to compare this result with that found in Ref. Isola:2001ar  for the same quantity computed in a QCD inspired potential model. In that case one finds again a similar form factor with $`m_\chi =0.20\pm 0.10`$ GeV. These two determinations are sufficiently compatible and induce us to be confident that the method we have used to get the results (60) and (61) is reliable. It can be noted that considering a different extrapolation, i.e. in the pion virtuality $`Q^2`$, as in Ref. navarra2 , a smoother behavior is obtained, which should be relevant in the calculation of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ absorption cross section.

## VI Conclusions

As discussed in falk , but see also report , the leading contributions to the current matrix element $`H(v^{})\pi |\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c|H(v)`$ in the soft pion limit (spl) are the pole diagrams. The technical reason is that, in the spl, the reducing action of a pion derivative in the matrix element is compensated in the polar diagrams by the effect of the denominator that vanishes in the combined limit $`q_\pi 0,m_c\mathrm{}`$. Let us now compare this result with the effective $`JDD\pi `$ coupling obtained by a polar diagram with an intermediate $`D^{}`$ state. We get in this case

$$g_0^{polar}\frac{g_{JDD^{}}g_{D^{}D\pi }m_D}{2q_\pi p_D}.$$
(64)
This expression dominates over the result (45) for pion momenta smaller than 100 MeV. If one restricts the model to the soft pion limit ($`|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |<100`$ MeV), in spite of the rather large value of $`g_0(0)`$ the diagrams containing this coupling are suppressed, and one can expect a similar result also for the other couplings. However, to allow the production of a $`D^{()}D^{()}`$ pair by processes (1), one has to go beyond the spl, since the threshold for the charmed meson pair is $`|\stackrel{}{q}_\pi |=7001000`$ MeV. Our results show that in the CQM model this is indeed possible, by including computed form factors as in (60) and (63). Similar form factors were considered in cina1 , with a different motivation. Here we have shown that the CQM model not only allows their computation, but also gives the general expression for the trilinear and quartic couplings of $`J/\psi `$ to charmed mesons and pions. In spite of its model dependent character this seems to us an interesting result. Applications to the problem of the $`J/\psi `$ absorption in a nuclear medium will be considered elsewhere.

## Acknowledgements

One of us, GN, wishes to thank the Theory Division of CERN for the kind hospitality. ADP is supported by a M. Curie fellowship, contract HPMF-CT-2001-01178.