text:
# The distances to open clusters from main-sequence fitting. I. New models and a comparison to the properties of the Hyades eclipsing binary vB 22

## 1 Introduction

The distances to Milky Way star clusters as derived from main-sequence fitting play a critical role in unraveling the history of the Galaxy and, via luminosity calibration of pulsating variables, in finding distances throughout the Local Group. Parallaxes from the Hipparcos satellite have provided precise measurements of the distances to the nearest open clusters, particularly the Hyades (Perryman et al., 1998), allowing stringent tests of the predictions of stellar evolutionary models (e.g., Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune, 2001).

To go beyond the handful of clusters with trigonometric parallaxes (e.g., van Leeuwen, 1999; Robichon et al., 1999; Makarov, 2002) requires isochrones that are physically accurate and well calibrated over a wide range of temperature – ideally all along the main sequence. As is well known this is a nontrivial exercise, since the luminosity of the main-sequence is a sensitive function of helium abundance and metallicity. Radii from stellar models depend on the treatment of convection, for which only simple phenomenological theories are available. Photometric colors and bolometric corrections are often poorly determined, especially for stars much hotter or cooler than the Sun, and are highly dependent on the details of model atmospheres employed in the computation of the isochrones. Rapidly rotating stars typically have large spots and chromospheric emission, not modelled in the computation of the isochrones, which could affect their colors especially in the blue and ultraviolet (van Leeuwen, Alphenaar, & Meys, 1987; Stauffer et al., 2003), As a result of some or all these effects, it is typically the case that even the best isochrones have do not match the detailed shape of the main sequence as determined from photometry (Terndrup et al., 2000; Castellani, Degl’Innocenti, & Prada Moroni, 2001; Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune, 2001).

Despite the complexity of the problem, it is now possible to determine more accurate absolute and relative distances to open clusters. Helioseismology has given us reliable measures of many parameters which directly or indirectly affect the radius, including the helium abundance, the amount of helium diffusion, and opacities in the convective zone (e.g., Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu, 2001). Hipparcos parallaxes in the Hyades (Perryman et al., 1998; de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, & de Zeeuw, 2001) and of nearby field stars (Jimenez et al., 2003; Percival, Salaris, & Kilkenny, 2003) can potentially provide the means of empirically correcting the isochrone color-temperature relation.

In addition, eclipsing binary stars provide a powerful test of the theory of stellar structure and evolution, particularly the mass/luminosity relation. This is especially true of systems in star clusters, where there are additional constraints on the age and abundances of the stars. As summarized by Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune (2001), the Hyades cluster has five binaries where the components have measured masses. Of these systems only vB 22 has masses with a small enough uncertainty to place powerful constraints on the theoretical models; we will therefore focus on vB 22 (= 818 Tau, HD 27130). In this system, the relative magnitudes of vB 22A and vB 22B have been measured in several colors and the absolute radii have been inferred.

We will use vB 22 as a test of both the absolute luminosities and effective temperatures of our models. We contend that the agreement in luminosity that we obtain justifies the construction of an empirical isochrone where the colors as a function of $`M_V`$ are adjusted to reproduce the morphology of the Hyades color-magnitude diagram. In addition, we will show that the absolute magnitudes of the two components in the $`B`$, $`V`$, and $`I`$ bands provide support for the relative model luminosities and effective temperatures, even though the direct radii inferred from the binaries are not in agreement with the models. This step justifies holding the model effective temperatures fixed and varying the color calibrations when constructing the empirical isochrone, the details of which are discussed in the second paper in this series. Finally, we examine the question of the Hyades helium abundance and the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$ appropriate for chemical evolution of solar-neighborhood stars.

The vB 22 system has been studied extensively since McClure (1982) first used it to determine the distance to the Hyades and to constrain the mass-luminosity relationship. The most recent papers (Lastennet et al., 1999; Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune, 2001; Torres & Ribas, 2002) have yielded somewhat discordant results. Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune (2001) claim evidence for a low helium abundance, while Lastennet et al. (1999) and Torres & Ribas (2002) find that the luminosities of the models are consistent with the data if the Hipparcos distance is adopted. All authors note the apparent contradiction between the radii of theoretical models and those obtained from the eclipse data. In light of these results we believe that a careful analysis of the data and the theoretical models is warranted, with particular attention to the errors involved.

## 2 An Isochrone for the Hyades

We begin with a new set of theoretical models described in detail by Sills, Pinsonneault, & Terndrup (2000). The essential aspects of these models are repeated here for the reader’s convenience.

We used the Yale Rotating Evolution Code (YREC) to construct evolutionary tracks over the mass range $`0.25(M/M_{})2.25`$. YREC is a Henyey code which solves the equations of stellar structure in one dimension (Guenther et al., 1992) and which follows rotational evolution by treating the star as a set of nested, rotationally deformed shells. For this application, however, we used the code in its non-rotating mode; non-rotating stars of the age and masses considered here are structurally identical to those which are rotating (e.g., Sills, Pinsonneault, & Terndrup, 2000) and solar-like Hyades stars are slow rotators (Radick et al., 1987; Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran, 2003). The chemical composition of each shell is updated separately using the nuclear reaction rates of Gruzinov & Bahcall (1998). Composition changes due to microscopic diffusion can be calculated. The initial chemical mixture is the solar mixture of Grevesse & Noels (1993), and for the Sun the models have a surface metallicity of $`Z=0.0176`$ at the age of the solar system. We use the latest OPAL opacities (Iglesias & Rogers, 1996) for the interior of the star down to temperatures of $`\mathrm{log}T(\mathrm{K})=4`$. For lower temperatures, we use the molecular opacities of Alexander & Ferguson (1994). For regions of the star with $`\mathrm{log}T(\mathrm{K})6`$, we used the OPAL equation of state (Rogers, Swenson, & Iglesias, 1996). For regions where $`\mathrm{log}T(K)5.5`$, we used the equation of state from Saumon, Chabrier, & Van Horn (1995), which calculates particle densities for hydrogen and helium, including partial dissociation and ionization by both pressure and temperature. In the transition region between these two temperatures, both formulations are weighted with a ramp function and averaged. The equation of state includes both radiation pressure and electron degeneracy pressure. For the surface boundary condition, we experimented with several stellar atmosphere models as described below. For our base case, we adopted $`Y=0.273`$ for the Hyades and ignored diffusion (details to follow), and used the standard Böhm-Vitense mixing length theory (Böhm-Vitense, 1958; Cox & Guili, 1968) with $`\alpha =1.72`$, to match the solar radius ($`R_{}=6.9598\times 10^8`$ m) and luminosity ($`L_{}=3.8515\times 10^{26}`$ W) at the present age of the Sun (4.57 Gyr).

The evolutionary tracks were generated for a Hyades metallicity of \[Fe/H\] $`=+0.13`$ and scaled solar abundances (Boesgaard & Friel, 1990; Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran, 2003). The tracks were interpolated to form an isochrone for an adopted age of 550 Myr, consistent with ages derived from models excluding convective overshoot (Perryman et al., 1998). Models with overshoot have ages $`625`$ Myr, but since we are dealing with relatively low mass stars, the comparison to vB 22 is completely insensitive to the choice of cluster age. The color-temperature relation in Lejeune, Cuisinier, & Buser (1998) was used to generate preliminary colors111$`VI`$ is on the Cousins system, while the $`VK_s`$ colors use the (short) $`K`$ band. from the model parameters $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The resulting isochrone is given as Table 1; the sensitivity of the colors to the choice of color-temperature relation is discussed below. Note that this isochrone is not empirically calibrated to match the photometry of the Hyades main sequence, a necessary procedure discussed at length in our next paper.

The principal theoretical uncertainties in the models are the adopted mixture of heavy elements and the physics chosen for the solar calibration, in particular whether microscopic diffusion is included or not. In the Hyades, the average iron abundance \[Fe/H\] is now determined to high precision ($`\pm 0.01`$ dex), and the relative abundances are near solar for most of the elements that contribute significantly to the internal opacities (Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran, 2003). The choice of model atmospheres and low-temperature opacities only affects the position in the HR diagram for effective temperatures below 3500 K; similar comments apply to the equation of state. The superb agreement between theory and data for helioseismology provides some real confidence in the accuracy of the ingredients of the models for stars similar to the Sun, such as vB 22.

Although the effects of microscopic diffusion do not matter for the Hyades themselves (the cluster is only 12% the age of the Sun), they make a difference for the choice of a calibrating solar model. The net effect of diffusion is a gradual decrease in the helium and heavy element content in the outer layers with a smaller fractional rise in the central values of these quantities. Compared to models with a uniform composition profile, solar models including diffusion have a higher overall helium abundance and require a higher value of $`\alpha `$ to match the solar radius and luminosity.

The proper thing to do, therefore, would be to calibrate the Hyades models using diffusion models for the Sun. For our base case (the isochrone in Table 1), however, we ignored this and instead used models that do not follow diffusion and which were calibrated using models of the homogeneous Sun even though these are incompatible with seismology. The principal reason for this is that the effect of rotationally induced mixing, which diminishes the effects of diffusion, is difficult to model for stars much hotter than the Sun where convection zones are very thin.

For the base case, which we will call the “no diffusion” models, we chose the helium abundance as illustrated in Figure 1. We assumed that the helium abundance is a function of the heavy element content $`Z`$ is given by $`Y=Y_p+(\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z)Z`$, where $`Y_p`$ is the primordial helium abundance. We took $`Y_p=0.245\pm 0.002`$, an intermediate value between estimates from cosmic nucleosynthesis and measures in metal-poor H II regions (see Bono et al., 2002; Thuan & Izotov, 2002, and references therein). The solar helium abundance in models lacking diffusion is $`Y_{}=0.266\pm 0.001`$; these require a mixing length set by $`\alpha =1.74`$. Adopting these values of $`Y_p`$, $`Y_{}`$, and $`\alpha `$ yields $`Y=0.273`$ for the Hyades using the Sun’s surface metal abundance of $`Z_{}=0.0176`$.

We also computed models using an alternative set of parameters calibrated on solar models that include diffusion (Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu, 2001). Models compatible with helioseismology that include both rotational mixing and diffusion have surface abundances of $`Y_{,\mathrm{surf}}=0.249\pm 0.003`$ and $`Z_{,\mathrm{surf}}=0.0176`$, which imply an initial composition of $`Y_{}=0.274`$ and $`Z_{}=0.019\pm 0.001`$ and $`\alpha =1.85`$. Using these values to extrapolate a model for the Hyades at $`Z(\mathrm{Hyades})/Z_{}=1.35`$, we would derive $`Y=0.280`$ for the Hyades. These will be called the “diffusion” models; these also follow the effects of microscopic diffusion, even though it does not produce significant effects at the age of the Hyades.

## 3 Photometry, masses, and radii for vB 22

Table 2 summarizes three high-precision distance estimates to vB 22, from an orbital parallax (Peterson & Solensky, 1988) solution222This value was apparently misquoted by Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune (2001) in their Table 1, but does not affect their analysis., the Hipparcos trigonometric parallax (Perryman et al., 1998), and the kinematic parallax (de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, & de Zeeuw, 2001). These are all in excellent agreement.

The basic photometric data for the vB 22 system are summarized in Table 3. The first two rows of that table show the Schiller & Malone (1987) photometry for vB 22 (i.e., both stars together) in $`B`$, $`V`$, and (Cousins) $`I_C`$, along with the derived luminosity ratio in each filter, where the errors are taken from that paper. Following this are the apparent magnitudes in each band for the individual components derived from the luminosity ratios. Note that the photometric errors are significant for the secondary and will be accounted for in the discussion below. Finally, we derive the difference in absolute magnitude between the primary and secondary in each filter, and also include the absolute magnitudes that would be obtained from the kinematic parallax (de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, & de Zeeuw, 2001) of vB 22, again with errors in the individual components.

In Table 4, we compare the model radii and temperatures at the masses derived for each component of vB 22 by Torres & Ribas (2002) to their solution (top ten rows of the table); we also compare the models to the earlier estimates from Peterson & Solensky (1988) (last six rows). The latter values were the ones used by Lebreton, Fernandes, & Lejeune (2001). In the comparison to the Torres & Ribas (2002) solution, we tabulate the properties of the model both with and without diffusion, while we only show the no-diffusion case in comparison to Peterson & Solensky (1988). The quantities derived from the model are on the scale where the Sun has $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ is 4.746 and the radii and effective temperatures are obtained from the solar-calibrated helium and mixing length.

The first thing to note is that in all cases the model radii at the observed masses are considerably different from the radii derived from the analysis of the eclipses by $`2.54.5`$ times the formal errors derived from propagating the mass error. This indicates that there is an inconsistency333Since $`LR^2T_{\mathrm{eff}}^4`$, one could match the models to the data using two of the quantities $`(L,R,T_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ but not all three simultaneously. Another indication that something is the matter is that both stars formally have the same gravity in the Torres & Ribas (2002) analysis, which contradicts the strong prediction from theory that the mean density increases with decreasing mass for main-sequence stars. The models predict $`\mathrm{log}g(\mathrm{vB}22\mathrm{A})\mathrm{log}g(\mathrm{vB}22\mathrm{B})=0.11`$. in the observational determination of mass, radius, and luminosity compared to the model. Since luminosity is determined by a combination of temperature and radius, we need to examine these separately to pinpoint the source of this inconsistency.

To quantify the size of the mismatch in temperature, we also show in Table 4 the model temperatures at the observed masses of vB 22A and vB 22B using the mass/radius relation in the models. We also compare this to the case in which we take the observed radius as correct, which would imply a larger temperature for vB 22A where the observed radius is smaller than in the model, and a smaller temperature for vB 22B. Here, the required changes in temperature are considerable, amounting to $`150190`$ K.

The effect of including diffusion is shown in the top part of that Table for the Torres & Ribas (2002) solution. For the same starting helium abundance the effects of the precise value of the mixing length are very small for luminosity and modest even for the effective temperature: the diffusion models would be roughly 35 K hotter than the no-diffusion models for the primary and 13 K hotter for the secondary. Thus the inconsistency with the models is not caused by the treatment of diffusion in the solar calibration.

Because the Hyades has been well studied spectroscopically, there exist independent estimates of the luminosity/temperature relation. In Figure 2, we show spectroscopically derived temperatures for a subset of stars in the recent study of Hyades abundances by Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran (2003). Stars with $`T<6000`$ K and with good $`BVI_CK_s`$ photometry are shown as open points with error bars. The values of $`M_V`$ are derived from individual kinematic parallaxes (de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, & de Zeeuw, 2001); errors in this quantity are dominated by distance errors rather than photometric errors. PSC to not list individual temperature errors, so we took $`\pm 50`$ K as a representative value, derived from PSC’s comparison of their temperatures to those in previous studies. The solid line on that figure is the Hyades isochrone derived in this paper. The filled circles show the temperature of the isochrone at the Torres & Ribas (2002) masses. The filled triangles display the temperatures that would be found for the components of vB 22 if the measured radii were correct. The agreement between the isochrone and the spectroscopic temperatures is excellent, which shows that the luminosity/radius relationship in the models is nearly correct, at least under the assumption that all Hyades stars have identical metallicity. If on the other hand the luminosity/temperature relation in the models were adjusted to match the radii in the Torres & Ribas (2002) solution (vB 22A hotter by 200 K, vB 22B cooler), then there would be difference of about 0.15 dex between the hottest and coolest stars in the PSC sample (the hotter stars would be come out more metal rich).

In Figure 3, we compare the isochrones to the Torres & Ribas (2002) solution in $`M_V`$, $`BV`$ and $`VI_C`$ as a function of mass. The isochrone is slightly brighter than the data, which indicates that the distance to vB 22 is underestimated or, as we will discuss in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 4, that the helium abundance we adopted for the Hyades is too high. The color-temperature relation in the isochrone differs from the inferred colors of the binary components, but in this paper we are mainly concerned with comparing the model luminosities to the data.

Table 5 summarizes the errors in absolute magnitude, radius, or effective temperature that are contributed by different effects. To compute the result of the uncertainty in mass, we assume the Torres & Ribas (2002) error of 0.0062 $`M_{}`$ for each star. The errors from \[Fe/H\] assume $`\sigma [\mathrm{Fe}/\mathrm{H}]=0.05`$ dex per star, while those listed for the bolometric correction were computed by taking the largest difference between the inferred fluxes for that filter between three different color calibrations (below) and dividing by 2. We have also computed errors that would result if the metal abundance were known with vanishingly small errors; these are shown in the rows labeled “no Z.” Because the sign of changes in metallicity is the same for both components the errors in their relative fluxes are smaller; we give these values in the row labeled “B-A.”

We compare the absolute magnitudes of the two components of vB 22 to the models in Table 6, where we employ models lacking diffusion but with two alternative color calibrations, that of Allard & Hauschildt (1995) and Alonso, Arribas, & Martínez-Roger (1996), in addition to the one employed as our base case (Lejeune, Cuisinier, & Buser, 1998). The comparison is done at fixed mass. In general, the different color calibrations only change the luminosity by a few hundredths of a magnitude. We take the scatter in the luminosities indicating the size of errors in the bolometric corrections; these were shown in Table 5. We show the effects of including diffusion or of forcing the temperature scale to match the observed stellar radii in Table 7. These models are for the Lejeune, Cuisinier, & Buser (1998) color calibration only.

The agreement between theory and observation is impressive for the no diffusion models and well within the expected errors for both the absolute luminosities and the relative luminosities. Overall the different color calibrations agree best for the $`V`$ and $`B`$ bands, while there is more scatter in the predicted $`I_C`$-band luminosities. The relative fluxes are very close to the predicted level for the $`V`$ and $`B`$ bands and are mildly inconsistent with the $`I_C`$ band fluxes, especially for vB 22B where the models are fainter than the data by 0.1 mag or so. This comparison indicates that the problem is most likely in the $`I_C`$ band bolometric corrections rather than in the $`V`$ band bolometric corrections.

However, the agreement is not preserved if the effective temperatures are altered to the values inferred from the eclipse data. Essentially, choosing a lower effective temperature for the secondary drives down the $`V`$ and $`B`$ band fluxes while slightly increasing the $`I`$-band flux. As a result the relative flux differences in the $`V`$ and $`B`$ bands become much larger. This result is insensitive to the metallicity of the Hyades because decreases in the metallicity affect the luminosity and effective temperature of both components in the same sense, while the model radii are insensitive to the metallicity. We therefore conclude that the relative fluxes in different bands, the mass-luminosity relationship, and the radii obtained from the eclipse data are not consistent with one another. One of the three must be in error. Because of the insensitivity of the mass-luminosity relationship to errors in the input physics we view it as more likely that there is some unresolved issue in one of the two other ingredients. As in previous analyses of this system, we note that there is no obvious single change in the input physics that can reconcile the models with both components simultaneously. What we have added is evidence that these radii are also inconsistent with the flux ratios.

## 4 The Helium Abundance of the Hyades

Because the luminosity of stellar models at fixed mass is very sensitive to the helium abundance ($`M_{\mathrm{bol}}/Y=10`$), we can formally derive an initial helium abundance for the Hyades: using the de Bruijne, Hoogerwerf, & de Zeeuw (2001) distance to vB 22, we find $`Y=0.271\pm 0.006`$ for the no-diffusion models. The models including diffusion are brighter than those without, indicating that the initial choice of $`Y=0.280`$ was too high at the assumed distance. Correcting those models brings the estimated helium abundance down to $`Y=0.271`$, showing that the derived helium abundance is nearly independent of the details of the solar calibration.

If we adopt a primordial helium abundance of 0.245, the Hyades would give a slope $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y/\mathrm{\Delta }Z=1.11\pm 0.25`$, smaller than the values of 1.5 and 1.2 obtained from solar models with and without diffusion respectively. If the more realistic initial solar helium abundance (including diffusion) and the Hyades helium abundance are taken at face value, they suggest a scatter in helium at fixed metal abundance of order 0.009; however, this range is only marginally significant. If we take this as a one sigma error range, it would imply only a small resulting error in a cluster distance modulus at fixed \[Fe/H\] of order 0.027 magnitudes.

The Hyades helium abundance we derive is equal within the errors to the solar value $`Y=0.273`$ in models excluding diffusion. The solar models with diffusion would predict a higher helium abundance of 0.280, which is not favored by the data; however, it is only of order $`2\sigma `$ from the measurement. Isochrones are less sensitive to changes in helium than models of a given mass, with a change of 0.01 in helium causing a change in $`M_V`$ at fixed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of 0.03. We can include this in our next paper in the error budget for the absolute distances.

This value is higher than that obtained by Lebreton et al. (2001), who found $`Y=0.255\pm 0.009`$. There are two reasons for this difference. First, we adopted the revised masses of Torres & Ribas (2002); these yield predicted luminosities that are 0.08 to 0.09 mag fainter than found by Peterson & Solensky (1988), resulting in a higher helium abundance. Second, our models employ a number of ingredients not used by Lebreton et al.; as they note, using the OPAL equation of state, Kurucz model atmospheres rather than a gray atmosphere, and a higher mixing length all increase the inferred value of $`Y`$.

The mixture of heavy elements can also have an impact on the properties of the models. There have been two relatively recent revisions of the Grevesse & Noels (1993) abundance scale for the Sun which was used in this paper. Grevesse & Sauval (1998) have reduced the CNO abundances, while Asplund (2000) has proposed a downward revision of 9.2% in the zero-point between the meteoritic and photospheric abundance scales. This would not alter those abundances not tied to the meteoritic scale (C, N, O, Ne, etc.) but would affect important interior opacity sources such as Si and Fe. Helioseismic tests (Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu, 2001) indicate that the Grevesse & Sauval (1998) mixture marginally degrades the agreement with the measured solar convection zone depth, but by a degree that is consistent with other known theoretical uncertainties. The solar helium abundance is insensitive to the CNO abundances. The Asplund (2000) mixture has a small impact on the solar sound speed, but the lower iron abundance results in a lower solar helium abundance. This is in disagreement with the measured surface abundance of helium at the 2-3 $`\sigma `$ level; Bahcall, Pinsonneault, & Basu (2001) were not able to rule this out because the degree of disagreement is sensitive to systematic errors in the helium abundance determination arising from the equation of state.

We have verified that adopting the Grevesse & Sauval (1998) mixture instead of the Grevesse & Noels (1993) mixture produces only small changes in the isochrones (or even the more sensitive tests possible in vB 22). The Asplund (2000) mixture would imply a Hyades helium abundance (including diffusion) that is comparable to the Grevesse & Noels (1993) or Grevesse & Sauval (1998) helium abundance inferred in the absence of diffusion. We have also explored the effects of including small deviations from the solar mix in the Hyades as measured by Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran (2003), and found that the impact would be of the same order as the difference between the choice of the solar element mix.

## 5 Summary and Remarks

In this paper, we have begun a new analysis of open cluster distances by performing stringent tests the of the luminosity/temperature for new isochrones with updated physics. We explored the effect of varying many details of the models, including the abundance mix of helium and metals, and concluded that the models match the relative temperatures and luminosities of the components of the binary vB 22 in the Hyades. Along the way, we derived a helium abundance that is not much different from that in the Sun, even though the Hyades is more metal-rich.

The resulting helium abundance is almost insensitive to the details of the solar calibration used to generate the isochrone. Models using a solar calibration consistent with helioseismology predict a high value of $`Y`$ for the Hyades; the resulting isochrone, however, is too bright at fixed mass, which leads to the conclusion that the Hyades helium abundance is not much different from the Sun’s initial value of $`Y=0.272`$. This may imply a scatter in the helium abundance of about $`\delta Y=0.01`$ at fixed metallicity in the solar neighborhood. While this would produce a real effect on the luminosity of the isochrones at fixed mass, we have argued that the effect on the isochrones at fixed color would be much smaller and would not produce big errors in the distance estimates derived from main-sequence fitting.

The principal result of this paper was our demonstration that there is an inconsistency between the solar models and the binary data in mass, luminosity, temperature, and radius. External checks on the abundance and temperature scales from recent high-precision abundances in the Hyades Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran (2003), indicates that the problem lies with the observational determination of the radii. We conclude from this that we can adjust the isochrones to match the Hyades photometry by leaving the stellar luminosity and temperatures as they are, and compute corrections to the color/temperature relations; this is the subject of our next paper.

The comparison between the model colors and absolute magnitude and the data for vB 22 may be complicated by the presence of spots on the stellar surfaces. In the Pleiades, stars with the luminosities of vB 22B fall up to 0.5 mag below the main sequence in $`V`$, $`BV`$ as defined by the Hyades van Leeuwen, Alphenaar, & Meys (1987); Stauffer et al. (2003), the difference is negligible when $`V`$ and $`VI`$ are used. Stauffer et al. (2003) attribute this to the presence of hot and cool regions on the surfaces of the rapidly-rotating Pleiades stars as compared to their slowly-rotating counterparts in the Hyades. The orbital period of vB 22 is 5.6 days (Schiller & Malone, 1987). If both members of vB 22 were corotating, this would correspond to equatorial rotation speeds of only 8 km s-1 for vB 22A and 6 km s-1 for vB 22B (the binaries are well detached). These values are not much different from the average $`v\mathrm{sin}i`$ for Hyades stars of similar colors in Paulson, Sneden, & Cochran (2003), and considerably slower than the projected rotation speed ($`v\mathrm{sin}i`$) for the Pleiades stars with the most anomalous $`BV`$ color. The vB 22 system, however, has exhibited flares and color variations outside eclipses, so active regions may indeed be important at some level (Schiller & Malone, 1987).

The work reported here was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, under grants AST-9731621 and AST-0206008 to the Ohio State University Research Foundation. We wish to thank the anonymous referee for many helpful comments.


format: text

text:
# Open string mirror maps from Picard- Fuchs equations on relative cohomology

## 1 Introduction.

Mirror symmetry has proven to be an effective tool in enumerative geometry. In Morrison’s paper , it was shown how variations of physically motivated families of algebraic varieties led to predictions of the number of rational curves on the mirror varieties, through the study of Picard- Fuchs equations. The idea is that, by considering the $`B`$ model variation defined by a family of Calabi- Yau varieties, one can write down Picard- Fuchs equations and a basis of solutions for them. By a procedure of normalization on the PF solutions, it is possible to identify a canonical set of coordinates on the moduli space of the family of varieties, and these coordinates define the mirror map. One can then expand a certain function on the moduli space (called the prepotential $``$) in terms of the canonical coordinates, and the coefficients of the expansion would give the predictions of rational curve numbers, up to a ”multiple cover” formula, which was computed directly in . Some of these predictions were given explicit verification in terms of the mirror geometries in .

More recently, there has been an interest in open string mirror symmetry and its enumerative consequences (, , , , , ). In terms of the $`B`$ model variation, or equivalently a family of algebraic varieties, the difference between the usual and the open string picture is that now one must vary a Calabi- Yau variety $`X`$ together with a holomorphic curve $`B`$ inside the variety. The new enumerative invariants, which still lack a definition (but see  for progress on this), are interpreted not as the number of rational curves in the mirror geometry, but rather as the number of Riemann surfaces with boundary whose boundary lies on a special Lagrangian submanifold of the mirror geometry. provides some mathematical exposition toward using the approach of  on the open string problem.

The focus of this paper is to use $`B`$ model computations to make predictions on the number of (conjectural) open Gromov- Witten invariants, in the spirit of Morrison’s original paper. These ideas have already appeared in a physical setting, in the papers of Lerche, Mayr and Warner (, ). As in the paper , a $`B`$ model variation is used, which allows for the derivation of an extended set of Picard- Fuchs operators whose solutions give the open string mirror map. Also, the superpotential $`W`$ (which is analogous to the closed string prepotential $``$) has been identified in . This $`W`$, together with the open string mirror map and a new multiple cover formula , allows for predictions of open Gromov- Witten invariants. Along the way, we will attempt to generalize the arguments in  to the compact setting. As we will see, such a generalization is inconsistent; hence, there is some further subtlety at work in the compact open string case.

Section 2 gives some mathematical background, which sets the stage for later computations. Section three explains the relevant spaces and the motivation for considering them; Section 4 identifies the appropriate relative cohomology class and GKZ operators. Section 5 carefully derives the PF operators and solutions, and section 6 contains the specific example $`K_^2.`$ Since most physical calculations deal with the noncompact case, this is presented explicitly; however, from a computational point of view the compact case is not vastly different, so compact results are presented throughout.

$`\mathrm{𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬}.`$

I would like to thank Wolfgang Lerche for patiently answering my questions about the superpotential computation. I also thank David Morrison and Matt Kerr for helpful conversations. Finally, thanks to my advisor, Kefeng Liu, for suggesting this direction, and to David Gieseker for support during the research.

## 2 Mixed Hodge structure and maximally unipotent points.

### 2.1 Mixed Hodge Structures.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth $`n`$ dimensional Kahler manifold, and $`Y`$ a codimension $`1`$ complex submanifold of $`X`$. In order to avoid primitive cohomology complications, choose $`n`$ to be odd. Here, all cohomology groups will have coefficients in $``$, and all homology groups will have $``$ coefficients unless otherwise noted. $`X`$ and $`Y`$ carry Hodge structures of weight $`n`$ and $`n1`$ respectively, described by the Hodge decompositions

$$H^n(X)_{p+q=n}H^{p,q}(X),H^{n1}(Y)_{p+q=n1}H^{p,q}(Y)$$

together with the integer lattices $`H^n(X,)`$, $`H^{n1}(Y,)`$. As usual, $`H^{p,q}(X)=\overline{H^{q,p}(X)}`$ , and the same for $`Y`$. Equivalently, one can talk about the Hodge filtrations

$$F^{}(X)=\{F^p=_{ap}H^{a,na}(X)\}_{p=0}^n$$

and the corresponding $`F^{}(Y)`$ , together with the above integer lattices.

The first goal is to define a mixed Hodge structure on the relative cohomology group $`H^n(X,Y)`$. The reason for this is the same as the usual setting; the mixed Hodge structure will tell us how to take derivatives of relative forms in $`H^n(X,Y)`$, and hence help identify the appropriate Picard- Fuchs operators.

A mixed Hodge structure is defined by $`(i)`$ a complex vector space $`V_{}=V_{},`$ where $`V_{}`$ is a $``$\- module, $`(ii)`$ an increasing weight filtration $`\{W_k\}_{kI}`$ of $`V_{}`$ , and $`(iii)`$ a decreasing Hodge filtration $`\{F^p\}_{pJ}`$ of $`V_{}`$ for $`I,J`$ such that $`\{(F^pW_k)/(F^pW_{k1})\}_{pJ}`$ is a Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ on $`W_k/W_{k1}`$.

Later in the paper, we will take advantage of the isomorphisms $`H^k(X,Y)H_c^k(XY)`$, that is, $`k`$ forms with compact support on $`XY`$. Also, from here forward we will be considering the simplified situation in which the long exact sequence on relative cohomology splits, so that

$$0H^{n1}(Y)H^n(X,Y)H^n(X)0$$
(1)
is exact.

The mixed Hodge structure for this case can be found in . Simply take the Hodge filtration to be

$$F^{}=\{F^p=_{ap}H^{a,na}(X,Y)\}_{p=0}^n$$

together with the weight filtration $`W_{n1},W_{n2}`$ given as

$$W_{n1}=H^n(X,Y),W_{n2}=H^{n1}(Y).$$

Then

$$(F^pW_{n1})/(F^pW_{n2})=F^p(Y),p=1\mathrm{}n1$$

where the last equality comes from the short exact sequence (1). This is clearly a Hodge filtration on $`H^{n1}(Y)`$, so we have a mixed Hodge structure on $`H^n(X,Y)`$.

### 2.2 Variation of Mixed Hodge Structure.

Let $`S`$ be the punctured 2- disc, $`S=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^2`$, with coordinates $`z=(z_1,z_2)`$. Let $`\pi :\chi S`$ be a family pairs of smooth varieties defined by $`\pi ^1(z)=(X_{z_1},Y_{z_1,z_2})`$, where $`X_{z_1}`$ is $`n`$ dimensional Kahler and $`Y_{z_1,z_2}`$ is a codimension 1 complex submanifold of $`X_{z_1}`$. For all $`zS`$, define $`H^n(X,Y)_z=H^n(X_{z_1},Y_{z_1,z_2})`$, and similarly for the cohomology groups on $`X`$ and $`Y`$. As in the previous section, assume the sequence

$$0H^{n1}(Y)_zH^n(X,Y)_zH^n(X)_z0$$

to be exact for each $`z`$. The mixed Hodge structure on each group $`H^n(X,Y)_z`$ is defined pointwise by the Hodge and weight filtrations given above.

Next, we recall the definition of a variation of mixed Hodge structure (VMHS) :

Definition. A variation of mixed Hodge structure over a complex manifold $`S`$ consists of:

(a) A local system $`V_{}=V_{}`$ of $``$ vector spaces on $`S`$

(b) An increasing filtration $`W=\{W_k\}`$ of $`V_{}=V_{}`$ by local subsystems

(c) A decreasing filtration $`^{}=\{^p\}`$ of holomorphic subbundles of $`^0=V_{}𝒪_S`$

(d) With respect to the canonical flat connection $``$ defined on $`^0`$, $`^p^{p1}\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1`$

(e) If $`𝒲_k=W_k𝒪_S`$, then $`\{(^p𝒲_k)/(^p𝒲_{k1})\}_p`$ defines a variation of Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ on $`𝒲_k/𝒲_{k1}`$.

A variation of Hodge structure is defined by the same information, less items (b) and (e). A discussion can be found in .

By setting $`z_1=c`$ (resp.$`z_2=c`$) for some constant $`c`$, it is known that the cohomology groups $`H^{n1}(Y)_{z_2}`$ (resp.$`H^n(X)_{z_1}`$) vary over the base $`S_{z_1=c}`$($`S_{z_2=c}`$) in a locally constant fashion (). The splitting of the long exact relative cohomology sequence then gives that the variation of $`H^n(X,Y)_z`$ over $`S`$ is also locally constant; hence $`R^n\pi _{}=V_{}`$ defines a local system on $`S`$. It is then known from the general theory () that the above family $`\pi :\chi S`$ gives rise to a VMHS. For us, the relevant details of this are that for $`zS`$, the fiber of $`^0=V_{}𝒪_S`$ is $`H^n(X,Y)_z`$, and also that the fiber of $`^p`$ is $`F_z^p`$, the $`p`$th element of the Hodge filtration on $`H^n(X,Y)_z`$.

### 2.3  Maximally unipotent boundary points.

The local system $`V_{}`$ is equivalent to a monodromy representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(S,z_0)GL(H^n(X,Y)_{z_0})$$
(2)
In addition to the conditions imposed on $`\pi :\chi S`$ above, we want to add that the representation (2) is unipotent. This is the definition of a unipotent VMHS.

We would also like the VMHS to be admissible in the sense of , which means, among other things, that the bundle $`^0`$ over $`S`$ extends to a bundle $`\overline{^0}`$ on $`\overline{S}=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Before this can be further explained, we need to recall some facts about relative weight filtrations (see ).

So, let $`V`$ be a complex vector space with an increasing filtration $`W`$, and fix $`k`$. Then the pair $`(V,W)`$ is a filtered vector space by definition. If also $`N`$ is a nilpotent endomorphism of $`V`$ which preserves $`W`$\- that is, $`NW_kW_k`$ for all $`k`$\- then $`N`$ defines a linear map

$$Gr_kN:Gr_k^WVGr_k^WV.$$

For any filtration $`W`$ of $`V`$, define, for any $`n`$, a shifted filtration on $`V`$ by $`W[n]_k=W_{k+n}.`$

It is well known that a nilpotent endomorphism $`N`$ on $`V`$ determines a unique weight filtration $`L`$ on $`V`$; with the integer $`k`$ of the filtered vector space in hand, it is conventional to set $`M(N)=L[k]`$. With these notations, one can make the following

Definition.Let $`(V,W)`$ and $`N`$ be as above. A weight filtration of N relative to W is a filtration $`M(N,W)=M`$ of $`V`$ satisfying

(1) $`NM_kM_{k2},`$ and

(2) $`MGr_k^WV=M(Gr_kN)`$

for all k.

This comes with the useful

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧}.`$ There is at most one filtration $`M`$ of $`V`$ satisfying the conditions of the above definition.

For the monodromy representation (2) above, choose a basis $`\{T_j\}`$ of Im$`(\rho )`$ and set $`N=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ja_j`$ log $`(T_j)`$, with $`a_j>0`$. Then $`N`$ is a nilpotent matrix. Let $`W`$ be the increasing weight filtration from the VMHS associated to the family $`\pi :\chi S`$, and let $`M=M(N,W)`$.

Since the VMHS associated to $`\pi :\chi S`$ is geometric, $`M`$ is known to exist. Also, as mentioned earlier, in this case there is a canonical extention $`\overline{^0}`$ of $`^0`$ defined on $`\overline{S}`$. If $`F_{lim}^{}`$ denotes the limiting behavior of $`\overline{^0}`$ at $`0`$, then $`(F_{lim}^{},M)`$ defines a mixed Hodge structure on the central fiber $`\overline{\chi }(0)`$.

With these formalities out of the way, one is free to make the definition:

Definition (Maximally unipotent boundary point for open strings).A point $`p\overline{S}S`$ is a maximally unipotent boundary point if the following are satisfied:

(1) The representation $`\rho :\pi _1(S,z_0)GL(H^n(X,Y)_{z_0})`$ for $`z_0S`$ is unipotent.

(2) If $`N=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ja_j`$log$`(T_j)`$, where $`\{T_j\}`$ is a basis of Im$`(\rho )`$ and $`a_j>0`$ for all $`j`$, and if $`M`$ is the weight filtration of $`N`$ relative to $`W`$, then dim$`M_0=`$ dim $`M_1=1`$ and dim$`M_2=3`$.

(3) Let $`g_0`$ span $`M_0`$ and extend this to a basis $`\{g_0,g_1,g_2\}`$ of $`M_2`$. If a matrix $`(m_{ij})`$ is defined by log$`(T_i)(g_j)=m_{ij}g_0`$, then $`(m_{ij})`$ is invertible.

Note that this is simply the usual definition of a maximally unipotent boundary point for $`2`$ dimensional moduli , except that the monodromy weight filtration defined by $`N`$ has now been replaced by the filtration of $`N`$ relative to $`W`$.

## 3 Simplifications for the toric case.

### 3.1 Compact Spaces.

Now, we specialize to the case where the pair $`(X,Y)`$ are given as a Calabi- Yau hypersurface $`X`$ in a toric variety, together with a hypersuface $`Y`$ of $`X`$. In the interest of deriving the Picard- Fuchs equations in the simplest possible manner, one can enlarge the moduli space of the manifolds considered and take an appropriate quotient at the end; this is the strategy followed here. So, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a reflexive polytope of dimension $`n+1`$, and say $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the toric variety defined by this polytope. If $`N`$ = Hom$`(^{n+1},)`$ and $`T_N=N_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ a choice of basis for $`^{n+1}`$ selects coordinates $`y_i`$ on $`T_N.`$ With respect to this chosen basis, set $`\{m_i\}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{n+1}.`$

Sections of the anticanonical bundle of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be described by Laurent polynomials

$$f(a)=\underset{i0}{}a_iy^{m_i},$$

where $`y^{m_i}=y_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_{i,0}}\mathrm{}y_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_{i,n}}`$, the $`y_i`$ are as above and the $`a_i`$ are $`^{}`$ variables. Then a family of Calabi- Yau toric hypersurfaces is given by $`X_a`$, which are defined as the zero sets of the polynomials $`f(a)`$. According to Batyrev , the mirror $`\widehat{X}`$ of $`X`$ can be constructed from the dual polytope: if $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the dual of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then by associating a Laurent polynomial to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ as above, we get the mirror family $`\widehat{X_a}.`$

For reasons motivated by physics, the hypersurface $`Y`$ in $`X`$ will be defined in all cases to be

$$Y_{a,b}=X_a\{g(b)=b_0y_0+b_1y_1=0\}.$$

Again, $`b_i^{}`$ for $`i=0,1.`$ While this seems unmotivated at first, the next section on noncompact examples will clarify this choice.

It should be noted that this is not the full generality presented on . There is in fact an integral ambiguity in the open string Gromov- Witten invariants, as discussed in . The above choice of $`Y`$ reflects ’ambiguity zero’ in physics terminology. To include the ambiguity, fix some $`N.`$ Then one would instead consider $`Y`$ to be given as

$$Y_{a,b}^N=X_a\{g_N(b)=b_0y_0+b_1y_1^{N+1}y_2^N=0\}.$$

Then the integer $`N`$ gives a discrete parameterization of the set of open Gromov- Witten invariants. For the rest of the paper, we will take $`N=0.`$

To find coordinates $`z_i`$ such that the maximally unipotent boundary point is given by $`z_i=0`$ for all $`i`$, the usual procedure for the determination of such coordinates in the closed string case is recalled here. In this context, ’closed string’ refers to considering the moduli of $`X_a`$ only. One finds a set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{l^{n+1}:\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}l_im_i=0,\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}l_i=0\}$$

of relations among the coefficients $`\{m_i\}`$ of $`f(a)`$. Here, there will be only one element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reflexive, there is a Batyrev mirror of $`X_a`$, which gives a definite choice of basis vector for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Picking a basis vector $`l^1`$, there is a canonically defined coordinate on moduli space given as $`z_1=_{k=0}^na_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{l_k^1}`$, and this is conjectured to be the coordinate near the maximally unipotent point $`z_1=0`$.

Next, we move on to the open string case, where the full moduli of $`(X_a,Y_{a,b})`$ is considered. One expects that there is a new set of relations $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ which also take into account the moduli coordinates $`b_i`$, so that $`\widehat{l}\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ are in $`^{n+3}`$. The precise definition of this extended set $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ will be made clear in subsequent sections. Once obtained, however, such $`\widehat{l}`$ will determine moduli coordinates just as in the closed string case, by the rule $`z=_{k=0}^na_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{l}_k}b_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{l}_{n+1}}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{l}_{n+2}}.`$

### 3.2 Noncompact spaces.

Since the bulk of physical results concerning open Gromov- Witten invariants deal with noncompact Calabi- Yaus, we will need a formulation in terms of such spaces. Rather than directly write down the noncompact $`\stackrel{~}{X}_a,`$ we will first consider the mirror $`A`$ model spaces and apply the constructions of local mirror symmetry (, ) to find the $`B`$ model hypersurfaces of interest. Along the way, we will gain a better understanding of the defining equation for $`Y_{a,b}`$ given above, which will allow for flexibility in adapting the presentation here to other geometries.

Following , the $`A`$ model Calabi- Yaus are given as symplectic quotients:

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_r=\{(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)(^4Z)|\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}l_i|x_i|^2=r\}/S^1,$$
(3)
where the $`S^1`$ action is

$$S^1:x_ie^{\sqrt{1}l_i\theta }x_i$$

for $`i=0\mathrm{}3`$ and $`r^+`$. Note also that we need $`_{i=0}^3l_i=0`$ so that $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{W}_r)=0.`$ Finally, $`Z`$ is the singular set implied by the relation $`_{i=0}^3l_i|x_i|^2=r.`$ That is, at least one $`l_i=0,`$ so suppose for example $`l_0<0`$, and $`l_i>0`$ for $`i0`$. Then $`Z=\{x_1=x_2=x_3=0\},`$ from the condition $`r^+.`$

Notice also that $`r`$ is the single Kahler parameter on this space, which is most easily seen through a concrete example. Set $`l=(1,1,1,1).`$ Then the symplectic quotient $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r`$ corresponding to this $`l`$ is known to be isomorphic to the total space of $`𝒪`$$`(1)𝒪`$$`(1)^1.`$ We have $`Z=\{x_0=x_1=0\},`$ and by setting $`x_2=x_3=0`$, we find

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_r\{x_2=x_3=0\}=\{(x_0,x_1)^2:|x_0|^2+|x_1|^2=r\}/S^1.$$

Since $`\{(x_0,x_1)^2:|x_0|^2+|x_1|^2=r\}S^3,`$ we can identify $`\{(x_0,x_1)^2:|x_0|^2+|x_1|^2=r\}/S^1`$ with $`S^2^1`$ via the Hopf fibration. Then $`r`$ determines the size of the $`^1`$ in $`𝒪`$$`(1)𝒪`$$`(1)^1,`$ and this is the Kahler modulus on this space, as claimed.

Recall that the usual definition of a Calabi- Yau manifold is a compact Kahler manifold with vanishing first Chern class. Clearly, the spaces $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r`$ are noncompact, since the coordinates corresponding to negative values of the vector $`l`$ are noncompact. This follows from the obvious generalization of the $`𝒪`$$`(1)𝒪`$$`(1)^1`$ example. Thus we relax the definition of Calabi- Yau, as is standard in physics literature, to say that any manifold which is Kahler and has vanishing first Chern class is Calabi- Yau.

It is trivial to include extra Kahler parameters in the noncompact A model examples:

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}=\{(x_0,\mathrm{},x_{k+2})(^{k+3}Z)|\underset{i=0}{\overset{k+2}{}}l_i^j|x_i|^2=r_j,j=1\mathrm{}k\}/(S^1)^k,$$

where now $`Z=Z_j,`$ with $`Z_j`$ the singular set determined by $`l^j`$ as above, and the $`j`$th factor of $`S^1`$ acts on the $`i`$th variable as $`x_ie^{\sqrt{1}l_i^j\theta _j}x_i.`$ For clarity, throughout the paper only one Kahler parameter will be considered.

To get at the examples we want to study, it is necessary to construct the $`B`$ model geometry $`\stackrel{~}{X}_a`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r.`$ Local mirror symmetry techniques have been known for some time , and the current formulation differs slightly (e.g. ). We will see that both methods give identical results, in terms of what is considered here. This was also noticed by Orlov .

We start by finding an intermediate space $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi .`$ Classical mirror symmetry postulates a map between the complexified Kahler parameters of $`A`$ model geometry and the complex moduli of $`B`$ model geometry, so in the same spirit, we must complexify the Kahler modulus $`r`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r.`$ This is simply $`\psi =r+i\theta ,`$ where $`\theta `$ is the angle determined by the $`S^1`$ action. Then according to Vafa et al., if $`x,z`$ and $`y_i^{}`$ for $`i=0\mathrm{}3,`$ the mirror of $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r`$ is a hypersurface

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi =\{xz+\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i=0|\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{l_i}=e^\psi \}.$$

This has one more complex dimension than desired, so in computations we must specialize to a patch where $`y_i=1`$ for some $`i`$.

The relationship between this and earlier local mirror symmetry is the factor of $`xz`$ out front, as well as the condition that $`y_i^{}`$. This second modification changes the invariance of the period integrals, and thus does affect the form of the PF operators slightly. We are then led to write the $`B`$ model as a Riemann surface

$$\{(y_0,y_1,y_2)(^{})^3|\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i=0,\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{l_i}=e^\psi ,y_0=1\}.$$

As found in , the category of $`B`$ branes (i.e., holomorphic submanifolds) is unchanged with the addition of the $`xz`$ summand.

It was mentioned earlier that the PF equations would be derived by enlarging the moduli space and then quotienting at the end; hence, we finally arrive at our $`B`$ model space for noncompact Calabi- Yaus, in hypersurface form:

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_a=\{xz+\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}a_iy^{m_i}=0\},$$
(4)
where $`a_i`$ and $`y_i`$ are in $`^{}`$ for all $`i,`$ and $`x,z.`$ Here it is understood that the $`y^{m_i}`$ part was gotten by solving the relation $`_{i=0}^3y_i^{l_i}=1`$ for one of the $`y_i`$ variables. The modulus $`e^\psi `$ is now absorbed by the $`a_i.`$

With our space at last defined, we can see how the definition of the hypersurface $`Y_{a,b}`$ for compact examples was found. First, let’s take a look at special Lagrangian submanifolds of (3); since the $`B`$ model hypersurfaces are mirror to these special Lagrangians, this will tell us which holomorphic submanifolds to look at, similarly to the way we found (4) from the $`A`$ model.

A nice class of SLags on $`\stackrel{~}{W}_r`$ was exhibited in , and these are:

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,c}=(\stackrel{~}{W}_r\{\underset{i}{}q_i^1|x_i|^2=c,\underset{i}{}q_i^2|x_i|^2=0\})/S^1,$$

where this time the $`S^1`$ acts as $`x_ie^{\sqrt{1}q_i^1\varphi }x_i`$ for each $`i`$. Again, we must insist that $`_{i=0}^3q_i^j=0`$ for $`j=1,2.`$

The equivalence of the $`A`$ and $`B`$ model string theories dictates that there must be a holomorphic submanifold of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi `$ which is mirror to $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,c}.`$ Note the strong formal similarity between the conditions

$$\underset{i}{}l_i|x_i|^2=r,\underset{i}{}q_i^1|x_i|^2=c.$$

Then the mirror to $`\stackrel{~}{L}_{r,c}`$ is given, not surprisingly, as

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\psi ,c}^{}=\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi \{\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{q_i^1}=e^c,\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{q_i^2}=1\}.$$

This is exactly the mirror $`B`$ brane as described in .

To connect this physical fact with the space $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{a,b}`$ to be given below, we must account for the observation of ,  that it suffices instead to consider the hypersurface

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{\psi ,c}=\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi \{\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{q_i^1}=e^c\}.$$

This assumption is not so outlandish, as the excised condition $`_{i=0}^3y_i^{q_i^2}=1`$ contains no moduli information. However, later on we will see that we can also consider the full mirror geometry, together with $`_{i=0}^3y_i^{q_i^2}=1`$, and obtain the same results.

Next, in all cases practically arising in physics, we have that $`q^1=e_ie_j,`$ where $`\{e_i\}`$ is the standard basis in $`^4.`$ Thus, the hypersurface condition becomes

$$y_iy_j^1=e^cy_ie^cy_j=0.$$

Hence, by enlarging the moduli spaces, we at last obtain our hypersurface:

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{a,b}=\stackrel{~}{X}_a\{b_0y_0+b_1y_1=0\}.$$
(5)
The $`y_i`$ and $`y_j`$ have been simply put as $`i=0,j=1`$ for simplicity, but it is clear that for different choices of special Lagrangian on the $`A`$ side, (5) can be easily modified accordingly.

## 4  ”Periods” on relative cohomology.

### 4.1 Relative Periods.

This section reviews periods and the residue construction for the usual, non- relative setting. We follow  and ; note that these constructions apply to the compact case. Let $`\rho :\chi C`$ be a family of smooth projective algebraic varieties of dimension $`n`$, where $`C=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}.`$ Fix $`z_0C`$ and set $`\rho ^1(z_0)=X.`$ Also, choose a basis $`\{\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _r\}`$ for $`H_n(X),`$ and a holomorphic $`(n,0)`$ form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`X.`$ The periods of X are then

$$_{\gamma _1}\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{},_{\gamma _r}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

One can locally extend the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to a family $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ of forms on the fibers $`X_z,`$ where $`z`$ is the coordinate on $`C,`$ as well as the cycles, to get $`\gamma _i(z).`$ Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ will be a section of a bundle $`^n,`$ which is a subbundle of $`R^n\rho _{}𝒪_C`$ with fiber $`F_z^n(X)`$ (this is the $`n`$th subspace of the usual Hodge filtration on $`X`$). Then the Picard- Fuchs equations arise by applying the canonical flat Gauss- Manin connection $``$ defined on $`R^n\rho _{}𝒪_C`$ to the period integrals:

$$\frac{d}{\mathrm{𝑑𝑧}}_{\gamma _i(z)}\mathrm{\Omega }(z)=_{\gamma _i(z)}_{d/dz}\mathrm{\Omega }(z).$$

This holds from the local constancy of the cycles on $`X`$. Relations among the periods can then be found as relations between the derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$, modulo exact forms.

Next, we want to do the corresponding thing for the present case. Let $`\pi :\chi S`$ be as in section $`2,`$ together with the decreasing Hodge filtration of holomorphic vector bundles $`^{}`$ over $`S.`$ Say $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ is a section of $`^n`$; then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)H^n(X,Y)_z`$ for each $`zS.`$ Then choosing a basis $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i\}_{i=0}^s`$ for the homology $`H_n(X,Y)_z`$ (that is, $`n`$ cycles in $`X`$ that are disjoint from $`Y`$) for some fixed $`z`$, it is natural to consider, in the above context, the relative periods :

$$_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\mathrm{\Omega }(z),\mathrm{},_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}\mathrm{\Omega }(z).$$

Exactly the same arguments as above apply, and again we use the splitting of the relative homology sequence to show that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(z)`$ are locally constant in $`z.`$ Hence, we are looking for Picard Fuchs operators in the variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ which annihilate a certain element of $`H^n(X,Y).`$

### 4.2 Definition of the Relative Cohomology Class.

For motivation, note that the right exactness

$$H^n(X,Y)H^n(X)0$$

means that any form in $`H^n(X,Y)`$ can be realized as the pullback of a form in $`H^n(X).`$ Thus, we will first review the construction of such forms on $`X,`$ and see how this can be used to produce a relative form of the desired type.

So, return to the first case in the previous subsection, in which $`\rho :\chi C`$ was a family of smooth projective varieties of dimension $`n.`$ For simplicity, suppose these $`\rho ^1(z)`$’s arise as hypersurfaces in $`_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ and choose a definite $`X=\rho ^1(z).`$ Say that this $`X`$ is defined by a Laurent polynomial $`f`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ be the canonical $`(n+1,0)`$ form on $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is given by :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{dy_0}{y_0}\mathrm{}\frac{dy_n}{y_n}.$$

Recall that the $`\{y_i\}`$ are coordinates on $`T_N`$.

It is well known that the residue map

$$Res:H^{n+1,0}(_\mathrm{\Delta }X)H^{n,0}(X)$$

(to be defined below) is surjective in this case, so that any holomorphic form on $`X`$ can be obtained from one on $`_\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ With the data already given, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/fH^{n+1,0}(_\mathrm{\Delta }X).`$ Now, let $`\gamma `$ be an $`n`$ cycle in $`X`$ and let $`T(\gamma )`$ be a tube over $`\gamma `$, i.e., an $`S^1`$ bundle over $`\gamma `$ contained in the normal bundle of $`X`$ in $`_\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ Then we can define the residue map by

$$_\gamma Res(\frac{\Omega _\mathit{0}}{f})=_{T(\gamma )}\frac{\Omega _\mathit{0}}{f}.$$

As $`T(\gamma )`$ is independent of $`z,`$ we can freely differentiate under the integral sign of the right hand side of the above equation to find the Picard Fuchs equations, up to exact forms. Hence, it suffices to consider $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/f`$ as a ”form” on $`X.`$

Now we switch to the original relative setting, with $`\pi :\chi S`$ as in previous sections, and fix a particular pair $`(X,Y)=\pi ^1(z).`$ Recall that here, the submanifold $`Y`$ is specified by $`Y=X\{g=0\}.`$ With the construction at the beginning of this section, it is natural to proceed in the following way. First, in practice we will be computing with forms in $`H_c^n(XY)`$, and the compact support will be realized as a cutoff in the geometry integral. Then, for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }_XH^{n,0}(X)`$, a form defined on $`H^n(XY)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X/g.`$ Combining this with the above gives the form that we’ll use in the derivation of the Picard Fuchs equations:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{fg}.$$

An immediate observation is that any operator which annihilates the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/f`$ will also annihilate $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ because the polynomial $`g`$ does not depend on the moduli of $`X`$ (even though the space $`Y`$ does).

### 4.3 Derivation of the GKZ operators on the enlarged moduli space.

From this point forward, all computations will be carried out in the toric setup of section 2.4. Again, these derivations are for compact $`X.`$ So, with the conventions of that section, we consider the family of Calabi- Yau toric hypersurfaces

$$X_a=\{f=\underset{i0}{}a_iy^{m_i}=0\},$$

which are sections of the anticanonical bundle of $`_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ and the hypersurface in $`X_a`$

$$Y_{a,b}=X_a\{g=b_0y_0+b_1y_1=0\}.$$

One more assumption must be made on the form of $`X_a`$ here, which is that $`m_0=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ and $`m_1=(0,1,0,\mathrm{},0).`$ As this is satisfied in every case arising from physical considerations, it puts no restriction on the class of examples on which mirror maps can be constructed.

The moduli space is supposed to consist of $`c=(a,b)=(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n,b_0,b_1)`$, which is in fact larger than the $`2`$ dimensional setup at the beginning of the paper; this will be remedied in an upcoming section. For now, we construct the GKZ operators directly on the moduli space $`c.`$ Using the form previously defined,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\frac{dy_0}{y_0}\mathrm{}\frac{dy_n}{y_n},$$

the standard construction is to write a form on $`_\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/f.`$ From this, one again has a lattice vector of relations

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{l^{n+1}:\underset{i}{}l_im_i=0,\underset{i}{}l_i=0\},$$

as was used to define the canonical coordinates in section 2.4. For our situation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will always be a $`1`$ dimensional space. For a suitable choice of basis vector (as described by the Batyrev mirror) $`l^1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ one can define a GKZ operator

$$_1=\underset{l_k^1>0}{}_{a_k}^{l_k^1}\underset{l_k^1<0}{}_{a_k}^{l_k^1},$$

which can be easily shown to annihilate the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X.`$

Now, following the procedure outlined earlier, the form we want to define in order to derive an extended set of GKZ operators is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_X}{g}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{(_{i0}a_iy^{m_i})(b_0y_0+b_1y_1)}.$$

This makes it clear that the operator $`_1`$ gotten from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X`$ also annihilates $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ as $`g`$ is independent of the $`a_i.`$ Since we want new operators with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in their kernel, it is convenient to define a new set $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }},`$ which consists of all $`\widehat{l}^i^{n+3}`$ such that

$$_i\mathrm{\Omega }=(\underset{\widehat{l}_k^i>0}{}_{c_k}^{\widehat{l}_k^i}\underset{\widehat{l}_k^i<0}{}_{c_k}^{\widehat{l}_k^i})\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$

The fact that the original operator $`_1`$ sends $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`0`$ is captured by the inclusion map $`^{n+1}^{n+3}`$ applied to the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Henceforth, for simpler notation we will drop the hats and just consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+3}.`$

From the defining equation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, one more operator is easily seen to annihilate it, namely

$$_2=_{b_0}_{a_1}_{a_0}_{b_1}.$$

This corresponds to a new element of $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ given by $`(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0,1,1).`$ As will be shown shortly, the set $`\{_1,_2\}`$ is sufficient to determine the open string mirror map.

### 4.4 Noncompact CY’s.

For a non- compact $`\stackrel{~}{X_a},`$ we are led instead to produce an $`(n+2,0)`$ form on relative cohomology. This goes as follows. The $`(n+3,0)`$ form on $`^2\times _\mathrm{\Delta },`$ which is used for the residue construction for relative cohomology, is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}=dxdz\mathrm{\Omega }_0.`$ Then, using the same arguments as before, the form needed for derivation of the GKZ operators is

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{dxdz\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{(xz+_{i0}a_iy^{m_i})(b_0y_0+b_1y_1)}.$$

This makes it clear that the same operators $`\{_1,_2\}`$ still send $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ to 0. Thus, the equations themselves are unchanged between the two cases at the level of GKZ operators. The Picard- Fuchs operators are, however, different, as will be described below.

### 4.5 Another way of looking at relative cohomology.

Recently, Hosono  has given a description of periods on noncompact Calabi-Yaus, which can be used in the present setting to argue the naturality of the cohomology class $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ above.

Start with the $`B`$ model hypersurface description given above:

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_\psi =\{xz+\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i=0|\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{l_i}=e^\psi \}$$

$$=\{xz+f(z_1)=0\},$$

where we have set $`z_1=e^\psi `$ and used the condition $`_{i=0}^3y_i^{l_i}=z_1`$ to eliminate one of the $`y_i`$ variables in $`xz+_{i=0}^3y_i=0`$.

Then, according to Hosono, we should define the periods of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{z_1}`$ by the integrals

$$F(z_1)=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dxdz_idy_i/y_i}{xz+f(z_1)}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_{n+1}(^2\times (^{})^{n1}\{xz+f(z_1)=0\},).`$ The PF operators derived from the $`F(z_1)`$ are of course identical to those for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/f`$ given above.

Next, we would like to take the mirror geometry of the special Lagrangians found above seriously; namely, let

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_{z_1,z_2}^{}=\stackrel{~}{X}_{z_1}\{\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{q_i^1}=z_2,\underset{i=0}{\overset{3}{}}y_i^{q_i^2}=1\}$$

$$=\stackrel{~}{X}_{z_1}\{g(z_2)=0,h=0\}$$

$$=\{(x,z,y_1,y_2)^2\times (^{})^2|xz+f(z_1)=g(z_2)=h=0\};$$

notice that $`h=_{i=0}^3y_i^{q_i^2}1`$ has no moduli. Then, the corresponding thing to Hosono’s work is to define the ”relative periods” for noncompact Calabi-Yau manifolds by integrals

$$F(z_1,z_2)=_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dxdz_idy_i/y_i}{(xz+f(z_1))g(z_2)h}.$$

where here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_{n+1}(^2\times (^{})^{n1}\{xz+f(z_1)=g(z_2)=h=0\},)`$

This formulation of relative cohomology eliminates the need to resort to physical arguments for why we ought to work with a hypersurface, and shows that the PF operators can be directly derived from the ”honest” mirror of the special Lagrangian.

## 5 Picard Fuchs equations.

### 5.1 Quotients of the enlarged moduli space.

The next step is to transform the GKZ system into Picard Fuchs equations on the quotient space. First, though, we need a better understanding of the quotient spaces of $`X_a`$ and $`Y_{a,b}`$ on which the PF system lives.

So, we first consider the natural actions on these spaces that we want to quotient out. The space $`X_a=\{f=_{i0}a_iy^{m_i}=0\}`$ has a torus action $`T`$ and a $`^{}`$ action defined by

$$T:y_i\nu _iy_i$$

$$^{}:fc_1f.$$

As mentioned earlier, the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+1}`$ of relations among the $`m_i`$ defines a coordinate $`z_1=\mathrm{\Pi }_ka_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{l_k^1}`$; this is evident, because $`z_1`$ is invariant under $`T`$ and $`^{}.`$ Thus, we can set

$$X_{z_1}=X_a/(T\times ^{}).$$

Now, $`Y_{a,b}=X_a\{g=b_0y_0+b_1y_1=0\}`$ has a $`T^{}`$ action given by restricting $`T`$ to $`Y,`$ as well as an independent $`^{}`$ action $`gc_2g.`$ By instead considering $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n+3},`$ and also including (as above) the vector $`l^2=(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0,1,1)`$ into this set, we can define the coordinates

$$z_i=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{l_k^i}b_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{l_{n+1}^i}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{l_{n+2}^i}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n+2}{}}c_k^{l_k^i},$$

For the vector $`l^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the coordinate is the same as that on $`X`$. There is also the new coordinate $`z_2`$ defined by $`l^2,`$ which is the open string modulus. Then $`(z_1,z_2)`$ are invariant under $`T,T^{}`$ and both $`^{}`$ actions, and therefore define coordinates on the total moduli space. We thus have

$$Y_{z_1,z_2}=(X_a/(T\times ^{}))(\{g=0\}/(T^{}\times ^{})).$$

Note that the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from section 4 is not invariant under the two $`^{}`$ actions. Hence, to define a form that descends to the quotient, simply set $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=a_0b_1\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ We will drop the check in the sequel.

### 5.2 (Problems with) the compact case.

All of the above was carried out with the assumption that the techniques of , which were developed in the noncompact case, could be generalized in the natural way to include compact Calabi-Yaus. Here we will see that some nontrivial modification of  is needed to accomodate compact examples.

With the quotients of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ out of the way, and a form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined on $`H^n(XY)_z,`$ we can now see what the form of the Picard- Fuchs equations coming from the GKZ operators is. Compact solutions will be written first, with the noncompact modifications described afterwards. While the computations are straightforward, the physical interpretation of the results seems to be inconsistent. For the moment, we will carry out the program and comment on its difficulties afterwards.

Note that, in order to have operators which annihilate the invariant $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ we are obliged to modify the original $`_1,_2`$:

$$𝒟_1=_1a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},𝒟_2=_2a_0^1b_1^1.$$

The Picard- Fuchs operators corresponding to these have already been worked out in , so here we can directly write down their form. The convention used below is that $`\theta _i=z_i/z_i`$, with $`i=1,2`$. We have

$$𝒟_i=\underset{l_k^i>0}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{l_k^i1}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}l_k^i\theta _in)z_i\underset{l_k^i<0}{}\underset{n=1}{\overset{l_k^i}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}l_k^i\theta _in).$$
(6)
The product $`_{l_k^i>0}`$ is taken over $`k.`$

Now, we would like to find the general solutions of the relevant Picard- Fuchs equations, in the compact setting. For this case, we can compute them by direct evaluation of the period integrals, as follows. Let $`\gamma `$ be a contour enclosing $`fg=0`$ such that $`|y_i|=1`$ on $`\gamma `$ for all $`i.`$ Then the period

$$\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n+1}}_\gamma \frac{a_0b_1}{(_{i0}a_iy^{m_i})(b_0y_0+b_1y_1)}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{dy_i}{y_i}$$

can be calculated by expanding $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a function of $`(a_0^1,b_1^1)`$ around the point $`(0,0)`$ and using the residue theorem. For applications, this is a valid approximation, which can be understood by the following. Since $`_kl_k^1=0,`$ we can take $`l_0^1<0`$. Also, $`l_{n+2}^2<0,`$ and considering both of these we see that the limits

$$|a_0|\mathrm{},|b_1|\mathrm{}$$

correspond to the maximally unipotent boundary point $`z_1=z_2=0`$, by the formula for the coordinates $`z_1,z_2.`$

Going back to the expansion, if $`c=(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n,b_0,b_1)`$, the answer we get from this is

$$y_0(z)=\underset{n_i}{}\frac{_{l_k^i<0}(_{i=1,2}l_k^in_i)!}{_{l_k^i>0}(_{i=1,2}l_k^in_i)!}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_k^{_il_k^in_i}$$

$$=\underset{n_i}{}\frac{_{l_k^i<0}(_{i=1,2}l_k^in_i)!}{_{l_k^i>0}(_{i=1,2}l_k^in_i)!}((1)^{_{l_k^1<0}l_k^1}z_1)^{n_1}((1)^{_{l_k^2<0}l_k^2}z_2)^{n_2},$$

where the second line is gotten from the definition of the coordinates $`z_1,z_2.`$ Above, the sum is over all $`n_i`$ such that $`_il_k^in_i0`$. This solution can be further simplified by the observations that $`l_{n+1}^1=l_{n+2}^1=0`$ and $`l_{n+1}^2=l_{n+2}^2`$. Then we have

$$y_0(z)=\underset{n_i}{}\frac{(_{i=1,2}l_0^in_i)!}{_{k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}(_{i=1,2}l_k^in_i)!}((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2}$$
(7)
By conjecture, this is the unique solution of the PF equations which is holomorphic at every maximally unipotent boundary point. This corresponds to the condition dim$`M_0=1`$ in the definition of maximally unipotent monodromy. Notice that this formula passes a consistency check from the closed string case: if $`l^2`$ is the $`0`$ vector, then the above expression agrees with equation (6.50) of .

With this information, there is only one more component required to identify the open string mirror map, and that is the application of the Frobenius method to the solution $`y_0`$. So, consider the function

$$y_0(z,\rho )=\underset{n_i}{}c(n,\rho )((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1+\rho _1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2+\rho _2},$$

where

$$c(n,\rho )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(_{i=1,2}l_0^i(n_i+\rho _i)+1)}{_{k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(_{i=1,2}l_k^i(n_i+\rho _i)+1)}.$$

From this, it is possible to construct two more PF solutions:

$$y_i=(\frac{}{\rho _i}y_0(z,\rho ))|_{\rho =0}.$$

These can be shown to satisfy

$$y_k=y_0log((1)^{l_0^k}z_k)+\stackrel{~}{y_k},$$

simply by applying the identity

$$_{\rho _k}((1)^{l_0^k}z_k)^{n_k+\rho _k}=log((1)^{l_0^k}z_k)((1)^{l_0^k}z_k)^{n_k+\rho _k}.$$

It then follows immediately that

$$_{\rho _k}y_0(z,\rho )=y_0(z,\rho )log((1)^{l_0^k}z_k)+\underset{n_i}{}(_{\rho _k}c(n,\rho ))((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1+\rho _1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2+\rho _2}$$
(8)
which is as claimed.

In direct analogy with the closed string case, we would be led to define the flat coordinates $`t_1,t_2`$ on the $`(X,Y)`$ moduli space for a compact Calabi- Yau as follows:

$$t_i(z)=\frac{y_i(z)}{y_0(z)},i=1,2;$$

then $`z_it_i(z)`$ would be called the open string mirror map.

The problem with all this, of course, is that, to date, there are no examples of compact open string mirror symmetry. We have simply proceeded analogously to the way one would when adapting noncompact closed string mirror symmetry techniques to the compact closed string case. As we will see below, such a naive extension is in fact not possible.

### 5.3 Noncompact Solutions.

From the explicit form of $`\stackrel{~}{X_a},`$ we see that the same GKZ differential equations of the last section hold for the relative cohomology of $`\stackrel{~}{X_a}.`$ However, as in the closed string case, we find slight differences in the form of the Picard- Fuchs equations, and hence of the solutions. Following , the noncompact Picard- Fuchs system is

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_i=\underset{l_k^i>0}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{l_k^i1}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}l_k^i\theta _in)z_i\underset{l_k^i<0}{}\underset{n=0}{\overset{l_k^i1}{}}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}l_k^i\theta _in).$$
(9)
These operators differ from those of (6) because in the noncompact case, we use the GKZ operators $`_i`$ rather than $`_ia_0^1b_1^1`$ to derive Picard- Fuchs equations. This is on account of the invariance of $`_i`$ in the noncompact case, as discussed in .

The solutions to this can be easily found simply by shifting all gamma functions appearing in the numerator of the compact periods by $`1`$. Notice that there is always a constant solution 1 to the above system. Then, again through the Frobenius method, all solutions may be derived from

$$\stackrel{~}{y_0}(z,\rho )=1+\rho _1l_0^1\underset{n_11,n_2=0}{}\frac{(1)^{l_0^1n_1}(l_0^1n_11)!}{_{k\{1\mathrm{}n\}}(l_k^1n_1)!}z_1^{n_1}+$$

$$\underset{n_10,n_21}{}\frac{(1)^{l_0^1n_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(_il_0^i(n_i+\rho _i))\mathrm{\Gamma }(_il_{n+1}^i(n_i+\rho _i))}{_{k\{1\mathrm{}n,n+1\}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(_il_k^i(n_i+\rho _i)+1)}z_1^{n_1+\rho _1}z_2^{n_2+\rho _2}$$
(10)
To understand this formula, recall from the compact case that after normalization, we were left with a constant solution $`1=y_0/y_0.`$ From the form of $`\stackrel{~}{y_0},`$ the leading 1 represents the constant solution, and the next term is the correction to the closed string mirror map. This correction is generally found as the logarithmic solution of the PF eqns modulo the log term. Now, from the theory of open strings  , it is conjectured that the moduli space coordinates $`\{z_i\}`$ receive only closed string corrections. With the above formula in mind, this means that only terms with $`n_2=0`$ can correct the flat coordinates, and thus both logarithmic open string PF solutions must be of the form

$$t_i(z)=log(z_i)+k_il_0^1\underset{n_11,n_2=0}{}\frac{(1)^{l_0^1n_1}(l_0^1n_11)!}{_{k\{1\mathrm{}n\}}(l_k^1n_1)!}z_1^{n_1}$$

for $`i=1,2`$ and $`k_i.`$ The coefficients $`k_i`$ are determined simply by the requirement that the $`t_i`$ satisfy the extended PF system. The exact form of the $`t_i`$ can be found in $`\text{[4]}.`$

As in the noncompact case for closed strings, here we can write down the mirror map directly, without having to resort to a ratio of power series. The reason is that since the system (10) has the constant solution 1, we can think of the period vector as normalized from the outset.

The meaning of the above PF system has been recently clarified . Namely, for the relative cohomology class $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/fg,`$ the noncompact PF operators annihilate the integrals

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{fg},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_{n+1}(_\mathrm{\Delta }\{fg=0\},).`$ This explains why it is necessary to include the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/fgH_c^n(XY),`$ and therefore why $`H^n(X,Y)`$ is the correct group to look at in the first place.

### 5.4 Superpotentials and Open Gromov Witten invariants.

Finally, we would like to compute the superpotential $`W(z_1,z_2)`$, analogously to the computation of the prepotential $``$ for the closed string case. The purpose of this is the same as that of the prepotential computation in : the expansion of the superpotential in terms of the flat coordinates $`t_i`$ defined above is conjectured to have integral coefficients. These integers will then give predictions for the number of open Gromov Witten invariants, whose definition is still underway .

Stated more precisely, the superpotential is conjectured to be of the form

$$W(t_1,t_2)=\underset{n_1,n_2}{}N_{n_1,n_2}\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{k^2}\underset{j=1,2}{}e^{2\pi ikn_jt_j}.$$
(11)
Above, the coefficients $`N_{n_1,n_2}`$ are supposed to be integers giving the number of open Gromov- Witten invariants of certain topologies.

Before any such enumerative test can be carried out, we need an algorithm to produce the superpotential. First, the compact case. Then following the Frobenius method, the answer is easy:

$$W(z_1,z_2)=\frac{1}{y_0}\underset{n_1,n_2}{}\frac{}{\rho _1}\frac{}{\rho _2}c(n,\rho )|_{\rho =0}((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2}.$$
(12)
To see how this comes about, refer back to (8). Then

$$\frac{}{\rho _1}\frac{}{\rho _2}y_0(z,\rho )=log((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)log((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)y_0(z,\rho )$$

$$+log((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)_{\rho _2}c(n,\rho )((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1+\rho _1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2+\rho _2}$$

$$+log((1)^{l_0^1}z_2)_{\rho _1}c(n,\rho )((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1+\rho _1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2+\rho _2}$$

$$+_{\rho _1}_{\rho _2}c(n,\rho )((1)^{l_0^1}z_1)^{n_1+\rho _1}((1)^{l_0^2}z_2)^{n_2+\rho _2}$$

According to , this will give the superpotential modulo the logarithmic terms after dividing by $`y_0,`$ since the log terms are supposed to correspond to the classical superpotential, which is $`0`$ here. After dropping the logarithmic terms, dividing by $`y_0`$ and setting $`\rho =0`$, we get (12).

To better understand this definition, we can consider the relative period vector

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(z)=(y_0,y_1,y_2,y_0W).$$

It is conventional  to normalize this vector by dividing through by $`y_0,`$ which gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(z)=y_0(1,t_1,t_2,W).$$

The middle two entries would be defined by the yet unknown compact mirror map.

So, the above gives the framework that should hold if the techniques of  can be adapted to the compact case. However, the family of submanifolds is holomorphic, and physically it is expected that the superpotential will be $`0`$ in this case. Thus, the interpretation of the compact calculation is unclear, though it is possible that it can be thought of in the context of closed string mirror symmetry on Calabi-Yau $`4`$-folds. At any rate, the natural generalization of  to compact Calabi-Yaus seems to be inconsistent, as demonstrated by the above superpotential computation.

Now, we move on to the noncompact case. Here, a much more explicit formula for the superpotential can be given, which eases comparison with earlier computations, e.g. . First refer back to equation (10). The leading 1 and the middle term together give the constant and logarithmic solutions respectively, as argued last section. In order to find the other solutions, then, we need only Taylor expand the third term in $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ about $`(0,0).`$ The first term of this expansion will be the double logarithmic solution, which has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{W}(z_1,z_2)=\underset{n_10,n_21}{}\frac{(1)^{l_0^1n_1}(_il_0^in_i1)!}{l_{n+1}^2n_2_{k\{1\mathrm{}n\}}(_il_k^in_i)!}z_1^{n_1}z_2^{n_2}.$$
(13)
Note that we are using a different sign convention from the compact case, so that $`(1)^{l_0^1n_1+l_0^2n_2}`$ is not included.

For a consistency check, we can take the limit in which $`n_1=0.`$ This is expected to correspond to the case of $`^3`$. What we get from this is

$$\underset{n_21}{}\frac{1}{n_2^2}z_2^{n_2},$$

which is in fact the superpotential for the mirror of $`^3`$ .

### 5.5 Closed string superpotentials.

It is also known that superpotentials can be generated in the context of closed strings . For usual closed string theory, we have $`N=2`$ supersymmetry, which in the present setting (i.e., a 1 complex dimensional moduli space) means that the period integral would take the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=(1,t,d/dt,\mathrm{})$$
(14)
after normalization by the holomorphic solution $`y_0`$. Here $``$ is the prepotential of the closed string theory. More generally, if our complex moduli space is $`k`$ dimensional, we would find a period integral

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=(1,t_1,\mathrm{},t_k,/t_1,\mathrm{},/t_k,\mathrm{}),$$

and $`N=2`$ supersymmetry would then mean that the functions $`/t_i`$ could be integrated to a single prepotential $``$.

If we are using the open string moduli space (i.e, the complex moduli space together with the moduli of a holomorphic submanifold), then the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry is broken to $`N=1,`$ and we are forced to use the lesser information provided by the superpotentials defined in the preceding section.

There is another way to break supersymmetry from $`N=2`$ to $`N=1`$, and that is through the inclusion of flux through the relevant holomorphic submanifold. In this case, the string theory has a superpotential $`W=d/dt;`$ here, there is no open string modulus, so the parameter $`t`$ unambiguously defines the flat coordinate on the complex moduli space. In fact, from the form of (14), it is evident that $`W`$ and $`d/dt`$ are both the double logarithmic solutions of the closed string Picard- Fuchs system, and hence are naturally identified. Thus, the same techniques presented above compute closed string superpotentials.

For the simplest example of this, consider the total space $`𝒪(1)𝒪(1)^1.`$ This can be torically defined by the single vector $`l=(1,1,1,1),`$ and the associated noncompact Picard- Fuchs system has a double logarithmic solution given by

$$W(z_1)=\underset{n1}{}\frac{1}{n_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}z_1^{n_1}.$$

This is well known to be the correct result for this space. Note, however, that while this solution can be obtained by naively applying the Frobenius method to the function

$$\omega _0(z,\rho )=\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n+\rho )^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1n\rho )^2}z^{n+\rho },$$

the above $`W(z_1)`$ is not a solution of the PF system associated to the mirror of the local $`^1`$ geometry. This inconsistency will be addressed in a future paper .

## 6 Example : $`K_^2.`$

In order to show that the above theory produces what it’s supposed to, we will here outline the computation for the case of the mirror of $`K_^2`$. The following two subsections will specifically address consistency with the papers  and , respectively.

### 6.1 Picard- Fuchs operators

Let $`[y_0,y_1,y_2]`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`^2,`$ and consider a coordinate patch where $`y_0=1.`$ Let $`a_0,\mathrm{},a_3^{},`$ and $`x,z.`$ We have

$$\stackrel{~}{X_a}=\{\stackrel{~}{f}(a)=xz+f(a)=xz+a_0+a_1y_1+a_2y_2+a_3y_1^1y_2^1=0\}$$

and

$$Y_{a,b}=\stackrel{~}{X_a}\{g=b_0+b_1y_1=y_21=0\}.$$

For fixed $`a,`$ $`f(a)=0`$ defines a section of $`𝒪(3)^2`$. Note that the points $`\{m_i\}=\{(0,0),(1,0),(0,1),(1,1)\}`$ given by the exponents of the $`y_i`$ in $`f`$ are the vertices of the polyhedron for $`K_^2.`$ Now, the lattice of relations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ among the $`m_i`$ is given by the single vector $`(3,1,1,1),`$ which is then interpreted as a vector in $`^6`$ by $`l^1=(3,1,1,1,0,0).`$ The extended set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^6`$ consists of $`l^1`$ and $`l^2=(1,1,0,0,1,1)`$ ,as derived earlier. Since the moduli coordinates are $`(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3,a_3,b_0,b_1),`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines variables

$$z_1=\frac{a_1a_2a_3}{a_0^3},z_2=\frac{a_1b_0}{a_0b_1}$$

on the reduced moduli space of the quotients of $`\stackrel{~}{X_a}`$ and $`Y_{a,b}.`$ We also have that the vectors $`l^1`$ and $`l^2`$ produce GKZ operators

$$_1=_{a_1}_{a_2}_{a_3}_{a_0}^3,$$

$$_2=_{a_1}_{b_0}_{a_0}_{b_1}.$$

The invariant form we are using is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0/\stackrel{~}{f}g,`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=dxdz\frac{dy_1}{y_1}\frac{dy_2}{y_2}.$$

Hence the operators $`𝒟_1(𝒟_2)=_1(_2)`$ will yield the Picard- Fuchs equations.

Then, the operators $`_1,_2`$ annihilate the integrals

$$_\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{dxdz\frac{dy_1}{y_1}\frac{dy_2}{y_2}}{(xz+a_0+a_1y_1+a_2y_2+a_3y_1^1y_2^1)(b_0+b_1y_1)(y_21)}$$

with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_4(^2\times (^{})^2\{fg=0\},).`$

From the equations defining the moduli variables $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$, if we let $`\theta _i=z_i/z_i`$, we have the identities

$$\delta _{a_2}=\delta _{a_3}=\theta _1,\delta _{a_1}=\theta _1+\theta _2,\delta _{a_0}=3\theta _1\theta _2,\delta _{b_0}=\delta _{b_1}=\theta _2.$$

The derivations of the noncompact operators, ala , lead one to find

$$𝒟_1=(\theta _1)^2(\theta _1+\theta _2)+z_1(3\theta _1+\theta _2)(3\theta _1+\theta _2+1)(3\theta _1+\theta _2+2).$$

as well as

$$𝒟_2=(\theta _1+\theta _2)\theta _2z_2(3\theta _1+\theta _2)\theta _2.$$

Note that these are the same operators derived in , (up to a minus sign in the $`z_2`$ variable), though with different techniques. In particular, this method provides a more mathematical explanation for the appearance of the $`\theta _2`$ factor on the right of $`𝒟_2`$. To produce exactly what was found in , we need only use instead the vectors $`l^1,l^2`$ as a basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Hence we find agreement with previous calculations of this example. The explanation of the minus sign on $`l^2`$ is that on the $`A`$ model, the Lagrangian submanifold ends on a different leg of the toric graph than was chosen for the calculations of section 5. The flopped phase $`l^2l^2`$ thus reflects different data on the mirror.

The paper  contains the calculation of the superpotential (which is different from the one outlined above) and tables listing predicted open Gromov- Witten numbers.

### 6.2 Superpotential Computation.

Next, let’s look at how the double logarithimic solution for the noncompact Picard- Fuchs system of the mirror of $`K_^2`$ compares with the results of . Writing the superpotential down for this theory is simply a matter of inserting $`l^1,l^2`$ into formula (13). The result of this is

$$W_{K_^2}=\underset{n_10,n_21}{}\frac{(1)^{n_1}(3n_1+n_21)!}{n_2(n_1+n_2)!(n_1!)^2}z_1^{n_1}z_2^{n_2}.$$
(15)
Notice that this is a solution of the system $`\{𝒟_1,𝒟_2\}`$ found in the last section.

To see explicitly the agreement with , we need to recall the notation of that paper. From page 14, we have the equation

$$_{\widehat{u}}^2W(Q,y)=\underset{w0,d0}{}y^wr^wq^d(1)^dw\frac{(3d+w1)!}{(d!)^2(w+d)!},$$
(16)
where $`y=e^{\widehat{u}},q=Q/r^3=e^t.`$ Further, $`r=e^{\mathrm{\Delta }/3}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a solution of the Picard-Fuchs equation

$$3\theta ^3+3z\theta (3\theta +1)(3\theta +2).$$

In order to connect with the notation of section 6.1 above, we have

$$z_1=e^t,z_2=e^u$$

with the relation between $`u`$ and $`\widehat{u}`$ given as $`\widehat{u}\mathrm{\Delta }/3=u.`$ This last equation disagrees with  by a summand of $`i\pi ,`$ but as pointed out in , this is not fixed by mirror symmetry. The choice made here reflects consistency with that of .

With all these notations out of the way, we integrate (16) twice in $`\widehat{u}`$ to find the superpotential, which looks like

$$W(q,y)=\underset{w0,d0}{}(y/r)^wq^d(1)^d\frac{(3d+w1)!}{w(d!)^2(w+d)!}$$

This is exactly the superpotential that was found in (15) above.


text:
# Temperature dependence of trapped magnetic field in MgB2 bulk superconductor

## Abstract

Based on DC magnetization measurements, the temperature dependencies of the trapped magnetic field have been calculated for two MgB2 samples prepared by two different techniques: the high-pressure sintering and the hot pressing. Experimentally measured trapped field values for the first sample coincide remarkably well with calculated ones in the whole temperature range. This proves, from one side, the validity of the introduced calculation approach, and demonstrates, from another side, the great prospects of the hot pressing technology for large scale superconducting applications of the MgB2.

preprint: APS/123-QED

Magnesium diboride is a new promising superconducting material with a critical temperature of about 40 K. High $`T_c`$ values and simple chemical composition of MgB2 have made it an interesting object for applied investigations with great perspectives of use in superconducting motors, flywheels and bearings. The key parameter for such applications is the maximum trapped field in the sample and its temperature dependence. This, in turn, is closely connected both with the critical current density and with the size of superconductor.

Since the very discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 the researchers dealt with tiny samples which were not suitable for large scale applications. Now, the situation is changed and several techniques have been elaborated to produce high quality MgB2 bulk polycrystalline samples of a few centimeters in diameter and with the critical current densities up to $`10^5`$ \- $`10^6`$ A/cm2 Rhyee et al. (2002); Braccini et al. (2002).

It is remarkable that, in contrast to the high temperature superconductors, the grain boundaries in bulk magnesium diboride superconductors do not act as weak links Bugoslavsky et al. (2001); Kawano et al. (2001). This significantly simplifies the growth of bulk samples suitable for large scale applications.

In this letter we focus on an important property of the bulk superconductor – the trapped magnetic field. We calculate its temperature dependencies from DC magnetization data using an iteration approach. We show that the trapped field values measured experimentally are in a perfect agreement with the calculated ones. This makes us able to predict the expected values of the trapped magnetic field in a sample which is not yet grown to an appropriate size but which preparation technique looks the most promising today.

We have studied two MgB2 bulk samples prepared by different techniques. One of them was sintered under high pressure as described in Prikhna et al. (2003). The sample has an uniform polycrystalline structure without cracks and has 28 mm in diameter and 11 mm in height. The trapped magnetic field in the centre of the sintered sample was measured by a Hall probe for different temperatures from 6 to 33 K. The resulting temperature dependence of the trapped field has a negative curvature and trends to saturation at low temperatures (see Fig. 1, cross symbols). The other sample was prepared by ball milling of Mg and B powders at ambient temperatures followed by hot pressing Gümbel et al. (2002), which we call ”ball-milled”. It consists of spherical nanocrystalline grains about 40 - 100 nm in size, that distinctly improve pinning due to the large number of grain boundaries. For this sample the trapped field can not be measured because of its small size.

To calculate the trapped field one should know temperature and field dependencies of the critical current density $`J_c(H,T)`$ of the both superconductors. For DC magnetization measurements small bar shaped pieces of the both samples have been used. Then, the $`J_c(H)`$ curves were obtained from the magnetization loops $`M(H)`$ using the conventional expression $`j_c(H)=20\mathrm{\Delta }M(bb^2/3l)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is the difference of the magnetization (in emu/cm2) measured for ascending and descending applied field, $`b`$ and $`l`$ are the sample width and length in cm, respectively, and $`j_c`$ is obtained in A/cm2.

For the high-pressure sintered sample a set of $`J_c(H)`$ curves presented in Fig. 2 in logarithmical scale are straight lines for low fields up to the level of $`J_c=10^4`$ A/cm2. This means an exponential decay of critical current density with increasing field

$$J_c(H,T)=J(T)exp(H/b(T)),$$
(1)
where $`J(T)`$ and $`b(T)`$ are temperature dependent coefficients.

The dependencies of $`J(T)`$ and $`b(T)`$ for the sintered sample, shown in Fig. 3 by circles, can be well fitted to the expressions

$$b(T)=b_0[1(T/T_c)^2],J(T)=J_0[1(T/T_c)].$$
(2)
Here $`T_c`$ = 37.5 K is the critical temperature, whereas $`b_0`$ = 0.9 T and $`J_0`$ = $`3.1\times 10^5`$ A/cm2 are fitting parameters, which characterize an effective field of supercurrent decay and a maximum critical current density at zero field and temperature, respectively.

For the ball-milled MgB2 sample $`J_c(H,T)`$ can be described by Eq. (1) too (see Fig. 4 in Gümbel et al. (2002)), but the functions $`b(T)`$ and $`J(T)`$ are different:

$$b(T)=b_0[1(T/T_c)^2]^{3/2},J(T)=J_0[1(T/T_c)^2]^{3/2},$$
(3)
where the corresponding parameters are $`T_c`$ = 34 K, $`b_0`$ = 2.78 T and $`J_0`$ = $`8.5\times 10^5`$ A/cm2 (see Fig. 3, squares).

The obtained results show that the critical current density strongly depends on temperature. For the high-pressure sintered sample the values of $`J(T)`$ and $`b(T)`$ are about 2.5 times lower than those of for the ball-milled sample. From the other hand, the latter sample has a much stronger power dependence of $`J(T)`$ and $`b(T)`$ on temperature.

The further calculation of the trapped field from a known $`J_c(H,T)`$ function is a nontrivial task. According to the Biot-Savart low, the magnetic field $`𝑯`$ generated by the supercurrent $`𝑱_𝒄`$ flowing in the volume of sample $`V`$ is

$$𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}=\frac{1}{c}_V𝑱_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝑯\mathbf{,}𝝆\mathbf{)}\times \frac{𝒓\mathbf{}𝝆}{|𝒓\mathbf{}𝝆|^3}d^3\rho .$$
(4)
As far as $`𝑱_𝒄`$ is a function of $`𝑯`$, one needs to solve this integral equation in order to calculate the trapped field values.

To simplify the problem we assume the homogeneity of the sample, i.e. (1) that the critical current density does not depend on coordinate $`\rho `$ explicitly and (2) that the currents flow along concentric circles. Then, the field component normal to the sample surface, $`H_z`$, can be written in cylindrical coordinates $`𝒓=(r,\varphi ,z)`$ and $`𝝆=(\rho ,\psi ,\zeta )`$ as follows

$$H_z(r)=\frac{1}{c}_VJ_c(H_z)f(r,\rho ,\psi ,\zeta )\rho d^3\rho ,$$
(5)
where $`f(r,\rho ,\psi ,\zeta )=\frac{\rho r\mathrm{cos}\psi }{[(r\rho \mathrm{cos}\psi )^2+(\rho \mathrm{sin}\psi )^2+(z\zeta )^2]^{3/2}}`$, $`d^3\rho =d\rho d\psi d\zeta `$. The resulting field profile has a cylindrically symmetric form with the maximum at $`r=0`$.

The integral equation (5) can be solved for $`H(r)`$ numerically using an iterative procedure Klupsch et al. (1997)

$$H_{i+1}(r)=\frac{1}{c}_VJ_c(H_i)f(r,\rho ,\psi ,\zeta )\rho d^3\rho ,$$
(6)
until $`|H_{i+1}H_i|/H_i<\epsilon `$ . Here the obtained profile is used to calculate current in the next step of iterations. We chose an initial profile $`H_0(r)=const`$ to start the iterations.

One should note that we calculate the trapped field profile numerically in each step and can not define $`H(r)`$ function in every point. Therefore, we should discretize Eq. (5) and divide the cylindrical sample into $`N`$ concentric tubes of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{R_s}{N1}`$ and then calculate the field in each point $`r_k,k=0\mathrm{}N1`$ as a sum of fields from all tubes

$$H(r_k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{c}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}J_c(H(\rho _j))f(r_k,\rho _j,\psi ,\zeta )\rho _j𝑑\psi 𝑑\zeta ,$$
(7)
where $`r_k=k\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`R_s`$ is the radius, $`L`$ is the height of the cylindrical sample and the integration here is made over $`\psi `$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$ and over $`\zeta `$ from $`L`$ to $`0`$.

From equations (7) one obtains the field profile for a given $`J_c(H)`$ function using iteration (6). In the case of $`J_c(H)=const`$ we will obtain a conical Bean profile with the maximum in the center of the sample. To reach the accuracy of $`\epsilon =0.1\%`$ it is sufficient to make just 16 iterations with $`N=14`$ tubes. Moreover, the method of calculation has no fitting parameter and use only experimental $`J_c(H,T)`$ data. The calculated temperature dependence of maximum trapped field for high-pressure sintered and ball-milled MgB2 samples are represented on Fig. 1 by the solid and dashed lines respectively.

We obtained a very good coincidence with experimental points for the high-pressure sintered sample. Remarkably, the trapped field, which is determined by the current distribution in the whole sample volume can be correctly calculated on the base of $`J_c`$ measured locally in a small piece of the sample. The ball-milled (nanocrystalline) sample was found to have much higher trapped fields than the sintered sample. Thus, the development of large size nanocrystalline MgB2 samples is very attractive for future applications.

To sum up, we calculated the temperature dependence of the trapped magnetic field for two MgB2 bulk samples prepared under different techniques. We used DC magnetization data and an iteration approach to solve the Biot-Savart equation. Experimentally measured trapped field values for the high-pressure sintered sample coincide excellent with calculated ones in the whole temperature range. The correctness of the calculation allowed us to predict the expected values of the trapped field in the ball-milled sample and revealed the great prospects of this technology for large scale applications of superconducting MgB2.