text:
# 𝐾-equivalence in Birational Geometry and Characterizations of Complex Elliptic Genera

(August, 2000)

## Abstract

We show that for smooth complex projective varieties the most general combinations of chern numbers that are invariant under the $`K`$-equivalence relation consist of the complex elliptic genera.

§1 Introduction and Statements

The $`K`$-equivalence relation for $``$-Gorenstein projective varieties was introduced in  in order to abstract the notion of higher dimensional composite of flops. Two birational $``$-Gorenstein varieties $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are $`K`$-equivalent (denoted by $`X=_KX^{}`$) if there is a smooth birational model $`\varphi :YX`$ and $`\varphi ^{}:YX^{}`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}K_X=_{}\varphi ^{}K_X^{}`$. This simple notion appears naturally in birational geometry and we are interested in characterizing those geometric/topological invariants that are invariant under it.

The basic strategy formulated in  is a meta theorem: in order to obtain numerical invariants under the $`K`$-equivalence relation, it suffices to have a suitable integration theory which admits a nice change of variable formula for birational morphisms and geometric/topological interpretations of the integration. For $`K`$-equivalent smooth complex projective varieties, the invariance of Betti and Hodge numbers has been verified in   . Based on this, we further conjectured that their ordinary cohomology groups are canonically isomorphic under the cohomology correspondence induced from the graph of the given birational map. It is clear that this map respects the $``$-Hodge structures.

Not all interesting invariants are invariant under the $`K`$-equivalence relation. For example, while the cohomology groups for smooth threefolds are canonically isomorphic under a classical flop, their ring structures are in general different. We find two recent works that may lead to an explanation. One is the quantum minimal model conjecture raised by Ruan  (cf. §6). Another one is Totaro’s work : complex elliptic genera $`=`$ complex cobordism ring modulo classical flops, or equivalently chern numbers invariant under classical flops consist of precisely the complex elliptic genera.

We show in this paper a generalization of Totaro’s result: complex elliptic genera $`=`$ complex cobordism ring modulo $`K`$-equivalence. A surprising conclusion is that in the complex cobordism ring, the ideal generated by classical flops equals the seemingly much larger ideal generated by all $`K`$-equivalence pairs. To summarize our approach, we follow the meta theorem. The target invariants are genera (or chern numbers), which by definition are certain integrals, so we only need a nice change of variable formula. This is treated in two steps:

Inspired by the work of Hirzebruch et. al.  on the characterization of the (real) elliptic genera (of Landweber and Stong) as the most general genera that are multiplicative on fiber bundles with fiber $`^{2n1}`$ for all $`n`$, we characterize the complex elliptic genera (studied by Witten, Hirzebruch and subsequently by Krichever, Höhn and Totaro) in a similar flavor via blowing-ups along smooth centers.

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold or a proper smooth variety (over field of arbitrary characteristic). For a commutative ring $`R`$, an $`R`$-genus $`\phi `$ is defined by a power series $`Q(x)R[[x]]`$ through Hirzebruch’s multiplicative sequence $`K_Q`$ (or $`K_\phi `$). As usual we write $`Q(x)=x/f(x)`$.

Theorem A (Residue Theorem) For any cycle $`D`$ in $`X`$ and for any blowing-up $`\varphi :YX`$ along smooth center $`Z`$ with exceptional divisor $`E`$, one has for any power series $`A(t)R[[t]]`$:

$`{\displaystyle _{\varphi ^{}D}}A(E)K_Q(c(T_Y))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}A(0)K_Q(c(T_X))`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{Z.D}}\mathrm{Res}_{t=0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A(t)}{f(t)_{i=1}^rf(n_it)}}\right)K_Q(c(T_Z)).`$
Here $`n_i`$’s denote the formal chern roots of the normal bundle $`N_{Z/X}`$ and the residue stands for the coefficient of the degree $`1`$ term of a Laurent power series with coefficients in the cohomology ring or the Chow ring of $`X`$.

Theorem B (Characterization of Complex Elliptic Genera) Consider the following sets of power series $`f(x)=x+\mathrm{}[[x]]`$ (or $``$-genera $`\varphi `$’s):

* $`\phi `$ admits a first step change of variable formula. That is, for each $`r`$ there exists a power series $`A(t,r)`$ in $`t`$ serves as the Jacobian factor such that $`A(0,r)=1`$ and

$$_XK_\phi (c(T_X))=_YA(E,r)K_\phi (c(T_Y))$$

for any blowing-up $`\varphi :YX`$ along smooth center of codimension $`r`$ with exceptional divisor $`E`$.
* $`f(x)`$ is a solution to the following functional equation:

$$\frac{1}{f(x)f(y)}=\frac{A(x)}{f(x)f(yx)}+\frac{A(y)}{f(y)f(xy)}$$

for some power series $`A(t)`$ with $`A(0)=1`$.
* $`\phi `$ is a specialization of the complex elliptic genera. That is, $`\phi `$ is parameterized by $`(k,a,b,g_2)^4`$ such that

$$\frac{f^{}(x)}{f(x)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(x)b}{\mathrm{}(x)a}+k.$$

Where $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ is the unique function with a pole of order 2 at zero such that $`\mathrm{}^{}(x)^2=4\mathrm{}(x)g_2\mathrm{}(x)g_3`$ with $`g_3`$ defined by $`b^2=4a^3g_2ag_3`$. Equivalently, $`\phi `$ is parametrized by $`k`$ and affine Weierstrass equations, which may define singular curves, with a marked point.

Then $`S_1S_2S_3^4`$. Moreover, $`S_2`$ contains precisely those $`f`$’s with $`(a,b)`$ not a 2 torsion point plus exceptional cases $`e^{kx}\mathrm{sinh}(sx)/s`$ with $`s^2=6f_3=f^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)`$. In the former cases, $`A(x)`$ is uniquely determined by $`f`$ and for the exceptional cases $`A(x)=e^{kx}(a_1\mathrm{sinh}(sx)/s+\mathrm{cosh}(sx))`$ where $`a_1=A^{}(0)`$. $`S_1`$ contains all $`f`$’s with $`(a,b)`$ a non-torsion point. In particular, the generic point of the complex elliptic genera (the power series $`f`$ with parameters) is a solution to $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$.

Let $`(a,b)=(\mathrm{}(z),\mathrm{}^{}(z))`$, in terms of the Weierstrass $`\sigma `$ function we will write down $`f`$ and find a candidate for $`A(t,r)`$ in §4, namely

$$f(x)=e^{(k+\zeta (z))x}\frac{\sigma (x)\sigma (z)}{\sigma (x+z)},A(t,r)=e^{(r1)(k+\zeta (z))t}\frac{\sigma (t+rz)\sigma (z)}{\sigma (t+z)\sigma (rz)}.$$

This shows that for blowing-ups along codimension $`r`$ centers, there could be no change of variable formula when one specializes $`z`$ to an $`r`$ torsion point.

The second step is the full change of variable formula for birational morphisms. At this moment we can only prove this for morphisms that can be factorized into composite of blowing-ups and blowing-downs along smooth centers. In the algebraic case, we may complete the proof in the characteristic zero case using recent result of Wlodarsczyk et. al.   on the weak factorization theorem.

Theorem C (Change of Variable Formula) Let $`\phi `$ be the complex elliptic genera. Then for any algebraic cycle $`D`$ in $`X`$ and birational morphism $`\varphi :YX`$ with $`K_Y=\varphi ^{}K_X+e_iE_i`$, we have

$$_DK_\phi (c(T_X))=_{\varphi ^{}D}_iA(E_i,e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y)).$$

Or equivalently, $`\varphi _{}_iA(E_i,e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y))=K_\phi (c(T_X))`$.

It is well-known that the Todd genus is the only complex genus that is absolutely birationally invariant. In this case, $`Q(x)=x/(1e^x)`$, $`A(t,r)=1=A(x)`$ and Theorem C is a special case of the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch Formula $`\varphi _{}\mathrm{td}(T_Y)=\mathrm{td}(T_X)`$, which is valid without any restriction on the ground field. Our guiding principle is that one should regard the Todd genus as a rational measure and the complex elliptic genera as the elliptic measure — think of $`K_\phi (c(T_X))`$ as $`d\mu _X`$! Theorem C together with Totaro’s result  imply

Theorem D (Invariance under $`K`$-equivalence) The most general chern numbers that are preserved under the $`K`$-equivalence relation among smooth proper complex varieties consist of the complex elliptic genera. Moreover, complex elliptic genera are precisely those genera that could be defined on log-terminal singular varieties through the change of variable formula, with the result to be independent of the chosen smooth model.

Our original plan is to regard Theorem C as a Grothendieck Riemann-Roch type problem and prove Theorem D via Theorem B and C only. One reason for doing so is to get a characteristic free treatment of all these results in the algebraic case. We realize only part of it in the current work. Also it should be interesting to compare our approach with Totaro’s, which used the rigidity property of the complex elliptic genera.

Historically, physicists in the 80’s has predicted that the two parameter elliptic genera (with $`k=0`$) can be defined on singular Calabi-Yau varieties (at least for orbifolds) and should agree with the value on the (non-unique) crepant resolutions, if there are any. This has motivated many earlier works on this subject. In this context, a recent preprint of Borisov and Libgober  contains results that are related to our present work. In particular, they also showed that elliptic genera (with $`k=0`$) could be defined on varieties with at most log-terminal singularities.

Acknowledgement I would like to thank Professors Esnault and Viehweg for bringing Totaro’s work into my attention while I was visiting them at the University of Essen in January 2000. Part of this work was done there. Also I would like to thank J.-K. Yu for extremely helpful discussions on the functional equations considered in §3. Especially the given proof of $`S_2S_3`$ in Theorem B is a joint work with him, which is better then my original approach. The National Center of Theoretic Sciences (Hsinchu, Taiwan) has provided wonderful working conditions during the summer of year 2000 while the main part of this work was completed there.

§2 A Residue Theorem for Genera

Let $`X`$ be a compact complex manifold or a proper smooth algebraic variety over an algebraically closed field. Let $`c(T_X)=_i(1+x_i)`$ be the formal decomposition into chern roots. For any commutative ring $`R`$, an $`R`$-genus $`\phi (X)`$ is defined by a power series $`Q(x)=1+\mathrm{}R[[x]]`$ through Hirzebruch’s recipe of multiplicative sequence

$$\phi (X)=_XK_\phi (c(T_X))=_X_iQ(x_i).$$

We will also write $`K_\phi `$ as $`K_Q`$ if $`Q`$ defines $`\phi `$.

In order to represent $`\phi (X)`$ in terms of data on $`Y`$ under a blowing-up $`\varphi :YX`$ along $`Z`$, we will need a localization result. To begin with, let us recall and extend some results from , Ch.3. As usual, let $`Q(x)=x/f(x)`$ with $`f(x)=x+\mathrm{}`$. Then $`f(u+v)=F(f(u),f(v))`$ for an unique power series $`F(y_1,y_2)=_{(r,s)(0,0)}a_{rs}y_1^ry_2^s=y_1+y_2+\mathrm{}`$. For cycles $`u_jH^2(M,)`$ (or $`Z_{n1}(M)`$), the virtual genus is defined by $`\phi (u_j):=_MK_Q(c(T_M))f(u_j)`$. When $`u_j`$ is represented by a smooth subvariety $`V`$, $`\phi (u_j)\phi (V)`$. Then one has , p.37:

$$\phi (u+v)=_{(r,,s)(0,0)}a_{rs}\phi (u^rv^s).$$

Moreover, for $`DM`$ an analytic/algebraic cycle, we may define $`\phi _D(u_j)`$ by $`_DK_Q(c(T_M))f(u_j)`$. Then the above is also valid for $`\phi _D`$.

Now let $`g:=f^1`$, the inverse power series (so $`g^{}(y)=_{n0}\phi (^n)y^n`$). Let $`H_{ij}^i\times ^j`$ be the degree $`(1,1)`$ hypersurfaces, then by , p.39:

$$F(y_1,y_2)g^{}(y_1)g^{}(y_2)=_{(i,j)(0,0)}\phi (H_{ij})y_1^iy_2^j.$$

Proposition 2.1 For any complex genus $`\phi `$ and two blowing-ups $`\varphi :YX`$ and $`\varphi ^{}:Y^{}X^{}`$ along isomorphic smooth center $`ZZ^{}`$, if $`N_{Z/X}N_{Z^{}/X^{}}`$ and there are cycles $`DX`$, $`D^{}X^{}`$ such that $`Z.D=Z^{}.D^{}`$, then $`\phi _D(X)\phi _{\varphi ^{}D}(Y)=\phi _D^{}(X^{})\phi _{\varphi ^{}D^{}}(Y^{})`$.

Proof. It is clear that one may reduce the proof to the case that $`X^{}=_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`Y^{}=\mathrm{Bl}_Z_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$, where $`N`$ denotes the normal bundle of $`Z`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the trivial bundle. To get relations among these spaces, we apply deformation to the normal cone to the inclusion $`i:ZX`$ . That is, we form the blowing-up $`\mathrm{\Phi }:MX\times ^1`$ along $`Z\times \{\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`XM_0M_{\mathrm{}}=Y_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})=:u+v`$, with $`uv=_Z(N)`$ and $`(u+v)u=0=(u+v)v`$. If we plug in $`y_1=f(u)`$ and $`y_2=f(v)`$ into the previous formula, then since $`\phi ((u+v)u)=0=\phi ((u+v)v)`$ and $`u^i=(1)^{i1}uv^{i1}`$, $`v^j=uv^{j1}`$, we see that only the constant term of $`g^{}`$ contributes and then

$`\phi (X)`$ $`=`$ $`\phi (u+v)={\displaystyle _M}f(u+v)K_Q(c(T_M))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}f(u+v)g^{}(f(u))g^{}(f(v))K_Q(c(T_M))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}F(f(u),f(v))g^{}(f(u))g^{}(f(v))K_Q(c(T_M))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{(i,j)(0,0)}}\phi (H_{ij})\phi (u^iv^j)`$
$`=`$ $`\phi (Y)+\phi (_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏}))+{\displaystyle _{i+j2}}(1)^{i1}\phi (H_{ij})\phi (E^{i+j1}).`$
Notice that this is almost a change of variable formula except the appearance of the term $`\phi (_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏}))`$. If we apply this formula to the inclusion $`i^{}:ZNX^{}=_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$ with $`Y^{}=\mathrm{Bl}_Z_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$, then the last term is exactly $`\phi (Y^{})`$. Hence in particular

$$\phi (X)\phi (Y)=\phi (_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏}))\phi (\mathrm{Bl}_Z_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})).$$

If instead of the total space $`M`$ we use the cycle $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(D\times ^1)`$, by restricting the above computation to this cycle, we get the result. QED

Remark 2.2 Proposition 2.1 should be a standard fact at least when $`D=X`$ and $`D^{}=X^{}`$, and it is quite visualizable in the case of complex manifolds. The above proof works in both analytic and algebraic cases.

With this proposition, it suffices to prove Theorem A for any other pair $`Y^{}X^{}`$. First of all, if $`A(0)=0`$, then the whole thing localizes to $`E_Z(N)Z`$ and becomes a fiber integration formula, so it does not depend on which pair $`YX`$ we use. If $`A(0)0`$, we may normalize it so that $`A(0)=1`$ and we may rewrite the power series $`A(t)`$ as $`J(f(t))`$, then the equality

$$_X^{}K_\phi (c(T_X^{}))=_Y^{}J(f(E))K_\phi (c(T_Y^{}))+_Z\mathrm{Res}$$

and Proposition 2.1 implies that $`\phi (X)\phi (Y)=\phi (X^{})\phi (Y^{})`$ equals

$$_Y^{}(J(f(E))1)K_\phi (c(T_Y^{}))+_Z\mathrm{Res}=\phi (J(E)1)+_Z\mathrm{Res}.$$

All terms in the last expression of virtual genus involves $`E^i`$ with $`i1`$, hence localize to $`E`$ and equals the same expression $`\phi (J(E))1)+_Z\mathrm{Res}`$ but with ambient space $`Y`$. Write it back we get the first step change of variable formula we want. The same argument applies to the general case involving $`D`$ etc. too.

So we may assume that $`X=_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$ with $`i:ZX`$ the embedding as the zero section $`ZN_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})`$. Then $`N=i^{}𝒬`$ where $`𝒬`$ is the universal quotient bundle in the tautological sequence

$$0𝒮p^{}(N\mathrm{𝟏})𝒬0.$$

Here $`p:_Z(N\mathrm{𝟏})Z`$ is the projection map. In such case, there are explicit formula relating $`c(T_X)`$ and $`c(T_Y)`$ (; p.301, (a)):

Lemma 2.3 If in a blowing-up $`\varphi :YX`$ along smooth center $`Z`$, the normal bundle $`N=i^{}𝒬`$ for some vector bundle $`𝒬`$ on $`X`$, then

$$c(T_Y)=\varphi ^{}c(T_X)\varphi ^{}c(𝒬)^1(1+E)c(\varphi ^{}𝒬𝒪(E)),$$

where $`E`$ is the exceptional divisor.

Let $`q_i`$’s be the formal chern roots of $`𝒬`$ and let

$$R(t)=\underset{k0}{}R_k(\varphi ^{}𝒬)t^k=Q(t)_{i=1}^rQ(\varphi ^{}q_it)A(t),$$

a power series with coefficients in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(Y,)`$ (or in the Chow ring). Then

$`{\displaystyle _Y}A(E)K_Q(c(T_Y))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _Y}\left[Q(E){\displaystyle _{i=1}^r}Q(\varphi ^{}q_iE)A(E)\right]\varphi ^{}\left(K_Q(c(T_X))K_Q(c(𝒬))^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _Y}R(E)\varphi ^{}\left(K_Q(c(T_X))K_Q(c(𝒬))^1\right).`$
It is clear that the constant term gives rise to the main term:

$$_YA(0)\varphi ^{}K_Q(c(T_X))=_XA(0)K_Q(c(T_X)).$$

Let $`j:EY`$ be the inclusion map and $`\overline{\varphi }:E=_Z(N)Z`$ be the restriction of $`\varphi `$. One has $`j^{}\varphi ^{}𝒬=\overline{\varphi }^{}i^{}𝒬=\overline{\varphi }^{}N`$ and also

$$0\overline{\varphi }^{}T_Z\overline{\varphi }^{}i^{}T_Xj^{}\varphi ^{}T_X\overline{\varphi }^{}N0,$$

hence that $`j^{}\varphi ^{}(K_Q(c(T_X))K_Q(c(𝒬))^1)=\overline{\varphi }^{}K_Q(c(T_Z))`$. If $`1`$ is the fundamental class of $`E`$ then $`j_{}(1)=E`$ and $`e=E|_E=j^{}E`$ is the class of $`𝒪_{(N)}(1)`$. Since $`\alpha E=\alpha j_{}(1)=j^{}\alpha `$, all non-constant terms localize to $`E`$. Let $`R_1(t)=_{k1}R_k(\overline{\varphi }^{}N,r)t^{k1}`$. Then the remaining terms give rise to

$$=_ER_1(e)\overline{\varphi }^{}K_Q(c(T_Z))=_Z\overline{\varphi }_{}R_1(e)K_Q(c(T_Z)).$$

To perform the fiber integration, we make use of Segre classes as in , Lemma 5.1:

Lemma 2.4 (, p.47) Let $`s(N)=s_k(N)`$ such that $`s(N)c(N)=1`$, then

* $`\overline{\varphi }_{}e^k=0`$ for $`0kr2`$ and
* $`\overline{\varphi }_{}e^{(r1)+k}=(1)^{(r1)+k}s_k(N)`$ for $`k0`$.

Apply this Lemma we get

$$=_Z\left[_{k0}(1)^{r+k}R_{r+k}s_k(N)\right]K_Q(c(T_Z)).$$

Now $`R_{r+k}=R_{r+k}(N)`$ is the coefficient of degree $`r+k`$ term in

$$R(t)=Q(t)_{i=1}^rQ(n_it)A(t).$$

And as power series, $`s_t(N)c_t(N)=(s_k(N)t^k)(1+n_it)=1`$, which when replacing $`t`$ by $`1/t`$, one gets

$$\left(_{k0}(1)^ks_k(N)\frac{1}{t^k}\right)\left(1\frac{n_i}{t}\right)=1.$$

This implies that $`\overline{\varphi }_{}R_1(e)=[\mathrm{}]`$ is $`(1)^{r+1}`$ times the coefficient of degree $`r`$ term of $`R(t)S_{1/t}(N)`$, that is, degree $`1`$ term of the Laurent power series in $`t`$:

$$Q(t)_{i=1}^rQ(n_it)A(t)\frac{1}{t^{r+1}}\frac{1}{_{i=1}^r(1\frac{n_i}{t})}=:\frac{A(t)}{f(t)_{i=1}^rf(n_it)}.$$

Here we agree to denote that

$$\frac{1}{n_it}:=\frac{1}{t}\frac{1}{1n_i/t}:=\frac{1}{t}\frac{n_i}{t^2}\frac{n_i^2}{t^3}\mathrm{}\text{(finite terms)}.$$

So the pole still occurs at $`t=0`$.

Notice that in all the above computations, we may replace the integrals on $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$ and $`E`$ by $`D`$, $`\varphi ^{}D`$, $`i^{}D=Z.D`$ and $`E.\varphi ^{}D=\overline{\varphi }^{}(i^{}D)=\overline{\varphi }^{}(Z.D)`$. we have thus proved Theorem A. QED

§3 Functional Equations versus Differential Equations

In this and next sections we give the proof of Theorem B. We will show that $`S_1S_2S_3`$ in this section.

For $`S_1S_2`$, let $`r2`$ be a fixed integer. By Theorem A, the defining condition of $`S_1`$ is equivalent to that, for any proper smooth variety $`Z`$ (of arbitrary dimension) and any rank $`r`$ vector bundle $`NZ`$, the coefficient of the degree $`1`$ term (residue at $`t=0`$) of $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(t,r)}{f(t)_{i=1}^rf(n_it)}}`$ is zero. By our definition of $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_it}}`$, in order to compute the residue at $`t=0`$, we may treat $`n_i`$ as distinct complex parameters and then compute the total residue at $`t=0`$ and $`t=n_1,\mathrm{},n_r`$. By the Cauchy residue theorem, the total residue is given by

$$\frac{1}{_{i=1}^rf(n_i)}_{j=1}^r\frac{A(n_j,r)}{f(n_j)_{ij}f(n_in_j)}.$$

So the defining property of $`S_1`$ is equivalent to that as formal power series in $`x_i`$’s, we have the functional equations:

$$\frac{1}{_{i=1}^rf(x_i)}=_{j=1}^r\frac{A(x_j,r)}{f(x_j)_{ij}f(x_ix_j)}.$$

When $`r=2`$, let $`A(t)=A(t,2)`$. The vanishing of the residue for arbitrary rank two bundle $`NZ`$ is then equivalent to the following power series identity:

$$\frac{1}{f(x)f(y)}=\frac{A(x)}{f(x)f(yx)}+\frac{A(y)}{f(y)f(xy)}.$$

This is just the functional equation defining $`S_2`$.

For $`S_2S_3`$, let $`f(x)=_{i1}f_ix^i`$ with $`f_1=1`$ and $`A(x)=_{i0}a_ix^i`$ with $`a_0=1`$. The functional equation is equivalent to FE:

$$f(xy)f(yx)=A(x)f(y)f(xy)+A(y)f(x)f(yx).$$

To solve all such $`f`$ and $`A`$, our guiding principle is that an identity of this type should be closely related to the addition law of Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$ functions. Since elliptic functions of such type always satisfy certain ordinary differential equations, we will try to transform our functional equation into certain ODE’s so that we can explicitly solve them. Before doing so, we notice that if $`(f(x),A(x))`$ is a solution, then $`(e^{kx}f(x),e^{kx}A(x))`$ will also be a solution. Hence without loss of generality we may assume that $`f_2=0`$.

First of all, by differentiating FE in $`y`$ and set $`y=0`$, one gets FE’:

$$A(x)f(x)+a_1f(x)f(x)+f(x)f^{}(x)=0,$$

That is, $`A(x)`$ is completely determined by $`f`$ and $`a_1`$. Now we plug in $`A(x)`$ and $`A(y)`$ into FE and get FE\*:

$`f(x)f(y)f(xy)f(yx)`$
$`+\left(a_1f(x)f(x)+f^{}(x)f(x)\right)f(xy)f(y)^2`$
$`+\left(a_1f(y)f(y)+f^{}(y)f(y)\right)f(yx)f(x)^2=0.`$
Now we differentiate FE\* in $`y`$ twice and set $`y=x`$ to get DE-1:

$`1+a_1\left(f(x)f^{}(x)+f^{}(x)f(x)\right)`$ $`+`$ $`f^{}(x)f^{}(x)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)f^{}(x)^2}{f(x)}}f(x)f^{\prime \prime }(x)\right)=0.`$
If we differentiate FE\* in $`y`$ three times and set $`y=0`$, we get DE-2:

$`6f_3f(x)f(x)+2a_1(f(x)f^{}(x)`$ $`+`$ $`f^{}(x)f(x))+2f^{}(x)f^{}(x)`$
$`+`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{f(x)f^{}(x)^2}{f(x)}}f(x)f^{\prime \prime }(x)\right)=0.`$
To motivate the following calculations, notice that $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ is even with principal part $`1/x^2`$ at $`x=0`$ and with no constant terms. Since

$$\frac{1}{f(x)f(x)}=\frac{1}{x^2}(1f_3x^2+\mathrm{})(1f_3x^2+\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{x^2}2f_3+\mathrm{},$$

an ambitious guess will be that $`P(x):={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f(x)f(x)}}+2f_3`$ is simply $`\mathrm{}(x)`$! Since $`\mathrm{}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}^2=4\mathrm{}^3g_2\mathrm{}g_3`$, by taking differentiation one gets that $`\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }6\mathrm{}^2`$ is a constant $`g_2/2`$. Thus we would like to compute $`P^{\prime \prime }6P^2`$. To simplify the presentation, let $`g(x)=1/f(x)`$ and so $`P(x)=g(x)g(x)+2f_3`$. Then DE-1 and DE-2 takes the form DE-1\* and DE-2\*:

$`g(x)^2g(x)^2a_1(g^{}(x)g(x)`$ $`+`$ $`g^{}(x)g(x))`$
$`+`$ $`g^{}(x)g^{}(x)+g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)=0`$
$`6f_3g(x)g(x)2a_1(g^{}(x)g(x)`$ $`+`$ $`g^{}(x)g(x))`$
$`+`$ $`2g^{}(x)g^{}(x)+g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)=0.`$
Since the only term that is not symmetric with respect to $`xx`$ is the last term $`g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)`$, we must have

$$g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)=g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x).$$

But then $`(g^{}(x)g(x)+g^{}(x)g(x))^{}=0`$ because it equals

$$g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)g^{}(x)g^{}(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)+g^{}(x)g^{}(x)=0.$$

That is, $`g^{}(x)g(x)+g^{}(x)g(x)`$ is a constant. By expanding out the power series one sees that this constant is $`6f_4`$. With these understood, then

$`P^{\prime \prime }(x)6P(x)^2`$ $`=`$ $`(g^{}(x)g(x)+g(x)g^{}(x))^{}6(g(x)g(x)+2f_3)^2`$
$`=`$ $`g^{\prime \prime }(x)g(x)+2g^{}(x)g^{}(x)g(x)g^{\prime \prime }(x)`$
$`6g^2(x)g^2(x)+24f_3g(x)g(x)24f_3^2.`$
This is exactly $`6(\text{DE-1*})+4(\text{DE-2*})+12a_1f_424f_3^2`$. So

$$P^{\prime \prime }(x)6P(x)^2=12a_1f_424f_3^2,$$

which integrates into the Weierstrass equation with $`g_2=24a_1f_4+48f_3^2`$. That is, there exists periods lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`P(x)=\mathrm{}(x)`$. (When the cubic curve is singular, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of rank one and $`\mathrm{}`$ is a trigonometric function.)

In order to determine $`f(x)`$, recall that

$$g^{}(x)g(x)+g^{}(x)g(x)=6f_4.$$

Also from the derivative of the equation $`g(x)g(x)=\mathrm{}(x)2f_3`$ one gets

$$g^{}(x)g(x)+g^{}(x)g(x)=\mathrm{}^{}(x).$$

This gives that $`g^{}(x)g(x)=(6f_4\mathrm{}^{}(x))/2`$. Hence

$$\frac{f^{}(x)}{f(x)}=\frac{g^{}(x)}{g(x)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(x)6f_4}{\mathrm{}(x)2f_3}.$$

Choose $`z`$ such that $`\mathrm{}(z)=2f_3`$ then $`g(z)g(z)=\mathrm{}(z)2f_3=0`$. The choice of $`z`$ is up to sign, we choose the one such that $`g(z)=0`$. Then $`(6f_4\mathrm{}^{}(z))/2=g^{}(z)g(z)=0`$, that is, $`6f_4=\mathrm{}^{}(z)`$. So

$$\frac{f^{}(x)}{f(x)}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(x)\mathrm{}^{}(z)}{\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(z)}.$$

Let $`a:=2f_3=\mathrm{}(z)`$, $`b:=3f_4=\mathrm{}^{}(z)`$ and $`g_2`$ be the corresponding coefficient in the Weierstrass equation. Together with the fact that the extra factor $`e^{kt}`$ contributes simply an additive constant $`k`$ to $`(\mathrm{log}f(x))^{}`$. We see that $`S_2S_3`$. QED

Remark 3.1 (Coordinates of $`S_3`$) (1) Since $`S_3=\mathrm{Spec}[k,a,b,g_2]`$, $`(k,a,b,g_2)`$ is the algebraic coordinates of $`S_3`$. In this paper we have ignored the integral structure of $`S_3`$ completely. Readers interested in it may consult  for more details. (2) When we represent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\omega _1+\omega _2`$ and $`(a,b)=(\mathrm{}(z),\mathrm{}^{}(z))`$, we obtain the analytic parameter system $`(k,\omega _1,\omega _2,z)`$. This will be useful in the proofs of Theorem C and D. (3) The obvious scaling $`Q(sx)`$ for $`s^\times `$ all correspond to proportional genera (chern numbers). They correspond to recalling of the lattice, so the complex elliptic genera is also usually regarded as depending on three parameters $`\tau =\omega _2/\omega _1`$, $`z`$ and $`k`$ only.

§4 Complex Elliptic Genera under Blowing-Up

In this section we will complete the proof of Theorem B by showing that under the analytic parameter system, $`S_2`$ contains precisely those points with $`z`$ not a 2 torsion point and $`S_1`$ contains all points with $`z`$ a non-torsion point.

There are several equivalent definitions of complex elliptic genera in the literature. It depends on the choices of elliptic-like functions and the parameter systems. It turns out that our definition is very close to Krichever’s . Namely the complex genus $`\phi `$ defined by the four parameter ($`k`$, $`\omega _1`$, $`\omega _2`$, and $`z`$) power series

$$f(x)=e^{kx}e^{\zeta (z)x}\frac{\sigma _{\omega _1,\omega _2}(x)\sigma _{\omega _1,\omega _2}(z)}{\sigma _{\omega _1,\omega _2}(xz)}.$$

To see this, one may write out the function $`f(x)`$ we get in last section in terms of the Weierstrass $`\sigma `$ function. Recall that $`\zeta (x)=^x\mathrm{}=1/x+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma (x)=e^{^x\zeta }=x+\mathrm{}`$, both are odd functions. Then we have the well-known formula (see eg. )

$$\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(x)\mathrm{}^{}(z)}{\mathrm{}(x)\mathrm{}(z)}=\zeta (x)+\zeta (z)\zeta (x+z).$$

So $`\mathrm{log}f(x)=\mathrm{log}\sigma (x)\mathrm{log}\sigma (x+z)+\zeta (z)x+\lambda `$. Where $`\lambda `$ is easily seen to be $`\mathrm{log}\sigma (z)`$ by comparing coefficients. Since the solution is always up to a normalization factor $`e^{kx}`$, the general solution is thus given by

$$f(x)=e^{kx}e^{\zeta (z)x}\frac{\sigma (x)\sigma (z)}{\sigma (x+z)}.$$

This agrees with Krichever’s definition when we replace $`z`$ by $`z`$. We will use our definition throughout this paper.

Recall that $`\sigma (z+\omega _i)=e^{\eta _i(z+\omega _i/2)}\sigma (z)`$ with $`\eta _i=\zeta (\omega _i/2)`$. If $`\lambda `$ then for $`\vartheta (z):=\sigma (\lambda z+a)`$, this quasi-periodicity of $`\sigma `$ implies that

$$\vartheta (z+\omega _i)=(1)^\lambda e^{\eta _i(\lambda ^2z+\lambda ^2\omega _i/2+\lambda a)}\vartheta (z).$$

Hence the following well-known fact

Lemma 4.1 The function $`{\displaystyle _{j=1}^r}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (\lambda _jza_j)}{\sigma (\mu _jzb_j)}}`$ is elliptic, that is, doubly periodic if $`\lambda _j^2=\mu _j^2`$, $`\lambda _ja_j=\mu _jb_j`$ and $`\lambda _j\mu _j(mod2)`$.

This Lemma also holds if $`a_j`$ and $`b_j`$ takes values in the nilpotent elements of some commutative algebra. For example, even cohomologies or the Chow rings. In that case, the pole of $`1/\sigma (\lambda za)`$ is still at $`z=0`$ according to our definition (see the end of §2).

Now we are ready to prove that $`S_1`$ (resp. $`S_2`$) contains all $`f`$’s in $`S_3`$ with $`z`$ a non-torsion (resp. non $`2`$-torsion) point. In fact we will show that for $`\phi `$ the complex elliptic genera as defined above, the residue term in Theorem A for a blowing-up along codimension $`r`$ center is zero for $`z`$ not an $`r`$ torsion point. Notice that when the Weierstrass equations define singular cubic curves, the periods lattice degenerates to rank one and $`\mathrm{}(x)`$, $`\zeta (x)`$ and $`\sigma (x)`$ are all trigonometric functions with the same defining properties as in the non-singular case.

Direct substitution shows that the residue is given by

$$\mathrm{Res}_{t=0}\left(e^{kc_1(N)}e^{(r1)(k+\zeta (z))t}\frac{\sigma (t+z)}{\sigma (t)\sigma (z)}_{i=1}^r\frac{\sigma (n_it+z)}{\sigma (n_it)\sigma (z)}A(t,r)\right).$$

In order for this to be zero, by Lemma 4.1, if we choose (notice that $`rz\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)

$$A(t,r)=e^{(r1)(k+\zeta (z))t}\frac{\sigma (t+rz)\sigma (z)}{\sigma (t+z)\sigma (rz)},$$

then since $`rz+_{i=1}^r(n_i+z)z=_{i=1}^rn_iz`$, we conclude that the above power series is an elliptic function (with value in the Chow ring) and with $`t=0`$ the only pole (notice that the factor $`\sigma (t+z)`$ is canceled out). The contour integration over a parallelogram domain now shows that the coefficient of degree $`1`$ term (the residue) must be identically zero. When the lattice degenerates to rank one, we may use contour integral along the boundary of a thin tube and then take limits to conclude the same result. Hence the proof.

It remains to consider the case that $`z`$ is a 2 torsion point. Suppose that $`f(x)`$ is a solution to the functional equation. Let $`z=\omega /2`$ for some period $`\omega `$ and let $`e=\mathrm{}(\omega /2)`$. As before we may also first assume that $`k=0`$. In this case $`f(x)=1/\sqrt{\mathrm{}(x)e}`$ is an odd function (this is the real elliptic genera considered in ). Since $`f(x)=f(x)`$, the formula for $`A(x)`$ in §3 reduces to $`A(x)=a_1f(x)+f^{}(x)`$. Plug in this into the functional equation and replace $`x`$ by $`x`$. After simplification we get

$$f(x+y)=f^{}(x)f(y)+f^{}(y)f(x).$$

By expanding out the power series and equating the coefficients term by term, one sees that the solution, if exists, is uniquely determined by $`f_3`$. It is then easy to see that the general solution is given by $`f(x)=\mathrm{sinh}(sx)/s`$ with $`s^2=f^{\prime \prime \prime }(0)=6f_3`$. In this case the corresponding lattice is degenerate. The proof of Theorem B is completed. QED

Remark 4.2 (Uniqueness of $`A(t,r)`$) (1) At least when the cubic curve is smooth, we expect that $`A(t,r)`$ is uniquely determined by $`f`$ and its existence is equivalent to that $`z`$ is not an $`r`$ torsion point. However, the author do not know a proof of this for $`r4`$. (2) Instead of being an universal Jacobian factor, in specific cases with $`YX`$ fixed, if we allow $`A(t,r)`$ to have coefficients in cohomology classes, then the choices is no longer unique. In fact any power series $`e^{(r1)kt}B(r,t)`$ with the same value as the chosen one at $`t=0`$ and with $`B(r,t)`$ satisfying the same transformation property will do the job. We will see this non-uniqueness during the proof of Theorem C.

Remark 4.3 There is an alternative way to prove that $`S_2S_3`$ based on the knowledge that $`S_2`$ contains at least those $`f`$’s of $`S_3`$ with $`z`$ not a 2 torsion. The strategy is to compute the degree of freedom of $`S_2`$. Using the twisting $`e^{kx}f(x)`$, we may first normalize $`f(x)`$ such that $`f_2=0`$. Now we expand out the functional equation via power series in $`x`$ and $`y`$. Given $`d2`$ and $`1pd1`$, comparing the coefficient of $`x^py^{dp}`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}(1)^if_if_{di}C_p^d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{dj}{}}}C_{pi}^{dij}\left(a_if_j+(1)^{dij}a_jf_i\right)f_{dij}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{dp}{}}}(1)^{dj}f_jf_{dj}C_p^{dj}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}}(1)^if_if_{di}C_{pi}^{di}.`$
For $`d=2,3`$, these are trivial identities. For $`d=4`$, all three equations reduces to $`a_23f_3=0`$. So we may allow $`f_3`$ and $`a_1`$ to be arbitrary and then solve $`a_2=3f_3`$. With this, for $`d=5`$, all the four equations are equivalent and we get that $`a_3=2f_4+a_1f_3`$ with $`f_4`$ arbitrary. For $`d=6`$, we get

$$a_4=2a_1f_4+\frac{3}{2}f_3^2,f_5=\frac{3}{10}f_3^2+\frac{3}{5}a_1f_4.$$

We want to solve $`f(x)`$ and $`A(x)`$ inductively. For $`d6`$, each time there appears two new coefficients $`a_{d2}`$ and $`f_{d1}`$ and with $`d1`$ relations. If we show that there are at least two independent relations among those $`d1`$’s then $`f(x)`$ and $`A(x)`$ are uniquely determined by $`f_3`$, $`f_4`$ and $`a_1`$, if they exist.

First of all, $`a_{d2}`$ occurs only for $`p=2`$ or $`p=d2`$ (which by the symmetry of the functional equation correspond to the same relation) as the term $`1a_{d2}f_1f_1=a_{d2}`$. But for all $`p`$, $`f_{d1}`$ appears in the relations with coefficients

$$C_p^d+(1)^dC_p^d+(1)^dC_p^{d1}+C_{p1}^{d1},$$

which is always nonzero. Hence there are at least two independent relations and $`f(x)`$ is uniquely determined by $`a_1`$, $`f_3`$ and $`f_4`$. Moreover if $`f_40`$ then $`f(x)`$ is uniquely determined by $`f_3`$, $`f_4`$ and $`f_5`$. By writing out $`f(x)`$ which defines the complex elliptic genera with $`k=0`$, we find that

$$f(x)=x+\frac{a}{2}x^3+\frac{b}{6}x^4+\left(\frac{3a^2}{8}\frac{g_2}{40}\right)x^5+\mathrm{}.$$

This establishes an one to one correspondence between $`S_2`$ with $`f_2=0`$, $`f_40`$ and $`S_3`$ with $`k=0`$, $`b0`$ — that is with $`z`$ a non 2 torsion point.

In fact this research started from solving the functional equation inductively. We are confident with our approach after it has been verified in Maple V and Mathematica up to degree 20 that $`f(x)`$ and $`A(x)`$ are uniquely solvable in $`f_2`$, $`f_3`$, $`f_4`$ and $`a_1`$.

§5 The Change of Variable Formula

Theorem 5.1 (Transition Formula) Let $`\phi `$ be the complex elliptic genera. Let $`E_i^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$ be $`p`$ irreducible divisors in $`X`$ and $`e_i\backslash \{1\}`$. Consider a blowing-up $`\varphi :YX`$ along smooth center of codimension $`r`$ with exceptional divisor $`E_0`$. Let $`\varphi ^{}E_i^{}=E_i+m_iE_0`$ with $`E_i`$ the proper transform of $`E_i^{}`$. Let $`D`$ be an cycle in $`X`$. If $`e_0:=_{i=1}^pe_im_i+(r1)1`$ then

$$_D_{i=1}^pA(E_i^{},e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_X))=_{\varphi ^{}D}_{i=0}^pA(E_i,e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y)).$$

Proof. For the complex elliptic genera, Theorem A implies that for any power series $`F(𝐭)=F(t_1,\mathrm{},t_p)`$ and cycles $`D`$, $`𝐄^{}=(E_1^{},\mathrm{},E_m^{})`$ in $`X`$,

$$_DF(𝐄^{})K_Q(c(T_X))=_{\varphi ^{}D}F(\varphi ^{}𝐄^{})A(E_0,r)K_Q(c(T_Y)).$$

(Since $`\overline{\varphi }_{}R_1(e)=0`$.) With this, the left hand side in the theorem becomes

$$_Y_{i=1}^pA(\varphi ^{}E_i^{},e_i+1)A(E_0,r)K_\phi (c(T_Y)).$$

And the right hand side can be written as

$$_Y_{i=1}^pA(\varphi ^{}E_i^{}m_iE_0,e_i+1)A(E_0,e_0+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y)).$$

Now we plug in $`A(t,r)=e^{(r1)(k+\zeta (z))t}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (t+rz)\sigma (z)}{\sigma (t+z)\sigma (rz)}}`$ and analyze the map $`\varphi `$. The dominant variable $`E_0`$ is again replaced by the variable $`t`$ in the fiber integration calculation.

The extra Jacobian factors of both integrals have the same exponential factor

$$e^{e_0(k+\zeta (z))t{\scriptscriptstyle (m_i)e_i(k+\zeta (z))t}}=e^{(e_0{\scriptscriptstyle m_ie_i})(k+\zeta (z))t}=e^{(r1)(k+\zeta (z))t},$$

and also the same relevant transformation factor: for the first one, it is $`e^{2\pi i(rz+z)}=e^{2\pi i(r1)z}`$; for the second integral, the exponent is $`2\pi i`$ times

$`{\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}\left(m_i\varphi ^{}E_i^{}+m_i(e_i+1)z\right){\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}\left(m_i\varphi ^{}E_i^{}+m_iz\right)(e_0+1)z+z`$
$`=(e_0{\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}m_ie_i)z=(r1)z.`$
As in Remark 4.2, since both Jacobian factors become equal if we formally set $`E_0=0`$, this implies that both have the same effect in the fiber integration computation of $`\overline{\varphi }_{}`$ (which is zero), so both integrals are equal. QED

Now we prove Theorem C. Let $`\varphi ^{}:X^{}X`$ be a birational morphism with $`K_X^{}=\varphi ^{}K_X+_{i=1}^pe_iE_i^{}`$. Consider a further blowing-up $`\psi :YX^{}`$ along a smooth center of codimension $`r`$ with $`K_Y=\psi ^{}K_X+(r1)E_0`$. Let $`\varphi =\psi \varphi ^{}`$ and let $`\psi ^{}E_i^{}=E_i+m_iE_0`$. Then the canonical bundles satisfy the following relations

$`K_Y`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{}\left(\varphi ^{}K_X+{\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}e_iE_i^{}\right)+(r1)E_0`$
$`=`$ $`\varphi ^{}K_X+{\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}e_iE_i+\left({\displaystyle _{i=1}^p}e_im_i+(r1)\right)E_0.`$
By applying Theorem 5.1 to the blowing-up $`\psi :YX^{}`$ we conclude that

$$_X^{}_{i=1}^pA(E_i^{},e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_X^{}))=_Y_{i=0}^pA(E_i,e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y)).$$

In particular, this proves Theorem C in the case that $`\varphi :YX`$ is a composite of blowing-ups along smooth centers.

To prove Theorem C for general birational morphism $`\varphi `$, we need to assume that $`k=`$ and make use of a recent result due to Wlodarsczyk and his co-workers  , namely the weak factorization theorem. It says that (in characteristic zero) any birational map $`f:X\mathrm{}X^{}`$ can be factorized into composite of $`f_i:X_i\mathrm{}X_{i+1}`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},q`$ such that $`X_0=X`$, $`X_{q+1}=X^{}`$ and each $`f_i`$ is either a blowing-up or a blowing-down along smooth center. We apply it to the morphism $`\varphi :YX`$.

Since the coefficient $`e_i`$ in front of $`E_i`$ is independent of the birational model we choose, as long as the divisor $`E_i`$ has a nontrivial proper transform in that model, they must transform correctly in all $`f_i`$. Theorem C then follows from the blowing-up case. QED

§6 $`K`$-equivalence Relation, Proof of Theorem D

and the Main Conjectures

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$ dimensional complex normal $``$-Gorenstein variety. Recall that $`X`$ has (at most) terminal (resp. canonical, resp. log-terminal) singularities if there is a (hence for any) resolution $`\varphi :YX`$ such that in the canonical bundle relation $`K_Y=_{}\varphi ^{}K_X+a_iE_i`$, we have that $`a_i>0`$ (resp. $`a_i0`$, resp. $`a_i>1`$) for all $`i`$. Here, the $`E_i`$’s vary among the prime components of all the exceptional divisors. For two $``$-Gorenstein varieties $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, we say that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are $`K`$-equivalent, written as $`X=_KX^{}`$, if there is a smooth variety $`Y`$ and a birational correspondence $`(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}):XYX^{}`$, such that $`\varphi ^{}K_X=_{}\varphi ^{}K_X^{}`$. Notice that this property does not depend on the choices of $`Y`$.

To get a feeling on the objects involved, let us recall the following typical situations that lead to $`K`$-equivalence. By definition, any composite of flops induces $`K`$-equivalence. More generally, let $`f:XX^{}`$ be a birational map between two varieties with at most canonical singularities such that $`K_X`$ (resp. $`K_X^{}`$) is nef along the exceptional locus $`ZX`$ (resp. $`Z^{}X^{}`$), then $`X=_KX^{}`$. In particular, this applies to birational minimal models  . Also all cohomologically small resolutions of a singular variety, if they exist, are all $`K`$-equivalent .

We now prove Theorem D. It is clear that if $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are $`K`$-equivalent proper smooth complex algebraic varieties, then by the change of variable formula (Theorem C), we know that they have the same complex elliptic genera at least for the parameter $`z`$ not an $`r`$ torsion point for $`2rdimX`$. But once we know that the complex elliptic genera coincide for generic $`z`$, they must coincide by continuity (or specialization). Conversely, if a complex genus $`\phi `$ is invariant under $`K`$-equivalence then it is invariant under classical flops, hence by Totaro’s theorem  it must belong to the complex elliptic genera.

Now let $`X`$ be a complex $``$-Gorenstein variety with at most log-terminal singularities. Take any resolution of singularities $`\varphi :YX`$ with $`K_Y=_{}\varphi ^{}K_X+e_iE_i`$. Since $`e_i>1`$, one may simply define its complex elliptic genera to be

$$_YA(E_i,e_i+1)K_\phi (c(T_Y)),$$

where $`A(t,r)`$ is the same as before though now we plug in the variable $`r`$ by rational numbers. Again this definition will cause difficulties for certain torsion values $`z`$, we avoid this problem by using the universal complex elliptic genera instead of its various specializations. In order to show that it is independent of the smooth model $`Y`$, suppose that $`Y^{}X`$ is another resolution, then by using the weak factorization theorem, $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are connected through blowing-ups and blowing-downs. Then Theorem 5.1 implies this independence because the coefficient $`e_i`$ in front of $`E_i`$ is independent of the birational model we choose.

Finally, it follows from Theorem B or Totaro’s Theorem that there are no other genera which could be defined on singular varieties such that they are compatible with the change of variable formula. QED

As in the case of birational minimal models, we expect that any $`K`$-equivalence can be decomposed into composite of some nice flops. However, this rigid decomposition is too hard to achieve at this moment. Instead, we would like to state a series of conjectures on $`K`$-equivalent varieties, with the hope to reduce the necessity of a rigid decomposition result for most potential applications.

Main conjectures on $`K`$-equivalence relation — Fix a birational map $`f:XX^{}`$ between two proper smooth complex varieties and let $`T:=\varphi _{}^{}\varphi ^{}`$ be the cohomology correspondence induced from a birational correspondence $`(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}):XYX^{}`$ which extends $`f`$ and with smooth $`Y`$. $`T`$ is determined by the closure of the graph $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_fX\times X^{}`$ through the Künneth formula hence is independent of the choice of $`Y`$. Suppose that $`X=_KX^{}`$.

I (canonical isomorphism) $`T`$ induces a canonical isomorphism on cohomologies, which respects the rational Hodge structures:

$$T:H^i(X,)\stackrel{}{}H^i(X^{},).$$

II (quantum cohomology/Kähler moduli) Under part I, $`T`$ also induces an isomorphism on the (big) quantum cohomology rings in the sense of analytic continuations over the extended Kähler moduli spaces (compare with ).

III (birational complex moduli) $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have canonically isomorphic (at least local) complex moduli spaces. Moreover, suitably compactified polarized moduli spaces should again be $`K`$-equivalent.

IV (soft decomposition) $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ admit symplectic deformations such that the $`K`$-equivalence relation deformed into copies of classical flops.

Most of these conjectures are known in dimension three based on classification theoretic results on flops in the minimal model theory   . Yet, the techniques involved are unlikely to work in higher dimensions. It seems that IV will play a key role toward the understanding of I, II and III.

Topological evidence for conjecture IV — Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^U`$ be the cobordism ring of stably almost complex manifolds. For any $``$ algebra $`R`$, an $`R`$-valued complex genus defined in the topological way is a ring homomorphism $`\phi :\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^UR`$. A theorem due to Milnor says that the rational cobordism class is determined exactly by all the chern numbers of the stable tangent bundle, or equivalently, determined by all its complex genera. So in fact the topological definition of genera is the same as the previous algebraic one. In terms of the cobordism theory, we may rephrase Theorem D in the following way:

Totaro proved that ‘complex cobordism ring modulo classical flops’ $`=`$ ‘complex elliptic genera’. Theorem D generalizes this to ‘complex cobordism ring modulo $`K`$-equivalence’ $`=`$ ‘complex elliptic genera’. That is, inside the complex cobordism ring, the ideal generated by $`XX^{}`$ for $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ which are related by classical flops are indeed the same as the seemingly much larger ideal generated by all $`XX^{}`$ where $`X=_KX^{}`$. So Conjecture IV is true up to complex cobordism.

§7 Relations with Equivalence of Hodge Structures

The proof of the equivalence of Hodge numbers sketched in  uses the theory of motivic integration developed by Denef and Loeser . In fact, for $`K`$-equivalent smooth complex projective varieties $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ one has $`[X]=[X^{}]`$ in a suitably completed localized Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties $`\widehat{}`$. As is remarked in , the Hodge structure realization functor factors through this ring. Together with the fact that the category of pure $``$-Hodge structures is semi-simple, we conclude that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have isomorphic $``$-Hodge structures on cohomologies. However, this does not provide any canonical morphism between them.

Hodge numbers and Hodge structures determine a substantial part of the complex elliptic genera and also give information to the complex moduli. For this, recall the formula in :

$$\phi (X)=\chi (X,K_X^{(k)}_{m1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{y^1q^m}T\mathrm{\Lambda }_{y^1q^{m1}}T^{}S_{q^m}TS_{q^m}T^{})).$$

Here we normalize the period lattice by $`\omega _1=1`$, $`\omega _2=\tau `$, also $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, $`y=e^{2\pi iz}`$ and $`T=T_Xn`$ the rank zero virtual tangent bundle. The twisted $`\chi _y`$-genus corresponds to the two parameter genera

$$\chi _y(X):=\chi (X,K_X^{(k)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_yT_X^{}),$$

which is equivalent to knowing all $`\chi (X,K_X^{(k)}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p)`$ for $`p0`$. If $`n=dimX11`$, the twisted $`\chi _y`$ genus contains the same chern numbers as the complex elliptic genera. So in this range, twisted $`\chi _y`$ genus contains precisely all chern numbers that are invariant under the $`K`$-equivalence relation. If $`n4`$, the twisted $`\chi _y`$ genus contains all chern numbers, so all chern numbers are invariant under $`K`$-equivalence for dimensions up to $`4`$.

It is clear that if $`K_X`$ is trivial, that is, $`X`$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold, then the twisted $`\chi _y`$ genus becomes Hirzebruch’s $`\chi _y`$ genus $`_{p0}\chi (X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p)y^p`$. In particular, it is determined by the Hodge numbers. So the equivalence of elliptic genera (that is, $`k=0`$) follows from the equivalence of Hodge numbers when $`n11`$. But when $`n12`$, the elliptic genera and Hodge numbers contain quite different type of information.

For non Calabi-Yau manifolds, we can still use Hodge numbers to study twisted $`\chi _y`$ genus in some cases. First we show that:

Theorem 7.1 Let $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ be two $`K`$-equivalent smooth complex projective varieties with $`DX`$ and $`D^{}X^{}`$ be base point free divisors such that $`\varphi ^{}D=\varphi ^{}D^{}`$ for some birational correspondence $`(\varphi ,\varphi ^{}):XYX^{}`$. Then for all $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`p0`$, $`\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p)=\chi (X^{},𝒪(\mathrm{}D^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^p)`$.

Proof. We use induction on dimension $`n=dimX=dimX^{}`$. This is trivial if $`n=1`$, so we may assume that the theorem is true up to dimension $`n11`$.

By Bertini’s theorem, we may assume that $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are smooth, irreducible and corresponds to each other under proper transform. Let $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ be the proper transform of $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ in $`Y`$ with $`\overline{\varphi }:=\varphi |_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }^{}:=\varphi ^{}|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$. Then $`\overline{\varphi }^{}K_D=(\varphi ^{}(K_X+D))|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=(\varphi ^{}(K_X^{}+D^{}))|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}=\overline{\varphi }^{}K_D^{}`$. That is, $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are again $`K`$-equivalent.

We will prove by induction on $`\mathrm{}\{0\}`$ that $`\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p)=\chi (X^{},𝒪(\mathrm{}D^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^p)`$, which is enough since they are polynomials in $`\mathrm{}`$. For $`\mathrm{}=0`$ this is true by equivalence of Hodge numbers. So let $`\mathrm{}1`$. From

$$0𝒪((\mathrm{}1)D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D0,$$

we get that

$$\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p)=\chi (X,𝒪((\mathrm{}1)D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p)+\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D).$$

By the induction hypothesis on $`\mathrm{}`$, we only need to take care of the last term. From $`0T_DT_X|_DN_D𝒪_D(D)0`$, we have that $`0𝒪_D(D)\mathrm{\Omega }^1|_D\mathrm{\Omega }_D^10`$, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D=\mathrm{\Omega }_D^p𝒪_D(D)\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{p1}`$. Hence that

$$\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D)=\chi (D,𝒪_D(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }_D^p)+\chi (D,𝒪_D((\mathrm{}1)D)\mathrm{\Omega }_D^{p1}).$$

(For $`p=0`$, it is understood that the third term is 0.) Since now $`dimD=dimD^{}=n1`$, $`D=_KD^{}`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }^{}(D|_D)=\overline{\varphi }^{}(D^{}|_D^{})`$, the induction hypothesis on $`n`$ then concludes that $`\chi (X,𝒪(\mathrm{}D)\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D)=\chi (X^{},𝒪(\mathrm{}D^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^p|_D^{})`$. This completes the proof. QED

Corollary 7.2 Let $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ be two smooth complex projective varieties which are birational good minimal models, that is both $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have $`K^r`$ to be base point free for some $`r`$. Then for all $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`p0`$,

$$\chi (X,K_X^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^p)=\chi (X^{},K_X^{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^p).$$

Proof. Simply take $`D=K_X^r`$ and $`D^{}=K_X^{}^r`$ in the above theorem and notice that the equality holds for all $`\mathrm{}r`$ implies that it holds for all $`\mathrm{}`$, since both terms are polynomials in $`\mathrm{}`$. QED

Since birational minimal models are $`K`$-equivalent, Corollary 7.2 is just a special case of Theorem C. But this alternative discussion has another aspect. Instead of using the Euler characteristic functor, if we write out the two corresponding long exact sequences for $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ in the above proof, we may conclude inductively that under conjecture I,

$$H^q(X,K_X^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^p)H^q(X^{},K_X^{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^p)$$

for all $`\mathrm{}r\{0\}`$. It is likely that this will also hold for all $`\mathrm{}`$. In that case we may take $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and use Serre duality theorem to get for all $`i0`$ that

$$H^i(X,T_X)H^i(X^{},T_X^{}).$$

We hope that this will be useful in attacking Conjecture III concerning the birational moduli spaces.


format: text

text:
# The three-dimensional Ising model: A paradigm of liquid-vapor coexistence in nuclear multifragmentation

## Abstract

Clusters in the three-dimensional Ising model rigorously obey reducibility and thermal scaling up to the critical temperature. The barriers extracted from Arrhenius plots depend on the cluster size as $`BA^\sigma `$ where $`\sigma `$ is a critical exponent relating the cluster size to the cluster surface. All the Arrhenius plots collapse into a single Fisher-like scaling function indicating liquid-vapor-like phase coexistence and the univariant equilibrium between percolating clusters and finite clusters. The compelling similarity with nuclear multifragmentation is discussed.

Nuclear multifragmentation is a process occurring at the limits of nuclear excitation, and, as such, portrays an appropriate richness and complexity. While the fundamental problem of dynamics vs. statistics is still debated, it appears ever more clearly that many thermal/statistical features underlie the empirical body of data. In particular, two features associated with the fragment multiplicities are found to be quite pervasive in all multifragmentation reactions. They have been named “reducibility” and “thermal scaling” .

Reducibility is the property of the $`n`$-fragment emission probability of being expressible in terms of an elementary one-fragment emission probability. This property can occur only if fragments are created independently from one another and it coincides with stochasticity. Both binomial, and its limiting form, Poissonian reducibilities have been extensively documented experimentally .

Thermal scaling is the linear dependence of the logarithm of the one-fragment probability with $`1/T`$ (an Arrhenius plot). It indicates that the emission probability for fragment type $`i`$ has a Boltzmann dependence

$$p_i=p_0e^{B_i/T}$$
(1)
where $`B_i`$ is a barrier corresponding to the emission process.

The combination of these two empirical features powerfully attests to a statistical mechanism of multifragmentation in general, and to liquid-vapor coexistence specifically .

Many statistical models have been proposed as an explanation for multifragmentation. It is our intention here to identify a model which, on one hand, is as simple as possible, yet on the other captures the essential features observed in the experiments. Percolation in its many versions has been widely used . However, while being simple, it does not lend itself to a non-trivial thermal study . The three-dimensional Ising model satisfies both the criteria of simplicity in its Hamiltonian and lends itself to a thermal treatment with nontrivial results. While the Ising model has been widely studied in terms of its continuous phase transition, the problem of clusterization, of paramount interest to us here, has received relatively little attention . We will show that this model contains both features of reducibility and thermal scaling. In showing the features of thermal scaling we will demonstrate that the slopes of the Arrhenius plots associated with the individual masses of the fragments, or the barriers in Eq. (1), portray a dependence on the fragment mass ($`A`$) of the form $`BA^\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ is a proper critical exponent which relates the mass to the cluster surface. In addition, the individual Arrhenius plots for each fragment mass can be absorbed into a single scaling function identical to that of Fisher’s droplet model , which defines the liquid-vapor coexistence line up to the critical temperature.

The Hamiltonian of the Ising model has two terms: the interaction between nearest neighbor ($`n.n.`$) spins in a fixed lattice and the interaction between the fixed spins and an external applied field $`H_{ext}`$:

$$H=J\underset{i,j=\{n.n.\}}{}s_is_jH_{ext}\underset{i}{}s_i$$
(2)
where $`J`$ is the strength of the spin-spin interaction. In this model, the two phases of the system are a liquid (clusters of sites with connected up spins) and a gas (clusters of sites with connected down spins). In the absence of an external field, the distinction between up and down spins vanishes. Thus in the absence of an external field, these two phases are in coexistence below the critical temperature, $`T_c`$. The critical temperature for the three-dimensional Ising model has not been determined analytically; however, Monte Carlo techniques have yielded a value of $`T_c=4.513J/k_b`$ .

In the present study, Monte Carlo techniques are used to determine the equilibrium cluster distribution as a function of temperature for a simple cubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions. The lattice contains $`50^3`$ spins, which is large but may not be large enough to represent an infinite system. The Swendsen-Wang algorithm  was used to determine the equilibrium spin configurations of the lattice for given temperatures, and clusters were identified using the Coniglio-Klein  prescription. Details about the model can be found in reference .

To test if the fragment distributions produced by the model exhibit binomial or Poissonian characteristics, the ratio of the variance to the mean ($`\sigma ^2/n_A`$) of the fragment distributions ($`n_A`$) for various fragment sizes ($`A`$) as a function of temperature was determined. For most clusters, the ratio is very close to one, which is the Poissonian limit, over the entire temperature range considered here, which extends well beyond the critical temperature. Only for the very lightest clusters ($`A20`$), does the ratio have a discontinuity at the critical temperature. However, the ratio is near one even for these light clusters at all temperatures away from the critical temperature. (See Fig. 1.) Thus, for all but the smallest clusters, the distributions exhibit Poissonian reducibility.

This signifies that the clusters are produced nearly independently of one another, a feature also observed in percolation models, Fisher’s droplet model and nuclear fragmentation .

If the fragment distributions also exhibit thermal reducibility, the distributions must be of the form given in Eq. (1). Thus in an Arrhenius plot (a semi-log graph of the number of clusters of size $`A`$ ($`n_A`$) vs. $`1/T`$), the distributions should be linear below the critical temperature.

As shown in Fig. 2, this is indeed the case over a wide range of temperatures ($`0<T<T_c`$) and fragment sizes. While we have shown distributions for clusters up to size $`A=100`$, the trend continues for larger clusters, however statistics decrease significantly as the size of the cluster increases. This linearity extends over more than four or five orders of magnitude. It rigorously confirms the form of Eq. (1) and signifies the independent thermal formation of fragments controlled by a single size-dependent barrier. This feature has been amply verified in nuclear multifragmentation. By fitting the fragment distributions below the critical temperature ($`J/k_bT>0.2216`$), the barriers can be extracted. The barriers for each cluster size are shown in Fig. 3.

These barriers should find their origin in the number of broken bonds associated with a cluster. Therefore they should be well described by a power-law:

$$B(A)=B_0A^\sigma .$$
(3)
The fit of the extracted barriers according to Eq. (3) is $`B=(12.77\pm 0.04)A^{(0.7230\pm 0.008)}`$ and is remarkably good as shown in Fig. 3. The value for $`\sigma `$ ($`0.7230\pm 0.0004`$) is close to 2/3, the value one would expect for spherical clusters of closely packed spherical objects , and to 0.64 the value expected from scaling relations . Thus this is a new and effective method to determine the critical exponent $`\sigma `$, never used before to our knowledge.

The features of reducibility and thermal scaling discussed above can be found united in Fisher’s formula for the cluster abundance in a vapor as a function of cluster size and of temperature. The formula is

$$n_A(T)=q_0A^\tau \mathrm{exp}(\frac{A\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{T})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{c_0A^\sigma }{T_c})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{c_0A^\sigma }{T})$$
(4)
where one can see the thermal scaling up to $`T_c`$ and the dependence of the “barrier” on the cluster mass through the critical exponent $`\sigma `$ . It is interesting to explore further the applicability of this formula to the Ising model.

In addition to the linear behavior of the Arrhenius plots below the critical temperature, the Fisher droplet model also predicts that the cluster size distribution at the critical point must follow a power law

$$n_A(T_c)=q_0A^\tau $$
(5)
where $`q_0`$ is fixed by the normalization relationship

$$q_0=\frac{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}n_A(T_c)}{_{A=1}^{\mathrm{}}A^\tau }.$$
(6)
Away from the critical temperature, the cluster distribution should not follow a pure power law. Thus, to determine $`\tau `$ without a prior knowledge of the critical temperature, linear fits to the cluster distributions were determined for all temperatures. At the critical temperature, the fit should have the

lowest $`\chi ^2/DoF`$ and thus this fit should determine $`\tau `$. The results for the best fit are shown in the lower panel of Fig. 3. From this method, the critical temperature was found to be $`(4.515\pm .010)J/k_B`$ with a best fit line of the form $`n_A(T_c)=(30084\pm 7)A^{(2.39671\pm 0.00017)}`$. This temperature is consistent with the value determined for infinite systems ($`4.513J/k_B`$) and the value of $`\tau `$ ($`2.39671\pm 0.00017`$) is close to the expected value for an infinite system ($`\tau ^{\mathrm{}}=2.21`$). The fit also determines $`q_0`$ which can be compared to the prediction of Eq. (6). The fit predicts $`q_0^{fit}=30084`$ while $`q_0^{\mathrm{}}=27566`$. The power law fit of the fragment abundances at the critical temperature is shown in Fig. 3.

In the coexistence region, which in the Ising model should prevail for $`T<T_c`$ when the magnetization is not constrained, the chemical potentials of the liquid and gas phases are equal, thus Eq. (4) can be rewritten as:

$$n_A(T)A^\tau /q_0=\mathrm{exp}(c_0A^\sigma \epsilon /T)$$
(7)
with $`\epsilon =(T_cT)/T_c`$. Therefore, a graph of the scaled cluster distributions ($`n_A(T)A^\tau /q_0`$) as a function of $`\epsilon A^\sigma /T`$ should make the distributions of all cluster sizes collapse onto a single curve. This scaling behavior can clearly be seen in Fig. 4. This nearly perfect collapse below the critical temperature extends over six orders of magnitude for the broadest range of cluster sizes and it is perfectly linear. Therefore the three-dimensional Ising model and fluids belong to the same class of universality and can be described by Fisher’s droplet model. The Ising clusters constructed here can be properly thought of as “vapor” in equilibrium with the “liquid” percolating cluster. Coexistence of the two phases is determined by the observation that the empirical scaling requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$. The fact that both the three-dimensional Ising model and the experimental nuclear multifragmentation data obey the same scaling predicted by Fisher’s droplet model indicates that nuclear multifragmentation can indeed be identified as the clustering (non-ideality) in a nuclear vapor in equilibrium with the nuclear liquid .

We note that the value of $`\sigma `$ determined in this work is larger than $`0.64`$, the usual value of $`\sigma `$ from studies of the thermal properties of three-dimensional Ising systems. There are several possible explanations for the differences between the value of $`\sigma `$ determined in this study and the values found from other studies. First, while statistical errors are small, systematic errors may not be so small. Finite size effects of the $`50^3`$ lattice could lead to an overabundance of small clusters. This is

caused by the fact that large clusters near the edge of the lattice are unable to grow beyond the lattice edges easily, even though periodic boundary conditions are used in this model. The effects of lattice size as well as other systematic errors are discussed in greater detail in . An over-abundance of small clusters, with a corresponding suppression of large clusters, would increase the slope of the cluster distribution leading to larger than expected values of $`\tau `$ and $`q_0`$, just as we have observed.

In conclusion, we have shown that the clusterization in the Ising model, like nuclear multifragmentation, portrays reducibility and thermal scaling. In addition, the Arrhenius plots allow for the extraction of “barriers” which are found to have a dependance of $`BA^\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ (which is close to 2/3) is a critical exponent. The reducibility and thermal scaling features in the Ising model can be incorporated into a Fisher-like scaling with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =0`$, which is obeyed rigorously over the explored temperature range below the critical temperature. Thus the observed clusters can be interpreted as the non-idealities of a vapor in equilibrium with a liquid. Finally, nuclear multifragmentation, which is seen to share all the scaling observed here, should be similarly interpreted as the clusterization of a nuclear vapor in equilibrium with its liquid.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants NSF-RUI 9800747 and NSF-REU 9876955 and the Nuclear Physics Division of the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. One of us (CMM) acknowledges support from LBNL during her sabbatical visit.

Present Addresses

1 Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
2 Marietta College, Marietta, OH 45750