text:
# Enumeration of One-Nodal Rational Curves in Projective Spaces

## 1 Introduction

Enumerative algebraic geometry is a field of mathematics that dates back to the nineteenth century. However, many of its most fundamental problems remained unsolved until the early 1990s. For example, let $`d`$ be a positive integer and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ an $`N`$-tuple of linear subspaces of $`^n`$ of codimension at least two such that

$$\text{codim}_{}\mu \underset{l=1}{\overset{l=N}{}}\text{codim}_{}\mu _lN=d(n+1)+n3.$$

If the constraints $`\mu `$ are in general position, denote by $`n_d(\mu )`$ the number of rational degree-$`d`$ curves that pass through $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$. This number is finite and depends only on the homology classes of the constraints. If $`d=1`$, it can be computed using Schubert calculus; see \[GH\]. All but very-low-degree numbers $`n_d(\mu )`$ remained unknown until \[KM\] and \[RT\] derived a recursive formula for these numbers. In this paper, we prove

###### Theorem 1.1

Suppose $`n3`$, $`d1`$, and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position such that

$$\text{codim}_{}\mu \underset{l=1}{\overset{l=N}{}}\text{codim}_{}\mu _lN=d(n+1)1.$$
(1.1)
Then the number of degree-$`d`$ rational curves that have a simple node and pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ is given by

$$n_d^{(1)}(\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)CR_1(\mu )\right),\text{where}$$

$$CR_1(\mu )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2kn+1}{}}(1)^{k1}(k1)!\underset{l=0}{\overset{n+12k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{l}\right)a^l\eta _{n+12kl},\left[\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )\right].$$

The symplectic invariant $`\text{RT}_{1,d}(;)`$ and the top intersections $`a^l\eta _{n+12kl},\left[\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )\right]`$ are computable via algorithms described elsewhere.

| $`n`$ | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`d`$ | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| $`\mu `$ | (5,5) | (5,1,4) | (5,1,0,4) | (2,1,1,7) | (2,1,1,1,6) |
| $`n_d^{(1)}(\mu )`$ | 1,800 | 1,800 | 1,800 | 20,340 | 20,340 |

For the purposes of this table, we assume that the constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ are linear subspaces of $`^n`$ of codimension at least two. We describe such a tuple $`\mu `$ of constraints by listing the number of linear subspaces of codimension $`2,\mathrm{},n`$ among $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$.

In the statement of Theorem 1.1, $`\text{RT}_{1,d}(;)`$ denotes the genus-one degree-$`d`$ symplectic invariant of $`^n`$ defined in \[RT\]. This invariant can be expressed in terms of the numbers $`n_d()`$; see \[RT\]. In particular, it is computable. Brief remarks concerning the meaning of $`\text{RT}_{1,d}(;)`$ can be found at the beginning of Section 3.

The compact oriented topological manifold $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$ consists of unordered $`k`$-tuples of stable rational maps of total degree $`d`$. Each map comes with a special marked point $`\mathrm{}_i`$. All these marked points are mapped to the same point in $`^n`$. In particular, there is a well-defined evaluation map

$$\text{ev}:\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )^n,$$

which sends each tuple of stable maps to the value at one of the special marked points. We also require that the union of the images of the maps in each tuple intersect each of the constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$. In fact, the elements in the tuple carry a total of $`N`$ marked points, $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_N`$, in addition to the $`k`$ special marked points. These marked points are mapped to the constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$, respectively. Roughly speaking, each element of $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$ corresponds to a degree-$`d`$ rational curve in $`^n`$, which has at least $`k`$ irreducible components, and $`k`$ of the components meet at the same point in $`^n`$. The precise definition of the spaces $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$ can be found in Subsection 2.2.

The cohomology classes $`a`$ and $`\eta _l`$ are tautological classes in $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$. In fact,

$$a=\text{ev}^{}c_1\left(𝒪(1_^n)\right).$$

Let $`\overline{𝒱}_k^{}(\mu )`$ be the oriented topological manifold defined as $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$, except without specifying the marked points $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_N`$ mapped to the constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$. Then, there is well-defined forgetful map,

$$\pi :\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )\overline{𝒱}_k^{}(\mu ),$$

which drops the marked points $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_N`$ and contracts the unstable components. The cohomology class $`\eta _lH^{2l}(\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu ))`$ is the sum of all degree-$`l`$ monomials in the elements of the set

$$\{\pi ^{}\psi _{\widehat{0}_1},\mathrm{},\pi ^{}\psi _{\widehat{0}_k}\}H^2(\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )).$$

As common in algebraic geometry, $`\psi _{\widehat{0}_i}`$ denotes the first chern class of the universal cotangent line bundle for the marked point $`\widehat{0}_i\overline{𝒱}_k^{}(\mu )`$. In Subsection 2.2, we give a definition of $`\eta _l`$ that does not involve the projection map $`\pi `$. An algorithm for computing the intersection numbers involved in the statement of Theorem 1.1 is given in Subsection 5.7 of \[Z2\]. It is closely related to the algorithm of \[P2\] for computing intersections of tautological classes in moduli spaces of stable rational maps into $`^n`$.

If $`n=2`$, we denote by $`n_d^{(1)}(\mu )`$ the number of rational degree-$`d`$ curves passing through the constraints counted with a choice of the node on each curve. The formula of Theorem 1.1 gives

$$n_d^{(1)}(\mu )=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{2}\right)n_d(\mu ).$$
(1.2)
This identity is clear, since the arithmetic genus of every degree-$`d`$ curve in $`^2`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{2}\right)`$. Equation (1.2) is used in \[P1\] to count genus-one plane curves with complex structure fixed. More precisely, if $`\mu `$ is a tuple of constraints in $`^n`$ satisfying condition (1.1), let $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ denote the number of genus-one degree-$`d`$ curves that pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ and have a fixed generic complex structure on the normalization, i.e. its $`j`$-invariant is different from $`0`$ and $`1728`$. The key step in \[P1\] is to show that

$$n_{1,d}(\mu )=n_d^{(1)}(\mu ),$$
(1.3)
if $`\mu `$ is a tuple of $`3d1`$ points in $`^2`$. One of the main ingredients in proving Theorem 1.1 is Proposition 4.1, which states that (1.3) is valid for any tuple $`\mu `$ that satisfies condition (1.1). Note that the numbers listed in the above table are consistent with (1.3) and facts of classical algebraic geometry. In particular, the image of every degree-$`4`$ map from a genus-one curve to $`^n`$ lies in a $`^3`$ and the image of every degree-$`6`$ map lies in a $`^5`$; see \[ACGH, p116\]. Thus, the first three numbers in the table should be the same, and the last two numbers should be the same. The proof of Proposition 4.1 extends the degeneration argument of \[P1\] and builds up on modifications described in \[Z1\]. We work with the moduli space $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,N}(^n,d)`$ of stable degree-$`d`$ maps from genus-one $`N`$-pointed curves into $`^n`$ and study what happens in the limit to the maps that pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ as the $`j`$-invariant of the domain tends infinity, i.e. the domain degenerates to a rational curve with two points identified.

Proposition 4.1 is not useful for determining the numbers $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ in $`^n`$ if $`n3`$, since the right-hand side of (1.3) is unknown. Computation of $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ for all projective spaces is the subject of \[I\], where an entirely different approach is taken. The main step in computing these numbers is showing that

$$2n_d^{(1)}(\mu )=\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)CR_1(\mu ),$$

where $`CR_1(\mu )`$ is the number of zeros of an explicit affine map between vector bundles over $`\overline{𝒱}_1^{}(\mu )`$; see Proposition 3.2. The remaining step is to express this number of zeros topologically. In general, if the linear part of an affine map $`\psi `$ does not vanish, it is easy to determine the signed cardinality of $`\psi ^1(0)`$; see Lemma 2.5. The approach of \[I\] is to replace the linear part $`\alpha `$ of the affine part under consideration by a nonvanishing linear map over a space obtained from $`\overline{𝒱}_1^{}(\mu )`$ by sequence of blowups and then to express the resulting intersection number in terms of intersection numbers on the spaces $`\overline{𝒱}_k^{}(\mu )`$. The main problem with this approach is that the new linear map is not described in \[I\] and it is not clear how to construct it in general. In addition, the normal bundles of certain spaces needed for the second part of this approach are given incorrectly; see Lemma 2.8 or equation (2.27) in \[I\] for example. Both of these statements can be corrected without affecting the computability of the intersection numbers, but presumably with a change in the final result. If $`n=2`$, no blowup is needed. If $`n=3,4`$, the zero set of $`\alpha `$ is a complex manifold and the “derivative” of $`\alpha `$ in the normal direction along $`\alpha ^1(0)`$ is nondegenerate. In such cases, only one blowup is needed and a linear map with the required properties can be constructed fairly easily. Furthermore, Lemma 2.8 of \[I\] requires no correction in the $`n=2,3,4`$ cases, while equation (2.27) is never used. If $`n=2,3`$, $`CR_1(\mu )`$ and $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ are then expressed in terms of the numbers $`n_d^{}(\mu ^{})`$, with $`d^{}d`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ related to $`\mu `$. Several numbers $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ for $`^4`$ are given in \[I\] as well. However, no topological formula, like that of Theorem 1.1, is given for $`CR_1(\mu )`$ or $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ for $`^n`$ with $`n4`$ and no number $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$ is given for $`^n`$ with $`n5`$.

We obtain the expression of Theorem 1.1 for the number $`CR_1(\mu )`$ in Section 3; see Proposition 3.1. Our approach involves no blowups and requires relatively little understanding of the global structure of the spaces $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$. Instead we describe $`CR_1(\mu )`$ as the euler class of a bundle minus the sum of contributions to the euler class from smooth, but usually noncompact, strata of the zero set of the linear part $`\alpha _{1,0}`$ of the affine map. Computation of these contributions in good cases involves counting the zeros of affine maps again, but with the rank of the target bundle reduced by one; see Subsection 2.1. Of course, if we are to have any hope of computing these contributions, we need to understand the behavior of $`\alpha _{1,0}`$ near the smooth strata of its zero set. Proposition 2.7 describes the behavior of $`\alpha _{1,0}`$ and of related linear maps near the boundary strata of $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$.

Theorem 1.1 follows immediately from Propositions 3.1 and 4.1. Their proofs are mutually independent. Section 4 uses some of the notation defined in Subsection 2.2. The topological tools of Subsection 2.1, the descriptive notation of Subsection 2.2, and the structure theorem of Subsection 2.3 are integral to the computations of Section 3.

In brief, we enumerate one-nodal rational curves from genus-one fixed-complex-structure invariants. Can a similar approach be used with higher-genera enumerative invariants? Let $`\mu `$ be an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position such that

$$\text{codim}_{}\mu =d(n+1)n.$$

Denote by $`n_{2,d}(\mu )`$ the number of genus-two degree-$`d`$ curves that pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ and have a fixed generic complex structure on the normalization. Let $`n_d^{(3)}(\mu )`$, $`\tau _d(\mu )`$, and $`T_d(\mu )`$ denote the number of rational two-component curves connected at three nodes, of rational curves with a triple point, and of rational curves with a tacnode, respectively. If $`n=2`$, we take $`n_d^{(3)}(\mu )`$ to be the number of two-component rational curves with a choice of three nodes common to both components. In all cases, the curves have degree-$`d`$ and pass through the constraints $`\mu `$. Completing the degeneration argument of \[KQR\], it is shown in \[Z1\] that

$$n_{2,d}(\mu )=6\left(n_d^{(3)}(\mu )+\tau _d(\mu )+T_d(\mu )\right),$$
(1.4)
if $`\mu `$ is a tuple of $`3d2`$ points in $`^2`$. The arguments of \[KQR\] and \[Z1\] should extend to show that equation (1.4) is valid for arbitrary constraints $`\mu `$ in all projective spaces. On the other hand, $`n_{2,d}(\mu )`$ for $`^3`$ is computed in \[Z2\] and the method extends at least to $`^4`$. Thus, in those two cases, we should be able to express the sum of the numbers $`n_d^{(3)}(\mu )`$, $`\tau _d(\mu )`$, and $`T_d(\mu )`$ in terms of intersection numbers of the spaces $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )`$. The relation (1.4) is obtained by considering a degeneration to a specific singular genus-two curve. Perhaps, different relations can be obtained by considering degeneration to other singular genus-two curves. With enough different relations, we would be able to compute the numbers $`n_d^{(3)}(\mu )`$, $`\tau _d(\mu )`$, and $`T_d(\mu )`$ at least for $`^3`$ and $`^4`$.

The author thanks T. Mrowka for many useful discussions and E. Ionel for comments on the original version of this paper.

## 2 Background

### 2.1 Topology

We begin by describing the topological tools used in the next section. In particular, we review the notion of contribution to the euler class of a vector bundle from a (not necessarily closed) subset of the zero set of a section. We also recall how one can enumerate the zeros of an affine map between vector bundles. These concepts are closely intertwined. Details can be found in Section 3 of \[Z2\].

Throughout this paper, all vector bundles are assumed to be complex and normed. If $`F`$ is a smooth vector bundle, closed subset $`Y`$ of $`F`$ is small if it contains no fiber of $`F`$ and is preserved under scalar multiplication. If $`𝒵`$ is a compact oriented zero-dimensional manifold, we denote the signed cardinality of $`𝒵`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{\pm }|𝒵|`$. If $`k`$ is an integer, we write $`[k]`$ for the set of positive integers not exceeding $`k`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Suppose $`F,𝒪`$ are smooth vector bundles.
(1) If $`F=\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}F_i`$ and $`\underset{¯}{d}=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_k)`$ is a $`k`$-tuple of positive integers, bundle map $`\alpha :F𝒪`$ is a polynomial of degree $`\underset{¯}{d}`$ if for each $`i[k]`$ there exists

$$p_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(;F_i^{d_i}𝒪)\text{ for }i[k]\text{s.t.}\alpha (\upsilon )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}p_i\left(\upsilon _i^{d_i}\right)\upsilon =(\upsilon _i)_{i[k]}\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}F_i.$$

(2) If $`\alpha :F𝒪`$ is a polynomial, the rank of $`\alpha `$ is the number

$$\text{rk}\alpha \mathrm{max}\{\text{rk}_b\alpha :b\},\text{where}\text{rk}_b\alpha =dim_{}\left(\text{Im}\alpha _b\right).$$

Polynomial $`\alpha :F𝒪`$ is of constant rank if $`\text{rk}_b\alpha =\text{rk}\alpha `$ for all $`b`$; $`\alpha `$ is nondegenerate if $`\text{rk}_b\alpha =rkF`$ for all $`b`$.
(3) If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an open subset of $`F`$ and $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪`$ is a smooth bundle map, bundle map $`\alpha :F𝒪`$ is a dominant term of $`\varphi `$ if there exists $`\epsilon C^0(F;)`$ such that

$$\left|\varphi (\upsilon )\alpha (\upsilon )\right|\epsilon (\upsilon )|\alpha (\upsilon )|\upsilon \mathrm{\Omega }\text{and}\underset{\upsilon 0}{lim}\epsilon (\upsilon )=0.$$

Dominant term $`\alpha :F𝒪`$ of $`\varphi `$ is the resolvent of $`\varphi `$ if $`\alpha `$ is a polynomial of constant rank. (4) $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪`$ is hollow if there exist dominant term $`\alpha `$ of $`\varphi `$ and splittings $`F=F^{}F^+`$ and $`𝒪=𝒪^{}𝒪^+`$ such that $`\alpha (F^+)𝒪^+`$, $`\alpha ^{}\pi ^{}(\alpha |F^{})`$ is a constant-rank polynomial, where $`\pi ^{}:𝒪𝒪^{}`$ is the projection map, and $`(\text{rk}\alpha ^{}+\frac{1}{2}dim)<\text{rk}𝒪^{}`$.

The base spaces we work with in the next two sections are closely related to spaces of rational maps into $`^n`$ of total degree $`d`$ that pass through the $`N`$ constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$. From the algebraic geometry point of view, spaces of rational maps are algebraic stacks, but with a fairly obscure local structure. We view these spaces as mostly smooth, or ms-, manifolds: compact oriented topological manifolds stratified by smooth manifolds, such that the boundary strata have (real) codimension at least two. Subsection 2.3 gives explicit descriptions of neighborhoods of boundary strata and of the behavior of certain bundle sections near such strata. We call the main stratum $``$ of ms-manifold $`\overline{}`$ the smooth base of $`\overline{}`$. Definition 3.7 in \[Z2\] also introduces the natural notions of ms-maps between ms-manifolds, ms-bundles over ms-manifolds, and ms-sections of ms-bundles.

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`\overline{}=_n_{i=0}^{n2}_i=_{i=0}^{n2}_i`$ be an ms-manifold of dimension $`n`$.
(1) If $`𝒵_i`$ is a smooth oriented submanifold, a normal-bundle model for $`𝒵`$ is a tuple $`(F,Y,\vartheta )`$, where
(1a) $`F𝒵`$ is a smooth vector bundle and $`Y`$ is a small subset of $`F`$;
(1b) for some $`\delta C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒵;^+)`$, $`\vartheta :F_\delta (Y𝒵)\overline{}`$ is a continuous map such that
(1b-i) $`\vartheta :F_\delta (Y𝒵)\overline{}`$ is a homeomorphism onto an open neighborhood of $`𝒵`$ in $`𝒵`$;
(1b-ii) $`\vartheta |_𝒵`$ is the identity map, and $`\vartheta :F_\delta Y𝒵`$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism on an open subset of $``$.
(2) A closure of normal-bundle model $`(F,Y,\vartheta )`$ for $`𝒵`$ is a tuple $`(\overline{𝒵},\stackrel{~}{F},\pi )`$, where
(2a) $`\overline{𝒵}`$ is an ms-manifold with smooth base $`𝒵`$;
(2b) $`\pi :\overline{𝒵}\overline{}`$ is an ms-map such that $`\pi |_𝒵`$ is the identity;
(2c) $`\stackrel{~}{F}\overline{𝒵}`$ is an ms-bundle such that $`\stackrel{~}{F}|_𝒵=F`$.

We use a normal-bundle model for $`𝒵`$ to describe the behavior of bundle sections over $`\overline{}`$ near $`𝒵`$. In particular, if $`\alpha :E𝒪`$ is an ms-polynomial, we call $`𝒵`$ an $`\alpha `$-regular subset of $`\overline{}`$ if for some normal-bundle model $`(F,Y,\vartheta )`$ for $`𝒵`$, $`\vartheta ^{}\alpha `$ can be approximated, by a constant-rank polynomial $`p:FE𝒪`$; see Definition 3.9 in \[Z2\]. Polynomial $`\alpha :E𝒪`$ is regular if $`\overline{}`$ can be decomposed into finitely many $`\alpha `$-regular subsets. If $`\text{rk}E+\frac{1}{2}dim\overline{}=\text{rk}𝒪`$, for a generic $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};𝒪)`$, the zero set of the polynomial map

$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}:E𝒪,\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}(\upsilon )=\nu _\upsilon +\alpha (\upsilon ),$$

is a zero-dimensional oriented submanifold of $`E|`$. By Lemma 3.10 in \[Z2\], if $`\alpha `$ is a regular polynomial, $`\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)`$ is a finite set for a generic choice of $`\overline{\nu }`$, and $`N(\alpha )^\pm \left|\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)\right|`$ is independent of such a choice of $`\overline{\nu }`$.

As described below, counting the zeros of $`\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}`$ involves determining the contribution $`𝒞_{\overline{𝒵}}(s)`$ to the euler class of a bundle $`V`$ from a subset $`\overline{𝒵}`$ of the zero set of a section $`s`$ of $`V`$. In the cases we encounter in Section 3, $`\overline{𝒵}`$ decomposes into disjoint, and usually non-compact, complex manifolds $`𝒵_i`$ near which the behavior of $`s`$ can be understood. Then $`𝒞_{\overline{𝒵}}(s)=𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)`$, where $`𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)`$ is the $`s`$-contribution of $`𝒵_i`$ to $`e(V)`$. This is the signed number of elements of $`\{s+\nu \}^1(0)`$ that lie very close to $`𝒵_i`$, where $`\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};V)`$ is a small generic perturbation of $`s`$. The manifolds $`𝒵_i`$ we encounter fall in one of the two categories described below.

###### Definition 2.3

Suppose $`\overline{}`$ is an ms-manifold of dimension $`2n`$, $`V\overline{}`$ is an ms-bundle of rank $`n`$, $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};V)`$, and $`𝒵s^1(0)`$.
(1) $`𝒵`$ is $`s`$-hollow if there exist a normal-bundle model $`(F,Y,\vartheta )`$ for $`𝒵`$ and a bundle isomorphism $`\vartheta _V:\vartheta ^{}V\pi _F^{}V`$, covering the identity on $`F_\delta (Y𝒵)`$, such that
(1a) $`\vartheta _V|_{F_\delta Y𝒵}`$ is smooth and $`\vartheta _V|_𝒵`$ is the identity;
(1b) the map $`\varphi \vartheta _V\vartheta ^{}s:F_\delta (Y𝒵)V`$ is hollow.
(2) $`𝒵`$ is $`s`$-regular if there exist a normal-bundle model $`(F,Y,\vartheta )`$ for $`𝒵`$ with closure $`(\overline{𝒵},\stackrel{~}{F},\pi )`$, regular polynomial $`\alpha :\stackrel{~}{F}\pi ^{}V`$, and a bundle isomorphism $`\vartheta _V:\vartheta ^{}V\pi _F^{}V`$ covering the identity on $`F_\delta (Y𝒵)`$, such that
(2a) $`\vartheta _V|_{F_\delta Y𝒵}`$ is smooth and $`\vartheta _V|_𝒵`$ is the identity;
(2b) $`\alpha |_𝒵`$ is nondegenerate and is the resolvent for $`\varphi \vartheta _V\vartheta ^{}s:F_\delta (Y𝒵)V`$, and $`Y`$ is preserved under scalar multiplication in each of the components of $`F`$ for the splitting corresponding to $`\alpha `$ as in (1) of Definition 2.1.

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`V\overline{}`$ be an ms-bundle of rank $`n`$ over an ms-manifold of dimension $`2n`$. Suppose $`𝒰`$ is an open subset of $``$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};V)`$ is such that $`s|_𝒰`$ is transversal to the zero set.
(1) If $`s^1(0)𝒰`$ is a finite set, $`{}_{}{}^{\pm }|s^1(0)𝒰|=e(V),[\overline{}]𝒞_{\overline{}𝒰}(s)`$.
(2) If $`\overline{}𝒰=\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}𝒵_i`$, where each $`𝒵_i`$ is $`s`$-regular or $`s`$-hollow, then $`s^1(0)𝒰`$ is finite, and

$${}_{}{}^{\pm }|s^1(0)𝒰|=e(V),[\overline{}]𝒞_{\overline{}𝒰}(s)=e(V),[\overline{}]\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s).$$

If $`𝒵_i`$ is $`s`$-hollow, $`𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)=0`$. If $`𝒵_i`$ is $`s`$-regular and $`\alpha _i:\stackrel{~}{F}_iV`$ is the corresponding polynomial,

$$𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)=^\pm \left|\{\upsilon \stackrel{~}{F}_i:\overline{\nu }_\upsilon +\alpha _i(\upsilon )=0\}\right|N(\alpha _i),$$

where $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{𝒵}_i;V)`$ is a generic section. Finally, if $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{𝒵}_i;\stackrel{~}{F}_i^k\pi ^{}V)`$ has constant rank over $`\overline{𝒵}_i`$ and factors through a $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$-to-$`1`$ cover $`\rho _i:\stackrel{~}{F}_i\stackrel{~}{F}_i^k`$,

$$𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)=\stackrel{~}{k}e\left(\pi ^{}V/\alpha _i(\stackrel{~}{F}_i)\right),[\overline{𝒵}_i].$$

This is Corollary 3.13 in \[Z2\]. Proposition 2.4 reduces the problem of computing $`𝒞_{𝒵_i}(s)`$ for an $`s`$-regular manifold $`𝒵_i`$ to counting the zeros of a polynomial map between two vector bundles. The general setting for the latter problem is the following. Suppose $`E,𝒪\overline{}`$ are ms-bundles such that $`\text{rk}E+\frac{1}{2}dim\overline{}=\text{rk}𝒪`$, and $`\alpha :E𝒪`$ is a regular polynomial. Let $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};𝒪)`$ be such that the map

$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}\overline{\nu }+\alpha :E𝒪$$

is transversal to the zero set in $`𝒪`$ on $`E|`$, and all its zeros are contained in $`E|`$. Then $`N(\alpha )^\pm |\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)|`$ depends only on $`\alpha `$. If the rank of $`E`$ is zero, then clearly

$$N(\alpha )=^\pm \left|\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)\right|=e(𝒪),[\overline{}].$$

If the rank of $`E`$ is positive and $`\overline{\nu }`$ is generic, it does not vanish and thus determines a trivial line subbundle $`\overline{\nu }`$ of $`𝒪`$. Let $`𝒪^{}=𝒪/\overline{\nu }`$ and denote by $`\alpha ^{}`$ the composition of $`\alpha `$ with the quotient projection map. If $`E`$ is a line bundle and $`\alpha `$ is linear,

$$N(\alpha )=^\pm \left|\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)\right|=e(E^{}𝒪^{}),[\overline{}]𝒞_{\alpha ^1(0)}(\alpha ^{}).$$

By Proposition 2.4, computation of $`𝒞_{\alpha ^1(0)}(\alpha ^{})`$ again involves counting the zeros of polynomial maps, but with the rank of the new target bundle, i.e. $`E^{}𝒪^{}`$, one less than the rank of the original one, i.e. $`𝒪`$. Subsection 3.3 in \[Z2\] reduces the problem of determining $`N(\alpha )`$ in all other cases to the case $`E`$ is a line bundle and $`\alpha `$ is linear. Thus, at least in reasonably good cases, $`N(\alpha )`$ can be determined after a finite number of steps.

The next lemma summarizes the results of Subsection 3.3 in \[Z2\] in the case the original map $`\alpha :E𝒪`$ is linear. This case suffices for our purposes. We denote by

$$\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(E;\text{Hom}(\gamma _E,\pi _E^{}𝒪))$$

the section induced by $`\alpha `$. Let $`\lambda _E=c_1(\gamma _E^{})`$.

###### Lemma 2.5

Suppose $`\overline{}`$ is an ms-manifold and $`E,𝒪\overline{}`$ are ms-bundles such that

$$\text{rk}E+\frac{1}{2}dim\overline{}=\text{rk}𝒪.$$

If $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};E^{}𝒪)`$ and $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{};𝒪)`$ are such that $`\alpha `$ is regular, $`\overline{\nu }`$ has no zeros, the map

$$\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}\overline{\nu }+\alpha :E𝒪$$

is transversal to the zero set on $`E|`$, and all its zeros are contained in $`E|`$, then $`\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)`$ is a finite set, $`{}_{}{}^{\pm }|\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)|`$ depends only on $`\alpha `$, and

$$N(\alpha )^\pm |\psi _{\alpha ,\overline{\nu }}^1(0)|=c(𝒪)c(E)^1,[\overline{})]𝒞_{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0)}(\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}).$$

Furthermore, if $`n=\text{rk}E`$,

$$\lambda _E^n+\underset{k=1}{\overset{k=n}{}}c_k(E)\lambda _E^{nk}=0H^{2n}(E)\text{and}\mu \lambda _E^{n1},[E]=\mu ,[\overline{}]\mu H^{2m2n}(\overline{}).$$
(2.1)
### 2.2 Notation

In this subsection, we describe the most important notation used in this paper. Some of the notation is only sketched; see Section 2 in \[Z3\] for more details.

If $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are two sets, denote the disjoint union of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ by $`I_1+I_2`$. We set

$$\mathrm{}=(0,0,1)S^2^3\text{and}e_{\mathrm{}}=(1,0,0)T_{\mathrm{}}S^2.$$

Let $`q_N:S^2^3`$ be the stereographic projection mapping the origin in $``$ to the north pole. We identify $``$ with $`S^2\{\mathrm{}\}`$ via the map $`q_N`$.

###### Definition 2.6

A finite partially ordered set $`I`$ is a linearly ordered set if for all $`i_1,i_2,hI`$ such that $`i_1,i_2<h`$, either $`i_1i_2`$ or $`i_2i_1`$.
A linearly ordered set $`I`$ is a rooted tree if $`I`$ has a unique minimal element, i.e. there exists $`\widehat{0}I`$ such that $`\widehat{0}i`$ for all $`iI`$.

If $`I`$ is a linearly ordered set, let $`\widehat{I}`$ be the subset of the non-minimal elements of $`I`$. For every $`h\widehat{I}`$, denote by $`\iota _hI`$ the largest element of $`I`$ which is smaller than $`h`$. Suppose $`I=\underset{kK}{}I_k`$ is the splitting of $`I`$ into rooted trees such that $`k`$ is the minimal element of $`I_k`$. If $`\widehat{1}I`$, we define the linearly ordered set $`I+_k\widehat{1}`$ to be the set $`I+\widehat{1}`$ with all partial-order relations of $`I`$ along with the relations $`k<\widehat{1}`$ and $`\widehat{1}<h`$ if $`h\widehat{I}_k`$.

If $`S`$ is a (possibly singular) complex curve and $`M`$ is a finite set, a $`^n`$-valued bubble map with $`M`$-marked points is a tuple

$$b=(S,M,I;x,(j,y),u),$$

where $`I`$ is a linearly ordered set, and

$$x:\widehat{I}SS^2,j:MI,y:MSS^2,\text{ and }u:IC^{\mathrm{}}(S;^n)C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2;^n)$$

are maps such that

$$x_h\{\begin{array}{cc}S^2\{\mathrm{}\},\hfill & \text{if }\iota _h\widehat{I};\hfill \\ S,\hfill & \text{if }\iota _h\widehat{I};\hfill \end{array}y_l\{\begin{array}{cc}S^2\{\mathrm{}\},\hfill & \text{if }j_l\widehat{I};\hfill \\ S,\hfill & \text{if }j_l\widehat{I};\hfill \end{array}u_i\{\begin{array}{cc}C^{\mathrm{}}(S^2;^n),\hfill & \text{if }i\widehat{I};\hfill \\ C^{\mathrm{}}(S;^n),\hfill & \text{if }i\widehat{I};\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`u_h(\mathrm{})=u_{\iota _h}(x_h)`$ for all $`h\widehat{I}`$. We associate such a tuple with Riemann surface

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=\left(\underset{iI}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}\right)/,\text{ where}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{i\}\times S^2,\hfill & \text{if }i\widehat{I};\hfill \\ \{i\}\times S,\hfill & \text{if }i\widehat{I},\hfill \end{array}\text{and}(h,\mathrm{})(\iota _h,x_h)h\widehat{I},$$

with marked points $`(j_l,y_l)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,j_l}`$, and continuous map $`u_b:\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^n`$, given by $`u_b|\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}=u_i`$ for all $`iI`$. We require that all the singular points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ and all the marked points be distinct. Furthermore, if $`S=S^2`$, all these points are to be different from the special marked point $`(\widehat{0},\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,\widehat{0}}`$. In addition, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}=S^2`$ and $`u_i[S^2]=0H_2(^n;)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}`$ must contain at least two singular and/or marked points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ other than $`(i,\mathrm{})`$. If $`SS^2`$, but $`S`$ is unstable, $`u_i`$ must satisfy a similar stability condition whenever $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}=S`$. In particular, if $`S`$ is a torus or a circle of spheres and the restriction of $`u_i`$ to a component $`S_h`$ of $`S`$ is homologically zero, $`S_h`$ contains at least one marked point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$. Two bubble maps $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ are equivalent if there exists a homeomorphism $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Sigma }_b\mathrm{\Sigma }_b^{}`$ such that $`u_b=u_b^{}\varphi `$, $`\varphi (j_l,y_l)=(j_l^{},y_l^{})`$ for all $`lM`$ and $`\varphi |_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}}`$ is holomorphic for all $`iI`$.

The general structure of bubble maps is described by tuples $`𝒯=(S,M,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$, with $`d_i`$ specifying the degree of the map $`u_b`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,i}`$. We call such tuples bubble types. Bubble type $`𝒯`$ is simple if $`I`$ is a rooted tree; $`𝒯`$ is basic if $`\widehat{I}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`d_i0`$ for all $`iI`$; $`𝒯`$ is semiprimitive if $`\iota _h\widehat{I}`$, $`d_{\iota _h}=0`$, and $`d_h0`$, for all $`h\widehat{I}`$. The above equivalence relation on the set of bubble maps induces an equivalence relation on the set of bubble types. For each $`h,iI`$, let

$$D_i𝒯=\{h\widehat{I}:i<h\},\overline{D}_i𝒯=D_i𝒯\{i\},H_i𝒯=\{h\widehat{I}:\iota _h=i\},M_i𝒯=\{lM:j_l=i\},$$

$$\chi _𝒯h=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }iI\text{ s.t. }h\overline{D}_i𝒯,d_i=0;\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }d_h0,\text{ but }iI\text{ s.t. }hD_i𝒯,d_i=0;\hfill \\ 2,\hfill & \text{otherwise};\hfill \end{array}\chi (𝒯)=\{hI:\chi _𝒯h=1\}.$$

Denote by $`_𝒯`$ the space of all holomorphic bubble maps with structure $`𝒯`$.

The automorphism group of every bubble type $`𝒯`$ we encounter in the next two sections is trivial. Thus, every bubble type discussed below is presumed to be automorphism-free.

If $`S`$ is a circle of spheres, we denote by $`_𝒯`$ the set of equivalence classes of bubble maps in $`_𝒯`$. For each bubble type $`𝒯=(S^2,M,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$, let

$$𝒰_𝒯=\{[b]:b=(S^2,M,I;x,(j,y),u)_𝒯,u_{i_1}(\mathrm{})=u_{i_2}(\mathrm{})i_1,i_2I\widehat{I}\}.$$

Then there exists $`_𝒯_𝒯`$ such that $`𝒰_𝒯`$ is the quotient of a subset $`_𝒯`$ of $`_𝒯`$ by a $`\stackrel{~}{G}_𝒯(S^1)^I`$-action. Denote by $`𝒰_𝒯^{(0)}`$ the quotient of $`_𝒯`$ by $`G_𝒯(S^1)^{\widehat{I}}\stackrel{~}{G}_𝒯`$. Then $`𝒰_𝒯`$ is the quotient of $`𝒰_𝒯^{(0)}`$ by the residual $`G_𝒯^{}(S^1)^{I\widehat{I}}\stackrel{~}{G}_𝒯`$ action. Corresponding to these quotients, we obtain line orbi-bundles $`\{L_i𝒯𝒰_𝒯:iI\}`$. Let

$$𝒯=\underset{h\widehat{I}}{}_h𝒯𝒰_𝒯,\text{ where}_h𝒯=L_h𝒯L_{\iota _h}^{}𝒯.$$

Denote by $`^{\mathrm{}}𝒯`$ the open subset of $`𝒯`$ consisting of vectors with all components nonzero.

Gromov topology on the space of equivalence classes of bubble maps induces a partial ordering on the set of bubble types and their equivalence classes such that the spaces

$$\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{(0)}=\underset{𝒯^{}𝒯}{}𝒰_𝒯^{}^{(0)}\text{and}\overline{𝒰}_𝒯=\underset{𝒯^{}𝒯}{}𝒰_𝒯^{}$$

are compact and Hausdorff. The $`G_𝒯^{}`$-action on $`𝒰_𝒯^{(0)}`$ extends to an action on $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{(0)}`$, and thus the line orbi-bundles $`L_i𝒯𝒰_𝒯`$ with $`iI\widehat{I}`$ extend over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯`$. These bundles can be identified with the universal tangent line bundles for appropriate sections of the universal bundle over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯`$. The evaluation maps

$$\text{ev}_l:_𝒯^n,\text{ev}_l\left((S,M,I;x,(j,y),u)\right)=u_{j_l}(y_l),$$

descend to all the quotients and induce continuous maps on $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯`$ and $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{(0)}`$. If $`\mu =\mu _M`$ is an $`M`$-tuple of subvarieties of $`^n`$, let

$$_𝒯(\mu )=\{b_𝒯:\text{ev}_l(b)\mu _llM\}$$

and define spaces $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$, $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$, etc. in a similar way. If $`S=S^2`$, we define another evaluation map,

$$\text{ev}:_𝒯^n\text{by}\text{ev}\left((S^2,M,I;x,(j,y),u)\right)=u_{\widehat{0}}(\mathrm{}),$$

where $`\widehat{0}`$ is any minimal element of $`I`$. This map descends to $`𝒰_𝒯^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒰_𝒯`$. If $`\mu =\mu _{\stackrel{~}{M}}`$ is an $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$-tuple of constraints, let

$$𝒰_𝒯(\mu )=\{b𝒰_𝒯:\text{ev}_l(b)\mu _llM\stackrel{~}{M},\text{ev}(b)\mu _llM\stackrel{~}{M}\}$$

and define $`𝒰_𝒯^{(0)}(\mu )`$, etc. similarly.

Suppose $`𝒯=(S^2,M,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a bubble type, $`kI\widehat{I}`$, and $`M_0`$ is nonempty subset of $`M_k𝒯`$. Let

$$𝒯/M_0=(S^2,I,MM_0;j|(MM_0),\underset{¯}{d}).$$

Define $`𝒯(M_0)(S^2,M,I+_k\widehat{1};j^{},\underset{¯}{d}^{})`$ by

$$j_l^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}k,\hfill & \text{if }lM_0;\hfill \\ \widehat{1},\hfill & \text{if }lM_k𝒯M_0;\hfill \\ j_l,\hfill & \text{otherwise};\hfill \end{array}d_i^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }i=k;\hfill \\ d_k,\hfill & \text{if }i=\widehat{1};\hfill \\ d_i,\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The tuples $`𝒯/M_0`$ and $`𝒯(M_0)`$ are bubble types as long as $`d_k0`$ or $`M_0M_{\widehat{0}}𝒯`$. Then,

$$\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_0)}(\mu )=\overline{}_{0,\{\widehat{1}\}+M_0}\times \overline{𝒰}_{𝒯/M_0}(\mu ),$$
(2.2)
where $`\overline{}_{0,\{\widehat{1}\}+M_0}`$ denotes the Deligne-Mumford moduli space of rational curves with $`(\{\widehat{0},\widehat{1}\}+M_0)`$-marked points. If $`𝒯`$ is a basic bubble type, let

$$c_1(_k^{}𝒯)c_1(L_k^{}𝒯)\underset{\mathrm{}M_0M_k𝒯}{}PD_{\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )}\left[\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_0)}(\mu )\right]H^2\left(\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )\right).$$
(2.3)
This cohomology class is well-defined; see Subsection 5.2 in \[Z2\].

We are now ready to explain the claim of Theorem 1.1. Let $`n`$, $`d`$, $`N`$ and $`\mu `$ be as in the statement of the theorem. If $`k1`$ and $`m1`$, denote by $`\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$ the disjoint union of the spaces $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$ taken over equivalence classes of basic bubble types $`𝒯=(S^2,[N]M_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ with $`|M_0|=m`$, $`|I|=k`$, and $`d_k=d`$. Let $`\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )=\overline{𝒱}_{k,0}(\mu )`$. We define the spaces $`𝒱_{k,m}(\mu )`$ similarly. Let

$$\{c_1(_i^{}):i[k]\},\{c_1(L_i^{}):i[k]\}H^2(\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu );)$$

be given by

$$\left\{c_1(_i^{})\right|\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu ):i[k]\}=\{c_1(_i^{}𝒯):iI\},\left\{c_1(L_i^{})\right|\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu ):i[k]\}=\{c_1(L_i^{}𝒯):iI\},$$

whenever $`𝒯`$ is as above. We denote by $`\eta _l,\stackrel{~}{\eta }_lH^{2l}(\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu );)`$ the sum of all degree-$`l`$ monomials in $`\{c_1(_i^{}):i[k]\}`$ and in $`\{c_1(L_i^{}):i[k]\}`$, respectively. For example,

$$\eta _2=c_1^2(_1^{})+c_1^2(_2^{})+c_1(_1^{})c_1(_2^{})H^4(\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu );).$$

Finally, let $`a=\text{ev}^{}c_1(\gamma _^n^{})H^2(\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu );)`$, where $`\gamma _^n^n`$ denotes the tautological line bundle.

We next describe a generalization of the splitting (2.2) which is used in computations in Section 3. If $`𝒯=(S^2,I,[N]M_0;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a bubble type, let

$$\overline{𝒯}=(S^2,\overline{I},[N]\overline{M}_0;j|([N]\overline{M}_0),\underset{¯}{d}|\overline{I}),\text{where}\overline{I}=I\{iI\widehat{I}:d_i=0\},\overline{M}_0=M_0\underset{iI\overline{I}}{}M_i𝒯.$$

Note that if $`𝒯`$ is semiprimitive, $`\overline{𝒯}`$ is basic. Furthermore,

$$𝒰_𝒯(\mu )=\underset{iI\overline{I}}{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}\times 𝒰_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu ),$$
(2.4)
$$\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )=\underset{iI\overline{I}}{}\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}\times \overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu ),$$
(2.5)
where $`_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}`$ denotes the main stratum of $`\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}`$. If $`iI\overline{I}`$, by definition, the bundle $`L_i𝒯\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$ is the pullback by the projection map of the bundle

$$L_{\widehat{0}}𝒯_i^{(0)}\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}=\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_i^{(0)}},\text{where}𝒯_i^{(0)}=(S^2,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯,\{\widehat{0}\};\widehat{0},0).$$

We call the latter bundle the tautological line bundle over $`\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}`$. This is the universal tangent line at the marked point $`\widehat{0}\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}`$.

Finally, if $`X`$ is any space, $`FX`$ is a normed vector bundle, and $`\delta :X`$ is any function, let

$$F_\delta =\{(b,v)F:|v|_b<\delta (b)\}.$$

Similarly, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a subset of $`F`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\delta =F_\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`\upsilon =(b,v)F`$, denote by $`b_\upsilon `$ the image of $`\upsilon `$ under the bundle projection map, i.e. $`b`$ in this case.

### 2.3 A Structural Description

We now describe the structure of the spaces $`\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$ and the behavior of certain bundle sections over $`\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$ near the boundary strata.

If $`b=(S^2,M,I;x,(j,y),u)_𝒯`$ and $`kI`$, let

$$𝒟_{𝒯,k}b=du_k|_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}.$$

If $`𝒯^{}`$ is a basic bubble type, the maps $`𝒟_{𝒯,k}`$ with $`𝒯<𝒯^{}`$ and $`kI\widehat{I}`$ induce a continuous section of $`\text{ev}^{}T^n`$ over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}^{(0)}`$ and a continuous section of the bundle $`L_k^{}𝒯^{}\text{ev}^{}T^n`$ over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}`$, described by

$$𝒟_{𝒯^{},k}[b,c_k]=c_k𝒟_{𝒯,k}b,\text{if}b𝒰_𝒯^{(0)},c_k.$$

###### Proposition 2.7

Suppose $`p>2`$, $`n2`$, $`d1`$, $`N1`$, $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position, such that

$$\text{codim}_{}\mu \underset{l=1}{\overset{l=N}{}}\text{codim}_{}\mu _lN=d(n+1)1,$$

and $`M_0`$ is a subset of $`[N]`$. If $`𝒯^{}=(S^2,[N]M_0,I^{};j^{},\underset{¯}{d}^{})`$ is a basic bubble type such that $`d_i^{}=d`$, the space $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$ is an ms-manifold of (real) dimension $`2\left(n+12|I^{}||M_0|\right)`$ and $`L_k𝒯^{}`$ for $`kI^{}`$ and $`\text{ev}^{}T^n`$ are ms-bundles over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$. If $`𝒯=(S^2,[N]M_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})<𝒯^{}`$, there exist $`\delta ,CC^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰_𝒯(\mu );^+)`$ and a homeomorphism

$$\gamma _𝒯^\mu :𝒯_\delta \overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu ),$$

onto an open neighborhood of $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$ in $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$ such that $`\gamma _𝒯^\mu |𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$ is the identity and $`\gamma _𝒯^\mu |^{\mathrm{}}𝒯_\delta `$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism onto an open subset of $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$. Furthermore, with appropriate identifications,

$$\left|𝒟_{𝒯^{},k}\gamma _𝒯^\mu (\upsilon )\alpha _{𝒯,k}\left(\rho _𝒯(\upsilon )\right)\right|C(b_\upsilon )|\upsilon |^{\frac{1}{p}}\left|\rho _𝒯(\upsilon )\right|\upsilon 𝒯_\delta ,\text{where}$$

$$\rho _𝒯(\upsilon )=\left((\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_h)_{h\chi (𝒯)}\right)\stackrel{~}{}𝒯\underset{h\chi (𝒯)}{}L_h𝒯L_{\stackrel{~}{\iota }_h}^{}𝒯;\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_h=\underset{i\widehat{I},h\overline{D}_i𝒯}{}\upsilon _i;\stackrel{~}{\iota }_hI\widehat{I},h\overline{D}_{\stackrel{~}{\iota }_h}𝒯$$

$$\alpha _{𝒯,k}\left((\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_h)_{h\chi (𝒯)}\right)=\underset{hI_k\chi (𝒯)}{}𝒟_{𝒯,h}\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_h,$$

and $`I_kI`$ is the rooted tree containing $`k`$.

This is a special case of Theorem 2.8 in \[Z2\]; see also the remark following the theorem. The dimension of $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$ is obtained as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}dim\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )=dim_{}𝒰_𝒯^{}(\mu )& =\underset{iI^{}}{}\left(d_i(n+1)+n2\right)(|I^{}|1)n\left(\text{codim}_{}\mu +|M_0|\right)\hfill \\ & =n+12|I^{}||M_0|.\hfill \end{array}$$

The analytic estimate on $`𝒟_{𝒯^{},k}`$ is crucial for implementation of the topological tools of Subsection 2.1 in Subsection 3.1. If $`𝒯`$ is semiprimitive, the bundle $`𝒯=\stackrel{~}{}𝒯`$ and the section $`\alpha _𝒯=\alpha _𝒯\rho _𝒯`$ extend over $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$ via the decomposition (2.5). In terms of the notions of Subsection 2.1, $`(𝒯,𝒯F^{\mathrm{}}𝒯,\gamma _𝒯^\mu )`$ is a normal-bundle model for $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$. This normal-bundle model admits a closure if $`𝒯`$ is semiprimitive. Note that $`𝒯`$ is not usually the normal bundle of $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$ in $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$ if both spaces are viewed as algebraic stacks; see \[P2\]. Proposition 2.7 implies only that the restrictions to $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$ of $`𝒯`$ and of the normal bundle of $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )`$ in $`\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )`$ are isomorphic as topological vector bundles.

For any $`k,m`$, we define bundle $`E_{k,m}\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$ and homomorphism $`\alpha _{k,m}:E_{k,m}\text{ev}^{}T^n`$ over $`\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$ by

$$E_{k,m}|\overline{𝒰}_𝒯^{}(\mu )=\underset{iI^{}}{}L_i𝒯^{},\alpha _{k,m}\left((\upsilon _i)_{iI^{}}\right)=\underset{iI^{}}{}𝒟_{𝒯^{},i}\upsilon _i,$$

whenever $`𝒯^{}=(S^2,[N]M_0,I^{};j^{},\underset{¯}{d}^{})`$ is a basic bubble type such that $`d_i^{}=d`$, $`|I^{}|=k`$, and $`|M_0|=m`$. The following lemma will be used in Section 3.

###### Lemma 2.8

Suppose $`n2`$, $`d1`$, $`N1`$, and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position such that $`\text{codim}_{}\mu =d(n+1)1`$. If $`𝒯=(S^2,[N]M_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a bubble type such that $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )`$, the restriction of $`\alpha _{k,m}`$ to the subbundle

$$E𝒯^{}\underset{i\chi (𝒯)\widehat{I}}{}L_i𝒯E_{k,m}$$

is nondegenerate over $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$.

Proof: The linear map $`\alpha _{k,m}`$ has full rank on $`E𝒯^{}`$ over $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$ if and only if the section

$$\left\{\alpha _{k,m}\right|E𝒯^{}\}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(E𝒯^{}|𝒰_𝒯(\mu );\gamma _{E𝒯^{}}^{}\text{ev}^{}T^n\right)$$

has no zeros. Note that

$$dim_{}E𝒯^{}|𝒰_𝒯(\mu )dim_{}𝒱_k(\mu )+(k1)=nk<n.$$

Thus, it is enough to show that $`\left\{\alpha _{k,m}\right|E𝒯^{}\}^{}`$ is transversal to the zero set in $`E𝒯^{}|𝒰_𝒯(\mu )`$ if the constraints $`\mu `$ are in general position. This last fact is immediate from Lemma 2.9.

###### Lemma 2.9

If $`u:S^2^n`$ is a holomorphic map of positive degree and $`e_{\mathrm{}}T_{\mathrm{}}S^2`$ is a nonzero vector, the linear maps

$`H_\overline{}^0(S^2;u^{}T^n)T_{u(\mathrm{})}^n,`$ $`\xi \xi (\mathrm{}),`$
$`\{\xi H_\overline{}^0(S^2;u^{}T^n):\xi (\mathrm{})=0\}T_{u(\mathrm{})}^n,`$ $`\xi _e_{\mathrm{}}\xi ,`$
are onto.

This lemma is well-known; see Corollary 6.3 in \[Z2\] for example.

## 3 Computations

### 3.1 Topology

In this section, we prove

###### Proposition 3.1

Suppose $`n2`$, $`d1`$, and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position such that

$$\text{codim}_{}\mu \underset{l=1}{\overset{l=N}{}}\text{codim}_{}\mu _lN=d(n+1)1.$$

Then the number of degree-$`d`$ genus-one curves that have a fixed generic complex structure on the normalization and pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ is given by

$$n_{1,d}(\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)CR_1(\mu )\right),\text{where}$$

$$CR_1(\mu )=\underset{k=1}{\overset{2kn+1}{}}(1)^{k1}(k1)!\underset{l=0}{\overset{n+12k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{l}\right)a^l\eta _{n+12kl},\left[\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )\right].$$

We use the topological tools of Subsection 2.1 and the analytic estimate of Proposition 2.7 to deduce Proposition 3.1 from Proposition 3.2. The main step is Lemma 3.3; the rest of this section is essentially combinatorics.

###### Proposition 3.2

Suppose $`n2`$, $`d1`$, and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper subvarieties of $`^n`$ in general position such that $`\text{codim}_{}\mu =d(n+1)1`$. Then the number of degree-$`d`$ genus-one curves that have a fixed generic complex structure on the normalization and pass through the constraints $`\mu `$ is given by

$$n_{1,d}(\mu )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)CR_1(\mu )\right),\text{where}CR_1(\mu )=N(\alpha _{1,0}),$$

i.e. $`CR_1(\mu )`$ is the number of zeros of the affine map

$$\psi _{\alpha _{1,0},\overline{\nu }}:E_{1,0}=L_1\text{ev}^{}T^n,\psi _{\alpha _{1,0},\overline{\nu }}(\upsilon )=\overline{\nu }_\upsilon +\alpha _{1,0}(\upsilon ),$$

over $`\overline{𝒱}_1(\mu )`$ for a generic section $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{𝒱}_1(\mu );\text{ev}^{}T^n)`$.

Proposition 3.2 is basically the main result of the analytic part of \[I\]. The exact statement is not made in \[I\], but it can be deduced from the arguments in \[I\] by comparing with the methods of \[Z2\].

The general meaning of Proposition 3.2 is the following. The number $`\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ can be viewed as the “euler class” of a bundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0,1}`$ over a closure $`\overline{C}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the space $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ of smooth maps from a fixed elliptic curve that pass through the constraints $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$; see \[LT\]. Then,

$$2n_{1,d}(\mu )=\left|\overline{}^1(0)C^{\mathrm{}}\right|=\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)𝒞_{_𝒯(\mu )}(\overline{}),$$
(3.1)
where $`\left\{_𝒯(\mu )\right\}`$ are complex finite-dimensional, usually non-compact, manifolds that stratify $`\overline{}^1(0)(\overline{C}^{\mathrm{}}C^{\mathrm{}})`$. Equation (3.1) is an infinite-dimensional analogue of (2) of Proposition (2.4). In the finite-dimensional case, computation of a contribution to the euler class from an $`s`$-regular stratum $`𝒵`$ of the zero set of section $`s`$ reduces to counting the zeros of a polynomial map between finite-rank vector bundles over $`\overline{𝒵}`$, unless $`Z`$ is $`s`$-hollow. The goal in the infinite-dimensional case under consideration is a reduction to the same problem and involves an adoption of the obstruction-bundle idea of \[T\]. It turns out that $`𝒞_{_𝒯(\mu )}(\overline{})=0`$ for all but one stratum $`_𝒯(\mu )`$ of $`\overline{}^1(0)(\overline{C}^{\mathrm{}}C^{\mathrm{}})`$. The number $`CR_1(\mu )`$ described by Proposition 3.2 is the contribution $`𝒞_{_𝒯(\mu )}(\overline{})`$ from the only stratum $`_𝒯(\mu )`$ of $`\overline{}^1(0)(\overline{C}^{\mathrm{}}C^{\mathrm{}})`$ that does contribute to the “euler class” $`\text{RT}_{1,d}(\mu _1;\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{0,1}`$.

As Subsection 2.1 suggests, computation of $`N(\alpha _{1,0})`$ may require going through a possibly large tree of steps. We construct this tree as follows. Each node is a tuple $`\sigma =(r;k,m;\varphi )`$, where $`r0`$ is the distance to the root $`\sigma _0=(0;1,0;)`$, $`k1`$, and $`m0`$. The tree satisfies the following properties. If $`r>0`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=(r1;k^{},m^{};\varphi ^{})`$ is the node from which $`\sigma `$ is directly descendent, we require that $`k^{}k`$, $`m^{}m`$, and at least one of the inequalities is strict. Furthermore, $`\varphi `$ specifies a splitting of the set $`[k]`$ into $`k^{}`$-disjoint subsets and an assignment of $`mm^{}`$ of the elements of the set $`[m]=\{(1,1),\mathrm{},(1,m)\}`$ to these subsets. This description inductively constructs an infinite tree. However, we will need to consider only the nodes $`\sigma =(r;k,m;\varphi )`$ with $`2k+mn+1`$. We will write $`\sigma \sigma ^{}`$ to indicate that $`\sigma `$ is directly descendent from $`\sigma ^{}`$.

For each node in the above tree, we now define a linear map between vector bundles over an ms-manifold. If $`\sigma =(r;k,m;\varphi )`$, let $`\{\sigma _s=(s;k_s,m_s;\varphi _s):0sr\}`$ be the sequence of nodes such that $`\sigma _r=\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _s\sigma _{s1}`$ for all $`s>0`$. Put

$$\overline{𝒱}_\sigma =\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu ),E_\sigma =E_{k,m}\overline{𝒱}_\sigma ,\alpha _\sigma =\alpha _{k,m},𝒳_\sigma =𝒴_\sigma \times \overline{𝒱}_\sigma ,𝒳_{\sigma ,s}=𝒴_{\sigma ,s}\times \overline{𝒱}_\sigma ,$$

$$\text{where}𝒴_\sigma =𝒴_{\sigma ,r},𝒴_{\sigma ,0}=\{pt\},𝒴_{\sigma ,s}=F_{\sigma _s}\times 𝒴_{\sigma ,s1}\text{ if }s>0,$$

$$\overline{}_\sigma =\underset{i\text{Im}\varphi }{}\overline{}_{0,i+\varphi ^1(i)},F_\sigma =\underset{i\text{Im}\varphi }{}\gamma _{\sigma ;i}\overline{}_\sigma .$$

For the purposes of the last line above, we view $`\varphi `$ as a map from $`[k][k^{}]`$ and a subset of $`[m]`$ to $`[k^{}]`$ in the notation of the previous paragraph. Then, $`\gamma _{\sigma ;i}\overline{}_{0,i+\varphi ^1(i)}`$ is the tautological line bundle; see Subsection 2.2. Denote by $`\gamma _{F_{\sigma ,0}}`$ the (trivial) line bundle over $`𝒴_{\sigma ,0}`$. Let

$$𝒪_\sigma =𝒪_{\sigma ,r},𝒪_{\sigma ,0}=\text{ev}^{}T^n,𝒪_{\sigma ,s}=𝒪_{\sigma ,s1}/\text{Im}\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s1}\text{if}s>0,$$

where $`\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒳_{\sigma ,s};\text{Hom}(\gamma _{F_{\sigma _s}},𝒪_{\sigma ,s}))`$ is a generic section. Since $`k_{s1}k_s`$, $`m_{s1}m_s`$, and one of the inequalities is strict,

$$\frac{1}{2}dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}\frac{1}{2}dim𝒳_\sigma =\left(n+12km\right)+\underset{s=1}{\overset{s=r}{}}\left(\left|\text{Im}\varphi _s\right|1\right)=nkr<\text{rk}𝒪_{\sigma ,0}r.$$

Thus, we see inductively that each bundle $`𝒪_{\sigma ,s}`$ is well-defined and a generic section $`\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}`$ of $`\text{Hom}(\gamma _{F_{\sigma ,s}},𝒪_{\sigma ,s})`$ does not vanish. Let $`\pi _\sigma :\text{ev}^{}T^n𝒪_\sigma `$ be the projection map. We define

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒳_\sigma ;\text{Hom}(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma ;\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma )),\text{by}\left\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma (\tau \upsilon )\right\}(w)=\tau (w)\pi _\sigma \alpha _\sigma (\upsilon )𝒪_\sigma .$$

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma _0}=\alpha _{1,0}`$.

###### Lemma 3.3

For every node $`\sigma ^{}`$,

$$N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}\right)=c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{}\right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}E_\sigma ^{}\right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma ^{}\right]\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma \right).$$

Remark: For a dense open subset of tuples $`\{\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}\}`$, the corresponding linear map $`\alpha _\sigma `$ constructed above is regular and $`N(\alpha _\sigma )`$ is independent of the choice of $`\{\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}\}`$. What we need is that for every bubble type $`𝒯`$ such that $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )\overline{𝒱}_{k_r,m_r}(\mu )`$ the intersection of the image of the linear map

$$\alpha _𝒯\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒴_\sigma \times 𝒰_𝒯(\mu );\text{Hom}(\underset{i\chi (𝒯)}{}L_i𝒯,\text{ev}^{}T^n)),\alpha _𝒯(\upsilon )=\underset{i\chi (𝒯)}{}𝒟_{𝒯,i}\upsilon _i,$$

with the subbundle

$$\text{Im}\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,0}\mathrm{}\text{Im}\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,r1}𝒪_{\sigma ,0}=\text{ev}^{}T^n$$

is $`\{0\}`$. The fact that this condition is satisfied for a dense open subset of tuples $`\{\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}\}`$ follows by a dimension count as above, along with an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 3.10 in \[Z2\].

Proof of Lemma 3.3: (1) By Lemma 2.5,

$$N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}\right)=c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{}\right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}E_\sigma ^{}\right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma ^{}\right]𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0)}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right).$$
(3.2)
Let $`\sigma ^{}=(r^{};k^{},m^{};\varphi ^{})`$. By Lemma 2.8, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0)`$ is the union of the sets

$$𝒵_𝒯^J𝒴_\sigma ^{}\times \left(E𝒯^J\underset{J^{}J}{}E𝒯^J^{}\right),\text{where}E^J𝒯=\underset{iJ}{}L_i𝒯𝒰_𝒯(\mu ),$$

taken over non-basic bubble types $`𝒯=(S^2,[N]M_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$, with $`|I\widehat{I}|=k^{}`$, $`|M_0|=m^{}`$, and $`d_i=d`$, and nonempty subsets $`J`$ of $`I\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯)`$.
(2) The map $`\gamma _𝒯^\mu `$ of Proposition 2.7 induces an orientation-preserving homeomorphism $`\gamma _{𝒵_𝒯}^J`$ between open neighborhoods of $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$ in

$$𝒩𝒵_𝒯^J𝒯\gamma _{E𝒯^J}^{}\left(E𝒯^{I\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯)J}E𝒯^{}\right)𝒵_𝒯^J$$

and in $`𝒴_\sigma ^{}\times E_\sigma ^{}`$. Furthermore, for some $`\delta ,CC^{\mathrm{}}(𝒵_𝒯^J;^+)`$, with appropriate identifications,

$$\left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}^{}\left(\gamma _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right)\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J\left(\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right)\right|C(b)|\upsilon |^{\frac{1}{p}}\left|\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right|(\upsilon ,u)𝒩𝒵_{𝒯,\delta }^J,$$
(3.3)
$$\text{where}\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J:𝒩𝒵_𝒯^J\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒵_𝒯^J\underset{h\chi (𝒯)}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_h𝒵_𝒯^J,$$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_h𝒵_𝒯^J=\{\begin{array}{cc}L_{\stackrel{~}{\iota }_h}^{}𝒯L_h𝒯,\hfill & \text{if}h\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{\iota }_hJ;\hfill \\ \gamma _{E𝒯^J}^{}L_h𝒯,\hfill & \text{otherwise};\hfill \end{array}\rho _{𝒵_𝒯;h}^J(\upsilon ,u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _{𝒯;h}(\upsilon ),\hfill & \text{if}h\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{\iota }_hJ;\hfill \\ u_{\stackrel{~}{\iota }_h}\rho _{𝒯;h}(\upsilon ),\hfill & \text{if}h\widehat{I},\stackrel{~}{\iota }_hJ;\hfill \\ u_h\hfill & \text{if}h\chi (𝒯)\widehat{I};\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒵_𝒯^J;\text{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒵_𝒯^J,\text{Hom}(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}\gamma _{E𝒯^J},\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{})))$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left\{\left\{\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J\left(\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(\upsilon ,u)\right)\right\}(\tau \stackrel{~}{\upsilon })\right\}(w)=& \tau (w)\pi _\sigma ^{}(\underset{iJ}{}\left\{\alpha _{𝒯,i}(\rho _𝒯\upsilon )\right\}(\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_i)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i\chi (𝒯)\widehat{I}}{}𝒟_{𝒯,i}(u_i\stackrel{~}{\upsilon })+\underset{iI\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯)J}{}\left\{\alpha _{𝒯,i}(\rho _𝒯\upsilon )\right\}(u_i\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }))𝒪_\sigma ^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Above $`\rho _{𝒯;h}`$ denotes the $`h`$th component of $`\rho _𝒯`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_h`$ in the notation of Proposition 2.7. Note that the section $`\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J`$ is well-defined. By Lemma 2.8 and the splitting (2.4), possibly applied several times, $`\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J`$ has full rank on every fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒵_𝒯^J`$, provided the sections $`\{\overline{\nu }_{\sigma ,s}:0sr^{}\}`$ are generic. Then by (3.3),

$$\left|\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}^{}\left(\gamma _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right)\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J\left(\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right)\right|C(b)|\upsilon |^{\frac{1}{p}}\left|\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J\left(\rho _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(b;\upsilon ,u)\right)\right|.$$
(3.4)
for all $`(\upsilon ,u)𝒩𝒵_{𝒯,\delta }^J`$. Thus, $`\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\alpha _{𝒵_𝒯}^J`$ is the resolvent for $`\gamma _{𝒵_𝒯}^J(\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}^{})`$; see Definition 2.1. If $`𝒯`$ is not semiprimitive or $`JI\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯)`$, the rank of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒵_𝒯^J`$ is less than the rank of $`𝒩𝒵_𝒯^J`$. It follows that $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$ is $`\pi _{\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}}^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}^{}`$-hollow and

$$𝒞_{𝒵_𝒯^J}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)=0\text{if}𝒯\text{ is not semiprimitive or }JI\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯)$$
(3.5)
by Proposition 2.4.
(3) On the other hand, by the analytic estimate (3.4), Proposition 2.4, and the splitting (2.5),

$$𝒞_{𝒵_𝒯^J}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)=N\left(\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right)\text{if}𝒯\text{ is semiprimitive and }J=I\widehat{I}\chi (𝒯),$$
(3.6)
$$\text{where}\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒴_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\times \overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu );\text{Hom}(𝒩𝒵_{\sigma ^{},𝒯},\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯})),𝒴_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}=𝒴_\sigma ^{}\times E𝒯,$$

$$E𝒯=\underset{i\widehat{I}}{}\gamma _{𝒯;i}_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}=\underset{iI\chi (𝒯)}{}\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯},𝒩𝒵_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}=\underset{h\widehat{I}}{}\gamma _{𝒯;\iota _h}^{}L_h\overline{𝒯}\underset{h\chi (𝒯)\widehat{I}}{}\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}L_h\overline{𝒯},$$

$$𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}=𝒪_\sigma ^{}/\text{Im}\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}\left((\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{})/\overline{\nu }_\sigma ^{}\right),$$

$$\left\{\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}(u\upsilon )\right\}(\stackrel{~}{\upsilon })=\pi _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\left(\underset{i\widehat{I}}{}u_i(\stackrel{~}{\upsilon }_i)\left(𝒟_{\overline{𝒯},i}\upsilon _i\right)+\underset{i\chi (𝒯)\widehat{I}}{}u_i(\stackrel{~}{\upsilon })\left(𝒟_{\overline{𝒯},i}\upsilon _i\right)\right)𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯},$$

$`\gamma _{𝒯;i}\overline{}_{0,H_i𝒯+M_i𝒯}`$ is the tautological line bundle, and $`\pi _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}:\text{ev}^{}T^n𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}`$ is the quotient projection map. We next observe that

$$N\left(\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right)=N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right),\text{where}$$
(3.7)
$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒴_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\times \overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu );\text{Hom}(\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}E_{k,m},\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯})),$$

$$k=|\chi (𝒯)|=|\overline{I}|,m=m^{}+\underset{iI\chi (𝒯)}{}|M_i𝒯|\text{and}\left\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}(\tau \upsilon )\right\}(w)=\tau (w)\pi _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\alpha _{k,m}(\upsilon ).$$

The reason for the equality (3.7) is the following. For a generic $`\overline{\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒴_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\times \overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu );\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯})`$, the affine maps

$$\psi _{\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯},\overline{\nu }}\overline{\nu }+\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}:𝒩𝒵_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\text{and}\psi _{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯},\overline{\nu }}\overline{\nu }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}:\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}E_{k,m}\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}𝒪_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}$$

have no zeros over the complement of $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$, since it is a finite union of smooth manifolds of dimension less than that of $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$. There is a canonical identification of the line bundle $`\gamma _{E𝒯}^{}`$ with each line bundle $`\gamma _{𝒯;i}`$ over $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$. This identification induces a bijection between the zeros of the two affine maps that lie over $`𝒵_𝒯^J`$. The identity (3.7) follows from this argument along with

$$N\left(\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right)=^\pm \left|\psi _{\alpha _{\sigma ^{},𝒯},\overline{\nu }}^1(0)\right|\text{and}N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right)=^\pm \left|\psi _{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯},\overline{\nu }}^1(0)\right|.$$

(4) From equations (3.2), (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7), we conclude that that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma ^{}\right)& =c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{}\right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}E_\sigma ^{}\right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma ^{}\right]\underset{(k,m)>(k^{},m^{})}{}\underset{|\chi (𝒯)|=k,\underset{iI\chi (𝒯)}{}|M_i𝒯|=mm^{}}{}N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma ^{},𝒯}\right)\hfill \\ & =c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}𝒪_\sigma ^{}\right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma ^{}}^{}E_\sigma ^{}\right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma ^{}\right]\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\sigma \right).\hfill \end{array}$$

The inner sum on the first line above is taken over all equivalence classes of semiprimitive bubble types $`𝒯=(S^2,NM_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ such that $`|I\widehat{I}|=k^{}`$, $`|M_0|=m^{}`$, and $`d_i=d`$. Condition $`(k,m)>(k^{},m^{})`$ means that $`kk`$, $`mm^{}`$ and one of the inequalities is strict.

###### Lemma 3.4

For every node $`\sigma =(r;k,m;\varphi )`$ and positive integer $`sr1`$,

$$c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s+1}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_{\sigma ,s}\right]=c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_{\sigma ,s1}\right],$$

where $`\{\sigma _s\}`$ is the sequence corresponding to $`\sigma `$ defined in the paragraph preceding Lemma 3.3.

Proof: Since $`𝒪_{\sigma ,s+1}𝒪_{\sigma ,s}/\gamma _{F_{\sigma _s}}`$,

$$\left\{c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s+1}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}}{}}\underset{l_1+l_2=l}{}\lambda _{F_{\sigma _s}}^{l_1}c_{l_2}\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s}\right)\left\{c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}2l}.$$
(3.8)
By construction, $`\lambda _{F_{\sigma _s}}H^{}(F_{\sigma _s})`$, while $`c(𝒪_{\sigma ,s}),c(E_\sigma )H^{}(𝒳_{\sigma ,s1})`$. Thus, (3.8) gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left\{c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s+1}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}}& =\lambda _{F_{\sigma _s}}^{n_\sigma }\underset{l=0}{\overset{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}}{}}c_{ln_\sigma }\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s}\right)\left\{c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s}2l}\hfill \\ & =\lambda _{F_{\sigma _s}}^{n_\sigma }\left\{c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,s}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_{\sigma ,s1}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.9)
where $`n_\sigma =dimF_{\sigma _s}`$. By (2.1),

$$\lambda _{F_{\sigma _s}}^{n_\sigma },\left[F_{\sigma _s}\right]=c\left(F_{\sigma _s}\right)^1,\left[\overline{}_{\sigma _s}\right]=\underset{i\text{Im}\varphi _s}{}c\left(\gamma _{\sigma _s;i}\right)^1,\left[\overline{}_{0,i+\varphi _s^1(i)}\right]=1.$$
(3.10)
The last identity is a consequence of (1) of Lemma 3.11. The claim follows from (3.8)-(3.10).

###### Corollary 3.5

For every node $`\sigma =(r;k,m;\varphi )`$,

$$c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma \right]=c(\text{ev}^{}T^n)c(E_{k,m})^1,\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right].$$

Proof: Since $`\text{rk}𝒪_\sigma =\text{rk}E_\sigma +\frac{1}{2}dim𝒳_\sigma `$, we can identify $`E_\sigma `$ with a subbundle of $`𝒪_\sigma `$. Then,

$$c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)^1=c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma /\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)=c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}(𝒪_\sigma /E_\sigma )\right)$$

$$\left\{c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_\sigma }=\underset{l=0}{\overset{dim𝒳_\sigma }{}}\lambda _{F_\sigma }^l\left\{c(𝒪_\sigma )c(E_\sigma )^1\right\}_{dim𝒳_\sigma 2l}.$$
(3.11)
Similarly to the proof of Lemma 3.4, (3.11) gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma \right]& =c\left(𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_{\sigma ,r1}\right]\hfill \\ & =c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,r}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_{\sigma ,r1}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.12)
Applying Lemma 3.4 to the last expression in (3.12) and using $`𝒪_{\sigma ,1}(\text{ev}^{}T^n)/`$, we obtain

$$c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}𝒪_\sigma \right)c\left(\gamma _{F_\sigma }^{}E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_\sigma \right]=c\left(𝒪_{\sigma ,1}\right)c\left(E_\sigma \right)^1,\left[𝒳_{\sigma ,0}\right]=c(\text{ev}^{}T^n)c(E_{k,m})^1,\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right].$$

We now combine Lemma 3.3 and Corollary 3.5 to obtain a topological formula for the number $`N(\alpha _{1,0})`$. For any integers $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$, let $`\theta _k^{}^k`$ denote the number of ways of splitting a set of $`k^{}`$-elements into $`k`$ nonempty subsets. For every pair $`(k^{},m^{})(1,0)`$ of integers, we define $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k^{},m^{})`$ inductively by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(1,0)=1,\mathrm{\Theta }(k^{},m^{})=\underset{(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)k^{m^{}m}\theta _k^{}^k\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)\text{ if }(k^{},m^{})>(1,0).$$
(3.13)
###### Corollary 3.6

With notation as above,

$$N(\alpha _{1,0})=\underset{(1,0)(k,m)}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)\underset{l=0}{\overset{n+1(2k+m)}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{l}\right)a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n+1(2k+m)l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right].$$

Proof: By Lemma 3.3 and Corollary 3.5,

$$N\left(\alpha _{1,0}\right)=N\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\sigma _0}\right)=\underset{(1,0)(k,m)}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)c(\text{ev}^{}T^n)c(E_{k,m})^1,\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right].$$
(3.14)
Since $`E_{k,m}=L_i`$,

$$c(E_{k,m})^1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}\left(1+c_1(L_i)\right)^1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{i=k}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_1^l(L_i^{})=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_l.$$
(3.15)
The last equality above is immediate from the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_l`$; see Subsection 2.2. The claim follows from (3.14) and (3.15), along with $`c(\text{ev}^{}T^n)=(1+a)^{n+1}`$.

### 3.2 Combinatorics

In this subsection, we show that the topological expression for $`N(\alpha _{1,0})`$ given in Corollary 3.6 is the same as the topological expression for $`CR_1(\mu )`$ given in Proposition 3.1. This fact is immediate from Corollary 3.10. We start by proving an explicit formula for the numbers $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)`$.

###### Lemma 3.7

If $`(k,m)(1,0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)=(1)^{k+m1}k^m(k1)!`$.

(1) We first start verify this formula in the case $`k=1`$. By (3.13),

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(1,0)=1,\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m^{})=\underset{m=0}{\overset{m^{}1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m)\text{if }m^{}>(1,0).$$
(3.16)
We need to show that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m)=(1)^m`$. If $`m=0`$, this is the case. Suppose $`m^{}1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m)=(1)^m`$ for all $`m<m^{}`$. Then, by (3.16),

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m^{})=\underset{m=0}{\overset{m^{}1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }(1,m)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{m^{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)(1)^m+(1)^m^{}=(11)^m^{}+(1)^m^{}=(1)^m^{},$$

as needed.
(2) We now verify the formula in the general case. It is easy to see from the definition of $`\theta _k^{}^k`$ in the previous subsection that

$$\theta _k^k=1\text{ if }k1\text{and}\theta _k^{}^k=k\theta _{k^{}1}^k+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}\text{ if }k2.$$
(3.17)
Suppose $`k^{}2`$ and the claimed formula holds for all $`(k,m)`$ with $`(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})`$. Then by (3.13),

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }(k^{},m^{})& =\underset{(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)k^{m^{}m}\theta _k^{}^k\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)\hfill \\ & =k^m^{}\underset{(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})}{}(1)^{k+m}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)\theta _k^{}^k(k1)!\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.18)
Using (3.17), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})}{}}(1)^{k+m}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}}\right)\theta _k^{}^k(k1)!={\displaystyle \underset{(1,0)(k,m)<(k^{},m^{})}{}}(1)^{k+m}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}}\right)\left(k\theta _{k^{}1}^k+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}\right)(k1)!`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{m^{}1}{}}}(1)^m\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}}{}}}(1)^k\left(\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}(k1)!\right)`$ (3.19)
$`+(1)^m^{}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(1)^k\left(\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}(k1)!\right).`$
Note that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}}{}}}(1)^k\left(\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}(k1)!\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}}{}}}(1)^k\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(1)^k\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!=0;`$ (3.20)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(1)^k\left(\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!+\theta _{k^{}1}^{k1}(k1)!\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k^{}1}{}}}(1)^k\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{k^{}2}{}}}(1)^k\theta _{k^{}1}^kk!=(1)^{k^{}1}(k^{}1)!,`$
since $`c_{k^{}1}^k^{}=0`$, $`c_{k^{}1}^{k^{}1}=1`$, and $`c_{k^{}1}^0=0`$ if $`k^{}>1`$. Combining equations (3.18)-(3.20), we verify the claimed identity for $`(k,m)=(k^{},m^{})`$.

We next need to relate the intersection numbers $`a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_l^{}`$ and $`a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_l^{}`$. We break the computation into several steps.

###### Lemma 3.8

Suppose $`𝒯=(S^2,M,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a basic bubble type, $`iI`$, and $`M_iM_i𝒯`$. Then, under the splitting (2.2), with $`\overline{𝒯}=𝒯/M_i`$,

$$c_1(L_i^{}^{}𝒯)|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{𝒯;i}^{}\times 1,\hfill & \text{if }i^{}=i;\hfill \\ 1\times c_1(L_i^{}^{}\overline{𝒯}),\hfill & \text{if }i^{}i;\hfill \end{array}c_1(_i^{}^{}𝒯)|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=1\times c_1(_i^{}^{}\overline{𝒯}).$$

Proof: The first identity and the case $`i^{}i`$ of the second identity are immediate from the definitions. In the remaining case, by (2.3), we have

$$c_1(_i^{}𝒯)|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=c_1(L_i^{}𝒯)\left|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )\underset{\mathrm{}M_i^{}M_i𝒯}{}\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i^{})}(\mu )\right|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu ).$$
(3.21)
By definition of the spaces,

$$\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i^{})}(\mu )|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if}M_i^{}M_i\text{ and }M_iM_i^{};\hfill \\ 1\times \text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}}(\mu )}\overline{𝒰}_{\overline{𝒯}(M_i^{}M_i)}(\mu ),\hfill & \text{if}M_iM_i^{};\hfill \\ \text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0}}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0(M_iM_i^{})}\times 1,\hfill & \text{if}M_i^{}M_i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.22)
where $`𝒯_0=(S^2,\widehat{1}+M_i,\{i\};i,0)`$, i.e. $`\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0}=\overline{}_{0,\widehat{1}+M_i}`$. Plugging (3.22), (2) of Lemma 3.11, and the case $`i^{}=i`$ of the first statement of this lemma into (3.21), we obtain the remaining claim.

###### Corollary 3.9

For all $`k1`$, $`m0`$, and $`l0`$,

$$a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n+1(2k+m)l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right]=\underset{m^{}m}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)k^{m^{}m}a^l\eta _{n+1(2k+m^{})l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m^{}}(\mu )\right].$$

Proof: Let $`𝒯=(S^2,[N]M_0,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ be a basic bubble type such that $`|I|=k`$, $`|M_0|=m`$, and $`d_i=d`$. By Lemma 3.8 and (1) of Lemma 3.11,

$$a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n+1(2k+m)l},\left[\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )\right]=\underset{M_0M_0^{}[N]}{}a^l\eta _{n+1(2k+|M_0^{}|)l},\left[\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯/M_0^{}}(\mu )\right],$$
(3.23)
where $`𝒯/M_0^{}=(S^2,[N]M_0^{},I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$. The claim is obtained by summing (3.23) over all equivalence classes of bubble types $`𝒯`$ of the above form.

###### Corollary 3.10

For all $`k1`$ and $`l0`$,

$$\underset{m0}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n+1(2k+m)l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right]=(1)^{k1}(k1)!a^l\eta _{n+12kl},\left[\overline{𝒱}_k(\mu )\right].$$

Proof: By Lemma 3.7 and Corollary 3.9,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{m0}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(k,m)a^l\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n+1(2k+m)l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m}(\mu )\right]\hfill \\ & =(1)^{k1}(k1)!\underset{m0}{}\underset{m^{}m}{}(1)^m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)k^m^{}a^l\eta _{n+1(2k+m^{})l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m^{}}(\mu )\right]\hfill \\ & =(1)^{k1}(k1)!\underset{m^{}0}{}k^m^{}\left(\underset{mm^{}}{}(1)^m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)\right)a^l\eta _{n+1(2k+m^{})l},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,m^{}}(\mu )\right]\hfill \\ & =(1)^{k1}(k1)!a^l\eta _{n+12kl},\left[\overline{𝒱}_{k,0}(\mu )\right],\hfill \end{array}$$

since

$$\underset{mm^{}}{}(1)^m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m^{}}{m}\right)k^m^{}=(11)^m^{}=0\text{if }m^{}0.$$

###### Lemma 3.11

(1) If $`J`$ is a finite set of cardinality at least two, $`c_1^{|J|2}(\gamma _J^{}),\left[\overline{}_{0,J}\right]=1`$, where $`\gamma _J\overline{}_{0,J}`$ is the tautological line bundle.
(2) If $`𝒯=(S^2,M,I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a basic bubble type, $`iI`$, and $`M_i`$ is nonempty subset of $`M_i𝒯`$, under the splitting (2.2),

$$\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=1\times c_1(L_i^{}\overline{𝒯})+c_1(\gamma _{𝒯;i}^{})\times 1\underset{\mathrm{}M_i^{}M_i}{}\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0}}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0(M_iM_i^{})}\times 1,$$

where $`𝒯_0=(S^2,\widehat{1}+M_i,\{i\};i,0)`$ and $`\overline{𝒯}=𝒯/M_i`$.

Proof: (1) Both statements are straightforward consequences of well-known facts in algebraic geometry; see \[P2\]. In our notation, $`\overline{}_{0,J}`$ is the Deligne-Mumford moduli space of rational curves with points marked by the set $`\{\widehat{0}\}+J`$ and $`c_1(\gamma _J^{})=\psi _{\widehat{0}}`$. Thus, if $`j_1,j_2J`$ and $`j_1j_2`$,

$$c_1(\gamma _J^{})=\psi _{\widehat{0}}=\underset{\mathrm{}J^{}J\{j_1,j_2\}}{}\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0}}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0(J^{})},$$
(3.24)
where $`𝒯_0=(S^2,J,\{i\};i,0)`$. Since $`c_1(\gamma _J^{})|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0(J^{})}=c_1(\gamma _{J^{}+\widehat{1}}^{})`$ under the decomposition (2.2), the first claim of the lemma follows from (3.24).
(2) Equation (3.24) implies that for any $`\widehat{1}J`$,

$$c_1(\gamma _J^{})+\psi _{\widehat{1}}=\underset{\mathrm{}J^{}J\{\widehat{1}\}}{}\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0}}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯_0(J^{})}.$$
(3.25)
If $`𝒯`$, $`i`$, and $`M_i`$ are as in (2) of the lemma, under the splitting (2.2),

$$\text{PD}_{\overline{𝒰}_𝒯(\mu )}\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )|\overline{𝒰}_{𝒯(M_i)}(\mu )=\psi _{\widehat{1}}\times 11\times \psi _{\widehat{0}}.$$
(3.26)
The second claim of the lemma follows from (3.25), applied with $`J=\{\widehat{1}\}+M_i`$, and (3.26), since $`1\times \psi _{\widehat{0}}=1\times c_1(L_i\overline{𝒯})`$.

## 4 Comparison of $`n_d^{(1)}(\mu )`$ and $`n_{1,d}(\mu )`$

### 4.1 Summary

In this section, we prove

###### Proposition 4.1

Suppose $`n2`$, $`d1`$, and $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _N)`$ is an $`N`$-tuple of proper linear subspaces of $`^n`$ in general position such that $`\text{codim}_{}\mu =d(n+1)1`$. Then

$$n_d^{(1)}(\mu )=n_{1,d}(\mu ).$$

Denote by $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ the Deligne-Mumford moduli space of stable genus-one curves with one marked point and by $`𝔐_{1,1}`$ the main stratum of $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$, i.e. the complement of the point $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$. The elements of $`𝔐_{1,1}`$ parameterize (equivalence classes of) smooth genus-one curves with one marked point. The point $`\mathrm{}\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ corresponds to a sphere with one marked point and with two other points identified.

Denote by $`\overline{𝔐}=\overline{𝔐}_{1,N}(^n,d)`$ the moduli space of stable degree-$`d`$ maps from $`N`$-pointed genus-one curves to $`^n`$. Let

$$\overline{𝔐}(\mu )=\{b\overline{𝔐}:\text{ev}_l(b)\mu _ll[N]\}.$$

We denote by $`\pi :\overline{𝔐}\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ the forgetful functor sending each stable map $`b=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]`$ to the one-marked curve $`[S,y_1]`$ and contracting all unstable components of $`(S,y_1)`$. The resulting complex curve is either a torus or a sphere with two points identified. For any $`\sigma \overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$, let

$$\overline{𝔐}_\sigma =\pi ^1(\sigma ),\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )=\overline{𝔐}_\sigma \overline{𝔐}(\mu ).$$

If the $`j`$-invariant $`\sigma `$ is different from infinity, i.e. the stable curve $`𝒞_\sigma `$ corresponding to $`\sigma `$ is smooth, the cardinality of $`\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )`$ is $`\left|\text{Aut}(𝒞_\sigma )\right|`$ times the number of genus-one degree-$`d`$ curves with $`j`$-invariant $`\sigma `$ that pass through the constraints $`\mu `$, i.e.

$$\left|\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )\right|=2n_{1,d}(\mu ).$$
(4.1)
If $`\left\{\sigma _k\right\}𝔐_{1,1}`$ converges to $`\mathrm{}\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ and $`b_k\overline{𝔐}_{\sigma _k}(\mu )`$, a subsequence of $`\{b_k\}`$ converges in $`\overline{𝔐}`$ to some $`b\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )`$. It will be shown that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ is a sphere with two points identified; see Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.5. Conversely, for every

$$b=(S,[N],\{\widehat{0}\};,(\widehat{0},y),u)\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )$$

such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ is a sphere with two points identified and for every $`\sigma 𝔐_{1,1}`$ sufficiently close to $`\mathrm{}`$, there exists a unique stable map $`b(\sigma )\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )`$ close to $`b`$ in $`\overline{𝔐}`$; see Lemma 4.3. Since the number of stable maps

$$b=(S,[N],\{\widehat{0}\};,(\widehat{0},y),u)\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )$$

such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ is a sphere with two points identified is $`2n_d^{(1)}(\mu )`$, Proposition 4.1 follows from the two lemmas, the corollary, and equation (4.1).

### 4.2 Dimension Counts

In this subsection, we show that if

$$[b]=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )$$

and $`u_{\widehat{0}}=u_b|S`$ is not constant, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=S`$ is a sphere with two points identified; see Lemma 4.2. This lemma is proved by dimension counting. We then observe that for each such stable map $`b`$ and every $`\sigma 𝔐_{1,1}`$ sufficiently close to $`\mathrm{}`$, there exists a unique stable map $`b(\sigma )\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )`$ close to $`b`$ in $`\overline{𝔐}`$; see Lemma 4.3.

###### Lemma 4.2

If $`[b]=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )`$ and $`u_{\widehat{0}}=u_b|S`$ is not constant, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=S`$ is a sphere with two points identified.

Proof: Suppose $`𝒯=(S,[N],I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a simple bubble type such that $`S`$ is a circle of $`k`$ spheres, $`d_{\widehat{0}}0`$, and $`d_i=d`$. Let $`𝒰_{𝒯,\underset{¯}{d}_{\widehat{0}}}`$ denote the subspace of $`𝒰_𝒯`$ such that the nonconstant restrictions of $`u_b`$ to the components of $`S`$ have degrees $`d_{\widehat{0},1},\mathrm{},d_{\widehat{0},k^{}}`$ for all $`bU_{𝒯,\underset{¯}{d}_{\widehat{0}}}`$. We must have $`d_{\widehat{0},l}=d_{\widehat{0}}`$. Then, the dimension of $`dim𝒰_{𝒯,\underset{¯}{d}_{\widehat{0}}}(\mu )`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{k^{}}{}}\left(d_{\widehat{0},l}(n+1)+n1\right)nk^{}+\underset{i\widehat{I}}{}\left(d_i(n+1)+n2(n1)\right)+\left(N(kk^{})\right)\right)(\text{codim}_{}\mu +N)& \\ \hfill =1|k||\widehat{I}|& .\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, $`𝒰_𝒯(\mu )=\mathrm{}`$ unless $`k=1`$ and $`\widehat{I}=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b=S`$ is a sphere with two points identified.

###### Lemma 4.3

For every $`[b]=[S,[N],\{\widehat{0}\};,(\widehat{0},y),u]\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )`$ such that $`S`$ is a sphere with two points identified, there exists neighborhood $`U_b`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ and $`W_b`$ of $`b`$ in $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,N}(^n,d)`$ such that

$$\left|\overline{𝔐}_\sigma (\mu )W_b\right|=1\sigma U_b\{\mathrm{}\}.$$

Proof: Since $`d1`$,

$$H^1(S;u_b^{}T^n)=(n+1)H^1(S;u_b^{}𝒪(1_^n))=0,$$
(4.2)
see Corollary 6.5 in \[Z2\] for example. The lemma follows from (4.2) by standard arguments. A purely analytic proof can be found in \[RT\].

### 4.3 A Property of Limits in $`\overline{𝔐}_{1,N}(^n,d)`$

Suppose $`\left\{\sigma _k\right\}𝔐_{1,1}`$ converges to $`\mathrm{}\overline{𝔐}_{1,1}`$ and $`b_k\overline{𝔐}_{\sigma _k}`$ converges to

$$[b]=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}$$

such that $`u_b|S`$ is constant. In this subsection, we describe a condition such a limit $`b`$ must satisfy; see Lemma 4.4. This lemma is the key part of Section 4. Its proof extends the argument of \[P1\] for the $`n=2`$ case and makes use of the explicit notation described in Subsection 2.2. We conclude by observing that no element of $`\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu )`$ can satisfy this condition if the constraints $`\mu `$ are in general position.

###### Lemma 4.4

Suppose

$$[b]=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]\overline{\underset{\sigma 𝔐_{1,1}}{}\overline{𝔐}_\sigma }_𝒯,$$

where $`𝒯=(S,[N],I;j,\underset{¯}{d})`$ is a simple bubble type such that $`S`$ is a circle of spheres and $`d_{\widehat{0}}=0`$. Then the dimension of the linear span of the set $`\left\{du_h|_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}:h\chi (𝒯)\right\}`$ is less than $`\left|\chi (𝒯)\right|`$.

Proof: (1) By the algebraic geometry definition of stable-map convergence, there exist
(i) a one-parameter family of curves $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }:\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a neighborhood of $`0`$ in $``$, $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a smooth space, $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^1(0)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t\stackrel{~}{\kappa }^1(t)`$ is a smooth genus-one curve for all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\{0\}`$;
(ii) a holomorphic map $`\stackrel{~}{u}:\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{u}|\kappa ^1(0)=u_b`$.
This family $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }:\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be obtained from another family of curves $`\kappa _{\widehat{0}}:_{\widehat{0}}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that satisfies (i), except $`\kappa _{\widehat{0}}^1(0)=S`$, by a sequence of blowups at smooth points of the central fiber as we now describe. Choose an ordering $``$ of the set $`I`$ consistent with its partial ordering. If $`hI`$, let

$$I^h=\{iI:ih\},i(h)=\mathrm{max}I^h\text{ if }h\widehat{I},I^{(h)}=I^h\{h\},M(h)=\{l[N]:j_lh\},$$

$$b(h)=(S^2,M(h),I^{(h)};x|\widehat{I}^{(h)},(j,y)|M(h),u|I^{(h)}).$$

Suppose $`h\widehat{I}`$ and we have constructed a one-parameter family of curves $`\kappa _{i(h)}:_{i(h)}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that satisfies (i), except $`\kappa _{i(h)}^1(0)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b(i(h))}`$. Let $`_h`$ be the blowup of $`_{i(h)}`$ at the smooth point of $`(\iota _h,x_h)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b(i(h))}`$ and let $`\kappa _h:_h\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the induced projection map. Choose coordinates $`(t,w_h)`$ near $`(\iota _h,x_h)_{i(h)}`$ such that $`d\kappa _{i(h)}\frac{}{w_h}=0`$, i.e. $`w_h`$ is a coordinate in $`\kappa _{i(h)}^1(t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sufficiently small. We define coordinates $`(t,z_h)`$ on a neighborhood in $`_h`$ of the complement of the node of the new exceptional divisor by

$$(t,z_h)(t,w_h=tz_h,[1,z_h]).$$

For a good choice of the family $`\kappa _{\widehat{0}}:_{\widehat{0}}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}=_h^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\pi _h^{}`$, where $`h^{}`$ is the largest element of $`I`$ with respect to the ordering $``$.
(2) Let $`\psi H^0(S;w_S)`$ be a nonzero differential, i.e. $`\psi `$ is a holomorphic $`(1,0)`$-form on the components of $`S`$, which has simple poles at the singular points of $`S`$ with residues that add up to zero at each node. Then, for each $`hH_{\widehat{0}}𝒯`$, there exists $`a_h^{}`$ such that

$$\psi |_{(0,w_h)}=a_h\left(1+o(1)\right)dw_h.$$

Thus, we can extend $`\psi `$ to a family of elements $`\psi _tH^0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t;\omega _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t})`$ such that

$$\psi |_{(t,w_h)}=a_h\left(1+o(1)\right)dw_h,\text{with}a_h^{}.$$
(4.3)
If $`h\widehat{I}`$, let $`|h|=\left|\{iI:i<h\}\right|`$. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ the element of $`H_{\widehat{0}}𝒯`$ such that $`h\overline{D}_{\stackrel{~}{h}}𝒯`$. By (4.3), we have

$$\psi |_{(t,z_h)}=t^{|h|}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}}\left(1+o(1_t)\right)dz_h,\text{with}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}}^{}.$$
(4.4)
(3) Let $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ be any two hyperplanes in $`^n`$ that intersect the image of $`u_b`$ transversally and miss the image of the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$. Then for all $`t`$ sufficiently small and $`i=1,2`$,

$$u_t^1(H_i)=\{z_{1,h_1}^{(i)}(t),\mathrm{},z_{d,h_d}^{(i)}\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_t,\text{where}h_j\widehat{I},z_{j,h_j}^{(i)}(t)=z_{j,h_j}^{(i)}(0)+o(1_t),$$
(4.5)
$`z_{j,h_j}^{(i)}(0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,h}`$, and $`u_t=\stackrel{~}{u}|\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. Since $`z_{h_j}^{(1)}(t)`$ and $`z_j^{(2)}(t)`$ are linearly equivalent divisors in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$,

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{j=d}{}}_{z_{j,h_j}^{(1)}(t)}^{z_{j,h_j}^{(2)}(t)}\psi _t=0t\mathrm{\Delta }^{},$$
(4.6)
where each line integral is taken inside of an appropriate coordinate chart $`(t,z_h)`$. Plugging (4.4) and (4.5) into (4.6) gives

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{j=d}{}}t^{|h_j|}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}_j}\left(z_{j,h_j}^{(2)}(0)z_{j,h_j}^{(1)}(0)+o(1_t)\right)=0t\mathrm{\Delta }^{}.$$
(4.7)
Let $`k=\mathrm{min}\left\{|h|:h\chi (𝒯)\right\}`$; then $`k=\mathrm{min}\left\{|h_j|:j[d]\right\}`$. Thus, dividing equation (4.7) by $`t^k`$ and then taking the limit as $`t0`$, we conclude that

$$\underset{|h_j|=k}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}_j}z_{j,h_j}^{(1)}(0)=\underset{|h_j|=k}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}_j}z_{j,h_j}^{(2)}(0).$$
(4.8)
(4) Equality (4.8) holds for a dense subset of pairs $`(H_1,H_2)`$. The consequences of this fact can be interpreted as follows. For each $`h\widehat{I}`$, let $`[u_h,v_h]`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{b,h}`$ such that $`z_h=v_h/u_h`$. Each map $`u_h`$ corresponds to an $`(n+1)`$-tuple of homogeneous polynomials

$$p_{h,i}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{l=d_h}{}}p_{h,i;l}u^lv^{dl},i=0,\mathrm{},n,p_{h,i;l}.$$

Equality (4.8) implies that there exists $`K`$ such that

$$\underset{|h|=k,d_h0}{}a_{\stackrel{~}{h}}\frac{_{i=0}^{i=n}c_ip_{h,i;d_h1}}{_{i=0}^{i=n}c_ip_{h,i;d_h}}=K[c_0,\mathrm{},c_n]^n.$$
(4.9)
On the other hand, $`u_{h_1}(\mathrm{})=u_{h_2}(\mathrm{})`$ for all $`h_1,h_2\chi (𝒯)`$. Thus, for all $`h_1,h_2\chi (𝒯)`$, there exists $`K_{h_1,h_2}^{}\{0\}`$ such that

$$(p_{h_1,0;d_{h_1}},\mathrm{},p_{h_1,n;d_{h_1}})=K_{h_1,h_2}(p_{h_2,0;d_{h_2}},\mathrm{},p_{h_2,n;d_{h_2}}).$$

It follows that (4.9) is equivalent to

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{i=n}{}}\underset{|h|=k,d_h0}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_hp_{h,i;d_h1}c_i=K\underset{i=0}{\overset{i=n}{}}p_{h_1,i;d_{h_1}}c_ic_i$$

$$\underset{|h|=k,d_h0}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_hp_{h,i;d_h1}=Kp_{h_1,i;d_{h_1}},i=0,\mathrm{},n.$$
(4.10)
where $`h_1`$ is a fixed element of the set $`\{h\widehat{I}:|h|=k,d_h0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_h^{}`$. It is straightforward to deduce from (4.10) that

$$\underset{|h|=k,d_h0}{}\stackrel{~}{a}_hdu_h|_{\mathrm{}}e_{\mathrm{}}=0.$$

The lemma is now proved, since $`\{h\widehat{I}:|h|=k,d_h0\}\chi (𝒯)`$.

###### Corollary 4.5

Suppose

$$[b]=[S,[N],I;x,(j,y),u]\overline{\underset{\sigma 𝔐_{1,1}}{}\overline{𝔐}_\sigma }\overline{𝔐}_{\mathrm{}}(\mu ).$$

Then $`u_b|S`$ is not constant.

Proof: Suppose $`u_b|S`$ is constant. Let

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=\{iI:\chi _𝒯i0\}\widehat{I},M_0=\underset{iI\stackrel{~}{I}}{}M_i𝒯,\stackrel{~}{x}=x|\widehat{\stackrel{~}{I}},(\stackrel{~}{j},\stackrel{~}{y})=(j,y)|\left([N]M_0\right),\stackrel{~}{d}=d|\stackrel{~}{I},\stackrel{~}{u}=u|\stackrel{~}{I};$$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒯}=(S^2,[N]M_0,\stackrel{~}{I};\stackrel{~}{j},\stackrel{~}{d}),\stackrel{~}{b}=(S^2,[N]M_0,\stackrel{~}{I};\stackrel{~}{x},(\stackrel{~}{j},\stackrel{~}{y}),\stackrel{~}{u}).$$

Then, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}`$ is a bubble type such that $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i=d`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_i>0`$ for all $`i\stackrel{~}{I}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$. The latter property implies that $`\chi (\stackrel{~}{𝒯})=\stackrel{~}{I}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{I}}`$. Furthermore, $`\stackrel{~}{b}𝒰_{\stackrel{~}{𝒯}}(\mu )`$. By Lemma 4.4, the linear map

$$\alpha _{|\chi (\stackrel{~}{𝒯})|,|M_0|}:\underset{i\chi (\stackrel{~}{𝒯})}{}L_i\stackrel{~}{𝒯}\text{ev}^{}T^n,\alpha _{|\chi (\stackrel{~}{𝒯})|,|M_0|}(\upsilon )=\underset{i\chi (\stackrel{~}{𝒯})}{}𝒟_{\stackrel{~}{𝒯},i}\upsilon _i,$$

does not have full rank at $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$. However, this is impossible by Lemma 2.8.