text:
# Gromov-Witten theory, Hurwitz theory, and completed cycles.

## 0 Introduction

### 0.1 Overview

#### 0.1.1

There are two enumerative theories of maps from curves to curves. Our goal here is to study their relationship. All curves in the paper will be projective over $``$.

The first theory, introduced in the $`19^{th}`$ century by Hurwitz, concerns the enumeration of degree $`d`$ covers,

$$\pi :CX,$$

of nonsingular curves $`X`$ with specified ramification data. In 1902, Hurwitz published a closed formula for the number of covers,

$$\pi :𝐏^1𝐏^1,$$

with specified simple ramification over $`𝐀^1𝐏^1`$ and arbitrary ramification over $`\mathrm{}`$ (see  and also ).

Cover enumeration is easily expressed in the class algebra of the symmetric group $`S(d)`$. The formulas involve the characters of $`S(d)`$. Though great strides have been taken in the past century, the characters of $`S(d)`$ remain objects of substantial combinatorial complexity. While any particular Hurwitz number may be calculated, very few explicit formulas are available.

The second theory, the Gromov-Witten theory of target curves $`X`$, is modern. Gromov-Witten theory is defined via intersection in the moduli space $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$ of degree $`d`$ stable maps,

$$\pi :CX,$$

from genus $`g`$, $`n`$-pointed curves. A sequence of descendents,

$$\tau _0(\gamma ),\tau _1(\gamma ),\tau _2(\gamma ),\mathrm{},$$

is determined by each cohomology class $`\gamma H^{}(X,)`$. The descendents $`\tau _k(\gamma )`$ correspond to classes in the cohomology of $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$. Full definitions are given in Section 0.2 below. The Gromov-Witten invariants of $`X`$ are defined as integrals of products of descendent classes against the virtual fundamental class of $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$.

Let $`\omega H^2(X,)`$ denote the (Poincaré dual) class of a point. We define the stationary sector of the Gromov-Witten theory $`X`$ to be the integrals involving only the descendents of $`\omega `$. The stationary sector is the most basic and fundamental part of the Gromov-Witten theory of $`X`$.

Since Gromov-Witten theory and Hurwitz theory are both enumerative theories of maps, we may ask whether there is any precise relationship between the two. We prove the stationary sector of Gromov-Witten is in fact equivalent to Hurwitz theory.

#### 0.1.2

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular target curve. The main result of the paper is a correspondence, termed here the GW/H correspondence, between the stationary sector of Gromov-Witten theory and Hurwitz theory.

Each descendent $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ corresponds to an explicit linear combination of ramification conditions in Hurwitz theory. A stationary Gromov-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is equal to the sum of the Hurwitz numbers obtained by replacing $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ by the associated ramification conditions. The ramification conditions associated to $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ are universal — independent of all factors including the target $`X`$.

#### 0.1.3

The GW/H correspondence may be alternatively expressed as associating to each descendent $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ an explicit element of the class algebra of the symmetric group. The associated elements, the completed cycles, have been considered previously in Hurwitz theory — the term completed cycle first appears in  following unnamed appearances of the associated elements in . In fact, completed cycles, implicitly, are ubiquitous in the theory of shifted symmetric functions.

The completed $`k`$-cycle is the ordinary $`k`$-cycle corrected by a non-negative linear combination of permutations with smaller support (except, possibly, for the constant term corresponding to the empty permutation, which may be of either sign). The corrections are viewed as completing the cycle. In , the corrections to the ordinary $`k`$-cycle were understood as counting degenerations of Hurwitz coverings with appropriate combinatorial weights. Similarly, in Gromov-Witten theory, the correction terms will be seen to arise from the boundary strata of $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$.

#### 0.1.4

The GW/H correspondence is important from several points of view. From the geometric perspective, the correspondence provides a combinatorial approach to the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of $`X`$, leading to very concrete and efficient formulas. From the perspective of symmetric functions, a geometrization of the theory of completed cycles is obtained.

Hurwitz theory with completed cycles is combinatorially much more accessible than standard Hurwitz theory — a major motivation for the introduction of completed cycles. Completed cycles calculations may be naturally evaluated in the operator formalism of the infinite wedge representation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$. In particular, closed formulas for the completed cycle correction terms are obtained. If the target $`X`$ is either genus 0 or 1, closed form evaluations of all corresponding generating functions may be found, see Sections 3 and 5. In fact, the completed cycle corrections appear in the theory with target genus 0.

Hurwitz theory, while elementary to define, leads to substantial combinatorial difficulties. Gromov-Witten theory, with much more sophisticated foundations, provides a simplifying completion of Hurwitz theory.

#### 0.1.5

The present paper is the first of a series devoted to the Gromov-Witten theory of target curves $`X`$. In subsequent papers, we will consider the equivariant theory for $`𝐏^1`$, the descendents of the other cohomology classes of $`X`$, and the connections to integrable hierarchies. The equivariant Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ and the associated 2–Toda hierarchy will be the subject of .

The introduction is organized as follows. We review the definitions of Gromov-Witten and Hurwitz theory in Sections 0.2 and 0.3. Shifted symmetric functions and completed cycles are discussed in Section 0.4. The basic GW/H correspondence is stated in Section 0.5.

### 0.2 Gromov-Witten theory

The Gromov-Witten theory of a nonsingular target $`X`$ concerns integration over the moduli space $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$ of stable degree $`d`$ maps from genus $`g`$, $`n`$-pointed curves to $`X`$. Two types of cohomology classes are integrated. The primary classes are:

$$\text{ev}_i^{}(\gamma )H^2(\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d),),$$

where $`\text{ev}_i`$ is the morphism defined by evaluation at the $`i`$th marked point,

$$\text{ev}_i:\overline{M}_{g,n}(X)X,$$

and $`\gamma H^{}(X,)`$. The descendent classes are:

$$\psi _i^k\text{ev}_i^{}(\gamma ),$$

where $`\psi _iH^2(\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d),)`$ is the first Chern class of the cotangent line bundle $`L_i`$ on the moduli space of maps.

Let $`\omega H^2(X,)`$ denote the Poincaré dual of the point class. We will be interested here exclusively in the integrals of the descendent classes of $`\omega `$:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_{g,d}^X=_{[\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)]^{vir}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi _i^{k_i}\text{ev}_i^{}(\omega ).$$
(0.1)
The theory is defined for all $`d0`$.

Let $`g(X)`$ denote the genus of the target. The integral (0.1) is defined to vanish unless the dimension constraint,

$$2g2+d(22g(X))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i,$$
(0.2)
is satisfied. If the subscript $`g`$ is omitted in the bracket notation $`_i\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^X`$, the genus is specified by the dimension constraint from the remaining data. If the resulting genus is not an integer, the integral is defined to vanish. Unless emphasis is required, the genus subscript will be omitted.

The integrals (0.1) constitute the stationary sector of the Gromov-Witten theory of $`X`$ since the images in $`X`$ of the marked points are pinned by the integrand. The total Gromov-Witten theory involves also the descendants of the identity and odd classes of $`H^{}(X,)`$.

The moduli space $`\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,d)`$ parameterizes stable maps with connected domain curves. However, Gromov-Witten theory may be also be defined with disconnected domains. If $`C=_{i=1}^lC_i`$ is a disconnected curve with connected components $`C_i`$, the arithmetic genus of $`C`$ is defined by:

$$g(C)=\underset{i}{}g(C_i)l+1,$$

where $`g(C_i)`$ is the arithmetic genus of $`C_i`$. In the disconnected theory, the genus may be negative. Let $`\overline{M}_{g,n}^{}(X,d)`$ denote the moduli space of stable maps with possibly disconnected domains.

We will use the brackets brackets $`^{}`$ as above in (0.1) for integration in connected Gromov-Witten theory. The brackets $`^{}`$ will be used for the disconnected theory obtained by integration against $`[\overline{M}_{g,d}^{}(X,d)]^{vir}`$. The brackets $``$ will be used when it is not necessary to distinguish between the connected and disconnected theories.

### 0.3 Hurwitz theory

#### 0.3.1

The Hurwitz theory of a nonsingular curve $`X`$ concerns the enumeration of covers of $`X`$ with specified ramification. The ramifications are determined by the profile of the cover over the branch points.

For Hurwitz theory, we will only consider covers,

$$\pi :CX,$$

where $`C`$ is nonsingular and $`\pi `$ is dominant on each component of $`C`$. Let $`d>0`$ be the degree of $`\pi `$. The profile of $`\pi `$ over a point $`qX`$ is the partition $`\eta `$ of $`d`$ obtained from multiplicities of $`\pi ^1(q)`$.

By definition, a partition $`\eta `$ of $`d`$ is a sequence of integers,

$$\eta =(\eta _1\eta _2\mathrm{}0),$$

where $`|\eta |=\eta _i=d`$. Let $`\mathrm{}(\eta )`$ denote the length of the partition $`\eta `$, and let $`m_i(\eta )`$ denote the multiplicity of the part $`i`$. The profile of $`\pi `$ over $`q`$ is the partition $`(1^d)`$ if and only if $`\pi `$ is unramified over $`q`$.

Let $`d>0`$, and let $`\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n`$ be partitions of $`d`$ assigned to $`n`$ distinct points $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n`$ of $`X`$. A Hurwitz cover of $`X`$ of genus $`g`$, degree $`d`$, and monodromy $`\eta ^i`$ at $`q_i`$ is a morphism

$$\pi :CX$$
(0.3)
satisfying:

1. $`C`$ is a nonsingular curve of genus $`g`$,
2. $`\pi `$ has profile $`\eta ^i`$ over $`q_i`$,
3. $`\pi `$ is unramified over $`X\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_n\}`$.

Hurwitz covers may be considered with connected or disconnected domains. The Riemann-Hurwitz formula,

$$2g(C)2+d(22g(X))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(d\mathrm{}(\eta ^i)),$$
(0.4)
is valid for both connected and disconnected Hurwitz covers. In the disconnected theory, the domain genus may be negative. Since $`g(C)`$ is uniquely determined by the remaining data, domain genus will be omitted in the notation below.

Two covers $`\pi :CX,\pi ^{}:C^{}X`$ are isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism of curves $`\varphi :CC^{}`$ satisfying $`\pi ^{}\varphi =\pi `$. Up to isomorphism, there are only finitely many Hurwitz covers of $`X`$ of genus $`g`$, degree $`d`$, and monodromy $`\eta ^i`$ at $`q_i`$. Each cover $`\pi `$ has a finite group of automorphisms $`\text{Aut}(\pi )`$.

The Hurwitz number,

$$𝖧_d^X(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n),$$

is defined to be the weighted count of the distinct, *possibly disconnected* Hurwitz covers $`\pi `$ with the prescribed data. Each such cover is weighted by $`1/|\text{Aut}(\pi )|`$.

The GW/H correspondence is most naturally expressed as a relationship between the disconnected theories, hence the disconnected theories will be of primary interest to us.

#### 0.3.2

We will require an extended definition of Hurwitz numbers valid in the degree $`0`$ case and in case the ramification conditions $`\eta `$ satisfy $`|\eta |d`$. The Hurwitz numbers $`𝖧_d^X`$ are defined for all degrees $`d0`$ and all partitions $`\eta ^i`$ by the following rules:

1. $`𝖧_0^X(\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=1`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the empty partition,
2. if $`|\eta ^i|>d`$ for some $`i`$ then the Hurwitz number vanishes,
3. if $`|\eta ^i|d`$ for all $`i`$ then

$$𝖧_d^X(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1(𝜼^i)}{m_1(\eta ^i)}\right)𝖧_d^X(𝜼^1,\mathrm{},𝜼^n).$$
(0.5)
where $`𝜼^i`$ be the partition of size $`d`$ obtained from $`\eta ^i`$ by adding $`d|\eta ^i|`$ parts of size 1.

In other words, the monodromy condition $`\eta `$ at $`qX`$ with $`|\eta |<d`$ corresponds to counting Hurwitz covers with monodromy $`𝜼`$ at $`q`$ together with the data of a subdivisor of $`\pi ^1(q)`$ of profile $`\eta `$.

#### 0.3.3

The enumeration of Hurwitz covers of $`𝐏^1`$ is classically known to be equivalent to multiplication in the class algebra of the symmetric group. We review the theory here.

Let $`S(d)`$ be the symmetric group. Let $`S(d)`$ be the group algebra. The class algebra,

$$𝒵(d)S(d),$$

is the center of the group algebra.

Hurwitz covers with profile $`\eta ^i`$ over $`q_i𝐏^1`$ canonically yield $`n`$-tuples of permutations $`(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)`$ defined up to conjugation satisfying:

1. $`s_i`$ has cycle type $`\eta _i`$,
2. $`s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_n=1.`$

The elements $`s_i`$ are determined by the monodromies of $`\pi `$ around the points $`q_i`$.

Therefore, $`𝖧_d^{𝐏^1}(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)`$ equals the number of $`n`$-tuples satisfying conditions (i-ii) divided by $`|S(d)|`$. The factor $`|S(d)|`$ accounts for over counting and automorphisms.

Let $`C_\eta 𝒵(d)`$ be the conjugacy class corresponding to $`\eta `$. We have shown:

$`𝖧_d^{𝐏^1}(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d!}}\left[C_{(1^d)}\right]{\displaystyle C_{\eta ^i}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d!)^2}}\mathrm{tr}_{S(d)}{\displaystyle C_{\eta ^i}}`$ (0.6)
where $`\left[C_{(1^d)}\right]`$ stands for the coefficient of the identity class and $`\mathrm{tr}_{S(d)}`$ denotes the trace in the adjoint representation.

Let $`\lambda `$ be an irreducible representation $`\lambda `$ of $`S(d)`$ of dimension $`dim\lambda `$. The conjugacy class $`C_\eta `$ acts as a scalar operator with eigenvalue

$$𝐟_\eta (\lambda )=|C_\eta |\frac{\chi _\eta ^\lambda }{dim\lambda },|\lambda |=|\eta |,$$
(0.7)
where $`\chi _\eta ^\lambda `$ is the character of any element of $`C_\eta `$ in the representation $`\lambda `$. The trace in equation (0.6) may be evaluated to yield the basic character formula for Hurwitz numbers:

$$𝖧_d^{𝐏^1}(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)=\underset{|\lambda |=d}{}\left(\frac{dim\lambda }{d!}\right)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐟_{\eta ^i}(\lambda ).$$
(0.8)
The character formula is easily generalized to include the extended Hurwitz numbers (of Section 0.3.2) of target curves $`X`$ of arbitrary genus $`g`$. The character formula can be traced to Burnside (exercise 7 in §238 of ), see also .

Define $`𝐟_\eta (\lambda )`$ for arbitrary partitions $`\eta `$ and irreducible representations $`\lambda `$ of $`S(d)`$ by:

$$𝐟_\eta (\lambda )=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|\lambda |}{|\eta |}\right)|C_\eta |\frac{\chi _\eta ^\lambda }{dim\lambda }.$$
(0.9)
If $`\eta =\mathrm{}`$, the formula is interpreted as:

$$𝐟_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda )=1.$$

For $`|\eta |<|\lambda |`$, the function $`\chi _\eta ^\lambda `$ is defined via the natural inclusion of symmetric groups $`S(|\eta |)S(d)`$. If $`|\eta |>|\lambda |`$, the binomial in (0.9) vanishes.

The character formula for extended Hurwitz numbers of genus $`g`$ targets $`X`$ is:

$$𝖧_d^X(\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^n)=\underset{|\lambda |=d}{}\left(\frac{dim\lambda }{d!}\right)^{22g(X)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐟_{\eta ^i}(\lambda ).$$
(0.10)
### 0.4 Completed cycles

#### 0.4.1

Let $`𝒫(d)`$ denote the set of partitions of $`d`$ indexing the irreducible representations of $`S(d)`$. The Fourier transform,

$$𝒵(d)C_\mu 𝐟_\mu ^{𝒫(d)},|\mu |=d,$$
(0.11)
determines an isomorphism between $`𝒵(d)`$ and the algebra of functions on $`𝒫(d)`$. Formula (0.8) may be alternatively derived as a consequence of the Fourier transform isomorphism.

Let $`𝒫`$ denote the set of all partitions (including the empty partition $`\mathrm{}`$). We may extend the Fourier transform (0.11) to define a map,

$$\varphi :\underset{d=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒵(d)C_\mu 𝐟_\mu ^𝒫,$$
(0.12)
via definition (0.9). The extended Fourier transform $`\varphi `$ is no longer an isomorphism of algebras. However, $`\varphi `$ is linear and injective.

We will see the image of $`\varphi `$ in $`^𝒫`$ is the algebra of *shifted symmetric functions* defined below (see  and also ).

#### 0.4.2

The shifted action of the symmetric group $`S(n)`$ on the algebra $`[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n]`$ is defined by permutation of the variables $`\lambda _ii`$. Let

$$[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n]^{S(n)}$$

denote the invariants of the shifted action. The algebra $`[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n]^{S(n)}`$ has a natural filtration by degree.

Define the algebra of shifted symmetric functions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ in an infinite number of variables by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n]^{S(n)},$$
(0.13)
where the projective limit is taken in the category of filtered algebras with respect to the homomorphisms which send the last variable $`\lambda _n`$ to $`0`$.

Concretely, an element $`𝐟\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a sequence (usually presented as a series),

$$𝐟=\left\{𝐟^{(n)}\right\},𝐟^{(n)}[\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n]^{S(n)},$$

satisfying:

1. the polynomials $`𝐟^{(n)}`$ are of uniformly bounded degree,
2. the polynomials $`𝐟^{(n)}`$ are stable under restriction,

$$𝐟^{(n+1)}|_{\lambda _{n+1}=0}=𝐟^{(n)}.$$

The elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ will be denoted by boldface letters.

The algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is filtered by degree. The associated graded algebra $`\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is canonically isomorphic to the usual algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of symmetric functions as defined, for example, in .

A point $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{})^{\mathrm{}}`$ is finite if all but finitely many coordinates vanish. By construction, any element $`𝐟\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ has a well-defined evaluation at any finite point. In particular, $`𝐟`$ can be evaluated at any point

$$\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},0,0,\mathrm{}),$$

corresponding to a partition $`\lambda `$. An elementary argument shows functions $`𝐟\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are uniquely determined by their values $`𝐟(\lambda )`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is canonically a subalgebra of $`^𝒫`$.

#### 0.4.3

The shifted symmetric power sum $`𝐩_k`$ will play a central role in our study. Define $`𝐩_k\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ by:

$$𝐩_k(\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[(\lambda _ii+\frac{1}{2})^k(i+\frac{1}{2})^k\right]+(12^k)\zeta (k).$$
(0.14)
The shifted symmetric polynomials,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[(\lambda _ii+\frac{1}{2})^k(i+\frac{1}{2})^k\right]+(12^k)\zeta (k),n=1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$

are of degree $`k`$ and are stable under restriction. Hence, $`𝐩_k`$ is well-defined.

The shifts by $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in definition of $`𝐩_k`$ appear arbitrary — their significance will be clear later. The peculiar $`\zeta `$-function constant term in $`𝐩_k`$ will be explained below.

The image of $`𝐩_k`$ in $`\mathrm{gr}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the usual $`k`$th power-sum functions. Since the power-sums are well known to be free commutative generators of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=[𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3,\mathrm{}].$$

The explanation of the constant term in (0.14) is the following. Ideally, we would like to define $`𝐩_k`$ by

$$𝐩_k\text{}=\text{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\lambda _ii+\frac{1}{2})^k.$$
(0.15)
However, the above formula violates stability and diverges when evaluated at any partition $`\lambda `$. In particular, evaluation at the empty partition $`\mathrm{}`$ yields:

$$𝐩_k(\mathrm{})\text{}=\text{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(i+\frac{1}{2})^k.$$
(0.16)
Definition (0.15) can be repaired by subtracting the infinite constant (0.16) inside the sum in (0.14) and compensating by adding the $`\zeta `$-regularized value outside the sum.

The same regularization can be obtained in a more elementary fashion by summing the following generating series:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i+\frac{1}{2})^kz^k}{k!}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{z(i+\frac{1}{2})}=\frac{1}{z𝒮(z)},$$

where, by definition,

$$𝒮(z)=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(z/2)}{z/2}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^{2k}}{2^{2k}(2k+1)!}.$$

The coefficients $`c_i`$ in the expansion,

$$\frac{1}{𝒮(z)}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_iz^i,$$
(0.17)
are essentially Bernoulli numbers. Since

$$(12^k)\zeta (k)=k!c_{k+1},$$

the two above regularizations are equivalent. The constants $`c_k`$ will play a important role.

It is convenient to arrange the polynomials $`𝐩_k`$ into a generating function:

$$𝐩_k(\lambda )=k![z^k]𝐞(\lambda ,z),𝐞(\lambda ,z)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{z(\lambda _ii+\frac{1}{2})},$$
(0.18)
where $`[z^k]`$ denotes the coefficient of $`z^k`$ in the expansion of the meromorphic function $`𝐞(\lambda ,z)`$ in Laurent series about $`z=0`$.

#### 0.4.4

The function $`𝐟_\mu (\lambda )`$, arising in the character formulas for Hurwitz numbers, is shifted symmetric,

$$𝐟_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^{},$$

a non-trivial result due to Kerov and Olshanski (see  and also ). Moreover, the Fourier transform (0.12) is a linear isomorphism,

$$\varphi :\underset{d=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒵(d)C_\mu 𝐟_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^{}.$$
(0.19)
The identification of the highest degree term of $`𝐟_\mu `$ by Vershik and Kerov () yields:

$$𝐟_\mu =\frac{1}{\mu _i}𝐩_\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(0.20)
where $`𝐩_\mu =𝐩_{\mu _i}`$ and the dots stand for terms of degree lower than $`|\mu |`$.

The combinatorial interplay between the two mutually triangular linear bases $`\{𝐩_\mu \}`$ and $`\{𝐟_\mu \}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ is a fundamental aspect the algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. In fact, these two bases will define the GW/H correspondence.

Following , we define the *completed conjugacy classes* by

$$\overline{C}_\mu =\frac{1}{_i\mu _i}\varphi ^1(𝐩_\mu )\underset{d=0}{\overset{|\mu |}{}}𝒵(d).$$

Since the basis $`\{𝐩_\mu \}`$ is multiplicative, a special role is played by the classes

$$\overline{(k)}=\overline{C}_{(k)},k=1,2,\mathrm{},$$

which we call the *completed cycles*. The formulas for first few completed cycles are:

$`\overline{(1)}=`$ $`(1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}(),`$
$`\overline{(2)}=`$ $`(2),`$
$`\overline{(3)}=`$ $`(3)+(1,1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(1)+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2880}}(),`$
$`\overline{(4)}=`$ $`(4)+2(2,1)+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}(2),`$
where, for example,

$$(1,1)=C_{(1,1)}𝒵(2),$$

is our shorthand notation for conjugacy classes.

Since $`𝐟_\mu (\mathrm{})=0`$ for any $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, the coefficient of the empty partition,

$$()=C_{\mathrm{}},$$

in $`\overline{(k)}`$ equals the constant term of $`\frac{1}{k}𝐩_k`$.

The completion coefficients $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ determine the expansions of the completed cycles,

$$\overline{(k)}=\underset{\mu }{}\rho _{k,\mu }(\mu ).$$
(0.21)
Formula (0.17) determining the constants,

$$\rho _{k,\mathrm{}}=(k1)!c_{k+1},$$

admits a generalization determining all the completion coefficients,

$$\rho _{k,\mu }=(k1)!\frac{\mu _i}{|\mu |!}[z^{k+1|\mu |\mathrm{}(\mu )}]𝒮(z)^{|\mu |1}𝒮(\mu _iz),$$
(0.22)
where, as before, $`[z^i]`$ stands for the coefficient of $`z^i`$. Formula (0.22) will be derived in Section 3.2.4

The term completed cycle is appropriate as $`\overline{(k)}`$ is obtained from $`(k)`$ by adding non-negative multiples of conjugacy classes of strictly smaller size (with the possible exception of the constant term, which may be of either sign). The non-negativity of $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ for $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ is clear from formula (0.22). Also, the coefficient $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ vanishes unless the integer $`k+1|\mu |\mathrm{}(\mu )`$ is even and non-negative.

We note the transposition $`(2)`$ is the unique cycle with no corrections required for completion.

#### 0.4.5

The term completed cycle was suggested in  when the functions $`𝐩_k`$ in  were understood to count degenerations of Hurwitz coverings. The GW/H correspondence explains the geometric meaning of the completed cycles and, in particular, identifies the degenerate terms as contributions from the boundary of the moduli space of stable maps.

In fact, completed cycles implicitly penetrate much of the theory of shifted symmetric functions. While the algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ has a very natural analog of the Schur functions (namely, the *shifted Schur functions*, studied in  and many subsequent papers), there are several competing candidates for the analog of the power-sum symmetric functions. The bases $`\{𝐟_\mu \}`$ and $`\{𝐩_\mu \}`$ are arguably the two finalists in this contest. The relationship between these two linear bases can be studied using various techniques, in particular, the methods of  can be applied.

### 0.5 The GW/H correspondence

#### 0.5.1

The GW/H correspondence may be stated symbolically as:

$$\overline{)\tau _k(\omega )=\frac{1}{k!}\overline{(k+1)}}.$$
(0.23)
That is, descendents of $`\omega `$ are equivalent to completed cycles.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular target curve. The GW/H correspondence is the following relation between the disconnected Gromov-Witten and disconnected Hurwitz theories:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^X=\frac{1}{k_i!}𝖧_d^X(\overline{(k_1+1)},\mathrm{},\overline{(k_n+1)}),$$
(0.24)
where the right-hand is defined by linearity via the expansion of the completed cycles in ordinary conjugacy classes.

The GW/H correspondence, the completed cycle definition, and formula (0.10) together yield:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^X=\underset{|\lambda |=d}{}\left(\frac{dim\lambda }{d!}\right)^{22g(X)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{𝐩_{k_i+1}(\lambda )}{(k_i+1)!}.$$
(0.25)
For $`g(X)=0`$ and $`1`$, the right side can be expressed in the operator formalism of the infinite wedge $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ and explicitly evaluated, see Sections 3 and 5.

The GW/H correspondence naturally extends to relative Gromov-Witten theory, see Theorem 1. In the relative context, the GW/H correspondence provides an invertible rule for exchanging descendent insertions $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ for ramification conditions.

The coefficients $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ are identified as connected $`1`$-point Gromov-Witten invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0𝐏^1`$. The explicit formula (0.22) for the coefficients is a particular case of the formula for $`1`$-point connected GW invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$, see Theorem 2.

#### 0.5.2

Let us illustrate the GW/H correspondence in the special case of maps of degree $`0`$. In particular, we will see the role played by the constants terms in the definition of $`𝐩_k`$.

In the degree $`0`$ case, the only partition $`\lambda `$ in the sum (0.25) is the empty partition $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$. Since, by definition,

$$𝐩_k(\mathrm{})=k!c_{k+1},$$

the formula (0.25) yields

$$\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_0^X=c_{k_i+2}.$$

The result is equivalent to the (geometrically obvious) vanishing of all multipoint connected invariants,

$$\tau _{k_1}(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _{k_n}(\omega )_0^X=0,n>1,$$

together with the following evaluation of the connected degree 0, $`1`$-point function,

$$1+\underset{g=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _{2g2}(\omega )_{g,0}^Xz^{2g}=\frac{1}{𝒮(z)}.$$
(0.26)
And, indeed, the result is correct, see  .

#### 0.5.3

A useful convention is to formally set the contribution $`\tau _2(\omega )_{0,0}^X`$ of the unstable moduli space $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(X,0)`$ to equal $`1`$,

$$\tau _2(\omega )_{0,0}^X=1.$$
(0.27)
This convention simplifies the form of the generating function (0.26) and several others functions in the paper. In the disconnected theory, the unstable contribution (0.27) is allowed to appear in any degree and genus. Hence, in the disconnected theory, the convention is equivalent to setting

$$\tau _2(\omega )=1.$$
(0.28)
The parallel convention for the completed cycles

$$𝐩_0=0,\frac{1}{(1)!}𝐩_1=1$$

fits well with the formula (0.18) .

### 0.6 Plan of the paper

#### 0.6.1

A geometric study of descendent integrals concluding with a proof of the GW/H correspondence in the context of relative Gromov-Witten theory is presented in Section 1. The GW/H correspondence is Theorem 1. A special case of GW/H correspondence is assumed in the proof. The special case, the GW/H correspondence for the absolute Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$, will be established by equivariant computations in .

Relative Gromov-Witten theory is discussed in Section 1.2. The completion coefficients (0.21) are identified in Section 1.7 as $`1`$-point Gromov-Witten invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0𝐏^1`$.

#### 0.6.2

The remainder of the paper deals with applications of the GW/H correspondence. In particular, generating functions for the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of targets of genus 0 and 1 are evaluated. These computations are most naturally executed in the the infinite wedge formalism. We review the infinite representation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ in Section 2. The formalism also provides a convenient and powerful approach to the study of integrable hierarchies, see for example .

The stationary GW theory of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$ is considered in Section 3. We obtain a closed formula for the corresponding $`1`$-point function in Theorem 2. The formula (0.22) for the completion coefficients is obtained as a special case. A generalization of Theorem 2 for the $`n`$-point function is given in Theorem 3.

#### 0.6.3

The 2–Toda hierarchy governing the Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`\{0,\mathrm{}\}𝐏^1`$ is discussed in Section 4. The main result is Theorem 4 which states the natural generating function for relative GW-invariants is a $`\tau `$-function of the 2–Toda hierarchy of Ueno and Takasaki . Theorem 4 generalizes a result of .

The flows of the Toda hierarchy are associated to the ramification conditions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ imposed at $`\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$. The equations of the Toda hierarchy are equivalent to certain recurrence relations for relative Gromov-Witten invariants, the simplest of which is made explicit in Proposition 4.3.

#### 0.6.4

The Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ was conjectured to be governed by the Toda equation by Eguchi and Yang , and also by Dubrovin . The Toda conjecture was further studied in in .

The Toda conjecture naturally extends to the $`^\times `$-equivariant Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$. We will prove in  that the equivariant theory of $`𝐏^1`$ is governed by an integrable hierarchy which can also be identified with the 2–Toda of . The flows in the equivariant 2–Toda correspond to the insertions of $`\tau _k([0])`$ and $`\tau _k([\mathrm{}])`$, where

$$[0],[\mathrm{}]H_^\times ^{}(𝐏^1,Q),$$

are the classes of the torus fixed points.

The equivariant 2–Toda hierarchy is *different* from the relative 2–Toda studied here. However, the lowest equations of both hierarchies agree on their common domain of applicability.

#### 0.6.5

In Section 5, we discuss the stationary Gromov-Witten theory of an elliptic curve $`E`$. The GW/H correspondence identifies the $`n`$-point function of Gromov-Witten invariants of $`E`$ with the character of the infinite wedge representation of $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$. This character has been previously computed in , see also . We quote the results of  here and briefly discuss some of their implications, in particular, the appearance of quasimodular forms.

While the GW/H correspondence is valid for all nonsingular target curves X, we do not know closed form evaluations for targets of genus $`g(X)2`$. The targets $`𝐏^1`$ and $`E`$ yield very beautiful theories. Perhaps the study of the Gromov-Witten theory of higher genus targets will lead to the discovery of new structures.

### 0.7 Acknowledgments

An important impulse for this work came from the results of  and, more generally, from the line of research pursued in . Our interaction with S. Bloch, A. Eskin, and A. Zorich played a very significant role in the development of the ideas presented here.

We thank E. Getzler and A. Givental for discussions of the Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$, and T. Graber and Y. Ruan for discussions of the relative theory.

A.O. was partially supported by DMS-0096246 and fellowships from the Sloan and Packard foundations. R.P. was partially supported by DMS-0071473 and fellowships from the Sloan and Packard foundations.

## 1 The geometry of descendents

### 1.1 Motivation: non-degenerate maps

We begin by examining the relation between Gromov-Witten and Hurwitz theory in the context of non-degenerate maps with nonsingular domains.

Let $`M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)\overline{M}_{g,n}^{}(X,d)`$ be the open locus of maps,

$$\pi :(C,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)X,$$

where each connected component $`C_iC`$ is nonsingular and dominates $`X`$.

Let $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_nX`$ be distinct points. Define the closed substack $`V`$ by:

$$V=\mathrm{ev}_1^1(q_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ev}_n^1(q_n)M_{g,n}^{}(X,d).$$

The stacks $`M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)`$ and $`V`$ are nonsingular Deligne-Mumford stacks of the expected dimensions — see  for proofs.

The Hurwitz number $`𝖧_d^X((k_1+1),\mathrm{},(k_n+1))`$ may be defined by the enumeration of pointed Hurwitz covers

$$\pi :(C,p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)(X,q_1,\mathrm{},q_n),$$

where

1. $`\pi (p_i)=q_i`$,
2. $`\pi `$ has ramification order $`k_i`$ at $`p_i`$.

Here, $`\pi `$ has ramification order $`k`$ at $`p`$ if $`\pi `$ takes the local form $`zz^{k+1}`$ at $`p_i`$. The count of pointed Hurwitz covers is weighted by $`1/|\text{Aut}(\pi )|`$ where $`\text{Aut}(\pi )`$ is the automorphism group of the pointed cover.

The above enumeration of pointed covers coincides with the definition of $`𝖧_d^X((k_1+1),\mathrm{},(k_n+1))`$ given in Section 0.3.

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`d>0`$. The algebraic cycle class,

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i!c_1(L_i)^{k_i}\mathrm{ev}_i^{}(\omega )\right)[M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)]A_0(M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)),$$

is represented by the locus of covers enumerated by $`𝖧_d^X((k_1+1),\mathrm{},(k_n+1))`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`V`$ represents $`_{i=1}^n\mathrm{ev}_i^{}(\omega )`$ in the Chow theory of $`M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)`$, we may prove the locus of Hurwitz covers represents

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i!c_1(L_i)^{k_i}[V]$$

in the Chow theory of $`V`$.

First, consider the marked point $`p_1`$. There exists a canonical section $`sH^0(V,L_1)`$ obtained from $`\pi `$ by the following construction. Let $`\pi ^{}`$ denote the pull-back map on functions:

$$\pi ^{}:m_{q_1}/m_{q_1}^2m_{p_1}/m_{p_1}^2,$$
(1.1)
where $`m_{q_1},m_{p_1}`$ are the maximal ideals of the points $`q_1X`$ and $`p_1C`$ respectively. Via the canonical isomorphisms,

$$m_{q_1}/m_{q_1}^2\stackrel{}{=}T_{q_1}^{}(X),m_{p_1}/m_{p_1}^2\stackrel{}{=}T_{p_1}^{}(C),$$

the map (1.1) is the dual of the differential of $`\pi `$. Since $`q_1`$ is fixed, the identification $`m_{q_1}/m_{q_1}^2\stackrel{}{=}`$ yields a section $`s`$ of $`L_1`$ by (1.1).

The scheme theoretic zero locus $`Z(s)V`$ is easily seen to be the (reduced) substack of maps where $`p_1`$ has ramification order at least 1 over $`q_1`$. The cycle $`Z(s)`$ represents $`c_1(L_1)[V]`$ in the Chow theory of $`V`$.

When restricted to $`Z(s)`$, the pull-back of functions yields a map:

$$\pi ^{}:m_{q_1}/m_{q_1}^2m_{p_1}^2/m_{p_1}^3.$$

Hence, via the isomorphisms,

$$m_{q_1}/m_{q_1}^2\stackrel{}{=},m_{p_1}^2/m_{p_1}^3\stackrel{}{=}L_1^2,$$

a canonical section $`s^{}H^0(Z(s),L_1^2)`$ is obtained. A direct scheme theoretic verification shows that $`Z(s^{})Z(s)`$ is the (reduced) substack where $`p_1`$ has ramification order at least 2 over $`q`$. Hence the cycle $`Z(s^{})`$ represents the cycle class $`2c_1(L_1)^2`$.

After iterating the above construction, we find that $`k_1!c_1(L_1)^{k_1}`$ is represented by the substack where $`p_1`$ has ramification order at least $`k_1`$. At each stage, the reducedness of the zero locus is obtained by a check in the versal deformation space of the ramified map (the issue of reducedness is local).

Since the cycles determined by ramification conditions at distinct markings $`p_i`$ are transverse, we conclude that $`_{i=1}^nk_i!c_1(L_i)^{k_i}[V]`$ is represented by the locus of Hurwitz covers enumerated by $`𝖧_d^X((k_1+1),\mathrm{},(k_n+1))`$. ∎

Proposition 1.1 shows a connection between descendent classes and Hurwitz covers for the open moduli space $`M_{g,n}^{}(X,d)`$. We therefore expect a geometric formula:

$$\tau _{k_1}(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _{k_n}(\omega )_d^X=\frac{𝖧_d^X((k_1+1),\mathrm{},(k_n+1))}{k_i!}+\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(1.2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a correction term obtained from the boundary,

$$\overline{M}_{g,n}^{}(X,d)M_{g,n}^{}(X,d).$$

The GW/H correspondence gives a description of this correction term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For example, consider the case where $`k_i=1`$ for all $`i`$. Then, since 2-cycles are already complete (see Section 0.4), the basic GW/H correspondence (0.24) yields an exact equality,

$$\tau _1(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _1(\omega )_d^X=𝖧_d^X((2),\mathrm{},(2)),$$
(1.3)
which appears in . However, the correction term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will not vanish in general.

We note that Proposition 1.1 holds for the connected moduli of maps and connected Hurwitz numbers by the same proof. Since the disconnected case will be more natural for the study of the correction equation (1.2), the results have been stated in the disconnected case.

### 1.2 Relative Gromov-Witten theory

We will study the GW/H correspondence in the richer context of the Gromov-Witten theory of $`X`$ relative to a finite set of distinct points $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_mX`$. Let $`\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m`$ be partitions of $`d`$. The moduli space

$$\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)$$

parameterizes genus $`g`$, $`n`$-pointed relative stable maps with monodromy $`\eta ^i`$ at $`q_i`$. Foundational developments of relative Gromov-Witten theory in symplectic and algebraic geometry can be found in . The stationary sector of the relative Gromov-Witten theory is:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m_{g,d}^X=_{[\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)]^{vir}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi _i^{k_i}\text{ev}_i^{}(\omega ),$$
(1.4)
the integrals of descendents of $`\omega `$ relative to $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_mX`$.

The genus *and* the degree may be omitted in the notation (1.4) as long as $`m>0`$. Again, the corresponding disconnected theory is denoted by the brackets $`^{}`$.

The stationary theory relative to $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_m`$ specializes to the stationary theory relative to $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{m1}`$ when $`\eta ^m`$ is the trivial partition $`(1^d)`$. In particular, when all the partitions $`\eta ^i`$ are trivial, the standard stationary theory of $`X`$ is recovered. A proof of this specialization property is obtained from the degeneration formula discussed in Section 1.3 below.

The stationary Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$ will play a special role. Let $`\mu ,\nu `$ be partitions of $`d`$ prescribing the profiles over $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$ respectively. We will use the notation,

$$\mu ,\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1},$$
(1.5)
to denote integrals in the stationary theory of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$.

### 1.3 Degeneration

The degeneration formula for relative Gromov-Witten theory provides a formal approach to the descendent integrals

$$\tau _{k_1}(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _{k_n}(\omega ),\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m_d^X.$$

Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nX`$ be distinct fixed points. Consider a family of curves with $`n`$ sections over the affine line,

$$\pi :(𝒳,s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)𝔸^1,$$

defined by the following properties:

1. $`(𝒳_t,s_1(t),\mathrm{},s_n(t))`$ is isomorphic to the fixed data $`(X,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ for all $`t0`$.
2. $`(𝒳_0,s_1(0),\mathrm{},s_n(0))`$ is a comb consisting of $`n+1`$ components (1 backbone isomorphic to $`X`$ and $`n`$ teeth isomorphic to $`𝐏^1`$). The teeth are attached to the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ of the backbone. The section $`s_i(0)`$ lies on the $`i`$th tooth.

The degeneration $`\pi `$ can be easily constructed by blowing-up the $`n`$ points $`(x_i,0)`$ of the trivial family $`X\times 𝔸^1`$.

The following result is obtained by viewing the family $`\pi `$ as a degeneration of the target in relative Gromov-Witten theory.

###### Proposition 1.2 ().

A degeneration formula holds for relative Gromov-Witten invariants:

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{k_1}(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _{k_n}(\omega ),\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m_d^X=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{|\mu ^1|,\mathrm{},|\mu ^n|=d}{}𝖧_d^X(\mu ^1,\mathrm{},\mu ^n,\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝔷(\mu ^i)\mu ^i,\tau _{k_i}(\omega )^{𝐏^1},\end{array}$$
(1.6)
where the sum is over all $`n`$-tuples $`\mu ^1,\mathrm{},\mu ^n`$ of partitions of $`d`$.

Here, the factor $`𝔷(\mu )`$ is defined by:

$$𝔷(\mu )=\left|\mathrm{Aut}(\mu )\right|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(\mu )}{}}\mu _i$$

where $`\mathrm{Aut}(\mu )_{i1}S(m_i(\mu ))`$ is the symmetry group permuting equal parts of $`\mu `$. The factor $`𝔷(\mu )`$ will occur often.

The right side of the degeneration formula (1.6) involves the Hurwitz numbers and $`1`$-point stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0𝐏^1`$. The degeneration formula together with the definition of the Hurwitz numbers implies the specialization property of relative Gromov-Witten invariants when $`\eta ^m=(1^d)`$.

There exists an elementary analog of this degeneration formula in Hurwitz theory which yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝖧_d^X(\overline{(k_1)},\mathrm{},\overline{(k_n)},\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{|\mu ^1|,\mathrm{},|\mu ^n|=d}{}𝖧_d^X(\mu ^1,\mathrm{},\mu ^n,\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝔷(\mu ^i)𝖧_d^{𝐏^1}(\mu ^i,\overline{(k_i)}),\end{array}$$
(1.7)
where the sum is again over partitions $`\mu ^i`$ of $`d`$.

### 1.4 The abstract GW/H correspondence

Formula (1.6) can be restated as a substitution rule valid in degree $`d`$:

$$\tau _k(\omega )=\underset{|\mu |=d}{}\left(𝔷(\mu )\mu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}\right)(\mu ).$$
(1.8)
The substitution rule replaces the descendents $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ by ramification conditions in Hurwitz theory:

$$\tau _{k_1}(\omega )\mathrm{}\tau _{k_n}(\omega ),\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m_d^X=𝖧_d^X(,\mathrm{},,\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m).$$

Hurwitz numbers on the right side are defined by inserting the respective ramification conditions (1.8) and expanding multilinearly. The substitution rule, however, is degree dependent by definition.

A degree independent substitution rule is obtained by studying the connected relative invariants. Disconnected invariants may be expressed as sums of products of connected invariants obtained by all possible decompositions of the domain and distributions of the integrand. As the invariant $`\mu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}`$ a has single term in the integrand, an elementary argument yields:

$$\mu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m_1(\mu )}{}}\frac{1}{i!}\mu 1^i,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1},$$
(1.9)
where $`\mu 1^i`$ denotes the partition $`\mu `$ with $`i`$ parts equal to $`1`$ removed. Since

$$\frac{𝔷(\mu )}{i!}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1(\mu )}{i}\right)𝔷(\mu 1^i),$$

we may rewrite (1.9) as:

$$𝔷(\mu )\mu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m_1(\mu )}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m_1(\mu )}{i}\right)𝔷(\mu 1^i)\mu 1^i,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}.$$

The following result is then obtained from the definition of the extended Hurwitz numbers (0.5).

###### Proposition 1.3.

A substitution rule for converting descendents to ramification conditions holds:

$$\tau _k(\omega )=\underset{\nu }{}\left(𝔷(\nu )\nu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}\right)(\nu ),$$
(1.10)
where the summation is over all partitions $`\nu `$.

Proposition 1.3 is a degree independent, abstract form of the GW/H correspondence. Clearly, only partitions $`\nu `$ of size at most $`d`$ contribute to the degree $`d`$ invariants. What remains is the explicit identification of the coefficients in (1.10).

### 1.5 The leading term

Equating the dimension of the integrand in $`\nu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}`$ with the virtual dimension of the moduli space, we obtain

$$k+1=2g1+|\nu |+\mathrm{}(\nu ).$$

Since $`g0`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\nu )1`$, we find

$$|\nu |k+1.$$

Moreover, $`\nu =(k+1)`$ is the only partition of size $`k+1`$ which actually appears in (1.10). All other partitions $`\nu `$ appearing in (1.10) have a strictly smaller size.

We will now determine the coefficient of $`\nu =(k+1)`$ in (1.10) by the method of Proposition 1.1. The corresponding relative invariant is computed in the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 1.4.

For $`d>0`$, we have

$$(d),\tau _{d1}(\omega )^{𝐏^1}=\frac{1}{d!}.$$

###### Proof.

We first note the connected and disconnected invariants coincide,

$$(d),\tau _{d1}(\omega )^{𝐏^1}=(d),\tau _{d1}(\omega )^{𝐏^1},$$

since the imposed monodromy is transitive. The genus of the domain is 0 by the dimension constraint.

Let $`[\pi ]\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))`$ be a stable map relative to $`0𝐏^1`$,

$$\pi :(C,p_1)T𝐏^1,$$

where $`T`$ is a destabilization of $`𝐏^1`$ at $`0`$ and $`\pi (p_1)=\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$. If $`p_1`$ lies on a $`\pi `$-contracted component $`C_1C`$ then,

1. $`C_1`$ must meet $`\overline{CC_1}`$ in at least 2 points by stability,
2. $`\overline{CC_1}`$ must be connected by the imposed monodromy at $`0`$.

Since conditions (i) and (ii) violate the genus constraint $`g(C)=0`$, the marked point $`p_1`$ is *not* allowed to lie on a $`\pi `$-contracted component of $`C`$.

The moduli space $`\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))`$ is of expected dimension $`d`$. By Proposition 1.1 pursued for relative maps, the cycle

$$(d1)!c_1(L_1)^{d1}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(\omega )[M_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))]A_0(M_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d)))$$

is represented by the locus of covers enumerated by $`𝖧_{0,d}((d),(d))`$.

In fact, since $`p_1`$ does not lie on a $`\pi `$-contracted component of the domain for any moduli point $`[\pi ]\mathrm{ev}_1^1(\mathrm{})\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))`$, the proof of Proposition 1.1 is is valid for the compact moduli space. The cycle

$$(d1)!c_1(L_1)^{d1}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(\omega )[\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))]A_0(\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d)))$$

is represented by the locus of covers enumerated by $`𝖧_{0,d}((d),(d))`$.

There is a unique cover $`[\zeta ]`$ enumerated by $`𝖧_{0,d}((d),(d))`$. We may now complete the calculation:

$`(d),\tau _{d1}(\omega )^{𝐏^1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{[\overline{M}_{0,1}(𝐏^1,(d))]}}c_1(L_1)^{d1}\mathrm{ev}_1^{}(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)!}}{\displaystyle _{[\zeta ]}}1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d!}},`$
since $`[\zeta ]`$ is a cyclic Galois cover with automorphism group of order $`d`$. ∎

Lemma 1.4 provides an identification of the leading term in the abstract GW/H correspondence (1.10).

###### Corollary 1.5.

We have

$$\tau _k(\omega )=\frac{1}{k!}(k+1)+\mathrm{},$$
(1.11)
where the dots stand for conjugacy classes $`(\nu )`$ with $`|\nu |<k+1`$.

### 1.6 The full GW/H correspondence

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular curve. The main result of the paper is a substitution rule for the relative Gromov-Witten theory of $`X`$.

###### Theorem 1.

A substitution rule for converting descendents to ramification conditions holds:

$$\tau _k(\omega )=\frac{1}{k!}\overline{(k+1)}.$$
(1.12)
The full correspondence for the relative theory yields:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m_d^X=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{k_i!}𝖧_d^X(\overline{(k_1+1)},\mathrm{},\overline{(k_n+1)},\eta ^1,\mathrm{},\eta ^m).\end{array}$$

Our proof of Theorem 1 will rely upon a special case — the case of the absolute Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$. The formula,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^{𝐏^1}=\frac{1}{k_i!}𝖧_d^{𝐏^1}(\overline{(k_1+1)},\mathrm{},\overline{(k_n+1)}),$$
(1.13)
will be proven in  as a result of equivariant computations. We will now deduce the general statement (1.12) from (1.13).

###### Proof.

Let $`\frac{1}{k!}\stackrel{~}{(k+1)}`$ denote the right side of the equality (1.10),

$$\frac{1}{k!}\stackrel{~}{(k+1)}=\underset{\nu }{}\left(𝔷(\nu )\nu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}\right)(\nu ).$$

Define $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_k`$ by the the Fourier transform (0.19),

$$\varphi \left(\stackrel{~}{(k)}\right)=\frac{1}{k}\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_k.$$

The equality (1.12) is equivalent to the equality

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_k\stackrel{?}{=}𝐩_k.$$
(1.14)
As a result of (1.11), we find:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu =𝐩_\mu +\mathrm{},$$
(1.15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu =\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_{\mu _i}`$ and the dots stand for lower degree terms. In other words, the transition matrix between the bases $`\{\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu \}`$ and $`\{𝐩_\mu \}`$ is unitriangular.

Let $`\xi >0`$ be a parameter, and let $`l_\xi `$ be the following linear form on the algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$:

$$l_\xi (𝐟)=\underset{\lambda }{}\xi ^{|\lambda |}\left(\frac{dim\lambda }{|\lambda |!}\right)^2𝐟(\lambda ).$$

For example, $`l_\xi (1)=e^\xi `$. The series $`l_\xi (𝐟)`$ is easily seen define an entire function of $`\xi `$.

The associated quadratic form,

$$(𝐟,𝐠)l_\xi (𝐟𝐠),$$
(1.16)
is positive definite for any $`\xi >0`$.

Formula (0.8), formula (1.13), and the definitions of the functions $`\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu ,𝐩_\mu `$ yield the equality,

$$l_\xi (\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu )=l_\xi (𝐩_\mu ),$$

for all $`\xi `$ and $`\mu `$. In particular, we find

$$l_\xi (\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu \stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\nu )=l_\xi (𝐩_\mu 𝐩_\nu ),$$

for all $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. The transition matrix between the bases $`\{\stackrel{~}{𝐩}_\mu \}`$ and $`\{𝐩_\mu \}`$ is therefore orthogonal with respect to the positive definite quadratic form (1.16). By (1.15), the transition matrix is also unitriangular. Hence, the transition is the identity and equality is established in (1.14). ∎

### 1.7 The completion coefficients

Theorem 1 together with a comparison of the formulas (1.10) and (0.21) yields the following result.

###### Proposition 1.6.

The completion coefficients satisfy:

$$\frac{\rho _{k+1,\mu }}{k!}=𝔷(\mu )\mu ,\tau _k(\omega )^{𝐏^1}.$$
(1.17)
In other words, the coefficients $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ are determined by connected relative $`1`$-point Gromov-Witten invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ relative $`0𝐏^1`$.

The actual computation of these completion coefficients will be performed in Section 3 using the operator formalism reviewed in Section 2. An explicit formula for the completion coefficients will be given in Proposition 3.2.

## 2 The operator formalism

The fermionic Fock space formalism reviewed here is a convenient tool for manipulating the sums (0.25). The operator calculus of the formalism is basic to the rest of the paper. In Sections 3 and 5, the formalism is applied to the Gromov-Witten theory of targets of genus 0 and 1 respectively. The formalism underlies the study of the Toda hierarchy in Section 4.

### 2.1 The infinite wedge

#### 2.1.1

Let $`V`$ be a linear space with basis $`\left\{\underset{¯}{k}\right\}`$ indexed by the half-integers:

$$V=\underset{k+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}{}\underset{¯}{k}.$$

For each subset $`S=\{s_1>s_2>s_3>\mathrm{}\}+\frac{1}{2}`$ satisfying:

1. $`S_+=S\left(_0\frac{1}{2}\right)`$ is finite,
2. $`S_{}=\left(_0\frac{1}{2}\right)S`$ is finite,

we denote by $`v_S`$ the following infinite wedge product:

$$v_S=\underset{¯}{s_1}\underset{¯}{s_2}\underset{¯}{s_3}\mathrm{}.$$
(2.1)
By definition,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V=v_S$$

is the linear space with basis $`\{v_S\}`$. Let $`(,)`$ be the inner product on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ for which $`\{v_S\}`$ is an orthonormal basis.

#### 2.1.2

The fermionic operator $`\psi _k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ is defined by wedge product with the vector $`\underset{¯}{k}`$,

$$\psi _kv=\underset{¯}{k}v.$$

The operator $`\psi _k^{}`$ is defined as the adjoint of $`\psi _k`$ with respect to the inner product $`(,)`$.

These operators satisfy the canonical anti-commutation relations:

$$\psi _i\psi _j^{}+\psi _i^{}\psi _j=\delta _{ij},$$
(2.2)
$$\psi _i\psi _j+\psi _j\psi _1=\psi _i^{}\psi _j^{}+\psi _j^{}\psi _i^{}=0.$$
(2.3)
The normally ordered products are defined by:

$$:\psi _i\psi _j^{}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _i\psi _j^{},\hfill & j>0,\hfill \\ \psi _j^{}\psi _i,\hfill & j<0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
#### 2.1.3

Let $`E_{ij}`$, for $`i,j+\frac{1}{2}`$, be the standard basis of matrix units of $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$. The assignment

$$E_{ij}:\psi _i\psi _j^{}:,$$

defines a projective representation of the Lie algebra $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})=𝔤𝔩(V)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$.

Normal ordering is introduced to avoid the infinite constants which appear in the naive definition of the $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$. The ordering and divergence issues here are closely related to the discussion in Section 0.4.3.

For example, the action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ of the identity matrix in $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$ is well-defined only after normal ordering. Indeed, the operator,

$$C=\underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}E_{kk},$$

corresponding to the identity matrix, acts on the basis $`v_S`$ by:

$$Cv_S=(|S_+||S_{}|)v_S.$$

The operator $`C`$ is known as the *charge* operator <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 The infinite wedge space is the mathematical formalization of Dirac’s idea of a sea of fermions filling all but finitely many negative energy levels. The operator $`C`$ measures the difference between the number $`|S_+|`$ of occupied positive energy levels (particles) and the number $`|S_{}|`$ of vacant negative energy levels (holes), whence the name.. The kernel of $`C`$, the zero charge subspace, is spanned by the vectors

$$v_\lambda =\underset{¯}{\lambda _1\frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{\lambda _2\frac{3}{2}}\underset{¯}{\lambda _3\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{}$$

indexed by all partitions $`\lambda `$. We will denote the kernel by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$.

The operator

$$H=\underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}kE_{kk}$$

is called the *energy operator*. The eigenvalues of $`H`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ are easily identified:

$$Hv_\lambda =|\lambda |v_\lambda .$$

The vacuum vector

$$v_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{¯}{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{¯}{\frac{3}{2}}\underset{¯}{\frac{5}{2}}\mathrm{}$$

is the unique vector with the minimal (zero) eigenvalue of $`H`$.

#### 2.1.4

Define the translation operator $`T`$ by:

$$T\underset{¯}{k_1}\underset{¯}{k_2}\underset{¯}{k_3}\mathrm{}=\underset{¯}{k_1+1}\underset{¯}{k_2+1}\underset{¯}{k_3+1}\mathrm{}.$$
(2.5)
We see,

$$T\psi _kT^1=\psi _{k+1},T\psi _k^{}T^1=\psi _{k+1}^{}.$$

We also find,

$$T^1CT=C+1.$$

Hence, $`T`$ increases the charge by $`1`$.

### 2.2 The operators $``$

#### 2.2.1

The operator $`_0(z)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ is defined by:

$$_0(z)=\underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}e^{zk}E_{kk}+\frac{1}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}},$$
(2.6)
where the second term is a scalar operator on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$. In fact, the scalar term in (2.6) and the the constant term in (0.14) have the same origin.

Ideally, we would like $`_0(z)`$ to be the naive action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ of the following diagonal operator in $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$:

$$\underset{¯}{k}e^{zk}\underset{¯}{k}.$$

In other words, we would like to set

$$_0(z)\text{}=\text{}\underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}e^{zk}\psi _k\psi _k^{},$$
(2.7)
without normal ordering. However, applied to the vacuum, definition (2.7) yields:

$$\underset{k=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}}{}e^{zk}=\frac{1}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}},\mathrm{}z>0,$$
(2.8)
which may or may not make sense depending on $`z`$. We therefore define $`_0(z)`$ using the normal ordering and then compensate by adding the scalar (2.8) by hand.

In particular, we observe

$$\frac{1}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}}=𝐞(\mathrm{},z),$$

where the function $`𝐞(\lambda ,z)`$ is defined in (0.18) and, more generally, we find

$$_0(z)v_\lambda =𝐞(\lambda ,z)v_\lambda .$$
(2.9)
In other words, the functions $`𝐞(\lambda ,z)`$ are the eigenvalues of the operator $`_0(z)`$.

#### 2.2.2

Define the operators $`𝒫_k`$ for $`k>0`$ by:

$$𝒫_k=k![z^k]_0(z),$$
(2.10)
where $`[z^k]`$ stands for the coefficient of $`z^k`$. From (0.18) and (2.9) we conclude:

$$𝒫_kv_\lambda =𝐩_k(\lambda )v_\lambda .$$
(2.11)
In particular, we find

$$𝒫_1=H\frac{1}{24}.$$

The definition of the operators $`𝒫_k`$ is naturally extended as follows:

$$𝒫_0=C,\frac{1}{(1)!}𝒫_1=1.$$
(2.12)
The extension is related to convention (0.28).

#### 2.2.3

The translation operator $`T`$ acts on the operator $`_0(z)`$ by

$$T^1_0(z)T=e^z_0(z).$$
(2.13)
We find

$$T^1\frac{𝒫_k}{k!}T=\underset{m=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}\frac{1}{m!}\frac{𝒫_{km}}{(km)!},$$
(2.14)
using convention (2.12) .

#### 2.2.4

For any $`r`$, we define

$$_r(z)=\underset{k+\frac{1}{2}}{}e^{z(k\frac{r}{2})}E_{kr,k}+\frac{\delta _{r,0}}{\varsigma (z)},$$
(2.15)
where the function $`\varsigma (z)`$ is defined by

$$\varsigma (z)=e^{z/2}e^{z/2}.$$
(2.16)
For $`r0`$, the normal ordering is not an issue and no constant term is required. The exponent in (2.15) is set to satisfy:

$$_r(z)^{}=_r(z)^{},$$

where the adjoint is with respect to the standard inner product on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$.

The operators $``$ satisfy the following fundamental commutation relation:

$$[_a(z),_b(w)]=\varsigma \left(det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& z\\ b& w\end{array}\right]\right)_{a+b}(z+w).$$
(2.17)
Equation (2.17) automatically incorporates the central extension of the $`𝔤𝔩(\mathrm{})`$-action, which appears as the constant term in $`_0`$ when $`r=s`$.

#### 2.2.5

The operators $``$ specialize to the standard bosonic operators on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$:

$$\alpha _k=_k(0),k0.$$

The commutation relation (2.17) specializes to the following equation

$$[\alpha _k,_r(z)]=\varsigma (kz)_{k+r}(z).$$
(2.18)
When $`k+r=0`$, equation (2.18) has the following constant term:

$$\frac{\varsigma (kz)}{\varsigma (z)}=\frac{e^{kz/2}e^{kz/2}}{e^{z/2}e^{z/2}}.$$

Letting $`z0`$, we recover the standard relation:

$$[\alpha _k,\alpha _r]=k\delta _{k+r}.$$
(2.19)
#### 2.2.6

The operators $``$ form a projective representation of the (completed) Lie algebra of differential operators on $`^\times `$, see for example .

Let $`x`$ be the coordinate on $`^\times `$. Identify $`V`$ with $`x^{1/2}[x^{\pm 1}]`$ via the assignment

$$\underset{¯}{k}x^k.$$

We then find the following correspondences:

$$𝒫_k\left(x\frac{d}{dx}\right)^k,\alpha _kx^k,$$

where $`x^k`$ is considered as the operator of multiplication by $`x`$. The correspondence is only a Lie algebra representation, and not a representation of an associative algebra.

The operator $`_0(z)`$ corresponds to the following differential operator of infinite order

$$T_z=\underset{k}{}\frac{z^k}{k!}\left(x\frac{d}{dx}\right)^k,$$

which acts on functions by rescaling their arguments:

$$T_zf(x)=f(e^zx).$$

## 3 The Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$

### 3.1 The operator formula

#### 3.1.1

The operator formalism will be used here to study the stationary Gromov-Witten invariants of of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$,

$$\mu ,\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1},$$

and the corresponding connected invariants.

The GW/H correspondence (1.12) together with (0.8) results in the following formula:

$$\mu ,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1}=\frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\underset{|\lambda |=|\mu |}{}\chi _\mu ^\lambda \chi _\nu ^\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{𝐩_{k_i+1}(\lambda )}{(k_i+1)!},$$
(3.1)
the derivation of which uses the equality

$$|C_\mu |=|\mu |!/𝔷(\mu ).$$

#### 3.1.2

We first consider the following generating function,

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_i^{k_i+1},$$
(3.2)
where convention (0.28) is used for the $`\tau _2(\omega )`$ insertions. Invariants in (3.2) with $`\tau _1(\omega )`$ insertions are defined to vanish. Then, formula (3.1) may be rewritten as

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\underset{|\lambda |=|\mu |}{}\chi _\mu ^\lambda \chi _\nu ^\lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐞(\lambda ,z_i).$$
(3.3)
Our next goal is to recast the formula in terms of operators on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$.

#### 3.1.3

The following formula in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$ is well-known:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(\nu )}{}}\alpha _{\nu _i}v_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{|\lambda |=d}{}\chi _\nu ^\lambda v_\lambda ,|\nu |=d.$$

It is equivalent, for example, to the Murnaghan-Nakayama rule for characters of symmetric group. Therefore, using (2.9), we can express sum in the right side of (3.3) as:

$$(_0(z_i)\alpha _{\nu _i}v_{\mathrm{}},\alpha _{\mu _i}v_{\mathrm{}}).$$

For any operator $`A`$, we denote the diagonal matrix element of $`A`$ with respect to the vacuum vector $`v_{\mathrm{}}`$ by angle brackets:

$$A=(Av_{\mathrm{}},v_{\mathrm{}}).$$

The above vacuum matrix element is the *vacuum expectation*. Since, clearly,

$$\alpha _k^{}=\alpha _k,$$

formula (3.3) can be recast in the following operator form.

###### Proposition 3.1.

We have

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(\mu )}{}}\alpha _{\mu _i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0(z_i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(\nu )}{}}\alpha _{\nu _i}.$$
(3.4)
### 3.2 The 1-point series

#### 3.2.1

We start by examining how the formalism works in the (geometrically trivial) case of the $`0`$-point series. Formula (3.4) specializes to the following expression:

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}()=\frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\alpha _{\mu _i}\alpha _{\nu _i}.$$
(3.5)
Observe, for positive $`k`$, the operator $`\alpha _k`$ annihilates the vacuum

$$\alpha _kv_{\mathrm{}}=0,k>0.$$

We can use the commutation relation (2.19) repeatedly to move the operators $`\alpha _{\mu _i}`$ all the way to the right, after which the vacuum expectation vanishes. Moving the operator $`\alpha _{\nu _i}`$ all the way to the left has the same effect. Thus, a nonzero result is obtained only in case all operators $`\alpha _{\mu _i}`$ and $`\alpha _{\nu _i}`$ annihilate in pairs via the commutation relation

$$[\alpha _k,\alpha _k]=k.$$
(3.6)
This leads to the expected result

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}()=\frac{\delta _{\mu ,\nu }}{𝔷(\mu )}.$$

From the geometric point of view, the commutation relation (3.6), or the equivalent relation

$$\alpha _k\alpha _k=k,$$

is responsible for a $`k`$-fold covering of $`𝐏^1`$ totally ramified over $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$.

#### 3.2.2

Now we want to compute the $`1`$-point series

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z)=\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ,\tau _k(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1}z^{k+1},$$
(3.7)
or, rather, the associated connected series

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z)=\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu ,\tau _k(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1}z^{k+1}.$$
(3.8)
We have

$$F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z)=\frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\alpha _{\mu _i}_0(z)\alpha _{\nu _i}.$$
(3.9)
We apply here the same strategy used to evaluate (3.5): we move the operators $`\alpha _{\mu _i}`$ to the right and move the operators $`\alpha _{\nu _i}`$ to the left.

We saw in the evaluation of the $`0`$-point series that the commutation relation (3.6) accounts for a connected component without marked points. The commutators (3.6) make no contribution to the connected series (3.8).

All the action, therefore, happens as we commute the $`\alpha `$’s through the operator $`_0(z)`$. The commutation is given by (2.18). Applying formula (2.18) a total of $`\mathrm{}(\mu )+\mathrm{}(\nu )`$ times and using the obvious relation

$$|\mu |=|\nu |,$$

we obtain the following result

$`F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\varsigma (\mu _iz)\varsigma (\nu _iz)}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}}_0(z)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varsigma (\mu _iz)\varsigma (\nu _iz)}{\varsigma (z)}}.`$ (3.10)
Using the function

$$𝒮(z)=\frac{\varsigma (z)}{z}=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}z/2}{z/2},$$

formula (3.10) can be stated as follows.

###### Theorem 2.

For any two partitions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ of the same size, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^{2g}\mu ,\tau _{2g2+\mathrm{}(\mu )+\mathrm{}(\nu )}(\omega ),\nu ^{𝐏^1}=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{|\mathrm{Aut}(\mu )||\mathrm{Aut}(\nu )|}\frac{𝒮(\mu _iz)𝒮(\nu _iz)}{𝒮(z)}.\end{array}$$
(3.11)
Formula (0.26) is recovered as the degree 0 case of Theorem 2. More generally, for $`\mu =\nu =(1^d)`$, we obtain

$$\underset{g=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^{2g}\tau _{2g2+2d}(\omega )^{𝐏^1}=\frac{1}{(d!)^2}𝒮(z)^{2d1},$$
(3.12)
which is the formula predicted in  from the (then) conjectural Toda equation. The Toda equation will be discussed in Section 4. In particular, formula (3.12) can also be deduced from Proposition 4.3.

#### 3.2.3

The product of $`𝒮`$-functions in (3.11) satisfies an important property: the product is symmetric in the combined set of variables $`\{\mu _i\}\{\nu _i\}`$. This *crossing symmetry* is very restrictive, see . In particular, the symmetry implies that the full formula (3.11) may be obtained from the very special and degenerate case in which $`\mu =(d)`$. In fact, the property is almost equivalent to the GW/H correspondence: the symmetry alone forces $`\tau _k(\omega )`$ to correspond to a *linear* combination of the $`𝐩_i`$’s.

We also observe that since $`𝒮(0)=1`$, the coefficient of $`z^{2g}`$ in the product of $`𝒮`$-functions in (3.11) is well defined as a symmetric functions of degree $`2g`$ in infinitely many variables. In other words, we have the following stability: setting any variable to zero gives the analogous function in fewer variables, see the discussion in Section 0.4.2.

#### 3.2.4

From (3.11) and Proposition 1.6 we obtain the following result determining the completion coefficients.

###### Proposition 3.2.

The completion coefficients (0.21) are given by

$$\rho _{k,\mu }=(k1)!\frac{\mu _i}{d!}[z^{2g}]𝒮(z)^{d1}𝒮(\mu _iz),$$
(3.13)
where the $`[z^{2g}]`$ stands for the coefficient of $`z^{2g}`$ and the numbers $`g`$ and $`d`$ are defined by

$$d=|\mu |,k+1=|\mu |+\mathrm{}(\mu )+2g.$$

In particular, the terms for which $`|\mu |+\mathrm{}(\mu )`$ reaches the maximal value $`k+1`$ may be viewed together as principal terms of the completed cycle $`\overline{(k)}`$. For such terms, the genus $`g`$ vanishes and the coefficient $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ simply becomes

$$\rho _{k,\mu }=(k1)!\frac{\mu _i}{|\mu |!},|\mu |+\mathrm{}(\mu )=k+1.$$

The geometric interpretation of the coefficients $`\rho _{k,\mu }`$ given in Proposition 1.6 was *not* essential for the derivation of formula (3.13).

### 3.3 The $`n`$-point series

#### 3.3.1

The same strategy works for the evaluation of the general $`n`$-point series (3.2), or, rather, the associated connected series $`F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$. The result, however, is somewhat more complicated to state. In particular, we require the following auxiliary function

$$G\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_1& \mathrm{}& a_n\\ z_1& \mathrm{}& z_n\end{array}\right)=_{a_1}(z_1)\mathrm{}_{a_n}(z_n)^{},$$
(3.14)
where the superscripted circle indicates the connected part of the vacuum expectation, that is,

$$_{a_1}(z_1)_{a_2}(z_2)^{}=_{a_1}(z_1)_{a_2}(z_2)_{a_1}(z_1)_{a_2}(z_2),$$

et cetera. The function (3.14) clear vanishes unless the condition

$$a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n=0$$

is satisfied. Also, the equation

$$G\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ z\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\varsigma (z)}$$

is clear.

#### 3.3.2

For $`n>1`$, the function (3.14) can be computed recursively as follows. First, if $`a_10`$ then (3.14) vanishes

$$G\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_1& \mathrm{}& a_n\\ z_1& \mathrm{}& z_n\end{array}\right)=0,a_10.$$

If $`a_1>0`$, then by commuting the operator $`_{a_1}(z_1)`$ all the way to the right using the commutation relation (2.17), we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}G\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_1& \mathrm{}& a_n\\ z_1& \mathrm{}& z_n\end{array}\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\varsigma \left(det\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_1& a_i\\ z_1& z_i\end{array}\right]\right)G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}a_2& \mathrm{}& a_i+a_1& \mathrm{}& a_n\\ z_2& \mathrm{}& z_i+z_1& \mathrm{}& z_n\end{array}\right),a_1>0.\end{array}$$

The above rules can be easily converted into a non-recursive form. For example, for $`n=2`$ we have

$$G\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& a\\ z_1& z_2\end{array}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\varsigma (a(z_1+z_2))}{\varsigma (z_1+z_2)},\hfill & a>0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & a0.\hfill \end{array}$$

#### 3.3.3

The strategy of Section 3.2 applies to evaluation of (3.4) with minor modification. Each of the $`\alpha `$’s now has a choice of operator $``$ with which to interact (that is, with which to commute). This choice can be conveniently formalized in terms of a function

$$f:\{\mu _i\}\{\nu _i\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\},$$

where $`\{\mu _i\}\{\nu _i\}`$ is considered as a multiset, that is, a set with possible repetitions. The evaluation $`f(\mu _i)=j`$ indicates the commutator of $`\alpha _{\mu _i}`$ with $`_0(z_j)`$ is taken.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`M`$ denote the multiset $`\{\mu _i\}\{\nu _i\}`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\mu ,\nu }^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{𝔷(\mu )𝔷(\nu )}\underset{f}{}\left(\underset{mM}{}\varsigma \left(|m|z_{f(m)}\right)\right)G\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}& \mathrm{}& _{f^1(i)}m& \mathrm{}& \\ & \mathrm{}& z_i& \mathrm{}& \end{array}\right),\end{array}$$
(3.15)
where the sum is over all functions $`f:M\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

Since the summation over $`f`$ in (3.15) involves $`n^{\mathrm{}(\mu )+\mathrm{}(\nu )}`$ terms, formula (3.15) is only effective if the partitions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ have few parts. For partitions of large length, especially for the case $`\mu =\nu =(1^d)`$, a more effective answer is given by the Toda equations, see in particular Proposition 4.3.

## 4 The Toda equation

We study here the Toda equations for the relative Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$. The Toda equations are equivalent to certain recurrence relations for the relative invariants.

### 4.1 The $`\tau `$-function

The $`\tau `$-function is a generating function of the relative invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ which is convenient from the point of view of integrable hierarchies.

#### 4.1.1

Let $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{}`$ be a sequence of indeterminates. Consider the following *vertex operators*:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k>0}{}t_k\frac{\alpha _{\pm k}}{k}\right).$$

We easily obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)^{},$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)=\underset{\mu }{}\frac{t_\mu }{𝔷(\mu )}\alpha _{\mu _i},$$

where $`t_\mu =t_{\mu _i}`$. The above sum is over all partitions $`\mu `$.

#### 4.1.2

Define the $`\tau `$-function for Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ relative to $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$ by:

$$\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s)=\underset{|\mu |=|\nu |}{}t_\mu s_\nu \mu ,\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_i\tau _i(\omega )\right),\nu ^{𝐏^1},$$
(4.1)
where $`x_0,x_1,\mathrm{}`$ is new set of variables. The following conventions will hold for the degree 0 constant terms:

$$\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_0^{}=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_0^{}=0.$$

The $`\tau `$-function is often called the partition function.

Formula (3.4) and the definition (2.10) of the operators $`𝒫_k`$ together yield an operator formula for $`\tau _{𝐏^1}`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

We have

$$\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x_k}{(k+1)!}𝒫_{k+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s).$$

#### 4.1.3

By the usual relation between the connected and disconnected theories, the logarithm of $`\tau `$ generates the connected invariants:

$`_{𝐏^1}(x,t,s)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{|\mu |=|\nu |}{}}t_\mu s_\nu \mu ,\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}x_i\tau _i(\omega )\right),\nu ^{𝐏^1}`$
$`=\mathrm{ln}\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s),`$ (4.2)
where the first equality is the definition of the function $`_{𝐏^1}`$. The function $`_{𝐏^1}`$ is known as the *free energy*.

### 4.2 The string equation

#### 4.2.1

As a slight extension of stationary Gromov-Witten theory, we allow the appearance of

$$\tau _0(1),$$

a marked point with no imposed conditions. The $`\tau _0(1)`$-insertions are known as *punctures*. In both the connected and disconnected theory, the insertions of $`\tau _0(1)`$ can be removed using string equation:

$$\tau _0(1)\underset{i}{}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )=\underset{j}{}\underset{i}{}\tau _{k_i\delta _{i,j}}(\omega ).$$
(4.3)
By the same principle, one removes any number of punctures, which can be expressed as follows:

$$e^{y\tau _0(1)}\underset{i}{}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )=\underset{i}{}\left(\underset{m0}{}\frac{y^m}{m!}\tau _{k_im}(\omega )\right).$$
(4.4)
#### 4.2.2

In the standard interpretation of the string equation, all the negative descendants are set to zero. Also, there is the following unique exception to the string equation in the connected theory:

$$\tau _0(1)^2\tau _0(\omega )_{0,0}=1.$$

In the disconnected theory, of course, the exception propagates in all degrees and genera.

An equivalent way of managing the exceptional case is to declare the string equation always valid, while simultaneously changing the interpretation of the output. Recall our conventions for the disconnected stationary theory:

$$\tau _k(\omega )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & k=2,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & k2,k<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.5)
We now observe the following interpretation of the string equation is equivalent to the standard one:

1. we first apply the string equation, without exceptions and without setting $`\tau _1(\omega )`$ and $`\tau _2(\omega )`$ to zero, repeatedly to remove all $`\tau _0(1)`$-insertions,
2. after which we apply the rules (4.5) to the resulting stationary Gromov-Witten invariant .

#### 4.2.3

The form of the string equation is unchanged in relative Gromov-Witten theory. Let us add an additional string variable $`y_0`$ to the generating function (4.1):

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,y_0)=\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{|\mu |=|\nu |}{}t_\mu s_\nu \mu ,\mathrm{exp}\left(y_0\tau _0(1)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_i\tau _i(\omega )\right),\nu ^{𝐏^1}.\end{array}$$
(4.6)
Similarly, the function

$$_{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,y_0)=\mathrm{ln}\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,y_0)$$

is the generating function for connected invariants in the presence of punctures.

Equations (4.4) and (2.14) together with the commutation of operator $`T`$ with vertex operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm `$ results in the following generalization of Proposition 4.1:

###### Proposition 4.2.

For $`n`$, we have

$$\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,n)=T^n\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{x_k}{(k+1)!}𝒫_{k+1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(s)T^n.$$

### 4.3 The Toda hierarchy

#### 4.3.1

By a standard argument (which can be found, for example, in  and will be explained in more detail in ), Proposition 4.2 yields the following result.

###### Theorem 4.

The sequence

$$\{\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,n)\},n,$$

is a $`\tau `$-function of the 2–Toda hierarchy of Ueno and Takasaki  in the variables $`t`$ and $`s`$. In particular, the lowest equation of this hierarchy is:

$$\frac{^2}{t_1s_1}\mathrm{log}\tau (n)=\frac{\tau (n+1)\tau (n1)}{\tau (n)^2},$$
(4.7)
where $`\tau (n)=\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,n)`$ .

The two sequences of flows in this hierarchy are connected with two ramification conditions $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ in the relative Gromov-Witten theory, and *not* with the descendent insertions $`\tau _k(\omega )`$.

In particular, since

$$\tau _1(\omega )=\overline{(2)}=(2),$$

the function $`\tau _{𝐏^1}`$ specializes under the restriction

$$x_2=x_3=\mathrm{}=0$$

to the $`\tau `$-function of  enumerating Hurwitz covers with arbitrary branching over $`0,\mathrm{}𝐏^1`$ and simple ramifications elsewhere. Thus, Theorem 4 generalizes the results of .

#### 4.3.2

A 2–Toda hierarchy of a different kind arises in in the equivariant GW theory of $`𝐏^1`$, see . The flows of the equivariant 2–Toda hierarchy are associated to the insertions of $`\tau _k([0])`$ and $`\tau _k([\mathrm{}])`$, where

$$[0],[\mathrm{}]H_^\times ^{}(𝐏^1)$$

are the classes of the $`^\times `$-fixed points in the equivariant cohomology of $`𝐏^1`$.

In the non-equivariant limit, both $`[0]`$ and $`[\mathrm{}]`$ yield the point class $`\omega `$. In the non-equivariant specialization, the 2–Toda becomes a 1–Toda hierarchy for the absolute stationary Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$ described by the function

$$\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}(x,q)=\tau _{𝐏^1}(x,t_1,0,0,\mathrm{},s_1,0,0,\mathrm{}),$$

where the variable $`q=t_1s_1`$ keeps track of degree. On this absolute stationary submanifold, the lowest equations of the two different Toda hierarchies coincide, see Section 4.3.5.

Getzler in  has constructed an extension of the $`1`$–Toda hierarchy, the extra flows of which correspond to the descendents $`\tau _k(1)`$. In other words, Getzler’s hierarchy describes the full absolute non-equivariant Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$. Getzler has proven the extended hierarchy is essentially equivalent to the union of the stationary $`1`$–Toda hierarchy and the Virasoro constraints .

#### 4.3.3

In terms of the free energy (4.2), equation (4.7) reads

$$\frac{^2}{t_1s_1}_{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,y_0)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐏^1}(x,t,s,y_0)\right),$$
(4.8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the following divided difference operator in the string variable $`y_0`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(y_0)=f(y_0+1)2f(y_0)+f(y_01).$$

Equivalently, the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be interpreted as the insertion of

$$e^{\tau _0(1)}2+e^{\tau _0(1)}=\varsigma \left(\tau _0(1)\right)^2.$$

The exponential on the right side of (4.8) can be interpreted as a generating function for disconnected invariants, modified by the action of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Observe that, by the definition of $`_{𝐏^1}`$, the coefficient of $`t_\mu s_\nu `$ in the expansion of $`\frac{^2}{t_1s_1}_{𝐏^1}(x,t,s)`$ is equal to:

$$(m_1(\mu )+1)(m_1(\nu )+1)\mu +1,\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_i\tau _i(\omega )\right),\nu +1^{𝐏^1},$$

where $`\mu +1`$ denotes the partition $`\mu \{1\}`$.

#### 4.3.4

By the string equation (4.4), the effect of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on an $`n`$-point function is the following:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k_i}{}\mu ,\varsigma \left(\tau _0(1)\right)^2\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu z_i^{k_i+1}=\hfill \\ \hfill \varsigma \left(z_i\right)^2\underset{k_i}{}\mu ,\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\nu z_i^{k_i+1}.\end{array}$$
(4.9)
In particular, the result vanishes when $`n=0`$. Hence, the $`0`$-point functions do not appear in the right-hand side of (4.8).

We may now translate equation (4.8) to the following relation for $`n`$-point functions.

###### Proposition 4.3.

The Toda equations (4.7), (4.8) are equivalent to the following recurrence relation for $`n`$-point functions. For any $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ of the same size, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}F_{\mu +1,\nu +1}^{}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{(m_1(\mu )+1)(m_1(\nu )+1)}\underset{\{(S_i,\mu ^i,\nu ^i)\}}{}\underset{i}{}\varsigma \left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{S_i}\right)^2F_{\mu ^i,\nu ^i}^{}\left(z_{S_i}\right),\end{array}$$
(4.10)
where the summation is over all sets of triples

$$\{(S_i,\mu ^i,\nu ^i)\},$$

such that $`\{S_i\}`$ is a partition of the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ into nonempty disjoint subsets:

$$\{1,\mathrm{},n\}=S_i,S_i\mathrm{},$$

similarly, $`\{\mu ^i\}`$ and $`\{\nu ^i\}`$ satisfy

$$\mu =\mu ^i,\nu =\nu ^i,|\mu _i|=|\nu _i|,$$

and where, by definition, $`z_S=\{z_i\}_{iS}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_S=_{iS}z_i`$.

It is instructive to notice the consistency of this result with the result of Theorem 2.

#### 4.3.5

We will now consider the absolute stationary Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$. From the generating function $`\tau _{𝐏^1}`$, the absolute specialization $`\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}`$ is obtained by setting

$$t_2=t_3=\mathrm{}=s_2=s_3=\mathrm{}=0.$$

The restricted function $`\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}`$ depends on $`t_1`$ and $`s_1`$ only through the weight $`(t_1s_1)^d`$ multiplying terms of degree $`d`$. Similarly, its dependence on the variable $`x_0`$ is exclusively through the weight $`e^{x_0(d\frac{1}{24})}`$ multiplying terms of degree $`d`$ in $`\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}`$. The constant term $`\frac{1}{24}`$ can be transformed into an overall factor of $`e^{x_0/24}`$. Since

$$\frac{^2}{x_0^2}\mathrm{log}e^{x_0/24}=0,$$

we see

$$t_1s_1\frac{^2}{t_1s_1}\mathrm{log}\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}=\frac{^2}{x_0^2}\mathrm{log}\tau _{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}.$$

We now replace the $`\frac{^2}{t_1s_1}`$ derivative in (4.8) by derivatives with respect with $`x_0`$. Then, we we set $`t_1s_1=q`$. We obtain the following result.

###### Proposition 4.4.

The generating function

$$_{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}(x,y_0,q)=\underset{d}{}q^d\mathrm{exp}\left(y_0\tau _0(1)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}x_i\tau _i(\omega )\right)_d^{𝐏^1}$$

for the absolute invariants of $`𝐏^1`$ satisfies the following version of the Toda equation (4.8)

$$\frac{^2}{x_0^2}_{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}(x,y_0,q)=q\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝐏^1}^{\text{abs}}(x,y_0,q)\right).$$
(4.11)
In contrast to (4.7), (4.8), the differentiation in (4.11) is with respect to the variable coupled to the insertion of $`\tau _0(\omega )`$. Equation (4.11) is the lowest equation in another Toda hierarchy, mentioned in Section 4.3.2, the flows of which are associated to descendent insertions in the absolute Gromov-Witten theory of $`𝐏^1`$.

## 5 The Gromov-Witten theory of $`E`$

Since a nonsingular cubic can be degenerated to a nodal rational curve, the degeneration principle explained in Section 1.3 yields the following expression for the Gromov-Witten invariants of an elliptic curve $`E`$ in terms of relative invariants of $`𝐏^1`$:

$$\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^E=\underset{|\mu |=d}{}𝔷(\mu )\mu ,\tau _{k_i}(\omega ),\mu ^{𝐏^1}.$$
(5.1)
Here the sum is taken over all partitions $`\mu `$ of $`d`$.

Consider the following $`n`$-point generating function

$$F_E(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;q)=\underset{d0}{}q^d\underset{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^E\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_i^{k_i+1},$$

which includes contributions of all degrees. From the degeneration formula (5.1) and the operator formula (3.4), we conclude that

$`F_E(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{|\mu |}}{𝔷(\mu )}}{\displaystyle \alpha _{\mu _i}_0(z_i)\alpha _{\mu _i}}`$
$`=\mathrm{tr}_0q^H{\displaystyle _0(z_i)},`$ (5.2)
where $`\mathrm{tr}_0`$ denotes the trace in the charge zero subspace $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V\mathrm{\Lambda }^\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}V`$, spanned by the vectors $`v_\lambda `$ or, equivalently, by the vectors

$$\alpha _{\mu _i}v_{\mathrm{}},$$

as $`\lambda `$ or $`\mu `$ range over all partitions. The vectors $`\alpha _{\mu _i}v_{\mathrm{}}`$ are orthogonal with norm squared equal to $`𝔷(\mu )`$, see Section 3.2.1. Also, the energy operator $`H`$ in (5.2) was defined in Section 2.1.3.

The trace (5.2) has been previously computed in , see also . The result is the following. Introduce the product

$$(q)_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q^n),$$

and the genus 1 theta function

$$\vartheta (z)=\vartheta _{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}(z;q)=\underset{n}{}(1)^nq^{\frac{(n+\frac{1}{2})^2}{2}}e^{(n+\frac{1}{2})z}.$$

Up to normalization, $`\vartheta (z)`$ is the only odd genus 1 theta function — the normalization is immaterial as the formula will be homogeneous in $`\vartheta `$.

###### Theorem 5 ().

We have

$$\begin{array}{c}F_E(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n;q)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{(q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\text{all }n!\text{ permutations}\\ \text{of }z_1,\mathrm{},z_n\end{array}}{}\frac{det\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta ^{(ji+1)}(z_1+\mathrm{}+z_{nj})}{(ji+1)!}}\right]_{i,j=1}^n}{\vartheta (z_1)\vartheta (z_1+z_2)\mathrm{}\vartheta (z_1+\mathrm{}+z_n)},\end{array}$$
(5.3)
where in the $`n!`$ summands the $`z_i`$’s are permuted in all possible ways.

Here, $`\vartheta ^{(k)}`$ denotes the $`k`$-th derivative of $`\vartheta `$. If $`k<0`$, the standard convention $`1/k!=0`$ is followed. Hence, negative negative derivatives do not appear in formula (5.3).

A qualitative conclusion which may be drawn is that the $`z`$-coefficients of (5.3) are quasimodular forms in the degree variable $`q`$. Concretely, for any collection of the $`k_i`$’s, we have

$$(q)_{\mathrm{}}\underset{d=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^d\tau _{k_i}(\omega )_d^E[E_2,E_4,E_6]_{{\scriptscriptstyle (k_i+2)}},$$
(5.4)
where $`[E_2,E_4,E_6]`$ denotes the ring (freely) generated by the Eisenstein series

$$E_k(q)=\frac{\zeta (1k)}{2}+\underset{n}{}\left(\underset{d|n}{}d^{k1}\right)q^n$$

of weight $`k=2,4,6`$, and the lower index specifies the homogeneous component of weight $`(k_i+2)`$. This quasimodularity condition is both very useful and very restrictive. The modular transformation relates the $`q1`$ behavior of the series (5.4) with its $`q0`$ behavior, thus connecting large degree invariants with low degree invariants.

Since the $`2`$-cycle is complete,

$$\tau _1(\omega )=\overline{(2)}=(2)$$

the quasimodularity (5.4) generalizes the quasimodularity of generating functions for simply branched coverings of the torus studied in .

Further discussion of the properties of the function (5.3) can be found in . In particular,  contains the asymptotic analysis of this function as $`q1`$, which corresponds to the $`d\mathrm{}`$ asymptotics of the GW-invariants.

Department of Mathematics
UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
okounkov@math.berkeley.edu

Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics
California Institute of Technology Princeton University
Pasadena, CA 91125 Princeton, NJ 08544
rahulp@cco.caltech.edu rahulp@math.princeton.edu


format: text

text:
# Using Supernovae to Determine the Equation of State of the Dark Energy: Is Shallow Better Than Deep?

## I Introduction

Over the past few years, measurements of the flux and redshifts of Type Ia supernova have provided increasingly persuasive evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating SNCP ; HRSS . The natural inference – that the energy density of the universe is dominated by some form of vacuum energy – has important consequences for both cosmology and particle physics. Of particular interest is the exact nature of the “dark energy.” Is it the so-called cosmological constant, the energy density of the true vacuum state of the universe? Is it predominantly the potential energy density of a new form of energy often called quintessence? or is it something else entirely? Since these each have dramatic, and dramatically different, implications for fundamental physics there is a clear need both to raise the confidence level of the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating, and to better characterize the time history of that expansion so that the nature of the “dark energy,” in particular its equation of state, can be better understood.

## II CMB As a Probe of Cosmological Parameters

The recent expansion history of the universe (after matter-radiation equality) – the evolution of the scale factor $`a`$ with time $`t`$, or with conformal time $`\eta `$ ($`dt=a(\eta )d\eta `$) – is given by the Friedman equation:

$$\frac{da}{d\eta }=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}\sqrt{\frac{a}{a_o}+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_c}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}(\frac{a}{a_o})^2+\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_o\mathrm{\Omega }_c}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}(\frac{a}{a_o})^{(13w)}}.$$
(1)
The evolution of the expansion is therefore characterized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$, the current ratio of the matter energy density to the critical energy density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, the current ratio of the curvature “energy density” to the critical energy density, $`H_o`$, the current value of the Hubble parameter, and $`w`$ the equation of state parameter for the dark energy. ($`p_{dark}=w\rho _{dark}`$.)

Great success has already been achieved in determining some of these parameters by a number of techniques, and even greater precision is likely in the near future. We will focus in particular on measurements of temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The positions of the acoustic peaks in the angular power spectrum of the CMB depend on $`\eta _{ls}`$ (the conformal lookback time to the last-scattering surface) and on the geometry of the universe, parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$. The shapes of the peaks depend sensitively on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_oh_o^2`$. Current data on the first three peaks Boomerang ; MAXIMA ; DASI  already argue strongly for a flat (or nearly flat) universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{curvature}}0`$). With anticipated data from the MAP satellite (and elsewhere) the shape of the spectrum should also be well measured. Thus the positions and shapes of the first peaks in the CMB spectrum will soon be used to confine models of the dark energy to a one-dimensional surface parametrized by $`w`$ parameters . Extracting $`w`$ from CMBR measurements is far more difficult – the value of $`w`$ has too little effect on the power spectrum of the anisotropies.

## III Supernovae as Standard Candles

While the absolute luminosity of supernovae is not known, properly calibrated Type Ia supernovae seem to be excellent standard candles HRSS ; SNCP . Measurements of the flux and redshift from a distant supernova when compared to measurements of similar supernovae at low redshift ($`z_{\mathrm{low}}1`$) measures the square of the ratio of the luminosity distances $`d_L=\eta (1+z)`$ as a function of $`z`$:

$$\frac{F(z,w)}{F(z_{\mathrm{low}},w)}=\left[\frac{\eta (z)(1+z)}{\eta (z_{\mathrm{low}})(1+z_{\mathrm{low}})}\right]^2$$
(2)
It has already been possible, by measuring $`\eta (z)`$ from the ground for a reasonable sample of supernovae, to argue convincingly that $`w<0`$ for a significant fraction of the energy density of the universe HRSS ; SNCP .

## IV Optimum Survey Strategies for Measuring $`w`$

Accepting the desirability of improving the determination of $`w`$ (and perhaps more generally $`w(z)`$), and working with the assumption that Type Ia supernovae remain the best existing standard candles, one can still ask what is the optimum possible survey strategy? The answer depends very much on the precise goals of the survey previous . One option is to seek independent confirmation of the pre-existing determinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }H_o^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ while simultaneously measuring $`w`$ and possibly its derivatives. Alternatively, one could accept the pre-existing measurements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }H_o^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ and confine one’s time and attention to the best possible measurement of $`w`$ itself. Admittedly, there are clear benefits to independent measurements of cosmological parameters. Nevertheless, we would argue that the uncertainty in the theoretical models of supernovae, coupled with likely observational uncertainties make future supernova surveys less powerful as opportunities for independent checks on existing and near-term CMB-based determinations of parameters than they are as opportunities to break parameter degeneracies that the CMBR measurements cannot or cannot easily break and thus determine quantities like $`w`$.

The implications of this choice of survey strategies may be significant. From a purely statistical viewpoint, a supernova survey designed to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }H_o^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ and $`w`$ will necessarily extend to higher z, because it must measure the expansion history over a wide range of $`z`$ in order to make independent determinations of all three parameters characterizing the evolution of the scale factor. However, except to address issues of systematic effects, a survey designed to measure $`w`$ only, may not need to extend to such a high redshift, since it seeks to measure only one parameter. We shall therefore pursue this option further.

Assuming perfect knowledge of the CMBR, we can fix the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_0^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, and of the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }(w)`$. The former two are obtained from a direct fit to the CMB angular power spectrum, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }(w)`$ is obtained as follows. For the purposes of illustration, we shall take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=0`$. The conformal distance to the surface of last scatter is then

$$\eta _{ls}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}}_0^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x+\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_o}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}x^{13w}}},$$
(3)
(where we have taken $`a_{ls}0`$). Fixing $`\eta _{ls}`$, this can be solved numerically for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o(w)`$; however, a linear fit can be obtained in the neighborhood of any $`w`$ as follows. Differentiating with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$, holding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2`$ and $`w`$ fixed,

$$\frac{\eta _{ls}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2,w}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}}\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_o^2}_0^1\frac{x^{13w}dx}{\left[x+\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_o}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}x^{13w}\right]^{3/2}}.$$
(4)
Similarly, differentiating with respect to $`w`$, holding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o`$ fixed,

$$\frac{\eta _{ls}}{w}|_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2,w}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}}\frac{3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_o)}{2\mathrm{\Omega }_o}_0^1\frac{x^{13w}\mathrm{ln}(x)dx}{\left[x+\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }_o}{\mathrm{\Omega }_o}x^{13w}\right]^{3/2}}.$$
(5)
Evaluating the ratio of these quantities at, for example, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o=0.3`$, $`w=1`$, we find

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_o(w)0.3+0.274(w+1).$$
(6)
Now, given measurements of the flux ratio $`F(z,w)/F(z_{\mathrm{low}},w)`$ between distant supernovae and a sample of low redshift supernova, we can determine $`w`$. The uncertainty in the determination of $`w`$ from one measurement of $`F(z)/F(z_{\mathrm{low}})`$ is

$$\sigma _w=\left[\frac{d\mathrm{ln}(F/F_{low})}{dw}\right]_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2,\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}^1\frac{\sigma _{(F/F_{low})}}{F/F_{low}}$$
(7)
Using the relationship (2), and assuming that any variance is dominated by the uncertainty in the flux determination (i.e. the uncertainty in the redshift is negligible), we can relate $`\sigma _w`$ to $`\eta `$. For each measurement

$$\sigma _w=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\sigma _{(F/F_{low})}/\left(F/F_{low}\right)}{\left|\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta }{w}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta _{\mathrm{low}}}{w}\right|}.$$
(8)
For a survey with a fixed observing time, $`\sigma _w`$ is reduced by the square root of the number of supernovae $`N_{SN}`$ which can be probed, so that

$$\sigma _w^{(survey)}=\frac{\sigma _{(F/F_{low})}/\left(F/F_{low}\right)}{\left|\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta }{w}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta _{\mathrm{low}}}{w}\right|}.\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{SN}}}.$$
(9)
Here we begin to see the impact of alternative observing strategies. For a simple survey with a simple instrument, the number of supernovae which one can observe at a given redshift will be proportional simply to the ratio of the flux of a supernova at the redshift to a fixed threshold flux – $`N_{SN}F/F_{thresh}`$. However, it is possible to improve on this strategy, especially at high redshifts, by increasing the field of view of the survey instrument, monitoring more than one galaxy at a time for supernovae, and possibly following up with spectra in a fully multi-plexed program. In this case the number of supernova discovered will scale as

$$N_{SN}F\eta ^2\mathrm{\Delta }\eta (1+z)^2.$$
(10)
We have taken $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta `$ – the range in conformal depth of the survey – to be a constant. Other assumptions are possible. While they change the detailed dependence of the statistical errors on redshift, they do not change the qualitative behavior.

For a fully multiplexed survey

$$\sigma _w^{(survey)}\frac{\sigma _{(F/F_{low})}/(F/F_{low})}{\left|\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta }{w}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\eta _{\mathrm{low}}}{w}\right|_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2,\mathrm{\Omega }(w)}}(1+z).$$
(11)
Now, in the neighborhood of $`w=1`$,

$$\eta |_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}}_{1/(1+z)}^1\frac{dx}{\sqrt{x+\frac{7}{3}x^4}}$$
(12)
and

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\eta }{dw}}\right)_{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_oH_o^2}}}\times `$ (13)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{1/(1+z)}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{x^4dx}{\left(x+\frac{7}{3}x^4\right)^{3/2}}}`$ $`\left(7\mathrm{ln}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{0.274}{(0.3)^2}}\right).`$ (14)
These integrals can be evaluated numerically without difficulty, allowing us to calculate $`\sigma _w^{(survey)}`$ as a function of the redshift of the observations for a variety of $`w`$’s (cf. Fig. 1). The principal point of interest is that while $`\sigma _w^{(survey)}`$ has a minimum at $`z1`$ (somewhat lower for $`w<1`$, somewhat higher for $`w>1`$), this minimum is exceedingly shallow, so that the value of $`\sigma _w`$ at $`z=0.3`$ is less than twice the minimum value. Moreover, our calculations involved the supernova discovery rate. However, it is in fact the follow up spectroscopy which is more demanding of telescope time; this scales as a higher power of redshift (approximately $`(1+z)^6`$ according to some experts). This shifts the minimum down further in $`z`$.  These results are relatively insensitive to the value of $`w`$, and to reasonable values of $`z_{\mathrm{low}}`$.

We have thus shown that, from a statistical point of view, there is not the strong preference one might have suspected to measure $`w`$ at high redshift – intermediate redshifts ($`z=0.30.5`$) are nearly as good for discovering supernovae, and at least as good for carefully studying them. The length of time that one must integrate on individual distant supernovae offsets the benefits one might get from the greater individual utility of these supernova and the larger accessible number of such supernova. The details of the survey statistics will no doubt change as one designs a more realistic survey, but the broad conclusion will not – for measuring $`w`$ with supernova, statistics are as good or better at low $`z`$ than at high $`z`$. The low z surveys offer the advantage of smaller K corrections and the ability to study the host galaxy properties in detail with a wide array of ground based telescopes. For the low z surveys to be competitive with the high z surveys, they require even more exquisite control of systematic photometric errors. Ultimately, detailed trade studies are needed to determine the best strategy for determining the properties of the dark energy. These studies should include our growing knowledge about the geometry and composition of the universe in their analyses.

GDS would like to acknowledge fruitful discussions with J. Freeman, D. Huterer, E. Linder, S. Perlmutter, and M. Turner. Particular thanks to M. Turner for pointing out a sign error in an earlier version as well as other useful comments.