text:
# The quantum to classical transition for random walks

## I Introduction

Considerable work has been done recently on quantum random walks, which are unitary (and hence reversible) systems designed as analogues to the usual classical case. Two approaches have been taken to the problem: continuous Continuous  and discrete Discrete ; Meyer96 ; NayaknV ; Decoherence  walks. This paper is exclusively concerned with the discrete walk on the infinite line. In this case, we introduce an extra “coin” degree of freedom into the system. As in the classical random walk, the outcome of a “coin flip” determines the direction that the particle moves. In the quantum case, however, both the flip of the coin and the conditional motion of the particle are unitary transformations. Different possible classical paths can therefore interfere.

For the classical walk, $`p(x,t)`$ has the form of a binomial distribution, with a variance $`\overline{x^2}\overline{x}^2`$ which grows linearly with time. The variance in the quantum walk, by contrast, grows quadratically with time Meyer96 ; and the distribution $`p(x,t)`$ has a complicated, oscillatory form NayaknV . Both of these are effects of interference between the possible paths of the particle. There are two obvious ways to regain the classical behavior. If the quantum coin is measured at every step, then the record of the measurement outcomes singles out a particular classical path. By averaging over all possible measurement records, one recovers the usual classical behavior.

Alternatively, rather than measuring the coin every time, one could replace it with a new quantum coin for each flip. After a time $`t`$ one would have accumulated $`t`$ coins, all of them entangled with the position of the particle. By measuring them, one could reconstruct an unique classical path; averaging over the outcomes would once again produce the classical result.

These two approaches, which are equivalent in the classical limit, give two different routes from quantum to classical. We might increase the number of coins used to generate the walk, cycling among $`M`$ different coins, in the limit using a new coin at each step. Or we might weakly measure the coin after each step, reaching the classical limit with strong, projective measurements. This is equivalent to having a coin which is subject to decoherence.

In this paper we contrast these two approaches, using the functional dependence of the variance on time as an indicator of “classical” vs. “quantum” behavior. In the presence even of very weak decoherence, the variance of the quantum walk grows linearly with $`t`$ at long times; while even using a large number of coins, the the variance of the unitary walk grows quadratically.

Let us consider a fairly general quantum walk on the line. The particle degree of freedom has a basis of position eigenstates $`\{|x\}`$, $`\widehat{x}|x=x|x`$, where $`x`$ can be any integer. We will assume that the particle begins the walk at the origin, in state $`|0`$. The walk is driven by a separate “coin” degree of freedom: a $`D`$-dimensional system with an initial state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Let $`\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R},\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}`$ be two orthogonal projectors on the Hilbert space of the “coin,” such that $`\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}+\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}=\widehat{I}`$. These represent the two possible outcomes of the coin flip, Right or Left. We assume that the coin is unbiased, meaning $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}=D/2`$. We also define a unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}`$ which “flips” the coin. One step of the quantum walk is given by the unitary operator

$$\widehat{E}\left(\widehat{S}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}+\widehat{S}^{}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}\right)\left(\widehat{I}\widehat{U}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{S},\widehat{S}^{}`$ are shift operators on the particle position, $`\widehat{S}|x=|x+1`$, $`\widehat{S}^{}|x=|x1`$. The full initial state of the system (particle and coin) is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|0|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$.

We can identify the eigenvectors $`|k`$ of $`\widehat{S},\widehat{S}^{}`$,

$$|x=_\pi ^\pi \frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ikx}|k,$$
(2)
with eigenvalues

$$\widehat{S}|k=\mathrm{e}^{ik}|k,\widehat{S}^{}|k=\mathrm{e}^{+ik}|k.$$
(3)
In the $`k`$ basis, the evolution operator becomes

$`\widehat{E}\left(|k|\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`|k\left(\mathrm{e}^{ik}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}+\mathrm{e}^{ik}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}\right)\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (4)
$``$ $`|k\widehat{U}_k|\mathrm{\Phi },`$
where $`\widehat{U}_k`$ is also a unitary operator.

We now generalize to allow for decoherence. Suppose that before each unitary “flip” of the coin, a completely positive and unital map is performed on the coin. This map is given by a set of operators $`\{\widehat{A}_n\}`$ on the coin degree of freedom which satisfy

$$\underset{n}{}\widehat{A}_n^{}\widehat{A}_n=\underset{n}{}\widehat{A}_n\widehat{A}_n^{}=\widehat{I}.$$
(5)
A density operator $`\chi `$ for the coin degree of freedom is transformed

$$\chi \chi ^{}=\underset{n}{}\widehat{A}_n\chi \widehat{A}_n^{}.$$
(6)
We combine this with the unitary evolution to define an evolution superoperator

$$_{kk^{}}\chi \underset{n}{}\widehat{U}_k\widehat{A}_n\chi \widehat{A}_n^{}\widehat{U}_k^{}^{}.$$
(7)
Note that for the diagonal case $`k=k^{}`$, this superoperator is also unital, and hence preserves the identity.

The initial state is

$$\rho _0=|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|=\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }|kk^{}||\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|.$$
(8)
Let the quantum random walk proceed for $`t`$ steps. Then the state evolves to

$$\rho _t=\frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }|kk^{}|_{kk^{}}^t|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|.$$
(9)
From this, the probability to reach a point $`x`$ at time $`t`$ is

$`p(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }x|kk^{}|x\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}^t|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\right\}}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix(kk^{})}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}^t|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\right\}}.`$
Eq. (10) for $`p(x,t)`$ will be difficult to evaluate analytically; hence, we restrict our interest to the moments of this distribution.

$`\widehat{x}^m_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}x^mp(x,t)`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}x^m{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\frac{dk^{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{e}^{ix(kk^{})}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}^t|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\right\}.`$
We invert the order of operations and do the $`x`$ sum first, yielding

$`\widehat{x}^m_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i)^m}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑k𝑑k^{}\delta ^{(m)}(kk^{})}`$ (12)
$`\times \mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}^t|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\right\},`$
where $`\delta ^{(m)}(kk^{})`$ is the $`m`$th derivative of the delta function. We can then integrate this by parts.

In integrating (12) we will need

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}\widehat{O}\right\}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_{kk^{}}\widehat{O}\right\},`$
$`=`$ $`i\mathrm{Tr}\left\{(_{kk^{}}\widehat{O})\widehat{Z}\right\},`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dk^{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{_{kk^{}}\widehat{O}\right\},`$
$`\widehat{Z}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}.`$ (13)
Making use of (13), when we carry out the integration by parts for the first moment we get

$$\widehat{x}_t=\frac{dk}{2\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^j|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\right\},$$
(14)
where we’ve introduced the simplified notation $`_k_{kk}`$.

We can carry out a similar integration by parts to get the second moment:

$`\widehat{x}^2_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}[{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^{jj^{}}(\widehat{Z}_k^j^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|)\right\}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^{jj^{}}((_k^j^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|)\widehat{Z})\right\}].`$
Let us for the moment specialize to the unitary case, so $`_k\rho =\widehat{U}_k\rho \widehat{U}_k^{}`$. In this case, we can expand $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in terms of the eigenvectors of $`\widehat{U}_k`$:

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\underset{l}{}c_{kl}|\varphi _{kl},\widehat{U}_k|\varphi _{kl}=\mathrm{e}^{i\theta _{kl}}|\varphi _{kl}.$$
(16)
Assume, for the moment, that $`\widehat{U}_k`$ is nondegenerate, so the $`\theta _{kl}`$ are all distinct. If we plug these expressions into (14) and (15), we notice that most of the terms will be oscillatory; at long times $`t`$, they will average to zero. The only terms that survive will be diagonal in $`l`$:

$`\widehat{x}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0|(\widehat{U}_k)^j\widehat{Z}(\widehat{U}_k^{})^j|\mathrm{\Phi }_0}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}|c_{kl}|^2\varphi _{kl}|\widehat{Z}|\varphi _{kl}}`$
$`+\mathrm{oscillatory}\mathrm{terms}.`$
Similarly, for the second moment

$`\widehat{x}^2_t`$ $`=`$ $`t^2{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\underset{l=1}{\overset{D}{}}|c_{kl}|^2\varphi _{kl}|\widehat{Z}|\varphi _{kl}^2}`$ (18)
$`+O(t)+\mathrm{oscillatory}\mathrm{terms}.`$
So in the long-time limit, the variance will always grow quadratically in time for a unitary coin of finite dimension. If $`\widehat{U}_k`$ is degenerate, the expressions (17) and (18) will have to be modified to include appropriate cross-terms; but this will not change the functional dependence on $`t`$.

The usual case considered in the literature has taken the coin to be a simple two-level system, and the “flip” operator $`\widehat{U}`$ to be the usual Hadamard transformation $`\widehat{H}`$:

$`\widehat{H}|R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|R+|L\right),`$
$`\widehat{H}|L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|R|L\right).`$ (19)
The projectors are $`\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{R}=|RR|`$, $`\widehat{𝒫}_\mathrm{L}=|LL|`$. The walk on the line in this case has been exactly solved by Nayak and Vishwanath NayaknV , and agrees with the expression (18) given above. We have also considered the case of a walk driven by $`M`$ coins, flipped cyclically Multicoin . In this case, (17) and (18) can be solved analytically; at long times, the variance goes like

$$\widehat{x}^2\widehat{x}^2=t^2\left(\frac{3\sqrt{8}+1/M}{\sqrt{32}}\right)+O(t)+\mathrm{osc}.\mathrm{terms}.$$
(20)
We compare this to the results of numerical simulations in figure 1, finding the agreement to be excellent. Note that the quadratic growth of the variance doesn’t vanish even in the limit of large $`M`$. Only with a new coin for every step ($`M=t`$) do we recover the classical behavior. (Note that this doesn’t contradict the result (20), since that is only strictly valid for $`tM`$.)

Let’s now allow for decoherence. Because the superoperator $`_k`$ is unital it preserves the identity $`_k\widehat{I}=\widehat{I}`$; its largest eigenvalue is 1. We explicitly assume that all the other eigenvalues of $`_k`$ obey $`|\lambda |<1`$. It is handy then to separate out the traceless part of the initial state

$$\rho _0=\widehat{I}/D+(|\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{I}/D)\widehat{I}/D+\chi _0.$$
(21)
Plugging this into the equation (14) we get

$`\widehat{x}_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}/D\right\}}+\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^j\chi _0\right\}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`t\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}/D\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}(1_k)^1(_k_k^{t+1})\chi _0\right\}}.`$
Note that $`(1_k)^1`$ acts only on the traceless operator $`\chi _0`$, so it is well-defined. If the coin is unbiased (as we assumed), then $`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{Z}=0`$ and the first term vanishes. At long times the $`_k^{t+1}`$ term will decay away. So in the long time limit, the first moment of the walk with a decoherent coin will tend to a constant.

The second moment is more complicated in detail, but similar in spirit. Again separating out the traceless part $`\chi _0`$, we get

$`\widehat{x}^2_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}[\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}^2_k^j\rho _0\right\}`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=j+1}{\overset{t}{}}}(\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^{j^{}j}(2\widehat{Z}/D)\right\}`$
$`+\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}_k^{j^{}j}(\widehat{Z}(_k^j\chi _0)+(_k^j\chi _0)\widehat{Z})\right\})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}[1+(2/D)\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{Z}(1_k)^1`$
$`\times (_k_k^{tj+1})\widehat{Z}\}`$
$`+\mathrm{Tr}\{\widehat{Z}(1_k)^1(_k_k^{tj+1})`$
$`\times (\widehat{Z}(_k^j\chi _0)+(_k^j\chi _0)\widehat{Z})\}].`$
It is not difficult to see that the last term will tend towards a constant for large $`t`$, while the first two will grow linearly. So we get the approximate expression at long times

$`\widehat{x}^2_t`$ $``$ $`t\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi D}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k\mathrm{Tr}\left\{\widehat{Z}(1_k)^1_k\widehat{Z}\right\}}\right)`$ (24)
$`+\mathrm{const}.,`$
which is linear in $`t`$.

If we specialize to the case of a single two-level coin undergoing the Hadamard evolution, we can find exact solutions to (24). We first pick a particular form for the decoherence. The most convenient numerically is pure dephasing

$$\widehat{A}_{0,1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\pm i\theta }|RR|+\mathrm{e}^{i\theta }|LL|\right).$$
(25)
For $`\theta =0`$ this reverts to the unitary case, while for $`\theta =\pi /4`$ there is complete decoherence at each step. At long times we have DecoherentCoin

$$\widehat{x}^2_t\widehat{x}_t^2t\left(\mathrm{cot}^22\theta +\mathrm{csc}^22\theta \right)+\mathrm{const}.,$$
(26)
which goes to 1 as $`\theta \pi /4`$, and diverges as $`\theta 0`$, when the long-time approximation breaks down. In figure 2, we compare this result to the output of numerical simulations, once more finding excellent agreement. Note that while the variance grows linearly, as in the classical case, it grows faster than the classical case. The reflects the persistent effect of interference, which causes the particle to continue to drift in a particular direction.

From the time-dependence of the moments, one might reasonably claim that the multicoin system remains “quantum” even in the limit of very large numbers of coins, while the decoherent system remains “classical” even in the limit of very weak noise. Moreover, from equations (18) and (24) this behavior seems to be generic, independent of the particular model chosen.

We should emphasize that in this paper we have only altered the coin degree of freedom. One might naturally consider modifications of the evolution of the particle as well, such as allowing decoherence of the position as well as the coin. There have been numerical studies of this, and of the transition to classical behavior that results Decoherence .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Bob Griffiths, Lane Hughston, Viv Kendon, and Michele Mosca for useful conversations. TAB acknowledges financial support from the Martin A. and Helen Chooljian Membership in Natural Sciences, and DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-90ER40542. AA was supported by NSF grant CCR-9987845, and by the State of New Jersey. HAC was supported by MITACS, The Fields Institute, and NSERC CRO project “Quantum Information and Algorithms.”


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This article is intended to discuss the construction of flops of high-dimensional manifolds through the geometry of orbifolds. By an orbifold, we mean an algebraic (or analytic) variety with at most quotient singularities. This geometrical object was introduced in the 1950s by I. Satake, which he called a V-manifold, on his course of study of the Siegel’s modular forms . Special emphasis in this paper will be on the resolutions of orbifolds with the Gorenstein quotient singularities, i.e., the local structure around a singular point is given by

$$^n/G,G:\mathrm{a}(\mathrm{nontrivial})\mathrm{subgroup}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{SL}_n(),n2.$$
(1)
In the mid-80s, string theorists studied a special type of physical model where strings propagate on an orbifold $`M/G`$ where $`M`$ is a manifold quotiented by a finite group $`G`$. The required string vacuum is described by the following orbifold Euler characteristic :

$$\chi (M,G)=\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{g,hG,gh=hg}{}\chi (M^{g,h})$$

where $`M^{g,h}`$ is the simultaneous fixed-point set of $`g,h`$. An equivalent expression of the above formula is given by

$$\chi (M,G)=\underset{[g]}{}\chi (M^g/C(g)),$$

where $`[g]`$ is the conjugacy class of $`g`$ with the centralizer $`C(g)`$. In the local situation (1), one obtains

$$\chi (^n,G)=|\mathrm{Irr}(G)|,\mathrm{Irr}(G):=\{\mathrm{irruducible}\mathrm{representations}\mathrm{of}G\}.$$

For the consistency of physical theory, the Gorenstein orbifold $`^n/G`$ demands a resolution $`\widehat{^n/G}`$ with the trivial canonical bundle and the Euler number $`\chi (\widehat{^n/G})=\chi (^n,G)`$. For $`n=2`$, all finite subgroups $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ were classified into $`A`$-$`D`$-$`E`$ series by F. Klein, where the orbifolds $`^2/G`$ are always of the hypersurface singularity. The minimal resolution of $`^2/G`$ in the surface theory provides the required crepant resolution $`\widehat{^2/G}`$ . For $`n=3`$, the desired crepant resolution $`\widehat{^3/G}`$ was found for all $`G`$ in the mid-nineties  through some quantitative, but constructive, methods, heavily depending on the classical Miller-Blichfelt-Dickson classification of finite subgroups of $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$ , and the Klein’s invariant theory of the simple groups $`I_{60}`$ (Icosahedral group) and $`H_{168}`$ (the simple group of order 168) . The non-uniqueness of such crepant resolution is expected due to the flop-relation in $`3`$-folds, but all with the required Euler number. Thereafter, the qualitative understanding and a possible canonical one of these crepant resolutions naturally arise as problems in algebraic geometry. For this purpose, the development has resulted in the concept of Hilbert scheme of $`G`$-orbits (or $`G`$-Hilbert scheme), $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)`$, associated to $`^n/G`$, which was proposed in  by engaging the finite-group representation theory into geometrical problems of orbifolds. The structure of $`G`$-Hilbert scheme has now provided a positive answer for the problem addressed to the crepant resolution with the orbifold Euler number for the dimension $`n=2,3`$ .

For $`n4`$, very few results have been known on the crepant resolution problem of $`^n/G`$, and the structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)`$, partly due to the lack of common conclusion for all $`G`$, as $`^n/G`$ has no crepant resolution at all for a large class of groups $`G`$, even in the abelian group case. A suitable class of groups $`G`$, which could be of interest to study, are those with Gorenstein orbifold $`^n/G`$ of the hypersurface type, and one can regard it as one way to the high-dimensional generalization of Klein surface singularities. For the abelian group case, the group $`G`$ is given by

$$A_r(n):=\{g\text{SL}_n()|g^{r+1}=1,g\text{ is diagonal}\},r1.$$

In , we have studied the cases $`A_r(4)`$ for all $`r`$, and obtained the crepant resolutions $`\widehat{^4/A_r(4)}`$ through the detailed structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_r(4)}(^4)`$. While in this work, we shall discuss the cases $`A_1(n)`$ for $`n=4,5`$, in order to explore the flop-relation of $`n`$-folds. It is known that there do exist some crepant resolutions of $`^n/A_1(n)`$ for all $`n`$ in , where the result was obtained by blowing-up techniques through the hypersurface equation of $`^n/A_1(n)`$. But in this paper, we shall construct another type of crepant resolutions of $`^n/A_1(n)`$, which are toric varieties, through the toric structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(n)}(^n)`$. One of the main goals of this approach is to identify the proper “flop” concept of $`n`$-folds for $`n=4,5`$. This method is consistent with the flops of $`3`$-folds, considered as crepant resolutions of the $`3`$-dimensional isolated singularity with the equation, $`XY=ZW`$, a construction known since the seventies in the study of degeneration of K3 surfaces . However, for $`n=4,5`$, the singularities, which possess crepant resolutions with the flop relation discovered in this article, has a complicated expression of algebraic equations (see formula (5), (6) of the paper). In particular, it is not of the type of complete intersection.

This paper is organized as follows: In §2, we give a brief survey on the construction of crepant resolution $`\widehat{^n/G}`$ for $`n=2,3`$. In §3, we review some basic facts in $`G`$-Hilbert schemes and toric geometry for later discussions. In §4, we derive the toric variety structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(4)}(^4)`$, which is smooth but not crepant. By blowing down the canonical divisor $`(^1)^3`$ of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(4)}(^4)`$ to $`(^1)^2`$ in different factors, we obtain three toric crepant resolutions of $`^4/A_1(4)`$. By this process, the flop of $`4`$-folds is naturally revealed between these three crepant resolutions. In §5, we derive the toric variety structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(5)}(^5)`$, which is singular and non-crepant. By analyzing the toric structure of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(5)}(^5)`$, we construct twelve crepant resolutions of $`^5/A_1(5)`$, all dominated by $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(5)}(^5)`$. The connection between these crepant resolutions gives rise to the “flop” relation of $`5`$-folds.

## 2 Kleinian Singularities and Crepant Resolutions of Gorenstein Three-Dimensional Orbifolds

For a finite non-trivial subgroup $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$, $`^2/G`$ is a surface with an isolated singularity at the origin. These singularities were classified by Klein in 1872 ( or so ) in his work on the invariant theory of regular solids in $`^3`$, and they are described in the following table:

| Type | Group $`G`$ | $`|G|`$ | degree of invariants | relation of invariants |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`A_r`$ | Abelian | $`r+1`$ | $`2,r+1,r+1`$ | $`X^{r+1}+YZ`$ |
| $`D_r`$ | Binary dihedral | $`4(r2)`$ | $`4,2(r2),2(r1)`$ | $`X^{r1}+XY^2+Z^2`$ |
| $`E_6`$ | Binary tetrahedral | $`24`$ | $`6,8,12`$ | $`X^3+Y^4+Z^2`$ |
| $`E_7`$ | Binary octahedral | $`48`$ | $`8,12,18`$ | $`X^3Y+Y^3+Z^2`$ |
| $`E_8`$ | Binary icosahedral | $`120`$ | $`12,20,30`$ | $`X^5+Y^3+Z^2`$ |

For $`A`$-type group $`G`$, it is a cyclic subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$ generated by the diagonal element with the entries $`e^{\frac{2\pi i}{r+1}},e^{\frac{2\pi ir}{r+1}}`$. By the continued fraction,

$$\frac{r+1}{r}=2\frac{1}{2\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}},$$

the minimal resolution $`\widehat{^2/G}`$ has the exceptional set consisting of a tree of $`r`$-rational curves with self-intersections $`2`$, which implies the trivial canonical bundle of $`\widehat{^2/G}`$ with the Euler number $`r+1`$. For other groups $`G`$ in $`\mathrm{SL}_2()`$, the minus identity map always belongs to the center of $`G`$. One can construct the minimal resolution by first blowing up $`^2`$ at the origin, then analyzing the fixed-points of $`G`$ on this blowing-up space, and then reducing to cyclic quotient singularities. The following remarkable characterization for Kleinian singularities by Brieskorn is known:

###### Theorem 2.1

 For an isolated normal surface singularity, the following are equivalent: (1) it is Kleinian , (2) it is rational with multiplicity 2, (3) it is rational with embedding dimension 3, and (4) the minimal resolution has the exceptional set by a configuration of rational (-2)-curves with an intersection matrix minus that of the Partan matrix of the root system of type $`A_r,D_r,E_6,E_7`$ or $`E_8`$. The correspondence between (1) and (4) is indicated in the above table.

On the other hand, J. McKay observed an interesting connection between the representation theory of Kleinian groups and the affine Dynkin diagrams of the $`A`$-$`D`$-$`E`$ root system. Denote $`c:G\mathrm{GL}_2()`$ the ‘canonical’ representation of $`G`$. For $`\rho ,\rho ^{}\mathrm{Irr}(G)`$, let $`m(\rho ,\rho ^{})`$ be the multiplicity of $`\rho ^{}`$ in the representation $`\rho c`$:

$$\rho c=\underset{\rho ^{}\mathrm{Irr}(G)}{}m(\rho ,\rho ^{})\rho ^{}.$$

By the self-dual property of $`c`$, $`m(\rho ,\rho ^{})=m(\rho ^{},\rho )`$ for all $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$. One forms a diagram $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(G)`$ with elements in Irr(G) as vertices, and two vertices $`\rho ,\rho ^{}`$ connected by $`m(\rho ,\rho ^{})`$ edges. Then, one has the following result:

###### Theorem 2.2

 $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(G)`$ is isomorphic to the affine Dynkin diagram of the corresponding root system.

By a suitably chosen isomorphism between $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(G)`$ and the affine Dynkin diagram, the trivial representation of $`G`$ corresponds to the negative longest root of the affine diagram. So, the diagram $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)`$ obtained by deleting the trivial representation is isomorphic to the ordinary Dynkin diagram of its corresponding system. With the results in Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, the rational (-2)-curves in resolution configuration implies the trivial canonical bundle of $`\widehat{^2/G}`$, and the Euler number equality follows from McKay’s correspondence .

For $`n=3`$, all finite subgroups $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$ were classified by Miller et al. in 1916 . The list consists of 12 types of such groups, among which two well-known simple groups, $`I_{60}`$ and $`H_{168}`$ appear. For the problem of the crepant resolutions of $`\widehat{^3/G}`$, due to the long list of the Miller-Blichfelt-Dickson classification, it is still hard to study the problem by the method of case by case approach. Hence, certain induction procedures are introduced, as the one of blowing up at the origin in the 2-dimensional case, to enable us to work only on a few cases, consisting of abelian groups, certain solvable groups and simple groups $`I_{60},H_{168}`$ . For abelian groups, the toric geometry  provides the effective computational methods to obtain the solutions . Using these techniques, one can work on an explicitly given solvable subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$ and obtain the crepant resolutions by using a certain ‘canonical’ procedure, regardless the resulting structure of the resolution might be complicated. For the simple groups $`I_{60},H_{168}`$ in $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$, one needs some different techniques, using the invariant theory of their 3-dimensional representations in Klein’s work :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \mathrm{G}& \mathrm{degree}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{invariants}& \mathrm{relation}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{invariants}\\ & & \\ I_{60}& 2,6,10,15& 144W^2+Z^31728Y^5+720XY^3Z\\ & & 80X^2YZ^2+64X^3(5Y^2XZ)^2\\ & & \\ H_{168}& 4,6,14,21& W^2+Z^3+1728Y^7+1008XY^4Z\\ & & 88X^2YZ^260032X^3Y^5+1088X^4Y^2Z\\ & & +22016X^6Y^3256X^7Z2048X^9Y\end{array}$$

Note that the relation of invariants in the above table define a hypersurface of $`^3/G`$ in $`^4`$. One can obtains the required crepant resolution by making full use of the relations of invariants of these simple groups $`G`$ . With all these efforts, one arrives at a solution of the crepant resolutions $`\widehat{^3/G}`$ for a finite subgroup $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$ . However, all of those works were carried out using an explicit (somewhat unpleasant) computational method, which is cumbersome and not very illuminating. An approach of a qualitative nature to the crepant resolution $`\widehat{^3/G}`$ is provided by the method of $`G`$-Hilbert scheme, which will be briefly described in the next section.

## 3 $`G`$-Hilbert scheme, Abelian Orbifolds and Toric Geometry

From now on for the rest of this paper, $`\{e^1,..,e^n\}`$ will always denote the standard basis of $`^n`$, $`\{Z_1,..,Z_n\}`$ the corresponding dual basis, and $`[Z]:=[Z_1,..,Z_n]`$ the polynomial ring of $`Z_i`$’s.

For a finite subgroup $`G`$ of $`\text{GL}_n()`$, we denote $`S_G=^n/G`$ with the canonical projection $`\pi _G:^nS_G`$, and $`o=\pi _G(\stackrel{}{0})`$. In this article, a variety $`X`$ is said to be birational over $`S_G`$ if there exists a proper birational epimorphism $`\sigma _X:XS_G`$. In this case, we have the commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X\times _{S_G}^n& & ^n\\ \pi & & \pi _G\\ X& \stackrel{\sigma _X}{}& S_G.\end{array}$$

Denote $`_X\left(=\pi _{}𝒪_{X\times _{S_G}^n}\right)`$ the coherent $`𝒪_X`$-sheaf over $`X`$ obtained by the push-forward of the structure sheaf of $`X\times _{S_G}^n`$. The geometrical fiber of $`_X`$ over an element $`y`$ of $`X`$ is given by $`_{X,y}=k(y)_{𝒪_X}_X`$, which is isomorphic to $`[Z]/I(y)`$ for some $`G`$-invariant ideal $`I(y)`$ in $`[Z]`$. The $`G`$-Hilbert scheme $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)`$ with the birational morphism, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Hilb}}:\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)S_G`$, is the minimal object in the category of varieties $`X`$ birational over $`S_G`$ such that $`_X`$ is a vector bundle over $`X`$  (or see  and references therein). Furthermore, for each $`X`$ in the category, there exists a unique epimorphism $`\lambda _X`$ from $`X`$ to $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)`$. Indeed, $`\lambda _X(y)`$ is represented by the ideal $`I(y)`$. In the case when $`C^n/G`$ in (1), for $`n=2`$, $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^2)`$ is the minimal resolution of $`^2/G`$, and for $`n=3`$, $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^3)`$ is a toric crepant resolution of $`^3/G`$ for an abelian group $`G`$ . For a general finite subgroup $`G`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}_3()`$, $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^3)`$ is indeed a crepant resolution $`\widehat{^3/G}`$ has been justified in  by methods in homological algebra, an argument bypassing the geometry of $`G`$-Hilbert scheme (of which explicit structures are important on its own from the aspect of applications to certain relevant physical problems).

When $`G`$ is an abelian group, one can apply toric geometry to study problems on resolutions of $`S_G`$. We now give a brief review of some facts in toric geometry for later use in this article (for the details, see ). For the rest of this paper, we shall always assume $`G`$ to be a finite abelian group in $`\mathrm{SL}_n()`$, and identify $`G`$ as a subgroup of the diagonal group $`T_0:=_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\text{GL}_n()`$. Regarding $`^n`$ as the partial compactification of $`T_0`$, we define the $`n`$-torus $`T`$ with the embedding in the $`T`$-space $`S_G`$ by

$$T:=T_0/G,TS_G.$$

Denote $`N=\mathrm{Hom}(^{},T)`$ (resp. $`N_0=\mathrm{Hom}(^{},T_0)`$) the lattice of one-parameter subgroups of $`T`$ (resp. $`T_0`$), $`M`$ (resp. $`M_0`$) the dual lattice of $`N`$ (resp. $`N_0`$). We have $`NN_0`$ and $`MM_0`$. Through the map $`\mathrm{exp}:^nT_0`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(_ix_ie^i):=_ie^{2\pi \sqrt{1}x_i}e^i`$, one can identify $`N_0`$ and $`N`$ with the following lattices in $`^n`$,

$$N_0=^n(=\mathrm{exp}^1(1)),N=\mathrm{exp}^1(G).$$

In this way, $`M_0`$ can be identified with the monomial group of variables $`Z_1,..,Z_n`$, and $`M`$ corresponds to the subgroup of $`G`$-invariant monomials in $`M_0`$.

By , a $`T`$-space birational over $`S_G`$ is described by a fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\sigma _l|lI\}`$ with $`C_0:=_i_0e^i`$ as its support, i.e., a rational polyhedral cone decomposition of $`C_0`$. In this situation, an equivalent description is given by the polytope decomposition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_l|lI\}`$ of the simplex

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:=\{\underset{i}{}x_ie^iC_0|\underset{i}{}x_i=1\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l:=\sigma _l\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$. For $`\sigma _l=\{\mathrm{𝟎}\}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l=\mathrm{}`$. We shall call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a rational polytope decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and denote $`X_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the toric variety corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

For a rational polytope decomposition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(i):=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }|\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)=i\}`$ for $`1in1`$, (here $`\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{}):=1`$). Then, for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }(i)`$, there associates a $`T`$-orbit of dimension $`n1i`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{orb}(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }(n1)`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional polytope, $`\mathrm{orb}(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)`$ consists of only one point, which will be denoted by $`x_{\mathrm{\Delta }_l}`$. For a vertex $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)`$, the closure of $`\mathrm{orb}(v)`$ represents a toric divisor, which will be denoted by $`D_v`$. The canonical sheaf of $`X_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by the following expression of toric divisors,

$$\omega _{X_\mathrm{\Lambda }}=𝒪_{X_\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\underset{v\mathrm{\Lambda }(0)}{}(m_v1)D_v),$$
(2)
where $`m_v`$ is the smallest positive integer with $`m_vvN`$, i.e., a primitive element of $`N`$.

A polytope decomposition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is called integral if all vertices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are in $`N`$. By (2), the trivial canonical sheaf is described by the integral condition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The non-singular criterion of $`X_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by the simplicial decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the multiplicity-one property. For a polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(i)`$, we denote

$$X_{}=\mathrm{spec}([M\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{}}])$$

where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{}}`$ is the dual of the cone $`\sigma _{}:=\{rv|r0,v\}.`$ Then, $`\{X_{}\}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(n1)}`$ forms an open cover of $`X_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Now we consider the case $`G=A_1(n)`$. We shall always denote the following elements in $`M(=M_0^G)`$:

$$T_i=Z_i^2,U_i=\frac{Z_i}{(Z_1..\widehat{Z_j}..Z_n)},V_{ij}=\frac{Z_iZ_j}{_{\alpha i,j;1\alpha n}Z_\alpha }.$$
(3)
The set of $`N`$-integral elements in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N=\{e^i|1in\}\{v^{ij}|1i<jn\},v^{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}(e^i+e^j).$$

Other than the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself, there is only one integral polytope decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, which is invariant under all permutations of the coordinates (i.e., $`\tau :e^ie^{\tau (i)}`$ for $`\tau 𝔖_n`$, the symmetric group of degree $`n`$). Then, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(n1)`$ consists of the following $`n+1`$ polytopes:

$$\mathrm{}:=v^{ik}|1i<kn,\mathrm{\Delta }_j:=e^j,v^{ij}|ij(j=1,..,n).$$
(4)
The toric variety $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is smooth on the affine space centered at $`x_{\mathrm{\Delta }_j}`$ with the local coordinate $`U_j`$, $`T_i`$ $`(ij)`$. Therefore, the singular set of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ lies in the affine open set $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ centered at $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$. The structure near $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ is determined by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}M`$, which is generated by $`T_i,U_i^1.`$ For $`n=3`$, $`U_1^1`$, $`U_2^1`$, $`U_3^1`$ form an integral basis for $`M`$, which implies the smoothness of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. For $`n4`$, $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is singular at $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`T_i`$, $`U_i^1`$, $`1in`$, form the minimal generating set of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}M`$. For $`n=4`$, the singular structure of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ near $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ is described by the $`4`$-dimensional affine variety in $`^8`$ with the equations:

$`t_i\overline{u}_i=t_j\overline{u}_j,t_it_j=\overline{u}_i^{}\overline{u}_j^{},(t_i,\overline{u}_i)_{1i4}^8`$ (5)
where $`ij`$ and $`\{i^{},j^{}\}`$ is the complementary pair of $`\{i,j\}`$. For $`n=5`$, the singular structure of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ near $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined by the following relations:

$$t_i\overline{u}_i=t_j\overline{u}_j,\overline{u}_i\overline{u}_j=t_kt_lt_m,(t_i,\overline{u}_i)_{1i5}^{10}$$
(6)
where $`1i<j5`$, and $`\{k,l,m\}`$ is the complement of $`\{i,j\}`$.

For later use, we recall some terminology of the Gröbner basis . Let $`_\mathrm{L}`$ be a lexicographic order on $`[Z]`$ and $`𝐰_0^n`$. The weight order $``$ determined by the weight $`𝐰`$ is the monomial ordering on $`[Z]`$ with the following properties:

| (1) | If $`(𝐮_1𝐮_2)𝐰<0`$, then $`Z^{𝐮_1}Z^{𝐮_2}`$. |
| --- | --- |
| (2) | If $`(𝐮_1𝐮_2)𝐰=0`$ and $`Z^{𝐮_1}_\mathrm{L}Z^{𝐮_2}`$, then $`Z^{𝐮_1}Z^{𝐮_2}`$. |

For a monomial ideal $`I[Z]`$, we shall denote $`I^{}`$ the set of monic monomials outside $`I`$. For a monomial ordering $``$ and an ideal $`J`$, $`\mathrm{lt}_{}(J)`$ will denote the ideal generated by the leading terms (with respect to $``$) of all elements in $`J`$.

## 4 $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(4)}(^4)`$ and Crepant Resolutions of $`^4/A_1(4)`$

In this section, we consider the case $`n=4`$. Throughout this section, the indices $`j,k,l,m`$ will always denote a permutation of $`(1,2,3,4)`$. For $`n=4`$, the polytope $`\mathrm{}`$ in (4) is a regular $`3`$-dimensional octahedron contained in the standard simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`^4`$, with a cube as its dual polygon. We label the facets of the octahedron $`\mathrm{}`$ by $`F_j,F_j^{}`$ where

$$F_j=\mathrm{}_j,F_j^{}=\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}x_ie^i\mathrm{}|x_j=0\}.$$

Then, the dual of $`F_j`$, $`F_j^{}`$ are vertices of the cube, denoted by $`\alpha _j`$, $`\alpha _j^{}`$ (see \[Fig. 1\]).         \[Fig. 1\] Dual pair of octahedron and cube: faces $`F_j`$, $`F_j^{}`$ of octahedron  are dual to vertices $`\alpha _j`$, $`\alpha _j^{}`$ of cube.

|  |
| --- |
| \[Fig. 2\] The rational simplicial decomposition $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`n=4`$. |

Consider the rational simplicial decomposition $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ obtained by $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and adding the center $`c:=\frac{1}{4}_{j=1}^4e^j`$ as a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ with the barycentric decomposition of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, (see \[Fig. 2\]). Then, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(3)`$ consists of the polytopes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$, $`C_j`$ and $`C_j^{}`$ for $`j=1,..,4`$, where

$$C_j:=c,v^{jk},v^{jl},v^{jm},C_j^{}:=c,v^{kl},v^{lm},v^{mk}.$$

Note that $`cN`$ and $`2cN`$.

###### Theorem 4.1

For $`G=A_1(4)`$, we have $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^n)X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, which is non-singular with the canonical bundle $`\omega =𝒪_{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}(E)`$, where $`E`$ is an irreducible divisor isomorphic to the triple product of $`^1`$, $`E=\left(^1\right)^3`$. Furthermore, for $`\{j,k,l\}=\{1,2,3\}`$ and the $`(k,l)`$-th factor projection, $`p_j:E\left(^1\right)^2`$, the restriction of normal bundle of $`E`$ on each fiber $`(^1)`$ of $`p_j`$ is the $`(1)`$-hyperplane bundle of $`^1`$.

Proof: The smoothness of the affine spaces $`X_{}`$, $`=\mathrm{\Delta }_j,C_j,C_j^{}`$, follows from the integral and multiplicity-one properties of $`\sigma _{}`$ with respect to $`N`$. With (3) for $`n=4`$, we have $`V_{jk}=(Z_jZ_k)/(Z_lZ_m)`$, $`U_j=Z_j/(Z_kZ_lZ_m)`$. By using the inverse matrices of $`(e^j,v^{jk},v^{jl},v^{jm})`$, $`(2c,v^{jk},v^{jl},v^{jm})`$ and $`(2c,v^{kl},v^{lm},v^{mk})`$, one obtains the generators of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{}}M`$ for $`=\mathrm{\Delta }_j,C_j`$, and $`C_j^{}`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_j:& U_j,& T_k,& T_l,& T_m;\\ C_j:& U_j^1,& V_{jk},& V_{jl},& V_{jm};\\ C_j^{}:& T_j,& V_{lm},& V_{km},& V_{kl}.\end{array}$$

We shall express the coordinates of an element $`yX_{}^4`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(U_j,T_k,T_l,T_m)=(u_j,t_k,t_l,t_m),& =\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\\ (U_j^1,V_{jk},V_{jl},V_{jm})=(\overline{u_j},v_{jk},v_{jl},v_{jm}),& =C_j,\\ (T_j,V_{lm},V_{km},V_{kl})=(t_j,v_{lm},v_{km},v_{kl}),& =C_j^{},\end{array}$$
(7)
and the corresponding ideal $`I(y)`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_ju_jZ_kZ_lZ_m,Z_k^2t_k,Z_l^2t_l,Z_m^2t_m,& =\mathrm{\Delta }_j;\\ \begin{array}{c}Z_kZ_lZ_m\overline{u_j}Z_j,Z_jZ_kv_{jk}Z_lZ_m,Z_jZ_lv_{jl}Z_kZ_m,\\ Z_jZ_mv_{jm}Z_kZ_l,Z_j^2t_j,Z_k^2t_k,Z_l^2t_l,Z_m^2t_m,\\ \left(t_j=\overline{u_j}v_{jk}v_{jl}v_{jm},t_\alpha =\overline{u_j}v_{j\alpha },(\alpha j)\right),\end{array}\}& =C_j;\\ \begin{array}{c}Z_lZ_mv_{lm}Z_jZ_k,Z_kZ_mv_{km}Z_jZ_l,\\ Z_kZ_lv_{kl}Z_jZ_m,Z_j^2t_j,Z_k^2t_k,Z_l^2t_l,Z_m^2t_m,\\ (t_k=t_jv_{km}v_{kl},t_l=t_jv_{lm}v_{kl},t_m=t_jv_{km}v_{lm}),\end{array}\}& =C_j^{}.\end{array}$$
(8)
In each case, one can show that the generators in the expression of (8) form the reduced Gröbner basis of $`I(y)`$, and $`\mathrm{lt}_{}(I(y))=I(x_{})`$ for a weight order $``$ with the weight in Interior$`(\sigma _{})`$. For $`=\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$, we have $`I(x_{\mathrm{\Delta }_j})=Z_j,Z_k^2,Z_l^2,Z_m^2`$, and

$$I(x_{\mathrm{\Delta }_j})^{}=\{1,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_lZ_m,Z_kZ_m,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_lZ_m\}$$

gives rise to a $`G`$-regular monomial basis for $`[Z]/I(y)`$. Similarly, for $`=C_j,C_j^{}`$, we have $`I(x_{C_j})=Z_kZ_lZ_m,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_jZ_m,Z_1^2,Z_2^2,Z_3^2,Z_4^2`$ and
$`I(x_{C_j^{}})=Z_lZ_m,Z_kZ_m,Z_kZ_l,Z_1^2,Z_2^2,Z_3^2,Z_4^2`$ with

$$I(x_{C_j})^{}=\{1,Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4,Z_lZ_m,Z_kZ_m,Z_kZ_l\},$$

$$I(x_{C_j^{}})^{}=\{1,Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_jZ_m\},$$

which give rise to corresponding $`G`$-regular monomial basis of $`[Z]/I(y)`$. Since $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is birational over $`S_G`$, with the vector bundle $`_{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}`$, we have an epimorphism

$$\lambda :X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(4)}(^4)$$

with $`I(\lambda (y))=I(y)`$ for $`yX_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. We are going to show the injectivity of $`\lambda `$. For each $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(3)`$, the coordinates of an element in $`X_{}`$ can be represented in the form $`(p_i/q_i=\gamma _i)_{i=1}^4`$ for some monomials $`p_i`$, $`q_i`$ described in (7). Let $`y`$, $`y^{}`$ be two points in $`X_{}`$ with the coordinates $`(p_i/q_i=\gamma _i)_{i=1}^4`$ and $`(p_i/q_i=\gamma _i^{})_{i=1}^4`$ respectively. By (7), (8), we have $`p_i\gamma _iq_iI(y)`$ (resp. $`p_i\gamma _i^{}q_iI(y^{})`$) with $`q_iI(x_{})^{}`$ for each $`i`$. When $`I(y^{})=I(y)`$, we have $`(\gamma _i^{}\gamma _i)q_iI(y)`$. By $`q_iI(x_{})^{}`$, one has $`\gamma _i^{}=\gamma _i`$ for all $`i`$, which implies $`y=y^{}`$. Hence, $`\lambda `$ in injective on each $`X_{}`$. Furthermore, the ideal $`I(y)`$ for $`yX_{}`$ is completely determined by its toric coordinates, which appear as some generating elements of $`I(y)`$ in (8). By the construction of toric variety, one can conclude that if $`yX_{}`$ and $`y^{}X_{^{}}`$ with $`I(y)=I(y^{})`$, the toric coordinates of $`y`$ for $`X_{}`$ and $`y^{}`$ for $`X_{^{}}`$ are related by the transition function of these affine charts, hence $`y=y^{}`$. For example, for $`yX_{C_4^{}}`$ and $`y^{}X_{C_1}`$, the affine coordinate of $`yX_{C_4^{}}`$ is given by

$$(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4):=(Z_4^2,\frac{Z_2Z_3}{Z_1Z_4},\frac{Z_1Z_3}{Z_2Z_4},\frac{Z_1Z_2}{Z_3Z_4})$$

and $`y^{}X_{C_1}`$ is

$$(\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3,\eta _4):=(\frac{Z_2Z_3Z_4}{Z_1},\frac{Z_1Z_4}{Z_2Z_3},\frac{Z_1Z_3}{Z_2Z_4},\frac{Z_1Z_2}{Z_3Z_4}).$$

By the expression of $`\xi `$’s and $`\eta `$’s in terms of $`Z_i`$’s, we obtain the transition function on $`X_{C_4^{}}X_{C_1}`$:

$$(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3,\xi _4)=(\eta _1\eta _2,\eta _2^1,\eta _3,\eta _4).$$
(9)
Therefore, $`\lambda `$ defines an isomorphism between $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^4)`$.

By (2), the canonical bundle of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is given by $`\omega _{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}=𝒪_{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}(E)`$ with $`E=D_c`$. As the star of $`c`$ in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is given by the octahedron in \[Fig. 1\], we have $`E(^1)^3`$. One can apply the toric technique to determine the $`(1)`$-hyperplane structure of fiber $`^1`$ of the $`(k,l)`$-th factor projection, $`p_j:E(^1)^2`$ for the normal bundle of $`E`$. For example, in the case of the projection of $`E`$ onto $`(^1)^2`$ corresponding to the $`2`$-convex set $`v^{12},v^{13},v^{34},v^{24}`$, the relation (9) between the local coordinates of $`X_{C_1}`$ and $`X_{C_4^{}}`$ implies that the restriction of the normal bundle of $`E`$ on each fiber $`^1`$ over $`(3,4)`$-plane is the $`(1)`$-hyperplane bundle. This proves Theorem 4.1.
QED

By the property of the normal bundle of the canonical divisor $`E`$ on $`^1`$-fibers in Theorem 4.1, one can blow down $`E`$ to obtain three different crepant resolutions of $`S_G`$. In fact, all these crepant resolutions are toric varieties described as follows: Let $`\mathrm{\Xi }_j`$ be the refinement of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ by adding the segment connecting $`v^{j4}`$ and $`v^{kl}`$ to divide the central polygon $`\mathrm{}`$ into $`4`$ simplices, where $`\{j,k,l\}=\{1,2,3\}`$. Then, we have the relation of refinements: $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_j\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$, and each $`X_{\mathrm{\Xi }_j}`$ is a crepant resolution of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. For the corresponding decompositions of the central core $`\mathrm{}`$, the refinement relations are given by $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_j\mathrm{}^{}`$, $`(1j3)`$, with the pictorial realization \[Fig. 3\].

By the relation between $`X_{\mathrm{}^{}}`$ and $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$, one can conclude that $`x_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the isolated singularity of $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$, with the equation (5). The three $`4`$-folds $`X_\mathrm{}_i`$ are all “small”<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Here a “small” resolution means a resolution with the exceptional locus of codimension $`2`$. resolutions of the singular variety $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$. The relationship between these three crepant resolutions of the isolated singularity is defined to be the flop of $`4`$-folds. Hence, we have shown the following result:

###### Theorem 4.2

There are three crepant resolutions of $`S_{A_1(4)}`$ obtained by blowing down the canonical divisor $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(4)}(^4)`$ in Theorem 4.1. Any two such resolutions differ by a flop of $`4`$-folds.

Remark: The $`𝔖_4`$-action on coordinates leaves $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ invariant, but permutes three $`\mathrm{}_i`$’s. A similar phenomenon will also appear in the case $`G=A_1(5)`$ in the next section.

## 5 $`A_1(5)`$-Hilbert Scheme and Crepant Resolutions of $`^5/A_1(5)`$

In this section, we shall discuss the case of $`G=A_1(5)`$. Throughout this section, the indices $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$, $`l`$, $`m`$ always mean a permutation of $`(1,2,3,4,5)`$. In addition to the elements $`e^i`$, $`v^{ij}`$ of $`N`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we consider the following rational points:

$$u^i=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\alpha i}{}e^\alpha ,w^i=\frac{1}{6}\left(e^i+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{5}{}}e^\alpha \right).$$

Then, one has a refinement $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ with elements in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$ given by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i=e^i,v^{ij},v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im},𝐈_i=w^i,v^{ij},v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im},\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}=w^i,u^j,v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im},$$

$$\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}=\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{kj}=u^j,u^k,v^{im},v^{lm},v^{il},\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}=\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,kj}=w^i,u^j,u^k,v^{il},v^{im},$$

$$𝐕_{im}=𝐕_{mi}=w^i,w^m,u^j,u^k,u^l,v^{im},\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}:=u^\alpha ,w^\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5.$$

There are 5, 5, 20, 10, 30, 10, 1 elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, $`𝐈_i`$, $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}`$, $`𝐕_{im}`$, $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$ respectively. The facet relations for these $`4`$-polytopes can be depicted graphically in the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_i𝐈_i\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}& \mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}& 𝐕_{im}\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}\\ & |& \\ & \mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}& \end{array}$$

where a line describes the intersection of two polytopes with a common facet. Except the heptahedrons $`𝐕_{im}`$ and the decahedron VI, the rest of the $`4`$-polytopes are all simplicial.

###### Theorem 5.1

For $`G=A_1(5)`$, $`\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^5)`$ is the toric variety $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ with the canonical sheaf $`\omega _{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}=𝒪_{X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}\left(_{i=1}^5(2D_{w^i}+D_{u^i})\right)`$, where $`D_{u^i}`$ and $`D_{w^i}`$ are the divisors corresponding to $`u^i`$, $`w^i`$ respectively.

Proof: With (3) for $`n=5`$, we have $`U_i=\frac{Z_i}{Z_jZ_kZ_lZ_m}`$, $`V_{ij}=\frac{Z_iZ_j}{Z_kZ_lZ_m}`$. The generators of $`N\sigma _{}`$ and $`M\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{}}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$ are given by the following table:

$``$ $`N\sigma _{}`$ $`M\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma _{}}`$    $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`e^i,v^{ij},v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im}`$ $`U_i,T_j,T_k,T_l,T_m`$  $`𝐈_i`$ $`3w^i,v^{ij},v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im}`$ $`U_i^1,V_{ij},V_{ik},V_{il},V_{im}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}`$ $`3w^i,2u^j,v^{ik},v^{il},v^{im}`$ $`V_{ij}^1,T_j,V_{ik},V_{il},V_{im}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}`$ $`2u^j,2u^k,v^{im},v^{lm},v^{il}`$ $`T_j,T_k,V_{im},V_{lm},V_{il}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}`$ $`3w^i,2u^j,2u^k,v^{il},v^{im}`$ $`V_{lm}^1,V_{ij}^1,V_{ik}^1,V_{il},V_{im}`$  $`𝐕_{im}`$ $`3w^i,3w^m,2u^j,2u^k,2u^l,v^{im}`$ $`V_{ij}^1,V_{jm}^1,V_{ik}^1,V_{km}^1,V_{il}^1,V_{lm}^1,V_{im}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$ $`3w^i`$, $`2u^i`$, $`(1i5)`$ $`V_{ij}^1`$, $`(1i<j5)`$

Then, one can easily see that $`X_{}`$ has the smooth toric structure $`^5`$ except $`=𝐕_{im}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$, which contribute the singularities of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. In fact, $`X_{𝐕_{im}}`$ is the affine variety in $`^7`$ defined by the relations,

$$V_{ij}^1V_{km}^1=V_{ik}^1V_{jm}^1,V_{ik}^1V_{lm}^1=V_{il}^1V_{km}^1,V_{il}^1V_{jm}^1=V_{ij}^1V_{lm}^1;$$
(10)
and $`X_{\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}}`$ is the affine variety in $`^{10}`$ given by

$$V_{ij}^1V_{il}^1V_{km}^1=V_{ik}^1V_{im}^1V_{jl}^1,V_{ij}^1V_{kl}^1=V_{ik}^1V_{jl}^1$$
(11)
where the indices run through all possible $`i,j,k,l,m`$. For $`\gamma `$, we define the following eigen-polynomials of $`G`$:

$$F_{ij}(\gamma ):=Z_iZ_j\gamma Z_kZ_lZ_m,H_{ij}(\gamma ):=Z_kZ_lZ_m\gamma Z_iZ_j.$$

We shall denote the coordinates of an element $`yX_{}`$ by

$``$ $`yX_{}`$    $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`(U_i,T_j,T_k,T_l,T_m)=(\gamma _i,t_j,t_k,t_l,t_m)`$  $`𝐈_i`$ $`(U_i^1,V_{ij},V_{ik},V_{il},V_{im})=(\gamma _{jklm},\gamma _{ij},\gamma _{ik},\gamma _{il},\gamma _{im})`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}`$ $`(V_{ij}^1,T_j,V_{ik},V_{il},V_{im})=(\gamma _{klm},t_j,\gamma _{ik},\gamma _{il},\gamma _{im})`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}`$ $`(V_{im},V_{il},V_{lm},T_k,T_j)=(\gamma _{im},\gamma _{il},\gamma _{lm},t_k,t_j)`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}`$ $`(V_{il},V_{im},V_{ij}^1,V_{ik}^1,V_{lm}^1)=(\gamma _{il},\gamma _{im},\gamma _{klm},\gamma _{jlm},\gamma _{ijk})`$  $`𝐕_{im}`$ $`\begin{array}{cc}& (V_{im},V_{il}^1,V_{lm}^1,V_{ik}^1,V_{ij}^1,V_{jm}^1,V_{km}^1)\\ =& (\gamma _{im},\gamma _{jkm},\gamma _{ijk},\gamma _{jlm},\gamma _{klm},\gamma _{ikl},\gamma _{ijl})\end{array}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$ $`\left(V_{ij}^1\right)_{i<j}=\left(\gamma _{klm}\right)_{k<l<m}`$

where the $`\gamma `$’s and $`t`$’s are complex numbers, and in the cases of $`𝐕_{im}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$, the coordinates are governed by the relations (10), (11) respectively. Using the above coordinates of $`y`$, one can express the ideal $`I(y)`$ as follows:

| $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ | $`I(y)=Z_j^2t_j,Z_k^2t_k,Z_l^2t_l,Z_m^2t_m,Z_i\gamma _iZ_jZ_kZ_lZ_m`$, |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝐈_i`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}I(y)& =& Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+F_{ij}(\gamma _{ij}),F_{ik}(\gamma _{ik}),\\ & & F_{il}(\gamma _{il}),F_{im}(\gamma _{im}),Z_jZ_kZ_lZ_m\gamma _{jklm}Z_i\end{array}\\ \left(\begin{array}{c}t_j=\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{jklm},t_k=\gamma _{ik}\gamma _{jklm},t_l=\gamma _{il}\gamma _{jklm},\\ t_m=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{jklm},t_i=\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ik}\gamma _{il}\gamma _{im}\gamma _{jklm}^2\end{array}\right)\end{array}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}I(y)=Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+F_{ik}(\gamma _{ik}),F_{il}(\gamma _{il}),F_{im}(\gamma _{im}),H_{ij}(\gamma _{klm})\\ \left(\begin{array}{c}t_k=\gamma _{ik}\gamma _{klm}t_j,t_l=\gamma _{il}\gamma _{klm}t_j,t_m=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{klm}t_j,\\ t_i=\gamma _{ik}\gamma _{il}\gamma _{im}t_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\gamma _{klm}\end{array}\right)\end{array}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}I(y)=Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+F_{im}(\gamma _{im}),F_{il}(\gamma _{il}),F_{lm}(\gamma _{lm}),\\ \left(t_i=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{il}t_kt_j,t_l=\gamma _{il}\gamma _{lm}t_kt_j,t_m=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{lm}t_kt_j\right)\end{array}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}I(y)& =& Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+F_{im}(\gamma _{im}),F_{il}(\gamma _{il}),\\ & & H_{ij}(\gamma _{klm}),H_{ik}(\gamma _{jlm}),H_{lm}(\gamma _{ijk})\end{array}\\ \left(\begin{array}{c}t_m=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{ijk},t_l=\gamma _{il}\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{ijk},\\ t_i=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{il}\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{ijk}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},t_j=\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{ijk},t_k=\gamma _{lmk}\gamma _{ijk}\end{array}\right)\end{array}`$ |
| $`𝐕_{im}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccc}I(y)& =& Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+F_{im}(\gamma _{im}),H_{il}(\gamma _{jkm}),H_{ik}(\gamma _{jlm}),\\ & & H_{ij}(\gamma _{klm}),H_{jm}(\gamma _{ikl}),H_{lm}(\gamma _{ijk}),H_{km}(\gamma _{ijl})\end{array}\\ \left(\begin{array}{c}t_i=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{ikl}\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{ijk}=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{ikl}\gamma _{jkm}\gamma _{ijl},\\ t_m=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{ijk}=\gamma _{im}\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{jkm}\gamma _{ijl},\\ t_l=\gamma _{ikl}\gamma _{jlm}=\gamma _{ijl}\gamma _{klm},t_j=\gamma _{ijk}\gamma _{jlm}=\gamma _{ijl}\gamma _{jkm},\\ t_k=\gamma _{ijk}\gamma _{klm}=\gamma _{ikl}\gamma _{jkm}\end{array}\right)\end{array}`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$ | $`\{\begin{array}{c}I(y)=Z_\alpha ^2t_\alpha _{\alpha =1}^5+H_{lm}(\gamma _{ijk})|\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{possible}i,j,k,l,m,\\ \left(\begin{array}{c}t_i=\gamma _{ijk}\gamma _{ilm}=\gamma _{ijm}\gamma _{ilk},\gamma _{klm}\gamma _{jkm}\gamma _{ijl}=\gamma _{jlm}\gamma _{jkl}\gamma _{ikm}\\ \mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{possible}i,j,k,l,m\end{array}\right)\end{array}`$ |

One can show that the generators in the above expressions of $`I(y)`$ form the corresponding reduced Gröbner basis with respect to a weight order $``$ with weight $`𝐰\mathrm{Interior}(\sigma _{})`$. Furthermore, the ideal $`\mathrm{lt}_{}(I(y))`$ is equal to $`I(x_{})`$. Therefore, $`I(x_{})^{}`$ gives rise to a basis of $`[Z]/I(y)`$, which is $`G`$-regular by the following explicit description of basis elements.

$``$  $`I(x_{})^{}`$    $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_lZ_m,Z_jZ_m,\\ Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_jZ_kZ_m,Z_jZ_lZ_m,Z_kZ_lZ_m,Z_jZ_kZ_lZ_m\end{array}`$  $`𝐈_i`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_i,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_lZ_m,Z_jZ_m,\\ Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_jZ_kZ_m,Z_jZ_lZ_m,Z_kZ_lZ_m\end{array}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}_{ij}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_i,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_iZ_j,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_lZ_m,\\ Z_jZ_m,Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_jZ_kZ_m,Z_jZ_lZ_m\end{array}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}_{jk}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_i,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_iZ_j,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_iZ_jZ_k,\\ Z_jZ_m,Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_jZ_kZ_m,Z_iZ_k\end{array}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}_{i,jk}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_i,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_iZ_j,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_lZ_m,\\ Z_jZ_m,Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_jZ_kZ_m,Z_iZ_k\end{array}`$  $`𝐕_{im}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_i,Z_j,Z_k,Z_l,Z_m,Z_iZ_j,Z_jZ_k,Z_jZ_l,Z_kZ_l,Z_kZ_m,Z_iZ_jZ_k,\\ Z_jZ_m,Z_jZ_kZ_l,Z_iZ_l,Z_iZ_k\end{array}`$  $`\mathrm{𝐕𝐈}`$ $`\begin{array}{c}1,Z_1,Z_2,Z_3,Z_4,Z_5,Z_1Z_2,Z_1Z_3,Z_1Z_4,Z_1Z_5,Z_2Z_3,Z_2Z_4,\\ Z_2Z_5,Z_3Z_4,Z_3Z_5,Z_4Z_5\end{array}`$

Thus, $`[Z]/I(y)`$ is a regular $`G`$-module for each $`yX_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, and $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is birational over $`S_G`$ having the vector bundle $`_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. Hence, there is an epimorphism $`\lambda :X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^5)`$ with $`I(\lambda (y))=I(y)`$. With the same argument as in the case $`n=4`$, one can show that $`\lambda `$ is injective on each $`X_{}`$ by the reason that the toric coordinates are encoded in the generators of $`I(y)`$. By the toric variety structure of $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, one obtains the injectivity of $`\lambda `$. Hence $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^5)`$. By (2), one has the expression of the canonical sheaf for $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ .
QED.

We are going to construct certain crepant resolutions of $`S_G`$ dominated by the toric variety $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{Hilb}^G(^5)`$. Consider the permutation $`\tau =(12345)`$ on the coordinates of $`N_0`$. Define the following simplices in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$C:=v^{12},v^{23},v^{34},v^{45},v^{15},$$

$$D_0:=v^{12},v^{23},v^{34},v^{13},v^{15},$$

$$E_0:=v^{35},v^{23},v^{25},v^{45},v^{15},$$

and $`D_i:=\tau ^i(D_0)`$, $`E_i:=\tau ^i(E_0)`$ ($`i=1,..,4`$). Then, one can show that $`C`$, $`D_i`$ and $`E_i`$ ($`0i4`$) form an integral simplicial decomposition of the central core $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Xi }(4)`$, hence one has the refinement $`\mathrm{}^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`\mathrm{}^{}(4)=\{C\}\{D_i,E_i\}_{i=0}^4`$. Denote $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ the rational polytope decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)=\mathrm{}^{}(4)\{\mathrm{\Delta }_i\}_{i=1}^5`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is a refinement of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. By computing the primitive generators of each element in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$, one can easily check that $`X_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is a crepant resolution of $`S_G`$. The facet relations of simplices in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$ are given in the following diagram:

###### Lemma 5.1

We have the relation $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}`$, consequently, $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$.

Proof: It suffices to show the relation $`\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}`$. By a detailed analysis of the $`4`$-polytopes in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$, one can conclude that the simplex $`C`$ is the union of the following eleven polytopes in $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(4)`$ with the facet relations:

Similarly, the relations of $`D_0`$, $`E_0`$ with $`4`$-polytopes in $`\mathrm{}^{}(4)`$ are given in the following diagram:

By applying $`\tau ^i`$ ($`1i4`$) on the above diagrams for $`D_0`$ and $`E_0`$, one obtains the decompositions of $`D_i`$, $`E_i`$ in terms of elements in $`\mathrm{}^{}(4)`$. The results then follow.
QED

As known in §2, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ are $`𝔖_5`$-invariant polytope decompositions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but not for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. The isotropy subgroup of $`𝔖_5`$ for $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ is $`𝔊^{}=(25)(34),(12345)`$, which is isomorphic to the dihedral group of order $`10`$, with the index $`[𝔖_5:𝔊^{}]=12`$. By applying permutation elements in $`𝔖_5`$ to the decomposition $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, one obtains twelve integral simplicial refinements $`\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ ($`1i12`$) of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_i\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$. Correspondingly, there are twelve decompositions $`\mathrm{}_i`$ ($`1i12`$) of the central core $`\mathrm{}`$ with the following refinement relations:

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}^{},i=1,..,12.$$

The connection between these twelve smooth $`5`$-folds corresponding to the toric data $`\mathrm{}_i`$’s can be regarded as the “flop” of $`5`$-folds, all of which are crepant resolutions of the singular variety defined by (6). Therefore, we have obtained the following result:

###### Theorem 5.2

There are twelve toric crepant resolutions, $`X_{\mathrm{\Xi }_i}`$ $`1i12`$, of $`S_{A_1(5)}`$ which are dominated by $`\mathrm{Hilb}^{A_1(5)}(^5)`$. Any two such resolutions differ by a “flop” of $`5`$-folds.