Absolute vs. relative Gromov-Witten invariants (Q508093): Difference between revisions

The Gromov-Witten invariants of a compact symplectic manifold \((X,\omega)\) count \(J\)-holomorphic curves in \(X\). If \(V\) is a symplectic hypersurface in \(X\), the relative Gromov-Witten invariants of \((X,\omega,V)\) count \(J\)-holomorphic curves in \(X\) with specific contacts with \(V\). In this paper, if \(V\) contains no relevant holomorphic curves, except a narrow range of dimensions of the target and genera of the domains, these invariants are shown to be the same (Theorem 1). Examples which show the necessity of the assumptions of Theorem 1 are also given. The authors claim that this answers a key question arising when trying to adapt the idea of \textit{K. Cieliebak} and \textit{K. Mohnke} [J. Symplectic Geom. 5, No. 3, 281--356 (2007; Zbl 1149.53052)] for constructing positive-genus GW-invariants geometrically (cf.\S5, the last section). The Gromov-Witten invariant \(GW^X_{g,A}(\kappa;\alpha)\), \(\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_k)\) is defined by using the Deligne-Mumford moduli space \(\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}\) of stable \(k\)-marked genus-\(g\) connected nodal curves and \(\bar{\mathfrak{M}}_{g,k}(X,A)\), the moduli spaces of stable \(J\)-holomorphic \(k\)-marked maps from connected nodal curves of genus-\(g\) degree \(A\), where \(J\) is an almost complex structure on \(X\) compatible with \(\omega\) and \(A\in H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})\). \(GW^X_{g,A}(\kappa;\alpha)\) is defined taking \(\kappa\in H^\ast(\bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k})\), \(\alpha_i\in H^\ast(X)\) and the \(i\)-th evaluation map \(\mathrm{ev}_i:\bar{\mathfrak{M}}_{g,k}(X,A)\to X\) and the forgetful morphism \(\mathrm{st}:\bar{\mathfrak{M}}_{g,k}(X,A)\to \bar{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}\) as follows: \[ GW^X_{g,A}(\kappa;\alpha)=\langle\mathrm{st}^\ast\kappa\prod_{i=1}^k\mathrm{ev}_i^\ast\alpha_i.[\bar{\mathfrak{M}}_{g,k}(X,A)]^{\mathrm{vir}}\rangle. \] The definition of the relative Gromov-Witten invariant \(GW^{X,V}_{g;A;\mathbf{s}}(\kappa;\alpha)\), \(\mathbf{s}=(s_1,\ldots,s_\ell), s_1+\cdots+s_\ell=A\cdot V\) uses the moduli space \(\bar{\mathfrak{M}}^v_{g,k,\mathbf{s}}(X,A)\) of stable \(J\)-holomorphic \((k+\ell)\)-marked maps from connected nodal curves of genus-\(g\) that have contact with \(V\) at the last \(\ell\) marked points of orders \(s_1,\ldots,s_\ell\), respectively. \(V\) is said to be a \((g,A)\)-hollow if there exists an \(\omega|V\)-tame almost complex structure \(J_V\) on \(V\) such that every non-constant \(J_V\)-holomorphic map \(u:\Sigma\to V\) from a smooth connected Riemannian surface \(\Sigma\) satisfies \(g(\Sigma)>g\), or \(\langle u^\ast\omega,\Sigma\rangle>\omega(a)\), or \(\langle u^\ast\omega,\Sigma\rangle=\omega(A), u_\ast\Sigma\not= A\) (Definition 1). Then the statement of Theorem 1 is the following: Theorem 1. If \(V\) is \((g,A)\)-hollow and \(A\cdot V\geq 0\), and \[ (g,A)\not=(1,0) \;\mathrm{and} \;(n-5)g(g-1)\geq 0, \;2n=\mathrm{dim}X, \] then the following holds \[ GW^X_{g,A}(\kappa;\alpha)=\frac{1}{(A\cdot V)!}GW^{X,V}_{g,A;\mathbf{1}_{A\cdot V}}(\kappa;\alpha).\eqno{(1)} \] This identity also holds if \(\kappa=1, A\not=0\) and either \(g=2\) or \(n\not=4\). After explaining GW-invariants in \S2, Theorem 1 is proved in \S3, first by direct calculations (\S3.1). An alternative proof by a formal application of the symplectic sum formula for GW-invariants [\textit{D. Maulik} and \textit{R. Pandharipande}, Topology 45, No. 5, 887--918 (2006; Zbl 1112.14065)] is also given (\S3.2). Three counter examples of (1), which show the necessity of the assumptions of Theorem 1 are given in \S4. In the last section (\S5), the approach of [Cieliebak and Mohnke, loc. cit.] is reviewed and its connections with the results of this paper are discussed.