Advertisement

Mirror Symmetry Constructions

  • Emily CladerEmail author
  • Yongbin Ruan
Chapter
Part of the Trends in Mathematics book series (TM)

Abstract

Mirror symmetry, in general, is a correspondence between objects of a certain type (manifolds, for example, or polynomial functions) and objects of a possibly different type that exchanges the “A-model” of each object with the “B-model” of its image. This equivalence has many manifestations in both mathematics and physics, but in order to discuss any of them, one must first understand how mirror pairs are constructed. We review three such constructions—the Batyrev construction, the Hori–Vafa construction, and the Berglund–Hubsch–Krawitz constructions—and, in each case, describe the A-model and B-model state spaces that mirror symmetry interchanges.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mark Shoemaker for his detailed and valuable comments. Thanks are also due to Kentaro Hori for answering many of the authors’ questions, and to all of the students in the course on which these notes are based, without whom many corrections and clarifications would not have been made. The authors were partially supported by NSF RTG grant 1045119.

References

  1. 1.
    Acosta, P.: Asymptotic expansion and the LG/(Fano, General Type) correspondence (2014). ArXiv preprint, arXiv:1411.4162Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adem, A., Leida, J., Ruan, Y.: Orbifolds and Stringy Topology, vol. 171. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnol’d, V.I.: Singularity Theory, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Batyrev, V.: Dual polyhedra and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces. J. Algebraic Geom. 3, 493–535 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batyrev, V., Borisov, L.: On Calabi-Yau complete intersections in toric varieties. In: Andreatta, M., Peternell, T. (eds.) Higher-Dimensional Complex Varieties (Trento, 1994). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berglund, P., Hübsch, T.: A generalized construction of mirror manifolds. Nucl. Phys. B 393, 377–391 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cannas da Silva, A.: Lectures on Symplectic Geometry. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1764. Springer, Berlin (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, W., Ruan, Y.: A new cohomology theory of orbifold. Commun. Math. Phys. 248(1), 1–31 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chiodo, A., Ruan, Y.: Landau–Ginzburg/Calabi–Yau correspondence for quintic three-folds via symplectic transformations. Invent. Math. 182(1), 117–165 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chiodo, A., Ruan, Y.: LG/CY correspondence: the state space isomorphism. Adv. Math. 227(6), 2157–2188 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chiodo, A., Iritani, H., Ruan, Y.: Landau-Ginzburg/Calabi-Yau correspondence, global mirror symmetry and Orlov equivalence. Publ. Math. IHÉS, 119, 1–90 (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clader, E.: Landau-Ginzburg/Calabi-Yau correspondence for the complete intersections X 3,3 and X 2,2,2,2 (2013). ArXiv preprint, arXiv:1301.5530Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clader, E., Ross, D.: Sigma models and phase transitions for complete intersections. Int. Math. Res. Not. (2015, in press). arXiv:1511.02027Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cox, D.A., Little, J.B., Schenck, H.K.: Toric Varieties. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fan, H., Jarvis, T., Ruan, Y.: The Witten equation, mirror symmetry and quantum singularity theory. Ann. Math. 178, 1–106 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fulton, W.: Introduction to Toric Varieties. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 131. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Givental, A.: Equivariant Gromov-Witten invariants. Int. Math. Res. Not. 13, 613–663 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Givental, A.: A mirror theorem for toric complete intersections. In: Topological Field Theory, Primitive Forms, and Related Topics. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 160, pp. 141–175. Birkhäuser, Basel (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gonzalez, E., Woodward, C.: Quantum cohomology and toric minimal model programs (2012). ArXiv preprint, arXiv:1207.3253Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hori, K., Vafa, C.: Mirror symmetry (2000). arXiv preprint hep-th/0002222Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hori, K., Katz, S., Pandharipande, R., Thomas, R., Vafa, C., Vakil, R., Zaslow, E.: Mirror Symmetry. American Mathematical Society/Clay Mathematics Institute, Peterborough (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iritani, H.: Convergence of quantum cohomology by quantum Lefschetz. J. Reine Angew. Math. 610, 29–69 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krawitz, M.: FJRW rings and Landau-Ginzburg mirror symmetry (2009). ArXiv preprint, arXiv:0906.0796Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kreuzer, M., Skarke, H.: On the classification of quasihomogeneous functions. Commun. Math. Phys. 150, 137–147 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McDuff, D., Salamon, D.: Introduction to Symplectic Topology. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Witten, E.: Phases of N = 2 theories in two dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B 403(1), 159–222 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsSan Francisco State UniversitySan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations