4.4 Article

Mordell-Weil torsion in the mirror of multi-sections

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2016)031

关键词

Differential and Algebraic Geometry; F-Theory; Global Symmetries; String Duality

资金

  1. Bonn-Cologne Graduate School BCGS
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB-Transregio TR33]
  3. European Union [PITN-GA-2009-237920]
  4. NSF [PHY-1417337, PHY-1417316]
  5. KIAS
  6. Division Of Physics
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1417337] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Physics
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1417316] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We give further evidence that genus-one fibers with multi-sections are mirror dual to fibers with Mordell-Weil torsion. In the physics of F-theory compactifications this implies a relation between models with a non-simply connected gauge group and those with discrete symmetries. We provide a combinatorial explanation of this phenomenon for toric hypersurfaces. In particular this leads to a criterion to deduce Mordell-Weil torsion directly from the polytope. For all 3134 complete intersection genus-one curves in three-dimensional toric ambient spaces we confirm the conjecture by explicit calculation. We comment on several new features of these models: the Weierstrass forms of many models can be identified by relabeling the coefficient sections. This reduces the number of models to 1024 inequivalent ones. We give an example of a fiber which contains only non-toric sections one of which becomes toric when the fiber is realized in a different ambient space. Similarly a singularity in codimension one can have a toric resolution in one representation while it is non-toric in another. Finally we give a list of 24 inequivalent genus-one fibers that simultaneously exhibit multi-sections and Mordell-Weil torsion in the Jacobian. We discuss a self-mirror example from this list in detail.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据