Sewing Chiral RCFTs

Given a local RCFT defined on a punctured sphere 𝕊2({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), we want to construct such a theory on a higher genus Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), where {𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛} denotes the puncture at point 𝑝𝑛 with local coordinate 𝑧𝑛, which satisfies 𝑧(𝑝)=0.

There is a standard way to obtain a higher genus Riemann surface from some punctured spheres, so-called factorization, or sewing procedure. Thus, the main idea is:

  • First, find a factorization of the target Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}).
  • Define local RCFTs on each of the pants, i.e. 𝕊2({𝑝𝑖,𝑧𝑖},{𝑝𝑗,𝑧𝑗},{𝑝𝑘,𝑧𝑘}).
  • Find an associative sewing operation for local RCFTs, which is compatible with the sewing of Riemann surfaces.

The data above could be summarized as:

𝑍:[(Σ𝑔1,Σ𝑔2)Σ𝑔1+𝑔2][(𝑍(Σ𝑔1),𝑍(Σ𝑔2))𝑍(Σ𝑔1+𝑔2)],

where 𝑍 denotes the RCFT defined on the corresponding Riemann surface, corresponding to the higher genus partition functions.

Since there are various factorizations for a given Riemann surface, we also need to show that the final RCFT defined on Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}) is independent of the choice of pants decomposition. Which could be related to the constrains for 𝑍 above, corresponding to the Moore-Seiberg data in the rational CFT and mapping class group actions on the Riemann surfaces.

Introduction: Gluing in QFT

This is an elementary part which is well-known in QFT at least in the level of “philosophy”.

Remark
Writing down such procedures in a rigorous way is not easy, and only succeed in some special cases, e.g., topological QFTs, and rational CFTs which is our main focus here.
Remark
Writing down such procedures in a rigorous way is not easy, and only succeed in some special cases, e.g., topological QFTs, and rational CFTs which is our main focus here.

Consider a QFT defined on a manifold 𝑀 with boundary 𝜕𝑀, the path integral could be written as:

𝑍(𝑀,𝜑(𝜕𝑀))=Γ(𝑀,𝑋)𝜑|𝜕𝑀=𝜑(𝜕𝑀)𝒟︀[𝜑]𝑒𝑆[𝜑],

which is a functional of the boundary field configuration 𝜑(𝜕𝑀). Thus, if we have two manifolds 𝑀 and 𝑁 with isomorphic boundaries 𝜕𝑀𝜕𝑁, we could glue them together to form a new manifold 𝑀𝜕𝑀𝜕𝑁𝑁 with inverse boundary operations:

𝑍(𝑀𝜕𝑀𝜕𝑁𝑁)=Γ(𝜕𝑀,𝑋)𝒟︀[𝜑(𝜕𝑀)]𝑍(𝑀,𝜑(𝜕𝑀))𝑍(𝑁,𝜑(𝜕𝑀)),

where we sum over all the possible boundary field configurations 𝜑(𝜕𝑀), and 𝑍(𝑁,𝜑(𝜕𝑀)) denotes the complex conjugate of 𝑍(𝑁,𝜑(𝜕𝑀)), since the orientation of 𝜕𝑁 is opposite to that of 𝜕𝑀.

Sewing an RCFT

We first review the sewing procedure for Riemann surfaces, then discuss how local RCFTs behave under such operations.

Sewing Riemann Surfaces

Consider two punctures {𝑝𝑖,𝑧𝑖} and {𝑝𝑗,𝑧𝑗} on (some) Riemann surfaces. A sewing operation would glue these two punctures together to form a new Riemann surface Σ.

Example
  • If the two punctures are on different Riemann surfaces Σ𝑔1 and Σ𝑔2, the new Riemann surface would be written as Σ𝑔1+𝑔2,𝑛1+𝑛22=Σ𝑔1,𝑛1𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔2,𝑛2.
  • If the two punctures are on the same Riemann surface Σ𝑔, the new Riemann surface would be written as Σ𝑔+1,𝑛2=8𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔,𝑛.

In the notation above, the RCFT partition functions 𝑍:Σ𝑔,𝑛𝑍(Σ𝑔,𝑛) should be compatible with the sewing operations, for example:

𝑍:Σ𝑔1,𝑛1𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔2,𝑛2𝑍(Σ𝑔1+𝑔2,𝑛1+𝑛22),

would define a higher genus RCFT partition function from two lower genus ones. We will discuss more details in the next section.

Example
  • If the two punctures are on different Riemann surfaces Σ𝑔1 and Σ𝑔2, the new Riemann surface would be written as Σ𝑔1+𝑔2,𝑛1+𝑛22=Σ𝑔1,𝑛1𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔2,𝑛2.
  • If the two punctures are on the same Riemann surface Σ𝑔, the new Riemann surface would be written as Σ𝑔+1,𝑛2=8𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔,𝑛.

In the notation above, the RCFT partition functions 𝑍:Σ𝑔,𝑛𝑍(Σ𝑔,𝑛) should be compatible with the sewing operations, for example:

𝑍:Σ𝑔1,𝑛1𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔2,𝑛2𝑍(Σ𝑔1+𝑔2,𝑛1+𝑛22),

would define a higher genus RCFT partition function from two lower genus ones. We will discuss more details in the next section.

In this procedure:

  • Punctures 𝑝𝑖 and 𝑝𝑗 would be identified and finally removed.
  • The local coordinates 𝑧𝑖 and 𝑧𝑗 would satisfy the relation 𝑧𝑖𝑧𝑗=𝑞, where 𝑞 is a complex parameter with |𝑞|<1.
Remark

𝑞 is called the sewing parameter, which controls the complex structure of the new Riemann surface Σ, and related to the Fenchel–Nielsen coordinates (𝑙,𝜃) by 𝑞=𝑒(𝑙+𝑖𝜃) in the Teichmüller space.

If there are some other sewing operations happening at the same time, we would have multiple sewing parameters 𝑞1,𝑞2,, which form a coordinate system {𝑞𝑖}.

Remark

𝑞 is called the sewing parameter, which controls the complex structure of the new Riemann surface Σ, and related to the Fenchel–Nielsen coordinates (𝑙,𝜃) by 𝑞=𝑒(𝑙+𝑖𝜃) in the Teichmüller space.

If there are some other sewing operations happening at the same time, we would have multiple sewing parameters 𝑞1,𝑞2,, which form a coordinate system {𝑞𝑖}.

The second step could be understood as follows:

  • Cutting out small disks |𝑧𝑖|<|𝑞|12 and |𝑧𝑗|<|𝑞|12 around the punctures.
  • Identifying the boundary |𝑞|12|𝑧𝑖|<1 and |𝑞|12|𝑧𝑗|<1 via the relation 𝑧𝑖𝑧𝑗=𝑞.

Modularity and Mapping Class Group

A Fenchel–Nielsen coordinate system {𝑞𝑖} corresponds to a factorization of the Riemann surface. However, there are various factorizations for a given Riemann surface, thus various coordinate systems {𝑞𝑖} in the Teichmüller space.

Modularity: Sewing a Double Punctured Sphere

Consider sewing two punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞 on a double punctured sphere 𝕊2({𝑝,𝑧},{𝑝,𝑤}), the resulting Riemann surface is a torus (well-known fact). We assume 𝑝 and 𝑝 are two poles of the sphere, and the local coordinates 𝑧 and 𝑤 are related by 𝑧𝑤=𝑞.

Using the transition function of two charts on the sphere, we could write 𝑤=1𝑧, thus the sewing relation could be written as and identification 𝑧𝑞𝑧. Under this identification, the complex plane becomes a torus 𝕋=/(𝑧𝑞𝑧)/(+𝜏), where 𝑞=𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝜏, 𝜏.

The change of sewing could be identified with changing the way to cut the torus into a double punctured sphere, which is identified with changing the basis of the homology group 𝐻1(𝕋,) (A-cycle and B-cycle). The homology basis has a natural symplectic structure given by the intersection number, thus the change of basis should preserve such structure, i.e., an action of the symplectic group Sp(2,)SL(2,).

Thus, the different sewing operations on the double punctured sphere correspond to different coordinate systems 𝑞=𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝜏 and 𝑞=𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝜏 on the Teichmüller space of the torus, which are related by the modular group SL(2,) action.

Mapping Class Group

Higher dimensional generalization of the modular group is the mapping class group of Riemann surfaces. Point is: Different sewing operations correspond to the different {𝑞𝑖} coordinate systems in the Teichmüller space, which are related by the action of the mapping class group MCG𝑔,𝑛, which is SL(2,) in the torus case.

Remark
Well-defined RCFT on a higher genus Riemann surface should be independent of the choice of factorization, thus independent of the choice of sewing operations. Which leads to some constrains on the RCFT partition functions under the action of the mapping class group we will discuss later.
Remark
Well-defined RCFT on a higher genus Riemann surface should be independent of the choice of factorization, thus independent of the choice of sewing operations. Which leads to some constrains on the RCFT partition functions under the action of the mapping class group we will discuss later.

Elementary Moves for Sewing Operations

A sewing procedure could be decomposed into a sequence of elementary sewing operations, which correspond to:

  • Self twisting Σ𝑔,𝑛=𝑇𝑖Σ𝑔,𝑛.
  • Self sewing Σ𝑔+1,𝑛2=8𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔,𝑛.
  • Sewing two different Riemann surfaces Σ𝑔1+𝑔2,𝑛1+𝑛22=Σ𝑔1,𝑛1𝑗𝑖Σ𝑔2,𝑛2.

And the resulting Riemann surface could be obtained by a sequence of compositions of these elementary sewing.

There are various ways to go from a given factorization to another one, which correspond to different sequences of elementary sewing operations. There is a result by Hatcher and Thurston that classifies these relations:

Theorem (Hatcher-Thurston)

Any two factorizations of a Riemann surface could be related by a sequence of the following elementary moves:

  • F-move: Change the way to cut a four punctured sphere into two three punctured spheres.
  • S-move: Change the way to cut a one punctured torus into a double punctured sphere.

Satisfying some relations (pentagon relation, hexagon relation, …)

Theorem (Hatcher-Thurston)

Any two factorizations of a Riemann surface could be related by a sequence of the following elementary moves:

  • F-move: Change the way to cut a four punctured sphere into two three punctured spheres.
  • S-move: Change the way to cut a one punctured torus into a double punctured sphere.

Satisfying some relations (pentagon relation, hexagon relation, …)

Thus, to obtain two consistent sewing operations from a given factorization to another one, we only need to check the consistency under these elementary moves. The relations such as pentagon relation and hexagon relation shows that, all the different ways to go from a given factorization to another one are consistent.

Sewing Local RCFTs

Using the construction above, the theory has a strong flavor of our naive picture of path integral gluing in QFT, i.e., summing over the states living on the boundary circles:

𝑍(Σ)=𝛼𝑍(Σ1,𝜑𝛼)𝑍(Σ2,𝜑𝛼),

where 𝜑𝛼 denotes the boundary local field configurations. In CFT:

  • Using state-field correspondence, the boundary local field configurations are identified with the states in the Hilbert space 𝐻 attached to the boundary circle.
  • Boundary field configurations could be written as linear combinations of primary fields and their descendants:

    ℒ︀𝑛𝜑𝑖(𝑧)𝐿𝑛1𝐿𝑛𝑁𝜑𝑖(𝑧),
    where {𝜑𝑖} is the set of primary fields, and {𝐿𝑛} are the Virasoro generators (we only consider chiral part here for simplicity).
  • RCFT restricts the dimensional of the Hilbert space 𝐻 to be finite, thus we could select a finite basis {𝜑𝑖} for the primary fields.
image
Attaching modules to the boundaries (punctures), which could be written as a 'dual diagram', looks like Feynman diagram.
image
Attaching modules to the boundaries (punctures), which could be written as a 'dual diagram', looks like Feynman diagram.

Thus, we could select a finite basis for the states living on the boundary circles {|𝑖,𝑛}, where 𝑖 labels the primary fields, and 𝑛 labels the descendants. Consider sewing 𝑀 with puncture 𝑝 and 𝑁 with puncture 𝑞, the boundary state could be written as:

|Φ𝑀𝑖,𝑛𝐴𝑖,𝑛|𝑖,𝑛,Φ𝑁|𝑗,𝑚𝐵𝑗,𝑚𝑗,𝑚|,

where the coefficients 𝐴𝑖,𝑛 and 𝐵𝑗,𝑚 could be written as some correlation functions involving the corresponding fields:

𝐴𝑖,𝑛=𝑂1𝑂𝐾ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑝)𝑀,𝐵𝑗,𝑚=ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑗(𝑞)𝑂𝐾+1𝑂𝐾+𝐿𝑁,

where we used state-operator correspondence to relate the states and local fields, here the puncture is understood as infinite past or future in the radial quantization.

The gluing procedure leads to a two punctured sphere, whose end points are inserted with the boundary states generated by descendants of primary fields. Thus, the partition function on such sphere 𝕊2({𝑝,𝑧},{𝑞,𝑤}) is1:

𝛿𝑖𝑗𝑀𝑚𝑛(𝑖)ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑧=0)ℒ︀𝑛𝜑𝑗(𝑤=0)𝕊2({𝑝,𝑧},{𝑞,𝑤}),

thus, the amplitude from sewing 𝑀 and 𝑁 could be written as:

𝟏𝑖,𝑚,𝑛|𝑖,𝑛(𝑀(𝑖))𝑚𝑛1𝑖,𝑚|,

(here we assume that 𝑀 is positive definite). Inserting this into the correlation functions on 𝑀 and 𝑁, we obtain the sewn chiral correlation function:

𝑂1𝑂𝐾+𝐿𝑀𝑞𝑝𝑁𝑖,𝑚,𝑛𝑂1𝑂𝐾ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑝)𝑀(𝑀(𝑖))𝑚𝑛1ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑞)𝑂𝐾+1𝑂𝐾+𝐿𝑁
Proposition
The correlation functions defined above satisfy the properties of chiral correlation functions (Ward identity), thus defines a local RCFT on the sewn Riemann surface.
Proposition
The correlation functions defined above satisfy the properties of chiral correlation functions (Ward identity), thus defines a local RCFT on the sewn Riemann surface.
Remark

Consider 𝐾=𝐿=2 case and assume the inserted operators are primary fields 𝜑1,,𝜑4, then the sewn four-point chiral correlation function could be written as:

𝜑1𝜑2𝜑3𝜑4𝑀𝑞𝑝𝑁=𝑖(𝑚,𝑛𝜑1𝜑2ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑝)𝑀(𝑀(𝑖))𝑚𝑛1ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑞)𝜑3𝜑4𝑁).

Using the OPE:

𝜑1(𝑧)𝜑2(𝑤)=𝑖𝐶12𝑖(𝑧𝑤)𝑖12𝜑𝑖(𝑤)+,

and Wick contraction, we could rewrite the expression above as

𝜑1𝜑2𝜑3𝜑4𝑀𝑞𝑝𝑁=𝑖𝐶12𝑖𝐶34𝑖ℱ︀𝑖(𝑞),

which is exactly the conformal block expansion of the four-point chiral correlation function on the sewn sphere. The four points sphere could be understood as sewing two three-point spheres 𝕊2({𝑝1,𝑧1},{𝑝2,𝑧2},{𝑝,𝑧}) and 𝕊2({𝑞,𝑤},{𝑝3,𝑧3},{𝑝4,𝑧4}) together at punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞.

In the notation above, we can easily see that {ℱ︀𝑖} forms a basis of the conformal blocks on the four-point sphere.

Remark

Consider 𝐾=𝐿=2 case and assume the inserted operators are primary fields 𝜑1,,𝜑4, then the sewn four-point chiral correlation function could be written as:

𝜑1𝜑2𝜑3𝜑4𝑀𝑞𝑝𝑁=𝑖(𝑚,𝑛𝜑1𝜑2ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑝)𝑀(𝑀(𝑖))𝑚𝑛1ℒ︀𝑚𝜑𝑖(𝑞)𝜑3𝜑4𝑁).

Using the OPE:

𝜑1(𝑧)𝜑2(𝑤)=𝑖𝐶12𝑖(𝑧𝑤)𝑖12𝜑𝑖(𝑤)+,

and Wick contraction, we could rewrite the expression above as

𝜑1𝜑2𝜑3𝜑4𝑀𝑞𝑝𝑁=𝑖𝐶12𝑖𝐶34𝑖ℱ︀𝑖(𝑞),

which is exactly the conformal block expansion of the four-point chiral correlation function on the sewn sphere. The four points sphere could be understood as sewing two three-point spheres 𝕊2({𝑝1,𝑧1},{𝑝2,𝑧2},{𝑝,𝑧}) and 𝕊2({𝑞,𝑤},{𝑝3,𝑧3},{𝑝4,𝑧4}) together at punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞.

In the notation above, we can easily see that {ℱ︀𝑖} forms a basis of the conformal blocks on the four-point sphere.

Now we focus on the primary fields correlator. Due to the state-operator correspondence, a primary field would correspond to a highest weight state, thus form a subspace in the Hilbert space 𝑉. In this case, the setup for our sewing operation could be summarized as:

  • Consider sewing two Riemann surfaces 𝑀 and 𝑁 at punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞.
  • On each puncture, we attach a vector space 𝑉 spanned by the primary field 𝜑 and its descendants.

The second part corresponds to choosing a module 𝑉 of our chiral algebra 𝑉 (or vertex operator algebra if you like) to attach to the sewing punctures.

Remark

In general, the irreducible modules of an arbitrary conformal vertex operator algebra cannot be labeled by primary fields only, since there could be some logarithmic modules.

However, in rational CFT case, there is a one-to-one correspondence between primary fields and irreducible modules. Which hints that the representation category of rational vertex operator algebra is semisimple.

Remark

In general, the irreducible modules of an arbitrary conformal vertex operator algebra cannot be labeled by primary fields only, since there could be some logarithmic modules.

However, in rational CFT case, there is a one-to-one correspondence between primary fields and irreducible modules. Which hints that the representation category of rational vertex operator algebra is semisimple.

Reviewing our previous discussion, we have:

Proposition

Given a factorization of a Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), we have a basis of ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛). The construction of such basis is:

  • Consider the pants decomposition of the Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), which would give a set of three-point spheres 𝕊2({𝑝𝑖,𝑧𝑖},{𝑝𝑗,𝑧𝑗},{𝑝𝑘,𝑧𝑘}).
  • On each sphere, two of the punctures are attached with the external modules 𝑉𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗, while the third puncture, called sewing puncture, is attached with an internal module 𝑉𝑘.
  • Sewing procedure would glue the sewing punctures on different spheres together, and sum over the choice of internal modules {𝑉𝑘}.
  • Thus, the basis of ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛) could be labeled by the choice of internal modules {𝑉𝑘} on the sewing punctures, i.e., {𝐹{𝑖𝑘}} where 𝑖𝑘 labels the internal module 𝑉𝑖𝑘 on the 𝑘-th sewing puncture.
Proposition

Given a factorization of a Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), we have a basis of ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛). The construction of such basis is:

  • Consider the pants decomposition of the Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}), which would give a set of three-point spheres 𝕊2({𝑝𝑖,𝑧𝑖},{𝑝𝑗,𝑧𝑗},{𝑝𝑘,𝑧𝑘}).
  • On each sphere, two of the punctures are attached with the external modules 𝑉𝑖 and 𝑉𝑗, while the third puncture, called sewing puncture, is attached with an internal module 𝑉𝑘.
  • Sewing procedure would glue the sewing punctures on different spheres together, and sum over the choice of internal modules {𝑉𝑘}.
  • Thus, the basis of ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛) could be labeled by the choice of internal modules {𝑉𝑘} on the sewing punctures, i.e., {𝐹{𝑖𝑘}} where 𝑖𝑘 labels the internal module 𝑉𝑖𝑘 on the 𝑘-th sewing puncture.

We need to check that the conformal blocks constructed above indeed form a basis of the space of conformal blocks ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛). We will do this in the next section.

Remark
Back to four point sphere case, the conformal block basis {ℱ︀𝑖} we obtained above is exactly the one given by the proposition, where there is only one sewing puncture attached with internal module 𝑉𝑖.
Remark
Back to four point sphere case, the conformal block basis {ℱ︀𝑖} we obtained above is exactly the one given by the proposition, where there is only one sewing puncture attached with internal module 𝑉𝑖.

An-Aside: Three Point Sphere Conformal Blocks and Intertwining Operators

The conformal blocks on three point sphere 𝕊2({𝑝1,𝑧1},{𝑝2,𝑧2},{𝑝3,𝑧3}) is related to the fusion rules of the modules attached to the punctures:

𝜑𝑖×𝜑𝑗=𝑘𝑁𝑖𝑗𝑘𝜑𝑘State-Field𝑉𝑖𝑉𝑗𝑘𝑁𝑖𝑗𝑘𝑉𝑘,

which lead us to consider the intertwining operators among the modules:

Φ𝑗𝑘𝑖(𝑧)Hom(𝑉𝑖𝑉𝑗,𝑉𝑘){𝑧}:=𝑉𝑗𝑘𝑖{𝑧},

where Φ𝑗,𝑘𝑖(𝑧) have conformal weight 𝑖, mapping (intertwining) the module 𝑉𝑗 to 𝑉𝑘. If there are various intertwining operators of the same type, we denote them by Φ𝑗𝑘𝑖,𝛼(𝑧) where 𝛼=1,,𝑁𝑖𝑗𝑘, thus the three point sphere conformal blocks could be written as:

ℬ︀0,3(𝑉𝑖,𝑉𝑗,𝑉𝑘)=Span{Φ𝑗𝑘𝑖,𝛼(𝑧)}𝛼=1𝑁𝑖𝑗𝑘.

In the language of intertwining operators, the sewing operation which leads to the four point sphere conformal blocks ℬ︀(𝑉𝑖,𝑉𝑗,𝑉𝑘,𝑉𝑙) could be written as:

𝑝𝑙|Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑧1)Φ𝑝𝑙𝑘(𝑧2)|𝑖,

where 𝑉𝑝 is the internal module attached to the sewing puncture, and the factorization above corresponds to the s-channel Feynman diagram (𝑖𝑗)𝑘𝑙.

Consistency Conditions

At the previous section, we have defined a sewing operation for local RCFTs, which is associated with the sewing of Riemann surfaces, and the gluing procedure in QFT.

However, such a construction is just “a” construction, to make it become “a consistent” construction of higher genus RCFTs from lower genus ones, we need to check some consistency conditions:

  • Check the RCFT chiral correlator we defined is indeed a chiral correlator.
  • There are various factorizations for a given Riemann surface, we need to show that the final RCFT defined is independent of the choice of pants decomposition.
  • There are various way from a given factorization to another one, we need to check the consistency of these different ways.

The first point is the inner constrain for RCFT itself, where we have already mentioned it before, and second point is the outer constrain from the geometry of Riemann surfaces, corresponding to the mapping class group actions.

Different Sewing Operations:

Gives Same Theory

A physical field theory defined on a Riemann surface should be independent of the choice of factorization of the surface, thus independent of the choice of sewing operations.

Recall our previous construction of conformal block basis from a given factorization, different factorizations would give different bases of the space of conformal blocks ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛). What we need is to show that these different bases actually span the same space.

Theorem

{𝐹{𝑖𝑘}} we constructed from a given factorization of the Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}) satisfy:

  • They are Linearly independent.
  • They span the vector space of conformal blocks ℬ︀𝑔,𝑛(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛).
Theorem

{𝐹{𝑖𝑘}} we constructed from a given factorization of the Riemann surface Σ𝑔({𝑝1,𝑧1},,{𝑝𝑛,𝑧𝑛}) satisfy:

  • They are Linearly independent.
  • They span the vector space of conformal blocks ℬ︀𝑔,𝑛(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛).
Proof

We only prove the four-point sphere block ℬ︀0,𝑛 case here, the general case could be proved similarly by induction on the number of sewing operations.

Spanning. Let 𝐹ℬ︀0,4(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉3,𝑉4). Cut the sphere along the circle separating {1,2} from {3,4}. By state–field correspondence, insert the resolution of identity on the chiral state space:

𝟏=𝑝ℐ︀𝟏𝑉𝑝,𝟏𝑉𝑝=𝑚,𝑛|𝑝,𝑛(𝑀𝑝)𝑚𝑛1𝑝,𝑚|.

This yields a factorized expression of 𝐹 as a sum of contractions of two three-point blocks with an intermediate module 𝑉𝑝. Expanding those three-point blocks in the chosen bases {𝜓𝑝12}𝛼 and {𝜓𝑝34}𝛽, we obtain

𝐹=𝑝,𝛼,𝛽𝑐𝑝,𝛼,𝛽ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽,

hence {ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽} spans ℬ︀0,4.

Linear independence. Define a “cut map”

Cut:ℬ︀0,4(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉3,𝑉4)𝑝ℐ︀ℬ︀0,3(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉𝑝)ℬ︀0,3(𝑉𝑝,𝑉3,𝑉4)

by cutting along the same circle and projecting onto the intermediate sectors using the non-degenerate two-point pairing 𝑀𝑝 (equivalently, using the inverse Gram matrix (𝑀𝑝)1 to extract coefficients of inserted descendants). One checks directly from the sewing construction that

CutGlue=Id.

Therefore Glue is injective. Since the elements (𝜓𝑝12)𝛼(𝜓𝑝34)𝛽 are linearly independent in the direct sum, their images ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽 are linearly independent in ℬ︀0,4.

Proof

We only prove the four-point sphere block ℬ︀0,𝑛 case here, the general case could be proved similarly by induction on the number of sewing operations.

Spanning. Let 𝐹ℬ︀0,4(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉3,𝑉4). Cut the sphere along the circle separating {1,2} from {3,4}. By state–field correspondence, insert the resolution of identity on the chiral state space:

𝟏=𝑝ℐ︀𝟏𝑉𝑝,𝟏𝑉𝑝=𝑚,𝑛|𝑝,𝑛(𝑀𝑝)𝑚𝑛1𝑝,𝑚|.

This yields a factorized expression of 𝐹 as a sum of contractions of two three-point blocks with an intermediate module 𝑉𝑝. Expanding those three-point blocks in the chosen bases {𝜓𝑝12}𝛼 and {𝜓𝑝34}𝛽, we obtain

𝐹=𝑝,𝛼,𝛽𝑐𝑝,𝛼,𝛽ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽,

hence {ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽} spans ℬ︀0,4.

Linear independence. Define a “cut map”

Cut:ℬ︀0,4(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉3,𝑉4)𝑝ℐ︀ℬ︀0,3(𝑉1,𝑉2,𝑉𝑝)ℬ︀0,3(𝑉𝑝,𝑉3,𝑉4)

by cutting along the same circle and projecting onto the intermediate sectors using the non-degenerate two-point pairing 𝑀𝑝 (equivalently, using the inverse Gram matrix (𝑀𝑝)1 to extract coefficients of inserted descendants). One checks directly from the sewing construction that

CutGlue=Id.

Therefore Glue is injective. Since the elements (𝜓𝑝12)𝛼(𝜓𝑝34)𝛽 are linearly independent in the direct sum, their images ℱ︀𝑝,𝛼,𝛽 are linearly independent in ℬ︀0,4.

Thus, different factorizations give different bases of the same space of conformal blocks ℬ︀(𝑉1,,𝑉𝑛). Which shows that our sewing operation for local RCFTs is consistent with the geometry of Riemann surfaces.

Consistent under Sewing Parameter Change: Elementary Moves

While different factorizations give rise to different bases of the space of conformal blocks, the change of basis must be independent of the chosen sequence of elementary sewing operations.

Like what we have mentioned before, to check such consistency, we only need to check the elementary moves given by Hatcher-Thurston theorem, i.e., F-move and S-move.

Such move would lead to a change of basis of the space of conformal blocks, we denote such change of basis by some matrices.

Remark
From now, Φ(𝑧) denotes a chiral field inserted at point with local coordinate 𝑧.
Remark
From now, Φ(𝑧) denotes a chiral field inserted at point with local coordinate 𝑧.
F-Move

F-move corresponds to changing the way to cut a four punctured sphere into two three punctured spheres, i.e., consider 𝕊2(𝑝𝑖,𝑝𝑗,𝑝𝑘,𝑝𝑙), F-move would correspond to exchanging (𝑙𝑘)𝑗𝑝𝑖 and 𝑙(𝑗𝑘)𝑞𝑙 channel. Here, 𝑝 𝑞 denote the internal modules attached to the sewing punctures.

Thus, F-move would lead to a change of basis of the space of four-point conformal blocks, i.e. {Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗Φ𝑝𝑙𝑘}𝑝 and {Φ𝑗𝑞𝑘Φ𝑖𝑙𝑞}𝑞, which could be written as:

Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑧1)Φ𝑝𝑙𝑘(𝑧2)=𝑞𝐹𝑝𝑞[𝑗𝑘𝑖𝑙]𝑄𝑉𝑞Φ𝑖𝑙𝑞(𝑄)(𝑧2)𝑄|Φ𝑞𝑘𝑗(𝑧12)|𝑘.

where the matrix 𝐹𝑝𝑞[𝑗𝑘𝑖𝑙]:𝑉𝑞𝑙𝑖𝑉𝑗𝑘𝑞𝑉𝑗𝑝𝑖𝑉𝑘𝑙𝑝 is called the F-matrix, and column [𝑗,𝑘] denotes the fusion of modules 𝑉𝑗 and 𝑉𝑘, and row [𝑖,𝑙] denotes the initial modules 𝑉𝑖 and outer module 𝑉𝑙.

Remark
If we consider the trivial modules, such F-move would reduce to the OPE associativity relation.
Remark
If we consider the trivial modules, such F-move would reduce to the OPE associativity relation.
S-Move

The S-move corresponds to changing the way to cut a one punctured torus into a double punctured sphere, i.e., consider 𝕋2({𝑝,𝑧}), S-move would correspond to exchanging the A-cycle and B-cycle cutting.

We assume the puncture 𝑝 is attached with module 𝑉𝑖.

The A-cycle cutting corresponds to cutting the torus into a double punctured sphere 𝕊2({𝑝,𝑧},{𝑞,𝑤}), where the punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞 are attached with modules 𝑉𝑗 and 𝑉𝑗 respectively. Thus, the intertwining operator could be written as Φ𝑗𝑗𝑖(𝑧), and the conformal block space could be written as:

ℬ︀1,1(𝑉𝑖)=Span{𝑗|Φ𝑗𝑗𝑖(𝑧)|𝑗}𝑗ℐ︀𝑗ℐ︀𝑉𝑖𝑗𝑗.

And the partition function on the torus could be written as:

𝑍𝑗𝑖(𝕋2({𝑝,𝑧}),𝛽)=Tr(𝑞𝐿0𝑐24Φ𝑗𝑗𝑖(𝛽)(𝑧)(d𝑧)𝑖),

where 𝛽 (a primary state) denotes the boundary filed configuration at the puncture 𝑝.

The B-cycle cutting corresponds to cutting the torus into a double punctured sphere 𝕊2({𝑝,𝑧},{𝑞,𝑤}), where the punctures 𝑝 and 𝑞 are attached with modules 𝑉𝑘 and 𝑉𝑘 respectively.

Thus, though the cutting are different, both of them give a basis of the same space of conformal blocks ℬ︀1,1(𝑉𝑖)𝑗𝒥︀𝑉𝑖𝑗𝑖, thus the only difference is the change of basis, which could be written as:

𝑆(𝑖):𝑗𝒥︀𝑉𝑖𝑗𝑖𝑘𝒦︀𝑉𝑖𝑘𝑖.
Braiding Move

Unlike the punctured space case, conformal blocks on Riemann surfaces carries some important analytical structure, which leads to some nontrivial monodromy, and thus braiding operations.

The braiding move corresponds to exchanging two punctures on the Riemann surface, which leads to a map:

Φ𝑖𝑞𝑗(𝑧2)Φ𝑞𝑙𝑘(𝑧1)𝐵Φ𝑖𝑝𝑘(𝑧1)Φ𝑝𝑙𝑗(𝑧2),

The full correlator function should be invariant under such braiding operation, thus the chiral part should transform linearly under such operation:

Φ𝑖𝑞𝑗(𝑧2)Φ𝑞𝑙𝑘(𝑧1)=𝑝𝐵𝑝𝑞[𝑗𝑘𝑖𝑙]Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑧1)Φ𝑝𝑙𝑘(𝑧2),

where the matrix 𝐵𝑝𝑞[𝑗𝑘𝑖𝑙]:𝑉𝑗𝑝𝑖𝑉𝑘𝑙𝑝𝑉𝑗𝑞𝑖𝑉𝑘𝑙𝑞 is called the braiding matrix.

Twisting Move

The twisting move corresponds to twisting a puncture on the Riemann surface by 2𝜋 (Dehn twist), which leads to a map:

𝑇𝑖:Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑧)Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑒2𝜋𝑖𝑧)𝑒2𝜋𝑖(𝑖𝑐24)Φ𝑖𝑝𝑗(𝑧).

Consistent under Sewing Parameter Change: Moore-Seiberg Equations

We have discussed the elementary moves (F and S move) leading to different sewing operations, which give rise to linear transformations (𝐹,𝑆,𝐵,𝑇) on the space of conformal blocks.

Now we need to check the consistency of these transformations.

Firstly, as we mentioned before, different sequences of elementary moves from a given factorization to another one should give the same transformation on the space of conformal blocks.

Moreover, since we attach some RCFT data on these Riemann surfaces, these transformations should be compatible with the RCFT data. Thus, our consistency conditions could be summarized as:

  • Consistency of local RCFT data.
  • Monodromy of conformal blocks form representations of the mapping class group.
  • Different paths of the elementary moves relate same basis of conformal blocks.

Such consistency conditions are called the Moore-Seiberg equations, or Duality identities.

On genus zero Riemann surfaces, we have the following Moore-Seiberg equations:

  • Pentagon relation for the F-move.
  • Hexagon relation for the B-move and F-move.

From these relations, 𝐵 satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation.

Moreover, we have some modularity conditions for the S-move on genus one Riemann surfaces:

  • 𝑆2(𝑗)=±𝐶𝑒𝑖𝜋𝑗, where 𝐶 is the charge conjugation matrix.
  • (𝑆𝑇)3=𝑆2 and some other relations coming from the modular group SL(2,).
  • Other genus one relations, e.g., 𝑆𝑎𝑆1=𝑏.

You may wander would there be some higher genus Moore-Seiberg equations? The answer is yes, however, as we will see in the next section, all these higher genus consistency conditions could be derived from the genus zero and one Moore-Seiberg equations, i.e., the independent consistency conditions are just these we mentioned above.

Completeness of the Consistency Conditions

It seems that we can construct infinitely many consistency conditions from various sewing operations on Riemann surfaces.

However, there is a result by Moore and Seiberg that shows that all these consistency conditions could be derived from a finite set of them, i.e., the Moore-Seiberg equations we mentioned before.

Abstract Nonsense Explanation

The simplest way to see this is using some “abstract nonsense” from category theory.

Note that the data (𝐹,𝑆,𝐵,𝑇) we discussed above actually form a tensor category, or more precisely, a modular tensor category, using the MacLane’s coherence theorem, such finite set of consistency conditions could be understood as the coherence conditions for the modular tensor category, thus all the other consistency conditions could be derived from them, i.e., the diagrams constructed from these data commute.

Geometric Explanation: Mapping Class Group Representations

However, the geometric meaning of such consistency might be more “physical”, and related to the mapping class group actions on the Riemann surfaces.

The sewing procedures and the translations between them could be captured by a complex so-called the duality complex, where:

  • Vertices: A basis of conformal blocks space.
  • Edges: An elementary move (𝐹, 𝐵, 𝑇, 𝑆 matrix) between two factorizations.

What we want to prove is that, all the loops in such complex are contractible while Moore-Seiberg equations are satisfied.

First, the pentagon relation of 𝐹 matrix can be used to transform any vertex to a standard form, called the Multiperipheral Basis.

image
Multiperipheral Basis of Conformal Blocks
image
Multiperipheral Basis of Conformal Blocks

Now, the only remaining edges are related to 𝐵, 𝑇, and 𝑆 moves. Thus, such operations could be identified with the elements of the mapping class group MCG𝑔,𝑛.

Fact
MCG𝑔,𝑛 is finitely presented.
Fact
MCG𝑔,𝑛 is finitely presented.

Using this fact, every large loop in the duality complex could be decomposed into a sequence of smaller loops, each of which corresponds to a relation in the mapping class group:

  • Braiding loop, which is contactable due to the hexagon relation of 𝐵 and 𝐹 matrix (Yang-Baxter equation).
  • Dehn twist relations, which is contractible due to the modularity relations of 𝑆 and 𝑇 matrix.

Thus, all the loops in the duality complex are contractible while the Moore-Seiberg equations are satisfied.

  1. 1Here we assume 𝑞=1 for simplicity, if we consider general sewing parameter 𝑞, we need to insert an additional factor 𝑞𝐿0𝑐24 to take care of the change of complex structure.

Back to all articles

Loading comments...