INTEGRABLE HIERARCHY FOR THE RESOLVED CONIFOLD MURAD ALIM AND ARPAN SAHA Abstract. We provide a direct proof of a conjecture of Brini relating the Gromov– Witten theory of the resolved conifold to the Ablowitz–Ladik integrable hierarchy at the level of primaries. We use a functional representation of the Ablowitz–Ladik hierarchy as well as a difference equation for the Gromov–Witten potential. We express the solution of the difference equation as an analytic function which is a specialization of a Tau function put forward by Bridgeland in the study of wall- crossing phenomena of Donaldson–Thomas invariants. 1. Introduction The study of integrable structures as the underlying organizing principle of Gromov– Witten (GW) theory has been a great source of insights and interactions between various areas of mathematics such as algebraic and symplectic geometry, the study of integrable systems, and mathematical physics. The KdV integrable hierarchy for GW theory of a point was put forward in the works of Witten [Wit91] and Kontsevich [Kon92], relating the intersection theory on the Deligne–Mumford compactification of the moduli space of curves to 2d topological gravity. For P1, the relation of GW theory to the Toda integrable hierarchy was studied in [EHY95, EY94, EYY95, EHX97, Pan00]. In [Pan00], a conjectured difference equation for the GW potential implied a corresponding difference equation for Hurwitz numbers which was proved in [Oko00]. A general construction of an integrable hierarchy for a given Gromov–Witten theory was given by Dubrovin and Zhang in [DZ01], see also [Dub14] for an overview, yet explicit examples remain sparse, see also [ADK+06] for a relation between topologi- cal string theory and integrable hierarchies. For the Calabi–Yau threefold geometry given by the resolved conifold, Brini conjectured in [Bri12] that the equivariant descen- arXiv:2101.11672v2 [math.AG] 3 Feb 2021 dent Gromov–Witten potential of the resolved conifold with anti-diagonal C× action coincides with the logarithm of a tau function of the Ablowitz–Ladik (AL) hierarchy introduced in [AL75] under a suitable identification of the variables. In particular, the conjecture implies that the primary GW potential of the resolved conifold (i. e. without gravitational descendants) coincides with the restriction of a tau function of the AL hierarchy to the small phase space. In [Bri12], Brini provided a proof of the coincidence of the descendent Gromov– Witten potential with the logarithm of an AL tau function to genus 1, and of the primary Gromov–Witten potential with the restriction of the logarithm of the tau function to the small phase space up to genus 2. A proof of the conjecture in the stationary sector to all genera was subsequently given by Takasaki in [Tak13] using a melting crystal model of Gromov–Witten theory of the resolved conifold. This was 1 2 MURADALIMANDARPANSAHA essentially a two-step proof: First, the descendent potential was identified with a tau function of the 2d Toda hierarchy. And then, it was shown that owing to a certain factorization property which the specific tau function in question possessed, it could be interpreted as a tau function of the relativistic Toda hierarchy, a reduction of the 2d Toda hierarchy which was known to be equivalent to the Ablowitz–Ladik hierarchy. In complementary recent developments, Bridgeland put forward in [Bri19] a Riemann– Hilbert problem associated to wall-crossing of Donaldson–Thomas invariants. This was applied in [Bri20] to the resolved conifold, putting forward a Tau function as a solution to the Riemann–Hilbert problem, which in particular provides the Gromov–Witten potential as an asymptotic expansion. In this work, we give a proof of the identification of the primary Gromov–Witten potential for both the stationary and non-stationary sectors with an AL tau function to all genera. The main ingredients of our proof are two difference equations. One of these is obtained from a certain functional representation of the AL hierarchy due to Vekslerchik [Vek98, Vek02], while the other was proved by one of us in [Ali20] by adapting ideas which appeared in the study of the exact WKB method in [IKT18]. In particular, by combining this with the results of Bridgeland in [Bri20], we are able to obtain a closed-form expression for the tau function, thus providing a new, but perhaps expected, link between integrable hierarchies of GW theory and Bridgeland’s DT Riemann–Hilbert problem. The outline of this paper is as follows: In §2, we recall notions from the Gromov– Witten theory of the resolved conifold, introduce the difference equation proved in [Ali20], and construct a solution of it using Bridgeland’s Tau function [Bri20]. In §3, we recall Vekslerchik’s functional representation of the Ablowitz–Ladik hierarchy. In §4, we show how to take the dispersionless limit of the AL hierarchy in this setting and give a version of Dubrovin’s proof of the correspondence between the equivariant genus zero Gromov–Witten potential of the resolved conifold and the dispersionless AL hierarchy adapted to our setting. Finally, in §5, we bring all the ingredients together to extend a result of Brini. Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Andrea Brini and J¨org Teschner for correspondence and comments on the draft. This work is supported through the DFG Emmy Noether grant AL 1407/2-1. 2. Gromov–Witten potential and difference equation Gromov–Witten (GW) theory of a non-singular algebraic variety X is concerned with the study of integrals over the moduli spaces of maps from Riemann surfaces into X. Let X be a Calabi–Yau threefold. The GW potential of X is the following formal power series: t 2g−2 g t 2g−2 g β F (λ, )= λ F ( )= λ Nβ q , (2.1) g≥0 g≥0 ∈ 2 Z X X β HX(X, ) where qβ := exp(2πihβ, ti) is a formal variable living in a suitable completion of the effective cone in the group ring of the small phase space H2(X, Z), λ is a formal param- g eter corresponding to the topological string coupling, and Nβ are the GW invariants. INTEGRABLE HIERARCHY FOR THE RESOLVED CONIFOLD 3 The GW potential can be written as: F = Fβ=0 + F,˜ (2.2) where Fβ=0 denotes the contribution from constant maps (the stationary sector) and F˜ the contribution from non-constant maps (the non-stationary sector). The constant- map contributions at genus 0 and 1 are t dependent and the higher-genus constant-map contributions take the universal form [FP00]: (−1)g−1 χ(X) B B F g = 2g 2g−2 , g ≥ 2 , (2.3) β=0 4g(2g − 2)(2g − 2)! where χ(X) is the topological Euler characteristic of X and Bk denotes the k-th Bernoulli number. This note is concerned with an equivariant version of the GW potential of the CY threefold given by the total space of a rank two bundle over the projective line: O(−1) ⊕ O(−1) → P1 . (2.4) This corresponds to the resolution of the conifold singularity in C4 and is known as the resolved conifold. Its small phase space is spanned by an identity element id and the K¨ahler class ω of the base P1. The associated coordinates shall be denoted x := hid, ti and t := hω, ti respectively. The (non-equivariant) GW potential for this geometry was determined in physics [GV98, GV99], and in mathematics [FP00] with the following outcome for the non-constant maps: g−1 0 g (−1) B2g F˜ = Li (q) , F˜ = Li − (q) , g ≥ 1 , (2.5) 3 2g(2g − 2)! 3 2g where q := exp(2πit) and the polylogarithm is defined by: ∞ zn Li (z)= , s ∈ C . (2.6) s ns n=1 X There is an anti-diagonal C× action on O(−1)⊕O(−1), given by fibrewise C× action on the O(−1) with opposite characters. This C× action is especially interesting as it acts trivially on the canonical bundle, meaning that O(−1) ⊕ O(−1) is then equivariantly Calabi–Yau. With respect to this action, one can define an equivariant analogue of Gromov–Witten theory where the ordinary cohomology ring of the resolved conifold is replaced by the equivariant cohomology. The equivariant Gromov–Witten invariants of rank 2 bundles over curves were computed by Bryan and Pandharipande in [BP08]. The theory significantly simplifies in the case of the resolved conifold with anti-diagonal action: It is then just the contribution from constant maps which is affected. In particular, the genus zero Gromov–Witten potential becomes: (2π)3ix2t F 0 = + F˜0, (2.7) ad 2κ2 where the ad in the subscript denotes that it is equivariant with respect to the anti- diagonal action and κ is the equivariant parameter. The following theorem was proved in [Ali20]: 4 MURADALIMANDARPANSAHA Theorem 1. [Ali20] The contribution of the non-constant maps F˜(λ, t) to the GW potential of the resolved conifold satisfies the following difference equation: 1 ∂ 2 λ F˜(λ, t + λˇ) − 2F˜(λ, t)+ F˜(λ, t − λˇ)= F˜0(t) , λˇ = . (2.8) 2π ∂t 2π We proceed by determining the solution of the difference equation. The latter already appears as a building block of the Tau function determined by Bridgeland in [Bri20] as a solution to a Riemann–Hilbert problem associated to wall-crossing of DT invariants of the resolved conifold. The special functions in [Bri20] involve the multiple sine functions which are defined using the Barnes multiple Gamma functions [Bar04]. For × a variable z ∈ C and parameters ω1,...,ωr ∈ C , these are defined by: r r (−1) sinr(z | ω1,...,ωr) := Γr(z | ω1,...,ωr) · Γr ωi − z | ω1,...,ωr . (2.9) i=1 ! X For further definitions, see e.