\renewbibmacro

in: \addbibresourcetexte2.bib

Existence of Boutroux curves, $g$ -functions and spectral networks from Newton’s polygon

B. Eynard Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, CEA, Institut de Physique Théorique, Gif-sur-Yvette, France & CRM, Centre de Recherches Mathématiques de Montréal, Université de Montréal, QC, Canada. [email protected] and S. Oukassi Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, CEA, Institut de Physique Théorique, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. [email protected]

Abstract.

We prove the existence of an algebraic plane curve of equation $P(x,y)=0$ , with prescribed asymptotic behaviors at punctures, and with the Boutroux property, namely, periods have vanishing real part, i.e, ${\mathrm{Re}}(\int_{\gamma}ydx)=0$ for every closed loop $\gamma$ . This has applications in the Riemann-Hilbert problem, in random matrix theory, in spectral networks, in WKB analysis and Stokes phenomenon, in algebraic and enumerative geometry, and many applications in mathematical physics. From Newton’s polygon we can define an affine space such that there exists always a Boutroux curve. This result is applied to random matrix and asymptotic theory, in which a key ingredient is called the $g$ -function, the function $g(x)=\int_{o}^{x}YdX$ is a $g$ -function precisely if and only if the algebraic plane curve is a Boutroux curve.

1. Introduction

In all what follows, $P(x,y)\in{\mathbb{C}}[x,y]$ is a bivariate complex polynomial. $P^{\prime}_{x}(x,y)$ and $P^{\prime}_{y}(x,y)$ denotes its partial derivatives

P^{\prime}_{x}(x,y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}P(x,y),\quad P^{\prime}_{y}(x,y% )=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}P(x,y).

(1.1)

1.1. Purpose and results

Let $P(x,y)\in{\mathbb{C}}[x,y]$ , we define the Newton’s polygon as a convex polytope ${\mathcal{N}}\subset{\mathbb{Z}}_{+}\times{\mathbb{Z}}_{+}$

{\mathcal{N}}=\{(i,j)\ |\ \mathcal{P}_{i,j}\neq 0\}.

(1.2)

It is a vector space ${\mathbb{C}}[{\mathcal{N}}]\sim{\mathbb{C}}^{\#{\mathcal{N}}}$ .

We define the interior of the Newton’s polygon (but shifted by $(-1,-1)$ ):

\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}=\{(i-1,j-1)\ |\ (i,j)\ \text{% strictly interior of convex envelope}\}.

(1.3)

Let ${\mathcal{P}}\in{\mathbb{C}}[{\mathcal{N}}]$ a once for all fixed bivariate polynomial. We want to study the set of bivariate polynomials that differ from ${\mathcal{P}}$ just from the interior, i.e. the affine space:

{\mathcal{M}}={\mathcal{P}}+{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^% {\circ}}].

(1.4)

Fixing the exterior part (i.e. ${\mathcal{P}}$ ) is equivalent to fixing the asymptotic behaviors of solutions $y=Y(x)$ of $P(x,y)=0$ at points where $x$ and/or $y$ tend to $\infty$ (called punctures).

Our goal is to prove that there exists $P_{\text{Boutroux}}\in{\mathcal{M}}$ , that has the Boutroux property:

\forall\ \gamma=\text{Jordan loop}\quad\quad{\mathrm{Re}}\oint_{\gamma}Ydx=0.

(1.5)

Boutroux curves have many applications:

- For example in asymptotic theory, the Riemann-Hilbert method of [deift1992steepest, deift1999] strongly relies on the existence of a so-called $g$ -function, whose differential $dg=ydx$ has prescribed asymptotic behaviors and has the Boutroux property. In some sense this article provides a theorem of existence of $g$ -functions.

- Also in geometry, cutting surfaces along some “horizontal trajectories” is a way to make combinatorial models of moduli spaces of surfaces. This was used by Strebel, Harrer-Zagier, Kontsevich, Penner, Thurston, and many others [Strebel, Thurston, Kon92, Zagier1986, penner2003cell, penner2003decorated].

- A seminal work of Gaiotto, Moore, and Neitzke relates WKB asymptotic expansion to “spectral networks” [gaiotto2011wallcrossing], and is again closely related to Boutroux curves.

All these authors have considered foliations of surfaces by cutting along “horizontal trajectories”. Horizontal trajectories of the differential form $\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}ydx$ give a good foliation, typically when it has the Boutroux property. The existence of this differential, and thus the existence of this foliation, is what gives the bijection between the combinatorial moduli space and the geometric moduli space. During an IHES seminar, M. Kontsevich was quoted saying that if proved, “this theorem of existence would be the most useful tool possible”.

Our method is to obtain the Boutroux curve by minimizing some real function called “Energy” $F:{\mathcal{M}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ , which can be interpreted as the “area” of the curve. In other words, the Boutroux curve will be the “minimal surface”.

The plan of the article is:

Section 1 is a brief introduction to the property of Boutroux curves, and also to different applications of this property ranging from the existence of $g$ -functions to foliations of surfaces by the so-called spectral networks.

Section 2: we recall basic notions about Newton’s polygon, algebraic Riemann surfaces and plane curves. We shall in particular introduce “times” and “periods”.

Section 3: we define the energy as a regularized area of the surface, by removing some small discs around punctures and adding appropriate correction terms. Then proving that the energy is bounded from below, continuous and with tight compact level sets. This will imply the existence of a minimum (the intersection of all decreasing compact level sets is a non-empty compact). In addition we rewrite the energy as a function of times and periods (this requires choosing a basis of cycles on the curve, called a “marking”).

Section 4: we can finally prove that the minimum of the energy is a Boutroux curve.

Section 5: we associate a spectral network to a Boutroux curve. This is in fact done in two ways. The first kind of the spectral network is similar to the notion of “Strebel graph”, and provides a canonical atlas of the curve, made of rectangular pieces.

Section 6: the second kind of spectral network associated to a Boutroux curve, is the one useful for random matrices, and spectral networks as in [gaiotto2011wallcrossing].

Section 7: we study examples of applications, like Strebel graphs, and random matrices.

Section 8: we gather a number of concluding remarks.

2. Newton’s polygon and algebraic curves

2.1. Newton’s polygon

From now on we choose ${\mathcal{P}}=\sum_{i,j}{\mathcal{P}}_{i,j}x^{i}y^{j}\in{\mathbb{C}}[x,y]$ a bivariate polynomial, fixed once for all. Let ${\mathcal{N}}=\{(i,j)\ |\ \mathcal{P}_{i,j}\neq 0\}$ .

We require that ${\mathcal{N}}$ has at least three points non aligned.

We define ${\mathcal{P}}_{d}(x)$ the coefficient of $y^{d}$ the highest degree term in $y$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ .

Our goal is to study the space of bivariate polynomials that differ from ${\mathcal{P}}$ only by “interior” coefficients.

Definition 2.1 (Newton’s polygon).

The Newton’s polytope

{\mathcal{N}}:=\{(i,j)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\ |\ \mathcal{P}_{i,j}\neq 0\}.

(2.1)

is a set of points in $\mathbb{Z}_{+}\times\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ . We define its completion with all integer points enclosed within its convex envelope:

\bar{\mathcal{N}}:=\{(i,j)\in{\mathbb{Z}}\times{\mathbb{Z}}\,|\,(i,j)\in\,% \text{inside or on the boundary of the convex envelope of }\,{\mathcal{N}}\}.

(2.2)

We define its interior $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}\subset\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$ , shifted by $(-1,-1)$ :

\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}:=\{(i,j)\in\bar{\mathcal{N}}\ |% \,(i+1,j+1)\in\,\text{strictly interior of the convex envelope of }\,{\mathcal% {N}}\}.

(2.3)

and its boundary (the integer points of the convex envelope)

{\partial\mathcal{N}}:=\bar{{\mathcal{N}}}\setminus(\displaystyle{\mathop{{% \mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}+(1,1)),

(2.4)

and we define

{\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime\prime}:=\{(i,j)\in\bar{\mathcal{N}}\ |\ (i+1,j+1)% \in{\partial\mathcal{N}}\}=\text{``3rd kind points"}

(2.5)

{\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime}:=\{(i,j)\in\bar{\mathcal{N}}\ |\ (i+1,j+1)\ % \notin\bar{{\mathcal{N}}}\}=\text{``2nd kind points"}.

(2.6)

The points of $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ are also called “1st kind”.

•

1st kind $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ := interior : $(i+1,j+1)\in$ strict interior
•

3rd kind ${\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime\prime}$ := boundary : $(i+1,j+1)\in$ boundary
•

2nd kind ${\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime}$ := exterior : $(i+1,j+1)\in$ exterior

To recall why they are called 1st, 2nd or 3rd kind, cf lectures notes [eynardlecturesRS].

We want now to study the moduli space of polynomials sharing the same exterior and boundary as ${\mathcal{P}}$ , i.e. differ only by interior points.

Definition 2.2 (Moduli space of a Newton polygon).

If $\deg{\mathcal{P}}_{d}(x)=0$ , we let

{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]:=\left\{Q(x,y)\in{% \mathbb{C}}[x,y]\,|\,Q=\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{% \circ}}}Q_{i,j}x^{i}y^{j}\right\}.

(2.7)

It is a complex vector space of dimension $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ , or a real vector space of dimension $2\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ .

In the general case, if $\deg{\mathcal{P}}_{d}(x)>0$ , let

	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]$	$\displaystyle:=$	$\displaystyle\left\{Q(x,y)\in{\mathbb{C}}[x,y]\,\|\,Q=\sum_{(i,j)\in% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}Q_{i,j}x^{i}y^{j}\right\}$		(2.9)
			$\displaystyle\mathop{\cap}_{x_{0}=\text{zero of }{\mathcal{P}}_{d}}\left\{Q(x,% y)=\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}({\mathcal{P}}(x% +x_{0},y))}{\tilde{Q}}_{i,j}(x-x_{0})^{i}y^{j}\right\}.$		(2.9)

In both cases we define the moduli-space

{\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{P}}):={\mathcal{P}}+{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop% {{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}],

(2.11)

which is a complex affine space. It is equipped with the canonical topology of ${\mathbb{C}}^{\dim{\mathcal{M}}}$ .

Since we work with a once for all fixed ${\mathcal{P}}$ , for easier readability we shall drop ${\mathcal{P}}$ from the notations and write

{\mathcal{M}}={\mathcal{M}}({\mathcal{P}}).

(2.12)

Remark 2.1.

It may seem an “overkill” to call ${\mathcal{M}}$ a “moduli-space”, because it is just an affine space. However, we shall later decompose it into strata by genus ${\mathcal{M}}=\cup_{{\mathfrak{g}}}{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ , which correspond to usual notions of moduli spaces.

Remark 2.2.

[Hypothesis 1: ${\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]\neq 0$ ] From now on, we shall only consider the case with ${\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]\neq 0$ . Proving the Boutroux curve when ${\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]=0$ is trivial.

We shall often illustrate our proposal with the following examples:

Example 2.1 (Weierstrass curve).

${\mathcal{P}}(x,y)=y^{2}-x^{3}+g_{2}x+g_{3}$ has the following Newton’s polygon

where red points represents non-zero coefficients ${\mathcal{P}}_{i,j}$ , the dots . represent zero coefficients, and $*$ in position $(1,1)$ is the only interior point to the polygon. Therefore $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}=\{(0,0)\}$ , $\partial{\mathcal{N}}=\{(0,0),(0,1),(0,2),(1,0),(2,0),(3,0)\}$ , ${\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime\prime}=\emptyset$ , ${\mathcal{N}}^{\prime\prime}=\{(0,2),(0,1),(1,0),(2,0),(3,0),(1,1)\}$ . ${\mathcal{M}}\sim{\mathbb{C}}$ is the 1-dimensional affine space ${\mathcal{M}}=\{P_{0,0}\}$ . In other words ${\mathcal{M}}$ corresponds to choices of $P_{0,0}=g_{3}$ .

Example 2.2 (Strebel-3).

${\mathcal{P}}(x,y)=y^{2}(x-z_{1})^{2}(x-z_{2})^{2}(x-z_{3})^{2}-Ax^{2}-Bx-C$ has the following Newton’s polygon.

There are 3 interior points $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}=\{(0,0),(1,0),(2,0)\}$ . However since $\mathcal{P}_{d}=\prod_{i=1}^{3}(x-z_{i})^{2}$ is of degree 6, with $3$ double zeros, Definition 2.2 gives

{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]=\{0\},

(2.13)

which has dimension 0, and ${\mathcal{M}}=\{{\mathcal{P}}\}$ .

Example 2.3 ( Strebel-4).

${\mathcal{P}}(x,y)=y^{2}(x-z_{1})^{2}(x-z_{2})^{2}(x-z_{3})^{2}(x-z_{4})^{2}-% Ax^{4}-Bx^{3}-Cx^{2}-Dx-E$ has the following Newton’s polygon.

There are 5 interior points $\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}=\{(0,0),(1,0),(2,0),(3,0),(4,0)\}$ . However since $\mathcal{P}_{d}=\prod_{i=1}^{4}(x-z_{i})^{2}$ is of degree 8, Definition 2.2 gives

{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]=(x-z_{1})(x-z_{2})% (x-z_{3})(x-z_{4}){\mathbb{C}},

(2.14)

which has dimension 1.

{\mathcal{M}}={\mathcal{P}}+(x-z_{1})(x-z_{2})(x-z_{3})(x-z_{4}){\mathbb{C}}% \quad,\quad\dim{\mathcal{M}}=1.

(2.15)

2.2. Riemann surface

For $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ , the zero-locus of $P$ defines a subset of ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , which is locally a Riemann surface

{\tilde{{\Sigma}}}={\tilde{{\Sigma}}}_{P}:=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C% }\,\,|\,\,P(x,y)=0\},

(2.16)

(most of the time, we shall drop the $P$ index when no confusion is possible). This surface might be not connected (if $P$ is factorizable), it is not compact (there are punctures, where $x$ and/or $y$ tend to $\infty$ ), and in fact it is not even a surface, as it may have self intersections points with neighborhoods not homeomorphic to a Euclidean disc (rather union of discs), called nodal points, viewed as “pinchings” in the figure below.

Let $\Sigma$ the normalization of ${\tilde{\Sigma}}$ (possibly disconnected), a compact Riemann surface, equipped with two meromorphic functions, $X:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ and $\,Y:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ , such that

{\tilde{{\Sigma}}}=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}\,\,|\,\,P(x,y)=0\}=\{(% X(p),Y(p))\,\,|\,\,p\in{\Sigma}\setminus\{\text{punctures}\}\}.

(2.17)

$\bullet$ The map

	$\displaystyle{\mathrm{i}}:\Sigma$	$\displaystyle\hookrightarrow$	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$		(2.18)
	$\displaystyle p$	$\displaystyle\mapsto$	$\displaystyle(X(p),Y(p))$		(2.19)

is a meromorphic immersion, whose image is ${\mathrm{i}}(\Sigma)={\tilde{\Sigma}}$ .

$\bullet$ The punctures are the locus where either $x$ or $y$ tends to $\infty$ , i.e. the poles of $X$ and/or $Y$ . It is well known (See appendix A or literature [eynardlecturesRS]) that there is a 1-1 correspondence between punctures and boundaries of the convex envelope of the Newton’s polygon. A pole $\alpha$ of $X$ and $Y$ of degree $a_{\alpha}=\deg_{\alpha}X,b_{\alpha}=\deg_{\alpha}Y$ , is associated to a boundary of $\partial{\mathcal{N}}$ of slope $-a_{\alpha}/b_{\alpha}$ .

$\bullet$ At all points $(X,Y)\in{\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ where the vector $\nabla P=(P^{\prime}_{x}(X,Y),P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y))\neq(0,0)$ , the surface ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ is smooth, it has a well defined tangent plane $T_{(X,Y)}{\tilde{\Sigma}}=(P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y),-P^{\prime}_{x}(X,Y)){\mathbb{C}}$ .

$\bullet$ The meromorphic map

	$\displaystyle X:\Sigma$	$\displaystyle\to$	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{C}}P^{1}$		(2.20)
	$\displaystyle p$	$\displaystyle\mapsto$	$\displaystyle X(p)$		(2.21)

is a holomorphic ramified covering of ${\mathbb{C}}P^{1}$ by ${\Sigma}$ . Its ramification points occur when two (or more) branches meet, and thus at $p=$ zeros of $P^{\prime}_{y}(X(p),Y(p))$ , and/or possibly at punctures. The degree of the covering is

d=\deg X=\deg_{y}\mathcal{P}(x,y)=\text{height of the Newton's polygon}.

(2.22)

$\bullet$ Zeros of $P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ can be either regular ramification points, or they can also be nodal points i.e. self-intersection points, and they can be higher ramified.

$\bullet$ For generic $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ , the zeros of $P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ and $P^{\prime}_{x}(X,Y)$ are distinct on ${\Sigma}$ , ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ has everywhere a tangent and is smooth. However for non-generic points these may coincide, and the surface is not smooth. We have a degenerate curve with nodal points of possibly higher degeneracy order.

Example 2.4 (Weierstrass curve).

$P(x,y)=y^{2}-x^{3}+g_{2}x+g_{3}$ .

$\bullet$ For generic $g_{2},g_{3}$ , the curve ${\Sigma}$ is a torus. Every torus is conformally isomorphic to a parallelogram ${\mathbb{C}}/({\mathbb{Z}}+\tau{\mathbb{Z}})$ whose modulus $\tau$ satisfies ${\mathrm{Im}}\tau>0$ . The map ${\mathrm{i}}:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ is then worth

	$\displaystyle{\mathrm{i}}\ :\qquad$	$\displaystyle X(z)=$	$\displaystyle-\nu^{2}\wp(z,\tau),$		(2.23)
		$\displaystyle Y(z)=$	$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2}\nu^{3}\wp^{\prime}(z,\tau),$		(2.24)

where $\wp$ is the Weierstrass function (the unique ellitptic function biperiodic $\wp(z+1)=\wp(z+\tau)=\wp(z)$ and with a double pole $\wp(z)\sim z^{-2}+O(z^{2})$ at $z=0$ ). The parameters $(\nu,\tau)$ are functions of $(g_{2},g_{3})$ , whose inverse map $(\nu,\tau)\mapsto(g_{2},g_{3})$ is:

g_{2}=15\nu^{4}G_{4}(\tau),\quad g_{3}=-35\nu^{6}G_{6}(\tau),

(2.25)

with $G_{4}$ and $G_{6}$ the modular Eisenstein $G$ -series.

There are three ramification points, at $z=\frac{1}{2}$ , $z=\frac{\tau}{2}$ , $z=\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau)$ , corresponding to branch points $X(\frac{1}{2}),X(\frac{\tau}{2}),X(\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau))$ . There is one puncture (pole of $X$ and $Y$ ) at $z=0$ , with $a_{0}=\deg_{0}X=2$ and $b_{0}=\deg_{0}Y=3$ , at which $Y\sim X^{\frac{3}{2}}$ , and notice that the boundary of the Newton’s polygon has indeed a slope $-a_{0}/b_{0}=-\frac{2}{3}$ .

$\bullet$ If $4g_{2}^{3}-27g_{3}^{2}=0$ , then the torus is degenerate, ${\Sigma}={\mathbb{C}}P^{1}$ is then a sphere, and ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ has a nodal point. We parametrize the sphere ${\Sigma}={\mathbb{C}}P^{1}={\mathbb{C}}\cup\{\infty\}$ with a complex variable $z$ , and up to an automorphism of the sphere, we can write the immersion map ${\mathrm{i}}:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ as

\begin{split}X(z)&=z^{2}-2u\cr Y(z)&=z^{3}-3uz,\cr\end{split}

(2.26)

with $u=-\frac{3}{2}g_{3}/g_{2}$ , i.e.

g_{2}=3u^{2},\quad g_{3}=-2u^{3}.

(2.27)

The nodal point is $\beta={\mathrm{i}}(\sqrt{3u})={\mathrm{i}}(-\sqrt{3u})$ , with $x_{\beta}=X(\beta)=u$ and $y_{\beta}=Y(\beta)=0$ .

There is one branch point, at $z=0$ . There is one puncture (pole of $X$ and $Y$ ) at $z=\infty$ , with $a_{\infty}=\deg_{\infty}X=2$ and $b_{\infty}=\deg_{\infty}Y=3$ , at which $Y\sim X^{\frac{3}{2}}$ , related to the unique boundary of the Newton’s polygon, which has slope $-a_{\infty}/b_{\infty}=-\frac{2}{3}$ .

Definition 2.3 (Nodal points).

A nodal or branch point $\beta=(x_{\beta},y_{\beta})\in{\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ , is a point at which $P^{\prime}_{y}(x_{\beta},y_{\beta})=0$ . Let

(\beta^{(1)},\dots,\beta^{(\ell_{\beta})})={\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\beta),

(2.28)

its pre-images (the labeling doesn’t matter) on ${\Sigma}$ . These are smooth points on ${\Sigma}$ . If $\ell_{\beta}=1$ , we say that it is a pure ramification point $\beta^{(1)}$ corresponding to a branch point $x_{\beta}=X(\beta^{(1)})$ , and if $\ell_{\beta}\geq 2$ , we say that it is a nodal point.

Lemma 2.1.

In ${\mathcal{M}}$ , there exists some $P$ that have no nodal points, and have only simple ramification points. More precisely, the set of $P$ that have no nodal points, and have only simple ramification points, is open dense in ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Proof.

The subset of ${\mathcal{M}}$ that have degenerate ramification points or nodal points, is a union of algebraic submanifolds, given by the vanishing of the discriminant, i.e. the condition that $P,P^{\prime}_{y},P^{\prime\prime}_{yy}$ , or $P,P^{\prime}_{y},P^{\prime}_{x}$ have a common zero. It is thus the complement of an algebraic set, it is open dense.

2.3. Canonical local coordinates

Definition 2.4.

Let $p\in{\Sigma}$ .

•

If $X(p)=\infty$ , we define $a_{p}:=\deg_{p}X=-\operatorname{ord}_{p}X$ , and $X_{p}=0$ . We have $a_{p}>0$ .
•

If $X(p)\neq\infty$ , we define $a_{p}:=-\operatorname{ord}_{p}(X-X(p))$ , and $X_{p}=X(p)$ . We have $a_{p}<0$ .

We define the canonical local coordinate at $p$ :

\zeta_{p}(z):=(X(z)-X_{p})^{\frac{-1}{a_{p}}}.

(2.29)

$\zeta_{p}(z)$ vanishes linearly (order 1) at $z=p$ .

The canonical local coordinate is defined modulo a root of unity. Let

\rho_{k}=e^{\frac{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}{k}}.

(2.30)

Other local coordinates are

\zeta_{p}(z)\rho_{a_{p}}^{j}\quad j=1,\dots,|a_{p}|.

(2.31)

Choosing a canonical local coordinate is equivalent to choosing one of the rays (there are $|a_{p}|$ of them) starting from $p$ in the direction $X(z)-X_{p}\in{\mathbb{R}}_{-}$ .

2.4. Genus and cycles

The compact Riemann surface $\Sigma$ is possibly disconnected ${\Sigma}={\Sigma}_{1}\cup\dots\Sigma_{m}$ , and each connected component has some genus ${\mathfrak{g}}_{i}$ . Let us define the total genus

{\mathfrak{g}}:=\sum_{i=1}^{m}{\mathfrak{g}}_{i}.

(2.32)

It is well known (and we shall recover it below) that the genus is at most the number of interior points to the Newton’s polygon:

0\leq{\mathfrak{g}}\leq\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{% \circ}}]\leq\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}.

(2.33)

The Homology space $H_{1}(\Sigma,{\mathbb{Z}})$ has dimension

\dim H_{1}(\Sigma,{\mathbb{Z}})=2{\mathfrak{g}},

(2.34)

which means that there exists $2{\mathfrak{g}}$ independent non-contractible cycles, and it is possible (but not uniquely) to choose a symplectic basis:

{\mathcal{A}}_{1},\dots,{\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}},\ {\mathcal{B}}_{1},% \dots,{\mathcal{B}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}},

(2.35)

such that

{\mathcal{A}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{A}}_{j}=0\ \ ,\quad{\mathcal{B}}_{i}\cap{% \mathcal{B}}_{j}=0\ \ ,\quad{\mathcal{A}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{B}}_{j}=\delta_{i,j}.

(2.36)

Such a choice of symplectic basis of cycles is called a Torelli marking of ${\Sigma}$ .

Cycles are defined as linear combinations of homotopy classes of Jordan loops. However, here so far we are considering cycles on ${\Sigma}$ , and we are going to integrate 1-forms (for example $YdX$ ) that have poles, and one should consider the homotopy classes of Jordan loops on ${\Sigma}\setminus\text{poles}$ . We could also consider removing nodal and ramification points. A way to avoid this, is just to choose Jordan loops rather than cycles.

So here we need the following notion of marking:

Definition 2.5 (Marking).

We call a marking of ${\Sigma}$ , a choice of $2{\mathfrak{g}}$ Jordan loops on
${\Sigma}\setminus\{\text{punctures, ramification points, nodal points}\}$ , satisfying

{\mathcal{A}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{A}}_{j}=0,\quad{\mathcal{B}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{B% }}_{j}=0,\quad{\mathcal{A}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{B}}_{j}=\delta_{i,j}.

(2.37)

Their projection to $H_{1}(\Sigma,{\mathbb{Z}})$ is a Torelli marking of ${\Sigma}$ .

Remark 2.3.

We insist that ${\mathcal{A}}_{i}$ and ${\mathcal{B}}_{i}$ are not cycles, they are Jordan loops.

Lemma 2.2 (Continuous Jordan cycles).

Let $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ such that ${\Sigma}_{P}$ has total genus ${\mathfrak{g}}$ , and let $\{{\mathcal{A}}_{i},{\mathcal{B}}_{i}\}_{i=1,\dots,{\mathfrak{g}}}$ a marking of symplectic Jordan loops on ${\Sigma}_{P}\setminus\{\text{punctures, branch points, nodal points}\}$ , whose projection to $H_{1}({\Sigma},{\mathbb{Z}})$ forms a symplectic basis.

There exists some neighborhood $U$ of $P$ in ${\mathcal{M}}$ , such that for each $Q\in U$ , there exists a unique family of symplectic Jordan loops on ${\Sigma}_{Q}\setminus\{\text{punctures, branch points, nodal points}\}$ , whose projection by ${\mathrm{i}}$ are continuous on $U$ , and whose projection by $X$ is constant over $U$ . We shall call it a “continuous choice of Jordan cycles” in $U$ .

Proof.

Away from punctures or ramification or nodal points, $X$ is locally a homeomorphism, and the restriction of ${\mathrm{i}}$ is locally continuous on $U$ . Use $X$ to push the Jordan loops to the base and pull them back on any $Q\in U$ .

Remark 2.4.

Notice that in a neighborhood of $P$ , there can be some $Q$ with higher genus, and thus the family of symplectic Jordan loops is not a basis, it is only an independent family. One can obtain a basis by completing it with other cycles. For example one could add new cycles corresponding to unpinching the nodal points. However, this will not be needed in this article.

2.4.1. Holomorphic forms

Let $\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})$ the space of holomorphic differential 1-forms on ${\Sigma}$ .

The following is a classical theorem going back to Riemann

Theorem 2.1 (Riemann).

We have

\dim\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})={\mathfrak{g}}.

(2.38)

Having made a choice of Torelli marking of $\Sigma$ , there exists a unique basis $\omega_{1},\dots,\omega_{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of $\Omega^{1}(\Sigma)$ , such that

\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{i}}\omega_{j}=\delta_{i,j}.

(2.39)

This is used to define the Riemann matrix of periods

\tau_{i,j}=\oint_{{\mathcal{B}}_{i}}\omega_{j}.

(2.40)

$\tau$ is a ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\times{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ Siegel matrix, i.e. a complex symmetric matrix, whose imaginary part is positive definite:

\tau^{t}=\tau,\quad{\mathrm{Im}}\ \tau>0.

(2.41)

We can also obtain $\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})$ algebraically from the Newton’s polygon, the following is a classical theorem

Theorem 2.2.

For any $\ Q\in{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]$ , the following differential form

\frac{Q(X,Y)\ dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}

(2.42)

is holomorphic at all the punctures. Its only poles could be at the zeros of $P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ if these are not compensated by zeros of $dX$ , i.e. these can be only nodal points. We define

H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})=\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}{\mathbb{C}}[% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}].

(2.43)

In the generic case, all zeros of $P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ are simple and are zeros of $dX$ , so that this 1-form has no pole at all, it is holomorphic.

$\bullet$ In the generic case we have

\Omega^{1}(\Sigma)=H^{\prime 1}(\Sigma),\qquad{\mathfrak{g}}=\dim\Omega^{1}(% \Sigma)=\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}].

(2.44)

$\bullet$ In the non-generic case we only have

\Omega^{1}(\Sigma)\subset H^{\prime 1}(\Sigma),\qquad{\mathfrak{g}}=\dim\Omega% ^{1}(\Sigma)\leq\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}].

(2.45)

In all cases there exists a rectangular matrix $\mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}$ of size ${\mathfrak{g}}\times\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{% \circ}}]$ , such that the normalized holomorphic differentials can be written

\forall\ k=1,\dots,{\mathfrak{g}},\qquad\omega_{k}=\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle% {\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}\mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}\frac{X^{i}Y^{j}\ dX}{P^% {\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.

(2.46)

Let the $\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]\times{% \mathfrak{g}}$ rectangular matrix

\hat{\mathcal{K}}_{(i,j);k}=\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{k}}\frac{X^{i}Y^{j}\ dX}{P^{% \prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.

(2.47)

By definition we have $\mathcal{K}\hat{\mathcal{K}}=\text{Id}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ , i.e.

\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}\mathcal{K}_{k;(i,% j)}\ \hat{\mathcal{K}}_{(i,j);k}=\delta_{k,l}.

(2.48)

This shows that when ${\mathfrak{g}}=\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]$ , $\mathcal{K}$ is invertible.

In all cases we have

\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})=\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}\mathcal{K}({\mathbb{C}}[% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]).

(2.49)

Proof.

Classical theorem, see [farkas2012riemann, fay1973theta, TataLectures, eynardlecturesRS].

Example 2.5 (Weierstrass curve).

$P(x,y)=y^{2}-x^{3}+g_{2}x+g_{3}$ , for generic $g_{2},g_{3}$ . ${\Sigma}={\mathbb{C}}/({\mathbb{Z}}+\tau{\mathbb{Z}})$ is a torus, with the immersion map ${\mathrm{i}}:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ given by

\begin{split}X(z)&=-\nu^{2}\wp(z,\tau)\cr Y(z)&=\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2}\nu^{3}% \wp^{\prime}(z,\tau).\cr\end{split}

(2.50)

We have

\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}=\frac{dX}{2Y}=\frac{{\mathrm{i}}\nu^{2}\wp^{% \prime}(z,\tau)dz}{\nu^{3}\wp^{\prime}(z,\tau)}=\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{\nu}dz.

(2.51)

$dz$ is indeed a holomorphic form, it has no pole in the parallelogram $(0,1,1+\tau,\tau)$ , and it is biperiodic $dz=d(z+1)=d(z+\tau)$ . We choose the Jordan loops ${\mathcal{A}}=[p,p+1]$ and ${\mathcal{B}}=[p,p+\tau]$ with $p$ a generic point. The matrix $\hat{\mathcal{K}}$ is a $1\times 1$ matrix, worth

\hat{\mathcal{K}}=\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}}\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}=\frac{{% \mathrm{i}}}{\nu}\int_{p}^{p+1}dz=\frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{\nu}.

(2.52)

Its inverse is

\mathcal{K}=-{\mathrm{i}}\nu.

(2.53)

The normalized holomorphic differential is

\omega=dz=-{\mathrm{i}}\nu\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.

(2.54)

Its ${\mathcal{B}}$ -cycle integral is

\oint_{{\mathcal{B}}}\omega=\int_{p}^{p+\tau}dz=\tau.

(2.55)

Riemann’s theorem ensures that ${\mathrm{Im}}\tau>0$ .

Definition 2.6 (Cells of fixed genus).

We define

{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}:=\{P\in{\mathcal{M}}\ |\ {\Sigma}={\Sigma}_{1% }\cup\dots\cup{\Sigma}_{m},\ \ {\mathfrak{g}}=\sum_{i=1}^{m}{\mathfrak{g}}_{i}\}.

(2.56)

Proposition 2.1.

Alternatively

{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}=\left\{P\in{\mathcal{M}}\ |\ {\mathfrak{g}}=% \dim\left\{Q\in{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]\ % \Big{|}\frac{Q(X,Y)dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}\ \text{has no pole}\right\}\right\}.

(2.57)

•

${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ is an algebraic subset of ${\mathcal{M}}$ .
•

Each ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ has a finite number of connected components.

Proof.

Indeed if the form $QdX/P^{\prime}_{y}$ has no pole, then it belongs to $\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})$ , and vice-versa, i.e.

\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})=\left\{Q\in{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N% }}}^{\circ}}]\ \Big{|}\frac{Q(X,Y)dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}\ \text{has no pole % at nodal points}\right\}.

(2.58)

It has thus dimension ${\mathfrak{g}}$ . The fact that ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ is an algebraic subset of ${\mathcal{M}}$ , comes from the fact that requiring that $dX/P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ having zeros of a certain order, can be formulated with resultants of $P,P^{\prime}_{y},P^{\prime}_{x}$ and higher order derivatives having to vanish, i.e. some polynomials relations of the $P_{i,j}$ ’s. Each algebraic equations has a finite number of solutions.

2.4.2. Non-generic case

Definition 2.7.

Let $\beta$ a nodal point, with preimages ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\beta)=\{\beta^{(1)},\dots,\beta^{(\ell_{\beta})}\}$ , Let

	$\displaystyle H^{\prime 1}_{\beta}({\Sigma})$	$\displaystyle:=$	$\displaystyle\Big{\{}Q(X,Y)\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}\ \|Q\in{\mathbb{C}}[x% ,y]\text{ having pole(s) at most}$		(2.60)
			$\displaystyle\text{at preimage(s) of }\beta\text{ and no other pole}\Big{\}}\ % /\ \Omega^{1}({\Sigma}).$		(2.60)

We define the algebraic genus of the nodal point $\beta$ as

{\mathfrak{g}}_{\beta}:=\dim H^{\prime 1}_{\beta}({\Sigma}).

(2.61)

Theorem 2.3.

We have

H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})=\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})\underset{{\beta=\text{nodal points% }}}{\oplus}H^{\prime 1}_{\beta}({\Sigma}),

(2.62)

whose dimensions are

\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]={\mathfrak{g}}% +\sum_{\beta=\text{nodal points}}{\mathfrak{g}}_{\beta}.

(2.63)

Proof.

$H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})$ is the space of forms having no poles at punctures. The only places where an element of $H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})$ could have poles is where $P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)$ vanishes at an order higher than that of $dX$ , i.e. nodal points. Either this form has no poles at all, and is in $\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})$ , or must be in some $H^{\prime 1}_{\beta}({\Sigma})$ . By definition all the $H^{\prime 1}_{\beta}({\Sigma})$ are disjoint for different $\beta$ , so we have a direct sum.

Example 2.6 (Degenerate Weierstrass curve).

$P(x,y)=y^{2}-x^{3}+g_{2}x+g_{3}$ , with $4g_{2}^{3}-27g_{3}^{2}=0$ . The immersion map ${\mathrm{i}}:{\Sigma}\to{\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ is

\begin{split}X(z)&=z^{2}-2u\cr Y(z)&=z^{3}-3uz\cr\end{split}

(2.64)

with $g_{2}=3u^{2},\quad g_{3}=-2u^{3}$ . The nodal point is $\beta=(u,0)$ and ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\beta)=\{\sqrt{3u},-\sqrt{3u}\}$ , so that $\ell_{\beta}=2$ . Since ${\Sigma}={\mathbb{C}}P^{1}$ , we have $\dim\Omega^{1}({\Sigma})={\mathfrak{g}}=0$ , and we have $H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})=\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)},{\mathbb{C}}$ a one dimensional space. We have

\frac{dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}=\frac{2zdz}{2Y}=\frac{dz}{z^{2}-3u}.

(2.65)

It has simple poles at $z=\pm\sqrt{3u}$ , each with degree one. The algebraic genus of $\beta$ is thus

{\mathfrak{g}}_{\beta}=1.

(2.66)

The Newton’s polygon has one interior point, we have

1=\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}=\dim{\mathbb{C}}[% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]={\mathfrak{g}}+{\mathfrak{g}}_{% \beta}=0+1.

(2.67)

2.5. Period coordinates

Definition 2.8 (Period coordinates).

Let $P\in{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ . Having chosen a symplectic marking of Jordan loops in a neighborhood of $P$ (lemma 2.2) we define:

{\mathcal{A}}-\text{periods :}\qquad\forall\ i=1,\dots,{\mathfrak{g}},\quad% \eta_{i}:=\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{i}}YdX

(2.68)

{\mathcal{B}}-\text{periods :}\qquad\forall\ i=1,\dots,{\mathfrak{g}},\quad{% \tilde{\eta}}_{i}=\eta_{i+{\mathfrak{g}}}:=\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{% \mathcal{B}}_{i}}YdX

(2.69)

\text{Real periods :}\qquad\forall\ i=1,\dots,2{\mathfrak{g}},\quad\epsilon_{i% }:={\mathrm{Re}}\ \eta_{i}\ \ ,\ \ \zeta_{i}:={\mathrm{Im}}\ \eta_{i}.

(2.70)

\quad\qquad\forall\ i=1,\dots,{\mathfrak{g}},\quad{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}:={% \mathrm{Re}}\ {\tilde{\eta}}_{i}=\epsilon_{{\mathfrak{g}}+i}\ \ ,\ \ {\tilde{% \zeta}}_{i}:={\mathrm{Im}}\ {\tilde{\eta}}_{i}=\zeta_{{\mathfrak{g}}+i}.

(2.71)

Theorem 2.4 (periods = local coordinates).

We have the following:

•

The periods $\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{\mathfrak{g}}$ are local complex coordinates on ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ .
•

The periods $\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2{\mathfrak{g}}}$ are local real coordinates on ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ .

Proof.

This is a well known theorem, however, since it plays an important role in this article, lets give a proof. First from lemma 2.2 a marking with Jordan loops can be chosen continuous in some neighborhood of $P\in{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ .

The tangent space is generated by tangent vectors

\partial_{k}=-\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}% \mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}\frac{\partial}{\partial P_{i,j}}.

(2.72)

We have

$\displaystyle\partial_{k}\eta_{l}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{l}}\sum_{(i,j)% \in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}\mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}\frac{% \partial Y}{\partial P_{i,j}}\ dX$	(2.73)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{l}}\sum_{(i,j)\in% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}\mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}\frac{X^{i}% Y^{j}\ dX}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}$	(2.74)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}% \mathcal{K}_{k;(i,j)}\hat{K}_{(i,j);l)}$	(2.75)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\delta_{k,l}.$	(2.76)

This implies that $\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{\mathfrak{g}}$ are coordinates because the Jacobian matrix is invertible.

Then compute the differential

$\displaystyle-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\ d{\tilde{\eta}}_{k}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}dP_{i% ,j}\oint_{{\mathcal{B}}_{k}}\frac{X^{i}Y^{j}}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}\ dx$	(2.77)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}dP_{i% ,j}\oint_{{\mathcal{B}}_{k}}\sum_{l=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\mathcal{K}^{-1}_{(i,j);l% }\omega_{l}$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}dP_{i% ,j}\sum_{l=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\mathcal{K}^{-1}_{(i,j);l}\tau_{l,k}$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\sum_{l}\tau_{k,l}d\eta_{l}.$

Let us decompose $\tau$ in its real and imaginary part

\tau=R+{\mathrm{i}}I,

(2.78)

and recall that $I>0$ so that in particular $I$ is invertible. We have

$\displaystyle d\eta$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle d\epsilon+{\mathrm{i}}d\zeta$	(2.79)
$\displaystyle d{\tilde{\eta}}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\tau d\eta=(R+{\mathrm{i}}I)(d\epsilon+{\mathrm{i}}d\zeta)$	(2.80)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle(Rd\epsilon-Id\zeta)+{\mathrm{i}}(Id\epsilon+Rd\zeta),$	(2.81)

i.e.

d{\tilde{\epsilon}}=R\ d\epsilon-I\ d\zeta,

(2.83)

and thus

Id\zeta=-d{\tilde{\epsilon}}+Rd\epsilon,

(2.84)

d\eta=(1+{\mathrm{i}}I^{-1}R)d\epsilon-{\mathrm{i}}\ I^{-1}d{\tilde{\epsilon}}.

(2.85)

d\epsilon={\mathrm{Re}}\ d\eta,\qquad d{\tilde{\epsilon}}={\mathrm{Re}}\ \tau d\eta.

(2.86)

In other words the Jacobian of the change of variable $\eta\to(\epsilon,{\tilde{\epsilon}})$ is invertible. This implies that $(\epsilon,{\tilde{\epsilon}})$ is also a set of local coordinates.

2.5.1. Nodal point coordinates

We should think of nodal points, as cycles that have been pinched (collapsed). It is useful to associate also period coordinates to them.

Definition 2.9.

Let $\beta$ a nodal point, with preimages ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\beta)=\{\beta^{(1)},\dots,\beta^{(\ell_{\beta})}\}$ , let $\zeta_{i}=\zeta_{\beta^{(i)}}$ the canonical local coordinate at $\beta^{(i)}$ . Let

\eta_{\beta^{(i)},k}=\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\beta^{(i)}}\zeta_{i}^{k}YdX=0,% \qquad{\tilde{\eta}}_{\beta^{(i)},k}=\frac{1}{k}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\beta^{(% i)}}\zeta_{i}^{-k}YdX.

(2.87)

( $\eta_{\beta^{(i)},k}=0$ because $YdX$ has no pole at nodal points).

This allows to consider the period-vector $(\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{{\mathfrak{g}}})$ of dimension ${\mathfrak{g}}=\dim{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ as a period-vector $(\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{{\mathfrak{g}}},0,\dots,0)$ of dimension ${\mathfrak{g}}+\sum_{\beta}{\mathfrak{g}}_{\beta}=\dim{\mathbb{C}}[% \displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]=\dim{\mathcal{M}}$ . With this definition the period-vector is continuous in a neighborhood in ${\mathcal{M}}$ of any $P\in{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ (with the topology of ${\mathcal{M}}$ ).

2.6. Punctures coordinates

We use the canonical local coordinates of Definition 2.4.

Definition 2.10 (Times at punctures).

Let $\alpha$ a puncture.

The 1-form $YdX$ has a local Laurent series expansion near $\alpha$ :

YdX\sim\sum_{k=0}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}\ \zeta_{\alpha}^{-k-1}d\zeta_{% \alpha}+\text{analytic at }\alpha.

(2.88)

We have

t_{\alpha,k}=\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}\zeta_{\alpha}^{k}YdX.

(2.89)

The coefficients $t_{\alpha,k}$ are called the “times” of $P$ .

We have

Y\sim\frac{-t_{\alpha,r_{\alpha}}}{a_{\alpha}}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-b_{\alpha}},% \quad b_{\alpha}=r_{\alpha}-a_{\alpha}.

(2.90)

In other words

Y\sim\frac{-t_{\alpha,r_{\alpha}}}{a_{\alpha}}\ (X-X_{\alpha})^{b_{\alpha}/a_{% \alpha}}.

(2.91)

There is only a finite number of non-vanishing times:

\{t_{\alpha,k}\ |\alpha=\text{punctures}\ ,\ k=0,\dots,r_{\alpha}\}.

(2.92)

Proposition 2.2 (Times and exterior coefficients).

The times $t_{\alpha,k}$ are algebraic functions of the coefficients $P_{i,j}$ of $P$ , and it is well known (see proposition A.2 of appendix A) that they are algebraic functions of only the exterior coefficients of $P$ . In other words they are algebraic functions of the coefficients $\mathcal{P}_{i,j}=P_{i,j}$ of $\mathcal{P}$ and are the same for all $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ .

Vice–versa, the exterior coefficients of $\mathcal{P}$ are polynomials of the times.

Proof.

Done in appendix A.2.

It is well known that the exponent $-b_{\alpha}/a_{\alpha}$ is a slope of the convex envelope of the Newton’s polygon, and there exists a line of equation

D_{\alpha}=\{(i,j)\ |\ a_{\alpha}i+b_{\alpha}j=m_{\alpha}\}

(2.93)

tangent to the Newton’s polygon. See appendix A.

Remark 2.5.

[Hypothesis: real residues] From now on, we shall assume that $\mathcal{P}$ has been chosen so that:

\forall\alpha\ ,\ \quad t_{\alpha,0}=\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}YdX\in{% \mathbb{R}}.

(2.94)

In fact this is necessary for having a chance to satisfy Boutroux property. Indeed if $\gamma$ is a small circle around $\alpha$ we have

{\mathrm{Re}}\oint_{\gamma}YdX={\mathrm{Re}}\left(2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\mathop{\,% \rm Res\,}_{\alpha}YdX\right)=-2\pi\ {\mathrm{Im}}\ t_{\alpha,0}=0\ \ \text{ % if Boutroux}.

(2.95)

Example 2.7 (Weierstrass curve).

$P(x,y)=y^{2}-x^{3}+g_{2}x+g_{3}$ . There is one puncture $\alpha=\infty$ , at which both $x$ and $y$ become infinite with the asymptotic behavior:

y\sim x^{\frac{3}{2}}\ \left(1-g_{2}x^{-2}-g_{3}x^{-3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.

(2.96)

Using the canonical local coordinate $\zeta=\zeta_{\infty}=x^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ , i.e. $a_{\alpha}=2$ , we have

x=\zeta^{-2},\qquad dx=-2\zeta^{-3}d\zeta,

(2.97)

and

y=\zeta^{-3}\left(1-\frac{g_{2}}{2}\zeta^{4}-\frac{g_{3}}{2}\zeta^{6}+O(\zeta^% {8})\right).

(2.98)

The exponents $a_{\alpha}=2$ and $b_{\alpha}=3$ (degrees of poles of $x$ and $y$ in function of $\zeta$ ), are related to the boundary of the Newton’s polygon with normal vector $(2,3)$ . We have

YdX=-2\zeta^{-6}\left(1-\frac{g_{2}}{2}\zeta^{4}+O(\zeta^{6})\right)d\zeta=-2% \zeta^{-5-1}d\zeta+g_{2}\zeta^{-1-1}d\zeta+O(1)d\zeta.

(2.99)

which gives $r_{\infty}=5$ and the times

t_{\infty,5}=-2,\quad t_{\infty,1}=g_{2},

(2.100)

and all the other times are vanishing. The times are independent of $g_{3}$ , and thus are the same for all $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ .

For the non-degenerate case we have

\eta=3{\mathrm{i}}\nu^{5}G^{\prime}_{4}(\tau),\quad{\tilde{\eta}}=\tau\eta+12{% \mathrm{i}}\nu^{5}G_{4}(\tau).

(2.101)

Definition 2.11 (Conjugate times).

For $k>0$ , let

{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}=\frac{1}{k}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}\zeta_{\alpha}^% {-k}YdX.

(2.102)

We have the Laurent series expansion:

YdX\mathop{\sim}_{\alpha}\sum_{k=0}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-k% -1}d\zeta_{\alpha}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\zeta_{\alpha}^{k% -1}d\zeta_{\alpha}.

(2.103)

The coordinates ${\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}$ conjugated to $t_{\alpha,0}$ are slightly more tricky to define. We first need:

Definition 2.12 (Fundamental domain).

Let $p_{i}$ a generic point in the $i^{th}$ connected component ${\Sigma}_{i}$ of ${\Sigma}$ . For each connected component ${\Sigma}_{i}$ , let us consider a set of disjoints smooth Jordan arcs $e_{\alpha}$ from $p_{i}$ to all punctures $\alpha$ that are in ${\Sigma}_{i}$ .

${\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}$ is typically a finite union of disjoint surfaces of total genus ${\mathfrak{g}}$ . On ${\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}$ it is possible to choose a set of $2{\mathfrak{g}}$ smooth closed Jordan loops ${\mathcal{A}}_{1},\dots,{\mathcal{A}}_{\mathfrak{g}},{\mathcal{B}}_{1},\dots,{% \mathcal{B}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ (and we denote ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}+i}={\mathcal{B}}_{i}$ ) starting and ending at $p_{i}$ , such that ${\Sigma}\setminus(\cup_{\alpha}e_{\alpha}\cup_{i=1}^{2{\mathfrak{g}}}{\mathcal% {A}}_{i})$ is simply connected, and we can choose them so that they form a symplectic marking of cycles.

Let $\Upsilon$ the graph of all these edges. It is a graph whose vertices are at $p_{i}$ and at the punctures. Each edge has at least one boundary being $p_{i}$ . Let

D:={\Sigma}\setminus\Upsilon.

(2.104)

$D$ is a finite union of simply connected open domains of ${\Sigma}$ : $D$ may be disconnected (if ${\Sigma}$ was) and is a finite union of topological discs (as many as the connected components). The boundary of $D$ is made of edges of $\Upsilon$ , and each edge $e$ of $\Upsilon$ appears twice as a boundary of $D$ , with two opposite orientations. We call $e_{+}$ (resp. $e_{-}$ ) the edge of $\partial D$ corresponding to the edge $e$ of $\Upsilon$ whose orientation with respect to $D$ (having $D$ on its left) is the same (resp. opposite) as $e$ in $\Upsilon$ . We have

\partial D=\sum_{e\in\Upsilon}e_{+}-e_{-}.

(2.105)

Let $o_{i}$ a generic point inside the $i^{th}$ connected component of $D$ . We define for $z$ is in the $i^{th}$ connected component of $D$

g(z):=\int_{o_{i}}^{z}YdX,

(2.106)

where the integration path is the (unique up to homotopy) path from $o_{i}$ to $z$ in the fundamental domain $D$ .

Definition 2.13 (Conjugate times case $k=0$ ).

Let $D$ a fundamental domain, and let $\alpha$ a puncture. We may assume that in a neighborhood of $\alpha$ , the edge $e_{\alpha}$ is such that $\zeta_{\alpha}\in{\mathbb{R}}_{-}$ , so that if $z$ is a point close to $\alpha$ of coordinate $\zeta_{\alpha}=re^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}$ , we shall define the logarithm with cut on ${\mathbb{R}}_{-}$ :

\ln\zeta_{\alpha}(z):=\ln r+{\mathrm{i}}\theta\qquad\theta\in]-\pi,\pi].

(2.107)

In a neighborhood of $\alpha$ in $D$ we define the local “potential”

V_{\alpha}:=-\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{k}t_{\alpha,k}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-k}.

(2.108)

It is such that $YdX-dV_{\alpha}$ can have at most a simple pole at $\alpha$ :

YdX-dV_{\alpha}=t_{\alpha,0}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-1}d\zeta_{\alpha}+\text{% holomorphic at }\alpha.

(2.109)

We define:

	$\displaystyle g_{\alpha}(z)$	$\displaystyle:=$	$\displaystyle\int_{\alpha}^{z}(YdX-dV_{\alpha}-t_{\alpha,0}\frac{d\zeta_{% \alpha}}{\zeta_{\alpha}})+V_{\alpha}(z)+t_{\alpha,0}\ln\zeta_{\alpha}(z)$		(2.110)
		$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{t_{\alpha,k}}{k}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-k}% +t_{\alpha,0}\ln{\zeta_{\alpha}}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}% \zeta_{\alpha}^{k}.$		(2.111)

We define:

{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,o}:=g(z)-g_{\alpha}(z)

(2.112)

which is independent of $z\in D$ .

Moreover, since the sum of residues of a meromorphic 1-form has to vanish, then $\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}=0$ , and this implies that

\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,o}

(2.113)

is independent of the point $o_{i}$ used to define the function $g$ .

3. Energy as regularized area

The Boutroux curve will be obtained by a variational principle: minimizing an “energy”. The energy will be the “area” and Boutroux curves will then be “minimal surfaces”.

3.1. Regularized area

Let us give a first definition of our energy here, and it will be shown later that it is equivalent to another definition.

Recall that on ${\mathbb{C}}$ the Euclidean metric is related to the symplectic metric

|dx|^{2}=\overline{dx}\wedge dx=2{\mathrm{i}}\ d^{2}x=2{\mathrm{i}}\ d{\mathrm% {Re}}x\wedge d{\mathrm{Im}}x.

(3.1)

In ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , we have the canonical symplectic form $\overline{dx}\wedge\overline{dy}\wedge dy\wedge dx$ . Its reduction to ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ , is the canonical metric on ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$

|ydx|^{2}=2{\mathrm{i}}|y|^{2}d^{2}x,

(3.2)

and its pullback by ${\mathrm{i}}$ is the canonical metric $|YdX|^{2}$ on ${\Sigma}$ . Because of punctures, the total area $\int_{\Sigma}|YdX|^{2}$ is infinite. We need to “regularize” it.

Definition 3.1 (Energy = regularized area).

For each puncture $\alpha$ , let us choose a small radius $R_{\alpha}>0$ , and consider the disc $D_{\alpha}:\ |\zeta_{\alpha}|<R_{\alpha}$ in ${\Sigma}$ and its boundary $\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}$ the circle $|\zeta_{\alpha}|=R_{\alpha}$ , i.e. $\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}=\{R_{\alpha}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\theta}|\theta\in]-\pi,\pi]\}$ . We choose $R_{\alpha}$ small enough so that all $D_{\alpha}$ are topological discs and are all disjoint. In particular, each of them encloses only one puncture, and doesn’t enclose any nodal or branch point.

Then we define the “regularized area”:

$\displaystyle 4F$	$\displaystyle:=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}}\|% YdX\|^{2}$	(3.5)
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{k}\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2% }R_{\alpha}^{-2k}+2\sum_{\alpha}\|t_{\alpha,0}\|^{2}\ln R_{\alpha}$
		$\displaystyle+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{% \alpha}^{2k}-2{\mathrm{Re}}\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}{% \tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}.$

Lemma 3.1.

$F$ is independent of the choice of radius $R_{\alpha}$ .

Proof.

Let $D$ a fundamental domain. Let ${\tilde{R}}_{\alpha}<R_{\alpha}$ . The proof uses Stokes theorem, we compute the integral on the annulus ${\tilde{R}}_{\alpha}<|\zeta_{\alpha}|<R_{\alpha}$ in the fundamental domain:

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{D\cap D_{\alpha}\setminus{\tilde{% D}}_{\alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge YdX$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{\partial(D\cap D_{\alpha}% \setminus{\tilde{D}}_{\alpha})}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.6)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{\|\zeta_{\alpha}\|=R_{\alpha}}% \overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX-\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{\|\zeta_{\alpha}\|={% \tilde{R}}_{\alpha}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.8)
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{[{\tilde{p}}_{\alpha},p_{\alpha}% ]_{left}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX-\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{[{\tilde{p% }}_{\alpha},p_{\alpha}]_{right}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.8)

where $p_{\alpha}$ (resp. ${\tilde{p}}_{\alpha}$ ) is the point of coordinate $\zeta_{\alpha}=R_{\alpha}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\pi}$ (resp. $\zeta_{\alpha}={\tilde{R}}_{\alpha}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\pi}$ ).

For the last two terms, remark that $g_{\alpha}(z_{right})-g_{\alpha}(z_{left})=2\pi{\mathrm{i}}t_{\alpha,0}$ therefore

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{[{\tilde{p}}_{\alpha},p_{\alpha}]% _{left}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX-\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{[{\tilde{p}% }_{\alpha},p_{\alpha}]_{right}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ YdX$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle t_{\alpha,0}\int_{{\tilde{p}}_{\alpha}}^{p_{\alpha}}YdX$		(3.10)
		$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle t_{\alpha,0}(g_{\alpha}(p_{\alpha})-g_{\alpha}({\tilde{p}}_{% \alpha})).$		(3.11)

The first two terms, we use lemma B.1 of appendix B, and we get

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{D\cap D_{\alpha}\setminus{\tilde{% D}}_{\alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge YdX$	(3.12)
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle t_{\alpha,0}(g_{\alpha}(p_{\alpha})-g_{\alpha}({\tilde{p}}_{% \alpha}))$	(3.15)
	$\displaystyle-\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}}{k}R_{\alpha}^{-% 2k}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{2k}+2t_{\alpha% ,0}^{2}\ln R_{\alpha}-t_{\alpha,0}g_{\alpha}(p_{\alpha})$
	$\displaystyle+\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}}{k}{\tilde{R}}_{% \alpha}^{-2k}-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}{\tilde{R}}_{% \alpha}^{2k}-2t_{\alpha,0}^{2}\ln{\tilde{R}}_{\alpha}+t_{\alpha,0}g_{\alpha}({% \tilde{p}}_{\alpha})$
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}}{k}R_{\alpha}^{-% 2k}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{2k}+2t_{\alpha% ,0}^{2}\ln R_{\alpha}$	(3.17)
	$\displaystyle+\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}}{k}{\tilde{R}}_{% \alpha}^{-2k}-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}{\tilde{R}}_{% \alpha}^{2k}-2t_{\alpha,0}^{2}\ln{\tilde{R}}_{\alpha}.$	(3.17)

This proves the Lemma.

Theorem 3.1 (Continuity).

The energy is continuous on ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

F\in C^{0}({\mathcal{M}},{\mathbb{R}}).

(3.18)

Proof.

The immersion ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}{\mathrm{i}}(D_{\alpha})$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , being the locus of solutions of $P(x,y)=0$ , is continuous on ${\mathcal{M}}$ . The integral over ${\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}$ is the area of ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}{\mathrm{i}}(D_{\alpha})$ with the metric $|y|^{2}d^{2}x$ of ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , therefore it is continuous. The times $t_{\alpha,k}$ are constant on ${\mathcal{M}}$ , the conjugate times $\tilde{t}_{\alpha,k}$ are continuous and the radius $R_{\alpha}$ are taken locally constant. Thus, $F$ is continuous.

3.2. Minimum

Theorem 3.2 (Bounded from below).

$F$ is bounded from below on ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Proof.

We shall compare $F(P)$ to $F(\mathcal{P})$ . Recall that $P$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ have the same times $t_{\alpha,k}$ , but their conjugate times ${\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}$ can be different. Choose the radius $R_{\alpha}$ small enough so that they can be used for both $P$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ .

We let $\mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}$ denote the functions $X,Y$ when $P=\mathcal{P}$ . We have

$\displaystyle 4F(P)-4F(\mathcal{P})$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}}\|% YdX\|^{2}-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}_{\mathcal{P}}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{% \alpha}}\|\mathcal{Y}d\mathcal{X}\|^{2}$	(3.21)
		$\displaystyle+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\bar{t}_% {\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{-k}-\sqrt{k}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{k}\right\|^% {2}$
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\bar{t}_% {\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{-k}-\sqrt{k}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}(\mathcal{P})R_{\alpha% }^{k}\right\|^{2}.$

Therefore:

4F(P)\geq 4F(\mathcal{P})-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}_{\mathcal{P}}% \setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}}|\mathcal{Y}d\mathcal{X}|^{2}-\sum_{\alpha}% \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\bar{t}_{\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{-k}-% \sqrt{k}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}(\mathcal{P})R_{\alpha}^{k}\right|^{2}.

(3.23)

Since the rhs is independent of $P$ this shows that $F$ is bounded from below on ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Theorem 3.3.

The level sets of $F$ are compact in the canonical topology of ${\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]$ . (we recall that the level set of level $L$ is the set $\{Q\in{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}]\ |\ F(% \mathcal{P}+Q)\leq L\}$ .)

Proof.

Since $F$ is continuous, its level sets are closed.

It remains to prove that they are bounded. Let $L>\inf F$ , so that the level set is not empty.

If $F(P)\leq L$ , this implies:

			$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}}\|% YdX\|^{2}+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\bar{t}_{% \alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{-k}-\sqrt{k}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{k}\right\|^{2}$		(3.24)
		$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle 4L+\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha% }}\|\mathcal{Y}d\mathcal{X}\|^{2}-4F(\mathcal{P})+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{% \infty}\left\|\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\bar{t}_{\alpha,k}R_{\alpha}^{-k}-\sqrt{k}{% \tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}(\mathcal{P})R_{\alpha}^{k}\right\|^{2}={\tilde{L}}.$		(3.25)

In particular

\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}}|y|^{2}\ d^{2}x\leq\pi{\tilde{L% }}.

(3.27)

Let $U$ an open subset of ${\Sigma}_{\mathcal{P}}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{\alpha}$ , that excludes some small disks around all ramification points of $\mathcal{P}$ . There exists some $K>0$ such that

\min_{x\in U,\ i\neq j}|\mathcal{Y}_{i}(x)-\mathcal{Y}_{j}(x)|\geq K>0,

(3.28)

where $\mathcal{Y}_{i}(x)$ are the roots of $\mathcal{P}(x,y)=0$ .

Let also $r>0$ small enough so that there is $V$ an open subset of $U$ , such that for all $x_{0}\in X(V)$ , the ball $X^{*}D(x_{0},r)$ is contained in $U$ . Let $r$ small enough, so that there are at least $2\#{\mathcal{N}}+1$ disjoint discs of radius $r$ in $V$ , denoted $D_{1},\dots,D_{2\#{\mathcal{N}}+1}$ , of respective centers $q_{1},\dots,q_{2\#{\mathcal{N}}+1}$ .

Let

\displaystyle||Q||

\displaystyle=

\displaystyle\left(\int_{U}d^{2}x\ \frac{|Q(x,\mathcal{Y})|^{2/d}}{|\mathcal{P% }^{\prime}_{y}(x,\mathcal{Y})|^{2/d}}\right)^{d/2},

(3.29)

where ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(x,\mathcal{Y})\in U$ designates a point on the curve $\mathcal{P}(x,\mathcal{Y})=0$ , i.e. $\mathcal{Y}=\mathcal{Y}_{i}(x)$ for some $i$ .

Remark that $Q(x,\mathcal{Y})=\mathcal{P}(x,\mathcal{Y})+Q(x,\mathcal{Y})=P(x,\mathcal{Y})=% \mathcal{P}_{d}(x)\prod_{i=1}^{d}(\mathcal{Y}-Y_{i}(x))$ , and $\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x,\mathcal{Y})=\mathcal{P}_{d}(x)\prod_{i=2}^{d-1}(% \mathcal{Y}-\mathcal{Y}_{i}(x))$ , where we labeled $\mathcal{Y}_{1}=\mathcal{Y}$ . This gives

$\displaystyle\|\|Q\|\|^{2/d}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\int_{U}d^{2}x\ \frac{\|Q(x,\mathcal{Y})\|^{2/d}}{\|\mathcal{P}^{% \prime}_{y}(x,\mathcal{Y})\|^{2/d}}$	(3.31)
	$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{K^{2\frac{d-1}{d}}}\int_{U}d^{2}x\ \|\prod_{i=1}^{d}(% \mathcal{Y}-Y_{i}(x))\|^{2/d}$	(3.32)
	$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{d\ K^{2\frac{d-1}{d}}}\int_{U}d^{2}x\ \sum_{i=1}^{d}\|% \mathcal{Y}-Y_{i}(x)\|^{2}\qquad\leftarrow\text{ AM-GM inequality}$	(3.33)
	$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{2}{d\ K^{2\frac{d-1}{d}}}\int_{U}d^{2}x\ \sum_{i=1}^{d}(\|Y_% {i}(x)\|^{2}+\|\mathcal{Y}\|^{2})$	(3.34)
	$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{2}{d\ K^{2\frac{d-1}{d}}}\left(\pi{\tilde{L}}+d\int_{U}d^{2% }x\ \|\mathcal{Y}\|^{2}\right).$	(3.35)

This implies that $||Q||$ is bounded on the level sets of $F$ .

However, $||Q||$ is not a norm (it would be the Hölder norm if $d/2\leq 1$ but here we have $d/2\geq 1$ ), so we can not yet conclude.

Let us show the following lemma:

Lemma 3.2.

For all $x_{0}\in X(V)$ and ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))\in V$ , there exists $x\in D(x_{0},r)$ such that $\left|\frac{Q(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))}% \right|\leq\left(\pi r^{2}\right)^{-d/2}||Q||$ . There exist at least $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ points among $q_{1},\dots,q_{2\#{\mathcal{N}}+1}$ , for which $\left|\frac{Q(q_{i},\mathcal{Y}(q_{i}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(q_{i},% \mathcal{Y}(q_{i}))}\right|\leq\left(\pi r^{2}\right)^{-d/2}||Q||$ .

Proof.

For all ${\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))\in V$ , we have either:

•

$\left|\frac{Q(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x_{0},% \mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}\right|\leq\left(\pi r^{2}\right)^{-d/2}||Q||$
•

or $\left|\frac{Q(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x_{0},% \mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}\right|>\left(\pi r^{2}\right)^{-d/2}||Q||$

In this second case, $Q(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))\neq 0$ . Assume that there is no $x$ in $D(x_{0},r)$ such that $Q(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))=0$ , we then have

$\displaystyle\left(\frac{Q(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}% (x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}\right)^{2/d}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{x\to x_{0}}\frac{dx}{x-x_{0}}\left(\frac{Q(% x,\mathcal{Y}(x))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))}\right)^{2/d}$	(3.36)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}d\theta\left(\frac{Q(x_{0}+{\tilde{r% }}e^{i\theta},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}% _{y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}))}% \right)^{2/d}\qquad\forall{\tilde{r}}\leq r$	(3.37)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi r^{2}}\int_{0}^{r}{\tilde{r}}d{\tilde{r}}\int_{0}^{2% \pi}d\theta\left(\frac{Q(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{% \tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}% ,\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}))}\right)^{2/d}.$	(3.38)

This implies that

	$\displaystyle\left\|\frac{Q(x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}% (x_{0},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}))}\right\|^{2/d}$	$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi r^{2}}\int_{U\cap X^{-1}(D(x_{0},r))}d^{2}x\left\|% \frac{Q(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta})% )}{\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(x_{0}+{\tilde{r}}e^{i\theta},\mathcal{Y}(x_{0}+{% \tilde{r}}e^{i\theta}))}\right\|^{2/d}$		(3.40)
		$\displaystyle\leq$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\pi r^{2}}\ \|\|Q\|\|^{2/d}.$		(3.41)

This contradicts our hypothesis. Therefore there exists $x\in D(x_{0},r)$ such that $Q(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))=0$ .

Then, notice that $Q(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))$ can have at most $\#{\mathcal{N}}$ zeros on ${\Sigma}$ , therefore, among the discs $D_{1},\dots,D_{2\#{\mathcal{N}}+1}$ , $Q(x,\mathcal{Y}(x))$ can have a zero in at most half of them, and therefore has no zero in the others, and thus is bounded by $\left(\pi r^{2}\right)^{-d/2}||Q||$ in at least $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ of them. This proves the lemma.

Then, consider the $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ points $u_{l}=(q_{l},\mathcal{Y}(q_{l}))$ for $l=1,\dots,\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ . By definition we have

A\vec{Q}=\vec{B}

(3.43)

with $\vec{Q}=(Q_{i,j})_{(i,j)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}$ the $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ dimensional vector of coefficients of $Q$ , $\vec{B}=(Q(u_{l})/\mathcal{P}^{\prime}_{y}(u_{l}))_{l=1,\#\displaystyle{% \mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}}$ the $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ dimensional vector of evaluations, and $A$ the $\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}\times\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{% \mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ square matrix $A_{l;(i,j)}=q_{l}^{i}\mathcal{Y}(q_{l})^{j}$ . The matrix $A$ is invertible, and is independent of $Q$ . This gives

\vec{Q}=A^{-1}\vec{B}.

(3.44)

With the sup-norm this gives

||Q||_{sup}\leq||A^{-1}||\ ||B||_{sup},

(3.45)

which shows that all coefficients $Q_{i,j}$ are bounded.

Therefore the level sets are compact.

Theorem 3.4 (Minimum).

$F$ admits a minimum

Proof.

$F$ is continuous, it is bounded from below, and its level sets are compact. The intersection of all level sets

\cap_{L>\inf F}\{Q\ |\ F(\mathcal{P}+Q)\leq L\}

(3.46)

is a decreasing intersection of non-empty compacts, therefore it is a non-empty compact. Let $Q$ an element of this compact. We have

F(\mathcal{P}+Q)=\inf F,

(3.47)

so it is a minimum.

3.3. Derivatives

As a corollary of proposition 2.1, we have

Lemma 3.3 (Cotangent space).

The cotangent space of an affine space is isomorphic to the underlying vector space

T^{*}{\mathcal{M}}\sim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ% }}].

(3.48)

It is isomorphic to $H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})$ :

	$\displaystyle T_{P}^{*}{\mathcal{M}}$	$\displaystyle\to$	$\displaystyle H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma}_{P})$		(3.49)
	$\displaystyle\delta P_{k,l}$	$\displaystyle\mapsto$	$\displaystyle\omega_{k,l}=-\frac{x^{k}y^{l}dx}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.$		(3.50)

Proof.

Since $P(X,Y)=0$ , we have

P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)\delta Y+\sum_{k,l}\delta P_{k,l}X^{k}Y^{l}=0,

(3.51)

and thus

\delta Ydx=-\sum_{k,l}\delta P_{k,l}\ \frac{x^{k}y^{l}dx}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.

(3.52)

If $(k,l)\in\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ , then $\omega\in H^{\prime 1}({\Sigma})$ has no poles at punctures, it means that $\delta t_{\alpha,k}=0$ for all 2nd kind and 3rd kind times.

Proposition 3.1 (Derivative).

Let us consider a deformation $\delta\in T_{P}^{*}{\mathcal{M}}$ . Let

\omega=\sum_{k,l}\omega_{k,l}\delta P_{k,l}=\delta YdX,\qquad\text{ where}% \qquad\omega_{k,l}=-\frac{x^{k}y^{l}dx}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y)}.

(3.53)

We have

4\delta F=\frac{1}{\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{% \alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge\omega+\sum_{\alpha}\frac{1}{\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int% _{D_{\alpha}}(\overline{YdX}-\overline{dV_{\alpha}})\wedge\omega-2\sum_{\alpha% }{\mathrm{Re}}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}V_{\alpha}\omega.

(3.54)

This is independent of the radius $R_{\alpha}$ . Therefore it has a limit as $R_{\alpha}\to 0$ . Since $YdX-dV_{\alpha}$ can have at most a simple pole at $\alpha$ and $\omega$ is holomorphic at $\alpha$ , the last integral tends to 0 as $R_{\alpha}\to 0$ , and therefore the first integral has a limit. We write:

\frac{1}{4\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int_{{\Sigma}}\overline{YdX}\wedge\omega=\lim_{R_{% \alpha}\to 0}\frac{1}{4\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_% {\alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge\omega.

(3.55)

Proof.

Stokes theorem.

Proposition 3.2 (Second Derivative).

Let $\delta\in T^{*}{\mathcal{M}}$ . Define

\Omega=\sum_{(k,l)}\delta P_{k,l}\sum_{(i,j)}\delta P_{i,j}\frac{\omega_{k,l}% \omega_{i,j}}{YdX}\left(\frac{yP^{\prime\prime}_{y,y}(x,y)}{P^{\prime}_{y}(X,Y% )}-l-j\right).

(3.56)

The Hessian, is the Hermitian quadratic form $H(\omega,\omega)$ :

H(\omega,\omega)=\frac{1}{4\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int_{{\Sigma}}\overline{\omega}% \wedge\omega+\frac{1}{4\pi}{\mathrm{Im}}\int_{{\Sigma}}\overline{YdX}\wedge% \Omega-\frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{Re}}\sum_{\alpha}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}V_{% \alpha}\Omega.

(3.57)

Proof.

Simple computation.

3.4. Minimization with constrained prescribed Integrals

Let $\mathcal{L}$ an algebraic 3-dimensional sub-manifold of ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , with boundaries at most above the punctures. Generically, $\mathcal{L}\cap{\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ will be a 1-dimensional algebraic submanifold of ${\tilde{{\Sigma}}}$ , that we can write as a finite union of smooth Jordan arcs. These arcs may end at the punctures or not. Up to homotopic deformations, they can be moved to integer linear combinations of cycles $\mathcal{A}_{i},\ i=1,\dots,2{\mathfrak{g}}$ , or small circles around the punctures, or arcs that end at the punctures. Therefore

	$\displaystyle\int_{{\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\mathcal{L}\cap{\tilde{{\Sigma}}})}YdX$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{2{\mathfrak{g}}}c_{i}(\mathcal{L})\oint_{{\mathcal{A}% }_{i}}YdX+\sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})\tilde{t}_{\alpha,0}+\sum_{% \alpha}{\tilde{c}}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{% \alpha}YdX$		(3.58)
		$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{2{\mathfrak{g}}}c_{i}(\mathcal{L})2\pi{\mathrm{i}}% \eta_{i}+\sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})\tilde{t}_{\alpha,0}+\sum_{\alpha% }{\tilde{c}}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})2\pi{\mathrm{i}}t_{\alpha,0},$		(3.59)

with $c_{i}(\mathcal{L}),c_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L}),{\tilde{c}}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})$ integers. If we take the real part, due to hypothesis of 2.5, we have

\displaystyle{\mathrm{Re}}\int_{{\mathrm{i}}^{-1}(\mathcal{L}\cap{\tilde{{% \Sigma}}})}YdX

\displaystyle=

\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{2{\mathfrak{g}}}c_{i}(\mathcal{L})2\pi\epsilon_{i}+% \sum_{\alpha}c_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})\tilde{t}_{\alpha,0}.

(3.61)

Remark that the integers $c_{i}(\mathcal{L}),c_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L}),{\tilde{c}}_{\alpha}(\mathcal{L})$ are locally constant, but they can be discontinuous over ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Definition 3.2 (Moduli space with prescribed integrals).

Let $\mathcal{L}_{1},\dots,\mathcal{L}_{N}$ be given. Let $\ell_{1},\dots,\ell_{N}$ be $N$ real numbers. Let

{\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{P};\mathcal{L}_{i},\ell_{i})=\left\{P=\mathcal{P}+Q\in{% \mathcal{M}}\ |\ \forall i=1,\dots,N\ \quad{\mathrm{Re}}\int_{{\mathrm{i}}^{-1% }(\mathcal{L}_{i}\cap{\tilde{{\Sigma}}})}YdX=2\pi\ell_{i}\right\}.

(3.62)

Theorem 3.5.

If ${\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{P};\mathcal{L}_{i},\ell_{i})$ is a non-empty closed subset of ${\mathcal{M}}$ , then the restriction $F$ is continuous on it, and it has an infimum

\inf_{{\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{P};\mathcal{L}_{i},\ell_{i})}F\geq\inf_{{\mathcal% {M}}}F>-\infty.

(3.63)

It has a minimum.

Proof.

The maps $P\mapsto\ell_{i}$ are continuous, so ${\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{P};\mathcal{L}_{i},\ell_{i})$ is closed.

The continuity of $F$ on it, and the infimum are trivial.

Since $F$ is continuous on ${\mathcal{M}}(\mathcal{P};\mathcal{L}_{i},\ell_{i})$ , the level sets are closed. We have already seen that level sets are bounded, so they are compact. The intersection of all level sets, is the intersection of a decreasing sequence of non-empty compacts, so is a non-empty compact. A point in the intersection is a minimum.

3.5. Energy from Prepotential

Here we shall see another definition of the energy $F$ . We shall define a function $\check{F}$ on ${\mathcal{M}}$ , from the prepotential $F_{0}$ , and we shall then prove that $\check{F}$ and $F$ are equals. The advantage is that this expression of $F$ will be expressed in local period coordinates, and will allow to see how a minimum is related to the Boutroux condition.

Let us choose some genus ${\mathfrak{g}}\leq\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ% }}]$ . Let $U\subset{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ a simply connected open domain of ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ , in which we choose a continuous symplectic Jordan cycles marking (lemma 2.2), and we choose a fundamental domain $D$ as in Definition 2.12, continuous on $U$ .

This allows to have period coordinates well defined over $U$ , as well as puncture-times:

\begin{split}t_{\alpha,k}=\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}\zeta_{\alpha}^{k}\,YdX% ,&\qquad\alpha=\text{punctures}\ \ k=0,\dots,r_{\alpha}\cr\eta_{i}=\frac{1}{2% \pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{i}}YdX,&\qquad i=1,\dots\mathfrak{g}\cr% \end{split}

(3.64)

as well as their conjugate times

\begin{split}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}=\frac{1}{k}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}% \zeta_{\alpha}^{-k}\,YdX,&\qquad\alpha=\text{punctures}\ \ k=1,\dots,r_{\alpha% }\cr{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,o}=g(z)-g_{\alpha}(z),&\qquad\text{independent of }z% \in D\cr{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}=\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\oint_{{\mathcal{B}}_{i}}% YdX,&\qquad i=1,\dots\mathfrak{g}\end{split}

(3.65)

Definition 3.3 (Free energy).

We define the prepotential $F_{0}$ as (see [EO07, E2017])

\displaystyle F_{0}

\displaystyle:=

\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}% {\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}+\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,o}+2\pi{% \mathrm{i}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\eta_{i}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}\right).

(3.66)

We also define

\hat{F}:=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}{% \tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}+\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,o}\right)=F% _{0}-\pi{\mathrm{i}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\eta_{i}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}.

(3.67)

In addition, define

\check{F}:=-{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}+\pi({\tilde{\zeta}}^{t}\epsilon-\zeta^{t}{% \tilde{\epsilon}})=-{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}+\pi\zeta^{t}E^{-1}\epsilon,

(3.68)

where $E$ is the symplectic matrix of size $2{\mathfrak{g}}$

E=\begin{pmatrix}0&\text{Id}\cr-\text{Id}&0\end{pmatrix}.

(3.69)

Remark 3.1.

Notice that $F_{0}$ depends on the choice of fundamental domain $D$ , and of the symplectic Jordan loops marking. It is not a function of $P$ alone. In other words $F_{0}$ is not defined as a function on ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Proposition 3.3.

$\check{F}$ and $\hat{F}$ are independent of a choice of marking of Jordan loops. Moreover, we have in the cotangent space $T^{*}U$ , the following differentials

dF_{0}=2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\sum_{i=1}^{{\mathfrak{g}}}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}d\eta_{i},

(3.70)

d\hat{F}=\pi{\mathrm{i}}\left(\sum_{i}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}d\eta_{i}-\eta_{i}d{% \tilde{\eta}}_{i}\right),

(3.71)

and

d\check{F}=2\pi\left(\sum_{i=1}^{{\mathfrak{g}}}{\tilde{\zeta}}_{i}d\epsilon_{% i}-\zeta_{i}d{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}\right).

(3.72)

If we choose an arbitrary basis of cycles, not necessarily symplectic, then we have

d\hat{F}=\pi{\mathrm{i}}\ \eta^{t}E^{-1}d\eta,

(3.73)

d\check{F}=2\pi\ \zeta^{t}E^{-1}d\epsilon,

(3.74)

where $E$ is the $2{\mathfrak{g}}\times 2{\mathfrak{g}}$ intersection matrix $E_{i,j}={\mathcal{A}}_{i}\cap{\mathcal{A}}_{j}=-E_{j,i}$ .

Proof.

The fact that $\hat{F}$ is independent of a choice of marking is obvious, because we subtracted from $F_{0}$ the part that depends on it. Then, consider a change of Jordan loop marking, by taking linear combinations of them. This implies that $\eta$ changes to $C\eta$ where $C$ is an invertible matrix with integer coefficients, so that $\epsilon$ changes to $C\epsilon$ and $\zeta\to C\zeta$ , and $E$ changes to $CEC^{t}$ . This shows that the $\zeta^{t}E^{-1}\epsilon$ is invariant under a change of basis, and therefore $\check{F}$ is independent of a choice of marking.

The relation

dF_{0}={2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{i}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}d\eta_{i}

(3.75)

comes from the fact that $F_{0}$ is the Seiberg-Witten prepotential, this was proved for instance in [EO07, bertola2007boutroux].

The expression for $d\hat{F}$ follows immediately, and since we are in a symplectic basis with $E$ of the form eq (3.69), this takes the form

d\hat{F}=\pi{\mathrm{i}}\ \eta^{t}E^{-1}d\eta,

(3.76)

which is clearly invariant under any change of basis of cycles.

Then, taking the real part we have

	$\displaystyle d{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}$	$\displaystyle=$		$\displaystyle-\pi\left(\zeta^{t}E^{-1}d\epsilon+\epsilon^{t}E^{-1}d\zeta\right)$		(3.77)
		$\displaystyle=$		$\displaystyle-\pi\left(\zeta^{t}E^{-1}d\epsilon-d\zeta^{t}E^{-1}\epsilon\right),$		(3.77)

and thus

d\check{F}=-d{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}+\pi d(\zeta^{t}E^{-1}\epsilon)=2\pi\zeta^{t}% E^{-1}d\epsilon.

(3.78)

Proposition 3.4.

The map $\hat{F}$ :

	$\displaystyle{\mathcal{M}}$	$\displaystyle\to\mathbb{C}$			(3.79)
	$\displaystyle P$	$\displaystyle\mapsto\hat{F}$			(3.80)

is well defined, and is holomorphic in each ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ (with respect to the complex structure of period coordinates $\eta_{i}$ ).

The map ${\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}$ :

	$\displaystyle{\mathcal{M}}$	$\displaystyle\to\mathbb{R}$			(3.81)
	$\displaystyle P$	$\displaystyle\mapsto{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}$			(3.82)

is well defined, and is locally harmonic in each ${\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ .

The map $\check{F}$ :

	$\displaystyle{\mathcal{M}}$	$\displaystyle\to\mathbb{R}$			(3.83)
	$\displaystyle P$	$\displaystyle\mapsto\check{F}$			(3.84)

is well defined (it is not harmonic).

Proof.

There is no continuous section of Jordan loops marking over the full ${\mathcal{M}}$ , and this is why we used some open set $U\subset{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ to define $\check{F}$ . However, we have seen that $\check{F}$ and $\hat{F}$ are in fact independent of the choice of marking, so they are well defined over the full ${\mathcal{M}}^{{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and also other their disjoint union ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Theorem 3.6 (Hessian of $\check{F}$ ).

Let ${\mathfrak{g}}\leq\#\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ}}$ , and let $U\subset{\mathcal{M}}^{({\mathfrak{g}})}$ an open domain, in which we choose a continuous marking of Jordan cycles (lemma 2.2). In $U$ we use the period coordinates $\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{2{\mathfrak{g}}}$ . We consider the real and imaginary parts of the Riemann matrix of periods

\tau=R+{\mathrm{i}}\ I,\quad I>0,\quad R=R^{t},\quad I=I^{t}.

(3.85)

The $2{\mathfrak{g}}\times 2{\mathfrak{g}}$ Hessian matrix of $\check{F}$ is

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\partial^{2}\check{F}}{\partial\epsilon_{i}% \partial\epsilon_{j}}$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}I+RI^{-1}R&-RI^{-1}\cr-I^{-1}R&I^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$		(3.86)
		$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{1}&-R\cr 0&\mathbf{1}\end{pmatrix}\,\begin% {pmatrix}I&0\cr 0&I^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\,\begin{pmatrix}\mathbf{1}&0\cr-R&% \mathbf{1}\end{pmatrix}\,,$		(3.87)

which is symmetric (as any Hessian matrix) and positive definite. $\check{F}$ is strictly convex in any convex subdomain of $U$ (convex in period coordinates).

Proof.

This is a simple computation. Moreover, since $I>0$ this matrix is clearly positive definite, and thus invertible. It is also clearly symmetric.

Corollary 3.1.

$\check{F}$ is strictly convex in $U$ (in the real coordinates $\epsilon$ ). If $\check{F}$ has a minimum in a convex $U$ , then it is unique and is a Boutroux curve:

\forall\ \gamma\in H_{1}({\Sigma}\setminus\text{punctures},{\mathbb{Z}}),\quad% {\mathrm{Re}}\oint_{\gamma}YdX=0.

(3.88)

Proof.

Strict convexity comes from the fact that the Hessian is positive definite. From strict convexity, it is clear that the minimum if it exists is unique. (A minimum doesn’t necessarily exist in $U$ , it could be at the boundary of $U$ and we shall discuss that issue later below).

Consider that a minimum is reached in $U$ , this implies that $d\check{F}=0$ , i.e.

\forall\ i=1,\dots,2{\mathfrak{g}}\ ,\qquad\zeta_{i}=0=\frac{1}{2\pi}{\mathrm{% Re}}\oint_{{\mathcal{A}}_{i}}YdX,

(3.89)

where we used the convention that ${\mathcal{B}}_{i}={\mathcal{A}}_{{\mathfrak{g}}+i}$ .

Also, if $\gamma$ is a small circle around a puncture $\alpha$ we have

{\mathrm{Re}}\int_{\gamma}YdX={\mathrm{Re}}2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\mathop{\,\rm Res\,% }_{\alpha}YdX=-2\pi{\mathrm{Im}}t_{\alpha,0}=0,

(3.90)

by our assumption 2.5.

Since any closed Jordan loop $\gamma$ on ${\Sigma}\setminus\text{puncture}$ is homotopic to an integer linear combination of cycles ${\mathcal{A}}_{i}$ s and circles around punctures, this implies the Boutroux condition.

3.6. Uniqueness of the energy

Theorem 3.7.

The two definitions of $F$ coincide

F=\check{F}.

(3.91)

Proof.

We recall that we chose a fundamental domain $D$ , with its symplectic marking of cycles bordering $D$ , and we have defined $g(z)=\int_{o_{i}}^{z}YdX$ analytic in $D$ .

On $D$ we have

$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{% \alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge YdX$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{\partial({\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{% \alpha}D_{\alpha})}\overline{g}\ YdX$	(3.92)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{-1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha% }}\overline{g}\ YdX$	(3.96)
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{o_{i}}^{p_{\alpha}}% \overline{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}t_{\alpha,0}}\ YdX$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\int_{{% \mathcal{A}}_{i}}\ YdX\left(\overline{-\int_{{\mathcal{B}}_{i}}\ YdX}\right)$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\int_{{% \mathcal{B}}_{i}}\ YdX\left(\overline{\int_{{\mathcal{A}}_{i}}\ YdX}\right)$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{-1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha% }}\overline{({\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}+g_{\alpha})}\ YdX$	(3.100)
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}(g(p_{\alpha})-g(o_{i}))$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}2\pi{\mathrm{% i}}\eta_{i}\left(\overline{-2\pi{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}}\right)$
		$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}2\pi{\mathrm{% i}}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}\left(\overline{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\eta_{i}}\right)$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}}\ t_{\alpha,0}-% \frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}}\overline{g_% {\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.103)
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ g(p_{\alpha})$
		$\displaystyle+2\pi{\mathrm{i}}\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}\eta_{i}\overline{{% \tilde{\eta}}_{i}}-{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}\ \overline{\eta_{i}}$
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}}\ t_{\alpha,0}-% \frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}}\overline{g_% {\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.105)
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ g(p_{\alpha})+4\pi{\mathrm{Im}}\sum_{% i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}{\tilde{\eta}}_{i}\ \overline{\eta_{i}}$	(3.105)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}}\ t_{\alpha,0}-% \frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\sum_{\alpha}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}}\overline{g_% {\alpha}}\ YdX$	(3.107)
		$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ g(p_{\alpha})+4\pi\sum_{i=1}^{% \mathfrak{g}}{\tilde{\zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}$	(3.107)

Then we use lemma B.1 in appendix B:

\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}}\overline{g_{\alpha}}\ % YdX=-\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{|t_{\alpha,k}|^{2}}{k}R_{\alpha}^{-2k}+\sum_% {k=1}^{\infty}k|{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{2k}+2t_{\alpha,0}^{2}% \ln R_{\alpha}-t_{\alpha,0}g_{\alpha}(p_{\alpha})+\pi{\mathrm{i}}t_{\alpha,0}^% {2}.

(3.109)

This implies

	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{% \alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge YdX-\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{% k}\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{-2k}+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde% {t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{2k}+2\sum_{\alpha}\|t_{\alpha,0}\|^{2}\ln R_{\alpha}$	(3.110)
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}}\ t_{\alpha,0}-% \sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ g(p_{\alpha})+4\pi\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}{\tilde{% \zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}+\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha% ,0}g_{\alpha}(p_{\alpha})$	(3.111)
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-\sum_{\alpha}\overline{{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}}\ t_{\alpha,0}-% \sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ {\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,0}+4\pi\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}% }{\tilde{\zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}$	(3.112)
$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-2{\mathrm{Re}}\left(\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ {\tilde{t}}_{% \alpha,0}-2\pi\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}{\tilde{\zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{% i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}\right),$	(3.113)

and thus

$\displaystyle 4F$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\pi{\mathrm{i}}}\int_{{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}D_{% \alpha}}\overline{YdX}\wedge YdX-\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}\frac{1}{% k}\|t_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{-2k}+\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}k\|{\tilde% {t}}_{\alpha,k}\|^{2}R_{\alpha}^{2k}+2\sum_{\alpha}\|t_{\alpha,0}\|^{2}\ln R_{\alpha}$	(3.116)
		$\displaystyle-2{\mathrm{Re}}\sum_{\alpha}\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}{% \tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}$	(3.116)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-2{\mathrm{Re}}\left(\sum_{\alpha}t_{\alpha,0}\ {\tilde{t}}_{% \alpha,0}+\sum_{k=1}^{r_{\alpha}}t_{\alpha,k}{\tilde{t}}_{\alpha,k}-2\pi\sum_{% i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}{\tilde{\zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}% _{i}\right)$	(3.117)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle-4{\mathrm{Re}}\hat{F}+4\pi\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak{g}}{\tilde% {\zeta}}_{i}\epsilon_{i}-\zeta_{i}{\tilde{\epsilon}}_{i}\right)$	(3.118)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle 4\check{F}.$	(3.119)

4. Boutroux Curves

This is the main theorem

Theorem 4.1 (Boutroux Curve).

There exists at least one Boutroux curve in ${\mathcal{M}}$ . Boutroux curves are isolated in ${\mathcal{M}}$ .

Proof.

Because of theorem 3.4, $F$ admits at least one minimum on ${\mathcal{M}}$ . Let $P=\mathcal{P}+Q$ a minimum of $F$ . It belongs to some ${\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ , with ${\mathfrak{g}}\leq\dim{\mathbb{C}}[\displaystyle{\mathop{{\mathcal{N}}}^{\circ% }}]$ .

It may happen that ${\mathfrak{g}}=0$ , in which case, the Boutroux condition is trivially satisfied (all cycles are contractible or reduce to small circles around punctures and we have ${\mathrm{Re}}\oint_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha}}YdX={\mathrm{Re}}(2\pi{\mathrm{i}}% \mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}YdX)={\mathrm{Re}}(2\pi{\mathrm{i}}t_{\alpha,0})=0$ ).

Otherwise, eq (3.72) i.e. corollary 3.1 implies that $dF=0$ in ${\mathcal{M}}_{\mathfrak{g}}$ , which implies $\zeta_{i}=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,2{\mathfrak{g}}$ , and therefore we get Boutroux condition.

Boutroux curves are isolated, because in the period coordinates, $F$ is locally strictly convex.

Theorem 4.2.

If $\mathcal{P}+Q$ is a Boutroux curve we have

F(\mathcal{P}+Q)=-{\mathrm{Re}}F_{0}(\mathcal{P}+Q).

(4.1)

Proof.

We have for any $P$

F=-{\mathrm{Re}}F_{0}-2\pi\zeta^{t}{\tilde{\epsilon}},

(4.2)

and $\zeta$ vanishes for Boutroux curves.

5. Spectral network of first kind

A Boutroux curve has canonically some graphs associated to it, often called spectral networks. However, there is two versions used in many applications. For hyperelliptic curves (degree two in $y$ ) the two versions almost coincide as we shall see in subsection 6.1.

Let’s denote ${\Sigma}\setminus\text{punctures}$ by ${\Sigma}^{*}$ .

Theorem 5.1 (Harmonic function).

If $P\in{\mathcal{M}}$ is a Boutroux curve, let $o_{i}\in{\Sigma}_{i}$ a generic point in each connected component ${\Sigma}_{i}$ of ${\Sigma}$ . The following function:

	$\displaystyle\phi:$	$\displaystyle{\Sigma}\to$	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{R}}$		(5.1)
		$\displaystyle p\mapsto$	$\displaystyle\phi(p)={\mathrm{Re}}\int_{o_{i}}^{p}YdX$		(5.2)

is well defined and harmonic on ${\Sigma}^{*}$ .

Remark 5.1.

For $x\leftrightarrow y$ symmetry, we have the following function:

	$\displaystyle{\tilde{\phi}}:$	$\displaystyle{\Sigma}\to$	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{R}}$		(5.3)
		$\displaystyle p\mapsto$	$\displaystyle\phi(p)={\mathrm{Re}}\int_{o_{i}}^{p}XdY$		(5.4)

which is also well defined and harmonic on ${\Sigma}^{*}$ .

Proof.

The integration path from $o_{i}$ to $p$ is not unique, but two different paths differ by a closed Jordan loop $\gamma$ , and ${\mathrm{Re}}\int_{\gamma}YdX=0$ , so $\phi(p)$ is independent of the chosen path. This makes it a well defined function on ${\Sigma}^{*}$ . It is the real part of a locally analytic function, so it is harmonic.

For ${\tilde{\phi}}$ , notice that by integration by parts, on any Jordan loop one has $\int_{\gamma}XdY=-\int_{\gamma}YdX$ , and also $\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}XdY=-\mathop{\,\rm Res\,}_{\alpha}YdX=-t_{\alpha,0}$ .

Definition 5.1 (Spectral Network).

For each $a\in{\Sigma}$ that is a ramification point or a zero of $YdX$ (in particular this includes ramification points, and all zeros of $Y$ ), let

\check{\Gamma}_{a}:=\text{connected component of }\{p\ |\ \phi(p)=\phi(a)\}% \text{ that contains }a,

(5.5)

and

\check{\Gamma}:=\cup_{a}\check{\Gamma}_{a}.

(5.6)

$\check{\Gamma}_{a}$ is called the “vertical trajectory” passing through $a$ .

Theorem 5.2.

Each $\check{\Gamma}_{a}$ is a finite union of smooth Jordan arcs.

Except at zeros or poles of $YdX$ , these arcs have in the $x$ -chart, a tangent in the direction $e^{-i\arg Y(x)}$ .

These arcs can cross only at points where $YdX=0$ or at punctures. Let the arcs that end at punctures be called “non-compact”, and arcs that don’t end at punctures be called “compact”.

If $a$ is a zero of $YdX$ , possibly a ramification point with canonical local coordinate $\zeta_{a}=(x-X_{a})^{-1/a_{a}}$ , and where $y\sim\eta_{a}\zeta_{a}^{-1/b_{a}}$ , so that $YdX\sim-a_{a}\eta_{a}\zeta_{a}^{-a_{a}-b_{a}-1}d\zeta_{a}$ . With $a_{a}+b_{a}+1<0$ , the arcs of $\check{\Gamma}_{a}$ start from $a$ at angles

e^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{-\arg\eta_{a}+\frac{\pi}{2}+k\pi}{-a_{a}-b_{a}}}\qquad k=% 1,\dots,2|a_{a}+b_{a}|.

(5.7)

Proof.

There is a well defined tangent $YdX$ at each point, in a direction given by $\arg(YdX)\in\frac{\pi}{2}+\pi{\mathbb{Z}}$ , which implies $\arg dx=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arg Y+\pi{\mathbb{Z}}$ . The only points where this is not the case is when $YdX=0$ or $YdX$ has a pole, and at these points we use the local coordinate $\xi$ .

Remark 5.2.

Since the spectral networks are described by algebraic equations the number of these trajectories is always finite.

Definition 5.2 (Cellular decomposition).

The complement

{\Sigma}\setminus\check{\Gamma}=\cup_{i=1}^{m}\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}

(5.8)

is a finite union of disjoint connected open sets $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}\subset{\Sigma}$ , not containing any zero nor pole of $YdX$ . $\phi$ is a harmonic function on each of them. The boundaries of $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ are arcs of $\check{\Gamma}$ , and must contain at least a zero $a$ of $YdX$ . Let $a$ a zero of $YdX$ at the boundary of $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ . Let

	$\displaystyle g_{a}:$	$\displaystyle\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}\to$	$\displaystyle{\mathbb{C}}$		(5.9)
		$\displaystyle p\mapsto$	$\displaystyle g_{a}(p)=\int_{a}^{p}YdX.$		(5.10)

The map $g_{a}$ is well defined in a neighborhood of $a$ . The real part ${\mathrm{Re}}g_{a}(p)=\phi(p)-\phi(a)$ is globally well defined.

Theorem 5.3 (Elementary pieces).

The image $g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})\in{\mathbb{C}}$ , is a domain of ${\mathbb{C}}$ , or of ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}{\mathbb{Z}}$ for some ${\tilde{c}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{*}$ , whose boundaries are (if several) vertical lines. One of the boundaries is the imaginary axis. Since there are only two types of domains bounded by vertical lines in ${\mathbb{C}}$ and only two types of domains bounded by vertical lines in ${\mathbb{C}}/{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}{\mathbb{Z}}$ , only four possibilities can occur:

•

$g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ is a half plane in ${\mathbb{C}}$ , either ${\mathrm{Re}}z>0$ or ${\mathrm{Re}}z<0$ .
•

$g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ is a vertical strip in ${\mathbb{C}}$ bounded by two lines ${\mathrm{Re}}z=0$ and ${\mathrm{Re}}z=c$ where $c\neq 0$ is some real constant. $c$ must be of the form $c=\phi(b)-\phi(a)$ for some $b$ another zero of $YdX$ .
•

$g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ is a half-cylinder, i.e. a half-plane quotiented by $z\to z+{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ for some ${\tilde{c}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{*}$ .
•

$g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ is a cylinder (or annulus) a vertical strip bounded by two lines ${\mathrm{Re}}z=0$ and ${\mathrm{Re}}z=c$ where $c=\phi(b)-\phi(a)$ , and quotiented by $z\to z+{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ for some ${\tilde{c}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{*}$ .

In all cases, the map $p\mapsto g_{a}(p)$ (resp. $p\mapsto g_{a}(p)\mod{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ if cylinder or half-cylinder), is a conformal isomorphism between $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ and its image.

In the first two cases (strip or half-plane), $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ is simply connected, and in the last two cases (cylinder or half-cylinder), $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ is not simply connected.

In all cases except cylinder, $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ has a puncture on its boundary.

Together, the $g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ form charts of an atlas of ${\Sigma}$ , with transition maps that are translations $g_{a}(p)=g_{b}(p)+c+{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ . The charts are either half-planes, strips, cylinders or half-cylinders.

For strips or cylinders, $c=\phi(b)-\phi(a)$ is called the width.

For cylinders and half-cylinders, $\tilde{c}$ is called the perimeter of the cylinder.

Proof.

The image of local patches of $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ must be patches of ${\mathbb{C}}$ bounded by vertical lines. Since $dg_{a}=YdX$ never vanishes nor has poles in $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ , $g_{a}$ is locally a holomorphic isomorphism. $g_{a}$ is not globally defined, it is defined only up to additive constants, which means that transition maps must be translations. Since the transition maps must match the boundary ${\mathrm{Re}}z=0$ , they must be vertical translations $g\mapsto g+{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ with ${\tilde{c}}\in{\mathbb{R}}$ .

The only connected domains of ${\mathbb{C}}$ that have only vertical lines as boundaries, can only be a half-plane or a strip. If ${\tilde{c}}\neq 0$ , the transition maps being $g\mapsto g+{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ imply that the image can be a half-plane or a strip quotiented by a vertical translation, i.e. a cylinder or a half-cylinder. These are the only possibilities.

If ${\tilde{c}}=0$ then $g_{a}$ is an isomorphism, and if ${\tilde{c}}\neq 0$ then $g_{a}\mod{\mathrm{i}}{\tilde{c}}$ is an isomorphism.

Theorem 5.4.

In each $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ , the map $X:\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}\to{\mathbb{C}}$ is a conformal isomorphism to its image.

Proof.

If $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ is a cylinder or half-cylinder and contains a non-contractible loop $\gamma$ , the projection $X(\gamma)$ in ${\mathbb{C}}$ is contractible (because ${\mathbb{C}}$ is simply connected). Hence, $\int_{X(\gamma)}dX=0$ and, if $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ is a half-plane or strip, it is simply connected.

By definition $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ contains no ramification point, so $X$ is a conformal isomorphism.

Theorem 5.5 (Metric and geodesics).

The restriction of the metric $|YdX|^{2}$ of ${\mathbb{C}}\times{\mathbb{C}}$ , to ${\Sigma}$ is equal to $\frac{1}{2{\mathrm{i}}}\overline{dg_{a}}\wedge dg_{a}$ . It is thus the canonical Euclidean metric of $g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ . The geodesics are fixed angles lines $\arg dg_{a}=\text{constant}$ , i.e. Eulcidian straight lines in the charts $g_{a}(\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i})$ . As a consequence, the vertical trajectories $\phi=\text{constant}$ , and therefore the edges of $\check{\Gamma}$ are geodesic.

Theorem 5.6 (Half-cylinder=Fuchsian).

Half-cylinders have some puncture $\alpha$ at their boundary, and their perimeter is ${\tilde{c}}=2\pi t_{\alpha,0}$ . The puncture $\alpha$ is then necessarily a simple pole of $YdX$ . We call it a “Fuchsian” puncture. Therefore, half-cylinders are Fuchsian punctures.

Proof.

Near $\alpha$ we have $YdX\sim t_{\alpha,r_{\alpha}}\zeta_{\alpha}^{-r_{\alpha}-1}d\zeta_{\alpha}$ , and thus:

- If $r_{\alpha}=0$ we have $\phi\sim t_{\alpha,0}\ln{|\zeta_{\alpha}|}$ whose vertical trajectories are circles around $\alpha$ .

- If $r_{\alpha}>0$ we have $\phi\sim-{\mathrm{Re}}\left(\frac{t_{\alpha,r_{\alpha}}}{r_{\alpha}}\zeta_{% \alpha}^{-r_{\alpha}}\right)$ whose vertical trajectories can’t be circles around $\alpha$ .

- If we have a half-cylinder, we see that there is a foliation of circles as vertical trajectories surrounding $\alpha$ , and this can be compatible only with $r_{\alpha}=0$ , i.e. a simple pole.

Theorem 5.7 (No cylinders).

There is no cylinders on the graph $\check{\Gamma}$ of a Boutroux curve.

Proof.

The proof uses combinatorics of graphs to compute the Euler characteristics. The Euler characteristics of ${\Sigma}$ can be computed from the number of vertices, edges and faces of $\check{\Gamma}$ . Let:

•

$v=$ number of zeros of $ydx$ . Each zero of $ydx$ is of some degree $v_{i}$ .
•

$N=$ number of poles of $ydx$ . Each pole of $ydx$ is of some degree $d_{\alpha}$ .
•

$c_{1/2}=$ number of Fuchsian poles, i.e. with $d_{\alpha}=1$ .
•

$f=h+s+c+c_{1/2}=$ the number of faces, where $h=$ number of half-planes, $s=$ number of strips, $c=$ number of cylinders and $c_{1/2}=$ number of half-cylinders.
•

$e_{c}=$ number of compact edges of $\check{\Gamma}$ , i.e. going from a zero of $ydx$ to a zero of $ydx$ .
•

$e_{nc}=$ number of non-compact edges of $\check{\Gamma}$ , i.e. going from a zero of $ydx$ to a pole of $ydx$ .
•

$e=e_{c}+e_{nc}=$ the total number of edges.

We have the following relations:

•

Since non-compact edges can end only on half-planes and on strips, and each half plane has 2 non-compact edges and each strip has 4, and all are doubly counted:

$2e_{nc}=2h+4s.$ (5.11)

•

Since from a zero of degree $v_{i}$ of $ydx$ we have $2(v_{i}+1)$ half edges, and half edges can be either compact or non-compact we have

2e_{c}+e_{nc}=\sum_{i}2(v_{i}+1)=2v+2\deg_{zeros}ydx.

(5.12)

•

Since from a pole of degree $d_{\alpha}$ of $ydx$ we have $2(d_{\alpha}-1)$ half-planes, we have

h=\sum_{\alpha}2(d_{\alpha}-1)=-2N+2\deg_{poles}ydx.

(5.13)

•

Together these relations imply that the total number of edges is

	$\displaystyle e$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle e_{c}+e_{nc}$		(5.14)
		$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle v+\deg_{zeros}ydx+s-N+\deg_{poles}ydx.$		(5.15)

•

The Euler characteristic is thus:

$\displaystyle 2-2g$	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle f-e+(v+N-c_{1/2})$	(5.17)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle f-s-c_{1/2}-\deg_{zeros}ydx-\deg_{poles}ydx+2N$	(5.18)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle f-s-c_{1/2}-h-\deg_{zeros}ydx+\deg_{poles}ydx$	(5.19)
	$\displaystyle=$	$\displaystyle c-\deg_{zeros}ydx+\deg_{poles}ydx.$	(5.20)

Every meromorphic 1-form on a Riemann surface of genus $g$ satisfies

\deg_{poles}ydx-\deg_{zeros}ydx=2-2g,

(5.22)

this implies that

c=0.

(5.23)

There is no cylinders on a Boutroux curve.

Definition 5.3 (Tiles).

We can further subdivide each

\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}=\cup_{j}\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i,j}

(5.24)

by cutting along horizontal trajectories emanating from the vertices of $\check{\Gamma}$ that are on the boundary of $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i}$ .

Each $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{i,j}$ can have two, three or four sides, that cross at right angles:

•

If it has two sides, we call it a “corner tile” or “L tile”, it has infinite width and height.
•

If it has three sides, we call it a “U tile”, it has either finite width, infinite height (vertical “U”) or infinite width, finite height (horizontal “U”).
•

If it has four sides, we call it a “rectangle tile” or “R tile”, it has finite width and finite height. In particular it has a finite area = width $\times$ height.

Each tile is simply connected.

Theorem 5.8.

Let $\alpha$ a puncture. Consider the union of all tiles that have $\alpha$ at their boundary. Let $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ the union of these tiles, all horizontal and vertical trajectories (their interior) ending at $\alpha$ , and $\alpha$ itself. $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ is topologically a disc.

The discs $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ are disjoint.

The complement

{\Sigma}\setminus\cup_{\alpha}\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}

(5.25)

is the union of a graph (all compact horizontal and vertical lines ) and all rectangle tiles.

See Fig.1.

Proof.

For each puncture $\alpha$ , let $D_{\alpha}$ a disc of radius $R_{\alpha}$ small enough around $\alpha$ , such that $D_{\alpha}$ contains no zero of $YdX$ nor ramification or nodal point nor other punctures. Consider all tiles that intersect $D_{\alpha}$ . They must be L or U tiles. Moreover, no tile can touch $\alpha$ without intersecting $D_{\alpha}$ , therefore $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ is precisely the union of all tiles that intersect $D_{\alpha}$ , and they must be U or L tiles.

Since each U and L tiles have exactly two edges going to $\alpha$ , the gluing of U and L tiles around $\alpha$ has necessarily the topology of a disc around $\alpha$ .

Every L or U tile is connected, and touches at most one puncture. This implies that $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ are disjoint.

The complement is the set of edges that don’t touch punctures, i.e. all compact vertical and horizontal edges, and also all rectangle tiles.

Refer to caption — Figure 1. Example of a domain $\check{\mathcal{D}}_{\alpha}$ , it is a gluing of L and U tiles. Vertical edges are continuous and horizontal edges are dashed.

6. Spectral network of second kind

There is another way of defining the spectral network that is very useful in applications, in particular in WKB analysis.

We mention that for hyperelliptic curves (of the form $P(x,y)=y^{2}-R(x)$ with $R(x)\in{\mathbb{C}}(x)$ ), the first and second kinds are closely related as we shall see in subsection 6.1.

So here, we define the spectral network as:

Definition 6.1 (Spectral network).

We define $\Gamma\subset\mathbb{C}$ :

\Gamma:=\{x\in\mathbb{C}\,|\,\exists\,p\neq p^{\prime},\,X(p)=X(p^{\prime})=x% \,\text{and}\,\phi(p)=\phi(p^{\prime})\}

(6.1)

(this set is independent of the choice of basepoint “ $o$ ” in the definition of $\phi$ ). $\Gamma$ is a graph embedded in $\mathbb{C}$ . We complete $\Gamma$ by adding the vertices, i.e. we take the closure of $\Gamma$ .

Definition 6.2 (Spectral network on ${\Sigma}$ ).

The set

{\tilde{\Gamma}}:=\{p\in{\Sigma}\,|\,\exists\,p^{\prime}\neq p,\,X(p)=X(p^{% \prime})\,\text{and}\,\phi(p)=\phi(p^{\prime})\}

(6.2)

forms a graph ${\tilde{\Gamma}}$ on ${\Sigma}$ . We complete ${\tilde{\Gamma}}$ by adding the vertices and the punctures, i.e. we take the closure of ${\tilde{\Gamma}}$ . We have $X({\tilde{\Gamma}})=\Gamma$ , and ${\tilde{\Gamma}}\subset X^{-1}(\Gamma)$ .

Existence of Boutroux curves, g𝑔gitalic_g-functions and spectral networks from Newton’s polygon

Abstract.

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose and results

2. Newton’s polygon and algebraic curves

2.1. Newton’s polygon

Definition 2.1 (Newton’s polygon).

Definition 2.2 (Moduli space of a Newton polygon).

Remark 2.1.

Remark 2.2.

Example 2.1 (Weierstrass curve).

Example 2.2 (Strebel-3).

Example 2.3 ( Strebel-4).

2.2. Riemann surface

Example 2.4 (Weierstrass curve).

Definition 2.3 (Nodal points).

Lemma 2.1.

Proof.

2.3. Canonical local coordinates

Definition 2.4.

2.4. Genus and cycles

Definition 2.5 (Marking).

Remark 2.3.

Lemma 2.2 (Continuous Jordan cycles).

Proof.

Remark 2.4.

2.4.1. Holomorphic forms

Theorem 2.1 (Riemann).

Theorem 2.2.

Proof.

Example 2.5 (Weierstrass curve).

Definition 2.6 (Cells of fixed genus).

Proposition 2.1.

Proof.

2.4.2. Non-generic case

Definition 2.7.

Theorem 2.3.

Proof.

Example 2.6 (Degenerate Weierstrass curve).

2.5. Period coordinates

Definition 2.8 (Period coordinates).

Theorem 2.4 (periods = local coordinates).

Proof.

2.5.1. Nodal point coordinates

Definition 2.9.

2.6. Punctures coordinates

Definition 2.10 (Times at punctures).

Proposition 2.2 (Times and exterior coefficients).

Proof.

Remark 2.5.

Example 2.7 (Weierstrass curve).

Definition 2.11 (Conjugate times).

Definition 2.12 (Fundamental domain).

Definition 2.13 (Conjugate times case k=0𝑘0k=0italic_k = 0).

3. Energy as regularized area

3.1. Regularized area

Definition 3.1 (Energy = regularized area).

Lemma 3.1.

Proof.

Theorem 3.1 (Continuity).

Proof.

3.2. Minimum

Theorem 3.2 (Bounded from below).

Proof.

Theorem 3.3.

Proof.

Lemma 3.2.

Proof.

Theorem 3.4 (Minimum).

Proof.

3.3. Derivatives

Lemma 3.3 (Cotangent space).

Proof.

Proposition 3.1 (Derivative).

Proof.

Proposition 3.2 (Second Derivative).

Proof.

3.4. Minimization with constrained prescribed Integrals

Definition 3.2 (Moduli space with prescribed integrals).

Theorem 3.5.

Existence of Boutroux curves, $g$ -functions and spectral networks from Newton’s polygon

Definition 2.13 (Conjugate times case $k=0$ ).

Theorem 3.6 (Hessian of $\check{F}$ ).

Definition 6.2 (Spectral network on ${\Sigma}$ ).