arXiv:1607.07081v1 [math.QA] 24 Jul 2016

Orbifold autoequivalent exceptional unimodal
singularities
Ana Ros Camacho and Rachel Newton
July 26, 2016
Abstract. We prove that diﬀerent expressions of the same exceptional unimodal singularity are orbifold equivalent in the sense of [CR2, CRCR, RCN]. As in our previous
paper [RCN], the matrix factorizations proving these orbifold equivalences depend again
on certain parameters satisfying some equations whose solutions are permuted by Galois
groups.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. The proofs
2.1. E14 (v1) ∼orb E14 (v2) .
2.1.1. Galois theory . .
2.2. Q12 (v1) ∼orb Q12 (v2) .
2.2.1. Galois theory . .
2.3. U12 (v2) ∼orb U12 (v3) .
2.3.1. Galois theory . .
2.4. U12 (v1) ∼orb U12 (v3) .
2.4.1. Galois theory . .
2.5. W12 (v1) ∼orb W12 (v2)
2.5.1. Galois theory . .
2.6. W13 (v1) ∼orb W13 (v2)
2.6.1. Galois theory . .
2.7. Z13 (v1) ∼orb Z13 (v2) . .
2.7.1. Galois theory . .

2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

3. Summary

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
15

1

A. Appendix

16

1. Introduction
Thanks to the classiﬁcation performed by Arnold in the late 60’s, we know that unimodal
singularities fall into 3 families of parabolic singularities, a three-suﬃx series of hyperbolic
ones, and 14 exceptional cases (more details can be found in e.g. [Ar, AGV]). A way to
describe them is via regular weight systems [Sai], that is, a quadruple of positive integers
(a1 , a2 , a3 ; h) with a1 , a2 , a3 < h (h is called the Coxeter number) satisfying:
– gcd (a1 , a2 , a3 ) = 1, and
– there exists a potential (meaning a polynomial W ∈ C [x1 , x2 , x3 ] that has an isolated
singularity at the origin) with the degrees of the variables xi being |xi | = 2ahi ∈ Q≥0 ,
i ∈ {1, 2, 3} which is invariant under the Euler ﬁeld E, that is,
E.W =



a1
∂
∂
∂
a2
a3
x1
+ x2
+ x3
W = W.
h ∂x1
h ∂x2
h ∂x3


We say that a potential is homogeneous of degree d ∈ Q≥0 if in addition it satisﬁes




W λ|x1 | x1 , λ|x2 | x2 , λ|x3 | x3 = λd W (x1 , x2 , x3 )
for all λ ∈ C× . Requiring the potential W to be invariant under the Euler vector ﬁeld turns
out to be equivalent to requiring W to be homogeneous of degree 2. This argument goes
as follows: a potential in three variables can only have seven possible shapes, as speciﬁed
in [AGV, Chapter 13], for example. Imposing invariance under the Euler ﬁeld boils down
to some conditions on the powers of the monomials in the potential. With the assignment
of degrees made, one easily ﬁnds that these conditions are precisely the same as those we
should impose if we want homogeneity of degree 2.
From now on, when we write ‘potential’ we mean a potential that is homogeneous of
degree 2. Potentials are the central concept of the present paper.
Throughout this paper, we will work over the graded ring S := C [x1 , x2 , x3 ] (although
most of the deﬁnitions and results can be easily generalized to polynomial rings in n
variables over a ﬁeld k ⊂ C). We denote the set of all possible potentials with complex
coeﬃcients, and three variables, by PC . To a potential W ∈ PC , we can associate a number
called the central charge, which is deﬁned as:
cW =

3
X
i=1

(1 − |xi |)

2

Type
Q10
Q11
Q12
S11
S12
U12
Z11
Z12
Z13
W12
W13
E12
E13
E14

Potential (v1)
x4 + y 3 + xz 2
x3 y + y 3 + xz 2
x3 z + y 3 + xz 2
x4 + y 2 z + xz 2
x3 y + y 2 z + xz 2
x4 + y 3 + z 3
x5 + xy 3 + z 2
yx4 + xy 3 + z 2
x3 z + xy 3 + z 2
x5 + y 2 z + z 2
yx4 + y 2 z + z 2
x7 + y 3 + z 2
y 3 + yx5 + z 2
x4 z + y 3 + z 2

Potential (v2)
–
–
x5 + y 3 + xz 2
–
–
x4 + y 3 + z 2 y
–
–
x6 + y 3 x + z 2
x5 + y 4 + z 2
x4 y + y 4 + z 2
–
–
x8 + y 3 + z 2

Potential (v3)
–
–
–
–
–
x4 + y 2 z + z 2 y
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

(a1 , a2 , a3 ; h)
(9, 8, 6; 24)
(7, 6, 4; 18)
(6, 5, 3; 15)
(5, 4, 6; 16)
(4, 3, 5; 13)
(4, 4, 3; 12)
(8, 6, 15; 30)
(6, 4, 11; 22)
(5, 3, 9; 18)
(5, 4, 10; 20)
(4, 3, 8; 16)
(14, 6, 21; 42)
(10, 4, 15; 30)
(8, 3, 12; 24)

Table 1: Exceptional unimodal singularities with associated potentials and regular weight
systems. We use the labels v1, v2 and v3 to denote the diﬀerent potentials associated to each singularity.

1
The central charge is related to the Coxeter number by the formula cW = h+2
h [Mar].
The potential W associated to a singularity is not necessarily unique. For the case of
exceptional unimodal singularities, one can compute that {E14 , Q12 , U12 , W12 , W13 , Z13 }
have multiple associated potentials, see Table 1.
In previous work ([CRCR]), it was proven that potentials associated to simple singularities could be related by an equivalence relation which will be deﬁned in the next subsection.
In [RCN], we proved that potentials associated to Q10 and E14 – strangely dual exceptional
unimodal singularities – could be related by this same equivalence relation. In this paper,
we prove that the potentials associated to an exceptional unimodal singularity are equivalent in this sense.

1

This formula is a special case of the following formula for potentials in n variables:
cW =
where ǫW :=

n
P

(n − 2) h − 2ǫW
h

ai − h is the Gorenstein parameter of W [Sai]. In order to recover the formula of [Mar],

i=1

set n = 3 and use the fact that exceptional unimodal singularities have Gorenstein parameter ǫW = −1.

3

On matrix factorizations
One can deﬁne an equivalence relation between potentials as follows.
Definition 1.1.  ◦ Given a potential W ∈ S, a matrix factorization of W consists of a
pair M, dM where
– M is a Z2 -graded free module over S;

– dM : M → M is a degree 1 S–linear endomorphism (the twisted differential)
such that:
dM ◦ dM = W.idM .
We may display the Z2 -grading explicitly as M = M0 ⊕ M1 and


If there is no risk of confusion, we will denote M, dM



dM

=

0
dM
0

!

dM
1
.
0

simply by M .

◦ We call M a graded matrix factorization if, in addition, M0 and M1 are Q-graded,
acting with xi is an endomorphism of degree |xi | with respect to the Q-grading on
M , and the twisted diﬀerential has degree 1 with respect to the Q–grading on M 2 .
We will denote by hmf gr (W ) the idempotent complete full subcategory of graded ﬁnite–
rank matrix factorizations: its objects are homotopy equivalent to direct summands of
ﬁnite–rank matrix factorizations. The morphisms are homogeneous even (with respect to
the Z2 degree) linear maps up to homotopy with respect to the twisted diﬀerential. This
category is monoidal and has duals and adjunctions which can be described in a very
explicit way. This leads to the following result which gives precise formulas for the left and
right quantum dimensions of a matrix factorization.
Proposition 1.2. [CM, CR1] Let V (x1 , . . . , xm ) and W (y1 , . . . , yn ) be two potentials and
M a matrix factorization of W − V . Then the left quantum dimension of M is:
m+1
2

qdiml (M ) = (−1)(



) Res 





str ∂x1 dM . . . ∂xm dM ∂y1 dM . . . ∂yn dM dy1 . . . dyn
∂y1 W, . . . , ∂yn W

and the right quantum dimension is:
n+1
2

qdimr (M ) = (−1)(



) Res 





str ∂x1 dM . . . ∂xm dM ∂y1 dM . . . ∂yn dM dx1 . . . dxm
∂x1 V, . . . , ∂xm V

Quantum dimensions allow us to deﬁne the following equivalence relation:
2

Note that these conditions imply that W is homogeneous of degree 2 (as desired).

4





.

Definition and Theorem 1.3. [CR2, CRCR] Let V , W and M be as in the previous
proposition. We say that V and W are orbifold equivalent (V ∼orb W ) if there exists
a ﬁnite–rank matrix factorization of V − W for which the left and the right quantum
dimensions are non-zero. Orbifold equivalence is an equivalence relation in PC .
Remark 1.4. [CR2, Proposition 6.4] (or [CRCR, Proposition 1.3]) If two potentials V and
W are orbifold equivalent, then their associated central charges are equal: cV = cW .
Let us give some comments on quantum dimensions and orbifold equivalences [CRCR,
CR2]:
◦ [CRCR, Lemma 2.5] The quantum dimensions of graded matrix factorizations take
values in C. One can see this by counting degrees in the formulas given in Proposition
1.2.
◦ The deﬁnitions of the quantum dimensions are also valid for ungraded matrix factorizations (in which case they will take values in S instead of in C). Furthermore, the
quantum dimensions are independent of the Q-grading on a graded matrix factorization.
◦ So far, the diﬃculty of establishing an orbifold equivalence lies in constructing the
explicit matrix factorization which proves it.
In [RCN], we proved that the potentials associated to the singularities Q10 and E14 (in
either of its two expressions) are orbifold equivalent. Since orbifold equivalence is an equivalence relation, transitivity implies that the two potentials describing E14 are also orbifold
equivalent. The following question is hence a legitimate one: “are diﬀerent expressions of
the same (exceptional unimodal) singularity orbifold equivalent to each other?” 3
Potentials associated to the same singularity obviously share the same Coxeter number
and central charge, which is a consequence of orbifold equivalence as noted in Remark 1.4.
Indeed we found the main result of this paper.
Theorem 1.5. We have the following orbifold equivalences between different potentials
associated to the same exceptional unimodal singularities:
Q12 (v1) ∼orb Q12 (v2)

U12 (v1) ∼orb U12 (v2) ∼orb U12 (v3)
W12 (v1) ∼orb W12 (v2)

W13 (v1) ∼orb W13 (v2)

Z13 (v1) ∼orb Z13 (v2).

3

This question was originally posed by W. Ebeling, to whom we express our gratitude for stimulating this
work.

5

Some further motivation for this work is as follows. In [RCN, Section 1], we conjectured
that potentials associated to strangely dual singularities (meaning diﬀerent singularities
that share the same Coxeter number) are orbifold equivalent. As mentioned above, we
proved in [RCN] that E14 and Q10 are indeed orbifold equivalent (independently of the
potential we take to describe E14 ), while orbifold equivalence for the pairs (S11 , W13 ),
(Q11 , Z13 ) and (Z11 , E13 ) remains to be proven. Some of these singularities have two possible potentials describing them, and proving that both descriptions are orbifold equivalent
would allow us to use either of these potentials to pursue a proof of this conjecture. This
may ease that task, which is work in progress [RCN2]. In addition, for the interest of the
ﬁrst author, these equivalences may shed new insights into the Landau-Ginzburg/conformal
ﬁeld theory correspondence (LG/CFT) [HW, LVW, VW, RC] for CFTs with central charge
bigger than one. It would be interesting to identify what should be the interpretation on
the CFT side of these results and the role of Galois groups in them, à la [Gep]. Due to
computational diﬃculties, we postpone this analysis to [RCN2].
This paper is organized as follows. In the Section 2, we describe the method obtained
to generate the matrix factorizations proving the orbifold equivalences from Theorem 1.5,
give details for each of them, describe the equations the perturbation coeﬃcients must
satisfy and compute the Galois groups that permute them and any possible constraints
from imposing non-vanishing of the quantum dimensions. For the sake of completeness,
we also include a matrix factorization proving orbifold equivalence between the potentials
describing E14 . Due to their size, the explicit descriptions of each matrix factorization are
contained in Appendix A. To ﬁnish, we sum up the results and outlook in Section 3.

Acknowledgements
RN wishes to thank Bartosz Naskręcki for a useful Mathematica tutorial. ARC’s work
is supported by the French-German research project SISYPH (programme blanc ANR13-IS01-0001-01/02, DFG Program DFG No HE 2287/4-1, SE 1114/5-1). She also would
like to warmly thank Andrew Taggart and Alex Pall for providing the soundtrack which
supported the writing of this paper.

2. The proofs
All of the graded matrix factorizations (with |xi | = 2ahi given by the regular weight systems
associated to each singularity) that we use to prove Theorem 1.5 are built in the same way,
which we describe here. We start with a matrix factorization whose underlying module is
M = C [x, y, z, u, v, w] ⊕8 and whose twisted diﬀerential dM = (dij )i,j∈{1,...,8} is constructed
as follows.
– Take d18 = d27 = d36 = d45 = d54 = d63 = d72 = d81 = 0.

6

– Impose
d64 = d53 = −d28 = −d17
d73 = d62 = d48 = d15

d74 = −d52 = −d38 = d16

d82 = d71 = −d46 = −d35

d83 = −d61 = −d47 = d25
d84 = d51 = d37 = d26

4

– All the remaining entries are zero.
With this particular choice, we get a matrix factorization whose twisted diﬀerential
squares directly to −d17 d35 + d16 d25 − d15 d26 . Hence, we will only need to specify the
entries {d15 , d16 , d17 , d25 , d26 , d35 }, which are listed in detail for each case in Appendix A.
We take the d15 , d16 , d17 , d25 , d26 and d35 of the indecomposables V0 in [KST] associated
to each singularity. Then we start perturbing each of these entries à la [RCN, CRCR], introducing in each entry monomials of the same total degree times some complex coeﬃcient.
Adjusting these coeﬃcients so that the total twisted diﬀerential squares to the desired potential, we obtain the desired matrix factorization, together with several equations that
these coeﬃcients need to satisfy.

2.1. E14 (v1) ∼orb E14 (v2)

Here we construct a matrix factorization of u8 + v 3 + w2 − x4 z − y 3 − z 2 (i.e. E14 (v2) −
E14 (v1)). A matrix factorization proving orbifold equivalence between these two potentials
is speciﬁed in Equation 8 and it depends on the complex parameters:
{a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , b1 , b2 , b3 , c}.
The parameter c must satisfy the following equation:
−1−

c8
=0
4

(1)

while the remaining 7 parameters are free.
We obtain the following left and right quantum dimensions:
qdiml (M ) = − 18 (a3 − b3 + 4c)
4

These constraints happened to be the same as those required in the matrix factorizations proving orbifold
equivalence in [RCN].

7

7

qdimr (M ) = − c2

We need to impose on the values of {a3 , b3 , c} some constraints in order to avoid zero
values of the quantum dimensions. It is clear from Equation 1 that the right quantum
dimension cannot vanish. To ensure non-vanishing of the left quantum dimension, we need
to avoid the solutions of the system of equations formed by a3 − b3 + 4c = 0 and Equation
1.
2.1.1. Galois theory
The equation c8 + 4 = 0 factorises as (c4 + 2c2 + 2)(c4 − 2c2 + 2) = 0. So we get two families
of solutions for c, one for each irreducible factor. Each family consists of four solutions for
c.
√
Family 1: c = ±√1 ± i
Family 2: c = ± −1 ± i
√
√
The ﬁeld generated over Q by each family of solutions for c is Q( 1 + i, 2) which has
Galois group D8 (dihedral of order 8) over Q. Family 1 and Family 2 are the two orbits
for the action of the Galois group on the solutions for c.

2.2. Q12 (v1) ∼orb Q12 (v2)

Here we construct a matrix factorization of u2 w + w5 + v 3 − y 3 − x3 z − xz 2 (i.e. Q12 (v2) −
Q12 (v1)). A matrix factorization proving orbifold equivalence between these two potentials is the one speciﬁed in Equation 9 and it depends on seven complex parameters
{a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 , b1 , b2 } which must satisfy the following six equations:
b21 + b1 b2 = 0
−1 + (−a2 − a4 + a5 ) b1 b2 − a2 b22 = 0,



a2 a3 + a1 a4 + a22 a4 − a2 a24 − a1 a5 + a2 a4 a5



h





a1 − a3 − a2 a5 + a4 a5 − a25 = 0,





b1 (a2 + a4 − a5 ) a1 − a3 − a2 a5 + a4 a5 − a25 +


b2 a22 (−a4 − a5 ) + a1 (a2 − a4 + a5 ) + a2 −2a3 + a24 − a25






i

= 0,

a1 + a22 + a3 − a24 + a2 a5 + a4 a5 b1 + a1 + a22 − 2a2 a4 + 2a2 a5 b2 = 0

a1 a3 + a22 a3 + 2a1 a2 a4 + a32 a4 − 2a2 a3 a4 − a1 a24 − 2a22 a24 + a2 a34 − a1 a2 a5 + 2a2 a3 a5 +

+a1 a4 a5 + a22 a4 a5 − a2 a24 a5 + a22 a25 − a2 a4 a25 + a2 a35 = 0
(2)

8

We obtain the following left and right quantum dimensions:
a1
(a2 + a4 − a5 ) (2a3 + 3a5 (a2 − a4 + a5 )) b1
10 


a1
+
3a22 a5 + a2 (2a3 + a4 a5 ) + (3a4 − 2a5 ) a3 − a4 a5 + a25 b2
10
1
(a3 + a5 (a2 − a4 + a5 )) ((a2 + a4 − a5 ) (2a3 + 3a5 (a2 − a4 + a5 )) b1
−
10

a2
− (a3 + (a4 − a5 ) (3a2 − 3a4 + 2a5 )) b2
30
1
qdimr = − (−a4 b1 + 5a5 b1 + 3a5 b2 + a2 (b1 + b2 ))
5
qdiml =

No solution of Equations 2 makes the left quantum dimension vanish, but we need to
impose on the values of {a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 , b1 , b2 } some constraints in order to avoid zero
values of the right quantum dimension. The solutions of the Equations 2 with
−a4 b1 + 5a5 b1 + 3a5 b2 + a2 (b1 + b2 ) = 0
are to be avoided.
2.2.1. Galois theory
Solving the equations using Mathematica shows that√a5 can be chosen freely and then the
values for the other parameters lie in the ﬁeld Q(a5 , 5 2, ζ5 , i) where ζ5 denotes a primitive
5th root of unity. Generically, treating a5 as an indeterminate, we get the Galois group
√
√
5
5
Gal(Q(a5 , 2, ζ5 , i)/Q(a5 )) ∼
= Gal(Q( 2, ζ5 , i)/Q) ∼
= C2 × C5 ⋊ C4
where the action of C4 on C5 is via an isomorphism C4 ∼
= Aut(C5 ).

2.3. U12 (v2) ∼orb U12 (v3)

A matrix factorization of the potential u4 +v 3 +w2 v −x4 −y 2 z −yz 2 (i.e. U12 (v2)−U12 (v3))
proving orbifold equivalence is speciﬁed in Equation 10, and it depends on 6 complex
parameters {a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 , c1 , c2 }. The variables {a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 } have to satisfy the following
equations:
−1 + a21 b1 − a1 b21 = 0

2a1 b1 a2 − b21 a2 + a21 b2 − 2a1 b1 b2 = 0

−1 + b1 a22 + 2a1 a2 b2 − 2b1 a2 b2 − a1 b22 = 0
a22 b2 − a2 b22 = 0

9

(3)

while c1 and c2 can take any value. This matrix factorization has the following quantum
dimensions:
qdimr (M ) = −

1
(8c1 a2 − 4a1 b2 + 8c1 b2 + 4b1 (a2 − 2c2 ) + 8a1 c2 )
24

1  2
4b1 (−b1 + c1 ) a2 + 2a31 b2 + a1 b1 (2c1 (−a2 + b2 )
12

+b1 (3a2 + b2 − 3c2 )) + 4a21 (c1 b2 + b1 (2a2 + 3b2 − 3c2 ))

qdiml (M ) = −

In order to avoid vanishing of the quantum dimensions, we have to restrict the values of
{a1 , b1 , c1 , a2 , b2 , c2 } to only consider solutions of Equations 3 with
−8c1 a2 − 4a1 b2 + 8c1 b2 + 4b1 (a2 − 2c2 ) + 8a1 c2 6= 0
and
− 4b21 (−b1 + c1 ) a2 + 2a31 b2 + a1 b1 (2c1 (−a2 + b2 )

+b1 (3a2 + b2 − 3c2 )) + 4a21 (c1 b2 + b1 (2a2 + 3b2 − 3c2 )) 6= 0.

2.3.1. Galois theory
√
All solutions for a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 lie in the ﬁeld Q(i, ζ3 , 3 2), where ζ3 is a primitive 3rd root
of unity. The Galois group over Q is S3 × C2 . There are three families of solutions,
corresponding to a2 = 0, b2 = 0 and a2 = b2 , respectively. Each family represents a distinct
orbit for the action of the Galois group on the solutions for a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 .
The family with a2 = 0. The equations give b31 = 1/2, a1 = 2b1 , b22 = −b21 . So b2 = ±ib1 .
There are 6 solutions for a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 in this family.
The family with b2 = 0. The equations give a31 = −1/2, b1 = 2a1 , a22 = −a21 . So
a2 = ±ia1 . There are 6 solutions for a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 in this family.
The family with a2 = b2 .
The equations give a31 = −1/2, b1 = −a1 , a22 = −a21 . So
a2 = ±ia1 . There are 6 solutions for a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 in this family.

2.4. U12 (v1) ∼orb U12 (v3)

A matrix factorization of u4 + v 3 + w3 − x4 − y 2 z − yz 2 (i.e. U12 (v1) − U12 (v3)) proving
orbifold equivalence is speciﬁed in Equation 11 and depends on six complex parameters:
{a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 , c1 , c2 }

10

{a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 } must satisfy the equations:
−1 + a21 b1 − a1 b21 = 0

2a1 b1 a2 − b21 a2 + a21 b2 − 2a1 b1 b2 = 0

b1 a22 + 2a1 a2 b2 − 2b1 a2 b2 − a1 b22 = 0

(4)

−1 + a22 b2 − a2 b22 = 0

c1 and c2 remain free. The quantum dimensions of this matrix factorizations are:
qdiml (M ) =

1
9

(b1 a2 − 2c1 a2 − a1 b2 + 2c1 b2 + 2a1 c2 − 2b1 c2 )

qdimr (M ) = 4(a21 b2 (4a2 − 3b2 + 2c2 ) + a2 b1 (3a2 b1 − 2b1 b2 − 2a2 c1 + 4b2 c1 − 2b1 c2 ) +
a1 (−4a22 b1 + 2b2 (b1 b2 + b2 c1 − 2b1 c2 ) + a2 (−4b2 c1 + 4b1 c2 )))
We are only interested in solutions to Equations 4 for which both right and left quantum
dimensions are nonzero.
2.4.1. Galois theory
Solving the equations using Mathematica shows that all solutions for a1 , b1 , a2 , b2 lie in
Q(ζ3 ) for a primitive 3rd root of unity ζ3 . The Galois group of Q(ζ3 )/Q is C2 , generated
by complex conjugation.

2.5. W12 (v1) ∼orb W12 (v2)

A matrix factorization of x4 + y 5 + z 2 − v 5 − u2 w − w2 (i.e. W12 (v2) − W12 (v1)) proving
the equivalence is given in Equation 12 and it depends on four complex parameters:
{a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 }
The parameters {a1 , b1 , b2 } must satisfy the following equations:
a21 − a1 b1 = 0


1
−4 − (2a1 − b1 + b2 )2 (b1 − b2 )2 + 4a1 b2 = 0
4
This matrix factorization has quantum dimensions:

(5)



1
qdimr = − (2a1 − b1 + b2 ) b21 + 4a1 b2 − 2b1 b2 + b22
4
1
qdiml = (2a1 − b1 )
2
Non-vanishing of the right quantum dimension does not impose any additional constraints, since no solution of Equations 5 gives qdimr 6=√0. The√solutions of Equations 5
with qdiml = 0 are as follows: a1 = b1 = 0, b2 ∈ {η ±1 2, η ±3 2}. These four solutions
must be discarded.

11

2.5.1. Galois theory
There are two main families of solutions, as described below.
Family 1: a1 = 0. The second equation of (5) can be written as 4 + (b1 − b2 )4 = 0. Deﬁne
a new variable t = b1 − b2 . Note that (1 + i)4 = −4. Therefore, the solutions for t come in
two pairs: 1 ± i and −1 ± i. They lie inside Q(i), which has Galois group C2 over Q.
Family 2: a1 = b1 . The second equation of (5) simpliﬁes to 4 + (b1 + b2 )4 = 0. Let
u = b1 + b2 . By the same argument as above, the solutions for u are 1 ± i, −1 ± i.
So in both families, we can choose b2 freely and then a1 , b1 ∈ Q(b2 , i). Generically,
treating b2 as an indeterminate, we get the Galois group
Gal(Q(b2 , i)/Q(b2 )) ∼
= Gal(Q(i)/Q) ∼
= C2
generated by complex conjugation.

2.6. W13 (v1) ∼orb W13 (v2)

A matrix factorization of the potential u4 +v 4 u+w2 −x4 y −y 2 z −z 2 (i.e. W13 (v2)-W13 (v1))
proving orbifold equivalence is described in Equation 13 and it depends on the complex
parameters
{a1 , a2 , a3 , b, c, d, f, g}
We need to impose the following conditions on the parameters:
−1 −

1
(a1 + b − c)2 (3a1 + 4a1 a2 − b + 4a2 b + c − 4a2 c)2 = 0
4


−1 − (a1 + b − c) d a23 − d + 2a3 f + f 2 = 0
(a1 + b − c) (a3 + f )



a23

− 2d + 2a3 f + f

2



(6)

=0

−2 (a1 + b − c) (a1 + 2a1 a2 − b + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) = 0
The quantum dimensions of this matrix factorization are:

1
qdiml (M ) = − (a1 + b − c)2 a21 (4 + 6a2 ) + (b − c) ((−1 + 4a2 ) b + 2c − 6a2 c)
8



+a1 (b + 10a2 b − 2 (c + 6a2 c))) a33 + 3a23 f + f 3 − f g − a3 d − 3f 2 + g

qdimr (M ) =

1
16

(a1 + 2b − c) (2a3 + f ) .

We are only interested in solutions to Equations 6 for which both right and left quantum
dimensions are nonzero.

12

2.6.1. Galois theory
The equations above can be further simpliﬁed as follows:
−1 + d2 (a1 + b − c) = 0,
a3 + f = 0,
a1 + 2a1 a2 − b + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c = 0
4 + (a1 + b − c)4 = 0
Then the ﬁrst equation gives a1 + b − c = d−2 and hence the last equation becomes
4 + d−8 = 0. The third equation becomes d−2 (2a2 − 1) + 2a1 = 0 so ﬁnally the equations
reduce to
a1 + b − c = d−2 ,
a3 + f = 0,
d−2 (2a2 − 1) + 2a1 = 0
4 + d−8 = 0.
The variables a2 , a3 , b may be chosen freely. The others are determined by these and by d.
Let t = d−1 so t8 +4 = 0. The equation t8 +4 = 0 factorises as (t4 +2t2 +2)(t4 −2t2 +2) = 0.
So we get two families of solutions, one for each irreducible factor. Each family consists of
four solutions for t.
√
Family 1: t = ±√1 ± i
Family 2: t = ± −1 ± i
√
√
The ﬁeld generated over Q by each family of solutions for t is Q( 1 + i, 2) which has
Galois group D8 (dihedral of order 8) over Q. Family 1 and Family 2 are the two orbits
for the action of the Galois group on the solutions for t.

2.7. Z13 (v1) ∼orb Z13 (v2)

A matrix factorization of the potential u6 + v 3 u + w2 − x3 z − z 2 − xy 3 proving orbifold equivalence is described in Equation 14. It depends on the complex parameters
{a1 , a2 , a3 , b1 , b2 , c, d, f1 , f2 }. The parameters {c, d} must satisfy the following equations:
c6
=0
4
−1 + cd3 = 0
−1 −

The quantum dimensions of this matrix factorization are:

13

(7)

6

c
qdiml (M ) = − 12
(2f1 − 3df2 )

qdimr (M ) = − 19 (a3 − b1 + 3c) (3d + f2 ) .
We are only interested in solutions to Equations 7 for which both right and left quantum
dimensions are nonzero.
2.7.1. Galois theory
The equations give d3 = 1/c and c6 = −4. Let t = d−1 . Then c = t3 (so c is completely
determined by t) and t18 + 4 = 0. Let t0 denote a solution to t18 + 4 = 0. Then all solutions
lie in the ﬁeld Q(t0 , ζ9 ), where ζ9 denotes a primitive 9th root of unity. We have
Gal(Q(t0 , ζ9 )/Q) = Gal(Q(t0 , ζ9 )/Q(ζ9 )) ⋊ Gal(Q(ζ9 )/Q) ∼
= C18 ⋊ C6
Here C18 is normal and C6 acts on C18 via an isomorphism C6 ∼
= Aut(C18 ). Explicitly,
Gal(Q(t0 , ζ9 )/Q(ζ9 )) is generated by σ, where σ(t0 ) = ζ18 t0 = −ζ9 t0 and σ(ζ9 ) = ζ9 . And
Gal(Q(ζ9 )/Q) is generated by τ where τ (ζ9 ) = ζ92 and τ (t0 ) = t0 . We have τ στ −1 = σ −7 .
Note that Aut(C18 ) = Aut(C2 × C9 ) = Aut(C2 ) × Aut(C9 ) = Aut(C9 ). Therefore,
C18 ⋊ Aut(C18 ) = C2 × C9 ⋊ Aut(C9 ) = C2 × C9 ⋊ C6 .

14

# Eqs
E14 (v1) ∼orb Q10
E14 (v2) ∼orb Q10
E14 (v1) ∼orb E14 (v2)
Q12 (v1) ∼orb Q12 (v2)
U12 (v1) ∼orb U12 (v2)
U12 (v1) ∼orb U12 (v3)
W12 (v1) ∼orb W12 (v2)
W13 (v1) ∼orb W13 (v2)
Z13 (v1) ∼orb Z13 (v2)

2
4
1
6
4
4
2
4
2

# Vars
(in eq)
3
4
1
7
4
4
3
7
2

# Vars
(in MF)
3
4
8
7
6
6
4
8
9

Galois
group
D8 × C2
V4
D8
C2 × C5 ⋊ C4
S3 × C2
C2
C2
D8
C2 × C9 ⋊ C6

Table 2: Summary table. The action of C4 on C5 is via an isomorphism C4 ∼
= Aut(C5 ).
The action of C6 on C9 is via an isomorphism C6 ∼
= Aut(C9 ).

3. Summary
In Table 2, we collect all the orbifold equivalences between potentials associated to exceptional unimodal singularities we have found to date, along with their respective Galois
groups. We also include the number of equations we have, the number of variables in these
equations, and the number of variables in the whole corresponding matrix factorization.
There are several points to remark here. As in [RCN], we keep observing a recurrent
appearance of C2 in the Galois groups. The Galois groups do not share the same order,
and some are abelian while others are non-abelian. Some of them are repeated for diﬀerent
singularities, like C2 (for U12 and W12 ) or D8 (for E14 and W13 ). We lack a conceptual
explanation for these apparent coincidences. Another limitation is the fact that the Galois
groups do not take into account the extra constraints coming from the non-vanishing of
the quantum dimensions.
Altogether, there are still many open questions concerning orbifold equivalences, and we
hope these intermediate results may be early steps on a path towards a deeper understanding of this intriguing equivalence relation.

15

A. Appendix
Due to their size, we include in this appendix the explicit expressions of the matrix factorizations proving orbifold equivalence in each of the cases covered.

E14
d15 = z + w + κ2 u4 + a1 x4 + a2 u3 x + a3 ux3 + a4 u2 x2 ,
d16 = v 2 + vy + y 2 ,


1
3
d17 = x z +
a2 κ1 + b2 κ2 − c a2 b2 − a4 b2 c − a2 b1 c + a3 b2 c2 + a2 b3 c2 + a4 b1 c2
2
−a2 a1 c3 − a1 b2 c3 − a4 b3 c31 − a3 b1 c3 + a4 a1 c4 + a3 b3 c4 + a1 b1 c4 − a3 a1 c5
1
−a1 b3 c5 + a21 c6 + a4 κ1 − a3 cκ1 + a1 c2 (2κ1 + b1 κ2 ) − b3 cκ2
2




7
2
+a1 c κ2 u + a2 + b2 − c a4 + b1 − a3 c − b3 c + 2a1 c2 u3 w


+ a2 b2 − a4 b2 c − a2 b1 c + a3 b2 c2 + a2 b3 c2 + a4 b1 c2 − a2 a1 c3 − a1 b2 c3

−a4 b3 c3 − a3 b1 c3 + a4 a1 c4 + a3 b3 c4 + a1 b1 c4 − a3 a1 c5 − a1 b3 c5 + a21 c6 + a4 κ1


−a3 cκ1 + a1 c2 κ1 + b1 κ2 − b3 cκ2 + a1 c2 κ2 u6 x + (a3 + b3 − 2a1 c) uwx2








+ a4 + b1 − a3 c − b3 c + 2a1 c2 u2 wx + a3 a1 + a1 b3 − a21 c ux6
+ (a4 b2 + a2 b1 + a3 κ1 + b3 κ2 − c (a3 b2 + a2 b3 + a4 b1 − a2 a1 c − a1 b2 c

− a4 b3 c − a3 b1 c + a4 a1 c2 + a3 b3 c2 + a1 b1 c2 − a3 a1 c3 − a1 b3 c3 + a21 c4

+a1 κ1 + a1 κ2 )) u5 x2 + (−a2 + b2 − c (−a4 + b1 − (−a3 + b3 − c) c)) u3 z


+ a3 b2 + a2 b3 + a4 b1 − a2 a1 c − a1 b2 c − a4 b3 c − a3 b1 c + a4 a1 c2 + a3 b3 c2


+a1 b1 c2 − a3 a1 c3 − a1 b3 c3 + a21 c4 + a1 κ1 + a1 κ2 u4 x3 + a21 x7 + 2a1 wx3
+ (a2 a1 + a1 b2 + a4 b3 + a3 b1 − c (a4 a1 + a3 b3 + a1 b1




−c a3 a1 + a1 b3 − a21 c


u3 x4 + (−a3 + b3 − c) ux2 z





+ a4 a1 + a3 b3 + a1 b1 − c a3 a1 + a1 b3 − a21 c
+ (−a4 + b1 − (−a3 + b3 − c) c) u2 xz,

d25 = −v + y,

u2 x5

d26 = −z + w + κ1 u4 + b2 u3 x + b1 u2 x2 + b3 ux3 + a1 x4 ,

d35 = x + cu,

16

(8)

with

1
2b2 c − 2b1 c2 + 2b3 c3 − c4 − 2a1 c4
2
κ2 = a2 c − b2 c − a4 c2 + b1 c2 + a3 c3 − b3 c3 + c4 + κ1 .

κ1 =

Q12
d15 = z + b1 u + a1 w2 + a2 wx,
d16 = v 2 + vy + y 2 ,




d17 = xz + (a2 b1 + a4 b1 + a2 b2 ) uw + a2 a3 + a1 a4 + a22 a4 − a2 a24 + a2 a4 a5 w3
+ a2 a4 w2 x + a5 wz,

d25 = −v + y,

(9)




d26 = −xz + a5 b2 uw + a5 −a1 + a3 + a2 a5 − a4 a5 + a25 w3 + (b1 + b2 ) ux
+ a3 w2 x + a4 wx2 ,




d35 = x2 + b2 u + −a1 + a3 + a2 a5 − a4 a5 + a25 w2 + (−a2 + a4 − a5 ) wx.

U12
(v2) vs (v3)
d15 = z + a1 v + a2 w,




d16 = yz + −a21 + a1 b1 + a1 c1 v 2 + (−a1 a2 + b1 a2 + c1 a2 + a1 (−a2 + b2 + c2 )) vw
+ a2 (−a2 + b2 + c2 ) w2 + c1 vz + c2 wz,

d17 = u3 + u2 x + ux2 + x3 ,
d25 = y + b1 v + b2 w,
d26 = yz + b1 c1 v 2 + (c1 b2 + b1 c2 ) vw + b2 c2 w2 + (−a1 + b1 + c1 ) vy + (−a2 + b2 + c2 ) wy,
d35 = x − u.

(10)

17

(v1) vs (v3)
d15 = z + a1 v + a2 w,




d16 = −yz + −a21 + a1 b1 + a1 c1 v 2 + (−2a1 a2 + b1 a2 + c1 a2 + a1 b2 + a1 c2 ) vw
+ a2 (−a2 + b2 + c2 ) w2 + c1 vz + c2 wz,

d17 = u3 + u2 x + ux2 + x3 ,

(11)

d25 = −y + b1 v + b2 w,

d26 = −yz + b1 c1 v 2 + (c1 b2 + b1 c2 ) vw + b2 c2 w2 − (−a1 + b1 + c1 ) vy
− (−a2 + b2 + c2 ) wy,

d35 = x − u.

W12
d15 = z + w + a1 ux + a2 x2 ,
d16 = uw + b1 xz + b2 wx + ((−a1 + b1 ) a2 + a1 (−a2 + b1 (−2a1 + b1 − b2 ))) x3 ,

d17 = v 4 + v 3 y + v 2 y 2 + vy 3 + y 4 ,

(12)

d25 = u + (−2a1 + b1 − b2 ) x,

d26 = z − w + (−a1 + b1 ) ux + (−a2 + b1 (−2a1 + b1 − b2 )) x2 ,
d35 = −y + v.

18

W13
1 2
a1 + 2a21 a2 + 4a1 a2 b − b2 + 2a2 b2 − 4a1 a2 c + 2bc − 4a2 bc − c2
2

+2a2 c2 u2 + a1 uy + a2 y 2 ,

d15 = z + w +

d16 = yz + −

a1 b2
3a31
− 3a31 a2 − a31 a22 − a21 b − 6a21 a2 b − 3a21 a22 b +
− 3a1 a2 b2 − a22 b3
2
2

b2 c
3a21 c
+ 7a21 a2 c + 3a21 a22 c − a1 bc + 8a1 a2 bc + 6a1 a22 bc −
+ a2 b2 c
2
2
!
a1 c2
c3
2 2
2
2 2
2
2
2 2
3
2 3
+3a2 b c +
− 5a1 a2 c − 3a1 a2 c + bc − 2a2 bc − 3a2 bc −
+ a2 c + a2 c u3
2
2
−3a1 a22 b2 +

− dgv 4 + (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) uw + (−a3 d − (−a3 − f ) g) v 3 x + f vx3










+ a23 − d + a3 f − g v 2 x2 + a1 c − (−a1 − b + c) a1 a2 + a1 a22 + a22 b + a2 c − a22 c

a2  2
+
a1 + 2a21 a2 + 4a1 a2 b − b2 + 2a2 b2 − 4a1 a2 c + 2bc − 4a2 bc − c2 + 2a2 c2
2
+a2 (−a1 (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) − b (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c)
1 2
−a1 − 2a21 a2 − 4a1 a2 b + b2 − 2a2 b2
+c (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) +
2

+4a1 a2 c − 2bc + 4a2 bc + c2 − 2a2 c2
u2 y + 2a2 wy + a22 y 3 + buz




+ a1 a2 + a1 a22 + a22 b + a2 c − a22 c uy 2 ,



d17 = x2 y + (a1 f + bf − cf ) uvx + gv 2 y + a3 vxy + a1 a23 + a23 b − a23 c − a1 d − bd


+cd + 2a1 a3 f + 2a3 bf − 2a3 cf + a1 f 2 + bf 2 − cf 2 − a1 g − bg + cg uv 2 ,
d25 = y + (−a1 − b + c) u,

d26 = −z + w + cuy + a2 y 2 + (−a1 (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) − b (a1 + 2a1 a2
1 2
−a − 2a21 a2
+2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) + c (a1 + 2a1 a2 + 2a2 b + c − 2a2 c) +
2  1
−4a1 a2 b + b2 − 2a2 b2 + 4a1 a2 c − 2bc + 4a2 bc + c2 − 2a2 c2 u2 ,
d35 = x2 + dv 2 + (−a3 − f ) vx.

(13)

19

Z13




d15 = z + w + a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ u3 + a1 x3 + a2 u2 x + a3 ux2 ,

d16 = xy 2 + (−cf1 + cdf2 ) uv 2 + (−f1 − d (−d − f2 )) v 2 x − cf2 uvy + (−d − f2 ) vxy,




d17 = x2 z + a2 γ + b2 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ






−c a2 b2 + a3 γ + b1 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ




−c a3 b2 + a2 b1 − a2 a1 c − a1 b2 c − a3 b1 c + a3 a1 c2 + a1 b1 c2 − a21 c3 + a1 γ


+a1 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ







u5 + −d3 + df1 − d2 f2 v 3

+ (a2 + b2 − c (a3 + b1 − 2a1 c)) u2 w + (a3 + b1 − 2a1 c) uwx + 2a1 wx2 + a21 x5




+ a2 b2 + γa3 + b1 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ




(14)

−c a3 b2 + a2 b1 − a2 a1 c − a1 b2 c − a3 b1 c + a3 a1 c2 + a1 b1 c2 − a21 c3 + γa1


+a1 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 − γ




u4 x

+ a3 b2 + a2 b1 − a2 a1 c − a1 b2 c − a3 b1 c + a3 a1 c2 + a1 b1 c2 − a21 c3 + γa1


+a1 a2 c + b2 c − a3 c2 − b1 c2 + 2a1 c3 + −γ1








+ a2 a1 + a1 b2 + a3 b1 − a3 a1 + a1 b1 − a21 c

u3 x2




u2 x3 + a3 a1 + a1 b1 − a21 c ux4

+ f1 v 2 y + f2 vy 2 + (−a2 + b2 − (−a3 + b1 − c) c) u2 z + (−a3 + b1 − c) uxz,

d25 = y + dv,

d26 = −z + w + a1 x3 + b1 ux2 + b2 u2 x + γu3 ,
d35 = x + cu,

where γ =

1
2

2b2 c − 2b1 c2 + c3 + 2a1 c3 .


20

References
[Ar]

V. I. Arnold, Critical points of smooth funtions and their normal forms, Ups. Math.
Nauk. 30:5 (1975), 3–65 (English translation in Russ. Math. Surv. 30:5 (1975),
1–75).

[AGV] V. I. Arnold, S. M. Gusein-Zade and A. N. Varchenko, Singularities of differentiable maps, Volume I: the classification of critical points, caustics and wave fronts,
Monographs in Mathematics Vol. 82, 1985 Birkhäuser.
[CRCR] N. Carqueville, A. Ros Camacho and I. Runkel, Orbifold equivalent
potentials,
Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 220 (2016), 759-781,
arXiv:1311.3354 [math.QA].
[CR1] N. Carqueville and I. Runkel, Rigidity and defect actions in Landau-Ginzburg models, Comm. Math. Phys. 310 (2012) 135–179, arXiv:1006.5609 [hep-th].
[CR2] N. Carqueville and I. Runkel, Orbifold completion of defect bicategories,
Quantum Topology 7 (2016), 203–279 arXiv:1210.6363 [math.QA].
[CM] N. Carqueville and D. Murfet, Adjunctions and defects in Landau-Ginzburg models,
Advances in Mathematics 289 (2016), 480–566,arXiv:1208.1481 [math.AG].
[Gep] D.
Gepner,
Galois groups and
Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 22, 343–358 (2008).

rational

conformal

field

theory,

[KST] H. Kajiura, K. Saito and A. Takahashi, Triangulated categories of
matrix factorizations for regular systems of weights of ǫ
=
−1,
Advances in Mathematics 220 5, 1602–1654, arXiv:0708.0210 [math.AG].
[HW] P. Howe and P. West, N = 2 superconformal models, Landau-Ginsburg hamiltonians and the ǫ expansion, Phys. Lett. B 223 (1989), 377–385; Chiral Correlators In Landau-Ginzburg Theories And N = 2 Superconformal Models,
Phys. Lett. B 227 (1989), 397–405; Fixed points in multifield Landau-Ginsburg
models, Phys. Lett. B 244 (1990), 270–274.
[LVW] W. Lerche, C. Vafa and N. P. Warner, Chiral rings in N=2 superconformal theories,
Nucl. Phys. B 324 (1989), 427–474.
[Mar] E. Martinec, Criticality, catastrophes and compactifications, In Brink, L. (ed.) et al.:
Physics and mathematics of strings (1989), 389–433.
[RCN] A. Ros Camacho and R. Newton, Strangely dual orbifold equivalence I, Journal of
Singularities 14 (2016), 39–56.

21

[RCN2] A. Ros Camacho and R. Newton, Strangely dual orbifold equivalence II, work in
progress.
[RC] A.
Ros
Camacho,
Matrix
factorizations
and
the
LandauGinzburg/conformal field theory correspondence, PhD thesis, available at
E-Dissertationen der Universität Hamburg.
[Sai]

K. Saito, Regular systems of weights and associated singularities, Adv. Stud. in Pure
Math. 8 (1986) 479.

[VW] C. Vafa and N. Warner, Catastrophes and the classification of conformal theories,
Phys. Lett. B 218 (1989), 51–58.

22

