Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Orbifold equivalent potentials

Nils Carqueville, Ana Ros Camacho, Ingo Runkel

TL;DR

The paper introduces an orbifold equivalence relation among potentials defined via finite-rank graded matrix factorisations with nonzero left and right quantum dimensions, proving this is an equivalence relation in a pivotal bicategory framework. It specializes to ADE simple singularities over C, classifying the equivalence classes and providing explicit matrix factorisations to realise the ADE pairings, including D-to-A and E-to-A type correspondences. Beyond objects, it shows these equivalences induce derived-category level correspondences and links to Dynkin quiver representations through equivariant completion. The work then compares these mathematical structures to two-dimensional N=2 conformal field theories, arguing that the ADE orbifold classes reflect CFT Morita equivalences and that defect spectra and module decompositions align with CFT predictions, thereby supporting the LG/CFT correspondence. Collectively, the results yield new, structurally rich connections between matrix factorisations, category theory, and rational CFT in the ADE landscape.

Abstract

To a graded finite-rank matrix factorisation of the difference of two homogeneous potentials one can assign two numbers, the left and right quantum dimension. The existence of such a matrix factorisation with non-zero quantum dimensions defines an equivalence relation between potentials, giving rise to non-obvious equivalences of categories. Restricted to ADE singularities, the resulting equivalence classes of potentials are those of type {A_{d-1}} for d odd, {A_{d-1},D_{d/2+1}} for d even but not in {12,18,30}, and {A_{11}, D_7, E_6}, {A_{17}, D_{10}, E_7} and {A_{29}, D_{16}, E_8}. This is the result expected from two-dimensional rational conformal field theory, and it directly leads to new descriptions of and relations between the associated (derived) categories of matrix factorisations and Dynkin quiver representations.

Orbifold equivalent potentials

TL;DR

The paper introduces an orbifold equivalence relation among potentials defined via finite-rank graded matrix factorisations with nonzero left and right quantum dimensions, proving this is an equivalence relation in a pivotal bicategory framework. It specializes to ADE simple singularities over C, classifying the equivalence classes and providing explicit matrix factorisations to realise the ADE pairings, including D-to-A and E-to-A type correspondences. Beyond objects, it shows these equivalences induce derived-category level correspondences and links to Dynkin quiver representations through equivariant completion. The work then compares these mathematical structures to two-dimensional N=2 conformal field theories, arguing that the ADE orbifold classes reflect CFT Morita equivalences and that defect spectra and module decompositions align with CFT predictions, thereby supporting the LG/CFT correspondence. Collectively, the results yield new, structurally rich connections between matrix factorisations, category theory, and rational CFT in the ADE landscape.

Abstract

To a graded finite-rank matrix factorisation of the difference of two homogeneous potentials one can assign two numbers, the left and right quantum dimension. The existence of such a matrix factorisation with non-zero quantum dimensions defines an equivalence relation between potentials, giving rise to non-obvious equivalences of categories. Restricted to ADE singularities, the resulting equivalence classes of potentials are those of type {A_{d-1}} for d odd, {A_{d-1},D_{d/2+1}} for d even but not in {12,18,30}, and {A_{11}, D_7, E_6}, {A_{17}, D_{10}, E_7} and {A_{29}, D_{16}, E_8}. This is the result expected from two-dimensional rational conformal field theory, and it directly leads to new descriptions of and relations between the associated (derived) categories of matrix factorisations and Dynkin quiver representations.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 8 sections, 12 theorems, 67 equations.

Key Result

Proposition 1.2

Let $U(z),V(x),W(y) \in \mathcal{P}_k$.

Theorems & Definitions (26)

  • Proposition 1.2
  • Proposition 1.3
  • Proposition 1.4
  • Theorem 1.5
  • Corollary 1.6
  • Corollary 1.7
  • Remark 1.8
  • Definition 2.1
  • Theorem 2.2
  • proof
  • ...and 16 more