Structure of Dubrovin-Zhang free energy functions and universal identities

Sergey Shadrin Korteweg–de Vries Instituut voor Wiskunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 94248, 1090GE Amsterdam, Nederland [email protected]  and  Zhe Wang Division of Mathematics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan [email protected]
Abstract.

We prove a structural theorem relating the higher genera free energy functions of the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchies to those of the trivial theory, that is, the Witten-Kontsevich free energy functions. As an important application, for any given genus g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1, we construct a set of universal identities valid for the free energy functions of any Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchy.

1. Introduction

Since the proof of the Witten Conjecture [29] by Kontsevich [23], which relates the topology of the moduli space of stable curves to the KdV hierarchy, people have gradually understood the deep relation between the 2D topological field theory and the theory of integrable hierarchies over past three decades. Many Witten-Kontsevich type theorems have been discovered and proved since then, where the corresponding integrable hierarchies (which were already known to mathematical physicists in completely different contexts) appear to universally govern partition functions constructed from different aspects of mathematical physics, for example, from quantum cohomology, matrix model, singularity theory, etc., see [1, 6, 16, 18, 21, 27, 29] and references therein. To systematically study the emerging integrable hierarchies, Dubrovin and Zhang started a program in [11] aiming at giving an axiomatic characterization of topological integrable hierarchies, that is, the integrable evolutionary PDEs that control a certain 2D topological field theory.

The paper [11] has two main goals. The first one is to construct an integrable hierarchy from a given 2D topological field theory, and the second goal is to reproduce all the universal identities satisfied by all Gromov-Witten invariants (and all other enumerative invariants that fit this context) at full genera. Up to now, the first goal is completely achieved under the semisimplicity assumption. To state precisely, given a semisimple Frobenius manifold with a calibration, there exists a unique tau-symmetric bihamiltonian integrable hierarchy, called the Dubrovin-Zhang (DZ) hierarchy, whose tau-function satisfies a family of linear Virasoro constraints. As for the second goal, Dubrovin and Zhang derive the topological recursion relations for genus zero and one from the construction of DZ hierarchies. Remarkably, those topological recursion relations are originally proved by studying the topology of the moduli space of stable curves. However, Dubrovin and Zhang’s method indicates that those relations are hidden in every DZ hierarchies, even for those hierarchies that have no known relations to geometric enumerative problems or topology of moduli spaces. More generally, Dubrovin and Zhang prove that the tau functions of their hierarchies are given by the Givental formula [18, 19], which is known to satisfy all universal relations coming from the relations among additive generators of the tautological ring of the moduli spaces of curves [14].

In some cases it is clear what structural property a Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchy possesses if it is governed by a particular set of tautological relations, see e. g. [4, 22]. But it is largely unknown for more involved types of relations, and the whole theory lacks simple explicitly written universal identities that would reflect some explicitly understood universal properties of the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchies and/or their tau-functions. In this paper, we make a further step towards studying the universal identities by using the method of Dubrovin and Zhang. For a given genus g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1, we construct a set of universal identities valid for the topological solution of the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchy of any semisimple Frobenius manifold.

The key ingredient for deriving these universal identities is a structural theorem for the free energy functions. To state the result precisely, recall that for a semisimple Frobenius manifold with a fixed calibration, the higher genus free energy functions gsubscript𝑔\mathcal{F}_{g}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be written as functions depending on jet variables for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1. For example, consider the following free energy function of the Gromov-Witten theory of the point:

g=n0k1,,kn0tk1tknn!¯g,nψ1k1ψnkn.subscript𝑔subscript𝑛0subscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛0subscript𝑡subscript𝑘1subscript𝑡subscript𝑘𝑛𝑛subscriptsubscript¯𝑔𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜓1subscript𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛\mathcal{F}_{g}=\sum_{n\geq 0}\sum_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}\geq 0}\frac{t_{k_{1}}% \dots t_{k_{n}}}{n!}\int_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}}\psi_{1}^{k_{1}}\dots% \psi_{n}^{k_{n}}.caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

It is well-known that for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1, we have

(1.1) g=Fg(u(1),,u(3g2)),subscript𝑔subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢3𝑔2\mathcal{F}_{g}=F_{g}\left(u^{(1)},\dots,u^{(3g-2)}\right),caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

here

u(s)=s+20t0s+2,s1,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢𝑠superscript𝑠2subscript0superscriptsubscript𝑡0𝑠2𝑠1u^{(s)}=\frac{\partial^{s+2}\mathcal{F}_{0}}{\partial t_{0}^{s+2}},\quad s\geq 1,italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_s ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_s ≥ 1 ,

and

F1=124logu(1),Fg[1u(1),u(2),,u(3g2)],g2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹1124superscript𝑢1formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢2superscript𝑢3𝑔2𝑔2F_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\log u^{(1)},\quad F_{g}\in\mathbb{Q}\left[\frac{1}{u^{(1)}}% ,u^{(2)},\dots,u^{(3g-2)}\right],\quad g\geq 2.italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG roman_log italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Q [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , italic_g ≥ 2 .

For example, we have

F2=uxx3360ux47uxxu(3)1920ux3+u(4)1152ux2;subscript𝐹2superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑥𝑥3360superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑥47subscript𝑢𝑥𝑥superscript𝑢31920superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑥3superscript𝑢41152superscriptsubscript𝑢𝑥2F_{2}=\frac{u_{xx}^{3}}{360u_{x}^{4}}-\frac{7u_{xx}u^{(3)}}{1920u_{x}^{3}}+% \frac{u^{(4)}}{1152u_{x}^{2}};italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 360 italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 7 italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 3 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 1920 italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 4 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 1152 italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ;

here we use the notation ux=u(1)subscript𝑢𝑥superscript𝑢1u_{x}=u^{(1)}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and uxx=u(2)subscript𝑢𝑥𝑥superscript𝑢2u_{xx}=u^{(2)}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Note that the Gromov-Witten theory of the point corresponds to the one-dimensional Frobenius manifold given by the potential

F=0|t0=u,t>0=0=u36.𝐹evaluated-atsubscript0formulae-sequencesubscript𝑡0𝑢subscript𝑡absent00superscript𝑢36F=\mathcal{F}_{0}|_{t_{0}=u,t_{>0}=0}=\frac{u^{3}}{6}.italic_F = caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_u , italic_t start_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 6 end_ARG .

Generally speaking, if the underlying semisimple Frobenius manifold M𝑀Mitalic_M is of dimension N𝑁Nitalic_N and its first metric in the flat coordinates v1,,vNsuperscript𝑣1superscript𝑣𝑁v^{1},\dots,v^{N}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is denoted by η𝜂\etaitalic_η, then its higher genera free energy functions gsubscript𝑔\mathcal{F}_{g}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT have the form

g=Fg(vα,vα,1,,vα,3g2),subscript𝑔subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑣𝛼1superscript𝑣𝛼3𝑔2\mathcal{F}_{g}=F_{g}\left(v^{\alpha},v^{\alpha,1},\dots,v^{\alpha,3g-2}\right),caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

here

vα=ηαβ20tβ,0t1,0,vα,s=(t1,0)svα,s1,α=1,,N,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝜂𝛼𝛽superscript2subscript0superscript𝑡𝛽0superscript𝑡10formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑣𝛼𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑡10𝑠superscript𝑣𝛼formulae-sequence𝑠1𝛼1𝑁v^{\alpha}=\eta^{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial^{2}\mathcal{F}_{0}}{\partial t^{% \beta,0}\partial t^{1,0}},\quad v^{\alpha,s}=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^% {1,0}}\right)^{s}v^{\alpha},\quad s\geq 1,\quad\alpha=1,\dots,N,italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_s ≥ 1 , italic_α = 1 , … , italic_N ,

and

F1=124logdet(cαβγvγ,1)+G(v),FgC(v)[1vα,1,vα,1,vα,2,,vα,3g2],g2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹1124subscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾superscript𝑣𝛾1𝐺𝑣formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝐶𝑣1superscript𝑣𝛼1superscript𝑣𝛼1superscript𝑣𝛼2superscript𝑣𝛼3𝑔2𝑔2F_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\log\det\left(c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}v^{\gamma,1}\right)+G(v),% \quad F_{g}\in C^{\infty}(v)\left[\frac{1}{v^{\alpha,1}},v^{\alpha,1},v^{% \alpha,2},\dots,v^{\alpha,3g-2}\right],\quad g\geq 2.italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG roman_log roman_det ( italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_G ( italic_v ) , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , italic_g ≥ 2 .

Here and henceforth, we will always assume the Einstein summation rule for upper and lower Greek indices. Moreover, we will always raise or lower indices by the metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η. Note that in the above expressions, G(v)𝐺𝑣G(v)italic_G ( italic_v ) is the so-called G𝐺Gitalic_G-function defined in [15] (see also [10]), cαβγsubscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are functions defined by

cαβγ=30tα,0tβ,0tγ,0|tα,0=vα,tα,1=tα,2==0,subscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾evaluated-atsuperscript3subscript0superscript𝑡𝛼0superscript𝑡𝛽0superscript𝑡𝛾0formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑡𝛼0superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑡𝛼1superscript𝑡𝛼20c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}=\left.\frac{\partial^{3}\mathcal{F}_{0}}{\partial t^{% \alpha,0}\partial t^{\beta,0}\partial t^{\gamma,0}}\right|_{t^{\alpha,0}=v^{% \alpha},t^{\alpha,1}=t^{\alpha,2}=\dots=0},italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⋯ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and C(v)superscript𝐶𝑣C^{\infty}(v)italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) is the ring of smooth function depending on variables v1,,vNsuperscript𝑣1superscript𝑣𝑁v^{1},\dots,v^{N}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Furthermore, let us denote by (u1,,uN)superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢𝑁(u^{1},\dots,u^{N})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the canonical coordinates on M𝑀Mitalic_M, then in terms of these coordinates, the metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η is of the diagonal form

η=i=1Nfi(u)(dui)2.𝜂superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑓𝑖𝑢superscript𝑑superscript𝑢𝑖2\eta=\sum_{i=1}^{N}f_{i}(u)(du^{i})^{2}.italic_η = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ( italic_d italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Each uisuperscript𝑢𝑖u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be viewed as functions depending on v1,,vNsuperscript𝑣1superscript𝑣𝑁v^{1},\dots,v^{N}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, therefore we see that Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1 can also be written as functions in jet variables of uisuperscript𝑢𝑖u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is, Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be viewed as a function in ui,ui,1,,ui,3g2superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2u^{i},u^{i,1},\dots,u^{i,3g-2}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, with

ui,s=(t1,0)sui,s1,i=1,,N.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢𝑖𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑡10𝑠superscript𝑢𝑖formulae-sequence𝑠1𝑖1𝑁u^{i,s}=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{1,0}}\right)^{s}u^{i},\quad s\geq 1,% \quad i=1,\dots,N.italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_s ≥ 1 , italic_i = 1 , … , italic_N .

Now we can state the following structural theorem for Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Theorem 1.1.

Given a semisimple Frobenius manifold (with a choice of calibration) of rank N𝑁Nitalic_N, its higher genus free energy function Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT admits the following decomposition:

(1.2) Fg=i=1N(1fi(u))g1FgKdV(ui,1,,ui,3g2)+Hg,g1,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹𝑔superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁superscript1subscript𝑓𝑖𝑢𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑢𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2subscript𝐻𝑔𝑔1F_{g}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\frac{1}{f_{i}(u)}\right)^{g-1}F_{g}^{KdV}(u^{i,1},% \dots,u^{i,3g-2})+H_{g},\quad g\geq 1,italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g ≥ 1 ,

here FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the genus g𝑔gitalic_g free energy function (1.1) of the Gromov-Witten theory of the point and the function Hgsubscript𝐻𝑔H_{g}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfies the conditions

nHgui1,k1uin,kn=0,k1++kn3g3+n,n1.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑛subscript𝐻𝑔superscript𝑢subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑢subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛0formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛𝑛1\frac{\partial^{n}H_{g}}{\partial u^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial u^{i_{n},k_{n}}% }=0,\quad k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}\geq 3g-3+n,\quad n\geq 1.divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_n ≥ 1 .

By using the above theorem, we derive a family of universal identities. First, we define a set of differential operators O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where n=k1=1𝑛subscript𝑘11n=k_{1}=1italic_n = italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 or

k1++kn=3g3+n,g2,n1,ki2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛formulae-sequence𝑔2formulae-sequence𝑛1subscript𝑘𝑖2k_{1}+\cdots+k_{n}=3g-3+n,\quad g\geq 2,\quad n\geq 1,\quad k_{i}\geq 2.italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_g ≥ 2 , italic_n ≥ 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 .

These operators are differential operators of degree n𝑛nitalic_n on the large phase space. Introduce the following correlators:

\llangleτα1,k1ταn,kn\rrangleg:=ngtα1,k1tαn,kn,assign\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝜏subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛subscript\rrangle𝑔superscript𝑛subscript𝑔superscript𝑡subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1},k_{1}}\dots\tau_{\alpha_{n},k_{n}}\rrangle_{g}:=\frac% {\partial^{n}\mathcal{F}_{g}}{\partial t^{\alpha_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial t^{% \alpha_{n},k_{n}}},italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

then the action O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}(g)subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛subscript𝑔O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}(\mathcal{F}_{g})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) can be expressed by just using these correlators. We then have the following main result of the paper.

Theorem 1.2.

Given a semisimple Frobenius manifold (with a choice of calibration), its genus g𝑔gitalic_g correlators satisfy the relations

O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}(g)=Bk1,,kngM[g]γnγ0i=1n\llangleταi,0τγi1,0τγi,0\rrangle0,subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛subscript𝑔subscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑔subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔subscript𝛾0subscript𝛾𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼𝑖0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖10superscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖0subscript\rrangle0O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=B^{g}_{k_{1},% \dots,k_{n}}M[g]^{\gamma_{0}}_{\gamma_{n}}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\llangle\tau_{\alpha_% {i},0}\tau_{\gamma_{i-1,0}}\tau^{\gamma_{i},0}\rrangle_{0},italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1. In the above expressions, Bk1,,kngsubscriptsuperscript𝐵𝑔subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛B^{g}_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}}italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are some rational numbers that can be explicitly computed from the intersection numbers of ¯g,nsubscript¯𝑔𝑛\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and M[g]𝑀delimited-[]𝑔M[g]italic_M [ italic_g ] is defined by

M[g]γα={δγα,for g=1,Mγα,for g=2,Mβ1αMβ2β1Mβg2βg3Mγβg2,for g3,𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔𝛼𝛾casessubscriptsuperscript𝛿𝛼𝛾for 𝑔1subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼𝛾for 𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼subscript𝛽1subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽1subscript𝛽2subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽𝑔3subscript𝛽𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽𝑔2𝛾for 𝑔3M[g]^{\alpha}_{\gamma}=\begin{cases}\delta^{\alpha}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g=1,% \\ M^{\alpha}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g=2,\\ M^{\alpha}_{\beta_{1}}M^{\beta_{1}}_{\beta_{2}}\dots M^{\beta_{g-3}}_{\beta_{g% -2}}M^{\beta_{g-2}}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g\geq 3,\end{cases}italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g = 2 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g ≥ 3 , end_CELL end_ROW

where we denote

Mβα=\llangleτ0ατλ,0τμ,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0λτ0μτβ,0\rrangle0.subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼𝛽\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛼subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0𝜆superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝜇subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0M^{\alpha}_{\beta}=\llangle\tau_{0}^{\alpha}\tau_{\lambda,0}\tau_{\mu,0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{0}^{\lambda}\tau_{0}^{\mu}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Let us give some examples of these relations. The simplest ones are given by the operators O{α,3g2}subscript𝑂𝛼3𝑔2O_{\{\alpha,3g-2\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 3 italic_g - 2 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which coincide with the differential operators introduced in [13] (see also [4, 26]), and the corresponding relations read

O{α,3g2}(g)=\llangleτα,0τβ,0τ0λ\rrangle0M[g]λβ¯g,1ψ13g2,g1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑂𝛼3𝑔2subscript𝑔\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔𝛽𝜆subscriptsubscript¯𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝜓13𝑔2𝑔1O_{\{\alpha,3g-2\}}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau% ^{\lambda}_{0}\rrangle_{0}M[g]^{\beta}_{\lambda}\int_{{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}% _{g,1}}\psi_{1}^{3g-2},\quad g\geq 1.italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 3 italic_g - 2 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_g ≥ 1 .

For g=1𝑔1g=1italic_g = 1 the operator reads

O{α,1}=tα,1\llangleτα,0τ0β\rrangle0tβ,0,subscript𝑂𝛼1superscript𝑡𝛼1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑡𝛽0O_{\{\alpha,1\}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\alpha,1}}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0% }\tau^{\beta}_{0}\rrangle_{0}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\beta,0}},italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 1 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

and we obtain the well-known relation [7]

\llangleτα,1\rrangle1\llangleτα,0τ0β\rrangle0\llangleτβ,0\rrangle1=124\llangleτα,0τ0βτβ,0\rrangle0.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼1subscript\rrangle1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle1124\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llangle\tau_{\alpha,1}\rrangle_{1}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau^{\beta}_{0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\llangle\tau_{% \alpha,0}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

For g=2𝑔2g=2italic_g = 2, we can derive three relations from Theorem 1.2, and they read

O{α,4}(2)subscript𝑂𝛼4subscript2\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha,4\}}(\mathcal{F}_{2})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 4 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =11152\llangleτα,0τλ,0τ0μ\rrangle0Mμλ,absent11152\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝜆𝜇\displaystyle=\frac{1}{1152}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\lambda,0}\tau^{\mu}_% {0}\rrangle_{0}M^{\lambda}_{\mu},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1152 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
O{α,3;β,2}(2)subscript𝑂𝛼3𝛽2subscript2\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha,3;\beta,2\}}(\mathcal{F}_{2})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 3 ; italic_β , 2 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =71920\llangleτα,0τ0γτλ,0\rrangle0\llangleτβ,0τγ,0τ0μ\rrangle0Mμλ,absent71920\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝜆𝜇\displaystyle=-\frac{7}{1920}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{% \lambda,0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\beta,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\tau^{\mu}_{0}% \rrangle_{0}M^{\lambda}_{\mu},= - divide start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG 1920 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
O{α,2;β,2;γ,2}(2)subscript𝑂𝛼2𝛽2𝛾2subscript2\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha,2;\beta,2;\gamma,2\}}(\mathcal{F}_{2})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , 2 ; italic_β , 2 ; italic_γ , 2 } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =160\llangleτα,0τ0ετλ,0\rrangle0\llangleτβ,0τε,0τ0σ\rrangle0\llangleτγ,0τσ,0τ0μ\rrangle0Mμλ.absent160\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝜀0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜎0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝜎0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝜆𝜇\displaystyle=\frac{1}{60}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau^{\varepsilon}_{0}\tau_{% \lambda,0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\beta,0}\tau_{\varepsilon,0}\tau^{\sigma}_% {0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\gamma,0}\tau_{\sigma,0}\tau^{\mu}_{0}\rrangle_{0% }M^{\lambda}_{\mu}.= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 60 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_σ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Organization of the paper

This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 we prove Theorem 1.1 by combining the Givental’s quantization formalism and Dubrovin-Zhang’s loop equation approach. In Sect. 3.1 we give a detailed description of the operators O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and study their properties, then we prove Theorem 1.2. We also discuss possible approaches for deriving more general universal identities. In Sect. 4, we give some concluding remarks.

Acknowledgement

S. S. was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. Z. W. is a JSPS International Research Fellow and his research is supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 23KF0114. Z. W. would like to thank Korteweg-de Vries Institute, University of Amsterdam for its hospitality where part of the work was carried out. Z. W. would like to thank Si-Qi Liu and You** Zhang for very helpful discussions.

2. Structure of free energy functions

In this section, we prove Theorem 1.1. The idea is to prove that the decomposition (1.2) is invariant under the Givental’s twisted loop group action. Then Theorem 1.1 follows from the fact that the tau-function of any calibrated semisimple Frobenius manifold can be computed via Givental’s group actions from the Witten-Kontsevich tau-function, for which Theorem 1.1 holds true trivially. A similar idea has been used to prove the invariance of tautological equations [14, 24] and used to prove the polynomiality property of DZ hierarchies [3, 4].

2.1. Givental theory

In [18, 19, 20], Givental introduced a twisted loop group action on the space of tame partition functions. Teleman proved [28] that partition functions of all semisimple cohomological field theories wih the same underlying Frobenius algebra structure lie in the same orbit of the group action. In this subsection, let us recall the basic formalism, one may refer to, e.g., [4, 14, 24] for expositions.

Let H𝐻Hitalic_H be an N𝑁Nitalic_N-dimensional vector space equipped with a non-degenerate bilinear pairing ,\langle-,-\rangle⟨ - , - ⟩. Consider the space =H((z1))tensor-product𝐻superscript𝑧1\mathcal{H}=H\otimes\mathbb{C}((z^{-1}))caligraphic_H = italic_H ⊗ blackboard_C ( ( italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) together with the bilinear map

Ω(f,g)=12πif(z),g(z)𝑑z,f,g,formulae-sequenceΩ𝑓𝑔12𝜋𝑖𝑓𝑧𝑔𝑧differential-d𝑧𝑓𝑔\Omega(f,g)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\langle f(-z),g(z)\rangle dz,\quad f,g\in% \mathcal{H},roman_Ω ( italic_f , italic_g ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_π italic_i end_ARG ∫ ⟨ italic_f ( - italic_z ) , italic_g ( italic_z ) ⟩ italic_d italic_z , italic_f , italic_g ∈ caligraphic_H ,

one can show that this is a symplectic form and \mathcal{H}caligraphic_H is called the Givental symplectic space. Let M𝑀Mitalic_M be a symplectomorphism of \mathcal{H}caligraphic_H of the form

M=kMkzk,MkEnd(H).formulae-sequence𝑀subscript𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘superscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝑀𝑘End𝐻M=\sum_{k}M_{k}z^{k},\quad M_{k}\in\mathrm{End}(H).italic_M = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_M start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_End ( italic_H ) .

The action of M𝑀Mitalic_M on tame partition functions is denoted by M^^𝑀\hat{M}over^ start_ARG italic_M end_ARG and is given by the exponential of the action of the corresponding Lie algebra element, that is, if we write M=exp(m)𝑀𝑚M=\exp(m)italic_M = roman_exp ( italic_m ), where m𝑚mitalic_m is an infinitesimal symplectic transformation, then M^:=exp(m^)assign^𝑀^𝑚\hat{M}:=\exp(\hat{m})over^ start_ARG italic_M end_ARG := roman_exp ( over^ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG ). The action m^^𝑚\hat{m}over^ start_ARG italic_m end_ARG is then given by the standard Weyl quantization of the quadratic Hamiltonian

hm(f)=12Ω(m(f),f).subscript𝑚𝑓12Ω𝑚𝑓𝑓h_{m}(f)=\frac{1}{2}\Omega\left(m(f),f\right).italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_Ω ( italic_m ( italic_f ) , italic_f ) .

For our purpose, we will only consider the action of upper triangular elements and lower triangular elements. An infinitesimal symplectic transformation m𝑚mitalic_m is of the form

m=kmkzk,mkEnd(H)formulae-sequence𝑚subscript𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘superscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝑚𝑘End𝐻m=\sum_{k}m_{k}z^{k},\quad m_{k}\in\mathrm{End}(H)italic_m = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_End ( italic_H )

and satisfies the condition

Ω(m(f),g)+Ω(f,m(g))=0,f,g.formulae-sequenceΩ𝑚𝑓𝑔Ω𝑓𝑚𝑔0𝑓𝑔\Omega(m(f),g)+\Omega(f,m(g))=0,\quad f,g\in\mathcal{H}.roman_Ω ( italic_m ( italic_f ) , italic_g ) + roman_Ω ( italic_f , italic_m ( italic_g ) ) = 0 , italic_f , italic_g ∈ caligraphic_H .

Such a transformation m𝑚mitalic_m is called upper triangular if mk=0subscript𝑚𝑘0m_{k}=0italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for k0𝑘0k\leq 0italic_k ≤ 0 and called lower triangular if mk=0subscript𝑚𝑘0m_{k}=0italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for k0𝑘0k\geq 0italic_k ≥ 0. To write down the explicit expressions of the upper and lower triangular action, let us fix an orthonormal basis e1,,eNsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒𝑁e_{1},\dots,e_{N}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of H𝐻Hitalic_H and denote 11=e1++eN11subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒𝑁{1\!\!1}=e_{1}+\dots+e_{N}1 1 = italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This basis determines coordinates ti,ksuperscript𝑡𝑖𝑘t^{i,k}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the large phase space, where i=1,,N𝑖1𝑁i=1,\dots,Nitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_N and k0𝑘0k\geq 0italic_k ≥ 0. A tame partition function is the exponential of a formal power series of the form

Z=exp(g0ε2g2g),g[[ti,k]]formulae-sequence𝑍subscript𝑔0superscript𝜀2𝑔2subscript𝑔subscript𝑔delimited-[]delimited-[]superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘Z=\exp\left(\sum_{g\geq 0}\varepsilon^{2g-2}\mathcal{F}_{g}\right),\quad% \mathcal{F}_{g}\in\mathbb{C}[[t^{i,k}]]italic_Z = roman_exp ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_C [ [ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ]

that satisfies certain properties. Then an upper triangular transformation

𝔯=k1𝔯kzk,𝔯kEnd(H)formulae-sequence𝔯subscript𝑘1subscript𝔯𝑘superscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝔯𝑘End𝐻\mathfrak{r}=\sum_{k\geq 1}\mathfrak{r}_{k}z^{k},\quad\mathfrak{r}_{k}\in% \mathrm{End}(H)fraktur_r = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_End ( italic_H )

acts on a tame partition function Z𝑍Zitalic_Z by

(2.1) 𝔯^[t].Z=𝔯^Z,formulae-sequence^𝔯delimited-[]𝑡𝑍^𝔯𝑍\hat{\mathfrak{r}}[t].Z=\hat{\mathfrak{r}}Z,over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG [ italic_t ] . italic_Z = over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG italic_Z ,

where 𝔯^^𝔯\hat{\mathfrak{r}}over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG is the following second order differential operator on the large phase space:

𝔯^=^𝔯absent\displaystyle\hat{\mathfrak{r}}=over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG = k1i=1N(𝔯k)11iti,k+1+0,k1i,j=1N(𝔯k)jitj,ti,+ksubscript𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘𝑖11superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘1subscriptformulae-sequence0𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘𝑖𝑗superscript𝑡𝑗superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘\displaystyle-\sum_{k\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathfrak{r}_{k})^{i}_{{1\!\!1}}% \frac{\partial}{\partial t^{i,k+1}}+\sum_{\ell\geq 0,k\geq 1}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}(% \mathfrak{r}_{k})^{i}_{j}t^{j,\ell}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{i,\ell+k}}- ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ ≥ 0 , italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , roman_ℓ + italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
+ε22k,0i,j=1N(1)k+1(𝔯k++1)i,j2ti,ktj,.superscript𝜀22subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁superscript1𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘1𝑖𝑗superscript2superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘superscript𝑡𝑗\displaystyle+\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{2}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}(-1)% ^{k+1}(\mathfrak{r}_{k+\ell+1})^{i,j}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial t^{i,k}% \partial t^{j,\ell}}.+ divide start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Note that the action (2.1) induces the action

(2.2) 𝔯^[t].=Z1𝔯^Zformulae-sequence^𝔯delimited-[]𝑡superscript𝑍1^𝔯𝑍\hat{\mathfrak{r}}[t].\mathcal{F}=Z^{-1}\hat{\mathfrak{r}}Zover^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG [ italic_t ] . caligraphic_F = italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG italic_Z

on the free energy function =logZ𝑍\mathcal{F}=\log Zcaligraphic_F = roman_log italic_Z. Similarly, a lower triangular transformation

𝔰=k1𝔰kzk,𝔰kEnd(H)formulae-sequence𝔰subscript𝑘1subscript𝔰𝑘superscript𝑧𝑘subscript𝔰𝑘End𝐻\mathfrak{s}=\sum_{k\geq 1}\mathfrak{s}_{k}z^{-k},\quad\mathfrak{s}_{k}\in% \mathrm{End}(H)fraktur_s = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_End ( italic_H )

acts by the following first order differential operator:

𝔰^=^𝔰absent\displaystyle\hat{\mathfrak{s}}=over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG = 12ε2(𝔰3)11,11+1ε2k0i=1N(𝔰k+2)11,iti,k+12ε2k,0i,j=1N(1)i(𝔰k++1)i,jti,ktj,12superscript𝜀2subscriptsubscript𝔰311111superscript𝜀2subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscriptsubscript𝔰𝑘211𝑖superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘12superscript𝜀2subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁superscript1𝑖subscriptsubscript𝔰𝑘1𝑖𝑗superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘superscript𝑡𝑗\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\varepsilon^{2}}(\mathfrak{s}_{3})_{{1\!\!1},{1\!\!1}}% +\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{k\geq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathfrak{s}_{k+2})_{{1% \!\!1},i}t^{i,k}+\frac{1}{2\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}% (-1)^{i}(\mathfrak{s}_{k+\ell+1})_{i,j}t^{i,k}t^{j,\ell}- divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 , 1 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
i=1N(𝔰1)11iti,0+k0,1i,j=1N(𝔰)jitj,k+ti,k.superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔰1𝑖11superscript𝑡𝑖0subscriptformulae-sequence𝑘01superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔰𝑖𝑗superscript𝑡𝑗𝑘superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘\displaystyle-\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathfrak{s}_{1})^{i}_{{1\!\!1}}\frac{\partial}{% \partial t^{i,0}}+\sum_{k\geq 0,\ell\geq 1}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}(\mathfrak{s}_{\ell% })^{i}_{j}t^{j,k+\ell}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{i,k}}.- ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 , roman_ℓ ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , italic_k + roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

The twisted loop group action described above in particular allows one to reconstruct the partition function of any homogeneous semisimple cohomological field theory from its genus zero data [28]. Let (V,η,{cg,n})𝑉𝜂subscript𝑐𝑔𝑛(V,\eta,\{c_{g,n}\})( italic_V , italic_η , { italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ) be a semisimple cohomological field theory of rank N𝑁Nitalic_N, that is, V𝑉Vitalic_V is an N𝑁Nitalic_N-dimensional vector space with a non-degenerate bilinear form η𝜂\etaitalic_η, cg,nsubscript𝑐𝑔𝑛c_{g,n}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are families of multilinear maps

cg,n:VnH(¯g,n,),2g2+n0:subscript𝑐𝑔𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑉tensor-productabsent𝑛superscript𝐻subscript¯𝑔𝑛2𝑔2𝑛0c_{g,n}\colon V^{\otimes n}\to H^{*}(\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n},\mathbb{C}),% \quad 2g-2+n\geq 0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , blackboard_C ) , 2 italic_g - 2 + italic_n ≥ 0

that satisfy certain properties. The partition function associated to this cohomological field theory is defined to be

Z𝑍\displaystyle Zitalic_Z =exp(g0ε2g2g),absentsubscript𝑔0superscript𝜀2𝑔2subscript𝑔\displaystyle=\exp\left(\sum_{g\geq 0}\varepsilon^{2g-2}\mathcal{F}_{g}\right),= roman_exp ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,
gsubscript𝑔\displaystyle\mathcal{F}_{g}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =n02g2+n>0k1,,kn0tα1,k1tαn,knn!¯g,ncg,n(eα1eαn)ψ1k1ψnkn,absentsubscript𝑛02𝑔2𝑛0subscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛0superscript𝑡subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛𝑛subscriptsubscript¯𝑔𝑛subscript𝑐𝑔𝑛tensor-productsubscript𝑒subscript𝛼1subscript𝑒subscript𝛼𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜓1𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛\displaystyle=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}n\geq 0\\ 2g-2+n>0\end{subarray}}\sum_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}\geq 0}\frac{t^{\alpha_{1},k_{1}% }\dots t^{\alpha_{n},k_{n}}}{n!}\int_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}}c_{g,n}(e_{% \alpha_{1}}\otimes\dots\otimes e_{\alpha_{n}})\psi_{1}^{k1}\dots\psi_{n}^{k_{n% }},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_n ≥ 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 2 italic_g - 2 + italic_n > 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

here e1,,eNsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒𝑁e_{1},\dots,e_{N}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a fixed basis of V𝑉Vitalic_V with e1subscript𝑒1e_{1}italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being the unit of the theory, and ψisubscript𝜓𝑖\psi_{i}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the first Chern class of the i𝑖iitalic_i-th tautological line bundle of ¯g,nsubscript¯𝑔𝑛\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then, in the homogeneous case, Givental [18, 19] proposed the following formula:

(2.3) Z=CptS^pt1Ψ^ptR^pti=1NZKdV(ε2fi;Ti,0fi,Ti,1fi,),𝑍subscript𝐶𝑝𝑡subscriptsuperscript^𝑆1𝑝𝑡subscript^Ψ𝑝𝑡subscript^𝑅𝑝𝑡superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑁superscript𝑍𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝜀2subscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑇𝑖0subscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑇𝑖1subscript𝑓𝑖Z=C_{pt}\hat{S}^{-1}_{pt}\hat{\Psi}_{pt}\hat{R}_{pt}\prod_{i=1}^{N}Z^{KdV}% \left(\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{f_{i}};\frac{T^{i,0}}{\sqrt{f_{i}}},\frac{T^{i,1}% }{\sqrt{f_{i}}},\dots\right),italic_Z = italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_S end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG roman_Ψ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_R end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ; divide start_ARG italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG , divide start_ARG italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG , … ) ,

which was identified with the tau-function of the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchy of the underlying Frobenius manifold with an appropriate choice of calibration by Dubrovin and Zhang [11] and proved to hold for any homogenenous semisimple cohomological field theory by Teleman [28].

Let us explain the notation in the above formula, and one may refer to [18] for details. The function ZKdVsuperscript𝑍𝐾𝑑𝑉Z^{KdV}italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the Witten-Kontsevich tau-function of the KdV hierarchy, namely it is given by

ZKdV(ε2;Ti,0,Ti,1,)superscript𝑍𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝜀2superscript𝑇𝑖0superscript𝑇𝑖1\displaystyle Z^{KdV}\left(\varepsilon^{2};T^{i,0},T^{i,1},\dots\right)italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … ) =exp(g0ε2g2gKdV(Ti,0,Ti,1,))absentsubscript𝑔0superscript𝜀2𝑔2superscriptsubscript𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑇𝑖0superscript𝑇𝑖1\displaystyle=\exp\left(\sum_{g\geq 0}\varepsilon^{2g-2}\mathcal{F}_{g}^{KdV}(% T^{i,0},T^{i,1},\dots)\right)= roman_exp ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … ) )
gKdV(Ti,0,Ti,1,)superscriptsubscript𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑇𝑖0superscript𝑇𝑖1\displaystyle\mathcal{F}_{g}^{KdV}\left(T^{i,0},T^{i,1},\dots\right)caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … ) =n0k1,,kn0Ti,k1Ti,knn!¯g,nψ1k1ψnkn.absentsubscript𝑛0subscriptsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛0superscript𝑇𝑖subscript𝑘1superscript𝑇𝑖subscript𝑘𝑛𝑛subscriptsubscript¯𝑔𝑛superscriptsubscript𝜓1subscript𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝜓𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛\displaystyle=\sum_{n\geq 0}\sum_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}\geq 0}\frac{T^{i,k_{1}}% \dots T^{i,k_{n}}}{n!}\int_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}}\psi_{1}^{k_{1}}\dots% \psi_{n}^{k_{n}}.= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ! end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The upper triangular symplectic transformation Rptsubscript𝑅𝑝𝑡R_{pt}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the lower triangular one Sptsubscript𝑆𝑝𝑡S_{pt}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are both determined from the underlying semisimple Frobenius manifold M𝑀Mitalic_M corresponding to the given homogenenous cohomological field theory. Note that these two transformations vary on M𝑀Mitalic_M, and we fix them by taking their values at an arbitrary (semisimple) point ptM𝑝𝑡𝑀pt\in Mitalic_p italic_t ∈ italic_M. In a neighborhood of pt𝑝𝑡ptitalic_p italic_t, we denote by (v1,,vN)superscript𝑣1superscript𝑣𝑁(v^{1},\dots,v^{N})( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the flat coordinates of M𝑀Mitalic_M corresponding to the basis (e1,,eN)subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒𝑁(e_{1},\dots,e_{N})( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and by (u1,,uN)superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢𝑁(u^{1},\dots,u^{N})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) the canonical coordinates. It is well-known that in terms of the canonical coordinates the metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η is diagonal whose diagonal elements we denote by fisubscript𝑓𝑖f_{i}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We then define the matrix ΨΨ\Psiroman_Ψ to be

Ψiα=fiuivα,subscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑣𝛼\Psi_{i\alpha}=\sqrt{f_{i}}\ \frac{\partial u^{i}}{\partial v^{\alpha}},roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

and the matrix ΨptsubscriptΨ𝑝𝑡\Psi_{pt}roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is obtained by evaluating functions ΨiαsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛼\Psi_{i\alpha}roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at the point pt𝑝𝑡ptitalic_p italic_t. The transformation Ψ^^Ψ\hat{\Psi}over^ start_ARG roman_Ψ end_ARG is then a coordinate transformation from the normalized canonical time variables Ti,ksuperscript𝑇𝑖𝑘T^{i,k}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to the flat time variables tα,psuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑝t^{\alpha,p}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Finally, C𝐶Citalic_C is just a function on M𝑀Mitalic_M, and we denote by Cptsubscript𝐶𝑝𝑡C_{pt}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT its value at the point pt𝑝𝑡ptitalic_p italic_t.

2.2. Loop equation of the free energy function

To prove Theorem 1.1, we recall in this subsection the Dubrovin-Zhang’s loop equation method [11] for computing the free energy function.

Let M𝑀Mitalic_M be a semisimple Frobenius manifold of dimension N𝑁Nitalic_N with a fixed calibration, denote its flat coordinates by v1,,vNsuperscript𝑣1superscript𝑣𝑁v^{1},\dots,v^{N}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the first flat metric by η𝜂\etaitalic_η. As we have introduced in Sect. 1, the higher genus free energy functions can be written as functions in the jet coordinates vα,ssuperscript𝑣𝛼𝑠v^{\alpha,s}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of M𝑀Mitalic_M [4, 11], where vαsuperscript𝑣𝛼v^{\alpha}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are flat coordinates of M𝑀Mitalic_M, or equivalently as functions in ui,ssuperscript𝑢𝑖𝑠u^{i,s}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT where uisuperscript𝑢𝑖u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are canonical coordinates of M𝑀Mitalic_M:

g(tα,p)=Fg(ui,ui,1,,ui,3g2),g1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑔superscript𝑡𝛼𝑝subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2𝑔1\mathcal{F}_{g}(t^{\alpha,p})=F_{g}(u^{i},u^{i,1},\dots,u^{i,3g-2}),\quad g\geq 1caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_g ≥ 1

where we view uisuperscript𝑢𝑖u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as functions of vαsuperscript𝑣𝛼v^{\alpha}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and

vα=ηαβ20tβ,0t1,0,vα,s=(t1,0)svα,ui,s=(t1,0)sui,s1.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝜂𝛼𝛽superscript2subscript0superscript𝑡𝛽0superscript𝑡10formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑣𝛼𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑡10𝑠superscript𝑣𝛼formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢𝑖𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑡10𝑠superscript𝑢𝑖𝑠1v^{\alpha}=\eta^{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial^{2}\mathcal{F}_{0}}{\partial t^{% \beta,0}\partial t^{1,0}},\quad v^{\alpha,s}=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^% {1,0}}\right)^{s}v^{\alpha},\quad u^{i,s}=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{1,% 0}}\right)^{s}u^{i},\quad s\geq 1.italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_s ≥ 1 .

We will also use the notation vα,0=vαsuperscript𝑣𝛼0superscript𝑣𝛼v^{\alpha,0}=v^{\alpha}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ui,0=uisuperscript𝑢𝑖0superscript𝑢𝑖u^{i,0}=u^{i}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In [11], Dubrovin and Zhang give a way to uniquely reconstruct Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from M𝑀Mitalic_M by requiring the so-called linearized Virasoro constraints, and they derive the following loop equation satisfied by Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1:

(2.4) r0Fgvγ,rxr(1Eλ)γ+r1Fgvγ,rk=1r(rk)xk11pαGαβxrk+1γpβsubscript𝑟0subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑣𝛾𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑟superscript1𝐸𝜆𝛾subscript𝑟1subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑣𝛾𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑟binomial𝑟𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘1subscript1subscript𝑝𝛼superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑟𝑘1superscript𝛾subscript𝑝𝛽\displaystyle\sum_{r\geq 0}\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial v^{\gamma,r}}% \partial_{x}^{r}\left(\frac{1}{E-\lambda}\right)^{\gamma}+\sum_{r\geq 1}\frac{% \partial F_{g}}{\partial v^{\gamma,r}}\sum_{k=1}^{r}\binom{r}{k}\partial_{x}^{% k-1}\partial_{1}p_{\alpha}G^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{x}^{r-k+1}\partial^{\gamma}% p_{\beta}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_E - italic_λ end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=\displaystyle== 12k,0(m=1g1Fmvγ,kFgmvρ,+2Fg1vγ,kvρ,)xk+1(γpα)Gαβx+1(ρpβ)12subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑔1subscript𝐹𝑚superscript𝑣𝛾𝑘subscript𝐹𝑔𝑚superscript𝑣𝜌superscript2subscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑣𝛾𝑘superscript𝑣𝜌superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘1superscript𝛾subscript𝑝𝛼superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscript𝑥1superscript𝜌subscript𝑝𝛽\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{g-1}\frac{% \partial F_{m}}{\partial v^{\gamma,k}}\frac{\partial F_{g-m}}{\partial v^{\rho% ,\ell}}+\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g-1}}{\partial v^{\gamma,k}\partial v^{\rho,\ell}% }\right)\partial_{x}^{k+1}(\partial^{\gamma}p_{\alpha})G^{\alpha\beta}\partial% _{x}^{\ell+1}(\partial^{\rho}p_{\beta})divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
+12k0Fg1vγ,kxk+1[pαλpβλvx]γGαβ+h(v,λ)δg,1;12subscript𝑘0subscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑣𝛾𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘1superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆subscript𝑣𝑥𝛾superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽𝑣𝜆subscript𝛿𝑔1\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{\partial F_{g-1}}{\partial v^{% \gamma,k}}\partial_{x}^{k+1}\left[\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial% \lambda}\cdot\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot v_{x}\right% ]^{\gamma}G^{\alpha\beta}+h(v,\lambda)\delta_{g,1};+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_h ( italic_v , italic_λ ) italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;

here and henceforth we use the notation

x=t1,0,α=vα,α=ηαβvβ,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑥superscript𝑡10formulae-sequencesubscript𝛼superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝛼superscript𝜂𝛼𝛽superscript𝑣𝛽\partial_{x}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{1,0}},\quad\partial_{\alpha}=\frac{% \partial}{\partial v^{\alpha}},\quad\partial^{\alpha}=\eta^{\alpha\beta}\frac{% \partial}{\partial v^{\beta}},∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

and on the right-hand side we set F0:=0assignsubscript𝐹00F_{0}:=0italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := 0.

Let us explain how Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is obtained from the above equation. Note first that λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ appeared in the equation (2.4) is a formal parameter, and we solve the equation with respect to Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that (2.4) holds true for any λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. To make it precise, it is proved that when written in the canonical coordinates, the left-hand side is of the form

r0i=1NFgui,rKi,r,Ki,r𝒜[1λu1,,1λuN],subscript𝑟0superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖𝑟superscript𝐾𝑖𝑟superscript𝐾𝑖𝑟𝒜1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\sum_{r\geq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial u^{i,r}}K^{i,r},% \quad K^{i,r}\in\mathcal{A}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{% \lambda-u^{N}}\right],∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] ,

where 𝒜𝒜\mathcal{A}caligraphic_A is the ring of differential polynomial given by

𝒜=C(u)[ui,s:s1,i=1,,N].\mathcal{A}=C^{\infty}(u)[u^{i,s}\colon s\geq 1,i=1,\dots,N].caligraphic_A = italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u ) [ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_s ≥ 1 , italic_i = 1 , … , italic_N ] .

It is also proved that (see Lemma 3.10.19 of [11]), when viewed as a polynomial in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, each Ki,rsuperscript𝐾𝑖𝑟K^{i,r}italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of degree r+1𝑟1r+1italic_r + 1 of the form

(2.5) Ki,r=gi,r(λui)r+1+lower order terms,gi,r𝒜,gi,r0.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐾𝑖𝑟superscript𝑔𝑖𝑟superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖𝑟1lower order termsformulae-sequencesuperscript𝑔𝑖𝑟𝒜superscript𝑔𝑖𝑟0K^{i,r}=\frac{g^{i,r}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{r+1}}+\text{lower order terms},\quad g% ^{i,r}\in\mathcal{A},\quad g^{i,r}\neq 0.italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + lower order terms , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A , italic_g start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ 0 .

On the right-hand side, the function h(v,λ)𝑣𝜆h(v,\lambda)italic_h ( italic_v , italic_λ ) can be expressed in terms of the canonical coordinates by

h(v,λ)=18i=1N1(λui)2+i,j=1,Ni<jhij(u)(1λui1λuj).𝑣𝜆18superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖2subscriptformulae-sequence𝑖𝑗1𝑁𝑖𝑗subscript𝑖𝑗𝑢1𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖1𝜆superscript𝑢𝑗h(v,\lambda)=-\frac{1}{8}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{2}}+\sum_{% \begin{subarray}{c}i,j=1,\dots N\\ i<j\end{subarray}}h_{ij}(u)\left(\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{i}}-\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{j% }}\right).italic_h ( italic_v , italic_λ ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_i , italic_j = 1 , … italic_N end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_i < italic_j end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) .

Therefore, for g=1𝑔1g=1italic_g = 1, we have the equation

r0i=1NF1ui,rKi,r=18i=1N1(λui)2+i,j=1,Ni<jhij(u)(1λui1λuj),subscript𝑟0superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝐹1superscript𝑢𝑖𝑟superscript𝐾𝑖𝑟18superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁1superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖2subscriptformulae-sequence𝑖𝑗1𝑁𝑖𝑗subscript𝑖𝑗𝑢1𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖1𝜆superscript𝑢𝑗\sum_{r\geq 0}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\partial F_{1}}{\partial u^{i,r}}K^{i,r}=-% \frac{1}{8}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{1}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{2}}+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{% c}i,j=1,\dots N\\ i<j\end{subarray}}h_{ij}(u)\left(\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{i}}-\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{j% }}\right),∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_i , italic_j = 1 , … italic_N end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_i < italic_j end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ,

from which one observes that

F1ui,r=0,r2,i=1,,N,formulae-sequencesubscript𝐹1superscript𝑢𝑖𝑟0formulae-sequence𝑟2𝑖1𝑁\frac{\partial F_{1}}{\partial u^{i,r}}=0,\quad r\geq 2,\quad i=1,\dots,N,divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , italic_r ≥ 2 , italic_i = 1 , … , italic_N ,

and obtains the well-known g=1𝑔1g=1italic_g = 1 free energy function ([7, 15, 10], see also Sect. 3.10.7 of [11] for a detailed discussion)

F1=124logdet(cαβγvγ,1)+G(v),subscript𝐹1124subscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾superscript𝑣𝛾1𝐺𝑣F_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\log\det\left(c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}v^{\gamma,1}\right)+G(v),italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG roman_log roman_det ( italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_G ( italic_v ) ,

where G(v)𝐺𝑣G(v)italic_G ( italic_v ) is Getzler’s G𝐺Gitalic_G-function. For g2𝑔2g\geq 2italic_g ≥ 2, we see that the right-hand side of the loop equation (2.4) only depends on F1,,Fg1subscript𝐹1subscript𝐹𝑔1F_{1},\dots,F_{g-1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, so we can find recursively all Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT starting from F1subscript𝐹1F_{1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Moreover, it is proved that the right-hand side is a function in the ring

𝒜[1u1uN][1λu1,,1λuN],𝒜delimited-[]1superscript𝑢1superscript𝑢𝑁1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\mathcal{A}\left[\frac{1}{u^{1}\dots u^{N}}\right]\left[\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}% },\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}\right],caligraphic_A [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] ,

therefore one finds the gradient Fgui,rsubscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖𝑟\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial u^{i,r}}divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG by comparing the coefficients of monomials in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG.

Let us proceed to explain the notations in the loop equation (2.4). Recall that the derivative xsubscript𝑥\partial_{x}∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is just t1,0superscript𝑡10\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{1,0}}divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG. E𝐸Eitalic_E is the Euler vector field of M𝑀Mitalic_M and

(1Eλ)γ=m11λm+2(Em+1)γ,Em+1=EmE,E0:=e,formulae-sequencesuperscript1𝐸𝜆𝛾subscript𝑚11superscript𝜆𝑚2superscriptsuperscript𝐸𝑚1𝛾formulae-sequencesuperscript𝐸𝑚1superscript𝐸𝑚𝐸assignsuperscript𝐸0𝑒\left(\frac{1}{E-\lambda}\right)^{\gamma}=\sum_{m\geq-1}\frac{1}{\lambda^{m+2}% }\left(E^{m+1}\right)^{\gamma},\quad E^{m+1}=E^{m}\cdot E,\quad E^{0}:=e,( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_E - italic_λ end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ≥ - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ italic_E , italic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := italic_e ,

where \cdot is the quantum product on TM𝑇𝑀TMitalic_T italic_M and e𝑒eitalic_e is the unit vector field with respect to the quantum product. The functions pα(v;λ)subscript𝑝𝛼𝑣𝜆p_{\alpha}(v;\lambda)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ; italic_λ ) are so-called periods of M𝑀Mitalic_M, which are solutions of the Gauss-Manin system associated to M𝑀Mitalic_M ([8], see also Sect. 3.6.3 of [11]), and Gαβsuperscript𝐺𝛼𝛽G^{\alpha\beta}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are some constants where the matrix (Gαβ)superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽(G^{\alpha\beta})( italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the Gram matrix of the flat pencil of M𝑀Mitalic_M with respects to the periods. In the expression

[pαλpβλvx]γ,superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆subscript𝑣𝑥𝛾\left[\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot\nabla\frac{% \partial p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot v_{x}\right]^{\gamma},[ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

\nabla is the Levi-Civita connection of the flat metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η and vxsubscript𝑣𝑥v_{x}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the vector with components vα,1superscript𝑣𝛼1v^{\alpha,1}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Therefore, we see that

(2.6) [pαλpβλvx]γ=(2pαλvζ)(2pβλvμ)cζμδcδεγvε,1,superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆subscript𝑣𝑥𝛾superscript2subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆superscript𝑣𝜁superscript2subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆superscript𝑣𝜇subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛿𝜁𝜇subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛾𝛿𝜀superscript𝑣𝜀1\left[\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot\nabla\frac{% \partial p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot v_{x}\right]^{\gamma}=\left(\frac{% \partial^{2}p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda\partial v^{\zeta}}\right)\left(\frac{% \partial^{2}p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda\partial v^{\mu}}\right)c^{\delta}_{% \zeta\mu}c^{\gamma}_{\delta\varepsilon}v^{\varepsilon,1},[ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ζ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ζ italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where cβγαsubscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾c^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the structure constants of the quantum product given by

cβγα=ηαμ30tμ,0tβ,0tγ,0|tα,0=vα,tα,1=tα,2==0.subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾evaluated-atsuperscript𝜂𝛼𝜇superscript3subscript0superscript𝑡𝜇0superscript𝑡𝛽0superscript𝑡𝛾0formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑡𝛼0superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑡𝛼1superscript𝑡𝛼20c^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}=\eta^{\alpha\mu}\left.\frac{\partial^{3}\mathcal{F}_{% 0}}{\partial t^{\mu,0}t^{\beta,0}t^{\gamma,0}}\right|_{t^{\alpha,0}=v^{\alpha}% ,t^{\alpha,1}=t^{\alpha,2}=\dots=0}.italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⋯ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

As an example, let us consider the loop equation of the Gromov-Witten theory of the point. The flat coordinate of M𝑀Mitalic_M is v1superscript𝑣1v^{1}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and it is also the canonical coordinate, u1=v1superscript𝑢1superscript𝑣1u^{1}=v^{1}italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The loop equation for FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is given by

(2.7) r0FgKdVv1,rxr(1v1λ)+r1FgKdVv1,rk=1r(rk)xk1(1v1λ)xrk+1(1v1λ)subscript𝑟0superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑟1superscript𝑣1𝜆subscript𝑟1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑟superscriptsubscript𝑘1𝑟binomial𝑟𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘11superscript𝑣1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑟𝑘11superscript𝑣1𝜆\displaystyle\sum_{r\geq 0}\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,r}}% \partial_{x}^{r}\left(\frac{1}{v^{1}-\lambda}\right)+\sum_{r\geq 1}\frac{% \partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,r}}\sum_{k=1}^{r}\binom{r}{k}\partial_{x}^% {k-1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)\partial_{x}^{r-k+1}\left(% \frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG )
=\displaystyle== 12k,0(m=1g1FmKdVv1,kFgmKdVv1,+2Fg1KdVv1,kv1,)xk+1(1v1λ)x+1(1v1λ)12subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1superscript2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔1𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘superscript𝑣1superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘11superscript𝑣1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑥11superscript𝑣1𝜆\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\left(\sum_{m=1}^{g-1}\frac{% \partial F_{m}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,k}}\frac{\partial F_{g-m}^{KdV}}{\partial v% ^{1,\ell}}+\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g-1}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,k}\partial v^{1,\ell% }}\right)\partial_{x}^{k+1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)\partial% _{x}^{\ell+1}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG )
+\displaystyle++ 18k0Fg1v1,kxk+1(v1,1(v1λ)3)δg,116(v1λ)2,18subscript𝑘0subscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑣1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑘1superscript𝑣11superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆3subscript𝛿𝑔116superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆2\displaystyle\frac{1}{8}\sum_{k\geq 0}\frac{\partial F_{g-1}}{\partial v^{1,k}% }\partial_{x}^{k+1}\left(\frac{v^{1,1}}{(v^{1}-\lambda)^{3}}\right)-\frac{% \delta_{g,1}}{16(v^{1}-\lambda)^{2}},divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) - divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

which we can solve with respect to FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and obtain

F1KdV=124logv1,1,F2KdV=(v1,2)3360(v1,1)47v1,2v1,31920(v1,1)3+v1,41152(v1,1)2,.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝐾𝑑𝑉124superscript𝑣11superscriptsubscript𝐹2𝐾𝑑𝑉superscriptsuperscript𝑣123360superscriptsuperscript𝑣1147superscript𝑣12superscript𝑣131920superscriptsuperscript𝑣113superscript𝑣141152superscriptsuperscript𝑣112F_{1}^{KdV}=\frac{1}{24}\log v^{1,1},\quad F_{2}^{KdV}=\frac{(v^{1,2})^{3}}{36% 0(v^{1,1})^{4}}-\frac{7v^{1,2}v^{1,3}}{1920(v^{1,1})^{3}}+\frac{v^{1,4}}{1152(% v^{1,1})^{2}},\quad\dots.italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG roman_log italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 360 ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 7 italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 1920 ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 1152 ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … .

To prepare for the proof of Theorem 1.1, let us analyze the loop equation (2.7) for g2𝑔2g\geq 2italic_g ≥ 2 and reproduce some well-known results about the structure of the FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

We first observe that both sides of the equation are homogeneous with respect to the differential degree degxsubscriptdegreesubscript𝑥\deg_{\partial_{x}}roman_deg start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined by

degxv1=0,degxv1,k=k,k1.formulae-sequencesubscriptdegreesubscript𝑥superscript𝑣10formulae-sequencesubscriptdegreesubscript𝑥superscript𝑣1𝑘𝑘𝑘1\deg_{\partial_{x}}v^{1}=0,\quad\deg_{\partial_{x}}v^{1,k}=k,\quad k\geq 1.roman_deg start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , roman_deg start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_k , italic_k ≥ 1 .

Hence, by induction on g𝑔gitalic_g, we see that degxFgKdV=2g2subscriptdegreesubscript𝑥superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉2𝑔2\deg_{\partial_{x}}F_{g}^{KdV}=2g-2roman_deg start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 italic_g - 2. Moreover, by a straightforward computation we find that, viewed as a polynomial in 1λv11𝜆superscript𝑣1\frac{1}{\lambda-v^{1}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG,

(2.8) xn1(1v1λ)xn2(1v1λ)=An1,n2(v1,1)n1+n2(λv1)n1+n2+1+lower order terms,n1,n20,formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑥subscript𝑛11superscript𝑣1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝑥subscript𝑛21superscript𝑣1𝜆subscript𝐴subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2superscriptsuperscript𝑣11subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2superscript𝜆superscript𝑣1subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛21lower order termssubscript𝑛1subscript𝑛20\partial_{x}^{n_{1}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)\partial_{x}^{n% _{2}}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{v^{1}-\lambda}}\right)=A_{n_{1},n_{2}}\frac{(v^{1,1}% )^{n_{1}+n_{2}}}{(\lambda-v^{1})^{n_{1}+n_{2}+1}}+\text{lower order terms},% \quad n_{1},n_{2}\geq 0,∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG ) ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG end_ARG ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + lower order terms , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 ,

where the constant An1,n2subscript𝐴subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2A_{n_{1},n_{2}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is given as

(2.9) An1,n2=(2n11)!!(2n21)!!2n1+n2.subscript𝐴subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2double-factorial2subscript𝑛11double-factorial2subscript𝑛21superscript2subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2A_{n_{1},n_{2}}=-\frac{(2n_{1}-1)!!(2n_{2}-1)!!}{2^{n_{1}+n_{2}}}.italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG ( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) !! ( 2 italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) !! end_ARG start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Therefore, it is easy to prove by induction on g𝑔gitalic_g that

FgKdVC(v)[1v1,1][v1,1,,v1,mg],g2,formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝐶𝑣delimited-[]1superscript𝑣11superscript𝑣11superscript𝑣1subscript𝑚𝑔𝑔2F_{g}^{KdV}\in C^{\infty}(v)\left[\frac{1}{v^{1,1}}\right][v^{1,1},\dots,v^{1,% m_{g}}],\quad g\geq 2,italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] [ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , italic_g ≥ 2 ,

for some mg1subscript𝑚𝑔1m_{g}\geq 1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1. To find mgsubscript𝑚𝑔m_{g}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we notice that the left-hand side of (2.7) is of the form

1v1λFgKdVv1+1(v1λ)2k1k+22v1,kFgKdVv1,k+r3Ar(v1λ)r,1superscript𝑣1𝜆superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣11superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆2subscript𝑘1𝑘22superscript𝑣1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘subscript𝑟3subscript𝐴𝑟superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆𝑟\frac{1}{v^{1}-\lambda}\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1}}+\frac{1}{(v% ^{1}-\lambda)^{2}}\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{k+2}{2}v^{1,k}\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}% }{\partial v^{1,k}}+\sum_{r\geq 3}\frac{A_{r}}{(v^{1}-\lambda)^{r}},divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k + 2 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

where Arsubscript𝐴𝑟A_{r}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are some expressions computed from gradients of FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and the right-hand side is of the form

r3Br(v1λ)r,subscript𝑟3subscript𝐵𝑟superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆𝑟\sum_{r\geq 3}\frac{B_{r}}{(v^{1}-\lambda)^{r}},∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ≥ 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

for some expressions Brsubscript𝐵𝑟B_{r}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT computed from F1KdV,,Fg1KdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝐾𝑑𝑉subscriptsuperscript𝐹𝐾𝑑𝑉𝑔1F_{1}^{KdV},\dots,F^{KdV}_{g-1}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_F start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It is immediate to obtain that

(2.10) FgKdVv1=0,g1formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣10𝑔1\displaystyle\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1}}=0,\quad g\geq 1divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , italic_g ≥ 1
(2.11) k1k+22v1,kFgKdVv1,k=0,g2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1𝑘22superscript𝑣1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘0𝑔2\displaystyle\sum_{k\geq 1}\frac{k+2}{2}v^{1,k}\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{% \partial v^{1,k}}=0,\quad g\geq 2.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_k + 2 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , italic_g ≥ 2 .

Note that Eq. (2.11) is equivalent to the homogeneity condition of the trivial cohomological field theory. By combining the two identities above, we conclude that FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is of the form

(2.12) FgKdV=n0μP(g,n)Cg;μv1,(μ)(v1,1)g+n1,superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉subscript𝑛0subscript𝜇𝑃𝑔𝑛subscript𝐶𝑔𝜇superscript𝑣1𝜇superscriptsuperscript𝑣11𝑔𝑛1F_{g}^{KdV}=\sum_{n\geq 0}\sum_{\mu\in P(g,n)}C_{g;\mu}\frac{v^{1,(\mu)}}{(v^{% 1,1})^{g+n-1}},\quaditalic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ ∈ italic_P ( italic_g , italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , ( italic_μ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g + italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

where P(g,n)𝑃𝑔𝑛P(g,n)italic_P ( italic_g , italic_n ) is the set of partition μ=(μ1,,μ)𝜇subscript𝜇1subscript𝜇\mu=(\mu_{1},\dots,\mu_{\ell})italic_μ = ( italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of 3g3+n3𝑔3𝑛3g-3+n3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n with the constraints

μi2,(μ):==n1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝜇𝑖2assign𝜇𝑛1\mu_{i}\geq 2,\quad\ell(\mu):=\ell=n\geq 1.italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 , roman_ℓ ( italic_μ ) := roman_ℓ = italic_n ≥ 1 .

For μ=(μ1,,μn)P(g,n)𝜇subscript𝜇1subscript𝜇𝑛𝑃𝑔𝑛\mu=(\mu_{1},\dots,\mu_{n})\in P(g,n)italic_μ = ( italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_P ( italic_g , italic_n ), we denote by

v1,(μ)=v1,μ1v1,μn,superscript𝑣1𝜇superscript𝑣1subscript𝜇1superscript𝑣1subscript𝜇𝑛v^{1,(\mu)}=v^{1,\mu_{1}}\dots v^{1,\mu_{n}},italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , ( italic_μ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_μ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and Cg;μsubscript𝐶𝑔𝜇C_{g;\mu}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are some rational numbers. These numbers can be computed either from solving the loop equation or using the intersection numbers on ¯g,nsubscript¯𝑔𝑛\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. For example, it is easy to see that

Cg;(3g2)=¯g,1ψ13g2.subscript𝐶𝑔3𝑔2subscriptsubscript¯𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝜓13𝑔2C_{g;(3g-2)}=\int_{{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,1}}\psi_{1}^{3g-2}.italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The special form (2.12) of FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for g2𝑔2g\geq 2italic_g ≥ 2 and the explicit expression for F1KdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹1𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{1}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT imply that

(2.13) nFgKdVv1,k1v1,kn=0fork1++kn3g3+n,g1,n1,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑛superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑣1subscript𝑘𝑛0forformulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛formulae-sequence𝑔1𝑛1\frac{\partial^{n}F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,k_{1}}\dots\partial v^{1,k_{n}}}=% 0\quad\text{for}\quad k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}\neq 3g-3+n,\quad g\geq 1,\ n\geq 1,divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 for italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_g ≥ 1 , italic_n ≥ 1 ,

which is a particular form of the general (3g2)3𝑔2(3g-2)( 3 italic_g - 2 )-property [11, 13, 17].

Finally, let us derive a relation that will be used later. By using the above (3g2)3𝑔2(3g-2)( 3 italic_g - 2 ) property and the identity (2.8), it is easy to see that the left-hand side of the loop equation, viewed as a polynomial in 1λv11𝜆superscript𝑣1\frac{1}{\lambda-v^{1}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG has the leading term

(v1,1)3g2(λv1)3g1((3g2)!+k=13g2(3g2k)Ak1,3g1k)FgKdVv1,3g2,superscriptsuperscript𝑣113𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑣13𝑔13𝑔2superscriptsubscript𝑘13𝑔2binomial3𝑔2𝑘subscript𝐴𝑘13𝑔1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔2\frac{(v^{1,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-v^{1})^{3g-1}}\left(-(3g-2)!+\sum_{k=1}^{3g-2% }\binom{3g-2}{k}A_{k-1,3g-1-k}\right)\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1% ,3g-2}},divide start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( - ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 italic_g - 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , 3 italic_g - 1 - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

where the constants Ak1,rk+1subscript𝐴𝑘1𝑟𝑘1A_{k-1,r-k+1}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , italic_r - italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are defined in (2.9). Similarly, we have

xn(v1,1(v1λ)3)=(n+2)!(v1,1)n+12(λv1)n+3+lower order terms,n0.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛superscript𝑣11superscriptsuperscript𝑣1𝜆3𝑛2superscriptsuperscript𝑣11𝑛12superscript𝜆superscript𝑣1𝑛3lower order terms𝑛0\partial_{x}^{n}\left(\frac{v^{1,1}}{(v^{1}-\lambda)^{3}}\right)=-\frac{(n+2)!% (v^{1,1})^{n+1}}{2(\lambda-v^{1})^{n+3}}+\text{lower order terms},\quad n\geq 0.∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) = - divide start_ARG ( italic_n + 2 ) ! ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + lower order terms , italic_n ≥ 0 .

Therefore, when g2𝑔2g\geq 2italic_g ≥ 2, the leading term of the right-hang side is

12(v1,1)3g2(λv1)3g1m=1g1A3m1,3g3m1FmKdVv1,3m2FgmKdVv1,3g3m212superscriptsuperscript𝑣113𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑣13𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑔1subscript𝐴3𝑚13𝑔3𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔3𝑚2\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{(v^{1,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-v^{1})^{3g-1}}\sum_{m% =1}^{g-1}A_{3m-1,3g-3m-1}\frac{\partial F_{m}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3m-2}}\frac% {\partial F_{g-m}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3g-3m-2}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG divide start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 italic_m - 1 , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
+\displaystyle++ 12(v1,1)3g2(λv1)3g1k,1k+=3g4Ak+1,+12Fg1KdVv1,kv1,116(3g2)!(v1,1)3g3(λv1)3g1Fg1KdVv1,3g5.12superscriptsuperscript𝑣113𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑣13𝑔1subscript𝑘1𝑘3𝑔4subscript𝐴𝑘11superscript2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔1𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘superscript𝑣11163𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝑣113𝑔3superscript𝜆superscript𝑣13𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔1𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔5\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{(v^{1,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-v^{1})^{3g-1}}\sum_{% \begin{subarray}{c}k,\ell\geq 1\\ k+\ell=3g-4\end{subarray}}A_{k+1,\ell+1}\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g-1}^{KdV}}{% \partial v^{1,k}\partial v^{1,\ell}}-\frac{1}{16}\frac{(3g-2)!(v^{1,1})^{3g-3}% }{(\lambda-v^{1})^{3g-1}}\frac{\partial F_{g-1}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3g-5}}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG divide start_ARG ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k + roman_ℓ = 3 italic_g - 4 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 , roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG divide start_ARG ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

By comparing the leading terms of both sides of the loop equation, we arrive at the relation

(2.14) ((3g2)!+k=13g2(3g2k)Ak1,3g1k)FgKdVv1,3g23𝑔2superscriptsubscript𝑘13𝑔2binomial3𝑔2𝑘subscript𝐴𝑘13𝑔1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔2\displaystyle\left(-(3g-2)!+\sum_{k=1}^{3g-2}\binom{3g-2}{k}A_{k-1,3g-1-k}% \right)\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3g-2}}( - ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 italic_g - 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , 3 italic_g - 1 - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
=\displaystyle== 12m=1g1A3m1,3g3m1FmKdVv1,3m2FgmKdVv1,3g3m212superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑔1subscript𝐴3𝑚13𝑔3𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝑚𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔3𝑚2\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{g-1}A_{3m-1,3g-3m-1}\frac{\partial F_{m}^{% KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3m-2}}\frac{\partial F_{g-m}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3g-3m-2}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 italic_m - 1 , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
+\displaystyle++ 12k,1k+=3g4Ak+1,+12Fg1KdVv1,kv1,116(3g2)!v1,1Fg1KdVv1,3g5,g2.12subscript𝑘1𝑘3𝑔4subscript𝐴𝑘11superscript2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔1𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣1𝑘superscript𝑣11163𝑔2superscript𝑣11superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔1𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑣13𝑔5𝑔2\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k,\ell\geq 1\\ k+\ell=3g-4\end{subarray}}A_{k+1,\ell+1}\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g-1}^{KdV}}{% \partial v^{1,k}\partial v^{1,\ell}}-\frac{1}{16}\frac{(3g-2)!}{v^{1,1}}\frac{% \partial F_{g-1}^{KdV}}{\partial v^{1,3g-5}},\quad g\geq 2.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k + roman_ℓ = 3 italic_g - 4 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 , roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG divide start_ARG ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! end_ARG start_ARG italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 3 italic_g - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_g ≥ 2 .

This relation will play an important role in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

2.3. Decomposition of free energy functions

We continue to use the same notations as in previous subsections. Let us first show that, if the genus g𝑔gitalic_g free energy function g(ti,k)subscript𝑔superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘\mathcal{F}_{g}(t^{i,k})caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) of M𝑀Mitalic_M admits a decomposition in terms of the canonical coordinates

(2.15) g(ti,k)=Fg(ui,k)=iφg;i(u)FgKdV(ui,1,,ui,3g2)+Hg,g1,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑔superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘subscript𝑖subscript𝜑𝑔𝑖𝑢superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑢𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2subscript𝐻𝑔𝑔1\mathcal{F}_{g}(t^{i,k})=F_{g}(u^{i,k})=\sum_{i}\varphi_{g;i}(u)F_{g}^{KdV}(u^% {i,1},\dots,u^{i,3g-2})+H_{g},\quad g\geq 1,caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_g ≥ 1 ,

with the function Hgsubscript𝐻𝑔H_{g}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfying the condition

nHgui1,k1uin,kn=0,k1++kn3g3+n,n1,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑛subscript𝐻𝑔superscript𝑢subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑢subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛0formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛𝑛1\frac{\partial^{n}H_{g}}{\partial u^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial u^{i_{n},k_{n}}% }=0,\quad k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}\geq 3g-3+n,\quad n\geq 1,divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_n ≥ 1 ,

then such decomposition is preserved under both upper triangular and lower triangular infinitesimal symplectic transformation.

Let us start by considering the action (2.2) given by an upper triangular element 𝔯𝔯\mathfrak{r}fraktur_r. Our goal is to show that

(2.16) nti1,k1tin,kn𝔯^[t].g|t=0=0,k1++kn3g3+n,g,n1.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑛superscript𝑡subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛^𝔯delimited-[]𝑡formulae-sequenceevaluated-atsubscript𝑔𝑡00formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛𝑔𝑛1\left.\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial t^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial t^{i_{n},k_{n}% }}\hat{\mathfrak{r}}[t].\mathcal{F}_{g}\right|_{t=0}=0,\quad k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}% \geq 3g-3+n,\quad g,n\geq 1.divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over^ start_ARG fraktur_r end_ARG [ italic_t ] . caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_g , italic_n ≥ 1 .

Indeed, the above identity suffices to show that for k1++kn=3g3+nsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}=3g-3+nitalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n, the expressions

nFgui1,k1uin,knsuperscript𝑛subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑢subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛\frac{\partial^{n}F_{g}}{\partial u^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial u^{i_{n},k_{n}}}divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG

remain unchanged after applying the upper triangular transformation. Then we prove the invariance of the decomposition from the property (2.13) of FgKdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{g}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the assumption (2.15).

Proposition 2.1.

The identity (2.16) holds true for any upper triangular transformation.

Proof.

First let us recall that the free energy function gsubscript𝑔\mathcal{F}_{g}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of a cohomological field theory satisfies the condition

(2.17) ngtj1,1tjn,n=0,1++n>3g3+n,g0,n1.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑛subscript𝑔superscript𝑡subscript𝑗1subscript1superscript𝑡subscript𝑗𝑛subscript𝑛0formulae-sequencesubscript1subscript𝑛3𝑔3𝑛formulae-sequence𝑔0𝑛1\frac{\partial^{n}\mathcal{F}_{g}}{\partial t^{j_{1},\ell_{1}}\dots\partial t^% {j_{n},\ell_{n}}}=0,\quad\ell_{1}+\dots+\ell_{n}>3g-3+n,\quad g\geq 0,\ n\geq 1.divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = 0 , roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_g ≥ 0 , italic_n ≥ 1 .

In what follows, we fix indices i1,,insubscript𝑖1subscript𝑖𝑛i_{1},\dots,i_{n}italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and k1,,knsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛k_{1},\dots,k_{n}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with

(2.18) k1++kn=3g3+n.subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}=3g-3+n.italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n .

By a straightforward computation using (2.2) (see also [24]), we find that the left-hand side of (2.16) reads

L.H.S.=L.H.S.absent\displaystyle\text{L.H.S.}=L.H.S. = k1i=1N(𝔯k)11in+1gti1,k1tin,knti,k+1|t=0evaluated-atsubscript𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘𝑖11superscript𝑛1subscript𝑔superscript𝑡subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘1𝑡0\displaystyle\left.-\sum_{k\geq 1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathfrak{r}_{k})^{i}_{{1\!\!% 1}}\frac{\partial^{n+1}\mathcal{F}_{g}}{\partial t^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial t% ^{i_{n},k_{n}}\partial t^{i,k+1}}\right|_{t=0}- ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+k1i,j=1Nm=1n(𝔯k)imingti1,k1tim1,km1tim+1,km+1tin,knti,k+km|t=0evaluated-atsubscript𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑛subscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘𝑖subscript𝑖𝑚superscript𝑛subscript𝑔superscript𝑡subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑚1subscript𝑘𝑚1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑚1subscript𝑘𝑚1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘subscript𝑘𝑚𝑡0\displaystyle\left.+\sum_{k\geq 1}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}\sum_{m=1}^{n}(\mathfrak{r}_% {k})^{i}_{i_{m}}\frac{\partial^{n}\mathcal{F}_{g}}{\partial t^{i_{1},k_{1}}% \dots\partial t^{i_{m-1},k_{m-1}}\partial t^{i_{m+1},k_{m+1}}\dots\partial t^{% i_{n},k_{n}}\partial t^{i,k+k_{m}}}\right|_{t=0}+ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k ≥ 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+12k,0i,j=1N(1)k+1(𝔯k++1)i,jn+2g1ti1,k1tin,knti,ktj,|t=0evaluated-at12subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁superscript1𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘1𝑖𝑗superscript𝑛2subscript𝑔1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖1subscript𝑘1superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘superscript𝑡𝑗𝑡0\displaystyle\left.+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}(-1)^{k+1}(% \mathfrak{r}_{k+\ell+1})^{i,j}\frac{\partial^{n+2}\mathcal{F}_{g-1}}{\partial t% ^{i_{1},k_{1}}\dots\partial t^{i_{n},k_{n}}\partial t^{i,k}\partial t^{j,\ell}% }\right|_{t=0}+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+12k,0i,j=1Ng1+g2=gIJ={1,,n}(1)k+1(𝔯k++1)i,j(tIg1ti,k)(tJg2tj,)|t=0,evaluated-at12subscript𝑘0superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑁subscriptsubscript𝑔1subscript𝑔2𝑔square-union𝐼𝐽1𝑛superscript1𝑘1superscriptsubscript𝔯𝑘1𝑖𝑗superscript𝑡𝐼subscriptsubscript𝑔1superscript𝑡𝑖𝑘superscript𝑡𝐽subscriptsubscript𝑔2superscript𝑡𝑗𝑡0\displaystyle\left.+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k,\ell\geq 0}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}\sum_{\begin% {subarray}{c}g_{1}+g_{2}=g\\ I\sqcup J=\{1,\dots,n\}\end{subarray}}(-1)^{k+1}(\mathfrak{r}_{k+\ell+1})^{i,j% }\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{I}}\frac{\partial\mathcal{F}_{g_{1}}}{% \partial t^{i,k}}\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{J}}\frac{\partial% \mathcal{F}_{g_{2}}}{\partial t^{j,\ell}}\right)\right|_{t=0},+ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_g end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_I ⊔ italic_J = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( fraktur_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_I end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

here in the last line we use the notation

tI:=mItim,km.assignsuperscript𝑡𝐼subscriptproduct𝑚𝐼superscript𝑡subscript𝑖𝑚subscript𝑘𝑚\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{I}}:=\prod_{m\in I}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{i_{% m},k_{m}}}.divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_I end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG := ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

By using the identity (2.17), the first line of the right-hand side vanishes due to the fact that

k1++kn+k+13g3+n+2>3g3+(n+1).subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛𝑘13𝑔3𝑛23𝑔3𝑛1k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}+k+1\geq 3g-3+n+2>3g-3+(n+1).italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_k + 1 ≥ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n + 2 > 3 italic_g - 3 + ( italic_n + 1 ) .

For a similar reason, the second line and the third line also vanish. As for the last line, we see that it is non-vanishing only when

k+mIkm3g13+(|I|+1),+mJkm3g13+(|J|+1)formulae-sequence𝑘subscript𝑚𝐼subscript𝑘𝑚3subscript𝑔13𝐼1subscript𝑚𝐽subscript𝑘𝑚3subscript𝑔13𝐽1k+\sum_{m\in I}k_{m}\leq 3g_{1}-3+(|I|+1),\quad\ell+\sum_{m\in J}k_{m}\leq 3g_% {1}-3+(|J|+1)italic_k + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ italic_I end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 3 italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 + ( | italic_I | + 1 ) , roman_ℓ + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ∈ italic_J end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 3 italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 + ( | italic_J | + 1 )

which implies that

k1++kn3g4+n.subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔4𝑛k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}\leq 3g-4+n.italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 3 italic_g - 4 + italic_n .

This contradicts to the assumption (2.18) and hence the last line also vanishes. The proposition is proved. ∎

Next we prove the invariance of decomposition (2.15) under lower triangular transformation.

Proposition 2.2.

The lower triangular transformations preserve the decomposition (2.15) for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1.

Proof.

We prove by computing the infinitesimal action of a lower triangular transformation 𝔰𝔰\mathfrak{s}fraktur_s in terms of the flat coordinates vαsuperscript𝑣𝛼v^{\alpha}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of M𝑀Mitalic_M. Such an action is given in [4] and reads

𝔰^[v].Fg=12i=1N(1)i((𝔰1)i,11+(𝔰1)11,i)Fgvi,formulae-sequence^𝔰delimited-[]𝑣subscript𝐹𝑔12superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁superscript1𝑖subscriptsubscript𝔰1𝑖11subscriptsubscript𝔰111𝑖subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑣𝑖\hat{\mathfrak{s}}[v].F_{g}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(-1)^{i}\left((\mathfrak% {s}_{1})_{i,{1\!\!1}}+(\mathfrak{s}_{1})_{{1\!\!1},i}\right)\frac{\partial F_{% g}}{\partial v^{i}},over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG [ italic_v ] . italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 1 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( fraktur_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 1 , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

here we denote by 𝔰^[v].^𝔰delimited-[]𝑣\hat{\mathfrak{s}}[v].over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG [ italic_v ] . the action of 𝔰𝔰\mathfrak{s}fraktur_s in terms of the flat coordinates, and it is given by

𝔰^[v].Fg=𝔰^[t].gs0i=1NFgvi,s(t11,0)s+1ti,0𝔰^[t].0.formulae-sequence^𝔰delimited-[]𝑣subscript𝐹𝑔^𝔰delimited-[]𝑡subscript𝑔subscript𝑠0superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑣𝑖𝑠superscriptsuperscript𝑡110𝑠1superscript𝑡𝑖0^𝔰delimited-[]𝑡subscript0\hat{\mathfrak{s}}[v].F_{g}=\hat{\mathfrak{s}}[t].\mathcal{F}_{g}-\sum_{s\geq 0% }\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial v^{i,s}}\left(\frac{\partial}{% \partial t^{{1\!\!1},0}}\right)^{s+1}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{i,0}}\hat{% \mathfrak{s}}[t].\mathcal{F}_{0}.over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG [ italic_v ] . italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG [ italic_t ] . caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG over^ start_ARG fraktur_s end_ARG [ italic_t ] . caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Therefore, the lower triangular transformation leads to a translation of the flat coordinates, which leaves the decomposition (2.15) invariant. The proposition is proved. ∎

Combining the result or Proposition 2.1 and 2.2, we conclude that (2.15) holds true for any partition function given by the Givental formula. Note that a possible alternative to the infinitesimal analysis of Proposition 2.1 would be to use the closed graphical formula for the upper traingular Givental group action [12], which would lead to the same result.

Finally, we can prove Theorem 1.1. For this, we need to use the loop equation (2.4) of M𝑀Mitalic_M, hence let us first recall some basic facts about semisimple Frobenius manifolds. One may refer to [8, 9, 11] for details. As before, we use (vα)superscript𝑣𝛼(v^{\alpha})( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) to denote the flat coordinates of M𝑀Mitalic_M and (ui)superscript𝑢𝑖(u^{i})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) to denote its canonical coordinates. Recall that in terms of (ui)superscript𝑢𝑖(u^{i})( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), the flat metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η of M𝑀Mitalic_M is diagonal of the form η=fi(dui)2𝜂subscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑑superscript𝑢𝑖2\eta=\sum f_{i}(du^{i})^{2}italic_η = ∑ italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We define functions ΨiαsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛼\Psi_{i\alpha}roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by

uivα=ΨiαΨi1,Ψi1=fi.formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑣𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖1subscriptΨ𝑖1subscript𝑓𝑖\frac{\partial u^{i}}{\partial v^{\alpha}}=\frac{\Psi_{i\alpha}}{\Psi_{i1}},% \quad\Psi_{i1}=\sqrt{f_{i}}.divide start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = square-root start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .

These functions satisfy the identity

(2.19) ΨiαΨjα=δij,Ψjα:=ηαβΨjβ.formulae-sequencesubscriptΨ𝑖𝛼superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑗𝛼subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗assignsuperscriptsubscriptΨ𝑗𝛼superscript𝜂𝛼𝛽subscriptΨ𝑗𝛽\Psi_{i\alpha}\Psi_{j}^{\alpha}=\delta_{ij},\quad\Psi_{j}^{\alpha}:=\eta^{% \alpha\beta}\Psi_{j\beta}.roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT := italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

For ij𝑖𝑗i\neq jitalic_i ≠ italic_j, we denote by γijsubscript𝛾𝑖𝑗\gamma_{ij}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the rotation coefficients of the flat metric η𝜂\etaitalic_η, and in terms of the canonical coordinates, they read

γij=12fifjfiuj,ij.formulae-sequencesubscript𝛾𝑖𝑗12subscript𝑓𝑖subscript𝑓𝑗subscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑢𝑗𝑖𝑗\gamma_{ij}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{f_{i}f_{j}}}\frac{\partial f_{i}}{\partial u^{j}},% \quad i\neq j.italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 square-root start_ARG italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_i ≠ italic_j .

Define functions Vijsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑗V_{ij}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be

Vij={0,for i=j,(ujui)γij,for ij.subscript𝑉𝑖𝑗cases0for 𝑖𝑗superscript𝑢𝑗superscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝛾𝑖𝑗for 𝑖𝑗V_{ij}=\begin{cases}0,&\text{for }i=j,\\ (u^{j}-u^{i})\gamma_{ij},&\text{for }i\neq j.\end{cases}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL 0 , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_i = italic_j , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_i ≠ italic_j . end_CELL end_ROW

Note that the functions γijsubscript𝛾𝑖𝑗\gamma_{ij}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are symmetric with respect to their indices and hence Vijsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑗V_{ij}italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are antisymmetric. By using the notations above, the Gauss-Manin system satisfied by periods pα(u;λ)subscript𝑝𝛼𝑢𝜆p_{\alpha}(u;\lambda)italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ; italic_λ ) of M𝑀Mitalic_M can be written into the following first-order equations for functions ϕisubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖\phi_{i}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT:

ϕiujsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖superscript𝑢𝑗\displaystyle\frac{\partial\phi_{i}}{\partial u^{j}}divide start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =Vijuiujϕj,ij,formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑗superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=-\frac{V_{ij}}{u^{i}-u^{j}}\phi_{j},\quad i\neq j,= - divide start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_i ≠ italic_j ,
ϕiuisubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖\displaystyle\frac{\partial\phi_{i}}{\partial u^{i}}divide start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =1λui(12ϕi+jVijϕj)+jVijuiujϕj,absent1𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖12subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝑉𝑖𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗subscript𝑗subscript𝑉𝑖𝑗superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑗subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{i}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\phi_{i}+\sum_{j}V_{ij}% \phi_{j}\right)+\sum_{j}\frac{V_{ij}}{u^{i}-u^{j}}\phi_{j},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
ϕiλsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝜆\displaystyle\frac{\partial\phi_{i}}{\partial\lambda}divide start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG =ϕi2(uiλ)+jVijuiλϕj.absentsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖2superscript𝑢𝑖𝜆subscript𝑗subscript𝑉𝑖𝑗superscript𝑢𝑖𝜆subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{\phi_{i}}{2(u^{i}-\lambda)}+\sum_{j}\frac{V_{ij}}{u^{i}-% \lambda}\phi_{j}.= divide start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) end_ARG + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Let us denote by ϕiαsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝛼\phi_{i\alpha}italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a fundamental solution matrix for the above system, then the periods pαsubscript𝑝𝛼p_{\alpha}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are specified by

pαui=Ψi1ϕiα,pαλ=iΨi1ϕiα.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑝𝛼superscript𝑢𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖1subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝛼subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖1subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝛼\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial u^{i}}=\Psi_{i1}\phi_{i\alpha},\quad\frac{% \partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda}=-\sum_{i}\Psi_{i1}\phi_{i\alpha}.divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG = - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

By definition, functions pαsubscript𝑝𝛼p_{\alpha}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT serve as flat coordinates of the flat pencil of M𝑀Mitalic_M, and we denote by Gαβsuperscript𝐺𝛼𝛽G^{\alpha\beta}italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the corresponding Gram matrix. In particular, we have

ϕiαGαβϕjβ=δijuiλ.subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑖𝛼superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑗𝛽subscript𝛿𝑖𝑗superscript𝑢𝑖𝜆\phi_{i\alpha}G^{\alpha\beta}\phi_{j\beta}=\frac{\delta_{ij}}{u^{i}-\lambda}.italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG .

The following proposition is important in analyzing the structure of the loop equation (2.4).

Proposition 2.3.

We have:

  1. (1)

    In terms of canonical coordinates, the function

    xn1(γpα)Gαβxn2(ρpβ)𝒜[1λu1,,1λuN],superscriptsubscript𝑥subscript𝑛1superscript𝛾subscript𝑝𝛼superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽superscriptsubscript𝑥subscript𝑛2superscript𝜌subscript𝑝𝛽𝒜1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\partial_{x}^{n_{1}}(\partial^{\gamma}p_{\alpha})G^{\alpha\beta}\partial_{x}^{% n_{2}}(\partial^{\rho}p_{\beta})\in\mathcal{A}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},% \dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}\right],∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ caligraphic_A [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] ,

    and, viewed as a polynomial in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, it has the leading term

    iAn1,n2(ui,1)n1+n2(λui)n1+n2+1ΨiγΨiρ,subscript𝑖subscript𝐴subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖1subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛21superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛾superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜌\sum_{i}A_{n_{1},n_{2}}\frac{(u^{i,1})^{n_{1}+n_{2}}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{n_{1}+n% _{2}+1}}\Psi_{i}^{\gamma}\Psi_{i}^{\rho},∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ρ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

    here the constants An1,n2subscript𝐴subscript𝑛1subscript𝑛2A_{n_{1},n_{2}}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are defined in (2.9).

  2. (2)

    The function

    xn[pαλpβλvx]γGαβ𝒜[1λu1,,1λuN],superscriptsubscript𝑥𝑛superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆subscript𝑣𝑥𝛾superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽𝒜1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\partial_{x}^{n}\left[\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot% \nabla\frac{\partial p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot v_{x}\right]^{\gamma}G^{% \alpha\beta}\in\mathcal{A}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda% -u^{N}}\right],∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_A [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ] ,

    and, viewed as a polynomial in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, it has the leading term

    i(n+2)!(ui,1)n+18(λui)n+3ΨiγΨi1.subscript𝑖𝑛2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖1𝑛18superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖𝑛3superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛾subscriptΨ𝑖1-\sum_{i}\frac{(n+2)!(u^{i,1})^{n+1}}{8(\lambda-u^{i})^{n+3}}\frac{\Psi_{i}^{% \gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}}.- ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_n + 2 ) ! ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .
Proof.

The first statement is proved in Lemma 3.10.19 of [11]. As for the second statement, by a straightforward computation using (2.6) and the Gauss-Manin system satisfied by pαsubscript𝑝𝛼p_{\alpha}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we see that, in terms of canonical coordinates,

[pαλpβλvx]γGαβ=iui,1ΨiγΨi1(14(uiλ)3+1(uiλ)2jVij2ujλ),superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝑝𝛼𝜆subscript𝑝𝛽𝜆subscript𝑣𝑥𝛾superscript𝐺𝛼𝛽subscript𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖1superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛾subscriptΨ𝑖114superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖𝜆31superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖𝜆2subscript𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑉𝑖𝑗2superscript𝑢𝑗𝜆\left[\nabla\frac{\partial p_{\alpha}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot\nabla\frac{% \partial p_{\beta}}{\partial\lambda}\cdot v_{x}\right]^{\gamma}G^{\alpha\beta}% =\sum_{i}\frac{u^{i,1}\Psi_{i}^{\gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}}\left(\frac{1}{4(u^{i}-% \lambda)^{3}}+\frac{1}{(u^{i}-\lambda)^{2}}\sum_{j}\frac{V_{ij}^{2}}{u^{j}-% \lambda}\right),[ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ ∇ divide start_ARG ∂ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_λ end_ARG ⋅ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_G start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_λ end_ARG ) ,

here we also use (2.19) and the fact [8] that

(2.20) cαβγ=iΨiαΨiβΨiγΨi1.superscriptsubscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖𝛽superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛾subscriptΨ𝑖1c_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}=\sum_{i}\frac{\Psi_{i\alpha}\Psi_{i\beta}\Psi_{i}^{% \gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}}.italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .

Then the second statement can be verified directly. The proposition is proved. ∎

Proposition 2.4.

The function φg;isubscript𝜑𝑔𝑖\varphi_{g;i}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined in (2.15) is given by (fi(u))1gsuperscriptsubscript𝑓𝑖𝑢1𝑔(f_{i}(u))^{1-g}( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

By using Dubrovin-Zhang’s theorem that their tau-function is given by the Givental formula, (or, alternatively, one can employ Teleman’s result [28] on the classification of cohomological field theories), we know that Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by the Givental formula satisfies the loop equation (2.4).

Let us prove φg;i=(fi(u))1gsubscript𝜑𝑔𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑖𝑢1𝑔\varphi_{g;i}=(f_{i}(u))^{1-g}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by induction on g𝑔gitalic_g. For g=1𝑔1g=1italic_g = 1, it is well-known that

F1=124ilogui,1+H1(u),subscript𝐹1124subscript𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖1subscript𝐻1𝑢F_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\sum_{i}\log u^{i,1}+H_{1}(u),italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_log italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ,

hence we see that φ1;i=1subscript𝜑1𝑖1\varphi_{1;i}=1italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1. Assume that we have proved the statement for 1,,g11𝑔11,\dots,g-11 , … , italic_g - 1, let us find φg;isubscript𝜑𝑔𝑖\varphi_{g;i}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. It follows from Lemma 3.10.19 of [11] that the left-hand side of (2.4), viewed as a polynomial in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, has the leading term

i(ui,1)3g2(λui)3g1((3g2)!+k=13g2(3g2k)Ak1,3g1k)Fgui,3g2.subscript𝑖superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔13𝑔2superscriptsubscript𝑘13𝑔2binomial3𝑔2𝑘subscript𝐴𝑘13𝑔1𝑘subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2\sum_{i}\frac{(u^{i,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{3g-1}}\left(-(3g-2)!+\sum_{k=% 1}^{3g-2}\binom{3g-2}{k}A_{k-1,3g-1-k}\right)\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial u^% {i,3g-2}}.∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( - ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG 3 italic_g - 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 , 3 italic_g - 1 - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Similarly, it follows from Proposition 2.3 that the right-hand side, viewed as a polynomial in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, has the leading term

12i(ui,1)3g2(λui)3g1m=1g1A3m1,3g3m11Ψi12Fmui,3m2Fgmui,3g3m212subscript𝑖superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝑚1𝑔1subscript𝐴3𝑚13𝑔3𝑚11superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12subscript𝐹𝑚superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑚2subscript𝐹𝑔𝑚superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔3𝑚2\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\frac{(u^{i,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{3g-1}% }\sum_{m=1}^{g-1}A_{3m-1,3g-3m-1}\frac{1}{\Psi_{i1}^{2}}\frac{\partial F_{m}}{% \partial u^{i,3m-2}}\frac{\partial F_{g-m}}{\partial u^{i,3g-3m-2}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 italic_m - 1 , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 3 italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG
+\displaystyle++ 12i(ui,1)3g2(λui)3g1k,1k+=3g4Ak+1,+11Ψi122Fg1ui,kui,116i1Ψi12(3g2)!(ui,1)3g3(λui)3g1Fg1ui,3g5.12subscript𝑖superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13𝑔2superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔1subscript𝑘1𝑘3𝑔4subscript𝐴𝑘111superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12superscript2subscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘superscript𝑢𝑖116subscript𝑖1superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖123𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13𝑔3superscript𝜆superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔1subscript𝐹𝑔1superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔5\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\frac{(u^{i,1})^{3g-2}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{3g-1}% }\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}k,\ell\geq 1\\ k+\ell=3g-4\end{subarray}}A_{k+1,\ell+1}\frac{1}{\Psi_{i1}^{2}}\frac{\partial^% {2}F_{g-1}}{\partial u^{i,k}\partial u^{i,\ell}}-\frac{1}{16}\sum_{i}\frac{1}{% \Psi_{i1}^{2}}\frac{(3g-2)!(u^{i,1})^{3g-3}}{(\lambda-u^{i})^{3g-1}}\frac{% \partial F_{g-1}}{\partial u^{i,3g-5}}.divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_k , roman_ℓ ≥ 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_k + roman_ℓ = 3 italic_g - 4 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 , roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 16 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ( 3 italic_g - 2 ) ! ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Now by using (2.15), we have for g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1

Fgui,3g2subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2\displaystyle\frac{\partial F_{g}}{\partial u^{i,3g-2}}divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =φg;iFgKdV(ui)ui,3g2,absentsubscript𝜑𝑔𝑖superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖3𝑔2\displaystyle=\varphi_{g;i}\frac{\partial F_{g}^{KdV}(u^{i})}{\partial u^{i,3g% -2}},= italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,
2Fgui,kuj,superscript2subscript𝐹𝑔superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘superscript𝑢𝑗\displaystyle\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g}}{\partial u^{i,k}\partial u^{j,\ell}}divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =δijφg;i2FgKdV(ui)ui,kui,,k+=3g1.formulae-sequenceabsentsubscript𝛿𝑖𝑗subscript𝜑𝑔𝑖superscript2superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑔𝐾𝑑𝑉superscript𝑢𝑖superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘3𝑔1\displaystyle=\delta_{ij}\varphi_{g;i}\frac{\partial^{2}F_{g}^{KdV}(u^{i})}{% \partial u^{i,k}\partial u^{i,\ell}},\quad k+\ell=3g-1.= italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_k + roman_ℓ = 3 italic_g - 1 .

Using above identities, as well as the recursion relation (2.14) and the induction hypothesis φm;i=(fi(u))1msubscript𝜑𝑚𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑖𝑢1𝑚\varphi_{m;i}=(f_{i}(u))^{1-m}italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for mg1𝑚𝑔1m\leq g-1italic_m ≤ italic_g - 1, we have

φg;i=(fi(u))2gΨi12=(fi(u))1g.subscript𝜑𝑔𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑖𝑢2𝑔superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12superscriptsubscript𝑓𝑖𝑢1𝑔\varphi_{g;i}=\frac{(f_{i}(u))^{2-g}}{\Psi_{i1}^{2}}=(f_{i}(u))^{1-g}.italic_φ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 - italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The proposition is proved. ∎

Now we are fully armed to present the proof of Theorem 1.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

As we remark above, the general shape of the decomposition (1.2) (as given in equation (2.15)) follows from Propositions 2.1 and 2.2. The coefficients fi(u)1gsubscript𝑓𝑖superscript𝑢1𝑔f_{i}(u)^{1-g}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 - italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are computed in Proposition 2.4. The theorem is proved. ∎

3. Universal identities of free energy functions

The goal of this section is to present a set of operators O{α1,a1;,αn,an}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of order n𝑛nitalic_n in the time variables that are going to be used to derive the universal relations. The parameters here are subject to the following condition: ai2subscript𝑎𝑖2a_{i}\geq 2italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2, i=1,,n𝑖1𝑛i=1,\dots,nitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_n. The main reason to introduce these operators is the following list of properties:

Theorem 3.1.

We have:

  1. (1)

    The operators O{α1,a1;,αn,an}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT commute with vβ,0v^{\beta,0}\cdotitalic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ and vβ,1v^{\beta,1}\cdotitalic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ (that is, with the operators of multiplication by vβ,0superscript𝑣𝛽0v^{\beta,0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and vβ,1superscript𝑣𝛽1v^{\beta,1}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT).

  2. (2)

    Let m1𝑚1m\geq 1italic_m ≥ 1; bi2subscript𝑏𝑖2b_{i}\geq 2italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2, i=1,,m𝑖1𝑚i=1,\dots,mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_m, and i=1mbii=1nai1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1. Then

    (3.1) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=0.subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚0\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=0.italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 .
  3. (3)

    Let m1𝑚1m\geq 1italic_m ≥ 1; bi2subscript𝑏𝑖2b_{i}\geq 2italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2, i=1,,m𝑖1𝑚i=1,\dots,mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_m, and i=1mbi=i=1naisuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then if mn𝑚𝑛m\geq nitalic_m ≥ italic_n, we have

    (3.2) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=δnmσSni=1nδaibσ(i)i=1nj=0aix\llangleτ0γi,jτγi,j+1,0\rrangle0,subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚subscript𝛿𝑛𝑚subscript𝜎subscript𝑆𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝜎𝑖superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗0subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑥\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖𝑗0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖𝑗10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=\delta_{nm}\sum_{\sigma\in S_{n}}% \prod_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{a_{i}b_{\sigma(i)}}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{j=0}^{a_{i}}% \partial_{x}\llangle\tau^{\gamma_{i,j}}_{0}\tau_{\gamma_{i,j+1},0}\rrangle_{0},italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

    where γi,0=βσ(i)subscript𝛾𝑖0subscript𝛽𝜎𝑖\gamma_{i,0}=\beta_{\sigma(i)}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and γi,ai=αisubscript𝛾𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝛼𝑖\gamma_{i,a_{i}}=\alpha_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Below we introduce the construction of these operators and, after we discuss their properties, we prove all statements of Theorem 3.1 in Corollaries 3.63.9, and 3.10. As an application, we derive some universal identities and prove Theorem 1.2.

3.1. A useful set of operators

We start by explaining the notations used for defining the operators O{α1,a1;,αn,an}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

3.1.1. Basic notation for trees

Let RTn𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛RT_{n}italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the set of stable rooted trees with n𝑛nitalic_n legs σ1,,σnsubscript𝜎1subscript𝜎𝑛\sigma_{1},\dots,\sigma_{n}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We demand that the index of each vertex except for the root is at least 3333. For a TRTn𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛T\in RT_{n}italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT we use the following notation:

  • H(T)𝐻𝑇H(T)italic_H ( italic_T ) is the set of half-edges of T𝑇Titalic_T.

  • L(T)𝐿𝑇L(T)italic_L ( italic_T ) is the set of legs of T𝑇Titalic_T.

  • He(T)H(T)L(T)subscript𝐻𝑒𝑇𝐻𝑇𝐿𝑇H_{e}(T)\coloneqq H(T)\setminus L(T)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ≔ italic_H ( italic_T ) ∖ italic_L ( italic_T ).

  • ι:He(T)He(T):𝜄subscript𝐻𝑒𝑇subscript𝐻𝑒𝑇\iota\colon H_{e}(T)\to H_{e}(T)italic_ι : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) → italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) is the involution that interchanges the half-edges that form an edge.

  • E(T)𝐸𝑇E(T)italic_E ( italic_T ) is the set of edges of T𝑇Titalic_T, EHe(T)/ι𝐸subscript𝐻𝑒𝑇𝜄E\cong H_{e}(T)/\iotaitalic_E ≅ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_e end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) / italic_ι.

  • H+(T)H(T)subscript𝐻𝑇𝐻𝑇H_{+}(T)\subset H(T)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ⊂ italic_H ( italic_T ) is the set of the so-called “positive” half-edges that consists of all legs of T𝑇Titalic_T and of half-edges in H(T)L(T)𝐻𝑇𝐿𝑇H(T)\setminus L(T)italic_H ( italic_T ) ∖ italic_L ( italic_T ) directed away from the root at the vertices where they are attached, H+(T)E(T)L(T)subscript𝐻𝑇𝐸𝑇𝐿𝑇H_{+}(T)\cong E(T)\cup L(T)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ≅ italic_E ( italic_T ) ∪ italic_L ( italic_T );

  • H(T)H(T)subscript𝐻𝑇𝐻𝑇H_{-}(T)\subset H(T)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ⊂ italic_H ( italic_T ) is the set of the so-called “negative” half-edges that consists of all half-edges in H(T)L(T)𝐻𝑇𝐿𝑇H(T)\setminus L(T)italic_H ( italic_T ) ∖ italic_L ( italic_T ) directed towards the root at the vertices where they are attached, H(T)E(T)subscript𝐻𝑇𝐸𝑇H_{-}(T)\cong E(T)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ≅ italic_E ( italic_T );

  • V(T),Vnr(T)𝑉𝑇subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟𝑇V(T),V_{nr}(T)italic_V ( italic_T ) , italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) are the sets of vertices and non-root vertices of T𝑇Titalic_T.

  • vrV(T)subscript𝑣𝑟𝑉𝑇v_{r}\in V(T)italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_V ( italic_T ) is the root vertex of T𝑇Titalic_T; V(T)={vr(T)}Vnr(T)𝑉𝑇square-unionsubscript𝑣𝑟𝑇subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟𝑇V(T)=\{v_{r}(T)\}\sqcup V_{nr}(T)italic_V ( italic_T ) = { italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) } ⊔ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ).

  • For a vV(T)𝑣𝑉𝑇v\in V(T)italic_v ∈ italic_V ( italic_T ), H+(v)subscript𝐻𝑣H_{+}(v)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) is the set of all positive half-edges attached to v𝑣vitalic_v.

  • For a vVnr(T)𝑣subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟𝑇v\in V_{nr}(T)italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) let H(v)subscript𝐻𝑣H_{-}(v)italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) be the negative half-edge attached to v𝑣vitalic_v.

  • We say that a vertex or a (half-)edge x𝑥xitalic_x is a descendant of a vertex or a (half-)edge y𝑦yitalic_y if y𝑦yitalic_y is on the unique path connecting x𝑥xitalic_x to vrsubscript𝑣𝑟v_{r}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

  • For an hH+(T)subscript𝐻𝑇h\in H_{+}(T)italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) let DL(h)𝐷𝐿DL(h)italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ) be the set of all legs that are descendants to hhitalic_h, including hhitalic_h itself. Note that DL(h)L(T)𝐷𝐿𝐿𝑇DL(h)\subseteq L(T)italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ) ⊆ italic_L ( italic_T ) for any hH+(T)subscript𝐻𝑇h\in H_{+}(T)italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) and DL(l)={l}𝐷𝐿𝑙𝑙DL(l)=\{l\}italic_D italic_L ( italic_l ) = { italic_l } for lL(T)𝑙𝐿𝑇l\in L(T)italic_l ∈ italic_L ( italic_T ).

  • For an hH+(T)subscript𝐻𝑇h\in H_{+}(T)italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) let DH(h)𝐷𝐻DH(h)italic_D italic_H ( italic_h ) be the set of all positive half-edges that are descendants to hhitalic_h, excluding hhitalic_h. For instance, for lL(T)𝑙𝐿𝑇l\in L(T)italic_l ∈ italic_L ( italic_T ) we have DH(l)=𝐷𝐻𝑙DH(l)=\emptysetitalic_D italic_H ( italic_l ) = ∅, and for hH+(T)L(T)subscript𝐻𝑇𝐿𝑇h\in H_{+}(T)\setminus L(T)italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) ∖ italic_L ( italic_T ) we have DH(h)DL(h)𝐷𝐿𝐷𝐻DH(h)\supseteq DL(h)italic_D italic_H ( italic_h ) ⊇ italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ).

In the pictures it is convenient to arrange the half-edges at each vertex such that the negative half-edges are directed to the right and the positive half-edges are directed to the left (this convention is opposite to the one used in the similar structures in [2, 5], but it is more suitable for the purpose of defining the differential operators). In particular, the root vertex is the rightmost vertex on the pictures. Here is an example of a stable rooted tree in RT4subscriptRT4\mathrm{RT}_{4}roman_RT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT placed on the plane following this convention:

σ1σ2σ4σ3.subscript𝜎1subscript𝜎2subscript𝜎4subscript𝜎3\displaystyle\vbox{\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\kern 3.73326pt\hbox{% \ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\kern 0.0pt% \offinterlineskip\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&&&&&&\\&&&&&&\\&&&&&&\\&&&% &&&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt% \raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{% \hbox{\kern 18.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 39.0pt\raise 0.% 0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox% {$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 60.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt% \raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{% \hbox{\kern 81.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 102.0pt\raise 0% .0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 123.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0% .0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}% {\hbox{\kern-3.0pt\raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 18.0pt\raise-11% .0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 39.0pt\raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0% .0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}% {{{\hbox{\ellipsed@{3.0pt}{3.0pt}}}}\hbox{\kern 60.0pt\raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox% {\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{{}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 3% 8.26674pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 1.11833pt\hbox{$\textstyle{% {}_{\,\,\sigma_{1}}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces% \ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces% \ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}% \ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{% \lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{% \lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}{\hbox{\kern 81.0pt% \raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0% .0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 102.0pt\raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$% }}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 123.0pt\raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-3.0% pt\raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt% \raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{{{\hbox{\ellipsed@{3.0pt}{3.0pt}}}}% \hbox{\kern 18.0pt\raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$% \textstyle{{}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-3.73326pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{% \hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 1.11833pt\hbox{$\textstyle{{}_{\,\,\sigma_{2}}}$}}}}}% \ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}% }\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}% \ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-3.73326pt% \raise-11.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 1.11833pt\hbox{$\textstyle{{}_{\,\,% \sigma_{4}}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox% {\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{% \lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}{\hbox{\kern 39.0pt% \raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0% .0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 60.0pt\raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$% }}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 81.0pt\raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{{{\hbox{% \ellipsed@{3.0pt}{3.0pt}}}}\hbox{\kern 102.0pt\raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3% .0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{{}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces% \ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}% \ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}% \ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 80.9334pt% \raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 1.11833pt\hbox{$\textstyle{{}_{\,% \sigma_{3}}}$}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox% {\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{% \lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}{\hbox{\kern 123.0pt% \raise-22.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0% .0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-3.0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{% \kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$% }}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 18.0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 39.% 0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt% \raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 60.0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{% \hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$% \textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 81.0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt% \raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{% \hbox{\kern 102.0pt\raise-33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox% {\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 123.0pt\raise-% 33.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise 0.0pt% \hbox{$\textstyle{}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces}\,.start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT .

Let TRTn𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛T\in RT_{n}italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Introduce an extra function q:H+(T)0:𝑞subscript𝐻𝑇subscriptabsent0q\colon H_{+}(T)\to\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}italic_q : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) → blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that

(3.3) hH+(T)q(h)+|E(T)|=i=1naisubscriptsubscript𝐻𝑇𝑞𝐸𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\displaystyle\sum_{h\in H_{+}(T)}q(h)+|E(T)|=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) + | italic_E ( italic_T ) | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

and at each vertex vVnr(T)𝑣subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟𝑇v\in V_{nr}(T)italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) we have

(3.4) |H+(v)|2hH+(v)q(h).subscript𝐻𝑣2subscriptsubscript𝐻𝑣𝑞\displaystyle|H_{+}(v)|-2\geq\sum_{h\in H_{+}(v)}q(h).| italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) | - 2 ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) .

Let Q(T,i=1nai)𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖Q(T,\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) denote the set of such functions. We also associate to each hH(T)𝐻𝑇h\in H(T)italic_h ∈ italic_H ( italic_T ) an index α(h)𝛼\alpha(h)italic_α ( italic_h ) such that α(σi)=αi𝛼subscript𝜎𝑖subscript𝛼𝑖\alpha(\sigma_{i})=\alpha_{i}italic_α ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

3.1.2. Eguchi-Xiong operators and their generalizations

Let Oβ,psubscript𝑂𝛽𝑝O_{\beta,p}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the differential operators of Eguchi-Xiong [13] (see also [4, 26]) defined inductively by the following rules:

(3.5) Oβ,0subscript𝑂𝛽0\displaystyle O_{\beta,0}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT tβ,0;absentsuperscript𝑡𝛽0\displaystyle\coloneqq\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\beta,0}};≔ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ;
(3.6) Oβ,psubscript𝑂𝛽𝑝\displaystyle O_{\beta,p}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT tβ,pk=0p1\llangleτ0γτβ,k\rrangle0Oγ,pk1.absentsuperscript𝑡𝛽𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑘0𝑝1\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝛽𝑘subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑂𝛾𝑝𝑘1\displaystyle\coloneqq\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\beta,p}}-\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}% \llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{\beta,k}\rrangle_{0}O_{\gamma,p-k-1}.≔ divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_p - italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

We have [Oβ,p,Oγ,q]=0subscript𝑂𝛽𝑝subscript𝑂𝛾𝑞0[O_{\beta,p},O_{\gamma,q}]=0[ italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0 if p,q1𝑝𝑞1p,q\geq 1italic_p , italic_q ≥ 1.

We associate to a pair (T,q)𝑇𝑞(T,q)( italic_T , italic_q ), TRTn𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛T\in RT_{n}italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, qQ(T,i=1nai)𝑞𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖q\in Q(T,\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), an operator O(T,q)subscript𝑂𝑇𝑞O_{(T,q)}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by

(3.7) O(T,q)subscript𝑂𝑇𝑞absent\displaystyle O_{(T,q)}\coloneqqitalic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ (1)|E(T)|hH(T)ηα(h),α(ι(h))superscript1𝐸𝑇subscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑇superscript𝜂𝛼𝛼𝜄\displaystyle(-1)^{|E(T)|}\prod_{h\in H_{-}(T)}\eta^{\alpha(h),\alpha(\iota(h))}( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_E ( italic_T ) | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_α ( italic_ι ( italic_h ) ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
1i=1n(ai+1)!hH+(T)(DL(h)(a()+1)hDH(h)(q(h)+1))q(h)+11superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1subscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑇subscriptsubscript𝐷𝐿𝑎1subscriptsuperscript𝐷𝐻𝑞superscript1𝑞1\displaystyle\frac{1}{\prod_{i=1}^{n}(a_{i}+1)!}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(T)}\Big{(}% \sum_{\ell\in DL(h)}(a(\ell)+1)-\sum_{h^{\prime}\in DH(h)}(q(h^{\prime})+1)% \Big{)}_{q(h)+1}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) ! end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ ∈ italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ( roman_ℓ ) + 1 ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_D italic_H ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ( italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 1 ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(vVnr(T)(hH+(v)Oα(h),q(h)\llangleτα(h(v)),0\rrangle0))hH+(vr)Oα(h),q(h)subscriptproduct𝑣subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟𝑇FRACOPsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑣subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞FRACOP\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼subscript𝑣0subscript\rrangle0FRACOPsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞FRACOP\displaystyle\Bigg{(}\prod_{v\in V_{nr}(T)}\bigg{(}\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop% \bullet}$}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v)}O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop% \bullet}$}\,\llangle\tau_{\alpha(h_{-}(v)),0}\rrangle_{0}\bigg{)}\Bigg{)}\mbox% {\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v_{r})}O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}\mbox% {\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG

Here a()=ai𝑎subscript𝑎𝑖a(\ell)=a_{i}italic_a ( roman_ℓ ) = italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for =σisubscript𝜎𝑖\ell=\sigma_{i}roman_ℓ = italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and (s)t=s(s1)(st+1)subscript𝑠𝑡𝑠𝑠1𝑠𝑡1(s)_{t}=s(s-1)\cdots(s-t+1)( italic_s ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_s ( italic_s - 1 ) ⋯ ( italic_s - italic_t + 1 ) denotes the Pochhammer symbol and we recall that it is assumed that hH+(T)q(h)+|E(T)|=i=1naisubscriptsubscript𝐻𝑇𝑞𝐸𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\sum_{h\in H_{+}(T)}q(h)+|E(T)|=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) + | italic_E ( italic_T ) | = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By normal order we just mean that we put differentiations in the vector fields ahead, that is, the vector fields are not allowed to act on the coefficients of each other.

Remark 3.2.

In the notation of Liu [26] the function hH+(v)Oα(h),q(h)\llangleτα(h(v)),0\rrangle0FRACOPsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑣subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞FRACOP\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼subscript𝑣0subscript\rrangle0\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v)}O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}% \mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}\,\llangle\tau_{\alpha(h_{-}(v)),0}\rrangle% _{0}FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be written as

(3.8) ηα(h(v))α(ι(h(v)))hH+(v)Oα(h),q(h)\llangleτα(h(v)),0\rrangle0=\llangleT0(eα(ι(h(v))))hH+(v)Tq(h)(eα(h))\rrangle0.superscript𝜂𝛼subscript𝑣𝛼𝜄subscript𝑣FRACOPsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑣subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞FRACOP\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼subscript𝑣0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesuperscript𝑇0superscript𝑒𝛼𝜄subscript𝑣subscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑣superscript𝑇𝑞subscript𝑒𝛼subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle\eta^{\alpha(h_{-}(v))\alpha(\iota(h_{-}(v)))}\mbox{\tiny${% \bullet\atop\bullet}$}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v)}O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}\mbox{\tiny${% \bullet\atop\bullet}$}\,\llangle\tau_{\alpha(h_{-}(v)),0}\rrangle_{0}=\llangle T% ^{0}(e^{\alpha(\iota(h_{-}(v)))})\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v)}T^{q(h)}(e_{\alpha(h)})% \rrangle_{0}.italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) italic_α ( italic_ι ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_ι ( italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ) ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

3.1.3. Definition of operators

Definition 3.3.

The operator O{α1,a1;,αn,an}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined as

(3.9) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}TRTnqQ(T,i=1nai)O(T,q)subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛subscript𝑞𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑂𝑇𝑞\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\coloneqq\sum_{T% \in RT_{n}}\sum_{q\in Q(T,\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})}O_{(T,q)}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

For instance,

(3.10) Osubscript𝑂\displaystyle O_{\emptyset}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∅ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Id;absentId\displaystyle=\mathop{\mathrm{Id}};= roman_Id ;
O{α1,a1}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Oα1,a1;absentsubscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1\displaystyle=O_{\alpha_{1},a_{1}};= italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(3.11) O{α1,a1;α2,a2}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼2subscript𝑎2\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\alpha_{2},a_{2}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Oα1,a1Oα2,a2(a1+a2)!a1!a2!T0(eα1)T0(eα2)T0(eα)0Oα,a1+a21.absentFRACOPsubscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑂subscript𝛼2subscript𝑎2FRACOPsubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎2subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩delimited-⟨⟩superscript𝑇0subscript𝑒subscript𝛼1superscript𝑇0subscript𝑒subscript𝛼2superscript𝑇0superscript𝑒𝛼0subscript𝑂𝛼subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎21\displaystyle=\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}O_{\alpha_{1},a_{1}}O_{\alpha% _{2},a_{2}}\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}-\frac{(a_{1}+a_{2})!}{a_{1}!a_{% 2}!}\langle\!\langle T^{0}(e_{\alpha_{1}})T^{0}(e_{\alpha_{2}})T^{0}(e^{\alpha% })\rangle\!\rangle_{0}O_{\alpha,a_{1}+a_{2}-1}.= FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG - divide start_ARG ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ! end_ARG start_ARG italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ! end_ARG ⟨ ⟨ italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⟩ ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

3.2. Action on vβ,bsuperscript𝑣𝛽𝑏v^{\beta,b}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

Consider O{α1,a1;;αn,an}vβ,bsubscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑏O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}v^{\beta,b}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for bi=1nai1𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1b\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1italic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1. Note that the usage of the Eugchi-Xiong operators implies that we are dealing with a lift of a tautological relation from the moduli space of curves ¯0,m+b+2subscript¯0𝑚𝑏2{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,m+b+2}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_m + italic_b + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [26]. Let us describe this relation.

For each TRTn𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛T\in RT_{n}italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT let Tsubscript𝑇similar-toT_{\sim}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the tree with b+2𝑏2b+2italic_b + 2 extra labeled legs attached to the root vertex vrsubscript𝑣𝑟v_{r}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This graph defines a stratum in ¯0,n+b+2subscript¯0𝑛𝑏2{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,n+b+2}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_n + italic_b + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and let glTsubscriptglsubscript𝑇similar-to\mathrm{gl}_{T_{\sim}}roman_gl start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the boundary map corresponding to this stratum. To fix the notation we choose an order on the legs attached to each vertex v𝑣vitalic_v using the map ov:H+(v){1,,|H+(v)|}:subscript𝑜𝑣subscript𝐻𝑣1subscript𝐻𝑣o_{v}\colon H_{+}(v)\to\{1,\dots,|H_{+}(v)|\}italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) → { 1 , … , | italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) | }.

For each qQ(T,i=1nai)𝑞𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖q\in Q(T,\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) consider class B(T,q)subscript𝐵𝑇𝑞B_{(T,q)}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given by

(3.12) B(T,q)subscript𝐵𝑇𝑞\displaystyle B_{(T,q)}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (1)|E(T)|i=1n(ai+1)!hH+(T)(lDL(h)(a(l)+1)hDH(h)(q(h)+1))q(h)+1absentsuperscript1𝐸𝑇superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1subscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑇subscriptsubscript𝑙𝐷𝐿𝑎𝑙1subscriptsuperscript𝐷𝐻𝑞superscript1𝑞1\displaystyle\coloneqq\frac{(-1)^{|E(T)|}}{\prod_{i=1}^{n}(a_{i}+1)!}\prod_{h% \in H_{+}(T)}\Big{(}\sum_{l\in DL(h)}(a(l)+1)-\sum_{h^{\prime}\in DH(h)}(q(h^{% \prime})+1)\Big{)}_{q(h)+1}≔ divide start_ARG ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | italic_E ( italic_T ) | end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) ! end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l ∈ italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a ( italic_l ) + 1 ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_D italic_H ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_q ( italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + 1 ) ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(glT)[(hH+(vr)ψovr(h)q(h))|¯0,|H+(vr)|+χ+2vVnr(T)(hH+(v)ψov(h)q(h))|¯0,|H+(v)|+1]subscriptsubscriptglsubscript𝑇similar-todelimited-[]evaluated-attensor-productevaluated-atsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟superscriptsubscript𝜓subscript𝑜subscript𝑣𝑟𝑞subscript¯0subscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟𝜒2subscripttensor-product𝑣subscript𝑉𝑛𝑟superscript𝑇subscriptproductsubscript𝐻𝑣superscriptsubscript𝜓subscript𝑜𝑣𝑞subscript¯0subscript𝐻𝑣1\displaystyle\quad(\mathrm{gl}_{T_{\sim}})_{*}\bigg{[}\Big{(}\prod_{h\in H_{+}% (v_{r})}\psi_{o_{v_{r}}(h)}^{q(h)}\Big{)}\Big{|}_{{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,% |H_{+}({v_{r}})|+\chi+2}}\otimes\bigotimes_{v\in V_{nr}(T^{\prime})}\Big{(}% \prod_{h\in H_{+}(v)}\psi_{o_{v}(h)}^{q(h)}\Big{)}\Big{|}_{{\overline{\mathcal% {M}}}_{0,|H_{+}(v)|+1}}\bigg{]}( roman_gl start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , | italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | + italic_χ + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⨂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v ∈ italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , | italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) | + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ]
Ri=1nai(¯0,n+b+2).absentsuperscript𝑅superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖subscript¯0𝑛𝑏2\displaystyle\in R^{\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}}({\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,n+b+2}).∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_n + italic_b + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Furthermore, define

(3.13) Ba1,,anTRTnqQ(T,i=1nai)B(T,q)Ri=1nai(¯0,n+b+2).subscript𝐵subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛subscript𝑞𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝐵𝑇𝑞superscript𝑅superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖subscript¯0𝑛𝑏2\displaystyle B_{a_{1},\dots,a_{n}}\coloneqq\sum_{T\in RT_{n}}\sum_{q\in Q(T,% \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})}B_{(T,q)}\in R^{\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}}({\overline{\mathcal{% M}}}_{0,n+b+2}).italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_n + italic_b + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Lemma 3.4.

For bi=1nai1𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1b\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1italic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 we have Ba1,,an=0subscript𝐵subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛0B_{a_{1},\dots,a_{n}}=0italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0.

Proof.

For any b𝑏bitalic_b, a1,,ansubscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛a_{1},\dots,a_{n}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we have Ba1,,an=0subscript𝐵subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛0B_{a_{1},\dots,a_{n}}=0italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 for a1++anb+1subscript𝑎1subscript𝑎𝑛𝑏1a_{1}+\cdots+a_{n}\geq b+1italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_b + 1, see [5, Theorem 3.4 in combination with Theorem 2.3]. ∎

Remark 3.5.

Note also that dim¯0,n+b+2=n+b1dimensionsubscript¯0𝑛𝑏2𝑛𝑏1\dim{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{0,n+b+2}=n+b-1roman_dim over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_n + italic_b + 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_n + italic_b - 1, so the statement of Lemma 3.4 holds for dimensional reasons for i=1nain+bsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑏\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}\geq n+b∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_n + italic_b, that is, for bi=1nain𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖𝑛b\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-nitalic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_n.

An immediate corollary of Lemma 3.4 is

Corollary 3.6.

The statements (2) and (3) of Theorem 3.1 hold for m=1𝑚1m=1italic_m = 1. That is,

(3.14) O{α1,a1;;αn,an}vβ,b=0subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑏0\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}v^{\beta,b}=0italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0

for bi=1nai1𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1b\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1italic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1, n1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n ≥ 1, and

(3.15) Oα,avβ,b=j=0ax\llangleτ0γjτγj+1,0\rrangle0subscript𝑂𝛼𝑎superscript𝑣𝛽𝑏superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗0𝑎subscript𝑥\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑗0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑗10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle O_{\alpha,a}v^{\beta,b}=\prod_{j=0}^{a}\partial_{x}\llangle\tau^% {\gamma_{j}}_{0}\tau_{\gamma_{j+1},0}\rrangle_{0}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

with γ0=βsubscript𝛾0𝛽\gamma_{0}=\betaitalic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β and γa=αsubscript𝛾𝑎𝛼\gamma_{a}=\alphaitalic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_α for b=a𝑏𝑎b=aitalic_b = italic_a.

Proof.

The first statement that O{α1,a1;;αn,an}vβ,b=0subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑏0O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}v^{\beta,b}=0italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 for bi=1nai1𝑏superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1b\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1italic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1, n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2 from Lemma 3.4. Using this lemma and the standard conversion of tautological relations into the PDEs for the descendant potentials, see e. g. [14, Sec. 2.1.3] or [26], we obtain the desired vanishing.

The second statement is merely an exercise on iterative application of the topological recursion relation in genus 00 [29]. ∎

3.3. The iterative structure of operators

Consider O{α1,a1;;αn,an}(f1f2)subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓2O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}(f_{1}f_{2})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), where f1,f2subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓2f_{1},f_{2}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are some functions in jet variables vβ,bsuperscript𝑣𝛽𝑏v^{\beta,b}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Lemma 3.7.

We have

(3.16) O{α1,a1;;αn,an}(f1f2)=I1I2={1,,n}O{αi,ai}iI1(f1)O{αi,ai}iI2(f2)subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓2subscriptsquare-unionsubscript𝐼1subscript𝐼21𝑛subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼1subscript𝑓1subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼2subscript𝑓2\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}(f_{1}f_{2})=\sum% _{\begin{subarray}{c}I_{1}\sqcup I_{2}=\{1,\dots,n\}\end{subarray}}O_{\{\alpha% _{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{1}}}(f_{1})O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{2}}}(f_{2})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
Proof.

This identity follows directly from the structure of the operators. Indeed, for TRTn𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛T\in RT_{n}italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and qQ(T,i=1nai)𝑞𝑄𝑇superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖q\in Q(T,\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i})italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), each factor of the vector fields in the product hH+(vr)Oα(h),q(h)FRACOPsubscriptproductsubscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞FRACOP\mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}\prod_{h\in H_{+}(v_{r})}O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}% \mbox{\tiny${\bullet\atop\bullet}$}FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT FRACOP start_ARG ∙ end_ARG start_ARG ∙ end_ARG in O(T,p)subscript𝑂𝑇𝑝O_{(T,p)}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_p ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT acts on f1f2subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓2f_{1}f_{2}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by the Leibniz rule. This splits H+(vr)subscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟H_{+}(v_{r})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) into two subsets, H+(vr)=H+(vr)1H+(vr)2subscript𝐻subscript𝑣𝑟square-unionsubscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟1subscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟2H_{+}(v_{r})=H_{+}(v_{r})_{1}\sqcup H_{+}(v_{r})_{2}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that vector fields Oα(h),q(h)subscript𝑂𝛼𝑞O_{\alpha(h),q(h)}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α ( italic_h ) , italic_q ( italic_h ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with hH+(vr)isubscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟𝑖h\in H_{+}(v_{r})_{i}italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are applied to fisubscript𝑓𝑖f_{i}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i=1,2𝑖12i=1,2italic_i = 1 , 2.

Let T1subscript𝑇1T_{1}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and T2subscript𝑇2T_{2}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively, be the trees obtained by contracting to the root vertex the full subtree descending to H+(vr)2subscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟2H_{+}(v_{r})_{2}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and H+(vr)1subscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟1H_{+}(v_{r})_{1}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively. Let hH+(vr)iDL(h)={σj}jIisubscriptsquare-unionsubscript𝐻subscriptsubscript𝑣𝑟𝑖𝐷𝐿subscriptsubscript𝜎𝑗𝑗subscript𝐼𝑖\sqcup_{h\in H_{+}(v_{r})_{i}}DL(h)=\{\sigma_{j}\}_{j\in I_{i}}⊔ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D italic_L ( italic_h ) = { italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, i=1,2𝑖12i=1,2italic_i = 1 , 2. Then TiRT|Ii|subscript𝑇𝑖𝑅subscript𝑇subscript𝐼𝑖T_{i}\in RT_{|I_{i}|}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (with the legs labeled by σjsubscript𝜎𝑗\sigma_{j}italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, jIi𝑗subscript𝐼𝑖j\in I_{i}italic_j ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT), and qiq|H+(Ti)Q(Ti,χi)subscript𝑞𝑖evaluated-at𝑞subscript𝐻subscript𝑇𝑖𝑄subscript𝑇𝑖subscript𝜒𝑖q_{i}\coloneqq q|_{H_{+}(T_{i})}\in Q(T_{i},\chi_{i})italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ italic_q | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT + end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), i=1,2𝑖12i=1,2italic_i = 1 , 2, where χi=(jIiaj)1subscript𝜒𝑖subscript𝑗subscript𝐼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑗1\chi_{i}=(\sum_{j\in I_{i}}a_{j})-1italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - 1. This allows to rearrange the sum

(3.17) TRTnqQ(T,χ)O(T,q)(f1f2)subscript𝑇𝑅subscript𝑇𝑛subscript𝑞𝑄𝑇𝜒subscript𝑂𝑇𝑞subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓2\displaystyle\sum_{T\in RT_{n}}\sum_{q\in Q(T,\chi)}O_{(T,q)}(f_{1}f_{2})∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T , italic_χ ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T , italic_q ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

as

(3.18) I1I2={1,,n}(T1RT|I1|q1Q(T1,χ1)O(T1,q1)(f1))(T2RT|I2|q2Q(T2,χ2)O(T2,q2)(f2)),subscriptsquare-unionsubscript𝐼1subscript𝐼21𝑛subscriptsubscript𝑇1𝑅subscript𝑇subscript𝐼1subscriptsubscript𝑞1𝑄subscript𝑇1subscript𝜒1subscript𝑂subscript𝑇1subscript𝑞1subscript𝑓1subscriptsubscript𝑇2𝑅subscript𝑇subscript𝐼2subscriptsubscript𝑞2𝑄subscript𝑇2subscript𝜒2subscript𝑂subscript𝑇2subscript𝑞2subscript𝑓2\displaystyle\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}I_{1}\sqcup I_{2}=\{1,\dots,n\}\end{% subarray}}\bigg{(}\sum_{T_{1}\in RT_{|I_{1}|}}\sum_{q_{1}\in Q(T_{1},\chi_{1})% }O_{(T_{1},q_{1})}(f_{1})\bigg{)}\bigg{(}\sum_{T_{2}\in RT_{|I_{2}|}}\sum_{q_{% 2}\in Q(T_{2},\chi_{2})}O_{(T_{2},q_{2})}(f_{2})\bigg{)},∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_R italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_Q ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ,

which implies the statement of the lemma. ∎

An immediate corollary of this lemma is the following statement:

Corollary 3.8.

For any functions f1,,fmsubscript𝑓1subscript𝑓𝑚f_{1},\dots,f_{m}italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in jet variables vβ,bsuperscript𝑣𝛽𝑏v^{\beta,b}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have:

(3.19) O{α1,a1;;αn,an}(f1fm)=I1Im={1,,n}j=1mO{αi,ai}iIj(fi).subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛subscript𝑓1subscript𝑓𝑚subscriptsquare-unionsubscript𝐼1subscript𝐼𝑚absent1𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗subscript𝑓𝑖\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}(f_{1}\cdots f_{m% })=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}I_{1}\sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_{m}\\ =\{1,\dots,n\}\end{subarray}}\prod_{j=1}^{m}O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{j% }}}(f_{i}).italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋯ italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ ⋯ ⊔ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

And also now we can proof the first statement of Theorem 3.1:

Corollary 3.9.

The operators O{α1,a1;;αn,an}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT commute with the operators of multiplication by vβ,0superscript𝑣𝛽0v^{\beta,0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and vβ,1superscript𝑣𝛽1v^{\beta,1}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Proof.

Indeed, by Lemma 3.4 we have

(3.20) [O{α1,a1;;αn,an},vβ,b]=I1I2={1,,n}I1O{αi,ai}iI1(vβ,b)O{αi,ai}iI2\displaystyle[O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}},v^{\beta,b}\cdot% ]=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}I_{1}\sqcup I_{2}=\{1,\dots,n\}\\ I_{1}\not=\emptyset\end{subarray}}O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{1}}}(v^{% \beta,b})O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{2}}}[ italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ] = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ ∅ end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

Note that iI1ai2nsubscript𝑖subscript𝐼1subscript𝑎𝑖2𝑛\sum_{i\in I_{1}}a_{i}\geq 2n∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 italic_n, hence for b=0,1𝑏01b=0,1italic_b = 0 , 1 we have ba1𝑏𝑎1b\leq a-1italic_b ≤ italic_a - 1 for n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 and biI1ai+1n𝑏subscript𝑖subscript𝐼1subscript𝑎𝑖1𝑛b\leq\sum_{i\in I_{1}}a_{i}+1-nitalic_b ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 - italic_n for n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. Then by Corollary 3.6 O{αi,ai}iI1(vβ,b)subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼1superscript𝑣𝛽𝑏O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{1}}}(v^{\beta,b})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_b end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) vanishes for all I1subscript𝐼1I_{1}\neq\emptysetitalic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ ∅. ∎

Now we can use Corollary 3.8 to prove the statements (2) and (3) of Theorem 3.1 hold for m2𝑚2m\geq 2italic_m ≥ 2. We have:

Corollary 3.10.

Let m2𝑚2m\geq 2italic_m ≥ 2; bi2subscript𝑏𝑖2b_{i}\geq 2italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2, i=1,,m𝑖1𝑚i=1,\dots,mitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_m, and i=1mbii=1nai1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1. Then

(3.21) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=0.subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚0\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=0.italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 .

If i=1mbi=i=1naisuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and mn𝑚𝑛m\geq nitalic_m ≥ italic_n, then

(3.22) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=δnmσSni=1nδaibσ(i)i=1nj=0aix\llangleτ0γi,jτγi,j+1,0\rrangle0,subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚subscript𝛿𝑛𝑚subscript𝜎subscript𝑆𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝜎𝑖superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗0subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑥\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖𝑗0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖𝑗10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=\delta_{nm}\sum_{\sigma\in S_{n}}% \prod_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{a_{i}b_{\sigma(i)}}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\prod_{j=0}^{a_{i}}% \partial_{x}\llangle\tau^{\gamma_{i,j}}_{0}\tau_{\gamma_{i,j+1},0}\rrangle_{0},italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where γi,0=βσ(i)subscript𝛾𝑖0subscript𝛽𝜎𝑖\gamma_{i,0}=\beta_{\sigma(i)}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and γi,ai=αisubscript𝛾𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝛼𝑖\gamma_{i,a_{i}}=\alpha_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Proof.

Using Corollary 3.8 we see that

(3.23) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=I1Im={1,,n}j=1mO{αi,ai}iIj(vβj,bj).subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚subscriptsquare-unionsubscript𝐼1subscript𝐼𝑚absent1𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑚subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}I_{1}% \sqcup\cdots\sqcup I_{m}\\ =\{1,\dots,n\}\end{subarray}}\prod_{j=1}^{m}O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{j% }}}(v^{\beta_{j},b_{j}}).italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊔ ⋯ ⊔ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL = { 1 , … , italic_n } end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Note that by Corollary 3.6 the factor O{αi,ai}iIj(vβj,bj)subscript𝑂subscriptsubscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗O_{\{\alpha_{i},a_{i}\}_{i\in I_{j}}}(v^{\beta_{j},b_{j}})italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) vanishes unless bjiIjaisubscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗subscript𝑎𝑖b_{j}\geq\sum_{i\in I_{j}}a_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. But if this inequality holds for every j=1,,m𝑗1𝑚j=1,\dots,mitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_m, then i=1mbii=1naisuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}\geq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus, under the assumption i=1mbii=1nai1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖1\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}-1∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 each summand on the right hand side of Equation (3.23) has at least one vanishing factor, which implies the first statement of the Corollary.

For the second statement notice that if i=1mbi=i=1naisuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝑏𝑖superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑎𝑖\sum_{i=1}^{m}b_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n}a_{i}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT then bjiIjaisubscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗subscript𝑎𝑖b_{j}\geq\sum_{i\in I_{j}}a_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each j=1,,m𝑗1𝑚j=1,\dots,mitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_m implies bj=iIjaisubscript𝑏𝑗subscript𝑖subscript𝐼𝑗subscript𝑎𝑖b_{j}=\sum_{i\in I_{j}}a_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ∈ italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (otherwise at least one factor in the corresponding summand vanishes) and, therefore, nm𝑛𝑚n\geq mitalic_n ≥ italic_m (since each Ijsubscript𝐼𝑗I_{j}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must be nonempty). Hence nm𝑛𝑚n\geq mitalic_n ≥ italic_m, and since mn𝑚𝑛m\geq nitalic_m ≥ italic_n by assumption, we obtain m=n𝑚𝑛m=nitalic_m = italic_n. Hence, each Ijsubscript𝐼𝑗I_{j}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT consists just of one element that we denote by aσ1(j)subscript𝑎superscript𝜎1𝑗a_{\sigma^{-1}(j)}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some σSm𝜎subscript𝑆𝑚\sigma\in S_{m}italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and the corresponding summand is nonzero only if aσ1(j)=bjsubscript𝑎superscript𝜎1𝑗subscript𝑏𝑗a_{\sigma^{-1}(j)}=b_{j}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_j ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, j=1,,m𝑗1𝑚j=1,\dots,mitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_m. This implies

(3.24) O{α1,a1;,αn,an}(vβ1,b1vβm,bm)=δnmσSni=1nδaibσ(i)i=1nOαi,ai(vβσ(i),ai),subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑎1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑎𝑛superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑏1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑚subscript𝑏𝑚subscript𝛿𝑛𝑚subscript𝜎subscript𝑆𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝛿subscript𝑎𝑖subscript𝑏𝜎𝑖superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛subscript𝑂subscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝜎𝑖subscript𝑎𝑖\displaystyle O_{\{\alpha_{1},a_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},a_{n}\}}\big{(}v^{\beta_{% 1},b_{1}}\cdots v^{\beta_{m},b_{m}}\big{)}=\delta_{nm}\sum_{\sigma\in S_{n}}% \prod_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{a_{i}b_{\sigma(i)}}\prod_{i=1}^{n}O_{\alpha_{i},a_{i}}(% v^{\beta_{\sigma(i)},a_{i}}),italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋯ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_σ ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

and we complete the argument by applying Corollary 3.6 to each factor on the right-hand side of this expression. ∎

3.4. Universal identities

With the properties of the operators given in previous subsections, we are ready to prove Theorem 1.2. In what follows we fix a semisimple Frobenius manifold M𝑀Mitalic_M (and recall all standard notation as in Section 2.2). First let us derive the action of those operators in terms of the canonical coordinates.

Lemma 3.11.

In terms of the canonical coordinates, the genus zero 3-point correlators are given by

\llangleτα,0τβ,0τγ,0\rrangle0=iΨiαΨiβΨiγΨi1ui,1.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖𝛽subscriptΨ𝑖𝛾subscriptΨ𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖1\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\rrangle_{0}=\sum_{i}\frac% {\Psi_{i\alpha}\Psi_{i\beta}\Psi_{i\gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}}u^{i,1}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

This lemma is most simply proved by using the tau-structure of the Principal Hierarchy associated with M𝑀Mitalic_M. Alternatively, it follows from tameness of 0subscript0\mathcal{F}_{0}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that (see [4])

\llangleτα,0τβ,0\rrangle0=2Fvαvβ,\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript2𝐹superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑣𝛽\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}=\frac{\partial^{2}F}{% \partial v^{\alpha}\partial v^{\beta}},italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,

here F𝐹Fitalic_F is the Frobenius potential of M𝑀Mitalic_M given by

F=0|tα,0=vα,tα,1=tα,2==0.𝐹evaluated-atsubscript0formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑡𝛼0superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑡𝛼1superscript𝑡𝛼20F=\mathcal{F}_{0}|_{t^{\alpha,0}=v^{\alpha},t^{\alpha,1}=t^{\alpha,2}=\dots=0}.italic_F = caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⋯ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Note that by definition vα=\llangleτ0ατ1,0\rrangle0superscript𝑣𝛼\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0v^{\alpha}=\llangle\tau^{\alpha}_{0}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, hence

vαtβ,0=\llangleτ0ατβ,0\rrangle0t1,0=γ\llangleτ0ατβ,0\rrangle0vγ,1=cβγαvγ,1.superscript𝑣𝛼superscript𝑡𝛽0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑡10subscript𝛾\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑣𝛾1subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝛾superscript𝑣𝛾1\frac{\partial v^{\alpha}}{\partial t^{\beta,0}}=\frac{\partial\llangle\tau^{% \alpha}_{0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}}{\partial t^{1,0}}=\partial_{\gamma}% \llangle\tau^{\alpha}_{0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}v^{\gamma,1}=c^{\alpha}_{% \beta\gamma}v^{\gamma,1}.divide start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG ∂ italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Therefore, it follows that

\llangleτα,0τβ,0τγ,0\rrangle0=μ\llangleτα,0τβ,0\rrangle0vμtγ,0=cαβμcγδμvδ,1.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscript\rrangle0subscript𝜇\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑣𝜇superscript𝑡𝛾0subscript𝑐𝛼𝛽𝜇subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝜇𝛾𝛿superscript𝑣𝛿1\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\rrangle_{0}=\partial_{\mu% }\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}\frac{\partial v^{\mu}}{% \partial t^{\gamma,0}}=c_{\alpha\beta\mu}c^{\mu}_{\gamma\delta}v^{\delta,1}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α italic_β italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ italic_δ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The lemma then follows from (2.19), (2.20). ∎

We can now prove Theorem 1.2 with the help of the above lemma.

Theorem 3.12 (=Theorem 1.2).

Fix an operator O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with k1++kn=3g3+nsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛k_{1}+\dots+k_{n}=3g-3+nitalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n with g=n=k1=1𝑔𝑛subscript𝑘11g=n=k_{1}=1italic_g = italic_n = italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 or

k1++kn=3g3+n,g2,n1,ki2,formulae-sequencesubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛3𝑔3𝑛formulae-sequence𝑔2formulae-sequence𝑛1subscript𝑘𝑖2k_{1}+\cdots+k_{n}=3g-3+n,\quad g\geq 2,\quad n\geq 1,\quad k_{i}\geq 2,italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n , italic_g ≥ 2 , italic_n ≥ 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 ,

and denote by μ𝜇\muitalic_μ the partition of 3g3+n3𝑔3𝑛3g-3+n3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n given by k1,,knsubscript𝑘1subscript𝑘𝑛k_{1},\dots,k_{n}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then we have the following universal identity for gsubscript𝑔\mathcal{F}_{g}caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1:

(3.25) O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}(g)=|Aut(μ)|Cg;μM[g]γnγ0i=1n\llangleταi,0τγi1,0τγi,0\rrangle0,subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛subscript𝑔Aut𝜇subscript𝐶𝑔𝜇𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔subscript𝛾0subscript𝛾𝑛superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼𝑖0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖10superscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖0subscript\rrangle0O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=|\mathrm{Aut}% (\mu)|C_{g;\mu}M[g]^{\gamma_{0}}_{\gamma_{n}}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\llangle\tau_{% \alpha_{i},0}\tau_{\gamma_{i-1,0}}\tau^{\gamma_{i},0}\rrangle_{0},italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = | roman_Aut ( italic_μ ) | italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

here Cg;μsubscript𝐶𝑔𝜇C_{g;\mu}italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the constant defined in (2.12) and M[g]𝑀delimited-[]𝑔M[g]italic_M [ italic_g ] is defined by

M[g]γα={δγα,for g=1,Mγα,for g=2,Mβ1αMβ2β1Mβg2βg3Mγβg2,for g3,𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔𝛼𝛾casessubscriptsuperscript𝛿𝛼𝛾for 𝑔1subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼𝛾for 𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼subscript𝛽1subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽1subscript𝛽2subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽𝑔3subscript𝛽𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝑀subscript𝛽𝑔2𝛾for 𝑔3M[g]^{\alpha}_{\gamma}=\begin{cases}\delta^{\alpha}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g=1,% \\ M^{\alpha}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g=2,\\ M^{\alpha}_{\beta_{1}}M^{\beta_{1}}_{\beta_{2}}\dots M^{\beta_{g-3}}_{\beta_{g% -2}}M^{\beta_{g-2}}_{\gamma},&\text{for }g\geq 3,\end{cases}italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g = 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g = 2 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_g ≥ 3 , end_CELL end_ROW

where we denote

Mβα=\llangleτ0ατλ,0τμ,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0λτ0μτβ,0\rrangle0.subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝛼𝛽\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛼subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0𝜆superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝜇subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0M^{\alpha}_{\beta}=\llangle\tau_{0}^{\alpha}\tau_{\lambda,0}\tau_{\mu,0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{0}^{\lambda}\tau_{0}^{\mu}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof.

It follows from Lemma 3.11 and Corollary 3.6 that

O{α,k}(ui,k)=ΨiαΨi1(ui,1)k+1.subscript𝑂𝛼𝑘superscript𝑢𝑖𝑘subscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖1superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖1𝑘1O_{\{\alpha,k\}}(u^{i,k})=\frac{\Psi_{i\alpha}}{\Psi_{i1}}(u^{i,1})^{k+1}.italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α , italic_k } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Hence, by combining Theorem 1.1 and the iterative property (3.19) of the operator, we see that

O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}(g)=|Aut(μ)|Cg;μiΨiα1ΨiαnΨi12g2+n(ui,1)2g2+n.subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛subscript𝑔Aut𝜇subscript𝐶𝑔𝜇subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛼1subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛼𝑛superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12𝑔2𝑛superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖12𝑔2𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=|\mathrm{Aut}% (\mu)|C_{g;\mu}\sum_{i}\frac{\Psi_{i\alpha_{1}}\dots\Psi_{i\alpha_{n}}}{\Psi_{% i1}^{2g-2+n}}(u^{i,1})^{2g-2+n}.italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = | roman_Aut ( italic_μ ) | italic_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g ; italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 + italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 + italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

By a straightforward computation using Lemma 3.11, it follows that

i=1n\llangleταi,0τγi1,0τγi,0\rrangle0=iΨiα1ΨiαnΨiγ0ΨiγnΨi1n(ui,1)n,M[g]γα=iΨiαΨiγΨi12g2(ui,1)2g2,formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑛\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼𝑖0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖10superscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑖0subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛼1subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛼𝑛subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛾0subscriptsuperscriptΨsubscript𝛾𝑛𝑖superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖1𝑛superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖1𝑛𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔𝛼𝛾subscript𝑖superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛼subscriptΨ𝑖𝛾superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖12𝑔2\prod_{i=1}^{n}\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{i},0}\tau_{\gamma_{i-1,0}}\tau^{\gamma_{i% },0}\rrangle_{0}=\sum_{i}\frac{\Psi_{i\alpha_{1}}\dots\Psi_{i\alpha_{n}}\Psi_{% i\gamma_{0}}\Psi^{\gamma_{n}}_{i}}{\Psi_{i1}^{n}}(u^{i,1})^{n},\quad M[g]^{% \alpha}_{\gamma}=\sum_{i}\frac{\Psi_{i}^{\alpha}\Psi_{i\gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}^{2g-% 2}}(u^{i,1})^{2g-2},∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

which implies the validity of (3.25). The theorem is proved. ∎

3.5. Towards more general universal identities

As we have introduced in Sect. 1, the simplest example of universal identities derived from Theorem 1.2 is

\llangleτα,1\rrangle1\llangleτα,0τ0β\rrangle0\llangleτβ,0\rrangle1=124\llangleτα,0τ0βτβ,0\rrangle0.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼1subscript\rrangle1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle1124\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llangle\tau_{\alpha,1}\rrangle_{1}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,0}\tau^{\beta}_{0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\llangle\tau_{% \alpha,0}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

However, using Theorem 1.1, it is immediate to derive the general form of the above genus 1111 recursion relation [7]:

(3.26) \llangleτα,p\rrangle1\llangleτα,p1τ0β\rrangle0\llangleτβ,0\rrangle1=124\llangleτα,p1τ0βτβ,0\rrangle0.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝subscript\rrangle1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle1124\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p}\rrangle_{1}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-1}\tau^{\beta}_{0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{1}=\frac{1}{24}\llangle\tau_{% \alpha,p-1}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\beta,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Indeed, let us define the vector field

Aα,p0=tα,p\llangleτα,p1τ0β\rrangle0tβ,0,p1,formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝superscript𝑡𝛼𝑝\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑡𝛽0𝑝1A^{0}_{\alpha,p}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\alpha,p}}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p% -1}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\rrangle_{0}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\beta,0}},\quad p% \geq 1,italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , italic_p ≥ 1 ,

then it follows from genus zero topological recursion relation [29] that

Aα,p0(vβ)=0,Aα,p0(vβ,1)=\llangleτα,p1τμ,0τ1,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0μτ0βτ1,0\rrangle0.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽0subscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscript𝜏𝜇0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛽subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0A^{0}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta})=0,\quad A^{0}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,1})=\llangle\tau% _{\alpha,p-1}\tau_{\mu,0}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau^{\mu}_{0}\tau_{0}^% {\beta}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 , italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

By using the decomposition (1.2) we have

Aα,p0(1)subscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝subscript1\displaystyle A^{0}_{\alpha,p}(\mathcal{F}_{1})italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =iF1ui,1ΨiβΨi1\llangleτα,p1τμ,0τ1,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0μτ0βτ1,0\rrangle0absentsubscript𝑖subscript𝐹1superscript𝑢𝑖1subscriptΨ𝑖𝛽subscriptΨ𝑖1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscript𝜏𝜇0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛽subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle=\sum_{i}\frac{\partial F_{1}}{\partial u^{i,1}}\frac{\Psi_{i% \beta}}{\Psi_{i1}}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-1}\tau_{\mu,0}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}% \llangle\tau^{\mu}_{0}\tau_{0}^{\beta}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=124(i1ui,1ΨiβΨi1)(jεhα,p1ΨjεΨj,μuj,1)(ΨμΨβu,1)absent124subscript𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖1subscriptΨ𝑖𝛽subscriptΨ𝑖1subscript𝑗subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝1superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑗𝜀subscriptΨ𝑗𝜇superscript𝑢𝑗1subscriptsuperscriptsubscriptΨ𝜇subscriptsuperscriptΨ𝛽superscript𝑢1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{24}\left(\sum_{i}\frac{1}{u^{i,1}}\frac{\Psi_{i\beta}}{% \Psi_{i1}}\right)\left(\sum_{j}\partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p-1}\Psi_{j}^{% \varepsilon}\Psi_{j,\mu}u^{j,1}\right)\left(\sum_{\ell}\Psi_{\ell}^{\mu}\Psi^{% \beta}_{\ell}u^{\ell,1}\right)= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j , italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
=124iεhα,p1ΨiεΨi1ui,1absent124subscript𝑖subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝1subscriptΨ𝑖𝜀subscriptΨ𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖1\displaystyle=\frac{1}{24}\sum_{i}\partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p-1}\frac{% \Psi_{i\varepsilon}}{\Psi_{i1}}u^{i,1}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=124\llangleτα,p1τ0βτβ,0\rrangle0,absent124\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{24}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-1}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\beta% ,0}\rrangle_{0},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 24 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

here in the computation we denote by hα,p\llangleτα,pτ1,0\rrangle0subscript𝛼𝑝\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0h_{\alpha,p}\coloneqq\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and we use the fact that

(3.27) \llangleτα,pτβ,0τγ,0\rrangle0=iεhα,pΨiεΨiβΨiγΨi1ui,1.\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝subscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑖subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀subscriptΨ𝑖𝛽subscriptΨ𝑖𝛾subscriptΨ𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖1\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\rrangle_{0}=\sum_{i}% \partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p}\frac{\Psi_{i}^{\varepsilon}\Psi_{i\beta}% \Psi_{i\gamma}}{\Psi_{i1}}u^{i,1}.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_γ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The identity (3.27) can be proved similarly as Lemma 3.11.

This idea can be used to derive more general universal identities. In this section, we construct some operators that can be viewed as certain generalizations of those operators given in Sect. 3.1.

Definition 3.13.

Define vector fields Aα,pmsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝A^{m}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for pm+1𝑝𝑚1p\geq m+1italic_p ≥ italic_m + 1 and m0𝑚0m\geq 0italic_m ≥ 0 by

Aα,pm={Oα,p,forp=m+1,Oα,p+k=0pm2\llangleτ0γτα,k\rrangle0Oγ,pk1,forpm+2,subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝casessubscript𝑂𝛼𝑝for𝑝𝑚1subscript𝑂𝛼𝑝superscriptsubscript𝑘0𝑝𝑚2\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝛼𝑘subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑂𝛾𝑝𝑘1for𝑝𝑚2A^{m}_{\alpha,p}=\begin{cases}O_{\alpha,p},&\text{for}\quad p=m+1,\\ O_{\alpha,p}+\sum_{k=0}^{p-m-2}\llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{\alpha,k}% \rrangle_{0}O_{\gamma,p-k-1},&\text{for}\quad p\geq m+2,\end{cases}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { start_ROW start_CELL italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_p = italic_m + 1 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p - italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_p - italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , end_CELL start_CELL for italic_p ≥ italic_m + 2 , end_CELL end_ROW

here Oα,psubscript𝑂𝛼𝑝O_{\alpha,p}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the Eguchi-Xiong operators defined by (3.5), (3.6).

We have the following observations on these operators.

Lemma 3.14.

The vector fields Aα,pmsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝A^{m}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are in involution.

Proof.

This follows from the fact that [Oα,p,Oβ,q]=0subscript𝑂𝛼𝑝subscript𝑂𝛽𝑞0[O_{\alpha,p},O_{\beta,q}]=0[ italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = 0 for p,q1𝑝𝑞1p,q\geq 1italic_p , italic_q ≥ 1 and Oα,p(vβ)=0subscript𝑂𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽0O_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta})=0italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 for p1𝑝1p\geq 1italic_p ≥ 1. The lemma is proved. ∎

Lemma 3.15.

The vector fields Aα,pmsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝A^{m}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT satisfy the recursion relation

(3.28) Aα,p0subscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝\displaystyle A^{0}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =tα,p\llangleτ0γτα,p1\rrangle0tγ,0,absentsuperscript𝑡𝛼𝑝\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscript\rrangle0superscript𝑡𝛾0\displaystyle=\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\alpha,p}}-\llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}% \tau_{\alpha,p-1}\rrangle_{0}\frac{\partial}{\partial t^{\gamma,0}},= divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ,
(3.29) Aα,pm+1subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚1𝛼𝑝\displaystyle A^{m+1}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =Aα,pm\llangleτ0γτα,pm2\rrangle0Aγ,m+1m,m0.formulae-sequenceabsentsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏𝛼𝑝𝑚2subscript\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛾𝑚1𝑚0\displaystyle=A^{m}_{\alpha,p}-\llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{\alpha,p-m-2}% \rrangle_{0}A^{m}_{\gamma,m+1},\quad m\geq 0.= italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - italic_m - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_m ≥ 0 .
Proof.

The lemma is proved directly from the definition. ∎

The recursive description of Aα,pmsubscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝A^{m}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT allows us to compute their action in terms of the flat coordinates.

Proposition 3.16.

We have

(3.30) Aα,pm(vβ,r)subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟\displaystyle A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,r})italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =j1=0r1j2=0j11jm+1=0jm1(rj1+1)(j1j2+1)(jmjm+1+1)=1m\llangleτ0γτγ+1,0τ1,0jm+1jm+2\rrangle0absentsuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑗10𝑟1superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑗20subscript𝑗11superscriptsubscriptsubscript𝑗𝑚10subscript𝑗𝑚1binomial𝑟subscript𝑗11binomialsubscript𝑗1subscript𝑗21binomialsubscript𝑗𝑚subscript𝑗𝑚11superscriptsubscriptproduct1𝑚\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏subscript𝛾0subscript𝜏subscript𝛾10superscriptsubscript𝜏10subscript𝑗𝑚1subscript𝑗𝑚2subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle=\sum_{j_{1}=0}^{r-1}\sum_{j_{2}=0}^{j_{1}-1}\dots\sum_{j_{m+1}=0% }^{j_{m}-1}\binom{r}{j_{1}+1}\binom{j_{1}}{j_{2}+1}\dots\binom{j_{m}}{j_{m+1}+% 1}\prod_{\ell=1}^{m}\llangle\tau^{\gamma_{\ell}}_{0}\tau_{\gamma_{\ell+1},0}% \tau_{1,0}^{j_{m+1-\ell}-j_{m+2-\ell}}\rrangle_{0}= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG ) … ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG ) ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 - roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 2 - roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
×\llangleτα,pm1τγ1,0τ1,0jm+1+1\rrangle0\llangleτ0γm+1τ0βτ1,0rj1\rrangle0.absent\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝𝑚1subscript𝜏subscript𝛾10superscriptsubscript𝜏10subscript𝑗𝑚11subscript\rrangle0\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛾𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑟subscript𝑗1subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle\times\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-m-1}\tau_{\gamma_{1},0}\tau_{1,0}^{j% _{m+1}+1}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{0}^{\gamma_{m+1}}\tau_{0}^{\beta}\tau_{1,0}% ^{r-j_{1}}\rrangle_{0}.× italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - italic_j start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

In particular, we have Aα,pm(vβ,r)=0subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟0A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,r})=0italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 for rm𝑟𝑚r\leq mitalic_r ≤ italic_m.

Proof.

For Aα,p0subscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝A^{0}_{\alpha,p}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we have

Aα,p0(vβ,r)subscriptsuperscript𝐴0𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟\displaystyle A^{0}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,r})italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) =\llangleτα,pτ0βτ1,0r+1\rrangle0\llangleτα,p2τμ\rrangle0\llangleτμ,0τ0βτ1,0r+1\rrangle0absent\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑟1subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝2superscript𝜏𝜇subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝜇0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑟1subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle=\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{1,0}^{r+1}\rrangle_% {0}-\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-2}\tau^{\mu}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\mu,0}\tau^{% \beta}_{0}\tau_{1,0}^{r+1}\rrangle_{0}= italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
=j=0r1(rj+1)\llangleτα,p1τμ,0τ1,0j+1\rrangle0\llangleτ0μτ0βτ1,0rj\rrangle0,absentsuperscriptsubscript𝑗0𝑟1binomial𝑟𝑗1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝1subscript𝜏𝜇0superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑗1subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0superscriptsubscript𝜏0𝛽superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑟𝑗subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle=\sum_{j=0}^{r-1}\binom{r}{j+1}\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-1}\tau_{\mu% ,0}\tau_{1,0}^{j+1}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau^{\mu}_{0}\tau_{0}^{\beta}\tau_{1,0% }^{r-j}\rrangle_{0},= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG italic_j + 1 end_ARG ) italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

here we use the genus zero topological recursion relation to derive the second line. Hence, (3.30) holds true for m=0𝑚0m=0italic_m = 0. Then it is straightforward to prove the general case by induction on m𝑚mitalic_m using the recursive relation (3.29). The proposition is proved. ∎

Corollary 3.17.

In terms of the canonical coordinates, we have

Aα,pm(vβ,m+1)=iεhα,pm1ΨiεΨiβ(ui,1)m+2.subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑚1subscript𝑖subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝𝑚1superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛽superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖1𝑚2A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,m+1})=\sum_{i}\partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p-m-1}% \Psi_{i}^{\varepsilon}\Psi_{i}^{\beta}(u^{i,1})^{m+2}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

Taking r=m+1𝑟𝑚1r=m+1italic_r = italic_m + 1 in the identity (3.30), we have

Aα,pm(vβ,m+1)=\llangleτα,pm1τγ1,0τ1,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0γm+1τ0βτ1,0\rrangle0k=1m\llangleτ0γkτγk+1,0τ1,0\rrangle0.subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑚1\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝𝑚1subscript𝜏subscript𝛾10subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛾𝑚1subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑘1𝑚\llanglesuperscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛾𝑘subscript𝜏subscript𝛾𝑘10subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,m+1})=\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-m-1}\tau_{\gamma_{1},0}% \tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{0}^{\gamma_{m+1}}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{1,0% }\rrangle_{0}\prod_{k=1}^{m}\llangle\tau_{0}^{\gamma_{k}}\tau_{\gamma_{k+1},0}% \tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Then we prove the corollary by a straightforward computation using (3.27). ∎

Proposition 3.18.

For any p3g2𝑝3𝑔2p\geq 3g-2italic_p ≥ 3 italic_g - 2, we have the following universal identity

(3.31) Aα,p3g3(g)=\llangleτα,p3g2τ0βτμ,0\rrangle0M[g]βμ¯g,1ψ13g2.subscriptsuperscript𝐴3𝑔3𝛼𝑝subscript𝑔\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝3𝑔2subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]𝑔𝜇𝛽subscriptsubscript¯𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝜓13𝑔2A^{3g-3}_{\alpha,p}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p-3g-2}\tau^{\beta}_% {0}\tau_{\mu,0}\rrangle_{0}M[g]^{\mu}_{\beta}\int_{{\overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g% ,1}}\psi_{1}^{3g-2}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ italic_g ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Proof.

Combining Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 3.17, it follows that

Aα,p3g3(g)=iεhα,p3g2ΨiεΨi12g1(ui,1)2g1¯g,1ψ13g2.subscriptsuperscript𝐴3𝑔3𝛼𝑝subscript𝑔subscript𝑖subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝3𝑔2superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖12𝑔1superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖12𝑔1subscriptsubscript¯𝑔1superscriptsubscript𝜓13𝑔2A^{3g-3}_{\alpha,p}(\mathcal{F}_{g})=\sum_{i}\partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p% -3g-2}\frac{\Psi_{i}^{\varepsilon}}{\Psi_{i1}^{2g-1}}(u^{i,1})^{2g-1}\int_{{% \overline{\mathcal{M}}}_{g,1}}\psi_{1}^{3g-2}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Using (3.27) and the expression for M[g]𝑀delimited-[]𝑔M[g]italic_M [ italic_g ], the right-hand side of (3.31) reads

R.H.S.=(iεhα,p3g2ΨiεΨiβΨiμΨi1ui,1)(jΨjμΨjβΨj12g2(uj,1)2g2).R.H.S.subscript𝑖subscript𝜀subscript𝛼𝑝3𝑔2superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝛽subscriptΨ𝑖𝜇subscriptΨ𝑖1superscript𝑢𝑖1subscript𝑗superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑗𝜇subscriptΨ𝑗𝛽superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑗12𝑔2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑗12𝑔2\text{R.H.S.}=\left(\sum_{i}\partial_{\varepsilon}h_{\alpha,p-3g-2}\frac{\Psi_% {i}^{\varepsilon}\Psi_{i}^{\beta}\Psi_{i\mu}}{\Psi_{i1}}u^{i,1}\right)\left(% \sum_{j}\frac{\Psi_{j}^{\mu}\Psi_{j\beta}}{\Psi_{j1}^{2g-2}}(u^{j,1})^{2g-2}% \right).R.H.S. = ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p - 3 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_β end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

The proposition is proved. ∎

It is clear that the identity (3.31) is the general form of (3.25) for n=1𝑛1n=1italic_n = 1 and k1=3g2subscript𝑘13𝑔2k_{1}=3g-2italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 2. However, it is not easy to generalize this for n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2.

Definition 3.19.

Define Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mnsubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be the order n𝑛nitalic_n differential operator

Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mn=Aα1,p1m1\comp\compAαn,pnmn.subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1\comp\compsubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}=A^{m_{1}}_{% \alpha_{1},p_{1}}\comp\dots\comp A^{m_{n}}_{\alpha_{n},p_{n}}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Generally speaking, the action of operator Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mnsubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is hard to describe. We have the following properties.

Proposition 3.20.

We have

Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mn(vβ,r)=0,rm1++mn.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟0𝑟subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}(v^{\beta,r})=0% ,\quad r\leq m_{1}+\dots+m_{n}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 , italic_r ≤ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Proof.

Note that as a differential polynomial, genus zero n𝑛nitalic_n-point functions are of differential degree n2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2 for n2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n ≥ 2. In particular,

\llangleτα,pτβ,qτ1,0j\rrangle0C(v)[vγ,1,,vγ,j],j1.formulae-sequence\llanglesubscript𝜏𝛼𝑝subscript𝜏𝛽𝑞superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑗subscript\rrangle0superscript𝐶𝑣superscript𝑣𝛾1superscript𝑣𝛾𝑗𝑗1\llangle\tau_{\alpha,p}\tau_{\beta,q}\tau_{1,0}^{j}\rrangle_{0}\in C^{\infty}(% v)[v^{\gamma,1},\dots,v^{\gamma,j}],\quad j\geq 1.italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) [ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , italic_j ≥ 1 .

Hence, it follows from (3.30) that

Aα,pm(vβ,r)C(v)[vγ,1,,vγ,rm].subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟superscript𝐶𝑣superscript𝑣𝛾1superscript𝑣𝛾𝑟𝑚A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,r})\in C^{\infty}(v)[v^{\gamma,1},\dots,v^{\gamma,r-% m}].italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) [ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_r - italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

Then it is easy to see that

Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mn(vβ,r)C(v)[vγ,1,,vγ,rm1mn].subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟superscript𝐶𝑣superscript𝑣𝛾1superscript𝑣𝛾𝑟subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}(v^{\beta,r})% \in C^{\infty}(v)[v^{\gamma,1},\dots,v^{\gamma,r-m_{1}-\dots-m_{n}}].italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) [ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ , italic_r - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⋯ - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .

If Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mn(vβ,r)subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}(v^{\beta,r})italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is non-zero, then it is a differential polynomial of degree r+n𝑟𝑛r+nitalic_r + italic_n and hence

rm1mn1.𝑟subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛1r-m_{1}-\dots-m_{n}\geq 1.italic_r - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⋯ - italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1 .

The proposition is proved. ∎

Corollary 3.21.

Fix m1,,msubscript𝑚1subscript𝑚m_{1},\dots,m_{\ell}italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, r1,,rnsubscript𝑟1subscript𝑟𝑛r_{1},\dots,r_{n}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, with mi1subscript𝑚𝑖1m_{i}\geq 1italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1, ri2subscript𝑟𝑖2r_{i}\geq 2italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 and m1++m=3g3subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚3𝑔3m_{1}+\dots+m_{\ell}=3g-3italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 for some g2𝑔2g\geq 2italic_g ≥ 2. Then we have

Aα1,p1;;α,pm1,,mn(vβ1,r1vβn,rn)=0,r1++rn3g4+n.formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼subscript𝑝superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑟1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑛subscript𝑟𝑛0subscript𝑟1subscript𝑟𝑛3𝑔4𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{\ell},p_{\ell}}(v^{\beta% _{1},r_{1}}\dots v^{\beta_{n},r_{n}})=0,\quad r_{1}+\dots+r_{n}\leq 3g-4+n.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0 , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ 3 italic_g - 4 + italic_n .
Proof.

By successively using the Leibniz rule, the action Aα1,p1;;α,pm1,,m(vβ1,r1vβn,rn)subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼subscript𝑝superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑟1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑛subscript𝑟𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{\ell}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{\ell},p_{\ell}}(v^{% \beta_{1},r_{1}}\dots v^{\beta_{n},r_{n}})italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) can be computed by distributing the action of vector fields Aαi,pimisubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚𝑖subscript𝛼𝑖subscript𝑝𝑖A^{m_{i}}_{\alpha_{i},p_{i}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on each vβj,rjsuperscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑗subscript𝑟𝑗v^{\beta_{j},r_{j}}italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. If the action is to give a non-zero result, without loss of generality, we can assume that the following expression is non-zero:

Aα1,p1;;α1,p1m1,,m1(vβ1,r1)Aαs1+1,ps1+1;;αs,psms1+1,,ms(vβs,rs)vβs+1,rs+1vβn,rn,subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚subscript1subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼subscript1subscript𝑝subscript1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽1subscript𝑟1subscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚subscript𝑠11subscript𝑚subscript𝑠subscript𝛼subscript𝑠11subscript𝑝subscript𝑠11subscript𝛼subscript𝑠subscript𝑝subscript𝑠superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑠subscript𝑟𝑠superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑠1subscript𝑟𝑠1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽𝑛subscript𝑟𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{\ell_{1}}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{\ell_{1}},p_{\ell% _{1}}}(v^{\beta_{1},r_{1}})\dots A^{m_{\ell_{s-1}+1},\dots,m_{\ell_{s}}}_{% \alpha_{\ell_{s-1}+1},p_{\ell_{s-1}+1};\dots;\alpha_{\ell_{s}},p_{\ell_{s}}}(v% ^{\beta_{s},r_{s}})v^{\beta_{s+1},r_{s+1}}\dots v^{\beta_{n},r_{n}},italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) … italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT … italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

for some sn𝑠𝑛s\leq nitalic_s ≤ italic_n. Then it follows from Proposition 3.20 that

r1m1++m1+1,,rsms1+1++m+1.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑟1subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚subscript11subscript𝑟𝑠subscript𝑚subscript𝑠11subscript𝑚1r_{1}\geq m_{1}+\dots+m_{\ell_{1}}+1,\quad\dots,\quad r_{s}\geq m_{\ell_{s-1}+% 1}+\dots+m_{\ell}+1.italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , … , italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 .

Therefore, the action is non-zero unless

r1++rnm1++m+s+2(ns)3g3+n.subscript𝑟1subscript𝑟𝑛subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑠2𝑛𝑠3𝑔3𝑛r_{1}+\dots+r_{n}\geq m_{1}+\dots+m_{\ell}+s+2(n-s)\geq 3g-3+n.italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_s + 2 ( italic_n - italic_s ) ≥ 3 italic_g - 3 + italic_n .

The corollary is proved. ∎

The above corollary implies that, with the help of the decomposition (1.2), the action

Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mn(vβ,r)(g),m1++mn=3g3,mi1,g2formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟subscript𝑔subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛3𝑔3formulae-sequencesubscript𝑚𝑖1𝑔2A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}(v^{\beta,r})(% \mathcal{F}_{g}),\quad m_{1}+\dots+m_{n}=3g-3,\quad m_{i}\geq 1,\quad g\geq 2italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 italic_g - 3 , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 1 , italic_g ≥ 2

can be represented in terms of genus zero correlators, and hence produce universal identities that can be viewed as general forms of (3.25). However, it is not straightforward to write down the explicit forms of these identities. Let us illustrate the idea by considering g=n=2𝑔𝑛2g=n=2italic_g = italic_n = 2.

We fix p12subscript𝑝12p_{1}\geq 2italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 2 and p23subscript𝑝23p_{2}\geq 3italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 3. Denote by

Qα,pm;β,r=Aα,pm(vβ,r),subscriptsuperscript𝑄𝑚𝛽𝑟𝛼𝑝subscriptsuperscript𝐴𝑚𝛼𝑝superscript𝑣𝛽𝑟Q^{m;\beta,r}_{\alpha,p}=A^{m}_{\alpha,p}(v^{\beta,r}),italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m ; italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α , italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β , italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

then it follows from Corollary 3.21 that

Aα2,p2;α1,p12,1(2)=Qα2,p22;β2,3Qα1,p11;β1,22F2vβ1,2vβ2,3+Qα2,p22;β2,3Qα1,p11;β1,4vβ2,3F2vβ1,4subscriptsuperscript𝐴21subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript2subscriptsuperscript𝑄2subscript𝛽23subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽12subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscript2subscript𝐹2superscript𝑣subscript𝛽12superscript𝑣subscript𝛽23subscriptsuperscript𝑄2subscript𝛽23subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽14subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽23subscript𝐹2superscript𝑣subscript𝛽14A^{2,1}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2};\alpha_{1},p_{1}}(\mathcal{F}_{2})=Q^{2;\beta_{2},3}% _{\alpha_{2},p_{2}}Q^{1;\beta_{1},2}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}\frac{\partial^{2}F_{2}% }{\partial v^{\beta_{1},2}v^{\beta_{2},3}}+Q^{2;\beta_{2},3}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}% }\frac{\partial Q^{1;\beta_{1},4}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}}{\partial v^{\beta_{2},3}% }\frac{\partial F_{2}}{\partial v^{\beta_{1},4}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG + italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG

By using Corollary 3.17, we see that

(3.32) Qα1,p11;β1,2=iαhα1,p12ΨiεΨiβ1(ui,1)3,Qα2,p22;β2,3=iαhα2,p23ΨiεΨiβ2(ui,1)4,formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽12subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝑖subscript𝛼subscriptsubscript𝛼1subscript𝑝12superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛽1superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13subscriptsuperscript𝑄2subscript𝛽23subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscript𝑖subscript𝛼subscriptsubscript𝛼2subscript𝑝23superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖𝜀superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛽2superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖14Q^{1;\beta_{1},2}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}=\sum_{i}\partial_{\alpha}h_{\alpha_{1},p_% {1}-2}\Psi_{i}^{\varepsilon}\Psi_{i}^{\beta_{1}}(u^{i,1})^{3},\quad Q^{2;\beta% _{2},3}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}}=\sum_{i}\partial_{\alpha}h_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}-3}\Psi% _{i}^{\varepsilon}\Psi_{i}^{\beta_{2}}(u^{i,1})^{4},italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

and by using (1.2) and the expression for F2KdVsuperscriptsubscript𝐹2𝐾𝑑𝑉F_{2}^{KdV}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_K italic_d italic_V end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we see that

2F2vβ1,2vβ2,3=71920iΨiβ1Ψiβ2Ψi151(ui,1)3.superscript2subscript𝐹2superscript𝑣subscript𝛽12superscript𝑣subscript𝛽2371920subscript𝑖subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛽1subscriptΨ𝑖subscript𝛽2superscriptsubscriptΨ𝑖151superscriptsuperscript𝑢𝑖13\frac{\partial^{2}F_{2}}{\partial v^{\beta_{1},2}v^{\beta_{2},3}}=-\frac{7}{19% 20}\sum_{i}\frac{\Psi_{i\beta_{1}}\Psi_{i\beta_{2}}}{\Psi_{i1}^{5}}\frac{1}{(u% ^{i,1})^{3}}.divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG 1920 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG roman_Ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

It is a straightforward computation to obtain that

Qα2,p22;β2,3Qα1,p11;β1,22F2vβ1,2vβ2,3=71920\llangleτα1τβ,0τ0μ\rrangle0\llangleτα2,p23τ0βτλ,0\rrangle0M[2]μλsubscriptsuperscript𝑄2subscript𝛽23subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽12subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscript2subscript𝐹2superscript𝑣subscript𝛽12superscript𝑣subscript𝛽2371920\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝜏𝛽0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝23subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]2𝜆𝜇Q^{2;\beta_{2},3}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}}Q^{1;\beta_{1},2}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}\frac{% \partial^{2}F_{2}}{\partial v^{\beta_{1},2}v^{\beta_{2},3}}=-\frac{7}{1920}% \llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1}}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau^{\mu}_{0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_% {\alpha_{2},p_{2}-3}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\lambda,0}\rrangle_{0}M[2]^{\lambda}% _{\mu}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = - divide start_ARG 7 end_ARG start_ARG 1920 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ 2 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

As for the second term, it follows from the identity (3.30) that

Qα1,p11;β1,4=j=03=0j1(rj+1)(j+1)\llangleτα1,p12τ0ετ1,0+1\rrangle0\llangleτε,0τγ,0τ1,0j\rrangle0\llangleτ0γτ0β1τ1,04j\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽14subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscriptsubscript𝑗03superscriptsubscript0𝑗1binomial𝑟𝑗1binomial𝑗1\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝12subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜀0superscriptsubscript𝜏101subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏𝛾0superscriptsubscript𝜏10𝑗subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0superscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛽1superscriptsubscript𝜏104𝑗subscript\rrangle0Q^{1;\beta_{1},4}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}=\sum_{j=0}^{3}\sum_{\ell=0}^{j-1}\binom{r% }{j+1}\binom{j}{\ell+1}\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}-2}\tau^{\varepsilon}_{0}% \tau_{1,0}^{\ell+1}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\varepsilon,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\tau% _{1,0}^{j-\ell}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{0}^{\beta_{1}}\tau_{% 1,0}^{4-j}\rrangle_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ℓ = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG italic_j + 1 end_ARG ) ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_j end_ARG start_ARG roman_ℓ + 1 end_ARG ) italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_ℓ + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j - roman_ℓ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 - italic_j end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

Hence we see that

Qα1,p11;β1,4vβ2,3=subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽14subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽23absent\displaystyle\frac{\partial Q^{1;\beta_{1},4}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}}}{\partial v^{% \beta_{2},3}}=divide start_ARG ∂ italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG =  6\llangleτα1,p12τ0ετ1,0\rrangle0\llangleτε,0τγ,0τ1,0\rrangle0cβ2γβ1+3\llangleτα1,p12τ0ετ1,0\rrangle0cεγβ2\llangleτ0γτ0β1τ1,0\rrangle06\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝12subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0subscriptsuperscript𝑐𝛾subscript𝛽1subscript𝛽23\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝12subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0subscript𝑐𝜀𝛾subscript𝛽2\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0superscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛽1subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle\,6\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}-2}\tau^{\varepsilon}_{0}\tau_{1% ,0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\varepsilon,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{% 0}c^{\gamma\beta_{1}}_{\beta_{2}}+3\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1},p_{1}-2}\tau^{% \varepsilon}_{0}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}c_{\varepsilon\gamma\beta_{2}}\llangle% \tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{0}^{\beta_{1}}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0}6 italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 3 italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε italic_γ italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
+β2\llangleτ0ετα1,p12\rrangle0\llangleτε,0τγ,0τ1,0\rrangle0\llangleτ0γτ0β1τ1,0\rrangle0,subscriptsubscript𝛽2\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝12subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏𝜀0subscript𝜏𝛾0subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛾0superscriptsubscript𝜏0subscript𝛽1subscript𝜏10subscript\rrangle0\displaystyle+\partial_{\beta_{2}}\llangle\tau^{\varepsilon}_{0}\tau_{\alpha_{% 1},p_{1}-2}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\varepsilon,0}\tau_{\gamma,0}\tau_{1,0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau^{\gamma}_{0}\tau_{0}^{\beta_{1}}\tau_{1,0}\rrangle_{0},+ ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ε end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_γ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_γ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and we have

Qα2,p22;β2,3Qα1,p11;β1,4vβ2,3F2vβ1,4=5576\llangleτα1τβ,0τ0μ\rrangle0\llangleτα2,p23τ0βτλ,0\rrangle0M[2]μλ.subscriptsuperscript𝑄2subscript𝛽23subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscriptsuperscript𝑄1subscript𝛽14subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1superscript𝑣subscript𝛽23subscript𝐹2superscript𝑣subscript𝛽145576\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝜏𝛽0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝23subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]2𝜆𝜇Q^{2;\beta_{2},3}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}}\frac{\partial Q^{1;\beta_{1},4}_{\alpha_{% 1},p_{1}}}{\partial v^{\beta_{2},3}}\frac{\partial F_{2}}{\partial v^{\beta_{1% },4}}=\frac{5}{576}\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1}}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau^{\mu}_{0}% \rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_{\alpha_{2},p_{2}-3}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\lambda,0}% \rrangle_{0}M[2]^{\lambda}_{\mu}.italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 ; italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG divide start_ARG ∂ italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_v start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG 5 end_ARG start_ARG 576 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ 2 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

To summarize, we have the following universal identity for g=2𝑔2g=2italic_g = 2:

Aα2,p2;α1,p12,1(2)=295760\llangleτα1τβ,0τ0μ\rrangle0\llangleτα2,p23τ0βτλ,0\rrangle0M[2]μλ.subscriptsuperscript𝐴21subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝2subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript2295760\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼1subscript𝜏𝛽0subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝜇0subscript\rrangle0\llanglesubscript𝜏subscript𝛼2subscript𝑝23subscriptsuperscript𝜏𝛽0subscript𝜏𝜆0subscript\rrangle0𝑀subscriptsuperscriptdelimited-[]2𝜆𝜇A^{2,1}_{\alpha_{2},p_{2};\alpha_{1},p_{1}}(\mathcal{F}_{2})=\frac{29}{5760}% \llangle\tau_{\alpha_{1}}\tau_{\beta,0}\tau^{\mu}_{0}\rrangle_{0}\llangle\tau_% {\alpha_{2},p_{2}-3}\tau^{\beta}_{0}\tau_{\lambda,0}\rrangle_{0}M[2]^{\lambda}% _{\mu}.italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 29 end_ARG start_ARG 5760 end_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_β end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M [ 2 ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_μ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

4. Conclusion

In this paper, we study the universal identities for tau-functions (or, more precisely, the free energy functions) of the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchies. The result is that we can derive a family of universal identities for each genus g1𝑔1g\geq 1italic_g ≥ 1, and these identities don’t seem to follow directly from the known relations among the tautological classes on the moduli spaces of curves.

Moreover, the identities are derived in a particular way that does clarify the structure of the free energy functions in the Dubrovin-Zhang formalism. It is worth to remark that the decomposition (1.2) should be viewed as decomposing the free energy function Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into leading terms and lower order terms. It is interesting to ask how to identify in a similar explicit way the next order term in the decomposition (1.2) and derive corresponding universal identities.

In this paper, we combine the Givental’s quantization formalism and Dubrovin-Zhang’s loop equation to derive (1.2). The key observation is that, viewed as polynomials in 1λu1,,1λuN1𝜆superscript𝑢11𝜆superscript𝑢𝑁\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{1}},\dots,\frac{1}{\lambda-u^{N}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_λ - italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG, the leading terms of both sides of the loop equation can be explicitly written. However, it is difficult to consider even the next order terms. Therefore, one may ask if the property of Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be studied with other approaches. The polynomiality theorem [25] may be a good candidate to study Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Indeed, the relation between the polynomiality theorem and some tautological relations on the moduli space is studied in [22]. The polynomiality should give some constraints on the form of Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and by combining with the loop equation, one may find more structures for Fgsubscript𝐹𝑔F_{g}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

It is also interesting to note that the results of this paper can be applied in a wider context than the free energy functions in the Dubrovin-Zhang formalism. To this end, one can consider the partition functions of not necessarily homogeneous semisimple cohomological field theories. Their relation to the Dubrovin-Zhang tau-functions can be described by the following system of observations:

  • A homogeneous semisimple CohFT determines a formal Frobenius manifold semisimple at the origin, and for a particular choice of calibration the Dubrovin-Zhang tau function coincides with the corresponding CohFT partition function.

  • Vice versa, the formal expansion of a semisimple Frobenius manifold near each its semisimple point determines a homogeneous CohFT in all genera; moreover, by Teleman’s result [28] the homogeneous CohFT in this case is uniquely determined by its genus 0 part. In this case the partition function of thus constructed CohFT is obtained from the Dubrovin-Zhang tau function by a lower triangular element of the Givental group.

  • If we drop the assumption of homogeneity for a CohFT, many of the used techniques still work. For instance, their partition functions are still tame and in the same orbit of the Givental group, and they are tau-functions of some Hamiltonian hierarchies  [4, 3]. But, in general, we don’t have the second Hamiltonian structure and lose the loop equation.

We note that Proposition 2.4 can also be proved for the partition functions of not necessarily homogeneous semisimple cohomological field theories through the analysis of the Givental formula in terms of graphs, as in [12]. In particular, in combination with Proposition 2.1 this means that the KdV free energy functions serve as universal leading terms for the partition functions of any semisimple cohomological field theory. However, we don’t expect that we can omit analysis through the loop equation for the next order terms.

Finally, in deriving the universal identities, the operators O{α1,k1;,αn,kn}subscript𝑂subscript𝛼1subscript𝑘1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑘𝑛O_{\{\alpha_{1},k_{1};\dots,\alpha_{n},k_{n}\}}italic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … , italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } end_POSTSUBSCRIPT play an important role. They are not very straightforward to define (and remarkably their structure is related to the tautological relations responsible for the DR/DZ equivalence conjecture and polynomiality of the conservation laws of DZ hierarchies of more general F-CohFTs, see [5]), but they possess nice properties and their actions can be explicitly written. However, as shown in Sect. 3.5, those operators are not enough to derive more general universal identities. We propose some operators Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mnsubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT that are more general, and to some extent they do serve the purpose, but it is not yet a fully satisfactory set of operators, since their action is hard to determine explicitly. The operators Aα1,p1;;αn,pnm1,,mnsubscriptsuperscript𝐴subscript𝑚1subscript𝑚𝑛subscript𝛼1subscript𝑝1subscript𝛼𝑛subscript𝑝𝑛A^{m_{1},\dots,m_{n}}_{\alpha_{1},p_{1};\dots;\alpha_{n},p_{n}}italic_A start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; … ; italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be interpreted as the leading terms of the operators coming from more general tautological relations on the genus zero moduli space studied in [5], and we hope that this link might help to derive more general universal identities.

References

  • [1] Bessis, D., Itzykson, C., and Zuber, J.-B. Quantum field theory techniques in graphical enumeration. Adv. Appl. Math. 1, 2 (1980), 109–157.
  • [2] Buryak, A., Hernández Iglesias, F., and Shadrin, S. A conjectural formula for DRg(a,a)λgsubscriptDR𝑔𝑎𝑎subscript𝜆𝑔{\rm DR}_{g}(a,-a)\lambda_{g}roman_DR start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a , - italic_a ) italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_g end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Épij. Géom. Algébr. 6 (2022), Art. 8, 17.
  • [3] Buryak, A., Posthuma, H., and Shadrin, S. On deformations of quasi-Miura transformations and the Dubrovin-Zhang bracket. J. Geom. Phys. 62, 7 (2012), 1639–1651.
  • [4] Buryak, A., Posthuma, H., and Shadrin, S. A polynomial bracket for the Dubrovin-Zhang hierarchies. J. Differential Geom. 92, 1 (2012), 153–185.
  • [5] Buryak, A., and Shadrin, S. Tautological relations and integrable systems. arXiv:2210.07552, to appear in Épij. Géom. Algébr. (2024).
  • [6] Carlet, G., Dubrovin, B., and Zhang, Y. The extended Toda hierarchy. Mosc. Math. J. 4, 2 (2004), 313–332.
  • [7] Dijkgraaf, R., and Witten, E. Mean field theory, topological field theory, and multi-matrix models. Nuclear Phys. B 342, 3 (1990), 486–522.
  • [8] Dubrovin, B. Geometry of 2D topological field theories. In Integrable systems and quantum groups. Springer, 1996, pp. 120–348.
  • [9] Dubrovin, B. Painlevé transcendents in two-dimensional topological field theory. In The Painlevé property. Springer, 1999, pp. 287–412.
  • [10] Dubrovin, B., and Zhang, Y. Bihamiltonian hierarchies in 2d topological field theory at one-loop approximation. Commun. Math. Phys. 198, 2 (1998), 311–361.
  • [11] Dubrovin, B., and Zhang, Y. Normal forms of hierarchies of integrable PDEs, Frobenius manifolds and Gromov-Witten invariants. arXiv:math/0108160 (2001).
  • [12] Dunin-Barkowski, P., Shadrin, S., and Spitz, L. Givental graphs and inversion symmetry. Lett. Math. Phys. 103, 5 (2013), 533–557.
  • [13] Eguchi, T., and Xiong, C.-S. Quantum cohomology at higher genus: Topological recursion relations and Virasoro conditions. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 1 (1998), 219–229.
  • [14] Faber, C., Shadrin, S., and Zvonkine, D. Tautological relations and the r𝑟ritalic_r-spin Witten conjecture. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér 43, 4 (2010), 621–658.
  • [15] Getzler, E. Intersection theory on ¯1,4subscript¯14\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{1,4}over¯ start_ARG caligraphic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and elliptic Gromov-Witten invariants. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10, 4 (1997), 973–998.
  • [16] Getzler, E. The Toda conjecture. In Symplectic Geometry And Mirror Symmetry. World Scientific, 2001, pp. 51–79.
  • [17] Getzler, E. The jet-space of a Frobenius manifold and higher-genus Gromov-Witten invariants. In Frobenius Manifolds: Quantum Cohomology and Singularities. Springer, 2004, pp. 45–89.
  • [18] Givental, A. B. Gromov–Witten invariants and quantization of quadratic Hamiltonians. Mosc. Math. J. 1, 4 (2001), 551–568.
  • [19] Givental, A. B. Semisimple frobenius structures at higher genus. IMRN 2001, 23 (2001), 1265–1286.
  • [20] Givental, A. B. Symplectic geometry of Frobenius structures. In Frobenius Manifolds: Quantum Cohomology and Singularities. Springer, 2004, pp. 91–112.
  • [21] Givental, A. B., and Milanov, T. E. Simple singularities and integrable hierarchies. In The breadth of symplectic and Poisson geometry. Springer, 2005, pp. 173–201.
  • [22] Hernández Iglesias, F., and Shadrin, S. Bi-Hamiltonian recursion, Liu–Pandharipande relations, and vanishing terms of the second Dubrovin–Zhang bracket. Commun. Math. Phys. 392, 1 (2022), 55–87.
  • [23] Kontsevich, M. Intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the matrix Airy function. Commun. Math. Phys. 147, 1 (1992), 1–23.
  • [24] Lee, Y.-P. Invariance of tautological equations II: Gromov-Witten theory. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22, 2 (2009), 331–352.
  • [25] Liu, S.-Q., Wang, Z., and Zhang, Y. Linearization of Virasoro symmetries associated with semisimple Frobenius manifolds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01846 (2021).
  • [26] Liu, X. Quantum product on the big phase space and the Virasoro conjecture. Adv. Math. 169 (2002), 313–375.
  • [27] ’t Hooft, G. A planar diagram theory for strong interactions. Nucl. Phys. B 72 (1973), 461–473.
  • [28] Teleman, C. The structure of 2D semi-simple field theories. Invent. Math. 188, 3 (2012), 525–588.
  • [29] Witten, E. Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space. Surv. Differ. Geom. 1, 1 (1990), 243–310.