text:
# Vortex Structure in Underdoped Cuprates

## I Introduction

It is now widely appreciated that high $`T_c`$ superconductors are fundamentally different from conventional superconductors in that they emerge by introducing doped holes into a Mott insulator. This contrast is most apparent in the underdoped region where the density $`x`$ of doped holes is small. Experimentally, this is also the regime where the physical properties are most anomalous. Much attention has been focused on the normal state, which is characterized by a pseudogap regime below a relatively high temperature $`T^{}300K`$. The pseudogap appears in spin excitations and in tunneling and ARPES experiments. The superconducting state is anomalous as well, in that the superfluid density is proportional to the hole density $`x`$ and not the electron density (Fermi surface area) $`1x`$ as in conventional superconductors. Recently, it has become possible to perform STM tunneling in the superconducting state and probe the electronic structure of the vortex core. This raises the following interesting question. Common sense would indicate that the vortex core should be made up of the normal state and one would expect the pseudogap, i.e. a dip in the tunneling density of states, to persist in the core region. This is in fact what is seen experimentally. Yet a conventional description of a vortex core requires that the order parameter vanishes inside the core, which is usually accompanied by the vanishing of the energy gap. Thus it is clear that the electronic structure of the vortex core in the underdoped region is qualitatively different from that given by conventional theory. This point was made eloquently in a recent paper by Franz and Tes̆anović (FT).

It is clear that any attempt to model the underdoped vortex core must include the physics of the proximity to the Mott insulator, i.e. the strong correlation physics. One of the few analytic tools available for this purpose is the slave boson method used to treat the constraint of no double occupation in a strong correlation model such as the $`t`$-$`J`$ model. FT employed the U(1) formulation of this theory, where the electron operator $`c_{i\sigma }`$ is written as $`c_{i\sigma }=f_{i\sigma }b_i^{}`$ and the no double occupation constraint is replaced by $`f_{i\sigma }^{}f_{i\sigma }+b_i^{}b_i=1`$, which is in turn accomplished by the introduction of a U(1) gauge field $`𝒂`$. In mean field theory the pseudogap gap state is described by a pairing of the fermions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f(\widehat{\eta })=f_{,i}f_{,i+\widehat{\eta }}`$, where $`\widehat{\eta }`$ is a nearest-neighbor vector and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\widehat{\eta })`$ has $`d`$ symmetry. The superconducting state is described by bose condensation of the bosons $`b0`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ is not gauge invariant and the onset of the pseudogap is merely a cross-over, but the appearance of $`b=b_00`$ triggers the appearance of the superconducting pairing amplitude $`c_ic_{i+\widehat{\eta }}=b_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ which is gauge invariant and physical. Within this theory, FT propose a description of the vortex state where the bosonic amplitude $`b`$ vanishes inside the core but the fermion pairing amplitude $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_f|`$ remains finite. Since the electronic spectrum is given by the fermion dispersion, the core will retain the energy gap, just as in the pseudogap state.

Upon closer examination, FT pointed out that this solution requires that the gauge field has negligible restoring force, i.e. a “Maxwell” term of the form $`\sigma (\times 𝒂)^2`$ must have very small coefficient $`\sigma `$. This requirement is in fact related to a problem discussed by Sachdev and by Nagaosa and Lee some time ago. Due to the existence of two fields $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ and $`b`$, it is possible to construct several kinds of vortices. The field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ is minimally coupled to $`𝒂`$ in the form $`\left|\left(\frac{}{i}+2𝒂\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_f\right|^2`$, whereas the field $`b`$ is coupled to a combination of $`𝒂`$ and the electromagnetic field $`𝑨`$ in the form $`\left|\left(\frac{}{i}+𝒂\frac{e}{c}𝑨\right)b\right|^2`$.

The different kinds of vortices are as follows:

* A vortex carrying the conventional $`hc/2e`$ flux quantum. A gauge vortex carrying half a flux quantum $`\frac{1}{2}h`$ is generated so that $`b`$ has no singularity. The phase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ winds by $`2\pi `$ and its amplitude vanishes in the core. This is just like the conventional vortex in that the energy gap vanishes inside the core. This describes the optimal or overdoped region.
* An $`hc/e`$ vortex. This involves no winding of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ and no gauge flux. The advantage is that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_f|`$ is finite in the core and the pseudogap is preserved. This state is energetically favorable because the cost of the boson vortex is small for small $`x`$. The price one pays is that because the boson carries charge $`e`$, this vortex carries a double superconducting flux quantum $`\frac{hc}{e}`$. This has so far not been observed.
* The FT vortex. A third possibility proposed by FT is that a flux tube for the gauge field $`𝒂`$ carrying $`\frac{1}{2}h`$ gauge flux is attached to the core. Now the $`𝑨`$ flux can be a conventional flux quantum $`\frac{hc}{2e}`$ and the phase of $`b`$ winds by $`2\pi `$, with $`b=0`$ in the core. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ sees only a flux tube and remains non-zero in the core. It is this latter requirement which forces the $`𝒂`$ flux to be a flux tube, i.e. confined to a lattice plaquette.

Actually this possibility was considered by Nagaosa and Lee and dismissed because the energy cost of a flux tube is large in the presence of a Maxwell term. The point is that the theory for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ and $`b`$ must be considered as a low energy effective action, and terms allowed by symmetry such as the Maxwell term will be generated by eliminating the high energy degrees of freedom. We expect the energy of the flux tube will be of the order of the cut-off scale, i.e. the fermion band width $`J`$. This will make this kind of vortex very costly in energy compared with the $`hc/e`$ vortex in the limit of small $`x`$.

FT appealed to the papers by Nayak and D.H. Lee to justify setting $`\sigma =0`$. Even assuming for the sake of argument that $`\sigma `$ vanishes and the $`𝒂`$ flux tube costs no energy, the FT vortex still had a core energy at least of order $`J`$. Although the pairing field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ cannot see the $`h/2`$ flux tube of $`𝒂`$, the fermions see the flux tube. The mismatch of phase $`\pi `$ at the lattice scale in the fermion wave function will cost an energy of order $`J`$. (Actually, this is why the $`h/2`$ flux tube costs an energy of order $`J`$ as discussed above.) In order to reduce this energy cost, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ likes to vanish in a region of size of coherent length $`\xi _Fv_f/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the spin gap. Such a vortex has a core very similar to the standard BCS vortex (the case (i) mentioned above). The fermion contribution to the core energy is reduced to a value of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

We should add that recently Senthil and Fisher proposed a model of the vortex based on their Z(2) gauge theory which carries $`\frac{hc}{2e}`$ flux quantum and contains a pseudogap in the core. This is accomplished by attaching a Z(2) vortex to the core. Senthil and Fisher recently showed how the Z(2) gauge theory can be placed in the context of the U(1) theory and it becomes clear that their model of the vortex is intimately related to that of FT. Senthil and Fisher combine the phase of the boson and half that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ to form the phase of the “chargon” which bose condenses. The Z(2) vortex is then the residue of the half flux tube of FT. The Z(2) vortex is also localized to a lattice plaquette and has an energy gap which Senthil and Fisher identify with the pseudogap scale. This also renders this vortex costly in comparison with the $`hc/e`$ vortex (where the chargon winds by $`4\pi `$) in the limit of small $`x`$. Thus we conclude that models based on U(1) mean-field theory still have difficulties coming up with a stable $`hc/2e`$ vortex with a pseudogap core in the limit of small doping.

Several years ago, we introduced an alternate formulation of the constraint in the $`t`$-$`J`$ model called the SU(2) theory. This model is designed to connect smoothly to the Mott insulator at half-filling, in that the SU(2) symmetry known to be present at half-filling is preserved for finite doping. The SU(2) mean-field theory should have a better chance of describing the small doping limit. In this paper we show that this theory leads naturally to a stable $`hc/2e`$ vortex in the underdoped limit. The spin gap is finite both inside and outside the vortex core. Possible experimental consequences are explored at the end of the paper.

## II Review of the SU(2) Formulation

First we summarize some of the salient features of the SU(2) formulation. This is well understood in the undoped case, where SU(2) doublets $`\psi _j=(f_j,f_j^{})`$ and $`\psi _j=(f_j,f_j^{})`$ were introduced on each site $`j`$ to represent the destruction of spin up and spin down in the subspace of one fermion per site. Wen and Lee extended the SU(2) formulation away from half filling by introducing a doublet of bosons $`h_j=(b_{1j},b_{2j})`$. The physical electron is represented as an SU(2) singlet formed out of the fermion and boson doublets: $`c_{\sigma j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}h_j^{}\psi _{\sigma j}`$. The constraint of no double occupation is enforced by projecting onto the SU(2)-singlet subspace of the extended $`h_i,\psi _{\sigma i}`$ Hilbert space. On each site there are three such singlets, corresponding to $`|\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{up}=f_{}^{}|0`$, $`|\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{down}=f_{}^{}|0`$ and

$$|\mathrm{hole}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(b_1^{}+b_2^{}f_{}^{}f_{}^{}\right)|0.$$
(1)
The role of the two bosons can be visualized as follows. In contrast to the U(1) formulation, the fermions may remain at half-filling upon doping. Then a typical fermion configuration will contain spin-up or spin-down singly occupied sites, as well as empty and doubly occupied sites. The latter sites are both spin singlets and have the correct spin quantum number for a vacancy. The $`b_1`$ boson is used to mark the empty site and the $`b_2`$ boson the doubly occupied site, and both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ carry unit charge. This picture is a bit over simplified, in that it is a linear superposition given by Eq. (1) which correctly specifies a physical hole.

In order to perform the projection to SU(2) singlet, three sets of gauge fields $`a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}`$, associated with the three Pauli matrices $`\tau ^{\mathrm{}}`$,$`\mathrm{}=1,2,3`$, are needed. These are the generalization of the time component of the gauge field $`a_{0j}`$ in the U(1) formulation. The exchange and hopping terms are decoupled to give the mean-field Hamiltonian,

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}`$ $`(J\psi _{\alpha j}^{}U_{jk}\psi _{\alpha k}+th_j^{}U_{jk}h_k+c.c.)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\psi _{\alpha j}^{}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}\psi _{\alpha j}+h_j^{}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}h_j\right)`$
$`\mu {\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}h_j^{}h_j+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<jk>}{}}Tr(U_{jk}^{}U_{jk})`$
The matrix $`U_{jk}`$ is given by

$$U_{jk}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _{jk}^{}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}^f^{}\end{array}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}^f\\ \chi _{jk}\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
where

$`\chi _{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha j}^{}f_{\alpha k}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}^f`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha j}f_{\beta k}`$ (7)
The hole density is $`b_1^{}b_1+b_2^{}b_2=x`$ and is enforced by the chemical potential $`\mu `$. The Lagrangian associated with Eq. (2) is invariant under the local SU(2) gauge transformation

$`\psi _{\alpha j}g_j^{}\psi _{\alpha j},h_j`$ $``$ $`g_j^{}h_j,U_{jk}g_j^{}U_{jk}g_k,`$ (8)
$`a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`g_j^{}a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}\tau ^{\mathrm{}}g_jg_j_\tau g_j^{\mathrm{}}`$ (9)
where $`g_j=\mathrm{exp}(i𝑨_j𝝉)`$ is a space and $`\tau `$ dependent $`2\times 2`$ matrix that represents an SU(2) group element.

In Ref.  the SU(2) mean-field theory was worked out by making the approximation that $`a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is independent of space and $`\tau `$. Of special interest is the pseudogap phase which occupies the low doping part of the phase diagram. (Note that the pseudogap phase is called staggered flux or $`s`$-flux phase in the $`SU(2)`$ theory of Refs.  and . Despite its name, the $`s`$-flux phase in the $`SU(2)`$ theory is translation invariant and has no staggered physical magnetic field. In this paper, we will reserve the name “staggered flux phase” for the staggered flux phase in the $`U(1)`$ theory, which does have staggered physical magnetic field. We use “spin-gap phase” to refer to what we previously called the staggered flux phase in the $`SU(2)`$ theory.) In the spin-gap phase $`a_{0j}^{\mathrm{}}=0`$ with finite nearest-neighbor $`\chi _{jk}=\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{jk}^f=\pm \mathrm{\Delta }^f`$ for $`\widehat{x}`$ or $`\widehat{y}`$ bonds. This resembles the fermion pairing phase in the $`U(1)`$ theory. However, due to the gauge symmetry given by Eq. (5), the same mean-field state can be constructed with the choice

$`U_{j,j+\widehat{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi (1)^{j_x+j_y}\mathrm{\Delta }_f\tau _3`$ (10)
$`U_{j,j+\widehat{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\chi +(1)^{j_x+j_y}\mathrm{\Delta }_f\tau _3`$ (11)
This resembles the staggered flux phase in U(1) mean-field theory because the hopping matrix elements are complex and the sum of the phase angle around a plaquette gives a flux which alternates in sign, as shown in Fig. 1. Equation (6) and the fermion pairing state Eq. (3) both give the fermion dispersion,

$$E_\pm =\pm \left(\epsilon ^2(𝒌)+\eta ^2(𝒌)\right)^{1/2}$$
(12)
where

$`\epsilon (𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`2J\chi \left(\mathrm{sin}k_xa+\mathrm{sin}k_ya\right)`$ (13)
$`\eta (𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`2J\mathrm{\Delta }_f\left(\mathrm{sin}k_xa\mathrm{sin}k_ya\right).`$ (14)
Due to our gauge choice, this dispersion is shifted by $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ compared with the more conventional parameterization which has a maximum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=J\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ at $`(0,\pi ),(\pi ,0)`$ and nodes at $`(\pm \frac{\pi }{2},\pm \frac{\pi }{2})`$. The boson dispersion is the same except that $`J`$ is replaced by $`t`$.

The breaking of translation symmetry shown in Eq. (6) is a gauge artifact, because Eq. (6) is mapped onto Eq. (3) which is translationally invariant by a site dependent SU(2) transformation. Thus in the SU(2) mean-field theory, the spin-gap phase includes fluctuations between the pairing state, the staggered flux state, and many other states in the U(1) formulation. Note that the mean-field ansatz given in Eq. (6) is itself invariant under a $`\tau _3`$ rotation. Thus the SU(2) symmetry has been broken down to U(1) in the spin-gap phase.

In Ref.  this point of view was clarified and the approximation of constant $`𝒂_0`$ improved by introducing a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model description in terms of a slowly varying boson field. The idea is that at low temperatures the bosons are nearly bose condensed to the bottom of the boson bands and are slowly varying in space and time. On the other hand, the fermions have a short coherence length $`\xi _F=v_f/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ which is the lattice scale because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0J/3`$. Then the fermions follow the local boson field and can be integrated out, after choosing an $`𝐚_0`$ field which minimizes the action locally. The result is an effective Lagrangian which depends only on the local boson field. It is convenient to choose the fermion mean field in the staggered flux representation given by Eq. (6), because the symmetry breaking pattern from SU(2) to U(1) is manifest. The bottom of the boson band is at $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and we write $`h_j=\stackrel{~}{h}_j\mathrm{exp}\left(i(j_x+j_y)\frac{\pi }{2}\right)`$ and consider $`\stackrel{~}{h}_j`$ to be slowly varying. At low temperatures, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_j^{}\stackrel{~}{h}_j=x`$ and we write

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_j=\sqrt{x}\left(\begin{array}{c}z_{j1}\\ z_{j2}\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
where $`_\alpha \left|z_{j\alpha }\right|^2=1`$ and are parametrized by

$`z_{j1}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha }e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (16)
$`z_{j2}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\alpha }e^{i\frac{\varphi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}`$ (17)
The phase $`\alpha `$ is the overall U(1) phase which couples to the electromagnetic field. The angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are best visualized by introducing the isospin quantization axis $`𝑰`$.

$$𝑰=z_\alpha ^{}𝝉_{\alpha \beta }z_\beta =(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )$$
(18)
i.e. $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the polar angles of the quantization axis. The physical state depends on the orientation of the vector $`𝑰`$, as shown in Fig. 2. $`𝑰`$ pointing along $`\widehat{z}`$ corresponds to the staggered flux state in the U(1) formulation. The polarization of the boson field generates a nonzero $`a_0^3`$, which corresponds to a shift in the chemical potential for the fermions. This in turn converts the nodes at $`(\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2})`$ into a small Fermi surface pocket. This state breaks translational symmetry and is characterized by a staggered pattern of physical hole current distribution as shown in Fig. 1. We shall refer to this state as the staggered flux state. $`𝑰`$ pointing along $`\widehat{z}`$ describes the same physical state except that the current pattern in shifted by a unit cell. On the other hand, $`𝑰`$ in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane corresponds to a $`d`$-wave superconductor state (with a finite chemical potential) which does not break translational symmetry. This is not obvious in the representation given in Eq. (6) and it is best seen by performing a space dependent SU(2) rotation according to Eq. (5) to the representation given in Eq. (3). Note that $`𝑰`$ pointing anywhere in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane is gauge equivalent and corresponds to the same physical $`d`$-wave superconducting state. This is a consequence of the residual U(1) symmetry of Eq. (6) and any vectors $`𝑰`$ related by a $`\varphi `$ rotation represents states that are gauge equivalent. On the other hand, $`𝑰`$ pointing somewhere in between the north pole and the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane are distinct states with both superconducting pairing and translational symmetry breaking. This state of affairs is summarized by an effective Lagrangian as derived in Ref.. It takes the form of an anisotropic $`O(4)`$ $`\sigma `$-model $`(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1)`$ coupled to gauge fields. For the purpose of this paper we restrict our attention to time independent variation and the Lagrangian takes the simplified form

$`L_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`xt\left|D_jz\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2J}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{c_1}}|z_1z_2|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_3}}\left(|z_1|^2|z_2|^2\right)^2\right]`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a_j^{(3)}\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk}a_k^{(3)}`$
where

$$D_j=\frac{}{r_j}+ia_j^{(3)}\tau ^{(3)}i\frac{e}{c}A_j$$
(21)
is the covariant spatial derivative $`(j=x,y)`$, $`a_j^{(3)}`$ is the spatial component of the $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ gauge field, and $`c_1`$ and $`c_3`$ are numerical constants of order 1. Since the SU(2) symmetry has been broken down to U(1) by Eq. (6), the $`𝒂^{(2)}`$ and $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ gauge fields are massive by the Higgs mechanism and have been ignored. The first term in Eq. (14) is the boson kinetic energy minimally coupled to the remaining $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ gauge field and the electromagnetic field $`𝑨`$. The second term is a phenomenological term introduced to describe the difference in energy between the superconducting state and the staggered flux state, so that the quantization axis prefers to lie in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. The third term comes from integrating out the fermion degrees of freedom where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk}`$ is the fermion polarization bubble. In momentum space it is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{jk}\sqrt{J\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\left(\delta _{jk}\frac{q_jq_k}{q^2}\right)|𝒒|,$$
(22)
i.e. it does not take the Maxwell form which would have been proportional to $`q^2`$.

At higher temperatures the anisotropy term (second term) in Eq. (14) is unimportant and the quantization axis is disordered. This corresponds to the spin-gap phase. At low temperature, the quantization axis picks out a direction in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane and at the same time the U(1) symmetry corresponding to $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ is spontaneously broken. This corresponds to the $`d`$-wave superconductor.

Recently, quasi long-range correlations in the staggered current have been found in the Gutzwiller projected $`d`$-wave BCS wave-function  and in the exact ground state of small samples. Such current fluctuations are very natural in the SU(2) theory, and are a consequence of fluctuations of the quantization axis $`𝑰`$ towards the north and south poles. We have suggested that these staggered current correlations may characterize the pseudogap state, but experimental detection of such fluctuating currents seems to be very difficult. Now we are ready to use this picture to describe the vortex in the superconducting state, and show that the staggered current fluctuations may slow down inside the vortex core, making its detection more hopeful.

## III Model of the Vortex Core

Our model of the vortex is the following. Far away from the core $`|b_1|=|b_2|`$, but $`b_2=\sqrt{x}z_2`$ changes its phase $`(\alpha +\varphi /2)`$ by $`2\pi `$ as we go around the vortex, while $`b_1=\sqrt{x}z_1`$ does not change its phase. The vortex contains $`\frac{hc}{2e}`$ flux for the $`𝑨`$ field and $`\frac{h}{2}`$ flux for the $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ field. From Eq. (15), $`b_2`$ sees the sum of $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ and $`𝑨`$, i.e. a unit total flux, while $`b_1`$ sees no net flux, so the winding we suggested is consistent. Note that the average phase $`\alpha `$ \[see Eq. (11) and (12)\] has a winding of $`\pi `$, as appropriate for an $`\frac{hc}{2e}`$ vortex.

As we approach the vortex core, the amplitude of $`|z_2|`$ must vanish to avoid a divergent kinetic energy from the first term in Eq. (14). Thus the center of the vortex core is represented by $`\left(\stackrel{~}{h}=\sqrt{x},0\right)`$ and is just the staggered flux state. As shown in Fig. 3, the quantization axis $`𝑰`$ provides a nice way to visualize this structure. It points to the north pole in the center of the vortex and lies in the equator far away, but its azimuthal angle winds by $`2\pi `$ as we go around the vortex. This is sometimes referred to as the “Meron” configuration, or half of a hedgehog. It is important to recall that $`𝑰`$ parameterizes only the internal gauge degrees of freedom $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, and the winding of $`\varphi `$ by $`2\pi `$ has nothing to do with the winding of the overall phase $`\alpha `$ by $`\pi `$ around the vortex. To visualize the winding of both $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi `$, it is necessary to go back to the $`(b_1,b_2)`$ representation.

We can make a rough estimate of the vortex energy. Assume that the core size (size of the Meron) is $`\mathrm{}_c`$ and the size of the $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ flux is $`\mathrm{}_a`$. There are four contributions to the energy. The first is the energy difference between the superconducting state and the staggered flux state. The main energy cost comes from the Fermi pockets. Assuming the area of the pockets to be $`x`$, we estimate an energy cost of $`\mathrm{}_c^2x^{3/2}\sqrt{J\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$. On the other hand, the Meron size cannot be smaller than $`1/\sqrt{x}`$ without costing too much kinetic energy. (In fact, the effective action is valid only for momenta $`q\sqrt{x}`$ since we kept only the first quadratic term.) The second term comes from the electronic supercurrent and is of order $`xt\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /\mathrm{}_c)`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the London penetration depth. The third term comes from the supercurrent associated with the $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ gauge field, which is of order $`xt\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{}_a/\mathrm{}_c)`$, assuming $`\mathrm{}_a>\mathrm{}_c`$. Finally, the fourth contribution is from the gauge field action, the last term in Eq. (14). Setting $`q=\mathrm{}_a^1`$ in Eq. (16), we estimate this contribution to be $`\mathrm{}_a^2|a^{(3)}|^2\sqrt{J\mathrm{\Delta }_0}/\mathrm{}_a\sqrt{J\mathrm{\Delta }_0}/\mathrm{}_a`$. The important point is that unlike the U(1) case, the gauge field is not confined to a flux tube, but can spread over a distance $`\mathrm{}_a`$. We note that the supercurrent contributions depend logarithmically on $`\mathrm{}_a`$ and $`\mathrm{}_c`$, so that the main dependence comes from the first and fourth contributions. The staggered flux core size $`\mathrm{}_c`$ would like to be as small as possible, while the size of the gauge flux $`\mathrm{}_a`$ would like to be large. However, our estimate of the gauge flux energy should be cut off for $`q<x`$, because bosonic contributions will enter Eq. (16). Thus we conclude that the staggered flux core occupies a radius of $`x^{1/2}`$ while the gauge field occupies a radius of $`x^1`$. The above estimate is very crude. The main purpose is to show that a standard $`hc/2e`$ vortex is possible with a staggered flux core which does not cost too much energy as $`x0`$.

If we include effects of fluctuations, the size of the staggered flux core will very likely be bigger than the above estimate. One way to include the fluctuation effects is through the following consideration. We have shown that due to the excitation of quasi-particle, the superfluid density is reduced in the vicinity of the vortex core. We have also shown that the quasi-particles carry current $`ev_F`$ after including the fluctuation effects. In this case the superfluid density vanishes inside a radius of $`x^1`$, which we identify as the vortex core. This argument gives a lower bound on the vortex radius, which matches the radius $`l_a`$. Inside this radius the superconducting state loses phase coherence and becomes more costly in energy. Thus our earlier estimate may have over estimated the energy difference between the staggered flux state and the superconducting state inside the core and the staggered flux state may expand to occupies the entire core of radius $`x^1`$ where the superfluid density vanishes. The important point is the topological structure of the vortex, which should be robust, while the details of the structure may be model dependent.

One important consequence of the topological structure is that there are two kinds of vortices, because the isospin quantization $`𝑰`$ can also rotate to the south pole at the vortex core. This just expresses the fact that the staggered flux state is doubly degenerate, with the staggered flux shifted by one unit cell. In the normal state these degenerate states fluctuate between each other, being smoothly connected via the superconducting state. Inside the vortex core of the superconducting state, the topological structure of the vortex forbids such smooth fluctuations, and freezes in the staggered current pattern. Thus the vortex core is closely related to, but not identical to, the pseudogap state.

Since the degrees of freedom in a vortex core is finite, the two possible staggered flux states inside the core can tunnel into each other. If the staggered flux core is as small as $`x^{1/2}`$, the tunneling rate can be as large as the spin gap. However, if the staggered flux core has a size of order $`x^1`$ (which is more likely), the tunneling will be reduced exponentially. Dissipation due to quasiparticles may further suppress the tunneling rate. Indeed, this problem is analogous to the tunneling between degenerate two level systems coupled to a Fermi sea. There due to the orthogonality catastrophe the tunneling rate can scale to zero and the state completely frozen for strong enough coupling. In general such exponential tunneling rate is difficult to calculate, but we are hopeful that the dynamics will slow down sufficiently for the staggered currents to be measured experimentally.

As the magnetic field is increased, the vortex cores eventually overlap at $`H=H_{c2}`$. The staggered current states overlap and it is reasonable to believe that the ground state should be a long range ordered staggered flux state, especially if the staggered flux core has a size of order $`x^1`$. The unit cell is doubled and the ground state is a Fermi liquid, with small Fermi pockets with area $`x`$. We predicted that $`H_{c2}x^2`$, since the core size scales as $`x^1`$. If a high quality underdoped sample can be made, $`H_{c2}`$ can be at a scale amenable to laboratory experiment. The Fermi pocket may be measurable by cyclotron resonance or Shubnikov-de Haas experiments. The cyclotron resonance has a unique signature because the Fermi surface is close to a Dirac point so that the Landau levels are not uniformly spaced. The doubling of the unit cell is difficult to measure directly, because the staggered current pattern does not couple to charge density modulation. It does produce a small staggered magnetic field, which we estimate very crudely to be of order $`10`$ gauss. The possibility of detecting the staggered magnetic field by neutron scattering and $`\mu `$-SR was investigated theoretically by Hsu et al. They estimated the neutron scattering intensity to be $`1/70`$ of that from the ordered moments in the insulator.

## IV Experimental Probe of the Staggered Current

If it is not possible to reach $`H>H_{c2}`$, the topological aspect of the vortex offers us an opportunity to test the staggered current picture. It is difficult to probe the staggered current pattern in the normal state because of spatial and temporal fluctuations. One of the few possible techniques is X-ray scattering which couples to chirality fluctuations at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$. However, according to our analysis, the dynamics of the staggered current pattern slow down inside the vortex core. Depending on the time scale, it may be possible to measure the small staggered magnetic field created by the circulating current. The field distribution in the vortex state is remarkably uniform, as expected for an extreme type II superconductor. From $`\mu `$-SR measurements, the field distribution has a width of roughly 5 gauss at $`H=0.5T`$. It should be even narrower at higher fields. If the dynamics is slower than the $`\mu `$-SR scale, the field distribution inside the vortex core is detectable. For even slower dynamics, a more sensitive experiment is NMR. In YBCO, the Y ion is ideally placed to detect this current, because it sits at the center of the plaquette. The weak magnetic field generated by the circulating current will produce side bands in the Y NMR line, with a splitting independent of $`H`$ but with weight proportional to $`H`$. However, there remains one complication with this proposed experiment. YBCO is a bi-layer material, with Y sitting between the bi-layers. It is likely that the staggered pattern on the bilayers are out of phase, in which case the magnetic field at the Y site exactly cancels. A way out of this difficulty is to study the 2-4-7 structure where the two layers are asymmetric because they are connected to different charge reservoirs (single chain vs. double chain). It should be possible to have one plane of the bi-layer optimally doped while the other plane (next to the double chain) remains underdoped. Obviously, this proposal is quite a challenge (but a rewarding one) for the experimentalist.

If it is possible to reach $`H>H_{c2}`$, NMR, $`\mu `$-SR, neutron, cyclotron resonance and Shubnikov-de Haas experiments can all be performed to look for the staggered flux state.

## V Conclusion

In summary, the SU(2) formulation of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model leads naturally to a picture of the staggered flux phase above $`H_{c2}`$ and a stable $`hc/2e`$ vortex with a staggered flux core in the superconducting state. The basic physical picture is that the staggered flux state is nearly degenerate in energy to the $`d`$-wave superconducting state. The pseudogap state is described by fluctuations between the staggered flux state and the superconductor. It has no long range order, but may be characterized by short range staggered currents. There may be short range superconducting fluctuations as well, but these are not described by conventional phase fluctuations alone. As the temperature is raised above $`T_c`$, the fluctuations initially resemble conventional phase fluctuations but gradually cross over to fluctuations into the metallic staggered flux state, all the while maintaining the energy gap at $`(0,\pi )`$. The picture may reconcile the rather conventional $`x`$-$`y`$ model behavior observed $`30K`$ above $`T_c`$ with the surprising persistence of a few vortex-like excitations up to $`150K`$.

Inside the vortex core, these fluctuations are almost frozen out. The core consists mostly the staggered flux phase and the tunneling rate between the two kinds of vortex can be very small. The small energy difference between the staggered flux state and the superconductor in the limit of small doping renders this vortex stable. This picture suggests a $`(H,T)`$ phase diagram shown in Fig. 4. Below a relatively high temperature scale (of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{J}{3}`$), the spin-gap phase is formed as described above. (This was called the staggered-flux phase in the SU(2) mean-field theory.) Its onset is a cross-over, not a phase transition. Due to the high energy scale, this onset is insensitive to magnetic field, consistent with experimental findings. Superconductivity onsets below a coherence temperature $`xt`$. In a magnetic field, the vortex has a core of radius $`x^1`$. The state inside the core forms staggered currents on some slow time scales. At $`H_{c2}x^2`$, these cores overlap, forming a truly long range ordered staggered flux state. This state has a doubled unit cell and its Fermi surface consists of small pockets of area $`x`$, consistent with Fermi liquid theory. Thus the metallic state generated by a high magnetic field is a Fermi liquid state. This state is connected to the pseudogap phase by an Ising-like phase transition. The long range order of the staggered flux state requires coherence among the holes and we expect its transition temperature to be $`xt`$ (i.e. comparable to the superconducting $`T_c`$) as well. This phase diagram is in contrast to a recent proposal by Chakravarty et al., who suggested that the onset of the pseudogap is a genuine transition. In their picture the staggered flux state will extend up to the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The experimental test of staggered currents that we proposed should in principle be capable of distinguishing their proposal from ours.

We emphasize that the zero temperature ground state in the $`x`$-$`H`$ phase is entirely conventional, consisting of a $`d`$-wave superconductor, antiferromagnetic insulators, and Fermi liquids. At some critical $`x_c`$ there is a transition between the staggered flux state with Fermi pockets to a Fermi liquid state with a large Fermi surface of area $`(1x)`$. The $`x_c(H)`$ line should terminate at the superconducting $`H_{c2}(x)`$ boundary. Our picture of the zero temperature phase diagram is the same as that proposed by Chakravarty et al. However, Chakravarty et al. asserted that the transition between the two Fermi liquids involves a violent change of Fermi surface topology and, by implication, of physical properties such as transport measurements. In contrast, we believe that a line of continuous transitions with a change of the translation symmetry is possible and in fact likely, in view of the smooth crossover observed at $`H=0`$ above $`T_c`$ as a function of $`x`$. The Fermi pockets are elongated and may merge to form a single Fermi surface in the reduced Brillouin zone in the staggered flux phase for $`x<x_c`$. The restoration of translational symmetry and a large Fermi surface can take place continuously by the disappearance of the Fermi surface shifted by $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ which lies outside the first reduced Brillouin zone. The scenario of a continuous evolution from small to large Fermi surface via the “shadow band” was described by one of us some time ago.

Finally, a third alternative exists; i.e. the staggered flux state is never stable (or in other words, it is destroyed by strong quantum fluctuations even at $`T=0`$). In this case, something resembling the spin-gap state becomes the ground state in a high magnetic field and inside the vortex core. If true, this will be the first example of a non-Fermi liquid ground state apart from superconductivity in dimensions higher than one. Our proposed phase diagram offers a very natural route to avoid this exotic possibility.

We would like to stress that even when the vortex core is described by the spin-gap state, the $`hc/2e`$ vortex still has a small core energy which vanishes in the $`x0`$ limit in the mean-field theory. Hence the $`hc/2e`$ vortex is still stable. In fact, the $`SU(2)`$ vortex is the only mean-field theory at present which gives a stable $`hc/2e`$ vortex with a pseudogap in the core. Whether there exists a quasi-static staggered current inside the core is a question which is difficult to treat theoretically, and which is best settled by experiments.

We end by making a comment on the experiments proposed by Senthil and Fisher  to test for electron fractionalization. They propose trapping a vortex in a hole in a superconductor. When the temperature is raised above $`T_c`$, the magnetic field escapes, but the $`Z(2)`$ vortex (vison) is trapped. Then when the temperature is cooled down below $`T_c`$, the vison must capture a magnetic flux to spontaneously form a hc/2e vortex of either sign. We would like to point out that our model of the vortex does not exhibit the Senthil-Fisher effect. While our vortex is also a bound state of a magnetic flux with half a flux quantum of the gauge field $`𝒂^{(3)}`$, the important difference is that the gauge vortex has a finite extent and is not a flux tube. Above $`T_c`$, the size of this gauge flux will expand to infinity at the same time the size of the magnetic vortex does, i.e. the penetration depth of the $`𝒂^{(3)}`$ field and the $`𝑨`$ field both diverge in the normal state. They allow the gauge vortex to escape the hole in the normal state.

In principle, the Senthil-Fisher effect, the electron fractionalization (or the true spin-charge separation), and other physics of the $`Z(2)`$ theory can be readily obtained from the $`SU(2)`$ slave boson theory, if one assume the $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry is broken down to $`Z(2)`$ gauge symmetry (which can be achieved by non-collinear $`SU(2)`$ flux through different plaquettes). With this understanding, the difference between the $`Z(2)`$ approach and our $`SU(2)`$ approach is clear. In the $`Z(2)`$ approach, one assumes that the $`SU(2)`$ gauge symmetry is broken down to $`Z(2)`$. While in our $`SU(2)`$ approach, the $`SU(2)`$ is only broken down to $`U(1)`$ in the normal state (by a collinear $`SU(2)`$ flux). The $`Z(2)`$ and our $`SU(2)`$ approaches correspond to different choices of mean-field states of the same $`SU(2)`$ slave boson theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with H. Alloul, W. Hardy, T. Imai and N.P. Ong concerning various experimental possibilities and limitations. We also thank N. Nagaosa, M. Fisher and T. Senthil for illuminating discussions. P.A.L. and X.G.W. acknowledge support by NSF under the MRSEC program DMR98–08941. X.G.W also acknowledges support by NSF Grant No. DMR–97–14198.


format: text

text:
# A survey of Wall’s finiteness obstruction

## Contents

* Introduction
* Finite domination
* The projective class group $`K_0`$
* The finiteness obstruction
* The topological space-form problem
* The Siebenmann end obstruction
* Connections with Whitehead torsion
* The splitting obstruction
* The triangulation of manifolds
* References

## Introduction

Wall’s finiteness obstruction is an algebraic $`K`$-theory invariant which decides if a finitely dominated space is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex. The invariant was originally formulated in the context of surgery on $`CW`$ complexes, generalizing Swan’s application of algebraic $`K`$-theory to the study of free actions of finite groups on spheres. In the context of surgery on manifolds, the invariant first arose as the Siebenmann obstruction to closing a tame end of a non-compact manifold. The object of this survey is to describe the Wall finiteness obstruction and some of its many applications to the surgery classification of manifolds. The book of Varadarajan  and the survey of Mislin  deal with the finiteness obstruction from a more homotopy theoretic point of view.

## 1. Finite domination

A space is finitely dominated if it is a homotopy retract of a finite complex. More formally:

###### Definition 1.1.

A topological space $`X`$ is finitely dominated if there exists a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$ with maps $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$ and a homotopy

$$ds\text{id}_X:XX.$$

###### Example 1.2.

(i) A compact $`ANR`$ $`X`$ is finitely dominated (Borsuk ). In fact, a finite dimensional $`ANR`$ $`X`$ can be embedded in $`^N`$ ($`N`$ large), and $`X`$ is a retract of an open neighbourhood $`U^N`$ – there exist a retraction $`r:UX`$ and a compact polyhedron $`KU`$ such that $`XK`$, so that the restriction $`d=r|:KX`$ and the inclusion $`s:XK`$ are such that $`ds=\text{id}_X:XX`$ .
(ii) A compact topological manifold is a compact $`ANR`$, and hence finitely dominated.

The problem of deciding if a compact $`ANR`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex was first formulated by Borsuk . (The problem was solved affirmatively for manifolds by Kirby and Siebenmann in 1969, and in general by West in 1974 – see section 8 below.) The problem of deciding if a finitely dominated space is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex was first formulated by J.H.C.Whitehead. Milnor  remarked: “It would be interesting to ask if every space which is dominated by a finite complex actually has the homotopy type of a finite complex. This is true in the simply connected case, but seems like a difficult problem in general.”

Here is a useful criterion for recognizing finite domination:

###### Proposition 1.3.

A $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ is finitely dominated if and only if there is a homotopy $`h_t:XX`$ such that $`h_0=id`$ and $`h_1(X)`$ has compact closure.

###### Proof.

If $`d:KX`$ is a finite domination with right inverse $`s`$, let $`h_t`$ be a homotopy from the identity to $`ds`$. Since $`h_1(X)d(K)`$, the closure of $`h_1(X)`$ is compact in $`X`$. Conversely, if the closure of $`h_1(X)`$ is compact in $`X`$, let $`K`$ be a finite subcomplex of $`X`$ containing $`h_1(X)`$. Setting $`d`$ equal to the inclusion $`KX`$ and $`s`$ equal to $`h_1:XK`$ shows that $`X`$ is finitely dominated. ∎

It is possible to relate finitely dominated spaces, finitely dominated $`CW`$ complexes and spaces of the homotopy type of $`CW`$ complexes, as follows.

###### Proposition 1.4.

(i) A finitely dominated topological space $`X`$ is homotopy equivalent to a countable $`CW`$ complex.
(ii) If $`X`$ is homotopy dominated by a finite $`k`$-dimensional $`CW`$ complex, then $`X`$ is homotopy equivalent to a countable $`(k+1)`$-dimensional $`CW`$ complex.

###### Proof.

The key result is the trick of Mather , which shows that if $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$ are maps such that $`ds\text{id}_X:XX`$ then $`X`$ is homotopy equivalent to the mapping telescope of $`sd:KK`$. This requires the calculus of mapping cylinders, which we now recall.
By definition, the mapping cylinder of a map $`f:KL`$ is the identification space

$$M(f)=(K\times [0,1]L)/((x,1)f(x)).$$

We shall use three general facts about mapping cylinders:

* If $`f:KL`$ and $`g:LM`$ are maps and $`k:KM`$ is homotopic to $`gf`$, the mapping cylinder $`M(k)`$ is homotopy equivalent rel $`KM`$ to the concatenation of the mapping cylinders $`M(f)`$ and $`M(g)`$ rel $`KM`$.
* If $`f,g:KL`$ with $`fg`$, then the mapping cylinder of $`f`$ is homotopy equivalent to the mapping cylinder of $`g`$ rel $`KL`$.
* Every mapping cylinder is homotopy equivalent to its base rel the base.

The mapping telescope of a map $`\alpha :KK`$ is the countable union

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(\alpha )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K\times [i,i+1]/\{(x,i)(\alpha (x),i+1)\}.$$

For any maps $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$ we have

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(ds)=X\times I\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(sd)$$

with $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}M(sd)`$ a deformation retract, so that

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(ds)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(sd).$$

To see why this holds, note that $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}M(ds)`$ is homotopy equivalent to an infinite concatenation of alternating $`M(d)`$’s and $`M(s)`$’s which can also be thought of as an infinite concatenation of $`M(s)`$’s and $`M(d)`$’s. Essentially, we’re reassociating an infinite product. Here is a picture of this part of the construction.

(i) If $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$ are such that $`ds\text{id}_X:XX`$ there is defined a homotopy idempotent of a finite $`CW`$ complex

$$\alpha =sd:KK,$$

with $`\alpha \alpha \alpha :KK`$. We have homotopy equivalences

$$XX\times [0,\mathrm{})\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(\text{id}_X)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(ds)\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(sd)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M(\alpha ).$$

The mapping telescope $`_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}M(\alpha )`$ is a countable $`CW`$ complex.
(ii) As for (i), but with $`K`$ $`k`$-dimensional. ∎

This proposition is comforting because it shows that the finiteness problem for arbitrary topological spaces reduces to the finiteness problem for $`CW`$ complexes. One useful consequence of this is that we can use the usual machinery of algebraic topology, including the Hurewicz and Whitehead theorems, to detect homotopy equivalences.

###### Proposition 1.5.

(Mather ) A topological space $`X`$ is finitely dominated if and only if $`X\times S^1`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex.

###### Proof.

The mapping torus of a map $`\alpha :KK`$ is defined (as usual) by

$$T(\alpha )=(K\times [0,1])/\{(x,0)(\alpha (x),1)\}.$$

For any maps $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$ there is defined a homotopy equivalence

$$T(ds:XX)T(sd:KK);(x,t)(s(x),t).$$

If $`ds\text{id}_X:XX`$ and $`K`$ is a finite $`CW`$ complex we thus have homotopy equivalences

$$X\times S^1T(\text{id}_X)T(sd)$$

with $`T(sd)`$ a finite $`CW`$ complex.
Conversely, if $`X\times S^1`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$ then the maps

$$d:KX\times S^1\stackrel{proj.}{}X,s:X\stackrel{incl.}{}X\times S^1K$$

are such that $`ds\text{id}_X`$, and $`X`$ is dominated by $`K`$. ∎

## 2. The projective class group $`K_0`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a ring (associative, with 1).

###### Definition 2.1.

A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`P`$ is f. g. projective if it is a direct summand of a f. g. (= finitely generated) free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$, with $`PQ=\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ for some direct complement $`Q`$.

A $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-module $`P`$ is f. g. projective if and only if $`P`$ is isomorphic to $`\text{im}(p)`$ for some projection $`p=p^2:\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

(i) The projective class group $`K_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the Grothendieck group of stable isomorphism classes of f. g. projective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules.
(ii) The reduced projective class group $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the quotient of $`K_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ by the subgroup generated by formal differences $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }^m][\mathrm{\Lambda }^n]`$ of f. g. free modules.

Thus an element of $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is an equivalence class $`[P]`$ of f. g. projective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules, with $`[P_1]=[P_2]`$ if and only if there are f. g. free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ so that $`P_1F_1`$ is isomorphic to $`P_2F_2`$. In particular, $`[P]`$ is trivial if and only if $`P`$ is stably free, that is, if there is a f. g. free module $`F`$ so that $`PF`$ is free.

Chapter 1 of Rosenberg  is a general introduction to the projective class groups $`K_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and their applications, including the Wall finiteness obstruction.

###### Example 2.3.

There are many groups $`\pi `$ for which

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])=0,$$

including virtually polycyclic groups, a class which includes free and free abelian groups.

At present, no example is known of a torsion-free infinite group $`\pi `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])0`$. Indeed, Hsiang has conjectured that $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])=0`$ for any torsion-free group $`\pi `$. (See Farrell and Jones , pp. 9–11). On the other hand:

###### Example 2.4.

(i) There are many finite groups $`\pi `$ for which

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])0,$$

including the cyclic group $`_{23}`$.
(ii) The reduced projective class group of the quaternion group

$$Q(8)=\{\pm 1,\pm i,\pm j,\pm k\}$$

is the cyclic group with 2 elements

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_0([Q(8)])=_2,$$

generated by the f. g. projective $`[Q(8)]`$-module

$$P=\text{im}(\left(\begin{array}{cc}18N& 21N\\ 3N& 8N\end{array}\right):[Q(8)][Q(8)][Q(8)][Q(8)])$$

with $`N=\underset{gQ(8)}{}g`$.

We refer to Oliver  for a survey of the computations of $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])`$ for finite groups $`\pi `$.

## 3. The finiteness obstruction

Here is the statement of Wall’s theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1.

(,) (i) A finitely dominated space $`X`$ has a finiteness obstruction

$$[X]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(X)])$$

such that $`[X]=0`$ if and only if $`X`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex.
(ii) If $`\pi `$ is a finitely presented group then every element $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])`$ is the finiteness obstruction of a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ with $`[X]=\sigma `$, $`\pi _1(X)=\pi `$.
(iii) A $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ is finitely dominated if and only if $`\pi _1(X)`$ is finitely presented and the cellular $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ of the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is chain homotopy equivalent to a finite chain complex $`𝒫`$ of f. g. projective $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-modules.

Outline of proof (i) Here is an extremely condensed sketch of Wall’s argument from . If $`d:KX`$ is a finite domination with $`X`$ a $`CW`$ complex, we can assume that $`d`$ is an inclusion by replacing $`X`$, if necessary, by the mapping cylinder of $`d`$. For each $`\mathrm{}2`$, we then have a split short exact sequence of abelian groups

$$0\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)\pi _{\mathrm{}}(K)\pi _{\mathrm{}}(X)0.$$

Wall gives a special argument to show that $`d`$ can be taken to induce an isomorphism on $`\pi _1`$ and then shows that $`\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)`$ is f. g. as a module over $`[\pi _1(X)]`$, provided that $`\pi _q(X,K)=0`$ for $`q\mathrm{},\mathrm{}2`$. This allows him to attach $`\mathrm{}+1`$-cells to form a complex $`\overline{K}K`$ and a map $`\overline{d}:\overline{K}X`$ extending $`d`$ so that $`\overline{d}`$ induces isomorphisms on homotopy groups through dimension $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`\overline{d}`$ is a domination with the same right inverse $`s`$, this process can be repeated. In the case $`\mathrm{}dim(K)`$, Wall shows that $`\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)`$ is a f. g. projective module over $`[\pi _1(X)]`$. If $`\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)`$ is free (or even stably free) we can attach $`\mathrm{}+1`$-cells to kill $`\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)`$ without creating new problems in higher dimensions. The result is that $`\overline{d}`$ is a homotopy equivalence from $`\overline{K}`$ to $`X`$. If this module is not stably free, we are stuck and the finiteness obstruction is defined to be

$$[X]=(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}[\pi _{\mathrm{}+1}(X,K)]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(X)]).$$

(ii) Given a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$ and a nontrivial $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(K)])`$, here is one way to construct a $`CW`$ complex with finiteness obstruction $`\pm \sigma `$: let $`\sigma `$ be represented by a f. g. projective module $`P`$ and let $`F=PQ`$ be free of rank $`n`$. Let $`A`$ be the matrix of the projection $`p:FPF`$ with respect to a standard basis for $`F`$. Now let

$$L=K\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_i^{\mathrm{}}.$$

There is a split short exact sequence

where $`r:LK`$ is the retraction which sends the $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$’s to the basepoint. Since

$$\pi _{\mathrm{}}(L,K)\pi _{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{K})H_{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{L},\stackrel{~}{K})F,$$

we can define $`\alpha :LL`$ so that $`\alpha |K=id`$ and so that $`\alpha _{}:\pi _{\mathrm{}}(L)\pi _{\mathrm{}}(L)`$ has the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}id& 0\\ 0& A\end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the direct sum decomposition $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}(L)\pi _{\mathrm{}}(K)F`$. Since $`A^2=A`$, it is easy to check that $`\alpha `$ is homotopy idempotent, i.e. that $`\alpha \alpha \alpha `$ rel $`K`$. Let $`X`$ be the infinite direct mapping telescope of $`\alpha `$ pictured below.

Let $`d:LX`$ be the inclusion of $`L`$ into the top level of the leftmost mapping cylinder of $`X`$ and define $`s^{}:XL`$ by setting $`s^{}`$ equal to $`\alpha `$ on each copy of $`L`$ and using the homotopies $`\alpha \alpha \alpha `$ to extend over the rest of $`X`$. One sees easily that $`ds^{}`$ induces the identity on the homotopy groups of $`X`$ and is therefore a homotopy equivalence. If $`\varphi `$ is a homotopy inverse for $`ds^{}`$, we have $`dsid`$, where $`s=s^{}\varphi `$. This means the $`d`$ is a finite domination with right inverse $`s`$. It turns out that $`[X]=(1)^{\mathrm{}+1}[P]`$. (iii) If $`X`$ is dominated by a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$ then $`\pi _1(X)`$ is a retract of the finitely presented group $`\pi _1(K)`$, and is thus also finitely presented. The cellular chain complex $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ is a chain homotopy direct summand of the finite f.g. free $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex $`[\pi _1(X)]_{[\pi _1(K)]}C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ the universal cover of $`K`$. It follows from the algebraic theory of Ranicki  (or by the original geometric argument of Wall ) that $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ is chain equivalent to a finite f.g. projective $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex $`𝒫`$.

Conversely, if $`\pi _1(X)`$ is finitely presented and $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ is chain equivalent to a finite f.g. projective $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex $`𝒫`$ the cellular $`[\pi _1(X)][z,z^1]`$-module chain complex of the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{X\times S^1}=\stackrel{~}{X}\times `$ of $`X\times S^1`$

$$C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X\times S^1})=C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})_{}C_{}()$$

is chain equivalent to a finite f.g. free $`[\pi _1(X)][z,z^1]`$-module chain complex, so that $`X\times S^1`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex (by the proof of (i), using $`[X\times S^1]=0`$) and $`X`$ is finitely dominated by 1.5. ∎

In particular, if $`\pi `$ is a finitely presented group such that $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])0`$ then there exists a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ with $`\pi _1(X)=\pi `$ and such that $`X`$ is not homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex. See Ferry  for the construction of finitely dominated compact metric spaces (which are not $`ANR`$’s, still less $`CW`$ complexes) which are not homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex.

Wall  obtained the finiteness obstruction of a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ from $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$, using any finite f.g. projective $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex

$$𝒫:\mathrm{}0P_n\stackrel{}{}P_{n1}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}P_1\stackrel{}{}P_0.$$

chain equivalent to $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

The projective class of $`X`$ is the projective class of $`𝒫`$

$$[X]=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^i[P_i]K_0([\pi _1(X)]).$$

The projective class is a well-defined chain-homotopy invariant of $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$, with components

$$[X]=(\chi (X),[X])K_0([\pi _1(X)])=K_0()\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(X)]),$$

where

$$\chi (X)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\#}\text{ of }i\text{-cells}K_0()=$$

is the Euler characteristic of $`X`$, and $`[X]`$ is the finiteness obstruction.

The instant finiteness obstruction (Ranicki ) of a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ is a f. g. projective $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module $`P`$ representing the finiteness obstruction

$$[X]=[P]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(X)])$$

which is obtained directly from a finite domination $`d:KX`$, $`s:XK`$, a homotopy $`h:ds\text{id}_X:XX`$ and the cellular $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module chain complex $`C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})`$ of the cover $`\stackrel{~}{K}=d^{}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`K`$ obtained by pullback from the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$, namely

$$P=\text{im}(p:[\pi _1(X)]^n[\pi _1(X)]^n)$$

with $`p=p^2`$ the projection

$$\begin{array}{c}p=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}sd& & 0& \mathrm{}\\ shd& 1sd& & \mathrm{}\\ sh^2d& shd& sd& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right):\hfill \\ [\pi _1(X)]^n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})_i\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})_i\hfill \end{array}$$

of a f. g. free $`[\pi _1(X)]`$-module of rank

$$n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\#}\text{ of }i\text{-cells of }K.$$

In fact, the finiteness obstruction can be obtained in this way using only the chain homotopy projection $`q=sdq^2:C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})C_{}(\stackrel{~}{K})`$ induced by the homotopy idempotent $`q=sdq^2:KK`$ (Lück and Ranicki ).

The finiteness obstruction has many of the usual properties of the Euler characteristic $`\chi `$. For instance, if $`X`$ is the union of finitely dominated complexes $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ along a common finitely dominated subcomplex $`X_0`$, then

$$[X]=i_1[X_1]+i_2[X_2]i_0[X_0].$$

This is the sum theorem for finiteness obstructions, which was originally proved in Siebenmann’s thesis .

The projective class of the product $`X\times Y`$ of finitely dominated $`CW`$ complexes $`X,Y`$ is given by

$$[X\times Y]=[X][Y]K_0([\pi _1(X\times Y)]),$$

leading to the product formula of Gersten  for the finiteness obstruction

$$[X\times Y]=\chi (X)[Y]+[X]\chi (Y)+[X][Y]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(X\times Y)]).$$

In particular, $`[X\times S^1]=0`$, giving an algebraic proof of the result (1.5) that $`X\times S^1`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex.

A fibration $`p:EB`$ with finitely dominated fibre $`F`$ induces transfer maps in the projective class groups

$$p^!:K_0([\pi _1(B)])K_0([\pi _1(E)]);[X][Y]$$

sending the projective class of a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex $`X`$ with a $`\pi _1`$-isomorphism $`f:XB`$ to the projective class of the pullback $`Y=f^!E`$, which is a finitely dominated $`CW`$ complex with a $`\pi _1`$-isomorphism $`f^!:YE`$

Lück  obtained the following algebraic description of $`p^!`$, generalizing the product formula.111See Lück and Ranicki  for the algebraic transfer map in the surgery obstruction groups. Let $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ be the pullback to $`F`$ of the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ of $`E`$. The fibration $`p`$ induces a morphism of rings

$$U:[\pi _1(B)]H_0(\mathrm{Hom}_{[\pi _1(E)]}(C_{}(\stackrel{~}{F}),C_{}(\stackrel{~}{F})))^{op}$$

sending the homotopy class of a loop $`\omega :S^1B`$ to the chain homotopy class of the parallel transport chain equivalence $`U(\omega ):C_{}(\stackrel{~}{F})C_{}(\stackrel{~}{F})`$. A f. g. projective $`[\pi _1(B)]`$-module

$$Q=\mathrm{im}(q:[\pi _1(B)]^n[\pi _1(B)]^n)(q=q^2)$$

induces a $`[\pi _1(E)]`$-module chain complex

$$Q^!=𝒞(U(q):C_{}(\stackrel{~}{F})^nC_{}(\stackrel{~}{F})^n)(U(q)U(q)^2)$$

which is algebraically finitely dominated, i.e. chain equivalent to a finite f. g. projective chain complex. The transfer map is given algebraically by

$$p^![Q]=[Q^!]K_0([\pi _1(E)]).$$

## 4. The topological space-form problem

Another problem in which a finiteness obstruction arises is the topological space-form problem. This is the problem of determining which groups can act freely and properly discontinuously on $`S^n`$ for some $`n`$.

Swan, , solved a homotopy version of this problem by proving that a finite group $`G`$ of order $`n`$ which has periodic cohomology of period $`q`$ acts freely on a finite complex of dimension $`dq1`$ which is homotopy equivalent to a $`(dq1)`$-sphere. Here, $`d`$ is the greatest common divisor of $`n`$ and $`\varphi (n)`$, $`\varphi `$ being Euler’s $`\varphi `$-function. One might ask whether such a $`G`$ can act on $`S^{q1}`$, but this refinement leads to a finiteness obstruction. It follows from Swan’s argument that $`G`$ acts freely on a countable $`q1`$-dimensional complex $`X`$ homotopy equivalent to $`S^{q1}`$ and that $`X/G`$ is finitely dominated. The finiteness obstruction of $`X/G`$ need not be zero, however, so not every group with cohomology of period $`q`$ can act freely on a finite complex homotopy equivalent to $`S^{q1}`$. Algebraically, the point is that finite groups with $`q`$-periodic cohomology have $`q`$-periodic resolutions by f. g. projective modules but need not have $`q`$-periodic resolutions by f. g. free modules.

After a great deal of work involving both the finiteness obstruction and surgery theory, see Madsen, Thomas and Wall , it turned out that a group $`G`$ acts freely on $`S^n`$ for some $`n`$ if and only if all of its subgroups of order $`p^2`$ and $`2p`$ are cyclic (the condition of Milnor). This is in contrast to the linear case. A group $`G`$ acts linearly on $`S^n`$ for some $`n`$ if and only if all subgroups of order $`pq`$, $`p`$ and $`q`$ not necessarily distinct primes, are cyclic. See Davis and Milgram  for a book-length treatment, and Weinberger , p. 110, for a brief discussion.

## 5. The Siebenmann end obstruction

The most significant application of the finiteness obstruction to the topology of manifolds is via the end obstruction.

An end $`ϵ`$ of an open $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`W`$ is tame if there exists a sequence $`WU_1U_2\mathrm{}`$ of finitely dominated neighbourhoods of $`ϵ`$ with

$$\underset{i}{}U_i=\mathrm{},\pi _1(U_1)\pi _1(U_2)\mathrm{}\pi _1(ϵ).$$

The end is collared if there exists a neighbourhood of the type $`M\times [0,\mathrm{})`$ for some closed $`(n1)`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$, i.e. if $`ϵ`$ is the interior of a compactification $`WM`$ with boundary component $`M`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

(Siebenmann ) A tame end $`ϵ`$ of an open $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`W`$ has an end obstruction

$$[ϵ]=\underset{}{lim}_i[U_i]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(ϵ)])$$

such that $`[ϵ]=0`$ if (and for $`n6`$ only if) $`ϵ`$ can be collared.

Novikov’s 1965 proof of the topological invariance of the rational Pontrjagin classes made use of the end obstruction in the unobstructed case when $`\pi `$ is a free abelian group. The subsequent work of Lashof, Rothenberg, Casson, Sullivan, Kirby and Siebenmann on the Hauptvermutung for high-dimensional manifolds made overt use of the end obstruction ().

See sections 7 and 8 below for brief accounts of the applications of the end obstruction to splitting theorems and triangulation of high-dimensional manifolds.

See Chapman , Quinn ,  and Connolly and Vajiac  for the controlled end obstruction, and Ranicki  for the bounded end obstruction.

See Hughes and Ranicki  for a book-length treatment of ends and the end obstruction.

## 6. Connections with Whitehead torsion

The finiteness obstruction deals with the existence of a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$ in a homotopy type, while Whitehead torsion deals with the uniqueness of $`K`$. There are many deep connections between the finiteness obstruction and Whitehead torsion, which on the purely algebraic level correspond to the connections between the algebraic $`K`$-groups $`K_0`$, $`K_1`$ (or rather $`\stackrel{~}{K}_0`$, $`Wh`$).

The splitting theorem of Bass, Heller and Swan

$$Wh(\pi \times )=Wh(\pi )\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0([\pi ])\stackrel{~}{\text{Nil}}_0([\pi ])$$

involves a split injection

$`()`$
$$\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])Wh(\pi \times );[P]\tau (z:P[z,z^1]P[z,z^1]).$$

If $`X`$ is a finitely dominated space then 1.5 gives a homotopy equivalence $`\varphi :X\times S^1K`$ to a finite $`CW`$ complex $`K`$, uniquely up to simple homotopy equivalence. Ferry  identified the finiteness obstruction $`[X]\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])`$ ($`\pi =\pi _1(X)`$) with the Whitehead torsion $`\tau (f)Wh(\pi \times )`$ of the composite self homotopy equivalence of a finite $`CW`$ complex

$$f:K\stackrel{\varphi ^1}{}X\times S^1\stackrel{\text{id}_X\times 1}{}X\times S^1\stackrel{\varphi }{}K.$$

In Ranicki , it was shown that $`[X]\tau (f)`$ corresponds to the split injection

$$\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi ])Wh(\pi \times );[P]\tau (z:P[z,z^1]P[z,z^1])$$

which is different from the original split injection $`()`$ of .

## 7. The splitting obstruction

The finiteness obstruction arises in most classification problems in high-dimensional topology. Loosely speaking, proving that two manifolds are homeomorphic involves decomposing them into homeomorphic pieces. The finiteness obstruction is part of the obstruction to splitting a manifold into pieces. The nonsimply-connected version of Browder’s $`M\times `$ Theorem is a case in point. In , Browder proved that if $`M^n`$, $`n6`$, is a $`PL`$ manifold without boundary, $`f:MK\times ^1`$ is a ($`PL`$) proper homotopy equivalence, and $`K`$ is a simply-connected finite complex, then $`M`$ is homeomorphic to $`N\times ^1`$ for some closed manifold $`N`$ homotopy equivalent to $`K`$.

When $`K`$ is connected but not simply-connected, a finiteness obstruction arises. Here is a quick sketch of the argument: It is not difficult to show that $`M`$ is 2-ended. The proper homotopy equivalence $`f:MK\times ^1`$ gives us a proper $`PL`$ map $`p:M`$. If $`c`$ is not the image of any vertex, then $`p^1(c)`$ is a bicollared $`PL`$ submanifold of $`M`$ which separates the ends. Connected summing components along arcs allows us to assume that $`P_0=p^1(c)`$ is connected and a disk-trading argument similar to one in Browder’s paper allows us to assume that $`\pi _1P_0\pi _1M`$ is an isomorphism. See Siebenmann  for details. An application of the recognition criterion discussed in the third paragraph of this paper shows that the two components of $`MP_0`$, which we denote by $`RHS(M)`$ and $`LHS(M)`$, respectively, are finitely dominated. By the sum theorem,

$$[RHS(M)]+[LHS(M)]=0\stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(M)]).$$

It turns out that the vanishing of $`[RHS(M)]=[LHS(M)]`$ is necessary and sufficient for $`M`$ to be homeomorphic to a product $`N\times `$, provided that $`dim(M)6`$. This is one of the main results of .

It is possible to realize the finiteness obstruction $`\sigma \stackrel{~}{K}_0([\pi _1(K)])`$ for an $`n`$-dimensional manifold $`M^n`$ proper homotopy equivalent to $`K\times `$ for some finite $`K`$ whenever $`\sigma +(1)^{n1}\sigma ^{}=0`$ and $`n6`$. If we only require that $`M`$ be properly dominated by some $`K\times `$, then any finiteness obstruction $`\sigma `$ can be realized (cf. Pedersen and Ranicki .) A similar obstruction arises in the problem of determining whether a map $`p:M^nS^1`$ is homotopic to the projection map of a fiber bundle (Farrell ).

The geometric splitting of two-ended open manifolds into right and left sides is closely related to the proof of the algebraic splitting theorem of Bass, Heller and Swan  for $`Wh(\pi \times )`$ – see Ranicki .

## 8. The triangulation of manifolds

The finiteness obstruction arises in connection with another of the fundamental problems of topology: Is every compact topological manifold without boundary homeomorphic to a finite polyhedron? We will examine this problem in much greater detail. The triangulation problem was solved affirmatively for two-dimensional manifolds by Rado in 1924 and for three-dimensional manifolds by Moise in 1952. Higher dimensions proved less tractable,222In fact, Casson has shown that there are compact four-manifolds without boundary which are not homeomorphic to finite polyhedra (Akbulut and McCarthy , p.xvi). The question is still open in dimensions greater than or equal to five. a circumstance which encouraged the formulation of weaker questions such as the following homotopy triangulation problem: Does every compact topological manifold have the homotopy type of some finite polyhedron? The first solution of this problem came as a corollary to Kirby and Siebenmann’s theory of $`PL`$ triangulations of high-dimensional topological manifolds. By a theorem of Hirsch, every topological manifold $`M^n`$ has a well-defined stable topological normal disk bundle. The total space of this bundle is a closed neighborhood of $`M`$ in some high-dimensional euclidean space. In , Kirby and Siebenmann proved that a topological $`n`$-manifold, $`n6`$, has a $`PL`$ structure if and only if this stable normal bundle reduces from $`TOP`$ to $`PL`$. As an immediate corollary, they deduced that every compact topological manifold has the homotopy type of a finite polyhedron, since each $`M`$ is homotopy equivalent to the total space of the unit disk bundle of its normal disk bundle and the total space of the normal disk bundle is a $`PL`$ manifold because its normal bundle is trivial. The argument of Kirby and Siebenmann also shows that each compact topological manifold has a well-defined simple homotopy type. A more refined argument, see p.104 of Kirby and Siebenmann , shows that every closed topological manifold of dimension $`6`$ is a $`TOP`$ handlebody. From this it follows immediately that every compact topological manifold is homotopy equivalent to a finite $`CW`$ complex and therefore to a finite polyhedron. This positive solution to the homotopy-triangulation problem suggests that we should look for large naturally-occurring classes of compact topological spaces which have the homotopy types of finite polyhedra. In 1954, K. Borsuk  conjectured that every compact metrizable $`ANR`$ should have the homotopy type of a finite polyhedron. This became widely known as Borsuk’s Conjecture. The Borsuk Conjecture was solved by J. E. West, , using results of T. A. Chapman, which, in turn, were based on an infinite-dimensional version of Kirby-Siebenmann’s handle-straightening argument. In a nutshell, Chapman proved that every compact manifold modeled on the Hilbert cube ($`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}[0,1])`$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite complex and West showed that every compact $`ANR`$333A compact metrizable space $`X`$ is an $`ANR`$ if and only if it embeds as a neighborhood retract in separable Hilbert space. If $`X`$ has finite covering dimension $`n`$, separable Hilbert space can be replaced by $`^{2n+1}`$. is homotopy equivalent to a compact manifold modeled on the Hilbert cube. A rather short finite-dimensional proof of the topological invariance of Whitehead torsion, together with the Borsuk Conjecture was given by Chapman in . See Ranicki and Yamasaki  for a more recent proof, which makes use of controlled algebraic $`K`$-theory.