text:
# Overview of Grand Unified Models and Their Predictions for Neutrino Oscillations

## 1 Non-unified Standard Models

We begin with some relevant features of the two non-unified standard models. In the SM of particle physics, where the gauge group is $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$, no gauge coupling unification occurs at any scale . Just one Higgs doublet of $`SU(2)_L`$ is introduced, $`H_u=\varphi =(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^0)^T`$, along with its charge conjugate, $`H_d=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=(\varphi ^0,\varphi ^{})^T`$, with the symmetry broken by the vacuum expectation value (VEV), $`\varphi ^o=v=174`$ GeV. The left-handed quarks and leptons are placed in doublets, while the right-handed (or left-handed conjugate) quarks and charged leptons are taken to be singlets. The Yukawa Lagrangian can then be written as

$$_Y=\lambda _{ij}^uu_i^cQ_jH_u+\lambda _{ij}^dd_i^cQ_jH_d+\lambda _{ij}^ed_i^cL_jH_d$$
(1)
where $`Q_j`$ and $`L_j`$ refer to the jth family of quark and lepton left-handed doublets. Since no right-handed (or left-handed conjugate) neutrinos are assumed to exist, no renormalizable neutrino mass terms appear in eq. (1).

In the case of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), the same gauge group applies while two independent Higgs doublets, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ are introduced with VEV’s, $`v_u=H_u^o,v_d=H_d^o`$, which give masses to the up-type quarks and down-type quarks, respectively. The constraint $`v=\sqrt{v_u^2+v_d^2}=174\mathrm{GeV}`$ holds, while the parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_u/v_d`$ remains arbitrary. The quark, lepton, scalar and gauge boson sectors are also doubled by the introduction of superpartners. With these extra SUSY particles present, gauge coupling unification occurs at a scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G=2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV . The Yukawa superpotential has the same form as for the SM, still with many arbitrary Yukawa couplings and no renormalizable neutrino mass terms.

## 2 Reduction in the Number of Parameters

In order to reduce the number of free parameters in the standard models, one can introduce a flavor (or intra-family) symmetry, a family (or inter-family) symmetry, or both. Such procedures have mainly been carried out in the supersymmetry framework, since that allows the possibility of gauge coupling unification and can sufficiently suppress proton decay.

Flavor symmetry has generally been achieved in the framework of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) which provide unified treatments of quarks and leptons, as (some) quarks and leptons are placed in the same multiplets. Examples involve $`SU(5),SU(5)\times U(1),SO(10),E_6,SU(5)\times SU(5)`$, etc.

The introduction of a family or horizontal symmetry, on the other hand, enables one to build in an apparent hierarchy for different family masses belonging to comparable flavors. Such a symmetry may be discrete as in the case of $`Z_2,S_3,Z_2\times Z_2`$, etc. which results in multiplicative quantum numbers. A continuous symmetry such as $`U(1),U(2),SU(3)`$, etc., on the other hand, results in additive quantum numbers and may be global or local (and possibly anomalous).

Combined flavor and family symmetries will typically reduce the number of model parameters even more effectively. On the other hand, the unification of flavor and family symmetries into one single group such as $`SO(18)`$ or $`SU(8)`$, for example, has generally not been successful, as too many extra states are present which must be made superheavy.

We now turn to illustrate various features of the different types of unification. For lack of space only a few selected references are given. A considerably more complete set of references can be found in a more general recent review .

## 3 MSSM with Anomalous U(1) Family Symmetry

In 1979 Froggatt and Nielsen  added to the SM a scalar singlet “flavon” $`\varphi _f`$, which gets a VEV, together with heavy fermions, $`(F,\overline{F})`$, in vector-like representations, all of which carry $`U(1)`$ family charges. With $`U(1)`$ broken at a scale $`M_G`$ by $`\varphi /M_Gϵ(0.010.1)`$, the light and heavy fermions are mixed; hence $`ϵ`$ can serve as an expansion parameter for the quark and lepton mass matrix entries.

This idea received a revival in the past decade when it was observed by Ibanez  that string theories with anomalous $`U(1)`$’s generate Fayet-Iliopoulos D-terms which trigger the breaking of the $`U(1)`$ at a scale of $`O(ϵ)`$ below the cutoff, again providing a suitable expansion parameter. The $`ϵ^n`$ structure of the mass matrices can be determined from the corresponding Wolfenstein $`\lambda `$ structure of the CKM matrix and the quark and lepton mass ratios, where different $`U(1)`$ charges are assigned to each quark and lepton field. But this procedure suffers from the fact that the coefficients (prefactors) of the $`ϵ`$ powers are not accurately determined.

With this scenario, Ramond  and many others have shown that maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing of atmospheric neutrinos and the small mixing angle MSW solution for solar $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ can be obtained. Bimaximal mixing solutions, however, are not obtained naturally.

## 4 Minimal SUSY SU(5)

With the minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$ flavor symmetry, the matter fields are placed in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ representations: $`\overline{5}_i(d_\alpha ^c,\mathrm{},\nu _{\mathrm{}})_i,10_i(u_\alpha ,d_\alpha ,u_\alpha ^c,\mathrm{}^c)_i`$. Higgs fields are placed in the adjoint and fundamental representations: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(24),H_u(5)`$, $`H_d(\overline{5})`$. The $`SU(5)`$ symmetry is broken down to the MSSM at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_G`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(b,b,b,\frac{3b}{2},\frac{3b}{2})`$, but doublet-triplet splitting must be done by hand. The electroweak breaking occurs when $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ VEV’s are generated.

The number of Yukawa couplings has now been reduced in the Yukawa superpotential

$$W_{Yuk}=\lambda _{ij}^u10_i10_jH_u+\lambda _{ij}^d\overline{5}_i10_jH_d$$
(2)
where by the particle assignments, the fermion mass matrices exhibit the symmetries, $`M_U=M_U^T,M_D=M_L^T`$ which implies at the GUT scale $`m_b=m_\tau \mathrm{but}\mathrm{also}m_d/m_s=m_e/m_\mu `$, since minimal $`SU(5)`$ is too simplistic and no family symmetry is present.

Proton decay occurs through leptoquark gauge boson exchange with $`\tau _p=10^{36\pm 1.5}`$ yrs. and through colored Higgsino exchange with $`\tau _p=10^{3233}`$ yrs.  This places it nearly within reach but well above the old non-SUSY $`SU(5)`$ limit of $`10^{29}`$ years which has long been ruled out.

## 5 SUSY SU(5) with Anomalous U(1)

Kaplan, Lepintre, Masiero, Nelson and Riotto  have suggested an extension of the Froggatt-Nielsen idea as applied to $`SU(5)`$ by addition of more singlet Higgs flavons with different VEV’s to replace different powers of the same ratio. The effective couplings then appear as $`f^cfH\varphi /\chi `$, where $`W_{Yuk}=f^cFH+F^cF\chi +F^cf\chi `$. Matter and Higgs supermultiplets are each assigned their own family $`U(1)`$ charges. Although there are more restrictions, the model is still not very predictive due to the unknown prefactors.

## 6 Flipped SU(5) $`\times `$ U(1) with Anomalous U(1)

This partially unified $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ GUT  has the following unconventional assignments: Matter Fields: $`\overline{5}_i(u_\alpha ^c,\nu _{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{})_i`$; $`10_i(u_\alpha ,d_\alpha ,d_\alpha ^c,\nu ^c)_i`$; $`1_i(\mathrm{}^c)_i`$; Higgs Fields: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(10),\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{10}),H(5),\overline{H}(\overline{5})`$. No $`b\tau `$ unification or seesaw mechanism occurs, while R-parity is broken.

## 7 SUSY SO(10) with Family Symmetry

Here all fermions of one family are placed in a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ spinor supermultiplet and carry the same family charge assignment: $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_i(u_\alpha ,d_\alpha ,u_\alpha ^c,d_\alpha ^c,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^c,\nu _{\mathrm{}},\nu _{\mathrm{}}^c)_i`$, $`i=1,2,3.`$ Massive pairs of $`(\mathrm{𝟏𝟔},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}})`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$’s may also be present. The Higgs Fields: $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}_H`$’s and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_H,\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H`$ break $`SO(10)`$ to SM, while $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}_𝐇`$ breaks the electroweak group. A $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}}_H`$ or $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}_H1_H`$ can generate superheavy right-handed Majorana neutrino masses.

$`tb\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification is possible only for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_u/v_d55`$ in this minimal case. However, if a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}_{}^{}{}_{H}{}^{},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}^{}}_H`$ pair is introduced with the former getting an electroweak-breaking VEV which helps contribute to $`H_d`$ , Yukawa coupling unification is possible for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 55`$. Such breaking VEV’s can contribute asymmetrically to the down quark and charged lepton mass matrices. This makes it possible to understand large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing, $`U_{\mu 3}0.707`$, while $`V_{cb}0.040`$. Moreover, the Georgi-Jarlskog mass relations , $`m_s/m_b=m_\mu /3m_\tau \mathrm{and}m_d/m_b=3m_e/m_\tau `$, can be generated by the mass matrices with the help of the asymmetrical contributions just mentioned.

Various family symmetries appear in the literature in combination with the $`SO(10)`$ group: unspecified , $`U(1)\times Z_2\times Z_2`$ , $`U(2)`$ , $`U(2)\times U(1)^n`$ , $`SU(3)`$ , to name just a few. Again see .

## 8 Mass and Mixings Matrices

Complex symmetric mass matrices can be constructed for each flavor $`f=U,D,N,L`$ in the GUT flavor basis

$$_f=\{f_{iL},f_{iL}^c\},i=1,2,3:_f=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_f^T\\ M_f& M_R\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
where $`M_f`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ Dirac mass matrix for flavor $`f`$ and $`M_R`$ is the $`3\times 3`$ superheavy Majorana neutrino mass matrix for $`f=N`$. The $`3\times 3`$ light neutrino mass matrix is determined by the seesaw mechanism, $`M_\nu =M_N^TM_R^1M_N`$.

The mixing matrices are obtained by diagonalizing the mass matrices according to $`M_f^{diag}=U_f^TM_fU_f`$ from which one finds $`V_{CKM}=U_U^{}U_D,U_{MNS}=U_L^{}U_\nu `$. Successful GUT models must essentially generate the CKM mixing matrix and one of the two MNS maximal (SMA MSW) or bimaximal (LMA MSW or Vacuum) mixing matrices corresponding to the still possible solar neutrino solutions:

$`V_{CKM}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.975& 0.220& 0.0032e^{i65^o}\\ 0.220& 0.974& 0.040\\ 0.0088& 0.040& 0.999\end{array}\right)`$ (4)
$`U_{MNS}^{(SMA)}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.99& 0.04& 0.05\\ 0.03& 0.70& 0.71\\ 0.03& 0.71& 0.70\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
$`U_{MNS}^{(bimax)}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.71& 0.70& \theta _{13}\\ 0.50& 0.50& 0.71\\ 0.50& 0.50& 0.70\end{array}\right)`$ (6)
where $`\theta _{13}`$ is bounded to be $`<0.2`$ by the CHOOZ experiment . The effective mixing angles and mass squared differences in question are:

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $``$ $`4|U_{\mu 3}|^2|U_{\tau 3}|^21.0`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ $``$ $`4|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2\{\begin{array}{cc}0.006,& \mathrm{SMA}\\ 1.0,& \mathrm{LMA},\mathrm{Vac}\end{array}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{reac}}`$ $``$ $`4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\{\begin{array}{cc}0.05,& \mathrm{SMA}\\ 0.0010.1,& \mathrm{LMA},\mathrm{Vac}\end{array}`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ $``$ $`3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\{\begin{array}{cc}6\times 10^6\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{SMA}\\ 5\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{LMA}\\ 4\times 10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{Vac}\end{array}`$ (10)
The SMA MSW solution is readily found in many unified models, if the light neutrino diagonalizing matrix, $`U_\nu `$, is close to the identity matrix and the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing is provided by the charged lepton diagonalizing matrix. Bimaximal mixing can be obtained with substantial off-diagonal contributions in the $`M_{NR}`$ matrix. Of the two, the Vacuum solution tends to be somewhat more natural than the LMA MSW solution, although either can be obtained with careful tuning of the Dirac and Majorana matrices.

## 9 Partial Unification with Light Sterile Neutrinos

Light sterile neutrinos are somewhat of an anomaly in the presence of GUTs. They tend to spoil the seesaw mechanism, so it is not clear why the ordinary and sterile neutrinos remain light. Moreover, if one sterile neutrino is found, one expects many.

In $`SO(10)`$, light sterile neutrinos can be placed into $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ representations, but the number is unexplained. In $`E_6`$ one can associate one sterile neutrino with each $`16`$ of $`SO(10)`$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$, since $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}16+10+1`$ for each family . But one must insure that the members of the $`10`$ of each $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}`$ become supermassive. Other groups suggested in the literature involve $`SU(5)\times SU(5)`$ and $`SO(10)\times SO(10)`$, where the sterile neutrinos live in the second “mirror” groups and remain light while all other particles in the representations decouple from the known interactions .

## 10 Concluding Remarks

In order to obtain predictive models of the 12 “light” fermions and their 8 CKM and MNS mixing angles and phases in the framework of this talk, a Grand Unified Model with family symmetry must be introduced. $`SO(10)`$ models are more tightly constrained than $`SU(5)`$ models and are more economical than larger groups like $`E_6`$, where more fields must be made supermassive. In fact, some $`SO(10)`$ models do very well in predicting the 20 “observables” with just 10 or more input parameters .


format: text

text:
# THE GEOGRAPHY OF SPIN SYMPLECTIC 4-MANIFOLDS

## 1. Introduction

One of the main topological problems in smooth $`4`$-manifolds is to classify such $`4`$-manifolds by using numerical invariants. Even though most classical invariants are not enough to distinguish smooth $`4`$-manifolds which are mutually homeomorphic, it is still of interest to know what combinations of topological invariants are realizable. Similarly, one may consider the same problems in both the category of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds and the category of complex surfaces. We call these geography problems. Let us describe some numerical invariants used in the geography question. Note that most classical invariants for $`4`$-manifolds are encoded by the intersection form. This form is an integral unimodular symmetric bilinear pairing

$$Q_X:H_2(X;𝐙)\times H_2(X;𝐙)𝐙$$

obtained by representing homology classes as smoothly embedded oriented surfaces and counting intersections with signs. By Poincaré duality it is equivalently defined as the cup product on the second cohomology classes. From $`Q_X`$ one can obtain the following numerical invariants for a simply connected closed $`4`$-manifold $`X`$:

* $`e(X):=b_2(X)+2`$, called the Euler characteristic of $`X`$.
* $`\sigma (X):=b_2^+(X)b_2^{}(X)`$, called the signature of $`X`$.
* type of $`X`$, which is even if $`Q_X(\alpha ,\alpha )2𝐙,\alpha H_2(X;𝐙)`$, and odd otherwise.

Now we define two numbers $`\chi (X)`$ and $`𝐜(X)`$ for a simply connected closed $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ from these invariants:

* $`\chi (X):=\frac{\sigma (X)+e(X)}{4}=\frac{b_2^+(X)+1}{2}`$, which is an integer if there exists an almost complex structure on $`X`$, and

* $`𝐜(X):=3\sigma (X)+2e(X)`$, which is equal to $`c_1^2(X)`$ if there exists an almost complex structure on $`X`$.

Then a pair $`(\chi (X),𝐜(X))`$ of numbers determines the intersection form $`Q_X`$ up to type, so that a pair $`(\chi (X),𝐜(X))`$ determines the $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ up to homeomorphism and type due to M. Freedman’s classification theorem of simply connected topological $`4`$-manifolds. Thus it is natural to ask whether a pair $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ of numbers determines a smooth (or symplectic) $`4`$-manifold in the category of smooth (or symplectic) $`4`$-manifolds. Explicitly, we may ask the following two questions:

Existence ProblemWhich lattice points in the $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$-plane are realized as simply connected irreducible smooth $`(`$or symplectic$`)`$ $`4`$-manifolds?

Uniqueness ProblemIf there exists a simply connected irreducible smooth $`(`$or symplectic$`)`$ $`4`$-manifold corresponding to a given lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$, are there many distinct smooth $`(`$or symplectic$`)`$ structures on it?

These are the geography problems of $`4`$-manifolds in which we are interested. Note that the questions above are meaningful in the category of irreducible $`4`$-manifolds. Otherwise, one can easily get an answer for those questions through the connected sum of other $`4`$-manifolds. Here we call a smooth $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ irreducible if it is not a connected sum of other smooth $`4`$-manifolds except for a homotopy $`4`$-sphere, i.e. if $`X=X_1\mathrm{}X_2`$ implies that one of $`X_i`$ is a homotopy $`4`$-sphere.

Despite the fact that it was a fundamental problem in the category of $`4`$-manifolds, the geography problem for smooth $`4`$-manifolds and for symplectic $`4`$-manifolds had long been unsolvable until gauge theory was introduced. Since the geography problem has almost the same answer even if we restrict ourselves to symplectic manifolds, from now on we only consider geography problems of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. Since gauge theory was introduced by S. Donaldson in 1982, this area has rapidly been developed. In particular, as an application of the Seiberg-Witten theory to symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, many remarkable results about symplectic $`4`$-manifolds have been obtained. For example, C. Taubes proved that every irreducible symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with $`b_2^+(X)>1`$ has a non-zero Seiberg-Witten invariant and satisfies $`𝐜(X)=c_1^2(X)0`$ (). Besides, geography problems for irreducible symplectic $`4`$-manifolds have been extensively studied by topologists such as R. Fintushel, R. Gompf, R. Stern, A. Stipsicz, Z. Szabó and the author, so that most existence problems for irreducible symplectic $`4`$-manifolds are settled (, , , , ). But, when we restrict our concern to spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, it is still mysterious which lattice points in the ($`\chi ,𝐜`$)-plane are realized by simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. Note that every spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold is automatically irreducible because its Seiberg-Witten invariant is non-zero due to C. Taubes’ theorem above, so that, if it were not irreducible, it would be a blow up of another manifold contradicting the spin hypothesis (). Since a spin structure on a manifold is a purely topological invariant (), there is a topological restriction on $`\chi `$ and $`𝐜`$ for spin $`4`$-manifolds. That is, every spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ satisfies $`𝐜(X)8\chi (X)(mod16)`$. Furthermore, if a $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ has a non-positive signature, then it also satisfies $`𝐜(X)8\chi (X)`$. Hence the interesting questions are: Which lattice points in the ($`\chi ,𝐜`$)-plane satisfying

$$0𝐜8\chi \mathrm{and}𝐜8\chi (mod16)$$

are realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, and then, if there exists such a spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold corresponding to a given lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$, are there many distinct symplectic structures on it? One may also ask the same questions for lattice points lying in the positive signature region: $`𝐜>8\chi \mathrm{and}𝐜8\chi (mod16).`$

In this paper, we give an answer for these geography problems. First we answer the existence question as follows: Roughly, by taking a symplectic fiber sum along an embedded surfaces of self-intersection $`0`$ introduced by R. Gompf (), we construct a family of simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds which cover all ‘allowed’ lattice points in the wedge between the elliptic line ($`𝐜=0`$) and a line $`𝐜=2\chi 12`$, which is parallel to the Noether line. And then, by taking a symplectic fiber sum repeatedly along a torus embedded in both such $`4`$-manifolds constructed above and an appropriate spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold with positive signature, we are able to construct desired simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds.

We also investigate the uniqueness question for symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. In general, since the Seiberg-Witten invariant of a smooth $`4`$-manifold with $`b_2^+>1`$ is a diffeomorphic invariant, one can easily produce a family of smooth $`4`$-manifolds which are mutually homeomorphic, but which are not diffeomorphic by showing that they have different Seiberg-Witten invariants. One way to obtain such a family of smooth $`4`$-manifolds is to use a logarithmic transformation on a tubular neighborhood of a regular fiber lying in a cusp neighborhood (, ). Another way to obtain such a family of smooth $`4`$-manifolds is to use $`0`$-framed surgery on a knot $`K`$ embedded in $`S^3`$ (). Note that both techniques above can be performed symplectically in some cases. For example, if $`K`$ is a fibered knot in $`S^3`$, R. Fintushel and R. Stern constructed a family of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds which are all homotopy $`K3`$ surfaces and which are pairwise non-diffeomorphic (). Since any two symplectic $`4`$-manifolds which are non-diffeomorphic are automatically non-symplectomorphic, their examples actually admit infinitely many distinct symplectic structures. We are going to use this technique to conclude that all simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds obtained in the following main theorem admit infinitely many distinct symplectic structures.

###### Theorem 1.1.

There is a line $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ with a slope $`>8.76`$ in the $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$-plane such that any allowed lattice point satisfying $`𝐜f(\chi )`$ in the first quadrant can be realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifold which admits infinitely many distinct symplectic structures. In particular, all allowed lattice points $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ except finitely many lying in the region $`0𝐜8.76\chi `$ satisfy $`𝐜f(\chi )`$.

Remark. B.D. Park and Z. Szabó got a similar result in . That is, they proved that, for each even intersection form $`Q`$ satisfying $`0𝐜(Q):=3\sigma (Q)+2e(Q)<8\chi (Q)`$ and $`b_2^+`$ odd, there is a simply connected irreducible spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with $`Q_X=Q`$. But they did not get spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds with signature $`0`$ or positive signature. Theorem 1.1 above implies that, for every allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ except finitely many lying in a non-negative signature region $`8\chi 𝐜8.76\chi `$, there exists a corresponding simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifold which admits infinitely many distinct symplectic structures.

Finally we investigate exotic smooth structures on a connected sum $`4`$-manifold, denoted by $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$, of an odd number of copies of a smooth $`4`$-manifold $`S^2\times S^2`$. We say that a smooth $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ admits an exotic smooth structure if it has more than one distinct smooth structure, i.e. there exists a smooth $`4`$-manifold $`X^{}`$ which is homeomorphic to $`X`$, but not diffeomorphic to $`X`$. It has long been an interesting question whether a connected sum $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ admits an exotic smooth structure or not. In this paper, as a corollary of Theorem 1.1 above, we have the following remarkable result.

###### Corollary 1.1.

There exists an integer $`N`$ such that, for all $`nN`$, a connected sum $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ admits infinitely many exotic smooth structures.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we construct a family of simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifolds shown in Theorem 1.1 above, and in Section 3 we prove that all these manifolds satisfy desired properties stated in Theorem 1.1 above.

## 2. Construction of spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds

We start this section by briefly reviewing the geography problem of minimal complex surfaces. It is well known that every simply connected minimal complex surface is one of rational or ruled surfaces, elliptic surfaces and complex surfaces of general type. The geography problem for minimal complex surfaces of general type has been studied extensively by algebraic surface theorists. The following are some of main results:

* Chern-invariants $`\chi =\frac{1}{12}(c_1^2+e)`$ and $`𝐜=c_1^2=3\sigma +2e`$ of minimal complex surfaces of general type satisfy $`\chi >0`$ and $`𝐜>0`$. They also satisfy both Noether inequality and Bogomolov-Miyaoka-Yau inequality: $`2\chi 6𝐜9\chi `$.
* Every lattice point ($`\chi ,𝐜`$) except finitely many lying in $`2\chi 6𝐜8\chi `$ is realized as ($`\chi ,c_1^2`$) of a minimal complex surface which is a Lefschetz fibration. Furthermore, if it satisfies $`2\chi 6𝐜8(\chi \frac{9}{\sqrt[3]{12}}\chi ^{\frac{2}{3}})`$, then it is realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected minimal complex surface which is a genus two Lefschetz fibration ().
* By modifying G. Xiao’s construction of non-spin complex surfaces which are hyperelliptic fibrations, U. Persson, C. Peters and G. Xiao constructed infinitely many simply connected spin complex surfaces with positive signature which are fibrations over $`𝐂P^1`$ even though these are not hyperelliptic fibrations. Roughly, these are constructed by using a triple sequence of double coverings $`Y_3\stackrel{\pi _3}{}Y_2\stackrel{\pi _2}{}Y_1\stackrel{\pi _1}{}𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$ branched at $`B_1,\pi _1^{}B_2`$ and $`(\pi _1\pi _2)^{}B_3`$, respectively, where branch-loci $`B_1,B_2`$ and $`B_3`$ are chosen suitably in $`𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$ so that $`Y_3`$ is a simply connected spin singular complex surface with positive signature. After desingularization of $`Y_3`$ and blowing down disjoint exceptional curves, they obtained a Lefschetz fibration $`Y𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1\stackrel{proj_1}{}𝐂P^1`$. Note that it is not hyperelliptic because its generic fiber is a $`𝐙_2𝐙_2𝐙_2`$-cover over $`𝐂P^1`$ (See ,  for details).

Now let us consider spin $`4`$-manifolds. Recall that an oriented manifold is called spin if the second Stiefel-Whitney class $`w_2`$ of the manifold is zero. Equivalently, the intersection form of the manifold is of even type in the simply connected case. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the spin condition gives a topological restriction on $`\chi (X):=\frac{\sigma (X)+e(X)}{4}`$ and $`𝐜(X):=3\sigma (X)+2e(X)`$ for a spin $`4`$-manifold $`X`$. Explicitly,

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`X`$ is a spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold with $`b_2^+>1`$, then it satisfies

$$𝐜(X)=c_1^2(X)0\mathrm{and}𝐜(X)8\chi (X)(mod16).$$

###### Proof.

The first inequality follows from C. Taubes’ theorem (), and the second one follows from the facts that $`𝐜(X)=3\sigma (X)+2e(X)=\sigma (X)+8\chi (X)`$ and $`\sigma (X)`$ is divisible by $`16`$ due to Rohlin’s signature theorem. ∎

Lemma 2.1 above tells us that only lattice points ($`\chi ,𝐜`$) satisfying both $`𝐜0`$ and $`𝐜8\chi (mod16)`$ can be possibly realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds - We call these ‘allowed’ lattice points. But it is still not fully known which allowed lattice points in the ($`\chi ,𝐜`$)-plane are covered by simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. Furthermore, there is another restriction on the geography of spin complex surfaces, that is, not all allowed lattice points lying in $`2\chi 6𝐜8\chi `$ are covered by spin complex surfaces. For example, U. Persson, C. Peters and G. Xiao proved:

###### Theorem 2.1 ().

Let $`X`$ be a simply connected spin complex surface whose Chern-invariants satisfy $`2\chi 6c_1^2<3(\chi 5).`$ Then it has $`c_1^2=2(\chi 3)`$ with $`c_1^2=8k`$ and $`k`$ odd, or $`c_1^2=\frac{8}{3}(\chi 4)`$ with $`\chi 0(mod3)`$.

But the story is quite different in the category of symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. For example, we will show that all allowed lattice points lying in the region $`2\chi 6c_1^2<3(\chi 5)`$ are also covered by simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. Before proving it, first we define a topological surgery, called a fiber sum, which is one of the main technical tools in our construction.

Definition Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be closed oriented smooth $`4`$-manifolds which contain a smoothly embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with genus $`g1`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ represents a homology class of infinite order and of self-intersection $`0`$, so that there exists a tubular neighborhood, say $`D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, in both $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`X_0=\overline{XD^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`Y_0=\overline{YD^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Then by choosing an orientation-reversing, fiber-preserving diffeomorphism $`\phi :D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and by gluing $`X_0`$ to $`Y_0`$ along their boundaries via the diffeomorphism

$$\phi |_{D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}:D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }$$

we define a new oriented smooth $`4`$-manifold $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$, called the fiber sum of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Note that there is an induced embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$, well-defined up to isotopy, which represents a homology class of infinite order and of self-intersection $`0`$. Furthermore, R. Gompf generalized a fiber sum technique for symplectic manifolds. That is, R. Gompf proved that if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a symplectic (or Lagrangian) surface of self-intersection $`0`$ in symplectic $`4`$-manifolds $`X`$ and $`Y`$, then a fiber sum operation can be performed symplectically, so that the resulting manifold $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ is symplectic. He also proved that a spin structure can be preserved under a fiber sum operation ().

Here is a brief explanation for a spin structure on $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$: Suppose there are two spin structures on a tubular neighborhood $`D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ induced from $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. Then the difference of two spin structures corresponds to an element of $`H^1(D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙_2)H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙_2)`$. Since the group of automorphisms, up to isotopy, of a bundle $`D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be identified with $`[\mathrm{\Sigma },S^1]H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙)`$ and since the coefficient homomorphism $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙)H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙_2)`$ is surjective, an element of $`H^1(D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙_2)`$ corresponding to the difference of two spin structures is the image of a suitable bundle automorphism $`\phi `$ under the coefficient homomorphism. Hence two spin structures on $`D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be identified by choosing a suitable bundle automorphism $`\phi :D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that the spin structures on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ induce a spin structure on $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$.

###### Lemma 2.2 ().

Suppose $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds containing a symplectic (or Lagrangian) surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of self-intersection $`0`$. Then the manifold $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ is also spin and symplectic.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Suppose $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are simply connected smooth $`4`$-manifolds containing a tubular neighborhood $`D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of an embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`S^1D^2\times \{pt\}`$ bounds a disk in $`X_0=\overline{XD^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ or $`Y_0=\overline{YD^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, then the manifold $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ is simply connected.

###### Proof.

This fact follows from Van Kampen’s theorem:

$$\pi _1(X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y)=\frac{\pi _1(X_0)\pi _1(Y_0)}{N}$$

where ‘$``$’ means a free product and $`N`$ is a normal subgroup generated by $`\pi _1(D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma })`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be closed simply connected smooth $`4`$-manifolds containing an embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ and genus $`g`$. Then the manifold $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ satisfies $`𝐜(X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y)=𝐜(X)+𝐜(Y)+8(g1)`$ and $`\chi (X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y)=\chi (X)+\chi (Y)+(g1)`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the facts that $`e(X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y)=e(X)+e(Y)+4(g1)`$ and $`\sigma (X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y)=\sigma (X)+\sigma (Y)`$. ∎

Brieskorn manifold. As the first step to construct desired spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds, we consider a Brieskorn $`4`$-manifold defined as follows: For positive integers $`p,q`$ and $`r`$, a Brieskorn $`4`$-manifold $`B(p,q,r)`$ is defined to be the Milnor fiber of the link of the isolated singularity of $`z_1^p+z_2^q+z_3^r=0`$ in $`𝐂^3`$. Then $`B(p,q,r)`$ is a smooth $`4`$-manifold with boundary and, if $`p,q`$ and $`r`$ are pairwise coprime, the boundary $`B(p,q,r)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r)`$ is the corresponding Brieskorn homology $`3`$-sphere (). It is well known that each $`B(p,q,r)`$ has a natural compactification (by adding a complex curve at infinity) as a complete intersection in a weighted homogeneous space and that the singularities of this compactification can be resolved to obtain a simply connected algebraic surface $`X(p,q,r)`$ (). The following fact will be used to construct our desired spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds.

###### Lemma 2.5 ().

If $`(p,q,r)`$ and $`(p^{},q^{},r^{})`$ are triples of positive integers with $`pp^{},`$ $`qq^{}`$ and $`rr^{}`$, then $`B(p,q,r)B(p^{},q^{},r^{})`$. Furthermore if $`p2,q3`$ and $`r7`$, then a Brieskorn $`4`$-manifold $`B(p,q,r)`$ contains a cusp neighborhood and also a $`2`$-sphere $`S`$ which intersects the cusp fiber transversely at a single point.

A. Stipsicz pointed out that an embedded torus in the cusp neighborhood stated in Lemma 2.5 above is a Lagrangian torus (). Here are several examples of Brieskorn $`4`$-manifolds which will serve as building blocks in our construction.

Example 1. It is known that a simply connected elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ with no multiple fibers and holomorphic Euler characteristic $`n`$ can be obtained as an algebraic surface $`X(2,3,6n1)`$ which is diffeomorphic to

$$B(2,3,6n1)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,6n1)}C(n)$$

where $`C(n)`$, usually called a Gompf nucleus, is a neighborhood of a cusp fiber and a section which is an embedded $`2`$-sphere of self-intersection $`n`$.

Example 2. It is also known that a simply connected Horikawa surface $`H(4k1)`$, whose Chern-invariants are $`(\chi ,c_1^2)=(4k1,8k8)`$, can be obtained as an algebraic surface

$$X(2,5,10k1)=B(2,5,10k1)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,5,10k1)}T(k)$$

where $`T(k)`$ is a neighborhood of a surface $`T`$ with genus $`2`$ and self-intersection $`0`$, obtained from $`0`$-framed surgery on the $`(2,5)`$-torus knot, and a section with self-intersection $`k`$ (See Fig. 1). Note that a simply connected Horikawa surface $`H(4k1)`$ is spin if and only if $`k`$ is even.

Example 3. It is also known that a simply connected algebraic surface $`X(2,2g+1,4g+1)`$ is diffeomorphic to $`B(2,2g+1,4g+1)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,2g+1,4g+1)}T(2,2g+1)`$, where $`T(2,2g+1)`$ is a manifold obtained from $`+1`$-framed surgery on the $`(2,2g+1)`$-torus knot so that it contains a surface $`T`$ of genus $`g`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Let $`X^{}=X(2,2g+1,4g+1)\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^2`$ be a manifold obtained by blowing up at a point in $`T`$, so that $`X^{}`$ is diffeomorphic to

$$B(2,2g+1,4g+1)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,2g+1,4g+1)}C(2,2g+1)$$

where $`C(2,2g+1)`$ is a blow up of $`T(2,2g+1)`$. Then $`X^{}`$ is a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold which contains an embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`g`$ and self-intersection $`0`$ representing $`Te`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is symplectically embedded, we get a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`Z:=X^{}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{}`$ by taking a fiber sum of $`X^{}`$ with itself along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (See Fig. 2). Furthermore, the manifold $`Z`$ is spin because each part in Fig. 2 is spin and the boundary of each part in Fig. 2 is a homology $`3`$-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,2g+1,4g+1)`$. Note that the manifold $`Z`$ has Chern-invariants $`\chi (Z)=2g^2g+1`$ and $`𝐜(Z)=8g^216g+8`$.

Now we are ready to get our main theorem. First we prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Every allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ in the wedge between the elliptic line $`(𝐜=0)`$ and a line $`𝐜=2\chi 12`$ is realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifold.

###### Proof.

First we claim that every lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ satisfying both $`𝐜8\chi (mod16)`$ and $`\chi `$ odd on the Noether line $`𝐜=2\chi 6`$ is realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin Horikawa surface $`H(8k^{}1)`$. This follows from the fact that $`H(8k^{}1)`$ has Chern-invariants $`(\chi ,c_1^2)=(8k^{}1,16k^{}8)`$. And then, since a Brieskorn $`4`$-manifold $`B(p,q,r)`$ with $`(p,q,r)(2,3,7)`$ contains an embedded Lagrangian torus $`f`$ (), we can prove by taking a symplectic fiber sum along the Lagrangian torus $`f`$ embedded in both $`B(2,5,20k^{}1)H(8k^{}1)`$ and $`B(2,3,12n1)E(2n)`$ that all allowed lattice points lying in the region $`\{(\chi ,𝐜)|0𝐜2\chi 6\mathrm{and}𝐜8(mod16)\}`$ are covered by a family of the following spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds

$$\{H(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)|k^{}\mathrm{and}n\mathrm{are}\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{integers}\},$$

and all allowed lattice points in $`\{(\chi ,𝐜)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}𝐜2\chi 12\mathrm{and}𝐜0(mod16)\}`$ are also covered by the following spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds

$$\{H(7)\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)|k^{}\mathrm{and}n\mathrm{are}\mathrm{positive}\mathrm{integers}\}.$$

Note that all these manifolds are simply connected due to Lemma 2.3 and cannot admit a complex structure because they lie below the Noether line. Furthermore, we claim that every allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)=(2n,0)`$ on the elliptic line $`(𝐜=0)`$ is also covered by a spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X(2n)`$ which is homeomorphic to, but not diffeomorphic to $`E(2n)`$ (See below). Thus we arrive at Proposition 2.1 by combining all these results.

Construction of $`X(2n)`$ : Since there are cusp neighborhoods $`NB(2,3,11)`$ and $`N^{}B(2,3,12n13)`$, we construct a spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X(2n):=E(2)\mathrm{}_fE(2n2)`$ by taking a fiber sum along a Lagrangian torus $`f`$ embedded in both $`NB(2,3,11)E(2)`$ and $`N^{}B(2,3,12n13)E(2n2)`$. That is, $`X(2n)`$ is diffeomorphic to

$$C(2)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,11)}B(2,3,11)\mathrm{}_fB(2,3,12n13)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,12n13)}C(2n2)$$

where $`C(2)`$ and $`C(2n2)`$ are nuclei, i.e. neighborhoods of a cusp fiber and a section in $`E(2)`$ and $`E(2n2)`$, respectively. Then it is easy to check that both $`X(2n)`$ and $`E(2n)`$ have the same $`(\chi ,c_1^2)=(2n,0)`$, but they are not diffeomorphic because they have different Seiberg-Witten invariants (Refer to Theorem 3.2 of this paper and to  for the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X(2n)`$ and $`E(2n)`$, respectively). Furthermore, a manifold $`X(2n)`$ cannot admit a complex structure because its Seiberg-Witten invariant is different from that of any elliptic surface (). ∎

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the set of all allowed lattice points lying in the wedge between the elliptic line $`(𝐜=0)`$ and a line $`𝐜=2\chi 12`$. Then we have:

###### Corollary 2.1.

If $`X`$ is a simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold which contains a Lagrangian torus $`f`$ in a cusp neighborhood, then each lattice point lying in $`(\chi (X),𝐜(X))+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold.

###### Proof.

By taking a symplectic fiber sum along a Lagrangian torus embedded in a cusp neighborhood both in $`X`$ and in spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds constructed in Proposition 2.1 above, we get a family of desired simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. ∎

Finally, by taking a fiber sum along a symplectic surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in both a spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`Z`$ constructed in Example 3 above and an appropriate spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold of positive signature, we construct symplectic $`4`$-manifolds which appear in the main theorem of this paper:

###### Theorem 2.2.

There is a line $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ with a slope $`>8.76`$ in the $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$-plane such that any allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ satisfying $`𝐜f(\chi )`$ in the first quadrant can be realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold. In particular, all allowed lattice points $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ except finitely many lying in the region $`0𝐜8.76\chi `$ satisfy $`𝐜f(\chi )`$.

###### Proof.

First let us choose a simply connected spin complex surface, say $`Y`$, of positive signature which contains a holomorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ and genus $`g`$, and which also contains an embedded $`2`$-sphere $`S`$ intersecting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ transversely at one point. For example, we can choose such a complex surface $`Y`$ that U. Persson, C. Peters and G. Xiao constructed in . Here is a brief construction of $`Y`$: Keeping in mind U. Persson, C. Peters and G. Xiao’s construction noted at the beginning of Section 2, let us consider an icosahedral group $`I_{60}`$ of order $`60`$ acting on $`𝐂P^1`$ and, for each integer $`x>0`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ be a pull back of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ under a map $`𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$ induced from a standard $`x`$-covering of $`𝐂P^1`$ to itself, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{gI_{60}}\{(p,gp)𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1|p𝐂P^1\}`$ is the union of all graphs obtained by the action of $`I_{60}`$ on $`𝐂P^1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is a singular curve of bidegree $`(60x,60x)`$ in $`𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$. Now choose branch-loci $`B_1,B_2`$ and $`B_3=\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)(15x,15x)`$ as singular curves of bidegree $`(62x,),(,62x)`$ and $`(75x,75x)`$ in $`𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$, respectively. Then a triple sequence of double coverings $`Y_3\stackrel{\pi _3}{}Y_2\stackrel{\pi _2}{}Y_1\stackrel{\pi _1}{}𝐂P^1\times 𝐂P^1`$ branched at $`B_1,\pi _1^{}B_2`$ and $`(\pi _1\pi _2)^{}B_3`$ with minor modifications, respectively, induces a Lefschetz fibration $`Y𝐂P^1`$ whose Chern-invariants are asymptotically $`\chi (Y)6857x^2`$ and $`𝐜(Y)=c_1^2(Y)60068x^2`$ for sufficiently large $`x`$.

Next take any simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`Z`$ which contains the same symplectically embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ as $`Y`$ has and which also contains a symplectic (or Lagrangian) torus $`f`$ in a cusp neighborhood $`N`$ satisfying $`N\mathrm{\Sigma }_g=\varphi `$. For example, we choose such a $`4`$-manifold $`Z`$ as constructed in Example 3 above. And then, we take a symplectic fiber sum of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ along the embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ to get a spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z`$. Since $`[𝐜(Y)8\chi (Y)]>0`$ and $`𝐜(Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z)8\chi (Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z)=[𝐜(Y)8\chi (Y)]+[𝐜(Z)8\chi (Z)]`$, there exists an integer $`k>0`$ such that $`X:=\stackrel{k}{\stackrel{}{Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Y}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z`$ has a positive signature. Note that the manifold $`X`$ has Chern-invariants $`\chi (X)=k\chi (Y)+\chi (Z)+k(g1)`$ and $`𝐜(X)=k𝐜(Y)+𝐜(Z)+8k(g1)`$, so its ratio is approximately

$$\frac{𝐜(X)}{\chi (X)}=\frac{k𝐜(Y)+𝐜(Z)+8k(g1)}{k\chi (Y)+\chi (Z)+k(g1)}\frac{𝐜(Y)}{\chi (Y)}\frac{60068x^2}{6857x^2}=8.76009\mathrm{}$$

for sufficiently large integers $`k`$ and $`x`$. We fix such large integers $`k`$ and $`x`$ making $`\frac{𝐜(X)}{\chi (X)}>8.76`$. In addition, since the complex surface $`Y`$ contains a $`2`$-sphere $`S=𝐂P^1`$ intersecting a generic fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ transversely at one point, Lemma 2.3 implies that the spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ constructed above is also simply connected. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the set of all allowed lattice points lying in the wedge between the elliptic line ($`𝐜=0`$) and a line $`𝐜=2\chi 12`$. Then Corollary 2.1 implies that every allowed lattice point lying in the region $`(\chi (X),𝐜(X))+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is covered by a simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold. Furthermore, it is also true for $`X\mathrm{}_fX,X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_fX,\mathrm{}`$ Hence, if we define a line $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ by

$$f(\chi )=𝐜(X)/\chi (X)[\chi 𝐜(X)/26]+𝐜(X),$$

then each allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ satisfying $`𝐜f(\chi )`$ in the first quadrant is realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of a simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`W:=\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_fX}}\mathrm{}_fV`$ for some $`m𝐙`$ and the manifold $`V=H(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)`$ (or $`V=H(7)\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)`$) constructed in the proof of Proposition 2.1 above. Thus the theorem follows from the fact that the slope of $`f(\chi )=𝐜(X)/\chi (X)`$ is greater than $`8.76`$. ∎

*Remarks* 1. Note that every spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold with signature $`0`$ obtained in Theorem 2.2 above is homeomorphic to a connected sum $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ for some $`n`$ due to M. Freedman’s classification theorem of simply connected closed topological $`4`$-manifolds. We will prove in Section 3 that all those connected sum $`4`$-manifolds have infinitely many exotic smooth structures (See Corollary 3.1).
2. Theorem 2.2 above also provides a partial answer on the existence question of spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds having a positive signature. That is, all but finitely many allowed lattice points $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ lying in the region $`8\chi <𝐜8.76\chi `$ are realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds of positive signature.
3. There are still infinitely many lattice points $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ lying in the region $`f(\chi )<𝐜<9\chi `$ which are realized as $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifolds. Furthermore, we do not claim that the line $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ constructed in the proof above is the best choice.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.1

In this section we complete the proof of Theorem 1.1 stated in the Introduction. There are two things left to be done - the uniqueness question of symplectic structures and the existence question of a complex structure on those symplectic $`4`$-manifolds that appear in Theorem 1.1. First we prove:

Claim 1. Every simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold in Theorem 2.2 admits infinitely many distinct symplectic structures.

As a background for the proof of Claim 1, let us introduce R. Fintushel and R. Stern’s technique (See  for details): Suppose $`K`$ is a fibered knot in $`S^3`$ with a punctured surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$ of genus $`g`$ as a fiber. Let $`M_K`$ be a $`3`$-manifold obtained by performing $`0`$-framed surgery on $`K`$, and let $`m`$ be a meridional circle to $`K`$. Then the $`3`$-manifold $`M_K`$ can be considered as a fiber bundle over a circle $`m`$ with a closed Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ as a fiber, and there is a smoothly embedded torus $`T_m:=m\times S^1`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ in $`M_K\times S^1`$. Thus $`M_K\times S^1`$ is a fiber bundle over $`S^1\times S^1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ as a fiber and with $`T_m=m\times S^1`$ as a section. A theorem of Thurston states that such a $`4`$-manifold $`M_K\times S^1`$ has a symplectic structure with a symplectic section $`T_m`$ (). Thus, if $`X`$ is a symplectic $`4`$-manifold with a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ of self-intersection $`0`$, then the fiber sum $`4`$-manifold $`X_K:=X\mathrm{}_{T=T_m}(M_K\times S^1)`$, obtained by taking a fiber sum along $`T=T_m`$, is symplectic. R. Fintushel and R. Stern proved that $`X_K`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`X`$ under a mild condition on $`X`$, and they also computed the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X_K`$. Explicitly,

###### Theorem 3.1 ().

Suppose $`X`$ is a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold which contains a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ in a cusp neighborhood with $`\pi _1(XT)=1`$ and representing a non-trivial homology class $`[T]`$. If $`K`$ is a fibered knot, then $`X_K`$ is a symplectic $`4`$-manifold which is homeomorphic to $`X`$ and whose Seiberg-Witten invariant is

$$SW_{X_K}=SW_X\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t)`$ is the Alexander polynomial of $`K`$ and $`t=\mathrm{exp}(2[T])`$.

Proof of Claim 1. Since any two symplectic $`4`$-manifolds which have different Seiberg-Witten invariants are automatically non-symplectomorphic, we will apply Theorem 3.1 to prove Claim 1. For this, it suffices to show that every simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold, say $`W`$, in Theorem 2.2 contains a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ with $`\pi _1(WT)=1`$ and representing a non-trivial homology class $`[T]`$. Note that each symplectic $`4`$-manifold shown in Theorem 2.2 is of the form

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_fX}}\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)\mathrm{or}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_fX}}\mathrm{}_fH(7)\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)`$
for some positive integers $`m,n`$ and $`k^{}𝐙`$, and an elliptic surface $`E(2n)`$ obviously contains such a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ in a nucleus $`C(2n)`$ (Refer to Example 1 in Section 2). Thus Claim 1 follows from Theorem 3.1 above. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now, as an application of Claim 1, we get an answer for the problem regarding how many exotic smooth structures exist on a connected sum of an odd number of copies of a $`4`$-manifold $`S^2\times S^2`$, denoted by $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$.

###### Corollary 3.1.

There exists an integer $`N`$ such that, for all $`nN`$, a connected sum $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ admits infinitely many exotic smooth structures.

###### Proof.

Note that each allowed lattice point $`(\chi ,𝐜)`$ on the signature $`0`$ line is realized by a simply connected spin smooth $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ for some $`n`$ and any simply connected spin smooth $`4`$-manifold having numerical invariants $`(\chi ,𝐜)=(n+1,8n+8)`$ is homeomorphic to a spin $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ due to M. Freedman’s classification. Hence, by applying these facts to simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds of signature $`0`$ shown in Theorem 2.2, we get the desired result. ∎

*Remarks* 1. A connected sum $`4`$-manifold $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ has a natural smooth structure which is compatible with a standard smooth structure on each $`4`$-manifold $`S^2\times S^2`$, and its Seiberg-Witten invariant is zero with respect to this natural smooth structure. Hence we realize that any exotic smooth structure on $`(2n+1)(S^2\times S^2)`$ obtained in Corollary 3.1 above is strikingly different from the standard one.
2. The constant $`N`$ in Corollary 3.1 can be any number $`\chi `$ satisfying $`f(\chi )8\chi `$, where $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ is a line stated in Theorem 2.2. Practically, $`N`$ will be a huge number because we have to choose sufficiently large integers $`k`$ and $`x`$ in order to get a line $`𝐜=f(\chi )`$ with a slope $`>8.76`$. For example, $`N`$ is equal to $`267145kx^2+70`$ for some large numbers $`k`$ and $`x`$ determined by the condition $`\frac{𝐜(X)}{\chi (X)}>8.76`$.

Next we prove the following claim by computing SW-basic classes of spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds shown in Theorem 2.2.

Claim 2. None of the simply connected spin symplectic $`4`$-manifold in Theorem 2.2 admits a complex structure.

In order to compute the SW-basic classes of spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds in Theorem 2.2, we use the following two product formulas for the Seiberg-Witten invariant of a fiber sum $`4`$-manifold.

###### Theorem 3.2 ().

Suppose $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth $`4`$-manifolds with $`b_2^+>1`$ which contain an embedded torus $`f`$ in a cusp neighborhood. Then the Seiberg-Witten invariant of a fiber sum $`4`$-manifold $`X\mathrm{}_fY`$ is given by

$$SW_{X\mathrm{}_fY}=SW_XSW_Y(e^fe^f)^2.$$

###### Theorem 3.3 ().

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be closed oriented smooth $`4`$-manifolds with $`b_2^+(X)1`$ and $`b_2^+(Y)1`$ which contain a smoothly embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with genus $`g>1`$ representing a homology class of infinite order and of square zero. If there are characteristic classes $`l_1H^2(X;𝐙)`$ and $`l_2H^2(Y;𝐙)`$ with $`<l_1,[\mathrm{\Sigma }]>=<l_2,[\mathrm{\Sigma }]>=2g2`$ and with $`SW_X(l_1)0`$ and $`SW_Y(l_2)0`$, then there exists a characteristic class $`kH^2(X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y;𝐙)`$ with $`k|_{D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{proj}^{}(k_0)`$ for $`k_0H^2(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝐙)`$ satisfying $`<k_0,[\mathrm{\Sigma }]>=2g2`$ for which $`SW_{X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y}(k)0`$.

Remark. Theorem 3.2 tells us the complete Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X\mathrm{}_fY`$ obtained by a taking a fiber sum along a torus $`f`$ in a cusp neighborhood. On the other hand, Theorem 3.3 implies that there exists at least one SW-basic class of $`X\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ obtained by taking a fiber sum along an embedded surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of genus $`>1`$ under an appropriate condition.

Proof of Claim 2. Note that spin symplectic $`4`$-manifolds $`X^{}`$, $`Z`$, $`X`$ and $`W`$ in the proof of Theorem 2.2 are of the forms

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`X^{}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }X^{}\mathrm{with}X^{}:=X(2,2g+1,4g+1)\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^2`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{k}{\stackrel{}{Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Y}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z`$
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_fX}}\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)\mathrm{or}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{X\mathrm{}_fX\mathrm{}_f\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_fX}}\mathrm{}_fH(7)\mathrm{}_fH(8k^{}1)\mathrm{}_fE(2n)`$
for some positive integers $`g,m,n,k^{}`$ and $`k𝐙`$.

Now let us try to find SW-basic classes of $`X^{}`$, $`Z`$, $`X`$, and $`W`$ consecutively: First, since the manifold $`X^{}`$ is a blow up of an algebraic surface $`X(2,2g+1,4g+1)`$ of general type and $`X(2,2g+1,4g+1)`$ has only one up to sign SW-basic class $`K`$, the canonical class of $`X(2,2g+1,4g+1)`$, the SW-basic classes of $`X^{}`$ are up to sign of the forms $`\{K+𝐞,K𝐞\}`$, where $`𝐞`$ is a class represented by an exceptional curve in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^2`$. Secondly, since $`Z`$ is the $`4`$-manifold obtained by taking a fiber sum along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=T𝐞`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a symplectically embedded surface in $`X^{}`$, it satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 3.3 above. Hence, by applying Theorem 3.3 or V. Mu$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{n}}`$oz’ result in , it is easy to check that only a pair $`(K+𝐞,K+𝐞)`$ of SW-basic classes of $`(X^{},X^{})`$ induces the SW-basic class of $`Z`$, denoted by $`K_Z`$. Next, since $`Y`$ is also a minimal complex surface of general type, it has only one SW-basic class up to sign, say $`K_Y`$. Then, by applying Theorem 3.3 on a fiber sum manifold $`Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z`$ again, we obtain one SW-basic class of $`Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z`$ induced from $`(K_Y,K_Z)`$, which is denoted by $`K_{Y\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}Z}`$. By repeating the same procedures as above, we get one SW-basic class up to sign, say $`K_X`$, of a fiber sum manifold $`X`$. Finally, let us compute SW-basic class of our manifold $`W`$. Since Horikawa surfaces $`H(7)`$ and $`H(8k^{}1)`$ have only one SW-basic class, say $`K_{H_7}`$ and $`K_H`$, respectively, and since an elliptic surface $`E(2n)`$ has the following SW-basic classes $`\{2kT|k=0,1,\mathrm{},(n1)\}`$ where $`T`$ is a regular torus fiber in the nucleus $`C(2n)E(2n)`$, by applying Theorem 3.2 repeatedly on a Lagrangian torus $`f`$ embedded in Brieskorn submanifolds of $`X`$, $`H(7)`$, $`H(8k^{}1)`$ and $`Z`$, we obtain SW-basic classes up to sign of $`W`$:

$$K_H\pm (K_{H_7})\pm 2kT\pm \stackrel{m}{\stackrel{}{K_X\pm \mathrm{}\pm K_X}}+\stackrel{m+1(\mathrm{or},m+2)}{\stackrel{}{\{0,\pm 2f\}+\mathrm{}+\{0,\pm 2f\}}}.$$

Note that all these manifolds, $`W`$, have obviously more than one SW-basic class. This means that any such a manifold $`W`$ with $`𝐜(W)>0`$ cannot be diffeomorphic to a complex surface of general type. In the case when $`𝐜=0`$, we already constructed a family of simply connected spin non-complex symplectic $`4`$-manifolds $`X(2n)`$ covering the elliptic line in the proof of Proposition 2.1. Hence Claim 2 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgement. The author would like to thank Ronald Fintushel and András Stipsicz for helpful conversations. He is indebted to Ronald Fintushel for a critical reading of the first draft. He would also like to thank Chris Peters for explanation on spin complex surfaces they constructed in . Finally, he also wishes to thank the referee for pointing out some errors in the earlier version of this paper.


text:
# A comparison between Pa𝛼 and H𝛼 emission: the relation between mean H II region reddening, local gas density and metallicityBased on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute which is operated by the Association of University for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA), under NASA contract NAS5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

It has long been suspected that H II regions tend to exhibit higher reddenings in higher metallicity environments. For example, in M101 and M51 (Scowen, Dufour, & Hester (1992); Kennicutt & Garnett (1996); Scowen (1992)) a trend between H II region extinction and galactic radius was observed and interpreted to be caused by the radial metallicity gradient in these galaxies. However, most studies have found a large scatter between the extinction and metallicity in individual H II regions (McCall, Rybski & Shields (1985); Zaritsky, Kennicutt & Huchra (1994); Scowen et al. (1992); Kennicutt & Garnett (1996); Bresolin et al. (1999)). Even though the metallicity is fairly uniform across the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), high values of the Balmer decrement are measured near 30 Doradus (Heydari-Mayaleri & Testor (1985); Caplan & Deharveng (1985)) which is located in a region of high gas density (Cohen et al. (1988); Luks & Rohlfs (1992)). Scowen et al. (1992) discovered a few H II regions in M101 with anomalously high extinctions at large galactic radii, which they attributed to higher local gas densities in nearby spiral arms. Despite the large scatter intrinsic to ensembles of H II regions, previous studies have found that the mean extinction of ensembles of H II regions varied between different galaxy regions. Martin & Friedli (1999) attributed the higher mean extinctions in H II regions in barred galaxies compared to non-barred galaxies to be caused by the higher gas densities associated with bar induced shocks. Scowen et al. (1992) and Scowen (1992) found that mean H II region redennings were higher at large galactic radii than at smaller radii in both M101 and M51.

If there is a general trend for an ensemble of H II regions to be more highly reddened in higher gas density or metal rich environments, then the star formation rate estimated from a sum of recombination line (such as H$`\alpha `$; e.g., Kennicutt (1998)) fluxes would be underestimated in these environments. One way to quantify this effect is to measure extinctions towards ensembles of H II regions in a variety of different galactic environments. If mean H II region extinctions depend upon gas density and metallicity then it might be possible to formulate an empirical correction for the flux. This would allow star formation rates to be measured from one recombination line in more heavily reddened regions. If such a trend exists, star formation rates could be more accurately estimated for galaxies at high redshift and observed line ratios would also yield constraints on the galaxy metallicity and gas surface density.

By observing in the the near-infrared it is possible to probe into more heavily obscured regions because the near-infrared is less affected by dust extinction than optical wavelengths (for examples of previous work on infrared recombination lines see Calzetti et al. (1996) and Beck, Beckwith, & Gatley (1984)). The hydrogen Pa$`\alpha `$ recombination line at $`1.875\mu `$m is bright in the vicinity of hot newly formed stars. It is difficult to observe in nearby galaxies from the ground because of strong atmospheric absorption from water molecules. It is expected to be about one eighth as bright as H$`\alpha `$ at temperatures and densities typical of H II regions, but since it is three times the wavelength of H$`\alpha `$ it should be less affected by extinction. For an H II region seen through a moderate foreground dust screen with $`A_V3`$, Pa$`\alpha `$ should be as bright as H$`\alpha `$. Previous studies of Pa$`\alpha `$ imaging in galaxies include Böker et al. (1999) and Marconi et al. (2000).

In this paper we measure H$`\alpha `$ and Pa$`\alpha `$ fluxes for H II regions in the central regions of five galaxies. We find that the scatter in $`A_V`$ in each galaxy region is less than the differences in the mean values. Observations of distant galaxies are restricted towards observing line emission over a large region in the galaxy. Because of this we estimate a correction for the H$`\alpha `$ flux which is based upon summing over the extinction corrected fluxes of individual H II regions. This procedure is one way of averaging over the scatter in extinctions which has been observed in previous studies of H II regions. We then investigate the dependence of this mean extinction on local gas density and metallicity.

## 2 Observations

We searched the HST archive for galaxies which have high quality narrow band images in Pa$`\alpha `$ and reveal a number of H II regions. The archived images are listed with their filters in Table 1. NGC 2903 and NGC 1512 have narrow band images taken by HST in both Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$, revealing a large number of H II regions. M51 also has both Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ images observed by HST showing numerous H II regions; however, these images overlap only in a small region about $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ to the north and $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ to the east of the nucleus. NGC 4449 and NGC 6946 have high quality Pa$`\alpha `$ images containing numerous H II regions but lack HST narrow band imaging in H$`\alpha `$. For comparison we used H$`\alpha `$ fluxes for NGC 4449 measured by Scowen (1992) and a calibrated ground-based H$`\alpha `$ image for NGC 6946 provided by Rob Kennicutt (private communication). NGC 2903, NGC 4449 and NGC 6946 were observed as part of the nearby galaxies snap shot survey (Böker et al. (1999)).

The NICMOS images were reduced with the nicred data reduction software (McLeod (1997)) using on orbit darks and flats. The narrow band images required a pedestal correction which we assumed was an additional constant in each quadrant of the chip (for more discussion on this see Böker et al. (1999)). WFPC2 images were combined using the IRAF/STSDAS routine combine which removed most of the cosmic ray hits. We derived H$`\alpha `$ and Pa$`\alpha `$ line emission images by subtracting scaled continuum images from the narrow band images containing the lines.

WFPC2 images were calibrated using zeropoints listed in the HST Data Handbook. Specifically we used $`3.062\times 10^{15}`$ and $`2.941\times 10^{15}`$ erg cm-2 s-1/(DN s-1) for the continuum subtracted F656N and F658N narrow band images, respectively in the PC camera of WFPC2. The NICMOS continuum subtracted narrow band images in the F187N filter were calibrated using $`6.69\times 10^{16}`$ and $`8.27\times 10^{16}`$ erg cm-2 s-1/(DN s-1) for Camera 2 and Camera 3 respectively for the Pa$`\alpha `$ line. The NICMOS broad-band images in the F160W filter were calibrated using $`2.190\times 10^6`$ and $`2.776\times 10^6`$ Jy/(DN s-1) for Camera 2 and Camera 3 respectively. The NICMOS flux calibration is 10.7% lower than that used by Böker et al. (1999) and is based on measurements of the standard stars P330-E and P172-D during the Servicing Mission Observatory Verification program and subsequent observations (M. Rieke 1999, private communication). The filter widths listed in the NICMOS and WFPC2 instrument handbooks were used to derive the calibration corrections. The location of the lines was near the region of maximum transmission in the filters in all cases so no correction for filter transmission is required.

To measure the flux of emission regions we used aperture photometry. We identify individual regions from peaks in the Pa$`\alpha `$ line emission images. Aperture sizes were chosen to match the resolution of the H$`\alpha `$ images or that of existing H$`\alpha `$ photometry (for NGC 4449 to match that of Scowen (1992)). For NGC 2903, NGC 1512, and M 51, because we had HST imaging in both lines we were able to use very small apertures. In all cases identical aperture positions and sizes were used on both line emission images. Fluxes and identified regions are listed in Tables 2-6. Positions are given with respect to the nucleus as defined by the centroid at the brightest spot in the NICMOS/F160W images. The positions of nuclei are listed in Table 2-6. Astrometry was done with the IRAF/STSDAS routine xy2rd from the F160W images and is that determined by the HST pointing.

We use the H$`\alpha `$/Pa$`\alpha `$ line ratios to estimate the extinction to each region. We assume intrinsic flux ratios of $`F_{H\alpha }/F_{H\beta }=2.86`$, $`F_{H\alpha }/F_{Pa\alpha }=8.46`$ for Case B recombination at a temperature of $`10^4`$K and a density $`100`$ cm-3 (line ratios are given in Osterbrock (1989)) and a Galactic extinction law (Mathis (1990)). For NGC 2903 and M51 the \[NII\]6584$`\AA `$ line was not contained in the F656N filter, however it is contained in the F658N image of NGC 1512. We correct for the presence of this line in NGC 1512 and NGC 6946 assuming a H$`\alpha `$/(H$`\alpha `$ \+ \[NII\]) line ratio of 0.75 (following the procedure of Kennicutt (1983)). We corrected for Galactic redenning using values from Schlegel et al. (1998).

Fluxes and extinctions derived from Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ flux ratios are listed in Tables 2-6. The variations in the intrinsic line ratios caused by temperature differences are unlikely to significantly affect the measured extinctions; (lowering the electron temperature by 5000K results in a reduction of of 15% in the H$`\alpha `$/Pa$`\alpha `$ line ratio). The errors in the measured line ratios are dominated by errors in the sky value caused by color variations which affect our continuum subtraction or the uneven sky in the Pa$`\alpha `$ images caused by the pedestal affect. The photometric uncertainties are roughly estimated in the Table captions. There is an additional error in the absolute calibration of $`\pm 20\%`$ which corresponds to an error of $`\pm 0.2`$ in the derived $`A_V`$. Relative photometric error between individual H II regions in a galaxy are $`\pm 0.1`$ mag in $`A_V`$ for the faintest regions. The scatter, $`\pm 0.5`$, in $`A_V`$ in each galaxy is therefore likely to be intrinsic and not caused by photometric uncertainty.

When possible, we have compared our measured extinction values with those reported in previous studies. Two of the H II regions in NGC 6946 were also studied by Hyman et al. (2000) with radio continuum and H$`\alpha `$ observations. For the 3rd and 4th H II region listed in Table 5 we find $`A_V3.2`$, while Hyman et al. (2000) report $`A_V2.5`$ and $`3.4`$, in rough agreement with our estimates.

Although Scowen (1992) measured a high extinction, $`A_V2`$, for many regions in NGC 4449 from his H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ narrow band imaging, the Pa$`\alpha `$/H$`\alpha `$ line ratios that we compute from our Pa$`\alpha `$ photometry and his H$`\alpha `$ fluxes suggest that there is little internal extinction in this galaxy. However, our line ratios are consistent with the spectroscopic measurements of Kobulnicky, Kennicutt, & Pizagno (1999) who find H$`\alpha `$/H$`\beta `$ $`2.86`$ which means there is little extinction. We suspect that there may have been an error in the calibration of the H$`\beta `$ image by Scowen (1992). H$`\alpha `$ fluxes listed by Fuentes-Masip, Castaneda, & Munoz-Tunon (2000) are consistent with those measured by Scowen (1992) so the H$`\alpha `$ fluxes measured by Scowen (1992) are sufficiently well-calibrated. It is a concern that extinctions measured from the Balmer decrement might be biased by H$`\beta `$ absorption present in the stellar component (e.g., Dufour et al. (1980)). However, after correcting for H$`\beta `$ absorption from the stellar component, Scowen (1992) found no strong changes in his correlation plots.

### 2.1 Comparing H$`\alpha `$ and Pa$`\alpha `$ Morphology

In Figures 1-3 we show the HST images for NGC 1512, NGC 2903, M 51 in both Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ lines. We found little correspondence between star clusters observed in the broad band images and the line emission maps. This makes it difficult to constrain the ages of the cluster based on Pa$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths. A number of star clusters were observed which were outside the region of line emission emission and so could correspond to regions where radiation pressure, ionization fronts, winds and supernovae have cleared the clusters of gas. In NGC 1512 and NGC 4449 the luminosities in H$`\alpha `$ of the faintest regions are $`10^{37}`$ ergs/s and so similar in luminosity to the Orion nebula (Kennicutt (1984)) which contains one O star. Since H II regions cannot be much fainter than this, we suspect that there are no deeply embedded H II regions in these two galaxies. The faintest regions detected in NGC 2903 and M51 are an order of magnitude brighter and so could contain a few dozen O stars.

In NGC 1512, NGC 2903 and M51, there are few qualitative differences between the respective line emission images. In other words, almost all H II regions above the detection limit in Pa$`\alpha `$ were seen in both images. One region stands out as an exception to the above statement. This region in NGC 2903 is $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}71`$ east and $`4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}17`$ north of the nucleus (see Figure 1) and is significantly brighter in Pa$`\alpha `$ than in H$`\alpha `$. From the line ratio we estimate $`A_V4`$, however we did not see a peak in the H$`\alpha `$ line image; instead the line emission is diffuse and may not be emitted from the same spatial region. Previous studies have measured large extinctions in the nucleus of this galaxy ($`A_V15`$; Lebofsky & Rieke (1979)) as well as high gas densities (Jackson et al. (1991)) so this region may be an example of an obscured region.

Total Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ fluxes across our NGC 2903 images are $`4.5\times 10^{13}`$ and $`5.3\times 10^{13}`$ ergs cm-2s-1 respectively. We can compare these values to the Br$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ fluxes measured by Beck, Beckwith, & Gatley (1984) in an $`8^{\prime \prime }`$ diameter aperture. We would predict Br$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ fluxes of $`1.53\times 10^{13}`$, and $`5.30\times 10^{14}`$ ergs cm-2s-1 respectively, using an $`A_V`$ of 3.06 consistent with the Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ line ratio across this aperture. Our estimated Br$`\alpha `$ and Br$`\gamma `$ fluxes are consistent with those measured by Beck, Beckwith, & Gatley (1984), $`1.4\pm 0.18\times 10^{13}`$ and $`3.5\pm 1.2\times 10^{14}`$ respectively. The extinction we estimate $`A_V34`$ is therefore consistent with line fluxes and ratios measured by Beck, Beckwith, & Gatley (1984), but substantially lower than that, $`A_V15`$, measured from broad and narrow band imaging near the 10$`\mu `$m silicate absorption feature (Lebofsky & Rieke (1979)). The region identified above is not bright enough (it is only 1/20th the total) in Pa$`\alpha `$ to dominate the total Pa$`\alpha `$ emission in the $`8^{\prime \prime }`$ nuclear region. Since the line ratios agree with $`A_V34`$, it is also unlikely that this region dominates the Br$`\alpha `$ emission. The total 10$`\mu `$m flux roughly corresponds to that expected if a moderate fraction (e.g. 1/2) of the total bolometric luminosity in the UV (needed to account for the line emission) is re-radiated by dust (Beck, Beckwith, & Gatley (1984)). The $`10\mu `$m emission is most likely to be emitted from the extended region we see in the line emission maps and not from a single deeply embedded region. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the extinctions we measure and that estimated at 10$`\mu `$m is that the $`10\mu `$m spectrum contains structure from by PAH emission which caused Lebofsky & Rieke (1979) to overestimate the depth of the silicate absorption feature (see for example Siebenmorgen, Krügel, & Zota (1999)). The extinction we estimate near the nucleus of NGC 6946 ($`A_V4.6`$) is also significantly lower than that estimated by Lebofsky & Rieke (1979) ($`A_V50`$).

## 3 A comparison between gas surface density, metallicity and extinction

For a distant galaxy we would like to to derive star formation rates based on the emission line flux. We therefore desire a way to estimate the total emission in this line that would be emitted in the absence of extinction. In the comparison between H$`\alpha `$ and Pa$`\alpha `$ images we found no evidence for a population bright HII regions that are extremely red compared to the average. The scatter in $`A_V`$ in each galaxy region (approximately $`\pm 0.5`$) is less than the differences in the mean values which range from a mean $`A_V3.3`$ to $`0`$. Because the mean values span a large range, we are prompted to look for correlations between this value and environmental properties.

To compare extinctions in different galactic environments we must first compile information from the literature on the metallicities and gas densities in the various regions of these galaxies. These are listed in Table 7 with references to the literature from which they were taken. The gas densities are primarily taken from single dish CO measurements with similar aperture sizes. When necessary we have corrected published values of CO so that we used the same conversion factor of N(H2$`=2.8\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2I_{CO}`$ (K km s-1) (Scoville et al. 1987). The metallicities were primarily taken from Zaritsky et al. (1994). We estimate that the uncertainties in the gas density (approximately a factor of 2) and metallicity measurements (approximately $`0.3`$ dex) are smaller than the variations between the measurements in different galaxies and galaxy regions.

We did not find a measured gas mass in NGC 1512 so we estimate the gas surface density based on the color map made from the broad band V ($`0.5\mu `$m ) and H band ($`1.6\mu `$m) images. We observed a change in color of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(V-H) $`0.4`$ between the circumnuclear ring and the region interior and exterior to it. We assume that the dust is a foreground screen for half of the light (for the bulge stars that are located behind the gas). This is equivalent to assuming that the scale length of the gas is smaller than that of the stars. This change in color then corresponds to $`A_V1.3`$ and a gas surface density in hydrogen of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H19M_{}\mathrm{pc}^2`$ (based on the $`A_V`$ to N(H) conversion and extinction law of Mathis (1990)).

We did not find any optical spectroscopy for NGC 1512 in the literature. However, we can use the correlation between absolute magnitude and central metallicity found by Garnett et al. (1997) to estimate the metallicity in its circumnuclear ring. This galaxy has an absolute magnitude of $`M_B18.9`$ (assuming a distance of 9.5 Mpc from Tully (1988) with a Hubble constant of 75 km s-1 Mpc-1). The galaxy has an inclination corrected circular velocity of $`v_c173`$ km/s. From Figure 4 of Garnett et al. (1997) we estimate that NGC 1512 should have a central metallicity that is approximately solar.

To increase the size of our comparison sample we also compile the properties of H II regions as a function of radius in M101 and M51. H II region extinctions and luminosities in M101 were taken from Scowen et al. (1992) and are restricted to the 200 brightest H II regions. To describe the azimuthal gas density in M101 we summed the azimuthal molecular and atomic hydrogen gas mass densities reported by Kenney, Scoville & Wilson (1991). The metallicity gradient was taken from Kennicutt & Garnett (1996). H II region extinctions and luminosities in M51 were taken from Scowen (1992) and are restricted to be from the brightest H II regions defined as having an observed flux in H$`\alpha `$ greater than $`10^{14}`$ erg cm-2 s-1. Molecular and atomic hydrogen gas densities in M51 were taken from Rydbeck, Hjalmarson & Rydbeck (1985) and Scoville & Young (1983). The oxygen abundance gradient in M51 were taken from Zaritsky, Kennicutt & Huchra (1994).

### 3.1 Weighting

We approach the problem of correcting for extinction by considering a sum over individual H II regions and by deriving a correction that can be multiplied by the total observed flux in the line to obtain the true one. This procedure is one way of averaging over a large scatter in extinctions and allows us to look for trends between the mean extinction and environmental properties. The correction we can describe as a luminosity weighted mean extinction. To derive this correction we sum over the corrected fluxes of each region, so it involves a luminosity weighted sum. This makes the estimate more robust than using the mean extinction computed from the distribution of extinctions measured towards each region. The mean computed from the distribution would be more dependent on the faintest HII regions and so noisier and less robust than the luminosity weighted mean extinctions computed as in equation (3) below.

We denote the flux in H$`\alpha `$ from a region $`i`$ by $`F_{H\alpha ,i}`$. We denote the sum of observed fluxes over a larger area as $`F_{H\alpha }=_iF_{H\alpha ,i}`$. We denote the true or corrected emission as

$$F_{H\alpha ,corr}=\underset{i}{}F_{H\alpha ,i,corr}.$$
(1)
We aim to estimate a factor $`a_{H\alpha }`$ such that we can multiply the observed total flux in a large region to obtain the true or corrected emission.

$$F_{H\alpha ,corr}=a_{H\alpha }F_{H\alpha }.$$
(2)
We correct the fluxes from each region using the extinctions derived from the line ratios and then sum the regions to estimate $`F_{H\alpha ,corr}`$. At the same time we sum the uncorrected fluxes to get $`F_{H\alpha }`$. From the ratio of $`F_{H\alpha }`$ and $`F_{H\alpha ,corr}`$ we estimate the correction factor $`a_{H\alpha }`$ that we need to obtain the true or corrected emission from the observed total. This is converted to a mean extinction at the wavelength of H$`\alpha `$ by

$$\overline{A(H_\alpha )}2.5\mathrm{log}a_{H\alpha }.$$
(3)
A similar mean extinction can also be calculated for Pa$`\alpha `$. This can be compared to the extinction estimated from the ratio of the total Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ fluxes which we refer to as $`A_{total}(H\alpha )`$.

We calculate the luminosity weighted mean extinction (defined above) by summing over the Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ fluxes listed in Tables 2-6 for the nuclear regions of NGC 1512, NGC 2903, NGC 4449, M51 and NGC 6946. These mean extinctions are listed in Table 7. We also perform these sums using H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes as a function of radius in M101 and M51 based on the Balmer decrement. The radial width over which we summed the properties of H II regions was 1 kpc for M51 and 1.5 kpc for M101. For comparison to an additional low metallicity system we also derive a similar estimate for the LMC based on the Balmer decrement. H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes for LMC H II regions were taken from Caplan & Deharveng (1985) and we correct for Galactic extinction using a value of $`A_B=0.324`$ (Schlegel et al. (1998)).

In Table 7 we can compare $`\overline{A(H\alpha })`$ with $`A_{total}(H\alpha )`$. $`\overline{A(H\alpha })`$ allows us to correct the total observed H$`\alpha `$ flux for redenning based on the reddenings to each H II region. We see a tendency for $`\overline{A(H\alpha })`$ to be somewhat higher than that estimated from the line ratio of the integrated fluxes ($`A_{total}(H\alpha )`$). The differences are small because the dispersion in the extinctions between individual H II regions in each galaxy is low. A star formation rate estimated from the total H$`\alpha `$ line flux and corrected with an extinction based on the H$`\alpha `$/Pa$`\alpha `$ line ratio is likely to be quite accurate.

We plot our mean extinctions (defined in Eqn 3) versus gas density in Figure 4a. As expected there is a correlation between mean extinction and local gas density. However some of the correlation may be due to the dependence of the CO to H2 conversion factor on metallicity. To take this dependence into account we correct the H2 by a factor that depends on the metallicity and display the corrected gas density in Figure 4b. Our correction assumes an increase in the conversion factor by 4.6 when the oxygen abundance drops by a factor of 10 (Wilson (1995)). Extending this relation towards metallicities larger than solar is reasonable since galaxies with metallicities greater than solar are expected to have lower conversion factors (e.g., Nakai & Kuno (1995)). The correlation between gas density and mean extinction is not significantly changed.

It is difficult to separate between the role of gas density and that of metallicity since the densest regions also correspond to the most metal rich. However as we see in Figure 4c, metallicity alone is not sufficient to account for the large variation in our mean extinctions.

The dust density is the quantity most likely to affect the reddening so we desire a comparison between our extinction values and the dust surface density. We can estimate the dust surface density from the gas density using a metallicity dependent gas to dust mass ratio. The gas to dust ratio may correlate better with the carbon abundance than with the oxygen abundance (Bohlin, Savage, & Drake (1978); Martin, Maurice, & Lequeux (1989)). To convert between oxygen abundance and carbon abundance we use the relation measured by Garnett et al. (1995) \[log(C/O) $`0.54`$ log(O/H) $`+1.6`$\]. We assume that at solar metallicity the gas to dust mass ratio is 120. To estimate the dust surface density we multiply the solar dust to gas ratio by the gas density and the ratio between the carbon abundance predicted from the oxygen abundance and that at solar. The relation between mean extinction and estimated dust density is shown in Figure 4d. The dashed line plotted in Figure 4d corresponds to that predicted for a uniform medium with the H II regions located in the middle of the dust distribution. We find that the correlations we have seen between mean extinction, gas density and metallicity are consistent with an approximately linear relation between the log of the dust density and mean extinction.

For the high dust densities, the mean extinctions expected are somewhat higher than those observed. In Figure 4d we plotted the extinction predicted if the H II regions were in the mid plane of a uniform disk. These deviations would be predicted from a model which takes into account the patchiness of the ISM (e.g., Calzetti et al. (1996)). To illustrate this we have also plotted in Figure 4d a patchy dust model for a two component dust model with an extinction ratio of four and an area filling factor of 0.5. However such a model would result in a larger scatter (greater than $`\pm 0.75`$) in the extinctions towards individual regions than we measured. A more realistic patchy dust model may match the extinction and mean gas density. There could be nearby dense molecular clouds lacking H II regions which would have contributed to the mean gas density in the region but not to the H II region extinctions.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

In this paper we have presented a comparative study between Pa$`\alpha `$ and H$`\alpha `$ in the central regions of five galaxies. For three galaxies we have HST images in both lines and the morphologies of the respective line emission maps are remarkably similar. The dispersion in extinctions is about a magnitude for the H II regions in each galaxy and is smaller than the differences between the mean extinctions. We find no evidence for a population of bright heavily embedded H II regions.

Only one bright region, in NGC 2903, was detected clearly in the Pa$`\alpha `$ image and was faint or not seen in the H$`\alpha `$ image. However this region does not dominate the Pa$`\alpha `$ flux of the nuclear star forming region and is also unlikely to dominate the Br$`\alpha `$ emission. This suggests that an estimate of the star formation rate based on a mean extinction and either the H$`\alpha `$ or Pa$`\alpha `$ flux is likely to be fairly accurate. We suspect that some previous studies of the silicate absorption feature at 10$`\mu `$m may have overestimated the extinction towards the nuclei of NGC 2903 and NGC 6946 because of contamination by PAH features.

We have compared mean extinctions as a function of gas density and metallicity and find correlations between these quantities. The correlations between mean extinction, gas density and metallicity are consistent with an approximately linear relation between the log of the dust density and mean extinction. This trend is expected if the H II regions tend to be located near the mid-plane of a gas disk and emerge from their parent molecular clouds soon after birth. Radiation pressure and ionization fronts are expected to clear a young star forming region of dense gas on a timescale of $`10^5`$ years (Ferland (1998)) whereas H II regions should exist for a few times $`10^6`$ years. It would be unlikely to detect an H II region in a region with extinction significantly higher than the mean predicted from the local gas density. This may provide a partial explanation for the low dispersion in extinctions that we measured in each galaxy.

We expect that forthcoming high resolution CO and HI surveys will allow a more careful comparison between the statistical properties of H II regions and the gas distribution. It may be possible to study correlations between the patchy distribution of the ISM, the tendency for star forming regions to evacuate themselves of dense gas, and large scale gaseous structures cause by bars and spiral arms. The relationships presented here may allow more accurate estimates of star formation rates in galaxy regions which contain gas densities up to a few hundred $`M_{}`$ pc-2. Above this level it is likely that a significant fraction of the line emission is absorbed even in the near-infrared and mid or far infrared measurements would be required (e.g., Kennicutt (1998)). Further work on the trends discussed here may make it possible to more accurately measure star formation rates and constrain gas densities in distant galaxies.

Support for this work was provided by NASA through grant number GO-07869.01-96A from the Space Telescope Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract NAS5-26555. We also acknowledge support from NASA project NAG-53359 and NAG-53042 and from JPL Contract No. 961633. This work could not have been done without the help of Don Garnett. We also thank Rob Kennicutt, Marcia Rieke, George Rieke, Torsten Böker, Chad Engelbracht and Karl Gordon for helpful discussions. We thank Gil Rivlis for helping us scan and convert tables. We thank Rob Kennicutt for providing us with the H$`\alpha `$ image of NGC 6946. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We thank the referee for comments which have improved this paper.