text:
# Half twists of Hodge structures of CM-type

## 1. Definitions and basic properties

### 1.1. Hodge structures.

Recall that a (rational) Hodge structure of weight $`k(𝐙_0)`$ is a $`𝐐`$-vector space $`V`$ with a decomposition of its complexification $`V_𝐂:=V_𝐐𝐂`$ (where complex conjugation is given by $`\overline{vz}:=v\overline{z}`$ for $`vV`$ and $`z𝐂`$):

$$V_𝐂=_{p+q=k}V^{p,q},\mathrm{and}\overline{V^{p,q}}=V^{q,p},(p,q𝐙_0).$$

Note that we insist on $`p`$ and $`q`$ being non-negative integers throughout this paper, so we only consider ‘effective’ Hodge structures.

### 1.2. Hodge structures of CM-type.

Let $`V`$ be a Hodge structure such that $`V`$ is also a $`K`$-vector space for some $`CM`$-field $`K`$ and such that the Hodge decomposition on $`V`$ is stable under the action of $`K`$:

$$xV^{p,q}V^{p,q},(xK,p,q𝐙_0).$$

In particular, $`KEnd_{Hod}(V)`$. We will then say that $`V`$ is a Hodge structure of CM-type (with field $`K`$).

### 1.3. CM-types.

To define the half twist we need to fix a CM-type of the field $`K`$. Recall that the CM-field $`K`$ has $`2r=[K:𝐐]`$ complex embeddings $`K𝐂`$ and that a CM-type is a subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r\}`$ of distinct embeddings with the property that no two are complex conjugate. Hence if we define as us ual $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}:=\{\overline{\sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\sigma }_r\}`$ then any embedding of $`K`$ is either in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

### 1.4. The half twists.

Let $`V`$ be a Hodge structure of CM-type with field $`K`$. We consider the eigenspaces of the $`K`$-action on the $`V^{p,q}`$’s:

$$V_\sigma ^{p,q}:=\{vV^{p,q}:xv=\sigma (x)vxK\},\sigma :K𝐂.$$

Given a CM-type $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we define two subspaces of $`V^{p,q}`$ whose direct sum is $`V^{p,q}`$:

$$V_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{p,q}:=_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}V_\sigma ^{p,q},V_{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{p,q}:=_{\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}V_\sigma ^{p,q}.$$

The negative half twist of $`V`$, denoted by $`V_{1/2}(=V_{\mathrm{\Sigma },1/2})`$, is the decomposition of $`V_𝐂`$ given by the subspaces:

$$V_{1/2}^{r,s}:=V_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{r1,s}V_{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{r,s1}.$$

It is not hard to see that this is a Hodge structure, of CM-type with field $`K`$, on $`V`$ of weight $`k+1`$ where $`k`$ is the weight of $`V`$. By successively performing the negative half twist one obtains $`V_{n/2}`$, a Hodge structure on $`V`$ of weight $`k+n`$.

We observe that to define the (positive) half twist one would put:

$$V_{1/2}^{r,s}:=V_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{r+1,s}V_{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{r,s+1},$$

however, now the subspaces $`V_{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{k,0}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{0,k}`$ of $`V_𝐂`$ do not appear in $`(V_{1/2})_𝐂`$ and therefore this definition does not define a Hodge structure on $`V`$ (and in general not on any $`𝐐`$-subspace of $`V`$). In particular, we will define the half twist of $`V`$ only if $`V_{\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}^{k,0}=0`$ (the complex conjugate of this space is $`V_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{0,k}`$ which is then also trivial).

## 2. Half twists via representations

### 2.1.

Hodge structures can also be defined via representations of $`𝐂^{}`$ (more precisely, algebraic representations of $`Res_{𝐂/𝐑}(G_m)`$ in $`GL(V_𝐑)`$). We determine the representations corresponding to the half twists. Proposition 2.8 often points out interesting geometry, as in example 2.12. In \[vGI\] more such examples are investigated.

### 2.2.

The Hodge structure on a $`𝐐`$-vector space $`V`$ defined by an algebraic representation $`h:𝐂^{}GL(V_𝐑)`$ will be denoted by $`(V,h)`$, its Hodge decomposition is:

$$V^{p,q}:=\{vV_𝐂:h(z)v=z^p\overline{z}^qv\}.$$

The usual algebra constructions on representations can be applied to Hodge structures. In particular, given rational Hodge structures $`(V,h)`$, $`(W,h_W)`$ of weight $`k,k_W`$ their tensor product is the rational Hodge structure of weight $`k+k_W`$ defined by:

$$hh_W:𝐂^{}GL(V_𝐑W_𝐑),z[vw(h(z)w)(h_W(z)w)].$$

### 2.3.

Let $`(V,h)`$ be a Hodge structure of weight $`k`$ of CM-type with field $`K`$. To identify the $`𝐂^{}`$-representation on $`V_𝐑`$ which defines the half twist, consider the $`𝐑`$-linear extension of the action of $`K`$ on $`V_𝐑`$. This gives an action of $`K_𝐐𝐑`$ on $`V_𝐑`$ and recall that $`K_𝐐𝐑_{i=1}^r𝐂`$ (if you write

$$K=𝐐[X]/(f)\mathrm{then}K𝐑𝐑[X]/(f)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}𝐑[X]/(f_i),$$

where $`f=f_i`$ is the decomposition of $`f`$ in irreducible polynomials $`f_i`$ of degree 2 in $`𝐑[X]`$). Choosing a CM-type $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _r\}`$ of $`K`$ specifies an isomorphism

$$K𝐑\stackrel{}{}_{j=1}^r𝐂,xt(t\sigma _1(x),\mathrm{},t\sigma _r(x)),$$

we will denote the $`𝐑`$-linear extensions of the $`\sigma _i`$’s by the same symbols. The inverse of this isomorphism is denoted by $`\varphi `$

$$\varphi :_{j=1}^r𝐂\stackrel{}{}K𝐑,\mathrm{with}\sigma _i(\varphi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_r))=z_i(1ir).$$

Denoting by $`x\overline{x}`$ the complex conjugation on $`K`$ as well as its $`𝐑`$-linear extension to $`K_𝐐𝐑`$ let $`\sigma _{r+i}(x):=\overline{\sigma _i(x)}=\sigma _i(\overline{x})`$, hence

$$\sigma _{r+i}(\varphi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_r))=\overline{z}_i(1ir).$$

We define a homomorphism (depending on the CM-type $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) by composing the diagonal inclusion $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the isomorphism $`\varphi =\varphi _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$g_\mathrm{\Sigma }:𝐂^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}𝐂^{}\stackrel{\varphi }{}(K_𝐐𝐑)^{}$$

Since $`(K_𝐐𝐑)^{}`$ acts on $`V_𝐑`$, we get a representation, also denoted by $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`𝐂^{}`$ on $`V_𝐑`$. As $`V`$ is of CM-type, the actions of $`K`$ and $`h(𝐂^{})`$ commute and thus the action of $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐂^{})((K_𝐐𝐑)^{})`$ on $`V_𝐑`$ commutes with the action of $`h(𝐂^{})`$.

To understand the action of $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we observe that the eigenvalues of $`xK`$ on $`V_𝐂`$ are the $`\sigma _i(x)`$, $`1i2r`$, each with the same multiplicity. The decomposition in eigenspaces is

$$V_𝐂=_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}V_{𝐂,\sigma }\mathrm{with}xv=\sigma (x)v(xK_𝐐𝐑,vV_{𝐂,\sigma }).$$

In particular, if $`x=g_\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ then since $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=\varphi (\mathrm{\Delta }(z))=\varphi (z,\mathrm{},z)`$ we get:

$$g_\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)v=\varphi (z,\mathrm{},z)v=\{\begin{array}{cc}zv& v_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}V_{𝐂,\sigma },\hfill \\ \overline{z}v& v_{\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}V_{𝐂,\sigma },\hfill \end{array}$$

This leads to an alternative, but equivalent, definition of the half twist:

### 2.4. Definition.

Let $`(V,h,K)`$ be a Hodge structure of CM-type and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a CM-type of $`K`$. For $`n𝐙`$, the $`n`$-th half twist $`V_{n/2}`$ is the $`𝐂^{}`$-representation defined by the homomorphism

$$g_\mathrm{\Sigma }^nh:𝐂^{}GL(V_𝐑),zg_\mathrm{\Sigma }^n(z)h(z).$$

### 2.5.

For positive $`n`$ the representation space $`V_{n/2}`$ is a Hodge structure of weight $`k+n`$ where $`k`$ is the weight of $`V`$. Moreover, with the same CM-type, one has:

$$\left(V_{n/2}\right)_{m/2}=V_{(n+m)/2}.$$

We already observed that the half twist $`V_{1/2}`$ is a Hodge structure iff the eigenspaces for the $`K`$-action $`V_\sigma ^{k,0}`$ are trivial for $`\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$.

### 2.6. Tate twists.

The Tate Hodge structure $`𝐐(n)`$ ($`n𝐙`$) is defined by the vector space $`𝐐`$ and the homomorphism:

$$h_n:𝐂^{}GL_1(𝐑),z(z\overline{z})^n,$$

it has weight $`2n`$ and $`𝐐(n)^{p,q}=0`$ unless $`p=q=n`$ in which case $`𝐐(n)^{n,n}=𝐂`$. It is convenient to allow negative weights for this Hodge structure. The $`n`$-th Tate twist of $`V`$ is defined by $`V(n):=V𝐐(n)`$, it is a Hodge structure of weight $`k2n`$ with $`V(n)^{p,q}=V^{p+n,q+n}`$.

Since the homomorphism $`h_n`$ acts via scalar multiplication on $`V_𝐑`$, it commutes with the representation $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }^mh`$ which defines $`V_{m/2}`$. Therefore one has

$$\left(V_{m/2}\right)(n)=\left(V(n)\right)_{m/2}.$$

This is also easy to see from the Hodge decompositions. Note that $`V(1)(V_{1/2})_{1/2}`$ since the representations $`h_1`$ and $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ are not equivalent.

### 2.7.

The ‘abstractly’ defined half twists are in fact sub-Hodge structures of rather natural Hodge structures of CM-type. Recall that to the CM-field $`K`$ and the CM-type $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one can associate a weight one Hodge structure on the $`𝐐`$-vector space $`K`$. These Hodge structures, and the abelian varieties associated to them, have been extensively investigated, cf. \[La\], \[DMOS\]. If we endow $`K`$ with the trivial Hodge structure of weight zero, $`K_𝐂=K^{0,0}`$, this Hodge structure is just $`K_{1/2}`$. One can identify $`K_{1/2}`$ with $`H^1(A_K,𝐐)`$ for an abelian variety $`A_K`$ with CM by the field $`K`$ and whose CM-type is the one used to define the (negative) half twist.

Let $`V`$ be a Hodge structure of CM-type with field $`K`$ of weight $`n`$, then $`V_𝐐K_{1/2}`$ is a Hodge structure of weight $`n+1`$ which has an action of the algebra $`K_𝐐K`$. The element $`xyKK`$ acts as $`(xy)(vz)=xvyz`$ on $`V_𝐐K_{1/2}`$. We will identify some subspaces of $`V_𝐐K_{1/2}`$ with half twists of $`V`$.

### 2.8. Proposition.

Let $`(V,h,K)`$ be a Hodge structure of CM-type. Then we have an inclusion of Hodge structures:

$$V_{1/2}V_𝐐K_{1/2},$$

more precisely:

$$V_{1/2}=\{wV_𝐐K_{1/2}:(x1)w=(1x)w,xK\}.$$

If $`V`$ admits a half twist, $`V_{1/2}(1)`$ is also a sub-Hodge structure of $`V_𝐐K_{1/2}`$:

$$V_{1/2}(1)=\{wV_𝐐K_{1/2}:(x1)w=(1\overline{x})w,xK\}$$

and the Hodge structure $`V`$ can be recovered from $`V_{1/2}`$ by applying the first result to $`V_{1/2}`$ rather then $`V`$:

$$VV_{1/2}_𝐐K_{1/2}.$$

Proof. We give two proofs.

The field $`K`$ acts on the $`𝐐`$-vector space $`V`$ and the (complex) eigenvalues of the action of $`xK`$ are the $`\sigma _j(x)𝐂`$, each with the same multiplicity. In particular, $`x,\overline{x}K`$ are eigenvalues of the $`K`$-linear extension of the action of $`x`$ on $`V_𝐐K`$ and we denote by $`V^{}`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ the corresponding eigenspaces:

$$V_𝐐KV^{}V^{\prime \prime }W,\mathrm{with}(x1)w=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1x)w& wV^{},\\ (1\overline{x})w& wV^{\prime \prime },\end{array}$$

and $`W`$ is a $`K`$-stable complementary subspace. The projections on the summands give isomorphisms of $`K=K1`$-vector spaces $`V=V1V_1`$ and $`VV_{r+1}`$. These $`V_j`$ are sub-Hodge structures of $`VK_{1/2}`$ since the actions of $`K`$ and $`h`$, $`g`$ commute. The Hodge structure on $`K_{1/2}`$ is defined by the $`g(z)(K𝐑)^{}`$ and thus $`1g(z)=g(z)1`$ on $`V^{}`$ and $`1g(z)=g(\overline{z})1`$ on $`V^{\prime \prime }`$. Note also that $`g(tz)=tg(z)`$ for $`t𝐑`$. Therefore

$$h(z)g(z)=h(z)g(\overline{z})1=z\overline{z}h(z)g(z^1)1$$

on $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ which identifies the Hodge structure on $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ with the one on $`V_{1/2}(1)`$. The proof of $`V^{}V_{1/2}`$ is similar but easier. The last result follows by applying the first result to $`V_{1/2}`$ rather than $`V`$ and using $`(V_{1/2})_{1/2}=V`$, note this identifies $`V`$ with a specific subspace of $`V_{1/2}K_{1/2}`$.

Another proof of the first result is as follows: since for $`xK`$ the map $`w(1xx1)w`$ is a $`𝐐`$-linear endomorphism of $`V_𝐐K_{1/2}`$, its kernel is a $`𝐐`$-vector space and therefore

$$V^{}:=\{wV_𝐐K_{1/2}:(x1)w=(1x)w,xK\}$$

is a $`𝐐`$-vector space. Its complexification $`V_𝐂^{}`$ is the folllowing subspace of $`(VK_{1/2})_𝐂`$:

$$V_𝐂^{}=_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}V_\sigma K_\sigma $$

with $`V_\sigma `$ (resp. $`K_\sigma `$) the subspace of $`V_𝐂`$ (resp. $`K_𝐂`$) on which $`xK`$ acts as $`\sigma (x)(𝐂)`$. Since $`K_{1/2}^{1,0}=_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}K_\sigma `$ we get:

$$\left(V^{}\right)^{r,s}=(_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}V_\sigma ^{r1,s}K_\sigma )(_{\sigma \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}V_\sigma ^{r,s1}K_\sigma )$$

which, since $`K_\sigma 𝐂`$, is just the definition of $`V_{1/2}^{r,s}`$ hence $`V^{}V_{1/2}`$. The other statements can be proved in a similar fashion. ∎

### 2.9. Geometrical version of the half twist.

The proposition shows that if $`V`$ is a sub-Hodge structure of $`H^k(X,𝐐)`$ for some projective variety $`X`$, then $`V_{1/2}(1)`$ is a sub-Hodge structure of $`H^k(X,𝐐)H^1(A_K,𝐐)`$, which is itself a summand of $`H^{k+1}(X\times A_K,𝐐)`$.

### 2.10. Polarizations.

A polarization on the Hodge structure $`(V,h)`$ of weight $`k`$ is a bilinear map:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:V\times V𝐐$$

satisfying (for all $`v,wV_𝐑`$):

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(h(z)v,h(z)w)=(z\overline{z})^k\mathrm{\Psi }(v,w)$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(v,h(i)w)\text{is a symmetric and positive definite form:}$$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(v,h(i)w)=\mathrm{\Psi }(w,h(i)v)`$ for all $`v,wV_𝐑`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(v,h(i)v)>0`$ for all $`vV_𝐑\{0\}`$. The primitive cohomology groups of algebraic varieties are polarized.

A polarized Hodge structure of CM-type with field $`K`$ is a polarized Hodge structure $`(V,h,\psi )`$ such that $`(V,h,K)`$ is of CM-type and such that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(xv,w)=\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\overline{x}w),xK,v,wV.$$

### 2.11. A polarization on the half twist.

The Hodge structure $`K_{1/2}`$ has a polarization, cf. \[La\], \[DMOS\]. If $`V`$ has a polarization, then also $`VK_{1/2}`$ has a polarization (the tensor product polarization) and by restriction one obtains a polarization on $`V_{1/2}`$.

One can also proceed more explicitly: if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a polarization on $`V`$ then one chooses an element $`\alpha K`$ such that $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha `$ and such that for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the purely imaginary complex numbers $`\sigma (\alpha )`$ all have positive imaginary part. Then the bilinear form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}:V\times V𝐐,\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(v,w):=\mathrm{\Psi }(v,\alpha w)$$

is a polarization on $`V_{1/2}`$. To verify all the properties it is convenient to split

$$(V_{1/2})_𝐑=_{i=1}^r(V_{1/2})_i$$

corresponding to the decomposition $`K_𝐐𝐑=_{i=1}^r𝐂`$.

### 2.12. Example.

Let $`F𝐂[X_0,\mathrm{},X_n]`$, homogeneous of degree $`n+2`$, define a smooth variety $`Y𝐏^n`$. Let

$$X=Zeroes(X_{n+1}^{n+2}F)(𝐏^{n+1}),\mathrm{let}V:=H^n(X,𝐐)_0$$

be the primitive cohomology group of $`X`$. Then $`V`$ is a vector space over the field $`K`$ of $`n+2`$-th roots of unity, where the roots of unity act by multiplication on the variable $`X_{n+1}`$.

The vector space $`H^{n,0}(X)`$ is one dimensional, hence we can apply the half twist to $`V`$ (for any CM -type which includes the embedding $`\sigma `$ of $`K`$ defined by $`xv=\sigma (x)v`$ for $`vH^{n,0}(X)`$). Proposition 2.8 implies that

$$V=H^n(X,𝐐)_0V_{1/2}K_{1/2},$$

with $`V_{1/2}`$ and $`K_{1/2}`$ Hodge structures of weight $`n1`$ and $`1`$ respectively. In this case it is not hard to see geometrically that such Hodge structures exist.

Note that a general line $`l𝐏^n`$ meets the hypersurface $`Y:=Zeroes(F)`$ (the branch locus of the natural map $`X𝐏^n`$) in $`n+2`$ distinct points, so these have $`n+23=n1`$ moduli. Since the grassmanian of lines in $`𝐏^n`$ has dimension $`2(n1)`$, we find that for a general set of $`n+2`$ points on $`𝐏^1`$ there is a $`n1`$-dimensional family $`S`$ of lines $`l𝐏^n`$ each of which meet $`Y`$ in $`n+2`$ points with the same moduli. The union of these lines will be $`𝐏^n`$. Let $`C_n`$ be the inverse image of (any) of these lines in $`X`$. After replacing $`S`$ by the desingularization of a finite cover $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, we then get a dominant, rational map:

$$\pi :\stackrel{~}{S}\times C_nX.$$

Since a rational map is defined outside a subset of codimension at least 2, the pull-back of the regular $`n`$-form on $`X`$ extends to a regular $`n`$-form on $`\stackrel{~}{S}\times C_n`$. Hence we get $`H^n(X,𝐐)_0H^{n1}(\overline{S},𝐐)H^1(C_n,𝐐)`$ where $`\overline{S}`$ is some compactified desingularization of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. We will relate this example to Shioda’s results on Fermat type hypersurfaces in \[vGI\].

## 3. Kuga-Satake varieties

### 3.1.

To a polarized Hodge structure $`(V,\psi )`$ of weight 2 with $`dimV^{2,0}=1`$ the construction of Kuga and Satake associates a Hodge structure $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$ of weight 1 on the even Clifford algebra $`C^+(V)`$ of the quadratic space $`(V,\psi )`$ (see \[KS\] and \[vG\] for a detailed construction). It has the property that there is an inclusion of Hodge structures $`VC^+(V)C^+(V)`$. The (isogeny class of) abelian variety associated to $`C^+(V)`$ is called the Kuga-Satake variety $`KS(V)`$ of $`V`$, so $`H^1(KS(V),𝐐)=C^+(V)`$.

In the remainder of this paper we consider such Hodge structures which are of CM-type with an imaginary quadratic field $`K`$. Since $`dimV^{2,0}=1`$, the half twist $`V_{1/2}`$ is a Hodge structure and has weight one. Our main result is Theorem 3.10 which shows that $`V_{1/2}`$ is a summand of $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$. We also determine the other summands and relate them to half twists.

This completes the results of C. Voisin in \[V\], she already found that two summands of $`C^+(V)`$, $`S_0`$ of dimension 2 and $`S_1`$ with $`dimS_1=dimV`$, such that $`VS_0S_1`$. We will identify $`S_1`$ with $`V_{1/2}`$ in Theorem 3.10. To find the simple summands of $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$ we use the Mumford-Tate group of the Hodge structure $`V`$.

### 3.2. The Mumford-Tate group.

Recall that the Special Mumford-Tate group $`SMT(V)`$ of a polarized Hodge structure $`(V,h,\psi )`$ is the smallest algebraic subgroup $`G`$ of $`GL(V)`$, defined over $`𝐐`$, for which $`h(z)G(𝐑)`$ $`(GL(V)(𝐑))`$ for all $`z𝐂`$ with $`z\overline{z}=1`$.

The simple summands of the Hodge structure $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$ are then the irreducible subrepresentations of $`SMT(V)`$ in $`C^+(V)`$. It takes some rather long computations to determine these summands though.

The following lemma recalls the basic facts on the Mumford Tate group in this situation.

### 3.3. Lemma.

Let $`(V,h,\psi )`$ be a weight 2 rational polarized Hodge structure of CM-type by an imaginary quadratic field $`K=𝐐(\varphi )`$, with $`\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^2=d`$.

1. The $`𝐐`$-bilinear map:

$$H:V\times VK,H(v,w):=\psi (v,w)+\varphi ^1\psi (v,\varphi w)$$

is a hermitian form on the $`K:=𝐐(\varphi )`$-vector space $`V`$ (so $`\overline{H(v,w)}=H(w,v)`$ and $`H`$ is $`K`$-linear in the second variable).
2. We have

$$SMT(V)U(H):=\{gGL(V):H(gv,gw)=H(v,w),g\varphi =\varphi g\},$$

the unitary group of the $`K`$-vector space $`V`$ with the hermitian form $`H`$.
3. In case $`(V,h)`$ has weight two, (the $`𝐑`$-linear extension of) the hermitian form $`H`$ has signature $`(1/2dimV^{1,1},dimV^{2,0})`$ on the complex vector space $`V_𝐐𝐑`$.

Proof. Since the weight is even, $`\psi `$ is symmetric and:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H(w,v)& =& \psi (w,v)+\varphi ^1\psi (w,\varphi v)\hfill \\ & =& \psi (v,w)+\varphi ^1\psi (\varphi v,w)\hfill \\ & =& \psi (v,w)+(d\varphi )^1\psi (\varphi ^2v,\varphi w)\hfill \\ & =& \psi (v,w)\varphi ^1\psi (v,\varphi w)\hfill \\ & =& \overline{H(v,w)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`K`$-linearity in the second factor follows from:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H(v,\varphi w)& =& \psi (v,\varphi w)+\varphi ^1\psi (v,\varphi ^2w)\hfill \\ & =& \psi (v,\varphi w)d\varphi ^1\psi (v,w)\hfill \\ & =& \varphi \left(\psi (v,w)+\varphi ^1\psi (v,\varphi w)\right)\hfill \\ & =& \varphi H(v,w).\hfill \end{array}$$

Using that $`\psi (h(z)v,h(z)w)=(z\overline{z})^k\psi (v,w)`$ where $`k`$ is the weight of $`V`$ and that $`\varphi h(z)=h(z)\varphi `$ we get:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H(h(z)v,h(z)w)& =& \psi (h(z)v,h(z)w)+\varphi ^1\psi (h(z)v,\varphi h(z)w)\hfill \\ & =& (z\overline{z})^k\psi (v,w)+\varphi ^1\psi (h(z)v,h(z)\varphi w)\hfill \\ & =& (z\overline{z})^k\left(\psi (v,w)+\varphi ^1\psi (v,\varphi w)\right)\hfill \\ & =& (z\overline{z})^kH(v,w),\hfill \end{array}$$

hence $`SMT(V)U(H)`$.

In case the weight of $`V`$ is two, we write:

$$V_𝐐𝐑=V_1V_2\mathrm{with}V_1_𝐑𝐂=V^{1,1},V_2_𝐑𝐂=V^{2,0}V^{0,2}.$$

Then $`\psi `$ is negative definite on $`V_2`$ and positive definite on $`V_1`$. Since $`\varphi `$ and $`h(z)`$ commute, $`\varphi `$ maps the eigenspaces $`V^{p,q}`$ into themselves hence $`\varphi (V_i)V_i`$. As $`\varphi ^2=d`$ with $`d>0`$, $`\varphi `$ does not have real eigenvalues and we can choose a $`𝐑`$-basis $`f_1,\varphi f_1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$,$`f_r,\varphi f_r`$ of $`V_2`$ (and similarly for $`V_1`$). Since $`\psi (f_i,\varphi f_i)=`$ $`d^1\psi (\varphi f_i,\varphi ^2f_i)`$ $`=\psi (\varphi f_i,f_i)=\psi (f_i,\varphi f_i)`$, we may assume this basis to be orthonormal.

Since $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_r`$ is a $`𝐂=K_𝐐𝐑`$-basis of $`V_2`$ and $`H(f_i,f_j)=\psi (f_i,f_j)`$, we see that $`H`$ is negative definite on $`V_2`$ (and $`H`$ is positive definite on $`V_1`$). ∎

### 3.4. Remark.

If $`(V,h,\psi )`$ and $`K=𝐐(\varphi )`$ are as in section3.1, then the Lie group $`U(H)(𝐑)`$ of real points of $`U(H)`$ is ismomorphic to $`U(1,m1)`$.

For any $`gU(H)(𝐑)`$ the Hodge structure $`(V,h^g)`$ with

$$h^g:𝐂^{}GL(V)(𝐑),zgh(z)g^1$$

is also polarized by the same $`\psi `$ and has $`\varphi End_{Hod}(V,h^g)`$. This implies that $`SMT(V,h^g)=U(H)`$ for any general $`gU(H)(𝐑)`$. One can show that the moduli space of such Hodge structures is isomorphic to the complex $`m1`$-ball $`U(1,m1)/(U(1)\times U(m1))`$.

The inclusion $`U(H)SO(\psi )`$ induces $`U(1,m1)SO(2,2m2)`$, this well-known inclusion is used for example to restrict modular forms from othogonal groups to unitary groups.

### 3.5.

The universal cover of the orthogonal group $`SO(\psi )`$ has a natural spin representation on the even Clifford algebra $`C^+(V)`$. The following proposition describes the spin representation over $`𝐐`$ for the quadratic forms under consideration. Over the complex numbers these results are very well known, but over a number field the situation is a bit delicate. The proposition will be used to decompose the spin representation as a representation of $`U(H)`$, the Mumford Tate group of a general Hodge structure of CM-type $`(V,h,\psi ,K)`$ under consideration.

### 3.6. Proposition.

Let $`(V,h,\psi )`$ be a polarized weight $`2`$ Hodge structure with $`dimV^{2,0}=1`$ which is of CM-type for an imaginary quadratic field $`K`$. Then there is a $`𝐐`$-basis of $`V`$ such that

$$\psi (x,x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_ix_i^2+d\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_ix_{m+i}^2,\mathrm{with}d_1<0,d_2,\mathrm{},d_m>0.$$

The representation of $`so(2m)`$ on $`C^+(Q)`$ decomposes as $`C^+(V)=S^{2^{m2}}`$ where $`S`$ is a $`so(\psi )`$-representation of dimension $`2^{m+1}`$ whose irreducible components are:

$$S\{\begin{array}{cccc}S_+S_{},\hfill & End_{so(\psi }(S_\pm )D,\hfill & S_\pm 𝐂\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}m0(4),\hfill \\ S_1^2,\hfill & End_{so(\psi )}(S_1)K,\hfill & S_1𝐂\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\hfill & \mathrm{if}m1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}(4),\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`D`$ a skew field of degree $`4`$ over $`𝐐`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ are the two half-spin representations of $`so(2m)_𝐐𝐂`$, each of which has dimension $`2^{m1}`$.

In case $`m2(4)`$ there are two possibilities. If the equation $`d_i=x^2+dy^2`$ has a solution $`(x,y)𝐐^2`$, then

$$SS_+^2S_{}^2,End_{so(\psi )}(S_\pm )𝐐,S_\pm 𝐂\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm $$

(the split case). In case this equation has no solution we have

$$SS_+S_{},End_{so(\psi )}(S_\pm )D,S_\pm 𝐂\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^2$$

(and $`D`$ is a skew field of degree $`4`$ over $`𝐐`$, we call this the non-split case).

Proof. To find this basis of $`V`$, choose $`e_1V`$ with $`\psi (e_1,e_1)0`$ and let $`d_1:=\psi (e_1,e_1)`$, $`e_{m+1}:=\varphi e_1`$. Then $`\psi (e_{m+1},e_{m+1})=d\psi (e_1,e_1)=dd_1`$ and $`d\psi (e_1,e_{m+1})=\psi (\varphi e_1,(d)e_1)=d\psi (e_1,e_{m+1})`$, hence $`\psi (e_1,e_{m+1})=0`$. Next we take $`e_2e_1,e_{m+1}^{}`$ etc. Since the signature of $`\psi `$ is $`(2,(2n2)+)`$, we may assume $`d_1<0`$ and $`d_2,\mathrm{},d_m>0`$.

We recall that over $`K`$ the spin representation of $`so(\psi )_K:=so(\psi )_𝐐K`$ on $`C^+(V)_K:=C^+(V)_𝐐K`$ decomposes as a direct sum of $`2^{m1}`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ and then we take Galois invariants to find the irreducible $`so(\psi )`$-representations over $`𝐐`$.

Let $`V_K:=V_𝐐𝐐(\sqrt{d})`$, and consider the following $`K`$-basis of $`V_K`$:

$$f_i:=\frac{1}{2dd_i}(\sqrt{d}e_i+e_{m+i}),f_{m+i}:=1/2(\sqrt{d}e_i+e_{m+i}),(1im)$$

where we wrote $`\sqrt{d}e_i`$ for $`e_i\sqrt{d}`$. One verifies that:

$$\psi (y_jf_j,y_jf_j)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}y_iy_{m+i}.$$

Since $`\psi (f_j,f_j)=0`$, $`\psi (f_j+f_k,f_j+f_k)=1`$ if $`|jk|=m`$ and is zero otherwise, we have in $`C(V)_K`$:

$$f_j^2=0,f_if_{m+i}+f_{m+i}f_i=1,f_jf_k=f_kf_j\mathrm{if}|jk|0,m.$$

We denote conjugation on $`K`$ by a ‘$`\overline{}`$’, this acts on $`C(V)_K`$ via the second factor and:

$$\overline{f}_i=\frac{1}{dd_i}f_{m+i},\overline{f}_{m+i}=d_idf_i.$$

Let

$$f:=f_{m+1}f_{m+2}\mathrm{}f_{2m},\mathrm{then}\overline{f}=\overline{f}_{m+1}\mathrm{}\overline{f}_{2m}=(d^m\underset{i}{}d_i)f_1\mathrm{}f_m.$$

In $`C(V)_K`$ we have:

$$f\overline{f}f=\delta f,\overline{f}f\overline{f}=\delta \overline{f},\mathrm{with}\delta :=(1)^{m(m1)/2}d^m\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}d_i,$$

the second is just the conjugate of the first which is an easy computation:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f\overline{f}f& =& (d^m_id_i)(f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})(f_1\mathrm{}f_m)(f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})\hfill \\ & =& \delta (f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})(f_mf_{m1}\mathrm{}f_2f_1)(f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})\hfill \\ & =& \delta (f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})(f_m\mathrm{}f_2)(1f_{m+1}f_1)(f_{m+2}\mathrm{}f_{2m})\hfill \\ & =& \delta (f_{m+1}\mathrm{}f_{2m})(f_m\mathrm{}f_3)(1f_{m+2}f_2)(f_{m+3}\mathrm{}f_{2m})0\hfill \\ & =& \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =& \delta f.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now we consider the left $`C(V)_K`$-modules generated by $`f`$ and $`\overline{f}`$. These modules are isomorphic, in fact the relations we just proved imply that

$$R_{\overline{f}}:C(V)_KfC(V)_K\overline{f},xfxf\overline{f}$$

is an isomorphism of left $`C(V)_K`$-modules with inverse

$$R_f:C(V)_K\overline{f}C(V)_Kf,y\overline{f}y\overline{f}f.$$

In \[FH\], Chapter 20, an inclusion $`so(\psi )_KC^+(V)_K(C(V)_K)`$ is constructed and it is shown (\[FH\], 20.19 and 20.20) that, as an $`so(\psi )_K`$-module, $`C(V)_Kf`$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of the two half-spin representations:

$$C(V)_Kf\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+,K}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{,K},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm ,K}_K𝐂\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm .$$

Moreover, $`C(V)_K^+`$, the even Clifford algebra, is isomorphic to a product of two matrix algebras:

$$C(V)_K^+M_{2^{m1}}(K)\times M_{2^{m1}}(K),$$

this implies that the spin representation of $`so(\psi )_K`$ on $`C^+(V)_K`$ is isomorphic to $`2^{m1}`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+,K}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{,K}`$.

Before considering the situation over $`𝐐`$ we recall that the center of $`C^+(V)`$ is $`𝐐𝐐z`$ with $`z:=e_1e_2\mathrm{}e_{2m}`$ and that $`z^2=(1)^md^m_id_i^2`$ (cf. \[L\], $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 5.2). Since $`\sqrt{(1)^md^m_id_i^2}K`$, the center of $`C(V)_K^+`$ is $`K\times K`$ and one can verify that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm ,K}`$ are the two eigenspaces of $`z`$ in $`C(V)_Kf`$. We also observe that $`C(V)_KfC(V)_K\overline{f}=\{0\}`$, in fact if $`af=b\overline{f}`$ then $`af\overline{f}=b\overline{f}^2=0`$, hence $`0=af\overline{f}f=\delta af`$, hence $`af=0`$.

The subspace $`C(V)_Kf`$ is not defined over $`𝐐`$ in general, but the direct sum

$$S_K:=C(V)_KfC(V)_K\overline{f}$$

obviously is defined over $`𝐐`$, that is $`S_K=S_𝐐K`$ for some $`𝐐`$-vector space $`SC(V)`$, in fact

$$S=C(V)(f+\overline{f})+C(V)\sqrt{d}(f\overline{f}).$$

Moreover, $`S`$ is a representation space for $`so(\psi )(so(\psi )_K)`$.

To decompose $`S`$ into irreducible components we determine $`A:=End_{so(\psi )}(S)`$, the endomorphisms of $`S`$ which commute with $`so(\psi )`$. Since $`S_K\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2`$, we have $`A_K:=A_𝐐KM_2(K)\times M_2(K)`$, hence $`dim_𝐐A=8`$. It is clear that $`A_K`$ is generated by the center of $`C^+(V)_K`$ and the maps $`R_f`$ and $`R_{\overline{f}}`$. To determine $`A`$ it suffices to find the invariants under conjugation in $`A_K`$.

Obviously the center of $`C^+(V)`$ lies in $`A`$. Moreover, the maps

$$\alpha ,\beta :SS,\alpha :xx(f+\overline{f}),\beta :xx\sqrt{d}(f\overline{f})$$

commute with $`so(\psi )`$ (which acts from the left whereas $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ act from the right). Note we have:

$$(f+\overline{f})^2=f^2+f\overline{f}+\overline{f}f+\overline{f}^2=f\overline{f}+\overline{f}f=\delta ,$$

the last equality holds since in $`S_K`$ we have:

$$(af+b\overline{f})(f\overline{f}+\overline{f}f)=0+af\overline{f}f+b\overline{f}f\overline{f}+0=\delta (af+b\overline{f})$$

and similarly $`(\sqrt{d}(f\overline{f}))^2=d(f\overline{f}+\overline{f}f)=d\delta `$. Moreover, $`\alpha \beta =\beta \alpha `$. Thus the $`𝐐`$-algebra generated by $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is the quaternion algebra $`D:=(\delta ,d\delta )`$ and

$$AD_𝐐𝐐(z),\mathrm{with}D=(\delta ,d\delta ).$$

Since $`(\alpha \beta )^2=\alpha ^2\beta ^2=d\delta ^2`$, $`D`$ contains a copy of the field $`𝐐(\sqrt{d})K`$.

The center of $`C^+(V)`$ is $`𝐐(z)`$ with $`z^2=(d)^m_id_i^2`$, hence:

$$𝐐(z)𝐐\times 𝐐\mathrm{if}m0(2),𝐐(z)K\mathrm{if}m1(2).$$

As $`d>0`$, $`d_1<0`$ and $`d_2,\mathrm{},d_m>0`$, the sign of $`\delta `$ is the sign of $`(1)^{m(m1)/2}(1)`$. Thus $`\delta ,d\delta `$ are both negative if $`m0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(4)`$ so $`D_𝐐𝐑`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of quaternions, a skew field, and thus $`D`$ is also a skew field.

Hence in case $`m0(4)`$ we have $`AD\times D`$ with a skew field $`D`$, therefore $`S`$ splits up in two components $`S_+`$ and $`S_{}`$ with $`End_{so(\psi )}(S_\pm )D`$ and since $`D_𝐐𝐂M_2(𝐂)`$ the $`S_\pm _𝐐𝐂`$ are both direct sums of two copies of one irreducible $`so(\psi )_𝐂`$ representation.

In case $`m1(4)`$, $`𝐐(z)K`$ and $`D`$ contains a copy of $`K`$ hence $`AM_2(K)`$ and thus $`S`$ is isomorphic to the sum of two isomorphic representations, irreducible over $`𝐐`$, each of which, after tensoring with $`K`$, is the direct sum of two non-isomorphic representations.

In case $`m2(4)`$, we have $`AD\times D`$, but the structure of $`D`$ depends on the $`d_i`$. In fact, $`D(d,\delta )`$ (using $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ as generators) and $`\delta =d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_md^{2k}`$ (with $`2k=m`$), we also have $`D(d,n)`$ with $`n:=_id_i𝐙_{>0}`$. Hence $`DM_2(𝐐)`$ iff $`n=x^2+dy^2`$ for some $`x,y𝐐^2`$.

In case $`m3(4)`$ we have, as in the case $`m1(4)`$, that $`AM_2(K)`$. ∎

### 3.7.

For the general $`(V,h,\psi ,K)`$ we consider, the Mumford Tate group is $`U(H)`$. Thus the simple factors of the Hodge structure $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$ associated to $`(V,h,\psi )`$ are exactly the irreducible subrepresentations of the Lie algebra $`u(H)`$ ($`so(\psi )`$) of $`U(H)`$ in $`C^+(V)`$ (which are defined over $`𝐐`$). We now determine the restriction of the $`so(\psi )`$ representation $`S`$ from Proposition 3.6 to $`u(H)`$.

### 3.8. Proposition.

Let $`S`$ be the $`2^{m+1}`$-dimensional $`so(\psi )`$-representation defined in Proposition 3.6. The $`u(H)`$-representation $`S`$ decomposes as follows:

$$SS_0S_1\mathrm{}S_m,S_iS_{mi},dim_𝐐S_i=2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{i}\right).$$

The $`S_i`$ are irreducible $`u(H)`$-representations except $`S_l`$ if $`2l=m`$, $`l2(4)`$ and we are in the split case, in that case $`S_l(S_l^{})^2`$ and $`S_l^{}`$ is irreducible.

The $`S_i`$ are $`K`$-vector spaces and:

$$End_{u(H)}(S_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}K& (2im)\\ D& (2i=m),\end{array}$$

with $`D`$ a quaternion algebra (a skew field except for the split case) which contains $`K`$, but $`End_{u(H)}(S_l^{})=𝐐`$.

Proof. First we determine the inclusion $`u(H)_Kso(\psi )_K`$ and the restriction of the half-spin representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm ,K}`$ to $`u(H)_K`$.

Extending the scalars from $`𝐐`$ to $`K`$, the endomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`V`$ has two eigenspaces in $`V_𝐐K`$:

$$V_K:=V_𝐐K=V_+V_{},(\varphi 1)v=\pm (1\varphi )v(vV_\pm ).$$

Each of the eigenspaces is isotropic for the $`K`$-linear extension of $`\psi `$ to $`V_K`$, in fact,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi (v,w)& =& d^1\psi ((\varphi 1)v,(\varphi 1)w)\hfill \\ & =& d^1\psi (\pm (1\varphi )v,\pm (1\varphi )w)\hfill \\ & =& d^1\varphi ^2\psi (v,w)\hfill \\ & =& \psi (v,w).\hfill \end{array}$$

The actions of $`u(H)`$ and $`K`$ on $`V`$ commute, hence $`u(H)`$ acts on the eigenspaces $`V_+`$ and $`V_{}`$, each of which has dimension $`m`$. In particular we have a Lie algebra map $`u(H)gl(V_+)`$, which, for dimension reasons, gives an isomorphism: $`u(H)_Kgl(V_+)`$. Since $`\psi `$ is preserved, this fixes the map $`u(H)gl(V_{})`$ (in fact $`\psi `$ gives a duality $`V_{}\stackrel{}{}V_+^{}`$) and we get (with respect to the basis $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{2m}`$ of the proof of Prop. 3.6):

$$u(H)_Kgl(V_+)so(\psi )_K,A\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& {}_{}{}^{t}A\end{array}\right).$$

This inclusion $`gl(V_+)so(\psi )`$ is the same as the one obtained from composing the isomorphism $`gl(V_+)end(V_+)`$ $`V_+^{}V_{}V_{}V_+`$ and the inclusion (cf. \[FH\], formula (20.4)) $`V_{}V_+^2V_Kso(\psi )`$. ¿From \[FH\], 20.15 we obtain the restrictions of the half-spin representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm ,K}`$ to $`u(H)_K`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{+,K}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2i}V_+,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{,K}_i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2i+1}V_+,$$

(this is actually only an isomorphism of $`su(H)_K`$-representations).

To find the irreducible representations of $`su(H)`$ which are defined over $`𝐐`$ we need to know how the conjugation on $`K`$ acts. For this we use the following $`C(V)`$-modules (\[FH\], 20.12):

$$C(V)f_{i=0}^m\mathrm{\Lambda }^iV_+,C(V)\overline{f}_{i=0}^m\mathrm{\Lambda }^iV_{}.$$

The $`f_{i_1}\mathrm{}f_{i_r}f`$ with $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_rm`$ are a basis of $`C(V)_Kf`$, and these correspond to the elements $`f_{i_1}\mathrm{}f_{i_r}\mathrm{\Lambda }^rV_+`$. Their conjugate is, up to a constant, $`f_{i_1+m}\mathrm{}f_{i_r+m}\overline{f}`$ which corresponds to $`f_{i_1+m}\mathrm{}f_{i_r+m}\mathrm{\Lambda }^rV_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{mr}V_+`$. In particular, we get conjugation-invariant subspaces

$$S_{i,K}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^iV_+)f(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{mi}V_+)\overline{f}(S_K=C(V)_KfC(V)_K\overline{f})$$

for $`0im`$. Thus $`S_{i,K}=S_i_𝐐K`$ for a subspace $`S_iC(V)`$ which is invariant under $`su(H)`$. If $`imi`$, the two summands are not isomorphic as $`gl(V_+)_K`$-representations, hence $`S_i`$ is an irreducible $`su(H)`$-representation (if $`WS_i`$ is an invariant subspace, then $`W_𝐐K`$ is a $`gl(V_+)_K`$ and Galois invariant subspace of $`S_{i,K}`$ and hence $`W=\{0\}`$ or $`W=S_i`$). Since $`End_{sl(V_+)}(S_{i,k})=K^2`$ and $`S_i`$ is irreducible, $`B:=End_{su(H)}(S_i)`$ is a field, of degree two over $`𝐐`$. As $`B_𝐐KK^2`$ we get $`BK`$. Note that $`S_iS_{mi}`$.

The interesting case is when $`m`$ is even and $`2l=m`$. Both summands of $`S_{l,K}`$ are in the same half spin representation (hence in the same eigenspace of the center of $`C^+(V)_K`$). The maps $`R_f`$ and $`R_{\overline{f}}`$ generate $`End_{sl(V_+)}(S_{l,K})M_2(K)`$, hence $`End_{su(H)}(S_l)=(\delta ,d\delta )`$ (see the proof of Prop. 3.6). If $`d0(4)`$ this quaternion algebra is a skew field and hence $`S_l`$ is irreducible. If $`d2(4)`$, $`S_l`$ is irreducible in the non-split case and in the split case is isomorphic to $`(S_l^{})^2`$ with $`S_{l,K}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^lV_+`$. Thus we always have $`End_{su(H)}(S_l)D`$, and $`KD`$, but $`D`$ is not a skew field in the split case (then $`DM_2(𝐐)`$). Since $`S_{l,K}^{}`$ is irreducible we have $`End_{su(H)}(S_l^{})𝐐`$. ∎

### 3.9.

The previous propositions show that the Kuga-Satake Hodge structure $`(C^+(V),h_s)`$ associated to $`(V,h,\psi ,K)`$ decomposes as

$$C^+(V)(S_0S_1\mathrm{}S_m)^{2^{m2}}$$

with $`m=dim_KV`$ and they give the decomposition in simple factors as well as the endomorphism rings of the $`S_i`$ in the generic case.

The Hodge structure on the $`S_i`$ can be obtained as follows. Since $`V`$ is $`K`$-vector space, the exterior products $`_K^iV`$ are well-defined and, as $`𝐐`$-vector spaces, they have dimension $`2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{i}\right)`$, which is just the dimension of the summand $`S_i`$. Weil already pointed out that there is a natural inclusion

$$_K^iV^iV,$$

and the $`_K^iV`$ are sub-Hodge structures of $`^iV`$ of weight $`2i`$. Combining Tate and half twists of these, one obtains weight 1 Hodge structures which are the summands of the Kuga-Satake Hodge structure. Note that the moduli of $`V`$, which has weight two, and of $`S_1`$ (with its $`K`$-action) which has weight one, are both the $`m1`$-ball. Part of this theorem was already proved by Voisin in \[V\].

### 3.10. Theorem

Let $`(V,h,\psi )`$ be a polarized weight $`2`$ Hodge structure with $`dimV^{2,0}=1`$ which is of CM-type for an imaginary quadratic field $`K`$.

Then the Hodge structure on the summand $`S_i`$ (see Proposition 3.8) of the Kuga-Satake Hodge structure is:

$$S_i\left(_K^iV\right)(i1)_{1/2}.$$

In particular, $`S_1=V_{1/2}`$ and $`S_0`$ is the CM-type Hodge structure of weight one on $`K`$. Moreover:

$$VS_0S_1.$$

The dimensions of the eigenspaces for the $`K`$-action on $`S_i^{1,0}`$ are:

$$dimS_{i,\sigma }^{1,0}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{i1}\right),dimS_{i,\overline{\sigma }}^{1,0}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m1}{i}\right),\mathrm{with}m=dim_KV.$$

Proof. Let $`V_𝐂=V_+V_{}`$ be the decomposition in eigenspaces for the $`K`$-action, combining this with the Hodge decomposition we get:

$$V_𝐂=V_+^{2,0}V_+^{1,1}V_{}^{0,2}V_{}^{1,1}.$$

We choose a basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_m`$ of $`V_+`$ and $`e_{m+1},\mathrm{},e_n`$ of $`V_{}`$ such that

$$h(z)=diag(z^2,1\mathrm{},1,z^2,1,\mathrm{},1)(SO(\psi )(𝐂))(zS^1),$$

so, for example, $`V^{0,2}=V_{}^{0,2}=e_{m+1}`$. Then $`h(z)`$ lies in the 1-parameter subgroup generated by $`H_1:=1/2(e_1e_{m+1})^2V_𝐂so(\psi )_𝐂`$. From the proof of \[FH\], 20.15, one finds that $`H_1`$ multiplies $`w:=e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}`$, $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_km`$, by $`+1/2`$ if $`i_1=1`$ and else by $`1/2`$. Hence $`h_s(z)`$ multiplies $`w`$ by $`z`$ if $`i_1=1`$ and else by $`\overline{z}`$. Since:

$$S_{i,𝐂}=^iV_+^{mi}V_+=(V_+^{2,0}^{i1}V_+^{1,1})\left(^iV_+^{1,1}\right)(V_+^{2,0}^{mi1}V_+^{1,1})\left(^{mi}V_+^{1,1}\right)$$

the action of $`h_s(z)`$ is by $`diag(z,\overline{z},z,\overline{z})`$. The isomorphism $`^{mi}V_+^iV_+^{}^iV_{}`$ induces

$$V_+^{2,0}^{mi1}V_+^{1,1}^iV_{}^{1,1},^{mi}V_+^{1,1}V_{}^{2,0}^{i1}V_{}^{1,1}.$$

Therefore the Hodge decomposition of $`S_{i,𝐂}^iV_+^iV_{}`$ is given by:

$$S_i^{1,0}=(V_+^{2,0}^{i1}V_+^{1,1})\left(^iV_{}^{1,1}\right).$$

The eigenspace decomposition of $`S_i^{1,0}`$ is now obvious and we see that $`S_1=V_{1/2}`$.

On the other hand, following Weil, we have

$$(_K^iV)_𝐐𝐂=\left(^iV_+\right)\left(^iV_{}\right)_j(^{ij}V_+^jV_{})=(^iV)𝐂.$$

The Hodge structure on $`_K^iV`$ induced from this inclusion is

$$(_K^iV)_𝐐𝐂=(V_+^{2,0}^{i1}V_+^{1,1})(^iV_+^{1,1}^iV_{}^{1,1})(^{i1}V_+^{1,1}V_{}^{0,2}),$$

thus the Hodge numbers are $`(2,0)+(i1,i1)=(i+1,i1)`$, $`(i,i)`$ and $`(i1,i+1)`$. Therefore if we Tate twist $`(i1)`$-times and then do a half twist we obtain a Hodge structure of weight one which is just the one obtained from $`h_s`$.

The inclusion $`VV_{1/2}K(1)_{1/2}=S_1S_0`$ follows from Proposition 2.8. ∎

### 3.11. Example.

We construct, geometrically, a $`9`$ dimensional family of polarized Hodge structures with $`h^{2,0}=1`$, $`h^{1,1}=18`$ with CM by the field $`K𝐐(\sqrt{3})`$. For a Hodge structure $`V`$ of this family we identify the Hodge structures $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ as in Theorem 3.10 and we give a geometrical realisation of the inclusion $`VS_0S_1`$.

For $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{12}𝐂`$ we define an (isotrivial) elliptic surface $`S`$ over $`𝐏^1`$ by the the Weierstrass model:

$$S:Y^2=X^3+\underset{i=1}{\overset{12}{}}(ta_i),S𝐏^1,(X,Y,t)t.$$

Since $`S`$ has twelve fibers which are cuspidal it is a K3 surface (and $`\omega :=Y^1\mathrm{d}X\mathrm{d}t`$ is a no where zero holomorphic 2-form on $`S`$).

The orthogonal complement in $`H^2(S,𝐐)`$ of the classes of a fiber and the section at infinity is a sub-Hodge structure $`V`$ of dimension 20 in with $`V^{2,0}=1`$ and the field $`K=𝐐(\sqrt{3})`$ acts on $`V`$ via the automorphism $`(X,Y,t)(\zeta ^2X,Y,t)`$ with a primitive $`6`$-th root of unity $`\zeta `$.

Define curves $`C`$, $`C^{}`$, of genus $`25`$ and $`1`$ by:

$$C:y^6=\underset{i=1}{\overset{12}{}}(xa_i);C^{}:v^2=u^31.$$

Both of these curves have automorphisms of order 6:

$$\psi :CC,(x,y)(x,\zeta y);\psi ^{}:C^{}C^{},\psi ^{}:(u,v)(\zeta ^2u,v).$$

The surface $`S`$ is the (minimal model of the desingularisation of the) quotient of $`C\times C^{}`$ by the automorphism $`\varphi =(\psi ^1,\psi ^{})`$ of order 6, the quotient map is given by

$$\pi :S=C\times C^{}S,((x,y),(u,v))(X,Y,t)=(y^2u,y^3v,x).$$

To define $`V_1`$, consider the following rational 1-forms on $`C`$:

$$\omega _{a,b}:=x^ay^b\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{y^5},\mathrm{note}\psi ^{}:\omega _{a,b}\zeta ^{b+1}\omega _{a,b}.$$

It is easy to check that the $`\omega _{a,b}`$ with $`a,b0`$ and $`a+2b8`$ are a basis of $`H^0(C,\omega _C)`$. In particular, the eigenspace of $`\psi ^{}`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta `$ has dimension $`9`$ (and is spanned by the $`\omega _{a,0}`$ with $`0a8`$) whereas the eigenspace with eigenvalue $`\zeta ^1=\zeta ^5`$ has dimension 1 (and is spanned by $`\omega _{0,4}`$).

Let $`V_1H^1(C,𝐐)`$ be the $`𝐐`$-subspace on which the eigenvalues of $`\zeta `$ are primitive $`6`$-th roots of unity. Then $`dimV_1=20`$, and the associated abelian variety is of Weil type $`(1,9)`$. Let $`V_0:=H^1(C^{},𝐐)`$, note $`\psi ^{}`$ acts on $`H^0(C^{},\omega _C^{})=\omega ^{}:=\mathrm{d}u/v`$ as $`\zeta ^1`$.

The pull-back $`\pi ^{}`$ maps $`V`$ into the $`\varphi `$-invariants in $`H^1(C,𝐐)H^1(C^{},𝐐)`$ and it is easy to verify that these invariants are exactly the $`\varphi `$-invariants in $`V_1V_0`$. For dimension reasons we then have:

$$V\pi ^{}V=\left(V_0_𝐐V_1\right)^\varphi .$$

Since $`V_0K_{1/2}`$, the half twist of this identity gives $`V_{1/2}KV_1V_1^2,`$ which implies that the half twist of $`V`$ is just $`V_1`$:

$$V_{1/2}V_1$$

and that $`\pi ^{}`$ is a geometrical realization of the Kuga-Satake correspondence.

The parameter space of 20 dimensional Hodge structures with CM by $`K`$ and $`V^{2,0}=1`$ is (a quotient of) the $`9`$-ball (cf. 3.4). The K3 surfaces in this example are parametrized by $`12`$ points in $`𝐏^1`$, Deligne and Mostov (\[DM\]) actually showed that the geometrical quotient $`(𝐏^1)^{12}//PGL(2)`$ is a $`9`$-ball quotient. See \[Va\] for old and new results on this moduli space.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the last few months, there has been growing evidence that level truncation is a good way of doing computations in string field theory. In particular, it allows to get very accurate results for the string field theory true vacuum, both in open bosonic string field theory and superstring field theory ( \- ).

More recently, in , a level truncation scheme has been developed which takes non-zero momentum into account; Applied to lump solutions in one dimension, it gave numerical results for the ratio of the tension of a D-$`p`$-brane and a D-$`(p1)`$-brane with a precision of about 1%. In , de Mello Koch and Rodrigues applied this scheme to construct 2-dimensional lumps in open bosonic string field theory.

In this paper, we want to present independent results on 2-dimensional lumps. We also describe these lumps in two theories involving only the tachyon: pure tachyonic sft (string field theory in which we keep only the tachyon, including its higher derivatives), with action ():

$$S=2\pi ^2T_{25}d^{26}x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{3}K^3\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^3\right),$$
(1.1)
where $`T_{25}`$ is the D-$`25`$-brane tension, $`K=3\sqrt{3}/4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=K^{_\mu ^\mu }\varphi `$. And pure $`\varphi ^3`$ theory (the usual scalar $`\varphi ^3`$ theory of a tachyon, which doesn’t include higher derivatives), with action

$$S=2\pi ^2T_{25}d^{26}x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{3}K^3\varphi ^3\right),$$
(1.2)
the only difference being that here we have $`\varphi ^3`$ instead of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^3`$.

## 2 Calculating the potential

We will use the notation of , but we will compactify two dimensions, instead of one, on a torus. Let us name $`x`$ and $`y`$ the compact dimensions. We impose the identifications

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& & x+2\pi R,\hfill \\ \hfill y& & y+2\pi R.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
The $`x`$\- and $`y`$-momenta will be quantized:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p_x& =& m/R,\hfill \\ \hfill p_y& =& n/R.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
For each zero-momentum state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ that appears in the non-compact theory, we will have states labeled by two indices $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,mn}`$ with levels

$$l(\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,mn})=l(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)+(m^2+n^2)/R^2.$$
(2.3)
By definition, when we work at level $`(M,N)`$, we keep fields of level $`M`$, and terms in the potential of total level $`N`$. In this paper, we will work in string field theory at level (2, 4) and in pure tachyonic theories at arbitrary levels. Therefore all the fields we need are:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |T_{mn}& =& \{\begin{array}{c}c_1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{mx}{R}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{ny}{R}\right)|0,m=n\hfill \\ c_1\left(\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{mx}{R}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{ny}{R}\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{nx}{R}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{my}{R}\right)\right)|0,mn\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ \hfill |U_{00}& =& c_1|0\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ \hfill |V_{00}& =& c_1\left(L_2^X+L_2^Y\right)|0\hfill \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{}\\ \hfill |W_{00}& =& c_1L_2^{}|0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
where $`L_2^X`$ and $`L_2^Y`$ are Virasoro generators of the CFT of the compact dimensions $`x`$ and $`y`$ respectively, and $`L_2^{}`$ is a Virasoro generator of the CFT of the 24-dimensional co-space. The definition of $`|T_{mn}`$ ensures that the solutions we will find are symmetric under $`xy`$ as well as under $`xx`$ and $`yy`$. We will thus use the string field:

$$|\stackrel{}{T}=\underset{mn}{}t_{mn}|T_{mn}+u_{00}|U_{00}+v_{00}|V_{00}+w_{00}|W_{00},$$
(2.5)
where the sum is restricted by the level truncation, the level of each field being

$$l(T_{mn})=(m^2+n^2)/R^2,l(U_{00})=l(V_{00})=l(W_{00})=2.$$
(2.6)
We will not repeat here how to calculate the potential $`𝒱_{MN}(\stackrel{}{T})`$ at level $`(M,N)`$. We refer to the literature (see for example , , , , ). Note however that in theories involving only the tachyon, the coefficients of the terms in the potential can be calculated straightforwardly, the only difficulties being to keep track of momentum conservation at the vertex and to figure out the combinatorial factors. We have written computer codes calculating the potentials in the following theories:

* string field theory at arbitrary radius up to level (2, 4).
* pure tachyonic sft at arbitrary radius and arbitrary level.
* pure $`\varphi ^3`$ theory at arbitrary radius and arbitrary level.

## 3 Codimension 2 lumps

### 3.1 String field theory truncated at level (2,4)

Before showing results, let us say a few words about how to find these lumps given the potential. In general, the tachyon potential has many extrema. In doing computations at high level, it might be difficult to setup the convergence on the right branch. The method we’ve used here 111I thank B. Zwiebach for this suggestion. is to go backwards: We know the approximate shape of the lump we are looking for, from it one can calculate its Fourier expansion. We can then plug these Fourier coefficients into our algorithm finding solutions of the equations of motion (by Newton’s method). If we start the numerical algorithm with a seed close enough to the solution we want, it is fairly probable that it will converge to the sought solution.

Let us present our result in string field theory at level $`(2,4)`$. In order to compare our result with , we have computed it at $`R=\sqrt{3}`$. Fig.1 shows a plot of the solution.

The ratio of the tension of a D-$`p`$-brane and a D-$`(p2)`$-brane, when divided by its expected value $`(2\pi )^2`$, can be approximated by ():

$$r^{(2)}R^2(2\pi ^2𝒱_{(M,N)}(\stackrel{}{T}_{lump})2\pi ^2𝒱_{(M,N)}(\stackrel{}{T}_{vac})),$$
(3.1)
where $`\stackrel{}{T}_{lump}`$ is the lump solution, $`\stackrel{}{T}_{vac}`$ is the solution corresponding to the true vacuum at the given truncation level $`(M,N)`$ and $`𝒱_{(M,N)}`$ is the potential at level $`(M,N)`$. With our solution above, we find

$$r_{(2,4)}^{(2)}=1.13025,$$
(3.2)
13% away from the expected value of unity. 222In , the authors find 1.1378 at the same truncation level. There is a slight disagreement between these two numbers, though it might be due to round off or numerical error.

To show that the size of the lump is, in the large radius limit, independent of the radius, let us compare with the solution at $`R=3`$ (Fig.2).

To compare the sizes of this lumps, we plot together their profiles $`t(x,0)`$. Fig.3 clearly shows the radius-independence of the shape of the lump.

### 3.2 Pure tachyonic string field theory and pure $`\varphi ^3`$ theory

We do find codimension 2 lump solutions in these theories. In fig.4, we show the profiles $`t(x,0)`$ of the lumps in the three different theories. We have taken the three lumps to be at level (2, 4) with $`R=3`$. The different asymptotic values of $`t(x,0)`$ show the different vev’s of the tachyon in the three theories.

The pure tachyonic theories are much more tractable for numerical computations. We have written codes giving the actions at arbitrary level. To illustrate the convergence of the level truncation scheme, we show in figs.5, 6 the lump profiles at different truncation levels.

It is interesting to see that the solution in pure $`\varphi ^3`$ theory converges much slower than in pure tachyonic sft. This is due to the fact that in pure tachyonic sft, the coefficient of the term $`t_{m_1n_1}t_{m_2n_2}t_{m_3n_3}`$ in the potential is proportional to $`K^{3(m_1^2+n_1^2+m_2^2+n_2^2+m_3^2+n_3^2)/R^2}`$. Since $`K>1`$, at high level these terms are much less important than in pure $`\varphi ^3`$ theory where the same coefficients are proportional to $`K^3`$.

## 4 Conclusion

We do find codimension 2 lumps solutions in all three theories considered in this paper. Note that there is an apparent conflict with Derrick’s theorem which states that solitons in scalar field theory can exist only in codimension $`<2`$. But one of the assumptions used in the proof of the theorem is that the potential must be bounded below, which is not the case in the theories considered here 333I wish to thank B. Zwiebach for pointing this out.. This negativity allows the existence of solutions, as shown in .

As it is easy to use, pure tachyonic sft is an interesting toy model of full string field theory. We saw that it converges very fast when the truncation level is increased. Moreover we found a lump solution of approximately the same shape as in sft, this may show that we can study other kinds of sft solitons (like intersecting branes) by using the pure tachyonic approximation (work in progress ).

Finally, we saw the amusing fact that string field theory, due to the coefficients $`K^{3\mathrm{level}}`$ in front of every term, seems to be better fit for level truncation than the simple $`\varphi ^3`$ theory which converges very slowly as the level is increased.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank A. Sen and B. Zwiebach for detailed discussions and comparisons, and W. Taylor for discussions. This work was supported in part by DOE contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818.


text:
# Untitled Document

Reducing the Theoretical Uncertainty in Extracting $`|V_{ub}|`$ from the Inclusive $`BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ Decay Rate
M. R. Ahmady, F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, and T. G. Steele
Department of Applied Mathematics, The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario N6A 5B7 Canada.
Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2 Canada.

Abstract. Utilizing asymptotic Padé-approximant methods, we estimate the three-loop order $`\overline{MS}`$ coefficients of $`\alpha _s^3[\mathrm{log}(\mu ^2/m_b^2(\mu )]^k`$ terms $`[k=\{0,1,2,3\}]`$ within the $`bu\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ decay rate. Except for the coefficient of the $`k=0`$ term, all other coefficients may also be obtained via renormalization-group (RG) methods. The relative errors in asymptotic Padé-approximant estimates of the $`k=\{1,2,3\}`$ terms are found to be 5.1% or less, thereby providing an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty in the asymptotic Padé-approximant estimate of the $`RG`$-inaccessible $`k=0`$ term. By a judicious choice in the renormalization scale parameter, we are able to extract $`|V_{ub}|`$ from the inclusive decay rate to within $`\pm 7\%`$ theoretical uncertainty.

INTRODUCTION

The inclusive semileptonic $`BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ decay rate is sensitive only to a single mass parameter, the $`b`$-quark mass $`m_b`$, since the $`u`$-quark, charged lepton, and associated antineutrino are all very light compared to $`m_b`$. This property makes the calculated decay rate particularly attractive for the extraction of the CKM mixing parameter $`|V_{ub}|`$. QCD corrections to the rate have recently been calculated to two-loop order within an $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme . If the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ is chosen to be $`m_b(m_b)4.2GeV`$ , i.e., if $`\mu =m_b(\mu )`$, then the two loop rate is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=Km_b^5(m_b)\left[1+0.30+0.14\right],KG_F^2|V_{ub}|^2/192\pi ^3.$$
(1)
Determinations of $`|V_{ub}|`$ based upon comparison of experimental results to this expression are necessarily subject to theoretical uncertainties associated with the premature truncation of the slowly convergent perturbative series in (1). In the present work, we demonstrate how asymptotic Padé-approximant methods in conjunction with renormalization-group (RG-) methods can dramatically reduce such theoretical uncertainties $`\mathrm{}`$

1. by providing an estimate of three loop contributions to the decay rate that can be tested against RG-accessible three-loop coefficients in the rate, and
2. by demonstrating that the physically-motivated choice of scale parameter $`\mu `$ which minimizes scale sensitivity  is quite close to that which minimizes the size of the four-loop term, and consequently, the truncation error for an asymptotic series.

DETERMINATION OF RG-ACCESSIBLE THREE-LOOP COEFFICIENTS

The series portion $`S[x,L]`$ of the perturbative $`\overline{MS}`$ expression for the inclusive semileptonic rate,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)=K\left[m_b^{(n_f)}(\mu )\right]^5S[x(\mu ),L(\mu )],$$
(2)
may be expressed in terms of the QCD expansion parameter

$$x(\mu )\alpha _s^{(n_f)}(\mu )/\pi $$
(3)
and nth-order polynomials of logarithms

$$L(\mu )\mathrm{log}\left(\left[\mu /m_b^{(n_f)}(\mu )\right]^2\right)$$
(4)
appearing within the series coefficient of $`x^n(\mu )`$. The superscript $`n_f`$ indicates the number of active flavours contributing to the evolution of the QCD coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and the running $`b`$-quark mass. Thus, the series $`S[x,L]`$ within (2) is of the form

$`S[x,L]`$ $`=`$ $`1+x\left(a_0+a_1L\right)+x^2\left(b_0+b_1L+b_2L^2\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`x^3\left(c_0+c_1L+c_2L^2+c_3L^3\right)+𝒪\left(x^4\right).`$
The one- and two-loop coefficients $`a_0`$, $`a_1`$, $`b_0`$, $`b_1`$, and $`b_2`$ have been calculated for arbitrary $`n_f`$ in . For example, if $`n_f=5`$,

$$a_0=4.25360,a_1=5,b_0=26.7848,b_1=36.9902,b_2=17.2917.$$
(6)
Note that the parameter $`\mu `$ within (3) and (4) is the (nonphysical) renormalization scale parameter. The full decay rate (2) must ultimately be independent of the choice of $`\mu `$:

$$0=\frac{1}{Km_b^5}\left(\mu ^2\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mu ^2}\right)=\left[(12\gamma (x))\frac{}{L}+\beta (x)\frac{}{x}+5\gamma (x)\right]S[x,L],$$
(7)
$$\beta (x)=\left(\beta _0x^2+\beta _1x^3+\beta _2x^4+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(8)
$$\gamma (x)=\left(\gamma _0x+\gamma _1x^2+\gamma _2x^3+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(9)
where, for $`n_f=5`$, $`\beta _0=23/12`$, $`\beta _1=29/12`$, $`\beta _2=9769/3456`$, $`\gamma _0=1`$, $`\gamma _1=253/72`$, and $`\gamma _2=7.4195`$ . If we expand the final line of (7) perturbatively in powers of $`x^kL^m`$, we find that

$$0=x\left(a_15\gamma _0\right)+x^2\left(b_1a_0\beta _05a_0\gamma _0+2a_1\gamma _05\gamma _1\right)+x^2L\left(2b_2a_0\beta _05a_1\gamma _0\right)$$

$$+x^3\left(c_12b_0\beta _0a_0\beta _15b_0\gamma _0+2b_1\gamma _05a_0\gamma _1+2a_1\gamma _15\gamma _2\right)$$

$$+x^3L\left(2c_22b_1\beta _0a_1\beta _15a_1\gamma _15b_1\gamma _0+4b_2\gamma _0\right)$$

$$+x^3L^2\left(3c_32b_2\beta _05b_2\gamma _0\right)+𝒪(x^4).$$
(10)
For $`n_f=5`$ we see from (6) that the coefficients of $`x`$, $`x^2`$, and $`x^2L`$ vanish, as required. The requirement that $`O(x^3)`$ coefficients in (10) also vanish may be used to determine the logarithmic coefficients $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, and $`c_3`$ within $`S[x,L]`$. For $`n_f=5`$, we find from (6) and (10) that

$$c_1=249.592,c_2=178.755,c_3=50.9144.$$
(11)
The coefficient $`c_0`$, however, is RG-inaccessible to the order we are working, and must be obtained via a direct three-loop calculation.

PADÉ-APPROXIMANT ESTIMATION OF NEXT-ORDER TERMS

In the absence of a direct calculation, Padé-approximant methods provide a means for estimating next-order terms in a perturbative series, provided such a series obeys appropriate criteria generally believed to be applicable to field-theoretical perturbative series . As an example of the power of such methods, consider the following perturbative series:

$$S=1x+\frac{1}{2}x^2\frac{1}{3}x^3+\frac{5}{24}x^4+\mathrm{}.$$
(12)
This series is, in fact, the first five terms of the Maclaurin expansion of the function $`S(x)=\mathrm{sec}(x)\mathrm{tan}(x)`$. A $`[N|M]`$ Padé approximant to a series is the ratio of degree-$`N`$ and degree-$`M`$ polynomials that replicates the known terms of a series. For example, the $`[2|2]`$ approximant which replicates the series (12) is specified (up to a common scale factor for the numerator and denominator) by

$$S^{[2|2]}=\frac{1\frac{x}{2}\frac{x^2}{12}}{1+\frac{x}{2}\frac{x^2}{12}}.$$
(13)
Specifically, the Maclaurin expansion of $`S^{[2|2]}`$ is

$$S^{[2|2]}=1x+\frac{1}{2}x^2\frac{1}{3}x^3+\frac{5}{24}x^4\frac{19}{144}x^5+\mathrm{}.$$
(14)
The final series term in (14) may be regarded to be a Padé-approximant prediction for the next term in the series (12). This prediction is surprisingly accurate, as the underlying function’s Maclaurin series expansion is

$$\mathrm{sec}(x)\mathrm{tan}(x)=1x+\frac{1}{2}x^2\frac{1}{3}x^3+\frac{5}{24}x^4\frac{2}{15}x^5+\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
We see that the final series terms listed in (14) and (15) are quite close: $`19/144(=0.13194\mathrm{})2/15(=0.13333\mathrm{})`$.

In the calculation of the $`BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ decay rate, the particular series with which we are concerned is of the form

$$S[x,L]=1+R_1[L]x+R_2[L]x^2+R_3[L]x^3+\mathrm{},$$
(16)
with

$$R_1[L]=a_0+a_1L,R_2[L]=b_0+b_1L+b_2L^2$$
(17)
fully determined by the previously-calculated coefficients (6), and with the next order coefficient

$$R_3[L]=c_0+c_1L+c_2L^2+c_3L^3$$
(18)
assumed to be unknown. Of course, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, and $`c_3`$ are in fact accessible by RG methods \[they are listed in (11)\]; we will ultimately compare Padé-estimates to RG-determinations of these coefficients to ascertain the accuracy of the Padé-estimation procedure we utilise to obtain the RG-inaccessible constant $`c_0`$.

We seek a procedure to estimate $`R_3`$ in terms of the known lower order coefficients $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ appearing in (16). To do this, we assume that the error of an $`[N1|1]`$ approximant in estimating the $`N+1^{th}`$ term in a series is inversely proportional to $`N`$. For example, the $`[0|1]`$ approximant to the series $`1+R_1x+R_2x^2+R_3x^3+\mathrm{}`$ is just

$$S^{[0|1]}=\frac{1}{1R_1x}=1+R_1x+R_1^2x^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(19)
The predicted coefficient of $`x^2`$ in (19) is $`R_2^{[0|1]}R_1^2`$, as opposed to the true coefficient $`R_2`$. We find the relative error of the $`[0|1]`$ approximant in predicting $`R_2`$ to be

$$\delta _{[0|1]}\frac{R_2^{[0|1]}R_2}{R_2}=\frac{R_1^2R_2}{R_2}.$$
(20)
Similarly the $`[1|1]`$ approximant to the same series is

$$S^{[1|1]}=\frac{1+(R_1R_2/R_1)x}{1(R_2/R_1)x}=1+R_1x+R_2x^2+\left(R_2^2/R_1\right)x^3+\mathrm{}.$$
(21)
The predicted coefficient of $`x^3`$ is $`R_2^2/R_1`$, which we denote as $`R_3^{[1|1]}`$, and the relative error associated with this prediction is

$$\delta _{[1|1]}\frac{R_3^{[1|1]}R_3}{R_3}=\frac{R_2^2/R_1R_3}{R_3}.$$
(22)
If the relative error of an $`[N1|1]`$ approximant in predicting $`R_{N+1}`$ is inversely proportional to $`N`$, i.e., if

$$\delta _{[N1|1]}\frac{R_{N+1}^{[N1|1]}R_{N+1}}{R_{N+1}}=\frac{A}{N},$$
(23)
as suggested in , we see from (20) and (23) that $`A=1R_1^2/R_2`$. Since (23) also implies that $`\delta _{[1|1]}=A/2`$, we can use (22) to obtain an error-improved estimate of $`R_3`$ entirely in terms of the known series terms $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ :

$$R_3=2R_2^3/[R_1^3+R_1R_2].$$
(24)
ESTIMATION OF THREE-LOOP COEFFICIENTS

The problem with the prediction (24) for the calculation considered here is the incompatibility of $`R_3`$ as a degree-3 polynomial in $`L`$ (18) with the rational (non-polynomial) function of $`L`$ one obtains via substitution of (17) into (24). One approach to this problem is to generate a least squares fit of (24) to the form (18) over the perturbative portion of the domain of $`L(\mu )`$, i.e., over the ultraviolet domain $`\mu >m_b(\mu )`$. We define $`wm_b^2(\mu )/\mu ^2`$, in which case $`L=\mathrm{log}(w)`$ from (4), and obtain a least squares fit of (18) to (24) over the range $`0w1`$ \[i.e., $`\mu m_b(\mu )`$\] by optimizing the function

$$\chi ^2(c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3)$$

$$_0^1𝑑w\left[\frac{2R_2^3(w)}{R_1^3(w)+R_1(w)R_2(w)}\left(c_0c_1\mathrm{log}(w)+c_2\mathrm{log}^2(w)c_3\mathrm{log}^3(w)\right)\right]^2$$
(25)
with respect to $`c_i`$, the polynomial coefficients of powers of $`L`$ within (18). Upon substitution of the known \[via (6) and (17)\] functions $`R_1(w)=a_0a_1\mathrm{log}(w)`$, $`R_2(w)=b_0b_1\mathrm{log}(w)+b_2log^2(w)`$ into the integrand of (25), we find from explicit numerical integration that

$$\chi ^2(c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3)=c_0^2+2c_1^2+24c_2^2+720c_3^2+2c_0c_1+4c_0c_2+12c_0c_3$$

$$+12c_1c_2+48c_1c_3+240c_2c_32237.27c_05980.96c_1$$

$$24423.1c_2129077c_3+6386542.$$
(26)
The four conditions $`\chi ^2/c_i=0`$ ($`i=\{0,1,2,3\}`$) provide the following Padé-estimates for $`c_i`$:

$$c_0=198,c_1=261,c_2=184,c_3=48.6.$$
(27)
Note the excellent agreement of estimates for $`\{c_1,c_2,c_3\}`$ with the true values (11) obtained via RG methods. The relative errors $`\delta c_i(c_ic_i^{RG})/c_i^{RG}`$ in the Padé estimates are respectively $`\delta c_1=4.6\%`$, $`\delta c_2=2.9\%`$, $`\delta c_3=2.1\%`$. These small errors suggest similar accuracy in the determination of the unknown coefficient $`c_0`$. Utilizing this value of $`c_0`$ in the $`L=0`$ limit, appropriate for the $`\mu =m_b(\mu )`$ choice of renormalization scale in (1), we find that the series within (1) is now improved to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)=K(4.17GeV)^5[1+0.304+0.137+0.075]=K(1913GeV^5).$$
(28)
The estimate (28) is obtained using the central value of Chetyrkin and Steinhauser’s  determination of $`m_b(m_b)=4.17\pm 0.05GeV`$ an estimate which followed from a central value $`\alpha _s(M_z)=0.118`$ \[also utilized to evolve $`x(\mu )`$ in (28)\].

RESIDUAL SCALE DEPENDENCE

The series within the rate (28) is evaluated at $`\mu =4.17GeV`$ and appears to be the first four terms of a positive-term perturbative series. This positive-term character is evident for $`\mu >4.17GeV`$ as well, the domain of $`L(\mu )`$ for which $`L`$ is positive, since the coefficients $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$, and $`c_i`$ (including the estimated value for $`c_0`$) are all positive. If convergent, a truncated positive-term series necessarily underestimates the series sum. For values of $`\mu `$ larger than $`4.17GeV`$, this underestimation is even more severe, because of the positive growth of $`L(\mu )`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu =9GeV)=K(1733GeV^5)<\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu =4.17GeV)`$, as evident from (28).

As noted in , the perturbative series does not become locally flat until $`\mu `$ is well into the infrared region. This region $`[\mu <m_b(m_b)]`$ can be accessed via threshold matching conditions  to a running coupling constant and running mass characterized by four active flavours:

$$x^{(4)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]$$

$$=x^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\left[1+0.1528\left(x^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\right)^2+0.633\left(x^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\right)^3\right],$$
(29)
$$m_b^{(4)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]$$

$$=m_b^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\left[1+0.2060\left(x^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\right)^2+1.95\left(x^{(5)}\left[m_b(m_b)\right]\right)^3\right].$$
(30)
If $`\alpha _s(M_z)=0.118`$ and $`m_b^{(5)}(m_b)=4.170GeV`$, the conditions (29) and (30) imply that $`x^{(5)}(4.170GeV)=0.07155`$, $`x^{(4)}(4.170GeV)=0.07162`$, and $`m_b^{(4)}(4.170GeV)=4.177GeV`$. Moreover, with 4 active flavours the two-loop constants characterising the rate (5) are no longer as given in (6); instead one finds for $`n_f=4`$ that

$$b_0=25.7547,b_1=38.3935,b_2=17.7083,$$
(31)
and, from perturbative RG-invariance (10) with constants $`\beta _i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ characterized by four active flavours,

$$c_1=263.84,c_2=194.23,c_3=54.109.$$
(32)
One can also obtain estimates of the $`n_f=4`$ three-loop coefficients via optimization of the $`\chi ^2`$ function (25):

$$c_0=181.5,c_1=277.3,c_2=197.6,c_3=51.86.$$
(33)
The startlingly close agreement between (32) and (33) for the RG- accessible coefficients $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$ is indicative of comparable accuracy for the estimate of $`c_0`$ in (33).

In ref. , it is shown that the $`n_f=4`$ values for $`c_i`$ are consistent with continuity of the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$) across the $`n_f=5`$ threshold at $`4.17GeV`$. The rate is shown to increase with decreasing $`\mu `$ until a local maximum is reached at $`\mu =1.775GeV`$:

$$\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mu }_{\mu =1.775GeV}\right)=0,$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\mu =1775GeV\right]$$

$$=K\left[m_b^{(4)}(1.775GeV)\right]^5\left[10.6455+0.24770.0143\right]=K(2071GeV^5).$$
(35)
The optimisation condition (34) ensures that $`\mu =1.775GeV`$ is the choice of $`\mu `$ for which there is minimal residual scale sensitivity of the rate, an established criterion for the choice of scale . Note that the perturbative series within (35) is now an alternating series whose 3-loop term is much smaller than that in (28). The alternation of sign becomes possible because $`L(\mu )`$ is negative when $`\mu <m_b(\mu )`$, as evident from (4). If the series within (35) continues to be both alternating and montonically decreasing, the rate at $`\mu =1.775GeV`$ can be shown to be bounded from below and above:

$$K\times 2071GeV^5\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\mu =1.775GeV\right]K\times 2122GeV^5.$$
(36)
Remarkably, the “minimal-sensitivity” point defined by (34) is quite close to the point at which the three-loop term vanishes entirely, a point at which three-loop estimation of the series, if asymptotic, would be most accurate. With RG-values (32) for $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$ and the Padé- estimate $`c_0=188.5`$ for $`c_0`$ \[corresponding to minimization of $`\chi ^2`$ with respect to $`c_0`$ after explicit incorporation of RG-values of $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$ into (25)\], the three loop term (18) is seen to vanish at $`\mu =1.835GeV`$, at which point $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu =1.835GeV)=K\times 2069GeV^5`$. The agreement between this value for the rate with the minimal-sensitivity estimate (35) is striking.

$`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$: THEORETICAL UNCERTAINTIES

The minimal sensitivity rate (35) is subject to the following $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K`$ theoretical uncertainties: truncation error (t.e.)

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K|_{\mathrm{t}.\mathrm{e}.}=\left[m_b^{(4)}(1.775)\right]^5(0.0143)=51GeV^5,$$
(37)
error in estimating $`c_0\left(|\mathrm{\Delta }c_0/c_0||\mathrm{\Delta }c_i/c_i^{RG}|5\%\right)`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K|_{c_0}=35GeV^5,$$
(38)
uncertainty in $`\alpha _s(M_z)(=0.119\pm 0.002`$ ),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K|_{\alpha _s}=\left(\begin{array}{c}+108\\ 28\end{array}\right)GeV^5$$
(39)
(asymmetric bounds are because (35) is based upon $`\alpha _s(M_z)=`$ 0.118), uncertainty in $`m_b(m_b)(=4.17\pm 0.05`$ ),

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K|_{m_b}=\left(\begin{array}{c}+120\\ 115\end{array}\right)GeV^5,$$
(40)
and the asymmetric nonperturbative (n.p) contribution to the overall rate :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/K|_{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{p}.}=\left(\begin{array}{c}39\\ 57\end{array}\right)GeV^5.$$
(41)
Inclusive of all these contributions, the result (35) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=K\times (2065\pm 14\%)GeV^5.$$
(42)
Using (1) for the coefficient $`K`$, the branching ratio for inclusive charmless semileptonic decay is seen to be

$$R\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(BX_u\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}\right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(B\mathrm{anything})=\frac{|V_{ub}|^2G_F^2}{192\pi ^3}\frac{\left[(2065\pm 14\%)GeV^5\right]}{4.2510^{13}GeV},$$
(43)
in which case

$$|V_{ub}|=(0.0949\pm 0.0066)R^{1/2}.$$
(44)
The central value of (44) is in agreement with Uraltsev’s relation between $`|V_{ub}|`$ and the branching ratio , and is indicative of an overall $`\pm 7\%`$ theoretical uncertainty in this relation.

REFERENCES

1. van Ritbergen, T., Phys. Lett. B 454, 353 (1999).
2. Caso, C. et al. (Particle Data Group), Eur. Phys. J. C 3, 1 (1998).
3. Stevenson, P.M., Phys. Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981).
4. Samuel, M. A., Li, G., and Steinfelds, E., Phys. Rev. E 51, 3911 (1995); Samuel, M. A. and Druger, S. D., Int. J. Th. Phys. 34, 903 (1995).
5. Ellis, J., Karliner, M., and Samuel, M. A., Phys. Lett. B 400, 176 (1997).
6. Elias, V., Steele, T. G., Chishtie, F., Migneron, R., and Sprague, K., Phys. Rev. D 58, 116007 (1998).
7. Chishtie, F.A., Elias, V., and Steele, T. G., J. Phys. G 26, 93 (2000).
8. Chetyrkin, K. G. and Steinhauser, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4001 (1999).
9. Chetyrkin, K. G., Kniehl, B. A., and Steinhauser, M., Nucl. Phys. B 510, 61 (1998).
10. Ahmady, M. R., Chishtie, F. A., Elias, V., and Steele, T. G., Phys. Lett. B 479, 201 (2000).
11. Hoang, A. H., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 86, 512 (2000); Bagan, E., Ball, P., Braun, V.M., Gosdzinsky, P., Phys. Lett. B 342, 362 (1995).
12. Uraltsev, N., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 515 (1996).