text:
# Addition Formulae for Non-Abelian Theta Functions and Applications

## 1. Introduction

Fay’s addition formula for theta functions of Jacobians ( has turned out to be highly relevant in a number of problems: geometric properties of Jacobians (existence of trisecants to their Kummer varieties), infinitesimal behavior of theta functions of Jacobians (KP and KdV equations) and algebraic formulations of certain aspects of conformal field theories. On the other hand, deep relations between moduli spaces of vector bundles and Jacobians varieties () has been already stablished. Therefore, it is thus natural to expect similarities between the properties of classical theta functions and those of non-abelian theta functions, in particular, an analogue of Fay’s addition formula.

In fact, the existence of generalized addition formulae for non-abelian theta functions has been conjectured by Schork (conjecture IV.9 of ) when generalizing for higher rank Raina’s approach to $`bc`$ systems (). Therefore, this kind of formulae should be useful tools when studying Schork’s correlation functions as well as non-abelian generalizations of multiplicative Ward identities given by Witten (). In fact, the case of line bundles has been already worked out completely by Raina (). Further, in this direction, the relations between theta functions and the Szegö kernel are well known (e.g. Theorem 25 of  or §6 of ) and have been useful in many problems (e.g. ).

Moreover, an infinitesimal version of such a formula has been given in () when proving that non-abelian theta functions verify the multicomponent KP hierarchy. Hence, an addition formula may help in the understanding of this result and of its geometric consequences (see  for the rank $`1`$ case).

On the other hand, the study of how Jacobian theta functions vary under morphisms of curves has shed light on their properties (e.g. chapters IV and V of ). This question is related to the so-called twist structures of $`bc`$ systems () and is also addressed in pg. 844 of  for higher rank.

The above problems are treated in this paper as follows. A generalization of the addition formula for non-abelian theta functions is the main result of section 3 (Theorem 3.8) which coincides with Corollary 2.19 of  in the case of line bundles. This formula will be derived as an identity among global sections of certain isomorphic line bundles. It is worth mentioning some results needed for its proof, Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.7, which allow us to determine the pullback of the generalized theta divisor by different morphisms which are essentially given by the action of the Jacobian on the moduli space of semistable vector bundles. The latter theorem has been already applied by Schork in  in the study of correlation functions of generalized $`bc`$ systems.

The known relations between theta functions and the Szegö kernel associated to a line bundle are generalized in the fourth section. The identity given in Theorem 4.1 could be a first step in the question addressed by Ball and Vinnikov (pg. 865 of ) about the existence of a explicit formula for the Szegö kernel in higher rank. Another methods were used by Fay () to give a similar relation for degree $`0`$ stable vector bundles.

Theorem 5.1 of the following section contains a global version of Lemma 2.7 of . Recall that the bilinear identity for the multicomponent KP hierarchy is a consequence of this kind of formulae and that, in particular, the non-abelian theta function is a tau-function of that hierarchy.

The sixth section studies the behavior non-abelian theta functions under direct and inverse image by a cyclic covering (Theorem 6.6 and Proposition 6.11). Since our methods are valid for all $`r1`$, some of our results specialize to formulae of the Jacobian case ($`r=1`$) given by Fay (see Remark 4).

Acknowledgments: Both authors wish to express their gratitude to Prof. J. M. Muñoz Porras for his valuable suggestions and comments.

## 2. Preliminaries

This section fixes notations and summarizes some results concerned with the generalized theta divisor and non-abelian theta functions (see ).

Let $`C`$ be a irreducible smooth projective curve of genus $`g2`$ over $``$. Given two integers, $`r,d`$, let $`𝒰_C(r,d)`$ (or simply $`𝒰(r,d)`$) denote the moduli space of semistable vector bundles on $`C`$ of rank $`r`$ and degree $`d`$. Let $`\delta `$ be $`p.g.c.d.(r,d)`$ and $`\overline{r}`$ be $`\frac{r^2}{\delta }`$.

Recall that there is a closed subscheme of $`𝒰(r,r(g1))`$ of codimension 1 given by:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_r:=\{M𝒰(r,r(g1)):h^0(C,M)>0\}$$

It thus defines a polarization which is called the generalized theta divisor (). Moreover, it holds that (Theorem 2 of ):

$$h^0(𝒰(r,r(g1)),𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}$$

We have therefore a global section $`\theta _r`$, defined up to a constant, of $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)`$ whose zero divisor is $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$. This section is known as the non-abelian theta function of rank $`r`$ and degree $`r(g1)`$.

From  we learn that in order to define a polarization on the moduli space $`𝒰(r,d)`$ for an arbitrary $`d`$, we need to fix a vector bundle $`\overline{F}`$ of degree $`\frac{d}{\delta }+\frac{r}{\delta }(g1)`$ and rank $`\frac{r}{\delta }`$ such that there exists a vector bundle $`E𝒰(r,d)`$ with $`h^0(C,E\overline{F})=0`$. In particular, one obtains that $`\chi (M\overline{F})=0`$ for all $`M𝒰(r,d)`$.

From now on, we will fix a theta characteristic $`𝒪(\eta )`$ on $`C`$ and we write $`\overline{F}`$ as $`F(\eta )`$ for a degree $`\frac{d}{\delta }`$ rank $`\frac{r}{\delta }`$ vector bundle $`F`$. Then, it is known that:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}:=\{M𝒰(r,d):h^0(C,MF(\eta ))>0\}$$

defines a polarization, that depends only on the class of $`F(\eta )`$ in the Grothendieck group of coherent algebraic sheaves on $`C`$. This divisor is known as the generalized theta divisor on $`𝒰(r,d)`$ defined by $`F(\eta )`$.

Assume that a polarization $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}`$ in $`𝒰(r,d)`$ is given. Recall that there exists $`E`$ such that $`h^i(C,EF(\eta ))=0`$ ($`i=0,1`$). Then, by Lemma 2.5 of , it follows that $`F`$ is semistable.

Being $`F`$ semistable, we can define the following morphism:

(2.1) $`\beta _{F_\eta }:𝒰(r,d)`$ $`𝒰(\overline{r},\overline{r}(g1))`$
$`M`$ $`MF(\eta )`$
since the tensor product of semistable vector bundles is semistable (see Theorem 3.1.4 of ). It holds that $`\beta _{F_\eta }^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\overline{r}})=\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}`$. Then, define the non-abelian theta function $`\theta _{[F_\eta ]}`$ as the image of $`\theta _{\overline{r}}`$ by the induced morphism:

(2.2)
$$H^0(𝒰(\overline{r},\overline{r}\left(g1\right)),𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\overline{r}}\right))H^0(𝒰(r,d),𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right))$$

However, the construction of these divisors as determinantal subvarieties () turns out to be an essential tool when proving statements about them.

Let $`S`$ be a scheme and $`M`$ be a semistable vector bundle on $`C\times S`$ of rank $`r`$ and degree $`d`$ and let $`\varphi _M`$ be the morphism:

$`\varphi _M:S`$ $`𝒰(r,d)`$
$`s`$ $`M|_{C\times \{s\}}`$
Then, the polarization satisfies the following property:

$$\varphi _M^{}(𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}))\mathrm{Det}(R^{}q_{}(Mp^{}(F(\eta )))^{}$$

where $`q:C\times SS`$ and $`p:C\times SC`$ are the natural projections.

In order to compute this determinant we proceed as follows. Fix an effective divisor $`D`$ on $`C\times S`$ such that $`R^1q_{}(M(D)p^{}F(\eta ))=0`$. Then, tensor with $`Mp^{}F(\eta )`$ the following exact sequence on $`C\times S`$:

$$0𝒪𝒪(D)𝒪_D(D)0$$

and consider the induced cohomology sequence on $`S`$:

$`0q_{}\left(Mp^{}F\left(\eta \right)\right)q_{}\left(M\left(D\right)p^{}F\left(\eta \right)\right)\stackrel{𝛼}{}`$
$`q_{}\left(M𝒪_D\left(D\right)p^{}F\left(\eta \right)\right)`$ $`R^1q_{}\left(Mp^{}F\left(\eta \right)\right)0`$
The properties of determinants () show that (up to a constant):

(2.3)
$$\varphi _M^{}\left(\theta _{F_\eta }\right)=\mathrm{det}\left(\alpha \right)H^0(S,\varphi _M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right))$$

which is an effective way to deal with non-abelian theta functions.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the above construction also applies to the universal bundle of $`𝒰(r,d)`$ when $`r,d`$ are coprime.

## 3. Addition Formula

The first part of this section is devoted to the explicit computation of the pullback of the generalized theta divisor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}`$ by the natural morphism:

(3.1) $`m:𝒰(r,d)\times J`$ $`𝒰(r,d)`$
$`(M,L)`$ $`ML`$
where $`J`$ denotes the Jacobian variety of $`C`$, that is, isomorphism classes of degree $`0`$ line bundles.

This calculation requires a number of intermediate results. Let us introduce the following notation. Let $`J_d`$ denote the variety of isomorphism classes of degree $`d`$ line bundles on $`C`$. The choice of the theta characteristic $`\eta `$ gives rise to a principal polarization on $`J`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_J`$. Denote by $`\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}:J\mathrm{Pic}^0(J)`$ the isomorphism induced by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_J`$.

Consider the morphism:

$$\mathrm{det}:𝒰(r,r(g1))J_{r(g1)}$$

which maps a vector bundle to its determinant. Finally, for a line bundle $`LJ`$ let $`T_L`$ denote the translation defined by $`L`$ on the moduli space of vector bundles as well as on the Jacobian variety.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`LJ`$. Then, there is an isomorphism:

$$T_L^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)\mathrm{det}^{}(T_{r\eta }^{}(\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}(L)))$$

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒮U(r,𝒪(r\eta ))`$ be the moduli space of semistable vector bundles of rank $`r`$ with determinant isomorphic to $`𝒪(r\eta )`$ and let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_r`$ be the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$ to $`𝒮U(r,𝒪(r\eta ))`$.

Since $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒰(r,r(g1)))\mathrm{Pic}(𝒮U(r,𝒪(r\eta )))\mathrm{Pic}(J_{r(g1)})`$ and $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒮U(r,𝒪(r\eta )))\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_r`$ (), one has that $`T_L^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)\mathrm{det}^{}(N)`$ for some $`N\mathrm{Pic}^0(J_{r(g1)})`$ depending on $`L`$.

Consider the morphism:

$`\overline{m}:𝒮U(r,𝒪(r\eta ))\times J`$ $`𝒰(r,r(g1))`$
$`(M,L)`$ $`ML`$
By , we know that $`\overline{m}^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))p_{𝒮U}^{}(𝒪_{𝒮U}(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_r))p_J^{}(𝒪_J(r\mathrm{\Theta }_J))`$, where $`p_{𝒮U}`$ and $`p_J`$ are the natural projections.

Taking the pull-back of $`T_L^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)`$ by the map $`\overline{m}`$, one checks that $`T_{r\eta }^{}(N)\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}(L)\mu `$ with $`\mu `$ a $`r`$-torsion point of $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(J)`$ depending on $`L`$. Since $`J`$ is complete and the $`r`$-torsion subgroup of $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(J)`$ is finite, one obtains that $`\mu `$ does not depend on $`L`$. Letting $`L=𝒪_C`$, one has that $`\mu =𝒪_J`$ and the claim follows. ∎

Now, we consider the morphism 3.1 for the case $`d=r(g1)`$. Recall that the Poincaré bundle on $`J\times J`$ is given by:

$$𝒫:=m_J^{}(𝒪_J(\mathrm{\Theta }_J))p_1^{}(𝒪_J(\mathrm{\Theta }_J))p_2^{}(𝒪_J(\mathrm{\Theta }_J))$$

where $`m_J:J\times JJ`$ corresponds to the tensor product of line bundles and $`p_i`$ is the projection onto the $`i`$-th factor.

###### Lemma 3.3.

It holds that:

$$m^{}\left(𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_r\right)\right)=p_𝒰^{}\left(𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_r\right)\right)p_J^{}\left(𝒪_J\left(r\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)\right)\left(\left(T_{r\eta }\mathrm{det}\right)\times 1\right)^{}𝒫$$

###### Proof.

We consider the bundle on $`𝒰(r,r(g1))\times J`$ defined by:

$$:=m^{}𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)p_𝒰^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r))((T_{r\eta }\mathrm{det})\times 1)^{}𝒫^1$$

Then, the above lemma implies that:

$$|_{𝒰(r,r\left(g1\right))\times \left\{L\right\}}=T_L^{}\left(𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_r\right)\right)𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_r)\mathrm{det}^{}\left(T_{r\eta }^{}\left(\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}\left(L\right)\right)\right)^{}𝒪_𝒰$$

where $`L`$ is a point of $`J`$.

Hence, $``$ is trivial along the fibres of the natural projection $`p_J:𝒰(r,r(g1))\times JJ`$. Seesaw theorem allows us to conclude that $`p_J^{}N`$ for some $`N\mathrm{Pic}(J)`$.

If we show that $`N𝒪_J(r\mathrm{\Theta }_J)`$, we are done. Recall from  that there exists a vector bundle $`M𝒰(r,r(g1))`$ with $`M:=\mathrm{det}(M)=𝒪(r\eta )`$ such that the subscheme $`D(M):=\{LJ:h^0(ML)>0\}`$ is a divisor of $`J`$ which is linearly equivalent to $`r\mathrm{\Theta }_J`$. We now have that:

$$N|_{\{M\}\times J}=𝒪_J(D(M))𝒫^1|_{\{(M)𝒪(r\eta )\}\times J}𝒪_J(r\mathrm{\Theta }_J)$$

We are now ready to compute the pullback of the generalized theta divisor by the morphism 3.1.

###### Theorem 3.4.

One has that:

$$m^{}\left(𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)\right)=p_𝒰^{}\left(𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)\right)p_J^{}\left(𝒪_J\left(\overline{r}\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)\right)\left(\left(\mathrm{det}\beta _F\right)\times 1\right)^{}𝒫$$

where $`\beta _F:𝒰(r,d)𝒰(\overline{r},0)`$ corresponds to tensor product by $`F`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the above lemma and the following commutative diagram:

###### Corollary 3.5.

Let $`M𝒰(r,d)`$ and $`\beta _M:J𝒰(r,d)`$ be the morphism which sends $`L`$ to $`ML`$. It holds that:

$$\beta _M^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}))𝒪_J(\overline{r}\mathrm{\Theta }_J)\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}((MF))$$

###### Proof.

It follows from the previous theorem and from the isomorphism $`\beta _M^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}))m^{}(𝒪_𝒰(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}))|_{\{M\}\times J}`$. ∎

The rest of this section aims at giving explicit formulas for the pullback of non-abelian theta functions by the morphism:

$`\alpha _M:C^{2m}`$ $`𝒰(r,d)`$
$`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)`$ $`M({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(x_iy_i))`$
where $`C^{2m}`$ is the product of $`2m`$ copies of the curve $`C`$ and $`M𝒰(r,d)`$.

Firstly, we will deal with an isomorphism of line bundles on $`C^{2m}`$ and then it will be applied it to obtain an identity among global sections of them. Such a formula can be understood as an addition formula for non-abelian theta functions. For the rank $`1`$ case and identifying the theta function (as a section) with its classical analytic expression, our formula turns out to coincide with Fay’s formula. However, as long as no analytic expressions for non-abelian theta functions are known, our generalization must be regarded as an identity of sections.

If a point of $`C^{2m}`$ is denoted by $`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)C^{2m}`$, we will call an index odd (resp. even) if it corresponds to a variable $`x_i`$ (resp. $`y_j`$). Finally, let $`p_i`$ be the projection onto the $`i`$-th factor and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ the divisor of $`C^{2m}`$ where the $`i`$-th and the $`j`$-th entries coincide.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`LJ`$ and consider the following morphism:

$`\alpha _L:C^{2m}`$ $`J`$
$`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)`$ $`L({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(x_iy_i))`$
Then, one has that:

$`\alpha _L^{}𝒪_J(\mathrm{\Theta }_J)`$ $`𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})`$
$`\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}L^{}(\eta )\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}L(\eta )\right)`$
where the sums involve only $`i,j`$ with $`i<j`$.

###### Proof.

See Theorem 11.1 in . ∎

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`M`$ be a rational point of $`𝒰(r,d)`$ and let $`\alpha _M`$ be the morphism defined by:

$`\alpha _M:C^{2m}`$ $`𝒰(r,d)`$
$`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)`$ $`M({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}(x_iy_i))`$
Then, there is an isomorphism of line bundles on $`C^{2m}`$:

$`\alpha _M^{}𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)`$ $`𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^{\overline{r}}`$
$`\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)\right)`$
where the sums involves only $`i,j`$ with $`i<j`$.

###### Proof.

The morphism $`\alpha _M`$ factors as follows:

$$C^{2m}\stackrel{\alpha _𝒪}{}J\left\{M\right\}\times J\stackrel{\beta _M}{}𝒰(r,d)$$

Let $`M^{}`$ be $`MF`$. Recalling Corollary 3.5 and Lemma 3.6 we have that:

$`\alpha _M^{}𝒪_𝒰\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)`$ $`\alpha _𝒪^{}\left(𝒪_J\left(\overline{r}\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)\varphi _{\mathrm{\Theta }_J}\left(M^{}\right)\right)`$
$``$ $`\alpha _𝒪^{}\left(T_M^{}^{}𝒪_J\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)𝒪_J\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)^{\overline{r}1}\right)`$
$``$ $`\alpha _M^{}^{}\left(𝒪_J\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)\right)\alpha _{𝒪_C}^{}\left(𝒪_J\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_J\right)\right)^{\overline{r}1}`$
$``$ $`𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})`$
$`\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}(M^{})^{}\left(\eta \right)\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}(M^{})\left(\eta \right)\right)`$
$`𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^{\overline{r}1}`$
$`\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}𝒪\left(\eta \right)^{\overline{r}1}\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}𝒪\left(\eta \right)^{\overline{r}1}\right)`$
And the theorem follows. ∎

###### Remark 1.

This result has been applied in  when proving the relation of determinants of correlation functions of generalized $`bc`$ systems and determinants of non-abelian theta functions. This is a first step of the expected fact that correlation functions of generalized $`bc`$-system are determined completely by the geometry of the non-abelian theta divisor, analogously to the rank one case.

Recall from chapter II of  that the line bundle $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ con $`C\times C`$ has a unique section $`E(x,y)`$, which is known as the prime form and that it can be constructed in terms of $`\eta `$. To be consistent with Fay, it will be assumed that the theta characteristic $`\eta `$ is odd. In particular, it holds that $`E(x,y)=E(y,x)`$.

###### Theorem 3.8.

Let $`M`$ be a rational point of $`𝒰(r,d)`$ such that $`\theta _{F_\eta }(M)0`$. Then, for $`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)C^{2m}`$, one has that:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(_{i=1}^m\left(x_iy_i\right)\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}E(x_i,x_j)^{\overline{r}}E(y_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}E(x_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}\mathrm{det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(x_iy_j\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)E(x_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}}}\right)`$
###### Proof.

Observe that the r.h.s. of the equality of the statement equals the sum:

$$\frac{\underset{\sigma 𝒮_m}{}\mathrm{sign}(\sigma )}{i,j\sigma (i)jE(x_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}_i\frac{\theta _{F_\eta }(M(x_iy_{\sigma (i)}))}{\theta _{F_\eta }(M)}}$$

By Theorem 3.7 with $`m=1`$, $`\frac{\theta _{F_\eta }(M(x_iy_j))}{\theta _{F_\eta }(M)}`$ is a section of the line bundle:

$$𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^{\overline{r}}p_i^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}p_j^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)$$

So, it turns out that each term of the above sum is a global section of:

$$𝒪\left(\underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\right)^{\overline{r}}\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)\right)$$

The l.h.s. is a section of the line bundle:

$$\alpha _M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)𝒪\left(\underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\right)^{\overline{r}}$$

These two line bundles are isomorphic by Theorem 3.7. Hence, both sides of the equality are to be understood as global sections of the same line bundle. Since $`C^{2m}`$ is proper, there is no non-constant global section of the trivial bundle. So, if we show that both sections have the same zero divisor, then they coincide up to a multiplicative constant, which will be eventually shown to be $`1`$.

Let $`D_R`$ (resp. $`D_L`$) denote the zero divisor of the r.h.s. (resp. l.h.s.) . Since $`D_L`$ and $`D_R`$ are linearly equivalent, there exists a rational function $`f`$ on $`C^{2m}`$ such that:

$$D_RD_L=D(f)$$

Let us consider the following diagram:

where $`\pi (x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m):=(x_1,x_2,y_2,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)`$.

Suppose we have proved that there exists $`zC^{2m1}`$ such that $`D_L|_{\pi ^1(z)}=D_R|_{\pi ^1(z)}`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}(D_L|_{\pi ^1(z)})\pi ^1(z)`$. It thus follows that $`f|_{\pi ^1(z)}`$ is a non-zero constant, since $`\pi ^1(z)C`$ is proper. From the Rigidity Lemma one deduces that $`f`$ is constant along the fibers of $`\pi `$ and, therefore, $`f`$ has not poles nor zeroes in $`C^{2m}`$. Summing up, $`f`$ is invertible or, what amounts to the same, $`D_L=D_R`$. So, there exists a non-zero constant $`\lambda `$ such that the l.h.s. equals the r.h.s. multiplied by $`\lambda `$. Letting $`x_i=y_i`$ for all $`i`$, we obtain that $`\lambda =1`$.

By the above discussion, it remains to show that there exists $`z`$ such that $`D_L|_{\pi ^1(z)}=D_R|_{\pi ^1(z)}`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}(D_L|_{\pi ^1(z)})\pi ^1(z)`$.

We take $`z=(x_1,x_2,y_2,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)C^{2m1}`$ such that $`x_k=y_k`$ for $`k1`$ and $`x_ix_j`$ for all $`ij`$. Then, we have that:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(_{i=1}^m\left(x_iy_i\right)\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}E(x_i,x_j)^{\overline{r}}E(y_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}\right)|_{\pi ^1\left(z\right)}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(x_1y_1\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}E(y_1,y_k)^{\overline{r}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}E(x_i,x_j)^{\overline{r}}{\displaystyle \underset{2i<j}{}}E(y_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}`$
and the r.h.s. restricted to the fibre of $`z`$ is:

$`\mathrm{det}({\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}E(x_k,y_j)^{\overline{r}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(x_iy_j\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}\left)\right|_{\pi ^1\left(z\right)}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}E(x_k,y_1)^{\overline{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(x_1y_1\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}`$
Letting $`y_1=x_1`$ one checks that both restrictions are not zero. Furthermore, since the first one is equal to the second times a non-zero constant on $`\pi ^1(z)`$, one has that $`D_L|_{\pi ^1(z)}=D_R|_{\pi ^1(z)}`$. The theorem is proved. ∎

## 4. Addition formula and the Szegö kernel

Now, let us recall briefly the definition and properties of the Szegö kernel associated to a vector bundle $`M𝒰(r,d)\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}`$. For such a bundle define the Szegö kernel, $`S_M(x,y)`$, to be the meromorphic section of $`p_1^{}(MF(\eta ))^{}p_2^{}(MF(\eta ))`$ on $`C\times C`$ with a simple pole along the diagonal such that its residue along it is $`1`$.

Note that $`S_M(x,y)`$ might be written as an $`r\times r`$ matrix, because there is an isomorphism:

$`p_1^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}`$ $`p_2^{}(MF\left(\eta \right))`$
$`\text{om}(p_1^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right),p_2^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right))`$
On the other hand, observe that the restriction to the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }C\times C`$ induces an isomorphism:

$$H^0(C\times C,p_1^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}p_2^{}\left(MF\left(\eta \right)\right)𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right))H^0(C,\text{nd}\left(MF\right))$$

and denote by $`S_M^h(x,y)`$ the holomorphic global section of the vector bundle $`p_1^{}(MF(\eta ))^{}p_2^{}(MF(\eta ))𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ whose image by the above isomorphism is the identity.

Then, it is worth noting that $`E(x,y)S_M(x,y)`$ is a holomorphic section of $`p_1^{}(MF(\eta ))^{}p_2^{}(MF(\eta ))𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, because the morphism $`𝒪𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ maps the global section $`1`$ to the global section $`E(x,y)`$. One checks that $`S_M^h(x,y)E(x,y)S_M(x,y)`$ gives a global section of $`p_1^{}(MF(\eta ))^{}p_2^{}(MF(\eta ))`$. Since this bundle has no non-zero section, one then has that:

$$S_M^h(x,y)=E(x,y)S_M(x,y)$$

If $`S_M^h`$ and $`S_M`$ are both understood as matrices, then this identity makes sense too.

###### Remark 2.

One can show that the rows of $`E(x_0,y)S_M(x_0,y)`$ for a fixed point $`x_0C`$ give a basis of $`H^0(C,MF(\eta +x_0))`$, because the restriction to $`\{x_j\}\times C`$ maps $`S_M^h`$ to its rows:

$`H^0(C\times C,\text{om}(p_1^{}(MF(\eta )),p_2^{}(M`$ $`F\left(\eta \right))𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)))`$
$`H^0(C,MF\left(\eta +x_j\right))^r`$
Now, the relation of the non-abelian theta function and the Szegö kernel given by Fay for degree $`0`$ stable bundles () is generalized for semistable ones by the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a rational point of $`𝒰(r,d)`$ such that $`\theta _{F_\eta }(M)0`$. Then, for $`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)C^{2m}`$, one has that:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(_{i=1}^m\left(x_iy_i\right)\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}E(x_i,x_j)^{\overline{r}}`$ $`E(y_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}E(x_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}\mathrm{det}S_M(x,y)`$
where $`S_M(x,y)`$ is a $`\overline{r}m\times \overline{r}m`$ matrix builded up from the $`\overline{r}\times \overline{r}`$ boxes $`S_M(x_i,y_j)`$.

Before giving the proof we need some results.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Both sides of the equality in the statement of Theorem 4.1 are global sections of the isomorphic line bundles on $`C^{2m}`$.

###### Proof.

Note that the matrix $`S_M(x,y)`$ is a meromorphic section of the bundle:

$$\text{om}(\underset{i=\text{odd}}{}p_i^{}(MF(\eta )),\underset{j=\text{even}}{}p_j^{}(MF(\eta )))$$

with poles along $`_{i+j=\text{odd}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ (odd indexes correspond to $`x`$’s variables, while even indexes correspond to $`y`$’s variables). Therefore, the determinant $`\mathrm{det}S_M(x,y)`$ is a meromorphic section of:

$$(_{i=\text{odd}}p_i^{}(MF(\eta ))^{})(_{j=\text{even}}p_j^{}(MF(\eta )))$$

Counting the order of these poles, one concludes that the r.h.s. is a holomorphic section of:

$$(_{i=\text{odd}}p_i^{}(MF(\eta ))^{})(_{j=\text{even}}p_j^{}(MF(\eta )))𝒪(\underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^{\overline{r}}$$

The l.h.s. is a holomorphic global section of:

$$\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]})𝒪(\underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^{\overline{r}}$$

and the two line bundles above are isomorphic by Theorem 3.7. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`M𝒰(r,d)\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}`$. Then, for $`(x,y)C\times C`$, one has that:

$$\frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(xy\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)}=E(x,y)^{\overline{r}}\mathrm{det}S_M(x,y)$$

###### Proof.

Lemma 4.2 implies that both sides are global sections of the same line bundle.

Label the three copies of $`C`$ in $`C\times C\times C`$ by $`0,1`$ and $`2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{0i}`$ be the subscheme where the $`0`$-th entry coincides with the $`i`$-th entry. Let $`p`$ denote the projection from $`C\times C\times C`$ onto the copy of $`C`$ labelled with $`0`$. Finally, let $`q:C\times C\times CC\times C`$ be the projection onto the copies labelled with $`1`$ and $`2`$.

The bundle $`M`$ defines the morphism:

$`\alpha _M:C\times C`$ $`𝒰(r,d)`$
$`(x,y)`$ $`M(xy)`$
By the construction of the polarization it is known that:

$$\alpha _M^{}(𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[F_\eta ]}))\mathrm{Det}(R^{}q_{})$$

where $`:=p^{}(MF(\eta ))𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02})`$. Let $`M^{}`$ be $`MF(\eta )`$.

Let us compute this determinant as well as a section of its dual. Consider the exact sequence on $`C\times C\times C`$:

$$0𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02})𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}0$$

Tensor with $`p^{}M^{}`$ and pushing it forward by $`q`$ one obtains:

$$0q_{}q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right))\stackrel{𝛽}{}q_{}((p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})R^1q_{}0$$

because $`R^1q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})=0`$.

Observe that the two middle terms of the above sequence are locally free of same rank. Then, it follows that there exists a canonical isomorphism:

$$\alpha _M^{}\left(𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)\right)\left(q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right))\right)^{}q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})$$

which, by the relation 2.3, maps the global section $`\alpha _M^{}\theta _{F_\eta }`$ to $`\mathrm{det}\beta `$.

Our task now consists of relating the determinant of $`\beta `$ with that of $`S_M^h(x,y)`$, since $`\mathrm{det}S_M^h(x,y)=E(x,y)^{\overline{r}}\mathrm{det}S_M(x,y)`$. If fact it will be shown that the morphism $`S_M^h(x,y)`$ factorizes as $`\beta \varphi ^1`$ where $`\varphi `$ is a morphism whose determinant equals $`\theta _{F_\eta }(M)`$.

Let us begin with the morphism $`\varphi `$. Analogous arguments as previously applied to the exact sequence:

$$0𝒪𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}0$$

show that there is an isomorphism:

$$q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}))\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}q_{}((p^{}M^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01})|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}})$$

If $`\alpha _0:C\times C𝒰(r,d)`$ is the morphism that sends $`(x,y)`$ to $`M`$, it then follows that the isomorphism:

$$\alpha _0^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[F_\eta \right]}\right)\left(q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right))\right)^{}q_{}(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}})𝒪$$

maps $`\alpha _0^{}(\theta _{F_\eta })=\theta _{F_\eta }(M)`$ to $`\mathrm{det}\varphi `$.

In order to write down the factorization of $`S_M^h(x,y)`$ we need the following identifications:

$$\begin{array}{c}q_{}\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}\iota _2^{}\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)p_2^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\\ q_{}\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}\iota _1^{}\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)p_1^{}\left(M^{}\omega _C^{}\right)\end{array}$$

where $`\iota _j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) is the embedding $`C\times C\mathrm{\Delta }_{0j}C\times C\times C`$ and $`p_j`$ is the projection from $`C\times C`$ onto its $`j`$-th factor ($`j=1,2`$).

These identifications shows that there is a natural map of bundles on $`C\times C`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}p_1^{}\left(M^{}\omega _C^{}\right)q_{}\left(\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}\right)\stackrel{\varphi ^1}{}q_{}\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)\stackrel{𝛽}{}\\ q_{}\left(\left(p^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}\right)p_2^{}M^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\end{array}$$

If we check that this map coincides with $`S_M^h(x,y)=E(x,y)S_M(x,y)`$, the lemma is proved. To this goal it is enough to verify that the restriction of $`\beta \varphi ^1`$ to the diagonal is the identity map and this fact follows from a straightforward calculation. ∎

###### of Theorem 4.1.

Firstly, observe that Lemma 4.2 implies that both sides of the equality are holomorphic global sections of the same line bundle.

Similar arguments to those of the proof of Theorem 3.8 allows us to reduce the proof to check that the statement holds true on the fiber $`\pi ^1(z)C`$ where $`\pi :C^{2m}C^{2m1}`$ is the projection that forgets $`y_1`$ and $`z`$ is a point $`(x_1,x_2,y_2,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)C^{2m1}`$ such that $`x_ix_j`$ for all $`ij`$ and $`y_i=x_i`$.

Now, note that the claim restricted to the fibre $`\pi ^1(z)`$ is precisely the statement of Lemma 4.3, which has been already proved. ∎

###### Corollary 4.4.

Under the same hypothesis of the previous theorem, one has that:

$`\mathrm{det}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\left(x_iy_j\right)\right)}{\theta _{F_\eta }\left(M\right)E(x_i,y_j)^{\overline{r}}}}\right)=\mathrm{det}S_M(x,y)`$
###### Proof.

It follows from Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 4.1. ∎

## 5. Relation with the Multicomponent KP Hierarchy

In this section, it will addressed the relation between some properties of non-abelian theta functions with those of $`\tau `$-functions of the multicomponent KP hierarchy. The importance of the theorem below comes from the consequences of its infinitesimal version (Lemma 2.7 of ), which eventually leads to the bilinear identity in the framework of the multicomponent KP hierarchy. Moreover, it generalizes Proposition 2.16 of  for higher rank.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`M`$ be a rational point of $`𝒰(r,r(g1+m))`$ ($`m`$ being a positive integer) such that $`h^1(C,M)=0`$.

Then, the following identity on $`C^m`$ holds:

$$\theta _r(M(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}y_i))\underset{i<j}{}E(y_i,y_j)^r=\lambda \mathrm{det}(s_i(y_j))$$

where $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`\{s_i=(s_i^1,\mathrm{},s_i^r)|i=1,\mathrm{},mr\}`$ is a basis of $`H^0(C,M)`$ and the matrix $`(s_i(y_j))`$ is:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}s_1^1\left(y_1\right)& \mathrm{}& s_1^r\left(y_1\right)& \mathrm{}& s_1^1\left(y_m\right)& \mathrm{}& s_1^r\left(y_m\right)\\ \mathrm{}& & & & & & \mathrm{}\\ s_{mr}^1\left(y_1\right)& \mathrm{}& s_{mr}^r\left(y_1\right)& \mathrm{}& s_{mr}^1\left(y_m\right)& \mathrm{}& s_{mr}^r\left(y_m\right)\end{array}\right)$$

###### Proof.

We begin with the $`m=2`$ case where the idea of the proof will be clear. For this case we will work with bundles on $`C\times \times C\times C`$ and will use again the notations introduced in the proof of Lemma 4.3.

Recall that the sheaf $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}`$ is the kernel of the difference map $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}`$ and, therefore, we have the exact sequence:

$$0𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}0$$

From the following exact sequence:

$$0𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02})𝒪𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}0$$

one deduces the exactness of:

$`0q_{}\left(p^{}M\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}\right)\right)`$ $`q_{}\left(p^{}M\right)\stackrel{𝛼}{}`$
$`q_{}\left(p^{}M𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}\right)`$ $`R^1q_{}\left(p^{}M\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}\right)\right)0`$
which, by the relation 2.3, implies that:

$$\theta _r(M(y_1y_2))=\mathrm{det}(\alpha )y_1,y_2C$$

The statement is thus reduced to compute $`\mathrm{det}(\alpha )`$ in an alternative way.

Consider the following commutative diagram:

where $`\phi `$ is the morphism induced by $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}`$ and ev is the evaluation map, that is, at the point $`(y_1,y_2)`$ is:

$`H^0(M)`$ $`M_{y_1}M_{y_2}`$
$`s`$ $`(s(y_1),s(y_2))`$
The diagram shows that:

$$\mathrm{det}(\phi )\mathrm{det}(\alpha )=\mathrm{det}(\text{ev})$$

and therefore:

$$\mathrm{det}(\phi )\theta _r(M(y_1y_2))=\lambda ^{}\mathrm{det}(s_i(y_j))$$

where $`\lambda ^{}`$ is a constant that depends on the choice of the basis and on the above isomorphisms of line bundles and it will eventually give the constant of the statement.

Since $`q:\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}C`$ is finite of degree $`2`$, $`R^1q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})=0`$. It thus follows the exactness of:

$$0q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})\stackrel{\phi _0}{}q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})0$$

Now, we will show that $`\mathrm{det}(\phi )=\mathrm{det}(\phi _0)^r`$ and that $`\mathrm{det}(\phi _0)=E(y_1,y_2)`$.

Let us begin computing $`\mathrm{det}(\phi _0)`$. From the theory of determinants () one has the following isomorphism:

$$\mathrm{Det}\left(q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})\right)\mathrm{Det}(q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}))$$

Since the above bundles live on $`C\times C`$ let us rewrite them as follows. From the diagram:

($`\mathrm{\Delta }C\times C`$ being the diagonal) one obtains:

$$\mathrm{Det}(q_{}(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}}))\mathrm{Det}\left(𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\mathrm{Det}\left(𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒪\right)=𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })$$

where the second isomorphism follows from the exactness of the following sequence on $`C\times C`$:

$$0𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒪𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }0$$

These calculations imply that:

$$\mathrm{det}(\phi _0)=E(y_1,y_2)H^0(C\times C,𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }))$$

On the other hand, $`\mathrm{det}(\phi )`$ may be computed similarly and we obtain:

$`\mathrm{Det}(q_{}(p^{}M`$ $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})q_{}(p^{}M(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{01}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{02}})))`$
$`\mathrm{Det}\left(M𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }\right)𝒪(r\mathrm{\Delta })`$
Now, it follows that $`\mathrm{det}(\phi )=\mathrm{det}(\phi _0)^r=E(y_1,y_2)^r`$. The $`m=2`$ case is proved.

For arbitrary $`m`$ we proceed similarly but replacing the morphism $`\phi `$ by:

$`q_{}\left(p^{}M𝒪_{_{i=1}^m\mathrm{\Delta }_{0i}}\right)`$ $`q_{}\left(p^{}M\left(𝒪_{_{i=1}^{m1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{0i}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0m}}\right)\right)\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}q_{}\left(p^{}M\left(_{i=1}^m𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0i}}\right)\right)`$
which has determinant $`_{i<j}E(y_i,y_j)^r`$. ∎

## 6. Cyclic coverings

Let $`\gamma :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ be a cyclic covering of degree $`n`$ between two irreducible smooth projective cuves given by an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`\sigma ^n=\mathrm{Id}`$, that is, $`\stackrel{~}{C}/<\sigma >=C`$.

In this section we will study the relationship between the polarizations of moduli spaces of vector bundles on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`C`$. This question is related to the twist structures of $`bc`$ systems () and has been addressed in . The rank $`1`$ case is to be found in .

Let us introduce some notation. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$) denote the diagonal of $`C\times C`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$). Let $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{ij}`$ be the inverse image of the diagonal by the morphism $`\sigma ^i\times \sigma ^j:\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`E`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$) be the prime form of $`C`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$). Finally, let $`R^\gamma =_{\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{C}}(n_{\stackrel{~}{x}}1)\stackrel{~}{x}`$ be the ramification divisor of $`\gamma `$, where $`n_{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ is the ramification index at $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$.

Let us begin with some computations for the ideal sheaf of the diagonal.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`\gamma _1`$ be $`\gamma \times \gamma `$ and $`R^1`$ be $`(R^\gamma \times \stackrel{~}{C})(\stackrel{~}{C}\times R^\gamma )`$.

Then, there is an exact sequence on $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$:

$$0\gamma _1^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒪(\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j})𝒪_{R^1}0$$

and a canonical isomorphism of line bundles:

$$\gamma _1^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒪(\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j})\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{}𝒪(R^\gamma )\stackrel{~}{p}_2^{}𝒪(R^\gamma )$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i:\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ are the natural projections.

###### Proof.

Since there is an inclusion $`\gamma _1^1(\mathrm{\Delta })_j\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j}`$, it follows the exact sequence:

(6.2)
$$0\gamma _1^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒪(\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j})𝒪_T0$$

Let us compute $`𝒪_T`$. If $`S=\mathrm{supp}(R^\gamma )`$ is the support of $`R^\gamma `$ and $`U`$ is the open subscheme $`(\stackrel{~}{C}S)\times (\stackrel{~}{C}S)`$, one checks easily that $`\gamma _1^1(\mathrm{\Delta })|_U=_j\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j}|_U`$ and $`T`$ is therefore contained in:

$$\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}U=\underset{\stackrel{~}{x}R^\gamma }{}\left(\{\stackrel{~}{x}\}\times \stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}\times \{\stackrel{~}{x}\}\right)$$

By symmetry, it is enough to show that the length of $`T`$ at $`\{\stackrel{~}{x}\}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{x}S`$) is $`n_{\stackrel{~}{x}}1`$. Recalling the exact sequence 6.2, one observes that this can be done by comparing the zero divisors of $`\gamma _1^{}E`$ and $`_j(\mathrm{Id}\times \sigma ^j)^{}\stackrel{~}{E}`$ as global sections of $`𝒪(_j\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j})`$. One checks now that if $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})S\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$, then $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})`$ is a simple zero of $`\gamma _1^{}E`$ and a zero of order $`n_{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ of $`_j(\mathrm{Id}\times \sigma ^j)^{}\stackrel{~}{E}`$.

For the second claim, it suffices to take determinants in the exact sequence of the first claim. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a vector bundle on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of rank $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$.

Then, there is an exact sequence:

$$0\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})_{k=0}^{n1}(\sigma ^k)^{}\stackrel{~}{M}\left(𝒪_{\frac{1}{2}nR^\gamma }\right)^{\stackrel{~}{r}}0$$

and a canonical isomorphism:

$$\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})_{k=0}^{n1}(\sigma ^k)^{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{r}nR^\gamma )$$

Finally, if $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has degree $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$, then:

$$\mathrm{deg}\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{r}(\stackrel{~}{g}1n(g1))$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ (resp. $`g`$) is the genus of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ (resp. $`C`$).

###### Proof.

The adjunction formula gives a morphism $`\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and, since $`\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is invariant under $`\sigma `$, there is also a morphism to $`(\sigma ^k)^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ for $`0k<n`$; that is:

$$\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})_{k=0}^{n1}(\sigma ^k)^{}\stackrel{~}{M}$$

Since this is a morphism between two locally free sheaves of the same rank which is an isomorphism at the stalk of any point $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{C}R^\gamma `$, it follows that there is an exact sequence:

(6.4)
$$0\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M})_{k=0}^{n1}(\sigma ^k)^{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪_T0$$

where $`\mathrm{supp}(T)\mathrm{supp}R^\gamma `$.

Note that the computation of $`T`$ is a local problem, so it can be assumed $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to be $`𝒪_C^{\stackrel{~}{r}}`$. Furthermore, observe that $`𝒪_T=𝒪_T^{}^{\stackrel{~}{r}}`$ where:

(6.5)
$$0\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}})_{k=0}^{n1}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}𝒪_T^{}0$$

For the case $`\stackrel{~}{M}=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ some results on cyclic coverings are known. From Theorem 3.2 of  we learn that the covering $`\gamma :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ is defined by a line bundle $`L`$ on $`C`$ and a divisor $`D=a_iq_i`$ on $`C`$ where: $`1a_i<n`$, $`L^n𝒪_C(D)`$, and $`q_i`$ is a branch point of $`\gamma `$. Furthermore, all the points on the fibre of a $`q_i`$ have the same multiplicity, say $`m_i`$, and $`s_i:=\frac{n}{m_i}=\text{g.c.d}(a_i,n)`$ is the number of distinct points in $`\gamma ^1(q_i)`$.

Moreover, if $`[a]_n`$ denotes the remainder of $`a`$ divided by $`n`$ and $`D_k`$ is $`_i[ka_i]_nq_i`$, it then holds that the coefficients of $`\gamma ^1(D_k)`$ are multiple of $`n`$ (§2 of ) and that:

$$\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}})\stackrel{}{}_{k=0}^{n1}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\frac{1}{n}\gamma ^1(D_k))$$

Now, one checks that the morphism 6.5 is given by the divisors $`\frac{1}{n}\gamma ^1(D_k)`$, in particular, $`\mathrm{supp}(T^{})_k\mathrm{supp}\gamma ^1(D_k)=\mathrm{supp}R^\gamma `$.

It only remains to compute the length of $`T^{}`$ at a ramification point. Let $`p_i\gamma ^1(q_i)`$ be given.

The length of the cokernel of the sequence 6.5 at $`p_i`$ is given by:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left[ka_i\right]_n{\displaystyle \frac{m_i}{n}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_is_i}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m_i1}{}}}\left[ka_i\right]_n=s_i{\displaystyle \underset{k^{}=1}{\overset{m_i1}{}}}\left[k^{}\right]_n=`$
$`=`$ $`s_i{\displaystyle \frac{m_i\left(m_i1\right)}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{n\left(m_i1\right)}{2}}`$
Thus, $`T^{}=\frac{1}{2}nR^\gamma `$ and the conclusion follows. Observe that the coefficients of $`nR^\gamma `$ are even. ∎

Fix a line bundle $`L_\gamma `$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ satisfying:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_\gamma :=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\frac{1}{2}(nR^\gamma )mR^\gamma )\hfill & \text{if }n=2m+1\hfill \\ L_\gamma \text{ such that }L_\gamma ^2𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(R^\gamma )\hfill & \text{if }n=2m\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, the following two conditions hold:

$`L_\gamma ^2`$ $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(R^\gamma )`$
$`L_\gamma ^n`$ $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(nR^\gamma ))`$
and $`L_\gamma `$ has degree $`(\stackrel{~}{g}1)n(g1)`$.

We also fix theta characteristics $`\eta `$ on $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ is defined by $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\stackrel{~}{\eta }):=\gamma ^{}𝒪_C(\eta )L_\gamma `$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{d}:=\stackrel{~}{r}(\stackrel{~}{g}1n(g1))`$. Since $`p.g.c.d.(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{d})=\stackrel{~}{r}`$, the line bundle $`F=L_\gamma ^{}`$ may be used to define a polarization $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{[F_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}]}`$ in $`𝒰_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{d})`$.

Note that the theta characteristic $`\eta `$ also defines a polarization $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[\eta ]}`$ on the moduli space $`𝒰_C(r,0)`$.

Assume, we are given a vector bundle $`\stackrel{~}{M}𝒰_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{d})`$ whose direct image is a semistable vector bundle on $`C`$. Then, Lemma 6.3 implies that $`\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒰(r,0)`$ where $`r:=n\stackrel{~}{r}`$. Further, we have the morphisms:

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}:\stackrel{~}{C}^{2nm}`$ $`𝒰_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{d})`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_{nm},\stackrel{~}{y}_{nm})`$ $`\stackrel{~}{M}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{~}{x}_i\stackrel{~}{y}_i)`$
and

$`\alpha _{\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}}:C^{2m}`$ $`𝒰_C(r,0)`$
$`(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m)`$ $`\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪_C({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_iy_i)`$
In order to study the relation of the corresponding non-abelian theta functions, we consider the following diagram:

where $`\gamma _m`$ denotes the map $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}C^{2m}`$ given by $`\gamma `$ on each component, and $`\rho _m`$ is the embedding induced by the morphism:

$`\rho _1:\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$ $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{n}{}}(\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C})`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y},\sigma (\stackrel{~}{x}),\sigma (\stackrel{~}{y}),\mathrm{},\sigma ^{n1}(\stackrel{~}{x}),,\sigma ^{n1}(\stackrel{~}{y}))`$
Let us denote by $`p_i`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i`$) the projection of $`C^{2m}`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$) onto its $`i`$-th factor.

The following theorem gives the relation between the pullbacks of the polarizations by the above diagram.

###### Theorem 6.6.

There is an isomorphism of line bundles on $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$:

$$\left(\alpha _{\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}}\gamma _m\right)^{}𝒪\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[\eta \right]}\right)\rho _m^{}\left(\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\right)^{}𝒪\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\left[F_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\right]}\right)\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ all}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}L_\gamma ^{}\right)^{3r}$$

where $`F=L_\gamma ^{}`$ and $`r=\stackrel{~}{r}n`$.

###### Proof.

The statement follows from the comparation of the pullbacks $`(\alpha _{\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}}\gamma _m)^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[\eta ]})`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\rho _m)^{}𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{[F_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}]})`$, which will be done with the help of Theorem 3.7 and Lemmas 6.1 and 6.3.

To begin with, we compute the pull-back by $`\gamma _m`$ of $`(\alpha _{\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}})^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[\eta ]})`$. Note that $`L_\gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ is invariant by $`\sigma `$. Therefore, by Lemma 6.3 and the properties of $`L_\gamma `$, one has that:

$`\gamma `$ $`{}_{m}{}^{}(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}p_i^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪(\eta ))^{})\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}(\gamma ^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪(\eta ))^{})`$
$`\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}\left(\gamma ^{}\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma ^{}𝒪\left(\eta \right)\right)^{}\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}\left(\gamma ^{}\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}L_\gamma \left(\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)^r\right)^{}`$
$`\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}((_{j=0}^{n1}\left(\sigma ^j\right)^{}\stackrel{~}{M})𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}rR^\gamma )L_\gamma (\stackrel{~}{\eta })^r)^{}`$
Recalling that $`(L_\gamma ^{})^r𝒪(\frac{1}{2}rR^\gamma )`$ and that $`L_\gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ is invariant under $`\sigma `$, the above expression is isomorphic to:

$`\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}((_{j=0}^{n1}\left(\sigma ^j\right)^{}\stackrel{~}{M})L_\gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })^rL_\gamma ^r)^{}`$
$`\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}((_{j=0}^{n1}\left(\sigma ^j\right)^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}L_\gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })))L_\gamma ^r)^{}`$
$`\rho _m^{}\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\overline{p}_i^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}L_\gamma ^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)^{}\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ odd}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}\left(L_\gamma ^{}\right)^r\right)`$
where $`\overline{p}_i`$ are the natural projections of $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2nm}`$.

Similarly, the pullback of:

$$\underset{i\text{ even}}{}p_i^{}\left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(\eta \right)\right)$$

by $`\gamma _m^{}`$ is:

$$\rho _m^{}\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}\overline{p}_i^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}L_\gamma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })\right)\right)\left(\underset{i\text{ even}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}(L_\gamma ^{})^r\right)$$

Note that $`n_i\stackrel{~}{D}_{0i}=_{i,j}\stackrel{~}{D}_{ij}`$ and $`\rho _1^1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij})=\stackrel{~}{D}_{ij}`$. Then, from Lemma 6.1, it follows an isomorphism on $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$:

$`\gamma _1^{}𝒪(n\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`\rho _1^{}𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij})\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{}𝒪(nR^\gamma )\stackrel{~}{p}_2^{}𝒪(nR^\gamma )`$
$`\rho _1^{}𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{\overset{n}{}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij})\stackrel{~}{p}_1^{}(L_\gamma ^{})^{2n}\stackrel{~}{p}_2^{}(L_\gamma ^{})^{2n}`$
Finally, a length but straightforward calculation shows that:

$`\gamma _m^{}𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{\frac{}{i+j=}\text{odd}}{}}`$
$`i<j\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{}{i+j=}\text{even}}{}}`$
$`i<j\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^r`$
$``$ $`\rho _m^{}𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{\frac{}{i+j=}\text{odd}}{}}`$
$`i<j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{\frac{}{i+j=}\text{even}}{}}`$
$`i<j\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij})^{\stackrel{~}{r}}(\underset{i\text{ all}}{}\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}\left(L_\gamma ^{}\right)^{2r})`$
Comparing these results with the expression of $`\rho _m^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{}𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{[F_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}]})\right)`$ given by Theorem 3.7, the statement follows. ∎

Observe that $`L_\gamma =𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ when $`\gamma `$ is non-ramified. Then, in this situation, a consequence of the above theorem is the following identity between global sections of the line bundles in the previous statement:

###### Theorem 6.7.

Let $`\gamma `$ be non-ramified and $`\stackrel{~}{M}𝒰(\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{d})\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}`$ such that $`\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒰(r,0)`$. Then, for $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_m,\stackrel{~}{y}_m)\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$, it holds that:

$$\frac{\theta _\eta \left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(Z\right)\right)}{\theta _\eta \left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}\right)}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma ^{}𝒪\left(Z\right)\right)}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\right)}$$

where $`Z`$ is the divisor $`_{i=1}^m(\gamma (\stackrel{~}{x}_i)\gamma (\stackrel{~}{y}_i))`$ on $`C`$.

###### Proof.

First of all, observe that:

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\gamma ^{}𝒪\left(Z\right)\right)=\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}\left(\rho _m(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_m,\stackrel{~}{y}_m)\right)\right)$$

because $`\gamma ^1(\gamma (\stackrel{~}{x}_i))=\rho _1(\stackrel{~}{x}_i)`$. Then, the r.h.s. of the formula is a holomorphic global section of $`\rho _m^{}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}^{}𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{[\stackrel{~}{\eta }]}))`$. On the other hand, the l.h.s. is a holomorphic global section of $`\gamma _m^{}(\alpha _{\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}}^{}𝒪(\mathrm{\Theta }_{[\eta ]}))`$. Hence, by Theorem 6.6, both sides are global section of isomorphic line bundles on $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$.

Similar arguments to those of the proof of Theorem 3.8 reduce the proof to check that the statement holds true when restricted to a fibre $`\pi ^1(z)`$ where $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m1}`$ is the projection that forgets $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ and $`z`$ is a point $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2,\stackrel{~}{y}_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_m,\stackrel{~}{y}_m)\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m1}`$ such that $`x_ix_j`$ for all $`ij`$ and $`y_i=x_i`$. For the sake of notation, we define $`x`$ to be $`\gamma (\stackrel{~}{x}_1)`$.

Let denote by $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ the projections of $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$ onto its first and second factors, respectively. Consider the bundle:

$$\stackrel{~}{}:=\stackrel{~}{p}^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\gamma ^1(x)+\stackrel{~}{\eta })𝒪(\stackrel{~}{D})$$

on $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{D}:=_j\stackrel{~}{D}_{0j}`$. Using the sequence defined by the effective divisor $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$, we obtain the following exact sequence:

(6.8)
$$0\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}0$$

Since $`R^1q_{}(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\gamma ^1(x)+\stackrel{~}{\eta })))=0`$, the restriction of the r.h.s. to $`\pi ^1(z)`$ is given by the determinant of the morphism:

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{q}_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}\right)$$

induced by the latter sequence.

We now compute the restriction of the l.h.s. in a similar way. Let denote by $`p`$ and $`q`$ the projections of $`C\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$ onto its first and second factors, respectively. Let $``$ be the bundle $`p^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪(x+\eta ))𝒪(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on $`C\times \stackrel{~}{C}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the graph of the map $`\gamma `$. The exact sequence associated to the divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ implies the exactness of the sequence:

(6.9)
$$0p^{}\left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(x+\eta \right)\right)p^{}\left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(x+\eta \right)\right)𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }0$$

Being $`R^1q_{}(p^{}(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪(x+\eta )))=0`$, it follows that the restriction of the l.h.s. to $`\pi ^1(z)`$ is the determinant of the induced morphism:

$$q_{}\left(p^{}\left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(x+\eta \right)\right)\right)q_{}\left(p^{}\left(\gamma _{}\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪\left(x+\eta \right)\right)𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)$$

Bearing in mind the commutativity of the diagram:

it will suffice to conclude to show that the direct image by $`\gamma \times \mathrm{Id}`$ of the sequence 6.8 is the sequence 6.9.

The direct image of the sequence 6.8 by $`\gamma \times \mathrm{Id}`$ is:

$`0(\gamma \times \mathrm{Id})_{}(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)`$ $`+\stackrel{~}{\eta }))𝒪(\stackrel{~}{D}))`$
$`\left(\gamma \times \mathrm{Id}\right)_{}`$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)\right)`$
$`\left(\gamma \times \mathrm{Id}\right)_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{M}\left(\gamma ^1\left(x\right)+\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\right)𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{D}}\right)0`$
because the map $`\gamma \times \mathrm{Id}`$ is finite.

Recalling that $`(\gamma \times \mathrm{Id})^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\stackrel{~}{D}`$, $`\gamma ^1(\eta )=\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ and using the projection formula and the base change theorem for the case:

we conclude that the latter sequence coincides with the sequence 6.9.

Then, we know that both sections are equal up to a constant on $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$. This constant might be evaluated on $`\pi ^1(z)`$ by letting $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1=\stackrel{~}{x}_1`$, and it follows that it is equal to $`1`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.

Observe that the above theorem may be generalized for the ramified case. This would require to know sections of $`L_\gamma ^n=𝒪(\frac{1}{2}nR^\gamma )`$. Besides, Lemma 6.1 allows us to give a section of it in terms of the prime forms $`E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ because $`\frac{1}{2}nR^\gamma `$ is effective.

We finish with a similar study for the inverse image. Let $`M𝒰_C(r,0)`$ be a vector bundle on $`C`$. From Lemma 3.2.2 of  it turns out that $`\gamma ^{}M𝒰_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(r,0)`$. Consider the following diagram:

###### Theorem 6.10.

It holds that:

$`(\alpha _M`$ $`\gamma _m\left)^{}𝒪\right(\mathrm{\Theta }_{\left[\eta \right]})\gamma _m^{}𝒪({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij})^r`$
$``$ $`\left(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\gamma ^{}M}\right)^{}𝒪\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{\left[\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right]}\right)𝒪\left({\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{odd}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{i+j=\text{even}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{ij}\right)^r\left(\underset{i\text{ all}}{}\left(\stackrel{~}{p}_i^{}L_\gamma ^{}\right)^r\right)`$
###### Proof.

The claim follows from Theorem 3.7 and from the fact that $`\gamma ^{}𝒪_C(\eta )𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })L_\gamma ^{}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 6.11.

Suppose that $`\gamma `$ is non-ramified and let $`M𝒰_C(r,0)`$ such that $`\theta _\eta (M)0`$. Then, for $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{x}_m,\stackrel{~}{y}_m)\stackrel{~}{C}^{2m}`$, it holds that:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\gamma ^{}M\left(_{i=1}^m\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_i\stackrel{~}{y}_i\right)\right)\right)}{\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(\gamma ^{}M\right)}\underset{i<j}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{x}_i,\sigma ^k\left(\stackrel{~}{x}_j\right))\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{y}_i,\sigma ^k\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_j\right))\right)^r=\\ =\frac{\theta _\eta \left(M\left(_{i=1}^m\left(\gamma \left(\stackrel{~}{x}_i\right)\gamma \left(\stackrel{~}{y}_i\right)\right)\right)\right)}{\theta _\eta \left(M\right)}\underset{i,j}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}(\stackrel{~}{x}_i,\sigma ^k\left(\stackrel{~}{y}_j\right))^r\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

One proceed similarly as in Theorem 6.7. ∎

###### Remark 4.

It is worth pointing out that Proposition 5.1 of  follows from Theorem 6.10 when $`\gamma `$ is ramified, $`\mathrm{deg}\gamma =2`$ and $`r=1`$.


format: text

text:
# UWThPh-2000-32 The seesaw mechanism at arbitrary order: disentangling the small scale from the large scale

## 1 Introduction

Neutrino physics might prove to be the first window to physics beyond the Standard Model. The reason for this is the evidence for neutrino oscillations found, in particular, in experiments measuring the atmospheric neutrino flux . Most probably, physics beyond the Standard Model is associated with a new mass or energy scale above the electroweak scale. This idea has been exploited in the seesaw mechanism to explain the smallness of the neutrino masses relative to the charged-lepton masses . Inspired by the indication for non-zero neutrino masses from neutrino oscillations, model building for incorporating neutrino masses and lepton mixing and for explaining features of the neutrino mass spectrum and of the mixing matrix is in full swing. In this context, the seesaw mechanism plays an important role .

Usually, the lowest order in the inverse heavy seesaw scale is sufficient for the purpose of describing the light-neutrino mass matrix. However, one can envisage situations which warrant going beyond the lowest order, like

* the need to know the neutrino masses to a better precision;
* a degeneracy of the mass spectrum at lowest order, which is lifted at higher orders;
* the presence of massless neutrinos at lowest order, which become massive at higher orders;
* a lepton mixing matrix with some features at lowest order, which disappear at higher orders ;
* light mass terms which, though much smaller than the heavy ones, are not all of the same order of magnitude; or, inversely, heavy masses with different orders of magnitude ; or the same situation for both types of mass terms.

In this letter we propose a simple, minimal procedure which allows one to decouple the small seesaw scale from the large one order by order in the inverse large scale. The procedure is defined by a particular Ansatz for the unitary matrix $`W`$ which performs this decoupling, together with a series expansion for $`W`$ in the inverse large scale. This procedure enables, in principle, the calculation of $`W`$, of the mass matrix of the light neutrinos, and of the mass matrix of the heavy neutrinos, up to any arbitrarily large order in the inverse heavy mass scale.

Seesaw-type mass matrices, with two different mass scales, are not confined to neutrino physics. In this letter we also show how one may recursively decouple the light from the heavy quarks when one adds vector-like quarks to the Standard Model and one assumes the gauge-invariant mass terms to be very large.

In Section 2 we develop the decoupling procedure in the case of the usual seesaw mechanism for neutrinos, whereas in Section 3 we consider the extension of the Standard Model with vector-like quarks. In Section 4 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Neutrinos

Let us consider a general model in which, to the $`n_L`$ generations of leptons of the Standard Model, one adds $`n_R`$ right-handed (singlet) neutrinos $`\nu _R`$ . One may take the charge conjugates of the latter fields, $`\nu _R^cC\overline{\nu _R}^T`$, which are left-handed, and put them together with the doublet left-handed neutrinos. (The matrix $`C`$ is the Dirac–Pauli charge-conjugation matrix.) The most general mass terms for all the neutrinos fields are then

$$_{\mathrm{mass}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu _L^T,& \left(\nu _R^c\right)^T\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L& M_D^T\\ M_D& M_R\end{array}\right)C^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \nu _R^c\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(1)
The $`n_L\times n_L`$ matrix $`M_L`$ and the $`n_R\times n_R`$ matrix $`M_R`$ are symmetric; the matrix $`M_D`$ is $`n_R\times n_L`$ and arbitrary.

The mass terms in $`M_D`$ are $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }I\right|=1/2`$, where $`I`$ denotes the weak isospin, and originate, usually, in the Yukawa couplings of the leptons to scalar doublets which acquire a vacuum expectation value (VEV). The mass terms in $`M_L`$ are $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }I\right|=1`$ and are present if there exists in the theory either a fundamental or an effective Higgs triplet with a VEV. The mass terms in $`M_R`$ are gauge-invariant and we shall assume them to be much larger than the ones in either $`M_D`$ or $`M_L`$. We shall moreover assume $`M_R`$ to be non-singular. The order of magnitude of the eigenvalues of $`\sqrt{M_R^{}M_R}`$ will be denoted by $`m_R`$. We shall assume that all matrix elements of $`M_L`$ and of $`M_D`$ are much smaller than $`m_R`$. Under these assumptions, there are in the theory $`n_R`$ heavy neutrinos with mass of order $`m_R`$, and $`n_L`$ light neutrinos with masses which are, in the case $`M_L=0`$, suppressed by one or more inverse powers of $`m_R`$ .111A “singular seesaw mechanism” , where the matrix $`M_R`$ is singular, is also possible. If $`\sqrt{M_R^{}M_R}`$ has $`n_0`$ eigenvalues 0, then we can define $`n_L^{}=n_L+n_0`$ and $`n_R^{}=n_Rn_0`$, and this singular seesaw case in contained mathematically in the usual seesaw case with $`n_L^{}`$ left-handed doublets and $`n_R^{}`$ right-handed singlets. This is most easily seen by going into a basis where $`M_R`$ is diagonal, with the $`n_0`$ diagonal zero entries coming first. Note, however, that the notion “order of magnitude $`m_R`$” should not be taken too literally. To allow for a more general situation it should be understood in the sense that the eigenvalues of $`\sqrt{M_R^{}M_R}`$, though not necessarily all of the same order of magnitude, are all much larger than the matrix elements of $`M_L`$ and $`M_D`$; the latter, too, may have orders of magnitude different among themselves.

It is our aim to decouple the heavy from the light neutrino fields, and to derive the effective mass matrices for each of them. This is done by performing a unitary transformation of the neutrino fields by means of an $`\left(n_L+n_R\right)\times \left(n_L+n_R\right)`$ unitary matrix $`W`$,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \nu _R^c\end{array}\right)=W\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{\mathrm{light}}\\ \nu _{\mathrm{heavy}}\end{array}\right)_L,$$
(2)
and by requiring from this unitary transformation that

$$W^T\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L& M_D^T\\ M_D& M_R\end{array}\right)W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\mathrm{light}}& 0\\ 0& M_{\mathrm{heavy}}\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ are, respectively, $`n_L\times n_L`$ and $`n_R\times n_R`$ symmetric matrices.

In Eq. (3) we require that the transformation performed by the matrix $`W`$ has the property of leading to a zero $`n_L\times n_R`$ submatrix of the mass matrix. On these general grounds, $`W`$ must have $`n_Ln_R`$ degrees of freedom, and any degrees of freedom in $`W`$ beyond these ones are not needed and might even render its computation unnecessarily complicated. We shall therefore make the following Ansatz222In Ref.  an equivalent Ansatz has been proposed; Ref.  uses the Ansatz of Eq. (4) in a more restrictive context. for $`W`$:

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1BB^{}}& B\\ B^{}& \sqrt{1B^{}B}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`B`$ is an $`n_L\times n_R`$ matrix which must be fixed as a function of $`M_L`$, $`M_D`$, and $`M_R`$. The square roots in Eq. (4) should be understood as power series, for instance,

$$\sqrt{1BB^{}}=1\frac{1}{2}BB^{}\frac{1}{8}BB^{}BB^{}\frac{1}{16}BB^{}BB^{}BB^{}\mathrm{}$$
(5)
The matrix $`W`$ in Eq. (4) is unitary by construction. Indeed, Eq. (4) might be seen as a generalization, for matrices, of the usual form of a $`2\times 2`$ orthogonal matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\end{array}\right).$$

With the Ansatz for $`W`$ in Eq. (4), the condition of the vanishing of the off-diagonal submatrices in Eq. (3) reads

$$B^TM_L\sqrt{1BB^{}}+\sqrt{1B^TB^{}}M_D\sqrt{1BB^{}}B^TM_D^TB^{}\sqrt{1B^TB^{}}M_RB^{}=0.$$
(6)
This equation may be solved by assuming that $`B`$ is a power series in $`1/m_R`$, namely,

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`B_1+B_2+B_3+B_4+\mathrm{},`$ (7)
$`\sqrt{1BB^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`1\frac{1}{2}B_1B_1^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(B_1B_2^{}+B_2B_1^{}\right)`$ (8)
$`\frac{1}{2}\left(B_1B_3^{}+B_2B_2^{}+B_3B_1^{}+\frac{1}{4}B_1B_1^{}B_1B_1^{}\right)\mathrm{},`$
where $`B_j`$ is by definition proportional to $`\left(m_R\right)^j`$. The recursive solubility of Eq. (6) can be seen in the following way. At order $`\left(m_R\right)^0`$ Eq. (6) simply reads $`M_DM_RB_1^{}=0`$, and this fixes $`B_1`$. We then note that the $`\mathrm{}`$-th order of $`\sqrt{1BB^{}}`$ is a function of the $`B_j`$ with $`j<\mathrm{}`$, cf. Eq. (8). Following this observation, an inspection of the $`k`$-th order of Eq. (6) shows that, except for a term $`M_RB_{k+1}^{}`$, all terms only involve the $`B_j`$ with $`jk`$. In other words, the $`k`$-th order terms of Eq. (6) lead to an expression for $`B_{k+1}`$ in terms of the $`B_j`$ with $`jk`$. This proves the recursive calculability of $`B`$.

From Eq. (6) one thus obtains

$`M_RB_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_D,`$ (9)
$`M_RB_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_L,`$ (10)
$`M_RB_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_DM_L^{}M_LM_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^TM_R^1M_D\frac{1}{2}M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_D.`$ (11)
The expressions for the $`B_k`$ with $`k4`$ are rather long and complicated, but no fundamental problem arises in their recursive computation. The effective mass matrices for the light and heavy neutrinos are then

$`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_LM_D^TM_R^1M_D\frac{1}{2}\left(M_D^TM_R^1M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_L+M_LM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_D\right)`$ (12)
$`+\frac{1}{2}[M_D^TM_R^1(M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}+M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^T)M_R^1M_D`$
$`M_D^TM_R^1M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_DM_L^{}M_LM_LM_L^{}M_D^TM_R^1M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_D]+\mathrm{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_R+\frac{1}{2}\left(M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}+M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^T\right)`$ (13)
$`+\frac{1}{2}\left(M_DM_L^{}M_D^TM_R^1M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}+M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_DM_L^{}M_D^T\right)+\mathrm{},`$
respectively. Equations (12) and (13) are correct up to order $`\left(m_R\right)^3`$ and $`\left(m_R\right)^2`$, respectively.

In the most common case of the seesaw mechanism, which is for instance obtained by extending the Standard Model with right-handed neutrino singlets but avoiding the presence of any Higgs triplet, one has a vanishing matrix $`M_L`$. Then the recursive decoupling mechanism becomes much simpler because

$$M_L=0B_2=B_4=B_6=\mathrm{}=0.$$
(14)
Let us sketch a proof of Eq. (14) by induction. By direct calculation we find that $`B_2=0`$ when $`M_L=0`$, see Eq. (10). Now we assume that $`B_2=B_4=\mathrm{}=B_2\mathrm{}=0`$ ($`\mathrm{}1`$). In order to calculate $`B_{2\mathrm{}+2}`$ from Eq. (6), we need to know all the $`B_j`$ with $`j2\mathrm{}+1`$. Then, according to the induction assumption, only the $`B_j`$ with odd index $`j`$ contribute to $`B_{2\mathrm{}+2}`$. We now notice that $`\sqrt{1BB^{}}`$ only has even powers of $`1/m_R`$ up to order $`2\mathrm{}+1`$. Then, a term-by-term inspection of Eq. (6) with $`M_L=0`$ reveals that all terms are zero at order $`2\mathrm{}+1`$ except for the term $`M_RB_{2\mathrm{}+2}^{}`$. Therefore, $`B_{2\mathrm{}+2}=0`$, and this proves the theorem in Eq. (14). As a consequence, we have

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`B_1+B_3+\mathrm{},`$ (15)
$`\sqrt{1BB^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`1\frac{1}{2}B_1B_1^{}\frac{1}{2}\left(B_1B_3^{}+B_3B_1^{}+\frac{1}{4}B_1B_1^{}B_1B_1^{}\right)\mathrm{},`$ (16)
with

$`M_RB_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_D,`$ (17)
$`M_RB_3^{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^TM_R^1M_D\frac{1}{2}M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_R^1M_D,`$ (18)
and, using similar considerations as in the above proof by induction, we also find that only odd powers of $`1/m_R`$ are present in $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$, in particular,

$`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_D^TM_R^1M_D`$ (19)
$`+\frac{1}{2}M_D^TM_R^1\left(M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}+M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^T\right)M_R^1M_D+\mathrm{},`$
$`M_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ $`=`$ $`M_R+\frac{1}{2}\left(M_DM_D^{}M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}+M_{R}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}M_D^{}M_D^T\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (20)
It is possible to proceed and derive, recursively, expressions for $`B_5`$, $`B_7`$, and so on, and also better approximations for $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and for $`M_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$. However, that task is tedious and complicated, since the number of terms in the polynomials increases very rapidly.

The subcase of the case $`M_L=0`$ where the leading term in $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ (19) is zero has been studied in Ref. . In this subcase one does not need recursive expansions, as one is able to give closed forms for all the relevant matrices. By using Eq. (6) and the definition $`Z=M_R^1M_D`$, one readily verifies that

$$M_L=0,M_D^TM_R^1M_D=0B=Z^{}\left(1+ZZ^{}\right)^{1/2}=\left(1+Z^{}Z\right)^{1/2}Z^{}.$$
(21)
Then, using Eq. (3), one finds after some algebra that

$$M_{\mathrm{light}}=0\text{and}M_{\mathrm{heavy}}=\left(1+Z^{}Z^T\right)^{1/2}M_R\left(1+ZZ^{}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(22)
It is remarkable that the vanishing of the lowest order contribution to $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ in Eq. (19) entails the exact vanishing of the whole matrix.333We thank A. Pilaftsis and A. Joshipura for calling our attention to this interesting subcase.

## 3 Vector-like quarks

Let us consider that to the $`n_g`$ generations of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks of the Standard Model one adds $`n^{}`$ vector-like singlet quarks of, say, charge $`1/3`$. One then has $`n_g`$ left-handed quarks $`d_L`$, which are components of doublets of SU(2), together with $`n^{}`$ left-handed quarks $`D_L`$, which are singlets of SU(2); the $`n_g+n^{}`$ right-handed quarks $`d_R`$ are all singlets . The mass term for these down-type quarks reads

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{d}_L,& \overline{D}_L\end{array}\right)d_R+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,\mathrm{with}=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ M\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
The matrix $`m`$ is $`n_g\times \left(n_g+n^{}\right)`$ and gives the $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }I\right|=1/2`$ mass terms; the matrix $`M`$ is $`n^{}\times \left(n_g+n^{}\right)`$ and contains the SU(2)-invariant mass terms. We shall assume that the matrix elements of $`m`$ are of order $`\lambda `$, and that the $`n^{}`$ eigenvalues of $`\sqrt{MM^{}}`$ are all non-zero and of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ1`$.

The squared-mass matrix for the left-handed quarks $`d_L`$ and $`D_L`$ is

$$^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}mm^{}& mM^{}\\ Mm^{}& MM^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(24)
After diagonalization, there will be $`n_g`$ “light” quarks with masses of order $`\lambda `$, and $`n^{}`$ “heavy” quarks with masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One would like to decouple the light quarks from the heavy ones and to find separate squared-mass matrices for each category. This we shall do by means of a unitary transformation,

$$U^{}^{}U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_{\mathrm{light}}& 0\\ 0& D_{\mathrm{heavy}}\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
where $`U`$ is $`\left(n_g+n^{}\right)\times \left(n_g+n^{}\right)`$ unitary, while $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ are, respectively, $`n_g\times n_g`$ and $`n^{}\times n^{}`$ Hermitian (and positive definite) matrices.

In Eq. (25) we are, as a matter of fact, transforming an $`n_g\times n^{}`$ submatrix of $`^{}`$ to zero by means of a unitary transformation. It is therefore convenient to choose for the unitary matrix $`U`$ of that transformation an $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑛𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑧}`$ which has exactly $`n_gn^{}`$ (complex) degrees of freedom. We therefore write

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{1FF^{}}& F\\ F^{}& \sqrt{1F^{}F}\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
where $`F`$ is an arbitrary $`n_g\times n^{}`$ matrix, to be fixed as a function of $`m`$ and of $`M`$. The square roots in Eq. (26) should be understood as power series, just as in Eq. (5). It is then obvious that the matrix $`U`$ in Eq. (26) is indeed unitary; it is the analogue of the matrix $`W`$ in the previous section.

The condition which fixes $`F`$ is the demand that there is a zero submatrix in Eq. (25), namely,

$$\sqrt{1FF^{}}mm^{}F+\sqrt{1FF^{}}mM^{}\sqrt{1F^{}F}FMm^{}FFMM^{}\sqrt{1F^{}F}=0.$$
(27)
We solve this equation by writing $`F`$ as a power series in $`ϵ`$,

$$F=F_1+F_3+F_5+\mathrm{},$$
(28)
where $`F_j`$ has matrix elements of order $`ϵ^j`$. Notice that only terms with odd $`j`$ are necessary. Defining

$$S\left(MM^{}\right)^1=S^{},$$
(29)
it is easy to find

$`F_1`$ $`=`$ $`mM^{}S,`$ (30)
$`F_3`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(m^{}mM^{}SM^{}SMm^{}mM^{}S\frac{1}{2}M^{}S^2Mm^{}mM^{}\right)S.`$ (31)
Unfortunately, the expressions for the $`F_j`$ become quite complicated when $`j5`$, although they may in principle be derived recursively without any problem.

One is thus able to decouple the light from the heavy quarks. One finds their respective squared-mass matrices to be given by

$`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ $`=`$ $`m\left(1M^{}SM\right)m^{}`$ (32)
$`\frac{1}{2}m\left[\left(1M^{}SM\right)m^{}mM^{}S^2M+M^{}S^2Mm^{}m\left(1M^{}SM\right)\right]m^{}`$
$`+\mathrm{}`$
$`D_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ $`=`$ $`MM^{}+\frac{1}{2}\left(SMm^{}mM^{}+Mm^{}mM^{}S\right)+\mathrm{}`$ (33)
The expressions of $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and $`D_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ have been given to subleading order in $`ϵ^2`$. Note that only even powers of $`ϵ`$ appear in the expansions of these squared-mass matrices.

It is interesting to write down the equations above in a specific simple weak basis. By performing a unitary mixing of the right-handed singlet quarks $`d_R`$ and also of the left-handed singlet quarks $`D_L`$, one finds a weak basis in which

$$m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G,& J\end{array}\right)\mathrm{and}M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0,& \widehat{M}\end{array}\right),$$
(34)
where $`\widehat{M}`$ is a diagonal and positive $`n^{}\times n^{}`$ matrix, while $`G`$ and $`J`$ are general $`n_g\times n_g`$ and $`n_g\times n^{}`$ matrices, respectively. In this weak basis one finds

$`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ $`=`$ $`GG^{}\frac{1}{2}\{GG^{},J\widehat{M}^2J^{}\}+\mathrm{},`$ (35)
$`D_{\mathrm{heavy}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{M}^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\widehat{M}^1J^{}J\widehat{M}+\widehat{M}J^{}J\widehat{M}^1\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (36)
where $`\{X,Y\}XY+YX`$ is the anticommutator. In this basis it is also obvious that the $`(n_g+n^{})\times (n_g+n^{})`$ matrix $`M^{}SM`$, which appears in Eq. (32), is a projector, which projects into the space characterized by the last $`n^{}`$ indices. Therefore, at lowest order, in the matrix $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ of Eq. (32) only the left $`n_g\times n_g`$ submatrix of $`m`$ contributes. The degrees of freedom beyond the Standard Model, which are characterized in the weak basis of Eq. (34) by the last $`n^{}`$ indices, do not contribute to the light-quark masses, as expected.

## 4 Conclusions

In this note we have discussed a method which allows to separate, order by order in the inverse seesaw scale, the small and large scales in seesaw-type mass matrices, and to obtain a recursive expansion for the light-neutrino and for the heavy-neutrino mass matrices. This has been achieved by the Ansatz of Eq. (4) for the matrix $`W`$, which approaches the unit matrix when the large scale tends to infinity. A similar method, with the matrix $`U`$ of Eq. (26), can be used to decouple the light quarks from additional heavy quarks in extensions of the Standard Model with vector-like quarks. The lepton mixing matrix and the quark mixing matrix can then be calculated from the matrices $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ of Eq. (12) and $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ of Eq. (32), respectively. For this purpose, the lowest order of these matrices might be sufficient, yet in some instances it might be necessary to include further terms in order to obtain trustworthy representations of the mixing matrices. If one wants to go beyond lowest-order mixing, then in the neutrino case there are contributions from higher orders in $`M_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and in $`W`$; the same holds in the vector-like-quark case for $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ and $`U`$.