text:
# On the Cohomology of Central Frattini Extensions

## 1. Introduction

Obtaining a complete computation for the cohomology of a non–abelian $`p`$–group can be quite difficult. In fact very few general computations exist, especially in the case when $`p`$ is an odd prime. In this paper we will consider certain central Frattini extensions of the form

$$1(/p)^vG(/p)^w1$$

where $`p`$ is an odd prime. The condition that the extension be Frattini means that $`G/[G,G]𝔽_p=(/p)^w`$.

Our main result will be that under appropriate conditions on the extension class, a complete calculation of the mod $`p`$ cohomology of $`G`$ can be obtained provided $`p`$ is sufficiently large. Recall that a Frattini extension as above is uniquely determined by a subspace $`KH^2((/p)^w,𝔽_p)`$, where $`H^{}((/p)^w,𝔽_p)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w)𝔽_p[b_1,\mathrm{},b_w]`$, with $`|e_i|=1`$, and $`b_i=\beta e_i`$ ($`\beta `$ is the Bockstein operator) for $`i=1,\mathrm{},w`$. We use the notation above to state our main result.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`G`$ denote a finite $`p`$–group ($`p`$ an odd prime) defined as a central extension $`1VGW1`$ of elementary abelian $`p`$–groups, where $`v=dimV,w=dimW=dimH_1(G,/p)`$. Assume that the subspace $`KH^2(W,𝔽_p)`$ defining the extension contains the entire image of the Bockstein, i.e., $`K`$ has a basis of the form $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_w,q_1,\mathrm{},q_{vw}\}`$, where $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{vw}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w)`$. Then the following hold

* Every element of order $`p`$ in $`G`$ is central.
* $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _v]H^{}(M,𝔽_p)`$ as $`𝔽_p`$-algebras, where $`M`$ is the total space of a $`(vw)`$-torus bundle over a $`w`$-torus and $`𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _v]`$ is a polynomial algebra on generators $`\zeta _i`$ of degree two.
* If $`p>vw+1`$, then the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence for the extension above collapses at $`E_3`$ and

$$H^{}(G,𝔽_p)/(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _v)\mathrm{Tor}_{𝔽_p[c_1,\mathrm{},c_{vw}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w),𝔽_p)$$

where $`|c_i|=2`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},vw`$ and the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term is determined by the $`k`$–invariants, $`c_iq_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w).`$

The $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term can be explicitly understood as the homology of a Koszul complex, described as follows. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{vw}`$ denote one–dimensional exterior classes, and denote by $`K`$ the complex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w)\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{vw})`$, with differential determined by $`\delta (x_i)=q_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},vw`$. Then the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term above can simply be identified with the homology of $`K`$.

It would seem unlikely that a purely algebraic approach to group cohomology could have easily led to this result. Indeed one of the main drawbacks of general algebraic methods is the lack of geometric input required to determine ambiguities arising from specific differentials in the available spectral sequences (a basic computational device). In contrast, this type of problem has been considered by topologists in other situations pertaining to cohomology computations for bundles. In particular our approach provides a geometric alternative to the hypercohomology spectral sequence developed by Benson and Carlson (see ) in a very special situation. Our basic contribution is the observation that for certain group extensions $`G`$ (such as those above) we can obtain a geometric model for the basis of $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ as a free module over a polynomial subring of maximal rank.

This in turn allows us to introduce effective techniques from rational homotopy theory and from there outline conditions which imply the viability of a complete calculation (via spectral sequences). It would of course be interesting to recover the results here using purely algebraic methods, expressible perhaps in terms of minimal resolutions.

A motivation for this paper was the computation of the mod $`p`$ cohomology of the universal central extension $`U(n,p)`$,

$$1H^2((/p)^n,/p)U(n,p)(/p)^n1.$$

Applying our methods we obtain

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`U(n,p)`$ denote the universal central extension

$$1(/p)^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}U(n,p)(/p)^n1.$$

If $`p>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)+1`$, there is an exact sequence

$$0(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)})H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)\mathrm{Tor}_{𝔽_p[c_{ij}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n),𝔽_p)0$$

where the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term is determined by $`c_{ij}e_ie_j`$ for $`i<j`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Using an existing combinatorial computation, we can in fact make this explicit for most primes (see corollary 4.10). The groups $`U(n,p)`$ seem like basic objects in finite group cohomology. Further information on these examples would be very interesting, in particular it seems plausible to expect that the spectral sequence associated to the defining extension should collapse at $`E_3`$ for all primes.

The computations described here can be expressed as the collapse at $`E_2`$ of the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence associated to certain central extensions. However, in our situation this collapse is equivalent to a collapse at $`E_3`$ of the more familiar Lyndon–Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence (we will often abbreviate this as LHS); to simplify matters we have chosen to use this description.

This paper is organized as follows: in §2 we provide preliminary material required in our proofs, in §3 we describe how the cohomology calculations can be reduced to computing the cohomology of a compact manifold, in §4 we present the main result using the complete cohomology information available for large primes. In §5 we discuss formulas for the Bockstein.

Finally in §6 we raise a general question about the cohomology of central extensions of elementary abelian $`p`$–groups. Throughout this paper $`p`$ will always denote an odd prime.

## 2. Preliminaries

In this section we will introduce the basic definitions and background needed to prove the results in this paper. We refer the reader to  and  for more details.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`1^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^l1`$ be a central extension. We shall say that it is irreducible if $`H_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },)=^l`$. Similarly we say that a central extension $`1(/p)^rG(/p)^l1`$ of elementary abelian $`p`$–groups ($`p`$ a prime) is Frattini if $`H_1(G,/p)=(/p)^l.`$

Associated to any irreducible central extension as above, we have a subgroup

$$KH^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }],)$$

which determines the extension unambiguously up to isomorphism. If

$$\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _rK$$

form a $``$–basis, then we say that they are a complete collection of $`k`$–invariants for the extension. A similar convention is made for central Frattini extensions of elementary abelian $`p`$–groups, using mod $`p`$ coefficients.

Let $`\pi :^l(/p^2)^l`$ denote the natural mod $`p^2`$ quotient map. If $`H^{}((/p^2)^l,/p)`$ denotes the subring generated by one–dimensional classes, then $`\pi ^{}`$ induces an isomorphism $`H^{}(^l,/p)`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`KH^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }],)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as above. We define $`K_pH^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }/[\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }]/p^2,/p)`$ as $`(\pi ^{})^1([K])`$, where $`[K]`$ is the mod $`p`$ reduction of $`K`$.

This defines a central extension

$$1(/p)^rG(p)(/p^2)^l1$$

which also fits into an extension of the form

$$1\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }G(p)1$$

derived from the natural projection.

Central extensions can also be studied geometrically, in particular the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a classifying space which is the homotopy fiber of a map

$$\psi :(𝕊^1)^l(P^{\mathrm{}})^r.$$

Let $`\rho :(𝕊^1)^t(𝕊^1)^t`$ be the $`p`$–th power map in each coordinate; it will induce a map $`B\rho :(P^{\mathrm{}})^t(P^{\mathrm{}})^t`$. We can describe the classifying space of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ as the homotopy fiber of

$$B\rho \psi \rho :(𝕊^1)^l(P^{\mathrm{}})^r.$$

Note that this map is trivial in mod $`p`$ cohomology, hence the resulting $`k`$–invariants are trivial mod $`p`$.

We examine the $`p`$–group $`G(p)`$, but first we recall a definition.

###### Definition 2.3.

A finite group $`G`$ is said to satisfy the $`pC`$ condition if every element of order $`p`$ in $`G`$ is central.

###### Proposition 2.4.

$`G(p)`$ is a finite $`p`$–group satisfying the $`pC`$ condition which can be expressed as a Frattini extension

$$1(/p)^{r+l}G(p)(/p)^l1.$$

###### Proof.

By construction the $`k`$–invariants defining $`G(p)`$ are decomposable (as sums of products of one–dimensional classes), hence they are elements in $`H^2((/p^2)^l,/p)`$ which restrict to zero on the subgroup $`(/p)^l(/p^2)^l`$. Thus the extension restricted to this subgroup defines an elementary abelian subgroup of rank equal to $`r+l`$ which is the kernel of the natural projection $`G(p)(/p)^l`$. This of course has maximal rank in $`G(p)`$ and is central, hence the proposition follows. ∎

We know by  that the groups $`G(p)`$ have Cohen–Macaulay mod $`p`$ cohomology, i.e. $`H^{}(G(p),𝔽_p)`$ is free and finitely generated over a polynomial subalgebra on $`r+l`$ generators. The following lemma (a version of which appears in ) explains how to locate a regular sequence; we include a proof for the sake of completeness.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`G`$ denote a finite $`p`$-group satisfying the pC condition with $`EG`$ the elementary abelian subgroup of maximal rank $`n`$. Let $`𝒫H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ be a polynomial subalgebra such that $`H^{}(E,𝔽_p)`$ is a finitely generated module over $`res_E^G(𝒫)`$. Then $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ is a free and finitely generated module over $`𝒫`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒫=𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n]`$, we know that $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and by a standard result in commutative algebra it follows that under that condition the cohomology will be a free module over any polynomial subring over which it is finitely generated (see ). Hence we only need to prove that $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ is a finitely generated $`𝒫`$-module. To prove this we will use the more geometric language of cohomological varieties (see  for background).

Let $`V_G(\zeta _i)`$ denote the homogeneous hypersurface in $`V_G`$ (the maximal ideal spectrum for $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$) defined by $`\zeta _i`$. Then $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ will be finitely generated over $`𝒫`$ if and only if $`V_G(\zeta _1)\mathrm{}V_G(\zeta _n)=\{0\}`$. If we represent the class $`\zeta _i`$ by an epimorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{n_i}(𝔽_p)𝔽_p`$ with kernel $`L_{\zeta _i}`$, then we know that $`V_G(\zeta _i)=V_G(L_{\zeta _i})`$, the variety associated to the annihilator of $`Ext_{𝔽_pG}^{}(L_{\zeta _i},L_{\zeta _i})`$. Moreover using basic properties of these varieties, we have that $`V_G(\zeta _1)\mathrm{}V_G(\zeta _n)=V_G(L_{\zeta _1}\mathrm{}L_{\zeta _i})`$. Now the cohomological variety of a module will be $`0`$ if and only if the module is projective, hence what we need to prove is that the module $`L_{\zeta _1}\mathrm{}L_{\zeta _n}`$ is projective. However by Chouinard’s Theorem (see ) we know that it is enough to check this by restricting to maximal elementary abelian subgroups; in this case $`E`$ is the only such group and projectivity follows from our hypothesis, as $`\mathrm{res}_E^G(𝒫)H^{}(E,𝔽_p)`$ is a polynomial subalgebra over which it is finitely generated (note that by Quillen’s detection theorem, the kernel of $`\mathrm{res}_E^G`$ is nilpotent, hence $`𝒫`$ embeds in $`H^{}(E)`$ under this map). Hence we conclude that $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n`$ form a homogeneous system of parameters and so $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ is free and finitely generated as a module over $`𝒫`$. ∎

## 3. Cohomology Calculations

The goal of this section will be to analyze and in some instances compute the cohomology ring of the $`p`$–groups $`G(p)`$. We begin by recording the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$, which follows directly from the mod $`p`$ triviality of its defining $`k`$–invariants.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Given $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ as above, its mod $`p`$ cohomology is an exterior algebra on $`r+l`$ one–dimensional generators.

###### Proof.

Indeed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ can be expressed as a central extension

$$1^r\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)^l1$$

which by construction yields a mod $`p`$ LHS spectral sequence which collapses at $`E_2`$. ∎

###### Definition 3.2.

Given a $`pC`$ group $`G`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G)`$ be the maximal elementary abelian subgroup of $`G`$. We will let $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G),𝔽_p)_{red}`$ be the quotient algebra of $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G),𝔽_p)`$ modulo the ideal of nilpotent elements. This is a graded polynomial algebra on degree 2 generators.

###### Definition 3.3.

A $`pC`$ group $`G`$ is said to have the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$-extension property if the restriction $`H^2(G;𝔽_p)H^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G);𝔽_p)_{red}`$ is onto.

The $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$-extension property was studied in  and . We will need the following theorem of T. Weigel which was proven in  using Hopf algebra techniques. It represents a strengthening of the Cohen-Macaulay property we previously explained:

###### Theorem 3.4.

If $`G`$ is a $`pC`$ group with the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$-extension property, then we have an isomorphism of $`𝔽_p`$-algebras

$$H^{}(G;𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n]C^{}$$

for some finite dimensional algebra $`C^{}`$. Here $`n=\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G)`$ and the $`\zeta _i`$ are degree 2 elements which restrict to a generating set of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G),𝔽_p)_{red}`$.

Notice in theorem 3.4, that if $`\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n`$ is another regular sequence of degree 2 elements which restricts to the generators of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G),𝔽_p)_{red}`$, we have that

$$(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)=(\zeta _1+c_1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n+c_n)$$

for some $`c_iC^2`$, $`1in`$.

However by the universal property of the tensor product of algebras, we can define a graded algebra endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\zeta _i)=\zeta _i+c_i`$ for all $`1in`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }|_C^{}=Id_C^{}`$. Since we can construct an inverse for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ analogously, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a graded algebra automorphism of $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$ which takes the ideal $`(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)`$ to the ideal $`(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)`$. Thus we conclude that we have an isomorphism of graded algebras

$$H^{}(G,𝔽_p)/(\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n)C^{}$$

for any such regular sequence. Furthermore, $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\eta _1,\mathrm{},\eta _n]C^{}`$ as algebras.

Our next step is to locate an explicit regular sequence in $`G(p)`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

There is a regular sequence of maximal length in $`H^{}(G(p),𝔽_p)`$ given by elements $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{r+l}H^2(G(p),𝔽_p)`$ which restrict to generators of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G(p)),𝔽_p)_{red}`$. Thus $`G(p)`$ has the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$-extension property.

###### Proof.

We consider the Lyndon–Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence with mod $`p`$ coefficients for the group extension

$$1(/p)^{r+l}G(p)(/p)^l1.$$

Recall that $`H^{}((/p)^l,𝔽_p)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_l)𝔽_p[b_1,\mathrm{},b_l]`$, where, if $`\beta `$ denotes the usual Bockstein operator, $`\beta (e_i)=b_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$. If $`\gamma :(/p^2)^l(/p)^l`$ is the natural projection, it induces an isomorphism between the subrings of the mod $`p`$ cohomologies generated by 1-dimensional classes. The $`k`$–invariants defining the extension $`G(p)`$ are precisely $`(\gamma ^{})^1(K_p)\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_l\}`$. As a consequence of this the differential $`d_3`$ is zero on the two–dimensional polynomial generators in the fiber (indeed the ideal generated by the transgressions of the one–dimensional classes includes the entire ideal generated by the $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_l`$, hence the Bocksteins of these transgressions are in the ideal already).

Now choose $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{r+l}`$ to be classes in $`H^2(G(p),𝔽_p)`$ restricting to the two–dimensional permanent cocycle polynomial classes in the edge of the spectral sequence. These are our desired elements. ∎

We now assemble the cohomology information above to understand the cohomology of the finite $`p`$–groups $`G(p)`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

In the mod p LHS spectral sequence associated to

$$1\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }G(p)1$$

the action of $`G(p)`$ is homologically trivial and the one–dimensional generators in the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ transgress to a regular sequence $`\{\zeta _i\}_{i=1}^{r+l}`$ in $`H^2(G(p),𝔽_p)`$, $`E_3=E_{\mathrm{}}`$, and in particular if $`I`$ is the ideal generated by these transgressions, then

$$H^{}(G(p),𝔽_p)/IH^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p).$$

Furthermore we have an isomorphism of $`𝔽_p`$-algebras,

$$H^{}(G(p),𝔽_p)P^{}H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p).$$

where $`P^{}`$ is a polynomial algebra on $`(r+l)`$ degree 2 generators.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ denote the $`p`$–Frattini subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e., the kernel of the natural projection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(/p)^l`$. This group fits into a commutative diagram of extensions:

Note that $`H=(/p)^{r+l}G(p)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G(p))`$. As before, the $`k`$–invariants defining $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)`$ are trivial mod $`p`$, hence $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝔽_p)`$ is also an exterior algebra on $`r+l`$ one–dimensional generators, and the map $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p)H`$ induces a surjection in mod $`p`$ cohomology. In particular, if we let

$$H^{}(H,𝔽_p)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_{r+l})𝔽_p[\beta e_1,\mathrm{},\beta e_{r+l}],H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝔽_p)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_1,\mathrm{},y_{r+l})$$

then we can assume that $`\varphi ^{}(e_i)=y_i`$, $`\varphi ^{}(\beta e_i)=\beta y_i`$. On the other hand we can choose $`q_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_{r+l})`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}(q_i)=\beta y_i`$. Hence we obtain the following basis for the kernel of $`\varphi ^{}`$ in dimension equal to two: $`\{b_1q_1,\mathrm{},b_{r+l}q_{r+l}\}`$.

Now consider the mod $`p`$ LHS spectral sequence for the bottom row. Since, $`H^1(H,𝔽_p)H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝔽_p)`$, the five term exact sequence associated to this spectral sequence shows that

$$H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)^H\stackrel{d_2}{}ker(\varphi ^{}:H^2(H,𝔽_p)H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p),𝔽_p)).$$

By comparing dimensions, we see that $`H`$ must act trivially on $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$ and hence on $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$. Furthermore, $`d_2`$ embeds $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$ naturally as a subspace of $`H^2(H,𝔽_p)`$. Since $`H`$ is central in $`G(p)`$, we have $`G(p)`$ acts trivially on $`H^{}(H,𝔽_p)`$ and we conclude that $`G(p)`$ acts trivially on $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$ by the natural $`d_2`$-embedding above, and hence $`G(p)`$ acts trivially on all of $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$.

Let $`I^{}`$ denote the ideal generated by the $`d_2`$-transgressions. Then evidently $`I^{}`$ is generated by the basis of $`ker(\varphi ^{})`$ above, which one can easily verify to be a regular sequence in the cohomology of $`H`$.

Next we consider the spectral sequence for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by the middle row of our diagram. We have seen that $`G(p)`$ acts trivially on $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),𝔽_p)`$. Comparing spectral sequences, we see that $`I`$ is generated by trangressions $`\zeta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r+l`$ which restrict to a regular sequence of maximal length in $`H^{}(H,𝔽_p)`$.

By theorem 3.4 and the comments immediately following it, $`H^{}(G(p))P^{}C^{}`$ where $`P^{}`$ is a polynomial algebra on $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{r+l}`$. From this, it is easy to compute that $`E_3=C^{}`$ and hence $`E_3=E_{\mathrm{}}`$. Since $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is concentrated on a single horizontal row, there are no problems in lifting the ring structure to that of $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p)`$. Hence we conclude that

$$H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p)H^{}(G(p),𝔽_p)/(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{r+l})C^{}.$$

This completes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`q(t)`$ denote the Poincaré series for the mod $`p`$ cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`p(t)`$ the one for the mod $`p`$ cohomology of $`G(p)`$. Then we have $`p(t)=\frac{q(t)}{(1t^2)^{r+l}}.`$

In the next section we examine the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ using topological methods.

## 4. Cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for Large Primes

As we saw in the previous section, the computation of the $`𝔽_p`$-cohomology ring of $`G(p)`$ has been reduced to understanding that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It turns out that for sufficiently large primes we have a very precise algebraic description of the cohomology groups, obtained using bundle theory. As described in , an explicit model for the classifying space $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be easily given; it will be a compact manifold described as a bundle over a generalized torus with fibre another generalized torus. This in turn can be described (up to homotopy) by a map from a generalized torus to a product of infinite complex projective spaces. The basic calculational result is summarized in

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be defined as a central extension of the form $`1^r\mathrm{\Gamma }^l1`$, defined by a map $`\psi :(𝕊^1)^l(P^{\mathrm{}})^r`$. Let $`p>r+1`$ be any prime number, then

$$H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p)\mathrm{Tor}_{𝔽_p[c_1,\mathrm{},c_r]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_l),𝔽_p),$$

where the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term is determined by $`\psi ^{}(c_1),\mathrm{},\psi ^{}(c_r)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_l)`$, and $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_l\}`$ are one–dimensional generators for the exterior algebra $`H^{}((𝕊^1)^l,𝔽_p)`$ and $`\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_r\}`$ are two–dimensional generators for the polynomial algebra $`H^{}((P^{\mathrm{}})^r,𝔽_p)`$.

###### Proof.

By a result due to Lambe and Priddy (see ), the LHS spectral sequence associated to the defining extension above collapses at $`E_3`$ if coefficients are taken in $`_{(p)}`$ for $`p`$ sufficiently large. The improved lower bound $`p>r+1`$ was obtained in . This implies the collapse of the mod $`p`$ spectral sequence, the statement is readily derived from the algebraic interpretation of this $`E_3`$–term. ∎

###### Corollary 4.2.

If $`p`$ is sufficiently large, then

$$H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },𝔽_p)\mathrm{Tor}_{[c_1,\mathrm{},c_r]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}(e_1,\mathrm{},e_l),)𝔽_p.$$

###### Proof.

Indeed, the integral $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term can only have $`p`$–torsion for finitely many primes $`p`$, the result follows from the mod $`p`$ reduction sequence for $`\mathrm{Tor}`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

In fact  and  prove that the $`_{(p)}`$–cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`p`$ sufficiently large is isomorphic to the cohomology of the Koszul complex associated to a certain Lie algebra; this is precisely the $`E_3`$–term of the LHS spectral sequence.

We can now state the main result in this paper, which puts together the different facts we have proved.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`G`$ denote a finite $`p`$–group ($`p`$ an odd prime) defined as a central extension $`1VGW1`$ of elementary abelian $`p`$–groups, where $`v=dimV,w=dimW=dimH_1(G,/p)`$ and $`H^{}(W,𝔽_p)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w)𝔽_p[b_1,\mathrm{},b_w]`$. Assume that the subspace $`KH^2(W,𝔽_p)`$ defining the extension contains the entire image of the Bockstein, i.e., $`K`$ has a basis of the form $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_w,q_1,\mathrm{},q_{vw}\}`$, where $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{vw}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w)`$. Then the following hold

* Every element of order $`p`$ in $`G`$ is central.
* We have an isomorphism of $`𝔽_p`$-algebras:

$$H^{}(G,𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _v]H^{}(M,𝔽_p)$$

where $`M`$ is the total space of a $`(vw)`$-torus bundle over a $`w`$-torus and the degree of the $`\zeta _i`$ is two.
* If $`p>vw+1`$, then the LHS spectral sequence for the extension above collapses at $`E_3`$ and

$$H^{}(G,𝔽_p)/(\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _v)\mathrm{Tor}_{𝔽_p[c_1,\mathrm{},c_{vw}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w),𝔽_p)$$

where $`|c_i|=2`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},vw`$ and the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term is determined by the $`k`$–invariants, $`c_iq_i\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_w).`$

###### Remark 4.5.

Note that it has been shown (see ) that the cohomology of a $`p`$–group satisfying the $`pC`$ condition cannot be detected on proper subgroups, hence this is an intrinsic calculation.

###### Remark 4.6.

The $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ algebra which appears above can be identified with the mod $`p`$ cohomology of a compact manifold (as before). Its fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ maps onto $`G`$ inducing a surjection in mod $`p`$ cohomology.

We will now exhibit an interesting class of groups to which this theorem can be applied. In fact the computation of the cohomology of these groups was a motivation for this work.

###### Example 4.7.

An easy dimension–count shows that

$$\mathrm{dim}H^2((/p)^n,/p)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right).$$

Hence we may construct a Frattini central extension of the form

$$1(/p)^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}U(n,p)(/p)^n1$$

which has the following universal property: given any other central Frattini extension of the form

$$1VU(/p)^n1$$

there exists a central elementary abelian subgroup $`EU(n,p)`$ such that $`U(n,p)/EU`$. Given this basic property of $`U(n,p)`$, a natural problem to consider is the computation of its mod $`p`$ cohomology. Our results imply a complete answer for $`p`$ sufficiently large.

###### Definition 4.8.

Define $`H(n)`$ to be the universal central extension

$$1H^2(^n,)H(n)^n1.$$

$`H(n)`$ is sometimes called the free two-step nilpotent group on $`n`$ generators.

###### Theorem 4.9.

If $`U(n,p)`$ denotes the universal central extension

$$1(/p)^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}U(n,p)(/p)^n1,$$

then there is an isomorphism of graded algebras

$$H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)}]H^{}(H(n);𝔽_p).$$

If $`p>\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)+1`$, then the cohomology groups above are determined by the isomorphism

$$H^{}(H(n),𝔽_p)\mathrm{Tor}_{𝔽_p[c_{ij}]}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n),𝔽_p)$$

where the module structure is specified by $`c_{ij}e_ie_j`$ for $`i<j`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

It so happens that the corresponding rational $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ terms have been computed using representation theory (see , ). From this we obtain the following

###### Corollary 4.10.

Let $`U(n,p)`$ be the universal central extension. Then, for a fixed integer $`n>0`$ and for all but a finite number of primes $`p`$, the Poincaré series for $`H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$ is given by $`r(t)=\frac{q(t)}{(1t^2)^m}`$ where, if $`q(t)=1+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_mt^m`$, $`m=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$, then

$$a_i=\underset{f+g=i}{}\underset{Y_\lambda }{}\underset{(s,t)Y_\lambda }{}\frac{n+ts}{h(s,t)}$$

where $`Y_\lambda `$ ranges over all symmetric, $`f+2g`$-box, $`f`$-hook Young diagrams, and $`h(s,t)`$ denotes the hooklength of the box $`(s,t)`$. In particular we have

$$a_1=n,a_2=\frac{n(n+1)(n1)}{3},a_3=\frac{n(n^21)(3n4)(n+3)}{60}.$$

Notice how we have obtained a complete calculation for almost every prime. This type of result would be extremely difficult to observe using traditional methods in group cohomology, or even computer–assisted calculations. We have in fact outlined an effective method for describing a basis for the cohomology of an important class of $`p`$–groups as modules over a polynomial subalgebra on $`2`$–dimensional classes.

## 5. Bockstein on $`H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$

Let $`𝔥(n)`$ be the $`𝔽_p`$-Lie algebra with basis elements $`\{e_k,e_{i,j}\}`$ where the indices $`i,j,k`$ range over the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and we insist that $`i<j`$.

The Lie bracket is given by

$$[e_i,e_j]=e_{i,j}\text{ and }e_{i,j}\text{ is central}$$

for $`1i<jn`$. Notice that $`𝔥(n)`$ has dimension $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$. Also notice that the $`\mathrm{Tor}`$ term in Theorem 4.9 is exactly the Lie algebra cohomology of $`𝔥(n)`$.

As in  and work of T. Weigel, to every $`𝔽_p`$-Lie algebra $`𝔏`$ there corresponds a $`p`$-group of exponent $`p^2`$ satisfying the $`pC`$ condition.

To construct this group, one takes a free $`/p^2`$-module $`K`$ of rank equal to the dimension of $`𝔏`$. Then one has a canonical surjection $`\pi :K𝔏`$ and injection $`i:𝔏K`$ such that $`i\pi `$ is multiplication by $`p`$ on $`K`$. One defines the group structure on $`K`$ by

$$xy=x+y+i([\pi (x),\pi (y)])$$

for all $`x,yK`$.

Let $`G(𝔥(n))`$ be the $`p`$-group associated in this manner to $`𝔥(n)`$. Then $`G(𝔥(n))`$ fits into a central Frattini extension

$$1VG(𝔥(n))\stackrel{𝜋}{}W1$$

where $`V`$ and $`W`$ are elementary abelian $`p`$-groups of rank $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)`$.

Identifying $`W`$ with $`𝔥(n)`$ as in , we may look at the subspace $`SW`$ spanned by $`\{e_k\}_{1kn}`$. Using this description, one can verify easily that $`\pi ^1(S)U(n,p)`$. Thus $`U(n,p)`$ is a subgroup of $`G(𝔥(n))`$ which contains $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G(𝔥(n)))`$.

From the results in , it follows that we have an isomorphism of algebras

$$H^{}(G(𝔥(n)),𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _k,\zeta _{i,j}]^{}(x_k,x_{i,j})$$

where the indices $`i,j,k`$ range over the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and we always have $`i<j`$.

Furthermore for $`p>3`$, the Bockstein is given by the following formulas:

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta (x_i)=0& \text{ and }\beta (x_{i,j})=x_ix_j\hfill \\ \hfill \beta (\zeta _i)=0& \text{ and }\beta (\zeta _{i,j})=\zeta _ix_j\zeta _jx_i.\hfill \end{array}`$
It was also shown that the $`\zeta `$-elements restrict to a regular sequence in the $`𝔽_p`$-cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(G(𝔥(n))`$.

Now using that $`U(n,p)`$ is a subgroup of $`G(𝔥(n))`$ and that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ subgroups of these two groups coincide, by our previous results we have

$$H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)𝔽_p[\zeta _k,\zeta _{i,j}]H^{}(H(n),𝔽_p)$$

where the polynomial algebra here is the image of the corresponding one for $`G(𝔥(n))`$ and we have abused notation and identified the $`\zeta `$ elements with their restrictions. Notice also that on the $`H^1(,𝔽_p)`$-level, the restriction map from $`H^{}(G(𝔥(n)),𝔽_p)`$ to $`H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$ takes $`x_{i,j}`$ to zero and $`\{x_k\}_{k=1}^n`$ to a basis of $`H^1(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$. Furthermore, the formulas for the Bockstein above restrict with the obvious identifications. Thus we obtain:

###### Proposition 5.1.

For $`p>3`$,

$$H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)𝔽_p[s_k,s_{i,j}]H^{}(H(n),𝔽_p)$$

as algebras where as usual the indices $`i,j,k`$ range over the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and we always have $`i<j`$. Furthermore there is a basis $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ of $`H^1(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$ such that

$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta (s_k)=0& \text{ and }\beta (s_{i,j})=s_ix_js_jx_i\hfill \\ \hfill \beta (x_k)=0& \text{ and }x_ix_j=0\hfill \end{array}`$
for all $`1i<jn`$, $`1kn`$.

###### Remark 5.2.

For large primes $`p`$, the Bockstein on $`H^{}(H(n),𝔽_p)`$ vanishes since the integral homology of $`H(n)`$ is finitely generated. However we still cannot conclude that proposition 5.1 gives us the complete structure of the Bockstein on $`H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$ since the subalgebra of $`H^{}(U(n,p),𝔽_p)`$ corresponding to $`H^{}(H(n),𝔽_p)`$ under the isomorphism above is not in general closed under the higher Bocksteins.

## 6. Final Remarks and a Problem

The results in this paper can be thought of as special cases of a more general collapse theorem for spectral sequences. In fact, given a central extension

$$1VGW1$$

where $`V`$ and $`W`$ are both elementary abelian $`p`$–groups, there is an Eilenberg–Moore spectral sequence (see ) with $`E_2`$ term equal to $`\mathrm{Tor}_{H^{}(K(V,2),𝔽_p)}(H^{}(W,𝔽_p),𝔽_p)`$ and converging to $`H^{}(G,𝔽_p)`$. Historically these spectral sequences have been most useful when they collapse at $`E_2`$. To the best of our knowledge this occurs for every group extension of this type whose cohomology has been computed. This leads us to raise the following somewhat difficult

###### Question 6.1.

Let

$$1VGW1$$

denote a central extension where both $`V`$ and $`W`$ are elementary abelian $`p`$–groups. Can the mod $`p`$ Eilenberg–Moore spectral sequence fail to collapse at $`E_2`$? If so, give reasonable conditions on the $`k`$–invariants (as above) which imply a collapse.


format: text

text:
# Laplacian Center Vorticesaafootnote apresented by Ph. de Forcrand.

## 1 Motivation and technical problem

The road traveled by physicists in their efforts to identify the effective, InfraRed degrees of freedom of QCD is far from straight. It bifurcates in many directions, most of which are still under exploration. Currently, the two most popular effective descriptions of confinement are in terms of Abelian monopoles $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and center vortices $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. I want to show that these two descriptions can be unified: these two branches of the road merge together, perhaps indicating that we are traveling towards a piece of Truth.

The study of center vortices, first proposed by Mack $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and by ’t Hooft $`^\mathrm{?}`$, has been revived by Greensite and collaborators. They project the $`SU(2)`$ lattice gauge theory to a $`Z_2`$ gauge theory, by partially fixing the gauge to Maximal Center Gauge, defined as the gauge in which

$$\underset{x,\mu }{}|TrU_\mu (x)|^2\mathrm{maximum}.$$
(1)
In this gauge, the center-projected links are $`z_\mu (x)\mathrm{sign}(TrU_\mu (x))`$. This $`Z_2`$ theory has defects corresponding to plaquettes taking value $`1`$. Greensite et al.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ showed that the string tension $`\sigma `$ given by these defects closely matches that of the original $`SU(2)`$ theory. Being skeptical about this, I investigated with M. D’Elia the coset theory, made of positive-trace links $`U_\mu ^{}(x)z_\mu (x)U_\mu (x)`$. This theory has more short-range disorder than the original one, but carries no center vortices. Could it be that $`\{U_\mu ^{}(x)\}`$ would show long-range order, and thus not confine? To my surprise, we found $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that in $`\{U_\mu ^{}(x)\}`$: $`(i)`$ $`\sigma =0`$; $`(ii)`$ $`\overline{\psi }\psi =0`$; $`(iii)`$ $`Q_{top}=0`$. Removal of center vortices causes deconfinement, chiral symmetry restoration and suppression of topological excitations. All non-perturbative properties disappear. Therefore, center vortices must carry the non-perturbative degrees of freedom.

There are two difficulties with this conclusion. First, a great deal of numerical evidence has been accumulated which ties confinement with Abelian monopoles instead of center vortices. Secondly, the above findings may depend on the choice of local maximum in (1). It is the purpose of this talk to resolve these two difficulties, as outlined already in $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The second problem is shared by the Abelian projection, which also proceeds by gauge fixing via the iterative, local maximization of a gauge functional. But in the Maximal Center Gauge, this problem can be acute. As shown in $`^\mathrm{?}`$, the local maximum reached after starting from Landau gauge leads to a very small density of center vortices, which actually do not confine. Following this severe warning, some studies try to obtain the center-vortex properties of the global maximum of (1) by taking the highest among $`m`$ local maxima, and extrapolating to $`m\mathrm{}`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. One feature underlines the difficulty of this approach: the extrapolated value for the global maximum of (1) falls below the measured value obtained by the procedure of $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

To illustrate why this technical problem is so hard to resolve, let us consider a toy example. Take a 1-dimensional ring of $`U(1)`$ links $`\{e^{i\theta _i},i=1,..,N\}`$ such that the gauge invariant loop which they form is $`1`$: $`_Ne^{i\theta _i}=1`$. For such a system, the global maximum of (1), corresponding to Maximal Center Gauge, is obtained when $`\theta _{i_0}=\pi `$ for one link $`i_0`$, and $`\theta _i=0ii_0`$. The “kink” $`\theta _{i_0}=\pi `$ can be placed anywhere, giving rise to an $`N`$fold degeneracy. The gauge-fixing functional (1) takes value $`N`$. Let us now fix this system to Landau gauge, defined as the gauge which maximizes $`_NReTrU_i`$. This is achieved when $`\theta _i=\pi /N`$. All link angles are small and there is no sign of a kink. The Center Gauge functional (1) then takes the value

$$\underset{N}{}|TrU_i|^2=Ncos\frac{2\pi }{N}N\frac{2\pi ^2}{N}$$
(2)
One can check that Landau gauge represents a local maximum of (1); we see that the difference between this local maximum and the global one is vanishingly small as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

This case is not just a toy example. An Abelian loop having a phase of $`\pi `$ is precisely the signature of an $`SU(2)`$ center vortex, as illustrated in Fig.1. It is therefore essential to address the technical problem of gauge-fixing in order to properly identify the center vortices.

## 2 Unambiguous gauge-fixing

The crucial observation is that, since a center vortex gives the fundamental Wilson loop a factor $`1=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \sigma _3)`$, it will give the adjoint Wilson loop a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2i\pi \dot{\sigma _3})`$. Therefore, as one describes a small loop around point $`x_0`$ in Fig.1, the adjoint gauge field winds by $`2\pi `$ in color space. Thus, the center vortex at $`x_0`$ will appear as a gauge singularity of the adjoint field. More formally, one can observe that center vortices correspond to non-trivial topological classes of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(SU(N)/Z_N)`$, so that Wilson loops in the “center-blind” adjoint representation are the proper objects to identify them.

A second observation motivates our gauge-fixing approach. If the gauge field $`A_\mu ^{adj}`$ diverges like $`\frac{1}{r}\dot{\sigma _3}`$ near $`x_0`$, then so will the covariant derivative $`D_\mu ^{adj}=_\mu +igA_\mu ^{adj}`$. This will force the vector $`(D_\mu ^{adj}\stackrel{}{v})(x)`$ to orient itself along $`\dot{\sigma _3}`$ when $`x`$ approaches $`x_0`$, for any smoothly varying vector $`\stackrel{}{v}(x)`$. In particular, this statement applies to all the eigenvectors of any adjoint covariant derivative operator. In the vicinity of a thin center vortex similar to the “prototype” of Fig.1, these eigenvectors will become collimated in color space. In reality, the singularity is smoothed out: the center vortex is no longer “thin”, but acquires a finite size. Collinearity of eigenvectors still takes place within the vortex core, but at an exact location which depends on the particular choice of covariant operator and eigenvectors.

This collinearity property can be used to detect center vortices on the lattice, without actually performing any gauge fixing or center projection. For simplicity, we take as covariant operator the adjoint Laplacian, discretized in the simplest way:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{xy}^{adj}=\underset{\pm \mu }{}\dot{U}_{\pm \mu }(x)\delta _{y,x\pm \mu }2d\delta _{y,x},$$
(3)
where $`\dot{U}_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}Tr(\tau _aU\tau _bU^{})`$ is the link in the adjoint representation, and the $`\tau `$’s are the generators of $`SU(N)`$. The signal for an $`SU(2)`$ center vortex is the parallelism in color space of two eigenvectors. Of course, this will never occur exactly at a lattice site, and interpolation is necessary. To reduce interpolation ambiguities, we choose the two lowest-lying eigenvectors, which are the least sensitive to UV fluctuations.

Because we want to study the projected $`Z_N`$ theory, we proceed with gauge fixing. We can also make use of the eigenvectors of the Laplacian for that purpose instead of maximizing (1). Since the Laplacian is covariant, a local gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$, which transforms the gauge links $`U_\mu (x)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)U_\mu (x)\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$, will also transform the eigenvector $`v(x)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)v(x)`$. Following Ref.$`^\mathrm{?}`$, we can then fix the gauge uniquely by specifying the orientation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)v(x)`$ in color space at each point $`x`$. This kind of gauge was called Laplacian gauge in $`^\mathrm{?}`$. We generalize it below to the adjoint representation. When the adjoint $`SU(N)/Z_N`$ field is fully gauge-fixed, a remnant center gauge freedom $`Z_N`$ subsists, and we can look at the projected $`Z_N`$ gauge theory.

Gauge fixing proceeds in two steps.
Step 1. At each point $`x`$, the lowest-lying eigenvector $`v^{(1)}(x)`$ has $`(N^21)`$ real color components. Let us form the hermitian matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}\underset{a}{\overset{N^21}{}}v_a^{(1)}\tau _a$$
(4)
and apply the gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ which diagonalizes $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ at every $`x`$. After this step, $`v^{(1)}`$ will be rotated to lie along the diagonal generators of $`SU(N)`$: it will be parallel to $`\sigma _3`$ in the case of $`SU(2)`$, or lie in the plane $`(\tau _3,\tau _8)`$ for $`SU(3)`$. This gauge-fixing is not complete: in the $`SU(2)`$ case, an arbitrary rotation $`e^{i\theta \sigma _3}`$ can still be performed. More generally, after one fixes some arbitrary ordering for the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$, there remains an Abelian $`U(1)^{N1}`$ gauge freedom. In other words, we have reduced the gauge symmetry to its maximal Cartan subgroup. This gauge was proposed for $`SU(2)`$ by A. van der Sijs, who called it Laplacian Abelian Gauge, as an unambiguous substitute for Maximal Abelian Gauge $`^\mathrm{?}`$: it achieves the same purpose but has no difficulty with gauge copies coming from local maxima. Here it appears as a natural intermediate step, which exhausts the information available from the lowest-lying eigenvector.

Step 2. Using the next eigenvector rotated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{v}^{(2)}(x)=\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}(x)v^{(2)}(x)`$, we form the matrix

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\underset{a}{\overset{N^21}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_a^{(2)}\tau _a.$$
(5)
An Abelian rotation will leave the diagonal part of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}`$ invariant. Therefore, we complete the gauge fixing by enforcing $`(N1)`$ constraints on off-diagonal elements, which we choose to be on the sub-diagonal. Specifically, for $`SU(2)`$ we require that $`\stackrel{~}{v}^{(2)}`$ lie in the positive $`(\sigma _1,\sigma _3)`$ half-plane: $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\sigma _2=0,Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\sigma _1>0.`$ Similarly, for $`SU(3)`$ we require $`Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\tau _2=Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\tau _7=0,Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\tau _1>0,Tr\mathrm{\Phi }^{(2)}\tau _6>0`$. This 2-step procedure fixes the gauge completely, up to local $`Z_N`$ transformations which leave the adjoint links and the Laplacian eigenvectors unchanged.

## 3 Local gauge ambiguities

Laplacian Center Gauge is unambiguous: no matter what the starting point on the gauge orbit, the gauge-fixed configuration will be the same (up to a global gauge transformation). For some exceptional gauge fields, the smallest eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ may be degenerate, leading to a continuous family of possible gauge-fixed solutions, which can legitimately be called Gribov copies. But this situation never occurs in practice.

What occurs for a generic gauge field, however, is that the gauge transformation becomes ill-defined at some point(s) $`x`$. These local gauge ambiguities prevent a complete gauge fixing at $`x`$; they locally enlarge the gauge symmetry beyond $`Z_N`$. As we shall now see, these gauge defects are center vortices and monopoles.

One of the constraints of Step 2 is automatically satisfied if the associated complex matrix element is zero. In that case the Abelian gauge rotation cannot be fixed, and the remaining gauge symmetry is enlarged from $`Z_N`$ to $`U(1)`$. Specifically, for $`SU(2)`$ this occurs when $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{v}_2^{(2)}=0`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{v}^{(2)}`$ lies along the color direction $`\sigma _3`$ just like $`v^{(1)}`$. A $`U(1)`$ gauge ambiguity occurs whenever $`v^{(1)}`$ and $`v^{(2)}`$ are collinear. One can check that a small Wilson loop around such a point will acquire a phase $`e^{i2\pi \dot{\sigma _3}}`$ in the adjoint representation, or $`e^{i\pi \sigma _3}=1`$ in the fundamental. We have recovered the statement, made at the beginning of Section 2, that center vortices can be detected by the collinearity of eigenvectors. Collinearity implies $`\frac{v_1^{(2)}}{v_1^{(1)}}=\frac{v_2^{(2)}}{v_2^{(1)}}=\frac{v_3^{(2)}}{v_3^{(1)}}`$, so that 2 constraints must be satisfied. Center vortices have codimension 2, forming closed surfaces in $`4d`$. In the case of $`SU(3)`$, ambiguities happen when $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{v}_2^{(2)}=0`$, or $`\stackrel{~}{v}_6^{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{v}_7^{(2)}=0`$.

Local ambiguities can already arise at Step 1. For $`SU(2)`$, this happens whenever $`|v^{(1)}(x)|=0`$, yielding 3 constraints. These defects have codimension 3, forming closed loops in $`4d`$. Along such lines the Abelian projection is ill-defined. ’t Hooft $`^\mathrm{?}`$, followed by $`^\mathrm{?}`$, has shown that these defects can be identified with monopole worldlines. In the case of $`SU(3)`$, the analysis is more subtle$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Whenever two eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(1)}`$ become degenerate, their ordering becomes ambiguous. This enlarges the remaining gauge freedom from $`U(1)^{N1}`$ to $`U(1)^{N2}\times SU(2)`$. Again, these defects can be identified with codimension-3 monopole worldlines.

Now an intimate connection appears between monopoles and center vortices. The latter correspond to $`v^{(1)}`$ and $`v^{(2)}`$ being collinear. The two vectors can be parallel or anti-parallel. To go from one situation to the other along the center vortex surface, one must cross a line where $`|v^{(1)}|=0`$ or $`|v^{(2)}|=0`$. Thus, monopole worldlines always separate patches of center vortices with oppositely oriented eigenvectors. This situation is schematically described in Fig.2. One can interpret center vortices as the worldsheet of half Dirac strings between two monopoles. This explains the numerical finding that almost all monopoles are attached to two center vortices $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 4 Numerical findings

We have applied the gauge-fixing procedure described above to $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ ensembles. The projected $`Z_2`$ or $`Z_3`$ ensembles are constructed by replacing each link by the center element whose trace is the closest. To estimate the string tension in the projected theory, we measure the Creutz ratios $`\chi _{R,R}\mathrm{ln}[W_{R,R}W_{R+1,R+1}/W_{R,R+1}^2]`$, where $`W_{R,T}`$ is the expectation value of an $`R`$ by $`T`$ Wilson loop.

We first performed a check of the usual Direct Maximal Center gauge approach$`^\mathrm{?}`$. As illustrated in Figs.3 and 4, the Creutz ratios in the projected $`Z_2`$ theory appear to grow with distance. This trend can already be noticed in Fig.2 of Ref.$`^\mathrm{?}`$. It has also been observed in the projected $`U(1)`$ theory obtained after Maximal Abelian gauge-fixing $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It may depend on the details of the iterative gauge-fixing algorithm. In any case, increasing Creutz ratios signal a lack of positivity of the transfer matrix. Positivity is of course not guaranteed after a non-local procedure such as center gauge-fixing and projection. We mention this as a potential problem of the iterative gauge-fixing approach, in addition to that of local maxima. As a final “nail in the coffin”, we should add that Laplacian Center gauge fixing is cheaper: on a $`16^4`$ lattice, using the package ARPACK$`^\mathrm{?}`$ to find the necessary eigenvectors, the work performed to fix the gauge is equivalent to about 50 Monte Carlo sweeps for $`SU(2)`$, and 300 to 500 for $`SU(3)`$; this is far less than required by the iterative approach.

Figs.3 to 5 show the Creutz ratios in the projected theory after Laplacian Center gauge fixing, for $`SU(2)`$ ($`\beta =2.4`$ and $`2.5`$) and $`SU(3)`$ ($`\beta =6`$). As the distance increases, the Creutz ratios decrease rapidly then stabilize. The rapid decrease indicates the presence of many close pairs of vortices, quite unlike the Direct Maximum Center gauge results. Indeed, the vortex density is about a factor of 2 greater. This is in line with the increased monopole density observed in Laplacian Abelian gauge$`^\mathrm{?}`$. The plateau reached by the Creutz ratios appears close to the full $`SU(2)`$ or $`SU(3)`$ string tension. A more extensive numerical study is under completion$`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The significance of the rough agreement between the $`Z_N`$ and $`SU(N)`$ string tensions should not be exaggerated. Our measurements are taken at some finite, rather large value of the lattice spacing. We could choose another gauge, defined for example via a different discretization of the Laplacian, with higher derivative terms. We should expect the $`Z_N`$ Creutz ratios to be sensitive to this choice of gauge. It is only in the continuum limit that we must recover gauge independence and agreement between the $`Z_N`$ and $`SU(N)`$ string tensions.

## Acknowledgments

We thank C. Alexandrou, S. Dürr, M. D’Elia and J. Fröhlich for helpful discussions.

## References


text:
# Gorkov equations for a pseudo-gapped high temperature superconductor

## I Introduction

The anomalous properties of high temperature superconductors (HTS) have been the object of many investigations over the last ten years. Among these anomalous properties, the pseudo-gap phenomenon (a substantial decrease of the one particle density of states near the Fermi energy in the normal state below a certain temperature $`T^{}`$) has been studied by several experimental techniques. In tunneling spectroscopy experiments, in particular, the pseudo-gap manifests itself as a gap in the excitation spectrum. On the theoretical front, many competing models have been proposed. One of the popular interpretations of the pseudo-gap is that superconductivity forms locally at $`T^{}`$, but the phases of distant superconducting “droplets” remain incoherent until the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$ is reached. This view is supported by an increasing evidence that the pseudo-gap phenomenon is intimately connected to the underlying superconducting phase, mainly because the $`d`$-wave symmetry of the pseudo-gap is the same as that of the gap in the superconducting phase. The phase fluctuation model of the pseudo-gap state is different from the usual theory of superconducting fluctuations, because the latter is only valid near $`T_c`$, and involves both size and phase fluctuations.

A theory of the pseudo-gap above $`T_c`$ has also consequences below $`T_c`$. In particular, it is connected to the character of the excitations responsible for destroying superconductivity. Different mechanisms (thermal phase fluctuations, quantum phase fluctuations, nodal quasiparticles) may all contribute to the properties in the superconducting state, and these contributions may be of varying importance if one considers low temperatures or temperatures near $`T_c`$. One may add that the clue to a theory of high temperature superconductivity will go through the explanation of detailed properties, like the absence of quasiparticles above $`T_c`$ and their appearance below $`T_c`$, or the anomalous properties of the density of states in vortices.

Within the BCS theory, the inclusion of phase fluctuations in a droplet model must be done in two steps. First, one introduces a local BCS gap, with a phase, and then one must somehow analyze the phase fluctuations in a second analytical step distinct from the first. The theory of Franz and Millis gives an example of this type of approach. Starting from the form of the Green’s function in a uniform superflow, they extend it semi-classically to non-uniform situations assuming slow spatial variations of the superfluid velocity. This Green’s function is then averaged over a Gaussian distribution of velocity fluctuations, which relates the result to a correlation function of the velocities. A similar approach has been used by Kwon and Dorsey, who treat the coupling to the fluctuating phase using a self-consistent perturbation theory. As emphasized by Geshkenbein et al. and Randeria, strong pairing correlations should however be incorporated at the basis of any model of the pseudo-gap regime.

A systematic theory of the effect of phase fluctuations on the density of states (and other properties) in HTS, above and below $`T_c`$, must start by putting the phase-phase correlation function at the core of the theory for superconductivity, at the same level as the size of the local gap. This program implies that one avoids developing the theory of superconductivity by defining a gap function and an anomalous propagator. This is equivalent to writing the BCS theory in a particle number conserving scheme (i.e. in the canonical ensemble, avoiding the definition of an anomalous amplitude between states with different particle numbers). This theory has actually been written down forty years ago by Kadanoff and Martin (KM), and rediscovered by others, in particular for the discussion of Josephson arrays. The KM theory is based on the two-body Cooperon propagator, and describes quite naturally the effect of phase fluctuations. This theory has already been applied to the HTS in a nice series of papers by Levin et al., but with a different interpretation (not related to phase fluctuations), a different focus, and a different formalism than in our work. In this paper we rewrite the basic KM equations for the case of a lattice Hamiltonian, we show again how the standard BCS theory is recovered with a straightforward approximation for the two-body Cooperon correlation function, and we then derive the basic equations for a pseudo-gap state, in particular the equivalent Gorkov equations which have to be used in the calculation of vortex states.

## II Kadanoff-Martin equations in a lattice model

We consider the lattice Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{ij\sigma }{}t_{ij}c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+\underset{ij}{}V_{ij}b_i^{}b_j.$$
(1)
In this, $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron at site $`i`$ and $`b_i^{}=c_i^{}c_i^{}`$ creates a Cooper pair at site $`i`$. We assume that $`t`$ and $`V`$ are symmetric and real. The usual Gorkov equations can then be written as a single equation:

$$\left[𝒢^0(\omega _n)\right]^1𝒢(\omega _n)=𝟙+\stackrel{~}{\mathbb{\Sigma }}(\omega _𝕟)𝒢(\omega _𝕟),$$
(2)
where $`𝒢_{ij}(\tau )=T_\tau \{c_i(\tau )c_j^{}(0)\}`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ij}(\omega _n)=\underset{r_1r_2}{}V_{ir_1}B_{r_1}B_{r_2}^{}V_{r_2j}𝒢_{ji}^0(\omega _n).$$
(3)
$`\left[𝒢^0(\omega _n)\right]_{ij}^1=i\omega _n\delta _{ij}t_{ij}`$ is the free Green’s function, $`\omega _n`$ are the odd Matsubara frequencies, and $`B_{\mathrm{}}=b_{\mathrm{}}`$. The notation $`\left[𝒢^0\right]^1𝒢`$ implies matrix multiplication in the $`\{i,j\}`$ space. These equations are supplemented by the self-consistent equation for $`B_i`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$) and the self-consistent equation relating the number of particles $`N`$ to the chemical potential. The equation for $`B_i`$ is

$$B_i=_{ii}(0^+)=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega _n}{}_{ii}(\omega _n)e^{i\omega _n0^+}$$
(4)
with $`_{ij}^{}(\tau )=T_\tau \{c_i^{}(\tau )c_j^{}(0)\}`$.

The Kadanoff-Martin correlation function description of superconductivity consists simply (after a long and thorough discussion of higher order correlation functions) in replacing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in Eq. (2) by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}(\omega _n)=\frac{1}{\beta }\underset{\omega _m}{}\underset{r_1r_2}{}V_{ir_1}L_{r_2r_1}(\omega _n+\omega _m)V_{r_2j}𝒢_{ji}^0(\omega _m)$$
(5)
where $`L_{r_2r_1}(\tau )=T_\tau \left\{b_{r_1}(\tau )b_{r_2}^{}(0)\right\}`$ is the Cooperon propagator. The self-consistent equation for $`B`$ is replaced by the equations

$`L_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}𝒢_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\omega _n)𝒢_{r_1r_2}^0(\omega _n)`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝒢_{ir_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\omega _n)𝒢_{ir_2}^0(\omega _n)V_{ji}L_{jr_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$
for $`T>T_c`$, and

$`L_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}𝒢_{ir_2}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\omega _n)𝒢_{ir_2}^0(\omega _n)V_{ji}L_{jr_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ (10)
for $`T<T_c`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are the even Matsubara frequencies. The fact that the inhomogeneous term in the ladder equation for $`L`$ has to be dropped when calculating the order parameter in the condensed state is not much commented upon in the original paper of KM, but it is related to the range of $`L_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$, which is finite above $`T_c`$ and infinite below $`T_c`$ (see below). In fact, the quantity $`_{r_1r_2}L_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ is of the order $`N^2`$ below $`T_c`$ (where $`N`$ is the number of sites) whereas the corresponding sum of the inhomogeneous term in Eq. (8) is only of order $`N`$. The usual BCS theory is recovered by setting

$`L_{r_2r_1}(\tau )=B_{r_1}B_{r_2}^{},L_{r_2r_1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\beta B_{r_1}B_{r_2}^{}\delta _{\mathrm{\Omega }_m,0}`$

in Eq. (5). The self-consistent equation Eq. (9) for $`L`$ then goes over into the self-consistent equation Eq. (4) for $`B`$, and clearly Eq. (5) goes into Eq. (3). In the BCS framework, the Thouless criterion for $`T_c`$ becomes the gap equation for $`T<T_c`$.

The KM description of superconductivity, which is entirely based on the properties of the function $`L`$, is thus seen to be a natural starting point if one wants to introduce explicitly local order and phase fluctuations in the physical description of high temperature superconductors. This is done in the next section.

## III Phenomenological description of a pseudo-gapped superconductor

Our fundamental assumption is that Eq. (5) is generally valid, in the sense that it expresses in general the single particle Green’s function in terms of the Cooperon propagator, regardless of the model or the approximations involved in calculating this propagator. Our purpose in this paper is to explore the experimental consequences of a simple heuristic form for $`L`$, which is the translation of the physical picture presented in the Introduction. For $`T>T_c`$, we write:

$$L_{r_2r_1}(\tau )=|B^0|^2R(r_{12}/\varrho _0)+|B^1|^2F(r_2r_1,\tau )$$
(12)
with $`r_{12}=|r_2r_1|`$ and $`R(x)`$ some cutoff function which vanishes rapidly for $`x>1`$. This equation expresses the fact that there are strong superconducting correlations at the scale $`\varrho _0`$, represented by a finite value of $`B^0`$, going to zero gradually at a temperature $`T^{}`$. The strength of the superconducting correlations between “droplets” is represented by an amplitude $`B^1`$ and some function $`F`$ describing essentially the correlations in an $`XY`$ model above the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) transition. Both $`B^1`$ and $`F`$ will be temperature dependent. As $`T`$ approaches $`T_c`$ from above (we identify $`T_c`$ with the KT transition temperature), the correlation length of $`F`$ diverges and $`F`$ approaches 1. For $`T<T_c`$, we write:

$$L_{r_2r_1}(\tau )=|B^0|^2R(r_{12}/\varrho _0)+B_{r_1}^1B_{r_2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{},$$
(13)
where only the amplitude $`B^1`$ carries a phase. The assumption here is that short range correlations have a strong incoherent part, even in the superconducting state. When introduced into the equation for the self-energy, Eq. (13) for $`L`$ means that the self-energy in the superconducting state is the sum of a coherent and an incoherent part; this appears to be the case in some recent calculations based on a fermion-boson model. Inspection of Eqs. (13) and (5) shows that if, in the ladder approximation for a homogeneous system, it turns out that $`L_{r_2r_1}`$ is the sum of a constant term and a term of finite range, then the constant term will obey Eq. (9), whereas the finite range term will obey Eq. (8).

Eqs. (III) translate into the following equation for $`𝒢`$:

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^0(\omega _n)\right]^1𝒢(\omega _n)=𝟙+\mathbb{\Sigma }^\mathrm{𝟙}(\omega _𝕟)𝒢(\omega _𝕟),$$
(14)
where

$`\left[\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^0(\omega _n)\right]_{ij}^1=\left[𝒢^0(\omega _n)\right]_{ij}^1`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r_1r_2}{}}V_{ir_1}|B^0|^2R(r_{12}/\varrho _0)V_{r_2j}𝒢_{ji}^0(\omega _n)`$ (16)
and

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^1(\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r_1r_2}{}}V_{ir_1}|B^1|^2F(r_2r_1,\omega _n+\omega _m)`$ (19)
$`\times V_{r_2j}𝒢_{ji}^0(\omega _m),T>T_c`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^1(\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r_1r_2}{}}V_{ir_1}B_{r_1}^1B_{r_2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}V_{r_2j}𝒢_{ji}^0(\omega _n),T<T_c.`$ (20)
Inspection of Eq. (20), together with Eq. (14), shows that below $`T_c`$, a pseudo-gapped superconductor obeys the following modified Gorkov equations:

$`\left\{\left[\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^0(\omega _n)\right]^1𝒢(\omega _n)\right\}_{ij}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_i\mathrm{}B_{\mathrm{}}^1\stackrel{~}{}_{ij}^{}(\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}`$ (22)
$`\left\{\left[𝒢^0(\omega _n)\right]^1\stackrel{~}{}^{}(\omega _n)\right\}_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_\mathrm{}iB_{\mathrm{}}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}𝒢_{ij}(\omega _n)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (23)
Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) calculations of the pairing correlations were recently reported for the attractive Hubbard model at zero temperature. Although these results are restricted to short distances ($``$ 6–10 lattice sites) we tentatively connect our model to the QMC calculations with the following arguments. For the system sizes considered in the QMC calculations (typically $`14\times 14`$ sites) the correlation function for the largest distance in the system has not converged to its asymptotic value. We attribute the slow decrease of the correlations at intermediate distances (see inset of Fig. 4 in Ref. ) to a large value of $`\varrho _0`$ with respect to the system size. The results of Ref.  also show that the strength of the pairing correlations at intermediate distances increases, and differs increasingly from the BCS result, as the Hubbard interaction $`U/t`$ increases. Closer inspection of the data in Fig. 3 of Ref.  indicates that the ratio of the BCS to the QMC correlations at intermediate distances is also an increasing function of $`U/t`$. The simplest BCS approximation to Eq. (13) is to replace the cutoff function $`R`$ by $`1`$, describing correlations which are independent of $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ (in a homogeneous system, the second term of Eq. (13) is a constant $`|B^1|^2`$). With this approximation, one can account for the above trends by assuming that both $`B^0`$ and the ratio $`B^0/B^1`$ increase as $`U/t`$ increases. Finally, we shall include in our numerical calculations the “onsite” correlations found in Ref.  for distances within two lattice spacings, by adding a term

$$L_{r_2r_1}^{\text{os}}=\left(|B^0|^2+|B^1|^2\right)e^{2r_{12}/a}$$
(24)
to the model Eqs. (III), where $`a`$ is the lattice parameter. We find, however, that this correction has a negligible impact on the spectral functions, and could equally be dropped without changing the results presented below.

## IV Numerical results

We now use the general equations derived in Section II, together with the model Eqs. (III) and (24), to calculate the temperature dependence of the density of states and spectral functions in a homogeneous system. The calculations are compared with the STM and ARPES experimental results for BSCCO. In order to reduce the number of adjustable parameters, we take for the correlation function $`F(𝒓,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}[r/\xi (T)]`$, which describes time-independent phase-phase correlations above $`T_c`$. The correlation length $`\xi `$ is equal to $`\varrho _1\alpha \mathrm{exp}[b/\sqrt{(TT_c)/J}]`$, with $`\alpha 0.21`$, $`b1.73`$, and $`JT_c/0.89`$. The length-scale $`\varrho _1`$ is the lattice parameter of the effective $`2DXY`$ model describing phase fluctuations. We found that the main features in the spectral properties above $`T_c`$ are rather insensitive to the details of the correlation function. We have explicitly checked this point by comparing different functions $`F`$, in particular functions which give a better description of the correlations in the $`XY`$ model. The cutoff function $`R`$ is modeled as $`\mathrm{exp}(r/\varrho _0)`$.

The four parameters $`\varrho _0`$, $`\varrho _1`$, $`B^0`$, and $`B^1`$ are chosen to achieve good agreement with the experimental results. We use the value $`\varrho _0=50a`$; if the first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (13) is the dominant one ($`B^0>B^1`$), we found that a relatively large value of $`\varrho _0`$ is needed in order to obtain well developed coherence peaks in the zero temperature density of states. In addition, we see that, according to the previous discussion, $`\varrho _0`$ must be large with respect to $`14a`$. The parameter $`\varrho _1`$ controls the temperature evolution of the spectral functions above $`T_c`$, and takes the value $`\varrho _1=5a`$. The larger $`\varrho _1`$, the wider the temperature region above $`T_c`$ in which finite range phase coherence contributes to the pseudo-gap. The amplitude $`B^0`$ is adjusted to fix the gap energy to $`40`$ meV. Finally, the ratio $`B^0/B^1`$ is varied in order to control the relative importance of short range superconducting correlations and long-range phase fluctuations. The behavior of the resulting Cooperon propagator $`L(𝒓)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 1 for temperatures below and above $`T_c`$ and for different values of $`|B^0/B^1|`$.

For a translationally invariant system and our model Cooperon propagator, Eq. (5) can be recast as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝒌,\omega _n)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}_{\text{BZ}}\frac{V^2(𝒒)L(𝒒)d𝒒}{i\omega _n+\epsilon _{𝒒𝒌}}$$
(25)
where $`V(𝒒)=V_0+2V_1(\mathrm{cos}q_xa+\mathrm{cos}q_ya)`$, $`L(𝒒)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`L(𝒓)`$, and $`\epsilon _𝒌`$ is the free dispersion. Here, $`V_0`$ and $`V_1`$ are the onsite and nearest-neighbor potentials, respectively, and we neglect next-nearest neighbor interactions; we assume $`V_1=V_0/4`$ in all of our calculations. For the dispersion, we use a tight-binding expression which fits the BSCCO Fermi surface and corresponds to a bandwidth of 2 eV. The self-energy at real frequencies is evaluated by making the analytic continuation $`i\omega _n\omega ^+=\omega +i0^+`$ in Eq. (25) and discretizing the BZ integral. The spectral function is then calculated according to $`A(𝒌,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}\{\left[\omega ^+\epsilon _𝒌\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝒌,\omega ^+)\right]^1\}`$, and the density of states is $`N(\omega )_{\text{BZ}}A(𝒌,\omega )𝑑𝒌`$. It is easy to check from Eq. (25) that, if $`L(𝒒)>0`$ — a condition obeyed by our model — then the Green’s function is analytic in the upper half of the complex plane, the spectral function $`A(𝒌,\omega )`$ is positive, and the Green’s function goes to zero as $`\omega ^1`$ for $`|\omega |\mathrm{}`$.

### A Scanning tunneling spectroscopy

Neglecting possible anisotropies of the tunneling matrix element as well as $`k_z`$-dispersion effects, we calculate the tunneling conductance as the convolution of the density of states with the derivative of the Fermi function. The result is shown in Fig. 2 for various temperatures. In order to focus on the effect of local superconductivity and phase fluctuations, we have kept the model parameters independent of temperature: the whole temperature dependence of the curves, in Fig. 2, relates to the variation of the correlation length $`\xi `$ and Fermi function with $`T`$. A better fit to the experimental data could be obtained, in principle, by allowing the amplitudes $`B^0`$ and $`B^1`$ to vary with temperature. This would not, however, change the qualitative conclusions we wish to draw. In Fig. 2(a), $`B^0`$ is larger than $`B^1`$ while in Fig. 2(b) $`B^1`$ is larger than $`B^0`$. In the next section, we argue that these two typical cases correspond to underdoped (UD) and overdoped (OD) situations, respectively. The spectra shown in Fig. 2 reproduce some of the characteristic features observed experimentally in BSCCO samples. Both UD and OD curves evolve smoothly across $`T_c`$ into a pseudo-gapped spectrum, the peak-to-peak distance remaining approximately temperature independent. Moreover, the coherence peaks and the gap structure disappear more rapidly in the OD case as the temperature is raised, which is also consistent with the experimental findings. The model, however, is not able to account for a number of experimental observations, such as the asymmetry in the temperature dependence of the positive and negative-bias conductance peaks, or the dip structure recorded at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ below $`T_c`$. We also note that the model Eqs. (III) has $`s`$-wave symmetry. The calculated spectra are therefore not expected to agree in details with experiment at low energies.

According to our model, the local superconducting correlations responsible for the high temperature pseudo-gap also have implications below $`T_c`$. In the underdoped case, the local (incoherent) superconducting correlations broaden the zero temperature density of states. The resulting conductance spectra have small coherence peaks and a rounded line-shape around the fermi energy. In the overdoped case, in contrast, the $`T=0`$ curve looks more like a ($`s`$-wave) BCS spectrum.

As the temperature increases from zero to $`T_c`$, the density of states remains unchanged in both UD and OD cases, and the temperature dependence of the conductance spectra relates solely to the Fermi function. This behavior persists above $`T_c`$ in the UD case owing to the dominant role of $`B^0`$ (which is $`T`$-independent in our calculations). In the OD situation, on the contrary, the gap fills in rapidly above $`T_c`$ as the contribution of $`B^1`$ disappears due to increasing phase fluctuations; at elevated temperatures, only a weak pseudo-gap due to $`B^0`$ remains. Fig. 2 also illustrates the effect of the temperature dependence of the amplitudes $`B^0`$ and $`B^1`$. At room temperature, $`B^1`$ is expected to vanish and $`B^0`$ is expected to be smaller than at low temperature. Taking $`B^1=0`$ and $`B^0(300\text{K})=B^0(0\text{K})/2`$, one obtains the dashed spectra in Fig. 2, which no longer exhibit a sizable pseudo-gap structure.

The difference between the temperature evolutions of the UD and OD spectra is best seen in Fig. 3, where we plot the calculated zero-bias conductance. Below $`T_c`$, the zero-bias conductance is larger in the UD case due to strong local correlations. Above $`T_c`$, the conductance increases sharply in the OD case, corresponding to the filling of the gap. In either UD and OD cases, the zero-bias conductance above $`T_c`$ is larger than the value expected by thermally broadening the $`T=0`$ spectra (see Fig. 3).

From a general point of view, one can confirm from our calculations that the sharpness of the peaks in the density of states (and correspondingly the size of the zero-bias conductance) is related to the strength and range of the superconducting correlations. The larger the ratio $`B^1/B^0`$ and/or the longer the range $`\varrho _0`$, the sharper the peaks (the smaller the zero-bias conductance). As an example, we show in Fig. 3 the conductance obtained by letting the coherence term $`B^1`$ go to zero in the OD situation. Comparison of the curves with and without $`B^1`$ shows that the phase coherence has the effect to depress the density of states at the Fermi energy — therefore raising the coherence peaks — below $`T_c`$ and in some temperature range above $`T_c`$, where the correlation length $`\xi (T)`$ is large.

### B Angle-resolved photoemission

Experimentally, it is found that the temperature dependence of the energy dispersion curves measured by ARPES near $`(\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ depends on doping. In overdoped samples, the leading-edge midpoint energy moves toward the Fermi energy — suggesting that the gap closes — as $`T`$ increases above $`T_c`$. The temperature variations of the midpoint energy are usually smaller in underdoped samples.

Apart from a matrix element, the ARPES intensity is just the product of the spectral and Fermi functions. This quantity, calculated at the Fermi crossing near the $`M`$ point, is shown in Fig. 4 as a function of temperature. A clear difference between the temperature evolution of the spectral peak in the UD and OD cases can be seen. Consistently with experiment, the peak shifts toward the Fermi energy in the OD case as $`T`$ increases. In the UD case, the peak position is to first approximation independent of temperature. Below $`T_c`$, the curves are almost identical to the spectrum at $`T_c`$ (because the temperature $`T<T_c7`$ meV is small with respect to the peak energy $`35`$ meV) and are not shown. One can see that the quasiparticle peak is much sharper at $`T_c`$ in the overdoped as compared to the underdoped system. This has also been seen experimentally and can easily be understood in our model. The destruction of long range order by phase fluctuations clearly affects qualitatively the spectral functions in the OD case where the transition across $`T_c`$ is accompanied by a decrease of the quasiparticle lifetime and increase of the intensity at the Fermi energy.

The position of the main quasiparticle peak in Fig. 4 is reported in Fig. 5 as a function of temperature. The temperature dependence of the gap was studied in Refs  and  by fitting the experimental ARPES curves to a three parameters Green’s function. For overdoped samples, the gap was found to decrease with increasing temperature (Ref. ), in a way very similar to what we obtain in the OD case, although the decrease was found to begin already below $`T_c`$. Note that a small finite gap persists at all temperatures in our calculations, since no temperature dependence of $`B^0`$ and $`B^1`$ was taken into account. In a real situation, $`B^0`$ and $`B^1`$ would both vanish at some temperature above $`T_c`$. In the underdoped samples, the gap was found to be temperature independent within error bars (Ref. ) or slightly decreasing above $`T_c`$ (Ref. ). The trend in Fig. 5 is similar. The slight decrease of the gap above $`T_c`$ in the UD case results from the suppression of the phase correlations as the temperature is raised.

The spectral line-shapes in Fig. 4 are considerably sharper than what is usually measured by ARPES, especially at elevated temperatures. The estimated experimental resolution of $`10`$ meV cannot alone explain this difference. Similar conclusions have been reached in Ref. . It was shown there that the inverse quasiparticle lifetime implied by fitting the experimental spectra are an order of magnitude larger in ARPES with respect to STM. Inhomogeneities in the sample properties could explain this discrepancy, since a much larger region of the sample surface is probed by ARPES compared to STM.

The temperature dependence of the OD quasiparticle peak in Fig. 5 contrasts with the apparent temperature independence of the gap width in Fig. 2. The coherence peaks in the density of states are due to quasiparticle states with momenta just nearby $`𝒌_\text{F}`$. Therefore, one may expect that the energies of all these quasiparticles evolve in the same way as the temperature increases. In this case, the coherence peaks would rigidly follow this temperature evolution and both the STM and ARPES gaps would close in the OD situation. We have found, however, that in our model the energies of the quasiparticles at and nearby $`𝒌_\text{F}`$ have different temperature dependencies in the OD case. This is illustrated in Fig. 5, where we plot the energy of a quasiparticle with a momentum $`𝒌`$ just below the Fermi surface along the $`M`$$`Y`$ line. For $`T<T_c`$, this particular $`𝒌`$ point contributes to the coherence peaks in the density of states, since the corresponding energy is within $`2`$ meV of the energy at $`𝒌_\text{F}`$. At 200 K, instead, the two energies differ by $`5`$ meV in the OD case, which is approximately half the width of the zero temperature coherence peaks. This explains why the STM gap fills in instead of closing although the ARPES gap at $`𝒌_\text{F}`$ closes. Thus, our results show that the apparent “visual” pseudo-gap may be different in STM and ARPES data, even if each measurement is in agreement with the same underlying theory.

## V Conclusion

Many workers in the field share the belief that the pseudo-gap phase in HTS is a kind of mixed state, where strong short range superconducting correlations coexist with long range phase disorder. This fact should reflect in the properties of the Cooperon propagator, which should show “partial” superconductivity even above $`T_c`$. In this paper, we have shown that it is possible to describe the properties of pseudo-gapped superconductors by writing the superconductivity theory in general in terms of this Cooperon propagator, and that reasonable phenomenological assumptions about the form of this propagator lead to good agreement with experimental data. We have thus a theoretical framework which is valid both above and below $`T_c`$, without special treatment of the pseudo-gapped phase. Our main assumption is that the relevant difference between overdoped and underdoped HTS is in the relative magnitude of the short and long range parts of the Cooperon propagator, described by the parameters $`B^0`$ and $`B^1`$, respectively. In the underdoped HTS we assume that the ratio $`B^0/B^1`$ is larger than in the overdoped HTS. We tentatively claim that $`B^0`$ is related to the single-particle energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ measured by single-particle spectroscopy, while $`B^1`$ is related to the coherence gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ measured in Andreev reflection or Josephson experiments. As shown by Deutscher, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ differ in the HTS: the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p/\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ is close to one in the overdoped region and increases as the doping is reduced.

In this paper, we do not attempt to calculate the Cooperon propagator using one or the other theoretical method. We first want to derive some empirical constraints on the function $`L`$ from direct comparison with experiments. Our approach is also limited, at this stage, to $`s`$-wave gap symmetry. We are currently working on an extension of these calculations for $`d`$-wave symmetry and on the calculation of the density of states in vortices. Also, comparisons of our model with other detailed spectroscopic data below $`T_c`$ (vortices and Josephson effect in particular) will show whether the approach presented here is a fruitful one.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank S. E. Barnes, H. Beck, Ø. Fischer, M. Franz, B. W. Hoogenboom, and J.-M. Triscone for very useful discussions.