format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Introduction

Discrete torsion is a historically-mysterious degree of freedom associated with orbifolds, originally discovered in . In previous work, we explained discrete torsion for type II $`B`$ fields  (as well as the M-theory three-form potential $`C`$ ). To summarize our results, we found that

Discrete torsion is the choice of orbifold group action on the $`B`$ field.

In particular, we showed that discrete torsion has nothing to do with string theory per se, but rather has a purely mathematical understanding.

However, in our previous work  we assumed that the curvature of the $`B`$ field, namely $`H`$, satisfied the usual Bianchi identity $`dH=0`$. Unfortunately this is not the case for heterotic $`B`$ fields, where (as is well-known) $`dH=\text{Tr }FF\text{Tr }RR`$. So, strictly speaking, the results of  do not apply to the case of the heterotic $`B`$ field.

In this short paper we shall fill this gap in our understanding by examining orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields. At the end of the day, we find that the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a heterotic $`B`$ field is defined by the same data as in  – so although heterotic $`B`$ fields look somewhat different from type II $`B`$ fields, and although orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields are twisted by comparison, the difference between any two orbifold group actions can be described the same way for heterotic $`B`$ fields as for type II $`B`$ fields.

We begin by working out a complete description of heterotic $`B`$-fields on local coordinate charts. Before we can accomplish that goal, however, we first review relevant facts concerning Chern-Simons forms in section 2. Once we understand Chern-Simons terms at a sufficiently deep level, we work out a local-coordinate chart description of heterotic $`B`$-fields in section 3.

Once we understand heterotic $`B`$-fields sufficiently well, we proceed to study orbifold group actions. As heterotic $`B`$ fields are tied to gauge and tangent bundles, we first study orbifold group actions on principal $`G`$-bundles with connection (for general $`G`$) in section 4. (In previous work  we have exhaustively discussed principal $`G`$-bundles with connection for $`G`$ abelian; here we describe the general case.) Then, we discuss the induced orbifold group actions on Chern-Simons forms in section 5. Once we have the basics down, we use the usual self-consistent bootstrap to work out orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$-fields in section 6.

Finally, in section 7 we conclude by discussing the differences between orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$-fields. We find that the differences between orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields (for fixed action on the gauge and tangent bundles) is defined by the same data as for type II $`B`$ fields , and so we recover the usual $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$, twisted sector phases of , and so forth.

This paper is a continuation of the papers  and , and so readers are encouraged to read them first.

## 2 Review of Chern-Simons forms

Before we describe the heterotic $`B`$-field in local coordinate patches, we shall first take a moment to review Chern-Simons forms.

For simplicity, we shall assume that $`\text{Tr }FF`$ is normalized to be (the image of) an integral cohomology class. Assume that $`F`$ is a connection on a principal $`G`$-bundle with transition functions $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ (defined with respect to some good cover), and let $`A^\alpha `$ denote the connection (the gauge field) in patch $`U_\alpha `$. On overlaps,

$$A^\alpha =g_{\alpha \beta }A^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }^1\left(dg_{\alpha \beta }\right)g_{\alpha \beta }^1$$

To set conventions, define $`F=dA+AA`$, then it is trivial to verify that $`F^\alpha =g_{\alpha \beta }F^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }^1`$, and so $`\text{Tr }F^\alpha F^\alpha =\text{Tr }F^\beta F^\beta `$.

Now, given some form that lies in the image of integral cohomology, in principle one can construct the other elements of a Čech-de Rham cocycle. The first step in this is well-known:

$$\text{Tr }F^\alpha F^\alpha =d\omega _3^\alpha $$

where

$$\omega _3^\alpha =\text{Tr }\left(A^\alpha dA^\alpha +\frac{2}{3}A^\alpha A^\alpha A^\alpha \right)$$

is the usual Chern-Simons three-form.

The second step is a little more obscure, but can also be worked out. Note that

$$\omega _3^\alpha \omega _3^\beta =\text{Tr }\left(g_{\alpha \beta }^1(dg_{\alpha \beta })dA^\beta \right)$$

Since $`g_{\alpha \beta }^1dg_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a closed form, and we are working on a good cover, there exists a function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$ such that $`g_{\alpha \beta }^1dg_{\alpha \beta }=d\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }`$, and so we can write

$$\omega _3^\alpha \omega _3^\beta =d\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }$$

where

$$\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }=\text{Tr }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\alpha \beta }dA^\beta \right)$$

In addition, there also exist local 1-forms $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and local functions $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ filling out the rest of the Čech-de Rham cocycle. We can summarize this data as follows:

$`\text{Tr }F^\alpha F^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\omega _3^\alpha `$
$`\omega _3^\alpha \omega _3^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`d\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }`$
$`\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }+\omega _2^{\beta \gamma }+\omega _2^{\gamma \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`d\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$
$`\omega _1^{\beta \gamma \delta }\omega _1^{\alpha \gamma \delta }+\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \delta }\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`d\mathrm{log}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$
$`\delta h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
Somewhat more formally, we have described $`\text{Tr }FF`$ as the curvature of a 2-gerbe associated to the principal $`G`$-bundle with connection.

This discussion is somewhat complicated, but a simpler version also exists for $`\text{Tr }F`$. We can write

$`\text{Tr }F^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\text{Tr }A^\alpha `$
$`\text{Tr }A^\alpha \text{Tr }A^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr }\left((dg_{\alpha \beta })g_{\alpha \beta }^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`d\left(\text{Tr }\mathrm{log}g_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`d\left(\mathrm{log}detg_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$
$`\delta \left(detg_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
Formally, we have described $`\text{Tr }F`$ as the curvature of a 0-gerbe (a principal $`U(1)`$ bundle with connection) associated to the principal $`G`$-bundle with connection. In fact, this associated 0-gerbe is precisely the determinant bundle.

## 3 Heterotic $`B`$-fields

We are now ready to discuss the $`B`$ field in perturbative heterotic strings. First recall that the curvature $`H`$ of the $`B`$ field obeys

$$dH=\text{Tr }FF\text{Tr }RR$$

With this in mind, to each open set $`U_\alpha `$ in a good cover, we associate a three-form $`H^\alpha `$ and a two-form $`B^\alpha `$ related as

$$H^\alpha =dB^\alpha +\omega _{3,F}^\alpha \omega _{3,R}^\alpha $$

Next, how are the $`B`$ fields on overlapping patches related? Recall that as part of the Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism, gauge transformations of either the gauge bundle or the tangent bundle induce gauge transformations of $`B`$. Specifically, if under a gauge transformation

$$\omega _{3,F}^\alpha \omega _{3,F}^\alpha \text{Tr }\left(d\mathrm{\Lambda }dA^\alpha \right)$$

then one must simultaneously have

$$B^\alpha B^\alpha +\text{Tr }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }dA^\alpha \right)$$

so that $`H^\alpha `$ remains invariant. Since the connections on the gauge and tangent bundles on overlapping patches are related by gauge transformations (defined by the transition functions), we find that in general, the difference between two-forms $`B^\alpha `$ on overlapping patches is given by

$$B^\alpha B^\beta =dA^{\alpha \beta }\omega _{2,F}^{\alpha \beta }+\omega _{2,R}^{\alpha \beta }$$
(1)
for some local one-forms $`A^{\alpha \beta }`$.

Note that as a consequence of the expression above, $`H^\alpha =H^\beta `$ on overlapping patches, i.e., $`H^\alpha =H|_{U_\alpha }`$ for some globally-defined three-form $`H`$.

Next, adding the expressions (1) on each double overlap in a triple overlap, we are forced to conclude that

$$A^{\alpha \beta }+A^{\beta \gamma }+A^{\gamma \alpha }=\omega _{1,F}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\omega _{1,R}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }+d\mathrm{log}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B$$
(2)
for some $`U(1)`$-valued functions $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$ defined on triple overlaps.

Finally, from adding the expressions (2) on each triple overlap in a quadruple overlap, we are forced to conclude that

$$\left(h_{\beta \gamma \delta }^B\right)\left(h_{\alpha \gamma \delta }^B\right)^1\left(h_{\alpha \beta \delta }^B\right)\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B\right)^1=\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^F\right)^1\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^R\right)$$
(3)
Note this means that at the level of Čech cohomology, the 3-cochains $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^F`$ and $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^R`$ are cohomologous; their difference is a coboundary defined by the $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$.

To summarize, we have found that the heterotic $`B`$ field is described, in local coordinate patches, by a globally-defined three-form $`H`$, local two-forms $`B^\alpha `$, local one-forms $`A^{\alpha \beta }`$, and local $`U(1)`$-valued functions $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$ obeying

$`dH`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr }FF\text{Tr }RR`$
$`H|_{U_\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`dB^\alpha +\omega _{3,F}^\alpha \omega _{3,R}^\alpha `$
$`B^\alpha B^\beta `$ $`=`$ $`dA^{\alpha \beta }\omega _{2,F}^{\alpha \beta }+\omega _{2,R}^{\alpha \beta }`$
$`A^{\alpha \beta }+A^{\beta \gamma }+A^{\gamma \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{1,F}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\omega _{1,R}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }+d\mathrm{log}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$
$`\left(h_{\beta \gamma \delta }^B\right)\left(h_{\alpha \gamma \delta }^B\right)^1\left(h_{\alpha \beta \delta }^B\right)\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B\right)^1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^F\right)^1\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^R\right)`$
More formally, the heterotic $`B`$ field defines a map between the 2-gerbes with connection associated to the gauge and tangent bundles.

## 4 Orbifold group action on principal $`G`$-bundles

In prior work  we have exhaustively discussed orbifold group actions on principal $`U(1)`$ bundles. In order to discuss orbifold group actions in heterotic string theory, however, we need to examine orbifold group actions on principal $`G`$-bundles for more general Lie groups $`G`$.

To set conventions, assume we have a bundle with connection described by Ad($`G`$)-valued gauge fields $`A^\alpha `$ (one for each element $`U_\alpha `$ of a “good invariant” cover, as described in ) and transition functions $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$, obeying

$`A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`g_{\alpha \beta }A^\beta g_{\alpha \beta }^1\left(dg_{\alpha \beta }\right)g_{\alpha \beta }^1`$
$`g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\gamma \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
Proceeding as in , define Čech cochains $`\gamma _\alpha ^g`$ by

$$g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)\left(g_{\alpha \beta }\right)\left(\gamma _\beta ^g\right)^1$$
(4)
From expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ in two different ways, we are led to demand

$$\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}=\left(g_2^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)$$
(5)
and from demanding consistency of $`A^\alpha `$ on overlaps, we are led to derive (as in )

$$g^{}A^\alpha =\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)A^\alpha \left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)^1+\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)d\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)^1$$
(6)
Now, in  we pointed out that both orbifold $`U(1)`$ Wilson lines and discrete torsion arise as the differences between orbifold group actions. (Put another way, the set of orbifold group actions is only a set in general, not a group, but it is acted upon by a group in those cases.) Let us attempt to repeat that analysis here. Let $`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)`$, $`\left(\overline{\gamma }_\alpha ^g\right)`$ define a pair of orbifold group actions on some principal $`G`$-bundle with connection, as above. Define

$$\varphi _\alpha ^g=\left(\overline{\gamma }_\alpha ^g\right)^1\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)$$
(7)
By expressing $`g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ in terms of these two actions, we find

$$\varphi _\alpha ^gg_{\alpha \beta }=g_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _\beta ^g$$
(8)
The expression above for $`\left(\varphi _\alpha ^g\right)`$ shows that $`\left(\varphi _\alpha ^g\right)`$ defines a base-preserving automorphism of the principal $`G`$-bundle \[7, section 5.5\]. Base-preserving automorphisms of a principal $`G`$-bundle are gauge transformations, so this means that $`\left(\varphi _\alpha ^g\right)`$ defines a gauge transformation of the bundle.

The reader will probably be slightly confused to hear that equation (8) implies that $`\left(\varphi _\alpha ^g\right)`$ defines a gauge transformation. After all, one usually thinks of gauge transformations of bundles as being global maps into $`G`$, and if $`\left(\varphi _\alpha ^g\right)`$ defines a global map, then one would expect that $`\varphi _\alpha ^g=\varphi _\beta ^g`$ on $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$, not equation (8). Unfortunately, working at the level of Čech cochains means implicitly working in local trivializations, and for general $`G`$, including local trivializations makes the relationship between bundle automorphisms and gauge transformations less transparent.

So far we have argued that the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a principal $`G`$ bundle is defined by a set of gauge transformations. This is very reminiscent of  where we argued that the difference between any two orbifold group actions on a principal $`U(1)`$ bundle or on a $`B`$ field is defined by a set of gauge transformations. However, there is an important difference in the present case – although the difference between any two orbifold group actions is a set of gauge transformations, the gauge transformations do not form a representation of the orbifold group in general.

Specifically, from equation (5) we find that

$$\varphi _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}=\left(\overline{\gamma }_\alpha ^{g_2}\right)^1\left(g_2^{}\varphi _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)$$
(9)
In order for the gauge transformations $`\varphi _\alpha ^g`$ to define a representation of the orbifold group, we would have needed $`\varphi _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}=\left(g_2^{}\varphi _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\varphi _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)`$, but we see that this will only be true if $`\overline{\gamma }_\alpha ^{g_2}`$ commutes with $`g_2^{}\varphi _\alpha ^{g_1}`$, which will not be true in general.

However, in very special cases one can sometimes still recover a description of orbifold Wilson lines for principal $`G`$-bundles with connection in terms of $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$, the description most familiar to physicists. Specialize to the canonically trivial bundle (i.e., $`g_{\alpha \beta }1`$ for all $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$) over some path-connected space, with connection identically zero. On this principal $`G`$-bundle with connection there is a canonical trivial orbifold group action, defined by taking $`\gamma _\alpha ^g1`$ for all $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and all $`\alpha `$. There is also a family of nontrivial orbifold group actions, defined by taking $`\gamma _\alpha ^g`$ to be constant maps into $`G`$ (i.e., $`\gamma _\alpha ^g=\gamma ^g|_{U_\alpha }`$), forming a representation of the orbifold group:

$$\gamma ^{g_1g_2}=\left(\gamma ^{g_1}\right)\left(\gamma ^{g_2}\right)$$

In other words, each set of $`\{\gamma ^g\}`$ defining an orbifold group action defines an element of $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)`$. The reader can easily check that such $`\gamma ^g`$ yield a well-defined orbifold group action on the canonically trivial principal $`G`$-bundle with zero connection.

Now, we should be slightly careful. Not all of the elements of $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)`$ define distinct orbifold group actions on this special bundle with connection. Under a constant gauge transformation $`\varphi `$, the connection transforms as $`A^\alpha \varphi A^\alpha \varphi ^1`$. As a result, given an orbifold group action defined by constant $`\gamma ^g`$ as

$$g^{}A^\alpha =\left(\gamma ^g\right)\left(A^\alpha \right)\left(\gamma ^g\right)^1$$

if we gauge-transform by constant $`\varphi `$ we get

$$\varphi \left(g^{}A^\alpha \right)\varphi ^1=\left(\gamma ^g\right)\left(\varphi A^\alpha \varphi ^1\right)\left(\gamma ^g\right)^1$$

which can be rewritten as

$$g^{}A^\alpha =\left(\varphi ^1\gamma ^g\varphi \right)\left(A^\alpha \right)\left(\varphi ^1\gamma ^g\varphi \right)^1$$

In other words, a constant gauge transformation (on this special bundle with connection) will map an orbifold group action defined by $`\left\{\gamma ^g\right\}`$ to an orbifold group action defined by $`\left\{\varphi ^1\gamma ^g\varphi \right\}`$. Conversely, any two orbifold group actions that differ by conjugation by a constant map can be related by gauge transformation. Thus, on the canonical trivial bundle with trivial connection, distinct orbifold group actions are defined by elements of $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$, where modding out $`G`$ is done by conjugation.

Thus, on canonically trivial bundles with zero connection, we find a family of orbifold group actions defined by $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$. This result is often used in discussions of heterotic orbifolds – for example, it can be found in111In that reference, the group $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$ is described in a rather obscure fashion. Specifically, it is described in terms of root and weight lattices, and only for the special case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐙_n`$. .

We should emphasize that the occurence of $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$ above for nonabelian $`G`$ is much more restrictive than its occurrence for abelian $`G`$. For nonabelian $`G`$, we have found $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G`$ only for the special case of trivial principal $`G`$-bundles with zero connection. For abelian $`G`$, $`\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)/G=\text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Gamma },G)`$ is ubiquitous – for abelian $`G`$, elements of this group define differences between orbifold group actions on any222Assuming, as always, that the principal $`G`$-bundle with connection admits an action of the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. principal $`G`$-bundle with connection.

## 5 Orbifold group actions on induced gerbes

Before we can understand orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields, we first need to work out the orbifold group actions on the Čech-de Rham cocycles associated to $`\text{Tr }FF`$ and $`\text{Tr }RR`$, as induced by orbifold group actions on the corresponding bundles with connection.

As mentioned previously, the Čech-de Rham cocycle description of $`\text{Tr }FF`$ and $`\text{Tr }RR`$ is describing the connection on an associated 2-gerbe. The orbifold group action on the gauge and tangent bundles will induce an orbifold group action on these associated 2-gerbes with connection. Now, orbifold group actions on 2-gerbes with connection were previously studied in , so we can borrow the results of that paper to write, in general:

$`g^{}\omega _3^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\omega _3^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha `$
$`g^{}\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _2^{\alpha \beta }+d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\beta `$
$`g^{}\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _1^{\alpha \beta \gamma }+d\mathrm{log}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\beta \gamma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\gamma \alpha }`$
$`g^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\right)\left(\nu _{\beta \gamma \delta }^g\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \gamma \delta }^g\right)^1\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \delta }^g\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g\right)^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g_1)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1g_2)^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_2)^{\alpha \beta }+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g_1)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\beta `$
$`d\mathrm{log}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_2,g_3)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2g_3)^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`g_3^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1g_2,g_3)^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$
$`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{g_1}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\beta \gamma }^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\lambda _{\gamma \alpha }^{g_1,g_2}\right)`$
$`\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\beta ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1`$
$`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3g_4}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3,g_4}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3,g_4}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2,g_3,g_4}\right)\left(g_4^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}\right)`$
for some forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha `$, $`\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^g`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}`$, and $`\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2,g_3}`$ which define the orbifold group action on the corresponding principal bundles with connection.

As a much simpler example, it is very straightforward to work out the orbifold group action induced on the 0-gerbe (determinant bundle) associated to some principal bundle with connection. Recall that the 0-gerbe with connection has curvature $`\text{Tr }F`$, local connections $`\text{Tr }A^\alpha `$, and transition functions $`detg_{\alpha \beta }`$. Also recall that the orbifold group action on a principal $`G`$-bundle with connection is described by functions $`\gamma _\alpha ^g`$, where

$`g^{}A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)A^\alpha \left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)^1+\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)d\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)^1`$
$`g^{}g_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)\left(g_{\alpha \beta }\right)\left(\gamma _\beta ^g\right)^1`$
$`\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g_2^{}\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)`$
From this description, it is easy to compute that

$`g^{}\text{Tr }F`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr }F`$
$`g^{}\text{Tr }A^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr }A^\alpha +\text{Tr }\left(\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)d\left(\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr }A^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}\left(det\gamma _\alpha ^g\right)`$
$`det\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(det\gamma _\alpha ^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}det\gamma _\alpha ^{g_1}\right)`$
so we see explicitly that the orbifold group action on a principal $`G`$-bundle with connection defines an orbifold group action on the associated 0-gerbe (determinant bundle) with connection.

## 6 Orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$-fields

Now that we have described heterotic $`B`$ fields on local coordinate patches, and described the orbifold group actions induced on Chern-Simons forms by orbifold group actions on principal bundles with connection, we are finally ready to work out orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields.

First, recall that in the Green-Schwarz mechanism, gauge transformations of the bundle which induce

$$\omega _3^\alpha \omega _3^\alpha \text{Tr }\left(d\mathrm{\Lambda }dA^\alpha \right)$$

the $`B`$ field transforms as

$$B^\alpha B^\alpha +\text{Tr }\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }dA^\alpha \right)$$

(so that $`H`$ remains invariant). From this fact and the fact that under the action of the orbifold group,

$$g^{}\omega _3^\alpha =\omega _3^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}(g)^\alpha $$

we see that, in general,

$$g^{}B^\alpha =B^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,F)}(g)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,R)}(g)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha $$
(10)
for some local one-forms $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$.

Also note that this implies that $`g^{}H=H`$. In fact, we should have expected this – since $`H`$ has no gauge transformations, any well-defined orbifold group action must map $`H`$ back into precisely itself.

From the fact that

$$B^\alpha B^\beta =dA^{\alpha \beta }\omega _{2,F}^{\alpha \beta }+\omega _{2,R}^{\alpha \beta }$$

we can derive that

$$g^{}A^{\alpha \beta }=A^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,F)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,R)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+d\mathrm{log}\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g$$
(11)
for some local function $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g`$.

From the fact that

$$A^{\alpha \beta }+A^{\beta \gamma }+A^{\gamma \alpha }=\omega _{1,F}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }\omega _{1,R}^{\alpha \beta \gamma }+d\mathrm{log}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B$$

we can derive that

$$g^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B=\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{Fg}\right)^1\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{Rg}\right)\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(\kappa _{\beta \gamma }^g\right)\left(\kappa _{\gamma \alpha }^g\right)$$
(12)
From expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$ in two different ways, we find that

$$\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{Fg_1,g_2}\right)^1\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{Rg_1,g_2}\right)\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)=\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(h_\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1$$
(13)
for some local functions $`h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$.

From writing $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2g_3}`$ in two different ways, we find that

$$\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Fg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Rg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)=\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)$$
(14)
From expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}B^\alpha `$ in two different ways, we find

$$d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,F)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,R)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha =d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1)^\alpha $$
(15)
and from expanding $`(g_1g_2)^{}A^{\alpha \beta }`$ in two different ways, we find

$`\delta [\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,F)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha `$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,R)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}]`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\delta \left[\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1)^\alpha \right]`$
which we combine to conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,F)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,R)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1)^\alpha $$
(17)
To summarize, we have discovered that an orbifold group action on a heterotic $`B`$ field is defined by

$`g^{}H`$ $`=`$ $`H`$
$`g^{}B^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`B^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,F)}(g)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,R)}(g)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$
$`g^{}A^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`A^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\beta `$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,F)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,R)}(g)^{\alpha \beta }+d\mathrm{log}\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g`$
$`g^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B\right)\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{Fg}\right)^1\left(\nu _{\alpha \beta \gamma }^{Rg}\right)\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(\kappa _{\beta \gamma }^g\right)\left(\kappa _{\gamma \alpha }^g\right)`$
$`\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{Fg_1,g_2}\right)^1\left(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^{Rg_1,g_2}\right)\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(h_\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1`$
$`\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Fg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Rg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1g_2)^\alpha +d\mathrm{log}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,F)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(3,R)}(g_1,g_2)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_2)^\alpha `$
$`+g_2^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g_1)^\alpha `$
for some $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$, $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g`$, and $`h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ introduced to define the orbifold group action on the heterotic $`B`$ field. Note that this is the same set of data needed to define an orbifold group action on a $`B`$ field for the case $`dH=0`$ ; the difference in the present case is that the orbifold group action is warped by the interaction with the gauge and tangent bundles.

## 7 Differences between orbifold group actions

In , the group $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ was recovered when describing the differences between orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields such that $`dH=0`$. With that in mind, we shall now examine the differences between orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields.

Assume the orbifold group actions on the gauge and tangent bundles are fixed. Let the data defining the two orbifold group actions on the heterotic $`B`$ field be distinguished by an overline. Define

$`T_{\alpha \beta }^g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^g}{\overline{\kappa }_{\alpha \beta }^g}}`$
$`A(g)^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$
$`\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}}{\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}}}`$
From the expressions

$`g^{}B^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`B^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,F)}(g)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,R)}(g)^\alpha +d\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`B^\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,F)}(g)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2,R)}(g)^\alpha +d\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$
we see that

$$dA(g)^\alpha =\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}$$
(18)
From writing $`g^{}A^{\alpha \beta }`$ in two different ways, we find that

$$A(g)^\alpha A(g)^\beta =d\mathrm{log}T_{\alpha \beta }^g$$
(19)
From writing $`g^{}h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }^B`$ in two different ways, we find that

$$\left(T_{\alpha \beta }^g\right)\left(T_{\beta \gamma }^g\right)\left(T_{\gamma \alpha }^g\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}$$
(20)
From the equations above, we see that the $`T_{\alpha \beta }^g`$ are transition functions for a principal $`U(1)`$ bundle with connection defined by $`A(g)^\alpha `$, and that that connection is flat.

By dividing the expressions for $`\kappa _{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}`$ and $`\overline{\kappa }_{\alpha \beta }^{g_1,g_2}`$, we find that

$$T_{\alpha \beta }^{g_1g_2}=\left(T_{\alpha \beta }^{g_2}\right)\left(g_2^{}T_{\alpha \beta }^{g_1}\right)\left(\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)\left(\omega _\beta ^{g_1,g_2}\right)^1$$
(21)
From subtracting the expressions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{(1,B)}(g)^\alpha `$, we find that

$$A(g_1g_2)^\alpha d\mathrm{log}\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}=A(g_2)^\alpha +g_2^{}A(g_1)^\alpha $$
(22)
These two expressions tell us that the $`\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}`$ define connection-preserving bundle isomorphisms

$$\omega ^{g_1,g_2}:T^{g_2}g_2^{}T^{g_1}T^{g_1g_2}$$

Finally, by dividing the expressions

$`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Fg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Rg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(h_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(h_\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)`$
$`\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Fg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)\left(\gamma _\alpha ^{Rg_1,g_2,g_3}\right)^1\left(\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\overline{h}_\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)`$
we find that

$$\left(\omega _\alpha ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\right)\left(g_3^{}\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2}\right)=\left(\omega _\alpha ^{g_1,g_2g_3}\right)\left(\omega _\alpha ^{g_2,g_3}\right)$$
(23)
This means that the connection-preserving bundle morphisms $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2}`$ must make the following diagram commute:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T^{g_3}g_3^{}\left(T^{g_2}g_2^{}T^{g_1}\right)& \stackrel{\omega ^{g_1,g_2}}{}& T^{g_3}g_3^{}T^{g_1g_2}\\ \text{ }\omega ^{g_2,g_3}& & \text{ }\omega ^{g_1g_2,g_3}\text{ }\\ T^{g_2g_3}(g_2g_3)^{}T^{g_1}& \stackrel{\omega ^{g_1,g_2g_3}}{}& T^{g_1g_2g_3}\end{array}$$
(24)
So far we have recovered the fact that the difference between two orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields (with fixed orbifold group actions on the gauge and tangent bundles) is defined by the same data as for $`B`$ fields such that $`dH=0`$ : namely, pairs $`(T^g,\omega ^{g_1,g_2})`$ of bundles $`T^g`$ with flat connection and connecting morphisms $`\omega ^{g_1,g_2}`$ making diagram (24) commute.

Also, orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields are subject to the same equivalences as in . If $`\kappa _g:T^gT^g`$ is a connection-preserving isomorphism of principal $`G`$-bundles, then we can replace the data $`(T^g,\omega ^{g_1,g_2})`$ with the data $`(T^g,\kappa _{g_1g_2}\omega ^{g_1,g_2}\left(\kappa _{g_2}g_2^{}\kappa _{g_1}\right)^1)`$.

Since the differences between orbifold group actions on heterotic $`B`$ fields are defined by precisely the same data as for type II $`B`$ fields , we recover the group $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$ as well as the twisted-sector phases of  in precisely the same fashion as .

## 8 Conclusions

In this paper we have outlined a purely mathematical understanding of discrete torsion for heterotic $`B`$ fields, as opposed to type II $`B`$ fields, thereby filling a gap present in the earlier work . Specifically, after working out a gerbe-like description of heterotic $`B`$ fields, and after discussing orbifold group actions on principal $`G`$-bundles with connection for non-abelian $`G`$, we use a self-consistent bootstrap (in the style of ) to construct orbifold group actions on $`B`$ fields. Discrete torsion arises in the same fashion as in , namely in terms of the difference between orbifold group actions.

As in , the results in this paper do not assume that the orbifold group acts freely. Also as in , we do not assume the heterotic $`B`$ field has vanishing curvature (though, as in , one needs to check that orbifold group actions on a given field configuration actually exist before attempting to formally classify them).

Finally, as in , our analysis does not assume any features of string theory. As in , discrete torsion can be understood in a purely mathematical framework, without any reference to string theory. In other words, there is nothing “inherently stringy” about discrete torsion.

One loose end we have had difficulty tying up involves the level-matching conditions of heterotic orbifolds. We strongly suspect that satisfying the level-matching conditions is equivalent to the statement that the orbifold group actions on the gauge and tangent bundles are consistent with the orbifold group action on the heterotic $`B`$ field. In other words, we suspect the level-matching condition is equivalent to demanding that the orbifold group action on the heterotic $`B`$ field be well-defined. Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to show this rigorously.

## 9 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank P. Aspinwall, A. Knutson, D. Morrison, and R. Plesser for useful conversations.

This research was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant number DMS-0074072.


text:
# Convergence to the critical attractor of dissipative maps: Log-periodic oscillations, fractality and nonextensivity

## I introduction

Nonlinear low-dimensional dissipative maps can describe a great variety of systems with few degrees of freedom. The underlying nonlinearity can induce the system to exhibit a complex behavior with quite structured paths in the phase space. The sensitivity to initial conditions is a relevant aspect associated to the structure of the dynamical attractor. In general, the sensitivity is measured as the effect of any uncertainty on the system’s variables. For systems exhibiting periodic or chaotic orbits, the effect of any uncertainty on initial conditions depicts an exponential temporal evolution with $`\xi (t)lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)0}\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)/\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)e^{\lambda t}`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the Lyapunov exponent, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)`$ are the uncertainties at times $`0`$ and $`t`$. When the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda <0`$, $`\xi (t)`$ characterizes the rate of contraction towards periodic orbits. On the other hand, for $`\lambda >0`$, it characterizes the rate of divergence of chaotic orbits. At bifurcation and critical points (i.e., onset to chaos) the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda `$ vanishes. Recently, it was shown that this feature is related to a power-law sensitivity to initial conditions on the form

$$\xi (t)=[1+(1q)\lambda _qt]^{1/(1q)},$$
(1)
with $`\lambda _q`$ defining a characteristic time scale after which the power-law behavior sets up.

A quantitative way to measure the sensitivity to initial conditions is to follow, from a particular partition of the phase space, the temporal evolution of the number of cells $`W(t)`$ occupied by an ensemble of identical copies of the system. For periodic and chaotic orbits $`W(t)=W(0)e^{\lambda t}`$. In the particular case of equiprobability, the well-known Pesin equality reads $`K=\lambda `$ if $`\lambda 0`$ with $`K`$ being the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy  defined as the variation per unit time of the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy $`S=p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i`$. This equality provides a link between the sensitivity to initial conditions and the dynamic evolution of the relevant entropy.

At bifurcation and critical points and for an ensemble of initial conditions concentrated in a single cell, i.e. $`W(0)=1`$, it has been shown that

$$W(t)=[1+(1q)K_qt]^{1/(1q)},$$
(2)
with $`K_q`$ being the generalized Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy defined as the rate of variation of the non-extensive Tsallis entropy $`S_q=(1p_i^q)/(q1)`$. The Pesin equality can be generalized as $`K_q=\lambda _q`$ if $`\lambda _q0`$. Tsallis entropies have been successfully applied to recent studies of a series of non-extensive systems and provided a theoretical background to the understanding of some of their unusual physical properties.

The expansion towards the critical attractor of an ensemble of initial conditions concentrated around the inflexion point of the map can be characterized by a proper $`S_q`$ evolving at a constant rate. Scaling arguments have shown that the appropriate entropic index $`q`$ is related to the multifractal structure of the critical dynamical attractor by

$$\frac{1}{1q}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{min}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{max}}$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _{min}`$ and $`\alpha _{max}`$ are the extremal singularity strengths of the multifractal spectrum of the critical attractor. The above scaling relation has been shown to hold for the families of generalized logistic and circle maps.

However, the temporal evolution of critical dynamical systems can be strongly dependent on the particular initial ensemble. Although some scaling laws can be found for an ensemble of initial conditions concentrated around the map inflexion point, these are usually not universal with respect to a general ensemble. In this work, we are going to numerically investigate the critical temporal evolution of the volume of the phase space occupied by an ensemble of initial conditions spread over the entire phase space. This ensemble is expected to contract towards the critical attractor. Using a family of one-dimensional generalized logistic maps having $`d_f<1`$, we will perform a detailed study of the parametric dependence of $`W(t)`$ on the fractal dimension of the critical attractor. Due to the discrete scale invariance of the critical attractor, the convergence displays log-periodic oscillations. We are also going to explore the dependence of the amplitude of these oscillations with respect to the attractor’s fractal dimension. Further, the behavior of $`W(t)`$ will be investigated for the one-dimensional critical circle map having $`d_f=1`$. For this map, the temporal evolution is expected to display distinct trends since the critical attractor is dense.

## II The convergence to the critical attractor of generalized logistic maps

Logistic-like maps are the simplest one-dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems which allow a close investigation of a series of critical exponents related to the onset of chaotic orbits. This family reads

$$x_{t+1}=1a|x_t|^z;(z>1;0<a<2;t=0,1,2,\mathrm{};x_t[1,1]).$$
(4)
Here $`z`$ is the inflexion of the map in the neighborhood of the extremal point $`\overline{x}=0`$. These maps are well known to have topological properties not dependent of $`z`$. However, the metrical properties, such as Feigenbaum exponents and the multifractal spectrum of the critical attractor do depend on $`z`$. In particular the fractal dimension of the critical attractor $`d_f(z)<1`$ and therefore it does not fill a finite fraction of the phase space. For a set of initial conditions spread in the vicinity of the inflexion point, it was found that the volume in phase space occupied by the ensemble grows following a rich pattern with the upper bounds $`W_{max}(t)`$ governed by a power-law $`W_{max}(t)t^{1/(1q)}`$, where $`q`$ is the entropic index characterizing the relevant Tsallis entropy that grows at a constant rate. It has been shown that the dynamic exponent $`1/(1q)`$ is directly related to geometric scaling exponents related to the extremal sets of the dynamic attractor.

Due to the presence of long-range spatial and temporal correlations at criticality, one expects the critical exponent governing the temporal evolution to be sensitive to the particular initial ensemble. Indeed, the multifractal spectrum characterizing the critical dynamical attractor indicates that an infinite set of exponents are needed to fully characterize the scaling behavior. In particular, an ensemble consisting of a set of identical systems whose initial conditions is spread over the entire phase-space is a common one when studying non-linear as well as thermodynamical systems.

Here, we will follow the dynamic evolution, in phase space, of an ensemble of initial conditions uniformly distributed over the phase-space and explore its relation with the generalized fractal dimensions of the critical attractor. In practice, a partition of the phase space on $`N_{box}`$ cells of equal size is performed and a set of $`N_c`$ identical copies of the system is followed whose initial conditions are uniformly spread over the phase-space. The ratio $`r=N_c/N_{box}`$ is a control parameter giving the degree of sampling of the phase-space.

Within the non-extensive Tsallis statistics, there is a proper entropy $`S_q`$ evolving at a constant rate such that

$$K_q=\underset{N_{box}\mathrm{}}{lim}[S_q(t)S_q(0)]/t$$
(5)
goes to a constant value as $`t\mathrm{}`$. Notice that $`K_q<0`$ for the process of convergence towards the critical attractor. Assuming that all cells of the partition are occupied with equal probability, the entropy $`S_q(t)`$ can be written as

$$S_q(t)=\frac{1_{i=1}^{W(t)}p_i^q}{q1}=\frac{W(t)^{1q}1}{1q}$$
(6)
The last two equations imply that the number of occupied cells evolves in time as

$$W(t)=[W(0)^{1q}+(1q)K_qt]^{1/(1q)}$$
(7)
with the exponent $`\mu =1/(q1)>0`$ governing the asymptotic power-law decay.

In figure 1, we show our results for $`W(t)/N_{box}`$ in the standard logistic map with inflexion $`z=2`$ and from distinct partitions of the phase space with sampling ratio $`r=0.1`$ . We observe that, after a short transient period when $`W(t)`$ is nearly constant, a power-law contraction of the volume occupied by the ensemble sets up. $`W(t)`$ saturates at a finite fraction corresponding to the phase space volume occupied by the critical attractor on a given finite partition. The saturation is postponed when a finer partition is used once the fraction occupied by the critical attractor vanishes in the limit $`N_{box}\mathrm{}`$.

In figure 2, we show $`W(t)/N_{box}`$ for a given fine partition of the phase-space and distinct sampling ratios $`r`$. We notice that the crossover regime to the power-law scaling is quite short for large values of $`r`$ so that a clear power-law scaling regime sets up even at early times. This feature is consistent with eq.(7) which states that the crossover time $`\tau `$ scales as $`\tau 1/W(0)^{q1}`$. Further, the scaling regime exhibits log-periodic oscillations once the multifractal nature of the critical attractor is closely probed by such dense ensemble. A general form for $`W(t)`$ reflecting the discrete scale invariance of the attractor can be written as

$$W(t)=t^\mu P\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }\right)$$
(8)
where $`P`$ is a function of period unity and $`\lambda `$ is the characteristic scaling factor between the periods of two consecutive oscillations. These log-periodic oscillations have been observed in a large number of systems exhibiting discrete scale invariance. In general the amplitude of these oscillations ranges form $`10^4`$ up to $`10^1`$. Keeping only the first term in a Fourier series of $`P(\mathrm{ln}t/\mathrm{ln}\lambda )`$, one can write $`W(t)`$ in the form

$$W(t)=c_0t^\mu \left[1+2\frac{c_1}{c_0}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda }+\varphi \right)\right].$$
(9)
Log-periodic modulations correcting a pure power-law have been found in several systems, as, for example, diffusion-limited-aggregation, crack growth, earthquakes and financial markets. It has also been observed in thermodynamic systems with fractal-like energy spectrum. The factors controlling the log-periodic relative amplitude $`2c_1/c_0`$ are not well known for most of the systems where it has been observed. In the present study, we can closely investigate the factors which may control these amplitudes by measuring it as a function of the map inflexion $`z`$ for a fixed partition and sampling ratio (see figure 3). We found that these oscillations have amplitudes decaying exponentially with $`z`$ as shown in figure 4. It is interesting to point out that the fractal dimension of the attractor is a monotonically decreasing function of $`z`$. Therefore, the above trend indicates a possible correlation between the amplitude of the log-periodic oscillations and the fractal dimension of the dynamical attractor.

We also measured the critical exponent $`\mu `$ as a function of the map inflexion $`z`$. Our results are summarized in the Table. It is a decreasing function of $`z`$ as can be seen in figure 5. The volume occupied by the ensemble depicts a fast contraction for $`z1`$ where the fractal dimension is small. On the other side, a very slow contraction is observed for large values of $`z`$, pointing towards a saturation or at most to a logarithmic decrease of $`W(t)`$ in the limit of dense attractors. We would like to point out here that the exponent governing the expansion of the volume occupied by an ensemble of initial conditions concentrated around the inflexion point exhibits a reversed trend. Although scaling arguments have shown that this exponent can be written in terms of scaling exponents characterizing the extremal sets in the attractor, we could not devise a simple scaling relation between $`\mu `$ and the multifractal singularity spectrum. However, we observed that, when plotted against the fractal dimension of the attractor as shown in figure 6, the dynamic exponent $`\mu `$ is very well fitted by $`\mu (1d_f)^2`$, which indicates $`d_f`$ as the relevant geometric exponent coupled to the dynamics of the uniform ensemble. We would like to mention here that the same dynamic exponents were obtained for the generalized periodic maps which belong to the same universality class of logistic-like maps.

## III The convergence to the critical attractor of the circle map

The results from the previous section indicate that a slow convergence to the critical attractor shall be expected for dense critical attractors. However, it is not clear in what fashion this convergence will take place when the dynamical attractor fills the phase space with a multifractal probability density as occurs for the one-dimensional critical circle map

$$\theta _{t+1}=\theta _t+\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \theta _t)mod(1)$$
(10)
where $`0\theta _t<1`$ is a point on a circle. The circle map describes dynamical systems possessing a natural frequency $`\omega _1`$ which are driven by an external force of frequency $`\omega _2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _1/\omega _2`$ is the bare winding number) and belongs to the same universality class of the forced Rayleigh-Bénard convection. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0.606661\mathrm{}`$ the circle map has a cubic inflexion ($`z=3`$) in the vicinity of the point $`\overline{\theta }=0`$. Starting from a given point on the circle, it generates a quasi-periodic orbit which fills the phase-space and the dynamical attractor is a multifractal with fractal dimension $`d_f=1`$.

In figure 7 we show our results for the temporal evolution of the phase-space volume occupied by an ensemble of initial conditions uniformly spread over the circle. $`W(t)`$ exhibits a rich pattern which resembles the one observed for the sensitivity function associated to the expansion of the phase-space from initial conditions concentrated around the inflexion point. However, $`W(t)`$ does not present any power-law regime. Instead, the lower bounds display a slow logarithmic decrease with time, saturating at a finite volume fraction. The saturation is a feature related to the finite partition used in the numerical calculation. This minimum decreases logarithmically with the number of cells in the phase-space as shown in figure 8. We also observed the same behavior for generalized circle maps with an arbitrary inflexion $`z`$. The critical attractors within this family have all $`d_f=1`$ although they exhibit a $`z`$-dependent multifractal singularity spectra. The $`z`$-independent scenario for $`W(t)`$ corroborates the conjecture that $`d_f`$ is the relevant geometric exponent coupled to the dynamics of the uniform ensemble.

## IV Summary and Conclusions

In this work, we studied the temporal evolution in phase space of an ensemble of identical copies of one-dimensional nonlinear dissipative maps. We found that the phase-space volume occupied by an initially uniform ensemble displays a power-law decay with log-periodic oscillations whenever the dynamical attractor has a fractal dimension $`d_f<1`$, i.e., when the fractal attractor does not densely fill the phase space. Generally, these oscillations also emerge in open high-dimensional systems operating at a self-organized critical state. The spatio-temporal long-range correlations present on the critical state reflect the scale invariance of the dynamical attractor. Therefore, the present work corroborates the concept that the fractal nature of the dynamical attractor and the presence of a characteristic scaling factor are key ingredients for the emergence of log-periodic oscillations.The amplitude of the oscillations was found to depict a monotonic parametric dependence on $`d_f`$. For dense multifractal attractors, $`W(t)`$ presents only a slow logarithmic contraction of its lower bounds followed by a rich pattern.

The critical exponent characterizing the contraction of the uniform ensemble was found to have no direct relation to the one governing the expansion from a set of initial conditions concentrated around the inflexion point. In particular, no power-law was found for the contraction in the standard and generalized circle maps, in contrast to the $`z`$-dependent power-law expansion. These results indicate that the relevant Tsallis entropy evolving at a constant rate (modulated by log-periodic oscillations) is characterized by an entropic index $`q`$ that depends on the initial ensemble. It would be valuable to investigate the possible existence of classes of ensembles with a common dynamics in phase-space and, therefore, characterized by the same entropic index $`q`$. The non-universality of $`q`$ with respect to the initial ensemble is related to the multifractal character of the dynamical attractor. However, as for the ensemble concentrated at the vicinity of the inflexion point, the exponent governing the dynamics of the uniform ensemble is coupled to a geometric scaling exponent, in particular to the proper fractal dimension of the attractor. Extensive numerical work would be valuable to verify the validity of the proposed relation on higher-dimensional systems. In any case, the present results come in favor of the concept that the degree of nonextensivity of the entropy measure evolving at a constant rate is related to the fractal nature of the dynamical attractor.

## V acknowledgments

UT acknowledges the partial support of BAYG-C program of TUBITAK (Turkish agency) as well as CNPq and PRONEX (Brazilian agencies). This work was partially supported by CNPq and CAPES (Brazilian research agencies). MLL would like to thank the hospitality of the Physics Department at Universidade Federal de Pernambuco during the Summer School 2000 where this work was partially developed.

## FIGURE AND TABLE CAPTIONS

Figure 1 - The volume occupied by the ensemble $`W(t)`$ (number of occupied boxes) as a function of discrete time in the standard logistic map ($`z=2`$) and with sampling ratio $`r=0.1`$. From top to bottom $`N_{box}=2000,8000,32000,128000`$.

Figure 2 - The volume occupied by the ensemble $`W(t)`$ as a function of discrete time in the standard logistic map ($`z=2`$) and for a partition containing $`N_{box}=128000`$ cells. Notice the emergence of log-periodic oscillations for large sampling ratios.

Figure 3 - The periodic function $`W(t)/(c_0t^\mu )`$ versus discrete time within the scaling regime and for $`r=10`$. Data from map inflexions $`z=1.1,1.25,1.5,2.0`$ are shown. The amplitude of the oscillations decreases monotonically as $`z`$ increases, but the characteristic scaling factor between the periods of two consecutive oscillations is roughly $`z`$-independent.

Figure 4 - The amplitude of the log-periodic oscillations $`2c_1/c_0`$ as a function of the map inflexion $`z`$ for sampling ratio $`r=10`$. The monotonic decrease of the oscillations indicates a close relation between these and the fractal dimension of the underlying dynamical attractor.

Figure 5 - The dynamic exponent $`\mu `$ governing the contraction of the occupied phase space volume \[$`W(t)t^\mu `$\] as a function of the map inflexion $`z`$.

Figure 6 \- $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(\mu )`$ versus $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(d_f)`$. The parametric dependence of the dynamic exponent $`\mu `$ with the fractal dimension $`d_f`$ of the critical attractor is very well fitted to the form $`\mu (1d_f)^2`$. It indicates that $`d_f`$ is the relevant geometric exponent coupled to the dynamics of the uniform ensemble.

Figure 7 - The volume occupied by the ensemble $`W(t)`$ as a function of discrete time in the standard critical circle map. The lower bounds display a slow logarithmic decay with time saturating at a finite volume fraction due to the finite partition of the phase space.

Figure 8 - The asymptotic lower bounds for the occupied volume in the phase space versus the number of cells $`N_{box}`$. The logarithmic decay agrees with the prediction that $`\mu (d_f1)0`$. The same behavior was observed for the family of generalized circle maps and corroborates the conjecture that $`d_f`$ is the relevant geometric exponent coupled to the dynamics of the uniform ensemble.

Table  \- Numerical values, within the $`z`$-generalized family of logistic maps, of: i) the dynamic exponent $`\mu `$ governing the contraction towards the critical attractor of the uniform ensemble; ii) the entropic index $`q`$ of the proper Tsallis entropy decreasing at a constant rate; iii) the fractal dimension $`d_f`$ of the critical attractor. These values also hold for the generalized periodic maps. The last line represents our results for the $`z`$-generalized circle maps.

Table

| $`z`$ | $`\mu =1/(1q)`$ | $`q`$ | $`d_f`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1.10`$ | $`1.62\pm 0.02`$ | $`1.62\pm 0.01`$ | $`0.32\pm 0.02`$ |
| $`1.25`$ | $`1.23\pm 0.01`$ | $`1.81\pm 0.01`$ | $`0.40\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`1.5`$ | $`0.95\pm 0.01`$ | $`2.05\pm 0.01`$ | $`0.47\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`1.75`$ | $`0.80\pm 0.01`$ | $`2.25\pm 0.015`$ | $`0.51\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`2.0`$ | $`0.71\pm 0.01`$ | $`2.41\pm 0.02`$ | $`0.54\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`2.5`$ | $`0.59\pm 0.01`$ | $`2.70\pm 0.02`$ | $`0.58\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`3.0`$ | $`0.515\pm 0.005`$ | $`2.94\pm 0.02`$ | $`0.60\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`5.0`$ | $`0.395\pm 0.005`$ | $`3.53\pm 0.03`$ | $`0.66\pm 0.01`$ |
| $`z`$-circular |  |  |  |
| maps | $`0.0`$ | $`\mathrm{}`$ | $`1.0`$ |