format: text

text:
# The Topological Structure of Contact and Symplectic Quotients

## 1. Introduction

The notion of reduction of degrees of freedom in Hamiltonian mechanics has a long history. It was formalized in the early 1970s in the work of Marsden and Weinstein and, independently, Meyer. With the assumption of a freely acting symmetry group, they showed that the reduced system inherited a symplectic structure from the original system and that the reduced dynamics was intimately related to the original dynamics. A fair amount of effort by a number of people was spent during the 1980s on removing the assumption that the action is free. For example, it was proved by Arms, Marsden and Moncrief that the quotient of the zero level set of a moment map by the group action is a union of symplectic manifolds \[AMM\]. Arms, Cushman and Gotay showed that on a symplectic reduced space there is a natural Poisson algebra of functions \[ACG\]. In \[SL, BL\] it was proved that reduced spaces are stratified spaces in the sense that a neighborhood of a point is a product of a disk with a cone on a compact stratified space, that the strata are symplectic and that the symplectic structures on the strata are tightly related.

The earliest appearance of the notion of a contact quotient that we are aware of is in the work of Guillemin and Sternberg \[GS\] on homogeneous quantization, where it appeared in the guise of reduction of symplectic cones. Independently Albert \[Al\] and Geiges \[Ge\] each showed (under the assumption that the symmetry group acts freely on the zero level set of the contact moment map) that the quotient of the zero level set of the moment map by the group action, that is, the contact quotient, was naturally a contact manifold.

The first result of this paper removes the freeness assumption and shows that, in general, the contact quotients are naturally stratified spaces:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`M`$ be a manifold with a co-oriented contact structure $`\xi `$. Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on $`M`$ preserving $`\xi `$. Choose a $`G`$-invariant contact form $`\alpha `$ with $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha =\xi `$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ be the corresponding moment map.

Then for every subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$, each connected component of the topological space

$$\left(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\right)/G$$

is a manifold and the partition of the contact quotient

$$M_0M//G:=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)/G$$

into these manifolds is a stratification. The symbol $`M_{(H)}`$ stands for the set of points in $`M`$ with the isotropy groups conjugate to $`H`$.

It can be shown that the strata of a contact quotient are contact manifolds. This will be discussed elsewhere.

The second main result of the paper is a natural short proof that symplectic quotients are stratified spaces. The proof uses the fact that neighborhoods of singularities of symplectic quotients are products of a disk with a cone on a contact reduced space. The result extends and simplifies the results of \[SL, BL\].

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a proper Hamiltonian action of a Lie group $`G`$ and a corresponding equivariant moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$. Fix a point $`\beta 𝔤^{}`$; denote its isotropy group under the coadjoint action by $`G_\beta `$.

Then for every subgroup $`H`$ of $`G_\beta `$, each connected component of the topological space

$$\left(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta )\right)/G_\beta $$

is a manifold, and the partition of the symplectic quotient at $`\beta `$

$$M//G(\beta )M_\beta :=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta )/G_\beta $$

into these manifolds is a stratification. The symbol $`M_{(H)}`$ stands for the set of points in $`M`$ with the isotropy groups conjugate to $`H`$.

An outline of the contents of the paper is as follows:

1. Due to the multiple notions of stratification, we first make precise the meaning of the structure that we will place upon the contact and symplectic quotients.
2. A short review of the germane results of group actions on co-oriented contact manifolds is then pursued. We define moment maps, the contact quotient, and give a sketch of the result of \[Ge\].
3. We then prove the two main theorems simultaneously. The central idea is that both contact and symplectic quotients are locally modeled by reductions of vector spaces by compact groups.
4. We finish the paper with a proof of a local normal form theorem for group actions on contact manifolds which is modeled on the local normal form theorem of Marle and of Guillemin and Sternberg for symplectic manifolds.

### Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Reyer Sjamaar for his helpful suggestion that an inductive argument on dimension of the links of singularities should quickly prove the main results of the paper.

### A note on notation

Throughout the paper the Lie algebra of a Lie group denoted by a capital Roman letter will be denoted by the same small letter in the fraktur font: thus $`𝔤`$ denotes the Lie algebra of a Lie group $`G`$ etc. The identity element of a Lie group is denoted by 1. The natural pairing between $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤^{}`$ will be denoted by $`,`$.

When a Lie group $`G`$ acts on a manifold $`M`$ we denote the action by an element $`gG`$ on a point $`xG`$ by $`gx`$ or occasionally by $`\tau _g(x)`$; $`Gx`$ denotes the $`G`$-orbit of $`x`$ and so on. The vector field induced on $`M`$ by an element $`X`$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$ is denoted by $`X_M`$. The isotropy group of a point $`xM`$ is denoted by $`G_x`$; the Lie algebra of $`G_x`$ is denoted by $`𝔤_x`$ and is referred to as the isotropy Lie algebra of $`x`$. We recall that $`𝔤_x=\{X𝔤X_M(x)=0\}`$.

If $`P`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle then $`[p,m]`$ denotes the point in the associated bundle $`P\times _GM=(P\times M)/G`$ which is the orbit of $`(p,m)P\times M`$.

If $`\omega `$ is a differential form on a manifold $`M`$ and $`Y`$ is a vector field on $`M`$, the contraction of $`\omega `$ by $`Y`$ is denoted by $`\iota (Y)\omega `$.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Partitions and stratifications

Since the word “stratification” is used to describe many different types of partitions of topological spaces into manifolds, we start by describing precisely the meaning that we attach to the term. This is a quick review.

###### Definition 2.1.

A partition of a Hausdorff topological space $`X`$ is a collection of connected subsets $`\{𝒮_i\}`$ of $`X`$ such that, set-theoretically, $`X`$ is the disjoint union of $`𝒮_i`$’s. We refer to the pair $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ as a partitioned space and to the subsets $`𝒮_i`$ as pieces.

###### Remark 2.2.

The connectedness of the pieces in the definition of a partitioned space is slightly superfluous as we could simply refine a partition by non-connected pieces into one by connected pieces.

###### Remark 2.3.

The product of two partitioned spaces $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ and $`(Y,\{𝒫_i\})`$ is the partitioned space $`(X\times Y,\{𝒮_i\times 𝒫_j\})`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

An open subset $`U`$ of a partitioned space $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ is naturally a partitioned space: the sets $`U𝒮_i`$ form a partition of $`U`$.

###### Definition 2.5.

Two partitioned spaces are isomorphic if they are homeomorphic and the homeomorphism takes pieces to pieces.

Recall that a cone on a topological space $`X`$, denoted by $`\stackrel{˚}{c}(X)`$, is the quotient of the product $`X\times [0,1)`$ by the relation $`(x,0)(x^{},0)`$ for all $`x,x^{}X`$. That is, $`\stackrel{˚}{c}(X)`$ is $`X\times [0,1)`$ with the “boundary” $`X\times \{0\}`$ collapsed to a point, the vertex $``$ of the cone.

###### Remark 2.6.

The cone on a partitioned space $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ is the partitioned space

$$(\stackrel{˚}{c}(X),\{\}\{𝒮_i\times (0,1)\})$$

###### Definition 2.7.

If the pieces of a partitioned space $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ are manifolds then we can define the dimension of $`X`$ to be

$$dimX=\underset{i}{sup}dim𝒮_i.$$

###### Remark 2.8.

Note that the dimension of a partitioned space depends upon the choice of the partition. For example, every manifold admits a partition into points. For such a partition the dimension of the manifold as partitioned space is zero. However, the manifold dimension is always an upper bound for the partitioned space dimension.

We will only consider finite dimensional spaces. Unless otherwise mentioned we will partition connected manifolds into one piece only. Note that if a space $`X`$ is partitioned into manifolds, then so is the cone on $`X`$ and

$$dim\stackrel{˚}{c}(X)=dimX+1.$$

A stratification is a particularly nice type of a partition into manifolds. The definition is recursive on the dimension of partitioned space.

###### Definition 2.9.

(cf. \[GM\]) A partitioned space $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ is a stratified space if each piece $`𝒮_i`$ is a manifold and if for every piece $`𝒮`$ and for every point $`x𝒮`$ there exist

1. an open neighborhood $`U`$ about $`x`$,
2. an open ball $`B`$ in $`𝒮`$ about $`x`$,
3. a compact stratified space $`L`$, called the link of the stratification of $`X`$ at $`x`$ ($`L`$ may be empty) and
4. an isomorphism $`\phi :B\times \stackrel{˚}{c}(L)U`$ of partitioned spaces (If $`L=\mathrm{}`$ we require that $`U`$ is homeomorphic to the ball $`B`$.)

The pieces of a stratified space are called strata; the collection of strata is called a stratification.

###### Remark 2.10.

1. A zero dimensional stratified space is a discrete set of points.
2. A connected manifold is a stratified space with exactly one stratum.
3. A cone on a compact manifold is a stratified space.

An example of a stratification is furnished by the orbit type partition of an orbit space for a proper action of a Lie group on a manifold. Let us briefly review the relevant ideas (see the introduction for the notational conventions).

An action of a Lie group $`G`$ on a manifold $`M`$ is proper if the map $`G\times MM\times M`$ given by $`(g,m)(gm,m)`$ is proper, i.e., the preimages of compact sets under this map are compact. Note that for proper actions all isotropy groups are compact.

A slice for an action of a Lie group $`G`$ on a manifold $`M`$ at a point $`x`$ is a $`G_x`$ invariant submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`G\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an open subset of $`M`$ and such that the map $`G\times \mathrm{\Sigma }G\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(g,s)gs`$ descends to a diffeomorphism $`G\times _{G_x}\mathrm{\Sigma }G\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`[g,s]gs`$. Thus for any point $`yG\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the orbit $`Gy`$ intersects the slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in a single $`G_x`$-orbit. Also, for any $`y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`G_yG_x`$. A theorem of Palais \[P\] asserts that for smooth proper actions slices exist at every point.

Let $`M`$ be a manifold with a proper action of a Lie group $`G`$. For a subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ denote by $`M_{(H)}`$ the set of points in $`M`$ whose stabilizer is conjugate to $`H`$; i.e,

$$M_{(H)}=\{xM\text{there exists }gG\text{ such that }gG_xg^1=H\},$$

where $`G_x`$ denotes the stabilizer of $`x`$. The set $`M_{(H)}`$ is often referred to as the set of points of orbit type $`H`$.

It is an easy consequence of the existence of slices that the connected components of the sets $`M_{(H)}`$ are manifolds and that the components of the quotient $`M_{(H)}/G`$ are manifolds as well. Moreover, using induction on the dimension of $`M/G`$ one can show that the partition of $`M/G`$ into the connected components of the sets of the form $`M_{(H)}/G`$ is a stratification. The point of this paper is to adapt the argument for contact and symplectic quotients.

Note that in the paper we refer to both partitions

$$M=\underset{(H)}{}M_{(H)}$$

and

$$M/G=\underset{(H)}{}M_{(H)}/G$$

as stratifications by orbit type.

###### Remark 2.11.

If $`H`$ and $`K`$ are conjugate subgroups of $`G`$, then $`M_{(H)}=M_{(K)}`$. Thus, the indexing set for the stratification by orbit type is the set of conjugacy class of $`G`$.

We will extensively use the following easy fact.

###### Lemma 2.12.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$. Let $`xM`$ be a point and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }x`$ be a slice through $`x`$ for the action of $`G`$. Denote the isotropy group of $`x`$ by $`H`$.

Then for any $`H`$-invariant subset $`Z`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$(GZ)/G=Z/H(\text{as partitioned spaces})$$

where the left hand side is partitioned by $`G`$-orbit types and the right hand by $`H`$-orbit types.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a slice, for any $`mZ\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`GmZ`$ is a single $`H`$-orbit. ∎

### 2.2. Group actions on contact manifolds

Recall that a (co-oriented) contact structure on a manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`2n+1`$ is a distribution $`\xi `$ on $`M`$ given globally as the kernel of a 1-form $`\alpha `$ such that $`\alpha (d\alpha )^n0`$. The form $`\alpha `$ is called a contact form. Whenever convenient we will refer to a pair $`(M,\alpha )`$ or to a pair $`(M,\xi )`$ as a contact manifold.

An action of a Lie group $`G`$ on a manifold preserving a contact structure $`\xi `$ is called a contact action.

###### Remark 2.13.

If a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold and preserves a co-oriented contact structure $`\xi `$, then there exists a $`G`$-invariant 1-form $`\alpha `$ with $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha =\xi `$. If $`G`$ is compact, the proof of this assertion is easy: since $`\xi `$ is co-oriented, there exists by definition a 1-form $`\alpha _0`$ with $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _0=\xi `$. If $`\alpha _0`$ is not $`G`$-invariant, average it over $`G`$. If $`G`$ is not compact, the argument is only slightly more complicated. One adopts Palais’s proof of the existence of invariant Riemannian metrics on manifolds with proper group actions \[P\] to “average” $`\alpha _0`$. See, for example, \[L\] for details.

###### Definition 2.14.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$. We define the contact moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x),X=\alpha _x(X_M(x))$$

for all $`X`$ in the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`G`$ and all $`xM`$. The contact moment map is $`G`$equivariant, where as usual $`G`$ acts on $`𝔤^{}`$ by the coadjoint action (see \[Ge\]). Hence, the $`G`$ action descends to an action on the zero level set and we define the contact quotient (or contact reduction) of $`M`$ by $`G`$ to be the topological space

$$M_0M//G:=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)/G.$$

We will use the symbols $`M//G`$ and $`M_0`$ interchangeably.

We define the canonical partition of the quotient $`M//G`$ to be the the connected components of the sets of the form

$$(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0))/G$$

for all conjugacy classes $`(H)`$ of $`G`$.

Similarly symplectic quotients also have a canonical partition.

###### Definition 2.15.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a proper Hamiltonian action of a Lie group $`G`$ and a corresponding equivariant moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$. We define the symplectic quotient of $`M`$ at a point $`\beta 𝔤^{}`$ to be the topological space

$$M//G(\beta )M_\beta :=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta )/G_\beta ,$$

where $`G_\beta `$ denotes the isotropy group of $`\beta `$ under the coadjoint action.

Next we define the canonical partition of the quotient $`M_\beta `$ to be the connected components of the sets of the form

$$(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta ))/G_\beta $$

for all conjugacy classes $`(H)`$ of $`G`$.

###### Remark 2.16.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$. Albert and, independently, Geiges showed that if $`G`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$, then $`0`$ is a regular value of the corresponding moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the contact quotient $`M_0`$ is a manifold and $`\alpha |_{\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)}`$ descends to a contact form $`\alpha _0`$ on $`M`$ \[Al, Ge\]. See also \[GS\] where the result was obtained earlier in a different form (cf. the introduction).

###### Remark 2.17.

Recall that the symplectization of a contact manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$ is the symplectic manifold $`(M\times ,d(e^t\alpha ))`$. If a Lie group $`G`$ acts on $`M`$ and preserves $`\alpha `$ then the trivial extension of the action of $`G`$ to $`M\times `$ is Hamiltonian and a corresponding moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:M\times 𝔤^{}`$ is related to the contact moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(m,t)=e^t\mathrm{\Phi }(m)\text{for all}(m,t)M\times .$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\times `$. One can use this to give an alternative proof that, in the case of free proper actions, contact quotients are contact manifolds.

###### Remark 2.18.

Recall that the contactization of an exact symplectic manifold $`(M,d\lambda )`$ is the contact manifold $`(M\times ,\lambda +dt)`$. If a Lie group $`G`$ acts on $`M`$ preserving the 1-form $`\lambda `$ then the action is Hamiltonian with moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(m),X=\lambda _m(X_M(m))`$ for all $`X𝔤`$, all $`mM`$. The trivial extension of the action of $`G`$ to $`M\times `$ preserves the contact form. By definition the contact moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:M\times 𝔤^{}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(m,t),X=\lambda _m(X_M(m))`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ factors as $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\text{pr}`$, where $`\text{pr}:M\times M`$ is the projection. It follows that, as spaces,

$$(M\times )//G=M//G(0)\times .$$

If $`G`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$, it is not hard to show that the symplectic quotient at zero $`M//G(0)`$ is an exact symplectic manifold and that the two sides are the same as contact manifolds.

It will be particularly useful for us to consider the contactization of symplectic vector spaces. Suppose $`(V,\omega _V)`$ is a symplectic vector space. The Lie derivative of $`\omega _V`$ with respect to the radial vector field $`R(v):=v`$ is $`2\omega _V`$, hence

$$d(\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V)=\omega _V.$$

Therefore $`\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V+dt`$ is a contact form on $`V\times `$. Note that if $`\rho :H\mathrm{Sp}(V,\omega _V)`$ is a symplectic representation of a Lie group $`H`$ then, since the action of $`H`$ preserves the radial vector field $`R`$, the 1-form $`\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V`$ is $`H`$-invariant. Hence if we trivially extended the action of $`H`$ to the contactization $`V\times `$, the contact form $`\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V+dt`$ is $`H`$ invariant as well. We will refer to the contact manifold $`(V\times ,\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V+dt)`$ as a contact vector space and as the contactization of $`(V,\omega _V)`$.

## 3. Proof of the main result

Our proof of the main result — Theorems 1 and 2 — has two ingredients. The first one is an observation that arbitrary contact quotients are modeled on the contact quotients of contact vector spaces and that arbitrary symplectic quotients are modeled on the symplectic quotients of symplectic vector spaces. The second one is Lemma 3.3, below, which describes the structure of contact and symplectic quotients of vector spaces.

The idea that a symplectic quotient for a reasonable group action can be modeled on a symplectic quotient of a vector space is due to R. Sjamaar. The idea was implemented for reduction at zero by an action of a compact Lie group in \[SL\] and for reduction at a locally closed coadjoint orbit by a proper action of an arbitrary Lie group in \[BL\].

It was pointed out by Ortega and Ratiu that the technical assumption on the coadjoint orbit in \[BL\] is unnecessary if one defines symplectic quotients as in Definition 2.15. It was shown in \[BL\] that if the coadjoint orbit $`G\beta `$ is locally closed then the sets $`(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(G\beta ))/G(M_{(H)}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta ))/G_\beta `$ are symplectic manifolds and that the partition of $`M_{G\beta }:=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(G\beta )/GM_\beta `$ by these manifolds is a stratification. Ortega proved that one can drop the assumption on the coadjoint orbit and still show that these sets are symplectic manifolds, that they are locally closed in the symplectic quotient and that the canonical partition is locally finite \[O\] (see also \[OR\]). Theorem 1 asserts that the canonical partition is in fact a stratification. Our proof of it does not directly use Ortega’s result. Rather, it uses the following two propositions, which are variations on an argument in \[SL\].

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a proper Hamiltonian action of a Lie group $`G`$ and a corresponding equivariant moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ and let $`M_\beta :=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta )/G`$ be the symplectic quotient at $`\beta 𝔤^{}`$. For any point $`xM_\beta `$ there exist a neighborhood $`𝒰`$ of $`x`$ in $`M_\beta `$, a symplectic vector space $`V`$ with a symplectic action of a compact Lie group $`H`$, a neighborhood $`𝒰_0`$ of the image of $`0`$ in the symplectic quotient $`V_0`$ and a homeomorphism $`\phi :𝒰𝒰_0`$ which maps the pieces of the canonical partition of $`M_\beta 𝒰`$ into pieces of the canonical partition of $`V_0𝒰_0`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ be the corresponding moment map. For any point $`x`$ in the contact quotient $`M//G:=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)/G`$ there exist a neighborhood $`𝒰`$ of $`x`$ in $`M//G`$, a contact vector space $`V`$ with a contact action of a compact Lie group $`H`$, a neighborhood $`𝒰_0`$ of the image of $`0`$ in a contact quotient $`V//H`$ and a homeomorphism $`\phi :𝒰𝒰_0`$ which maps the pieces of the canonical partition of $`M_\beta 𝒰`$ into pieces of the canonical partition of $`(V//H)𝒰_0`$.

We postpone the proof of these two results for a later section and proceed with the study of the quotients of vector spaces:

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\rho :H\mathrm{Sp}(V,\omega )`$ be a symplectic representation of a compact Lie group $`H`$.

1. The symplectic quotient at zero $`V//H(0)`$ is isomorphic, as a partitioned space, to the product of a symplectic vector space $`U`$ and a cone on the quotient of a standard contact sphere $`S`$:

$$V//H(0)=U\times \stackrel{˚}{c}(S//H).$$
2. The contact quotient of the contactization of $`V`$ is isomorphic, as a partitioned space, to the product of the contact vector space $`U\times `$ and a cone on the quotient of the standard contact sphere $`S`$:

$$(V\times )//H=(U\times )\times \stackrel{˚}{c}(S//H).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`U`$ be the vector subspace of $`H`$-fixed vectors in $`V`$; it is a symplectic subspace of $`V`$. Let $`W`$ denote the symplectic perpendicular to $`U`$. It is a symplectic $`H`$-invariant subspace as well. Let $`R`$ as before denote the radial vector field on $`V`$. Since $`d(\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega )=\omega `$, the moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_V`$ for the action of $`H`$ on $`V`$ is given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v),X=(\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega )(X_V(v))$$

for all $`vV`$ and all $`X`$ in the Lie algebra $`𝔥`$ of $`H`$, where $`X_V`$ denotes the linear vector field induced by $`X`$ on $`V`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)=U\times \mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ is the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`W`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ is also a moment map for the action of $`H`$ on $`W`$.

Since $`H`$ is compact there exists an $`H`$ invariant complex structure $`J`$ on $`W`$ compatible with $`\omega _W:=\omega |_W`$. Let $`S`$ denote the unit sphere with respect to the inner product $`\omega _W(,J)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ is homogeneous, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)=\stackrel{˚}{c}(S\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0))`$. Since the action of $`H`$ is linear, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)/H=U\times \stackrel{˚}{c}((S\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0))/H)`$. Note that the restriction of $`\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _W`$ to $`S`$ is a contact form and that the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ to $`S`$ is the corresponding contact moment map. Therefore the space $`(S\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0))/H)`$ is the contact quotient $`S//H`$ and the first part of the lemma follows.

The second part of the lemma follows as well since the contact moment map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the contactization $`V\times `$ is related to the symplectic moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`V`$ by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(v,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(v)`$ for all $`(v,t)V\times `$ (see Remark 2.17). ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

If in the Lemma above the representation $`\rho `$ is trivial, then $`V//H(0)=V`$ and $`(V\times )//H=V\times `$. In particular, if $`V=\{0\}`$, then $`(V\times )//H=`$.

###### Proof of Theorems 1 and 2.

Lemma 3.3 together with Proposition 3.2 imply that a contact quotient is locally isomorphic as a partitioned space to a product of an odd-dimensional disk and a cone on the contact quotient of a standard contact sphere. It follows that the pieces of the canonical decomposition of a contact quotient are odd dimensional manifolds and that they are locally closed.

Similarly Lemma 3.3 together with Proposition 3.1 imply that a symplectic quotient is locally isomorphic as a partitioned space to a product of an even dimensional disk and a cone on the contact quotient of a standard contact sphere. It follows that the pieces of the canonical decomposition of a symplectic quotient are even dimensional manifolds.

We next argue by induction on the dimension of contact quotients that contact quotients are stratified spaces. The smallest dimension that a contact quotient can have is one. If it is one dimensional then it is a one dimensional manifold (which need not be connected).

Assume now that the dimension of our contact quotient $`X`$ is bigger than one and that any contact quotient $`Z`$ with $`dimZ<dimX`$ is a stratified space. By Proposition 3.2 a neighborhood of a point in $`X`$ is isomorphic, as a partitioned space, to a neighborhood of a point in the contact quotient of a contact vector space. By Lemma 3.3, the contact quotient of a contact vector space is isomorphic to the product of a contact vector space and a cone on the contact quotient of a sphere. By induction, the contact quotient of the sphere is a stratified space. Therefore $`X`$ is a stratified space by definition.

Finally, by Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.3 a symplectic quotient is isomorphic to a product of a disk and a cone on the contact quotient of a contact sphere. By the previous paragraph, the contact quotient of the sphere is a stratified space. Therefore a symplectic quotient is also a stratified space. ∎

Observe that we have, in fact, proved the following.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`(X,\{𝒮_\alpha \})`$ be a partitioned space with the property that a neighborhood of every point is isomorphic (as partitioned spaces) to a product of a disk with the cone on the contact quotient of a standard contact sphere. Then the partition $`\{𝒮_\alpha \}`$ is a stratification.

We finish the section with a short proof that connected contact and symplectic quotients have unique connected open dense strata. In particular we recover Theorem 5.9 of \[SL\]. The proof has two parts. We first remark that the contact quotient of a standard contact sphere by a linear action of a compact Lie group is connected.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`S^{2n1}^n`$ be the standard contact sphere and let $`K`$ be a closed subgroup of the unitary group $`U(n)`$. Then the contact quotient $`S^{2n1}//K`$ is connected.

###### Proof.

The map $`f:S^{2n1}`$, $`f(z)=\frac{1}{2}z^2`$ is a moment map for the action $`(\lambda ,z)\lambda z`$ of the circle $`S^1=U(1)`$ on $`^n`$, and the sphere $`S^{2n1}`$ is a level set of $`f`$. Since the action of $`S^1`$ commutes with the action of $`K`$, the restriction of the $`K`$-moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^n𝔨^{}`$ to $`S^{2n1}`$ descends to a moment map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ for the action of $`K`$ on the symplectic quotient $`f^1(2)/S^1=S^{2n1}/S^1=P^{n1}`$. Since the projective space $`P^{n1}`$ is compact and connected, the fibers of the moment map $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}:P^{n1}𝔨^{}`$ are connected by a theorem of Kirwan (see \[K2, Remark 2.1\] and \[K1, Remark 9.1\]).

On the other hand, the restriction $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S^{2n1}}`$ is the contact moment map for the action of $`K`$ on the sphere $`S^{2n1}`$. Since the fibers of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ are $`S^1`$ quotients of the fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S^{2n1}}`$, the connectedness of the fibers of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ implies that the fibers of$`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S^{2n1}}`$ are connected as well. Therefore $`S^{2n1}//K=(\mathrm{\Phi }|_{S^{2n1}})^1(0)/K`$ is connected. ∎

The second part of the proof is:

###### Proposition 3.7.

Let $`(X,\{𝒮_i\})`$ be a connected stratified space. Assume, recursively, that all links are connected. That is, the link of every point is connected, the link of every point in the link is connected and so on. Then there is a unique open dense stratum $`X^r`$ in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is an induction on the dimension of $`X`$. Let $`X^r`$ be the union of all the open strata in $`X`$. We show first that $`X^r`$ is dense. Using density, we then show that $`X^r`$ is connected and hence consists of a single stratum. Note that a point in a stratified space has an empty link if and only if it lies in an open stratum. This implies that if a stratum contains a set which is open in $`X`$ then the whole stratum is open as well.

Let $`x`$ be a point in $`X`$ and $`𝒮`$ be the stratum containing $`x`$. By definition there an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ in $`X`$, an open ball $`B`$ in $`𝒮`$, and a isomorphism $`\rho :\stackrel{˚}{c}(L)\times BU`$ of partitioned spaces, where $`L`$ is the link of $`x`$. If the link is empty, then $`xX^r`$. Otherwise, by induction $`L`$ contains a unique open dense stratum $`L^r`$. Then $`L^r\times (0,1)\times B`$ is open in $`\stackrel{˚}{c}(L)\times B`$. Let $`𝒮^{}`$ denote the stratum in $`X`$ with $`\rho (L^r\times (0,1)\times B)=𝒮^{}U`$. Then $`𝒮^{}U`$ is open in $`U`$. Therefore $`𝒮^{}`$ is open in $`X`$, hence $`𝒮^{}X^r`$. Clearly $`x`$ lies in the closure of $`𝒮^{}`$. Therefore $`x`$ is in the closure of $`X^r`$. This proves that $`X^r`$ is dense.

We now prove that $`X^r`$ is connected. Suppose not. Choose disjoint open sets $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ in $`X`$ with $`U_1U_2=X^r`$. By density, $`X=\overline{U}_1\overline{U}_2`$. Because $`X`$ is connected, however, $`\overline{U}_1\overline{U}_2\mathrm{}`$. Choose $`y\overline{U}_1\overline{U}_2`$. Then $`yX^r`$ and so the link $`L_y`$ of $`y`$ is non-empty. Hence, by induction, there is a unique open stratum $`L_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}`$ in $`L_y`$. Choose a neighborhood, $`U`$ of $`y`$ of the form $`U=\stackrel{˚}{c}(L_y)\times B`$, where $`B`$ is a ball. On the one hand, $`X^rU=L_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{r}\times (0,ϵ)\times B`$ is connected. On the other, $`X^rU=(U_1U)(U_2U)`$ is not. ∎

###### Remark 3.8.

We can remove the hypothesis that the space $`X`$ is connected. In this case, we work component by component to conclude that each connected component of $`X`$ has a unique connected open dense stratum.

Putting Lemma 3.6 and Proposition 3.7 together and using the proof of Theorems 1 and 2, we obtain:

###### Theorem 3.9.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$. Then each connected component of the contact quotient $`M//G`$ has a unique connected open dense stratum.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a proper Hamiltonian action of a Lie group $`G`$ and a corresponding equivariant moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$. Fix a point $`\beta 𝔤^{}`$; denote its isotropy group under the coadjoint action by $`G_\beta `$. Then for every point $`\beta 𝔤^{}`$ a connected component of the symplectic quotient $`M//G(\beta )`$ has a unique connected open dense stratum.

## 4. Local models of symplectic and contact quotients

The main tool for proving Proposition 3.2 is

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$ and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$ be the corresponding moment map. Let $`x\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ be a point, let $`H`$ be its isotropy group. Denote the Lie algebra of $`H`$ by $`𝔥`$ and the annihilator of $`𝔥`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$ by $`𝔥^{}`$. Choose an $`H`$-equivariant splitting $`𝔤^{}=𝔥^{}𝔥^{}`$; let $`i:𝔥^{}𝔤^{}`$ be the corresponding injection.

There exists a $`G`$-invariant neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ in $`M`$, a $`G`$-invariant neighborhood $`U_0`$ of the zero section on the vector bundle $`𝒴=(G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times W))G/H`$ and a $`G`$-equivariant diffeomorphism $`\varphi :U_0U`$ such that $`\varphi ([1,0,0])=x`$ and

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi )([g,\eta ,w])=f([g,\eta ,v])Ad^{}(g)\left(\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w))\right),$$

where

1. $`Ad^{}:GGL(𝔤^{})`$ is the coadjoint representation,
2. $`W`$ is the contactization of the maximal symplectic subspace $`V`$ of the symplectic vector space $`(\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x,d\alpha _x)`$ complementary to the tangent space $`T_x(Gx)`$; $`V`$ can be and is chosen to be $`H`$-invariant;
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W:W𝔥^{}`$ is the moment map for the linear action of $`H`$ on the contact vector space $`W`$;
4. $`f`$ is a nowhere vanishing function;
5. $`G`$ acts on $`𝒴`$ by $`g[a,\eta ,v]=[ga,\eta ,v]`$.

We postpone the proof of this Theorem till the last section of the paper and proceed with the proof of Proposition 3.2.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.2.

Define $`F:𝒴𝔤^{}`$ by $`F([g,\eta ,w])=Ad^{}(g)\left(\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w))\right)`$. Since the function $`f`$ is nonvanishing the map $`\varphi ^1`$ sends $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)U`$ equivariantly and homeomorphicly onto the set $`F^1(0)U_0`$. Hence $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)U)/G=(F^1(0)U_0)/G`$ as partitioned spaces (the partitioning is by $`G`$-orbit type). Therefore it is enough to show that

(4.1)
$$F^1(0)/G=\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)/HW//H\text{as partitioned spaces.}$$

Next note that the vector space $`𝔥^{}\times W`$ embeds canonically into $`𝒴`$ by $`(\eta ,w)[1,\eta ,w]`$ and that $`𝔥^{}\times W`$ is a slice through $`[1,0,0]`$ for the action of $`G`$ on $`𝒴`$.

Because $`𝔥^{}i(𝔥^{})=𝔤^{}`$ and $`i:𝔥^{}𝔤^{}`$ is injective, $`\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w))=0`$ if and only if $`\eta =0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w)=0`$. Therefore

$$F^1(0)=\{[g,\eta ,w]\eta =0\text{and }\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w)=0\}=G\times _H(\{0\}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)).$$

Hence $`F^1(0)=G\mathrm{\Phi }_W^1(0)`$. Therefore by Lemma 2.12 equation (4.1) holds. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 3.1.

The proof is essentially the same as that of Proposition 3.2 above. Since we are not reducing as zero, it is a little more delicate. We use a version of the local normal form theorem due to Marle and to Guillemin and Sternberg which is proved on pp. 212 – 215 of \[BL\]:

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a proper Hamiltonian action of a Lie group $`G`$ and a corresponding equivariant moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M𝔤^{}`$. Let $`xM`$ be a point. Let $`H`$ denote its isotropy group. Let $`\beta =\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ and let $`G_\beta `$ denote the isotropy group of $`\beta `$. Define

$$V:=T_x(Gx)^\omega /(T_x(Gx)^\omega T_x(Gx)),$$

where $`T_x(Gx)^\omega `$ denotes the symplectic perpendicular to the tangent space to the orbit $`T_x(Gx)`$ in $`T_xM`$; it is a symplectic vector space with a linear symplectic action of $`H`$.

Let $`𝔤`$, $`𝔤_\beta `$ and $`𝔥`$ denote the Lie algebras of $`G`$, $`G_\beta `$ and $`H`$, respectively. Let $`𝔥^{}`$ denote the annihilator of $`𝔥`$ in $`𝔤_\beta ^{}`$, and $`𝔤_\beta ^{}`$ the annihilator of $`𝔤_\beta `$ in $`𝔤^{}`$. Choose an $`H`$-equivariant splitting $`𝔤^{}=𝔥^{}𝔥^{}𝔤_\beta ^{}`$; let $`i:𝔥^{}𝔤_\beta ^{}`$ and $`j:𝔤_\beta ^{}𝔤^{}`$ denote the corresponding injections.

There exists a $`G`$-invariant neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ in $`M`$, a $`G`$-invariant neighborhood $`U_0`$ of the zero section on the vector bundle $`𝒴=(G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times V))G/H`$ and a $`G`$-equivariant diffeomorphism $`\varphi :UU_0`$ such that

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }\varphi )([g,\eta ,v])=Ad^{}(g)\left(\beta +j(\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_V(v)))\right),$$

where

1. $`Ad^{}:GGL(𝔤^{})`$ is the coadjoint representation and
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_V:V𝔥^{}`$ is the moment map for the action of $`H`$ on $`V`$.

Define $`F:𝒴𝔤^{}`$ by $`F([g,\eta ,w])=Ad^{}(g)\left(\beta +j(\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_V(v)))\right)`$. The map $`\varphi `$ sends $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\beta )U`$ homeomorphicly and $`G`$-equivariantly onto $`F^1(\beta )U_0`$. Hence $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)U)/G_\beta =(F^1(0)U_0)/G_\beta `$ as spaces partitioned by $`G`$-orbit types. Therefore it is enough to prove that for some sufficiently small $`G_\beta `$-invariant neighborhood $`𝒪`$ of $`[1,0,0]`$ in $`𝒴`$

(4.2)
$$(F^1(0)𝒪)/G_\beta =(\mathrm{\Phi }_V^1(0)\stackrel{~}{𝒪})/H$$

as partitioned spaces for some $`H`$-invariant neighborhood $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ of 0 in $`V`$, where the left hand side is partitioned by $`G`$-orbit types and the right hand side is partitioned by $`H`$-orbit types.

Note that the canonical embedding of the vector space $`𝔥^{}\times V`$ into $`𝒴`$, $`(\eta ,v)[1,\eta ,v]`$ makes $`𝔥^{}\times V`$ into a slice at $`[1,0,0]`$ for the action of $`G`$ on $`𝒴`$. The vector space $`𝔥^{}\times V`$ is also a slice at $`[1,0,0]`$ for the action of $`G_\beta `$ on $`G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)`$. Therefore $`𝒴/G=(𝔥^{}\times V)/H=\left(G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)\right)/G_\beta `$. It follows from Lemma 2.12 that for any subgroup $`K`$ of $`G_\beta `$

(4.3)
$$(G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V))_{(K)}=Y_{(K)}\left(G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)\right).$$

Conversely if $`Y_{(K)}\left(G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)\right)\mathrm{}`$, we may assume that $`KG_\beta `$. Then equation (4.3) holds. Therefore the partition of the left hand side of (4.2) by $`G`$-orbit types is the same as its partition by $`G_\beta `$-orbit types.

Recall that the tangent space to the coadjoint orbit through $`\beta `$ is canonically isomorphic to the annihilator of $`𝔤_\beta `$ in $`𝔤^{}`$: $`T_\beta (Ad^{}(G)\beta )𝔤_\beta ^{}`$. Since $`𝔤^{}=j(𝔤_\beta ^{})𝔤_\beta ^{}`$, the vector bundle $`G\times _{G_\beta }𝔤_\beta ^{}`$ is the normal bundle of the orbit $`Ad^{}(G)\beta `$ in $`𝔤^{}`$. Consider the map $`:G\times _{G_\beta }𝔤_\beta ^{}𝔤^{}`$ given by $`([g,\eta ])=Ad^{}(g)(\beta +j(\eta ))`$. It is the exponential map for a flat $`H`$-invariant metric on $`𝔤^{}`$. The differential $`d`$ is an isomorphism at the point $`[1,0]`$. Therefore $``$ is an open embedding on a sufficiently small neighborhood $`𝒪^{}`$ of $`[1,0]`$. In particular $`𝒪^{}^1(\beta )=\{[1,0]\}`$. We now factor $`F`$ as follows: let

$$F_2:G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)G\times _H𝔤_\beta ^{},[g,\eta ,v][g,\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_W(v))],$$

$$F_1:G\times _H𝔤_\beta ^{}G\times _{G_\beta }𝔤_\beta ^{},[g,\eta ][g,\eta ].$$

We have $`F=F_1F_2`$. Let $`𝒪=(F_1F_2)^1(𝒪^{})`$. Then $`F^1(\beta )𝒪=(F_1F_2)^1(𝒪^{}^1(\beta ))=\left(G_\beta \times _H(\{0\}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_V^1(0))\right)𝒪`$. Consequently by Lemma 2.12 $`(F^1(\beta )𝒪)/G_\beta =(\mathrm{\Phi }_V^1(0)\stackrel{~}{𝒪})/H`$ as partitioned spaces, where the left hand side is partitioned by $`G_\beta `$-orbit types, the right hand side is partitioned by $`H`$-orbit types and where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}=V𝒪`$. But we have seen that the partition of $`G_\beta \times _H(𝔥^{}\times V)`$ by $`G`$-orbit types and by $`G_\beta `$ orbit types is the same partition. The Proposition now follows. ∎

## 5. Contact local normal form

In this section we provide a proof of the local normal form theorem (Theorem 4.1) that allowed us to establish our main results (Theorems 1 and 2). Not surprising, this requires an equivariant Darboux theorem for contact manifolds, the proof of which is the standard deformation argument of Moser. We then review the contact analogues of isotropic submanifolds and symplectic normal bundles, introduced by Weinstein in \[We\]. We finish with the proof of the local normal form theorem.

Recall that the Reeb vector field $`Y`$ on a contact manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$ is the unique vector field satisfying $`\iota (Y)\alpha =1`$ and $`\iota (Y)d\alpha =0`$. If a Lie group acts on $`M`$ preserving $`\alpha `$ then by uniqueness the Reeb vector field is invariant.

Observe that an equivariant version of Gray’s stability theorem holds.

###### Theorem 5.1.

(Equivariant Gray’s Stability Theorem) Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts on a contact manifold $`M`$ and $`\{\alpha _t\},t[0,1]`$ is a smoothly varying family of invariant contact forms. Suppose that $`NM`$ is a invariant submanifold and that

$$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}\alpha _t(x)=\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}d\alpha _t(x)=0$$

for all $`xN`$. Then there is a family of equivariant diffeomorphisms $`\{\psi _t\}`$ of $`M`$ with $`\psi _{t|N}=\text{Id}`$ and $`\psi _t^{}(\alpha _t)=f_t\alpha _0`$ for all $`t`$ and for some family of positive functions $`\{f_t\}`$.

As a consequence of Gray’s stability theorem we get:

###### Theorem 5.2.

(Equivariant Relative Contact Darboux) Let a Lie group $`G`$ act properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving an embedded submanifold $`N`$. Suppose $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two invariant contact forms with

$`\alpha (x)`$ $`=\beta (x)`$
$`d\alpha (x)`$ $`=d\beta (x)`$
for all $`xN`$. Then there are invariant open neighborhoods $`U_0,U_1`$ of $`N`$, an equivariant diffeomorphism $`\psi :U_0U_1`$ fixing $`N`$, and a positive function $`f`$ such that $`\psi ^{}(\beta )=f\alpha `$.

###### Proof.

For $`t[0,1]`$, define $`\gamma _t=(1t)\alpha +t\beta `$. For all $`xN`$ and all $`t`$, we have $`\gamma _t(x)=\alpha (x)=\beta (x)`$ and $`d\gamma _t(x)=d\alpha (x)=d\beta (x)`$. Hence, $`\gamma _t`$ is contact in an open neighborhood of $`N`$. Since $`\gamma _t`$ is invariant, Gray’s theorem applies. The time 1 map of the isotopy $`\psi _t`$ exists on some open set $`O`$ of $`N`$ since it exists on a neighborhood of each point of $`N`$ in $`M`$. Set $`U_0=GO`$ and $`U_1=\psi _1(U_0)`$. ∎

###### Definition 5.3.

Let $`(M,\alpha )`$ be a contact manifold. A submanifold $`L`$ of $`M`$ is isotropic if it is tangent to the contact distribution $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$, that is, $`T_xL\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x`$ for every $`xL`$.

###### Example 5.4.

Suppose a Lie group $`G`$ acts properly on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$. Then orbits $`Gx`$ which lie in the zero level set of the contact moment $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are isotropic submanifolds by definition of the moment map.

###### Remark 5.5.

If $`L`$ is an isotropic submanifold of a contact manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$ then for every point $`xL`$ the tangent space $`T_xL`$ is an isotropic subspace of the symplectic vector space $`(\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x,d\alpha _x)`$, hence the terminology.

###### Definition 5.6.

Let $`L`$ be an isotropic submanifold of a contact manifold $`(M,\alpha )`$. Then for every point $`xL`$ the quotient $`(T_xL)^{d\alpha }/T_xL`$ is a symplectic vector space, where $`(T_xL)^{d\alpha }`$ denotes the symplectic perpendicular to $`T_xL`$ in $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x`$ with respect to $`d\alpha `$ ( $`T_xL(T_xL)^{d\alpha }`$ by Remark 5.5). The symplectic normal bundle of $`L`$ in $`(M,\alpha )`$ is the vector bundle

$$\nu (L):=\underset{xL}{}(T_xL^{d\alpha })/T_xL.$$

It is naturally a symplectic vector bundle.

###### Remark 5.7.

If a group $`G`$ acts on a manifold $`M`$ preserving a contact form $`\alpha `$ and $`L`$ is an invariant, isotropic submanifold, then the symplectic normal bundle $`\nu (L)`$ has a natural $`G`$ action which preserves the symplectic structure on $`\nu (L)`$.

In \[We\] Weinstein proved that the symplectic normal bundle completely determines the contact germ of the corresponding isotropic embedding. Theorem 4.1 is an equivariant version of Weinstein’s result in the special case where the isotropic submanifold is a group orbit. We now proceed with the details of the proof of Theorem 4.1.

The proof is a slight modification of the standard argument in the symplectic case. We use the notation in the statement of the theorem. Let $`Y`$ denote the Reeb vector field. Choose a $`G`$-invariant complex structure $`J`$ on the symplectic vector bundle $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha M`$ compatible with the symplectic structure, that is, choose it so that $`d\alpha (,J)|_{\mathrm{ker}\alpha }`$ is a positive definite inner product. The inner product is $`G`$-invariant by construction. By declaring $`Y`$ to be a unit vector field orthogonal to $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$ we can extend the inner product on $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$ to a $`G`$-invariant metric $`g`$ on $`M`$.

Because the point $`x`$ lies in the zero level set of the moment map, the orbit $`Gx`$ is an isotropic submanifold of $`(M,\alpha )`$. Since $`T_x(Gx)`$ is isotropic in $`(\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x,d\alpha _x)`$, $`T_x(Gx)`$ and $`J(T_x(Gx))`$ are $`g`$-orthogonal by construction of $`g`$. Moreover $`T_x(Gx)J(T_x(Gx))`$ is a symplectic subspace of $`(\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x,d\alpha _x)`$, and the $`g`$-orthogonal complement $`V`$ to $`T_x(Gx)J(T_x(Gx))`$ is also a symplectic subspace. The isotropy group $`H`$ of $`x`$ acts on $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x`$ preserving the decomposition $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x=T_x(Gx)J(T_x(Gx))V`$ and the symplectic form $`d\alpha _x|_{\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x}`$. Note that $`V`$ is isomorphic to $`(T_x(Gx))^{d\alpha }/T_x(Gx)`$. Consequently $`G\times _HVGx=G/H`$ is the symplectic normal bundle of the embedding $`Gx(M,\alpha )`$ while $`G\times _H(J(T_x(Gx)\times V\times Y_x)`$ is the topological normal bundle of the embedding $`GxM`$. The map $`vd\alpha _x(v,)|_{T_x(Gx)}`$ identifies $`J(T_x(Gx))`$ with $`T_x^{}(Gx)(𝔤/𝔥)^{}𝔥^{}`$, where as before $`𝔥^{}`$ denotes the annihilator of $`𝔥`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$. Therefore the topological normal bundle of the embedding of the orbit $`Gx`$ in $`M`$ is $`G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times V\times )`$.

Denote the restriction of $`d\alpha _x`$ to $`V`$ by $`\omega _V`$. Let $`(W,\beta )`$ denote the contactization of $`(V,\omega _V)`$: $`W=V\times `$ and $`\beta =\frac{1}{2}\iota (R)\omega _V+dt`$ where $`R`$ is the radial vector field on $`V`$ and $`t`$ is the variable along $``$. Thus the normal bundle of the embedding $`GxM`$ can be written as $`G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times W)`$.

Remark that our various identifications are chosen in such a way that

$$\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x=T_x(Gx)𝔥^{}V$$

and

$$d\alpha _x|_{\mathrm{ker}\alpha _x}=\omega +\omega _V,$$

where $`\omega `$ is the standard symplectic form on $`T_x(Gx)𝔥^{}=(𝔤/𝔥)\times (𝔤/𝔥)^{}`$.

The exponential map defined by the metric $`g`$ provides us with a $`G`$-equivariant diffeomorphism $`\sigma `$ from a neighborhood $`U_0`$ of the zero section in $`𝒴=G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times W)`$ to a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`Gx`$ in $`M`$ such that $`\sigma ([1,0,0])=x`$ and $`d\sigma _{[1,0,0]}:T_x(Gx)𝔥^{}WT_xM`$ is the identification above.

Therefore, by Darboux theorem (Theorem 5.2 above), in order to finish proving Theorem 4.1, it is enough to construct on $`𝒴`$ a $`G`$-invariant contact form $`ϵ`$ with the following properties:

1. $`\mathrm{ker}ϵ_{[1,0,0]}=T_{[1,0,0]}(G/H)𝔥^{}V`$ where we identified $`T_{[1,0,0]}𝒴`$ with $`T_{[1,0,0]}(G/H)𝔥^{}W=𝔤/𝔥𝔥^{}W`$ (we think of $`G/H`$ as embedded in $`𝒴`$ as the zero section of $`𝒴G/H`$).
2. $`dϵ_{[1,0,0]}|_{\mathrm{ker}ϵ_{[1,0,0]}}=\omega +\omega _V`$
3. The moment map $`F`$ for the action of $`G`$ on $`(𝒴,ϵ)`$ is $`F([g,\eta ,w])=Ad^{}(g)\left(\eta +i(\mathrm{\Phi }_W(w))\right)`$ where as before $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ is the moment map for the action of $`H`$ on the contact vector space $`W`$.

The construction of $`ϵ`$ is standard. The cotangent bundle $`T^{}G`$ is an exact symplectic manifold with a $`G\times H`$-invariant symplectic potential, where $`G`$ acts by the lift of the left multiplication and $`H`$ by the lift of the multiplication on the right by the inverse. The group $`H`$ also acts contactly on the contact vector space $`W`$. Hence the diagonal action of $`H`$ on $`T^{}G\times W`$ is contact. It is also free. It commutes with the trivial extension of the action of $`G`$ on $`T^{}G`$ to $`T^{}G\times W`$. Therefore the contact quotient $`(T^{}G\times W)//H`$ is a contact manifold. Moreover the contact form on $`(T^{}G\times W)//H`$ is $`G`$-invariant. It is routine to verify that a choice of an $`H`$-invariant splitting $`𝔤^{}=𝔥^{}𝔥^{}`$ allows one to identify the quotient $`(T^{}G\times W)//H`$ with $`G\times _H(𝔥^{}\times W)=𝒴`$ and the induced contact form $`ϵ`$ on $`𝒴`$ has the desired properties. This finishes the proof of Theorem 4.1.


text:
# References

CERN-TH/2000-256

SNUST-000801

TIFR/TH/00-48

hep-th/0008214

A Note on D-Branes of Odd Codimensions

From

Noncommutative Tachyons 111Work supported in part by BK-21 Initiative in Physics (SNU - Project 2), KRF International Collaboration Grant, KOSEF Interdisciplinary Research Grant 98-07-02-07-01-5, and KOSEF Leading Scientist Grant.

Gautam Mandal a,b and Soo-Jong Rey a,c

Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211, Genevé, Switzerland a

Tata Institute for Fundamental Research

Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005 India b

School of Physics & Center for Theoretical Physics

Seoul National University, Seoul 151-747 Korea c

mandal@theory.tifr.res.in sjrey@gravity.snu.ac.kr

abstract

On a noncommutative space of rank-1, we construct a codimension-one soliton explicitly and, in the context of noncommutative bosonic open string field theory, identify it with the D24-brane. We compute the tension of the proposed D24-brane, yielding an exact value and show that it is related to the tension of the codimension-two D23-brane by the string T-duality. This resolves an apparent puzzle posed by the result of Harvey, Kraus, Larsen and Martinec and proves that the T-duality is a gauge symmetry; in particular, at strong noncommutativity, it is part of the U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge symmetry on the worldvolume. We also apply the result to non-BPS D-branes in superstring theories and argue that the codimension-one soliton gives rise to new descent relations among the non-BPS D-branes in Type IIA and Type IIB string theories via T-duality.

In a series of recent important developments , it has been noted that noncommutative field theories in various dimensions arise quite naturally at various corners of the moduli space of nonperturbative string theories, especially, when a nonzero value of the NS two-form potential $`B_2`$ is turned on, inducing noncommutativity on the open string dynamics.

Among the most interesting developments are noncommutative solitons, in particular, in the context of the string theories. At infinite noncommutativity limit, Gopakumar, Minwalla and Strominger  have constructed explicit forms of static solitons by utilizing an isomorphism between fields on noncommutative plane and operators on a single-particle Hilbert space, $`_\theta `$ — viz. the Weyl-Moyal correspondence222Such solitons were constructed earlier in the context of $`c=1`$ matrix model and two-dimensional QCD .. The method of  were adapted by Harvey, Kraus, Larsen and Martinec  and Dasgupta, Mukhi and Rajesh  to bosonic string and superstring theories, respectively, and have constructed a noncommutative version of D-branes, supporting the viewpoint that D-branes are built out of solitonic lumps of tachyon living on higher dimensional D-branes . The result of  has an important implication for Sen’s conjecture  concerning universality of the tachyon potential in that, in the limit of infinitely strong noncommutativity the level-zero truncation yields exactly Sen’s conjectural relation between the D-brane tension $`T_\mathrm{D}`$ and the height of the tachyon potential $`V(T)`$:

$`T_\mathrm{D}+\left(V(0)V(T_0)\right)=0.`$
In Ref. , in the infinite noncommutativity limit, bosonic D-branes were constructed explicitly only for those of even codimensions, viz. D23-, D21-, … D1-branes but the rest, viz. D24-, D22-, ….. D0-branes, were left out. In the commutative limit, all D$`p`$-branes are on equal footing, as they are constructed out of the tachyon field as localized energy lumps of both odd and even codimensions. It is highly unlikely that, for some mysterious reasons, the D-branes of odd codimensions are suppressed relative to those of even codimensions as noncommutativity is turned on. How then do the D-branes of odd codimensions arise in the infinite noncommutativity limit? In this Letter, we point out that, in both bosonic string and superstring theories, D-branes of odd codimensions can be constructed by applying a U$`(\mathrm{})`$ symmetry transformation. It has already been emphasized in  that the U$`(\mathrm{})`$ symmetry arises as a gauge symmetry on the worldvolume of noncommutative D-branes. Moreover, the D-branes we will find are T-dual to the ones found in . As such, our result may be interpreted as showing 333We are grateful to J.A. Harvey for emphasizing to us the importance of the interpretation and for further discussions. that the T-duality, known to be a discrete (gauge) symmetry in compactified bosonic and Type II superstring theories, is actually a part of the U$`(\mathrm{})`$ gauge symmetry of the noncommutative D-branes.

We will begin with posing an issue concerning noncommutative D$`p`$-branes in bosonic open string theory. In doing so, we will bring up the puzzle concerning missing D$`p`$-branes for $`p`$=even more explicit. At level-zero truncation, the bosonic open string field theory is described by the action of the tachyon field $`T`$:

$$S_0=\frac{C}{G_{\mathrm{st}}}d^{26}y\sqrt{G}\left(\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }F(T)_\mu T_\nu T+\mathrm{}V(T)\right)_{},$$
(1)
in which the tachyon potential $`V(T)`$ is taken of the form

$`V(T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{T}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3T_0}}\stackrel{~}{T}^3\mathrm{where}\stackrel{~}{T}(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4}}\right)_x^2\right]T(x)`$ (2)
with a maximum at $`T_0`$ and a minimum at $`T=0`$. The constant $`C`$ is related to the tension of the D25-brane $`T_{25}`$ and the closed string coupling parameter $`g_{\mathrm{st}}`$ as:

$$C\frac{V(T_0)}{g_{\mathrm{st}}}=T_{25},$$

and $`G_{\mathrm{st}}`$, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ refers to the open string coupling and metric, respectively. The $``$-subscript refers to the fact that field products are defined in terms of the noncommutative Moyal product:

$$T(y)T(y)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^a_\nu ^b\right)T(y_1)T(y_2)|_{y_a,y_by}.$$

Let us assume that noncommutativity is turned on along the $`𝐲=(y^1,y^2)`$ directions only and has the strength $`\theta ^{12}=\theta ^{21}\theta `$. We shall be mostly interested in the infinite noncommutativity limit: $`\theta \mathrm{}`$. Rescaling the $`𝐲`$-coordinates along the noncommutativity directions as $`𝐲=\sqrt{\theta }𝐱`$, both in the quadratic gradient term and the cubic tachyon interaction term Eq.(2), the action Eq.(1) can be recast as444Later, we will readdress the precise nature of the $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ limit.

$$S_0=\frac{C}{G_{\mathrm{st}}}\theta d^2𝐱d^{24}y\sqrt{G}\left(\frac{1}{2}G^{\mu \nu }F(T)_\mu T_\nu TV(T)+\mathrm{}\right)_{},$$
(3)
where $`\mu .\nu =0,3,4,\mathrm{},25`$, $`V(T)`$ refers to the tachyon potential in which $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is simply set equal to $`T`$, and the ellipses denote subleading terms of order $`𝒪(1/\theta )`$. The $``$-subscript now refers to the rescaled Moyal product

$`T(𝐱)T(𝐱)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(_1^a_2^b_1^b_2^a\right)\right)T(𝐱_a)T(𝐱_b)|_{𝐱_a,𝐱_b𝐱}.`$ (4)
The equation of motion is then given by

$`G^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu TV_{}^{}(T)=0,`$
which, in the static and translationally invariant case, reduces to

$`V_{}^{}(T)=T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_0}}TT=0.`$
In , a rotationally invariant static soliton satisfying Eq.(S0.Ex5) was found:

$`T(𝐱)=T_02\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\theta }}\right)\mathrm{where}r^2=y_1^2+y_2^2.`$ (5)
The tachyon field interpolates between $`T=2T_0`$, twice of the value of the potential maximum, and $`T=0`$, the closed string vacuum. The solution thus describes an object of $`(23+1)`$-dimensional worldvolume, which can be interpreted  as a noncommutative version of the bosonic D23-brane.

As shown in , one can construct all other even codimensional D-branes by turning on $`B`$-fields along $`(x^1,x^2)`$, $`(x^3,x^4)`$, …., $`(x^{242n},x^{252n})`$ subspaces. If the $`B`$-fields are all equal, then the resulting soliton may be identified with a noncommutative version of the bosonic D$`2n`$-brane, for which the $`𝐫^2`$ is replaced by $`𝐫^2=(x^1)^2+\mathrm{}+(x^{252n})^2`$. Apparently, the noncommutative D-branes constructed this way are only those with even codimensions. Where are the missing bosonic D-branes of odd codimensions?

To answer the question posed, let us recapitulate the systematics of constructing noncommutative solitons, following closely the works of  and . The systematics is based on the so-called Moyal-Weyl correspondence – the equivalence between the configuration space of fields on a noncommutative space whose algebra is defined in terms of Moyal-product and the Hilbert space of Weyl-ordered operators in one-particle quantum mechanics.

Consider a scalar field $`T(𝐱)`$ defined on a noncommutative plane with the associated Moyal-product Eq.(4). The Fourier-mode function $`\stackrel{~}{T(𝐤)}`$ is defined by the equation

$$T(𝐱)=\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{T(𝐤)}e^{i𝐤𝐱},$$
(6)
Consider now operators $`\widehat{x^1},\widehat{x^2}`$ satisfying the Heisenberg algebra

$`[\widehat{x^1},\widehat{x^2}]=i.`$
Built out of the operator algebra is an auxiliary Hilbert space $`_\theta `$ of an auxiliary one-particle quantum mechanics. Given an operator $`\widehat{T}(\widehat{𝐱})`$ acting on $`_\theta `$, one can define its Fourier-mode function as:

$$\widehat{T}(\widehat{𝐱})=\frac{d^2𝐤}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{\widehat{T}(𝐤)}e^{i𝐤\widehat{𝐱}}.$$
(7)
The Moyal-Weyl correspondence then refers to the equivalence555Refs.  provide useful reviews of the formalism in the context of noncommutative field theories and gauge theories. between the $``$-product algebra of $`T(𝐱)`$ and the operator algebra of $`\widehat{T}(\widehat{𝐱})`$ under the condition that the Fourier mode functions are set equal:

$$\stackrel{~}{T(𝐤)}=\stackrel{~}{\widehat{T}(𝐤)}$$
(8)
It then follows straightforwardly that

$`\widehat{T}(\widehat{𝐱})\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐱})`$ $``$ $`T(𝐱)U(𝐱)`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{T}(\widehat{𝐱})\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐱})\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐱}{(2\pi \theta )}T(𝐱)U(𝐱)\mathrm{}}.`$
In particular, the equivalence implies that static solitons are obtained in the operator formulation as distribution of critical points of the tachyon potential 666 In the case of Eq.(2), the critical points consist of $`\{0,T_0\}`$. among the set of one-dimensional projection operators in $`_\theta `$ — an important observation made in Ref.  and used in the context of D-branes in ,  and .

Stated as above, the Moyal-Weyl correspondence does not specify at all what basis one needs to choose for the auxiliary Hilbert space $`_\theta `$. In fact, no specific Hamiltonian of the analog one-particle quantum mechanics is specified either. It is clear, however, that the choice of the basis should reflect additional information on the phase space labelled by $`𝐱`$ such as symmetries, presence/absence of boundaries, etc. As such, in what follows, we will consider two elementary choices of the basis – simple harmonic oscillator basis and plane-wave basis – and propose to identify them with D-branes of codimension even and odd, respectively.

As the first choice, let us take the energy eigenbasis $`\{|n,n=0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ of a simple harmonic oscillator as the ‘auxiliary’ one-particle quantum mechanics. The basis is built out of creation and annihilation operators:

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\lambda \widehat{x^1}+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\widehat{x^2}\right)a^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\lambda \widehat{x^1}i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\widehat{x^2}\right),`$ (9)
where $`\lambda `$ is a free parameter. They are defined by the following action on the Hilbert space $`_\theta `$:

$`a|n=\sqrt{n}|n+1a^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1`$
so that

$`|n={\displaystyle \frac{a^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}|0`$
and

$`|mn|=:{\displaystyle \frac{a^m}{\sqrt{m!}}}e^{a^{}a}{\displaystyle \frac{a^n}{\sqrt{n!}}}:.`$
The most general projection operator in the subspace spanned by the first $`N`$ eigenstates is given by

$`\widehat{𝐏}={\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}C_{mn}|mn|\mathrm{with}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}C_{mn}C_{nq}=C_{nq}\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}C_{mm}=1.`$
The conditions on $`C_{mn}`$’s are imposed to ensure the projection operator properties: $`\widehat{𝐏}\widehat{𝐏}=\widehat{𝐏}`$ and Tr $`\widehat{𝐏}`$=1. As a simple choice with ‘zero’ angular momentum (that is, a diagonal projection operator), let us take

$`\widehat{𝐏}_n=|nn|(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}).`$
From Eq.(7), one easily finds the corresponding Fourier mode-function $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{P_n}}(𝐤)`$ as:

$`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{P_n}(𝐤)}=e^{k^2/4}L_n\left(k^2/2\right),k^2=(k_1^2+k_2^2),`$
where $`L_n`$ denotes the $`n`$-th order Laguerre polynomial. Using (8) and inserting the Fourier-mode function into Eq.(6), one obtains the Weyl-Moyal (inverse) map $`\stackrel{~}{𝐏}_n(𝐱)`$ of the projection operator:

$$𝐏_n(𝐱)=2(1)^ne^{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}L_n(2\stackrel{~}{r}^2)\mathrm{where}\stackrel{~}{r}^2=\left(\lambda ^2x_1^2+\frac{1}{\lambda ^2}x_2^2\right).$$
(10)
From this the static noncommutative soliton of codimension-two can be constructed as $`T(𝐱)=T_0𝐏_n(𝐱)`$. One can check straightforwardly that $`𝐏_n(𝐱)`$ continues to satisfy the properties of the projection operator: $`𝐏_n(𝐱)𝐏_n(𝐱)=𝐏_n(𝐱)`$ and $`d^2𝐱/(2\pi \theta )𝐏_n(𝐱)=1`$. The solution Eq.(5) corresponds to (a) the choice of $`n=0`$ among all possible codimension-two solitons in Eq.(10) and (b) the rotationally symmetric choice of the $`\lambda `$-parameter, $`\lambda =1`$.

As the second choice, we will take projection operators related to the ‘plane-wave’ basis $`\{|p\}`$ of the Hilbert space $`_\theta `$. In $`_\theta `$, the ‘plane-wave’ basis is defined by

$`\widehat{x^2}|p=p|pq|p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{ipq}`$
and

$`p|p^{}=\delta (p,p^{}){\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }|pp|}=𝐈.`$
The most general projection operator is given by

$`\widehat{𝐏}={\displaystyle \frac{dpdp^{}}{(2\pi )^2}C(p,p^{})|pp^{}|}\mathrm{with}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }C(p,q)C(q,p^{})}=C(p,p^{})\mathrm{and}{\displaystyle \frac{dp}{2\pi }C(p,p)}=1.`$
A simple choice for a ‘monochromatic’ projection operator would be

$`\widehat{𝐏}_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}=|\stackrel{~}{p_0}\stackrel{~}{p_0}|.`$ (11)
To be precise, $`|\stackrel{~}{p_0}`$ is to be taken not as a strict monochromatic wave of momentum $`\stackrel{~}{p_0}`$ but as a wave-packet built around mean-value of the momentum $`\stackrel{~}{p_0}`$ and nonzero, finite variance. These conditions are necessary in order to ensure $`\stackrel{~}{p_0}|\stackrel{~}{p_0}=1`$ and to avoid complications associated with delta-function (instead of square-integrable) normalizability as well as subtle issues concerning infinite noncommutativity and large deformation, which will be elaborated later. For definiteness, we may define $`|\stackrel{~}{p_0}`$ operationally in terms of the following wave-packet:

$`|\stackrel{~}{p_0}={\displaystyle \frac{dp}{\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left((p\stackrel{~}{p_0})^2/\sigma ^2\right)|p}.`$
To obtain the monochromatic plane wave state, we let $`\sigma 0`$ in the end with a suitably defined limit procedure.

It is straightforward to compute, as before, the Weyl-Moyal (inverse) map $`𝐏_{p_0}(𝐱)`$ of the projection operator Eq.(11). The result is

$$𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)=2\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(x_2\stackrel{~}{p_0})^2}{\sigma ^2}\sigma ^2x_1^2\right).$$
(12)
One easy finds that, as $`\sigma 0`$, the above function approaches

$$𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)=\frac{1}{2\pi R_1}\delta (x_2\stackrel{~}{p_0}),$$
(13)
consisting of a delta-function in $`x^2`$-direction while all dependence on $`x^1`$-direction disappears. Here, $`R_1`$ is a suitably large radius of the $`x^1`$-direction and the factor $`1/(2\pi R_1)`$ is to take care of the requisite normalization condition, where the ‘box cut-off’ $`R_1`$ is related to the ‘Gaussian cut-off’ $`\sigma `$ as $`R_11/\sqrt{\sigma }`$.

From Eq.(13), one obtains a soliton of codimension-one as $`T(𝐱)=T_0𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)`$. The profile of this soliton is very different from that of the circularly symmetric soliton discussed previously. Eq.(13) represents, on the noncommutative plane, a kink rather than a vortex. We will shortly identify it as a D24-brane formed out of tachyon condensation on the D25-brane worldvolume.

Before doing so, we should point out the underlying philosophy of our construction. As mentioned before, various choices of orthonormal bases of $`_\theta `$ are related to one another by U($`\mathrm{}`$) transformations. As shown in , the U($`\mathrm{}`$) transformations are in fact gauge transformations on the D-brane worldvolume. A one-dimensional projection operator is given by $`|\psi \psi |`$ for any arbitrary state $`|\psi `$ in $`_\theta `$. What we found in the above construction is that the Weyl-Moyal map corresponding to different choices of $`|\psi `$ takes generically very different shapes on the noncommutative plane, and are related to each other by gauge transformations.

In fact, different choices of the basis $`|\psi `$ are characterized by the Grassmannian associated with a single soliton:

$`_1={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{U}(\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{U}(\mathrm{}1)\times \mathrm{U}(1)}}.`$
For example, the various values of $`\lambda `$ in Eq.(9) correspond to a one-parameter ‘squeezed state’ subspace in the above manifold. The corresponding tachyon solutions are related to one another by U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformations

$`T(𝐱)U(𝐱)T(𝐱)U^{}(𝐱).`$
The U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformations clearly respect the projection operator properties: $`(𝐏𝐏)(𝐱)=𝐏(𝐱)`$ and $`𝑑𝐱/(2\pi \theta )𝐏(𝐱)=1`$; they also preserve rank of the projection operator so that all points of a gauge orbit correspond to the same rank. Remarks similar to these and the possibility of squeezing deformation have been made in ; we have found here an explicit application of these ideas to construct bosonic D24 branes.

As a concrete illustration of the U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformation, we now map the codimension-two profile Eq.(10) to the codimension-one profile Eq.(13). This is achieved by recalling that the parameter $`\lambda `$ is associated with the squeezing deformation, an aspect discussed already in . One finds that the $`\lambda 0`$ limit of Eq.(10) reduces exactly to Eq.(13) for the choice $`\stackrel{~}{p_0}=0`$. In fact, in this limit, the squeezing deformation parameter $`\lambda `$ plays precisely the same role as the regularization parameter $`\sigma `$ in Eq.(12). The opposite squeezing limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ yields again the same state as Eq.(13) but with $`x^1x^2,x^2x^1`$ which amounts to a rotation in the noncommutative plane. The moduli space of the squeezing deformation is parametrized by $`\lambda [0,1]`$. We have thus shown that the parameter $`\lambda `$ spans a one-parameter trajectory in $`_1`$ associated with the squeezed state and the two extreme endpoint configurations represent geometrically codimension-one as $`\lambda 0`$ and codimension-two as $`\lambda 1`$, respectively.

At this point, we would like to discuss an important subtlety 777We would like to thank E. Witten for pointing out to us the importance of this issue, which has already been discussed in . in applying the U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformation and obtaining the codimension-one, kink configuration. Recall that the action Eq.(3) was obtained by dropping terms involving derivatives along the noncommutative directions — both in the quadratic gradient term and in the cubic interaction term — by taking $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ limit. On the other hand, in applying the squeezing deformation over the Grassmannian $`_1`$ and letting $`\lambda 0`$, as described above, each derivative along the noncommutative directions is amplified by a factor $`1/\lambda `$. Certainly, to retain the utility of the infinite noncommutativity and construction of the noncommutative D-branes via the Moyal-Weyl correspondence, one ought to take a controlled limit keeping $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}\lambda ^2\theta `$ fixed, while letting $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda 0`$. In order to suppress all the terms involving derivatives along the noncommutative directions, it is necessary to take $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}1`$. In fact, one easily finds that, once the squeezing deformation is taken, the new expansion parameter in Eq.(3) is set by $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ instead of $`\theta `$. It is interesting to consider whether such subtleties involving large spatial derivatives arise in some other parts o f the Grassmannian $`_1`$ as well. We expect that the standard large-$`\theta `$ limit can be taken only in the interior of the Grassmannian $`_1`$, but not along the boundary. As the boundary is approached, the large-$`\theta `$ constructions would in general require a suitably controlled scaling such as the one we have defined above.

Having obtained a codimension-one profile, we are naturally led to identify the soliton Eq.(13) with a noncommutative version of the bosonic D24-brane. To ascertain this identification, we will now calculate the tension of the codimension-one soliton and compare it with the known string theory result. For a static solution, the action is simply the time interval times the mass, so the soliton mass can be equivalently calculated out of the action. We will calculate the action Eq.(3) for the tachyon field $`T_{\mathrm{sol}}(𝐱,y)=T_0𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)`$ where $`𝐏_{p_0}(𝐱)`$ is given by Eq.(13). To be specific, we will take the closed string background as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\theta (R_1^2dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+dy_\mu dy^\mu `$
$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mathrm{st}}`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`Bdx^1dx^2.`$ (14)
From the definition of the open string coupling $`G_{\mathrm{st}}`$ and the open string metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ , one finds (cf. ) in the large $`\theta `$ limit

$$G_{\mathrm{st}}=g_{\mathrm{st}}\frac{\sqrt{G}}{2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}}^2B}.$$
(15)
Using the results that

$`V(T_{\mathrm{sol}}(𝐱,y))`$ $`=`$ $`V(T_0)𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{g_{\mathrm{st}}}}V(T_0)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{25}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝐱}{2\pi \theta }𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)}`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`1/B`$ $`=`$ $`\theta ,`$
we find that the action Eq.(3) is evaluated to

$$S=T_{25}(2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}})^2𝑑t𝑑y^3\mathrm{}𝑑y^{25}.$$
(16)
This agrees with the action of the codimension-two soliton evaluated in , reflecting the U$`(\mathrm{})`$ gauge invariance mentioned above, $`𝑑𝐱/(2\pi \theta )U(𝐱)𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)U^{}(𝐱)=𝑑𝐱/(2\pi \theta )𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)=1`$.

In , the action Eq.(16) and the corresponding tension were interpreted as those of a D23-brane extending along $`y^3,\mathrm{},y^{25}`$. The symmetries of our codimension-one soliton are those of a 24-brane, extending along $`x^1,y^3,\mathrm{},y^{25}`$ directions. We will now show that, it is actually a D24-brane living in the T-dual geometry where T-duality is performed along the $`x^1`$ direction. The closed string geometry T-dual to Eq.(14) is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{ds}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1^2}}dx_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{2B}{R_1^2}}dx_1dx_2+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{R_1^2}}\right)dx_2^2+dy_\mu dy^\mu `$
$`e^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{g_{\mathrm{st}}}=g_{\mathrm{st}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}}/R_1`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`B.`$ (17)
Our assertion would follow if the worldvolume action of a D24-brane extended along $`x^1,y^3,\mathrm{},y^{25}`$ in the T-dual background Eq.(17) is exactly the same as the action obtained from the tachyon soliton of codimension-one, Eq.(16). Begin with noting that the pull-back of the T-dual geometry on the D24-brane worldvolume is given by

$`\widehat{ds}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_1^2}}dx_1^2+dy_\mu dy^\mu ,`$
while pull-back of the $`B`$-field on the worldvolume vanishes. The worldvolume action of a D24-brane is therefore reduced to

$`S_{\mathrm{DBI}}=\stackrel{~}{T_{24}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t𝑑x^1𝑑x^3\mathrm{}𝑑x^{25}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}},`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{T_{24}}`$ is the tension of a T-dualized D24-brane, given by

$`\stackrel{~}{T_{24}}=T_{24}g_{\mathrm{st}}/\stackrel{~}{g_{\mathrm{st}}}=T_{24}R_1/\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}}.`$
Using the fact that $`𝑑x^1\sqrt{\widehat{g}_{11}}=2\pi /R_1`$, we get

$$S_{\mathrm{DBI}}=T_{24}(2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}})𝑑t𝑑x^3\mathrm{}𝑑x^{25}.$$
(18)
This is exactly the same as Eq.(16), as

$`T_{24}=2\pi \mathrm{}_{\mathrm{st}}T_{25}.`$
Hence, we have demonstrated that the codimension-one soliton Eq.(13) is indeed the noncommutative version of D24-brane. Moreover, as in the D23-brane case , we have also found that the exact value of the D24-brane tension (T-dualized) has come out of level-zero truncation.

Putting all the above together, we interpret the result as follows. The noncommutative D24-brane on a circle we have constructed exhibits precisely the same properties as a noncommutative D23-brane distributed on a T-dual circle. As both D-branes have the same rank and are unitarily related to each other by (a subset of) U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformation on $`_1`$, we have essentially shown that the T-duality, which is known to be a gauge symmetry in bosonic string theory, is in fact a part of U$`(\mathrm{}`$) gauge symmetry, at least in the large noncommutativity limit. While we have presented the noncommutative codimension-one solitons for bosonic open string theory, the same analysis goes through for noncommutative version of the non-BPS D-branes in Type II string theories. It, however, entails an interesting variation of the theme. The fact that bosonic D$`p`$-branes of both even and odd $`p`$ constructed as above are related to each other by U($`\mathrm{}`$) transformations does not contradict any known symmetry principle. However, in superstring theory, for example Type IIA, non-BPS $`p`$ branes arise only for odd $`p`$ (similarly for Type IIB only even $`p`$). So, there clearly cannot exist a U$`(\mathrm{})`$ symmetry within either IIA or IIB superstring theory, which relates non-BPS D-$`p`$ branes of different worldvolume dimensions. What, then, is the interpretation of the U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge transformation? We will now show that the transformation relates non-BPS noncommutative D-branes in Type IIA/IIB to those in Type IIB/IIA via the T-duality and hence offers a new kind of D-brane descent relations.

Recall that in the commutative limit, Sen has given descent relations among D-branes via worldvolume kinks or vortices formed out of tachyon condensation. The noncommutative D-brane descent relations we will present are different from those of Sen’s. Moreover, we will find that the new series of descent relations provides a firmer support to our interpretation regarding the U$`(\mathrm{})`$ gauge transformation as a T-duality between Type IIA and IIB strings through an analysis of the Chern-Simons coupling and Ramond-Ramond charges, an aspect which was not available for bosonic D-brane setup.

Let us first recollect Sen’s descent relations in the commutative limit. Begin with non-BPS D$`2p`$-branes in Type IIA string or D$`(2p1)`$-branes in Type IIB string. These non-BPS branes are unstable, as represented by a tachyon field on the worldvolume. The tachyon is a real-valued field and it can condense in the form of a topological kink on the worldvolume of the non-BPS D-brane. As proven by Sen, the kink turns out precisely the same as BPS D-brane. Thus, in Sen’s descent relation, in Type IIA string, BPS D$`(2p1)`$-brane can be formed out of kink formation on the worldvolume of non-BPS D$`(2p)`$-brane and, in Type IIB string, BPS D$`(2p2)`$-brane can be formed out of kink formation on the worldvolume of non-BPS D$`(2p1)`$-brane.

In infinitely strong noncommutative limit, solitons formed out of tachyon condensation can come with two varieties: (1) codimension-two solitons studied in  or (2) codimension-one solitons proposed in the present paper.

For the case (1), even though the solitons are objects of codimension-two, they ought to be identified with circular ring of codimension-one, BPS object. This is because, as shown in , the Chern-Simons term on non-BPS D$`p`$-brane involves a coupling

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle _{M_{p+1}}}𝑑TC_p^{\mathrm{RR}},`$ (19)
where $`C_p^{\mathrm{RR}}`$ is the Ramond-Ramond $`p`$-form potential. Inserting the noncommutative tachyon profile $`T_{\mathrm{sol}}(𝐫)=T_0𝐏_0(r)`$, one finds that the above coupling yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle _{M_{p+1}}}T_0𝑑𝐏_0(r)C_p^{\mathrm{RR}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{M_{p+1}}}𝐏_0^{}(r)𝑑rC_p^{\mathrm{RR}}.`$
Using the fact that $`𝑑r𝐏_0^{}(r)=𝐏_0(0)=2`$, one gets precisely $`_{M_p}C_p^{\mathrm{RR}}`$, implying that the soliton carries (minus) one unit of the Ramond-Ramond charge, viz. BPS D$`(p1)`$-brane. As the object is circularly symmetric, a natural interpretation of the codimension-two soliton would be that it is a ring of the BPS D$`(p1)`$-brane on the noncommutative plane. Thus, one can say that the codimension-two soliton formation is nothing but noncommutative counterpart of the Sen’s kink formation.

For the case (2), we will now argue that the soliton ought to be interpreted as the non-BPS D$`(p1)`$-brane of the T-dual, Type IIA/IIB string. To see this, let us evaluate the Chern-Simons coupling (19) for the codimension-one soliton profile $`T_{\mathrm{sol}}(𝐫)=T_0𝐏_{\stackrel{~}{p_0}}(𝐱)`$. We get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle _{M_{p+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{R_1}}𝑑\delta (x^2)C_p^{\mathrm{RR}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R_1}}{\displaystyle _{M_{p+1}}}\delta ^{}(x^2)C_p^{\mathrm{RR}}.`$
In the present case, unlike the codimension-two solitons, $`𝑑x^2\delta ^{}(x^2)=0`$ and hence the above Chern-Simons coupling vanishes. This shows that the codimension-one soliton carries no BPS$`(p1)`$-brane charge at all. Clearly, this should be considered as a non-BPS$`(p1)`$-brane which does not carry a RR charge. Furthermore such a non-BPS brane cannot be in the original IIA/B theory since that contains non-BPS $`p`$-branes. This implies that one must consider this non-BPS $`(p1)`$ as living in the T-dual geometry (T-dualized along $`x^1`$), a fact that we found in the bosonic context by an explicit computation of the tension. Furthermore, repeating the earlier analysis in the bosonic string context , one discovers that tachyon fluctuation $`\delta T(x^2)`$ induces a coupling of the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T_0}}{\displaystyle _{M_p}}𝑑\delta TC_{p1}^{\mathrm{RR}}.`$
This is indeed the correct form of the Chern-Simons coupling for a non-BPS D$`(p1)`$-brane localized at a point along the T-dualized $`\stackrel{~}{x^1}`$-direction. Again, we have shown that the T-duality between Type IIA and IIB superstring theories, which is known as a discrete symmetry, is part of the U($`\mathrm{}`$) gauge symmetry arising in the large noncommutativity limit.

We are grateful to M.R. Douglas and S.R. Wadia for useful discussions, and J.A. Harvey and E. Witten for important suggestions. We acknowledge warm hospitality of Theory group at CERN during this work.


text:
# Transverse muon polarization in 𝐾^±→𝜋⁰𝜇^±𝜈 decay induced by the two-photon final-state interaction

## 1 Introduction

Measurement of the muon transverse polarization $`P_T`$ in the decay $`K^\pm \pi ^0\mu ^\pm \nu `$ ($`K_{\mu 3}`$) can provide important insight to new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). In the case of $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decay, $`P_T`$ is a T-odd observable $`𝐬_\mu (𝐩_\pi \times 𝐩_\mu )`$ determined by the momenta $`𝐩_\pi `$ of the $`\pi ^0`$, $`𝐩_\mu `$ of the $`\mu `$ and the spin $`𝐬_\mu `$ of the $`\mu `$. This observable is very small in the SM, but it is an interesting probe of non-SM CP-violation mechanisms  where $`P_T`$ can be as large as $`10^3`$ in either $`K_{\mu 3}`$ or $`K^\pm \mu ^\pm \nu \gamma `$ ($`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$). The recent measurement of $`P_T`$ in the $`K^+\pi ^0\mu ^+\nu `$ decay provided by KEK E246  gives a value of $`P_T`$ consistent with zero with experimental error $`\sigma 5\times 10^3`$ and will be further improved by a factor of 4. The first limit on $`P_T`$ in $`K_{\mu 2\gamma }`$ will also be obtained in this experiment. Proposed experiments  could reach sensitivity to $`P_T`$ of $`10^4`$.

In fact, whether CP or T is violated or not, a nonvanishing $`P_T`$ in $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decays can be induced by electromagnetic final-state interactions (FSI). In the neutral kaon decays this correlation arises due to the imaginary part of the diagram in Fig. 1, and can be as large as $`10^3`$ . In this sense, $`K^\pm \pi ^0\mu ^\pm \nu `$ decays have a major advantage: here the final pion is neutral, and thus there is no elastic electromagnetic FSI. The single-photon contribution to $`P_T^{em}`$ arises in these decays due to the imaginary part of the two-loop diagram shown in Fig. 2, and was estimated as $`P_T^{em}10^6`$ . Such a strong suppression of this imaginary part is caused by the small value of the phase space of the three-particle intermediate state.

In the present work we demonstrate that the two-photon effects result in a larger contribution to the transverse muon polarization in the $`K^\pm \pi ^0\mu ^\pm \nu `$ decays.

Let us note that the FSI contribution to the muon transverse polarization in the $`K^+\pi ^0\mu ^+\nu `$ and $`K^{}\pi ^0\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays is the same: $`P_T^{em+}=P_T^{em}`$, while the CP-odd contributions are of opposite signs: $`P_T^{CP+}=P_T^{CP}`$. To be definite, we present all intermediate formulae for the $`K^{}\pi ^0\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay.

For the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ decay, the most general invariant amplitude is

$$M_{K_{\mu 3}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[(p_K+p_\pi )_\mu f_+(t)+(p_Kp_\pi )_\mu f_{}(t)\right]\overline{u}(p_\mu )\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)v(p_\nu ).$$
(1)
Here $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant; $`V_{us}`$ is the element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix; $`f_+(t)`$ and $`f_{}(t)`$ are form factors, $`p_K,p_\pi ,p_\mu ,`$ and $`p_\nu `$ are the momenta of the kaon, pion, muon, and antineutrino, respectively; $`t=(p_Kp_\pi )^2`$ is the momentum transfer squared to the lepton pair. Our convention for $`\gamma _5`$ is

$$\gamma _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill I\\ \hfill I& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
Expression (1) can be conveniently rewritten as

$$M=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}\sqrt{2}f_+(t)\overline{u}(p_\mu )(\widehat{p}_K+\chi \widehat{p}_\mu )(1+\gamma _5)v(p_\nu ),$$
(3)
where

$$\chi =\frac{1}{2}(\xi 1),\xi =\frac{f_{}}{f_+}=0.35\pm 0.15\text{[7]}.$$
(4)
The standard parameterization is

$$f_+(t)=f_+(0)\left(1+\lambda \frac{t}{m_\pi ^2}\right),\lambda =0.0286\pm 0.0022\text{[7]}.$$
(5)
Experimental data are compatible with a constant, i.e., $`t`$-independent, $`f_{}`$.

The covariant, 4-dimensional form of the transverse polarization vector is

$$P_{T\alpha }=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\chi m_\mu \epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\nu \gamma }p_{k\delta }/\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(6)
$$\epsilon _{0123}=1,\mathrm{\Phi }=2(p_\mu p_K)(p_\nu p_K)m_K^2(p_\mu p_\nu )+2\chi m_\mu ^2(p_\nu p_K)+|\chi |^2m_\mu ^2(p_\mu p_\nu ).$$

The covariant expression for the degree of transverse polarization is

$$P_T=2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\chi m_\mu \sqrt{D}/\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(7)
where

$$D=m_\mu ^2m_\pi ^2m_K^2+2(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_\mu p_K)(p_\pi p_K)m_\mu ^2(p_\pi p_K)^2m_\pi ^2(p_\mu p_K)^2m_K^2(p_\mu p_\pi )^2.$$
(8)
## 2 Some details of the calculation

We are interested in the transverse polarization due to $`\mathrm{Im}\chi `$ induced by the FSI with two photons. Here the transverse muon polarization is proportional to the imaginary parts of diagrams shown in Fig. 3. In diagrams a, c, e, g, h both photons are real and the intermediate muon is off-mass-shell. In diagrams b, d, f the intermediate muon and one photon are on-mass-shell, and the second photon is virtual. In the diagrams, the on-mass-shell intermediate particles are marked by crosses. Among the diagrams, those with both photons attached to the kaon, are absent. Obviously, there is no P-even effective $`KK\pi `$ vertex.

The common vertex for the diagrams 3a, b is the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude:

$$M(\pi ^0\gamma \gamma )=\sqrt{2}\frac{\alpha }{\pi f_\pi }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }e_{1\alpha }e_{2\beta }k_{1\gamma }k_{2\delta },$$
(9)
where $`e_{1\alpha },e_{2\beta }`$ are the polarization vectors of the photons, $`k_{1\gamma },k_{2\delta }`$ are their momenta and $`f_\pi =0.13`$ GeV. We use here the theoretical expression for the coupling constant; the $`\pi _0`$ life time calculated with it reproduces the experimental value within the accuracy of the latter.

The $`K^{}\mu ^{}\nu `$ vertex in the Inner Bremsstrahlung (IB) diagrams 3a-d, is

$$M(K_{\mu 2})=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}if_Kp_{K\mu }\overline{u}(p_\mu )\gamma _\mu (1+\gamma _5)v(p_\nu ),$$
(10)
where $`f_K=0.16`$ GeV.

The $`K^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }\gamma `$ vertex in the structure dependent ($`SD`$) radiation diagrams in Fig. 3e-g is described by two independent amplitudes:

$$M(SD_V)=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }F_V\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }e_{1\alpha }\overline{u}(p_\mu )\gamma _\beta (1+\gamma _5)v(p_\nu )k_{1\gamma }(p_Kk_1)_\delta ;$$
(11)
$$M(SD_A)=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}V_{us}\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }(i)F_A[\delta _{\alpha \beta }(p_Kk_1)(p_Kk_1)_\alpha k_{1\beta }]e_{1\alpha }\overline{u}(p_\mu )\gamma _\beta (1+\gamma _5)v(p_\nu ).$$
(12)
Let us note here that when going over from the $`K^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }\gamma `$ decay to $`K^+\mu ^+\nu \gamma `$, not only the lepton current in both amplitudes changes to $`\overline{u}(p_\nu )\gamma _\beta (1+\gamma _5)v(p_\mu )`$, but in the second amplitude, $`M(SD_A)`$, $`(i)`$ changes to $`i`$. Theoretically, the vector form factor $`F_V`$ is directly related to the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ amplitude  (see also ). In the case of $`\pi e\nu \gamma `$ decay one should delete $`4\pi \alpha `$ from the constant $`\sqrt{2}\alpha /\pi f_\pi `$ in , and then divide by $`\sqrt{2}`$. In our case of the $`K\mu \nu \gamma `$ decay one should also change $`f_\pi f_K`$. Thus we obtain

$$F_V=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2f_K}=\frac{0.079}{m_K}.$$
(13)
The value of the axial form factor $`F_A`$, as predicted by chiral perturbation theory, is

$$F_A=\frac{0.043}{m_K}.$$
(14)
The experimental study of the decay $`K^+\mu ^+\nu \gamma `$  results in the following information on the corresponding form factors in this decay:

$$0.04/m_K<F_VF_A<0.24/m_K,|F_V+F_A|=(0.165\pm 0.007\pm 0.011)/m_K.$$

As to the diagram 3h with a double SD radiation, qualitative arguments will be presented below which allow one to neglect it.

A common feature of all diagrams where both intermediate photons are real (3a, c, e, g, h), is that their contributions are proportional to $`m_\pi ^2`$. Indeed, in the limit $`m_\pi 0`$ the 4-momenta of the photons in the $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$ decay become collinear, and the matrix element (9) vanishes. On the scale of the $`K_{\mu 3}`$ problem, $`m_\pi ^2`$ is relatively small, and correspondingly, the contributions of diagrams 3a, c, e, g, hare rather small as well.

On the other hand, there is a certain similarity between contributions of the intermediate states with two real photons and real photon and muon in diagrams of the same structure, i.e., between imaginary parts corresponding to diagrams of Fig. 3: a and b, c and d, e and f, respectively. Therefore, it is expedient to calculate the respective pairs of imaginary parts in parallel. Strong cancellations occur between the terms proportional to $`m_\pi ^2`$ in diagrams a and b, c and d, e and f. In particular, the most formidable integrals, which arise in diagrams a and b, cancel completely.

Still, the calculation remains quite tedious, and only its final results will be presented.

## 3 Internal Bremsstrahlung

We start with the contribution of the IB diagrams 3a-d:

$`2\mathrm{Im}\chi (IB)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{f_K}{f_\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_+(t)}}\{4+3\chi `$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_{\mu \pi }^2}}\left[(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2+\chi m_\mu ^2m_\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\mu ^2\chi (p_\pi P)}{P^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2L_2}{2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{I_{\mu \pi }^2}}\left((p_\mu p_\pi )+(1+\chi )m_\mu ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2(1+\chi )m_\mu ^2}{m_\pi ^2+2(p_\mu p_\pi )}}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_kp_\pi )m_\pi ^2(p_kp_\mu )}{2D}}[L_2((p_kp_\pi )(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2(p_kp_\mu )+\chi I_{\mu \pi }^2`$
$`(1+\chi )((p_kp_\mu )(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\mu ^2(p_kp_\pi )))+L_3(\chi ((p_kp_\mu )m_\pi ^2(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_kp_\pi ))`$
$`I_{k\pi }^2(1+\chi )((p_kp_\mu )(p_kp_\pi )m_k^2(p_\mu p_\pi )))`$
$`+L_4(I^2+\chi [((p_kp_\pi )m_k^2)(p_\mu P)(p_kp_\mu )((p_\pi P)(p_kP))])]`$
$`+[(p_kp_\pi )(1+\chi ){\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2\chi }{2}}](L_3L_4)L_4\left[(p_kp_\mu )(1+\chi )\chi (p_\mu p_\pi )\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{I^2}}[(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_kp_\mu )+m_\mu ^2]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}\right)\left[(p_kP){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_k^2P^2L_4\right]`$
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})((p_kP){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_k^2P^2L_4){\displaystyle \frac{C}{D}}][\chi ((p_kp_\pi )(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2)`$
$`(1+\chi )(m_k^2(p_kP))]\}.`$
Here $`\chi =\chi (t)`$ is defined in fact by the same relation (4) and does not include $`\mathrm{Im}\chi `$ which is being calculated, $`D`$ is given in (8), $`P=p_\mu +p_\pi `$,

$$L_2=\frac{1}{I_{\mu \pi }}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(p_\pi P)+I_{\mu \pi }}{(p_\pi P)I_{\mu \pi }},L_3=\frac{1}{I_{k\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(p_kp_\pi )+I_{k\pi }}{(p_kp_\pi )I_{k\pi }},L_4=\frac{1}{I}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(p_kP)+I}{(p_kP)I},$$

$$I_{\mu \pi }=\sqrt{(p_\mu p_\pi )^2m_\mu ^2m_\pi ^2},I_{k\pi }=\sqrt{(p_kp_\pi )^2m_k^2m_\pi ^2},I=\sqrt{(p_kP)^2P^2m_k^2},$$

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{L_2[(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_kp_\mu )m_\pi ^22(p_\mu p_\pi )^2(p_kp_\pi )+(p_kp_\pi )m_\pi ^2m_\mu ^2]`$
$`\left(L_3L_4\right)\left[(p_kp_\pi )(p_kp_\mu )m_\pi ^22(p_\mu p_\pi )(p_kp_\pi )^2+(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2m_k^2\right]`$
$`+L_4[(p_\mu p_\pi )^2m_k^2m_\mu ^2(p_kp_\pi )^2D]\}.`$
The first line $`4+3\chi `$ in braces in (15) is dominating, it constitutes about 70% at the center of the Dalitz plot. The typical value of the IB contribution in this region is

$$2\mathrm{Im}\chi (IB)=1.4\times 10^5.$$
(16)
## 4 Structure-dependent radiation

The vector SD amplitude (11) is operative in all three diagrams 3e-g. Its contribution equals

$`2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2F_V}{4\pi f_\pi f_+(t)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{I_{\mu \pi }^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2L_2}{2}}(p_\mu p_\pi )`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2(p_\pi P)}{P^2}})](P^2+\chi (Pp_\mu ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi L_2m_\pi ^4}{4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})[m_\pi ^2+(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{(Pp_\pi )}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})^2`$
$`\times (2m_k^2+P^2)]+A[(Pp_k)+\chi (p_kp_\mu )]+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{I_{k\pi }^2}}[(p_kp_\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{m_k^2m_\pi ^2}{2}}L_3]`$
$`\times [\chi ((p_kp_\pi )m_\pi ^2)+(1+\chi )((p_kp_\pi )m_k^2)]\}.`$
Numerically, this contribution at the center of the Dalitz plot is

$$2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_V)=0.9\times 10^6.$$
(18)
Let us consider now the contribution of the axial SD amplitude (12). In this case diagram 3g is not operative, and diagrams 3e,f give

$`2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2F_V}{4\pi f_\pi f_+(t)}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_\pi ^2}{I_{pq}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2L_2}{2}}(p_\mu p_\pi )`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2(m_\pi ^2+(p_\mu p_\pi ))}{P^2}})](P^2+\chi (Pp_\mu ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi L_2m_\pi ^4}{4}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi }{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}\right)\left[m_\pi ^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(Pp_\pi )}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}\right)^2\left(2m_k^2+P^2\right)\right]`$
$`+A[(Pp_k)m_k^2\chi ((p_kp_\mu )(Pp_\mu ))]\}.`$
Here

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_{\mu \pi }^2}}\left\{2(p_\mu p_\pi )^2m_\mu ^2(Pp_\pi )\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}}\right)\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2m_\pi ^4L_2}{2I_{pq}^2}}.`$ (20)
If one assumes for $`F_A`$ its theoretical value (14), then the contribution of (19) constitutes numerically at the center of the Dalitz plot

$$2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_A)0.3\times 10^6.$$
(21)
And at last, the double structure-dependent (DSD) radiation (see diagram 3h). The small magnitude even of the single SD effects, gives us serious reasons to assume that the contribution of the DSD diagram 3h to $`2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{m}\chi `$ can be safely neglected, so much the more that it is proportional to $`m_\pi ^2`$.

## 5 Conclusion

Among the effects of the FSI, it is the two-photon ones which provide the main contribution to the transverse muon polarization in $`K^\pm \pi ^0\mu ^\pm \nu `$ decay. The typical value of $`2\mathrm{Im}\chi `$ in the central part of the Dalitz plot is close to

$$2\mathrm{Im}\chi =2\mathrm{Im}\chi (IB)+2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_V)+2\mathrm{Im}\chi (SD_A)1.3\times 10^5.$$
(22)
The deviation from this value over the Dalitz plot does not exceed 15%.

The typical value of the transverse muon polarization in the central part of the Dalitz plot is about

$$P_T^{em}4\times 10^6.$$
(23)
The distribution of this polarization over the Dalitz plot is shown in Fig. 4. At low pion energy it can reach the level of $`6\times 10^6`$.

\***

This work was supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research through Grants No. 98-02-17797 and 99-02-17814, I.B.K. and G.G.K. acknowledge also the support by the Ministry of Education through Grant No. 3N-224-98, and by the Federal Program Integration-1998 through Project No. 274.

## Appendix

Here we present for convenience some useful integrals.

1. Two-photon intermediate states

$$d\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_\pi k_1k_2)\frac{d^3k_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d^3k_2}{2\omega _2},k_1^2=0,k_2^2=0.$$

$$𝑑\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}=\frac{1}{8\pi }.$$

$$k_{1\alpha }𝑑\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}=\frac{p_{\pi \alpha }}{16\pi }.$$

$$\frac{d\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}}{(p_\mu k_2)}=\frac{1}{8\pi }L_1.$$

$$\frac{k_{2\alpha }}{(p_\mu k_2)}𝑑\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}=\frac{p_{\mu \alpha }}{8\pi I_{\mu \pi }^2}\left[\frac{m_\pi ^2(p_\mu p_\pi )}{2}L_1m_\pi ^2\right]+\frac{p_{\pi \alpha }}{8\pi I_{\mu \pi }^2}\left[(p_\mu p_\pi )\frac{m_\mu ^2(p_\mu p_\pi )}{2}L_1\right].$$

$$\frac{d\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}}{(p_kk_1)}=\frac{1}{8\pi }L_3.$$

$$\frac{k_{1\alpha }}{(p_kk_1)}𝑑\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}=\frac{p_{k\alpha }}{8\pi I_{k\pi }^2}\left[\frac{m_\pi ^2(p_kp_\pi )}{2}L_3m_\pi ^2\right]+\frac{p_{\pi \alpha }}{8\pi I_{k\pi }^2}\left[(p_kp_\pi )\frac{m_k^2(p_\mu p_\pi )}{2}L_3\right].$$

Here

$$L_1=\frac{1}{I_{\mu \pi }}\mathrm{ln}\frac{(p_\mu p_\pi )+I_{\mu \pi }}{(p_\mu p_\pi )I_{\mu \pi }}.$$

$`I_{\mu \pi }`$, $`I_{k\pi }`$, and $`L_3`$ are defined in the text.

2. Muon-photon intermediate states

$$d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\delta (p_\mu +p_\pi k_1p)\frac{d^3k_1}{2\omega _1}\frac{d^3p}{2p_0},p^2=(p_\mu +k_2)^2=m_\mu ^2,k_1^2=0.$$

$$𝑑\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}=\frac{1}{8\pi }\left(1\frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}\right).$$

$$k_{1\alpha }𝑑\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}=\frac{1}{16\pi }\left(1\frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}\right)^2P_\alpha .$$

$$k_{1\alpha }k_{1\beta }𝑑\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}=\frac{1}{96\pi }\left(1\frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}\right)^3\left(g_{\alpha \beta }P^24P_\alpha P_\beta \right).$$

$$\frac{d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}}{(p_\pi k_1)^2}=\frac{1}{16\pi }(L_1+L_2).$$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_{2\alpha }}{(p_\pi k_1)^2}𝑑\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi I_{\mu \pi }^2}}\{p_{\mu \alpha }[(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})(p_\pi P){\displaystyle \frac{(p_\mu p_\pi )m_\pi ^2}{2}}(L_1+L_2)]`$
$`p_{\pi \alpha }[(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2}})(p_\mu P){\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu ^2m_\pi ^2}{2}}(L_1+L_2)]\}.`$
$$\frac{d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}}{(p_kk_1)}=\frac{1}{8\pi }L_4.$$

$$\frac{k_{1\alpha }}{(p_kk_1)}d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}=\frac{1}{8\pi I^2}(1\frac{m_\mu ^2}{P^2})\{p_{k\alpha }P^2(\frac{1}{2}(p_kP)L_41)$$

$$+P_\alpha [(p_kP)\frac{1}{2}m_k^2P^2L_4]\}.$$

3. Integrals generating constants $`C`$ and $`A`$

$$\frac{\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma }k_{1\delta }k_{1\rho }d\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma }k_{1\delta }k_{1\rho }d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}}{(p_kk_1)(p_\mu k_2)}=\frac{C}{8\pi D}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \rho }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma },.$$

$$\frac{\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma }k_{1\delta }k_{1\rho }d\rho _{(\gamma \gamma )}\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma }k_{1\delta }k_{1\rho }d\rho _{(\mu \gamma )}}{(p_\mu k_2)}=\frac{A}{32\pi }\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \gamma \rho }p_{k\alpha }p_{\mu \beta }p_{\pi \gamma }.$$

Explicit expressions for $`C`$, $`D`$, and $`A`$ are given in the text.