text:
# Ideals in transformation-group 𝑪^∗-algebras

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a locally compact Hausdorff transformation group: thus $`G`$ is a locally compact Hausdorff group and $`X`$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space together with a jointly continuous map $`(s,x)sx`$ from $`G\times X`$ to $`X`$ such that $`s(tx)=stx`$ and $`ex=x`$. The associated transformation-group $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_0(X)G`$ is the $`C^{}`$-algebra which is universal for the covariant representations of the $`C^{}`$-dynamical system $`(C_0(X),G,\alpha )`$ in the sense of . More concretely, $`C_0(X)G`$ is the enveloping $`C^{}`$-algebra of the Banach $``$-algebra $`L^1(G,C_0(X))`$ of functions $`f:GC_0(X)`$ which are Bochner integrable with respect to a fixed left Haar measure on $`G`$ \[18, Section 7.6\]. We will always assume that $`G`$ and $`X`$ are second countable so that $`C_0(X)G`$ is separable. In our main results, we assume either that $`G`$ is abelian or that $`G`$ acts freely.

It is natural to attempt to characterize properties of $`C_0(X)G`$ in terms of the dynamics of the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$, and there are a large number of results of this sort in the literature . We were motivated by a particularly nice example due to Green \[13, Corollary 18\] in which he was able to characterize the closure $`I`$ of the ideal of continuous-trace elements in $`C_0(X)G`$ in the case $`G`$ acts freely and $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal. (Since we’ll be working exclusively with separable $`C^{}`$-algebras, we will not distinguish between Type I and postliminal algebras.) There are three ingredients required for this sort of project. First, one needs a global characterization of algebras $`C_0(X)G`$ which have continuous trace. Second, one needs to know that the ideal $`I`$ is of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$ for an open $`G`$-invariant set $`Y`$ in $`X`$. And third, one wants a straightforward characterization of $`Y`$ in terms of the dynamics. Assuming that $`G`$ acts freely, Green showed that $`C_0(X)G`$ has continuous trace if and only if every compact set $`KX`$ is *wandering* in that

$$\{sG:sKK\mathrm{}\}$$

is relatively compact in $`G`$ \[13, Theorem 17\]. If $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal, then $`G`$ acting freely implies every ideal is of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$, and Green showed $`I=C_0(Y)G`$ where

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}Y=\{yX:y\text{ has a compact wandering neighborhood }N\hfill \\ \hfill \text{such that }q(N)\text{ is closed and Hausdorff}\},\end{array}$$

where $`q:XX/G`$ is the quotient map. (The criteria in (1.1) are slightly different than those given by Green; unfortunately, the statement in \[13, Corollary 18\] is not quite correct — see Remark 3.5.)

To extend Green’s results to actions which are not necessarily free, we relied (1) on the second author’s result \[24, Theorem 5.1\] stating that if $`G`$ is abelian then $`C_0(X)G`$ has continuous trace if and only if the stability groups move continuously and every compact set is *$`G`$-wandering* as defined in §3, and (2) on a result of Phillips which allows us to assume the ideal in question is of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$. Our characterization is given in Theorem 3.9 and is valid for abelian groups, freely acting amenable groups, or freely acting groups for which $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal.

For abelian groups or freely acting groups, Gootman showed that $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal if and only if the orbit space $`X/G`$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ axiom of separability \[9, Theorem 3.3\]. Similarly $`C_0(X)G`$ is liminal if and only if each orbit is closed \[23, Theorem 3.1\]. Using these results, we give characterizations of the largest postliminal and liminal ideals in $`C_0(X)G`$ in Theorems 3.15 and 3.13, respectively.

The set of $`aA^+`$ such that $`\pi \mathrm{tr}\pi (a)`$ is bounded on $`\widehat{A}`$ is the positive part of a two-sided ideal $`𝒯(A)`$. If $`𝒯(A)`$ is dense in $`A`$, then $`A`$ is said to have *bounded trace*. Such algebras are also *uniformly liminal* \[2, Theorem 2.6\]. The first author has characterized when $`C_0(X)G`$ has bounded trace \[15, Theorem 4.9\], and she has used this to find the largest bounded trace ideal in \[15, Theorem 5.8\]. An intermediate condition between $`A`$ being a continuous-trace $`C^{}`$-algebra and an algebra with bounded trace is that $`A`$ be a *Fell algebra*. A point $`\pi \widehat{A}`$ is called a *Fell point* of the spectrum if there is a neighborhood $`V`$ of $`\pi `$ and $`aA^+`$ such that $`\rho (a)`$ is a rank-one projection for all $`\rho V`$. Then $`A`$ is a Fell algebra if every $`\pi \widehat{A}`$ is a Fell point, and a Fell algebra is a continuous-trace $`C^{}`$-algebra if and only if $`\widehat{A}`$ is Hausdorff (cf., \[22, §5.14\]). If $`G`$ acts freely, then $`C_0(X)G`$ is a Fell algebra if and only if $`X`$ is a Cartan $`G`$-space , and we treat the case of continuously varying stabilizers below (Proposition 3.3). Using these results, we identify the largest Fell ideal in $`C_0(X)G`$ when the stability groups vary continuously (Corollary 3.4).

Naturally our techniques depend on describing ideals in $`C_0(X)G`$ in terms of the dynamics. To do this, we need to know that each primitive ideal in $`C_0(X)G`$ is induced from a stability group (cf., \[23, Definition 4.12\]). Cross products with this property are called *EH-regular*, and in the separable case it suffices for $`G`$ to be amenable  or for the orbit space $`X/G`$ to be $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ \[14, Proposition 20\]. Therefore, if $`G`$ is abelian then $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular. If $`G`$ acts freely, then we will have to assume either that $`G`$ is amenable or the orbit space is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$. If the action is free and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, then ideals in $`C_0(X)G`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with $`G`$-invariant open sets $`Y`$ in $`X`$. If $`G`$ does not act freely, then we must assume that $`G`$ is abelian so that we can employ the dual action to conclude that the ideals we are interested in correspond to $`G`$-invariant open subsets of $`X`$.

## 2. Invariance of ideals under the dual action

Although ideals in $`C_0(X)G`$ can be difficult to describe in general, there is always an ideal associated to each $`G`$-invariant open subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$. The closure of $`C_c(G\times Y)`$ (viewed as a subset of $`C_c(G\times X)`$) is an ideal in $`C_0(X)G`$ which we can identify with $`C_0(Y)G`$ (cf., e.g., \[13, Lemma 1\]). When the action of $`G`$ is free and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, \[23, Corollary 5.10\] implies that $`\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$ is homeomorphic to the quotient space $`(X/G)^{}`$ of $`X/G`$ where $`Gx`$ is identified with $`Gy`$ if $`\overline{Gx}=\overline{Gy}`$. It follows that every ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ is of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$ for some $`G`$-invariant open set $`Y`$. When $`G`$ is abelian and does not necessarily act freely, we can distinguish those ideals of $`C_0(X)G`$ of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$ via the dual action. Indeed, let $`\widehat{G}`$ denote the Pontryagin dual of $`G`$. The *dual action* $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`C_0(X)G`$ is given by

$$\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (f)(s)=\tau (s)f(s,)\text{for }fC_c(G\times X)\text{ and }\tau \widehat{G}.$$

The induced action of $`\widehat{G}`$ on $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ is $`\tau \pi =\pi \widehat{\alpha }_\tau ^1`$, and this action is jointly continuous (cf., e.g., \[22, Lemma 7.1\]). The importance of the dual action for us comes from the following lemma due to Phillips.

###### Lemma 2.1 (\[19, Proposition 6.39\]).

Suppose that $`(G,X)`$ is a second countable transformation group with $`G`$ abelian. If $`I`$ is a $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$, then there is an open $`G`$-invariant set $`Y`$ in $`X`$ such that $`I=C_0(Y)G`$.

As an example, note that it is easy to see that the set of Fell points of the spectrum is invariant under the dual action. If $`\pi `$ is a Fell point, then by definition there exist $`aA^+`$ and an open neighborhood $`V`$ of $`\pi `$ in $`\widehat{A}`$ such that $`\sigma (a)`$ is a rank-one projection for all $`\sigma V`$. If $`b=\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (a)`$ then for every $`\rho \tau V`$ we have $`\rho (b)=\sigma (a)`$ for some $`\sigma V`$. Hence $`\tau \pi `$ is also a Fell point. Thus the largest Fell ideal must be of the form $`C_0(Y)G`$.

Recall that a positive element $`a`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is a *continuous-trace element* if the function $`\pi \mathrm{tr}(\pi (a))`$ is finite and continuous on $`\widehat{A}`$. The linear span $`m(A)`$ of these elements is an ideal in $`A`$, and $`A`$ is a *continuous-trace $`C^{}`$-algebra* if $`m(A)`$ is dense in $`A`$.

We want to prove that $`\overline{m(A)}`$ is invariant under the dual action. To do this, we need a lemma of Green which characterizes this ideal by determining its irreducible representations. Recall that if $`I`$ is an ideal of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$, then the spectrum $`\widehat{I}`$ of $`I`$ is homeomorphic to the open set $`𝒪_I:=\{\rho \widehat{A}:\rho (I)\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}\}`$ in $`\widehat{A}`$. We will also use that every $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has a dense hereditary ideal $`\kappa (A)`$ — called the *Pedersen ideal* of $`A`$ — which is the smallest dense ideal in $`A`$ \[18, Theorem 5.6.1\]. As Green’s result is an essential ingredient in many of our proofs, we give the brief argument here. The key idea of the proof is that $`\pi \left(m(A)\right)\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$ if and only if $`\pi `$ has lots of *closed* neighborhoods in $`\widehat{A}`$.

###### Lemma 2.2 (\[13, p. 96\]).

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`I=\overline{m(A)}`$. Then $`\pi 𝒪_I`$ if and only if

1. there exists an ideal $`J`$ of $`A`$ which has continuous trace such that $`\pi 𝒪_J`$; and
2. $`\pi `$ has a neighborhood basis consisting of closed sets.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi 𝒪_I`$. There exists a positive element $`am(A)`$ such that $`\mathrm{tr}(\pi (a))=1`$. It follows that the set

$$L=\{\rho \widehat{A}:\mathrm{tr}(\rho (a))\frac{1}{2}\}$$

is a closed neighborhood of $`\pi `$ and $`L𝒪_I`$. Let $`\{F_\alpha \}`$ be a compact neighborhood basis of $`\pi `$ in $`\widehat{A}`$. Notice that $`L`$ is Hausdorff since $`𝒪_I`$ is. Thus $`F_\alpha L`$ is closed in $`L`$, and therefore in $`\widehat{A}`$ as well. It follows that $`\{F_\alpha L\}`$ is a neighborhood basis of $`\pi `$ consisting of closed sets. This proves item (b). That item (a) holds is obvious (just take $`J=I`$).

Conversely, let $`\pi \widehat{A}`$ satisfy items (a) and (b). Then there exists an ideal $`J_0J`$ of $`A`$ such that $`\pi 𝒪_{J_0}`$ and $`\overline{𝒪_{J_0}}𝒪_J`$. Let $`a`$ be a positive element of the Pedersen ideal $`\kappa (J_0)`$ of $`J_0`$. Then $`\rho \mathrm{tr}(\rho (a))`$ is continuous on $`𝒪_J`$ because $`\kappa (J_0)\kappa (J)m(J)`$. Since $`\rho \mathrm{tr}(\rho (a))`$ vanishes off of $`𝒪_{J_0}`$, it is continuous on all of $`\widehat{A}`$. Thus $`\kappa (J_0)m(A)I`$, whence $`J_0I`$, and $`\pi 𝒪_I`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group with $`G`$ abelian. Then $`I=\overline{m(C_0(X)G)}`$ is $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant, and $`I=C_0(Y)G`$ for an open $`G`$-invariant subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

We use Lemma 2.2 to show that $`\tau \pi 𝒪_I`$ whenever $`\pi 𝒪_I`$ and $`\tau \widehat{G}`$. If $`\pi 𝒪_I`$ then there exists an ideal $`J`$ of $`A`$ with continuous trace such that $`\pi 𝒪_J`$. Note that $`\tau \pi \tau 𝒪_J=𝒪_{\tau J}`$, where $`\tau J=\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (J)`$. Since $`J`$ has continuous trace each element $`\rho `$ of $`𝒪_J`$ is a Fell point and $`𝒪_J`$ is Hausdorff. Thus $`\tau 𝒪_J`$ is also Hausdorff, and each point $`\tau \rho `$ in $`\tau 𝒪_J`$ is a Fell point. It follows that $`\tau J`$ is an ideal of $`A`$ with continuous trace and $`\tau \pi 𝒪_{\tau J}`$.

Finally, if $`\{F_\alpha \}`$ is a neighborhood basis of $`\pi `$ consisting of closed sets then $`\{\tau F_\alpha \}`$ is a neighborhood basis of $`\tau \pi `$ with the same properties. Thus $`\tau \pi 𝒪_I`$ by Lemma 2.2.

We have shown that $`𝒪_I`$ and hence $`I`$ are $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant. The final assertion follows from Lemma 2.1. ∎

More generally, for an amenable $`C^{}`$-dynamical system $`(A,G,\alpha )`$, an ideal $`I`$ of $`A_\alpha G`$ is invariant under the dual coaction if and only if $`I=J_\alpha G`$ for some unique, $`\alpha `$-invariant ideal in $`J`$ of $`A`$ \[10, Theorem 3.4\]. Since we use a representation theoretic approach to identify $`\overline{m(C_0(X)G)}`$ there are two obstacles to extending our techniques to non-abelian groups. First, there is no notion of induced coaction on $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$, and second, we do not have a concrete description of $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ in terms of $`X`$ and $`G`$.

If $`G`$ is abelian, consider the quotient space obtained from $`X\times \widehat{G}`$ where

$$(x,\omega )(y,\tau )\text{if and only if}\overline{Gx}=\overline{Gy}\text{ and }\omega |_{S_x}=\tau |_{S_y}.$$

This identification makes sense because $`\overline{Gx}=\overline{Gy}`$ implies $`S_x=S_y`$ for abelian groups. Since we’re assuming $`(G,X)`$ is second countable, \[23, Theorem 5.3\] implies that

$$[(x,\omega )]\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{Ind}_{(x,S_x)}^G(\omega |_{S_x}))$$

is a homeomorphism of $`X\times \widehat{G}/`$ onto $`\mathrm{Prim}(C_0(X)G)`$. We write $`\pi _x(\omega )`$ for $`\mathrm{Ind}_{(x,S_x)}^G(\omega |_{S_x})`$. As noted in the paragraph following the proof of \[23, Theorem 5.3\], the map sending $`(x,\omega )`$ to $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _x(\omega )`$ is open from $`X\times \widehat{G}`$ onto $`\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$. In particular, sets of the form $`U\times V/`$, with $`U`$ and $`V`$ open in $`X`$ and $`\widehat{G}`$, respectively, form a basis for the topology on $`\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(G)`$ denote the space of closed subgroups of $`G`$ endowed with the compact Hausdorff topology from . The stability subgroups $`S_x`$ are said to *vary continuously* if the map $`\sigma :X\mathrm{\Sigma }(G):xS_x`$ is continuous.

If $`A`$ is a Fell algebra and $`\pi \widehat{A}`$ then $`\pi `$ has an open Hausdorff neighborhood in $`\widehat{A}`$ \[1, Corollary 3.4\]. We want to be able to choose this neighborhood to be $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Suppose $`(G,X)`$ is a second countable transformation group with $`G`$ abelian and with continuously varying stability groups. If $`C_0(X)G`$ is a Fell algebra, then every irreducible representation of $`C_0(X)G`$ has an open $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant Hausdorff neighborhood in $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal, we can identify $`\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$ and $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$. We can view $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ as the appropriate quotient of $`X/G\times \widehat{G}`$, and then the map $`(Gx,\omega )[\pi _x(\omega )]`$ is an open surjection onto $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ \[23, Theorem 5.3\]. In particular, (the class of) $`\pi :=\pi _x(\omega )`$ is a typical element of $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$. Since $`A`$ is a Fell algebra, $`\pi `$ has an open Hausdorff neighborhood  which is of the form $`𝒪_J`$ for some closed ideal $`J`$ of $`A`$. We can shrink $`J`$ a bit if need be, and assume that there are open neighborhoods $`U`$ of $`Gx`$ in $`X/G`$ and $`V`$ of $`\omega `$ in $`\widehat{G}`$ such that $`U\times V/`$ is homeomorphic to $`𝒪_J`$. Suppose that $`Gx`$ and $`Gy`$ are distinct points in $`U`$. Note that each orbit is closed in $`X`$ because $`C_0(X)G`$ is liminal \[23, Theorem 3.1\]. Thus, for each $`\omega V`$, the points $`[Gx,\omega ]`$ and $`[Gy,\omega ]`$ are distinct in $`U\times V/`$. Since $`𝒪_J=U\times V/`$ is Hausdorff and $`z[Gz,\omega ]`$ is continuous, we can separate $`Gx`$ and $`Gy`$ by $`G`$-invariant open sets and it follows that $`U`$ is Hausdorff. Thus,

$$𝒪:=U\times \widehat{G}/$$

is a $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant neighborhood of $`\pi `$ which is Hausdorff because $`U`$ is Hausdorff and the stability subgroups vary continuously . ∎

## 3. Identifying ideals in $`C_0(X)G`$

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a transformation group with continuously varying stability groups. Define an equivalence relation on $`X\times G`$ by

$`(x,s)(y,t)`$ if and only if $`x=y`$ and $`s^1tS_x`$.
The continuity of the map $`\sigma `$ sending $`xS_x`$ implies that $`X\times G/`$ is locally compact Hausdorff and that the quotient map $`\delta :X\times GX\times G/`$ is open \[24, Lemma 2.3\]. The action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is *$`\sigma `$-proper* if the map $`[(x,s)](x,sx)`$ of $`X\times G/`$ into $`X\times X`$ is proper \[21, Definition 4.1\]. It is not hard to see that the action is $`\sigma `$-proper if and only if, given any compact subset $`K`$ of $`X`$, the image in $`X\times G/`$ of

(3.1)
$$\{(x,s)X\times G:xK\text{ and }sxK\}$$

is relatively compact. Any set $`K`$ for which the image of (3.1) is relatively compact is called *$`G`$-wandering* \[21, p. 406\]. If the action is free, then the notions of $`\sigma `$-properness and $`G`$-wandering reduce to the standard notions of properness and wandering, respectively.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a transformation group with continuously varying stability groups. If $`U`$ is an open $`G`$-wandering neighborhood of $`X`$ then the action of $`G`$ on $`GU`$ is $`\sigma `$-proper.

###### Proof.

Let $`K`$ be a compact set in $`GU`$ and choose $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_nG`$ such that $`K_{i=1}^nt_iU`$. It suffices to show that for each $`i`$ and $`j`$,

(3.2)
$$\delta \left(\{(y,w)GU\times G:yKt_iU\text{ and }wyKt_jU\}\right)$$

is relatively compact in $`(GU\times G)/`$.

Let $`[(y_\alpha ,w_\alpha )]`$ be a net in the set described in Equation 3.2. It will suffice to find a convergent subnet. Since $`\delta `$ is open, we can pass to a subnet, relabel, and assume that this net lifts to a net $`(y_\alpha ,s_\alpha )`$ in $`GU\times G`$ with $`s_\alpha ^1w_\alpha S_{y_\alpha }`$. Now $`y_\alpha Kt_iU`$ and $`s_\alpha y_\alpha Kt_jU`$, so that $`y_\alpha =t_ix_\alpha `$ for some $`x_\alpha U`$ and $`s_\alpha t_ix_\alpha =s_\alpha y_\alpha Kt_jU`$, that is, $`t_j^1s_\alpha t_ix_\alpha U`$.

Now $`\{(x_\alpha ,t_j^1s_\alpha t_i)\}`$ is a net in $`\{(y,w):yU\text{ and }wyU\}`$. Since $`U`$ is $`G`$-wandering $`\delta \left(\{(y,w):yU\text{ and }wyU\}\right)`$ is relatively compact. By passing to a subnet and relabeling, we may assume that for some $`n_\alpha S_{x_\alpha }`$ the net $`\{(x_\alpha ,t_j^1s_\alpha t_in_\alpha )\}`$ converges in $`X\times G`$. Since $`t_i`$ and $`t_j`$ are fixed,

$$\{(t_ix_\alpha ,s_\alpha t_in_\alpha t_i^1)\}=\{(y_\alpha ,s_\alpha t_in_\alpha t_i^1)\}$$

also converges. Since $`t_in_\alpha t_i^1S_{y_\alpha }`$ and $`s_\alpha ^1w_\alpha S_{y_\alpha }`$, we conclude that $`\{[(y_\alpha ,w_\alpha )]\}`$ converges. ∎

In  the first author showed that if the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is free then $`C_0(X)G`$ is a Fell algebra if and only if $`X`$ is a Cartan $`G`$-space (that is, each point of $`X`$ has a wandering neighborhood). If the stability subgroups vary continuously, we can prove a similar result using the following generalization of \[17, Proposition 1.1.4\].

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose that $`(G,X)`$ is a second countable transformation group with $`G`$ abelian and with continuously varying stability groups. If each point of $`X`$ has a $`G`$-wandering neighborhood, then $`Gx`$ is closed in $`X`$ for all $`xX`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`y\overline{Gx}`$. Let $`U`$ be a $`G`$-wandering neighborhood of $`y`$. Then there are $`s_\alpha G`$ such that $`s_\alpha xy`$ and $`s_\alpha xU`$ for all $`\alpha `$. We may replace $`x`$ by $`s_{\alpha _0}x`$ for some $`s_{\alpha _0}G`$, and assume that $`xU`$. Then

(3.3)
$$\{(x,s_\alpha )\}\{(z,s)X\times G:zU\text{ and }szU\}.$$

Since the right-hand side of (3.3) has relatively compact image in $`X\times G/`$ and $`\delta `$ is open, we can pass to a subnet and relabel so that there are $`t_\alpha S_x`$ such that $`s_\alpha t_\alpha s`$ in $`G`$. Then $`y=sx`$ and $`Gx`$ is closed. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group. Suppose that either $`G`$ acts freely, or that $`G`$ is abelian and that the stability groups vary continuously. Then $`C_0(X)G`$ is Fell algebra if and only if each point of $`X`$ has a $`G`$-wandering neighborhood.

###### Proof.

The free case is treated in . Now suppose that $`G`$ is abelian, that the stability groups vary continuously and that $`C_0(X)G`$ is a Fell algebra. Fix $`xX`$ and let $`\pi =\pi _x(1)(C_0(X)G)^{}`$. By Lemma 2.4, $`\pi `$ has an open Hausdorff $`\widehat{G}`$-invariant neighborhood $`𝒪_J`$, where $`J`$ is an ideal of $`A`$. Thus $`J=C_0(Y)G`$ for some $`G`$-invariant open subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$, and $`J`$ has continuous trace. The action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$ is $`\sigma `$-proper by \[24, Theorem 5.1\]. Note that $`xY`$, and let $`N`$ be a neighborhood of $`y`$ which is compact in $`Y`$. Then $`N`$ is $`G`$-wandering relative to $`Y`$, and since $`Y`$ is $`G`$-invariant $`N`$ is also $`G`$-wandering relative to $`X`$.

Conversely, assume each point in $`X`$ has a $`G`$-wandering neighborhood. Then Lemma 3.2 implies that the orbits are closed, and $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal  (even liminal ). In particular, each $`\pi (C_0(X)G)^{}`$ is of the form $`\pi _x(\omega )`$ for some $`xX`$ and $`\omega \widehat{G}`$. Let $`U`$ be a $`G`$-wandering open neighborhood of $`x`$. By Lemma 3.1 the action of $`G`$ on $`GU`$ is $`\sigma `$-proper. Since the stability subgroups vary continuously it follows from \[24, Theorem 5.1\] that $`J=C_0(GU)G`$ is an ideal of $`A`$ which has continuous trace. Thus $`\pi _x(\omega )`$ is a Fell point of $`\widehat{J}`$, whence it is also a Fell point of $`𝒪_J\widehat{A}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group. Suppose that either $`G`$ acts freely and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, or that $`G`$ is abelian and that the stability groups vary continuously. Then the largest Fell ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ is $`C_0(W)G`$ where $`W`$ is the open $`G`$-invariant subset

$$W=\{wX:w\text{ has a }G\text{-wandering neighborhood in }X\}.$$

###### Proof.

Again, the free case is dealt with in . In any event, the largest Fell ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ is $`J`$ where $`𝒪_J=\{\pi (C_0(X)G)^{}:\pi \text{ is a Fell point of }(C_0(X)G)^{}\}`$. Since $`𝒪_J`$ is invariant under the dual action, it follows that $`J=C_0(W)G`$ for some open $`G`$-invariant subset $`W`$ of $`X`$. Now apply Proposition 3.3. ∎

###### Remark 3.5.

When the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is free and $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal, Green \[13, Corollary 18\] characterized the ideal $`\overline{m(C_0(X)G)}`$ as $`C_0(Y^{})G`$ where

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}Y^{}=\{xX:x\text{ has a compact wandering neighborhood }N\hfill \\ \hfill \text{such that }GN\text{ is closed in }X\};\end{array}$$

the following example shows that this is not quite correct. The correct statement is contained in Theorem 3.9 below and says that the open subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$ corresponding to $`\overline{m(C_0(X)G)}`$ is given by Equation 1.1 in §1.

###### Example 3.6.

Consider the transformation group described by Palais in \[17, p. 298\], where $`X`$ is the strip $`\{(x,y):1x1\text{ and }y\}`$ and the group action is by $`G=`$. Beyond the strip $`1<x<1`$ the action moves a point according to

$$t(1,y)=(1,y+t)\text{and}t(1,y)=(1,yt).$$

If $`(x_0,y_0)\mathrm{int}(X)`$ let $`C_{(x_0,y_0)}`$ be the vertical translate of the graph of $`y=\frac{x^2}{1x^2}`$ which passes through $`(x_0,y_0)`$. Define $`t(x_0,y_0)`$ to be the point $`(x,y)`$ on $`C_{(x_0,y_0)}`$ such that the length of the arc of $`C_{(x_0,y_0)}`$ between $`(x_0,y_0)`$ and $`(x,y)`$ is $`|t|`$, and $`xx_0`$ has the same sign as $`t`$. That is, $`(x_0,y_0)`$ moves counter-clockwise along $`C_{(x_0,y_0)}`$ at unit speed.

Palais states that a compact set is wandering if and only if it meets at most one of the lines $`x=1`$ and $`x=1`$; this is only partially correct. Certainly, if a compact set meets at most one of the boundary lines then it is wandering. However, $`N=[0,1]\times [1,1]\{(1,0)\}`$ is an example of a wandering compact set meeting both boundary lines; moreover, $`GN`$ is closed in $`X`$, and $`N`$ is a neighborhood of $`(1,y)`$ for all $`y(1,1)`$. One sees from these examples that for this transformation group, the set $`Y^{}`$ described in (3.4) is all of $`X`$ whence $`C_0(X)G`$ should have continuous trace. But this is impossible because $`X/G(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ is not Hausdorff: for example, $`G(1+1/n,0)`$ is a sequence which converges to the distinct orbits $`G(1,0)`$ and $`G(1,0)`$. Alternatively, note that not every compact set is wandering which contradicts \[13, Theorem 17\].

###### Remark 3.7.

In Theorem 3.9, we want to consider sets $`KX`$ which are $`G`$-wandering even though we definitely are not assuming that the stabilizer map $`\sigma `$ is continuous on all of $`X`$. To make sense of this, we have to assume that $`\sigma `$ is at least continuous on $`GK`$, and then it makes sense to ask if $`K`$ is $`G`$-wandering in $`GK`$ (or, equivalently, in any $`G`$-invariant set $`Z`$ which contains $`K`$ and on which $`\sigma `$ is continuous). If $`K`$ is open, it is not hard to see that $`\sigma `$ is continuous on $`GK`$ if and only if $`\sigma `$ is continuous on $`K`$. However, in general the continuity of $`\sigma `$ on $`K`$ does not imply that $`\sigma `$ is continuous on $`GK`$. The next lemma will allow us to ignore this difficulty when applying the Theorem.

###### Lemma 3.8.

Suppose that $`(G,X)`$ is a locally compact transformation group with $`G`$ abelian and with stabilizer map $`\sigma `$. Let $`q:XX/G`$ be the quotient map. If $`\sigma `$ is continuous on a compact set $`K`$ and if $`q(K)`$ is Hausdorff, then $`\sigma `$ is continuous on $`GK`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`r_\alpha x_\alpha rx`$ for $`r_\alpha ,rG`$ and $`x_\alpha ,xK`$. We want to show that $`S_{r_\alpha x_\alpha }=S_{x_\alpha }`$ converges to $`S_{rx}=S_x`$. Since this happens if and only if every subnet converges to $`S_x`$, we can pass to a subnet, relabel and assume that $`x_\alpha yK`$. Since $`q(K)`$ is Hausdorff, $`y=sx`$ for some $`sG`$. Thus by assumption, $`S_{r_\alpha x_\alpha }=S_{x_\alpha }`$ converges to $`S_y=S_x`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.9.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group, and let $`\sigma `$ be the stabilizer map sending $`xS_x`$. Assume either that $`G`$ acts freely and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, or that $`G`$ is abelian. Let $`I:=\overline{m\left(C_0(X)G\right)}`$. Then $`I=C_0(Y)G`$, where $`Y`$ is the open $`G`$-invariant subset

(3.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}Y=\{yX:\sigma \text{ is continuous on a }G\text{-wandering compact}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{neighborhood }N\text{ of }y\text{ such that }q(N)\text{ is closed and Hausdorff}\},\end{array}$$

where $`q:XX/G`$ is the quotient map.

###### Proof.

Our proof is modeled on the proof of \[13, Corollary 18\]. Here we’ll give the proof for $`G`$ abelian and remark that the free case follows from the same sort of argument together with the following observation. If the action is free, then $`EH`$-regularity implies that $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ is homeomorphic to the $`\mathrm{T}_0`$-ization $`(X/G)^{}`$ of $`X/G`$ \[23, Corollary 5.10\]. It follows that the map $`YC_0(Y)G`$ from the set of $`G`$-invariant open subsets of $`X`$ to the set of ideals of $`C_0(X)G`$ is a bijection.

By Proposition 2.3, $`I=C_0(Z)G`$ where $`Z`$ is an open $`G`$-invariant subset of $`X`$. Let $`Y`$ be as in (3.5). Suppose that $`\pi 𝒪_I`$. Since $`I`$ has continuous trace, it is certainly postliminal, and $`\pi =\pi _x(\omega )`$ for $`xZ`$ and $`\omega \widehat{G}`$. Furthermore, \[24, Theorem 5.1\] implies that the stabilizer map $`\sigma `$ is continuous on $`Z`$ and that the action of $`G`$ on $`Z`$ is $`\sigma `$-proper. Let $`N`$ be a compact neighborhood of $`x`$ in $`Z`$. Then $`N`$ is $`G`$-wandering relative to $`Z`$, and since $`Z`$ is $`G`$-invariant, $`N`$ is also $`G`$-wandering relative to $`X`$.

Let $`q:XX/G`$ be the quotient map. We claim there is a closed neighborhood $`V`$ of $`Gx`$ in $`X/G`$ such that $`Vq(N)`$. To prove the claim, we identify $`\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$ with $`X\times \widehat{G}/`$. Then Lemma 2.2 implies $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _x(\omega )`$ has a closed neighborhood $`W(N\times \widehat{G})/`$. The map $`y\mathrm{ker}\pi _y(\omega )`$ is continuous by \[23, Lemma 4.9\], and factors through $`X/G`$ by \[23, Corollary 4.8\]. Thus we get a continuous map $`s_\omega :X/G\mathrm{Prim}\left(C_0(X)G\right)`$. Let $`V:=s_\omega ^1(W)`$. Then $`V`$ is a closed neighborhood of $`Gx`$. To prove the claim, it remains to see that $`Vq(N)`$. But if $`GyV`$, then there is a $`(z,\gamma )N\times \widehat{G}`$ such that $`(y,\omega )(z,\gamma )`$. In particular, $`\overline{Gy}=\overline{Gz}`$. Since $`Z`$ is open and $`G`$-invariant, it follows that $`yZ`$. (We have $`s_\alpha yz`$ for $`s_\alpha G`$.) Thus $`Gy`$ and $`Gz`$ have the same closures in $`Z`$. But $`C_0(Z)G`$ is liminal and each orbit must be closed in $`Z`$ \[23, Proposition 4.17\]. Thus $`Gy=Gzq(N)`$ as claimed.

With $`V`$ as above, set $`N^{}=q^1(V)N`$. Note that $`N^{}`$ is compact and $`G`$-wandering and $`GN^{}=q^1(V)`$ is closed. Finally, $`GN^{}/G`$ is Hausdorff because $`GN^{}Z`$, and $`Z/G`$ is Hausdorff since $`C_0(Z)G`$ has continuous trace . This implies that $`xY`$. Therefore $`ZY`$, and $`I=C_0(Z)GC_0(Y)G`$.

To prove the reverse implication notice that $`C_0(Y)G`$ is a Fell algebra by Proposition 3.3. In particular, it is postliminal, and every irreducible representation of $`C_0(Y)G`$ is of the form $`\pi =\pi _y(\omega )`$ for $`yY`$ and $`\omega \widehat{G}`$. We will show that $`\pi 𝒪_I`$ by verifying items (a) and (b) of Lemma 2.2. Since $`C_0(Y)G`$ is a Fell algebra $`\pi `$ has a Hausdorff open neighborhood $`𝒪_J`$, where $`J`$ is a closed ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ \[1, Corollary 3.4\]. Note that $`J`$ is a Fell algebra with Hausdorff spectrum. Hence $`J`$ has continuous trace. This establishes item (a) of Lemma 2.2.

Let $`N`$ be a compact $`G`$-wandering neighborhood of $`y`$ as in (3.5). We identify $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ with $`X\times \widehat{G}/`$. Note that $`V=GN\times \widehat{G}/`$ is a closed neighborhood of $`\pi `$ (first consider the complement and recall that the quotient map is open). That $`V`$ is Hausdorff follows from  because $`GN/G`$ is Hausdorff and the stability subgroups vary continuously on $`GN`$ by Lemma 3.8. Let $`\{F_\alpha \}`$ be a neighborhood basis of $`\pi `$ in $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ consisting of compact sets. Since a compact subset of a Hausdorff space is closed, $`\{F_\alpha V\}`$ is a neighborhood basis of $`\pi `$ in $`(C_0(X)G)^{}`$ consisting of closed sets. This establishes item (b). Since $`\pi `$ was an arbitrary irreducible representation of $`C_0(Y)G`$, we must have $`C_0(Y)GI=C_0(Z)G`$. Therefore $`Z=Y`$ and we’re done. ∎

###### Example 3.10.

If $`A=C_0(X)`$ is the transformation group in Example 3.6, then $`I=\overline{m(A)}`$ corresponds to the open strip $`Y=\{(x,y):1<x<1\}`$.

###### Example 3.11.

Let $`G=^+`$ act on $`X=^2`$ by $`t(x,y)=(x/t,y/t)`$. The orbits are rays emanating from the origin together with the origin which is a fixed point. Each orbit is locally closed so $`C_0(X)G`$ is postliminal . The stability subgroups do not vary continuously on any neighborhood of $`(0,0)`$. If $`U`$ is any $`G`$-wandering (hence wandering) neighborhood of $`(x,y)(0,0)`$ then $`(0,0)\overline{GU}`$ so that $`GU`$ is not closed in $`X`$. Thus Theorem 3.9 implies that $`m(C_0(X)G)=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$. Note that the action of $`G`$ on $`W:=X\{(0,0)\}`$ is free and proper so that $`C_0(W)G`$ is an essential ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ with continuous trace.

It should be pointed out that even for liminal algebras $`A`$, it is possible that $`m(A)=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$. To see this, recall that a point $`x`$ of a topological space $`X`$ is *separated* if for any point $`y`$ of $`X`$ not in the closure of $`\{x\}`$, the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ admit a pair of disjoint neighborhoods. If $`A`$ is a separable $`C^{}`$-algebra, then the set $`𝒮`$ of separated points of the spectrum $`\widehat{A}`$ is a dense $`G_\delta `$ \[4, 3.9.4\].

###### Lemma 3.12.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`I:=\overline{m(A)}`$. Then $`𝒪_I`$ is contained in the interior of the separated points $`𝒮`$ of $`\widehat{A}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi 𝒪_I`$, and $`\rho \widehat{A}`$ such that $`\rho \overline{\{\pi \}}`$. If $`\rho 𝒪_I`$ then $`\rho `$ and $`\pi `$ can be separated by disjoint relative open subsets of $`\widehat{A}`$ because $`𝒪_I`$ is Hausdorff. Since $`𝒪_I`$ is open these relative open sets are open. Now suppose that $`\rho 𝒪_I`$. Fix a positive element $`a`$ of $`m(A)`$ such that $`\mathrm{tr}(\pi (a))>1`$ and let $`f:\widehat{A}[0,\mathrm{})`$ be the (continuous) map $`\sigma \mathrm{tr}(\sigma (a))`$. Note that $`\rho (a)=0`$. Now $`f^1((1,\mathrm{}))`$ and $`f^1([0,\frac{1}{2}))`$ are disjoint open neighborhoods of $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$, respectively. Thus $`𝒪_I𝒮`$ and since $`𝒪_I`$ is open we have $`𝒪_I\mathrm{int}𝒮`$. ∎

Dixmier has given an example of a separable liminal $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ such that the interior of the separated points in $`\widehat{A}`$ is empty \[3, Proposition 4\]. Thus $`m(A)=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$ for this algebra.

###### Theorem 3.13.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group. Suppose that either $`G`$ acts freely and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, or that $`G`$ is abelian. Then the largest liminal ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ is $`C_0(Z)G`$ where $`Z`$ is the open $`G`$-invariant subset

(3.6)
$$\begin{array}{c}Z=\{xX:x\text{ has a neighborhood }U\hfill \\ \hfill \text{such that }Gz\text{ is closed in }GU\text{ for each }zU\}.\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

If $`J`$ is the largest liminal ideal then $`𝒪_J=\{\pi \widehat{A}:\pi \left(C_0(X)G\right)=𝒦(_\pi )\}`$. If $`G`$ is abelian then $`𝒪_J`$ is invariant under the dual action, and we have $`J=C_0(Y)G`$ for some open $`G`$-invariant subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$. This is trivial in the free case. Let $`Z`$ be as in (3.6). Note that every $`yY`$ has a neighborhood $`U`$ (namely $`Y`$) such that $`Gz`$ is closed in $`GU`$ for every $`zU`$ by \[23, Theorem 3.1\], so $`YZ`$.

Let $`xZY`$. Let $`V`$ be an open neighborhood of $`x`$ such that $`Gz`$ is closed in $`GV`$ for each $`zV`$. Not every orbit in $`Y^{}=YGV`$ can be closed in $`Y^{}`$ because $`C_0(Y)G`$ is the largest liminal ideal. Suppose that $`Gz`$ is not closed in $`Y^{}`$. Then there exists $`s_\alpha G`$ and $`wY^{}`$ such that $`s_\alpha zwGz`$.

Since $`wY^{}`$, $`w`$ has a neighborhood $`W`$ such that $`Gu`$ is closed in $`GW`$ for all $`uW`$. But we can assume that $`s_{\alpha _0}zW`$ for some $`s_{\alpha _0}`$ and then $`Gs_{\alpha _0}z=Gz`$ must be closed in $`GW`$. Thus $`wGz`$, and this is a contradiction. Hence $`Z=Y`$ and we are done. ∎

Every $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has a largest postliminal ideal $`I`$, and this ideal $`I`$ is the smallest ideal such that the corresponding quotient is anti-liminal \[4, Proposition 4.3.6\]. When $`A=C_0(X)G`$ and $`G`$ is abelian, it is clear that $`I`$ is invariant under the dual action: for every $`\tau \widehat{G}`$ the ideal $`\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (I)`$ is postliminal and $`A/\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (I)`$ is antiliminal, hence $`\widehat{\alpha }_\tau (I)I`$. If $`G`$ is abelian or $`G`$ acts freely then $`C_0(X)G`$ is Type I if and only if $`X/G`$ is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ \[9, Theorem 3.3\]. Effros and Glimm have given a number of conditions on a second countable locally compact transformation group $`(G,X)`$ which are equivalent to $`X/G`$ being $`\mathrm{T}_0`$: see , \[5, Theorems 2.1 and 2.6\] and . For example, $`X/G`$ is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ if and only if each orbit is *regular*: the map $`sS_xsx`$ is a homeomorphism of $`G/S_x`$ onto $`Gx`$.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The term regular is borrowed from the Definition on page 223 of . Using the Effros-Glimm results, we have the following.

###### Lemma 3.14 (Glimm-Effros).

Suppose that $`(G,X)`$ is a second countable locally compact transformation group and that $`U`$ is a neighborhood of $`xX`$. Then the following are equivalent.

1. $`GU/G`$ is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ in the quotient topology.
2. $`Gy`$ is regular for each $`yU`$.
3. $`Gy`$ is a $`G_\delta `$ subset of $`X`$ for each $`yU`$.
4. $`Gy`$ is locally closed in $`X`$ for each $`yU`$.
5. $`Gy`$ is second category in itself for each $`yU`$.

###### Theorem 3.15.

Let $`(G,X)`$ be a second countable transformation group. Suppose that either $`G`$ acts freely and $`C_0(X)G`$ is EH-regular, or that $`G`$ is abelian. Then the largest postliminal ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ equals $`C_0(Z)G`$ where $`Z`$ is the $`G`$-invariant subset

(3.7)
$$Z=\{xX:x\text{ has a neighborhood }U\text{ such that }GU/G\text{ is }\mathrm{T}_0\}.$$

###### Remark 3.16.

The set $`Z`$ can be realized as the set of points with neighborhoods satisfying any of the equivalent conditions of Lemma 3.14.

###### Proof.

If $`G`$ is abelian, the largest postliminal ideal of $`C_0(X)G`$ is invariant under the dual action, so equals $`C_0(Y)G`$ for some $`G`$-invariant open subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$. Let $`Z`$ be as in (3.7). Every $`yY`$ has an open $`G`$-invariant neighborhood $`U`$ (namely $`Y`$) such that $`GU/G`$ is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ by \[9, Theorem 3.3\]. Thus $`YZ`$.

Let $`xZY`$ and $`V`$ an open neighborhood of $`x`$ such that $`GV/G`$ is $`\mathrm{T}_0`$. Note that $`T:=(GVY)/G`$ cannot be $`\mathrm{T}_0`$ by the maximality of $`C_0(Y)G`$. Choose distinct points $`Gz_1`$ and $`Gz_2`$ in $`T`$ such that every open neighborhood $`U_1`$ of $`Gz_1`$ contains $`Gz_2`$ and every open neighborhood $`U_2`$ of $`Gz_2`$ contains $`Gz_1`$.

If $`Gz_1T(GV/G)`$ and $`Gz_2T(Y/G)`$ then $`GV/G`$ is an open neighborhood of $`Gz_2`$ which does not contain $`Gz_1`$, which is a contradiction.

If $`Gz_1`$ and $`Gz_2`$ both belong to $`Y/G`$ or if $`Gz_1`$ and $`Gz_2`$ both belong to $`GV/G`$ then we get an immediate contradiction because $`Y/G`$ and $`GV/G`$ are open and $`\mathrm{T}_0`$. Hence $`Y=Z`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.17.

Let $`(A,G,\alpha )`$ be a $`C^{}`$-dynamical system with $`G`$ compact (but not necessarily abelian). It follows from \[11, Propositions 2.3 and 2.5\] that the largest liminal and postliminal ideals in $`A_\alpha G`$ are of the form $`J_\alpha G`$ where $`J`$ is an $`\alpha `$-invariant ideal of $`A`$. This is trivial if $`A=C_0(X)`$, because $`C_0(X)G`$ has bounded trace (hence is liminal) when $`G`$ is compact \[15, Proposition 3.4\].


format: text

text:
# Ergodicity of Mapping Class Group Actions on Representation Varieties, II. Surfaces with Boundary

## 1. Introduction and Results

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a compact oriented surface with $`n+1`$ boundary components (circles) $`(c_0,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ and $`K`$ a compact connected Lie group of dimension $`d`$ and rank $`r`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the mapping class group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that fixes the $`c_j^{}s`$. Fix a set of conjugacy classes $`\{C_j\}_{j=0}^n`$, one for each boundary component and let

$$C=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_j.$$

Then the representation variety is

$$\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K)=\{\rho :\rho (c_j)C_j\}.$$

The group $`K`$ acts on $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K)`$ by conjugation and the moduli space is the quotient

$$\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K)/conj(K).$$

###### Theorem 1.1.

Fix $`p>1`$. With respect to the Lebesgue class, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts ergodically on the connected components of $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K)/conj(K)`$.

When $`n=0`$, this theorem was proved in .

## 2. The representation variety and the mapping class group

With slight modifications, the basic notations are as in . Let $`K^{}=[K,K]`$ be the semi-simple part of $`K`$ and $`dg^{},dg`$ their respective Haar measures. Denote by $`𝔨,𝔨^{}`$ the Lie algebras of $`K,K^{}`$, respectively.

As $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has boundary, by adding a possible extra boundary component and a fixed central element for that boundary component, one may assume $`K^{}`$ is simply connected without losing generality.

Figure 1: The surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Fix the base point on $`c_0`$. Then $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the following presentation:

$$x_i,y_i,c_j|\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}[x_i,y_i]\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_j.$$

In terms of Figure 1, $`x_1,y_1`$ belong to the one-holed torus bounded by $`s`$ while for $`i>1`$, $`x_i,y_i`$ belong to the one-holed genus $`(p1)`$ surface bounded by $`s^{}`$. All the boundary circles in Figure 1 are oriented counter-clockwise with the exception of $`c_0`$. The following notions are fixed through out this paper. By a slight abuse of notation, the $`c_j^{}s`$ will also denote elements in $`K`$. Let $`g=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_p),h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_p)K^p`$ and $`c=(c_0,\mathrm{},c_n)K^{n+1}`$, although in many cases $`c`$ will denote elements in $`C`$. Define maps

$$R_{l,k}(g,h)=\underset{i=l}{\overset{k}{}}[g_i,h_i],$$

$$S_{l,k}(c)=\underset{i=l}{\overset{k}{}}c_j.$$

By Remark (2.1.5) in , the image of the map $`R_{l,k}:K^{2(kl)}K^{}`$ has full measure in $`K^{}`$. Since the image of $`R_{l,k}`$ is compact, $`R_{l,k}`$ is actually onto $`K^{}`$.

The mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the group of connected components of the diffeomorphism group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ fixing the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the Dehn twists. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains the twists along $`x_i,y_i`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ portrayed in Figure 1. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ be the subgroup generated by the Dehn twists along the $`x_i`$’s and $`y_i`$’s and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ be the subgroup generated by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\{\sigma _j\}`$.

## 3. Ergodicity

Let $`p>1`$. Fix conjugacy classes $`C_j`$ for each, $`0jn`$. Then the representation variety $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K)`$ is

$$\{(g,h,c)K^{2p}\times C:R_{1,p}(g,h)S_{0,n}(c)=I\}.$$

Assume $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K)`$ is non-empty which means that $`S_{0,n}(c)K^{}`$. Each conjugacy class $`C_j`$ possess a $`K`$-invariant canonical measure. From these measures on the conjugacy classes and the measure $`dg`$ on $`K`$, the variety $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K)`$ inherits a Lebesgue measure whose push-forward measure on $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K)/conj(K)`$ is in the same measure class as $`\mu `$.

Fix $`j`$ and for each $`lj`$, fix an element $`c_lC_l`$. Let $`k=S_{l+1,n}(c)`$, $`s=R_{1,1}(g,h)`$ and $`s^{}=R_{2,p}(g,h)`$. Then the action of $`\sigma _j`$ fixes $`c_l`$ for all $`jl`$ (See Figure 1) and $`\sigma _j(c_j)=(skc_jk^1)c_j(skc_jk^1)^1`$. Let

$$M=\{(g,h,c_j):R_{1,p}(g,h)S_{0,n}(c)=I\}\mathrm{Hom}_C(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }),K).$$

For each fixed $`c_jC_j`$, let

$$N(c_j)=\{(g,h):R_{1,p}(g,h)S_{0,n}(c)=I\}M.$$

Then both $`M`$ and $`N(c_j)`$ inherit measures from $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K)`$. Indeed, $`M`$ and $`N(c_j)`$ are themselves both representation varieties on a surface with two boundary components. In the case of $`M`$, one boundary is associated with a fixed group element and the other a conjugacy class while both boundary components of $`N(c_j)`$ are associated with group elements. In particular, as subspaces of $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K)`$, $`M`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$-invariant while $`N(c_j)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$-invariant.

Let $`fL^2(M)`$ be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$-invariant. The goal is to show that $`f`$ is constant a.e. The following theorem is from :

###### Theorem 3.1.

The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ acts ergodically on $`N(c_j)`$.

This shows that $`f`$ is constant on $`N(c_j)`$ for a.e. $`c_jC_j`$. Hence $`f`$ is a characteristic function on $`C_j`$. It remains to show that $`f`$ is independent of $`c_j`$. Consider the function

$$\varphi :MC_j\times C_j:$$

$$\varphi (g,h,c_j)=(c_j,(skc_jk^1)c_j(skc_jk^1)^1).$$

Since $`f`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$-invariant, to show that $`f`$ is independent of $`c_j`$, it is sufficient to show that the relation defined by $`Im(\varphi )`$ is transitive; since the equality holds in an a.e. sense, it is sufficient to show that

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`pr_1:C_j\times C_jC_j`$ be the projection to the first coordinate. Then $`pr_1(Interior(Im(\varphi )))=C_j`$.

This Lemma implies that for each $`c_jC_j`$, there are open sets $`U_{c_j},V_{c_j}C_j`$ such that $`c_jU_{c_j}`$ and $`U_{c_j}\times V_{c_j}Im(\varphi )`$. Since $`\varphi _1^{}f=\varphi _2^{}f`$, a.e., it follows that $`f`$ is constant on $`U_{c_j}`$, a.e.. Since $`pr_1(Interior(Im(\varphi )))=C_j`$ which is connected, $`f`$ is independent of $`c_j`$.

###### Proof.

Since the $`c_l`$’s are all fixed for $`lj`$, $`k`$ is fixed. Since

$$R_{1,1}:K^2K^{},$$

$$R_{2,p}:K^{2(p1)}K^{}$$

are onto, one may choose regular values $`s,s^{}`$ respectively of these two maps $`R_{1,1}`$ and $`R_{2,p}`$ such that $`ss^{}S_{0,n}(c)=I`$. Let $`(g,h,c_j)M`$ such that $`R_{1,1}(g,h)=s`$. Then $`(g,h,c_j)`$ is a smooth point (The representation corresponding to $`(g,h,c_j)`$ is irreducible) and the map $`\varphi _1`$ is regular at $`(g,h,c_j)`$. It will then be sufficient to fix $`c_j`$ and show that the map

$$\varphi _2:N(c_j)C_j:$$

$$\varphi _2(g,h)=(skc_jk^1)c_j(skc_jk^1)^1$$

is regular at $`(g,h)`$. Again, since both $`s,s^{}`$ are regular values for the maps

$$R_{1,1}:K^2K^{},$$

$$R_{2,p}:K^{2(p1)}K^{},$$

$`s`$ is a regular value for the map

$$R_{1,1}:N(c_j)K^{}.$$

This implies that the differential $`d\varphi _2|_{(g,h)}`$ is surjective. ∎

Lemma 3.2 shows that $`f`$ is independent of the variable $`c_j`$ or the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$-action is ergodic on $`M`$. If $`FL^2(\mathrm{Hom}_C(\mathrm{\Sigma },K))`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, then again by the main result in , $`F`$ is a characteristic function on $`C`$. By Lemma 3.2 and induction, $`F`$ is a characteristic function on $`_{j=0}^kC_j`$ for all $`nk0`$. In particular, it is a characteristic function of $`C_0`$ (when $`k=0`$). Theorem 1.1 follows.


text:
# References

CERN-TH/2000-250

August 2000

hep-ph/0008292

U-spin Symmetry in Charmless $`B`$ Decays

Michael Gronau111Permanent Address: Physics Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel.

Theory Division, CERN

CH-1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland

ABSTRACT

> We prove a general theorem about equal CP rate differences within pairs of U-spin related charmless $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decays. Large deviations from equalities would be evidence for new physics. Six pairs of decays into two pseudoscalar mesons are identified where such relations hold. Ratios of corresponding rate differences and certain ratios of rates measure U-spin breaking. These processes provide useful information on the weak phase $`\gamma =\mathrm{Arg}V_{ub}^{}`$. Applications of U-spin symmetry to other decays are discussed.

Applying flavor symmetries of strong interactions to $`B`$ decays into two light pseudoscalar mesons ($`BPP`$) may provide useful information about phases of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Using isospin symmetry, the three $`B\pi \pi `$ decays, $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{},\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$, were shown  to determine quite precisely the weak phase $`\alpha =\mathrm{Arg}(V_{tb}^{}V_{td}/V_{ub}^{}V_{ud})`$ (at least in principle, albeit a potential difficulty in measuring $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$). Within the approximation of flavor SU(3) symmetry, various aspects of $`BK\pi `$ decays were studied  to learn the weak phase $`\gamma =\mathrm{Arg}(V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}/V_{cb}^{}V_{cd})`$. An accurate determination of $`\gamma `$ requires the knowledge of SU(3) breaking and rescattering effects which modify some of the amplitudes. Recently the important role of two $`B_s`$ decay processes, $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ and $`B_sK^{}\pi ^+`$, was demonstrated in this framework . Here one makes explicit use only of a discrete U-spin symmetry transformation interchanging $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks .

The purpose of this Letter is to reconsider more generally the implications of U-spin symmetry in charmless $`B`$ decays . First, we will look at a very general case of charmless $`B^0,B^+`$ and $`B_s`$ decays, comparing decays from and into any U-spin related states. We will prove as a general theorem that pairs of U-spin related processes involve CP rate differences which are equal in magnitude and are opposite in sign. This property applies not only to two-body and quasi-two-body decays, but in fact to any pair of U-spin related processes including radiative decays. Then, by focusing on $`BPP`$, we will find altogether twelve processes, arranged in six pairs, where in each pair the decay amplitude of one process is related to that of the other by U-spin symmetry, such that the CP rate differences in the two processes are equal in magnitude. Several processes lead to useful information on rescattering effects. A systematic study of U-spin breaking, achieved by comparing some of these processes to others, can lead to an accurate determination of $`\gamma `$.

The implications of U-spin symmetry in all charmless $`B`$ decays follow from the following general considerations. The low energy effective weak Hamiltonian describing $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ $`B`$ decays is

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[V_{ub}^{}V_{us}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{2}{}}c_iQ_i^{us}+\underset{3}{\overset{10}{}}c_iQ_i^s\right)+V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{2}{}}c_iQ_i^{cs}+\underset{3}{\overset{10}{}}c_iQ_i^s\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $`c_i`$ are scale-dependent Wilson coefficients and the flavor structure of the various four-quark operators is $`Q_{1,2}^{qs}\overline{b}q\overline{q}s,Q_{3,..,6}^s\overline{b}s\overline{q}^{}q^{},Q_{7,..,10}^s\overline{b}se_q^{}\overline{q}^{}q^{}(q^{}=u,d,s,c`$). Each of these operators represents an $`s`$ component (“down”) of a U-spin doublet, so that one can write in short

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=V_{ub}^{}V_{us}U^s+V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}C^s,$$
(2)
where $`U`$ and $`C`$ are U-spin doublet operators. Similarly, the effective Hamiltonian responsible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ decays involves $`d`$ components (“up” in U-spin) of corresponding operators multiplying CKM factors $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}`$ and $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}`$,

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}U^d+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}C^d.$$
(3)
Now, assume for simplicity  that one compares two decay processes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$, in which the initial and final states are obtained from each other by a U-spin transformation, $`U:ds`$. Eqs. (2) and (3) imply that if the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ amplitude (for the process $`Bf`$) is written as

$$A(Bf,\mathrm{\Delta }S=1)=V_{ub}^{}V_{us}A_u+V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}A_c,$$
(4)
where $`A_u`$ and $`A_c`$ are complex amplitudes (involving CP-conserving phases), then the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$ amplitude (for $`UBUf`$) is given by

$$A(UBUf,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0)=V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}A_u+V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}A_c.$$
(5)
The amplitudes of the corresponding charge-conjugate processes are

$$A(\overline{B}\overline{f},\mathrm{\Delta }S=1)=V_{ub}V_{us}^{}A_u+V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}A_c,$$
(6)
and

$$A(U\overline{B}U\overline{f},\mathrm{\Delta }S=0)=V_{ub}V_{ud}^{}A_u+V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}A_c.$$
(7)
To appreciate the powerful implication of U-spin symmetry in $`B`$ and $`B_s`$ decays, we note the following. The rates of the four processes (4)$``$(7) depend on four quantities, $`|V_{ub}^{}V_{us}A_u|,|V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}A_c|,\delta \mathrm{Arg}(A_uA_c^{})`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{Arg}(V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}V_{cb}V_{cd}^{})`$. Naively it may seem possible to use the corresponding four rates for a determination of these four quantities including the weak phase $`\gamma `$. However, there exists a general U-spin relation between corresponding CP rate differences

$$|A(Bf)|^2|A(\overline{B}\overline{f})|^2=[|A(UBUf)|^2|A(U\overline{B}U\overline{f})|^2].$$
(8)
This equality, which follows from the CKM unitarity relation

$$\mathrm{Im}(V_{ub}^{}V_{us}V_{cb}V_{cs}^{})=\mathrm{Im}(V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}V_{cb}V_{cd}^{}),$$
(9)
prohibits a determination of $`\gamma `$ from the four rates alone. Towards the end of this Letter we will return to the question of determining $`\gamma `$ by using another input measurement.

Eq. (8), our general theorem for equal CP rate asymmetries, can be used to test the validity and accuracy of U-spin symmetry in all types of $`B`$ decays. These include decays into two pseudoscalars (such as the pair $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^+K^{}`$), decays into a pseudoscalar and a vector meson (e.g. $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_s\rho ^+K^{}`$), decays into two vector mesons (e.g. $`B^0K^+\rho ^{}`$ and $`B_s\rho ^+K^{}`$) and decays into multibody states (e.g. $`B^+K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^+\pi ^+K^+K^{}`$). Our theorem applies also to radiative decays (e.g. $`B^+K^+\gamma `$ and $`B^+\rho ^+\gamma `$) where the transition operators belong to a U-spin doublet and involve suitable CKM factors . A similar equality, between inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bd\gamma `$ CP rate differences was proved some time ago . U-spin symmetry implies equal and opposite sign CP rate differences within every pair of U-spin related processes. Consequently, in each pair the process with the smaller rate is expected to have a larger CP asymmetry. For instance, the CP asymmetries in $`B^+\overline{K}^0K^+`$ (see discussion below) and $`B^+\rho ^+\gamma `$ are expected to be much larger than in $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ and $`B^+K^+\gamma `$, respectively.

Of course, U-spin is only an approximate symmetry. Typically, U-spin breaking is expected to be given by ratios of form factors and decay constants (see discussion below). This does not lead to gross violation of the above relations. Large deviations from these equalities, and in particular wrong relative signs of CP asymmetries , would be evidence for new physics. Such physics would involve additional flavor changing $`bq(q=d,s)`$ transition operators which do not have the U-spin and CKM structure of Eqs. (2) and (3).

In order to illustrate the consequences of this very general relation in particular cases, we proceed to study in detail the overall implications of U-spin symmetry in decays to two light pseudoscalar mesons. Among all sixteen measurable $`B`$ meson decays  of the form $`B,B_s\pi \pi ,K\pi ,K\overline{K}`$ one can identify a dozen processes which can be arranged in six U-spin related pairs:

1. $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ vs. $`B_s\pi ^+K^{}`$ ,
2. $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ vs. $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ ,
3. $`B^0K^0\pi ^0`$ vs. $`B_s\overline{K}^0\pi ^0`$ ,
4. $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ vs. $`B^+\overline{K}^0K^+`$ ,
5. $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$ vs. $`B^0\overline{K}^0K^0`$ ,
6. $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ vs. $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ .

In case 3 the $`\mathrm{\Delta }U=1/2`$ transition operators lead to $`U=1`$ final states to which only the $`U=0`$ component of the $`\pi ^0`$ contributes. (The two pseudoscalar mesons are in an S-wave implying that they are in a symmetric U-spin state).

Including $`B_s\pi ^0\pi ^0`$, which is related by isospin to $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, this consists of all but the following three $`BPP`$ ($`P=\pi ,K`$) decays: $`B^+K^+\pi ^0,B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ and $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. As our theorem Eq. (8) states, in the U-spin symmetry limit the two CP rate differences within each of the above six pairs of processes are equal in magnitude and have opposite signs. Deviations from equal asymmetries measure U-spin breaking.

For a more detailed study of these processes it is convenient to apply a diagramatic approach to SU(3), describing amplitudes in terms of SU(3) flavor flow topologies . In this description, the two amplitudes of a pair of U-spin related processes have similar expressions, differing only by their CKM factors. This proves that corresponding CP rate differences have equal magnitudes and opposite signs . Strangeness changing decay amplitudes are denoted by primes, while strangeness conserving processes involve no primes. For instance,

$`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW}^c,`$ (10)
$`A(B_s\pi ^+K^{})`$ $`=`$ $`PT{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW}^c.`$ (11)
Thus, we write only expressions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ processes :

$`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW}^c,`$ (12)
$`A(B_sK^+K^{})`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}T^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}P_{EW}^cPA^{}E^{},`$ (13)
$`\sqrt{2}A(B^0K^0\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW}^cP_{EW}^{}C^{},`$ (14)
$`A(B^+K^0\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW}^c+A^{},`$ (15)
$`A(B_sK^0\overline{K}^0)`$ $`=`$ $`P^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}P_{EW}^c+PA^{},`$ (16)
$`A(B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`PA^{}E^{}.`$ (17)
In the convention of Eqs. (1)$``$(7) the above amplitudes are decomposed into two sets of terms containing $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}`$ and $`V_{ub}^{}V_{us}`$. (Correspondingly, amplitudes in the second Eq. (10) involve $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cd}`$ and $`V_{ub}^{}V_{ud}`$). The first set consists of a QCD penguin $`P^{}`$, an electroweak penguin $`P_{EW}^{}`$, a color-suppressed electroweak penguin $`P_{EW}^c`$ and a penguin annihilation term $`PA^{}`$, while the second set contains a tree $`T^{}`$, color-suppressed $`C^{}`$, annihilation $`A^{}`$ and exchange $`E^{}`$ amplitude. Amplitudes in the first set carry each a weak phase $`\mathrm{Arg}(V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})=0`$, while the other four terms have a phase $`\gamma `$.

Let us discuss briefly the magnitudes of various terms. The amplitudes obey the following hierarchy relations

$$|P^{}||T^{}||P_{EW}^{}||C^{}||P_{EW}^c|,$$
(18)
where a hierarchy factor of about 0.2 or 0.3 describes the ratio of sequential amplitudes. This hierarchy was anticipated  from the corresponding CKM factors, a color factor, QCD and electroweak loop factors. It is supported both by relating $`BK\pi `$ and $`B\pi \pi `$ data  using flavor SU(3)  and by recent QCD calculations . The other three amplitudes, $`PA^{},A^{}`$ and $`E^{}`$, in which the spectator quark participates in the interaction, are usually assumed to be small  (see also ), unless strongly amplified by final state rescattering .

The dominant term in the amplitudes (12) is $`P^{}`$ , occuring in the first five processes. These decays are expected to have comparable branching ratios of order $`10^5`$, as measured for $`B^0K^+\pi ^{},B^0K^0\pi ^0`$ and $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ . The decay $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and the U-spin related process $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ involve only the much smaller combination $`PA^{}+E^{}`$, and are anticipated to have much lower rates. Neglecting rescattering, one estimates for $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ a branching ratio of order $`10^8`$ . The present experimental upper limit  is two orders of magnitude higher. Lowering this limit by one or two orders of magnitude would settle the question of little rescattering. A way of bounding the rescattering amplitude $`A^{}`$ in $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ (or, similarly, of bounding $`PA^{}`$ in $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$) was discussed in .

Assuming in the following that $`PA^{}+E^{}`$ can indeed be neglected, one has

$`A(B_sK^+K^{})`$ $``$ $`A(B^0K^+\pi ^{})`$ (19)
$`A(B_s\pi ^+K^{})`$ $``$ $`A(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}).`$ (20)
Once one obtains stringent limits on $`PA^{}+E^{}`$ through $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$, these two relations provide tests for U-spin symmetry acting on the spectator quarks . They imply, of course, that the CP rate differences of all four processes are equal. Equal CP rate differences in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ (assuming $`PA^{}+E^{}=0`$) were discussed in .

Deviations from equalities in (19) (once $`PA^{}+E^{}`$ is sufficiently bounded) measure U-spin symmetry breaking. In the approximation of factorized hadronic amplitudes , U-spin breaking is introduced through the ratio of corresponding form factors, $`f=F_{B_sK}(m_K^2)/F_{B\pi }(m_K^2)F_{B_sK}(m_\pi ^2)/F_{B\pi }(m_\pi ^2)`$,

$$A(B_sK^+K^{})=fA(B^0K^+\pi ^{}),$$

$$A(B_sK^{}\pi ^+)=fA(B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}).$$
(21)
The rates of these four processes can be used not only to determine the U-spin breaking factor $`f`$, but also to check the factorization assumption by finding equal ratios of amplitudes in the two cases.

A similar U-spin equality in the absence of large rescattering effects (i.e., neglecting $`PA^{}A^{}`$) holds between the amplitudes of $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ and $`B_sK^0\overline{K}^0`$, and between the corresponding U-spin related processes, $`B^+\overline{K}^0K^+`$ and $`B^0\overline{K}^0K^0`$. Again, the rates of these four processes can be used to test U-spin symmetry and to measure U-spin symmetry breaking.

A method of determining the weak phase $`\gamma `$, using $`B^+K^0\pi ^+`$ and the U-spin related processes $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^+K^{}`$, was discussed in . Here we reiterate the most important features of this suggestion, which can be explained simply in terms of our general U-spin considerations leading to Eqs. (4)$``$(7). As noted, the rates of the four processes, in our case $`B^0K^+\pi ^{},B_s\pi ^+K^{}`$ and their charge-conjugates, depend on the magnitudes of two hadronic amplitudes, $`P^{}+(2/3)P_{EW}^c`$ and $`T^{}`$, and on their relative strong phase and weak phase $`\gamma `$. (Note that $`|P+(2/3)P_{EW}^c|=\mathrm{tan}\theta _c|P^{}+(2/3)P_{EW}^c|`$ while $`|T|=\mathrm{tan}^1\theta _c|T^{}|`$). The four rates obey a U-spin equality (8) between the two rate asymmetries in $`B^0K^\pm \pi ^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^\pm K^{}`$. Thus, to solve for $`\gamma `$ one needs one more input. This input is provided by the charge-averaged rate of $`B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm `$ in which rescattering is neglected, as can be further justified by improving bounds on $`B^0K^+K^{}`$ and $`B_s\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$.

This method can be generalized to other pairs of U-spin related decays. For instance, one may use $`B^0K^+\pi ^{}`$$`B_s\rho ^+K^{}`$ and their charge-conjugates, complemented by information on the charge-averaged rate of $`B^\pm K^0\pi ^\pm `$. As we have shown, U-spin breaking effects can be measured by comparing rates and asymmetries of corresponding processes. Including such effects in the analysis would result in a more precise determination of $`\gamma `$.

Another suggested method , based on comparing time-dependent CP asymmetries in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and in $`B_sK^+K^{}`$ (for which one must tag the flavor of the neutral mesons at time of production), can also be generalized to other U-spin related decays. This includes comparing $`B^0K_S\pi ^0`$ with $`B_sK_S\pi ^0`$ and comparing $`B^0K_SK_S`$ with $`B_sK_SK_S`$. One measures for both channels a $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ and a $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt`$ term, or alternatively an oscillation amplitude and an oscillation phase. These four quantities determine four unknowns: the ratio of two hadronic amplitudes involving $`V_{ub}^{}V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}`$, a strong final-state phase between the two amplitudes, and two weak phases $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. U-spin breaking effects, represented in the factorization approximation by certain ratios of form factors and decay constants, cancel one another in the asymmetries.

To conclude, we pointed out several interesting properties of pairs of U-spin related hadronic and radiative charmless $`B^0,B^+`$ and $`B_s`$ decays. We have shown that in the U-spin symmetry limit every two such processes involve CP rate differences which have equal magnitudes and opposite signs. Observing large deviations from this prediction would be evidence for new physics. We found six such pairs among decays to two light pseudoscalars, from which information can be obtained about final state rescattering effects and U-spin breaking. This information is required for an accurate determination of the weak phase $`\gamma `$.

Acknowledgments: I am grateful to the CERN Theory Division for its kind hospitality, and would like to thank Gerhard Buchalla, Gil Paz, Dan Pirjol and Jonathan Rosner for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and by the United States - Israel Binational Science Foundation under Research Grant Agrement 98-00237.