text:
# Representations of the braid group by automorphisms of groups, invariants of links, and Garside groups

## 1 Introduction

Throughout the paper, we shall denote by $`B_n`$ the braid group on $`n`$ strands, and by $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}`$ the standard generators of $`B_n`$.

Let $`H`$ be a group, and let $`h`$ be a non-trivial element of $`H`$. Take $`n`$ copies $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_n`$ of $`H`$, and consider the group $`G=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$. We denote by $`\varphi _i:HH_i`$ the natural isomorphism and we write $`h_i=\varphi _i(h)H_i`$, for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. For $`k=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, let $`\tau _k:GG`$ be the automorphism determined by

$$\tau _k:\{\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _k(y)& & h_k^1\varphi _{k+1}(y)h_k& \\ \varphi _{k+1}(y)& & h_k\varphi _k(y)h_k^1& \\ \varphi _j(y)& & \varphi _j(y)& \text{if }jk,k+1\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`yH`$. One can easily show the following.

###### Proposition 1.1.

The mapping $`\sigma _k\tau _k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, determines a representation $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 1.2.

The representation of Proposition 1.1 shall be called the Artin type representation of $`B_n`$ associated to the pair $`(H,h)`$.

If $`H=`$ and $`h=1`$, then $`G=F_n`$ is the free group of rank $`n`$ and $`\rho `$ is the classical representation introduced by Artin in \[Art1\], \[Art2\]. Another example which appears in the literature is the case where $`H=`$ and $`h`$ is a non-zero integer. This case has been introduced by Wada \[Wad\] in his construction of group invariants of links. Sections 2 and 3 of the present paper are inspired by Wada’s work \[Wad\].

Our purpose in this paper is to study different aspects of the Artin type representations.

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Artin type representation associated to a pair $`(H,h)`$. Let $`\beta B_n`$. Then we denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta )`$ the quotient of $`G`$ by the relations

$$g=\rho (\beta )g,gG.$$

For a braid $`\beta `$, we denote by $`\widehat{\beta }`$ the oriented link (or more precisely the equivalence class of oriented links) represented by the closed braid of $`\beta `$ as defined in \[Birm\]. Given two braids $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ (not necessarily with the same number of strands), we prove in Section 2 that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta _2)`$ if $`\widehat{\beta }_1=\widehat{\beta }_2`$. This allows us to define a group invariant of oriented links, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}`$, by setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(L)`$ to be the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta )`$ for any braid $`\beta `$ such that $`L=\widehat{\beta }`$. Note that, in the case $`H=`$ and $`h=1`$, the invariant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(,1)}`$ computes the link group, namely $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(,1)}(L)\pi _1(𝐒^3L)`$ for any link $`L`$ in $`𝐒^3`$.

The goal of Section 3 is to give topological constructions of the Artin type representations and of the groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta )`$, for $`\beta B_n`$. If $`H=`$ and $`h`$ is a non-zero integer, then our constructions coincide with Wada’s constructions (see \[Wad\], Section 3). In fact, our constructions are straightforward extensions of Wada’s constructions to all Artin type representations.

In Section 4, we prove that Artin type representations are faithful (Proposition 4.1). If $`h`$ has infinite order, then the Artin type representation $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ contains the classical Artin representation and, therefore, is faithful by \[Art1\], \[Art2\]. So, Proposition 4.1 is mostly of interest in the case where $`h`$ has finite order. In fact the proof may be easily reduced to the case $`H=/k`$ and $`h=1`$, however we will not need to use any such reduction, as our method applies just as easily in all cases. We note also that the case where $`H`$ is cyclic of order $`2`$ follows (by somewhat different methods) from Section 2.3 of \[CP\]. The proof of Proposition 4.1 is inspired by the proof of Theorem A of \[Shp\], and it is based on Dehornoy’s work on orders on braids \[Deh1\], \[Deh2\].

The remaining sections (Sections 5 and 6) are dedicated to the study of semidirect products $`G_\rho B_n`$, where $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Artin type representation associated to a pair $`(H,h)`$.

If $`H=`$ and $`h=1`$, then $`G_\rho B_n`$ is the Artin group $`A(B_n)`$ associated to the Coxeter graph $`B_n`$ (not to be confused with the braid group $`B_n`$, which is itself an Artin group, of type $`A_{n1}`$). This result is implicit in \[Lam\], \[Cri\], and explicit in \[CP\]. The group $`A(B_n)`$ is well-understood. In particular, solutions to the word and conjugacy problems in this group are known (see \[Del\], \[BS\]), it is torsion free (see \[Bri\], \[Del\]), its center is an infinite cyclic group (see \[Del\], \[BS\]), it is biautomatic (see \[Cha1\], \[Cha2\]), and it has an explicit finite dimensional classifying space (see \[Del\], \[Bes\]).

A natural next step is to understand the groups $`G_\rho B_n`$ in the case where $`\rho `$ is a Wada representation (of type 4), namely, when $`H=`$ and $`h\{0\}`$. One can readily establish that, for these representations, the group $`G_\rho B_n`$ fails to be an Artin group unless $`h=\pm 1`$. It turns out, however, that these groups do have quite a lot in common with Artin groups: like the Artin groups, they belong to a family of groups known as *Garside groups*.

Briefly, a *Garside group* is a group $`G`$ which admits a left invariant lattice order and contains a so-called *Garside element*, a positive element $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ whose positive divisors generate $`G`$ and such that conjugation by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ leaves the lattice structure invariant (there are also conditions placed on the positive cone of $`G`$, that it be a finitely generated atomic monoid – see Section 5 for more details). The notion of a Garside group was introduced by Dehornoy and the second author \[DP\] in a slightly restricted sense, and, later, by Dehornoy \[Deh5\] in the larger sense which is now generally used. The theory of Garside groups is largely inspired by the papers of Garside \[Gar\], which treated the case of braid groups, and Brieskorn and Saito \[BS\] which generalised Garside’s work to Artin groups. The Artin groups of spherical (or finite) type which include, notably, the braid groups as well as the groups $`A(B_n)`$ mentioned above, are motivating examples. Other interesting examples of Garside groups include all torus link groups (see \[Pic3\]) and some generalized braid groups associated to finite complex reflection groups.

Garside groups have many attractive properties. Solutions to the word and conjugacy problems in these groups are known (see \[Deh5\], \[Pic1\], \[FG\]), they are torsion free (see \[Deh4\]), they admit canonical decompositions as iterated crossed products of “irreducible” components, and the center of each component is an infinite cyclic group (see \[Pic2\]), they are biautomatic (see \[Deh5\]), and they admit finite dimensional classifying spaces (see \[DL\], \[CMW\]). Another important property of the Garside groups is that there exist criteria in terms of presentations to detect them (see \[DP\], \[Deh5\]).

In Section 6, we prove that, if $`H`$ is a Garside group, $`h`$ a Garside element of $`H`$, and $`\rho `$ the Artin type representation associated to $`(H,h)`$, then $`G_\rho B_n`$ is also a Garside group (Theorem 6.1). This result applies in particular to the case $`H=`$ and $`h\{0\}`$, but also applies, for example, to the case where $`H`$ is another braid group, say $`H=B_l`$, and $`h=\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ is a non-trivial power of the fundamental element of $`B_l`$.

The proof of Theorem 6.1 is based on a criterion which is developed in Section 5 for proving that a given group is a Garside group. This criterion rests largely on the “coherence” condition of \[DP\] which has its roots in the original arguments of Garside \[Gar\]. It is essentially a variation of other criteria appearing in the literature (see, for example, \[Deh5\] Prop. 6.14). Our criterion differs from that of Dehornoy \[Deh5\] just mentioned in that it is not algorithmic. In particular, we do not give any method for finding a Garside element. However, it is relatively easy to apply once one has an appropriate presentation and an expression for a Garside element to hand.

Finally, we add an appendix to our paper in order to answer a question posed by Shpilrain in his study of Wada’s representations \[Shp\], and which is otherwise a little tangential to the main subject of this paper.

###### Definition 1.4.

Let $`G`$ be a group. Two representations $`\rho ,\rho ^{}:B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ are called equivalent if there exist automorphisms $`\varphi :GG`$ and $`\mu :B_nB_n`$ such that

$$\rho ^{}(\mu (\beta ))=\varphi ^1\rho (\beta )\varphi $$

for all $`\beta B_n`$.

Remark. If two representations $`\rho ,\rho ^{}:B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ are equivalent, then the groups $`G_\rho B_n`$ and $`G_\rho ^{}B_n`$ are isomorphic.

Shpilrain’s question (see \[Shp\]) was simply to give a classification of Wada’s representations up to equivalence. This classification is given in Proposition A.1.

## 2 Link invariants

Let $`H`$ be a group, $`h`$ a non-trivial element of $`H`$, and $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Artin type representation associated to $`(H,h)`$. Recall that the group $`G`$ is defined as $`G=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$, where group isomorphisms $`\varphi _i:H_iH`$ are given for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. The goal of this section is to prove the following.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`n,m`$, and let $`\beta _1B_n`$ and $`\beta _2B_m`$. If $`\widehat{\beta }_1=\widehat{\beta }_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta _1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta _2)`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`L`$ be an oriented link. We set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(L):=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta )`$, where $`\beta `$ is any braid (on any number of strings) such that $`L=\widehat{\beta }`$. By Proposition 2.1, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}`$ is a well-defined group invariant of oriented links.

### Proof of Proposition 2.1.

Let $`n`$ and let $`\beta B_n`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}`$. By Markov’s theorem (see \[Birm, Thm. 2.3\]), it suffices to show:

(1) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ^1\beta \alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$ for all $`\alpha B_n`$;

(2) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$;

(3) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n^1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$;

where $`\beta \sigma _n`$ and $`\beta \sigma _n^1`$ are viewed as braids on $`n+1`$ strands.

For a given $`n`$, we write $`G_{(n)}=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$. Note that, if $`\beta B_n`$ and $`nm`$, then the action of $`\beta `$ via $`\rho `$ on $`G_{(m)}`$ agrees with the action via $`\rho `$ on $`G_{(n)}<G_{(m)}`$, and is trivial on the free factors $`H_{n+1},..,H_m`$. We suppress $`\rho `$ from our notation, writing simply $`\beta (g)`$ to mean $`\rho (\beta )g`$, for any $`\beta B_n`$ and $`gG_{(m)}`$.

### Proof of (1):

For $`\beta B_n`$, the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$ is defined as the quotient of $`G_{(n)}`$ by the relations $`g=\beta (g)`$ for all $`gG_{(n)}`$. Since, for $`\alpha B_n`$, the relation $`g=\alpha ^1\beta \alpha (g)`$ is equivalent to the relation $`\alpha (g)=\beta (\alpha (g))`$, and $`\alpha `$ is an automorphism of $`G_{(n)}`$, it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ^1\beta \alpha )`$ is defined by the same set of relations as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$. So (1) holds.

### Proof of (2):

The group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n)`$ may be defined as the quotient of $`G_{(n+1)}`$ by the family of relations $`R(i,x):\varphi _i(x)=\beta \sigma _n(\varphi _i(x))`$ for all $`i=1,2,..,n+1`$ and all $`xH`$. Note that $`\sigma _n(\varphi _{n+1}(x))=h_n\varphi _n(x)h_n^1`$. Therefore the relation $`R(n+1,x)`$ is equivalent to the relation $`R^{}(n+1,x):\varphi _{n+1}(x)=\beta (h_n\varphi _n(x)h_n^1)`$, where the right hand side is actually an element of $`G_{(n)}`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n)`$ is generated by the image of $`G_{(n)}`$. Also,

$$\beta \sigma _n(\varphi _n(x))=\beta (h_n^1\varphi _{n+1}(x)h_n)=\beta (h_n^1)\varphi _{n+1}(x)\beta (h_n).$$

So, in view of $`R^{}(n+1,x)`$, the relation $`R(n,x)`$ is now equivalent to the relation $`R^{}(n,x):\varphi _n(x)=\beta (\varphi _n(x))`$. Finally, since $`\sigma _n(\varphi _i(x))=\varphi _i(x)`$ for all $`i<n`$, the remaining relations $`R(i,x)`$ are equivalent to $`R^{}(i,x):\varphi _i(x)=\beta (\varphi _i(x))`$ for all $`i=1,2,..,n1`$, and all $`xH`$. It now follows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$.

### Proof of (3):

Observe that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta ^1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )`$, since the relation $`g=\beta (g)`$ is equivalent to $`\beta ^1(g)=g`$, for all $`gG_{(n)}`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta \sigma _n^1)& \mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma _n\beta ^1)\hfill & \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta ^1\sigma _n)\hfill & \text{by part (1) of the proof,}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta ^1)\hfill & \text{by part (2) of the proof,}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta ).\hfill & \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Topological construction of the link invariants

Let $`X`$ be a CW-complex, let $`P_0X`$ be a basepoint, and let $`\alpha :[0,1]X`$ be a loop based on $`P_0`$. We assume that $`\alpha `$ is not homotopic to the constant path. In this section we give a topological realization of the Artin type representation of $`B_n`$ associated to the pair $`(H,h)=(\pi _1(X,P_0),[\alpha ])`$, and we deduce a topological construction of the link invariant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}`$ of the previous section.

Let $`𝐃=𝐃(\frac{n+1}{2},\frac{n+1}{2})`$ denote the disk in $``$ centered at $`\frac{n+1}{2}`$ of radius $`\frac{n+1}{2}`$. Now, we construct a space $`Y`$ obtained from $`𝐃`$ by making $`n`$ holes in $`𝐃`$ and gluing a copy of $`X`$ into each hole by identifying the circular boundary of the hole to the loop $`\alpha `$ in $`X`$.

Choose some small $`\epsilon >0`$ (we require only that $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{8}`$). Let

$$Y^{}=𝐃\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐃^{}(k,\epsilon )\right),$$

where $`𝐃^{}(k,\epsilon )`$ denotes the open disk centered at $`k`$ of radius $`\epsilon `$. Take $`n`$ copies $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$ of $`X`$, denote by $`f_k:XX_k`$ the natural homeomorphism, and write $`\alpha _k=f_k\alpha `$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then

$$Y=(Y^{}\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}X_k\right))/,$$

where $``$ is the identification defined by

$$\alpha _k(t)k+\epsilon e^{2i\pi t},k=1,\mathrm{},n,t[0,1].$$

Finally, choose a basepoint $`Q_0𝐃`$ for $`Y`$. The following result is a direct consequence of the above construction.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`H=\pi _1(X,P_0)`$, and let $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_n`$ be $`n`$ copies of $`H`$. Then $`\pi _1(Y,Q_0)H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now show that the braid group $`B_n`$ acts on $`Y`$ up to isotopy relative to the boundary of $`𝐃`$ in such a way that the induced action on $`\pi _1(Y)`$ is the Artin type representation associated to $`(H,h)`$, where $`h`$ is the element of $`H=\pi _1(X,P_0)`$ represented by $`\alpha `$.

Let $`\xi `$ and $`0<r<R`$. Define the half Dehn twist $`T=T(\xi ,r,R)`$ by

$$T(\xi +\rho e^{i\theta })=\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi +\rho e^{i(\theta \pi )}\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\rho r\hfill \\ \xi +\rho e^{i(\theta t\pi )}\hfill & \text{if }r\rho R\text{ and }t=\frac{R\rho }{Rr}\hfill \\ \xi +\rho e^{i\theta }\hfill & \text{if }\rho R\hfill \end{array}$$

(see Figure 1).

Let $`T_k^𝐃:𝐃𝐃`$ be the homeomorphism defined by

$$T_k^𝐃=T(k,\epsilon ,2\epsilon )^3T(k+1,\epsilon ,2\epsilon )^1T(k+\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon ,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon ).$$

Note that $`T_k^𝐃`$ leaves invariant the set $`_{j=1}^n𝐃(j,\epsilon )`$, and therefore restricts to a homeomorphism $`T_k:Y^{}Y^{}`$. See Figure 2.

One can verify (with a little effort) that $`T_kT_{k+1}T_k`$ is isotopic to $`T_{k+1}T_kT_{k+1}`$ relative to $`Y^{}`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n2`$, and that $`T_kT_l`$ is isotopic to $`T_lT_k`$ relative to $`Y^{}`$ for $`|kl|2`$. Moreover, $`T_k`$ fixes $`𝐃`$ and transforms the rest of $`Y^{}`$ as follows:

$$T_k(j+\epsilon e^{i\theta })=\{\begin{array}{cc}j+\epsilon e^{i\theta }\hfill & \text{if }jk,k+1\hfill \\ k+1+\epsilon e^{i\theta }\hfill & \text{if }j=k\hfill \\ k+\epsilon e^{i\theta }\hfill & \text{if }j=k+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, $`T_k`$ extends to a homeomorphism $`T_k:YY`$ by setting, for all $`xX`$,

$$T_k(f_j(x))=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_j(x)\hfill & \text{if }jk,k+1\hfill \\ f_{k+1}(x)\hfill & \text{if }j=k\hfill \\ f_k(x)\hfill & \text{if }j=k+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The homeomorphism $`T_k`$ is the identity on $`𝐃`$, $`T_kT_{k+1}T_k`$ is isotopic to $`T_{k+1}T_kT_{k+1}`$ relatively to $`𝐃`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n2`$, and $`T_kT_l`$ is isotopic to $`T_lT_k`$ relatively to $`𝐃`$ for $`|kl|2`$.

By the above observations, $`T_k`$ determines an automorphism $`\tau _k:\pi _1(Y,Q_0)\pi _1(Y,Q_0)`$. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \tau _k\tau _{k+1}\tau _k& =\tau _{k+1}\tau _k\tau _{k+1}\hfill & \mathrm{for}k=1,\mathrm{},n2\hfill \\ \hfill \tau _k\tau _l& =\tau _l\tau _k\hfill & \mathrm{for}|kl|2\hfill \end{array}$$

So, the mapping $`\sigma _k\tau _k`$ determines a representation $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(\pi _1(Y,Q_0))`$.

Set $`Q_0=\frac{n+1}{2}+i\frac{n+1}{2}`$. Let $`\gamma _k:[0,1]Y`$ denote the path which joins $`Q_0`$ to $`f_k(P_0)`$ represented in Figure 3. We identify $`\pi _1(Y,Q_0)`$ with $`G=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$ in such a way that the $`k`$-th embedding $`\varphi _k:H=\pi _1(X,P_0)H_kG`$ is defined by

$$\varphi _k([\beta ])=[\gamma _k\beta \gamma _k^1].$$

With this assumption, one can easily show the following.

###### Proposition 3.2.

The representation $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(\pi _1(Y,Q_0))`$ described above coincides with the Artin type representation of $`B_n`$ associated to $`(H,h)`$, where $`H=\pi _1(X,P_0)`$ and $`h`$ is the element of $`H`$ represented by $`\alpha `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider an oriented $`m`$-component link $`L=K_1\mathrm{}K_m`$ in $`𝐒^3`$. The knot $`K_i`$ is an embedding $`K_i:𝐒^1𝐒^3`$, and $`K_i(𝐒^1)K_j(𝐒^1)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`ij`$. Define a tubular neighborhood of $`K_i`$ to be an embedding $`T_i:𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1𝐒^3`$ such that $`T_i(0,\xi )=K_i(\xi )`$ for all $`\xi 𝐒^1`$. Here, $`𝐃^2`$ denotes the disk centered at $`0`$ of radius 1 in $``$. A framing of $`L`$ is a collection $`\{T_i:𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1𝐒^3\}_{i=1}^m`$ of embeddings such that $`T_i`$ is a tubular neighborhood of $`K_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, and $`T_i(𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1)T_j(𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`ij`$. The longitude of the component $`K_i`$ is the (oriented) embedding $`\lambda _i:𝐒^1𝐒^3`$ such that $`\lambda _i(\xi )=T_i(1,\xi )`$ for all $`\xi 𝐒^1`$. The tubular neighborhood of the framing of each component $`K_i`$ is determined up to isotopy by the homology class of its longitude $`\lambda _i`$ in the knot complement $`𝐒^3K_i`$.

Given an oriented knot $`K`$, we identify $`H_1(K):=H_1(𝐒^3K)`$ with $``$ in such a way that $`1`$ is represented by the 1-cycle depicted in Figure 4(a). Let $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$ denote disjoint oriented knots in $`𝐒^3`$. One defines the *linking number* $`\text{lk}(K_1,K_2)`$ to be the class $`[K_1]H_1(K_2)=`$. The linking number $`\text{lk}(K_1,K_2)`$ may be measured from any regular projection of the link $`K_1K_2`$ by counting with sign the crossings where $`K_1`$ passes over $`K_2`$, as indicated in Figure 4(b). (Equally one may choose to count undercrossings with the appropriate sign, and one quickly sees that $`\text{lk}(K_1,K_2)=\text{lk}(K_2,K_1)`$).

### Notation (Preferred framing).

Let $`L=K_1\mathrm{}K_m`$ be an $`m`$-component oriented link in $`𝐒^3`$. Up to isotopy, there is a unique framing in which the longitude $`\lambda _i`$ for each component $`K_i`$ satisfies the following condition:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\text{lk}(\lambda _i,K_j)=0.$$

Note that, for $`ji`$, $`\text{lk}(\lambda _i,K_j)=\text{lk}(K_i,K_j)`$ and is determined by the oriented link $`L`$. We shall refer to the above framing as the *preferred framing* of $`L`$.

We now wish to associate to an oriented link $`L`$ the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(L,X)`$ obtained by performing a ‘generalised’ surgery on the link $`L`$ according to the preferred framing just described. More precisely, let $`L=K_1\mathrm{}K_m`$ and let $`\{T_i:𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1𝐒^3\}_{i=1}^m`$ be the preferred framing. Let $`T_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ denote the interior of $`T_i(𝐃^2\times 𝐒^1)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, and let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(L)=𝐒^3\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}T_i^{}\right).$$

Take $`m`$ copies $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_m`$ of $`X`$, denote by $`f_i:XX_i`$ the natural homeomorphism, and write $`\alpha _i=f_i\alpha `$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(L,X)=(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(L)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(X_i\times 𝐒^1)\right))/,$$

where $``$ is the identification defined by

$$(\alpha _j(t),\eta )T_j(e^{2i\pi t},\eta ),j=1,\mathrm{},m,t[0,1],\eta 𝐒^1.$$

The following proposition yields a second proof of the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}`$ is a link invariant for any finitely generated group $`H`$ and nontrivial element $`hH`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`\beta `$ be a braid, and let $`\widehat{\beta }`$ denote the closed braid of $`\beta `$. Let $`X`$ be a CW-complex with basepoint $`P_0`$ and let $`\alpha `$ be a nontrivial loop in $`X`$. Then $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{\beta },X))`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta )`$, where $`H=\pi _1(X,P_0)`$ and $`h`$ is the element of $`H`$ represented by $`\alpha `$.

### Proof.

We first remind the reader of the standard construction of the closed braid $`\widehat{\beta }`$ from a braid $`\beta `$ (see \[Birm\]). Firstly, decompose $`𝐒^3`$ as follows: let $`T_1,T_2`$ be two copies of the solid torus $`𝐃\times 𝐒^1`$ and write

$$𝐒^3=T_1\underset{\kappa :T_1T_2}{}T_2,$$

where the identifying map $`\kappa `$ is a homeomorphism carrying $`𝐃`$ to $`𝐒^1`$ and $`𝐒^1`$ to $`𝐃`$. The closed braid $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is the oriented link which is induced by composing the braid $`\beta :\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\times [0,1]𝐃\times [0,1]`$ with the composition of maps

$$𝐃\times [0,1]\stackrel{f}{}𝐃\times 𝐒^1=T_1\stackrel{g}{}𝐒^3,$$

where $`f(p,t)=(p,e^{i2\pi t})`$, for $`p𝐃`$ and $`t[0,1]`$, and $`g`$ denotes the inclusion of $`T_1`$ in $`𝐒^3`$. The orientation on $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is naturally induced from a choice of orientation of the interval $`[0,1]`$.

Given a standard projection of a braid $`\beta `$ we may describe a projection of the closed braid $`\widehat{\beta }`$ with the same number of crossings, as indicated in Figure 5. We now produce a framing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ by choosing a longitude $`\lambda _i`$ for each component $`K_i`$ of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ whose projections are as indicated in Figure 6 in the vicinity of a crossing, and otherwise parallel to the link projection. It is easily enough verified that this framing is exactly the preferred framing of $`\widehat{\beta }`$.

Write $`\beta =\sigma _{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}\sigma _{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i_r}^{\epsilon _r}`$ and define $`T_\beta ^𝐃:𝐃𝐃`$ as the composition of the homeomorphisms $`(T_{i_j}^𝐃)^{\epsilon _j}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Similarly, define $`T_\beta =T_{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}T_{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}T_{i_r}^{\epsilon _r}:YY`$. For $`j=1,..,n`$, denote by $`b_j`$ the point $`j+\epsilon `$ on $`𝐃(j,\epsilon )`$. This is the point on $`Y^{}`$ to which the basepoint of $`X_j`$ is attached when forming $`Y`$. Since $`T_\beta ^𝐃`$ is isotopic to $`\text{Id}_𝐃`$ relative to $`𝐃`$, there is a homeomorphism $`U:𝐃\times [0,1]𝐃\times [0,1]`$ such that $`U(x,0)=(x,0)`$, $`U(x,1)=(T_\beta ^𝐃(x),1)`$, for all $`x𝐃`$, and $`U`$ fixes $`𝐃\times [0,1]`$ pointwise. Moreover, by construction, $`U`$ carries $`(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}𝐃(j,\epsilon ))\times [0,1]`$ to a tubular neighbourhood of (a representative of) the braid $`\beta `$, and $`gfU`$ carries the arcs $`\{b_j\times [0,1]:j=1,..,n\}`$ to a framing of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ equivalent to that described in Figure 6, namely the preferred framing. Consequently the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{\beta },X)`$ is homeomorphic to $`T_1^{}T_2`$ where

$$T_1^{}=Y\times [0,1]/((y,0)(T_\beta (y),1)).$$

We therefore have $`\pi _1(T_1^{})Gt/(tgt^1\rho (\beta )ggG)`$, an HNN-extension. Attaching $`T_2`$ to $`T_1^{}`$ has the effect of simply killing the stable letter $`t`$. Consequently

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{\beta },X))G/(g\rho (\beta )ggG)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(H,h)}(\beta ).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Faithfulness

Consider a group $`H`$ and a non-trivial element $`hH\{1\}`$, and write $`G=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$, where $`H_i`$ is a copy of $`H`$. The aim of this section is to prove the following.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Artin type representation of $`B_n`$ associated to $`(H,h)`$. Then $`\rho `$ is faithful.

As pointed out in the introduction, the proof of Proposition 4.1 is strongly inspired by the proof of Theorem A of \[Shp\], and its main ingredient is the following result due to Dehornoy \[Deh1\], \[Deh2\].

###### Proposition 4.2 (Dehornoy).

Let $`B_{n1}`$ be the subgroup of $`B_n`$ generated by $`\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}`$. Let $`\beta B_n`$. Then either

(1) $`\beta B_{n1}`$; or

(2) $`\beta `$ can be written

$$\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1\alpha _1\sigma _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\sigma _1\alpha _l,$$

where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$; or

(3) $`\beta `$ can be written

$$\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1^1\alpha _1\sigma _1^1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1\alpha _l,$$

where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following lemma is a preliminary result to the proof of Proposition 4.1.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`G^{}=H_2\mathrm{}H_n`$. Let $`uG`$ such that the normal form of $`u`$ with respect to the decomposition $`G=H_1G^{}`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$.

(1) The normal form of $`\rho (\sigma _1)(u)`$ with respect to the decomposition $`G=H_1G^{}`$ also starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$.

(2) Let $`k\{2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`\epsilon \{\pm 1\}`$. The normal form of $`\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )(u)`$ with respect to the decomposition $`G=H_1G^{}`$ also starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$.

### Proof.

Let $`vH_1H_2`$. Suppose that the normal form of $`v`$ is

$$v=\varphi _1(x_1)\varphi _2(y_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _1(x_l)\varphi _2(y_l),$$

where $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_l,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{l1}H\{1\}`$, and $`y_lH`$. Then

$$\rho (\sigma _1)(v)=h_1^1\varphi _2(x_1)h_1^2\varphi _1(y_1)h_1^2\mathrm{}\varphi _2(x_l)h_1^2\varphi _1(y_l)h_1^1,$$

thus the normal form of $`\rho (\sigma _1)(v)`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$.

Similarly, if the normal form of $`v`$ is

$$v=\varphi _2(y_1)\varphi _1(x_1)\mathrm{}\varphi _2(y_l)\varphi _1(x_l),$$

where $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_l,y_2,\mathrm{},y_lH\{1\}`$ and $`y_1H`$, then the normal form of $`\rho (\sigma _1)(v)`$ ends with $`h_1`$.

Now, write

$$u=v_0w_1v_1\mathrm{}w_lv_l$$

where $`v_i(H_1H_2)\{1\}`$ and $`w_j(H_3\mathrm{}H_n)\{1\}`$, and $`l0`$. The hypothesis that $`u`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ implies that $`v_0`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$, and the hypothesis that $`u`$ ends with $`h_1`$ implies that $`v_l`$ ends with $`h_1`$. Both groups, $`H_1H_2`$ and $`H_3\mathrm{}H_n`$, are invariant by $`\rho (\sigma _1)`$, and $`\rho (\sigma _1)`$ is the identity on $`H_3\mathrm{}H_n`$. So,

$$\rho (\sigma _1)(u)=\rho (\sigma _1)(v_0)w_1\rho (\sigma _1)(v_1)\mathrm{}w_l\rho (\sigma _1)(v_l).$$

By the above observations, $`\rho (\sigma _1)(v_0)`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ and $`\rho (\sigma _1)(v_l)`$ ends with $`h_1`$, thus $`\rho (\sigma _1)(u)`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$.

Let $`k\{2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`\epsilon \{\pm 1\}`$. Write

$$u=h_1^1w_1v_1\mathrm{}v_{l1}w_lh_1,$$

where $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{l1}H_1\{1\}`$ and $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_lG^{}\{1\}`$. Both groups, $`H_1`$ and $`G^{}`$, are invariant by $`\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )`$, and $`\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )`$ is the identity on $`H_1`$. So,

$$\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )(u)=h_1^1\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )(w_1)v_1\mathrm{}v_{l1}\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )(w_l)h_1,$$

thus the normal form of $`\rho (\sigma _k^\epsilon )(u)`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Proof of Proposition 4.1.

We argue by induction on $`n`$. Assume $`n=2`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\rho (\sigma _1^{2l})(h_1)=(h_2h_1)^lh_1(h_2h_1)^lh_1,\mathrm{for}l\{0\}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\rho (\sigma _1^{2l+1})(h_1)=(h_2h_1)^lh_1^1h_2h_1(h_2h_1)^lh_1,\mathrm{for}l\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

thus the representation $`\rho :B_2\mathrm{Aut}(H_1H_2)`$ is faithful.

Now, assume $`n3`$. Let $`\beta B_n\{1\}`$. By Proposition 4.2, either $`\beta B_{n1}`$, or $`\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _1\alpha _l`$, where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$, or $`\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1^1\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1\alpha _l`$, where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$.

Suppose $`\beta B_{n1}`$. By induction, $`\rho (\beta )`$ acts non-trivially on $`G^{}=H_2\mathrm{}H_n`$, thus $`\rho (\beta )`$ acts non-trivially on $`G=H_1G^{}`$.

Suppose $`\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _1\alpha _l`$, where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$. Let

$$u=\rho (\sigma _1\alpha _l)(h_1)=\rho (\sigma _1)(h_1)=h_1^1h_2h_1.$$

By Lemma 4.3, the normal form of $`\rho (\alpha _0\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _1\alpha _{l1})(u)=\rho (\beta )(h_1)`$ starts with $`h_1^1`$ and ends with $`h_1`$. In particular, $`\rho (\beta )(h_1)h_1`$, thus $`\rho (\beta )\text{Id}`$.

Suppose $`\beta =\alpha _0\sigma _1^1\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1\alpha _l`$, where $`l1`$ and $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _lB_{n1}`$. By the previous case, $`\rho (\beta ^1)\text{Id}`$, thus $`\rho (\beta )\text{Id}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Garside groups

Our objectives in this section are twofold. Firstly we give a brief presentation of the definition and salient properties of a Garside group. Secondly we establish a criterion (or set of criteria) which allows one to show that a group given by a certain type of presentation is indeed a Garside group, and which we will make use of in the subsequent section. Our presentation of the subject draws in many ways from the work of Dehornoy \[Deh3, Deh5\] as well as \[DP\], and, like all treatments of Garside groups, is inspired ultimately by the seminal papers of Garside \[Gar\], on braid groups, and Brieskorn and Saito \[BS\], on Artin groups.

###### Definition 5.1.

Let $`M`$ be an arbitrary monoid. We say that $`M`$ is atomic if there exists a function $`\nu :M`$ such that

$``$ $`\nu (a)=0`$ if and only if $`a=1`$;

$``$ $`\nu (ab)\nu (a)+\nu (b)`$ for all $`a,bM`$.

Such a function $`\nu :M`$ is called a norm on $`M`$.

An element $`aM`$ is called an *atom* if it is indecomposable, namely, if $`a=bc`$ then either $`b=1`$ or $`c=1`$.

This definition of atomicity is taken from \[DP\]. See \[DP\], Proposition 2.1, for a list of further properties all equivalent to atomicity. In the same paper it is shown that any generating set of $`M`$ contains the set of all atoms. In particular, $`M`$ is finitely generated if and only if it has only finitely many atoms.

Given that a monoid $`M`$ is atomic, we may define left and right invariant partial orders $`_L`$ and $`_R`$ on $`M`$ as follows:

$``$ set $`a_Lb`$ if there exists $`cM`$ such that $`ac=b`$;

$``$ set $`a_Rb`$ if there exists $`cM`$ such that $`ca=b`$.

We shall call these the *left* and *right divisibility orders* on $`M`$.

###### Definition 5.2.

A Garside monoid is a monoid $`M`$ such that

(i) $`M`$ is atomic and finitely generated;

(ii) $`M`$ is cancellative;

(iii) $`(M,_L)`$ and $`(M,_R)`$ are lattices;

(iv) there exists an element $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, which we call a *Garside element*, such that

(a) the set $`L(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\{xM:x_L\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ generates $`M`$, and

(b) the sets $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\{xM:x_R\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ are equal.

### Remark.

Elsewhere in the literature the condition that $`M`$ is finitely generated is often incorporated into condition (iv) of the definition by saying that the set $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is finite. It seems more natural to state this condition separately. Note that, if $`M`$ is finitely generated and atomic, then $`L(a)=\{xM:x_La\}`$ is finite for all $`aM`$.

###### Definition 5.3.

For any monoid $`M`$ one can define the group $`G(M)`$ which is presented by the generating set $`M`$ and relations $`ab=c`$ whenever $`ab=c`$ in $`M`$. There is an obvious canonical homomorphism $`MG(M)`$. This homomorphism is not injective in general. The group $`G(M)`$ is known as the group of fractions of $`M`$. Define a Garside group to be the group of fractions of a Garside monoid.

### Remark.

(1) A Garside monoid $`M`$ satisfies Öre’s conditions, thus the canonical homomorphism $`MG(M)`$ is injective. Moreover the partial order $`_L`$ (resp. $`_R`$) extends to a left invariant (resp. right invariant) lattice order on $`G(M)`$ with positive cone $`M`$.

(2) A Garside element is never unique. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a Garside element, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k`$ is also a Garside element for all $`k1`$ (see \[Deh5\], Lemma 2.2).

Let $`M`$ be a Garside monoid. The lattice operations of $`(M,_L)`$ are denoted by $`_L`$ and $`_L`$. For $`a,bM`$, we denote by $`a\backslash _Lb`$ the unique element of $`M`$ such that $`a(a\backslash _Lb)=a_Lb`$. Similarly, the lattice operations of $`(M,_R)`$ are denoted by $`_R`$ and $`_R`$, and, for $`a,bM`$, we denote by $`b/_Ra`$ the unique element of $`M`$ such that $`(b/_Ra)a=a_Rb`$.

Now, before establishing our criterion for a group to be a Garside group, we briefly explain how to define a biautomatic structure on a given Garside group. By \[EpAl\], such a structure furnishes solutions to the word problem and to the conjugacy problem, and it implies that the group has quadratic isoperimetric inequalities. We refer to \[EpAl\] for definitions and properties of automatic groups, and to \[Deh5\] for more details on the biautomatic structures on Garside groups.

Let $`M`$ be a Garside monoid, and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a Garside element of $`M`$. For $`aM`$, we write $`\pi _L(a)=\mathrm{\Delta }_La`$ and denote by $`_L(a)`$ the unique element of $`M`$ such that $`a=\pi _L(a)_L(a)`$. Using the fact that $`M`$ is atomic and that $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{xM:x_L\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ contains all the atoms, one can easily show that $`\pi _L(a)1`$ if $`a1`$, and that there exists some positive integer $`k`$ such that $`_L^k(a)=1`$. Let $`k`$ be the lowest integer satisfying $`_L^k(a)=1`$. Then the expression

$$a=\pi _L(a)\pi _L(_L(a))\mathrm{}\pi _L(_L^{k1}(a))$$

is called the normal form of $`a`$.

Let $`G=G(M)`$ be the group of fractions of $`M`$. Let $`cG`$. Since $`G`$ is a lattice with positive cone $`M`$ the element $`c`$ can be written $`c=a^1b`$ with $`a,bM`$. Obviously, $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be chosen so that $`a_Lb=1`$ and, with this extra condition, are unique. Let $`a=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_p`$ and $`b=b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_q`$ be the normal forms of $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. Then the expression

$$c=a_p^1\mathrm{}a_2^1a_1^1b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_q$$

is called the normal form of $`c`$.

The following result can be found in \[Deh5\], Section 3.

###### Theorem 5.4 (Dehornoy).

Let $`M`$ be a Garside monoid and let $`G`$ be the group of fractions of $`M`$. Then the normal forms of the elements of $`G`$ form a symmetric rational language on the (finite) set $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ which has the fellow traveler property. In particular, $`G`$ is biautomatic. $`\mathrm{}`$

We turn now to establish our criterion.

For a finite set $`S`$, we denote by $`S^{}`$ the free monoid on $`S`$. The elements of $`S^{}`$ are called words on $`S`$. The empty word is denoted by $`ϵ`$. Let $``$ be a congruence relation on $`S^{}`$, and let $`M=(S^{}/)`$. For $`wS^{}`$, we denote by $`\overline{w}`$ the element of $`M`$ represented by $`w`$, and we call $`w`$ an expression of $`\overline{w}`$.

###### Definition 5.5.

A complement is a function $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ such that $`f(x,x)=ϵ`$ for all $`xS`$. To a complement $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ we associate the following two monoids.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_L^f& =S|xf(x,y)=yf(y,x)\mathrm{for}x,yS^+,\hfill \\ \hfill M_R^f& =S|f(y,x)x=f(x,y)y\mathrm{for}x,yS^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`u,vS^{}`$, we write $`u_L^fv`$ if $`u`$ and $`v`$ are expressions of the same element of $`M_L^f`$, and we write $`u_R^fv`$ if $`u`$ and $`v`$ are expressions of the same element of $`M_R^f`$.

###### Definition 5.6.

A word $`w`$ in $`(SS^1)^{}`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the left in one step to a word $`w^{}`$ if $`w^{}`$ is obtained from $`w`$ by replacing some subword $`x^1y`$ (with $`x,yS`$) by the corresponding word $`f(x,y)f(y,x)^1`$. Let $`p0`$. We say that $`w`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the left in $`p`$ steps to a word $`w^{}`$ if there exists a sequence $`w_0=w,w_1,\mathrm{},w_p=w^{}`$ in $`(SS^1)^{}`$ such that $`w_{i1}`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the left in one step to $`w_i`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$. The property “$`w`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the left to $`w^{}`$” is denoted by $`w_L^fw^{}`$.

We define the $`f`$-reversibility on the right in a similar way, replacing subwords $`yx^1`$ (with $`x,yS`$) by the corresponding words $`f(x,y)^1f(y,x)`$. The property “$`w`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the right to $`w^{}`$” is denoted by $`w_R^fw^{}`$.

It is shown in \[Deh3\] that a reversing process is confluent, namely:

###### Proposition 5.7 (Dehornoy, \[Deh3\], Lemma 1).

Let $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ be a complement, and let $`w(SS^1)^{}`$. Suppose that the word $`w`$ is $`f`$-reversible on the left in $`p`$ steps to a word $`uv^1`$, with $`u,vS^{}`$. Then any sequence of left $`f`$-reversing transformations starting from $`w`$ leads in $`p`$ steps to $`uv^1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 5.8.

Let $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ be a complement and let $`u,vS^{}`$. Assume that there exist $`u^{},v^{}S^{}`$ such that $`u^1v_L^fu^{}(v^{})^1`$. By Proposition 5.7, $`u^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ are unique (if they exist). Then we write $`u^{}=C_L^f(u,v)`$ and $`v^{}=C_L^f(v,u)`$. One has

$$uC_L^f(u,v)_L^fvC_L^f(v,u)$$

(see \[Deh3, Lem. 2\]). If no such words $`u^{},v^{}`$ exist then we write $`C_L^f(u,v)=C_L^f(v,u)=\mathrm{}`$.

Similarly, define the words $`C_R^f(u,v)`$ and $`C_R^f(v,u)`$ to be the unique elements of $`S^{}`$ which satisfy $`vu^1_R^fC_R^f(u,v)^1C_R^f(v,u)`$, or write $`C_R^f(u,v)=C_R^f(v,u)=\mathrm{}`$ if no such words exist.

###### Definition 5.9 (Dehornoy, \[Deh3\], p.120).

Let $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ be a complement. We say that $`f`$ is coherent on the left if, for all $`x,y,zS`$ such that $`C_L^f(f(x,y),f(x,z))\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$C_L^f(f(x,y),f(x,z))_L^fC_L^f(f(y,x),f(y,z)).$$

Similarly, we say that $`f`$ is coherent on the right if, for all $`x,y,zS`$ such that $`C_R^f(f(z,x),f(y,x))\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$C_R^f(f(z,x),f(y,x))_R^fC_R^f(f(z,y),f(x,y)).$$

A partially ordered set $`(X,)`$ is said to be a *quasi-lattice*, or *quasi-lattice ordered*, if every pair of elements $`x,yX`$ which has a common upper bound ($`z`$ such that $`xz`$ and $`yz`$) has a least upper bound, usually written $`xy`$.

The proof of the following proposition can be more or less reconstructed from Garside’s original treatment of the braid monoids \[Gar\], or the similar treatment of Artin monoids in \[BS\]. The result appears in almost precisely this form (with some notational differences) as Lemma 4 of \[Deh3\].

###### Proposition 5.10.

Let $`M`$ be an atomic monoid with generating set $`S`$, and suppose that $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ is a complement which is coherent on the left and such that $`M=M_L^f`$. Then the following holds:

For all $`u,v,x,yS^{}`$ such that $`ux_L^fvy`$, there exists $`wS^{}`$ such that $`x_L^fC_L^f(u,v)w`$ and $`y_L^fC_L^f(v,u)w`$.

In particular, (LCQL) implies that $`M`$ is left cancellative and $`(M,_L)`$ is a quasi-lattice.

### Proof.

We refer the reader to \[Deh3\], Lemma 4, for the proof of the statement (LCQL). The fact that $`M`$ is left cancellative comes from putting $`u=v`$ in (LCQL). Also, if $`u`$ and $`v`$ represent elements $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{v}`$ respectively, and if $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{v}`$ have a common upper bound (represented by words $`uxvy`$ for some $`x,yS^{}`$), then the least upper bound $`\overline{u}_L\overline{v}`$ is the element represented by $`uC_L^f(u,v)vC_L^f(v,u)`$. The statement (LCQL) implies that this element divides all common upper bounds of $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{v}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now, Proposition 5.10, together with \[DP\] and \[Deh5\], permit the following criterion for a monoid $`M`$ to be a Garside monoid:

###### Criterion 5.11.

Let $`M`$ be a monoid. Then $`M`$ is a Garside monoid if and only if it satisfies the following properties:

(C1) $`M`$ is finitely generated and atomic;

(C2) there exist complements $`f:S_1\times S_1S_1^{}`$, coherent on the left, and $`g:S_2\times S_2S_2^{}`$, coherent on the right, such that $`MM_L^f`$ and $`MM_R^g`$;

(C3) $`M`$ possesses a Garside element, namely an element $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ such that every atom of $`M`$ left divides $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the sets $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{xM:x_L\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ and $`R(\mathrm{\Delta })=\{xM:x_R\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ are equal.

### Proof.

Let $`M`$ be a Garside monoid. Clearly, $`M`$ satisfies (C1) and (C3). So, we just need to show that $`M`$ satisfies (C2). Choose some finite generating set $`S`$ for $`M`$, and consider complements $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ and $`g:S\times SS^{}`$ such that

$$\overline{f(x,y)}=x\backslash _Ly,\overline{g(x,y)}=y/_Rx,$$

for all $`x,yS`$. Then, by \[DP\], Theorem 4.1, one has $`M=M_L^f=M_R^g`$, and, by \[Deh5\], Lemma 5.2, $`f`$ is coherent on the left and $`g`$ is coherent on the right.

Now, recall the statement of \[Deh5\], Proposition 2.1.

Suppose that $`M`$ is a monoid which satisfies the following properties:

(D1) $`M`$ is finitely generated and atomic;

(D2) $`M`$ is left and right cancellative;

(D3) $`(M,_L)`$ is a quasi-lattice;

(D4) there exists a finite subset $`PM`$ which generates $`M`$ and which is closed under $`\backslash _L`$ (namely, if $`a,bP`$, then $`a\backslash _LbP`$).

Then $`M`$ is a Garside monoid.

Let $`M`$ be a monoid which satisfies (C1), (C2), (C3). We wish to show that $`M`$ is a Garside monoid. By Proposition 5.10, $`M`$ satisfies (D1), (D2) and (D3). So, it remains to show that $`M`$ satisfies (D4). Let $`P=L(\mathrm{\Delta })=R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Note that, by hypothesis, $`P`$ generates $`M`$. Let $`a,bP`$. Since $`a_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`b_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have $`a_Lb_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`cM`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(a_Lb)c=a(a\backslash _Lb)c`$. Then $`(a\backslash _Lb)c_R\mathrm{\Delta }`$, thus $`(a\backslash _Lb)c_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (since $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })=R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$), therefore $`(a\backslash _Lb)_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$, that is $`(a\backslash _Lb)P`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Remark.

In the context of Garside groups, the reversing processes are used not only to determine whether a group is a Garside group, but it is also a very useful tool for solving the word problem and to explicitly compute normal forms. For instance, if $`M`$ is a Garside monoid, then one can find complements $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ and $`g:S\times SS^{}`$ such that $`M=M_L^f=M_R^g`$. If $`w`$ is in $`(SS^1)^{}`$, then any sequence of right $`g`$-reversing transformations leads to a word $`u^1v`$ where $`u,vS^{}`$, and one has $`\overline{w}=\overline{u}^1\overline{v}`$. On the other hand, if $`u,vS^{}`$, then $`\overline{u}\backslash _L\overline{v}`$ is represented by $`C_L^f(u,v)`$, $`\overline{u}_L\overline{v}`$ is represented by $`uC_L^f(u,v)`$, and $`\overline{u}_L\overline{v}`$ can be computed by means of the equality

$$\overline{u}_L\overline{v}=(\overline{u}_L\overline{v})/_R((\overline{u}\backslash _L\overline{v})_R(\overline{v}\backslash _L\overline{u}))$$

(see \[Deh5\], Lemma 2.6).

In the next section we shall need the following characterization of a Garside element.

###### Lemma 5.12 (Garside elements).

Let $`M`$ be a cancellative atomic monoid with atom set $`A`$, and suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is such that $`L(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\{xM:x_L\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ generates $`M`$. Define $`R(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\{xM:x_R\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$. Then the following are equivalent:

(1) $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })=R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$;

(2) $`A.\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }.A`$;

(3) $`M.\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }.M`$;

(4) there exists a monoid automorphism $`\tau :MM`$ such that $`w\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (w)`$ for all $`wM`$. (In particular, $`\tau (A)=A`$. Also $`\tau `$ is necessarily unique.)

### Proof.

By cancellativity, there is a well-defined bijection $`c:L(\mathrm{\Delta })R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ such that $`x.c(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for all $`xL(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Suppose that (1) holds. Then $`c`$ is a bijection $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and we may define $`\tau =c^2`$, also a bijection of $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Note that for $`xL(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, we also have $`c(x)L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ may be written $`c(x)c^2(x)`$. Therefore, for all $`xL(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, we have $`x.\mathrm{\Delta }=x.c(x).c^2(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }.\tau (x)`$. Since $`L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ generates $`M`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Lw\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for all $`wM`$ (in fact, if $`w=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n`$ with $`x_iL(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, then $`w\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (x_1)\mathrm{}\tau (x_n)`$). By left cancellativity, there is therefore a unique well-defined function $`\tau :MM`$ such that $`w\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (w)`$ for all $`wM`$. By right cancellativity, $`\tau `$ must be injective. Moreover, given $`x,y,zM`$ such that $`z=xy`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (z)=z\mathrm{\Delta }=x\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (y)=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (x)\tau (y)`$ and, by cancellation, $`\tau (z)=\tau (x)\tau (y)`$. Thus $`\tau `$ is a monoid homomorphism. By a similar argument, we may construct the inverse homomorphism $`\tau ^1`$ in order to show that $`\tau `$ is in fact an automorphism of $`M`$. Thus (1) implies (4).

Now suppose that (2) holds: $`A\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }A`$. Then by left and right cancellativity, there is a well-defined bijection $`\tau :AA`$ such that $`a\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (a)`$ for all $`aA`$. As in the previous paragraph this extends to an automorphism of $`M`$ such that $`w\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (w)`$ for all $`wM`$. Thus (2) implies (4). By the same reasoning one can show that (3) implies (4). On the other hand, both (2) and (3) are obvious consequences of (4).

Finally, we show that (4) implies (1). Suppose that (4) holds. In particular, we have $`\tau (\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore, $`x_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if and only if $`\tau (x)_L\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (since $`\tau `$ is a monoid automorphism). In other words, $`\tau (L(\mathrm{\Delta }))=L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. On the other hand, the equation $`x\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau (x)`$ shows, by left cancellation, that if $`xL(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ then $`\tau (x)R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and, by right cancellation, that if $`y=\tau (x)R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ then $`\tau ^1(y)L(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Thus $`\tau (L(\mathrm{\Delta }))=R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. But then $`\tau (L(\mathrm{\Delta }))=L(\mathrm{\Delta })=R(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, giving (1). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Semi-direct products

We turn back to the Artin type representations. Let $`H`$ be a group, let $`hH\{1\}`$, let $`G=H_1\mathrm{}H_n`$, where $`H_i`$ is a copy of $`H`$, and let $`\rho :B_n\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Artin type representation associated to $`(H,h)`$. The aim of this section is to prove the following.

###### Theorem 6.1.

Assume that $`H`$ is the group of fractions of a Garside monoid $`M`$ and that $`h`$ is a Garside element. Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}=G_\rho B_n`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the submonoid of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ generated by $`M_1=\varphi _1(M)`$ and the monoid $`B_n^+`$ of positive braids. Then $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a Garside monoid, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(h_1\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})^n`$ is a Garside element of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the group of fractions of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

The first step in the proof of Theorem 6.1 consists on finding a presentation for $`G_\rho B_n`$, namely:

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`H=S`$ be a presentation for $`H`$, and let $`DS^{}`$ be an expression of $`h`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{G}=G_\rho B_n`$ has a presentation with generators

$$S\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\},$$

and with relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}r& \text{for }r,\hfill \\ \sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i=\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}& \text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},n2,\hfill \\ \sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i& \text{for }|ij|2,\hfill \\ \sigma _ix=x\sigma _i& \text{for }xS\text{ and }i=2,\mathrm{},n1,\hfill \\ x\sigma _1D\sigma _1=\sigma _1D\sigma _1D^1xD& \text{for }xS.\hfill \end{array}$$

### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{G}_0`$ denote the abstract group generated by $`S\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}`$ and subject to the relations given in the statement of Proposition 6.2. Let $`X=(_{i=1}^n\varphi _i(S))\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}`$. With a little effort one can verify that the mapping $`\phi :X\stackrel{~}{G}_0`$ defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \phi (\varphi _i(x))& =\sigma _{i1}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _1^1D^{i1}xD^{1i}\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _{i1}\hfill & \text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},n\text{ and }xS\hfill \\ \hfill \phi (\sigma _i)& =\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},n1\hfill \end{array}$$

determines a homomorphism $`\phi :\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}_0`$, and somewhat more easily that the mapping $`\psi :S\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi (x)& =\varphi _1(x)\hfill & \text{for }xS\hfill \\ \hfill \psi (\sigma _i)& =\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},n1\hfill \end{array}$$

determines a homomorphism $`\psi :\stackrel{~}{G}_0\stackrel{~}{G}`$. One checks without too much difficulty that $`(\psi \phi )(a)=a`$ for all $`aX`$, and $`(\phi \psi )(b)=b`$ for all $`bS\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}`$, thus $`\psi \phi =\text{Id}_{\stackrel{~}{G}}`$ and $`\phi \psi =\text{Id}_{\stackrel{~}{G}_0}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Proof of Theorem 6.1.

Let $`\tau :MM`$ denote the automorphism of $`M`$ induced by conjugation by $`h^1`$, so that $`xh=h\tau (x)`$ for all $`xM`$ (see Lemma 5.12). Let $`S`$ be a finite generating set for $`M`$. We may, and do, choose $`S`$ so that $`\tau (S)=S`$ (for instance we may simply choose $`S`$ to be the set of atoms of $`M`$). Define $`f:S\times SS^{}`$ such that $`\overline{xf(x,y)}=\overline{yf(y,x)}=x_Ly`$ for all pairs $`x,yS`$. Similarly define $`g:S\times SS^{}`$ such that $`\overline{g(x,y)y}=\overline{g(y,x)x}=x_Ry`$ for all pairs $`x,yS`$. As pointed out in the proof of Criterion 5.11, one has $`M=M_L^f=M_R^g`$, $`f`$ is coherent on the left, and $`g`$ is coherent on the right. We simply write $``$ for the congruence relation on $`S^{}`$ defined by the relations in $`M`$ (namely, $`_L^f`$, or equally $`_R^g`$). Let $`DS^{}`$ be an expression of $`h`$. Note that for $`xS`$ we have $`xDD\tau (x)`$ and $`\tau ^1(x)DDx`$, where $`\tau (x)`$ and $`\tau ^1(x)`$ also denote elements of the generating set $`S`$. The last family of relations appearing in Proposition 6.2 may be replaced with $`x\sigma _1D\sigma _1=\sigma _1D\sigma _1\tau (x)`$ for all $`xS`$, or equivalently with $`\tau ^1(x)\sigma _1D\sigma _1=\sigma _1D\sigma _1x`$ for all $`xS`$.

Let $`X=S\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}`$. Let $`F:X\times XX^{}`$ be the complement defined by

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill F(x,y)& =f(x,y)\hfill & \text{for }x,yS\hfill & \hfill F(\sigma _i,x)& =x\hfill & \text{for }xS\text{ and }i2\hfill \\ \hfill F(x,\sigma _1)& =\sigma _1D\sigma _1\hfill & \text{for }xS\hfill & \hfill F(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)& =\sigma _j\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }|ij|=1\hfill \\ \hfill F(\sigma _1,x)& =D\sigma _1\tau (x)\hfill & \text{for }xS\hfill & \hfill F(\sigma _i,\sigma _j)& =\sigma _j\hfill & \text{for }|ij|2\hfill \\ \hfill F(x,\sigma _i)& =\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }xS\text{ and }i2\hfill & & & \end{array}$$

and let $`G:X\times XX^{}`$ be the complement defined by

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill G(x,y)& =g(x,y)\hfill & \text{for }x,yS\hfill & \hfill G(x,\sigma _i)& =x\hfill & \text{for }xS\text{ and }i2\hfill \\ \hfill G(\sigma _1,x)& =\sigma _1D\sigma _1\hfill & \text{for }xS\hfill & \hfill G(\sigma _j,\sigma _i)& =\sigma _i\sigma _j\hfill & \text{for }|ij|=1\hfill \\ \hfill G(x,\sigma _1)& =\tau ^1(x)\sigma _1D\hfill & \text{for }xS\hfill & \hfill G(\sigma _j,\sigma _i)& =\sigma _j\hfill & \text{for }|ij|2\hfill \\ \hfill G(\sigma _i,x)& =\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }xS\text{ and }i2\hfill & & & \end{array}$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ denote the monoid defined by the presentation with generators $`X`$ and relations as laid out in Proposition 6.2. Then clearly $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0M_L^FM_R^G`$. We denote by $``$ the congruence relation on $`X^{}`$ defined by the relations of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. (So $``$ is the same congruence relation as $`_L^F`$ and $`_R^G`$). We proceed now to show that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ satisfies the Criterion 5.11 with complements $`F`$ and $`G`$ and Garside element $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(D\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})^n`$. It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is a Garside monoid with group of fractions $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ and is canonically isomorphic to the submonoid $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in the statement of the Theorem.

Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is finitely generated. We check that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is atomic. Let $`\nu :M`$ be a norm for $`M`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\}`$ and define the function $`\mathrm{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by $`\mathrm{}(\sigma _{i_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i_l})=l`$. We define a function $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }:X^{}`$ as follows. Let $`wX^{}`$. Write $`w=u_1v_1\mathrm{}u_lv_l`$, where $`u_1S^{}`$, $`u_2,\mathrm{},u_lS^{}\{ϵ\}`$, $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{l1}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\{ϵ\}`$, and $`v_l\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }(w)=\nu (u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_l)+\mathrm{}(v_1v_2\mathrm{}v_l).$$

One can easily verify that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is invariant with respect to all of the relations given in Proposition 6.2, and therefore defines a function $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }:\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. Moreover, it is easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is a norm, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is atomic.

The proof that $`F`$ is coherent on the left may be deduced from the existence, for each triple $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma X`$, of a certain tiling of the 2-sphere by relations from $`M_L^F`$ (i.e: relations of the form $`\alpha F(\alpha ,\beta )\beta F(\beta ,\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta X`$) as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. We illustrate the two most difficult cases, namely when $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \}=\{\sigma _1,\sigma _2,x\}`$ for some $`xS`$ (Figure 7), and when $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \}=\{\sigma _1,x,y\}`$ for some $`xyS`$ (Figure 8). In the latter case note that, if $`f(x,y)`$ is written $`a_1a_2..a_k`$ as a product of generators $`a_iS`$ then $`\tau (f(x,y))\tau (a_1)\tau (a_2)..\tau (a_k)`$ and the face containing $`f(x,y)`$ and $`\tau (f(x,y))`$ in the Figure 8 decomposes into $`k`$ faces corresponding to the relations $`a_i\sigma _1D\sigma _1\sigma _1D\sigma _1\tau (a_i)`$. Similarly for $`f(y,x)`$. The remaining cases are easily handled since in these cases at least one of $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ satisfies a commuting relation (explicit in the presentation $`M_L^F`$) with each of the others.

The proof that $`G`$ is coherent on the right is similar.

Finally we show that the word $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(D\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1})^n`$ represents a Garside element of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. We shall employ Condition (4) of Lemma 5.12. Consider the Artin monoid presentation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A^+(B_n)=\beta _1,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _n& \beta _1\beta _2\beta _1\beta _2=\beta _2\beta _1\beta _2\beta _1\hfill \\ & \beta _i\beta _{i+1}\beta _i=\beta _{i+1}\beta _i\beta _{i+1}\text{ for }2in1\hfill \\ & \beta _i\beta _j=\beta _j\beta _i\text{ for }|ij|2^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

This monoid $`A^+(B_n)`$ is well-known as the Artin monoid of type $`B_n`$, and has Garside element $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B=(\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _n)^n`$. Clearly there exists a monoid homomorphism $`A^+(B_n)\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ such that $`\beta _1D`$ and $`\beta _i\sigma _{i1}`$ for $`i=2,3,..,n`$. Thus any relation which is observed in $`A^+(B_n)`$ may be deduced in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. In particular, the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ is a Garside element in $`A^+(B_n)`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is left divisible by $`D,\sigma _1,..,\sigma _{n1}`$ and hence is left divisible by every element of $`X`$. It remains to verify Condition (4) of Lemma 5.12, namely that there exists an automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ such that $`w\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\tau }(w)`$ for all $`w\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$.

We already know that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ is central in $`A^+(B_n)`$. Thus we have $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i`$ for all $`i=1,2,..,n1`$. We may also check (by performing the calculation in $`A^+(B_n)`$) that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }DU^{n1}\text{where }U:=\sigma _1D\sigma _1.\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{}\sigma _{n1}.$$

Recall that $`\tau `$ denotes the automorphism of $`M`$ such that, at the level of words, $`xDD\tau (x)`$ for all $`xS^{}`$. Observe also that $`xUU\tau (x)`$ for all $`xS^{}`$ (or more loosely speaking, for all $`xM`$). We now define $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{\tau }(\sigma _i)& =\sigma _i\hfill & \text{for }i=1,2,..,n1\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\tau }(x)& =\tau ^n(x)\hfill & \text{for all }xM.\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is a monoid isomorphism. Moreover, for all $`xM`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x\mathrm{\Delta }& xDU^{n1}\hfill \\ & D\tau (x)U^{n1}\hfill \\ & DU^{n1}\tau ^n(x)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\tau }(x),\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\sigma _i\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i`$ for all $`i=1,2,..,n1`$. Thus Condition (4) of Lemma 5.12 is satisfied, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a Garside element. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 7 Appendix

Throughout this section, we shall denote by $`F_n`$ the free group of rank $`n`$, and by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ some fixed basis for $`F_n`$.

Definition. According to Shpilrain’s terminology \[Shp\], a Wada representation of type (1) is an Artin type representation associated to $`(,h)`$, where $`h`$ is a non-zero integer. Such a representation will be denoted by $`\rho _h^{(1)}:B_n\mathrm{Aut}(F_n)`$. It is determined by

$$\rho _h^{(1)}(\sigma _k)(x_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_i\hfill & \text{if }ik,k+1\hfill \\ x_k^hx_{k+1}x_k^h\hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ x_k\hfill & \text{if }i=k+1\hfill \end{array}$$

The Wada representation of type (2) is the representation $`\rho ^{(2)}:B_n\mathrm{Aut}(F_n)`$ determined by

$$\rho ^{(2)}(\sigma _k)(x_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_i\hfill & \text{if }ik,k+1\hfill \\ x_kx_{k+1}^1x_k\hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ x_k\hfill & \text{ if }i=k+1\hfill \end{array}$$

and the Wada representation of type (3) is the representation $`\rho ^{(3)}:B_n\mathrm{Aut}(F_n)`$ determined by

$$\rho ^{(3)}(\sigma _k)(x_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_i\hfill & \text{if }ik,k+1\hfill \\ x_k^2x_{k+1}\hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ x_{k+1}^1x_k^1x_{k+1}\hfill & \text{if }i=k+1\hfill \end{array}$$

Proposition A.1. (1) Let $`k,l\{0\}`$. Then $`\rho _k^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _l^{(1)}`$ are equivalent if and only if $`l=\pm k`$.

(2) $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(3)}`$ are equivalent.

(3) Let $`k\{0\}`$. Then $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`\rho _k^{(1)}`$ are not equivalent.

The following lemmas A.2 and A.3 are preliminary results to the proof of Proposition A.1.

Lemma A.2. Consider the action of $`B_n`$ on $`F_n`$ via the representation $`\rho _h^{(1)}`$. For all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, we have

$$F_n^{\sigma _i}=x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1}^hx_i^h,x_{i+2},\mathrm{},x_n.$$

Proof. Write $`F_n=CD`$, where $`C=x_i,x_{i+1}`$ and $`D=x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+2},\mathrm{},x_n`$. Both groups, $`C`$ and $`D`$, are invariant by the action of $`\sigma _i`$. Moreover, $`\sigma _i`$ is the identity on $`D`$ and acts on $`C`$ by $`x_ix_i^hx_{i+1}x_i^h`$, $`x_{i+1}x_i`$. In particular, $`F_n^{\sigma _i}=C^{\sigma _i}D`$.

Let $`uC^{\sigma _i}`$. Write

$$u=x_i^{n_1}x_{i+1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}x_i^{n_r}x_{i+1}^{m_r},$$

where $`r1`$, $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{r1},n_2,\mathrm{},n_r\{0\}`$, and $`m_r,n_1`$. First, suppose $`n_10`$. Then

$$\sigma _i(u)=x_i^hx_{i+1}^{n_1}x_i^{m_1}\mathrm{}x_{i+1}^{n_r}x_i^{m_r+h}=u$$

thus

$$h=n_1,n_1=m_1,\mathrm{},n_r=m_r,\mathrm{and}m_r+h=0,$$

hence $`u=(x_{i+1}^hx_i^h)^r`$. Now, suppose $`n_1=0`$. Then

$$\sigma _i(u)=x_i^{m_1h}x_{i+1}^{n_2}x_i^{m_2}\mathrm{}x_{i+1}^{n_r}x_i^{m_r+h},$$

thus

$$m_1h=0,m_1=n_2,n_2=m_2,\mathrm{},n_r=m_r+h,\mathrm{and}m_r=0,$$

hence $`u=(x_{i+1}^hx_i^h)^{r1}`$. ∎

Lemma A.3. Consider the action of $`B_n`$ on $`F_n`$ via $`\rho _h^{(1)}`$. Then $`F_n^{B_n}`$ is the cyclic subgroup of $`F_n`$ generated by $`x_n^h\mathrm{}x_2^hx_1^h`$.

Proof. Let $`uF_n^{B_n}`$. We have $`uF_n^{\sigma _i}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, thus, by Lemma A.2, the reduced form of $`u`$ satisfies the following properties:

$``$ all the exponents are either equal to $`h`$ or equal to $`h`$;

$``$ if $`i1`$, then $`x_i^h`$ is followed by $`x_{i1}^h`$, and, if $`in`$, then $`x_i^h`$ is preceded by $`x_{i+1}^h`$;

$``$ if $`in`$, then $`x_i^h`$ is followed by $`x_{i+1}^h`$, and, if $`i1`$, then $`x_i^h`$ is preceded by $`x_{i1}^h`$.

Clearly, these properties hold if and only if $`u`$ is of the form $`u=(x_n^h\mathrm{}x_2^hx_1^h)^r`$ with $`r`$. ∎

Proof of Proposition A.1. (1) Let $`k\{0\}`$. Let $`\varphi :F_nF_n`$ be the automorphism determined by $`\varphi (x_i)=x_i^1`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. One can easily verify that

$$\varphi ^1\rho _k^{(1)}(\sigma _i)\varphi =\rho _k^{(1)}(\sigma _i)$$

for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, thus $`\rho _k`$ and $`\rho _k`$ are equivalent.

Let $`k,l>0`$. For a group $`G`$, we denote by $`H_1(G)`$ the abelianization of $`G`$, and, for a subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$, we denote by $`H`$ the normal subgroup of $`G`$ generated by $`H`$. By Lemma A.3, we have

$$F_n/F_n^{\rho _k^{(1)}(B_n)}x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|x_n^k\mathrm{}x_2^kx_1^k=1,$$

hence

$$H_1(F_n/F_n^{\rho _k^{(1)}(B_n)})(/k)\times ^{n1}.$$

So, if $`\rho _k^{(1)}`$ and $`\rho _l^{(1)}`$ are equivalent, then $`(/k)\times ^{n1}(/l)\times ^{n1}`$, thus $`k=l`$.

(2) Write

$$y_i=x_1^2\mathrm{}x_{i1}^2x_i\mathrm{for}i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

One can easily verify that

$$\rho ^{(3)}(\sigma _k)(y_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}y_i\hfill & \text{if }ik,k+1\hfill \\ y_{k+1}\hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ y_{k+1}y_k^1y_{k+1}\hfill & \text{if }i=k+1\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\varphi :F_nF_n`$ be the automorphism determined by $`\varphi (x_i)=y_{ni+1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and let $`\mu :B_nB_n`$ be the automorphism determined by $`\mu (\sigma _i)=\sigma _{ni}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. From the expression of $`\rho ^{(3)}(\sigma _k)(y_i)`$ given above, follows

$$\varphi ^1\rho ^{(3)}(\sigma _i)\varphi =\rho ^{(2)}(\mu (\sigma _i))$$

for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, thus $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`\rho ^{(3)}`$ are equivalent.

(3) Let $`k>0`$. For $`uF_n`$, we denote by $`[u]`$ the element of $`H_1(F_n)^n`$ represented by $`u`$. We have

$$\rho ^{(2)}(\sigma _1^t)[x_1]=(t+1)[x_1]t[x_2]$$

for all $`t`$. On the other hand, $`\rho _k^{(1)}(\beta )`$ has finite order as an automorphism of $`H_1(F_n)`$, for all $`\beta B_n`$. This shows that $`\rho ^{(2)}`$ and $`\rho _k^{(1)}`$ are not equivalent. ∎

| John Crisp |
| --- |
| Luis Paris |
| Laboratoire de Topologie |
| Université de Bourgogne |
| UMR 5584 du CNRS, BP 47870 |
| 21078 Dijon cedex |
| FRANCE |
| jcrisp@u-bourgogne.fr |
| lparis@u-bourgogne.fr |


format: text

text:
# Spacetime-varying couplings and Lorentz violation

## Abstract

Spacetime-varying coupling constants can be associated with violations of local Lorentz invariance and CPT symmetry. An analytical supergravity cosmology with time-varying fine-structure constant provides an explicit example. Estimates are made for some experimental constraints.

Since Dirac’s large-number hypothesis , spacetime-varying couplings have remained the subject of various theoretical and experimental studies. Such couplings are natural in many unified theories , and current claims of observational evidence for a time-varying electromagnetic coupling  have sparked a revival of this idea .

In this work, we investigate the role of Lorentz symmetry in the subject, showing that spacetime-varying couplings can be associated with Lorentz and CPT violation . This result is intuitively reasonable because translation invariance is broken in a theory with spacetime-varying couplings, while translations and Lorentz transformations are intertwined in the Poincaré group. The vacuum then behaves as a spacetime-varying medium so Lorentz isotropy can be lost in local inertial frames.

As an illustration, consider a spacetime-varying coupling $`\xi `$ associated with a term containing derivatives in a lagrangian $``$. A simple example involving a scalar $`\varphi `$ is a term $`\xi _\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$, which implies $`\varphi (_\mu \xi )^\mu \varphi `$ upon an integration by parts. If $`\xi `$ varies smoothly, $`_\mu \xi `$ has a piece that behaves in a local inertial frame as a coefficient $`k_\mu `$ for Lorentz and CPT violation. More generally, non-scalar fields can play a role, and the effects can arise through subsidiary conditions involving coefficients like $`k_\mu `$ appearing in the equations of motion.

All possible Lorentz-violating lagrangian terms are given by the Lorentz- and CPT-violating standard-model extension , and many have been bounded experimentally in precision experiments with hadrons , protons and neutrons , electrons , photons , and muons . The theory contains all observer Lorentz scalars formed by combining operators and coefficients having Lorentz indices. Terms of this type arise, for example, from spontaneous Lorentz violation  and in realistic noncommutative field theories . The presence of translation violations induced by spacetime-varying couplings complicates theoretical and experimental analyses. Here, we focus on showing that spacetime-varying couplings and apparent Lorentz violation can arise naturally, even when the dynamics of the underlying theory is Lorentz invariant and involves only constant couplings.

Our analysis is performed in the context of $`N=4`$ supergravity in four dimensions. Although this model is unrealistic in detail, it is a limit of the $`N=1`$ supergravity in 11 spacetime dimensions and hence is a limit of M theory. It can therefore shed light on generic features to be expected in a fundamental theory. We show that smoothly varying couplings can naturally be obtained from a simple cosmological solution. In particular, in electrodynamics the fine-structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/4\pi `$ and the $`\theta `$ angle acquire related spacetime dependences, driving the Lorentz violation.

The spectrum of the $`N=4`$ supergravity in four spacetime dimensions consists of the graviton, represented by the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, four gravitinos, six abelian graviphotons $`A_\mu ^{jk}`$, four fermions, and a complex scalar $`Z`$ that contains an axion and a dilaton. The Latin indices $`j,k,\mathrm{}`$ denote vector indices in the SO(4) internal symmetry, and the graviphotons lie in the adjoint representation. The bosonic part $``$ of the lagrangian can be written

$``$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{g}M_{jklm}F_{\mu \nu }^{jk}F^{lm\mu \nu }`$ (2)
$`\frac{1}{8}\sqrt{g}N_{jklm}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^{jk}F_{\rho \sigma }^{lm}+\sqrt{g}{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu Z^\mu \overline{Z}}{(1Z\overline{Z})^2}},`$
where Planck units are adopted. The generalized electromagnetic coupling constant $`M_{jklm}`$ and the $`\theta `$-term coupling $`N_{jklm}`$ are both real and determined by the complex scalar $`Z`$ according to

$$M_{jklm}+iN_{jklm}=\frac{\delta _{[j|l|}\delta _{k]m}(1Z^2)i\epsilon _{jklm}Z}{(1+Z^2)}.$$
(3)
For present purposes, it is convenient to apply the Cayley map $`W=i(Z1)/(Z+1)`$ taking the unit disk into the upper half plane. Writing $`W=A+iB`$, the scalar kinetic term becomes $`_\mathrm{b}=\sqrt{g}(_\mu A^\mu A+_\mu B^\mu B)/4B^2`$, and $`M`$ and $`N`$ undergo corresponding transformations. Then, $`B`$ can be identified with the string-theory dilaton.

We consider the case in which only one graviphoton, $`F_{\mu \nu }^{12}F_{\mu \nu }`$, is excited. The bosonic lagrangian then becomes

$``$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}R\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{g}MF_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{g}NF_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ (5)
$`+\sqrt{g}(_\mu A^\mu A+_\mu B^\mu B)/4B^2,`$
with $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }/2`$ and

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B(A^2+B^2+1)}{(1+A^2+B^2)^24A^2}},`$ (6)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A(A^2+B^21)}{(1+A^2+B^2)^24A^2}}.`$ (7)
Consider a cosmology in this theory involving a flat ($`k=0`$) Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) model. The line element for the associated spacetime is

$$ds^2=dt^2a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2),$$
(8)
where $`t`$ is the comoving time and $`a(t)`$ is the cosmological scale factor. The usual assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy imply that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are also functions only of $`t`$. Solving the Einstein equations with just the scalar field as a source of energy and momentum yields $`a(t)t^{1/3}`$, which is an expansion rate far slower than seen in our Universe. A standard approach to obtain a more realistic theory adds an energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=\rho u_\mu u_\nu `$ describing galaxies and other matter, where $`u^\mu `$ is a unit timelike vector orthogonal to spatial surfaces and $`\rho (t)`$ is the energy density of the matter. In our supergravity model, an energy-momentum tensor of this form arises from the fermionic sector because the fermion kinetic terms are uncoupled from the scalar field $`W`$, and so $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is independent of $`W`$.

Ignoring the graviphoton for the moment, the Einstein equations for the supergravity cosmology in the presence of the fermion matter are

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2B^2}}(_\mu A_\nu A+_\mu B_\nu B)`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4B^2}}g_{\mu \nu }(_\lambda A^\lambda A+_\lambda B^\lambda B).`$
For the $`k=0`$ FRW model, this expression contains only two independent equations:

$$3\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=\frac{1}{2}\rho +\frac{1}{2B^2}(\dot{A}^2+\dot{B}^2),\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+2\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}=\frac{1}{2}\rho ,$$
(11)
where a dot indicates a time derivative. The system is also governed by the equations of motion for $`A`$ and $`B`$:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{a^3\dot{A}}{B^2}\right)=0,\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{a^3\dot{B}}{B^2}\right)+\frac{a^3}{B^3}(\dot{A}^2+\dot{B}^2)=0.$$
(12)
The final equation determining the time evolution, $`d(\rho a^3)/dt=0`$, follows from conservation of energy.

It turns out these five equations can be integrated analytically. Suppose that at the present time $`t_n`$ the Universe has matter density $`\rho _n`$ and scale size $`a_n=a(t_n)`$. Energy conservation yields $`\rho (t)=c_n/a^3(t)`$, where $`c_n=\rho _na_n^3`$. Integration of one Einstein equation then gives

$$a(t)=\left(\frac{3}{4}c_n(t+t_0)^2c_1\right)^{1/3}.$$
(13)
Here, $`c_1`$ is an integration constant describing the amount of energy in the scalar fields. Also, $`t_0`$ is another integration constant, chosen here as $`t_0=\sqrt{4c_1/3c_n}`$ to fix the time origin $`t=0`$ at the moment of the initial singularity when $`a(t)=0`$. Note that for $`tt_0`$ we find $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$, as expected for a $`k=0`$ matter-dominated Universe.

The equation of motion for $`A`$ can be integrated once to give $`\dot{A}=c_2B^2/a^3`$, where $`c_2`$ is an integration constant. The remaining equations can be solved to yield a functional form for $`A`$ and $`B`$ in terms of a parameter time $`\tau `$. This leaves two equations, related through the Bianchi identities. After some algebra, we find

$$A=\pm \lambda \mathrm{tanh}(\frac{1}{\tau }+c_3)+A_0,B=\lambda sech(\frac{1}{\tau }+c_3),$$
(14)
where $`\lambda 4c_1/\sqrt{3}c_2t_0`$, and $`c_3`$, $`A_0`$ are integration constants. The cosmological time $`t`$ is given in terms of the parametric time $`\tau `$ by $`t=t_0[\mathrm{coth}(\sqrt{3}/4\tau )1]`$, so $`t=0`$ when $`\tau =0`$ and $`t`$ increases when $`\tau `$ increases. In what follows, it suffices to adopt the simplifying choice $`c_3=0`$. At late times $`tt_0`$, we then find $`\tau \sqrt{3}t/4t_0`$, $`A\pm 4\lambda t_0/\sqrt{3}t+A_0`$, and $`B\lambda (18t_0^2/3t^2)`$. This means both $`A`$ and $`B`$ tend to constant values at late times on a timescale set by $`t_0`$. The supergravity cosmology therefore fixes the value of the string-theory dilaton, despite the absence of a dilaton potential.

We next consider excitations of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in the axion-dilaton background (14). For the moment, we restrict attention to localized excitations in spacetime regions that are small on a cosmological scale. This corresponds to most experimental situations, and it is therefore appropriate to work in a local inertial frame.

Allowing for a nontrivial $`\theta `$ angle, the conventional electrodynamics lagrangian in a local inertial frame can be taken as

$$_{\mathrm{em}}=\frac{1}{4e^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{\theta }{16\pi ^2}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(15)
In the supergravity cosmology, we can identify $`e^21/M`$, $`\theta 4\pi ^2N`$. Since $`M`$, $`N`$ are functions of the background fields $`A`$, $`B`$, it follows that $`e`$, $`\theta `$ acquire spacetime dependence in an arbitrary local inertial frame.

The equations of motion in the presence of charged matter described by a 4-current $`j^\nu `$ are

$$\frac{1}{e^2}_\mu F^{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{e^3}(_\mu e)F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}(_\mu \theta )\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=j^\nu .$$
(16)
In a trivial background, the last two terms on the left-hand side of this equation would vanish and the usual Maxwell equations would emerge. Here, however, the extra two terms lead to apparent Lorentz-violating effects despite being coordinate invariant. On small cosmological scales, $`_\mu M`$ and $`_\mu N`$ are approximately constant, and they therefore select a preferred direction in the local inertial frame. This means that particle Lorentz symmetry, as defined in the first paper of Ref. , is broken.

Note that the expansion in a textbook FRW cosmology without scalar couplings lacks this violation because a local Lorentz-symmetric inertial frame always exists, whereas in the present case the variation of $`M`$ and $`N`$ implies particle Lorentz violation in any local inertial frame. Indeed, the above cosmology-induced Lorentz violation is independent of the details of the $`N=4`$ supergravity model. Any similarly implemented smooth spacetime variation of the electromagnetic couplings on cosmological scales leads to such effects. This suggests particle Lorentz violation could be a common feature of models with spacetime-dependent couplings.

In the local inertial frame, we can write

$$_{\mathrm{em}}^{}=\frac{1}{4e^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}(_\mu \theta )A_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(17)
A nonzero constant contribution from $`_\mu \theta `$ demonstrates explicitly the violations of particle Lorentz invariance and CPT symmetry. To facilitate contact with the conventional notation in the Lorentz-violating standard-model extension, we can identify $`(k_{AF})_\mu e^2_\mu \theta /8\pi ^2`$. In our supergravity model, $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ is timelike.

The special case of constant $`e`$ and constant $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ has been discussed extensively in the literature . Under these conditions, the lagrangian (17) is invariant under spacetime translations, but the associated conserved energy fails to be positive definite and so leads to instabilities. It is natural to ask how this difficulty is circumvented in the present model, which arises from a positive-definite supergravity theory .

A key difference is that, instead of being nondynamical and constant, $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ depends in the present model on the dynamical degrees of freedom $`A`$, $`B`$. Excitations with $`F_{\mu \nu }0`$ therefore cause perturbations $`\delta A`$, $`\delta B`$ away from the cosmological solutions (14), so that $`AA+\delta A`$ and $`BB+\delta B`$. It follows that $`\theta \theta +\delta \theta `$ and that the energy-momentum tensor $`(T^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$ of the background receives an additional contribution, $`(T^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }(T_F^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }=(T^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }+\delta (T^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$. This contribution can compensate for negative-energy ones from the $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ term.

The compensation mechanism can be illustrated explicitly at the classical level in the lagrangian $`=_{\mathrm{em}}^{}+_\mathrm{b}`$ . The relevant feature for present purposes is the $`A`$\- and $`B`$-dependence of $`\theta `$, so for simplicity $`e`$ can be taken as constant. We begin by splitting the total conserved energy-momentum tensor into two pieces, $`(T_F^\mathrm{t})^{\mu \nu }=(T^{\mathrm{em}})^{\mu \nu }+(T_F^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$, where

$`(T^{\mathrm{em}})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\mu A^\lambda )}}^\nu A^\lambda \eta ^{\mu \nu }_{\mathrm{em}}^{},`$ (18)
$`(T_F^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\mu A)}}^\nu A+{\displaystyle \frac{}{(_\mu B)}}^\nu B\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mathrm{b}.`$ (19)
Explicitly, we find

$`(T^{\mathrm{em}})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}F_\lambda ^\mu F^{\lambda \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4e^2}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}(^\nu \theta )A_\lambda \stackrel{~}{F}^{\lambda \mu }.`$
Negative-energy contributions can arise only from the last term. Similarly, we obtain

$`(T_F^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^\mu A^\nu A}{2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^{\mu \nu }}{4B^2}}(_\lambda A^\lambda A+_\lambda B^\lambda B)`$ (23)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{^\mu B^\nu B}{2B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}(^\nu \theta )A_\lambda \stackrel{~}{F}^{\lambda \mu },`$
where again only the last term can lead to negative-energy contributions. Combining the two equations shows that the total conserved energy is positive definite, even when a nonzero $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ is generated. The apparent paradox arises only because the two pieces $`(T_F^{\mathrm{em}})^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`(T_F^\mathrm{b})^{\mu \nu }`$, each with positivity difficulties, are separately conserved when $`^\nu \theta `$ is constant .

Another interesting issue concerns the limits from existing experiments on the induced Lorentz-violating and time-varying couplings. Consider again the theory (17) in the supergravity background (14) with the choice $`c_3=0`$. The phenomenological constraint $`e^2(t\mathrm{})4\pi /137`$ implies $`|A_0|1`$ and $`\lambda \text{ }<2\pi /137`$. Within this parameter space, choose $`\lambda =2\pi /137`$ and $`A_0=\sqrt{1\lambda ^2}`$, which further simplifies the analysis because it leads to a vanishing $`\theta `$ at late times, $`\theta (t\mathrm{})=0`$. In fact, the estimates below remain valid or improve for other choices in more than 98% of the allowed parameter space.

The comoving time $`t`$ and the time coordinate in comoving local inertial frames agree to first order. Assuming late times $`tt_0`$, we find $`e^22\lambda 8\lambda ^2t_0/\sqrt{3}t`$ and hence $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha \pm 4\lambda t_0/\sqrt{3}t^2`$. Current observational bounds on $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha `$ at late times, i.e., at relatively small redshifts, are obtained from the Oklo fossil reactor as $`|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |\text{ }<10^{16}`$ yr-1 . Taking $`t_n10^{10}`$ yr for the present age of the universe then yields the estimate $`t_0\text{ }<10^6`$ yr, consistent with the late-times assumption.

The coefficient $`(k_{AF})_\mu `$ for Lorentz and CPT violation is also constrained by the Oklo data, and indeed constraints on axion-photon couplings of the form (17) have previously been studied in the context of axion and quintessence models  and CPT baryogenesis . In the present supergravity cosmology, we have $`\dot{N}2t_0/\sqrt{3}\lambda t^2`$ at late times, giving $`|(k_{AF})_0|\text{ }<10^{46}`$ GeV. Although model dependent, this estimate compares favorably with the direct observational limit $`(k_{AF})_0\text{ }<10^{42}`$ GeV in Ref. . Inverting the reasoning, the latter can be used to bound the variation of $`\alpha `$. We find $`|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |\text{ }<10^{12}`$ yr-1, consistent with the Oklo data .

In the supergravity cosmology, the dependence of $`\alpha `$ on time can be relatively complicated. As an example, the solid line in Fig. 1 displays the relative variation of $`\alpha `$ for the case $`t_n/t_0=2000`$, as a function of the fractional look-back time $`1t/t_n`$ to the big bang. The parameters $`\lambda `$, $`A_0`$ have been changed fractionally by parts in $`10^4`$ to provide an approximate match to the recently reported data for $`\dot{\alpha }`$, also plotted in Fig. 1, obtained from measurements of high-redshift spectra over periods of approximately $`0.6t_n`$ to $`0.8t_n`$ assuming $`H_0=65`$ km/s/Mpc, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.3,0.7)`$ . The parameter choices lie within the constraints on $`(k_{AF})^0`$, but have no overlap with the Oklo dataset and yield a non-asymptotic present-day value of the fine-structure constant. The solid line reflects both nonlinear features and a sign change for $`\dot{\alpha }`$.

To summarize, we have constructed an analytical supergravity cosmology establishing that local Lorentz and CPT violation can be associated with time-varying couplings. The model shows that interesting phenomenological complications can appear even in an apparently simple theory with cosmology-induced Lorentz violation.

This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40661, by NASA grant NAG8-1770, and by NATO grant CRG-960693.