text:
# Twisting Cochains and higher torsion

## Introduction

About 50 years ago Ed Brown \[Bro59\] constructed a small chain complex giving the homology of the total space $`E`$ of a fiber bundle

$$FEB$$

whose base $`B`$ and fiber $`F`$ are finite cell complexes. It is given by the tensor product of chain complexes for $`F`$ and $`B`$ with the usual tensor product boundary map modified by a “twisting cochain.” There are many ways to understand the meaning of the twisting cochain.

1. It is the difference between two $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors.
2. It is a combinatorial flat $``$-graded superconnection.
3. It is a family of chain complexes homotopy equivalent to $`F`$ and parametrized by $`B`$.

If $`FEB`$ is a smooth bundle with compact manifold fiber and simply connected base then we get another twisting cochain given by fiberwise Morse theory. Comparison of these two twisting cochains gives an algebraic K-theory invariant of the bundle called the *higher Franz-Reidemeister (FR) torsion*. Higher FR-torsion distinguishes different smooth structures on the same topological manifold bundle. Therefore, this construction is a strictly differentiable phenomenon.

The purpose of this paper is to explain some of the basic properties of these constructions and unify them using a simplified version of Ed Brown’s construction. A longer exposition can be found in \[Igu05\] which, in turn, gives a summary of the contents of \[Igu02\].

We summarize the contents of this paper. In Section 1 we review the definition of an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor. $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ structures were first constructed by Stasheff \[Sta63\] and $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ categories first appeared in \[Fuk93\]. But here we take $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors only from ordinary categories to the category of $``$-graded projective modules over a ring $`R`$. The definition in this restricted case is given by a formula (Equation 2) due to Sugawara\[Sug60\]. We use an old construction of Eilenberg and MacLane\[EM53\] to make homology into an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor when it is projective (Equation 3).

In Section 2 we define twisting cochains. We begin with the classical definition of Brown and we also review Brown’s construction of the *twisted tensor product*

$$C_{}(B)_\phi C_{}(F)$$

whose homology is equal to the homology of the total space of a fiber bundle $`FEB`$. Brown defined this to be the usual tensor product with boundary map $`_\phi `$ twisted by $`\phi `$ (Equation 4). We give a variation of Brown’s definitions which arises from certain $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors. When there is an underlying functor on the category $`𝒳`$ whose induced maps are all isomorphisms we get a coefficient sheaf $`F(X,Y)`$ over $`𝒳`$ and the higher homotopies in the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor are cochains on $`𝒳`$ with values in $`F`$. Our twisting cochain is denoted $`\psi `$ to distinguish it from the classical one of Brown. We use the twisted tensor product to construct a total complex (2.6) which is an actual functor approximating the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor.

Section 3 describes Volodin K-theory\[Vol71\] and its relationship to twisting cochains. We construct the Volodin category $`𝒱^b(R)`$ and a generalization which we call the *Whitehead category* (3.4). This is a category of acyclic based free chain complexes over a given ring. This category carries a universal twisting cochain of a certain kind and this twisting cochain defines a cohomology class on the classifying space of the Whitehead category:

$$\tau _{2k}H^{4k}(𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(,1);).$$

Higher Franz-Reidemeister torsion is in Section 4. We show that, under the right conditions, a smooth fiber bundle with compact manifold fiber $`MEB`$ gives two canonical twisting cochains, the topologically defined twisting cochain of Ed Brown and a smoothly defined twisting cochain obtained by fiberwise Morse theory. The fiberwise mapping cone of the comparison map is fiberwise contractible. It gives a mapping of the base $`B`$ into the Whitehead category provided that we have a basis for the topological twisting cochain. (The Morse theoretic twisting cochain has a basis coming from the critical points.) Such a basis can be chosen in the special case when $`\pi _1B`$ acts trivially on the rational homology of $`M`$. This based free twisting cochain is classified by a map

$$B|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(,1)|$$

and we can pull back the universal FR torsion class $`\tau _{2k}`$ to $`B`$ to obtain the higher FR torsion invariant for the bundle. This invariant has been computed in many cases but here we give only one example: the case when the fiber is a closed oriented even dimensional manifold (Theorem 4.6).

The rest of the paper contains an elementary discussion of flat $``$-grade superconnections. The aim is to show that they are equivalent to twisting cochains. Section 5 derives a definition of an *infinitesimal twisting cochain*. This is basically a twisting cochain on very small simplices expressed in terms of differential forms. The prefix “super” refers to a $`/2`$ grading. However, a superconnection on a $``$-graded vector bundle will automatically obtain a $``$-grading. The Bismut-Lott definition of such a superconnection \[BL95\] also requires that this $``$-graded superconnection have total degree 1.

In Section 6, we view the endomorphism valued differential forms as operators on the vector bundle in the standard way to obtain flat superconnections. In the last section 8 we show that a flat superconnection is the differential in a cochain complex which is dual to Brown’s twisted tensor product. Going backwards, the second to last section 7 explains how superconnections can be integrated over $`1`$ and $`2`$ simplices using Chen’s iterated integrals to give the beginning of a simplicial twisting cochain. Complete details for integration of superconnections over arbitrary simplices can be found in \[Igu09\].

I would like to thank Bernard Keller whose lectures and comments lead me the work of my colleague Ed Brown. I thank Ed Brown for many useful conversations about the topics in this paper. I also thank Jim Stasheff for his support and encouragement and for numerous helpful comments on several versions of this paper and I also want to thank Jonathan Block for explaining his sign conventions to me. This was very helpful for getting the correct signs in \[Igu09\] and I have changed the signs in this paper accordingly. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous referee for numerous suggestions for improving this paper.

## 1. $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors

In this paper we consider the differential graded category $`𝒞(R)`$ of chain complexes of projective $`R`$-modules over an associative ring $`R`$ and $`𝒢r(R)`$, the underlying graded category of $``$-graded projective $`R`$-modules. All $`R`$-modules will be right $`R`$-modules. Both categories $`𝒞(R),𝒢r(R)`$ have graded hom sets given by

$$\mathrm{HOM}(C_{},D_{})=\mathrm{HOM}_n(C_{},D_{})=\underset{n}{}\underset{k}{}\mathrm{Hom}_R(C_k,D_{n+k}).$$

But $`𝒞(R)`$ has a differential $`m_1:\mathrm{HOM}_n(C_{},D_{})\mathrm{HOM}_{n1}(C_{},D_{})`$ given by

$$m_1(f)=df(1)^nfd.$$

We will be considering functors from an ordinary category $`𝒳`$ into the differential graded category $`𝒞(R)`$, but we view these as functors $`𝒳𝒢r(R)`$ with additional structure. Usually we assume that the functor takes values in the full subcategory of $`𝒢r(R)`$ consisting either of nonnegatively graded $`R`$-modules with additional structure given by a degree $`1`$ differential or nonpositively graded modules with degree $`1`$ differential.

To fix a problem which arises in the notation we will use the nerve $`𝒩_{}𝒳^{op}`$ of the opposite category. Thus a *$`p`$-simplex* in $`𝒳`$ (an element of $`𝒩_p𝒳^{op}`$) will be a sequence of morphisms of the form:

(1)
$$X_0\stackrel{f_1}{}X_1\stackrel{f_2}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{f_p}{}X_p$$

To clarify the notation, the composition $`X_pX_0`$ is a morphism in $`𝒳`$ which is also a morphism $`X_0X_p`$ in $`𝒳^{op}`$. Note that a $`0`$-simplex consists of one object $`X_0`$ with no maps. The main purpose of this is to make the domain $`X_j`$ of the front $`j`$-face of a $`j+k`$ simplex equal to the range of the back $`k`$-face.

The following definition of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors, in particular Equation (2), in the restricted case when the domain is an ordinary category is due to Sugawara \[Sug60\].

###### Definition 1.1.

An *$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor*

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{}):𝒳𝒢r(R)$$

on an ordinary category $`𝒳`$ is an operation which assigns to each object $`X𝒳`$ a $``$-graded projective $`R`$-module $`\mathrm{\Phi }X`$ and to each sequence of composable morphisms (1) a morphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p(f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_p):\mathrm{\Phi }X_p\mathrm{\Phi }X_0$$

of degree $`p1`$ and satisfies the following cocycle condition for $`p0`$.

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_i(f_1,\mathrm{},f_i)\mathrm{\Phi }_{pi}(f_{i+1},\mathrm{},f_p)\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{p1}(f_1,\mathrm{},f_if_{i+1},\mathrm{},f_p)\end{array}$$

For $`p1`$ this can be written as follows where $`m_1(f)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0f(1)^{\mathrm{deg}f}f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`m_2(f,g)=fg`$.

$$m_1(\mathrm{\Phi }_p)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(1)^im_2(\mathrm{\Phi }_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_{pi})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{p1}(1_{i1},m_2,1_{pi1}).$$

For $`p=0,1,2,3`$ this equation has the following interpretation.

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0=0`$, i.e., $`(\mathrm{\Phi }X,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ is a chain complex.
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f):(\mathrm{\Phi }X_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)(\mathrm{\Phi }X_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)$$

is a chain map.
3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1,f_2)+\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1,f_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_1f_2)`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1,f_2):\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_1f_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_2)$$

is a chain homotopy.
4. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{\Phi }_3(f_1,f_2,f_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_3(f_1,f_2,f_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_0=`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1,f_2f_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1,f_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_3)+\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_2,f_3)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(f_1f_2,f_3).$$

In other words, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ is a null homotopy of the coboundary of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ takes isomorphisms to isomorphisms. Then $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ is a functor from the category $`𝒳`$ to the category of projective $`R`$-complexes and degree $`0`$ chain maps and $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ is a functor from $`𝒳`$ to the category of $``$-graded projective $`R`$-modules and degree $`0`$ maps.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)`$ is a chain map $`(\mathrm{\Phi }X_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)(\mathrm{\Phi }X_0,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ with the property that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(fg)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(g)`$. This implies $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(id_X)`$ is a projection operator. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ takes isomorphisms to isomorphisms this must be the identity map on $`\mathrm{\Phi }X`$. ∎

A *natural transformation* of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors is an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor on the product category $`𝒳\times I`$ where $`I`$ is the category with two objects $`0,1`$ and one nonidentity morphism $`01`$. This is a family of chain maps $`(\mathrm{\Phi }X,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}X,\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ which are natural only up to a system of higher homotopies. If these chain maps are homotopy equivalences we say that $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are *$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homotopy equivalent* or *fiber homotopy equivalent*. (We view an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor as a family of chain complexes over the nerve of $`𝒳^{op}`$.)

One way to construct an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor on $`𝒳`$ is to start with an actual functor $`C`$ from $`𝒳`$ to the category of projective $`R`$-complexes, then replace each $`C(X)`$ with a homotopy equivalent projective $`R`$-complex $`\mathrm{\Phi }X`$ with differential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Following Eilenberg and MacLane \[EM53\], the higher homotopies are given by

(3)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_p(f_1,\mathrm{},f_p)=q_0C(f_1)\eta _1C(f_2)\eta _2\mathrm{}\eta _{p1}C(f_p)j_p$$

where $`j_i:\mathrm{\Phi }X_iC(X_i)`$ and $`q_i:C(X_i)\mathrm{\Phi }X_i`$ are homotopy inverse chain maps and $`\eta _i:C(X_i)C(X_i)`$ is a chain homotopy $`idj_iq_i`$.

In the special case when the homology of $`C(X)`$ is projective (e.g., if $`R`$ is a field) and $`C(X)`$ is either nonnegatively or nonpositively graded, the *homology complex*

$$\mathrm{\Phi }X=H_{}(C(X))$$

(with zero boundary map) gives an example of a homotopy equivalent chain complex. Using the construction above, we obtain the *$`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homology functor*.

Suppose that $`p:EB`$ is a fiber bundle where the base $`B`$ is (the geometric realization of) a simplicial complex. Then for each simplex $`\sigma `$ in $`B`$ the inverse image $`E|\sigma =p^1(\sigma )`$ is homeomorphic to $`F\times \sigma `$ and thus homotopy equivalent to the fiber $`F`$. Taking either a cellular chain complex or the total singular complex, we get a functor from the category $`\mathrm{simp}B`$ of simplices in $`B`$, with inclusions as morphisms, to the category of augmented chain complexes. When the homology of $`F`$ is projective, the construction above gives an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homology functor on $`\mathrm{simp}B`$.

We will see that this $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor gives a twisting cochain on $`B`$ which, by Ed Brown’s twisted tensor product construction, gives a chain complex for the homology of $`E`$. But first we want to point out that the dual of an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor is also an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor.

Suppose that $`R=K`$ is a field. Then we have the degree-wise duality functor on $`𝒢r(K)`$ sending $`V=V_n`$ to $`V^{}`$ where

$$V_n^{}=\mathrm{Hom}(V_n,K).$$

Then morphisms of degree $`q`$ are sent to morphisms of degree $`q`$ and the order of composition is reversed. So we get a functor $`𝒢r(K)𝒢r(K)^{op}`$. Given an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒳𝒢r(K)`$ we can compose with this duality functor:

$$𝒳𝒢r(K)𝒢r(K)^{op}$$

This is the same as a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:𝒳^{op}𝒢r(K)`$.

###### Proposition 1.3.

The composition of an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒳𝒢r(K)`$ with the degree-wise duality functor on $`𝒢r(K)`$ gives an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ on $`𝒳^{op}`$.

###### Proof.

This is very straightforward. The interesting point is that there is no change in signs. Apply duality to Equation (2) and reverse the order of the morphisms $`f_i^{}`$ (since they are begin composed in the opposite order in $`𝒳^{op}`$). We get:

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{pi}^{}(f_p^{},\mathrm{},f_{i+1}^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_i^{}(f_i^{},\mathrm{},f_1^{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}(1)^i\mathrm{\Phi }_{p1}^{}(f_p^{},\mathrm{},f_{i+1}^{}f_i^{},\mathrm{},f_1^{})$$

Now multiply both sides by $`(1)^p`$, replace $`i`$ by $`pi`$ and make the notation change: $`g_i=f_{pi+1}^{}`$ to see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ satisfies the definition of an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor. ∎

## 2. Twisting cochains

First we review Ed Brown’s original construction \[Bro59\]. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a commutative ring, $`K`$ is a nonnegatively graded $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-coalgebra and $`A`$ is a graded $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-algebra. Then Brown defined a twisting cochain to be a sum $`\phi =_{p0}\phi _p`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-linear maps $`\phi _p:K_pA_{p1}`$, so that

1. $`\phi _0=0`$
2. $`\phi _p=\phi _{p1}_{1ip1}\phi _i^{}\phi _{pi}`$ where

$$\phi _i^{}\phi _{pi}=\mu (\phi _i\phi _{pi})\mathrm{\Delta }$$

where $`\mu `$ is the multiplication in $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the comultiplication of $`K`$. When this expression is evaluated, a sign of $`(1)^i`$ is produced by the Koszul sign rule. (See Definition 2.1 below.)

Brown also assumed that $`A`$ has an augmentation, which we do not require.

Given a differential graded $`A`$-module $`M`$, Brown defined the *twisted tensor product*

$$K_\phi M$$

to be the standard graded tensor product over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with differential $`_\phi `$ given by

(4)
$$_\phi (xy)=xy+(1)^{\mathrm{deg}x}xy\underset{(x)}{}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}x_{(1)}}x_{(1)}\phi (x_{(2)})y$$

where we use Sweedler notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=_{(x)}x_{(1)}x_{(2)}`$ \[Swe69\].

Brown then showed that the total singular complex $`S_{}(E)`$ (with coefficients in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) of the total space of a fiber bundle $`FEB`$ over a path connected space is homotopy equivalent to the twisted tensor product

$$S_{}^{}(B)_\phi C_{}(F)$$

where $`K=S_{}^{}(B)`$ is the subcomplex of the total singular complex of $`B`$ consisting of singular simplices in $`B`$ with all its vertices at the base point of $`B`$, $`M=C_{}(F)`$ is any free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-complex homotopy equivalent to the total singular complex of $`F`$ and $`A`$ is the differential graded algebra $`A=\mathrm{HOM}(M,M)`$. (Brown took $`A`$ to be the total singular complex of the loop space of $`B`$ which acts on $`S_{}(F)`$.)

The cochains $`\phi _p,p1`$ are given as follows. Each 1-simplex $`\sigma `$ of $`B`$ is a loop in $`B`$ which induces a holonomy $`FF`$. Then $`\phi _1:=\sigma _{}1`$ where $`\sigma _{}:C_{}(F)C_{}(F)`$ is the induced chain map. Any 2-simplex $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Delta }^2B`$ gives a homotopy between one loop and the composition of the other two loops: $`_0\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma `$. We take $`\phi _2(\sigma )`$ to be the corresponding chain homotopy $`_0\sigma _{}_2\sigma _{}_1\sigma _{}`$. The construction of $`\phi _p`$ for $`p3`$ is similar and is a special case of the construction given below.

We now consider twisting cochains $`\psi =_{p0}\psi _p`$ arising from $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functors. In the case of a fiber bundle $`p:EB`$, the idea is that we take simplices in the base $`B`$ with distinct vertices. For each vertex $`v`$, $`\psi _0`$ is the boundary map of the complex $`C_{}(F_v)`$. Each 1-simplex gives, not an endomorphism of a single complex $`M=C_{}(F)`$, but morphisms between complexes associated to vertices of the simplex. Thus $`\mathrm{HOM}(M,M)`$ is replaced by a category of graded $`R`$-modules. We also work over an associative ring $`R`$. This simply means that the tensor product $`S_{}(B)_\phi M`$ is replaced by a direct sum of (shifted) copies of (various) $`M`$, one for each free generator of $`S_{}(B)`$. (See Definition 2.6 below).

Suppose that $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1):𝒳𝒢r(R)`$ is a functor so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)`$ is a degree 0 isomorphism for all $`f:XY`$. In that case, the graded bifunctor

(5)
$$F(X,Y)=\mathrm{HOM}(\mathrm{\Phi }X,\mathrm{\Phi }Y)$$

gives a locally trivial coefficient system on the category $`𝒳`$.

Since we are using the nerve of the opposite category, a *$`p`$-cochain* on $`𝒳`$ with coefficients in a bifunctor $`F`$ is a mapping $`\psi `$ which assigns to each $`p`$-simplex

$$X_{}=(X_0\stackrel{f_1}{}X_1\stackrel{f_2}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{f_p}{}X_p)$$

in $`𝒳`$ an element $`\psi (X_{})F(X_p,X_0)`$. The *coboundary* of $`\psi `$ is the $`p+1`$ cochain given by

(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}\delta \psi (X_0,\mathrm{},X_{p+1})=(f_1)_{}\psi (X_1,\mathrm{},X_{p+1})\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^i\psi (X_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{X_i},\mathrm{},X_{p+1})+(1)^p(f_{p+1})^{}\psi (X_0,\mathrm{},X_p).\end{array}$$

###### Definition 2.1.

Given a functor $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1):𝒳𝒢r(R)`$ as above, a *twisting cochain* $`\psi `$ on $`𝒳`$ with coefficients in $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ is a sum of cochains $`\psi =_{p0}\psi _p`$ where $`\psi _p`$ is a $`p`$-cochain on $`𝒳`$ with coefficients in the degree $`p1`$ part $`F_{p1}`$ of the $`\mathrm{HOM}(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi })`$ bifunctor $`F`$ of (5) so that the following condition is satisfied.

$$\delta \psi =\psi ^{}\psi .$$

Here $`^{}`$ is the cup product using the Koszul sign rule:

$$\psi _p^{}\psi _q(X_0,\mathrm{},X_{p+q})=(1)^p\psi _p(X_0,\mathrm{},X_p)\psi _q(X_p,\mathrm{},X_{p+q})$$

since $`\psi _q`$ has total odd degree.

To obtain a classical twisting cochain $`\phi `$, we restrict to the case where $`𝒳`$ has a single object $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)`$ is the identity map on $`\mathrm{\Phi }X`$ for all morphisms $`f`$ and $`R`$ is a commutative ring. We take $`K`$ to be the free $`R`$-complex of the nerve of $`𝒳^{op}`$. This is the differential grade $`R`$-coalgebra $`K=C_{}(𝒩_{}𝒳^{op})`$ which in degree $`p`$ is freely generated by the set of $`p`$ simplices $`X_0\mathrm{}X_p`$ in $`𝒳`$. We let $`M`$ be the projective $`R`$-complex $`M=(\mathrm{\Phi }X,\psi _0)`$. Then $`A=\mathrm{HOM}(M,M)`$ is a differential graded $`R`$-complex. The functor $`F`$ is trivial and $`\delta f=f`$. So, the equation $`\delta \psi =\psi ^{}\psi `$ becomes:

$$\psi _{p1}=\psi _0^{}\psi _p+\psi _p^{}\psi _0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\psi _i^{}\psi _{pi}$$

Since $`\psi _0=^M`$, we have

$$\psi _0^{}\psi _p+\psi _p^{}\psi _0=^M\psi _p+(1)^p\psi _p^M=^A\psi _p$$

Therefore, $`\phi _0=0`$ and $`\phi _p=\psi _p`$ for all $`p1`$ gives a twisting cochain in the sense of Brown. The referee has pointed out that, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(f)`$ is not always the identity map on $`\mathrm{\Phi }X`$, we can still get a classical twisting cochain by letting $`\phi _0=0`$, $`\phi _p=\psi _p`$ for $`p2`$ and

$$\phi _1=\psi _1+\mathrm{\Phi }_1id_M.$$

By comparison of definitions we have the following.

###### Proposition 2.2.

$`\psi `$ is a twisting cochain on $`𝒳`$ with coefficients in $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ if and only if

$$(\mathrm{\Phi },\psi _0,\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3,\mathrm{})$$

is an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor.

Consider again the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homology functor

$$\sigma H_{}(E_\sigma )$$

of a fiber bundle $`EB`$ over a triangulated space $`B`$. Suppose that the fiber $`F`$ has projective homology. In this case $`\psi _0`$ and $`\psi _1`$ are both zero and the higher homotopies $`\psi _p`$ for $`p2`$ are unique up to simplicial homotopy (over $`B\times I`$). In this case Ed Brown showed that in his twisted tensor product $`S_{}^{}(B)_\psi S_{}(F)`$, $`S_{}(F)`$ can be replaced with $`H_{}(F)`$ and $`\psi `$ is given by the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homology functor constructed above.

An easy spectral sequence comparison argument shows that we may replace $`S_{}^{}(B)`$ with any homotopy equivalent differential graded coalgebra. We take the cellular complex $`C_{}(B)`$ given by a triangulation of $`B`$. Then the twisted tensor product $`C_{}(B)_\psi H_{}(F)`$ is the total complex of the usual bicomplex $`C_p(B;H_q(F))`$ with boundary map modified by the twisting cochain $`\psi `$ as follows:

(7)
$$_\psi (xy)=xy\underset{p+q=\mathrm{deg}x}{}(1)^pf_p(x)\psi _q(b_q(x))(y).$$

Here $`x=(x_0x_1\mathrm{}x_n)`$ is a simplex in the first barycentric subdivision of $`B`$, $`f_p(x)=(x_0\mathrm{}x_p)`$ is the front $`p`$-face of $`x`$ and $`b_q(x)=(x_p\mathrm{}x_n)`$ is the back $`q`$-face.

###### Theorem 2.3 (Brown\[Bro59\]).

Assuming that $`F`$ has projective homology, the twisted tensor product gives the homology of the total space:

$$H_{}(C_{}(B)_\psi H_{}(F))H_{}(E).$$

###### Remark 2.4.

The mapping $`f_p\psi _qb_q`$ in (7) has bidegree $`(q,q1)`$. It gives the corresponding boundary map in the Serre spectral sequence for $`E`$ which is given by filtering the twisted tensor product by reverse filtration of $`H_{}(F)`$ (by subcomplexes $`H_n(F)`$) \[Igu02\].

###### Corollary 2.5.

When $`EB`$ is an oriented $`n1`$ sphere bundle, the degree $`n`$ part $`\psi _n`$ of the twisting cochain $`\psi `$ is a cocycle representing the Euler class of $`E`$:

$$[\psi _n]=e^EH^n(B;R).$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{HOM}(H_{}(S^{n1}),H_{}(S^{n1}))`$ has elements only in degrees $`0,n1`$, $`\psi _k=0`$ for $`kn`$. By definition of a twisting cochain we have

$$\delta \psi _n=(\psi ^{}\psi )_n=0.$$

Therefore, $`\psi _n`$ is an $`n1`$ cocycle on $`B`$. Since it gives the differential in the Serre spectral sequence, it must represent the Euler class. ∎

In the present setting, Ed Brown’s twisted tensor product is equivalent to the following construction.

###### Definition 2.6.

The *total complex* $`E(\psi ;\mathrm{\Phi })`$ of the twisting cochain $`\psi `$ with coefficients in the functor $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1)`$ is given by

$$E(\psi ;\mathrm{\Phi })=\underset{k0}{}\underset{(X_0\mathrm{}X_k)}{}(X_{})\mathrm{\Phi }X_k$$

with boundary map $`_\psi `$ given by (7).

###### Remark 2.7.

Note that every simplex $`X_{}=(X_0\mathrm{}X_k)`$ gives a subcomplex of the total complex $`E(\psi ;\mathrm{\Phi })`$ by:

$$E(X_{})=\underset{j0}{}\underset{a:[j][k]}{}a^{}(X_{})\mathrm{\Phi }X_{a(j)}.$$

This is also the total complex of the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor on $`[k]`$ (considered as a category with objects $`0,1,\mathrm{},k`$ and morphisms $`kk1\mathrm{}10`$) given by pulling back $`\psi `$ along the functor $`X_{}:[k]𝒳`$.

Note that this gives a functor from the category of simplices in $`𝒳`$ to the category of subcomplexes of the total complex with morphisms being inclusion maps. Thus, just as the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ homology functor constructs an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor out of an actual functor, the total complex construction gives an actual functor on $`\mathrm{simp}𝒩_{}𝒳^{op}`$ from an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor on $`𝒳`$.

Using the total complex, a twisting cochain on $`𝒳`$ can be viewed as a family of chain complexes parametrized by the nerve of $`𝒳^{op}`$. With some extra structure, this gives a map from the geometric realization of $`𝒳`$ to the Volodin K-theory space of $`R`$.

## 3. Volodin K-theory

Algebraic K-theory is related to twisting cochains in the following way. When two *based, upper triangular twisting cochains* are homotopy equivalent, there is an algebraic K-theory obstruction to deforming one into the other. Formally, we take the pointwise mapping cone. This gives a based free acyclic upper triangular twisting cochain on the category $`𝒳`$. This is equivalent to a mapping from the geometric realization $`|𝒳|`$ of $`𝒳`$ to a fancy version of the Volodin K-theory space of the ring $`R`$. To avoid confusion, we assume that $`R`$ has the property that the rank of a free $`R`$-module is well defined, i.e., that $`R^nR^m`$ implies $`n=m`$.

When the basis is only well-defined up to permutation and multiplication by elements of a subgroup $`G`$ of the group of units of $`R`$, an acyclic twisting cochain on $`𝒳`$ defines a mapping from $`|𝒳|`$ into the fiber $`𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)`$ of the mapping

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(BG_+)BGL(R)^+\times .$$

The well-known basic case is the Whitehead group

$$Wh_1(G)=\pi _0𝒲\text{h}_{}^h([G],G)$$

which is the obstruction to $`G`$-collapse of a contractible f.g. based free $`R`$-complex. In this section we discuss the different versions of the Volodin construction, show how they are related to twisting cochains and identify the homotopy type of two of them.

The basic definition is sometimes called the “one index” case. It is a space of invertible matrices locally varying by upper triangular column operations. When this definition is expressed as a twisting cochain, the construction seems artificial, with only one term $`\psi _1`$ in the twisting cochain $`\psi `$. However, when the missing higher terms $`\psi _p`$ are inserted we recover the general Volodin space.

###### Definition 3.1.

For every $`n2`$ the *Volodin category* $`𝒱^n(R)`$ is the category whose objects are pairs $`(A,\sigma )`$ consisting of an invertible $`n\times n`$ matrix $`AGL(n,R)`$ and a partial ordering $`\sigma `$ of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. A morphism $`(A,\sigma )(B,\tau )`$ is an $`n\times n`$ matrix $`T`$ with coefficients in $`R`$ so that

1. $`\sigma \tau `$, i.e., $`\tau `$ is a refinement of $`\sigma `$.
2. $`AT=B`$. (So the morphism $`T=A^1B`$ is unique if it exists.)
3. $`T=(t_{ij})`$ is *$`\tau `$-upper triangular* in the sense that

1. $`t_{ii}=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$
    2. $`t_{ij}=0`$ unless $`ij`$ in the partial ordering $`\tau `$ ($`ij(i,j)\tau `$).

Note that composition is reverse matrix multiplication:

$$ST=TS.$$

There is a *simplicial Volodin space* $`V_{}^n(R)`$ without explicit partial orderings. A $`p`$-simplex $`gV_p^n(R)`$ consists of a $`p+1`$ tuple of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices

$$g=(g_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_p)$$

so that for some partial ordering $`\sigma `$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the matrices $`g_i^1g_j`$ are all $`\sigma `$-upper triangular. There is a simplicial map

(8)
$$𝒩_{}𝒱^n(R)V_{}^n(R)$$

from the nerve of the Volodin category $`𝒱^n(R)`$ to the simplicial set $`V_{}^n(R)`$ given by forgetting the partial orderings. However, the collection of admissible partial orderings on any $`gV_p^n(R)`$ has a unique minimal element and therefore forms a contractible category. Consequently, (8) induces a homotopy equivalence

$$|𝒱^n(R)||V_{}^n(R)|$$

If we stabilize matrices in the usual way by adding a $`1`$ in the lower right corner we get the stable Volodin category

$$𝒱(R)=\underset{}{lim}𝒱^n(R)$$

and the stable Volodin space $`V_{}^{\mathrm{}}(R)=\underset{}{lim}V_{}^n(R)`$ which are related to Quillen K-theory by the following well-known theorem due to Vasserstein and Wagoner but best explained by Suslin \[Sus81\].

###### Theorem 3.2.

$`|𝒱(R)||V_{}^{\mathrm{}}(R)|\mathrm{\Omega }BGL(R)^+`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }BGL(R)^+`$ is the loop space of the plus construction on the classifying space of $`GL(R)=GL(\mathrm{},R)`$.

The Volodin category $`𝒱^n(R)`$ has a canonical twisting cochain. It comes from the realization that an invertible matrix is the same as a based contractible chain complex with two terms.

###### Definition 3.3.

The *canonical twisting cochain* on $`𝒱^n(R)`$ is given as follows.

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(A,\sigma )=C_{}`$ be the based free graded $`R`$-module with $`C_0=C_1=R^n`$ for every object $`(A,\sigma )`$ of $`𝒱^n(R)`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=(id,id)`$ is the identity chain map $`C_{}C_{}`$ for every morphism.
3. $`\psi _0(A,\sigma )=A:R^nR^n`$.
4. $`\psi _1(T)=(0,TI)`$. So $`I+\psi _1(T)=(I,T)`$ gives a chain isomorphism:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R^n& \stackrel{T}{}& R^n\\ B& & A& & \\ R^n& \stackrel{I}{}& R^n\end{array}$$

The higher homotopies $`\psi _p,p2`$, are all zero for $`𝒱^n(R)`$. However, there is a fancier version of the Volodin category with higher homotopies. We call it the “Whitehead category.” This is very similar to the original definition of Volodin \[Vol71\]

###### Definition 3.4.

If $`G`$ is a subgroup of the group of units of a ring $`R`$ then the *Whitehead category* $`𝒲\text{h}_{}(R,G)`$ is defined to be the simplicial category whose simplicial set of objects consists of pairs $`(P,\psi )`$ where $`\psi `$ is an upper-triangular twisting cochain on the category $`[k]`$ (as in Remark 2.7) with coefficients in the fixed graded based $`R`$-module:

$$R^P:=R^{P_i}$$

where $`P=P_i`$ is a graded poset (a poset with a grading not necessarily related to the ordering). By *upper-triangular* we mean that $`\psi (\sigma )(x)`$ is a linear combination of $`y<xP`$ for all simplices $`\sigma `$ in $`[k]`$. As in the Volodin category, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the identity mapping on $`R^P`$.

A *morphism* $`(P,\psi )(Q,\phi )`$ in $`𝒲\text{h}_k(R,G)`$ consists of a graded order preserving monomorphism going the other way:

$$f:QP$$

so that $`S=Pf(Q)`$ is a disjoint union of *expansion pairs* which are, by definition, pairs $`x^+>x^{}`$ otherwise unrelated to every other element of $`P`$ so that $`\psi _0(x^+)=x^{}g`$ for some $`gG`$, together with a function $`\gamma :QG`$ so that $`\phi `$ differs from $`\psi f`$ only by multiplication by $`\gamma `$, i.e., $`f_{}(\phi _p(\sigma )(x))=\psi _p(\sigma )(f(x))\gamma (x)`$.

The following theorem, due to J. Klein and the author, is proved in \[Igu02\], Section 5.6.

###### Theorem 3.5 (Igusa-Klein).

There is a homotopy fiber sequence

$$|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)|\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(BG_+)\times BGL(R)^+$$

where $`𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)`$ is the simplicial full subcategory of $`𝒲\text{h}_{}(R,G)`$ consisting of $`(P,\psi )`$ so that each chain complex $`(R^P,\psi _0)`$ is contractible (i.e., has the homology of the empty set) and $`BG_+=BGpt`$.

###### Remark 3.6.

If we take $`G`$ to be a finite group then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}S^{\mathrm{}}(BG_+)`$ is rationally trivial above degree $`0`$ so $`𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)`$ has the rational homotopy type of the Volodin space:

$$|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)|_{}|𝒱(R)|\mathrm{\Omega }BGL(R)^+.$$

In particular, if $`R=`$, we get \[Bor74\]

$$|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(,1)|_{}\mathrm{\Omega }BGL()^+_{}BO.$$

Using the Borel regulator maps

$$K_{4k+1}$$

given by continuous cohomology classes in $`H^{2k}(BGL();)`$ we get the *universal real higher Franz-Reidemeister torsion* invariants

$$\tau _{2k}H^{4k}(𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(,1);).$$

These give characteristic classes for smooth bundles under certain conditions.

## 4. Higher FR torsion

We will discuss the circumstances under which we obtain well defined algebraic K-theory classes for a fiber bundle. If we have a smooth bundle $`p:EB`$ where $`E,B`$ and the fiber $`M_b=p^1(b)`$ are compact connected smooth manifolds and $`R`$ is a commutative ring so that the fiber homology $`H_{}(M_b;R)`$ is projective then we obtain two canonical twisting cochains on $`B`$.

The first is Brown’s twisting cochain $`\psi `$ with coefficients in the fiberwise homology bundle

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(b)=H_{}(M_b;R).$$

Recall that this requires the fiber homology to be projective.

The second is the fiberwise cellular chain complex $`C_{}(f_b)`$ associated to a fiberwise *generalized Morse function* (GMF) $`f:E`$. These are defined to be smooth functions which, on each fiber $`M_b`$, have only Morse and birth-death singularities (cubic in one variable plus nondegenerate quadratic in the others). The fiberwise GMF is *not* well-defined up to homotopy. However, there is a canonical choice called a “framed function” (\[Igu87\], \[Igu02\], \[Igu05\]) which exists stably and is unique up to framed fiber homotopy. This gives the following.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Any compact smooth manifold bundle $`EB`$ gives a mapping

$$C(f):B|𝒲\text{h}_{}([\pi _1E],\pi _1E)|$$

which is well-defined up to homotopy and fiber homotopy equivalent to the fiberwise total singular complex of $`E`$ with coefficients in $`[\pi _1E]`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

The *fiberwise total singular complex* of $`E`$ is the functor which assigns to each simplex $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Delta }^kB`$, the total singular complex of $`E|\sigma `$. The fiberwise framed function $`f`$ is defined on a product space $`E\times D^N`$.

In order to compare the two constructions we need a representation

$$\rho :\pi _1EU(R)$$

of $`\pi _1E`$ into the group of units of $`R`$ with respect to which the fiber homology $`H_{}(M_b;R)`$ is projective over $`R`$. By the functorial properties of the Whitehead category we get a mapping

$$B|𝒲\text{h}_{}(R,G)|$$

where $`GU(R)`$ is the image of $`\rho `$. By Theorem 4.1, this will be fiberwise homotopy equivalent to the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ fiberwise homology functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\psi `$. The fiberwise mapping cone will be fiberwise contractible but it will not give a mapping to $`𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)`$ unless the fiberwise homology has a basis. This gives the following.

###### Corollary 4.3.

If $`\pi _1B`$ acts trivially on the fiberwise homology $`H_{}(M_b;R)`$ then a fiberwise mapping cone construction gives a mapping

$$C(C(f)):B|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(R,G)|$$

which is well-defined up to homotopy.

###### Remark 4.4.

A more precise statement is that we take the direct sum of the fiberwise mapping cone with a fixed contractible projective $`R`$-complex $`P_{}`$ with the property that $`H_{}(M_b;R)P_{}`$ is free in every degree.

When $`R=`$, the construction of higher FR torsion extends to the case then $`\pi _1B`$ acts *unipotently* on $`H_{}(M;)`$ by which we mean that $`H_{}(M;)`$ admits a filtration by $`\pi _1B`$ submodules so that the action of $`\pi _1B`$ on the successive subquotients is trivial.

###### Corollary 4.5.

Suppose that $`EB`$ is a compact smooth manifold bundle over a connected space $`B`$ so that $`\pi _1B`$ acts unipotently on the rational homology of the fiber $`M`$. Then we have a mapping

$$B|𝒲\text{h}_{}^h(,1)|$$

which is well-defined up to homotopy and we can pull back universal higher torsion invariants to obtain well-defined cohomology classes

$$\tau _{2k}(E)H^{4k}(B;)$$

which are trivial if the bundle is diffeomorphic to a product bundle.

It has been known for many years (by \[FH78\] using the stability theorem \[Igu88\]) that there are smooth bundles which are homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic to product bundles and that these exotic smooth structures are detected by algebraic K-theory. Therefore, when the higher FR torsion was successfully defined, it had already been known to be nonzero in these cases.

However, in these exotic examples the fiber $`M`$ is either odd dimensional or even dimensional with boundary. We now have the complete calculation of the higher torsion in the case of closed oriented even dimensional fibers.

###### Theorem 4.6 (6.6 in \[Igu05\]).

Suppose that $`M^{2n}`$ is a closed oriented even dimensional manifold and $`MEB`$ is a smooth bundle so that $`\pi _1B`$ acts unipotently on the rational homology of $`M`$. Then the higher FR torsion invariants $`\tau _{2k}(E)`$ are well-defined and given by

$$\tau _{2k}(E)=\frac{1}{2}(1)^k\zeta (2k+1)\frac{1}{(2k)!}T_{2k}(E)H^{4k}(B;)$$

where $`\zeta (s)=\frac{1}{n^s}`$ is the Riemann zeta function and

$$T_{2k}(E)=tr_B^E\left(\frac{(2k)!}{2}ch_{2k}(T^vE)\right)H^{4k}(B;)$$

with $`T^vE`$ being the vertical tangent bundle of $`E`$, $`ch_{2k}(T^vE)`$ stands for the degree $`4k`$ term in the Chern character of $`T^vE`$ and

$$tr_B^E:H^n(E;)H^n(B;)$$

is the transfer (with $`n=4k`$).

###### Remark 4.7.

Note that $`T_{2k}(E)`$ is a tangential fiber homotopy invariant. This is in keeping with the belief that there are rationally no stable exotic smooth structures on bundles with closed oriented even dimensional fibers. (*Stable* means stable under product with large dimensional disks $`D^N`$. The exotic smooth structure on disk bundles and odd dimensional sphere bundles of \[FH78\] and the explicit examples given by Hatcher (\[Igu02\],\[Goe01\]) are stable.) For more details about this conjecture see \[GI10\]. In that paper we construct virtually all stable exotic smooth structures on bundles with closed odd dimensional fibers and explain why the even dimensional case is so different. See also \[Igu08\] and \[Goe08\] for an outline of those results.

In the special case when $`n=1`$, $`M`$ is an oriented surface and the bundle $`E`$ is classified by a map of $`B`$ into the classifying space $`BT_g`$ of the Torelli group $`T_g`$ where $`g`$ is the genus of $`M`$. The tangential homotopy invariant $`T_{2k}`$ is equal to the Miller-Morita-Mumford class in this case (\[Mum83\], \[Mor84\], \[Mil86\]). It is still unknown whether or not any of these classes (tautological classes in degree $`4k`$) is rationally nontrivial on the Torelli group.

There are several competing versions of higher FR torsion and the version described here is sometimes called *Igusa-Klein (IK) torsion* since the first computation was given in \[IK93\]. Dwyer, Weiss and Williams have defined three kinds of higher Reidemeister which are called *smooth, topological and homotopy DWW torsion* \[DWW03\]. Badzioch, Dorabiala, Klein and Williams have recently shown \[BDKW09\] that smooth DWW torsion is equivalent to IK torsion, making use of the axiomatic characterization of higher torsion given in \[Igu08b\].

Bismut and Lott \[BL95\] have defined higher analytic torsion invariants which have been computed in many cases (\[BL97\], \[BG01\], \[Bun00\], \[Ma97\], \[Goe01\]). In the case of closed oriented even dimensional fibers, the analytic torsion is always zero and Goette has now shown that the expression in Theorem 4.6 gives the difference between BL torsion and IK torsion in all cases. (See the survey article \[Goe08\].)

Higher analytic torsion is defined using flat $``$-graded superconnections. It was observed by Goette \[Goe01\] that these are infinitesimal twisting cochains or, as he puts it, that twisting cochains are combinatorial superconnections. We will explain this comment.

## 5. Flat superconnections

When we review the definition of a flat $``$-graded superconnection, we will see that it is the same as an infinitesimal twisting cochain. More precisely, the superconnection is the boundary map of the infinitesimal twisted tensor product. This gives one explanation of the supercommutator rules.

Instead of defining superconnections and showing their relationship to twisting cochains we will take the opposite approach. We ask the question: What is the natural definition of an “infinitesimal twisting cochain?” This question will lead us to the definition of a flat superconnection and we will see that the “superconnection complex” $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V),D)`$ is dual to a twisted tensor product.

Suppose that $`B`$ is a smooth manifold and $`C=_{n0}C_n`$ is a nonnegatively graded complex vector bundle over $`B`$. Suppose we have a graded flat connection $``$ on $`C`$ making each $`C_n`$ into a locally constant coefficient sheaf for the twisting cochain that we want. The example that we keep in mind is when $`C`$ is the fiberwise homology of a smooth manifold bundle $`FE\stackrel{𝑝}{}B`$. By this we mean the graded vector bundle over $`B`$ whose fiber over $`bB`$ is the homology of $`p^1(b)`$. The dual bundle

$$C^{}:=\underset{n0}{}\mathrm{Hom}(C_n,)$$

is the fiberwise cohomology bundle $`H^{}(F)C^{}B`$.

Now, imagine that $`B`$ is subdivided into tiny simplices and we have a twisting cochain on $`B`$ with coefficients in $`(C,)`$ which satisfies smoothness conditions to be added later. Then, at each vertex $`v`$ we have a degree $`1`$ endomorphism $`\psi _0(v)`$ of $`C(v)`$. This gives a degree $`1`$ endomorphism $`A_0=\psi _0^{}`$ of the dual $`C^{}(v)`$. Suppose we can extend this to a smooth family of such maps

$$A_0\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B,\mathrm{End}(C^{}))=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B,\mathrm{End}(C)^{op})$$

so that $`A_0(x)`$ has degree $`1`$ and square zero ($`A_0(x)^2=0`$) at all $`xB`$.

Next, we take the edges of $`B`$. If an edge $`e`$ goes from $`v_0`$ to $`v_1`$ the twisting cochain gives us a degree $`0`$ map

$$C(v_0)\stackrel{\psi _1(e)}{}C(v_1)$$

so that $`\psi _1(e)`$ together with the map (parallel transport) given by the flat connection $``$ is a chain map. This chain map is the parallel transport of a non-flat connection $`_1`$ which we now describe.

If we dualize $`\psi _1(e)`$ and take only the linear term (ignoring $`\mathrm{\Delta }v^2`$ terms) we get a degree $`0`$ map $`A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v):C^{}(v_0)C^{}(v_1)`$ which is linear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$. To obtain the smooth version we need to take local coordinates for $`C`$ so that parallel transport of $``$ is constant, i.e., so that, on $`C^{}`$, $`^{}=d`$. Then $`A_1`$ becomes a matrix $`1`$-form on $`B`$ (assuming the twisting cochain is smooth in a suitable sense)

$$A_1\mathrm{\Omega }^1(B,\mathrm{End}(C^{}))$$

so that parallel transport by the new connection $`_1=dA_1`$ on $`C^{}`$ keeps $`A_0`$ invariant. (The change in sign comes from the fact that parallel transport by $`dA_1`$ is given infinitesimally by $`I+A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$ where $`A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)`$ is evaluation of the matrix 1-form $`A_1`$ on the vector $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$.) This means that

$$[_1,A_0]=[dA_1,A_0]=0$$

$$dA_0=[A_1,A_0]=A_1A_0+A_0A_1.$$

We interpret this as an approximately commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C^{}(v_0)& \stackrel{I+A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)}{}& C^{}(v_1)\\ A_0& & A_0+\mathrm{\Delta }A_0& & \\ C^{}(v_0)& \stackrel{I+A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)}{}& C^{}(v_1)\end{array}$$

Higher order terms are needed to make the diagram actually commute. The linear terms give the following approximate equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A_0A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)A_0A_0A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)$$

Since $`A_0`$ is odd, we get two changes of signs:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }A_0dA_0(\mathrm{\Delta }v)A_1(\mathrm{\Delta }v)A_0=(A_1A_0)(\mathrm{\Delta }v)$$

As $`\mathrm{\Delta }v0`$ we get the equation $`dA_0=A_1A_0+A_0A_1`$ as claimed.

At the next step, we take two small triangles in $`B`$ forming a rectangle. The following diagram which commutes up to homotopy by $`\psi _2^{}=A_2`$ indicates what is happening. Here $`A_1=A_1^xdx+A_1^ydy`$ where $`A_1^x,A_1^y`$ are (even) matrix $`0`$-forms and $`A_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ indicates multiplication by the scalar quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C^{}(v_1^{})& \stackrel{I+A_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x+\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x}{}& C^{}(v_2)\\ I+A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y& & I+A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y+\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y& & \\ C^{}(v_0)& \stackrel{I+A_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x}{}& C^{}(v_1)\end{array}$$

This gives the following approximate equation where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ are scalar quantities and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_x,\mathrm{\Delta }v_y`$ are the corresponding vector quantities giving our rectangle in $`B`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}(A_0A_2+A_2A_0)(\mathrm{\Delta }v_x,\mathrm{\Delta }v_y)A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y+\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }yA_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }xA_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x+\mathrm{\Delta }A_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }xA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y\hfill \\ \hfill A_1^yA_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y+\frac{A_1^y}{x}\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }yA_1^xA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y\frac{A_1^x}{y}\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }y\end{array}$$

Since $`A_1^x,A_1^y`$ are even, the right hand side can be written as

$$\left(dA_1A_1^2\right)(\mathrm{\Delta }v_x,\mathrm{\Delta }v_y)$$

In other words, we have

$$A_2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(B,\mathrm{End}(C^{}))$$

satisfying the equation

$$dA_1=A_0A_2+A_1^2+A_2A_0.$$

In general we will require that

$$dA_{n1}=\underset{p+q=n}{}A_pA_q.$$

(See \[Igu09\] for a full explanation.) This leads to the following definition.

###### Definition 5.1.

An *infinitesimal twisting cochain* on $`B`$ with coefficients in a graded vector bundle $`C^{}`$ with graded flat connection $``$ ($`=_k`$ where $`(1)^k_k`$ is a flat connection on $`C^k`$) is equal to a sequence of $`\mathrm{End}(C^{})`$-valued forms

$$A_p\mathrm{\Omega }^p(B,\mathrm{End}_{1p}(C^{}))=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B,\mathrm{End}_{1p}(C^{}))_{\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B)}\mathrm{\Omega }^p(B)$$

of total degree $`1`$ so that

(9)
$$A_{n1}=\underset{p+q=n}{}A_pA_q.$$

Next we pass to the algebra of operators on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B,C^{})`$ where we carefully distinguish between differential forms $`A`$ and the operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ that they define to arrive at the Bismut-Lott definition of a flat $``$-grade superconnection.

## 6. Forms as operators

If $`A\mathrm{\Omega }(B,\mathrm{End}(C^{}))`$ is written as $`A=\phi _i\alpha _i`$ with fixed total degree $`|A|=|\phi _i|+|\alpha _i|`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ be the linear operator on

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(B,C^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B,C^{})_{\mathrm{\Omega }^0(B)}\mathrm{\Omega }(B)$$

given by

(10)
$$\stackrel{~}{A}(c\gamma ):=\underset{i}{}(1)^{|c||\alpha _i|}\phi _i(c)\alpha _i\gamma $$

###### Proposition 6.1 (Prop. 1 in \[Qui85\]).

If $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k(B)`$ then

$$\stackrel{~}{A}\omega =(1)^{k|A|}\omega \stackrel{~}{A}.$$

Conversely, any linear operator on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B,C^{})`$ of fixed total degree having this property is equal to $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ for a unique $`A\mathrm{\Omega }(B,\mathrm{End}(C^{}))`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ acts only on the first tensor factor we get

$$\stackrel{~}{A}\omega =\stackrel{~}{A\omega }=(1)^{k|A|}\stackrel{~}{\omega A}=(1)^{k|A|}\omega \stackrel{~}{A}$$

as required. Conversely, any linear operator which is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B)`$-linear in this sense must be “local” and thus we may restrict to a coordinate chart $`U`$ over which $`C^{}`$ has a basis of sections. This makes $`\mathrm{\Omega }(U,C^{}|U)`$ into a free module over $`\mathrm{\Omega }(U)`$. Thus any $`\mathrm{\Omega }(U)`$-linear operator is uniquely given by $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ where $`A\mathrm{\Omega }(U,\mathrm{End}(C^{}|U))`$ is given by the value of the operator on the basis of sections of $`C^{}|U`$. We can patch these together on intersections of coordinate charts since, by uniqueness, the differential forms defined using different coordinate charts will agree. ∎

Here is another straightforward calculation.

###### Proposition 6.2.

$`[d,\stackrel{~}{A}]=d\stackrel{~}{A}(1)^{|A|}\stackrel{~}{A}d=\stackrel{~}{dA}`$.

If $`A^{}`$ is another $`\mathrm{End}(C^{})`$ valued form on $`B`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{AA^{}}=\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A^{}}`$. So

$$[d,\stackrel{~}{A}_{n1}]=\stackrel{~}{dA}_{n1}=\underset{p+q=n}{}\stackrel{~}{A}_p\stackrel{~}{A}_q$$

which, in coordinate free notation, is

$$[,\stackrel{~}{A}]=\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}$$

Since $`|A|=1`$ and $`^2=0`$, we get

$$(\stackrel{~}{A})^2=(\stackrel{~}{A})(\stackrel{~}{A})=0.$$

This leads to the following definition due to Bismut and Lott \[BL95\]. (A similar definition appeared in \[Che75\].)

###### Definition 6.3.

Let $`V=_{n0}V^n`$ be a graded complex vector bundle over a smooth manifold $`B`$. Then a *superconnection* on $`V`$ is defined to be a linear operator $`D`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V)`$ of total degree $`1`$ so that

$$D\alpha =d\alpha +(1)^{|\alpha |}\alpha D$$

for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }(B)`$. The superconnection $`D`$ is called *flat* if

$$D^2=0.$$

If $`D`$ is flat then $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V),D)`$ is a chain complex which we call the *superconnection complex*. We will see later that it is homotopy equivalent to the dual of a twisted tensor product. The superconnection complex is bigraded:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V)=\mathrm{\Omega }^p(B,V^q)$$

and the superconnection $`D`$ has terms of degree $`(k,1k)`$ for $`k0`$. This gives a spectral sequence in the usual way with $`E_1^{p,q}=\mathrm{\Omega }^p(B,H^q(V,A_0))`$ and

$$E_2^{p,q}=H^p(B;H^q(V,A_0))H^{p+q}(\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V),D)$$

A flat superconnections on $`V`$ corresponds to a contravariant $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor on $`B`$. To get a twisting cochain we need an ordinary graded flat connection $``$ on $`V`$. Then $`D`$ gives a twisting cochain by reversing the above process.

The first step is to get out of the superalgebra framework by writing $`D`$ as a sum

$$D=\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{A}_0\stackrel{~}{A}_1\stackrel{~}{A}_2\mathrm{}$$

where $`A_p\mathrm{\Omega }^p(B,\mathrm{End}_{1p}(V))`$ corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_p`$ by (10) and satisfies (9).

Next, we obtain a contravariant twisting cochain on the category of smooth simplices in $`B`$ with coefficients in the category of cochain complexes by iterated integration of $`A_{}`$. Then we dualize, relying on Proposition 1.3 to recover the original twisting cochain.

## 7. Chen’s iterated integrals

This section gives a very short discussion and proof of the first two steps in the process of integrating a flat superconnection to obtain a twisting cochain. Details are fully explained in \[Igu09\] although the original idea is contained in Chen’s work \[Che73\], \[Che75\], \[Che77\]. A more direct, less computational method of constructing the twisting cochain is explained in the next section.

Since $``$ is a flat connection, we can choose local coordinates so that $`V`$ is a trivial bundle and $`=d`$. Starting with $`p=0`$ we note that $`A_0(x)`$ is a degree $`1`$ endomorphism of $`V_x`$ with $`A_0(x)^2=0`$ making $`C(x)=(V_x,A_0(x))`$ into a cochain complex for all $`xB`$. Putting $`n=2`$ in (9) we see that the curvature $`(dA_1)^2`$ of the connection $`dA_1`$ is null homotopic. Also we will see that parallel transport of this connection is a cochain map.

It is well-known that the parallel transport $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ associated to the connection $`dA_1`$ on $`V`$ is given by an iterated integral of the matrix $`1`$-form $`A_1`$. Given any piecewise smooth path $`\gamma :[0,1]B`$, parallel transport is the family of degree zero homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s):C(\gamma (s))C(\gamma (t))`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(s,s)=I=id_V`$ and $`dA_1=0`$, i.e.,

$$\frac{}{t}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)=A_1/t\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)$$

$$\frac{}{s}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)A_1/s$$

where $`A_1/t=A_1(\gamma (t))(\gamma ^{})\mathrm{End}(C(\gamma (t)))`$. The solution is given by Chen’s iterated integral \[Che77\]:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(s_0,s_1)=I+_{s_0ts_1}𝑑t_1A_1/t+_{s_0t_1t_2s_1}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2(A_1/t_1)(A_1/t_2)\hfill \\ \hfill +_{s_0t_1t_2t_3s_1}𝑑t_1𝑑t_2𝑑t_3(A_1/t_1)(A_1/t_2)(A_1/t_3)+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

which we abbreviate as:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(s_0,s_1)=I+_\gamma A_1+_\gamma (A_1)^2+_\gamma (A_1)^3+\mathrm{}.$$

This can also be written as a limit of products (multiplied right to left)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}(I+(A_1/t_i)\mathrm{\Delta }t)$$

In the case when $`A_1`$ is constant, parallel transport $`C(\gamma (0))C(\gamma (1))`$ is given by $`e^{A_1}`$. The inverse is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(0,1)=e^{A_1}`$.

###### Proposition 7.1.

$`A_0(\gamma (t))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)A_0(\gamma (s))`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)`$ gives a cochain map

$$C(\gamma (t))C(\gamma (s)).$$

###### Proof.

By (9) we have:

$$\frac{d}{dt}A_0(\gamma (t))=dA_0(\gamma (t))(\gamma ^{})=A_0(\gamma (t))A_1/t(A_1/t)A_0(\gamma (t))$$

where both negative signs come from the fact that $`A_0`$ is odd. So, $`X(t)=A_0(\gamma (t))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)`$ is the unique solution of the differential equation

$$\frac{}{t}X(t)=(A_1/t)X(t)$$

with initial condition $`X(s)=A_0(\gamma (s))`$. So, $`X(t)`$ must also be equal to the other solution of this differential equation which is $`X(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(t,s)A_0(\gamma (s))`$. ∎

Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=\{(x,y)^2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}xy0\}$$

and suppose that $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Delta }^2B`$ is a smooth simplex with vertices $`v_0=\sigma (0,0),v_1=\sigma (1,0),v_2=\sigma (1,1)B`$. Then a chain homotopy

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_1,v_2)$$

can be obtained by an iterated integral of the form

$$\psi _2(\sigma )=_\sigma A_2+_\sigma A_2A_1+_\sigma A_1A_2+_\sigma A_2A_1A_1+_\sigma A_1A_2A_1+\mathrm{}.$$

The integral over $`\sigma `$ is the double integral of the pull-back to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The factors of $`A_1`$ will just give the parallel transport $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ along paths connecting $`v_0`$ and $`v_2`$ to the point $`v=\sigma (x,y)`$

$$\psi _2(\sigma )=_{1xy0}\sigma ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v)A_2(v)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,v_2))\mathrm{Hom}(C(v_2),C(v_0))$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v),\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,v_2)`$ are given by parallel transport along paths given by two straight lines each as shown in the Figure.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,v_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,\sigma (x,x))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,x),v_2)$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,\sigma (x,0))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),v).$$

###### Proposition 7.2.

$`A_0(v_0)\psi _2(\sigma )+\psi _2(\sigma )A_0(v_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_1,v_2)`$.

###### Proof.

For $`x[0,1]`$ let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ be the parallel transport of $`dA_1`$ along the three segment path:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,\sigma (x,0))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,x),v_2).$$

Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(0)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_2)$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_1,v_2).$$

So the right hand side of the formula we are proving is

(11)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }(0)\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=_0^1𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$

By Proposition 7.1 the left hand side is equal to

$$_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v)[A_0(v)A_2(v)+A_2(v)A_0(v)]\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,v_2)$$

(The sign in front of $`A_2(v)A_0(v)`$ is $`(1)^2=+1`$ since the form degree of $`A_2`$ is 2.) By (9) this is equal to

(12)
$$=_\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,v)[A_1(v)A_1(v)+dA_1(v)]\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,v_2)$$

In (11), we have

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(x)}{dx}=\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v_0,\sigma (x,0))X(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma _1(x,x),v_2)$$

where

$$X(x)=A_1^x\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))A_1^x$$

using the notation $`\sigma ^{}(A_1)=A_1^xdx+A_1^ydy`$. (The term $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))A_1^y`$ which occurred with positive sign in the second term and negative sign in the third term was cancelled.) Comparing this to (12) we are reduced to showing that $`X(x)=Y(x)`$ where

$$Y(x)=_{0yz}𝑑y\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),v)\left(A_1^xA_1^y+A_1^yA_1^x+\frac{A_1^y}{x}\frac{A_1^x}{y}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(v,\sigma (x,x)).$$

Expressing $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))`$ as an iterated integral of $`A_1^ydy`$ we see that the second term of $`X(x)`$ is equal to the third term of $`Y(x)`$ (with $`\frac{A_1^y}{x}`$). The negative sign comes from the fact that we are going backwards along the $`y`$ direction ($`dt=dy`$). The other three terms of $`Y(x)`$ form the commutator of $`A_1^x`$ with each factor $`A_1/dt=A_1^y`$ in the iterated integral representation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))`$. This can be more easily seen in the product limit form:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))=\underset{\begin{array}{c}n\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }y=x/n\end{array}}{lim}\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}(IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y)$$

The commutator of $`A_1^x`$ with $`IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ is:

$$A_1^x(IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y)(IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y)(A_1^x+\mathrm{\Delta }_yA_1^x)=A_1^xA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y+A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }yA_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }_yA_1^x+o(\mathrm{\Delta }y)$$

So, the commutator of $`A_1^x`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(\sigma (x,0),\sigma (x,x))`$ is

$$A_1^x\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1A_1^x=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }y0}{lim}\underset{i}{}\underset{1}{\overset{i1}{}}(IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y)\left[A_1^xA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y+A_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }yA_1^x\mathrm{\Delta }_yA_1^x\right]\underset{i+1}{\overset{n}{}}(IA_1^y\mathrm{\Delta }y)$$

So, the sum of the remaining two terms of $`X(x)`$ is equal to the sum of the remaining three terms of $`Y(x)`$ and we conclude that $`X(x)=Y(x)`$ proving the proposition. ∎

The construction that we just explained in detail is a special case of a construction outlined by Chen in \[Che73\], sec. 4.5. Chen constructs mappings

$$\theta _{(n)}:I^{n1}P(\mathrm{\Delta }^n,v_n,v_0)$$

from the $`n1`$ cube $`I^{n1}`$ to the space $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }^n,v_n,v_0)`$ of smooth paths in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ from $`v_n`$ to $`v_0`$ by smoothing a piecewise linear construction very similar to the one we explained. When $`n=2`$, this is the 1-parameter family of paths in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ given in Figure 1 above. The main conceptual difference between Chen’s construction and ours is that Chen follows this mapping with a smooth mapping of the $`n`$ simplex into the space $`B`$ which sends all vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ to the base point of $`B`$. He uses this to obtain a cubical chain complex for $`\mathrm{\Omega }B`$.

A very longwinded description of the higher steps in this process of converting a flat superconnection into a simplicial twisting cochain can be found in \[Igu09\] which uses much of Chen’s notation to allow for comparison and to make it easier to understand Chen’s work.

In the last section of this paper we will show how the entire process can be done in an easier way.

## 8. Another method

There is another method for constructing a simplicial twisting cochain from a flat connection. We assume that $`B`$ is compact and we choose a finite “good cover” for $`B`$. (See \[BT82\].) This is a covering of $`B`$ by contractible open sets $`U`$ so that all nonempty intersections

$$U_{\alpha _1}U_{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}U_{\alpha _n}$$

are also contractible.

###### Lemma 8.1.

If $`U`$ is a contractible open subset of $`B`$ and $`D`$ is a flat superconnection on a graded vector bundle $`V`$ over $`B`$ then the cohomology of the superconnection complex over $`U`$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of $`V`$ using $`A_0`$ as differential:

$$H^n(\mathrm{\Omega }(U,V|U),D)H^n(V,A_0)$$

where the isomorphism is given by restriction to any point in $`U`$.

###### Proof.

The spectral sequence collapses since its $`E_2`$-term is $`H^p(U;H^q(V))`$. ∎

This lemma implies that

$$F:U(\mathrm{\Omega }(U,V|U),D)$$

is a functor from the nerve $`𝒩_{}𝒰`$ of the good cover $`𝒰`$ of $`B`$ to the category of cochain complexes over $``$ and cochain homotopy equivalences. Applying the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ cohomology functor we get a contravariant $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor $`H^{}F`$ on $`𝒩_{}𝒰`$. By Proposition 1.3 we can dualize to get a covariant $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\psi `$ on $`𝒩_{}𝒰`$ with coefficients in $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }_1)=(V^{},^{})`$. Subtracting $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=^{}`$ we get the twisting cochain $`\psi `$ satisfying the following.

###### Theorem 8.2.

The twisted tensor product $`C_{}(𝒩_{}𝒰)_\psi V^{}`$ is homotopy equivalent to the dual of the superconnection complex. I.e.,

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }(B,V),D)\mathrm{Hom}(C_{}(𝒩_{}𝒰)_\psi V^{},).$$

###### Proof.

This holds by induction on the number of open sets in the finite good covering $`𝒰`$. When the number is $`1`$ we use Lemma 8.1. To increase the number we use Mayer-Vietoris. ∎

###### Remark 8.3.

By Ed Brown’s Theorem 2.3 this implies that, if the superconnection is constructed correctly, the superconnection complex gives the cohomology of the total space of a smooth manifold bundle. This construction also allows us to compare flat superconnections with twisting cochains, giving a K-theory difference class with a well defined higher torsion. But, this is the subject of another paper.


format: text

text:
# 1 NC field theories as matrix models

## 1 NC field theories as matrix models

NC field theory is highly fashionable, in particular due to its potential rôle as a low energy effective description of string and M theory. Here we study Euclidean NC field theory as such; for a discussion of the Wick rotation and the related issue of unitarity, see e.g. Ref. . We assume two coordinates to obey the standard NC relation

$$[\widehat{x}_\mu ,\widehat{x}_\nu ]=i\theta ϵ_{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
This implies an uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }x_\nu =O\left(\theta \right)`$, and therefore UV and IR divergences are mixed. That property complicates perturbative renormalization drastically . We can also observe non-perturbative manifestations of UV/IR mixing, see below.

NC gauge theory can be formulated by a consistent use of the star product. Even for $`U\left(1\right)`$ a YM term appears in the gauge action,

$$S\left[A\right]=\frac{1}{4}d^dx\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\right),F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +ig\left(A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu \right).$$
(2)
A lattice formulation can be written down, but its use in simulations is hardly possible: already the generation of star gauge invariant link variables appears as a fatal obstacle.

However, $`U\left(n\right)`$ NC gauge theories can be mapped  onto certain forms of the twisted Eguchi-Kawai model (TEK)  (which is defined on a single site),

$$S_{\mathrm{TEK}}\left[U\right]=N\beta \underset{\mu \nu }{}Z_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_\mu U_\nu U_\mu ^{}U_\nu ^{}\right),Z_{\mu \nu }=Z_{\nu \mu }^{}=e^{2\pi ik/L}\left(\mu <\nu ,k,L=N^{2/d}\right),$$

where $`U_\mu `$ are unitary $`N\times N`$ matrices and $`Z_{\mu \nu }`$ is the twist. This mapping is based on “Morita equivalence”, which is exact at $`N\mathrm{}`$. At finite $`N`$ there is an exact mapping onto a NC gauge theory on a lattice with spacing $`a`$ in a finite volume , if we choose $`k=\left(N+1\right)/2`$, which implies $`\theta =Na^2/\pi `$. After this mapping the system can indeed be simulated . Thus we by-pass the problems with a direct lattice formulation. The limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the simultaneous continuum and infinite volume limit (these limits are entangled due to UV/IR mixing).

The action of the NC $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model reads

$$S\left[\varphi \right]=d^dx\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi +\frac{m^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\varphi \varphi \varphi \varphi \right].$$
(3)
Here the star product does not affect the bilinear terms, so the strength of the self-coupling $`\lambda `$ also determines the extent of NC effects.

We consider $`d=3`$ with a commutative time direction and two space coordinates obeying relation (1) . 111Including also the time in the NC relation seems more consistent from the gravity inspired motivation for NC geometry , but it causes especially severe problems related to causality . Again we start from a lattice formulation — $`\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ is defined on a $`T\times N^2`$ lattice — and map it on a matrix model  222A corresponding matrix model formulation for 3d fermions was suggested in Ref. .. Its action takes the form

$$S\left[\widehat{\varphi }\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}[\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \widehat{\varphi }\left(t\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{}\widehat{\varphi }\left(t\right))^2+\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\varphi }(t+1)\widehat{\varphi }\left(t\right))^2+\frac{m^2}{2}\widehat{\varphi }^2\left(t\right)+\frac{\lambda }{4}\widehat{\varphi }^4\left(t\right)],$$

where $`\widehat{\varphi }\left(t\right)`$ are Hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrices. The “twist eaters” $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ provide the spatial shift, since they obey the Weyl-’t Hooft commutation relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu =Z_{\nu \mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ (where $`Z`$ is the same twist as in the TEK describing NC gauge theory). The final formulation has a remarkable similarity to the corresponding model on a “fuzzy sphere” .

## 2 Numeric results

### 2.1 Gauge theory on a NC plane

We simulated pure 2d NC $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge theory  — for analytical work on this model, see Ref. . The large $`N`$ limit at fixed $`\beta `$ coincides with the planar limit of the commutative theory , which was solved by Gross and Witten . It exhibits an exact area law for the Wilson loop. From this connection we identify the “physical area” of one lattice plaquette as $`a^21/\beta `$. However, in contrast to the planar limit we take the double scaling limit where $`N\mathrm{}`$, $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, so that $`\theta N/\beta `$ is kept constant. Thus we can extrapolate to a NC continuum theory in an infinite volume.

The (analogue of the) square shaped Wilson loop in the TEK takes the form

$$W_{12}\left(I\times I\right)=Z_{12}^{I^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(U_\mu ^IU_\nu ^IU_\mu ^IU_\nu ^I\right)=W_{21}^{}\left(I\times I\right),$$
(4)
and it corresponds to the Wilson loop in NC gauge theory. Note that the expectation value $`W\left(I\right):=\frac{1}{N}W_{12}\left(I\times I\right)`$ is complex. Fig. 1 shows its behavior in polar coordinates (for $`N/\beta =32`$). The large $`N`$ double scaling reveals that the Wilson loop is indeed non-perturbatively renormalizable. At small area (relative to $`\theta `$) the result follows the Gross-Witten area law, hence in this regime the double scaling limit coincides with the planar limit of both, the commutative and the NC model. At larger areas, however, $`\left|W\left(I\right)\right|`$ does not decay any further, but the phase $`\phi `$ increases linearly in the area. Comparison of different values for $`N/\beta `$ shows in that regime the simple relation

$$\phi =A/\theta =AB\left(A=\left(aI\right)^2=\mathrm{physical}\mathrm{area}\right)$$
(5)
to hold to a very high precision. Here $`B`$ is a magnetic field across the plane, which we introduce formally as $`B=1/\theta `$, in agreement with the Seiberg-Witten map  and with solid state applications . This relation is illustrated in Fig. 2 (on the left).

We also found large $`N`$ double scaling in some regime for the Wilson 2-point function and for the 2-point function of the Polyakov line (see Fig. 2 on the right), if a suitable (universal) wave function renormalization is applied .

### 2.2 The NC $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model in three dimensions

The NC $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model has been studied analytically with various techniques. As a qualitatively new feature (compared to the commutative world), it was conjectured that in part of the ordered regime (at strongly negative $`m^2`$, which roughly corresponds to low temperature) stripe patterns may dominate over the Ising-type uniform ordering. Gubser and Sondhi performed a self-consistent Hartree-Fock type one-loop calculation , which would be exact in the $`O\left(N\right)`$ model at large $`N`$. They conjectured that it could also apply to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model, which suggests a striped phase in $`d=4`$ and $`d=3`$, but not in $`d=2`$ (in the dimensions $`d<4`$ they considered an effective action as suggested by Brazovskii ). However, stripes did occur in 2d simulation results by Ambjørn and Catterall ; we add some remarks on that case in the Appendix. In $`d=3`$ and 4, Gubser and Sondhi predicted a first order phase transition from the uniform to a striped phase if $`\theta `$ increases in the ordered regime. At very strong $`\theta `$ they expect more complicated patterns (like rectangles or rhombi) to become stable.

Chen and Wu carried out a renormalization group analysis  in $`d=4\epsilon `$. They predicted a striped phase for $`\theta >12/\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, which should therefore not occur in $`d=4`$.

We considered this model in $`d=3`$ with two NC coordinates, and simulated the corresponding matrix model (described in Section 1) at $`T=N=15,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}25},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}35}`$ and 45. Thus we obtained the explicit phase diagram shown in Fig. 3. It is based on the order parameter

$$M\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{NT}\underset{\left|\stackrel{}{n}\right|=k}{\mathrm{max}}\left|\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t,\stackrel{}{p})\right|,\stackrel{}{p}=\frac{2\pi }{N}\stackrel{}{n},n_1,n_2\{0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}.$$
(6)
$`M\left(k\right)`$ detects a uniform order at $`k=0`$ and a pattern of two stripes at $`k=1`$. Typical snapshots of ordered and disordered configurations at small and at large $`\lambda `$ are shown in Fig. 4. We did not find more complicated patterns to be stable, but we consider it as an open question if this may set in at larger $`N`$ or $`\lambda `$ (we recall that this corresponds to larger $`\theta `$). The order-disorder transition seems to be of second order, whereas the uniform-striped transition appears to be first order — it takes the factor $`N^2`$ on the axes to stabilize it. In order to localize the transitions accurately we also looked for peaks in the connected 2-point functions of $`M\left(k\right)`$; some examples were given in Ref. .

Here we illustrate the different phases further by showing the spatial correlator

$$C\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)=\frac{1}{TN^2}\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{0})\varphi (t,\stackrel{}{x})$$
(7)
in Fig. 5. It does not decay exponentially in the disordered phase, see Fig. 6 on the left. Hence NC effects are visible also in the disordered phase.

On the other hand, the temporal correlator in momentum space

$$G(\tau ,\stackrel{}{p})=\frac{1}{TN^2}\underset{t=1}{\overset{T}{}}\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t,\stackrel{}{p})^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(t+\tau ,\stackrel{}{p})$$
(8)
does follow an exponential decay (resp. a cosh behavior at finite $`T`$). Fig. 6 on the right is an example at $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}`$. Varying $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ we can identify the dispersion relation $`E\left(p\right)`$, which we show in Fig. 7, still in the disordered phase. It follows closely the linear behavior $`E^2=\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+M_{\mathrm{eff}}^2`$ (solid line, where $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is a free parameter). The deviation at large momenta is a trivial lattice artifact. However, we also observe a systematic jump at $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}`$, only in the case where we are close to the striped phase. This confirms the energy minimum at $`k=N\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|/\left(2\pi \right)=1`$, i.e. the trend towards stripes rather than uniform ordering. Such irregularities in the dispersion at significant $`\theta `$ may be of importance; note that a $`\theta `$ deformed dispersion relation has also been postulated for photons .

## 3 Conclusions

We presented non-perturbative results for two types of NC field theories. Such theories are non-local in the range of $`O\left(\sqrt{\theta }\right)`$. We observe basic deviations from the commutative world rather at large scales though, which can be understood from the UV/IR mixing.

Simulating the TEK we obtained results for 2d NC $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge theory. The scaling behavior that we observed is the first evidence for the non-perturbative renormalizability of a NC field theory. The Wilson loop follows an area law at small area. At large area it can be described by the Aharonov-Bohm effect if we identify $`B=1/\theta `$, which appears here as a dynamical relation (on tree level it was used before in the literature).

In the 3d $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model on the lattice we explored the phase diagram in the $`m^2`$$`\lambda `$ plane. In the ordered regime (at strongly negative $`m^2`$) we found at small $`\lambda `$ a uniform order of the Ising type, as in the commutative case. At larger $`\lambda `$ — which amplifies the NC effects — we observed a pattern of two stripes to be stable for $`N=15\mathrm{}45`$. It is an open question if multiple stripes etc. stabilize at larger values of $`N`$ or $`\lambda `$, as conjectured by Gubser and Sondhi. We observed the same behavior in $`d=2`$, where we also verified up to $`N=45`$ that only two stripes are ultimately stable (see Appendix). Still this implies the spontaneous breaking of translation symmetry, which is possible due to the non-locality .

In the ordered regime, the spatial correlations are dictated by the dominant pattern: uniform as in the commutative case, or striped with strong correlation in the direction of the stripes and anti–correlation vertical to them. 333The stripes that we observed were always parallel to one of the axes. This agrees with the predictions in Ref. . In the disordered phase the spatial correlators deviate from the exponential decay. However, the correlators in momentum space do decay exponentially in time for all momenta.

That property allowed us to study the dispersion relation in the disordered phase: at small $`\lambda `$ also the dispersion behaves qualitatively as in the commutative model, but at large $`\lambda `$ there appears a jump at $`\stackrel{}{p}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ as a NC effect. Hence the energy minimum is at $`\left|\stackrel{}{p}\right|=2\pi /N`$, in agreement with the trend towards two stripes. It remains to be clarified how this irregular dispersion behaves at large $`N`$, and if it can be related to the expected non-linear photon dispersion at $`\theta >0`$; the latter makes experimentalists hope for a precise measurement of $`\theta `$ (for a discussion, see for instance Ref. ).

Acknowledgement We thank J. Ambjørn, A. Barresi, S. Catterall, L. Doplicher, H. Dorn, K. Fredenhagen, D. Lüst, X. Martin, D. O’Connor, P. Presňajder, R. Szabo and P. van Baal for illuminating discussions.

## Appendix A The NC $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model in $`d=2`$

The occurrence of stripes in the ground state implies the spontaneous breaking of translation invariance. The case $`d=2`$ is particularly interesting in this respect. Gubser and Sondhi argued based on the Mermin-Wagner Theorem that stripes cannot be stable in $`d=2`$. However, Ambjørn and Catterall pointed out that this Theorem is in general not applicable to non-local theories, and in fact they did observe non-uniform patterns in their numeric results for the NC $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model in $`d=2`$  (where the two coordinates obey the NC relation (1)). 444One might expect that the Theorem extends to theories, which are non-local in only a small range, which is invisible at very large scales. However, this argument is not adequate for NC models due to the UV/IR mixing.

We also performed simulations in $`d=2`$, and we fully agree that also there stripe vacua exist. Starting from hot configurations and proceeding in Metropolis steps which propose a full Hermitian matrix to be added to $`\widehat{\varphi }\left(t\right)`$ (with a coefficient tuned for a good acceptance rate), we find after about 500 steps a rich structure of patterns, where in general $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are both non-zero, and often larger than $`2\pi /N`$. However, if we continue to thermalize much longer we see that only the two-stripe pattern is ultimately stable, just as in $`d=3`$. 555However, we verified carefully, both in $`d=2`$ and in $`d=3`$, that those two stripes are really stable; one consistently runs into them starting from all sort of hot configurations, and they show absolutely no trend to disappear in very long histories. This we tested again up to $`N=45`$. The same can be seen if we switch to a more efficient algorithm, which updates the (conjugate pairs of) matrix elements one by one (this reduces the thermalization time by a factor $`1/N`$). Still the variety of meta-stable patterns may be of importance; we present some examples for them in Fig. 8. The Goldstone Theorem still holds for NC field theories , hence it is an interesting question to investigate the massless fluctuations related to translation symmetry.


text:
# Finite-size effects on the thermal conductivity of 4He near Tλ

## 1 Introduction

The theory of finite-size effects near phase transitions is an area of active research. Well suited for a comparison between theory and experiment is the superfluid transition of 4He . So far, however, primarily static properties have been investigated. Very little is known about finite size effects on dynamic quantities. In particular no theoretical prediction exists for the validity of dynamic finite-size scaling along the lambda line of 4He. Here we present some results of the first renormalization-group calculation of finite-size effects on the thermal conductivity of 4He above and at $`T_\lambda `$ and compare our results with experimental data by Kahn and Ahlers .

## 2 Theory

Our calculations are based on model F  which is defined by

$$\dot{\psi }_0=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\frac{\delta H}{\delta \psi _0^{}}+ig_0\psi _0\frac{\delta H}{\delta m_0}+\mathrm{\Theta }_\psi ,$$
(1)
$$\dot{m}_0=\lambda _0^2\frac{\delta H}{\delta m_0}+g_0𝐣_s^0+W_0+\mathrm{\Theta }_m,$$
(2)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3𝐫({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r_0|\psi _0|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\psi _0|^2+\stackrel{~}{u}_0|\psi _0|^4`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _0^1m_0^2+\gamma _0m_0|\psi _0|^2),`$
where

$$𝐣_s^0(𝐫,t)\mathrm{Im}(\psi _0^{}(𝐫,t)\psi _0(𝐫,t)),$$
(5)
$$r_0=r_{0c}+a_0\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{t}=(TT_\lambda )/T_\lambda .$$
(6)
We consider a rectangular $`L^2\times \stackrel{~}{L}`$ box geometry and assume a stationary heat current Q in the z direction which is generated by a heat source in the bottom plane $`z=\stackrel{~}{L}/2`$ and absorbed by a sink in the top plane $`z=\stackrel{~}{L}/2`$,

$$W_0(𝐫)=Q[\delta (z+\stackrel{~}{L}/2)\delta (z\stackrel{~}{L}/2)].$$
(7)
We impose Dirichlet boundary conditions for the order parameter ($`\psi _0=0`$) and Neumann boundary conditions for the entropy density $`m_0`$ (vanishing spatial derivatives perpendicular to the sidewalls). Eventually we let $`\stackrel{~}{L}\mathrm{}`$ and define the superfluid current $`𝐣=lim_{\stackrel{~}{L}\mathrm{}}<𝐣_s^0>`$ in the stationary state. We are interested in the finite-size effect on the thermal conductivity

$$\lambda _T(\stackrel{~}{t},L)=\lambda _0\left[1+\frac{g_0}{L^2}\underset{Q0}{lim}\frac{}{Q}\underset{L^2}{}𝑑x𝑑yj_z\right]^1$$
(8)
where $`j_z`$ is the $`z`$ component of $`𝐣`$. We have calculated $`\lambda _T(\stackrel{~}{t},L)`$ analytically for $`\stackrel{~}{t}0`$ up to one-loop order employing the minimal renormalization approach at fixed dimension $`d=3`$  and using the effective parameters known from bulk theory . We neglect possible non-scaling contributions due to cutoff effects and van der Waals forces .

## 3 Results

In Fig. 1 we present our prediction of $`\lambda _T(0,L)`$ at saturated vapor pressure. It agrees reasonably well with the experimental result for holes $`2\mu m`$ in diameter .

In Fig. 2 we plot our prediction for the relative deviation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\frac{\lambda _b(\stackrel{~}{t})\lambda _T(\stackrel{~}{t},L)}{\lambda _b(\stackrel{~}{t})}$$
(9)
from the bulk thermal conducivity $`\lambda _b(\stackrel{~}{t})\lambda _T(\stackrel{~}{t},\mathrm{})`$ at saturated vapor pressure for $`L=2\mu m`$ in the regime $`\xi L`$ (solid line) where $`\xi `$ is the bulk correlation length above $`T_\lambda `$. It agrees reasonably well with the experimental data  in this regime.

Our analytical theoretical expression for $`\lambda _T(\stackrel{~}{t},L)`$ will be presented elsewhere . It will enable us to make quantitative predictions for the finite-size scaling function of $`\lambda _T`$ and for the pressure dependence of the finite-size effects along the lambda line. This will provide the basis for testing the range of validity of universal dynamic finite-size scaling.

We acknowledge support by DLR and by NASA under grant numbers 50WM9911 and 1226553.