format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The duality between the (2+1)-dimensional Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS)  and Self-Dual (SD)  Abelian models has been established long time ago in , where a parent action for both theories was introduced (see also  for an approach introducing a master Lagrangian which has a gauge invariance in all fundamental fields).

In view of this, it is natural to investigate if such equivalence could be extended to the non-Abelian case, by considering the Yang-Mills-Chern-Simons (YMCS) theory and the non-Abelian SD model. However, the non-Abelian situation is more involved, and the duality has been established only for the weak coupling regime  (see also  for an approach using hamiltonian techniques). In addition, it has been argued in  that the use of a master action in the non-Abelian situation is ineffective since YMCS and SD happen to be dual to non-local theories each. The non-Abelian situation has also been tackled in  from a different point of view, by performing a duality mapping which is realized by an iterative embedding of Noether counterterms.

Recently, the parent action method has been brought back in  by considering a novel perturbative analysis which, for the full range of coupling constant, has established that the parent action actually interpolates YMCS with a dual theory whose action is non-Abelian Self-Dual model up to fourth order in the field, thus extending the proof in  to the non-Abelian case. In this formalism, the fourth order terms are expected to be non-local.

The present paper deals with the noncommutative (NC) extension of the duality between YMCS theory and non-Abelian SD model. In general, NC versions of the usual quantum field theories are obtained by replacing in all Lagrangians the usual product with the Groenewold-Moyal star-product  of the form

$$g(x)h(x)=exp\left[\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha ^g_\beta ^h\right]g(x)h(x),$$
(1)
where $`g(x)`$ and $`h(x)`$ are arbitrary functions and $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is an antisymmetric constant tensor.

In recent years, NC field theories have generated a great deal of attention, due to the fact that they arise as low-energy descriptions of string backgrounds with antisymmetric tensor fields  (see  for reviews and additional references). In particular, an important result in  is that there exists a mapping, the Seiberg-Witten Map (SWM), which interpolates between a gauge theory and its NC counterpart in such a way that gauge orbits are mapped into NC gauge orbits. The SWM is unique in the lowest non-trivial order of the NC parameter.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate if the results regarding the equivalence between YMCS theory and non-Abelian SD model can be extended to the NC case. In order to do this, we will first introduce a suitable master action in which all usual products are replaced with the star-product, and consider the parent action method under a perturbative approach, as in . In doing this, we will explicitly show that, in fact, the action for the NC YMCS theory is equivalent to that of the NC non-Abelian SD model, up to fourth order in the field, and for the full range of the coupling constant.

Then, we will consider an alternative approach to the problem, involving to perform, to the first non-trivial order in the NC parameter, the SWM to the usual commutative master action. By considering again a perturbative approach, as in , we will show that the known equivalence between YMCS theory and non-Abelian SD model, up to fourth order terms in the field and for the full range of the coupling constant, is maintained in the NC space. This result is not trivial also because commutative non-Abelian SD and YMCS theories generalize to NC field theories in different ways, due to the fact that the YMCS theory is gauge invariant, whereas the non-abelian SD model is not. It is knowm that, whereas gauge theories are lifted to their NC couterparts via the SWM, non-gauge theories are affected only in the products of the fields in the Lagrangian. In fact, our results could be considered as the extension to the non-Abelian case of the results in  regarding the survival of the equivalence between the SD and MCS Abelian models when the space-time becomes NC.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we deal with a parent action in which all usual products are replaced with star-products, and, by considering a perturbative approach, we establish, up to fourth order terms in the field and for the full range of the coupling constant, the equivalence between YMCS and non-Abelian SD models in which the usual products are replaced with star-products. In Section 3 we perform a SWM to the usual parent action and, by considering again a perturbative approach, we show that the duality between commutative YMCS and non-Abelian SD models survives when the space-time becomes NC.

## 2 The Star-Product

We begin by proposing a parent action in which all usual products are replaced with star-products. It is given by

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(f_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }A_\alpha \left(F_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu \right)\right)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mu `$ and $`m`$ are, in principle, arbitrary coefficients, our metric convention is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=diag(,+,+)`$, and

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_M,$$
(3)
$$[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_M=A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu .$$
(4)
Here $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^a\tau ^a`$ and $`f_\mu =f_\mu ^a\tau ^a`$ are fields in the adjoint representation of a non-Abelian gauge group $`G`$ (with $`a=1\mathrm{}dimG`$), and $`\tau ^a`$ are the matrices representing $`G`$, such as $`[\tau ^a,\tau ^b]=\tau ^{abc}\tau ^c`$, where $`\tau ^{abc}`$ are the structure constants of the group.

We shall verify that solving $`I_P`$, first for $`f_\mu `$ (in terms of $`A_\mu `$) and further for $`A_\mu `$ (in terms of $`f_\mu `$) we recover both the NC YMCS theory and the NC non-Abelian Self-Dual model, respectively.

Integration by parts in Eq.(1) yields

$`g(x)h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`g(x)h(x)+\mathrm{},`$
$`g(x)h(x)p(x)`$ $`=`$ $`g(x)\left(h(x)p(x)\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (5)
where the dots stand for total derivatives. Throughout this paper, we consider boundary conditions such as the surface terms in the action vanish. Then, using Eqs.(5) we can write $`I_P`$ as

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(f_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }A_\alpha \left(F_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu \right)\right)\right].$$
(6)
From the above expression we get the following equation of motion for $`f_\mu `$

$$f^\mu =\frac{m}{2\mu }ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(7)
Introducing this result into Eq.(6) and using again Eqs.(5) we get

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\frac{m^2}{2\mu }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }A_\alpha \left(F_{\mu \nu }\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu \right)\right],$$
(8)
which is the action for the NC YMCS theory. Notice that the single parameter which effectively appears in the theory is the boson mass, $`M\frac{2\mu }{m}`$.

Now we look for the Self-Dual model. Note that we can write $`I_P`$ as follows

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(\left(f_\alpha A_\alpha \right)_\mu A_\nu +\left(f_\alpha \frac{2}{3}A_\alpha \right)A_\mu A_\nu \right)\right],$$
(9)
and using Eq.(5) we get

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(\left(f_\alpha A_\alpha \right)_\mu A_\nu +\left(\left(f_\alpha \frac{2}{3}A_\alpha \right)A_\mu \right)A_\nu \right)\right].$$
(10)
From the above expression, we find the following equation of motion for $`A_\mu `$

$$0=ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(_\mu f_\nu 2_\mu A_\nu +[A_\mu ,f_\nu ]_M[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_M\right),$$
(11)
which after contracting with a Levi-Civita tensor gives rise to

$$2F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu f_\nu _\nu f_\mu +[A_\mu ,f_\nu ]_M[A_\nu ,f_\mu ]_M.$$
(12)
Now we must find a solution $`A_\mu =A_\mu [f_\nu ]`$ which should be replaced into Eq.(9), thus getting an action which is a functional of $`f_\mu `$. However, as in the commutative case, the problem regarding the equation above is that it cannot be inverted.

In order to deal with this problem, we assume that a solution exists at least perturbatively, and look for a solution of the form

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^{(0)}+A_\mu ^{(1)}\left[f_\nu \right]+A_\mu ^{(2)}\left[f_\nu \right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
Then, the lowest order in Eq.(12) yields

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=0,$$
(14)
so that $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ is just a pure-gauge, and we will not consider it anymore. The following order in Eq.(12) gives

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \left(2A_\nu ^{(1)}f_\nu \right)_\nu \left(2A_\mu ^{(1)}f_\mu \right)+[A_\mu ^{(0)},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}A_\nu ^{(1)}f_\nu ]_M`$ (15)
$``$ $`[A_\nu ^{(0)},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}A_\mu ^{(1)}f_\mu ]_M,`$
which has solution

$$A_\mu ^{(1)}=\frac{1}{2}f_\mu .$$
(16)
Now we will show that in fact the explicit expression of $`A_\mu ^{(2)}`$ is not needed for our present purposes. Introducing Eq.(13) into Eq.(9), using Eq.(5) and discarding the pure-gauge term $`A_\mu ^{(0)}`$ we find

$$I_P=I_P\left[A_\mu ^{(1)}\right]+d^3xTr\left[mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(f_\nu 2A_\nu ^{(1)}\right)\left(_\alpha A_\mu ^{(2)}_\mu A_\alpha ^{(2)}\right)\right]+𝒪(f^4).$$
(17)
Then, using Eq.(16) we get

$$I_P=I_P\left[A_\mu ^{(1)}\right]+𝒪(f^4).$$
(18)
From Eqs.(9, 16, 18) we finally get

$$I_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }f_\alpha \left(_\mu f_\nu +\frac{2}{3}f_\mu f_\nu \right)\right]+𝒪(f^4),$$
(19)
where we have reproduced the action for the NC non-Abelian SD model. In this theory we also find $`M\frac{2\mu }{m}`$ as the single arbitrary constant which characterizes the model. From Eqs.(8, 19) we see that, as anticipated, we have shown that NC YMCS is dual to a theory which coincides with the NC non-Abelian SD model, up to fourth order in $`f_\mu `$, and for the full range of the coupling constant.

In the following section, we will tackle this problem under a different point of view, namely, that of the SWM, obtaining analogous results.

## 3 Seiberg-Witten Map and Duality

Our starting point is the following parent action in the usual commutative space-time

$$S_P=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu +2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(f_\alpha \left(_\mu A_\nu +A_\mu A_\nu \right)A_\alpha \left(_\mu A_\nu +\frac{2}{3}A_\mu A_\nu \right)\right)\right],$$
(20)
where $`A_\mu `$ and $`f_\mu `$ are fields in the adjoint representation of a non-Abelian gauge group.

In this section, we will be concerned with the inverse SWM at the first non-trivial order in the NC parameter. It is given by

$$A_\mu =A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}(A_\nu ^{},\theta ),$$
(21)
where

$$a_\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }[A_\rho ^{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}_\sigma A_\mu ^{}_\mu A_\sigma ^{}+A_\sigma ^{}A_\mu ^{}A_\mu ^{}A_\sigma ^{}]_+.$$
(22)
We emphasize that all calculations in this section will be valid up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms. The above mapping together with $`f_\mu =f_\mu ^{}`$ lifts $`S_P`$ to the following NC parent action

$`S_P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3xTr[\mu f^\mu f_\mu ^{}+2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }(f_\alpha ^{}A_\alpha ^{}a_\alpha ^{})_\mu (A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})`$ (23)
$`+2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }(f_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a_\alpha ^{})(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{})(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})],`$
which can be written as

$`S_P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3xTr[\mu f^\mu f_\mu ^{}+2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }(f_\alpha ^{}A_\alpha ^{})_\mu (A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})`$ (24)
$`+2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(f_\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_\alpha ^{}\right)\left(A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+A_\mu ^{}a_\nu ^{}\right)`$
$`2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }a_\alpha ^{}(_\mu A_\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{})]+O(\theta ^2).`$
We will show that solving $`S_P^{}`$, first for $`f^\mu `$ and further for $`A^\mu `$, we recover the SWM-lifted actions for the YMCS theory and the non-Abelian SD model respectively, even when both theories generalize to NC field theories in different ways.

First, from Eq.(24) we get the following equation of motion for $`f^\mu `$

$$f^\mu =\frac{m}{\mu }ϵ^{\mu \alpha \beta }\left[_\mu \left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)+A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+A_\mu ^{}a_\nu ^{}\right]+O(\theta ^2),$$
(25)
and introducing this back into Eq.(24) we find

$`S_P^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3xTr[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu }}(_\mu A_\nu ^{}_\nu A_\mu ^{}+A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}A_\nu ^{}A_\mu ^{})`$ (26)
$`\times \left(^\mu \left(A^\nu +a^\nu \right)+A^\mu A^\nu +a^\mu A^\nu +A^\mu a^\nu \right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu }}\left(_\mu a_\nu ^{}_\nu a_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}A_\nu ^{}a_\mu ^{}+A_\mu ^{}a_\nu ^{}a_\nu ^{}A_\mu ^{}\right)`$
$`\times \left(^\mu A^\nu +A^\mu A^\nu \right)`$
$`2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }A_\alpha ^{}\left(_\mu \left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left(A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{}+A_\mu ^{}a_\nu ^{}\right)\right)`$
$`2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }a_\alpha ^{}(_\mu A_\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A_\mu ^{}A_\nu ^{})]+O(\theta ^2),`$
which to $`O(\theta )`$ is the SWM-lifted action of the YMCS theory

$`S_{YMCS}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3xTr[{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu }}(_\mu (A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})_\nu (A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}))`$
$`\times \left(^\mu \left(A^\nu +a^\nu \right)+\left(A^\mu +a^\mu \right)\left(A^\nu +a^\nu \right)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{\mu }}\left(\left(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}\right)\left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)\left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)\left(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}\right)\right)`$
$`\times \left(^\mu \left(A^\nu +a^\nu \right)+\left(A^\mu +a^\mu \right)\left(A^\nu +a^\nu \right)\right)`$
$`2mϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\left(A_\alpha ^{}+a_\alpha ^{}\right)`$
$`\times (_\mu (A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{})(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}))].`$
Now we look for the SWM-lifted action of the SD model. From Eq.(24), we find the following equation of motion for $`A_\mu ^{}`$

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }(_\mu f_\nu ^{}2_\mu (A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{})+[A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{},f_\nu ^{}][A_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}][a_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}]`$ (28)
$`[A_\mu ^{},a_\nu ^{}])+O(\theta ^2),`$
and contracting with a Levi-Civita tensor we get

$`2\left(_\mu \left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)_\nu \left(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}\right)+[A_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}]+[a_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}]+[A_\mu ^{},a_\nu ^{}]\right)`$
$`=_\mu f_\nu ^{}_\nu f_\mu ^{}+[A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{},f_\nu ^{}][A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{},f_\mu ^{}]+O(\theta ^2).`$ (29)
Now we must look for a solution $`A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu ^{}[f_\nu ^{}]`$. However, the equation above cannot be inverted. To deal with this problem, we proceed as in the case of the previous section, and assume that a solution exists at least perturbatively, namely

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}+A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}\left[f_\nu ^{}\right]+A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}\left[f_\nu ^{}\right]+\mathrm{}.$$
(30)
All there is to do now is to solve Eq.(29) order by order, as in the previous section. However, before doing so, we note that in fact Eq.(29) differs from the following equation

$`2\left(_\mu \left(A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}\right)_\nu \left(A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{}\right)+[A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{},A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{}]\right)`$
$`=_\mu f_\nu ^{}_\nu f_\mu ^{}+[A_\mu ^{}+a_\mu ^{},f_\nu ^{}][A_\nu ^{}+a_\nu ^{},f_\mu ^{}],`$ (31)
only by $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms. The interesting advantage regarding Eq.(31) is that it will easily allow us to find the explicit expressions of $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}`$ and $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}`$ (up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms), if not of $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}`$ and $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}`$. For our present purposes, it will suffice. Note that, in fact, the above equation has the same formal structure as Eq.(12), and thus we easily find the solution

$$A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}=\frac{1}{2}f_\mu ^{}+O(\theta ^2),$$
(32)
whereas $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(0)}`$ remains as a pure-gauge (also up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms). As in the case of the previous section, it can be shown that $`A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(2)}`$ only contributes to $`O(f^{}_{}{}^{}4)`$ and so we do not need to compute it. In fact it can be shown that, up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms, the following identity stands

$$S_P^{}=S_P^{}\left[A_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}+a_\mu ^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}\right]+O(f^{}_{}{}^{}4).$$
(33)
From Eqs.(23, 32, 33) we find (up to $`O(\theta ^2)`$ terms)

$$S_P^{}=S_{SD}^{}+O(f^4),$$
(34)
where $`S_{SD}^{}`$ is the action of the SWM-lifted non-Abelian SD model

$$S_{SD}^{}=d^3xTr\left[\mu f^\mu f_\mu ^{}+\frac{m}{2}ϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }f_\alpha ^{}\left(_\mu f_\nu ^{}+\frac{2}{3}f_\mu ^{}f_\nu ^{}\right)\right].$$
(35)
In this way, we have shown that the duality between commutative YMCS theory and non-Abelian SD model, up to fourth order terms in the field, survives when the space-time becomes NC, even when both theories generalize to NC field theories in different ways. We point out that it would be interesting to extend our results to higher orders in $`\theta `$.

One last comment concerns the relation between our approach and the results included in the previous literature regarding NC Chern-Simons theories. It is already known  that the SWM connects the commutative and NC versions of two related models, namely, the Chern-Simons theory and the Wess-Zumino-Witten model. We may wonder if similar results could be found in the present case. In this respect, it should be mentioned that, in fact, the SWM lifts the NC Yang-Mills action (defined through the usual Moyal product) into a non-polynomial commutative action which differs from the usual one. So, in principle, we should not expect the SWM to map the NC YMCS action Eq.(8) into its commutative version, due to the presence of the Yang-Mills term. This is to be contrasted with our result Eq.(LABEL:507) which, as pointed out before, corresponds to the SWM-lifted action of the YMCS theory.

We hope that the novel perturbative method considered in this article could be helpful to establish other dual equivalences between models, and also to simplify the treatment of NC non-Abelian mathematical structures.

## 4 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the referee for the useful and constructive suggestions. M.B.C. would also like to thank G. Barbosa for a critical reading of the manuscript. P.M. is deeply indebted to N. Berkovits for suggesting the topic of the present paper, and is also grateful to A. Yu. Petrov and C. Wotzasek for discussions. M.B.C. acknowledges financial support by CLAF. P.M. was supported by FAPESP grant 01/05770-1.


text:
# Nodes and the Hodge conjecture

## 1. Introduction

Throughout this paper “the Hodge conjecture” will mean the statement that any rational class $`AH^{2p}(X;)`$ of pure Hodge $`(p,p)`$ type on any smooth complex projective algebraic variety $`X`$ is realised by a rational combination of codimension-$`p`$ algebraic cycles in $`X`$. We show that this is equivalent to a statement about the homology of nodal hyperplane sections of even dimensional varieties. (By “nodal” we mean a hypersurface whose only singularities are analytically equivalent to ordinary double points (ODPs). Such hypersurfaces are well known to contain more of the middle dimensional homology of the ambient variety than smooth hypersurfaces; think of reducible nodal curves in surfaces, for instance, or in higher dimensions see for example \[Cl\], \[Sch\].)

###### Theorem 1.1.

The Hodge conjecture is true if and only if the following question can be answered affirmatively for all even dimensional smooth complex projective algebraic varieties $`(X^{2n},𝒪_X(1))`$ and any class $`AH^{n,n}(X;)H^{2n}(X;)`$.

Is there a nodal hypersurface $`DX`$ in $`|𝒪_X(N)|`$ for some $`N`$, such that $`\mathrm{PD}[A]`$ is in the image of the pushforward map $`H_{2n}(D;)H_{2n}(X;)`$ ?

(This can also be reformulated in terms of *co*homology: Let $`\overline{D}\stackrel{\iota }{}\overline{X}\stackrel{\pi }{}X`$ be the blow-up of $`D`$ in its ODPs, inside the blow-up of $`X`$ at those points. Then the question is whether $`A`$ is in the image of $`\pi _{}\iota _{}:H^{2n2}(\overline{D})H^{2n}(X)`$.)

This million dollar question appears, at first sight, to be much simpler than the Hodge conjecture, asking only that we find a certain *homology* class, rather than an algebraic cycle (or even a pure $`(p,p)`$ homology class); i.e. that the cycle PD $`[A]`$ can be squeezed into a nodal hypersurface $`D`$ rather than fully into an algebraic $`n`$-cycle. But it seems that finding nodal hypersurfaces may be nearly as difficult as finding algebraic cycles, as we show infinitesimally in the last section (though Theorem 1.1 does at least bypass having to find an algebraic cycle representing the above homology class in $`D`$, which is itself a hard unsolved problem \[Sch\]). Since the sections of $`𝒪_X(N)`$ with ODPs sit inside a vector space, and taken over all $`N`$ form a graded semigroup sitting inside the graded ring of $`X`$, perhaps the more amenable tools of algebra might be brought to bear on this formulation of the Hodge conjecture.

More likely, analysis and symplectic geometry might also be relevant. Using Donaldson’s work on Lefschetz pencils it is much better understood in symplectic geometry how to contract vanishing cycles with a homology relation between them to produce symplectic nodal hypersurfaces containing extra homology classes; one could then try to make such a hypersurface holomorphic by minimising its volume. This should be a more manageable analytical problem then trying to minimise the volume of a given middle dimensional homology class, as the cycle is both symplectic and of low codimension. As Herb Clemens pointed out to me, perhaps the interest in the theorem is the converse, that the Hodge conjecture implies the existence of many hyperplanes with many ODPs. Though it seems unlikely, known bounds on numbers of such ODPs might then give a counterexample to the Hodge conjecture. Similarly this might conceivably provide a symplectic route to disproving the Hodge conjecture, by bounding numbers of Lagrangian spheres in smooth hyperplanes of high degree; bounds like this exist in many low degree examples, whereas the Hodge conjecture would imply there exist many such vanishing cycles in high degree – the vanishing cycles of a smoothing of the nodal hypersurface.

Acknowledgements. Many thanks to Chad Schoen, Daniel Huybrechts, Ivan Smith, Mark Gross and Miles Reid for useful conversations, and to the Newton Institute, Cambridge, for its excellent research environment. The author is supported by a Royal Society university research fellowship.

## 2. Preliminaries

Throughout we will denote by $`\omega H^{1,1}(X)`$ the first Chern class of the polarisation $`𝒪_X(1)`$, and by $`H`$ a divisor in its linear system, so that $`[H]=\omega `$. First we will need to reduce the Hodge conjecture to the following (which is presumably standard).

###### Proposition 2.1.

The Hodge conjecture is equivalent to the following statement. Fix any even dimensional smooth complex projective algebraic variety $`X^{2n}`$, and any class $`AH^{n,n}(X;)H^{2n}(X;)`$. Then there exist integers $`N_10,N_2`$ and an effective algebraic cycle $`ZX`$ whose fundamental class $`[Z]`$ equals $`N_1A+N_2\omega ^n`$.

*Proof*  If the Hodge conjecture is true, then any such $`A`$ is a rational linear combination of cycles. That is, for some integers $`N_i`$, $`N_1A=N_3[Z_3]N_2[Z_2]`$, for effective algebraic $`n`$-cycles $`Z_i`$.

$`Z_2`$ lies in an $`n`$-dimensional intersection of $`n`$ hypersurfaces $`H_i|n_iH|`$ for sufficiently large $`n_i`$. (This is easily shown inductively: any $`n`$-cycle in a (singular) $`k`$-dimensional variety ($`k>n`$) lies in a $`(k1)`$-dimensional hypersurface of sufficiently high degree.) That is, the intersection of hypersurfaces is $`Z_2Z`$ for some other effective algebraic $`k`$-cycle $`Z`$. Thus $`N_1A+N_2\left(_1^nn_i\right)\omega ^n=N_3[Z_3]+N_2[Z]`$ is effective, as required.

Conversely, we will show that if the given statement is true then for any $`k,d`$ and $`X^d`$, and any rational class $`AH^{k,k}(X^d)`$, there exist $`N_1,N_2`$ such that $`N_1A+N_2\omega ^k`$ is represented by an effective algebraic cycle. This clearly implies the Hodge conjecture.

$``$ For $`k>d/2`$, the hard Lefschetz theorem \[GH\] gives a rational class $`A^{}H^{dk,dk}(X)`$ such that $`A^{}.\omega ^{2kd}=A`$. If we can find an effective algebraic cycle $`Z^{}`$ such that $`[Z^{}]=N_1A^{}+N_2\omega ^{dk}`$, then its intersection $`Z`$ with $`(2kd)`$ generic hyperplanes will be an effective cycle satisfying $`[Z]=N_1A+N_2\omega ^k`$. Thus it is sufficient to prove the statement for $`A^{}`$, so we may replace $`A`$ by $`A^{}`$ and $`k`$ by $`dk`$.

So we can assume that $`kd/2`$, and proceed by induction on $`d`$ (for fixed $`k`$); the base case $`d=2k`$ is the statement in the Theorem (with $`k=n`$ and $`d=2n`$) which we are assuming true.

$``$ For $`k<d/2`$, we pick a generic pencil of hyperplane sections $`H_t,t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ with smooth base-locus $`H_0H_{\mathrm{}}X`$. Blowing this up gives another smooth projective $`d`$-fold $`\widehat{X}\stackrel{\pi }{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ that fibres over $`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ with generically smooth fibres $`H_t`$. Fix any $`t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ such that $`H_t`$ is smooth.

By the induction assumption there exist integers $`N_1^t,N_2^t`$ such that $`N_1^tA|_{H_t}^{}+N_2^t\omega ^k`$ is represented by an effective algebraic cycle $`Z_tH_t`$. Since, as Chad Schoen pointed out to me, the number of such smooth fibres $`H_t`$ is uncountable, but the number of pairs $`(N_1,N_2)\times `$ is countable, there exist an infinite number of $`t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ for which $`(N_1^t,N_2^t)`$ are all equal to some fixed $`(N_1,N_2)`$.

Consider now the relative Hilbert Scheme Hilb $`(\widehat{X}/^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}})^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ of cycles in the fibres $`H_t`$ of cohomology class $`N_1A+N_2\omega ^k`$. This is proper over $`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ and surjects onto infinitely many points of $`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$, so surjects onto $`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$. It is also projective, since $`\widehat{X}`$ is, so has a degree $`r`$ multisection for some $`r`$. Pulling back the universal subscheme via this multisection gives an effective algebraic cycle $`Z`$ whose cohomology class on each fibre $`H_t`$ is $`r(N_1A+N_2\omega ^k)`$.

But by Lefschetz, the composition $`H^{2k}(X)\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}H^{2k}(\widehat{X})H^{2k}(H_t)`$ is an isomorphism, so that the class of $`\pi _{}Z`$ on $`X`$ is $`rN_1A+rN_2\omega ^k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. If

In this section we show that if the question in Theorem 1.1 can be answered positively then the statement in Proposition 2.1 (and so the Hodge conjecture) is true.

So we start with a rational class $`AH^{n,n}(X^{2n})`$ and assume there is a nodal hypersurface $`DX`$ and a homology class $`BH_{2n}(D)`$ whose image in $`X`$ is the dual of $`A`$.

Let $`\{p_i\}D`$ denote the ODPs of $`D`$; blow these up inside $`X`$ to give $`\pi :\overline{X}X`$ with exceptional set $`E=_iE_i`$ a collection of $`^{2n1}`$s. Denote by $`\overline{D}\stackrel{\pi }{}D`$ the (smooth) proper transform of $`D`$ with exceptional set a collection of $`(2n2)`$-dimensional quadrics $`Q_iE_i`$. We will also use $`E`$ and $`E_i`$ to denote the $`H^2`$-classes of their corresponding line bundles, so that, on restriction to $`\overline{D}`$, for instance, $`E_i=Q_i`$, etc.

###### Lemma 3.1.

$`B`$ lifts (non-canonically) to $`\overline{B}H_{2n}(\overline{D})`$ such that $`\pi _{}\overline{B}=B`$.

*Proof*  Choose a small contractible neighbourhood $`U_i`$ of each node $`p_iD`$, with boundary $`U_i`$ the link of the ODP. In $`\overline{D}`$, $`U_i`$ bounds a tubular neighbourhood $`N_i`$ of the exceptional quadric $`Q_i`$. $`B`$ defines a class in

$$H_{2n}(D)H_{2n}(D,_iU_i)H_{2n1}(_iU_i)=\underset{i}{}H_{2n1}(N_i),$$

where the last group is surjected onto by $`_iH_{2n}(_iN_i,N_i)`$ since $`H_{2n1}(N_i)=H_{2n1}(Q_i)=0`$. This gives a relative homology class to add to $`B`$ over the $`Q_i`$ to give $`\overline{B}`$ via Mayer-Vietoris. $`\mathrm{}`$

It will now be sufficient to show that since $`A`$ is of pure Hodge type, so is $`\overline{B}`$, since then we are reduced to finding a rational combination of algebraic cycles to represent $`\overline{B}`$, which is the Hodge conjecture in one dimension down (on $`\overline{D}`$), were our usual induction argument applies. The pushdown to $`D`$ and pushforward to $`X`$ of any such cycle in $`\overline{D}`$ would then be our required cycle.

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`\overline{B}H_{2n}(\overline{D})H^{2n2}(\overline{D})`$ is of Hodge type $`(n1,n1)`$.

*Proof*  Let $`\iota :\overline{D}\overline{X}`$ denote the inclusion. Then $`\pi _{}\iota _{}\overline{B}`$ is the Poincaré dual of $`A`$, so that $`\iota _{}\overline{B}=\pi ^{}A`$mod$`\mathrm{ker}(\pi _{})`$. Both $`A`$ and the kernel of $`\pi _{}`$ (consisting of exceptional classes on $`\overline{X}`$) are pure of Hodge type $`(n,n)`$, so $`\iota _{}\overline{B}`$ is too. Restricting its cohomology class back to $`\overline{D}`$ therefore shows that $`\overline{B}[\overline{D}]`$ is of Hodge type $`(n,n)`$ on $`\overline{D}`$, so it is sufficient to show that cupping with $`[\overline{D}]=\pi ^{}\omega 2[E]`$ is an injection $`H^{2n2}(\overline{D})H^{2n}(\overline{D})`$, since it clearly preserves Hodge type.

Lemma 1.1 of \[Sch\] gives the exact sequence

(3.3)
$$0H^{2n2}(X)\underset{i}{}.E_i^{n1}H^{2n2}(\overline{D})A_iB_i^{}0,$$

where the $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are the standard $`^{n1}`$ planes in the quadrics $`Q_i`$ (so that $`E_i^n=A_i+B_i`$ as cohomology classes), and $``$ denotes their span in $`H^{2n}(\overline{D};)`$. Dually,

(3.4)
$$0A_iB_iH^{2n}(\overline{D})\stackrel{\pi _{}\iota _{}}{}H^{2n+2}(X)\underset{i}{}.E_i^n0.$$

The $`_i.E_i^n`$ part of (3.4) can be split by the obvious restriction map $`E_i^nH^{2n}(\overline{X})H^{2n}(\overline{D})`$. To deal with the remaining $`H^{2n+2}(X)`$ component, consider the composition $`\alpha `$,

$$\alpha :H^{2n+2}(X)H^{2n2}(X)H^{2n}(X)H^{2n}(\overline{D}),$$

of the Hard Lefschetz theorem followed by $`\omega `$ then restriction to $`D`$ and pullback to $`\overline{D}`$. This splits the sequence (3.4), as it is easy to see that composing it with pushing forward and back down to $`X`$ gives the identity. That is,

(3.5)
$$H^{2n2}(\overline{D})H^{2n2}(X)A_iB_i^{}\underset{i}{}.E_i^{n1},$$

and

(3.6)
$$H^{2n}(\overline{D})H^{2n+2}(X)A_iB_i\underset{i}{}.E_i^n.$$

These splittings are compatible, in the sense that the corresponding terms are duals of each other (via the obvious pairings on $`X`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ respectively) and annihilate the other terms.

Since the dimensions match up, it is enough to show that the map $`\theta _1=(\omega 2E):H^{2n2}(\overline{D})H^{2n}(\overline{D})`$ is onto. This map takes the first summand of the splitting (3.5) onto the first summand of (3.6) (via the Lefschetz isomorphism $`\omega ^2:H^{2n2}(X)H^{2n+2}(X)`$), and the third summand onto the third summand (via the isomorphism $`(2E):.E_i^{n1}.E_i^n`$). The same is true of the map $`\theta _N=(N\omega 2E)`$, for any $`N>0`$.

Let $`\pi _2`$ denote the projection to the second summand $`A_iB_i`$ of (3.6); we are now left with showing that $`\pi _2\theta _1`$ is onto. Since for $`N0`$, $`𝒪(NH2E)`$ is an ample class on $`\overline{X}`$ (and so also on $`\overline{D}`$), $`\theta _N`$ is onto. Therefore $`\pi _2\theta _N`$ is also onto, and it would be sufficient to show that $`\pi _2\theta _1=\pi _2\theta _N`$, i.e. that $`\pi _2(\omega )=0`$.

But this follows from the fact that $`\omega :H^{2n2}(\overline{D})H^{2n}(\overline{D})`$ has image entirely in the first summand $`H^{2n+2}(X)`$, since it factors through

$$H^{2n2}(\overline{D})\stackrel{\pi _{}\iota _{}}{}H^{2n}(X)\stackrel{\omega }{}H^{2n+2}(X)\stackrel{\alpha }{}H^{2n}(\overline{D}),$$

as the generic hyperplane $`H`$ dual to $`\omega `$ misses the ODPs. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark Burt Totaro has pointed out to me that the result of this section holds much more generally by using the machinery of Deligne’s mixed Hodge theory: any Hodge class on $`X`$ in the image of the pushfoward on homology from a subvariety $`DX`$ is the image of a Hodge class on any resolution $`\overline{D}`$ of $`D`$.

## 4. Only if

To prove the only if part of Theorem 1.1, assume that the given rational class $`AH^{n,n}(X^{2n})`$ is, up to taking rational multiples and adding $`n`$-fold intersections of hyperplane sections of $`X`$, representable as an effective algebraic cycle $`Z`$. Then by a theorem of Kleiman \[Kl\] pointed out to me by Daniel Huybrechts, $`Z`$ may be assumed smooth:

###### Theorem 4.1.

*\[Kl\]* Let $`Z^kX^d`$ be an effective cycle of dimension $`k\frac{d+1}{2}`$ in a smooth projective $`d`$-fold $`X`$. Then $`(dk1)![Z]+NH^{(dk)}`$ is algebraically equivalent to a smooth cycle for $`N0`$.

Kleiman’s result is proved as follows. Since $`X`$ is smooth and projective, the structure sheaf $`𝒪_Z`$ of $`Z`$ has a finite locally free resolution of a standard form in which all of the sheaves except for the last are of the form $`E_i=𝒪(n_iH)^{N_i}`$ (inductively, set $`E_i:=H^0(E_{i1}(n_iH))𝒪(n_iH)`$ for sufficiently positive $`n_i`$). The $`d`$ th sheaf $`K`$, the (locally free) kernel of the resolution, therefore has Chern classes which can be written in terms of sums and products of the Chern classes of $`𝒪_Z`$ and $`[H]`$. In fact, up to multiples of $`H^{(dk)}`$, $`c_{dk}(K(NH))=(dk1)![Z]`$ as cycles, so we may replace $`Z`$ by the zero section of the wedge of $`dk`$ generic sections of some sufficiently positive twist $`K(NH)`$ of $`K`$. Kleiman shows that for $`N0`$ these sections may be taken to avoid certain low dimensional Schubert cells (in the Grassmannian of $`H^0(K(NH))`$) which parametrise degenerate $`(dk)`$-tuples of sections; in this way he shows the zero section can be taken to be smooth.

Now that $`Z`$ is smooth, we can show that it lies in a nodal hypersurface.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`Z^nX^{2n}`$ be a *smooth* subvariety. For $`N0`$, $`Z`$ is contained in hypersurfaces $`D`$ in $`|NH|`$ whose only singularities are ODPs on $`Z`$.

*Proof*  The base locus of the linear system $`H^0(_Z(N))`$ is $`Z`$ for $`N0`$, so the generic element is smooth away from $`Z`$. Restriction to $`Z`$ gives a map to $`H^0(\nu _Z^{}(N))`$ (where $`\nu _Z^{}=_Z/_Z^2`$ is the conormal bundle to $`ZX`$), which is *onto* for $`N`$ sufficiently large. Sections of $`_Z(N)`$ vanish on $`Z`$, and this map takes their derivative on $`Z`$. So the hyperplane is smooth along $`Z`$ where this section of $`\nu _Z^{}(N)`$ is non-zero, and has ODPs on $`Z`$ precisely where it has simple transverse zeros. (Recall that a holomorphic function $`f`$ on a smooth variety cuts out an analytic ordinary double point at $`xf^1(0)`$ if and only if $`df`$ has a simple zero at $`x`$.)

Since the rank of $`\nu _Z`$ is the same as the dimension $`n`$ of $`Z`$, for $`N0`$ the generic section of $`\nu _Z^{}(N)`$ has a finite number $`c_n(\nu _Z^{}(N))`$ of simple zeros on $`Z`$, so the generic hyperplane containing $`Z`$ has only ODPs on $`Z`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, in particular, up to rational multiples and intersections of hyperplanes, $`AH^{2n}(X)`$ is Poincaré dual to the pushforward to $`X`$ of a homology class $`[Z]H_{2n}(D)`$ on $`D`$, as required.

## 5. Infinitesimal Hodge conjecture

This paper is the result of a failed attempt at proving Grothendieck’s variational Hodge conjecture; that if the class of an algebraic cycle $`Z`$ remains $`(p,p)`$ under an algebraic deformation of $`X`$, then its class is also represented by a rational combination of algebraic cycles in the deformation. We now explain why the method fails, as the obstruction is interesting, and demonstrates that unfortunately, infinitesimally at least, finding hyperplanes with ODPs is as hard as finding middle dimensional cycles.

The same induction as in Section 2 can be used for this conjecture, though one cannot use the hard Lefschetz theorem to pass from $`k>d/2`$ to $`k<d/2`$ this time (as we do not know that there is an algebraic cycle $`Z^{}`$ whose intersection with $`(2kd)`$ generic hyperplane sections is $`Z`$). Instead for such small cycles one can first smooth using Theorem 4.1 and then use an easier form of Theorem 4.2 (due to Altman and Kleiman \[AK\]) to include $`Z`$ in a *smooth* hypersurface $`D`$. Some Lefschetz theory then shows that as $`X`$ deforms (and $`D`$ with it, since the deformation is assumed algebraic) that $`ZD`$ remains of type $`(k1,k1)`$ if $`ZX`$ remains $`(k,k)`$. Thus we are reduced to proving the variational Hodge conjecture for $`ZD`$ in one less dimension, and the induction procedure again leads quickly to trying to prove the conjecture for middle dimensional *smooth* cycles $`Z^n`$ in *even* dimensional varieties $`X^{2n}`$.

So we include $`Z`$ inside a nodal hypersurface $`D`$, and try to show that $`D`$ deforms with $`X`$ (preserving its ODPs), and $`Z`$ deforms inside $`D`$. To show the latter it would be sufficient to show that the proper transform $`\overline{Z}`$ of $`Z`$ in the blowup $`\overline{D}`$ of $`D`$ deforms; this can be shown using our usual induction once we have shown that $`\overline{Z}\overline{D}`$ remains of type $`(n1,n1)`$ if $`ZX`$ remains $`(n,n)`$ under the deformation of $`X`$. With some work this can shown by Lefschetz methods and results in \[Sch\], so we are reduced to showing that $`D`$ and its ODPs do indeed deform with $`X`$.

The obstruction to deforming $`D|NH|`$ with $`X`$, with ODPs at the points $`p_iX`$ (once we have chosen a fixed deformation of the points $`p_i`$ with $`X`$), lies in $`H^1(_{p_i}^2(NH))`$. In fact we now show that, allowing the $`p_i`$ to vary, instead of fixing their deformation with $`X`$, the obstruction to deforming $`D`$ with the ODPs preserved at any points lies in $`H^1(_{p_i}(NH))`$. The latter group contains the obstruction to deforming $`D`$ while still insisting it goes through the fixed $`p_i`$; if this obstruction vanishes we get a section of $`H^0(_{p_i}(NH))`$ over the deformed space, fitting into the exact sequence

$$0H^0(_{p_i}^2(NH))H^0(_{p_i}(NH))\underset{i}{}T_{p_i}^{}X(NH).$$

Thus the obstruction to lifting this to a hypersurface with ODPs at the $`p_i`$ lies in the value of the derivative $`ds|_{p_i}T_{p_i}^{}X(NH)`$ of the given section $`s`$ of $`_{p_i}(NH)`$. Deforming the $`p_i`$ by a vector $`v_iT_{p_i}X`$ changes this derivative, and the corresponding differentiation map

$$T_{p_i}X\left(sH^0(_{p_i}(NH))\right)|_{p_i}T_{p_i}^{}X(NH)$$

is a surjection, since by the definition of an ODP the Hessian of $`s`$ gives an isomorphism $`T_{p_i}XT_{p_i}^{}X`$ at each $`p_i`$.

Therefore, allowing for deformations of the $`p_i`$ we find that the obstruction to deforming $`D`$ with ODPs at the $`p_i`$ lies in $`H^1(_{p_i}(NH))`$.

But now we find that, even as $`N\mathrm{}`$ (and so the number of $`p_i`$ tends to infinity too), this obstruction space does not disappear, in fact it always contains the obstruction space $`H^1(\nu _Z)`$ to deforming $`Z`$! The derivative $`ds|_ZH^0(\nu _Z^{}(NH))`$ of the section $`s`$ of $`_Z(NH)`$ defining $`D`$ vanishes transversely at the $`p_i`$ as in Theorem 4.2, giving the Koszul resolution on $`Z`$

(5.1)
$$0(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\nu _Z)((1n)NH)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\nu _Z)(NH)\nu _Z_{p_i}(NH)0.$$

For $`N`$ sufficiently large this sequence and Kodaira vanishing give the exact sequence

$$0H^1(\nu _Z)H^1(_{p_i}(NH))H^n((\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\nu _Z)((1n)NH)),$$

and so the inclusion claimed. Therefore deforming $`D`$ with ODPs turns out to be as hard as deforming $`Z`$. This is most easily seen in the apparently trivial $`n=1`$ case, where $`ZX`$ is a curve in a surface, and $`D`$ is a nodal reducible curve, the union of $`Z`$ and some other smooth curve. It is clear in this case that to deform $`D`$ with these nodes deforms $`Z`$ too.

Finally we note, out of interest, that the extension class $`e`$ Ext $`{}_{}{}^{n1}(_{p_i}(NH),`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\nu _Z)((1n)NH))`$ of the sequence (5.1) lies in

$$\mathrm{Ext}_Z^{n1}(_{p_i}(nD),\omega _Z\omega _X^{}|_Z^{})=H_Z^1(_{p_i}(nD+\omega _X))^{},$$

where $`\omega `$ denotes the canonical bundle. But for $`N`$ sufficiently large, $`H_Z^1(_{p_i}(nD+\omega _X))`$ is the cokernel of $`H_Z^0(\omega _X(nD)|_Z)_i\omega _X(nD)|_{p_i}^{}`$, which is the same as the cokernel of $`H_X^0(\omega _X(nD))_i\omega _X(nD)|_{p_i}^{}`$, i.e. $`H_X^1(_{p_i}(nD+\omega _X))`$.

But this last group is computed in \[Sch\] to be the kernel of the pushforward map $`H^{2n}(\overline{D})H^{2n+2}(\overline{X})`$. That is, the extension class of (5.1) lives in

$$e\frac{H^{2n2}(\overline{D})}{H^{2n2}(\overline{X})},$$

and is no doubt the fundamental class of $`\overline{Z}\overline{D}`$. (This group is the $`A_iB_i^{}`$ of (3.3), i.e. the extra $`2n`$-homology in $`D`$ that does not come from $`X`$ via the Lefschetz theorem for *smooth* hyperplanes. As $`H_Z^1(_{p_i}(nD+\omega _X))^{}`$, it is easily computed using (5.1) to be the one-dimensional $`H_Z^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }^n\nu _Z\omega _X)^{}H^0(𝒪_Z)`$.)

It would be nice to try to use this in reverse; to at least identify (given $`AH^{2n}(X;)H^{n,n}(X)`$) where the ODPs $`p_i`$ of the nodal hypersurface $`D`$ might lie in $`X`$ for this relation to hold. This would be a first start in finding such a $`D`$ (and then $`Z`$), but seems unlikely to be possible as the above derivation made such strong use of the cycle $`Z`$.

Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ. UK.

Email: rpwt@ic.ac.uk


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Dynamical properties of quantum systems have recently attracted considerable attention, in particular in connection with the question of quantum chaos. In this context a central problem is to characterise eigenstates of a quantum Hamiltonian semiclassically in terms of the dynamical behaviour of the associated classical system. Phase space lifts of eigenfunctions have proved to be especially suited for such investigations since in the semiclassical limit they converge to classically invariant measures on phase space. This property follows from a dynamical version of the correspondence principle, which is established in a mathematically rigorous form through Egorov’s theorem . Prominent examples of invariant measures on phase space are ergodic ones. On the quantum side a classically ergodic Liouville (i.e. microcanonical) measure corresponds to the property of quantum ergodicity. This concept goes back to Shnirelman  and denotes the semiclassical convergence of the phase space lifts of almost all quantum eigenfunctions to Liouville measure; it has been proven in several situations .

Quantum systems that possess spin degrees of freedom in addition to their translational ones require an extension of Egorov’s theorem and of the concept of quantum ergodicity. In previous studies of non-relativistic quantum systems with spin , whose dynamics are generated by a Pauli-type operator, we noticed that in general classical ergodicity of the translational motion is not sufficient to guarantee quantum ergodicity; the spin dynamics have to be considered as well. Here we present an extension of these investigations to Dirac-Hamiltonians. The main difference to the non-relativistic situation lies in the coexistence of particle and antiparticle states. This requires a separation of the Hilbert space into two subspaces that are almost invariant under the quantum time evolution. Only in these subspaces the usual semiclassical methods can be applied. As a consequence, quantum ergodicity for Dirac-Hamiltonians is concerned with projections of eigenspinors to the almost invariant subspaces, which in general are only approximate eigenspinors of the Hamiltonian.

Due to lack of space we cannot present proofs here. Together with further references these can be found in , where we have investigated quantum ergodicity for more general matrix valued Hamiltonians.

## 2 Background

We consider the Dirac equation

$$\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (t,𝒙)=\widehat{H}_D\psi (t,𝒙)$$
(2.1)
in a fixed inertial frame in which the potentials $`𝑨`$ and $`\varphi `$ are time-independent,

$$\widehat{H}_D=c𝜶\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}\frac{e}{c}𝑨(𝒙)\right)+mc^2\beta +e\varphi (𝒙),$$
(2.2)
and the Clifford algebra, realised in the usual Dirac representation, is generated by $`𝜶`$ and $`\beta `$. The propagation of Dirac spinors prescribed by (2.1) therefore takes place in the Hilbert space $`=L^2(^3)^4`$.

For the purpose of semiclassical approximations it is useful to represent quantum observables as Weyl operators. In the case of the Dirac-Hamiltonian (2.2) this means

$$\left(\widehat{H}_D\psi \right)(𝒙)=\left(\mathrm{op}^W[H_D]\psi \right)(𝒙)=\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^3}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}𝒑(𝒙𝒚)}H_D(𝒑,\frac{𝒙+𝒚}{2})\psi (𝒚)dydp.$$
(2.3)
Here the Weyl symbol $`H_D(𝒑,𝒙)C^{\mathrm{}}(^3\times ^3)^{4\times 4}`$ is the smooth function on the classical phase space $`^3\times ^3`$ that arises from (2.2) by replacing $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}`$ with $`𝒑`$. It hence takes values in the hermitian $`4\times 4`$ matrices, and for each $`(𝒑,𝒙)`$ possesses the two doubly degenerate eigenvalues

$$h_\pm (𝒑,𝒙)=e\varphi (𝒙)\pm \sqrt{(c𝒑e𝑨(𝒙))^2+m^2c^4}$$
(2.4)
with associated projection matrices $`\pi _0^\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$ to the $`h_\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$-eigenspaces in $`^4`$. The functions (2.4) can be identified as the classical Hamiltonians of relativistic systems with positive or negative energy, corresponding to particles or antiparticles, respectively. They generate the Hamiltonian flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t`$ on the phase space $`^3\times ^3`$, representing the translational part of the classical analogue to the quantum dynamics generated by (2.1).

It will turn out that the spin part of the relevant classical dynamics is determined by the equations

$$\dot{𝒔}_\pm (t)=𝑪_\pm (\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙))\times 𝒔_\pm (t)$$
(2.5)
that describe the Thomas precession of a classical normalised spin $`𝒔\mathrm{S}^2`$ along the trajectories $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙)`$. Here $`𝑪_\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$ contains the electromagnetic fields and potentials as known from the relativistic Thomas precession . For each classical Hamiltonian $`h_\pm `$ the dynamics of the translational and the spin degrees of freedom can be combined into a single (non-Hamiltonian, skew product) flow

$$Y_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙,𝒔)=(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙),𝒔_\pm (t)),\text{with}Y_\pm ^0(𝒑,𝒙,𝒔)=(𝒑,𝒙,𝒔),$$
(2.6)
on the combined phase space $`^3\times ^3\times \mathrm{S}^2`$. On $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm \times \mathrm{S}^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm =h_\pm ^1(E)^3\times ^3`$ is an energy shell of $`h_\pm `$, the flow $`Y_\pm ^t`$ leaves the product measure $`\mathrm{d}\mu _E^\pm `$ that consists of Liouville measure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm `$ and the normalised area measure on $`\mathrm{S}^2`$ invariant. If the energy shells are compact we will always assume that their Liouville measures are normalised. Then we can consider situations in which the flows $`Y_\pm ^t`$ are ergodic with respect to the probability measures $`\mathrm{d}\mu _E^\pm `$.

There exists an extensive calculus for Weyl operators of the form (2.3) when their symbols obey certain restrictions, see e.g. . If, in the present case, $`|𝑨(𝒙)|`$ is bounded by some power $`|𝒙|^N`$, one can introduce the order function

$$M(𝒑,𝒙):=\sqrt{(c𝒑e𝑨(𝒙))^2+m^2c^4}.$$
(2.7)
It defines the symbol class $`\mathrm{S}(M)`$, which consists of all smooth, matrix valued functions $`B(𝒑,𝒙)`$ that satisfy the estimates

$$_p^\alpha _x^\beta B(𝒑,𝒙)_{4\times 4}C_{\alpha \beta }M(𝒑,𝒙),$$
(2.8)
where $`_{4\times 4}`$ is some matrix norm. The symbol $`H_D(𝒑,𝒙)`$ of the Dirac-Hamiltonian then is in $`\mathrm{S}(M)`$, if the potentials $`\varphi (𝒙)`$ and $`A_k(𝒙)`$ ($`k=1,2,3`$) are smooth and $`\varphi (𝒙)`$ as well as all derivatives of $`\varphi (𝒙)`$ and $`A_k(𝒙)`$ are bounded. In this case the estimate

$$(H_D(𝒑,𝒙)+\mathrm{i})^1_{4\times 4}CM(𝒑,𝒙)^1$$
(2.9)
holds and implies that for small enough $`\mathrm{}`$ the Dirac-Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_D`$ is essentially self-adjoint on the domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^3)^4`$. It therefore generates a unitary time evolution.

## 3 Semiclassical projections

On the level of Weyl symbols there exist the two projection matrices $`\pi _0^\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$ onto the two-dimensional eigenspaces of $`H_D(𝒑,𝒙)`$ in $`^4`$. These lead to the two classical flows introduced in the preceeding section that correspond to positive and negative energies, respectively. In the quantum system a related division of states into particles and antiparticles would also be desirable. Due to the effects of pair creation and annihilation such a separation, however, can only possibly be achieved in the semiclassical limit. Weyl quantisation suggests $`\mathrm{op}^W[\pi _0^\pm ]`$ as first candidates for the desired quantum projectors, but these (bounded) operators in fact are no projectors on the Hilbert space $``$. One therefore proceeds to an inductive construction by correcting the symbols order by order in $`\mathrm{}`$, starting with $`\pi _0^\pm `$ as the lowest order term,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm :=\mathrm{op}^W[\pi ^\pm ]\text{with}\pi ^\pm (𝒑,𝒙)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}^k\pi _k^\pm (𝒑,𝒙),$$
(3.1)
see . The expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{}`$ has to be understood in the sense of an asymptotic series in the symbol class $`\mathrm{S}(1)`$ that consists of all $`BC^{\mathrm{}}(^3\times ^3)^{4\times 4}`$ with bounded derivatives, $`_x^\alpha _p^\beta B(𝒑,𝒙)_{4\times 4}C_{\alpha \beta }`$. The Weyl quantisation of such a symbol then is a bounded operator on $``$ . The terms in the asymptotic expansion (3.1) are uniquely fixed by the requirement that (in operator norm)

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm )^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm ,(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm )^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm =O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}),[\widehat{H}_D,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm ]=O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}).$$
(3.2)
That such almost projection operators exist is guaranteed by:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`A_k`$ ($`k=1,2,3`$) and $`\varphi `$ be smooth potentials such that $`\varphi `$ and all derivatives of $`A_k`$ and $`\varphi `$ are bounded. Then there exist two bounded almost projection operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm `$ that fulfill (3.2) and that are Weyl quantisations of symbols $`\pi ^\pm \mathrm{S}(1)`$ with asymptotic expansions (3.1). Moreover, the almost projectors provide a semiclassical resolution of unity on $``$, in the sense that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^++\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{}\mathrm{𝟙}_{}=O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$.

A similar result can be found in . Following  one can now construct genuine projection operators $`\widehat{P}^\pm `$ from $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm `$ through the Riesz formula,

$$\widehat{P}^\pm :=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{i}}_{|z1|={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm z\right)^1dz.$$
(3.3)
These projectors are themselves Weyl operators with symbols in $`\mathrm{S}(1)`$ and are semiclassically close to the almost projectors, $`\widehat{P}^\pm \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm =O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$. However, the operators $`\widehat{P}^\pm `$ in general do not commute with the Dirac-Hamiltonian. They only almost commute with $`\widehat{H}_D`$ in the same way as the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}^\pm `$. Nevertheless, one can relate the semiclassical projectors $`\widehat{P}^\pm `$ to certain spectral projectors of $`\widehat{H}_D`$: Depending on the behaviour of the potentials at infinity there exist constants $`E_\pm `$ such that the spectrum of $`\widehat{H}_D`$ inside $`(E_{},E_+)`$ is discrete; e.g., if the potentials and their derivatives vanish at infinity, $`E_\pm =\pm mc^2`$. For $`E(E_{},E_+)`$ we then introduce the spectral projectors $`\widehat{P}_{spec}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{spec}^+`$ to the spectral intervals $`(\mathrm{},E)`$ and $`(E,+\mathrm{})`$, respectively.

###### Proposition 3.2.

If $`E(E_{},E_+)`$ is neither in the spectrum of $`\widehat{H}_D`$, nor an accumulation point thereof, and if the same conditions as in Proposition 3.1 hold, the semiclassical projectors are close to the spectral projectors, $`\widehat{P}^\pm \widehat{P}_{spec}^\pm =O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$.

The projectors that almost commute with the Dirac-Hamiltonian allow to introduce the subspaces $`^\pm :=\widehat{P}^\pm `$ that in the above semiclassical sense can be viewed as particle and antiparticle spaces. The time evolution generated by $`\widehat{H}_D`$ leaves these subspaces invariant up to the semiclassically long time scale $`T(\mathrm{})=O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$.

A further consequence of the projectors $`\widehat{P}^\pm `$ to almost commute with the Dirac-Hamiltonian is that the projections of eigenvectors $`\psi _n`$ of $`\widehat{H}_D`$, $`\widehat{H}_D\psi _n=E_n\psi _n`$, are quasimodes with discrepancies of $`O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$. This means that $`\widehat{P}^\pm \psi _n^\pm `$ are almost eigenvectors of $`\widehat{H}_D`$ with errors whose $``$-norms are of $`O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$: $`(\widehat{H}_DE_n)\widehat{P}^\pm \psi _n=O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$. Appropriate phase space lifts of the normalised quasimodes $`\varphi _n^\pm :=\widehat{P}^\pm \psi _n/\widehat{P}^\pm \psi _n`$ can now be studied in the semiclassical limit and can be related to the dynamical behaviour of the respective classical flows $`Y_\pm ^t`$.

## 4 Semiclassical time evolution

We now consider the time evolution of observables generated by $`\widehat{H}_D`$. For convenience we restrict attention to bounded Weyl operators $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$, with symbols from the class $`\mathrm{S}(1)`$ that possess an asymptotic expansion in integer powers of $`\mathrm{}`$, compare (3.1). We call such operators semiclassical observables. The semiclassical projectors $`\widehat{P}^\pm `$ are of this type and provide a natural separation of an observable $`\widehat{B}`$ into diagonal and off-diagonal blocks, $`\widehat{B}=\widehat{B}_d+\widehat{B}_{od}+O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$, with

$$\widehat{B}_d:=\widehat{P}^+\widehat{B}\widehat{P}^++\widehat{P}^{}\widehat{B}\widehat{P}^{}\text{and}\widehat{B}_{od}:=\widehat{P}^+\widehat{B}\widehat{P}^{}+\widehat{P}^{}\widehat{B}\widehat{P}^+.$$
(4.1)
One expects that the diagonal blocks will be propagated semiclassically by the classical dynamics associated with the eigenvalue functions $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$, respectively. For the off-diagonal blocks it is not so obvious how a semiclassical propagation works. In fact, under the quantum time evolution the off-diagonal blocks will cease to be semiclassical observables. A related discussion can be found in .

For a precise statement we require in addition to the assumptions on the potentials made previously that their first and all higher derivatives are bounded:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$ be a semiclassical observable. Then for $`t>0`$ its time evolution $`\widehat{B}(t)`$ generated by the Dirac-Hamiltonian is a semiclassical observable, $`\widehat{B}(t)=\mathrm{op}^W[B(t)]`$ with symbol $`B(t)\mathrm{S}(1)`$ and asymptotic expansion of the type (3.1), if and only if $`\widehat{B}_{od}=O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$.

Hence the propagation of the diagonal blocks can be analysed semiclassically. To leading order this will happen in terms of the Hamiltonian flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t`$ for the translational degrees of freedom and the spin-transport matrices $`D_\pm \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ that follow from the equation

$$\dot{D}_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}𝑪_\pm \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙)\right)𝝈D_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)=0,D_\pm |_{t=0}=\mathrm{𝟙}_2.$$
(4.2)
With suitable isometries $`V_\pm (𝒑,𝒙):^2\pi _0^\pm (𝒑,𝒙)^4`$ these spin transport matrices can be converted to $`d_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)\mathrm{U}(4)`$ via $`D_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)=V_\pm ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙))d_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)V_\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$. By further introducing the notation $`\widehat{B}^\pm :=\widehat{P}^\pm \widehat{B}\widehat{P}^\pm =\mathrm{op}^W[B^\pm ]`$ we can now state the relevant Egorov theorem:

###### Theorem 4.2.

Under the conditions specified above the quantum time evolution of the diagonal part $`\widehat{B}_d`$ of a semiclassical observable $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$ is again a semiclassical observable, $`\widehat{B}_d(t)=\mathrm{op}^W[B_d(t)]`$, with symbol $`B_d(t)\mathrm{S}(1)`$ and asymptotic expansion

$$B_d(t)(𝒑,𝒙)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}^kB_d(t)_k(𝒑,𝒙).$$
(4.3)
The $`\mathrm{}`$-independent, leading term is completely determined by the Hamiltonian flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t`$ generated by the eigenvalue functions $`h_\pm `$, and by the unitary spin-transport matrices $`d_\pm `$,

$$B_d(t)_0(𝒑,𝒙)=\underset{\nu \{+,\}}{}d_\nu ^1(𝒑,𝒙,t)B_0^\nu \left(\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^t(𝒑,𝒙)\right)d_\nu (𝒑,𝒙,t).$$
(4.4)
The two types of dynamics that enter on the right-hand side of (4.4) can be combined into skew product flows on $`^3\times ^3\times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{Y}_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙,g):=(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t(𝒑,𝒙),D_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t)g).$$
(4.5)
The double covering map $`R:\mathrm{SU}(2)\mathrm{SO}(3)`$ now allows to relate these flows to the genuinely classical skew product flows (2.6), if one sets $`𝒔_\pm (t)=R(D_\pm (𝒑,𝒙,t))𝒔`$. Moreover, the dynamical properties of the flows $`Y_\pm ^t`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\pm ^t`$ are closely related. E.g., $`Y_\pm ^t`$ is ergodic with respect to the product measure $`\mathrm{d}\mu _E^\pm `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm \times \mathrm{S}^2`$, if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\pm ^t`$ is ergodic on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm \times \mathrm{SU}(2)`$ with respect to the product of Liouville and (normalised) Haar measure. Thus, to leading semiclassical order the time evolution of block-diagonal observables, generated by the Dirac-Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_D`$, can be completely described by the two classical flows $`Y_\pm ^t`$ that combine the translational and the spin degrees of freedom of particles and antiparticles, respectively.

## 5 Quantum ergodicity

In quantum systems without spin quantum ergodicity means that phase space lifts of almost all eigenfunctions of the quantum Hamiltonian semiclassically converge to Liouville measure on an appropriate energy shell, if the classical Hamiltonian flow on this energy shell is ergodic. Apart from an Egorov theorem, a proof of this statement requires a (Szegö-type) limit theorem for averaged phase space lifts of eigenfunctions.

In the case of a Dirac-Hamiltonian one first has to ensure the very existence of eigenspinors $`\psi _n`$. To this end we require that there exists an energy $`E`$ such that all energy shells $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^{}^\pm `$ are compact when $`E^{}`$ varies in $`[E\epsilon ,E+\epsilon ]`$ with some $`\epsilon >0`$. These $`E^{}`$ shall moreover be no critical values of the eigenvalue functions (classical Hamiltonians) $`h_\pm (𝒑,𝒙)`$. In addition, at least one of the energy shells $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm `$ shall be non-empty. Then, for sufficiently small $`\mathrm{}`$, the spectrum of $`\widehat{H}_D`$ is discrete in the interval $`I(E,\mathrm{}):=[E\mathrm{}\omega ,E+\mathrm{}\omega ]`$, comprising of $`N_I>0`$ eigenvalues.

The desired limit theorem is concerned with averages of the expectation values of a semiclassical observable $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$ in normalised eigenstates $`\psi _n`$ of $`\widehat{H}_D`$ with eigenvalues $`E_nI(E,\mathrm{})`$. For this to hold we require that the periodic orbits of the Hamiltonian flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^t`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\pm `$ are of Liouville measure zero; e.g., this condition is fulfilled if the flows are ergodic.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Under the conditions imposed above on the Dirac-Hamiltonian the number $`N_I`$ of eigenvalues in the interval $`I(E,\mathrm{})`$ grows semiclassically according to

$$N_I=\frac{2\omega }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^++\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^{}}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^2}\left(1+O(\mathrm{})\right).$$
(5.1)
Moreover, the Szegö-type limit formula,

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\frac{1}{N_I}\underset{E_nI(E,\mathrm{})}{}\psi _n,\widehat{B}\psi _n=\frac{1}{2}\frac{_{\nu \{+,\}}\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\nu \mathrm{tr}\overline{(\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu )}^{E,\nu }}{\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^++\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^{}},$$
(5.2)
holds for any semiclassical observable $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$.

Here $`\overline{(\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu )}^{E,\nu }`$ denotes an average over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\nu `$ with respect to Liouville measure. On average, therefore, expectation values of observables in eigenstates of the Hamiltonian semiclassically converge to a weighted average of the ‘classical’ projections $`\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu `$ of the ‘classical’ observable $`B_0(𝒑,𝒙)`$; the weights being determined by the relative volumes of the respective energy shells. The factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ accounts for the two dimensions of the spin space (i.e. the range of $`\pi _0^\nu `$ in $`^4`$). An important consequence of the limit formula (5.2) is that only the diagonal part $`\widehat{B}_d`$ of an observable gives a non-vanishing contribution to the semiclassical average.

To prove quantum ergodicity now requires to combine Szegö-type limits with the Egorov-Theorem 4.2. The latter, however, is only concerned with block-diagonal observables. We therefore consider only observables of the type $`\widehat{P}^\nu \widehat{B}\widehat{P}^\nu `$. For these Proposition 5.1 relates expectation values of $`\widehat{B}`$ in the projected eigenspinors $`\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _n`$ to the classical weighted averages of $`\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu `$. At least some of these projected eigenspinors can possibly vanish as $`\mathrm{}0`$. But Proposition 5.1 allows to conclude that a positive fraction of them retains a positive norm in the semiclassical limit; hence these can safely be normalised. As discussed in section 3 the projected (and normalised) eigenspinors in general only yield quasimodes for the Dirac-Hamiltonian with discrepancies $`O(\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}})`$. Thus, quantum ergodicity in the present context is concerned with quasimodes rather than with actual eigenstates. The reason for this lies in the fact that only after the projection can one associate a definite classical dynamics to eigenspinors.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Suppose that all the conditions hold that have previously been imposed on the Dirac-Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_D`$, as well as that the skew product flow $`Y_\nu ^t`$ ($`\nu \{+,\}`$ fixed) defined in eq. (2.6) is ergodic on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\nu \times \mathrm{S}^2`$. Then in every sequence $`\{\varphi _n^\nu \}_n`$ of normalised projected eigenspinors of $`\widehat{H}_D`$, with $`\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _n\delta `$ ($`\delta >0`$ small enough and fixed), there exists a subsequence $`\{\varphi _{n_j}^\nu \}_j`$ of density one, i.e.,

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\#}\{j;\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _{n_j}\delta ,E_{n_j}I(E,\mathrm{})\}}{\mathrm{\#}\{n;\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _n\delta ,E_nI(E,\mathrm{})\}}=1,$$
(5.3)
such that for every semiclassical observable $`\widehat{B}=\mathrm{op}^W[B]`$,

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\varphi _{n_j}^\nu ,\widehat{B}\varphi _{n_j}^\nu =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\overline{(\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu )}^{E,\nu }.$$
(5.4)
The subsequence $`\{\varphi _{n_j}^\nu \}_j`$ can be chosen to be independent of the observable $`\widehat{B}`$.

The statement of this theorem can be made more transparent, if one chooses an explicit phase space representation of the quasimodes $`\varphi _n^\pm `$. E.g., if one introduces the matrix valued Wigner transform

$$W[\psi ](𝒑,𝒙):=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{}}𝒑𝒚}\overline{\psi (𝒙\frac{1}{2}𝒚)}\psi (𝒙+\frac{1}{2}𝒚)dy$$
(5.5)
of $`\psi `$, the expectation value of $`\widehat{B}`$ in a state $`\varphi _n^\nu `$ reads

$$\varphi _n^\nu ,\widehat{B}\varphi _n^\nu =\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}\mathrm{tr}\left(W[\varphi _n^\nu ](𝒑,𝒙)(\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu )(𝒑,𝒙)\right)dpdx\left(1+O(\mathrm{})\right).$$
(5.6)
The conclusion (5.4) of Theorem 5.2 can therefore be rephrased in terms of the Wigner transform (5.5) as

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\frac{1}{(2\pi \mathrm{})^d}W[\varphi _{n_j}^\nu ](𝒑,𝒙)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{vol}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\nu }\delta (h_\nu (𝒑,𝒙)E)\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}_2.$$
(5.7)
Here the limit along the density-one subsequence $`\{\varphi _{n_j}^\nu \}_j`$ has to be understood in a weak sense, namely after integration with $`\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu `$. Thus, the Wigner transforms of the quasimodes converge to a uniform distribution on the energy shell $`\mathrm{\Omega }_E^\nu `$. In the matrix aspect, which represents spin, the result is an equidistribution of ‘spin up’ and ‘spin down’. With an appropriate Weyl calculus for spin the latter can also be rephrased in terms of an equidistribution on the unit sphere $`\mathrm{S}^2`$, see .

In Theorem 5.2 it was supposed that one of the two skew product flows $`Y_\nu ^t`$ is ergodic; no assumption was made about the complementary classical system. If, however, the other energy shell at $`E`$ is empty, the norms $`\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _n`$ must converge to one. Then the statement of the theorem applies to a density-one subsequence $`\{\psi _{n_j}\}_j`$ of all eigenspinors $`\psi _n`$ with $`E_nI(E,\mathrm{})`$ in the form

$$\underset{\mathrm{}0}{lim}\psi _{n_j},\widehat{P}^\nu \widehat{B}\widehat{P}^\nu \psi _{n_j}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\overline{(\pi _0^\nu B_0\pi _0^\nu )}^{E,\nu }.$$
(5.8)
In this case quantum ergodicity is hence concerned with the eigenspinors themselves. For a Dirac-Hamiltonian this situation is not untypical, since both the particle and the antiparticle energy shell to be non-empty at the same energy requires very strong potentials, with magnitudes comparable to the rest energy $`mc^2`$. But then also the description of a relativistic quantum system in a single-particle framework begins to become questionable.

### Acknowledgment

We would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for financial support under contracts no. Ste 241/15-1 and /15-2.