format: text

text:
# Lagrange geometry on tangent manifolds

## 1 Preliminaries

Lagrange geometry  is the extension of Finsler geometry (e.g., ) to transversal “metrics” (non degenerate quadratic forms) of the vertical foliation (the foliation by fibers) of a tangent bundle, which are defined as the Hessian of a non degenerate Lagrangian function. In the present paper, we study the generalization of Lagrange geometry to arbitrary tangent manifolds . The locally Lagrange-symplectic manifolds  are an important particular case. In this section, we recall various facts about the geometric structures that we need for the generalization. Our framework is the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-category, and we will use the Einstein summation convention, where convenient.

First, a leafwise locally affine foliation is a foliation such that the leaves have a given locally affine structure that varies smoothly with the leaf. In a different formulation , if $`M`$ is a manifold of dimension $`m=p+q`$, a $`p`$-dimensional locally leafwise affine foliation $``$ on $`M`$ is defined by a maximal, differential, affine atlas $`\{U_\alpha \}`$, with local coordinates $`(x_\alpha ^a,y_\alpha ^u)`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},q;u=1,\mathrm{},p)`$, and transition functions of the local form

(1)
$$x_\beta ^a=x_\beta ^a(x_\alpha ^b),y_\beta ^u=\underset{v=1}{\overset{p}{}}A_{(\alpha \beta )v}^u(x_\alpha ^b)y_\alpha ^v+B_{(\alpha \beta )}^u(x_\alpha ^b)$$

on $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$. Then, the leaves of $``$ are locally defined by $`x^a=const.`$, and their local parallelization is defined by the vector fields $`/y^u`$. Furthermore, if the atlas that defines a locally leafwise affine foliation has a subatlas such that $`B_{(\alpha \beta )}^u=0`$ for its transition functions, the foliation, with the structure defined by the subatlas, will be called a vector bundle-type foliation. Notice that, if one such subatlas exists, similar ones are obtained by coordinate changes of the local form

(2)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha ^a=\stackrel{~}{x}_\alpha ^a(x_\alpha ^b),\stackrel{~}{y}_\alpha =y_\alpha ^a+\xi _{(\alpha \beta )}^a(x_\alpha ^b).$$

For any foliation $``$, geometric objects of $`M`$ that either project to the space of leaves or, locally, are pull-backs of objects on the latter are said to be projectable or foliated . In particular, a foliated bundle is a bundle over $`M`$ with a locally trivializing atlas with foliated transition functions. The transversal bundle $`\nu =TM/T`$ is foliated. Formulas (1) show that for a locally leafwise affine foliation $``$ the tangent bundles $`T`$, $`TM`$ are foliated bundles as well. For a foliated bundle, we can define foliated cross sections. Notice that, if $``$ is a locally leafwise affine foliation, a vector field on $`M`$ which is tangent to $``$ is foliated as a vector field, since it projects to $`0`$, but, it may not be a foliated cross sections of $`T`$!

Furthermore, for a locally leafwise affine foliation one also has leafwise affine objects, which have an affine character with respect to the locally affine structure of the leaves. For instance, a locally leafwise affine function is a function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ such that $`Yf`$ is foliated for any local parallel vector field $`Y`$ along the leaves of $``$. With respect to the affine atlas, a locally leafwise affine function has the local expression

(3)
$$f=\underset{u=1}{\overset{p}{}}\alpha _u(x^a)y^u+\beta (x^a).$$

A locally leafwise affine $`k`$-form is a $`k`$-form $`\lambda `$ such that $`i(Z)\lambda =0`$ for all the tangent vector fields $`Z`$ of $``$ and $`L_Y\lambda `$ is a foliated $`k`$-form for all the parallel fields $`Y`$. Then, $`\lambda `$ has an expression of the form (3) where $`\alpha _u,\beta `$ are foliated $`k`$-forms. A locally leafwise affine vector field is an infinitesimal automorphism of the foliation and of the leafwise affine structure, and has the local expression

(4)
$$X=\underset{a=1}{\overset{q}{}}\xi ^a(x^b)\frac{}{x^a}+\underset{u=1}{\overset{p}{}}[\underset{v=1}{\overset{p}{}}\lambda _v^u(x^b)y^v+\mu ^u(x^b)]\frac{}{y^u}.$$

Etc.

Any foliated vector bundle $`VM`$ produces a sheaf $`\underset{¯}{V}`$ of germs of differentiable cross sections, and a sheaf $`\underset{¯}{V}_{pr}`$ of germs of foliated cross sections. The corresponding cohomology spaces $`H^k(M,\underset{¯}{V}_{pr})`$ may be computed by a de Rham type theorem . Namely, let $`N`$ be a complementary (normal) distribution of $`T`$ in $`TM`$. The decomposition $`TM=NT`$ yields a bigrading of differential forms and tensor fields, and a decomposition of the exterior differential as

(5)
$$d=d_{(1,0)}^{}+d_{(0,1)}^{\prime \prime }+_{(2,1)}.$$

The operator $`d^{\prime \prime }`$ is the exterior differential along the leaves of $``$, it has square zero and satisfies the Poincaré lemma. Accordingly,

(6)
$$0\underset{¯}{V}_{pr}\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{V}_{pr}_\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(0,0)}\stackrel{d^{\prime \prime }}{}\underset{¯}{V}_{pr}_\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(0,1)}\stackrel{d^{\prime \prime }}{}\mathrm{},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes spaces of differential forms, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the corresponding sheaf of differentiable germs and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the sheaf of germs of foliated functions, is a fine resolution of $`\underset{¯}{V}_{pr}`$.

Furthermore, if $``$ is locally leafwise affine, one also has the spaces $`A^k(M,)`$ of locally leafwise affine $`k`$-forms and the corresponding sheaves of germs $`\underset{¯}{A}^k(M,)`$. These sheaves define interesting cohomology spaces, which may be studied by means of the exact sequences

(7)
$$0\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(k,0)}\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{A}^k(M,)\stackrel{\pi }{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(k,0)}_\mathrm{\Phi }\underset{¯}{T^{}}_{pr}0,$$

where, for $`f`$ defined by (3), $`\pi (f)=\alpha _u[dy^u]`$, $`[dy^u]`$ being the projections of $`dy^u`$ on $`T^{}`$.

It is important to recognize the vector bundle-type foliations among the locally leafwise affine foliations. First, notice that a vector bundle-type foliation possesses a global vector field, which may be seen as the leafwise infinitesimal homothety namely,

(8)
$$E=\underset{u=1}{\overset{p}{}}y^u\frac{}{y^u},$$

called the Euler vector field. In the general locally leafwise affine case, (8) only defines local vector fields $`E_\alpha `$ on each coordinate neighborhood $`U_\alpha `$, and the differences $`E_\beta E_\alpha `$ yield a cocycle and a cohomology class $`[E]()H^1(M,\underset{¯}{T}_{pr})`$, called the linearity obstruction . It follows easily that the locally leafwise affine foliation $``$ has a vector bundle-type structure iff $`[E]()=0`$ . With a normal distribution $`N`$, we may use the foliated version of de Rham’s theorem, and $`[E]()`$ will be represented by the global $`T`$-valued $`1`$-form $`\{d^{\prime \prime }E_\alpha \}`$. Accordingly, $`[E]()=0`$ iff there exists a global vector field $`E`$ on $`M`$, which is tangent to the leaves of $``$ and such that $`\alpha `$,

(9)
$$E|_{U_\alpha }=E_\alpha +Q_\alpha ,$$

where $`Q_\alpha `$ are projectable. $`E`$ is defined up to the addition of a global, projectable, cross section of $`T`$, and these vector fields $`E`$ will be called Euler vector fields. The choice of a Euler vector field $`E`$ is equivalent with the choice of the vector bundle-type structure of the foliation.

We also recall the following result : the vector bundle-type foliation $``$ on $`M`$ is a vector bundle fibration $`MN`$ iff the leaves are simply connected and the flat connections defined by the locally affine structure of the leaves are complete.

###### Example 1.1

On the torus $`𝕋^{p+q}`$ with the Euclidean coordinates $`(x^a,y^u)`$ defined up to translations

$$\stackrel{~}{x}^a=x^a+h^a,\stackrel{~}{y}^u=y^u+k^u,h^a,k^u,$$

the foliation $`x^a=const.`$ is locally leafwise affine and has the normal bundle $`dy^u=0`$. The linearity obstruction $`[E]`$ is represented by the form $`_{u=1}^qdy^u(/y^u)`$, which is not $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-exact. Therefore, $`[E]0`$, and $``$ is not a vector bundle-type foliation.

###### Example 1.2

Consider the compact nilmanifold $`M(1,p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,p)\backslash H(1,p)`$ where

(10)
$$H(1,p)=\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Id_p& X& Z\\ 0& 1& y\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)/X,Z^p,y\}$$

is the generalized Heisenberg group, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1,p)`$ is the subgroup of matrices with integer entries. $`M(1,p)`$ has an affine atlas with the transition functions

(11)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}^i=x^i+a^i,\stackrel{~}{y}=y+b,\stackrel{~}{z}^i=z^i+a^iy+c^i,$$

where $`x^i,z^i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},p)`$ are the entries of $`X,Z`$, respectively, and $`a^i,b,c^i`$ are integers. Accordingly, the local equations $`x^i=const.,y=const.`$ define a locally leafwise affine foliation $``$ of $`M`$, which, in fact, is a fibration by $`p`$-dimensional tori over a $`(p+1)`$-dimensional torus. The manifold $`M`$ is parallelizable by the global vector fields

(12)
$$\frac{}{x^i},\frac{}{y}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}x^i\frac{}{z^i},\frac{}{z^i},$$

and the global $`1`$-forms

(13)
$$dx^i,dz^ix^idy,dy,$$

and we see that

$$span\{\frac{}{x^i},\frac{}{y}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}x^i\frac{}{z^i}\}$$

may serve as a normal bundle of $``$. It follows that the linearity obstruction is represented by

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(dz^ix^idy)\frac{}{z^i},$$

which is not $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-exact. Therefore, $``$ is not a vector bundle-type foliation.

###### Example 1.3

Take the real Hopf manifold $`H^{(p+q)}=S^{p+q1}\times S^1`$ seen as $`(^q\times ^p\backslash \{0\})/G_\lambda `$, where $`\lambda (0,1)`$ is constant and $`G_\lambda `$ is the group

(14)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}^a=\lambda ^nx^a,\stackrel{~}{y}^u=\lambda ^ny^u,n,$$

where $`x^a,y^u`$ are the natural coordinates of $`^q`$ and $`^p`$, respectively. Then, the local equations $`x^a=const.`$ define a vector bundle-type foliation, which has the global Euler field $`E=_{u=1}^qy^u(/y^u)`$. This example shows that compact manifolds may have vector bundle-type foliations.

###### Example 1.4

Consider the manifold

(15)
$$M^{2n}=[(^n\backslash \{0\})\times ^n]/K_\lambda ,$$

where $`\lambda (0,1)`$ and $`K_\lambda `$ is the cyclic group generated by the transformation

(16)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}^i=\lambda x^i,\stackrel{~}{y}^i=\lambda y^i+(1\lambda )\frac{x^i}{\sqrt{_{j=1}^n(x^j)^2}}$$

$`(i=1,\mathrm{}n)`$. It is easy to check that the equality

$$E=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y^i\frac{}{y^i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{x^i}{\sqrt{_{j=1}^n(x^j)^2}}\frac{}{y^i}$$

defines a global vector field on $`M`$, which has the property of the Euler field for the foliation $`x^i=const.`$ Therefore, the latter is a vector bundle-type foliation. The change of coordinates

$$x^i=x^i,y^i=y^i\frac{x^i}{\sqrt{_{j=1}^n(x^j)^2}}$$

provides a vector bundle-type atlas, and (16) becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{x}^i=\lambda x^i,\stackrel{~}{y}^i=\lambda y^i.$$

This shows that $`M`$ is the tangent bundle of the Hopf manifold $`H^n`$ defined in Example 1.3.

Now, let us recall the basics of tangent manifolds . An almost tangent structure on a manifold $`M`$ is a tensor field $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }End(TM)`$ such that

(17)
$$S^2=0,imS=kerS.$$

In particular, the dimension of $`M`$ must be even, say $`2n`$, and $`rankS=n`$. Furthermore, $`S`$ is a tangent structure if it is integrable i.e., locally, $`S`$ looks like the vertical twisting homomorphism of a tangent bundle. This means that there exists an atlas with local coordinate $`(x^i,y^i)`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ such that

(18)
$$S\left(\frac{}{x^i}\right)=\frac{}{y^i},S\left(\frac{}{y^i}\right)=0.$$

The integrability property is equivalent with the annulation of the Nijenhuis tensor

(19)
$$𝒩_S(X,Y)=[SX,SY]S[SX,Y]S[X,SY]+S^2[X,Y]=0.$$

A pair $`(M,S)`$, where $`S`$ is a tangent structure, is called a tangent manifold.

On a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$, the distribution $`imS`$ is integrable, and defines the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ with $`T𝒱=imS`$. It is easy to see that the transition functions of the local coordinates of (18) are of the local form (1) with $`q=p=n`$ and

(20)
$$A_{(\alpha \beta )j}^i=\frac{x_\beta ^i}{x_\alpha ^j}.$$

Therefore, $`𝒱`$ is a locally leafwise affine foliation, and the local parallel vector fields along the leaves are the vector fields of the form $`SX`$, where $`X`$ is a foliated vector field. In particular, a tangent manifold has local Euler fields $`E_\alpha `$, and a linearity obstruction $`[E]H^1(M,\underset{¯}{T𝒱}_{pr})`$. If $`[E]=0`$, the foliation $`𝒱`$ will be a vector bundle-type foliation, and $`M`$ has global Euler vector fields $`E`$ defined up to the addition of a foliated cross section of $`T𝒱`$. Furthermore, if we fix the vector-bundle type structure by fixing a Euler vector field $`E`$, the triple $`(M,S,E)`$ will be called a bundle-type tangent manifold.

Using the general result of , we see that a tangent manifold is a tangent bundle iff it is a bundle-type tangent manifold and the vertical foliation has simply connected, affinely complete leaves.

###### Example 1.5

The Hopf manifold $`H^{2n}`$ of Example 1.3 with $`q=p=n`$ and $`S`$ defined by (18) is a compact, bundle-type, tangent manifold.

###### Example 1.6

The torus of Example 1.1 with $`q=p`$ and $`S`$ of (18) is a compact non bundle-type tangent manifold.

###### Example 1.7

The manifold $`M(1,p)\times (/)`$, with the coordinates of Example 1.2 and a new coordinate $`t`$ on $``$, and with $`S`$ defined by

(21)
$$S\left(\frac{}{x^i}\right)=\frac{}{z^i},S\left(\frac{}{y}\right)=\frac{}{t},S\left(\frac{}{z^i}\right)=0,S\left(\frac{}{t}\right)=0$$

is a compact non bundle-type tangent manifold. The linearity obstruction $`[E]`$ of this manifold is represented by

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(dz^ix^idy)\frac{}{z^i}+dt\frac{}{t},$$

and $`[E]0`$.

Tangent bundles posses second order vector fields (semisprays in ), so called because they may be locally expressed by a system of second order, ordinary, differential equations. A priori, such vector fields may be defined on any tangent manifold  namely, the vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the space of global cross sections) is of the second order if $`SX|_{U_\alpha }E_\alpha `$ is foliated for all $`\alpha `$. But, this condition means that $`SX`$ is a global Euler vector field, hence, only the bundle-type tangent manifolds can have global second order vector fields.

It is important to point out that, just like on tangent bundles (e.g., ), if $`(M,S,E)`$ is a bundle-type tangent manifold, and $`X`$ is a second order vector field on $`M`$, the Lie derivative $`F=L_XS`$ defines an almost product structure on $`M`$ ($`F^2=Id`$), with the associated projectors

(22)
$$V=\frac{1}{2}(Id+F),H=\frac{1}{2}(IdF),$$

such that $`imV=T𝒱`$ and $`imH`$ is a normal distribution $`N𝒱`$ of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$.

Finally, we give

###### Definition 1.1

A vector field $`X`$ on a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$ is a tangential infinitesimal automorphism if $`L_XS=0`$ ($`L`$ denotes the Lie derivative).

Obviously, a tangential infinitesimal automorphism $`X`$ preserves the foliation $`𝒱`$ and its leafwise affine structure. Therefore, $`X`$ is a leafwise affine vector field with respect to $`𝒱`$. Furthermore, in the bundle-type case, if $`E`$ is a Euler vector field, $`[X,E]`$ is a foliated cross section of $`T𝒱`$.

## 2 Locally Lagrange spaces

Lagrange geometry is motivated by physics and, essentially, it is the study of geometric objects and constructions that are transversal to the vertical foliation of a tangent bundle and are associated with a Lagrangian (a name taken from Lagrangian mechanics) i.e., a function on the total space of the tangent bundle. (See  and the $`d`$-objects defined there.) Here, we use the same approach for a general tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$, and we refer to functions on $`M`$ as global Lagrangians and to functions on open subsets as local Lagrangians.

If $``$ is a Lagrangian, the derivatives in the vertical directions yield symmetric tensor fields of $`M`$ defined by

(23)
$$(Hess_{(k)})_x(X_1,\mathrm{},X_k)=(S\stackrel{~}{X}_k)\mathrm{}(S\stackrel{~}{X}_1)|_x,xM,X_iT_xM,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},k)`$ are extensions of $`X_i`$ to local, $`𝒱`$-foliated, vector fields on $`M`$. (Of course, the result does not depend on the choice of the extensions $`\stackrel{~}{X}_i`$.) $`Hess_k`$ is called the $`k`$-Hessian of $``$. Notice that definition (23) may also be replaced by the recurrence formula

(24)
$$(Hess_{(k)})_x(\stackrel{~}{X}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{X}_k)=[L_{S\stackrel{~}{X}_k}(Hess_{k1})]_x(\stackrel{~}{X}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{X}_{k1}),$$

where the arguments are foliated vector fields.

It is worthwhile to notice the following general property

###### Proposition 2.1

for any function $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, any tangential infinitesimal automorphism $`X`$ of the tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$, and any $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, one has

(25)
$$Hess_k(X)=L_X(Hess_k).$$

Proof. Proceed by induction on $`k`$, while evaluating the Hessian of $`X`$ on foliated arguments and using the recurrence formula (24). Q.e.d.

For $`k=1`$, we get a $`1`$-form, say $`\theta _{}`$, and for $`k=2`$, we get the usual Hessian of $``$ with respect to the affine vertical coordinates $`y^i`$ (see Section 1), hereafter to be denoted by either $`Hess`$ or $`g_{}`$. Obviously, $`g_{}`$ vanishes whenever one of the arguments is vertical hence, it yields a well defined cross section of the symmetric tensor product $`^2\nu ^{}𝒱`$ $`(\nu 𝒱=TM/T𝒱)`$, which we continue to denote by $`g_{}`$. If $`g_{}`$ is non degenerate on the transversal bundle $`\nu `$, the Lagrangian $``$ is said to be regular and $`g_{}`$ is called a (local) Lagrangian metric. We note that if the domain of $``$ is connected, the regularity of $``$ also implies that $`g_{}`$ is of a constant signature. With respect to the local coordinates of (18), one has

(26)
$$\theta _{}=\frac{}{y^i}dx^i,g_{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{y^iy^j}dx^idx^j.$$

Lagrangian mechanics shows the interest of one more geometric object related to a Lagrangian namely, the differential $`2`$-form

(27)
$$\omega _{}=d\theta _{}=\frac{^2}{x^iy^j}dx^idx^j+\frac{^2}{y^iy^j}dy^idx^j.$$

If $``$ is a regular Lagrangian $`\omega _{}`$ is a symplectic form, called the Lagrangian symplectic form.

In , we studied particular symplectic forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$ that are compatible with the tangent structure $`S`$ in the sense that

(28)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }(X,SY)=\mathrm{\Omega }(Y,SX).$$

If this happens, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called a locally Lagrangian-symplectic form since the compatibility property is equivalent with the existence of an open covering $`M=U_\alpha `$, and of local regular Lagrangian functions $`_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$, such that, $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{U_\alpha }=\omega __\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha `$. On the intersections $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$ the local Lagrangians satisfy a compatibility relation of the form

(29)
$$_\beta _\alpha =a(\phi _{(\alpha \beta )})+b_{(\alpha \beta )},$$

where $`\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}`$ is a closed, foliated $`1`$-form, $`b_{(\alpha \beta )}`$ is a foliated function, and $`a(\phi )=\phi _iy^i`$ where the local coordinates and components are taken either in $`U_\alpha `$ or in $`U_\beta `$. Furthermore, if it is possible to find a compatible (in the sense of (29)) global Lagrangian $``$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a global Lagrangian symplectic form. Conditions for the existence of a global Lagrangian were given in . In particular, a globally Lagrangian-symplectic manifold $`M^{2n}`$ cannot be compact since it has the exact volume form $`\omega _{}^n`$.

Following the same idea, we give

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`(M^{2n},S)`$ be a tangent manifold, and $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\nu ^{}𝒱`$ a non degenerate tensor field. Then $`g`$ is a locally Lagrangian metric (structure) on $`M`$ if there exists an open covering $`M=U_\alpha `$ with local regular Lagrangian functions $`_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$ such that $`g|_{U_\alpha }=g__\alpha =Hess_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha `$. The triple $`(M,S,g)`$ will be called a locally Lagrange space or manifold.

It is easy to see that the local Lagrangians $`_\alpha `$ of a locally Lagrange space must again satisfy the compatibility relations (29), where the $`1`$-forms $`\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}`$ may not be closed. In particular, we see that a locally Lagrangian-symplectic manifold is a locally Lagrange space with the metric defined by

(30)
$$g([X],[Y])=\mathrm{\Omega }(SX,Y),$$

where $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$ and $`[X],[Y]`$ are the corresponding projections on $`\nu `$. Furthermore, if there exists a global Lagrangian $``$ that is related by (29) with the local Lagrangians of the structure, $`(M,S,g,)`$ will be a globally Lagrange space. A globally Lagrange space also is a globally Lagrangian-symplectic manifold hence, it cannot be compact.

We can give a global characterization of the locally Lagrange metrics. First, we notice that the bundles $`^k\nu ^{}𝒱`$ of covariant tensors transversal to the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$ may also be seen as the bundles of covariant tensors on $`M`$ that vanish if evaluated on arguments one of which belongs to $`imS`$. (This holds because $`\nu 𝒱T^{}M`$.) In particular, a transversal metric $`g`$ of $`𝒱`$ may be seen as a symmetric $`2`$-covariant tensor field $`g`$ on $`M`$ which is annihilated by $`imS`$. With $`g`$, one associates a $`3`$-covariant tensor, called the derivative or Cartan tensor  defined by

(31)
$$C_x(X,Y,Z)=(L_{S\stackrel{~}{X}}g)_x(Y,Z),xM,X,Y,ZT_xM,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a foliated extension of $`X`$. Obviously, $`C\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\nu ^{}𝒱`$. Then, we get

###### Proposition 2.2

The transversal metric $`g`$ of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$ is a locally Lagrange metric iff the tensor field $`C`$ is totally symmetric.

Proof. Since

$$C_{ijk}=C(\frac{}{x^i},\frac{}{x^j},\frac{}{x^k})=\frac{g_{jk}}{y^i},$$

the symmetry of $`C`$ is equivalent with the existence of the required local Lagrangians $``$. Q.e.d.

We give a number of examples of locally Lagrange manifolds.

###### Example 2.1

Consider the torus of Example 1.6. Then

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(y^i)^2$$

define compatible local Lagrangians with the corresponding Lagrange metric $`_{i=1}^n(dx^i)^2`$. (Notice also the existence of the locally Lagrange symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{i=1}^ndx^idy^i`$.)

###### Example 2.2

Consider the tangent manifold $`M(1,p)\times (/)`$ of Example 1.7, with the tangent structure defined by (21). The $`𝒱`$-transversal metric

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(dx^i)^2+(dy)^2$$

is the Lagrange metric of the local compatible Lagrangians

$$\frac{1}{2}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(z^i)^2+t^2).$$

(In this example the forms $`\phi _{(\alpha \beta )}`$ of (29) are not closed.)

Examples 2.1, 2.2 are interesting because the manifolds involved are compact manifolds.

###### Example 2.3

The manifold $`M^{2n}`$ of Example 1.4 is diffeomorphic with the tangent bundle $`TH^n`$. With the coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$ (see Example 1.4), we see that the function

$$=\frac{_{i=1}^n(y^i)^2}{2_{i=1}^n(x^i)^2}$$

is a global, regular Lagrangian, and it produces a positive definite Lagrange metric.

###### Example 2.4

Consider the Hopf manifold $`H^{2n}`$ of Example 1.5 with the tangent structure (18), and define the local compatible Lagrangians

(32)
$$=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\rho ,\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[(x^i)^2+(y^i)^2].$$

An easy computation yields

(33)
$$\frac{^2}{y^iy^j}=\frac{1}{\rho ^2}(2y^iy^j\rho \delta _{ij}).$$

The determinant of the Hessian (33) can be easily computed as a characteristic polynomial and we get

$$det\left(\frac{^2}{y^iy^j}\right)=\frac{_{i=1}^n[(x^i)^2(y^i)^2]}{\{_{i=1}^n[(x^i)^2+(y^i)^2]\}^{n+1}}.$$

Now, the local equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x^i)^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(y^i)^2$$

defines a global hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`H^{2n}`$, and (33) provides a locally Lagrange metric structure on $`H^{2n}\backslash \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Example 2.5

On any tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$, any non degenerate, foliated, transversal metric $`g`$ of the vertical foliation (if such a metric exists ) is locally Lagrange. Indeed, this kind of metric is characterized by $`C=0`$, and the result follows from Proposition 2.2.

A natural question implied by Definition 2.1 is: assume that $`(M,S,g,_\alpha )`$ is a locally Lagrange space; what conditions ensure the existence of a global compatible, regular Lagrangian?

The compatibility relations (29) endow $`M`$ with an $`\underset{¯}{A}^0`$-valued $`1`$-cocycle defined by any of the members of equation (29), hence, with a cohomology class $`𝒢H^1(M,\underset{¯}{A}^0)`$, which we call the total Lagrangian obstruction, and it is obvious that $`𝒢=0`$ iff the manifold $`M`$ with the indicated structure is a globally Lagrange space.

Furthermore, the total Lagrangian obstruction may be decomposed into two components determined by the exact sequence (7) with $`k=0`$, which in our case becomes

(34)
$$0\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{A}^0(M,𝒱)\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(1,0)}0,$$

where $`\pi ^{}`$ is the composition of the projection $`\pi `$ of (7) by $`S`$.

It is easy to see that the connecting homomorphism of the exact cohomology sequence of (34) is zero in dimension $`0`$. Accordingly, we get the exact sequence

(35)
$$0H^1(M,\mathrm{\Phi })\stackrel{\iota }{}H^1(M,\underset{¯}{A}^0)\stackrel{\pi }{}H^1(M,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(1,0)})\stackrel{}{}H^2(M,\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{},$$

where $`\iota ^{},\pi ^{}`$ are induced by the inclusion and the homomorphism $`\pi ^{}`$ of (34). Accordingly, we get the cohomology class $`𝒢_1=\pi ^{}(𝒢)H^1(M,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(1,0)})`$, and we call it the first Lagrangian obstruction. $`𝒢_1=0`$ is a necessary condition for $`M`$ to be a globally Lagrange space. Furthermore, if $`𝒢_1=0`$, the exact sequence (35) tells us that there exist a unique cohomology class $`𝒢_2H^1(M,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ such that $`𝒢=\iota ^{}(𝒢_2)`$. We call $`𝒢_2`$ the second Lagrangian obstruction of the given structure, and $`𝒢=0`$ iff $`𝒢_1=0`$ and $`𝒢_2=0`$.

We summarize the previous analysis in

###### Proposition 2.3

The locally Lagrange space $`(M,S,g,_\alpha )`$ is a globally Lagrange space iff both the first and the second Lagrangian obstructions exist and are equal to zero.

Let us assume that a choice of a normal bundle $`N𝒱`$ has been made. Then we can use the de Rham theorem associated with the relevant resolution (6) in order to get a representation of the Lagrangian obstructions. The definition of $`𝒢_1`$ shows that the first Lagrangian obstruction is represented by the cocycle $`\{\theta __\beta \theta __\alpha \}`$. Accordingly, $`𝒢_1`$ may be seen as the $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-cohomology class of the global form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of type $`(1,1)`$ defined by gluing up the local forms $`\{d^{\prime \prime }\theta __\alpha \}`$. If we follow the notation of  and take bases

(36)
$$N𝒱=span\left\{X_i=\frac{}{x^i}t_i^j\frac{}{y^j}\right\},T𝒱=span\left\{Y_i=\frac{}{y^i}\right\},$$

with the dual cobases

(37)
$$\begin{array}{c}N^{}𝒱=ann(T𝒱)=span\{dx^i\},\hfill \\ T^{}𝒱=ann(N𝒱)=span\{\vartheta ^i=dy^i+t_j^idx^j\},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`t_j^i(x^i,y^i)`$ are local functions, we get

(38)
$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{^2_\alpha }{y^iy^j}\vartheta ^idx^j.$$

The result may be written as

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`(M,S,g,_\alpha )`$ be a locally Lagrange space. Then, each choice of a normal bundle $`N𝒱`$ defines an almost symplectic structure of $`M`$, given by the non degenerate $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-closed $`2`$-form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The first Lagrangian obstruction $`𝒢_1`$ vanishes iff the form $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-exact.

###### Corollary 2.1

A compact, connected, bundle-type, tangent manifold, with the Euler vector field $`E`$ has no locally Lagrange metric $`g`$ such that $`L_Eg=sg`$ where $`s`$ is a function that never takes the value $`1`$.

Proof. Essentially, the hypothesis on $`E`$ means $`E`$ cannot be a conformal infinitesimal automorphism of $`g`$. From (38) we get

(39)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{n!}\mathrm{\Theta }^n=(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}det\left(\frac{^2_\alpha }{y^iy^j}\right)$$

$$dx^1\mathrm{}dx^ndy^1\mathrm{}dy^n$$

and

(40)
$$L_E\mathrm{\Psi }=(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\left[Edet\left(\frac{^2_\alpha }{y^iy^j}\right)+ndet\left(\frac{^2_\alpha }{y^iy^j}\right)\right]$$

$$dx^1\mathrm{}dx^ndy^1\mathrm{}dy^n,$$

where the local coordinates belong to an affine atlas where $`E=y^i(/y^i)`$. If $`M`$ is compact, $`_ML_E\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, and the coefficient of the right hand side of (40) cannot have a fixed sign. But, the latter property holds under the hypothesis of the corollary. Q.e.d.

For instance, the Hopf manifold $`H^n`$ has no locally Lagrange metric with homogeneous with respect to the coordinates $`(y^i)`$ Lagrangians $`_\alpha `$. Indeed, homogeneity of degree $`s1`$ is impossible because of the previous corollary, and homogeneity of degree $`1`$ contradicts the transition relations (29).

###### Remark 2.1

Because of Corollary 2.1, we conjecture that a compact, bundle-type, tangent manifold cannot have a locally Lagrange metric.

###### Proposition 2.5

The first Lagrangian obstruction of a locally Lagrange metric structure of $`M`$ with the local Lagrangians $`\{_\alpha \}`$ vanishes iff there exists a subordinated structure $`\{\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \}`$ such that the $`1`$-forms $`\theta _{\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha }`$ glue up to a global $`1`$-form. This subordinated structure defines a locally Lagrangian-symplectic structure on the manifold $`M`$. Furthermore, in this case the second Lagrangian obstruction $`𝒢_2`$ is represented by the global $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-closed form $`\kappa `$ of type $`(0,1)`$ defined by gluing up the local forms $`\{d^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha \}`$.

Proof. Under the hypothesis, there exists a global form $`\lambda `$ of type $`(1,0)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }=d^{\prime \prime }\theta __\alpha =d^{\prime \prime }\lambda `$, therefore, $`\theta __\alpha =\lambda |_{U_\alpha }+\xi _\alpha `$, with some local foliated $`1`$-forms $`\xi _\alpha =\xi _{\alpha ,i}(x^j)dx^i`$. Accordingly, we get

(41)
$$\frac{(_\beta _\alpha )}{y^i}=\xi _{\beta ,i}\xi _{\alpha ,i},$$

whence

$$_\beta _\alpha =a(\xi _\beta \xi _\alpha )+b_{(\alpha \beta )},$$

where $`a`$ has the same meaning as in (29) and $`b_{(\alpha \beta )}`$ are foliated functions. Now, if we define

(42)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_\alpha =_\alpha a(\xi _\alpha )$$

we are done. The last assertion follows from the definition of $`𝒢_2`$. Q.e.d.

###### Corollary 2.2

The locally Lagrange metric of Proposition 2.5 is defined by a global Lagrangian iff $`\kappa =d^{\prime \prime }k`$ for a function $`kC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

In order to give an application of this result we recall

###### Lemma 2.1

For the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of a tangent bundle $`TN`$, one has $`H^k(TN,\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$ for any $`k>0`$.

Proof. Use a normal bundle $`N𝒱`$, and let $`\lambda `$ be a $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-closed form of type $`(p,q)`$ on $`TN`$. Since the fibers of $`TN`$ are contractible, if $`N=U_\alpha `$ is a covering by small enough, $`TN`$-trivializing neighborhoods, we have $`\lambda |_{p^1(U_\alpha )}=d^{\prime \prime }\mu _\alpha `$ ($`p:TNN`$) for some local forms $`\mu _\alpha `$ of type $`(p,q1)`$. The local forms $`\mu _\alpha `$ can be glued up to a global form $`\mu `$ by means of the pullback to $`TN`$ of a partition of unity on $`N`$, i.e., by means of foliated functions. Accordingly, we will have $`\lambda =d^{\prime \prime }\mu `$. Q.e.d.

From Corollary 2.2 and Lemma 2.1 we get

###### Proposition 2.6

Any locally Lagrange metric of a tangent bundle $`TN`$ is a globally Lagrange metric.

###### Remark 2.2

Propositions 2.2, 2.6 imply that, in the case of a tangent bundle $`M=TN`$, the symmetry of $`C`$ is a necessary and sufficient condition for $`g`$ to be a global Lagrangian metric. It was well known that this condition is necessary . On the other hand the metrics of  usually are differentiable only on the complement of the zero section of $`TN`$, where Proposition 2.6 does not hold, hence, the condition is not a sufficient one.

We also mention the inclusion $`\sigma :\underset{¯}{Z}_{pr}^{(1,0)}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}^{(1,0)}`$, where $`Z`$ denotes spaces of closed forms, and the obvious

###### Proposition 2.7

The locally Lagrange metric structure defined by $`\{_\alpha \}`$ is reducible to a locally Lagrangian-symplectic structure iff $`𝒢_1im\sigma ^{}`$, where $`\sigma ^{}`$ is induced by $`\sigma `$ in cohomology.

Other important notions are defined by

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`(M,S,g)`$ be a locally Lagrange space, and $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$. Then: i) $`X`$ is a Lagrange infinitesimal automorphism if $`L_Xg=0`$, where $`g`$ is seen as a $`2`$-covariant tensor field on $`M`$; ii) $`X`$ is a strong Lagrange infinitesimal automorphism if it is a Lagrange and a tangential infinitesimal automorphism of $`(M,S)`$, simultaneously.

Notice that

(43)
$$(L_Xg)(Y,SZ)=g(Y,[X,SZ])(X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }TM).$$

From (43) and the non degeneracy of $`g`$ on $`\nu 𝒱`$ it follows that a Lagrange infinitesimal automorphism necessarily is a $`𝒱`$-projectable vector field. But, it may not be locally leafwise affine. Indeed, if $`g`$ is a foliated metric of $`\nu 𝒱`$ (Example 2.5) every tangent vector field of $`𝒱`$ is a Lagrange infinitesimal automorphism, even if it is not locally leafwise affine.

We finish this section by considering a more general structure.

###### Definition 2.3

Let $`(M,S)`$ be a tangent manifold. A locally conformal Lagrange structure on $`M`$ is a maximal open covering $`M=U_\alpha `$ with local regular Lagrangians $`_\alpha `$ such that, over the intersections $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$, the local Lagrangian metrics satisfy a relation of the form

(44)
$$g__\beta =f_{(\alpha \beta )}g__\alpha ,$$

where $`f_{(\alpha \beta )}>0`$ are foliated functions. A tangent manifold endowed with this type of structure is a locally conformal Lagrange space or manifold.

Clearly, condition (44) is equivalent with the transition relations

(45)
$$_\beta =f_{(\alpha \beta )}_\alpha +a(\phi _{(\alpha \beta )})+b_{(\alpha \beta )},$$

where the last two terms are like in (29). On the other hand, $`\{\mathrm{ln}f_{(\alpha \beta )}\}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-valued $`1`$-cocycle, and may be written as $`\mathrm{ln}f_{(\alpha \beta )}=\psi _\beta \psi _\alpha `$ where $`\psi _\alpha `$ is a differentiable function on $`U_\alpha `$ (which may be assumed projectable only if the cocycle is a coboundary). Accordingly the formula

(46)
$$g|_{U_\alpha }=e^{\psi _\alpha }g__\alpha $$

defines a global transversal metric of the vertical foliation, which is locally conformal with local Lagrange metrics. As a matter of fact, we have

###### Proposition 2.8

Let $`(M^{2n},S)`$ be a tangent manifold, and $`n>1`$. Then, $`M`$ is locally conformal Lagrange iff $`M`$ has a global transversal metric $`g`$ of the vertical foliation, which is locally conformal with local Lagrange metrics.

Proof. We still have to prove that the existence of the metric $`g`$ that satisfies (46) implies (44), which is clear, except for the fact that the functions $`f_{(\alpha \beta )}=e^{\psi _\beta \psi _\alpha }`$ are projectable. This follows from the Lagrangian character of the metrics $`g__\alpha `$. Indeed, with the usual local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$, the symmetry of the derivative tensors $`C`$ of $`g__\alpha ,g__\beta `$ implies

$$\frac{f_{(\alpha \beta )}}{y^k}(g__\alpha )_{ij}=\frac{f_{(\alpha \beta )}}{y^i}(g__\alpha )_{kj},$$

and a contraction by $`(g__\alpha )^{ij}`$ yields $`f_{(\alpha \beta )}/y^k=0`$. Q.e.d.

The cohomology class $`\eta =[\mathrm{ln}f_{(\alpha \beta )}]H^1(M,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ will be called the complementary class of the metric $`g`$, and the locally conformal Lagrange metric $`g`$ is a locally Lagrange metric iff $`\eta =0`$. Indeed, if $`\eta =0`$, we may assume that the functions $`\psi _\alpha `$ are foliated, and the derivative tensor $`C`$ of $`g=e^{\psi _\alpha }g__\alpha `$ is completely symmetric.

Furthermore, using a normal bundle $`N𝒱`$ and the leafwise version of the de Rham theorem, the complementary class may be seen as the $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-cohomology class of the global, $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-closed complementary form $`\tau `$ obtained by gluing up the local forms $`\{d^{\prime \prime }\psi _\alpha \}`$. In particular, Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.6 imply that any locally conformal Lagrange metric $`g`$ of a tangent bundle must be a locally, therefore, a globally Lagrange metric.

###### Example 2.6

Consider the Hopf manifold $`H^{2n}`$ of Example 1.5. The local functions $`_{i=1}^n(y^i)^2`$ define a locally conformal Lagrange structure on $`H^{2n}`$, and

$$g=\frac{_{i=1}^n(y^i)^2}{_{i=1}^n[(x^i)^2+(y^i)^2]}$$

is a corresponding global metric, which, with the previously used notation, corresponds to

$$\psi _\alpha =\mathrm{ln}\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[(x^i)^2+(y^i)^2]\}.$$

The corresponding complementary form is

$$\tau =\frac{2_{i=1}^ny^idy^i}{_{i=1}^n[(x^i)^2+(y^i)^2]}.$$

###### Proposition 2.9

Let $`(M,S)`$ be a tangent manifold and $`g`$ a global transversal metric of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$. Then, $`g`$ is locally conformal Lagrange iff there exists a $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-closed form $`\tau `$ of type $`(0,1)`$ such that the tensor $`\stackrel{~}{C}=C(\tau S)g`$, where $`C`$ is the derivative tensor of $`g`$, is a completely symmetric tensor.

Proof. Define $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^{\psi _\alpha }g`$, where $`\tau |_{U_\alpha }=d^{\prime \prime }\psi _\alpha `$ for a covering $`M=U_\alpha `$. Then, $`e^{\psi _\alpha }\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the derivative tensor of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, and the result follows from Proposition 2.2. Q.e.d.

## 3 Transversal Riemannian geometry

The aim of this section is to give an index free presentation of the connections used in Finsler and Lagrange geometry , while also extending these connections to tangent manifolds.

Let $`(M,S)`$ be a tangent manifold and $`g`$ a metric of the transversal bundle of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ ($`T𝒱=imS`$). (The metrics which we consider are non degenerate, but may be indefinite.) We do not get many interesting differential-geometric objects on $`M`$, unless we fix a normal bundle $`N𝒱`$, also called the horizontal bundle, i.e., we decompose

(47)
$$TM=N𝒱T𝒱.$$

We will say that $`N𝒱`$ is a normalization, and $`(M,S,N𝒱)`$ is a normalized tangent manifold. Where necessary, we shall use the local bases (36), (37). The projections on the two terms of (47) will be denoted by $`p_N`$, $`p_T`$, respectively, and $`P=p_Np_T`$ is an almost product structure tensor that has the horizontal and vertical distribution as $`\pm 1`$-eigendistributions, respectively.

For a normalized tangent manifold, the following facts are well known: i) $`S|_{N𝒱}`$ is an isomorphism $`Q:N𝒱T𝒱`$, ii) $`S=Q0`$, iii) $`S^{}=0Q^1`$ is an almost tangent structure, iv) $`F=S^{}+S`$ is an almost product structure, v) $`J=S^{}S`$ is an almost complex structure on $`M`$.

On a normalized tangent manifold $`(M,S,N𝒱)`$, a pseudo-Riemannian metric $`\gamma `$ is said to be a compatible metric if the subbundles $`T𝒱,N𝒱`$ are orthogonal with respect to $`\gamma `$ and

(48)
$$\gamma (SX,SY)=\gamma (X,Y),X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱.$$

It is easy to see that these conditions imply the compatibility of $`\gamma `$ with the structures $`J`$ and $`F`$ i.e.,

(49)
$$\gamma (JX,JY)=\gamma (X,Y),\gamma (FX,FY)=\gamma (X,Y),X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }TM.$$

Furthermore, if $`(M,S)`$ is a tangent manifold and $`\gamma `$ is a pseudo-Riemannian metric on $`M`$, we will say that $`\gamma `$ is compatible with the tangent structure $`S`$ if the $`\gamma `$-orthogonal bundle $`N𝒱`$ of $`imS`$ is a normalization, and $`\gamma `$ is compatible for the normalized tangent manifold $`(M,S,N𝒱)`$.

The following result is obvious

###### Proposition 3.1

On a normalized, tangent manifold, any transversal metric $`g`$ of the vertical foliation defines a unique compatible metric $`\gamma `$, such that $`\gamma |_{N𝒱}=g`$.

In what follows, we will refer at the metric $`\gamma `$ as the canonical extension of the transversal metric $`g`$. On the other hand, a pseudo-Riemannian metric $`\gamma `$ of a tangent manifold $`(M,S)`$ which is the canonical extension of a locally Lagrange metric $`g`$ will be called a locally Lagrange-Riemann metric. This means that the restriction of $`\gamma `$ to the $`\gamma `$-orthogonal subbundle $`N𝒱`$ of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$ is a locally Lagrange metric $`g=g__\alpha `$, and $`\gamma `$ is compatible with $`(M,S,N𝒱)`$ . Then, $`(M,S,\gamma )`$ will be called a locally Lagrange-Riemann manifold. Notice that, since the induced metric of $`N𝒱`$ is non degenerate, $`N𝒱`$ is a normalization of the vertical foliation, and the compatibility condition of the definition makes sense. Thus, any normalized locally Lagrange space with the canonical extension $`\gamma `$ of the Lagrange metric $`g`$ is a locally Lagrange-Riemann manifold, and conversely.

###### Example 3.1

The Euclidean metric $`_{i=1}^n[(dx^i)^2+(dy^i)^2]`$ is the canonical extension of the locally Lagrange metric defined in Example 2.1 on the torus $`𝕋^{2n}`$.

###### Example 3.2

The metric

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(dx^i)^2+(dy)^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(dz^ix^idy)^2+(dt)^2$$

is the canonical extension of the locally Lagrange metric defined in Example 2.2 on $`M(1,p)\times (/)`$.

Now, let $`(M,S,N𝒱,g)`$ be a normalized tangent manifold with a transversal metric of the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ and let $``$ be the Levi-Civita connection of the canonical extension $`\gamma `$ of $`g`$.

We are going to define a general connection that includes the connections used in Finsler and Lagrange geometry ) as particular cases determined by specific normalizations. This will be the so-called second canonical connection $`D`$ of a foliated, pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(M,\gamma )`$, defined the following conditions : i) $`N𝒱`$ and $`T𝒱`$ are parallel, ii) the restrictions of the metric to $`N𝒱`$ and $`T𝒱`$ are preserved by parallel translations along curves that are tangent to $`N𝒱,T𝒱`$, respectively, iii) the $`𝒱`$-normal, respectively $`𝒱`$-tangent, component of the torsion $`T_D(X,Y)`$ vanishes if one of the arguments is normal, respectively tangent, to $`𝒱`$. This connection is given by

(50)
$$\begin{array}{cc}D_{Z_1}Z_2=p_N_{Z_1}Z_2,\hfill & D_{Y_1}Y_2=p_T_{Y_1}Y_2,\hfill \\ D_{Y_1}Z_2=p_N[Y_1,Z_2],\hfill & D_{Z_1}Y_2=p_T[Z_1,Y_2],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`Y_1,Y_2\mathrm{\Gamma }T𝒱`$ and $`Z_1,Z_2\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$. We will say that $`D`$ is the canonical connection, and the connection induced by $`D`$ in the normal bundle $`N𝒱`$, or, equivalently, in the transversal bundle $`\nu 𝒱=TM/T𝒱`$, will be called the canonical transversal connection. The canonical, transversal connection is a Bott (basic) connection . The total torsion of the connection $`D`$ is not zero, namely one has

(51)
$$T_D(X,Y)=p_T[p_NX,p_NY],X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }TM.$$

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`(M,S,g)`$ be a locally Lagrange manifold, and $`\gamma `$ the canonical extension of $`g`$. Then, the derivative tensor field of $`g`$ has the following expressions

(52)
$$\begin{array}{c}C(X,Y,Z)=(D_{SX}g)(Y,Z)=(D_{SX}\gamma )(Y,Z)\hfill \\ =\gamma (_Y(SX),Z)+\gamma (Y,_Z(SX)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$.

Proof. Of course, in (52), $`g`$ is seen as a $`2`$-covariant tensor field on $`M`$ (see Section 2). First, we refer to the first two equalities (52). These are pointwise relations, hence, it will be enough to prove these equalities for foliated cross sections of the normal bundle $`N𝒱`$. Indeed, a tangent vector at a point can always be extended to a projectable vector field on a neighborhood of that point. But, in this case, the first and second equalities are straightforward consequences of the definitions of the tensor field $`C`$ and of the connection $`D`$. Then, since $``$ has no torsion, (50) implies

(53)
$$D_{SX}Y=_{SX}Yp_T_{SX}Yp_N_Y(SX),$$

and, also using $`\gamma =0`$, we get the required result. Q.e.d.

The first two expressions of $`C`$ actually hold for any vector fields $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$.

###### Corollary 3.1

The canonical extension $`\gamma `$ of a transversal metric $`g`$ is a locally Lagrange-Riemann metric iff one of the following two equivalent relations holds

(54)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (D_{SX}\gamma )(Y,Z)& =& (D_{SY}\gamma )(X,Z),\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma (_Y(SX),Z)& +& \gamma (Y,_Z(SX))\hfill \\ \hfill =\gamma (_X(SY),Z)& +& \gamma (X,_Z(SY)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$.

###### Corollary 3.2

On a tangent manifold, if $`\gamma `$ is a compatible pseudo-Riemannian metric such that $`S=0`$, then $`\gamma `$ is a projectable, locally Lagrange-Riemann metric.

Proof. If $`S=0`$, the third equality (52) yields $`C=0`$, which is the characterization of this type of metrics. Q.e.d.

Now we consider the curvature of $`D`$. The curvature is a tensor, and it suffices to evaluate it pointwisely. For this reason, whenever we need an evaluation of the curvature (as well as of any other tensor) that involves vector fields, it will suffice to make that evaluation on $`𝒱`$-projectable vector fields.

###### Proposition 3.3

The curvature $`R_D`$ of the canonical connection has the following properties

(55)
$$R_D(SX,SY)Z=0,$$

(56)
$$R_D(SX,Y)Z=p_N[SX,D_YZ],$$

(57)
$$R_D(X,Y)(SZ)=D_{SZ}(p_T[X,Y]),$$

(58)
$$R_D(SX,Y)Z=R_D(SX,Z)Y,$$

for any foliated vector fields $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$. Moreover, formulas (55), (57), and (58) hold for any arguments $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$.

Proof. Equality (55) is in agreement with the fact that $`D`$ is a Bott connection . Formulas (55)-(57) follow from (50) and (51). Formula (58) is a consequence of (56). In the computation, one will take into account the fact that for any foliated vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$ and any vector field $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }T𝒱`$ one has $`[X,Y]\mathrm{\Gamma }T𝒱`$ . Q.e.d.

###### Proposition 3.4

For the canonical connection $`D`$, the first Bianchi identity is equivalent to the following equalities, where $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$

(59)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}R_D(SX,SY)(SZ)=0,$$

(60)
$$R_D(SX,Z)SY=R_D(SY,Z)SX,$$

(61)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}R_D(X,Y)Z=0.$$

Proof. Write down the general expression of the Bianchi identity of a linear connection with torsion (e.g., ) for arguments tangent and normal to $`𝒱`$. Then, compute using (50), (51) and projectable vector fields as arguments. The fourth relation included in the Bianchi identity reduces to (57). Q.e.d.

###### Proposition 3.5

For the canonical connection $`D`$, the second Bianchi identity is equivalent to the following equalities, where $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$,

(62)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}(D_{SX}R_D)(SY,SZ)=0.$$

(63)
$$(D_{SX}R_D)(SY,Z)(D_{SY}R_D)(SX,Z)=(D_ZR_D)(SX,SY),$$

(64)
$$(D_XR_D)(Y,SZ)(D_YR_D)(X,SZ)+(D_{SZ}R_D)(X,Y)$$

$$=R_D(p_T[X,Y],SZ),$$

(65)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}(D_XR_D)(Y,Z)=\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}R_D(p_T[X,Y],Z),$$

Proof. This is just a rewriting of the classical second Bianchi identity  that uses (51). Q.e.d.

Like in Riemannian geometry, we also define a covariant curvature tensor

(66)
$$R_D(X,Y,Z,U)=\gamma (R_D(Z,U)Y,X),X,Y,Z,U\mathrm{\Gamma }TM.$$

In particular, we have

###### Proposition 3.6

(67)
$$R_D(U,Z,SX,Y)=g([SX,D_YZ],U)$$

$$=(SX)(g(D_YZ,U))C(X,D_YZ,U),$$

where the arguments are foliated vector fields in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$, and $`g`$ is seen as a tensor on $`M`$.

Formula (61) yields the Bianchi identity

(68)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}R_D(U,X,Y,Z)=0,X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱.$$

But, the other Riemannian symmetries may not hold. Indeed, we have

###### Proposition 3.7

For any arguments $`X,Y,Z,U\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$ one has

(69)
$$R_D(X,Y,Z,U)+R_D(Y,X,Z,U)=(D_{p_T[Z,U]}\gamma )(X,Y)$$

$$=C(S^{}p_T[Z,U],X,Y).$$

Proof. Express the equality

$$(ZUUZ[Z,U])(\gamma (X,Y))=0$$

for normal foliated arguments, and use the transversal metric character of the canonical connection $`D`$ and Proposition 3.2. Q.e.d.

###### Proposition 3.8

For any arguments $`X,Y,Z,U\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$ one has

(70)
$$R_D(X,Y,Z,U)R_D(Z,U,X,Y)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\{C(S^{}p_T[Z,U],X,Y)C(S^{}p_T[X,Y],Z,U)\}.$$

Proof. Same proof as for Proposition 1.1 of , Chapter V. Q.e.d.

The other first and second Bianchi identities may also be expressed in a covariant form. From (66) we get

(71)
$$(D_FR_D)(A,B,C,E)=\gamma ((D_FR_D)(C,E)B,A)$$

$$+(D_F\gamma )(R_D(C,E)B,A),$$

where $`(A,B,C,E,F\mathrm{\Gamma }TM)`$. Accordingly, (64) yields

(72)
$$(D_{SZ}R_D)(V,U,X,Y)+(D_XR_D)(V,U,Y,SZ)(D_YR_D)(V,U,X,SZ)$$

$$=(D_{SZ}\gamma )(R_D(X,Y)U,V)(D_X\gamma )(p_N[SZ,D_YU],V)+(D_Y\gamma )(p_N[SZ,D_XU],V),$$

(65) yields

(73)
$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}(D_XR_D)(V,U,Y,Z)=\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}R_D(V,U,p_T[X,Y],Z)$$

$$\underset{Cycl(X,Y,Z)}{}(D_X\gamma )(R_D(Y,Z)U,V),$$

etc., where $`X,Y,Z,U,V\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$.

###### Example 3.3

On the torus $`𝕋^{2n}`$ with the metric of Example 3.1, the usual flat connection is both the Levi-Civita connection and the canonical connection $`D`$, and it has zero curvature. On the manifold $`M(1,p)\times (/)`$ with the metric of Example 3.2, the connection that parallelizes the orthonormal basis shown by the expression of the metric is not the Levi-Civita connection, since it has torsion, but, it follows easily that it has the characteristic properties of the canonical connection $`D`$. Accordingly, we are in the case of a locally Lagrange-Riemann manifold with a vanishing curvature $`R_D`$ and a non vanishing torsion $`T_D`$.

###### Proposition 3.9

The Ricci curvature tensor $`\rho _D`$ of the connection $`D`$ is given by the equalities

(74)
$$\rho _D(SX,SY)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}<\vartheta ^i,R_D(\frac{}{y^i},SX)SY>,$$

(75)
$$\rho _D(SX,Y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}<dx^i,p_N[D_{X_i}Y,SX]>,$$

(76)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \rho _D(X,Y)& =& tr[ZR_D(Z,X)Y]\hfill \\ & =& _{i=1}^n<dx^i,R_D(X_i,X)Y>,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$, and in (75) $`Y`$ is projectable.

Proof. The definition of the Ricci tensor of a linear connection (e.g., ), and the use of the bases (36) and (37) yield

(77)
$$\rho _D(X,Y)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}<dx^i,R_D(X_i,X)Y>+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}<\theta ^i,R_D(\frac{}{y^i},X)Y>.$$

Then, the results follow from (50) and (56). Q.e.d.

###### Remark 3.1

In view of (76), we may speak of $`\kappa _D=tr\rho _D`$ on $`N𝒱`$, and call it the transversal scalar curvature.

In the case of a normalized, bundle-type, tangent manifold $`(M,S,E,N𝒱)`$, with a compatible metric $`\gamma `$ ($`E`$ is the Euler vector field), the curvature has some more interesting features, which were studied previously in Finsler geometry . These features follow from

###### Lemma 3.1

For any $`Z\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$ one has

(78)
$$D_{SZ}(S^{}E)=Z.$$

Proof. $`S^{}`$ is the tensor defined at the beginning of this section, and with local bundle-type coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)_{i=1}^n`$ and bases (36), we have

$$SZ=\xi ^i(x^j,y^j)\frac{}{y^i},S^{}E=y^iX_i.$$

Now, (78) follows from (50). Q.e.d.

Using Lemma 3.1 one can prove

###### Proposition 3.10

The curvature operator $`R_D(X,Y)|_{N𝒱}`$ $`(X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱)`$ is determined by its action on $`S^{}E`$ and by $`R_D(V,SW)|_{N𝒱}`$ where $`V,W\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱`$.

Proof. Denote

(79)
$$r(X,Y)=R_D(X,Y)S^{}E.$$

The covariant derivative of this tensor contains a term, which, in view of (78), is equal to $`R_D(X,Y)Z`$, and we get

(80)
$$R_D(X,Y)Z=D_{SZ}(r(X,Y))r(D_{SZ}X,Y)$$

$$r(X,D_{SZ}Y)(D_{SZ}R_D)(X,Y)S^{}E.$$

Now, if the last term of (80) is expressed by means of the Bianchi identity (64) one gets an expression of $`R_D(X,Y)Z`$ in terms of $`r`$ and $`R_D(V,SW)|_{N𝒱}`$ for various arguments $`V,W`$. Q.e.d.

Notice that, by (56), the computation of $`R_D(V,SW)|_{N𝒱}`$ on normal arguments requires only a first order covariant derivative.

From Proposition 3.10 we also see that the curvature values $`R_D(U,Z,X,Y)`$ $`(X,Y,Z,U\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱)`$ are determined by the values $`R_D(U,S^{}E,X,Y)`$ and of $`R_D(U,V,W,SK)`$ for convenient normal arguments. Therefore, it should be interesting to study manifolds where $`R_D(U,S^{}E,X,Y)`$ has a simple expression. If we fix a direction $`span\{U\}`$ and a $`2`$-dimensional plan $`\sigma =span\{X,Y\}`$ $`(U,X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }N𝒱)`$, the formula

(81)
$$k_U(\sigma )=\frac{R_D(U,S^{}E,X,Y)}{\gamma (S^{}E,X)\gamma (U,Y)\gamma (S^{}E,Y)\gamma (U,X)}$$

defines an invariant, which we will call the $`U`$-sectional curvature of $`\sigma `$. $`k_U(\sigma )`$ is independent of $`U`$ iff

(82)
$$R_D(X,Y)S^{}E=k(\sigma )[\gamma (S^{}E,X)Y\gamma (S^{}E,Y)X],$$

where $`k(\sigma )`$ is a function of the point of $`M`$ and the plan $`\sigma `$ only. Furthermore, if $`k(\sigma )=f(x)`$, $`xM`$, i.e. $`k(\sigma )`$ is pointwise constant, (82) is a natural simple expression of the transversal curvature tensor.

On the other hand, we can generalize the notion of flag curvature, which is an important invariant in Finsler geometry . Namely, a flag $`\varphi `$ at a point $`xM`$ is a $`2`$-dimensional plane $`\varphi T_xM`$ which contains the vector $`E_x`$. Such a flag is $`\varphi =span\{E_x,X_x\}`$, where $`X_xN_x𝒱`$ is defined up to a scalar factor, and following , the flag curvature is defined by

(83)
$$k(\varphi )=k(X)=\frac{R_D(X,S^{}E,X,S^{}E)}{g(S^{}E,S^{}E)g(X,X)g^2(S^{}E,X)}.$$

If $`g`$ is not positive definite, the flag curvature may take infinite values.

###### Proposition 3.11

The flag curvature $`k`$ is pointwise constant iff

(84)
$$R_D(X,S^{}E,Y,S^{}E)=f[g(S^{}E,S^{}E)g(X,Y)g(S^{}E,X)g(S^{}E,Y)],$$

where $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. If the $`U`$-sectional curvature is independent of $`U`$ and poinwise constant, the flag curvature is pointwise constant too.

Proof. For the first assertion, use $`k(X+Y)=k(X)=k(Y)`$. The second follows because, if $`k(\sigma )=f(x)`$, (82) implies

(85)
$$R_D(U,S^{}E,X,Y)=f(x)[\gamma (S^{}E,X)\gamma (Y,U)\gamma (S^{}E,Y\gamma (X,U)],$$

which reduces to (84) for $`Y=S^{}E`$. Q.e.d.

###### Remark 3.2

The curvature $`R_D`$ has more interesting properties in the case of a bundle-type, locally Lagrange manifold such that the metric tensor $`g`$ is homogeneous of degree zero with respect to the coordinates $`y^i`$. The invariant characterization of this situation is that the derivative tensor $`C`$ is symmetric, and such that

(86)
$$i(S^{}E)C=0.$$

Indeed, in this case, formulas (69), (70), etc., yield simpler symmetry properties if one of the arguments is $`S^{}E`$. The Finsler metrics satisfy the homogeneity condition (86).

###### Remark 3.3

On a locally Lagrange-Riemann manifold $`(M,S,\gamma )`$ there exist other geometrically interesting connections as well. One such connection is

(87)
$$_X^{}Y=p_N(_X(p_NY))+p_T(_X(p_TY)).$$

The connection $`^{}`$ preserves the vertical and horizontal distributions and the metric, but has a non zero torsion. Then, we have the connections $`{}_{}{}^{C}D,^C^{}`$, which can be defined by using formulas (50), (87) with the Levi-Civita connection $``$ replaced by the Chern connection $`{}_{}{}^{C}`$ i.e., the $`\gamma `$-metric, $`J`$-preserving connection that has a torsion with no component of $`J`$-type $`(1,1)`$ $`(J=S^{}S)`$ .

We finish by recalling the well known fact  that global Finsler and Lagrange structures of tangent bundles have an invariant normalization. This normalization may be defined as follows.

Let $``$ be the global Lagrangian function.Then the energy function

(88)
$$_{}=E$$

has a Hamiltonian vector field $`X_{}`$ defined by

(89)
$$i(X_{})\omega _{}=d_{},$$

where $`\omega _{}`$ is the Lagrangian symplectic form (27), which turns out to be a second order vector field. Accordingly, $`L_X_{}S`$ is an almost product structure on $`M`$ (see Section 1), and $`N_{}𝒱=imH`$, with $`H`$ defined by (22) is a canonical normal bundle of $`𝒱`$.

A locally Lagrangian structure $`\{_\alpha \}`$ on a bundle-type tangent manifold $`(M,S,E)`$ defines a global function (second order energy)

(90)
$$^{}=E^2_\alpha E_\alpha ,$$

but, generally, it has no global Hamiltonian vector field, and, even if such a field exists, is may not be a second order vector field.
Acknowledgement. Part of the work on this paper was done during a visit at the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics, Vienna, Austria, October 1-10, 2002, in the framework of the program “Aspects of foliation theory in geometry, topology and physics”. The author thanks the organizers of the program, J. Glazebrook, F. Kamber and K. Richardson, the ESI and its director prof. P. Michor for having made that visit possible.

| Department of Mathematics |
| --- |
| University of Haifa, Israel |
| E-mail: vaisman@math.haifa.ac.il |


text:
# First Measurement of Transferred Polarization in the Exclusive 𝑒⃗𝑝→𝑒'𝐾⁺Λ⃗ Reaction

## Abstract

The first measurements of the transferred polarization for the exclusive $`\stackrel{}{e}pe^{}K^+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ reaction have been performed in Hall B at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility using the CLAS spectrometer. A 2.567 GeV electron beam was used to measure the hyperon polarization over a range of $`Q^2`$ from 0.3 to 1.5 (GeV/c)2, $`W`$ from 1.6 to 2.15 GeV, and over the full center-of-mass angular range of the $`K^+`$ meson. Comparison with predictions of hadrodynamic models indicates strong sensitivity to the underlying resonance contributions. A non-relativistic quark model interpretation of our data suggests that the $`s\overline{s}`$ quark pair is produced with spins predominantly anti-aligned. Implications for the validity of the widely used $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ quark-pair creation operator are discussed.

We present here the first measurements of spin transfer in the nucleon resonance region from a longitudinally polarized electron beam to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon produced in the exclusive $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}K^+)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ reaction. Understanding nucleon resonance excitation continues to provide a major challenge to hadronic physics due to the non-perturbative nature of QCD at these energies. Studies of strange final states have the potential to uncover baryonic resonances that do not couple or couple only weakly to the $`\pi N`$ channel due to the different hadronic vertices. Recent symmetric quark-model calculations predict more states than have been found experimentally capstick . The issue of whether these missing resonances do in fact exist is directly tied to the question of whether certain quark degrees of freedom might be “frozen out” as in, e.g., certain diquark models alkofer . This question is central to our understanding of baryon structure.

In the absence of direct QCD predictions, the theoretical framework involving hadrodynamic models has been extensively applied to the study of electromagnetic production of pseudoscalar mesons wjc ; mart ; saghai ; janssen . Considerable effort over the last two decades has been expended to develop these effective Lagrangian models; however, their predictive powers are still limited by a sparsity of data. Model fits to the existing cross section data are generally obtained at the expense of many free parameters, and these unpolarized data alone are not sufficiently sensitive to fully understand the reaction mechanism as they probe only a small portion of the full response. Our double-polarization data can provide significant new constraints on the basic parameters of these models, increasing their discriminatory power and allowing for a quantitative measure of whether or not new “missing” resonances might be required to explain these and other hyperon production data.

Alternatively, our data provide interesting, and perhaps surprising, information about the nature of quark-pair production. There is a growing body of evidence that the appropriate degrees of freedom to describe the phenomenology of hadronic decays are constituent quarks held together by a gluonic flux-tube isgur . The non-perturbative nature of the flux-tube gives rise to the well-known linear potential of heavy-quark confinement ($`dV/dr1`$ GeV/fm) bali . Other properties of the flux-tube can be determined by studying $`q\overline{q}`$ pair production, since this is widely believed to produce the color field neutralization that actually breaks the flux-tube. Since the suggestions in the 1970’s that a quark pair with vacuum quantum numbers is responsible for breaking the color flux-tube (the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model leyaouanc ), theorists have used increasingly sophisticated and realistic models to understand the experimental data ackleh ; geiger .

The most sensitive experimental tests to date have measured the ratio of strong amplitudes differing in their orbital angular momenta in certain meson decays geiger . Since the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ operator has $`S`$=1 and $`L`$=1, it implies a different amplitude ratio than, e.g., a $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ operator with $`S`$=1 and $`L`$=0, corresponding to one gluon exchange. Later, we will argue that the spin properties of the quark-pair creation operator might be responsible for the observed trends in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization. Furthermore, by analogy of an argument used to explain the observed transverse polarization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in exclusive $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ boros , we conclude that the relevant quark-pair creation operator dominating our reaction produces the $`s\overline{s}`$ pair with spins anti-aligned. This finding, if confirmed by further calculations, brings into question the universal applicability of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model. This has important implications since many, if not most, calculations of hadronic spectroscopy use the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ operator to calculate the transition to the final-state particles barnes .

The Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility (CEBAF) at Jefferson Laboratory provides multi-GeV electron beams with longitudinal polarization up to 80%. In Hall B of this facility is the CEBAF Large Acceptance Spectrometer (CLAS) smith , a detector constructed around six superconducting coils that generate a toroidal magnetic field to momentum-analyze charged particles. The detection system consists of multiple layers of drift chambers to determine charged-particle trajectories, Čerenkov detectors for electron/pion separation, scintillation counters for flight-time measurements, and calorimeters to identify electrons and high-energy neutral particles. Operating luminosity with the unpolarized liquid-H2 target is $``$1$`\times `$1034 cm-2 sec-1.

The large acceptance of CLAS has enabled us to detect the final-state electron and kaon, and the proton from the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon at a beam energy of 2.567 GeV, over a range of momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ from 0.3 to 1.5 (GeV/c)2 and invariant energy $`W`$ from 1.6 to 2.15 GeV, while providing full angular coverage in the kaon center-of-mass (CM). Hyperon identification with CLAS relies on missing-mass reconstructions. Fig. 1a shows the missing-mass for $`p(e,e^{}K^+)X`$ where a proton has also been detected. Fig. 1b shows the missing mass for $`p(e,e^{}K^+p)X`$, where the final-state proton can come from the decay of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$(1115) (missing $`\pi ^{}`$) or the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$(1192) (missing $`\pi ^{}\gamma `$). Fig. 1c shows the resulting hyperon spectrum after a cut on the $`\pi ^{}`$ peak in Fig. 1b.

An attractive feature of the mesonic decay $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p\pi ^{}`$ comes from its self-analyzing nature. This weak decay has an asymmetric angular distribution with respect to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spin direction due to an interference between parity non-conserving ($`s`$-wave) and parity-conserving ($`p`$-wave) amplitudes. The decay-proton distribution in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ rest frame (RF) for each beam helicity state is of the form:

$$\frac{dN^\pm }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}}=N[1+\alpha (P^0\pm P_bP^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}],$$
(1)
where $`P_b`$ is the average beam polarization and $`\alpha `$=0.642$`\pm `$0.013 is the weak decay asymmetry parameter pdg . The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization is the sum of $`P^0`$, the induced polarization, and $`P^{}`$, the helicity-dependent transferred polarization, both defined with respect to a particular set of spin-quantization axes. This latter quantity is the focus of this work. Fig. 2 highlights two standard choices for the spin-quantization axes defined in relation to the electron and hadron reaction planes.

Using eq.(1), we can express the acceptance-corrected yield asymmetries in terms of the average transferred polarization for each kinematic bin as:

$$A_\xi (\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF})=\frac{N_\xi ^+N_\xi ^{}}{N_\xi ^++N_\xi ^{}}=\frac{\alpha P_b\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}P_\xi ^{}}{1+\alpha P_\xi ^0\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}}.$$
(2)
Here $`N_\xi ^\pm (\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF})`$ are the decay-proton helicity-gated yields with respect to the different spin-quantization axes $`\xi =\widehat{i},\widehat{j},\widehat{k}`$. Using this method we are quite insensitive to the form of the CLAS acceptance function.

Using the notation of Ref. knochlein , the most general form for the virtual photo-absorption CM cross section for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}K^+)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ reaction from an unpolarized proton target, allowing for both a polarized-electron beam and recoil hyperon is given by:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _v}{d\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦{\displaystyle \underset{\beta =0,x^{},y^{},z^{}}{}}(R_T^{\beta 0}+ϵ_LR_L^{\beta 0}+c_+(^cR_{LT}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`+`$ $`{}_{}{}^{s}R_{LT}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi })+ϵ(^cR_{TT}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi }+^sR_{TT}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`+P_b`$ $`c_{}`$ $`(^cR_{LT^{}}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+^sR_{LT^{}}^{\beta 0}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi })+P_bc_0R_{TT^{}}^{\beta 0}).`$ (3)
The $`R_i`$ are the transverse, longitudinal, and interference response functions that relate to the underlying hadronic current and implicitly contain the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization. The sum over $`\beta `$ includes contributions from the polarization with respect to the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ axes (see Fig. 2), and the $`\beta =0`$ terms account for the unpolarized response. Here $`c_\pm =\sqrt{2ϵ_L(1\pm ϵ)}`$ and $`c_0=\sqrt{1ϵ^2}`$, where $`ϵ`$ ($`ϵ_L=ϵQ^2/(k_\gamma ^{CM})^2`$) is the transverse (longitudinal) polarization of the virtual photon, $`𝒦=|\stackrel{}{q}_K|/k_\gamma ^{CM}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the angle between the electron and hadron planes. The $`c`$ and $`s`$ labels indicate whether $`R_i`$ multiplies a sine or cosine term.

From the cross section of eq.(First Measurement of Transferred Polarization in the Exclusive $`\stackrel{}{e}pe^{}K^+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ Reaction), the induced and transferred polarization components in the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ system are given by schmieden :

$`\sigma _0P_\xi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦(c_+R_{LT}^{\xi 0}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵR_{TT}^{\xi 0}\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Phi }),\xi =x^{},z^{}`$ (4)
$`\sigma _0P_y^{}^0`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦(R_T^{y^{}0}+ϵ_LR_L^{y^{}0}+c_+R_{LT}^{y^{}0}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+ϵR_{TT}^{y^{}0}\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`\sigma _0P_\xi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦(c_{}R_{LT^{}}^{\xi 0}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }+c_0R_{TT^{}}^{\xi 0}),\xi =x^{},z^{}`$
$`\sigma _0P_y^{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦c_{}R_{LT^{}}^{y^{}0}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (5)
Here $`\sigma _0`$ is the unpolarized cross section. These definitions can be related to the $`(x,y,z)`$ system via appropriate rotation operators.

The data were summed over all $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ angles to improve the statistical precision in the measurement. In the summation, the induced components $`P_{x^{},z^{}}^0`$ and $`P_{x,z}^0`$, and the transferred components $`P_y^{}^{}`$ and $`P_y^{}`$, vanish identically. In this case, the non-zero, helicity-gated yield asymmetries of eq.(2) reduce to:

$$A_\xi =\alpha P_b\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}P_\xi ^{},\xi =\widehat{i},\widehat{k},$$
(6)
allowing for a direct extraction of $`P^{}`$ in a given kinematic bin with a linear fit of $`A_\xi `$ to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p^{RF}`$. Note that different choices for the spin axes lead to sensitivities of $`P^{}`$ to different subsets of the response functions. The non-zero, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-integrated transferred polarization components in the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ and $`(x,y,z)`$ systems are given by:

$`P_x^{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1R_{TT^{}}^{x^{}0}P_z^{}^{}=c_1R_{TT^{}}^{z^{}0}`$
$`P_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_2(R_{LT^{}}^{x^{}0}\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}R_{LT^{}}^{y^{}0}+R_{LT^{}}^{z^{}0}\mathrm{sin}\theta _K^{})`$
$`P_z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(R_{TT^{}}^{x^{}0}\mathrm{sin}\theta _K^{}+R_{TT^{}}^{z^{}0}\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}).`$ (7)
The normalization factors are given by $`c_1=c_0/K_0`$ and $`c_2=c_{}/(2K_0)`$, where $`K_0=R_T^{00}+ϵ_LR_L^{00}`$. This formalism is important to highlight as the hadrodynamic models provide the response functions in the $`(x^{},y^{},z^{})`$ system as their outputs.

Our results are shown in Figs. 3 and 4 compared to several hadrodynamic model calculations. The error bars in these figures include statistical but not systematic uncertainties, which we estimate to be $``$0.08 on the polarization cnote . Fig. 3 shows the $`W`$ dependence of $`P^{}`$ summed over all $`Q^2`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_K^{}`$ for our two choices of spin axes. The data indicate sizeable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarizations with a relatively smooth variation with $`W`$. The average polarization magnitude is roughly the same along the $`z^{}`$ and $`x^{}`$ axes, indicating equal strength in the $`R_{TT^{}}^{z^{}0}`$ and $`R_{TT^{}}^{x^{}0}`$ responses. For the other choice of axes, the polarization is maximal when projected along the $`z`$-axis (the virtual photon direction), while the component along the $`x`$-axis is consistent with zero.

Fig. 4 shows the angular dependence of $`P^{}`$ summed over all $`Q^2`$ for three different $`W`$ bins from just above threshold to 2 GeV. The polarization $`P_z^{}^{}`$ decreases with increasing $`\theta _K^{}`$. $`P_x^{}^{}`$ is constrained to be zero at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}`$ = $`\pm `$1 due to angular momentum conservation, and reaches a minimum at $`\theta _K^{}90^{}`$. Again, the maximum $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization occurs along the virtual photon direction. This component, $`P_z^{}`$, is roughly constant with respect to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}`$ and $`W`$. The component $`P_x^{}`$ in the electron-scattering plane is again consistent with zero. The components $`P_y^{}^{}`$ and $`P_y^{}`$ (not shown) are statistically consistent with zero with respect to $`W`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _K^{}`$ as expected cnote .

In each of the hadrodynamic models to which we compare our data, the coupling strengths have been determined by a simultaneous fit to the low-energy $`K^{}p\gamma Y`$ radiative capture data and/or $`\gamma ^{()}pK^+Y`$ data, by adding the non-resonant Born terms with a number of resonances and leaving their coupling constants as free parameters bounded loosely by SU(3) predictions. Different models have markedly different ingredients and fitted coupling constants. In all cases, good agreement with the limited previous data has been achieved wjc ; mart ; saghai ; janssen . The comparison of the models to data can be used to provide indirect support for the existence of these excited states and their branching ratios into the strange channels.

Recent calculations have been guided by coupled-channels analyses feuster ; nstar  that recognize the importance of the $`S_{11}`$(1650), $`P_{11}`$(1710), and $`P_{13}`$(1720) $`s`$-channel resonances, which are also the only ones with a known significant branching into the strange channels pdg . The $`p(e,e^{}K^+)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cross section data exhibit a forward peaking in $`\theta _K^{}`$ that has been attributed to $`t`$-channel exchanges hicks . For this reason the two lowest vector meson resonances $`K^{}`$(892) and $`K_1`$(1270) are also typically included. A comparison of the four different models employed in this work is included in Table 1. These models were developed by Williams, Ji, and Cotanch (WJC92) wjc , Bennhold and Mart (BM02,BM98) haber ; mart , and Janssen (J02) janssen . These models differ in their mix of $`N^{}`$ resonances, e.g. BM02 and J02 both include one of the missing quark-model states, the $`D_{13}(1895)`$. Some of the models include $`Y^{}`$ resonances in the $`u`$ channel, and the most recent models (all but WJC92) have included form factors at the hadronic vertices. In this work, we have employed simple electromagnetic dipole form factors for the kaon and the hyperon.

The calculations generally do not reproduce the data in Figs. 3 and 4, however, the BM02 model best reflects the data. It should be noted that the kink at $`W`$1.7 GeV in the BM02 model implies a problem with modeling of the form factors of either the $`P_{11}`$(1710) or the $`P_{13}`$(1720) states. While the comparison of the calculations to the data is illustrative to highlight the present deficiencies in the current models and their parameter values, the next step in the study of the reaction mechanism is to include our polarization data in the available database and to refit the set of coupling strengths.

As noted earlier, our data reveal a simple phenomenology that indicates the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization is maximal along the virtual photon direction. We note that the lack of a strong $`W`$ dependence is an indication that the data might be economically described in a flux-tube strong-decay framework. In this picture we expect that the cross section is dominated by photo-absorption by a $`u`$ quark. When viewed in the $`\gamma ^{}`$-$`p`$ Breit frame, after a $`u`$ quark has absorbed the virtual photon, there is an intermediate $`u`$-$`(ud)`$ system with the $`u`$ quark polarized along the photon direction (+$`z`$) due to the helicity-conserving vector interaction. Hadronization into the $`K^+`$-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ final state proceeds with the production of an $`s\overline{s}`$ pair that breaks the color flux-tube. Because the $`u`$ quark hadronizes as a pseudoscalar $`K^+`$, the $`\overline{s}`$ quark spin is required to be opposite to that of the $`u`$ quark, i.e. in the -$`z`$ direction. In the non-relativistic quark model the entire spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is carried by the $`s`$ quark (this assumption has been questioned in light of the NMC “spin crisis” jaffe ). Since we observe the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization to be in the +$`z`$ direction, we conclude that the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ spins were anti-aligned when they were created, if the hadronization did not flip or rotate their spins. We note that the authors of Ref. boros  also posit a two-step process for the production of transversely polarized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons in the exclusive $`pppK^+\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ reaction, and come to the similar conclusion that the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quark pair must also have been produced with spins anti-aligned.

A dominance of spin anti-alignment for the $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ quarks is not consistent with the $`S`$=1 $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ operator, which predicts a 2:1 mixture of $`s\overline{s}`$ quarks produced with spins aligned vs. anti-aligned if the orbital substates are equally populated. Along with other observations of failure of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model (e.g. explaining $`\pi _2\rho \omega `$ decay barnes ), the applicability of the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ model in describing all hadronic decays is brought into doubt. We await theoretical investigations on the effect of the functional form of the quark-pair-creation operator on hyperon polarizations when a single $`s\overline{s}`$ pair is produced.

We have reported the first double-polarization measurements in the resonance region for the $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{}K^+)\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ reaction. Our data show a large degree of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ polarization, which is maximal along the virtual photon direction (averaging $``$75% for our kinematics). As this is the first polarization data set, inclusion into the available database should make hadrodynamic models much more reliable for studies of missing-resonance production. Additionally, we feel that a better handle on the form of the quark-pair creation operator will make baryon spectroscopic models more reliable, hence increasing our confidence in their predictions for missing resonances.

We would like to acknowledge the outstanding efforts of the JLab staff that made this experiment possible. This work was supported in part by the the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the French Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, and the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation. The Southeastern Universities Research Association operates JLab for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84ER40150.