text:
# Kähler cuts

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold and $`\tau :S^1\times MM`$ a Hamiltonian action of $`S^1`$ with moment map $`\varphi :M`$. We will assume that, for $`\lambda `$, $`S^1`$ acts freely on $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$. In particular, $`\lambda `$ is then a regular value of $`\varphi `$ and the symplectic quotient

(1.1)
$$M_\lambda =\varphi ^1(\lambda )/S^1$$

is well-defined and non-singular. In  it was shown that the disjoint union of this quotient with the open subset

(1.2)
$$M_o^\lambda =\{pM\varphi (p)<\lambda \}$$

of $`M`$ can be given the structure of a smooth symplectic manifold $`(M^\lambda ,\omega ^\lambda )`$ which was called the *symplectic cut* of $`M`$ at $`\lambda `$. A number of applications of this cutting operation were also given to problems in symplectic geometry, and since then many other applications have been found. (See, for instance, , , , , and .)

In this article we will look at this cutting operation from the Kählerian perspective. Our motivation is a basic problem in Kähler geometry: what happens to the Kähler metric on a non-singular projective variety when one blows this variety up along a non-singular subvariety? The symplectic cutting operation turns out to have some bearing on this problem. Suppose that the moment map above takes its maximum value $`\lambda _o`$ on a subset $`W`$ of $`M`$. Then $`W`$ is a symplectic submanifold of $`M`$, and, for $`\lambda =\lambda _oϵ,ϵ0`$, $`M^\lambda `$ can be obtained from $`M`$ by blowing up $`M`$ symplectically along $`W`$. (See  and .)

Suppose now that $`M`$ is a complex manifold and $`\omega `$ a Kähler form. In addition, suppose that $`\tau `$ extends to a holomorphic action of $`^{}`$ on $`M`$. Then $`M^\lambda `$ is also Kähler, so the set (1.2) has two Kähler structures: the Kähler structure it acquires as an open subset of $`M^\lambda `$ and the Kähler structure it acquires as an open subset of $`M`$. In  it was shown that symplectically these two structures coincide: $`\omega =\omega ^\lambda `$ on $`M_o^\lambda `$. However, it was also pointed out that the two complex structures on $`M_o^\lambda `$ *don’t* coincide. The main result of this paper is an amplification of this remark, a global description of the complex structure on $`M_o^\lambda `$ coming from $`M^\lambda `$. Let

(1.3)
$$M^\mathrm{\#}=^{}M_o^\lambda .$$

For $`M`$ compact this is a Zariski open subset of $`M`$, and we will construct below a canonical diffeomorphism of $`M_o^\lambda `$ onto $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ which is biholomorphic with respect to the $`M^\lambda `$ complex structure on $`M_o^\lambda `$ and the $`M`$ complex structure on $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$.

Since $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ is Zariski open, its complement is a complex subvariety of $`M`$, and we will show that this variety is the union of unstable manifolds for the $`^{}`$-action, or, in other words, “generalized Schubert varieties”. Thus the cutting operation compactifies the complement of these Schubert varieties by adjoining the non-singular hypersurface $`M_\lambda `$ to $`M`$.

We give now a brief summary of the contents of this article. In $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ we review the definition and elementary properties of the cutting operation and prove the assertions above. In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$ we generalize the version of the cutting operation given in  by replacing the standard Kähler potential $`|z|^2`$ on $``$ by an arbitrary radial potential $`F`$, and show that, with minor modifications, the results of $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ are still true. Then, in $`\mathrm{\S }4`$ we apply these results to the Kähler potential $`F(z)=\frac{2}{c}\mathrm{log}(1+|z|^2),c>0`$ and show that if the Kähler structure on $`M`$ is Kähler-Einstein with structure constant $`c`$, the Kähler form on $`M^\lambda `$ satisfies a modified version of the Kähler-Einstein equation. Finally, in $`\mathrm{\S }5`$ we explain how to generalize the results of this paper to the “toric variety” version of symplectic cutting developed in  and .

## 2. Symplectic cuts

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a Kähler manifold and $`\tau :S^1\times MM`$ a Hamiltonian action of $`S^1`$ on $`M`$ with moment map $`\varphi :M`$. We will assume that this action extends to a holomorphic action of $`^{}`$ on $`M`$ which we will continue to denote by $`\tau `$. Suppose that $`S^1`$ acts freely on the level set $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$. Let $`W=M\times `$, equipped with the Kähler form

(2.1)
$$\omega +\sqrt{1}dzd\overline{z}$$

and let $`S^1`$ act on $`W`$ by its product action. This is a Hamiltonian action with moment map

(2.2)
$$\psi =\varphi +|z|^2.$$

Moreover, $`S^1`$ acts freely on the level set, $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$, so the reduced space

(2.3)
$$M^\lambda =\psi ^1(\lambda )/S^1$$

is well-defined, and this symplectic manifold is by definition the manifold “$`M`$ cut at $`\lambda `$”(see ). The level set $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$. is the disjoint union of the two $`S^1`$-invariant sets:

(2.4)
$$\{(p,0)\varphi (p)=\lambda \}$$

and

(2.5)
$$\{(p,z)\varphi (p)=\lambda |z|^2<\lambda \},$$

so the quotient $`\psi ^1(\lambda )/S^1`$ is the disjoint union of the quotients of these two sets. The quotient of 2.4 is by definition the reduced space

$$M_\lambda =\varphi ^1(\lambda )/S^1$$

and the quotient of (2.5) can be identified with the open subset

(2.6)
$$M_o^\lambda =\{pM\varphi (p)<\lambda \}$$

of $`M`$. In fact this identification is given explicitly by the map

(2.7)
$$M_o^\lambda p(p,\sqrt{\lambda \varphi (p)})$$

which maps $`M_o^\lambda `$ onto a global cross-section for the action of $`S^1`$ on the set (2.5). Thus $`M^\lambda `$ is the disjoint union of the open subset $`M_o^\lambda `$ of $`M`$ and a codimension two symplectic submanifold, the reduced space $`M_\lambda `$. In particular, $`M_o^\lambda `$ has two Kähler structures: the restriction of the Kähler structure on $`M^\lambda `$ and the restriction of the Kähler structure on $`M`$. We propose to show below how these Kähler structures are related.

¿From the symplectic point of view the situation is extremely simple. Let $`\omega ^\lambda `$ be the symplectic form on $`M^\lambda `$. The pull-back by the map (2.7) of the form (2.1) is just $`\omega `$, and so on $`M_o^\lambda `$, $`\omega =\omega ^\lambda `$. However, as is pointed out in , section 1.1, $`(M_o^\lambda ,\omega )`$ and $`(M_o^\lambda ,\omega ^\lambda )`$ are *not* identical as Kähler manifolds: the $`M`$-complex structure on $`M_o^\lambda `$ doesn’t coincide with the $`M^\lambda `$-complex structure. How these complex structures are related is the question we will investigate below.

Let $`v=\varphi `$ be the infinitesimal generator of the one parameter group $`\tau _{e^t}:MM`$, and for $`qM_o^\lambda `$ let

(2.8)
$$\kappa (q)=1/2\mathrm{log}(\lambda \varphi (q)).$$

We define a map $`g:M_o^\lambda M`$ by setting

(2.9)
$$g(q)=\mathrm{exp}(\kappa (q)v)(q).$$

Let $`M_{\text{stable}}=^{}\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$. We claim that $`g`$ is a diffeomorphism of $`M_o^\lambda `$ onto the open subset

(2.10)
$$M^\mathrm{\#}=M_o^\lambda M_{\text{stable}}$$

of $`M`$. That $`g`$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image is clear. To see that its image is (2.8) we first note that if $`q`$ is in $`M_o^\lambda `$, then $`p=g(q)`$ if and only if

(2.11)
$$\mathrm{exp}(tv)(p)=q$$

for $`t`$ satisfying

(2.12)
$$\lambda e^{2t}=\varphi (q).$$

Now let $`p`$ be in $`M_{\text{stable}}`$ with $`\varphi (p)>\lambda `$, and let $`\gamma (t)=\mathrm{exp}(tv)(p)`$. Then

(2.13)
$$a=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (\gamma (t))<\lambda ,$$

so the curves, $`y=\lambda e^{2t}`$ and $`y=\varphi (\gamma (t))`$ must intersect at some point on the negative $`t`$ axis; and, at that point $`q=\gamma (t)`$ satisfies $`p=g(q)`$ by (2.11) and (2.12). Similarly if $`p`$ is in $`M_o^\lambda `$ and $`\gamma (t)=\mathrm{exp}(tv)(p)`$, then if $`\varphi (p)<\lambda 1`$, the curve, $`y=\varphi (\gamma (t))`$, has to intersect the curve,$`y=\lambda e^{2t}`$ at some point on the positive $`t`$ axis, and if $`\lambda 1<\varphi (p)<\lambda `$, these curves must intersect at some point on the negative $`t`$ axis. Thus the image of $`g`$ contains $`M_o^\lambda M_{\text{stable}}`$, and the inclusion the other way is obvious. If $`M`$ is compact the set (2.10) doesn’t depend on $`\lambda `$ but only on the critical values of $`\varphi `$ lying above $`\lambda `$. More explicitly, let $`F_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, be the connected components of the set of critical points of $`\varphi `$, i.e., the connected components of the fixed point set of the action $`\tau `$. Let $`W_i`$ be the unstable manifold of $`\varphi `$ at $`F_i`$. Thus

(2.14)
$$qW_i\underset{z0}{lim}\tau _z(q)F_i$$

These manifolds are complex submanifolds of positive codimension. Let $`S`$ be the set of $`i`$’s for which $`\varphi (F_i)`$ is greater than $`\lambda `$. We claim

(2.15)
$$MM^\mathrm{\#}=\underset{iS}{}W_i.$$

Proof: By the Whitney decomposition theorem $`M`$ is the disjoint union of the $`W_i`$’s so every point $`pM`$ is in some $`W_i`$, and if $`p`$ is in $`W_i`$ and $`\varphi (F_i)`$ is less than $`\lambda `$, then either $`\varphi (p)<\lambda `$ or the $`^{}`$ orbit through $`p`$ intersects $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$. We will now prove:

###### Theorem 2.1.

The map $`g:M_o^\lambda M^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a biholomorphism of $`M_o^\lambda `$ with its $`M^\lambda `$ complex structure onto $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ with its $`M`$ complex structure.

###### Proof.

The biholomorphic map

(2.16)
$$f:M\times ^{}M\times ^{}$$

defined by

(2.17)
$$f(p,z_o)=(\tau _{z_o}p,z_o)$$

intertwines the action

(2.18)
$$z(p,z_o)=(p,zz_o)$$

of $`^{}`$ on $`M\times ^{}`$ with the diagonal action

(2.19)
$$z(p,z_o)=(\tau _zp,zz_o)$$

so the pullback by $`f`$ of the Kähler form (2.1) is invariant under the action of $`S^1`$ on the second factor of $`M\times ^{}`$. Moreover this action is Hamiltonian with moment map

(2.20)
$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }(p,z)=\varphi (\tau _zp)+|z|^2$$

In particular, $`f`$ maps the level set, $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )`$ onto the level set $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$, and induces an isomorphism of Kähler manifolds

(2.21)
$$h:\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1\psi ^1(\lambda )/S^1$$

To describe this isomorphism more explicitly note that the set

(2.22)
$$\{\text{Re}z>0,\text{Im}z=0\}$$

is a global cross-section for both of the $`S^1`$ actions above, so $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1`$ can be identified with the set

(2.23)
$$\{(p,e^t)\varphi (\tau _{e^t}p)+e^{2t}=\lambda \}$$

and $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$ with the set

(2.24)
$$\{(q,e^t)\varphi (q)+e^{2t}=\lambda \}$$

and, modulo these identifications, $`h`$ maps the point $`(p,e^t)`$ in the set (2.23) onto the point $`(q,e^t)`$ in the set (2.24) where

$$q=\tau _{e^t}p$$

and

$$\lambda e^{2t}=\varphi (q).$$

However, $`\tau _{e^t}p=\mathrm{exp}(tv)(p)`$, so by (2.12) $`p=g(q)`$, i.e., $`h`$ is just $`g^1`$. In particular, the domain of $`h`$ is the open subset $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ of $`M`$ defined by (2.10). Identifying $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1`$, we note that since $`^{}`$ is acting on $`M\times ^{}`$ by the action (2.19) the geometric invariant theory quotient

$$M\times ^{}//^{}=\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1$$

is not just equal to the open set $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ set theoretically, but is this open set with its $`M`$-complex structure. (See, for instance, , § 4.) Thus $`g`$ intertwines the $`M^\lambda `$-complex structure on $`M_o^\lambda `$ with the complex structure on $`M`$.

Example: Let $`\lambda _o`$ be the maximum value of $`\varphi `$ and let $`W=\varphi ^1(\lambda _o)`$. Then $`W`$ is a complex submanifold of $`M`$, and if $`\lambda =\lambda _oϵ,ϵ0`$, then

$$M^\mathrm{\#}=MW$$

by 2.15. On the other hand, it is not hard to show that $`M_\lambda `$ is the projective normal bundle, $`(NW)`$, of $`W`$. Therefore, the assertion that $`M^\lambda M_\lambda `$ is biholomorphic to $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ implies that $`M^\lambda `$ can be obtained from $`M`$ by deleting $`W`$ and adjoining $`(NW)`$, i.e., by blowing up $`M`$ along $`W`$.

Next we will describe some equivariance properties of the mapping $`g`$. The holomorphic action of $`^{}`$ on $`M\times ^{}`$ defined by (2.19) extends to a holomorphic product action of $`^{}\times ^{}`$

(2.25)
$$(z_1,z_2)(p,z)=(\tau _{z_1}p,z_2z)$$

and from this one gets a residual holomorphic action of $`^{}`$ on the quotient space $`M^\lambda `$. The submanifold $`M_\lambda `$ of $`M^\lambda `$ is fixed by this action, and hence one gets an induced action of $`^{}`$ on its complement $`M_o^\lambda `$. Restricted to $`S^1`$ this action coincides with the $`M`$-action of $`S^1`$ on $`M_o^\lambda `$; however, this action itself can’t coincide with the $`M`$-action of $`^{}`$ since the $`M`$-action of $`^{}`$ doesn’t leave $`M_o^\lambda `$ fixed.111This is one of the more compelling ways of seeing that the $`M`$-complex structure on $`M_o^\lambda `$ can’t be identical with the $`M^\lambda `$-complex structure. As we noted above, however, the action of $`^{}`$ on $`M`$ does leave fixed the submanifold $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$. We claim

###### Theorem 2.2.

The mapping $`g`$ intertwines the $`M`$-action of $`^{}`$ on $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ with the $`M^\lambda `$ action of $`^{}`$ on $`M_o^\lambda `$

###### Proof.

Since the function (2.7) and the vector field $`v`$ are $`S^1`$-invariant, the map $`g`$ intertwines the two $`S^1`$ actions. Therefore, since $`g`$ is biholomorphic, it intertwines the two $`^{}`$ actions as well.

Let $`U`$ be a $`^{}`$-invariant open subset of $`M`$, and let $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ be a holomorphic coordinate system on $`U`$. We will say that say that $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ is a $`^{}`$-*adapted coordinate system* if $`z_n0`$ on $`U`$ and if the action of $`^{}`$ on $`U`$ is given by

(2.26)
$$\tau _a(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1},az_n).$$

Then, for $`pM_o^\lambda U`$

(2.27)
$$g(p)=\tau _{e^t}(p),t=\kappa (p).$$

But $`\kappa (p)=1/2\mathrm{log}(\lambda \varphi (p))`$ so

(2.28)
$$p=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)g(p)=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1},(\lambda \varphi (z))^{1/2}z_n).$$

In other words

(2.29)
$$g^{}z_i=z_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n1,$$

and

$$g^{}z_n=(\lambda \varphi (z))^{1/2}z_n$$

Thus from theorem 2.1 we conclude

###### Theorem 2.3.

If $`U`$ is a $`^{}`$-invariant open subset of $`M`$ and $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ a $`^{}`$-adapted coordinate system on $`U`$, then (2.28) is a complex coordinate system on $`UM_o^\lambda `$ compatible with the $`M^\lambda `$-complex structure.

## 3. Cuts with invariant potentials

In the construction of the cut space $`M^\lambda `$ described in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ above one began by equiping $`W=M\times `$ with the Kähler form the sum of that on $`M`$ and the form $`\sqrt{1}dzd\overline{z}`$ on $``$, and then reduced with respect to the diagonal action of $`S^1`$. There is, of course, nothing sacrosanct about the form $`\sqrt{1}dzd\overline{z}`$, and in fact, it is sometimes advantageous to consider more general Kähler forms on the $``$ factor, e.g., when $`M`$ is Kähler-Einstein, (cf., $`\mathrm{\S }4`$). In this section we will replace $`\sqrt{1}dzd\overline{z}`$ by an arbitrary $`S^1`$-invariant Kähler form on $``$ and show that most of the results of $`\mathrm{\S }2`$ are still true, modulo small changes detailed below.

Let $`s`$ be a real valued function on $``$ invariant under the standard action of $`S^1`$: $`\lambda z=\lambda z`$. By a theorem of G. Schwarz there exists a function $`F`$ on $``$ such that $`s(z,\overline{z})=F(|z|^2)`$. Now

(3.1)
$$\overline{}F(|z|^2)=\left(F^{\prime \prime }(|z|^2)|z|^2+F^{}(|z|^2)\right)dzd\overline{z}.$$

Let $`H(t)=tF(t)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`F`$ and $`H`$ be as above. Then

1. $`\omega _F:=\sqrt{1}\overline{}F(|z|^2)`$ is a symplectic form on $``$ iff $`H^{}(t)>0`$ for all $`t0`$.
2. $`\varphi =H(|z|^2)`$ is a moment map for the standard action of $`S^1`$ on $`(,\omega _F)`$.

###### Proof.

The form $`\omega _F`$ is nondegenerate iff $`F^{\prime \prime }(|z|^2)|z|^2+F^{}(|z|^2)>0`$ for all $`z`$ iff $`H^{}(t)=F^{\prime \prime }(t)t+F^{}(t)>0`$ for all $`t0`$. This proves the first claim. Our proof of the second claim is a computation:

$$\iota \left(\sqrt{1}(z\frac{}{z}\overline{z}\frac{}{\overline{z}})\right)\omega _F=(F^{\prime \prime }(|z|^2)|z|^2+F^{}(|z|^2))(zd\overline{z}+\overline{z}dz)=dH(|z|^2).$$

Note that by definition $`H(0)=0`$. Also, since $`H^{}(t)>0`$ on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$, $`H(t)`$ is strictly increasing on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Let $`a=lim_{t+\mathrm{}}H(t)`$, so that $`0<a\mathrm{}`$. Then $`H`$ is invertible and its inverse $`K`$ is a strictly increasing function $`K:[0,a)[0,\mathrm{})`$.

Now let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action $`\tau `$ of $`S^1`$ and let $`\varphi :M`$ be an associated moment map. For $`\lambda `$ we define the cut of $`(M,\omega )`$ with respect to the potential $`F`$ at $`\lambda `$ to be the symplectic quotient at $`\lambda `$ of $`(M\times ,\omega +\omega _F)`$ under the diagonal action of $`S^1`$. We denote the cut by $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$. Of course $`M^\lambda `$ (2.3) of § 2 above is just $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,|z|^2)`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action of $`S^1`$ and let $`\varphi :M`$ be an associated moment map. Suppose $`S^1`$ acts freely on $`\varphi ^1(\lambda )`$. Then the cut $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is naturally a smooth symplectic manifold.

Moreover, the natural embedding of the reduced space $`M_\lambda :=\varphi ^1(\lambda )/S^1`$ into $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is symplectic, and the complement $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)M_\lambda `$ is symplectomorphic to the open subset $`M_o^\lambda :=\{mM\lambda a<\varphi (m)<\lambda \}`$ of $`(M,\omega )`$, where as above $`a=lim_{|z|+\mathrm{}}\varphi (z)`$.

Furthermore, if $`(M,\omega )`$ is a Kähler manifold and the action of $`S^1`$ is holomorphic, then $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is Kähler and $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)M_\lambda `$ is biholomorphic to $`M^\mathrm{\#}:=^{}M_o^\lambda =^{}\{mM\lambda a<\varphi (m)<\lambda \}M`$.

###### Proof.

The moment map $`\psi `$ for the diagonal action of $`S^1`$ on $`(M\times ,\omega +\omega _F)`$ is given by $`\psi (m,z)=\varphi (m)+H(|z|^2)`$ and so

(3.2)
$$\psi ^1(\lambda )=\{(m,z)M\times \varphi (m)+H(|z|^2)=\lambda \}.$$

Now $`\varphi (m)+H(|z|^2)=\lambda `$ iff $`|z|^2=K(\lambda \varphi (m))`$, where as before $`K=H^1`$. Consider the map

(3.3)
$$\sigma :\{mM\lambda a<\varphi (m)\lambda \}\psi ^1(\lambda ),\sigma (m)=(m,(K(\lambda \varphi (m)))^{\frac{1}{2}}).$$

Let $`\pi :\psi ^1(\lambda )\psi ^1(\lambda )/S^1=M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ denote the orbit map. It is easy to see that $`\pi \sigma `$ is onto and that $`\pi \sigma `$ is an open embedding on $`M_o^\lambda `$. Moreover, since $`\sigma ^{}(\omega +\omega _F)=\omega `$, $`\pi \sigma :M_o^\lambda M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is a symplectic embedding.

Similarly one checks that $`\pi \sigma `$ induces a symplectic embedding $`j`$ of $`M_\lambda `$ into $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$. Clearly, $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)j(M_\lambda )M_o^\lambda `$.

Assume now that $`(M,\omega )`$ is Kähler. Then, since the symplectic quotient of a Kähler manifold is Kähler (, ), the cut is Kähler as well. We now argue that $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)M_\lambda `$ is biholomorphic to $`M^\mathrm{\#}:=^{}\{mM\lambda a<\varphi (m)<\lambda \}M`$.

Consider the map $`f:M\times ^{}M\times ^{}`$ as in (2.16). We assume again as in § 2 that the action of $`S^1`$ extends to an action $`\tau `$ of $`^{}`$. Recall also that $`\frac{d}{dt}\tau _{e^t}(z)=\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(z))`$ for all $`t`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the gradient of $`\varphi `$ with respect to the Kähler metric. The map $`f`$ is biholomorphic, and intertwines the right action (2.18) of $`^{}`$ on $`M\times ^{}`$ with the diagonal action (2.19) Consequently the pull-back form

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }:=f^{}(\omega +\omega _F)$$

is invariant under the action of $`S^1`$ on the second factor. Moreover, this action of $`S^1`$ is Hamiltonian with moment map $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ satisfying

(3.4)
$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\psi _0f.$$

where $`\psi _0`$ denotes the restriction of $`\psi `$ from $`M\times `$ to $`M\times ^{}`$. Consequently $`f`$ induces a biholomorphic map $`h`$ between quotients:

$$h:\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1\psi _0^1(\lambda )/S^1.$$

Note that $`\psi _0^1(\lambda )/S^1M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is precisely the subset symplectomorphic to $`M_o^\lambda `$. We claim that $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`M^\mathrm{\#}=^{}M_o^\lambda `$.

Now $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )=\{(m,z)M\times ^{}\varphi (\tau _z(m))+H(|z|^2)=\lambda \}`$. Since $`\frac{d}{dt}\tau _{e^t}(z)=\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(z))`$, $`\frac{d}{dt}\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))=|\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))|^20`$. Hence

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(|e^t|^2)\right)=|\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))|^2+2H^{}(e^{2t})e^{2t}>0.$$

It follows that every $`^{}`$ orbit intersects the level set $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )`$ in precisely one $`S^1`$ orbit. Consequently

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1(\lambda )/S^1\{mM\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t})=\lambda \text{ for some }t\}.$$

We claim that the set on right hand side is $`^{}M_o^\lambda `$. Indeed, if for $`mM`$ there is $`t`$ such that $`\varphi (e^tm)+H(e^{2t})=\lambda `$, then, since $`H([0,\mathrm{}))=[0,a)`$ and $`H`$ is strictly increasing,

$$\lambda a<\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))<\lambda .$$

Therefore $`\tau _{e^t}(m)\varphi ^1((\lambda a,\lambda ))=M_o^\lambda `$ $``$ $`m\tau _{e^t}(M_o^\lambda )^{}M_o^\lambda `$.

Conversely, suppose $`m^{}M_o^\lambda `$. There are three cases to consider: $`\varphi (m)\lambda a`$, $`\lambda a<\varphi (m)<\lambda `$ and $`\lambda \varphi `$. Recall that $`lim_t\mathrm{}H(e^{2t})=H(0)=0`$ and that $`lim_{t+\mathrm{}}H(e^{2t})=a`$.

If $`m^{}M_o^\lambda `$ and $`\varphi (m)\lambda `$ then there is a $`t`$ such that $`\tau _{e^t}(m)M_o^\lambda `$. So $`lim_t\mathrm{}\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))<\lambda `$. Therefore $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t})<\lambda +0`$ while $`lim_{t+\mathrm{}}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t})>\varphi (e^0m)+H(e^0)>\lambda `$. Consequently there is $`t_1`$ with $`\varphi (e^{t_1}m)+H(e^{2t_1})=\lambda `$.

If $`m^{}M_o^\lambda `$ and $`\varphi (m)\lambda a`$ then there is $`t`$ with $`\tau _{e^t}(m)M_o^\lambda `$. Hence $`lim_{t+\mathrm{}}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t}))>\varphi (m)+a=\lambda a+a=\lambda `$. On the other hand $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t}))\varphi (m)+0\lambda a`$. Consequently there is $`t_1`$ with $`\varphi (e^{t_1}m)+H(e^{2t_1})=\lambda `$.

Finally, if $`\lambda a<\varphi (m)<\lambda `$ then $`lim_{t+\mathrm{}}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t}))\varphi (m)+a>\lambda a+a=\lambda `$ while $`lim_t\mathrm{}(\varphi (\tau _{e^t}(m))+H(e^{2t})<\varphi (m)+0<\lambda `$. Consequently there is $`t_1`$ with $`\varphi (e^{t_1}m)+H(e^{2t_1})=\lambda `$. ∎

## 4. Kähler-Einstein manifolds

Let $`F`$ be the function

$$F(z)=\frac{2}{\kappa }\mathrm{log}(1+z^2),\kappa >0.$$

Then $`\omega _F=\sqrt{1}\overline{}F(|z|^2)`$ is a Kähler-Einstein form on $``$ with structure constant $`\kappa `$. Hence if the symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ is Kähler-Einstein with structure constant $`\kappa `$, so is the form $`\omega +\omega _F`$ on $`M\times `$. Let $`\psi `$ be the moment map associated to the action of $`S^1`$ on $`(M\times ,\omega +\omega _F)`$, and let $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ be the cut space, $`\psi ^1(\lambda )/S^1`$. Since

$$a=\underset{t+\mathrm{}}{lim}t\mathrm{log}(1+t)=+\mathrm{},$$

$`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)M_\lambda `$ is symplectomorphic to the open subset $`M_o^\lambda =\{mM,\mathrm{}<\varphi (m)<\lambda \}`$ of $`M`$ and biholomorphic to the open subset $`M^\mathrm{\#}=^{}M_o^\lambda `$ of $`M`$ by theorem 3.1.

The level set $`Y=\psi ^1(\lambda )`$ can be regarded as a principal $`S^1`$-bundle over the cut space:

$$\pi :YM_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F),$$

and from the restriction of the Kähler metric to $`Y`$ one gets a connection on this bundle and an associated curvature form $`\mu `$. For $`pM_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$, $`\pi ^1(p)`$ is an embedded circle in $`Y`$, and we will denote the length of this circle measured with respect to the Kähler metric by $`V_{\text{eff}}(p)`$. For the following we refer to , $`\mathrm{\S }11`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

If $`\omega ^\lambda `$ is the Kähler form and $`\mu ^\lambda `$ the Ricci form on $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$, then

(4.1)
$$\mu ^\lambda 2\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}V_{\text{eff}}+c\mu =\kappa (\omega _\lambda +\lambda \mu )$$

where $`c`$ is a constant satisfying

(4.2)
$$\kappa \psi =\text{div}Z+c,$$

and $`Z`$ is the complex vector field on $`M\times `$ generating the $`^{}`$-action.

Notice by the way that the “$`\lambda \mu `$” on the right hand side of (4.1) has to be present for (4.1) to be compatible with the Duistermaat-Heckman theorem. However, the “$`c\mu `$” on the left is an artifact of (4.2) which fixes the ambiguous additive constant in the definition of the moment map. Finally the “$`V_{\text{eff}}`$” on the left occurs for much the same reason that “effective potentials” occur for reduced Hamiltonian systems in classical mechanics: as the contribution to the downstairs metric of the vertical piece of the Kähler metric on $`Y`$ (see , $`\mathrm{\S }4.5`$). (Note, by the way, that the case $`\kappa =0`$ can be treated similarly using $`F=a|z|^2,a>0`$, as in § 2 above.)

Here are some elementary examples of the Kähler cut construction.

Example 1. Take $`M=^n,\omega =\sqrt{1}dz_jd\overline{z}j`$, with $`\tau _{e^{i\theta }}(z)=e^{i\theta }z`$. Then $`\varphi =|z|^2,\psi =|z|^2+|w|^2,w,`$ and the “cut” of $`M`$ at $`\lambda >0`$ is just $`^n`$ with $`\lambda `$ times the Fubini-Study metric:

$$\omega _\lambda =\sqrt{1}\lambda \overline{}\mathrm{log}(|z|^2+|w|^2).$$

Example 2. Take the same $`M,\omega `$, but with $`\tau _{e^{i\theta }}(z)=e^{i\theta }z.`$ Now $`\varphi =|z|^2,\psi =|z|^2+|w|^2.`$ For $`\lambda <0`$, $`M^\lambda =\widehat{}^n=^n`$ with the origin blown up. Here, in coordinates $`\zeta =wz`$ on $`^n\{0\}`$,

(4.3)
$$\rho _\lambda =\sqrt{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2}\lambda \mathrm{log}(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2}),$$

and thus,

(4.4)
$$\omega _\lambda =\sqrt{1}\overline{}(\sqrt{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2})\lambda \mathrm{log}(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2})).$$

Furthermore, $`V_{\text{eff}}=2\pi \sqrt[4]{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2},c=n+1,`$ and $`\mu _{L,\lambda }=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}(\lambda +\sqrt{\lambda ^2+4|\zeta |^2})`$, so that finally

$$Ric_\lambda =(n1)\mu _{L,\lambda }+2\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}V_{\text{eff}}.$$

If we “cut” $`^n`$ at level $`\lambda >0`$, then $`M^\lambda =^n`$, with coordinates $`\zeta =wz.`$ We find the same formulas for $`\rho _\lambda `$, $`\omega _\lambda `$ as in (4.3), (4.4), though in this case the logarithmic term in $`\rho _\lambda `$ extends smoothly across $`\zeta =0`$. The singular case $`\lambda =0`$ has a Kähler metric on $`^n\{0\}`$ with coordinates $`\zeta =wz`$ as above, and $`\rho _0=2|\zeta |`$. This metric has non-negative Ricci form which vanishes in the complex radial directions in $`^n`$.

Example 3. Take $`M=^n`$, with $`\omega =(n+1)\times `$ the Fubini-Study Kähler form, so the Einstein constant $`\kappa =1`$. We will work in an affine coordinate patch $`^n`$, with coordinates $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$, so that $`\omega =\sqrt{1}(n+1)\overline{}\mathrm{log}(1+|z|^2)`$. We will blow up the origin in the Fubini-Study metric by considering $`\tau _{e^{i\theta }}(z)=e^{i\theta }z,`$ with Hamiltonian

(4.5)
$$\varphi =(n+1)\times \frac{|z|^2}{1+|z|^2},$$

and cutting it with $`(,2\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}(1+|w|^2))`$. Thus

(4.6)
$$\psi =(n+1)\frac{|z|^2}{1+|z|^2}+2\frac{|w|^2}{1+|w|^2},$$

and so $`(n+1)<\psi <2`$ on $`^n\times (z,w)`$. As in example 2, for $`\lambda (n1,0),M_{(\lambda ,F)},F=2\mathrm{log}(1+|w|^2)`$, as in § 3, is $`^n`$ with the origin blown up as a complex manifold, while for $`\lambda (0,2),`$ it is just $`^n`$ itself. The case $`\lambda =0`$ gives a singular metric, smooth on $`^n\{0\}.`$ In order to begin calculating these forms, it is convenient to do this in terms of coordinates $`\zeta =wz,w`$ on $`^n\{0\}\times ^{}.`$ From (4.6) we solve $`\psi =\lambda `$ for $`|w|^2`$ restricted to $`\psi ^1(\lambda )`$, and get

(4.7)
$$2(2\lambda )|w|^2=\text{A}+\sqrt{\text{A}^2+\text{B}},$$

where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{A}& =& \lambda +(\lambda +n1)|\zeta |^2,\text{and}\hfill \\ \text{B}& =& 4(2\lambda )(\lambda +n+1)|\zeta |^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note, curiously, that for $`\lambda =n+1`$, this reduces to a solution seen above in the case of cutting with Euclidean space. Then

(4.8)
$$\mu _{L,\lambda }=\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}|w|^2,$$

where $`|w|^2`$ is substituted using (4.7). The qualitative behavior of these forms at $`\zeta =0`$ is the same as for the analogous Euclidean case in example 2 above. The form $`\omega _\lambda `$ and the effective potential are more complicated and we do not write them down here.

## 5. Cuttings by toric manifolds

In this section we generalize the construction of section 3 from $``$ with a Kähler form defined by an $`S^1`$ invariant potential to an arbitrary Kähler toric manifold. The construction is the Kähler counterpart of a symplectic cut with respect to a polyhedral set (cf. § 2 in ).

Let us briefly review the symplectic construction. Let $`(M,\omega _M)`$ be a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action of a torus $`G`$ and let $`\phi :M𝔤^{}`$ denote an associated moment map. Let $`(X,\omega _X)`$ be a toric $`G`$-manifold, i.e., a (connected) symplectic manifold with a completely integrable Hamiltonian action of the torus $`G`$, i.e., $`2dim_{}(G)=dim_{}(M)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }:X𝔤^{}`$ denote an associated moment map. We are mostly interested in the cases where $`X`$ is a compact projective toric manifold or $`^n`$. We therefore assume that there is a convex open set $`U𝔤^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(X)U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }:XU`$ is proper. Then

1. The moment image $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=\mathrm{\Psi }(X)`$ is locally a rational polyhedral set. That is for any $`\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ there is a neighborhood $`W`$ in $`𝔤^{}`$ and $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_{\mathrm{}}_G`$ ($`_G`$ is the integral lattice of the torus $`G`$) such that

$$W\mathrm{\Delta }=W\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{\eta 𝔤^{}\eta ,N_jc_j\}$$

for some $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{\mathrm{}}`$.
2. The fibers of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are connected.

Consequently, by dimension count, the fibers of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are $`G`$-orbits.

Assume next that (S) $`\mathrm{\Psi }:X\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has a continuous Lagrangian section which is smooth over the interior $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ This assumption holds in a variety of contexts, for example:

1. if $`X`$ is compact, or
2. if $`X`$ is $`^n`$ with the standard action of the $`n`$-torus $`𝕋^n`$ preserving the standard symplectic form, or
3. if $`X=`$ and the symplectic form is defined by an invariant Kähler potential, or
4. if $`X`$ is the symplectization of a contact toric manifold of Reeb type , or
5. if $`X`$ is obtained from $`^n`$ by repeated symplectic cuts using various circle subgroups of $`𝕋^n`$.

The diagonal action of $`G`$ on $`(M\times X,\omega _M\omega _X)`$ is Hamiltonian with moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi \mathrm{\Psi }`$. We define the cut of $`(M,\omega _M,\phi )`$ with respect to $`(X,\omega _X,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ to be the symplectic quotient $`\overline{M}_X:=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)/G`$. If $`G`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$, then $`\overline{M}_X`$ is a smooth symplectic manifold. If 0 is only a regular value, then the cut space is an orbifold. More generally it is a symplectic stratified space in the sense of .

Note that since $`G`$ is abelian, the choice of $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ involve arbitrary choices of constant vectors in $`𝔤^{}`$. Note also that the trivial extension of the action of $`G`$ on $`M`$ to $`M\times X`$ commutes with the diagonal action of $`G`$. Consequently $`\overline{M}_X`$ is a Hamiltonian $`G`$-space. Finally observe that the space we called $`M_{\text{cut}}(\lambda ,F)`$ is the cut of $`M`$ with respect to $`(,\sqrt{1}\overline{}F(|z|^2),\lambda H(|z|)^2)`$, the notation as in § 3 above.

Next we give a topological description of the cut space $`\overline{M}_X`$. But first, a bit more notation. Since $`X`$ is toric the isotropy group $`G_x`$ of a point $`xX`$ is connected. Thus $`G_x`$ is a subtorus of $`G`$. Its Lie algebra $`𝔤_x`$ can be read off from $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ as follows: Let $`E`$ be the open face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$. Then $`𝔤_x`$ is the annihilator of $`\text{span}_{}\{E\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\}`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x^{})`$ are in the same face $`E`$ then $`G_x=G_x^{}`$. We denote this torus by $`G_E`$. We now collect a few facts about the cut space $`\overline{M}_X`$ (cf. , ).

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`(M,\omega _M,\phi )`$, $`(X,\omega _X,\mathrm{\Psi })`$, $`G_E`$ and $`\overline{M}_X`$ be as above.

1. As a topological space $`\overline{M}_X:=\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })/`$ where $`mm^{}`$ $``$ $`\phi (m)=\phi (m^{})`$ and $`m=gm^{}`$ for some $`gG_E`$ where $`E`$ is the open face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ containing $`\phi (m)`$.
2. The natural embedding of $`\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ into $`\overline{M}_X`$ is symplectic (as above, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ denotes the interior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$).
3. The cut space $`\overline{M}_X`$ is smooth $``$ for any $`mM`$ with $`\phi (m)E\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`E`$ is an open face) the group $`G_E`$ acts freely at $`m`$, i.e., $`G_EG_m`$ is trivial, where $`G_m`$ denotes the isotropy group of $`m`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`s:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ denote a Lagrangian section of $`\mathrm{\Psi }:X\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the existence of which was assumed, see (S) above. Naturally $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)=\{(m,x)M\times X\phi (m)\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=0\}`$. Hence $`(m,x)\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ $``$ $`Gxs(\mathrm{\Psi }(x))=s(\phi (m))`$. Consider the map

$$\sigma :\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0),\sigma (m)=(m,s(\phi (m))).$$

Its composition with the orbit map $`\pi :\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)/G=\overline{M}_X`$ is surjective. Moreover $`\pi \sigma `$ descents to a homeomorphism

$$h:\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta })/\overline{M}_X.$$

Since $`s^{}\omega _X=0`$,

$$\left(\sigma |_{\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}\right)^{}(\omega _M\omega _X)=\omega _M|_{\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})}.$$

Consequently,

(5.1)
$$h:\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\overline{M}_X$$

is a symplectic embedding.

The cut space $`\overline{M}_X`$ is smooth $``$ for all $`(m,x)\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ the group $`G`$ acts freely at $`(m,x)`$. But for $`(m,x)\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ we have $`\phi (m)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, and so $`G_E=G_x`$. Thus $`G`$ acts freely at $`(m,x)`$ $``$ $`G_EG_m`$ is trivial. ∎

###### Remark 5.2.

For every open face $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the set $`M_E:=\phi ^1(\overline{E})/\overline{M}_X`$ is a submanifold fixed by $`G_E`$ (here $`\overline{E}`$ denotes the closure of $`E`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$), hence is symplectic. In particular if $`E=\overline{E}=\{\mu \}`$ is a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`M_E=\phi ^1(\mu )/G`$ is a symplectic quotient of $`M`$ at $`\mu `$; it is a component of the fixed point set $`(\overline{M}_X)^G`$.

Let $`(M,\omega _M,\phi )`$ and $`(X,\omega _X,\mathrm{\Psi })`$ be as before. Assume further that $`(M,\omega _M)`$ and $`(X,\omega _X)`$ are Kähler and that the actions of $`G`$ are holomorphic. Then the cut $`\overline{M}_X`$, being a symplectic quotient, is also Kähler . However, as we already observed in § 2, the embedding $`h:\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\overline{M}_X`$ (cf. (5.1)) cannot be holomorphic relative to the complex structures on $`M`$ and $`\overline{M}_X`$. Indeed, the complement of $`h(\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}))`$ in $`\overline{M}_X`$ is the union of submanifolds of the form $`M_E=\phi ^1(\overline{E})/`$ where $`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a proper open face. Each manifold $`M_E`$ is a component of the fixed point set $`(\overline{M}_X)^{G_E}`$, hence is $`G`$-invariant and Kähler. Therefore $`M_E`$’s are preserved by the action of the complexified group $`G^{}`$. Consequently $`h(\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}))=\overline{M}_X_{E\mathrm{\Delta }}M_E`$ is $`G^{}`$ invariant. On the other hand there is no reason for $`M^{}:=\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$ to be $`G^{}`$ invariant, and usually it is not. Clearly

(5.2)
$$M^\mathrm{\#}:=G^{}M^{}=G^{}\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})$$

is the smallest $`G^{}`$ invariant subset of $`M`$ containing $`M^{}`$. We remark:

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`M`$, $`X`$, etc. be as above. If $`G`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ then $`M^\mathrm{\#}`$ defined by (5.2) is an open subset of $`M`$.

Following  we recall the notion of semistablility for Hamiltonian group actions on (not necessarily integral) Kähler manifolds.

###### Definition 5.4.

Let $`N`$ be a Kähler manifold with a holomorphic Hamiltonian action of a compact Lie group $`G`$ and associated moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:N𝔤^{}`$. A point $`xN`$ is analytically semistable if the closure of the $`G^{}`$ orbit through $`x`$ intersects the zero level set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ nontrivially ($`G^{}`$ denotes the complexification of $`G`$). We denote the set of semistable points in $`N`$ by $`N_{ss}`$.

###### Remark 5.5.

One can show that if the action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ is locally free, then $`N_{ss}`$ is simply $`G^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$. In this case one refers to the points of $`N_{ss}`$ as stable points and denotes it by $`N_{\text{stable}}`$ (cf. (2.10 above).

We will need the following property of the set of semistable points.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Let $`N`$ be a Kähler manifold with a holomorphic Hamiltonian action of a compact Lie group $`G`$ and associated moment map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:N𝔤^{}`$. Assume that for every $`xN`$ the forward flowline of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$, the negative gradient flow of the norm squared of the moment map, is contained in a compact set. Then the set of semistable points $`N_{ss}`$ is the smallest $`G^{}`$-invariant open subset of $`N`$ containing $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$. Its complement $`NN_{ss}`$ is a complex-analytic subset.

###### Proof.

See , § 4. Compare , pp. 109–110. ∎

###### Remark 5.7.

Sjamaar (op. cit.) refers to moment maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }:N𝔤^{}`$ with the property that for every $`xN`$ the forward flowline of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ is contained in a compact set as admissible. All proper moment maps are admissible. Other examples include moment maps for finite dimensional unitary representations (Example 2.3 in ).

We are now in a position to state and prove the main result of the section, which is the generalization of Theorem 2.1 and of Theorem 3.2.

###### Theorem 5.8.

Let $`(M,\omega _M,\phi )`$, $`(X,\omega _X,\mathrm{\Psi })`$, $`G_E`$ and $`\overline{M}_X`$ be as above with $`G`$ acting freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$. Assume further that $`M`$ and $`X`$ are Kähler and that $`\mathrm{\Phi }:M\times X𝔤^{}`$ is admissible. Then $`M^\mathrm{\#}=G^{}\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})M`$ is biholomorphic to $`h(\phi ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}))\overline{M}_X`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a point $`x^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$. Since $`X`$ is connected, the orbit $`G^{}x^{}`$ is all of $`X^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})`$.

There are three actions of $`G^{}`$ on $`M\times X`$:

1. The trivial extension of the action of $`G^{}`$ on $`M`$; we denote its image in $`𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓(M\times X)`$ by $`G_1^{}`$.
2. The trivial extension of the action of $`G^{}`$ on $`X`$; we denote its image in $`𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓(M\times X)`$ by $`G_2^{}`$.
3. The diagonal action of $`G^{}`$; we denote its image in $`𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓(M\times X)`$ by $`G_d^{}`$.

Since $`G`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$,

$$\overline{M}_X=(M\times X)_{ss}/G_d^{},$$

where $`(M\times X)_{ss}=G_d^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)`$ is the set of analytically semi-stable points. Note that by Lemma 5.6 $`(M\times X)_{ss}`$ is $`G_1^{}`$-invariant!

The actions of $`G_1^{}`$ and $`G_d^{}`$ commute. Hence the induced action of $`G`$ on $`\overline{M}_X`$ is holomorphic and therefore extends to an action of $`G^{}`$. But the action of $`G^{}`$ on $`\overline{M}_X`$ is induced by the action of $`G_1^{}`$ on $`(M\times X)_{ss}`$.

Consequently $`(M\times X)_{ss}`$ is $`G_1^{}\times G_2^{}`$-invariant. Since $`M\times X^{}`$ is also $`G_1^{}\times G_2^{}`$-invariant, the set $`(M\times X^{})_{ss}=(M\times X^{})(M\times X)_{ss}`$ is $`G_1^{}\times G_2^{}`$-invariant as well. We conclude

(5.3)
$$(M\times X^{})_{ss}=\left((G_1^{}\times G_2^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\right)(M\times X^{})$$

The manifold $`M\times \{x^{}\}`$ is a cross-section for the action of $`G_d^{}`$ on $`M\times X^{}`$. Hence

$$(M\times \{x^{}\})(M\times X^{})_{ss}(M\times X^{})_{ss}/G_d^{}.$$

Thus

$$(M\times X^{})_{ss}/G_d^{}((G_1^{}\times G_2^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0))(M\times \{x^{}\}).$$

On the other hand,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M^\mathrm{\#}& =\{mM\phi (g_1m)=\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\text{ for some }g_1G^{},xX^{}\}\hfill \\ & =\{mM\phi (g_1m)\mathrm{\Psi }(g_2x^{})=0\text{ for some }(g_1,g_2)G_1^{}\times G_2^{}\}\hfill \\ & =\{mM(G_1^{}\times G_2^{})(m,x^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\mathrm{}\}\hfill \\ & =\{mM(m,x^{})(G_1^{}\times G_2^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0)\}\hfill \\ & =((G_1^{}\times G_2^{})\mathrm{\Phi }^1(0))(M\times \{x^{}\}).\hfill \end{array}$$

We conclude with a few very simple examples of this construction.

Example 1. One may replace, in Example 3, $`\mathrm{\S }4`$ above, $`(,2\sqrt{1}\overline{}\mathrm{log}(1+|z|^2))`$ by the compact toric manifold $`(^1,\omega _{\text{FS}})`$ and obtain the same cut space.

Example 2. We note that  has, in effect, a large number of examples of this construction, and relates them to the question of Grauert tubes of infinite radius. In , one has a distinguished Kähler structure on the tangent bundle $`T`$ of a real analytic Riemannian manifold $`(,g)`$, usually acted upon by a compact group $`G`$ of isometries. For every invariant metric on $`G`$, one gets such a distinguished Kähler strcture on $`TG`$ as well, and  studies the reduction of the product $`T\times TG`$, which is the same as cutting $`T`$ by $`TG`$. Indeed, even in the case $`G=S^1`$, varying the symplectic form on $`TG`$ by a positive scaling constant gives interesting new examples of Riemannian manifolds $`(,g^{})`$ giving such a Kähler structure on $`T`$.

In fact, when $`G=S^1`$, it is easy to see that the Kähler structure on $`TG`$ is, in the notation of this section, $`X=^{}`$ with

$$\omega _X=c\sqrt{1}\frac{dzd\overline{z}}{|z|^2},c>0.$$

In this case, cutting any $`(M,\omega _M)`$ by $`(X,\omega _X)`$ changes neither the topology nor the complex structure on $`M`$, but only alters the resultant symplectic form $`\omega =\omega (c)`$. This is because the moment map on $`X=^{}`$ is proper, and the action of $`G^{}`$ is free and proper on $`X`$.


format: text

text:
# 1. Constraint from Oklo

## 1. Constraint from Oklo

Around 1974 it was finally agreed that self-sustained fission reactions took place naturally in Oklo, Gabon, some 2 billion years ago. This is the “Oklo phenomenon.” Shlyakhter  came to notice that measuring isotopic ratio of $`{}_{}{}^{149}\mathrm{Sm}`$ left in the remnants of the “natural reactors” is useful to determine how much nuclear phenomena 2 billion years ago could have been different from what they are. He focused on the reaction $`n+^{149}\mathrm{Sm}^{150}\mathrm{Sm}+\gamma `$, which is unique in that it is dominated by a resonance lying as low as 97.3 meV, nearly 7 orders of magnitude too small compared with MeV, a typical energy scale of nuclear physics. A very small number like this should be due to a nearly complete cancellation between two large effects; a repulsive Coulomb force proportional to $`\alpha `$ and the attractive nuclear force.

The resonance shows up as a sharp peak in the cross section plotted against a possible change $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{r}`$ of the resonance energy $`E_\mathrm{r}`$. We also assume thermal equilibrium of the neutron flux. Even a slight change of $`\alpha `$ may result in the sizable change of $`E_\mathrm{r}`$ then of the cross section. Thanks to this amplification mechanism, he derived the upper bound; $`|\dot{\alpha }/\alpha |\stackrel{<}{}10^{17}\mathrm{y}^1`$, much better than any other results for years.

Unfortunately, details of his derivation and the quality of the data have been left largely unknown. However, our recent re-analysis  shows that his “champion result” itself can be trusted reasonably well.

To minimize the “contamination” due to the inflow from outside the reactor that occurred after the end of reactor activity, we relied on the latest samples collected carefully from deep underground. By analyzing the data on the isotopes of Sm, we computed the cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }_{149}=(91\pm 6)\mathrm{kb}`$, as bounded by the two horizontal lines in Fig. 1. Combining this with the shaded area corresponding to the improved estimate of the temperature $`(200400)^{}\mathrm{C}`$, we obtained the two intersections on both sides of the peak, then the two ranges:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{r}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (9\pm 11)& \mathrm{meV},\hfill & \text{Right-branch range,}\hfill \\ \hfill (97\pm 8)& \mathrm{meV},\hfill & \text{Left-branch range.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The right-branch range covers zero giving a “null result” as usual, while the second one implies that the resonance energy 2 billion years ago was smaller than today’s value beyond more than 12 $`\sigma `$.

We tried to see if the non-null result could be eliminated by looking at other isotopes ($`{}_{}{}^{155,157}\mathrm{Gd},^{113}\mathrm{Cd}`$), but without a final conclusion yet.

We add that the same type of analysis due to Damour and Dyson  resulted in a single much more conservative bound as given by $`120\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}<\mathrm{\Delta }E_r<90\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. They could have separated it into the narrower two, but then with the right-branch range failing to cover the zero, causing a suspicion of the contaminated effect of the data.

The bound (1.) is translated into that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ by using $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_r=(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha )_c`$ with $`_c1.1\mathrm{MeV}`$ estimated in , thus giving

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill (0.8\pm 1.0)\times 10^8,& \text{Right-branch range,}\hfill & \\ \hfill (0.88\pm 0.07)\times 10^7,& \text{Left-branch range}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The null-result, by dividing by $`2\times 10^9\mathrm{y}`$, gives the upper bound $`\dot{\alpha }/\alpha =(0.4\pm 0.5)\times 10^{17}\mathrm{y}^1`$, which “happens” to agree reasonably well with Shlyakhter’s result, as was mentioned. But the agreement to this extent seems to be rather accidental, because, among other things, it is unlikely that the quality of the data available to him in the early years of the Oklo study was as good as ours.

We then move on to combine our result (1.) with those non-null result obtained recently from QSO, by Webb et al . The error bar of the Oklo data is almost invisible on the scale in the upper diagram of Fig. 2a. It even appears as if $`\alpha `$ varies with time not necessarily in a simple manner. We argue that the time-dependence might have something to do with the cosmological constant problem.

## 2. A small but nonzero cosmological constant and the scalar-tensor theory of gravity

According to the recent detailed analyses of the Type Ia SN’s our universe is “accelerating,” best described by a small but nonzero positive cosmological constant, with the size expressed by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/\rho _{\mathrm{crt}}0.7`$. The critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{crt}}=\frac{3}{8\pi G}H^2`$ shows an over-all behavior as $`t^2`$ with the coefficient which is of the order one in the Planckian unit system defined by $`c=\mathrm{}=M_\mathrm{P}(=(8\pi G)^{1/2})=1`$. Note that the present age of the universe $`t_014\mathrm{G}\mathrm{y}`$ corresponds to $`10^{60}`$ in this unit system. We then find today’s value of $`\rho _{\mathrm{crt}}\mathrm{\Lambda }10^{120}`$. In contrast, we have a theoretical estimate $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{th}}`$ naturally $`1`$ in this unit system. The discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude will be understood probably only by the “scenario of a decaying cosmological constant:” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a true constant, but decays like $`t^2`$. One of the ways to implement this scenario is provided by the scalar-tensor theory of gravity.

The theory features the well-known nonminimal coupling term $`(1/2)\sqrt{g}\xi \varphi ^2R`$ that replaces the standard Einstein-Hilbert term, where $`4\xi =|\omega |^1`$ shows how strongly the scalar field $`\varphi `$ couples with matter. The size of $`\omega `$ has been best constrained by the solar-system experiments; $`\omega \stackrel{>}{}3600`$, or $`\xi \stackrel{<}{}0.7\times 10^4`$, though a theoretically natural estimate is of the order 1. For example, string theory in its simplest interpretation gives $`\omega =1`$, in contradiction with the observations. But the solar-system experiments may not constrain the realistic scalar-tensor theory, because the scalar field is likely massive, and the scalar force does not reach the distances of the solar system.

Incidentally, string theory offers a nice place for the scalar field to live comfortably as a spinless companion of the metric tensor, and is called a “dilaton.”

A conformal transformation $`g_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(x)g_{\mu \nu }`$ is crucially important in any version of the scalar-tensor theory, and in any theory of gravity in which a scalar field plays a role. Also as a terminology, under this transformation we say, we move from one conformal frame (CF) to another. It then follows that physics looks different from frame to frame. So the issue is how we can single out a correct and physical CF out of infinitely many of them. At this moment, we talk about only two types of them; the J(ordan) frame and the E(instein) frame.

The J frame is the CF in which the Lagrangian takes the form with a nonminimal coupling term. String theory is formulated in this type of CF. For this reason, the J frame might be called a string CF, or sometimes a theoretical CF. On the other hand, in the E frame the nonminimal coupling term has been transformed to the standard EH term. It then seems reasonable to start with assuming a truly constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term included in the J frame Lagrangian, and to try to see what physics looks like in the E frame, expected to be a physical frame.

Note also that in the E frame the canonical scalar field is $`\sigma `$ related to $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi e^{\zeta \sigma }`$ where $`\zeta ^2=6+4\omega `$, and the purely constant term of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the J frame is now converted to a term in the E frame; $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{4\zeta \sigma }`$.

We then set up the cosmological equations in the Friedmann universe with $`k=0`$. We work out the solutions, particularly the attractor solution in the E frame. In this solution, the energy density $`\rho _\sigma `$ of the scalar field acts as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the effective cosmological constant in the E frame, and is shown to decay like $`t_{}^2`$, where $`t_{}`$ is the cosmic time in the E frame. This is the way we can implement the scenario of a decaying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, this smooth and monotonic behavior is not enough to understand the observed acceleration, which requires us to come up with something that behaves like a constant. To meet this requirement is not an easy task, as long as we stick to the idea of the decaying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. After some desperate efforts, we came to propose to introduce another scalar field $`\chi `$ together with its specific interaction. Skipping the details altogether at this moment, we show the result .

Fig. 3a is an example of our solutions in the E frame. The horizontal axis is $`\mathrm{log}t_{}`$ in the Planckian unit system; the present epoch is somewhere around 60. Both of the ordinary matter energy density $`\rho _{}`$ (dashed curve in the lower diagram), including dark matter, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{eff}}=\rho _s`$ (solid curve) for the energy density of the scalar fields, $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$, fall off $`t_{}^2`$ as an overall behavior, hence respecting the scenario of decaying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. However, we find occasional deviations from $`t_{}^2`$, particularly the plateau behavior of $`\rho _s`$. A nearly constant $`\rho _s`$ mimics a cosmological constant, but it is remarkable that the plateau crosses $`\rho _{}`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$. Nearly in coincidence with this crossing, the scale factor (dotted curve for its logarithm in the upper diagram) shows acceleration, fitting the observed result. But this “mini-inflation” does not last forever; it dies out soon on this time scale.

This crossing is a unique feature of the dynamics of the two interacting scalar fields, also indicated by the sudden changes of $`\sigma `$ and $`\chi `$ (solid and dashed curves, respectively, in the upper diagram). We focus particularly on a small portion in the upper diagram, showing a sudden but simple change of $`\sigma `$ around the present epoch. We magnify it by the ratio 330 times in the vertical direction.

The result is Fig. 3b showing a damped oscillation of $`\sigma `$, which, like a hidden secret, is visible only after the huge magnification. This is a “heart” of the underlying mechanism designed for a small but nonzero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The oscillation itself is so small in the amplitude that its details rarely affect the way of acceleration in practice. But it may show up somewhere else, particularly through the way $`\alpha `$ changes with time.

## 3. Varying $`\alpha `$

We have derived the following relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha }{\alpha }=𝒵\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,$$
(1)
where $`𝒵`$ is a coefficient of the order 1.

To be substituted into RHS, we take $`\sigma `$ tentatively from the above solution, and compute the LHS, plotted in Fig. 2b against the fractional lookback time. When compared with the observation, the lower diagram of Fig. 2a, the agreement appears rather poor. We have to try other initial values and parameters for better fits. It may take some time, though we are sure that we can do this without affecting much the way the universe is accelerated. In other words, the theory is constrained more in detail by the time-variability of $`\alpha `$ than by the acceleration of the universe. We still emphasize that we are coming close to understanding the two different kinds of phenomena in terms of a single origin, the dynamical scalar field. The most crucial here was (1). We outline briefly how we reached this result .

* It was necessary to modify the simplest Brans-Dicke model to be consistent with standard cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ included, a highly non-trivial task. We also followed the scenario that scale invariance is broken first spontaneously so that $`\sigma `$ is a Nambu-Goldstone boson, which is massless and is duly called a “dilaton.” The symmetry is then broken explicitly, with $`\sigma `$ now as a pseudo NG boson, which is naturally massive. In this way, we have $`\sigma `$ finally as non-Newtonian gravity, featuring small violation of WEP.
* From a technical point of view we started with assuming a purely constant $`\alpha `$ in the J frame, then finding a $`\sigma `$-dependence in the E frame. The basic tool was QED. Interesting enough the result (1) is finite, rather than divergent, in a way of quantum anomaly, an intriguing concept in the relativistic quantum field theory.
* Finally a detailed study on the choice of CF gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/G=9𝒵^1(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha /\alpha )`$, and hence $`|\dot{G}/G|\stackrel{<}{}10^{(1415)}\mathrm{y}^1`$, somewhat below the current upper bounds.

References

1. A.I. Shlyakhter: Nature 264 (1976) 340: ATOMKI Report A/1 (1983), unpublished.
2. Y. Fujii, A. Iwamoto, T. Fukahori, T. Ohnuki, M. Nakagawa, H. Hidaka, Y. Oura and P. Möller: Nucl. Phys. B573 (2000) 377: See also hep-ph/0205206.
3. T. Damour and F. Dyson: Nucl. Phys. B480 (1996) 37.
4. J.K. Webb, M.T. Murphy, V.V. Flambaum, V.A. Dzuba, J.D. Barrow, C.W. Churchill, J.X. Prochaska and A.M. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091301.
5. Y. Fujii, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 064004.
6. Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation, Cambridge University Press (to be published).


text:
# Features of Muon Arrival Time Distributions of High Energy EAS at Large Distances From the Shower Axis

## 1 Introduction

Since the first experimental studies in 1953 by Bassi, Clark and Rossi  and Jelley and Whitehouse  arrival time distributions of the charge particle components of Extensive Air Showers (EAS) have been often theoretically and experimentally investigated under various aspects . Systematic studies are performed particularly at large EAS detector installations: in Haverah Park , at the Potchefstroom University , in Akeno and on Mt. Chacaltaya , at MSU , more recently with the GREX/ COVER-PLASTEX  and KASCADE  experiments. Measurements of arrival time distributions of high energy hadrons near the shower core have been reported by the Maryland University group  and by KASCADE . In addition to the fact that the observed arrival time distributions of the EAS particles display the phenomenological appearance (shape and structure) of the EAS disc, they provide also a coded picture of the longitudinal EAS development. Especially the muon component, when multiple scattering in the atmosphere at higher muon energies gets negligible, maps the distributions of the production heights via the time-of-flight of the muons from the loci of decay of the charged parent pions to the detector . Fig. 1 sketches the relation in a simplified way. Muons released in higher atmospheric altitudes (and observed on ground at fixed larger distances from the shower axis) show smaller delays relative to the arrival of the shower centre (”light front”), and their (relative) arrival times let expect some discrimination features for the mass of the EAS primary . Thus the arrival time distributions of muons, produced in iron induced showers e.g. should get shifted to shorter delays due to the faster development as compared to proton induced showers of the same primary energy. Of course, a serious analysis of this mapping has to invoke realistic simulations of the EAS development and of the muon tracking, taking into account the influence of multiple scattering and off-axis production  of the muons. Fig. 1 indicates also that observations of the angle distributions of the muon incidence provide alternative experimental possibilities , in case that multiple scattering effects do not seriously obscure that information . The information content of the combination of both types of EAS observations, known as ”Time-Track-Complimentary-Principle” , has been scrutinised in Ref. .

Arrival times $`\tau _\mu ^1<\tau _\mu ^2<\tau _\mu ^3`$,… of the EAS muons, locally registered by timing detectors at a distance $`R_\mu `$ from the shower axis have to refer to a well defined zero-time, usually the arrival time $`\tau _c`$ of the shower core (global arrival times):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\mu ^{nglob}=\tau _\mu ^n(R_\mu )\tau _c$$

e.g.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\mu ^{1glob}=\tau _\mu ^1(R_\mu )\tau _c$$

Often there are experimental difficulties to determine the arrival time $`\tau _c`$ with sufficient experimental precision, and only ”local” times are considered. They refer to the foremost (first locally registered) muon:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\mu ^{nloc}(R_\mu )=\tau _\mu ^n(R_\mu )\tau _\mu ^1(R_\mu )$$

Local arrival time distributions display the internal structure of the shower disc (characterised by various time parameters), but they do not carry information about the shape (curvature) of the front. Nevertheless studies based on simulations of the EAS development  have shown that mass discrimination effects are just pronounced in observations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\mu ^{1glob}`$.

For event-by-event observations with a fluctuating number of muons, the single relative arrival time distributions can be characterised by the mean values $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{mean}`$, and by various quantiles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$, like the median $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}`$, the first quartile $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.25}`$ and the third quartile $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.75}`$. For ordered statistics of measured times $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _1\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _n`$ and $`k:=n\alpha +\xi ,k`$ integer and $`\xi [0,1)`$, the $`\alpha `$-quantile $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\alpha `$ $`(\alpha (0,1))`$ is the following :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _k+\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{k+1})/2:\hfill & for\xi =0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\tau _k:\hfill & for\xi (0,1)\hfill \end{array}$$

That means: in the case of large $`n`$, a fraction $`\alpha `$ of muons has arrival times less than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _\alpha `$. The mean values and dispersions (standard deviations) represent the time profile of the EAS muon component. Measurements of muon arrival time distributions and the determination of the distributions of various different time quantities have been a subject of the current investigations of the KASCADE experiment . In these investigations the temporal EAS structure has been studied in detail in dependence on the shower size $`N_e`$, the muon number $`N_\mu `$, or the truncated muon number $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ (which is used as approximate energy identifier in KASCADE observations ), respectively, and from the angle of EAS incidence $`\theta `$. Special features arising from the observed muon multiplicity have been revealed . More recently  using larger samples of shower events, experimentally observed with KASCADE, the sensitivity of local muon arrival time distributions and of their correlations with other EAS observable to the mass of the EAS primaries has been investigated. Methodically advanced statistical analysing techniques have been applied , based on Bayesian decision making for the classification of the EAS events. The procedure requires simulated distributions (processed through the detector response) as reference patterns, provided by the Monte Carlo simulation program CORSIKA  with a particular model of the hadronic interactions. Thus the analysis necessarily implies some model dependence. But the consistency with the invoked QGSJET model  could be established thanks to the measurements with varying distance $`R_\mu `$ from the shower centre and varying muon multiplicity thresholds for being accepted in the observation sample. Nevertheless, it has been also shown that the mass discrimination power of local muon arrival time distributions is rather marginal in the observed range $`R_\mu <100`$ m and primary energies $`E_010^{16}`$ eV, and it does not significantly help for the classification.

The phenomenological features of the time structure of high energy EAS at larger distances from the shower axis have been experimentally studied with the Haverah Park  and the Akeno air shower arrays , and the results have been compared with phenomenological model predictions (scaling models and multiplicity prescriptions for the particle production in hadronic collisions). An analysis of the mass discrimination power on basis of modern models of the hadronic interactions has not yet been performed for these cases.

The recently started extension of the KASCADE detector installation: KASCADE-Grande  will not only provide the possibility to extend the studies of muon arrival time distributions and their correlations to larger distances $`R_\mu `$ and larger energies of the observed EAS. There is also a chance to measure global arrival times, at least for $`R_\mu `$ up to 350 m . The investigations of this paper use the analysis techniques of our previous studies  and refer mainly to the QGSJET , in some few comparisons also to other models. The studies are focused to explore the basic information content of muon arrival time distributions of EAS with energies up to ca. 1$`10^{18}`$ eV. The analyses are completely based on data of simulated showers and consider ideal cases, i.e. neglecting the influence of the detection system. The view of interest is the discrimination of the mass of the primary particles (with adopting a particular hadronic model as generator of the reference patterns). For some observable combinations the differences in the predictions of Monte Carlo simulations using different high-energy models as generators have been scrutinised. Only marginal differences for the arrival time distributions have been found.

## 2 Time profiles of the EAS muon component

The present studies consider predictions of realistic and detailed Monte Carlo simulations of the EAS development initiated by cosmic ray primaries of different mass in the primary energy range up to 1$`10^{18}`$ eV. The simulations have been performed by use of the program CORSIKA (version 5.64) , invoking in general different models for the hadronic interaction: QGSJET (version 98) , VENUS (version 4.125)  and SIBYLL (version 1.6) . For the particle interactions below $`E_{lab}=80`$ GeV the GHEISHA  option is used. Earth magnetic field, observation level and particle detection thresholds have been chosen in accordance with the observation conditions of the KASCADE experiment, but without a detailed account for the detector response. The U.S. standard atmosphere (see Ref. ) has been adopted for the simulations. For a realistic description of the electron-photon component, instead of the NKG approximation  the EGS option  has been preferred.

A first set (I) of simulations comprises samples (of ca. 500 events each) of proton and Fe induced EAS of vertical incidence for various primary energy ranges, $`10^{15}`$ eV, (1.78-3.16)$`10^{16}`$ eV and 3.16$`10^{17}`$ eV, calculated with the CORSIKA version 5.62. Another set (II) of samples, calculated with a spectral index of the power-law slope of $`2.0`$ for eight energy ranges ( 1$`10^{16}`$ \- 1.78$`10^{16}`$ eV; 1.78$`10^{16}`$ \- 3.16$`10^{16}`$ eV; 3.16$`10^{16}`$ \- 5.62$`10^{16}`$ eV; 5.62$`10^{16}`$ \- 1$`10^{17}`$ eV; 1$`10^{17}`$ \- 1.78$`10^{17}`$ eV; 1.78$`10^{17}`$ \- 3.16$`10^{17}`$ eV; 3.16$`10^{17}`$ \- 5.62$`10^{17}`$ eV; 5.62$`10^{17}`$ \- 1$`10^{18}`$ eV) with the CORSIKA version 5.64 and the QGSJET model, comprises smaller number of events (100 or up to only 9 for the highest energy range), distributed randomly over an angle-of-incidence range of $`0^{}30^{}`$.

For each simulated EAS event a number of EAS observable have been reconstructed: the electromagnetic shower size $`N_e`$, the muon content $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$, the shower age $`s`$, and in particular the time parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$ of the muon arrival time distributions and their variations with the distance $`R_\mu `$ from the shower axis. For higher primary energies and approximating the experimental conditions of KASCADE-Grande, instead of $`N_e`$ the quantity $`N_{ch}`$ (the total number of charged particles) is preferentially considered. Consequently we deduce also an age quantity $`s_{ch}`$ derived from the lateral distribution of the charged particles. As approximate energy identifier instead of $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ the quantity $`\rho _\mu `$ ($`R_\mu `$ = 600 m) with $`E_{thr}=240`$ MeV is introduced, which has been often considered in the past for this purpose .

The muon arrival time distributions have been calculated for muons with an energy threshold $`E_{thr}=2.4`$ GeV, observed with a multiplicity $`n3`$ per event. The value of this energy threshold is chosen according to the muon detection threshold of the KASCADE Central Detector which is foreseen to be used for the time measurements . Just for an impression average arrival time distributions for proton and iron induced EAS at two different energies and different muon energy detection thresholds are displayed in Fig. 2. The figure indicates that differences for different kinds of primaries are, if ever, obvious in the initial part of the distributions, represented by the first quartile $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.25}`$. It gives also an impression about the order of the needed time resolution (about $`1.5`$ ns) to reveal the differences. But generally the present paper is not focussed to the discussion of instrumental effects.

The distributions of the different quantiles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$ of event-by-event observations have been shown  to follow fairly well a phenomenological parameterisation by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$\- probability distribution functions, with parameters varying with the primary energy and the distance $`R_\mu `$.

The following figures (Figs. 3 and 5) display the time profiles of the muon component, i.e. the variation of the mean $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q>`$ of the time parameters and of their fluctuations (characterised by the standard deviation $`\sigma _q`$) with $`R_\mu `$. They are calculated with samples of set I and analysed for radial ranges up to 300 m (in bins $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_\mu `$ = 10 m).

Fig. 3a compares local and global time profiles $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}>`$ with respect of differences of the primary mass, while Fig. 3b displays the time profiles of different quartiles of the proton case. Obviously the local and global profiles do not exhibit pronounced differences for different primaries. The quantities $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{glob}>`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau ^{loc}>`$ differ by an offset $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _1^{glob})`$ which varies with $`R_\mu `$. It has been shown that differences of $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _1^{glob}>`$ are in the order of 1 ns for different primary muons in the considered range of distances from the shower axis .

Since the lateral distribution of the muon component displays also some differences for different kinds of primaries, the profile of a combined quantity (”reduced time”) $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}(R_\mu )/\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ is of interest where $`\rho _\mu ^{}`$ represents the density of muons with energies $`E_\mu >2.4`$ GeV. This quantity is measurable with the KASCADE Central Detector and is related to the multiplicity of muons observed in the EAS event.

As an example in Fig. 4 the fluctuations of $`\rho _\mu ^{}`$ are displayed for different distances $`R_\mu `$ from the shower core, indicating an increasing separation of the distributions with increasing $`R_\mu `$. This feature is reflected in the distributions of the time quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}`$.

Fig. 5 compares the local $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{loc}>`$ and global $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}>`$ profiles. A marginally slight improvement of the discrimination of the global quantity for distances larger than 100 m is indicated. This feature gets more pronounced at higher energies. Though global quantities include the curvature of the shower disc, while local quantities display only the internal structure of the EAS. At not too large distances from the shower axis the offset between global and local profiles is nearly mass-independent.

Generally we note that differences of distributions arising from different mass primaries are in the order of nanoseconds, increasing with the distance from the shower axis. For the energies $``$ (1.78-3.16)$`10^{16}`$ eV (set I) also some exploratory calculations, adopting the VENUS or SYBILL model, have been performed and show that the model dependence leads to differences of the distributions (within the considered $`R_\mu `$ range) in the order of 2% with no clear trend .

## 3 Correlated distributions

The concept of modern cosmic ray experiments like KASCADE or KASCADE-Grande with a multi-component detector array is to deduce the information from correlated measurements of a larger

number of observable EAS parameters for each individual event (see Ref. ). Particular observable quantities are the electromagnetic shower size $`N_e`$, the muon content $`N_\mu `$ (or the truncated muon number $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ in case of KASCADE) and other specific observable quantities, characterising the various EAS components. In view of the measuring possibilities of the KASCADE-Grande array the KASCADE observable $`N_e`$, $`N_\mu `$ and $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ (the latter loses also the role as approximate energy identifier for larger energies) are not accessible. For KASCADE-Grande they will be replaced by the total number of the charged particles $`N_{ch}`$ and a (partial) muon number, as measured with the original KASCADE detector array being embedded in the KASCADE-Grande installation. This muon number is dependent on the distance to the shower core. In the present studies, for the sake of simplicity, we represent it by $`\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$ i.e. the muon density (with $`E_{thr}=240`$ MeV) at $`R_\mu `$ and consider in particular $`\rho _\mu (600`$ m).

The variation of the muon density $`\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$ with the primary energy is illustrated in Fig. 6 by results of the present simulations. It is obvious that $`\rho _\mu (600`$ m) as well as the muon density at other distances (see Fig. 6) do not provide a strictly mass independent energy identifier. In addition as known for $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$, there are considerable fluctuations of $`\rho _\mu (600`$ m) at fixed energies.

The current and foreseen analyses of the experiments attempt to infer from the correlations of various observable an estimate simultaneously for the energy and the mass of the primary cosmic particle inducing the EAS event. As the most powerful correlation the $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation has been proven (see Ref. ). It is expected that the $`N_e\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$ correlation will exhibit a similar discrimination power which can be defined in terms of the true classification probabilities resulting from the analysis (see section 4). The features are indicated in Fig. 7 which compares the $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation with the $`N_{ch}\rho _\mu (600`$ m) correlation at two different primary energies.

Correlations with additional observable EAS parameters, though of relatively small own classification power, shrink the influence of the natural EAS fluctuations and test the consistency of the analysis .

The observation of muon arrival time distributions at particular distances $`R_\mu `$ from the shower centre is combined with the observation of the local muon density $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ with $`E_{thr}=2.4`$ GeV reflected by the muon multiplicity i.e. the registered number of muons spanning the single arrival time distribution. It turned out  that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q(R_\mu )\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ correlation improves the mass discrimination and can be fairly well replaced by a combined parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q^{}(R_\mu )=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q(R_\mu )/\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$. This result has been already anticipated in the presentation of the EAS time profiles in section 2.

Fig. 8 displays the correlation distributions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{loc}(R_\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )`$, respectively, with the $`\mathrm{log}_{10}N_e`$ for proton and iron induced showers of the energy $`E_0=(1.783.16)10^{16}`$ eV in two different $`R_\mu `$ ranges.

Special interest arises from the correlation with the so-called shower age $`s`$. This particular EAS parameter associated with the soft EAS component is supposed to carry also some information about the longitudinal EAS development. In the cascade theory (NKG approximation)  $`s`$ is related to the actual atmospheric depth of the shower development via the lateral distribution involving the Molière radius $`R_{moli\stackrel{`}{e}re}`$ (which is a characteristic unit of length of the scattering theory) and the ratio $`E_0/ϵ_0`$ of the incident energy to the critical energy. However, the use of the age parameter resulting from the simplified handling of the electromagnetic component by the cascade theory does not describe realistically the electromagnetic component. Rather a full Monte Carlo simulation of the electromagnetic component (by use of the EGS option  in the CORSIKA code) calculating the total intensity distribution of the electron component and the lateral electron distribution with all fluctuations, has to be required in order to obtain results being comparable with the reality. In order to derive from lateral distributions resulting from the EGS - Monte Carlo simulation an ”age parameter” value (which is not defined within the Monte Carlo approach), the resulting lateral distribution is subsequently fitted by the NKG function $`f(R/R_{moli\stackrel{`}{e}re}`$; $`N_e`$, $`s`$) in the same manner as the experimental observations are analysed ($`R_{moli\stackrel{`}{e}re}`$ = 78 m). Thus a (lateral) ”age” is extracted . In a similar way the lateral distributions of the charged particles are processed for deducing the age parameter $`s_{ch}`$. However it should be noted that such a procedure is considered to be only a first approximation. The lateral distribution of charged EAS particles at larger distances from the shower core deviates from the NKG function, and an improved parametrisation should be used . Nevertheless Fig. 9 displays the correlation with the age parameters, defined by the NKG function. They emphasise the suggestion to exploit in analyses of experimental data correlations with the age parameters, which are obviously related to the longitudinal development and could lead to an improved discrimination of protons and iron induced EAS.

In the following section we base such qualitative statements deduced from the inspection of the distributions (shown as examples in Figs. 8 and 9) on quantitative results of statistical analyses of multivariate distributions, considering also the more complicated case of three mass classes (protons: H, carbon: C, iron: Fe).

## 4 Non-parametric analyses of the sensitivity to the primary mass

Non-parametric statistical methods are most efficient and unbiased tools for the analysis of multidimensional observable-distributions in order to associate single observed events to different classes (say to different masses of the EAS primaries) by comparing the considered events with the model distributions without using any pre-chosen parameterisation. The methods of decision making and the application to cosmic ray data analyses are generally described in Refs.. They have been outlined for studies of muon arrival time distributions in Refs.. The procedures take into account the effects of the natural EAS fluctuations in a quite natural way and are able to specify the uncertainties, by an estimate of the true-classification and misclassification probabilities. The classification probabilities are determined by the extent to which the likelihood functions of the single classes, derived from the simulations, are overlapping. Basically the results of such pattern recognition methods, using trained neural networks or Bayes decision rules, are dependent from the particular hadronic interaction model generating the reference pattern for the data to be studied. In the present analysis of the sensitivity of various correlation distributions, prepared from Monte Carlo simulations, the so-called one-leave-out test (see Ref. ) is applied, which determines the probability that a multidimensional event, taken from the considered (simulated) distribution, will be correctly (”true”) or incorrectly (”false”) classified by the procedure.

The following figures present the classification ($`HH`$; $`CC`$; $`FeFe`$) and misclassification ($`HC,Fe`$; $`CH,Fe`$; $`FeH,C`$) probabilities for various correlations of different EAS observable. The discrimination power may be quantified by the “Bayes risk” defined as

$$R=\frac{1}{M_i}\underset{j=1}{\overset{M_i}{}}\epsilon (x_j)$$

where

$$\epsilon (x_j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & fortrueclassification\hfill \\ 1\hfill & otherwise\hfill \end{array}$$

of the event $`x_j`$ of the sample $`M_i`$. When considering the results based on simulations, one should keep in mind that the primary energy $`E_0`$ is a-priori known, while in the real cases $`E_0`$ has to be simultaneously estimated from the data, in particular from the $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation. Within a limited energy range $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ can be used as approximate energy identifier. From this reason correlations of $`N_\mu ^{tr}`$ with time observable are not specially scrutinised.

Even with the primary energy given, the fluctuations of $`N_e`$ and $`N_{ch}`$ or of the correlations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )N_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )N_{ch}`$ are so large, that the true classification probability remains modest. Fig. 10 confirms the approximate equivalence of the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{}(R_\mu )`$ with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}(R_\mu )\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ correlation, though the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}(R_\mu )\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ correlation appears obviously preferable in view of the mass classification. It is obvious that the quantity $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ (simultaneously observed with multiplicity in arrival time measurements of KASCADE (see Ref. )) leads to a considerable stabilisation of the discrimination effect. Especially when observables (like $`N_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$) of comparatively weak discrimination power are correlated. We conclude that the time quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$ should be preferentially introduced in combination with $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$, if ever experimentally possible.

The effect of global muon arrival time distributions, represented by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )`$ is quantified by the classification probabilities given in Fig. 11. When the detector installation is able to measure the $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation, adding $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )`$ has only a minor discrimination effect, even at larger distances from the shower core. This is in contrast to the case, when only $`N_{ch}`$ and a partial muon number (in our analysis approximated by $`\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$) are experimentally accessible. At larger distances, especially for the higher primary energies, the correlation of muon arrival times has a clear effect of improving the mass discrimination. It is interesting to note that this result holds also approximately for local time parameters.

Fig. 12a displays the $`R_\mu `$-dependence of the influence of the global time parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )`$ on the true and false - classifications of the $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation for the primary energy range (1.0-1.78)$`10^{16}`$ eV. At a first glance surprisingly, there is no significant tendency with increasing $`R_\mu `$. This feature can be understood with the above arguments of the minor contribution of the muon arrival time parameter when the ($`R_\mu `$ independent) $`N_eN_\mu ^{tr}`$ correlation can be determined.

However, due to the generally weaker discrimination power of the $`N_{ch}\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$ correlation the influence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{0.50}^{glob}(R_\mu )`$ appears significant in this case (Fig. 12b), though also not significantly varying with the distance. For example the improvement in terms of the Bayes risk for the case of $`E_0=10^{16}eV`$ is only 2%-3% while in the case of $`E_0=10^{17}eV`$ it is 14%-15%, i.e. not negligible.

As indicated in Fig. 13 differences in the discrimination effects of different quartiles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q`$ are hardly obvious and may be obscured by the inherent fluctuations. Studies of the classification and misclassification probabilities of EAS observable correlations including the age parameters show a non-negligible sensitivity of these EAS parameters. However, when alone correlated with $`N_e(N_{ch})`$ such a correlation (say $`N_es`$) proves to be a very uncertain and instable discriminator due to the fact that fluctuations of both related observables do obviously corroborate. Adding an observable of another EAS component stabilises the classification result.

From the classification and misclassification studies following features and tendencies can be recognised:

* The reduced time parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q(R_\mu )/\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ (where $`\rho _\mu ^{}`$ represents the density of muons with energies $`E_\mu >2.4`$ GeV) absorbs partially the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q(R_\mu )\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ correlation and enhances the mass classification sensitivity.
* The most important features are condensed in Figs. 11 and 12, revealing a significant contribution of the muon arrival time information when correlated with the EAS observable $`N_{ch}`$ and $`\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$, experimentally accessible by the foreseen layout of KASCADE-Grande.
* The shower age parameters $`s`$ and $`s_{ch}`$ (which have been scrutinised as additional parameters) have modest, but non-negligible effects for the mass discrimination.
* Correlations of largely fluctuating quantities, resulting from related observations (like $`N_e`$ and $`s`$, e.g.), lead to a bad classification with large uncertainties, but adding the correlation with an observable from another EAS component (like $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q^{}`$), even also fluctuating, induces an considerable improvement.

As already mentioned - as additional calculations show - the model dependence of the results of the classification probabilities is rather marginal. However, it should be remarked, this feature could be in detail different for different EAS parameter correlations and is also not yet explored for higher energy ranges.

## 5 The efficiency of the observation conditions and the energy and mass dependence

By the observations of muon arrival time distributions special samples of all observed EAS events are selected due to the particular observation conditions, especially by the energy threshold $`E_{thr}`$ (= 2.4 GeV in the actual case) of the detected muons and the multiplicity threshold $`n_{thr}`$, i.e. the number of muons necessary to define an event with an observable arrival time distribution. Thus the event selections are affected by the lateral distribution and the energy spectrum of EAS muon. Consequently the probability being accepted in the event sample depends on the observation distance $`R_\mu `$, on $`n_{thr}`$ and on the mass of the EAS primary. As discussed in Ref.  this feature implies in experimental observations of EAS samples efficiency corrections  and enables consistency tests by varying $`R_\mu `$ and $`n_{thr}`$ in the measurements.

Fig. 14 displays the results of calculations of the efficiency to register an EAS event under the specified conditions of muon arrival time measurements.

The efficiency depends strongly on $`R_\mu `$ and $`n_{thr}`$ at lower primary energies ($`10^{15}`$ eV) in a qualitatively understandable way. The dependence gets weaker at higher primary energies. In general the dependence and the variation with $`R_\mu `$ and $`n_{thr}`$ are different for different primary masses.

## 6 Conclusions

In the present paper based on realistic EAS Monte Carlo simulations the role of muon arrival time distributions has been scrutinised in view of correlations with the main EAS observables to be measured with the KASCADE-Grande layout for the discrimination of the primary mass at higher primary energies. The main observables for that purpose are the total number of the charged particles $`N_{ch}`$ and a part of the EAS muon intensity $`N_\mu ^{part}(R_\mu )`$ registered with the KASCADE array, embedded in KASCADE-Grande. The partial muon number $`N_\mu ^{part}(R_\mu )`$ is dependent from the location of the EAS centre. For the present simulation studies it has been replaced by the density $`\rho _\mu (R_\mu )`$ ($`E_\mu >240`$ MeV). In summary, the analyses of the classification and misclassification probabilities, determined with non-parametric statistical techniques give evidence that the information from muon arrival time distributions has a potential for improving the mass discrimination. This conclusion, being in contrast to findings at lower energies, holds for global time quantities as well as for the local ones. Actually the EAS profiles of the two different types of time parameters differ by an offset being only marginally dependent from the mass. This is due to an increasing “flatness” of the $`<\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _1>`$ profile with increasing primary energy, and differences are moved to larger distances out of experimental reach. This feature is important with respect to the experimental difficulties to define $`\tau _c`$ and to measure global time quantities. Obviously in the considered $`R_\mu `$ range the local times provide most of the accessible information.

The measuring techniques of muon arrival time distributions with the Central Detector of KASCADE imply the simultaneous determination of the multiplicity $`n`$ of muons spanning the arrival distributions. This multiplicity is related to the density $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ of the higher energy muons detected with the facilities of the Central Detector. The quantity $`\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$ (or the number of muons experimentally detected with the timing facility), when correlated with timing measurements (or used as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _q(R_\mu /\rho _\mu ^{}(R_\mu )`$) plays an important role in improving the effects of the arrival time observations.

Additionally (as outlined in Ref.) as consequence of the specific observation conditions muon arrival time observations establish a selected subset of all showers, and the determination of the mass composition needs a corresponding correction . Thus the results inferred with a variation of the multiplicity threshold $`n_{thr}`$ and of the observation distance $`R_\mu `$ provide a consistency test for the model used for the non-parametric analyses of the observed EAS.

It should be noted that the present results refer to ideal cases since any detector response functions, detector efficiencies and limitations of the statistical accuracies due to limited detector sizes have been ignored. Additionally the necessarily limited number of simulated EAS implies a limit on the reasonable number of observables used in a single analyses.

The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Centre of Excellence IDRANAP in the National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest have considerably supported the present studies. Some of us (I. M. B., H. R. and C. A.) would like to thank Prof. Dr. H. Blümer and Prof. Dr. D. Poenaru for the kind hospitality in Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe and in National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering - Horia-Hulubei, Bucharest, respectively, experienced during various mutual research visits related to the reported studies.

## References