text:
# Introduction to the Language of Stacks and Gerbes

## 1 Sheaves and Torsors

### Sheaves

We assume familiarity with the basic categorical terminology of categories, functors and natural transformations. Let $`X`$ be a topological space. The poset $`𝒪(X)`$ of open subsets of $`X`$ can be viewed as a category, with inclusions $`i:UV`$ as arrows (for $`UV`$). We shall work with this category, although everything applies in fact to an arbitrary site.

A *presheaf* (of sets) is a contravariant functor $`P`$ from $`𝒪(X)`$ into Sets,

$$P:𝒪(X)^{op}\mathrm{Sets}.$$

Thus, we have a set $`P(U)`$ for each open $`UX`$, and a “restriction operation” $`P(i):P(V)P(U)`$ whenever $`i:UV`$ is an inclusion. For $`aP(V)`$ we usually write $`i^{}(a)`$ or $`a|U`$ for $`P(i)(a)`$. A morphism between presheaves is a natural transformation. This defines the category of presheaves on $`X`$.

Let $`U=U_\alpha `$ be an open cover. A *compatible family* in the presheaf $`P`$ consists of elements $`a_\alpha P(U_\alpha )`$ which agree on overlaps, $`a_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }=a_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }`$ for any two indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (here $`U_{\alpha \beta }=U_\alpha U_\beta `$). A presheaf $`P`$ is called a *sheaf* if for any such cover $`U=U_\alpha `$, and for any compatible family $`\{a_\alpha \}`$, there is a *unique* “amalgamate” $`aP(U)`$ for which $`a|U_\alpha =a_\alpha `$ (for each $`\alpha `$). If there is *at most* one such $`a`$, the presheaf is called *separated*. With the same natural transformations as morphisms, this defines two smaller categories, that of sheaves on $`X`$ and of separated presheaves on $`X`$. In a similar way, one defines (pre-)sheaves of groups, rings, etc.

Examples:

1. Let $`p:YX`$ be a map. Define $`𝒮(p)(U)=\{f:UY|pf=\mathrm{identity},f\mathrm{continuous}\}`$. Then $`𝒮(p)`$ is a sheaf, the *sheaf of sections* of $`p`$.
2. If $`G`$ is a Lie group and $`X`$ is a manifold, the sheaf of smooth sections of the projection $`G\times XX`$ is a sheaf of groups, denoted $`\begin{array}{c}G\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}_X`$, or just   $`G`$    ~  .

###### Theorem 1.1

For a given space $`X`$, the inclusion functors

$$\mathrm{Sheaves}\mathrm{Separated}\mathrm{presheaves}\mathrm{Presheaves}\mathrm{on}X$$

have left adjoints.

For a presheaf $`P`$ on $`X`$ we will write $`\overline{P}`$ for the associated separated presheaf and $`𝐚(P)`$ for the *associated sheaf*, the composition of the two adjoints.

Proof: (sketch)

1. If $`P`$ is a presheaf, define $`\overline{P}(U)=P(U)/`$ where $`ab`$ iff there is a cover $`U=U_\alpha `$ with $`a|U_\alpha =b|U_\alpha `$.
2. If $`P`$ is a *separated presheaf*, define $`𝐚(P)(U)`$ to be the set of equivalence classes of compatible families for covers $`U=U_\alpha `$, the equivalence relation being given by refinement of covers.

Remark: For a separated presheaf $`P`$ its associated sheaf is characterized uniquely up to isomorphism as a sheaf $`Q`$ equipped with an embedding $`\eta :PQ`$ which is *locally surjective* (i.e. for any $`bQ(U)`$ there is a cover $`U=U_\alpha `$ such that each $`b|U_\alpha `$ is in the image of $`\eta :P(U_\alpha )Q(U_\alpha )`$).

### Etale spaces

An étale space over $`X`$ is a space $`E`$ equipped with a continuous map $`\varphi :EX`$ which is a *local homeomorphism* (i.e. for any $`yE`$ there are open neighbourhoods $`V_yE`$ of $`y`$ and $`U_x`$ of $`x=\varphi (y)`$ in $`X`$ for which $`\varphi `$ restricts to a homeomorphism $`V_y\stackrel{}{}U_x`$). For two such étale spaces $`\varphi :EX`$ and $`\psi :FX`$ we consider continuous maps $`f:EF`$ for which $`\psi f=\varphi `$. This defines a category of étale spaces over $`X`$. There is an obvious functor

$$𝒮:\mathrm{Etale}\mathrm{spaces}\mathrm{Sheaves}$$
(1)
sending $`\varphi :EX`$ to the sheaf of sections $`𝒮(\varphi )`$.

###### Theorem 1.2

This functor is an equivalence of categories.

Proof: We sketch the construction of its inverse. Given a sheaf $`P`$ on $`X`$ and a point $`xX`$, write

Px=lim

xUP(U)subscript𝑃𝑥subscript

𝑥𝑈𝑃𝑈P_{x}=\oalign{$\lim$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\rightarrow$}\vss}}_{x\in U}P(U)
for the stalk of $`P`$ at $`x`$. For any open $`Ux`$, we write germ$`{}_{x}{}^{}:P(U)P_x`$ for the canonical map. (In Example (i) above $`𝒮(p)_x`$ is the set of germs at $`x`$ of sections of $`p`$.) Let $`E(P)=_{xX}P_x`$ be the set of all germs, with evident projection

$$\pi :E(P)X.$$

The topology on $`E(P)`$ is defined by basic opens

$$B(a)=\{\mathrm{germ}_x(a)|xU\}$$

where $`UX`$ is open and $`aP(U)`$. This topology makes $`E(P)`$ into an étale space over $`X`$, and provides a functor which is inverse - up to natural isomorphisms - to (1).

On the basis of this theorem we can identify sheaves and étale spaces over $`X`$, and we will often (tacitly) move from one context to another.

Remarks:

1. For a sheaf $`P`$, elements of $`P(U)`$ correspond to sections of $`E(P)X`$ over $`U`$. For this reason one refers to elements of $`P(X)`$ as *global sections* of $`P`$, and also write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,P)`$ for $`P(X)`$.
2. The product of sheaves is constructed as $`(P\times Q)(U)=P(U)\times Q(U)`$. The corresponding operation on étale spaces $`EX`$ and $`FX`$ is the fibered product $`E\times _XF`$ over $`X`$. In particular, we have $`E(P)\times _XE(Q)E(P\times Q)`$.
3. A sheaf of groups on $`X`$ is “the same” as an étale space $`GX`$, equipped with a continuously varying group structure on each of its fibers $`G_x`$ given by unit and multiplication maps $`u:XG`$ and $`m:G\times GG`$ (maps *over* $`X`$).

### Torsors

Let $`𝒢`$ be a sheaf of groups on $`X`$, and let $`𝒮`$ be a sheaf on $`X`$. An *action* of $`𝒢`$ on $`𝒮`$ is a map of sheaves

$$\mu :𝒢\times 𝒮𝒮$$

(with components $`\mu _U:𝒢(U)\times 𝒮(U)𝒮(U)`$ denoted $`\mu _U(g,a)=ga`$) which satisfies the usual conditions for a (left) action. $`𝒮`$ is called a *$`𝒢`$-torsor* if

1. $`X=\{U|𝒮(U)\mathrm{}\}`$
2. For each open $`UX`$ the action of $`𝒢(U)`$ on $`𝒮(U)`$ is free and transitive.

A *morphism* $`𝒮𝒮^{}`$ between $`𝒢`$-torsors is a morphism of sheaves which commutes with the action. Any such morphism is automatically an *isomorphism*.

This definition translates into étale spaces as follows: for an étale space $`GX`$ with fiberwise group structure as in Example (iii) above, a $`G`$-torsor is an étale space $`EX`$ equipped with an action $`\mu :G\times _XEE`$ for which

1. $`EX`$ is surjective
2. the map $`(\mu ,\pi _2):G\times _XEE\times _XE`$ is a homeomorphism.

Examples:

1. Let $`L`$ be a Lie group and let $`\pi :PX`$ be a principal bundle over a manifold $`X`$. Then the sheaf $`𝒮(\pi )`$ of smooth sections is an   $`L`$    ~  -torsor (cf. Example (ii) on page (ii)).
2. For a sheaf $`𝒢`$ of groups, the group multiplication $`𝒢\times 𝒢𝒢`$ makes $`𝒢`$ itself into a $`𝒢`$-torsor. A $`𝒢`$-torsor $`𝒮`$ is isomorphic to this “trivial” $`𝒢`$-torsor iff $`𝒮(X)\mathrm{}`$, i.e. iff $`𝒮`$ has a global section.

### Non-abelian cohomology in degree 1

Let $`𝒢`$ be a sheaf of groups on $`X`$, and let $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ be an open cover of $`X`$. A *1-cocycle* with values in $`𝒢`$ is a family $`\underset{¯}{g}=\{g_{\alpha \beta }\},g_{\alpha \beta }𝒢(U_{\alpha \beta })`$, satisfying the cocycle indentity

$$g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }=g_{\alpha \gamma }\mathrm{on}U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }$$
(2)
for any three indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$. (More precisely we should have written $`(g_{\alpha \beta }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })(g_{\beta \gamma }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })=(g_{\alpha \gamma }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$, or even $`\mu _{U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }}(g_{\alpha \beta }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma },g_{\beta \gamma }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })=g_{\alpha \gamma }|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, but we usually just simply abuse notation as in (2).) Two such cocycles $`\underset{¯}{g}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ are *equivalent* if there are $`f_\alpha 𝒢(U_\alpha )`$ for which

$$f_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }=h_{\alpha \beta }f_\beta .$$

The set of equivalence classes is denoted $`H^1(𝒰,𝒢)`$, and the equivalence class of $`\underset{¯}{g}`$ is denoted $`[\underset{¯}{g}]`$. The colimit (over refinement of covers) is denoted

Hˇ1(X,𝒢):=lim

𝒰H1(𝒰,𝒢).assignsuperscriptˇ𝐻1𝑋𝒢subscript

𝒰superscript𝐻1𝒰𝒢\check{H}^{1}(X,\mathcal{G}):=\oalign{$\lim$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\rightarrow$}\vss}}_{\mathcal{U}}H^{1}(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{G}).
### Cocycle description of torsors

Let $`𝒮`$ be a $`𝒢`$-torsor over $`X`$. By condition (i) we can choose a cover $`X=U_\alpha `$ and sections $`s_\alpha 𝒮(U_\alpha )`$. By condition (ii) there are unique $`g_{\alpha \beta }𝒢(U_{\alpha \beta })`$ for which

$$g_{\alpha \beta }s_\beta =s_\alpha \mathrm{on}U_{\alpha \beta }$$

(more precisely $`g_{\alpha \beta }(s_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta })=(s_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta })𝒮(U_{\alpha \beta })`$). Then $`\underset{¯}{g}=\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}`$ is a cocycle. Suppose we had chosen different sections $`t_\alpha 𝒮(U_\alpha )`$, giving a cocycle $`\underset{¯}{h}=\{h_{\alpha \beta }\},h_{\alpha \beta }t_\beta =t_\alpha \mathrm{on}U_{\alpha \beta }`$. Let $`f_\alpha 𝒢(U_\alpha )`$ be the unique element with $`f_\alpha s_\alpha =t_\alpha `$. Then $`f_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }=h_{\alpha \beta }f_\beta `$, showing that $`[\underset{¯}{g}]=[\underset{¯}{h}]`$. If we also allow the cover $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ to vary, we obtain a welldefined class $`[𝒮]\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^1(X,𝒢)`$.

### Torsors from cocycles

Given a cocycle $`\{g_{\alpha \beta }\}`$ as before, we can construct a torsor. For variation we give a construction in terms of étale spaces. Let $`\pi :GX`$ be the étale space corresponding to the sheaf $`𝒢`$, so that $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a section of $`\pi `$ over $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$. Write $`G_{U_\alpha }=\pi ^1(U_\alpha )`$, and let

$$E=\left(\underset{\alpha }{}G_{U_\alpha }\right)/.$$

Writing points of $`_\alpha G_{U_\alpha }`$ (somewhat redundantly) as triples $`(x,\alpha ,g)`$ where $`xU_\alpha `$ and $`gG_x=\pi ^1(x)`$, the equivalence relation $``$ here is defined by

$$(x,\alpha ,g)(x,\beta ,gg_{\alpha \beta }(x)).$$

Then $`E`$ with its obvious left $`G`$-action is a $`G`$-torsor. The previous two constructions are mutually inverse and show:

###### Theorem 1.3

There is a bijective correspondence between isomorphism classes of $`𝒢`$-torsors and cohomology classes in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^1(X,𝒢)`$.

## 2 Stacks

Again we work over a topological space $`X`$ and its category of open sets and inclusions $`𝒪(X)`$. Also, to understand the notation, recall that if

are functors, then any natural transformation $`\tau :GH`$ induces natural transformations $`K\tau :KGKH`$ and $`\tau _F`$ or $`\tau F:GFHF`$.

###### Definition 2.1

A *fibered category* $`𝔽`$ over $`X`$ consists of

* a category $`𝔽(U)`$ for each open $`UX`$,
* a functor $`i^{}:𝔽(U)𝔽(V)`$ for each inclusion $`i:VU`$ in $`𝒪(X)`$,
* a natural isomorphism

$$\tau =\tau _{i,j}:(ij)^{}j^{}i^{}$$

for each pair of inclusions $`W\stackrel{j}{}V\stackrel{i}{}U`$.

Moreover, for any three composable inclusions $`N\stackrel{k}{}W\stackrel{j}{}V\stackrel{i}{}U`$, the diagram

should commute.

Sometimes we write more explicitly $`(𝔽,\tau )`$ for the fibered category $`𝔽`$. Sometimes we write $`a|V`$ for $`i^{}(a)`$, for $`i:VU`$ and $`a𝔽(U)`$.

Example: A presheaf of categories is the same thing as a fibered category $`(𝔽,\tau )`$ in which all $`\tau _{i,j}`$ are identity transformations. In a way, a fibered category is a “presheaf up to isomorphisms”.

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`𝔽`$ and $`𝔾`$ be fibered categories over $`X`$. A morphism $`\varphi :𝔽𝔾`$ of fibered categories consists of

* a functor $`\varphi (U):𝔽(U)𝔾(U)`$ for each open $`UX`$,
* a natural isomorphism

$$\alpha _i:\varphi _Vi^{}\stackrel{}{}i^{}\varphi _U$$

for each inclusion $`i:VU`$,

and these should satisfy a compatibility condition with respect to the $`\tau `$’s: for inclusions $`W\stackrel{j}{}V\stackrel{i}{}U`$, the diagram

should commute.

###### Definition 2.3

Such a morphism $`\varphi `$ (or $`(\varphi ,\alpha )`$, more precisely) is called a *strong equivalence* if every $`\varphi _U`$ is an equivalence of categories. It is called a *weak equivalence* if every $`\varphi _U`$ is fully faithful, and “locally surjective” on objects, in the sense that for every object $`a𝔾(U)`$ and every $`xU`$, there exists a neighbourhood $`V`$, $`xV\stackrel{i}{}U`$, and an object $`b𝔽(V)`$ such that $`\varphi _V(b)`$ is isomorphic in $`𝔾(V)`$ to $`i^{}(a)`$.

Remark: (To be skipped on first reading) Suppose $`\varphi =(\varphi ,\alpha )`$ and $`\psi =(\psi ,\beta ):𝔽𝔾`$ are two morphisms between fibered categories. A *fibered transformation* $`\mu :\varphi \psi `$ consists of (ordinary) natural transformations

$$\mu _U:\varphi _U\psi _U,$$

one for each open $`UX`$. These $`\mu `$’s are required to be compatible with the $`\alpha `$’s and the $`\beta `$’s in the following sense: for any inclusion $`i:VU`$, the diagram of natural transformations

should commute. We say $`\mu `$ is a *fibered isomorphism* if each $`\mu _U`$ is a natural isomorphism.
Fibered categories, with their morphisms and fibered transformations, form a 2-category. (In the sequel we will suppress 2-categorical details.)

###### Lemma 2.1

1. Let $`𝔽`$ be a fibered category over $`X`$ and let $`a,b`$ be objects in $`𝔽(U)`$. Then the assignment

$$V\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽(V)}(i^{}a,i^{}b)$$

for $`i:VU`$, defines a presheaf on $`U`$. This presheaf is denoted $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔽(a,b)`$.
2. Any morphism $`\varphi :𝔽𝔾`$ of fibered categories induces a morphism of presheaves on $`U`$:

$$\varphi _{a,b}:\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔽(a,b)\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔾(\varphi _U(a),\varphi _U(b)).$$

Proof: With the following explicit definitions, this is a matter of straightforward checking:
(i) The restriction maps of the presheaf are given, for $`W\stackrel{j}{}V\stackrel{i}{}U`$, by the composition

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽(V)}(i^{}a,i^{}b)\stackrel{j^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽(W)}(j^{}i^{}a,j^{}i^{}b)\stackrel{\tau ^{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽(W)}((ij)^{}a,(ij)^{}b)$$

where $`\tau ^{}=\tau _{i,j}^{}`$ is “conjugation by $`\tau `$”, mapping an arrow $`f`$ to $`(\tau _{i,j})_b^1f(\tau _{i,j})_a`$.
(ii) The component of $`\varphi _{a,b}`$ at $`i:VU`$ is the composition

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽(V)}(i^{}a,i^{}b)\stackrel{\varphi _V}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔾(V)}(\varphi _Vi^{}a,\varphi _Vi^{}b)\stackrel{(\alpha _i)_{}}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔾(V)}(i^{}\varphi _Ua,i^{}\varphi _Ub)$$

where $`(\alpha _i)_{}`$ is conjugation by $`\alpha _i,g(\alpha _i)_bg(\alpha _i)_a^1`$.

###### Definition 2.4

A fibered category $`𝔽`$ over $`X`$ is called a *prestack* if, for any objects $`a,b𝔽(U)`$, the presheaf $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔽(a,b)`$ is a sheaf.

Example: Let $`P`$ be a presheaf of sets on $`U`$, viewed as a presheaf of categories with identity arrows only, hence viewed as a special kind of fibered category over $`U`$. Then $`P`$ is a prestack iff it is a separated presheaf.

###### Proposition 2.1

For any space $`X`$ the inclusion

$$\mathrm{Prestacks}\mathrm{Fibered}\mathrm{categories}\mathrm{over}X$$

has a left adjoint, denoted: $`𝔽\overline{𝔽}`$.

Proof: This is easy, using the lemma: given a fibered category $`𝔽`$ over $`X`$, one defines a new fibered category $`\overline{𝔽}`$ by letting $`\overline{𝔽}(U)`$ have the same objects as $`𝔽(U)`$ and arrows defined by

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\overline{𝔽}}(a,b)=\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐚(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔽(a,b)),$$

the set of global sections of the sheaf associated to the presheaf $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔽(a,b)`$ on $`U`$. Further details are straightfoward.

###### Definition 2.5

Let $`𝔽`$ be a fibered category over $`X`$ and let $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}`$ be an open cover of an open set $`UX`$. The category $`\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)`$ of “descent data” has

* as *objects*: systems $`(a,\theta )=(\{a_\alpha \},\{\theta _{\alpha \beta }\})`$, where each $`a_\alpha `$ is an object of $`𝔽(U_\alpha )`$ and

$$\theta _{\alpha \beta }:a_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{}{}a_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }$$

is an isomorphism (here $`a_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }=i^{}(a_\beta )`$ for the inclusion $`i:U_{\alpha \beta }U_\beta `$; etc). These isomorphisms are required to satisfy the *cocycle condition*

$$\theta _{\alpha \alpha }=1,\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta _{\beta \gamma }=\theta _{\alpha \gamma }(\mathrm{in}𝔽(U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })).$$
* as *arrows*: $`(a,\theta )\stackrel{f}{}(b,\rho )`$, families of arrows $`f_\alpha :a_\alpha b_\alpha `$ in $`𝔽(U_\alpha )`$ for which $`\rho _{\alpha \beta }f_\beta =f_\alpha \theta _{\alpha \beta }`$, i.e. each diagram

commutes.

Remark: There is an obvious functor

$$D=D(𝒰,𝔽):𝔽(U)\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽);$$

This functor is fully faithful (for each open $`U`$ and each cover $`U=U_\alpha `$) iff $`𝔽`$ is a prestack.

###### Definition 2.6

The fibered category $`𝔽`$ is called a *stack* if each such functor $`D:𝔽(U)\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)`$ is an equivalence of categories.

Remarks:

1. A fibered category $`𝔽`$ is a stack iff it is a prestack and, for every cover $`U=U_\alpha `$, any object $`(a,\theta )`$ in $`\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)`$ is isomorphic to an object of the form $`D(b)`$ for some $`b𝔽(U)`$ (where $`D:𝔽(U)\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)`$ and $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$).
2. The construction of the category $`\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)`$ is functorial: a morphism $`\varphi :𝔽𝔾`$ of fibered categories induces a functor $`\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔾)`$.
3. For a cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`U`$ and an inclusion $`i:VU`$, we obtain a cover $`\{V_\alpha \}`$ of $`V`$ and a canonical functor

$$i^{}:\mathrm{Des}(𝒰,𝔽)\mathrm{Des}(𝒱,𝔽),$$

by setting $`V_\alpha =U_\alpha V`$ with inclusion $`i_\alpha :V_\alpha U_\alpha `$; the functor $`i^{}`$ sends an object $`(a,\theta )=\{a_\alpha ,\theta _{\alpha \beta }\}`$ to the family of objects $`i_\alpha ^{}(a_\alpha )𝔽(V_\alpha )`$, together with the isomorphisms

$$i_\beta ^{}(a_\beta )|V_{\alpha \beta }i_\alpha ^{}(a_\alpha )|V_{\alpha \beta }$$

obtained from $`\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$ and the structure maps $`\tau `$ of $`𝔽`$. Note that for this functor $`i^{}`$, the diagram

commutes.

Examples:

1. The assignment, to each open set $`UX`$, of the category Vect$`(U)`$ of vector bundles over $`U`$ is a stack, as is the assignment of the category Sheaves$`(U)`$ of sheaves on $`U`$. If $`𝒢`$ is a sheaf of groups on $`U`$, one obtains a stack Tor$`(𝒢)`$ by assigning to each $`U`$ the category Tor$`(𝒢|U)`$ of $`𝒢|U`$-torsors over $`U`$.
2. Related to the last example, one can also define a fibered category $`U𝒢(U)`$, where the group $`𝒢`$ is viewed as a category with only one object. Observe that $`𝒢`$ is a prestack but not a stack. Observe that there is a natural weak equivalence $`𝒢`$Tor$`(𝒢):`$ for an open $`UX`$, the unique object of $`𝒢(U)`$ is sent to the trivial $`𝒢|U`$-torsor over $`U`$. This means that Tor$`(𝒢)`$ is the *associated stack* of $`𝒢`$; see below.

Remarks:

1. Let $`w:𝔽𝔾`$ be a weak equivalence of prestacks over $`X`$. If $`𝔽`$ is a stack then $`w`$ is also a strong equivalence.
2. Let $`w:𝔽𝔾`$ be a weak equivalence of prestacks. Then for any map $`\psi :𝔽𝕊`$ into a stack, there is an extension $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:𝔾𝕊`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }w\psi `$ (natural isomorphism). Moreover, this extension $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is itself unique up to fibered isomorphism.
3. Let $`\varphi :𝔽𝔾`$ be a strong equivalence. Then $`𝔽`$ is a (pre-) stack iff $`𝔾`$ is.

The proofs of these assertions can safely be left as exercises.

###### Definition 2.7

Let $`𝔽`$ be a prestack. An associated stack for $`𝔽`$ consists of a stack $`\widehat{𝔽}`$ together with a weak equivalence $`𝔽\stackrel{w}{}\widehat{𝔽}`$.

By the previous remarks, this associated stack is unique up to strong equivalence, and has a universal property which is a version “up to isomorphism” of the universal property of the associated sheaf of a (separated) presheaf. (Because of the uniqueness up to strong equivalence one often speaks of *the* associated stack of a prestack $`𝔽`$.)

###### Theorem 2.1

For every prestack there exists an associated stack.

Proof: Let $`𝔽`$ be a prestack. Its associated stack $`\widehat{𝔽}`$ could be defined briefly as

𝔽^(U)=lim

(𝒰)Des(𝒰,𝔽)^𝔽𝑈subscript

𝒰Des𝒰𝔽\hat{\mathbb{F}}(U)=\oalign{$\lim$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\rightarrow$}\vss}}_{(\mathcal{U})}\mathrm{Des}(\mathcal{U},\mathbb{F})
where $`𝒰`$ ranges over covers of $`U`$. (This colimit should be interpreted with lots of “up to isomorphisms”, as a pseudo-colimit of categories.) More concretely, define $`\widehat{𝔽}(U)`$ as follows: an *object* of $`\widehat{𝔽}(U)`$ consists of

* a cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`U`$
* an object $`(a,\theta )`$ of Des$`(𝒰,𝔽)`$.

For two such objects $`(a,\theta )`$ in Des$`(𝒰,𝔽)`$ and $`(b,\rho )`$ of Des$`(𝒱,𝔽)`$, for open covers $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}`$ and $`𝒱=\{V_\beta \}_{\beta B}`$ of $`U`$, an *arrow* $`f:(a,\theta )(b,\rho )`$ consists of a system of arrows

$$f_{\alpha ,\beta }:a_\alpha |U_\alpha V_\beta b_\beta |U_\alpha V_\beta $$

with the property that for any $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}A`$ and $`\beta ,\beta ^{}B`$, the diagram

commutes (where we have omitted the “$`\mathrm{}|U_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}U_{\beta \beta ^{}}`$” for the names of the arrows). The categories $`\widehat{𝔽}(U)`$ thus defined together have the structure of a fibered category, and there is an evident map $`𝔽\stackrel{w}{}\widehat{𝔽}`$ of fibered categories (cf. Remark (iii) on page (iii)). It is now readily checked that $`\widehat{𝔽}`$ is a stack and $`w`$ a weak equivalence.

Remark: Recall that any sheaf of categories on $`X`$ defines a prestack, but this prestack need not be a stack. Moreover, its associated stack is in general no longer a sheaf. (In fact it is hard for a prestack to be a sheaf and a stack at the same time.) On the other hand, every stack is the associated stack of a sheaf of categories. To see this, let $`𝕊`$ be a stack. Choose for every open set $`U`$ a set $`R(U)`$ of objects in $`𝕊(U)`$, so that any object in $`𝕊(U)`$ is isomorphic to some object in $`R(U)`$. Each such open set $`U`$ defines a sheaf   $`U`$    ~   on $`X`$ (whose étale space is the inclusion $`UX`$). Now define a sheaf of categories $``$, consisting of the two sheaves

$$\text{Objects}()=\underset{U𝒪(X)}{}\underset{rR(U)}{}\begin{array}{c}U\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\text{Arrows}()=\underset{U,V}{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{rR(U),}{sR(V)}}{}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝕊(r|UV,s|UV).$$

There is an obvious map of fibered categories $`𝕊`$, which is easily seen to be a weak equivalence.

## 3 Gerbes

We continue to work over a fixed space $`X`$. A stack $`𝔽`$ on $`X`$ is said to be a *stack of groupoids* if each category $`𝔽(U)`$ is a groupoid.

###### Definition 3.1

A *gerbe* on $`X`$ is a stack of groupoids $`𝔾`$ on $`X`$ with the following additional properties:

1. *non-empty:*$`X=\{U|𝔾(U)\mathrm{}\}`$
2. *transitive:* given objects $`a,b𝔾(U)`$, any point $`xU`$ has a neighborhood $`VU`$ for which there is at least one arrow $`a|Vb|V`$ in $`𝔾(V)`$.

Example: The stack $`U\mathrm{Tor}(𝒢|U)`$ associated to a sheaf of groupoids $`𝒢`$ on $`X`$ (see p. (ii)) is a gerbe.

A connected (or transitive) groupoid is characterized up to equivalence by any of its vertex groups. For a *gerbe*, the notion of vertex group is replaced by that of a *band* (“lien” in \[Gi\]). Before defining the notion of an abstract band, let us describe the band of a gerbe.

Let $`𝔾`$ be a gerbe. For an element (object) $`a𝔾(U)`$ the sheaf $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Hom}}_𝔾(a,a)`$ (see Lemma 2.1) is actually a sheaf of groups on $`U`$, which we denote by $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a)`$ (or $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}_𝔾(a)`$ if necessary). Now choose (by axiom (i) for gerbes) an open cover $`X=U_\alpha `$ and for each $`\alpha `$ an object $`a_\alpha 𝔾(U_\alpha )`$, thus defining a sheaf of groups $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )`$ on $`U_\alpha `$. Next, by axiom (ii), there exists for each $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ an open cover $`U_{\alpha \beta }=U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ and for each $`\xi `$ an arrow $`f_{\alpha \beta }^\xi :a_\beta a_\alpha `$ in $`𝔾(U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi )`$. Conjugation by this arrow defines an isomorphism of sheaves of groups

$$\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\xi =(f_{\alpha \beta }^\xi )_{}:\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\beta )|U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi \underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )|U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi .$$

This isomorphism $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ depends on the choice of $`f_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$, but two different choices define the same *outer* isomorphism. In particular, on overlaps $`U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi U_{\alpha \beta }^\zeta `$, the two isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\zeta `$ define the same outer isomorphism. This means that, for fixed $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, the family $`\{\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\xi \}_\xi `$ defines an “outer isomorphism” of sheaves on $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$,

$$\lambda _{\alpha \beta }:\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\beta )|U_{\alpha \beta }\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )|U_{\alpha \beta }$$

in the sense made precise below, which does not depend on the choice of the $`f_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$. The system of sheaves of groups $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )`$ and outer isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ is called “the” *band of the gerbe* $`𝔾`$, and is denoted Band$`(𝔾)`$. (The definition of band, and of isomorphism of bands, will be such that different choices of objects $`a_\alpha `$ define an isomorphic band.)

We now introduce the concept of an abstract *band*. First we should make these “outer isomorphisms” more precise. Let $`K`$ and $`L`$ be two sheaves of groups on $`X`$. Consider for each $`UX`$ the set Iso$`(K|U,L|U)`$ of isomorphisms of sheaves of groups on $`U`$. The group $`L(U)`$ acts on this set by conjugation, and taking the quotient defines a *presheaf* $`U\mathrm{Iso}(K|U,L|U)/L(U)`$ on $`X`$. Its associated sheaf is denoted Out$`(K,L)`$ and is referred to as the *sheaf of outer isomorphisms*. A section $`\varphi \underset{¯}{\mathrm{Out}}(K,L)(U)`$ will be referred to as an outer isomorphism $`K|UL|U`$. Such a $`\varphi `$ is *represented* by a cover $`U=U_\alpha `$ and for each $`\alpha `$ an isomorphism $`\varphi _\alpha :K|U_\alpha L|U_\alpha `$ (of sheaves of groups on $`U_\alpha `$). These $`\varphi _\alpha `$ are compatible in the sense that for each $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ there is a cover $`U_{\alpha \beta }=U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ such that $`\varphi _\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ and $`\varphi _\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$ differ by conjugation by an element $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }^\xi L(U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi )`$.

Remark: Let $`Z(L)`$ be the center of $`L`$. If $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },Z(L)|U_{\alpha \beta })=0`$ for each $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$, then in the situation above one can choose just one $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }L(U_{\alpha \beta })`$ such that $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and $`\varphi _\beta `$ differ on $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ by conjugation by $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$.

A *band* $`K`$ over $`X`$ is represented by a cover $`X=U_\alpha `$, and for each $`\alpha `$ a sheaf of groups $`K_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$, together with *outer isomorphisms* $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }:K_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfying the cocycle condition $`\lambda _{\alpha \alpha }=1`$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }=\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }`$ (as outer isomorphisms). The restriction to a finer cover should be viewed as defining the *same* band. If $`K=(K_\alpha ,\lambda _{\alpha \beta })`$ and $`L=(L_\alpha ,\mu _{\alpha \beta })`$ are two bands over $`X`$, represented over the same cover $`\{U_\alpha \}`$, then an isomorphism $`KL`$ consists of outer isomorphisms $`\varphi _\alpha :K_\alpha L_\alpha `$, compatible on overlaps in the sense that $`\varphi _\alpha \lambda _{\alpha \beta }=\mu _{\alpha \beta }\varphi _\beta `$. This defines the category of bands and isomorphisms over $`X`$.

Remark: If each $`K_\alpha `$ is abelian, then the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ satisfy the cocycle condition on the nose, and (because sheaves of groups form a stack!) there is a sheaf of abelian groups $`K`$ such that $`K|U_\alpha K_\alpha `$ (by an isomorphism compatible with the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$). Thus, up to isomorphism, an abelian band is just a sheaf of abelian groups. In particular, this implies that the center $`Z(K)`$ of a band $`K`$ is actually (isomorphic to) a sheaf of abelian groups.

Remark: Let $`K=(K_\alpha ,\lambda _{\alpha \beta })`$ be a general band. Under the simplifying hypothesis that $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta })=0`$ and $`H^2(U_{\alpha \beta },Z(K_\alpha )|U_{\alpha \beta })=0`$, we can represent each $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ by an actual isomorphism of sheaves of groups $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }:K_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$. Suppose we have chosen such $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$. Then similarly, if $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta \gamma },Z(K_\alpha )|U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })=0`$, the cocycle condition $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }=\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }`$ (initially an equality as outer isomorphisms) will hold in the form of an actual equality of isomorphisms of sheaves on $`U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, as $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }=g_{}\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }`$, where $`gK_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$ is a section and $`g_{}`$ is the corresponding inner automorphism. For a nice space $`X`$ we can choose this cover $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ so that all finite intersections of elements in the cover are either empty or contractible, and these simplifying hypotheses are usually fulfilled.

###### Definition 3.2

Let $`K`$ be a band on $`X`$. A *gerbe with band $`K`$* is a gerbe $`𝔾`$ on $`X`$ together with an isomorphism of bands $`\theta :\mathrm{Band}(𝔾)\stackrel{}{}K`$.

If $`(𝔾,\theta )`$ and $`(𝔾^{},\theta ^{})`$ are gerbes with band $`K`$, then a morphism $`(𝔾,\theta )(𝔾^{},\theta ^{})`$ is a morphism of fibered categories $`\mu :𝔾𝔾^{}`$ for which $`\theta ^{}\mu =\theta `$ (as maps between bands). Such a morphism is automatically an equivalence. (Recall that any weak equivalence between stacks is strong.) Two such gerbes with band $`K`$, say $`(𝔾,\theta )`$ and $`(𝔾^{},\theta ^{})`$, are said to be *equivalent* if there exists a third gerbe $`(,\rho )`$ with band $`K`$ for which there are morphisms

$$(𝔾,\theta )(,\rho )(𝔾^{},\theta ^{}).$$

The set of equivalence classes of gerbes with band $`K`$ is denoted

$$\mathrm{Gerbes}(X,K).$$

We will now give a “cocycle description” of $`\mathrm{Gerbes}(X,K)`$ which will lead to a Čech cohomology (in degree 2) with coefficients in a band. Suppose the band $`K`$ is given by sheaves of groups $`K_\alpha `$ over $`U_\alpha `$ and outer isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }:K_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$ as before. Let us make the simplifying hypotheses of the previous Remark, so that the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ can each be represented by an *actual* isomorphism (again called $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$) of sheaves of groups, and let us fix such a choice, where we agree to choose $`\lambda _{\alpha \alpha }=\mathrm{identity}`$.

Now let $`(𝔾,\theta )`$ be a gerbe with band $`K`$. Suppose that the band of $`𝔾`$ is represented by objects $`a_\alpha 𝔾(U_\alpha )`$ and arrows $`f_{\alpha \beta }:a_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }a_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$ in $`𝔾|U_{\alpha \beta }`$. (By passing to a common refinement if necessary, we may take the same cover $`X=U_\alpha `$ here; and we may choose the arrows $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ over $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ rather than over a cover $`U_{\alpha \beta }^\xi `$, because of the same simplifying hypothesis – $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha ))=0`$ in this case.) Since $`\theta `$ is a morphism of bands, for each $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ the diagram below

commutes as a square of outer isomorphisms (where we have omitted “$`\mathrm{}|U_{\alpha \beta }`$” from the notation). By our simplifying hypothesis $`(H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },Z\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha ))=0)`$ we can actually assume that there is one $`g\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )(U_{\alpha \beta })`$ for which $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\theta _\beta =g_{}(f_{\alpha \beta })_{}\theta _\alpha `$ (after having represented the $`\theta _\alpha `$’s by actual maps as well). So if we replace $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`gf_{\alpha \beta }`$, we can assume that each square as above commutes on the nose. Also we can assume $`f_{\alpha \alpha }=1`$ for each $`\alpha `$. Now write

$$g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\theta _\alpha (f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\alpha \gamma }^1)K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }).$$

###### Proposition 3.1

These $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ satisfy the following cocycle and normality identities,

1. $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }=(g_{\alpha \beta \gamma })_{}\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }`$ (identity of isomorphisms $`K_\gamma |U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$)
2. $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \gamma \delta }=\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(g_{\beta \gamma \delta })g_{\alpha \beta \delta }`$ (identity in $`K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta })`$)
3. $`\lambda _{\alpha \alpha }=1,g_{\alpha \alpha \gamma }=1=g_{\alpha \gamma \gamma }`$.

Proof:

1. By commutativity of the square above,

$`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _\alpha (f_{\alpha \beta })_{}(f_{\beta \gamma })_{}\theta _\gamma ^1`$
$`=`$ $`\theta _\alpha (f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\alpha \gamma }^1)_{}(f_{\alpha \gamma })_{}\theta _\gamma ^1`$
$`=`$ $`(g_{\alpha \beta \gamma })_{}\theta _\alpha (f_{\alpha \gamma })_{}\theta _\gamma ^1`$
$`=`$ $`(g_{\alpha \beta \gamma })_{}\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }.`$
2. The $`f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\alpha \gamma }^1`$ satisfy the usual cocycle condition

$`f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }f_{\alpha \gamma \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\gamma \delta }f_{\alpha \delta }^1`$
$`=`$ $`f_{\alpha \beta }(f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\gamma \delta }f_{\beta \delta }^1)f_{\alpha \beta }^1f_{\alpha \beta }f_{\beta \delta }f_{\alpha \delta }^1`$
$`=`$ $`(f_{\alpha \beta })_{}(f_{\beta \gamma \delta })f_{\alpha \beta \delta },`$
and this gives (ii) after applying $`\theta _\alpha `$.

### Equivalence of cocycles

To find the appropriate equivalence relation, let us consider the choices involved in obtaining the 2-cocycle from the gerbe: we have chosen objects $`a_\alpha `$ to represent the band of $`𝔾`$, we have chosen *actual* isomorphisms of sheaves $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ and $`\theta _\alpha `$ to represent outer isomorphisms and we have chosen $`f_{\alpha \beta }:a_\beta a_\alpha `$ in $`𝔾(U_{\alpha \beta })`$ which make the diagram on page 3 commute. Let us see how a change in any of these choices affects to “cocycle” in the Proposition.

First, keeping the $`a_\alpha `$ fixed, we could replace $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }`$ and keep $`\theta _\alpha `$ the same. Say $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }=(k_{\alpha \beta })_{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ where $`k_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta })`$. Write $`e_{\alpha \beta }=\theta _\alpha ^1(k_{\alpha \beta })`$ and replace $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`\overline{f}_{\alpha \beta }:=e_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }`$. Then the diagram

commutes, and the new cocycle

$$\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=\theta _\alpha (\overline{f}_{\alpha \beta }\overline{f}_{\beta \gamma }\overline{f}_{\alpha \gamma }^1)$$

satisfies

$$\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k_{\alpha \gamma }=k_{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(k_{\beta \gamma })g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }.$$

Secondly, we could keep $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ the same and replace $`\theta _\alpha `$ by $`\rho _\alpha `$, say

$$\theta _\alpha =\rho _\alpha (e_\alpha )_{}\mathrm{where}e_\alpha \underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )(U_\alpha ).$$

Replace $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`h_{\alpha \beta }:=e_\alpha f_{\alpha \beta }e_\beta ^1`$. Then an easy calculation shows that the new cocycle

$$\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=\rho _\alpha (h_{\alpha \beta }h_{\beta \gamma }h_{\alpha \gamma }^1)$$

is actually equal to the old one $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$.

Thirdly, we could keep the $`\lambda `$’s and the $`\theta `$’s the same, but replace $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`z_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }`$ where $`z_{\alpha \beta }`$ is a section of the center $`Z(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha ))`$ over $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$. Write $`m_{\alpha \beta }=\theta _\alpha (z_{\alpha \beta })Z(K_\alpha )`$. Then the new cocycle $`\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is

$`\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _\alpha (z_{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }z_{\beta \gamma }f_{\beta \gamma }f_{\alpha \gamma }^1z_{\alpha \gamma }^1)`$
$`=`$ $`m_{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(m_{\beta \gamma })g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }m_{\alpha \gamma }^1.`$
Finally, we could replace $`a_\alpha `$ by $`b_\alpha `$, choose arrows $`e_\alpha :b_\alpha a_\alpha `$ in $`𝔾(U_\alpha )`$ and replace (our choice for) $`\theta _\alpha `$ by $`\overline{\theta }_\alpha =\theta _\alpha (e_\alpha )_{}`$, as in

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{}\hfill & \text{(over }U_{\alpha \beta })\hfill \end{array}$$

Then (with the same $`\lambda `$’s) each $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ is replaced by $`\overline{f}_{\alpha \beta }=e_\alpha ^1f_{\alpha \beta }e_\beta `$. However, the new cocycle $`\overline{g}_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=\overline{\theta }_\alpha (\overline{f}_{\alpha \beta }\overline{f}_{\beta \gamma }\overline{f}_{\alpha \gamma }^1)`$ hasn’t changed and equals the old one $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$. So, summing up:

###### Definition 3.3

Let $`K`$ be a band on $`X`$, and let $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ be an open cover of $`X`$: A *(normal) 2-cocycle* over $`𝒰`$ with values in $`K`$ consists of

* a representation of $`K`$ by sheaves $`K_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$ and actual (not outer) isomorphisms $`K_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{\lambda _{\alpha \beta }}{}K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$.
* elements $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$ such that the cocycle conditions of the Proposition all hold.

Two such cocycles $`(\lambda _{\alpha \beta },g_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$ and $`(\mu _{\alpha \beta },h_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$ are *equivalent* if there are $`k_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta })`$ such that

* $`\mu _{\alpha \beta }=(k_{\alpha \beta })_{}\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$
* $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=k_{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(k_{\beta \gamma })g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k_{\alpha \gamma }^1`$.

The set of equivalence classes is denoted

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^2(𝒰,K)$$

and the colimit over open covers

Hˇ2(X,K)=lim

𝒰Hˇ2(𝒰,K).superscriptˇ𝐻2𝑋𝐾subscript

𝒰superscriptˇ𝐻2𝒰𝐾\check{H}^{2}(X,K)=\oalign{$\lim$\crcr\vbox to0.86108pt{\hbox{$\rightarrow$}\vss}}_{\mathcal{U}}\check{H}^{2}(\mathcal{U},K).
Elements are referred to as non-abelian Čech cohomology classes.

###### Theorem 3.1

Let $`K`$ be a band on $`X`$. There is a bijective correspondence

$$\mathrm{Gerbes}(X,K)\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^2(X,K)$$

between equivalence classes of gerbes with band $`K`$ and non-abelian cohomology classes.

Proof: From left to right, we have already explained how to obtain an equivalence class of cocycles from a gerbe. From right to left, one can obtain an inverse construction as follows. For a cocycle $`\{\lambda _{\alpha \beta },g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\}`$ one can construct a sheaf of groupoids $`𝒢`$ with non-empty connected stalks. The associated stack of this sheaf provides the required inverse construction. The sheaf of objects $`𝒢_0`$ of $`𝒢`$ is the sum

$$𝒢_0=\underset{\alpha }{}\begin{array}{c}U\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}_\alpha $$

where $`\begin{array}{c}U\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}_\alpha `$ is the sheaf corresponding to the étale space $`U_\alpha X`$. The sheaf of arrows $`𝒢_1`$ of $`𝒢`$ is the sum

$$𝒢_1=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }.$$

In other words, an object of the stalk $`𝒢_x`$ at $`x`$ is a pair $`(x,\alpha )`$ where $`xU_\alpha `$, and an arrow $`(x,\beta )\stackrel{k}{}(x,\alpha )`$ is a point $`k`$ in the stalk of $`K_\alpha `$ at $`x`$. Composition of two such, $`(x,\beta )\stackrel{k}{}(x,\alpha )`$ and $`(x,\gamma )\stackrel{l}{}(x,\beta )`$, is defined to be the arrow

$$k\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(l)g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(x):(x,\gamma )(x,\alpha ),$$

where the product is taken in the group $`(K_\alpha )_x`$. The cocycle relation implies that this is an associative operation. It is now straightforward to check that the two constructions are mutually inverse.

Remark: Suppose that the band $`K`$ is a *sheaf* of groups, so that we can take $`K_\alpha =K|U_\alpha `$ and each $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ the identity. Then for a cocycle $`\{\lambda _{\alpha \beta },g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\}`$ with these $`\lambda `$’s, each $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ lies in the center of $`K_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ and the usual abelian cocycle relation

$$g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \gamma \delta }=g_{\beta \gamma \delta }g_{\alpha \beta \delta }$$

holds. So gerbes whose band is isomorphic to a sheaf of groups correspond to usual (abelian) 2-cocycles with coefficients in the center $`Z(K)`$.

Remark: Suppose we are given a band $`K`$ on $`X`$, represented by an open cover $`𝒰=\{U_\alpha \}`$ of $`X`$, sheaves $`K_\alpha `$ on $`U_\alpha `$, and isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ as before. One may ask whether there exists a gerbe with band $`K`$. To answer this question, let us again make the simplifying hypotheses that $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },K|U_{\alpha \beta })`$ and $`H^2(U_{\alpha \beta },Z(K_\alpha )|U_{\alpha \beta })`$ are trivial (as in the Remark preceding Definition 3.2), so that the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ can be represented by *actual* isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }:K_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }K_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta }`$ of sheaves of groups, and that the cocycle condition for the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ can be represented in the form $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\lambda _{\beta \gamma }=(g_{\alpha \beta \gamma })_{}\lambda _{\alpha \gamma }`$ for sections $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }K_\alpha (U_{\alpha \beta \gamma })`$. Then

$$(g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \gamma \delta })_{}=(\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(g_{\beta \gamma \delta })g_{\alpha \beta \delta })_{}$$

so the “boundary” of the non-abelian cochain $`\{g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\}`$,

$$\xi _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }=g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \gamma \delta }\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(g_{\alpha \beta \delta }^1)g_{\beta \gamma \delta }^1$$

is a section of $`Z(K_\alpha )`$, and we obtain a class $`[\xi ]`$ where $`\xi =\{\xi _{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\}`$, in the (usual, abelian) Čech cohomoloy $`H^3(𝒰,Z(K))`$. If this cohomology is trivial, then $`\xi =d\zeta `$ for some $`\zeta =\{\zeta _{\alpha \beta \gamma }\}`$, and we can replace $`g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ by $`h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }:=\zeta _{\alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$, to obtain an actual cocycle $`h`$, i.e.

$$h_{\alpha \beta \gamma }h_{\alpha \gamma \delta }=\lambda _{\alpha \beta }(h_{\beta \gamma \delta })h_{\alpha \beta \delta }.$$

Thus, in conclusion, if $`K`$ is a band represented over a cover $`𝒰`$, and moreover $`H^3(𝒰,Z(K))=0`$, then there exists a gerbe with band $`K`$.

## 4 Bundle gerbes

We now work in the context of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-manifolds. Recall that a *groupoid* (in Sets) is a small category in which each arrow is an isomorphism. Let us write $`G`$ for the set of arrows of a groupoid and $`M`$ for the set of objects. Then the groupoid can also be described in terms of its structure maps

(3)
(here $`u(x)=1_x`$ is the unit at $`xM,i(g)=g^1`$ is the inverse of $`gG`$, $`s`$ and $`t`$ denote the source and target and $`m(g,h)=gh=gh`$ is the composition of two arrows $`g`$ and $`h`$ with $`s(g)=t(h)`$.) This groupoid is called a *Lie groupoid (over $`M`$)* if $`M`$ and $`G`$ are smooth manifolds, $`s`$ and $`t`$ are submersions and all other structure maps are smooth. In the sequel we write $`g:xy`$ to denote an element $`gG`$ with $`s(g)=x`$ and $`t(g)=y`$.

Examples:

1. If $`M`$ is a point, this definition reduces to that of a Lie group. More generally, a Lie groupoid with $`s=t`$ is a *bundle of Lie groups*. Conversely, in an arbitrary Lie groupoid $`G`$ over $`M`$, the set of arrows $`xx`$ from a given object to itself, has the structure of a Lie group, denoted $`G_x`$ or $`\mathrm{Aut}_G(x)`$. It is the *isotropy group* at $`x`$ (or the *vertex group* at $`x`$).
2. If $`\pi :MX`$ is a submersion, the fibered product $`G=M\times _XM`$ is a Lie groupoid, with exactly one arrow $`(x,y):xy`$ iff $`\pi (x)=\pi (y)`$ (for $`x,yM`$). This applies in particular to the case where $`U=U_\alpha `$ for an open cover $`X=U_\alpha `$, with $`\pi :UX`$ the obvious map.
3. Let $`X`$ be a “base” manifold. A *family of groupoids* over $`X`$ is a Lie groupoid (, etc), equipped with a submersion $`\pi :MX`$ for which $`\pi s=\pi t`$. For such a family, each fiber over a point $`xX`$ is a Lie groupoid, denoted . A *sheaf of groupoids* on $`X`$ is the same thing as a family with the additional property that the maps $`\pi :MX`$ and $`\pi s=\pi t:GX`$ are étale (local diffeomorphisms). This implies that all the structure maps in (3) are étale as well. (A groupoid with the latter property is called an *étale groupoid*.)

A *morphism of Lie groupoids* is a smooth functor. In this section, we will in particular be interested in morphisms $`G\stackrel{\varphi }{}H`$ between Lie groupoids over the same manifold $`M`$ of objects. (Such a morphism is given by a smooth map $`\varphi :GH`$ with $`s\varphi =s,t\varphi =t,\varphi u=u,\varphi i=i`$, and $`m(\varphi \times \varphi )=\varphi m`$; cf. (3).)

An *extension of Lie groupoids* over $`M`$ is a sequence of groupoids and morphisms over $`M`$,

$$K\stackrel{j}{}G\stackrel{\varphi }{}H,$$

where $`\varphi `$ is a surjective submersion and $`j`$ is an embedding onto the submanifold $`\mathrm{Ker}(\varphi )=\{gG|\varphi (g)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{unit}\}`$. Note that $`s(g)=t(g)`$ if $`g\mathrm{Ker}(\varphi )`$, so that $`K`$ is in fact a bundle of Lie groups over $`M`$.

Now let $`L`$ be a fixed Lie group. For a manifold $`M`$, we denote by $`\underset{¯}{L}`$ (or $`\underset{¯}{L}_M`$ if necessary) the trivial bundle $`L\times MM`$ of Lie groups over $`M`$.

###### Definition 4.1

An *$`L`$-bundle gerbe* over a manifold $`X`$ is given by

* a surjective submersion $`\pi :MX`$
* an extension $`\beta =(\underset{¯}{L}\stackrel{j}{}G\stackrel{\varphi }{}M\times _XM)`$ over $`M`$. (Here $`M\times _XM`$ is the groupoid defined by $`\pi `$, cf. Example (ii).)

An equivalent definition of an $`L`$-bundle gerbe is a family of groupoids over $`X`$,

with the additional properties that

1. $`(s,t):GM\times _XM`$ is a surjective submersion;
2. there is an isomorphism of Lie groupoids

$$j_m:L\mathrm{Aut}_G(m)$$

which identifies each vertex group in $`G`$ with $`L`$ and moreover, this isomorphism is required to vary smoothly in $`m`$.

Note that (i) expresses in a strong sense that each fiber $`G_x`$ is non-empty and connected; so (i) and (ii) combined sound like a variation on the definition of “gerbe with band $`L`$”. Here is a way to make the connection precise.

Suppose we are given an $`L`$-bundle gerbe as above. Define a sheaf of groupoids $`𝒢`$ over $`X`$ as follows. Let $`𝒢_0`$ be the sheaf of sections of $`\pi :MX`$. The sheaf $`𝒢_1`$ of arrows is defined as follows. For two such sections $`a,b𝒢_0(U)`$ over an open $`UX`$, an arrow $`g:ab`$ in $`𝒢_1(U)`$ is a section $`g:UG`$ with $`sg=a`$ and $`tg=b`$. Note that the stalk $`𝒢_x`$ of $`𝒢`$ at $`xX`$ is non-empty (because $`\pi `$ is a surjective submersion) and connected (because $`(s,t)`$ is a surjective submersion onto $`M\times _XM`$). Thus, the associated stack $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ of $`𝒢`$ is a gerbe. What is its band?

The band of $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ can be described directly in terms of $`𝒢`$. To this end, let $`X=U_\alpha `$ be an open cover of $`X`$, for which there exist sections $`a_\alpha :U_\alpha M`$ of $`\pi `$. Since $`GM\times _XM`$ is a surjective submersion, each point $`xU_{\alpha \beta }`$ has a neighborhood $`V`$ for which there exists an arrow $`a_\beta |Va_\alpha |V`$ in $`𝒢(V)`$. If we choose the cover such that each non-empty intersection $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ is contractible, then $`H^1(U_{\alpha \beta },\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array})`$ is trivial and we can in fact find a section $`g_{\alpha \beta }𝒢(U_{\alpha \beta })`$,

$$g_{\alpha \beta }:a_\beta |U_{\alpha \beta }a_\alpha |U_{\alpha \beta },\mathrm{in}𝒢(U_{\alpha \beta }).$$

The (inverse of the) map $`j`$ induces an isomorphism of sheaves of groups on $`U_\alpha `$, denoted

$$\theta _\alpha :\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Aut}}(a_\alpha )\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}|U_\alpha ,$$

where   $`L`$    ~   is the sheaf of sections of the trivial bundle $`\underset{¯}{L}_X`$. The isomorphisms $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ are now defined by the requirement that

commutes. Then $`\{\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}|U_\alpha ,\lambda _{\alpha \beta }\}`$ is the band of $`𝒢`$ (or of $`\widehat{𝒢}`$). It is some twisted form of the sheaf of groups   $`L`$    ~  . We denote it by $`\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^\beta `$ where $`\beta =(\underset{¯}{L}GM\times _XM)`$ is the extension.

Remark: Suppose $`L`$ is abelian. Then the extension

$$L\stackrel{j}{}G\stackrel{\varphi }{}M\times _XM$$

induces a (left, say) action of $`M\times _XM`$ on $`L`$ in the obvious way: any pair $`(m,n)M\times _XM`$ gives an isomorphism $`(m,n)_{}:LL`$, defined by $`j((m,n)_{}(l))=gj(l)g^1`$ where $`g:mn`$ is any arrow in $`G`$; this is independent of $`g`$ if $`L`$ is abelian. (As usual we call the extension *central* if this action is trivial, i.e. each $`(m,n)_{}`$ is the identity.) Now for the $`g_{\alpha \beta }:a_\beta a_\alpha `$ as above, this action induces in particular a map $`(a_\beta ,a_\alpha )_{}:\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}|U_{\alpha \beta }\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}|U_{\alpha \beta }`$ and this is the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ above. Thus, *the band structure* given by the $`\lambda _{\alpha \beta }`$ in the non-abelian case *replaces the action* of $`M\times _XM`$ on $`L`$ in the abelian case.

Remark: The gerbe $`\widehat{𝒢}`$ with band $`\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^\beta `$ is characterized by a class

$$[\beta ]\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^2(𝒰,\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^\beta ),$$

as explained in the previous lecture, namely the class of the cocycle $`\theta _\alpha (g_{\alpha \beta }g_{\beta \gamma }g_{\alpha \gamma }^1)`$ in the present notation. By the construction at the end of the previous lecture, it is possible to reconstruct, from this cocycle, the restriction of the extension to $`U=U_\alpha `$, as in the pullback

However, for a general extension $`\underset{¯}{L}_UHU\times _XU`$ of groupoids over $`U`$, there is an obstruction in $`H^2(M,\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array})`$ to being the pullback of an extension $`\underset{¯}{L}_MGM\times _XM`$ of groupoids over $`M`$ (see \[Mo\]).

Example: Let $`LGH`$ be an extension of Lie groups, and let $`PX`$ be a principal $`H`$-bundle. Then each of $`H,G`$ and $`L`$ act on $`P`$ and give rise to an extension of translation groupoids

$$LPGPHP$$

over $`P`$. (For example, arrows $`pq`$ in $`GP`$ are $`gG`$ with $`gp=q`$.) Since the $`H`$-action is principal and the $`L`$-action is trivial, this sequence is isomorphic to

$$\beta :\underset{¯}{L}G\times PP\times _XP,$$

so we have an $`L`$-bundle gerbe over $`X`$ and hence a class in $`H^2(𝒰,\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^\beta )`$. This class vanishes if $`P`$ is induced from a principal $`G`$-bundle. The twisting $`\begin{array}{c}L\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^\beta `$ of $`L`$ is related to that of the original extension and in particular $`\beta `$ is central if $`LGH`$ is.

In the literature, the following special class of gerbes is often discussed under the name “bundle gerbe”.

###### Definition 4.2

A *circle bundle gerbe* over $`X`$ is given by a surjective submersion $`\pi :MX`$ and a *central* extension

$$\beta :\underset{¯}{S}^1\stackrel{j}{}G\stackrel{\varphi }{}M\times _XM.$$

For such a circle bundle gerbe $`\beta `$, one obtains a characteristic class $`[\beta ]\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^2(𝒰,\begin{array}{c}S\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^1)`$. If the cover $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ is well chosen (contractible intersections $`U_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}U_{\alpha _n}`$), then the Čech cohomology agrees with sheaf cohomology and the long exact cohomology sequence of $`0\underset{¯}{}\begin{array}{c}\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{c}S\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^10`$ shows that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{H}^2(𝒰,\begin{array}{c}S\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^1)=H^2(X,\begin{array}{c}S\hfill \\ \text{~}\hfill \end{array}^1)=H^3(X,)`$ so the bundle gerbe has its class in $`H^3(X,)`$.

To conclude this course we give, following \[Mu\], a construction of this class in De Rham cohomology. To this end, first recall the notion of a connection on a principal $`S^1`$-bundle $`PY`$, which can be defined either in terms of $`S^1`$-equivariant “horizontal lifts” $`P\times _YTYTP`$ or in terms of connection 1-forms $`\omega `$. Recall that a connection $`\omega `$ on $`PY`$ pulls back along a map $`f:ZY`$ to a connection on $`f^{}(P)`$, with connection 1-form $`f^{}(\omega )`$ (we also write $`f`$ for the map $`f^{}(P)P`$). Recall also that for two principal bundles $`PY`$ and $`QY`$, their contracted product $`P_{S^1}Q`$, obtained from the fibered product $`P\times _YQ`$ by identifying $`(p\theta ,q)`$ with $`(p,q\theta )`$ for $`\theta S^1`$, is again a principal bundle. Connections on $`P`$ and $`Q`$ induce a connection on $`P_{S^1}Q`$ by taking the evident horizontal lift in each component. If $`\omega `$ and $`\eta `$ are the connection 1-forms, then the 1-form for this induced connection is denoted $`\omega +\eta `$ (it sends a tangent vector $`vw(\mathrm{where}vT_p(P),wT_q(Q))`$ to $`\omega _p(v)+\eta _q(w)`$).

For the rest of this section, let us fix a circle bundle gerbe

$$\beta :\underset{¯}{S}^1\stackrel{j}{}G\stackrel{(s,t)}{}M\times _XM$$

over $`X`$. Observe that $`G\stackrel{(s,t)}{}M\times _XM`$ is a principal bundle over $`M`$. The left and right actions agree,

$$j_y(\theta )g=gj_x(\theta )(\mathrm{for}x\stackrel{g}{}y,\theta S^1)$$

because the extension is central. We will write $`g\theta `$ for $`gj_x(\theta )`$. Note that the composition of the groupoid

$$G\times _MG\stackrel{\gamma }{}G(g,h)hg$$

can be viewed as an *isomorphism* of principal bundles over $`M\times _XM\times _XM`$,

$$\pi _{12}^{}(G)\pi _{23}^{}(G)\stackrel{\gamma }{}\pi _{13}^{}(G)$$
(4)
with fiber over $`(x,y,z)`$ mapping $`gh`$ to $`hg`$ where $`x\stackrel{g}{}y`$ and $`y\stackrel{h}{}z`$.

###### Definition 4.3

A *(groupoid) connection* on the bundle gerbe $`\beta `$ as above is a connection on the principal $`S^1`$-bundle $`G\stackrel{(s,t)}{}M\times _XM`$, which preserves the groupoid structure: the composition and inverse of horizontal lifts is again horizontal.

We will show in a moment that such connections always exist. For now, suppose we are given such a groupoid connection in terms of a 1-form $`\omega `$. Then the map $`\gamma `$ in (4) will be an isomorphism of bundles with connection, respectively $`\pi _{12}^{}(\omega )+\pi _{23}^{}(\omega )`$ and $`\pi _{13}^{}(\omega )`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be the curvature; it is the closed 2-form on $`M\times _XM`$ defined by $`(s,t)^{}(\kappa )=d\omega `$. Since $`\gamma `$ is an isomorphism, the two bundles in (4) have the same curvature, so

$$\pi _{12}^{}(\kappa )+\pi _{23}^{}(\kappa )=\pi _{13}^{}(\kappa ).$$
(5)
Now choose a cover $`M=U_\alpha `$, let $`U=U_\alpha `$, and pull everything back along $`UM`$ (as in the diagram on page 4). Then (the restriction of) $`\kappa `$ is a closed 2-form on $`U\times _XU`$, still satisfying the cocycle condition (5), on $`U\times _XU\times _XU`$. So by Mayer-Vietoris (see \[BT\]), there is a 2-form $`\lambda `$ on $`U`$ for which $`\kappa =\pi _2^{}(\lambda )\pi _1^{}(\lambda )`$, where $`\pi _1,\pi _2:U\times _XUU`$ are the projections. Since $`d\kappa =0`$ we have $`\pi _1^{}(d\lambda )=\pi _2^{}(d\lambda )`$, so by Mayer-Vietoris again, $`d\lambda =\pi ^{}(\xi )`$ for a closed 3-form $`\xi `$ on $`X`$ (where $`\pi :UX`$). Then $`[\xi ]H_{DR}^3(X)`$ and (by the usual tic-tac-toe argument in the Čech-De Rham complex) it can be shown that $`[\xi ]`$ is integral and coincides with the class constructed earlier.

Finally, let us prove that any bundle gerbe $`\beta `$ as above carries at least one groupoid connection. The problem is local in $`X`$, by the usual partition of unity argument, so we may assume $`\pi :MX`$ has a section $`X\stackrel{a}{}M`$. Let $`P_a`$ be the pullback of $`G\stackrel{(s,t)}{}M\times _XM`$ along $`(a\pi ,\mathrm{id}):MM\times _XM`$, so

$$(P_a)_x=\{\mathrm{arrows}a\pi (x)x\},xM.$$

Then $`P_a`$ is a principal $`S^1`$-bundle over $`M`$. Let $`\eta `$ be an ordinary connection on $`P_a`$, providing for each $`g:a\pi (x)x`$ and each $`vT_x(M)`$ a horizontal lift $`\stackrel{~}{v}_g`$. Let $`P_a^{}`$ be the same space $`P_a`$ with opposite right $`S^1`$ action, $`(g,\theta )g\theta ^1`$, so that $`\eta `$ is a connection on $`P_a^{}`$ with the *same* horizontal lifts. Now consider the isomorphism of principal bundles

$$\pi _1^{}(P_a^{})\pi _2^{}(P_a)\stackrel{\delta }{}G$$

defined for $`g:a\pi (x)x`$ and $`h:a\pi (y)y`$ by

$$\delta (gh)=hg^1.$$

Then $`\delta _{}(\pi _1^{}(\eta )+\pi _2^{}(\eta ))`$ is a groupoid connection on $`G`$. Indeed, for $`k:xy`$ and tangent vectors $`(v,w)T_{x,y}(M\times _XM)`$, factor $`k`$ as $`x\stackrel{g^1}{}a\pi (x)=a\pi (y)\stackrel{h}{}y`$; then the horizontal lift of $`(v,w)`$ at $`k`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{w}_h\stackrel{~}{v}_g^1`$ (from this formula it is evident that it is a groupoid connection).

References

1. R. Bott and L.W. Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology, Springer-Verlag, 1982.
2. L. Breen, On the classification of 2-gerbes and 2-stacks, Astérisque 225, (1994).
3. J. Giraud, Cohomologie non abélienne, Springer-Verlag, 1971.
4. I. Moerdijk, On the classification of regular Lie groupoids, preprint math.DG/0203099.
5. M. Murray, Bundle gerbes, J. London Math. Soc. 54 (1996).


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is fascinating to regard our four dimensional world as a three-brane  embedded in a higher dimensional space with extended codimensions. In the recent progress of superstring theory or M-theory, we could find an appropriate non-perturbative solution which could be connected to a realistic brane-world. However, there are many things to be cleared before arriving at such a solution.

The idea of three-brane involves many interesting aspects to approach several fundamental problems. Actually, it opened an alternative to the standard Kaluza-Klein (KK) compactification via the localization of the graviton in the 4D Minkowski space  and also in the 4D de Sitter space . In order to confirm the idea of braneworld, it would be important to see the localization of the gauge bosons, which is an important force to construct our world, i.e. the Coulomb force. However, gauge bosons feel the warp factor in the bulk differently from the case of the graviton, and it is a difficult problem how to localize the gauge bosons on the brane.

In the case of RS model, where 4d cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ is zero, some ideas for the localization of gauge bosons have been proposed (for example, see ). In general, we can expect that the situation of this problem would be changed when a small $`\lambda `$ is considered on the brane since the warp factor is changed in this case compared to the naive model. Actually, we could find the localization of a massive mode of a scalar in this case .

Our purpose is to extend this analysis to the case of vector fields to see the localization of bulk vector-fields as gauge bosons on the brane. The localization of graviton or massless scalar can not give any restriction to the magnitude of the $`\lambda `$, and we can see the localization of these fields in a wide range of the parameters in the theory. While, we point out that localization of gauge bosons intimately is related to the value of $`\lambda `$ as shown in the analyses given here.

For a brane with a positive $`\lambda `$, the bulk gauge bosons are trapped on it. And we should notice the recent observation of small inflation of our universe which implies the existence of small positive $`\lambda `$.

At the same time, we propose another kind of brane proposed previously by one of us . In this case, the bulk vector is massive and a mass term of the vector is also attached on the brane action. The origin of the latter term might be found as quantum corrections in the bulk . In this case, we could find a gauge boson trapped on the brane with $`\lambda =0`$ when we choose an appropriate relation between the bulk and brane-coupled mass terms.

In Section 2, we give our model in the bulk and a brief review of brane solutions used here. In Section 3, for the case including manifest bulk gauge symmetry, the localization of the massive and massless vectors on the brane is examined. In Section 4, for the case with the brane coupling, the vector localization is examined. Concluding remarks are given in the final section.

## 2 Brane model and solutions with cosmological constant

Here we set up our model by the following effective action,

$$S=S_{\mathrm{gr}}+S_\mathrm{A}.$$
(1)
The first term denotes the gravitational part,

$$S_{\mathrm{gr}}=\frac{1}{2\kappa ^2}\left\{d^5X\sqrt{G}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+2d^4x\sqrt{g}K\right\}\tau d^4x\sqrt{g},$$
(2)
where $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature on the boundary, and $`\tau `$ represents the tension of the brane which is situated at $`y=0`$ by imposing $`yy`$ symmetry for action. The second part $`S_\mathrm{A}`$ denotes the action for the massive vector, which is denoted by $`A_M(x,y)`$, ($`M=0,\mathrm{},4`$),

$$S_\mathrm{A}=d^5X\sqrt{G}\left\{\frac{1}{4}G^{MN}G^{PQ}F_{MP}F_{NQ}\frac{1}{2}(M^2+c\delta (y))G^{MN}A_MA_N\right\},$$
(3)
where the parameter $`M`$ and $`c`$ denote the bulk mass of the vector and the coupling of the vector to the brane respectively. In the case of Randall-Sundrum solution with zero-cosmological constant, the massive vector can be trapped as a photon only when we take the parameter $`c`$ as follows ,

$$c=2\mu (\sqrt{1+\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}1)\widehat{c},$$
(4)
where $`\mu =\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/6}`$. This relation seems to be a kind of fine-tuning of the parameters in the theory. Here we extend the analysis to the case of $`\lambda 0`$ to see the localization of vector.

We consider the vector-field fluctuations on the background given as a solution of (2). Here, the background configuration with non-zero $`\lambda `$ is considered, and the Einstein equation is solved in the following metric,

$$ds^2=A^2(y)\left\{dt^2+a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j\right\}+dy^2,$$
(5)
where the coordinates parallel to the brane are denoted by $`x^\mu =(t,x^i)`$, and $`y`$ being the coordinate transverse to the brane. We restrict our interest here to the case of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker type universe. Then, the three-dimensional metric $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is described in Cartesian coordinates as

$$\gamma _{ij}=(1+k\delta _{mn}x^mx^n/4)^2\delta _{ij},$$
(6)
where the curvature indices $`k=0,1,1`$ correspond to a flat, closed, or open universe respectively. In this brane-world, the effective cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ on the brane is given as

$$\lambda =\kappa ^4\tau ^2/36+\mathrm{\Lambda }/6.$$
(7)
We notice that $`\lambda `$ depends on both parameters $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The solutions of non-zero $`\lambda `$ used here are summarized below.

(I) $`\lambda >0`$: When $`\lambda >0`$, we obtain the solution for $`a_0(t)`$ which represents inflation of three dimensional space. Here we give the simple one, which is used hereafter, for the case of $`k=0`$,

$$a_0(t)=e^{H_0t},$$
(8)
where the Hubble constant is represented as $`H_0=\sqrt{\lambda }`$. We notice that $`a_0(t)`$ has nothing to do with the problem of localization and it depends only on the form of $`A(y)`$ as we will see below.

As for $`A(y)`$, we obtain the same solution for any value of $`k=0,\pm 1`$. The solution of $`A(y)`$ depends on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ even if the same positive $`\lambda `$ is assigned.

(I-1) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$: For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, $`A(y)`$ is solved as

$$A(y)=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{\mu }\mathrm{sinh}[\mu (y_H|y|)]$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{sinh}(\mu y_H)=\mu /\sqrt{\lambda }.$$
(10)
where $`y_H`$ represents the position of the horizon in the bulk. This solution and others are normalized at $`y=0`$, as $`A(0)=1`$. And all the background configurations are taken to be $`Z_2`$ symmetric with respect to the reflection, $`yy`$.

(I-2) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$: When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive, the solution for $`a_0(t)`$ is the same as above, but $`A(y)`$ is different. One has

$$A(y)=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{\mu _d}\mathrm{sin}[\mu _d(y_H|y|)],$$
(11)
$$\mu _d=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/6},\mathrm{sin}(\mu _dy_H)=\mu _d/\sqrt{\lambda }.$$
(12)
These two configurations represent $`dS_4`$-branes embedded in the bulk at $`y=0`$.

(II) $`\lambda <0`$: When $`\lambda <0`$, we obtain

$$a_1(t)=\frac{1}{H}\mathrm{sin}(Ht),H=\sqrt{\lambda }$$
(13)
and $`k=1`$. The $`AdS_4`$-brane is obviously obtained for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ because of (7). And $`A(y)`$ is given as

$$A(y)=\frac{H}{\mu }\mathrm{cosh}[\mu (y_H|y|)]$$
(14)
$$\mathrm{cosh}(\mu y_H)=\mu /H.$$
(15)
Note that the bulk has no horizon in this case in spite of the letter $`y_H`$ used above. $`AdS_4`$ brane with $`\lambda <0`$ can not be regarded as our world from the viewpoint of brane-world since the general coordinate invariance is lost . However, we consider this case from the theoretical viewpoint.

## 3 Vector localization: $`c=0`$ case

Here we concentrate our attention on the behaviors of the vector-field fluctuation around the background (5) by extending the previous analysis given in .

At first, we examine this problem for the case of $`c=0`$ in the action (3). It contains the case where bulk gauge symmetry is manifest as a limit of $`M=0`$. The field equation of $`A_M`$ is given as,

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}_A[\sqrt{G}(G^{AB}G^{CD}G^{AC}G^{BD})_BA_C]M^2G^{DB}A_B=0.$$
(16)
This equation can be solved by using the identity obtained in the massive vector theory,

$$_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}A_B)=0,$$
(17)
where we should notice that for $`M=0`$, we interpret Eq.(17) as the gauge condition. We solve these equations by rewriting the five components of $`A_M`$ as ($`A_t`$, $`A_i^T`$, $`A_i^L`$, $`A_y`$), where the 3D transverse part is defined as $`_iA_T^i=0`$ and $`A_i^L`$ denotes the longitudinal component.

The next step is to expand the fields in terms of the four-dimensional mass eigenstates:

$$A_M(x,y)=𝑑m\stackrel{~}{a}_M(m,t,x^i)\varphi _M(m,y),$$
(18)
where the mass $`m`$ is defined for each $`\stackrel{~}{a}_M(m,t,x^i)`$ as shown below. For $`A_i^T`$, we obtain,

$$(_y^2+2\frac{A^{}}{A}_y+\frac{m^2}{A^2})\varphi _i^T=M^2\varphi _i^T,$$
(19)
$$(_t^2\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}_t+\frac{_i^2}{a_0^2})\stackrel{~}{a}_i^T=m^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^T,$$
(20)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}=d/dy`$ and $`\dot{}=d/dt`$. In deriving the above two equations, Eq.(17) is not used. Since Eq.(17) give a relation among $`A_y`$, $`A_\mu ^L`$ and $`A_t`$, it is used below for the equations for those components. The second equation (20) gives a definition of the 4D mass $`m`$ for the transverse components, and this definition is not common to other components, which are shown below. However we notice that they coincide when $`a_0=1`$. The equations for other components can be written as follows:

For $`A_y`$,

$$(_y^2+6\frac{A^{}}{A}_y+4[\frac{A^{\prime \prime }}{A}+(\frac{A^{}}{A})^2]+\frac{m^2}{A^2})\varphi _y=M^2\varphi _y,$$
(21)
$$(_t^23\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}_t+\frac{_i^2}{a_0^2})\stackrel{~}{a}_y=m^2\stackrel{~}{a}_y,$$
(22)
For $`A_t`$,

$$(_y^2+2\frac{A^{}}{A}_y+\frac{m^2}{A^2})\varphi _t=M^2\varphi _t\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{a}_t}O_t\stackrel{~}{a}_y\varphi _y,$$
(23)
$$(_t^25\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}_t+\frac{_i^2}{a_0^2}3[(\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0})^2+\frac{\ddot{a}_0}{a_0}])\stackrel{~}{a}_t=m^2\stackrel{~}{a}_t,$$
(24)
$$O_t=2\left\{\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}A(4A^{}+A_y)+A^{}A_t\right\}$$
(25)
For $`A_i^L`$,

$$(_y^2+2\frac{A^{}}{A}_y+\frac{m^2}{A^2})\varphi _i^L=M^2\varphi _i^L\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{a}_i^L}_i(\frac{A^{}}{A}\stackrel{~}{a}_y\varphi _y\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0A^2}\stackrel{~}{a}_t\varphi _t),$$
(26)
$$(_t^2\frac{\dot{a}_0}{a_0}_t+\frac{_i^2}{a_0^2})\stackrel{~}{a}_i^L=m^2\stackrel{~}{a}_i^L.$$
(27)
Here, we comment on the $`k`$-dependence of the above equations, which are written for $`k=0`$ of solutions (I). We consider also the solution (II) in which $`k=1`$. It can be seen that the equations for $`\varphi _M(y)`$ are not changed but $`_i`$ is changed by the three dimensional covariant derivative $`_i(\gamma _{lm})`$ in the other equations. And this changing gives no effect on the following analyses.

As is well known, the localization is determined by the equations of $`\varphi _M(y)`$, and we do not need to know the details of $`\stackrel{~}{a}_M(t,x^i)`$. Although the equations for $`\varphi _t(y)`$ and $`\varphi _i^L(y)`$ include the inhomogeneous part, the homogeneous part of equations are equivalent to the one of $`\varphi _i^T`$. We can solve these equations for $`\varphi _t(y)`$ and $`\varphi _i^L(y)`$ by separating them into the special solutions, which satisfy the inhomogeneous equations, and the solutions, which satisfy the same form equation of (19), the homogeneous part. Then the general solutions are written as

$$\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{special}}+\varphi _i^T.$$
(28)
We expect that the localized modes are included in this general solutions through $`\varphi _i^T`$ if $`A_i^T`$ were trapped. Then the equations for $`\varphi _M(y)`$ are separated to two groups of $`A_\mu `$=($`A_t`$,$`A_i`$) and $`A_y`$ from the viewpoint of localization.

However $`A_y`$ is an odd function with respect to $`y`$ so we can say that $`A_y|_{y=0}=0`$, then this component is not localized on the brane. While, we can see that the other components $`A_\mu `$, which are parallel to the brane, are even functions of $`y`$ from Eq.(17) which is written as,

$$_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}A_B)=\frac{1}{A^2}_y(A^4A_y)\frac{1}{a_0^3}_t(a_0^3A_t)+\frac{1}{a_0^3}_i(a_0A_i),$$
(29)
where we notice that the warp factor $`A(y)`$ is an even function of $`y`$. Then $`A_\mu `$ could be localized on the brane, and it is enough to examine only $`A_i^T`$ for the problem of localization of the gauge boson since the homogeneous part of the equations of other components obeys the common equation with the one of $`A_i^T`$ as stated above. So we concentrate on $`A_i^T`$ hereafter.

Consider the equation (19) for $`A_i^T`$. For any solution of the background metric, $`A(y)`$ and $`a_0(t)`$, Eq.(19) can be rewritten in a one dimensional Schrödinger-type equation

$$[_z^2+V(z)]u(z)=m^2u(z),$$
(30)
by introducing $`u(z)`$ and $`z`$ defined as $`\varphi _i^T=A^{1/2}u(z)`$ and $`z/y=\pm A^1`$. Here $`A(y)`$ is normalized as $`A(0)=1`$ and the potential $`V(z)`$ is given as

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}(A^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}AA^{\prime \prime }+A^2M^2,$$
(31)
where $`z_0`$ represents the value of $`z`$ at $`y=0`$ and it depends on the solutions, $`A(y)`$, as well as $`V(z)`$. Here we should notice, $`A^{}=A/y`$ and the metric form (5).555 When we use the notation, $`A^{}=A/z`$ and $`ds^2=e^{2\stackrel{~}{A}}\left\{dt^2+a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}(x^i)dx^idx^j\right\}+dy^2`$, we obtain $`V(z)=\frac{1}{4}(\stackrel{~}{A}^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{A}^{\prime \prime }+e^{2\stackrel{~}{A}}M^2`$. This form would be more popular for some people.

The potentials are obtained for the three background solutions given in the previous section as follows,

(I-1) Solution for $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ :

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}\lambda [\frac{4M^2/\mu ^2+3}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\sqrt{\lambda }|\mathrm{z}|)}+1]\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}\delta (|z|z_0),$$
(32)
$$z=\mathrm{sgn}(y)(\lambda )^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{coth}[\mu (y_\mathrm{H}|y|)/2])$$

$$z_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }}\mathrm{arcsinh}(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{\mu }).$$
(33)
(I-2) Solution for $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ :

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}\lambda [\frac{4M^2/\mu _d^23}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{z})}+1]\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}\delta (|z|z_0),$$
(34)
$$z=\mathrm{sgn}(y)(\lambda )^{1/2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cot}[\mu _\mathrm{d}(y_\mathrm{H}|y|)/2])$$

$$z_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }}\mathrm{arccosh}(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{\mu _\mathrm{d}}).$$
(35)
(II) Solution for $`\lambda <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ :

$`V(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}H^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4M^2/\mu ^2+3}{\mathrm{cos}^2(Hz)}}1\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}}\delta (|z|z_0),`$ (36)
$`z=2\mathrm{s}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{n}(y)\mathrm{arctan}\mathrm{tanh}[\mu (\mathrm{y}_\mathrm{H}|\mathrm{y}|)/2])/\mathrm{H},`$
$`z_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{H}}\mathrm{arccos}({\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mu }}).`$ (37)
Before solving the above equation with the each potential obtained here, we should notice that only if the eigenvalue $`m^2`$ is smaller than the minimum of the potential except the $`\delta `$ function term which is denoted as $`V_{\text{min}}`$, the corresponding field has the possibility to be trapped. For (I), this minimum value is $`V_{\text{min}}=\lambda /4`$. On the other hand for (II), the minimum is given by $`V_{\text{min}}=M^2+(3\mu ^2H^2)/4`$. The fluctuation with the mass $`m^2>V_{\text{min}}`$ corresponds to continuum mode.

Solution(I-1) First, we consider the case (I-1) where $`\lambda =0`$ is realized when a fine-tuning condition between $`\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ is satisfied as in the RS solution. The RS solution would be obtained naturally when conformal invariance of the bulk is preserved for the brane-world solution . Here this symmetry is not clear, so it will be natural to consider the general case of $`\lambda 0`$. Among them, we firstly consider the case of $`\lambda >0`$, (I-1).

In this background, $`u`$ is solved in terms of the following general solution, which is given by ignoring the $`\delta `$-function potential,

$$u(z)=c_1X^{id}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b_1,b_2;\overline{c};X)+c_2X^{id}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b_1^{},b_2^{};\overline{c}^{};X),$$
(38)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants of integration and

$$X=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{z})},d=\frac{\sqrt{1+4m^2/\lambda }}{4},$$
(39)
$$b_1=\frac{1}{4}(1\sqrt{1+\widehat{a}})id,b_2=\frac{1}{4}(1+\sqrt{1+\widehat{a}})id,\overline{c}=12id,$$
(40)
$$b_1^{}=\frac{1}{4}(1\sqrt{1+\widehat{a}})+id,b_2^{}=\frac{1}{4}(1+\sqrt{1+\widehat{a}})+id,\overline{c}^{}=1+2id.$$
(41)
$$\widehat{a}=4M^2/\mu ^2+3.$$
(42)
Here $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;\gamma ;x)`$ denotes the Gauss’s hypergeometric function. It follows from this solution that $`u(z)`$ oscillates with $`z`$ when $`m^2>\lambda /4`$, where the continuum KK modes appear.

Here we concentrate on the bound state which is restricted to the region of $`m^2<\lambda /4`$. We note also $`V_{\text{min}}=\lambda /4`$. In this case, $`d`$ in (39) is rewritten as $`d=i\overline{d}`$, where $`\overline{d}`$ is real and given below. We should notice this difference from the solution given in the KK mode region, and we need a converging solution in the region of the expected bound state. So the solution is obtained by setting $`c_2=0`$ and it is written as,

$$u(z)=c_1X^{\overline{d}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b_1,b_2;\overline{c};X),\overline{d}=\frac{\sqrt{14m^2/\lambda }}{4},$$
(43)
which tends to zero in the limit of $`z=\mathrm{}`$ as $`u(z)X^{\sqrt{14m^2/\lambda }/4}`$. Then this solution is normalizable when $`m^2<\lambda /4`$. One should notice here that we imposed one boundary condition at $`z=\mathrm{}`$ on the solution, which is written by two independent solutions.

The boundary condition at $`z=z_0`$ is given as follows by taking into account of the $`\delta `$-function potential in (32),

$$\frac{du(z_0)}{dz}=\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{12}u(z_0).$$
(44)
From this setting we find the following results;

(1) Normalizability: The necessary condition of the localized state is the normalizability of this state, then the integration over $`y`$ of the effective action for this mode should be finite. It is easy to see that this is equivalent to demand the following condition for $`u(z)`$,

$$_{z_0}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑zu(z)^2<\mathrm{}.$$
(45)
As stated above this condition implies $`m^2<\lambda /4`$ for our solution. We should notice that the solution for $`M^2=0`$ is excluded in the case of $`\lambda =0`$ since here the solution is a constant. But this is not necessarily true in the case of $`\lambda >0`$ since the solution is not a constant even if $`M^2=0`$. And the condition $`m^2<\lambda /4`$ is a very loose condition which is equivalent to the condition of non KK-mode. The zero-mode, $`m=0`$, of course satisfies this condition for $`\lambda >0`$ even if how small it is. This fact is important since we don’t need any bulk mass $`M`$ for the vector field to obtain the normalizable zero-mode as in the case of RS brane of $`\lambda =0`$  . In other words, any gauge bosons are trapped on the brane in a gauge invariant form when a positive cosmological constant $`\lambda `$ exist.

In fact, we can see below that the zero mode eigenstate satisfies also the boundary condition (44) which is needed from the equation (30) for the precise form of potential (32).

(2) Relation between $`m^2`$ and $`M^2`$: By solving (44), we find the $`M`$-dependence of the lowest eigenvalue $`m`$ near $`M^2=0`$. It behaves as

$$m^2=\alpha M^2,$$
(46)
where $`\alpha `$ depends on the other parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here we can see $`\alpha >0`$. This is confirmed both in numerically and analytically.

Firstly, we consider the eigenvalue $`m^2`$ analytically. In general, $`m^2`$ can be expressed as

$$m^2=𝑑zu^{}(z)[_z^2+V(z)]u(z)u|[_z^2+V(z)]|u,$$
(47)
where $`u(z)`$ denotes the normalized eigenfunction, $`u|u=1`$. Then we expand $`m^2`$ as

$$m^2=m_0^2+\alpha M^2$$
(48)
for small $`M^2`$, and $`\alpha `$ is expressed as

$$\alpha =_{M^2}m^2|_{M^2=0}=u|A^2|u.$$
(49)
So we can see $`\alpha >0`$. These points are assured by expanding the solution for $`m^2`$ obtained from Eq.(44) near an appropriate point. Here we examined $`m^2`$ near small $`\lambda `$ and the following is found,

$$m^2=\frac{1}{2}M^2.$$
(50)
This result implies $`m_0=0`$ for the solution (I-1). Therefore we can say that zero-mode of the vector field is localized when its bulk mass $`M`$ is zero. Then, all the gauge bosons without any gauge-symmetry breaking in the bulk are localized on the brane. This is completely different from the RS brane. And the massive bulk-vectors ($`M^2>0`$) are trapped as massive vectors ($`m^2>0`$) on the brane. In this sense, the situation is similar to the case of the graviton and scalar fields. In other words, the general coordinate invariance in the bulk is also preserved on the dS brane as well as the gauge symmetry. The essential point here is the presence of positive $`\lambda `$, then we can say that the cosmological constant in our world is necessary to get a gauge symmetric theory in our universe even if how small it is. The numerical analysis is shown by the curve A in Fig.1, from which we can assure the statement given above.

Solution(I-2) Next, we consider the solution (I-2). For this background, $`u`$ is obtained in the same form given for the background (I-2) as

$$u(z)=c_1Y^{id}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b_1,b_2;\overline{c};Y)+c_2Y^{id}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(b_1^{},b_2^{};\overline{c}^{};Y),$$
(51)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants of integration. The same notations are used for the parameters in the solution, but $`X`$ is replaced by

$$Y=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{z})},$$
(52)
and $`\widehat{a}`$ is changed to

$$\widehat{a}=4M^2/\mu _d^2+3.$$
(53)
For this solution, the normalizability condition is also satisfied if we choose $`c_2=0`$ as in the previous case. The boundary condition at $`z=z_0`$ can be written by the same formula (44) in terms of the first term of the solution given in (51). Then we perform the similar analysis as in the case of (I-1) to find the eigenvalue $`m^2`$.

In this case, we can examine $`m^2`$ by expanding it near $`M^2=0`$ as $`m^2=m_0^2+\alpha M^2`$ as above, and we find $`\alpha =u|A^2|u`$ is positive and $`m^2=(1/2)M^2`$ near $`\lambda =0`$ as in the case of solution (I-1). So $`m_0=0`$ also in this case. The example of an explicit numerical evaluation is shown in Fig.1 by the dashed curve. Then we can say that the gauge bosons are trapped on the brane also in this brane solution. The important point is the existence of a positive $`\lambda `$, and the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not essencial. This situation is also seen in the graviton trapping.

Solution(II) Finally, we consider the case of the background solution (II). In this case the solution of the vector fluctuation (30) can be written as

$`u(z)=(1y)^{\stackrel{~}{c}}v(y),`$ (54)
$`v(z)=c_1{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2;1/2;y)+c_2y^{1/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1+1/2,\stackrel{~}{b}_2+1/2;3/2;y),`$ (55)
$`y=\mathrm{sin}^2(Hz),\stackrel{~}{c}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{1+M^2/\mu ^2},`$ (56)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_1=\stackrel{~}{c}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{1+4m^2/H^2},\stackrel{~}{b}_2=\stackrel{~}{c}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sqrt{1+4m^2/H^2},`$ (57)
where $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are constants of integration.

In this case, the potential $`V(z)`$ diverges at $`z_1=\pi /(2H)`$. Then we need a new boundary condition at $`z_1`$

$$u(z_1)=0$$
(58)
in addition to the condition (44) at $`z=z_0`$. We solve these two conditions as follows. The condition (44) is used to fix the ratio $`c_2/c_1`$ as

$$c_2/c_1=\frac{B_0F(y_0)+F^{}(y_0)}{B_0G(y_0)+G^{}(y_0)}$$
(59)
where $`F(y)={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2;1/2;y)`$, $`G(y)=y^{1/2}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1+1/2,\stackrel{~}{b}_2+1/2;3/2;y)`$ , $`y_0=\mathrm{sin}^2(Hz_0)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}=/y`$. The factor $`B_0`$ is expressed by

$$B_0=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mu }{H})^2\sqrt{1+\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}},$$
(60)
The condition (58) can be written as,

$$c_2/c_1=2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\stackrel{~}{b}_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\stackrel{~}{b}_2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2\stackrel{~}{b}_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2\stackrel{~}{b}_2)}.$$
(61)
Using above two conditions (59) and (61), we can obtain the eigenvalue $`m^2`$ as a value dependent on $`M^2`$ and other parameters. When we express the $`M^2`$ dependence of $`m^2`$ as the form $`m^2=m_0^2+\alpha M^2`$, we find the following,

$$\alpha =u|A^2|u+\frac{u(z_1)}{z}\frac{u(z_1)}{M^2}.$$
(62)
Then $`\alpha `$ is not necessarily positive. The numerical results are shown by the dashed lines in Fig.2. In this case, $`m_0^2`$ depends on $`H`$ and becomes zero for specific $`H`$. Furthermore $`H`$ has the upper bound so as to be $`m_0^2<V_{\text{min}}`$, which is condition to be trapped at $`M=0`$. The relation between $`m_0^2`$ and $`H`$ is shown in Fig.3. The upper bound to $`H`$ is the value for the point shown by $``$ in the large $`\mu `$ region corresponding to curve A. When $`\mu `$ takes a small value below the value corresponding to B, the gauge field, that is, the fluctuation with $`m_0=0`$ is not trapped for $`M=0`$. So $`\mu `$ has the lower bound for the gauge field to be trapped with $`M=0`$. The curve which $`H`$ and $`\mu `$ draw for $`m_0=M=0`$ is shown in Fig.4. $`H`$ also has the lower bound. This means that the bulk gauge field is not trapped as gauge field for very small $`H`$ not only in the case of $`\lambda =0`$ as previously known.

It should be astonishing that the gauge bosons can be trapped for $`\lambda <0`$ differently from the case of the graviton which can not be trapped in this case. To make clear the difference of gauge bosons and the graviton, we show here the lowest mass of the trapped modes for both particles in Fig.5. For graviton, $`m^2`$ is not able to become zero since $`H0`$. This behaviour is also shown in . While $`m^2`$ of gauge boson crosses zero at finite $`H`$ as shown above for different parameters. So there is a point in the parameter-space where gauge bosons are trapped.

## 4 Vector localization: the case of $`c=\widehat{c}`$

Here we examine the vector localization for $`c=\widehat{c}`$ case. As mentioned above, the analysis is similar to the case of $`c=0`$ in the previous section. Here the field equation of $`A_M`$ is given as

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{G}}_A[\sqrt{G}(G^{AB}G^{CD}G^{AC}G^{BD})_BA_C][M^2+\widehat{c}\delta (y)]G^{DB}A_B=0.$$
(63)
The $`\delta `$ function term appears newly. Because of this term, the identity is presented by

$$_A([M^2+\widehat{c}\delta (y)]\sqrt{G}G^{AB}A_B)=0.$$
(64)
However the equation (64) can reduce to Eq.(17) as follows. Consider near $`y=0`$ of the equation (63) for $`D=y`$, and integrate it over $`y`$ for the region $`ϵ<y<ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is an infinitesimally small number. Then we find $`A_y(x,0)=0`$ which implies $`A_y(x,y)`$ is odd with respect to the reflection $`yy`$. Then we can write (64) as,

$$M^2_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}A_B)+\widehat{c}\delta (y)_\mu (\sqrt{G}G^{\mu \nu }A_\nu )=0.$$
(65)
Integrating this again in the region $`ϵ<y<ϵ`$, we find $`_\mu (\sqrt{G}G^{\mu \nu }A_\nu )|_{y=0}=0`$. As a result, the identity (64) can be written as

$$_A(\sqrt{G}G^{AB}A_B)=0,$$
(66)
at any value of $`y`$. So we can solve the above field equation by using (66). The expansion of the field equation in terms of four-dimensional mass eigenstates leads only to replace $`M^2`$ with $`M^2+c\delta (y)`$ in Eqs.(19)-(27).

Again we need only to consider the equation for $`A_i^T`$. Then the Schrödinger type equation (30) has the potential

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}(A^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}AA^{\prime \prime }+A^2M^2+\widehat{c}\delta (|z|z_0)$$
(67)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ is considered by the definition of $`\widehat{c}`$. The explicit potentials are given as follows,

(I-1) Solution for $`\lambda >0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ :

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}\lambda [\frac{4M^2/\mu ^2+3}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\sqrt{\lambda }|\mathrm{z}|)}+1](\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}\widehat{c})\delta (|z|z_0),$$
(68)
(II) Solution for $`\lambda <0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ :

$$V(z)=\frac{1}{4}H^2\left[\frac{4M^2/\mu ^2+3}{\mathrm{cos}^2(Hz)}1\right](\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}\widehat{c})\delta (|z|z_0),$$
(69)
Away from the $`\delta `$-function term, the bound state solutions are given by Eqs.(43) and (54) respectively. On the other hand, the boundary condition at $`z=z_0`$ is changed as

$$\frac{du(z_0)}{dz}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\kappa ^2\tau }{6}\widehat{c})u(z_0).$$
(70)
The results of our analyses are summarized as follows for the above two solutions.

For Solution (I-1): In this case the consideration on the normalizability yields the only loose condition $`\mu ^2<\lambda /4`$ as in the case of $`c=0`$. However the relation between $`m^2`$ and $`M^2`$ is noticeably different. For this case with the brane coupling, $`\alpha `$ in Eq.(46) is negative. This is also confirmed both in numerically and analytically.

From the general representation (47), $`\alpha `$ is expressed for small $`M^2`$ as

$$\alpha =_{M^2}m^2|_{M^2=0}=u|A^2|u\frac{1}{\mu }|u(z_0)|^2,$$
(71)
where the second term in (71) is coming from the term $`\widehat{c}`$ in the potential (68). So we expect that $`\alpha `$ might be negative. In fact when we examine $`m^2`$ near small $`\lambda `$, the following relation is obtained,

$$m^2=\frac{\lambda }{4\mu ^2}M^2.$$
(72)
This implies that the massive bulk vector is trapped as a tachyonic vector on the brane when $`\lambda >0`$ differently from the case of $`\lambda =0`$. Then this brane solution is unstable. It would be possible to improve this instability by considering a dynamical scenario that the trapped tachyonic vector would condense to change the brane-tension $`\tau `$ to a small value until arriving at the stable point $`\lambda =0`$. The $`\lambda `$-dependence in Eq.(72) seems to support this scenario. So we can say that the case of $`c=\widehat{c}`$ gives a brane where the cosmological constant is always zero due to the gauge invariance on the brane. The numerical analysis is shown by the curve B in Fig.1.

For Solution (II): In this case, the factor $`B_0`$ in Eq.(59) is given instead of Eq.(60) as

$$B_0=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mu }{H})^2\left(\sqrt{1+\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}+\frac{\sqrt{1+\frac{M^2}{\mu ^2}}1}{\sqrt{1\frac{H^2}{\mu ^2}}}\right),$$
(73)
where $`H<\mu `$ since $`\mu ^2H^2=\kappa ^4\tau ^2/36`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is obtained as

$`\alpha =u|A^2|u+{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{u(z_1)}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}|u(z_0)|^2.`$ (74)
The numerical estimation is shown by solid lines in Fig.2. This implies also that massive bulk vector is trapped as a tachyonic vector on the brane.

## 5 Summary

We have found the possibility of the gauge fields trapping on the brane through the analyses given here for vector fields. We have examined the localization of the fields on both dS and AdS brane or on positive and negative $`\lambda `$. The bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is also considered for both negative and positive cases. The model considered here include the coupling of vectors and the brane through the mass term of the vector with its coupling $`c`$.

For the case of $`c=0`$, the brane model is normal and includes no special brane coupling, the bulk gauge bosons can be trapped on the dS brane, i.e. for the brane of positive $`\lambda `$, for both cases of positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then, we can say that the gauge symmetries in the bulk theory are preserved also on the dS brane. This situation is similar to the case of the graviton localization. Namely the general coordinate invariance in the bulk is also preserved on the dS brane due to the graviton trapping.

The difference between the graviton and the gauge field appears for $`\lambda =0`$, the RS brane. Actually, the gauge bosons can not be trapped on the RS brane since the cosmological constant is zero. Then we needed an appropriate coupling $`c`$ of gauge bosons and the brane for its trapping on the $`\lambda =0`$ brane as shown above.

For non-zero $`c`$, the bulk mass of the vector field was needed to trap the vector fields on the brane as a gauge boson, i.e. as a massless 4d vector. When this model is applied to the case of dS brane ($`\lambda >0`$), we find an unexpected phenomena that the bulk massive vectors are trapped on the dS brane as tachyonic vectors. Then the dS brane is unstable in this model.

In this case however, the bulk gauge symmetries is broken in spite of the gauge symmetries on the brane. One possible idea to change this situation is to consider a model which contains the dilaton. And our effective action of massive vector fields can be obtained as an effective action by an appropriate field transformation  from the original gauge invariant theory. If this is true, then the trapping of the gauge bosons will be solved in terms of the the dilaton theory with bulk gauge symmetry. On this point, we will discuss in a separate paper.

Next, we summarize for the AdS brane ($`\lambda <0`$). In this case, the graviton can not be trapped as a massless mode on the brane. However we find that the bulk-vector bosons can be trapped on the brane as gauge bosons for both models $`c=0`$ and $`c=\widehat{c}`$. This is realized for a specific value of $`|\lambda |`$, then we need a fine-tuning.

Finally, we comment on the gap or the lower bound for the continuum KK mode for the dS brane. It starts from $`m^2=\lambda /4`$. As a result, massive vector can be trapped in the range, $`m^2<\lambda /4`$, and its value is related to the bulk mass $`M^2`$ as $`m^2=\alpha M^2`$ where $`\alpha `$ is positive and dependent on the parameters of the theory. We can expect that these localized fields of small mass vectors would play some role in the cosmological scenario if they were really exist.