text:
# Extended Bloch group and the Chern-Simons class (Incomplete Working version)

## 1. Introduction

There are several variations of the definition of the Bloch group in the literature; by  they differ at most by torsion and they agree with each other for algebraically closed fields. In this paper we shall use the following.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`k`$ be a field. The *pre-Bloch group $`𝒫(k)`$* is the quotient of the free $``$-module $`(k\{0,1\})`$ by all instances of the following relation:

(1)
$$[x][y]+[\frac{y}{x}][\frac{1x^1}{1y^1}]+[\frac{1x}{1y}]=0,$$

This relation is usually called the *five term relation*. The *Bloch group $`(k)`$* is the kernel of the map

$$𝒫(k)k^{}_{}k^{},[z]2\left(z(1z)\right).$$

(In  the additional relations

$$[x]=[1\frac{1}{x}]=[\frac{1}{1x}]=[\frac{1}{x}]=[\frac{x1}{x}]=[1x]$$

were used. These follow from the five term relation when $`k`$ is algebraicly closed, as shown by Dupont and Sah . Dupont and Sah use a different five term relation but it is conjugate to the one used here by $`z\frac{1}{z}`$.)

There is an exact sequence due to Bloch and Wigner:

$$0/H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,)^\delta ;)()0.$$

The superscript $`\delta `$ means “with discrete topology.” We will omit it from now on.

$`()`$ is known to be uniquely divisible, so it has canonically the structure of a $``$-vector space (Suslin ). It’s $``$-dimension is infinite and conjectured to be countable (the “Rigidity Conjecture,” equivalent to the conjecture that $`()=(\overline{})`$, where $`\overline{}`$ is the field of algebraic numbers). In particular, the $`/`$ in the Bloch-Wigner exact sequence is precisely the torsion of $`H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)`$, so any finite torsion subgroup is cyclic.

In the present paper we define an *extended Bloch group* $`()`$ by replacing $`\{0,1\}`$ in the definition of $`()`$ by its universal abelian cover $`(\{0,1\})^{ab}`$ and appropriately lifting the five term relation (1). Our main results are that we can lift the Bloch-Wigner map $`H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)()`$ to an isomorphism

$$\lambda :H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)()$$

Moreover, the “Roger’s dilogarithm function” (see below) gives a natural map

$$R:()/2\pi ^2.$$

We show that the composition

$$R\lambda :H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)/2\pi ^2$$

is the Cheeger-Simons class (cf ), so it can also be described as $`i(\mathrm{vol}+i\mathrm{cs})`$, where $`cs`$ is the universal Chern-Simons class. It has been a longstanding problem to provide such a computation of the Chern-Simons class. Dupont in  gave an answer modulo $`\pi ^2`$ and our computation is a natural lift of his.

Another consequence of our result is that any complete hyperbolic 3-manifold $`M`$ of finite volume has a natural “fundamental class” in $`H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)/C_2`$, where $`C_2`$ is the (unique) order 2 subgroup. For compact $`M`$ the existence of this class, even without the $`C_2`$ ambiguity, is easy and well known: $`M=^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma },1)`$-space, so the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Isom}^+(^3)=\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$ induces $`H_3(M)=H_3(\mathrm{\Gamma })H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$, and the class in question is the image of the fundamental class $`[M]H_3(M)`$. For non-compact $`M`$ the existence of such a class is somewhat surprising, although it was already strongly suggested by earlier results.

We can describe this fundamental class nicely in terms of an ideal triangulation of $`M`$. However, this ideal triangulation has to be a “true” ideal triangulation rather than the less restrictive “degree 1” ideal triangulations used in . The ideal triangulations resulting from Dehn filling that are used by the programs Snappea and Snap  are not true. Nevertheless, we can describe the fundamental class in terms of these “Dehn filling triangulations.” This leads also to an exact simplicial formula for the Chern-Simons invariant of a hyperbolic 3-manifold, refining the formula of .

We work initially with a different version of the extended Bloch group, based on a disconnected $`\times `$ cover of $`\{0,1\}`$. This group, which we call $`\widehat{}()`$ is a quotient of $`()`$ by a subgroup of order $`2`$.

Acknowledgements. The definition of the extended Bloch group was suggested by an idea of Jun Yang, to whom I am grateful also for many useful conversations. In particular, he informs me that this work can be interpreted as giving a motivic complex for $`K_3()`$. The main results of this paper were announced in . This research is supported by the Australian Research Council.

## 2. The preliminary version of extended Bloch group

We shall need a $`\times `$ cover $`\widehat{}`$ of $`\{0,1\}`$ which can be constructed as follows. Let $`P`$ be $`\{0,1\}`$ split along the rays $`(\mathrm{},0)`$ and $`(1,\mathrm{})`$. Thus each real number $`r`$ outside the interval $`[0,1]`$ occurs twice in $`P`$, once in the upper half plane of $``$ and once in the lower half plane of $``$. We denote these two occurences of $`r`$ by $`r+0i`$ and $`r0i`$. We construct $`\widehat{}`$ as an identification space from $`P\times \times `$ by identifying

$`(x+0i,p,q)`$ $`(x0i,p+2,q)\text{for each }x(\mathrm{},0)`$
$`(x+0i,p,q)`$ $`(x0i,p,q+2)\text{for each }x(1,\mathrm{}).`$
We will denote the equivalence class of $`(z,p,q)`$ by $`(z;p,q)`$. $`\widehat{}`$ has four components:

$$\widehat{}=X_{00}X_{01}X_{10}X_{11}$$

where $`X_{ϵ_0ϵ_1}`$ is the set of $`(z;p,q)\widehat{}`$ with $`pϵ_0`$ and $`qϵ_1`$ (mod $`2`$).

We may think of $`X_{00}`$ as the riemann surface for the function $`\{0,1\}^2`$ defined by $`z(\mathrm{log}z,\mathrm{log}(1z))`$. Taking the branch $`(\mathrm{log}z+2p\pi i,\mathrm{log}(1z)+2q\pi i)`$ of this function on the portion $`P\times \{(2p,2q)\}`$ of $`X_{00}`$ for each $`p,q`$ defines an analytic function from $`X_{00}`$ to $`^2`$. In the same way, we may think of $`\widehat{}`$ as the riemann surface for the collection of all branches of the functions $`(\mathrm{log}z+p\pi i,\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\pi i)`$ on $`\{0,1\}`$.

Consider the set

$$\mathrm{FT}:=\{(x,y,\frac{y}{x},\frac{1x^1}{1y^1},\frac{1x}{1y}):xy,x,y\{0,1\}\}(\{0,1\})^5$$

of 5-tuples involved in the five term relation (1). An elementary computation shows:

###### Lemma 2.1.

The subset $`\mathrm{FT}^+`$ of $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}`$ with each $`x_i`$ in the upper half plane of $``$ is the set of elements of $`\mathrm{FT}`$ for which $`y`$ is in the upper half plane of $``$ and $`x`$ is inside the triangle with vertices $`0,1,y`$. Thus $`\mathrm{FT}^+`$ is connected (even contractible). ∎

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`V(\times )^5`$ be the subspace

$$\begin{array}{c}V:=\{((p_0,q_0),(p_1,q_1),(p_1p_0,q_2),(p_1p_0+q_1q_0,q_2q_1),\hfill \\ \hfill (q_1q_0,q_2q_1p_0)):p_0,p_1,q_0,q_1,q_2\}.\end{array}$$

Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0`$ denote the unique component of the inverse image of $`\mathrm{FT}`$ in $`\widehat{}^5`$ which includes the points $`((x_0;0,0),\mathrm{},(x_4;0,0))`$ with $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}^+`$, and define

$$\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}:=\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0+V=\{𝐱+𝐯:𝐱\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0\text{ and }𝐯V\},$$

where we are using addition to denote the action of $`(\times )^5`$ by covering transformations on $`\widehat{}^5`$. (Although we do not need it, one can show that the action of $`2V`$ takes $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0`$ to itself, so $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}`$ has $`2^5`$ components, determined by the parities of $`p_0,p_1,q_0,q_1,q_2`$.)

Define $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ as the free $``$-module on $`\widehat{}`$ factored by all instances of the relations:

(2)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}(1)^i(x_i;p_i,q_i)=0\text{with }((x_0;p_0,q_0),\mathrm{},(x_4;p_4,q_4))\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}$$

and

(3)
$$(x;p,q)+(x;p^{},q^{})=(x;p,q^{})+(x;p^{},q)\text{with }p,q,p^{},q^{}$$

We shall denote the class of $`(z;p,q)`$ in $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ by $`[z,p,q]`$

We call relation (2) the *lifted five term relation*. We shall see that its precise form arises naturally in several contexts. In particular, we give it a geometric interpretation in Sect. 3.

We call relation (3) the *transfer relation*. It is almost a consequence of the lifted five term relation, since we shall see that the effect of omitting it would be to replace $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ by $`\widehat{𝒫}()/2`$, with $`/2`$ generated by an element $`\kappa :=[x,1,1]+[x,0,0][x,1,0][x,0,1]`$ which is independent of $`x`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

There is a well-defined homomorphism

$$\nu :\widehat{𝒫}()_{}$$

defined on generators by $`[z,p,q](\mathrm{log}z+p\pi i)(\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\pi i)`$.

###### Proof.

We must verify that $`\nu `$ vanishes on the relations that define $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$. This is trivial for the transfer relation (3). We shall show that the lifted five term relation is the most general lift of the five term relation (1) for which $`\nu `$ vanishes. If one applies $`\nu `$ to an element $`_{i=0}^4(1)^i[x_i,p_i,q_i]`$ with $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)=(x,y,\mathrm{})\mathrm{FT}^+`$ one obtains after simplification:

$$\begin{array}{c}((q_0p_2q_2+p_3+q_3)\mathrm{log}x+(p_0q_3+q_4)\mathrm{log}(1x)+(q_1+q_2q_3)\mathrm{log}y+\hfill \\ \hfill +(p_1+p_3+q_3p_4q_4)\mathrm{log}(1y)+(p_2p_3+p_4)\mathrm{log}(xy))\pi i.\end{array}$$

An elementary linear algebra computation shows that this vanishes identically if and only if $`p_2=p_1p_0`$, $`p_3=p_1p_0+q_1q_0`$, $`q_3=q_2q_1`$, $`p_4=q_1q_0`$, and $`q_4=q_2q_1p_0`$, as in the lifted five term relation. The vanishing of $`\nu `$ for the general lifted five term relation now follows by analytic continuation. ∎

###### Definition 2.4.

Define $`\widehat{}()`$ as the kernel of $`\nu :\widehat{𝒫}()`$.

Define

$$R(z;p,q)=(z)+\frac{\pi i}{2}(p\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\mathrm{log}z)\frac{\pi ^2}{6}$$

where $``$ is the Rogers dilogarithm function

$$(z)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}(z)\mathrm{log}(1z)_0^z\frac{\mathrm{log}(1t)}{t}𝑑t.$$

Then

###### Proposition 2.5.

$`R`$ gives a well defined map $`R:\widehat{}/\pi ^2`$. The relations which define $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ are functional equations for $`R`$ modulo $`\pi ^2`$ (the lifted five term relation is in fact the most general lift of the five term relation (1) with this property). Thus $`R`$ also gives a homomorphism $`R:\widehat{𝒫}()/\pi ^2`$.

###### Proof.

If one follows a closed path from $`z`$ that goes anti-clockwise around the origin it is easily verified that $`R(z;p,q)`$ is replaced by $`R(z;p,q)+\pi i\mathrm{log}(1z)q\pi ^2=R[z,p+2,q]q\pi ^2`$. Similarly, following a closed path clockwise around $`1`$ replaces $`R(z;p,q)`$ by $`R(z;p,q+2)+p\pi ^2`$. Thus $`R`$ modulo $`\pi ^2`$ is well defined on $`\widehat{}`$ (in fact $`R`$ itself is well defined on a $``$ cover of $`\widehat{}`$ which is a nilpotent cover of $`\{0,1\}`$).

It is well known that $`L(z):=(z)\frac{\pi ^2}{6}`$ satisfies the functional equation

$$L(x)L(y)+L\left(\frac{y}{x}\right)L\left(\frac{1x^1}{1y^1}\right)+L\left(\frac{1x}{1y}\right)=0$$

for $`0<y<x<1`$. Since the 5-tuples involved in this equation are on the boundary of $`\mathrm{FT}^+`$, the functional equation

$$(1)^iR(x_i;0,0)=0$$

is valid by analytic continuation on the whole of $`\mathrm{FT}^+`$. Now

$$(1)^iR(x_i;p_i,q_i)$$

differs from this by

$$\frac{\pi i}{2}(1)^i(p_i\mathrm{log}(1x_i)+q_i\mathrm{log}x_i)$$

and it is an elementary calculation to verify that this vanishes identically for $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}^+`$ if and only if the $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are as in the lifted five term relation. Thus the lifted five-term relation gives a functional equation for $`R`$ when $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}^+`$. By analytic continuation, it is a functional equation for $`R`$ mod $`\pi ^2`$ in general. The transfer relation is trivially a functional equation for $`R`$. ∎

The first version of our main result is

###### Theorem 2.6.

There exists an epimorphism $`\lambda :H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)\widehat{}()`$ with kernel of order 2 such that the composition $`\lambda R:H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)/\pi ^2`$ is the characteristic class given by $`i(\mathrm{vol}+i\mathrm{cs})`$.

We shall later modify the definition of $`\widehat{}()`$ to eliminate the $`/2`$ kernel. To describe the map $`\lambda `$ we must give a geometric interpretation of $`\widehat{}`$.

## 3. Parameters for ideal hyperbolic simplices

In this section we shall interpret $`\widehat{}`$ as a space of parameters for what we call “combinatorial flattenings” of ideal hyperbolic simplices. We need this to define the above map $`\lambda `$. It also gives a geometric interpretation of the lifted five term relation.

We shall denote the standard compactification of $`^3`$ by $`\overline{}^3=^3P^1`$. An ideal simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with vertices $`z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4P^1`$ is determined up to congruence by the cross ratio

$$z=[z_1:z_2:z_3:z_4]=\frac{(z_3z_2)(z_4z_1)}{(z_3z_1)(z_4z_2)}.$$

Permuting the vertices by an even (i.e., orientation preserving) permutation replaces $`z`$ by one of

$$z,z^{}=\frac{1}{1z},\text{or}z^{\prime \prime }=1\frac{1}{z}.$$

The parameter $`z`$ lies in the upper half plane of $``$ if the orientation induced by the given ordering of the vertices agrees with the orientation of $`^3`$. But we allow simplices whose vertex ordering does not agree with their orientation. We also allow degenerate ideal simplices whose vertices lie in one plane, so the parameter $`z`$ is real. However, we always require that the vertices are distinct. Thus the parameter $`z`$ of the simplex lies in $`\{0,1\}`$ and every such $`z`$ corresponds to an ideal simplex.

There is another way of describing the cross-ratio parameter $`z=[z_1:z_2:z_3:z_4]`$ of a simplex. The group of orientation preserving isometries of $`^3`$ fixing the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ is isomorphic to $`^{}`$ and the element of this $`^{}`$ that takes $`z_4`$ to $`z_3`$ is $`z`$. Thus the cross-ratio parameter $`z`$ is associated with the edge $`z_1z_2`$ of the simplex. The parameter associated in this way with the other two edges $`z_1z_4`$ and $`z_1z_3`$ out of $`z_1`$ are $`z^{}`$ and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ respectively, while the edges $`z_3z_4`$, $`z_2z_3`$, and $`z_2z_4`$ have the same parameters $`z`$, $`z^{}`$, and $`z^{\prime \prime }`$ as their opposite edges. See fig. 1.

Note that $`zz^{}z^{\prime \prime }=1`$, so the sum

$$\mathrm{log}z+\mathrm{log}z^{}+\mathrm{log}z^{\prime \prime }$$

is an odd multiple of $`\pi i`$, depending on the branches of $`\mathrm{log}`$ used. In fact, if we use standard branch of log then this sum is $`\pi i`$ or $`\pi i`$ depending on whether $`z`$ is in the upper or lower half plane.

###### Definition 3.1.

We shall call any triple of the form

$$𝐰=(w_0,w_1,w_2)=(\mathrm{log}z+p\pi i,\mathrm{log}z^{}+q\pi i,\mathrm{log}z^{\prime \prime }+r\pi i)$$

with

$$p,q,r\text{and}w_0+w_1+w_2=0$$

a *combinatorial flattening* for our simplex.

Each edge $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is assigned one of the components $`w_i`$ of $`𝐰`$, with opposite edges being assigned the same component. We call $`w_i`$ the *log-parameter* for the edge $`E`$ and denote it $`l_E(\mathrm{\Delta },𝐰)`$.

This combinatorial flattening can be written

$$\mathrm{}(z;p,q):=(\mathrm{log}z+p\pi i,\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\pi i,\mathrm{log}(1z)\mathrm{log}z(p+q)\pi i),$$

and $`\mathrm{}`$ is then a map of $`\widehat{}`$ to the set of combinatorial flattenings of simplices.

###### Lemma 3.2.

This map $`\mathrm{}`$ is a bijection, so $`\widehat{}`$ may be identified with the set of all combinatorial flattenings of ideal tetrahedra.

###### Proof.

We must show that we can recover $`(z;p,q)`$ from $`(w_0,w_1,w_2)=\mathrm{}(z;p,q)`$. It clearly suffices to recover $`z`$. But $`z=\pm e^{w_0}`$ and $`1z=\pm e^{w_1}`$, and the knowledge of both $`z`$ and $`1z`$ up to sign determines $`z`$. ∎

We can give a geometric interpretation of the choice of parameters in the five term relation (2). If $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_4`$ are five distinct points of $`\overline{}^3`$, then each choice of four of five points $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_4`$ gives an ideal simplex. We denote the simplex which omits vertex $`z_i`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. The cross ratio parameters $`x_i=[z_0:\mathrm{}:\widehat{z_i}:\mathrm{}:z_4]`$ of these simplices can be expressed in terms of $`x:=x_0`$ and $`y:=x_1`$ as

$`x_0=[z_1:z_2:z_3:z_4]`$ $`=:x`$
$`x_1=[z_0:z_2:z_3:z_4]`$ $`=:y`$
$`x_2=[z_0:z_1:z_3:z_4]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}`$
$`x_3=[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_4]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1x^1}{1y^1}}`$
$`x_4=[z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1y}}`$
The lifted five term relation has the form

(4)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}(1)^i(x_i;p_i,q_i)=0$$

with certain relations on the $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$. We will give a geometric interpretation of these relations.

Using the map of Lemma 3.2, each summand in this relation (4) represents a choice $`\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$ of combinatorial flattening for one of the five ideal simplices. For each edge $`E`$ connecting two of the points $`z_i`$ we get a corresponding linear combination

(5)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}(1)^il_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i))$$

of log-parameters (Definition 3.1), where we put $`l_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i))=0`$ if the line $`E`$ is not an edge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. This linear combination has just three non-zero terms corresponding to the three simplices that meet at the edge $`E`$. One easily checks that the real part is zero and the imaginary part can be interpreted (with care about orientations) as the sum of the “adjusted angles” of the three flattened simplices meeting at $`E`$.

###### Definition 3.3.

We say that the $`(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$ satisfy the *flattening condition* if each of the above linear combinations (5) of log-parameters is equal to zero. That is, the adjusted angle sum of the three simplices meeting at each edge is zero.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Relation (4) is an instance of the lifted five term relation (2) if and only if the $`(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$ satisfy the flattening condition.

###### Proof.

We first consider the case that $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}^+`$. Recall this means that each $`x_i`$ is in $``$. Geometrically, this implies that each of the above five tetrahedra is positively oriented by the ordering of its vertices. This implies the configuration of fig. 2

with $`z_1`$ and $`z_3`$ on opposite sides of the plane of the triangle $`z_0z_2z_4`$ and the line from $`z_1`$ to $`z_3`$ passing through the interior of this triangle. Denote the combinatorial flattening of the $`i^{th}`$ simplex by $`\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$. If we consider the log-parameters at the edge $`z_3z_4`$ for example, they are $`\mathrm{log}x+p_0\pi i`$, $`\mathrm{log}y+p_1\pi i`$, and $`\mathrm{log}(y/x)+p_2\pi i`$ and the condition is that $`(\mathrm{log}x+p_0\pi i)(\mathrm{log}y+p_1\pi i)+(\mathrm{log}(y/x)+p_2\pi i)=0`$. This implies $`p_2=p_1p_0`$. Similarly the other edges lead to other relations among the $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$, namely:

| $`z_0z_1`$: | $`p_2p_3+p_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ | $`z_0z_2`$: | $`p_1+p_3+q_3p_4q_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`z_1z_2`$: | $`p_0q_3+q_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ | $`z_1z_3`$: | $`p_0q_0+q_2p_4q_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`z_2z_3`$: | $`q_0q_1+p_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ | $`z_2z_4`$: | $`p_0q_0+p_1+q_1p_3`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`z_3z_4`$: | $`p_0p_1+p_2`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ | $`z_3z_0`$: | $`p_1+q_1p_2q_2+q_4`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`z_4z_0`$: | $`q_1+q_2q_3`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$ | $`z_4z_1`$: | $`q_0p_2q_2+p_3+q_3`$ | $`=`$ | $`0`$. |

Elementary linear algebra verifies that these relations are equivalent to the equations $`p_2=p_1p_0`$, $`p_3=p_1p_0+q_1q_0`$, $`q_3=q_2q_1`$, $`p_4=q_1q_0`$, and $`q_4=q_2q_1p_0`$, as in the lifted five term relation (2). The lemma thus follows for $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_4)\mathrm{FT}^+`$. It is then true in general by analytic continuation. ∎

## 4. Definition of $`\lambda `$

We can now describe the map $`\lambda :H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)\widehat{𝒫}()`$.

We shall first recall a standard chain complex for homology of $`G=\mathrm{PSL}(2,)`$, the chain complex of “homogeneous simplices for $`G`$.” We will, however, diverge from the standard by using only non-degenerate simplices, i.e., simplices with distinct vertices — we may do this because $`G`$ is infinite.

Let $`C_n(G)`$ denote the free $``$-module on all ordered $`(n+1)`$-tuples $`g_0,\mathrm{},g_n`$ of distinct elements of $`G`$. Define $`\delta :C_nC_{n1}`$ by

$$\delta g_0,\mathrm{},g_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^ig_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{g}_i,\mathrm{},g_n.$$

Then each $`C_n`$ is a free $`G`$-module under left-multiplication by $`G`$. Since $`G`$ is infinite the sequence

$$\mathrm{}C_2C_1C_0Z0$$

is exact, so it is a $`G`$-free resolution of $``$. Thus the chain complex

$$\mathrm{}C_2_GC_1_GC_0_G0$$

computes the homology of $`G`$. Note that $`C_n_G`$ is the free $``$-module on symbols $`g_0:\mathrm{}:g_n`$, where the $`g_i`$ are distinct elements of $`G`$ and $`g_0:\mathrm{}:g_n=g_0^{}:\mathrm{}:g_n^{}`$ if and only if there is a $`gG`$ with $`gg_i=g_i^{}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$.

Thus an element of $`\alpha H_3(G;)`$ is represented by a sum

(6)
$$ϵ_ig_0^{(i)}:\mathrm{}:g_3^{(i)}$$

of homogeneous $`3`$-simplices for $`G`$ and their negatives (here each $`ϵ_i`$ is $`\pm 1`$). The fact that this is a cycle means that the 2-faces of these homogeneous simplices cancel in pairs. We choose some specific way of pairing cancelling faces and form a geometric quasi-simplicial complex $`K`$ by taking a 3-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ for each homogeneous 3-simplex of the above sum and gluing together 2-faces of these $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ that correspond to 2-faces of the homogeneous simplices that have been paired with each other.

We call a closed path $`\gamma `$ in $`K`$ a *normal* path if it meets no $`0`$\- or $`1`$-simplices of $`K`$ and crosses all $`2`$-faces that it meets transversally. When such a path passes through a $`3`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, entering and departing at different faces, there is a unique edge $`E`$ of the 3-simplex between these faces. We say the path *passes* this edge $`E`$.

Consider a choice of combinatorial flattening $`𝐰_i`$ for each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Then for each edge $`E`$ of a simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`K`$ we have a log-parameter $`l_E=l_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,𝐰_i)`$ assigned. Recall that this log-parameter has the form $`\mathrm{log}z+s\pi i`$ where $`z`$ is the cross-ratio parameter associated to the edge $`E`$ of simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`s`$ is some integer. We call ($`s`$ mod $`2`$) the *parity parameter* at the edge $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and denote it $`\delta _E=\delta _E(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,𝐰_i)`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

Suppose $`\gamma `$ is a normal path in $`K`$. The *parity* of $`\gamma `$ is the sum ($`_E\delta _E`$ modulo $`2`$) of the parity parameters of all the edges $`E`$ that $`\gamma `$ passes. Moreover, if $`\gamma `$ runs in a neighbourhood of some fixed vertex $`V`$ of $`K`$, then the log-parameter for the path is the sum $`_E\pm ϵ_{i(E)}l_E`$, summed over all edges $`E`$ that $`\gamma `$ passes, where:

* $`i(E)`$ is the index $`i`$ of the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ that the edge $`E`$ belongs to and $`ϵ_{i(E)}`$ is the corresponding coefficient $`\pm 1`$ from equation (6);
* the extra sign $`\pm `$ is $`+`$ or $``$ according as the edge $`E`$ is passed in a counterclockwise or clockwise fashion as viewed from the vertex.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Choose $`z\overline{}^3`$ such that $`g_0^{(i)}z,g_1^{(i)}z,g_2^{(i)}z,g_3^{(i)}z`$ are distinct points for each $`i`$. This defines an ideal hyperbolic simplex shape for each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`K`$ and an associated cross ratio $`x_i=[g_0^{(i)}z:g_1^{(i)}z:g_2^{(i)}z:g_3^{(i)}z]`$. There is a way of assigning combinatorial flattenings $`𝐰_i=\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$ to the simplices of $`K`$ such that the parity of any normal path in $`K`$ is zero and the log-parameter of any normal path in any vertex neighbourhood of $`K`$ is zero.

For such an assignment the element $`_iϵ_i[x_i,p_i,q_i]\widehat{𝒫}()`$ is independent of choices and only depends on the original homology class $`\alpha `$. We denote it $`\lambda (\alpha )`$. Moreover, $`\lambda (\alpha )\widehat{}()`$ and $`\lambda :H_3(\mathrm{PSL}(2,);)\widehat{}()`$ is a homomorphism.

To prove this theorem we will need a general relation (Lemma 5.1 below) in $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ that follows from the lifted five term relation.

## 5. Consequences of the lifted five term relation

Let $`K`$ be a simplicial complex obtained by gluing 3-simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ together in sequence around a common edge $`E`$. Thus, for each index $`j`$ modulo $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ is glued to each of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1}`$ along one of the two faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ incident to $`E`$. Suppose, moreover, that the vertices of each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ are ordered such that orderings agree on the common 2-faces of adjacent 3-simplices.

There is then a sequence $`ϵ_1=\pm 1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`ϵ_n=\pm 1`$ such that the 2-faces used for gluing all cancel in the boundary of the 3-chain $`_{j=1}^nϵ_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$. (Proof: choose $`ϵ_1=1`$ and then for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ choose $`ϵ_i`$ so the common face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ cancels. The common face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ must then cancel since otherwise that face occurs with coefficient $`\pm 2`$ in $`_{j=1}^nϵ_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$, and $`E`$ occurs with coefficient $`\pm 2`$ in $`_{j=1}^nϵ_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$.)

Suppose now further that a combinatorial flattening $`𝐰_i`$ has been chosen for each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ such that the “signed sum” of log parameters around the edge E vanishes and the same for parity parameters:

(7)
$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}ϵ_jl_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_j,𝐰_j)=0,\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}ϵ_j\delta _E(\mathrm{\Delta }_j,𝐰_j)=0.$$

We think of the edge $`E`$ as being vertical, so that we can label the two edges other than $`E`$ of the common triangle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1}`$ as $`T_j`$ and $`B_j`$ (for “top” and “bottom”). Let $`𝐰_j^{}`$ be the flattening obtained from $`𝐰_j`$ by adding $`ϵ_j\pi i`$ to the log parameter at $`T_j`$ and its opposite edge and subtracting $`ϵ_j\pi i`$ from the log parameter at $`B_j`$ and its opposite edge. If we do this for each $`j`$ then the total log parameter and parity parameter at any edge of the complex $`K`$ is not changed (we sum log-parameters with the appropriate sign $`ϵ_j`$): — at $`E`$ no log-parameter has changed while at every other edge $`\pi i`$ has been added at one of the two simplices at the edge and subtracted at the other.

###### Lemma 5.1.

With the above notation,

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}ϵ_j[𝐰_j]=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}ϵ_j[𝐰_j^{}]\widehat{𝒫}(),$$

where we are using $`[𝐰]`$ as a shorthand for $`[\mathrm{}^1𝐰]`$ (i.e., $`[𝐰]`$ means $`[z,p,q]`$ where $`\mathrm{}(z;p,q)=𝐰`$; see Lemma 3.2).

###### Proof.

Each of the simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ has an associated ideal hyperbolic structure compatible with the combinatorial flattenings $`𝐰_j`$. This ideal hyperbolic structure is also compatible with the flattening $`𝐰_j^{}`$. Choose a realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ as an ideal simplex in $`\overline{}^3`$. We think of this as a mapping of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ to $`\overline{}^3`$. We can extend this to a mapping of $`K`$ to $`\overline{}^3`$ which maps each $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ to an ideal simplex with shape appropriate to its combinatorial flattening. Adjacent simplices will map to the same side of their common face in $`\overline{}^3`$ if their orientations or the signs $`ϵ_j`$ do not match and will be on opposite sides otherwise. The fact that the signed sums of log and parity parameters at edge $`E`$ are zero guarantees that the identifications match up as we go once around the edge $`E`$ of $`K`$.

Note that $`K`$ has $`n+2`$ vertices. We first consider the special case that $`n=3`$ and there is an ordering $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_4`$ of the five vertices of $`K`$ that restricts to the given vertex ordering for each simplex. We also assume the five vertices of $`K`$ map to distinct points $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_4`$ of $`^3`$.

Each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$ has vertices obtained by omitting one the five vertices $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_4`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ the simplices obtained by omitting each of the other two vertices. The fact that the common 2-faces of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ cancel when taking boundary of the chain $`ϵ_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1+ϵ_2\mathrm{\Delta }_2+ϵ_3\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ means that, up to sign this sum corresponds to three summands of the chain $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_4=(1)^iv_o,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_4`$. Choose $`ϵ_4`$ and $`ϵ_5`$ so that $`_{j=1}^5ϵ_j\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ is $`\pm v_0,\mathrm{},v_4`$.

We now claim that we can choose unique combinatorial flattenings $`𝐰_4`$ and $`𝐰_5`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ so that the signed sum of log parameters and parity parameters at any edge of $`K\mathrm{\Delta }_4\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ is zero. Indeed, this claim does not depend on the order of the vertices, so by permuting the vertices we can assume the five vertices are ordered so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ are the first three simplices occuring in the five term relation. Then the common edge $`E`$ is $`v_3v_4`$ and the fact that the simplices fit together around this edge is the condition that their cross-ratio parameters $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, and $`x_2`$ satisfy $`x_0x_1^1x_2=1`$. Writing the flattenings as elements of $`\widehat{}`$ as $`(x_0;p_0,q_0)`$, $`(x_1;p_1,q_1)`$, and $`(x_2;p_2,q_2)`$, the equation saying signed sum of log parameters at this edge is zero is $`(\mathrm{log}x_0+p_0\pi i)(\mathrm{log}x_1+p_1\pi i)+(\mathrm{log}x_2+p_2\pi i)=0`$. If $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, and $`x_2`$ are in the complex upper half plane this implies the equation $`p_2=p_1p_0`$ of the lifted five term relation, while otherwise it implies the appropriate analytic continuations in $`\widehat{}`$ of this. The desired choice of flattenings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_5`$ is thus determined as in the lifted five term relation by the choice of $`p_0`$, $`p_1`$, $`q_0`$, $`q_1`$, and $`q_2`$ (namely $`p_3=p_1p_0+q_1q_0`$, $`q_3=q_2q_1`$, $`p_4=q_1q_0`$, and $`q_4=q_2q_1p_0`$ if $`x_0,x_1,x_2`$ are in the upper half plane and otherwise the appropriate analytic continuation).

Note that $`𝐰_4`$ and $`𝐰_5`$ do not change if we replace $`𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_3`$ by $`𝐰_1^{},\mathrm{},𝐰_3^{}`$ (with the above reordering of vertices this just subtracts $`1`$ from each of $`q_0`$, $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$ in the lifted five term relation, so it does not alter $`p_3,q_3,p_4,q_4`$). By Lemma 3.4 we then have

$`ϵ_1𝐰_1+ϵ_2𝐰_2+ϵ_3𝐰_3`$ $`=(ϵ_4𝐰_4+ϵ_5𝐰_5)`$
$`ϵ_1𝐰_1^{}+ϵ_2𝐰_2^{}+ϵ_3𝐰_3^{}`$ $`=(ϵ_4𝐰_4+ϵ_5𝐰_5),`$
proving this case.

We next consider the case that for some index $`j`$ modulo $`n`$ the images of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j+1}`$ in $`\overline{}^3`$ do not coincide, so their union has five distinct vertices. By cycling our indices we may assume $`j=1`$. Since the orderings of the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ agree on the three vertices they have in common, there is an ordering of all five vertices compatible with both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ be the simplex determined by the common edge $`E`$ and the two vertices that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ do not have in common. Then there is an $`ϵ_0=\pm 1`$ such that the common faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ cancel in the boundary of the chain $`ϵ_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0+ϵ_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1+ϵ_2\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Choose a flattening $`𝐰_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ such that $`ϵ_0l_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,𝐰_0)+ϵ_1l_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,𝐰_1)+ϵ_2l_E(\mathrm{\Delta }_2,𝐰_2)=0`$. Then the relation of the lemma has already been proved for $`𝐰_0`$, $`𝐰_1`$, $`𝐰_2`$, and by subtracting this relation from the relation to be proved for $`𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_n`$ we obtain a case of the lemma with one less simplices. Thus, if we assume the lemma proved for $`n1`$ simplices then this case is also proved.

The above induction argument fails only for the case that there are $`2m`$ simplices that alternately “fold back on each other” so that their images in $`\overline{}^3`$ all have the same four vertices. The above induction eventually reduces us to this case (usually with $`m=1`$). We must therefore deal with this situation to complete the proof. We first consider the case that $`m=1`$ so $`n=2`$. We then have four vertices $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_3`$ in $`\overline{}^3`$. We assume the edge $`E`$ is $`z_0z_1`$. Then the ordering of the vertices of the faces $`z_0z_1z_2`$ and $`z_0z_1z_3`$ is the same in each of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Choose a new point $`z_4`$ in $`\overline{}^3`$ distinct from $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_3`$ and consider the ordered simplex with vertices $`z_0,z_1,z_2`$ ordered as above followed by $`z_4`$. Call this $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$. Similarly make $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ using $`z_0,z_1,z_3`$ ordered as above followed by $`z_4`$. Choose flattenings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ so that the signed sum of log parameters for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_3,\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ around $`E`$ is zero. Then we obtain a three simplex relation of the type already proved for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_3,\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ and another for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2,\mathrm{\Delta }_3,\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$, and the difference of these two relations gives the desired two-simplex relation.

More generally, if we are in the above “folded” case with $`m>1`$ we can use an instance of the three-simplex relation to replace one of the $`2m`$ simplices by two. We then use the induction step to replace one of these new simplices together with an adjacent old simplex by one simplex and then repeat for the other new simplex. In this way we reduce to a relation involving $`2m1`$ simplices, completing the proof. ∎

Before we continue, we note a consequence of the first case we considered in the above proof that we will need later. If vertices have been reordered as in that proof then the relation we proved can be written (with the appropriate relationship among $`p_0,p_1,p_2`$):

(8) $`[x,p_0,q_0][y,p_1,q_1]+[y/x,p_2,q_2]=`$
$`[x,p_0,q_01][y,p_1,q_11]+[y/x,p_2,q_21].`$
This is true for any choice of $`q_0,q_1,q_2`$ so long as $`p_0,p_1,p_2`$ satisfy the appropriate relation. Thus if we just change $`q_0`$ and subtract the resulting equation from the above we get

$$[x,p_0,q_0][x,p_0,q_0^{}]=[x,p_0,q_01][x,p_0,q_0^{}1].$$

From the versions of the above three-simplex case with different orderings of the vertices we can derive three versions of this relation:

(9) $`[x,p,q][x,p,q^{}]`$ $`=[x,p,q1][x,p,q^{}1]`$
$`[x,p,q][x,p^{},q]`$ $`=[x,p1,q][x,p^{}1,q]`$
$`[x,p,q][x,p+s,qs]`$ $`=[x,p+1,q1][x,p+s+1,qs1]`$
From these we obtain:

###### Lemma 5.2.

$`[x,p,q]=pq[x,1,1](pqp)[x,1,0](pqq)[x,0,1]+(pqpq+1)[x,0,0]`$.

###### Proof.

The first of the relations (9) implies $`[x,p,q]=[x,p,q1]+[x,p,1][x,p,0]`$ and applying this repeatedly shows

(10)
$$[x,p,q]=q[x,p,1](q1)[x,p,0].$$

The second equation of (9) implies similarly that $`[x,p,q]=p[x,1,q](p1)[x,0,q]`$ and using this to expand each of the terms on the right of (10) gives the desired equation. ∎

Up to this point we have not used the transfer relation (3). We digress briefly to show that the transfer relation almost follows from the five term relation.

###### Proposition 5.3.

If $`\widehat{𝒫}^{}()`$ and $`\widehat{}^{}()`$ are defined like $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ and $`\widehat{}()`$ but without the transfer relation, then in $`\widehat{𝒫}^{}()`$ the element $`\kappa :=[x,1,1]+[x,0,0][x,1,0][x,0,1]`$ is independent of $`x`$ and has order $`2`$. Moreover, $`\widehat{𝒫}^{}()=\widehat{𝒫}()\times C_2`$ and $`\widehat{}^{}()=\widehat{}()\times C_2`$, where $`C_2`$ is the cyclic group of order 2 generated by $`\kappa `$.

###### Proof.

If we subtract equation (8) with $`p_0=p_1=q_0=q_1=q_2=1`$ from the same equation with $`p_0=p_1=0`$, $`q_0=q_1=q_2=1`$ we obtain $`[x,1,1][y,1,1][x,0,1]+[y,0,1]=[x,1,0][y,1,0][x,0,0]+[y,0,0]`$, which rearranges to show that $`\kappa `$ is independent of $`x`$. The last of the equations (9) with $`p=q=0`$ and $`s=1`$ gives $`2[x,0,0]=[x,1,1]+[x,1,1]`$ and expanding the right side of this using (ii) gives $`2[x,0,0]=2[x,1,1]+2[x,1,0]+2[x,0,1]`$, showing that $`\kappa `$ has order dividing 2.

To show $`\kappa `$ has order exactly 2 we note that there is a homomorphism $`ϵ:\widehat{𝒫}^{}()/2`$ defined on generators by $`[z,p,q](pq\text{ mod }2)`$. Indeed, it is easy to check that this vanishes on the lifted five-term relation, and is thus well defined on $`\widehat{𝒫}^{}()`$. Since $`ϵ(\kappa )=1`$ we see $`\kappa `$ is non-trivial. Finally, Lemma 5.2 implies that the effect of the transfer relation is simply to kill the element $`\kappa `$, so the final sentence of the proposition follows. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4.

For any $`[x,p,q]\widehat{𝒫}()`$ one has $`[x,p,q]+[1x,q,p]=2[1/2,0,0]`$.

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`0<y<x<1`$. Then, as remarked in the proof of Proposition 2.5,

$`[x,p_0,q_0]`$ $`[y,p_1,q_1]+[{\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}},p_1p_0,q_2][{\displaystyle \frac{1x^1}{1y^1}},p_1p_0+q_1q_0,q_2q_1]+`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1x}{1y}},q_1q_0,q_2q_1p_0]=0`$
is an instance of the lifted five term relation. Replacing $`y`$ by $`1x`$, $`x`$ by $`1y`$, $`p_0`$ by $`q_1`$, $`q_1`$ by $`q_0`$, $`q_0`$ by $`p_1`$, $`q_1`$ by $`p_0`$, and $`q_2`$ by $`q_2q_1p_0`$ replaces this relation by exactly the same relation except that the first two terms are replaced by $`[1y,q_1,p_1][1x,q_0,p_0]`$. Thus subtracting the two relations gives:

$$[x,p_0,q_0][y,p_1,q_1][1y,q_1,p_1]+[1x,q_0,p_0]=0.$$

Putting $`[y,p_1,q_1]=[1/2,0,0]`$ now proves the lemma for $`1/2<x<1`$. But since we have shown this as a consequence of the lifted five term relation, we can analytically continue it over the whole of $`\widehat{}`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.5.

The following sequence is exact:

$$0^{}\stackrel{\chi }{}\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()0$$

where $`\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()`$ is the natural map and $`\chi (z):=[z,0,1][z,0,0]`$ for $`z^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Denote $`\{z,p\}:=[z,p,q][z,p,q1]`$ which is independent of $`q`$ by the first equation of (9). By Lemma 5.4 we have $`[z,p,q][z,p1,q]=\{1z,q\}`$. It follows that elements of the form $`\{z,p\}`$ generate $`\mathrm{Ker}\left(\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()\right)`$. Computing $`\{z,p\}`$ using Lemma 5.2 and the transfer relation, one finds $`\{z,p\}=\{z,0\}`$ which only depends on $`z`$. Thus the elements $`\{z,0\}=\chi (z)`$ generate $`\mathrm{Ker}\left(\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()\right)`$. If we take equation (8) with even $`p_i`$ and subtract the same equation with the $`q_i`$ reduced by $`1`$ we get an equation that says that $`\chi :^{}\mathrm{Ker}\left(\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()\right)`$ is a homomorphism. We have just shown that it is surjective, and it is injective because $`R\chi `$ is the map $`^{}/\pi ^2`$ defined by $`z\frac{\pi i}{2}\mathrm{log}z`$. ∎

We can now describe the relationship of our extended groups with the “classical” ones.

###### Theorem 5.6.

There is a commutative diagram with exact rows and columns

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & \mu ^{}& & ^{}& & ^{}/\mu ^{}& & 0\\ & & \chi |\mu ^{}& & \chi & & \beta & & & & \\ 0& & \widehat{}()& & \widehat{𝒫}()& \stackrel{\nu }{}& & & K_2()& & 0\\ & & & & & & ϵ& & =& & \\ 0& & ()& & 𝒫()& \stackrel{\nu ^{}}{}& ^{}^{}& & K_2()& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0\end{array}$$

Here $`\mu ^{}`$ is the group of roots of unity and the labelled maps defined as follows:

$`\chi (z)`$ $`=[z,0,1][z,0,0]\widehat{𝒫}();`$
$`\nu [z,p,q]`$ $`=(\mathrm{log}z+p\pi i)(\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\pi i);`$
$`\nu ^{}[z]`$ $`=2\left(z(1z)\right);`$
$`\beta [z]`$ $`=\mathrm{log}z\pi i;`$
$`ϵ(w_1w_2)`$ $`=2(e^{w_1}e^{w_2});`$
and the unlabelled maps are the obvious ones.

###### Proof.

The top horizontal sequence is trivially exact while the other two are exact at their first two non-trivial groups by definition of $`\widehat{}`$ and $``$. The bottom row is exact also at its other two places by Milnor’s definition of $`K_2`$. The exactness of the third vertical sequence is elementary and the second one has just been proved. The commutativity of all but the top left square is elementary. A diagram chase confirms that $`\chi `$ maps $`\mu ^{}`$ to $`\widehat{}()`$ and that the left vertical sequence is also exact. Another confirms exactness of the middle row. ∎

## 6. Proof of Theorem 4.2

We must first recall some notation and results from .

The complex $`K`$ of Theorem 4.2 is what is called an “oriented 3-cycle” in . That is, it is a finite quasi-simplicial 3-complex such that the complement $`KK^{(0)}`$ of the vertices is an oriented 3-manifold. (“Quasi-simplicial” means that $`K`$ is a CW-complex obtained by gluing together simplices along their faces in such a way that the interior of each face of each simplex injects into the resulting complex.) Each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`K`$ has an orientation compatible with the ordering of its vertices, and this orientation is compatible with or opposite to the orientation of $`K`$ according as $`ϵ_i`$ is $`+1`$ or $`1`$.

To an oriented $`3`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K`$ we associate a $`2`$-dimensional bilinear space $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ over $``$ as follows. As a $``$-module $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is generated by the six edges $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_5`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see Fig. 3) with the relations:

$$e_ie_{i+3}=0\text{for }i=0,1,2.$$

$$e_0+e_1+e_2=0.$$

Thus, opposite edges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ represent the same element of $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has three “geometric” generators, and the sum of these three generators is zero. The bilinear form on $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the non-singular skew-symmetric form given by

$$e_0,e_1=e_1,e_2=e_2,e_0=e_1,e_0=e_3,e_1=e_0,e_2=1.$$

Let $`J`$ be the direct sum $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, summed over the oriented $`3`$-simplices of $`K`$. For $`i=0,1`$ let $`C_i`$ be the free $``$-module on the *unoriented* $`i`$-simplices of $`K`$. Define homomorphisms

$$\alpha :C_0C_1\text{and}\beta :C_1J$$

as follows. $`\alpha `$ takes a vertex to the sum of the incident edges (with an edge counted twice if both endpoints are at the given vertex). The $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ component of $`\beta `$ takes an edge $`E`$ of $`K`$ to the sum of those edges $`e_i`$ in the edge set $`\{e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_5\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which are identified with $`E`$ in $`K`$.

The natural basis of $`C_i`$ gives an identification of $`C_i`$ with its dual space and the bilinear form on $`J`$ gives an identification of $`J`$ with its dual space. With respect to these identifications, the dual map

$$\alpha ^{}:C_1C_0$$

is easily seen to map an edge $`E`$ of $`K`$ to the sum of its endpoints, and the dual map

$$\beta ^{}:JC_1$$

can be described as follows. To each $`3`$-simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K`$ we have a map $`j=j_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the edge set $`\{e_0,e_1,\mathrm{},e_5\}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the set of edges of $`K`$: put $`j(e_i)`$ equal to the edge that $`e_i`$ is identified with in $`K`$. For $`e_i`$ in $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have

$$\beta ^{}(e_i)=j(e_{i+1})j(e_{i+2})+j(e_{i+4})j(e_{i+5})\text{(indices mod 6).}$$

Let $`K_0`$ be the result of removing a small open cone neighborhood of each vertex $`V`$ of $`K`$, so $`K_0`$ is the disjoint union of the links $`L_V`$ of the vertices of $`K`$.

###### Theorem 6.1 (, Theorem 4.2).

The sequence

$$𝒥:0C_0\stackrel{\alpha }{}C_1\stackrel{\beta }{}J\stackrel{\beta ^{}}{}C_1\stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}C_00$$

is a chain complex. Its homology groups $`H_i(𝒥)`$ (indexing the non-zero groups of $`𝒥`$ from left to right with indices $`5,4,3,2,1`$) are

$$H_5(𝒥)=0,H_4(𝒥)=/2,H_1(𝒥)=/2,$$

$$H_3(𝒥)=H^1(K;/2),H_2(𝒥)=H_1(K;/2),$$

where $`=\mathrm{Ker}(H_1(K_0;)H_1(K_0;/2))`$. Moreover, the isomorphism $`H_2(𝒥)H_1(K;/2)`$ results by interpreting an element of $`\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha ^{})C_1`$ as an unoriented 1-cycle in $`K`$. ∎

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an ideal simplex and $`𝐰=(w_0,w_1,w_2)`$ is a flattening of it, then denote

$$\xi (𝐰):=w_1e_0w_0e_1J_\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

This definition is only apparantly unsymmetric since $`w_1e_0w_0e_1=w_2e_1w_1e_2=w_0e_2w_2e_0`$.

Give each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of the complex $`K`$ of Theorem 4.2 the flattening $`𝐰_i^{(0)}:=\mathrm{}(x_i;0,0)`$. Denote by $`\omega `$ the element of $`J`$ whose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$-component is $`\xi (𝐰_i^{(0)})`$ for each $`i`$. That is, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$-component of $`\omega `$ is $`\left(\mathrm{log}(1x_i)e_0+\mathrm{log}(x_i)e_1\right)`$.

###### Lemma 6.2.

$`\frac{1}{\pi i}\beta ^{}(\omega )`$ is an integer class in the kernel of $`\alpha ^{}`$, so it represents an element of the homology group $`H_2(𝒥)`$. Moreover this element in $`H_2(𝒥)`$ vanishes, so $`\frac{1}{\pi i}\beta ^{}(\omega )=\beta ^{}(x)`$ for some $`xJ`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\overline{J}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be defined like $`J_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but without the relation $`e_0+e_1+e_2=0`$, so it is generated by the six edges $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_5`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with relations $`e_i=e_{i+3}`$ for $`i=0,1,2`$. Let $`\overline{J}`$ be the direct sum $`\overline{J}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ over 3-simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`K`$.

The map $`\beta ^{}:JC_2`$ factors as

$$\beta ^{}:J\stackrel{\beta _1}{}\overline{J}\stackrel{\beta _2}{}C_2,$$

with $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ defined on each component by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta _1(e_i)& =e_{i+1}e_{i+2}\hfill \\ \hfill \beta _2(e_i)& =j(e_i)+j(e_{i+3})\hfill \end{array}\}\text{ for }i=0,1,2\text{.}$$

Note that $`\beta _1(\xi (𝐰))=w_0e_0+w_1e_1+w_2e_2\overline{J}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus if $`E`$ is an edge of $`K`$ then the $`E`$-component of $`\beta ^{}(\omega )=\beta _2\beta _1(\omega )`$ is the sum of the log-parameters for $`E`$ in the ideal simplices of $`K`$ around $`E`$ and is hence a multiple of $`\pi i`$. In fact, it would be a multiple of $`2\pi i`$ except for the adjustments by multiples of $`\pi i`$ that are involved in forming the log-parameters from the logarithms of cross-ratio parameters of the simplices. We claim that these adjustments add to an even multiple of $`\pi i`$ around each edge, so in fact

(11)
$$\frac{1}{\pi i}\beta ^{}(\omega )2C_2,$$

Once this is proved the lemma follows, since the isomorphism $`H_2(𝒥)H_1(K;/2)`$ is the map which interprets an element of $`\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha ^{})`$ as an unoriented 1-cycle in $`K`$, and equation (11) says this 1-cycle is zero modulo 2.

In the terminology of Definition 4.1 our claim can be restated that the parity of the normal path that circles the edge $`E`$ is zero for each edge $`E`$. In fact, the parity of any normal path in $`K`$ is zero. To see this, note that as we follow a normal path the contribution to the parity as we pass an edge of a simplex is $`0`$ if the edge is the $`01`$, $`03`$, $`12`$, or $`23`$ edge of the simplex and the contribution is $`\pm 1`$ if it is the $`02`$ or $`13`$ edge. Consider the orientations of the triangular faces we cross as we follow the path, where the orientation is the one induced by the ordering of its vertices. As we pass a $`02`$ or $`13`$ edge this orientation changes while for the other edges it does not. Since $`K`$ is oriented, we must have an even number of orientation changes as we traverse the normal path, proving the claim. (This argument, which simplifies my original one, is due to Brian Bowditch.) ∎

Let $`\omega ^{}:=\omega \pi ixJ`$ with $`x`$ as in the lemma, so $`\beta ^{}(\omega ^{})=0`$. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$-component of $`\omega ^{}`$ is $`\xi (𝐰_i)`$, where $`𝐰_i=\mathrm{}(x_i;p_i,q_i)`$ for suitable integers $`p_i,q_i`$. These integers $`p_i`$ and $`q_i`$ are the coefficients ocurring in the element $`xJ`$, which is only determined by the lemma up to elements of $`\mathrm{Ker}(\beta ^{})`$. We claim that for suitable choice of $`x`$, the $`𝐰_i`$ satisfy the parity and log-parameter conditions of first paragraph of Theorem 4.2. To see this we need to review a computation of $`H_3(𝒥)`$ from .

We define a map $`\gamma ^{}:H_3(𝒥)H^1(K_0;)=\mathrm{Hom}(H_1(K_0),)`$ as follows. Given elements $`aH_3(𝒥)`$ and $`cH_1(K_0)`$ we wish to define $`\gamma ^{}(a)(c)`$. It is enough to do this for a class $`c`$ which is represented by a normal path $`C`$ in the link of some vertex of $`K`$. Represent $`a`$ by an element $`AJ`$ with $`\beta ^{}(A)=0`$ and consider the element $`\beta _1(A)\overline{J}`$. This element has a coefficient for each edge of each simplex of $`K`$. To define $`\gamma ^{}(a)(c)`$ we consider the coefficients of $`\beta _1(A)`$ corresponding to edges of simplices that $`C`$ passes and sum these using the orientation conventions of Definition 4.1. It is easy to see that the result only depends on the homology class of $`C`$.

We can similarly define a map $`\gamma _2^{}:H_3(𝒥)H^1(K_0;/2)=\mathrm{Hom}(H_1(K_0),/2)`$ by using normal paths in $`K_0`$ and taking modulo 2 sum of coefficients of $`\beta _1(A)`$.

###### Lemma 6.3 (, Theorem 5.1).

The sequence

$$0H_3(𝒥)\stackrel{(\gamma ^{},\gamma _2^{})}{}H^1(K_0;)H^1(K_0;/2)\stackrel{ri^{}}{}H^1(K_0;/2)0$$

is exact, where $`r:H^1(K_0;)H^1(K_0;/2)`$ is the coefficient map and the map $`i^{}:H^1(K_0;/2)H^1(K_0;/2)`$ is induced by the inclusion $`K_0K_0`$. ∎

Returning to the choice of $`x`$ above, assume we have made a choice so that the resulting flattenings $`𝐰_i`$ do not lead to zero log-parameters and parities for normal paths. Taking $`\frac{1}{\pi i}`$ times the log-parameters of normal paths leads as above to an element $`cH^1(K_0;)`$. Similarly, parities of normal paths leads to an element of $`c_2H^1(K_0;/2)`$. These elements satisfy $`r(c)=i^{}(c_2)`$. The lemma thus gives an element of $`H_3(𝒥)`$ that maps to $`(c,c_2)`$, and subtracting a representative for this element from $`x`$ gives the desired correction of $`x`$ so the log-parameters and parities of normal paths with respect to the corresponding changed $`𝐰_i`$’s are zero. This completes the proof of the first paragraph of Theorem 4.2.

Suppose now that we have a different choice of flattenings $`𝐰_i`$ satisfying the parity and log-parameter conditions of the Theorem. Then the above lemma implies that the difference between the corresponding elements $`x`$ represents $`0`$ in $`H_3(𝒥)`$ and is thus in the image of $`\beta `$. For $`EC_2`$ the effect of changing $`x`$ by $`\beta (E)`$ is to change the element $`_iϵ_i[x_i,p_i,q_i]\widehat{𝒫}()`$ by the corresponding relation of Lemma 5.1. Since this is a consequence of the lifted five term relations, the element in $`\widehat{𝒫}()`$ is unchanged.

Finally we need to show that none of the other choices we made in defining the element $`\lambda (\alpha )`$ in Theorem 4.2 have an effect. These were:

* the representative of the homology class $`\alpha `$;
* the choice of pairing of faces of simplices of $`\alpha `$ to form the complex $`K`$;
* the choice of the point $`z\overline{}^3`$ in Theorem 4.2.

To prove this we will use a bordism theory based on $`n`$-cycles which we describe next.

An *ordered $`n`$-cycle with boundary* is defined by the following:

* a finite collection of ordered $`n`$-simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is given;
* each simplex has a sign $`ϵ_i=\pm 1`$;
* the $`(n1)`$ faces of the simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ are given signs as follows: the sign of the $`(n1)`$-face that omits the $`j`$-th vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is $`(1)^jϵ_i`$;
* a subset of the $`D`$ of the $`(n1)`$-faces of the collection of simplices is given;
* the $`(n1)`$ faces which are not in $`D`$ are paired in such a way the the two simplices in each pair have opposite sign.

We can form a geometric $`n`$-complex $`K`$ by realizing the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ by geometric $`n`$-simplices and gluing (by affine isomorphisms that respect the vertex orderings) faces that are paired. The result is a space that is an oriented $`n`$-manifold with boundary in the complement of its $`(n2)`$-skeleton. We shall use the same letter $`K`$ to denote the underlying combinatorial object and the geometric realization.

If $`K`$ is an ordered $`n`$-cycle with boundary as above, we say it is *closed* if $`D`$ is empty. If $`K`$ is not closed, then $`D`$ inherits the structure of a closed ordered $`(n1)`$-cycle, and we denote this structure by $`K`$. The pairing on the faces of the simplices of $`D`$ can be described as follows. Consider the set of pairs $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ consisting of an $`(n2)`$-face $`\tau `$ of an $`(n1)`$-face $`\sigma `$ of a simplex of $`K`$. Construct a graph with this set as vertex set and with edges of two types: $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ is connected to $`(\sigma ^{},\tau ^{})`$ by an edge if either $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are adjacent faces of an $`n`$-simplex of $`K`$ and $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$ is their common $`(n2)`$ face, or if $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are paired $`(n1)`$-simplices and $`\tau `$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ are corresponding faces under an order-preserving matching of $`\sigma `$ with $`\sigma ^{}`$. Each vertex $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ of this graph has valency $`2`$ except when $`\sigma `$ is in $`D`$, in which case the valency is $`1`$. Thus the graph consists of a collection of arcs and cycles. The endpoints of each arc gives two $`(n2)`$-faces of elements of $`D`$ that are to be paired.

## 7. The true extended Bloch group

Recall that $`\widehat{}`$ consists of four components $`X_{00}`$, $`X_{01}`$, $`X_{10}`$, and $`X_{11}`$, of which $`X_{00}`$ is naturally the universal abelian cover of $`\{0,1\}`$.

Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_{00}`$ be $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}(X_{00})^5`$, so $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_{00}=\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0+2V`$ in the notation of Definition 2.2. As mentioned earlier, $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_{00}`$ is, in fact, equal to $`\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_0`$, but we do not need this.

Define $`𝒫()`$ to be the free $``$-module on $`X_{00}`$ factored by all instances of the relation

(12)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}(1)^i(x_i;2p_i,2q_i)=0\text{with }((x_0;2p_0,2q_0),\mathrm{},(x_4;2p_4,2q_4))\widehat{\mathrm{FT}}_{00}.$$

As before, we have a well-defined map

$$\nu :𝒫(),$$

given by $`\nu [z;2p,2q]=(\mathrm{log}z+2p\pi i)(\mathrm{log}(1z)+2q\pi i)`$, and we define

(13)
$$():=\mathrm{Ker}\nu .$$

The proof of Proposition 2.5 shows:

###### Proposition 7.1.

The function $`R(z;2p,2q):=(z)+\pi i(p\mathrm{log}(1z)+q\mathrm{log}z)\frac{\pi ^2}{6}`$ gives a well defined map $`X_{00}/2\pi ^2`$ and induces a homomorphism $`R:𝒫()/2\pi ^2`$. ∎

We can repeat the computations in Sect. 5 word-for-word, replacing anything of the form $`[x,p,q]`$ by $`[x,2p,2q]`$, to show that $`\mathrm{Ker}\left(𝒫()𝒫()\right)`$ is generated by elements of the form $`\widehat{\chi }(z):=[z,0,2][z,0,0]`$. We thus get:

###### Proposition 7.2.

The following sequence is exact:

$$0^{}\stackrel{\widehat{\chi }}{}𝒫()𝒫()0$$

where $`\widehat{𝒫}()𝒫()`$ is the natural map and $`\widehat{\chi }(z):=[z,0,2][z,0,0]`$ for $`z^{}`$.

###### Proof.

The only thing to prove is the injectivity of $`\widehat{\chi }`$ which follows by noting that $`R\left(\widehat{\chi }(z)\right)=\pi i\mathrm{log}z/2\pi ^2`$.∎

###### Corollary 7.3.

We have a commutative diagram with exact rows and columns:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 0& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & & /2& \stackrel{=}{}& /2\\ & & & & & & \\ 0& & ^{}& \stackrel{\widehat{\chi }}{}& 𝒫()& & 𝒫()& & 0\\ & & zz^2& & & & =& & \\ 0& & ^{}& \stackrel{\chi }{}& \widehat{𝒫}()& & 𝒫()& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & \end{array}$$

and analogously for the Bloch group:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 0& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & & /2& \stackrel{=}{}& /2\\ & & & & & & \\ 0& & \mu ^{}& \stackrel{\widehat{\chi }}{}& ()& & ()& & 0\\ & & zz^2& & & & =& & \\ 0& & \mu ^{}& \stackrel{\chi }{}& \widehat{}()& & ()& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Supertrace divergence terms for the Witten Laplacian

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact $`m`$ dimensional Riemannian manifold without boundary. The fundamental solution of the heat equation $`e^{tD}`$ for an operator of Laplace type $`D`$ on $`M`$ is an infinitely smoothing operator. Let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ be an auxiliary smooth ‘smearing’ function. Work of Seeley  shows the smeared heat trace has a complete asymptotic expansion as $`t0`$ of the form:

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(fe^{tD})_{n0}a_{n,m}(f,D)t^{(nm)/2}.$$

The heat trace invariants $`a_{n,m}`$ vanish if $`n`$ is odd; if $`n`$ is even, there are local invariants $`a_{n,m}(x,D)`$ so that

$$a_{n,m}(f,D)=_Mf(x)a_{n,m}(x,D)\mathrm{dvol}_g(x).$$

The function $`f`$ localizes the problem and permits us to recover divergence terms which would otherwise not be detected.

Let $`\varphi `$ be an auxiliary smooth function called the dilaton. We twist the exterior derivative $`d`$ and the coderivative $`\delta _g`$ to define

$$d_\varphi :=e^\varphi de^\varphi \text{and}\delta _{\varphi ,g}:=e^\varphi \delta _ge^\varphi .$$

We denote the associated Laplacian by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ,g}^p`$ on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^p(M))`$. It appears in supersymmetric quantum mechanics  and in the study of Morse theory . It also is used to study quantum $`p`$ form fields interacting with a background dilaton .

Let $`\chi (M):=_p(1)^pdimH^p(M;)`$ be the Euler-Poincaré characteristic of $`M`$. Arguments of McKean and Singer  extend to the twisted setting to show

(1.a)
$$_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(e^{t\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ,g}^p})=\chi (M).$$

We define the local supertrace asymptotics by setting:

$$a_{n,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x):=_p(1)^pa_{n,m}(x,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ,g}^p).$$

We expand the left hand side of equation (1.a) and then equate powers of $`t`$ to see:

(1.b)
$$_Ma_{n,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x)\mathrm{dvol}_g(x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\chi (M)\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & n=m,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & nm.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`R_{ijkl}`$ be the components of the Riemann curvature tensor relative to a local orthonormal frame for the tangent bundle with the sign convention that $`R_{1221}=+1`$ on the unit sphere $`S^2^3`$. We adopt the Einstein convention and sum over repeated indices. If $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ and $`J=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_m)`$ are $`m`$ tuples of indices, let

$$\epsilon _J^I:=g(e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_m},e_{j_1}\mathrm{}e_{j_m})$$

be the totally anti-symmetric tensor and let

$$_{J,s}^{I,t}:=R_{i_si_{s+1}j_{s+1}j_s}\mathrm{}R_{i_{t1}i_tj_tj_{t1}};$$

we set $`_{J,s}^{I,t}=1`$ for $`t<s`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

1. If $`n<m`$ or if $`n`$ is odd, then $`a_{n,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x)=0`$.
2. If $`m=2\overline{m}`$, then $`a_{m,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x)=\frac{1}{8^{\overline{m}}\pi ^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}\epsilon _I^J_{J,1}^{I,m}`$.
3. If $`m=2\overline{m}+1`$, then $`a_{m+1,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }8^{\overline{m}}\pi ^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;i_1j_1}_{J,2}^{I,m}`$.

Assertions (1) and (2) were proved in the untwisted case ($`\varphi =0`$) by Atiyah, Bott, and Patodi , by Gilkey , and by Patodi . This provided a heat equation proof of the classical Chern-Gauss-Bonnet  theorem. Assertions (1) and (2) in the twisted setting were established in  and the divergence term $`a_{m+1,m}^{d+\delta }`$ was identified in . Our previous paper  dealt with the odd dimensional case for manifolds with boundary. The present paper computes $`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$ for closed even dimensional manifolds. This requires significantly different techniques. We note that some information concerning $`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$ was derived earlier in  using an entirely different approach.

The main new result of this paper is the following:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`M`$ be a closed Riemannian manifold of dimension $`m=2\overline{m}`$.

$`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}\epsilon _J^I\{4\overline{m}(\varphi _{;i_1j_1}\varphi _{;i_2}_{J,3}^{I,m})_{;j_2}+\frac{1}{12}(_{J,1}^{I,m})_{;kk}`$
$`+`$ $`\frac{\overline{m}}{6}(R_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m})_{;j_2}\}.`$
In Section 2, we recall combinatorial formulas for the invariants $`a_{n,m}(x,D)`$ for $`n=0,2,4,6`$ ; formulas for $`a_8`$, and for $`a_{10}`$ are available . These formulas become very complicated as $`n`$ increases and it seems hopeless to try to establish Theorem 1.2 via direct computation even for $`m=6`$ and $`m=8`$. There are also closed formulas available due to Polterovich . However, it does not seem possible to make a direct use of these formulas to derive Theorem 1.2. Instead, we proceed indirectly. In Section 3, we establish some functorial properties of these invariants and use invariance theory to prove the following result:

###### Lemma 1.3.

If $`m`$ is even, then there exist universal constants so that

$`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{m+2,m}^1(\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;i_1j_1}\varphi _{;i_2}_{J,3}^{I,m})_{;j_2}+c_{m+2,m}^2(\epsilon _J^I_{J,1}^{I,m})_{;kk}`$
$`+c_{m+2,m}^3(\epsilon _J^IR_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m})_{;j_2}.`$
We shall complete the proof of Theorem 1.2 in Section 4 by evaluating these normalizing constants. The new features of this investigation are that both H. Weyl’s first and second main theorems of invariance theory  play a crucial role as does the analysis of the formal cohomology groups of spaces of $`p`$ form valued invariants . Thus we expect that the techniques presented in this paper will be useful in other similar investigations of this type.

## 2. Local Formulae for the heat trace invariants

If $`D`$ is an operator of Laplace type, then there is a canonical connection $``$ on the underlying vector bundle that, together with the Levi-Civita connection, we use to covariantly differentiate tensors of all types - we denote multiple covariant differentiation by ‘;’. There is also a canonical endomorphism $`E`$ so that

$$D=(\mathrm{Tr}(^2)+E)\text{i.e.}Du=(u_{;ii}+Eu).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ be the curvature of the connection $``$. Let $`\rho _{ij}=R_{ikkj}`$ be the Ricci tensor, and let $`\tau =\rho _{jj}`$.

The heat trace invariants $`a_{n,m}`$ for an operator of Laplace type can be expressed in this formalism :

###### Theorem 2.1.

1. $`a_{0,m}=(4\pi )^{m/2}\mathrm{Tr}\{\mathrm{Id}\}`$.
2. $`a_{2,m}=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{Tr}\{6E+\tau \mathrm{Id}\}`$.
3. $`a_{4,m}=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{360}\mathrm{Tr}\{60E_{;kk}+60\tau E+180E^2+(12\tau _{;kk}+5\tau ^2`$

$`2|\rho |^2+2|R|^2)\mathrm{Id}+30\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\}`$.
4. $`a_{6,m}=(4\pi )^{m/2}\mathrm{Tr}\{(\frac{18}{7!}\tau _{;iijj}+\frac{17}{7!}\tau _{;k}\tau _{;k}\frac{2}{7!}\rho _{ij;k}\rho _{ij;k}\frac{4}{7!}\rho _{jk;n}\rho _{jn;k}`$

$`+\frac{9}{7!}R_{ijkl;n}R_{ijkl;n}+\frac{28}{7!}\tau \tau _{;nn}\frac{8}{7!}\rho _{jk}\rho _{jk;nn}+\frac{24}{7!}\rho _{jk}\rho _{jn;kn}`$

$`+\frac{12}{7!}R_{ijkl}R_{ijkl;nn}+\frac{35}{97!}\tau ^3\frac{14}{37!}\tau \rho ^2+\frac{14}{37!}\tau R^2\frac{208}{97!}\rho _{jk}\rho _{jn}\rho _{kn}`$

$`\frac{64}{37!}\rho _{ij}\rho _{kl}R_{ikjl}\frac{16}{37!}\rho _{jk}R_{jnli}R_{knli}\frac{44}{97!}R_{ijkn}R_{ijlp}R_{knlp}`$

$`\frac{80}{97!}R_{ijkn}R_{ilkp}R_{jlnp})\mathrm{Id}+\frac{1}{45}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;k}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;k}+\frac{1}{180}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;j}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ik;k}+\frac{1}{60}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;kk}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$

$`+\frac{1}{60}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;kk}\frac{1}{30}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jk}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ki}\frac{1}{60}R_{ijkn}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kn}\frac{1}{90}\rho _{jk}\mathrm{\Omega }_{jn}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kn}`$

$`+\frac{1}{72}\tau \mathrm{\Omega }_{kn}\mathrm{\Omega }_{kn}+\frac{1}{60}E_{;iijj}+\frac{1}{6}EE_{;ii}+\frac{1}{12}E_{;i}E_{;i}+\frac{1}{6}E^3`$

$`+\frac{1}{12}E\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}+\frac{1}{36}\tau E_{;kk}+\frac{1}{90}\rho _{jk}E_{;jk}`$ $`+\frac{1}{30}\tau _{;k}E_{;k}+\frac{1}{12}EE\tau `$

$`+\frac{1}{30}E\tau _{;kk}+\frac{1}{72}E\tau ^2\frac{1}{180}E|\rho |^2+\frac{1}{180}E|R|^2\}`$.

We refer to  for the proof of the following results:

###### Lemma 2.2.

On the circle, $`a_{2,1}^{d+\delta }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\varphi _{;11}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`M=(M_1\times M_2,\varphi _1+\varphi _2,g_1+g_2)`$ decouple as a product. Then $`a_{n,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)(x_1,x_2)=_{n_1+n_2=n,n_1m_1,n_2m_2}a_{n_1,m_1}^{d+\delta }(\varphi _1,g_1)(x_1)a_{n_2,m_2}^{d+\delta }(\varphi _2,g_2)(x_2)`$.

## 3. Spaces of Invariants

Let $`𝒬_m`$ be the space of $`O(m)`$ invariant polynomials in the components of the tensors $`\{R,R,^2R,\mathrm{},\varphi ,\varphi ,^2\varphi ,\mathrm{}\}`$. Define a grading on $`𝒬_m`$ by setting:

$$\mathrm{weight}(R_{ijkl;\beta })=|\beta |+2\text{ and }\mathrm{weight}(\varphi _{;\beta })=|\beta |.$$

An element $`Q𝒬_m`$ is homogeneous of weight $`n`$ if and only if

$$Q(\varphi ,c^2g)=c^nQ(\varphi ,g).$$

Let $`𝒬_{n,m}𝒬_m`$ be the set of all $`O(m)`$ invariant polynomials which are homogeneous of weight $`n`$; we then have a direct sum decomposition:

$$𝒬_m=_n𝒬_{n,m}.$$

We may use the $`_2`$ action $`\varphi \varphi `$ to decompose $`𝒬_{n,m}=𝒬_{n,m}^+𝒬_{n,m}^{}`$ where

$$𝒬_{n,m}^\pm :=\{Q𝒬_{n,m}:Q(\varphi ,g)=\pm Q(\varphi ,g)\}.$$

The following natural restriction map $`r:𝒬_{n,m}𝒬_{n,m1}`$ will play a crucial role. If $`(N,g_N,\varphi _N)`$ are structures in dimension $`m1`$, then we can define corresponding structures in dimension $`m`$ by setting

$$(M,\varphi _M,g_M):=(N\times S^1,\varphi _N,g_N+d\theta ^2).$$

If $`xN`$ is the point of evaluation, we take the corresponding point $`(x,1)M`$ for evaluation; which point on the circle chosen is, of course, irrelevant as $`S^1`$ has a rotational symmetry. The restriction map is characterized dually by the formula:

$$r(Q)(\varphi _N,g_N)(x)=Q(\varphi _N,g_N+d\theta ^2)(x,1).$$

We can also describe the restriction map $`r`$ in classical terms. H. Weyl’s  first theorem of invariance theory implies orthogonal invariants are built by contracting indices in pairs, where the indices range from $`1`$ through $`m`$. If $`P`$ is given in terms of such a Weyl spanning set, then $`r(P)`$ is given in terms of the same Weyl spanning set by restricting the range of summation to be from $`1`$ through $`m1`$. Thus necessarily $`r`$ is surjective. We refer to  for the proof of:

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`m`$ is even, then $`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }𝒬_{n,m}^+\mathrm{ker}(r)`$.

We use H. Weyl’s second theorem to see $`𝒬_{m+2,m}^+\mathrm{ker}(r)`$ is generated by invariants where we contract $`2m`$ indices using the $`\epsilon `$ tensor and contract the remaining indices in pairs, we refer to the discussion in  for details. A direct calculation shows, after some additional work to eliminate dependencies, that:

$`𝒬_{m+2,m}^+\mathrm{ker}(r)=\mathrm{Span}\{\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;i_1j_1}\varphi _{;i_2j_2}_{J,3}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;k}\varphi _{;k}_{J,1}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^IR_{k\mathrm{}\mathrm{}k}_{J,1}^{I,m},`$
$`\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;i_1}\varphi _{;j_1}R_{ki_2j_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^IR_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;kk}_{J,3}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^IR_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}R_{i_3i_4j_4j_3;k}_{J,5}^{I,m},`$
$`\epsilon _J^IR_{ki_1j_1k}R_{\mathrm{}i_2j_2\mathrm{}}_{J,3}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^IR_{k\mathrm{}j_2j_1}R_{i_1i_2k\mathrm{}}_{J,3}^{I,m},\epsilon _J^IR_{ki_1j_1\mathrm{}}R_{ki_2j_2\mathrm{}}_{J,3}^{I,m},`$
$`\epsilon _J^IR_{ki_1j_2j_1}R_{kj_3i_3i_2}R_{\mathrm{}i_4j_5j_4}R_{\mathrm{}j_6i_6i_5}_{J,7}^{I,m}\}.`$
Although this is some gain in simplifying the question, the list of invariants is still quite long. We shall use equation (1.b) to further reduce the number of invariants to be considered and complete the proof of Lemma 1.3.

Let $`𝒬_{n,m}^{p,+}`$ be the space of $`p`$ form valued invariants in the curvature tensor, the covariant derivatives of the curvature tensor, and the covariant derivatives of $`\varphi `$ which are even in $`\varphi `$. The exterior co-derivative $`\delta _g`$ induces a natural map

$$\delta _g:𝒬_{n,m}^{p,+}𝒬_{n+1,m}^{p1,+}.$$

Let $`i:NN\times \{1\}N\times S^1`$. The analysis of  shows that $`p`$ form valued invariants are constructed by alternating $`p`$ indices and by contracting the remaining indices in pairs. The restriction map

$$r:𝒬_{n,m}^p𝒬_{n,m1}^p$$

is defined by restricting the range of summation of the indices involved; it is characterized by the identity:

$$r(Q)(\varphi _N,g_N)=i^{}Q(\varphi _N,g_N+d\theta ^2).$$

One verifies that $`r`$ is surjective and that

$$r\delta _{g_M}=\delta _{g_N}r.$$

The analysis of the formal cohomology groups of the spaces of invariants of Riemannian manifolds, which was given in , then extends immediately to this more general setting to yield:

###### Lemma 3.2.

1. If $`Q𝒬_{n,m}^+`$, if $`_MQ(\varphi ,g)=0`$ for all $`(\varphi ,g)`$, and if $`nm`$, then there exists $`Q^1𝒬_{n1,m}^{1,+}`$ so that $`\delta _gQ^1=Q`$.
2. If $`Q^1𝒬_{n,m}^{1,+}`$, if $`\delta _gQ^1=0`$, and if $`nm1`$, then there exists $`Q^2𝒬_{n1,m}^{2,+}`$ so that $`Q^1=\delta _gQ^2`$.

The first assertion shows that any scalar invariant which always integrates to zero is canonically a divergence and that any $`1`$ form valued invariant which is co-closed is canonically co-exact. The restriction on the weight is a technical one which plays no role as we shall take $`n=m+2`$ in assertion (1) and $`n=m+1`$ in assertion (2).

We use this result to show

###### Lemma 3.3.

If $`m`$ is even, then there exists a $`1`$ form valued invariant $`Q_{m+1,m}^1`$ in $`𝒬_{m+1,m}^{1,+}\mathrm{ker}(r)`$ so that $`\delta _gQ_{m+1,m}^1=a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$.

###### Proof.

By equation (1.b) and Lemma 3.2 (1), there exists $`\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1𝒬_{m+1,m}^{1,+}`$ so

(3.a)
$$\delta _g\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1(\varphi ,g)=a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g).$$

Unfortunately, $`r(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)`$ need not be zero and we must correct for this. Since $`r(a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta })=0`$,

$$0=r(\delta _g\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)=\delta _gr(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1).$$

Thus by Lemma 3.2 (2), there exists $`\overline{Q}_{m,m1}^2𝒬_{m,m1}^2`$ so that

$$r(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)=\delta _g(\overline{Q}_{m,m1}^2).$$

We observed above that $`r`$ is surjective. Thus we can find $`Q_{m,m}^2𝒬_{m,m}^{2,+}`$ so that:

$$r(Q_{m,m}^2)=\overline{Q}_{m,m1}^2.$$

We complete the proof by setting $`Q_{m+1,m}^1:=\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1\delta _g(Q_{m,m}^2)`$ and computing:

$`\delta _g(Q_{m+1,m}^1)=\delta _g(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)\delta _g^2(Q_{m,m}^2)=\delta _g(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)=a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$,

$`r(Q_{m+1,m}^1)=r(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)r(\delta _g(Q_{m,m}^2))=r(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)\delta _g(r(Q_{m,m}^2))`$

$`=r(\overline{Q}_{m+1,m}^1)\delta _g(\overline{Q}_{m,m1}^2)=0`$. ∎

For $`m`$ even, we define elements of $`𝒬_{m+1,m}^{1,+}\mathrm{ker}(r)`$ by setting:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1j_1}\varphi _{;i_2}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_2}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ even}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^k\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ even}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_2}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ even}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}_{J,1}^{I,m}e^k,\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ odd}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kkj_2}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ odd}).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3.4.

If $`m=2\overline{m}`$ is even, then $`\{𝒬_{m+1,m}^{1,+}\mathrm{ker}(r)\}=\mathrm{Span}\{\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}\}_{i,\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

We use H. Weyl’s theorem on the invariants of the orthogonal group. Let

$$A=\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{;\alpha _u}R_{i_1j_1k_1l_1;\beta _1}\mathrm{}R_{i_vj_vk_vl_v;\beta _v}e^h$$

be a typical $`1`$ form valued monomial where $`|\alpha _\nu |1`$ and $`\mathrm{}+u`$ is even. Note that:

$$n=_\mu |\alpha _\mu |+_\nu (|\beta _\nu |+2).$$

We must contract $`2m`$ indices using the $`\epsilon `$ tensor and contract the remaining indices in pairs; we refer to  where this was discussed in some detail for scalar invariants – the extension to $`1`$ form valued invariants is similar. We may estimate:

$`2m`$ $``$ $`\text{number of indices in }A`$
$`=`$ $`_\mu |\alpha _\mu |+_\nu (|\beta _\nu |+4)+1=n+2v+1`$
(3.c) $`=`$ $`2n+1_\mu |\alpha _\mu |_\nu |\beta _\nu |2n+1`$
We set $`n=m+1`$. Since $`2m`$ and $`m+1+2v+1`$ are both even, the inequality in equation (3.c) must be strict and represents an increase either of $`1`$ or of $`3`$.

Suppose first that equation (3) is an equality. Then all the $`2m`$ indices present in $`A`$ are contracted using the $`\epsilon `$ tensor. We can commute covariant derivatives at the cost of introducing additional curvature terms. Thus since all indices are to be contracted using the $`\epsilon `$ tensor, we may assume $`|\alpha _\mu |2`$ for all $`\mu `$. Furthermore, by the first and second Bianchi identity, at most $`2`$ indices can be alternated in $`R_{ijkl;\beta }`$. Thus $`|\beta _\nu |=0`$ for all $`\nu `$ so $`_\mu |\alpha _\mu |=3`$. This leads to the invariants $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}`$.

Suppose next that equation (3) is not an equality. Then there are $`2m+2`$ indices and one explicit covariant derivative present in $`A`$; $`2m`$ indices are contracted using the $`\epsilon `$ tensor and two indices are contracted as a pair. This yields the invariants $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$ and the additional invariants:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}R_{i_1i_2j_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ odd}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_2j_1}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^k\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ odd}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_3j_2}R_{i_3i_4j_4k}_{J,5}^{I,m}e^{j_1}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ odd}),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}:=\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2kj_2}R_{i_3i_4j_4j_3;k}_{J,5}^{I,m}e^{j_1}\hfill & (\mathrm{}\text{ even}).\hfill \end{array}$$

To complete the proof, we must show the invariants $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}`$ play no role. Let $`U`$ and $`V`$ be collections of $`m+1`$ indices. Since $`\epsilon _V^U=0`$, we have

$$0=\epsilon _V^U\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;u_1}_{V,2}^{U,m+1}e^{v_1}.$$

We set $`u_1=k`$ and then set $`v_1=k`$, $`v_2=k`$, …, and $`v_{m+1}=k`$ in turn to see:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}_{J,1}^{I,m}e^km\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}R_{i_1i_2j_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}m\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}.`$
We set $`u_2=k`$ and expand in $`v`$ to see:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_2j_1}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^k2\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$``$ $`(m2)\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_3j_2}R_{i_3i_4j_4k}_{J,5}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}+2\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}(m2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}.`$
Next, we set $`v_1=k`$ and expand in $`u`$ to see:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}_{J,1}^{I,m}e^k+m\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_2j_1}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^k`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}+m\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}.`$
Finally, we set $`v_2=k`$ and expand in $`u`$ to see:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;k}R_{i_1i_2j_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}+2\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2kj_2k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`+`$ $`(m2)\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1}R_{i_2i_3j_2k}R_{i_4kj_4j_3}_{J,5}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}+(m2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}.`$
We can show that

$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}\}\mathrm{Span}\{\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}\}_{i,\mathrm{}}$$

by computing:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}=2\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}(m2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}=2\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}+(m2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}.`$
Finally, we put $`u_1=k`$ in the identity

$$0=\epsilon _V^U\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{u_2u_3v_3v_2;u_1}_{V,4}^{U,m+1}e^{v_1}$$

and expand in $`v`$ to show

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^k2\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2j_2k;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`(m2)\epsilon _J^I\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}R_{i_1i_2j_3j_2;k}R_{i_3i_4j_4k}_{J,5}^{I,m}e^{j_1}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}+(m2)\mathrm{\Theta }_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}.`$
This establishes the lemma. ∎

We now prove Lemma 1.3. Let $`m=2\overline{m}`$ be even. We apply Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4 to see there exist universal constants so

$$a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)=_{i,\mathrm{}}c_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}\delta _g\{\mathrm{\Xi }_{m+1,m}^{i,\mathrm{}}\},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is chosen so $`\varphi `$ appears an even number of times in each expression. Terms which are linear in the $`2`$ jets of $`\varphi `$ and which are of total weight $`2`$ in $`\varphi `$ can arise only from $`i=4`$ and $`i=5`$. Consequently we have

$$a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)=_{\mathrm{}}\varphi ^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\{c_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;kk}_{J,1}^{I,m}+c_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}\varphi _{;i_1j_1}R_{i_2kkj_2}_{J,3}^{I,m}\}+\mathrm{}$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is odd. Replacing $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi +c`$ does not change $`d_\varphi `$ and $`\delta _{g,\varphi }`$. Thus $`\varphi ^\mu `$ does not appear in the formula for $`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }`$ for $`\mu >0`$. Consequently,

(3.d)
$$0=c_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;kk}_{J,1}^{I,m}+c_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;i_1j_1}R_{i_2kkj_2}_{J,3}^{I,m}.$$

We consider the expressions:

$`A_1:=\varphi _{;11}R_{1221}R_{3443}\mathrm{}R_{m1,mm,m1},\text{and}`$
$`A_2:=\varphi _{;12}R_{1332}R_{3443}\mathrm{}R_{m1,mm,m1}.`$
We may then expand

$`\varphi _{;kk}_{J,1}^{I,m}=4^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!A_1+0A_2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\varphi _{;i_1j_1}R_{i_2kkj_2}_{J,3}^{I,m}=4^{\overline{m}1}(\overline{m}1)!A_144^{\overline{m}1}(\overline{m}1)!A_2+\mathrm{}.`$
Consequently equation (3.d) implies $`c_{m+1,m}^{4,\mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`c_{m+1,m}^{5,\mathrm{}}=0`$.

We argue similarly to show that if $`\mathrm{}>0`$, then

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`c_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;j_2}\varphi _{;i_1j_1}\varphi _{;i_2}_{J,3}^{I,m},\text{and}`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`c_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;k}R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}+c_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;j_2}R_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}.`$
This shows $`c_{m+1,m}^{1,\mathrm{}}=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}>0`$. We consider the expressions:

$`B_1:=\varphi _{;1}R_{1221;1}R_{3443}\mathrm{}R_{m1,mm,m1},\text{and}`$
$`B_2:=\varphi _{;3}R_{1221;3}R_{3443}\mathrm{}R_{m1,mm,m1}`$
and expand

$`\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;k}R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}=4^{\overline{m}}(\overline{m}1)!B_1+4^{\overline{m}}(\overline{m}1)!B_2+\mathrm{},`$
$`\epsilon _J^I\varphi _{;j_2}R_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m}=24^{\overline{m}1}(\overline{m}1)!B_1+0B_2+\mathrm{}`$
to see $`c_{m+1,m}^{2,\mathrm{}}=0`$ and $`c_{m+1,m}^{3,\mathrm{}}=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}>0`$; Lemma 1.3 now follows. $``$

## 4. Determining the normalizing constants

We complete the proof of Theorem 1.2 by evaluating the normalizing constants of Lemma 1.3:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`m=2\overline{m}`$. Then

1. $`c_{m+2,m}^1=\frac{4\overline{m}}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}`$.
2. $`c_{m+2,m}^2=\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}`$.
3. $`c_{m+2,m}^3=\frac{\overline{m}}{6}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}`$.

###### Proof.

We shall apply Theorem 1.1, Theorem 2.1, Lemma 2.2, and Lemma 2.3. We use the method of universal examples. Give $`M:=S^{m2}\times S^1\times S^1`$ the product metric. Let $`\varphi =\varphi _1(\theta _1)+\varphi _2(\theta _2)`$. Then:

$`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(\varphi ,g)=2c_{m+2,m}^12^{\overline{m}1}(m2)!\varphi _{;m1m1}\varphi _{;mm}`$
$`=a_{m2,m2}^{d+\delta }(0,g_{S^{m2}})a_{2,1}^{d+\delta }(\varphi _1,d\theta _1^2)a_{2,1}^{d+\delta }(\varphi _2,d\theta _2^2)`$
$`=\frac{1}{8^{\overline{m}1}\pi ^{\overline{m}1}(\overline{m}1)!}2^{\overline{m}1}(m2)!\frac{1}{\pi }\varphi _{1;m1,m1}\varphi _{2;mm}.`$
We solve this equation for $`c_{m+2,m}^1`$ to establish assertion (1).

For the remainder of the proof of the Lemma, we set $`\varphi =0`$ to consider only metric invariants. We express

$$a_{m,m}^{d+\delta }=_{m,m}c_{m,m}\text{for}_{m,m}=\epsilon _J^I_{J,1}^{I,m}\text{and}c_{m,m}=\frac{1}{8^{\overline{m}}\pi ^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}.$$

If $`m=2`$, then the invariants $`(\epsilon _J^I_{J,1}^{I,m})_{;kk}`$ and $`(\epsilon _J^IR_{i_1i_2kj_1;k}_{J,3}^{I,m})_{;j_2}`$ are not linearly independent. If $`(N,g_N)`$ is a Riemann surface, then we may establish assertions (2) and (3) for $`m=2`$ by computing:

$`a_{2,2}^{d+\delta }(g_N)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E^p)`$
$`a_{4,2}^{d+\delta }(g_N)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{6}\{_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E^p)\}_{;kk}+O(R^2)`$
$`=\frac{1}{6}\{a_{2,2}^{d+\delta }\}_{;kk}+O(R^2)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{6}R_{ijji;kk}+O(R^2).`$
Suppose now that $`m=4`$. Since $`_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }^p))=0`$, we compute:

$`0=a_{2,4}^{d+\delta }(0,g)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E^p),`$
$`a_{4,4}^{d+\delta }=\frac{1}{4^2\pi ^2}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}\{\frac{1}{2}E^pE^p+\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^p\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^p)\},`$
$`a_{6,4}^{d+\delta }=\frac{1}{4^2\pi ^2}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}\{\frac{1}{45}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;k}^p\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;k}^p+\frac{1}{180}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;j}^p\mathrm{\Omega }_{ik;k}^p+\frac{1}{60}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;kk}^p\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^p`$
$`+\frac{1}{60}\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^p\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij;kk}^p+\frac{1}{6}E^pE_{;ii}^p+\frac{1}{12}E_{;i}^pE_{;i}^p\}+O(R^3).`$
We study the expressions $`C_1:=R_{1221}R_{3443}`$ and $`C_2:=R_{1221;2}R_{3443;2}`$ and suppress other terms. Only the term $`E^pE^p`$ can give rise to the expression $`A_2`$ and only the term $`E_{;i}^pE_{;i}^p`$ can give rise to the expression $`A_3`$. We prove assertion (2) if $`m=4`$ by computing:

$`a_{4,4}^{d+\delta }=\frac{1}{24^2\pi ^2}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E^pE^p)+\mathrm{}=\frac{32}{8^2\pi ^22!}R_{1221}R_{3443}+\mathrm{}`$

$`a_{6,4}^{d+\delta }=\frac{1}{4^2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{12}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E_{;i}^pE_{;i}^p)+\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{4^2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{24}_p(1)^p\mathrm{Tr}(E^pE^p)_{;ii}+\mathrm{}`$

$`=\frac{1}{12}(a_{4,4}^{d+\delta })_{;kk}+\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{6}\frac{32}{8^2\pi ^22!}R_{1221;2}R_{3443;2}+\mathrm{}`$

$`=2c_{6,4}^2\epsilon _J^IR_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}R_{i_3i_4j_4j_3;k}+\mathrm{}=64c_{6,4}^2R_{1221;2}R_{3443;2}+\mathrm{},\text{so}`$

$`c_{6,4}^2=\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{8^2\pi ^22!}`$.

If $`m>4`$, let $`(M,g):=(N^4\times S^{m4},g_N+g_0)`$. Assertion (2) follows in general from:

$`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(g)=\overline{m}(\overline{m}1)c_{m+2,m}^2\epsilon _J^I(R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}R_{i_3i_4j_4j_3;k})(g_N)_{m4,m4}(g_0)+\mathrm{}`$

$`=a_{6,4}^{d+\delta }(g_N)a_{m4,m4}^{d+\delta }(g_0)+\mathrm{}`$

$`=2c_{6,4}^2c_{m4,m4}\epsilon _J^I(R_{i_1i_2j_2j_1;k}R_{i_3i_4j_4j_3;k})(g_N)_{m4,m4}(g_0)+\mathrm{}\text{so}`$

$`c_{m+2,m}^2=\frac{2}{\overline{m}(\overline{m}1)}\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{\pi ^28^22!}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}2}8^{\overline{m}2}(\overline{m}2)!}=\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}`$.

Let $`(M,g)=(N^2\times S^{m2},g_N+g_0)`$. We derive a relation between the invariants $`c_{m+2,m}^2`$ and $`c_{m+2,m}^3`$ to complete the proof of assertion (3):

$`a_{m+2,m}^{d+\delta }(g)=(2\overline{m}c_{m+2,m}^2+c_{m+2,m}^3)R_{ijji;kk}(g_N)_{m2,m2}(g_0)`$

$`=a_{4,2}^{d+\delta }(g_N)a_{m2,m2}^{d+\delta }(g_0)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{6}R_{ijji;kk}(g_N)c_{m2,m2}_{m2,m2}(g_0)`$ so

$`2\overline{m}c_{m+2,m}^2+c_{m+2,m}^3=\frac{1}{6}\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}1}8^{\overline{m}1}(\overline{m}1)!}=\frac{\overline{m}}{3}\frac{1}{\pi ^{\overline{m}}8^{\overline{m}}\overline{m}!}.`$

## Acknowledgments

Research of PG partially supported by the NSF (USA), the MPI (Leipzig, Germany), and the Mittag-Leffler (Stockholm, Sweden). Research of KK and DV supported by the MPI (Leipzig, Germany).