text:
# On the isospin dependence of the mean spin-orbit field in nuclei

By the use of the latest experimental data on the spectra of 133Sb and 131Sn and on the analysis of properties of other odd nuclei adjacent to doubly magic closed shells the isospin dependence of a mean spin-orbit potential is defined. Such a dependence received the explanation in the framework of different theoretical approaches.

Recent experimental results  on nuclei close to 132Sn have lead to the determination of a nearly complete set of neutron and proton single-particle orbitals and to the establishment of some of their important statical and dynamical properties. In particular, the new results  for 133Sb include information on energies of proton single particle states above the $`Z=50,N=82`$ shells as well as important knowledge about the decay properties of these states. In view of new data on single particle levels at 132Sn we performed an analysis  of the available information on such states in strongly magical nuclides, with special attention to the magnitudes of the spin-orbit splittings and their isospin dependence. This question is important since such a dependence could be one of the factors contributing to significant structural changes in nuclides having an extreme neutron excess.

In  the energy of the $`3/2^+`$ level in 133Sb was measured to be 2.44 MeV. By using this value and also the previous data on the spectrum of single particle excitations in nuclei close to 132Sn (see  and ) the values of spin-orbit splittings of the $`2d`$ levels both in proton and neutron systems of 132Sn were defined. The splitting was found to be 1.48 MeV for protons and 1.65 MeV for neutrons, i.e. the neutron spin-orbit splitting is somewhat larger for neutrons than for protons. At the same time it was noted in  that for nuclei close to 208Pb the situation is the opposite, in any case for the first glance. So, from the spectra of single particle levels in 209Bi and 207Pb it follows that the spin-orbit splitting of the proton $`2f`$ orbit is equal to 1.93 MeV, while for neutrons it is 1.77 MeV. However it follows from the experiment that the neutron $`2f7/2`$ state in 207Pb is strongly fragmented. So, the conclusions of the work  refer only to the lowest, though the strongest component of this state. Identifying in the spirit of , the true single particle energy of the $`2f7/2`$ state with the weighted average of $`7/2^{}`$ energy levels, the weight being the spectroscopic factors of the (d,t) reaction on 208Pb , we obtain the real excitation energy of this state equal to 2.70 MeV (instead of 2.34 MeV). This corresponds to the value of neutron spin-orbit splitting of the $`2f`$ orbit equal to 2.13 MeV, i.e. as for the $`2d`$ orbit in 132Sn a little larger than that for protons. The above statement is fortified by the analysis of the $`3p`$ spin-orbit splitting near 208Pb. Such a splitting is equal to 0.85 MeV for protons (taking into account the fragmentation of $`3p1/2`$ level) while for neutrons it is 0.90 MeV, i.e. a little larger than for protons.

The systematics of single particle energies in 208Pb and 132Sn available by now is presented in Tables 1 and 2. In composing these tables the energies of the particle and hole states closest to the Fermi-level were determined from the differences of binding energies of the core and the corresponding adjacent odd nuclei: $`\epsilon `$(particle)=B(core)–B(core+nucleon) and $`\epsilon `$(hole)=B(core–nucleon)–B(core), using the experimental data from . The energies of orbitals more remote from the Fermi-level were defined after that by the addition (subtraction) of the excitation energies , , , ,  of the corresponding orbitals in the adjacent odd nuclei, accounting for the fragmentation of states, if the corresponding data are available. It really follows from Tables 1 and 2 that the neutron spin-orbit splitting in magical nuclei 208Pb and 132Sn, both having considerable neutron excess as compared to the number of protons, is larger than the corresponding proton splitting by about $``$ 10%.

One can see a completely different picture in the $`N=Z`$ nuclei; see Tables $`3÷5`$. Here the spin-orbit splittings of the $`1d`$ and $`1p`$ levels in 16O ,  as well as those of $`1f`$ and $`2p`$ levels in 40Ca  are practically equal, another time suggesting the concept of isobaric invariance in nuclei. By the present time the experimental data on the structure of single particle states in 100Sn are absent. However the work  presents their spectrum obtained from the extrapolation of the properties of nuclei with less neutron deficiency (see Table 5). A conclusion based on these data is that, within the errors the spin-orbit splitting of the $`1g`$ orbit is also equal for protons and neutrons.

Turning to the theoretical interpretation  of data on the spin-orbit splitting we shall first recall that from the point of view of multiparticle theory the average spin-orbit potential has it’s origin in the pair spin-orbit interaction between nucleons (with the tensor forces also giving some contribution in the second order perturbation theory). On the level of qualitative arguments it was noted by ref.  that due to the symmetry properties one should expect the neutron spin-orbit splitting somewhat larger than that for protons. However, at that time the absence of experimental data did not permit to make a meaningful comparison with measurements. With the presently available data including those obtained by us in  we can fill this gap, giving also some quantitative considerations.

The two-body spin-orbit interaction differs from zero only in the states with total spin $`S=1`$. Neutron-neutron and proton-proton systems have the total isospin $`T=1`$ and thus due to the Pauli principle have odd values of the relative orbital momentum $`L`$ (really, $`L=1`$). At the same time, the neutron-proton system is composed from the $`T=0`$ and $`T=1`$ states with equal weights, correspondingly having $`L=0`$ and $`L=1`$. However, the spin-orbit interaction is absent in states with $`L=0`$. As a result, the pair spin-orbit $`np`$ interaction is half as strong as that in $`pp`$ or $`nn`$-systems.

If $`U_\mathrm{}s(n)`$ and $`U_\mathrm{}s(p)`$ are the values presenting the magnitudes of the mean spin-orbit field for neutrons and protons and $`\vartheta (T=1,S=1,L=1)`$ is a quantity representing the parameter of the pair spin-orbit interaction in a state with $`T=1,S=1,L=1`$ then the above discourse leads to

$$U_\mathrm{}s(n)\vartheta (1,1,1)\left(N+\frac{1}{2}Z\right)\vartheta \left(A\frac{Z}{2}\right)\mathrm{and}$$

$$U_\mathrm{}s(p)\vartheta (1,1,1)\left(\frac{N}{2}+Z\right)\vartheta \left(A\frac{N}{2}\right).$$
$`(1)`$
As the spin-orbit splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{}s^{(n,p)}U_\mathrm{}s(n,p)`$, the relative difference ”$`\epsilon `$” of the neutron and proton spin-orbit splittings is given by the expression:

$$\epsilon =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{}s^{(n)}\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{}s^{(p)}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{}s^{(n)}+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{}s^{(p)})/2}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{NZ}{A}.$$
$`(2)`$
On the other side, if we express the parameter of the spin-orbit mean field in the form

$$U_\mathrm{}s(\tau _3)=V_\mathrm{}s\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta _\mathrm{}s\frac{NZ}{A}\tau _3\right),$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\tau _3=1`$ for neutrons and $`\tau _3=+1`$ for protons, then

$$\epsilon =\beta _\mathrm{}s\frac{NZ}{A},$$
$`(4)`$
i.e. it follows from the comparison of (2) and (4) that $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=2/3`$.

One can also make the evaluation of the isotopical dependence of spin-orbit interaction in the Hartree approximation starting from the Dirac phenomenology with meson-nucleon interactions . There one obtains (see for example  and the references therein) the Skyrme-type single particle equation for a nucleon having the effective mass $`m_N^{}`$. Here we concentrate on the isotopical dependence of the spin-orbit potential having the form, see for example :

$$\widehat{U}_\mathrm{}s=\frac{\lambda _N^2}{2}\frac{1}{r}\{(\frac{m_N}{m_N^{}})^2\frac{d}{dr}[(V_\omega ^0S_{\sigma ,\sigma _0}^0)$$

$$(V_\rho ^1S_{\delta ,\sigma ,\sigma _0}^1)\tau _3]2k(\frac{m_N}{m_N^{}})\frac{d}{dr}V_\rho ^1\tau _3\}\widehat{\mathrm{}}\widehat{𝐬}.$$
$`(5)`$
Here $`V=V^0\tau _3V^1`$ and $`S=S^0\tau _3S^1`$ are the vector and scalar fields due to corresponding mesons, $`m_N^{}=m_N+\frac{1}{2}(SV)`$, while ”$`k`$” is the ratio of tensor to vector coupling constants of $`\rho `$-meson. In  the meson-nucleon coupling constants defining the $`V`$ and $`S`$ fields were borrowed from the Bonn $`NN`$ boson exchange potential , where $`\sigma `$ and $`\sigma _0`$ are scalar mesons imitating the 2$`\pi `$ exchange in the $`NN`$\- systems with $`T`$=1 and $`T`$=0 correspondingly. At the same time, in some other works (see for example ) the mentioned constants were defined from the description of global nuclear properties, with inclusion of the $`\sigma ^3`$ and $`\sigma ^4`$ terms in the Lagrangian density (one $`\sigma `$-meson with the same characteristics for $`T`$=1 and $`T`$=0 channels was used which leads to zero contribution of this meson to $`S^1`$ in formula (5), the tensor term was not included in the $`\rho `$-meson vertex in the cited works). Taking into account that the radial dependence of the $`(m_N/m_N^{})`$ is much weaker than that of $`V`$ and $`S`$, which are considered as proportional to the density having the Fermi–function form, one can approximately present formula (5) as

$$\frac{1}{x}\frac{df}{dx}V_\mathrm{}s\left(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta _\mathrm{}s\frac{NZ}{A}\tau _3\right)\widehat{\mathrm{}}\widehat{𝐬};$$

$$f=[1+exp(\frac{xR}{a})]^1.$$
$`(6)`$
Calculating the $`V`$ and $`S`$ magnitudes in the center of nuclei at the values of vector and scalar densities $`\rho _v`$ = 0.17, $`\rho _s`$ = 0.16, $`\rho _v^{}`$ = 0.17 $`(NZ)/A`$, $`\rho _s^{}`$ = 0.16 $`(NZ)/A`$ (all in fm-3) , using the coupling parameters from ,  and taking into account the isotopic dependence of $`m_N/m_N^{}`$, we obtain $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ = 33.6 MeV and $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ = – 0.40 with ”$`x`$” in the units of fm. If we use the set of parameters NL2 from  than we have $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ = 31.3 MeV, $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ = – 0.43. At the same time, the set NL1 from  giving small values of effective masses leads to $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ $``$ 50 MeV and $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ $``$ – 1.3. As the $`V^1,S^1`$ magnitudes are proportional to $`\rho _v^{},\rho _s^{}`$ both the formulas (5) and (6) give the spin-orbit splitting equal for protons and neutrons in the $`N=Z`$ nuclei. It should be mentioned that in all cases the value of $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ is always negative and is defined mainly or entirely by contribution of a $`\rho `$-meson.

We note here that the data on spin-orbit splittings of the $`2d`$ states in 132Sn as well as on the splittings of $`2f`$ and $`3p`$ levels in 208Pb lead to effective values of $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ equal to $`0.55`$, $`0.60`$ and $`0.27`$ correspondingly.

Let single particle levels be generated by the potential

$$\widehat{U}(x,\widehat{\sigma },\tau _3)=U_0(\tau _3)f(x)+$$

$$+\frac{U_\mathrm{}s(\tau _3)}{x}\frac{df}{dx}\widehat{\mathrm{}}\widehat{𝐬}+\frac{(1+\tau _3)}{2}U_{Coul},$$
$`(7)`$
where $`U_0(\tau _3)=V_0(1+\frac{1}{2}\beta \frac{NZ}{A}\tau _3)`$; $`U_\mathrm{}s`$ and $`f(x,a,R)`$ are defined by eq. (3) and (6), $`R=r_0A^{1/3}`$, while $`U_{Coul}(x,R_c,Z)`$ presents the potential of the uniformly charged sphere with the charge $`Z`$ and radii $`R_c=r_cA^{1/3}`$.

In works  single particle levels were described by using the set of parameters $`V_0=51.5`$ MeV, $`r_0`$ = 1.27 fm, $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ =33.2 MeV, $`a(p)`$= 0.67 fm, $`a(n)`$ = 0.55 fm and $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ =$`\beta `$ =1.39, which on the average described the spectra of single particle states in nuclei from 16O to 208Pb. This set of parameters we call as the ”Standard” one. With the appearance of new experimental data on the single-particle levels we performed a new determination of parameters entering formula (7). They were defined by using the Nelder–Mead method  through minimization of the root-mean square deviation

$$\delta =\sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\epsilon _k^{\mathrm{theor}}\epsilon _k^{\mathrm{exp}})^2}.$$
$`(8)`$
The computation demonstrated a very small sensitivity of results to the values of $`r_c`$, which was adopted by us the same as before, $`r_c=1.25`$ fm. The minimization of $`\delta `$ held for all nuclei presented in Tables $`1÷5`$ with $`r_c=1.25`$ fm and different values of $`r_0`$ showed that the minimum in all cases corresponds to $`r_01.27`$ fm which also coincides with the value adopted by us before. The values $`r_c=1.25`$ fm and $`r_0=1.27`$ fm were fixed in further calculations.

As was noted above, the optimal relation of proton to neutron spin-orbit splitting corresponds to $`\beta _\mathrm{}s0.6`$. The fourth column of Tables 1 and 2 (variant 1 of calculations) presents the values of theoretical energy levels obtained in the optimization with fixed values of $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=0.6`$, $`a_p=0.67`$ fm and $`a_n=0.55`$ fm.

The fifth column of Tables $`1÷2`$ (variant 2) presents the results of optimization with two fixed parameters: $`a_p=0.67`$ fm and $`a_n=0.55`$ fm.

Variant 3 corresponds to optimization at fixed $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=0.6`$, while variant 4 presents the results with no parameters fixed.

We see that the optimal values of $`V_0`$, $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ and $`\beta `$ (see formula (7)) are very close to the ”Standard” ones, with small dispersion from nuclei to nuclei. The magnitudes of the diffusinesses ”$`a`$” vary more strongly, differing by about 10 $`÷`$ 15$`\%`$ from their ”standard” values. As one can see from the comparisons of the ”Stnd” with ”Set 1” and ”Set 3” with ”Set 4” fittings, the contribution of $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ that defines the isospin dependence of spin-orbit splitting to $`\delta `$ is small. It is more reasonable to define it’s value not from minimization of $`\delta `$, but from experimental and theoretical arguments mentioned above. This conclusion is confirmed by the result of , where different fittings gave diverse (in magnitudes and signs) values of parameter defining the linear in $`(NZ)/A`$ contribution to the spin-orbit term (energies with maximal values of spectroscopic factors were used as the input ones in these fittings).

The energies of levels in nuclei with $`N=Z`$ (see Tables 3,4,5) are independent on $`\beta `$ and $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$. Here the optimization was performed twice, once with fixed values of $`a_n=0.55`$ fm and $`a_p=0.67`$ fm with subsequent definition of $`V`$ and $`V_\mathrm{}s`$ (variant 1) and once without fixing some parameters (variant 3).

The results of calculations presented in Tables 1 to 5 refer also to some levels having positive energies, i.e. to unbound, but sub-barrier states. In these cases we present here only the real part of single particle energies having here really very small decay widths.

For comparison of the results obtained by using the empirical potential (7) with those using the microscopical procedure we also performed Hartree-Fock calculations with the SIII interaction (last two columns of Tables 1 to 5). The results of our self-consistent calculations were obtained by considering the contribution of a single-particle part of the center-of-mass energy and taking into account the Coulomb exchange term in the Slater approximation. The SIII(1) data correspond to calculations taking into account all the terms of the energy functional contributing to spin-orbit splitting, while the SIII(2) results were obtained by omitting the spin density terms in the spin-orbit potential. In the last case our results are close to that from the work  for 208Pb, 132Sn and 100Sn nuclei. We see that the results obtained in the framework of the Hartree-Fock method also demonstrate that the neutron spin-orbit splittings of the $`2d`$ orbit in 132Sn as well as of the $`2f`$ and $`3p`$ orbits in 208Pb are larger than those for protons and correspond to effective $`\beta _\mathrm{}s`$ in the interval of $`0.9÷0.6`$. One can mention here that the difference between the neutron and proton spin-orbit splittings is reproduced by using the simple parameterization of Skyrme forces. More careful parameterization enables to reproduce  the anomalous kink of isotopic shifts in Pb isotopes.

Tables 3 and 4 presented below refer to 16O and 40Ca, which are the spin saturated nuclei. In these cases the spin density terms in practice do not contribute the spin-orbit splitting (the corresponding contributions in these cases are due only to small distinction of radial wave functions of spin-orbit partners). One can see, that the SIII-1 and SIII-2 calculations give here almost similar results.

We conclude that our analysis, based both on experimental data and on different theoretical approaches has defined the isotopic dependence of the nuclear mean field spin-orbit splitting. The splitting becomes larger for neutrons than for protons in nuclei with $`N>Z`$. Importantly, the theoretical analysis shows that the difference between the neutron and proton splittings becomes saturated which precludes very large differences. The rather modest difference seen in the 132Sn region is already about $`25\%`$ of the saturation value, showing that the isospin dependence can not introduce major structural changes even in extreme cases of neutron excess.

This work was supported by the Swedish Natural Research Council, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Russian Foundation of Fundamental Research (grant No. 96-15-96764). The authors are grateful to B.L. Birbrair for discussion.

Table 1. Single particle states of 208Pb.

| $`n\mathrm{}j`$ | $`\epsilon _{exp}`$ | Stnd | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 | SIII-1 | SIII-2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`n3d_{3/2}`$ | -1.40 | -0.32 | -0.02 | -0.23 | -0.96 | -0.99 | 0.38 | 0.42 |
| $`n2g_{7/2}`$ | -1.44 | -0.79 | -0.18 | -0.65 | -0.89 | -1.14 | 0.01 | 0.14 |
| $`n4s_{1/2}`$ | -1.90 | -0.80 | -0.70 | -0.74 | -1.63 | -1.51 | -0.08 | -0.06 |
| $`n1j_{15/2}`$ | -$`2.09^{}`$ | -2.42 | -3.05 | -2.31 | -2.23 | -1.55 | -1.41 | -1.93 |
| $`n3d_{5/2}`$ | -2.37 | -1.50 | -1.45 | -1.40 | -2.35 | -2.13 | -0.39 | -0.38 |
| $`n1i_{11/2}`$ | -3.16 | -4.24 | -3.37 | -4.05 | -2.71 | -3.33 | -3.37 | -2.77 |
| $`n2g_{9/2}`$ | -3.94 | -3.71 | -3.82 | -3.59 | -4.24 | -3.88 | -2.91 | -2.97 |
| $`n3p_{1/2}`$ | -7.37 | -7.32 | -6.94 | -7.17 | -7.59 | -7.61 | -7.21 | -7.13 |
| $`n2f_{5/2}`$ | -7.94 | -8.42 | -7.87 | -8.25 | -8.17 | -8.38 | -8.59 | -8.44 |
| $`n3p_{3/2}`$ | -8.27 | -8.18 | -8.03 | -8.04 | -8.59 | -8.43 | -8.18 | -8.15 |
| $`n1i_{13/2}`$ | -9.00 | -9.21 | -9.62 | -9.08 | -8.84 | -8.31 | -9.73 | -10.21 |
| $`n2f_{7/2}`$ | -$`10.07^{}`$ | -10.57 | -10.57 | -10.43 | -10.72 | -10.46 | -11.21 | -11.24 |
| $`n1h_{9/2}`$ | -10.78 | -12.06 | -11.35 | -11.87 | -10.60 | -11.09 | -13.16 | -12.67 |
| $`p3p_{1/2}`$ | $`0.17^{}`$ | 0.63 | 0.43 | 0.72 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 2.79 | 2.88 |
| $`p3p_{3/2}`$ | -0.68 | -0.45 | -0.46 | -0.35 | -0.58 | -0.69 | 1.99 | 2.03 |
| $`p2f_{5/2}`$ | -0.97 | -0.68 | -1.03 | -0.60 | -1.03 | -0.61 | 0.60 | 0.74 |
| $`p1i_{13/2}`$ | -2.19 | -2.86 | -2.37 | -2.71 | -1.94 | -2.78 | -1.20 | -1.53 |
| $`p2f_{7/2}`$ | -2.90 | -3.38 | -3.24 | -3.26 | -3.21 | -3.53 | -1.64 | -1.66 |
| $`p1h_{9/2}`$ | -3.80 | -4.60 | -5.11 | -4.53 | -4.71 | -4.01 | -4.68 | -4.24 |
| $`p3s_{1/2}`$ | -8.01 | -7.76 | -7.86 | -7.67 | -7.87 | -7.87 | -7.39 | -7.33 |
| $`p2d_{3/2}`$ | -8.36 | -8.41 | -8.66 | -8.32 | -8.59 | -8.30 | -8.64 | -8.51 |
| $`p1h_{11/2}`$ | -9.36 | -9.33 | -8.99 | -9.18 | -8.60 | -9.21 | -9.35 | -9.65 |
| $`p2d_{5/2}`$ | -10.04 | -10.10 | -10.05 | -9.98 | -9.96 | -10.15 | -10.29 | -10.28 |
| $`p1g_{7/2}`$ | -12.18 | -12.07 | -12.45 | -11.99 | -12.08 | -11.58 | -13.94 | -13.59 |

The ”standard” set of parameters corresponds to $`V_0=51.50`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=33.2`$ MeV, $`\beta =\beta _\mathrm{}s=+1.39`$, $`a_p=0.67`$ fm, $`a_n=0.55`$ fm and $`\delta =0.604`$ MeV.

Set ”1” corresponds to $`V_0=51.39`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=33.1`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.43`$ with $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=0.6`$, $`a_p=0.67`$ fm, $`a_n=0.55`$ fm fixed; $`\delta =0.654`$ MeV.

Set ”2” corresponds to $`V_0=51.34`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=33.1`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.40`$, $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=1.26`$ with $`a_p=0.67`$ fm, $`a_n=0.55`$ fm fixed; $`\delta =0.593`$ MeV.

Set ”3” corresponds to $`V_0=51.99`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=32.7`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.36`$, $`a_p=0.73`$ fm, $`a_n=0.72`$ fm with $`\delta =0.369`$ MeV; $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=0.6`$ is fixed.

Set ”4” corresponds to $`V_0=51.93`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=35.2`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.38`$, $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=1.76`$, $`a_p=0.73`$ fm, $`a_n=0.72`$ fm; $`\delta =0.366`$ MeV.

Here and below experimental single particle energies marked by asterisks were obtained using the averaging over the spectroscopic factors.

Table 2. Single particle states of 132Sn.

| $`n\mathrm{}j`$ | $`\epsilon _{exp}`$ | Stnd | Set 1 | Set 2 | Set 3 | Set 4 | SIII-1 | SIII-2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`n2f5/2`$ | -0.58 | 0.36 | 0.73 | 0.46 | 0.22 | -0.01 | 0.67 | 0.79 |
| $`n3p1/2`$ | (-0.92) | -0.13 | -0.48 | -0.09 | -0.55 | -0.61 | 0.16 | 0.20 |
| $`n1h9/2`$ | -1.02 | -1.61 | -0.84 | -1.38 | -0.47 | -0.97 | -0.72 | -0.02 |
| $`n3p3/2`$ | -1.73 | -0.78 | -0.88 | -0.77 | -1.42 | -1.32 | -0.16 | -0.14 |
| $`n2f7/2`$ | -2.58 | -2.18 | -2.55 | -2.21 | -2.84 | -2.52 | -1.67 | -1.71 |
| $`n2d3/2`$ | -7.31 | -7.74 | -7.45 | -7.62 | -7.63 | -7.77 | -8.42 | -8.26 |
| $`n1h11/2`$ | -7.55 | -7.11 | -7.96 | -7.23 | -7.33 | -6.60 | -7.69 | -8.23 |
| $`n3s1/2`$ | -7.64 | -7.68 | -7.73 | -7.64 | -8.03 | -7.93 | -8.26 | -8.21 |
| $`n2d5/2`$ | -8.96 | -9.66 | -9.94 | -9.66 | -9.98 | -9.69 | -10.71 | -10.71 |
| $`n1g7/2`$ | -9.74 | -10.56 | -10.04 | -10.39 | -9.51 | -9.81 | -11.92 | -11.32 |
| $`p3s1/2`$ | (-6.83) | -6.84 | -6.87 | -6.80 | -6.64 | -6.70 | -4.97 | -4.90 |
| p1h11/2 | -6.84 | -7.32 | -6.66 | -7.46 | -6.77 | -7.48 | -5.64 | -6.01 |
| $`p2d3/2`$ | -7.19 | -6.86 | -7.20 | -6.74 | -7.07 | -6.72 | -5.93 | -5.77 |
| $`p2d5/2`$ | -8.67 | -9.36 | -9.20 | -9.37 | -9.04 | -9.30 | -7.88 | -7.88 |
| $`p1g7/2`$ | -9.63 | -9.84 | -10.41 | -9.66 | -10.60 | -9.81 | -10.08 | -9.56 |
| $`p1g9/2`$ | -15.71 | -14.91 | -14.46 | -15.00 | -14.57 | -15.02 | -15.03 | -15.36 |
| $`p2p1/2`$ | -16.07 | -16.01 | -16.22 | -15.92 | -16.14 | -15.91 | -16.68 | -16.55 |

Stnd: $`\delta =0.589`$ MeV.

Set 1: $`V_0=51.56`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=33.3`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.39`$, $`\delta =0.638`$ MeV.

Set 2: $`V_0=51.44`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=34.8`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.39`$, $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=1.35`$, $`\delta =0.575`$ MeV.

Set 3: $`V_0=51.55`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=32.4`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.31`$, $`a_p=0.63`$ fm, $`a_n=0.66`$ fm, $`\delta =0.546`$ MeV.

Set 4: $`V_0=51.56`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=34.1`$ MeV, $`\beta =1.34`$, $`\beta _\mathrm{}s=1.33`$, $`a_p=0.65`$ fm, $`a_n=0.66`$ fm, $`\delta =0.478`$ MeV.

Note that some theoretical works  postulate that the neutron 1i13/2 state at 132Sn is only 1.9 MeV above the n2f7/2 level. Our calculations unequivocally demonstrate, that this state lies considerably higher, with it’s energy equal to +0.55, +1.59 and +1.02 MeV correspondingly for the ”Stnd”, SIII-1 and SIII-2 variants.

Table 3. Single particle levels of 16O.

| $`n\mathrm{}j`$ | $`\epsilon _{exp}`$ | Stnd | Set 1 | Set 3 | SIII-1 | SIII-2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`n1d3/2`$ | (0.94) | 0.89 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.66 | 0.67 |
| $`n2s1/2`$ | -3.27 | -3.59 | -3.89 | -3.31 | -2.88 | -2.87 |
| $`n1d5/2`$ | -4.14 | -6.97 | -6.85 | -6.41 | -6.87 | -6.89 |
| $`n1p1/2`$ | -15.67 | -15.06 | -16.05 | -16.33 | -14.58 | -14.56 |
| $`n1p3/2`$ | (-21.84) | -19.98 | -20.25 | -20.10 | -20.58 | -20.59 |
| $`p1d3/2`$ | (4.40) | 3.76 | 2.92 | 3.48 | 3.55 | 3.56 |
| $`p2s1/2`$ | -0.11 | -0.89 | -1.14 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| $`p1d5/2`$ | -0.60 | -2.76 | -2.67 | -2.97 | -3.57 | -3.59 |
| $`p1p1/2`$ | -12.13 | -9.95 | -10.87 | -12.60 | -11.17 | -11.15 |
| $`p1p3/2`$ | (-18.45) | -14.66 | -14.90 | -16.40 | -17.07 | -17.08 |

Set 1: $`V_0=52.21`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=28.6`$ MeV; $`a_p=0.67`$ fm, $`a_n=0.55`$ fm are fixed.

Set 3: $`V_0=51.40`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=25.7`$ MeV, $`a_p=0.45`$ fm, $`a_n=0.50`$ fm.

Table 4. Single particle states of 40Ca.

| $`n\mathrm{}j`$ | $`\epsilon _{exp}`$ | Stnd | Set 1 | Set 3 | SIII-1 | SIII-2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`n1f5/2`$ | -3.48 | -2.57 | -3.91 | -3.54 | -1.49 | -1.48 |
| $`n2p1/2`$ | -4.42 | -3.35 | -4.08 | -4.69 | -2.20 | -2.23 |
| $`n2p3/2`$ | -6.42 | -5.71 | -6.08 | -6.57 | -4.09 | -4.05 |
| $`n1f7/2`$ | -8.36 | -10.43 | -10.44 | -9.72 | -9.92 | -9.94 |
| $`n1d3/2`$ | -15.64 | -16.21 | -17.40 | -16.43 | -15.53 | -15.54 |
| $`n2s1/2`$ | -18.11 | -16.51 | -17.17 | -17.00 | -15.94 | -15.92 |
| $`n1d5/2`$ | -$`21.64^{}`$ | -21.08 | -21.44 | -20.52 | -21.90 | -21.90 |
| $`p1f5/2`$ | 3.86 | 4.92 | 3.79 | 3.41 | 4.90 | 4.91 |
| $`p2p1/2`$ | 2.64 | 2.62 | 2.11 | 2.07 | 3.66 | 3.64 |
| $`p2p3/2`$ | 0.63 | 0.89 | 0.60 | 0.45 | 2.23 | 2.26 |
| $`p1f7/2`$ | -1.09 | -2.19 | -2.18 | -2.85 | -3.04 | -3.06 |
| $`p1d3/2`$ | -8.33 | -7.11 | -8.25 | -9.01 | -8.52 | -8.53 |
| $`p2s1/2`$ | -10.85 | -8.18 | -8.78 | -9.30 | -8.77 | -8.75 |
| $`p1d5/2`$ | -$`14.33^{}`$ | -12.05 | -12.36 | -13.19 | -14.74 | -14.75 |

Set 1: $`V_0=52.39`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=27.9`$ MeV; $`a_p=0.67`$ fm and $`a_n=0.55`$ fm are fixed.

Set 3: $`V_0=52.95`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=28.2`$ MeV, $`a_p=0.63`$ fm, $`a_n=0.68`$ fm.

Table 5. Single particle states of 100Sn.

| $`n\mathrm{}j`$ | $`\epsilon _{sys}`$ | Stnd | Set 1 | Set 3 | SIII-1 | SIII-2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`n1h11/2`$ | -8.6(5) | -8.66 | -9.01 | -8.72 | -6.35 | -6.87 |
| $`n2d3/2`$ | -9.2(5) | -8.90 | -9.24 | -8.70 | -7.84 | -7.66 |
| $`n3s1/2`$ | -9.3(5) | -9.16 | -9.53 | -9.13 | -7.58 | -7.52 |
| $`n1g7/2`$ | -10.93(20) | -11.64 | -12.02 | -11.23 | -10.33 | -9.63 |
| $`n2d5/2`$ | -11.13(20) | -11.62 | -11.97 | -11.59 | -10.07 | -10.10 |
| $`n1g9/2`$ | -17.93(20) | -17.23 | -17.61 | -17.21 | -16.54 | -17.00 |
| $`n2p1/2`$ | -18.38(20) | -19.14 | -19.53 | -18.93 | -19.08 | -18.93 |
| $`p1g7/2`$ | 3.90(15) | 3.88 | 3.54 | 2.70 | 3.38 | 4.04 |
| $`p2d5/2`$ | 3.00(80) | 2.74 | 2.45 | 2.64 | 3.70 | 3.69 |
| $`p1g9/2`$ | -2.92(20) | -2.01 | -2.36 | -3.66 | -2.74 | -3.16 |
| $`p2p1/2`$ | -3.53(20) | -3.48 | -3.84 | -3.94 | -4.80 | -4.65 |
| $`p2p3/2`$ | -6.38 | -4.95 | -5.31 | -5.55 | -6.22 | -6.18 |
| $`p1f5/2`$ | -8.71 | -5.54 | -5.92 | -7.60 | -8.43 | -7.89 |

Set 1: $`V_0=51.97`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=33.5`$ MeV; $`a_p=0.67`$ fm and $`a_n=0.55`$ fm are fixed.

Set 3: $`V_0=51.40`$ MeV, $`V_\mathrm{}s=35.6`$ MeV, $`a_p=0.52`$ fm, $`a_n=0.56`$ fm.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Pure two–dimensional Yang–Mills theories (YM2) have certain properties, such as invariance under area–preserving diffeomorphisms and lack of any propagating degrees of freedom. There are, however, ways to generalize these theories without losing these properties. One way is the so–called generalized Yang–Mills theories (gYM2’s). In a YM2, one starts from a $`B`$$`F`$ theory in which a Lagrangian of the form $`i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+\mathrm{tr}(B^2)`$ is used. Here $`F`$ is the field–strength corresponding to the gauge–field, and $`B`$ is an auxiliary field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Carrying a path integral over this field, leaves an effective Lagrangian for the gauge field of the form $`\mathrm{tr}(F^2)`$ . In a gYM2, on the other hand, one uses an arbitrary class function of the auxiliary field $`B`$, instead of $`\mathrm{tr}(B^2)`$ . In  the partition function and the expectation values of the Wilson loops for gYM2’s were calculated. It is worthy of mention that for gYM2’s, one can not eliminate the auxiliary field and obtain a Lagrangian for the gauge field. One can, however, use standard path–integration and calculate the observables of the theory. This was done in .

To study the behaviour of these theories for large groups is also of interest. This was studied in  and  for ordinary YM2 theories and then in  for YM2 and in  and  for gYM2 theories. It was shown that YM2’s and some classes of gYM2’s have a third–order phase transition in a certain critical area.

There is another way to generalize YM2, and that is to use a non–local action for the auxiliary field. An example of such theories is one in which the $`B^2`$ action is replaced by an action

$$S_B:=w\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(B^2)\right],$$
(1)
or by

$$S_B:=w\left[d\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(B)\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a class function. We call these gerneralizations nonlocal YM2 (nlYM2) and nonlocal gYM2 (nlgYM2), respectively. We want to investigate the classical, and quantum behaviour of these theories, and also their properties for large groups.

The scheme of the present paper is the following. In section 2, we introduce the nlYM2 and show that the classical solutions of YM2 are also classical solutions of nlYM2.

In section 3, the wave functions and, as a special case, the partition function of nlYM2 on general surfaces are calculated.

In section 4, the properties of nlYM2 large groups are investigated, and it is shown that these properties can be related to those of YM2 by simple redefinitions.

Finally, in section 5 we introduce nlgYM2 theories, and study their properties, including the wave functions and large–group behaviour. It is seen that the large–group properties of nlgYM2 are easily obtained from those of ordinary gYM2, in a manner similar to the case of nlYM2.

## 2 nlYM2: definition and the classical properties

We define the nlYM2 with the following action.

$$e^S:=\mathrm{D}B\mathrm{exp}\left\{d\mu i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+w\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(B^2)\right]\right\}.$$
(3)
Here $`\mathrm{d}\mu `$ is the invariant measure of the surface:

$$\mathrm{d}\mu :=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu ,$$
(4)
$`B`$ is a pseudo–scalar field in the adjoint representation of the group, and $`F`$ is the field strength corresponding to the gauge field. The classical equation for the gauge field is

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta A}=0,$$
(5)
or equivalently,

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta A}e^S=0.$$
(6)
To obtain this, we note that

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta F}e^S=i\mathrm{D}BB\mathrm{exp}\left\{d\mu i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+w\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(B^2)\right]\right\}.$$
(7)
The integral in the right–hand side is not easy to be carried out. But, using the fact that the only tensor appearing in the right–hand side is the metric

$$𝒢_{ab}(x,y):=\omega _{ab}\delta (x,y),$$
(8)
where $`\omega `$ is the metric defined on the algebra, it is seen that there exists a function $`𝒜`$ such that

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta F}e^S=F𝒜\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(F^2)\right],$$
(9)
or in a more explicit form,

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta F^a(x)}e^S=F_a(x)𝒜\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(F^2)\right].$$
(10)
From this, one can obtain the left–hand side of (6) as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta A^a(x)}}e^S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\mu ^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta F^b(x^{})}e^S\frac{\delta F^b(x^{})}{\delta A^a(x)}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`𝒜\left[{\displaystyle d\mu \mathrm{tr}(F^2)}\right]{\displaystyle d\mu ^{}F_b(x^{})\frac{\delta F^b(x^{})}{\delta A^a(x)}}.`$ (12)
Comparing this to the variation of the YM action, it is seen that

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta A^a(x)}e^S=2𝒜\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(F^2)\right]\frac{\delta }{\delta A^a(x)}S^{\mathrm{YM}}.$$
(13)
This shows that classical solutions of the YM theory are also classical solutions of the nlYM theory.

## 3 The partition function and the wave functions of nlYM’s

Along the lines of , we begin by calculating the wave–function of a disk. We have

$`\psi _D(U)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{D}Fe^S\delta (\mathrm{Pexp}_DA,U)}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{D}B\mathrm{D}F\mathrm{exp}\left\{d\mu i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+w\left[d\mu \mathrm{tr}(B^2)\right]\right\}}`$ (16)
$`\times \delta (\mathrm{Pexp}{\displaystyle _D}A,U).`$
Here $`U`$ is the class of the Wilson loop corresponding to the boundary. The delta function is also a class delta function, that is, its support is where its two arguments are in the same congugacy class. This delta function can be expanded in terms of the characters of irreducible unitary representations of the group:

$$\delta (\mathrm{Pexp}_DA,U)=\underset{R}{}\chi _R(U^1)\chi _R\left(\mathrm{Pexp}_DA\right).$$
(17)
One can now introduce Fermionic variables $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ in the representation $`R`$ to write the Wilson loop as

$$\chi _R\left(\mathrm{Pexp}_DA\right)=\mathrm{D}\eta \mathrm{D}\overline{\eta }\left[_0^1dt\overline{\eta }(t)\dot{\eta }(t)+_D\overline{\eta }A\eta \right]\eta ^\alpha (0)\overline{\eta }_\alpha (1).$$
(18)
Inserting (18) in (17) and then (14), using the Schwinger–Fock gauge, and integrating over, $`F`$, $`B`$, and the fermionic variables, respectively, one arrives at

$$\psi _D(U)=\underset{R}{}\chi _R(U^1)d_R\mathrm{exp}\{w[AC_2(R)]\},$$
(19)
where $`d_R`$ is the dimension of the representation $`R`$ and $`C_2(R)`$ is the second Casimir of the representation $`R`$. The details of calculation are the same as those done in . Note, however, that one cannot simply glue the disk wave–functions to obtain, for example, the wave function corresponding to a larger disk or that of a sphere. The reason is that the action of the original $`B`$$`F`$ theory is not extensive, that is

$$S_{A_1+A_2}(B,F)S_{A_1}(B,F)+S_{A_2}(B,F).$$
(20)
So, if the disk $`D`$ is divided into two smaller disks $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$,

$$\psi _D(U)dU_1\psi _{D_1}(UU_1)\psi _{D_2}(UU_1^1).$$
(21)
Two obtain the wave function for an arbitrary surface, however, one can begin with a disk of the same area and impose boundary conditions on certain parts of the boundary of the disk. These conditions are those corresponding to the identifications needed for constructing the desired surface from a disk. This is done in exactly in the same manner as the case of YM2 or gYM2, as the only things to be calculated are integrations over group of characters of the same representation . This is easily done and one arrives at

$`\psi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,q}}(U_1,\mathrm{},U_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{R}{}}h_R^qd_R^{22gqn}`$ (23)
$`\times \chi _R(U_1^1)\mathrm{}\chi _R(U_n^1)\mathrm{exp}\{w[C_2(R)A(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,q})]\}.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,q}`$ is a surface containing $`g`$ handles and $`q`$ projective planes. It has also $`n`$ boundaries. This is the most general surface with finite area. $`h_R`$ is defined through

$$h_R:=dU\chi _R(U^2),$$
(24)
and it is zero unless the representation $`R`$ is self–conjugate. In this case, this representation has an invariant bilinear form. Then, $`h_R=1`$ if this form is symmetric and $`h_R=1`$ if it is antisymmetric .

As a special result, the partition function of the theory on a sphere is obtained if we put $`U_i`$’s equal to unity and $`q`$ and $`g`$ equal to zero. We arrive at

$$Z=\underset{R}{}d_R^2\mathrm{exp}\{w[AC_2(R)]\}.$$
(25)
## 4 Large–$`N`$ limit of nlYM2

Starting from (25), consider the case the gauge group is $`U(N)`$. The representations of this group are labeled by $`N`$ integers $`n_i`$ satisfying

$$n_in_j,i<j.$$
(26)
The dimension of this representation is

$$d_R=\underset{1i<jN}{}\left(1+\frac{n_in_j}{ji}\right),$$
(27)
and the $`l`$-th Casimir is

$$C_l(R)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[(n_i+Ni)^l(Ni)^l].$$
(28)
For $`l=2`$, one can redefine the function $`w`$ and introduce another function:

$$w(AC_2)=:N^2W(A\stackrel{~}{C}_2),$$
(29)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_l(R):=\frac{1}{N^{l+1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(n_i+Ni)^l.$$
(30)
Then, following , we use the definitions

$$x:=i/N,$$
(31)
and

$$\varphi :=\frac{in_iN}{N},$$
(32)
to write the partition function as

$$Z=\mathrm{D}\varphi \mathrm{exp}[S(\varphi )],$$
(33)
where

$$S(\varphi ):=N^2\left\{W\left[A_0^1dx\varphi ^2(x)\right]+_0^1dx_0^1dy\mathrm{log}|\varphi (x)\varphi (y)|\right\}.$$
(34)
In the large–$`N`$ limit, only the representation (i.e. the configuration of $`\varphi `$) contributes to the partition function that maximizes $`S`$. To find it, one puts the variation of $`S`$ with respect to $`\varphi `$ equal to zero:

$$AW^{}\left[Ady\varphi ^2(y)\right]\times 2\varphi (x)+2\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}=0.$$
(35)
Defining

$$\stackrel{~}{A}:=AW^{}\left[Ady\varphi ^2(y)\right],$$
(36)
the equation for $`\varphi `$ is written as

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}[2\varphi (x)]=\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}.$$
(37)
This equation is the same as that obtained in  and , and can be solved in the same manner. First, one defines a density function for $`\varphi `$ as

$$\rho (z):=\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\varphi (x)}|_{\varphi (x)=z}.$$
(38)
Then, (37) becomes

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}(2z)=\mathrm{P}_a^a\frac{\mathrm{d}w\rho (w)}{zw}.$$
(39)
Next, a function $`H`$ is defined on the complex plane through

$$H(z)=_a^a\frac{\mathrm{d}w\rho (w)}{zw}.$$
(40)
Here, $`z`$ is a complex variable. This function is analytic on the complex plane, except for $`z[a,a]`$, where $`H`$ has a branch cut. Also, from the definition of $`\rho `$, it is seen that

$$_a^adw\rho (w)=1,$$
(41)
which shows

$$H(z)\frac{1}{z},z\mathrm{}.$$
(42)
The function $`H`$ is then calculated to be

$$H(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\sqrt{z^2a^2}_c\frac{(\stackrel{~}{A}/2)(2\lambda )\mathrm{d}\lambda }{(z\lambda )\sqrt{\lambda ^2a^2}},$$
(43)
where the integration contour encircles the cut $`[a,a]`$ but the point $`z`$ is outside it. The integration is readily done and one arrives at

$$H(z)=\stackrel{~}{A}(z\sqrt{z^2a^2}).$$
(44)
To obtain $`a`$, one can use (42), which yields

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{A}}}.$$
(45)
From (40), it is seen that

$$\pi \rho (z)=\mathrm{Im}H(z+iϵ),\text{for }\text{z}\text{ real},$$
(46)
which gives

$$\rho (z)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\pi }\sqrt{\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{A}}z^2}.$$
(47)
This is, of course, in complete accordance with . But one must now obtain the density in terms of $`A`$ not $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. To do so, let us return to the definition (36). First, we need the integral

$$dx\varphi ^2(x)=dz\rho (z)z^2,$$
(48)
which is the coefficient of $`1/z^3`$ in the large–$`z`$ expansion of $`H`$. This is calculated to be

$`{\displaystyle dz\rho (z)z^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}a^4}{8}}`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{A}}}.`$ (50)
From this, one obtains an equation for $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=AW^{}\left(\frac{A}{2\stackrel{~}{A}}\right),$$
(51)
or

$$\frac{Aa^2}{4}W^{}\left(\frac{Aa^2}{4}\right)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(52)
Defining a free–energy function as

$$f:=\frac{1}{N^2}S|_{\varphi _{\mathrm{cla}.}},$$
(53)
It is seen that

$`f^{}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dx\varphi ^2(x)W^{}\left[Ady\varphi ^2(y)\right]}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{A}}{\displaystyle dx\varphi ^2(x)}.`$ (55)
or

$$f^{}(A)=\frac{1}{2A}.$$
(56)
The function $`W`$ is disappeared from $`f^{}`$, as it can be seen by the rescaling $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:=\sqrt{A}\varphi `$.

This completes our discussion of the weak–region nlYM. As $`A`$ increases, a situation is encountered where $`\rho `$ exceeds 1. This density function is, however, not acceptable, as it violates the condition (26). The value of $`A`$ at which this occurs is obtained from

$$\rho (0)=1,$$
(57)
which gives

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_c=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}.$$
(58)
For $`\stackrel{~}{A}>\stackrel{~}{A}_c`$, one must take an ansatz for $`\rho `$ as

$$\rho _s(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_s(z),\hfill & zL\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & z[b,b]\hfill \end{array},$$
(59)
where

$$L:=[a,b][a,b]$$
(60)
Using methods exactly the same as those used in , one must solve

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}(2z)=\mathrm{P}_a^a\frac{\mathrm{d}w\rho _s(w)}{zw},zL.$$
(61)
To do so, one defines a function $`H_s`$ as

$$H_s(z)=_a^a\frac{\mathrm{d}w\rho _s(w)}{zw},$$
(62)
which is found to be

$`H_s(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{z+b}{zb}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{(z^2a^2)(z^2b^2)}}{2\pi i}}`$ (64)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{c_L}}\mathrm{d}\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{A}/2)(2\lambda )\mathrm{log}[(\lambda +b)/(\lambda b)]}{(z\lambda )\sqrt{(\lambda ^2a^2)(\lambda ^2b^2)}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}}(2z)\sqrt{(z^2a^2)(z^2b^2)}`$ (66)
$`\times {\displaystyle _b^b}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{(z\lambda )\sqrt{(a^2\lambda ^2)(\lambda ^2b^2)}}}.`$
Here $`c_L`$ is a contour encircling $`L`$, leaving $`[b,b]`$ and the point $`z`$ out. Note that everything is exactly the same as the case of ordinary YM theory, except that $`A`$ is replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. Using the fact that $`H_s`$ should behave as $`1/z`$ for large $`z`$, one obtains two equations

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=_b^b\frac{\mathrm{d}\lambda }{\sqrt{(a^2\lambda ^2)(\lambda ^2b^2)}}$$
(67)
and

$$1=_0^bd\lambda \frac{a^2+b^2\lambda ^2}{\sqrt{(a^2\lambda ^2)(\lambda ^2b^2)}}.$$
(68)
For $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ near $`\stackrel{~}{A}_c`$, these equations are solved as

$$\frac{1}{a}=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(1+\frac{\pi ^2b^2}{16}+\frac{\pi ^4b^4}{128}\right)$$
(69)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\left(1+\frac{\pi ^2b^2}{8}+\frac{7\pi ^4b^4}{256}\right).$$
(70)
Now, using (54), and the fact that the integral $`dx\varphi ^2(x)`$ is the coefficient of $`1/z^3`$ in the large–$`z`$ expansion of $`H_s`$, one arrives at

$$f_s^{}(A)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{A}\left[\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{A}}+\frac{(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}_c)^2}{\stackrel{~}{A}_c^3}\right]+O[(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}_c)^3],$$
(71)
or

$`f_s^{}f_w^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}_c)^2}{A_c\stackrel{~}{A}_c^2}}`$ (72)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{A}}{\mathrm{d}A}}\right)_{c,s}^2{\displaystyle \frac{(AA_c)^2}{A_c\stackrel{~}{A}_c^2}}.`$ (73)
This shows that the third–order phase transition is there, unless the derivative of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ with respect to $`A`$ is zero at the critical point in the strong region.

## 5 nlgYM2: wave functions, partition function, and the large–$`N`$ limit

A nonlocal generalized Yang–Mills theory is defined by the action

$$e^S:=\mathrm{D}B\mathrm{exp}\left\{d\mu i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+w\left[d\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(B)\right]\right\}.$$
(74)
Following , and using the same technique of section 3, one can find the wave function on a disk:

$$\psi _D(U)=\underset{R}{}\chi _R(U^1)d_R\mathrm{exp}\{w[AC_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)]\},$$
(75)
where

$$C_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)1_R:=\mathrm{\Lambda }(iT_R),$$
(76)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(iT_R)`$ means that one has put $`iT^a`$ in the representation $`R`$ instead of $`B^a`$ in the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Using the same technique of section 3, one can construct the wave function on an arbitrary surface as

$`\psi _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,q}}(U_1,\mathrm{},U_n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{R}{}}h_R^qd_R^{22gqn}`$ (78)
$`\times \chi _R(U_1^1)\mathrm{}\chi _R(U_n^1)\mathrm{exp}\{w[C_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)A(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,q})]\},`$
and the partition function on the sphere as

$$Z=\underset{R}{}d_R^2\mathrm{exp}\{w[AC_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)]\}.$$
(79)
The large–$`N`$ limit of this theory (for the gauge group $`U(N)`$), is defined by suitable rescalings. Taking $`C_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a linear function of the rescaled Casimirs (30), one can define a function $`W`$ as

$$N^2W\left[A\underset{l}{}\alpha _l\stackrel{~}{C}_l(R)\right]:=w[AC_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)].$$
(80)
In the large–$`N`$ limit, the partition function becomes like (33), but with

$$S(\varphi ):=N^2\left\{W\left[A_0^1dxG(\varphi )\right]+_0^1dx_0^1dy\mathrm{log}|\varphi (x)\varphi (y)|\right\},$$
(81)
where

$$G(\varphi ):=\underset{l}{}(1)^la_l\varphi ^l.$$
(82)
Then, following the procedure of section 4, that representation contributes to the partition function that maximizes $`S`$. The equation for this representation is

$$AW^{}\left[AdyG(\varphi )\right]G^{}[\varphi (x)]+2\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)}=0.$$
(83)
Defining

$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ $`:=`$ $`AW^{}\left\{A{\displaystyle dyG[\varphi (y)]}\right\}`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`AW^{}\left[A{\displaystyle dz\rho (z)G(z)}\right],`$ (85)
the equation for $`\varphi `$ is written as

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}G^{}[\varphi (x)]=\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\varphi (x)\varphi (y)},$$
(86)
or, in terms of the density $`\rho `$,

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}G^{}(z)=\mathrm{P}\frac{\mathrm{d}w\rho (w)}{zw}.$$
(87)
Note that equation (87) does not contain $`W`$. That is, the solution for $`\rho `$ is the same as that obtained for gYM2. The only difference is that one should put $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ instead of $`A`$. This is true for the weak region, as well as for the strong region. One can also obtain the derivative of the free energy with respect to $`A`$, in the same way it was obtained in section 4. We have

$`f^{}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle dxG[\varphi (x)]W^{}\left\{AdyG[\varphi (y)]\right\}}`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{A}}{\displaystyle dz\rho (z)G(z)}.`$ (89)
The set of equations to be solved are (87) and (41), to obtain $`\rho `$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$; then (84) to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ in terms of $`A`$. Also note that $`f^{}(A)`$ is essentially the same as $`f^{}(A)`$ for the corresponding local gYM2. The differences are the existence of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ instead of $`A`$, and an overall factor $`\stackrel{~}{A}/A`$. The similarity between the nonlocal theory and the local theory holds also in the strong region. Since there, one still has equation (87) for the set where $`\rho <1`$. That is, here too the equations for $`\rho `$ are the same as those of the corresponding local theory.


text:
# Sequentially Cohen-Macaulay modules and local cohomology

## Introduction

Let $`IR`$ be a graded ideal in the polynomial ring $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ where $`K`$ is a field, and fix a term order $`<`$. It has been shown in  that the Hilbert functions of the local cohomology modules of $`R/I`$ are bounded by those of $`R/\mathrm{in}(I)`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ denotes the initial ideal of $`I`$ with respect to $`<`$. In this note we study the question when the local cohomology modules of $`R/I`$ and $`R/\mathrm{in}(I)`$ have the same Hilbert function. A complete answer to this question can be given for the generic initial ideal $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ of $`I`$, where $`\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ is taken with respect to the reverse lexicographical order and where we assume that $`\mathrm{char}(K)=0`$. In this case our main result (Theorem 3.1) says that the local cohomology modules of $`R/I`$ and $`R/\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ have the same Hilbert functions if and only if $`R/I`$ is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay.

In Section 1 we give the definition of sequentially CM-modules which is due to Stanley , and in Theorem 1.4 we present Peskine’s characterization of sequentially CM-modules in terms of Ext-groups. This characterization is used to derive a few basic properties of sequentially CM-modules which are needed for the proof of the main result.

In the following Section 2 we recall some well-known facts about generic initial modules, and also prove that $`R/\mathrm{Gin}(I)`$ is sequentially CM, see Theorem 2.2. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of the main theorem, and in the final Section 4 we state and prove a squarefree version (Theorem 4.1) of the main theorem. Its proof is completely different from that of the main theorem in the graded case. It is based upon a result on componentwise linear ideals shown in  and the fact (see ) that the Alexander dual of a squarefree componentwise linear ideal defines a sequentially CM simplicial complex.

## 1. Sequentially Cohen-Macaulay modules

We introduce sequentially Cohen-Macaulay modules and derive some of their basic properties. Throughout this section we assume that $`R`$ is a standard graded Cohen-Macaulay $`K`$-algebra of dimension $`n`$ with canonical module $`\omega _R`$.

The following definition is due to Stanley \[18, Section II, 3.9\].

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`M`$ be a finitely generated graded $`R`$-module. The module $`M`$ is sequentially Cohen-Macaulay if there exists a finite filtration

$$0=M_0M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_r=M$$

of $`M`$ by graded submodules of $`M`$ such that each quotient $`M_i/M_{i1}`$ is CM, and $`dim(M_1/M_0)<dim(M_2/M_1)<\mathrm{}<dim(M_r/M_{r1})`$.

The following observation follows immediately from the definition:

###### Lemma 1.2.

(a) Suppose that $`M`$ is sequentially CM with filtration $`0=M_0M_1\mathrm{}M_r=M`$. Then for any $`i=0,\mathrm{},r`$, the module $`M/M_i`$ is sequentially CM with filtration $`0=M_i/M_iM_{i+1}/M_i\mathrm{}M_r/M_i`$.

(b) Suppose that $`M_1M`$ and $`M_1`$ is CM, and $`M/M_1`$ is sequentially CM with $`dimM_1<dimM/M_1`$. Then $`M`$ is sequentially CM.

In order to simplify notation we will write $`E^i(M)`$ for $`\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(M,\omega _R)`$.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Suppose that $`M`$ is sequentially CM with a filtration as in 1.1, and assume that $`d_i=dimM_i/M_{i1}`$. Then

1. $`E^{nd_i}(M)E^{nd_i}(M_i/M_{i1})`$, and is CM of dimension $`d_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, and $`E^j(M)=0`$ if $`j\{nd_1,\mathrm{},nd_r\}`$.
2. $`E^{nd_i}(E^{nd_i}(M))M_i/M_{i1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

###### Proof.

(a) We proceed by induction on $`r`$. From the short exact sequence $`0M_1MM/M_10`$ we obtain the long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}E^j(M/M_1)E^j(M)E^j(M_1)E^{j+1}(M/M_1)\mathrm{}$$

From \[6, Theorem 3.3.10\] it follows that $`E^j(M_1)=0`$ if $`jnd_1`$, and that $`E^{nd_1}(M_1)`$ is CM of dimension $`d_1`$. Thus we get an exact sequence

$`0`$ $`E^{nd_1}(M/M_1)E^{nd_1}(M)E^{nd_1}(M_1)`$
$`E^{nd_1+1}(M/M_1)E^{nd_1+1}(M)0,`$
and isomorphisms $`E^j(M/M_1)E^j(M)`$ for all $`jnd_1,nd_1+1`$.

By Lemma 1.2, the module $`M/M_1`$ is sequentially CM and has a CM filtration of length $`r1`$. Hence by induction hypothesis we have $`E^{nj}(M/M_1)=0`$ for $`j\{d_2,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$. This implies that $`E^{nd_1}(M/M_1)=E^{nd_1+1}(M/M_1)=0`$, and hence by (1) we have $`E^{nd_1}(M)E^{nd_1}(M_1)`$, and $`E^{nd_1+1}(M)=0`$. Summing up we conclude that $`E^{nd_1}(M)E^{nd_1}(M_1)`$ and $`E^j(M)E^j(M/M_1)`$ for $`jnd_1`$. Thus the assertion follows from the induction hypothesis and the fact that $`E^{nd_1}(M_1)`$ is CM of dimension $`d_1`$.

(b) follows from (a) and \[6, Theorem 3.3.10\] since for any CM-module $`N`$ of dimension $`d`$ one has $`NE^{nd}(E^{nd}(N))`$. ∎

It is quite surprising that 1.3 has a strong converse. The following theorem is due to Peskine. Since there is no published proof available we present here a proof for the convenience of the reader.

###### Theorem 1.4.

The following two conditions are equivalent:

1. $`M`$ is sequentially CM;
2. for all $`0idimM`$, the modules $`E^{ni}(M)`$ are either $`0`$ or CM of dimension $`i`$.

The implication (a)$``$(b) follows from 1.3. For the other direction we first need to show

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`t=\mathrm{depth}M`$, and suppose that $`E^{nt}(M)`$ is CM of dimension $`t`$. Then there exists a natural monomorphism $`\alpha :E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))M`$, and the induced map $`E^{nt}(\alpha ):E^{nt}(M)E^{nt}(E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M)))=E^{nt}(M)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

We write $`R=S/I`$, where $`S`$ is a polynomial ring. Let $`𝔪`$ be the graded maximal ideal of $`R`$, and $`𝔫`$ the graded maximal ideal of $`S`$. By the Local Duality Theorem (see \[6, Theorem 3.6.10\]) we have

(2) $`\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(M,\omega _R)\mathrm{Hom}_R(H_𝔪^{ni}(M),E_R(K)),`$
and

(3) $`\mathrm{Ext}_S^i(M,\omega _S)\mathrm{Hom}_S(H_𝔫^{mi}(M),E_S(K)),`$
where $`m=dimS`$. Since $`H_𝔫^i(M)H_𝔪^i(M)`$, and since $`\mathrm{Hom}_S(R,E_S(K))E_R(K)`$, we see that

$`\mathrm{Hom}_S(H_𝔫^j(M),E_S(K))`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_S(H_𝔪^j(M),E_S(K))`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(H_𝔪^j(M),\mathrm{Hom}_S(R,E_S(K))`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_R(H_𝔪^j(M),E_R(K)).`$
Therefore (2) and (3) imply that

$$\mathrm{Ext}_R^{nt}(M,\omega _R)\mathrm{Ext}_S^{mt}(M,\omega _S),$$

and we hence may as well assume that $`R`$ is a polynomial ring.

Let

$$F_\text{.}:0F_{nt}\mathrm{}F_1F_00$$

be the minimal graded free resolution of $`M`$. Note that $`\omega _R=R(n)`$ since $`R`$ is a polynomial ring. Then the $`\omega _R`$-dual $`F_\text{.}^{}`$ of $`F_\text{.}`$ is the free complex

$$0F_{nt}^{}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0^{}0$$

with $`F_i^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_R(F_{ni},\omega _R)`$, and $`H_0(F^{})=E^{nt}(M)`$.

Let $`G_\text{.}`$ be the minimal graded free resolution of $`E^{nt}(M)`$. Then there exists a comparison map $`\phi _\text{.}:F_\text{.}^{}G_\text{.}`$ which extends the identity on $`H_0(F_\text{.}^{})=E^{nt}(M)=H_0(G_\text{.})`$.

Since by assumption $`E^{nt}(M)`$ is CM of dimension $`t`$, the complex $`G_\text{.}`$ has the same length as $`F_\text{.}^{}`$, namely $`nt`$. Thus the $`\omega _R`$-dual $`\phi _\text{.}^{}:G_\text{.}^{}F_\text{.}`$ of $`\phi _\text{.}`$ induces a natural homomorphism $`\alpha =H_0(\phi _\text{.}^{}):E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))=H_0(G_\text{.}^{})H_0(F_\text{.})=M`$. Here $`G_i^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_R(G_{ni},\omega _R)`$ and $`\phi _i^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_R(\phi _{ni},\omega _R)`$ for all $`i`$.

Since $`E^{nt}(M)`$ is CM by assumption, the complex $`G_\text{.}^{}`$ is exact, and hence a free resolution of $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))`$, and so the induced map $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M)))E^{nt}(M)`$ is given by $`H_0(\phi ^{})=H_0(\phi )=\mathrm{id}`$.

It remains to be shown that $`\alpha `$ is a monomorphism. Let $`C_\text{.}`$ be the mapping cone of $`\phi _\text{.}^{}:G_\text{.}^{}F_\text{.}`$. Since $`F_\text{.}`$ and $`G_\text{.}^{}`$ are acyclic, it follows that $`H_1(C_\text{.})\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha )`$ and $`H_i(C_\text{.})=0`$ for $`i>1`$. Notice that $`\phi _{nt}^{}`$ is an isomorphism, since this is the case for $`\phi _0`$. Hence the chain map $`C_{nt+1}C_{nt}`$ is split injective, and so by cancellation we get a new complex of free $`R`$-modules

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_\text{.}:0D_{nt}C_{nt1}\mathrm{}C_00,$$

where $`D_{nt}=\mathrm{Coker}(C_{nt+1}C_{nt})`$. Again we have $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{C}_\text{.})\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha )`$ and $`H_i(\stackrel{~}{C}_\text{.})=0`$ for $`i>1`$.

Now suppose that $`\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha )0`$, and let $`P`$ be a minimal prime ideal of the support of $`\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha )`$. Since $`\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha )E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))`$, and since $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))`$ is a CM-module of dimension $`t`$, it follows that $`P`$ is a minimal prime ideal of $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))`$ with $`\mathrm{height}P=nt`$. Therefore $`L_\text{.}=\stackrel{~}{C}_\text{.}R_P`$, is a complex of length $`nt`$ with $`\mathrm{depth}(L_i)=nt`$ for all $`i`$, $`\mathrm{depth}(H_1(L_\text{.}))=0`$ and $`H_i(L_\text{.})=0`$ for $`i>0`$. By the Peskine-Szpiro lemme d’acyclicité  this implies that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is acyclic, a contradiction. ∎

###### Proof of 1.4.

We proceed by induction on $`nt`$. Let $`t=\mathrm{depth}M`$, and let $`M_1`$ be the image of $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))M`$. By 1.5, the module $`M_1`$ is a CM-module of dimension $`t`$.

Consider the short exact sequence $`0M_1MM/M_10`$. As in the proof of 1.3 we get an exact sequence

$`0`$ $`E^{nt}(M/M_1)E^{nt}(M)E^{nt}(M_1)`$
$`E^{nt+1}(M/M_1)E^{nt+1}(M)0,`$
and isomorphisms $`E^j(M/M_1)E^j(M)`$ for all $`jnt,nt+1`$.
Since $`E^{nt}(M)E^{nt}(M_1)`$ is an isomorphism (see 1.5), we deduce from the above exact sequence that $`E^{nt}(M/M_1)=0`$, and that $`E^{nt+1}(M/M_1)E^{nt+1}(M)`$. Thus we have $`E^j(M/M_1)E^j(M)`$ for $`j<nt`$, and $`E^j(M/M_1)=0`$ for $`jnt`$. Hence, by induction hypothesis, $`M/M_1`$ is sequentially CM, and so is $`M`$ by 1.2. ∎

An immediate application of 1.4 is

###### Corollary 1.6.

Let $`M`$ be a finite direct sum of sequentially CM-modules. Then $`M`$ is sequentially $`CM`$.

As a consequence of 1.3 and 1.5 we get

###### Corollary 1.7.

A filtration of a sequentially CM module satisfying the conditions of 1.1 is uniquely determined.

###### Proof.

Let $`t=\mathrm{depth}M`$. The first module $`M_1`$ in the filtration must be the image of $`E^{nt}(E^{nt}(M))M`$. Then one makes use of an induction argument to $`M/M_1`$ to obtain the desired result. ∎

Notice that $`M_1=H_𝔪^0(M)`$ if $`\mathrm{depth}M=0`$. Thus, 1.1 together with 1.2 imply

###### Corollary 1.8.

An $`R`$-module $`M`$ is sequentially CM if and only if $`M/H_𝔪^0(M)`$ is sequentially CM.

In what follows we denote by $`E^\text{.}(M)=_iE^i(M)`$. Then we get

###### Corollary 1.9.

Suppose that $`xR`$ is a homogeneous $`M`$\- and $`E^\text{.}(M)`$-regular element. Then $`M`$ is sequentially CM if and only if $`M/xM`$ is sequentially CM.

###### Proof.

Since $`x`$ is $`E^\text{.}(M)`$-regular, the long exact Ext-sequence derived from

$$0M(1)\stackrel{x}{}MM/xM0$$

splits into short exact sequences

$$0E^{ni}(M)\stackrel{x}{}E^{ni}(M)(1)E^{ni+1}(M/xM)0.$$

It follows that $`E^{ni}(M)`$ is CM of dimension $`i`$ if and only if $`E^{ni+1}(M/xM)`$ is CM of dimension $`i1`$. Thus 1.4 implies the assertion. ∎

In conclusion we would like to remark that the same theory is valid in the category of finitely generated $`R`$-modules, where $`R`$ is a local CM ring and a factor ring of a regular local ring.

## 2. Generic initial modules

In this section we recall a few facts on generic initial modules, which are mostly due to Bayer and Stillman, and can be found in .

Let $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be the polynomial ring over a field $`K`$ of characteristic $`0`$, and let $`M`$ be a graded module with graded free presentation $`F/U`$. Throughout this section let $`<`$ be a term order that refines the partial order by degree and that satisfies $`x_1>x_2>\mathrm{}>x_n`$. We fix a graded basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_m`$ of $`F`$, and extend the order $`<`$ to $`F`$ as follows: Let $`ue_i`$ and $`ve_j`$ be monomials (i.e. $`u`$ and $`v`$ are monomials in $`R`$). We set $`ue_i>ve_j`$ if either $`\mathrm{deg}(ue_i)>\mathrm{deg}(ve_j)`$, or the degrees are the same and $`i<j`$, or $`i=j`$ and $`u>v`$.

We set

$$U^{sat}=\underset{r}{}U:𝔪^r=\{fF:f𝔪^rU\text{for some }r\}.$$

From now on let $`<`$ denote the reverse lexicographic order. In the next proposition we collect all the results which will be needed later.

###### Proposition 2.1.

For generic choice of coordinates one has:

1. $`dimF/\mathrm{Gin}(U)=dimF/U`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)=\mathrm{depth}F/U`$;
2. $`x_n`$ is $`F/U`$ regular if and only if $`x_n`$ is $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$ regular;
3. $`\mathrm{Gin}(U)^{sat}=\mathrm{Gin}(U^{sat})`$.

###### Proof.

After a generic choice of coordinates we may assume that $`\mathrm{Gin}(U)=\mathrm{in}(U)`$. The first statement in (a) is true for any term order, while the second statement about the depth and assertion (b) follow from \[7, Theorem 15.13\] because we may assume that the sequence $`x_n,x_{n1},\mathrm{},x_{nt+1}`$ is $`M`$-regular if $`\mathrm{depth}M=t`$.

By the module version of \[7, Proposition 15.24\], and by \[7, Proposition 15.12\] one has that

$$\mathrm{Gin}(U)^{sat}=\underset{r}{}(\mathrm{Gin}(U):x_n^r)=\underset{r}{}\mathrm{Gin}(U:x_n^r).$$

On the other hand for a generic choice of coordinates we have $`U^{sat}=_r(U:x_n^r)`$. Therefore $`_r\mathrm{Gin}(U:x_n^r)=\mathrm{Gin}(_r(U:x_n^r))=\mathrm{Gin}(U^{sat})`$, which yields the last assertion. ∎

The following result will be crucial for the proof of the main theorem of this paper.

###### Theorem 2.2.

The module $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$ is sequentially CM.

###### Proof.

Observe that, since we assume $`\mathrm{char}(K)=0`$, we have $`\mathrm{Gin}(U)=_jI_je_j`$ where for each $`j`$, $`I_j`$ is a strongly stable ideal , cf. \[7, Theorem 15.23\]. Hence $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)_jR/I_j`$, so that, by 1.6 one only has to prove that $`R/I`$ is sequentially CM for any strongly stable ideal $`IR`$.

Recall that a monomial ideal is strongly stable if for all $`uG(I)`$ and all $`i`$ such that $`x_i`$ divides $`u`$ one has $`x_j(u/x_i)I`$ for all $`j<i`$. Here $`G(I)`$ denotes the unique minimal set of monomial generators of $`I`$.

For a monomial $`u`$ we let $`m(u)=\mathrm{max}\{i:x_i\text{divides}u\}`$, and $`s=\mathrm{max}\{m(u):uG(I)\}`$. Let $`R^{}=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_s]`$, and let $`JR^{}`$ be the unique monomial ideal such that $`I=JR`$. It is clear that $`J`$ is a strongly stable ideal in $`R^{}`$. Thus it follows that $`J^{sat}=_r(J:x_s^r)`$. Note that $`J^{sat}`$ contains $`J`$ properly and is strongly stable. Let $`I_1=_r(I:x_s^r)`$. Then $`I_1=J^{sat}R`$, and since the extension $`R^{}R`$ is flat, we have $`I_1/I(J^{sat}/J)_R^{}R`$. Now $`J^{sat}/J`$ is a non-trivial $`0`$-dimensional CM module over $`R^{}`$, and therefore $`M_1=I_1/IR/I`$ is an $`(ns)`$-dimensional CM-module over $`R`$. Next we observe that $`(R/I)/M_1=R/I_1`$ and that $`I_1`$ is strongly stable. Since $`dimR/I_1n\mathrm{max}\{m(u):uG(I_1)\}>ns`$, the assertion of the theorem follows from 1.2. ∎

## 3. The main theorem

As in the previous section we let $`K`$ be a field of characteristic 0, $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be the polynomial ring over $`K`$ and $`M`$ be a finitely generated graded $`R`$-module with graded free presentation $`M=F/U`$. We want to compare the Hilbert functions of the local cohomology modules of $`F/U`$ and $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$, where $`\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$ is taken with respect to the reverse lexicographical order. In general one has (see ) a coefficientwise inequality $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(F/U))\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)))`$. The main purpose of this section is to prove

###### Theorem 3.1.

The following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`F/U`$ is sequentially CM;
2. for all $`i0`$ one has $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(F/U))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)))`$.

###### Proof.

(a)$``$(b): Set $`M=F/U`$ and $`N=F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$. We proceed by induction on $`dimM`$. Suppose $`dimM=0`$, then $`dimN=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Hilb}(M)=\mathrm{Hilb}(N)`$. Since $`H_𝔪^0(M)=M`$, $`H_𝔪^0(N)=N`$ and $`H_𝔪^i(M)=H_𝔪^i(N)=0`$ for $`i>0`$, the assertion follows in this case.

Now suppose that $`dimM>0`$. Assume first that $`\mathrm{depth}M=0`$. We have $`M/H_𝔪^0(M)F/U^{sat}`$, and, by 2.1, $`N/H_𝔪^0(N)=F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)^{sat}=F/\mathrm{Gin}(U^{sat})`$. By 1.8, we also know that $`M/H_𝔪^0(M)`$ is sequentially CM. Thus, if the implication (a)$``$(b) were known for modules of positive depth, it would follow that

$$\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(M))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(M/H_𝔪^0(M)))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(N/H_𝔪^0(N)))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(M))$$

for all $`i>0`$. Notice that $`H_𝔪^0(M)=U^{sat}/U`$ and $`H_𝔪^0(N)=\mathrm{Gin}(U^{sat})/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$. However, since $`M=F/U`$ and $`N=F/\mathrm{Gin}(U)`$, and since $`F/U^{sat}`$ and $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U^{sat})`$ have the same Hilbert function, we conclude that also $`H_𝔪^0(M)`$ and $`H_𝔪^0(N)`$ have the same Hilbert function.

These considerations show that we may assume that $`\mathrm{depth}M>0`$. Accordingly, $`\mathrm{depth}N>0`$ by 2.1, and $`N`$ is sequentially CM by 2.2. Since $`M`$ and $`N`$ are sequentially CM we have $`\mathrm{depth}E^\text{.}(M)>0`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}E^\text{.}(N)>0`$. We may assume that the coordinates are chosen generically so that $`\mathrm{Gin}(U)=\mathrm{in}(U)`$ and that $`x_n`$ regular on $`E^\text{.}(M)`$ and regular on $`E^\text{.}(N)`$. According to 1.9, $`M/x_nM=F/(U+x_nF)`$ is sequentially CM. Therefore our induction hypothesis, together with \[7, Proposition 15.12\], implies that the Hilbert functions of the local cohomology modules of $`M/x_nM`$ and of $`F/\mathrm{Gin}(U+x_nF)=F/(\mathrm{Gin}(U)+x_nF)=N/x_nN`$ are the same.

We have short exact sequences of graded $`R`$-modules

$$0H_𝔪^{i1}(M/x_nM)H_𝔪^i(M)(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^i(M)0,$$

and

$$0H_𝔪^{i1}(N/x_nN)H_𝔪^i(N)(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^i(N)0,$$

because $`x_n`$ is regular on $`E^\text{.}(M)`$ and $`E^\text{.}(N)`$. Therefore applying the induction hypothesis to $`M/x_nM`$ we get

$`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(M))(t1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^{i1}(M/x_nM))`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^{i1}(N/x_nN))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(N))(t1),`$
from which we deduce that $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(M))=\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(N))`$.

(b)$``$(a): We proceed again by induction on $`dimM`$. With the same arguments as in the proof of the first implication, we may assume that $`\mathrm{depth}M>0`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{depth}N>0`$, too, and since we are working with generic coordinates and $`N`$ is sequentially CM by 2.2, $`x_n`$ is $`E^\text{.}(N)`$-, $`M`$\- and $`N`$-regular. We shall show that $`x_n`$ is also $`E^\text{.}(M)`$-regular. Since $`x_n`$ is $`E^\text{.}(N)`$-regular, the long exact cohomology sequence derived from $`0N(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}NN/x_nN0`$ splits into short exact sequences

(4) $`0H_𝔪^{i1}(N/x_nN)H_𝔪^i(N)(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^i(N)0,`$
We show by induction on $`i`$ that the corresponding sequences for $`M`$ are also exact. For $`i=0`$ the assertion is trivial, since $`H_𝔪^0(M)=0`$. Now let $`i>0`$, and assume that the assertion is true for all $`j<i`$. Then $`H_𝔪^{i1}(M)(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^{i1}(M)`$ is surjective, and we obtain the exact sequence

$$0H_𝔪^{i1}(M/x_nM)H_𝔪^i(M)(1)\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^i(M).$$

Suppose multiplication with $`x_n`$ is not surjective, then there exists a degree $`a`$ such that $`H_𝔪^i(M)_{a1}\stackrel{x_n}{}H_𝔪^i(M)_a`$ is not surjective. Using (4), and the hypothesis that the local cohomology modules of $`M`$ and $`N`$ have the same Hilbert function, one has

$`dim_KH_𝔪^{i1}(M/x_nM)_a`$ $`>`$ $`dim_KH_𝔪^i(M)_{a1}dimH_𝔪^i(M)_a`$
$`=`$ $`dim_KH_𝔪^i(N)_{a1}dimH_𝔪^i(N)_a`$
$`=`$ $`dim_KH_𝔪^{i1}(N/x_nN)_a.`$
This is a contradiction, since $`M/x_nM=F/(U+x_nF)`$ and $`N/x_nN=F/\mathrm{Gin}(U+x_nF)`$, and consequently $`dim_KH_𝔪^{i1}(M/x_nM)dim_KH_𝔪^{i1}(N/x_nN)`$.

Now it follows that $`x_n`$ is $`E^\text{.}(M)`$-regular, and also that the cohomology modules of $`M/x_nM`$ and $`N/x_nN`$ have the same Hilbert functions, whence our induction hypothesis implies that $`M/x_nM`$ is sequentially CM. Since $`x_n`$ is $`E^\text{.}(M)`$-regular, we final ly deduce that $`M`$ is sequentially CM. ∎

## 4. The squarefree case

In this section we will state and prove the squarefree analogue of Theorem 3.1. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a simplicial complex on the vertex set $`[n]=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, and let $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ be the Stanley-Reisner ideal of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and $`K`$ is field of characteristic $`0`$. The $`K`$-algebra $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]=R/I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Stanley-Reisner ring of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We recall the concept of symmetric algebraic shifting which was introduced by Kalai in : Let $`uR`$ be a monomial, $`u=x_{i_1}x_{i_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_d}`$ with $`i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_d`$. We define

$$u^\sigma =x_{i_1}x_{i_2+1}\mathrm{}x_{i_d+d1}.$$

Note that $`u^\sigma `$ is a squarefree monomial (in a possibly bigger polynomial ring).

As usual the unique minimal monomial set of generators of a monomial ideal $`I`$ is denoted by $`G(I)`$.

The symmetric algebraic shifted complex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }^s`$ whose Stanley-Reisner ideal $`I_{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}`$ is generated by the squarefree monomials $`u^\sigma `$ with $`u\mathrm{Gin}(I_\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

We quote the following properties of $`I_{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}`$ from  and :

1. $`I_{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}`$ is a strongly stable ideal in $`R`$;
2. one has the following inequality of graded Betti numbers:

$$\beta _{ij}(I_\mathrm{\Delta })\beta _{ij}(I_{\mathrm{\Delta }^s});$$
3. $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`I_{\mathrm{\Delta }^s}`$ have the same graded Betti numbers if and only if $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is componentwise linear.

Recall that an ideal $`IR`$ is called componentwise linear if in each degree $`i`$, the ideal generated by the $`i`$-th graded component $`I_i`$ of $`I`$ has a linear resolution.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ denote the Alexander dual of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., the simplicial complex

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\{F[n]:[n]F\mathrm{\Delta }\}.$$

It has been noted in \[11, Theorem 9\] that

$$K[\mathrm{\Delta }]\text{is sequentially CM}I_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\text{is componentwise linear}.$$

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a simplicial complex. Then

1. $`\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }]))\mathrm{Hilb}(H_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^s]))`$ for all $`i`$.
2. The local cohomology module of $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ and $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }^s]`$ have the same Hilbert function if and only if $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is sequentially CM.

###### Proof.

Part (a) is proved in . For the proof of (b) we shall need the following result which also can be found in : for all $`i0`$ and $`j0`$ one has

(5) $`dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }])_j={\displaystyle \underset{h=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{h}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h+j1}{j}\right)\beta _{ih+1,nh}(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}]).`$
(Observe that $`H_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }])_j=0`$ for $`j>0`$ and all $`i`$, as shown by Hochster, see  and \[6, Theorem 5.3.8\]).

Now suppose that $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is sequentially CM. Then $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is componentwise linear, and hence $`\beta _{ij}(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}])=\beta _{ij}(K[(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^s])`$ by Property (iii) of symmetric algebraic shifting. Since $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^s=(\mathrm{\Delta }^s)^{}`$, Formula (5) shows that $`dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }])_j=dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^s])_j`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$, as desired.

For the viceversa, let $`H`$ be the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$-matrix with entries $`h_{ij}=dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }])_j`$, $`i,j=0,\mathrm{},n`$, $`B`$ the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$-matrix with entries $`b_{hi}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{h}\right)\beta _{ih+1,nh}(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}])`$ and $`A`$ the $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$-matrix with entries $`a_{jh}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h+j1}{j}\right)`$. Then (5) says that $`H^t=AB`$. Since $`A`$ is invertible, we see that the numbers $`b_{hi}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{h}\right)\beta _{ih+1,nh}`$ are determined by the Hilbert functions of the local cohomology modules of $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$. Thus, if $`dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }])_j=dim_KH_𝔪^i(K[\mathrm{\Delta }^s])_j`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$, then the numbers $`b_{hi}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^s`$ coincide, which in turn implies that their graded Betti numbers are the same (because $`\beta _{ij}=b_{nj,i+nj1}/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{nj}\right)`$). By Property (iii) of symmetric algebraic shifting this implies that $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is componentwise linear, and hence $`K[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is sequentially CM. ∎