format: text

text:
# The cosupport axiom, equivariant cohomology and the intersection cohomology of certain symplectic quotients

## Introduction

Suppose $`K\times MM`$ is a Hamiltonian action of a compact Lie group $`K`$ on a symplectic manifold $`M`$, and that $`\mu :M𝔨^{}`$ is a proper equivariant moment map for this action. To avoid unnecessary symmetry we assume throughout this paper that there is at least one point in $`\mu ^1(0)`$ whose stabilizer is zero dimensional. The symplectic quotient, or reduction at zero, is given by the construction $`M_0:=Z/K`$ where $`Z=\mu ^1(0)`$. The infinitesimal orbit type stratification of $`Z`$ descends to a stratification of $`M_0`$ by symplectic orbifolds. When $`0`$ is a regular value of the moment map there is a single stratum. In this case the cohomology of $`M_0`$ can be studied via the surjective restriction:

$$H_K^{}(M)H_K^{}(Z)H^{}(M_0).$$

When $`0`$ is no longer a regular value then, in general, $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ will have infinite dimension, and the pull-back $`H^{}(M_0)H_K^{}(Z)`$ will be neither surjective nor injective.

In this paper we show how, under certain conditions on the action, we can still extract topological information about $`M_0`$ from $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ when the reduction is no longer regular. The information we obtain is a complete description of the middle perversity intersection cohomology $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ as a graded vector space with non-degenerate pairing between classes of complementary degree. In many cases when dealing with singular spaces this appears to be more natural data than the ordinary cohomology.

Intersection cohomology has its most elegant description in terms of the derived category of constructible sheaves. We are interested in the relationship between two objects, the derived push-down $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ of the constant sheaf on $`EK\times _KZ`$, and the middle perversity intersection cohomology complex $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$. The hypercohomology functor takes these respectively to $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ and $`IH^{}(M_0)`$. In §3 we show how the partial resolution constructed in \[MS99\] allows us to define (non-canonically) a morphism

$$\kappa :𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0).$$

This generalises a construction first used by Kirwan in \[Kir86\].

The intersection cohomology complex $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ is characterised as an object of the derived category by three axioms which we call normalisation, support and cosupport. The normalisation axiom, that a complex is quasi-isomorphic to the constant sheaf on the unique open stratum, is always satisfied by $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$. A simple check shows that the support axiom holds for $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ precisely when $`K`$ has only finite stabilizers on $`Z`$, or, equivalently, the reduction is regular. (Of course cosupport also holds for $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ in this situation because it is quasi-isomorphic to $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ under the regularity assumption.) In this paper we demand rather less, we allow support to fail, so the reduction need not be regular, but demand that cosupport holds for $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$. We say an action for which this occurs is *almost-balanced*. The reason for the terminology is that the almost-balanced condition is equivalent to asking that the weights of the action on a normal fibre to an infinitesimal orbit type stratum be evenly distributed about the origin. This is explained more precisely in \[Kiea\]. As well as their theoretical interest there are interesting examples of almost-balanced actions. For instance the moduli space of bundles over a Riemann surface arises as a quotient by an almost-balanced action. The rank $`2`$ case is discussed in some detail in \[Kieb\]. The ‘standard’ example of $`SU_2`$ acting on $`(^1)^n`$ is also almost-balanced and we discuss this in §4.4. Very loosely, one expects actions arising in highly symmetric contexts to be almost-balanced.

We show in §4 that when the action is almost-balanced there is a canonical morphism

$$\lambda :𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z).$$

which splits $`\kappa `$ i.e. $`\kappa \lambda =\text{id}`$. If we make the slightly stronger assumption that the action is weakly balanced we can identify the subspace of $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ which corresponds to $`IH^{}(M_0)`$. The naturality of $`\lambda `$ ensures that the intersection pairing corresponds to the normal product on equivariant cohomology.

Finally, in §5, we show that the same set of ideas can be applied to *any* circle action. The key point is that we can define a non-middle perversity $`n`$ for which $`IH_n^{}(M_0)IH^{}(M_0)`$. The statements of the previous section then hold for arbitrary circle actions but with $`n`$ replacing the middle perversity.

## 1. Intersection cohomology

Suppose $`X`$ is a connected pseudomanifold of dimension $`2n`$ with a fixed even dimensional topological stratification $`\{S_\alpha \}`$. Let $`𝐃(X)`$ be the bounded below derived category of constructible sheaves on $`X`$. This is a triangulated category with shift functor $`[n]`$ and truncation functors $`\tau _{<n}`$ and $`\tau _{>n}`$. Slightly more general than $`\tau _{<n}`$ is the functor given by truncation on a closed subset, which was introduced by Deligne and defined in \[GM83, §1.14\]. Let $`Y`$ be a closed subset of $`X`$. Then there is a functor $`\tau _{<n}^Y`$ and a morphism $`\tau _{<n}^Y𝒜\dot{}𝒜\dot{}`$ which induces

(1)
$$H_x^i(\tau _{<n}^Y𝒜\dot{})\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & xY\text{ and }in;\hfill \\ H_x^i(𝒜\dot{})\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

for any sheaf complex $`𝒜\dot{}`$. Of course $`\tau _{<n}^X=\tau _{<n}`$.

We denote the cone on a morphism $`\alpha `$ in $`𝐃(X)`$ by $`\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\alpha )`$. The category $`𝐃(X)`$ also has a tensor product and Verdier duality functor. Stratified maps between spaces induce the standard derived functors $`f^{},Rf_{},f^!`$ and $`Rf_!`$ of sheaf theory. A reasonably complete description of this category is given in \[GM83, §1\].

###### Definition 1.1.

A *perversity* $`p`$ is a function $`\{S_\alpha \}`$. We say $`p`$ is *monotone* if $`p(S_\alpha )p(S_\beta )`$ whenever $`\overline{S_\alpha }S_\beta `$.

Given a perversity $`p`$ we define full subcategories of $`𝐃(X)`$ by

$`𝐃_0^p(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝒜\dot{}|H^i(ȷ_\alpha ^{}𝒜\dot{})=0\text{ for }i>p(S_\alpha )\}`$
$`\text{and }𝐃_0^p(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝒜\dot{}|H^i(ȷ_\alpha ^!𝒜\dot{})=0\text{ for }i<p(S_\alpha )\}.`$
###### Theorem 1.2 (\[KS94, Ch. 7, 1.2.1\]).

The pair $`(𝐃_0^p(X),𝐃_0^p(X))`$ of subcategories defines a $`𝕥`$-structure on $`𝐃(X)`$. There are left and right adjoints $`\tau _0^p`$ and $`\tau _0^p`$ respectively to the inclusions

$$𝐃_0^p(X)𝐃(X)\text{ and }𝐃_0^p(X)𝐃(X).$$

Now suppose $`p`$ is a monotone perversity with $`p(U)=0`$ where $`U`$ is the unique open stratum. We define two further perversities $`p^+`$ and $`p^{}`$ by

$$p^\pm (S_\alpha )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & S_\alpha =U\hfill \\ p(S_\alpha )\pm 1\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Theorem 1.3 (\[GM83, §3\]).

There is a unique object

$$𝒞\dot{}_p(X)𝐃_0^p^{}(X)𝐃_0^{p^+}(X)$$

with the property that $`𝒞\dot{}_p(X)|_U`$ is quasi-isomorphic to the constant sheaf $``$ on $`U`$.

We call $`𝒞\dot{}_p(X)`$ the perversity $`p`$ intersection cohomology complex. Its hypercohomology $`IH_p^{}(X)`$ is the perversity $`p`$ intersection cohomology. The uniqueness part of the proof rests on the following lemma which is proved by induction over the stratification:

###### Lemma 1.4.

Suppose $`𝒜\dot{}|_U`$ is quasi-isomorphic to the constant sheaf $``$. Then we have the following implications:

$`𝒜\dot{}𝐃_0^p^{}(X)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒜\dot{},𝒞\dot{}_p(X))`$
$`𝒜\dot{}𝐃_0^{p^+}(X)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒞\dot{}_p(X),𝒜\dot{}).`$
We define the *middle perversity* to be the function $`m(S_\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{codim}S_\alpha `$. We will denote the middle perversity intersection cohomology complex simply by $`𝒞\dot{}(X)`$. The *top perversity* is given by $`t(S_\alpha )=2m(S_\alpha )`$. A simple check shows that $`𝒞\dot{}(X)^2𝐃_0^t^{}(X)`$ and so lemma 1.4 guarantees there is a natural morphism to $`𝒞\dot{}_t(X)`$.

###### Theorem 1.5 (\[GM83, §5.2\]).

This morphism gives rise to pairings

which are non-degenerate when $`X`$ is compact.

To simplify the notation we say that

$`𝒜\dot{}\text{ satisfies }\text{support}`$ $``$ $`𝒜\dot{}𝐃_0^m^{}(X)`$
$`𝒜\dot{}\text{ satisfies }\text{cosupport}`$ $``$ $`𝒜\dot{}𝐃_0^{m^+}(X).`$
Thus theorem 1.3 says that $`𝒞\dot{}(X)`$ is characterised by the conditions that it satisfies support, cosupport and is the constant sheaf on $`U`$.

## 2. Singular symplectic quotients

Suppose $`(M,\omega )`$ is a Hamiltonian $`K`$-space for some compact connected Lie group $`K`$. By this we mean that $`K`$ acts on $`M`$ preserving the symplectic form $`\omega `$ in such a way that there is an equivariant moment map $`\mu :M𝔨^{}`$ satisfying

$$d\mu ,a=ı_{a_M}\omega $$

where $`a𝔨`$ and $`a_M`$ is the vector field on $`M`$ arising from the infinitesimal action of $`a`$. Throughout this paper we will assume that $`\mu `$ is proper, and in this case call $`M`$ a *proper Hamiltonian $`K`$-space*.

It is well known that if $`0`$ is a regular value of $`\mu `$ then the topological space $`M_0=\mu ^1(0)/K`$ can naturally be given the structure of a compact symplectic orbifold. When $`0`$ is not a regular value Lerman and Sjamaar show in \[SL91\] that $`M_0`$ is a stratified symplectic space. We briefly describe the stratification but ignore the Poisson structure on the functions since this is unnecessary for our topological applications.

Let us put $`Z=\mu ^1(0)`$. Suppose $`H`$ is a compact subgroup of $`K`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔥`$. Let $`Z_H`$ be the subset of points of $`Z`$ whose stabilizer is precisely $`H`$. We also define subsets of $`Z`$

$$Z_𝔥=\{zZ:\mathrm{Lie}\mathrm{Stab}z=𝔥\}\text{and}Z_{(𝔥)}=\{zZ:\mathrm{Lie}\mathrm{Stab}z(𝔥)\}$$

where $`(𝔥)`$ is the set of subalgebras of $`𝔨`$ conjugate to $`𝔥`$.

For each nonempty subset $`Z_{(𝔥)}`$ of $`Z`$ fix once and for all a representative $`𝔥`$ of the conjugacy class $`(𝔥)`$ and let $`H`$ be the generic stabiliser of a point in $`Z_𝔥`$ (so that $`\mathrm{Lie}(H)=𝔥`$). The set $`I_Z`$ of these Lie subalgebras forms an indexing set for a topological stratification $`𝒮_𝔨`$ of $`M_0`$ by infinitesimal orbit types. The strata are the sets consisting of those points representing orbits in the subsets $`Z_{(𝔥)}`$ for $`𝔥I_Z`$. These strata are symplectic orbifolds, with a symplectic structure induced from $`\omega `$. This stratification makes $`M_0`$ into a compact topological pseudomanifold — see \[MS99, §3.1.1\] for details.

### 2.1. Relation with algebraic quotients

There is a well known principle that symplectic and algebraic quotients are ‘the same’. Suppose $`V`$ is a smooth complex projective variety with a given embedding $`V^n`$. Let $`G`$ be a reductive algebraic group which acts on $`V`$ via a homomorphism $`\rho :GGL_{n+1}`$. Geometric invariant theory constructs a categorical quotient $`V^{ss}//G`$ of the Zariski open subset $`V^{ss}`$ of semistable points.

Let $`K`$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $`G`$. We may assume, by conjugating if necessary, that $`K`$ maps into $`U_{n+1}`$ under the homomorphism $`\rho `$. The Fubini-Study form on $`^n`$ restricts to a Kähler form on $`V`$ which is preserved by the action of $`K`$. Further the action of $`K`$ is Hamiltonian and there is a moment map

$$\mu :V^n\stackrel{\varphi }{}𝔲_{n+1}^{}\stackrel{(d\rho )^{}}{}𝔨^{}$$

where $`\varphi `$ is the moment map for the standard action of $`U_{n+1}`$ on $`^n`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

(\[Kir84, Nes84\]) The zero set $`\mu ^1(0)`$ of the moment map is contained within the semistable points $`V^{ss}`$. This inclusion induces a homeomorphism

$$\mu ^1(0)/KV^{ss}//G.$$

More generally let $`M`$ be a proper Hamiltonian $`K`$-space. We fix a choice of compatible $`K`$-invariant almost complex structure $`J`$ and metric $`g`$ on $`M`$. Let $`pZ_HZ_{(𝔥)}`$. Define

$$V_p=\left(T_p(Kp)JT_p(Kp)\right)^{}T_pM$$

where $``$ denotes the orthogonal complement with respect to $`g`$, and set

(2)
$$W_p=(V_p)_𝔥^{}V_p$$

where $`(V_p)_𝔥`$ is the subspace invariant under the infinitesimal $`𝔥`$ action. $`W_p`$ has a Hermitian structure, induced from the triple $`(J,g,\omega )`$, with respect to which it becomes a Hamiltonian $`H`$-space. It follows from the local normal form for the moment map (see \[Mar85, GS84\]) that a neighbourhood of the point $`q`$ in $`M_0`$ representing the orbit $`Kp`$ is homeomorphic to the product of the reduction at zero of $`W_p`$ with $`^r`$ for some $`r`$. By a small extension of theorem 2.1 to the quasi-projective variety $`W_p`$ we deduce that a neighbourhood of $`q`$ in $`M_0`$ is homeomorphic to the product of the geometric invariant theory quotient $`W_p//H^{}`$ with $`^r`$. Thus all symplectic reductions are locally homeomorphic to algebraic varieties.

### 2.2. Partial desingularisation

In \[Kir85\] Kirwan showed how a singular geometric invariant theory quotient may be canonically desingularised by a particular sequence of blowups. This approach was extended to singular reductions of symplectic manifolds with proper moment map in \[MS99\]. Lack of canonicity in the definition of *symplectic* blowup means the resulting desingularisation is certainly not unique up to symplectomorphism. However it is unique up to homeomorphism and as we are interested in purely topological questions in this paper this is quite sufficient for our purposes.

Suppose that $`M`$ is a symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian action of a compact connected Lie group $`K`$ for which the moment map $`\mu :M𝔨^{}`$ is proper. Let $`𝔥I_Z`$ be a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔨`$ indexing a stratum $`S𝒮_𝔨`$ of maximal depth.

###### Proposition 2.2 (partial desingularisation).

We can find a continuous surjection $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{\pi }{}M_0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ is the reduction of a proper Hamiltonian $`K`$-space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ such that

1. the restriction $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0\pi ^1SM_0S`$ is a homeomorphism;
2. if $`pZ_HZ_{(𝔥)}`$ and $`q`$ its image in $`S`$ then $`\pi ^1(q)`$ is homeomorphic to $`W_p//H^{}`$ where $`W_pT_pM`$ is the Hermitian subspace defined in (2);
3. $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ has a stratification indexed by $`I_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}=I_Z\{𝔥\}`$.

Applying this proposition inductively we can find a symplectic orbifold, arising as the regular reduction of a proper Hamiltonian $`K`$-space, which we call the partial desingularisation of $`M_0`$. The reader is referred to \[MS99\] for a precise uniqueness statement. As remarked above, the only fact we will use is that it is unique up to homeomorphism.

## 3. The Kirwan map

For a regular symplectic reduction $`M_0`$ of a proper Hamiltonian $`K`$-space $`M`$ the Kirwan map is defined to be the composition

$$H_K^{}(M)H_K^{}(Z)H^{}(M_0)$$

of restriction to the zero set $`Z`$ of the moment map and the natural isomorphism of the equivariant cohomology of $`Z`$ with the cohomology of $`M_0`$. One of its most important properties is that it is surjective, see \[Kir85, 3.10\]. In this section we generalise this and define a map

$$H_K^{}(M)IH^{}(M_0)$$

to the intersection cohomology of the reduction even when the reduction is not regular — this idea was first discussed (for geometric invariant theory quotients) in \[Kir86\].

We introduce the notation $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ for the derived push-forward of the constant sheaf with stalk $``$ via the map $`EK\times _KZM_0`$. Our aim is to construct a morphism $`\kappa :𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ in $`𝐃(M_0)`$. Inductively we may assume there is a morphism

$$\stackrel{~}{\kappa }:𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is the zero set of the moment map on $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. (In the base case of the induction when the reduction is regular there is a quasi-isomorphism.) Suppose that we have a ‘suitable’ morphism $`R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$. We may then define $`\kappa `$ by the composition

$$𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)$$

of the equivariant pull-back $`\pi ^{}`$, the morphism $`R\pi _{}\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ and this suitable morphism. We then define the Kirwan map to be the composite

$$H_K^{}(M)H_K^{}(Z)IH^{}(M_0)$$

where the second map is induced from $`\kappa `$. In an abuse of notation we will often denote this second map by $`\kappa `$ rather than the correct but clumsy $`^{}(M_0;\kappa )`$.

How do we conjure up this ‘suitable’ morphism? Let us consider the inclusion $`\pi ^1S\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ where $`S`$ was the maximal depth stratum of $`M_0`$ which we blew up in the first stage of the partial desingularisation. Here $`\pi ^1S`$ plays the role of exceptional divisor in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$. In particular this inclusion is normally nonsingular of codimension $`2`$. Thus, using the results of \[GM83, §5.4\], we obtain a Gysin morphism

(3)
$$R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)\stackrel{\gamma }{}R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)[2].$$

Intuitively we think of $`^{}(M_0;\gamma )`$ as analogous to multiplication by the first Chern class of the normal bundle.

Recall from proposition 2.2 that if $`qS`$ is the image of $`pZ_H`$ then $`\pi ^1(q)`$ is homeomorphic to the geometric invariant theory quotient $`W_p//H^{}`$. Further the embedding of $`\pi ^1(q)`$ into the restriction of the normal bundle of $`\pi ^1S\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ to that fibre is homeomorphic to the embedding of the zero section into an anti-ample line bundle $``$ on $`W_p//H^{}`$. There is an isomorphism

$$H_q^{}(R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0))IH^{}(W_p//H^{}).$$

Let $`r=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{codim}S=\frac{1}{2}dimW_p//H^{}`$. By \[BBD82, §6\] there is a hard Lefschetz theorem for the above intersection cohomology groups arising from the ample line bundle $`^1`$. In particular there are isomorphisms

$$IH^{r1i}(W_p//H^{})IH^{r1+i}(W_p//H^{})$$

for $`i=0,\mathrm{},r1`$ given by $`H_q^{r1i}(\gamma ^i)`$. Moreover by considering the Gysin sequence for $``$ we can identify the primitive part of $`IH^{}(W_p//H^{})`$ as being isomorphic to $`IH^{}(W_p//H^{})`$.

The decomposition theorem of \[BBD82, §6\] can be thought of as a relative hard Lefschetz theorem. In this spirit we now show how the morphism $`\gamma `$ and the local Lefschetz decomposition above are sufficient to induce a global decomposition

(4)
$$R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\dot{}$$

where $`\dot{}`$ is supported on $`S`$. We will then take the projection to be the ‘suitable’ morphism. For ease of reading we put $`𝒜\dot{}=R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)`$ and set

$$𝒜\dot{}_i=\left(\tau _{<i}Rȷ_{}ȷ^{}𝒜\dot{}\right)[2(ir)]i=1,\mathrm{},r1$$

where $`ȷ`$ is the inclusion of $`S`$ in $`M_0`$. Consider the morphism $`𝒜\dot{}_1\mathrm{}𝒜\dot{}_{r1}\stackrel{\alpha }{}𝒜\dot{}`$ whose $`i^{th}`$ factor is

$$𝒜\dot{}_iRȷ_{}ȷ^{}𝒜\dot{}[2(ir)]\stackrel{\gamma ^{ri}}{}𝒜\dot{}.$$

For each $`i<r2`$ we also have a morphism $`(1,\gamma ):𝒜\dot{}_i[2]𝒜\dot{}_{i+1}𝒜\dot{}_{i+2}`$ and hence can define

$$𝒜\dot{}_1[2]\mathrm{}𝒜\dot{}_{r3}[2]\stackrel{\beta }{}𝒜\dot{}_1\mathrm{}𝒜\dot{}_{r1}$$

as the sum of these. It is clear that $`\alpha \beta =0`$ so we can choose a factorisation

Since $`\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\beta )`$ is supported on $`S`$, we get a morphism $`\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )ı_{}ı^{}𝒜\dot{}=ı_{}ı^{}𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ where $`ı`$ is the inclusion of the complement of $`S`$. Computing cohomology we find that $`\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )\tau _{<r}\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )`$ and that the induced morphism $`\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )\tau _{<r}\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )\tau _{<r}ı_{}ı^{}𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Since $`\pi `$ is proper, Verdier duality applied to

$$R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)\mathrm{Con}\dot{}(\phi )𝒞\dot{}(M_0)$$

yields a morphism $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)`$. Both are quasi-isomorphisms except on $`S`$ and it then follows from lemma 1.4 that they induce the desired splitting. Note that this decomposition is not canonical since we had to choose the lift $`\phi `$.

Pictorially we think of this decomposition as follows (with r=4):

###### Conjecture 3.1.

The Kirwan map $`H_K^{}(M)IH^{}(M_0)`$ is surjective.

There is various evidence suggesting that this conjecture should be true. First note that it follows from the equivariant Morse theory of the moment map that $`H_K^{}(M)H_K^{}(Z)`$ is surjective (see \[Kir84, 3.10\]) so that what is in question is the surjectivity of $`H_K^{}(Z)IH^{}(M_0)`$. In various special cases, for instance when the action of $`K`$ is almost-balanced or $`K`$ is a circle, we show below that this is surjective. In the GIT setting, the second author proved the surjectivity \[Woo\] by using the decomposition theorem. Recent work of Tolman suggests that this is so for arbitrary actions by higher dimensional tori.

## 4. The cosupport condition

When $`K`$ acts quasi-freely on $`Z`$ there is a quasi-isomorphism $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$. In other words $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ satisfies both the support and cosupport conditions. Since the equivariant cohomology of a point with respect to a non-trivial connected group is infinite dimensional we can easily check that

$$𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\text{ satisfies support }K\text{ acts quasi-freely on }Z.$$

It is very natural to ask: when does $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ satisfy cosupport? Again there is a pleasant geometric interpretation of this condition.

###### Definition 4.1.

For each connected component of a stratum of $`M_0`$ fix a point with generic stabiliser in the preimage of the component in $`Z`$. We say that the *action satisfies $`C(j)`$* if, for each such point $`p`$,

$$dim(W_p//H^{})+j<2\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{codim}_{W_p}S|S𝒰_p\},$$

where $`H=\mathrm{Stab}p`$, the subspace $`W_p`$ of $`T_pM`$ is as in (2) and $`𝒰_p`$ is the set of unstable strata in the Morse stratification of $`W_p`$ by the gradient flow of the norm square of the moment map associated to the $`H`$ action. Equivalently, using the connection with geometric invariant theory outlined in §2.1, we can express this as

$$dim(W_p//H^{})+j<2\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}_{W_p}\{xW_p|0\overline{H^{}x}\}.$$

Note that $`\{xW_p|0\overline{H^{}x}\}`$ is $`\phi _p^1(0)`$ where $`\phi _p:W_pW_p//H^{}`$ is the (algebraic) quotient map. This definition is independent of the chosen points in the preimages of the connected components of the strata.

###### Lemma 4.2.

$`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝐃_j^{m^+}(M_0)\text{ the action satisfies }C(j).`$

###### Proof.

Suppose $`p`$ is in the preimage in $`Z`$ of a point $`q`$ in a connected component $`ȷ_S:SM_0`$ of a stratum, and that $`H=\mathrm{Stab}p`$. There is a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}H_q^i(ȷ_S^!𝒞\dot{}_K(Z))H_H^i(W_p)H_H^i(W_p\phi _p^1(0))\mathrm{}$$

We see that $`\mathrm{codim}\phi _p^1(0)=\mathrm{min}\{i|H_q^i(ȷ_S^!𝒞\dot{}_K(Z))0\}`$. By the definition of $`𝐃_j^{m^+}(M_0)`$ we see that $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ lies in this subcategory if, and only if,

$$\mathrm{codim}\phi _p^1(0)>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{codim}S+j=\frac{1}{2}dim(W_p//H^{})+j$$

which is precisely $`C(j)`$. ∎

In particular, since $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ satisfies cosupport if, and only if, it lies in the subcategory $`𝐃_0^{m^+}(M_0)`$, we have

$$𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\text{ satisfies cosupport }\text{ the action satisfies }C(0).$$

###### Lemma 4.3.

$`C(0)\tau _0^m^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)C(1).`$

###### Proof.

This follows from the triangle associated to $`\tau _0^m^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ and the above lemma. ∎

###### Remark 4.4.

If the condition $`C(0)`$ is satisfied, we say the $`K`$ action on $`M`$ is *almost-balanced*. The terminology came from the fact that $`C(0)`$ can be viewed as a condition on the distribution of the weights of the maximal torus action on the normal space to each stratum \[Kiea\]. For example, if the weights of the maximal torus action of $`H`$ on $`W_p`$ is symmetric with respect to the origin, for each $`𝔥I_Z`$ and $`pZ_𝔥`$, then the $`K`$ action is almost balanced. This is the case for the quotient construction yielding the moduli space of bundles on a Riemann surface (\[Kiea\] Proposition 7.3). We compute a simpler example in §4.4.

When the action is almost-balanced the above lemma shows that there is a natural morphism $`\lambda :𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\tau _0^m^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ which we interpret as a generalisation of the pull-back which exists when the action of $`K`$ on $`Z`$ is quasi-free.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Suppose the action of $`K`$ on $`M`$ is almost balanced. Then $`\kappa \lambda =\text{id}`$ and so the intersection cohomology of $`M_0`$ is naturally identified with a subspace of the equivariant cohomology of $`Z`$.

###### Proof.

It is easy to check that the composition

$$𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\stackrel{\lambda }{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\stackrel{\kappa }{}𝒞\dot{}(M_0)$$

is non-zero, but then it must then be a quasi-isomorphism by 1.4. ∎

### 4.1. Finding the right subspace

In order to make practical use of the observation that $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ embeds into $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ when the action is almost-balanced we need to be able to give a concrete description of the image. To this end we introduce an auxiliary complex $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)`$.

Suppose $`𝔥`$ is in the indexing set $`I_Z`$ for the stratification of $`M_0`$. Let $`Y_{(𝔥)}`$ be the closure in $`Z`$ of the corresponding subset $`Z_{(𝔥)}`$, and similarly let $`Y_𝔥`$ be the closure of $`Z_𝔥`$. Let $`N^{H_0}`$ be the normaliser in $`K`$ of $`H_0=\mathrm{exp}𝔥`$, the identity component of the generic stabiliser of points in $`Z_𝔥`$. Let $`N_0^{H_0}`$ be the identity component of $`N^{H_0}`$.

Notice that $`Y_{(𝔥)}`$ is homeomorphic to $`KY_𝔥`$ and consider the resolution

$$K\times _{N^{H_0}}Y_𝔥KY_𝔥=Y_{(𝔥)}$$

which is an isomorphism over $`KZ_𝔥`$. Since the normal subgroup $`H_0`$ of $`N_0^{H_0}`$ acts trivially upon $`Y_𝔥`$, we get morphisms

(5)
$$𝒞\dot{}_K(Y_{(𝔥)})𝒞\dot{}_{N^{H_0}}(Y_𝔥)R\psi _{𝔥}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(𝒞\dot{}_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}(Y_𝔥)H\dot{}_{H_0}\right)$$

where $`H\dot{}_{H_0}`$ is the constant sheaf on $`Y_𝔥/N_0^{H_0}`$ with stalk $`H_{H_0}^{}`$ and $`\psi _𝔥`$ is the quotient map $`Y_𝔥/N_0^{H_0}Y_𝔥/N^{H_0}`$. Define the complex $`_𝔥(Z)𝐃(M_0)`$ to be the extension by zero to $`M_0`$ of

$$R\psi _{𝔥}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(𝒞\dot{}_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}(Y_𝔥)\tau _{n_𝔥}H\dot{}_{H_0}\right)$$

where $`n_𝔥`$ is half the real codimension of the stratum $`Z_{(𝔥)}/K`$ of $`M_0`$.

###### Definition 4.6.

Define $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)`$ (up to quasi-isomorphism) by the distinguished triangle

$$𝒱\dot{}(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\underset{𝔥I_Z}{}_𝔥(Z)$$

where the morphism $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)_𝔥(Z)`$ is given by restricting to $`Y_{(𝔥)}`$, applying the morphisms in (5) and truncating in the second factor.

Let $`V^{}(Z)`$ be the image of the hypercohomology of $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)`$ in $`H_K^{}(Z)`$. Restriction to $`Y_{(𝔥)}`$ composed with the morphisms (5) induces a map

$$H_K^{}(Z)[H_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}^{}(Y_𝔥)H_{H_0}^{}]^{\pi _0N^{H_0}}$$

where the square brackets denote the invariant part under the action of the finite group $`\pi _0N^{H_0}N^{H_0}/N_0^{H_0}`$. We can check that $`V^{}(Z)`$ consists of those classes in $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ whose image under this map lies in the direct summand

$$[H_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}^{}(Y_𝔥)H_{H_0}^{<n_𝔥}]^{\pi _0N^{H_0}}$$

for each $`𝔥I_Z`$.

###### Assumption 4.7.

For the remainder of this section we will make the technical assumption that the action is not only almost-balanced but in fact *weakly-balanced* i.e. not only does $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ satisfy cosupport (which means $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝐃_0^{m+}(M_0)`$ ) but so does each of the $`𝒞\dot{}_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}(Y_𝔥)`$ (by which we mean $`𝒞\dot{}_{N_0^{H_0}/H_0}(Y_𝔥)𝐃_0^{m+}(Y_𝔥/N^{H_0})`$, or equivalently $`_𝔥(Z)𝐃_1^m(M_0)`$). These latter conditions can be interpreted geometrically in a similar fashion to the interpretation of the almost-balanced condition — see \[Kiea\]. The moduli space of bundles on a Riemann surface arises as a quotient by a weakly-balanced action and we compute another example in §4.4.

###### Lemma 4.8.

Suppose the action of $`K`$ is weakly-balanced. Then there is a direct sum decomposition $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\dot{}(Z)`$.

###### Proof.

It follows immediately from the weakly-balanced assumption that the morphism $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\tau _0^m^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ can be factored through $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)`$ since $`\tau _0^m_𝔥(Z)=0`$. It is easy to check that the resulting composition

$$𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒱\dot{}(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\stackrel{\kappa }{}𝒞\dot{}(M_0)$$

is not zero and so must then be a quasi-isomorphism by lemma 1.4. ∎

Thus the intersection cohomology $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ embeds as a subspace of $`V^{}(Z)H_K^{}(Z)`$. We now show that the image of the embedding is precisely this subspace.

###### Theorem 4.9.

Suppose the action of $`K`$ is weakly-balanced. Then the restriction of the Kirwan map to $`V^{}(Z)`$ is an isomorphism onto $`IH^{}(M_0)`$.

### 4.2. Proof of theorem 4.9

Let $`F^{}(Z)`$ be the image of the hypercohomology of $`\dot{}(Z)`$ in $`H_K^{}(Z)`$. It follows from lemma 4.8 that it is sufficient to show that $`F^{}(Z)`$ is zero. Inductively we will assume that $`F^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ is zero, where

(6)
$$𝒱\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})$$

and $`F^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ is the image of the hypercohomology of $`\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ in $`H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$.

Let $`S`$ be the deepest stratum of $`M_0`$ (which is the centre of the first blowup in the partial desingularisation procedure) and set $`r=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{codim}S`$. We also introduce closed subsets $`CZ`$ (for centre) and $`E\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ (for exceptional divisor) which are respectively the preimages of $`S`$ under $`ZM_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{M}_0Z`$.

###### Lemma 4.10.

We can choose a factorisation

where $`\tau _{<r}^S`$ is the truncation over a closed subset functor (see 1).

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from definition 4.6 of $`𝒱\dot{}(Z)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.11.

We can choose a morphism $`\beta `$ so that

commutes.

###### Proof.

For each $`𝔥I_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_𝔥`$ denote the $`H_0=\mathrm{exp}𝔥`$ fixed point set in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ just like $`Y_𝔥`$ in $`Z`$. Then since the map $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ is equivariant, we have the commutative diagram

This induces the following commutative diagram

by assigning zero for $`𝔥I_ZI_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}`$. The claim now follows from the definitions. ∎

###### Lemma 4.12.

If $`\eta F^{}(Z)`$ then $`0=\pi ^{}\eta |_EH_K^{}(E)`$ where $`E`$ is defined above.

###### Proof.

We can decompose $`R\pi _{}𝒱\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ into a direct sum $`R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)R\pi _{}\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ using (6). It follows from lemma 4.8 that the composition

$$R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)R\pi _{}\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒱\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)$$

is a quasi-isomorphism on the first term. Now let us consider the composition

$$\dot{}(Z)𝒱\dot{}(Z)\stackrel{\beta }{}R\pi _{}𝒱\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)R\pi _{}\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{Z}).$$

By the above and lemma 4.11 the projection onto the first term of the RHS is, up to a quasi-isomorphism, the same as

$$\dot{}(Z)𝒱\dot{}(Z)𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0).$$

In particular if we decompose $`R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)`$ as in (4) into $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)\dot{}`$ then by definition $`\dot{}(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)`$ is zero and the choice of $`\alpha `$ in lemma 4.10 induces a unique lift of $`\dot{}(Z)\dot{}`$ to $`\tau _{<r}^S\dot{}`$.

The inductive assumption that $`F^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})=0`$ now tells us that the two morphisms

induced by $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ respectively must give the same map on hypercohomology.

The almost-balanced assumption guarantees that there is a quasi-isomorphism $`\tau _{<r}^S𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)\tau _{<r}^SRı_{}ı^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$, where $`ı`$ is the inclusion of the open complement to $`S`$. So $`\tau _{<r}^SR\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ decomposes as $`\tau _{<r}^S𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}`$ where $`𝒞\dot{}`$ is defined (up to quasi-isomorphism) by the distinguished triangle

$$𝒞\dot{}\tau _{<r}^SR\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})\tau _{<r}^SRı_{}ı^{}𝒞\dot{}_K(Z).$$

Furthermore because $`\dot{}`$ is supported on $`S`$ it includes into $`\tau _{<r}^SR\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ as a subobject of $`𝒞\dot{}`$.

The final observation we require is that the spectral sequence computing the hypercohomology of $`R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})|_S`$ degenerates at the $`E_2`$-term. This follows from Deligne’s criterion and the surjectivity of the restriction $`H_H^{}(W_p)H_H^{}(W_p^{ss})`$. Hence the spectral sequence for $`\tau _{<r}^SR\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})|_S`$ must also degenerate and there is an injection

(7)
$$^{}(S;\tau _{<r}^SR\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})|_S)^{}(S;R\pi _{}𝒞\dot{}_K(\stackrel{~}{Z})|_S)H_K^{}(E)$$

where $`E`$ is the ‘exceptional divisor’ in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$. But now we are done for we have shown that the image of the class $`\eta F^{}(Z)`$ pulled back to $`H_K^{}(E)`$ lies in two subspaces, namely $`^{}(S;\tau _{<r}^S𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)|_S)`$ and $`^{}(S;𝒞\dot{})`$, whose intersection is zero. ∎

We can now complete the proof of theorem 4.9. Let $`\eta F^{}(Z)`$. By lemmas 4.11 and 4.12 we see that $`\pi ^{}\eta H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})`$ lies in the subspace $`V^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})IH^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)`$ and restricts to zero on $`E`$. Furthermore by the definition of $`F^{}(Z)`$ we know that it projects to zero in the summand $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ of $`IH^{}(\stackrel{~}{M}_0)`$. It follows from (4) and the fact that $`\dot{}`$ is supported on $`S`$ that we must have $`\pi ^{}\eta =0`$.

Studying the proof of lemma 4.12 more carefully we see that we can actually conclude that not only is $`\pi ^{}\eta |_E=0`$ but that $`\eta |_C=0`$ where $`CZ`$ is the ‘centre’ of the blowup defined above on page 4.2 since it lies in $`^{}(S;\tau _{<r}^S𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)|_S)`$ which injects into $`H_K^{}(E)`$. Finally we note that

(8)
$$\mathrm{ker}\left(H_K^{}(Z)H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})\right)\mathrm{ker}\left(H_K^{}(Z)H_K^{}(C)\right)=0$$

so that $`\eta =0`$ as desired. (8) follows from the observation that if $`\stackrel{~}{M}U`$ is the blowup of a neighborhood of $`Z`$ along a submanifold containing $`C`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{M}//K=\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$, then the nonminimal strata in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with respect to the norm square of the moment map retract onto those in the exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and hence $`\mathrm{ker}\left(H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{M})H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{Z})\right)\mathrm{ker}\left(H_K^{}(\stackrel{~}{E})H_K^{}(E)\right)`$.

### 4.3. The intersection pairing

Since $`M_0`$ is compact (by the properness assumption on the moment map) there is an intersection pairing

$$IH^{}(M_0)IH^{}(M_0).$$

This arises from a morphism $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2𝒞\dot{}_t(M_0)`$ where the latter is the intersection cohomology complex with top perversity $`t(S)=\mathrm{codim}(S)`$. When the action is almost-balanced there is a second natural morphism

$$𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)^2𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒞\dot{}_t(M_0)$$

induced from the product on equivariant cohomology.

###### Lemma 4.13.

These two morphisms $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2𝒞\dot{}_t(M_0)`$ are the same.

###### Proof.

It is easy to check that $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2𝐃_0^t^{}(M_0)`$. Then by lemma 1.4 we have

$$\mathrm{Hom}(𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2,𝒞\dot{}_t(M_0)).$$

Since on the non-singular stratum the two morphisms are both just the product on the constant sheaf with stalk $``$ we are done. ∎

###### Lemma 4.14.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the union of the singular strata of $`M_0`$. Then

$$^{dimM_0}(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2)=0.$$

###### Proof.

Note that the maximal degree in which the hypercohomology of a complex $`𝒞\dot{}`$ does not vanish is bounded by

$$\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}\{i+dim\mathrm{supp}H^i(𝒞\dot{})\}.$$

Now since $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)^2𝐃_0^t^{}(M_0)`$ we see that this quantity is strictly less than $`\mathrm{max}\{dimS_\alpha +t(S_\alpha )\}=dimM_0`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.15.

Let $`d=dimM_0`$. It follows from the above lemma that the product on equivariant cohomology gives us maps $`V^i(Z)V^{di}(Z)V^d(Z)`$ and, by a similar argument, that $`V^d`$ is the image of the pull-back $`H^d(M_0)H_K^d(Z)`$.

###### Definition 4.16.

We say a coadjoint orbit $`𝒪`$ is *close to $`0`$* if $`\mu ^1𝒪`$ is contained in the set $`M^{ss}`$ of points which flow to $`Z`$ under the gradient flow of the norm square of the moment map. (This depends upon the choices of compatible metric on $`M`$ and invariant metric on $`𝔨`$.)

###### Proposition 4.17.

Suppose the coadjoint orbit $`𝒪`$ is close to $`0`$ and contains a regular value of $`\mu `$ (and hence consists entirely of regular values). Let $`\eta ,\zeta H_K^{}(M)`$ be two classes whose restrictions to $`H_K^{}(Z)`$ lie in $`V^{}(Z)`$. Then the intersection pairing of $`\kappa (\eta |_Z)`$ with $`\kappa (\zeta |_Z)`$ in $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ is given by

$$\eta \zeta |_{\mu ^1(𝒪)}[M_𝒪].$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\mu ^1(𝒪)M^{ss}`$ the flow induces an equivariant map $`\mu ^1(𝒪)\mu ^1(0)=Z`$ which is a homeomorphism between dense open sets and so we have

Let $`d=dimM_0`$. By lemma 4.13 and remark 4.15 we also have a commutative diagram

where the horizontal maps are isomorphisms. The result follows by composing these two diagrams and noting that $`H^d(M_0)H^d(\mu ^1(𝒪)/K)`$ preserves evaluations against the fundamental class because $`\mu ^1(𝒪)/KM_0`$ is ‘birational’. ∎

### 4.4. Example

(cf. \[Kir86, §4\]) Let $`M=(^1)^n`$ acted on diagonally by $`SU_2`$ (in the obvious way). Identifying $`^1`$ with $`S^2^3`$ and $`𝔰𝔲_2`$ with $`^3`$ we have a moment map

$`\mu :M`$ $``$ $`^3`$
$`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle x_i}`$
for this action. We can check that this action is almost-balanced. The zero set $`Z=\mu ^1(0)`$ consists of $`n`$-tuples of points balanced about the origin. Let $`TSU_2`$ be the maximal torus

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{it}& 0\\ 0& e^{it}\end{array}\right).$$

The Weyl group of $`SU_2`$ is $`_2`$ and $`H_{SU_2}^{}(M)=[H_T^{}(M)]^_2`$ is the $`_2`$-invariant part of $`H_T^{}(M)`$. The $`T`$-equivariant cohomology is generated by classes $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\beta `$ in degree $`2`$ subject to the relations $`\alpha _i^2=\beta ^2`$. The Weyl group acts trivially on the $`\alpha _i`$ and takes $`\beta `$ to $`\beta `$. Hence

$$H_{SU_2}^{}(M)[\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\beta ^2]/\alpha _i^2=\beta ^2:i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

The only non-discrete subgroups which have fixed point are conjugates of $`T`$. The fixed points of $`T`$ correspond to sequences $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ where $`a_i=\pm 1`$ respectively according to whether we take $`0`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$ in the $`i^{th}`$ $`^1`$. If $`F`$ is the fixed point corresponding to $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ then $`\mu _T(F)=a_i`$, the $`T`$-equivariant Euler class $`e_F`$ of the normal bundle to $`F`$ is $`(a_i)\beta ^n`$ and $`\alpha _i|_F=a_i\beta H_T^{}(F)`$.

Since $`\mu (F)=0`$ implies that $`\mu _T(F)=0`$ it is clear that the reduction at zero is seriously singular (i.e. has worse than orbifold singularities) if, and only if, $`n`$ is even. Put $`n=2m`$. We note that the singularities of the reduction $`M_0`$ of $`M`$ are isolated. So the restriction of $`\eta H_{SU_2}^{}(M)`$ to $`Z`$ lies in $`V^{}`$ if, and only if, either $`\mathrm{deg}\eta <2m3`$ or $`\eta |_{Z_{(𝔱)}}=0`$. Furthermore it follows from the Poincaré polynomial calculations of \[Kir84, §5\] that the restriction

$$H_{SU_2}^r(M)H_{SU_2}^r(Z)$$

is an isomorphism for $`r<2m`$. We deduce that, for $`r<2m3`$, there is an isomorphism $`V^rH_{SU_2}^r(M)`$.

The reduction $`M_0`$ can, via geometric invariant theory, be given a description as a projective algebraic variety. In particular its intersection cohomology will satisfy the hard Lefschetz theorem i.e. there are isomorphisms

$$IH^{2m3i}(M_0)\stackrel{}{}IH^{2m3+i}(M_0)$$

given by powers of a map $`IH^r(M_0)IH^{r+2}(M_0)`$. A moment’s thought shows that on $`V^{}`$ this map must be given by multiplication by the Kähler class $`\omega =\alpha _j`$. (Note that any multiple of $`\omega `$ restricts to an element of $`V^{}`$ since

$$\omega |_{Z_{(𝔱)}}=\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle a_j}=0}{}a_j\beta =0.)$$

Finally since the equivariant cohomology of $`M`$ vanishes in odd degree we deduce that so does that of $`M_0`$ and, in particular, $`IH^{2m3}(M_0)=0`$. Hence

$$IH^r(M_0)\{\begin{array}{cc}H_{SU_2}^r(M)\hfill & r=2m3i,i0\hfill \\ \omega ^iH_{SU_2}^{r2i}(M)\hfill & r=2m3+i,i0\hfill \end{array}$$

with the intersection pairing given by taking the product in $`H_{SU_2}^{}(M)`$ and evaluating against the fundamental class of the reduction of $`M`$ at any regular coadjoint orbit close to $`0`$. The full Lefschetz decomposition can be computed by considering the action of powers of $`\omega `$.

## 5. Circle actions

As we would expect the circle case is far simpler than the general one. Let $`M`$ be a proper Hamiltonian $`S^1`$-space, $`Z`$ be the zero set of an equivariant moment map and $`M_0=Z/S^1`$ be the reduction. Let $`_0`$ be the set of fixed point components of $`S^1`$ which lie in $`Z`$. Each such component corresponds to an isomorphic singularity in $`M_0`$. For each $`F_0`$ define $`d(F)`$ (respectively $`e(F)`$) to be the minimum (respectively maximum) of the numbers of positive and negative weights of $`S^1`$ on normal fibre $`W_F`$ to $`F`$ in $`M`$.

The normal fibre to the singularity corresponding to $`F_0`$ in $`M_0`$ is given by the quotient $`W_F//^{}`$. We can easily check that removing the vertex we have

$$(W_F\{0\})//^{}(W_F^+\{0\})\times _{^{}}(W_F^{}\{0\})$$

where $`W_F^\pm `$ are the positive and negative weight spaces. This is the total space of some $`^{e(F)}\{0\}`$ bundle over a weighted projective space of dimension $`d(F)1`$.

Define a perversity $`n`$ by

$$n(S)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \mathrm{codim}S=0\hfill \\ 2d(F)1\hfill & SF.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Lemma 5.1.

There is a quasi-isomorphism $`𝒞\dot{}(M_0)𝒞\dot{}_n(M_0)`$ and $`𝒞\dot{}_K(Z)`$ lies in the full subcategory $`𝐃_0^{n^+}(M_0)`$.

###### Proof.

Both statements follow almost immediately from the above calculation of the normal fibre. ∎

We now have the same situation as in the last section but with the perversity $`nm`$ replacing the middle perversity $`m`$. Arguing analogously we deduce

###### Theorem 5.2.

The intersection cohomology $`IH^{}(M_0)`$ is isomorphic (via the Kirwan map) to the subspace

$$\{\eta H_{S^1}^{}(Z)|\eta |_FH^{}(F)H_{S^1}^{<2d(F)1}\}.$$

The intersection pairing is given by taking the product of classes and evaluating against the fundamental class of either of the shift resolutions $`M_{\pm ϵ}`$ where $`0ϵ`$.

###### Corollary 5.3.

The intersection Betti numbers of $`M_0`$ are given by the Poincaré polynomial

$$P_t^{S^1}(Z)\frac{1}{1t^2}\underset{F_0}{}t^{2d(F)}P_t(F).$$

###### Example 5.4.

We consider a linear circle action on the projective space $`^n`$. Let $`p,q`$ and $`r`$ denote the number of positive, negative, and zero weights respectively, so that $`n=p+q+r1`$. Let us assume that $`pq`$ (the other case being entirely similar). Using equivariant Morse theory, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_t^{S^1}(Z)& =(P_t(^n)t^{2q+2r}P_t(^{p1})t^{2p+2r}P_t(^{q1}))/(1t^2)\hfill \\ & =(1+t^2+\mathrm{}+t^{2p+2r2}t^{2q+2r}\mathrm{}t^{2n})/(1t^2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, by the above corollary, the intersection Poincaré polynomial is

$$P_t^{S^1}(Z)\frac{t^{2p}P_t(^{r1})}{1t^2}=\frac{(1t^{2p})(1t^{2q+2r})}{(1t^2)^2}$$

which is a palindromic polynomial of degree $`2n2`$.

Intersection pairings can be also computed by using the splitting above — see \[Kiea\].


text:
# Orientational transitions in a nematic confined by competing surfaces

## I Introduction

In the last years there has been a vast theoretical effort to understand the properties of liquid crystals in bulk phases. However, it is only recently that the interfacial phenomena presented by these complex fluids have attracted an increasing interest. The ability to manipulate the direction of the preferred molecular alignment, the director, by coupling to surfaces, is a property with a great practical interest. For this reason, there is a new effort trying to describe this rich surface phenomenology in the liquid crystals. These studies have mainly used phenomenological Landau-de Gennes approaches and aimed to describe, with more or less success, different phenomena such as subsurface deformations  (ordering close to a surface), changes in the alingnment of the director due to the interaction with a solid substrate , nematic-isotropic transition , wetting , etc. On the other hand, microscopic-type theories claim to provide a more precise description of theses inhomogeneous problems since they take account of the structure at the molecular scale. In this framework, there is a recent literature describing attemps to answer such questions and it is supposed to provide more satisfactory theories in the interfacial phenomena. For example, by employing an Onsager-type theory R. van Roij et al.  investigated the problem of biaxiality and wetting for the Zwanzig model. P. I. C Teixeira has discussed, in a recent work , the existence of subsurface deformations for the case of a confined nematic phase by using a generalized van der Waals theory. In previous papers, also employing this last approach, we studied surface phenomena in the case of a nematic in contact with a single wall  as well as capillary effects in the case of a nematic in slab geometry with symmetric walls . In Ref.  our attention was restricted to the study of a nematic in the presence of a solid interface. Model parameters where chosen such that the surface forced the molecules to lie perpendicular to the interface (homeotropic orientation) while in the nematic-isotropic interface the nematic director had a preference to lie parallel to the interface (planar orientation). In the model, surface parameters responsible for the order are the particle-wall interaction ($`ϵ_W`$) and the particle-particle interaction ($`ϵ_C`$) which played an important role in the interplay between anchoring and wetting transitions. A first-order anchoring transition between planar and homeotropic regimes was found; in a $`\mu T`$ (chemical potential-temperature) representation (see Fig. 1) this transition appears as a line called anchoring line. This line approaches the nematic-isotropic transition line tangentially (at constant $`\mu `$, eventually cuts this line at $`T_D`$), due to the existence of total wetting state at the coexistence. Later, the nematic phase was confined by symmetric walls, i.e both walls favored the same orientation (homeotropic) . Then, also the same anchoring line appeared and it was found to be very insensitive to the pore width except with respect to the localization of $`T_D`$ that is shifted by capillary effects. These findings have a bearing on the new phenomenology which appears when the liquid crystal is confined.

In the present paper, the theory is generalized to the case where the walls compete in molecular alignment. We believe that deeper insight into the surface-induced effects in liquid crystals can be obtained from a molecular approach and, in this respect, density funtional theory appears to be a powerful tool. The confinement of the nematic phase is imposed by the presence of a boundary made up of two opposing flat surfaces, one favoring homeotropic orientation and the other favoring planar orientation. In these conditions, a spatial variation in the tilt angle between the director and the surface normal is found. The textures adopted by the nematic director depend very dramatically on the values of both surface field and pore width. For the case of a strong surface field $`ϵ_W`$ and a wide pore this dependence is linear with respect to the coordinate normal to the interfaces except close to the surfaces. This configuration satisfies surface boundary conditions but entails an elastic energy which is minimum for a linear tilt configuration. For weaker surface fields and/or narrow pores a different texture occurs where the tilt angle adopts a steplike configuration. Our calculations also reveal the existence of biaxial behavior close to the surface favoring planar orientation as well as in a small region associated to the change of orientation in the steplike configuration. These biaxilities are direct surface effects due to the existence of different interfaces.

In the next section we give a short account of the theoretical model used to describe the structure and thermodynamics of the confined liquid crystal. In section III we show the different tilt configurations that result and argue that the phase transition between the linear-tilt and the steplike-tilt configurations can be related with the anchoring transition found in the semi-infinite problem. We also discuss how biaxiality is affected by the pore width. We end up with a section of conclusions.

## II The Model

The theoretical model is a standard generalized van der Waals theory based on a perturbative expansion, using a hard-sphere (HS) fluid as reference system . Details on the physical basis of the model and how to obtain its solutions numerically can be found elsewhere . Our starting point is the grand potential functional per unit system area $`A`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho ]/A`$, whose functional minimum with respect to the one-particle distribution function, $`\rho (𝐫,\widehat{𝛀})`$, which depends on both molecular positions $`𝐫`$ and orientations $`\widehat{𝛀}`$, gives the equilibrium structure of the interface. This function, $`\rho (𝐫,\widehat{𝛀})\rho (z)f(z,\widehat{𝛀})`$, contains a mass distribution $`\rho (z)`$ and an angular distribution $`f(z,\widehat{𝛀})`$. These quantities vary locally with the distance from $`z=0`$ to $`z=H`$, $`H`$ being the pore width. The expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho ]`$, in a mean field approximation is,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }[\rho ]=F_r[\rho ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}𝑑\widehat{𝛀}𝑑\widehat{𝛀}^{}\rho (𝐫,\widehat{𝛀})\rho (𝐫^{},\widehat{𝛀}^{})}`$ (1)
$`\times v(𝐫𝐫^{},\widehat{𝛀},\widehat{𝛀}^{}){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫𝑑\widehat{𝛀}\rho (𝐫,\widehat{𝛀})[\mu v_W(𝐫,\widehat{𝛀})]},`$ (2)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential and

$`F_r[\rho ]={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫f_{hs}(\rho (𝐫))}+k_BT{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\rho (𝐫)<\mathrm{ln}(4\pi f(z,\widehat{𝛀}))>}`$ (3)
is the reference system free energy. In the above expression $`f_{hs}(\rho (𝐫))`$ is the hard-sphere free energy density of a uniform fluid with a density equal to the local density at $`𝐫`$ and ’$`<\mathrm{}>`$’ is an angular average. The attractive potential $`v`$ contains anisotropic (dispersion) forces driving the liquid-crystalline behavior of the model material:

$`v(𝐫,\widehat{𝛀},\widehat{𝛀}^{})=v_A(r)+v_B(r)P_2(\widehat{𝛀}\widehat{𝛀}^{})+v_C(r)\left[P_2(\widehat{𝛀}\widehat{𝐫})+P_2(\widehat{𝛀}^{}\widehat{𝐫})\right],`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}=𝐫/r`$, and $`v_A(r)`$, $`v_B(r)`$, $`v_C(r)`$ are functions of the intermolecular center-of-mass distance $`r`$. Note that this potential is adequate to model uniaxial molecules with top-bottom symmetry. In this work we choose them to have a simple Yukawa form, i.e. $`v_i(r)=ϵ_i\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _i(r\sigma ))/r`$ for $`r>\sigma `$, and $`v_i(r)=0`$ otherwise, where $`\sigma `$ is the diameter of a hard sphere.

The walls are modeled via the following potentials:

$$v_W^1(z,\theta )=ϵ_We^{\lambda _W(z\sigma )}P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\text{(left wall,}z=0)$$
(5)
which favors homeotropic anchoring, and

$$v_W^2(z,\theta )=ϵ_We^{\lambda _W((zH)\sigma )}P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\text{(right wall,}z=H)$$
(6)
which favors planar alignment. The parameter $`ϵ_W`$ is the surface strength of the walls and plays an important role in anchoring phenomena.

In order to describe the orientational structure of the fluid a tensorial order parameter is defined as,

$`Q_{\alpha \beta }={\displaystyle 𝑑\widehat{𝛀}f(z,\widehat{𝛀})\left(\frac{3\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\beta \delta _{\alpha \beta }}{2}\right)}`$ (7)
where $`\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Kronecker symbol and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha `$ is the $`\alpha `$-component of $`\widehat{𝛀}`$. This quantity is a traceless symmetric tensor with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3`$. In this description, the isotropic state is defined by the condition $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda _3=0`$. Uniaxial states occur when there is a twofold degenerated eigenvalue and then two cases can be distinguished: uniaxial nematic state ($`\lambda _1>\lambda _2=\lambda _3`$) and random planar ($`\lambda _1=\lambda _2>\lambda _3`$). In the first case, the molecules align preferently along the director, defined as the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue (the uniaxial order parameter $`U\lambda _1`$). In the second case, the molecular orientations are uniformly distributed on a plane perpendicular to the eigenvector correponding to the lowest eigenvalue.

For the case of non-degenerated eigenvalues, we can define the uniaxial ($`U`$) and biaxial ($`B`$) order parameters in terms of the eigenvalues of this tensor. The former is defined, as before, as the largest eigenvalue of the order parameter tensor ($`\lambda _1`$) and the corresponding eigenvector is the local director of the fluid. The biaxial parameter is proportional to the difference of the two smallest eigenvalues. This quantity gives information of the amount of the orientational order on the plane perpendicular to the director. In this way, a secondary director can be defined as the eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\lambda _2`$. By the symmetry of the problem, we have focused in the case where the director varies in the $`xz`$ plane and is invariant with respect to a reflexion $`yy`$. In these conditions, the director is characterized by the tilt angle $`\psi `$, defined as the angle formed between the director and the $`z`$ axis. By convention, we define $`B=\pm 2(\lambda _2\lambda _3)/3`$, with $`B>0`$ if the secondary director is on the $`xz`$ plane and $`B<0`$ if it is along the $`y`$ axis.

For numerical reason, it is convenient to obtain the orientation distribution of the molecules referred to a laboratory reference system, described by three order parameters,

$`\eta (z)={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta f(z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )}`$ (8)
$`\nu (z)={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta f(z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\mathrm{sin}2\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }`$ (9)
$`\sigma (z)={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta f(z,\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}2\varphi }`$ (10)
These independent parameters can be related to the set $`\{\psi ,U,B\}`$ by the following expressions,

$`\mathrm{tan}\psi (z)={\displaystyle \frac{\nu (z)}{\eta (z)\sigma (z)/2+\sqrt{\left[\eta (z)\sigma (z)/2\right]^2+\nu (z)^2}}}`$ (11)
$`U(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\eta (z)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sigma (z)+3\sqrt{[\eta (z)(1/2)\sigma (z)]^2+\nu (z)^2}\right)`$ (12)
$`B(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\eta (z)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sigma (z)\sqrt{[\eta (z)(1/2)\sigma (z)]^2+\nu (z)^2}\right).`$ (13)
Numerical values for the potential parameters were taken as $`ϵ_A=1`$ (which sets the temperature scale), $`ϵ_B/ϵ_A=0.847`$ and $`ϵ_C/ϵ_A=0.75`$, The range parameters $`\lambda _i`$ are set, in units of $`\sigma `$ (throughout we choose this unit to set the length scale), to $`\lambda _i=2,4,1.75`$, $`i=A,B,C`$ respectively, and $`\lambda _W=1`$. The model predicts a bulk phase diagram with vapor, isotropic liquid and nematic liquid coexisting at a triple point temperature $`T_{NIV}`$ .

## III Results

Confinement of simple liquids generally brings about capillary effects and associated capillary condensation phenomena whereby condensation occurs below the saturation point in bulk, as measured for example by the chemical potential. Similar phenomena must occur in nematic liquid crystals but with additional complicating factors due to the orientational order induced by the confining surfaces.

In the following we use the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as the external thermodynamic potential, in addition to the temperature $`T`$. Capillary condensation of the nematic from the isotropic phase occurs when, at fixed $`\mu `$, the temperature $`T_{NI}(H)`$ at which the pore becomes filled with an oriented (nematic) phase is shifted with respect to the corresponding temperature in bulk $`T_{NI}(\mathrm{})`$. We are thus seeking a non-zero value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }TT_{NI}(H)T_{NI}(\mathrm{})`$. Our calculations reveal that, contrary to the case of symmetric walls  and, for large pore widths ($`H`$ larger than $`20\sigma `$), no significant capillary effect exists, i.e. we find that the NI transition occurs at the same temperatures as in the bulk state. However, there are indications that for smaller pore widths this situation is not true longer (this aspect is being studied currently). Note though that condensation lines involving confined vapor states are expected to be affected by confinement; since these lines are not central to our argument we do not give any results in the following.

Fig. 1 shows the bulk phase diagram, with vapor (V), isotropic (I) and nematic (N) phases and their corresponding phase transitions. We have superimposed the anchoring line, representing surface phase transitions between states with different director alignment for the semi-infinite problem (i.e. only one surface, inducing homeotropic alignment); these results have been obtained with a surface field $`ϵ_W=0.53`$, for larger values this transition curve tends to approach the coexistence lines reducing then the region of planar states .

Now, we have calculated equilibrium states but with the sample confined between two opposing walls separated a distance $`H`$. There is a molecular ordering field due to the surfaces through the potential parameter $`ϵ_W`$. If the surface field strength is sufficiently high, one expects the director to adopt the configuration which satisfies the orientation favored by each surface, at least approximately. However, this necessarily demands that the director becomes distorted within the pore which entails a free energy cost due to the elastic contribution. In fact, the distribution of this inhomogeneity along the pore is found to depend sensitively on the values of pore width and surface field strength, and is expected to also depend on the thermodynamic parameters $`\mu `$ and $`T`$.

Competition between these two energies results in the existence of two tilt configurations: L, where the tilt angle rotates uniformly along the pore and the resulting tilt-angle profile is linear in $`z`$; S, where the tilt angle adopts a step-like configuration, being constant throughout the sample except in a narrow region close to the $`z=0`$ surface where a crossover exists from $`0^{}`$ (homeotropic) to $`90^{}`$ (planar).

Fig. 2 shows an L phase for $`H=20\sigma `$, $`ϵ_W=0.7`$ and for thermodynamic conditions of temperature and chemical potential where, in the semi-infinite case, the nematic is clearly in the homeotropic state ($`\mu =3.7`$, $`T=0.57`$). In the middle of the pore the tilt profile is almost a linear function of $`z`$, approaching smoothly the walls to their favored values.

In the Fig. 3 the density, the uniaxial and biaxial order parameter profiles are plotted. The profiles present a smooth behavior, reaching a clear plateau in the middle of the pore with values close to the bulk values. The vanishing value of $`B`$ in regions far from the interfaces is consistent with the uniaxial nature of the fluid particles. Close to walls the profile behaves differently depending on the favored orientation. Around the $`z=0`$ surface the $`U`$ order parameter increases due to the strong surface interaction (despite of a decay in density). However, these deformations do not induce biaxiality (i.e. $`B=0`$) due to the smooth character of the tilt profile along the pore. On the other hand, near the $`z=H`$ surface, where the tilt angle is $`90^{}`$, the $`U`$ order parameter gets lower values and $`B<0`$, that reflects the orientation of the molecules are mainly distributed on the $`xy`$ plane, being the $`x`$ axis the in-plane preferred direction. The decrease of the amount of order is due to surface potential that promotes a random planar distribution.

If the surface field strength is reduced the director tilt configuration changes over to a step, i.e. a S phase. Here the tilt angle is uniform and equal to $`90^{}`$ except in a narrow homeotropic region close to the homeotropic wall (Fig. 4). In general, this homeotropic region increases with the wall-particle potential range and with the strength of the surface field, so for the case of $`ϵ_W=0`$ one recover the configuration which corresponds to a nematic-hard walls interfaces (planar throughout the pore). Note that the S phase is spatially asymmetric, the tilt orientation being different from planar only in a small region close to the homeotropic wall. In fact, a corresponding S phase where the tilt were in a homeotropic configuration except in a very small region close to the planar wall is not observed in our calculations because of the effect due to the ordering field coming through the potential parameter $`ϵ_C`$. This field promotes molecular configurations where the director lies along a direction either perpendicular or parallel to the direction of inhomogeneity, depending on the sign of $`ϵ_C`$ ($`ϵ_C>0`$ or $`ϵ_C<0`$, respectively). In our case $`ϵ_C>0`$, which means that the preferred director orientation is planar except in the region, close to $`z=0`$, where the effect of the wall promoting homeotropic alignment is more pronounced.

In the figure 5 we plot the density, uniaxial and biaxial order parameters profiles in the S phase obtained with $`ϵ_W=0.30`$. Again the profiles only deviate from the bulk values close to the surfaces. The deviations around $`z=H`$ has the same origin that in the L phase. However, close to $`z=0`$ this behavior has different nature. An analysis of the order parameteres profiles reveals that the system goes smoothly from an homeotropic to a planar configuration via a random planar state in the $`xz`$ plane. This point ($`z_1`$ at fig. 5) corresponds to the jump of the tilt (origin of the step function profile). This mechanism is reponsible of the decay of the order and the biaxial behavior around this region. In fact, the existence of a crossover between homeotropic configuration and a planar configuration is closely linked to the capability of the fluid to have biaxial behavior in a small spatial range between both anchoring states. So, the roles that the $`z`$ and $`x`$ axes play as the local director and secondary director, respectively, for $`0<z<z_1`$ are exchanged at $`z=z_1`$. However, in order to make this mechanism feasible a dramatic depletion on the amount of order is needed. Moreover, the secondary director changes its alignment from the $`z`$ axis to the $`y`$ axis as $`z`$ is increased (i.e. $`B`$ changes its sign), before that biaxiality virtually disappears in the middle of the pore. Biaxiality directly induced by the breaking of symmetry associated with the presence of the interfaces and, in the case of a free interface with planar director alignment, has been observed in simulations .

In order to study in more detail the dependence of the nematic ordering on the pore width, we have calculated uniaxial order and biaxiality profiles for different values of $`H`$ and for $`ϵ_W=0.7`$ (Fig. 6). For pore widths $`H=20,30`$ and $`40`$, for which the L phase is the stable phase, the profiles exhibit inhomogeneity regions close to the surface favoring planar alignment, being almost constant in the rest of the pore. Note that biaxiality occurs only where the tilt angle is significantly close to $`90^{}`$. An interesting feature is that the order parameter profiles converge around to $`z=0`$ (resp. $`z=H`$) to the profiles obtained for the $`z=0`$ surface against a nematic in a homeotropic configuration (resp. the $`z=H`$ surface against a nematic in a planar configuration). Furthermore, such semi-infinite profiles are the equilibrium ones for these values of $`ϵ_W`$, $`\mu `$ and $`T`$. On the other hand, for $`H=7.5`$, the stable phase is the S phase, and additional regions of inhomogeneity (and biaxiality) develop in the neighbourhood of the $`z=0`$ surface.

The transition between the L and S phases involves a finite free-energy barrier, implying the existence of a thermodynamic first-order phase transition between the two phases. This is revealed by computing the relevant free energy for confined systems, i.e. the grand potential, as a function of the potential parameters and/or the thermodynamic parameters $`\mu `$ and $`T`$. In our case we have chosen to fix the latter and vary $`ϵ_W`$. Fig. 7 shows the behavior of the grand potential as a function of $`ϵ_W`$. Two branches, corresponding to the L and S phases, are shown. The point where the branches cross, $`ϵ_W^c`$, gives the transition point. Note the existence of metastable branches in both phases, which indicates the first-order nature of the phase transition. Tilt angle profiles along the pore corresponding to the coexisting L and S phases at $`ϵ_W=ϵ_W^c=0.554`$ for $`H=20\sigma `$ are shown in Fig. 8. Note that the linear behavior in the L phase has an smaller range and its slope is also less than in the case presented in Fig. 2. On the other hand, the step in the S phase is located further from the $`z=0`$ surface than in the case presented in Fig. 4.

As in any analysis of metastable states, some caution has to be exercised in analysing the occurrence of the different phases. In particular, the initial conditions required in our numerical minimisation scheme have to be chosen carefully. For example, the reality of the metastable L branch is shown by performing the following analysis: i) Equilibrium S states at low $`ϵ_W`$ are obtained by conducting minimisation processes starting from linear and step-like profiles; these processes give the same equilibrium S states. ii) For higher, increasing values of $`ϵ_W`$, using step-like profiles or linear profiles as starting conditions give different final states beyond the transition point $`ϵ_W^c`$, the final L states having lower grand potential energies than the final S states. This is the region of metastability of the S phase. Proceeding in the same way but from the L branch at high $`ϵ_W`$ and decreasing $`ϵ_W`$ provides the metastability region for the L phase.

Fig. 9 shows the global phase diagram with respect to the parameters $`ϵ_W`$ and $`H`$ and for thermodynamic conditions $`T=0.57`$ and $`\mu =3.7`$. The line indicates the phase transition separating L and S phases. As the pore width is increased, the region of stability of the L phase is enlarged since the elastic energy associated with the deformation of the director along the pore (proportional to the integrated squared gradient of the tilt profile) decreases as opposed to the case of the S phase, for which this energy is essentially constant and seems to approach asymptotically to the value of $`ϵ_W=ϵ_W^a`$, at which the anchoring transition occurs for the semi-infinite case of the nematic against the $`z=0`$ wall. For narrow pores, we find a quick increase of $`ϵ_W^c`$ as the pore width is reduced, indicating that, in order for the L phase to become stable, a large surface field is required to compensate for the large elastic energy associated with a high tilt angle gradient. An interesting issue, which we have been unable to address due to technical reasons, is whether this first order phase transition may end up at a critical point as the pore width is reduced or even become second order through the appearance of a tricritical point.

An analysis of the results quoted above shows that there is a relationship between the L-S transition and the anchoring transition observed in the semi-infinite problem. Let us consider the case of $`H\sigma `$. We have observed that the density and order parameter profiles deviate from the bulk values only in regions around of the surfaces, being the ranges of the inhomogeinities of the order of the molecular interactions. This feature is not surprising for the S phase, since in the middle of the pore the nematic is in a non-distorted tilt configuration (i.e. planar), so its tilt profile can be understood as two uncorrelated semi-infinite profiles linked via the bulk planar state. However, this fact is also true for the L phase even when the tilt distorsion is propagated through the pore (see discussion for the Fig. 6 above). This is the scenario that the phenomenological theory implicitly assumes: the excess free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }+pV`$ (where $`p`$ is the bulk pressure and $`V=AH`$ is the volumen of the sample) can be split in two terms, an elastic term $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^e`$ that comes from the distortions of the director field in a macroscopic scale, and surface terms, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=H}^{surf}`$, that include the effect of the density and order parameter inhomogeneities in a microscopic scale close to the boundaries. The elastic term is given in terms of the elastic constants $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$ and $`K_{24}`$ by the Oseen-Frank free energy  as:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }^e=\frac{K_1}{2}(𝐧)^2+\frac{K_2}{2}(𝐧\times 𝐧)^2+\frac{K_3}{2}(𝐧\times \times 𝐧)^2(K_2+K_{24})(𝐧𝐧+𝐧\times \times 𝐧)$$
(14)
where $`𝐧(𝐫)`$ is the director field. Note that the splay-bend term is not included since $`K_{13}=0`$ in bulk . If we restrict our study to the cases in which there is translational symmetry in the $`xy`$ plane and the director is assumed to be in the $`xz`$ plane (there is no twist), then $`𝐧(𝐫)=(\mathrm{cos}(\psi (z)),0,\mathrm{sin}(\psi (z))`$. In our model of uniaxial molecules with top-bottom symmetry, $`K_1=K_3=2\pi \rho _b^2U_b^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr^4v_B(r)`$, where $`\rho _b`$ and $`U_b`$ are the bulk density and uniaxial order parameter, respectively . So, the total excess free energy is given by:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{A}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(\psi (0),\psi ^{}(0))}{A}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=H}^{surf}(\psi (H),\psi ^{}(H))}{A}+\frac{K_3}{2}_0^H𝑑z(\psi ^{}(z))^2$$
(15)
where $`\psi ^{}d\psi /dz`$. Note that the dependence of the surface terms on the contact values at the boundaries of the tilt angle and its derivative respect to $`z`$ . Functional minimization of (15) leads to an equilibrium tilt linear profile $`\psi ^{}=constant=O(1/H)`$. The exact expression for the profile will depend on the surface terms of the free energy, so it is needed some information about them. The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}`$ can be obtained microscopically from the excess free energy corresponding to a case of the wall against a distorted nematic whose tilt profile goes asymptotically as $`\psi (0)+\psi ^{}(0)z`$ for $`\sigma zH`$ (this discussion is analogous for the $`z=H`$ case). Since $`\psi ^{}(0)1/\sigma `$ the effect of the distortion far from the $`z=0`$ surface will be a perturbation respect to the case $`\psi ^{}=0`$, that corresponds to the semi-infinite case studied in . In this Reference it was shown that if the wall promotes homeotropic anchoring, depending on the ratio between $`ϵ_W`$ and $`ϵ_C`$ two local minima can appear for $`\psi =0^{}`$ and $`\psi =90^{}`$ with a free energy barrier between them. However, if the surface favors a planar anchoring only a global minimum at $`\psi =90^{}`$ can exist. We can expand now the surface free energy in a series of both $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ around $`(\psi ,\psi ^{})=(0^{},0)`$ and $`(90^{},0)`$. The special symmetry of our problem (rotational invariance around the $`z`$ axis and the top-bottom symmetry of the molecules) implies that the linear term in $`\psi ^{}`$ vanishes. From this analysis we can conclude that for $`H\sigma `$ two different states can exist: a linear state that goes from a tilt close to $`0^{}`$ at $`z=0`$ to a value close to $`90^{}`$ at $`z=H`$, and a state with non-distorted planar tilt through the pore, and that correspond to the L and S states we have found, respectively. Furthermore, by using this phenomenologic approach a first-order transition can be predicted close to the anchoring line, inside the homeotropic region. The equation (15), up to terms of the order of $`O(1/H)`$, is:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{A}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(\psi _0,0)}{A}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=H}^{surf}(\pi /2,0)}{A}+\frac{K_3}{2H}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\psi _0\right)^2$$
(16)
where $`\psi _0=0`$ or $`\pi /2`$ for the L and S states, respectively. The transition occurs for

$$H_t=\frac{\pi ^2K_3}{8\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(\pi /2,0)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(0,0)\right)}$$
(17)
which implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(\pi /2,0)>\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(0,0)`$, i.e. the conditions should correspond to have an homeotropic configuration in the semi-infinite case, and the transition is first-order due to the free-energy barrier that exists between the two minima for the semi-infinite case. So, for $`H>H_t`$ an stable L configuration exists and for $`H<H_t`$ the S state is the stable one. From the Eq. (17) it is clear that $`H_t\mathrm{}`$ as the system approaches to the anchoring line (characterized by the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(\pi /2,0)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{z=0}^{surf}(0,0)`$), i.e. the L-S transition occurs for infinitely wide pores and, consequently, the anchoring line can be understood as the limit of the L-S transition for $`H\mathrm{}`$.

Strictly speaking, the scenario presented above is only true for $`H\sigma `$. However, our calculations reveal that the L-S transition observed by our Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations is the continuation of the transition predicted for wide pores. First of all, the free energy of the S phase is expected to converge towards its limiting value given by equation (16) very fast, as it was observed in the symmetric walls case in . For the L phase, we have compared the DFT results for $`ϵ_W=0.7`$ with the limiting expression given by the Eq. (16) (see Fig. 10). The values of $`\mu `$ and $`T`$ are the same as in all our calculations, i.e. $`\mu =3.7`$ and $`T=0.57`$. For such conditions, $`K_3=0.615`$. On the other hand, calculations for the semi-infinite case show that the asymptotic value for $`H\mathrm{}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/AK_BT=1.841`$. It is clear that the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ converge for relatively small values of $`H`$ to the expression given by the phenomenologic theory, and in any case the behavior is qualitatively correct. ¿From this analysis we conclude that the L-S transition is driven by the anchoring (surface) transition that occurs for the semi-infinite case of the nematic against the $`z=0`$ surface.

## IV Conclusions

In this paper we have employed a well-tested generalised van der Waals theory to investigate the effect of confinement on the thermodynamics and the microscopic structure of a nematic liquid crystal. The presence of two confining surfaces favoring opposite orientations of the nematic director makes the order parameter, which is a tensorial quantity, exhibit all of its richness, giving rise to capillary effects not present in simple, non-orientable fluids. The competing conditions at the surfaces imply a deformed state of the director inside the pore.

The main result of our study is that the system may adopt two possible states: one where the director changes orientation at an interface located close to the surface that favors homeotropic anchoring (depending on the wall-particle potential range), and one where the deformation takes place uniformly, giving rise to a basically linear tilt profile, with some degree of deformation close to the surfaces. The director may change from one configuration to another via a first-order phase transition. The interplay between these two phases may be understood in terms of the competition between the elastic energy associated with a deformed director state and the energy associated with the orienting surfaces. We have also shown that this transition is closely linked with the planar-homeotropic transition observed in the semi-infinite problem. In order to prove this aspect, a phenomenologic treatment has been employed. On the one hand, the theory shows how for big pores ($`H\sigma `$) the L-S first order transition can occur at threshold value of the pore width $`H_t`$. On the other hand, the phenomenological approach also reveals that for $`H\mathrm{}`$ the L-S transition corresponds to the anchoring transition of the semi-infinite problem. We also conclude that the transition obtained by the DFT is the continuation to shorter scales of the transition predicted by the phenomenological theory, that in principle is only valid for much larger pore widths.

## Acknowledgments

I.R.P. would like to thank Prof. R. Netz for his hospitality at LMU, which helped to develop this work. This research was supported by grants No. PB97-0712 from DGICyT of Spain and No. FQM-205 from PAI of the Junta de Andalucía.


text:
# Rayleigh-Schrödinger Perturbation Theory Based on Gaussian Wavefunctional Approch

## I Introduction

The Gaussian wave-functional approach (GWFA) , or Gaussian approximation, has become a powerful and important tool to extract non-perturbative result of quantum field theory , finite temperature field theory , and condensed matter systems  since Stevenson’s advocation of the method about two decades ago . The Gaussian effective potential (GEP) obtained from the GWFA provides a good starting point for further investigations of various systems . Moreover, this approximation can also be used for realizing some novel ideas . However, the GWFA is essentially a variational approximation, and hence improvement of the obtained result is not straightorward. So far, there exist mainly two methods to improve the GWFA. One way is to continue using the variational method with more elaborate, non-Gaussian trial wavefunctionals. For example, Kümmel and his collabrators developed the coupled cluster method and obtained results beyond the Gaussian approximation of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ and $`\varphi ^6`$ models ; Ritschel and his collaborators constructed a non-Gaussian trial wave functionals through a nonlinear canonical transformation ; In order to investigate ($`3+1`$)-dimentional $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory, Yotsuyanagi proposed an improved scheme of the GWFA by adopting a BCS-type wavefunctional . Another way of improveing the GWFA is to use appropriate expansions which give the GEP in their lowest order. In this aspect, Okopińska developed an optimized expansion method to calculate the generating functional with the Euclidean formalism  ; In the same Euclidean formalism, Stancu and Stevenson formulated a slightly different expansion scheme and calculated the post-GEP in the spirit of the background-field method ; Based on the GEP, Cea proposed a generalized GEP with a variational basis and carried out the calculation with the help of the standard perturbation technique in quantum field theory ; In the late 1990s, within the Minkowski formalism, one of the authors (Yee) and his collabrators developed the background field method to give an expansion of the effective action around the Gaussian approximate results . Recently, in order to calculate the partition function of a fermionic system, two of the authors (Kim and Nahm) and their collaborator proposed a variational perturbation scheme based on the functional integral without resorting to the background field method . Additionally, Solovtsov $`etal`$. proposed a kind of variational perturbation theory to calculate the effective potential . All these investigations improve the GEP or Gaussian-approximate result with miscellaneous degrees of success. Nevertheless, further investigations are needed still to achieve better approximations.

We note that Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory is one of the basic techniques in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics . It is also widely used in statistical mechanics  and, recently, generalized to quantum field theory . Conventionally, Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory is based on an exactly solvable part of the Hamiltonian of a system. Recently, two of the authors (Kim and Nahm) and their collabarators calculated the energies of an anharmonic oscillator by combining Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory and variational method and obtained satisfactory results . In this paper, we develop a variational Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory based on the Gaussian wave-functional approach (RSPTGA) in quantum field theory. Different from the schemes mentioned in the last paragraph, RSPTGA can be used to calculate the energies of both the vacuum and excited states. Applying RSPTGA to $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ model, we calculate the vacuum state energy up to the third order. The result improves the GEP substantially and indicates a fast convergence. Comparing with the result in Ref. , our result up to second order is shown to introduce an additional term.

Next section, we construct a quasi-free-field eigenstate set based on the GWFA, and develop RSPTGA based on the eigenset. In Sect. III, the vacuum state energy of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory will be calculated using RSPTGA. Finally, physical implication of the present results will be discussed.

## II Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory Based on the GWFA

In this section, we briefly introduce the GWFA, and construct a quasi-free-field eigenstate set. Based on this eigenstate set, we construct RSPTGA.

We consider a model with the Lagrangian density

$$=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _x^\mu \varphi _xV(\varphi _x),$$
(1)
where $`x=(x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^D)`$ represents a position in $`D`$-dimensional space, $`\varphi _x\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the field at $`x`$, and the potential $`V(\varphi _x)`$ has a Fourier reprensentation in a sense of tempered distributions . Many model potentials, such as polynomial models, sine-Gordon and sinh-Gordon models, possess this property. According to Ref.  (JPA), the GWFA produces the best trial vacuum wavefunctional

$$|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}=𝒩\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{1}{2}_{x,y}(\varphi _x\phi )f_{xy}(\varphi _y\phi )\}$$
(2)
where, $`𝒩`$ is the normalization constant ($`i.e.,\stackrel{(0)}{<}0|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}=1`$), $`_{x,y}d^Dxd^Dy`$, and $`f_{xy}=d^Dpf(p)e^{ip(xy)}`$ with $`p=(p^1,p^2,\mathrm{},p^D)`$. The classical constant $`\phi `$ is equal to the Gaussian-vacuum expectation value of $`\varphi _x`$,

$$\phi =\stackrel{(0)}{<}0|\varphi _x|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}.$$
(3)
Here,

$$f(p)=\sqrt{p^2+\mu ^2(\phi )},$$
(4)
and

$$\mu ^2(\phi )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\alpha }{2\sqrt{\pi }}e^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}V^{(2)}(\frac{\alpha }{2}\sqrt{I_1(\mu (\phi ))}+\phi ),$$
(5)
where $`V^{(n)}(z)=\frac{d^nV(z)}{dz^n}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{\sqrt{2\pi }}(iq)^n\stackrel{~}{V}(q)e^{iqz}`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{V}(q)`$ is the Fourier representation of $`V(z)`$) and $`I_n(Q)=\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{\sqrt{p^2+Q^2}}{(p^2+Q^2)^n}`$. The GEP of the system, Eq.(1), is given by

$$𝒱_G(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}I_0(\mu )\frac{\mu ^2}{4}I_1(\mu )+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\alpha }{2\sqrt{\pi }}e^{\frac{\alpha ^2}{4}}V(\frac{\alpha }{2}\sqrt{I_1(\mu )}+\phi )$$
(6)
with $`\mu `$ chosen from the three possibilities: solution of Eq.(5), $`\mu =0`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ (JPG) (Hereafter, we will write $`\mu (\phi )`$ as $`\mu `$ for simplicity except for special cases). We note that when $`𝒱_G(\phi )`$ has the absolute minimum at $`\phi _0`$, $`\mu (\phi _0)`$ becomes just the physical mass and $`𝒱_G(\phi _0)`$ represents the vacuum state energy. The symmetry of the vacuum can be discussed using Eqs.(3)$``$(6).

For the Gaussian vacuum, Eq.(2), one can construct the following annihilation and creation operators  (ZPC):

$$A_f(p)=(\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^Df(p)})^{1/2}_xe^{ipx}[f(p)(\varphi _x\phi )+i\mathrm{\Pi }_x]$$
(7)
and

$$A_f^{}(p)=(\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^Df(p)})^{1/2}_xe^{ipx}[f(p)(\varphi _x\phi )i\mathrm{\Pi }_x]$$
(8)
with the relations $`[A_f(p),A_f^{}(p^{})]=\delta (p^{}p)`$ and $`A_f(p)|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}=0`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_xi\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _x}`$ is the canonical conjugate operator to $`\varphi _x`$ with the commutation relation, $`[\varphi _x,\mathrm{\Pi }_y]=i\delta (xy)`$. Based on these operators, one can construct the quasi-free-field Hamiltonian,

$$H_0=𝑑pf(p)A_f^{}(p)A_f(p)=_x[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }_x^2+\frac{1}{2}(_x\varphi _x)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2(\varphi _x\phi )^2\frac{1}{2}I_0(\mu )].$$
(9)
The Gaussian vacuum, Eq.(2), is the ground state of $`H_0`$ with zero energy eigenvalue $`E_0^{(0)}`$. The excited states of $`H_0`$ are

$$|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_f^{}(p_i)|0\stackrel{(0)}{>},n=1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}$$
(10)
with the corresponding energy eigenvalue

$$E_n^{(0)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f(p_i).$$
(11)
Note that Eq.(2) is not a naive vacuum, since it contains information on the interacting system, Eq.(1). Obviously, the wavefunctionals $`|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ and $`|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ are orthogonal and normalized to $`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}=\frac{1}{n!}_{P_i(n)}_{k=1}^n\delta (p_k^{}p_{i_k})`$ (here $`P_i(n)`$ represents a permutation of the set $`\{i_k\}=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and the summation is over all $`P_i(n)s`$). $`|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ describes a $`n`$-particle state with the continuous momenta $`p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_n`$. $`|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ and $`|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ with $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ constitute the complete set for $`H_0`$, which we call quasi-free-field complete set.

Based on the above complete set, one can readily apply the conventional Rayleigh-Schödinger perturbation technique to calculate the energy of the system, Eq.(1). In order to do so, we write the Hamiltonian of the system Eq.(1) as $`H=H_0+H_I=H_0+(HH_0)`$ with

$$H_I=_x[\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2(\varphi _x\phi )^2+\frac{1}{2}I_0(\mu )+V(\varphi _x)].$$
(12)
Following the Rayleigh-Schödinger perturbation procedure , one can obtain the wavefunctionals and energies for the vacuum and excited states respectively,

$$|n>=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[Q_n\frac{1}{H_0E_n^{(0)}}(E_nE_n^{(0)}H_I)]^l|n\stackrel{(0)}{>},$$
(13)
and

$$E_n(\phi )=E_n^{(0)}+\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I[Q_n\frac{1}{H_0E_n^{(0)}}(E_nE_n^{(0)}H_I)]^l|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}$$
(14)
with $`Q_n=_{jn}^{\mathrm{}}d^Dp_1d^Dp_2\mathrm{}d^Dp_j|j\stackrel{(0)}{>}\stackrel{(0)}{<}j|`$.

For the case of $`n=0`$ and $`l=0`$, Eq.(14) gives the vacuum enegy up to the first order $`E_0^1=E_0^{(0)}+E_0^{(1)}=_x𝒱_G(\phi )`$ which is just the product of the GEP and the space volume. Thus, employing Eq.(14) with $`n=0`$, one can get the effective potential for the system, Eq.(1),

$$𝒱_{RS}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{E_0(\phi )}{d^Dx}$$
(15)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{<0|\varphi _x|0>}{<0|0>},$$
(16)
which takes the GEP, Eq.(6), as the first-order approximation. Eq.(16) implies that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should replace $`\phi `$ in the calculation of the effective potential. It is evident that $`\phi `$ in Eq.(3) is the zeroth order approximation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(0)}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. When Eq.(15) is truncated at $`n`$th order, one should also truncate Eq.(16) at the same order .

In the case of $`n0`$, Eq.(14) is the excited-state effective potential of the system . Additionally, Eq.(14) becomes the vacuum and excited-state energies for the symmetric phase of the system if $`\phi =0`$ is chosen in the scheme. In the next section, we apply RSPTGA to the vacuum state of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory.

## III Application to $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory

In this section, we consider the potential, $`V(\varphi _x)=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi _x^2+\frac{\lambda }{4!}\varphi _x^4`$, which was widely studied in connection with the Gaussian approximation . For this system, Eq.(5) gives rise to

$$\mu ^2=m^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \phi ^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda I_1(\mu ),$$
(17)
and from Eq.(6), one readily obtains

$$𝒱_G(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2+\frac{1}{4!}\lambda \phi ^4+\frac{1}{2}I_0(\mu )\frac{1}{32}\lambda I_1^2(\mu ),$$
(18)
which is just Eq.(2.22) in Ref. (PRD) ***our notation $`I_n(\mu )`$ is different from Eq.(2.21) in Ref. (PRD).. To obtain the effective potential of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory up to a given order according to Eq.(15), we first calculate the following matrix elements of $`H_I`$ :

$`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{(0)}{<}0|H_I|0\stackrel{(0)}{>}\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{P_{ij}(n2)\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})`$ (20)
$`\delta (p_{j_{(n1)}}^{}+p_{j_n}^{}p_{i_{(n1)}}p_{i_n})[f(p_{j_{(n1)}}^{})f(p_{j_n}^{})f(p_{i_{(n1)}})f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I|n1\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!(n1)!}}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \phi }{2\sqrt{2(2\pi )^D}}}{\displaystyle \underset{P_{ij}(n2)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})`$ (23)
$`\delta (p_{j_{(n1)}}^{}p_{i_{(n1)}}p_{i_n})[f(p_{j_{(n1)}}^{})f(p_{i_{(n1)}})f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^D}{2}}}(\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\phi ^2)\phi {\displaystyle \underset{P_{ij}(n1)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})\delta (p_{i_n})[f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}}\},`$
$`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I|n2\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!(n2)!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \underset{P_{ij}(n3)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})`$ (25)
$`\delta (p_{j_{(n2)}}^{}p_{i_{n2}}p_{i_{(n1)}}p_{i_n})[f(p_{j_{(n2)}}^{})f(p_{i_{n2}})f(p_{i_{(n1)}})f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I|n3\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!(n3)!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda \phi }{2\sqrt{2(2\pi )^D}}}{\displaystyle \underset{P_{ij}(n3)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})`$ (27)
$`\delta (p_{2_{(n2)}}+p_{i_{(n1)}}+p_{i_n})[f(p_{i_{(n2)}})f(p_{i_{(n1)}})f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
and

$`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n|H_I|n4\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{n!(n4)!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4(2\pi )^D}}{\displaystyle \underset{P_{ij}(n4)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n4}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})`$ (29)
$`\delta (p_{i_{(n3)}}+p_{i_{n2}}+p_{i_{(n1)}}+p_{i_n})[f(p_{i_{(n3)}})f(p_{i_{(n2)}})f(p_{i_{(n1)}})f(p_{i_n})]^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \mathrm{for}k<0\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \mathrm{for}k=0\hfill \\ \delta (p_{i_k}p_{j_k}^{}),\hfill & \mathrm{for}k>0\hfill \end{array}.`$

Here, the index $`i_k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ corresponds to $`|n\stackrel{(0)}{>}`$ and $`j_k\{1,2,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$ with $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n^{}`$ to $`\stackrel{(0)}{<}n^{}|`$. $`P_{ij}(l)`$ represents a given permutation of $`l`$ momenta $`p_{i_1},p_{i_2},\mathrm{},p_{i_l}`$ paired respectively with $`p_{j_1}^{},p_{j_2}^{},\mathrm{},p_{j_l}^{}`$, and $`_{P_{ij}(l)}`$ is over all different $`P_{ij}(l)s`$. For any $`P_{ij}(l)`$, $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_l`$ are different from one another, and so are $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_l`$. Employing the above matrix elements, a straightforward, yet lengthy calculation according to Eq.(15) gives the effective potential of the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory up to the third order as

$`𝒱^{iii}(\phi ){\displaystyle \frac{E_0^{iii}}{(2\pi )^D\delta (0)}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒱_G(\phi )`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu ^2}}\phi ^2(\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\phi ^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{A}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}}\phi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{B}{384}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{A+A_1+A_2}{48}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{\mu ^4}}\phi ^2(\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{3}}\phi ^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2B_1+B_2}{128}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^3}{\mu ^4}}\phi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{C}{512}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^3}{\mu ^4}}`$
with

$`\begin{array}{c}A=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(x+y)]^1[f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1,\hfill \\ A_1=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(x+y)]^1[1+f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1,\hfill \\ A_2=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(x+y)]^1[f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1\hfill \\ [1+f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1,\hfill \\ B=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dz}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(z)f_1(x+y+z)]^1\hfill \\ [f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(z)+f_1(x+y+z)]^1,\hfill \\ B_1=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dz}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(z)f_1(x+y)f_1(x+y+z)]^1\hfill \\ [f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1[f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(z)+f_1(x+y+z)]^1\hfill \\ B_2=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dz}{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(z)f_1(x+y)f_1(x+z)]^1\hfill \\ [f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(x+y)]^1[f_1(x)+f_1(z)+f_1(x+z)]^1\hfill \\ C=\frac{dx}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dy}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{dz}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{d\omega }{(2\pi )^D}[f_1(x)f_1(y)f_1(z)f_1(\omega )f_1(x+y+z)f_1(x+y+\omega )]^1\hfill \\ [f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(z)+f_1(x+y+z)]^1[f_1(x)+f_1(y)+f_1(\omega )+f_1(x+y+\omega )]^1\hfill \end{array}`$

and $`f_1(w)=\sqrt{1+w^2}`$. Here, we take $`\phi `$ as the zeroth order approximation of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In Eq.(24), the second line is the second order correction and the third line the third order correction to the GEP.

From Eq.(24), one can see that after $`𝒱_G(\phi )`$ is renormalized, its corrections will be finite and, accordingly, a further renormalization procedure is not needed for higer order corrections. In the case of (0+1) dimensions, our second-order result with $`\phi =0`$ is consistent with Eq.(14) in Ref. . Furthermore, numerical calculation for the case of (1+1) dimensions indicates that the effective potential with the second-order correction predicts existence of a second-order phase transition. We also note that the second-order correction improves GEP substantially, and the third order correction is vanishingly small. This can be seen by comparing the coeficients of the first, second and third terms in the second line of Eq.(24) with corresponding ones in the third line, respectively. This indicates that RSPTGA has a fast convergence in general.

## IV Discussion and Conclusion

In this paper, a Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation theory based on the GWFA within the framework of quantum field theory is proposed. Since the theory is based on the Gaussian approximation, it provides a systematical tool for controlling the Gaussian approximation. It can be used not only for calculating the effective potential but also for considering excited states. When one is interested in symmetric phase, the vacuum and excited-state energies can be calculated beyond the Gaussian approximation by RSPTGA using $`\phi =0`$. Application of RSPTGA to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory shows that it can improve the GEP substantially with a fast convergence.

We note that RSPTGA predicts existence of a second-order phase transition in the (1+1)-dimensional $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory, although the critical coupling is very small. It may be attributed to the fact that for the second-order case we approximated $`\mathrm{\Phi }=<0|\varphi _x|0>|_{l=2}`$ as $`\phi `$. We also note that the second-order result of Eq.(24) has an additional term $`\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\mu ^2}\phi ^2(\mu ^2\frac{\lambda }{3}\phi ^2)^2`$ which does not appear in Ref. . In fact, Eq.(12) gives, for the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ field theory,

$$H_I=_x\{𝒱_G(\phi )+\phi (\mu ^2\frac{\lambda }{3}\phi ^2):(\varphi _x\phi ):+\frac{\lambda }{3!}\phi :(\varphi _x\phi )^3:+\frac{\lambda }{4!}:(\varphi _x\phi )^4:\},$$
(33)
which is equal to Eq.(4.19) in Ref.  (PRD) except the $`_x𝒱_G(\phi )`$ term, where the colons mean normal ordering with respect to the Gaussian vacuum, Eq.(2). The additional term in Eq.(24) arises from the linear term $`\phi (\mu ^2\frac{\lambda }{3}\phi ^2):(\varphi _x\phi ):`$, and disappears when the constraint Eq.(5.18) in Ref.  (PRD) is adopted in our scheme; that is, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in Eq.(16) is taken as $`\phi `$. However, we note that $`\phi `$ is simply the Gaussian-vacuum average value of the field operator (see Eq.(3)) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not equal to $`\phi `$ when higher order contributions are calculated . Moreover, the variational procedure which led to the GEP, Eq.(18) produces the extremum condition, Eq.(17) ($`i.e.`$, Eq.(2.19) in Ref.  (PRD)), and Eq.(5.18) in Ref.  (PRD) at any truncated order is not compatible with this extremum condition.

In closing the paper, we like to point out that it is straightforward to generalize RSPTGA to other cases, such as a Fermion field system. In fact, a Rayleigh-Schrödinger perturbation technique based on the variational results has been applied to a polaron problem . Moreover, one of the authors (Lu) developed the GWFA in thermofield dynamics (Lu). Based on it, it is possible to develop RSPTGA within the framework of thermofield dynamics which will be useful for treating finite temperature cases. Finally, instead of performing the variational procedure in the GWFA as described above, the extremization process with respect to $`\mu `$ can be carried out after truncating the series of Eq.(14) at some given order . This procedure will lead to a slightly different variaion of RSPTGA . It may have its own advantages or peculiarities over the scheme developed here.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was supported by the Korea Research Foundation (99$``$005$``$D00011). Lu’s work was also supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the grant No. 19875034.