text:
# Theorem A

On the parity of ranks of Selmer groups II

Jan Nekovář

11 November 2000

Let

$$E:y^2=x^3+Ax+B(A,B𝐐)$$

be an elliptic curve over $`𝐐`$ of conductor $`N`$. Thanks to the work of Wiles and his followers \[BCDT\] we know that $`E`$ is modular, i.e. there exists a non-constant map $`\pi :X_0(N)E`$ defined over $`𝐐`$ and

$$L(E,s)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nn^s=L(f,s)$$

for a normalized newform $`fS_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$.

For a large class of number fields $`F`$ (which includes all solvable Galois extensions of $`𝐐`$), this is known to imply that the $`L`$-function $`L(E/F,s)`$ has a holomorphic continuation to $`𝐂`$ and a functional equation relating the values at $`s`$ and $`2s`$. For such $`F`$, denote by

$$r_{an}(E/F):=\underset{s=1}{ord}L(E/F,s)$$

the analytic rank of $`E`$ over $`F`$.

Over an arbitrary number field $`F`$, the $`m`$-descent on $`E`$ gives rise (for every integer $`m1`$) to the Selmer group $`S(E/F,m)`$ sitting in the standard exact sequence

$$0E(F)𝐙/m𝐙S(E/F,m)\text{X}(E/F)[m]0.$$

Fix a prime number $`p`$ and put

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S(E/F)& =S_p(E/F)=\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}S(E/F,p^n)\hfill \\ \hfill X(E/F)& =X_p(E/F)=\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}S(E/F,p^n)\hfill \\ \hfill s_p(E/F)& =\underset{𝐙_p}{corank}S_p(E/F)=\underset{𝐙_p}{rk}X_p(E/F).\hfill \end{array}$$

The conjecture of Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer predicts that

$$r_{an}(E/𝐐)\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\underset{𝐙}{rk}E(𝐐).$$
$`(BSD)`$
As in \[NePl\], we are interested in a rather weak consequence of (BSD) (and the conjectural finiteness of the Tate-Šafarevič group), namely the

Parity conjecture for Selmer groups: $`r_{an}(E/𝐐)\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}s_p(E/𝐐)(mod2).`$

Our main result is the following

###### Theorem A

Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve over $`𝐐`$ with good ordinary reduction at $`p`$. Then the parity conjecture

$$r_{an}(E/𝐐)s_p(E/𝐐)(mod2)$$

holds.

See \[NePl\] for a discussion of earlier results in this direction. Our method of proof is similar to that in \[NePl\]; the only difference is that we use anticyclotomic deformations instead of Hida families. A recently proved conjecture of Mazur (\[Maz2\], \[Co\], \[Va2\]) on non-vanishing of Heegner points in anticyclotomic $`𝐙_p`$-extensions plays the role of Greenberg’s conjecture assumed in \[NePl\].

1. Heegner points

In this section we recall the basic setup of Heegner points on $`E`$ (see \[Gro\] for a more detailed account).

1.1 Let $`K=𝐐(\sqrt{D})`$ be an imaginary quadratic field of discriminant $`D<0`$. We assume that $`K`$ satisfies the following “Heegner condition” of Birch \[Bi\]:

$$\mathrm{Every}\mathrm{prime}q|N\mathrm{splits}\mathrm{in}K.$$
$`(Heeg)`$
Under this assumption there exists an ideal $`𝒩𝒪_K`$ such that $`𝒪_K/𝒩\stackrel{}{}𝐙/N𝐙`$ (of course, $`𝒩`$ is not unique; we choose one).

1.2 For every integer $`c1`$ denote by $`𝒪_c=𝐙+c𝒪_K`$ the unique order of $`O_K`$ of conductor $`c`$. If $`(c,N)=1`$, then

$$𝒩_c:=𝒪_c𝒩$$

is an invertible ideal in $`𝒪_c`$ satisfying $`𝒪_c/𝒩_c\stackrel{}{}𝐙/N𝐙`$ (and hence also $`𝒩_c^1/𝒪_c\stackrel{}{}𝐙/N𝐙`$, since $`𝒩_c`$ is invertible). The cyclic $`N`$-isogeny

$$[𝐂/𝒪_c𝐂/𝒩_c^1]$$

induced by the identity map on $`𝐂`$ defines a non-cuspidal point on the modular curve $`X_0(N)`$, which is defined over $`H_c`$, the ring class field of conductor $`c`$ over $`K`$. The image of this point under the fixed modular parametrization $`\pi :X_0(N)E`$ will be denoted by $`\overline{x}_cE(H_c)`$ – this is a Heegner point of conductor $`c`$ on $`E`$.

1.3 From now on, we consider only conductors of the form $`c=p^n`$ for a fixed prime number $`p`$. The field $`H_p^{\mathrm{}}=H_{p^n}`$ then contains the anticyclotomic $`𝐙_p`$-extension $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`K`$, which can be characterized by the following properties: $`K_{\mathrm{}}=K_n`$, $`G(K_n/K)\stackrel{}{}𝐙/p^n𝐙`$, $`K_n/𝐐`$ is a Galois extension with $`G(K_n/𝐐)\stackrel{}{}D_{2p^n}`$ (the dihedral group). There is $`n_00`$ such that

$$H_{p^{n+1}}K_{\mathrm{}}=K_{n+n_0}(n0).$$

We use the following standard notation:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=G(K_{\mathrm{}}/K),\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=G(K_{\mathrm{}}/K_n),\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝐙_p[[\mathrm{\Gamma }]].$$

Fix an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{}𝐙_p`$ (i.e. fix a topological generator $`\gamma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$).

From now on, we assume that the following condition of “good reduction” is satisfied:

$$p\mid ̸N.$$
$`(G)`$
This assumption implies that the Heegner points

$$\overline{x}_{p^{n+1}}E(H_{p^{n+1}})$$

are defined. We put

$$x_{n+n_0}:=\underset{H_{p^{n+1}}/K_{n+n_0}}{Tr}(\overline{x}_{p^{n+1}})=\underset{H_p^{\mathrm{}}/K_{\mathrm{}}}{Tr}(\overline{x}_{p^{n+1}})E(K_{n+n_0})(n0).$$

1.4 In his lecture at ICM 1983, Mazur formulated (among others) the following

###### Conjecture \[Ma2\]

$`(nn_0)x_nE(K_n)_{\mathrm{tors}}`$.

This conjecture was recently proved by Vatsal \[Va2\] under the assumptions that $`|D|`$ is prime and $`p`$ does not divide the class number of $`K`$, and by Cornut \[Co\] under the assumption (G). Both \[Co\] and \[Va2\] build upon an earlier work \[Va1\] of Vatsal.

1.5 The fundamental distribution relation for Heegner points (\[PR\], Lemma 2, p.432) states that

$$\underset{K_{n+1}/K_n}{Tr}(x_{n+1})=a_px_nx_{n1}(nn_0+1).$$

The assumption (G) is equivalent to $`E`$ having good reduction at $`p`$. From now on, we assume in addition that $`E`$ has ordinary reduction at $`p`$, which is equivalent to

$$p\mid ̸a_p.$$
$`(Ord)`$
This assumption implies that the local Euler factor of $`E`$ at $`p`$ factorizes as

$$1a_pX+pX^2=(1\alpha X)(1\beta X),$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta 𝐙_p`$ satisfy $`ord_p(\alpha )=0`$, $`ord_p(\beta )=1`$.

Define, for $`nn_0+1`$,

$$y_n=x_n\alpha ^{1n}x_{n1}\alpha ^nE(K_n)𝐙_p.$$

Then

$$\underset{K_{n+1}/K_n}{Tr}(y_{n+1})=y_n(nn_0+1),$$

i.e. $`y=(y_n)`$ is an element of the projective limit

$$\underset{n>n_0}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}(E(K_n)𝐙_p)=\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}(E(K_n)𝐙_p)\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}X(E/K_n)=:X_{\mathrm{}}.$$

We shall also be interested in the inductive limit

$$S_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}S(E/K_n).$$

Both $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules (of finite and co-finite type, respectively).

2. Iwasawa theory

In this section we recall basic results of Iwasawa theory of elliptic curves relating the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ to Selmer groups over the fields $`K_n`$. The assumptions (Heeg), (G) and (Ord) are in force.

###### Lemma 2.1

(i) $`(n0)`$ the canonical map

$$S(E/K_n)(S_{\mathrm{}})^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}$$

has finite kernel and cokernel. (ii) There is an isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules (of finite type)

$$X_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{Hom}(\widehat{S_{\mathrm{}}},\mathrm{\Lambda })$$

(where $`\widehat{M}`$ denotes the Pontryagin dual of $`M`$), hence $`rk_\mathrm{\Lambda }(X_{\mathrm{}})=corank_\mathrm{\Lambda }(S_{\mathrm{}})`$. (iii) $`(n0)`$ the canonical map

$$(X_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}X(E/K_n)$$

has finite kernel. (iv) $`X_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^r`$ for some $`r0`$. (v) $`E(K_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{tors}}`$ is finite.

Proof. (i) \[Man\], Thm. 4.5 or \[Maz1\], Prop. 6.4 (note that \[Man\], Lemma 4.6 eliminates the need for the second assumption in \[Maz1\], 6.1; however, the latter is satisfied in our situation, because of (Heeg)). (ii) \[PR\], Lemma 5, p. 417. (iii) This follows from (i) and (ii) (cf. \[PR\], Lemma 4, p. 415). (iv) The R.H.S. in (ii) is reflexive, hence free over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. (v) \[NeSc\], 2.2.

###### Lemma 2.2

$`y0`$ in $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof. If $`y_n=0`$ in $`E(K_n)𝐙_p`$ for all $`n>n_0`$, then

$$x_n\alpha =x_{n1}1$$

in $`E(K_n)𝐐_p`$ for all $`n>n_0`$. As both $`x_n1`$ and $`x_{n1}1`$ lie in $`E(K_n)𝐐`$, but $`\alpha 𝐐`$, we must have $`x_n1=0`$ in $`E(K_n)𝐐`$ for all $`n>n_0`$, which contradicts (now proven) Mazur’s conjecture 1.4.

###### Lemma 2.3

$`X_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Proof. (Note that the implication \[Mazur’s conjecture $`X_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\] was proved under more restrictive assumptions by Bertolini \[Be\]).

By Lemma 2.2 there is an exact sequence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules of finite type

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }yX_{\mathrm{}}X_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }y0.$$

For every surjective character

$$\chi :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mu _{p^n}$$

we put $`c(\chi )=n`$ and denote by

$$e_\chi =\frac{1}{p^n}\underset{g\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{}\chi (g)^1g𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})[\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n]$$

the corresponding idempotent. Denote by $`A`$ the (finite) set of integers $`n1`$ such that

$$\frac{\omega _n}{\omega _{n1}}\mathrm{Supp}_\mathrm{\Lambda }((X_{\mathrm{}}/\mathrm{\Lambda }y)_{\mathrm{tors}})$$

(where $`\omega _n=\gamma ^{p^n}1`$, as usual). If $`c(\chi )A`$, then

$$e_\chi \left(𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})y\mathrm{mod}\omega _nX_{\mathrm{}}\right)0$$

in $`(X_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})`$, hence also

$$e_\chi \left(𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})y_n\right)0$$

in $`X(E/K_n)_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})`$, by Lemma 2.1(iii).

According to a mild generalization of the main result of \[Be-Da\],

$$e_\chi \left(𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})y_n\right)0e_\chi \left(𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})y_n\right)=e_\chi \left(X(E/K_n)_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p(\mu _{p^n})\right).$$

Putting everything together and again appealing to Lemma 2.1(iii), we see that

$$\underset{𝐙_p}{rk}((X_{\mathrm{}})_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n})p^n+O(1),$$

hence $`r1`$ in Lemma 2.1(iv). However, $`r0`$ by Lemma 2.2.

2.4 Recall that finite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules are also called pseudo-null. Denote by $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})`$ the category of all $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules and by $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})/(psnull)`$ the category obtained from $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})`$ by inverting all morphisms which have pseudo-null both kernel and cokernel. This is again an abelian category.

###### Lemma 2.5

In $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})/(psnull)`$ there is an exact sequence

$$0YYZ\widehat{S_{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }0$$

and an isomorphism

$$Z\stackrel{}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/p^{m_i}\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

Proof. Combining Lemma 2.3 with Lemma 2.1(ii) we get an exact sequence in $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})/(psnull)`$

$$0(\widehat{S_{\mathrm{}}})_{\mathrm{tors}}\widehat{S_{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }0.$$

The duality results of \[Ne\] imply that

$$(\widehat{S_{\mathrm{}}})_{\mathrm{tors}}\stackrel{}{}YYZ$$

in $`({}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{}\mathrm{Mod})/(psnull)`$, with $`Z`$ as in the statement of the Lemma (in fact, the condition (Heeg) implies that $`Z`$ itself is pseudo-null, at least if $`p>2`$; however, we do not need this fact).

3. Main Results

###### Theorem B

Under the assumptions (Heeg) and $`p\mid ̸Na_p`$ we have

$$s_p(E/K)1r_{an}(E/K)(mod2).$$

Proof. First of all, (Heeg) implies that $`r_{an}(E/K)`$ is odd. Lemma 2.5 together with Lemma 2.1(i) give an exact sequence

$$0(Y_\mathrm{\Gamma }Y_\mathrm{\Gamma })_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p\underset{𝐙_p}{Hom}(X(E/K),𝐐_p)𝐐_p0,$$

hence

$$s_p(E/K)=1+2\underset{𝐙_p}{rk}(Y_\mathrm{\Gamma })1(mod2).$$

###### Theorem A

Let $`E`$ be an elliptic curve over $`𝐐`$ with good ordinary reduction at $`p`$. Then

$$r_{an}(E/𝐐)s_p(E/𝐐)(mod2).$$

Proof. For every $`K=𝐐(\sqrt{D})`$ satisfying (Heeg) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill s_p(E/K)& =s_p(E/𝐐)+s_p(E_D/𝐐)\hfill \\ \hfill r_{an}(E/K)& =r_{an}(E/𝐐)+r_{an}(E_D/𝐐),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$E_D:Dy^2=x^3+Ax+B$$

is the quadratic twist of $`E`$ over $`K`$. We distinguish two cases:

(I) $`r_{an}(E/𝐐)`$ is odd.

According to \[Wa\] there exists $`K`$ satisfying (Heeg) such that

$$r_{an}(E_D/𝐐)=0.$$

Results of Kolyvagin \[Ko\] then imply $`s_p(E_D/𝐐)=0`$, hence

$$s_p(E/𝐐)=s_p(E/K)r_{an}(E/K)=r_{an}(E/𝐐)(mod2)$$

by Theorem B.

(II) $`r_{an}(E/𝐐)`$ is even.

Choose any $`K`$ satisfying (Heeg) and $`p\mid ̸D`$. Applying the result of Case (I) to $`E_D`$ (which has good ordinary reduction at $`p`$), we obtain

$$s_p(E_D/𝐐)r_{an}(E_D/𝐐)(mod2),$$

hence

$$s_p(E/𝐐)1s_p(E_D/𝐐)1r_{an}(E_D/𝐐)r_{an}(E/𝐐)(mod2),$$

again using Theorem B.

4. Higher dimensional quotients of $`J_0(N)`$

Results of Section 3 can be generalized as follows.

4.1 Let $`f=_{n1}a_nq^nS_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N))`$ be a normalized ($`a_1=1`$) newform. Put $`F(f)=𝐐(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{})`$; this is a totally real number field. Let $`A`$ be a quotient abelian variety of $`J_0(N)`$ corresponding to $`f`$; it has dimension $`[F(f):𝐐]`$, is defined over $`𝐐`$ and is unique up to isogeny. One has an embedding $`\iota :F(f)End(A)𝐐`$; for each $`n1`$, $`\iota (a_n)`$ is induced by the Hecke correspondence $`T(n):J_0(N)J_0(N)`$ (with respect to the Albanese functoriality).

4.2 For each prime number $`p`$, $`V_p(A)=T_p(A)_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p`$ is a free module of rank $`2`$ over $`F(f)_𝐐𝐐_p=_{p|p}F(f)_p`$. Fix a prime $`p`$ above $`p`$ in $`F(f)`$; then the $`F(f)_p`$-component $`V_p(A)`$ of $`V_p(A)`$ defines a two-dimensional Galois representation

$$G_𝐐=G(\overline{𝐐}/𝐐)\underset{F(f)_p}{Aut}(V_p(A))\stackrel{}{}GL_2(F(f)_p)$$

which is unramified outside $`Np`$ and satisfies

$$det(1XFr_{\mathrm{geom}}(\mathrm{})|V_p(A))=1a_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^1X+\mathrm{}^1X^2$$

for all prime numbers $`\mathrm{}\mid ̸Np`$.

4.3 Let $`𝒪_p`$ be the ring of integers of $`F(f)_p`$. For every number field $`F`$, denote by $`S_p(A/F)`$ the $`p`$-primary part of the Selmer group $`S_p(A/F)=\underset{n}{\begin{array}{c}lim\hfill \end{array}}S(A/F,p^n)`$. This is an $`𝒪_p`$-module of cofinite type; denote by $`s_p(A/F)`$ its $`𝒪_p`$-corank. Note that $`S_p(A/F)`$ depends only on the $`G(\overline{𝐐}/F)`$-module $`V_p(A)/T_p(A)`$, where $`T_p(A)`$ is the $`𝒪_p`$-component of $`T_p(A)`$, as it coincides with a Bloch-Kato Selmer group

$$S_p(A/F)=H_f^1(F,V_p(A)/T_p(A)).$$

The role of $`r_{an}(E/F)`$ is played by the order of vanishing

$$r_{an}(f,F)=\underset{s=1}{ord}L(fF,s).$$

Under the assumptions (Heeg), (G) and

$$\underset{p}{ord}(a_p)=0,$$
$`(Ord^{})`$
the arguments in Section 2 go through for the $`𝒪_p`$-modules $`S_p(A/K_n)`$ (Mazur’s control Theorem has to be replaced by a purely cohomological “control theorem”; see \[Gre\]). Similarly, all of the arguments of Section 3 work, if we replace the reference \[Ko\] by \[KoLo\]. The final results are the following.

###### Theorem B’

Under the assumptions (Heeg), $`p\mid ̸N`$ and $`ord_p(a_p)=0`$ we have

$$s_p(A/K)1r_{an}(f,K)(mod2).$$

###### Theorem A’

Assume that $`p\mid ̸N`$ and $`ord_p(a_p)=0`$. Then

$$\underset{s=1}{ord}L(f,s)s_p(A/𝐐)(mod2).$$

More general results can be deduced by applying the techniques of \[NePl\]. This will be discussed in a separate publication.

References

\[Be\] M. Bertolini, Selmer groups and Heegner points in anticyclotomic $`𝐙_p`$-extensions, Compositio Math. 99 (1995), no. 2, 153–182.

\[BeDa\] M. Bertolini, H. Darmon, Kolyvagin’s descent and Mordell-Weil groups over ring class fields, J. Reine Angew. Math. 412 (1990), 63–74.

\[Bi\] B. Birch, Heegner points of elliptic curves, In: Symposia Mathematica, Vol. XV (Convegno di Strutture in Corpi Algebrici, INDAM, Rome, 1973), pp. 441–445. Academic Press, London, 1975.

\[BCDT\] C. Breuil, B. Conrad, F. Diamond, R. Taylor, On the modularity of elliptic curves over $`𝐐`$, preprint.

\[Co\] C. Cornut, Mazur’s conjecture on higher Heegner points, preprint.

\[Gre\] R. Greenberg, Iwasawa theory for $`p`$-adic representations, In: Algebraic number theory, 97–137, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 17, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1989.

\[Gro\] B.H. Gross, Heegner points on $`X_0(N)`$, In: Modular forms (Durham, 1983), 87–105, Ellis Horwood Ser. Math. Appl., Horwood, Chichester, 1984.

\[Ko\] V.A. Kolyvagin, Euler systems, In: The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. II, 435–483, Progress in Math. 87, Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.

\[KoLo\] V.A. Kolyvagin, D.Yu. Logachev, Finiteness of the Shafarevich-Tate group and the group of rational points for some modular abelian varieties (Russian), Algebra i Analiz 1 (1989), No. 5, 171–196. English translation: Leningrad Math. J. 1 (1990), No. 5, 1229–1253.

\[Man\] Yu.I. Manin, Cyclotomic fields and modular curves, Uspehi Mat. Nauk 26 (1971), no. 6(162), 7–71. (Russian)

\[Maz1\] B. Mazur, Rational points of abelian varieties with values in towers of number fields, Invent. Math. 18 (1972), 183–266.

\[Maz2\] B. Mazur, Modular curves and arithmetic, In: Proceedings of the ICM 1983 (Warsaw), Vol. 1, 185–211, PWN, Warsaw, 1984.

\[Ne\] J. Nekovář, Selmer complexes, in preparation.

\[NePl\] J. Nekovář, A. Plater, On the parity of ranks of Selmer groups, Asian J. Math. 4 (2000), No. 2, 437–498.

\[NeSc\] J. Nekovář, N. Schappacher, On the asymptotic behaviour of Heegner points, Turkish J. of Math. 23 (1999), No. 4, 549–556.

\[PR\] B. Perrin-Riou, Fonctions $`L`$ $`p`$-adiques, théorie d’Iwasawa et points de Heegner, Bull. Soc. Math. France 115 (1987), No. 4, 399–456.

\[Va1\] V. Vatsal, Uniform distribution of Heegner points, preprint.

\[Va2\] V. Vatsal, Special values of anticyclotomic $`L`$-functions, preprint.

\[Wa\] J.-L. Waldspurger, Correspondances de Shimura, In: Proceedings of the ICM 1983 (Warsaw), Vol. 1, 525–531, PWN, Warsaw, 1984.

Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics

University of Cambridge

Centre for Mathematical Sciences

Wilberforce Road

Cambridge CB3 0WB

UK

nekovar@dpmms.cam.ac.uk


format: text

text:
# A strong Schottky Lemma for nonpositively curved singular spaces To John Stallings on his sixty-fifth birthday

## 1 Introduction

The classical Schottky Lemma (due to Poincare, Klein, Schottky) gives a criterion for a pair of isometries $`g,h`$ of hyperbolic space to have powers $`g^m,h^n`$ which generate a free group. This criterion was generalized by Tits to pairs of elements in linear groups in his proof of the Tits alternative.

In this paper we give a criterion (Theorem 1.1) for pairs of isometries of a nonpositively curved metric space (in the sense of Alexandrov) to generate a free group without having to take powers. This criterion holds only in singular spaces, for example in Euclidean buildings; in fact our criterion takes a particularly simple form in that case (Corollary 1.2).

The original motivation for our criterion was to prove that the four dimensional Burau representation is faithful. While linearity of braid groups is now known, this question is still open; it is well-known to be related to detecting the unknot with the Jones polynomial . It was shown in  that the faithfulness question is equivalent to proving that a specific pair of elements in $`\mathrm{GL}_3(\text{Z}[x,x^{}1])`$ generate a free group. In §4 we show that these elements are the image of the free group $`F_2`$ under a representation $`\rho _{0,0}`$ lying in a $`2`$-parameter family of representations

$$\rho _{\alpha ,\beta }:F_2\mathrm{GL}_3(\text{Q}(x))$$

for $`\alpha ,\beta \text{Q}`$. Our criterion applies to give faithfullness of $`\rho _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta `$ except, unfortunately, for $`\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}`$.

The criterion.  For definitions of the terms we use we refer the reader to §2. A complete, nonpositively curved (i.e. $`\text{CAT}(0)`$) metric space $`X`$ is said to have no fake angles if there is no pair of geodesics which issue from the same point, have zero angle at that point, yet are disjoint except at that point. This is a very weak condition, and is satisfied for example by any piecewise Euclidean $`\text{CAT}(0)`$ simplicial complex with finitely many isometry types of cells (Proposition 2.1).

###### Theorem 1.1 (Strong Schottky).

Let $`X`$ be a complete CAT(0)-space with no fake zero angles. Let $`g_1,g_2`$ be the axial isometries of $`X`$ with axes $`A_1,A_2`$ respectively. Assume that either one of the following holds:

1. $`S=A_1A_2`$ is a bounded segment. Let $`s_{},s_+`$ be its endpoints and let $`A_1^\pm ,A_2^\pm `$ be the infinite rays of $`A_1,A_2`$ with the origins $`s_{},s_+`$. Assume that the angles between $`A_1^+,A_2^+`$ and between $`A_1^{},A_2^{}`$ are equal to $`\pi `$, and that the translation lengths of $`g_1,g_2`$ are strictly greater than the length of $`S.`$
2. $`A_1,A_2`$ are disjoint, and there is a geodesic $`B`$ connecting $`a_1A_1`$ to $`a_2A_2`$ with all four angles between $`B`$ and $`A_1,A_2`$ at $`a_1,a_2`$ equal to $`\pi `$.

Then the group generated by $`g_1,g_2`$ is free.

The case of buildings. Let $`X`$ be a thick affine building. For example, let $`X=𝒯_\nu `$ be the building associated to $`\mathrm{GL}_n(K),n2`$ where $`K`$ is a discretely-valued field with valuation $`\nu `$. The link $`link(x)`$ of a point $`xX`$ is a spherical building. Two chambers in the link are called opposite if their distance is maximal in the link. Recall that in any apartment $`A`$ of $`X`$, any chamber in $`A`$ has a unique opposite chamber in $`A`$. Recall that for any apartment $`A`$, any chamber of $`Alink(x)`$ has a unique opposite chamber in $`Alink(x)`$.

An isometry $`f\text{Isom}(X)`$ of hyperbolic type is said to be generic if none of its (parallel) axes are contained in any wall of any apartment of $`X`$. Note that $`f`$ is generic if and only if it has a unique invariant apartment $`P_f`$. The axis of $`f`$ is contained in the union of two sectors $`P_f^+,P_f^{}`$ of $`P_f`$ which are invariant by translation by $`f`$, respectively $`f^1`$. A generic isometry $`f`$ determines, for any fixed choice of basepoint $`xP_f`$, a pair of chambers in $`link(x)`$. We say that generic $`f,g\text{Isom}(X)`$ are opposite if $`P_fP_g=xX`$ and if each of the chambers determined by $`f`$ is opposite in $`link(x)`$ to each of the chambers determined by $`g`$.

As a straightforward consequence of Theorem 1.1 we have the following.

###### Corollary 1.2 (Strong Schottky for buildings).

Let $`X`$ be a (thick) Euclidean building, and let $`f,g\text{Isom}(X)`$. If $`f,g`$ are opposite then they generate a free subgroup of $`\text{Isom}(X)`$.

In §4 we will apply Corollary 1.2 to a $`2`$-parameter family of pairs of elements in the affine building associated to $`\mathrm{GL}_3(\text{Q}(x))`$.

## 2 $`\text{CAT}(0)`$ preliminaries

### 2.1 Definitions

Let $`X`$ be a geodesic metric space. The comparison triangle for a geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`X`$ is the Euclidean triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with the same side lengths as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We say that $`X`$ is $`CAT(0)`$, or nonpositively curved, if for any geodesic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`X`$ and any two points $`x,y`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ the distance between $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`X`$ is less than or equal to the Euclidean distance between the corresponding points $`x^{},y^{}`$ on the comparison triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ ( , II.1.1). The $`\text{CAT}(0)`$ condition implies the uniqueness of geodesics and the geodesicity of local geodesics. In the following we assume that $`X`$ is a complete $`CAT(0)`$ space.

Let $`\epsilon >0`$ and let $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2:[0,\epsilon ]X`$ be two unit speed geodesics with $`\sigma _1(0)=\sigma _2(0)=:x`$. For $`s,t(0,\epsilon )`$ let $`\gamma (s,t)`$ be the angle at $`x^{}`$ of the comparison triangle $`x^{}\sigma _1(s)^{}\sigma _1(t)^{}.`$ Then $`\gamma (s,t)`$ is monotonically decreasing as $`s,t`$ decrease and hence $`\mathrm{}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2):=lim_{s,t0}\gamma (s,t)`$ exists and is called the angle subtended by $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ (, I.(3.8)). A metric expression for the angle is given by the “cosine theorem”(, I.(3.11)

$$\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2))=\underset{s,t0}{lim}\frac{s^2+t^2d^2(\sigma _1(s),\sigma _2(t))}{2st}.$$

It follows from this formula that if the angle is strictly less than $`\pi /2,`$ and $`s/t`$ is sufficiently small, then $`d(\sigma _1(s),\sigma _2(t))<t,`$ in particular $`\sigma _1(0)=\sigma _2(0)`$ does not minimize the distance from $`\sigma _2(t)`$ to the segment $`\sigma _1([0,\epsilon ])`$. We need this for the properties of projection map below.

The sum of angles of a geodesic triangle is less than or equal to $`\pi `$ ( , I.5.2). It follows immediately from this property that if $`I,J`$ are geodesic segments issuing the same point and the subtended angle equals $`\pi `$ then the concatenation of these segments is also a geodesic segment. If $`\sigma `$ is a geodesic segment (possible infinite) then for any $`xX`$ there is (, I.5.6) a unique point $`p_\sigma (x)\sigma `$ such that $`d(x,p_\sigma (x))=d(x,\sigma )`$. The map $`p_\sigma `$ is called the projection onto $`\sigma .`$ It follows from the cosine formula and the remarks above that for each $`xX`$, the angles of $`[x,p_\sigma (x)]`$ with $`\sigma `$ both are greater than or equal to $`\pi /2`$.

### 2.2 Fake zero angles

We say that a complete $`\text{CAT}(0)`$ space $`X`$ has fake zero angles if there are two geodesics issuing the same point, are disjoint except at that point, and the angle subtended at that point is zero.

###### Proposition 2.1.

A piecewise Euclidean $`\text{CAT}(0)`$ complex $`X`$ with finitely many isometry types of cells has no fake zero angles.

Proof. The assumptions imply that the path metric on $`X`$ is geodesic and complete. The angles can be defined in terms of link distance . Namely, let $`X`$ be a piecewise Euclidean complex, $`xX`$. The link $`\mathrm{Lk}_xA`$ of the Euclidean cell $`A`$ is the set of unit tangent vectors $`\xi `$ at $`x`$ such that a nontrivial line segment with initial direction $`\xi `$ is contained in $`A`$. We define the link $`link(x)`$ of $`xX`$ by $`link(x)=_{Ax}\mathrm{Lk}_xA,`$ where the union is taken over all closed cells containing $`x`$. Angles in $`\mathrm{Lk}_xA`$ induce a natural length metric $`d_x`$ on $`link(x)`$ which turns it into a piecewise spherical complex. The angle between $`\xi ,\eta link(x)`$ is then defined by $`\mathrm{}_x(\xi ,\eta )=\mathrm{min}(d_x(\xi ,\eta ),\pi ).`$

Any two segments $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$ in $`X`$ with the same endpoint $`x`$ have the natural projection image in the link of $`x`$ and $`\mathrm{}_x(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)`$ equals the angle between these two projections. Now the assertion of the lemma is clear since if the segments are disjoint, apart the origin, then their images in the link are distinct and hence the link distance is nonzero. $``$

Example (V. Berestovskii):  Take $`R^2`$ with the positive $`x`$-axis removed and stick in the region $`\{(x,y):x0,yx^2\}`$ along the obvious isometry of the boundary. The result is a CAT(0)- space with fake angles.

## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

We will need the following well-known lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1 (Ping-Pong Lemma).

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a group of permutations on a set $`X`$, let $`g_1,g_2`$ be the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of order at least 3. If $`X_1,X_2`$ are disjoint subsets of $`X`$ and for all $`n0,ij`$, $`g_i^nX_jX_i`$ then $`g_1,g_2`$ freely generate the free group $`F_2`$.

The proof of Theorem 1.1 divides into two cases, depending on which of the two hypotheses is assumed.

Assuming (1):  Let $`s`$ be the midpoint of $`S`$. Let $`D_1,D_2`$ be the fundamental domains for the action of $`g_1,g_2`$ on $`A_1,A_2`$, chosen as open segments on $`A_1,A_2`$ with the center $`s.`$ Let $`p_1,p_2`$ be the geodesic projection maps of $`X`$ onto $`A_1,A_2`$ respectively. Set $`X_1=p_1^1(A_1D_2)`$ and $`X_2=p_2^1(A_2D_2).`$ To apply the Ping-Pong Lemma we need to show that $`X_1X_2`$ is empty. Suppose, to the contrary, it is not and let $`xX_1X_2.`$ So $`p_1(x)X_1,p_2(x)X_2`$. Suppose that $`p_1(x)A_1^+,p_2(x)A_2^{}`$, the other cases being similar. Consider the geodesic triangle $`xp_1(x)p_2(x)`$. The sum of its angles is at most $`\pi `$ and we would like to get the contradiction with this. Suppose first that the angle at $`x`$ is nonzero. By angles assumption we get that $`[p_1(x),p_2(x)]`$ is the concatenation of $`[p_1(x),s_{}],[s_{},s_+],[s_+,p_2(x)]`$. By the property of a projection map the angles of the triangle at $`p_1(x),p_2(x)`$ are greater or equal $`\pi /2.`$ Hence the sum of the angles is strictly greater than $`\pi `$. This contradiction proves disjointness.

Suppose now that the angle at $`x`$ is zero, then by the fake zero angles assumption, the geodesics $`(x,p_1(x)],(x,p_2(x)]`$ are not disjoint hence $`[x,p_1(x)][x,p_2(x)]=[x,y]`$ for some $`yx.`$ To get the contradiction consider the triangle $`yp_1(x)p_2(x)`$. If $`y`$ is strictly closer to $`x`$ than both of $`p_1(x),p_2(x)`$, then the $`y`$-angle of the triangle $`yp_1(x)p_2(x)`$ is nonzero and the sum of angles in this triangle is strictly greater than $`\pi `$ \- contradiction. If not then say $`y=p_1(x).`$ Since $`y`$ lies on $`[x,p_2(x)]`$, its projection onto $`A_2`$ is the same as that of $`x.`$ Hence $`p_2(x)=p_2(y).`$ By definition, $`p_2(y)`$ is the point on $`A_2`$ closest to $`y.`$ But $`s_+A_2`$ lies on the geodesic $`[y,p_2(x)]`$ and $`s_+p_2(x)`$; again, this is a contradiction.

Finally it remains to check that $`g_i^nX_jX_i,ij,n0.`$ Note first that $`g_i`$ commutes with $`p_i`$. Indeed for any $`xX,`$ $`p_i(x)`$ is the unique point in $`A_i`$ such that $`d(x,p_i(x))=d(x,A_i).`$ But

$$d(g_ix,A_i)=d(g_ix,g_iA_i)=d(x,A_i)=d(x,p_i(x))=d(g_ix,g_ip_i(x))$$

That is, the point $`g_ip_i(x)`$ realizes the distance $`d(g_ix,A_i)`$ and thus it is the projection of $`g_ix`$ hence $`g_ip_i(x)=p_ig_i(x)`$.

Clearly $`g_i^nD_iA_iD_i,n0`$, whence $`g_i^n(XX_i)X_i`$. Finally, $`X_jXX_i`$, hence $`g_i^n(X_j)X_i`$.

Assuming (2): Let $`p_1,p_2`$ be the geodesic projection maps of $`X`$ onto $`A_1,A_2`$ respectively. Let $`D_1,D_2`$ be the fundamental domains for $`g_1,g_2`$ chosen as the open segments on $`A_1,A_2`$ with the centers $`a_1,a_2`$ respectively. Let $`p_1,p_2`$ be the geodesic projection maps of $`X`$ onto $`A_1,A_2`$ respectively. Set $`X_1=p_1^1(A_1D_2)`$ and $`X_2=p_2^1(A_2D_2)`$ and repeat the argument of the first case. $``$

## 4 A family of examples

### 4.1 Motivation: the Burau representation

The braid group on $`n`$ strands, denoted $`B_n`$, is the group with generators $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{n1}`$ and relations

$$s_js_k=s_ks_j,s_is_{i+1}s_i=s_{i+1}s_is_{i+1}$$

for all possible $`i,j,k`$ with $`|kj|2`$ and $`i+1,j,kn`$. The Burau representation $`\sigma _i\sigma _i`$ is a natural representation of $`B_n`$ on the $`n`$-dimensional linear space $`V=K^n`$ over the field $`K=\text{Q}(t)`$; in the standard basis $`\{e_i|i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the Burau representation is determined by

$$\sigma _i(e_j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1t)e_i+e_{i+1}\hfill & \text{if }j=i\hfill \\ te_i\hfill & \text{if }j=i+1\hfill \\ e_j\hfill & \text{if }ji,i+1\hfill \end{array}$$

The subspace $`Ke`$, where e=$`_{i=1}^ne_i`$, is clearly an invariant subspace for the group action, and the group acts trivially there. Thus the quotient space $`V/Ke`$ has a natural action of the braid group. In the induced basis $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{n1}`$ the elements $`\sigma _i`$ act via matrices which we denote by $`b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$. The only new aspect in this reduced Burau representation is that

$$b_{n1}(e_{n1})=(1t)e_{n1}+e_n=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}e_i+te_{n1}).$$

Our interest is in the case of four strands. In this case there is the following well known result (however, the matrices are incorrectly specified in ).

###### Proposition 4.1 (, Theorem 3.19).

The reduced representation of $`B_4`$ is faithful iff it is faithful on the free group generated by $`a=s_3s_1^1`$ and $`b=s_2(s_3s_1^1)s_2^1`$.

Let $`f`$ (resp. $`k`$) be the image of $`a`$ (resp. $`b`$) in $`\mathrm{GL}_3(K)`$ under the reduced Burau representation. It is not difficult to see that both $`f`$ and $`k`$ are diagonalizable. In fact, by conjugating the Burau representation, and changing $`t`$ to $`t`$, we may take $`f`$ to be the diagonal matrix with entries $`1,t^1,t`$, and $`k`$ becomes the matrix $`k=sfs^1`$ where

$$s=(1t)^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1+t)& 1+t^2& t(1+t^2)\\ 1& t& t\\ 1& 1& t^2\end{array}\right)$$

We consider the action of $`\mathrm{GL}_3(K)`$ on the Bruhat-Tits building $`𝒯_\nu `$ for the field $`K`$ with the discrete valuation $`\nu =\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ at infinity. We have two elements of $`\mathrm{GL}_3(K)`$ which are acting so that they each stabilize an entire apartment of $`𝒯`$; these apartments $`A_u`$ and $`A_v`$ on general principles will meet in a convex subset of the building.

However, by analogy with the case of actions on trees, we might expect that if the intersection of $`P_f`$ and $`P_k`$ is sufficiently small with respect to the translation distances of $`f`$ and $`k`$ then the group generated by $`f`$ and $`k`$ is free. Since $`f`$ is semisimple it is easy to see that it acts by translation on its apartment not along any wall and similarly for $`k`$. We can determine the intersection $`P_fP_k`$.

###### Lemma 4.2 ($`P_fP_k`$ is a point).

The intersection of $`P_f`$ and $`P_k`$ consists of precisely one lattice class.

Proof. Let $`\nu `$ denote the discrete valuation, with valuation ring $`𝒪`$ and uniformizer $`\pi `$. The lattices which represent the lattice classes in $`P_f`$ are

$$L_{a_1,a_2,a_3}=𝒪\pi ^{a_1}e_1+𝒪\pi ^{a_2}e_2+𝒪\pi ^{a_3}e_3.$$

Since $`k=sfs^1`$, the lattices in $`P_k`$ are precisely the lattice classes $`[sL]`$ for $`[L]`$ in $`P_f`$, the standard apartment. Thus a lattice class of $`L_{a_1,a_2,a_3}`$ belongs to the intersection if there are integers $`a_1,a_2,a_3`$ and $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$ so that $`[sL_{b_1,b_2,b_3}]=[L_{a_1,a_2,a_3}]`$. In other words there is some matrix $`m`$ in $`\mathrm{GL}_3(𝒪)`$ so that

$$s\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\pi ^{b_1}& 0& 0\\ 0& \pi ^{b_2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \pi ^{b_3}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\pi ^{a_1}& 0& 0\\ 0& \pi ^{a_2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \pi ^{a_3}\end{array}\right)m$$

This gives rise to the conditions: $`\pi ^{a_i}s_{i,j}\pi ^{b_j}𝒪`$ for all entries $`s_{i,j},1i,j3`$ of $`s`$. This implies

$$a_i+b_j+\nu (s_{i,j})0$$

Since $`m`$ is invertible, $`\nu (det(m))=0`$. This implies

$$a_1+a_2+a_3+b_1+b_2+b_3+\nu det(s)=0.$$

We can convert many of the above inequalities into equalities by the following argument. Direct calculation gives $`\nu (det(s))=2`$. Hence

$$2=(a_2+b_1)+(a_1+b_2)+(a_3+b_3)2+0+0$$

and therefore $`a_2+b_1=2`$, $`a_1+b_2=0`$, and $`a_3+b_3=0`$. It follows similarly that $`a_1+b_1=1`$, $`a_2+b_2=1`$, $`a_3+b_1=2`$, $`a_1+b_3=1`$, $`a_2+b_3=0`$, $`a_3+b_2=1`$. From this we can immediately solve the nine equations in six variables to get the solutions $`a_1=1c,a_2=c,a_3=c,b_1=2+c,b_2=1+c,b_3=c`$ and so this determines exactly one lattice class solution to the intersection of the two apartments. $``$

### 4.2 A $`2`$-parameter family of representations

Based on the example afforded by the Burau representation, we consider the transformations $`f`$ and its conjugate $`k=sfs^1`$, where

$$s=(1t)^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(1+t)& 1+t^2& t(1+t^2)\\ 1& t& t+\beta t^2\\ 1& 1+\alpha t& t^2\end{array}\right)$$

for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ any rational numbers. We can think of this as giving a $`2`$-parameter family of representations

$$\rho _{\alpha ,\beta }:F_2\mathrm{GL}_3(\text{Q}(x))$$

for $`\alpha ,\beta \text{Q}`$. Consider any fixed parameters, giving a pair $`f,k`$. As in the proof of Lemma 4.2, the invariant apartments of $`f`$ and $`k`$ meet at exactly one point.

The lattices which represent the lattice classes in the standard apartment $`A`$ are $`L_{a_1,a_2,a_3}=𝒪\pi ^{a_1}e_1+𝒪\pi ^{a_2}e_2+𝒪\pi ^{a_3}e_3,`$ $`\pi `$ represents the uniformizer $`t^1`$. This apartment is stabilized by $`f`$. In this standard basis, $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$, $`f`$ is represented by a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $`1,t^1,t`$. The apartment stabilized by $`k=sfs^1`$ is $`sA`$. We consider the lattice class $`x`$ of the lattice $`L_{1,0,0}`$ in the standard apartment as the special vertex which is the common cone point of our sectors $`P_f^+,P_f^{},P_k^+,P_k^{}`$. This vertex is also $`sL_{2,1,0}`$ by the calculation above. The walls of the sectors $`P_f^+`$ and $`P_f^{}`$ are then easily seen to be the subcomplex represented by the lattice classes of $`M_n=L_{1,n,0}nZ`$, and $`N_n=L_{1,0,n}nZ`$. The translation $`f`$ takes $`[L_{1,0,0}]`$ to $`[L_{1,1,1}]`$ with axis bisecting the walls of the sector. We can apply $`s`$ to this configuration to obtain a similar description for the axis and sectors for the element $`k`$.

We shall calculate the link of the vertex $`x`$ and represent it in terms of the spherical building of $`GL_3(𝐐)`$, where the rational field $`𝐐`$ is the residue field of the field $`𝐐(t)`$ with respect to the valuation at infinity. A $`q`$-simplex in the building is represented by a chain of lattices $`L_0L_1\mathrm{}L_q`$ with $`\pi L_qL_0`$ and $`L_{r+1}/L_r𝐐,r0`$. The link of the vertex $`[L]`$ is the simplicial complex whose vertices are lattice classes $`[L^{^{}}]`$ so that $`\pi LL^{^{}}L`$. By taking chains of such classes we obtain a simplex in the spherical building of $`GL_3(𝐐)`$, viewed as flags in the 3-dimensional $`𝐐`$-vector space, $`L/\pi L`$.

With the labelling of the walls as above, the first chamber in the sector $`P_f^+`$ is represented by the lattice classes of $`L=L_{1,0,0}`$ and the lattice classes of $`M_1=L_{1,1,0}`$ and $`N_1=L_{1,0,1}`$ while the first chamber in $`P_f^{}`$ is represented by the lattice classes of $`L_{1,0,0}`$ and the lattice classes of $`M_1=L_{1,1,0}`$ and $`N_1=L_{1,0,1}`$. We can apply $`s`$ to these classes to represent the other leading chambers in $`P_k^+`$ and $`P_k^{}`$.

In order to obtain the precise configurations in $`P_f^+`$, considering the leading chamber which contains the lattice classes of $`M_1`$ and $`N_1`$. We have the chain of lattices $`\pi L\pi N_1M_1L`$, so in $`link(x)`$ we have the flag of subspaces

$$X_1=\pi N_1/\pi LX_2=M_1/\pi L,$$

which is the line $`X_1`$ with basis $`e_3`$ as a subspace of $`X_2`$ with basis $`\{e_1,e_3\}`$. The same can be done for the leading chamber of $`P_f^{}`$ to obtain the flag

$$\pi L\pi M_1N_1L$$

giving the line $`Y_1`$ with basis $`e_2`$ as a subspace of $`Y_2`$ with basis $`\{e_1,e_2\}`$. It is immediate that the edge $`X_1X_2`$ is opposite to $`Y_1Y_2`$.

Similarly, we have the flags $`s(X_1)s(X_2)`$ and $`s(Y_1)s(Y_2)`$ in $`link(x)`$ coming from the sectors $`P_k^+`$ and $`P_k^{}`$ based at the point $`[s(L_{2,1,0})]=t`$, since $`[L_{1,0,0}]=[s(L_{2,1,0})]`$. Consider the change of basis matrix described in the proof of Lemma 4.2,

$$m=(1t)^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}t(1+t)& 1+t^2& (1+t^2)\\ t^2& t^2& t\\ t^2& t& t^2\end{array}\right)$$

and reduce mod $`\pi =\frac{1}{t}`$ to obtain the rational matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& \beta \\ 1& \alpha & 1\end{array}\right)$$

to find that $`s(X_1)`$ has basis $`(1,\beta ,1)`$ and $`s(X_2)`$ has basis $`\{(1,1,1),(1,\beta ,1)\}`$ and $`s(Y_1)`$ has basis $`(1,1,\alpha )`$ while $`s(Y_2)`$ has basis $`\{(1,1,\alpha ),(1,\beta ,1)\}`$. Thus these edges are opposite to the edge $`X_1X_2`$ for $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, rationals which are neither 0 nor 1 ; but not opposite if $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ is 0 or 1.

To see this we can describe the local hexagons in the link. Oppositeness in this case means that the two 2-dimensional subspaces intersect along a line which is not the special line in each. We show that $`X_1X_2`$ is opposite to $`s(X_1)s(X_2)`$ and $`s(Y_1)s(Y_2)`$. For example, $`X_2`$ is spanned by $`e_3`$ and $`e_1`$, and $`sX_2`$ is spanned by $`(1,\beta ,1)`$ and $`(1,1,1)`$. The subspace $`X_2s(X_2)`$ does not contain either the line generated by $`e_3`$ or the line generated by $`(1,\beta ,1)`$ iff $`\beta 0`$. Thus we have oppositeness in this case. Similarly, we can treat the cases of $`X_2`$, $`s(Y_2)`$, and $`Y_2,s(Y_2)`$.

Roger C. Alperin:
Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, San Jose State University
1 Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192
E-mail: alperin@mathcs.sjsu.edu

Benson Farb:
Dept. of Mathematics, University of Chicago
5734 University Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637
E-mail: farb@math.uchicago.edu

Guennadi A. Noskov:
Institute of Mathematics, Russian Academy of Sciences
Pevtsova 13
Omsk 644099, RUSSIA
E-mail: noskov@private.omsk.su


text:
# 1 The experimental progress

## 1 The experimental progress

The experimental progress made in the 1990’s is remarkable in many ways. With the right experiments we can reveal the fine details of high energy phenomena. On the eve of LEP shutdown we known that physics at the microscopic scale has a basis as rationale as chemistry, everything moves, not by magic, but because there is a mechanism at work. Everything is encouraging for the major unsolved aspects of the breaking of electroweak gauge symmetry.

The blue band, giving the theoretical uncertainty in the $`\chi ^2`$-distribution as a function of the Higgs boson mass is, perhaps, the most celebrated figure of the whole LEP era.

It is interesting to examine the environment in which the technology for producing this figure has been developed. One way is through the Kühn tower. According to this dantescan representation we find at the top of the tower a group of highly-specialized experts: QED, QCD etc. Next to them we will find the Smugglers: those who assemble a code mooncursing it. At the lower level the Users are represented: the experimental community at large.

The Rosetta stone that keeps this world running is based on some sort of universal language that has been created to allow for a meaningful communication, the Pseudo-Observable language.

### 1.1 The language of Pseudo-Observables

The PO are related to measured cross-sections and asymmetries by some deconvolution or unfolding procedure and the concept itself of pseudo-observability is rather difficult to define. One way to introduce it is to say that the experiments measure some primordial (basically cross-sections and thereby asymmetries also) quantities which are then reduced to secondary quantities under some set of specific assumptions. Within these assumptions the secondary quantities, the PO, also deserve the label of observability.

A quick example of this language is as follows. The explicit formulae for the $`Zf\overline{f}`$ vertex are always written starting from a Born-like form of a pre-factor $`\times `$ fermionic current, where the Born parameters are promoted to effective, scale-dependent parameters,

$$\rho __Z^f\gamma _\mu \left[\left(I_f^{(3)}+ia_L\right)\gamma _+2Q_f\kappa __Z^fs^2+ia_Q\right]=\gamma _\mu \left(𝒢__V^f+𝒢__A^f\gamma _5\right),$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _+=1+\gamma _5`$ and $`a_{Q,L}`$ are the SM imaginary parts.

By definition, the total and partial widths of the $`Z`$ boson include also QED and QCD corrections. The partial decay width is therefore described by the following expression:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Zf\overline{f}\right)=4cf.\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left(|𝒢__V^f|^2R_V^f+|𝒢__A^f|^2R_A^f\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\mathrm{EW}/\mathrm{QCD}}},$$
(2)
where $`cf.=1`$ or $`3`$ for leptons or quarks $`(f=l,q)`$, and $`R_V^f`$ and $`R_A^f`$ describe the final state QED and QCD corrections and take into account the fermion mass $`m_f`$. The last term,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{\mathrm{EW}/\mathrm{QCD}}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{_{\mathrm{EW}/\mathrm{QCD}}}^{(2)}\frac{\alpha __S}{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{_{\mathrm{EW}}}^{(1)},$$
(3)
accounts for the non-factorizable corrections. The standard partial width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\frac{G_FM__Z^3}{24\sqrt{2}\pi }=82.945(7)\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(4)
The peak hadronic and leptonic cross-sections are defined by

$$\sigma _h^0=12\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\mathrm{\Gamma }__h}{M__Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }__Z^2}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^0=12\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_e\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{M__Z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }__Z^2},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }__Z`$ is the total decay width of the $`Z`$ boson, i.e, the sum of all partial decay widths. The effective electroweak mixing angles ( effective sinuses) are always defined by

$$4|Q_f|\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^f=1\frac{\mathrm{Re}𝒢__V^f}{\mathrm{Re}𝒢__A^f}=1\frac{g__V^f}{g__A^f},g__V^f=\mathrm{Re}𝒢__V^f,g__A^f=\mathrm{Re}𝒢__A^f.$$
(6)
The forward-backward asymmetry $`A_{_{\mathrm{FB}}}`$ is defined via

$$A_{_{\mathrm{FB}}}=\frac{\sigma __\mathrm{F}\sigma __\mathrm{B}}{\sigma __\mathrm{F}+\sigma __\mathrm{B}},\sigma __\mathrm{T}=\sigma __\mathrm{F}+\sigma __\mathrm{B},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma __\mathrm{F}`$ and $`\sigma __\mathrm{B}`$ are the cross-sections for forward and backward scattering, respectively.

## 2 A new era

Admittedly, we are entering a new era: we have been moving from a mediaeval architecture of radiative corrections to the renaissance of LEP period and now one should not indulge in deciphering the intimate meaning of the last digit in the last fit of the LEPEWWG.

A new frontier is at the horizon: most likely it is goodbye to the one man show. Running a new RC project will be a little like running an experiment.

At the eve of LEP shutdown it is of some importance to summarize the present status of high precision physics . For $`e^+e^{}\overline{f}f`$ all one-loop terms are known, including re-summation of leading terms. At the two-loop level leading and next-to-leading terms have been computed and included in codes like TOPAZ0 \[,\] and ZFITTER . For realistic observables initial state QED radiation is included via the structure function method, or equivalent ones. Final state QED is also available as well as the interference between initial and final states . Fine points in QED for $`22`$ are as follows. For $`s`$-channel all the $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2L^n\right),n=0,1,2`$ terms are known from explicit calculations, the leading $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^3L^3\right)`$ is also available and they are important for the studies of the $`Z`$ lineshape.

Differences and uncertainties amount to at most $`\pm 0.1`$MeV on $`M__Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ and $`\pm 0.01\%`$ on $`\sigma _\mathrm{h}^0`$ (MIZA, TOPAZ0 and ZFITTER)  For non-annihilation processes (Bhabha) both structure-function and parton-shower methods have been analyzed and the uncertainty is estimated to be $`0.061\%`$ from BHLUMI . Certainly, full two-loop electroweak corrections are needed for GigaZ ($`10^9Z`$ events) with a quest for a fast numerical evaluation of the relevant diagrams.

For $`e^+e^{}4`$fermions all tree-level processes are available and $`𝒪\left(\alpha \right)`$ electroweak corrections are known only for the $`WW`$-signal and in double-pole approximation (DPA)  and . $`e^+e^{}4\mathrm{f}+\gamma `$ in Born approximation is also available for all processes . Dominant radiative corrections are inserted in single-$`W`$ production through the so-called Fermion-Loop scheme \[-\].

Fine points in QED for $`24`$ are as follows For $`e^+e^{}WW4\mathrm{f}`$ DPA gives the answer but, for a generic process $`e^+e^{}4\mathrm{f}`$ QED radiation is included by using $`s`$-channel structure-functions, i.e. in leading-log approximation. The latter are strictly applicable only if ISR can be separated unambiguously. Otherwise their implementation may lead to an excess of radiation. Preliminar investigations towards non–$`s`$ SF by GRACE and by SWAP  gives an indication on how to implement the bulk of the non-annihilation effect but still represent ad hoc solutions. These methods, which are essentially based on a matching with the soft photon emission, still contain an ambiguity on the energy scale selection with consequences on the predicted observables.

## 3 Realistic observables

How well do we know realistic observables in $`e^+e^{}2\mathrm{f}`$? Pretty well around the $`Z`$ peak, reasonably well up to LEP 2 energies, but fermion-pair corrections (PP) are not really under control. Let us describe the structure of PP by starting with a simple case, $`e^+e^{}`$ PP-corrections to $`e^+e^{}\overline{b}b`$. PP is more than photon conversion, we will have the following sets of diagrams: Multi-Peripheral, Initial State Singlet (ISS), Initial State Non-Singlet (ISNS) and Final State (FS).

Note that we include both $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchange. On top of real pair production one has to include virtual $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs. Let us compare as a typical example the sum of virtual and real pair corrections for primary hadrons and primary muons at $`\sqrt{(}s)=189`$ GeV.

The comparison between GENTLE, ZFITTER, and TOPAZ0 for the diagram-based definition reveals maximum differences of $`1.7(1.5)`$ per mill for inclusive hadrons (muons) and $`0.2(0.4)`$ per mill for high $`s^{}`$ hadrons (muons).

However, PP are to be completed expressly at higher energies and above vector boson thresholds. The first evolutionary development is: a 4f MC has to be fully interfaced with a 2f MC.

## 4 QED radiation

There are several 4f processes, those with $`t`$-channel photons that are not dominated by annihilation. Examples are: single-$`W`$ production and two-photon processes. How to include the bulk of QED radiative corrections? The second evolutionary development: is multi-photon radiation a one-scale or a multi-scale convolution phenomenon?

$`\sigma \left(p_+p_{}\{q_i\}+\text{QED}\right)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =\pm }{}dx_\lambda D(x_\lambda ,\mathrm{?})\sigma \left(x_+p_+x_{}p_{}\{q_i\}\right)}`$ (8)
In the above equation the question mark means that the corresponding scale has to be guessed. We need to understand how the standard SF-method is related to the exact YFS exponentiation. In the standard YFS treatment of multiple photon emission we have

$`\sigma \left(p_++p_{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2l}{}}q_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,n}{}}k_j\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑PS_qM_0^2E\left(p_++p_{}\underset{i}{}q_i\right)},`$ (9)
where $`E`$ is the spectral function defined through the usual eikonal factor:

$`E(K)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{exp}(iKx)E(x)},`$
$`E(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4ke^{ikx}\delta ^+(k^2)j^\mu (k)^2}\right\}`$ (10)
At this point we choose an alternative procedure were we do not separate the soft component from the hard one and compute some exact result valid for an arbitrary number of dimensions $`n`$ and for on-shell photons, i.e. $`k^2=0`$,

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^nke^{ikx}\frac{\delta ^+(k^2)}{p_ikp_jk}}`$ (11)
In dimensional-regularization one has the following result, valid $`x^2`$:

$`I(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \rho {\displaystyle __0^^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{P^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\epsilon }}}+2\mathrm{ln}2\mathrm{ln}x^2\xi \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi +1}{\xi 1}}\right),`$ (12)
where we have defined a variable $`\xi `$ as the ratio $`\xi =|x_0|/r`$, with an infinitesimal imaginary part attributed to $`x_0`$, i.e. $`x_0x_0+i\delta (\delta 0_+)`$. Furthermore, $`P`$ is the linear combination $`P=p_j+\left(\rho p_ip_j\right)u`$, where we have defined $`\rho `$ to satisfy $`\left(\rho p_ip_j\right)^2=0`$, and $`x_0,r`$ are rewritten in covariant form as follows:

$`x_0={\displaystyle \frac{Px}{\sqrt{P^2}}},r^2=x_0^2+x^2.`$ (13)
The last integral shows the infrared pole $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\epsilon }}}`$ and a collection of $`\mathrm{Li}_2`$-functions. Therefore, $`E(K)`$ is not available in close form. The scheme that we want to propose defines a coplanar approximation  to the exact spectral function,

$`I_{ij}^c`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi \rho _{ij}_{\mathrm{cp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_j^2\rho _{ij}^2p_i^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{ij}^2p_i^2}{p_j^2}},I_{ii}^c\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\pi \rho _{ij}_{\mathrm{cp}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^2}},`$
$`_{\mathrm{cp}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left\{e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_ixp_jx}{m_im_j}}\right\},\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{\epsilon }}}+\mathrm{constants}.`$ (14)
Within the coplanar approximation we have

$`E^{\mathrm{pair}<ij>}(K)`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{cp}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{IR}}}}{m_im_j}}\right\}^{\alpha A_{ij}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\alpha A_{ij})}}`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\sigma ^{}\left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right)^{\alpha A_{ij}1}\delta ^4\left(\sigma p_i+\sigma ^{}p_jK\right).`$
This results explains why we have introduced the term coplanar. Note that $`\alpha A\beta `$ only when the corresponding invariant is much larger than mass2 but the above expression is valid for all regimes and it is easily generalized to $`n`$ emitters with the result that 111A.Ballestrero, G.P. work in progress in a process $`2n`$ any external charged leg $`i`$ talks to all other charged legs, each time with a known scale $`s_{ij}`$ and with a known total weight proportional to

$`x_i^{\alpha \left(A_1^i+\mathrm{}+A_I^i\right)1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\alpha \left(A_1^i+\mathrm{}+A_I^i\right)\right),0x_i1`$ (16)
Note that each $`A`$ has the appropriate sign, in/out, part/antp. Furthermore, $`I(i)`$ is the number of pairs $`<ij>`$ with $`i`$ fixed. The IR exponent is given by

$`\alpha A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\pi }}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1+r^2}{1r^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}1\right\},{\displaystyle \frac{m_e^2}{|t|}}={\displaystyle \frac{r}{(1r)^2}}`$ (17)
For Bhabha scattering we will have the following combination:

$`A(s,m_e)A(t,m_e)+A(u,m_e)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{st}{m_e^2u}}1\right],`$ (18)
obtained as an exact result, not a guess.

### 4.1 Conclusions for QED

The structure-function language is still applicable but initial state structure functions evaluated for one scale is, quite obviously, not enough. In any process each external leg brings one structure function; since all charged legs talk to each other, each SF is not function of one ad hoc scale but all $`<ij>`$ scales enter into SFi. The exact spectral-function is a convolution of SF

$`E^{\mathrm{pair}<ij>}(K)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4K^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(K^{})E_{\mathrm{cp}}^{\mathrm{pair}<ij>}(KK^{})},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(K)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{exp}\left\{iKx+\alpha \left(II_{\mathrm{cp}}\right)\right\}}=\delta (K)+𝒪\left(\alpha \right).`$ (19)
Furthermore, IR-finite reminders and virtual parts can be added according to the standard approach of reorganizing the perturbative expansion.

## 5 Multi-loop calculations

The third evolutionary development can be summarized as follows. A systematic approach to multi-loop calculations is needed. Although a lot can be done by means of approximations do we have a new, implementable algorithm for a full scale attack to the problem?

There is a new idea around: the Tkachov theorem  or generalized Bernstein theorem (see also Bardin’s talk).

$`𝒫(x,){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V_i^{\mu _i+1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`B{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}V_i^{\mu _i}(x).`$
where $`𝒫`$ is a polynomial of $`x=\left(x_1\mathrm{}x_n\right)`$ (a vector of Feynman parameters) and $`_i=/_i`$; $`B`$ and all coefficients of $`𝒫`$ are polynomials of $`\mu _i`$ and of the coefficients of $`V_i(x)`$.

The message is that we can do numerical calculations. However, one-loop  versus multi-loop is exactly as 2d Ising model versus 3d Ising model. For one-loop we have a universal master formula due to F. V. Tkachov :

$`V(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x^tHx+2K^tx+L,𝒫=1{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x+X\right)_x}{2\left(\mu +1\right)}},`$
$`X`$ $`=`$ $`K^tH^1,B=LK^tH^1K.`$
An example that everybody can do, the scalar $`3`$-point function

$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑yV^{1\epsilon /2}(x,y)=C_0^d+C_0^s+C_0^0,`$
$`V(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`ax^2+by^2+cxy+dx+ey+fi\epsilon `$
$`C_0^d`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑yV(x,y)\mathrm{ln}V(x,y)G_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2,`$
$`C_0^s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dx\{V(x,x)\mathrm{ln}V(x,x)[G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(a_xa_y)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1(a_xa_y)G_{11}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1]`$
$`+`$ $`V(x,0)\mathrm{ln}V(x,0)\left[G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2a_y+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_yG_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1\right]`$
$``$ $`V(1,x)\mathrm{ln}V(1,x)[G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^2a_x+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1G_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xG_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1]\},`$
$`C_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1(b+c+e){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1G_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}b+c+e)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}G_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(3a+b+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}c+4d+2e+6f)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1(a+b+c+d+e)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1(b+c+e)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xG_{11}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1(a+b+c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}d+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}e)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xG_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}b+c+e){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1(a+b+c+de)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{2x}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1(a+d){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_yG_{11}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1(a+b+c+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}d+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}e)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_yG_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1(a+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}d)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V(0,0)\mathrm{ln}V(0,0)\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1+\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{2x}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V(1,0)\mathrm{ln}V(1,0)[G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1+\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1+4\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{2x}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_yG_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }_2^1]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}V(1,1)\mathrm{ln}V(1,1)[G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1+G_2\mathrm{\Delta }^1G_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xa_{3x}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xG_{11}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1+\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_xG_{13}\mathrm{\Delta }_3^1\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_ya_{1x}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1+\mathrm{\Delta }^1a_yG_{11}\mathrm{\Delta }_1^1].`$
Here, the Gram determinants are given by

$`a_x`$ $`=`$ $`2dbce,a_y=2eadc,a_{1x}={\displaystyle \frac{d+e}{2}},a_{2x}={\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}},a_{3x}={\displaystyle \frac{c+e}{2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`fG_2(bd^2cde+ae^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ $`=`$ $`fG_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{(d+e)^2}{4}},\mathrm{\Delta }_2=fG_{12}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{4}},\mathrm{\Delta }_3=(a+d+f)G_{13}{\displaystyle \frac{(c+e)^2}{4}},`$
$`G_2`$ $`=`$ $`4abc^2,G_{11}=a+b+c,G_{12}=a,G_{13}=b,`$
Another example is given by the IR-divergent $`C_0`$\- functions. One can prove that $`B=0`$ for

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`b=f=m^2,c=e=s2m^2,d=2m^2.`$
As a consequence we have

$`\left[1+P_x{\displaystyle \frac{}{_x}}+P_y{\displaystyle \frac{}{_y}}\right]V^{\mu +1}(x,y)=0,P_{x;y}={\displaystyle \frac{1x;y}{2(\mu +1)}}.`$
This relation we use to write

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑yV^{1\epsilon /e}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xV^{1\epsilon /e}(x,x),`$
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(\mu +1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x\right)_x\right]V^{1+\mu }(x,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(s4m^2\right)V^\mu (x,x)`$
$`C_0^{\mathrm{IR}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s4m^2}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }})[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}V(0,0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}V(1,1)]`$
$`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\epsilon }}){\displaystyle _0^1}dx\mathrm{ln}V(x,x)\}`$
Another example is the massless pentagon. Here (but also for the massive one) one can prove that

$`E_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1x_2}}𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{1x_1x_2x_3}}𝑑x_4\left[x^tH^1x+2K^tx\right]^{3\epsilon /2},`$
$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& s_{51}& s_{12}s_{34}& s_{45}\\ & 2s_{51}& s_{34}s_{51}& s_{23}s_{51}\\ & & 2s_{34}& s_{34}\\ & & & 0\end{array}\right)$$

$`K_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,K_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{51},K_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_{34},K_4=0,s_{ij}=\left(p_i+p_j\right)^2.`$
Now we raise the exponent and integrate by parts with $`B=1/16s_{12}s_{23}s_{34}s_{45}s_{51}`$.

In moving to multi-loop we recall that any diagram $`G`$ with $`N_L`$ legs and $`n_l`$ loops is representable as

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`(1)_L^N\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{\pi ^{n/2}}}\right)^{n_l}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(N_L{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}n_l\right){\displaystyle \frac{dz_G\delta \left(1z_G\right)}{U^{n/2}\left(Vi\epsilon \right)^{N_Lnn_l/2}}},`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}m_i^2z_i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i^2z_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}B_{ij}q_iq_jz_iz_j,`$
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{T}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{z_iT}{}}z_i=\text{det}\left(U_{rs}\right),U_{rs}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}z_i\eta _{ir}\eta _{is}.`$
$`\eta _{is}`$ is the projection of line $`i`$ along the loop $`s`$. $`T`$ is a co-tree. Note that UV-singularities come from $`U`$ so that, for finite diagrams, one should raise only the factor

$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=`$ $`U\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}m_i^2z_i{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}q_i^2z_i\right]{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}B_{ij}q_iq_jz_iz_j.`$
There are several comments. For two-loops $`U`$ is quadratic and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is cubic, so that we have to construct a Bernstein functional relation for a quintic or higher polynomial. Try to do it naively in FORM and you will be told ‘Input expansion buffer overflow. Try something else.’

For $`N_L=3,4`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ to a positive power and it is enough to regularize $`G`$ with some $`K_S`$ operation ($`SG`$). For $`N_L>5`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ to a negative power, $`U`$ to a positive power (no UV divergency), so we could raise a cubic. For self-energies at $`q^2=0`$ it is easy. Consider, for example, $`n_l=2,N_L=3`$, perform a projective transformation

$`z_i`$ $`=`$ $`A_iu_i/{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A_ju_j,A_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_i^2}},`$
to obtain $`\stackrel{~}{V}=U`$ quadratic and,

$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=`$ $`xy({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_2^2m_3^2}})x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_2^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`x^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_2^2}}+y({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_1^2m_3^2}})+y^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_2^2m_3^2}}`$
The crucial point being that we know how to raise a quadratic. Finally, $`N_L=2(n_l+1)`$ is nice, a single polynomial of degree $`n_l+1`$. Of course, vacuum diagrams are also easy. At two-loop level we have

$`G_2^{\mathrm{vac}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(4\pi \right)^{\epsilon 4}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\epsilon 1\right)\left(K^tH^1K\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑y`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x+K^tH^1\right)}{\epsilon 2}}\right]\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\left(x+K^tH^1\right)}{\epsilon }}\right]U^{\epsilon /2}(x,y),`$
where $`U`$ has been presented above. The same is, obviously true, for tadpoles. What we are still missing is a real multi-loop example,

Additional problems are represented by the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is an highly incomplete polynomial, few non-zero coefficients. $`𝒫`$ can be found via a direct study of linear systems of $`n`$ equations ($`n100`$) in $`m`$ variables and very often the matrix of coefficients has rank $`<`$ n, so the system is generally impossible and, we need to go to higher $`n,m`$, i.e. beyond $`n_{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{min}\{n<m\}`$ (try one-loop master formulae with $`K=L=0`$!) and your algebraic manipulation will exhaust your computer before you find a solution.

A simple counting shows the following situation: given

$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`P_n+P_{n+1}^i_i+P_{n+2}^{ij}_i_j+\mathrm{}`$
four variables and a cubic $`V`$ require $`n_{\mathrm{eq}}=126(330,715)`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{var}}=155(415,871)`$ for $`n=2(1,0)`$ and first(second, third) derivatives. Simple examples already show that, for realistic polynomials $`V`$, one has to go beyond second order in derivatives.

The relation between $`B=0`$ and Landau singularities is still to be examined, although $`B=0`$ contains all singularities of $`G`$, physical and spurious ones. $`LK^tH^1K`$ (or $`B`$ in general) is not a Gram determinant but its spurious zeros, if any, are a vexation, as much as those of Gram determinants in the standard reduction procedure. For $`C_0(m_a^2,m_b^2,s;m_b,M,m_a)`$ we obtain

$`G_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda (s,m_a^2,m_b^2),G_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda (M^2,m_a^2,m_b^2),G_{13}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda (M^2,m_a^2,m_b^2),`$
$`G_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(m_a^2m_b^2\right)^2M^2s\right]\left[s+M^22\left(m_a^2+m_b^2\right)\right].`$


text:
# SuperAGILE: the X-ray Monitor of the AGILE gamma-ray Mission

## 1 Introduction

AGILE (“Astrorivelatore Gamma ad Immagini LEggero”, Tavani et al. 2000 and Barbiellini et al. 2000) is the first mission of the Program of Small Missions of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). The main goal of AGILE is to monitor the gamma-ray sky in the energy range between 30 MeV and 50 GeV, with a large field of view ($``$3 sr), good sensitivity, good angular resolution and good timing (dead time lower than 100 $`\mu `$s for the gamma-ray detector).

AGILE is scheduled for launch by the beginning of 2003 in an equatorial $``$100 minutes orbit, for a nominal lifetime of 2 years. It will use the ASI base in Malindi as a ground station. The satellite mass will be about 200 kg ($``$65 kg of payload) and the power available to the payload is about 65 W. The scientific telemetry will be able to transmit approximately 300 Mbit of data to ground at each passage over the Malindi ground station.

The AGILE payload (Mereghetti et al. 2000) is composed of a Si tracker, containing 14 planes of Si microstrip detectors (121 $`\mu `$m pitch), interleaved with tungsten layers used as a photon pair converter (each layer is 0.07 radiation length - $`X_0`$). At the bottom of the Si tracker a mini-calorimeter - two planes of CsI bars, for a total on-axis radiation length of 1.5 $`X_0`$ \- is in charge of the total absorption of the created pairs. The same detector, however, can be used for independent detection and triggering of high energy (300 keV - 200 MeV) transient events. The hard X-ray section, SuperAGILE, is located on top of the Si-tracker. All the above parts are surrounded by an anticoincidence made of a 6-mm thick (5-mm on the top shield), segmented plastic scintillator.

## 2 The SuperAGILE Assembly

SuperAGILE is basically composed of a Detection Plane (DP), a Collimator equipped with a Coded Mask, a Front-End Electronics and an Interface Electronics (SAIE). Table 1 resumes the main SuperAGILE characteristics and Figure 1 shows its appearance (see also Soffitta et al. 2000 for a more extensive description).

The DP is composed of 4 detection units (DUs), placed on a single Al honeycomb plane support, so that two of them sample the X-direction and the other two are devoted to the Y-direction. Each DU is composed of 4 Si microstrip tiles, bonded in pairs so that the effective length of each strip is approximately 19 cm. They are read-out through a set of IDE AS-XAA1 chips, based on ASIC technology, 12 for each of the DUs. The collimator (present baseline: 500 $`\mu `$m thick Carbon Fiber field separators, coated with a 75 $`\mu `$m Gold layer) is mounted on the same tray supporting the DP, and in turn supports the 4 orthogonal, one-dimensional coded masks. The coded masks have been designed based on an Hadamard sequence, with a 50% covering factor. They will be manufactured either in Gold or in Tungsten, 100 $`\mu `$m thick. The SAIE is in charge of interfacing SuperAGILE with the AGILE Data Handling System, allowing an event-by-event transmission with better than 5 $`\mu `$s timing resolution. The energy information will be provided in the extended energy range between 1 and 64 keV, with 64 channels, to allow for a finer threshold calibration at low energies, and exploit for calibration purposes the Tungsten fluorescences at $``$58 keV.

The combined capabilities of the SAIE and the AGILE Data Handling (see also Morselli et al. 2000) will allow the transmission to ground of a relatively large set of scientific housekeeping data, including ratemeters and detector images. In particular, the AGILE Data Handling will be able to perform a continuous automatic search for transient events (e.g., gamma-ray bursts) on timescales from 1 ms to 100 s. Once a transient event is triggered onboard, the Data Handling will be able to provide attitude-corrected sky images for it, determining the location of the transient source on the sky. The possibility to distribute in almost real time the coordinates of a transient event through a fast link (e.g., TDRSS or similar) is currently under study.

## 3 Laboratory Tests on Prototypes

The most critical items for the SuperAGILE design were the signal-to-noise ratio at low energies (i.e., around 10 keV) and the power consumption. For this reason extensive laboratory tests have been performed on the ASIC chips planned to be used as front-end electronics: the XA1.3 chip, precursor of the XAA1 chip, especially developed by IDE AS for SuperAGILE. The results of these tests (see Del Monte et al. 2000 for a detailed discussion) show that the electronic noise can be reduced to less than 4 keV (FWHM) and the power consumption to less than 1 mW per channel (SuperAGILE includes 6144 independent electronic channels). The same tests have shown a critical dependence of several chip characteristics (gain, offset, strip address and others) from the temperature.

## 4 Sensitivity

We studied the sensitivity and expected astrophysical performances by means of analytical calculations and Monte Carlo simulations. In Figure 2 we present the map of the SuperAGILE effective area for two individual DUs over their field of view (FOV), for a monochromatic 13.1 keV photon beam (this energy corresponds to the peak in the area vs. energy relation). The area of two orthogonal units is presented, showing the overlap of their FOV, providing an effective bi-dimensional source location capability within the central 60 x 60 part of the FOV, in addition to the one-dimensional location capability for the further $``$20. The maximum effective area at the center of the FOV is $``$80 cm2, thus giving a maximum of 320 cm2 when the four units are considered together.

In Figure 3 the 5-$`\sigma `$ sensitivity is presented for sources with Crab-like energy spectra, for an integration time of 50 ks, over the full 10-40 keV energy range. The sensitivity is presented as a function of the source location within the field of view, along the two directions. It is worth noticing the wide central part of the FOV with slowly variable sensitivity, allowing for an excellent use of most of the FOV for source monitoring purposes.

## 5 Expected Astrophysical Performances

In this section we present the expected performances of SuperAGILE for few interesting classes of hard X-ray sources. In Figure 4 we show the sensitivity (5-$`\sigma `$ in 50 ks) as a function of energy. On the same plot we show the typical energy spectrum of the X-ray binary pulsar Her X-1, as observed by BeppoSAX near the maximum of the 35-day cycle (Dal Fiume et al., 1998), showing that SuperAGILE will be able to provide accurate energy spectra for this and similar sources, also when it goes to its periodic minimum (a factor $``$3 fainter). As a result of the long pointings ($``$2 weeks) driven by the gamma-ray tracker, SuperAGILE will point the same source(s) for the same long time, thus providing both accurate energy spectra over such a long integration time as well as a monitoring of the fluxes and energy spectra over much shorter timescales. In Figure 4 we also show the observed energy spectra (in a flare and in a dip state) of the Galactic microquasar GRS 1915+105 (Feroci et al. 1999). Also in this case the SuperAGILE sensitivity is perfectly suited to allow both spectral and temporal variability studies. It is worth noticing that the galactic microquasars are among the primary targets also for the gamma-ray tracker and will likely be pointed several times over the AGILE lifetime.

In Figure 5 we show the SuperAGILE capability in studying fast hard X-ray transients, as the short recurrent bursts from the Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters (e.g., Aptekar et al. 2000). The plot clearly shows that also in 250 ms SuperAGILE can provide detailed energy spectra of such events. The wide field of view of SuperAGILE is very well suited for a monitoring of the activity of these sources, that are mostly concentrated towards the galactic center, thus allowing to trigger pointed observations when they undergo periods of intense bursting activity. Furthermore, the giant flares from these sources (e.g., Feroci et al. 2000) are very good candidates for emission of rapid and intense flashes of gamma-rays and SuperAGILE can provide the Tracker with an accurate position of a possible new soft gamma-ray repeater manifesting itself with a giant flare, as the source of the 1979 March 5th event did.

Finally, Figure 6 shows the source location capability of SuperAGILE for gamma-ray bursts. The plot simulates the sky image of the SuperAGILE detection of GRB 980425, a relatively weak and soft gamma-ray burst in the BeppoSAX sample. Although the simulation assumes an event at 15 off-axis in both X and Y directions, the detection is highly significant and allows for a very good source location determination, as can be seen by the right-hand panels where the sky image is zoomed-in. This capability motivated the set-up of the onboard triggering and source localization system for SuperAGILE (see Sec. 2).


text:
# Coupling of Nonlocal Potentials to Electromagnetic Fields

## Abstract

Nonlocal Hamiltonians are used widely in first-principles quantum calculations; the nonlocality stems from eliminating undesired degrees of freedom, e.g. core electrons. To date, attempts to couple nonlocal systems to external electromagnetic (EM) fields have been heuristic or limited to weak or long wavelength fields. Using Feynman path integrals, we derive an exact, closed-form coupling of arbitrary EM fields to nonlocal systems. Our results justify and clarify the couplings used to date and are essential for systematic computation of linear and especially nonlinear response.

Theoretical study of the electronic response of quantum systems to electromagnetic (EM) probes is central to understanding experimental results and what they imply about the structure of matter. It is now possible to predict the response, from first principles, with sufficient accuracy to compare quantitatively to experiment . Nonlocal pseudopotentials are a key ingredient of many ab initio electronic structure calculations as they eliminate the largely inert and thus physically unimportant core electrons. The price paid is that the valence electrons feel a nonlocal atomic potential.

Hence, it is vital to know how electrons moving in nonlocal potentials couple to EM fields. Early work  found the coupling within the effective-mass framework. To date, refs.  represent the only first principles attempts to find the coupling, but with limited success. In ref. , the coupling terms involve an integral of the field over an unspecified path. Path ambiguity, discussed below, is a central problem that leads to non unique couplings and incorrect quantitative results. Ref.  stops at the formal level due to operator ordering ambiguities, and an explicit, practical form of the coupling is given only for the long wavelength (i.e. dipole) approximation. This treatment excludes the description of AC magnetic fields or, more generally, spatially varying EM fields. Operator ordering problems also force the results of ref.  to be limited to linear (i.e. weak) coupling.

Other attempts are also limited to linear coupling  where physical intuition leads to replacing the momentum by the velocity operator. When seeking nonlinear response, the coupling is either considered only for longitudinal fields  or only within the long wavelength (dipole) approximation .

Our work presents a rigorous derivation of an explicit, closed-form expression for the coupling of nonlocal systems to arbitrary EM fields. The value of this result is several fold: e.g., having the correct coupling is essential for accurate and systematic ab initio calculation of linear and nonlinear response. Aside from first principles methods, many semi-empirical or phenomenological models use nonlocal Hamiltonians with tight-binding like hopping terms. There have been only heuristic attempts to couple such systems to EM fields . Our results justify the assumed forms of previous couplings.

Although ab initio calculations involve interacting electrons, nonlocal potentials are one-body operators. For clarity, we derive our results for a one-electron system. The results generalize directly to the interacting case.

A main principle of electrodynamics is gauge-invariance. A particle in a local potential $`U(𝐫)`$ is governed by the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})=\widehat{𝐩}^2/2m+\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐫})`$. The standard prescription for the gauge-invariant coupling uses the minimal substitution $`\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝚷}\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐀}(\widehat{𝐫},t)`$ ($`𝐀`$ is the vector potential). The coupled Hamiltonian is $`\widehat{H}_𝐀(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})=\widehat{𝚷}^2/2m+\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐫})+q\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{𝐫},t)`$ ($`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential). We use units where $`q/c=\mathrm{}=1`$ ($`q`$ is the particle’s charge and $`c`$ the speed of light).

The problem of interest, however, has a nonlocal potential $`V_{nl}`$ with Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐩}^2/2m+\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐫})+\widehat{V}_{nl},`$ (1)
where $`V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{})𝐫|\widehat{V}_{nl}|𝐫^{}0`$ for $`𝐫𝐫^{}`$. Gauge-invariance demands that $`V_{nl}`$ depend on $`𝐀`$. A major obstacle to finding $`\widehat{H}_𝐀`$ is that $`V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ is not specified in terms of the canonical operators $`(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})`$. Below, we first rewrite $`V_{nl}`$ in terms of $`(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})`$, and then perform minimal substitution in an unambiguous manner to find $`\widehat{H}_𝐀`$.

Starting with $`\widehat{V}_{nl}`$, we perform a Weyl transformation to obtain an equivalent operator $`\widehat{W}`$ of $`(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})`$ :

$$\widehat{W}(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})=𝑑𝐬e^{i\widehat{𝐩}𝐬/2}V_{nl}(\widehat{𝐫}+\frac{𝐬}{2},\widehat{𝐫}\frac{𝐬}{2})e^{i\widehat{𝐩}𝐬/2}.$$
(2)
It is straightforward to show that $`𝐫|\widehat{W}(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})|𝐫^{}=𝐫|\widehat{V}_{nl}|𝐫^{}`$. Thus $`\widehat{V}_{nl}`$ and $`\widehat{W}`$ are the same operator. We now have written the Hamiltonian without fields as

$$\widehat{H}_0(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩})=\widehat{𝐩}^2/2m+\widehat{U}(\widehat{𝐫})+\widehat{W}(\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{𝐩}).$$
(3)
For the equivalent classical system, $`𝒲(𝐫,𝐩)`$ is a function of the numbers $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐩`$ given by

$$𝒲(𝐫,𝐩)=𝑑𝐬V_{nl}(𝐫+𝐬/2,𝐫𝐬/2)e^{i𝐩𝐬}.$$
(4)
At this stage, we would like to employ the minimal substitution $`\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝚷}`$ in Eq. (3) to find the coupled Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_𝐀`$. Unfortunately, the components of $`\widehat{𝚷}`$ do not commute so that initially equivalent orderings of operators in $`\widehat{W}`$ lead to physically different couplings: e.g., $`\widehat{𝐩}_x\widehat{𝐩}_y=\widehat{𝐩}_y\widehat{𝐩}_x`$ but $`\widehat{𝚷}_x\widehat{𝚷}_y\widehat{𝚷}_y\widehat{𝚷}_x`$ since $`[\widehat{𝚷}_x,\widehat{𝚷}_y]=i𝐁_z`$. Continuing along this line requires applying ordering postulates to the operators in $`\widehat{W}`$ before minimal substitution to guarantee unambiguous final results. Only for long wavelengths (i.e. spatially uniform $`𝐀`$) is the substitution unambiguous, and the results of  are limited to this case. Similarly, this same ordering issue forced the results in  be limited to first order in $`𝐀`$.

An equivalent statement of the problem is that different evaluations of $`e^{i\widehat{𝐩}𝐬/2}`$ in Eq. (2) correspond to translating by $`𝐬/2`$ along different paths. This path ambiguity is present in  where line integrals of $`𝐀`$ are used. When $`𝐀`$ is constant, all paths give identical results. But once $`𝐀`$ has spatial variation, different paths contribute different phases leading to non unique differing couplings.

To find the solution, we first consider the classical system governed by $`𝒲(𝐫,𝐩)`$. Minimal substitution is well defined classically since $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐫`$ are commuting numbers. The classical coupled Hamiltonian is

$`_𝐀(𝐫,𝐩)=𝚷^2/2m+U(𝐫)+𝒲(𝐫,𝚷)+\varphi (𝐫,t).`$ (5)
Next, the Feynman path-integral formulation provides the quantum evolution of a system by summing over its classical dynamics. The propagation amplitude $`K`$ between the two space-time points $`(𝐫^{},0)`$ and $`(𝐫,t)`$ in the operator formulation is given by

$`K(𝐫,t;𝐫^{},0)`$ $``$ $`𝐫|T\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \widehat{H}_𝐀(\tau )\right)|𝐫^{}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})it𝐫|\widehat{H}_𝐀(t)|𝐫^{}+O(t^2).`$
Now $`K`$ also equals the result of the Feynman formulation where we sum over all classical trajectories in phase space $`(𝐫,𝐩)`$ weighted by each path’s action $`S`$ :

$`K(𝐫,t;𝐫^{},0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^{}}D[𝐫]{\displaystyle D[𝐩]e^{iS}},`$ (7)
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \left[𝐩(\tau )\dot{𝐫}(\tau )_𝐀(𝐫(\tau ),𝐩(\tau ))\right].`$ (8)
The prime on the $`𝐫`$ path integral means that we only sum over paths where $`𝐫(0)=𝐫^{}`$ and $`𝐫(t)=𝐫`$.

We seek the quantum Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_𝐀(t)`$ which is the $`O(t)`$ term in Eq. (6). Hence we will expand the path integral of Eq. (7) to $`O(t)`$ and extract $`\widehat{H}_𝐀(t)`$.

We now use the fact that $`𝒲(𝐫,𝐩)`$ is generally bounded, i.e. $`|𝒲(𝐫,𝐩)|<C`$ for some number $`C`$. This is true for atomic pseudopotentials $`V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ which are smooth and have compact support. Thus when $`t0`$, the contribution of the $`𝒲`$ term to $`S`$ in Eq. (8) is $`O(t)`$. Hence we need expand only to linear order in $`𝒲`$:

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`K_{loc}+K_{nl},`$
$`K_{loc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle ^{}}D[𝐫]{\displaystyle D[𝐩]e^{iS_{loc}}},`$
$`K_{nl}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle ^{}}D[𝐫]{\displaystyle D[𝐩]𝑑\tau 𝒲(𝐫,𝚷)e^{iS_{loc}}},`$
$`S_{loc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau ^{}\left[𝐩\dot{𝐫}𝚷^2/2mU(𝐫)\varphi (𝐫,\tau ^{})\right]}.`$ (9)
The local propagator $`K_{loc}`$ describes the textbook situation of a local potential and is given by

$$K_{loc}=\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})it𝐫|\widehat{H}_{loc}|𝐫^{}+O(t^2),$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{H}_{loc}=\widehat{𝚷}^2/2m+\widehat{U}+q\widehat{\varphi }`$. Thus, we concentrate on the nonlocal propagator $`K_{nl}`$.

The local potential $`U+q\varphi `$ depends only on $`𝐫(\tau )`$ and $`\tau `$ and not on $`𝐩`$. Hence as $`t0`$, the contribution to $`S_{loc}`$ from $`U+q\varphi `$ is $`O(t)`$. We ignore this contribution to $`K_{nl}`$ since it leads to terms of $`O(t^2)`$. However, $`p`$ scales as $`𝐩(𝐫𝐫^{})/t=O(1/t)`$ so expanding in $`t`$ will fail for terms involving $`𝐩`$. Thus we must perform the $`𝐩`$ integral explicitly. At fixed $`𝐫`$, we change variables from $`𝐩`$ to $`𝚷`$:

$`K_{nl}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle ^{}}D[𝐫]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}𝐀\dot{𝐫}}}\mathrm{\Xi },`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle D[𝚷]𝑑\tau 𝒲(𝐫(\tau ),𝚷(\tau ))e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}[𝚷\dot{𝐫}𝚷^2/2m]}}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau W(𝐫(\tau ),\frac{i\delta }{\delta \dot{𝐫}(\tau )})D[𝚷]e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}[𝚷\dot{𝐫}𝚷^2/2m]}}}`$
$`=`$ $`𝒩{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau W(𝐫(\tau ),\frac{i\delta }{\delta \dot{𝐫}(\tau )})e^{im/2{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}\dot{𝐫}^2}}}.`$
Above, we use a functional derivative to pull $`𝒲`$ out of the $`𝚷`$ integral. This allows us to perform the Gaussian $`𝚷`$ integral, which yields a normalization constant $`𝒩`$.

Using the definition of $`𝒲`$ from Eq. (4), we have

$`W(𝐫,{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta }{\delta \dot{𝐫}}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐬V_{nl}(𝐫+\frac{𝐬}{2},𝐫\frac{𝐬}{2})e^{𝐬\frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{𝐫}}}}.`$ (13)
The exponentiated functional derivative translates $`\dot{𝐫}`$:

$`K_{nl}`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒩{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle }d𝐬{\displaystyle ^{}}D[𝐫]V_{nl}(𝐫(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐬}{2}},𝐫(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{𝐬}{2}})\times `$ (14)
$`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}\left(m[\dot{𝐫}𝐬\delta (\tau ^{}\tau )]^2/2+𝐀\dot{𝐫}\right)}}`$
Note that changing the order of the integrals does not change the final result. We now change variables, at fixed $`𝐬`$ and $`\tau `$, from $`𝐫(\tau )`$ to $`𝐟(\tau )`$ as follows:

$$𝐫(\tau ^{})=𝐟(\tau ^{})+[𝐫^{}+𝐬\theta (\tau ^{}\tau )+(𝐫𝐫^{}𝐬)\tau ^{}/t].$$
(15)
where $`d\theta (x)/dx=\delta (x)`$. This choice follows from the action of $`V_{nl}`$ in Eq. (14): $`V_{nl}`$ causes a transition from $`𝐫(\tau )𝐬/2`$ to $`𝐫(\tau )+𝐬/2`$ at time $`\tau `$. We parameterize the paths as fluctuations $`𝐟`$ about a straight-line path with a discontinuity of size $`𝐬`$ at time $`\tau `$ (term in brackets). With this choice, $`𝐟`$ obeys the conditions $`𝐟(0)=𝐟(t)=0`$.

Upon substituting $`𝐟`$, we have

$`K_{nl}`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒩{\displaystyle }d\tau {\displaystyle }d𝐬{\displaystyle }D[𝐟]V_{nl}(𝐫(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐬}{2}},𝐫(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{𝐬}{2}})\times `$
$`e^{im/2(𝐫𝐫^{}𝐬)^2/t+i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}\left(m\dot{𝐟}^2/2+𝐀\dot{𝐫}\right)}}`$
The conditions on $`𝐟`$ permit the Fourier expansion $`𝐟(\tau ^{})=_n𝐟_n\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\tau ^{}/t)`$. The kinetic integral is $`_0^t𝑑\tau ^{}\dot{𝐟}^2=\pi ^2/2_nn^2𝐟_n^2/t`$. We now note that for any analytic function $`g(x)`$, $`𝑑xg(x)e^{ix^2/t}=\sqrt{i\pi t}[g(0)+O(t^2)]`$, so that within an integral we may set $`e^{ix^2/t}=\sqrt{i\pi t}[\delta (x)+O(t^2)]`$. Since $`K_{nl}`$ is already $`O(t)`$ and we ignore terms of $`O(t^2)`$, we replace $`e^{ix^2/t}`$ by $`\sqrt{i\pi t}\delta (x)`$ everywhere in the above integral: this applies to the $`𝐟_n^2/t`$ as well as to the $`(𝐫𝐫^{}𝐬)^2/t`$ terms. Physically, fluctuations in $`𝐟`$ and $`𝐬`$ contribute a wildly oscillating large phase as $`t0`$ so only the stationary phase contribution at $`𝐟=0`$ and $`𝐬=𝐫𝐫^{}`$ remains when $`t0`$.

Therefore, we set $`𝐟=0`$, $`𝐬=𝐫𝐫^{}`$, absorb all constants from the integrations into $`𝒩^{}`$, and arrive at

$`K_{nl}`$ $`=`$ $`i𝒩^{}{\displaystyle }d\tau e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau ^{}𝐀\dot{𝐱}}}\times `$ (16)
$`V_{nl}(𝐱(\tau ,\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐫𝐫^{}}{2}},𝐱(\tau ,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{𝐫𝐫^{}}{2}}),`$
$`𝐱(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$ $``$ $`𝐫(\tau ^{})|_{𝐟=0,𝐬=𝐫𝐫^{}}=𝐫^{}+(𝐫𝐫^{})\theta (\tau ^{}\tau ).`$
Since we defined $`d\theta (x)/dx\delta (x)`$ and $`\delta (x)=\delta (x)`$, we have $`\theta (0)=1/2`$ so $`𝐱(\tau ,\tau )=𝐫^{}+(𝐫𝐫^{})/2`$.

The final hurdle involves evaluating $`𝑑\tau ^{}𝐀\dot{𝐱}`$ in Eq. (16). We replace the $`\delta (x)`$ appearing in $`\dot{𝐱}`$ by any smooth, non-negative function $`g(x)`$ of compact support about $`x=0`$ with width much smaller than $`t`$ and unit integral. We then replace $`\theta (x)`$ by $`G(x)`$ where $`dG(x)/dx=g(x)`$, so $`G`$ increases monotonically from 0 to 1 in a width much smaller than $`t`$. The integral is then

$`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau ^{}𝐀(𝐱(\tau ,\tau ^{}),\tau ^{})\dot{𝐱}(\tau ,\tau ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝐫^{}^𝐫}𝐀(𝐱,t)𝑑𝐱+O(t^2).`$
We evaluate $`𝐀`$ at $`t`$ since any explicit time dependence of $`𝐀`$ changes $`K_{nl}`$ by $`O(t^2)`$, which is ignored. The integral is then just along a straight line from $`𝐫^{}`$ to $`𝐫`$.

After replacing the $`\tau `$ integral by $`t`$ in Eq. (16), our nonlocal propagator is $`K_{nl}=it𝒩^{}V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{})\mathrm{exp}(i_𝐫^{}^𝐫𝐀𝑑𝐱)+O(t^2)`$. Recovery of the correct propagator for $`𝐀=0`$ requires $`𝒩^{}=1`$. Combining $`K_{nl}`$ with $`K_{loc}`$ (Eq. (10)), we have as our central result the following gauge-invariant quantum Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}_𝐀`$ $`=`$ $`(\widehat{𝐩}q\widehat{𝐀}/c)^2/2m+\widehat{U}+q\widehat{\varphi }+\widehat{V}_{nl}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐀},`$ (17)
$`𝐫|\widehat{V}_{nl}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐀}|𝐫^{}`$ $`=`$ $`V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{})e^{\frac{iq}{\mathrm{}c}_𝐫^{}^𝐫𝐀(𝐱,t)𝑑𝐱}\text{(straight-line)}.`$ (18)
In practice, we often use perturbation theory to compute response functions: we set $`\widehat{H}_A=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}^{int}`$ and work to a desired order in the interaction $`\widehat{H}^{int}`$. We expand the above result to all orders in $`𝐀`$:

$`\widehat{H}_𝐀=\widehat{H}_0+q\widehat{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{q(\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐀}+\widehat{𝐀}\widehat{𝐩})}{2mc}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2\widehat{𝐀}^2}{2mc^2}}+\widehat{V}_{nl}^{}{}_{}{}^{int},`$
$`𝐫|\widehat{V}_{nl}^{}{}_{}{}^{int}|𝐫^{}=V_{nl}(𝐫,𝐫^{}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iq}{\mathrm{}c}}{\displaystyle _𝐫^{}^𝐫}𝐀𝑑𝐱\right)^k.`$ (19)
In relation to previous work, a coupling similar to Eq. (18) is given in Ref.  but only after the straight line path is assumed with no justification. Refs.  and  both find a result equivalent to the special case of Eq. (18) in the limit of spatially constant $`𝐀`$. In Ref. , the linear term ($`k=1`$) of Eq. (19) is derived correctly, but attempts at finding a general expression for arbitrary $`𝐀`$ are stymied by operator ordering problems.

We now apply our result to the case of linear optical response where the wavelength of $`𝐀`$ is much greater than atomic dimensions and we set $`𝐀`$ constant over the nonlocal range of $`V_{nl}`$. For the Coulomb gauge $`𝐀=\varphi =0`$, the linear coupling is ($`k=1`$ term of Eq. (19))

$`\widehat{H}_1^{int}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐀}(t)q\widehat{𝐯}/c\text{where}\widehat{𝐯}i[\widehat{𝐫},\widehat{H}_0]/\mathrm{}.`$ (20)
Here, $`\widehat{𝐯}=d\widehat{𝐫}/dt`$ is the velocity operator. This result justifies the intuition that $`𝐀`$ couples to the current $`𝐣=q𝐯`$. For a local system $`𝐯=𝐩/m`$ as expected. The difference between velocity and momentum has been stressed when computing optical response . However, those works assume the long wavelength limit or couple only to longitudinal fields. Our result is a direct demonstration that in the Coulomb gauge, the coupling of electrons to long waves is via the velocity operator. To show the significance of nonlocality, we perform ab initio pseudopotential density functional calculations . Figure 1 shows the RPA absorption spectrum, $`\epsilon _2(\omega )`$ with a 0.2 eV Lorentzian broadening, where either the momentum or velocity operator is employed. The effect of nonlocality is 15% to 20%, non negligible when aiming for quantitative comparison to experiment.

Next, we study electrons in a uniform magnetic field. Magnetic fields provide a novel application of our result since $`𝐀`$ must vary spatially so that the usual long wavelength approximation is invalid. We calculate the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi =^2E/^2B`$ of atomic carbon and neon. We choose $`𝐀=B(0,0,x+a)`$: the gauge center is offset from the ionic nucleus to simulate the realistic case when many atoms are present. We choose $`a=4`$ a.u. as a reasonable value. We use $`s`$ and $`p`$ Kleinmann-Bylander nonlocal projectors  ($`p`$ local) and compute $`\chi `$ following ref. . Calculating $`\chi `$ requires the linear and quadratic couplings, both of which have nonlocal terms. For linear coupling, using $`\widehat{𝐯}`$ instead of $`\widehat{𝐩}/m`$ has been advocated , whereas the quadratic nonlocal term of Eq. (19) is truly novel. Table 1 shows results for $`\chi `$ when using various possible couplings: (1) the traditional local coupling $`(\widehat{𝐩}\widehat{𝐀})^2/2m`$; (2) the linear coupling is from Eq. (19) but the quadratic coupling is the local $`\widehat{𝐀}^2/2m`$; (3) both linear and quadratic couplings are from Eq. (19); (4) all-electron results excluding the contribution of the core $`1s`$ states. Method (1) is qualitatively incorrect as it is not gauge-invariant. Using the correct linear coupling (method 2) greatly improves the quality of the results. However, the inclusion of our novel nonlocal quadratic terms (method 3) yields $`\chi `$ in excellent quantitative agreement with the desired all-electron results.

We emphasize that Eq. (18) gives the coupling to any order in $`𝐀`$. This allows, for the first time, for direct and systematic calculation of high-order nonlinear responses without resort to longitudinal-only couplings  or to the long wave limit for the transverse case .

Finally, our result bears directly on systems with generic nonlocal hopping terms, e.g. tight-binding systems, where electrons hop from a localized state $`\beta `$ on site $`𝐑^{}`$ to a state $`\alpha `$ at $`𝐑`$ with amplitude $`t_{\alpha \beta }(𝐑,𝐑^{})`$. Our result shows that, in the extreme tight-binding limit, the EM coupling modifies the amplitude to become $`t_{\alpha \beta }(𝐑,𝐑^{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{iq}{\mathrm{}c}_𝐑^{}^𝐑𝐀𝑑𝐱\right)`$. This justifies the straight-line integral used in the Peierls substitution and does not suffer from path ambiguity .

This work was supported by NSF grant #DMR-0087088 and by the Office of Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Science Division of the U.S. Department of Energy contract #DE-AC03-76SF00098. We thank Kevin Mitchell and Andrew Charman for illuminating the importance of Weyl transformations. Young-Gui Yoon provided helpful criticism of the ideas leading to this work. Computer time was provided by the DOE at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s NERSC center.