text:
# Vector Meson Propagator and Baryon Current Conservation

## Abstract

If baryons couple only with $`\omega `$-mesons, one found the baryon spectral function may be negative. We show this unacceptable result is caused by the $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-terms in the $`\omega `$-meson propagator. Their contribution may not vanish in approximate calculations which violate the baryon current conservation. A rule is suggested, by which the calculated baryon spectral function is well behaved.

PACS: 21.60. Jz, 21.65+f, 11.10Gh

Keywords: Vector meson propagator, baryon current conservation

Krein, Nielsen, Puff and Wilets (KNPW)  pointed out not long ago that in a self-consistent (SC) Hartree-Fock (HF) calculation of the renormalized baryon propagator for the case of zero-density the spectral function $`A_R(\kappa )`$ can be negative for some real values of $`\kappa `$, if baryons couple only with $`\omega `$-mesons. They emphasized that this is unacceptable. The spectral representation they considered is of the form

$$G(k)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\kappa A_R(\kappa )\frac{\gamma _\mu k_\mu +i\kappa }{k^2+\kappa ^2iϵ}.$$
(1)
Since $`A_R(\kappa )`$ represents the probability that a state of mass $`|\kappa |`$ is created, it must be non-negative. They suggested that it might be due to the inadequacy of the HF approximation or the inconsistency of the theory. In their calculation they have neglected all the terms proportional to $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ in the $`\omega `$-meson propagator on the basis of the baryon current conservation implied by the model for a rigorous calculation. Though this is a generally accepted approximation  and indeed, such terms need not be taken into account if the baryon current conserves, their contribution in the SCHF approximation is not zero and has to be studied. It also indicates that the SCHF approximation does not preserve the baryon current conservation. The aim of this letter is to show that the baryon spectral function becomes non-negative and is well behaved if an adequate part of the $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-terms is included.

For a system of baryons coupling only with $`\omega `$-mesons, the Lagrangian density has the form

$$L=\overline{\psi }(\gamma _\mu _\mu +M)\psi \frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}m_v^2A_\mu A_\mu +ig_v\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi A_\mu +L_{CTC},$$
(2)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, $`_\mu /x_\mu `$, $`x_\mu =(\stackrel{}{x},ix_0)`$, $`x^2=x_\mu x_\mu =\stackrel{}{x}^2x_0^{2\text{ }}`$ with $`x_0t`$ and CTC means the counterterm correction introduced for the purpose of renormalization. The baryon and $`\omega `$-meson propagators are defined as

$$G_{\alpha \beta }(x=x_1x_2)=T[\psi _\alpha (x_1)\overline{\psi }_\beta (x_2)]=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik_\rho x_\rho }G_{\alpha \beta }(k),$$
(3)
$$D_{\mu \nu }(x)=T[A_\mu (x_1)A_\nu (x_2)]=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ik_\rho x_\rho }D_{\mu \nu }(k),$$
(4)
where $`0\mathrm{\Psi }_0|0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ denotes the exact ground state. The dressed HF scheme is illustrated in Fig. 1, where $`\overline{G}`$ ($`\overline{D}`$) denotes an appropriate expression chosen for the calculation of the baryon ($`\omega `$-meson) propagator in the self-energy. As is wellknown, the relevant Dyson-Schwinger (DS) equations can be written as follows:

(a) for baryon

$$G(k)=G^0(k)+G^0(k)\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)G(k)=[\gamma _\mu k_\mu iM+\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)]^1,$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)=g_v^2\frac{d^\tau q}{(2\pi )^4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\eta (k,q,kq)\overline{G}(q)\overline{D}_{\eta \lambda }(kq)\gamma _\lambda +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{CTC}(k);$$
(6)
(b) for $`\omega `$-meson

$$D_{\mu \nu }(k)=D_{\mu \nu }^0(k)+D_{\mu \eta }^0(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \lambda }(k)D_{\lambda \nu }(k),$$
(7)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\eta \lambda }(k)=g_v^2\frac{d^\tau q}{(2\pi )^4}Tr[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\eta (k+q,k,q)\overline{G}(k+q)\gamma _\lambda \overline{G}(q)],$$
(8)
where a caret indicates that the quantity is not yet renormalized, $`\tau =4\delta `$ ($`\delta 0^+`$) and in Eq. (5) the Feynman prescription $`MMiϵ`$ is understood. Since the baryon current is conserved, we have

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\eta \lambda }(k)=(\delta _{\eta \lambda }\frac{k_\eta k_\lambda }{k^2})\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_v(k),$$
(9)
which gives $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_v(k)=\frac{1}{3}_\eta \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{\eta \eta }(k)`$. Eq. (9) shows that the renormalized $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\eta \lambda }`$ can be obtained from

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_v(k)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{CTC}(k).$$
(10)
The renormalized counterterms will be fixed by the following conditions

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)|_{\gamma _\mu k_\mu =iM_t}=0;\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)}{(\gamma _\mu k_\mu )}|_{\gamma _\mu k_\mu =iM_t}=0,$$
(11a)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k)|_{k^2=0}=0;\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k)}{k^2}|_{k^2=0}=0,$$
(11b)
where $`M_t`$ is the true baryon mass. Following , we shall use the following notations to distinguish different approximations: scheme P, $`\overline{G}=[\gamma _\mu k_\mu iM_t]^1`$, $`\overline{D}_{\eta \lambda }=D_{\eta \lambda }^0`$; scheme BP, $`\overline{G}=G`$, $`\overline{D}_{\eta \lambda }=D_{\eta \lambda }^0`$ and scheme FSC, $`\overline{G}=G`$, $`\overline{D}_{\eta \lambda }=D_{\eta \lambda }`$. It is seen that in scheme BP Eq. (5) has to be solved self-consistently \[1, 4-6\], while in scheme FSC  one should consider a self-consistent coupled set of renormalized DS equations (5-10). As emphasized in , the study of an ansatz consistent with the Ward-Takahashi identity may provide a way to preserve the baryon current conservation. Though it does not hold in the SCHF approximation, we shall assume that Eq. (9) is valid approximately. We note that $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ can be written as

$$D_{\mu \nu }(k)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2})\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)i\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2(m_v^2+\delta m_v^2)},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)=\mathrm{\Delta }_v^0(k)+\mathrm{\Delta }_v^0(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k)\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)=i[k^2+m_v^2+i\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k)iϵ]^1,$$
(13)
where $`\delta m_v^2`$ is the mass counterterm for the $`\omega `$-meson. As is wellknown , a properly normalized spectral representation for the baryon propagator equivalent to Eq. (1) can be written in the form:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}(k)=Z_2\frac{\gamma _\mu k_\mu +iM_t}{k^2+M_t^2iϵ}\underset{m_1^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2\frac{\gamma _\mu k_\mu \alpha (\sigma ^2,Z_2)+iM_t\beta (\sigma ^2,Z_2)}{k^2+\sigma ^2iϵ},$$
(14)
where $`m_1=M_t+m_v`$ is the threshold of the continuum spectrum,

$$Z_2+\underset{m_1^2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2\alpha (\sigma ^2,Z_2)=1$$
(15)
and the spectral functions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ should have the following properties:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{(a).}\text{they\hspace{0.17em}are\hspace{0.17em}all\hspace{0.17em}real,}\hfill \\ \text{(b).}\alpha (\sigma ^2,Z_2)0,\hfill \\ \text{(c).}\sigma \alpha (\sigma ^2,Z_2)M_t\beta (\sigma ^2,Z_2)0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
For the $`\omega `$-meson propagator we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_v(k)=Z_v\frac{i}{k^2+\widehat{m}_v^2iϵ}i\underset{th}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dm^2\frac{\rho _v(m^2,Z_v)}{k^2+m^2iϵ},$$
(17a)
$$Z_v+\underset{th}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dm^2\rho _v(m^2,Z_v)=1.$$
(17b)
In Eq. (17) $`\widehat{m}_v`$ denotes the true $`\omega `$-meson mass and $`th=(2M_t)^2`$ the threshold of the continuum. Since $`G(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}(k)`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_v(k)`$ are normalized differently, we should write $`\stackrel{~}{G}(k)=ZG(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_v(k)=Y_v\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)`$. It is easily seen that $`Z_2=ZZ_t`$ and $`Z_v=Y_vR_v`$, where ($`Z_t`$) and ($`iR_v`$) are the residues of $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k)`$ at the poles $`\gamma _\mu k_\mu =iM_t`$ and $`k^2=\widehat{m}_v^2`$, respectively. In the case of zero-density one may write

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(k)=\gamma _\mu k_\mu a(k^2)iMb(k^2).$$
(18)
We note that under the on-shell condition (11a) one has $`Z_t=1`$ and $`M=M_t`$ . Neglecting all the $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ terms in Eq. (12) and substituting $`\overline{D}_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }_v=\delta _{\mu \nu }Y_v^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_v`$ as well as $`\overline{G}=Z^1\stackrel{~}{G}`$ in Eqs. (6) and (8), an explicit coupled set of renormalized equations for the determination of ($`a,b`$), ($`\alpha ,\beta `$), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_v`$ and $`\rho _v`$ has been given in . Since the expressions for the rest of the equations considered here are the same as in , for space saving and for convenience of discussion only a part of them will be written down as follows:

$$a(k^2)=a_\delta (k^2)+a_\mathrm{\Delta }(k^2);b(k^2)=b_\delta (k^2)+b_\mathrm{\Delta }(k^2)$$
(19)
$$a_\delta (k^2)=\frac{g_v^2}{8\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2dm^2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dxf_\alpha (\sigma ^2)h_v(m^2)(1x)\mathrm{ln}\frac{K^2(M_t^2)}{K^2(k^2)}+c_\delta ,$$
(19a)
$$b_\delta (k^2)=\frac{g_v^2}{4\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2dm^2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dxf_\beta (\sigma ^2)h_v(m^2)\mathrm{ln}\frac{K^2(M_t^2)}{K^2(k^2)}+c_\delta ,$$
(19b)
$$f_\gamma (\sigma ^2)=\delta (\sigma ^2M_t^2)+\theta (\sigma ^2m_1^2)\gamma (\sigma ^2),\text{(}\gamma =\alpha \text{ or }\beta \text{)}$$
(19c)
$$h_v(m^2)=R_v\delta (m^2\widehat{m}_v^2)+\theta (m^2th)\rho _v(m^2),$$
(19d)
$$K^2(k^2)K^2(x,k^2,\sigma ^2,m^2)=x(1x)k^2+x\sigma ^2+(1x)m^2,$$
(19e)
where $`\gamma (\sigma ^2)=Z^1\gamma (\sigma ^2,Z_2)`$ and $`\rho _v(m^2)=Y_v^1\rho _v(m^2,Z_v)`$. In addition, we have

$$\alpha (k^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }Im\frac{1+a(k^2)}{D(k^2)};\beta (k^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }Im\frac{1+b(k^2)}{D(k^2)},$$
(20a)
$$D(k^2)=[1+a(k^2)]^2k^2+[1+b(k^2)]^2M_t^2.$$
(20b)
In Eq. (19) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-terms are contributed by the second $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-term in the round brackets of Eq. (12). They are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}a_\mathrm{\Delta }(k^2)=\frac{g_v^2}{16\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2dm^2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dx\underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}dyf_\alpha (\sigma ^2)h_v(m^2)\times \\ \{(1+3x)\mathrm{ln}\frac{L^2(M_t^2)}{L^2(k^2)}x^2(1x)[\frac{k^2}{L^2(k^2)}+\frac{M_t^2}{L^2(M_t^2)}]\}+c_\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array},$$
(21a)
$$\begin{array}{c}b_\mathrm{\Delta }(k^2)=\frac{g_v^2}{16\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}d\sigma ^2dm^2\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}dx\underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}dyf_\beta (\sigma ^2)h_v(m^2)\times \\ \{2\mathrm{ln}\frac{L^2(M_t^2)}{L^2(k^2)}+x^2[\frac{k^2}{L^2(k^2)}+\frac{M_t^2}{L^2(M_t^2)}]\}+c_\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array},$$
(21b)
$$L^2(k^2)L^2(x,y,k^2,\sigma ^2,m^2)=x(1x)k^2+x\sigma ^2+ym^2,$$
(21c)
where in Eqs. (19) and (21) we have $`c_\kappa =2M_t^2[a_\kappa ^{}(M_t^2)b_\kappa ^{}(M_t^2)]`$, $`\kappa =\delta `$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`f^{}(k^2)=df(k^2)/dk^2`$.

As shown in Eq. (20), in order to find $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ we need to know the imaginary parts of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Eqs. (19) and (21) show that $`a`$ and $`b`$ will be complex if either $`K^2(k^2)`$ or $`L^2(k^2)`$ becomes negative. Define $`\theta _\kappa \theta _\kappa (x,\sigma ^2,m^2,k^2)=0`$ if $`K^2(k^2)>0`$ and $`\theta _\kappa =1`$ if $`K^2(k^2)<0`$. We may write $`\mathrm{ln}K^2(k^2)=\mathrm{ln}|K^2(k^2)|\pm i\theta _\kappa (\pi +2n\pi )`$. Even if we set $`n=0`$, $`\mathrm{ln}K^2`$ is still indeterminate in case $`\theta _\kappa =1`$. Let the sign before $`i\pi `$ be denoted by s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2`$. Obviously the same remark also applies to $`\mathrm{ln}L^2(k^2)`$. We shall make the stipulation that s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2`$ and s$`\mathrm{ln}L^2`$ are to be so chosen that Eq. (16) should be satisfied. Since $`a`$ and $`b`$ are derived from the same righthand side of Eq. (6), their s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2`$ (s$`\mathrm{ln}L^2`$) should be the same. According to , the above coupled set of equations can be solved easily by the method of iteration. We have solved it for schemes BP and FSC. In the following we shall choose $`M_t=4.7585fm^1`$, $`\widehat{m}_v/M_t=0.83387`$ and $`\overline{g}_v^2=g_v^2/8\pi ^2=1.3685`$. If we neglect all the $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-term in Eq. (12), it is impossible to make $`\alpha (k^2)`$ non-negative by an appropriate choice of s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2`$ and s$`\mathrm{ln}L^2`$. This is unacceptable and confirms the result of KNPW. As is wellknown, the last term in Eq. (12) is not renormalizable and the model becomes renormalizable only, because the $`\omega `$-meson couples to the conserved baryon current so that this term may be neglected. Thus we have calculated the additional contribution of the second term in the round brackets of Eq. (12) according to Eq. (21). The numerical results for s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2=`$ and s$`\mathrm{ln}L^2=+`$ are shown in Fig. 2a. They are the best results we can find and satisfy all the requirements of Eq. (16). However, they are still physically unacceptable, because the threshold is wrong. It should be $`(M_t+\widehat{m}_v)^2`$ rather than $`M_t^2`$. This implies that the results contain a contribution from an additional zero-mass meson, which does not exist in our model. Clearly the latter is caused by the fact that $`\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ contains an additional zero-mass pole, because $`k^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2k_0^2=0`$ does not ensure that $`k_\mu `$ and $`k_\nu `$ are both zero. Since Eq. (12) is formally rigorous and $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ should contain no zero-mass pole, the renormalized contribution of the latter must be cancelled by a finite part arising from the last term. Indeed, this can also be seen from the zero-order approximation to $`D_{\mu \nu }`$, which reads

$$D_{\mu \nu }^0(k)=(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2})\mathrm{\Delta }_v^0(k)i\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2m_v^2}=(\delta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{m_v^2})\mathrm{\Delta }_v^0(k),$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v^0(k)=i[k^2+m_v^2iϵ]^1`$. Thus, if we neglect the last term in Eq. (12), $`D_{\mu \nu }^0`$ will contain a false zero-mass pole. Eq. (22) indicates that this last term makes the pole structure of $`D_{\mu \nu }^0`$ correct, though unrenormalizable. Our task is then to eliminate the contribution of the zero-mass meson from Eq. (21). This can be done unambiguously. We note that the integrals over the parameter $`y`$ in Eq. (21) can be performed exactly and in an elementary way. The expressions are, however, too lengthy to write down here. Let the curved brackets in Eqs. (21a and b) be denoted by $`Y_c(y)`$ with $`c=a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. We may express the integration over $`y`$ as

$$_0^{1x}𝑑yY_c(y)=Z_c(1x)Z_c(0).$$
(23)
Set $`L^2(y)L^2(x,y,k^2,\sigma ^2,m^2)`$. Eq. (19e) and (21c) show

$$L^2(y=0)=K^2(x,k^2,\sigma ^2,0);L^2(y=1x)=K^2(x,k^2,\sigma ^2,m^2).$$
(24)
Form Eqs. (21), (23) and (24) one easily finds that the contributions to the wrong threshold come exclusively from $`Z_c(0)`$. Substituting Eq. (23) in Eq. (21), discarding the contribution of $`Z_c(0)`$ and using Eq. (19), we have again solved the coupled set of equations. Fig. 2b depicts our numerical results for $`\alpha (k^2)`$ and $`\beta (k^2)`$ with the choice s$`\mathrm{ln}K^2=`$ and s$`\mathrm{ln}L^2=`$. They satisfy all the requirements of Eq. (16) and have a correct threshold. Thus they are now acceptable. As displayed in Fig. 2, the effect of self-consistency on the baryon spectral function is perceptible, though the results of schemes BP and FSC are almost the same. The latter asserts, in agreement with , that there is no need to include the meson propagator in the self-consistency requirement. Clearly the fulfillment of Eq. (16) also implies that $`A_R(\kappa )`$ will be non-negative. Our results show if in an approximation the contribution of the renormalizable $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-term in $`D_{\mu \nu \text{ }}`$is not zero, it must be taken account of, otherwise the result may be qualitatively wrong. According to our above results the rule for the calculation of this additional contribution may be stated as follows: for $`c=a`$ or $`b`$, $`Z_c(0)`$ and the last term in Eq. (12) should both be discarded, because the contributions of the former and of a finite part from the latter cancel each other, while for the sake of renormalization the infinite nonrenormalizable part need not be considered on the basis of baryon current conservation. The latter can be understood as follows. Let $`A=A_0+A_r+A_{\mathrm{}}`$ be a term calculated in the SCHF approximation, where the subscripts $`0`$, $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the contributions from the first, second (renormalizable) and third (nonrenormalizable) term in Eq. (12), respectively. Since the model possesses the baryon current conservation, if $`A`$ violates it, there must exist another term $`B`$ in the theory such that $`A+B`$ preserves it. Thus, $`A_r+B_r`$ and $`A_{\mathrm{}}+B_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be neglected. Since the infinity is an indefinite quantity and it always contains an undefined finite part (indicated by $`f`$), we may write $`A_{\mathrm{}}+B_{\mathrm{}}=A_{\mathrm{}}^{}+B_{\mathrm{}}^{}+A_f+B_f`$. Thus, we are allowed to throw away $`A_{\mathrm{}}^{}+B_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$, if an adequate rule is prescribed to retain $`A_f+B_f`$. If only $`A`$ is calculated and it can already yield a quite good approximation, clearly $`A_r`$ and $`A_f`$ must be taken into account except when they are very small.

Redmond  suggested that one may use the spectral representation to eliminate the ghost poles. Here we would like to point out that there is a simple and direct way to derive a ghost-free representation for the Dyson solution by the spectral representation. From Eqs. (5), (14) and

$$G(k)=D^1[\gamma _\mu k_\mu \left(1+a\right)+iM_t\left(1+b\right)]=Z^1\stackrel{~}{G}(k),$$
(25)
where $`D`$ is given by Eq. (20b), we easily find

$$1+a=F(k^2)^1F_\alpha (k^2);1+b=F(k^2)^1F_\beta (k^2),$$
(26a)
$$F(k^2)=k^2F_\alpha (k^2)^2+M_t^2F_\beta (k^2)^2$$
(26b)
with $`F_\gamma \left(k^2\right)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma ^2f_\gamma (\sigma ^2)(k^2+\sigma ^2iϵ)^1`$ ($`\gamma =\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$). It is seen that if $`\alpha (k^2)`$ and $`\beta (k^2)`$ are known, so are $`F_\alpha (k^2)`$ and $`F_\beta (k^2)`$. Let us use a subscript $`R`$ to indicate the results obtained from Eq. (26). Since $`a_{R\text{ }}`$ and $`b_{R\text{ }}`$ are direct consequences of the spectral representation $`\stackrel{~}{G}(k)`$, $`G_R(k)`$ deduced from these $`a_{R\text{ }}`$ and $`b_{R\text{ }}`$ by means of Eq. (5) satisfies Eq.(25) rigorously and is thus ghost-free, because $`\stackrel{~}{G}(k)`$ is well behaved and possesses the Herglotz property . Further one observes that $`G_R(k)`$ obviously satisfies the following Dyson equation:

$$G_R(k)=G^0(k)+G^0(k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(k)G_R(k),$$
(27)
with $`G^0(k)=[\gamma _\mu k_\mu iM_t]^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R(k)=\gamma _\mu k_\mu a_R(k^2)iM_tb_R(k^2)`$. Let us insert $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ found from Eq.(20) with $`a=a_\delta +a_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`b=b_\delta +b_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ calculated according to Eqs.(19) and (21) in $`F_\alpha `$ and $`F_\beta `$. From Eq. (26) we obtain $`a_R`$ and $`b_R`$. We note that the set ($`a_R`$, $`b_R`$) is different from ($`a`$, $`b`$), though the former is deduced from the latter. In fact, if we substitute ($`a`$, $`b`$) into Eq. (25), the latter no longer holds, because $`G(k)`$ found in this way possesses ghost poles, which are $`100.4468\pm i55.2553fm^2`$. The reason is clear. To calculate $`a`$ and $`b`$ we need renormalization, which, however, does not ensure that Eq. (25) holds. In Fig. 3 we have compared ($`a_R,b_R`$) with ($`a,b`$). They have different asymptotic behavior and differ widely, though the same $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ can be derived from them by Eq. (20). Our numerical result for $`\rho _v\left(k^2\right)`$ is well behaved and is qualitatively similar to $`\rho _v\left(k^2\right)`$ found for the $`\sigma \omega `$ model in . Using Eqs. (13, 17) and the relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v(k^2)=Y_v^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_v(k^2)`$, we can also derive an analytic expression for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_v(k^2)`$, which will yield a ghost-free $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v\left(k^2\right)`$ by means of Eq. (13). However, for lack of spacing both $`\rho _v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_v`$ will not be discussed here. As shown in Refs. , if in addition to the $`\omega `$-meson, other mesons, for instance $`\pi `$, $`\sigma `$ and chiral $`\pi \sigma `$ (linear $`\sigma `$-model), are considered, the baryon spectral functions in the self-consistent HF approximation are regular, even though the $`k_\mu k_\nu `$-terms in Eq. (12) are neglected. The question what their effects are in these more complicated cases is being studied.

The work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Foundation of Chinese Education Ministry.

Fig. 1 on P2, Fig. 2 on P6, Fig. 3 on P7.


format: text

text:
# Geometry of Non-expanding Horizons and Their Neighborhoods

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by Albert Einstein MPI, CGPG of Pennstate University, and the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under grant no. 2 P03B 060 17.


text:
# The MECO experiment: A search for lepton flavor violation in muonic atoms

## 1 Introduction

Lepton-flavor-violating transition searches are likely to be sensitive probes of super-unified theories since the predicted rates are often nearest experimental limits. Although precise predictions of theories depend on the specific model, the physical mechanisms that lead to lepton flavor violations are generic to supersymmetric quark-lepton unification. Many extensions to the Standard Model that unify quarks and leptons, including supersymmetric theories, e.g., , suggest that in muonic atoms the branching fraction for coherent conversion of a muon into an electron relative to muon capture in the nucleus $`R_{\mu e}10^{14}10^{17}`$ over much of the parameter space. In terms of decay rates, with mass number $`A`$ and atomic number $`Z`$, $`R_{\mu e}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}\mathrm{N}(A,Z)e^{}+\mathrm{N}(A,Z))/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu ^{}\mathrm{N}(A,Z)\nu _\mu +\mathrm{N}(A,Z1))`$, where the numerator only involves the internal nuclear ground state and denominator includes all possible nuclear final states. The MECO experiment  will search for direct evidence for this lepton-flavor-violating process.

The signature of coherent muon-electron conversion is a two-body final state with a mono-energetic $`E_\mathrm{o}`$ electron. When the internal state of the nucleus remains in the ground state during the transition the electron recoils coherently off the entire nucleus, resulting in a strong enhancement in the conversion rate. The electron energy $`E_\mathrm{o}E_\mu +E_\mu ^2/2M_\mathrm{N}`$ with $`E_\mu =m_\mu +\mathrm{BE}`$, the muon mass plus Coulomb binding energy $`\mathrm{BE}`$. The Schrödinger equation gives good estimates of $`\mathrm{BE}`$ for light nuclei; neglecting the size of the nucleus in aluminum, the MECO stopping target material, $`\mathrm{BE}(1\mathrm{s})0.48`$MeV and $`E_\mathrm{o}105.0`$MeV. MECO will look for conversion electrons in the energy window $`103.6`$-$`105.1`$MeV, where the signal to background ratio is $`20`$.

The dominant background as in previous experiments  is muon decay in orbit $`\mu ^{}\mathrm{N}\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_e+e^{}+N`$; the electron energy spectrum falls rapidly near the endpoint at exactly the conversion energy, $`(E_\mathrm{o}E_e)^5`$. Thus background rejection improves rapidly with energy resolution. The MECO tracker probes this crucial region more deeply than ever before.

The current measured limit set by Sindrum II  is $`R_{\mu e}<6.1\times 10^{13}`$ at $`90\%`$ confidence in titanium, with sensitivity expected to improve soon to $`2\times 10^{14}`$. This experiment is limited by beam intensity, not background. With a significantly scaled-up approach to muon production and transport, $`1.8\times 10^{11}\mu ^{}/`$s at the stopping target and at least $`10^4`$ greater than existing low-energy ($`p<100\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$) muon beams, MECO is expected to improve on these limits by at least three to four orders of magnitude $`R_{\mu e}<5\times 10^{17}`$.

## 2 The experiment

The MECO setup is shown in Figure 1 and consists of three large superconducting magnets: the muon production, transport, and detector solenoids. The clear bores of the magnets are connected forming a single cavity, held in vacuum. The magnetic field is continuous throughout the cavity. In the $`4`$m long production solenoid, the axial magnetic field intensity $`B`$ is graded from $`3.6`$T to $`2.3`$T. The field follows the $`12`$m S-shaped transport solenoid, falling only in the straight sections from $`2.3`$T to $`2.0`$T. In the $`10.5`$m detector solenoid $`B`$ is graded from $`2.0`$T at the entrance to $`1.0`$T between the stopping target and tracking detector, and constant thereafter. Both the trigger and tracker are high-rate detectors with their detection material positioned far from the solenoid axis to intercept conversion electron helices and avoid beam particle interactions.

The primary proton beam is provided by the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS), with $`1`$sec machine cycle for $`40\times 10^{12}`$ protons. The choice of beam energy, $`7`$-$`8`$GeV, optimizes $`\pi `$ and minimizes $`\overline{p}`$ (a potential background source) production. The beam (not shown) enters the production solenoid on the right at $`10^\mathrm{o}`$ to the axis and exits to the left. A tungsten target is bombarded to produce $`\pi ^\pm `$ which subsequently decay to $`\mu ^\pm `$, following helical trajectories along the magnet axis. The graded field reflects left-moving charged particles with momenta outside the $`30^\mathrm{o}`$ (half angle) loss cone, toward the transport entrance. Since particle energy and $`p_{}^2/B`$ are constant, as charges move to regions of lower $`B`$ the angle $`\chi `$ between the momentum and solenoid axis decreases. Pions with transverse momenta $`p_{}<180\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ travel within the $`30`$cm inner radius of the magnet. Most $`\pi `$ decays occur in the production region.

A pulsed beam with good extinction $`\epsilon `$ between pulses is critical to prompt background rejection and thus success for MECO. The mean lifetime for $`\mu ^{}`$ in aluminum atoms $`\tau _\mu ^{\mathrm{Al}}=880`$ns sets the pulse separation time scale. Thus the pulse spacing is microseconds and given by $`\tau _{\mathrm{pulse}}+\tau _{\mathrm{delay}}+\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$. The actual proton pulse time $`\tau _{\mathrm{pulse}}\tau _\mu ^{\mathrm{Al}}`$. Prompt backgrounds are reduced to an acceptable level by, first, introducting a delay $`\tau _{\mathrm{delay}}`$ between each proton pulse and the detection window $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ so that all beam particles have left the detector region before $`\tau _{\mathrm{obs}}`$; and second, by requiring that the ratio of protons crossing the production target during the observation window to that during the pulse be $`\epsilon 10^9`$. AGS extinction studies are ongoing with current measured value $`\epsilon 10^7`$.

The transport solenoid filters the particle flux producing a momentum- and charge-selected muon beam, with good reduction in contamination from $`e^\pm `$, $`\mu ^+`$, $`\pi ^\pm `$, $`p`$, and $`\overline{p}`$. Transport entrance and exit collimators with $`15`$cm inner radius further limit the beam. For sufficiently low momenta, centers of particle orbits follow the S-shape of the solenoid; however, the curvature of the magnetic field in the two bent sections gives rise to a drift out of the plane of the magnet. In the first section positives drift up and negatives down, and in the second directions are reversed. By vertically limiting the aperture of a narrower collimator in the center straight section with a downward offset positives and high-energy negatives are absorbed from the beam. Low-energy antiprotons originating in the production region have long transport crossing times, and as already mentioned the potential to create backgrounds at the detectors. A thin beryllium window in the center section reduces the $`\overline{p}`$ component to a negligable level. The shallow grades in $`B`$ in each straight section further prevents late arrivals. At the transport exit $`e^+`$ and $`\mu ^+`$ have $`p<40\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$, most $`e^{}`$ have $`p<80\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ with none above $`100\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. The $`\mu ^{}`$ beam has $`14\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}<p<100\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$.

Only $`\mu ^{}`$ below $`50\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ stop in the target. Negative muons come to rest in matter by slowing to thermal-like velocities through inelastic atomic collisions and falling into a Coulomb orbit about a nucleus. Excited states cascade to lower ones with time scale $`10^{13}`$s producing X-rays and Auger electrons. Approximately $`60\%`$ are captured by the nucleus and $`40\%`$ decay in orbit.

The stopping target design optimizes the probability for muon stopping and conversion electron detection, and minimizes energy loss of exiting signal $`e^{}`$ and the number of decay-in-orbit electrons reaching the detectors. Background rates are reduced by minimizing stopping target mass. The target has $`17`$ parallel disks $`0.02`$cm thick with $`5.0`$cm spacing and radii from $`8.3`$-$`6.5`$cm; total mass is $`159`$g. Simulations yield a stopping efficiency $`0.0025\mu ^{}`$ per proton, i.e., $`10^{11}`$Hz stop rate.

The target is centered in the graded field between $`1.63`$-$`1.37`$T; the gradient reflects $`e^{}`$ emitted upstream back to the detectors, resulting in $`60\%`$ of all conversions hitting the tracker. Conversion electrons with $`p_{}>90\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ ($`120^\mathrm{o}>\chi >60^\mathrm{o}`$) are swept forward by the decreasing magnetic field into the range $`75\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}<p_{}<90\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ ($`45^\mathrm{o}<\chi <60^\mathrm{o}`$) at the tracking detector. Beam particles with $`p_{}<90\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ that do not scatter in the target pass down the center of the solenoid without intercepting the detectors. Placing the target in a graded field also ensures that $`e^{}`$ originating upstream of the gradient with $`105\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$ arrives at the detectors with $`p_{}<75\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$, eliminating many potential backgrounds. On average the stopping target produces $`2n`$, $`2\gamma `$, and $`0.1p`$ per muon capture, displacing the detectors $`>1`$m downstream from the target greatly reduces acceptance for $`n`$ and $`\gamma `$.

The straw tube drift chamber tracking detector has large acceptance for and measures with good efficiency the helix parameters of conversion electrons in the uniform field. Good energy resolution is essential to distinguish conversion electrons from decay in orbit, $`\stackrel{<}{}900`$keV FWHM. Resolution is dominated by scattering in the tracker, and to a much lesser extent by pattern recognition errors. Energy loss in the target, proton absorbers (not shown), and tracker broadens the peak of the resolution function for conversions, and introduces a small mean energy loss and low-energy tail.

The tracker has 16 rectangular planes, 8 forming an octagon centered on the solenoid axis and 8 positioned at each corner extending radially. This geometry gives $`3`$ plane crossings per conversion $`e^{}`$ helix orbit; $`3`$m long detector planes guarantee $`2`$ helix orbits in the detector, a powerful advantage for pattern recognition. With tubes parallel to the length of a plane, a slight tilt of each plane, $`<1^\mathrm{o}`$, prevents a conversion $`e^{}`$ from entering the same tube on different orbits.

Each plane has three layers of $`0.25`$cm radius circular tubes in a close-packed arrangment; each tube contains a central anode wire. Drift time information and wire positions combine to give the track-detector plane crossing position perpendicular to the wires and the track projection angle (valuable for pattern recognition) in a plane perpendicular to the wires and wire planes. Position along the wires is measured with capacitively-coupled cathode foils, $`1`$cm wide, running perpendicular to the wires on both sides of a plane. Resolutions from wire information are highly angle-dependent with average position and angle resolutions, expressed as root mean square (RMS) quantities, $`0.014`$cm and $`1.0^\mathrm{o}`$. The expected RMS pad resolution is $`0.05`$cm.

The purpose of the trigger calorimeter is to select with high efficiency conversion electrons that pass through the tracker, while minimizing triggers from lower-energy events. A high degree of segmentation limits signal pile-up. Since background rises exponentially as the trigger threshold decreases, it is important to have $`E_{\mathrm{threshold}}`$ as high as possible. The calorimeter should also have good energy and position resolution to provide an independent measurement of these quantities for the helix, a feature shown to have high discriminant value to suppress background.

Trigger design is currently under development. The current design (not shown) using single $`3\times 3\times 12\mathrm{cm}^3`$ crystals of BGO ($`300`$ns EM shower decay constant) and avalanche photodiodes show that $`E_{\mathrm{threshold}}=80`$MeV gives $`87\%`$ efficiency for conversions. This results in an acceptable $`0.2`$kHz trigger rate. The RMS position and energy resolutions for $`105.0`$MeV electrons are $`1.0`$cm and $`5.3`$MeV. Research continues on other materials with shorter decay times, such as GSO and $`\mathrm{PbWO}_4`$.

A conversion electron candidate event has: (1) detector signals within the observation time window, (2) calorimeter shower energy $`E_{\mathrm{threshold}}`$, (3) detector plane crossings found by pattern recognition consistent with a helix of $`2`$ helix orbits, (4) a helix which when extended back intersects the stopping target and extended forward is consistent with the calorimeter shower position, (5) $`p_{}`$ of the helix in the range $`75\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}<p_{}<90\mathrm{MeV}/\mathrm{c}`$, (6) helix energy consistent with calorimeter shower energy, and (7) helix energy between $`103.6`$-$`105.1`$MeV.

## 3 Conclusion

Table 1

summarizes calculations of primary background contributions in the energy window $`103.6`$-$`105.1`$MeV for a running time of one-third of a year. Decay in orbit (DIO) and radiative capture (RC) of $`\mu ^{}`$ are intrinsic to muon decay, both are made negligible with precise energy measurement. Starred entries arise from out-of-time proton crossings at the production target which are proportional to the extinction: Decay in flight (DIF) of $`\mu ^{}`$ without (a) and with (b) scattering in the stopping target, radiative pion capture, DIF for $`\pi ^{}`$, and beam $`e^{}`$. The next two backgrounds in the table are from source particles with long transit times in the transport solenoid. Acceptable cosmic ray (CR) induced background rejection for MECO requires passive and active shielding with a modest improvement over previous . Inefficiency in the CR shield veto is expected to be $`10^4`$. Assuming $`\epsilon 10^9`$ the total number of background events expected is $`<0.45`$.

Table 2 shows that a four-month run and $`R_{\mu e}=10^{16}`$ yields $`5`$ muon-electron conversion events. The number of muon captures is just the product of the first seven entries of Table 2, where $`P(\mu ^{}\mathrm{capture})`$ is the probability of $`\mu ^{}`$ capture, $`F(\tau _{\mathrm{obs}},\mu ^{}\mathrm{capture})`$ the fraction of $`\mu ^{}`$ capture in the observation window, and the overall fitting and event selection criteria efficiency is given.


text:
# Formality of equivariant intersection cohomology of algebraic varieties

## Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a complex algebraic variety and $`G`$ be a linear algebraic group acting algebraically on $`X`$. Denote by $`IH_G^{}(X)=H^{}(EG\times _GX;𝒞_G^{^{_{}}})`$ the equivariant intersection cohomology of $`X`$ with rational coefficients, first introduced in \[Br\]. It is a module over $`H^{}(BG)`$. We say that $`X`$ is formal if $`IH_G^{}(X)`$ is free. We have a spectral sequence

$$E_2^{pq}=H^p(BG,IH^q(X))IH_G^{p+q}(X).$$
$``$
Suppose that $`G`$ is connected. Then $`BG`$ is 1-connected and the coefficients are not twisted. Then the spectral sequence (\*) degenerates if and only if $`X`$ is formal.

The aim of this note is to show that complete $`G`$-varieties are formal. We will prove:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be a complete algebraic variety acted by a connected algebraic linear group. Then $`X`$ is formal.

In this way we add to the list of \[GKM,  14.1\] an important class of examples. In fact Theorem 1 is known for specialists. Each of the proofs comes back to the fundamental paper of Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne-Gabber, \[BBD\]. After all, in the most general case, Theorem 1 follows from a simple weight argument, as presented in Remark 7. Nevertheless, we think it is worth to compare several approaches to equivariant intersection cohomology and ways of possible proofs.

I would like to thank Prof. Andrzej Białynicki-Birula for giving me a hint in a crucial point. I thank Prof. Pierre Deligne for valuable remarks and for assuring me that the methods of \[BBD\] work for algebraic spaces. I thank Prof. Frances Kirwan for her comments. I would like also to thank Marcin Chałupnik for help during the preparation of this note.

## 1. Proof for projective varieties

Our proof of Theorem 1 uses the decomposition theorem or reduction to a finite characteristic, which are strong tools. Thus we think that it is worth to note that for projective $`X`$ the situation is much simpler. We proceed as follows: Step 1: We choose an equivariant embedding of $`X`$ into a projective space. This is possible by a result of Sumihiro \[Sum,  Theorem 1\]. Step 2: Let $`hH^2(X)`$ be the class of the hyperplane section. We show that $`h`$ can be lifted to $`H_G^2(X)`$. This is so for $`X=^N`$ and $`G=GL(N+1)`$ acting naturally. Indeed, take a infinite Grassmannian as a model of $`BG`$, then

$$EG\times _G^N=\{(V,l):lV^{\mathrm{}},diml=1,dimV=N+1\}.$$

One has a tautological bundle, its Chern class is a lift of $`h`$. If $`X^N`$ and $`G`$ acts linearly, we construct a lift for $`^N`$ by naturality with respect to $`G`$ and we restrict it to $`X`$. Step 3: We have a map of spectral sequences

$$L:E_r^{p,q}E_r^{p,q+2},$$

which is induced by the multiplication by a cycle (or a form) representing $`h`$. Let $`d=dimX`$. By the hard Lefschetz theorem

$$L^k:E_2^{p,dk}=H^p(BG)IH^{dk}(X)E_2^{p,d+k}=H^p(BG)IH^{d+k}(X)$$

is an isomorphism for every $`p`$ and $`k`$. From the Lefschetz criterion, \[D1\], it follows that the spectral sequence degenerates, as noticed \[Br\], 4.2.2. This argument works for varieties over any field of any characteristic. One should replace the ordinary cohomology and intersection cohomology by their étale version. In the Step 3 an isomorphism $`IH_G^{}(X)H^{}(BG)IH^{}(X)`$ can be made canonical by \[D3\]. It would depend only on the embedding $`X^N`$ and the representation $`GGL(k)`$.

For smooth $`X`$ the Step 2 can also be carried out by methods of symplectic geometry. Let $`K`$ be a maximal compact subgroup of $`G`$. Then $`H_G^{}(^N)H_K^{}(^N)`$. The class $`h`$ is represented by a $`K`$-equivariant symplectic form $`\omega `$. One can define a moment map by an explicit formula \[K,  2.5\]. The choice of the moment map is precisely a lift of $`\omega `$ to $`H_K^2(^N)`$ in the Cartan model of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(EK\times _K^N)`$, see \[AB,  6.18\]. Another proof for smooth projective varieties, can be obtained by means of a Morse function coming from a moment map, see \[K,  5.8\]. In the rest of the paper we will show how to deduce formality for an arbitrary complete variety, not necessarily projective.

## 2. Algebraic models of $`EG\times _GX`$

There are several constructions of $`BG`$ that can be performed in the category of algebraic varieties. Of course $`BG`$ itself cannot be an algebraic variety, since it cannot be of a finite dimension. There are two well known approaches of giving a meaning to $`BG`$: an approximation or the simplicial construction.

The first approach is to approximate $`BG`$ by algebraic varieties $`B_nG`$. For a detailed exposition see \[T\]. If $`GGL(k)`$, then for example we take as $`E_nG`$ the Stiefel variety of $`k`$ independent vectors in $`^{n+k}`$. The quotient $`B_nG=E_nG/G`$ exists and it is an algebraic variety. It can be presented as the quotient of groups $`GL(n+k)/H`$, where $`H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G& \\ 0& GL(n)\end{array}\right)`$. Another candidate for an approximation is the quotient $`B_n^{}G=GL(n+k)/H^{}`$, where $`H^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G& 0\\ 0& GL(n)\end{array}\right)G\times GL(n)`$. In this case $`E_n^{}G=GL(n+k)/H_0^{}`$, where $`H_0^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& GL(n)\end{array}\right)`$.

Now we construct the associated bundle. Using the approximation $`B_n^{}G`$ we have $`E_n^{}G\times _GX=GL(n+k)\times _H^{}X`$ (where $`GL(n)`$ acts trivially on $`X`$). But even here, with such a simple construction the resulting space does not have to be a variety. The spaces $`E_n^{}G\times _GX`$ (approximations of the Borel construction) are quotients of $`E_n^{}G\times X`$ by $`G`$ and it can be shown, that they are algebraic spaces. Let us quote \[B-B\]:

###### Theorem 2

Let $`G`$ be an algebraic group. Let $`E`$ and $`X`$ be algebraic spaces and let $`E`$ be a principal locally isotrivial $`G`$-fibration. Assume that $`E`$ is normal. Then $`E\times _GX`$ exists in the category of algebraic spaces. If, moreover $`E`$ is an algebraic variety, $`X`$ normal and can be covered by $`G`$-invariant open quasi-projective subsets, then $`E\times _GX`$ is an algebraic variety.

Note that, by \[B-B,  Theorem 3\], if $`H`$ is a connected affine algebraic group, $`GH`$ and $`X`$ normal, then $`H\times _GX`$ is an algebraic variety if and only if the assumption about covers is fulfilled. For the proof of formality one would like to apply the decomposition theorem (or other methods based on Weil conjectures). It is clear that either we have to make some assumptions about $`X`$, or to generalize the results of \[BBD\] to the case algebraic spaces.

In order to avoid algebraic spaces it is possible to apply a simplicial construction of $`BG`$, see \[D2,  6.1\]. Then $`(BG)_{^{_{}}}`$ is a simplicial variety: $`(BG)_n=G^n`$. The associated Borel construction is also a simplicial variety: $`(EG\times _GX)_n=G^n\times X`$. The topological realization of the Borel construction coincides with the realization of the quotient stack $`X/G`$ as defined in \[Si,  §8\].

###### Remark Remark 3

Applying any of the described construction we obtain a Hodge structure on $`H^{}(BG)`$ which is pure, see \[D2,  9.1\]. If we perform the same constructions for groups over a finite field, we also obtain a pure structure with respect to the action of the Frobenius authomorphism.

###### Remark Remark 4

Suppose the base field is $`𝔽_q`$. Then the action of the Frobenius authomorphism $`Fr^q:xx^q`$ induces an operation on $`H_{et}^{}(BG;_{\mathrm{}})`$, which is just the Adams operation $`\psi ^q`$; compare \[AM; Sul,  Ch.5 §4\].

## 3. Degeneration of the spectral sequence without the assumption of projectivity

Suppose $`X`$ is a complete algebraic variety. We replace $`X`$ by its normalization. It does not change the intersection cohomology. Assume that $`X`$ can be covered by $`G`$-invariant open quasi-projective subsets, then the space $`E_nG\times _GX`$ (or $`E_n^{}G\times _GX`$) is an algebraic variety by Theorem 2. The projection

$$E_nG\times _GXB_nG$$

is a proper algebraic morphism.

###### Corollary 5

If the normalization of $`X`$ can be covered by $`G`$-invariant quasiprojective open subsets, then the spectral sequence (\*) converging to $`IH^{}(E_nG\times _GX)`$ degenerates at the $`E_2`$ term.

Proof. The Corollary follows from the decomposition theorem of \[BBD\].$``$

###### Remark Remark 6

We would be able to remove the assumption about covers, provided that we proved the decomposition theorem for separable algebraic spaces. The statement of \[BBD,  6.2.5\] seems to remain valid. To prove it one would have to develop the formalism of mixed sheaves for algebraic spaces over finite fields.

## 4. The end of the proof

If $`X`$ can be covered by $`G`$-invariant quasiprojective open subsets, then $`EG\times _GX`$ can be approximated by algebraic varieties. The formality follows from Corollary 5. For arbitrary complete $`X`$ there is a way of going around the problem with $`EG\times _GX`$ not being a variety. First we consider the maximal torus $`TG`$. The classifying space for the torus can be realized as a product of infinite projective spaces. Then the approximation of $`ETBT`$ is locally Zariski trivial. Thus $`ET\times _TX`$ is a limit of algebraic varieties. We can apply directly the techniques of \[BBD\] to deduce that the spectral sequence (\*) degenerates for $`T`$. The restriction to the maximal torus induces an injection $`H^{}(BG)H^{}(BT)`$ and an injection of the $`E_2`$ terms of the spectral sequences (\*). Therefore, since the differentials vanish in the $`E_2`$ term for $`T`$, they vanish in the $`E_2`$ term for $`G`$. Then $`E_2=E_3`$ and we continue our reasoning. We find that all the differentials in the spectral sequence for $`G`$ vanish. The reduction to the maximal torus was described in \[Gi,  §4,  prof of 3.3\].

###### Remark Remark 7

There is another solution of the problem with Borel construction. We apply the simplicial model of $`EG`$. We reduce the base ring to a finite field. Now we follow Deligne’s suggestion: the Galois group acts on the spectral sequence (\*). Since $`H^{}(BG)`$ and $`IH^{}(X)`$ are pure, $`E_2^{pq}`$ is pure of weight $`p+q`$. All the differentials in the spectral sequence vanish because they mix weights. Note that this proof works for noncomplete algebraic varieties, provided that $`IH^{}(X)`$ is pure. One can generalize our proof further and consider cohomology with coefficients in an arbitrary ‘sheaf’ $``$, an object of the derived category. In this case a suitable extension of $``$ on the simplicial variety $`(EG\times _GX)_{^{_{}}}`$ has to be chosen to make sense of the equivariant cohomology. The extension $`_G`$ should be an equivariant sheaf in the sense of \[BL\] and it should be defined over a finitely generated subring $`R`$. Moreover $`_G`$ should have enough good reductions to finite fields, so that $`H_G_{}^{}(X_R;_G_{})H_{G_{\overline{𝔽}_q}}^{}(X_R\overline{𝔽}_q;_{G_{\overline{𝔽}_q}})`$ for some residue field $`𝔽_q=R/𝔪`$. The conclusion is the same: purity of $`H^{}(X;)`$ implies formality.

## 5. Algebra structure

Theorem 1 shows that the $`H^{}(BG)`$-module structure of $`H_G^{}(X)`$ caries no information about the action. The algebra structure of $`H_G^{}(X)`$ is more interesting, but hard to recover. It involves some characteristic classes of the action.

###### Remark Example 8

Let $`X=^N`$ and let $`G=GL(N+1)`$ with the obvious action on $`X`$ (as in the Step 2 of §1). The effect of the Borel construction is the projectivization of the tautological bundle over $`BG`$. The cohomology algebra is well known:

$$H_G^{}(X)=[c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_{N+1},h]/(c_{N+1}c_Nh+\mathrm{}+c_1(h)^N+(h)^{N+1}).$$

## 6. Dual structure

Due to Koszul duality \[GKM; MW\] the nonequivariant cohomology of $`X`$ is equipped with the structure of a module over $`H_{}(G)`$: for $`\lambda H_k(G)`$ and $`xH^l(X)`$ we set $`\lambda x=\lambda \mu ^{}(x)H^{lk}(X)`$, where $`\mu :G\times XX`$ is the action and $``$ is the slant product $`:H_k(G)H^l(G\times X)H^{lk}(X)`$. According to \[GKM,  9.3\] if the spectral sequence (\*) degenerates, then the cohomology of $`X`$ is trivial module over $`H_{}(G)`$, even on the level of the derived category of $`H_{}(G)`$-modules. Therefore for any $`\lambda `$ with $`\mathrm{deg}\lambda >0`$ we have $`\lambda x=0`$, i.e.:

###### Corollary 9

The structure of $`H_{>0}(G)`$-module on $`IH^{}(X)`$ is trivial for a complete variety $`X`$ acted by a connected group $`G`$.

This generalizes a result of Deligne \[D2,  9.1.7\].