text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Hypothetical sterile neutrinos $`\nu _s`$, blind to the electroweak interactions, were invoked into particle physics in various contexts as possible means to resolve observed anomalies. The most prominent case deals with neutrino anomalies: solar neutrino deficit, atmospheric neutrino anomaly and results of the LSND neutrino experiment. Simultaneous explanation of all these three anomalies in terms of neutrino oscillations requires at least one sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ . In this case $`\nu _s`$ together with $`\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ allows one to introduce three independent mass square differences associated with these three anomalies. Although the recent Super Kamiokande global analysis  disfavours active-sterile neutrino oscillations as a dominant channel this hypothesis is not ruled out. Along this line one may reasonably admit the existence of more than one sterile neutrino, say, one per generation, as it is suggested by various extensions of the SM. In this situation among the neutrino mass eigenstates, which are superpositions of the active $`\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ and sterile $`\nu _{s(i)}`$ weak eigenstates, one can encounter not only light neutrinos, but also heavy states $`\nu _h`$. The question of viability of this scenario is the subject of experimental searches as well as cosmological and astrophysical constrains.

Recently some phenomenological, cosmological and astrophysical issues of the intermediate mass neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ in the MeV mass region have been addressed in the literature . This was stimulated by the attempts of explanation of the KARMEN anomaly  in terms of a neutrino state with a mass of 33.9 MeV mixed with $`\nu _\tau `$ . Although recent data of this collaboration  have not confirmed this anomaly, the question of existence of heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ remains open.

These sterile neutrinos can be searched for as peaks in differential rates of various processes and by direct production of $`\nu _h`$ followed by their decays in the detector (for summary see Ref.  p. 361.). The $`\nu _h`$ can also give rise to significant enhancement of the total rate of certain processes if their masses happen to be located in an appropriate region . This effect would be especially pronounced in reactions that are forbidden in the SM. The lepton number/flavor violating (LNV/LFV) processes belong to this category. Many of them are stringently restricted by experiment and allow one to derive stringent limits on the $`\nu _h`$ contribution.

In the present paper we study the $`\nu _h`$ contribution to the LFV and LNV $`\tau `$-decays: $`\tau ^{}e^{}(\mu ^{})\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}e^+(\mu ^+)\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$. The first (LFV) process can receive contribution both from Dirac and Majorana neutrinos while to the second (LNV) process only Majorana neutrinos can contribute. These processes are capable to provide us with unique information on the $`\nu _h\nu _\tau `$ mixing matrix element $`U_{\tau h}`$. In the mass region $`140.5\text{GeV}m_h1637\text{MeV}`$, which we are going to study, the $`\nu _h`$ contribution to the considered $`\tau `$-decays gains resonant enhancement . This effect makes discussed $`\tau `$-decays very sensitive to presence of $`\nu _h`$ with the masses $`m_h`$ in the resonant region. Under certain assumptions we extract from the experimental data  on these $`\tau `$-decays new constraints on the $`U_{\tau h}`$ matrix element in the resonant region for both Majorana and Dirac heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$. Up to recently there were no credible laboratory limits on this quantity in the MeV mass region . Only recent data of NOMAD collaboration  allowed establishing constraints on $`U_{\tau h}`$ in the MeV mass region. In that part of the resonant region, which overlaps with the region probed by NOMAD, our constraints are more stringent by around two orders of magnitude.

## 2 Neutrino mass matrix and interactions

Consider an extension of the SM with the three left-handed weak doublet neutrinos $`\nu _{Li}^{}=(\nu _{Le}^{},\nu _{L\mu }^{},\nu _{L\tau }^{})`$ and $`n`$ species of the SM singlet right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _{Ri}^{}=(\nu _{R1}^{},\mathrm{}\nu _{Rn}^{})`$. The general mass term for this set of fields can be written as

$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu ^{}}^{(\nu )}\nu ^c+\text{H.c.}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\nu }__L^{},\overline{\nu __R^c})\left(\begin{array}{cc}_L& _D\\ _D^T& _R\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu __L^c\\ \nu __R^{}\end{array}\right)+\text{H.c.}=`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3+n}{}}}m_{\nu i}\overline{\nu ^c}_i\nu _i+\text{H.c.}`$ (6)
Here $`_L,_R`$ are $`3\times 3`$ and $`n\times n`$ symmetric Majorana mass matrices, $`M_D`$ is $`3\times n`$ Dirac type matrix. Rotating the neutrino mass matrix by the unitary transformation to the diagonal form

$`U^T^{(\nu )}U=Diag\{m_{\nu i}\}`$ (7)
we end up with $`n+3`$ Majorana neutrinos $`\nu _i=U_{ki}^{}\nu _k^{}`$ with the masses $`m_{\nu i}`$. In special cases there may appear among them pairs with masses degenerate in absolute values. Each of these pairs can be collected into a Dirac neutrino field. This situation corresponds to conservation of certain lepton numbers assigned to these Dirac fields.

The considered generic model must contain at least three observable light neutrinos while the other states may be of arbitrary mass. In particular, they may include hundred MeV neutrinos $`\nu _h`$, which we are going to consider in the next section. Presence or absence of these neutrino states is a question for experimental searches.

In this scenario neutrino mass eigenstates have in general non-diagonal LFV couplings to the Z-boson

$`Z^\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\overline{\nu _\alpha ^{}}\gamma _\mu P_L\nu _\alpha ^{}=Z^\mu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n+3}{}}}U_{\alpha i}U_{\alpha j}^{}\overline{\nu _j}\gamma _\mu P_L\nu _i{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n+3}{}}}\eta _{ij}\overline{\nu _j}\gamma _\mu P_L\nu _i,`$ (8)
where the last two expressions are written in the mass eigenstate basis. For the case of only three massive neutrinos one has $`𝒫_{mn}=\delta _{mn}`$ as a consequence of unitarity of $`U_{\alpha n}`$. In general $`𝒫_{mn}`$ is not a diagonal matrix and flavor changing neutral currents in the neutrino sector become possible at tree level.

As is known the invisible Z-boson width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}^Z`$ is an efficient counter of the number of neutrinos. In the introduced scenario, despite possible presence of an arbitrary number of light neutrinos, the predicted value of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}^Z`$ is always consistent with its experimental value. Indeed, if all the neutrinos are light with masses $`m_{\nu i}<<M_Z`$ their contribution to the invisible Z-boson width can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}^Z={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n+3}{}}}\left|\eta _{ij}\right|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{SM}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{SM}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\alpha \beta }=3\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{SM}.`$ (9)
With the SM prediction for the partial Z-decay width to a pair of light neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ^{SM}=167.24\pm 0.08`$ MeV this formula always reproduces the experimental value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}^Z=498.8\pm 1.5`$ MeV. The chain of equalities in Eq. (9) follows again from the unitarity of $`U_{\alpha n}`$. Thus, independently of the number of light neutrinos with masses $`m_\nu <<M_Z`$ the factor 3 in the last step counts the number of weak doublet neutrinos. This conclusion is changed in the presence of heavy neutrinos $`N`$ with masses $`M_N>M_Z/2`$ which do not contribute to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}`$. In this case the unitarity condition is no longer valid and the factor 3 is changed to a smaller value.

Having these arguments in mind we introduce in the next section neutrino states $`\nu _h`$ with masses in the hundred MeV region. These states can be composed of sterile and active neutrino flavors as described in the present section.

## 3 $`\tau ^{}e^\pm (\mu ^\pm )\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decay rates

Neutrinos contribute to the LNV $`\tau `$-decay $`\tau ^{}l^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ according to the lowest order diagrams shown in Fig.1. The $`\nu `$-contribution to the LFV $`\tau `$-decay $`\tau ^{}l^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ is determined by the tree-level diagram similar to the diagram in Fig. 1(a). The loop-diagram analogous to the diagram in Fig. 1(b) is absent in the latter case.

The diagram in Fig. 1(b) requires knowledge of the $`\pi `$-meson wave function at long distances. As yet it is poorly known and would introduce into the calculations uncontrollable uncertainties. In the present paper we concentrate on the resonant mass domain determined in (21), where the diagram in Fig. 1(a) absolutely dominates over that in Fig. 1(b). For this reason we neglect this diagram latter on. The hadronic structure parameters necessary for calculation of the tree-level contribution Fig. 1(a) involves only one parameter of hadronic structure, the pion decay constant $`f_\pi `$, accurately known from experiment. For the $`\tau ^{}l^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decay with $`l=e,\mu `$ we derive the following decay rate formula

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}l^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=c{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}𝑑s\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_{lk}U_{\tau k}m_{\nu k}}{sm_{\nu k}^2}}\right|^2G^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}})+`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{c}{m_\tau ^2}}\mathrm{Re}[{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}𝑑s\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_{lk}U_{\tau k}m_{\nu k}}{sm_{\nu k}^2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{v_l^{}}{\overset{v_l^+}{}}}𝑑v\left({\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_{ln}U_{\tau n}m_{\nu k}}{vm_{\nu n}^2}}\right)^{}H^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{v}{m_\tau ^2}})],`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}l^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=c{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}𝑑s\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{U_{lk}^{}U_{\tau k}}{sm_{\nu k}^2}}\right|^2sG^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}}).`$ (11)
The unitary mixing matrix $`U_{ij}`$ relates $`\nu _i^{}=U_{ij}\nu _h`$ weak $`\nu ^{}`$ and mass $`\nu `$ neutrino eigenstates. The numerical constant is $`c=(G_F^4/32)(\pi )^3f_\pi ^4m_\tau ^5|V_{ud}|^4`$, where $`f__\pi =93`$MeV and $`m_\tau =1777`$MeV is the $`\tau `$-lepton mass. We introduced the functions

$`G^l(z)=\varphi ^l(z)z^2\times [(zx_l^2)^2x_\pi ^2(z+x_l^2)][(z1)^2x_\pi ^2(z+1)],`$
$`H^l(z_1,z_2)=(1+x_l^2z_1z_2)(x_l^2z_1z_2)+`$ (12)
$`+x_\pi ^2\left[(1+x_l^2)(z_1+z_2x_\pi ^2)2(z_1z_2+x_l^2)\right],`$
where $`x_i=m_i/m_\tau `$, $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2yz2xz`$, $`\varphi ^l(z)=\lambda ^{1/2}(1,z,x_\pi ^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(z,x_\pi ^2,x_l^2)`$. The integration limits in Eqs. (3), (11) are

$`s_l^{}=m_\tau ^2(x_\pi +x_l)^2,s^+=m_\tau ^2(1x_\pi )^2,`$ (13)
$`v_l^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau ^2}{2y}}\left[(x_\pi ^2x_l^2)(x_\pi ^21)+y(1+x_l^2+2x_\pi ^2)y^2\pm \varphi ^l(y)\right]`$
with $`y=s/m_\tau ^2`$.

Assuming that there exist only light neutrinos with masses $`m_{\nu i}<<m_\tau `$ we can rewrite Eqs. (3), (11) approximately in the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}l^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{})=c{\displaystyle \frac{|m_\nu _{l\tau }|^2}{m_\tau ^2}}𝒜_+^{(l)},\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}l^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})=c{\displaystyle \frac{|m_\nu ^2_{l\tau }|^2}{m_\tau ^4}}𝒜_{}^{(l)},`$ (14)
where

$`𝒜_+^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau ^2{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^2}}G^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}})+2{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_l^{}}{\overset{v_l^+}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv}{v}}H^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{v}{m_\tau ^2}}),`$
$`𝒜_{}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`m_\tau ^4{\displaystyle \underset{s_l^{}}{\overset{s^+}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s^3}}G^l({\displaystyle \frac{s}{m_\tau ^2}})`$ (15)
and

$`m_\nu _{l\tau }={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}U_{lk}U_{\tau k}m_{\nu k},m_\nu ^2_{l\tau }={\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}U_{lk}^{}U_{\tau k}m_{\nu k}^2.`$ (16)
From atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation data, combined with the tritium beta decay endpoint, one can derive upper bounds on masses of all the three neutrinos  $`m_{e,\mu ,\tau }3`$ eV. Then we have conservatively

$`|m_\nu _{\tau l}|<9\text{eV},|m_\nu ^2_{\tau l}|<27\text{eV}^2.`$ (17)
With these upper bounds we obtain from Eqs. (14) a rough estimate

$`R_{e^+(\mu ^+)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}e^+(\mu ^+)\pi ^{}\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}All)}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}3.9(2.6)\times 10^{31},`$ (18)
$`R_{e^{}(\mu ^{})}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}e^{}(\mu ^{})\pi ^+\pi ^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\tau ^{}All)}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}3.0(1.2)\times 10^{47}.`$ (19)
This is to be compared with the present experimental bounds on these branching ratios

$`_{e^+(\mu ^+)}^{exp}1.9(3.4)\times 10^6,_{e^{}(\mu ^{})}^{exp}2.2(8.2)\times 10^6,`$ (20)
The comparison clearly shows that the light neutrino contributions to the processes $`\tau ^{}l^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ are far from being detected in the near future. On the other hand experimental observation of $`\tau ^{}l^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decays at larger rates would indicate some new physics beyond the SM, or the presence of an extra neutrino state $`\nu _h`$ with the mass in the hundred MeV domain.

Assume that there exist neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ with masses $`m_h`$ in the interval

$`\sqrt{s_e^{}}140.5\text{MeV}m_h\sqrt{s^+}1637\text{MeV}.`$ (21)
These neutrinos would give resonant contributions to the processes $`\tau ^{}l^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ since the first term in Eqs. (3) and the expression in Eq. (11) have non-integrable singularities at $`s=m_h^2`$. Apparently, in the resonant region (21) one has to take into account the finite width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ of the neutrino $`\nu _h`$. This is accomplished by the substitution $`m_hm_h(i/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ in Eqs. (3), (11). As we will show in the next section the total decay width of the neutrino is small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}<<m_{\nu h}`$. Therefore in the resonant domain (21) the neutrino propagator in Eqs. (3), (11) has a very sharp maximum at $`s=m_h^2`$. The second term in Eq. (3), being finite in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}=0`$, can be neglected in this case. This allows us to rewrite Eqs. (3), (11) in the resonant mass region with good precision in a simple form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{res}(\tau ^{}l^\pm \pi ^{}\pi ^{})`$ $``$ $`c\pi G^l(z_0){\displaystyle \frac{m_h|U_{\tau h}|^2|U_{lh}|^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}}},`$ (22)
with $`z_0=(m_h/m_\tau )^2`$.

## 4 Heavy sterile neutrino decays

Heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ can decay in both charged (CC) and neutral (NC) current channels $`\nu _hl_1l_2\nu _2;lM(q_1\overline{q_2})`$ and $`\nu _h\nu _il\overline{l};\nu _iM(q\overline{q})`$, where $`l=e,\mu `$ and $`M`$ are mesons specified below. These decays are induced by the Lagrangian terms

$`={\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{\sqrt{2}}}U_{li}\overline{l}\gamma ^\mu P_L\nu _iW_\mu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}U_{\alpha j}U_{\alpha i}^{}\overline{\nu }_i\gamma ^\mu P_L\nu _jZ_\mu ,`$ (23)
where $`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$ and $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the neutrino mixing matrix defined in Eq. (7). Despite the fact that the NC term is of second order in the mixing matrix the NC decay channels of the heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$, as will be seen, are as important as the CC one.

Calculating the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ we divide the interval (21) into two parts

$`\sqrt{s_e^{}}140.5\text{MeV}`$ $`m_h`$ $`m_\eta ^{}=958\text{MeV}\text{domain (I)},`$ (24)
$`m_\eta ^{}=958\text{MeV}<`$ $`m_h`$ $`\sqrt{s^+}1637\text{MeV}\text{domain (II)},`$
where $`m_\eta ^{}=958`$ MeV is the mass of the isoscalar pseudo-scalar meson $`\eta ^{}(958)`$.

In the domain (I) we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ directly, by calculating all the $`\nu _h`$ decay channels to the leptons $`l`$ and mesons $`M`$ one by one, using the following meson matrix elements

$`\pi ^{}(p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=i\sqrt{2}f_\pi p_\mu ,K^{}(p)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=i\sqrt{2}f_Kp_\mu ,`$ (25)
$`\rho ^{}(p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=\sqrt{2}m_\rho f_\rho p_\mu ϵ_\mu ^{},K^{}(p)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=m_K^{}f_K^{}p_\mu ϵ_\mu ^{},`$
$`\pi ^0(p)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=\pi ^0(p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d|0=if_\pi p_\mu ,`$
$`\eta (p)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u|0=\eta (p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5d|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta (p)|\overline{s}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5s|0=i{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{\sqrt{3}}}p_\mu ,`$
$`\rho ^0(p)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u|0=\rho ^0(p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d|0=m_\rho f_\rho ϵ_\mu ^{},`$
$`\omega (p)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u|0=\omega (p)|\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d|0=m_\omega f_\omega ϵ_\mu ^{},`$
where $`ϵ_\mu `$ is a vector meson polarization 4-vector; meson decay constants and masses are $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV, $`f_K=113`$ MeV, $`f_\rho =153`$ MeV, $`f_K^{}=224`$ MeV, $`f_\omega =138`$ MeV, $`m_\pi =139.6`$ MeV, $`m_K=494`$ MeV, $`m_\eta =547`$ MeV, $`m_\rho =770`$ MeV, $`m_\omega =782`$ MeV, $`m_K^{}=892`$ MeV.

This channel-by-channel approach can not be extended beyond the threshold of $`\eta ^{}(985)`$ meson production since its decay constant $`f_\eta ^{}`$ is unknown. Above the $`\eta ^{}(985)`$ threshold, in the domain (II), we approximate the decay rate of $`\nu _hl(\nu )M`$ by the decay rate of the inclusive process $`\nu _hl(\nu )q_1\overline{q}_2`$ without perturbative and nonperturbative QCD corrections. This leading-order approximation should work for $`m_{\nu h}>>\mathrm{\Lambda }200`$ MeV. At lower masses a more viable approach would be to relate the semileptonic $`\nu _h`$ decay rate by the dispersion relations to the imaginary parts of the W and Z self-energies $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s)`$ in analogy to the approach applied in the literature for the $`\tau \nu +`$ hadrons inclusive decay . However for our rough estimations we do not need this more sophisticated treatment and will use the above mentioned leading-order approximation.

The decay channels of the Dirac neutrino $`\nu _h`$ in the domain (I) are

$`(CC):\nu _h\{\begin{array}{c}e^{}e^+\nu _e,e^{}\mu ^+\nu _\mu ,\mu ^{}e^+\nu _e,\mu ^{}\mu ^+\nu _\mu ,\hfill \\ e^{}\pi ^+,\mu ^{}\pi ^+,e^{}K^+,\mu ^{}K^+,\hfill \\ e^{}\rho ^+,\mu ^{}\rho ^+,e^{}K^+,\mu ^{}K^+.\hfill \end{array}`$ (29)
$`(NC):\nu _h\{\begin{array}{c}\nu _ie^{}e^+,\nu _i\mu ^+\mu ^{},\nu _i\pi ^0,\hfill \\ \nu _i\eta ,\nu _i\rho ^0,\nu _i\omega ,\hfill \end{array}`$ (32)
where $`\nu _i=\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ are the three conventional light neutrino mass eigenstates. Latter on we neglect their masses since $`m_{\nu i}<<m_h`$.

Partial decay widths for these channels are readily calculated using the hadronic matrix elements in Eq. (25). The results can be summarized as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _hl_1l_2\nu )=|U_{l_1h}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{192\pi ^3}}m_j^5H(y_{l1},y_{l2})|U_{l_1h}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(l_1l_2)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _hlP)=|U_{lh}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{4\pi }}f_P^2m_j^3F_P(y_l,y_P)|U_{lj}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(lP)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _hlV)=|U_{lh}|^2\alpha _V{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{8\pi }}f_V^2m_h^3F_V(y_l,y_V)|U_{lj}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(lV)},`$ (33)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _h\nu _il\overline{l})=|\zeta _i|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^5G_F^2}{192\pi ^3}}[aH_1^{(l)}+bH_2^{(l)}]|\zeta _i|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(l)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _h\nu _iP^0)=|\zeta _i|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^3G_F^2}{64\pi }}f_\pi ^2\alpha ^{P^0}(1y_{P^0}^2)^2|\zeta _i|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(\nu P^0)},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _h\nu _iV^0)=|\zeta _i|^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^3G_F^2}{16\pi }}f_{V^0}^2(1y_{V^0}^2)^2(1+2y_{V^0}^2)|\zeta _i|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(\nu V^0)},`$
where

$`\zeta _i={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}U_{\alpha h}U_{\alpha i}^{}`$ (34)
In Eq. (4) we denoted $`P=\{\pi ^+,K^+\}`$, $`V=\{\rho ^+,K^+\}`$, $`P^0=\{\pi ^0,\eta \}`$, $`V^0=\{\rho ^0,\omega \}`$, $`y_i=m_i/m_h`$, $`\alpha ^{\pi ^0}=1,\alpha ^\eta =1/3`$, $`a=2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+1/4,b=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W1/2)`$. The kinematical functions are

$`H_P(x,y)=12{\displaystyle \underset{z_1}{\overset{z_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}(zy^2)(1+x^2z)\lambda ^{1/2}(1,z,x^2)\lambda ^{1/2}(0,y^2,z),`$
$`H_1^{(l)}=12{\displaystyle \underset{w}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\sqrt{z}}}(z2y_l^2)(1z)^2\sqrt{z4y_l^2},`$
$`H_2^{(l)}=24y_l^2{\displaystyle \underset{w}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\sqrt{z}}}(1z)^2\sqrt{z4y_l^2},`$
$`F_P(x,y)=\lambda ^{1/2}(1,x^2,y^2)[(1+x^2)(1+x^2y^2)4x^2],`$
$`F_V(x,y)=\lambda ^{1/2}(1,x^2,y^2)[(1x^2)^2+(1+x^2)y^2)2y^4],`$
where the integration limits are $`z_1=y^2,z_2=(1x)^2`$ and $`w=4y_l^2`$.

In the mass domain (II) of Eq. (24) we approximate the CC and NC decay rates by the rates of the inclusive reactions

$`(CC):\nu _hl^{}q_1\overline{q}_2,(NC):\nu _h\nu _iq\overline{q},`$ (35)
where $`l=\{e,\mu \}`$ and $`q=\{u,d,s\}`$. The corresponding leading order decay rate formulas are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _hl^{}q_1\overline{q_2})=|U_{lh}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{64\pi ^3}}m_h^5(|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2)|U_{lh}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(lX)},`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu _h\nu _iq\overline{q})=|\eta _i|^2{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2}{3072\pi ^3}}m_h^5[916\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)]|\eta _i|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\nu X)}.`$
Here we neglected small $`c\overline{d},d\overline{c}`$ contributions.

The following comment on the total NC decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{NC}`$ is in order. Summation over all the NC channels gives

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^\nu {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|\eta _i|^2=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^\nu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}U_{\alpha h}U_{\beta h}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}U_{\alpha i}^{}U_{\beta i}=`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^\nu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}U_{\alpha h}U_{\beta h}^{}(\delta _{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha h}^{}U_{\beta h})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^\nu {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau }{}}|U_{\alpha h}|^2.`$
Here we assumed that there are only four neutrino mass eigenstates $`\nu _{1,2,3}`$, $`\nu _h`$ and used unitarity of the mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$. At the last step we neglected the subdominant term $`U_{\alpha h}^4`$. Thus, both CC and NC decay rates are proportional to $`|U_{\alpha h}|^2`$ and, as we mentioned at the beginning of this section, a priori are equally important.

Taking into account this fact we collect the partial decay rates into the total $`\nu _h`$-decay width

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}=|U_{eh}|^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(e)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(\nu )}\right)+|U_{\mu h}|^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(\mu )}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(\nu )}\right)+|U_{\tau h}|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(\nu )}`$ (38)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(l)}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(e\mu )}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(ll)})+\theta (m_\eta ^{}m_h){\displaystyle \underset{M}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(lM)}+\theta (m_hm_\eta ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(lX)},`$ (39)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}^{(\nu )}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(e)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(\mu )})+\theta (m_\eta ^{}m_h){\displaystyle \underset{M^0}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(\nu M^0)}+\theta (m_hm_\eta ^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\nu X)}`$ (40)
where the summations run over $`M=\pi ^+,K^+,\rho ^+,K^+`$ and $`M^0=\pi ^0,\eta ,\rho ^0,\omega `$.

If neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ are Majorana particles, i.e. $`\nu _h\nu _h^c`$, then both $`\nu _hl^{}X(\mathrm{\Delta }L=0)`$ and $`\nu _hl^+X^c(\mathrm{\Delta }L=2)`$ decay channels are open. This results in multiplication of the right hand side of Eq. (39) by factor 2.

## 5 Bounds on heavy sterile neutrino masses and mixings

Substituting the total $`\nu _h`$-decay width from Eq. (38) into the resonant formula (22), we can derive, from the experimental bounds (20), constraints on the $`\nu _h`$ neutrino mass $`m_h`$ and the mixing matrix elements $`U_{\alpha h}`$. In general these constraints represent a hardly readable 4-dimensional exclusion plot. However under certain simplifying assumptions one can infer more valuable information on the individual size of the mixing matrix elements. In this paper we are interested in the $`U_{\tau h}`$ matrix element which is not constrained in the literature in the $`\nu _h`$ mass range (21) (see ). Recently the NOMAD collaboration obtained constraints for $`m_h<190`$ MeV which overlap with a small part of this range. Therefore, it would be interesting to infer individual constraints on this mixing matrix element, at least roughly. A reasonable simplifying assumption would be to take $`|U_{\tau h}||U_{\mu j}||U_{ej}|`$. Then from the experimental bounds (20) we derive a 2-dimensional $`m_h|U_{\tau h}|^2`$ exclusion plot given in Fig. 2 for the case of Dirac $`\nu _h`$. Multiplying the Dirac case limiting curve in Fig. 2 by the factor 2 one obtains the exclusion plot for the case of Majorana $`\nu _h`$. For comparison we also present in Fig. 2 the bounds from big-bang nucleosynthesis, SN1987A  and the NOMAD bounds . The cosmological bounds are shortly discussed in the next section.

Note that at certain points of the mass range (21) the limits in Fig. 2 are incompatible with our assumption that $`|U_{\tau h}||U_{\mu j}||U_{ej}|`$ since other experiments already established limits like $`|U_{eh}|^2,|U_{\mu h}|^2<10^8`$ at $`m_h=350,400`$ MeV. Thus our limits around these points have to be treated with caution. Let us note that all known constraints on $`|U_{lh}|`$  have been obtained under certain simplifying assumptions such as those that we used above.

However, there is a special case when limits on $`|U_{\tau h}|`$ can be extracted without any simplifying assumptions. This case is realized when there are experimental upper bounds on the rates of three processes involving $`\tau \tau `$, $`\tau \mu `$ and $`\tau e`$ lepton pairs. These could be, for instance, decays

$`B_c^+\tau ^+\tau ^+\pi ^{},\tau ^+\mu ^+\pi ^{},\tau ^+e^+\pi ^{}.`$ (41)
Intersection of their resonant regions is $`1917\text{MeV}m_h4620`$ MeV. In this domain the decay rates can be written schematically as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }={\displaystyle \frac{|U_{\tau h}|^4}{a|U_{eh}|^2+b|U_{\mu h}|^2+c|U_{\tau h}|^2}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \mu }={\displaystyle \frac{|U_{\tau h}|^2|U_{\mu h}|^2}{a|U_{eh}|^2+b|U_{\mu h}|^2+c|U_{\tau h}|^2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau e}={\displaystyle \frac{|U_{\tau h}|^2|U_{eh}|^2}{a|U_{eh}|^2+b|U_{\mu h}|^2+c|U_{\tau h}|^2}}.`$ (42)
From these Eqs. we find

$`|U_{\tau h}|^2=a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau e}+b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \mu }+c\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }.`$ (43)
Notice that all the decay rates appear with positive degree. Only in such a case we can set upper bound on $`|U_{\tau h}|^2`$ having upper experimental bounds $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau l}Exp_l`$. This would not be the case, for instance, in the system $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \mu },\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau e},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}`$.

At present the described approach can not be realized on practice due to absence of necessary experimental data. However the required upper limits on the semileptonic $`B_c`$-decays can be, probably, obtained in future experiments at the B-factories. Then, derivation of limits on $`|U_{\tau h}|`$ free of simplifying ad hoc assumptions will become possible.

## 6 Heavy sterile neutrinos in astrophysics and cosmology

It is well known that massive neutrinos may have important cosmological and astrophysical implications. They are expected to contribute to the mass density of the universe, participate in cosmic structure formation, big-bang nucleosynthesis, supernova explosions, imprint themselves in the cosmic microwave background etc. (for a review see, for instance, Ref. ). This implies certain constrains on the neutrino masses and mixings. Currently, for massive neutrinos in the mass region (21), the only available cosmological constraints arise from the mass density of the universe and cosmic structure formation.

The contribution of stable massive neutrinos to the mass density of the universe is described by the “Lee-Weinberg” $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2m_\nu `$ curve. From the requirement that the universe is not “overclosed” this leads to the two well know solutions $`m_\nu 40`$eV and $`m_\nu {}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{>}10`$GeV which seem to exclude the domain Eq. (21). However for unstable neutrinos the situation is different. They may decay early to light particles and, therefore, their total energy can be significantly “redshifted” down to the “overclosing” limit. Constraints on the neutrino life times $`\tau _{\nu _j}`$ and masses $`m_j`$ in this scenario are found in Ref. . In the mass region (21) we have an order of magnitude estimate

$`\tau _{\nu _j}<(10^{14})\text{sec}\text{Mass Density limit}`$ (44)
Decaying massive neutrinos may also have specific impact on the cosmic structure formation introducing new stages in the evolution of the universe. After they decay into light relativistic particles the universe returns for a while from the matter to the radiation domination phase. This may change the resulting density fluctuation spectrum since the primordial fluctuations grow due to gravitation instability during the matter dominated stages. Comparison with observations leads to an upper bound on the neutrino life time . In the mass region (21) one finds roughly

$`\tau _{\nu _j}<(10^7)\text{sec}\text{Structure Formation limit}`$ (45)
On the other hand, from our formula (38) we estimate

$`\text{few sec}<\tau _{\nu _j},\text{Theoretical limit.}`$ (46)
Thus massive neutrinos with masses in the interval (21) are not yet excluded by the known cosmological constraints (44), (45).

Big-bang nucleosynthesis(BBN) and the SN 1987A neutrino signal may presumably lead to much more restrictive constraints . The impact of heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ on the BBN is twofold: via their contribution to the cosmic energy density and via the secondary light neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ produced in $`\nu _h`$-decays. The first issue results in faster expansion which enhances the neutron-to-proton ration $`n/p`$. The secondary light neutrinos can produce also an opposite effect. The increased number of $`\nu _e`$ maintains neutron-proton thermal equilibrium longer diminishing the $`n/p`$-ratio at the freeze-out point. There are also effects related to the $`\nu _e`$ energy spectrum distortion and energy injection to the electromagnetic radiation from the $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs produced in $`\nu _h`$-decays . The observed duration of the neutrino signal from the SN 1987A stringently constraints the energy emitted from the core in the form of penetrating particles like neutrinos. The sterile neutrinos could affect this energy-loss limits and, therefore, their mixings with the active neutrinos have to obey certain constraints.

Analysis of the BBN and SN 1987A constraints on $`\nu _h`$ parameters has been made in Ref. . We present the corresponding exclusion plots in Fig. 2 for comparison with our limits. Unfortunately, the analysis of Ref.  is restricted to the mass range $`m_h<200`$ MeV for the BBN and $`m_h<100`$ MeV for the SN 1987A case. From the general appearance of the excluded bends one may expect that the extension of the SN 1987A bend can overlap with the region excluded by the $`\tau `$-decay, producing very stringent combined constraint around $`|U_{\tau h}|^2<10^8`$. Even stronger constraint would appear in the domain where the SN 1987A bend simultaneously overlaps with the BBN excluded bend. In this case a combined constraint would be, probably, more stringent than $`|U_{\tau h}|^2<10^{12}`$.

## 7 Conclusion

We discussed a generic model with sterile neutrinos which can contain heavy $`\nu _i`$ mass eigenstates. If among them there are $`\nu _h`$ states with masses $`140.5\text{MeV}m_h1637\text{MeV}`$ they can resonantly contribute to $`\tau ^{}e^\pm (\mu ^\pm )\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ decays.

We derived decay rates for these processes valid both outside and inside of the resonant $`m_h`$ region (21). In the latter case knowledge of the total $`\nu _h`$-decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ is required. We calculated the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu h}`$ in the whole resonant $`m_h`$ region (21) taking into account both charged and neutral current decay channels.

The effect of resonant enhancement of the heavy sterile neutrino $`\nu _h`$ contribution allowed us to extract from the experimental upper bounds on the $`\tau `$-decay rates rather stringent constraints on $`\nu _\tau \nu _h`$ mixing matrix element $`|U_{\tau h}|`$ in the whole resonant region (21). The corresponding exclusion plot is presented in Fig. 2 together with the recent constraints from NOMAD collaboration  and cosmological constraints . The $`\tau `$-decay constraints were derived under certain simplifying assumptions about $`\nu _h`$-mixing with the other $`\nu _\alpha `$ flavors. These or similar assumptions are always required when $`\nu _h`$-mixing with one selected $`\nu _\alpha `$ flavor is extracted from those processes which have been studied in the literature. We propose the set of processes $`B_c\tau \tau \pi ,\tau \mu \pi ,\tau e\pi ,\mu \mu \pi ,ee\pi `$ which would allow one to avoid such ad hoc assumptions and extract individual constraints on $`|U_{\tau h}|,|U_{\mu h}|,|U_{eh}|`$. Finally, we discussed cosmological implications of the heavy sterile neutrinos $`\nu _h`$ and pointed out that extension of the known big bang nucleosynthesis and the SN 1987A constraints  to the resonant region (21) could significantly strengthen our constraints on $`|U_{\tau h}|`$ by combining them with these cosmological constraints.

Acknowledgments

We thank Ya. Burdanov, G. Cvetič, C. Dib and O. Espinosa for fruitful discussions. We are grateful to S. Gninenko for helpful comments on the recent NOMAD results. This work was supported in part by Fondecyt (Chile) under grant 8000017, by a Cátedra Presidencial (Chile) and by RFBR (Russia) under grant 00-02-17587.


format: text

text:
# POMERON and AdS/CFT CORRESPONDENCE FOR QCD

## 1 Introduction

It has been a long held belief that QCD in a non-perturbative setting can be described by a string theory. This thirty-year search for the QCD strings has recently led to a remarkable conjecture: QCD is holographically dual to gravity in extra dimensions. To be more precise, the Maldacena conjecture and its further extensions state that Yang-Mills theory is exactly dual to a critical string theory in a non-trivial gravitational background . In such a framework, Pomeron should emerge as a closed string excitation .

In this talk, we provide a brief review for the Maldecena duality conjecture, and summarize results for the glueball spectrum and the Pomeron intercept in the strong coupling limit. The present discussion is heuristic, disregarding important details in order to provide a picture for the relevant physics.

Let us begin by first recalling that in the early days of string theory, (or the “dual resonance model” to use the nomenclature that predates both string theory and QCD), one observed that it was reasonable to represent the hadronic spectrum beginning with zero width “resonances” on exactly linear Regge trajectories. With the advent of QCD this approach was reformulated as the $`1/N`$ expansion at fixed ’t Hooft coupling, $`g_{YM}^2N`$. States with vacuum quantum numbers could be assigned to closed-strings, including a massive $`2^{++}`$ tensor glueball on the leading Pomeron trajectory, $`\alpha _P(t)=\alpha _P(0)+\alpha _P^{}t.`$ Soon a three-fold crisis appeared:

* zero-mass states,
* extra dimensions,
* supersymmetries.

A careful study of negative norm states (i.e ghosts), tachyon cancellation and the consistency of the perturbative expansion at the one loop level led to supersymmetric string theories in 10 space-time dimensions. At the one-loop level unitarity requires that pair creation of two open strings, each contains “zero-mass” spin-1 states, is dual to a vacuum exchange with an intercept $`\alpha _P(0)=2`$. This leads to a massless $`2^{++}`$ state, the graviton. In fact the low energy theory was clearly not QCD but rather supergravity in 10 dimensions!

What is the mechanism which allows our 4-d space/time and yet is able to generate a non-zero mass gap for tensor glueballs? How can one “lower” the Pomeron intercept so that $`\alpha _P(0)`$ takes on its phenomenological value of $`1.11.2`$? The key ingredient turns out to be duality, which allows a dual description of QCD involving extra dimensions and a nontrivial background metric which breaks supersymmetries.

On the basis of Maldacena’s duality conjecture, a rich glueball spectrum can be computed at strong coupling. This recent development has led to the rebirth of active QCD string studies.

## 2  AdS/CFT duality for QCD

Indeed, there is a trivial kinematic advantage in having (at least) one extra dimension. A zero-mass graviton in 5-d has 5 (rather than 2) on-shell states, \[the little group for a lightlike vector $`p=(p_\mu ,p_5)=(p_5,0,0,0,p_5)`$ is $`SO(3)`$\]. Thus a single 5-d graviton can mimic the five spin-components for a 4-d massive $`2^{++}`$ glueball on the leading trajectory, if it propagates through a non-trivial “medium”. It is then possible that a graviton in 5-d, when seen from a 4-d perspective, becomes massive, thus leading to a Pomeron with an intercept less than 2.

This simple observation is at the heart of the modern approach. Maldacena’s conjecture begins with a full 10-d critical superstring with the backgrond “medium” provided dynamically as a solution to appropriate set of supergravity Einstein’s equation. The self-consistency of this approach presumably is critical to the still poorly understood mathematical framework required to prove Maldecena’s duality conjecture.

### 2.1 Mass Generation and Extra Dimensions

Before mentioning some technical details, let us demonstrate how the incorporation of extra-dimensions with a nontrivial background provides a natural mechanism for mass-generation. Consider a situation where the addition of a fifth-dimension, r, leads to a metric, $`ds^2=u(r)^2_{i=1,2,3,4}dx_i^2+w(r)^2dr^2`$, where $`w(r)`$ takes on an appropriate non-trivial form to be specified later. The wave equation for a minimally coupled massless scalar field is: $`\left\{_\mu ^2+\sigma (r)^1_r\tau (r)_r\right\}\varphi (x,r)=0,`$ where $`\tau (r)=u^4w`$ and $`\sigma (r)=u^2w^1`$. If one attempts to send a 4-d plane-wave with 4-momentum $`p_\mu `$, i.e., $`\varphi (x,r)=e^{ipx}\varphi (r)`$, one finds that $`\varphi (r)`$ satisfies an ordinary diferential equation

$$_r\tau (r)_r\varphi (r)=m^2\sigma (r)\varphi (r),$$
(1)
with $`p^2=m^2`$. This equation is of the standard Sturm-Liouville form, and the allowed $`m^2`$ values can be found by treating this as an eigenvalue problem. If $`\tau (r)`$ and $`\sigma (r)`$ could be chosen so that no massless mode exists, one would have massive propagation from a 4-d perspective.

### 2.2 AdS/BH Background for QCD

One example of this approach begins with type-IIB string theory leading to $`QCD_3`$ strings. We know that there are many extended solitonic objects beyond the perturbative string expansion. In particular in IIB, there are $`3+1`$ dimensional objects called Dirichlet 3-branes, (D3-branes), and the low-energy dynamics of a set of N parallel D3-branes is described by open strings with end-points restricted on these branes. Indeed the effective theory (or Born-Infeld action) reduces exactly to $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory at weak coupling. (To be exact, in the present context, the full target gauge theory is $`𝒩=4`$ SUSY YM in 4-d.) Note that one set of zero-mass states, the spin-1 gauge bosons, is no longer an embarassment as they represent the weakly coupled gluonic modes. Because of branes, YM theories live in dimensions less than 10.

The Maldacena conjecture states that both the open string/Yang-Mills and the closed string/gravity descriptions are simultaneously true or equivalent in the near horizon limit, where the above metric is $`AdS^5\times S^5`$. In this limit, the theory does not contain gravity, i.e., massless graviton decouples.

However this background is so symmetric that the resultant target Yang-Mills theory is conformal with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetries. Witten  has suggested a further modification to remove these unwanted symmetries. One imagines raising the “temperature” by compactifying one spatial co-ordinate on a circle, $`S^1`$, parallel to the brane, with anti-periodic fermionic boundary conditions to break SUSY. In the gravity language, the resultant background metric collapses into an $`AdS^5`$/black-hole, while on the gauge side the 4-d theory deconfines and lifts both the fermion masses and through quantum corrections the scalar masses to the “cut-off” scale provided by this temperature. At energies well below the cut-off in the weak coupling region, it is conjectured that one is left with a dimensionally reduced pure 3-d Yang-Mills theory or quarkless $`QCD_3`$.

To arrive at $`QCD_4`$ as the target theory, one begins with the eleven dimensional M theory on $`AdS^7\times S^4`$ or 10-d type-IIA string theory after compactifying the “eleventh” dimension (on a very small circle of radius $`R_0`$). Again following the suggestion by Witten, the “temperature” is raised with a second compact radius $`R_1`$ in a direction $`\tau `$ parallel to the type-IIA D4-branes. On the “thermal” circle, the fermionic modes have anti-periodic boundary conditions breaking conformal and all SUSY symmetries. Therefore, if all goes as conjectured, in the scaling limit $`g^2N=g_sN\beta /R_10`$ there should be a fixed point mapping type-IIA string theory in a background $`AdS^7`$/black-hole metric,

$$ds^2=f(r)d\tau ^2+r^2\underset{i=1,2,3,4,11}{}dx_i^2+f(r)^1dr^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(2)
$`f=r^2r^4`$, into pure $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills or quarkless $`QCD_4`$. Therefore, the threefold crisis mantioned earlier has now been resolved.

## 3 Wave Equations and Glueball Spectra

To compute the glueball excitations for $`QCD_4`$, in the extreme strong coupling limit, one simply needs to find the spectrum of harmonic fluctuations for the bosonic supergravity fields around these AdS/black-hole backgrounds. The “warp factor” in the radial “fifth” coordinate forms a “cavity” so that all modes are discrete and massive.

The goal is to compute all strong coupling states that might survive for $`QCD_4`$ in the scaling (weak coupling) limit. We therefore ignore throughout any Kaluza-Klein modes in compact manifolds (compactified $`S^1`$ co-ordinates in AdS or the Sphere $`S^4`$), which are charge states in their own superselection sector. To illustrate the approach consider metric fluctuations about the fixed $`AdS^7`$ background, $`G_{\mu \nu }=\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }(x),`$ where

$$h_{\mu \nu }(x)=H_{\mu \nu }(r)e^{ik_4x_4}.$$
(3)
With all other fields set to zero, we look for plane wave solutions with Minkowski time, $`t=ix_4`$ and discrete mass eigenvalues, $`m=ik_4`$.

Because of an accidental $`SO(4)`$ symmetry in $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_{11})`$ in strong coupling, the spectrum is degenerate when classified by spin under $`SO(3)`$. Here we exhibit explicitly the fluctuations leading to spin-2 tensor glueballs. There are five independent perturbations, $`h_{ij}=q_{ij}r^2T_4(r)e^{mx_4}`$, which form the spin-2 representations of $`SO(3)`$, where $`i,j=1,2,3`$ and $`q_{ij}`$ is an arbitrary constant traceless-symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix. $`T_4(r)`$ satisfies the free wave equation,

$$r(r^61)T_4^{\prime \prime }(r)+(7r^61)T_4^{}(r)+(m^2r^3)T_4(r)=0.$$
(4)
This equation can be expressed covariantly, as if one is dealing with a minimally coupled massless scalar field. In particular, the mass for the lowest tensor glueball can be obtained: $`m_T[9.86+0(\frac{1}{g^2N})]\beta ^1,`$ where $`\beta =2\pi R_1`$, with $`R_1`$ being the thermal radius. (We have adopted a simple normalization for the AdS/black-hole metric, e.g., for $`AdS^7`$, $`\overline{g}_{\tau \tau }=f(r)=r^2r^4`$. This corresponds to fixing the “thermal-radius” $`R_1=1/3`$ so that $`\beta =2\pi R_1=2\pi /3`$.) In general, $`\beta `$ serves as the mass scale in the strong coupling limit.

## 4 Pomeron in Strong Coupling

We have found  that there is indeed a rather remarkable correspondence of the overall mass and spin structure between the spectrum determined by lattice simulations at weak coupling and that captured by the lowest states for fluctuations associated with the type-IIA supergravity bosonic multiplet. The glueball mass calulations are based on the earlier work of several authors . This supports the belief that the Maldacena conjecture may well be correct and that further efforts to go beyond strong coupling are worthy of sustained effort. We note that for each value of $`PC=(++,+,+,)`$, the lowest state is present in approximately the right mass range .

At higher masses, the discrepancies increase. One reason is the obvious fact that on the supergravity side all orbital excitations of higher spin states are pushed to infinity in strong coupling by virtue of the divergent closed-string tension, $`\sigma =\frac{16\pi g^2N}{27\beta ^2}[\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+0(\frac{1}{g^2N})].`$ For example, a $`3^{++}`$ state is a purely stringy effect outside of the classical limit of supergravity.

Finally, we must emphasize that our comparison is premised on the neglect of many states in the strong coupling limit that are in the wrong superselection sector to survive in the weak coupling limit of QCD. A major challenge is to understand how this could be accomplished, e.g., by modifying or by adopting a differnt background metric.

We next comment on the intercept of the leading glueball trajectory as a way to estimate the crossover value for the bare coupling, where continuum physics might begin to hold. The Pomeron is the leading Regge trajectory passing through the lightest glueball state with $`J^{PC}=2^{++}`$. In a linear approximation, it can be parameterized by $`\alpha _P(t)=2+\alpha _P^{}(tm_T^2),`$ where our strong-coupling result provides for the lightest tensor mass. The Pomeron slope can be related to the QCD string tension, $`\alpha _P^{}[\frac{27}{32\pi ^2g^2N}+0(\frac{1}{g^4N^2})]\beta ^2.`$ Putting these together, we obtain a strong coupling expansion for the Pomeron intercept

$$\alpha _P(0)20.66(\frac{4\pi }{g^2N})+0(\frac{1}{g^4N^2}).$$
(5)
Turning above argument around would allow one to estimate a crossover value between the strong and weak coupling regimes by fixing $`\alpha _P(0)1.2`$ at its phenomenological value . In fact this yields for $`N=3`$ QCD a reasonable value for the fine structure constant: $`g^2/4\pi 0.176`$ at a characteristic confinement scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Such estimates have proven sensible in the lattice approach to strong coupling QCD. Much more experience with this new approach to strong coupling must be gained before such numerology can be taken seriously. However if it proves to be an accurate guide, one may be able to follow the general strategy used in lattice simulations. Postpone the difficult question of analytically solving the QCD string to find the true UV fixed point. Work at a fixed but physically reasonable cut-off scale and calculate the spectrum of QCD in the cut-off theory. If one is near enough to the fixed point, mass ratios should be reliable. After all, the real benefit of a weak/strong duality is to use each method in the domain where it provides the natural language. On the other hand, clearly from a fundamental point of view, finding analytical tools to understand the renormalized trajectory and prove asymptotic scaling within the context of the gauge invariant QCD string would also be a major achievement — an achievement that should include a proof of confinement itself.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Richard Brower and Samir Mathur for collaboration. This work was supported by DOE grant DE-FG02/19ER40688-(Task-A).

## References


text:
# Isomorphisms and Homeomorphisms of a Class of Graphs and Spaces 11footnote 1Work performed under the auspices of G.N.S.A.G.A. of C.N.R. of Italy; supported by the University of Bologna, funds for selected research topics. The work of the first author is supported by Brazilina funds of CNPq (Proc. 30.1103/80) and of Pronex (Project 107/97).

## 1 Introduction

Lins-Mandel spaces have been introduced in  as a direct combinatorial generalization of lens spaces, by a four parameter family of 4-coloured graphs. The encoded spaces $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ are closed orientable 3-manifolds, possibly with isolated singular points. This class of spaces have been extensively studied by several researchers (see , , , , , , , , , , , , ) and appears to be fairly rich, since it contains several interesting 3-manifolds (see ), such as the Poincaré homology sphere $`S(5,3,2,1)S(3,5,4,1)`$ , the Seifert-Weber hyperbolic dodecahedron space $`S(5,8,3,2)S(5,8,3,3)`$ , the euclidean Hantzsche-Wendt manifold $`S(3,5,2,1)`$ , the hyperbolic Fomenko-Matveev-Weeks manifold $`S(3,7,4,1)`$ , which is the hyperbolic 3-manifold with the smallest known volume, and also an infinite family of Brieskorn manifolds $`M(n,p,2)S(n,p,1,n1)`$ . The necessary and sufficient conditions on the four parameters of a Lins-Mandel coloured graph to encode a 3-manifold (i.e. to be a 3-gem) have been obtained in . Moreover,  shows that every Lins-Mandel manifold is a cyclic covering of $`𝐒^3`$, branched over a two-bridge knot or link.

In this paper we find the necessary and sufficient conditions for the isomorphism of Lins-Mandel gems. Actually, this problem has been studied in  for a particular subfamily of graphs, called crystallizations, but its results appear to be incorrect (see Remark 2).

We also present certain homeomorphisms of branched cyclic coverings of two-bridge hyperbolic links, obtained from results of Zimmermann  and Sakuma . As a consequence, we prove that, in several interesting cases, the isomorphism conditions for Lins-Mandel gems are equivalent to the homeomorphism conditions for the encoded 3-manifolds.

## 2 Isomorphisms of Lins-Mandel gems

Regarding the theory of PL-manifolds represented by edge-coloured graphs, we refer to  and . We recall that, in this theory, a $`(d+1)`$-coloured graph encodes a $`d`$-dimensional pseudo-manifold. When the encoded space is a manifold, the graph is called a $`d`$-gem. Notice that every manifold admits representation by gems.

The family of Lins-Mandel 4-coloured graphs

$$𝒢=\{G(n,p,q,m)n,p𝐙^+,q𝐙_{2p},m𝐙_n\}$$

has been defined in  by the following rules: the set of vertices of $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ is

$$V(G)=𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}$$

and the coloured edges are obtained by the following four fixed-point-free involutions $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ on $`V(G)`$

$$\epsilon _0(i,j)=(i+m\mu (jq),1j+2q),$$

$$\epsilon _1(i,j)=(i,j(1)^j),$$

$$\epsilon _2(i,j)=(i,j+(1)^j),$$

$$\epsilon _3(i,j)=(i+\mu (j),1j),$$

where $`\mu :𝐙_{2p}\{1,+1\}`$ is the function

$$\mu (j)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}+1\hfill & \text{ if }& 1jp\\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise}& \end{array}.$$

For each $`k\{0,1,2,3\}`$, the vertices $`v,wV(G)`$ are joined by a $`k`$-edge if and only if $`\epsilon _k(v)=w`$.

Roughly speaking, the graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ is constructed by taking $`n`$ copies $`C_i`$ of a bicoloured cycle of length $`2p`$ involving colours 1 and 2, for $`i𝐙_n`$, so that $`V(C_i)=\{(i,j)j𝐙_{2p}\}`$. The cycle $`C_i`$ is joined to the cycles $`C_{i\pm 1}`$ by $`3`$-edges, and to the cycles $`C_{i\pm m}`$ by $`0`$-edges.

Each $`G(n,p,q,m)𝒢`$ represents a 3-dimensional (possibly singular) manifold $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ and

$$𝒮=\{S(n,p,q,m)n,p𝐙^+,q𝐙_{2p},m𝐙_n\}$$

will be called the family of Lins-Mandel spaces. Since every $`G(n,p,q,m)𝒢`$ is bipartite, then every $`S(n,p,q,m)𝒮`$ is an orientable (singular) 3-manifold. The spaces $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`S(n,kp,kq,m)`$ are homeomorphic , therefore we shall assume $`\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)=1`$ in the following, without loss of generality.

In most cases $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ is a genuine manifold (i.e., without singular points).

###### Lemma 1

 The graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ is a 3-gem and therefore $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ is a 3-manifold if and only if either (i) $`p`$ is even or (ii) $`p`$ is odd and $`m=0,(1)^q`$.

Figures 1 and 2 show two examples of graphs of the family, both representing an interesting manifold. Observe that in the figures the (missing) 0-edges connect vertices labelled with the same letter.

Remark 1 The family of Lins-Mandel spaces has been introduced as a combinatorial generalization of lens spaces. In fact, for each $`p,q>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)=1`$, the spaces $`S(2,p,q,1)`$ and $`S(p,2,1,q)`$ are both homeomorphic to the lens space $`L(p,q)`$. Moreover, $`S(n,p,q,0)`$ and $`S(n,1,1,1)`$ are homeomorphic to $`𝐒^3`$, for every $`n,p>0`$ and $`q𝐙_{2p}`$.

Each graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ is defined by two different 4-tuples of parameters, as stated by the following:

###### Lemma 2

 The graphs $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q+p,m)`$ are equal.

Proof. Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ (resp. $`G(n,p,q+p,m)`$). Obviously, $`\epsilon _1^{}=\epsilon _1`$, $`\epsilon _2^{}=\epsilon _2`$ and $`\epsilon _3^{}=\epsilon _3`$. Moreover, we have $`\epsilon _0^{}(i,j)=(im\mu (jqp),1j+2q2p)=(i+m\mu (jq),1j+2q)=\epsilon _0(i,j)`$. 333Observe that $`\mu (j+p)=\mu (jp)=\mu (1j)=\mu (j)`$, for every $`j𝐙_{2p}`$.

Now we list the residues444If $`k^{},k^{\prime \prime }\{0,1,2,3\}`$, a $`\{k^{},k^{\prime \prime }\}`$-residue is a bicoloured cycle involving colours $`k^{}`$ and $`k^{\prime \prime }`$. of $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ (see ). When $`p`$ is even, the graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ contains:

* $`n`$ $`\{1,2\}`$-residues of length $`2p`$,
* $`n`$ $`\{0,3\}`$-residues of length $`2p`$,
* $`2`$ $`\{2,3\}`$-residues of length $`2n`$ and $`n(p2)/2`$ $`\{2,3\}`$-residues of length 4,
* $`2\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ $`\{0,1\}`$-residues of length $`2n/\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ and $`n(p2)/2`$ $`\{0,1\}`$-residues of length 4,
* $`np/2`$ $`\{1,3\}`$-residues of length $`4`$,
* $`np/2`$ $`\{0,2\}`$-residues of length $`4`$.

On the other hand, when $`p`$ is odd, the graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ contains:

* $`n`$ $`\{1,2\}`$-residues of length $`2p`$,
* $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m(1)^q)`$ $`\{0,3\}`$-residues of length $`2pn/\mathrm{gcd}(n,m(1)^q)`$,
* $`1`$ $`\{2,3\}`$-residue of length $`2n`$ and $`n(p1)/2`$ $`\{2,3\}`$-residues of length 4,
* $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ $`\{0,1\}`$-residue of length $`2n/\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ and $`n(p1)/2`$ $`\{0,1\}`$-residues of length 4,
* $`1`$ $`\{1,3\}`$-residue of length $`2n`$ and $`n(p1)/2`$ $`\{1,3\}`$-residues of length $`4`$,
* $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ $`\{0,2\}`$-residue of length $`2n/\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ and $`n(p1)/2`$ $`\{0,2\}`$-residues of length $`4`$.

An isomorphism between two Lins-Mandel graphs $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ is uniquely defined by a pair $`(f,\varphi )`$, where $`f:V(G)V(G^{})`$ is a bijection and $`\varphi `$ is a permutation of the colour set $`X=\{0,1,2,3\}`$, such that $`f\epsilon _k=\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f`$, for each $`k\{0,1,2,3\}`$. Actually, since $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ are connected, only $`\varphi `$ and the image $`f(v)`$ of a chosen vertex $`v`$ of $`G`$ are required. Of course, isomorphic graphs encode homeomorphic spaces.

The next three lemmas give the main isomorphisms of Lins-Mandel graphs. The proofs of these lemmas are rather technical and have been included in the Appendix.

###### Lemma 3

 $`G(n,p,q,m)G(n,p,q,m)`$.

###### Lemma 4

* If $`p`$ is even, then $`G(n,p,q,m)G(n,p,q^1,m)`$.
* If $`p`$ and $`q`$ are odd, then $`G(n,p,q,1)G(n,p,q^1,1)`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd and $`q`$ is even, then $`G(n,p,q,1)G(n,p,(q+p)^1+p,1)`$.

###### Lemma 5

 If $`(n,m)=1`$, then $`G(n,p,q,m)G(n,p,q,m^1)`$.

From Lemmas 2, 3, 4 and 5 we get:

###### Corollary 6

* If $`p`$ is even, $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$ and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array},$$

then $`G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`p`$ is even, $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array},$$

then $`G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd and $`q^{}\pm q^{\pm 1}`$ mod $`p`$, then $`G(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$.

Proof. Statements a’) and a”) follow from Lemmas 2, 3, 4 and 5. As regards part b), from the same lemmas we get:

* if $`q`$ is odd and $`q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1},\pm q^{\pm 1}+p`$, then $`G(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$;
* if $`q`$ is even and $`q^{}=\pm (q+p)^{\pm 1},\pm (q+p)^{\pm 1}+p`$, then $`G(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$.

It is easy to check that b’)$`+`$b”) is equivalent to b).

Since for either $`n2`$ or $`p2`$ or $`m=0`$, the corresponding space is trivial ($`𝐒^3`$ or a lens space), we are mainly interested in the cases $`n,p3`$ and $`m0`$.

###### Lemma 7

 Let $`n,p3`$. If $`G(n^{},p^{},q^{},m^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`G(n,p,q,m)`$, then $`n^{}=n`$ and $`p^{}=p`$.

Proof. As explained above, the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues of the graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ are exactly $`n`$ and they are all of length $`2p`$. When $`n,p3`$, the same property holds for the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues (and possibly for the $`\{0,3\}`$-residues) of $`G(n^{},p^{},q^{},m^{})`$ if and only if $`n^{}=n`$ and $`p^{}=p`$, while it does not hold for the other types of residues. This proves the statement.

The previous result does not hold when either $`n2`$ or $`p2`$. For example, $`G(2,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(p,2,1,q)`$ are isomorphic.

Corollary 6 can be reversed when $`n,p3`$; the next theorem completely describes the isomorphisms of these graphs.

###### Theorem 8

Assume $`n,p3`$.

* If $`p`$ is even and $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$, then $`G(n^{},p^{},q^{},m^{})G(n,p,q,m)`$ if and only if

$$n^{}=n,p^{}=p$$

and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array}.$$
* If $`p`$ is even and $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$, then $`G(n^{},p^{},q^{},m^{})G(n,p,q,m)`$ if and only if

$$n^{}=n,p^{}=p$$

and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array}.$$
* If $`p`$ is odd, then $`G(n^{},p^{},q^{},(1)^q^{})G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$ if and only if

$$n^{}=n,p^{}=p\text{and}q^{}\pm q^{\pm 1}\text{ mod }p.$$

Proof. The “if” part follows from Corollary 6. The “only if” part will be proved in the Appendix.

Observe that, for the second and the third parameter, the isomorphism conditions of part b) of Theorem 8 are the same as the homeomorphism conditions for lens spaces. This is not true for part a), since, in this case, the situation is complicated by the presence of the additional parameter $`m`$.

Remark 2 Proposition 4.1 of  states that, when $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$, the graphs $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ are isomorphic if and only if $`q^{}\pm q^{\pm 1}`$ mod $`p`$ and $`m^{}=\pm m^{\pm 1}`$. This result is incorrect when $`p`$ is even, since, for example, $`H_1\left(S(3,4,1,1)\right)𝐙_2𝐙_6`$ and $`H_1\left(S(3,4,5,1)\right)=H_1\left(S(3,4,1,2)\right)𝐙_3`$ (see Appendix of ).

Cases where $`p`$ is even are particularly interesting because the graph always represents a manifold without any restriction on $`m`$. From Theorem 8 we get:

###### Corollary 9

Let $`n,p,q`$ be fixed, with $`n,p3`$ and $`p`$ even. Then $`G(n,p,q,m^{})G(n,p,q,m)`$ if and only if

* $`m^{}=m`$,  when $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$ and $`q^2p\pm 1`$;
* $`m^{}=\pm m`$,  when $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$ and $`q^2=p\pm 1`$;
* $`m^{}=m^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ and $`q^2p\pm 1`$;
* $`m^{}=\pm m^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ and $`q^2=p\pm 1`$.

Proof. Since $`p2`$, $`\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)=1`$ and $`q`$ is odd, the condition $`q=\pm q+p`$ cannot be satisfied and the condition $`q=\pm q^1+p`$ is equivalent to $`q^2=\pm 1+p`$. This proves the statement.

## 3 Connections with branched cyclic coverings of two-bridge knots and links

A $`b`$-fold branched cyclic covering of an oriented $`\mu `$-component link $`L=_{i=1}^\mu L_i𝐒^3`$ is completely determined (up to equivalence) by assigning to each component $`L_i`$ an integer $`k_i𝐙_b\{0\}`$, such that the set $`\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_\mu \}`$ generates the group $`𝐙_b`$. The monodromy associated to the covering sends each meridian of $`L_i`$ to the permutation $`(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}b)^{k_i}\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$. By multiplying each $`k_i`$ by the same invertible element $`k`$ of $`𝐙_b`$, we get an equivalent covering.

Following  we shall call a branched cyclic covering:

* strictly-cyclic if $`k_i=k_j`$, for every $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},\mu \}`$,
* almost-strictly-cyclic if $`k_i=\pm k_j`$, for every $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},\mu \}`$,
* meridian-cyclic if $`\mathrm{gcd}(b,k_i)=1`$, for every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},\mu \}`$,
* singly-cyclic if $`\mathrm{gcd}(b,k_i)=1`$, for some $`i\{1,\mathrm{},\mu \}`$,
* monodromy-cyclic if it is cyclic.

The following implications are straightforward:

$$\text{ a) }\text{ b) }\text{ c) }\text{ d) }\text{ e) }.$$

Moreover, the five definitions are equivalent when $`L`$ is a knot.

If $`L`$ has two components and the branched covering is singly-cyclic, we can always suppose that $`k_1=1`$, up to equivalence and renumbering of the components of $`L`$. Therefore, the covering is completely determined by an integer $`k=k_2𝐙_b\{0\}`$.

Branched cyclic coverings of two-bridge knots and links are of great interest, since a double branched covering of a two-bridge knot or link is homeomorphic to a lens space (for notations and properties of two-bridge knots and links we refer to  and ). Let us denote by $`𝐛(\alpha ,\beta )`$ the two-bridge knot or link of type $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$. It is well known that $`𝐛(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is a knot when $`\alpha `$ is odd and a two-component link when $`\alpha `$ is even. Moreover, $`𝐛(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is hyperbolic if and only if it is not toroidal (that is, $`\beta \pm 1`$ mod $`\alpha `$). We denote by $`M_{b,k}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ the $`b`$-fold singly-cyclic branched covering of the link $`𝐛(\alpha ,\beta )`$ defined by $`k`$. Observe that the branched covering $`M_{b,k}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is strictly-cyclic if $`k=1`$, almost-strictly-cyclic if $`k=\pm 1`$ and meridian-cyclic if $`\mathrm{gcd}(b,k)=1`$.

From results of Zimmermann  and Sakuma  it is possible to obtain the homeomorphism conditions for these manifolds, when the covering is meridian-cyclic and the branching set is a hyperbolic link.

###### Theorem 10

Let $`b,\alpha ,\beta `$ be fixed, with $`\alpha `$ even and $`\beta \pm 1`$ mod $`\alpha `$. For $`\mathrm{gcd}(b,k)=1`$, the manifolds $`M_{b,k^{}}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`M_{b,k}(\alpha ,\beta )`$ are homeomorphic if and only if

* $`k^{}=k^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`\beta ^2\alpha \pm 1`$;
* $`k^{}=\pm k^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`\beta ^2=\alpha \pm 1`$.

Proof. Apply Theorem 1 of  (including the note (a) of page 293) and Theorem 4.1 of  (see tables of page 184).

Notice that, for the particular case of the Whitehead link $`𝐛(8,3)`$, the previous result is contained in  and .

The graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ has a rotational cyclic symmetry of order $`n`$, which sends each cycle $`C_i`$ onto $`C_{i+1}`$ (see details in Lemma 18). As a direct consequence, the space $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ also admits a cyclic symmetry. The next lemma states this important property.

###### Lemma 11

* If $`p`$ is even and $`m0`$, then $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ is homeomorphic to the singly-cyclic branched covering $`M_{n,m}(p,q)`$ of the two-bridge link $`𝐛(p,q)`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd, then $`S(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$ is the $`n`$-fold branched cyclic covering of the two-bridge knot $`𝐛(p,q)`$.

As a consequence of the previous result, the geometric structure of $`S(n,p,q,m)`$, when the branching set $`𝐛(p,q)`$ is a hyperbolic knot or link, can be obtained from Thurston  and Dunbar  results. Moreover, when the branching set is toroidal and $`m=(1)^q`$, then $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ turns out to be the Brieskorn manifold $`M(n,p,2)`$ (see  and ). Thus, we have the following result for the geometric structure of the manifold $`S(n,p,q,m)`$:

###### Proposition 12

Let $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ be a manifold.

* If $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ and $`q\pm 1`$ mod $`p`$, then $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ is hyperbolic for (i) $`p=5`$, $`n4`$ and (ii) $`p5`$, $`n3`$. Moreover, $`S(3,5,3,1)S(3,5,2,1)`$ is euclidean and $`S(2,p,q,1)`$ is spherical for all $`p,q`$.
* If $`q\pm 1`$ mod $`p`$, then $`S(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$ is spherical for $`n^1+p^1>1/2`$, a Nil-manifold for $`n^1+p^1=1/2`$ and a $`\stackrel{~}{SL}(2,𝐑)`$-manifold for $`n^1+p^1<1/2`$.

Proof. 1) See Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.3 of . 2) See .

## 4 Homeomorphisms of Lins-Mandel manifolds

Since isomorphic graphs encode homeomorphic spaces, from Corollary 6 we get the following homeomorphisms of Lins-Mandel manifolds:

###### Proposition 13

* If $`p`$ is even, $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$ and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m\hfill & \end{array},$$

then $`S(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ is homeomorphic to $`S(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`p`$ is even, $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ and

$$\text{ either }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array}\text{ or }\{\begin{array}{cc}q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}+p\hfill & \\ m^{}=m^{\pm 1}\hfill & \end{array},$$

then $`S(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ is homeomorphic to $`S(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd and $`q^{}\pm q^{\pm 1}`$ mod $`p`$, then $`S(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})`$ is homeomorphic to $`S(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$.

This proposition cannot be reversed, even when $`n,p3`$. For example,  shows that $`S(5,3,2,1)`$ and $`S(3,5,4,1)`$ are both homeomorphic to the Poincaré homology sphere.

Theorem 10 and Lemma 11 give us the possibility of partially translating the combinatorial results of Corollary 9 regarding graphs to the topological results for manifolds. In fact, we have:

###### Theorem 14

Let $`n,p,q`$ be fixed, with $`n,p3`$, $`p`$ even and $`q\pm 1`$ mod $`p`$. For $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$, the manifolds $`S(n,p,q,m^{})`$ and $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ are homeomorphic if and only if

* $`m^{}=m^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`q^2p\pm 1`$;
* $`m^{}=\pm m^{\pm 1}`$,  when $`q^2=p\pm 1`$.

Observe that Theorem 14 is only a partial analogue of Corollary 9. So it is natural to state the following:

Conjecture Let $`n,p,q`$ be fixed, with $`n,p3`$, $`p`$ even and $`q\pm 1`$ mod $`p`$. For $`(n,m)1`$, the manifolds $`S(n,p,q,m^{})`$ and $`S(n,p,q,m)`$ are homeomorphic if and only if

* $`m^{}=m`$, when $`q^2p\pm 1`$;
* $`m^{}=\pm m`$, when $`q^2=p\pm 1`$.

## 5 Appendix

In this section we give the proofs of Lemmas 3, 4 and 5 and complete the proof of Theorem 8.

Proof. of Lemma 3  Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ (resp. $`G^{}=G(n,p,q,m)`$). Moreover, let $`\varphi _1\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`f_1:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$ be the maps

$$\varphi _1=1,f_1(i,j)=(i,1j).$$

Since $`f_1^2=1`$, the map $`f_1`$ is a bijection. The pair $`(f_1,\varphi _1)`$ is an isomorphism between the graphs $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q,m)`$. In fact, we get:

* $`f_1\epsilon _0(i,j)=(im\mu (jq),j2q)`$;
* $`f_1\epsilon _1(i,j)=(i,1j+(1)^j)`$;
* $`f_1\epsilon _2(i,j)=(i,1j(1)^j)`$;
* $`f_1\epsilon _3(i,j)=(i\mu (j),j)`$;
* $`\epsilon _0^{}f_1(i,j)=(i+m\mu (1j+q),j2q)=(im\mu (jq),j2q)`$;
* $`\epsilon _1^{}f_1(i,j)=(i,1j(1)^{1j})=(i,1j+(1)^j)`$;
* $`\epsilon _2^{}f_1(i,j)=(i,1j+(1)^{1j})=(i,1j(1)^j)`$;
* $`\epsilon _3^{}f_1(i,j)=(i+\mu (1j),j)=(i\mu (j),j)`$.

In order to prove Lemma 4 we need some technical results.

###### Lemma 15

 Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ be the involutions defining the graph $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.

* If $`p`$ is even, then: (i) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _1=\epsilon _1\epsilon _3`$, (ii) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _2=\epsilon _2\epsilon _0`$, (iii) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _2(i,j)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _3(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`j0,1,p,p+1`$, (iv) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _1(i,j)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _0(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jq,q+1,q+p,q+p+1`$.
* If $`p`$ and $`q`$ are odd, then: (i) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _1(i,j)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _3(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jp,p+1`$, (ii) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _2(i,j)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _0(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jq+p,q+p+1`$, (iii) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _2(i,j)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _3(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`j0,1`$, (iv) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _1(i,j)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _0(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jq,q+1`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd and $`q`$ is even, then: (i) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _1(i,j)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _3(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jp,p+1`$, (ii) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _2(i,j)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _0(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jq,q+1`$, (iii) $`\epsilon _3\epsilon _2(i,j)=\epsilon _2\epsilon _3(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`j0,1`$, (iv) $`\epsilon _0\epsilon _1(i,j)=\epsilon _1\epsilon _0(i,j)`$ for every $`i`$ and for every $`jq+p,q+p+1`$.

###### Lemma 16

 If $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ has $`n`$ $`\{0,3\}`$-residues, then the $`2p`$ vertices of each $`\{0,3\}`$-residue have distinct second coordinates.

###### Lemma 17

Let $`(f,\varphi )`$ be an isomorphism between $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G^{}=G(n^{},p^{},q^{},m^{})`$ and let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G`$ (resp. defining $`G^{}`$). If $`\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f(i,j)=f\epsilon _k(i,j)`$ and $`(i^{},j^{})=\epsilon _k(i,j)`$, then $`\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f(i^{},j^{})=f\epsilon _k(i^{},j^{})`$.

Proof. We have $`f\epsilon _k(i^{},j^{})=f\epsilon _k\epsilon _k(i,j)=f(i,j)=\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f(i,j)=\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f\epsilon _k(i,j)=\epsilon _{\varphi (k)}^{}f(i^{},j^{})`$.

Define $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_{2p}`$ as the projection $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }(i,j)=j`$.

Proof. of Lemma 4 a) Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ (resp. $`G^{}=G(n,p,q^1,m)`$). Moreover, let $`\varphi _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`f_2:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$ be the maps

$$\varphi _2=(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}),f_2(i,j)=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _3^{})^{j/2}(i,0)\hfill & \text{if}& j& \text{is even}\\ \epsilon _3^{}(\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _3^{})^{(j1)/2}(i,0)\hfill & \text{if}& j& \text{is odd}\end{array}.$$

Since $`f_2`$ sends the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues of $`G`$ injectively onto the $`\{0,3\}`$-residues of $`G^{}`$, then it is a bijection. We claim that $`(f_2,\varphi _2)`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,m)`$. From the definition of $`f_2`$, we immediately get $`\epsilon _3^{}f_2=f_2\epsilon _2`$ and $`\epsilon _0^{}f_2=f_2\epsilon _1`$. A direct computation shows that $`f_2(i,j)=(i+h_j^{},jq^1)`$ if $`j`$ is even and $`f_2(i,j)=(i+h_j^{\prime \prime },1(j1)q^1)`$ if $`j`$ is odd, where $`h_j^{}`$ and $`h_j^{\prime \prime }`$ only depend on $`j`$. Since $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,0)=0`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,1)=1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,p)=p`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,p+1)=p+1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q)=q^1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+1)=q^1+1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+p)=q^1+p`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+p+1)=q^1+p+1`$, for every $`i𝐙_n`$, from Lemma 16 we get: $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{q^1,q^1+1,q^1+p,q^1+p+1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{q,q+1,q+p,q+p+1\}`$. Now we show, by induction, that (i’) $`\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,j)=f_2\epsilon _3(i,j)`$, for every $`(i,j)𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$. By Lemma 17 we only need to prove (i’) for $`(i,1),(i,2),\mathrm{},(i,p)`$. First of all, we have $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,1)=f_2(i+1,0)=(i1,0)`$ and $`\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,1)=\epsilon _2^{}(i1,1)=(i1,0)`$. Therefore, (i’) holds in $`(i,1)`$, for all $`i`$. Let us suppose that (i’) holds in $`(i,1),(i,2),\mathrm{},(i,k)`$, with $`1kp1`$. From Lemma 15 we get, if $`k`$ is odd, $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _3\epsilon _1(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _1\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}f_2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _0^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2\epsilon _1(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$ and, if $`k`$ is even, $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _3\epsilon _2(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}f_2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _3^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2\epsilon _2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$. Therefore, (i’) holds in $`(i,k+1)`$, for all $`i`$. Then we show, by induction, that (i”) $`\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,j)=f_2\epsilon _0(i,j)`$, for every $`(i,j)𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$. By Lemma 17 we only need to prove (i”) for $`(i,q+1),(i,q+2),\mathrm{},(i,q+p)`$. First of all, we have $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,q+1)=f_2(i+m,q)=(im+h_q^{\prime \prime },1(q1)q^1)=(im+h_q^{\prime \prime },q^1)`$ and $`\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,q+1)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2\epsilon _1(i,q)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _0^{}f_2(i,q)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _0^{}(i+h_q^{\prime \prime },q^1)=\epsilon _1^{}(im+h_q^{\prime \prime },1+q^1)=(im+h_q^{\prime \prime },q^1)`$. Therefore, (i”) holds in $`(i,q+1)`$, for all $`i`$. Let us suppose that (i”) holds in $`(i,q+1),(i,q+2),\mathrm{},(i,k)`$ with $`q+1kq+p1`$. From Lemma 15 we get, if $`k`$ is odd, $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _0\epsilon _1(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _1\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}f_2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _0^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2\epsilon _1(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$ and, if $`k`$ is even, $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _0\epsilon _2(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}f_2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _3^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2\epsilon _2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$. Therefore (i’) holds in $`(i,k+1)`$, for all $`i`$.

b’) Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G=G(n,p,q,1)`$ (resp. $`G^{}=G(n,p,q^1,1)`$). Moreover, let $`\varphi _2\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`f_2:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$ be the maps

$$\varphi _2=(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3}),f_2(i,j)=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _0^{})^{j/2}(i,q^1+1)\hfill & \text{if}& j& \text{is even}\\ \epsilon _0^{}(\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _0^{})^{(j1)/2}(i,q^1+1)\hfill & \text{if}& j& \text{is odd}\end{array}.$$

Since $`f_2`$ sends the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues of $`G`$ injectively onto the $`\{0,3\}`$-residues of $`G^{}`$, then it is a bijection. We claim that $`(f_2,\varphi _2)`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,1)`$. From the definition of $`f_2`$, we immediately get $`\epsilon _3^{}f_2=f_2\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _0^{}f_2=f_2\epsilon _2`$. A direct computation shows that $`f_2(i,j)=(i+l_j^{},1(j1)q^1)`$ if $`j`$ is even and $`f_2(i,j)=(i+l_j^{\prime \prime },jq^1)`$ if $`j`$ is odd, where $`l_j^{}`$ and $`l_j^{\prime \prime }`$ only depend on $`j`$. Since $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,0)=q^1+1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,1)=q^1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,p)=p`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,p+1)=p+1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q)=1`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+1)=0`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+p)=q^1+p`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,q+p+1)=q^1+p+1`$, for every $`i𝐙_n`$, from Lemma 16 we get: $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{0,1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{q,q+1\}`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{p,p+1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{p,p+1\}`$, $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{q^1,q^1+1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{0,1\}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f_2(i,j)\{q^1+p,q^1+p+1\}`$ if and only if $`j\{q+p,q+p+1\}`$. Now we show, by induction, that (i’) $`\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,j)=f_2\epsilon _3(i,j)`$, for every $`(i,j)𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$. By Lemma 17 we only need to prove (i’) for $`(i,1),(i,2)\mathrm{},(i,p)`$. First of all, we have $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,1)=f_2(i+1,0)=(i1,q^1+1)`$ and $`\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,1)=\epsilon _1^{}(i1,q^1)=(i1,q^1+1)`$. Therefore, (i’) holds in $`(i,1)`$, for all $`i`$. Let us suppose that (i’) holds in $`(i,1),(i,2),\mathrm{},(i,k)`$ with $`1kp1`$. From Lemma 15 we get, if $`k`$ is odd, $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _3\epsilon _1(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _1\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}f_2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _3^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2\epsilon _1(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$ and, if $`k`$ is even, $`f_2\epsilon _3(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _3\epsilon _2(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}f_2\epsilon _3(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}\epsilon _0^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2\epsilon _2(i,k)=\epsilon _1^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$. Therefore, (i’) holds in $`(i,k+1)`$, for all $`i`$. Then we show, by induction, that (i”) $`\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,j)=f_2\epsilon _0(i,j)`$, for every $`(i,j)𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$. By Lemma 17 we only need to prove (i”) for $`(i,q+1),(i,q+2),\mathrm{},(i,q+p)`$. First of all, we have $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,q+1)=f_2(i1,q)=(i+1+l_q^{\prime \prime },1)`$ and $`\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,q+1)=\epsilon ^{}2f_2\epsilon _1(i,q)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _3^{}f_2(i,q)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _3^{}(i+l_q^{\prime \prime },1)=\epsilon _2^{}(i+1+l_q^{\prime \prime },0)=(i+1+l_q^{\prime \prime },1)`$. Therefore, (i”) holds in $`(i,q+1)`$, for all $`i`$. Let us suppose that (i”) holds in $`(i,q+1),(i,q+2),\mathrm{},(i,k)`$ with $`q+1kq+p1`$. From Lemma 15 we get, if $`k`$ is odd, $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _0\epsilon _1(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _1\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}f_2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _3^{}\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _3^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2\epsilon _1(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$ and, if $`k`$ is even, $`f_2\epsilon _0(i,k+1)=f_2\epsilon _0\epsilon _2(i,k)=f_2\epsilon _2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}f_2\epsilon _0(i,k)=\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _0^{}f_2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2\epsilon _2(i,k)=\epsilon _2^{}f_2(i,k+1)`$. Therefore, (ii’) holds in $`(i,k+1)`$, for all $`i`$.

b”) Follows directly from point b’) and Lemma 2.

Proof. of Lemma 5  Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ (resp. $`G^{}=G(n,p,q,m^1)`$). Moreover, let $`\varphi _3\mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`f_3:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$ be the maps

$$\varphi _3=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is odd}\\ (\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is even}\end{array},f_3(i,j)=(m^1i,1+qj).$$

It is easy to check that the map $`g:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$, defined by $`g(i,j)=(mi,1+qj)`$, is the inverse map of $`f_3`$; therefore, $`f_3`$ is a bijection. The pair $`(f_3,\varphi _3)`$ is an isomorphism between $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$. In fact we get:

* $`f_3\epsilon _0(i,j)=(m^1i\mu (jq),jq)`$;
* $`f_3\epsilon _1(i,j)=(m^1i,1+qj+(1)^j)`$;
* $`f_3\epsilon _2(i,j)=(m^1i,1+qj(1)^j)`$;
* $`f_3\epsilon _3(i,j)=(m^1im^1\mu (j),q+j)`$;
* $`\epsilon _0^{}f_3(i,j)=(m^1i+m^1\mu (1j),q+j)=(m^1im^1\mu (j),q+j)`$;
* $`\epsilon _1^{}f_3(i,j)=(m^1i,1+qj(1)^{1+qj})=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(m^1i,1+qj+(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is even}\\ (m^1i,1+qj(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is odd}\end{array}`$;
* $`\epsilon _2^{}f_3(i,j)=(m^1i,1+qj+(1)^{1+qj})=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(m^1i,1+qj(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is even}\\ (m^1i,1+qj+(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& q& \text{is odd}\end{array}`$;
* $`\epsilon _3^{}f_3(i,j)=(m^1i+\mu (1+qj),jq)=(m^1i\mu (jq),jq)`$.

In order to prove Theorem 8 we need some preparatory results.

###### Lemma 18

Let $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_X`$ and $`r,s:𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}𝐙_n\times 𝐙_{2p}`$ be the maps

$$\sigma =\{\begin{array}{cccc}1\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is even}\\ (\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is odd}\end{array},r(i,j)=(i+1,j),s(i,j)=(i,p+j).$$

Then $`(r,1)`$ and $`(s,\sigma )`$ are automorphisms of $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.

Proof. Since $`r^n=1=s^2`$, both $`r`$ and $`s`$ are bijections. Then we have:

* $`\epsilon _0r(i,j)=(i+1+m\mu (jq),1j+2q)=r\epsilon _0(i,j)`$,
* $`\epsilon _1r(i,j)=(i+1,j(1)^j)=r\epsilon _1(i,j)`$,
* $`\epsilon _2r(i,j)=(i+1,j+(1)^j)=r\epsilon _2(i,j)`$,
* $`\epsilon _3r(i,j)=(i+1+\mu (j),1j)=r\epsilon _3(i,j)`$.
* $`\epsilon _0s(i,j)=(im\mu (jq),1+pj+2q)`$,
* $`\epsilon _1s(i,j)=(i,p+j(1)^{p+j})=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(i,p+j(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is even}\\ (i,p+j+(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is odd}\end{array}`$;
* $`\epsilon _2s(i,j)=(i,p+j+(1)^{p+j})=\{\begin{array}{cccc}(i,p+j+(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is even}\\ (i,p+j(1)^j)\hfill & \text{if}& p& \text{is odd}\end{array}`$;
* $`\epsilon _3s(i,j)=(i\mu (j),1j+p)`$,
* $`s\epsilon _0(i,j)=(im\mu (jq),1+pj+2q)`$,
* $`s\epsilon _1(i,j)=(i,j+p(1)^j`$,
* $`s\epsilon _2(i,j)=(i,j+p+(1)^j`$,
* $`s\epsilon _3(i,j)=(i\mu (j),1j+p)`$.

###### Lemma 19

Let $`(f,\varphi )`$ be an isomorphism between the graphs $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$, with $`n,p3`$.

* If $`p`$ is even and $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)1`$ then $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f(0,0)\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$.
* If $`p`$ is even and $`\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)=1`$ then $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$ and (i) $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f(0,0)\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$ if $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$, (ii) $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f(0,0)\{q^{},q^{}+1,q^{}+p,q^{}+p+1\}`$ if $`\varphi \{(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$.
* If $`p`$ is odd then $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}3\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2\hspace{0.17em}3\hspace{0.17em}1})\}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }f(0,0)\{0,1,q^{},q^{}+1,p,p+1,q^{}+p,q^{}+p+1\}`$.

Proof. First of all, observe that the vertex $`(0,0)`$ of $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ lies in a $`\{2,3\}`$-residue of length $`2n`$. All the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues (resp. the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues) of $`G`$ are mapped by any isomorphism either to the $`\{1,2\}`$-residues or to the $`\{0,3\}`$-residues of $`G^{}=G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$.

a’) Each of the two $`\{2,3\}`$-residues of length $`2n`$ is mapped to a $`\{2,3\}`$-residue (where each vertex has second coordinate $`j\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$) and each of the two $`\{0,1\}`$-residues of length $`2n/\mathrm{gcd}(n,m)`$ is mapped to a $`\{0,1\}`$-residue.

a”) Each of the two $`\{2,3\}`$-residues (resp. the two $`\{0,1\}`$-residues) of length $`2n`$ is mapped either to a $`\{2,3\}`$-residue (where each vertex has second coordinates $`j\{0,1,p,p+1\}`$) or to a $`\{0,1\}`$-residue (where each vertex has second coordinates $`j\{q^{},q^{}+1,q^{}+p,q^{}+p+1\}`$).

b) The $`\{2,3\}`$-residue, the $`\{1,3\}`$-residue, the $`\{0,1\}`$-residue and the $`\{0,2\}`$-residue of length $`2n`$ are mapped to either the $`\{2,3\}`$-residue or the $`\{1,3\}`$-residue or the $`\{0,1\}`$-residue or the $`\{0,2\}`$-residue. Since each vertex of these four residues has second coordinate $`j\{0,1,q^{},q^{}+1,p,p+1,q^{}+p,q^{}+p+1\}`$), the statement holds.

Proof. of Theorem 8 (“only if” part:) From Lemma 7 we get $`n^{}=n`$ and $`p^{}=p`$. Let $`\epsilon _0,\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3`$ (resp. $`\epsilon _0^{},\epsilon _1^{},\epsilon _2^{},\epsilon _3^{}`$) be the involutions defining either $`G=G(n,p,q,m)`$ or $`G=G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$ (resp. either $`G^{}=G(n,p,q^{},m^{})`$ or $`G^{}=G(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})`$) and let $`f_1,f_2,f_3`$ be the bijections defined in Lemma 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Moreover, observe that the pairs $`(r,1)`$ and $`(s,\sigma )`$ defined in Lemma 18 are automorphisms of both $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$.

a’) If $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ then, by Lemma 19, $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$ and, up to the action of $`r`$ and $`s`$, we can suppose $`f(0,0)=(0,j)`$ with $`j\{0,1\}`$. Then we have the following four cases:

* If $`f(0,0)=(0,0)`$ and $`\varphi =1`$, then $`f=1`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an automorphism of $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,0)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f=f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,m)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1)`$ and $`\varphi =1`$, then $`f=f_1`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q,m)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f=f_1f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,m)`$.

a”) If $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ then, by Lemma 19, $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$ and, up to the action of $`r`$ and $`s`$, we can suppose $`f(0,0)=(0,j)`$, with $`j\{0,1\}`$ if $`\varphi \{1,(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$ and with $`j\{q^{},q^{}+1\}`$ if $`\varphi \{(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}),(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})\}`$. Then we have the four cases of the previous point and the following four cases: (i’) $`f(0,0)=(0,1+q^{})`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})`$; (ii’) $`f(0,0)=(0,1+q^{})`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})`$; (iii’) $`f(0,0)=(0,q^{})`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})`$ and (iv’) $`f(0,0)=(0,q^{})`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})`$. In (i’), if $`j`$ is even (resp. if $`j`$ is odd) we get $`f(i,j)=f(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)^{j/2}(\epsilon _3\epsilon _2)^i(0,0)=(\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _1^{})^{j/2}(\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _1^{})^if(0,0)=(\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _1^{})^{j/2}(m^{}i,1+q^{})=(m^{}i,1+q^{}j)`$ (resp. $`f(i,j)=f\epsilon _2(\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)^{(j1)/2}(\epsilon _3\epsilon _2)^i(0,0)=\epsilon _1^{}(\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _1^{})^{(j1)/2}(\epsilon _0^{}\epsilon _1^{})^if(0,0)=\epsilon _1^{}(\epsilon _2^{}\epsilon _1^{})^{(j1)/2}(m^{}i,1+q^{})=(m^{}i,1+q^{}j)`$). Since $`f\epsilon _0(i,j)=(m^{}im^{}m\mu (jq),j+q^{}2q)`$ and $`\epsilon _3^{}f(i,j)=(m^{}i\mu (jq^{}),jq^{})`$, we get $`q^{}=q`$, $`m^{}=m^1`$, and therefore $`f=f_3`$. Case (ii’) is a composition of cases (i’) and (ii), case (iii’) is a composition of cases (i’) and (iii), case (iv’) is a composition of cases (i’) and (iv). Therefore, we have:

* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1+q)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})`$, then $`f=f_3`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q,m^1)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1+q)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f=f_3f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,m^1)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,q)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}3})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2})`$, then $`f`$ is the map $`f_3f_1`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q,m^1)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,q)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}2})(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f`$ is the map $`f_3f_1f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,m)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,m^1)`$.

b) The pair $`(f_3,(\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}))`$ is an automorphism of $`G^{}`$. Therefore, if $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ then, up to the action of $`r`$, $`s`$ and $`f_3`$, we can suppose that $`f(0,0)=(0,j)`$, with $`j\{0,1\}`$. By this assumption, $`f`$ sends the $`\{2,3\}`$-residue of $`G`$ onto the $`\{2,3\}`$-residue of $`G^{}`$ and therefore either $`\varphi =1`$ or $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})`$. We have four cases:

* If $`f(0,0)=(0,0)`$ and $`\varphi =1`$, then $`f=1`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an automorphism of $`G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,0)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f=f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,1)`$ (resp. between $`G(n,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(n,p,(q+p)^1+p,1)`$) if $`q`$ is odd (resp. even).
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1)`$ and $`\varphi =1`$, then $`f=f_1`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$ and $`G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$.
* If $`f(0,0)=(0,1)`$ and $`\varphi =(\mathrm{0\hspace{0.17em}1})(\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3})`$, then $`f=f_1f_2`$ and $`(f,\varphi )`$ is an isomorphism between $`G(n,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(n,p,q^1,1)`$ (resp. between $`G(n,p,q,1)`$ and $`G(n,p,(q+p)^1+p,1)`$) if $`q`$ is odd (resp. even).

Therefore, if $`G(n,p,q^{},(1)^q^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`G(n,p,q,(1)^q)`$, then ($``$) $`q^{}=\pm q^{\pm 1}`$ when $`q`$ is odd and ($``$) $`q^{}=\pm (q+p)^{\pm 1}+p`$ when $`q`$ is even. Since ($``$) $`+`$ ($``$) is equivalent to $`q^{}\pm q^{\pm 1}`$ mod $`p`$, our proof is completed.

SÓSTENES LINS, Departamento de Matemàtica, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife-PE, BRAZIL. E-mail: sostenes@dmat.ufpe.br

MICHELE MULAZZANI, Dipartimento di Matematica and C.I.R.A.M., Università di Bologna, I-40127 Bologna, ITALY. E-mail: mulazza@dm.unibo.it