text:
# Lattice gauge theories and the Florentino conjecture

## 1 Introduction

Two boundary cases of gauge theories are extremely useful for explorations: gauge theory with a discrete gauge group (see Freed and Quinn ) and gauge theory over a discrete space, usually called a “lattice model”. Pragmatically, such lattice models are required as a test of the concepts. In this paper we explore from a “theoretical” point of view the second case: gauge theory on graphs, more precisely, on trivalent graphs.

At the end of \[1, Seminar 6\], Michael Atiyah proposed a programme to make sense of the functional integral of Chern–Simons theory for finite level $`k`$ in a rigorous way. Because direct attempt at the analysis is extremely difficult he proposed to think of connections in purely combinatorial terms. In particular using a discrete analogue of gauge theory, one should express the Chern–Simons functional in a combinatorial framework. For this, we investigated geometric properties of the phase map in . On the other hand, we extended to spin networks all the constructions of TQFT concerning Wilson loops (knots). This made possible a partial realization of Atiyah’s programme using trivalent graphs instead of loops.

Unfortunately we don’t have enough space to recall all the details of this treatment. See  and , from which the current paper derives.

Our starting point is of course exactly the same as in a number of texts about CFT, quantum gravity and spin networks. Our previous paper  contains a brief survey of mathematical aspects of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-spin networks of genus $`g`$. Here we extend the study of the “pumping trick” geometry to obtain a close relation between gauge theory on graphs and gauge theory on Riemann surfaces. The construction and results can be summarized as follow. Any graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines a handlebody $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, that is, a 3-manifold with boundary a Riemann surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by pumping up the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to tubes and the vertices to small 2-spheres with 3 holes. To investigate the relation between the space of classes of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-representations of the fundamental group of the Riemann surface $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we construct the partial gauge fixing in the latter gauge theory. As an application of this gauge fixing we get the proof of the Florentino conjecture.

To be concrete we only consider trivalent graphs and start by recalling some foundations of graph geometry in a form that is convenient for us.

## 2 Geometry of trivalent graphs

Write $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for the set of edges and vertices of a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$ for the set of edges out of $`v`$. Write $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{ve\}`$ and $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for the set of flags and loops of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where a flag is an edge with a fixed end, and a loop is an edge with only one vertex. The latter set is a subset $`L(\mathrm{\Gamma })E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and sending a loop to its vertex gives the map $`v:L(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ which is an embedding:

$$L(\mathrm{\Gamma })=v(L(\mathrm{\Gamma }))V(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(2.1)
because we only consider trivalent graphs.

The two projections $`e:F(\mathrm{\Gamma })E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`v:F(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are ramified covers of degree 2 and 3 having the same ramification locus $`W_e=W_vF(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, consisting of pairs $`ve`$ where the edge $`e`$ is a loop. The branch loci of these covers are

$$R_e=L(\mathrm{\Gamma })E(\mathrm{\Gamma })\text{and}R_v=v(L(\mathrm{\Gamma }))V(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(2.2)
Write $`||`$ for the number of elements of a finite set. Then

$$2|E(\mathrm{\Gamma })||L(\mathrm{\Gamma })|=|F(\mathrm{\Gamma })|=3|V(\mathrm{\Gamma })||L(\mathrm{\Gamma })|.$$
(2.3)
Hence $`|V(\mathrm{\Gamma })|=2g2`$ and $`|E(\mathrm{\Gamma })|=3g3`$, where $`g>1`$ is a certain integer called the genus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

A path of length 1 in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is just an oriented edge $`\stackrel{}{e}`$. Let $`P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the set of paths of length 1 in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Reversing the orientation of an edge $`e`$ defines an involution

$$i_e:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(2.4)
These edgewise involutions generate a group $`O(\mathrm{\Gamma })=_2^{3g3}`$ acting on $`P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, with quotient

$$P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })/O(\mathrm{\Gamma })=E(\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(2.5)
and the corresponding map

$$O:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })E(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(2.6)
Any section

$$o:E(\mathrm{\Gamma })P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(2.7)
of this map is called an orientation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The group $`O(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contains a diagonal involution

$$i_\mathrm{\Delta }:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(2.8)
reversing the orientation of all 1-paths.

Around every vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ there are three local edges $`e_1,e_2,e_3`$ or three local paths $`\stackrel{}{e}(v)_1,\stackrel{}{e}(v)_2,\stackrel{}{e}(v)_3`$ (local means that a priori two of them can be part of a loop) or local flags. Let $`P_1^v`$ be the set of 1-paths with a vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The orientation forgetting projection $`f`$ sends $`P_1^v`$ to $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$.

Every path $`\stackrel{}{e}P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ defines two vertices

$$v_s(\stackrel{}{e}),v_t(\stackrel{}{e})V(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(2.9)
the target and the source ends of an arrow. Of course

$$eL(\mathrm{\Gamma })v_s(\stackrel{}{e})=v_t(\stackrel{}{e}).$$

but even such vertex admits two local flags $`\stackrel{}{e}_s\stackrel{}{e}_t`$.

###### Definition 2.1

A section $`o`$ is called a decay orientation if every vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a target and a source for its local edges.

More precisely, any orientation $`o`$ defines a section of the projection $`f:P_1^vE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$ for any vertex $`v`$. This section must have two arrows with opposite orientation.

We have maps

$$\begin{array}{c}v_s:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma }),v_t:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\\ (v_s\times v_t):P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\times V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\end{array}$$
(2.10)
and the intersection of the image with the diagonal

$$(v_s\times v_t)(P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))V(\mathrm{\Gamma })_\mathrm{\Delta }=v(L(\mathrm{\Gamma })).$$
(2.11)
A path of length $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an ordered sequence $`\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d`$ of oriented edges such that for every number $`i`$

$$v_t(\stackrel{}{e}_i)=v_s(\stackrel{}{e}_{i+1}).$$
(2.12)
Let $`P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the set of paths of length $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Every path $`(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ defines two vertices

$$v_s(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d),\text{and}v_t(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)V(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(2.13)
the source and target of a path; this defines maps

$$\begin{array}{c}v_s:P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma }),v_t:P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\\ (v_s\times v_t):P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\times V(\mathrm{\Gamma }).\end{array}$$
(2.14)
The inverse image of the intersection with the diagonal

$$L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })=(v_s\times v_t)^1(V(\mathrm{\Gamma })_\mathrm{\Delta })$$
(2.15)
is the set of loops of length $`d`$. In particular,

$$L_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=L(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

For a vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we have the set of loops

$$L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=(v_s\times v_t)^1(v)$$
(2.16)
and the union

$$L_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=\underset{d=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v$$
(2.17)
admits a group structure. This is the combinatorial fundamental group

$$\pi _1^C(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=L_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v$$
(2.18)
of our graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is easy to check

###### Proposition 2.2

1. The combinatorial fundamental group $`\pi _1^C(\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)`$ is equal to the usual fundamental group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)`$,
2. the usual fundamental group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is the free group with $`g`$ generators, where $`g`$ is genus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Indeed, contracting $`2g3`$ simple edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ gives a bouquet of $`g`$ circles.

Now consider the $``$-module $`V^{}`$ of all formal linear combinations of vertices of $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with coefficients in $``$. Then any graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of genus $`g`$ can be represented as an endomorphism (matrix)

$$q_\mathrm{\Gamma }:V^{}V^{}$$
(2.19)
with coefficient $`\alpha _{v_i,v_j}=`$ the number of edges joining $`v_i`$ and $`v_j`$. Thus every graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines an integer quadratic form $`q_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the $``$-module $`V^{}`$. For example,

for the genus 2 loop free graph $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$: $`q_\mathrm{\Theta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 3\\ 3& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.20)
for the 2-loop graph of genus 2: $`q_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 1& 2\end{array}\right)`$ (2.21)
for the genus 3 multi-theta graph: $`q_{\mathrm{\Theta }_3}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 2& 1& 0\\ 2& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 2\\ 0& 1& 2& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (2.22)
(see Figure 1, p. 4.4). All the coefficients are nonnegative, and for a trivalent graph, the sum of the coefficients along every row and column is equal to 3.

The permutation group $`S_{2g2}`$ acts on $`V_{2g2}`$ by renumbering the vertices, and transforms matrices of the quadratic forms.

###### Definition 2.3

As usual, a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is hyperbolic if there are two subsets $`V_+,V_{}V_{2g2}`$ such that the subspaces $`V_\pm ^{}`$ are isotropic with respect to $`q_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

For such a graph the matrix $`q_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the block form

$$q_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& & \\ 0& 0& & \\ & & 0& 0\\ & & 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.23)
where the blocks

$$\frac{1}{2}q_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ & \end{array}\right)\mathrm{Hom}(V_+^{},V_{}^{})$$
(2.24)
satisfy the same conditions on rows and columns as before. In this case the set of edges $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ can be presented as a collection of triples

$$E(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\underset{vV_+}{}E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v$$
(2.25)
and we have the map

$$v_+:E(\mathrm{\Gamma })V_+$$
(2.26)
which defines an orientation

$$o_{V_+}:E(\mathrm{\Gamma })P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(2.27)
If our graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is connected then this is a decay orientation (see Definition 3.1).

Recall that the $``$-module of formal linear combimations over $``$ of trivalent graphs is an algebra with respect to the multiplication induced by disjoint union of graphs. For example,

$$q_{\mathrm{\Theta }^2}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 3& 0& 0\\ 3& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 3\\ 0& 0& 3& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2.28)
and so on.

## 3 $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-gauge theory on trivalent graphs

### 3.1 Space of connections

A connection $`a`$ on the trivial $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-bundle on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a map

$$a:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{SU}(2)$$
(3.1)
such that for the involution (2.5) we have

$$a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1.$$
(3.2)
Then the “path integral” is given by

$$a(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)=a(\stackrel{}{e}_1)\mathrm{}a(\stackrel{}{e}_d)\mathrm{SU}(2),$$
(3.3)
that is, it defines a map

$$a:P_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{SU}(2)$$
(3.4)
such that for the orientation reversing involution $`i_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have

$$a(i(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d))=a(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)^1.$$
(3.5)
In the same vein we have the monodromy map for loops

$$a:L_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{SU}(2).$$
(3.6)
Obviously every connection is flat.

Let $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the space of connections, that is, the space of functions (3.1) subject to the constraint (3.2):

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{a\mathrm{SU}(2)^{P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })}|a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1\}.$$
(3.7)
### 3.2 Gauge transformations group

Every element $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of the gauge transformations group $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a function

$$\stackrel{~}{g}:V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{SU}(2),$$
(3.8)
that is,

$$𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{SU}(2)^{V(\mathrm{\Gamma })}$$
(3.9)
with componentwise multiplication. This group acts on the space of connections $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by the rule

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(a(\stackrel{}{e}))=\stackrel{~}{g}(v_s(\stackrel{}{e}))a(\stackrel{}{e})\stackrel{~}{g}(v_t(i(\stackrel{}{e}))).$$
(3.10)
Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{g}(v_t(i(\stackrel{}{e})))=\stackrel{~}{g}(v_t(\stackrel{}{e}))^1.`$

The space of gauge orbits

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.11)
is the space of representation classes of the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as expected, because all our connections are flat:

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })),$$
(3.12)
where as usual for a group $`G`$

$$\mathrm{Rep}(G)=\mathrm{Hom}(G,\mathrm{SU}(2))$$
(3.13)
is the space of representations and the quotient by the adjoint action

$$\mathrm{CLRep}(G)=\mathrm{Hom}(G,\mathrm{SU}(2))/\mathrm{Ad}\mathrm{SU}(2)$$
(3.14)
is the space of representation classes.

Now the gauge transformation group $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ contains the diagonal subgroup

$$\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.15)
of constant functions (3.8). The action of this subgroup defines the space of constant orbits

$$\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })/\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(3.16)
For every vertex $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we have the subgroup

$$𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=\left\{\stackrel{~}{g}𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })\right|\stackrel{~}{g}(v)=\mathrm{id}\}$$
(3.17)
of gauge transformations preserving the framing at $`v`$. This is a normal subgroup, and

$$𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(3.18)
Thus the full group of gauge transformations is the semidirect product of $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$ and $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The quotient

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v=\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma },v))$$
(3.19)
is the orbit space of connections framed at $`v`$; this space depends on the choice of $`v`$.

Thus the quotient map (3.12)

$$P:𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))$$
(3.20)
can be decomposed as follows

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{𝑃}{}\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))\stackrel{/\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))$$
(3.21)
or

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{/\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{P_{cl}}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })).$$
(3.22)
The involution $`i_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acts on the space $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of connections

$$i_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.23)
and there exists an element

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.24)
such that

$$i_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\stackrel{~}{g}_i.$$
(3.25)
(Here $`i=\sqrt{1}`$.) Thus the involution $`i_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ (3.23) acts trivially on $`\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Recall that a gauge fixing is a section of the projection $`P`$ (3.20).

###### Definition 3.1

A partial gauge fixing is a section

$$s:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

### 3.3 The map $`\mathrm{conj}`$

Recall that the set $`\mathrm{Conj}(\mathrm{SU}(2))`$ of conjugacy classes of elements of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ can be described as the interval $`[0,1]`$ with the map

$$\mathrm{conj}:\mathrm{SU}(2)\mathrm{Conj}(\mathrm{SU}(2))=[0,1]$$
(3.26)
that sends a matrix $`g\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ to

$$\mathrm{conj}g=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{cos}^1\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}g\right)[0,1].$$
(3.27)
Using this map coordinatewise gives the map

$$\mathrm{conj}:\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })[0,1]^{3g3}=\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e,$$
(3.28)
which is obviously surjective; it is the composite

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })[0,1]^{3g3}=\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e,$$
(3.29)
and the involution $`i_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ preserves its fibers.

### 3.4 Abelian gauge theory

Abelian gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a good model for non-Abelian gauge theory. A $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$-connection $`a`$ is a map

$$a:P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{U}(1)$$
(3.30)
such that

$$a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1.$$
(3.31)
The “path integral” is given by

$$a(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)=\underset{\stackrel{}{e}P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}a(\stackrel{}{e})\mathrm{U}(1),$$
(3.32)
and so on. Let

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{a\mathrm{U}(1)^{P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })}|a(i_e(\stackrel{}{e}))=a(\stackrel{}{e})^1\}.$$
(3.33)
be the space of $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$-connections. Then we have the same involution

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{i_e^{}}{}𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(3.34)
Every element $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ of the gauge transformations group $`𝒢_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a function

$$\stackrel{~}{u}:V(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{U}(1).$$
(3.35)
This group acts on the space of connections $`𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by the same rule:

$$\stackrel{~}{u}(a(\stackrel{}{e}))=\stackrel{~}{u}(v_s(\stackrel{}{e}))a(\stackrel{}{e})\stackrel{~}{u}(v_t(i(\stackrel{}{e}))).$$
(3.36)
There is however one important difference between the Abelian and non-Abelian theories. Namely the diagonal group

$$\mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{\Delta }𝒢_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(3.37)
acts trivially. Thus

$$_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }),\mathrm{U}(1))=\mathrm{U}(1)^g.$$
(3.38)
Let

$$P_a:𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{U}(1)^g$$
(3.39)
be the projection map.

The Abelian and non-Abelian theories are related by the following map:

$$d:𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\text{given by}d(a(\stackrel{}{e}))=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{i\varphi }& 0\\ 0& e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right).$$
(3.40)
$`d`$ is equivariant with respect to every involution $`i_e^{}`$. Obviously the image $`d(𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }))𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a 2-section of the projection $`\mathrm{conj}`$, that is, the composite

$$\mathrm{conj}d:𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e$$
(3.41)
is the factorization by the involution $`i_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$.

It is easy to check

###### Proposition 3.2

In the chain of maps

$$𝒜_{\mathrm{U}(1)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{𝑑}{}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{𝑃}{}\mathrm{U}(1)^g\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))$$
(3.42)
the composite $`dP`$ is the projection map $`P_a`$ (3.39).

## 4 From trivalent graph to handlebody

### 4.1 Pumping

Any trivalent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defines a handlebody $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, that is, a 3-manifold with boundary $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the “pumping trick” (see ): pump up the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to tubes and the vertices to small 2-spheres. This gives a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of genus $`g`$ with a tube $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ for every $`eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and a trinion $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ for every $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where each trinion is a 2-sphere with three disjoint holes. The isotopy classes of meridian circles of tubes define $`3g3`$ disjoint, noncontractible, pairwise nonisotopic circles $`\{C_e\},eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The complement is the union

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}C_e=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g2}{}}\stackrel{~}{v}_i$$
(4.1)
of $`2g2`$ trinions (pairs of pants) corresponding to vertices of our graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Certainly, every trivalent graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is geometrically equivalent to the handlebody $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ or to the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with fixed pants decomposition (4.1). Moreover, we have the identification

$$\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})=\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.2)
and the epimorphism

$$r:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})=\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.3)
We can consider our graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a skeleton inside the handlebody $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Then for every edge $`e`$ inside the full tube with the boundary $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ there exists a disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the handlebody with the boundary on $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ meeting the edge $`e`$ transversely at one point such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=C_e,$$
(4.4)
and we can move $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the boundary of the handlebody to get an embedding

$$j:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(4.5)
defined up to isotopy.

Now fix a point $`p_eC_e`$ on each circle $`C_e`$ and a vertex $`v_0V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. We identify it with the point $`j(v_0)\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then we can view (4.3) as being the epimorphism of the exact sequence

$$1\mathrm{ker}r\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)\stackrel{𝑟}{}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)1$$
(4.6)
if we fix paths from $`v_0`$ to every point $`p_e`$.

The orientation of every path of length 1 $`\stackrel{}{e}P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and the pumping normal vector field define an orientation of the tube $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ and hence an orientation of the meridian $`C_e`$ of (4.1). Thus we get the cycle $`C_\stackrel{}{e}`$ joined by the path with the point $`v`$. This gives a collection of homotopy classes considered as elements of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)`$

$$\left\{C_\stackrel{}{e}\right|eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })\}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0).$$
(4.7)
More precisely,

$$\{C_\stackrel{}{e}\}\mathrm{ker}r.$$
(4.8)
Now sending $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ to $`C_\stackrel{}{e}`$ and a loop of length $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by a sequence $`\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d`$ to

$$p(\stackrel{}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{e}_d)=C_{\stackrel{}{e}_d}\mathrm{}C_{\stackrel{}{e}_1}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)$$
(4.9)
gives a map of the collection of loops through $`v_0`$ to $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)`$. Hence we get the homomorphism

$$q:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)\mathrm{ker}r\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0).$$
(4.10)
The composite $`rq`$ defines the “complex” of groups

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\stackrel{rq}{}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)\stackrel{rq}{}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)\stackrel{rq}{}\mathrm{}\\ (rq)^2=\mathrm{id}\end{array}$$
(4.11)
with cohomology

$$\mathrm{ker}(rq)/\mathrm{im}(rq)=\mathrm{ker}r/\mathrm{im}q=H(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.12)
### 4.2 From gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

Let $`𝒜_F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the space of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$-connections on the trivial vector bundle of rank 2 on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`𝒢`$ the corresponding gauge group and

$$\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0)=𝒜_F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })/𝒢_{v_0}$$
(4.13)
the framed gauge-orbit space of flat connections.

The main construction relating gauge theories on a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the map

$$m:\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0))𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.14)
$$m(\rho )(\stackrel{}{e})=\rho (C_\stackrel{}{e}).$$

$`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ acts on the target space of this map by the adjoint action and on the source as the diagonal subgroup $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ under the action of the gauge group $`𝒢`$. This map is equivariant with respect to these actions, so we can factorize it as a map of quotients

$$m:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.15)
(see (3.16)). For any sequence $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n`$ of edges, we construct the map

$$m_{(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}i_{e_i}m,$$
(4.16)
where $`i_{e_i}`$ are involutions (2.4) and (3.2).

Different composites of this map with maps from gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ provide important fibrations of $`\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$. The first of these is the composite

$$\mathrm{conj}m=\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e,$$
(4.17)
(see (3.28)) which is nothing other than the real polarization (see ,  and below). This fibration is given by the moment map of $`(3g3)`$-torus action and is described perfectly.

The second fibration is given by the quotient projection

$$Pm:\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))).$$
(4.18)
From the direct description of maps it is easy to prove the following

###### Proposition 4.1

This map is nothing other than the composite

$$\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma },v_0))\stackrel{res}{}\mathrm{Rep}(\mathrm{ker}r,v_0)\stackrel{q^{}}{}\mathrm{Rep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })),v_0)$$
(4.19)
where the first map is the restriction map to a subgroup and the second is induced by the group homomorphism $`q`$ (4.10).

Recall that $`\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$ is called the unitary Schottky space of genus $`g`$ and denoted by the symbol $`uS_g`$ . This space can be presented as a homogeneous space

$$uS_g=\mathrm{SU}(2)^g/\mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{diag}}\mathrm{SU}(2)$$
(4.20)
where $`\mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{diag}}\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ is the diagonal adjoint action on the direct product (see ). The map $`r^{}`$ (4.3) embeds the unitary Schottky space

$$r^{}:uS_g\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))$$
(4.21)
but on the other hand the composite (4.18) gives the surjective map

$$P_{cl}m:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))uS_g.$$
(4.22)
Thus we have the map

$$P_{cl}mr^{}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))$$
(4.23)
inducing the cohomology homomorphism

$$(P_{cl}mr^{})^{}:H^{}(\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })),)H^{}(\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })),).$$
(4.24)
The Florentino conjecture compares the target spaces of two projections $`Pm`$ and $`\mathrm{conj}m=\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, that is, the spaces $`uS_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Conjecture 4.2 (C. Florentino)

There exists a one-to-one map

$$f:\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }uS_g$$

which is smooth inside $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and on the nonsingular part of $`uS_g`$ and continuous everywhere.

In the genus 2 case

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}_i))=uS_2$$
(4.25)
(see \[7, Section 3\]). In what follows, we

1. give $`uS_g`$ the structure of a polytope (more precisely, the direct product of $`g1`$ copies of 3-dimensional tetrahedrons ) and
2. construct the natural polytope embedding $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`uS_g`$.

### 4.3 From gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to gauge theory on a trinion

Recall from (3.16) that $`\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })/\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For every trinion $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ we have the map

$$m_v:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.26)
$$m_v(\rho )(\stackrel{}{e})=\rho (C_\stackrel{}{e}).$$

for $`eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$.

Every vertex $`v`$ has three local edges $`(e_1,e_2,e_3)=E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$ which define the 3-cube

$$[0,1]_v^3=\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v}{}[0,1]_e.$$
(4.27)
###### Proposition 4.3

1. The image of the composite

$$m_v\mathrm{conj}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))[0,1]^{3g3}=\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e$$

is contained in $`[0,1]_v^3=_{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v}[0,1]_e`$.
2. The image $`m(\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})))`$ is a section of the projection $`\mathrm{conj}`$ (3.28)

$$m_v\mathrm{conj}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\underset{vE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v}{}[0,1]_e.$$
(4.28)
3. The image $`\mathrm{conj}(\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})))`$ is the tetrahedron $`\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ inscribed in the cube given by triangle inequalities

$$|t_1t_2|t_3t_1t_2$$

where $`t_i`$ is a coordinate on the interval $`[0,1]_{e_i}`$ for $`e_iE(\mathrm{\Gamma })_v`$. Hence
4. $$\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))=\mathrm{\Delta }_v=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Theta }=uS_2.$$

(for the proof see \[7, Proposition 3.1\]).

Now for every $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and its corresponding trinion $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ we have the restriction map

$$\mathrm{res}_v:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})).$$
(4.29)
This map is induced by the natural map

$$r_v:\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(4.30)
The group $`\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ is the free group with 2 generators. Let

$$I_v\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.31)
be the image of $`r_v`$. Then

$$\mathrm{im}\mathrm{res}_v=\mathrm{CLRep}(I_v)\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))=\mathrm{\Delta }_v$$
(4.32)
(see Proposition 4.3, (4)). For example, if $`vv(L(\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$ is a vertex on a loop $`eL(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$then $`I_v=`$ and $`\mathrm{im}\mathrm{res}_v=[0,1]_e`$.

### 4.4 Half Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

We now give the hyperbolic graph (2.23) a one-to-one map

$$h:V_+V_{}.$$
(4.33)
Then as in Figure 2, p. 4.4,

we have:

1. $$V_+h(V_+)=\mathrm{},(V_+V_{})=V(\mathrm{\Gamma }),|V_\pm |=g1;$$
2. for every pair of distinct vertices $`v_i,v_jV_+`$,

$$E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_{v_i}E(\mathrm{\Gamma })_{v_j}=\mathrm{}.$$

###### Definition 4.4

The union

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=\underset{vV_+}{}\stackrel{~}{v}$$

is called a half of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ .

Thus a half of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is the disjoint union of trinions and it has a mirror $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=h(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(4.34)
A decomposition of this type is an analogue of a Heegard decomposition in the 2-dimensional case and we can apply to this situation all the constructions of \[1, Seminar 4\] (see “Verlinde property”). The two halves $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are completely symmetric, and gluing is given by the matrix $`q_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see the end of section 2). Thus this matrix plays the role of an element of the modular group in the 3-dimensional case.

Now the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is given by

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)=\underset{vV_+}{}\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}),$$
(4.35)
and hence

$$\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+))=\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})).$$
(4.36)
Thus we have a natural homomorphism

$$r_+(\mathrm{\Gamma }):\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.37)
and the induced map

$$r_+^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }):\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+))=\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v})).$$
(4.38)
The boundary of our half of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=\{C_e\},eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(4.39)
is the disjoint union of cycles (4.1) with the natural orientation coming from the orientations of trinions.

### 4.5 Half Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}`$

For genus 2 there is a unique connected trivalent graph without loops $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (denoted by this symbol for the shape). This graph gives the disconnected graph of genus $`g`$

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}=\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(4.40)
which is disjoint union of $`g1`$ copies of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

In particular the fundamental group

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})=\underset{g1\text{ copies}}{}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta })$$
(4.41)
We can apply all the constructions of Section 3.1 to define the space of connections $`𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})`$, the gauge group $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})`$ action and the gauge orbit space of Section 3.3

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})/𝒢(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}))$$
(4.42)
and the map $`\mathrm{conj}`$ of Section 3.4.

Moreover pumping $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ we get the compact Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of genus 2 with the trinion decomposition of Figure 3. Thus the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}`$ is the disjoint union

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }$$
(4.43)
of $`g1`$ copies of a Riemann surface of genus 2 with the trinion decomposition (4.1).

A small difference between the case of connected and disjoint curves is that we can’t fix a basic point $`v_0`$. Thus we have to consider spaces of representation classes. We have the map (4.15)

$$m:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}).$$
(4.44)
and the composite (4.7)

$$\mathrm{conj}m=\pi _{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}))\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})}{}[0,1]_e.$$
(4.45)
Now consider the decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as an union of disjoint trinion as a many piece jigsaw puzzle (as in Figure 2). We can transform this collection to the union of disjoint trinions of a decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}`$ (as in Figure 3). Thus we may consider the half of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the half of the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}`$ with the decomposition

$$V_+h(V_+)=\mathrm{},V_+h(V_+)=V(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}),|V_\pm |=g1.$$

Thus the union $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+`$ is a half of two curves

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}$$
(4.46)
and together with the homomorphism $`r_+(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (4.38), we get another

$$r_+(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}):\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)=\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}^+)\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}})$$
(4.47)
which componentwise is the standard map for Riemann surfaces of genus 2.

## 5 Gauge quotient map

### 5.1 The section of $`\mathrm{conj}`$

We have identifications

$$E(\mathrm{\Gamma })=E(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}),V(\mathrm{\Gamma })=V(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}),P_1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=P_1(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})$$

and hence

$$𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})\text{and}\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}).$$
(5.1)
But the gauge groups $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})`$ actions are entirely different. In particular, the gauge quotient map for the gauge group $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})`$ can be decomposed as follows

$$\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{p_\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}}{}\underset{(g1)\text{ copies }}{}\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta })\stackrel{(g1)\times p_\mathrm{\Theta }}{}\underset{(g1)\text{ copies }}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta })).$$
(5.2)
All components of the latter map are the same

$$p_\mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta })).$$
(5.3)
We study this map later. The maps $`\mathrm{conj}`$ are absolutely the same, with the same target space $`_{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}[0,1]_e`$. Moreover, the product of the maps $`m_v`$ (4.26) gives the map

$$m_+=\underset{vV_+}{}m_v:\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(5.4)
Let

$$W=m_+\left(\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\right)\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(5.5)
be the image of (5.4). A direct interpretation of the maps in the composite

$$\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\stackrel{r_+^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\stackrel{m_+}{}\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }),$$
(5.6)
gives

###### Proposition 5.1

1. The image

$$r_+^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })m_+(\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma })))W.$$
2. The map (4.17)

$$\mathrm{conj}m:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e$$

is the composite of $`r_+^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and

$$\mathrm{conj}m_+:\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_v\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e.$$
(5.7)
Thus
3. $$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_v\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e.$$
(5.8)

###### Proposition 5.2

The image $`W`$ is a section of the projection $`\mathrm{conj}`$. That is, the restriction of $`\mathrm{conj}`$

$$\mathrm{conj}{}_{|W}{}^{}:W\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_v\underset{eE(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{}[0,1]_e$$

is one-to-one.

To prove this statement, we may use the $`\mathrm{conj}`$–map for $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}`$. Recall that trinions of components of the direct product $`W`$ don’t have boundaries in common. Thus coordinates of the cube are divided in triples corresponding vertices $`vV_+(\mathrm{\Gamma })=V_+(\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1})`$. Then Proposition 4.2, (3) implies the required statement componentwise.

###### Corollary 5.1

The identification $`W=_{vV_+}\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ determines the section

$$s:\underset{vV_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_v\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$
(5.9)
and the restriction of this section to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }_{vV_+}\mathrm{\Delta }_v`$ determines the embedding

$$s{}_{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}^{}:\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(5.10)
C. Florentino gave a beautiful description of the subpolytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}`$ in terms of symmetries of a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Now the restriction $`s{}_{|\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of the quotient map of $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-action sends $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`uS_g`$. Hence it is just what we need to construct the natural map $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }uS_g`$ for the Florentino conjecture. But the key is the restriction of the quotient map of $`𝒢(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-action to $`W`$, that is, comparing the gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the gauge theory on $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{g1}`$:

$$sP_{cl}:W\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma })),$$
(5.11)
where $`P_{cl}`$ is the projection of (3.22).

### 5.2 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$

In this case the handlebody $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is a full pretzel. We get the Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of genus $`8`$ marked by tubes $`\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\stackrel{~}{e}_2,\stackrel{~}{e}_6`$ for every edge of the triple $`E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and trinions $`\stackrel{~}{v}_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{v}_{}`$ of the pair $`V(\mathrm{\Theta })`$. The isotopy classes of meridian circles of tubes define 3 disjoint, noncontractible, pairwise nonisotopic classes $`c_i`$ around $`e_i`$. The complement is the union

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }\{c_1,c_2,c_3\}=\stackrel{~}{v}_+\stackrel{~}{v}_{}$$
(5.12)
of 2 trinions. We fix a point $`p\stackrel{~}{v}_+`$ and the natural orientation so that

$$c_1c_2c_2=1$$
(5.13)
as classes of pointed loops.

Now

$$𝒢(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mathrm{SU}(2)^{V(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=\mathrm{SU}(2)_+\times \mathrm{SU}(2)_{}$$
(5.14)
with the action

$$g_+g_{}^1$$
(5.15)
if $`v_+=v_s`$. We finally get the map

$$P_{cl}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Theta }))\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta })).$$
(5.16)
###### Proposition 5.3

The image $`i_{e_3}(W)`$ is a section of the projection $`P_{cl}`$ (3.22).

The boundary components $`\stackrel{~}{v}=c_1,c_2,c_3`$ as elements of the fundamental group of $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ constrain the equation (5.13). Consider the map

$$m_{e_3}:\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{v}))\mathrm{CL}𝒜(\mathrm{\Theta })$$
(5.17)
Then the component $`g_v`$ of an element of the gauge group acts on these cycles as $`g(\rho (c_i))=\rho (c_i)g`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`g(\rho (c_3))=g^1\rho (c_3)`$. To preserve the equation (5.13) we have

$$\rho (c_1)g\rho (c_2)gg^1\rho (c_3)=1.$$
(5.18)
From this we have $`g=1`$ and we are done.

###### Corollary 5.2

This identification

$$W=\mathrm{CLRep}(\pi _1(\mathrm{\Theta }))=uS_2$$
(5.19)
defines

1. the polytope structure on $`uS_2`$ and
2. the polytope equivalence

$$f:\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Theta }uS_2.$$
(5.20)

Thus the Florentino conjecture is true in the case $`g=2`$. We used this identification for the construction of non-Abelian theta functions in the first nontrivial case $`g=2`$ considered in .

### 5.3 General case

We show how to prove the statement of Proposition 5.3 for a multi-theta graph of any genus such as Figure 3, p 4.4. The principle of the proof is just as before. Namely in (5.18) the element $`g`$ after $`\rho (c_1)`$ doesn’t have to be the same as after $`\rho (c_2)`$. Then in the same vein $`g`$ has to be 1.

To apply this hint, remark that the set of vertices $`V(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ decompose in pairs $`(v_i^+,h(v_i^+)=v_i^{})`$. Let us start with the pair $`v_1^\pm `$. Using the adjoint action we may suppose that $`g_{v_1}^{}=1`$. Assume

$$\stackrel{~}{v}_1^+\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{}=c_2c_3$$
(5.21)
and

$$c_1=\stackrel{~}{v}_1^+\stackrel{~}{v}_2^{}$$

We can choose the map $`m_{\{e\}}`$ of (4.16) so that $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ have opposite orientations. Then we have equations

$$c_1c_2c_3=1$$

and

$$\rho (c_1)g_2^{}\rho (c_2)g_1^+(g_1^+)^1\rho (c_3)=1.$$
(5.22)
Thus $`g_2^{}=1`$. Applying the same construction to $`\stackrel{~}{v}_1^{}`$ we get $`g_2^+=1`$ also. This gives the proof for genus 3 case.

Iterating these arguments gives the proof for any hyperbolic graph of any genus.

## 6 Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to my collaborators C. Florentino, J. Mourao, J.P. Nunes and the Instituto Superior Tecnico of Lisbon for support and hospitality. I also thank Miles Reid for help with English.


format: text

text:
# Mesoscopic decoherence in Aharonov-Bohm rings

## Abstract

We study electron decoherence by measuring the temperature dependence of Aharonov-Bohm (AB) oscillations in quasi-1D rings, etched in a high-mobility GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructure. The oscillation amplitude is influenced both by phase-breaking and by thermal averaging. Thermal averaging is important when the temperature approaches the energy scale, on which the AB oscillations shift their phase. For the phase-breaking, it is demonstrated that the damping of the oscillation amplitude is proportional to the length of the interfering paths. For temperatures $`T`$ from 0.3 to 4 $`\mathrm{K}`$ we find the phase coherence length $`L_\varphi `$ $``$ $`T^1`$, close to what has been reported for open quantum dots. This might indicate that the $`T^1`$ decoherence rate is a general property of open and ballistic mesoscopic systems.

The understanding of decoherence in quantum mechanical systems gives valuable insight into the cross-over from quantum to classical behavior. Quantum phenomena like weak localization, universal conductance fluctuations and the Aharonov-Bohm effect, that are observed in mesoscopic electronic systems, make these systems well suited for studying decoherence. The loss of electron phase coherence is interesting in its own right because it reveals information about the fundamental physics of the electron scattering mechanisms. Moreover, from the perspective of possible phase-coherent mesoscopic electronic devices , knowledge of phase-breaking length and time scales is crucial.

At low temperatures, electron-electron scattering is usually the dominating source of phase-breaking. In disordered 1D and 2D conductors, the loss of phase coherence at low temperatures has been studied intensively, both theoretically and experimentally . In clean electron systems, the number of investigations are fewer . In 2D, experiments consistent with the expected  electron-electron scattering time $`\tau _\varphi (T^2\mathrm{ln}T)^1`$ has been carried out . In open quantum dots (a 0D system), an unexpected $`T^1`$ contribution was found . In general, phase breaking mechanisms in ballistic, mesoscopic systems of dimensionality less than 2, are presently not well understood.

Aharonov-Bohm (AB) rings are obvious systems for probing phase coherence. Here, the interference of two electron paths leads to conductance oscillations of period $`h/e`$ \[or frequency $`e/h`$\] in the magnetic flux enclosed by the paths. The oscillation amplitude is a direct measure of the interference strength, and it has been used to study decoherence in disordered systems . For AB rings with a 2DEG elastic mean free path longer than the circumference of the device (e.g.  and references therein), systematic studies of phase-breaking have been scarce.

In this paper, we report measurements of the phase coherence length $`L_\varphi `$ via the temperature dependence of AB conductance oscillations in quasi-1D rings, made by shallow etching in GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructures. Two mechanisms are important for the temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude: phase-breaking, and thermal averaging. At finite temperature, the measured conductance is a weighted average over an energy interval of finite width, proportional to the temperature. We discuss, how thermal averaging influences the AB oscillation amplitude through the phase changes of the oscillations. In the experiment, we detect AB oscillations due to the interference of electrons that encircle the ring up to $`n`$ $`=`$ 6 times. This is observed as peaks in the Fourier spectra of the magnetoconductance at multiples $`ne/h`$ of the fundamental AB frequency. Accounting for the effect of thermal averaging, we find that the damping of the amplitude due to phase-breaking depends linearly on $`n`$, showing directly the relaxation nature of the decoherence. We find the phase coherence length $`L_\varphi `$ $``$ $`T^1`$.

The AB rings are fabricated in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) situated 90 $`\mathrm{nm}`$ below the surface of a modulation doped GaAs/GaAlAs heterostructure. At liquid He temperatures, the unpatterned 2DEG density and mobility is $`n`$ = 2.0$`\times `$1015 m-2 and $`\mu `$ = 80 m$`{}_{}{}^{2}/\mathrm{Vs}`$, corresponding to an elastic mean free path $`l_e`$ $`=`$ 6 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$. The lateral confinement is obtained by a shallow wet-etch, and the device is covered by a metal gate electrode. Details on the sample fabrication have been presented elsewhere . The sample was cooled in a 3He cryostat, and the conductance was measured in a two-terminal configuration. We used a conventional voltage biased lock-in technique, with an excitation voltage of 31.6 $`\mu \mathrm{V}`$ oscillating at a frequency of 116.5 $`\mathrm{Hz}`$.

Two samples with identical designs have been investigated in detail. Here we present measurements on one of them. The main results are reproduced in the second sample. A Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image of the ring is shown in Fig. 1a. The ring has a circumference of 3 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$, $`<`$ $`l_e`$. The gate voltage dependence of the conductance is shown in Fig. 1b. At $`T`$ $`=`$ 5.8 $`\mathrm{K}`$, the conductance increases in steps of height $``$ $`e^2/h`$, due to the conductance quantization in the narrow exit and entrance wires . The steps should not be taken as a sign of the population of transverse subbands in the ring itself, where the wires defining the arms are wider . At $`T`$ $`=`$ 0.3 $`\mathrm{K}`$, a UCF-type signal is superimposed on the steps, indicating a large degree of phase coherence in the ring at this temperature.

In Fig. 1c we show an example of the temperature evolution of the conductance in a perpendicular magnetic field $`B`$. The AB oscillation amplitude decreases with temperature. The period of the oscillations is 5.4 $`\mathrm{mT}`$, in agreement with the period $`h/(e\pi r^2)`$ $`=`$ 5.5 $`\mathrm{mT}`$ calculated from the average radius $`r`$ $`=`$ 490 $`\mathrm{nm}`$ of the ring.

To quantify the degree of coherence in the ring from the AB oscillations, we compute the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the conductance $`G(B)`$, measured in the magnetic field interval as shown in Fig. 1c. A measure of the AB oscillation amplitude is obtained by integrating the $`ne/h`$ FFT peaks in the intervals as indicated in Fig. 2a. The amplitudes vary with gate voltage, as exemplified for the $`e/h`$ peak in Fig. 2b. It is sensitive to the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_FL)`$ at zero magnetic field between electron paths in either arm of the device . The typical phase pickup in an arm is $`k_FL`$ $``$ 200, where $`L`$ $`=`$ 1.5 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ is half the circumference of the ring and $`k_F`$ is the Fermi wave number $``$ 1.5$`\times `$108 $`\mathrm{m}^1`$. A shift in the phase of the AB $`h/e`$ oscillation, between the two values $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ that are possible in a two-terminal measurement, requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_FL)`$ to change by $`\pi `$ . For a real device, $`k_FL`$ will not increase in exactly the same manner for the two arms, and hence the phase and the amplitude depends on the gate voltage, as we observe. The presence of several transverse subbands in the arms will provide an additional source of amplitude and phase variation.

The temperature dependence of the AB oscillation amplitude is shown in Fig. 2c for 10 different gate voltages. There is some scatter of the data points, around a well-defined average. The temperature dependence of the oscillation amplitude does not depend strongly on gate voltage, in the gate voltage interval used here.

We take advantage of the weak gate voltage dependence, and perform an average of the Fourier spectra obtained at different gate voltages. In Fig. 2a we show Fourier spectra averaged over the 10 gate voltages, for different temperatures. We also show an average Fourier spectrum computed from spectra obtained at 500 different gate voltages at $`T`$ $`=`$ 0.32 $`\mathrm{K}`$. Apart from the peak at the $`e/h`$ Aharonov-Bohm frequency, clear peaks appear at frequencies $`2e/h`$, $`3e/h`$, $`4e/h`$, and smaller bumps are also visible at $`5e/h`$, $`6e/h`$. Electrons can travel around the ring more than once, and a periodicity of $`h/ne`$ in flux of the conductance means that the interfering electron has enclosed the ring $`n`$ times. The probability for this type of event to happen will decrease with $`n`$, and so will also the amplitude of the $`ne/h`$ oscillation (as seen in Fig. 2a), with a rate that depends on the coupling between the ring and the 2DEG.

In Fig. 3a we show the temperature dependence of the amplitude of the $`h/ne`$, $`n`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{}6`$ oscillation periods, extracted from the average spectra as shown in Fig. 2a. For high temperatures and frequencies, the FFT amplitudes collapse onto a temperature-independent background spectrum. For temperatures between 0.3 and 4 $`\mathrm{K}`$, the amplitude drops exponentially with temperature for $`n`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{}4`$, but with different rates $`b_n`$ for different $`n`$. We assume that the amplitude of a $`h/ne`$ oscillation strength is damped due to phase-breaking in the following manner:

$$\mathrm{h}/\mathrm{ne}\mathrm{amplitude}e^{\mathrm{𝑛𝐿}/L_\varphi (T)},$$
(1)
where $`L_\varphi `$ is the characteristic length over which correlations in the electron phase are lost. Eq. (1) implies that all $`h/ne`$ amplitudes should have the same functional dependence on $`T`$, as is observed. The measured exponential dependence means that $`L_\varphi T^1`$. Furthermore, the damping rates $`b_n`$ (the slope of the lines in Fig. 3a) should increase linearly with $`n`$. This is not exactly the case, even though the rates do increase with $`n`$.

This apparent inconsistency between the data and the expected behavior due to phase-breaking, Eq. (1), can be understood when accounting for the effect of thermal averaging on the amplitude of the oscillations. At finite temperature, transport can take place in an energy window around the Fermi energy. In the Landauer-Büttiker formalism, the zero temperature conductance $`G`$ is then convoluted with the derivative of the Fermi function $`f`$,

$$G(E_F,T,B)=𝑑EG(E,0,B)\left(\frac{f(E,E_F,T)}{E}\right)$$
(2)
Considering thermal averaging only, the amplitude of the AB oscillations will on average decrease with temperature, only if the oscillations at low temperature change phase within the available energy window, $``$ 3.5$`k_BT`$ wide. Phase-shifts of the AB oscillations, can occur if the geometrical phase difference, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(k_FL)`$, between the two interfering paths changes as function of the Fermi energy, as has been motivated above. Therefore, the relevant temperature scale on which thermal averaging becomes efficient, is given by the Fermi energy change required to shift the phase of the AB oscillations, rather than for instance the energy level spacing of ring eigenstates.

We use Eq. (2) to estimate the effect of thermal averaging in our experiment. For $`G(E_F,0,B)`$ we use a data set $`G(V_g,T=0.32\mathrm{K},B)`$ , where $`V_g`$ is changed in steps of 0.6 $`\mathrm{mV}`$, small enough to resolve all the changes in the AB oscillations. The relation of gate voltage $`V_g`$ to Fermi energy $`E_F`$ is calibrated by following the spiky features seen on the low-temperature conductance curve in Fig. 1b for finite bias voltages, $`V_{sd}`$. They will for small biases move linearly in the $`(V_g,V_{sd})`$ \- plane with a slope $`\delta V_{sd}/\delta V_g`$, which is related to the Fermi energy change with gate voltage as $`\delta E_F/\delta V_g`$ $`=`$ $`e/2(\delta V_{sd}/\delta V_g)`$. The extracted $`\delta E_F/\delta V_g`$ is close to a simple capacitor estimate. From the simulated data sets $`G(V_g,T>0.32\mathrm{K},B)`$, the average AB oscillation amplitude is extracted in the same manner as for the measured data. The result is shown in Fig. 3b. The calculated oscillation amplitudes do decrease with temperature, but much slower than the measured amplitudes. We conclude that thermal averaging alone can not account for the measured data. Furthermore, there is a clear tendency that the calculated $`h/ne`$ amplitudes decay faster for $`n`$ odd than even. For $`n`$ even, the magnetoconductance oscillations result partly from interference between time-reversed paths, the same paths that ultimately give rise to Altshuler-Aronov-Spivak oscillations in disordered systems . The geometrical phase difference of these paths is zero, which means that the resulting part of the magneto-oscillations does not change phase. Consequently they are insensitive to thermal averaging. This explains why the even frequencies in Fig. 3b have a slower temperature dependence than the odd frequencies. The temperature dependence can be approximated by exponentials, lines in Fig. 3b. For diffusive systems , thermal averaging is not important for temperatures below $`E_c/k_B`$, $``$ 15-20 $`\mathrm{K}`$ for our system, larger than the measurement temperatures. Here $`E_c=\mathrm{}\pi ^2D/(2L)^2`$ is the standard expression for the correlation energy, and the diffusion coefficient $`D=v_F^2\tau `$ in 1D. But numerical calculations on a ballistic ring have given an exponential temperature dependence for low temperatures .

We can now return to the experimental results in Fig. 3a. As shown, the measured $`h/e`$ ($`h/3e`$) decay rate has a larger contribution from thermal averaging than the $`h/2e`$ ($`h/4e`$) decay rate. We see that the part of the damping that thermal averaging can not account for, approaches the scaling with $`n`$ as foreseen in Eq. (1). To demonstrate this, we show in Fig. 4a the measured $`h/ne`$ decay rates vs. $`n`$, and in 4b the estimated decay rates due to thermal averaging. The measured rates $`b_n`$ are not directly proportional to $`n`$. But the $`h/2e`$, $`h/4e`$ decay rates, which are only little influenced by thermal broadening (since $`b_2/d_2`$, $`b_4/d_4`$ $``$ 8), do obey the scaling (straight line). Even the $`h/6e`$ decay rate extrapolated from the scaling agrees with the data (dashed line in Fig. 3a). From the data in Fig. 4a-b it seems plausible, that with a proper deconvolution of the thermal averaging from the phase-breaking, also the $`h/e`$, $`h/3e`$ decay rates will obey the scaling. The inclusion of the $`ne/h`$ frequencies, $`n`$$`>`$1, as shown in Fig. 4, gives a consistency check that the temperature damping of the AB oscillations results from a phase-breaking process, in addition to the effect of thermal averaging, and this supports the assumption Eq. (1). This has to our knowledge not been done before. As a further cross-check of the analysis we have also considered the amplitude of averaged, measured AB oscillations (as opposed to the average Fourier spectra, that has been used above). On performing the average, the amplitude of $`h/ne`$ oscillations for $`n`$ odd is strongly reduced. The temperature dependence of the amplitude of the ensemble averaged $`h/2e`$, $`h/4e`$ oscillations shows again an exponential decay. The exponents $`f_n`$ (diamonds in Fig. 4a) are only slightly smaller than the ones obtained from the ensemble averaged spectra, showing again that these oscillations are only little influenced by averaging. Finally, with the slope 0.3 $`\mathrm{K}^1`$ of the line in Fig. 4a, we deduce from Eq. (1) that $`L_\varphi (T=1\mathrm{K})`$ $`=`$ 5 $`\pm `$ 1 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ . Another way of expressing our result is that the damping of the interference amplitude $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(ALk_BT/\mathrm{}v_F)`$, where $`A`$ $``$ 0.4. The same analysis performed on data from the second sample gives similar results (Fig. 4c-d). Apart from these two rings, we have found interference amplitudes depending on temperature like $`a\mathrm{exp}(bT)`$ in 5 other rings of different designs and sizes.

In summary, we have measured the temperature dependence of phase-breaking in quasi-1D AB ring structures. We have detected oscillation amplitudes resulting from the interference of electron paths encircling the ring more than once. This has enabled us to verify a basic property of phase breaking: the damping of the amplitude scales with the length of the interfering paths. We have in the analysis included the effect of thermal averaging, which is determined by the phase-shifts of the AB oscillations and hence by the asymmetry changes of the ring. We find that the phase-breaking length is proportional to $`T^1`$, close to what has been measured in open quantum dots . Thus, the $`T^1`$ dependence of phase-breaking might be a general characteristic of mesoscopic ballistic systems. A theoretical effort to address this question is needed.

Acknowledgments. The authors wish to thank H. Smith and K. Flensberg for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Danish Technical Research Council (grant no. 9701490), the Danish Natural Science Research Council (grant no. 9903274), and by the EU (LTR Programme Q-SWITCH, grant no. 30960). The III-V materials used were made at the III-V Nanolab, operated jointly by the Microelectronics center of the Danish Technical University and the Niels Bohr Institute fAFG, University of Copenhagen.