text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently Gibbons, Kallosh and Linde  derived an infinite set of sum rules for five dimensional models with a compact periodic extra dimension and identical four geometries. These constraints were an immediate consequence of the equations of motion and served as consistency checks of several recent constructions. An interesting result was that the Goldberger-Wise (GW) mechanism  of stabilizing the two three-brane Randall-Sundrum (RS1) model  has to include the backreaction on the metric in order to agree with a specific constraint, something done in the DeWolfe-Freedman-Gubser-Karch mechanism .

A particular sum rule that attracted the attention of  was the $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW(T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5)}=0`$, where $`W(y)^2`$ stands for the warp factor. This constraint was firstly derived by  as a condition of vanishing of the four dimensional cosmological constant. The interesting point was that this combination of the energy-momentum tensor components appeared in a condition for the absence of dilaton222Here we use the term “dilaton” to denote the modulus corresponding to the fluctuation of the overall size of the system. We use instead the term “radions” for the moduli associated with the position of freely moving branes along the extra dimension (not on orbifold fixed points). tadpoles in the action functional of the theory in the paper by Kanti, Kogan, Olive and Pospelov . The condition of  reads $`{\displaystyle 𝑑y\sqrt{G^{(5)}}(T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5)}=0`$. It was however pointed out by  that the two constraints were not identical because the $`(T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5)`$ combination was integrated with different powers of the warp factor since $`\sqrt{G^{(5)}}=W^4\sqrt{g}`$. A closer inspection reveals that these two constraints are actually identical given the assumptions made in . In more detail, the condition in  was derived for matter dominated branes were the effect of the warp factor is negligible. Then, for $`W1`$ the two constraints coincide.

In this paper we will iterate the calculation of , including the full effect of the warp factor. In that case, the condition of  for the absence of dilaton tadpoles is modified and the new condition coincides with an other sum rule of . Furthermore, having the quadratic action functional for the dilaton, it is straightforward to read off its mass. We find a generic formula relating the dilaton mass with the sum of the tensions of the branes and the curvature of the four-geometries. Demanding that this mass is not tachyonic we can derive the necessary condition for stabilizing the overall size of the system. This is in accordance with the result found in  that the GW stabilization mechanism of the RS1 model has to include the backreaction on the metric.

## 2 Review of sum rules

At first it would be instructive to review the sum rules presented in . We will concentrate as in  in the case where the background metric of the five dimensional spacetime can be written in the form:

$$ds^2=W(y)^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(1)
with $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ a general background four dimensional metric and $`W(y)`$ a generic warp factor. We should stress here that this is not the most general choice of metric in five dimensions as we have explicitly assumed that the all four dimensional sections have the same geometry.

We can now consider an arbitrary number of minimally coupled scalar bulk fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I(x,y)`$ with internal metric $`𝒢_{IJ}`$ and arbitrary bulk potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (which includes bulk cosmological constant), coupled to an again arbitrary number of branes with brane potential $`\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (which again includes the brane tensions). The action describing the above system is the following:

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{G}\left(2M^3R\frac{1}{2}𝒢_{IJ}_M\mathrm{\Phi }^I^M\mathrm{\Phi }^JV(\mathrm{\Phi })\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_i)\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{G}^{(i)}}}{\sqrt{G}}\right)$$
(2)
where $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }^{(i)}`$ is the induced metric on the brane and $`M`$ the fundamental 5D scale. The Einstein equations arising from the above metric can be written in the form:

$`4M^3R_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_\mu ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}T_5^5`$ (3)
$`4M^3R_5^5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_\mu ^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}T_5^5`$ (4)
where the energy-momentum tensor components are:

$`T_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}4V(\mathrm{\Phi })4{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_i)`$ (5)
$`T_5^5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (6)
with the indices in the above formulas raised and lowered by $`G_{\mu \nu }=W(y)^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ and where dot product denotes construction with the internal metric $`𝒢_{IJ}`$. Since we are interested on a background configuration, the $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ terms can be dropped. The Ricci tensor is easily calculated to be:

$`R_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`W^2R_g12W^2W^24W^{\prime \prime }W^1`$ (7)
$`R_5^5`$ $`=`$ $`4W^{\prime \prime }W^1`$ (8)
If we now consider the function $`(W^a)^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`a`$ an arbitrary real number, its integral around the compact extra dimension is zero. Using (3), (4), (7), (8) we arrive at an infinite number of constraints :

$$𝑑yW^a(T_\mu ^\mu +(2a4)T_5^5)=4M^3(1a)R_g𝑑yW^{a2}$$
(9)
As it is obvious, these constraints are a natural consequence of the equations of motion. It is straightforward to see for example that they are satisfied in the RS1 model  and the bigravity/multigravity models . We will single out three constraints which we will be important for the subsequent discussion, namely the ones for $`a=0,1,2`$:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑y(T_\mu ^\mu 4T_5^5)}`$ $`=`$ $`4M^3R_g{\displaystyle 𝑑yW^2}`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW(T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^5)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW^2T_\mu ^\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`4M^3R_g{\displaystyle 𝑑y}`$ (12)
One could also use the above constraints for non-compact models, but should be careful that the above derivation makes sense. For the finite volume flat one three-brane Randall-Sundrum model (RS2) , all constraints are valid for $`a0`$. For the infinite volume Gregory-Rubakov-Sibiryakov model (GRS)  only the $`a=0`$ constraint is valid and for the infinite volume Karch-Randall model (KR)  all constraints are valid for $`a0`$ .

## 3 Dilaton in warped backgrounds

We now consider the perturbation related to the overall size of the compact system, namely the dilaton. The general form of the metric for the physical radion perturbations that do not mix with the graviton(s) is given in . For the dilaton, the ansatz is rather simple and can be written in the form  (see also ):

$$ds^2=e^{W(y)^2\gamma (x)}W(y)^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1+W(y)^2\gamma (x)\right)^2dy^2$$
(13)
Substituting the above metric in the action (2) (see Appendix for analytic formulas), integrating out total derivatives, throwing out $`\gamma `$-independent parts and keeping terms up to quadratic order, we get:

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{2}(6M^3W^2)g^{\mu \nu }\gamma _{,\mu }\gamma _{,\nu }+_1\gamma \frac{1}{2}_2\gamma ^2\right\}$$
(14)
with

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`2M^3(4W^2+16W^{\prime \prime }W)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}W^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+W^2V(\mathrm{\Phi })+2W^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _(yy_i)`$ (15)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`2M^3(W^2R_g32W^2W^2+32W^{\prime \prime }W^1)+5\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+4{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _(yy_i)`$ (16)
At this point, let us work out the integral over the extra dimension of the tadpole term $`_1`$ of the Lagrangian. This gives:

$$𝑑y_1=\frac{1}{2}𝑑yW^2\left[T_\mu ^\mu 2T_5^516M^3\left(\frac{W^2}{W^2}+4\frac{W^{\prime \prime }}{W}\right)\right]$$
(17)
where we used the energy-momentum tensor components found in the previous section with respect to the unperturbed background metric (5), (6). We can further simplify this quantity if we use the equations (3), (4), (7), (8) which hold for the background metric. The resulting expression is:

$$𝑑y_1=\frac{1}{6}𝑑yW^2\left[T_\mu ^\mu +4M^3W^2R_g\right]$$
(18)
which is exactly zero because of the $`a=2`$ constraint (12). This result should have been expected since the perturbation (13) is bound to extremize the effective potential when one evaluates the action using the background equations of motion. However, it is interesting and rather unexpected that the absence of the tadpole term is linked to this particular sum rule of . It is worth mentioning here that in the case that the warp factor is effectively constant ($`W1`$), as it was assumed in , the condition that the expression (17) vanishes, is identical with the $`a=1`$ constraint (11).

Our next task is to read off the mass of the dilaton from the action functional. For this reason we define the canonically normalized dilaton field with mass dimension one $`\overline{\gamma }^2=\left(6M^3𝑑yW^2\right)\gamma ^2A\gamma ^2`$. Then the mass of the canonical dilaton $`\overline{\gamma }`$ is:

$$m^2=\frac{1}{A}𝑑y_2$$
(19)
After a lot of simplifications using the relations (3)-(8) we obtain:

$$m^2=\frac{1}{3A}𝑑y(10M^3W^2R_g+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+4\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta (yy_i))$$
(20)
We can further simplify the expression using the $`a=0`$ constraint (10) and get a more suggestive result:

$$m^2=\frac{1}{A}𝑑y(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}2M^3W^2R_g)$$
(21)
or equivalently,

$$m^2=\frac{1}{A}\left\{\underset{i}{}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })+3M^3R_g𝑑yW^2\right\}$$
(22)
From the second expression it is clear that we cannot have a massive dilaton if the sum of the effective tensions of the branes $`\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is exactly zero and at the same time they are kept flat. This is the same conclusion that appeared in  regarding the GW mechanism in the RS1 scenario. Moreover, the absence of tachyonic mass would guarantee the stabilization of the overall size of any system with the above characteristics. By eqs.(21),(22) we get two equivalent conditions:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑y(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}2M^3W^2R_g)}`$ $`>`$ $`0`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })+3M^3R_g{\displaystyle 𝑑yW^2}`$ $`<`$ $`0`$ (24)
If one wishes to have flat branes, then the sum of brane tensions should be negative or equivalently one should have a non constant (in $`y`$) scalar field configuration. In the case that the above expressions (and thus the mass) vanish, one should look for the higher orders of the effective potential to examine the stability of the system.

Finally, we should note that the formulas (21), (22) are valid even for non-compact models whenever the dilaton mode is normalizable. This happens for example in the KR model  and one can find from the above expressions the mass of the dilaton, in agreement with . In that case, the dilaton mode cannot be attributed to the fluctuation of the overall size of the system, but can be understood to be a remnant mode if we start with the compact $`{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }++^{\prime \prime }`$ system  and send one of the branes to infinity (i.e. after decompactifying the system).

## 4 Conclusions

We have showed that in a general warped metric with identical four-geometries and arbitrary bulk dynamics involving minimally coupled scalar fields, the absence of dilaton tadpoles is related to one particular sum rule of . Moreover, we have calculated the dilaton mass as a function of the sum of the brane tensions and the leftover curvature of the branes. The result agrees with the observation made by  that one could not have a massive dilaton for flat four-geometries and zero net brane tensions.

It would be interesting to see what happens with higher than quadratic terms in the dilaton potential and the possible role that the other sum rules of  play. Moreover, one could work out the same calculation for the other moduli in these configurations, the radions , and see if/how the results are modified. Finally, a much more general investigation is needed to obtain the sum rules and their role for the dilaton and radion potentials in models in which the four dimensional geometries are not identical as it happens with cosmological solutions (see e.g. ). These are important issues for understanding the dynamics of the dilaton/radions in the extra dimensional models and will be addressed in an other publication .

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Gary Gibbons, Stavros Mouslopoulos, Luigi Pilo and Graham G. Ross for helpful discussions. We are grateful to Ian I. Kogan and Keith A. Olive for valuable discussions. We are indebted to Panagiota Kanti for important comments and careful reading of the manuscript. This work is supported by the Hellenic State Scholarship Foundation (IKY) No. 8017711802.

Appendix

In this appendix we list the Ricci tensor components, the Ricci scalar and the action obtained by the metric:

$$ds^2=e^{W(y)^2\gamma (x)}W(y)^2g_{\mu \nu }(x)dx^\mu dx^\nu +\left(1+W(y)^2\gamma (x)\right)^2dy^2$$
(A.1)
The spacetime components of the five dimensional Ricci tensor are:

$`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{g\mu \nu }`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{2}}W^2\text{ }\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{W^6\gamma }{(1+W^2\gamma )}}\gamma _{,\kappa }\gamma ^{,\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1W^2\gamma }{1+W^2\gamma }}\right)W^4\gamma _{,\mu }\gamma _{,\nu }`$ (A.2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{W^4\gamma }{(1+W^2\gamma )}}D_\mu _\nu \gamma g_{\mu \nu }e^{W^2\gamma }W^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{3+4W^2\gamma }{1+W^2\gamma }}\right)`$
$``$ $`g_{\mu \nu }e^{W^2\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{WW^{\prime \prime }}{(1+W^2\gamma )}}`$
and the (55) component:

$`R_{55}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{W^2\gamma }(1+W^2\gamma )W^6\gamma _{,\mu }\gamma ^{,\mu }e^{W^2\gamma }(1+W^2\gamma )W^4\text{ }\gamma `$ (A.3)
$`4(1+W^2\gamma )W^1W^{\prime \prime }4(1+W^2\gamma )W^4W^2\gamma `$
Finally the Ricci scalar is:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`e^{W^2\gamma }W^2R_g+e^{W^2\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+3W^2\gamma }{1+W^2\gamma }}\right)W^4\text{ }\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{W^2\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{13W^2\gamma }{1+W^2\gamma }}\right)W^6\gamma _{,\mu }\gamma ^{,\mu }`$ (A.4)
$`8{\displaystyle \frac{W^1W^{\prime \prime }}{(1+W^2\gamma )}}{\displaystyle \frac{12W^2W^2+20W^4W^2\gamma }{(1+W^2\gamma )}}`$
In the above expressions the indices are raised and lowered by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$.

The action (2) then becomes:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xdy\sqrt{g}\{2M^3[e^{W^2\gamma }W^2(1+W^2\gamma )R_g+e^{W^2\gamma }(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}W^2\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}W^4\gamma ^2)g^{\mu \nu }D_\mu _\nu \gamma `$ (A.5)
$`+e^{2W^2\gamma }(8W^{\prime \prime }W^312W^2W^220W^2\gamma )]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{W^4}{(1+W^2\gamma )}}e^{2W^2\gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}e^{2W^2\gamma }W^4(1+W^2\gamma )V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`e^{2W^2\gamma }W^4{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\lambda _i(\mathrm{\Phi })\delta _(yy_i)\}`$


format: text

text:
# On Symplectic Cobordisms

## 1. Introduction

In this note we make several observations concerning (directed) symplectic cobordisms, Stein cobordisms, and concave symplectic fillings for contact 3-manifolds. Symplectic and Stein cobordisms have recently come to the foreground of symplectic and contact geometry, largely due to the introduction of a symplectic field theory (SFT) by Eliashberg, Hofer and Givental . The goal of SFT is to associate an algebraic structure to a given symplectic cobordism. Though clearly a central notion in symplectic and contact geometry, there is surprisingly little concerning symplectic cobordisms in the literature.

We will assume our 3-manifolds are closed and oriented, and our contact structures are oriented and positive. A contact 3-manifold $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ is symplectically (resp. Stein) cobordant to another contact manifold $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$, if there exists a symplectic (resp. Stein) 4-manifold $`(X,\omega )`$ with $`X=M_2M_1`$ and a vector field $`v`$ defined on a neighborhood of $`(M_1M_2)X`$ for which $`_v\omega =\omega `$, $`v(M_1M_2)`$, and the normal orientation of $`M_1M_2`$ agrees with $`v`$. We say $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ is the concave end of the cobordism, while $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$ is the convex end. We denote the existence of such a cobordism by $`(M_1,\xi _1)(M_2,\xi _2)`$ — in the paper we implicitly assume that $``$ refers to a Stein cobordism, unless specified otherwise. Note that symplectic (and Stein) cobordism is not an equivalence relation. For example, a Stein fillable contact structure $`(M,\xi )`$ (= one satisfying $`\mathrm{}(M,\xi )`$) cannot be symplectically cobordant to an overtwisted contact structure, but the opposite is possible. Our first result is:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ be a contact 3-manifold. Then there exists a Stein fillable contact 3-manifold $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$ and a Stein cobordism $`(M_1,\xi _1)(M_2,\xi _2)`$.

Though this result indicates the overall structure of the partial order on contact 3-manifolds induced by cobordisms, there is very little control over the target contact manifold $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$. On the other hand, when $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ is overtwisted, there is complete freedom in choosing $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ be an overtwisted contact 3-manifold and $`(M_2,`$ $`\xi _2)`$ any contact 3-manifold, tight or overtwisted. Then there exists a Stein cobordism $`(M_1,\xi _1)(M_2,\xi _2)`$.

In particular, all overtwisted contact structures are equivalent under symplectic or Stein cobordism!

It is interesting to compare the previous two theorems with recent work of Epstein-Henkin  and de Oliveira  which deal with cobordisms between CR-structures. (Here “CR-structure” will mean “strictly pseudoconvex CR-structure”.) On any 3-manifold $`M`$, there is a 1-1 correspondence between CR-structures and pairs $`(\xi ,J)`$ consisting of a contact structure $`\xi `$ and an almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`\xi `$. We say a CR-structure $`(\xi ,J)`$ on $`M`$ is fillable, if there is a compact, connected, complex manifold $`X`$ with $`X=M`$, so that the complex tangencies to $`M`$ are $`\xi `$ and the induced complex structure on $`\xi `$ is $`J.`$ In  it was shown that if a CR-manifold $`(M_1,\xi _1,J_1)`$ is Stein cobordant to a fillable CR-manifold $`(M_2,\xi _2,J_2)`$, then $`(M_1,\xi _1,J_1)`$ is also fillable. Here we assume Stein cobordisms of CR-manifolds respect complex structures. Thus, if $`(M_1,\xi _1,J_1)(M_2,\xi _2,J_2)`$ is a Stein cobordism but $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ is not Stein fillable, then $`(M_2,\xi _2,J_2)`$ cannot be a fillable CR-structure, even if $`(M_2,\xi _2)`$ is a Stein fillable contact structure. De Oliveira  gave some interesting examples of complex (but not Stein) cobordisms from non-fillable CR-structures to fillable ones, thus showing the necessity of having a Stein cobordism in the Epstein-Henkin result.

Our last result is:

###### Theorem 1.3.

Any contact 3-manifold has infinitely many concave symplectic fillings which are mutually non-isomorphic and are not related to each other by a sequence of blow-ups and blow-downs.

A convex (resp. concave) symplectic filling of $`(M,\xi )`$ is a symplectic cobordism $`(X,\omega )`$ from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`(M,\xi )`$ (resp. from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$). The phrase “symplectic filling,” without modifiers, is usually reserved for “convex symplectic filling.” Having a (convex) filling is quite restrictive for a contact 3-manifold — for instance, it implies the contact structure is tight. (Note, however, that there are many tight contact structures without such fillings due to Eliashberg , Ding-Geiges , and Etnyre-Honda .) We show that, on the contrary, concave fillings are not restrictive at all. Though this was believed for a long time, and specific isolated contact manifolds with infinitely many such fillings are easy to come by, the degree to which concave fillings are not restrictive is perhaps a little surprising.

We assume the reader is more or less familiar with contact geometry and hence we do not include any background material here. We refer the reader to  for the basics of contact geometry,  for Lutz twisting, and  for the notions of Stein and symplectic cobordisms.

## 2. Legendrian surgeries

In this section we give a description of Legendrian surgery, both on the 3-manifold level and as a source of Stein filling on the 4-manifold level. There is some related material in  for Legendrian surgeries.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a contact manifold and $`LM`$ a closed Legendrian curve. Let $`N(L)`$ be a standard tubular neighborhood of the Legendrian curve $`L`$, with convex boundary and two parallel dividing curves. Choose a framing for $`L`$ (and a concomitant identification $`N(L)^2/^2`$) so that the meridian has slope $`0`$ and the dividing curves have slope $`\mathrm{}`$. With respect to this choice of framing, a Legendrian surgery is a $`1`$ surgery, where a copy of $`N(L)`$ is glued to $`MN(L)`$ so that the new meridian has slope $`1`$. Here, even though the boundary characteristic foliations may not exactly match up a priori, we use Giroux’s Flexibility Theorem  and the fact that they have the same dividing set to make the characteristic foliations agree. This gives us a new manifold $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$.

The following proposition describes Legendrian surgery on the 4-manifold level.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$ be a contact manifold obtained by Legendrian surgery along $`L`$ in $`(M,\xi )`$, in a 3-dimensional manner. Then there exists a Stein cobordism from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$, obtained by attaching a 2-handle along $`N(L)`$.

###### Proof.

We apply Lemma 2.2 below to obtain a Stein cobordism $`X=M\times [0,1].`$ Then Legendrian surgery corresponds to attaching a 2-handle along $`N(L)M\times \{1\}`$ in a Stein (resp. symplectic) manner, which yields a Stein (resp. symplectic) cobordism from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$. (See Eliashberg .) ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a contact structure. Then there exists a thickening of $`M`$ to $`X=M\times [0,1]`$ and a Stein cobordism from $`(M,\xi )`$ to itself.

A proof of this fact appears in .

## 3. Open book decompositions

Recall an open book decomposition of a 3-manifold $`M`$ consists of a link $`K,`$ called the binding, and a fibration $`f:(MK)S^1`$ such that each fiber $`F`$ in the fibration is a Seifert surface for $`K.`$ The manifold $`MK`$ is obtained by taking $`F\times [0,1]`$ with coordinates $`(x,t)`$ and identifying $`(x,0)(\varphi (x),1)`$ via the monodromy map $`\varphi :F\stackrel{}{}F`$. Following Thurston and Winkelnkemper , we construct a contact structure on $`M`$ from an open book decomposition: Let $`\lambda `$ be a primitive for an area form on $`F`$ and let $`\lambda _t=t\lambda +(1t)\varphi ^{}\lambda `$, $`t[0,1]`$. The 1-form $`\alpha =dt+\lambda _t`$ is a contact 1-form on $`F\times [0,1]`$ which glues to give a contact structure on $`MK`$. One easily checks that $`\alpha `$ extends over $`K.`$ If $`(M,\xi )`$ is obtained in this manner, then we say that the open book decomposition of $`M`$ is adapted to $`\xi `$. We now have the following recent result of Giroux :

###### Theorem 3.1.

Any contact structure $`\xi `$ on a closed 3-manifold $`M`$ admits an open book decomposition of $`M`$ which is adapted to $`\xi `$.

The following lemma (and more importantly its converse) is due to the efforts of many people, beginning with the work of Loi and Piergallini  (also see Mori  for an earlier effort), and recently culminating in the works of Giroux , Akbulut-Ozbagci , and Matveyev .

###### Lemma 3.2.

If the monodromy $`\varphi :FF`$ for an open book can be expressed as a product of positive Dehn twists, then the adapted contact structure is Stein fillable.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi =id`$, then the manifold $`M_n`$ is simply the connected sum of several copies of $`S^1\times S^2`$. There is a unique tight contact structure $`\xi _n`$ on $`M_n=\mathrm{\#}_n(S^1\times S^2)`$, and it is Stein fillable. The uniqueness of $`\xi _n`$ on $`M_n`$ follows from the unique connect sum decomposition theorem of Colin  and the uniqueness on $`S^1\times S^2`$ due to Eliashberg .

Assume $`\varphi `$ consists of a single positive Dehn twist along $`\gamma F`$. Then the manifold $`M`$ is obtained from $`M_n`$ by a Dehn surgery along $`\gamma `$ with surgery coefficient one less than the framing induced on $`\gamma `$ by the fiber. But we can also make $`\gamma `$ a Legendrian curve in $`F`$ so that the framings given by the contact structure and the fibers agree. (In other words, the twisting number of $`\gamma `$ relative to $`F`$ is zero.) This is made possible by applying the Legendrian Realization Principle. Note that to apply the Legendrian Realization Principle, a fold may be necessary (for details see ). Thus $`(M,\xi )`$ is obtained from $`(M_n,\xi _n)`$ by a Legendrian surgery and hence is Stein fillable. Now, if $`\varphi `$ is the product of $`k>1`$ positive Dehn twists, we perform $`k`$ Legendrian surgeries on different leaves, in order. ∎

We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.1. It should be pointed out that the strategy of proof is similar to the proof strategy in , where it is proved that “most” universally tight contact contact structures on torus bundles over the circle are not (strongly) symplectically fillable.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

If $`(M,\xi )`$ is Stein fillable, then we are done by Lemma 2.2. Therefore, let $`(M,\xi )`$ be a contact structure which is not Stein fillable. By Theorem 3.1, there exists an open book decomposition for $`M`$ which is adapted to $`\xi `$. Let $`K`$ be the binding, $`f:(MK)S^1`$ the fibering of the complement, $`F`$ the fiber, and $`\varphi `$ the monodromy map. Since $`(M,\xi )`$ is not Stein fillable, any product decomposition of $`\varphi `$ into Dehn twists must contain some negative Dehn twists. We view each Dehn twist as being done on a separate fiber. On a fiber just after one on which a negative Dehn twist was done along $`\gamma `$, we can take a parallel copy of $`\gamma `$ and perform a positive Dehn twist, which is tantamount to a Legendrian surgery. If a compensatory positive Dehn twisted is added whenever there is a negative Dehn twist, then we will have a new monodromy map $`\varphi ^{}`$ with only positive Dehn twists. Of course $`\varphi ^{}`$ will define a different manifold $`M^{}`$ and a different contact structure $`\xi ^{}.`$ However, since the difference in between the monodromy for $`M`$ and for $`M^{}`$ is just several positive Dehn twists, we can get from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`(M^{},\xi ^{})`$ by a sequence of Legendrian surgeries. Thus we have a Stein cobordism from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`(M^{},\xi ^{}).`$

## 4. Overtwisted Contact Structures

In this section we prove Theorem 1.2. The proof will be broken down into two propositions.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Any overtwisted contact manifold is Stein cobordant to any overtwisted contact manifold.

###### Proof.

Let $`(M_i,\xi _i),i=1,2`$ be two overtwisted contact manifolds. It is a well-known fact in 3-manifold topology that we can find a link $`L`$ in $`M_1`$ such that a certain integer Dehn surgery on $`L`$ will yield $`M_2.`$ Thus we can construct a topological cobordism $`X`$ from $`M_1`$ to $`M_2`$ by attaching 2-handles with the appropriate framing to $`M_1\times [0,1].`$ Moreover, one can adapt the proof of Lemma 4.4 in  to show that we may assume that $`X`$ has an almost complex structure with complex tangencies $`\xi _i`$ on $`M_i.`$ We now apply the following theorem of Eliashberg (Theorem 1.3.4 in ):

###### Theorem 4.2 (Eliashberg).

Let $`(X,J)`$ be a compact, almost complex (real) 4-manifold with boundary $`X=M_2M_1`$. Assume $`M_1`$ is $`J`$-concave, $`J`$ is integrable near $`M_1`$, and the corresponding contact structure $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ is overtwisted. If the cobordism $`(X,J)`$ from $`M_1`$ to $`M_2`$ consists of only 2-handle attachments, then there exists a deformation of $`J`$ (rel $`M_1`$) to an integrable complex structure $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ on $`X`$.

Using this theorem, we obtain a Stein structure on $`X`$ for which the complex tangencies on $`M_1`$ are $`\xi _1`$ and on $`M_2`$ are some contact structure $`\xi ^{}`$ homotopy equivalent to $`\xi _2.`$ Now, we are done if $`\xi ^{}`$ is overtwisted, since overtwisted contact structures are classified by their 2-plane field homotopy type . But we can easily ensure that the contact structure on $`M_2`$ is overtwisted by adding some extra Lutz twists to $`(M_1,\xi _1)`$ that are disjoint from the regions where the 2-handles are attached. ∎

###### Proposition 4.3.

Given a tight contact manifold $`(M,\xi )`$, there exists an overtwisted contact structure $`\xi ^{}`$ on $`M`$ in the same homotopy class as $`\xi `$ and which satisfies $`(M,\xi ^{})(M,\xi )`$.

###### Proof.

Given $`(M,\xi )`$, take a Legendrian curve $`LM`$ and its standard neighborhood $`N(L)`$. Choose a framing as in Section 2 so that the slope of the dividing set of $`N(L)`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$. Now, identify slopes $`s\{\mathrm{}\}`$ with their respective “angles”, $`[\theta _s]/\pi `$. In order to distinguish the different amounts of “wrapping around”, we will choose a lift $`\theta _s`$ instead. There exists an exhaustion of $`N(L)`$ by concentric $`T^2`$, where the angles of the dividing curves on the tori monotonically increase over the interval $`[\frac{\pi }{2},\pi )`$ as the $`T^2`$ move towards the core.

Now, let $`(M,\xi ^{})`$ be the overtwisted 3-manifold obtained by performing a full Lutz twist along $`L`$. This replaces $`N(L)`$ by the solid torus $`N`$, where the angles of the dividing curves of an exhaustion by tori monotonically increase over the interval $`[\frac{\pi }{2},3\pi )`$. We claim that a full Lutz twist $`(M,\xi )\stackrel{L}{}(M,\xi ^{})`$ is the inverse process of a sequence of Legendrian surgeries along the same core. In fact, take a Legendrian curve $`K`$ in $`(M,\xi ^{})`$ in the same isotopy class as $`L`$, whose standard neighborhood $`N(K)N`$ has an exhausting set of tori which spans the interval $`[3\pi \frac{3\pi }{4},3\pi )`$. After Legendrian surgery, the new $`N`$ “rotates” in the interval $`[\frac{\pi }{2},\frac{5\pi }{2})`$. Repeated application (total of 4 times) of Legendrian surgery will get us back to $`(M,\xi )`$. Note, however, that the intermediate manifolds are not necessarily diffeomorphic to $`M`$. ∎

Combining Propositions 4.1 and 4.3, we immediately get Theorem 1.2.

## 5. Concave Fillings

In this section we prove Theorem 1.3. Before we set out on the proof, we give a straightforward proof of this theorem for overtwisted contact structures.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Theorem 1.3 is true for any overtwisted contact structure.

###### Proof.

Given any overtwisted contact structure $`(M,\xi )`$, we know by Theorem 1.2 that there is a Stein cobordism $`(X,\omega )`$ from $`(M,\xi )`$ to $`(S^3,\xi _{std}).`$ Let $`(Y,\omega ^{})`$ be any closed symplectic 4-manifold. Use Darboux’s theorem to excise a small standard ball around a point in $`Y`$ and obtain a manifold $`Y^{}`$ with concave boundary $`(S^3,\xi _{std}).`$ We then obtain a concave filling of $`(M,\xi )`$ by gluing $`(X,\omega )`$ to $`(Y^{},\omega ^{}|_Y^{})`$. It is clear that there are infinitely many choices for $`(Y,\omega ^{})`$ that will yield infinitely many different concave fillings for $`(M,\xi )`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.2.

Theorem 1.3 is true for any Stein fillable contact structure.

###### Proof.

Let $`(M,\xi )`$ be Stein filled by $`(X,\omega ).`$ According to Corollary 3.3 in , there is a symplectic embedding of $`(X,\omega )`$ into a compact Kähler minimal surface $`S`$ of general type. If we take $`Y=\overline{SX}`$, then $`(Y,\omega |_Y)`$ will be a concave symplectic filling of $`(M,\xi ).`$

A slight modification of the above argument will produce infinitely many concave fillings. Specifically, in a small standard 3-ball $`(B^3,\xi _{std})(M,\xi )`$, there exist a right-handed Legendrian trefoil knot with $`tb=1`$ and a linking Legendrian unknot with $`tb<0`$. If we add 2-handles to $`X`$ along these Legendrian knots, we obtain a new Stein manifold $`(X^{},\omega ^{})`$. Embed $`X^{}`$ in a compact Kähler surface $`S`$ and remove $`X`$ to obtain a concave symplectic filling $`(Y^{},\omega ^{})`$ of $`(M,\xi ).`$ In the layer $`X^{}X`$ in $`Y^{}`$ there exists a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ (see ). Let $`E(n)`$ be the elliptic surface obtained by taking the normal sum  of $`n1`$ copies of the rational elliptic surface along regular fibers. Then consider the symplectic manifold $`Y_n=E(n)\mathrm{\#}_TY^{}`$, obtained by taking the normal sum of $`Y^{}`$ along $`T`$ and $`E(n)`$ along a regular fiber. These concave fillings of $`(M,\xi )`$ are not related by blowing up and down, since if they were then the compact manifolds $`S_n,`$ obtained from $`S`$ by normal summing with $`E_n,`$ would also be so related. However, this is not the case, as $`b_2^+(S_n)=b_2^+(S)+2n`$ and $`b_2^+`$ is unchanged by blowing up and down. ∎

Theorem 1.3 now follows from Lemma 5.2 and Theorem 1.1.

Acknowledgments. This work owes its beginnings to some questions raised by Charlie Epstein. The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of an NSF Post-Doctoral Fellowship(DMS-9705949), Stanford University and the American Institute of Mathematics. The second author thanks the NSF (DMS-0072853), the American Institute of Mathematics, and IHES.