text:
# Quantization of linear Poisson structures and degrees of maps

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Kontsevich’s quantization

Recently, Kontsevich  provided a deformation quantization of the algebra of functions on an arbitrary Poisson manifold. The key ingredient of his construction is the quantization formula for $`^d`$, which is then extended to the case of general manifolds using formal geometry. The terms of the star product are identified with certain Feynman graphs, and their coefficients (”weights”) are given by some complicated integrals (involving certain pullbacks of the standard volume form on a torus over the corresponding configuration spaces).

The first non-trivial case of Kontsevich’s construction is for a linear Poisson brackets, i.e. Poisson structures on a dual of a Lie algebra. In this paper we consider only this case (see Section 1.3 for a discussion).

Removal of the two external vertices splits any graph appearing in the definition of the star product into several connected components. The weight of a graph is the product of weights of its connected components. In a linear case each of them may have at most one cycle, which should consist of oriented edges. It turns out that one may restrict the class of graphs in Kontsevich’s construction to trees, excluding graphs with a non-trivial first homology. The weights of these tree graphs coincide with the coefficients of the usual Gutt’s star product  arising from the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula . Thus Kontsevich’s quantization differs from the CBH-formula essentially only by the contributions of graphs with one cycle, in particular of the so-called ”wheels” (see Section 4.6).

### 1.2. Main results and the organization of the paper

An important problem related to Kontsevich’s construction for $`R^d`$ is to interpret geometrically, and show a way to compute, the weights of graphs. In some partial cases such computations were done in . However, these direct computations are complicated and not illuminating. One of the reasons for a lack of a geometrical interpretation of these integrals seems to be that some special properties of the standard angle form on $`S^1`$ are significantly involved in Kontsevich’s proofs. Thus two natural questions are whether other 1-forms on $`S^1`$ also lead to an associative star product, and if yes, how do these products depend on the choice of a form. We answer both questions in the linear case.

First we show than any 1-form on $`S^1`$ gives an associative star product. This is done by an interpretation of the associativity as a vanishing of some cocycle in the relative top cohomology of a grand configuration space $`C_{n,3}`$. These spaces are obtained by gluing together the configuration spaces corresponding to graphs along their boundary strata. These boundary strata are of two types: principal and hidden. The gluings along the principal strata are done according to the Jacobi relation. Hidden strata are zipped-up, i.e. glued to itself by some involutions. By choosing singular forms concentrated in one point on a torus, one gets star products with rational coefficients (with a straightforward estimate on the denominators). These coefficients can be computed by a simple combinatorial count.

We then turn to a problem of comparison of these star products. This is done in a similar fashion, by identifying terms in these star products with some fixed top cohomology class of a similar grand configuration space $`C_{n,2}`$. This identification involves, however, a capping of some additional- external- boundary strata by the configuration spaces of the wheels. Thus products for different differential forms on $`S^1`$ may differ only by the weights of the wheels. We show that the tree (i.e. 0-loop) part of all star products coincide and are equal to Gutt’s star product. We also show that any differential form supported on a semi-circle leads to Gutt’s product.

### 1.3. Related problems

The point of view of this paper was heavily motivated by a similar interpretation of the Feynman series appearing in the perturbative Chern-Simons theory and used to produce a universal invariants of knots and 3-manifolds, see e.g. . The construction of the star product considered in this note is quite similar (in particular, it is interesting that a similar antisymmetry and Jacobi relations appear in the gluing construction), although there are of course few differences (in the Chern-Simons theory the edges are not oriented, all vertices are trivalent- which implies a simple involution argument showing the vanishing of the hidden strata- and the spaces after gluing are closed). There is a clear common denominator in these constructions; in fact, this note was initiated as a check that the same technique may be applied. I believe that this technique of producing grand configuration spaces by gluings is quite powerful; it would be quite interesting to find some other applications.

While I strongly believe that the approach used in this paper can be applied for general Poisson structures, the zip-up argument of Section 3.5 for hidden faces then works only up to degree six, so a new argument is needed to prove a conjecture about vanishing of the weights of the hidden strata. When this paper was already finished, the author found a modification of this construction which works for quadratic Poisson structures (to be discussed in a forthcoming paper). The general case, however, still remains open.

## 2. Graphs and differential operators

### 2.1. Admissible graphs

Througout the paper we will deal with graphs $`G`$ such that

* the edges of $`G`$ are oriented;
* the set of vertices of $`G`$ is subdivided into two disjoint subsets: the internal vertices $`V^i`$ and the external vertices $`V^e`$;
* the set of external vertices is ordered;
* $`G`$ does not contain double or looped edges.

An orientation of $`G`$ is an ordering of outgoing edges in each vertex, up to a negation in any two vertices. Following Kontsevich , we will call an oriented graph $`G`$ admissible if

* exactly two edges start in each internal vertex, and no edges start in any external vertex.

Since we will deal primarily with the linear case, i.e. the Poisson brackets on a dual of a Lie algebra, we define a Lie-admissible graph as an (oriented) admissible graph such that

* in each internal vertex there ends at most one edge.

Note that this condition implies that each connected component of a graph obtained from $`G`$ by a removal of all external vertices is either a tree, or contains one cycle, which consists of oriented edges.

Denote by $`𝒢_{n,m}`$ the set of all Lie-admissible graphs with $`n`$ internal and $`m`$ external vertices. For example, $`𝒢_{0,2}`$ is generated by the graph with two (external) vertices and no edges. The ”wedge” graph with one internal vertex connected to two external vertices by a pair of edges (see the graph $`G^{}`$ of Figure 1), gives two generators of $`𝒢_{1,2}`$, which differ by the ordering of the edges. Denote $`𝒢_m=_n𝒢_{n,m}`$.

Note that the orientation of a graph with a set $`E`$ of edges induces an orientation of $`^{|E|}=R^2\times \mathrm{}^2`$ as in : choose an arbitrary ordering of all internal vertices and then take ordered pairs of edges starting at $`1`$-st, $`2`$-nd, etc., vertex. For technical reasons (namely, the Jacobi relation (3) for labelled graphs) we will often need to consider more general orderings of $`E`$. A labelled graph is an admissible graph endowed with an arbitrary ordering of its edges, compatible with the above orientation of $`R^{|E|}`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

Note that our labellings are more general than in : we consider all orderings of edges, so for a non-oriented graph with $`n`$ internal vertices and no nontrivial automorphisms the number of labellings is $`(2n)!`$. Picking an orientation of $`G`$ cuts this number in half. In general we should also take into account the number of automorphisms of $`G`$ (preserving the order of external vertices), so the number of different labellings of an oriented graph is $`|\mathrm{Aut}G|^1(2n)!/2`$.

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}`$ the set of all labelled Lie-admissible graphs with $`n`$ internal and $`m`$ external vertices, and set $`𝒢_m=_n𝒢_{n,m}`$. There is an obvious forgetful map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}𝒢_{n,m}`$; abusing notation, we will denote the image of $`G`$ also by $`G`$.

### 2.2. Product and composition of graphs

There are several important operations on graphs.

Firstly, there is a product $`𝒢_{n,m}\times 𝒢_{n^{},m}𝒢_{n+n^{},m}`$: we define $`GG^{}`$ to be the graph obtained by juxtaposition of $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$, followed by the identification of their external vertices. See Figure 1a. This makes $`𝒢_m`$ into a semigroup. In particular, $`𝒢_1`$ is generated by $`n`$-spiked ”wheels”, i.e. by graphs with $`n`$ interior vertices forming an oriented cycle of edges and connected to the exterior vertex by $`n`$ spikes, see Figure 9a.

Secondly, there is a composition $`_i:𝒢_{n,m}\times 𝒢_{n^{},m^{}}𝒢_{n+n^{},m+m^{}1}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ of two admissible graphs $`G𝒢_{n,m}`$, $`G^{}𝒢_{n^{},m^{}}`$ defined by inserting $`G^{}`$ in $`i`$-th external vertex of $`G`$. This insertion is done in the following way. Cut out a small disc surrounding the $`i`$-th external vertex $`v_i`$ of $`G`$ and place there a small copy of $`G^{}`$. Now, sum over all possible ways of attaching the incoming edges of $`v_i`$ to the vertices of $`G^{}`$, which result in a Lie-admissible graph. See Figure 1b. The external vertices of $`G_iG^{}`$ are ordered in a natural way: $`\{1,\mathrm{},i1,1^{},\mathrm{},m^{},i+1,m\}`$.

We may combine all $`_i`$’s into one composition on the vector space $`𝒢`$ over $``$ spanned by $`𝒢`$:

(1)
$$GG^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1)^iG_iG^{}.$$

While non-associative, this operation defines a pre-Lie structure on $`𝒢`$, i.e., for any $`x,y,z𝒢`$ we have $`x(yz)(xy)z=x(zy)(xz)y.`$ Hence the bracket $`[G,G^{}]=GG^{}G^{}G`$ defines a Lie algebra structure on $`𝒢`$.

In a similar way, one may define a co-product on $`𝒢`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=_{G^{}G}(G/G^{})G^{}`$, where the summation is over all Lie-admissible subgraphs $`G^{}`$ of $`G`$ s.t. the quotient graph $`G/G^{}`$ (obtained by shrinking $`G^{}`$ into a point) is also Lie-admissible.

All above operations may be also defined on labelled graphs in an obvious way.

### 2.3. Differential operators assigned to graphs

Let $`\alpha `$ be a bi-vector field on an open domain $`𝒰`$ in $`^d`$. In the coordinates $`x^i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$ on $`R^d`$ it is given by $`\alpha =_{i,j}\alpha ^{ij}(x)_i_j`$, where $`_i=\frac{}{x^i}`$. To each admissible graph $`G𝒢_{n,m}`$ we assign a polydifferential operator $`B_G:(C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰))^{\times m}C^{\mathrm{}}(𝒰)`$ as in . Namely, put $`\alpha ^{i(v)j(v)}`$ at each internal vertex $`v`$ of $`G`$ and put the corresponding derivatives $`_{i(v)}`$ and $`_{j(v)}`$ at two edges starting at $`v`$. Thus we have a derivative $`_e`$ assigned to each edge of $`G`$, and a tensor $`\alpha ^{ij}`$ at each internal vertex. We will call such an assignment a state of $`G`$. Finally, put a function $`f_i`$ at $`i`$-th external vertex, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The operator $`B_G`$ is defined by the following formula:

$$B_{G,\alpha }(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m)=\underset{\text{states}}{}\left(\underset{vV^i}{}(\underset{eE(v)}{}_e)\alpha ^{i(v)j(v)}\right)\times \left(\underset{vV^e}{}(\underset{eE(v)}{}_e)f_v\right),$$

where $`E(v)`$ denotes the set of incoming edges of a vertex $`v`$. For example, for the graph $`G`$ in the left hand side of Figure 1 we have

$$B_G(f,g)=\underset{i,j,k,l}{}\alpha ^{ij}_j(\alpha ^{kl})_i_k(f)_l(g).$$

If $`\alpha `$ is linear, its second derivatives vanish, so $`B_G=0`$ for any graph $`G`$ which contains a vertex with at least two incoming edges. Thus in the linear case it suffices to consider only Lie-admissible graphs.

### 2.4. Antisymmetry and Jacobi relations on graphs

We put $`G=G^{}`$ if two admissible graphs $`G`$, $`G^{}`$ differ only by the ordering of two edges starting in some internal vertex. Here is a graphical version of this antisymmetry relation ($`AS`$):

(2)
$$\text{}=\text{}$$

Here and further on, in figures at each internal vertex we use the ordering of two outgoing edges induced by the orientation of the plane, unless specified otherwise.

We impose the following Jacobi relation on admissible graphs:

(3)
$$(\text{}\text{}+\text{})=0$$

In the relations above all graphs are assumed to coincide outside the small disk shown in the figure. There may be some incoming edges entering the disk; the summation in the Jacobi relation is over all possible ways to connect these incoming edges to two depicted vertices. E.g., if there are two incoming edges, four different ways to connect these edges to two depicted vertices will give $`4\times 3=12`$ terms in the Jacobi relation. For Lie-admissible graphs the situation is simpler: there may be at most one incoming edge and the unique way to connect it, so we have

(4)
$$(\text{}\text{}+\text{})=0$$

There are also obvious ”labelled” versions of these relations for graphs in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}`$.

Denote by $`J_{n,m}`$ the vector space over $``$ generated by graphs in $`𝒢_{n,m}`$ modulo the $`AS`$ and Jacobi relations, and set $`J_m=_nJ_{n,m}`$. For $`G𝒢_{n,m}`$ denote by $`[G]`$ its image in $`J_{n,m}`$ (we will also use $`[G]`$ for the image of $`G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}`$ under the composition of the forgetful map and the above quotient map).

###### Lemma 2.2.

Each composition $`_i`$ of graphs factors through relations (2), (3), thus defines a quotient map $`_i:J_{n,m}\times J_{n^{},m^{}}J_{n+n^{},m+m^{}1}`$

###### Proof.

Define $`[G]_i[G^{}]=[G_iG^{}]`$ for any graphs $`G𝒢_{n,m}`$ and $`G^{}𝒢_{n^{},m^{}}`$ representing the equivalence classes $`[G]`$ and $`[G^{}]`$ and extend it by linearity. The fact that $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_iG^{}]=0`$ for any linear combination $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=0`$ is immediate. It is also obvious that $`[G(G^{}G^{\prime \prime })]=0`$ when $`G^{}`$ and $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ differ by the ordering of two outgoing edges in one vertex. The only check which may cause a moment thought is that $`[G_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}]=0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a linear combination of graphs appearing in the left hand side of equation (3). This, however, readily follows from the fact that in the definition of $`_i`$ we sum over all possible attachments of the incoming edges of $`i`$-th external vertex of $`G`$ to vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, in particular to the vertices appearing in equation (3)). ∎

The reason to call (2) and (3) ”antisymmetry and Jacobi relations” is quite simple:

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a Poisson bi-vector field. Then the map $`B:GB_G`$ factors through relations (2), (3), thus defines a quotient map $`B`$ of $`J_m`$ to polydifferential operators.

###### Proof.

Clearly, (2) is the graphical version of the antisymmetry relation for $`\alpha `$. Equation (3) with no incoming edges is exactly a graphical version of the Jacobi identity for $`\alpha `$. Similarly, (3) with several incoming edges corresponds to taking higher derivatives of the Jacobi identity. ∎

## 3. Configuration spaces and their maps

### 3.1. Configuration spaces $`C_G(\overline{H})`$ and $`C_G(^2)`$

Consider the standard upper half-plane $`=\{z|\mathrm{}(z)>0\}`$ as the hyperbolic plane with the Lobachevsky metric, and the real line $`=\{z|\mathrm{}(z)=0\}`$ (together with the point $`\mathrm{}`$) as the absolute. Denote by $`\overline{H}`$ the compactified space $``$.

For a (either labelled or not) graph $`G`$ with $`|V^i|=n`$ internal and $`|V^e|=m`$ external vertices, let $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G(\overline{H})`$ be the space of embeddings $`f:V^iV^e\overline{H}`$ of the vertex set of $`G`$, such that $`f(V^i)`$, and $`f(V^e)`$ preserving the order of $`V^e`$. Thus we have $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G(\overline{H})^n\times ^m\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the union of all diagonals. Two-dimensional group $`Th(\overline{H})=\{zaz+b|a_+,b\}`$ of translations and homotheties of $`\overline{H}`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G(\overline{H})`$. Let $`C_G(\overline{H})`$ be the quotient space $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G/Th(\overline{H})`$. Since both $`^n\times ^m`$ and $`Th(\overline{H})`$ are orientable, so is $`C_G(\overline{H})`$. This orientation does not depend on the ordering of internal vertices of $`G`$: if an ordering of two internal vertices is permuted, it leads to a permutation of two copies of $``$ in $`^n`$, so does not change its orientation. Further we will use the notation $`C_G`$ for $`C_G(\overline{H})`$ when $`G`$ has some external vertices, i.e. $`m>0`$.

For a graph $`G`$ with no external vertices one may consider also a simpler configuration space: let $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G(^2)(^2)^n\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the space of all embeddings of the vertex set of $`G`$ in $`^2`$. Let $`C_G(^2)`$ be the quotient $`\stackrel{~}{C}_G(^2)/Th(^2)`$ modulo the action of a 3-dimensional group $`Th(^2)=\{zaz+b|a_+,b\}`$ of translations and homotheties of $`^2`$. Since for $`m=0`$ we will mostly deal with $`C_G(^2)`$ and not with $`C_G(\overline{H})`$, in this case we shall use the notation $`C_G=C_G(^2)`$.

### 3.2. Configurations of pairs of points

Let us describe in more details (see also ) the configuration space $`C=C_e(\overline{H})`$ of a graph $`G=e`$ with two internal vertices connected by one edge. Acting by $`Th(\overline{H})`$, we may always move the outgoing vertex $`v_1`$ to $`\sqrt{1}=(0,1)`$; the incoming vertex $`v_2`$ then lies on $`\sqrt{1}`$. Let us describe a compactification $`\overline{C}`$ of $`C`$. To compactify $`C`$ when $`v_2`$ approaches $`\sqrt{1}`$, we pick some $`0<r<<1`$ and cut out an open disc $`|z\sqrt{1}|<r`$, its boundary circle $`s`$ encoding the direction in which $`v_2`$ approaches $`v_1`$. To compactify $`C`$ at infinity, we pick $`R>>1`$ and cut out the set $`|z|>R`$, its boundary semicircle $`S`$ encoding the direction in which the second point approaches infinity. Finally, to compactify $`C`$ when $`v_2`$ approaches $``$, we add an interval $`I=\{z|R<\mathrm{}(z)R,\mathrm{}(z)=0\}`$. See Figure 2. Notice also, that the space $`C_e(^2)S^1`$, and may be identified with the circle $`s`$ after an identification of $`^2`$ with $`T_\sqrt{1}`$.

Suppose now that one of the vertices of a one-edge graph is external. The corresponding configuration space is an interval; in the model above it may be identified either with the semicircle $`S`$ (if $`v_1`$ is external) or with the interval $`I`$ (if $`v_2`$ is external). Finally, suppose that both vertices are external. In this case the space $`C_e(\overline{H})`$ is a point and may be identified in the model above with one of the endpoints of the interval $`I`$, depending on the direction of the edge (or, equivalently, with the endpoints of the semicircle $`S`$).

Thus various boundary strata of $`\overline{C}`$ actually correspond to all possible configuration spaces of pairs of points.

### 3.3. Angle maps

The space $`\overline{C}`$ has the homotopy type of $`S^1`$. We will call a map $`a:\overline{C}S^1`$ an angle map, if it is identity on $`s`$, maps the whole of $`S`$ to $`0`$, and maps $`I`$ onto $`S^1`$ surgectively. An angle map used in  is defined as follows. Let $`(p,q)\overline{H}^2`$ be a pair of points. Compute the angle between the direction from $`p`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the direction from $`p`$ to $`q`$ in the hyperbolic geometry on $`\overline{H}`$ (see Figure 3a). A simple check shows that this map is $`Th(\overline{H})`$-invariant and indeed determines an angle map.

Here is another simple example of an angle map: for $`(p,q)`$ as above, take the angle between the direction from $`q`$ to $`\overline{p}`$ and from $`q`$ to $`p`$ in the Euclidean geometry on $``$ (see Figure 3b).

We will fix some angle map $`a`$ for the remaining part of the paper.

### 3.4. Gauss maps and compactifications of configuration spaces

For an edge $`e`$ of a labelled graph $`G`$, an evaluation map $`ev_e:C_G\overline{C}`$ is obtained by forgetting all vertices of $`G`$ except for the ends of $`e`$. A Gauss map $`\varphi _e:C_GS^1`$ is a composition of $`ev_e`$ with the angle map $`a`$. Taking the map $`\varphi _e`$ for each edge $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ and using the ordering of edges, we get the product Gauss map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G=_e\varphi _e:C_G𝕋^k`$. We shall construct compactification $`\overline{C}_G`$ of $`C_G`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ will extend to $`\overline{C}_G`$. The minimal construction is to take the closure of the graph of $`\varphi _G`$ in $`(^n\times ^m)\times 𝕋^k`$; unfortunately it is rather hard to describe explicitly. Another extreme (”overblown”) solution is to blow up all diagonals of $`^n\times ^m`$; this compactification was used in . The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ obviously extends to any of the above compactifications.

Following , we will consider an intermediate solution: to blow up only the diagonals of $`^n\times ^m`$ corresponding to subgraphs of $`G`$ which are 2-connected (this is somewhat smaller than in , where blow ups were done for all connected subgraphs). Here a graph is 2-connected (or rather vertex-2-connected), if it remains connected after a removal of any one of its vertices. In particular an edge is 2-connected. The resulting space $`\overline{C}_G`$ is a manifold with corners. The boundary strata look as follows. Each codimension one face of $`\overline{C}_G`$ corresponds to a collision of all vertices of a vertex-one-connected subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$. Both the face and the restriction of the Gauss map to it have a product structure $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{G/\mathrm{\Gamma }}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }:C_{G/\mathrm{\Gamma }}\times C_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝕋^{lk}\times 𝕋^k`$, where $`l`$ and $`k`$ is the number of edges of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively. Here the second factor encodes the way the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ approach each other, seen through a ”magnifying glass” (called a screen by Fulton and MacPherson). More generally, a stratum of codimension $`k`$ corresponds to a collection of $`k`$ vertex-one-connected subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ of $`G`$, each two of which are either nested (i.e. contained in one another) or disjoint. Such a stratum is adjacent to all strata of codimension $`k1`$ obtained by removing one of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$’s from the collection.

### 3.5. Constructing the grand configuration space

Consider the disjoint union $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}=_{G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}}\overline{C}_G`$ of configuration spaces and the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}=_G\mathrm{\Phi }_G:\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}𝕋^{2n}`$. The space $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$ has no top degree cohomology since each component $`\overline{C}_G`$ has faces. We want to get rid of the faces of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$ by all means: gluing them together, capping-off, or relativizing, to obtain a space $`C_{n,m}`$ with a much smaller boundary, but still with a well-defined map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}:C_{n,m}𝕋^{2n}`$.

Some boundary strata are easy to take care of; namely, we shall not care for any strata which are

* of codimension two or more in $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$, or
* mapped to $`𝕋^{2n}`$ with a loss of dimension (i.e. the difference between the dimensions of the source and the image) two or more, or
* mapped to the union $`O`$ of all coordinate hyperspaces $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_i=0\}𝕋^{2n}`$.

We will simply relativize these strata including them in a singular locus $`D_{n,m}`$ and considering then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}:(C_{n,m},D_{n,m})(𝕋^{2n},O)`$. Let us describe the gluing/relativizing process for various types of boundary faces of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$.

Firstly, there are the principal internal faces, where two internal vertices of a graph $`G`$ connected by one edge $`e`$ collide together. Note that the same principal face $`C_{G/e}\times S^1`$ appears in each of the three graphs related by the Jacobi relation, as shown in Figure 4, where the colliding vertices are indicated by a dashed circle (and a possible incoming edge is also dashed).

Thus we can glue these faces of three graphs of Figure 4 together.

Secondly, there are the hidden internal faces $`C_{G/\mathrm{\Gamma }}\times C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where several internal vertices of a connected subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$ (with more than one edge) collide together. A simple dimension counting shows that unless the number of edges starting in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and ending in $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is two or three, the loss of dimension under the map is at least two on one of the two factors, so the face is readily relativized. Also, unless $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is 2-connected, $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ loses at least one dimension under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ (since the dilatations of one of the parts into which a cut-vertex splits $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ preserve $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$), so such a face can again be relativized. The remaining hidden faces<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This is actually the only place where we have to use Lie-admissibility of the initial graph, and thus the linearity of the Poisson structure have an orientation reversing involution which preserves $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$, thus can be zipped-up (i.e. glued to itself by this involution) following an idea of . Indeed, pick a vertex $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with an edge ending in $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Any vertex of a Lie-admissible graph has valence at most three; moreover, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is 2-connected, thus any vertex $`v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with an edge ending in $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has precisely two edges $`e_1=(v_1,v)`$ and $`e_2=(v,v_2)`$ with $`v_1,v_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The involution of $`v`$ w.r.t. the middle of the interval connecting $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ (i.e. $`vv_1+v_2v`$, if we think about $`v`$, $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ as points in $`^2`$), followed by the reordering of $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ reverses the orientation of this boundary face, but preserves $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$.

Thirdly, there are the infinity faces, where some internal vertices of a connected subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$ approach the absolute line $``$, but remain distant from the external vertices. Then any edge starting in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and ending in $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is mapped to 0, thus such faces can again be relativized.

Finally, there are the external faces, where the vertices of a connected subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$ which collide together contain $`k>0`$ external vertices. Again, if there is an edge starting in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and ending in $`G\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, it is mapped to 0, thus such faces can be relativized. In the remaining cases the situation depends on $`k`$. If $`k>2`$ or $`k=1`$, then the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{G/\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively has a loss of at least two dimensions, so again can be relativized. We are left, however, with the case $`k=2`$. We can still get rid of at least some of these faces. Namely, if the graph $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a double edge $`e_1=e_2`$, we zip up a pair of faces corresponding to (a collapse of a subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of) two graphs $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ which differ only by the ordering of $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$. Indeed, the maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}`$ differ only by a transposition of two factors of $`S^1`$ in $`𝕋^{2n}`$, so coincide up to a sign on the diagonal $`e_1=e_2`$.

To sum it up: the only boundary faces of $`C_{n,m}`$ (which are not included in the singular locus $`D_{n,m}`$) are the external faces, corresponding to subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢_{k,2}`$ of a graph $`G𝒢_{n,m}`$ which contain exactly two external and any number $`k`$ of internal vertices, all edges starting in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ also end there, and $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not have double edges. In other words,

###### Proposition 3.1.

\[cf. Kontsevich \] The boundary faces of $`C_{n,m}`$ restricted to $`\overline{C}_G`$ correspond to pairs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{nk,m1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{k,2}`$ such that $`G=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ for some $`i`$. The restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}`$ to such a face is

(5)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{nk,m1}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{k,2}:C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\times C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}𝕋^{2(nk)}\times 𝕋^{2k}$$

We will use this crucial fact in Section 3.10 below, and then again in Section 4.3.

### 3.6. Example: wedge graphs

There are two ”wedge” graphs $`G`$ in $`𝒢_{1,2}`$ which differ only by the ordering of the edges; denote by $`G`$ the one with the natural order of the edges, and by $`G^{}`$ the other. To visualize the space $`C_G`$, it is convenient to fix two external vertices in $`0,1`$ by the action of $`Th(\overline{H})`$. The remaining internal vertex is free to run in the complement of these two points in $``$, or, equivalently, in the complement of $`0,1,\mathrm{}`$ on $`\overline{H}`$, so $`C_G\overline{H}\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. The compactification $`\overline{C}_G`$ is shown on Figure 5.

The small semi-circles $`s_0`$, $`s_1`$ around $`0`$, $`1`$ correspond to the faces where the internal vertex approaches one of the external vertices; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(s_0)=S^1\times \{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(s_1)=\{0\}\times S^1`$. The singular locus $`D`$ is the union of the pieces $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$, $`D_3`$ of the absolute line $``$ together with $`s_0`$ and $`s_1`$; $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(D)O`$ (recall that $`O𝕋^2`$ is the union of the coordinate hyperspaces, i.e. $`O=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_1=0\}\{\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0\}`$).

The large semicircle $`S`$ corresponds to the infinite face where two external vertices collide together (or, equivalently, the internal vertex approaches the infinity on $``$); $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G(S)`$ is the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝕋^2`$. This is the only non-relativized boundary face of $`\overline{C}_G`$.

The space $`\overline{C}_G`$ is a hexagon with the boundary edges $`D_1`$, $`s_0`$, $`D_2`$, $`s_1`$, $`D_3`$ and $`S`$; the relativised space $`(\overline{C}_G,D)`$ is a disc with the boundary $`S`$. See Figure 5.

The space $`\overline{C}_G^{}`$ of the graph $`G^{}`$ is the same; in order to keep track of the spaces we will denote the corresponding locus by $`D^{}`$ and the boundary face by $`S^{}`$.

Each of the open cells $`C_G`$ and $`C_G^{}`$ has its unique 2-dimensional cohomology class, and thus the top cohomology of $`C_GC_G^{}`$ (or, equivalently, $`H^2(\overline{C}_G\overline{C}_G^{},DD^{}SS^{})`$) is 2-dimensional with two generators, which we may identify with $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$.

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}`$ differs from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ by the transposition of two copies of $`S^1`$ in $`𝕋^2`$. In particular, on the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝕋^2`$ both maps coincide up to a sign. Thus we may glue $`\overline{C}_G`$ to $`\overline{C}_G^{}`$ along the remaining (non-relativised) boundary faces $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. The gluing however changes the cohomology: we have to add the correponding relation $`G^{}=G`$, making $`H^2(C_{1,2},D)`$ into 1-dimensional. Indeed, $`(C_{2,1},D_{2,1})`$ is simply $`S^2`$, obtained by gluing two discs $`(\overline{C}_G,D)`$ and $`(\overline{C}_G^{},D^{})`$ along their boundaries $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$. Note, that it is mapped by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also to $`S^2`$, since contracting $`O𝕋^2`$ into a point we get $`(𝕋^2,O)S^2`$. See Figure 6.

This simple example prepares us for a general calculation of the top cohomology of the grand configuration space below.

### 3.7. Cohomology of the configuration space

Let us compute the top cohomology of $`\overline{C}_{n,m}`$. Each cell $`C_G`$ has a unique top cohomology class- the fundamental class. Thus $`H^{2n+m2}(\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m},X_{n,m})=H^{2n+m2}(_GC_G)=_{G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}}G`$, where $`X_{n,m}`$ is the union of all faces of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$. The space $`C_{n,m}`$ was obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$ by some gluings. Each time we glue some top dimensional cells of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,m}`$ along a face, it adds a relation on the generators of the cohomology. The gluings along the primary internal faces were made according to the Jacobi relation. The zip-ups of the hidden strata were made according to the antisymmetry relation. No other relations were introduced during these zip-ups, since we glued together several graphs which are identical under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}`$ up to a sign; half of them are negated by the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}`$, so the total sum is 0. We used the antisymmetry relation again to zip up the external faces corresponding to graphs with double edges. Thus $`H^{2n+m2}(C_{n,m},C_{n,m}D_{n,m})`$ is the space of labelled Lie-admissible graphs modulo the Jacobi and the antisymmetry relations. This is not quite $`J_{n,m}`$, since the graphs are labelled, but not too different: forgetting a labelling gives a surjective map to $`J_{n,m}`$.

Thus a class in $`H^{2n+m2}(C_{n,m},C_{n,m}D_{n,m})`$ (or rather its image $`Z_{n,m}J_{n,m}`$ under the forgetful map) of a top-degree form $`w`$ can be written as

(6)
$$Z_{n,m}=\underset{G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,m}}{}W_G[G]$$

where $`[G]`$ is the equivalence class of $`G`$ in $`J_{n,m}`$, and the weights $`W_G`$ can be calculated as $`W_G=_{C_G}w`$. For what follows it will be important to note that if $`w`$ is chosen so that $`w|_{C_G}=d\beta `$, then by the Stokes theorem we can compute the weights also as $`W_G=_{C_G}\beta `$.

###### Remark 3.2.

There is another version of this construction in which one works with unlabelled graphs, which are mapped not to $`𝕋^{2n}`$, but to its quotient under the action of $`S_{2n}`$ transposing the copies of $`S^1`$. While it is somewhat cleaner and requires less auxiliary data, it is harder to visualize topologically. There is, however, a simple combinatorial counterpart, which allows one to reduce the summation in (6) to unlabelled- and even further to connected- graphs, as will be explained in Section 3.8 below.

Further on we will be mostly interested in $`m=2`$ and $`m=3`$. For these values of $`m`$ we have $`dim(\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,2})=2n`$, and $`dim(\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,3})=2n+1`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,2}`$ is mapped by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,2}`$ to the torus of the same dimension, while $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{n,3}`$ has one excessive dimension.

### 3.8. Two external vertices

For $`m=2`$ we fix a non-trivial 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`S^1`$ normalized by $`_{S^1}\omega =1`$, and take for $`w`$ the pull-back $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}^{}(\omega ^{2n})`$ of the volume form $`\omega ^{2n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n}(𝕋^{2n})`$. So we set

$$W_G=_{C_G}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}^{}(\omega ^{2n})$$

in (6). Since different labellings of a graph $`G𝒢_{n,2}`$ lead to even transpositions of copies of $`S^1`$ in $`𝕋^{2n}`$ and $`\omega ^{2n}`$ is invariant under such transpositions, the weight $`W_G`$ is the same for all labellings of $`G`$. Thus, instead of summing the weights over graphs in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,2}`$, we may sum over $`G𝒢_{n,2}/AS`$ (picking any orientation and any labelling compatible with it to define $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ and $`W_G`$), counting each $`G`$ with a multiplicity being the number of its different labellings, i.e. $`(2n)!|\mathrm{Aut}G|`$, see Remark 2.1 (the additional factor of 2 disappeared since instead of counting each graph in $`𝒢_{n,2}`$ twice with both orientations we take a quotent by the AS relation).

Summing over all $`n`$ with a formal parameter $`h^n`$ and an appropriate normalization factor, we denote by $`Z`$ the following generating function:

(7)
$$Z=\underset{n}{}\frac{h^nZ_{n,2}}{(2n)!}=\underset{G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_2}{}\frac{h^{|G|}W_G}{(2n)!}[G]=\underset{G𝒢_2/AS}{}\frac{h^{|G|}W_G}{|\mathrm{Aut}G|}[G]$$

where $`|G|`$ is the number of the edges of $`G`$. Noticing that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{G^{}G^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{G^{\prime \prime }}`$ for any $`G^{},G^{\prime \prime }𝒢_2`$, we get

###### Lemma 3.3.

The weights are multiplicative, i.e. $`W_{G^{}G^{\prime \prime }}=W_G^{}W_{G^{\prime \prime }}`$ for any $`G^{},G^{\prime \prime }𝒢_2`$.

There are still quite many terms in each degree in the definition of $`Z`$, since we sum over all graphs in $`𝒢_2`$. There is a standard trick of taking the logarithm, allowing one to count only connected graphs. Denote by $`𝒢_2^c`$ the subset of graphs in $`𝒢_2`$ which remain connected after a removal of both external vertices.

###### Proposition 3.4.

$$\mathrm{ln}(Z)=\underset{G𝒢_2^c/AS}{}\frac{h^{|G|}W_G}{|\mathrm{Aut}G|}[G]$$

Indeed, for distinct graphs $`G_1,\mathrm{},G_k`$ we have

$$|\mathrm{Aut}(G_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}G_k^{i_k})|=i_1!\mathrm{}i_k!|\mathrm{Aut}G_1|^{i_1}\mathrm{}|\mathrm{Aut}G_k|^{i_k}$$

which together with the multiplicativity of the weights proves the lemma.

### 3.9. Coefficients of $`Z`$ in small degrees

Let us check the coefficients of $`Z`$ for small values of $`n`$. The only graph in $`𝒢_{0,2}`$ has no internal vertices (and no edges); its weight is 1. For $`n=1`$ we have two wedge graphs $`G`$, $`G^{}`$, as discussed in Section 3.6. Since $`|\mathrm{Aut}G|=|\mathrm{Aut}G^{}|=1`$, we get $`1/2(W_GW_G^{})[G]`$ for the coefficient of $`h`$ in $`Z`$. How can we find $`W_GW_G^{}`$ without direct calculations? Note that the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1,2}:(C_{1,2},D_{1,2})(𝕋^2,O)`$ has a well-defined relative degree. It can be computed by pulling back a volume form $`\omega ^2`$ on $`𝕋^2`$ and integrating it over $`C_GC_G^{}`$, so $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)=_{C_{1,2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}(\omega ^2)=W_GW_G^{}`$. Another way to compute $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_G)`$ is to count the algebraic number of preimages $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G^1(r)`$ of any regular value $`r`$. Choosing some reasonable regular value, we see that there is only one preimage (e.g., for $`r=(\pi /2,\pi )𝕋^2`$ we get $`\mathrm{\Phi }_G^1(r)=1+iC_G`$); thus the coefficient of $`h`$ in $`Z`$ does not depend on the choice of $`\omega `$ and is $`1/2`$.

We will use similar arguments in Section 4.2 below.

### 3.10. Three external vertices

For $`m=3`$ the pull-back $`\beta =\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}^{}(\omega ^{2n})`$ of a volume form $`\omega ^{2n}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2n}(𝕋^{2n})`$ to $`C_{n,3}`$ is a form of degree $`2n`$, while $`dim(C_{n,3})=2n+1`$. Note that $`w=d\beta =d\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}^{}(\omega ^{2n})\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,m}^{}(d(\omega ^{2n}))=0`$. Thus $`w`$ represents the zero cohomology class in the top cohomology $`H^{2n+1}(C_{n,3},C_{n,3}D)`$. Let us now compute the same zero differently- this will give a non-trivial equation on $`Z`$. By Proposition 3.1 for $`m=3`$, each boundary face of $`C_{n,3}`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}𝒢_{nk,2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }𝒢_{k,2}`$, and the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,3}`$ to it has a product structure

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}:C_G\times C_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝕋^{2(nk)}\times 𝕋^{2k}$$

Therefore, as in Section 3.7 above, the image $`0=w=d\beta `$ in $`H^{2n+1}(C_{n,3},C_{n,3}D_{n,3})`$ of $`\beta H^{2n}(C_{n,3},D)`$ may be calculated as

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{k}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}𝒢_{nk,2}}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }𝒢_{k,2}}{}\frac{1}{|\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime })|}_{C_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\times C_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{nk,2}^{}(\omega ^{2(nk)})\times \mathrm{\Phi }_{k,2}^{}(\omega ^{2k})[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }]\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{k}{}\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}𝒢_{nk,2}}{}\frac{W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{|\mathrm{Aut}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}|}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}]\right)\left(\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }𝒢_{k,2}}{}\frac{W_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}}{|\mathrm{Aut}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }|}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }]\right)\end{array}$$

and we conclude that

###### Proposition 3.5.

$`ZZ=0`$.

## 4. Quantization of Poisson structures

### 4.1. Constructing star products

Let $`A=\mathrm{\Gamma }(M,𝒪_M)`$ be the algebra of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-functions on a manifold $`M`$. A star product is an associative $`[[h]]`$-linear product on $`A[[h]]`$ which, for functions $`f,gAA[[h]]`$ is a deformation of the standard product $`fg`$:

(8)
$$fg=fg+B_1(f,g)h+B_2(f,g)h^2+\mathrm{},$$

where $`B_i:A\times AA`$ are bidifferential operators. The product then extends to $`A[[h]]`$ by linearity. A deformation quantization of a Poisson structure on $`M`$ is a construction of a star product, first term $`B_1`$ of which coincides with the (half of) Poisson bracket $`\{,\}:A\times AA`$.

Kontsevich  have shown that such a quantization always exists. His approach is based on an explicit construction of a star product on (an open domain of) $`^d`$, which then extends to an arbitrary $`M`$.

The dual of a Lie algebra has a natural Poisson structure which is linear, i.e. the components $`\alpha ^{ij}`$ of the Poisson tensor $`\alpha =\alpha ^{ij}_i_j`$ depend linearly on the coordinates $`x^i`$. Below we provide a modification of Kontsevich’s original construction for linear Poisson structures.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a linear Poisson bi-vector field on an open domain $`𝒰^d`$, defining a Poisson structure on the algebra $`A`$ of smooth functions on $`𝒰`$. Fix an arbitrary 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`S^1`$ and define a star product (8) using the series $`Z`$ of equation 7 and the map $`B`$ of Section 2.3 from graphs to bidifferential operators by

$$fg=B_{Z,\alpha }(f,g)$$

for $`f,gA`$.

Returning to the computations of the coefficients of $`Z`$ in Section 3.9 we see that $`fg=fg+\frac{h}{2}\{f,g\}+\mathrm{}`$ Moreover, translating the statement $`ZZ=0`$ of Proposition 3.5 to the language of differential operators, we readily obtain

###### Theorem 4.1.

A star product $`fg=B_{Z,\alpha }(f,g)`$ is associative.

The above star product a priori depends on the initial choice of the 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`S^1`$. It is easy to see directly from the definition that Kontsevich’s product  corresponds to $`\omega =d\varphi `$ being the standard angle form on $`S^1`$.

What can be said about other 1-forms? This is the subject of the remaining part of this note.

### 4.2. Digression on degrees of maps

If $`C_{n,2}`$ would have no boundary faces apart from the singular locus $`D_{n,2}`$, then (similarly to the case $`n=1`$ in Section 3.9) $`Z_{n,2}`$ could be interpreted as the relative degree of a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,2}:(C_{n,2},D_{n,2})(𝕋^{2n},O)`$.

Let me clarify this point: while usually one thinks about the degree $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ of a map $`f:MN`$ between two manifolds being a number, one can equivalently think that it is a vector $`\mathrm{deg}f[M]`$ in a 1-dimensional vector space (the top cohomology of $`M`$, generated by the fundamental class $`[M]`$ of $`M`$). Equivalently, $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ can be defined as a pull-back $`f^{}([N])`$ of the fundamental class of $`N`$, since $`f^{}([N])=\mathrm{deg}f[M]`$. In our setting $`M`$ is not a manifold, but a stratified space, so its top cohomology is not 1-dimensional, but is generated by graphs. While one can not any more define the degree as a number, the definition of degree as $`f^{}([N])`$ generalizes to this situation, with all usual advantages of presenting a topological value as a degree.

In particular, we would be able to make two conclusions:

* All 1-forms $`\omega `$ give the same star product;
* The coefficients of this star product are rational (with the denominators arising from the normalization factors $`1/(2n)!`$).

Unfortunately, this is not the case: the above degree is not well-defined, since in general $`C_{n,2}`$ has some boundary faces (so when we change $`\omega `$, the value of $`Z`$ may change due to a ”flow” through these faces). However, at least some partial steps on this way may be achieved.

### 4.3. Comparison of star products: 0-loop part

To understand the boundary faces, note that there is an additional grading on the configuration space by the loop number of graphs. Here the loop number $`\mathrm{}(G)`$ of a graph $`G`$ is a number of connected components appearing after a removal from $`G`$ of both external vertices. Indeed, the gluing relations (2) and (3) preserve the loop number. Thus $`C_{n,2}`$ consists of non-connected components $`C_{n,2}^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponding to graphs with $`\mathrm{}(G)=\mathrm{}`$. Accordingly, any star product splits into pieces enumerated by the loop number of the corresponding graphs. Gutt’s star product corresponds to the 0-loop piece:

###### Proposition 4.2.

The 0-loop part of a star product do not depend on the choice of a 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`S^1`$ and coincides with the standard Gutt product.

###### Proof.

The first statement follows from the fact that the 0-loop part $`C_{n,2}^0`$ of the configuration space has no non-relativized boundary faces, so the scheme discussed in Section 4.2 above works and the 0-loop part $`Z_{n,2}^0`$ of $`Z_{n,2}`$ is, up to a normalization by $`1/(2n)!`$, a relative degree of the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,2}`$ to $`(C_{n,2}^0,D_{n,2}^0)(𝕋^{2n},O)`$. Thus the 0-loop part of all star products are equal. Now results of Kathotia , who verified that for the standard angle 1-form on $`S^1`$ the coefficients of tree graphs coincide with the Gutt product, imply the theorem.

One can also verify this directly, in a purely combinatorial manner, computing the coefficients by counting the algebraic number of preimages in $`C_{n,2}^0`$ of any regular value $`r𝕋^{2n}`$ (so up to normalization factor $`1/(2n)!`$ we will get integral coefficients). Note, that this counting is to be performed with labelled graphs; indeed, to pass to unlabelled graphs in Section 3.8 we used symmetries, thus would have to deal with (not regular) values on the diagonal of $`𝕋^{2n}`$. A lengthy, but rather routine calculation (using Proposition 3.4 for $`\mathrm{ln}(Z)`$) shows that it indeed gives Gutt’s product. This is illustrated in the Example 4.4 below. ∎

### 4.4. Example

Let us compute the coefficients of 0-loop graphs for $`n=2`$, see Figure 7a. The easiest way to perform calculations is to pick a regular value $`r𝕋^4`$ very close to the diagonal. Say, let us take $`r=(\pi ,\pi +\epsilon ,\pi +2\epsilon ,\pi +3\epsilon )`$. When $`\epsilon 0`$, the value approaches the diagonal and internal vertices of graphs in the preimages tend to the infinity on $`^2`$. For small $`\epsilon `$ the edges connecting these vertices to the external vertices are almost Euclidean straight lines, as illustrated in Figure 7b. Thus calculations may be done for simplicity in the Euclidean geometry.

The first graph of Figure 7a is the square of the wedge graph (it splits into two copies of the wedge graph after the removal of the external vertices), thus its coefficient should be $`\frac{1}{2!}(\frac{1}{2})^2=\frac{1}{8}`$ in view of Proposition 3.4. This is equally easy to verify diectly: out of the total of 12 different labellings of 4 edges by $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$ exactly 3 (namely $`(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})=(1,2,3,4)`$, $`(1,3,2,4)`$, $`(1,4,2,3)`$ and $`(2,3,1,4)`$) give a preimage. It is also easy to check that for all of them the local degree is $`+1`$, so the coefficient is indeed $`\frac{1}{4!}3=\frac{1}{8}`$.

As for the second graph of Figure 7a, out of the total of 24 different labellings exactly 4 give a preimage, see Figure 8. This is due to elementary geometrical/combinatorial reasons. Consider the internal vertex $`v`$ for which one of the starting edges ends in the second internal vertex. Obviously, both edges starting in $`v`$ should eminate at angles which are either both smaller or both greater than the angle of the edge $`e`$ connecting their ends. In other words, this pair of edges should have labels either both smaller or both greater than the label of $`e`$; see Figure 8. It is easy to check that there are only 4 such labellings, depicted in Figure 8. It is also easy to check that the local degree of exactly one of them (the last labelling in Figure 8) is $`1`$, thus the coefficient is $`\frac{1}{4!}(31)=\frac{1}{12}`$.

By a similar inductive combinatorial arguments one can calculate the numbers of preimages of 0-loop graphs with higher $`n`$ (getting modified Bernulli numbers). Direct visualization of preimages becomes hard for $`n>2`$ since numbers of labellings (as well as denominators) grow too fast: for $`n=4`$ it is already $`8!=40320`$.

### 4.5. Graphs with loops

It remains to study the contribution of graphs with non-zero loop numbers. For some choices of an angle form it is easy:

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`\omega `$ be any 1-form on $`S^1`$ supported on a semicircle $`\{z=exp(i\psi ),a<\psi <a+\pi \}`$. Then the corresponding star product is the Gutt product.

###### Proof.

Without a loss of generality, suppose that the form is supported on the lower semicircle $`\{|z|=1,\mathrm{}(z)<0\}`$. Now, the weight of any graph which contains an oriented cycle is zero, since such a cycle should contain an edge directed upwards. But in the linear case each graph with non-zero loop number contains such a cycle. Thus only 0-loop graphs contribute to the star product. ∎

In other cases, the situation is more complicated and at present I fall short of computing the weights of graphs with non-zero loop numbers for arbitrary 1-forms on $`S^1`$. The remaining part of this note thus has a preliminary character. Its purpose is to explain how a computation of weights of graphs with loops (and two external vertices) can be done instead using so-called wheels, which are graphs of the type depicted in Figure 9c. This gives a possibility to compute Kontsevich’s weights of graphs with loops via a purely combinatorial count (see Section 4.7 below for an example).

### 4.6. Wheels

The above reasoning may be repeated for general $`n`$. Indeed, let us return to the study of the boundary faces of $`C_{n,2}`$. By Proposition 3.1, these faces correspond to decompositions $`G=(G/\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{nk,1}`$, thus is a wheel (or a product of wheels) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{k,2}`$. Let us cap-off the boundary faces by some new auxiliary configuration spaces. Recall that passing to $`\mathrm{ln}(Z)`$ instead of $`Z`$, we can reduce our consideration only to connected graphs; thus it would suffice to produce a $`2n`$-dimensional space $`\widehat{C}_G`$ with $`\widehat{C}_G=C_G`$ for each wheel $`G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{n,1}`$.

For this purpose let us take a space of all embeddings of the vertex set of $`G`$ in $`\overline{H}`$, modulo the 2-dimensional group $`Th(\overline{H})`$ of translations and homotheties of $`\overline{H}`$, and construct its compactification $`\widehat{C}_G`$ similarly to Section 3.4. This time there are no restrictions on the location of the external vertex $`v`$ and it is free to run over $``$. Thus $`dim(\widehat{C}_G)=2(n+1)2=2n`$, and $`C_G`$ can be realized as an infinity boundary face of $`\widehat{C}_G`$ corresponding to all embeddings for which $`v`$ and the other vertices remain in $``$. An example of a wheel $`G\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{6,1}`$ and points in the corresponding configuration spaces $`C_G`$ and $`\widehat{C}_G`$ are shown in Figures 9a, 9b, and 9c, respectively.

If $`\widehat{C}_G`$ would have no other boundary faces, we would be done. So, let us try to get rid of all other strata of $`\widehat{C}_G`$. Other infinity faces are easy to get rid of: when some internal vertices approach $``$ (probably together with $`v`$), some edges $`e`$ map under $`\varphi _e`$ to $`0`$, so the image of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G`$ belongs to $`O`$ and the corresponding face may be relativised. Also, we can easily get rid of almost all internal (principal and hidden) faces: when vertices of a proper subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$ collide together, $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains some multiple edges, so $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and hence also $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ vanish due to the antisymmetry relation. But when all vertices of $`G`$ collide together, we get the problematic anomaly face $`\widehat{C}_G(^2)`$, which is the space of all embeddings of the vertex set of $`G`$ in $`^2`$ modulo the action of $`Th(^2)`$.

There are various ways to deal with the anomaly face. One of them (not very elegant, but working) is as follows: let us consider a graph $`G^{}`$ obtained from $`G`$ by the reversal of directions of all edges, see Figure 9d. The corresponding compactified configuration space $`\widehat{C}_G^{}`$ of all embeddings of the vertex set of $`G^{}`$ in $``$ is of course the same $`\widehat{C}_G`$. However, the map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G^{}`$ differs from $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G`$. This time we may relativise it on all faces (including the infinite face where only $`v`$ approaches $``$), except for the anomaly face corresponding to collision of all vertices. But on this anomaly face $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G^{}`$ coincides with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G`$ up to reflections of some copies of $`S^1`$ in $`𝕋^{2n}`$. So, folding each copy of $`S^1`$ in two by identifying $`z`$ with $`z`$ (or, equivalently, doubling the angle map $`a2a`$), we get the maps $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_G^{}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_G`$ to agree on the anomaly face. Thus we may glue $`\overline{C}_G^{}`$ and $`\overline{C}_G`$ along the anomaly face, getting a space with the only non-relativised boundary face being the required one. This finishes the cap-off construction.

Let me illustrate an application of this idea on a simple example of graphs with $`n=2`$ external vertices.

### 4.7. Example: 2-spiked wheel

There is only one (up to a choice of an orientation) graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢_{2,2}`$ with $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=1`$, see Figure 10a. The only boundary face of $`C_{2,2}^1`$ which was not relativized or zipped-up corresponds to collision of the two external vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, see Figures 10b. This face may be identified with $`C_G`$, where $`G𝒢_{2,1}`$ is a wheel with two spikes, shown in Figure 10c. We cap-off this boundary face as described above, using an auxiliary 4-dimensional configuration space $`\widehat{C}_G`$, see Figure 10d. The only boundary faces of $`\widehat{C}_G`$ which are not mapped to the singular locus $`O𝕋^4`$ are $`_G`$ (correspondng to the vertex $`v`$ of $`G`$ approaching $``$) and the anomaly face $`\widehat{C}_G(^2)`$ (corresponding to all vertices of $`G`$ colliding together). In this example we can get rid of the anomaly face without using $`\widehat{C}_G^{}`$, simply by folding each copy of $`S^1`$ in $`T^4`$ in two (identifying $`\varphi `$ with $`\varphi +\pi `$).

After we get rid of the last boundary face $`C_G`$ of $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by gluing to it $`\widehat{C}_G`$, we may apply the scheme of Section 4.2 to compute the relative degree of the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G:(C_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{C}_G,D)(𝕋^4,O)`$. For any volume form $`\omega `$ on $`𝕋^4`$ we have

$$_{C_\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\omega )+_{\widehat{C}_G}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(\omega )=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})$$

We conclude that the weight $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the weight $`\widehat{W}_G(Go)=_{\widehat{C}_G}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}(\omega )`$ of the wheel $`G`$ are related by $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )+\widehat{W}_G(\omega )=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G)`$. In particular, we can use for $`\omega `$ the standard uniform volume form on $`𝕋^4`$; this gives Kontsevich’s weights $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Ko}`$ for $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )`$ and (following Shoikhet ) $`\widehat{W}_G^{Ko}=0`$, so $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Ko}=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G)`$. On the other hand, we can compute $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G)`$ counting preimages of any regular value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_G`$; this gives a purely combinatorial method for calculation of $`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Ko}`$.


format: text

text:
# Magnetoresistance through spin polarized p-states

## Abstract

We present a theoretical study of the ballistic magnetoresistance in Ni contacts using first-principles, atomistic electronic-structure calculations. In particular we investigate the role of defects in the contact region in order to explain the recently observed spectacular magnetoresistance ratio. Our results predict that possible presence of spin polarized oxygen in the contact region, could explain conductance changes by an order of magnitude. Electronic transport essentially occurs through spin-polarized oxygen p states, and this mechanism gives a much higher magnetoresistance than that obtained assuming clean atomically sharp domain walls alone.

Understanding spin transport in order to use it in electronics devices is an intensively pursuited goal over the last years. Towards this direction spectacular effects were reported in electrodeposited Ni nanocontacts where resistance changes by two to three orders of magnitude when applying a small magnetic field at room temperature. ChHuPRB0203 ; WaChGa02  This has followed after effort was focused on the magnetoresistance effect of electrodeposited nanocontacts. Garcia0 ; Garcia  Smaller magnetoresistance ratios, up to few hundred percent, were reported in ballistic Ni, Co, and Fe nanoconstrictions TaZhMuPRL99  and $`Fe_3O_4`$ nanocontacts. VeBaCoPRL01  There have been several attempts to explain the experimental data. One possibility considered is the scattering of the electrons in a domain wall. PhMuPRL02 ; TaVoEfPRB01 ; TaZhMuPRL99 ; VeBaCoPRL01  The width of a domain wall in a nanocontact is predicted to be of the order of the nanocontact size, BrPRL99  and such a reduction of the domain wall width increases the magnetoresistance. Magnetostriction effects could also lead to an increased magnetoresistance, VeBaCoPRL01  but most probably cannot explain the experiments. Garcia0  Alternatively, a thin domain wall pinned in a magnetic dead layer together with the possibility of 100% polarization of the Ni d electrons was also proposed as a possible explanation. WaChGa02 ; Garcia0  Moreover the effect of several ballistic nanocontacts in parallel requires further study as pointed out in the most recent work of Ref. ChHuPRB0203, .

There is some experimental effort to measure the magnetoresistance due to a domain wall in a constriction, RuYuThPRB99 ; MiShMiJAP02 ; TaNaNaPRL99 ; EbRaHePRL00  but all studies found magnetoresistance values of the order of 1% or less. This result is not far from theoretical predictions of Levy and Zhang, who reported values between 2% and 11%. LeZhPRL97  Ab initio calculations for the ballistic conductance through an atomically sharp domain wall HoScBrPRB99  predict MR ratios up to 60-70%, which is at least one order of magnitude lower than the experimental values on the electrodeposited Ni nanocontacts. On the other hand, phenomenological models TaVoEfPRB01 ; VeBaCoPRL01  seem to account for magnetoresistance values up to a few hundred percent, by assuming domain wall scattering. However it is difficult to assign a realistic spin polarization in order to explain magnetoconductance (MC) values of the order of thousands of per cent.

Since the big effects appear on electrodeposited Ni, nanocontacts Garcia  the electrodeposition process should play a decisive role for the nanocontact properties. The chemistry and structure of the contacts is not yet clear, while there is some indication that the diameter of the nanocontacts is not the crucial factor to obtain big magnetoresistance. WaChGa02  Generally, different conductance values are attributed to different diameters of the contact area, however the transport mechanism is still not clear.

In this work we propose a new mechanism, based on the presence of spin-polarized oxygen in the contact region, that could explain rather high magnetoresistance values in Ni contacts. We considered Cl, S, O, and C in the contact region WaChGa02 , and studied the influence of the nanocontact chemistry on the magnetotransport properties by means of electronic structure calculations. Only oxygen was found to have a magnetic moment in the structures we studied, while a presence of a magnetic dead layer cannot explain the observed effect since it reduces the magnetoresistance ratio and this is confirmed by our calculations.

We model the nanocontacts by two semiinfinite Ni (001) ideal leads covered with a full monolayer (ML) of Cl, S, C and O, and bring them close together. We use the experimental lattice constant of Ni: $`a_0`$=6.65 au. The distance of the defect layer from the Ni surface is $`a_0/2`$ and the defect layers are separated by $`a_0`$. We do not intent to model an O overlayer on the Ni (001) surface, the structure and magnetic properties of O on Ni is studied well in the past both theoretically and experimentally, OonNi ; StWaAlJCP97  and is not relevant to the structure of electrodeposited Ni nanocontacts. Our aim is to use a simple model structure in order to achieve the minimum requirements that would demonstrate the effect of spin polarized transport through p-states. The experimental structure in the nanocontacts where the high magnetoresistance is observed is not well known, but spin polarization on the O atoms can occur for example if a thin NiO layer is present in the contact. NiOO  Moreover we assume that the electronic transport is ballistic.

The electronic structure is calculated using the Screened Korringa-Kohn-Rostoker (KKR) Green’s function method, details of which can be found elsewhere. PaZeDeJPB02  The potential is assumed to be spherically symmetric around each atom. We considered an angular momentum cutoff $`l_{max}=3`$ for the wavefunctions and the Green’s function, and $`l_{max}=6`$ in the multipole expansion of the charge density. The screening transformation of the KKR method allows for the description of semi-infinite geometries using the decimation method. Exchange and correlation effects are taken into account within the local density approximation of the density functional theory LDA  using the parameterization of Vosko, Wilk, and Nusair. VoWiNuCJP80  The conductance $`g`$ is calculated within the Kubo linear response theory as formulated by Baranger and Stone. BaStPRB89  We consider a sample connected to two semi-infinite leads. Two surfaces $`C_n`$ and $`C_m`$ separate the leads from the sample. Following Ref. BaStPRB89,  the conductance between the two leads at energy $`E`$ and at zero temperature is given by

$$g=\frac{e^2\mathrm{}^3}{8\pi M^2}_{C_n}dS_{C_m}dS^{}G^+(𝐫,𝐫^{};E)\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}G^{}(𝐫^{},𝐫;E)$$
(1)
where $`f(r)\stackrel{}{}g(r)=f(r)g(r)g(r)f(r)`$, and $`G^+`$, $`G^{}`$ are the advanced and retarded Green’s functions, respectively. The systems under consideration have a two-dimensional (2D) periodicity parallel to the interfaces, and the surface integrals in Eq. (1) are performed using a Fourier transform. A detailed presentation will be reported elsewhere. MaPaDe02  The Green’s function for the conductance calculation was evaluated using a small imaginary part to the energy ImE=0.02 mRy.

In Fig. 1 we present the local density of states (LDOS) of O at the interface and of Ni at the neighboring layer. The magnetic moment of Ni is 0.85 $`\mu _B`$ compared to the bulk value of 0.61 $`\mu _B`$; this value is very close to the clean Ni (001) surface moment. The oxygen in our structure has a rather big moment of 1.4 $`\mu _B`$. We note that the difference of the LDOS at the Fermi level is larger for the Ni (d) states compared with the (p) states of O as can seen in Fig. 1. However, the induced p magnetization is the key factor to achieve high magnetoconductance ratios. In Fig. 2 we present the conductance for each spin channel, for parallel (P) and antiparallel (AP) orientation of the magnetic moments in the Ni leads, together with the MC ratio, defined as $`\mathrm{MC}=\frac{g_Pg_{AP}}{g_{AP}}`$. The magnetic profile changes only little in the antiparallel configuration and O remains highly spin polarized. As we can see in the bottom panel of Fig. 2 the MC ratio was found to be about 450% at the Fermi level and increases up to almost 700% at 0.3 eV above $`E_F`$. The conductance and MC ratio peaks are closely related to the LDOS at the O site. Comparing Fig. 1 with Fig. 2, we can see that since the majority-spin states are occupied (they are below $`E_F`$), the variation of the MC ratio above $`E_F`$ reflects the variation of the minority LDOS. The p polarization leads to a large contrast in the conductance between majority and minority channels. Although the spin polarization of Ni at $`E_F`$ is almost twice larger than the O one, it is the relatively small spin polarization of the oxygen p states which is responsible for the spectacular MC ratio. Indeed, our calculations show that in a pure Ni contact where two Ni (001) leads are separated by one vacuum layer the MC ratio has a maximum value of only $`70\%`$, which is similar to the values reported previously for the magnetoresistance of abrupt, atomically sharp domain walls in the ballistic regime HoScBrPRB99 . The question of spin polarization and its relevance to the observed current spin polarization has been discussed before. Mazin01  Our results introduce another factor, the character of the polarization, which is missing from the models used previously to explain the observed effects. TaVoEfPRB01 ; VeBaCoPRL01  Spin polarization of p orbitals is more difficult to occur but, once this is achieved, highly spin-polarized currents are possible. In the present work this was demonstrated with O but other substances might lead to similar effects as well.

In order to exclude the possibility that the big MC values are an artifact of the 2D periodicity we used a c(2x2) structure for the O on the surface of Ni (001) and recalculated the transport properties. Despite the fact that c(2x2) structure is close to the experimental structure for an O overlayer on Ni (001), StWaAlJCP97  the distance between Ni and O we used is almost double compared with the experimental structure in order to achieve polarized O. Since transport is mainly determined by the contact region we are interested just on the effect of spin-polarized O on a magnetic substrate.

Our results for the LDOS close to the Fermi level together with the MC ratio are shown in Fig. 3. The magnetic moment on the O atoms is now reduced to 0.95 $`\mu _B`$, while the Ni moment is less affected. This is also seen in the LDOS of O where the minority-spin p states are lower in energy compared to the case of one ML oxygen coverage. As we can see the large MC effect survives also in this configuration. The MC ratio is rather small at $`E_F`$ but increases rapidly just 0.5 eV above $`E_F`$. The largest MC values, of about 500%, are obtained at the oxygen p peak position. In other words, p orbitals can build highly conducting channels and, if they are spin polarized, conductance in one spin channel can be even two orders of magnitude higher than that in the other spin channel. However in the systems we studied the MC ratios are limited to $`700\%`$ since conductance is not so drastically reduced in the antiparallel configuration. We note that the proposed mechanism: high current when a bond is formed, vanishingly small current when the bond is broken, in the antiparallel configuration, cannot exclude even higher MC ratios depending on the exact structure chosen. However it is important that the O-O bond energy should be smaller than exchange energy so that the bond can break and reform by applying a magnetic field. The interaction between the two magnetic leads should be weak enough so that the domain wall is pined at the contact region.

Despite the fact that the proposed mechanism can explain high magnetoconductance values it cannot fully account for the experimental findings. In particular experimentally both positive and negative magnetioresistance is observed, ChHuPRB0203  moreover conductance is generally big at zero magnetic field and becomes much smaller when applying a magnetic field. The influence of an antiferromagnetic NiO layer at the contact region requires further study, but as the present work shows large changes in conductance can result from spin polarized O-O bonds.

It is important that a big magnetic moment on the O atoms is not a necessary condition to obtain big MC ratio. Only a big difference in the LDOS between minority- and majority-spin electrons at the Fermi level is required. Moreover Ni itself is not a necessary ingredient; any magnetic material that could support O at the contact region and induce spin polarization to the O atoms would have similar properties.

Finally we would like to make a clear distinction between the phenomena presented here and the effect of hot spots in the conductance studied previously in ferromagnet/vacuum/ferromagnet tunnel junctions. WuPaZe02  In that case tunneling coexists with transport through interface states, which have a transmission coefficient close to unity and are localized in a very small region of the surface Brillouin zone. However the hot spots depend sensitively on the symmetry of the junction and require flat, ideal interfaces. Any small disorder would suppress the effect. On the contrary, the big MC ratios reported here are related to spin-dependent transport through O-O bonds. The 2D structure is not a crucial factor and this is also clear from the $`k_{}`$-dependent conductance where the variation is relatively smooth and a big part of the surface Brillouin zone gives significant contributions.

Summarizing, our results show that high MC ratios in Ni nanocontacts, could be explained by spin-dependent defect scattering at the nanocontact. This is in agreement with the conclusion of Ref. LeZhPRL97,  that defect scattering can enhance the magnetoresistance in a domain wall; however the role of spin-polarized p orbitals has not been pointed out up to now, to our knowledge. We have demonstrated that if oxygen at the contact region is spin polarized, this gives rise to high MC ratios. This idea is not in contradiction with the idea of scattering in an atomically sharp domain wall. However ab-initio ballistic transport calculations cannot explain magnetoresistances of few hundred percent, assuming a defect-free atomically sharp domain wall. On the contrary, the transport mechanism proposed in this work can justify spin polarization close to 100% that is required to explain the spectacular MC ratios in electrodeposited nanocontacts. We hope that our theoretical prediction will stimulate further experimental studies to clarify the role of chemistry and in particular of NiO on the magnetotransport properties of nanocontacts.

###### Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank O. Cespedeo for useful correspondence.