text:
# Magnetic field chaos in the SK Model

## 1 Introduction

The Sherrington–Kirkpatrick (SK) model was introduced quite a long time ago  as a mean field model for spin glasses. Its proposed analytical solution  displays intriguing features such as an infinite number of pure states in the glassy phase, described by an order parameter which is the non trivial probability distribution of the overlap between two states, $`P(q)`$. After more than twenty years this solution is still the subject of works aiming at establishing it in full mathematical rigor , whereas long standing open issues concern the study of the corrections to the mean field approximation below the upper critical dimension  and the very applicability of the mean field picture to short range realistic spin glasses .

An interesting question concerns the way in which the states reorganize themselves when the system is subjected to a small perturbation $`\delta p`$ of an external parameter, in particular the temperature $`T`$ or the magnetic field $`h`$. There is the intriguing possibility of $`p`$ chaos, namely that states at $`p`$ and states at $`p+\delta p`$ are as different as possible in the thermodynamic limit.

The possible presence of temperature chaos in the SK and related models is an old subject of investigations - that recently received a lot of attention both analytically and numerically -. From a very recent analytical computation  it turns out to be present but to be of the ninth order in perturbation theory, a very weak effect, extremely difficult to be numerically observed on the system sizes one is currently able to thermalize.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the appearance of chaos with increasing system sizes (a question that cannot be addressed by existing analytical techniques, that are restricted to the asymptotic $`N\mathrm{}`$ regime), in a case where chaos is strong, namely the case of magnetic field chaos. The presence of magnetic field chaos was predicted already twenty years ago  (see also ). From the numerical point of view, it was observed in a previous work  from a study of the behavior of the second moment of the probability distribution of the overlap $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ between replicas at $`h_0=0`$ and $`h_10`$. This pioneering paper can however be criticized since many data points are on the wrong side of the De Almeida Thouless (AT) line . We will revisit the problem by looking (in the SG phase) at the distribution $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ itself, a quantity whose interpretation is simpler than the moments.

More in detail, in terms of the probability distribution of the overlap between two replicas at different values of the external parameter $`h_0`$ and $`h_1=h_0+\delta h`$, chaos has a very clean signature. Taking for simplicity the case $`h_0=0`$, for small volumes $`P_{0,\delta h}(q)`$ has two peaks, and is very similar to $`P_{0,0}(q)`$ on the same volume. As the volume grows, a peak develops around the minimal value of the overlap $`q_m=0`$, in such a way that for very large volumes $`P_{0,0}(q)\delta (q)`$. In the temperature chaos case, this chaotic peak is hardly visible with current computers and algorithms. Our aim is to determine if and how this “chaos peak” scenario takes place in the case of $`h`$ chaos, that is believed to be much stronger than $`T`$ chaos.

To this aim, we perform numerical simulations of the SK model at $`T=0.6T_c`$, both above and below the AT line, by using a modified version of the Parallel Tempering algorithm  in which the system is allowed to move between different $`h`$ values at fixed temperature.

## 2 Model and Observables

The Sherrington–Kirkpatrick spin glass model  is described by the Hamiltonian

$$_J=\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i\sigma _jh\underset{1iN}{}\sigma _i,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ are Ising spins, the sum runs over all pairs of spins and $`J_{ij}`$ are quenched identically distributed independent random variables with mean value $`\overline{J_{ij}}=0`$ and variance $`1/N`$. We take $`J_{ij}=\pm N^{1/2}`$.

In order to measure the probability distribution of the overlap $`P(q)`$ one usually considers two independent replicas $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ and $`\{\tau _i\}`$ evolving contemporaneously and independently (at the same temperature and at the same value of the magnetic field):

$`𝒬`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sigma _i\tau _i`$ (2)
$`P(q)`$ $``$ $`\overline{P_J(q)}\overline{\delta (q𝒬)},`$ (3)
where the thermal average $``$ corresponds to the average over Monte Carlo time in the simulation whereas $`\overline{()}`$ stands for the average over the $`J_{ij}`$ realizations. This is the order parameter in the glassy phase, which in the thermodynamic limit behaves as

$$P(q)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\delta (qq_{EA})\hfill & & |h|>h_{AT}(T)\hfill \\ x_m\delta (qq_m)+\stackrel{~}{P}(q)+x_M\delta (qq_{EA})\hfill & & 0<|h|<h_{AT}(T)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\left[\stackrel{~}{P}(q)+\stackrel{~}{P}(q)\right]+\frac{x_M}{2}\left[\delta (qq_{EA})+\delta (q+q_{EA})\right]\hfill & & h=0,T<T_c\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`h_{AT}(T)`$ is the critical value of the magnetic field signaling the AT line, with $`h_{AT}(T)(4/3)^{1/2}(T_cT)^{3/2}`$ for $`TT_c^{}`$ ($`T_c=1`$ in this model) . In the glassy phase, the stable solution corresponds to a full replica symmetry breaking (FRSB), i.e. to a non-trivial $`P(q)`$ with a continuous distribution $`\stackrel{~}{P}(q)`$ between two $`\delta `$-functions at values $`q_{EA}`$ and $`q_m`$ respectively. For $`TT_c^{}`$ one finds that $`x_mq_mh^{2/3}`$, $`(q_{EA}q_m)(x_Mx_m)(h_{AT}(T)h)`$. Note that at $`h=0`$ the function $`P(q)`$ is symmetric, reflecting the symmetry of the system for $`\{\sigma _i\}\{\sigma _i\}`$, and the $`\delta `$-function in $`q_m`$ disappears.

The interesting quantity to study when looking for chaos is the probability distribution of the overlap between two replicas which evolve at different values of the magnetic field, $`h_0`$ and $`h_1=h_0+\delta h`$, definable as

$$P_{h_0,h_1}(q)=\overline{\delta (q𝒬_{h_0,h_1})}.$$
(5)
It is expected to become a $`\delta `$-function in the thermodynamic limit, where in presence of chaos states are as different as possible and accordingly their mutual overlap approach the minimum possible value, i.e. $`q_m(h_0)`$ (which is zero for $`h_0=0`$). This happens certainly in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit as soon as the condition $`(h_1h_0)^2N>>1`$ is verified .

In finite dimensions, one can define the overlap correlation function $`C_{h_0,h_1}(|𝐫_𝐢𝐫_𝐣|)=\overline{\sigma _𝐢\sigma _𝐣\tau _𝐢\tau _𝐣}`$ which decays exponentially with a correlation length that was evaluated (in $`d>8`$, i.e. above the upper critical dimension of the model)  to be $`\xi _{h_0=0,h_1}h_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2/3}`$ and $`\xi _{h_00,h_1=h_0+\delta h}h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1/6}(\delta h)^{1/2}`$ respectively.

Adimensional ratios of momenta, such as

$`A^{2n}(h_0,h_1,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_1}\right)^{2n}}_{h_0,h_1}}{\sqrt{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_0}\right)^{2n}}_{h_0,h_0}\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_1,h_1}\right)^{2n}}_{h_1,h_1}}}},`$ (6)
$`B^{2n}(h_0,h_1,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_1}\right)^{2n}}_{h_0,h_1}}{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_0}\right)^{2n}}_{h_0,h_0}}},`$ (7)
have been introduced in order to look for chaos in reference , where it was argued that they should scale as $`\stackrel{~}{f}(Nh_1^{8/3})`$ for $`h_0=0`$ and approach zero for $`N\mathrm{}`$, namely that there is magnetic field chaos.

The finite size corrections to the asymptotic behavior of $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ were computed in  by considering two replicas, at different values of the magnetic field, constrained to have a fixed overlap $`q`$. The constraint causes a free energy excess for $`qq_m`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=f(q=q_m+\delta q)f(q=q_m)`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\frac{2187}{32}\right)^{1/3}\frac{\delta q^2h_1^{8/3}}{q_{EA}}\hfill & & h_0=0\hfill \\ & & \\ \frac{\delta q^2h_0\delta h}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & & h_00,\delta h=|h_1h_0|<<h_0\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
Correspondingly one has $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)\mathrm{exp}(N\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$, i.e. a Gaussian with variance $`\overline{q^2_{0,h_1}}(Nh_1^{8/3})^1`$ for $`h_0=0`$, in agreement with the above scaling law.

## 3 Parallel Tempering in Magnetic Field

The Parallel Tempering (PT) or Multiple Markov Chain Method is a widely used numerical algorithm particularly efficient for simulating (some) systems with a corrugated free energy landscape. The basic idea is that the system at equilibrium, instead of being trapped in a single low temperature valley is allowed to move at higher temperatures where the landscape is trivial and to return at low $`T`$ in a different valley. This can be achieved by considering $`n`$ replicas of the system, each one at a different temperature in a given set (of temperatures), and by allowing exchanges of temperatures between nearest neighbor replicas with the usual Monte Carlo probability.

Here we consider a set of replicas at different values of the magnetic field, both above and below the AT line, allowing exchange of $`h`$ values between nearest neighbor replicas with the appropriate probability

$$P\left(\{h_1,\{\sigma ^1\};h_2,\{\sigma ^2\}\}\{h_2,\{\sigma ^1\};h_1,\{\sigma ^2\}\}\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}1\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }H_{tot}>0\hfill \\ e^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }H_{tot}}\hfill & & \mathrm{\Delta }H_{tot}<0\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where

$$H_{tot}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{1i<jN}{}J_{ij}\sigma _i^a\sigma _j^ah_{\pi (a)}\underset{1iN}{}\sigma _i^a$$
(10)
and therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }H_{tot}=(h_1h_2)\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i^2\right)$$
(11)
In principle this h-PT method should be efficient for thermalization like the usual T-PT method, since the landscape is trivial above the AT line. It is moreover a well suited method for the kind of numerical study we are interested in, since one can easily measure $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ by considering two or more independent sets of replicas. However, as we are going to discuss in detail, we find that its efficiency rapidly decreases when simulating large system sizes.

We studied the cases $`N=64,256`$ and 1024, taking a set of $`n=49`$ equally spaced magnetic field values between $`h=\pm |h_{max}|=\pm 0.6`$ at the temperature $`T=0.6`$, where the AT line occurs at the critical value $`h_{AT}(T=0.6)0.382`$ .

We alternate one sweep of each replica with the usual Metropolis algorithm and one sweep with the PT algorithm.

The probability for two replicas to exchange their magnetic fields is related to the overlap between the corresponding histograms of the magnetization $`P(m)`$ that we check to be large enough (see \[Fig. 1\]) even for $`N=1024`$. However some single sample $`P_J(m)`$ display two peaks at $`\pm m_00`$ when $`h=0`$ (see \[Fig 1\]). As a result, replicas can separate into two distinct subsets, one evolving in the phase space with positive and the other with negative magnetic field values (the probability for a replica which arrive at $`h=0`$ with $`mm_0<0`$ to move at a positive $`\delta h`$ value is of order $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta m_0\delta hN)`$, much smaller than the usual $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta \chi \delta h^2N)`$). This happens for some $`N=1024`$ samples. In order to avoid such a problem, we add a new possible global movement, allowing a replica at $`h=0`$ to reverse the sign of all its spins with probability 1/2.

Each run is divided into two equal parts and we check thermalization by comparing the data obtained in the second part with the ones of the second quarter, looking in particular at the behavior of $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$. We perform 50.000+50.000, 100.000+100.000 and 300.000+300.000 h-PT steps for $`N=64`$, 256 and 1024 respectively. In the $`N=1024`$ case we also performed independent runs with temperature PT for 64 disorder samples at $`h=0`$ and $`h=0.3`$, obtaining indistinguishable results for $`P(q)`$.

We simulated four sets of replicas evolving contemporaneously and independently (i.e. $`49\times 4=196`$ replicas). Data are averaged over 256 disorder configurations for each system size, and statistical errors are evaluated from sample-to-sample fluctuations by using the Jack-knife method. The program was multi-spin coded with 64 different sites of the system in the same computer word and the whole simulations took about 5500 CPU hours (in the largest part used for $`N=1024`$), i.e. about one week when running over 32 processors on the COMPAQ SC270 (the program can be easily parallelized by running different samples over different processors).

In the $`N=64`$ and $`256`$ cases the algorithm works quite nicely, as can be seen from the number of tunnelings, namely the number of times that each replica moves from one extrema of the set (of $`h`$ values) to the other and back, which is about $`𝒩=15÷20`$ (in the second half of the run). On the other hand, already for $`N=1024`$, despite the 300.000 PT steps of the second part of the run, this number drops to $`𝒩=5÷6`$ and in nearly 1/4 of the samples there is at least one replica which is unable to go from $`h_{max}`$ to $`h_{min}`$ and back in the whole considered interval (in a few cases most replicas never did it).

In the case of temperature PT, the corresponding (average) number of tunnelings are $`3780`$, $`1590`$ and $`455`$ respectively (in runs of 400.000 steps starting from equilibrium configurations, with a set of 38 temperatures between $`T_{max}=1.325`$ and $`T_{min}=0.4`$ at $`h=0.3`$ for $`N=64,256`$, and $`1024`$). Clearly the number of tunnelings decreases much faster with system size in the h-PT case. This is presumably linked to the early appearance of magnetic field chaos. As we will discuss in detail in the next section, $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ starts to approach a $`\delta `$-function, i.e. its thermodynamic limit behavior, already for magnetic field differences of order 0.15, for $`N=1024`$. This means that the corresponding phase spaces are $`very`$ different and that an algorithm based on global movements between different values of $`h`$ can not work well. Similarly the efficiency of temperature PT should drop down for extremely large systems due to temperature chaos finally coming out.

The bottom line is that $`N=1024`$ is the largest size we are able to efficiently thermalize at $`T=0.6`$ by using the h-PT algorithm, to be compared with the four time larger $`N=4096`$ that can be thermalized down to $`T=0.4`$ with the temperature PT algorithm at zero magnetic field.

## 4 Results and Discussion

### 4.1 On the finite size corrections to the $`P(q)`$.

The function $`P(q)`$ is shown in \[Fig. 2\] for $`h=0.0,0.1,0.2`$ and 0.3. At $`h=0.0`$ it agrees nicely with the expected behavior, whereas it is strongly affected by finite size effects for non-zero magnetic field. This is in qualitative agreement with the theoretical finding  that the finite size corrections of $`P(q)`$ are an order of magnitude larger in the $`q<q_m`$ region than in the $`q>q_{EA}`$ region, namely,

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(P(q)\right)}{N}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _m(q_mq)^3\hfill & & q<<q_m\hfill \\ \lambda _{EA}(qq_{EA})^3\hfill & & q>>q_{EA}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
with $`\lambda _m<<\lambda _{EA}`$. The behavior for $`q>q_{EA}`$ was tested (for $`h=0`$) in  and .

Here we find that for the considered sizes $`P(q)`$ has a visible tail in the $`q<0`$ region for $`h`$ as large as $`0.3`$. Moreover the peak that should correspond to the thermodynamic limit $`\delta (qq_m)`$ is not visible and the expected $`\mathrm{exp}(N\lambda _m(q_mq)^3)`$ behavior is swamped by the reminiscence of the $`q=q_{EA}`$ peak, still clearly visible at $`h=0.1`$. For increasing magnetic fields the weight of the $`q=q_m`$ peak should increase (and the reminiscence of the $`q=q_{EA}`$ peak fade away) but $`q_m`$ approaches $`q_{EA}`$ making difficult to distinguish between the two peaks. This kind of strong finite size effects in magnetic field were already observed in finite dimensional spin glasses . Larger system sizes and / or lower temperatures would be needed in order to see the correct large volume behavior.

On the other hand, we note that in our data $`q_{EA}`$ (defined as the location of the maximum of $`P(q)`$) is practically independent of the field, as predicted by Parisi theory (in the infinite volume limit). We obtain $`q_{EA}0.53`$ for $`N=1024`$, where a recent analytical computation  gives the asymptotic value $`q_{EA}0.505`$ (independently of $`h`$).

### 4.2 On magnetic field chaos

In order to find evidences for magnetic field chaos we analyze the behavior of $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$. We first consider the case $`h_0=0.0`$ (then $`P_{0,h_1}(q)`$ is still symmetric for $`qq`$) and let $`h_1`$take the values 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 and 0.3 (see \[Fig. 3\]). Already for $`h_1=0.15`$ we find clear evidences for a chaotic behavior when looking at the $`N=1024`$ data. This is very different from the situation one finds when looking for temperature chaos  where $`P_{T_0,T_1}(q0)`$ does not show a clear peak corresponding to the thermodynamic limit $`\delta (q)`$ for $`(T_1T_0)`$ as large as 0.2 and sizes as large as $`N=4096`$. It is remarkable that the appearance of magnetic field chaos with increasing system sizes is a very sudden phenomenon: chaos is elusive for $`N=256`$ and blatant for $`N=1024`$.

On the other hand, to get a nearly Gaussian behavior we have to consider at least $`N=1024`$ and $`h_1`$ values as large as 0.3, but the variance is more than an order of magnitude larger than the one predicted by (8). Our data suggest that the support of $`P_{0,h}`$ shrinks to zero as $`N`$ grows, and the chaotic $`q0`$ peak dominates more and more the distribution.

Moreover, we find that $`A^{2n}(h_0,h_1)`$ and $`B^{2n}(h_0,h_1)`$, which decrease for increasing sizes as soon as $`h_1>0`$, are in agreement with the expected scaling law , i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{f}(Nh_1^{8/3})`$. We consider in particular

$$B^2(h_0,h_1,T)=\frac{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_1}\right)^2}_{h_0,h_1}}{\overline{\left(q\overline{q}_{h_0,h_0}\right)^2}_{h_0,h_0}},$$
(13)
which is plotted in scaling form in \[Fig. 4\]. In the limit $`1/(Nh_1^{8/3})<<1`$ the scaling function is approaching the asymptotic regime $`\stackrel{~}{f}(Nh_1^{8/3})1/(Nh_1^{8/3})`$ in qualitative agreement with the first-order perturbative result (8). This shows that the asymptotic regime is indeed approached in our data, and that we can safely deduce that $`lim_N\mathrm{}B^2(0,h_10,T)=0`$.

We conclude the analysis of the $`h_0=0`$ case by looking at $`P_{h_0,h_1}(0)`$ as a function of $`h_1`$. It increases when considering increasing sizes (apart from the very small $`h`$ values, where there are clearly strong finite size effects) and scales roughly as $`\stackrel{~}{f}(Nh_1^{8/3})`$ (see \[Fig. 4\]) with $`\stackrel{~}{f}(Nh_1^{8/3})`$ approaching the expected behavior $`\sqrt{Nh_1^{8/3}}`$ for $`Nh_1^{8/3}>>1`$. We also note that though we have plotted data only for $`h_10.4`$ these scaling laws appear satisfied also when including data corresponding to $`h_1`$ values on the other side of the AT line.

Next we consider $`h_0=0.1`$, $`h_1=0.15,0.2,0.25`$ and $`0.3`$ (see \[Fig. 5\]). The $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$ is still expected to approach a $`\delta `$-function in the thermodynamic limit, now centered in $`q_m`$ ($`q_m(h=0.1)=0.21`$ independent of $`T`$ from a recent analytical study ). However, we have already noted that the peak in $`q_m`$ is not evident in our data for (the usual) $`P(q)`$ and correspondingly there is no clear evidence for chaotic behavior in $`P_{h_00,h_1}(q)`$. Also for the largest size considered, i.e. $`N=1024`$, though a small second peak in $`q0.05`$ is appearing, the dominant contribution is still coming from the reminiscence of the peak in $`q_{EA}`$, whose mean value and height are slowly decreasing for increasing $`h_1`$. As a matter of fact, when going to the other side of the AT line, i.e. $`h_10.4`$, it is this peak that survives, becoming centered on a definitely lower $`q`$ value ($`\overline{q}_{h_0=0.1,h_1=0.6}0.18`$ for $`N=1024`$, smaller than $`q_m`$).

It is clear that one should look at larger $`N`$’s to get evidences for the expected Gaussian shape $`\mathrm{exp}((qq_m)^2/2\sigma _{th}^2)`$ (with $`1/\sigma _{th}^2=\sqrt{2}Nh_0|h_1h_0|`$) in the spin glass phase. Therefore, it is not surprising that a quantity such as $`B^2(h_0,h_1)`$ does $`not`$ scale as a function of $`N(h_1h_0)`$. In the case we are considering of $`h_0=0.1`$ a form $`B2\stackrel{~}{f}(N(h_1h_0)^\alpha )`$ still roughly works, with $`\alpha 4`$. Nevertheless, data presented in \[Fig. 6\] show that even for $`N=1024`$ and $`(h_1h_0)0.3`$ we are very far from an asymptotic regime $`\stackrel{~}{f}(x)1/x`$. When looking at larger $`h_0`$, $`B2`$ definitely does not scale, for instance already at $`h_0=0.2`$ we get $`B2(N=1024)>B2(N=256)`$ in the whole interval $`0.2<h_10.4`$.

## 5 Conclusions

We performed numerical simulations of the SK model in a magnetic field at temperature $`T=0.6`$ both in the glassy phase and above the AT line. We used a modified version of the PT algorithm in which the system is allowed to move between a chosen set of magnetic field values, an algorithm well suited for our purpose. We found that $`N=1024`$ is the largest size one is able to efficiently thermalize with this method and we argue that this is related to the appearance of magnetic field chaos at this scale.

The function $`P(q)`$ shows strong finite size corrections for $`h>0`$, with a long tail in the $`q<0`$ region that slowly disappears for increasing sizes, whereas the peak corresponding to the thermodynamic limit $`\delta (qq_m)`$ is not yet visible.

Our main result is on the behavior of $`P_{h_0,h_1}(q)`$, which in the case of $`h_0=0.0`$ shows evidence for chaos already at $`h_1=0.15`$ when considering the still relatively small size $`N=1024`$. This is at variance with the situation one finds when looking for temperature chaos , in agreement with the very recent analytical finding  that temperature chaos is a much weaker effect. The appearance of the third peak in $`q=0`$ is accompanied by a shrinking of the support of the distribution.

The expected scaling law  is well satisfied and for large $`Nh_1^{8/3}`$ $`P_{h_0=0,h_1}(q)`$ approaches a Gaussian with variance $`1/(Nh_1^{8/3})`$, in qualitative agreement with the result of a first order perturbative computation .

On the other hand, when looking at the chaotic behavior for $`h_00`$ we found ourselves to be still very far from the expected asymptotic regime. This is to be related to the presence of strong finite size effects observable also on $`P(q)`$ itself.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge enlightening discussions with Andrea Crisanti, Cirano De Dominicis, Silvio Franz, Enzo Marinari, Giorgio Parisi, Tommaso Rizzo and Peter Young. B. C. is supported by a Marie Curie (CEE) fellowship (contract MCFI 2001-00312). We thank Andrea Crisanti and Tommaso Rizzo for providing us with their unpublished results on the $`h0`$ SK model.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is of usual knowledge through personal or through media information that changing economic world conditions take place on different time and space scales. Words like globalization or mondialization and delocalization are used to explain economic problems everywhere, and often serve as excuses by politicians. Basic questions are whether the consequences of such politics can be predicted, or even can be avoided.

Moreover, for a long time it has been thought that there are so called economic cycles, either for the world economy or for specific goods or companies. In market economies, the clustering of turns in output, income, employment and sales reflects a so called cyclical movement that is the hallmark of business cycles.

From an econophysicist point of view, using statistical mechanics as a primary support of investigations, nature seems to work as a "self-organized system",  characterized by scaling laws. The models and theories pertaining to these with punctuated equilibrium features rarely contain cycles. Are these considerations useful in economy ? … interesting question !

Consider a recent specific political event : the Berlin wall falling and opening of markets in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to a so called liberal economy. From a physicist point of view, one would say that there is an increase in "physical volume, or available space". This has practically led to so called delocalization, in the sense that there could be a flow of entities into the recently opened space. However this feature also occurred inside the European Union, where there is also a disparity in "external field conditions", like the tax systems, or different workers’ skills or wages, weather, available information, … The external fields, in terms of physics, may thus be considered to be of legal, economic, political, meteorological, .. origin.

One could first ask whether one can describe , within a simple approach, the concentration of enterprises, their spatial distribution, their so called "fitness" under varying in time and space economic field conditions. We do not aim at deriving or writing a Hamiltonian or evolution equations here, but rather would like to simulate time and space-dependent field conditions and observe whether this leads to a non-trivial behavior.

In Sect. 2, we will present a model, very simple but already sufficiently elaborate in order to take into account most of basic economic conditions, - in words. In section 3, we will outline the simulation technique used for implementing the model. We will present a few results in Sect.4, and end with a conclusion in Sect.5.

## 2 Model

The model has for ingredient a partition of a lattice (the world!). Here the whole world (or Europe ?) is divided into N (= 3) regions of equal size (Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres ). One could imagine a Far East, Middle East and West division, or a Western Europe, a Central Europe and an Eastern Europe, or also reduce the scale to three parts in a specific country, like Belgium. Scales are known to be avoided in modern statistical physics anyway.

At the beginning all "firms" (enterprises, agents, ..) are located only in the ”West“ (region I). We suppose that there is a barrier ("an iron curtain") preventing companies to enter the ”Central“ (II) and ”East" (III) regions. In the following, there is never any enterprise in the Central nor East region at the beginning, as long as the "wall" exists. At the beginning therefore, enterprises in the West, evolve according to the evolution law described here below, which will have always the same form also when the wall is destroyed, and for all regions of the world (so called "globalization").

In the West there was a certain initial number ("concentration") $`c`$ of enterprises, though its precise value is not very important. Each company ($`i`$) is characterized by one real number $`f_i`$ , which could be called a "fitness", like in many other recent investigations.

Each region is characterized by economic conditions, which are assumed to be an "external field", represented by $`one`$ real number, $`F`$ also belonging to . The best condition, by symmetry, is $`F=0.5`$

At the beginning the conditions in the West are optimal while in the Central and Eastern parts they do not matter, since there is no company belonging to the western scheme. After a certain time ($`t_1`$) the "Berlin wall" is destroyed, and the regions II and III are invaded according to a simple diffusion rule.

After another time $`t_2`$, the value of $`F`$ in all regions can be (and will be) changed. Usually, i.e. for an evolution toward a globalization, the conditions in the Central and East regions should be (after the first change) worse than in the West region. However each subsequent change makes life easier in the Center and East, and more difficult in the West. After all it got the best conditions at the beginning !!!

Questions to be raised, concern whether enterprises survive or not, get better or worse, whether there is a drastic move toward Central and East, or not.

## 3 Monte Carlo Simulation

We consider a square lattice. The "horizontal" size of the first region is $`L_x`$ = 150. The "vertical size" of each region is $`L_y`$ = 100. We have only done some simulation for equal size regions., i.e. the border between the first and the second region is at $`x_1`$ = 50, and between the second and the third one at $`x_2`$ = 100. The Monte-Carlo (MC) algorithm describing the dynamics of the system is the following :

1. At each time step one firm ($`i`$) is randomly chosen; it’s survival probability is calculated from the formula

$$p_i=\mathrm{exp}(sel|f_iF|),$$
(1)
where $`sel`$ is a parameter describing a selection pressure, in other words how demanding is the environment. This may mean e.g. the amount of competitors, the availability of goods, the production of goods, …. It is in the present investigation constant in time and space.

If the enterprise did not survive, because $`p_i`$ is lower than a randomly chosen number $`r`$ , the program returns to 1.

2. If the $`i`$ company is fit enough, this enterprise attempts to move into any one of the (4) nearest neighbor sites. If there is no vacant site, return to 1. However if one empty site is found the administration board of the company has a "business plan" : it is considering two possibilities. If there is another company, $`j`$, in the nearest neighborhood, then with a probability "$`b`$" (always = 1 $`\%`$ here below) the $`i`$ enterprise merges with the second ($`j`$) one, and $`j`$ is eliminated.

The fitness of $`i`$ is changed according to the formula

$$f_i=0.5(f_i+f_j)+sign[0.5r]|f_if_j|)0.54,$$
(2)
where $`r`$ is a random number in . The choice of the last factor in eq.(2) equal 0.54 leads to several possible dynamics of the system. Increasing or lowering it would result in fast homogeneization of the system.

In the other possibility, thus with a probability $`(1b)\%`$, the two enterprises produce new enterprises or spin-off’s; here below we consider only the case in which only two enterprises $`k`$ and $`m`$ are founded.

However there must be some "room" (vacant sites) in the Moore neighborhood (8 sites on the square lattice) of the first enterprise in order to create a new one. If there is less space, less new firms (thus one only or no at all) may be created.

After choosing all agents, one MC time step is done. We have restricted the simulation time in each run to 5000 MCS, since afterwards we observed rather small oscillations around the stationary state.

## 4  Results

There are several ways of presenting the results. In the following we stress cases demonstrating the pertinence of the model and giving arguments for the coincidence with the numerical results of qualitative observations .

We report three cases ($`N,A,B`$), differing by the sequence of changes of the external field values in the three regions. In the case $`N`$ the field values (selection pressure) in the first region do not change, whereas after 100 MCS, i.e. fall of the "iron curtain", the selection in the second and third region read, 0.4 and 0.3, respectively. In the case $`A`$ after $`t_1`$ = 100 MCS, which is again the only change, the selection in the I, II and III regions is 0.40,0.50 and 0.60, respectively. Finally, in the case $`B`$ there are two changes. One at 100 MCS, after which the conditions in the three regions are 0.40,0.50,0.60, and after the second change at $`t_2`$ = 300 MCS the values of the external field are 0.45,0.50 and 0.55, in the I, II and III regions.

In each case, we start with an initial concentration $`c`$ =0.5 in region I, and destroy ”the Berlin wall“ after 100 MCS. Starting with case $`N`$, we show in Fig. 1(a-b) the number of enterprise extinction and births as a function of time in the three regions, for a weak selection, $`sel`$ =1.0. The fitness and concentration in the three regions at different times are shown in Fig.2(a-b). There is a rapid increase in concentration in the opened region as soon as it is open, but the death and birth process is like an equilibrium one. The fitness optimal value in each region is easily reached and remain stable in time.

The same type of figure as Fig.2 is shown in Fig.3(a,b) but for a higher selection pressure, $`sel`$=1.5. One observes a greater invasion difficulty process due to the higher $`sel`$ value, i.e. for a more demanding environment.

In case $`A`$, we consider that after the opening of ”the iron curtain“, the optimal situation is found in region II; we impose field conditions in II and III to be 0.4 and 0.6 respectively. In Fig. 4(a-b) we show the concentration in the three regions taken after different number of MCS, but for a still larger (than in previous figures) $`sel`$, i.e. $`sel`$= 1.75 in Fig. 4a and 2.75 in Fig. 4b. This latter case is remarkable since, after 1000 MCS the first region becomes empty. This is because the second region, under a 0.5 field, has better conditions. The concentration of enterprises in II hereby increases up to its maximum values.

However with increasing time, the third region is invaded as well. One might wonder whether by symmetry the first region could be re-invaded as well. The answer is that depending on the initial distribution of agents, here determined by the seed of the random number generator, two cases can occur: either region II and III are filled up, with enterprises reaching their appropriate optimal fitness, or region I on one hand, and regions II and III on the other hand, can also be filled up, with enterprises at their optimal fitness. This indicates that the model contains some bifurcation point at some value of the selection pressure, here it happened for $`sel`$ of the order of 1.8.

The invasion of the third region is illustrated in Fig.5a, for model $`B`$ and $`sel`$ = 2.6, showing the density of the enterprises at the three regions at the early (a) and later (b) stages of the evolution. The external conditions in the three regions after 300 MCS have the following values 0.45, 0.50 and 0.55 in the I, II and III regions resp. It is observed that the first region is depleted in favor of region II, but thereafter the first one is replenished again. The beginning of a cycle is therefore found.

## 5 Conclusions

From this set of results, we observe that the model contains many facets : (i) there are relatively well marked effects due to the "selection pressure"; (ii) an adaptative economic ("external") field time sequence can imply stable or unstable density distributions; (iii) the diffusion process rule(s) are useful for invasion process, but are also relevant for replenishing abandoned regions; (iv) the diffusion rules together with the business plan, and the selection pressure seem to lead to a quasi equilibrium state with respect to birth and death processes; (v) interesting sort of cycling and bifurcation features have been observed, which might indicate either complex oscillations or chaotic behaviors.

We are aware that further improvements are needed. We are drastically caricaturing macro and micro economy field conditions, as well as the description of the "internal" interactions sequence(s). Moreover a company should not be described by one scalar number $`f_i`$, but rather a vector model coupled to a (so called external) vector field should be examined. Moreover the birth and death process description through merging and spin off’s is also to be improved. Analytical work could be of interest to describe bifurcation conditions, and implement different company size distributions in different countries as in ref.

Acknowledgments

MA and PC thank the organizers of the Bali Econophysics conference very much for their welcome, including grants, stimulating discussions and comments. PC thanks also FNRS for financial support.

(\*1) email: marcel.ausloos@ulg.ac.be
(2) email: P. Clippe@ulg.ac.be
(3) email: apekal@ift.uni.wroc.pl


text:
# Representations of finite groups on Riemann-Roch spacesMSC 2000: 14H37, 94B27,20C20,11T71,14G50,05E20,14Q05

## 1 The action of $`G`$ on $`L(D)`$

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective curve over an algebraically closed field $`F`$. Let $`F(X)`$ denote the function field of $`X`$ (the field of rational functions on $`X`$) and, if $`D`$ is any divisor on $`X`$ then the Riemann-Roch space $`L(D)`$ is a finite dimensional $`F`$-vector space given by

$$L(D)=L_X(D)=\{fF(X)^\times |div(f)+D0\}\{0\},$$

where $`div(f)`$ denotes the (principal) divisor of the function $`fF(X)`$. Let $`\mathrm{}(D)`$ denote its dimension. We recall the Riemann-Roch theorem,

$$\mathrm{}(D)\mathrm{}(KD)=\mathrm{deg}(D)+1g,$$

where $`K`$ denotes a canonical divisor and $`g`$ the genus222We often also use $`g`$ to denote an element of an automorphism group $`G`$. Hopefully, the context will make our meaning clear..

The action of $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ on $`F(X)`$ is defined by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\rho :& \mathrm{Aut}(X)& & \mathrm{Aut}(F(X)),\\ & g& & (ff^g)\end{array}$$

where $`f^g(x)=(\rho (g)(f))(x)=f(g^1(x))`$.

Note that $`Y=X/G`$ is also smooth and $`F(X)^G=F(Y)`$.

Of course, $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ also acts on the group $`Div(X)`$ of divisors of $`X`$, denoted $`g(_Pd_PP)=_Pd_Pg(P)`$, for $`g\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$, $`P`$ a prime divisor, and $`d_P`$. It is easy to show that $`div(f^g)=g(div(f))`$. Because of this, if $`div(f)+D0`$ then $`div(f^g)+g(D)0`$, for all $`g\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$. In particular, if the action of $`G\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ on $`X`$ leaves $`DDiv(X)`$ stable then $`G`$ also acts on $`L(D)`$. We denote this action by

$$\rho :G\mathrm{Aut}(L(D)).$$

## 2 Examples and special cases

Before tackling the general case, we study the Riemann-Roch representations of $`G`$ when $`X=^1`$ or $`D`$ is the canonical divisor.

### 2.1 The canonical embedding

This case was solved by Weil and Chevalley - see the beautiful discussion in \[MP\].

Let $`K`$ denote a canonical divisor of $`X`$, so deg$`(K)=2g2`$ and dim$`(L(K))=g`$. Let $`\{\kappa _1,\mathrm{},\kappa _g\}`$ denote a basis for $`L(K)`$. If the genus $`g`$ of $`X`$ is at least $`2`$ then the morphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi :X& & (\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X))^{g1}\\ x& & (\kappa _1(x):\mathrm{}:\kappa _g(x))\end{array}$$

defines an embedding, the “canonical embedding”, and $`\varphi `$ is called the “canonical map”. It is known that $`L(K)`$ is isomorphic (as $`F`$-vector spaces) to the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$ of regular Weil differentials on $`X`$. This is contained in the space of all Weil differentials, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$. (In the notation of \[Sti\], $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)=\mathrm{\Omega }(X)(0)`$.) Since $`G`$ acts on the set of places of $`F`$, it acts on the adele ring of $`F`$, hence on the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)`$.

Now, even though $`K`$ might not be fixed by $`G`$, there is an action of $`G`$ on $`L(K)`$ obtained by pulling back the action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$ via an isomorphism $`L(K)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$.

The group $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ acts on $`X`$ and on its image $`Y=\varphi (X)`$ under an embedding $`\varphi :X^n`$. If $`\varphi `$ arises from a very ample linear system then an automorphism of $`Y`$ may be represented (via the linear system) by an element of $`PGL(n+1,F)`$ acting on $`^n`$ which preserves $`Y`$. For instance, if $`D`$ is any divisor with deg$`(D)>2g`$ then the morphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi :X& & ^{n1}\\ x& & (f_1(x):\mathrm{}:f_n(x))\end{array}$$

defines an embedding, where $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ is a basis for $`L(D)`$ (see, for example, Stepanov \[St\], §4.4). This projective representation of $`G`$ on $`L(D)`$ exists independent of whether or not $`D`$ is left stable by $`G`$.

###### Example 1

Let $`X=^1/`$ have projective coordinates $`[x:y]`$, let $`G=\{1,g\}`$, where $`g(x/y)=y/x`$, and let $`D=2[1:0][0:1]`$, so $`L(D)`$ has basis $`\{x/y,x^2/y^2\}`$. Then $`g(x/y)=(y/x)^3(x^2/y^2)`$ and $`g(x^2/y^2)=(y/x)^3(x/y)`$. Thus, as an element of $`PGL(2,)`$, $`g`$ is $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

Suppose, for example, $`X`$ is non-hyperelliptic of genus $`3`$ and $`\varphi `$ arises from the canonical embedding. In this case, we have (a) the projective representation

$$\pi :G\mathrm{Aut}((\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)))$$

(acting on the canonical embeding of $`X`$) and (b) the projective representation obtained by composing the “natural” representation $`G\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X))`$ with the quotient map $`\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X))\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)/F^\times )=\mathrm{Aut}((\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)))`$. These two representations are the same.

###### Remark 1

For further details on the representation $`G\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X))`$, see for example, the Corollary to Theorem 2 in \[K\], Theorem 2.3 in \[MP\], and the book by T. Breuer \[B\].

### 2.2 The projective line

Before tackling the general case, we study the Riemann-Roch representations of $`G`$ when $`X=^1`$.

Let $`X=^1/F`$, so $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)=PGL(2,F)`$, where $`F`$ is algebraically closed. Let $`\mathrm{}=[1:0]X`$ denote the element corresponding to the localization $`F[x]_{(1/x)}`$. In this case, the canonical divisor is given by $`K=2\mathrm{}`$, so the Riemann-Roch theorem becomes

$$\mathrm{}(D)\mathrm{}(2\mathrm{}D)=\mathrm{deg}(D)+1.$$

It is known (and easy to show) that if $`\mathrm{deg}(D)<0`$ then $`\mathrm{}(D)=0`$ and if deg$`(D)0`$ then $`\mathrm{}(D)=\mathrm{deg}(D)+1`$.

In the case of the projective line, there is another way to see the action $`\rho `$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ on $`F(X)`$. Each function $`fF(X)`$ may be written uniquely as a rational function $`f(x)=p(x)/q(x)`$, where $`p(x)`$ and $`q(x)`$ are polynomials that factor as the product of linear polynomials. Assume that both $`p`$ and $`q`$ are monic, and assume that the linear factors of them are as well. The group $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ “acts” on the set of such functions $`f`$ by permuting its zeros and poles according to the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$. (We leave aside how $`G`$ acts on the constants, so this “action” is not linear.) We call this the “permutation action”, $`\pi :g\pi (g)(f)=f_g`$, where $`f_g(x)`$ denotes the function $`f`$ with zeros and poles permuted by $`g`$.

###### Lemma 2

If $`G\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ leaves $`DDiv(X)`$ stable then

$$\pi (g)(f)=c\rho (g)(f),$$

for some constant $`c`$.

Proof: Note that, by definition, $`div(\pi (g)(f))=div(f_g)=g(div(f))`$, for $`gG`$ and $`fL(D)`$. Since $`div(\pi (g)(f))=g(div(f))=div(\rho (g)(f))=div(f^g)`$, the functions $`f^g`$ and $`f_g`$ must differ by a constant factor. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above lemma is useful since it is easier to deal with $`\pi `$ than $`\rho `$ in this case.

A basis for the Riemann-Roch space is explicitly known for $`^1`$. For notational simplicity, let

$$m_P(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x,& P=[1:0]=\mathrm{},\\ (xp)^1,& P=[p:1].\end{array}$$

###### Lemma 3

Let $`P_0=\mathrm{}=[1:0]X`$ denote the point corresponding to the localization $`F[x]_{(1/x)}`$. For $`1is`$, let $`P_i=[p_i:1]`$ denote the point corresponding to the localization $`F[x]_{(xp_i)}`$, for $`p_iF`$. Let $`D=_{i=0}^sa_iP_i`$ be a divisor, $`a_k`$ for $`0ks`$.

* If $`D`$ is effective then

$$\{1,m_{P_i}(x)^k|1ka_i,0is\}$$

is a basis for $`L(D)`$.
* If $`D`$ is not effective but deg$`(D)0`$ then write $`D=dP+D^{}`$, where deg$`(D^{})=0`$, $`d>0`$, and $`P`$ is any point. Let $`q(x)L(D^{})`$ (which is a 1-dimensional vector space) be any non-zero element. Then

$$\{m_P(x)^iq(x)|0id\}$$

is a basis for $`L(D)`$.
* If deg$`(D)<0`$ then $`L(D)=\{0\}`$.

The first part is Lemma 2.4 in \[L\]. The other parts follow from the definitions and the Riemann-Roch theorem.

In general, we have the following result.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`X`$, $`F`$, $`G\mathrm{Aut}(X)=PGL(2,F)`$, and $`D=_{i=0}^sa_iP_i`$ be a divisor as above. Let $`\rho :G\mathrm{Aut}(L(D))`$ denote the associated representation. This acts trivially on the constants (if any) in $`L(D)`$; we denote this action by $`1`$. Let $`S=\mathrm{supp}(D)`$ and let

$$S=S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_m$$

be the decomposition of $`S`$ into primitive $`G`$-sets.

* If $`D`$ is effective then

$$\rho 1_{i=1}^m\rho _i,$$

where $`\rho _i`$ is a monomial representation on the subspace

$$V_i=m_P(x)^\mathrm{}_j|1\mathrm{}_ja_j,PS_i,$$

satisfying dim$`(V_i)=_{P_jS_i}a_j`$, for $`1im`$. Here $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the vector space span.
* If deg$`(D)>0`$ but $`D`$ is not effective then $`\rho `$ is a subrepresentation of $`\rho :GAut_FL(D^{})`$, where $`D^{}`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant effective divisor satisfying $`D^{}D`$.

Proof: (a) Fix an $`i`$ such that $`1im`$. Consider the subspace $`V_i`$ of $`L(D)`$. Since $`G`$ acts by permuting the points in $`S_i`$ transitively, this action induces an action $`\rho _i`$ on $`V_i`$. This action on $`V_i`$ is a monomial representation, by Lemma 2. It is irreducible since the action on $`S_i`$ is transitive, by definition. Clearly $`_{i=1}^m\rho _m`$ is a subrepresentation of $`\rho `$. For dimension reasons, this subrepresentation must be all of $`\rho `$, modulo the constants (the trivial representation).

(b) Since $`D`$ is not effective, we may write $`D=D^+D^{}`$, where $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$ are non-zero effective divisors. The action of $`G`$ must preserve $`D^+`$ and $`D^{}`$. Since $`L(D)`$ is a $`G`$-submodule of $`L(D^+)`$, the claim follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The general case

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective curve defined over a field $`F`$. The following is our most general result.

###### Theorem 5

Suppose $`G\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ is a finite subgroup, and that the divisor $`D0`$ on $`X`$ is stable under $`G`$. Let $`d_0`$ denote the size of a smallest $`G`$-orbit in $`X`$. Each irreducible composition factor of the representation of $`G`$ on $`L(D)`$ has dimension $`d_0`$.

###### Remark 2

This is best possible in the sense that irreducible subspaces of dimension $`d_0`$ can occur, by Theorem 4 (see also §8 and Example 3.2.2 below).

###### Remark 3

If $`F`$ has characteristic $`0`$ then every finite dimensional representation of a finite group is semi-simple (Prop 9, ch 6, \[Se\]). If $`F`$ has characteristic $`p`$ and $`p`$ does not divide $`|G|`$ then every finite dimensional representation of $`G`$ is semi-simple (Maschke’s Theorem, Thrm 3.14, \[CR\], or \[Se\], §15.7).

Proof: Let $`D_00`$ be a effective $`G`$-invariant divisor of minimal degree $`d_0`$. Let $`d=[\mathrm{deg}(D)/d_0]`$ denote the integer part. The group $`G`$ acts on each space in the composition series

$$\begin{array}{c}\{0\}=L((d+1)D_0+D)L(dD_0+D)L((d1)D_0+D)\\ \mathrm{}L((dm)D_0+D)\mathrm{}L(D).\end{array}$$

In particular, $`G`$ acts on the successive quotient spaces

$$L((dm1)D_0+D)/L((dm)D_0+D),0md1,$$

by the quotient representation. These are all of dimension at most $`d_0`$ (Prop. 3, ch 8, \[F\]).

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 6

Suppose that $`G`$ is a non-abelian group acting on a smooth projective curve $`X`$ defined over an algebraically closed field $`F`$ and assume $`p`$ does not divide the order of $`G`$. Let $`d_0`$ be as in Theorem 5 and let $`d_G`$ denote the largest degree of all irreducible ($`F`$-modular) representations of $`G`$. Then

$$d_0d_G.$$

Proof: Construct an effective divisor $`D`$ of $`X`$ fixed by $`G`$. We may assume that its degree is so large that the formula of Borne \[Bo1\] implies that each irreducible representations of $`G`$ occurs at least once in the decomposition of $`L(D)`$. Therefore the set of irreducible subrepresentations of $`L(D)`$ are the same as the set of irreducible representations of $`G`$. The result now follows from our theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4

There are more general conditions for which $`d_0=d_G`$ holds. For example, assume that $`P`$ is a point in an orbit of size $`d_0`$ and let $`H=G_P`$ denote the stabilizer of $`P`$, so $`d_0=|G|/|H|`$. Let $`\sigma `$ denote an irreducible representation of $`H`$. If $`H`$ is normal in $`G`$ with cyclic quotient and if all the equivalence classes $`\sigma ^g`$ ($`gG/H`$) are distinct then $`Ind_H^G\sigma `$ is irreducible and of dimension $`d_0`$, by Clifford’s theorem. If there is an irreducible representation of $`G`$ of this form $`Ind_H^G\sigma `$ under the above conditions then $`d_0d_G`$.

Question: Is there an analog of Corollary 6 for wildly ramified $`\pi :XX/G`$?

### 3.1 Examples

###### Example 7

Let $`𝔽`$ be a separable algebraic closure of $`𝔽_3`$. Let $`X`$ denote the Fermat curve over $`𝔽`$ whose projective model is given by $`x^4+y^4+z^4=0`$. The point $`P=(1:1:1)X(𝔽)`$ is fixed by the action of $`G=S_3`$.

Based on the Brauer character table of $`S_3`$ over $`𝔽_3`$ (available in GAP \[GAP\]), the group $`G`$ has no $`2`$-dimensional irreducible (modular) representations. Consequently, $`d_G=d_0=1`$.

###### Example 8

Let $`k=`$ denote the complex field and let $`X(N)`$ denote the modular curve associated to the principal congruence group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)`$ (see for example Stepanov, \[St\], chapter 8). It is well-known that the group $`PSL(2,/N)`$ is contained in the automorphism group of $`X(N)`$. Let $`X=X(p)`$, where $`p7`$ is a prime, and let $`G=PSL(2,𝔽_p)`$. In this case, we have, in the notation of the above corollary, $`d_G=p+1`$. (The representations of this simple group are described, for example, in Fulton and Harris \[FH\] 333Actually those of $`SL(2,𝔽_p)`$ are described in \[FH\], but it is easy to determine the representations of $`PSL(2,𝔽_p)`$ from those of $`SL(2,𝔽_p)`$..)

### 3.2 $`y^2=x^px`$

In general, if $`X`$ is a curve defined over a field $`F`$ with finite automorphism group $`G=Aut_F(X)`$ then we call $`G`$ large if $`|G|>|X(F)|`$.

###### Lemma 9

If $`G`$ is large then every point of $`X(F)`$ is ramified for the covering $`XX/G`$.

Proof: Suppose $`PX(F)`$ is not ramified, so the stabilizer of $`P`$, $`G_P`$, is trivial. In this case, $`|GP|=|G|/|G_P|=|G|`$. But $`GPX(F)`$ so $`|GP||X(F)|`$, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 3.2.1 Case $`F=GF(p)`$

Let $`p3`$ be a prime, $`F=GF(p)`$, and let $`X`$ denote the curve defined by

$$y^2=x^px.$$

This has genus $`\frac{p1}{2}`$. We assume that the automorphism group $`G=Aut_F(X)`$ is a central 2-fold cover of $`PSL(2,p)`$, we have a short exact sequence,

$$1ZGPSL_2(p)1,$$
(3.1)
where $`Z`$ denotes the center of $`G`$ ($`Z`$ is generated by the hyperelliptic involution). The following transformations are elements of $`G`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _1=\{\begin{array}{c}xx,\\ yy,\end{array},& \gamma _2=\gamma _2(a)=\{\begin{array}{c}xa^2x,\\ yay,\end{array}\\ \gamma _3=\{\begin{array}{c}xx+1,\\ yy,\end{array},& \gamma _4=\{\begin{array}{c}x1/x,\\ yy/x^{\frac{p+1}{2}},\end{array}\end{array}$$
(3.2)
where $`aF^\times `$ is a primitive $`(p1)st`$ root of unity. This group acts transitively on $`X(F)`$, so it has an orbit of size $`d_0=|X(F)|=p+1`$.

Let $`P_1=(1:0:1)`$ and let $`H`$ be its stabilizer in $`G`$. A counting argument shows that $`H`$ is a solvable group of order $`2p(p1)`$ generated by $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2(a)`$ and $`\gamma _3`$. By Lemma 9, every point in

$$X(F)=\{(1:0:0),(0:0:1),(1:0:1),\mathrm{},(p1:0:1)\}$$

is ramified over the covering $`XX/G`$ in the sense that each stabilizer $`G_P=Stab_G(P)`$ is non-trivial, $`PX(F)`$.

It is known (Proposition VI.4.1, \[Sti\]) that, for each $`m1`$, the Riemann-Roch space of $`D=mP_1`$ has a basis consisting of monomials,

$$x^iy^j,0ip1,j0,2i+pjm.$$

###### Lemma 10

The semisimplification $`\rho _{ss}`$ of the representation $`\rho `$ of $`H`$ acting on $`L(D)`$ is the direct sum of one-dimensional representations of $`G`$.

Proof: The generator $`\gamma _1`$ acts trivially on the basis of $`L(D)`$, whereas

$$\gamma _2(a):\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^ry^s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ a^2x\\ \mathrm{}\\ a^{2r+s}x^ry^s\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& a^2& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& a^{2r+s}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^ry^s\end{array}\right),$$

and

$$\gamma _3:\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^ry^s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x+1\\ \mathrm{}\\ (x+1)^ry^s\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 1& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& r& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ x\\ \mathrm{}\\ x^ry^s\end{array}\right),$$

where the non-zero terms in bottom row of the matrix representation of $`\gamma _3`$ are in the last $`r+1`$ row entries and consist of the binomial coefficients $`\frac{r!}{(rj)!j!}`$, $`0jr`$. Therefore, the group generated by these matrices is lower-triangular, hence solvable. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### 3.2.2 Case $`F=GF(p^2)`$

Let $`F=GF(p^2)`$ and let $`F_0=GF(p)`$.

The automorphism group $`G=Aut_F(X)`$ is a central 2-fold cover of $`PGL(2,p)`$ andwe have a short exact sequence,

$$1ZG\stackrel{\tau }{}PGL_2(p)1,$$
(3.3)
where $`Z`$ denotes the subgroup of $`G`$ generated by the hyperelliptic involution (which coincides with the center of $`G`$), by Göb \[G\]. The group $`G`$ has order $`2|PGL(2,p)|=2p(p^21)`$. The following transformations generate $`G`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _1=\{\begin{array}{c}xx,\\ yy,\end{array},& \gamma _2=\gamma _2(a)=\{\begin{array}{c}xa^2x,\\ yay,\end{array}\\ \gamma _3=\{\begin{array}{c}xx+1,\\ yy,\end{array},& \gamma _4=\{\begin{array}{c}x1/x,\\ yy/x^{\frac{p+1}{2}},\end{array}\end{array}$$

where $`aF^\times `$ is a primitive $`2(p1)st`$ root of unity.

###### Proposition 11

Let $`p>3`$ be a prime.

* Case $`p3(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4})`$:

Let $`P_1=(1:0:1)`$ and fix some $`P_2X(F)X(F_0)`$. The set of rational points $`X(F)`$ decomposes into a disjoint union

$$C_1=X(F_0)=GP_1,C_2=X(F)X(F_0)=GP_2,$$

with $`|C_1|=p+1`$ and $`|C_2|=2p(p1)`$.
* Case $`p1(\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4})`$:

The automorphism group of $`X/F`$ acts transitively on $`X(F)`$ and the stabilizer of any point is a group of order $`2p(p1)`$.

###### Remark 5

The proof of this proposition is omitted, so may be regarded as a conjecture instead, if the reader wishes. It has been verified using MAGMA if $`p=5,7,11,13`$. It has been proven in an email to the first author by Bob Guralnick.

This and Lemma 9 imply every point in $`X(F)`$ is ramified for the covering $`XX/G`$.

Let $`P_1=(1:0:1)`$ and let $`H_1`$ be its stabilizer in $`G`$. We have already seen that $`H_1`$ is a solvable group of order $`2p(p1)`$ generated by $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2(a)`$, and $`\gamma _3`$. As a consequence, $`|C_1|=|GP_1|=|G|/|H_1|=p+1`$

Using $`H_1=\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3`$ and the explicit expressions for the $`\gamma _i`$, it can be checked directly that no $`gH_1`$, $`g1`$, fixes any $`PC_2`$. Therefore, $`H_1H_2=\{1\}`$.

According to the proposition, the stabilizer $`H_2`$ of $`P_2`$ has order $`p+1`$. This and $`|G|=|H_1||H_2|`$ implies $`G=H_1H_2`$. In other words, $`H_2`$ is a complement of $`H_1`$ in $`G`$. (As sets, $`G/H_1PGL_2(p)/B^1(F_0)`$.)

In fact, if $`B`$ denotes the (Borel) upper-triangular subgroup of $`PGL(2,p)`$ then $`H_1=\tau ^1(B)`$. Since $`B`$ is solvable and any abelian cover of a solvable group is solvable, $`H_1`$ is solvable. Since $`B`$ is not normal in $`PGL_2(p)`$, $`H_1`$ is not normal in $`G`$.

By the proposition, the divisor $`D_2`$ associated to $`O_2`$ has degree $`2p(1)>2g`$, so by the Riemann-Roch theorem, $`\mathrm{dim}(L(D_2))=2p(p1)+1\frac{p1}{2}`$. The theorem implies that, in this case, the largest irreducible constituent of $`L(D_2)`$ is dimension $`d_G=p`$.

## 4 Applications

In this section we discuss connections with the theory of error-correcting codes.

Throughout this section, we assume $`X`$, $`G`$, and $`D`$ are as in Theorem 5. Assume $`F`$ is finite.

Let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_nX(F)`$ be distinct points and $`E=P_1+\mathrm{}+P_nDiv(X)`$ be stabilized by $`G`$. This implies that $`G`$ acts on the set $`supp(E)`$ by permutation. Assume $`\mathrm{supp}(D)\mathrm{supp}(E)=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`C=C(D,E)`$ denote the AG code

$$C=\{(f(P_1),\mathrm{},f(P_n))|fL(D)\}.$$
(4.1)
This is the image of $`L(D)`$ under the evaluation map

$$\begin{array}{c}eval_E:L(D)F^n,\\ f(f(P_1),\mathrm{},f(P_n)).\end{array}$$
(4.2)
The group $`G`$ acts on $`C`$ by $`gG`$ sending $`c=(f(P_1),\mathrm{},f(P_n))C`$ to $`c^{}=(f(g^1(P_1)),\mathrm{},f(g^1(P_n)))`$, where $`fL(D)`$. First, we observe that this map, denoted $`\varphi (g)`$, is well-defined. In other words, if $`eval_E`$ is not injective and $`c`$ is also represented by $`f^{}L(D)`$, so $`c=(f^{}(P_1),\mathrm{},f^{}(P_n))C`$, then we can easily verify $`(f(g^1(P_1)),\mathrm{},f(g^1(P_n)))=(f^{}(g^1(P_1)),\mathrm{},f^{}(g^1(P_n)))`$. (Indeed, $`G`$ acts on the set $`supp(E)`$ by permutation.) This map $`\varphi (g)`$ induces a homomorphism of $`G`$ into the permutation automorphism group of the code $`\mathrm{Aut}(C)`$, denoted

$$\varphi :G\mathrm{Aut}(C)$$
(4.3)
(Prop. VII.3.3, \[Sti\], and §10.3, page 251, of \[St\])444Both of these references define $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi (g)(c)=(f(g(P_1)),\mathrm{},f(g(P_n)))`$. However, this is a homomorphism only when $`G`$ is abelian.. The paper Wesemeyer \[W\] investigated $`\varphi `$ when $`C`$ is a one-point AG code arising from a certain family of planar curves.

### 4.1 Separation of points

To investigate the kernel of this map $`\varphi `$, we introduce the following notion. Let $`HDiv(X)`$ be any divisor. We say that the space $`L(H)`$ separates points if for all points $`P,QX`$, $`f(P)=f(Q)`$ (for all $`fL(H)`$) implies $`P=Q`$ (see \[H\], chapter II, §7).

We shall show that Riemann-Roch spaces separate points for “big enough” divisors.

If $`G`$ is a group of automorphisms of $`X`$ defined over $`F`$ then $`G`$ induces an automorphism on the image of the evaluation map $`eval_E:L(D)F^n`$. For this discussion, let us assume this is an injection. (This is not a serious assumption.) To understand the kernel of this map $`\varphi `$ in (4.3), we’d like to know whether or not $`(f(P_1),\mathrm{},f(P_n))=(f(g^1P_1),\mathrm{},f(g^1P_n))`$ implies $`P_i=g^1P_i`$, for $`1in`$.

Let $`X`$ be a plane curve with irreducible equation

$$y^n+f_1(x)y^{n1}+\mathrm{}+f_{n1}(x)y+f_n(x)=0,$$

where deg$`(f_i(x))i`$, $`1in`$. We assume $`n2`$ but we do not assume $`X`$ is non-singular.

Let $`D`$ be a divisor on $`X`$ and let $`(x)_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the point divisor of $`x`$, so deg$`(x)_{\mathrm{}}=n`$.

Recall that the Riemann-Roch space $`L(D)`$ separates points if, for each pair $`P,QXsupp(D)`$, $`f(P)=f(Q)`$ for all $`fL(D)`$ implies $`P=Q`$ \[H\].

###### Lemma 12

If $`(x)_{\mathrm{}}D`$ then $`L(D)`$ separates points.

The hypothesis cannot be omitted.

Proof: Note that if $`D^{}D`$ and $`L(D^{})`$ separates points then $`L(D)`$ does too.

By hypothesis, $`L((x)_{\mathrm{}})L(D)`$. By Proposition III.10.5 in \[Sti\], $`x^iy^jL((x)_{\mathrm{}})`$, for $`0jn1`$ and $`0i1j`$. (Here $`0i1j`$ means $`i=0`$ when $`j1`$.) Let $`P_1=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`P_2=(x_2,y_2)`$. The condition $`f(P_1)=f(P_2)`$, for all $`fL((x)_{\mathrm{}})`$ implies $`x_1^iy_1^j=x_2^iy_2^j`$, for all $`i,j`$ as above. In particular, we may take $`(i,j)=(1,0)`$ and $`(i,j)=(0,1)`$, so $`P_1=P_2`$. Therefore, $`L((x)_{\mathrm{}})`$ separates points, and hence $`L(D)`$ does too. $`\mathrm{}`$

As the following example shows, the lemma is in some sense best possible.

Example: Let $`F=GF(9)`$ and $`X`$ be the curve defined over $`F`$ by

$$y^2=x^3x.$$

Let $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the point at infinity on $`X`$. The spaces $`L(mP_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`1m2`$, do not separate points on $`X`$. Indeed, there are distinct points $`P,QX(F)`$ which have the same $`x`$-coordinate. Since $`L(2P_{\mathrm{}})=1,x`$, it cannot distinguish them. On the other hand, by the Lemma, $`L(3P_{\mathrm{}})`$ must separate points. Indeed, $`L(3P_{\mathrm{}})=1,x,y`$, so from the reasoning in the above proof, it is obvious that it does.

As a consequence of the lemma (changing variables if necessary), we see that, if for some $`aF`$, $`(xa)_{\mathrm{}}D`$ then $`L(D)`$ separates points.

Question: Is the converse also true?

### 4.2 The kernel of $`\varphi `$

The paper by Wesemeyer \[W\] investigated the homomorphism $`\varphi :G\mathrm{Aut}(C)`$ in some special cases. In general, if $`L(D)`$ separates points then

$$\mathrm{Ker}(\varphi )=\{gG|g(P_i)=P_i,1in\}.$$

It is known (proof of Prop. VII3.3, \[Sti\]) that if $`n>2g+2`$ then $`\{gG|g(P_i)=P_i,1in\}`$ is trivial. Therefore, if $`n>2g+2`$ and $`L(D)`$ separates points then $`\varphi `$ is injective.

###### Example 13

Let $`F=GF(7)`$ and let $`X`$ denote the curve defined by

$$y^2=x^7x.$$

This has genus $`3`$. The automorphism group $`Aut_F(X)`$ is a central 2-fold cover of $`PSL_2(F)`$: we have a short exact sequence,

$$1HAut_F(X)PSL_2(7)1,$$

where $`H`$ denotes the subgroup of $`Aut_F(X)`$ generated by the hyperelliptic involution (which happens to also be the center of $`Aut_F(X)`$). (Over the algebraic closure $`\overline{F}`$, $`Aut_{\overline{F}}(X)/centerPGL_2(\overline{F})`$, by \[G\], Theorem 1.) Generators for the automorphism group are given in (3.2) above, taking $`p=7`$.

There are $`8`$ $`F`$-rational points555MAGMA views the curve as embedded in a weighted projective space, with weights $`1`$, $`4`$, and $`1`$, in which the point at infinity is nonsingular.:

$$X(F)=\{P_1=(1:0:0),P_2=(0:0:1),P_3=(1:0:1),\mathrm{},P_8=(6:0:1)\}.$$

The automorphism group acts transitively on $`X(F)`$. Consider the projection $`C^1`$ defined by $`\varphi (x,y)=x`$. The map $`\varphi `$ is ramified at every point in $`X(F)`$ and at no others.

Let $`G=Stab(P_1,Aut_F(X))`$ denote the stabilizer of the point at infinity in $`X(F)`$. All the stabilizers $`Stab(P_i,Aut_F(X))`$ are conjugate to each other in $`Aut_F(X)`$, $`1i8`$. The group $`G`$ is a non-abelian group of order $`42`$ (In fact, the group $`G/Z(G)`$ is the non-abelian group of order $`21`$, where $`Z(G)`$ denotes the center of $`G`$.)

It is known (Proposition VI.4.1, \[Sti\]) that, for each $`m1`$, the Riemann-Roch space $`L(mP_1)`$ has a basis consisting of monomials,

$$x^iy^j,0i6,j0,2i+7jm.$$

Let $`D=5P_1`$, $`S=C(F)\{P_1\}`$, and let

$$C(D,S)=\{(f(P_2),\mathrm{},f(P_8))|fL(D)\}.$$

This is a $`[7,3,5]`$ code over $`F`$. In fact, $`dim(L(D))=3`$, so the evaluation map $`f(f(P_2),\mathrm{},f(P_8))`$, $`fL(D)`$, is injective. Since $`G`$ fixes $`D`$ and preserves $`S`$, it acts on $`C`$ via

$$g:(f(P_2),\mathrm{},f(P_8))(f(g^1P_2),\mathrm{},f(g^1P_8)),$$

for $`gG`$.

Let $`P`$ denote the permutation group of this code. It a group of order $`42`$. However, it is not isomorphic to $`G`$. In fact, $`P`$ has trivial center. The (permutation) action of $`G`$ on this code implies that there is a homomorphism

$$\psi :GP.$$

What is the kernel of this map? There are two possibilities: either a subgroup of order $`6`$ or a subgroup of order $`21`$ (this is obtained by matching possible orders of quotients $`G/N`$ with possible orders of subgroups of $`P`$). Take the automorphisms $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$ with $`a=2`$ and $`\gamma _3`$. If we identify $`S=\{P_2,\mathrm{},P_8\}`$ with $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},7\}`$ then

$$\gamma _1(2,7)(3,6)(4,5)=g_1,$$

$$\gamma _2(2,5,3)(4,6,7)=g_2,$$

$$\gamma _3(1,2,\mathrm{}7)=g_3.$$

The group $`ker(\varphi )=N=g_2,g_3`$ is a non-abelian normal subgroup of $`G=g_1,g_2,g_3`$ of order $`21`$.

### 4.3 Permutation representations

In this subsection, we show how theorems about AG codes can, in some cases, give theorems about representations on Riemann-Roch spaces.

Assume that $`X/𝔽`$ is a hyperelliptic curve defined over a finite field $`𝔽`$ of characteristic $`p>2`$ with automorphism group $`G=Aut_𝔽(X)`$. Let $`D`$ be a $`G`$-equivariant divisor on $`X`$, let $`𝒪X(𝔽)`$ be a $`G`$-orbit disjoint from the support of $`D`$, and let $`E=_{P𝒪}P`$. Let $`P`$ be the permutation automorphism group of the code $`C=C(D,E)`$ defined in (4.1).

Theorem 4.6 in \[W\] implies that if $`n=\mathrm{deg}(E)`$ and $`t=\mathrm{deg}(D)`$ satisfy $`n>\mathrm{max}(2t,2g+2)`$ then the map $`\varphi :GP`$ is an isomorphism. Using this, we regard $`C`$ as a $`G`$-module. In particular, the (bijective) evaluation map $`eval_E:L(D)C`$ in (4.2) is $`G`$-equivariant. Since $`G`$ acts (via its isomorphism with $`P`$) as a permutation on $`C`$, we have proven the following result.

###### Proposition 14

Under the conditions above, the representation $`\rho `$ of $`G`$ on $`L(D)`$ is equivalent to a representation $`\rho ^{}`$ with with property that, for all $`gG`$, $`\rho ^{}(g)`$ is a permutation matrix.

### 4.4 Memory application

If $`C`$ is an linear code with non-trivial permutation group then this extra symmetry of the code may be useful in practice. In order to store the elements of $`C`$, we need only store one element in each $`G`$-orbit, so this symmetry can be used to more efficiently store codewords in memory on a computer.

###### Example 15

Let $`G=S_3`$ act on the genus $`3`$ Fermat quartic $`X`$ whose projective model is $`x^4+y^4+z^4=0`$ over $`𝔽_9=𝔽_3(i)`$, where $`i`$ is a root of the irreducible polynomial $`x^2+1𝔽_3[x]`$. One can check that there are exactly $`6`$ distinct points in the $`G`$-orbit of $`[\alpha :1:0]X(𝔽_9)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a generator of $`𝔽_9^\times `$. Let

$$\begin{array}{c}G[\alpha :1:0]=\{Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_6\},\\ E=Q_1+\mathrm{}+Q_6Div(X),D=6[1:1:1]Div(X).\end{array}$$

Then $`L(D)`$ is $`4`$-dimensional, by the Riemann-Roch theorem. Note that no $`Q_i`$ belongs to the support of $`D`$, so we may construct the Goppa code

$$C=\{(f(Q_1),\mathrm{},f(Q_6))|fL(D)\},$$

a generator matrix being given by the $`4\times 6`$ matrix $`M=(f_i(Q_j))_{1i4,1j6}`$, where $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_4`$ are a basis of $`L(D)`$. According to \[MAGMA\], $`dim_{𝔽_9}(C)=4`$ and the minimum distance of $`C`$ is $`2`$. The action of an element in the group $`G`$ on $`C`$ permutes the $`Q_i`$, hence may be realized by permuting the coordinates of each codeword in $`C`$ in the obvious way. (In other words, the action of $`G`$ on $`C`$ is isomorphic to the regular representation of $`S_3`$ on itself.) Using the group action, storing all $`|C|=9^4`$ elements may be reduced to storing only the representatives of each orbit $`C/S_3`$.

### 4.5 Permutation decoding application

If $`C`$ is an linear code with non-trivial permutation group then this extra symmetry of the code may be useful in decoding. Permutation decoding is discussed, for example, in Huffman and Pless \[HP\]. We recall briefly, for the convenience of the reader, the main ideas.

We shall assume that $`C`$ is in standard form. Let $`C`$ be a $`[n,k,d]`$ linear code over $`GF(q)`$, let $`t=[(d1)/2]`$, and let $`G=(I_k,A)`$ denote the generator matrix in standard form. From this matrix $`G`$, it is well-known and easy to show that one can compute an encoder $`E:GF(q)^kGF(q)^n`$ with image $`C`$, and a parity check matrix $`H=(B,I_{nk})`$ in standard form, $`B=A^t`$.

The key lemma is the following result: Suppose $`v=c+e`$, where $`cC`$ and $`eGF(q)^n`$ is an error vector with Hamming weight $`wt(e)t`$. Under the above conditions, the information symbols of $`v`$ are correct if and only if $`wt(Hv)t`$.

Let $`P`$ denote the permutation automorphism group of $`C`$. The permutation algorithm is:

1. For each $`pP`$, compute $`wt(H(pv))`$ until one with $`wt(H(pv))t`$ is found (if none is found, the algorithm fails).
2. Extract the information symbols from $`pv`$, and use $`E`$ to compute codeword $`c_p`$ from them.
3. Return $`p^1c_p=\mathrm{Decode}(v)`$.

For example, if $`P`$ acts transitively then permutation decoding will correct at least one error.

The key problem is to find a set of permutations in $`P`$ which moves the non-zero positions in every possible error vector of weight $`t`$ out of the information positions. (This set, called a PD-set, will be used in step 1 above instead of the entire set $`P`$.)

###### Example 16

We give two examples of MDS codes for which permutation decoding applies.

1. This is an example of a $`[7,3,5]`$ one-point AG code over $`GF(7)`$ arising from the hyperelliptic curve $`y^2=x^5x`$.

```
p:=7;
F:=GF(p);
P<x>:=PolynomialRing(F);
f:=x^p-x;
X:=HyperellipticCurve(f);
Div := DivisorGroup(X);
Pls:=Places(X,1);
S:=[Pls[i] : i in [2..#Pls]];
m:=4;
D := m*(Div!Pls[1]);
AGC := AlgebraicGeometricCode(S, D);
Length(AGC);
Dimension(AGC);
MinimumDistance(AGC);
WeightDistribution(AGC);
PG := PermutationGroup(AGC);IdentifyGroup(PG);
ZP:=Center(PG);IdentifyGroup(PG/ZP);
IsTransitive(PG);
GeneratorMatrix(AGC);

```

This code has generator matrix in standard form given by

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}1& 0& 0& 2& 5& 1& 5\\ 0& 1& 0& 1& 5& 5& 2\\ 0& 0& 1& 5& 5& 2& 1\end{array}\right).$$

Moreover, the permutation automorphism group of the code is a group of order $`42`$ generated by

$$S=\{(1,7)(2,6)(3,4),(1,4,5)(2,6,3),(1,3)(2,4)(5,6)\}.$$

The elements of $`SSS`$ can be used as a PD-set, where $`SS=\{s_1s_2|s_iS\}`$.
2. This is an example of a $`[13,5,9]`$ one-point AG code over $`GF(13)`$ arising from the hyperelliptic curve $`y^2=x^{13}x`$. Similar MAGMA commands, but with $`p=13`$, yields that his code has generator matrix in standard form given by

$$G=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 3& 2& 3& 8& 6& 10& 7& 12\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 3& 12& 1& 5& 11& 4& 10& 5\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 11& 8& 7& 2& 2& 4& 6& 11\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 6& 9& 10& 4& 11& 10& 11& 3\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 4& 9& 6& 8& 10& 12& 6& 9\end{array}\right).$$

Moreover, the permutation group is generated by

$$\begin{array}{c}\{p_1=(1,2)(3,8)(4,12)(5,7)(6,9)(10,11),\\ p_2=(2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13)\}.\end{array}$$

We shall show that $`P\{1\}`$ can be chosen to be a PD-set for $`4`$ errors. The argument proceeds on a case-by-case basis. One of the worst cases is when there are errors in positions $`1`$, $`2`$, $`12`$ and $`13`$. In this case, apply (reading right-to-left) $`p_1p_2p_1p_2^3`$. This pushes the error from positions $`(1,2,12,13)`$ to $`(8,11,13,6)`$, in particular out of the information positions666Additionally, this algorithm will, in some cases, work even if there are $`5`$ errors (e.g., in positions $`1,2,3,4,5`$). Because $`d=9`$, with $`5`$ errors we cannot be sure that the permutation decoded vector is the one which was sent..

###### Conjecture 17

For one-point AG codes $`C`$ associated to $`y^2=x^px`$ over $`GF(p)`$ of length $`n=p`$, permutation decoding always applies. Its complexity is at worst the size of the permutation group of $`C`$, which we conjecture to be $`O(p^2)=O(g^2)=O(n^2)`$.

This matches the complexity of some known algorithms.

###### Conjecture 18

For one-point AG codes $`C`$ associated to $`y^2=x^px`$ over $`GF(p^2)`$ of length $`n=2p(p1)+p`$, permutation decoding always applies and is more efficient in terms of computational complexity that the standard decoding algorithm in \[St\]. We conjecture that, if the points in $`X(F)`$ are arranged suitably then the image of the $`Aut_F(X)`$ in the permutation group of $`C`$ may be used as a PD-set. Its complexity is at worst the size of the automorphism group of $`X`$, which is $`O(p^2)=O(g^2)=O(n)`$.

If true, to our knowledge, this beats the complexity of other decoding algorithms, such as those in \[Sti\].

###### Example 19

We give examples of two AG codes for which permutation decoding probably applies.

* This is an example of a $`[91,5,66]`$ code constructed from the trace of a $`[91,3,87]`$ one-point AG code over $`F=GF(49)`$ arising from the hyperelliptic curve $`y^2=x^7x`$. (We use the trace code only because MAGMA version 2.10 cannot compute the permutation group of a code over $`GF(49)`$.)

```
p:=7;
F:=GF(p^2);
P<x>:=PolynomialRing(F);
f:=x^p-x;
X:=HyperellipticCurve(f);
Div := DivisorGroup(X);
Pls:=Places(X,1);
S:=[Pls[i] : i in [2..#Pls]];
m:=4;
D := m*(Div!Pls[1]);
AGC := AlgebraicGeometricCode(S, D);
Length(AGC);
Dimension(AGC);
MinimumDistance(AGC);
WeightDistribution(AGC);
AGC0:=Trace(AGC,GF(p));
Length(AGC0);
Dimension(AGC0);
MinimumDistance(AGC0);
WeightDistribution(AGC0);
PG := PermutationGroup(AGC0);
#PG;
ZP:=Center(PG);
#ZP;
IsTransitive(PG);
GeneratorMatrix(AGC0);

```

The permutation group of the trace of the AG code is huge: $`1073852196`$ elements. The automorphism group $`G=Aut_F(X)`$, which has $`672`$ elements, of the curve acts on $`X(F)`$ with only two orbits, $`O_1=X(GF(7))`$ of size $`8`$ and $`O_2=X(F)O_1`$ of size $`84`$. (This follows from Proposition 11 but was verified using MAGMA in this case.) Of course, in a practical application, one would want to index the points of $`X(F)`$ so that the information positions are contained in $`O_2`$.
* Let $`E`$ denote the sum of all the points in $`O_2`$ and let $`D`$ be the sum of all the points in $`O_1`$. Note $`E`$ has degree $`84`$, $`D`$ degree $`8`$, and $`X`$ has genus $`3`$. Therefore, by Theorem 4.6 in \[W\], the permutation automorphism group $`P`$ of the AG code $`C=C(D,E)`$ satisfies $`PG`$. In other words, the map $`\varphi `$ in (4.3) is injective (which also follows from the discussion above) and surjective.

Acknowledgements: We thank Keith Pardue, Niels Borne, Bob Guralnick, Derek Holt and Amy Ksir, for kindly answering our questions on group theory and algebraic geometry. We thank Nick Sheppard-Barron for the reference to \[MP\]. Finally, we especially thank Bernhard Köck for many detailed comments improving the content of the first version of this paper and for the references \[Ka\], \[K\].


text:
# Search for new physics in 𝐵_{𝑑,𝑠}→𝑙⁺𝑙⁻

## 1 INTRODUCTION

It is well-known that flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) interactions give an ideal place to search for new physics. Any positive observation of FCNC couplings deviated from that in SM would unambiguously signal the presence of new physics. Searching for FCNC is clearly one of important goals of the next generation of high energy colliders.

In this talk I shall concentrate on B leptonic rare decays. Experimental bounds are :

$`B_r(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})<6.8\times 10^7(CL=90\%)`$
$`B_r(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<2.6\times 10^6(CL=90\%)`$
In SM
$`B_r(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})=1.9\times 10^{10}`$
$`B_r(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})=(3.7\pm 1.2)\times 10^9`$. So there is a room for new physics.

$`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ may be observable at Tevatron Run II soon . If the decay was observed with Br = $`2\times 10^8`$, there would be new physics. Then, what is new physics?

## 2 SOME MODELS BEYOND SM

Among candidates of new physics, models beyond SM, MSSM and 2HDMs are the most promised. In 2HDM or SUSY the couplings of neutral Higgs bosons (NHBs) to down-type quarks or leptons are proportional to $`\frac{m_f}{m_W}\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ which leads to significant effects on observables if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. The models beyond SM we are interested in are as follows.
A. General Model II 2HDM
In a general model II 2HDM the free parameters are $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, masses of Higgs bosons, and mixing angle of NHBs $`\alpha `$.
B. Constrained MSSM
The scenarios we considered and free parameters in each scenario in the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) are listed in Table 1. In addition, we shall consider the CMSSM with nonuniversal gaugino masses  when discussing CP violation in the decays. Compared with mSUGRA with CP violating phases (the phase of the Higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and the phase of $`A`$), in the CMSSM with nonuniversal gaugino masses there are two more real parameters (say, $`|M_1|`$ and $`|M_3|`$, where $`M_1`$ and $`M_3`$ are gaugino masses corresponding to $`U(1)`$ and $`SU(3)`$ respectively) and two more independent phases arising from complex gaugino masses, which make the cancellations among various SUSY contributions to EDMs easier than in mSUGRA with CP violating phases and relatively large values of the phase of $`\mu `$ are allowed .

## 3 EFFECTIVE HAMILTONIAN

The effective Hamiltonian describing $`B_sl^+l^{}`$ in 2HDM and MSSM is

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu )`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}}C_{Q_i}(\mu )Q_i(\mu )],`$
where operators $`O_i`$ can be found in ref., and $`Q_i`$’s come from exchanging NHBs and have been given in ref.. Wilson coefficients in 2HDM and CMSSM have been calculated and can be found in refs. . We show the leading terms of relevant Wilson coefficients in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case in the following.
A. In a model II 2HDM
$`C_{10}(m_W)`$ in the 2HDM is the same as that in SM for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario . And $`C_{Q_i}`$’s are

$`C_{Q_1}(m_W)=f_{ac}y_t[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}y_t}{1y_t}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(2\alpha )}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{h^0}^2m_{H^0}^2)^2}{m_{h^0}^2m_{H^0}^2}}f_1(y_t)],`$ (2)
$`C_{Q_2}(m_W)=f_{ac}y_t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}y_t}{1y_t}}`$
where

$$f_{ac}=\frac{m_bm_l\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _Wm_W^2},x_t=\frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2},y_t=\frac{m_t^2}{m_{H^\pm }^2},$$

$$f_1(y)=\frac{1y+y\mathrm{ln}y}{(y1)^2}.$$

The difference between eq.(3) and the result in ref.  is that the second term in eq.(3) is absent in the paper.
B. In CMSSM

$`C_{10}(m_W)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{}}^2}{m_W^2}}\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \sqrt{x_{\chi _j^{}}x_{\chi _i^{}}}U_{j2}^{}U_{i2}`$
$`f_{D^0}(x_{\chi _i^{}},x_{\chi _j^{}},x_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k},x_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l})+\mathrm{}`$ (3)
$`C_{Q_1}(m_W)=`$
$`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_{\mathrm{}}}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _wm_W\lambda _t}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}}U_{i2}T_{UL}^{km}K_{mb}`$
$`\{\sqrt{2}V_{i1}^{}(T_{UL}K)_{ks}+V_{i2}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(T_{UR}\stackrel{~}{m}_uK)_{ks}}{m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}\}`$
$`r_{hH}\sqrt{x_{\chi _i^{}}}f_{B^0}(x_{\chi _i^{}},x_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k})+O(\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ),`$ (4)
$`C_{Q_2}(m_W)=`$
$`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta {\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_{\mathrm{}}}{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _wm_W\lambda _t}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}}U_{i2}T_{UL}^{km}K_{mb}`$
$`\{\sqrt{2}V_{i1}^{}(T_{UL}K)_{ks}+V_{i2}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(T_{UR}\stackrel{~}{m}_uK)_{ks}}{m_W\mathrm{sin}\beta }}\}`$
$`r_A\sqrt{x_{\chi _i^{}}}f_{B^0}(x_{\chi _i^{}},x_{\stackrel{~}{u}_k})+O(\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ),`$ (5)
where $`U`$ and $`V`$ are matrices which diagonalize the mass matrix of charginos, $`T_{Ui}`$ (i=L, R) is the matrix which diagonalizes the mass matrix of the scalar up-type quarks and K is the CKM matrix.

The $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$ enhancement of $`C_{Q_i}`$ (i=1,2) was first shown in refs.  and confirmed later in refs. . The chargino-chargino box diagram gives a contribution proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ to $`C_{10}`$. Numerically, $`C_{10}`$ is enhanced in CMSSM at most by about $`10\%`$ compared with SM.

## 4 NUMERICAL RESULTS OF Br

The contributions from NHBs always increase the branching ratios in the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case so that the branching ratios in the 2HDM and in SUSY models are larger than those in SM.
A. In a general model II 2HDM
1. Br of $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ is about $`10^8`$, an order of magnitude larger than that in SM, if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ = 60 or so, $`\alpha \pi /4`$ and the other parameters are in reasonable range.
2. The Br increases when the splitting of the masses of the two CP even neutral Higgs bosons increases except for the case of the mixing angle $`\alpha `$=0.
B. In CMSSM
1. the Br can saturate the experimental bound in some regions of the parameter space where $`C_{Q_i}^{^{}}`$s (i=1,2) behave as $`\mathrm{tan}^3\beta `$. In the other regions where $`C_{Q_i}^{^{}}`$s (i=1,2) behave as $`\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ the Br is about the order $`10^8`$.
2. If the Br $`2\times 10^8`$ is observed, then SUSY breaking mediation (SBM) mechanisms such as $`m_0=0`$ scenario (e.g., noscale SUGRA), $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$MSB, GMSB with small number of messenger fields or low messenger scale, the minimal AMSB are excluded, imposing the constraint from $`BX_s\gamma `$ and the direct search bounds on sparticles and Higgs .

## 5 CP VIOLATION

CP violation in the $`b`$-system has been established from measurements of time-dependent asymmetries in $`BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K`$ decays . We shall show that to observe the CP asymmetry in the B decays to a pair of muons or taus is a good way to search for new physics. Direct CP violation is absent and no T-odd projections can be defined in the decays. However, there is CP violation induced by $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ mixing in the process

$`B^0\overline{B}^0fvs.\overline{B}^0B^0\overline{f}.`$
One can define the CP violating observable as

$`A_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{D}{S}},`$
$`D={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{phys}^0(t)f_i)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{phys}^0(t)\overline{f}_i),`$
$`S={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{phys}^0(t)f_i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}_{phys}^0(t)\overline{f}_i`$ (6)
where $`f_{1,2}=l_{L,R}^+l_{L,R}^{}`$ with $`l_{L(R)}`$ being the helicity eigenstate of eigenvalue $`1(+1)`$, $`\overline{f}_i`$ is the CP conjugated state of $`f_i`$.

In SM, one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{12}^{}}{|M_{12}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _t^{}}{\lambda _t}},`$ (7)
where $`\lambda _t=V_{tb}V_{td}^{}`$ or $`V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}`$, up to the correction smaller than or equal to order of $`10^2`$, it is

$`A_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2Im(\xi )X_q}{(1+|\xi |^2)(1+X_q^2)}},q=d,s,`$ (8)
where $`X_q=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_q}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$($`q=d,s`$ for $`B_d^0`$ and $`B_s^0`$),

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{C_{Q1}\sqrt{14\widehat{m}_l^2}+(C_{Q2}+2\widehat{m}_lC_{10})}{C_{Q1}^{}\sqrt{14\widehat{m}_l^2}(C_{Q2}^{}+2\widehat{m}_lC_{10}^{})}}.`$ (9)
In eq. (9) $`\widehat{m}_l=m_l/m_{B^0}`$. In SM $`C_{10}`$ is real, $`C_{Q_2}=0`$, and $`C_{Q_1}`$ is negligibly small. Therefore, there is no CP violation in SM. If one includes the correction of order of $`10^2`$ to $`|\frac{q}{p}|=1`$, one will have CP violation of order of $`10^3`$ which is unobservably small.

In MSSM we can still use eq. (8) in the approximation, eq. (7), which is a good approximation in MSSM if one limits himself to the regions with large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ( say, larger than 10 but smaller than 60 ), not too light charged Higgs boson ( say, larger than 250 Gev ), and heavy sparticles, and in the scenarios of the minimal flavor violation (MFV)111MFV means the models in which the CKM matrix remains the unique source of flavor violation. $`B_{d,s}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ in MSSM with MFV and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has recently been analyzed . without new CP violating phases there is no correction to eq. (7. In MFV models with new CP violating phases, e.g., in the CMSSM with nonuniversal gaugino masses which we consider in this section, a rough estimate gives that the correction to the SM value of $`q/p`$ is below $`20\%`$ in the parameter space we used in calculations .

It should be pointed out that there is no hadronic uncertainty since the common uncertain decay constant cancells out in eq. (9).

In a 2HDM with CP violating phases and CMSSM with nonuniversal gaugino masses the CP asymmetries depend on the parameters of models and can be as large as $`40\%`$ for $`B_d^0`$ and $`3\%`$ for $`B_s^0`$, while the constraints from EDMs of electron and neutron are satisfied .

The correlations between $`(g2)_\mu `$ and CP asymmetries in $`B_{d,s}^0l^+l^{}`$ and $`bs\gamma `$ in SUSY models with nonuniversal gaugino masses have been calculated in ref. , imposing the constraints from the branching ratio of $`BX_s\gamma `$ (it leads to the correlation between $`C_7^{eff}`$ and $`C_{Q_i}`$ in SUSY models) and EDMs of electron and neutron, and the results are
—-with a good fit to the muon $`g2`$ constraint, the CP asymmetry can be as large as $`25\%`$ ($`15\%`$) for $`B_d^0\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ ($`B_d^0\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) in CMSSM with nonuniversal gaugino masses and MFV scenarios of MSSM.
—-If tau events identified with $`6\%`$ tagging error, one can measure $`A_{CP}`$ to a $`3\sigma `$ level at Tevatron Run II with Br($`B_d\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$) enhanced by a factor of about 30 compared to that of SM.
—-A scenario in which new physics only increases the Br a little and the Br is still in the uncertain region of the SM prediction. The CP asymmetry for $`B_d^0l^+l^{}`$ in the scenario can still reach $`20\%`$ allowed by the muon g-2 constraint within $`2\sigma `$ deviations. So it is powerful to shed light on physics beyond SM while the CP asymmetry of $`bs\gamma `$ in this case can only reach $`2\%`$ at most which is too small to draw a definite conclusion on new physics effects at B factories.

## 6 CONCLUTIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above discussions.
If Br($`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$) $`2\times 10^8`$ (or larger) is observed at Tevatron Run II, then there exits new physics. If new physics is a model II 2HDM or CMSSM, the new contributions must (mainly) come from NHBs ($`C_{10}`$ enhanced in CMSSM at most by about $`10\%`$) and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be large:
A. for a model II 2HDM, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be larger than about 60;
B. for constrained MSSM, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be larger than about 30.
And some SUSY breaking mediation mechanisms would be excluded.
In the near future when very high statistics can be reached measurements of the decays $`B_sl^+l^{}`$ (l=$`\mu ,\tau `$) could provide a large potential to find or exclude the large tan$`\beta `$ parts of the parameter space in 2HDM and/or SUSY.
An observation of CP asymmetry in the decays $`B_q^0l^+l^{}(q=d,s,l=\mu ,\tau )`$ would unambiguously signal the existence of new physics.