text:
# An endomorphism of the Khovanov invariant

## 1. Introduction

Khovanov invariant is a cohomology theory for oriented links with values in graded abelian groups, and specializes to the Jones polynomial by taking graded Euler characteristic of those cohomology groups (theorem 1.1). Khovanov  constructed the invariant in a search of connections between combinatorial invariants and differential geometric invariants of 3 and 4 dimensional manifolds. He interpreted his coboundary map as the image of a functor from the category of two dimensional cobordisms between one dimensional manifolds to the category of $`[c]`$-modules.

The Khovanov invariant specialized by setting $`c=0`$ and tensoring with $``$ (will be just called the Khovanov invariant from now on) has been computed by Bar-Natan  for the prime knots with up to 11 crossings. From Bar-Natan’s data, two conjectures  on the values of Khovanov invariant for alternating knots were formulated by Bar-Natan, Garoufalidis, and Khovanov. The conjectures (theorems 1.2 and 1.4) imply that the Khovanov invariant of an alternating knot determines and is determined by its Jones polynomial and signature.

The following is the theorem in  which states that the Khovanov invariant specializes to the Jones polynomial. The Khovanov invariant of a (relatively) oriented link $`L`$ in rational coefficients is denoted by $`(L)`$ following , and is defined in section 2. Its associated polynomial is denoted by $`Kh(L)`$ as it is in .

$$Kh(L)(t,q)\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}t^iq^jdim^{i,j}(L)$$

###### Theorem 1.1 ().

For an oriented link $`L`$, the graded Euler characteristic

$$\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^jdim^{i,j}(L)$$

of the Khovanov invariant $`(L)`$ of $`L`$ is equal to $`(q^1+q)`$ times the Jones polynomial $`V(L)`$ of $`L`$.

$$\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^jdim^{i,j}(L)=(q^1+q)V(L)_{\sqrt{t}=q}$$

In terms of the associated polynomial $`Kh(L)`$,

$$Kh(L)(1,q)=(q^1+q)V(L)_{\sqrt{t}=q}\text{ .}$$

The following two theorems are the conjectures in  proved in this paper.

###### Theorem 1.2 (Conjecture 2 in  and ).

For any alternating knot $`L`$, the Khovanov invariants $`^{i,j}(L)`$ of $`L`$ are supported in two lines

$$j=2i\sigma (L)\pm 1\text{ .}$$

In other words, the equality

$$Kh(L)(t,q)=q^{\sigma (L)}(q^1A(tq^2)+qB(tq^2))$$

holds for some polynomials $`A`$ and $`B`$, where $`\sigma (L)`$ is the signature of $`L`$.

Theorem 1.2, in fact, holds for any (relatively) oriented nonsplit alternating link $`L`$. (See theorem 3.12.)

###### Definition 1.3 (H-thinness ).

A diagram/knot/link $`D`$ is *H-thin* if its Khovanov invariant $`(D)`$ (or $`\overline{}(D)`$ if $`D`$ is a diagram) is supported in two diagonal lines as in theorem 1.2 up to a shift of the grading.

Theorem 1.2 implies that any nonsplit alternating link is H-thin.

###### Theorem 1.4 (Conjecture 1 in  and ).

For an alternating knot $`L`$, its Khovanov invariants $`^{i,j}(L)`$ of degree difference $`(1,4)`$ are paired except in the 0th cohomology group.

More precisely, in terms of the polynomial $`Kh(L)`$, the equality

$$Kh(L)(t,q)=q^s(q^1+q)+(q^1+tq^2q)C(t,q)$$

holds for some integer $`s`$ and some polynomial $`C`$.

Theorem 1.4 was extended to (relatively) oriented nonsplit alternating links in theorem 4.5.

Combining theorems 1.2 and 1.4, we can write $`Kh(L)`$ as

$$Kh(L)(t,q)=q^{\sigma (L)}\{(q^1+q)+(q^1+tq^2q)Kh^{}(L)(tq^2)\}$$

for some polynomial $`Kh^{}(L)`$.

As it is discussed in  and , theorems 1.2 and 1.4 with theorem 1.1 imply that the Khovanov invariant, or equivalently the associated polynomial $`Kh(L)`$, of an alternating knot $`L`$ is completely determined by the Jones polynomial and the signature of $`L`$.

Fortunately, that is not the case for nonalternating knots. A counterexample can be found in : $`10_{136}`$ and $`11_{92}^n`$ both have signature $`2`$ and the same Jones polynomial, but their Khovanov invariants do not agree.

The organization of the coming sections is as follows. Section 2 consists of a brief summary of the Khovanov invariant. Section 3 is devoted to our proof of theorem 1.2. In section 4, an endomorphism of Khovanov invariant is defined and used to prove 1.4.

We follow  and  for basic notions in knot theory and graph theory, and  for notations and terminologies related to the Khovanov invariant. We only need a relative orientation to define the Khovanov invariant, so an orientation and oriented can be read as a relative orientation and relatively oriented.

## 2. Khovanov Invariant

In this section, the construction and some properties of Khovanov invariant in  are summarized. Khovanov’s original construction is more general, but we will concentrate on a specialized case with coefficients in $``$. The interested reader should read .

### 2.1. Construction

#### 2.1.1. Cubes of diagrams

Let $`L`$ be an oriented link and $`D`$ be its diagram, a regular projection of $`L`$ together with the information of relative height at each double point. A double point of $`D`$ can be resolved in two ways.

Let $``$ be the set of double points of $`D`$. Each subset $`𝒥`$ of $``$ corresponds to a complete resolution $`D(𝒥)`$ of $`D`$ in which points in $`𝒥`$ are resolved to their 1-resolutions, points not in $`𝒥`$ are to their 0-resolutions. Regard those subsets of $``$ as vertices. For each pair of vertices $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒥^{}`$ satisfying $`𝒥𝒥^{}`$ and $`|𝒥^{}𝒥|=1`$, there is a directed edge from $`𝒥`$ to $`𝒥^{}`$. A directed cube is constructed.

#### 2.1.2. Cubes of modules

Let $`𝐀=\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱`$ be a two dimensional module over $``$ with a multiplication $`m`$, a comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, a unit $`\iota `$, and a counit $`ϵ`$ defined as

$`m(\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`m(\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱)=m(𝐱\mathrm{𝟏})`$ $`=`$ $`𝐱`$
$`m(𝐱𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱+𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐱𝐱`$
$`\iota (1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`ϵ(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`ϵ(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`1\text{ .}`$
For each vertex $`𝒥`$ of a cube, assign a tensor product of as many copies of $`𝐀`$ as the number of components of $`D(𝒥)`$, and denote it by $`𝐌_𝒥(D)`$. There is a one-to-one correspondence between those copies of $`𝐀`$ and the components of $`D(𝒥)`$.

#### 2.1.3. Chain complexes

A chain complex can be constructed from the cube of modules. Its $`i`$-th chain group is a direct sum of all the modules over vertices of $`i`$ elements.

$$\overline{𝒞}^i(D)=\underset{|𝒥|=i}{}𝐌_𝒥(D)$$

To define the coboundary map $`d`$, choose an ordering of $``$ \- the set of crossings of $`D`$, and regard $`𝒥`$ as an ordered $`|𝒥|`$-tuple of its elements in the chosen order instead of just a subset of $``$.

For a homogeneous element $`x𝐌_𝒥(D)`$, $`dx`$ lies in the sum of all the modules over those vertices which are end-points of the directed edges from $`𝒥`$.

$$dx\underset{𝒥𝒥^{},|𝒥^{}𝒥|=1}{}𝐌_𝒥^{}(D)\text{ for }x𝐌_𝒥(D)$$

Each homogeneous component of $`d`$ is defined in the way that $`m:𝐀𝐀𝐀`$ is applied to corresponding modules if two components merge into one, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝐀𝐀𝐀`$ is if one component splits to two. If the ordered $`(|𝒥|+1)`$-tuple $`𝒥`$ followed by the element in $`𝒥^{}𝒥`$ is an odd permutation of the ordered $`(|𝒥|+1)`$-tuple $`𝒥^{}`$, $`m`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, instead of $`m`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is used for the $`𝐌_𝒥(D)𝐌_𝒥^{}(D)`$ component of $`d`$. With this choice of signs, $`d`$ satisfies $`d^2=0`$.

#### 2.1.4. Relation to TQFT

The algebra $`𝐀`$ above is a Frobenius algebra and it is related to a two dimensional topological quantum field theory. There is a functor $`F`$ that maps one dimensional manifolds consisting of $`n`$ disjoint simple closed curves to $`𝐀^n`$’s, and cobordisms in the following figure to

$$F(S_2^1)=m,F(S_1^2)=\mathrm{\Delta },F(S_0^1)=\iota ,F(S_1^0)=ϵ,F(S_2^2)=(\text{permutation}),F(S_1^1)=id\text{ .}$$

The unit, counit, (co)associativity, (co)commutativity, together with the identity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=(mid)(id\mathrm{\Delta })$$

ensures well-definedness of $`F`$. (See .)

From the viewpoint of the previous sections, well-definedness of $`F`$ implies $`d^2=0`$. The following figure tabulates all the possible relative locations of two crossings and the associated surfaces obtained by continuous change of resolutions of the two crossings one after the other.

For $`d^2`$ to be equal to 0, those in the first two columns from the left only require $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be (co)commutative, the top right one requires $`m`$ to be associative, the middle right one requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be coassociative, and the bottom right one requires the identity $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=(mid)(id\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The unit and counit can be dropped if we are concerned only about $`d^2=0`$. (See  for more discussion of Frobenius algebra associated to a two-dimensional TQFT.)

#### 2.1.5. Grading on the chain groups

$`𝐀`$ is a graded module. $`𝐱`$ is of degree $`1`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is of degree 1. $`𝐌_𝒥(D)`$ has a grading induced from that of $`𝐀`$. Note that $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are maps of degree $`1`$ with respect to these gradings.

The chain group $`\overline{𝒞}^i(D)`$ above has a grading shifted from those of $`𝐌_𝒥(D)`$:

$$\overline{𝒞}^i(D)=\underset{|𝒥|=i}{}𝐌_𝒥(D)\{i\}\text{ .}$$

$`𝐌\{k\}`$ means a module identical to $`𝐌`$ with a shifted grading. An element of degree $`j`$ in $`𝐌`$ is of degree $`jk`$ in $`𝐌\{k\}`$.

Define $`\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)`$ as the degree $`j`$ component of $`\overline{𝒞}^i(D)`$. Due to the shifts, $`d`$ is now degree preserving, so that $`\overline{}^i(D)`$ is also decomposed as $`_j\overline{}^{i,j}(D)`$.

A chain complex $`𝒞(D)`$ is defined from $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ with the orientation of $`D`$ taken into account.

For each crossing of $`D`$, a sign is given as below (Note that this is opposite to the sign convention in .)

Let $`x(D)`$ and $`y(D)`$ be the number of negative crossings and positive crossings of $`D`$, respectively. $`𝒞(D)`$ is defined as

$$𝒞(D)=\overline{𝒞}(D)[x(D)]\{2x(D)y(D)\}$$

with the same coboundary map $`d`$. Square brackets indicate a shift of the indices of chain groups, i.e.,

$$𝒞^{i,j}(D)=\overline{𝒞}^{i+x(D),j+2x(D)y(D)}(D)\text{ .}$$

#### 2.1.6. Example

Here is an illustration of what had happened in the previous sections to the following diagram $`D`$ of the lefthanded trefoil.

Numbers for components of a resolution indicate which piece of $`𝐀`$ corresponds to which component, dotted edges indicate the places where $`m`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be used.

$`\overline{𝒞}^0(D)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐌_{\mathrm{}}(D)=𝐀𝐀𝐀`$
$`\overline{𝒞}^1(D)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐌_{\{a\}}(D)𝐌_{\{b\}}(D)𝐌_{\{c\}}(D)=(𝐀𝐀)(𝐀𝐀)(𝐀𝐀)`$
$`\overline{𝒞}^2(D)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐌_{\{a,b\}}(D)𝐌_{\{a,c\}}(D)𝐌_{\{b,c\}}(D)=𝐀𝐀𝐀`$
$`\overline{𝒞}^3(D)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐌_{\{a,b,c\}}(D)=𝐀𝐀`$
$`𝐱𝐱𝐱\overline{𝒞}^{0,3}(D)`$ $`\stackrel{d}{}`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\overline{𝒞}^{1,3}(D)`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\overline{𝒞}^{0,1}(D)`$ $`\stackrel{d}{}`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right]\overline{𝒞}^{1,1}(D)`$
$`\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\overline{𝒞}^{1,1}(D)`$ $`\stackrel{d}{}`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 𝐱\\ 𝐱\end{array}\right]\overline{𝒞}^{2,1}(D)`$
$`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{𝟏}\\ 0\end{array}\right]\overline{𝒞}^{2,3}(D)`$ $`\stackrel{d}{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\overline{𝒞}^{3,3}(D)`$
$`\overline{}^{0,3}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{span}\{𝐱𝐱𝐱\}}{\{0\}}}`$
$`\overline{}^{1,1}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{span}\{\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\end{array}\right]\}}{\mathrm{span}\{\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\end{array}\right]\}}}`$
$`\overline{}^{3,3}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱,𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\}}{\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱+𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\}}}`$
$`\overline{}^{3,5}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{span}\{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\}}{\{0\}}}`$
$`\overline{}^{i,j}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ for }(i,j)=(0,3),(1,1),(3,3),\text{ or }(3,5)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`x(D)=3`$ and $`y(D)=0`$ for this diagram $`D`$. (A knot or a knot diagram has only one relative orientation.) Hence,

$$^{i,j}(D)=\overline{}^{i+3,j+6}(D)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ for }(i,j)=(3,9),(2,5),(0,3),\text{ or }(0,1)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }\hfill \end{array}$$

### 2.2. Invariance

To define $`(L)`$ as $`(D)`$, we need to see invariance of $`(D)`$ under a change of ordering of $``$ and under the Reidemeister moves. We will just state isomorphisms. Detailed proofs can be found in chapter 5 of .

#### 2.2.1. Change of ordering

If the $`|𝒥|`$-tuple $`𝒥`$ with respect to one ordering of $``$ is an even permutation of $`𝒥`$ with respect to the other ordering, $`𝐌_𝒥`$ component of our isomorphism between them is the identity. Otherwise, it is minus identity.

#### 2.2.2. Reidemeister moves

\[Type I\]

Let $`a`$ be the crossing which appears only in $`D^{}`$. The set $`^{}`$ of crossings of $`D^{}`$ is $``$, the set of crossings of $`D`$, followed by $`a`$ as an ordered $`|^{}|`$-tuple. Let $`D^{}(0)`$ and $`D^{}(1)`$ denote $`D^{}`$ with only its last crossing (that is $`a`$) resolved to its 0- and 1-resolutions, respectively.

As a group, $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ is a direct sum of $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(0))`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}`$. Denote the part of the coboundary map $`d^{}`$ on $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ that maps from $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(0))`$ to $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}`$ by $`d_{01}^{}`$, and the coboundary maps on $`\overline{𝒞}(D(0))`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D(1))`$ by $`d_0^{}`$ and $`d_1^{}`$, so that

$$d^{}(y+z)=d_0^{}(y)+d_{01}^{}(y)d_1^{}(z)$$

for $`y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(0))`$ and $`z\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}`$. Similar notation should be comprehended similarly from now on.

Define

$$X_1=\mathrm{Ker}d_{01}^{}$$

and

$$X_2=\{y\mathrm{𝟏}+z|y\overline{𝒞}(D),z\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}\}\text{ .}$$

Here $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(0))`$ is identified with $`\overline{𝒞}(D)𝐀`$.

$`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are subcomplexes of $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$, $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ is decomposed as $`X_1X_2`$ as a chain complex, $`X_2`$ is acyclic, and

$`\rho :`$ $`X_1`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D)\{1\}`$
$`y\mathrm{𝟏}+z𝐱`$ $`z`$
induces an isomorphism between $`(D^{})`$ and $`(D)`$.

\[Type II\]

As before, the set $`^{}`$ of crossings of $`D^{}`$ is $``$, the set of crossings of $`D`$, followed by $`a`$, then $`b`$ as an ordered $`|^{}|`$-tuple.

This time,

$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+\alpha (z)|z\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(01))[1]\{1\}\}`$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+d^{}y|z,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(00))\}`$
$`X_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+y\mathrm{𝟏}|z,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(11))[2]\{2\}\}`$
where $`\alpha (z)=d_{0111}^{}(z)\mathrm{𝟏}\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(10))[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(11))[1]\{1\}𝐀`$.

Then, $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ is a direct sum of its subcomplexes $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, and $`X_3`$, $`X_2`$ and $`X_3`$ are acyclic, and

$`\rho :`$ $`\overline{𝒞}^i(D)[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}^i(D^{}(01))[1]\{1\}`$ $`X_1\overline{𝒞}^i(D^{})`$
$`z`$ $`(1)^i(z+\alpha (z))`$
induces an isomorphism between $`(D)`$ and $`(D^{})`$.

\[Type III\]

Again, $`a,b,c`$ and $`a^{},b^{},c^{}`$ are the last three elements in $``$ and $`^{}`$, and the others are in the same order.

Define $`\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}`$ as

$`\alpha :`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[2]\{2\}`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(010))[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[1]\{1\}𝐀`$
$`z`$ $`z\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\beta :`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]\{1\}`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(010))[1]\{1\}`$
$`z`$ $`\alpha d_{100110}(z)`$
$`\alpha ^{}:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[2]\{2\}`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(100))[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[1]\{1\}𝐀`$
$`z`$ $`z\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\beta ^{}:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1]\{1\}`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(100))[1]\{1\}`$
$`z`$ $`\alpha ^{}d_{010110}^{}(z)\text{ .}`$
$`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ can be decomposed into their subcomplexes as below.

$`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`X_1X_2X_3`$
$`X_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+\beta (x)+y|x\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]\{1\},y\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}\}`$
$`X_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+dy|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D(000))\}`$
$`X_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{\alpha (x)+d\alpha (y)|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[2]\{2\}\}`$
$`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ $`=`$ $`Y_1Y_2Y_3`$
$`Y_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+\beta ^{}(x)+y|x\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1]\{1\},y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}\}`$
$`Y_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+d^{}y|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(000))\}`$
$`Y_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{\alpha ^{}(x)+d^{}\alpha ^{}(y)|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[2]\{2\}\}`$
As before, $`X_2,X_3,Y_2,Y_3`$ are acyclic, $`\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]\{1\}`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1]\{1\}`$, $`\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}`$ are naturally isomorphic, and $`X_1`$ is isomorphic to $`Y_1`$ via

$$\rho :x+\beta (x)+yx+\beta ^{}(x)+y\text{ .}$$

### 2.3. Properties

The following results are proved in  and will be used in the coming sections.

###### Proposition 2.1.

For an oriented $`n`$ component link diagram $`D`$,

$$𝒞^{i,j}(D)=0$$

unless $`jn(\text{mod }2)`$.

###### Corollary 2.2.

For an oriented $`n`$ component link $`L`$,

$$^{i,j}(L)=0$$

unless $`jn(\text{mod }2)`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

For a disjoint union $`DD^{}`$ of two oriented link diagrams $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$,

$$𝒞(DD^{})=𝒞(D)𝒞(D^{})\text{ .}$$

###### Corollary 2.4.

For a disjoint union $`LL^{}`$ of two oriented links $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$,

$$(LL^{})=(L)(L^{})\text{ .}$$

###### Proposition 2.5.

The Frobenius algebra $`(𝐀,m,\mathrm{\Delta },\iota ,ϵ)`$ is isomorphic to its dual algebra $`(𝐀^{},\mathrm{\Delta }^{},m^{},ϵ^{},\iota ^{})`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`D^!`$ be the mirror image of an oriented link diagram $`D`$. The complex $`𝒞(D^!)`$ is isomorphic to the dual of $`𝒞(D)`$.

###### Corollary 2.7.

For an oriented link $`L`$ and its mirror image $`L^!`$,

$$(L^!)((L))^{}\text{ .}$$

###### Theorem 2.8 (Theorem 1.1).

For an oriented link $`L`$, the graded Euler characteristic

$$\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^jdim^{i,j}(L)$$

of the Khovanov invariant $`(L)`$ of $`L`$ is equal to $`(q^1+q)`$ times the Jones polynomial $`V(L)`$ of $`L`$.

$$\underset{i,j}{}(1)^iq^jdim^{i,j}(L)=(q^1+q)V(L)_{\sqrt{t}=q}$$

In terms of the associated polynomial $`Kh(L)`$,

$$Kh(L)(1,q)=(q^1+q)V(L)_{\sqrt{t}=q}\text{ .}$$

## 3. H-thinness of Alternating Links

In this section, we prove theorem 1.2. The proof is based on induction on the number of crossings. We will show that the support of the Khovanov invariant of a nonsplit oriented alternating link is included in the union of the supports for two such links with fewer crossings, then that the two lines of the two supports agree.

### 3.1. Exact sequences

###### Theorem 3.1.

The chain complexes $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$, $`\overline{𝒞}(D(0))`$, and $`\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ form a short exact sequence

$$0\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}(D)\overline{𝒞}(D(0))0$$

with degree preserving maps, so that $`\overline{}(D)`$ is an extension of the kernel and cokernel of the connecting map $`\delta `$ as a bigraded $``$-module.

$$\mathrm{}\overline{}^{i1}(D(0))\stackrel{\delta }{}\overline{}^{i1}(D(1))\{1\}\overline{}^i(D)\overline{}^i(D(0))\stackrel{\delta }{}\overline{}^i(D(1))\{1\}\mathrm{}$$

In particular, the support of $`\overline{}(D)`$ is included in the union of the support of $`\overline{}(D(0))`$ and $`\overline{}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$.

###### Proof.

We’ve already seen that $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ is decomposed as $`\overline{𝒞}(D(0))\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$, and the coboundary map $`d`$ can be written as

$$d(y+z)=d_0y+d_{01}yd_1z\text{ .}$$

Now, it is easy to see that

$$0\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\{1\}\overline{𝒞}(D)\overline{𝒞}(D(0))0$$

is a short exact sequence of chain complexes (after a little adjustment of sign), and that $`\delta :\overline{}^i(D(0))\overline{}^{i+1}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ is induced by $`d_{01}`$. ∎

### 3.2. Properties of black and white coloring of alternating link diagrams

Let $`D`$ be a link diagram. For brevity of the statements to follow, let us think of diagrams on $`S^2`$ rather than on $`^2`$. The regions of $`S^2`$ divided by $`D`$ can be colored black and white in checkerboard fashion.

At each crossing, a coloring of nearby regions falls into one of the two following patterns.

As it is shown above, adjacent alternating crossings have the same coloring pattern of nearby regions. Hence, in a coloring of a nonsplit alternating diagram $`D`$, only one of the pattern A or B appears for every crossing. Reversing the coloring changes that pattern.

Resolutions of a colored diagram have induced colorings.

###### Definition 3.2.

For a nonsplit alternating diagram $`D`$, *the coloring* of $`D`$ is the coloring of $`D`$ in which only pattern A appears. *The coloring* of a resolution of $`D`$ is the coloring of that resolved diagram induced from the coloring of $`D`$.

For the coloring of $`D(\mathrm{})`$ (0-resolutions of pattern A), the trace of each crossing lies in a white region. Now, our claim is:

###### Proposition 3.3.

For a reduced nonsplit alternating diagram $`D`$, the components of $`D(\mathrm{})`$ bound nonoverlapping black disks in the coloring of it. Each black disk corresponds to each of the black regions in the coloring of $`D`$. Furthermore, every pair of black disks are connected by a chain of black disks, which are connected by the trace of the crossings of $`D`$. Also, no trace of crossing connects a black disk to itself.

Here is visualization of our claim for diagrams of the lefthanded trefoil and the figure 8 knot. (The unbounded black region shown below is a disk in $`S^2`$.)

###### Proof.

At each crossing, its 0-resolution separates incident black regions. That gives a correspondence between the black regions in the coloring of $`D`$ and those in the coloring of $`D(\mathrm{})`$. (While most white regions of $`D`$ merge in the process.)

In the coloring of $`D(\mathrm{})`$, there is no trace of crossing in black regions. That implies:

* if there is a black region which is not a disk, then $`D`$ is split.
* if there is a pair of black disks which cannot be connected by any chain, then $`D`$ is split.
* if there is a trace of crossing connecting a black disk to itself, that crossing is removable, so $`D`$ is not reduced.

###### Definition 3.4.

For a link diagram $`D`$, let $`c(D)`$ be the number of crossings of $`D`$, and $`o(D)`$ be the number of components of $`D(\mathrm{})`$.

For $`D`$ in proposition 3.3, $`o(D)`$ agrees with the number of black disks in the coloring of $`D(\mathrm{})`$.

Let $``$ be an ordered set of crossings of $`D`$. Note that $`D()`$ agrees with $`D^!(\mathrm{})`$, and that $`o(D)+o(D^!)`$ equals the total number of black and white regions in the coloring of $`D`$, which is $`c(D)+2`$.

We need one further step for the inductive argument to be used in our proof of theorem 1.2.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Let $`D`$ be a reduced nonsplit alternating link diagram with $`c(D)>0`$. Then one of the following holds.

* There is a pair of black disks in the coloring of $`D(\mathrm{})`$ connected by exactly one crossing.
* There is a pair of black disks in the coloring of $`D^!(\mathrm{})`$ connected by exactly one crossing.
* $`D`$ is a connected sum of $`D^{}`$ and the Hopf link, for another nonsplit alternating link diagram $`D^{}`$ with $`c(D)2`$ crossings.

###### Proof.

Since $`o(D)+o(D^!)=c(D)+2`$, one of the following holds.

* $`o(D)>c(D)/2+1`$.
* $`o(D^!)>c(D)/2+1`$.
* $`o(D)=o(D^!)=c(D)/2+1`$.

\[(a) $``$ (A)\] For $`o(D)`$ black disks to be connected to each other by chains of connected disks, there are at least $`o(D)1`$ different pairs that are connected by crossings. If $`2(o(D)1)>c(D)`$, then at least one of those pairs is connected by exactly one crossing.

\[(b) $``$ (B)\] Same as (a) $``$ (A).

\[(c) & not (A) & not (B) $``$ (C)\] To fail (A), there are exactly $`o(D)1`$ different pairs that are connected by crossings and those pairs are connected by exactly two crossings.

Consider a graph consists of $`o(D)`$ vertices and $`o(D)1`$ edges. Each vertex represents each black disk. For each pair of black disks connected by two crossings, there is an edge joining the corresponding pair of vertices. This graph is connected, so it is a tree.

For an edge $`\{a,b\}`$, mark the $`a`$-end of it with arrow if the two crossings connecting the disk $`a`$ and $`b`$ are adjacent on the boundary of $`a`$. For example,

A vertex of a tree is called a pendent vertex if it is incident with only one edge, and an edge is called a pendent edge if it is incident with a pendent vertex. If $`a`$ is a pendent vertex, the unique edge incident with $`a`$ is necessarily marked at the $`a`$-end. If $`b`$ is not a pendent vertex, at least two edges have marked $`b`$-end, since the two crossings connecting disks $`b`$ and $`c`$ and those connecting disks $`b`$ and $`d`$ never alternate.

If $`o(D)=2`$, then there is only one edge, that is a pendent edge, and both ends of that edge is marked. For $`o(D)>2`$, let $`p`$ be the number of the pendent vertices. The number of the pendent edges is also $`p`$. There are at least $`p+2(o(D)p)`$ marked ends, but the number of nonpendent edges is $`o(D)1p`$, so there is at least one pendent edge with both ends marked. That implies (C) (up to relocation of $`\mathrm{}`$).

###### Lemma 3.6.

For a reduced nonsplit alternating diagram $`D`$, $`\overline{}^{i,j}(D)`$ is supported in the box $`0ic(D)`$ and $`o(D)j2c(D)o(D)+2`$, with $`\overline{}^{0,o(D)}(D)=\overline{}^{c(D),2c(D)o(D)+2}(D)=`$.

###### Proof.

First of all, it is clear from the construction of $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ that $`\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)=0`$ unless $`0ic(D)`$.

When a resolution of $`D`$ is changed to another resolution of $`D`$ by replacing one 0-resolution by 1-resolution, the number of components either increases or decreases by one. That ensures $`\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)`$ to be supported in $`o(D)j2c(D)o(D)+2`$.

Proposition 3.3 implies that $`D(\mathrm{})`$ has one more component than any $`D(a)`$ has, because two black disks merge into one in the process. In terms of $`\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)`$, this means

$$\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }i=0,j=o(D)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }i>0,j=o(D)\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$

so one half of the result follows.

For the other half, look at the other end. $`D()=D^!(\mathrm{})`$ also has one more component than any $`D(\{a\})=D^!(a)`$ has, so that

$$\overline{𝒞}^{i,j}(D)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }i=c(D),j=2c(D)o(D)+2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }i<c(D),j=2c(D)o(D)+2\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`D`$ be a diagram satisfying (A) in proposition 3.5. Let $`a`$ be a crossing of $`D`$ connecting a pair of black disks that no other crossing connects. Choose an ordering of $``$ in which $`a`$ comes the last. Then, $`D(0)`$ still has the property that $`D(0)(\mathrm{})`$ has one more component than any $`D(0)(b)`$ has. The use of (A) is that it allows $`D(1)`$ to have that property, too.

###### Corollary 3.7.

In the above setting, $`\overline{}^{i,j}(D(0))`$ is supported in the box $`0ic(D(0))`$ and $`o(D(0))j2c(D(0))o(D(0))+2`$, with $`\overline{}^{0,o(D(0))}(D(0))=`$, and $`\overline{}^{i,j}(D(1))`$ is supported in the box $`0ic(D(1))`$ and $`o(D(1))j2c(D(1))o(D(1))+2`$, with $`\overline{}^{0,o(D(1))}(D(1))=\overline{}^{c(D(1)),2c(D(1))o(D(1))+2}(D(1))=`$.

Finally, to apply induction hypothesis to $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$ later on, they need to be nonsplit alternating.

###### Proposition 3.8.

In the above setting, $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$ are nonsplit alternating.

###### Proof.

Alternating property is easy to see.

To be nonsplit, their black disks in the induced coloring have to be connected. That is clear for $`D(1)`$. For $`D(0)`$, if the black disks of $`D(\mathrm{})`$ are disconnected after removing $`a`$, then $`a`$ was a removable crossing in $`D`$, which contradicts $`D`$ being reduced. ∎

### 3.3. Signature of an alternating link

This section consists of the result of  and an application to alternating links, to relate the shift with the signature in theorem 1.2.

###### Definition 3.9 (Goeritz matrix : following §1 of ).

Let $`D`$ be an oriented link diagram. Color the regions of $`^2`$ (or $`S^2`$) divided by $`D`$ in checkerboard fashion. Denote the white regions by $`X_0,X_1,\mathrm{},X_n`$. Assume that each crossing is incident to two distinct white regions. Assign an incidence number $`\eta (a)=\pm 1`$ to each crossing $`a`$ as in the figure below. For $`0i,jn`$ define

$$g_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{a\text{ incident to both }X_i\text{ and }X_j}\eta (a)\hfill & \text{ for }ij\hfill \\ _{0kn,ki}g_{ik}\hfill & \text{ for }i=j\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}$$

The Goeritz matrix $`G(D)`$ of $`D`$ is the $`n\times n`$ (not $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ !) symmetric matrix $`G(D)=(g_{ij})_{1i,jn}`$.

The signature of an oriented link can be obtained from the signature of Goeritz matrix of its diagram by adding a correction term.

###### Theorem 3.10 (Theorem 6 in ).

For an oriented link $`L`$,

$$\sigma (L)=\mathrm{sign}G(D)\mu (D)$$

for its diagram $`D`$, where $`\mu (D)=\eta (a)`$, summed over all crossings $`a`$ of type II. (See the figure above.)

###### Proposition 3.11.

For an oriented nonsplit alternating link $`L`$ and a reduced alternating diagram $`D`$ of $`L`$, $`\sigma (L)=o(D)y(D)1`$.

###### Proof.

In the reversed coloring of $`D`$, $`\eta (a)=1`$ for any crossing $`a`$, components of the resolution $`D(\mathrm{})`$ bound nonoverlapping white disks, $`+`$ crossings are of the type II, and $``$ crossings are of the type I, so that $`g_{ij}0`$ for $`ij`$, $`g_{ii}0`$, and $`\mu (D)=y(D)`$. Reducedness of $`D`$ ensures that each crossing is incident to two distinct white regions.

Since

$$\underset{1i,jn}{}g_{ij}x_ix_j=\underset{1i<jn}{}|g_{ij}|(x_ix_j)^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}|g_{i0}|x_i^20,$$

$`G(D)`$ is a positive-definite matrix, and hence,

$$\sigma (L)=\mathrm{sign}G(D)\mu (D)=\mathrm{rank}G(D)y(D)=o(D)1y(D).$$

### 3.4. Proof of theorem 1.2

The proof is based on induction on the number of crossings of a link diagram. First, we prove the theorem for some number $`s(L)`$ instead of $`\sigma (L)`$, and then, show $`s(L)=\sigma (L)`$. For convenience of proof, we will restate theorem 1.2 in more detailed and extended form as follows.

###### Theorem 3.12.

For any oriented nonsplit alternating link $`L`$, $`Kh(L)(t,q)`$ is supported in two lines $`\mathrm{deg}(q)=2\mathrm{deg}(t)\sigma (L)\pm 1`$, its nonzero coefficient of the smallest degree in $`t`$ is on the line $`\mathrm{deg}(q)=2\mathrm{deg}(t)\sigma (L)1`$, its nonzero coefficient of the largest degree in $`t`$ is on the line $`\mathrm{deg}(q)=2\mathrm{deg}(t)\sigma (L)+1`$, and those coefficients are 1.

In other words,

$$Kh(L)(t,q)=\underset{i=p}{\overset{m}{}}(a_it^iq^{2i\sigma (L)1}+b_it^iq^{2i\sigma (L)+1})$$

for some $`pm`$ with $`a_p=b_m=1`$.

The lines $`\mathrm{deg}(q)=2\mathrm{deg}(t)s(L)1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(q)=2\mathrm{deg}(t)s(L)+1`$ will be called the upper diagonal, and the lower diagonal, respectively, and the positions of $`a_p=1`$ and $`b_m=1`$ will be referred to as the top at $`(p,2ps(L)1)`$ and the bottom at $`(m,2ms(L)+1)`$, thinking of the table of coefficients in which the powers of $`t`$ increase from left to right, and the powers of $`q`$ increase from top to bottom. These terms will be applied to Khovanov’s cohomology groups as well.

###### Theorem 3.13.

For any nonsplit alternating link diagram $`D`$, $`\overline{}^{i,j}(D)`$ is supported in two lines $`j=2is\pm 1`$ for some integer $`s`$ with the top and bottom on the upper diagonal and the lower diagonal, respectively.

###### Proof.

For the base case, the theorem holds for the unknotted diagram of unknot.

Assume that the statement is true for all such diagrams with less than $`c`$ crossings. Let $`D`$ be a nonsplit alternating link diagram with $`c`$ crossings. If $`D`$ is not reduced, then $`\overline{}(D)`$ is a shift of $`\overline{}(D^{})`$ for some such diagram $`D^{}`$ with less than $`c`$ crossings, so the statement is true for $`D`$ as well.

Let $`D`$ be reduced. By corollary 2.7, it is enough to show the theorem for either $`D`$ or $`D^!`$. So, we may assume that $`D`$ has the property (A) or (C) in proposition 3.5.

\[Case (A)\] The induction hypothesis applies to $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$. $`\overline{}(D(0))`$ is supported in two lines with the top at $`(0,o(D(0)))`$, and $`\overline{}(D(1))`$ is also supported in two lines with the top at $`(0,o(D(1)))`$.

Since $`o(D)=o(D(0))=o(D(1))+1`$, the upper diagonal and the lower diagonal of $`\overline{}(D(0))`$ agree with those of $`\overline{}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$. By theorem 3.1 and lemma 3.6, $`\overline{}(D)`$ is supported in two lines with the top at $`(0,o(D))`$ and the bottom at $`(c,2co(D)+2)`$.

\[Case (C)\] Our $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$ are as below, and the induction hypothesis applies to $`D^{}`$.

Choose orientations for $`D^{}`$, $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$ accordingly. $`\overline{}(D^{})`$, $`\overline{}(D(0))`$ and $`\overline{}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ are shift of each other as follows.

$`\overline{}(D(0))`$ $`=`$ $`(D(0))[x(D(0))]\{2x(D(0))+y(D(0))\}`$
$`=`$ $`(D^{})[x(D^{})]\{2x(D^{})+y(D^{})+1\}`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{}(D^{})[0]\{1\}`$
$`\overline{}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ $`=`$ $`(D(1))[x(D(1))1]\{2x(D(1))+y(D(1))1\}`$
$`=`$ $`(D^{})[x(D^{})2]\{2x(D^{})+y(D^{})3\}`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{}(D^{})[2]\{3\}`$
By induction hypothesis, $`\overline{}(D(0))`$ is supported in two lines with the top at $`(0,o(D^{})1)`$, and $`\overline{}(D(1))[1]\{1\}`$ is also supported in two lines with the top at $`(2,o(D^{})+3)`$. Their upper diagonals and lower diagonals agree.

Again, by theorem 3.1 and lemma 3.6, $`\overline{}(D)`$ is supported in two lines with the top at $`(0,o(D))=(0,o(D^{})1)`$ and the bottom at $`(c,2co(D)+2)`$. ∎

Let $`L`$ be an oriented nonsplit alternating link and $`D`$ be a reduced alternating diagram of $`L`$. From theorem 3.13, we can conclude that $`(D)=\overline{}(D)[x(D)]\{2x(D)y(D)\}`$ has the top at $`(x(D),2x(D)+y(D)o(D))`$. Since the top is on the upper diagonal, our $`s(L)`$ equals $`o(D)y(D)1`$.

In proposition 3.11, we saw that $`\sigma (L)=o(D)y(D)1`$. That finishes the proof of theorem 1.2.

## 4. An Endomorphism of the Khovanov Invariant

In this section, we prove theorem 1.4. The strategy of our proof is as follows. We define a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of degree (1,4) from the Khovanov invariant $`(L)`$ of any oriented link $`L`$ to itself, which pairs most of $`(L)`$. This map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ added to the coboundary map $`d`$ gives rise to a new cohomology theory which can be computed explicitly. Then, we compare the cohomology groups of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`(L)`$ with the new cohomology groups of $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$.

### 4.1. Definition (on chain level)

Theorem 1.4 states that there is an almost pairing of cohomology groups of degree difference (1,4), so it is natural to think of a map of degree (1,4) on the cohomology groups.

On chain level, the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined in the same fashion as the coboundary map. Instead of

$`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\stackrel{m}{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱,𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\stackrel{m}{}`$ $`𝐱`$
$`𝐱𝐱`$ $`\stackrel{m}{}`$ $`0`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱+𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`𝐱`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}`$ $`𝐱𝐱`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s assignment is as follows.

$`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱,𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\stackrel{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{}`$ $`0`$
$`𝐱𝐱`$ $`\stackrel{m_\mathrm{\Phi }}{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }}{}`$ $`0`$
$`𝐱`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }}{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$
This new multiplication $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is commutative and associative.

$$m_\mathrm{\Phi }(m_\mathrm{\Phi }(xy)z)=m_\mathrm{\Phi }(xm_\mathrm{\Phi }(yz))=0\text{ for any }x,y,z𝐀$$

The comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also cocommutative and coassociative.

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }id)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=0\text{ for any }z𝐀$$

They also satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }m_\mathrm{\Phi }=(m_\mathrm{\Phi }id)(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })\text{ ,}$$

since

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }m_\mathrm{\Phi }(yz)=(m_\mathrm{\Phi }id)(y\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }(z))=0\text{ for any }y,z𝐀\text{ .}$$

As discussed in section 2.1.4, these properties are enough for ensuring $`\mathrm{\Phi }^2=0`$.

Although $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ cannot have any compatible unit or counit, $`(𝐀,m_\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is isomorphic to $`(𝐀^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }^{},m_\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$.

### 4.2. Invariance of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

We would like to see $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is well defined on $`(L)`$. For that, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ should (anti)commute with $`d`$ and be invariant under the Reidemeister moves.

#### 4.2.1. Anticommutativity with $`d`$

From the viewpoint of section 2.1.4, we only need to check the following identities.

$`(1)`$ $`m(m_\mathrm{\Phi }id)+m_\mathrm{\Phi }(mid)=m(idm_\mathrm{\Phi })+m_\mathrm{\Phi }(idm)`$
$`(2)`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }id)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }+(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }id)\mathrm{\Delta }=(id\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }+(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`(3)`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }m=(mid)(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })+(m_\mathrm{\Phi }id)(id\mathrm{\Delta })`$
###### Proof.

(2) can be checked in the following table.

|  |  | $`(\mathrm{\Delta }id)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }id)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ | $`(id\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | $`(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Delta }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ |
| $`𝐱`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}+𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱+\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ |

(1) is deduced from (2) since both $`(A,m,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and $`(A,m_\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are self dual.

A table for (3) follows.

|  |  | $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi }m`$ | $`(mid)(id\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ | $`(m_\mathrm{\Phi }id)(id\mathrm{\Delta })`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ |
| $`𝐱𝐱`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱+𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`0`$ | $`𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}`$ | $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱`$ |

#### 4.2.2. Invariance under the Reidemeister moves

We also want $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to commute with the isomorphisms in section 2.2.2.

\[Type I\] The isomorphism was given by

$`\rho :`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D)\{1\}`$
$`y\mathrm{𝟏}+z𝐱+x`$ $`z`$
for $`y\mathrm{𝟏}+z𝐱\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(0))\overline{𝒞}(D)𝐀`$ and $`x\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\{1\}`$.

Then,

$`(\rho \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\rho )(y\mathrm{𝟏}+z𝐱+x)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}(y)\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}(z)𝐱+\mathrm{\Phi }_{01}^{}(y\mathrm{𝟏}+z𝐱)\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(x))\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=0\text{ .}`$
\[Type II\] Let $`d(z)=0,z\overline{𝒞}^i(D)[1]\{1\}`$.

$`(1)^i(\rho \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\rho )(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^i\rho \mathrm{\Phi }(z)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z+\alpha (z))`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{01}^{}(z)+\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_{01}^{}(z))(\mathrm{\Phi }_{01}^{}(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}^{}\alpha (z)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{0111}^{}(z)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{1011}^{}\alpha (z))`$
$`=`$ $`d_{0111}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{01}^{}(z)\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}^{}d_{0111}^{}(z)\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_{0111}^{}(z)`$
$`=`$ $`d^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{0111}^{}(z)\mathrm{𝟏})`$
$`\left(\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(11))[2]\{2\}\text{ component of }(d^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}d^{})(z)\right)\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`=`$ $`d^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{0111}^{}(z)\mathrm{𝟏})\text{ .}`$
\[Type III\] If $`d(x+\beta (x)+y)=0`$, then $`\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]\{1\}`$ component of $`d(x+\beta (x)+y)`$, that is $`d_{100}(x)`$, equals $`0`$.

In $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x+\beta (x)+y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100101}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{010}(d_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})`$
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }_{010110}(d_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})+\mathrm{\Phi }_{010011}(d_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100101}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_{110}d_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)`$
$`\stackrel{\left(1\right)}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x)+\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x))+d_{110}\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}(x)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100101}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)`$
$`\stackrel{\left(2\right)}{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x)+\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x))+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110011}x+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100101}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y)\text{ .}`$
(1) is from

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[2]\{2\}\text{ component of }(d\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }d)(x)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`d_{100110}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}x)+d_{110}\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}(d_{100}x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{110}d_{100110}x`$
$`\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x))`$ $`=`$ $`d_{100110}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x))\mathrm{𝟏}`$
$`=`$ $`(d_{110}\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x+\mathrm{\Phi }_{110}d_{100110}x)\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ .}`$
(2) is from

$`d\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x)`$ $`=`$ $`d_{010}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})+d_{010110}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})+d_{010011}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x\mathrm{𝟏})`$
$`=`$ $`d_{110}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x)\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110}x+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110011}x\text{ .}`$
Similarly, in $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(x+\beta ^{}(x)+y)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{010}^{}(x)+\beta ^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{010}^{}(x))\mathrm{\Phi }_{010110101}^{}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{010011}^{}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}(y)`$
$`=`$ $`\rho (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x)+\beta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{100}(x))+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100101}(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_{100110011}x\mathrm{\Phi }_1(y))\text{ .}`$
#### 4.2.3. Example

Let $`T`$ be the lefthanded trefoil with the diagram $`D`$ in section 2.1.6. We have computed $`(T)=(D)`$ in section 2.1.6.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is of degree (1, 4), the only possible place $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be nontrivial is from $`^{3,9}(T)`$ to $`^{2,5}(T)`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at a generator $`[𝐱𝐱𝐱]`$ of $`^{3,9}(T)=`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }([𝐱𝐱𝐱])=\left[\left[\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\\ \mathrm{𝟏}𝐱\end{array}\right]\right]\text{ ,}$$

which is a generator of $`^{2,5}(T)=`$, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is nontrivial there.

### 4.3. $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$ and change of variables

#### 4.3.1. Change of variables

Let us forget the grading and make a change of variables as follows.

$$𝐚=𝐱+\mathrm{𝟏}𝐛=𝐱\mathrm{𝟏}$$

Since $`(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)^2=\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{\Phi }d+d\mathrm{\Phi }+d^2=0`$, we can regard $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$ as a new coboundary map.

$`𝐚𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)}}{}`$ $`2𝐚`$
$`𝐚𝐛,𝐛𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)}}{}`$ $`0`$
$`𝐛𝐛`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)}}{}`$ $`2𝐛`$
$`𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)}}{}`$ $`𝐚𝐚`$
$`𝐛`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)}}{}`$ $`𝐛𝐛`$
###### Definition 4.1.

For an oriented diagram $`D`$, $`\overline{\text{H}}(D)`$ is the cohomology of the chain complex $`(\overline{𝒞}(D),\mathrm{\Phi }+d)`$, and $`\text{H}(D)`$ is that of $`(𝒞(D),\mathrm{\Phi }+d)`$.

#### 4.3.2. Invariance of $`\text{H}(D)`$ under the Reidemeister moves

It would not be interesting if we can define only $`\text{H}(D)`$, but not $`\text{H}(L)`$. Our proof of invariance follows chapter 5 of  (summarized in section 2.2.2) with only the multiplication and comultiplication maps replaced by those of $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$. Details are left to the reader. See section 2.2.2 for figures.

\[Type I\] Define

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_1=\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})_{01}$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{X}_2=\{y\frac{1}{2}(𝐚𝐛)+z|y\overline{𝒞}(D),z\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\}\text{ .}$$

$`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ is decomposed as $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ as chain complexes, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ is acyclic, and

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$
$`y𝐚+z𝐛`$ $`y+z`$
induces an isomorphism between $`\text{H}(D^{})`$ and $`\text{H}(D)`$.

\[Type II\] This time,

$`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(z)|z\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(01))[1]\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})y|z,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(00))\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{z+y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐚𝐛)|z,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(11))[2]\}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(z)=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})_{0111}(z)\frac{1}{2}(𝐚𝐛)\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(11))[1]𝐀\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(10))[1]`$.

Then, $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})=\stackrel{~}{X}_1\stackrel{~}{X}_2\stackrel{~}{X}_3`$ as chain complexes, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_3`$ are acyclic, and

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}^i(D)[1]\overline{𝒞}^i(D^{}(01))[1]`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1\overline{𝒞}^i(D^{})`$
$`z`$ $`(1)^i(z+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(z))`$
induces an isomorphism.

\[Type III\] Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{},\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}`$ be maps of complexes given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[2]`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(010))[1]\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[1]𝐀`$
$`z`$ $`z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐚𝐛)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D(010))[1]`$
$`z`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)_{100110}(z)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[2]`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(100))[1]\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[1]𝐀`$
$`z`$ $`z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(𝐚𝐛)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}:`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1]`$ $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(100))[1]`$
$`z`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})_{010110}(z)\text{ .}`$
$`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ can be decomposed as below.

$`\overline{𝒞}(D)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1\stackrel{~}{X}_2\stackrel{~}{X}_3`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+\stackrel{~}{\beta }(x)+y|x\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1],y\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)y|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D(000))\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{X}_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x)+(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(y)|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D(110))[2]\}`$
$`\overline{𝒞}(D^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1\stackrel{~}{Y}_2\stackrel{~}{Y}_3`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}(x)+y|x\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1],y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]\}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\{x+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})y|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(000))\}`$
$`Y_3`$ $`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}(x)+(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+d^{})\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}(y)|x,y\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(110))[2]\}`$
As before, $`\stackrel{~}{X}_2,\stackrel{~}{X}_3,\stackrel{~}{Y}_2,\stackrel{~}{Y}_3`$ are acyclic, $`\overline{𝒞}(D(100))[1]`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(010))[1]`$, $`\overline{𝒞}(D(1))[1]`$ and $`\overline{𝒞}(D^{}(1))[1]`$ are naturally isomorphic, and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_1`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_1`$ via

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }:x+\stackrel{~}{\beta }(x)+yx+\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}(x)+y\text{ .}$$

### 4.4. Cohomology theory of $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$

#### 4.4.1. Resolutions of oriented links in orientation preserving way

Consider the resolution of an oriented link diagram in orientation preserving way, that is, 0-resolutions for $`+`$ crossings and 1-resolutions for $``$ crossings. This is the standard way to get a Seifert surface from a diagram of an oriented link.

Consider a graph whose vertices are in 1-1 correspondence with the components of this resolution and whose edges connecting a pair of vertices are in 1-1 correspondence with the crossings connecting the corresponding pair of components. Since the Seifert surface obtained by the method above is oriented, the graph has no cycle consisting of odd number of edges, so the vertices of this graph can be parted into two groups in a way that the two end-points of each edge do not belong to the same group. Accordingly, the components of this resolution can be parted into two groups in a way that each crossing connects a component in one group to another in the other group. This partition does not depend on the position of $`\mathrm{}`$.

#### 4.4.2. Hodge theory

We can give an inner product on a chain complex so that monomials in $`𝐚,𝐛`$ form an orthonormal basis, then the adjoint $`(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }+d`$ is defined as follows.

$`𝐚𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)^{}}}{}`$ $`𝐚`$
$`𝐚𝐛,𝐛𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)^{}}}{}`$ $`0`$
$`𝐛𝐛`$ $`\stackrel{m_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)^{}}}{}`$ $`𝐛`$
$`𝐚`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)^{}}}{}`$ $`2𝐚𝐚`$
$`𝐛`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }_{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }+d\right)^{}}}{}`$ $`2𝐛𝐛`$
By Hodge theory,

$$\overline{\text{H}}^i(D)\mathrm{Ker}((\mathrm{\Phi }+d):\overline{𝒞}^i(D)\overline{𝒞}^{i+1}(D))\mathrm{Ker}((\mathrm{\Phi }+d)^{}:\overline{𝒞}^i(D)\overline{𝒞}^{i1}(D))\text{ .}$$

#### 4.4.3. Computation of H

For an $`n`$ component link, there are $`2^{n1}`$ different (relative) orientations. Each of them gives a distinct resolution when the link is resolved in orientation preserving way. Since no crossing connects components in the same group in such a resolution, the two monomials consisting of $`𝐚`$ for the components in one group and $`𝐛`$ for those in the other clearly belong to $`\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }+d)^{}`$. The claim is that these are all, i.e., others are linear combinations of these.

###### Theorem 4.2.

The dimension of $`\text{H}(L)=_i\text{H}^i(L)`$ for an oriented link $`L`$ of $`n`$ components equals to $`2^n`$.

###### Proof.

As is in theorem 3.1, we have a long exact sequence of cohomology groups.

$$\mathrm{}\overline{\text{H}}^{i1}(D(0))\overline{\text{H}}^{i1}(D(1))\overline{\text{H}}^i(D)\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(0))\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(1))\mathrm{}$$

So, $`dim\overline{\text{H}}(D)`$ does not exceed $`dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(0))+dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(1))`$.

Let us prove for knots and two component links first, using induction on the number of crossings.

It clearly holds for the unknot. If we have a knot with a minimal diagram $`D`$ of $`c`$ crossings, then one of $`D(0)`$, $`D(1)`$ is a knot, the other is a two component link, and they have one fewer crossings. Suppose $`D(0)`$ is a knot. One of the two relative orientations of $`D(1)`$ is compatible with the relative orientation of $`D`$, and the other is compatible with that of $`D(0)`$. Then in the long exact sequence, the two generators of $`\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(0))`$ map to the two generators of $`\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(1))`$ coming from the relative orientation compatible with that of $`D(0)`$. If $`D(1)`$ is a knot, then the two generators of $`\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(0))`$ coming from the relative orientation compatible with that of $`D(1)`$ map to the two generators of $`\overline{\text{H}}^i(D(1))`$. Hence,

$$2dim\overline{\text{H}}(D)dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(0))+dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(1))4=2\text{ .}$$

Let $`D`$ be a minimal diagram for a two component link with $`c(D)=c`$. If $`D`$ is a disjoint union of two knot diagrams $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, then $`\overline{\text{H}}(D)=\overline{\text{H}}(D_1)\overline{\text{H}}(D_2)`$ with $`c(D_1),c(D_2)c`$, and therefore,

$$4dim\overline{\text{H}}(D)dim\overline{\text{H}}(D_1)dim\overline{\text{H}}(D_2)=4\text{ .}$$

If not, choose a crossing so that both $`D(0)`$ and $`D(1)`$ are knot diagrams. Then,

$$4dim\overline{\text{H}}(D)dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(0))+dim\overline{\text{H}}(D(1))=4\text{ .}$$

An $`n`$ component link diagram $`D`$ is either a disjoint union of link diagrams of fewer components or can be resolved to two link diagrams of $`n1`$ components. The proof that $`dim\overline{\text{H}}(D)=2^n`$ goes the same way as above. ∎

We can tell exactly to which $`\text{H}^i(L)`$ those generating monomials belong.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`L`$ be an oriented $`n`$ component link, $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_n`$ be its components, and $`\mathrm{}_{jk}`$ be the linking number of $`S_j`$ and $`S_k`$. Then,

$$dim\text{H}^i(L)=2\left|\{E\{2,\mathrm{},n\}|(\underset{jE,kE}{}2\mathrm{}_{jk})=i\}\right|$$

###### Proof.

Let $`O`$ be the given (relative) orientation of $`L`$ with a diagram $`D`$, and $`O^{}`$ be another (relative) orientation obtained by reversing the orientations of $`S_j,jE\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Let $`x(D),y(D)`$ be the numbers of positive crossings and negative crossings with respect to $`O`$, and $`x^{}(D),y^{}(D)`$ be those with respect to $`O^{}`$.

Since a resolution in orientation preserving way is resolving $`+`$ crossings to its 0-resolutions and $``$ crossings to its 1-resolutions, those two monomials corresponding to $`O^{}`$ appear in $`^{x^{}(D)x(D)}(D)`$.

On the other hand, the number of negative crossings among the crossings between $`S_j`$ and $`S_k`$ does not change if none or both of the orientations of $`S_j`$ and $`S_k`$ are reversed, and if only one of them is reversed, the number is changed by

$`2\mathrm{}_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(yx\text{ among the crossings between }S_j\text{ and }S_k\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(x^{}x\text{ among the crossings between }S_j\text{ and }S_k\right)\text{ .}`$
Therefore,

$$x^{}(D)x(D)=\underset{jE,kE}{}2\mathrm{}_{jk}\text{ .}$$

### 4.5. Proof of theorem 1.4

In the previous section, we have computed H. To prove theorem 1.4, we are going to relate H to $`\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }:)/\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Phi }:)`$.

###### Theorem 4.4.

For any H-thin link $`L`$,

$$\text{H}(L)\frac{\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))}{\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))}\text{ .}$$

###### Proof.

For any link $`L`$, $`(\overline{𝒞}(L),d(L),\mathrm{\Phi }(L))`$ is a double complex up to an index shift. In the spectral sequence of the double complex $`(\overline{𝒞}(L),d(L),\mathrm{\Phi }(L))`$, the $`E_2`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ term are isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))/\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))`$ and $`\text{H}(L)`$, respectively.

If $`L`$ is H-thin, then $`d_2`$ and thereafter must be zero maps because of their degree. Hence,

$$\text{H}(L)E_{\mathrm{}}E_2\frac{\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))}{\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Phi }:(L)(L))}\text{ .}$$

### 4.6. Extension of theorem 1.4 for alternating links

Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 imply that the Khovanov invariant of an alternating knot determines and is determined by its Jones polynomial and signature. This can be extended to oriented alternating links.

Let $`L`$ be a link satisfying the hypothesis in proposition 4.3 and nonsplit alternating. We already know that two monomials corresponding to an orientation $`O^{}`$ belong to $`\text{H}^{_{jE,kE}2\mathrm{}_{jk}}(L)`$.

To find out their degrees, consider $`(𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛)\pm (𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚)`$.

$`(𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛)`$ $`+`$ $`(𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚)`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \left(\text{monomials in }\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ and }𝐱\text{ with even number of }\mathrm{𝟏}\right)}`$
$`(𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛)`$ $``$ $`(𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚)`$
$`=`$ $`()2{\displaystyle \left(\text{monomials in }\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ and }𝐱\text{ with odd number of }\mathrm{𝟏}\right)}`$
Degrees of monomials in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐱`$ with even numbers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are the same in (mod 4), degrees of monomials in $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐱`$ with odd numbers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are also the same in (mod 4), and those two differ by 2 in (mod 4). Therefore, we can conclude that one of $`(𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛)\pm (𝐛\mathrm{}𝐛𝐚\mathrm{}𝐚)`$ is mapped to upper diagonal, the other to lower diagonal.

Now, theorem 1.4 can be extended as follows.

###### Theorem 4.5.

For an $`n`$ component oriented nonsplit alternating link $`L`$ with its components $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_n`$ and linking numbers $`\mathrm{}_{jk}`$ of $`S_j`$ and $`S_k`$,

$$Kh(L)(t,q)=q^{\sigma (L)}\left\{(q^1+q)\left(\underset{E\{2,\mathrm{},n\}}{}(tq^2)^{_{jE,kE}2\mathrm{}_{jk}}\right)+(q^1+tq^2q)Kh^{}(L)(tq^2)\right\}$$

for some polynomial $`Kh^{}(L)`$.

Hence, with the linking numbers of pairs of components provided, the Khovanov invariant of an oriented nonsplit alternating link determines and is determined by its Jones polynomial and signature.


format: text

text:
# Analysing power 𝑨_𝒚 in the reaction 𝒑⃗𝒑→𝒑𝒑𝜼 close to threshold

## I Introduction

Several measurements on the $`\eta `$ meson production in the proton-proton interaction covering a 100 MeV excess energy range were performed at different accelerators. The determined total cross sections bergdolt:93 ; chiavassa:94 ; calen:96 ; calen:97 ; hibou:98 ; smyrski:00 , as well as their differential distributions calen:98 ; tatischeff:00 ; moskal:01-2 ; abdelbary:02  triggered intensive theoretical investigations aiming to understand the production mechanism on the hadronic and quark-gluon level.

In the theoretical descriptions of the $`\eta `$-production in nucleon-nucleon collisions the excitation of the $`S_{11}(1535)`$ resonance plays a decisive role. The hitherto performed studies with the aim to describe the total cross section show a dominance of this virtual $`S_{11}`$ nucleon isobar in the close-to-threshold production of the $`\eta `$ meson. The excitation of this intermediate state results from a one meson exchange (e.g. $`\pi ,\eta `$ or $`\rho `$) between the two nucleons followed by a strong coupling of the $`\eta N`$ system to the $`S_{11}`$.

Near threshold the energy dependence of the total cross section results from a three-body phase space modified by a strong nucleon-nucleon final state interaction and a significant contribution of the attractive interaction in the $`\eta p`$ system. Since several existing models with different scenarios of the excitation describe the existing data well, a confrontation of the predicitions with other observables is needed in order to distinguish between them. The measurements with polarised beam should settle the on-going discussion whether the $`\eta `$ production is dominated by $`\rho `$ germond:90 ; laget:91 ; santra:98 ; gedalin:98 , $`\omega `$ vetter:91  or $`\eta `$ batinic:97  exchange. The interference between considered amplitudes causes a different behaviour – depending on the assumed scenario – e.g. of the $`\eta `$ meson angular distributions. These differences are too weak in the close-to-threshold region to discriminate between different models. Yet, the predictions of the analysing power depend crucially on the assumed mechanism faeldt:01 ; nakayama:02 .

So far the only measurement of the analysing power has been performed tatischeff:00  at an excess energy $`Q=1805`$ MeV. In the present experiment, the analysing power close to the production threshold is determined and results for the interference terms from contributing partial waves are presented. A comparison with theoretical predictions will be discussed in section V.

Section II contains the description of the experiment and the method to extract the $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ events. The following section introduces definitions and gives a theoretical overview. In section IV, the results are presented.

## II Experiment

Measurements of the $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ reaction were performed at the internal experiment COSY-11 brauksiepe:96  at the COoler SYnchrotron COSY maier:97nim  in Jülich with a beam momentum of p$`{}_{beam}{}^{}=2.096`$GeV/c corresponding to an excess energy of $`Q=40`$MeV. During the experiment, cycles of about ten minutes for the two different beam polarisations were adjusted.

Using a hydrogen cluster target dombrowski:97  in front of one of the regular COSY dipole magnets, the experimental facility acts like a magnetic spectrometer. Positively charged particles in the exit channel are bent towards the interior of the ring where they are detected in a set of two drift chambers. Tracing back the reconstructed trajectories through the magnetic field to the interaction point allows for momentum determination. Particle identification is achieved by a time of flight measurement over a distance of 9.4 m between two scintillation hodoscopes. For further details, the reader is referred to reference brauksiepe:96 . Figure 1(a) shows that the method allows for a clear separation between pions and protons and hence for the identification of events with two protons in the exit channel.

The not registered particle system X – either a single meson (the $`\eta `$ in the present case) or a multi meson system – is identified by means of calculating its mass $`m_X^2=(_{beam}+_{target}_1_2)^2,`$ while $`_{beam}`$ and $`_{target}`$ denote the four momentum of the beam and target proton in the initial channel and $`_1,_2`$ those of the two registered protons. The missing mass spectrum for events with two identified protons is shown in Figure 1(b) for the entire beam time. Besides the clear $`\eta `$-signal there is obviously a $`\pi ^0`$-peak resulting from the reaction $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\pi ^0`$. Furthermore, a broad yield due to multi pion events with the lower limit given by $`m_X^2=(2m_\pi )^2`$ and the upper limit by $`m_X^2=(\sqrt{s}2m_p)^2=0.345`$GeV2/c4 is observed. The increasing event rate towards higher missing masses is due to the higher acceptance of the COSY-11 detector for two protons with small momenta in the center of mass system (CMS).

The monitoring of the geometrical dimensions of the synchrotron beam and its position relative to the target moskal:01  enable to achieve a mass resolution of $`\sigma _{m_\eta }=1.6`$MeV/c2. The much broader peak of the $`\pi ^0`$ is due to the error propagation which worsens the mass resolution with increasing excess energy smyrski:00 .

## III General Description

### III.1 Definitions

A detailed theoretical derivation of the analysing power was recently published for the case of the $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}pp\pi ^0`$ reaction meyer:01 ; meyer:99 ; meyer:98 . For the $`\eta `$ production the description is analogue since in both measurements the initial channel is fixed to isospin I=1. Therefore, the different quantum numbers for $`\pi ^0`$ (as a member of an isotriplet) and the isoscalar $`\eta `$ are irrelevant.

In the given experimental situation a convenient choice of the three axis is:

$$\widehat{z}=\frac{\stackrel{}{p}_{beam}}{|\stackrel{}{p}_{beam}|},\widehat{y}=\frac{\stackrel{}{P}}{|\stackrel{}{P}|}\text{and}\widehat{x}=\frac{\stackrel{}{y}\times \stackrel{}{z}}{|\stackrel{}{y}\times \stackrel{}{z}|},$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ indicates the polarisation of the COSY beam.

In the COSY-11 experiment, the two four momenta of the final protons $`_i=(E_i^{},\stackrel{}{p}_i^{})`$ are measured. The CMS momentum of the $`\eta `$ meson is $`\stackrel{}{q}=(\stackrel{}{p}_1^{}+\stackrel{}{p}_2^{})`$. The proton momentum in the pp rest-system is denoted by $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ For later purposes, Figure 2 depicts the definition of the used polar- $`(\theta )`$ and azimuthal angle $`(\phi )`$. The indices $`p`$ and $`q`$ will refer to the pp rest-system and the $`\eta `$ meson in the CMS, respectively. The angle $`\theta _p`$ will be choosen such, that $`0\theta _p\pi /2`$. This choice guarantees that all observables are invariant under the transformation $`\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{p}`$ as required by the identity of the two protons in the final state.

### III.2 Observables

The differential cross section for a reaction with a polarised beam is given in terms of Cartesian polarisation observables by fick:71

$$\sigma (\xi )=\sigma _0(\xi )\left(1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}P_iA_i(\xi )\right),$$
(2)
where $`P_i`$ and $`A_i`$ denote the beam polarisation and the analysing power in the given reference frame, $`\sigma _0(\xi )`$ indicates the total cross section in case of no polarisation. In the upper formula, the abbreviation

$$\sigma (\xi )=\frac{d^3\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_pd\mathrm{\Omega }_qdE_{pp}}(\xi )$$

is used where $`\xi `$ denotes the set of the five variables which are kinematically completely describing the exit channel, namely $`(\theta _p,\phi _p,\theta _q^{},\phi _q^{},E_{pp})`$. The kinetic energy $`E_{pp}`$ of the two final protons in their CM system is given by $`E_{pp}=\sqrt{s_{12}}2m_p`$ with $`\sqrt{s_{12}}=2\sqrt{\stackrel{}{p}^2+m_p^2}`$ as the energy in the pp subsystem.

In the given case of the general experimental conditions, the beam polarisation is – due to the magnetic fields in the accelerator – forced to be $`\stackrel{}{P}=(0,P_y,0)^T`$ and hence formula (2) simplifies to

$$\sigma (\xi )=\sigma _0(\xi )\left(1+P_yA_y(\xi )\right).$$
(3)
The asymmetry $`\epsilon `$ – obtained from the difference in the yields with beam polarisation up and down – defined by

$$\epsilon :=\frac{N_{}N_{}}{N_{}+N_{}}$$
(4)
forms the basis for deducing the analysing power while $`N_{}(N_{})`$ denote the experimental number of events for spin up (down). With known luminosity $``$, efficiency $``$ and measured time $`dt`$, $`dN`$ is related to the cross section by $`dN_,=\sigma _,dt`$. In combination with equation (3), one can deduce from (4) that

$$A_y(\xi )=\frac{_{rel}N_{}N_{}}{N_{}P_{}_{rel}P_{}N_{}}(\xi ),$$
(5)
where the relative time-integrated luminosity $`_{rel}`$ is defined by $`_{rel}:=\frac{{\scriptscriptstyle _{}𝑑t_{}}}{{\scriptscriptstyle _{}𝑑t_{}}}`$. In equation (5), the efficiency cancels out because of the independence on the spin as long as the bin size of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\xi `$ is small enough so that the efficiency can be assumed to be constant.

With the definitions given in section III.1, the angular dependence of the spin-dependent cross section can be written as meyer:01 :

$`\sigma _0(\xi )A_y(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\{[G_1^{y0}+G_2^{y0}(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p1)]\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}+.[H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}+H_2^{y0}(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _p1)]\mathrm{sin}2\theta _q^{}\}\mathrm{cos}\phi _q^{}`$ (6)
$`+.[H_3^{y0}+K^{y0}+G_3^{y0}\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}+H_4^{y0}(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _q^{}1)]\mathrm{sin}2\theta _p\mathrm{cos}\phi _p`$
$`+.(G_4^{y0}\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}+H_5^{y0}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _q^{})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _p\mathrm{cos}(2\phi _p\phi _q^{})+H_6^{y0}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _p\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _q^{}\mathrm{cos}(2\phi _q^{}\phi _p)`$
The appearing literals111The superscript $`y0`$ indicates a beam polarisation along the y-axis and an unpolarised target. denote interferences of partial wave amplitudes. The relative angular momentum of the two outgoing protons in their rest system is denoted by capital letters $`l_p=S,P,D\mathrm{}`$, the one of the $`\eta `$ meson in the CMS by small letters $`l_q=s,p,d\mathrm{}`$, while the usual spectroscopic notation is used. With this definition, the single terms $`G_k^{y0},H_k^{y0},I^{y0}`$ and $`K^{y0}`$ correspond to (PsPp), (Pp)2, (SsSd) and (SsDs).

## IV Results

In order to extract the assymetry from the measured spinup and spindown events one needs the relative luminosity and the average beam polarisation.

Via a simultaneous measurement of the proton-proton elastic scattering at the internal experiment EDDA albers:97 ; altmeier:00  the polarisation was determined for two time blocks222The significant increase of the polarisation from the first to the second block is caused by improved tuning of the beam with respect to polarisation.:

time block 1 time block 2    P $`0.381\pm 0.007`$ $`0.497\pm 0.006`$  P $`0.498\pm 0.007`$ $`0.572\pm 0.007`$

The relative luminosity $`_{rel}=\frac{N_{}^{elas}}{\sigma _{}^{elas}}\frac{\sigma _{}^{elas}}{N_{}^{elas}}`$ was extracted via the elastic proton-proton scattering. To determine the elastic cross $`\sigma _,^{elas}`$ section according to equation (3) the analysing power was taken from altmeier:00 . With the number of events $`N_,^{elas}`$ resulting from the elastic pp-scattering $`_{rel}`$ was calculated according to the definition given above:

|  | time block1 | time block 2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`_{rel}`$ | $`1.004\pm 0.004\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.002}{0.002}`$ | $`0.949\pm 0.004\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.001}{0.001}`$ |

An integration of equation (6) over $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$ and $`\phi _p`$ leads to the disappearance of several terms provided the experimental angular distribution covers either the full phase space with a constant detector efficiency or symmetrical ranges. Figure 3 shows the angular distributions of $`pp\eta `$-events from a Monte-Carlo simulation which are neither symmetric around 90 in case of $`\phi _p`$ nor constant for both angles $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$ and $`\phi _p`$. Therefore, the evaluation of the analysing power requires an efficiency correction. To correct the data the efficiency $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta _p,\phi _p)`$ is determined via Monte-Carlo simulations. Using a GEANT-3 code for each event a detection system response was calculated and the simulated data sample was analysed with the same programme which is used for the analysis of the experimental data. Weights $`w(\mathrm{cos}\theta _p,\phi _p)=1/(\mathrm{cos}\theta _p,\phi _p)`$ were applied during the final analysis of the experimental data and hence the corrected number of events reads:

$$N^{cor}=\frac{\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}w_{i,k}N_{i,k}}{\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}w_{i,k}},$$
(7)
while $`i`$ and $`k`$ run over the bins $`\phi _p`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _p`$, respectively. The error is deduced with $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{i,k}=\sqrt{N_{i,k}}`$ to be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N^{cor}=\frac{1}{\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}w_{i,k}}\sqrt{\underset{i}{}\underset{k}{}w_{i,k}^2N_{i,k}},$$

whereas the error of $`w_{i,k}`$ was neglected because of a much higher statistic for the Monte Carlo simulations, so that $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }w_{i,k}}{w_{i,k}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N_{i,k}}{N_{i,k}}`$. The influence of the strong proton-proton final state-interaction (FSI) was included via the description with a Jost-function goldberger:64 . Former acceptance studies on the dependence on the various Jost function prescriptions showed a change of the result of maximum 10% moskal:00 ; moskal:00-2 . An extensive discussion on the influence of the FSI reflecting itself in the density distribution of the Dalitz plot is given in moskal\_wolke . Concerning that the FSI is known up to an accuracy of around 30% one can conclude that the upper limit for the total contribution to the error is approximately 3% which is negligible compared to the high overall error of this first data sample.

Only after an efficiency correction one can remove the dependency from proton-coordinates in the analysis which is then the same as an integration over these variables so that equation (6) simplifies to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_pd\mathrm{\Omega }_q}(\xi )A_y(\xi )d\mathrm{cos}\theta _pd\phi _p}=`$ (8)
$`2\pi \left(G_1^{y0}\mathrm{sin}\theta _q^{}+(H_1^{y0}+I^{y0})\mathrm{sin}2\theta _q^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\phi _q^{}.`$
Due to the restricting dipole gap $`\phi _q^{}`$ is dominantly peaked around 0 – quite similar to the $`\phi _p`$ distribution – but with a negligible peak around 180 which is not shown here but verified with MC simulations. Therefore, the analysis was performed with one single $`\phi _q^{}`$-bin around $`\pm 30^{}`$. Hence, equation (8) leads further to the separation of the (PpPs)-interference ($`G_1^{y0}`$) and the (Pp)2\- and (SsSd)-terms ($`H_1^{y0}`$ and $`I^{y0}`$):

$`G_1^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle f(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}},`$
$`H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle f(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}},`$
with $`f(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})=\underset{\frac{\pi }{6}}{\overset{\frac{\pi }{6}}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{d^2\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_pd\mathrm{\Omega }_q}(\xi )A_y(\xi )d\mathrm{cos}\theta _pd\phi _pd\phi _q^{}`$.

Defining333In the following, limits of the integrations will be omitted as they are always the same. $`\overline{N}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}):=N^{cor.}(\xi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_p𝑑\phi _q^{}`$, it is straightforward to show analogue to equations (4) and (5) that the integrated analysing power defined by

$$\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}):=f(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})/\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}$$
(10)
can be determined via

$$\overline{A}_y(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{})=\frac{_{rel}\overline{N}_{\eta ,}\overline{N}_{\eta ,}}{P_{}\overline{N}_{\eta ,}_{rel}P_{}\overline{N}_{\eta ,}}(\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}).$$
(11)
The calculation of $`\overline{A}_y`$ needs the determination of the absolute $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ events $`\overline{N}_{\eta ,}`$ in dependence of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$. In section II, the selection of the pp$`\eta `$ was discussed. The analysis was performed with 4 bins in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$ starting at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}=0.75`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}=0.5`$. A representative missing mass spectrum is shown in Figure 4(a) where the background is fitted by a polynomial function. From this spectrum the number of events $`\overline{N}_{\eta +b}`$ including background and $`\eta `$-event are extracted. Subsequently, this background is subtracted and the number of events $`\overline{N}_\eta `$ are determined (Figure 4(b)).

For the two time blocks, an error weighted mean value for $`\overline{A}_y`$ is calculated. Figure 5 shows the analysing power as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$. The extraction of $`G_1^{y0}`$ and $`H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}`$ with equations (LABEL:partialwellen) needs according to (10) the knowledge of $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}`$ which was taken from calen:98 . The fact that $`\phi _q[\frac{\pi }{6},\frac{\pi }{6}]`$ was considered with $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}=_{\frac{\pi }{6}}^{\frac{\pi }{6}}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{}}𝑑\phi _q^{}`$ which is due to the isotropy of the cross section in $`\phi `$

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}|{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{6}}\phi _q^{}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\pi }{6}}=\frac{\pi }{3}\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_q^{}}.$$
(12)
The averaged values of $`\overline{A}_y`$ and the cross section used for the integrations in equations (LABEL:partialwellen) are presented in table 1.

Finally, the integrations of these values

$`G_1^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}}\overline{A}_y\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}`$
$`H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}}}\overline{A}_y\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _q^{}.`$
result in

$$G_1^{y0}=(0.003\pm 0.004)\mu \text{b}$$

and

$$H_1^{y0}+I^{y0}=(0.005\pm 0.005)\mu \text{b}.$$

## V Comparison with theory

The present data on the $`\eta `$ meson production in nucleon-nucleon collisions referred to in section I show not only the 3-body phase space $`Q^2`$-dependency and a modification due to the nucleon-nucleon final state interaction but also a significant influence of the nucleon-meson interaction in the case of the $`\eta p`$ system. As mentioned above, several models describe the existing data quite well although they are based on different assumptions for the excitation mechanism of the $`S_{11}`$ resonance. For instance, Batinić et al. batinic:97  or Nakayama, Speth and Lee nakayama:02  found a dominance of $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$-exchange in the analysis of $`pppp\eta `$ while Fäldt and Wilkin faeldt:01  conclude a dominant $`\rho `$-exchange.

Polarisation observables may be the right tool to distinguish between the different models. Calculations for the analysing power in the reaction $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ show different results depending on the underlying assumption for the one meson exchange model. Figure 6 presents results taken from references faeldt:01  (dotted line) and nakayama:02  (solid and dashed lines) for $`Q=10`$MeV and 37 MeV. The authors of the latter reference conclude in the full model calculations a dominance of $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$-exchange (solid line). The dashed curve represents a vector dominance model with an exclusion of $`\pi `$ and $`\eta `$-exchange for exciting the $`S_{11}`$ resonance. The triangles are the experimental results.

The observable structure of the experimental values show a slight deviation from the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _q\mathrm{cos}\theta _q`$-dependence of both models. It seems that the data favours the vector dominance exchange models. The more or less strong difference in the angular dependency of $`A_y`$ results from a vanishing $`G_1^{y0}`$ in both references. As this corresponds to the (PpPs)-term, an influence of the P-wave must be suspected but right now the experimental result for $`G_1^{y0}`$ is compatible with zero. A non-zero $`G_1^{y0}`$ would imply that $`H_1^{y0}`$ – describing the (Pp)2 interference – should have a non negligible contribution, too. For further detailed studies the data are not yet precise enough to disentangle the sum of $`H_1^{y0}`$ and $`I^{y0}`$. At this time the results indicate the possibility of an influence of p- and d-waves to the close to threshold $`\eta `$ production.

## VI Conclusion

The reaction $`\stackrel{}{p}ppp\eta `$ has been studied at an excess energy of $`Q=40`$MeV. The final state has been kinematically completely reconstructed and the analysing power has been determined. Qualitatively, the data seem to favour the calculations with dominant vector meson exchange but definitive conclusions cannot be drawn due to the large uncertainties of the data. To allow a more rigorous comparison with theoretical calculations higher statistics experiments are required and already scheduled for 2002 at COSY-11.

## VII Acknowledgements

We are very grateful for the support of the EDDA-collaboration in determining the beam polarisation. Furthermore, we would like to thank C. Wilkin, C. Hanhart and K. Nakayama for very helpful discussions and contributions. Our special thanks go to Prof. Dr. J. Treusch, chairman of the board of directors of the research center Jülich, for undertaking a nightshift during the experiment.

This work has been supported by the International Büro and the Verbundforschung of the BMBF, the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, the FFE grants from the Forschungszentrum Jülich, the Forschungszentrum Jülich directorates and the European Community - Access to Research Infrastructure action of the Improving Human Potential Programme.


text:
# Measuring the Influence of Supernovae at High Redshift

## 1. Introduction

Fifteen years from now we will be awash in galaxies. 2dF, Sloan, and maybe a Sloan successor will have given us redshifts for more than a million galaxies in the nearby universe. DEEP and VVDS will have added $`10^5`$ galaxies out to redshift $`z5`$. NGST and 30m optical/IR telescopes on the ground may have detected thousands of galaxies to $`z>10`$—some of the first sources of light in the universe. These surveys and others will teach us a tremendous amount about galaxy and structure formation. Our communal efforts so far will seem little more than a prologue to the vast literature on galaxies that will exist in 15 years.

Nevertheless I suspect that one of the most fundamental questions in galaxy formation (and in all astronomy!) will remain largely unanswered. This is the role that supernovae played in shaping the baryonic universe. The influence of supernovae is thought to account for a wide range of observations throughout our field. The disruption of star-formation by supernova explosions is the favored explanation for why so few baryons are found in stars today (e.g., White & Rees 1978, Springel & Hernquist 2002). Numerical simulations cannot reproduce the large disk galaxies that we observe around us unless they include substantial heat input from supernovae (e.g., Weil, Eke, & Efstathiou 1998). The material between galaxies at high-redshift is hotter than would be expected if gravity and the background radiation field were the only sources of heating; another source, presumably supernovae, appears to be required (Cen & Bryan 2001). It is difficult to explain why the soft X-ray background is so faint and so dominated by AGN without asserting that supernovae blew apart dense clumps of baryons that would otherwise have produced copious free-free emission (e.g., Pen 1999). The shape of galaxy clusters’ X-ray temperature/luminosity relationship differs from naive expectations in a way that suggests that supernovae may have imparted $`1`$ keV of energy to each of the young universe’s nucleons (e.g., Kaiser 1991; Ponman, Cannon, & Navarro 1999).

These examples are only a few of many. We are unable to account for much of what we observe around us without invoking the indistinct notion of strong supernova “feedback,” and our understanding of the evolving universe will remain seriously incomplete until we comprehend quantitatively how this feedback works.

The standard picture is that the numerous supernova explosions in a young galaxy create an enormous blast-wave (or “wind”) that rips through the galaxy and lays waste to its surroundings. But working through the details of this picture remains challenging even after 30 years of theoretical studies. There are many complications, but the central problem is that we have little idea of the characteristic energy scale to associate with the blast-waves that supernovae drive. The energy released by a single supernova, $`10^{51}`$ erg, is known, but it is unclear how large a fraction of the energy released by supernova explosions is imparted to nascent winds. Much of it may be harmlessly radiated away by the dense gas it heats. Physical arguments and numerical simulations are at present incapable of estimating a priori the energy of a galaxy’s wind to within even an order of magnitude—and the energy of the winds is largely what determines how large an impact they have on the evolving baryonic universe. For this reason it is still unclear (e.g.) which sorts of galaxies were responsible for seeding the intergalactic medium with metals, or what effect blast-waves have on galaxy formation and evolution, or even whether realistic blast-waves would be physically capable of filling the large role that they are assigned in the standard lore.

Whether numerical calculations in 2017 will be able to reliably estimate the energy of galaxies’ winds from first principles is anyone’s guess, but in any case we will certainly want empirical support for the numerical results. Properties of galaxies (e.g., disk sizes) and of the IGM (e.g., metal content) are affected by the strength of supernova winds, and I can imagine convoluted and uncertain chains of reasoning that would provide an estimate the strength of winds from observations of one or the other; but surely the most straightforward way to estimate the strength of galaxies’ winds is to observe galaxies and the intergalactic medium simultaneously and see how much winds have disturbed galaxies’ surroundings. Winds lose energy as they climb out of galaxies’ potential wells and crash into nearby intergalactic matter, and a robust (if crude) measurement of the typical energy of galaxies’ winds can be obtained by seeing how far they are able to propagate. Simultaneous observations of galaxies and the intergalactic material that surrounds them are easy to obtain, at least in principle: one need only conduct a galaxy redshift survey in a field that contains background QSOs whose absorption spectra reveal the locations of HI and metals in the IGM. These sorts of observations, present and future, are the subject of my talk.

## 2. Current data

Figures 1 and 2 show examples of what one can learn about galaxies’ winds at high redshift from data that are currently available. These data, described more thoroughly in Adelberger et al. (2002), consist of measured redshifts for 431 Lyman-break galaxies in 6 fields at $`z3`$ together with high-resolution spectra of a bright background QSO in the middle of each field. The leftmost panel of Figure 1 shows the mean Lyman-$`\alpha `$ transmissivity of the IGM as a function of distance from Lyman-break galaxies at redshift $`z3`$. Increases in the HI content of the IGM lead to more Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorption and hence to a lower Lyman-$`\alpha `$ transmissivity. (Here the IGM’s Lyman-$`\alpha `$ transmissivity at redshift $`z`$ is quantified as the ratio of observed flux in a QSO’s spectrum at wavelength $`\lambda =(1+z)\lambda _{Ly\alpha }`$ to the QSO’s expected flux if there were no absorption from the IGM.) The figure shows that as one approaches a Lyman-break galaxy from afar, the density of intergalactic HI at first begins to rise. This is in accord with the simple view that galaxies ought to be found where the density of matter (including HI) is highest. But at small separations ($`r<0.5h^1`$ comoving Mpc) something else happens; intergalactic HI largely disappears. One interpretation is that the galaxies’ winds have largely driven away all material within this radius; the competing hypothesis that the galaxies’ light has ionized the HI is ruled out by the large size of region with lowered HI content (Adelberger et al. 2002).

The right panel of Figure 1 shows the difference between the neutral hydrogen content of the intergalactic medium in young galaxy clusters and in young voids. Far more neutral hydrogen is found in the young clusters. The trend appears stronger than would be expected solely from the fact that galaxy clusters ought to contain more matter of all sorts (Adelberger et al. 2002). A possible explanation is that the roiling of the young intracluster medium by galaxies’ blast-waves creates density inhomogeneities and increases hydrogen’s neutral fraction (Adelberger 2002, 2003).

If Mpc-scale winds are responsible for the HI results just discussed, one might expect to find an increase in the density of metals near galaxies. This appears to be the case, as can be shown in a variety of ways. Consider first the triptych in the left half of Figure 2. Shown are the two dimensional correlation functions of galaxies with galaxies, of galaxies with CIV absorption systems, and of galaxies with Ly-$`\alpha `$ transmissivity decrements. The panels show how the densities of HI, CIV, and other galaxies vary with spatial separation from a typical Lyman-break galaxy at redshift $`z3`$; one should imagine that the typical galaxy is at the origin and that the shadings indicate the amount of material at various angular and redshift separations. $`\xi (𝐫)`$ is defined so that the mean density at any separation $`𝐫`$ is $`\rho (𝐫)=\rho (1+\xi (𝐫))`$ with $`\rho `$ the global mean. Positive values of $`\xi `$ correspond to overdensities, negative to underdensities. One may immediately see that the intergalactic medium near galaxies at $`z3`$ contains a large overdensity of CIV systems.

Now consider the right panel of Figure 2, which shows the same data marginalized in the redshift direction, $`\overline{\rho }(r_\theta ,<r_z)_0^{r_z}dr_z^{}\rho (r_\theta ,r_z^{})`$, where the marginalization helps remove dependence on redshift measurement errors or peculiar velocities. Contemplation of this figure reveals (a) that the ratio of CIV to HI density increases near galaxies, suggesting perhaps that the intergalactic metallicity is highest close to galaxies, and (b) that on large scales the galaxy-CIV cross-correlation function is similar to the galaxy-galaxy auto-correlation function, suggesting that CIV absorption systems and galaxies may be similar objects. Readers will find a slightly less glib discussion in Adelberger et al. (2002).

## 3. Ideal data

I will not pretend that the data just presented are entirely convincing. In fact the entire point of my talk is to advertise their inadequacy! Some might worry that the statistical significance of any one of these results is low, but that does not concern me much. The flaw is easily fixed; existing telescopes will shrink our error bars by a factor of a few in a relatively short time. I am more concerned with the fundamental limitations of the data. There are several. I will mention two.

Measuring the content of the IGM along a single skewer through the galaxy distribution can tell us something about the characteristic stalling radii of the winds, and hence about their typical energies, but it tells us almost nothing about their geometry. Are they (e.g.) isotropic or bipolar? This has significant implications but cannot be determined if the IGM is observed only along a single skewer. Ideally one would have several background QSOs whose light pierced each galaxy’s wind at a range of angles and impact parameters.

More serious is the fact that working at $`z>3`$ forces us to rely almost exclusively on the IGM’s CIV content as a proxy for its metal content. The density of CIV is not related in a simple way to the metal content of the IGM (see, e.g., Adelberger et al. 2002). Inferences about intergalactic metals based solely on CIV will always be somewhat suspect—to say the least. But metals are the most direct signature of supernovae , and measuring the dispersal of metals out of galaxies and into the IGM will be central to our attempts at understanding supernova-driven winds. Ideally one would be able to measure the density of several metallic species, not merely CIV. This would provide constraints on the ionization parameter and let one say something definitive about metallicity. The relative abundances of different elements would also (in principle) provide information about their nucleosynthetic origin. But the vast majority of the strongest absorption lines at intergalactic temperatures and densities have wavelengths similar to or shorter than Lyman-$`\alpha `$’s. This means that at redshifts $`z>3`$ they are buried in the thick Lyman-$`\alpha `$ forest and are extraordinarily difficult to detect. Only at redshifts $`z<3`$, where the decreasing density of the universe slows recombination and thins the forest, can these metallic absorption lines be straightforwardly found.

So this, then, is my picture of the ideal survey for quantifying empirically how supernova winds have affected the universe. Find a field with a very large number of QSOs at redshifts $`1<z<3`$ and obtain high-S:N, high-resolution spectra of each. (The upper redshift bound comes from our desire that several intergalactic metal lines be easily detectable, the lower bound from the fact that the comoving density of star-formation, and presumably the prevalence of powerful winds, declines rapidly at $`z<1`$.) Derive from the QSOs’ absorption lines a detailed picture of the distribution of HI and metals in the intergalactic medium. Conduct a redshift survey of galaxies at $`1<z<3`$ in the same field and discover where star-forming galaxies lie amid the jumbled distribution of intergalactic matter. Then compare the relative spatial distributions of galaxies and intergalactic material. To the extent that galaxies send winds into their surroundings, one should find that the intergalactic medium near them is disturbed. Perhaps most of the intergalactic gas will have been driven away; perhaps large amounts of metals will be found at the winds’ stalling radii. In any case, one should be able to answer the following questions (and others): What fraction of the energy released by supernovae appears to have been imparted to galaxies’ winds? What sorts of galaxies drive winds? Are winds from dwarf galaxies really the most important, as many have argued? Are the winds more isotropic or bipolar? What is their dominant effect on the the large fraction of the universe’s baryons that lies outside of galaxies? And so on.

Now let us think how such a survey might be constructed. Obtaining galaxy redshifts in this redshift range is trivial with 8m-class telescopes (e.g., Steidel et al. 1996, Adelberger 2002). That part of the problem is solved. The difficulty lies in obtaining quality spectra of the background QSOs. Over much of the redshift range $`1<z<3`$, Lyman-$`\alpha `$ and (especially) the strongest metal lines lie in the observed near- or far-UV and can only be observed from space. Unfortunately only a small number of QSOs are bright enough to be observed with current and planned space-based UV spectrographs. As an illustration, the left panel of Figure 3 compares the rough high-resolution, high-S:N magnitude limits of STIS and COS to the apparent magnitude distribution of all known QSOs in the (arbitrary) redshift range $`1.0<z<1.6`$. Only a small fraction of these QSOs are bright enough to observe with either spectrograph. The few hundred sources accessible to COS may seem like more than enough, but this is not true, at least not if the goal (as it should be) is to obtain information about the intergalactic distribution of hydrogen and metals along numerous skewers through the foreground galaxy distribution. This is illustrated by the right panel of Figure 3, which shows, as a function of assumed magnitude limit, the number of unique pointings in the entire sky that contain 5 or more NED QSOs at $`1.0<z<1.6`$ within a circle of radius $`r20^{}`$. The number of QSOs and the circle radius were selected arbitrarily; the plot is designed only to illustrate how much easier it is to find fields with large numbers of background sources as the QSOs’ limiting magnitude becomes fainter. Because NED is increasingly incomplete towards fainter magnitudes, the true gains from a fainter magnitude limit are far larger even than those indicated by this plot.

There are evidently a few known pointings with 5 or more QSOs suitable for COS within a $`r=20^{}`$ circle. Might these pointings be sufficient for the project we are advocating? The answer, sadly, is no. 5 QSOs per $`20^{}`$ circle works out to roughly one QSO per $`250`$ square arcminutes. For an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ cosmology at $`z=1.5`$, the distance along the plane of the sky between the QSOs in these pointings will typically be more than $`10h^1`$ comoving Mpc. For comparison, the winds (apparently) detected around galaxies at $`z3`$ have a radius smaller than $`1h^1`$ Mpc. If our goal is to have a few QSOs behind an average galaxy’s expanding blast-wave (in order, e.g., to say something about the blast-wave’s geometry, or learn about the connection between galaxy properties and blast-wave properties on a case-by-case basis), we will need a density of background QSOs that is at least 100 times higher.

A crude estimate of the required spectrographic sensitivity comes from the following calculation, which could and should be improved. Assume the QSO luminosity distribution at the bright end has the shape $`n(l)l^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 3.7`$ (e.g., Pei 1995). Then the number density of QSOs brighter than magnitude limit $`m`$ is proportional to $`10^{0.4(\alpha 1)m}`$, and an improvement in sensitivity of 2 magnitudes over COS would lead to the desired factor of 100 increase in the density of background QSOs.

The good news is that a gain in sensitivity of this size is hardly inconceivable. The required increase in sensitivity over COS+HST is similar to the increase that will come when STIS is replaced by COS, for example. Obtaining the data set that I have described, and settling at last the vexing question of how supernovae have changed the evolution of the baryonic universe, is not much beyond our reach. How long will we have to wait? This is the bad news. The necessary QSO absorption lines are almost all at wavelengths that can only be observed from space; the atmosphere is an obstacle that will not change. Under current NASA plans these data will not be available until most of us are retired or dead.

I would like to acknowledge the major contributions of my collaborators Chuck Steidel, Alice Shapley, and Max Pettini, the support and patience of this meeting’s organizers, and the hospitality of Bukowski’s, in Boston, where much of this polemic was composed.

## References

Adelberger, K.L. 2002, PhD Thesis

Adelberger, K.L., Steidel, C.C., Shapley, A.E., & Pettini, M. 2002, ApJ, submitted

Adelberger, K.L. 2003, ApJ, submitted

Cen, R. & Bryan, G. L. 2001, ApJ, 546, 81

Kaiser, N. 1991, ApJ, 383, 104

Pei, Y.C. 1995, ApJ, 438, 623

Pen, U.-L. 1999, ApJ, 510, 1

Ponman, T.J., Cannon, D.B., & Navarro, J.F. 1999, Nature, 397, 135

Springel, V. & Hernquist, L. 2002, MNRAS, in press

Steidel, C.C., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., & Adelberger, K. L. 1996, ApJ, 462, 17

Weil, M. L., Eke, V. R., & Efstathiou, G. 1998, MNRAS, 300, 773

White, S.D.M. & Rees, M.J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341