text:
# Magnetic phase diagram and structure of the magnetic phases in the quasi-one-dimensional antiferromagnet BaCu2Si2O7: symmetry analysis.

## I Introduction.

Low-dimensional magnets are subject of intense interest due to the important role of the quantum fluctuations in these systems. As it was rigorously shownmermin-wagner , no antiferromagnetic order can exist in an one-dimensional system. However, a weak interchain interaction leads to the formation of long-range magnetic order.

Different types of magnetic order (differing by the relative orientation of the spins) are possible if the unit cell of an antiferromagnet contains more than two magnetic ions. A transition from the paramagnetic phase to the phase with lowest exchange energy occurs at the Néel point. The difference between energies of different types of magnetic order in usual 3D-antiferromagnets is of the scale of the exchange interaction $`J`$.

Quasi-one-dimensional antiferromagnets have some unique properties: First, if the order types differ only by the orientations of the spins in the directions perpendicular to the chain, the energy difference between these ordered states will be small (of the scale of the small interchain-exchange interaction $`J_{}`$). A second peculiarity arises from the microscopic structure of low-dimensional magnets. Small values of the interchain-exchange constants in inorganic compounds are frequently due to the orthogonality of the corresponding electron orbitals. Since this ”90”-rule is not applicable to other interchain interactions, relativistic interchain interactions (such as anisotropic or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya exchange interactions) can compete with the interchain Heisenberg-exchange interaction. These features of low-dimensional magnets can result in magnetic phase transitions with a change of the exchange structure, as in the case of La2CuO4. borovikkreines

The recently discovered compound BaCu2Si2O7 has attracted attention, since it was reported that it is a quasi-one-dimensional antiferromagnet tsukada:si . The CuO4 plaquettes form zigzag chains along the $`c`$ direction of the orthorhombic crystal with a Cu-O-Cu bond angle of about 124. The exchange constants determined by means of neutron scatteringkenzelmann  are $`J_c=24.1`$ meV, $`J_b=0.20`$ meV, $`J_a=0.46`$ meV and $`J_{[110]}=0.15`$ meV. The susceptibility tsukada:si  $`\chi (T)`$ also demonstrates a broad maximum characteristic for one-dimensional antiferromagnetsBonnerFisher  at a temperature near 200 K.

The weak interchain interaction leads to the formation of long-range antiferromagnetic order at $`T_N=9.2`$ K. The Néel temperature is well marked by a kink in $`\chi _c`$, indicating easy-axis ordering in low magnetic field. Above $`T_N`$ the susceptibility demonstrates a deviation from the Bonner-Fisher lawtsukada:si $`\chi _c`$ strongly increases on approaching the Néel temperature. The magnetic moment per Cu-ion is strongly reduced in the ordered phase due to the effect of quantum fluctuations: according to the inelastic neutron scattering experimentszheludev:struct  $`\mu =0.15\mu _B`$.

Unexpectedly, the magnetization study in the ordered state reveals the existence of two spin-reorientation transitions at $`𝐇c`$ (transition fields $`H_{c1}=2.0`$ T and $`H_{c2}=4.9`$ T).tsukada:2sf  Two spin-reorientation transitions are a surprising feature for a supposed-to-be-collinear antiferromagnet. Usually an easy-axis antiferromagnet exhibits only one spin-reorientation transition (spin-flop transition) caused by the competition of the gain in magnetization energy with the loss in anisotropy energy. The observation of an additional spin-reorientation transitionpoirier:sf3  at $`Hc`$ at the field $`H_{c3}=7.7`$ T is also intriguing — the ’classical’ easy-axis antiferromagnet does not undergo a spin-reorientation transition, if the external field is applied perpendicular to the easy axis of the anisotropy. Neutron-scattering experimentszheludev:struct  have shown that the intermediate-field phase is noncollinear. However, the origin of these exotic spin-reorientation transitions remains a mystery.

In the present paper we perform an analysis of the phase diagram and magnetic structure of BaCu2Si2O7 from a macroscopic approach taking into account the symmetry of the crystal. We show that both two spin-reorientation transitions and the behavior of the susceptibility above $`T_N`$ are due to the unusually large relativistic terms in the thermodynamic potential.

## II  Crystallographic structure and magnetic vectors.

The compound BaCu2Si2O7 crystallizes in the space group $`Pnma`$ ($`D_{2h}^{16}`$) with four formula units per unit cell i.e. with 8 Cu2+ ions per unit cell. The magnetic ions occupy the $`8d`$ positions forming 4 zigzag chains along the $`c`$ axis (see Figure 1). The lattice parameters are $`a=6.862`$ Å, $`b=13.178`$ Å, and $`c=6.897`$ Å.

As it follows from neutron scattering, the magnetic unit cell coincides with the crystallographic one. In the ordered state each magnetic ion has a non-zero average spin $`𝐒_i`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}8`$). We will describe the magnetic structure using linear combinations of these spin vectors which components transform by the irreducible representations of the crystal-symmetry group. The space group $`D_{2h}`$ exhibits only one-dimensional irreducible representations. Thus, the magnetic vector components will remain the same or change their sign under symmetry operations.

In further analysis we will use the inversion $`I`$ ($`(x,y,z)(x,y,z)`$) and two sliding axes: $`C_z^2`$ ($`(x,y,z)(\frac{1}{2}x,y,\frac{1}{2}+z)`$) and $`C_y^2`$ ($`(x,y,z)(x,\frac{1}{2}+y,z)`$) as independent symmetry operations. The fractional cell coordinates of the Cu2+ ion $`(1)`$ in Figure 1 are given by $`(\frac{1}{4}0.028,0.004,\frac{3}{4}+0.044)`$ (see Ref. tsukada:si, ).

After trivial calculations we obtain 8 magnetic vectors (see Table 1). The components of the magnetic vectors that transform within the same representation are gathered in Table 2. Here and further on we will use coordinates with $`xa`$, $`yb`$ and $`zc`$, respectively. All possible magnetic structures for this symmetry group (including canted ones) can be analyzed in terms of these vectors.

A strong in-chain exchange favors ordering of the types $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏},𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐},𝐋_\mathrm{𝟒},𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$. In these cases in-chain neighboring spins are antiparallel. We will not consider other antiferromagnetic vectors in the further analysis. The relative orientation of the spins is shown for these order types in Figure 2.

If we will neglect the interchain interactions, in classical ($`S1`$) approximation the exchange energy for these ordering types is the same, i.e. the antiferromagnetically ordered state is four times degenerated. Interchain interactions lift this degeneration. Taking into account the exchange-integral values found by neutron scattering, one can estimate the hierarchy of the energies of the collinear ordering described by each of these vectors in the classical approximation.

$$ϵ_6<ϵ_4<ϵ_2<ϵ_1$$
(1)
Zheludev et al. have found the structure of the magnetic phases by means of neutron scattering (see Ref. zheludev:struct, ). In terms of the above-defined magnetic vectors the results of this work can be expressed as follows: At low fields (phase I, $`H<H_{c1}`$) all spins are aligned collinearly with antiferromagnetic vector $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}z`$. For the high-field phase (phase III, $`H>H_{c2}`$) the magnetic structure was found to be described by the same ordering type $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ with the antiferromagnetic vector along the $`x`$ axis. The intermediate-field phase (phase II, $`H_{c1}<H<H_{c2}`$) was identified as noncollinear antiferromagnetic structure described by two magnetic vectors $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}y`$ and $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}x`$.

The easy-axis magnetic ordering is in agreement with susceptibility measurements, which show a characteristic kink at $`T_N`$ for $`\chi _c`$. The order of type $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ is also expected from classical estimations (see Eqn. (1)). However, the identification of the noncollinear phase can be questioned. First, since nuclear Bragg reflections coincide with magnetic ones, the determination of magnetic reflection intensities initially involves a big relative error. As it was shown in Ref. zheludev:struct, , a fit of the experimental data with the collinear model $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}y`$ yields $`\chi ^2=2.8`$, while for the proposed noncollinear structure $`\chi ^2=2.4`$ was found. Second, from Table 2 one can see that $`L_2^x`$ and $`L_6^y`$ transform differently under symmetry operations. This means that canting towards $`L_2^x`$ cannot be induced by the internal fields.

## III Magnetic properties of BaCu2Si2O7.

The following discussion is organized as follows: in Section III.1 we will analyze the magnetic phase diagram of BaCu2Si2O7. The structure of the magnetic phases and the possible reason of the big values of the relativistic constants in the thermodynamic-potential expansion will be discussed in Section III.2. The behavior of the static susceptibility above the Néel point will be treated in Section III.3.

### III.1 Magnetic phase diagram.

The phase diagram of an antiferromagnet can be analyzed in terms of the main antiferromagnetic vector (i.e. $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$) only.Dzyal  Distortions of the collinear order (i.e. canting of the sublattices) are of no interest in this subsection, while we are interested in the phase diagram only. Relativistic interactions leading to these distortions contribute to the corresponding relativistic constants, as it will be demonstrated in the next subsection.

Following the standard procedure, we will write down an expansion of the thermodynamic potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(𝐥)`$, where $`𝐥=𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}/|𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}|`$.

The potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is defined in such a way thatlandavshic

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}{H}=\frac{B}{4\pi }=M\frac{H}{4\pi }$$
(2)
Since magnetization appears only in the presence of a magnetic field, the potential expansion can be written via the $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐇`$ variables.landavshic  Requiring invariance of the energy to symmetry operations we obtain:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(𝐥,𝐇)`$ $`=`$ $`a_1l_x^2+a_2l_y^2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{}}{2}}(𝐥𝐇)^2`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{}}{2}}[𝐥\times 𝐇]^2+C_1(𝐥𝐇)H_xl_x+`$
$`+C_2(𝐥𝐇)H_yl_y+B_1l_x^2H^2+`$
$`+B_2l_y^2H^2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _z}{2}}H_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _x}{2}}H_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
The small parameter in this expansion is the ratio between the relativistic constants and the exchange constants. The first two terms ($`a_i`$) describe the orthorhombic anisotropy, the terms containing $`\chi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ describe the exchange part of the susceptibility — they do not change under simultaneous rotation of $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐇`$ on the same angle. The terms with $`\xi _\alpha `$ describe the relativistic contribution to the susceptibility which is independent on the $`𝐥`$ orientation. Of the higher order terms containing the magnetic field, we have kept only exchange-relativistic terms which are a product of exchange part (invariant under simultaneous rotation of $`𝐥`$ and $`𝐇`$) and relativistic part. Other higher-order terms are smaller due to the supposed smallness of the relativistic constants and, thus, can be omitted. Easy-axis ordering at low fields requires that $`a_1,a_2>0`$. Concerning the anisotropy terms in the expansion (3), it is also necessary to point out that, if one (or both) of the anisotropy constants is equal to zero or if $`a_1=a_2`$, then a consideration of the higher-order anisotropy terms would become necessary. However, there are no symmetry reasons, causing these special values of the anisotropy constants.

Minimization over the orientations of $`𝐥`$ in the exact orientations of the external magnetic field demonstrates that the antiferromagnetic vector $`𝐥`$ is aligned along one of the crystallographic axes except maybe for the narrow field interval near the reorientation transitions where its behavior would be determined by the higher-order anisotropy terms.

The thermodynamic-potential expressions and magnetic susceptibilities for different possible orientations of $`𝐇`$ and $`𝐥`$ are given by:

* (see Fig.3)

$`𝐥z:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{zz}^{(1)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{zz}^{(1)}`$ $`=\chi _{}+\xi _z`$
$`𝐥y:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{zz}^{(2)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{zz}^{(2)}`$ $`=\chi _{}2B_2+\xi _z`$
$`𝐥x:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{zz}^{(3)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{zz}^{(3)}`$ $`=\chi _{}2B_1+\xi _z`$
* $`𝐥z:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{xx}^{(1)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{xx}^{(1)}`$ $`=\chi _{}+\xi _x`$
$`𝐥y:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=a_2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{xx}^{(2)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{xx}^{(2)}`$ $`=\chi _{}2B_2+\xi _x`$
* $`𝐥z:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{yy}^{(1)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{yy}^{(1)}`$ $`=\chi _{}`$
$`𝐥x:`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=a_1{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{yy}^{(2)}}{2}}H^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
$`\chi _{yy}^{(2)}`$ $`=\chi _{}2B_1`$

Now we can find the fields of the spin-reorientation transitions by equalizing the thermodynamic potentials in the phases with different orientations of $`𝐥`$.

$`𝐇z,(𝐥z𝐥y)`$ $`:`$ $`H_{c1}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2a_2}{\chi _{}\chi _{}2B_2}}`$ (11)
$`𝐇z,(𝐥y𝐥x)`$ $`:`$ $`H_{c2}^2={\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2}{B_2B_1}}`$ (12)
$`𝐇z,(𝐥z𝐥x)`$ $`:`$ $`H_c^{}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2a_1}{\chi _{}\chi _{}2B_1}}`$ (13)
$`𝐇y,(𝐥z𝐥x)`$ $`:`$ $`H_{c3}^2={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{B_1}}`$ (14)
$`𝐇x,(𝐥z𝐥x)`$ $`:`$ $`H_{c4}^2={\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{B_2}}`$ (15)
All parameters involved can be estimated using the static magnetization data from Refs. tsukada:si, ,tsukada:2sf,  and the $`H_{c3}`$ value from Ref. poirier:sf3, . Note, however, that the samples used in the above mentioned papers were different, thus, some uncertainty is possible. The values of the parameters calculated from the 5 K data are presented in Table 3.

Since $`a_1>a_2`$, the hard axis of the magnetization is established along the $`x`$ direction. Substituting the found values to Eqn. 13, one can ascertain that $`H_c^{}>H_{c1}`$, i.e. a two-spin-reorientation transition scenario is more energy beneficient than a direct transition from $`𝐥||z`$ to $`𝐥||x`$. The positiveness of $`B_2`$ explains the absence of a phase transition for $`𝐇x`$: for $`a_2>0`$ and $`B_2>0`$ Eqn. 15 has no physical solutions.

The anisotropy constants determine the gaps of the antiferromagnetic resonance spectrum Kubo . Antiferromagnetic resonance on the BaCu2Si2O7 was studied in Ref. Hayn,  and two gaps given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=40`$ GHz and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=76`$ GHz were found. The ratio of the AFMR gaps can be expressed as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}=\sqrt{\frac{a_2}{a_1}}$$
(16)
Inserting the values of the anisotropy constants from Table 3 yields for this ratio $`0.57\pm 0.04`$ which is in perfect agreement with the value $`0.53`$ found from the experiment. The absolute value of the AFMR gap can be approximated Kubo  as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\gamma \sqrt{2H_{a1}H_e}30\mathrm{GHz}$$
(17)
which is in reasonable agreement with the experiment, since a good deal of uncertainty is involved in the estimation of the exchange field $`H_e`$ in the case of a low-dimensional magnet. Thus, expansion (3) correctly describes the observed spin-reorientation transitions and is in agreement with other experimental observations.

The additional phase transitions occur as a result of the competition of anisotropy and relativistic corrections to the susceptibility. The transition at $`H_{c1}`$ is a normal spin-flop transition: all spins are rotated perpendicular to the field direction and are aligned along the second-easy axis $`y`$. At this transition the loss of the easy-axis anisotropy is compensated by the gain in magnetization energy, since $`\chi _{}>\chi _{}`$. The second phase transition (at $`H_{c2}`$) is caused by the competition of the in-plane anisotropy and difference of the magnetization energy in different orientations of $`𝐥`$ due to the relativistic corrections: The magnetic susceptibility for $`𝐥x`$ turns out to be larger than that for $`𝐥y`$, thus, the loss of anisotropy energy is overcome by the gain in magnetization energy. The spin-reorientation transition at $`𝐇y`$ is due to the same effect: relativistic corrections to the susceptibility make the susceptibility to be the largest for $`𝐥x`$, thus, the gain in magnetization energy overcomes the loss in anisotropy energy.

Note that the relativistic corrections $`B_i`$ and $`\xi _\alpha `$ are unusually large in BaCu2Si2O7: $`\xi _z`$ turns out to be comparable with $`\chi _{}`$. The $`B_iH^2`$ terms normally should become comparable with the anisotropy constants only at magnetic fields of the scale of the exchange field. Thus, a mechanism, which strongly enhances the role of the relativistic interactions, has to be found. One possibility is the effect of anisotropic reduction of the spin in different phases. According to the neutron-scattering datazheludev:struct , the average magnetic moment of the Cu ion changes as $`𝐥`$ changes its orientation. Accounting for this effect would result in the same exchange-relativistic terms in the thermodynamic-potential expansion. Another possible reason for the large values of these constants will be discussed in the next section.

It is necessary to recall that the above expansion of the thermodynamic potential was performed assuming the relativistic contributions to be small compared to the exchange part. Hence, higher-order terms have been neglected. However, in principle the increasing importance of the relativistic interactions should also lead to an increase of the higher-order terms, which especially would affect the phase transitions at higher fields ($`H_{c2}`$, $`H_{c3}`$). Moreover, this should give rise to other effects, such as a nonlinearity of the magnetization, which has not been reported yet.

We also have to note another possible explanation of the comparable magnitude of the fields $`H_{c1}`$ and $`H_{c2}`$: namely that, if $`a_1=a_2`$, then Eqn.12 becomes ill-defined. As it was noted earlier, in this case higher-order (fourth-order) anisotropy terms have to be considered, and higher-order anisotropy constants (containing additional relativistic smallness, compared to $`a_{1,2}`$) would appear in the numerator of Eqn.12. The $`B_iH^2`$ terms should become comparable with the fourth-order anisotropy terms in fields of the order of the normal spin-flop field $`H_{c1}`$. However, we would like to point out again that there are no symmetry reasons causing the equivalence of the anisotropy constants, and the values of the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ constants derived from the experimental data are almost four-fold different. A microscopic consideration of the interspin interactions, which is beyond of the scope of the present paper, is necessary to check this probability in detail. The angular dependence of the transition field $`H_{c2}`$ also has to contain information on whether second- or fourth-order anisotropy terms are responsible for the additional spin-reorientation transition.

Nevertheless, the present experimental results can be consistently explained in the framework of our simplified approach. Therefore, it seems to be reasonable to start again with the assumption of small relativistic contributions in the following refinement of the thermodynamic potential with the aim to analyze the magnetic structure in detail.

### III.2 Structure of the magnetic phases.

Relativistic interactions, such as the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, can cause small distortions of the collinear structure, which can be expressed by magnetic vectors. These distortions, however, have to be compatible with the crystal symmetry. This means that the components of the magnetic vectors corresponding to the distortions in the given phase have to transform in the same way as the corresponding component of the main magnetic vector, i.e. they have to belong to the same representation of the symmetry group. The possible types of canting of the spins can be easily found from Table 2. We will consider here only distortions described by the magnetic vectors $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟒}`$, for only these magnetic vectors correspond to the antiferromagnetic in-chain order. Other distortions would lead to a violation of the in-chain antiferromagnetic ordering and, therefore, they are strongly suppressed by the strong in-chain exchange interaction.

Thus, we obtain

* phase I ($`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}z`$)
no canting is allowed by symmetry
* phase II ($`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}y`$)
$`L_4^x`$ is allowed
* phase III ($`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}x`$)
$`L_4^y`$ is allowed

The structure of the magnetic phases is shown in Figure 4. Note that the proposed structure is different from that of Ref. zheludev:struct, , where canting described by the magnetic vector $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ was proposed. However, vector $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ has components transforming in the same way as the magnetization, i.e. distortions described by the components of $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can be induced by the magnetic field.

To find the amplitudes of the distortions we have to write an expansion of the thermodynamic potential including vectors $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and then to minimize this potential with respect to the components of these vectors. In this expansion we will normalize all magnetic vectors by the length of the main magnetic vector $`|𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}|`$

$$𝐥_𝐢=𝐋_𝐢/|𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}|$$
(18)
Requiring invariance of the energy to symmetry operations we obtain:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1l_1^2+A_2l_2^2+A_4l_4^2+\beta _1l_6^xl_4^y+\beta _2l_6^yl_4^x+`$ (19)
$`+\alpha _1l_1^yH^z+\alpha _2l_2^xH^z+\alpha _3l_2^zH^x+\alpha _4l_1^zH^y+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \chi }{2}}l_4^2H^2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{}^{}}{2}}(𝐥_\mathrm{𝟔}𝐇)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _{}^{}}{2}}[𝐥_\mathrm{𝟔}\times 𝐇]^2+`$
$`+a_1^{}(l_6^x)^2+a_2^{}(l_6^y)^2+B_1^{}(l_6^x)^2H^2+B_2^{}(l_6^y)^2H^2+`$
$`+C_1^{}(𝐥_\mathrm{𝟔}𝐇)H^xl_6^x+C_2^{}(𝐥_\mathrm{𝟔}𝐇)H^yl_6^y`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _z^{}}{2}}H_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _x^{}}{2}}H_x^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
We want to emphasize that this expansion is essentially the same as Eqn. (3). The only difference is that the interactions leading to the distortions of the collinear order are written explicitly, now.

In the expansion given above, the terms containing $`A_i`$ are of exchange origin, they describe the loss in exchange energy. All of $`A_i`$ are positive. The terms with $`\beta _i`$ describe the canting of the antiferromagnetic sublattices (so called weak antiferromagnetism), those with $`\alpha _i`$ describe field-induced distortions. Both $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i`$ parameters arise due to the microscopic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction.

Minimization over the components of magnetic vectors will demonstrate that the amplitudes of $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ are proportional to the ratio of some relativistic constant to the exchange constants $`A_i`$. We will suppose here that all relativistic constants are small compared with exchange constants. Then, the magnitude of $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ already contains relativistic smallness and we can neglect all higher-order relativistic terms containing these vectors.

Minimization of the (19) yields

$`l_1^y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{2A_1}}H^z`$ (20)
$`l_1^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4}{2A_1}}H^y`$ (21)
$`l_2^x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{2A_2}}H^z`$ (22)
$`l_2^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3}{2A_2}}H^x`$ (23)
$`l_4^x`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{2A_4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{4A_4^2}}\delta \chi H^2)l_6^y`$ (24)
$`l_4^y`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{2A_4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{4A_4^2}}\delta \chi H^2)l_6^x`$ (25)
The canting angles (see Figure 4) can be expressed as follows:

$$\gamma \mathrm{tan}\gamma =l_4^x\eta \mathrm{tan}\eta =l_4^y$$
(26)
Note that the distortions of type $`l_2^x`$ (which were found in Ref. zheludev:struct, ) are possible, but they are induced by the external field and they are independent on the orientation of the main antiferromagnetic vector. Thus, they have to be observed in all phases. Moreover, their amplitude should increase with increasing magnetic field, while according to the findings of Ref. zheludev:struct,  the noncollinearity is suppressed by the magnetic field in phase II.

On the other hand, the distortions described by the components of $`𝐥_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ are consistent with the experimental observations: they are absent in phase I, and their amplitude in phases II and III are governed by different constants $`\beta _i`$. The fact that the canting in phase III is much smaller than in phase II forces us to suppose that $`\beta _1\beta _2`$. A suppression of the canting in phase II corresponds to $`\delta \chi >0`$.

Substituting these results to Eqn. 19 we obtain an equation of the same type as Eqn. 3 with renormalized constants. The comparison of Eqn. (3) with the results of the substitution yields

$`\chi _,`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _,^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4^2}{2A_1}}`$ (27)
$`\xi _z`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _z^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2}{2A_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^2}{2A_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4^2}{2A_1}}`$ (28)
$`\xi _x`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _x^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3^2}{2A_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4^2}{2A_1}}`$ (29)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`a_1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^2}{4A_4}}`$ (30)
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`a_2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2^2}{4A_4}}`$ (31)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`B_1^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1}{A_4}}\right)^2\delta \chi `$ (32)
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`B_2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2}{A_4}}\right)^2\delta \chi `$ (33)
If the relativistic constants are small compared to the exchange constants (as it was supposed in the expansion (19)), then the distortions caused by relativistic interactions result in small corrections to the constants connected with the main antiferromagnetic vector.

In the case of the low-dimensional antiferromagnet, it is another situation. The antiferromagnetic ordering of the types $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟒}`$, and $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ differs only by the relative orientation of the spins in the direction perpendicular to the chain. Thus, the loss in exchange energy for the canting from one of these order types to the other (i.e. $`A_i`$ constants in the expansion (19)) is governed by the weak interchain exchange. As it was mentioned in the Introduction, in a quasi-one-dimensional magnet the interchain-exchange interaction can be comparable in strength with the relativistic interactions. Thus, the relativistic contributions in Eqns. 27-33 will not become small.

This argumentation cannot be considered as a strict proof of the role of low-dimensionality for the large values of the relativistic constants in Eqn. 3, because expansion (19) becomes incomplete, if some of the relativistic constants are comparable to the exchange ones. However, the fact that in quasi-one-dimensional magnets strong distortions with small losses of exchange energy are possible, can result in an increase of the effect due to relativistic interactions.

### III.3 Susceptibility of BaCu2Si2O7 above the Néel point.

The susceptibility of BaCu2Si2O7 above the Néel point strongly deviates from a Bonner-Fisher lawBonnerFisher  characteristic for one-dimensional magnets tsukada:2sf ; tsukada:si . It demonstrates a broad maximum near 200 K but then shows a strong Curie-like increase to lower temperatures. This increase is anisotropic. It is strongest for $`\chi _c`$ and smallest for $`\chi _a`$.

Such a behavior is typical for antiferromagnets with possible weak ferromagnetism borovik:lectures ; borovikozhogin . As it follows from Table 2, weak ferromagnetism is allowed for antiferromagnetic order of types $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ — these vectors have components transforming in the same way as the magnetization components.

At the vicinity of the Néel point the amplitude of the order parameter is small and we can write down an expansion over the powers of the order parameter as in the usual Landau theory of second-order phase transitions:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1L_1^2+A_2L_2^2+A_4L_4^2+A_6L_6^2+\beta _2L_6^yL_4^x+`$ (34)
$`+\beta _1L_6^xL_4^y+\alpha _1L_1^yH^z+\alpha _2L_2^xH^z+\alpha _3L_2^zH^x+`$
$`+\alpha _4L_1^zH^y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi _pH^2{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{8\pi }}`$
Here the $`A_i`$ terms are of exchange origin, those with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are responsible for the canting, $`\chi _p`$ is the paramagnetic-state susceptibility. We neglect anisotropy terms and higher-order terms. Here we have used designations for the terms similar to those in Eqn. 19. Note, however, that coefficients with the same designations are different in Eqn. 19 and Eqn. 34.

At the transition point the factors $`A_i`$ change their sign: it is positive above the transition temperature and negative below. In the vicinity of the corresponding Néel temperatures

$$A_i=\lambda _i(TT_N^{(i)}),\lambda >0$$
(35)
At the Néel point order of type $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ is established. We will suppose that in some temperature range above $`T_N`$ the values of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ continue to increase with increasing temperature and, thus, can be approximated as

$$A_{1,2}=A_{1,2}^{(0)}+\lambda _{1,2}^{}(TT_N)A_{1,2}^{(0)},\lambda _{1,2}^{}>0$$
(36)
To find the values of the magnetic vector components we have to minimize expansion (34). Here we will restrict our analysis to the case of $`T>T_N`$. Above the Néel point we have $`A_i>0`$, and in absence of an external field $`𝐇`$ the minimum of the potential (34) corresponds to $`|𝐋_𝐢|=0`$. If a magnetic field is applied, weak antiferromagnetic order parameters of the types $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ or $`𝐋_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are induced. All other magnetic vectors are zero.

The existence of field-induced order parameters leads to an additional contribution to the susceptibility. Using Eqn. 36, we obtain for the magnetic susceptibilities:

$`\chi _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _p+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _3^2}{2(A_2^{(0)}+\lambda _2^{}(TT_N))}}`$ (37)
$`\chi _{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _p+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _4^2}{2(A_1^{(0)}+\lambda _1^{}(TT_N))}}`$ (38)
$`\chi _{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _p+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1^2}{2(A_1^{(0)}+\lambda _1^{}(TT_N))}}+`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2^2}{2(A_2^{(0)}+\lambda _2^{}(TT_N))}}`$
I.e. with decreasing temperature the susceptibilities should increase. The amplitudes of this increase in different orientations tsukada:si  allow to conclude that

$$\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2>\alpha _4^2\alpha _3^2$$
(40)
The strongest effect for $`\chi _{zz}`$ is in accordance with the large relativistic contribution $`\xi _z`$ in Eqn. 3.

## IV Conclusions

Starting from a symmetry approach we have analyzed the magnetic phase diagram and the corresponding magnetic structures of the antiferromagnet BaCu2Si2O7. In the first step, we have obtained a thermodynamic potential in terms of the main antiferromagnetic vector only, demonstrating additional spin-reorientation transitions, which are due to the unusually strong relativistic terms in the expansion of the thermodynamic potential. The strength of the relativistic terms is probably connected to the low-dimensionality of the compound.

In the second step, we have refined the thermodynamic potential by including the magnetic vectors, which describe distortions of the magnetic structure compatible with the crystal symmetry. Based on our analysis, we proposed a structure of the magnetic phases (cf. Fig. 4), which is different from that in Ref. zheludev:struct, .

In addition, we were able to explain the deviations of the susceptibility from the Bonner-Fisher law on approaching the 3D-magnetic order. The analysis of the susceptibility behavior above $`T_N`$ also shows the importance of the relativistic interactions for the understanding of the properties of BaCu2Si2O7.

The strong enhancement of the relativistic effects should result in other interesting properties of this compound, such as nonlinear magnetization. Thus, further experimental and theoretical studies are necessary to achieve a deeper insight into the unusual properties of BaCu2Si2O7.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the joint grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) No.01-02-04007. The authors thank M.Zhitomirsky, A.I.Smirnov and S.S.Sosin for valuable discussions.


format: text

text:
# Higher Twist, 𝜉_𝑤 Scaling, and Effective 𝐿𝑂𝑃𝐷𝐹𝑠 for Lepton Scattering in the Few GeV Region

## 1 Higher Twists and Previous Results with GRV94 PDFs and $`x_w`$

The quark distributions in the proton and neutron are parametrized as Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs) obtained from global fits to various sets of data at very high energies. These fits are done within the theory of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in either leading order (LO) or next to leading order (NLO). The most important data come from deep-inelastic e/$`\mu `$ scattering experiments on hydrogen and deuterium, and $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ experiments on nuclear targets. In previous publications  we have compared the predictions of the NLO MRSR2 PDFs to deep-inelastic e/$`\mu `$ scattering data  on hydrogen and deuterium from SLAC, BCDMS and NMC. In order to get agreement with the lower energy SLAC data for $`F_2`$ and $`R`$ down to $`Q^2`$=1 GeV2, and at the highest values of $`x`$ ($`x=0.9`$), we found that the following modifications to the NLO MRSR2 PDFs must be included.

1. The relative normalizations between the various data sets and the BCDMS systematic error shift must be included .
2. Deuteron binding corrections need to be applied and the ratio of $`d/u`$ at high $`x`$ must be increased as discussed in ref. .
3. Kinematic higher-twist originating from target mass effects  are very large and must be included.
4. Dynamical higher-twist corrections are smaller but also need to be included .
5. In addition, our analysis including QCD Next to NLO (NNLO) terms shows  that most of the dynamical higher-twist corrections needed to fit the data within a NLO QCD analysis originate from the $`missing`$ $`NNLO`$ $`higher`$ $`order`$ $`terms`$.

Figure 1 shows that the NLO MRSR2 PDFs with target mass and NNLO higher order terms describe electron and muon scattering $`F_2`$ and $`R`$ data with a very small contribution from higher twists. Studies by other authors  also show that in NNLO analyses the dynamic higher twist corrections are very small. If (for $`Q^2>`$ 1 GeV2) most of the higher-twist terms needed to obtain agreement with the low energy data actually originate from target mass effects and missing NNLO terms (i.e. not from interactions with spectator quarks) then these terms should be the same in $`\nu _\mu `$ and e/$`\mu `$ scattering. Therefore, low energy $`\nu _\mu `$ data should be described by the PDFs which are fit to high energy data and are modified to include target mass and higher-twist corrections that fit low energy e/$`\mu `$ scattering data. However, for $`Q^2<`$ 1 GeV2 additional non-perturbative effects from spectator quarks must also be included .

In a previous communication  we used a modified scaling variable $`x_w`$ and fit for modifications to the GRV94 leading order PDFs such that the PDFs describe both high energy low energy e/$`\mu `$ data. In order to describe low energy data down to the photoproduction limit ($`Q^2=0`$), and account for both target mass and higher twist effects, the following modifications of the GRV94 LO PDFs are need:

1. We increased the $`d/u`$ ratio at high $`x`$ as described in our previous analysis .
2. Instead of the scaling variable $`x`$ we used the scaling variable $`x_w=(Q^2+B)/(2M\nu +A)`$ (or =$`x(Q^2+B)/(Q^2+Ax)`$). This modification was used in early fits to SLAC data . The parameter A provides for an approximate way to include $`both`$ target mass and higher twist effects at high $`x`$, and the parameter B allows the fit to be used all the way down to the photoproduction limit ($`Q^2`$=0).
3. In addition as was done in earlier non-QCD based fits  to low energy data, we multiplied all PDFs by a factor $`K`$=$`Q^2`$ / ($`Q^2`$ +C). This was done in order for the fits to describe low $`Q^2`$ data in the photoproduction limit, where $`F_2`$ is related to the photoproduction cross section according to

$`\sigma (\gamma p)={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2\alpha _{\mathrm{EM}}}{Q^2}}F_2={\displaystyle \frac{0.112mbGeV^2}{Q^2}}F_2`$
4. Finally, we froze the evolution of the GRV94 PDFs at a value of $`Q^2=0.24`$ (for $`Q^2<0.24`$), because GRV94 PDFs are only valid down to $`Q^2=0.23`$ GeV2.

In our analyses, the measured structure functions were corrected for the BCDMS systematic error shift and for the relative normalizations between the SLAC, BCDMS and NMC data . The deuterium data were corrected for nuclear binding effects . A simultaneous fit to both proton and deuteron SLAC, NMC and BCDMS data (with $`x>0.07`$ only) yields A=1.735, B=0.624 and C=0.188 (GeV2) with GRV94 LO PDFs ($`\chi ^2=`$ 1351/958 DOF). Note that for $`x_w`$ the parameter A accounts for $`both`$ target mass and higher twist effects.

## 2 New Analysis with $`\xi _w`$, $`G_D`$ and GRV98 PDFs

In this publication we use a new improved scaling variable $`\xi _w`$ and fit for modifications to more modern GRV98 LO PDFs such that the PDFs describe both high energy and low energy electron/muon data. We now also include NMC and H1 94 data at lower $`x`$. Here we freeze the evolution of the GRV98 PDFs at a value of $`Q^2=0.8`$ (for $`Q^2<0.8`$), because GRV98 PDFs are only valid down to $`Q^2=0.8`$ GeV2. In addition, we use different photoproduction limit multiplicative factors for valence and sea. Our proposed new scaling variable is based on the following derivation. Using energy momentum conservation, it can be shown that the factional momentum $`\xi `$ = $`(p_z+p_0)/(P_z+P_0)`$ carried by a quark of 4-mometum $`p`$ in a proton target of mass M and 4-momentum P is given by $`\xi `$ = $`xQ^{}_{}{}^{}2/[0.5Q^2(1+[1+(2Mx)^2/Q^2]^{1/2})]`$, where

$`2Q^{}_{}{}^{}2=[Q^2+M_f{}_{}{}^{2}M_i{}_{}{}^{2}]+[(Q^2+M_f{}_{}{}^{2}M_i{}_{}{}^{2})^2+4Q^2(M_i{}_{}{}^{2}+P_T^2)]^{1/2}.`$

Here $`M_i`$ is the initial quark mass with average initial transverse momentum $`P_T`$ and $`M_f`$ is the mass of the quark in the final state. The above expression for $`\xi `$ was previously derived  for the case of $`P_T=0`$. Assuming $`M_i=0`$ we use instead:

$`\xi _w=x(Q^2+B+M_f{}_{}{}^{2})/(0.5Q^2(1+[1+(2Mx)^2/Q^2]^{1/2})+Ax)`$

Here $`M_f`$=0, except for charm-production processes in neutrino scattering for which $`M_f`$=1.5 GeV. For $`\xi _w`$ the parameter A is expected to be much smaller than for $`x_w`$ since now it only accounts for the higher order (dynamic higher twist) QCD terms in the form of an $`enhanced`$ target mass term (the effects of the proton target mass are already taken into account using the exact form in the denominator of $`\xi _w`$ ). The parameter B accounts for the initial state quark transverse momentum and final state quark $`effective`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_f^2`$ (originating from multi-gluon emission by quarks).

Using closure considerations  ($`e.g.`$the Gottfried sum rule) it can be shown that, at low $`Q^2`$, the scaling prediction for the $`valence`$ quark part of $`F_2`$ should be multiplied by the factor $`K`$=\[1-$`G_D^2`$($`Q^2`$)\]\[1+M($`Q^2`$)\] where $`G_D`$ = 1/(1+$`Q^2`$/0.71)2 is the electric proton elastic form factor, and M($`Q^2)`$ is related to the magnetic elastic form factors of the proton and neutron. At low $`Q^2`$, \[1-$`G_D^2`$($`Q^2`$)\] is approximately $`Q^2`$/($`Q^2`$ +C) with $`C=0.71/4=0.178`$ (versus our fit value C=0.18 with GRV94). In order to satisfy the Adler Sum rule  we add the function M($`Q^2`$) to account for terms from the magnetic and axial elastic form factors of the nucleon). Therefore, we try a more general form $`K_{valence}`$=\[1-$`G_D^2`$($`Q^2`$)\]\[$`Q^2`$+$`C_{2v}`$\]/\[$`Q^2`$ +$`C_{1v}`$\], and $`K_{sea}`$=$`Q^2`$/($`Q^2`$+$`C_{sea}`$). Using this form with the GRV98 PDFs (and now also including the very low $`x`$ NMC and H1 94 data in the fit) we find $`A`$=0.419, $`B`$=0.223, and $`C_{1v}`$=0.544, $`C_{2v}`$=0.431, and $`C_{sea}`$=0.380 (all in GeV2, $`\chi ^2=`$ 1264/1200 DOF). As expected, A and B are now smaller with respect to our previous fits with GRV94 and $`x_w`$. With these modifications, the GRV98 PDFs must also be multiplied by $`N`$=1.011 to $`normalize`$ to the SLAC $`F_{2p}`$ data. The fit (Figure 2) yields the following normalizations relative to the SLAC $`F_{2p}`$ data ($`SLAC_D`$=0.986, $`BCDMS_P`$=0.964, $`BCDMS_D`$=0.984, $`NMC_P`$=1.00, $`NMC_D`$=0.993, $`H1_P`$=0.977, and BCDMS systematic error shift of 1.7).

Comparisons of $`predictions`$ using these modified GRV98 PDFs to other data which were $`not`$ $`included`$ in the fit is shown in Figure 3. From duality  considerations, with the $`\xi _w`$ scaling variable, the modified GRV98 PDFs should also provide a reasonable description of the average value of $`F_2`$ in the resonance region. Figure 3(a) shows a comparison between resonance data (from SLAC and Jefferson Lab, or parametrizations of these data ) and the predictions with the standard GRV98 PDFs (LO) and with our modified GRV98 PDFs (LO+HT). The modified GRVB98 PDFs are in good agreement with SLAC and JLab resonance data down to $`Q^2=0.07`$ (although resonance data were not included in our fits). There is also very good agreement of the $`predictions`$ of our modified GRV98 in the $`Q^2=0`$ limit with photoproduction data as shown in Figure 3(b). We also compare the $`predictions`$ with our modified GRV98 PDFs (LO+HT) to a few representative high energy CCFR $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ charged-current differential cross sections  on iron (neutrino data were not included in our fit). In this comparison we use the PDFs to obtain $`F_2`$ and $`xF_3`$ and correct for nuclear effects in iron . The structure function $`2xF_1`$ is obtained by using the $`R_{world}`$ fit from reference . There is very good agreement of our $`predictions`$ with these neutrino data on iron.

In order to have a full description of all charged current $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ processes, the contribution from quasielastic scattering  must be added separately at $`x=1`$. The best prescription is to use our model in the region above the first resonance (above $`W`$=1.35 GeV) and add the contributions from quasielastic and first resonance  ($`W`$=1.23 GeV) separately. This is because the $`W=M`$ and $`W`$=1.23 GeV regions are dominated by one and two isospin states, and the amplitudes for neutrino versus electron scattering are related via Clebsch-Gordon rules  instead of quark charges (also the V and A couplings are not equal at low $`W`$ and $`Q^2`$). In the region of higher mass resonances (e.g. $`W`$=1.7 GeV) there is a significant contribution from the deep-inelastic continuum which is not well modeled by the existing fits  to neutrino resonance data (and using our modified PDFs should be better). For nuclear targets, nuclear corrections  must also be applied. Recent results from Jlab indicate that the Fe/D ratio in the resonance region is the same as the Fe/D ratio from DIS data for the same value of $`\xi `$ (or $`\xi _w`$). The effects of terms proportional to the muon mass and $`F_4`$ and $`F_5`$ structure functions in neutrino scattering are discussed in Ref. .

In the future, we plan to investigate the effects of including the initial state quark $`P_T`$ in $`\xi _w`$, and institute further improvements such as allowing for different higher twist parameters for u, d, s, c, b quarks in the sea, and the small difference (expected in the Adler sum rule) in the $`K`$ factors for axial and vector terms in neutrino scattering. In addition, we can multiply the PDFs by a modulating function  A(W,$`Q^2`$) to improve modeling in the resonance region (for hydrogen) by including (instead of $`predicting`$) the resonance data  in the fit. We can also include resonance data on deuterium  and heavier nuclear targets in the fit, and low energy neutrino data. Note that because of the effects of experimental resolution and Fermi motion  (for nuclear targets), a description of the average cross section in the resonance region is sufficient for most neutrino experiments.

## References


text:
# On Hodge spectrum and multiplier ideals

## 1. Introduction

Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on a nonsingular complex variety $`X`$. The multiplier ideal $`𝒥(D)`$ is a subsheaf of ideals of $`𝒪_X`$. It is related to the birational geometry of the pair $`(X,D)`$ and measures in a subtle way the singularities of $`D`$. The singularities of $`D`$ get ”worse” if $`𝒥(D)`$ is smaller (see \[La01\]).

On the other hand, given a point $`xX`$ and a germ $`f`$ of a hypersurface at $`x`$, singularity theory brings into focus standard topological invariants as the Milnor fiber and the monodromy. An important analytic invariant is the canonical mixed Hodge structure on the cohomology of the Milnor fiber (see \[Ku98\]).

The natural question to ask is: How does the multiplier ideal $`𝒥(D)`$ reflect the standard constructions of singularity theory of a germ of $`D`$ at a point $`x`$?

We will consider numerical invariants. The multiplier ideal $`𝒥(D)`$ comes with a finite increasing sequence of multiplier ideals

$$𝒥(D)=𝒥(\alpha _0D)𝒥(\alpha _1D)\mathrm{}𝒥(\alpha _nD)=𝒪_X,$$

with $`1=\alpha _0>\alpha _1>\mathrm{}>\alpha _n>0`$ and $`\alpha _i𝐐`$. The $`\alpha _i`$ are called the jumping numbers of $`(X,D)`$ and provide some measure of the complexity of the scheme defined by $`𝒥(D)`$. The jumping numbers seem to have appeared first in this form in \[LV90\]. They are also related with the constants of quasi-adjunction of \[Li83\]. The smallest jumping number is the same as the log canonical threshold of $`(X,D)`$. Let $`x`$ be a point in $`X`$. Some jumping numbers $`\alpha _i`$ reflect closer than others the difference at $`x`$ between $`𝒥(\alpha _iD)`$ and $`𝒥(\alpha _{i+1}D)`$. We will call these inner jumping numbers (2.4). To each $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$ we assign an inner jump multiplicity,

$$n_{\alpha ,x}(D)0,$$

with strict inequality iff $`\alpha `$ is an inner jumping number (2.4). If $`D`$ has only an isolated singularity at $`x`$, all non-integral jumping numbers are inner jumping numbers.

The Hodge spectrum of a local equation $`f`$ of $`D`$ at $`x`$ is a fractional Laurent polynomial

$$\text{Sp}(f)=\underset{\alpha 𝐐}{}n_\alpha (f)t^\alpha ,$$

with $`n_\alpha (f)𝐙`$, and can be defined using the Hodge filtration and the monodromy on the cohomology of the Milnor fiber of $`f`$ (3.2). We call $`n_\alpha (f)`$ the multiplicity of $`\alpha `$ in the Hodge spectrum. There are various ways to encode the multiplicities $`n_\alpha (f)`$ into a fractional Laurent polynomial. Our definition of the spectrum coincides with that of M. Saito \[Sa91\].

The main result of this article is the following.

###### Theorem.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular quasi-projective variety of dimension $`m`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective integral divisor on $`X`$ and $`xD`$ be a point. Let $`f`$ be any local equation of $`D`$ at $`x`$. Then for any $`\alpha (0,1]`$, $`n_\alpha (f)=n_{\alpha ,x}(D).`$

###### Corollary.

For all $`\alpha (0,1]`$,

1. $`\alpha `$ appears in the Hodge spectrum of $`f`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ is an inner jumping number of $`(X,D)`$ at $`x`$;
2. (M. Saito \[Sa93\]-0.7) the multiplicity $`n_\alpha (f)`$ is $`0`$;
3. (Varchenko \[Va81\]-§4; see also \[Ko97\]-§9) if $`x`$ is an isolated singularity of $`D`$ and $`\alpha 1`$, then, replacing $`X`$ by an open neighborhood of $`x`$ if necessary, $`\alpha `$ appears in the Hodge spectrum if and only if $`\alpha `$ is a jumping number.

The method of proof of the main result is an application of the theory of jet schemes and motivic integration. More specifically, we make use of a deep theorem of J. Denef and F. Loeser \[DL98\] that shows how to compute the Hodge spectrum from a log resolution of the pair $`(X,D)`$. In the first section, we introduce the multiplier ideals and the inner jump multiplicities. In the second section, we introduce the Hodge spectrum. In the third section we review the result of \[DL98\]. In the fourth section, we prove the main theorem, up to a few lemmas about quotient singularities which make the subject of the last section.

All varieties will be assumed to be defined over $`𝐂`$.

Acknowledgement. I thank my advisor L. Ein for getting me interested in this question and helping me with comments and suggestions. I thank T. de Fernex, R. Lazarsfeld, M. Mustaţǎ, and K. Smith for several discussions and comments on this work.

## 2. The Multiplier Ideals

We review the definition of multiplier ideals, jumping numbers and we introduce the inner jump multiplicities at a point.

For a nonsingular variety $`X`$, let $`\omega _X`$ denote the canonical sheaf. Let $`K_X`$ be the canonical divisor class, that is $`\omega _X=𝒪_X(K_X)`$. Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a proper birational morphism. The exceptional set of $`\mu `$ is denoted by $`Ex(\mu )`$. This is the set of points $`\{yY\}`$ where $`\mu `$ is not biregular. We say that $`\mu `$ is a resolution if $`Y`$ is smooth. We say that a resolution $`\mu `$ is a log resolution of a finite collection of ideal sheaves $`𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s𝒪_X`$ if we can write $`\mu ^1𝔞_i𝒪_Y=𝒪_Y(H_i)`$ where $`H_i`$ is an effective divisor on $`Y`$ ($`1is`$) such that $`_iH_iEx(\mu )`$ is a divisor with simple normal crossings. Such a resolution always exists, by Hironaka. Let $`K_{Y/X}=K_Y\mu ^{}(K_X)`$. If $`D=d_iD_i`$ is an effective $`𝐐`$-divisor on $`X`$, where $`D_i`$ are the irreducible components of $`D`$ and $`d_i𝐐`$, the round down of $`D`$ is the integral divisor $`\mathrm{}D\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}d_i\mathrm{}D_i`$. Here, $`\mathrm{}d\mathrm{}`$ is the biggest integer $`d`$.

The following is well-known and follows from the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem (see \[La01\], 9.2.18 and 9.4.1):

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular quasi-projective variety, $`𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s`$ $`𝒪_X`$ a finite collection of ideal sheaves, and $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_s𝐐_{>0}`$ . Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a log resolution of $`(𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s)`$ and $`\mu ^1𝔞_i𝒪_Y=𝒪_Y(H_i)`$. Then $`\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}d_1H_1+\mathrm{}+d_sH_s\mathrm{})`$ is independent of the choice of $`\mu `$ and $`R^i\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}d_1H_1+\mathrm{}+d_sH_s\mathrm{})=0`$ for $`i>0`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

The multiplier ideal of $`𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s𝒪_X`$ and $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_s𝐐_{>0}`$ is

$$𝒥(𝔞_1^{d_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_s^{d_s})=\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}d_1H_1+\mathrm{}+d_sH_s\mathrm{})$$

for any log resolution $`\mu `$ of $`(𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s)`$.

By Theorem 2.1, the definition of $`𝒥(𝔞_1^{d_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_s^{d_s})`$ is independent of the choice of the log resolution. The multiplier ideals are indeed sheaves of ideals because $`\mu _{}\omega _Y=\omega _X`$. An important particular case is when each $`𝔞_i=𝒪_X(D_i)`$ with $`D_i`$ irreducible divisors on $`X`$. The corresponding multiplier ideal will be denoted by $`𝒥(D)`$, where $`D=_{i=1}^sd_iD_i`$. A log resolution of $`(𝔞_1,\mathrm{},𝔞_s)`$ will be called a log resolution of $`(X,D)`$. For $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$ define $`𝒦_\alpha (D)=𝒥((1ϵ)\alpha D)/𝒥(\alpha D),`$ where $`0<ϵ<<1`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

We say that $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$ is a jumping number of $`(X,D)`$ if $`𝒦_\alpha (D)0`$.

Let $`xD`$ be a point. Next, we will see how some jumping numbers $`\alpha `$ reflect closer the difference at $`x`$ between the multiplier ideals $`𝒥(\alpha D)`$ and $`𝒥((1ϵ)\alpha D)`$ ($`0<ϵ1`$). Denote by $`𝔞`$ the ideal sheaf $`𝒪_X(D)`$ and by $`𝔪_x`$ the ideal sheaf of the point $`x`$ in $`X`$. For $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$, define $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)=𝒥(𝔞^{(1ϵ)\alpha })/𝒥(𝔞^{(1ϵ)\alpha }𝔪_x^\delta ),`$ where $`0<ϵ\delta 1`$. That this definition is independent of choice of $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ will be clear from Proposition 2.7. We will also see that $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)`$ has support at most $`\{x\}`$. Thus, we can make the following definition.

###### Definition 2.4.

We say that $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$ is an inner jumping number of $`(X,D)`$ at $`x`$ if $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)0`$. Let the inner jump multiplicity of $`(X,D)`$ at $`x`$ be $`n_{\alpha ,x}(D)=dim_𝐂𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)`$.

We fix the following notation for the rest of the section. Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a log resolution of $`(𝔞,𝔪_x)`$. Let $`\mu ^{}(D)=_im_iE_i`$, where $`E_i`$ are the irreducible components. Let $`J=\{i|m_i0\}`$. For any subset $`IJ`$, let $`E^I=_{iI}E_i`$. Let $`E^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. For a positive integer $`d`$, let $`J_d=\{iJ|d|m_i\}`$. Let $`J_{d,x}=\{iJ_d|\mu (E_i)=\{x\}\}`$. Fix from now $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$. Write $`\alpha =r/d`$ with $`r`$ and $`d`$ nonnegative integers such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(r,d)=1`$. Having fixed $`\alpha `$, define three effective reduced divisors on $`Y`$,

$`E=E^{J_d},F=E^{J_{d,x}},G=E^{J_d\backslash J_{d,x}},`$
such that $`E=F+G`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`H`$ be an effective divisor on $`Y`$ such that $`\mu ^1𝔪_x𝒪_Y=𝒪_Y(H)`$. Then

$`𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)`$ $`=𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}F)`$
$`=𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D+\delta H\mathrm{}),`$
where $`0<ϵ\delta 1`$.

###### Proof.

The first equality is clear by the definition of $`E=F+G`$. Let $`k_i`$ and $`h_i`$ be the coefficients of $`E_i`$ in $`K_{Y/X}`$ and, respectively, $`H`$. Then the coefficient of $`E_i`$ in $`K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D+\delta H\mathrm{}`$ is $`k_i\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i+\delta h_i\mathrm{}`$. The coefficient of $`E_i`$ in $`K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}`$ is $`k_i\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i\mathrm{}`$. If $`E_i`$ is not a component of $`E`$, that is if $`\alpha m_i𝐙`$, then for small enough $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ the two coefficients are the same. If $`\mu (E_i)x`$ then $`h_i=0`$ and the two coefficients are again the same. Suppose now that $`\alpha m_i𝐙`$ and $`\mu (E_i)=x`$, that is $`E_i`$ is a component of $`F`$. For small $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ\delta `$, for example $`ϵ\delta h_i/(\alpha m_i)`$, we have $`\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i+\delta h_i\mathrm{}=\alpha m_i=\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i\mathrm{}+1.`$ Therefore $`k_i\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i+\delta h_i\mathrm{}=k_i\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha m_i\mathrm{}1,`$ so the two coefficients from above differ by 1, as claimed. ∎∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

1. $`\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)`$ is independent of the log resolution and $`R^i\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)=0`$ for $`i>0`$.
2. For $`0<ϵ1`$, $`\mu _{}(𝒪_F(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))`$ is independent of the log resolution and $`R^i\mu _{}(𝒪_F(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))=0`$ for $`i>0`$.
3. $`\mu _{}(𝒪_G(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G))`$ is independent of the log resolution and $`R^i\mu _{}(𝒪_G(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G))=0`$ for $`i>0`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.5,

$$\mu _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)=𝒥(𝔞^{(1ϵ)\alpha }𝔪_x^\delta ),$$

where $`𝔞=𝒪_X(D)`$ and $`0<ϵ\delta 1`$. This shows (1). For all small $`ϵ>0`$, consider the exact sequence

$`0𝒪_Y(AF)𝒪_Y(A)𝒪_F(A)0,`$
where $`A=K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}`$. By (1) and Lemma 2.5, the first sheaf pushes forward to a multiplier ideal on $`X`$ and has no higher direct images. The second sheaf pushes forward to $`𝒥((1ϵ)\alpha D)`$ and has no higher direct images by Theorem 2.1. This shows (2). (3) is similar. ∎∎

Remark that $`𝒦_\alpha (D)=\mu _{}(𝒪_E(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{})).`$ Similarly, the proof of Lemma 2.6-(2) shows that we obtain the following interpretation of inner jumping numbers in terms of log resolutions.

###### Proposition 2.7.

With the above notation, we have:

1. $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)=\mu _{}(𝒪_F(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))`$, where $`0<ϵ1`$.
2. $`n_{\alpha ,x}(D)=\chi (Y,𝒪_F(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{})`$, where $`\chi `$ is the sheaf Euler characteristic.

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$. If $`\alpha `$ is an inner jumping number of $`(X,D)`$ at $`x`$ then $`\alpha `$ is a jumping number of $`(X,D)`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the exact sequence

$`0𝒪_G(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)𝒪_E(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{})`$
$`𝒪_F(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)\alpha \mu ^{}D\mathrm{})0.`$
None of the three sheaves has higher direct images for $`\mu `$ and the last two sheaves push-forward to $`𝒦_\alpha (D)`$ and, respectively, $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)`$. If $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)0`$ then $`𝒦_\alpha (D)0`$. ∎∎

###### Proposition 2.9.

Let $`X`$ and $`D`$ be as above. If $`x`$ is an isolated singularity of $`D`$, and if $`X`$ is replaced by a small open neighborhood of $`x`$ if necessary, then all non-integral jumping numbers are inner jumping numbers.

###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha 𝐐_{>0}`$ but $`𝐙`$. We can assume that $`F=E`$. Then $`𝒦_{\alpha ,x}(D)`$ and $`𝒦_\alpha (D)`$ are the direct image under $`\mu `$ of the same sheaf. ∎∎

## 3. The Hodge Spectrum

We recall the definition of the Hodge spectrum of a hypersurface singularity. The Hodge spectrum was first defined in \[St77\] for an isolated singularity, and then in \[St89\] for the general case.

Let $`\text{MHS}_𝐂`$ denote the abelian category of complex mixed Hodge structures. For $`n𝐙`$, let $`𝐂(n)`$ denote the 1-dimensional complex mixed Hodge structure such that $`\text{Gr}_i^W=0`$ for all $`i2n`$ and $`\text{Gr}_F^p=0`$ for all $`pn`$. Here $`W_.`$ is the weight filtration and $`F\dot{}`$ is the Hodge filtration.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`H\text{MHS}_𝐂`$ and let $`T`$ be an automorphism of $`H`$ of finite order. The Hodge spectrum of $`(H,T)`$ is the fractional Laurent polynomial

$$\text{HSp}(H,T)=\underset{\alpha 𝐐}{}n_\alpha t^\alpha ,$$

with $`n_\alpha =dim\text{Gr}_F^pH_\lambda `$, where $`p=\mathrm{}\alpha \mathrm{}`$, $`H_\lambda `$ is the eigenspace of $`T`$ for the eigenvalue $`\lambda =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\alpha )`$, and $`F\dot{}`$ is the Hodge filtration.

This definition extends to the Grothendieck group of the abelian category of complex mixed Hodge structures with an automorphism $`T`$ of finite order.

Let $`f:(𝐂^m,0)(𝐂,0)`$ be the germ of a non-zero holomorphic function. Let $`M_t`$ be the Milnor fiber of $`f`$ defined as

$$M_t=\{z𝐂^m||z|<ϵ\mathrm{and}f(z)=t\}$$

for $`0<|t|ϵ1`$. The cohomology groups $`H^{}(M_t,𝐂)`$ carry a canonical mixed Hodge structure such that the semisimple part $`T_s`$ of the monodromy acts as an automorphism of finite order of these mixed Hodge structures (see \[St77\] for $`f`$ with an isolated singularity only, \[Na87\] and \[Sa91\] for the general case). We will not need the actual construction of the mixed Hodge structure on $`H^{}(M_t,𝐂)`$.

Let

$$\text{HSp}^{}(f)=\underset{j𝐙}{}(1)^j\text{HSp}(\stackrel{~}{H}^{m1+j}(M_t,𝐂),T_s),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ stands for reduced cohomology.

###### Definition 3.2.

We call the Hodge spectrum of the germ $`f`$ the fractional Laurent polynomial $`\text{Sp}(f)`$ obtained by replacing in $`\text{HSp}^{}(f)`$ the powers $`t^\alpha `$ with $`t^{m\alpha }`$, for all $`\alpha 𝐐`$. Denote by $`n_\alpha (f)`$ the coefficient of $`t^\alpha `$ in $`\text{Sp}(f)`$.

## 4. The Hodge Spectrum after Denef and Loeser

In \[DL98\], Denef and Loeser used the theory of motivic integration to give an interpretation of the Hodge spectrum of a germ of a hypersurface in terms of log resolutions. The purpose of this section is to review their result.

Let $``$ denote the pseudo-abelian category of Chow motives over $`𝐂`$ with complex coefficients (see \[Sc94\]). Let $`K_0()`$ be the Grothendieck group of $``$. On $`K_0()`$ and $`K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)`$, the tensor products induce ring structures such that the Hodge realization $`H:K_0()K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)`$ becomes a ring homomorphism. For $`n`$ an integer, $`H(𝐋^n)=𝐂(n)`$, where $`𝐋`$ is the Lefschetz motive. Let $`G`$ be a finite abelian group and $`\widehat{G}`$ its complex character group. Define $`\text{Sch}_G`$ to be the category of varieties on which $`G`$ acts by automorphisms and such that the $`G`$-orbit of any closed point is contained in an open affine subvariety.

###### Theorem 4.1.

(\[DL98\]-1.3) There exists a map

$$\chi _c:\text{Sch}_G\times \widehat{G}K_0()$$

with the following properties:

1. $`H\chi _c(X,\alpha )=_i(1)^i[H_c^i(X)_\alpha ]`$, where $`H_c^{}(X)_\alpha `$ denotes subspace of the cohomology with compact supports (with the Deligne-Hodge structure) on which $`G`$ acts by multiplication with $`\alpha `$.
2. If $`Y`$ is a closed $`G`$-stable subvariety in $`X\text{Sch}_G`$, for all $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$, $`\chi _c(X\backslash Y,\alpha )=\chi _c(X,\alpha )\chi _c(Y,\alpha ).`$
3. If $`X\text{Sch}_G`$, and $`U`$ and $`V`$ are $`G`$-invariant open subvarieties of $`X`$, for all $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$, $`\chi _c(UV,\alpha )=\chi _c(U,\alpha )+\chi _c(V,\alpha )\chi _c(UV,\alpha ).`$
4. Suppose $`X\text{Sch}_G`$ and the $`G`$-action factors through a quotient $`GH`$. If $`\alpha `$ is not in the image of $`\widehat{H}\widehat{G}`$, then $`\chi _c(X,\alpha )=0`$.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular and connected variety and let $`f:X𝐀^1`$ be a regular function on $`X`$. Let $`D`$ be the effective integral divisor $`\text{div}(f)`$. Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a log resolution of $`(X,D)`$. Let $`\mu ^{}D=_im_iE_i`$, where $`E_i`$ are the irreducible components. Fix $`\alpha [0,1)`$ a rational number, and write $`\alpha =r/d`$ where $`r`$ and $`d`$ are nonnegative integers with $`\mathrm{gcd}(r,d)=1`$. If $`\alpha =0`$, let $`d=1`$. Let $`J=\{i|m_i0\}`$ and $`J_d=\{iJ|d|m_i\}`$. For $`IJ`$, let $`E_I=_{iI}E_i`$ and $`E^I=_{iI}E_i`$. Let $`E_{\mathrm{}}=Y`$ and $`E^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. For $`IJ`$, let $`E_I^o=E_IE^{J\backslash I}`$.

Let $`p:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ be the degree-$`d`$ cyclic cover obtained by taking the $`d`$-th root of the local equations of the divisor $`R=_{iJ\backslash J_d}m_iE_i`$ (see \[Ko97\]-§2 or \[DL98\]-3.2.3.). That is, locally $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is the normalization of the subvariety of $`Y\times 𝐀^1`$ given by $`y^d=s`$, where $`s`$ defines $`R`$. For any locally closed subset $`WY`$ let $`\stackrel{~}{W}=p^1(W)`$.

The generator $`1(\text{mod}d)`$ of $`G=𝐙/d`$ gives a canonical isomorphism of the complex character group $`\widehat{G}`$ with $`\mu _d`$, the group of the $`d`$-th roots of unity. Denote the inverse of this isomorphism by $`\gamma `$. For $`Z\text{Sch}_G`$, we deliberately abuse the notation and write $`\chi _c(Z,\alpha )`$ in place of $`\chi _c(Z,\gamma (e^{2\pi i\alpha }))`$.

###### Definition 4.2.

(\[DL98\]) $`S_{\alpha ,x}=_{IJ_d}\chi _c((E_I^o\mu ^1(x))\stackrel{~}{},\alpha )(1𝐋)^{|I|1}.`$

Let $`H:K_0()K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)`$ be the Hodge realization.

###### Theorem 4.3.

(\[DL98\]-4.3.1) Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular variety of dimension $`m`$. Let $`D`$ be an effective integral divisor on $`X`$ and $`xD`$ a point. Then for any local equation $`f`$ of $`D`$ at $`x`$,

$$(1)^{m1}+\text{HSp}^{}(f)=(1)^{m1}\underset{\alpha 𝐐[0,1)}{}\text{HSp}(H(S_{\alpha ,x}),\mathrm{Id})t^\alpha $$

For $`p𝐙`$, let $`\text{gr}_F^p:K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)𝐙`$ be the map such that to a complex mixed Hodge structure $`H`$ assigns $`\text{gr}_F^p(H)=dim\text{Gr}_F^pH`$, where $`F\dot{}`$ is the Hodge filtration.

###### Corollary 4.4.

For $`\alpha 𝐐(0,1]`$ the multiplicity of $`\alpha `$ in the Hodge spectrum $`\text{Sp}(f)`$ of $`f`$ is $`n_\alpha (f)=(1)^{m1}\text{gr}_F^{m1}H(S_{1\alpha ,x}).`$

###### Proof.

By definition, $`n_\alpha (f)`$ is the multiplicity in $`\text{HSp}^{}(f)`$ of $`m\alpha `$. From Theorem 4.3 and the definition of $`\text{HSp}^{}(f)`$, the multiplicity of $`m\alpha `$ in $`\text{HSp}^{}(f)`$ is equal to $`(1)^{m1}\text{gr}_F^{m1}H(S_{1\alpha ,x})`$, where $`\text{gr}_F^p`$ is the Euler characteristic described above. ∎∎

In working with $`S_{\alpha ,x}`$ we will use the following result:

###### Proposition 4.5.

(\[Ko97\]-§2, \[DL98\]-3.2.3.) Let $`IJ_d`$ and let $`W=E_I`$.

1. The $`𝐙/d`$-action gives an eigensheaf decomposition

$$p_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{W}}=\underset{0j<d}{}𝒪_W𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}\frac{j}{d}\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}),$$

and the $`𝐙/d`$-action on each term is given by multiplication by $`e^{2\pi ij/d}`$.
2. Above $`WE^{J\backslash J_d}`$, the $`𝐙/d`$-action factors through a $`𝐙/d^{}`$-action for some $`d^{}<d`$.
3. $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is locally for the Zariski topology quotient of a nonsingular variety by a finite abelian group.

## 5. From Hodge Spectrum to Inner Jumping Numbers

In this section we prove the Theorem from the introduction, up to a few facts about quotient singularities which we leave for the next section. Remark that the Corollary from the introduction follows directly from the Theorem and Propositions 2.8 and 2.9.

The following Mayer-Vietoris type of result can be proven by a careful local computation.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular variety of dimension $`m`$. Let $`E=_{iI}E_i`$ be a reduced divisor on $`X`$ with simple normal crossings. For $`LI`$, denote by $`E_I`$ the intersection $`_{iL}E_i`$. Then there exists an exact complex of coherent sheaves

(5.1.1)
$$0𝒪_E\underset{LI}{}_{|L|=1}𝒪_{E_I}\mathrm{}\underset{LI}{}_{|L|=p}𝒪_{E_I}\mathrm{}$$

###### Lemma 5.2.

With notation as above, assume that $`E_i`$ have proper support. Then, for a locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, $`\chi (\omega _E)=_{\mathrm{}LI}\chi (\omega _{E_L}),`$ where $`\omega _.`$ are dualizing sheaves and $`\chi `$ is the sheaf Euler characteristic.

###### Proof.

Tensor the exact complex (5.1.1) over $`𝒪_X`$ with the dual $`^{}`$ of $``$. Then, by additivity of the Euler characteristic,

$$\chi (𝒪_E^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}LI}{}(1)^{|L|1}\chi (𝒪_{E_L}^{}).$$

The claim follows by Grothendieck-Serre duality. ∎∎

Proof of Theorem. Both $`n_\alpha (f)`$ and $`n_{\alpha ,x}(D)`$ do not change if $`X`$ is replaced by an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$. Hence, we can assume that $`f`$ is a regular function on $`X`$ and $`D=\text{div}(f)`$. Let $`\mu :YX`$ be a common resolution of the point $`x`$ and of the divisor $`D`$. That is, $`\mu ^1𝔪_x𝒪_Y=𝒪_Y(H)`$ for some effective divisor $`H`$ on $`Y`$, where $`𝔪_x`$ is ideal sheaf of $`x`$ in $`X`$, and $`Ex(\mu )+H+\text{div}(f\mu )`$ is a divisor with simple normal crossings. Let $`\mu ^{}D=_im_iE_i`$. Let $`J=\{i|m_i0\}`$.

Let $`\alpha `$ be a rational number in $`[0,1)`$. Write $`\alpha =r/d`$, with $`r`$ and $`d`$ nonnegative coprime integers. Let $`J_d=\{iJ|d|m_i\}`$, and $`J_{d,x}=\{iJ_d|\mu (E_i)=x\}`$. For $`IJ`$, let $`E_I=_{iI}E_i`$, and $`E^I=_{iI}E_i`$. Let $`E_{\mathrm{}}=Y`$ and $`E^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. Denote by $`E_I^o`$ the complement $`E_IE^{J\backslash I}`$. Recall that by the previous section we have a degree-$`d`$ cyclic cover $`p:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$, and for any locally closed subset $`WY`$ we defined $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ as the inverse image of $`W`$ under $`p`$. Having fixed $`\alpha [0,1)`$ a rational number, recall the definition of $`S_{\alpha ,x}K_0()`$ from 4.2. Let $`M=\{IJ_d|IJ_{d,x}\mathrm{}\}`$. Firstly, at motivic level, we have

$$S_{\alpha ,x}=\underset{IM}{}\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E_I^o},\alpha )(1𝐋)^{|I|1}=,$$

because $`\mu ^1(x)`$ is a divisor whose components have nonzero multiplicity in $`\mu ^{}D`$. By Theorem 4.1-(2),

$$=\underset{IM}{}[\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E_I},\alpha )\chi _c((E_IE^{J\backslash I})\stackrel{~}{},\alpha )](1𝐋)^{|I|1}.$$

By Theorem 4.1-(3), applied to $`\chi _c((E_IE^{J\backslash I})\stackrel{~}{},\alpha )`$,

$$=\underset{IM}{}\underset{LJ\backslash I}{}(1)^{|L|}\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL},\alpha )(1𝐋)^{|I|1}.$$

If $`LJ_d`$ then $`E_{IL}`$ is included in $`E_IE^{J\backslash J_d}`$, and by Proposition 4.5 the $`𝐙/d`$-action on $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL}`$ factors through a $`𝐙/d^{}`$-action with $`d^{}<d`$. Hence, by Theorem 4.1-(4), $`\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL},\alpha )=0`$. Therefore

$$=\underset{IM}{}\underset{LJ_d\backslash I}{}(1)^{|L|}\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL},\alpha )(1𝐋)^{|I|1}.$$

For an integer $`p`$, let $`\text{gr}_F^p:K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)𝐙`$ be the map that sends a complex mixed Hodge structure $`H`$ to $`dim_𝐂\text{Gr}_F^pH𝐙`$, where $`F\dot{}`$ is the Hodge filtration. For $`HK_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)`$ and an integer $`n`$, one has $`\text{gr}_F^p(H𝐂(n))=\text{gr}_F^{p+n}(H)`$. Let $`\text{gr}_F^{m1}H(S_{\alpha ,x})=`$. Then

$$=\underset{IM}{}\underset{LJ_d\backslash I}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{|I|1}{}}(1)^{|L|+i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{|I|1}{i}\right)\text{gr}_F^{m1i}H(\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL},\alpha ).$$

By Proposition 4.5, the varieties $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL}`$ are locally for the Zariski topology quotients of nonsingular varieties by finite abelian groups. Since $`IJ_{d,x}\mathrm{}`$, they are finite over closed subvarieties of $`\mu ^1(x)`$ and therefore projective. Thus, by Proposition 6.4-(1), $`\text{gr}_F^{m1i}H(\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL},\alpha ))=0`$ if $`m1i>dim\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL}`$. Since the divisors $`E_i`$ are in normal crossing, the dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{IL}`$ is $`m|I||L|`$. Hence in the summation above it suffices to take $`i=|I|1`$ and $`L=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`=_{IM}(1)^{|I|1}\text{gr}_F^{m|I|}H(\chi _c(\stackrel{~}{E}_I,\alpha )).`$ By Proposition 6.4-(2),

$$=\underset{IM}{}(1)^{|I|1}\underset{i}{}(1)^idimH^i(\stackrel{~}{E}_I,𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I})_{1\alpha },$$

where $`H^{}(\stackrel{~}{E}_I,𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I})_{1\alpha }`$ is the part of the cohomology of $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I}`$ on which the canonical generator $`1(\text{mod}d)`$ of $`G=𝐙/d`$ acts by multiplication with $`e^{2\pi i(1\alpha )}`$. Since the covering $`p:\stackrel{~}{E}_IE_I`$ is a finite morphism, we can replace $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I}`$ by $`p_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I}`$ in $``$. By Proposition 4.5, the eigensheaf decomposition of $`p_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{E}_I}`$ gives

$$=\underset{IM}{}(1)^{|I|1}\chi (𝒪_{E_I}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{})),$$

where $`\chi `$ stands for the sheaf Euler characteristic. The varieties $`E_I`$ are projective and nonsingular by assumption. Let $`\omega _{E_I}`$ be the canonical-dualizing sheaf. By duality,

$``$ $`=(1)^{m1}{\displaystyle \underset{IM}{}}\chi \left(\omega _{E_I}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{})\right)`$
$`=(1)^{m1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}LJ_{d,x}}{}}[\chi (\omega _{E_L}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}KJ_d\backslash J_{d,x}}{}}\chi (\omega _{E_{LK}}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{})].`$
Let $`G=E^{J_d\backslash J_{d,x}}`$. By Lemma 5.2 applied for each nonempty index set $`LJ_{d,x}`$ to the nonsingular projective varieties $`E_L`$ and the reduced divisors $`GE_L`$,

$``$ $`=(1)^{m1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}LJ_{d,x}}{}}[\chi (\omega _{E_L}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))+`$
$`+\chi (\omega _{GE_L}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}))],`$
where $`\omega _{GE_L}`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`GE_L`$. By adjunction for $`GE_L`$ in $`E_L`$,

$``$ $`=(1)^{m1}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}LJ_{d,x}}{}}\chi (\omega _{E_L}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)).`$
Let $`F=E^{J_{d,x}}`$. By Lemma 5.2,

$$=(1)^{m1}\chi (\omega _F𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{}+G)).$$

By adjunction for $`FY`$, $`\omega _F𝒪_F𝒪_Y(K_Y+F)`$ and therefore

$``$ $`=(1)^{m1}\chi (𝒪_F𝒪_Y(K_{Y/X}\mathrm{}(1ϵ)(1\alpha )\mu ^{}D\mathrm{})),`$
for small $`ϵ>0`$. We conclude by Proposition 2.8 that, for $`\alpha 𝐐[0,1)`$, $`\text{gr}_F^{m1}H(S_{\alpha ,x})=(1)^{m1}n_{1\alpha ,x}(D).`$ In other words, for $`\alpha 𝐐(0,1]`$, $`\text{gr}_F^{m1}H(S_{1\alpha ,x})=(1)^{m1}n_{\alpha ,x}(D).`$ By Corollary 4.4, we obtained for $`\alpha 𝐐[0,1)`$ that $`n_\alpha (f)=n_{\alpha ,x}(D).`$

## 6. Quotient Singularities

In this section we prove the remaining facts needed in the proof of the Theorem. These facts are conclusions we draw from the Hodge theory of varieties with at most quotient singularities. We say that a variety $`X`$ has only quotient singularities if $`X`$ is locally for the Zariski topology quotient of a nonsingular variety $`Y`$ by a finite group of automorphisms of $`Y`$.

###### Theorem 6.1.

(E. Viehweg) Let $`X`$ be a variety. Suppose $`X`$ has only quotient singularities. Then $`X`$ has rational singularities, that is, for every resolution $`f:YX`$, we have $`f_{}𝒪_Y=𝒪_X`$ and $`R^if_{}𝒪_Y=0`$ for $`i>0`$.

Let $`X`$ be a variety and $`G`$ a finite group acting on $`X`$ by automorphisms. Let $``$ be a sheaf of $`𝒪_X`$-modules. We say that $`G`$ acts on $``$, or that $``$ is a $`G`$-sheaf, if for every $`gG`$ there exists a lifting $`\lambda _g^{}:g^{}`$ of $`𝒪_Xg^{}𝒪_X`$, such that $`\lambda _1^{}=\text{id}_{}`$ and $`\lambda _{hg}^{}=g^{}(\lambda _h^{})\lambda _g^{}`$. $`G`$ acts naturally on any locally free $`𝒪_X`$-module. A morphism of $`G`$-sheaves $`\theta :𝒢`$ is said to be $`G`$-equivariant if it commutes with the $`G`$-action, that is, $`g^{}\theta \lambda _g^{}=\lambda _g^𝒢\theta `$. The $`G`$-sheaves with their $`G`$-equivariant morphisms form a category which we denote by $`\text{Mod}(X,G)`$. If $`f:YX`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant morphism, then the usual direct image functor gives a functor $`f_{}:\text{Mod}(Y,G)\text{Mod}(X,G)`$.

Let $`X`$ be a variety with only quotient singularities and $`G`$ a finite group acting on $`X`$ by automorphisms. Let $`U`$ be the open subvariety consisting of the regular points of $`X`$, and denote by $`j:UX`$ the inclusion. Let $`f:YX`$ be a $`G`$-equivariant resolution of $`X`$. Assume that $`f`$ gives an isomorphism of $`f^1(U)`$ with $`U`$. Denote by $`\omega _Y`$ and $`\omega _U`$ the canonical invertible sheaves of $`Y`$ and, respectively, $`U`$.

###### Theorem 6.2.

(\[St77\]-1.11) There is a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism of $`G`$-sheaves $`f_{}\omega _Yj_{}\omega _U.`$

For a variety $`X`$, let $`D_{\text{filt}}(X)`$ denote the derived category of filtered complexes of $`𝒪_X`$-modules with differentials being differential operators of order $`1`$ (\[DB81\]-1.1). Let $`D_{\text{filt},\text{coh}}^b(X)`$ be the full subcategory of $`D_{\text{filt}}(X)`$ of filtered complexes $`(K\dot{},F)`$ such that, for all $`i`$, $`\text{Gr}_F^iK\dot{}`$ is an object of $`D_{\text{coh}}^b(X)`$, the derived category of bounded complexes of $`𝒪_X`$-modules with coherent cohomology (\[DB81\]-1.4). For an integer $`p`$ and a complex $`K\dot{}`$, let $`K[p]\dot{}`$ denote the complex such that $`K[p]^q=K^{p+q}`$. For our purpose, the Hodge filtration on the cohomology of the variety $`X`$ is best understood via the Du Bois complex $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ constructed in \[DB81\]. The following are the basic properties of the Du Bois complex we need.

###### Theorem 6.3.

(\[DB81\]-3.21, 4.5, 4.12, 5.3, 5.9; \[GNPP\]-V.3.5, V.4.1). For every variety $`X`$ there exists a filtered complex $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X,F)`$ in $`D_{\text{filt},\text{coh}}^b(X)`$, canonical up to isomorphism, with the following properties.

1. If $`f:YX`$ is a morphism of varieties, there exists in $`D_{\text{filt}}(X)`$ a natural morphism $`f^{}:(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X,F)Rf_{}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_Y,F),`$ where $`Rf_{}`$ is the right derived functor of the filtered direct image functor $`f_{}`$.
2. The complex $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ is a resolution of the constant sheaf $`𝐂`$ on $`X`$. If $`X`$ is nonsingular then $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ is the usual De Rham complex of Kähler differentials with the “filtration bête”.
3. If $`X`$ is proper, $`𝐇^{p+q}(X,\text{Gr}_F^p\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X)\text{Gr}_F^pH^{p+q}(X,𝐂).`$
4. The complex $`\text{Gr}_F^p\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ is zero for $`p>dimX`$.
5. If $`X`$ has only quotient singularities, let $`U`$ be the open subvariety of regular points of $`X`$ and $`j:UX`$ the inclusion. Then $`j^{}`$ induces in $`D_{\text{filt}}(X)`$ an isomorphism $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X,F)j_{}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_U,F).`$
6. If a finite group $`G`$ acts on a variety $`X`$, then $`(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X,F)`$ can be considered as an object in the $`G`$-equivariant derived category $`D_{\text{filt}}(X,G)`$ (\[DB81\]-5.4). In particular, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ is a complex of $`G`$-sheaves, the differential and the filtration commute with the $`G`$-action. If $`f:YX`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant morphism, then $`f^{}:(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X,F)Rf_{}(\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_Y,F)`$ can be taken as a morphism in $`D_{\text{filt}}(X,G)`$.

For a finite abelian group $`G`$, let $`\widehat{G}`$ be the group of complex characters of $`G`$. If $`H`$ is a $`𝐂`$-vector space on which $`G`$ acts and $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$ is a complex character of $`G`$, let $`H_\alpha =\{hH|gh=\alpha (g)h,\text{for all}gG\}.`$ For $`X\text{Sch}_G`$ and $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$, let $`\chi _c(X,\alpha )`$ be the element in $`K_0()`$ from Theorem 4.1. Let $`H:K_0()K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)`$ be the Hodge realization. For an integer $`p`$, let $`\text{gr}_F^p:K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂)𝐙`$ be the map that sends $`H\text{MHS}_𝐂`$ to $`dim_𝐂\text{Gr}_F^pH`$, where $`F\dot{}`$ is the Hodge filtration.

###### Proposition 6.4.

Let $`X\text{Sch}_G`$ be a projective variety of dimension $`n`$. For all $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$, the following holds:

1. $`\text{gr}_F^pH(\chi _c(X,\alpha ))=0`$, if $`p>n`$.
2. If, in addition, $`X`$ has only quotient singularities, $`\text{gr}_F^nH(\chi _c(X,\alpha ))=_i(1)^idim_𝐂H^i(X,𝒪_X)_{\alpha ^1}.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`H^{}(X)=H^{}(X,𝐂)`$. The compatibility of $`\chi _c`$ with the Hodge realization gives $`H(\chi _c(X,\alpha ))=_{i𝐙}(1)^i[H^i(X)_\alpha ]`$ in $`K_0(\text{MHS}_𝐂).`$ Hence, $`\text{gr}_F^pH(\chi _c(X,\alpha ))=_{i𝐙}(1)^idim_𝐂\text{Gr}_F^pH^i(X)_\alpha ,`$ where $`F`$ is the Hodge filtration. By Theorem 6.3-(3) and (6), we have a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`\text{Gr}_F^pH^i(X)𝐇^i(X,\text{Gr}_F^p\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X),`$ where $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X`$ is the filtered complex of Du Bois. By Theorem 6.3-(4), if $`p>n`$ then $`\text{Gr}_F^p\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X=0`$, hence the hypercohomology groups are also zero. Thus $`\text{Gr}_F^pH^i(X)`$ is zero, and in particular the subspace $`\text{Gr}_F^pH^i(X)_\alpha `$ is zero. This proves (1).
Suppose now that $`X`$ has only quotient singularities. Let $`U`$ be the open subvariety of $`X`$ of regular points and $`j:UX`$ the inclusion. By Theorem 6.3-(4),(5),(6), there is a natural quasi-isomorphism, compatible with the $`G`$-action, of $`\text{Gr}_F^n\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X[n]`$ and the complex with $`j_{}\omega _U`$ concentrated in degree zero, where $`\omega _U`$ is the canonical invertible sheaf of $`U`$. Therefore, for any integer $`i`$, we have a natural $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`𝐇^i(X,\text{Gr}_F^n\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\dot{}_X[n])H^i(X,j_{}\omega _U).`$ This gives a $`G`$-isomorphism $`\text{Gr}_F^nH^i(X)H^{in}(X,j_{}\omega _U).`$ Let $`f:YX`$ be a $`G`$-equivariant resolution of $`X`$. By Theorem 6.2, there is a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`\text{Gr}_F^nH^i(X)H^{in}(X,f_{}\omega _Y),`$ where $`\omega _Y`$ is the canonical invertible sheaf of $`Y`$. By the Grauert-Riemenschneider vanishing theorem, $`R^if_{}\omega _Y=0`$ for $`i>0`$ and so, by the Leray spectral sequence, $`H^{in}(X,f_{}\omega _Y)=H^{in}(Y,\omega _Y)`$. Let $`B`$ denote the Serre duality pairing

$$H^{in}(Y,\omega _Y)\times H^{2ni}(Y,𝒪_Y)H^n(Y,\omega _Y)=𝐂.$$

Since $`Y`$ is nonsingular and projective, one knows that $`gB(.,.)=B(g.,g.)`$, for all $`gG`$, and the action on $`H^n(Y,\omega _Y)`$ is trivial. If $`\alpha \widehat{G}`$ is a complex character of $`G`$, then $`dim_𝐂\text{Gr}_F^nH^i(X)_\alpha =dim_𝐂H^{2ni}(Y,𝒪_Y)_{\alpha ^1}.`$ By Theorem 6.1, $`f_{}𝒪_Y=𝒪_X`$ and $`R^if_{}𝒪_Y=0`$, for $`i>0`$. Hence, there is a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism of $`H^{2ni}(Y,𝒪_Y)`$ and $`H^{2ni}(X,𝒪_X)`$. Therefore, $`\text{gr}_F^nH(\chi _c(X,\alpha ))=_{i𝐙}(1)^idim_𝐂H^{2ni}(X,𝒪_X)_{\alpha ^1}`$ which is equivalent with (2). ∎∎


text:
# Upsilon Andromedae: A Rosetta Stone in Planetary Dynamics

## 1. Introduction

Upsilon Andromedae ($`\upsilon `$ And) is a Sun-like star harboring at least three planetary companions (Butler et al. 1999). Definitions and current fitted values of planetary orbital parameters are listed in Table 1, as supplied by D. Fischer and G. Marcy (2002, personal communication).

The quantity $`\omega `$ in Table 1 is a given planet’s argument of pericenter referred to the plane of the sky. For an illustration and more details, see Chiang, Tabachnik, & Tremaine (2001, hereafter CTT). Curiously, the $`\omega `$’s of the outer two planets, c and d, are presently nearly identical: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =\omega _d\omega _c=12{}_{}{}^{}\pm 5{}_{}{}^{}(1\sigma )`$. Let us define $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ to be the mutual inclination between the two orbit planes of planets c and d. If we assume for the moment that $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0^{}`$, then the observation that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |1\mathrm{rad}`$ implies the near perfect alignment of orbital pericenters.

In this review, we address four questions: (1) Is the near equality of $`\omega _d`$ and $`\omega _c`$ coincidental, or does a dynamical mechanism exist to lock the apsidal lines together? (2) If a locking mechanism is present, how did it come to be? (3) What is the origin of the large eccentricities of planets c and d? (4) What effect does the stellar companion to $`\upsilon `$ And (Lowrance, Kirkpatrick, & Beichman 2002) have on the dynamics of the planetary system? Questions (3) and (4) are addressed simultaneously in §3.

## 2. Existence of Secular Resonance

The answer to question (1) is that if $`\mathrm{\Theta }<20^{}`$, then the two planets are trapped in an apsidal resonance for which $`|\mathrm{\Delta }\omega |<38^{}`$ (CTT; Chiang & Murray 2002). If, however, $`\mathrm{\Theta }>20^{}`$, then the pericenters are unlocked and today’s observation of the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is accidental.

Figure 1 summaries the results of 855 numerical orbit integrations, each of duration $`10^6\mathrm{yr}`$, of $`\upsilon `$ And c and d. The innermost planet, b, is neglected in these integrations; its time-averaged potential acts mainly as a small, static quadrupole moment. Each integration begins with a different set of five orientation angles consistent with the Doppler velocity data: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\chi _0`$—the initial inclination, initial longitude of ascending node, and initial argument of pericenter, respectively, of the orbit of planet d referred to that of planet c—and $`\varphi ,\delta `$—the location of the observer on the celestial sphere centered on $`\upsilon `$ And. Simulated systems that begin with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0<20^{}`$ tend not only to be stable but also spend the most time with their $`\omega `$’s nearly equal. Such systems inhabit a so-called secular resonance for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ librates about $`0^{}`$ with an amplitude of $``$$`38^{}`$. This behavior can be described analytically by the Laplace-Lagrange equations (CTT). Those systems that are stable have $`\mathrm{sin}i_c,\mathrm{sin}i_d>0.5`$ (data not shown). Systems at $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0>20^{}`$ are characterized by circulating $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$. Those for which $`40{}_{}{}^{}<\mathrm{\Theta }_0<140^{}`$ are rendered unstable by the Kozai resonance, by which $`e_c`$ is driven by planet d to near unity (CTT).

We submit Figure 1 as our best plausibility argument that the outer two planets of $`\upsilon `$ And occupy nearly co-planar orbits that are seen nearly edge-on and that will remain nearly apse-aligned. This conclusion, in turn, would argue that these planets formed from a flattened circumstellar disk. Verification of the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ will probably have to wait for astrometric measurements of the proper motion of $`\upsilon `$ And. These measurements are currently in progress with the Hubble Space Telescope.

## 3. Eccentricity Excitation and Secular Resonance Capture

That $`m_d`$ likely exceeds $`m_c`$ while $`e_d>e_c`$ stands at odds with the idea that gravitational interactions between planets D and C excited both $`e_d`$ and $`e_c`$ to their present-day values. We are led to the conclusion that an external agent—another planet, a star, or the circumstellar disk from which the planets formed—directly excited $`e_d`$. We favor the third candidate.

Goldreich & Sari (2002) describe a finite-amplitude instability by which a planet’s eccentricity can be resonantly excited by the disk. The timescale for eccentricity amplification is $`e/\dot{e}7\times 10^4(10^4/\alpha )^{4/3}(40M_J/M_D)\mathrm{yr}`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the usual dimensionless viscosity of the disk, and $`M_D`$ is the mass of disk material occupying first-order Lindblad resonances established by the planet. Suppose a circumstellar disk sits just exterior to planet d and excites $`e_d`$. Provided $`\tau _ee_d/\dot{e_d}`$ exceeds apsidal precession timescales ($``$$`8000\mathrm{yr}`$), the (nearly co-planar) system morphs adiabatically through a series of classical Laplace-Lagrange solutions. Chiang & Murray (2002) calculate that the resulting probability of apsidal resonance capture is 100%, that $`e_c`$ grows by siphoning off $`e_d`$, and that continued eccentricity driving damps the apsidal libration amplitude towards zero. Figure 2 illustrates one sample evolution, in which $`e_d`$ is grown from 0 to its present-day value of $``$0.3 over a timescale of $`\tau _e10^5\mathrm{yr}`$.

Note that slow, adiabatic growth of $`e_d`$ is not guaranteed. The viscosity profile of protoplanetary disks is poorly understood. If we adopt $`\alpha =10^2`$ instead, then the evolution is impulsive. Malhotra (2002) computes the evolution in the impulsive limit and calculates a probability of capture into apsidal resonance of approximately 50%. Impulsive driving may also result from violent planet-planet scattering, though the details have yet to be elucidated.

## 4. Ups And B: Nemesis or Benign Companion?

Sitting at a projected separation of 750 AU from $`\upsilon `$ And A is $`\upsilon `$ And B, a proper motion companion of mass $`m_B0.2M_{}`$ (Lowrance et al. 2002). Could this companion star be responsible for exciting the observed eccentricities of planets c and d? The answer is almost certainly no. The usual Kozai mechanism for pumping planetary eccentricities probably cannot operate because apsidal precession rates of the planets due to planet-planet interactions are likely $``$$`10^4`$ times faster than those induced by the star (Chiang & Murray 2002). The star can never “get a handle” on the apses of the planets.

Close encounters between $`\upsilon `$ And B and planet d are not important unless the eccentricity of the former’s orbit exceeds 0.98, an unlikely possibility that would threaten the stability of the entire system.

The impotence of Kozai-type forcing by the star also implies that it is not the route by which the innermost planet, b, attained its current close orbit. We cannot, however, rule out Kozai-type forcing of $`e_b`$ by planets c and d, though this would require that the orbit plane of b be once inclined with respect to those of c and d by more than $``$40. “Type II” migration of planet b induced by a viscous protoplanetary disk seems a more natural hypothesis (Ward 1997).

## References

Butler, R.P., et al. 1999, ApJ, 526, 916

Chiang, E.I., & Murray, N. 2002, ApJ, 576, 473

Chiang, E.I., Tabachnik, S., & Tremaine, S. 2001, AJ, 122, 1607 (CTT)

Goldreich, P., & Sari, R. 2002, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph:0202462)

Lowrance, P., Kirkpatrick, D., & Beichman, C. 2002, ApJL, 572, 79

Malhotra, R. 2002, ApJL, 575, 33

Ward, W. 1997, ApJL, 482, 211