format: text

text:
# Ghost condensates in Yang-Mills theories in nonlinear gauges

## 1 Introduction

Recently, great attention has been devoted to pure Yang-Mills theory quantized in nonlinear gauges, the aim being that of obtaining insights about the nonperturbative infrared behavior. For instance, the so called Maximal Abelian gauge  has been extensively studied in the context of the Abelian dominance hypothesis, according to which the relevant low energy degrees of freedom for Yang-Mills should be described by an effective abelian theory with the addition of monopoles. The condensation of the monopoles should account for the confinement of the chromoelectric charges, according to the dual superconductivity mechanism .

The Maximal Abelian gauge, being a nonlinear gauge, requires the introduction of a four ghost interaction term, needed for the renormalizability of the model . As a consequence, a nontrivial vacuum state arises , corresponding to a nonvanishing value for the ghost condensates $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }\overline{c}^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ and $`\overline{c}^\alpha c^\alpha `$, where the index $`i`$ labels the $`(N1)`$ diagonal generators of the Cartan subgroup of $`SU(N),`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ the $`N(N1)`$ off-diagonal generators. These condensates turn out to display rather interesting features. They modify the behavior of the off-diagonal ghost propagator in the infrared region  and lower the vacuum energy density, being interpreted as a low-energy manifestation of the trace anomaly $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, which is related to the gluon condensate $`\alpha F^2`$.

The aim of this work is to investigate the existence of the ghost condensates $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }\overline{c}^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ in another class of nonlinear gauges  containing a ghost self-interaction term, usually referred as the Curci-Ferrari gauge . This point could be of some help in order to improve our understanding of the meaning of these condensates. Our analysis shows that these condensates seem not to be related to a specific gauge, as the Maximal Abelian gauge, being present also in the Curci-Ferrari gauge. As pointed out in , both the Maximal Abelian and the Curci-Ferrari gauge display a $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry whose generators act nontrivially on the Faddeev-Popov ghosts, while leaving the gauge fields unchanged. It turns out indeed that the ghost condensates $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }\overline{c}^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ are precisely related to the dynamical breaking of $`SL(2,R)`$. It is worth mentioning here that the breaking can occur in different channels, according to which generators are broken. More specifically, the three generators of $`SL(2,R)`$, namely $`\delta `$, $`\overline{\delta }`$ and $`\delta _{FP}`$are known  to obey the algebra $`[\delta ,\overline{\delta }]=`$ $`\delta _{FP}`$, where $`\delta _{FP}`$ denotes the ghost number. The condensate $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ in the Curci-Ferarri gauge has been discussed by  and corresponds to the breaking of the generators $`\delta `$, $`\overline{\delta }`$. In the present work we shall analyse the other condensates $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }\overline{c}^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ which are related to the breaking of $`(\delta ,\delta _{FP})`$ and of $`(\overline{\delta },\delta _{FP})`$, respectively. We remark also that the existence of different channels for the ghost condensation has an analogy in superconductivity, known as the BCS111Particle-particle and hole-hole pairing. versus the Overhauser222Particle-hole pairing. effect . In the present case the Faddeev-Popov charged condensates $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha c^\beta `$, $`f^{i\alpha \beta }\overline{c}^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ would correspond to the BCS channel, while $`f^{i\alpha \beta }c^\alpha \overline{c}^\beta `$ to the Overhauser channel.

Although the analysis of the condensate $`\overline{c}^\alpha c^\alpha `$ is out of the aim of the present work, we underline that, in the Maximal Abelian gauge, it is believed to be part of a more general condensate, namely $`\left(\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^\alpha A^{\mu \alpha }\xi \overline{c}^\alpha c^\alpha \right)`$, where $`\xi `$ denotes the gauge parameter. This condensate has been proposed in  due to its BRST invariance. It is expected to provide effective masses for both off-diagonal gauge and ghost fields , thus playing a very important role for the Abelian dominance. It is useful to note here that the operator $`\left(\frac{1}{2}A^2\xi \overline{c}c\right)`$ generalizes to the Curci-Ferrari gauge, displaying the important property of being multiplicatively renormalizable .

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.2 we present the model and its BRST quantization. Sect.3 is devoted to the evaluation of the one-loop effective potential for the ghost condensates and to the study of the vacuum configurations.

## 2 Yang-Mills in nonlinear gauges

Let us begin by reviewing the quantization of pure $`SU(N)`$Yang-Mills in the Curci-Ferrari gauge. The gauge fixed action turns out to be

$$S=S_{\mathrm{YM}}+S_{\mathrm{gf}},$$
(2.1)
where $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}`$ is the Yang-Mills action

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4}d^4xF^{a\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^a,$$

and $`S_{\mathrm{gf}}`$ denotes the nonlinear gauge fixing term with the quartic ghost interaction

$`S_{\mathrm{gf}}`$ $`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\overline{c}^aA^a+\frac{\xi }{2}\overline{c}^ab^a\frac{\xi }{4}gf^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^bc^c\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x(b^a_\mu A^{\mu a}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}b^ab^a+\overline{c}^a^\mu \left(D_\mu c\right)^a`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}gf^{abc}b^a\overline{c}^bc^c{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{8}}g^2f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^bf^{cmn}c^mc^n).`$
The color indices run here over all generators of $`SU(N)`$, i.e. $`a`$,$`b`$,$`c=1,\mathrm{}.,N^21`$. The operator $`s`$ is the nilpotent BRST operator acting on the fields as

$`sA_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\left(D_\mu c\right)^a,sc^a={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c,`$ (2.3)
$`s\overline{c}^a`$ $`=`$ $`b^a,sb^a=0,`$
and

$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,`$ (2.4)
$`\left(D_\mu c\right)^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu c^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bc^c.`$
Notice that expression $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ contains a unique parameter $`\xi `$. Moreover, as already mentioned, in addition to the BRST invariance, the model displays a further global $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry . The corresponding generators $`\delta ,`$ $`\overline{\delta }`$ and $`\delta _{FP}`$ are given by

$`\delta \overline{c}^a`$ $`=`$ $`c^a,\delta b^a={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}c^bc^c,`$ (2.5)
$`\delta A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta c^a=0,`$
$`\overline{\delta }c^a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{c}^a,\overline{\delta }b^a={\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c,`$ (2.6)
$`\overline{\delta }A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,\overline{\delta }\overline{c}^a=0,`$
and

$`\delta _{FP}c^a`$ $`=`$ $`c^a,\delta _{FP}\overline{c}^a=\overline{c}^a,`$ (2.7)
$`\delta _{FP}A_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`0,\delta _{FP}b^a=0,`$
with

$$[\delta ,\overline{\delta }]=\delta _{FP}.$$
(2.8)
As proven in , the BRST symmetry together with the $`\delta `$ invariance are sufficient to ensure the perturbative renormalizability of the model, meaning that the gauge-fixing $`\left(\text{2}\right)`$ is stable under radiative corrections.

## 3 The ghost condensates

In order to study the ghost condensates $`f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^b`$, $`f^{abc}c^bc^c`$ we first eliminate the Lagrange multiplier field $`b^a`$. From

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta b^a}=_\mu A^{\mu a}+\xi b^a\frac{\xi }{2}gf^{abc}\overline{c}^bc^c,$$
(3.9)
we get

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}+{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2\xi }\left(A^a\right)^2+\overline{c}^a^\mu \left(D_\mu c\right)^a+\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}A^a\overline{c}^bc^c\right)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{\xi }{8}g^2\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^bc^c\right)\left(f^{amn}\overline{c}^mc^n\right)\frac{\xi }{8}g^2\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^b\right)\left(f^{cmn}c^mc^n\right)\right)}.`$
Using the Jacobi identity

$$\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^bc^c\right)\left(f^{amn}\overline{c}^mc^n\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^b\right)\left(f^{cmn}c^mc^n\right),$$
(3.11)
it follows

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\mathrm{YM}}+{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{2\xi }\left(A^a\right)^2+\overline{c}^a^\mu \left(D_\mu c\right)^a+\frac{g}{2}f^{abc}A^a\overline{c}^bc^c\right)}`$ (3.12)
$`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{\xi }{16}g^2\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^b\right)\left(f^{cmn}c^mc^n\right)\right)}.`$
To evaluate the one-loop effective potential for the ghost condensation we introduce auxiliary fields $`\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a`$with ghost number $`2`$and $`2`$, so that

$$\frac{\xi }{16}g^2\left(f^{abc}\overline{c}^a\overline{c}^b\right)\left(f^{cmn}c^mc^n\right)_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}$$
(3.13)
where

$$_{\sigma \overline{\sigma }}=\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{\overline{\sigma }^a}{4}f^{abc}c^bc^c\frac{\sigma ^a}{4}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c.$$
(3.14)
The relevant part of the action for the evaluation of the one-loop effective potential is given by

$`S_{c\overline{c}}^{\mathrm{quad}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left(\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\overline{c}^a^2c^a+\frac{\overline{\sigma }^a}{4}f^{abc}c^bc^c\frac{\sigma ^a}{4}f^{abc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c\right)}`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4x\left[\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{c}^a\hfill & c^a\hfill \end{array}\right)^{ab}\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{c}^b\hfill \\ c^b\hfill \end{array}\right)\right]},`$
where $`^{ab}`$ denotes the $`\left(N^21\right)\times \left(N^21\right)`$ matrix

$$^{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^cf^{cab}\hfill & ^2\delta ^{ab}\hfill \\ ^2\delta ^{ab}\hfill & \frac{1}{2}\overline{\sigma }^cf^{cab}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(3.19)
For the one-loop effective potential we get

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{log}det^{ab}.$$
(3.20)
where $`\sigma ^a,\overline{\sigma }^a`$ have to be considered constant fields and where we have factorized the space-time volume.

Let us proceed by working out in detail the example of $`SU(2)`$. In this case, we have $`f^{abc}=\epsilon ^{abc}(\epsilon ^{123}=1)`$, and $`^{ab}`$ is a $`6\times 6`$ matrix. After a simple computation one has

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+i\frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\mathrm{log}\left(\left(k^2\right)^2+\frac{\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a}{4}\right).$$
(3.21)
From

$$\frac{d^4k}{\left(2\pi \right)^4}\mathrm{log}\left(\left(k^2\right)^2+\phi ^2\right)=\frac{i}{32\pi ^2}\phi ^2\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon }2\gamma +2\mathrm{log}4\pi \mathrm{log}\frac{\phi ^2}{\mu ^4}+3\right),$$
(3.22)
and making use of the minimal subtraction scheme, the effective potential $`V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })`$ is found to be

$$V^{\mathrm{eff}}(\sigma ,\overline{\sigma })=\frac{1}{\xi g^2}\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a}{4}\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{\sigma ^a\overline{\sigma }^a}{4\left(4\pi \right)^2\mu ^4}3+2\gamma \right).$$
(3.23)
Let us look now at the minimum of the potential $`\left(\text{3.23}\right).`$ It is given by the condition

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}^a\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{min}}^a=64\pi ^2\mu ^4e^{\left(22\gamma \right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{128}{\xi }\frac{\pi ^2}{g^2}\right),$$
(3.24)
which is physically consistent for any $`\xi >0.`$Setting now

$$\sigma ^a=\sigma \delta ^{a3},\overline{\sigma }^a=\overline{\sigma }\delta ^{a3},$$
(3.25)
for the vacuum configuration we obtain

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}\overline{\sigma }_{\mathrm{min}}=64\pi ^2\mu ^4e^{\left(22\gamma \right)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{128}{\xi }\frac{\pi ^2}{g^2}\right).$$
(3.26)
The nontrivial minimum configuration $`\left(\text{3.26}\right)`$ means that the local operators $`\epsilon ^{3bc}c^bc^c,`$ $`\epsilon ^{3bc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$ acquire a nonvanishing vacuum expectation value, implying a dynamical breaking of $`SL(2,R)`$. Indeed

$`\epsilon ^{3bc}c^bc^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{FP}\left(\epsilon ^{3bc}c^bc^c\right)=\delta \left(\epsilon ^{3bc}\overline{c}^bc^c\right),`$ (3.27)
$`\epsilon ^{3bc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{FP}\left(\epsilon ^{3bc}\overline{c}^b\overline{c}^c\right)=\overline{\delta }\left(\epsilon ^{3bc}c^b\overline{c}^c\right).`$
Observe also that the vacuum configuration $`\left(\text{3.25}\right)`$, $`\left(\text{3.26}\right)`$ leaves invariant the Cartan subgroup $`U(1)`$ of $`SU(2),`$ in analogy with the Maximal Abelian gauge.

It remains now to face the important question of the stability of the nontrivial vacuum $`\left(\text{3.26}\right)`$, whose physical meaning relies on the existence of a positive value for the parameter $`\xi `$, which plays the role of a coupling constant for the quartic ghost self-interaction. A natural choice for the parameter $`\xi `$ would be given by the fixed point of the corresponding renormalization group function $`\beta _\xi `$. This would require the knowledge of the existence of a nonperturbative fixed point for $`\xi `$, which is beyond our present possibilities. However, it worth to remind that a detailed analysis of the renormalization of the Curci-Ferrari gauge has been performed at one-loop level by . Recently, the authors  have worked out the two and three loops contributions. In particular, according to , the running of $`\xi `$ at one-loop order is found to be

$$\beta _\xi =\frac{\mu }{\xi }\frac{\xi }{\mu }=\left(\frac{13}{3}\frac{\xi }{2}\right)\frac{g^2N}{16\pi ^2},$$
(3.28)
showing that the value $`\xi =26/3`$ is a fixed point, matching the requirements for a nontrivial vacuum. Although one cannot provide a definitive answer, these results give evidences for the existence of the ghost condensation in the Curci-Ferrari gauge.

## Acknowledgments

The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico CNPq-Brazil, the Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (Faperj), the SR2-UERJ and the MIUR-Italy are acknowledged for the financial support. M. Picariello is grateful to the Theoretical Physics Department of UERJ for kind hospitality. The work of A.R. Fazio was supported by EEC Grant no. HPRN-CT-1999-00161 and partially by Fondazione ”Angelo Della Riccia”-Ente morale.


text:
# Holomorphic line bundles on the loop space of the Riemann sphere

## 1. Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a finite dimensional complex manifold. Its loop space $`LM`$ with a specified regularity, for example $`C^k`$ $`(1k\mathrm{})`$ or $`W^{k,p}`$ $`(1k<\mathrm{},1p<\mathrm{})`$, consists of all maps of the circle $`S^1`$ into $`M`$ with the given regularity. $`LM`$ is an infinite dimensional complex manifold. This paper studies holomorphic line bundles on the loop space $`L_1`$ of the Riemann sphere.

A direct motivation comes from , where Millson and Zombro conjecture that there exists a $`PGL(2,)`$ equivariant embedding of $`L_1`$ into a projectivized Banach/Fréchet space. The conjecture arises in connection with extending Mumford’s geometric invariant theory to an infinite dimensional setting. Another indirect motivation comes from , where Witten suggests to study the geometry and analysis of real and complex manifolds through their loop spaces. In finite dimensions it is a problem of fundamental importance to identify the Picard group of holomorphic line bundles on a complex manifold and the space of holomorphic sections of these bundles. Here we address this problem for a class of holomorphic line bundles on the first interesting loop space: $`L_1`$, and in particular make some progress toward answering the conjecture by Millson and Zombro.

The following are the main results of this paper.

If a group $`G`$ acts on a set $`V`$, let $`V^G`$ denote the $`G`$-fixed subset of $`V`$. The loop space of a finite dimensional complex Lie group is a complex Lie group under pointwise group operation (loop group). Let Pic($`L_1`$) be the Picard group of $`L_1`$. The group $`PGL(2,)`$ acts on $`_1`$, so the loop group $`LPGL(2,)`$ acts on $`L_1`$ and on Pic($`L_1`$). Let $`L^{}`$ be the loop group of $`^{}=\{0\}`$, and Hom($`L^{},^{}`$) be the group of holomorphic homomorphisms from $`L^{}`$ to $`^{}`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

$`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ as groups.

Note that $`\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ is a $``$-module of infinite rank, while the group of topological isomorphism classes of line bundles on $`L_1`$ is isomorphic to $``$ (cf. ).

Evaluation of loops in $`_1`$ at $`tS^1`$ gives rise to a holomorphic map $`E_t:L_1_1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$ be the pull back of the hyperplane bundle on $`_1`$ by $`E_t`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$.

1. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_r}^{n_r}`$, where $`n_i0`$ and $`t_it_j`$ for $`ij`$, then $`(n_1+1)\mathrm{}(n_r+1)dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })<\mathrm{}`$.
2. Otherwise $`H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$.

Therefore the sections of no $`LPGL(2,)`$ invariant holomorphic line bundle will give rise to a projective embedding of $`L_1`$.

The isomorphism in Theorem 1.1 is gotten by an explicit construction in Section 2. In Section 3 we prove Theorem 1.2(2). In Section 4 we study the space of holomorphic sections or the zero order Dolbeault cohomology group of line bundles defined in Theorem 1.2(1), and in particular prove Theorem 1.2(1). Any such line bundle obviously has holomorphic sections: products of pulled back sections by the evaluation maps. We will show that for a generic bundle of this type these are all sections. Yet there are bundles which have other sections as well; interestingly, in this case $`dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ depends on the regularity of the loops.

It is natural to ask whether $`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{PGL(2,)}=\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$. If so, then the conjecture made by Millson and Zombro is answered in the negative.

The author would like to thank Professor László Lempert for many helpful conversations and his continuous encouragement. Thanks are also due to Professor John J. Millson and Professor James McClure for valuable communications on some issues related to this paper.

## 2. Identification of $`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$

We fix a regularity class $``$ among $`C^k`$ $`(1k\mathrm{})`$ respectively $`W^{k,p}`$ $`(1k<\mathrm{},1p<\mathrm{})`$. In this paper we write $`LM`$ ($`L_kM`$ resp. $`L_{k,p}M`$) to denote the $``$ ($`C^k`$ resp. $`W^{k,p}`$) loop space of a manifold $`M`$. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be finite dimensional complex manifolds and $`\varphi :MN`$ be a holomorphic map. Define $`L\varphi :LMx\varphi xLN`$. Then $`LM`$ and $`LN`$ are infinite dimensional complex manifolds locally biholomorphic to open subsets of complex Banach (Fréchet when $`=C^{\mathrm{}}`$) spaces, and $`L\varphi `$ is holomorphic. Thus $`L`$ is a functor from the category of finite dimensional complex manifolds to the category of all complex manifolds. Let $`tS^1`$. The evaluation map $`E_t=E_t^{LM}:LMxx(t)M`$ is holomorphic. See Section 2 of .

We call constant maps $`S^1M`$ point loops in $`M`$. They form a submanifold of $`LM`$, which we identify with $`M`$.

Next we define a map $`:\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$. We will show that $``$ is an isomorphism of groups, which will then prove Theorem 1.1.

In Section 6 of  Millson and Zombro construct a holomorphic line bundle on $`L_1`$, and a similar idea in fact yields a map from $`\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ to $`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$ as follows. Let $`p:Q_1`$ be the principal $`^{}`$-bundle associated with the hyperplane bundle $`H_1`$. Applying the loop functor we obtain a principal $`L^{}`$-bundle $`Lp:LQL_1`$. Now a homomorphism $`\phi :L^{}^{}`$ determines a representation of $`L^{}`$ on $``$. Recall that, in general, with a principal $`G`$-bundle $`PB`$ and a representation $`\rho `$ of $`G`$ on a vector space $`V`$, one can functorially associate a vector bundle $`EB`$ with typical fiber $`V`$ (see Section 12.5 of ). If $`h_{ab}`$ are the $`G`$-valued transition functions of $`P`$ with respect to some trivialization, the corresponding transition functions of $`E`$ will be $`\rho (h_{ab})`$. Accordingly we associate with $`Lp`$ and $`\phi `$ a line bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$. Define the map

$$:\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})\mathrm{Pic}(L_1),\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi .$$

Note that the $`PGL(2,)`$ action on $`_1`$ can be covered by a $`GL(2,)`$ action on $`Q`$. One way to see this is to pass to the tautological $`^{}`$-bundle $`Q^1`$, whose total space is $`^2\{0\}`$, on which the $`GL(2,)`$ action is standard. The $`GL(2,)`$ action on $`Q`$ gives rise to an $`LGL(2,)`$ action on $`LQ`$. Since $`LGL(2,)LPGL(2,)`$ is surjective (as follows from the exact homotopy sequence associated with the fibration $`^{}GL(2,)PGL(2,)`$ and the lifting of homotopies), this $`LGL(2,)`$ action will in fact cover the $`LPGL(2,)`$ action on $`L_1`$. In particular, $`\gamma ^{}LQLQ`$ for $`\gamma LPGL(2,)`$. Hence $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ and we have proved the following

###### Proposition 2.1.

The range of $``$ is in $`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$.

Let $`𝔘=\{U_a=_1\{a\}:a_1\}`$. Then

$`(2.1)`$
$$L𝔘=\{LU_a:a_1\}$$

is an open covering of $`L_1`$. Now we introduce a way to construct Čech cohomology classes in $`H^1(L𝔘,𝒪^{})`$. Let $`𝒪^G`$ denote the sheaf of holomorphic maps to the complex Lie group $`G`$ from a complex manifold. So $`𝒪^{^{}}=𝒪^{}`$. If $`c=(c_{ab})`$ is a Čech 1-cocycle of $`𝔘`$ with values in the sheaf $`𝒪^{}`$ and $`[c]`$ its cohomology class, then $`Lc=(Lc_{ab})`$ is a Čech 1-cocycle of $`L𝔘`$ with values in $`𝒪^L^{}`$. Any $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ induces a sheaf homomorphism $`𝒪^L^{}𝒪^{}`$. Since the cohomology class of $`\phi Lc`$ depends only on $`[c]`$, we obtain a map

$`(2.2)`$
$$H^1(𝔘,𝒪^{})\times \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})H^1(L𝔘,𝒪^{}),([c],\phi )[\phi Lc],$$

a group homomorphism in both variables.

Fix $`[c]`$ in (2.2) to be the class $`[c_H]`$ of the hyperplane bundle $`H_1`$, where

$`c_H=\{g_{ab}𝒪^{}(U_aU_b):a,b_1,ab\},`$
(2.3) $`g_{ab}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{zb}{za},& a,b\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill zb,& a=\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{za},& b=\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array},zU_aU_b.`$
Then we obtain a homomorphism $`\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})H^1(L𝔘,𝒪^{})`$, $`\phi [c_\phi ]`$, where

$`(2.4)`$
$$c_\phi =\{\phi Lg_{ab}𝒪^{}(LU_aLU_b):a,b_1,ab\},$$

which has the same range as the map in (2.2).

###### Proposition 2.2.

The line bundle associated to $`[c_\phi ]`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$. In particular $``$ is a homomorphism.

###### Proof.

From the definitions it follows that $`Lc_H=(Lg_{ab})`$ is a family of transition functions of $`Lp`$, hence $`c_\phi `$ in (2.4) is a family of transition functions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$. ∎

Let $`tS^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$ be the pull back of the hyperplane bundle on $`_1`$ by the evaluation map $`E_t^{L_1}`$. Obviously $`E_t^L^{}\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$, and by Proposition 2.2 $`(E_t^L^{})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t`$.

To prove Theorem 1.1 we need the following preparations.

Identify $`LU_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`L`$ and let $`yL^{}`$. Define the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_y:L\times _1(x,\lambda )x+\lambda yL_1`$, where by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_y(x,\mathrm{})`$ we mean the point loop $`\mathrm{}L_1`$. Since a continuous map $`h:\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ between open subsets of Fréchet spaces is holomorphic if and only if its restriction to the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ with any affine line is holomorphic, see Sections 2.3, 3.1 of , one can easily check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_y`$ is holomorphic. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Phi }_y(x,):_1L_1`$ is a holomorphic embedding, whose image we will denote by $`v(x,y)`$. The existence of subvarieties $`v(x,y)`$ immediately implies that any holomorphic function on $`L_1`$ is constant.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|__1H^n`$, then we say that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of order $`n`$, or $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=n`$; and we claim that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(x,y)}H^n`$, $`xL`$, $`yL^{}`$. This would imply that the only holomorphic section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the zero section if $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })<0`$. To show the claim, let $`c_1`$ denote the rational first Chern class of a line bundle. According to the first theorem of , the inclusion $`_1L_1`$ induces an isomorphism $`H^2(L_1,)H^2(_1,)`$, so that $`c_1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is completely determined by $`c_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }|__1)=n`$. Hence $`c_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(x,y)})`$ , and therefore the degree of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(x,y)}`$, is also determined by $`n`$. That this degree is itself $`n`$ then follows from computing it in the special case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n`$.

Let $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$. The restriction of $`\phi `$ to the subgroup of point loops must be of the type $`zz^n`$, $`z^{}`$, where $`n`$. We call this $`n`$ the order of $`\phi `$ and denote it by $`\mathrm{ord}(\phi )`$. Proposition 2.2 implies that $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )=\mathrm{ord}(\phi )`$. Let $`F_x`$ be the fiber of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at $`xL_1`$.

###### Proposition 2.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$, $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$ and $`yL^{}`$. For any $`\zeta F_{\mathrm{}}\{0\}`$ there exists a unique non-vanishing section $`\sigma =\sigma _{y,\zeta }H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ such that $`lim_\lambda \mathrm{}\sigma (x+\lambda y)=\zeta `$, $`xLU_{\mathrm{}}`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{LU_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is holomorphically trivial.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(x,y)}`$ is trivial, uniqueness is obvious. As to existence, let $``$ be a hyperplane in $`L`$ such that $`y`$ and consider the line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\mathrm{\Phi }_y^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{\times _1}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_y\mathrm{}`$ on $`\times \{\mathrm{}\}`$, $`s=\mathrm{\Phi }_y^{}\zeta `$ is a non-vanishing holomorphic section of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|_{\times \{\mathrm{}\}}`$. In turn $`s`$ determines a section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|_{\times _1}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|_{\{x\}\times _1}`$ is the unique non-vanishing holomorphic section of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|_{\{x\}\times _1}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(x,\mathrm{})=s(x,\mathrm{})`$, for all $`x`$. Next we show that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is holomorphic. Let $`x_0`$. By Proposition 5.1 of  there exist a neighborhood $`x_0U`$ and a section $`vC^{\mathrm{}}(U\times _1,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ such that $`v`$ is holomorphic on $`\{x\}\times _1`$ for all $`xU`$, and $`v|_{\{x_0\}\times _1}=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|_{\{x_0\}\times _1}0`$. By choosing a sufficiently small $`U`$ we can assume $`v0`$. The function $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }/v`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`U\times \{\mathrm{}\}`$ and is constant on $`\{x\}\times _1`$, $`xU`$, hence is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`U\times _1`$. So it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }C^{\mathrm{}}(\times _1)`$. Since $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|_{\times \{\mathrm{}\}}=0`$ and $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }|_{\{x\}\times _1}=0`$ for all $`x`$, by Proposition 5.2(ii) of  we obtain that indeed $`\overline{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=0`$. Then the desired $`\sigma `$ is the pull back of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ by $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_y|_\times )^1`$. ∎

Since $`H|_U_{\mathrm{}}`$ is trivial, so is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t|_{LU_{\mathrm{}}}`$. In general, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)`$, $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=n`$. As

$`(2.5)`$
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n\mathrm{\Lambda }),\mathrm{where}\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n\mathrm{\Lambda })=0,$$

Proposition 2.3 implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{LU_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is also trivial. More generally, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{LU_a}`$ is trivial, $`a_1`$, which means

###### Corollary 2.4.

$`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)H^1(L𝔘,𝒪^{})`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$, then Proposition 2.3 can be improved: $`\sigma `$ there is essentially independent of $`y`$, and so is a canonical section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{LU_{\mathrm{}}}`$.

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$, $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })0`$. Then there exists a non-vanishing section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ such that $`lim_\lambda \mathrm{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(x+\lambda y)`$ exists for all $`xLU_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`yL^{}`$. Such a section is unique up to a multiplicative constant.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ exists. For any $`yL^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(0,y)}H^{\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ has a unique holomorphic section which does not vanish on $`v(0,y)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and assumes $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ at $`0`$; clearly $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ agrees with this section on $`v(0,y)\{\mathrm{}\}`$. In particular, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ is uniquely determined by $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(0)`$, $`yL^{}`$. Since $`L^{}`$ is dense in $`L=LU_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is completely determined by its value at $`0`$, or unique up to a multiplicative constant. Next we show the existence.

First assume $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$. Let $`\zeta F_{\mathrm{}}\{0\}`$, $`y_1,y_2L^{}`$, and $`\sigma _{y_1,\zeta },\sigma _{y_2,\zeta }H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ as in Proposition 2.3. Define

$$h=h_{y_1,y_2}=\frac{\sigma _{y_1,\zeta }}{\sigma _{y_2,\zeta }}𝒪^{}(LU_{\mathrm{}}),$$

which is independent of the choice of $`\zeta F_{\mathrm{}}\{0\}`$. For fixed $`x_1L`$ let $`\mu LPGL(2,)`$ be the translation $`xx+x_1`$, $`xL_1`$. Clearly $`\mu ^{}\sigma _{y_i,\zeta }H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, $`i=1,2`$, is a section of the type as in Proposition 2.3. With a fixed isomorphism $`\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mu ^{}\sigma _{y_i,\zeta }`$ corresponds to $`\sigma _{y_i,\zeta ^{}}`$, where $`\zeta ^{}F_{\mathrm{}}\{0\}`$. Therefore

$$h(x+x_1)=\mu ^{}h(x)=\frac{\mu ^{}\sigma _{y_1,\zeta }}{\mu ^{}\sigma _{y_2,\zeta }}(x)=\frac{\sigma _{y_1,\zeta ^{}}}{\sigma _{y_2,\zeta ^{}}}(x)=h(x).$$

Thus $`h=h_{y_1,y_2}`$ is a non-zero constant. From the definition of $`\sigma _{y_2,\zeta }`$ it follows that $`\sigma _{y_1,\zeta }=h\sigma _{y_2,\zeta }`$ extends to be a section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|_{v(x,y_2)}`$ for all $`xL`$, where $`y_2L^{}`$ is arbitrary. The upshot is $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=\sigma _{y_1,\zeta }`$ with arbitrary $`y_1,\zeta `$ will do.

Second assume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n`$, $`n0`$. If $`s`$ is a section of $`H^n`$, nonzero on $`_1\{\mathrm{}\}`$, take $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=(E_t^{L_1})^{}s`$. Finally, these two special cases and (2.5) imply the general case. ∎

Theorem 1.1 follows from

###### Theorem 2.6.

$`:\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$ is a group isomorphism.

###### Proof.

i) Injectivity. If $`(\phi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ is trivial, then $`\mathrm{ord}(\phi )=0`$; and by Proposition 2.2 and (2.4) we can find $`f_a𝒪^{}(LU_a)`$, $`a_1`$, such that $`f_a=(\phi Lg_{ab})f_b`$ on $`LU_aLU_b`$. In particular, $`f_{\mathrm{}}=\phi f_0`$ on $`L^{}L_1`$. For any $`yL^{}`$ we have

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}f_{\mathrm{}}(\lambda y)=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (\lambda y)f_0(\lambda y)=\phi (y)f_0(\mathrm{}),$$

since $`\phi (\lambda y)=\phi (\lambda )\phi (y)=\phi (y)`$. Thus $`f_{\mathrm{}}|_{v(0,y)\{\mathrm{}\}}`$ extends to all of $`v(0,y)`$, and so must be constant. In particular, $`f_{\mathrm{}}(y)=f_{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ itself is a constant. Similarly $`f_0`$ is also a constant. Then $`\phi `$ is a constant which can only be $`1`$.

ii) Surjectivity. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n`$ is in the range of $``$, by (2.5) we only need to show that any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$ with $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$ is in the range of $``$.

Let $`\epsilon (x)=1/x`$, $`xL_1`$. The induced bundle $`\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so Proposition 2.5 applies to produce a non-vanishing $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\epsilon ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Then $`\sigma _0=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}\epsilon H^0(LU_0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is characterized, up to a multiplicative constant, by the fact that $`lim_\lambda \mathrm{}\sigma _0\left((x+\lambda y)^1\right)`$ exists, for all $`xLU_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`yL^{}`$. To get rid of the ambiguity in the choice of the constant, fix a non-zero $`sH^0(_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and choose $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ (as in Proposition 2.5) to agree with $`s`$ on point loops. Set $`\varphi =\sigma _0/\sigma _{\mathrm{}}:L^{}^{}`$. Note that on point loops $`\varphi =1`$. We will show that $`\varphi `$ is a homomorphism and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$.

For this purpose fix $`y_1L^{}`$ and define $`\gamma (x)=y_1x`$, $`xL_1`$. It is straightforward that the non-vanishing section $`\gamma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition 2.5. Hence under an isomorphism $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\gamma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds to a constant multiple of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. Similarly, under this isomorphism $`\gamma ^{}\sigma _0`$ corresponds to a constant multiple of $`\sigma _0`$. Therefore

$$\varphi (y_1y)=\left(\gamma ^{}\varphi \right)(y)=\frac{\gamma ^{}\sigma _0}{\gamma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}(y)=c\frac{\sigma _0}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}(y)=c\varphi (y).$$

Letting $`y=1`$ we get $`c=\varphi (y_1)`$, so $`\varphi `$ is indeed a homomorphism.

Finally with $`a`$ let $`\mu _a(x)=x+a,xL_1`$. For the bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mu _a^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one can construct corresponding sections $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ and $`\sigma _0^{}`$; for the normalization, use $`s^{}=\mu _a^{}sH^0(_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})`$. As $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\sigma _0^{}/\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{}=\varphi `$. Since $`(\mu _a^1)^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{}H^0(LU_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition 2.5 and agrees with $`s`$ on point loops, $`(\mu _a^1)^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{}=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`\sigma _a=(\mu _a^1)^{}\sigma _0^{}H^0(LU_a,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Since

$$\frac{\sigma _a}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}=\left(\mu _a^1\right)^{}\frac{\sigma _0^{}}{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^{}}=\varphi \mu _a^1,$$

it is straightforward to check that the transition functions $`\sigma _b/\sigma _a𝒪^{}(LU_aLU_b)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ agree with those of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ given in (2.4); therefore $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ is indeed in the range of $``$. ∎

Let $`(L)^{}`$ be the space of continuous linear functionals on $`L`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(L)^{}`$ be the Lie algebra homomorphism induced by $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$, and $`x_0L^{}`$ be a fixed loop whose winding number with respect to $`0`$ is $`1`$. The reader can check that the map

$$\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})\{\varphi (L)^{}:\varphi (1)\}\times ^{},\phi (\stackrel{~}{\phi },\phi (x_0))$$

is an isomorphism of groups. Therefore $`\mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ is a $``$-module of infinite rank.

The proof of Theorem 2.5 implies the following

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$, $`\mathrm{ord}(\phi )0`$. There is a family of non-vanishing sections $`\{\sigma _aH^0(LU_a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi ):a_1\}`$, unique up to an overall multiplicative constant, that satisfies $`\sigma _b/\sigma _a=\phi Lg_{ab}`$ on $`LU_aLU_b`$. Furthermore, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition 2.5.

###### Proof.

Uniqueness is obvious: if $`\{\sigma _a^{}\}`$ is another family then $`\{\sigma _a^{}/\sigma _a\}`$ defines a holomorphic function on $`L_1`$, which, as we have said, must be a constant. When $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$, the family $`\{\sigma _a\}`$ is constructed in the proof of Theorem 2.6. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n`$, take sections $`\tau _a`$ of the hyperplane bundle $`H_1`$ such that $`\tau _b/\tau _a=g_{ab}`$ (see (2.3)), then $`\sigma _a=(E_t^{L_1})^{}\tau _a^n|_{LU_a}`$ will do. The case of a general $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ now follows from (2.5). ∎

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.2(2)

We start with two results concerning polynomials on $`L`$. For simplicity let $`E_t`$ denote both $`E_t^L(L)^{}`$ and $`E_t^L^{}\text{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$ till the end of this paper.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If a homogeneous polynomial $`h𝒪(L)`$ of degree $`n1`$ does not vanish on $`L^{}`$, then $`h=cE_{t_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_n}`$, where $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_nS^1`$, and $`c0`$ is a constant.

###### Proof.

Since $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is embedded into $`L`$ with a dense image, we only need to show the lemma for the case of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ loops.

Let $`W=LL^{}`$, $`𝒵_hW`$ be the zero locus of $`h`$, and $`\mathrm{Emb}(S^1,)L_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the open subset of embedded loops. Then $`𝒵_h\text{Emb}(S^1,)\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise for any $`x\text{Emb}(S^1,)`$, the polynomial $`h(x+\lambda )`$ in $`\lambda `$ has no zero, hence is constant. In particular, $`h(x+1)=h(x)`$ on $`\text{Emb}(S^1,)`$ and therefore on $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$. So $`h(1)=h(0)=0`$. But $`1L^{}`$, contradiction.

Let $`x_1W\text{Emb}(S^1,)`$. Next we show that $`W`$ is a submanifold of real codimension one near $`x_1`$. Let $`t_1`$ be the unique element of $`S^1=/`$ such that $`x_1(t_1)=0`$. We can assume that $`x_1^{}(t_1)`$ is not real, otherwise replace $`x_1`$ by $`ix_1`$. Consider the equation

$`(3.1)`$
$$\text{Im}x(s)=0,xL_{\mathrm{}},sS^1.$$

This equation can also be considered on the $`C^k`$ loop space $`L_k`$, $`1k<\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`\text{Im}x_1^{}(t_1)0`$. Apply the Implicit Function Theorem on Banach spaces (see Theorem 2.5.7 of ) to the $`C^k`$ map $`L_k\times S^1`$, $`(x,t)\text{Im}x(t)`$ near $`(x_1,t_1)`$. When $`k=1`$ we obtain a neighborhood $`U_1L_1`$ of $`x_1`$ consisting of embedded loops, a neighborhood $`VS^1`$ of $`t_1`$, and a $`C^1`$ map $`\varphi :UV`$ such that for any $`xU`$, $`s=\varphi (x)`$ is the unique solution of (3.1) in $`V`$. We can shrink $`U_1`$ and $`V`$ if necessary to ensure that $`\text{Im}x^{}(t)0`$ for all $`(x,t)U_1\times V`$. For arbitrary $`k<\mathrm{}`$ we obtain that $`\varphi `$ is $`C^k`$ on $`U_k=U_1L_k`$ by the Implicit Function Theorem at any $`(x,\varphi (x))`$, $`xU_k`$. This implies that $`\varphi `$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`U=U_1L_{\mathrm{}}`$. We can choose sufficiently small $`U`$ so that $`x(t)0`$ if $`xU`$ and $`tV`$; then

$`(3.2)`$
$$x\left(\varphi (x)\right)=0,xUW.$$

Let $`Y`$ be the real hyperplane $`\{yL_{\mathrm{}}:\text{Im}y(t_1)=0\}`$ of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$. Define the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\tau :S^1\times YL_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`(s,x(t))x(ts)`$. The $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ map $`\rho :US^1\times Y`$, $`x(t)(\varphi (x)t_1,x(t+\varphi (x)t_1))`$ is the local inverse of $`\tau `$ near $`(t_1,x_1)`$. Let $`_t`$ be the kernel of $`E_t`$. Note that $`_{t_1}Y`$. Since $`\tau (S^1\times _{t_1})=W`$ and by (3.2) $`\rho (WU)S^1\times _{t_1}`$, $`WU`$ is a submanifold of real codimension one of $`U`$. Its tangent space is

$`(3.3)`$
$$TW_x=_{\varphi (x)}\{x^{}\},xWU,$$

if we identify the tangent space of $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ at $`x`$ with $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Now assume $`x_1\text{Emb}(S^1,)𝒵_h`$. Let $`v_{t_1}`$ and $`v_0W`$. Consider the restriction of $`h`$ to the $`2`$-dimensional affine subspace $`E=\{x_1+\lambda _1v+\lambda _2v_0:\lambda _1,\lambda _2\}`$. Let $`\delta :\mathrm{\Delta }𝒵_hEUW`$ be a holomorphic arc such that $`\delta (0)=x_1`$ and $`0\delta ^{}(0)TW_{x_1}`$. As for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`\delta ^{}(\lambda )`$ is in the maximal complex subspace of $`T_{\delta (\lambda )}W`$, $`\delta ^{}(\lambda )_{\varphi (\delta (\lambda ))}`$ by (3.3). Since $`\varphi `$ is constant on $`_{\varphi (\delta (\lambda ))}U`$, the derivative of $`\varphi `$ in the direction of $`\delta ^{}(\lambda )`$ is zero, hence $`\varphi \delta t_1`$. In view of (3.2) $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta })_{t_1}E`$. It follows that $`\{x_1+\lambda _1v\}𝒵_h`$ and $`_{t_1}𝒵_h`$.

The local ring $`𝒪(L_{\mathrm{}})_x`$, $`xL_{\mathrm{}}`$, is a unique factorization domain, see Proposition 5.15 of . The germ of $`E_{t_1}`$ at any $`x_{t_1}`$ is prime, for the functions $`e(\lambda )=E_{t_1}(x+\lambda y)`$ vanish to first order at $`\lambda =0`$ if $`y(t_1)0`$. Applying the Nullstellensatz in Theorem 5.14 of  to the prime ideals $`((E_{t_1})_x)`$, $`x_{t_1}`$, we obtain that $`h=E_{t_1}\stackrel{~}{h}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}𝒪(L_{\mathrm{}})`$. On any affine line $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$, so it is a polynomial of degree $`n1`$ on $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$, see Section 2.2 of . The zero locus of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is still in $`W`$, so that repeating the above process we obtain the conclusion of the lemma. ∎

Let $`𝒫^n(L)`$ be the space of holomorphic polynomials of degree $`n`$ on $`L`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`h_1,h_2𝒪(L)`$ and $`\phi 𝒪(L^{})`$ satisfy $`\phi (\lambda y)=\lambda ^n\phi (y)`$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`yL^{}`$, $`n\{0\}`$. If $`h_1(y)=\phi (y)h_2(y^1)`$, $`yL^{}`$, then $`h_1,h_2𝒫^n(L)`$. Let $`h_j^i`$ be the $`i`$-th order homogeneous component of $`h_j`$, $`j=1,2`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. Then $`h_1^i(y)=\phi (y)h_2^{ni}(y^1)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`xL`$, $`yL^{}`$, then

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{h_1(x+\lambda y)}{\lambda ^n}=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}\phi (x\lambda ^1+y)h_2((x+\lambda y)^1)=\phi (y)h_2(0).$$

Thus $`h_1(x+\lambda y)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$ in $`\lambda `$. As $`L^{}`$ is dense in $`L`$, the same holds for all $`yL`$. Since a continuous function on a Fréchet space is a polynomial of degree $`n`$ if its restriction to any affine line is such a polynomial, see Section 2.2 of , we conclude that $`h_1𝒫^n(L)`$. Similarly $`h_2𝒫^n(L)`$. Comparing homogeneous components of same order on both sides of the equation $`h_1(y)=\phi (y)h_2(y^1)`$, we get $`h_1^i(y)=\phi (y)h_2^{ni}(y^1)`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$. ∎

Let $`\sigma H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$, $`\mathrm{ord}(\phi )0`$. With sections $`\sigma _aH^0(LU_a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi ),a_1`$, in Proposition 2.7, the functions $`H_a=\sigma /\sigma _a𝒪(LU_a)`$ satisfy

$`(3.4)`$
$$H_a(x)=\phi Lg_{ab}(x)H_b(x),xLU_aLU_b.$$

Note that $`Lg_{ab}`$ maps $`LU_a`$ to $`L`$ biholomorphically, and let $`h_{ab}=H_aLg_{ab}^1𝒪(L)`$. Then (3.4) implies that

$`(3.5)`$
$$h_{ab}(y)=\phi (y)h_{ba}(y^1),yL^{}.$$

From Proposition 3.2 it follows that $`h_{ab}𝒫^n(L)`$; also

$`(3.6)`$
$$H_{\mathrm{}}=h_\mathrm{}0𝒫^n(L).$$

Proof of Theorem 1.2(2). By Theorem 2.6 each element of $`\mathrm{Pic}(L_1)^{LPGL(2,)}`$ is of the type $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$, $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ has a non-zero holomorphic section $`\sigma `$. We can assume that $`\sigma (\mathrm{})0`$; this can be arranged by pulling $`\sigma `$ back by a suitable element of $`LPGL(2,)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi |__1H^n`$ also has a non-zero section, so $`\mathrm{ord}(\phi )=n0`$. Note that $`h_0\mathrm{}(0)=H_0(\mathrm{})0`$. By (3.5), applied with $`ab=\mathrm{}0`$, and Proposition 3.2

$`(3.7)`$
$$h_\mathrm{}0^n(y)=\phi (y)h_0\mathrm{}(0)0,yL^{}.$$

Hence $`h=h_\mathrm{}0^n𝒪(L)`$ satisfies the condition in Lemma 3.1, so $`h_\mathrm{}0^n=cE_{t_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_n}`$. By (3.7) $`\phi =E_{t_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_n}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ is of the type as in Theorem 1.2(1). ∎

## 4. The space of holomorphic sections

In this section we shall study the space $`H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is as in Theorem 1.2(1), and we shall prove Theorem 1.2(1). Since $`dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })=1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is trivial, we fix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ nontrivial, where

$`(4.1)`$
$$\phi =E_{t_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_r}^{n_r},n_i>0,t_it_j\mathrm{if}ij.$$

With $`\sigma _aH^0(LU_a,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ as in Proposition 2.7 and $`\sigma H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$, we have seen that $`\sigma /\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=H_{\mathrm{}}𝒫^n(L)`$, cf. (3.6). Define a monomorphism

$$_\phi :H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )𝒫^n(L),\sigma \sigma /\sigma _{\mathrm{}},$$

where $`n=\mathrm{ord}(\phi )0`$. Let $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )𝒫^n(L)`$ be the range of $`_\phi `$. We shall study $`H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ through $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$.

The bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$, where $`\phi `$ is as in (4.1), has non-trivial holomorphic sections: products of pull back sections by evaluation maps on $`L_1`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The linearly independent functions $`E_{t_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_r}^{m_r}`$ are in $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$, $`0m_in_i,1ir`$. In particular, $`(n_1+1)\mathrm{}(n_r+1)dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$.

###### Proof.

Choose a basis $`\{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j:j=0,\mathrm{},n_1\}`$ of $`H^0(_1,H^{n_1})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_0`$ has a zero of order $`n_1`$ at $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_j=z^j\stackrel{~}{\tau _0}`$, $`z_1`$. Let $`\tau _j=(E_{t_1}^{L_1})^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau _j}H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_1}^{n_1})`$. The section $`\tau _0|_{LU_{\mathrm{}}}`$ satisfies the conditions in Proposition 2.5. Therefore

$$_\phi (\tau _j)=\tau _j/\tau _0=E_{t_1}^{}z^j=E_{t_1}^j.$$

Similarly we have pull back sections of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_i}^{n_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. By taking products of such sections we obtain sections of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$, hence $`E_{t_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}E_{t_r}^{m_r}\mathrm{R}(_\phi ),0m_in_i,1ir`$. Another way of obtaining these functions is to pull back monomials on $`^r`$ by the surjective map $`(E_{t_1},\mathrm{},E_{t_r}):L^r`$, which interpretation proves the claim of linear independence. ∎

The elements of $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$ identified in Proposition 4.1 are in the subalgebra of $`𝒫^n(L)`$ generated by evaluation functions. In other words they are polynomials in finitely many linear functionals. The next proposition shows that this is true in general. For convenience, in Propositions 4.2 and 4.3 we shall restrict our discussion to $`C^k`$ ($`1k\mathrm{}`$) loop spaces $`L_k_1`$. Let $`x^{(\nu )}(t)`$ denote the $`\nu `$-th derivative of $`xL_k`$ at $`tS^1=/`$, $`\nu k`$. Note that the function $`xx^{(\nu )}(t)`$ is in $`(L_k)^{}`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

If $`\sigma H^0(L_k_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ and $`P=_\phi (\sigma )`$, then $`P(x)`$ is a polynomial in finitely many derivatives $`x^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$, $`0\nu k`$, $`1ir`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A=\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_r\}S^1`$, $`x_0L_kU_{\mathrm{}}`$, and denote the $`k`$-jet of $`xL_k_1`$ by $`j^kx`$. Define

$$Z=Z(k,A,x_0)=\{xL_k_1:j^kx|_A=j^kx_0|_A\}.$$

This is a connected complex submanifold of $`L_k_1`$ and any holomorphic function on it is a constant, see Sections 3, 4 of . Consider the sections $`\sigma _a`$ of Proposition 2.7. In the proof of that proposition we have shown that, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_t^n`$, $`\sigma _a`$ can be taken to be the pullback by $`E_t^{L_1}`$ of sections $`\tau _a`$ of the hyperplane bundle $`H_1`$, $`\tau _a0`$ on $`U_a`$. When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{t_i}^{n_i}`$, $`\sigma _a`$ can be taken as the product of such sections. Then $`\sigma _a(x)=0`$ only if $`x(t_i)=a`$ for some $`i`$; in particular $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}0`$ on $`Z`$. It follows that $`\sigma /\sigma _{\mathrm{}}|_Z𝒪(Z)`$ is constant, i.e., $`P`$ is constant on any affine subspace

$`(4.2)`$
$$\{xL_k:j^kx|_A=j^kx_0|_A\},x_0L_k.$$

When $`k<\mathrm{}`$, the continuous linear functionals $`xx^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$, $`0\nu k`$, $`1ir`$, give rise to a surjective linear map $`J:L_k^{(k+1)r}`$, whose fibers are the affine subspaces in (4.2). What we have shown above implies that $`P=J^{}f`$, where $`f`$ is a function on $`^{(k+1)r}`$. In fact $`f`$ is a holomorphic polynomial of degree $`n`$, for with a linear right inverse $`I`$ to $`J`$ we have $`f=PI`$.

Consider the case when $`k=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`P^j`$ be the $`j`$-th order homogeneous component of $`P𝒫^n(L_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. These components are also constant on any affine subspace in (4.2). By the definition of a homogeneous polynomial we can find a continuous symmetric $`j`$-linear mapping $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j:(L_{\mathrm{}})^j`$ such that $`P^j(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x,\mathrm{},x)`$. Applying the Schwartz Kernel Theorem (see Theorem 5.2.1 of ) one can show that there exists a distribution $`K_j`$ in the $`j`$ dimensional torus $`T^j`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x_1,\mathrm{},x_j)=K_j(x_1(s_1)\mathrm{}x_j(s_j)),(s_1,\mathrm{},s_j)T^j.$$

So $`P^j(x)=K_j(x(s_1)\mathrm{}x(s_j))`$. The Polarization Formula (see (2) in Section 2.2 of )

$$K_j\left(x_1(s_1)\mathrm{}x_j(s_j)\right)=\frac{1}{2^jj!}\underset{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _j=\pm 1}{}\epsilon _1\mathrm{}\epsilon _jP^j(\epsilon _1x_1+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _jx_j)$$

and the fact that $`P^j`$ depends only on $`j^{\mathrm{}}x|_A`$ imply that $`K_j`$ is supported in $`A^jT^j`$. Therefore $`K_j`$ is a (finite) linear combination of partial derivatives at points in $`A^j`$, see Theorem 2.3.4 of . Hence $`P^j`$ and $`P`$ are polynomials in finitely many $`x^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$, $`xL_{\mathrm{}}`$. ∎

For each $`i`$ let $`N_i`$ be the order of the highest derivative $`x^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$ that $`P(x)`$ depends on, see Proposition 4.2, and $`m_i`$ the degree of $`P(x)`$ as a polynomial of $`x^{(N_i)}(t_i)`$. Our next task is to estimate $`N_i`$, $`m_i`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

$`m_i\left(N_i+1\right)n_i`$, where $`n_i`$ is defined in (4.1).

###### Proof.

Fix $`i`$. At first assume $`P=_\phi (\sigma )`$ contains the monomial

$`(4.3)`$
$$c_1x^{(N_i)}(t_i)^{m_i},$$

where $`c_10`$ is a constant. By (3.6) and (3.5) $`P=h_\mathrm{}0`$ satisfies $`h_0\mathrm{}(y)=\phi (y)h_\mathrm{}0(y^1)`$ so that Proposition 3.2 implies that

$`(4.4)`$
$$h_0\mathrm{}^{nm_i}(x)=\phi (x)\left[P^{m_i}(x^1)\right],xL_k^{},$$

where superscripts indicate homogeneous components of the given order. Since $`P^{m_i}`$ is a polynomial in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`P^{m_i}(x^1)`$ is a sum of rational expressions, where the denominators are monomials in $`x(t_j)`$, $`1jr`$, and the numerators are monomials in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`\nu 1`$. In this sum the monomial in (4.3) gives rise to the term

$$c_1(1)^{m_iN_i}(N_i!)^{m_i}\frac{x^{(1)}(t_i)^{m_iN_i}}{x(t_i)^{m_i(N_i+1)}},$$

which is the only term in $`P^{m_i}(x^1)`$ with this high or higher power of $`x(t_i)`$ in the denominator. Hence taking

$$x(t)=x_s(t)=e^{2\pi i(tt_i)}1+s,s(1,0),$$

in (4.4) and noting that $`\phi (x_s)=_jx_s(t_j)^{n_j}`$, we obtain

$`(4.5)`$
$$h_0\mathrm{}^{nm_i}(x_s)=s^{n_im_i(N_i+1)}\underset{ji}{}x_s(t_j)^{n_j}\left(c_2+sg(s)\right),$$

where $`c_20`$ is a constant, $`g(s)`$ is a rational function in $`s`$ which is bounded on the interval $`(1,0)`$. In order that the limit of right hand side of (4.5) exist as $`s0^{}`$ we must have $`m_i(N_i+1)n_i`$.

The proof is finished if we can show that for any $`\sigma H^0(L_k_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ there exists $`\sigma ^{}H^0(L_k_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ such that the corresponding $`N_i^{}=N_i`$, $`m_i^{}=m_i`$, and $`_\phi (\sigma ^{})`$ contains the monomial (4.3).

We write $`P`$ in the form

$$P(x)=x^{(N_i)}(t_i)^{m_i}f_1(x)+f_2(x),xL_k,$$

where $`f_1(x),f_2(x)`$ are polynomials in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`f_10`$ is independent of $`x^{(N_i)}(t_i)`$ and the degree of $`f_2`$ in $`x^{(N_i)}(t_i)`$ is strictly less than $`m_i`$. Let $`yL_k^{}`$, and $`\gamma L_kPSL(2,)`$ be the map $`xy(x+1)`$, $`xL_k_1`$. Let $`P^{}`$ denote $`_\phi (\gamma ^{}\sigma )`$. From Propositions 2.7 and 2.5 we obtain that $`\gamma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=c_3\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ (with a fixed isomorphism $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$), where $`c_30`$ is a constant. Therefore

(4.6) $`P^{}(x)=c_3{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^{}\sigma }{\gamma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}}}(x)=c_3\gamma ^{}P(x)=c_3P\left(y(x+1)\right),xL_k.`$
Computing the right hand side of (4.6) by the product rule, we find that it contains the monomial

$$c_3y(t_i)^{m_i}f_1(y)\left(x^{(N_i)}(t_i)\right)^{m_i}.$$

Since $`f_10`$, we can find $`y`$ such that $`f_1(y)0`$; then we can choose $`\sigma ^{}=\gamma ^{}\sigma `$. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.2(1). The lower bound is given in Proposition 4.1. For the case of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ loops Propositions 4.2 and 4.3 imply that $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi ))`$ consists of polynomials of degree $`\mathrm{ord}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`0\nu n_j1`$, $`1jr`$, therefore $`dimH^0(L_{\mathrm{}}_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )<\mathrm{}`$. Since in general $`L_{\mathrm{}}_1`$ is continuously embedded into $`L_1`$ with a dense image, so that the restriction map $`H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )H^0(L_{\mathrm{}}_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ is monomorphic, we conclude that $`dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )<\mathrm{}`$. ∎

An immediate application of Proposition 4.3 is to identify all holomorphic sections of a “generic” bundle of the type considered in Theorem 1.2(1).

###### Corollary 4.4.

If $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_r=1`$ in (4.1), then $`dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )=2^r`$.

###### Proof.

Proposition 4.3 gives that $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$ only contains polynomials in evaluation maps $`E_{t_1},\mathrm{},E_{t_r}`$, of degree $`1`$ in each variable, and all such polynomials are indeed in $`\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$ by Proposition 4.1. ∎

There are bundles as in Theorem 1.2(1) which have holomorphic sections other than those identified in Proposition 4.1. We shall show this by an explicit construction.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`h𝒪(L)`$ and $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(L^{},^{})`$. Then $`h\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$ if and only if there exists a family $`\{f_a𝒪(L):a\}`$ such that

$`(4.7)`$
$$h(x+a)=\phi (x)f_a(x^1),xL^{}.$$

###### Proof.

With $`\sigma _a`$ of Proposition 2.7 (4.7) is equivalent to

$$h(x)\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(x)=f_a\left((xa)^1\right)\sigma _a(x),xLU_aLU_{\mathrm{}},a,$$

which defines a section $`\sigma H^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ such that $`_\phi (\sigma )=h`$ and vice versa. ∎

From now on, until the last paragraph, we shall work with the space of $`C^k`$ loops. Let $`h𝒪(L_k^{})`$ be a rational function of finitely many $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`0\nu k`$, $`1jr`$. Letting each $`t_j`$ vary in $`S^1`$, $`h`$ induces a function $`\chi C(L_k^{}\times (S^1)^r)`$. If $`h`$ does not depend on the highest derivative $`x^{(k)}(t_i)`$ for some $`i`$ (this is automatically satisfied if $`k=\mathrm{}`$), then $`\chi `$ is differentiable in $`t_i`$, and we define

$$h^{t_i}(x)=\frac{}{t_i}\chi (x,t_1,\mathrm{},t_r).$$

Thus $`h^{t_i}𝒪(L_k^{})`$ is also a rational function in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, $`0\nu k`$, $`1jr`$. If $`h`$ was a polynomial, so will be $`h^{t_i}`$. The linear map $`T^i:hh^{t_i}`$ satisfies $`T^i(h_1h_2)=T^i(h_1)h_2+h_1T^i(h_2)`$, $`T^i(h(x^1))=(T^ih)(x^1)`$, and $`T^i(h(x+a))=(T^ih)(x+a)`$ if $`h𝒪(L_k)`$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

Let $`\phi _i=\phi E_{t_i}`$, and assume that $`h\mathrm{R}(_\phi )`$ does not depend on $`x^{(k)}(t_i)`$ for some $`i`$. Then $`h^{t_i}\mathrm{R}(_{\phi _i})`$.

###### Proof.

If $`f_a`$ is defined as in Proposition 4.5, Proposition 3.2 implies $`f_a𝒫^n(L)`$. Since $`h`$ and $`\phi `$ depend only on $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$, so does $`f_a`$: it is in fact a polynomial in $`x^{(\nu )}(t_j)`$ ($`\nu <k`$ if $`j=i`$, $`\nu k`$ for all other $`j`$). Applying $`T^i`$ to (4.7) we obtain

$`h^{t_i}(x+a)=T^i\left(h(x+a)\right)`$ $`=n_i\phi (x)x(t_i)^1x^{(1)}(t_i)f_a(x^1)+\phi (x)f_a^{t_i}(x^1)`$
$`=\phi _i(x)\stackrel{~}{f}_a(x^1),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a(x)=n_ix^{(1)}(t_i)f_a(x)+x(t_i)f_a^{t_i}(x)`$, so that $`h^{t_i}\mathrm{R}(_{\phi _i})`$ by Proposition 4.5. ∎

Finally we shall discuss the order $`N_i`$ of the highest derivative $`x^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$ that $`_\phi (\sigma )`$ can depend on, in the case of the $`C^k`$ loop space $`L_k_1`$. Recall from Propositions 4.2, 4.3 that $`N_i\mathrm{min}(k,n_i1)`$. It turns out that this estimate is sharp:

###### Theorem 4.7.

There exists a section of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$ for which $`N_i=\mathrm{min}(k,n_i1)`$.

###### Proof.

With $`\mu _i=\mathrm{min}(k,n_i1)`$ and $`0\nu \mu _i`$ let $`\phi _\nu =\phi E_{t_i}^{\nu \mu _i}`$. Proposition 4.1 gives that $`E_{t_i}\mathrm{R}(_{\phi _0})`$. Repeatedly applying Proposition 4.6 we obtain that the functions $`h_\nu (x)=x^{(\nu )}(t_i)`$ are in $`\mathrm{R}(_{\phi _\nu })`$ for $`\nu \mu _i`$. Thus $`h_{\mu _i}(x)=x^{(\mu _i)}(t_i)`$ is in the range of $`_\phi `$, and $`N_i=\mu _i`$ if $`\sigma =_\phi ^1h_{\mu _i}`$. ∎

A similar reasoning would apply to the space of $`W^{k,p}`$ loops, where the largest value for $`N_i`$ turns out to be $`\mathrm{min}(k1,n_i1)`$. A remarkable consequence of this is that while for generic bundles $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi `$, as we have seen in Corollary 4.4, $`dimH^0(L_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\phi )`$ does not vary with the regularity of loops, when at least one $`n_i>1`$, this dimension will depend on the regularity class $`C^k`$, $`W^{k,p}`$ considered.


text:
# Constraining the Leading Weak Axial Two-body Current by SNO and Super-K

## I Introduction

Recent conclusive results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) have established the existence of non-electron active neutrino components in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ solar neutrino flux  and hence have given a strong evidence for neutrino oscillation. These results are based on the three reactions measured by SNO to detect the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ solar flux

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _e+d\hfill & \hfill & p+p+e^{}\hfill & \text{(CC)},\hfill \\ \nu _x+d\hfill & \hfill & p+n+\nu _x\hfill & \text{(NC)},\hfill \\ \nu _x+e^{}\hfill & \hfill & \nu _x+e^{}\hfill & \text{(ES).}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
The charged current reaction (CC) is sensitive exclusively to electron-type neutrinos, while the neutral current reaction (NC) is equally sensitive to all active neutrino flavors ($`x=e,\mu ,\tau `$). The elastic scattering reaction (ES) is sensitive to all active flavors as well, but with reduced sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. Detection of these three reactions allows SNO to determine the electron and non-electron active neutrino components of the solar flux, and it is then obvious that the cross sections for these three reactions are important inputs for SNO. The cross sections for all three reactions are determined from theory, but the CC and NC cross sections involve nuclear-physics complexities not present in the ES interaction description. Thus the CC and NC cross sections have become the main source of theoretical uncertainties for SNO.

The complexities in the CC and NC processes are due to two-body currents which are interactions involving two nucleons and external leptonic currents. In the potential model approach, the two-body currents are associated with the meson exchange currents and can be calculated in terms of unknown weak couplings. In effective field theory (EFT), the two-body currents are parameterized. In both cases, experimental data from some other processes are required in order to calibrate the unknowns in the problem. In EFT, this calibration procedure can be described in an economic and systematic way. The reason is that, up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in EFT, all low-energy weak interaction deuteron breakup processes depend on a common isovector axial two-body current, parameterized by $`L_{1,A}`$  (see more explanations in the next section). This implies that a measurement of any one of the breakup processes could be used to fix $`L_{1,A}`$. A summary of the previous efforts in the determination of $`L_{1,A}`$ can be found in Ref. .

In this paper, after briefly reviewing the EFT approach, we will present the constraint on $`L_{1,A}`$ using a combined analysis of the CC, NC and ES data from SNO and Super-Kamiokande (SK). We then compare this new result with other determinations of $`L_{1,A}`$ and comment on the interpretation of SNO’s measurements with the assumption about the size of $`L_{1,A}`$ eliminated.

## II Effective Field Theory

For the deuteron breakup processes used to detect solar neutrinos, where the neutrino energies $`E_\nu <15`$ MeV, the typical momentum scales in the problem are much smaller than the pion mass $`m_\pi (140`$ MeV$`).`$ In these systems pions do not need to be treated as dynamical particles since they only propagate over distances $`1/m_\pi `$, much shorter than the scale set by the typical momentum of the problem. Thus the pionless nuclear effective field theory, $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ , is applicable.

In $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$, the dynamical degrees of freedom are nucleons and non-hadronic external currents. Massive hadronic excitations such as pions and the delta resonance are not dynamical. Their contributions are encoded in the contact interactions between nucleons. Nucleon-nucleon interactions are calculated perturbatively with the small expansion parameter

$$Q\frac{(1/a,\gamma ,p)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(2)
which is the ratio of the light to heavy scales. The light scales include the inverse S-wave nucleon-nucleon scattering length $`1/a(12`$ MeV$`)`$ in the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ channel, the deuteron binding momentum $`\gamma (=45.7`$ MeV) in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ channel, and the typical nucleon momentum $`p`$ in the center-of-mass frame. The heavy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is set by the pion mass $`m_\pi `$. This formalism has been applied successfully to many processes involving the deuteron , including Compton scattering , $`npd\gamma `$ for big-bang nucleosynthesis , $`\nu d`$ reactions for SNO physics , the solar $`pp`$ fusion process , and parity violating observables  . In addition, this formalism has been applied successfully to three-nucleon systems . It has revealed highly non-trivial renormalizations associated with three body forces in the $`s_{1/2}`$ channel (e.g., 3He and the triton). For other channels, precision calculations were carried out to higher orders .

For low energy deuteron breakup processes, it is well known that the dominant contributions to the hadronic matrix elements are the $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ transitions through the isovector axial couplings. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ state (such as a deuteron) has spin $`S=1`$ and isospin $`I=0`$, while the $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ state has $`S=0`$ and $`I=1`$. Amongst the spin-isospin operators 1, $`\tau ^a`$, $`\sigma ^i`$ and $`\tau ^a\sigma ^i`$, only the isovector axial coupling $`\tau ^a\sigma ^i`$ can connect $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ states. The $`{}_{}{}^{3}S_{1}^{}^3S_1`$ transitions are suppressed at low energies because i) the isovector operators do not contribute (the transition is isoscalar) and ii) the matrix elements of the one-body isoscalar operators vanish in the zero recoil limit ($`d`$ and $`np`$ states are orthogonal in this limit). This leads to large suppression of the isoscalar two-body contributions through the interference terms. Also, at low energies, the non-derivative operators are more important than the derivative operators. Thus the leading two-body current contributions for low energy weak interaction deuteron breakup processes only depend on a non-derivative, isovector axial two-body current, $`L_{1,A}`$.

In Ref. , $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ is applied to compute the cross-sections for four channels (CC, NC, $`\overline{\nu }_e+de^++n+n`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_x+d\overline{\nu }_x+n+p`$) to NNLO, up to 20 MeV (anti)neutrino energies. As already mentioned, these processes have been shown to depend on only one parameter, $`L_{1,A}`$. This dependence is subject to an intrinsic uncertainty in our EFT calculation at NNLO of less than 3%. Through varying $`L_{1,A}`$, the potential model results of Refs.  and  are reproduced to high accuracy for all four channels. This confirms that the $`5\%`$ difference between Refs.  and  is due largely to different assumptions made about short distance physics.

The same two-body current $`L_{1,A}`$ also contributes to the proton-proton fusion process $`p+pd+e^++\nu _e`$. This is the primary reaction in the $`pp`$ chain of nuclear reactions that power the sun, reactions which in turn generate the neutrino flux to be observed by SNO. The calculations in $`\mathrm{EFT}(\pi /)`$ were carried out initially to second order , and then to fifth order . Thus a calibration to SNO’s CC and NC reactions can also be used to calibrate the proton-proton fusion process.

## III Fixing $`L_{1,A}`$ From a Combined NC, CC and ES Analysis

In this section we present the constraint on $`L_{1,A}`$obtained from a combined analysis of the solar neutrino fluxes measured by CC, NC, and ES reactions. In SNO’s analysis, a specific $`L_{1,A}`$was chosen in CC and NC reactions. The extracted solar neutrino fluxes from CC and NC were then compared to each other and to ES to extract a consistent set of neutrino flavor-conversion probabilities and to map allowed regions in a 2-mass mixing description. Here we take $`L_{1,A}`$as a free parameter and use the available experimental data from SNO and SK to fix not only the flavor-conversion probabilities but also $`L_{1,A}`$. The only assumption we will make is that the total flux for the active solar neutrinos has the standard 8B shape.

In the two-flavor oscillation analysis there are three parameters extracted, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$, $`\theta _{12}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}`$, which are the differences between the squares of the neutrino masses, the mixing angle, and the total active neutrino flux. There are three separate experimental inputs, the ES, CC, and NC rates. It might at first be thought impossible to extract a fourth parameter, $`L_{1,A}`$, without additional inputs or assumptions, such as fixing the shape of the electron-neutrino spectrum. The shape is experimentally determined, but not yet with high accuracy. Our strategy is to note that, in active-only oscillations, there is no shape distortion in the total flux, and that the integrated spectral response in the CC reaction over a certain range of final electron energies is the same as that in the ES reaction over a different range of energies, independent of distortions of the neutrino spectrum .

The CC and NC are measured at SNO and the ES is both measured at SNO and SK. The measured event rates are the integrals of the effective cross sections weighted by the solar neutrino fluxes that reached the target.

$`R_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{NC}f_{\nu _x}},`$ (3)
$`R_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CC}f_{\nu _e}},`$ (4)
$`R_{ES}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_ef_{\nu _e}}+{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }\left[f_{\nu _x}f_{\nu _e}\right]},`$ (5)
where $`R_i`$ is the event rate, $`f_{\nu _i}`$ is the $`\nu _i`$ flux and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy. $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i`$ is the effective cross section, defined in Appendix A, with $`i=e,\mu ,\tau `$ for $`\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }+e`$ ES interaction. These effective cross sections are the true cross sections convoluted with the detector resolution functions which describe how the energy is transferred to electrons and detected by their Cherenkov radiations. The effective cross sections depend on the electron detection threshold $`T_i^{th}`$. For CC and NC reactions, they also depend on $`L_{1,A}`$.

The total flux for the active solar neutrinos is assumed to have the standard 8B shape,

$$f_{\nu _x}\left(E\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}\left(E\right),$$
(6)
where $`\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}`$ is the normalized $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ shape function ($`_0^{E_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑E\varphi _{8B}\left(E\right)=1`$)  and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}`$ is the magnitude of the $`\nu _x`$ flux. This assumption is valid if there are no oscillations to sterile neutrinos, or, even if such mixing is present, the survival probability to active neutrinos is energy independent. Similarly, the $`\nu _e`$ flux is

$$f_{\nu _e}\left(E\right)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}\left(E\right)P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}\left(E\right),$$
(7)
where $`P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}\left(E\right)`$ is the probability distribution of finding a $`\nu _e`$ out of a $`\nu _x`$. Obviously, $`P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}\left(E\right)`$ is bounded between $`0`$ and $`1`$.

We follow Villante et al. in Ref. to define the averaged effective cross sections $`\overline{\sigma }_i`$ and the normalized response functions $`\rho _i\left(E\right)`$ for the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum

$`\overline{\sigma }_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}\left(E\right)},`$ (8)
$`\rho _i\left(E\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}\left(E\right)}{{\displaystyle 𝑑E\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_i\varphi _{{}_{}{}^{8}B}\left(E\right)}}}.`$ (9)
Then we rewrite eqs. (3-5) using eqs.(6-9)

$`R_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_{NC},`$ (10)
$`R_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_{CC}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho _{CC}P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}},`$ (11)
$`R_{ES}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\left[\overline{\sigma }_e\rho _e\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }\rho _{\mu ,\tau }\right]P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}.`$ (12)
An important observation made in Ref.  is that the terms with the normalized response function $`\rho \left(E\right)`$ dependence can be related by choosing suitable detection thresholds. This allows us to reduce the numbers of unknowns such that eqs.(10-12) become solvable. These approximate relations and their corrections are systematically explored in Appendix A. As shown in Fig.1(b), $`\rho _{CC}`$ is very insensitive to $`L_{1,A}`$. Thus we can set

$$\frac{}{L_{1,A}}\rho _{CC}\left(E\right)|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}=0.$$
(13)
Also, as shown in Fig. 1(c), to a very good approximation,

$$\rho _e\left(E\right)|_{T_e^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}=\rho _{\mu ,\tau }\left(E\right)|_{T_{\mu ,\tau }^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}.$$
(14)
The corrections of the above relations change $`L_{1,A}`$ by up to a negligible amount of 0.25 fm3. A more significant correction comes from

$$\rho \left(E\right)\rho _{CC}\left(E\right)|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}\rho _e\left(E\right)|_{T_e^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}.$$
(15)
We will use a parameter $`ϵ`$ in eq.(22) to parametrize the correction.

Because of eq.(13), the $`L_{1,A}`$ dependence only shows up in $`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}`$. The scaling can be written as

$`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0g_{NC}(L_{1,A}),`$ (16)
$`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0g_{CC}(L_{1,A}),`$ (17)
where the $`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0`$ are the values used by SNO  which are based on the calculation of Ref.  with the electromagnetic radiative corrections of Ref.  (see Ref.  for an earlier attempt) and a 5 MeV electron detection threshold. These cross sections are corresponding to the NNLO EFT results with $`L_{1,A}(\overline{\mu }=m_\pi )=4.0`$ fm3, where the renormalization scale $`\overline{\mu }`$ is set to the pion mass. In the following expressions, we will suppress the $`\overline{\mu }`$ dependence of $`L_{1,A}`$ for simplicity. The scaling functions can be parametrized as

$`g_{NC}(L_{1,A})`$ $`=`$ $`1+\alpha _{NC}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^3}}4.0\right),`$ (18)
$`g_{CC}(L_{1,A})`$ $`=`$ $`1+\alpha _{CC}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^3}}4.0\right),`$ (19)
where $`\alpha _{NC}=0.013`$ and $`\alpha _{CC}=0.010`$. It is interesting to note that if $`\overline{\sigma }`$ were averaged true cross sections instead of the averaged effective cross sections, then $`\alpha _{NC}`$ and $`\alpha _{CC}`$ would be almost identical . The larger difference here is due to the difference in the detection methods. As shown in eqs.(A2) and (A5), the CC event detection requires the final state electron energy to be above a certain detection threshold, thus leptons transferring too much energy to the hadrons will not be detected. For NC detection, however, there is no such discrimination—all the neutrons generated in NC have the same probability to be detected in the thermalization and capture process. Thus in general, the scaling factor of NC is associated with that of more energetic scattering (with larger energy transfer to the hadrons) than that of CC. We find the qualitative difference between $`\alpha _{NC}`$ and $`\alpha _{CC}`$ is consistent with the neutrino energy dependence of the scaling factors calculated in Ref. .

Substituting eqs.(13-17) into the eqs. (10-12), we have

$`R_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0g_{NC}(L_{1,A}),`$ (20)
$`R_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0g_{CC}(L_{1,A}){\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}},`$ (21)
$`R_{ES}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}\overline{\sigma }_e\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}\right)\left(1+ϵ\right){\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}\right].`$ (22)
Note that $`T_{CC}^{th}=T_{NC}^{th}=5`$ MeV and $`T_{\mu ,\tau }^{th}=T_e^{th}=6.8`$ MeV to be consistent with eq.(15 ). $`ϵ`$ parametrizes the correction to the approximate identity of eq.(15). As shown in Appendix A , there is a model independent bound

$$\left|ϵ\right|<4\%.$$
(23)
This correction introduces changes $`L_{1,A}`$ by up to $`\pm 2.0`$fm3 but changes the other quantities by negligible amounts.

Now it is clear that eqs.(20-22) are solvable. The three equations determine three quantities: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}`$, $`L_{1,A}`$ and $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}`$, which are the magnitude of the total active neutrino flux, the axial two-body current, and the measured $`\nu _e/\nu _x`$ ratio, respectively. If there is no neutrino oscillation, then $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}=1`$.

For the experimental inputs, SNO has measured the ES rates, but the SK determination is more precise while in agreement with SNO. Therefore we use the SK measurements not only to provide a value for the integral above 6.8 MeV as shown above, but also to fix (and remove) the ES contribution to the total SNO rates above 5 MeV. With 1496 days of data, SK reports  the equivalent electron neutrino fluxes ($`R_{ES}/\overline{\sigma }_e`$) for analysis thresholds of 6.5 and 5.0 MeV,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.5)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.362_{0.068}^{+0.074}\right)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(5.0)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.348_{0.066}^{+0.073}\right)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1,`$ (25)
respectively, where the statistical and systematic errors have been added in quadrature. Here and in the subsequent analysis in this paper, where asymmetric errors occur, we simply use the larger. We take the uncertainties in the two SK fluxes to be fully correlated. In view of the lack of significant threshold-energy dependence in the SK flux, we assume

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.8)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.5).$$
(26)
SNO provides a model-independent value for the NC rate, obtained by separating the CC and NC parts of the signal by their different radial and sun-angle dependences in the detector. This result is independent of the energy spectrum of the CC events. Converting the flux reported into an equivalent number of events gives $`727\pm 190`$ detected in the 306.4-day running period.

In Table I the event rates needed for the model-independent analysis are summarized. The “true” number of ES events in the SNO data set is derived from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(5.0)`$ and the SNO effective elastic scattering cross section with a 5.0 MeV threshold $`\overline{\sigma }_e|_{5.0}`$,

$$\overline{\sigma }_e|_{5.0}=1.10\times 10^4\text{ cm}^2\text{sT}^1,$$
(27)
derived from Ref. . (The number is in excellent agreement with the $`263.6\pm 26.4(\mathrm{stat}.)`$ obtained during the SNO signal extraction.) One could derive a value for the CC rate directly from the fifth and sixth lines of this table, but the two would be highly correlated. It is preferable to make use of expressions for NC + CC and NC because the summed rate is essentially free of correlation with the NC rate. So we use

$`R_{NC}+R_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{tot}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(5.0)\overline{\sigma }_e|_{5.0}=\left(2546\pm 59\right)\text{T}^1\text{ ,}`$ (28)
$`R_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(727\pm 190\right)\text{T}^1,`$ (29)
where T$`=`$306.4 days.

The averaged effective cross sections of SNO can be extracted from Ref.

$`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0`$ $`=`$ $`1.13\times 10^4\text{ cm}^2\text{sT}^1,`$ (30)
$`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0`$ $`=`$ $`1.12\times 10^3\text{ cm}^2\text{sT}^1.`$ (31)
The effective cross sections are subject to uncertainty from a variety of sources, tabulated by SNO . These include principally the energy scale, vertex-reconstruction accuracy, and (for the NC reaction) energy resolution and neutron capture efficiency. The sources of uncertainty produce in some cases correlated variations in the effective cross sections, which are explicitly accounted for in the analysis.

In general we should have added $`3\%`$ systematics for the NNLO EFT calculations of $`\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0`$, because for an EFT with a small expansion parameter $`Q1/3`$, 3% error is reasonable for a third order (NNLO) calculation. In the analysis of , however, a faster convergence is seen in four channels of (anti)neutrino-deuteron scattering, such that 1-2% higher corrections also seems reasonable. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the higher order corrections can be absorbed in $`L_{1,A}`$ in low energy processes. One indication that this might happen is in the comparison with the potential model calculations. The potential model results have quite different systematics to those of EFT. The fact that NNLO EFT can fit four channels of (anti)neutrino-deuteron reaction results of  to within $`1\%`$  suggests that higher order effects can be absorbed in $`L_{1,A}`$. Further investigation is still required to see whether the higher order effects shift $`L_{1,A}`$ approximately the same amount. For matrix elements with similar kinematics, this is likely to be true. In our case, we have CC and NC in approximately the same energy region. Thus we expect the higher order effects just shift $`L_{1,A}`$ by a certain amount ($`+2`$ to $`+3`$ fm3, with the sign fixed by the fifth order proton-proton fusion calculation  as will be explained in more detail later) without introducing additional error to the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}`$ and $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}`$ determinations.

For ES reactions with a $`6.8`$-MeV threshold, the ratio of the neutral current and electron neutrino scattering cross sections is,

$$\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}=0.153,$$
(32)
with radiative corrections included.

Now we have all the inputs required to solve eqs. (20-22). The full set of equations is nonlinear in $`L_{1,A}`$, but a linearized solution may be obtained by making a first-order expansion for $`g_{CC}/g_{NC}=1+(\alpha _{CC}\alpha _{NC})(L_{1,A}/`$fm$`{}_{}{}^{3}4.0)+\mathrm{}`$ The term quadratic in $`(L_{1,A}/`$fm$`{}_{}{}^{3}4.0)`$ is $`10^4`$ and can be neglected. Using this approximation, the solutions of eqs.(20-21) are:

$`({\displaystyle \frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^3}}4.0)=\left[\alpha _{CC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.8)\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0+(\alpha _{NC}\alpha _{CC})R_{NC}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0}{\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0}}\right]^1`$ (33)
$`\times \left\{\left[R_{tot}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(5.0)\overline{\sigma }_e|_{5.0}R_{NC}\right]\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}\right)(1+ϵ)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.8)\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0+R_{NC}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0}{\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0}}\right\},`$ (34)
$$𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}(6.8)\frac{g_{NC}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0}{R_{NC}}\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}\right)\left(1\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}\right)^1\left(1+ϵ\right)^1,$$
(35)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}=\frac{R_{NC}}{g_{NC}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0}.$$
(36)
Inserting the experimental and theoretical quantities,

$`L_{1,A}`$ $`=`$ $`4.0\pm 4.7(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 4.5(\mathrm{syst}.)\text{fm}^3,`$ (37)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _x}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(6.4\pm 1.4\pm 0.6\right)\times 10^6\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1,`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.25_{0.07}^{+0.12}\pm 0.03.`$ (39)
The statistical errors in $`L_{1,A}`$are dominated by $`R_{NC}`$, and the systematic errors by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{SK}}`$ and by vertex reconstruction accuracy in SNO.

A few comments can be made about the result we obtain in eq.(38). First, the only assumption we have made is that the active neutrino flux has the standard $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ shape. The rest of the treatment is model independent in the sense that we have not assumed the size of $`L_{1,A}`$ or assumed any neutrino oscillation scenarios. Second, our result on $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}`$ can be used to constrain neutrino oscillation parameters. Third, the size of the active neutrino flux is consistent with the $`\nu _e`$ flux of the standard solar model $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{SSM}=\left(5.05_{0.81}^{+1.01}\right)\times 10^6`$cm-2s-1. This sets a constraint on the oscillations between the active and sterile neutrinos. Fourth, the range of $`L_{1,A}`$ we have obtained is consistent with the estimated value $`\left|L_{1,A}\right|`$ $`6`$ fm3 (at $`\overline{\mu }=m_\pi `$) from dimensional analysis . It is also consistent with the constraints from reactor-antineutrino deuteron breakup processes  , tritium beta decay , helioseismology , and the latest improved potential model results  (corresponding to $`L_{1,A}`$ $`=4.0`$ fm3). The comparison of their corresponding NNLO $`L_{1,A}`$’s is listed in Table II. Here we have assumed that most of the higher order effects in EFT can be absorbed by $`L_{1,A}`$, and the higher order theoretical systematics are therefore not included in the assigned error bars. We expect a $`+2`$ to $`+3`$ fm3 contribution to the effective value of $`L_{1,A}`$ from higher orders. The sign is fixed by an explicit fifth-order calculation of the proton-proton fusion at threshold  which shows that $`L_{1,A}`$ shifts by +2 to +3 fm3 from the third order (NNLO) to the fifth order. Even though the tritium beta decay analysis assumes that the three-body current is negligible and the helioseismology analysis does not include the uncertainties from the solar model, it is still very encouraging that all the constraints agree with each other very well, given how different the physical systems are.

It is likely in the future the error bar of $`R_{NC}`$ could be reduced by a factor of 2. In that case, the error on $`L_{1,A}`$ would be reduced to 5 fm3.

It is also interesting to reinvestigate the null hypothesis (specifically that all observed fluxes can be described consistently within the Standard Model of Particles and Fields) when $`L_{1,A}`$ is allowed to float. $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}=1`$ in the Standard Model, and thus the set of three equations (20-21) contain only two parameters. One finds that the set is inconsistent at 4.3 $`\sigma `$. Alternatively, if one uses the experimental determination of $`L_{1,A}`$from reactor data (Table II), the null hypothesis fails at 5.1 $`\sigma `$ (SNO only) or 5.3 $`\sigma `$ (SNO and SK). Thus, even if SNO were to place no reliance at all on the theoretical calculations of short-distance physics , it would still be true that the no-flavor-conversion hypothesis is ruled out with high confidence.

One might suspect that if the value of $`L_{1,A}`$ is taken from some other constraints, perhaps the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ shape assumption for the active neutrino flux can be removed. This question can be easily answered by inspecting the new set of equations

$`R_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^0g_{NC}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho _{NC}P_{\nu _e\nu _x}},`$ (40)
$`R_{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^0g_{CC}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e\nu _e}},`$ (41)
$`R_{ES}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B\overline{\sigma }_e\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho _{\mu ,\tau }P_{\nu _e\nu _x}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_e}}\right)\left(1+ϵ\right){\displaystyle 𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e\nu _e}}\right],`$ (42)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ are the un-oscillated $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ $`\nu _e`$ flux and $`P_{\nu _e\nu _i}`$ is the probability distribution between the $`\nu _e\nu _i`$ transition. If $`\rho _{NC}`$ and $`\rho _{\mu ,\tau }`$ satisfy the relation

$`\rho _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}=\rho _{\mu ,\tau }|_{T_{\mu ,\tau }^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}},`$then one can determine $`𝑑E\rho _{NC}P_{\nu _e\nu _x}`$, $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e\nu _e}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ provided $`L_{1,A}`$ is given. Unfortunately, the above relation, which implies $`\rho _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}=\rho _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}`$, does not hold, as shown in Fig. 1(a) in Appendix A.

## IV Conclusions

We have analyzed the SNO and SK data on CC, NC and ES reactions to constrain the leading axial two-body current $`L_{1,A}.`$ This two-body current contributes the biggest uncertainty in every low energy weak interaction deuteron breakup process, including SNO’s CC and NC reactions. The only assumption made in this analysis is that the total flux of active neutrinos has the standard $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectral shape (but distortions in the electron neutrino spectrum are allowed). We have confirmed that SNO’s conclusions about the inconsistency of the no-flavor-conversion hypothesis and the magnitude of the active solar neutrino flux do not have significant theoretical model dependence. Our method has shown that SNO can be self-calibrated or be calibrated by SK with respect to theoretical uncertainties, and that the resulting calibration produces results in close accord with theoretical expectations. Alternatively, the purely experimental determination of $`L_{1,A}`$from reactor antineutrino data can be used to remove the dependence on theory, and SNO’s conclusions are unaffected.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Petr Vogel for useful discussions. JWC is supported, in part, by the Department of Energy under grant DOE/ER/40762-213. RGHR is supported by the DOE under Grant DE-FG03-97ER41020.

## A Computation of the Normalized Response Functions to the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ Spectrum

In this Appendix, we define of the effective cross sections and then show the numerical results that support eqs.(13-15).

For CC and ES reaction, the effective cross section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is related to the true cross section $`\sigma `$ through the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{CC(ES)}=\eta _{CC(ES)}_{T_{CC(ES)}^{th}}𝑑T𝑑T^{}r_{CC(ES)}(T,T^{})\frac{d\sigma _{CC(ES)}}{dT^{}},$$
(A1)
where $`\eta `$ is an experimental efficiency, $`T^{}`$ is the true kinetic energy of the final state lepton and $`T`$ is the electron energy recorded through the Cherenkov radiation of the electron, and $`T^{th}`$ is the detection threshold. If the resolution of the detector were perfect, the resolution function $`r(T,T^{})`$ would be a delta function. For SNO, $`r(T,T^{})`$ is a Gaussion function

$$r_{CC(ES)}(T,T^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }_{CC(ES)}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(TT^{})^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{CC(ES)}^2}\right]$$
(A2)
with resolution

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{CC}=\left(0.0684+0.331\sqrt{\frac{T^{}}{\text{MeV}}}+0.0425\frac{T^{}}{\text{MeV}}\right)\text{MeV .}$$
(A3)
For ES reactions, we have used the SK result rather than the SNO result for better statistics. The resolution for SK is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ES}=\sqrt{\frac{T^{}}{10\text{MeV}}}1.5\text{MeV .}$$
(A4)
For NC reaction, the final state neutrons are thermalized then captured by deuterons to form tritons and photons in SNO’s first phase running. The photons subsequently excite electrons which produce Cherenkov radiation. Thus the SNO’s NC events can be recorded as electron detections as well. However, the kinematic information of the final state neutrons is lost in thermalization. Thus the resolution function is monoenergetic

$$r_{NC}(T)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }_{NC}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(TT_{NC})^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{NC}^2}\right],$$
(A5)
where $`T_{NC}=5.08`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{NC}=1.11`$ MeV. In contrast to eq.(A2), the effective NC differential cross section versus $`E`$ is not distorted

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{NC}=\eta _{NC}\sigma _{NC}_{T_{NC}^{th}}𝑑Tr_{NC}(T).$$
(A6)
We now turn to the computation of the normalized response functions of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum define in eq.(9). In Fig. 1(a), $`\rho _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}`$ (solid curve) and $`\rho _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}`$ (dashed curve) are shown as functions of $`E`$. The two curves are quite different. $`\rho _{NC}`$ is independent of $`T_{NC}^{th}`$, according to eqs.(9) and (A6). In contrast, the peak of $`\rho _{CC}`$ can be shifted towards the high energy end by increasing $`T_{CC}^{th}`$. When $`T_{CC}^{th}=5`$MeV, $`\rho _{CC}`$ is close to a Gaussian function. Likewise, when $`T_e^{th}=6.8`$MeV, $`\rho _e`$ and $`\rho _{\mu ,\tau }`$ are adjusted to be close to Gaussians as well. Thus $`\rho _{CC}`$, $`\rho _e`$ and $`\rho _{\mu ,\tau }`$ can be related. To see how different they are, it is convenient to define the following functions,

$`\delta \rho _{CC}`$ $``$ $`\rho _{CC}|_{L_{1,A}=5\text{fm}^3}\rho _{CC}|_{L_{1,A}=0},`$ (A7)
$`\delta \rho _e`$ $``$ $`\rho _e|_{T_e^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\rho _{\mu ,\tau }|_{T_e^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}},`$ (A8)
$`\delta \rho _{CC,ES}`$ $``$ $`\rho _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5MeV}\rho _e|_{T_e^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}.`$ (A9)
$`\delta \rho _{CC}`$, $`\delta \rho _e`$ and $`\delta \rho _{CC,ES}`$ are shown as functions of $`E`$ in Fig. 1 (b)-(d), respectively.

To study the contributions of non-zero $`\delta \rho `$, we will first prove an equality. Defining

$`\delta \rho _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho \pm \left|\delta \rho \right|}{2}},`$ (A10)
$`I_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _\pm P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}},`$ (A11)
then

$$𝑑E\delta \rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}=I_++I_{}.$$
(A12)
Since 0$`P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}\left(E\right)1`$,

$`0`$ $``$ $`I_+{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _+},`$ (A13)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _{}}`$ $``$ $`I_{}0.`$ (A14)
Because $`𝑑E\delta \rho =0`$, $`𝑑E\delta \rho _\pm =\pm \frac{1}{2}𝑑E\left|\delta \rho \right|`$. Thus we find

$$\left|𝑑E\delta \rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}\right|\frac{1}{2}𝑑E\left|\delta \rho \right|.$$
(A15)
This model independent relation gives

$`\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _{CC}P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}\right|`$ $``$ $`0.0013,`$ (A16)
$`\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _{ES}P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}\right|`$ $``$ $`0.0012,`$ (A17)
$`\left|{\displaystyle 𝑑E\delta \rho _{CC,ES}P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}}\right|`$ $``$ $`0.0105,`$ (A18)
in comparison with $`𝑑E\rho P_{\nu _e/\nu _x}0.25`$. The first two inequality show that the $`L_{1,A}`$ dependence in $`\rho _{CC}`$ and the difference between $`\rho _e`$ and $`\rho _{\mu ,\tau }`$ are negligible compared with the correction from $`\delta \rho _{CC,ES}`$. The $`\delta \rho _{CC,ES}`$ effect is parametrized by $`ϵ`$ in eq.(22) with

$$\left|ϵ\right|<4\%.$$
(A19)