text:
# Heegaard Floer homologies and contact structures

## 1. Introduction

In , we defined several Floer homology groups associated to a closed oriented three-manifold $`Y`$. The simplest variant of these groups is $`\widehat{HF}(Y)`$ (which can be further decomposed according to $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures over $`Y`$). Our goal here is to associate to each contact structure over $`Y`$ a corresponding element in this group (actually, the element strictly speaking lies in $`\widehat{HF}(Y)`$). The motivation to find such an invariant came from an analogous construction due to Kronheimer and Mrowka (see ), which can be interpreted as giving a map from the set of contact structures over $`Y`$ to the “Seiberg-Witten Floer cohomology” of $`Y`$. Although the end results of these two constructions are very similar, their specifics are quite different. While Kronheimer and Mrowka use the contact structure to give a suitable boundary condition for the Seiberg-Witten monopoles over $`[0,\mathrm{})\times Y`$, our constructions here proceed by analyzing the open book decomposition induced from the contact structure, as provided by recent work of Giroux  (see also, , ). Before proceeding to the details, we recall some background.

Informally, a contact structure $`\xi `$ on an oriented three-manifold $`Y`$ is an everywhere totally non-integrable two-plane field. More precisely, when $`Y`$ is oriented, the two-plane field $`\xi `$ represents a contact structure if there is a one-form $`\lambda `$ so that $`\xi =\mathrm{Ker}\lambda `$, and $`\lambda d\lambda `$ represents a volume form for $`Y`$ with the specified orientation. (These are often called cooriented contact structures in the literature; since they are the only contact structures we consider in this paper, we drop the modifier from our terminology.) Two nowhere integrable two-plane fields $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ represent the same contact structure if there is a diffeomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`Y`$ which is isotopic to the identity map and which carries $`\xi _1`$ to $`\xi _2`$. (According to a basic theorem of Gray , this is equivalent to the condition that the two-plane fields $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are homotopic through nowhere integrable two-plane fields.)

Informally, an open book decomposition of $`Y`$ is a non-empty, oriented link $`LY`$ (the binding) whose complement fibers over the circle. More precisely, let $`\varphi `$ be an automorphism of an oriented surface $`F`$ with non-empty boundary, and suppose that $`\varphi `$ fixes $`F`$. We can form the mapping torus $`M_\varphi =F\times [0,1]/(x,0)(\varphi (x),1)`$ to obtain a three-manifold which naturally fibers over the circle, and whose boundary is $`F\times S^1`$. There is a canonically associated closed three-manifold $`Y_0`$ obtained from $`M_\varphi `$ by attaching solid tori $`F\times D`$ using the identifications suggested by the notation. The data $`(F,\varphi )`$ is called an open book decomposition of $`Y`$, and $`\varphi `$ is called the monodromy of the open book. The binding here corresponds to the boundary components of $`F`$. When the link has a single component, the open book decomposition is called a fibered knot. A construction of Thurston and Winkelnkemper (see ) associates to an open book decomposition of $`Y`$ a contact structure. Indeed, according to recent work of Giroux , every contact structure is induced from an open book in this way and, in fact, Giroux gives an explicit criterion for when two open books induce the same contact structure. (see also Subsection 2.2 below for a more detailed discussion of these moves)

To describe the Floer homology class associated to $`\xi `$, we use the knot invariants introduced in  (compare also ). When a three-manifold is equipped with an oriented knot $`K`$ and a Seifert surface $`F`$ for $`K`$, there is an induced $``$-filtration on its Floer complex $`\widehat{CF}`$ which calculates $`\widehat{HF}`$. We let $`𝒦(Y,K,F,m)\widehat{CF}(Y)`$ denote the subcomplex generated by all intersection points with filtration level $`m`$. We review the construction of the knot filtration in Section 2, including a review of some of the necessary topological preliminaries. We will typically drop $`F`$ from the notation when it is clear from the context (for instance, when the knot arises from an open book decomposition).

To conform with the usual conventions in contact geometry, we will typically work with Floer cohomology rather than homology or, equivalently, the Floer homology of the three-manifold $`Y`$ whose orientation is the opposite of the one given by the contact structure.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`Y`$ be an oriented three-manifold, $`KY`$ be a fibered knot of genus $`g`$. Then, $`H_{}(𝒦(Y,K,F,g))`$.

The above theorem allows us to define the Floer homology class associated to a fibered knot $`KY`$.

###### Definition 1.2.

Let $`KY`$ be a fibered knot, and let

$$c_0(K)H_{}(𝒦(Y,K,g))$$

be a generator. Then, the invariant of the fibered knot, $`c(K)\widehat{HF}(Y)`$, is the image of $`c_0(K)`$ under the map on homology induced from the natural inclusion map

$$\iota :𝒦(Y,K,g)\widehat{CF}(Y).$$

In the above definition, $`c(K)`$ is well-defined only up to sign. Of course, if we perform the constructions here with $`/2`$ coefficients, then this sign ambiguity disappears. Otherwise, we are to view $`c(K)`$ as an element of the set $`\widehat{HF}(Y)/(\pm 1)`$.

In the course of proving Theorem 1.1, we also establish naturality properties of the isomorphism. These properties, together with Giroux’s result, lead to the following result established in Section 4:

###### Theorem 1.3.

Suppose $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are a pair of knots in $`Y`$ which represent the same contact structure $`\xi `$, then, the invariants $`c(K_1)`$ and $`c(K_2)`$ coincide.

In view of the above result, if $`\xi `$ is a contact structure over $`Y`$, we write $`c(\xi )`$ for the element defined earlier. In Subsection 4, we also discuss how to extract classical data about the homotopy class of the two-plane field from the Floer homology class $`c(\xi )`$. In particular, a two-plane field $`\xi `$ induces a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰(\xi )`$ on $`Y`$, and we show that the element $`c(\xi )`$ is supported in the corresponding summand $`\widehat{HF}(Y,𝔰(\xi ))\widehat{HF}(Y)`$.

Recall that a contact structure is called overtwisted if there is a disk in $`Y`$ which is transverse to $`\xi `$ in a neighborhood of the boundary, but whose boundary is tangent to $`\xi `$ (see ). A fundamental result of Eliashberg states that each homotopy class of two-plane field over $`Y`$ contains exactly one isotopy class of overtwisted contact structure. A contact structure which is not overtwisted is called tight.

###### Theorem 1.4.

Suppose that $`\xi `$ is overtwisted. Then, the induced element $`c(\xi )\widehat{HF}(Y)/(\pm 1)`$ is trivial.

Another theorem of Eliashberg and Gromov (see  and , see also  for a Seiberg-Witten proof) states that symplectically semi-fillable contact structures are tight (see those references for the definition). Although presently the symplectic semi-fillability hypothesis cannot be described explicitly in terms of the monodromy map, there is a special class of such contact structures which, thanks again to the work of Giroux , admits such a concrete characterization: the Stein fillable ones.

Recall (c.f. ) that a Stein surface is a complex surface which admits a Morse function

$$f:S[0,1]$$

with $`S=f^1(1)`$ such that away from the critical points of $`f`$, the field of complex tangencies to each preimage $`f^1(t)`$ is a positively-oriented contact structure (with respect to the orientation induced from $`f^1([0,t])`$). The contact structure $`(Y,\xi )`$ is Stein fillable if it is realized as the boundary of a Stein surface in the above sense. According to Giroux, these are the contact structures whose monodromy can be expressed as a product of right-handed Dehn twists. With this characterization, we prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.5.

Suppose that $`\xi `$ is a Stein fillable contact structure on a closed, oriented three-manifold $`Y`$. Then, the induced element $`c(\xi )\widehat{HF}(Y)/(\pm 1)`$ is non-trivial.

Of course, Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 together give an alternate proof that Stein fillable contact structures are tight.

The invariant $`c(\xi )`$ has an alternate description which does not refer to the knot invariants. An open book decomposition naturally gives rise to a cobordism $`W`$ from a fibered three-manifold $`Y_0`$ to the given three-manifold $`Y`$, and the fibered three-manifolds with fiber genus $`g>1`$ have been shown to have $`HF^+(Y_0,\mathrm{})`$ (c.f. Theorem LABEL:HolDiskSymp:thm:ThreeManifoldsFiber of ), where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the “canonical $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure”, i.e. the one represented by a vector field which is transverse to the fibers. Now, if $`KY`$ is a fibered knot with genus $`g>1`$, and $`\widehat{c}(K)`$ is a generator of $`\widehat{HF}(Y_0,\mathrm{})`$ whose image in $`HF^+(Y_0,\mathrm{})`$ is a generator, we show that $`c(\xi )`$ agrees with the image of $`\widehat{c}(K)`$ under the map on $`\widehat{HF}`$ induced by the cobordism $`W`$.

As an application of this alternative description, we give a result for fibered knots in the three-sphere. As motivation, suppose that $`Y`$ is a three-manifold with an open book decomposition whose binding $`K`$ is connected. Clearly, for any integer $`n`$, there is an induced open book decomposition of the surgered manifold $`Y_{1/n}(K)`$. Indeed, it is an easy consequence of Giroux’s theory (together with the observation that the mapping class group of a surface with a single boundary component is generated as a monoid by right-handed Dehn twists and arbitrary Dehn twists parallel to the boundary) that for any sufficiently large $`n`$, the induced contact structure on $`Y_{1/n}(K)`$ is Stein fillable.

This raises the following question: suppose that $`(Y,K)`$ is an open book decomposition, what is the minimal value of $`n`$ for which the open book decomposition $`Y_{1/n}(K)`$ is tight? In this direction, we have the following application of the invariants of the present paper:

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`KS^3`$ be a fibered knot in $`S^3`$. Then, the contact structure on $`S_1^3(K)`$ induced from the open book decomposition coming from $`K`$ is tight.

The key property of $`S^3`$ used in the above result is that $`HF_{\mathrm{red}}^+(S^3)=0`$. Indeed, the above theorem can be generalized to the case of any three-manifold $`Y`$ with $`HF_{\mathrm{red}}^+(Y)=0`$, a class of three-manifolds which is closed under connected sum and orientation reversal, and includes, for example, $`S^2\times S^1`$, the Poincaré homology sphere, and any lens space (c.f. Theorem 6.1 below for the statement in this case).

### 1.1. Remarks

Given an open book decomposition for the contact structure, we exhibit the intersection point (in an appropriate Heegaard diagram) representing a cycle for $`c(\xi )\widehat{HF}(Y)`$, but it is, in general, difficult to detect whether the cycle is a boundary. Of course, in cases where the knot complex $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K)`$ can be explicitly calculated, this problem is easily solved (c.f.  for further examples). However, finding an algorithmic procedure for making these calculations in general remains a very interesting problem, both for the present application to contact geometry, and also for three-dimensional topology.

### 1.2. Relationship with Seiberg-Witten theory

It is natural to conjecture that the image of $`c(\xi )`$ in $`HF^+(Y)`$ corresponds (under the conjectured identification of this latter group with Seiberg-Witten Floer homology) to the Seiberg-Witten relative invariant induced from the symplectization of $`\xi `$, defined following . In a related direction, it would be very interesting to extend the non-vanishing result of Theorem 1.5 to larger classes of contact structures: e.g. symplectically semi-fillable ones, or perhaps even to all tight ones.

### 1.3. Acknowledgements

The authors wish to warmly thank Ko Honda, Paolo Lisca, and András Stipsicz for interesting discussions.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. The mapping class class group and open books

When considering open book decompositions, one considers the mapping class of the monodromy $`\varphi `$, i.e. $`\varphi `$ modulo isotopies which fix the boundary. Operations on mapping classes give rise to operations on open book decompositions.

One such operation which will be particularly useful for us is the boundary connected sum. Fix surfaces $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, choose a pair of points on their boundaries $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, and let $`F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2`$ denote the corresponding boundary connected sum. If $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are mapping classes of the surfaces-with-boundary $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$, then there is an induced automorphism $`\varphi _1\mathrm{\#}_b\varphi _2`$ of $`F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2`$. Correspondingly, if $`(F_1,\varphi _1)`$ and $`(F_2,\varphi _2)`$ are open book decompositions of $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$, then $`(F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2,\varphi _1\mathrm{\#}_b\varphi _2)`$ is an open book decomposition of the connected sum $`Y_1\mathrm{\#}Y_2`$.

Another useful operation is composition with Dehn twists. Recall that the mapping class group of the annulus $`A=[0,1]\times S^1`$ isomorphic to $``$, generated by the “right-handed Dehn twist,” a diffeomorphism whose mapping class is determined by the property that the oriented intersection number

$$\mathrm{\#}\left([0,1]\times \{x\}\psi ([0,1]\times \{x\})\right)=1.$$

(The other generator, of course, is called the left-handed Dehn twist.) More generally, fix a simple, closed curve $`\gamma `$ in the interior of $`F`$. The right-handed Dehn twist along $`\gamma `$, $`R_\gamma `$ is the mapping class which is the identity away from an annular neighborhood of $`\gamma `$ and whose restriction to this neighborhood is the right-handed Dehn twist of the annulus. 111With these conventions, the monodromy of a Lefschetz fibration around a singular fiber is a right-handed Dehn twist. This has the following three-dimensional interpretation. Suppose that $`(F,\varphi )`$ is an open book decomposition of $`Y`$, then the curve $`\gamma `$ inside $`F`$ can be viewed as a knot in $`Y`$. Indeed, the tangent bundle of $`F`$ gives $`\gamma `$ a framing, and the three-manifold $`Y_1(\gamma )`$ obtained by surgery along $`\gamma `$ with framing $`1`$ (with respect to the surface framing) inside $`Y`$ admits the open book decomposition $`(F,\varphi R_\gamma )`$.

Consider for example the right-handed trefoil knot $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`S^3`$. This has a fibration $`(E,\varphi _0)`$, where $`E`$ is a surface with genus one and a single boundary circle. Letting $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be a pair of curves in $`E`$ which meet transversally in a single intersection point, the monodromy $`\varphi _0`$ is a product of right-handed Dehn twists about $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$.

If $`\varphi `$ is the identity map of a surface $`F`$ of genus $`g`$ with a single boundary component, the corresponding open book decomposition describes a knot $`B`$ inside $`\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(S^2\times S^1)`$. For example, when $`g=1`$, this knot is the remaining component of the Borromean link, after one performs $`0`$-surgery on the other two components.

### 2.2. Giroux’s stabilization theorem

Suppose that $`Y`$ has an open book decomposition $`(F,\varphi )`$. The mapping torus $`M_\varphi `$ admits a two-plane field, given by the tangent spaces to the fibers $`F`$. Now, there is a canonical tight contact structure on the solid torus $`D^2\times S^1`$ whose induced characteristic foliation on $`(D^2)\times S^1`$ consists of circles $`x\times S^1`$. In $`Y=M_{F\times S^1}\left(F\times D\right)`$, these two two-plane fields agree on the overlap, giving a continuous two-plane distribution. The Thurston-Winkelnkemper contact structure is obtained as a $`C^0`$-small perturbation of this two-plane field.

Giroux shows in  that any contact structure over $`Y`$ arises from this construction. Moreover, he identifies which open books give rise to the same contact structure, using the following stabilization procedure. Let $`F`$ be a surface-with-boundary, and choose a pair of points in its boundary. Attach a one-handle to $`F`$ along the boundary to obtain a new surface $`F^{}`$, and let $`\gamma `$ be any curve obtained by closing up the core of the one-handle in the interior of $`F`$. We say that $`(F^{},\varphi R_\gamma )`$ is obtained from $`(F,\varphi )`$ by a simple Giroux stabilization. More generally, we call a Giroux stabilization a finite sequence of simple Giroux stabilizations. Note that Giroux stabilizations leave the underlying three-manifold $`Y`$ unchanged, and indeed they induce isomorphic contact structures over $`Y`$. (It is important to underscore the fact that Giroux stabilizations involve compositions with right-handed Dehn twists: the analogous operation using left-handed Dehn twists does change the contact structure on $`Y`$.) Giroux’s result further states that, conversely, if two open book decompositions induce the same contact structure, then they can be connected by a sequence of Giroux stabilizations and de-stabilizations. This is easily seen to be equivalent to the statement that both open books have a common Giroux stabilization.

For example, if $`K`$ is a fibered knot in $`S^3`$, then the connected sum $`K\mathrm{\#}T_r`$ is a Giroux stabilization of $`K`$.

For simplicity, we typically consider open book decompositions where the binding is connected. Clearly, any open book decomposition has a Giroux stabilization with this property.

As we mentioned earlier, a related result of Giroux (see also ) gives a criterion for Stein fillability of a contact structure in terms of the monodromy of the open book. This result states that the induced contact structure is Stein fillable if and only if the monodromy map $`\varphi `$ of the open book can be expressed as a product of right-handed Dehn twists.

### 2.3. Multiply-filtered chain complexes

In , we define an invariant for a three-manifold equipped with an oriented, null-homologous knot $`K`$. We sketch the special case of this construction which we need in the present application.

The data $`(Y,K)`$ gives rise to a Heegaard diagram $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,\mu 𝜷_0)`$, where $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜷=\mu 𝜷_0`$ are attaching circles for $`(Y,K)`$, and the curve $`\mu `$ is a distinguished meridian for the knot $`K`$, so that $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,𝜷_0)`$ represents the knot complement. Indeed, we can choose a reference point $`m`$ to lie on $`\mu `$. Using the orientations, we obtain a doubly-pointed Heegaard diagram $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,𝜷,w,z)`$ where $`w`$ and $`z`$ are reference points close to the initial point $`m\mu `$, but lying on either side of it. More precisely, if $`\lambda `$ is a longitude for the knot, thought of as an oriented curve in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\delta `$ is the oriented path from $`z`$ to $`w`$, then the algebraic intersection number of $`\delta `$ with the medirian $`\mu `$ agrees with the algebraic intersection number of $`\lambda `$ with $`\mu `$.

In turn, this data gives a map

$$\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m:𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta \underset{¯}{\mathrm{Spin}^c}(Y,K),$$

where $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Spin}^c}(Y,K)=\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_0(K))`$. To define this map, we replace the meridian with a longitude $`\lambda `$ for the knot, chosen to wind once along the meridian so that each intersection point $`𝐱`$ has a canonical pair of closest points $`𝐱^{}`$ and $`𝐱^{\prime \prime }`$. Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,𝜸,w)`$ denote the corresponding Heegaard diagram for $`Y_0(K)`$ (i.e. $`𝜸=\lambda 𝜷_0)`$). We then define $`\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)`$ to be the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure in $`\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_0(K))`$ corresponding to $`𝐱^{}`$ (or $`𝐱^{\prime \prime }`$).

Now, if $`F`$ is a Seifert surface for $`K`$ in $`Y`$, then it can be closed off in $`Y_0(K)`$ to obtain a closed surface $`\widehat{F}`$. We can express the evaluation of $`c_1(𝔰_w(𝐱^{}))`$ on $`\widehat{F}`$ in terms of data on the Heegaard diagram. Specifically, recall  that each two-dimensional homology class for $`Y_0`$ has a corresponding “periodic domain” $`P`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. a chain in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose local multiplicity at $`w`$ is zero, and which bounds curves among the $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$. Let $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\gamma `$ be an intersection point, let $`\overline{n}_𝐲(P)`$ denote the sum of the local multiplicities of $`P`$ at the points $`y_i`$ comprising the $`g`$-tuple $`y_i`$ (taken with a suitable fraction if it lies on the boundary of $`P`$, as defined in Section LABEL:HolDiskTwo:sec:Adjunction of ), and let $`\chi (P)`$ denote the “Euler measure” of $`P`$ (which is simply the Euler characteristic of $`P`$, if all its local multiplicities are zero or one). Then, it is shown in Proposition LABEL:HolDiskTwo:prop:MeasureCalc of  that

(1)
$$c_1(𝔰_w(𝐲)),[\widehat{F}]=\chi (P)+2\overline{n}_𝐲(P),$$

provided that $`P`$ is the periodic domain representing $`\widehat{F}`$.

Returning to the Heegaard diagram for the knot $`(Y,K)`$, there is a complex $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K,F)`$ generated by tuples $`[𝐱,i,j]\left(𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta \right)\times \times `$ satisfying the constraint that

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)),[\widehat{F}]+2(ij)=0,$$

and with boundary operator given by

$$[𝐱,i,j]=\underset{𝐲}{}\underset{\varphi \pi _2(𝐱,𝐲)}{}\mathrm{\#}\left(\frac{(\varphi )}{}\right)[𝐲,in_w(\varphi ),jn_z(\varphi )]$$

and $`[U]`$ action defined by

$$U[𝐱,i,j]=[𝐱,i1,j1].$$

This complex has a $`^2`$-filtration given by

$$[𝐱,i,j]=(i,j).$$

In particular, $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K,F)`$ is generated as a $`[U,U^1]`$-module by intersection points $`𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$.

As an example, let $`T_r`$ denote the right-handed trefoil. The chain complex $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(S^3,F,T_r)`$ is generated (as a $`[U,U^1]`$ module) by three generators $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$. The filtration degrees are given by

$$(x)=(1,0),(y)=(0,1),(z)=(0,0),$$

and the boundary operator is given by $`z=x+y`$, and $`x=y=0`$.

Dually, for the left-handed trefoil $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ with the torsion $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure, the chain complex is generated by $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ with

$$(x)=(1,0),(y)=(0,1),(z)=(0,0),$$

and the boundary operator is given by $`x=y=z`$, and $`z=0`$. (For more, see Proposition LABEL:Knots:prop:Trefoil of .)

In our present applications we will be working with $`\widehat{HF}(Y)`$ (rather than the full $`HF^{\mathrm{}}(Y)`$), so we can avoid using the full knot complex. Rather, consider the naturally induced complex $`CFK^{0,}(Y,K)`$ generated by $`[𝐱,0,j]`$ with

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)),[\widehat{F}]2j=0.$$

As a chain complex, this is the complex for $`\widehat{CF}(Y)`$ using the reference point $`w`$. The extra reference point $`z`$ endows this complex with a relative $``$ filtration; the data of the Seifert surface $`F`$ comes into play when one lifts this to an absolute $``$-filtration. For a given integer $`j`$, we let $`𝒦(Y,K,F,j)`$ be the subcomplex of $`CFK^{0,}(Y,K,F)\widehat{CF}(Y,K,F)`$ with filtration degree $`j`$.

There is an even simpler knot invariant, $`\widehat{C}FK(Y,K,j)`$, which is generated by intersection points $`𝐱`$ with

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)),[\widehat{F}]=2j,$$

and with boundary maps counting only those holomorphic disks with $`n_w(\varphi )=n_z(\varphi )=0`$. This complex can, alternately, be viewed as an associated graded complex for $`CFK^{0,}(Y,K,F)`$, associated to its filtration.

### 2.4. Notational remarks

The filtered complexes $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K,F)`$ and $`CFK^{0,}(Y,K,F)`$ described here can be written in the notation of , as follows:

$`CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K,F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\underset{¯}{𝔱}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Spin}^c}(Y,K)|c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔱}),[\widehat{F}]=0\}}{}}CFK^{\mathrm{}}(Y,K,\underset{¯}{𝔱})`$
$`CFK^{0,}(Y,K,F)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{\underset{¯}{𝔱}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Spin}^c}(Y,K)|c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔱}),[\widehat{F}]=0\}}{}}CFK^{0,}(Y,K,\underset{¯}{𝔱}).`$
When $`F`$ is understood from the context or irrelevant (e.g. when $`Y`$ is a rational homology three-sphere), we drop it from the notation.

### 2.5. Knot homologies and connected sums

In , we give a multiplication map

(2)
$$\widehat{CF}(Y_1)_{}\widehat{CF}(Y_2)\widehat{CF}(Y_1\mathrm{\#}Y_2),$$

which induces a homotopy equivalence.

In , we give a refinement for the knot invariant, a variant of which we state in the next proposition. To set up notation, suppose that $`(Y_1,K_1,F_1)`$ and $`(Y_2,K_2,F_2)`$ is a pair of three-manifolds equipped with oriented null-homologous knots and corresponding Seifert surfaces. We can form the connected sum $`(Y_1\mathrm{\#}Y_2,K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2,F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2)`$, where the Seifert surface $`F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2`$ is obtained by a boundary connected sum of the Seifert surfaces $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`(Y_1,K_1)`$ and $`(Y_2,K_2)`$ be a pair of oriented knots. The connected sum map mentioned above induces a homotopy equivalence of $``$-filtered complexes

$$CFK^{0,}(Y_1,K_1,F_1)_{}CFK^{0,}(Y_2,K_2,F_2)CFK^{0,}(Y_1\mathrm{\#}Y_2,K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2,F_1\mathrm{\#}_bF_2).$$

Proof. This follows readily from Theorem LABEL:Knots:thm:ConnectedSumsOfKnots of .

###### Remark 2.2.

In the statement of Proposition 2.1, the $``$ filtration on the left-hand-side comes from the following convention: the tensor product of two $``$-filtered complexes $`(C_1,_1)`$ and $`(C_2,_2)`$ is naturally a $``$-filtered complex $`(C_1C_2,_{})`$, where the tensor product filtration is defined by

$$_{}(x_1x_2)=_1(x_1)+_2(x_2)$$

for arbitrary homogeneous generators $`x_1C_1`$ and $`x_2C_2`$.

## 3. Invariants of fibered knots

We now prove Theorem 1.1. The alternate description of $`c(K)`$ which involves only Floer homology groups for closed three-manifolds which fiber over the circle (rather than the knot invariant) will follow quickly from the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. The proof proceeds by constructing, for any fibered knot $`(Y,K)`$, a genus $`2g+1`$ Heegaard diagram with the following properties:

* there is a unique intersection point $`𝐱𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$ with

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)),[\widehat{F}]=2g,$$
* there are no intersection points $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$ with

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐲)),[\widehat{F}]<2g,$$
* the Heegaard diagram for the knot is is weakly admissible for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure over $`Y`$.

(Recall that a pointed Heegaard diagram is weakly admissible for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure if all the periodic domains have both positive and negative local multiplicities. For the definition and discussion of this hypothesis, see .) Given such a diagram, the theorem follows at once.

The Heegaard diagram is constructed as follows. Start with a genus $`g`$ surface $`A`$ with boundary consisting of two circles, denoted $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\lambda `$. We can find two $`2g`$-tuples of pairwise disjoint arcs in $`A`$, $`(\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _{2g+1})`$ and $`(\eta _2,\mathrm{},\eta _{2g+1})`$, and an arc $`\delta `$ connecting $`\alpha _1`$ to $`\lambda `$ with the following properties:

* The curve $`\xi _i`$ is disjoint from $`\eta _j`$ unless $`i=j`$, in which case $`\xi _i`$ meets $`\eta _i`$ transversally in a single intersection point which we denote by $`x_i`$.
* The curve $`\delta `$ is disjoint from all the $`\xi _i`$ and $`\eta _i`$.
* If we let $`\overline{A}`$ denote a copy of $`A`$ reflected across its boundary, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the closed surface of genus $`2g+1`$ obtained by gluing $`A`$ to $`\overline{A}`$ along their boundary, let $`\alpha _i`$ (for $`i=2,\mathrm{},2g+1`$) denote the closed curve obtained by gluing $`\xi _i`$ to $`\overline{\xi }_i`$, and similarly let $`\beta _i`$ denote the closed curve obtained by gluing $`\eta _i`$ to $`\overline{\eta }_i`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2g+1}\},\{\lambda ,\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _{2g+1}\})`$ is a Heegaard diagram for $`S^1\times \widehat{F}`$.
* Indeed, letting $`\mu `$ denote the closed curve obtained by joining $`\delta `$ to $`\overline{\delta }`$, the diagram $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,\{\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _{2g+1}\},\mu )`$ represents the fibered knot $`B\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(S^2\times S^1)`$ whose monodromy map is the identity map.
* There are pairwise disjoint curves $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _g`$ with the property that $`\sigma _i\xi _j=\mathrm{}`$ except when $`j=2i+1`$, in which case $`\sigma _i`$ meets $`\xi _{2i+1}`$ in a single transverse intersection point.
* There are pairwise disjoint curves $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _g`$ with the property that $`\tau _i\xi _j=\mathrm{}`$ except when $`j=2i`$, in which case $`\tau _i`$ meets $`\xi _{2i}`$ in a single, transverse double-point. Moreover, $`\tau _i\eta _j=\mathrm{}`$, except when $`j=2i+1`$, in which case $`\tau _i`$ meets $`\eta _j`$ in a single, transverse double-point.

In particular, we have a Heegaard diagram for $`S^1\times \widehat{F}`$ which is divided in two by $`\alpha _1\lambda `$. Note that the Heegaard splitting for $`S^1\times \widehat{F}`$ is the one obtained by first dividing the circle into two intervals $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$, attaching a one-handle to $`I_1\times \widehat{F}`$, which is drilled out of $`I_2\times \widehat{F}`$, and then symmetrically attaching a one-handle to what is left of $`I_2\times \widehat{F}`$ which in turn is drilled out of $`I_1\times \widehat{F}`$. For an illustration of the region $`A`$, see Figure 1

After a suitable modification of the Heegaard, diagram, we would like to place a basepoint on the meridian $`\mu `$. To this end, wind $`\lambda `$ half way along $`\mu `$, so that the new curve $`\lambda ^{}`$ meets $`\alpha _1`$ in two intersection points $`u`$ and $`v`$. Corresponding to this finger move, there is now a new region $`𝒟`$ in the Heegaard surface bounded by an arc in $`\alpha _1`$ and an arc in $`\lambda ^{}`$. We place the basepoint $`m`$ on $`\mu 𝒟`$. This basepoint gives rise then to a pair $`w`$ and $`z`$ of basepoints in the Heegaard surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Without crossing $`w`$ or $`z`$, we wind one more time completely along $`\mu `$ to get $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$, so that the periodic domain $`P`$ bounded by $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$ has both positive and negative coefficents, i.e. we introduce a new region $`𝒟^{}`$ bounded by an arc in $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }`$, and let $`u^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ denote the newly-introduced pair of intersection points which lie on the boundary of the closure of $`𝒟^{}`$. Let $`x_1`$ be the intersection point between $`\mu `$ and $`\alpha _1`$ (see Figure 2 for an illustration). Clearly, given any $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$, we have that $`x_1𝐲`$; and indeed, if we replace $`x_1𝐲`$ by $`u^{}`$, we obtain an intersection point $`𝐲^{}𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\gamma `$ (where here $`𝜸=\{\lambda ^{\prime \prime },\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _{2g+1}\}`$) which represents $`\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐲)`$.

Let $`P`$ denote the periodic domain with $`P=\alpha _1+\lambda `$. Clearly, $`P`$ represents the homology class of $`\widehat{F}`$. By construction, its local multiplicities are $`1`$ (in $`𝒟^{}`$), $`0`$ in the winding region, $`1`$ in the region corresponding to $`A`$ and $`2`$ (in the region corresponding to $`\overline{A}`$). It is now an easy consequence of Property (1) that:

* If we let $`𝐱=x_1\times \mathrm{}\times x_{2g+1}`$, then for any other point $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$ (i.e. with $`𝐲𝐱`$),

$$2g=\overline{n}_𝐱^{}(P)<\overline{n}_𝐲^{}(P).$$

As a Heegaard diagram for $`\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(\mathrm{\#}S^2\times S^1)`$, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,𝜷^{\prime \prime },w)`$ is not weakly admissible yet: periodic domains representing the $`2g`$ tori have only non-negative local multiplicities. However, we can arrange for the diagram to be admissible by winding along the $`2g`$ curves $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _g`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\overline{\sigma }_g`$ (of course, here $`\tau _i`$ are curves in $`AA\overline{A}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, while $`\overline{\sigma }_i`$ are curves in $`\overline{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponding to the $`\sigma _i`$ described above).

We claim that this procedure does not affect Property (1’). Specifically, since all the curves $`\{\tau _i,\overline{\sigma }_i\}_{i=1}^g`$ are disjoint from $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\lambda `$, it follows that the periodic domain $`P`$ is unaffected by this winding. Thus, it remains the case that if $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$, then $`2g=\overline{n}_𝐱^{}(P)\overline{n}_𝐲^{}(P)`$. Verifiying that Property (1’) still holds amounts to showing that if $`\overline{n}_𝐱^{}(P)=\overline{n}_𝐲^{}(P)`$ then $`𝐱=𝐲`$. To see that this holds after winding along the $`\tau _i`$, we let $`𝐲𝕋_\alpha 𝕋_\beta `$ satisfy $`2g=\overline{n}_𝐲^{}(P)`$. Then, since the $`\tau _i`$ are disjoint from all $`\xi _{2j}`$ except when $`i=j`$, we see that $`x_{2i}𝐲`$, while the fact that the only $`\xi `$-curve met by $`\tau _i`$ is $`\xi _{2i}`$ while the only $`\eta `$-curve met by $`\tau _i`$ is $`\eta _{2i+1}`$ ensures that none of the newly-introduced intersection points between $`\xi _i^{}`$ and $`\eta _j`$ appears in the tuple $`𝐲`$. Thus, $`𝐲=𝐱`$. The fact that this property is preserved after winding along the $`\{\overline{\sigma }_i\}`$ follows easily from the fact that those curves are supported in $`\overline{A}`$, a region where the local multiplicty of $`P`$ is $`2`$ (instead of $`1`$).

In this Heegaard diagram for $`(Y,K)=(\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(S^2\times S^1),B)`$, we have achieved admissibility (Property (H-3)). The other two required properties – Property (H-1) and (H-2) now follow readily from Property (1’), together with Equation (1) (noting that the “Euler measure” of the periodic domain $`P`$ is $`6g`$), so that

$$c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱),[\widehat{F}]=c_1(𝔰_w(𝐱^{})),[\widehat{F}]=2g.$$

(Where here again the point $`𝐱^{}`$ is obtained by substiting $`u^{}`$ for the $`x_1`$ coordinate in $`𝐱`$.)

In general, suppose we have an open book decomposition with monodromy map $`\varphi `$. We can extend $`\varphi `$ to an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, by viewing the complement of a neighborhood of $`\overline{\delta }`$ in $`\overline{A}`$ as $`F`$, and extending $`\varphi `$ over the rest $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as the identity map. It is easy to see that the Heegaard diagram $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝜶,\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(\beta _2,\mathrm{},\beta _{2g+1}))`$ represents the given open book. Weak admissibility is still easy to see, and indeed Property (1’) still holds (the argument in the model case still applies, since the general Heegaard diagram and the model case agree in the region of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ where the multiplicities of the periodic domain $`P`$ are less than two). ∎

Suppose $`Y_0`$ is a three-manifold with a distinguished two-dimensional homology class $`[\widehat{F}]`$. In this case, we define

$$HF^+(Y_0,\widehat{F},i)=\underset{\{𝔰\mathrm{Spin}^c(Y_0)|c_1(𝔰),[\widehat{F}]=2i\}}{}HF^+(Y_0,𝔰).$$

It is shown in , that if $`Y_0`$ is a three-manifold whose fiber $`\widehat{F}`$ has genus $`g>1`$, then

(3)
$$HF^+(Y_0,\widehat{F},1g).$$

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`(Y,K)`$ be a fibered knot with genus $`g>1`$ and let $`F`$ be a Seifert surface. Let $`c(K)`$ denote the image of a generator of $`H_{}(𝒦(Y,K,F,g))`$ inside $`HF^+(Y)`$. Moreover, let $`\widehat{c}(K)`$ be a generator of $`\widehat{HF}(Y_0(K),\widehat{F},1g)`$ whose image in $`HF^+(Y_0,\widehat{F},1g)`$ is a generator, and let

$$F_W:\widehat{HF}(Y_0)\widehat{HF}(Y)$$

denote the map induced by the cobordism (where we suppress the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure, as it is determined by its restriction to $`Y_0`$). Then

$$F_W(\widehat{c}(K))=\pm c(K).$$

Proof. Note that in the proof of Theorem 1.1, the Heegaard diagram for $`Y_0(K)`$ is weakly admissible for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure. Indeed, consider the Heegaard diagram where we undo the last finger move which created $`𝒟^{}`$ (thus cancelling the two closest points $`u^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$ – note that we used a diagram with this extra pair of intersection points in the previous proof only to calculate $`c_1(\underset{¯}{𝔰}_m(𝐱)),[\widehat{F}]`$; however, now that we know this is $`2g`$, we no longer need the extra pair of intersection points). This diagram is still weakly admissible for any $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure whose evaluation on $`\widehat{F}`$ is non-trivial. Moreover, for this Heegaard diagram, it is easy to see (using Equation (1)) that there are exactly two intersection points $`𝐮=u\times x_2\times \mathrm{}\times x_{2g+1}`$ and $`𝐯=v\times x_2\times \mathrm{}\times x_{2g+1}`$ which represent a $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ satisfying

$$c_1(𝔰),[\widehat{F}]=22g.$$

In fact, using a domain $`𝒟`$ supported in the winding region, we see that there is a unique $`\varphi \pi _2(𝐮,𝐯)`$ with $`\mu (\varphi )=1`$, $`n_w(\varphi )=1`$, and $`\mathrm{\#}(\varphi )=1`$. Indeed, this gives a direct proof of Equation (3)222Recall that Equation (3), which can be thought of the analogue of Theorem 1.1 for fibered three-manifolds, is established in  using general properties of $`HF^+`$: adjunction inequalities, surgery long exact sequences, and one model calculation. In fact, Theorem 1.1 can be proved this way as well, using corresponding properties of the knot invariants., giving also a geometric representative $`[𝐮,0]`$ for the cycle representing the generator of $`HF^+(Y_0,\widehat{F},1g)`$ (and hence $`𝐮`$ represents the corresponding $`\widehat{c}(K)\widehat{HF}(Y_0(K),1g)`$).

For the Heegaard diagram, there is also a small triangle $`\psi \pi _2(𝐮,\mathrm{\Theta },𝐱)`$ with $`\mu (\psi )=0`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(\psi )=1`$, $`n_w(\psi )=0`$ and $`n_z(\psi )=1`$. It follows that there is no $`\psi ^{}\pi _2(𝐮,\mathrm{\Theta },𝐲)`$ with $`n_w(\psi ^{})=0`$, $`\mu (\psi ^{})=0`$, and $`𝒟(\psi ^{})0`$. To see this, observe that the topological constraints on the cobordism show that any triangle $`\psi ^{}\pi _2(𝐮,\mathrm{\Theta },𝐲)`$ can be decomposed as $`\psi ^{}=\psi \varphi `$, where $`\varphi \pi _2(𝐱,𝐲)`$. Now, according to properties of the Heegaard diagram for $`(Y,K)`$ constructed in the proof of Theorem 1.1 (specifically, Properties (H-1) and (H-2), it follows that if $`𝐱𝐲`$, then $`n_z(\varphi )=0`$, contradicting $`𝒟(\psi ^{})>0`$. In the case where $`𝐱=𝐲`$, then, the Whitney disk $`\varphi `$ represents a periodic domain, with $`\mu (\varphi )=0`$. According to admissibility, then, $`𝒟(\varphi )`$ has both positive and negative coefficients, so it follows readily that $`\psi ^{}`$ has this same property.

It now follows readily that $`F_W(𝐮)=𝐱`$, as claimed. (See Figure 3 for an illustration.)

We conclude with a few examples.

The unknot $`US^3`$ has a genus one Heegaard diagram, with a single intersection point. It is obvious in this case that $`H_{}(𝒦(S^3,U,0))`$, and that, $`c(U)`$ is a generator for $`\widehat{HF}(S^3)`$. We have the following more interesting example, which will also help in the proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`T_{\mathrm{}}`$ resp. $`T_r`$ denote the left- resp. right-handed trefoil inside $`S^3`$. Then, $`c(T_r)\widehat{HF}(S^3)`$ is a generator, whereas $`c(T_{\mathrm{}})=0`$.

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of the calculation of $`CFK^{\mathrm{}}`$ for the trefoil given in Proposition LABEL:Knots:prop:Trefoil of , see also Subsection 2.3 above.

###### Remark 3.3.

A generalization of Lemma 3.2 to alternating, fibered knots is given in  (see especially Corollary LABEL:AltKnots:cor:AltContact of ).

## 4. Invariants of contact structures

We now prove Theorem 1.3: if two fibered knots induce the same contact structure, then their invariants coincide. The proof is broken into several lemmas. After establishing this theorem, we explain (in Subsection 4.1) the relationship between $`c(Y,K)`$ and the homotopy class of the two-plane field underlying $`\xi `$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

For the Giroux stabilization of a fibered knot $`(Y,K)`$ obtained by attaching a trefoil to $`K`$, we have that $`c(Y,K)=c(Y,K\mathrm{\#}T_r)`$.

Proof. This follows from the naturality under connected sums, together with the sample calculation from Lemma 3.2. More precisely, by Proposition 2.1, we see that

$$c(K\mathrm{\#}T_r)=\iota (c_0(K\mathrm{\#}T_r))=\iota (c_0(K)c_0(T_r))=c(K)c(T_r),$$

where the last tensor product indicates the isomorphism

$$\widehat{HF}(Y)\widehat{HF}(S^3)\widehat{HF}(Y).$$

But by Lemma 3.2, $`c(T_r)`$ generates $`\widehat{HF}(S^3)`$, so it follows that $`c(K\mathrm{\#}T_r)=c(K)`$.

We establish now a naturality for $`c(K)`$ under Dehn twists, which will be used repeatedly.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`(M,\varphi )`$ be an open book decomposition for $`Y`$, and fix a curve $`\gamma YK`$ supported in a page of the open book, which is not homotopic to the boundary. Then, $`(M,\varphi R_\gamma ^1)`$ induces an open book decomposition of $`Y_{+1}(\gamma )`$, and indeed under the map

$$F_W:\widehat{HF}(Y)\widehat{HF}(Y_{+1}(\gamma ))$$

obtained by the two-handle addition (and summing over all $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures), we have that

$$F_W(c(M,\varphi ))=\pm c(M,\varphi R_\gamma ^1).$$

Proof. In view of Lemma 4.1, it suffices to consider the case where the genus $`g`$ of the fiber is $`>1`$. Let $`Y_0=Y_0(K)`$, $`Y^{}=Y_{+1}(\gamma )`$, and let $`Y_0^{}`$ denote the three-manifold obtained by performing a zero-surgery on $`Y^{}`$ along the knot $`K^{}Y^{}`$ induced from $`K`$. Also, let $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ denote the natural cobordisms from $`Y_0`$ to $`Y`$ and $`Y_0^{}`$ to $`Y^{}`$ respectively and let $`W_0`$ be the cobordism from $`Y_0`$ to $`Y_0^{}`$ obtained by attaching the two-handle along $`\gamma `$, thought now as a curve in $`Y_0`$ (rather than $`Y`$). Then, by naturality of the maps induced by cobordisms (see ), we have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{HF}(Y_0,1g)& \stackrel{F_{W_0}}{}& \widehat{HF}(Y_0^{},1g)\\ F_V& & F_V^{}& & \\ \widehat{HF}(Y)& \stackrel{F_W}{}& \widehat{HF}(Y^{}).\end{array}$$

Now, $`F_{W_0}`$ induces an isomorphism, since the map fits into an exact sequence where the third term is a three-manifold for which the corresponding Floer homology groups vanish by the adjunction inequality (c.f. Section LABEL:HolDiskSymp:sec:NonVanishing of ). The theorem now follows immediately from Proposition 3.1.

###### Remark 4.3.

Note that the use of Proposition 3.1 after stabilizing can be avoided (both here and in the proof of Theorem 1.5 below) by using corresponding properties of the knot invariant directly.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`(Y,K)`$ be a fibered knot specified by an open book $`(F_g,\varphi )`$. Then, for each integer $`h0`$, there is a class $`c(\varphi ,h)\widehat{HF}(Y)`$ with the property that for any genus $`h`$ Giroux stabilization $`\varphi ^{}`$ of $`(F_g,\varphi )`$, $`c(\varphi ^{})=c(\varphi ,h)`$.

Proof. Note that the $`\varphi \mathrm{\#}_b\mathrm{Id}_h(F_g\mathrm{\#}_bF_h)`$ induces an open book decomposition of $`Y\mathrm{\#}\left(\mathrm{\#}^{2h}(S^2\times S^1)\right)`$. By attaching $`2h`$ three-handles to this latter three-manifold, we obtain a cobordism $`U`$ to $`Y`$. Let $`c(\varphi ,h)`$ be the class obtained as $`F_U(c(\varphi \mathrm{\#}_b\mathrm{Id}_h))`$.

Now, let $`\varphi ^{}`$ be any Giroux stabilization of $`\varphi `$. Then, we can “untwist” $`\varphi ^{}`$ by composing it with $`2h`$ left-handed Dehn twists to obtain $`\varphi \mathrm{\#}_b\mathrm{Id}_h`$ (i.e. we take here left-handed Dehn twists along parallel copies of the curves used for the Giroux stabilization). By Theorem 4.2, the image of $`c(\varphi ^{})`$ under the induced $`2h`$ two-handles $`W`$ gives $`c(\varphi \mathrm{\#}_b\mathrm{Id})`$. We claim that the three-handles in $`U`$ cancel the two-handles of $`W`$, so that $`UW[0,1]\times Y`$, and hence that

$$c(\varphi ^{})=F_U(c(\varphi \mathrm{\#}_b\mathrm{Id}))$$

is independent of the particular stabilization $`\varphi ^{}`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. According to Giroux’s theorem, we need to verify only that the class $`c(K)`$ is invariant under Giroux stabilizations. But this follows immediately from Lemmas 4.1 and 4.4. ∎

###### Remark 4.5.

Observe that when $`b_1(Y)>0`$, it is an easy consequence of Theorem 1.1 that the invariant $`c(K)`$ lies in the kernel of the action of $`H_1(Y;)`$. In a related direction, the constructions descibed here carry over verbatim to the case of twisted coefficients, giving rise to an element $`\underset{¯}{c}(K)\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{HF}}(Y)`$, whose image under the natural map $`\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{HF}}(Y)\widehat{HF}(Y)`$ is the element $`c(K)`$ described above. We have no further use for this refinement in the present paper.

### 4.1. Classical data

Recall that an oriented two-plane field $`\xi `$ in an oriented three-manifold $`Y`$ has an induced $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure, the equivalence class of the positively oriented normal vector, which we denote $`𝔰(\xi )`$. When the first Chern class of this $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure is torsion, the homotopy type of $`\xi `$ is uniquely determined by the pair $`𝔰(\xi )`$, and an additional Hopf-type invariant $`h(\xi )`$, which we describe presently (see  and  for a detailed discussion). Suppose that $`(W,J)`$ is an almost-complex four-manifold which bounds $`Y`$ so that the complex tangencies at its boundary agree with the two-plane field $`\xi `$. Then, the Hopf invariant (which is independent of the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure) is given by

$$h(\xi )=\frac{c_1(W,J)^2+22\chi (W)2\sigma (W)}{4},$$

where here $`c_1(W,J)^2`$ denotes the evaluation on $`[W,W]`$ of the square of the first Chern class of the almost-complex structure, $`\chi (W)`$ denotes the Euler characteristic of $`W`$, and $`\sigma (W)`$ denotes the signature of its intersection form.

###### Proposition 4.6.

The class $`c(\xi )\widehat{HF}(Y)`$ is supported in the summand $`\widehat{HF}(Y,𝔰(\xi ))`$ corresponding to the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure belonging to the contact structure. Moreover, if $`c_1(𝔰(\xi ))`$ is a torsion class, then the absolute grading of $`c(\xi )`$ agrees with the Hopf invariant $`h(\xi )`$.

Proof. We assume without loss of generality that the genus $`g`$ of the open book decomposition representing $`\xi `$ is greater than one. (Note that stabilization fixes both the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure of $`c(\xi )`$ and its absolute grading). Now, in  it is shown that the generator for $`HF^+(Y_0,1g)`$ is supported in the canonical $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure of the fibered three-manifold. From this and Proposition 3.1, the result on $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structures follows immediately.

For the statement about absolute gradings, we use the fact that the two-handle addition from $`Y_0`$ to $`Y`$ can be given an almost-complex structure (this follows from a local analysis). In , we constructed, for each three-manifold which fibers over the circle, a Lefschetz fibration $`W_0`$ over the disk, which we think of now as a cobordism from $`S^3`$ to $`Y_0`$, with the property that, if we endow $`W`$ with the $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure associated to its canonical almost-complex structure, then $`F_{W_0,𝔨}(\theta )HF^+(Y_0,1g)`$ is a generator (where here $`\theta HF^+(S^3)`$ is a zero-dimensional generator). Following Proposition 3.1, $`c(\xi )`$ is the image of $`F_{W_0W}`$, endowed with its canonical $`\mathrm{Spin}^c`$ structure. The absolute grading of this element is immediately seen to be given by $`h(\xi )`$.

## 5. Vanishing and non-vanishing results

The vanishing theorem for overtwisted contact structures, and the non-vanishing theorem for Stein fillable ones, now follow rather easily from what has already been established.

Proof of Theorem 1.4. If $`(Y,K)`$ is an arbitrary fibered knot, we prove that $`(Y,K\mathrm{\#}T_{\mathrm{}})`$ has vanishing invariant. This follows immediately from the naturality of the knot invariant under connected sums (Proposition 2.1), together with the sample calculation of Lemma 3.2. This suffices to establish the result, in light of Eliashberg’s classification of overtwisted contact structures . ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.5. Let $`\varphi `$ be a word in the mapping class group of $`F_g`$ corresponding to a Stein fillable contact structure. By Giroux’s characterization, we can “untwist” $`\varphi `$ using only left-handed Dehn twists to obtain the identity map, so by the naturality from Theorem 4.2, we get a cobordism $`W`$ from $`Y`$ to $`\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(S^2\times S^1)`$ with the property that

$$F_W(c(\xi ))=\pm c(\xi _0),$$

where $`\xi _0`$ denotes the contact structure over $`\mathrm{\#}^{2g}(S^2\times S^1)`$ corresponding to the identity map on $`F_{2g}`$. The fact that $`c(\xi _0)`$ is non-trivial follows as in the proof of Lemma 4.4 from the fact that the unknot in $`S^3`$ has non-trivial invariant. ∎

## 6. Tightness of fibered surgeries

We can now prove the following general result (compare Theorem 1.6):

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`KY`$ be a fibered knot with genus $`g>1`$ in any three-manifold with $`HF_{\mathrm{red}}^+(Y)=0`$. Then, the induced contact structure on $`Y_1(K)`$ is tight.

Proof. In view of Proposition 3.1 and Theorem 1.4, it suffices to prove that the generator of $`HF^+(Y_0(K),1g)`$ in $`HF^+(Y_1(K))`$ under the natural two-handle addition is non-trivial. But this follows easily from the surgery long exact sequence (c.f. Theorem LABEL:HolDiskTwo:thm:GeneralSurgery of ), which reads

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{}& & HF^+(Y)& & HF^+(Y_0(K))& & HF^+(Y_1(K))& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

Now, since the $`U`$-action on $`HF^+(Y_0(K),1g)`$ is trivial, while each element of $`HF^+(Y)`$ lies in the image of the $`U`$-action (since $`HF_{\mathrm{red}}^+(Y)=0`$), it follows that elements in $`HF^+(Y_0(K),1g)`$ inject into $`HF^+(Y_1(K))`$, as desired.

Proof of Theorem 1.6. Since $`HF_{\mathrm{red}}^+(S^3)=0`$, Theorem 6.1 handles the cases where $`g>1`$. When $`g=1`$, there are only three fibered knots in $`S^3`$: the two trefoils and the figure eight knot, where the theorem can be checked. Indeed, in all three cases, we claim that $`S_1^3(K)`$ is Stein fillable. To this end, fix any one of these knots $`K`$, let $`\varphi `$ denote its monodromy, acting on a surface $`F`$ of genus one (and fixing its boundary), and let $`c`$ denote a curve in the interior of $`F`$ which is isotopic to the boundary. Our aim then is to show that the mapping class $`\varphi R_c`$ can be written as a product of right-handed Dehn twists.

We consider the case of the left-handed trefoil. In this case, the mapping class $`\varphi `$ can be written as a product of left-handed Dehn twists. Explicitly, if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are a pair of circles in $`F`$ which meet transversally in a single point, the monodromy $`\varphi =R_a^1R_b^1`$. The fact that $`R_a^1R_b^1R_c`$ can be written as a product of right-handed Dehn twists follows immediately from the following easily verified relation in the mapping class group:

$$(R_bR_a)^6=R_c.$$

Similarly, since the monodromy of the figure eight knot can be written as $`R_aR_b^1=R_a^2(R_a^1R_b^1)`$, the result follows from the corresponding fact for the left-handed trefoil.

The case of the right-handed trefoil is straightforward. ∎


format: text

text:
# Entanglement properties of composite quantum systems

## I Introduction

The processing of quantum information differs in a fundamental way from the processing of classical information: rather than allowing only boolean values “0” and “1” for a bit, a quantum bit or qubit is implemented by the quantum state of a two-level system, which can be in any superposition of $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$” and $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$”, namely $`|\psi =\alpha |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}+\beta |\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$. If several quantum states are involved, rather than dealing only with one string of bit values, e.g., “001011”, the state of the composite system of qubits can be in a superposition of such strings, e.g., $`|\mathrm{\Psi }=a|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}001011}+b|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}110100}+c|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}010010}+\mathrm{}.`$. In general such a state cannot be written as a tensor product of states of its subsystems and, therefore, it is called entangled.

Entanglement is a key feature for most of the protocols used in quantum information such as, e.g., quantum teleportation, quantum cryptography, superdense coding, quantum algorithms and quantum error correction. Indeed the resources needed to implement a particular protocol of quantum information are closely linked to the entanglement properties of the states used in the protocol. Therefore, it is highly desirable to characterize the entanglement properties of quantum systems bearing in mind that this is a fundamental open problem of quantum theory but also that it is essential for the implementation of any possible task that relies on quantum bits.

In this manuscript we summarize our efforts in striving at some understanding of the properties of entanglement for composite quantum systems of distinguishable and indistinguishable particles. In the former case, one assumes that the involved quantum systems can be addressed separately. This happens either because the subsystems are located at different places so that their wavefunctions do not spatially overlap, or because they differ in some degrees of freedom permitting thus to distinguish them. Until quite recently, this has been the most common approach considered in the framework of quantum information. However, the experimental progress in achieving quantum bits and quantum gates by means of solid state physics (quantum dots) and optical microtraps with neutral atoms, demands a new formalism which includes the statistical nature of the particles involved. In the last part of this manuscript we address this question.

In the frame of the DFG-Schwerpunkt on “Quanteninformationsverarbeitung” (quantum information processing) we have addressed these subjects in two different projects. The manuscript aims to give a comprehensive summary of our results for a reader familiar with the subject of separability and distillability. This summary, however, is by no means exhaustive. Important contributions to the above projects concerning entanglement measures, catalysis of entanglement and quantum game theory are presented elsewhere .

The manuscript is organized as follows: Sections II-IV deal with the characterization of entanglement of composite quantum systems of distinguishable particles. In section II we first briefly state the problem of separability, i.e., the question when the state of a composite quantum system does not contain any quantum correlations or entanglement, and then report our results concerning this question. In section III we address the problem of distillability, i.e., the question when the state of a mixed composite quantum system can be transformed to a maximally entangled pure state by using local operations and classical communication. We report thereafter our progress concerning this subject. Section IV deals with witness operators. We state our achievements in constructing, optimizing and implementing witness operators to detect entanglement. Also, a connection between a witness detecting a given state and the distillability and activability properties of the state is presented there. Finally, in section V we address the study of quantum correlations in composite systems of identical particles and apply some of the formalisms previously developed for distinguishable particles to indistinguishable ones.

## II  Separability of composite quantum systems

In this section, before presenting our results, we define the problem of separability versus entanglement for a given quantum system. The reader interested in a tutorial description of the subject is addressed to references  and .

For simplicity, let us restrict ourselves here to the simplest case of composite systems: bipartite systems (traditionally denoted as Alice and Bob) of finite, but otherwise arbitrary dimensions. Physical states of such systems are, in general, mixed and are described by density matrices, i.e. hermitian, positive semi-definite linear operators of trace one (i.e. $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$, $`\rho 0`$,$`\mathrm{Tr}\rho =1`$), acting in the Hilbert space of the composite system $`=_𝒜_{}`$. Without loosing generality we will assume that dim $`_A=M2`$ and dim $`_B=NM`$.

Before proceeding further we introduce here some definitions that we will use throughout the paper. Given a density matrix $`\rho `$, we denote its kernel by $`K(\rho )=\{|\varphi :\rho |\varphi =0\}`$, its range by $`R(\rho )=\{|\varphi :|\psi \}`$, and its rank by $`r(\rho )=\mathrm{dim}R(\rho )=NM\mathrm{dim}K(\rho )`$. Also the notion of partial transposition will be used throughout. The operation of partial transposition of a density matrix $`\rho `$ means the transposition with respect to only one of the subsystems. If we express $`\rho `$ in Alice’s and Bob’s orthonormal product basis,

$$\rho =\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}i,k|\rho |j,l|i,kj,l|=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}i,k|\rho |j,l|i_Aj||k_Bl|,$$
(1)
then, the partial transposition with respect to Alice’s system is given by:

$$\rho ^{T_A}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{M}{}}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{N}{}}i,k|\rho |j,l|j_Ai||k_Bl|.$$
(2)
Note that $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ is basis-dependent, but its spectrum is not. For the partial transpose $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ it might hold that $`\rho ^{T_A}0`$, but this does not have to be true! As $`(\rho ^{T_A})^{T_B}=\rho ^T`$, and as $`\rho ^T0`$ always holds, positivity of $`\rho ^{T_A}`$ implies positivity of $`\rho ^{T_B}`$ and vice versa. A density matrix $`\rho `$ that fulfills $`\rho ^{T_A}0`$ is termed PPT state for positive partial transpose, otherwise it is called NPPT state for non-positive partial transpose.

### A The separability problem

An essential step towards the understanding of entanglement is to first identify separable states, i.e, states that contain classical correlations only or no correlations at all. The mathematical definition of such states (separable states) in terms on convex combinations of product states was given by Werner in .

Def. 1 A given state $`\rho `$ is separable iff

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_i\rho _i^A\rho _i^B,$$
(3)
where $`_ip_i=1`$, and $`p_i0`$.

Notice that the above definition states that a separable state can be prepared by Alice and Bob by means of local operations (unitary operations, measurements, etc.) and classical communication (LOCC). However, the question whether a given state can be decomposed as a convex sum of product states like in eq. (3) is by no means trivial – in fact there are no algorithms to check if such a decomposition for a given state $`\rho `$ exist.

An entangled state is defined via the negation of the above definition. A given state $`\rho `$ is entangled iff it cannot be decomposed as in Equation (3). Thus, the separability versus entanglement problem can be formulated as: Given a composite quantum state described by $`\rho `$, can it be decomposed as a convex combination of product states or not?.

A major step in the answer of this problem and in the characterization of separability was done by Peres and the Horodecki family by providing a necessary condition for separability: the positivity of the partial transposition. Their results can be summarized in the following theorem:

Theorem 1 If a density matrix $`\rho `$ is separable then $`\rho ^{T_A}0`$. If $`\rho ^{T_A}0`$ in Hilbert spaces of dimensions $`2\times 2`$ or $`2\times 3`$ then $`\rho `$ is separable.

Notice that being PPT does not imply separability, except for low dimensional Hilbert spaces! Let us mention here, that also in , the problem of separability was rigorously reformulated in terms of the theory of positive maps. We will discuss about positive and completely positive maps in the forthcoming sections.

### B Results on the separability problem

An important tool for studying the properties of states with respect to their separability is the method of subtracting projectors onto product vectors from the given state. This method was developed in  and : if there exists a product vector $`|e,fR(\rho )`$, the projector onto this vector (multiplied by some coefficient $`\lambda >0`$) can be subtracted from $`\rho `$, such that the remainder is positive definite. A similar technique can be used for PPT states $`\rho `$: if there exists a product vector $`|e,fR(\rho )`$, such that $`|e^{},fR(\rho ^{T_A})`$, the projector onto this vector (again multiplied by some $`\lambda >0`$) can be subtracted from $`\rho `$, such that the remainder is positive definite and PPT. This observation allows to construct decompositions of a given $`\rho `$ of the form

$$\rho =\lambda \sigma +(1\lambda )\delta ,$$
(4)
where $`\sigma `$ is separable, while $`\delta `$ is a so-called edge state, i.e. a state from which “nothing else” can be subtracted. In the case of decompositions for general entangled states, $`\delta `$ has no product vectors in the range. In the case of decompositions for PPT states $`\delta `$ can be taken as PPT edge state, i.e. a state that does not contain any product vector $`|e,fR(\rho )`$, such that $`|e^{},fR(\rho ^{T_A})`$. The decompositions (4) can be optimized, by demanding $`\lambda `$ to be maximal . Such an optimal decomposition is illustrated in Figure 1. For separable states an important question (related to the optimization of the detection of entangled states ) concerns minimal decompositions, i.e. those containing minimal number of projectors on product vectors. In particular in Ref.  it has been shown that in $`2\times 2`$ systems the minimal decomposition of separable states contains a number of projectors which is equal to the rank of the state. Minimal decompositions can also be considered in the form of pseudo-mixtures, where not all coefficients multiplying the projectors entering the decomposition are positive, see section IV B.

In the following we list the major results obtained by applying the decompositions (4) and constructing edge states in various systems, which has become a basic tool of the so-called Innsbruck-Hannover programme .

General properties of optimal separable approximations (decompositions) have been studied in Ref.  for the states $`\rho `$ of bipartite quantum systems of arbitrary dimensions $`M\times N`$. For two qubit systems (M=N=2) the best separable approximation has a form of a mixture of a separable state and a projector onto a pure entangled state. We have formulated the necessary condition that the pure state in the best separable approximation is not maximally entangled. This result allowed Wellens and Kuś  to obtain an analytic form of the optimal decomposition in the $`2\times 2`$ case and to relate the value of $`\lambda `$ to the Wootters’ concurrence. We have demonstrated that the weight of the entangled state in the best separable approximation in arbitrary dimensions provides a good entanglement measure. We have proven that in general, for arbitrary M and N, the best separable approximation corresponds to a mixture of a separable and an entangled state which are both unique. We have developed also a theory of optimal separable approximations for states with positive partial transpose, and discussed procedures of constructing such decompositions.

The decomposition techniques and investigations of edge states have then be applied to $`2\times N`$ systems in  and . We have analyzed the separability properties of PPT density operators supported on $`𝒞^2𝒞^N`$. We have shown that if $`r(\rho )=N`$, then it is separable, and that bound entangled states have rank larger than $`N`$. We have also solved the separability problem for low rank states: we have given a separability criterion for a generic density operator such that the sum of its rank and the one of its partial transpose does not exceed $`3N`$. If it exceeds this number we show that one can subtract projectors onto product vectors until decreasing it to $`3N`$, while keeping the positivity of $`\rho `$ and its partial transpose. This automatically gives us a sufficient criterion for separability for general density operators. We also prove that all density operators that remain invariant (or, more generally close to being invariant) after partial transposition with respect to the first system are separable. Finally, in Ref.  we have also presented a simple elementary proof of the Peres-Horodecki separability criterion in $`2\times 2`$–dimensional systems.

The results for $`2\times N`$ systems were then generalized to $`M\times N`$ systems, where we have also been able to solve the separability problem for low rank states. We have considered low rank density operators $`\varrho `$ supported on a $`M\times N`$ Hilbert space for arbitrary $`MN`$ and with a positive partial transpose $`\varrho ^{T_A}0`$. For rank $`r(\varrho )N`$ we have proven that having a PPT is necessary and sufficient for $`\varrho `$ to be separable; in this case we have also provided its minimal decomposition in terms of pure product states. It follows from this result that there are no bound entangled states of rank $`3`$ having a PPT. We have also presented a necessary and sufficient condition for the separability of generic density matrices for which the sum of the ranks of $`\varrho `$ and $`\varrho ^{T_A}`$ satisfies $`r(\varrho )+r(\varrho ^{T_A})2MNMN+2`$. This separability condition has the form of a constructive check, providing thus also a pure product state decomposition for separable states, and it works in those cases where a system of coupled polynomial equations has a finite number of solutions, as expected in the generic case.

The same research programme can also be applied to $`2\times 2\times N`$ systems. We have investigated separability and entanglement of mixed states in $`𝒞^2𝒞^2𝒞^N`$ three-party quantum systems. We have shown that all states $`\rho `$ with positive partial transposes that have rank $`r(\rho )N`$ are separable. For the three-qubit case (N=2) we have proven that all PPT states $`\rho `$ that have positive partial transposes and rank $`r(\rho )=3`$ are separable. We provided also constructive separability checks for the states $`\rho `$ that have the sum of the rank of $`\rho `$ and the ranks of partial transposes with respect to all subsystems smaller than 15N-1.

We have studied also the problem of separability and entanglement properties of completely positive maps acting on operators acting in the composite Hilbert space of Alice and Bob. We have studied when a physical operation can produce entanglement between two systems that are initially disentangled. The formalism that we have developed allows to show that one can perform certain non-local operations with unit probability by performing local measurements on states that are very weakly entangled. This formalism is a generalization of the Jamiołkowski isomorphism, that connect maps with operators, to the case of maps acting on tensor product spaces. We have associated with every completely positive map (CPM) acting on states of Alice and Bob, an operator acting on two copies of Alice’s and Bob’s space. The isomorphism connects separable CPMs with separable states, PPT CPMs with PPT entangled states, and so one. It provides a powerful tool to classify CP maps, using results known for states.

Last, but not least, we have applied our methods and techniques to study states in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, i.e. continuous variable states. A particularly important class of such states, that is very frequently used in experiments with photons, is formed by the so-called $`\mathrm{𝐺𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑛}`$ states. Gaussian states can be defined by the requirement that their associated Wigner function has a Gaussian form. We have been able to solve the separability problem of Gaussian states for two parties each having an arbitrary number of photon (harmonic oscillator) modes (, for a review see ), and for three parties each having one harmonic mode. For bipartite systems of arbitrarily many modes the necessary and sufficient condition consists in an iterative transformation of the correlation matrix of a given state and provides an operational criterion, since it can be checked by a simple computation with arbitrary accuracy. Moreover, it allows us to find a pure product-state decomposition of any given separable Gaussian state. Our criterion is independent of the one based on partial transposition, and obviously, since it detects all entangled states, it is strictly stronger than the PPT criterion. We have also derived a necessary and sufficient condition for the separability of tripartite three mode Gaussian states, that is easy to check for any such state. We have given a classification of the separability properties of those systems and have shown how to determine for any state to which class it belongs. We have also shown that there exist genuinely tripartite bound entangled states (see III) and have pointed out how to construct and prepare such states.

## III The distillability problem

For many applications in quantum information processing one needs a maximally entangled state of two parties, i.e. a state in $`M\times N`$ dimensions of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{max}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}|i,i.$$
(5)
However, even if an experimental source that creates such a state is available, during storage or transmission along a noisy channel the state will interact with the environment and evolve into a mixed state, thus loosing the property of being maximally entangled.

The idea of distillation and purification, i.e. enhancement of the entanglement of a given mixed state by local operations and classical communication (LOCC) was proposed by Bennett et al. , Deutsch et al.  and Gisin . Again, for Hilbert spaces of composite systems with dimension lower or equal to 6, any mixed entangled state can always be distilled to a pure maximally entangled state. Since for such systems entanglement is equivalent to non-positivity of the partial transpose, we conclude that for systems in $`2\times 2`$ and $`2\times 3`$ dimensions all NPPT states are distillable . It was shown by the Horodecki family  that the PPT property implies undistillability. Somehow surprisingly, in higher dimensions there exist states that are entangled but cannot be distilled. These states, namely PPT entangled states, are called bound entangled states, contrary to free entangled states which can be distilled. In general, the distillability problem can be formulated as:  Given a composite quantum state described by $`\rho `$, is it distillable or undistillable?

The problem of distillability can be rigorously formulated  so that it reduces to the following theorem:

Theorem 2 $`\rho `$ is distillable iff there exists a state $`|\psi `$ from a $`2\times 2`$-dimensional subspace, $`|\psi =a|e_1|f_1+b|e_2|f_2,`$ such that

$$\psi |(\rho ^{T_A})^K|\psi <0$$
(6)
for some $`K`$.

### A Results on the distillability problem

As mentioned above, in finite dimensions there exist so-called bound entangled states, which are entangled, but their entanglement cannot be distilled. One possibility of the construction of such states was given in . There we have presented a family of bound entangled states in $`3\times 3`$ dimensions. Their density matrix depends on 7 independent parameters and has 4 different non-vanishing eigenvalues. This construction can e.g. be useful when testing whether some new entanglement criterion detects bound entanglement.

Apart from several examples for bound entangled states with positive partial transpose we have some evidence that also bound entanglement, i.e., entanglement that cannot be distilled, of states with non-positive partial transpose exists: in  we study the distillability of a certain class of bipartite density operators which can be obtained via depolarization starting from an arbitrary one. This class is a one-parameter family of states that consist of a weighted sum of projectors onto the symmetric and the antisymmetric subspace. Our results suggest that non-positivity of the partial transpose of a density operator is not a sufficient condition for distillability, when the dimension of both subsystems is higher than two. This conjecture has been found independently in , and is still an open problem. The present understanding of the decomposition of mixed states into separable, undistillable entangled and distillable entangled states is shown in figure 2.

We have also addressed the distillability and bound entanglement question in the contexts of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. We have introduced and analyzed the definition of generic bound entanglement for the case of continuous variables. We have provided some examples of bound entangled states for that case, and discussed their physical sense in the context of quantum optics. We have raised the question of whether the entanglement of these states is generic. As a byproduct, we have obtained a new many-parameter family of bound entangled states with positive partial transpose in Hilbert spaces of arbitrary finite dimension. We have also pointed out that the “entanglement witnesses” (see section IV) and positive maps revealing the corresponding bound entanglement can be easily constructed.

Furthermore, we have studied how rare separable and non-distillable states of continuous variables are. In finite dimensional Hilbert spaces, we have earlier demonstrated that the volumes of the set of separable states and PPT entangled states are both non-zero, and that there exists a vicinity of the identity operator that contains separable states only . This turned out not to be the case for continuous variable systems. Also we have proven that the set of non–distillable continuous variable states is nowhere dense in the set of all states, i.e., the states of infinite–dimensional bipartite systems are generically distillable. This automatically implies that the sets of separable states, entangled states with positive partial transpose, and bound entangled states are also nowhere dense in the set of all states. All these properties significantly distinguish quantum continuous variable systems from the spin like ones. The aspects of the definition of bound entanglement for continuous variables has also been analyzed in the context of the theory of Schmidt numbers. In particular, the main result was generalized to the set of states of arbitrary Schmidt number and to the single copy regime.

## IV Witness operators for the detection of entanglement

### A Definition and geometrical interpretation of witness operators

A very useful tool to detect entanglement is the so-called entanglement witness. An entanglement witness is an observable $`(𝒲)`$ which reveals the entanglement (if any) of a given state $`\rho `$. This concept, which was introduced and studied in , reformulates the problem of separability in terms of witness operators:

Theorem 3 A density matrix $`\varrho `$ is entangled iff there exists a Hermitian operator $`𝒲`$ with Tr$`(𝒲\varrho )<0`$ and Tr$`(𝒲\sigma )0`$ for any separable state $`\sigma `$.

We say that the witness $`𝒲`$ “detects” the entanglement of $`\varrho `$. The existence of entanglement witnesses is just a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem, that states: Let $`S`$ be a convex, compact set, and let $`\varrho S`$. Then there exists a hyper-plane that separates $`\varrho `$ from $`S`$.

Figure 3 illustrates the concept of an entanglement witness $`𝒲`$, represented by a hyper–plane (dashed line) that separates the state $`\rho `$ from the convex compact set $`S`$. We have also depicted in the figure, a optimal entanglement witness $`𝒲_{opt}`$ (represented by straight line) together with other optimal witnesses. Optimal witnesses are tangent to the set of separable states (The concept of optimization will be explained in the next subsection). One can immediately grasp from the figure, that, in order to completely characterize the set of separable states $`S`$ one should find all the witnesses tangent to $`S`$. Unfortunately, infinitely many witnesses are needed for such a task!

Witness operators are also related to maps. Indeed, there is an isomorphism that connects maps with operators known as Jamiołkowski isomorphism: each entanglement witness $`𝒲`$ on an $`M\times N`$ space defines a positive map $``$ that transforms positive operators on an $`M`$ or $`N`$–dimensional Hilbert space into positive operators on an $`M`$ or $`N`$–dimensional space. The maps corresponding to entanglement witnesses are positive, but not completely positive (i.e. there is an extension $`1𝐥`$ which is not positive), and thus allow to “detect” the entanglement of $`\rho `$. Entanglement witnesses for PPT states and the corresponding maps have the property of being non-decomposable. A witness is called decomposable iff it can be written in the form $`𝒲=P+Q^{T_A}`$ with both $`P`$ and $`Q`$ positive. Otherwise it is non-decomposable. Correspondingly a map is decomposable iff it can be represented as a combination of positive maps and partial transposition and it is non-decomposable otherwise.

### B Results on witness operators

How does one construct an entanglement witness? In  we provide a canonical form of mixed states in bipartite quantum systems in terms of a convex combination of a separable state and an edge state, as defined in section II. We construct entanglement witnesses for all edge states, and present a canonical form of non-decomposable entanglement witnesses and the corresponding positive maps. We present a characterization of separable states using a special class of entanglement witnesses.

An entanglement witness $`𝒲`$ is called optimal, if there exists no entanglement witness that detects states further to the ones detected by $`𝒲`$. Geometrically, this corresponds to the hyperplane defined by the witness being tangent to the set of separable states, see figure 3. In  we give necessary and sufficient conditions for entanglement witnesses to be optimal. We show how to optimize a general witness, and then we particularize our results to witnesses that can detect PPT entangled states, i.e. non-decomposable witnesses. This method also permits the systematic construction of non-decomposable positive maps.

The tool of witness operators can be applied to give a finer classification of entangled states by detecting their so-called Schmidt number. The Schmidt number of a mixed state was introduced in  as a generalization of the Schmidt rank for pure states: it characterizes the maximal Schmidt rank of the pure states in the “most simple” decomposition of $`\rho `$, i.e. the one that needs the lowest maximal Schmidt rank. The definition of the Schmidt number $`k`$ is given by

$$\varrho =\underset{i}{}p_i|\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{r_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{r_i}|,k=\underset{\{dec\}}{\mathrm{min}}(r_{\mathrm{max}}),$$
(7)
where $`r_i`$ denotes the Schmidt rank of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$, the minimization is done over all possible decompositions of $`\rho `$, and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}_i(r_i)`$ is the maximal Schmidt rank of a given decomposition. In  we investigate the Schmidt number of an arbitrary mixed state by constructing a Schmidt number witness that detects it. We present a canonical form of such witnesses and provide constructive methods for their optimization. In this context we also find strong evidence that all bound entangled states with positive partial transpose in two qutrit systems have Schmidt number two.

In the articles summarized above, we were considering bipartite systems only. Can one use the method of entanglement witnesses for systems of more than two particles? This question was addressed in , where we introduce a classification of mixed three-qubit states. The case of pure three-qubit states was studied in : here the authors show that there exist two inequivalent classes of states with genuine tripartite entanglement, the so-called GHZ- and W-states. In  we define the classes of mixed separable, biseparable, W- and GHZ-states, which are successively embedded into each other. We show that contrary to pure W-type states, the mixed W-class is not of measure zero. We construct witness operators that detect the class of a mixed state, and discuss the conjecture that all PPT entangled states belong to the W-class. The classification of three-qubit states into the sets mentioned above is schematically shown in figure LABEL:fig2.

Although the concept of entanglement witnesses is born from a mathematical background, it is by no means purely academic. We have been studying the possibility of implementing a witness with only few local projection measurements in . If some prior knowledge of the density matrix is given, which is usually the case in a realistic experiment, one can construct a suitable entanglement witness and find its minimal decomposition into a pseudo-mixture (i.e. a mixture that contains at least one negative coefficient) of local projectors, i.e.

$$W=\underset{i}{}c_i|a_ia_i||b_ib_i|,$$
(8)
where the coefficients $`c_i`$ are real and fulfill $`_ic_i=1`$. As local projection measurements can be performed with present day technology, some simple measurements then tell the experimentalist whether his given state is indeed entangled. The general solution to the optimization problem of finding the minimal number of measurements is yet unknown. We discuss a realistic example for two qubits, and suggest the first method for the detection of bound entanglement with local measurements.

The tool of witness operators is not only useful for addressing the separability problem, but also for studying the distillability problem: In  we introduce a formalism that connects entanglement witnesses and the distillation and activation properties of a state. We apply this formalism to two cases: First, we rederive the results presented in , namely that one copy of any bipartite state with non–positive partial transpose is either distillable, or activable. Second, we show that there exist three–partite NPPT states, with the property that two copies can neither be distilled, nor activated.

Finally, an overview of our programme that investigates quantum correlations and entanglement in terms of convex sets is given in . There we present a unified description of optimal decompositions of quantum states and the optimization of witness operators that detect whether a given state belongs to a given convex set. We illustrate this abstract formulation with several examples, and discuss relations between optimal entanglement witnesses and n-copy non-distillable states with non-positive partial transpose.

## V Quantum correlations in systems of fermionic and bosonic states

The notion of entanglement discussed in the previous sections applies to situations where the parties are separated by macroscopic distances. Various mechanisms to create entanglement or to perform quantum gate operations, e.g. in the context of quantum dots  or neutral atoms in optical microtraps , however require a direct interaction at short distances between indistinguishable particles. We have developed a framework to study quantum correlations in such situations where the bosonic or fermionic character of indistinguishable particles become important. We have furthermore described a possible implementation of a quantum logic gate for neutral atoms in optical microtraps and studied bosonic correlations in this case.

### A What is different with indistinguishable particles?

To illustrate the consequences of indistinguishability consider two fermions located in a double well potential as a schematic model of electrons in quantum dots and assume the qubit to be implemented in the spin degree of freedom. Let the initial situation be such that each well contains one electron. Even if they are prepared completely independently, their pure quantum state has to be written in terms of Slater determinants in order to respect the indistinguishability. Operator matrix elements between such Slater determinants contain terms due to the antisymmetrization, but if the spatial wavefunctions of electrons located in different wells have only vanishingly small overlap, then the matrix elements will tend to zero for any physically meaningful operator. This situation is generically realized if the supports of the single-particle wavefunctions are essentially centered around locations being sufficiently apart from each other, or the particles are separated by a sufficiently large energy barrier. In this case the antisymmetrization has no physical effect and for all practical purposes it can be neglected.

If the two wells are moved closer together, or the energy barrier is lowered, such that the electrons are no longer completely localized in one well, then the fermionic statistics is clearly essential and the two-electron wave-function has to be antisymmetrized. Note that in this situation the space of states written in terms of single-particle states no longer has a tensor product structure because the actual state space is just a subspace of the complete tensor product. As a consequence of this fact any antisymmetrized state formally resembles an entangled state although these correlations are not useful as individual particles cannot be accessed. To emphasize this fundamental difference between distinguishable and indistinguishable particles, we will use the term *quantum correlations* to characterize *useful* correlations in systems of indistinguishable particles as opposed to correlations arising purely from their statistics.

We remark that there are different possible ways to quantify quantum correlations. An approach which can be seen as complementary to the one which we will describe here was discussed by Zanardi  who ignored the original tensor product structure through partitioning of the physical space into subsystems and introducing a tensor product structure in terms of modes. The entangled entities then are no longer particles but modes.

### B Results on quantum correlations for indistinguishable particles

Let us consider the case of two identical fermions sharing an $`N`$-dimensional single-particle space $`_N`$. The total Hilbert space is $`𝒜(_N_N)`$ where $`𝒜`$ denotes the antisymmetrization operator. A general state vector can be written as

$$|w=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_{ij}f_i^{}f_j^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(9)
with fermionic creation operators $`f_i^{}`$ acting on the vacuum $`|\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The antisymmetric coefficient matrix $`w_{ij}`$ fulfills the normalization condition $`\mathrm{tr}\left(w^{}w\right)=1/2`$. Under a unitary transformation of the single-particle space, $`f_i^{}_jU_{ji}f_j^{}`$, $`w`$ transforms as $`wUwU^T`$.

Theorem 4 For every pure two-fermion state $`|w`$ there exists a unitary transformation of the single particle space such that in the new basis of creation operators $`f_i^{}`$ the state is of the form

$$|w=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}z_kf_{2k}^{}f_{2k1}^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(10)
with $`2mN`$ and $`z_k`$ real and positive.

Each term in this decomposition corresponds to an elementary Slater determinant which is an analogue of a product state in systems consisting of distinguishable parties. Thus, when expressed in such a basis, $`|w`$ is a sum of elementary Slater determinants where each single-particle basis state enters at most one term. In this basis the number $`m`$ of Slater determinants is furthermore minimal and these Slater determinants are thus the analogues of the products states occurring in the Schmidt decomposition of a bi-partite state of distinguishable particles. Therefore we call $`m`$ the fermionic Slater rank of $`|w`$ , and an expansion of the form (10) a Slater decomposition of $`|w`$. For bosons there exists a similar expansion in terms of elementary two-boson Slater permanents representing doubly occupied states .

For two fermions the smallest single-particle space allowing for non-trivial correlations is four-dimensional. In this case a quantity analogous to the concurrence introduced by Wootters as an entanglement measure for two distinguishable qubits  can be constructed in the following way:

Theorem 5 Let $`|w`$ be a two-fermion state in a four-dimensional single-particle space. Then the concurrence $`𝒞(|w)`$, defined as

$$𝒞(|w)=\left|\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j,k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}ϵ^{ijkl}w_{ij}w_{kl}\right|,$$
(11)
($`ϵ`$ is the fully antisymmetric unit tensor) has the following properties: (i) $`𝒞(|w)`$ is invariant under unitary transformations of the single-particle space, (ii) $`0𝒞(|w)1`$ and (iii) $`𝒞(|w)=0`$ iff $`|w`$ has Slater rank one and $`𝒞(|w)=1`$ iff $`|w`$ has maximal Slater rank, i.e. Slater rank two.

The concurrence $`𝒞(|w)`$ thus fully characterizes quantum correlations in the case of pure states and for $`N=4`$. For mixed two-fermion states in a four-dimensional single-particle space characterized by a density matrix $`\rho `$ a Slater number can be defined similar to the Schmidt number for mixed states of two qubits as the maximal Slater rank of a decomposition of $`\rho `$ into pure states minimized over all decompositions. Also we can define the mixed state concurrence as

$$𝒞(\rho )=\underset{\{p_i,|w_i\}}{inf}\left\{\underset{i}{}p_i𝒞(|w_i)\right\}$$
(12)
where the infimum is taken over all decompositions of $`\rho `$. With this definition we find:

Theorem 6 Let $`\rho =_ip_i|w_iw_i|`$ be a mixed two-fermion state. Define $`|\stackrel{~}{w}_i=_{i,j,k,l=1}^4ϵ^{ijkl}w_{kl}f_i^{}f_{jl}^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=_ip_i|\stackrel{~}{w}_i\stackrel{~}{w}_i|`$ and let $`\lambda _i`$ be the real and non-negative eigenvalues of $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ in descending order of magnitude. Then

$$𝒞(\rho )=\mathrm{max}(0,\lambda _1\underset{i=2}{\overset{6}{}}\lambda _i)$$
(13)
and $`\rho `$ has Slater number one iff $`𝒞(\rho )=0`$, i.e iff $`\lambda _1_{i=2}^6\lambda _i`$.

Notice that in a similar way the concurrence can be defined and calculated for pure and mixed states of two bosons in a two-dimensional single-particle space.

For higher-dimensional single-particle spaces there exist necessary and sufficient criteria to determine the Slater rank of pure fermionic and bosonic states by contracting their coefficient matrix $`w`$ with the $`ϵ`$-tensor . These become only necessary criteria when applied to mixed states and apparently a full and explicit characterization of higher-dimensional two-boson and two-fermion mixed states is not possible. Furthermore for the case of more than two particles a straight-forward generalization of the Slater decomposition cannot be given. This is again similar to the case of more than two qubits where a Schmidt decomposition of a general pure state does not exist . Consider for example states of three fermions in a six-dimensional Hilbert space. It is in general not possible to find a unitary transformation of the single-particle space that brings a given state to a form $`|wz_1f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }+z_2f_4^{}f_5^{}f_6^{}|\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which would be the analogue of the two-fermion Slater decomposition. There however exist criteria to identify pure uncorrelated states, i.e. states that can be written as a single Slater determinant .

Finally we notice that for the case of two fermions or bosons in higher-dimensional single particle spaces ($`N>4`$ for fermions, $`N>2`$ for bosons) the concepts of witnesses can be applied . As explained in section IV for the case of distinguishable particles, $`k`$-edge states can be introduced as states that become non-positive when $`ϵ|w^{<k}w^{<k}|`$ is subtracted for some state $`|w^{<k}`$ of Slater rank $`<k`$. Then fermionic and bosonic $`k`$-Slater witnesses can be defined that detect states of Slater number $`k`$. These witnesses can furthermore be optimized as demonstrated in section IV.

### C Implementation of an entangling gate with bosons

In  we investigate quantum computation with bosonic neutral atoms in optical microtraps . In contrast to other methods with the qubit being implemented in an internal degree of freedom, we study the case where the qubit is implemented in the motional state of the atoms, i.e., in the two lowest vibrational states of each trap. The quantum gate operation is performed by adiabatically approaching two traps each containing one particle such that tunneling and cold collisions occur and thus the bosonic character of the atoms is important. We especially address the implementation of a $`\sqrt{\text{SWAP}}`$-gate, i.e., a two-qubit gate that transforms states $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_A|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_B`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_A|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_B`$ to maximally entangled states while leaving $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_A|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}_B`$ and $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_A|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_B`$ unchanged. The fidelity of the gate operation is evaluated as a function of the degree of adiabaticity in moving the traps and for rubidium atoms in state-of-the-art optical microtraps we obtain gate durations in the range of a few tens of milliseconds. Taking into account error mechanisms like spontaneous scattering of photons we calculate error rates of the gate operation and show that proof-of-principle experiments should be possible.

## VI Summary

The characterization and classification of entangled states is a very challenging open problem of modern quantum theory. We have presented some approaches and partial solutions to this problem. The methods we used are the optimal decomposition of a given state into a separable and an entangled state, and the tool of witness operators. We have summarized various advances in the separability and distillability problem, and addressed the question of experimental implementation of witness operators. However, many open questions still remain to be solved.

## VII Acknowledgments

We wish to thank A. Acín, G. Birkl, I. Cirac, W. Dür, A. Ekert, G. Giedke, P. Horodecki, S. Karnas, B. Kraus, M. Kuś, D. Loss, C. Macchiavello, A. Peres, J. Schliemann, G. Vidal and X. Yi for collaboration and discussions. This work has been supported by the DFG-Schwerpunkt “Quanteninformationsverarbeitung”.