text:
# Families of simply connected 4-manifolds with the same Seiberg-Witten invariants

## 1. Introduction

In 1994, the introduction of the Seiberg-Witten equations quickly fostered optimism in 4-manifold topology. Invariants derived from these equations immediately led to the solutions of several outstanding conjectures, and it was felt that the classification of 4-manifolds was finally in sight. After eight years, however, the opposite seems to be true. Topological constructions, along with the Seiberg-Witten invariants, have demonstrated that simply connected smooth 4-manifolds are much more complicated than earlier envisioned, and the classification of smooth $`4`$-manifolds has retreated beyond the visible horizon. In this paper we add to this quagmire and exhibit constructions which yield new infinite families of homeomorphic simply connected 4-manifolds, all of which have the same Seiberg-Witten invariants. These manifolds have many characteristics which lead to the belief that they ought not be diffeomorphic, but this remains unsettled. We also introduce a construction which readily converts an irreducible symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ to a family of infinitely many irreducible nondiffeomorphic but mutually homeomorphic smooth $`4`$-manifolds. Exactly one member of this family will admit a symplectic structure.

There are many examples of the first sort which are already known. For example, for each odd integer $`r3`$, one can consider the Horikawa surfaces with holomorphic euler number $`2r1`$ and $`c_1^2=4r8`$. (See e.g. \[GS\].) For each such $`r`$, there are two deformation classes of these simply connected complex algebraic surfaces, and the two deformation types are homeomorphic. Since the Horikawa surfaces are general type, their Seiberg-Witten invariants are $`\text{SW}=t_Kt_K^1`$ where $`K`$ is the canonical class (which is primitive). (We shall view the Seiberg-Witten invariants of simply connected $`4`$-manifolds as elements of the integral group ring $`H_2(X;)`$. The notation $`t_b`$ will be used to denote the element of the group ring corresponding to $`bH_2(X;)`$ and its (integer) coefficient will at times be denoted by $`\text{SW}_X(b)`$.) Thus the Seiberg-Witten invariants fail to distinguish these manifolds. Whether or not they are indeed diffeomorphic is an extremely interesting open question.

Knot surgery \[FS2, FS3\] can be used to produce infinite families of homeomorphic simply connected 4-manifolds with the same Seiberg-Witten invariants. For example, if we produce a family of knots $`\{K_n\}`$ all of which have the same symmetrized Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_n}(t)`$ (for example, take an infinite list of knots of Alexander polynomial equal to $`1`$) then the manifolds $`X_n`$ obtained from knot surgery on an elliptic fiber of the K3-surface will all be homeomorphic to K3 and will have the same Seiberg-Witten invariants. Although these examples seem likely to be nondiffeomorphic, one needs to use care here. S. Akbulut \[A\] has shown that for any knot $`K`$ that the knot surgery manifolds arising from K3 by using $`K`$ and its mirror image $`K`$ are diffeomorphic. The proof uses special symmetry properties, but it indicates that one should not assume too quickly that the knot surgery manifolds arising from different knots ought to be nondiffeomorphic.

In this paper we shall produce three further families. The first is a generalization of the authors’ construction \[FS4\] of nonsymplectic manifolds with one basic class. For this generalization we begin by constructing families of homeomorphic simply connected symplectic manifolds with one basic class with Seiberg-Witten invariant $`\pm 1`$, i.e. with $`\text{SW}=t_K\pm t_K^1`$. As evidence that these manifolds with one basic class are never diffeomorphic to a complex surface, we show that this construction yields both families of manifolds homeomorphic to a simply connected complex surface as well as families of manifolds that are homeomorphic to no complex surface.

We then twist this construction to yield further families whose Seiberg-Witten invariants have similar properties. In addition, in each manifold of this family, we find nullhomologous tori with the property that a $`(1/m)`$-logarithmic transform on any of them multiplies the Seiberg-Witten invariant by $`m+1`$. This results in families of homeomorphic simply connected 4-manifolds with $`\text{SW}=(m+1)(t_K\pm t_K^1)`$. We conjecture that no two of these manifolds are diffeomorphic. Note that if $`m0`$ these manifolds are nonsymplectic. Thus, this construction shows how one can perform surgery to make a symplectic manifold nonsymplectic.

The third collection of families builds on a construction of the authors which gives a counterexample to the existence of a symplectic Parshin-Arakelov theorem. In particular, we show that for a fixed even (resp. odd) integer $`g`$ there are infinitely many distinct genus $`g`$ Lefschetz fibrations on a homotopy rationally elliptic (resp. K3) surface. These examples have been promised for some time and were first presented in a talk of the first author at the 1998 Aarhus Topology Conference.

## 2. Construction I

Fix a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$, and let $`C`$ be a smoothly embedded symplectic surface in $`X`$ which has genus $`n2`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Given $`X`$, a positive integer $`g`$, and a particular genus $`g`$ fiber bundle $`Y`$ over a genus $`n`$ surface constructed below, we shall associate a symplectic simply connected $`4`$-manifold $`Z=Z(X,C,g)`$ with $`c_1^2(Z)=c_1^2(X)+8g(n1)`$, $`\chi (Z)=\chi (X)+g(n1)`$, and with $`\text{SW}=t_Kt_K^1`$. Here $`\chi =\chi (X)`$ is one-fourth the sum of the Euler characteristic and the signature of $`X`$, which is the is the holomorphic Euler characteristic in the case that $`X`$ is a complex surface. We shall choose a family of manifolds $`X_j`$, homeomorphic to $`X`$, and distinguished by their Seiberg-Witten invariants. Each $`X_j`$ contains a genus $`n`$ symplectic surface $`C_j`$ with self-intersection $`0`$. We fiber sum along these surfaces to obtain the family $`Z(X_j,C_j,g)`$ with the same Seiberg-Witten invariants.

To construct the bundle $`Y`$, let $`K_g`$ denote the $`(2g+1,2)`$-torus knot, pictured in Figure 1, and let $`M_{K_g}`$ denote the $`3`$-manifold obtained by performing $`0`$-framed surgery on $`K_g`$. This manifold has the integral homology of $`S^2\times S^1`$. In Figure 1 we can see an obvious genus $`g`$ Seifert surface for $`K_g`$. In $`M_{K_g}`$, fix a closed genus $`g`$ surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ obtained from capping off this Seifert surface with a disk.

Now fix a $`g1`$, and set $`K=K_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. Because $`K`$ is a fibered knot, $`S^1\times M_K`$ is a symplectic manifold which is fibered over $`T^2`$ with symplectic fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The fiber sum

$$Y_{2,g}=S^1\times M_K\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Sigma }S^1\times M_K$$

of two copies of $`S^1\times M_K`$ is again a symplectic manifold. This manifold has euler number $`e(Y_{2,g})=4g4`$ and signature $`\text{sign}(Y_{2,g})=0`$. In the $`j`$th copy of $`S^1\times M_K`$, let $`T_j`$ denote the torus $`S^1\times m`$ where $`m`$ is a meridian to $`K`$ (and thus generates $`H_1(M_K;)`$). This torus is a section to the fibration of $`S^1\times M_K`$. It follows from work of Meng and Taubes \[MT\] that any basic class of $`S^1\times M_K`$ must be a multiple of $`T_j`$. They show that the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`S^1\times M_K`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(t^2)/(tt^1)^2`$ where $`t=t_{T_j}H_2(S^1\times M_K;)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ is the symmetrized Alexander polynomial of $`K`$. Note that the intersection number of $`T_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`T_j\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$.

We wish to determine the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Y_{2,g}`$. Write

$$Y_{2,g}=((S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2))((S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2)).$$

In $`S^1\times M_K`$, the torus $`T_j`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2`$ in some $`\{y_j\}\times D^2`$. We may assume that the identification of the two copies of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the fiber sum is chosen so that $`y_1`$ is identified with $`y_2`$. We then obtain a genus 2 surface $`(T_1D^2)(T_2D^2)`$ in the fiber sum. (Of course, $`Y_{2,g}`$ is a fiber bundle over a genus 2 surface, and we have just constructed a section.) Let $`\tau _{1,2}`$ denote the class of this surface in $`H_2(Y_{2,g};)`$. Notice that $`\tau _{1,2}\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$ (and that $`\tau _{1,2}^2=0=\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$).

There are also $`4g`$ classes in $`H_2(Y_{2,g};)`$ which are obtained as follows: For a fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{t\}(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2)`$, the inclusion $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{t\};)H_1((S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2);)`$ is trivial. Thus, the identification of fibers and a collection of loops $`\{a_i\}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which gives a basis for $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma };)`$ gives rise to $`2g`$ 2-dimensional homology classes $`V_i`$ formed from unions of bounding surfaces. We shall refer to these as vanishing classes. For each $`a_i`$ there is a rim torus $`R_i=a_i\times D^2`$. With appropriate orientation choices, we have for all $`i,j`$:

1. $`R_jV_i=a_ia_j`$ (the skew-symmetric intersection form on $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma };)`$),
2. $`R_j\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$
3. $`R_j\tau _{1,2}=0`$

The intersection matrix $`Q`$ of $`\{V_i,R_j|i,j=1,\mathrm{},2g\}`$ has determinant 1, and these classes along with $`\tau _{1,2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ form a basis for $`H_2(Y_{2,g};)`$.

It will be useful to have a more specific description of the vanishing classes $`V_j`$. As we have mentioned, the complement in $`S^3`$ of the $`(2g+1,2)`$ \- torus knot $`K_g`$, fibers over the circle, and its fiber is a punctured genus $`g`$ surface, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^{}`$. If we make the obvious choices for the loops $`\{a_j\}`$ which are mentioned above, their associated Seifert linking pairing is

$$\mathrm{}k(a_i,a_j^+)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & j=i,i+1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a_j^+`$ is the positive push-off of $`a_j`$. Notice that $`a_j^+`$ bounds a genus 1 surface in $`S^3K_g`$. A typical element $`a_1`$ of this basis and its push-off $`a_1^+`$ for $`K_1`$, the left-hand trefoil knot, are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Again writing $`K`$ for $`K_g`$, we consider the fiber bundle

$$p:(S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2)T^2D^2.$$

The base deformation retracts to a wedge of two circles, $`S_1^1S_2^1`$, where $`p^1(S_1^1)=S_1^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`p^1(S_2^1)=M_K`$. Let $`S_1^1S_2^1=\{x_0\}`$, and let $`y_0`$ be a point in the boundary of $`T^2D^2`$. Let $`\delta :[0,1]T^2D^2`$ parametrize $`S_2^1`$ so that $`\delta (0)=x_0`$ and so that the positive push-off $`a_i^+`$ lies in $`p^1(\delta (.1))`$.

Now let $`\gamma `$ be an embedded path in $`T^2D^2`$ with $`\gamma (0)=y_0`$ and $`\gamma (1)=\delta (.1)`$. In $`p^1(y_0)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ consider the circle $`a_{i,}`$, the obvious circle in the fiber over $`y_0`$. This is a boundary component of an embedded annulus in $`p^1(\gamma )`$ whose other boundary component is $`a_i^+`$, which bounds a genus 1 surface in $`M_K=p^1(S_2^1)`$. We thus obtain in $`(S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2)`$ a genus 1 surface $`G_{i,1}`$ with boundary $`a_i`$. Similarly, in the second copy of $`(S^1\times M_K)(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times D^2)`$, we have a similar genus 1 surface $`G_{i,2}`$.

So far, we have left ourselves the freedom of choosing the gluing map which constructs the fiber sum. At this point, we specify that the chosen gluing must take the boundary of $`G_{i,1}`$ diffeomorphically onto the boundary of $`G_{i,2}`$ for each $`i`$. Then $`V_i=G_{i,1}G_{i,2}`$ is a genus 2 surface in $`Y_{2,g}`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The genus 2 surface $`V_i`$ has self-intersection number $`2`$ and satisfies $`V_i\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$, $`A_i\tau _{1,2}=0`$, and $`V_iR_j=a_ia_j`$.

###### Proof.

Except for the calculation of the self-intersection number, everything is clear from the construction of $`V_i`$. Let $`S_{2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ denote a circle in $`T^2D^2`$ which is disjoint from and parallel to $`S_2^1`$, and let $`\gamma ^{}`$ be a path parallel to $`\gamma `$ from a point in $`(T^2D^2)`$ to a point on $`S_{2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$. Using the structure of the fibration, $`G_{i,1}`$ in $`p^1(\gamma S_2^1)`$ can be pushed onto $`G_{i,1}^{}`$ in $`p^1(\gamma ^{}S_{2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{})`$. Depending on the choices made for $`S_{2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`\gamma ^{}`$, either $`S_1^2`$ will intersect $`g^{}`$ in a single point or $`S_{2}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ will intersect $`\gamma `$ in a single positive point. In either case the only fiber in which $`G_{i,1}`$ and $`G_{i,1}^{}`$ intersect is the fiber over this point. The intersection of each surface with the fiber is a push-off of $`a_i`$, and these two push-offs intersect once on this fiber. The same is true for surfaces $`G_{i,2}`$ and $`G_{i,2}^{}`$, implying that $`V_i^2=2`$. ∎

The adjunction inequality implies that any basic class must intersect a smoothly embedded surface of genus $`h`$ and self-intersection $`2h2`$ with intersection number equal to $`0`$. In particular, the intersection number of any basic class of $`Y_{2,g}`$ with a rim torus must be $`0`$. Consider a basic class $`k`$ of $`Y_{2,g}`$ and write

$$k=t\tau _{1,2}+s\mathrm{\Sigma }+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g}{}}u_iR_i+v_iV_i$$

The intersections $`kR_j=0`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},2g`$, give rise to the equation $`Q^T𝐯=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ where $`Q^T`$ is the transpose of the intersection matrix $`Q`$ and $`𝐯=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{2g})`$. Since $`Q`$ is nonsingular, all $`v_i=0`$.

We see that a basic class of $`Y_{2,g}`$ has the form

$$k=t\tau _{1,2}+s\mathrm{\Sigma }+\underset{j=1}{\overset{2g}{}}u_jR_j$$

Another application of the adjunction inequality gives $`0=V_ik`$, and we get the equation $`Q𝐮=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Once again this means that each coefficient $`u_j=0`$. Thus each basic class of $`Y_{2,g}`$ has the form $`k=t\tau _{1,2}+s\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Since $`Y_{2,g}`$ is a symplectic manifold, it has simple type; that is, for each basic class $`k`$,

$$k^2=3\text{sign}(Y_{2,g})+2e(Y_{2,g})=8g8$$

So if $`k=t\tau _{1,2}+s\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then $`2st=8g8`$. Applying the adjunction inequality to $`\tau _{1,2}`$ and to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ yields:

$$2\tau _{1,2}^2+|k\tau _{1,2}|=|s|\text{and}2g2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+|k\mathrm{\Sigma }|=|t|$$

Thus if $`g>1`$, the only basic classes of $`Y_{2,g}`$ are $`\pm \beta `$ where $`\beta =(2g2)\tau _{1,2}+2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Clearly, $`\beta `$ is the canonical class of $`Y_{2,g}`$, and

$$\text{SW}_{Y_{2,g}}=t_\beta +(1)^{g1}t_\beta ^1$$

In the special case $`g=1`$, $`Y_{2,1}`$ is a torus bundle over a genus 2 surface. In this case the above argument only shows that for the canonical class $`\beta =2\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`Y_{2,1}`$,

$$\text{SW}_{Y_{2,1}}=t_\beta +c+t_\beta ^1$$

where $`c=\text{SW}_{Y_{2,1}}(0)`$.

In general, let $`Y_{n,g}=(S^1\times M_K)\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(S^1\times M_K)\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(S^1\times M_K)`$ ($`n`$ copies) where $`K=K_g`$. Then $`Y_{n,g}`$ is a symplectic manifold which is a fiber bundle with a genus $`g`$ fiber and a genus $`n`$ base. It contains a section $`S`$ of square $`0`$ obtained from gluing together the punctured copies of $`T_i=S^1\times m_i`$. We still denote the genus $`g`$ fiber by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }=1`$. The same analysis as above shows that for $`g>1`$ the only basic classes of $`Y_{n,g}`$ are $`\pm \beta `$ where $`\beta =(2g2)S+(2n2)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the canonical class of $`Y_{n,g}`$, and

$$\text{SW}_{Y_{n,g}}=t_\beta +(1)^{(g1)(n1)}t_\beta ^1$$

Also $`\text{SW}_{Y_{n,1}}`$ is a monic symmetric Laurent polynomial in powers of $`t_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and the highest power that occurs is $`\pm (2n2)`$. These terms correspond to $`\pm \beta `$ where $`\beta =(2n2)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the canonical class.

We note for use below that when $`n>2`$, we have $`Y_{n,g}=\widehat{Y}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{Y}_n`$, where each $`\widehat{Y}_i`$, $`i1,n`$, is a bundle over $`T^2(D^2D^2)`$. In these latter manifolds there are punctured tori $`G_{i,j}^\pm `$ so that we get genus 2, self-intersection 2 (vanishing) surfaces $`V_{i,j}=G_{i,j}^+G_{i,j+1}^{}`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$.

Recall that the data given for our construction consists of a simply connected symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ with an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`n2`$ and self-intersection number $`0`$, and the integer $`g1`$. Form the symplectic manifold $`Z(X,C,g)`$ as the fiber sum of $`X`$ and $`Y_{n,g}`$:

$$Z=Z(X,C,g)=X\mathrm{\#}_{C=S}Y_{n,g}.$$

###### Proposition 2.2.

If $`\pi _1(XC)=1`$, then $`\pi _1(Z)=1`$.

###### Proof.

The $`i`$th $`\pi _1(S^1\times M_K)`$ is normally generated by the image of $`\pi _1(T_i)`$. Since $`T_i`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in a single point, a normal circle to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies in $`T_i`$. Thus $`\pi _1(S^1\times M_K\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is normally generated by the image of $`\pi _1(T_i\text{point})`$. An inductive application of Van Kampen’s theorem shows that $`\pi _1(Y_{n,g})`$ is normally generated by the image of $`\pi _1(S)`$. Thus if $`\pi _1(XC)=1`$, we have $`\pi _1(Z)=\pi _1(Y_{n,g}S)/\pi _1(S\times S^1)=1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`S`$ be an orientable surface in the compact orientable 4-manifold $`Y`$. The subgroup of $`H_2(YS;)`$ generated by the rim tori of $`S`$ is isomorphic to $`H^1(S)/\mathrm{im}(H^1(Y))`$. It follows that the rim tori of $`Z(X,C,g)`$ arising from loops in $`C=S`$ are all nullhomologous in $`Z(X,C,g)`$.

###### Proof.

The group generated by the classes of rim tori is the kernel of $`H_2(YS)H_2(Y)`$. Let $`N`$ be a tubular neighborhood of $`S`$. Then the main statement of the lemma follows from

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_3(Y)H_3(Y,YS)& \stackrel{}{}& H_2(YS)H_2(Y)\end{array}$$

once we note that $`H_3(Y,YS)H_3(N,N)`$ and invoke Poincaré duality. The second statement follows since $`H^1(Y_{n,g})H^1(S)`$. ∎

Dually, in the situation of the lemma, there is a homomorphism $`H_3(Y)H_1(S)`$ given by intersection. The lemma states that the group generated by the rim tori is the quotient of $`H_1(S)`$ by the image of $`H_3(Y)`$. Note that in the special case where $`p:YB`$ is a surface bundle over a surface, and $`S`$ is the image of a section, this implies that the subgroup of $`H_2(YS)`$ generated by the rim tori of $`S`$ vanishes.

For a basic class $`\kappa `$ of $`X`$, the adjunction inequality implies that the maximal intersection of $`\kappa `$ with $`C`$ is $`\kappa C=2n2`$. This intersection number is achieved when $`\kappa `$ is the canonical class of $`Z`$, and whenever this maximal intersection number is achieved, there is a surface $`B_\kappa `$ in $`X`$, representing $`\kappa `$, which intersects $`C`$ positively in exactly $`2n2`$ points. We can then form the class $`\beta _\kappa H_2(Z,)`$ which is represented by the union of $`B_\kappa `$ with $`2n2`$ disks removed and a smooth surface representing $`\beta `$ with the $`2n2`$ normal disks removed at the points where it intersects $`S`$. Any basic class $`\alpha `$ of $`Z`$ satisfies

$$\alpha ^2=c_1^2(Z)=c_1^2(X)+c_1^2(Y_{n,g})+8n8$$

Note that $`\epsilon _\kappa =\beta _\kappa +2C`$ has exactly this square.

It follows from \[MST\] (and the fact that there are no rim tori) that

$$\text{SW}_Z(\epsilon _\kappa )=\text{SW}_{Y_{n,g}}(\beta )\text{SW}_X(\kappa )=\text{SW}_X(\kappa )$$

and that these are the only basic classes of $`Z`$ which have intersection number $`2n2`$ with $`C`$. To express this, write the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z`$ as

$$\text{SW}_Z=\text{SW}_{\{Z;C,\}}+\text{SW}_{\{Z;C,\text{max}\}}$$

where the the first summand consists of terms of the form $`bt_{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`|\mathrm{}C|<2n2`$, and the latter summand consists of terms corresponding to basic classes whose intersection number with $`C`$ is $`\pm (2n2)`$. Similarly write

$$\text{SW}_X=\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\}}+\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\text{max}\}}.$$

Then we have:

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`X`$ be a symplectic 4-manifold containing an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`n`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Suppose also that $`\pi _1(XC)=0`$. Then for each $`g1`$, $`Z=Z(X,C,g)`$ is simply connected, and if the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is

$$\text{SW}_X=\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_k+(1)^{\chi (X)}t_k^1)$$

then the the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z`$ is

$$\text{SW}_Z=\text{SW}_{\{Z;C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_{\epsilon _k}+(1)^{\chi (Z)}t_{\epsilon _k}^1)$$

It seems quite likely that generally one has $`\text{SW}_{\{Z;C,\}}=0`$. Under special hypotheses on the manifold $`X`$, one can verify this. For example, let $`X`$ be the the knot surgery manifold obtained from the K3-surface by replacing a neighborhood of a torus fiber $`F`$ with the manifold $`S^1\times (S^3K^{})`$, where $`K^{}`$ is a fibered knot of genus $`n1`$. In the K3-surface let $`C^{}`$ be a symplectically embedded torus homologous to a fiber plus a section. Then in $`X`$, a disk in $`C^{}`$ is replaced with a Seifert surface for $`K^{}`$, and we get a symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`n`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. In \[FS4\] it is shown that $`XC`$ is simply connected, and as in that paper, adjunction inequality arguments can be used to show that $`\text{SW}_{\{Z;C,\}}=0`$, and $`\text{SW}_Z=t_F^{n1}+t_F^{1n}`$. These constructions give the examples promised at the beginning of this section.

## 3. Other interesting $`Z(X,C,g)`$

In this section we shall choose $`X`$ to be a complex surface with $`C`$ a holomorphically embedded submanifold. For a finite number of $`g`$ we will show that $`Z(X,C,g)`$ has $`\text{SW}=t_Kt_K^1`$, and by a theorem of Persson, Peters, and Xiao \[PPG\], its homeomorphism type does not support any complex structure. For the remaining $`g`$ there are indeed complex manifolds homeomorphic to $`Z(X,C,g)`$. We conjecture that none of the $`Z(X,C,g)`$ have a compatible complex structure. The relevant result is the following somewhat surprising restriction on the geography of complex surfaces which support a spin structure, i.e. with vanishing second Stiefel-Whitney class.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Persson, Peters, and Xiao \[PPG\]).

Let $`X`$ be a simply connected spin surface whose characteristic numbers satisfy

$$2\chi c_1^2<3(\chi 5)$$

then $`c_1^2=2(\chi 3)`$ with $`c_1^2=8k`$ and $`k`$ odd or $`c_1^2=\frac{8}{3}(\chi 4)`$ with $`\chi =1`$ (mod 3).

Let $`H(m)`$ be the spin Horikawa surface with $`\chi =8m1`$ (and $`c_1^2(H(m))=2\chi 6`$). It is well-known that each $`H(m)`$ supports a genus $`2`$ Lefschetz fibration. Let $`C`$ be a fiber. Then the manifolds $`Z(m,g)=Z(H(m),C,g)`$ are spin and

$$c_1^2(Z(m,g))=16m+8g8$$

$$\chi (Z(m,g))=8m+g1$$

Thus, whenever we fix $`m`$ and choose $`g`$ so that the characteristic numbers of $`Z(m,g)`$ are restricted by Theorem 3.1, we obtain symplectic manifolds that support no complex structure. For the remaining $`g`$, there are complex manifolds in the homeomorphism type of $`Z(m,g)`$; however, we conjecture that no $`Z(m,g)`$ supports a complex structure.

One can verify that $`X(m,g)`$ supports no complex structure whenever $`g<8/5m2`$ and if $`m=1`$ (mod 3) then $`g0`$ (mod 3), if $`m=2`$ (mod 3) then $`g1`$ (mod 3), or if $`m=0`$ (mod 3) then $`g2`$ (mod 3).

For example, there are no restricted examples starting with $`H(1)`$ and $`H(2)`$, i.e. $`Z(1,g)`$ and $`Z(2,g)`$ are homeomorphic to complex surfaces. However $`Z(3,g)`$ is restricted when $`g=1`$, $`Z(4,g)`$ is restricted when $`g=1,2,4`$, $`Z(5,g)`$ is restricted when $`g=2,3`$, Z(6,g) is restricted when $`g=1,3,4,6,7`$, etc.

Note that since $`H(m)`$ is the $`m`$-fold fiber sum of $`H(1)`$ along a genus $`2`$ fiber, $`Z(m,g)`$ is the fiber sum of $`Z(1,g)`$ with $`m1`$ copies of $`H(1)`$.

## 4. Construction II

This construction is similar to the last, but has properties which will be useful when performing the surgeries described in the next section. Again, let us begin with a simply connected symplectic 4-manifold $`X`$ containing an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`n2`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. For any $`g1`$ we can form the manifold $`Z(X,C,g)`$ as above. Suppose that we tweak this construction: As a warm-up, we begin with a simple case. Let $`K=K_g`$ and form a twisted fiber sum as follows:

$$Y_{1,g,n1}^{}=(S^1\times M_K)\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g=S_g}Y_{g,n1}=Y_{1,g}\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g=S_g}Y_{g,n1}.$$

The genus $`g`$ section $`S_g`$ of $`Y_{g,n1}`$ is identified with the genus $`g`$ fiber of $`S^1\times M_K`$ in the fiber sum. This new symplectic manifold contains the genus $`n`$ surface $`S^{}`$ of self-intersection $`0`$ obtained from the sum of the genus $`n1`$ fiber of $`Y_{g,n1}`$ together with the genus 1 section $`S_1`$ of $`Y_{1,g}`$. Define $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)=X\mathrm{\#}_{C=S^{}}Y_{1,g,n1}^{}`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

If $`XC`$ is simply connected, then so is $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Proposition 2.2, $`\pi _1(Y_{1,g}\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$ is normally generated by the image of $`\pi _1(S_1\text{pt})`$. Also, $`\pi _1(Y_{g,n1}S_g)`$ is normally generated by the image of the fundamental group of a section $`S_g^{}`$, disjoint from $`S_g`$, and by the normal circle to $`S_g`$ (which lies on a fiber). In $`\pi _1(Y_{1,g,n1}^{})`$, the image of $`\pi _1(S_g^{})`$ is identified with $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$ in $`\pi _1(Y_{1,g}\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$; thus $`\pi _1(Y_{1,g,n1}^{})`$ is normally generated by the image of $`\pi _1(S^{})`$. As in Proposition 2.2, if $`\pi _1(XC)`$ vanishes, it follows that $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ is simply connected. ∎

Note that $`H_2(Y_{g,n};)`$ has rank $`4g(n1)+2`$, whereas the rank of $`H_2(Y_{1,g,n1}^{};)`$ is $`4(g1)(n1)+2`$. The point is that the fiber sum along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g=S_g`$ contributes no rim tori classes (nor the associated vanishing classes) because rim tori to the section $`S_g`$ bound in $`Y_{g,n1}S_g`$. (See the remark following Lemma 2.3.)

The fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}`$ of $`Y_{g,n1}`$ has a basis for $`H_1`$ represented by the loops $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{2n2}`$ which were discussed in §2. Using the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}S^{}`$ and the identification of $`S^{}`$ with $`C`$ in $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ we obtain loops $`\overline{a}_i`$ on $`C\times \text{{point} }`$ in $`C\times D^2X(C\times D^2)`$. In the fiber sum with $`X`$, the rim tori to the $`\overline{a}_i`$ and the vanishing classes contribute $`2n2`$ new hyperbolic pairs. Thus $`Z(X,C,g)`$ and $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ have isomorphic intersection forms, and we get:

###### Proposition 4.2.

The symplectic manifolds $`Z(X,C,g)`$ and $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ are homeomorphic.

Let $`\beta ^{}=(2n2)\mathrm{\Sigma }_g+(2g2)S^{}`$ be the canonical class of $`Y_{1,g,n1}^{}`$. An argument similar to that of §2 shows that

$$\text{SW}_{Y_{1,g,n1}^{}}=t_\beta ^{}+t_\beta ^{}^1(\text{+ terms of lower degree in }t_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}\text{ in case }g=1\text{)}$$

We next restrict $`X`$ to be a manifold which has the property that the above loops $`\overline{a}_i`$ on $`C\times \text{{point} }`$ bound vanishing cycles (disks of self-intersection $`1`$) in $`XC`$. This means that the boundary of the disk is allowed to move only in $`C\times \text{{point} }`$ when computing this self-intersection. For example, if we let $`X`$ be the simply connected minimal elliptic surface without multiple fibers and with $`\chi =n+1`$, $`X=E(n+1)`$, and let $`C`$ be a fiber of the genus $`n`$ fibration on $`E(n+1)`$, then the pair $`(X,C)`$ will satisfy this hypothesis. When this hypothesis is satisfied we will say that $`Y_{1,g,n1}^{}`$ and $`(X,C)`$ are complementary.

Lemma 2.3 shows that the rim tori in $`Y_{1,g,n1}^{}S^{}`$ which come from $`H_1(S_1\{\mathrm{pt}\};)H_1(S^{};)`$ are nullhomologous in $`Y^{}S^{}`$. Let $`R_i`$ denote the rim tori in $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ corresponding to the $`\overline{a}_i`$. If we assume that $`Y_{1,g,n1}^{}`$ and $`(X,C)`$ are complementary, then each $`\overline{a}_j`$ bounds a disk of self-intersection $`1`$ in $`XC`$. Now $`a_j`$ lies on a fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}`$ in $`Y_{g,n1}`$; so it lies in some copy of $`S^1\times M_{K_{n1}}`$. As we have seen in §2, $`a_j`$ bounds a punctured torus of self-intersection $`+1`$ in this copy of $`S^1\times M_{K_{n1}}`$, and we can clearly make this punctured torus miss a section and a fiber of $`S^1\times M_{K_{n1}}`$. In $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ the $`(1)`$-disk and the punctured torus glue together to give a torus $`U_j`$ of self-intersection $`0`$. The $`U_j`$ satisfy

$$R_iU_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1,\hfill & j=i\pm 1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & ji\pm 1\hfill \end{array}$$

Again as in §2, if $`\kappa `$ is a basic class of $`X`$ which satisfies $`\kappa C=2n2`$ then we let $`\beta _\kappa ^{}`$ be the class represented by summing representatives of $`\beta ^{}`$ and $`\kappa `$ along $`C=S^{}`$, and let $`\epsilon _\kappa ^{}=\beta _\kappa ^{}+2C`$. Then \[MST\] implies that

$$\underset{r_1,\mathrm{},r_n}{}\text{SW}_{Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)}(\epsilon _\kappa ^{}+\underset{i}{}r_iR_i)=\text{SW}_{Y_{1,g,n1}^{}}(\beta ^{})\text{SW}_X(\kappa )=\text{SW}_X(\kappa )$$

and applying the adjunction inequality to the classes $`U_j`$ shows that all $`r_i=0`$. Thus for basic classes $`\kappa `$ of $`X`$ which intersect $`C`$ maximally,

$$\text{SW}_{Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)}(\epsilon _\kappa ^{})=\text{SW}_X(\kappa ).$$

Hence $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ has the same Seiberg-Witten (max) as $`Z(X,C,g)`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`X`$ be a symplectic 4-manifold containing an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`n2`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Suppose also that $`\pi _1(XC)=0`$ and that $`Y_{1,g,n1}^{}`$ and $`(X,C)`$ are complementary. Then $`Z^{}=Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ is simply connected, and if the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is

$$\text{SW}_X=\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_k+(1)^{\chi (X)}t_k^1)$$

then the the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z^{}`$ is

$$\text{SW}_Z^{}=\text{SW}_{\{Z^{};C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_{\epsilon _k^{}}+(1)^{\chi (Z^{})}t_{\epsilon _k^{}}^1)$$

Whether $`Z(X,C,1)`$ and $`Z_{1,g,n1}^{}(X,C)`$ are in fact diffeomorphic is a very interesting question.

More generally, let $`L=\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$ be a set of positive integers, and let

$$Y_{1,g,L}^{}=Y_{1,g}\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,i}=S_{g,i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Y_{g,k_i}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,i}`$ are $`n`$ genus $`g`$ fibers of $`Y_{1,g}`$ and $`S_{g,i}`$ is the genus $`g`$ section of $`Y_{g,k_i}`$. Then $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ is a symplectic manifold which contains an embedded symplectic surface $`S^{}`$ of genus $`1+k_i`$ and self-intersection number $`0`$ formed from the sum of a section of $`Y_{1,g}`$ and fibers of the $`Y_{g,k_i}`$. The canonical class of $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ is $`\beta ^{}=(2k_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_g+(2g2)S^{}`$.

Now let $`X`$ be a symplectic 4-manifold with an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`1+k_i`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Then we can form

$$Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)=X\mathrm{\#}_{C=S^{}}Y_{1,g,L}^{}$$

As above, if $`XC`$ is simply connected, then $`Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$ is also simply connected. Arguments which are by now familiar show that

$$\text{SW}_{Y_{1,g,n1}^{}}=t_\beta ^{}+t_\beta ^{}^1(\text{+ terms of lower degree in }t_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_g}\text{ in case }g=1\text{)}$$

In $`Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$ we can form classes $`\beta _k^{}`$ and $`\epsilon _k^{}`$ corresponding to the basic classes $`k`$ of $`X`$ which intersect $`C`$ maximally. If $`\kappa `$ is the canonical class of $`X`$ then $`\epsilon _\kappa ^{}`$ is the canonical class of $`Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$. There is an obvious extension of the definition of ‘complementarity’ for $`(X,C)`$ and $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`L=\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$ be a set of positive integers, and let $`X`$ be a symplectic 4-manifold containing an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`1+k_i`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Suppose also that $`\pi _1(XC)=0`$ and that $`(X,C)`$ and $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ are complementary. Then $`Z^{}=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$ is simply connected, and if the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is

$$\text{SW}_X=\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_k+(1)^{\chi (X)}t_k^1)$$

then the the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z^{}`$ is

$$\text{SW}_Z^{}=\text{SW}_{\{Z^{};C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_{\epsilon _k^{}}+(1)^{\chi (Z^{})}t_{\epsilon _k^{}}^1)$$

As we noted above, the hypotheses of this proposition hold for $`X`$ the elliptic surface $`E(n)`$, $`n=2+k_i`$, and $`C`$ a smooth fiber of its genus $`(n1)`$-fibration.

## 5. How to make $`Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$ nonsymplectic

Next we show how to modify the manifolds $`Z^{}=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C)`$ in order to manipulate the Seiberg-Witten invariant in such a way that it becomes impossible for the resulting manifold to admit a symplectic structure. We first identify families of nullhomologous tori in $`Z^{}`$ with self-intersection number $`0`$ upon which we will perform surgery. The manifold $`Y_{1,g}=S^1\times M_{K_g}`$ is the total space of a fiber bundle $`p:Y_{1,g}B`$ with a genus $`1`$ base and genus $`g`$ fiber, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. Let $`S_1^1`$ and $`S_2^1`$ be embedded circles in the base which generate $`\pi _1`$ and such that the $`p^1(S_1^1)S_1^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ and $`p^1(S_2^1)M_{K_g}`$. We may suppose that $`S_1^1`$ and $`S_2^1`$ intersect in a single point, $`x_0`$. For any closed embedded loop $`\alpha `$ in $`p^1(x_0)`$, there is a torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )=S_1^1\times \alpha Y_{1,g}`$.

For the fiber sum $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}=Y_{1,g}\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,i}=S_{g,i}}_{i=1}^nY_{g,k_i}`$, let $`b_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ be the points in $`B`$ whose fibers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,b_i}`$ are identified with the sections $`S_{g,i}`$ of the $`Y_{g,k_i}`$. We may assume that $`b_iB(S_1^1S_2^1)`$ for each $`i`$, and so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )`$ represents a class in $`H_2(Y_{1,g,L}^{};)`$. This group is generated by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, $`S^{}`$, the rim tori and vanishing classes in the $`Y_{g,k_i}`$, and the rim tori and vanishing classes which arise from the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,b_i}`$. However, since the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,b_i}`$ are identified with sections $`S_{g,i}`$ in $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$, these last rim tori are nullhomologous in $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ and there are no corresponding vanishing classes. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )`$ is disjoint from all the rest of these surfaces; so this means that in $`H_2(Y_{1,g,L}^{};)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )`$ is nullhomologous. We shall be interested in the case where $`\alpha =a_i`$, the loops giving the basis for $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g;)`$ which is described in §2.

We now wish to perform surgeries on collections of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_i)`$. In $`S^3K_g`$, a positive push-off $`a_i^+`$ of $`a_i`$ bounds a punctured torus in the complement of $`K_g`$. Since $`p^1(S_2^1)`$ is diffeomorphic to $`M_{K_g}=(S^3(K_g\times D^2))(S^1\times D^2)`$, we see that there is a push-off of $`a_i`$ onto $`(a_i\times D^2)`$ which bounds a punctured torus in $`M_{K_g}(a_i\times D^2)`$. Denote this push-off by $`\widehat{a}_i`$. It defines a ‘$`0`$-framing’ for $`a_i`$, and we use it to express the boundary of a tubular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_i)`$ as $`S_1^1\times \widehat{a}_i\times D^2`$. In general, remove this tubular neighborhood from $`Z`$ and reglue it so that (in homology) $`D^2`$ is sent to $`m\widehat{a}_i+\mathrm{}D^2`$ and $`S_1^1`$ to $`S_1^1`$ on $`(Z^{}(S_1^1\times \widehat{a}_i\times D^2))`$. This gives $`\mathrm{}/m`$-surgery on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha _i)`$. We are interested in $`(1/m)`$-surgery for all $`m0`$.

For $`m0`$, $`(1/m)`$-surgery on $`a_1`$ in Figure 2 turns $`K_g`$ into a different knot $`K_g(m)`$ in $`S^3`$. The construction gives an obvious genus $`g`$ Seifert surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for $`K_g(m)`$. (See Figure 4.) It is then clear that $`(1/m)`$-surgery on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)`$ in $`S^1\times M_{K_g}`$ gives $`S^1\times M_{K_g(m)}`$. Performing this surgery on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ gives us a new manifold

$$Y_{1,g,L}^{}(m)=S^1\times M_{K_g(m)}\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g,i}=S_{g,i}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Y_{g,k_i}$$

and

$$Z^{}(m)=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C;m)=X\mathrm{\#}_{C=S^{}}Y_{1,g,L}^{}(m)$$

since $`S^{}`$ is still defined using the torus $`S^1\times \{\text{meridian}\}`$ in $`S^1\times M_{K_g(m)}`$ and the fibers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{k_i}`$ in the $`Y_{g,k_i}`$. The argument of Propostion 4.1 shows that if $`XC`$ is simply connected, then so is $`Z^{}(m)`$.

We next wish to calculate the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z^{}(m)`$. Using the Mayer-Vietoris sequence for $`Z^{}=(Z^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)\times D^2))(\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)\times D^2)`$ and similarly for $`Z^{}(m)`$, we see that we may identify the homology groups of these manifolds. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1;m)`$ be the core torus of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)\times D^2`$ in $`Z^{}(m)`$. Since we are performing $`(1/m)`$-surgery on the nullhomologous torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)`$, the torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1;m)`$ is also nullhomologous. Let $`\widehat{Z}^{}`$ denote the result of the surgery on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)`$ for which $`D^2`$ is sent to $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`S_1^1`$ to $`S_1^1`$ on $`(Z^{}(S_1^1\times \widehat{a}_1\times D^2))`$. (This corresponds to $`(0/1)`$-surgery on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)`$.) The intersection number of a basic class with a self-intersection $`0`$ torus must be $`0`$; so the basic classes of $`Z^{}`$ may also be viewed as homology classes of $`Z^{}(m)`$ which have trivial intersection with the image torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1;m)`$. In $`\widehat{Z}^{}`$ there is the additional class $`\tau `$ which is represented by the torus $`S_1^1\times \{\text{point in }a_1\}\times D^2`$ on $`(Z^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)\times D^2))=(Z^{}(S_1^1\times a_1\times D^2))`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(a_1)`$ is nullhomologous, the surgery formula of Morgan, Mrowka, Szabo \[MMS\] and Taubes \[T3\] (see also \[FS2\]) states

$$\text{SW}_{Z^{}(m)}(\zeta )=\text{SW}_Z^{}(\zeta )m\underset{i,j}{}\text{SW}_{\widehat{Z}^{}}(\zeta +j\tau ).$$

For each basic class $`k`$ of $`X`$ which satisfies $`kC=2k_i`$ we have classes $`\beta _k^{}`$ and $`\epsilon _k^{}`$ in $`Z^{}`$. There are also such classes in $`Z^{}(m)`$, and to avoid further notational complexities, we shall still denote them by $`\beta _k^{}`$ and $`\epsilon _k^{}`$.

The knot $`K_g(1)`$, obtained from $`(+1)`$-surgery on $`a_1`$, has a Seifert surface of genus $`g1`$, one less than that of $`K_g`$. Figure 5 exhibits the case $`g=1`$. In $`M_{K_g(1)}`$ and therefore in $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}(1)`$ there is a corresponding closed surface $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g1}`$. Calculating as in §2 we find that the only possible basic classes of $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}(1)`$ are $`\pm ((2k_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_g+(2g2)S^{})`$ (and lesser multiples of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ in case $`g=1`$). However, $`S^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g1}=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g1}=0`$. In case $`g>1`$, the adjunction inequality, applied to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g1}`$, leads directly to a contradiction if we assume that $`\pm ((2k_i)\mathrm{\Sigma }_g+(2g2)S^{})`$ is a basic class. In case $`g=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is a sphere of self-intersection $`0`$, and it is essential since $`S^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=1`$ (\[FS1\]). Thus the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}(1)`$ vanishes in this case as well. Using \[MST\], we get $`\text{SW}_{Z^{}(1)}=0`$, and applying the above formula we obtain

$$0=\text{SW}_Z^{}(\zeta )+\underset{i}{}\text{SW}_{\widehat{Z}^{}}(\zeta +i\tau )$$

for each basic class $`\zeta `$ of $`Z^{}`$, and hence:

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`L=\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$ be a set of positive integers, and let $`X`$ be a symplectic 4-manifold containing an embedded symplectic surface $`C`$ of genus $`1+k_i`$ and self-intersection $`0`$. Suppose also that $`\pi _1(XC)=0`$ and that $`(X,C)`$ and $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ are complementary. Then for any positive integer $`m`$, $`Z^{}(m)=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C;m)`$ is simply connected, and if the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ is

$$\text{SW}_X=\text{SW}_{\{X;C,\}}+\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_k+(1)^{\chi (X)}t_k^1)$$

then the the Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`Z^{}(m)`$ is

$$\text{SW}_{Z^{}(m)}=\text{SW}_{\{Z^{}(m);C,\}}+(m+1)\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_{\epsilon _k^{}}+(1)^{\chi (Z^{}(m))}t_{\epsilon _k^{}}^1).$$

Of course, it follows that if $`m0`$, $`Z^{}(m)`$ can admit no symplectic structure.

It is clear that nothing special is gained by working with $`a_1`$ in this construction. If $`𝐦=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{2g})`$ where the $`m_i`$ are nonnegative integers, and we perform $`(1/m_i)`$-surgeries on (push-offs) of the $`a_i`$ in $`M_{K_g}`$ we obtain $`0`$-surgery on a new knot $`K_g(𝐦)`$. Our construction then leads us to manifolds $`Z^{}(𝐦)=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C;𝐦)`$ As long as $`XC`$ is simply connected, $`Z^{}(𝐦)`$ will also be simply connected, and, with notation as above,

###### Corollary 5.2.

$`\text{SW}_{\{Z^{}(𝐦);C,max\}}=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g}{}}(m_i+1))\underset{kC=2n2}{}c_k(t_{\epsilon _k}+(1)^{\chi (Z^{}(𝐦))}t_{\epsilon _k}^1)`$.

In the special case where $`X`$ is the result of knot surgery on the K3-surface with a knot of genus $`k_i`$ and $`C`$ is the surface described in the paragraph below Proposition 2.4, $`(X,C)`$ and $`Y_{1,g,L}^{}`$ are complementary, and we get

$$\text{SW}_{Z^{}(𝐦)}=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2g}{}}(m_i+1))(t_F^{n1}\pm t_F^{1n}).$$

So, for example, for any of the many choices of $`𝐦`$ with corresponding products $`(m_i+1)`$ equal, we have manifolds which cannot be distinguished by means of their Seiberg-Witten invariants. One can also vary $`L=\{k_1,\mathrm{},k_n\}`$.

For the record, we note following facts about the characteristic numbers $`c_1^2(Z^{}(𝐦))`$ and $`\chi (Z^{}(𝐦))=\frac{1}{4}(\text{sign}(Z^{}(𝐦))+e(Z^{}(𝐦)))`$.

###### Proposition 5.3.

The characteristic numbers of $`Z^{}(𝐦)=Z_{1,g,L}^{}(X,C;𝐦)`$ are:

$`c_1^2(Z^{}(𝐦)=c_1^2(X)+8(n(g1)+{\displaystyle }k_i),\text{and}`$
$`\chi (Z^{}(𝐦))=\chi (X)+(n(g1)+{\displaystyle k_i}).`$
## 6. Symplectic fibrations

A theorem of Parshin and Arakelov \[P, A\] (see also \[JY\]) states that given fixed $`g2`$ and a finite set of points $`S\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$, there are at most finitely many holomorphic fibrations over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ whose generic fiber is a Riemann surface of genus $`g`$ and whose singular fibers have image in $`S`$. Interest in fibrations of symplectic manifolds has been rekindled by the theorem of Simon Donaldson \[D\] which states that (after blowing up) each symplectic $`4`$-manifold admits a locally holomorphic Lefschetz fibration over $`S^2`$. In this section we shall give examples which show that the Parshin-Arakelov Theorem has no analogue in the symplectic category. (See Theorem 6.2 below.) The authors have described more complicated examples exhibiting this phenomenon in \[FS5\].

The Lefschetz fibrations which we have in mind live on the homotopy elliptic surfaces of \[FS2\]. These manifolds, $`E(n)_K`$, are built from knot surgery on the simply connected, minimally elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ without multiple fibers and of holomorphic Euler characteristic $`n`$. If $`K`$ is a nontrivial fibered knot, then $`E(n)_K`$ is a symplectic $`4`$-manifold which admits no complex structure (nor does $`E(n)_K`$ with the opposite orientation).

The elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ is the double branched cover of $`\mathrm{SS}`$ with branch set equal to four disjoint copies of $`S^2\times \{\mathrm{pt}\}`$ together with $`2n`$ disjoint copies of $`\{\mathrm{pt}\}\times S^2`$. The resultant branched cover has $`8n`$ singular points (corresponding to the double points in the branch set), whose neighborhoods are cones on $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$. These are desingularized in the usual way, replacing their neighborhoods with cotangent bundles of $`S^2`$. The result is $`E(n)`$. The horizontal and vertical fibrations of $`\mathrm{SS}`$ pull back to give fibrations of $`E(n)`$ over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$. A generic fiber of the vertical fibration is the double cover of $`S^2`$, branched over $`4`$ points — a torus. This describes an elliptic fibration of $`E(n)`$. The generic fiber of the horizontal fibration is the double cover of $`S^2`$, branched over $`2n`$ points, and this gives a genus $`n1`$ fibration on $`E(n)`$. This genus $`n1`$ fibration has four singular fibers which are the preimages of the four $`S^2\times \{\mathrm{pt}\}`$’s in the branch set together with the spheres of self-intersection $`2`$ arising from desingularization. The generic fiber $`T`$ of the elliptic fibration meets a generic fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}`$ of the horizontal fibration in two points, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}T=2`$.

Let $`K`$ be a fibered knot of genus $`g`$, and fix a generic elliptic fiber $`T_0`$ of $`E(n)`$. Then in the knot surgery manifold

$$E(n)_K=(E(n)(T_0\times D^2))(S^1\times (S^3N(K)),$$

each normal $`2`$-disk to $`T_0`$ is replaced by a fiber of the fibration of $`S^3N(K)`$ over $`S^1`$. Since $`T_0`$ intersects each generic horizontal fiber twice, we obtain a ‘horizontal’ fibration

$$h:E(n)_K\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}$$

of genus $`2g+n1`$.

This fibration also has four singular fibers arising from the four copies of $`S^2\times \{\mathrm{pt}\}`$ in the branch set of the double cover of $`\mathrm{SS}`$. Each of these gets blown up at $`2n`$ points in $`E(n)`$, and the singular fibers each consist of a genus $`g`$ surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ of self-intersection $`n`$ and multiplicity $`2`$ with $`2n`$ disjoint $`2`$-spheres of self-intersection $`2`$, each meeting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ transversely in one point. The monodromy around each singular fiber is (conjugate to) the diffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$ which is the deck transformation $`\eta `$ of the double cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, branched over $`2n`$ points. Another way to describe $`\eta `$ is to take the hyperelliptic involution $`\omega `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}`$ and to connect sum copies of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ at the two points of a nontrivial orbit of $`\omega `$. Then $`\omega `$ extends to the involution $`\eta `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$.

The fibration which we have described is not Lefschetz since the singularities are not simple nodes. However, it can be perturbed locally to be Lefschetz:

###### Lemma 6.1.

Any symplectic fibration on a $`4`$-manifold with singular fibers equivalent to those of $`h:E(n)_K\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ can be locally deformed to a Lefschetz fibration.

###### Proof.

It suffices to find a holomorphic model for the singular fibers of $`h`$, since these can be locally deformed to a Lefschetz fibration by complex Morse theory. The model is built from a branched double cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times S^2`$. This time the branch set consists of two disjoint copies of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times \{\mathrm{pt}\}`$ and $`2n`$ disjoint copies of $`\{\mathrm{pt}\}\times S^2`$. After desingularizing as above, one obtains a complex surface $`M(n,g)`$ with a holomorphic (horizontal) fibration of genus $`2g+n1`$ and with a pair of singular fibers exactly of the type of the singular fibers of $`h`$. ∎

Returning to our examples, we have:

###### Theorem 6.2.

If $`K`$ is a fibered knot whose fiber has genus $`g`$, then $`E(n)_K`$ admits a locally holomorphic fibration (over $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$) of genus $`2g+n1`$ which has exactly four singular fibers. Furthermore, this fibration can be deformed locally to be Lefschetz.

There are qualitative differences in the fibrations on $`E(n)_K`$ between $`n=1`$ and $`n>1`$. From their local description in Lemma 6.1, $`E(1)_K`$ contains singular fibers which are reducible; i.e. vanishing cycles obtained from Dehn twists about separating curves. This is due to the fact that it is built from a genus $`0`$ fibration on $`E(1)`$. Siebert and Tian \[ST\] have shown that any genus 2 Lefschetz fibration with only irreducible singular fibers must be holomorphic. Using this, Auroux \[Au\] has shown that any genus 2 Lefschetz fibration is stably holomorphic; i.e. the fiber sum of any genus 2 Lefschetz fibration with sufficiently many copies of the rational genus 2 Lefschetz fibration $`X_2`$ with 20 irreducible singular fibers is isomorphic to a holomorphic fibration. Thus, when $`K`$ is either the trefoil or figure $`8`$ knot (genus 1), then $`E(1)_K`$ admits a genus $`2`$ Lefschetz fibration and $`E(1)_K`$ admits no complex structure. However, the fiber sum of $`E(1)_K`$ with four copies of $`X_2`$ is diffeomorphic to a complex surface. The case of $`E(n)_K`$, $`n>1`$, is different. From their local description in Lemma 6.1, the fibrations in Theorem 6.2 are all of genus larger than 2 and have only irreducible singular fibers:

###### Proposition 6.3.

For $`n2`$, the genus $`2g+n1`$ Lefschetz fibrations, described above, on the manifolds $`E(n)_K`$ have no reducible singular fibers.

###### Proof.

Our argument determines the vanishing cycles of the Lefschetz fibration, and shows that they must all be nonseparating, or equivalently the corresponding singular fibers must be irreducible. It is easy to see that for any genus $`G`$ Lefschetz fibration on a manifold $`X`$ over $`S^2`$, the euler number of $`X`$ is given by $`e(X)=s4G+4`$, where $`s`$ is the number of singular fibers. Since $`e(E(n)_K)=12n`$, our Lefschetz fibration has $`16n+8g8`$ singular fibers. This fibration is obtained by a local deformation of a fibration $`\xi `$ on $`E(n)_K`$ which has $`4`$ singular fibers. Each of these $`4`$ singular fibers contributes $`4n+2g2`$ singular fibers and therefore $`4n+2g2`$ vanishing cycles to the Lefschetz fibration.

By construction, the Lefschetz fibration on $`E(n)_K`$ is obtained from the standard genus $`n1`$ hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibration on $`E(n)`$. This fibration has $`16n8`$ singular fibers, and, for $`n2`$, it is well-known (see, e.g. \[GS\]) that they are all irreducible.

We next take account of the fact that the singular fibers of $`\xi `$ have genus $`g`$, whereas the nonsingular fibers have genus $`2g+n1`$. Vanishing cycles must account for the corresponding reduction of the first betti numbers of the fibers. Already we have taken into account the reduction in genus from $`n1`$ to $`0`$, since this occurs in the hyperelliptic fibration. It remains to find $`2g`$ more vanishing cycles for each singular fiber of $`\xi `$. This accounts for the remaining $`8g`$ vanishing cycles, and they all must be nonseparating, since a separating vanishing cycle does not reduce the first homology of the fiber. ∎

None of these examples, for $`n2`$, are hyperelliptic. Thus, while it is a conjecture of Siebert and Tian \[ST\] that a hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibration with no reducible fibers is indeed holomorphic, the examples constructed in Theorem 6.2 show that hyperellipticity is a necessary hypothesis.

There is another way to view these constructions. Let $`M(n,g)`$ be the complex surface arising in the proof of Lemma 6.1. Once again, this manifold carries a pair of fibrations. There is a genus $`2g+n1`$ fibration over $`S^2`$ and an $`S^2`$ fibration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$.

Consider first the $`S^2`$ fibration. This has $`2n`$ singular fibers, each of which consists of a smooth 2-sphere $`E_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, of self-intersection $`1`$ and multiplicity $`2`$, together with a pair of disjoint spheres of self-intersection $`2`$, each intersecting $`E_i`$ once transversely. If we blow down $`E_i`$ we obtain again an $`S^2`$ fibration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, but the $`i`$th singular fiber now consists of a pair of 2-spheres of self-intersection $`1`$ meeting once, transversely. Blowing down one of these gives another $`S^2`$ fibration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, with one less singular fiber. Thus blowing down $`M(n,g)`$ $`4n`$ times results in a manifold which is an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. This means that (if $`n>0`$) $`M(n,g)`$ is diffeomorphic to $`(S^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g)\mathrm{\#}4n\overline{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$.

The genus $`2g+n1`$ fibration on $`M(n,g)`$ has 2 singular fibers. As above, these fibers consist of a genus $`g`$ surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ of self-intersection $`n`$ and multiplicity $`2`$ with $`2n`$ disjoint $`2`$-spheres of self-intersection $`2`$, each meeting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ transversely in one point. The monodromy of the fibration around each of these fibers is the deck transformation of the double branched cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. This is just the map $`\eta `$ described above.

Let $`\phi `$ be a diffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_gD^2`$ which is the identity on the boundary. For instance, $`\phi `$ could be the monodromy of a fibered knot of genus $`g`$. There is an induced diffeomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ which is given by $`\phi `$ on the first $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ summand and by the identity on the other summands. Consider the twisted fiber sum

$$M(n,g)\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Phi }M(n,g)=\{M(n,g)(D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1})\}_{\text{id}\times \mathrm{\Phi }}\{M(n,g)(D^2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1})\}$$

where fibered neighborhoods of generic fibers $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$ have been removed from the two copies of $`M(n,g)`$, and they have been glued by the diffeomorphism $`\text{id}\times \mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$.

In the case that $`\phi `$ is the monodromy of a fibered knot $`K`$, we claim that $`M(n,g)\mathrm{\#}_\mathrm{\Phi }M(n,g)`$ is the manifold $`E(n)_K`$ with the genus $`2g+n1`$ fibration described above. To see this, we view $`S^2`$ as the base of the horizontal fibration. Then it suffices to check that the total monodromy map $`\pi _1(S^24\text{points})\text{Diff}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1})`$ is the same for each. It is not difficult to see that if we write the generators of $`\pi _1(S^24\text{points})`$ as $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ representing loops around the singular points of, say, the image of the first copy of $`M(n,g)`$ and basepoint in this image, and $`\gamma `$ a loop around a singular point in the image of the second $`M(n,g)`$ then the monodromy map $`\mu `$ satisfies $`\mu (\alpha )=\eta `$, $`\mu (\beta )=\eta `$ and $`\mu (\gamma )`$ is $`\phi \omega \phi ^1`$, expressed as a diffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. That this is also the monodromy of $`E(n)_K`$ follows directly from its construction.

## 7. Construction III

Let $`K_1`$, $`K_2`$ be fibered knots of genus $`g`$, and fix $`n1`$. Then as in the previous section there are genus $`2g+n1`$ fibrations on the manifolds $`E(n)_{K_i}`$. The manifolds $`E(n)_{K_i}`$ do not admit torus fibrations, but it makes sense to speak of ‘elliptic fibers’ $`T_i`$ in $`E(n)_{K_i}`$, meaning those remaining from $`E(n)`$ after knot surgery. As above, $`T_i`$ intersects the horizontal fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$ in two positive intersection points.

Let $`Y=Y(n;K_1,K_2)`$ denote the fiber sum $`E(n)_{K_1}\mathrm{\#}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}}E(n)_{K_2}`$. Then $`Y`$ is a symplectic manifold with $`c_1^2(Y)=16g+8n16`$. Furthermore, $`Y`$ is simply connected because in $`E(n)_{K_i}`$ a remnant of a singular fiber of the elliptic fibration on $`E(n)`$ provides a 2-sphere (of self-intersection $`2`$) which intersects the fiber $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$ in one point. Tori $`T_iE(n)_{K_i}`$, $`i=1,2`$ which intersect $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}\times S^1`$ in identified circles will glue together to form a genus 3 surface in $`Y`$. Let $`\tau `$ denote the homology class in $`Y`$ which is represented by this surface. Hence $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}=2`$. The canonical class of $`Y`$ is $`K_Y=(2g+n2)\tau +2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$, and any basic class $`\kappa `$ of $`Y`$ satisfies $`\kappa ^2=16g+8n16`$.

Straightforward adjunction inequality arguments show that the only basic classes of $`Y`$ are those of form $`\pm K_Y+R`$ where $`R`$ lies in the subgroup of $`H_2(Y;)`$ generated by rim tori of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$. Let $`\omega `$ denote a symplectic form on $`Y`$ obtained as a result of symplectic fiber sum. Then all rim tori of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+n1}`$ are Lagrangian with respect to $`\omega `$. Invoking \[T2\], we see that $`_{K_Y}\omega `$ is the unique maximal value of $`_\kappa \omega `$ among all basic classes $`\kappa `$ of $`Y`$. But because rim tori are Lagrangian,

$$_{K_Y+R}\omega =_{K_Y}\omega $$

This means that $`K_Y+R`$ is not basic if $`R0`$. Thus the only basic classes of $`Y`$ are $`\pm K_Y`$, and $`\text{SW}_Y=t_K+(1)^nt_K^1`$.

If $`\{K_i\}`$ is a family of genus $`g`$ fibered knots, then the above discussion shows that manifolds $`Y(n;K_i,K_j)`$ cannot be distinguished on the basis of their Seiberg-Witten invariants.


format: text

text:
# Measurement of 𝑅=𝜎_𝐿/𝜎_𝑇 in Deep-Inelastic Scattering on Nuclei

The HERMES Collaboration

## Abstract

Cross section ratios for deep-inelastic scattering from 3He, 14N and 84Kr with respect to 2H have been measured by the HERMES collaboration at DESY using a 27.5 GeV positron beam. The data cover a range in the Bjorken scaling variable $`x`$ between 0.010 and 0.65, the negative squared four-momentum transfer $`Q^2`$ varies from 0.5 to 15 GeV2, while at small values of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$, the virtual photon polarisation parameter $`ϵ`$ extends to lower values than previous measurements. From the dependence of the data on $`ϵ`$, values for $`R_A/R_D`$ with $`R`$ the ratio $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ of longitudinal to transverse DIS cross sections have been derived and found to be consistent with unity.

In 1993 the EMC collaboration published a significant difference between the deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) cross sections per nucleon on iron and deuterium emc-effect , indicating that the quark momentum distributions in bound nucleons differ from those in free nucleons. This phenomenon is known as the EMC effect at large values of the Bjorken scaling variable $`x(x>0.1)`$, and as shadowing at lower values of $`x`$ Arne94 .

With $`F_2(x)`$ found to be $`A`$-dependent, it is relevant to investigate whether this dependence is the same for its longitudinal and transverse components, $`F_L(x)`$ and $`F_1(x)`$. The latter two structure functions are related to $`F_2(x)`$ via $`F_L(x)=(1+Q^2/\nu ^2)F_2(x)2xF_1(x)`$ with $`Q^2`$ the square of the four-momentum transfer, $`\nu `$ the energy transfer, $`x=Q^2/2M\nu `$ and $`M`$ the nucleon mass. A possible difference between the $`A`$-dependences of $`F_L(x)`$ and $`F_1(x)`$ can be investigated by measuring the ratio of longitudinal to transverse deep-inelastic scattering cross sections $`R=\sigma _L/\sigma _T=F_L(x)/2xF_1(x)`$ for various nuclear targets. While several such studies have been reported SLAC ; AuD ; SnC , none of these has provided values of $`R`$ in the kinematic regime $`x<0.06`$ with $`Q^2<1`$ GeV2. This region is the focus of the present paper.

In deep-inelastic charged lepton scattering from an unpolarised target, the double-differential cross section per nucleon can be written in the one-photon exchange approximation as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\sigma }{dxdQ^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^2}{Q^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_2(x,Q^2)}{x}}\times `$ (1)
$`\left[1y{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{4E^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+Q^2/\nu ^2}{1+R(x,Q^2)}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}}{E^{}E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi F_2(x,Q^2)}{xϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+ϵR(x,Q^2)}{1+R(x,Q^2)}},`$
where $`y=\nu /E`$, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Mott}}`$ represents the cross section for lepton scattering from a point charge, and $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are the initial and final lepton energies in the target rest frame, respectively. The virtual photon polarisation parameter is given by

$$ϵ=\frac{4(1y)Q^2/E^2}{4(1y)+2y^2+Q^2/E^2}.$$
(2)
The ratio of DIS cross sections on nucleus $`A`$ and deuterium $`D`$ (=2H) is then given by:

$$\frac{\sigma _A}{\sigma _D}=\frac{F_2^A}{F_2^D}\frac{(1+ϵR_A)(1+R_D)}{(1+R_A)(1+ϵR_D)},$$
(3)
where $`R_A`$ and $`R_D`$ represent the ratio $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ for nucleus $`A`$ and deuterium. To facilitate easier interpretation and in accordance to the literature, here and throughout this paper all cross sections are defined as cross sections per nucleon and are converted to cross sections for isoscalar nuclei, i.e. the measured cross sections are divided by the atomic number $`A`$ and corrected for any difference in the number of protons and neutrons:

$$\frac{\sigma _A}{\sigma _D}\frac{\sigma _A^{nucleus}}{Z\sigma _p+(AZ)\sigma _n},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _A^{nucleus}`$ is the DIS cross section per nucleus for nucleus A and $`\sigma _p`$ and $`\sigma _n`$ are the DIS cross sections on the proton and the neutron. In practice, $`\sigma _A^{nucleus}/\sigma _D`$ is converted to $`\sigma _A/\sigma _D`$ using the known cross section ratio $`\sigma ^D/\sigma ^p`$ nmcf2np .

For $`ϵ`$ 1 the cross section ratio equals the ratio of structure functions $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$. For smaller values of $`ϵ`$ the cross section ratio is equal to $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ only if $`R_A=R_D`$. A difference between $`R_A`$ and $`R_D`$ will thus introduce an $`ϵ`$-dependence of $`\sigma _A/\sigma _D`$. Hence, measurements of $`\sigma _A/\sigma _D`$ as a function of $`ϵ`$ can be used to extract experimental information on $`R_A/R_D`$, if $`R_D`$ is known.

In this paper we present data from the HERMES experiment on the cross section ratio for deep-inelastic positron scattering off helium-3, nitrogen and krypton with respect to deuterium. The helium-3 and nitrogen data were published in a previous letter oldpaper . Recently, those data were found to be subject to an A-dependent tracking inefficiency of the HERMES spectrometer erratum , which was not recognised in the previous analysis. The resulting correction of the cross section ratios is significant at low values of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ and substantially changes the interpretation of those data. The data presented here were corrected for this effect and supersede those published in Ref. oldpaper .

The data were collected by the HERMES experiment at DESY using 1H, 2H, 3He, 14N and 84Kr molecular gas targets internal to the 27.5 GeV positron storage ring of HERA. The target gases were injected into a 40 cm long, tubular open-ended storage cell inside the positron ring. The luminosity was measured by detecting Bhabha-scattered target electrons in coincidence with the scattered positrons, in a pair of NaBi(WO4)2 electromagnetic calorimeters.

The HERMES spectrometer specpaper  is a forward angle instrument which is symmetric about a central horizontal shielding plate in the magnet. Both the scattered positrons and the hadrons produced can be detected and identified within an angular acceptance of $`\pm `$ 170 mrad horizontally, and 40 – 140 mrad vertically. The trigger was formed from a coincidence between signals of three scintillator hodoscope planes and a lead-glass calorimeter where a minimum energy deposit of 3.5 GeV was required. Positron identification was accomplished using the calorimeter, the second hodoscope, which functioned as a preshower counter, a transition-radiation detector and a C̆erenkov counter. This system provided positron identification with an average efficiency of 99 % and a hadron contamination of less than 1 %.

Deep-inelastic scattering events were extracted from the data by imposing constraints on $`Q^2`$ $`(Q^2>0.3`$ GeV2), $`W`$ (the invariant mass of the photon-nucleon system, required to be greater than 2 GeV), and $`y`$ $`(y<0.85)`$. At very low $`x`$ and high $`y`$, the nuclear cross sections are dominated by radiative processes associated with elastic scattering. To limit these contributions, a minimum $`x`$ value of $`x=0.01`$ was required.

As the ratio $`\sigma _A/\sigma _D`$ involves nuclei with different numbers of protons, radiative corrections do not cancel in the ratio. In particular, the yield of radiative processes associated with elastic scattering scales with $`Z^2`$ and thus differs for the two target nuclei. At small values of apparent $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ (inferred from the kinematics of the scattered positron), corresponding to large values of $`y`$, the contribution from radiative elastic scattering becomes large. In this kinematic region, the associated energetic photons radiated at small angles can produce electromagnetic showers that cause large tracking inefficiencies erratum . Corrections for these process-specific inefficiencies must be applied, since they increase in severity as the $`Z`$ of nuclear targets increases.

These track reconstruction losses in the HERMES detector have been simulated in detail using the GEANT-based Monte Carlo description of the experiment. The probability of photon emission is modelled following the description of Mo and Tsai MoTsai , and has been carefully compared to other calculations of radiative processes. All materials close to the beam pipe have been implemented in detail and the effect of the minimum energy of the secondary particles tracked through the detector was investigated. The resulting reconstruction losses at low $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ strongly depend on the target material and show a strong variation with $`y`$, and consequently with $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. The ratios of the reconstruction efficiencies $`\eta `$ for target nucleus A compared to deuterium are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of $`x`$, for the various target materials used in the HERMES experiment. For completeness, this figure includes points at smaller values of $`x`$ than are employed in the present analysis.

The systematic uncertainty of this correction was estimated using the fact that the HERMES spectrometer consists of two independent detectors above and below the positron beam. For about 50 % of the events with a hard radiated photon the resulting electromagnetic shower is contained in one detector while the scattered electron is found in the other detector. While these events are rejected by the standard HERMES reconstruction algorithm because of their high total multiplicity, they can be reconstructed when one considers the two detectors independently. The number of events gained in this way strongly depends on the details of the electromagnetic shower – especially on the energy of the radiated photon and the exact position where the photon hits any material – and thus provides a good measure of the quality of the MC simulation. Reasonable agreement between the data and the simulation is found for all target materials. Fig. 2 shows as a function of apparent $`x`$ the fractional change in the yield ratios when treating the upper and lower spectrometer halves independently, both for the data and the MC simulation. Here the yields from the two detector halves have been averaged. A difference between the yields in the upper and the lower detector observed in the data is attributed to a relative misalignment between the two detectors. As is typical practice for combining results which are statistically incompatible PDG , the statistical uncertainty of the weighted mean is scaled by the square root of $`\chi ^2`$. The difference between the yields in the two detectors is significant only in the krypton data at low $`x`$ ($`x<0.03`$) where the reconstruction efficiency quickly changes with $`x`$ and the difference can be up to 10 %. The difference between the data and the MC simulation is treated as a systematic uncertainty.

The track reconstruction inefficiency mainly affects radiative elastic and to some extent quasielastic events. These and all other radiative processes have been computed using the method outlined in Ref. ABA . For the evaluation of the coherent radiative tails, the nuclear elastic form factors must be known. Parameterisations of the form factors of 2H, 3He, 14N and 84Kr were taken from the literature deut ; heli ; nitr ; kryp . For the quasi-elastic tails, the nucleon form factor parameterisation of Gari and Krümpelmann gari  was used. The reduction of the bound nucleon cross section with respect to the free nucleon one (quasi-elastic suppression) was evaluated using the results of a calculation by Bernabeu berna  for deuterium and the non-relativistic Fermi gas model for 3He, 14N and 84Kr moniz . The evaluation of the inelastic QED processes requires the knowledge of both $`F_2`$ and $`R`$ over a wide range of $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$. The structure function $`F_2^D(x,Q^2)`$ was described by a Regge motivated parameterisation of the proton structure function $`F_2^p(x,Q^2)`$ f2allm  multiplied by the NMC measurement of $`F_2^D/F_2^p`$ nmcf2np ; for $`R_D`$ the Whitlow parameterisation R1990  was used. The nuclear structure functions $`F_2^A(x,Q^2)`$ were taken from phenomenological fits to the SLAC and NMC data, and $`R_A(x,Q^2)`$ was assumed to be equal to $`R_D(x,Q^2)`$. The effects of all radiative processes were subtracted from the measured yields and the statistical errors propagated accordingly. This method avoids the possible large model dependence that can result from multiplicatively applying radiative corrections andy . Because of the reconstruction inefficiency explained above, only those radiative events actually seen by the HERMES spectrometer were subtracted.

For high-$`Z`$ targets such as krypton, the probability for the exchange of more than one photon becomes non-negligible. The corresponding amplitudes lead to a destructive interference with the leading amplitudes. For the dominant contribution to the radiative corrections — the coherent radiative tail — this effect has been estimated using the distorted wave function method kurek , resulting into a 5-10 % reduction of the radiative elastic tail. Other contributions proportional to $`Z\alpha _{EM}`$ might be non-negligible but could not be estimated.

The systematic uncertainty in the radiative corrections was estimated by using upper and lower limits of the parameterisations, or alternative parameterisations NMCpar ; R1990 ; diff ; ArDay  for all the above input parameters. The resulting systematic uncertainty in the cross section ratio of Kr/D is about 6 % at low $`x`$, quickly falling to values smaller than 1 % for $`x>0.06`$. (As mentioned before this uncertainty does not include the effects of multiphoton exchange (Coulomb distortion) beyond the estimated contribution to the coherent elastic tail; these contributions might be non-negligible but could not be estimated.) Because of the smaller radiative contributions, the uncertainties due to the radiative corrections in the cross section ratios of nitrogen and helium with respect to deuterium are about 3 % at low $`x`$.

The effects originating from the finite resolution of the spectrometer and from the hadron contamination in the positron sample have been determined and found to be negligible. The overall normalisation uncertainty has been estimated from the luminosity measurements to be 1.4 % for the He(N)/D data and 1 % for the Kr/D data.

The results of the present analysis erika  are shown in Fig. 3 as a function of $`x`$. Also shown are the results of the NMC nmche ; nmccc ; nmcsn  and SLAC slace139  measurements of $`\sigma _{He}/\sigma _D`$, $`\sigma _C/\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _D`$ where the NMC values for $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _D`$ have been obtained from the measurements of $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _C`$ and $`\sigma _C/\sigma _D`$. On average, the present data on $`\sigma _{He}/\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _N/\sigma _D`$ are about 0.9 % below the cross section ratio reported by NMC. A similar difference is observed in comparison to the SLAC data which cover a smaller $`x`$ but the same $`Q^2`$ range than the HERMES data. As the normalisation uncertainty of the present data is considerably larger than that of the NMC data (0.4 %), the $`\sigma _{He}/\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _N/\sigma _D`$ results have been renormalised by 0.9 %. No such renormalisation has been applied to the Kr/D cross section ratios. For $`x`$ values below $`x=0.1`$, the present data on N/D and Kr/D are slightly below the NMC data but consistent within the present statistical and systematic uncertainties.

The small discrepancy between the HERMES Kr/D and the NMC Sn/D data at $`0.02<x<0.08`$ is likely due to the positive $`Q^2`$ dependence observed in the NMC Sn/D data. This is better illustrated in Fig. 4 where the $`\sigma _N/\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _{Kr}/\sigma _D`$ data are displayed as function of $`Q^2`$ for fixed values of $`x`$ together with the NMC data on $`\sigma _C/\sigma _D`$ and $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _D`$ respectively. For $`x`$ values below $`x=0.08`$, the NMC data on $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _D`$ show a significant positive $`Q^2`$ dependence resulting into a difference between the cross section ratio at the average $`Q^2`$ of the NMC data (as displayed in Fig. 3) and at the average $`Q^2`$ of the HERMES data. While no significant $`Q^2`$ dependence is observed in the cross section ratio of 14N/D, the large uncertainties in the HERMES Kr/D data do not allow to distinguish between a flat $`Q^2`$ dependence and an extrapolation of the small positive $`Q^2`$ dependence observed in the NMC measurement of $`\sigma _{Sn}/\sigma _D`$.

To investigate a possible A-dependence of $`R(x,Q^2)`$, the cross section ratios have been fitted as a function of $`ϵ`$ for fixed values of $`x`$ (Eq. 3). In these fits a parameterisation of $`R_D`$ R1990  has been used, while the ratios $`R_A/R_D`$ and $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ have been treated as free parameters. A single value of $`R_A/R_D`$ and $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ has been extracted from each $`x`$-bin. In this procedure it is assumed that both $`R_A/R_D`$ and $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ are constant over the limited $`Q^2`$ range covered by the data in each $`x`$-bin. The $`ϵ`$-dependence of the 14N/D cross section ratio is shown in Fig. 5. No sigificant $`ϵ`$-dependence is observed. Similar conclusions hold for the other target nuclei.

The values of $`F_2^A/F_2^D`$ derived from the fit of the HERMES data are found to be consistent with previous measurements of NMC and SLAC. The resulting values of $`R_A/R_D`$ are shown in Fig. 6. Also shown are the results of previous studies of the $`A`$-dependence of $`R`$. Existing data are usually represented in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=R_AR_D`$. The published values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }R`$ SLAC ; AuD ; SnC  have been converted to $`R_A/R_D`$ using a parameterisation for $`R_D`$ R1990 , and added to Fig. 6. All data are found to be consistent with unity.

At low $`x`$, the HERMES cross section ratios on 3He and 14N and the NMC measurements on 4He and 12C have some common $`Q^2`$ range. While the NMC measurements at these $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ values have $`ϵ`$ values close to unity, the HERMES data cover a typical $`ϵ`$ range of $`0.4<ϵ<0.7`$. Combining the two measurements thus increases the precision on $`R_A/R_D`$. Because of the different experimental conditions of the NMC measurements on the heavy targets no such overlap in $`x`$ and $`Q^2`$ exists for the HERMES krypton data and the NMC data on iron or tin. Therefore the determination of $`R_A/R_D`$ on heavy nuclei is not improved by combining the HERMES and NMC data. The results of the fits to the HERMES and NMC data on helium and nitrogen (carbon) are displayed in Fig. 7 as a function of $`Q^2`$ together with all other measurements of $`R_A/R_D`$ on light and medium heavy nuclei. For $`Q^2`$ values between 0.5 and 20 GeV2 and nuclei from He to Ca, $`R_A`$ is found to be consistent with the $`R`$ parametrisation of Whitlow et al R1990 . As throughout this paper, this $`R`$ parametrisation has been choosen in this comparison because it is dominated by data on the proton and the deuteron. In contrast, the more recent parametrisation by Abe et al. SLAC  is significantly influenced by nuclear data. The influence of the choice in the $`R`$ parametrisation is however very small. Averaging over all measurements of $`R_A/R_D`$ for light and medium heavy nuclei gives an average value for $`R_A/R_D`$ of $`0.99\pm 0.03`$, a result which is unchanged if the data on the heavier nuclei are included in the average.

In summary, deep-inelastic positron scattering data on 2H, 3He, 14N and 84Kr are presented. The results extracted for the ratios of the DIS cross sections on nuclei to those on the corresponding sets of free nucleons is in good agreement with the results from previous measurements, after the data were corrected for a previously unrecognised A-dependent tracking inefficiency. No significant $`Q^2`$ dependence is observed over the wide range in $`Q^2`$ covered by the combined data set of HERMES and NMC. Values for the ratio of $`R_A/R_D`$ with $`R`$ the ratio $`\sigma _L/\sigma _T`$ of longitudinal to transverse DIS cross sections have been derived from the dependence of the data on the virtual photon polarisation parameter $`ϵ`$ and found to be consistent with unity. The data presented in this paper extend the kinematic range in which $`R_A`$ is found to be equal to $`R_D`$ down to $`x=0.01`$ and $`Q^2=0.5`$ GeV2.

We gratefully acknowledge the DESY management for its support and the DESY staff and the staffs of the collaborating institutions. This work was supported by the FWO-Flanders, Belgium; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the INTAS contribution from the European Commission; the European Commission IHP program under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00130; the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF); the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD); the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN); Monbusho International Scientific Research Program, JSPS, and Toray Science Foundation of Japan; the Dutch Foundation for Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM); the U.K. Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council; and the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation.


text:
# References

Bounds on the derivatives of the Isgur-Wise function

from sum rules in the heavy quark limit of QCD
A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver and J.-C. Raynal

Laboratoire de Physique Théorique111Unité Mixte de Recherche UMR 8627 - CNRS
Université de Paris XI, Bâtiment 210, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France

## Abstract

Using the OPE and the trace formalism, we have obtained a number of sum rules in the heavy quark limit of QCD that include the sum over all excited states for any value $`j^P`$ of the light cloud. We show that these sum rules imply that the elastic Isgur-Wise function $`\xi (w)`$ is an alternate series in powers of $`(w1)`$. Moreover, one gets that any $`n`$-th derivative of $`\xi (w)`$ at $`w=1`$ can be bounded by the $`(n1)`$-th one. For the curvature $`\sigma ^2=\xi ^{\prime \prime }(1)`$, this proves the already proposed bound $`\sigma ^2\frac{5}{4}\rho ^2`$. Moreover, we obtain the absolute lower bound for the $`n`$-th derivative $`(1)^n\xi ^{(n)}(1)\frac{(2n+1)!!}{2^{2n}}`$, that generalizes the results $`\rho ^2\frac{3}{4}`$ and $`\sigma ^2\frac{15}{16}`$.

LPT Orsay 02-94

October 2002

e-mails : leyaouan@th.u-psud.fr, oliver@th.u-psud.fr

Using the OPE and the trace formalism in the heavy quark limit, different initial and final four-velocities $`v_i`$ and $`v_f`$ for initial and final $`B`$-meson states, and arbitrary heavy quark currents

$$J_1=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1h_{v_i}^{(b)},J_2=\overline{h}_{v_f}^{(b)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2h_v^{}^{(c)}$$
(1)
the following sum rule can be written, as shown in ref.  :

$`\{{\displaystyle \underset{D=P,V}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}Tr\left[\overline{}_f(v_f)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2𝒟^{(n)}(v^{})\right]Tr\left[\overline{𝒟}^{(n)}(v^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_1_i(v_i)\right]\xi ^{(n)}(w_i)\xi ^{(n)}(w_f)`$
$`+\text{Other excited states}\}=2\xi (w_{if})Tr[\overline{}_f(v_f)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2P_+^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1_i(v_i)].`$ (2)
In this formula $`v^{}`$ is the intermediate meson four-velocity, $`P_+^{}=\frac{1}{2}(1+/v^{})`$ comes from the residue of the positive energy part of the $`c`$-quark propagator, and $`\xi (w_{if})`$ is the elastic Isgur-Wise function that appears because one assumes $`v_iv_f`$. $`_i`$ and $`_f`$ are the $`4\times 4`$ matrices of the ground state $`B`$ or $`B^{}`$ meson and $`𝒟^{(n)}`$ those of all possible ground state or excited state $`D`$ mesons coupled to $`B_i`$ and $`B_f`$ through the currents. In formula (S0.Ex1) we have made explicit the $`j=\frac{1}{2}^{}`$ $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ mesons and their radial excitations.

The variables $`w_i`$, $`w_f`$ and $`w_{if}`$ are defined as

$$w_i=v_iv^{}w_f=v_fv^{}w_{if}=v_iv_f.$$
(3)
The domain of $`(w_i`$, $`w_f`$, $`w_{if}`$) is

$$w_i,w_f1,w_iw_f\sqrt{(w_i^21)(w_f^21)}w_{if}w_iw_f+\sqrt{(w_i^21)(w_f^21)}.$$
(4)
There is a subdomain for $`w_i=w_f=w`$ :

$$w1,1w_{if}2w^21.$$
(5)
Calling now $`L(w_i,w_f,w_{if})`$ the l.h.s. and $`R(w_i,w_f,w_{if})`$ the r.h.s. of (S0.Ex1), this SR writes

$$L(w_i,w_f,w_{if})=R(w_i,w_f,w_{if})$$
(6)
where $`L(w_i,w_f,w_{if})`$ is the sum over the intermediate $`D`$ states and $`R(w_i,w_f,w_{if})`$ the OPE side. Within the domain (4) one can derive relatively to any of the variables $`w_i`$, $`w_f`$ and $`w_{if}`$

$$\frac{^{p+q+r}L}{w_i^pw_f^qw_{if}^r}=\frac{^{p+q+r}R}{w_i^pw_f^qw_{if}^r}$$
(7)
and obtain different SR taking different limits to the frontiers of the domain, e.g.

$`w_{if}1,w_i=w_f=w`$ (8)
or $`w_i1,w_{if}=w_f=w`$
or $`w_f1,w_{if}=w_i=w.`$
The aim of the present paper is to present some results on the derivatives of the elastic Isgur-Wise function $`\xi (w)`$ at zero recoil $`w=1`$.

As in ref. , we choose as initial and final states the $`B`$ meson,

$$_i(v_i)=P_{i+}(\gamma _5)_f(v_f)=P_{f+}(\gamma _5)$$
(9)
and vector or axial currents projected along the $`v_i`$ and $`v_f`$ four-velocities. Choosing the vector currents

$$J_1=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}/v_ih_{v_i}^{(b)},J_2=\overline{h}_{v_f}^{(b)}/v_fh_v^{}^{(c)}.$$
(10)
and gathering the formulas (60) and (89)-(91) of ref.  we obtain the SR (S0.Ex1) with the sum of all excited states $`j^P`$ in a compact form :

$`(w_i+1)(w_f+1){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}+1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}S_{\mathrm{}}(w_i,w_f,w_{if}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1}{}}S_{\mathrm{}}(w_i,w_f,w_{if}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f)`$
$`=(1+w_i+w_f+w_{if})\xi (w_{if}).`$ (11)
Choosing instead the axial currents

$$J_1=\overline{h}_v^{}^{(c)}/v_i\gamma _5h_{v_i}^{(b)},J_2=\overline{h}_{v_f}^{(b)}/v_f\gamma _5h_v^{}^{(c)}$$
(12)
the SR (S0.Ex1) writes, from the formulas (48) and (92)-(94) of ref.  :

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}0}{}}S_{\mathrm{}+1}(w_i,w_f,w_{if}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f)`$
$`+(w_i1)(w_f1){\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{}1}}S_\mathrm{}1(w_i,w_f,w_{if}){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f)`$
$`=(1w_iw_f+w_{if})\xi (w_{if}).`$ (13)
Following the formulation of heavy-light states for arbitrary $`j^P`$ given by Falk , we have defined in ref.  the IW functions $`\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w)`$ and $`\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w)`$, that correspond to the orbital angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ of the light quark relative to the heavy quark, $`j=\mathrm{}\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ being the total angular momentum of the light cloud. We could made explicit the contribution of the states $`\frac{1}{2}^{}`$, $`\frac{1}{2}^+`$, $`\frac{3}{2}^+`$, using the traditional notation of Isgur and Wise . For the lowest values of $`\mathrm{}`$, one has the identities

$$\tau _{1/2}^{(0)}(w)\xi (w),\tau _{1/2}^{(1)}(w)2\tau _{1/2}(w),\tau _{3/2}^{(1)}(w)\sqrt{3}\tau _{3/2}(w)$$
(14)
where a radial quantum number is implicit. Therefore, the functions $`\tau _{1/2}^{(1)}(w)`$ and $`\tau _{3/2}^{(1)}(w)`$ correspond, respectively, to the functions $`\zeta (w)`$ and $`\tau (w)`$ defined by Leibovich et al. . But in all this paper we will keep the general notation $`\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w)`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w)`$.

In equations (10) and (12) the quantity $`S_n`$ is defined by

$$S_n=v_{i\nu _1}\mathrm{}v_{i\nu _n}v_{f\mu _1}\mathrm{}v_{f\mu _n}T^{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _k,\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}$$
(15)
and the polarisation tensor $`T^{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _k,\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$, given by

$$T^{\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _k,\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}=\underset{\lambda }{}\epsilon ^{(\lambda )\nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _n}\epsilon ^{(\lambda )\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}$$
(16)
depends only on the four-velocity $`v^{}`$. The polarization tensor $`\epsilon ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}`$ is a traceless symmetric tensor, i.e. a symmetric tensor with vanishing contractions. Moreover, as demonstrated in the Appendix A of ref. , $`S_n`$ is given by the following expression :

$$S_n(w_i,w_f,w_{if})=\underset{0k\frac{n}{2}}{}C_{n,k}(w_i^21)^k(w_f^21)^k(w_iw_fw_{if})^{n2k}$$
(17)
with

$$C_{n,k}=(1)^k\frac{(n!)^2}{(2n)!}\frac{(2n2k)!}{k!(nk)!(n2k)!}.$$
(18)
Making the sum of both equations (S0.Ex4) and (S0.Ex6), one obtains

$`2(w_i+w_f)\xi (w_{if})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}0}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}+1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}(w_i+1)(w_f+1)S_{\mathrm{}}(w_i,w_f,w_{if})+S_{\mathrm{}+1}(w_i,w_f,w_{if})\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}1}{}}\left[S_{\mathrm{}}(w_i,w_f,w_{if})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{}1}}(w_i1)(w_f1)S_\mathrm{}1(w_i,w_f,w_{if})\right]`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_i)\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(w_f).`$ (19)
Taking the $`m`$-th derivative of this relation relatively to $`w_{if}`$ and using

$$\frac{^m}{w_{if}^m}S_n(w_i,w_fw_{if})|_{w_i=w_f=w_{if}=1}=(1)^nn!\delta _{m,n}$$
(20)
one readily obtains the derivatives at zero recoil

$`\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1)^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}!\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}+1}{2\mathrm{}+1}}4{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{}1)(n)}(1)\right]^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2\}(\mathrm{}0).`$ (21)
This relation shows that $`\xi (w)`$ is an alternate series in powers of $`(w1)`$. Equation (S0.Ex12) gives 1 = 1 for $`\mathrm{}=0`$, and reduces to Bjorken SR ,  for $`\mathrm{}=1`$ (with the notation of Isgur and Wise (14)) :

$$\rho ^2=\frac{1}{4}+\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}(1)\right]^2+2\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}(1)\right]^2.$$
(22)
We consider now the SR obtained from the axial current (S0.Ex6), taking the $`m`$-th derivative relatively to $`w_{if}`$ and making $`w_i=w_f=w_{if}=1`$ one obtains from (20) the simple formula :

$$\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)=\mathrm{}!(1)^{\mathrm{}}\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2(\mathrm{}0).$$
(23)
This expression is the generalization to the $`\mathrm{}`$-th derivative of the relation obtained in ref.  for the slope (with the notation (14), formula (55)) :

$$\rho ^2=3\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}(1)\right]^2.$$
(24)
Combining (S0.Ex12) and (23) one obtains the relation among the IW functions :

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{}+1}\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2=\frac{1}{4}\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{}1)(n)}(1)\right]^2$$
(25)
that gives $`0=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and reduces to Uraltsev SR  for $`\mathrm{}=1`$ (with the notation (14)) :

$$\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(n)}(1)\right]^2\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{1/2}^{(n)}(1)\right]^2=\frac{1}{4}$$
(26)
and generalizes it for all $`\mathrm{}`$.

Replacing now $`\underset{n}{}[\tau _{\mathrm{}+1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)]^2`$ from the expression (23) into the generalization of Bjorken SR (S0.Ex12) one obtains :

$$(1)^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}!\left\{\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{}1)(n)}(1)\right]^2+\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{}1/2}^{(\mathrm{})(n)}(1)\right]^2\right\}.$$
(27)
For $`\mathrm{}=1`$ one obtains :

$$\rho ^2=\xi ^{}(1)=\frac{3}{4}\left\{1+\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{1/2}^{(1)(n)}(1)\right]^2\right\}$$
(28)
and therefore :

$$\rho ^2\frac{3}{4}$$
(29)
i.e., one obtains the lower bound for the slope obtained from the combination of Bjorken and Uraltsev SR (22) and (26).

For $`\mathrm{}=2`$ one gets :

$$\xi ^{\prime \prime }(1)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{5}{2}2!\left\{\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(1)(n)}(1)\right]^2+\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(2)(n)}(1)\right]^2\right\}$$
(30)
and

$$\sigma ^2=\xi ^{\prime \prime }(1)\frac{1}{4}\frac{5}{2}2!\underset{n}{}\left[\tau _{3/2}^{(1)(n)}(1)\right]^2.$$
(31)
Using equation (24), with the notation (14), we have therefore demonstrated on rigorous grounds the bound proposed, modulo a phenomenological hypothesis, in ref.  :

$$\sigma ^2\frac{5}{4}\rho ^2$$
(32)
that implies, from (29), the absolute bound

$$\sigma ^2\frac{15}{16}.$$
(33)
One can similarly bound any derivative $`(1)^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)`$ in terms of the precedent one $`(1)^\mathrm{}1\xi ^{(\mathrm{}1)}(1)`$ :

$$(1)^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)\frac{2\mathrm{}+1}{4}\left[(1)^\mathrm{}1\xi ^{(\mathrm{}1)}(1)\right]$$
(34)
implying the following absolute bound for the $`\mathrm{}`$-th derivative of the Isgur-Wise function :

$$(1)^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{(\mathrm{})}(1)\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)!!}{2^2\mathrm{}}$$
(35)
that gives, in particular, (29) and (33) for the lower cases. Notice that this bound is satisfied by the phenomenological dipole formula

$`\xi _{Dipole}(w)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{w+1}}\right)^2`$ (36)
obtained approximately within the Bakamjian-Thomas relativistic quark models  and from QCD Sum Rules at large recoil . Indeed, one can easily show that the derivatives

$$(1)^{\mathrm{}}\xi _{Dipole}^{(\mathrm{})}(1)=\frac{(\mathrm{}+1)!}{2^{\mathrm{}}}$$
(37)
satisfy (34) and (35).

An interesting phenomenological remark is that a parametrization of the IW function of the form

$$\xi (w)=\left(\frac{2}{w+1}\right)^{2\rho ^2}$$
(38)
with $`\rho ^2\frac{3}{4}`$ satisfies also the inequalities (34) and (35). At the lower bound $`\rho ^2=\frac{3}{4}`$, (38) satisfies (34) and (35) with the equality.

The result (35), that shows that all derivatives at zero recoil are large, should have important phenomenological implications for the empirical fit needed for the extraction of $`|V_{cb}|`$ in $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ . In the case of the slope and the curvature, the lower bounds (29) and (33) are complementary to the upper bounds obtained from unitarity constraints , .

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to Nikolai Uraltsev for long standing discussions on QCD in the heavy quark limit. We acknowledge support from the EC contract HPRN-CT-2002-00311 (EURIDICE).


text:
# Flow and Bose-Einstein Correlations in Au-Au Collisions at RHIC

## 1 Introduction

The evolution of the space-time structure of the particle emitting source created in heavy ion collisions can be probed by measuring the azimuthal anisotropy (e.g., elliptic flow) and two-particle interferometry in the final state particle distributions. Elliptic flow is thought to provide information on the early stages of the collision, the nuclear equation of state and the degree of equilibration attained during the evolution of the collision , while two-particle interferometry provides information on the temporal and spatial extent of the source .

The results presented here are based on data taken during the first two RHIC physics runs for Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 130 and 200 GeV. All 200 GeV results presented here are preliminary. The PHOBOS detector employs silicon pad detectors to perform tracking, vertex detection and multiplicity measurements. Details of the setup and the layout of the silicon sensors can be found elsewhere . Event triggering and the determination of the centrality were based on the information provided by two sets of scintillating paddle counters . The raw data for these analyses came in the form of energy depositions from the passage of charged particles through individual detector pads, known as hits. The hit definition and signal processing procedure used for the flow analysis is described in reference . The position of the primary collision vertex was determined on an event-by-event basis by extrapolating tracks found in the spectrometer arms and/or the vertex detector. The event plane was determined by a standard subevent technique  using hits in symmetric and uniform regions of the octagonal multiplicity detector. Charged particle tracks were reconstructed in the spectrometer arms using techniques described previously . Pions were identified using the measured momentum and the specific ionization loss observed in the spectrometer silicon detectors.

## 2 Flow

Flow results from two independent analyses are presented here. In the first, known as the hit-based analysis, the event plane was determined from hits in the single layer Si multiplicity detectors and the second Fourier coefficient of the hit azimuthal angle distribution (also known as the elliptic flow), v2, was evaluated by correlating the event plane to hits in a different region of the multiplicity detectors. In the second flow analysis, known as the track-based analysis, v2 was determined by correlating the event plane to tracks found in the spectrometer arms.

For the hit-based analysis, events were chosen in a fiducial region that maximized the $`\eta `$ coverage and event plane sensitivity for the analysis. Equal multiplicity subevents were defined in the regions $`0.1<|\eta |<2`$ for the event plane determination and evaluation of the event plane resolution. Details of this analysis are provided in reference . Results from the hit-based flow analysis are shown in Figures 2 and 2. The 1$`\sigma `$ statistical errors are shown for both analyses. The 90% confidence level systematic errors are shown as boxes for the 200 GeV data points. As can be seen in these two figures, the flow signal is little changed with the increase in the center-of-mass energy of the collision from 130 to 200 GeV. The unique, and very nearly complete, $`\eta `$ coverage shown in Figure 2 shows a substantial drop in v2 as a function of $`|\eta |`$ that is not yet understood .

In the track-based analysis, events were chosen in a fiducial region that maximized the tracking efficiency and the reaction plane sensitivity. Subevents were defined roughly in the regions $`2<|\eta |<3`$ for the event plane determination and the evaluation of the reaction plane resolution. Charged tracks reconstructed in the spectrometer arms in the region $`0<\eta <2.5`$ were used to determine the elliptic flow. In detail, the track-based flow analysis is quite different from our previously released flow analysis. Differences include the use of a vertex dependent reaction plane weighting and resolution correction, as well as a larger separation of the subevents in $`\eta `$. The flow signal is determined as the asymmetry in the track azimuthal angle distribution measured relative to the event plane. The track-based flow results are less dependent on Monte Carlo corrections and less sensitive to background and non-flow correlations as compared to the hit-based flow measurements.

Results from this procedure are shown in Figures 4 and 4. The graphical representation of the errors in these figures is similar to that for the first two figures. Figure 4 shows the elliptic flow signal as a function of the number of participants for the track-based analysis overlayed with that from the hit-based analysis for 200 GeV data. The two techniques agree very well. This is significant because of the differing sensitivity to background and non-flow correlations. Figure 4 gives the transverse momentum dependence of the elliptic flow of charged hadrons in the 200 GeV data. The saturation observed at a transverse momentum greater than 2 GeV/c is similar to what was observed at 130 GeV, and has been interpreted as evidence for partonic energy loss through gluon radiation in a dense system .

## 3 Bose-Einstein correlations

Pairs of identified same-sign pions were used to calculate the two-particle correlation functions. The results were corrected for the effects of the tracking algorithm and the Coulomb repulsion of the pions. The 3-dimensional analysis of the correlation function using the Bertsch-Pratt parameterization was performed in the LCMS frame in the region of acceptance $`0.2<y<1.5`$ and $`150<\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{T}<350`$ MeV/c. For the 15% most central events, the preliminary fitted source parameters for $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ ($`\pi ^+\pi ^+`$) pairs are as follows: $`\lambda =0.54\pm 0.02(0.57\pm 0.03)`$, R$`{}_{out}{}^{}=5.8\pm 0.2(5.8\pm 0.2)`$ fm, R$`{}_{side}{}^{}=5.1\pm 0.4(4.9\pm 0.4)`$ fm, R$`{}_{long}{}^{}=6.8\pm 0.3(7.3\pm 0.3)`$ fm, and R$`{}_{outlong}{}^{}=4.9\pm 1.7(4.5\pm 1.9)`$ fm. The errors listed are statistical only. In addition, there are systematic errors of $`\pm 0.06`$ on the values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\pm 1`$ fm on the radii. The results reported here are similar to those observed in Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 130 GeV .

## 4 Summary

Recent PHOBOS measurements of elliptic flow and two-particle correlations in Au-Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 200 GeV are very similar to values observed at $`\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=`$ 130 GeV. Notably, the new results at 200 GeV clearly show a saturation of v2 for p$`{}_{T}{}^{}>2`$ GeV/c and a dramatic drop of v2 as a function of $`|\eta |`$.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG02-94ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38, and NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish group was partially supported by KBN grant 2-P03B-10323. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.