text:
# Normal Forms and Unfoldings of Linear Systems in Eigenspaces of (Anti)-Automorphisms of Order Two

## 1 Introduction

Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional real vector space and $`𝐠`$ an eigenspace of an (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma `$ of order two of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Let $`𝐆`$ be a Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ consisting of *structure preserving transformations* such that the action

$$LgLg^1\text{with }L𝐠\text{ and }g𝐆,$$

preserves $`𝐠`$. Then the $`𝐆`$-orbit of $`L𝐠`$ given by $`\mathrm{Orb}_𝐆(L)=\{gLg^1|g𝐆\}`$ is again a subset of $`𝐠`$. In this paper we address the following two problems:

* Classify all $`𝐆`$-orbits (normal forms) of elements $`L`$ in $`𝐠`$;
* Find the unfoldings of $`L`$ in $`𝐠`$.

We also briefly consider generalizations to abelian groups of (anti)-automorphisms of order two.

### Setting and Motivation

Any local study of equilibrium points of vector fields starts with an analysis of their linearizations. These are in one-to-one correspondence with linear maps. This correspondence respects both the transformation properties of linear vector fields under linear coordinate changes and their Lie algebra structure. Moreover dynamical systems theory is often concerned with vector fields which preserve some structure. Well-known examples are equivariant, reversible and Hamiltonian vector fields. The linearizations of such vector fields preserve the same structure and the spaces of structure preserving linear maps can be identified with eigenspaces of (anti)-automorphisms of order two acting on the space of all linear maps.

###### Example 1.1

Consider reversible linear vector fields on $`^n`$. Such a vector field is determined by an infinitesimally reversible linear map $`L`$ satisfying $`RL=LR`$, where the linear *structure map* $`R`$ satisfies $`R^2=I`$ and $`R\pm I`$. We can also write this condition as $`\varphi _R(L)=L`$ where the *automorphism* $`\varphi _R`$ is defined as $`\varphi _R(A):=R^1AR`$ for all $`A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^n)`$. Thus $`𝐠=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^n)|\varphi _R(A)=A\}`$ is the $`1`$ eigenspace of $`\varphi _R`$. The structure preserving transformation group $`𝐆`$ consists of $`R`$-equivariant maps $`𝐆=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^n)|gR=Rg\}`$, that is elements of $`𝐆`$ map $`𝐠`$ into itself. See section 3.2 for a precise definition of the structure preserving transformation group. $``$

###### Example 1.2

Similarly a Hamiltonian linear vector field is determined by an infinitesimally symplectic linear map $`L`$. Let $`\omega `$ be a symplectic form, ie a non-degenerate skew symmetric bilinear form, on $`^{2n}`$. Let $`,`$ be the standard inner product on $`^{2n}`$. Then there is a *structure map* $`J`$ satisfying $`J^{}=J`$ and $`J^2=I`$ such that $`\omega (x,y)=x,Jy`$ for all $`x,y^{2n}`$. An infinitesimally symplectic map $`L`$ satisfies $`\omega (Lx,y)=\omega (x,Ly)`$ or equivalently $`x,L^{}Jy=x,JL`$ for all $`x,y^{2n}`$. We write this condition as $`\psi _J(L)=L`$, where $`\psi _J`$ is the *anti-automorphism* defined by $`\psi _J(A):=J^1A^{}J`$, for all $`A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^{2n})`$. Again $`𝐠=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^{2n})|\psi _J(A)=A\}`$ is the $`1`$ eigenspace of $`\psi _J`$. In this case the structure preserving transformation group $`𝐆`$ consists of maps that preserve $`\omega `$, that is $`𝐆=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^{2n})|\omega (gx,gy)=\omega (x,y),\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}x,y^{2n}\}`$, which we can rephrase using $`J`$ as $`𝐆=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^{2n})|g^{}Jg=J\}`$. $``$

###### Example 1.3

Combining the previous two examples, a reversible Hamiltonian linear vector field is determined by an infinitesimally reversible symplectic linear map $`L`$. Usually one requires that $`R`$ is an anti-symplectic map, and then $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\psi _J`$ commute. Thus infinitesimally reversible symplectic maps on $`^{2n}`$ are elements of the intersection of two eigenspaces

$$\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^{2n})|\varphi _R(A)=A\}\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^{2n})|\psi _J(A)=A\},$$

which, by virtue of the fact that $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\psi _J`$ commute, is the simultaneous eigenspace of $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\psi _J`$. The structure preserving transformation group for infinitesimally reversible symplectic maps is the intersection of the transformation groups of Examples 1.1 and 1.2: $`𝐆=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(^{2n})|gR=Rg,g^{}Jg=J\}`$. $``$

The main motivation for the theory developed in this paper is the normal form and unfolding problem for linear reversible equivariant vector fields in both the general and Hamiltonian cases. The spaces of such vector fields have been described by Lamb & Roberts  in the general case and can be characterized as simultaneous eigenspaces of abelian groups of (anti)-automorphisms of order two. The theory developed in this article provides a uniform approach to all such problems. The authors plan to report on applications of this theory to linear (Hamiltonian) reversible equivariant vector fields in forthcoming publications.

In some cases, including Hamiltonian and equivariant vector fields, the corresponding eigenspaces are Lie subalgebras of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and the normal form and unfolding theory for maps in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ (see Section 2), carries over almost automatically. However reversible vector fields, for example, do not form a Lie subalgebra. This paper shows that, despite this, analogous normal form and unfolding theories can been developed.

Normal form and unfolding problems have a long history ranging from the classical Jordan normal form to the more modern unfolding theory of Arnol’d . We give a brief overview without trying to be complete. Williamson  was the first to find normal forms for infinitesimally symplectic maps. Later a more constructive approach was given by Burgoyne & Cushman . In this article we follow their approach to a large extent. Unfoldings of infinitesimally symplectic maps were independently given by Galin  and Koçak . For extensive studies of particular systems also see van der Meer  and Cotter . Normal forms and unfoldings of infinitesimally reversible maps were first studied by Palmer  and later by Sevryuk  and Shih . A particular example where the linear part plays a crucial role can be found in Iooss . Other contributions without a direct relation to dynamical systems are Dempwolff , Jacobson  for semi-linear maps and Djukovic et al.  and Patera & Rousseau  for subspaces of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ which are not Lie algebras. Wiegman  considers normal forms for maps over the quaternions. Studies of mixed structures include Hoveijn  on infinitesimally reversible symplectic maps and Melbourne  and Melbourne & Dellnitz  on infinitesimally symplectic equivariant maps.

###### Remark 1.4

Note that the description using (anti)-automorphisms is not limited to linear vector fields. In fact the latter are just the $`1`$-jets of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-vector fields. The (anti)-automorphisms can equally well be defined on $`k`$-jet spaces of vector fields, where they are still Lie algebra (anti)-automorphisms of order two. The normalization procedures for $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-vector fields described in Broer et al.  can be combined with the ideas developed in this paper to give a corresponding nonlinear normal form theory. $``$

###### Remark 1.5

Another generalisation of the theory would be to consider a general (compact) group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of (anti)-automorphisms acting on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and classify normal forms and unfoldings of linear maps in an isotypic component $`𝐠`$ of the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$.

### Main Results

The main results of the paper are the Reduction Lemma 3.8, the Unfolding Lemma 3.10 and the Orbit Splitting Theorem 3.12. A formal statement of the Reduction Lemma requires some technical notation, but it may be informally summarised as:

Reduction Lemma
*The normal form of a linear map $`L`$ in an eigenspace of an (anti)-automorphism is determined by the semi-simple part of $`L`$ on a reduced space.*

This lemma greatly simplifies the problem of finding normal forms, because the actual computations are limited to low dimensional spaces. It is essential for the Reduction Lemma that the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition holds in the eigenspaces of an (anti)-automorphism. Using the notation introduced above, the Unfolding Lemma reads as follows.

Unfolding Lemma
*Let $`\gamma `$ be an (anti)-automorphism of finite order and let $`L𝐠`$. Then the restriction of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-centralizer unfolding of $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ to $`𝐠`$ is equivalent to the $`𝐆`$-centralizer unfolding in $`𝐠`$.*

This means that we do not need to find a new way of computing unfoldings in a subset of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with a smaller structure preserving transformation group $`𝐆`$. We simply use a version of the existing Arnol’d or centralizer unfolding, see Lemma 2.5. As an alternative one might use the representation theory of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}(2)`$ to find unfoldings, see Koçak  or Cushman & Sanders .

Orbit splitting is a well known phenomenon for infinitesimally symplectic maps. If such a map has a pair of double imaginary eigenvalues then there are two inequivalent normal forms. They may be distinguished by *signs*, see Example 3.7. In general the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit of a map $`L𝐠`$ may intersect $`𝐠`$ in several $`𝐆`$-orbits of $`L`$. The Orbit Splitting Theorem states that there are at most two such orbits.

Orbit Splitting Theorem
*The intersection of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit of $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and $`𝐠`$ consists of at most two $`𝐆`$-orbits.*

In general inequivalent $`𝐆`$-orbits have different unfoldings, which may give rise to *passing* and *splitting* of eigenvalues when parameters are varied, see Section 4.2 for details.

### Organization

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the theory for normal forms and unfoldings in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. We use this as a starting point for finding normal forms and unfoldings in the eigenspace of an (anti)-automorphism in Section 3. In Section 4 we apply the results of Section 3 to present normal forms and unfoldings in eigenspaces of (anti)-automorphisms of order two. Finally in Section 5 we generalize our results to abelian groups of (anti)-automorphisms of order two. We also suggest some further possible generalizations.

## 2 Normal Forms and Unfoldings in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$

A linear differential equation is given by $`\dot{x}=Ax`$ where $`A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. A coordinate change $`y=gx`$, with $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$, transforms this to $`\dot{y}=gAg^1y`$. Thus linear vector fields transform as linear maps. We therefore identify the space of linear vector fields on $`V`$ with $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Here we review the normal form and unfolding theory for linear maps in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.

### 2.1 Normal Forms

Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional real vector space. Then $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ is the Lie algebra of all linear maps from $`V`$ to itself. The Lie group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ is the group of all invertible linear transformations from $`V`$ to itself. The action of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ is given by the *adjoint action*, that is, by *similarity transformations*:

$$\mathrm{Ad}_g:LgLg^1$$

The $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbits

$$\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}(L)=\{gLg^1|g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)\}$$

of the adjoint action are precisely the equivalence classes we are interested in classifying. From now on we will use the word ‘orbits’ only. It is well known that for the adjoint action of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ the orbit of $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ is determined by two invariants: the eigenvalues and Jordan structure of $`L`$. The *Jordan-Chevalley decomposition*, *Reduction Lemma* and *Reconstruction Lemma* described below formalize this fact.

#### Jordan-Chevalley Decomposition

The Jordan-Chevalley decomposition splits a linear map $`L`$ into the sum of its semi-simple and nilpotent parts. In order to define semi-simple we need to work over the complex numbers, so in this section we assume that $`L`$ is defined on a complexified space $`V`$. In Theorem 2.3 we translate our results for a real space $`V`$. A map $`S`$ is called *semi-simple* if the algebraic and geometric multiplicity of each of its eigenvalues are equal. A map $`N`$ is called *nilpotent* if $`N^n=0`$ for some integer $`n`$. The least such integer is called the *height* of $`N`$.

###### Theorem 2.1

*(Jordan-Chevalley decomposition)*
For each $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ there exist a unique semi-simple $`S\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and a unique nilpotent $`N\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ such that $`[S,N]=0`$ and $`L=S+N`$.

The eigenvalues of $`L`$ are determined by the semi-simple part $`S`$ while the nilpotent part $`N`$ determines its Jordan structure. The Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of a linear map is $`\mathrm{Ad}_g`$-equivariant and so is a property of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit rather than the individual map, see Humphreys . The Jordan-Chevalley decomposition almost automatically extends to all the classical Lie algebras, see . We shall see in Section 3 that it also extends to eigenspaces of Lie algebra (anti)-automorphisms acting on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$.

#### Reduction

The Reduction Lemma, due to Burgoyne & Cushman , exploits the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition to simplify the normal form problem for linear maps. It formalizes the classical Jordan normal form algorithm and works in all classical Lie algebras. In the first part of this section we will work on the complexified space $`V`$.

Let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ be a linear map with Jordan-Chevalley decomposition $`L=S+N`$. An $`L`$-invariant subspace of $`V`$ is said to be *indecomposable* if it has no proper $`L`$-invariant subspaces. The restriction of $`L`$ to an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspace has a unique eigenvalue and such a subspace is a generalized eigenspace for that eigenvalue. The space $`V`$ decomposes as a direct sum of indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspaces $`V=_\lambda V_\lambda `$ which is unique up to permutations unless there are two or more $`V_\lambda `$ with equal eigenvalues *and* equal heights. Moreover the restrictions of $`S`$ and $`N`$ to the indecomposable subspaces are the semi-simple and nilpotent parts of the restrictions of $`L`$. The characteristic polynomial of $`L`$ factors over the indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspaces. The height $`n`$ of the restriction of $`N`$ to such a space can be computed from the characteristic polynomial of the restriction of $`L`$, see Burgoyne & Cushman .

###### Lemma 2.2

*(Reduction Lemma)*
Let $`V_\lambda `$ be an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant space with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. Assume that the restriction of $`N`$ to $`V_\lambda `$ has height $`n`$. Then there is an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W_\lambda `$ of $`NV_\lambda `$ in $`V_\lambda `$ such that $`V_\lambda =W_\lambda NV_\lambda =W_\lambda NW_\lambda \mathrm{}N^{n1}W_\lambda `$. For each $`j=0\mathrm{}n1`$ we have $`dimN^jW_\lambda =dimW_\lambda `$. The restriction of $`L`$ to $`V_\lambda `$ is determined up to similarity by the restriction of $`S`$ to $`W_\lambda `$.

Thus if we wish to classify a linear map $`L`$ we only have to classify its semi-simple part $`S`$ by Lemma 2.2. From now on we only work over the real numbers so $`V`$ is again a real space. With a slight abuse of notation we write again $`V_\lambda `$ even if $`\lambda `$ is complex. Theorem 2.3 relates the real spaces to the complex ones. On many occasions we distinguish four cases. If $`\lambda `$ is zero or $`\lambda =\alpha `$ is real we write $`V_0`$ and $`V_\alpha `$ for the generalized eigenspaces. If $`\lambda =\pm i\beta `$ is purely imaginary or $`\lambda =\alpha \pm i\beta `$ is complex we write $`V_{\pm i\beta }`$ and $`V_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ for the real generalized eigenspaces.

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L`$ and let $`V_\lambda `$ be an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspace with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. Assume that the restriction of $`N`$ to $`V_\lambda `$ has height $`n`$.

* Real eigenvalues. If $`\lambda =\alpha `$ then $`(L\alpha )^n=0`$. In this case $`dimW_\alpha =1`$, $`dimV_\alpha =n`$ and for all $`eV_\alpha `$ we have $`Se=\alpha e`$.
* Complex eigenvalues. If $`\lambda =\alpha \pm i\beta `$ with $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\beta 0`$ then $`((L\alpha )^2+\beta ^2)^n=0`$. In this case $`dimW_{\alpha \pm i\beta }=2`$, $`dim(V_{\alpha \pm i\beta })=2n`$ and for all $`vV_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ we have $`(S\alpha )^2v=\beta ^2v`$. For any $`eW_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ let $`f=\frac{1}{\beta }(S\alpha )e`$, then $`e,f`$ is a basis of $`W_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$.

Thus the restriction of the semi-simple part $`S`$ to a subspace $`W_\lambda `$ always has normal form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \end{array}\right)\text{or}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta & \alpha \end{array}\right),$$

depending on whether $`\lambda `$ is real or complex, respectively. Note that in case of complex eigenvalues we can always find a basis such that $`\beta >0`$.

#### Reconstruction

Suppose we are given a linear map $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with Jordan-Chevalley decomposition $`L=S+N`$ and an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant space $`V_\lambda `$. From Lemma 2.2 we know that there is an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W_\lambda `$ of $`NV_\lambda `$ in $`V_\lambda `$ such that $`V_\lambda =W_\lambda NW_\lambda \mathrm{}N^{n1}W_\lambda `$, where $`n`$ is the height of $`N`$ on $`V_\lambda `$ and $`dimN^jW_\lambda =dimW_\lambda `$. In Theorem 2.3 we gave normal forms for the restriction of $`S`$ to $`W_\lambda `$. To find normal forms for $`L`$ on $`V_\lambda `$ we start with the basis of $`W_\lambda `$ used for the normal form of $`S`$ on $`W_\lambda `$ in Theorem 2.3 and apply $`N`$ to this $`n1`$ times to generate a basis for $`V_\lambda `$.

###### Lemma 2.4

*(Reconstruction Lemma)*
Let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L`$ and $`V_\lambda `$ be an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspace. Let $`W_\lambda `$ be an $`S`$-invariant complement to $`NV_\lambda `$ in $`V_\lambda `$ and assume that $`N`$ has height $`n`$ on $`V_\lambda `$. Then, if $`e_1\mathrm{},e_m`$ is a basis for $`W_\lambda `$, the set $`e_1\mathrm{},e_m,Ne_1\mathrm{},Ne_m,N^{n1}e_1\mathrm{},N^{n1}e_m`$ is a basis for $`V_\lambda `$.

The corresponding normal forms for indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspaces with real and complex eigenvalues are the familiar real Jordan blocks

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha & & & \\ 1& \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& & \\ & \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& \\ & & 1& \alpha \end{array}\right)\text{and}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\hfill \alpha & \hfill \beta & & & & & & \\ \hfill \beta & \hfill \alpha & & & & & & \\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill \alpha & \hfill \beta & & & & \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill \beta & \hfill \alpha & & & & \\ & & \hfill \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& & \hfill \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& & & \\ & & & \hfill \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& & \hfill \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& & \\ & & & & \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill \alpha & \hfill \beta \\ & & & & \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill \beta & \hfill \alpha \end{array}\right)$$

with respect to the bases $`e,Ne,\mathrm{},N^{n1}e`$ and $`e,f,Ne,Nf,\mathrm{},N^{n1}e,N^{n1}f`$, respectively. Here $`e`$ and $`f`$ are vectors as in Theorem 2.3.

### 2.2 Unfoldings

A general theory for *unfoldings* or *deformations* of maps in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ is given by Arnol’d . Here we use the Reduction Lemma to describe this theory, see also . Note that $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbits are smooth submanifolds of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$, see Bredon .

###### Definition 2.1

A smooth map $`:^p\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V):\mu (\mu )`$ with $`(0)=L`$ is called an *unfolding* or a *deformation* of $`L`$. If $``$ is transverse to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit through $`L`$ at $`L`$, then it is said to be *versal*.

From now on we will only use the word ‘unfolding’. We are especially interested in unfoldings of a map $`L`$ having a minimum number of parameters but still parametrising a section transverse to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit through $`L_0`$. We therefore make the following definition, see Arnol’d .

###### Definition 2.2

Two unfoldings $`A(\mu )`$ and $`B(\mu )`$ of $`L`$ are called *equivalent* if they are similar as families of linear maps. This means that there is a smooth family of transformation $`g(\mu )\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ such that $`g(\mu )A(\mu )g(\mu )^1=B(\mu )`$ for all $`\mu ^p`$. An unfolding $``$ of $`L`$ is called *miniversal* if (a) for every other unfolding $`A:^q\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ of $`L`$ there exists a smooth map $`\chi :^q^p`$ such that $`A`$ is equivalent to $`\chi `$, and (b) $``$ has the minimal number of parameters possible for unfoldings with this property.

The number of parameters for a miniversal unfolding is equal to the codimension of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit through $`L`$ and so is called the *codimension* of $`L`$. Geometrically, the image of a miniversal unfolding of $`L`$ is a submanifold of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ whose tangent space at $`L`$ is a complement to the tangent space at $`L`$ of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit through $`L`$.

Arnol’d  showed that miniversal unfoldings can be obtained by taking orthogonal complements to tangent spaces of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbits with respect to the inner product $`A,B=\mathrm{Trace}(A^{}B)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Some computations show that the *centralizer* or *Arnol’d unfolding* is:

$$\{L+M^{}|M\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{ad}_L)\},$$

where $`\mathrm{ad}_L(M)=[M,L]=MLLM`$. By applying the adjoint action of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ to this unfolding we can obtain an unfolding at any other point on the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit through $`L`$. Transversality and miniversality are preserved by this transformation, but orthogonality will usually be lost. Another way to find unfoldings is the use of representation theory of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}(2)`$, see Koçak  or Cushman & Sanders .

We now give a more detailed description of the centralizer unfolding using the Reduction Lemma. The idea is to start with the centralizer unfolding of the semi-simple part of $`L`$ and then reconstruct the unfolding of $`L`$ in several steps. An advantage of this approach is that it depends only on the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition and not on a particular normal form for $`L`$. Furthermore we only have to compute matrices which commute with a semi-simple matrix on a low dimensional space.

Assume that $`L=S+N`$ has only one eigenvalue on $`V`$ and let $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_p`$, where each $`V_i`$ is an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspace. For each $`V_i`$ we have the decomposition $`V_i=W_iNW_i\mathrm{}N^{n_i1}W_i`$, where $`W_i`$ is an $`S`$-invariant complement to $`NV_i`$ in $`V_i`$. Assume that the heights $`n_i`$ of $`N`$ restricted to $`V_i`$ satisfy $`n_1\mathrm{}n_p`$. Let $`W=W_1\mathrm{}W_p`$ and let $`e_{i,1},\mathrm{},e_{i,q}`$ be a basis for $`W_i`$. Note that the $`W_i`$ all have the same dimension $`dimW_i=q`$, so we may assume that their bases have been chosen such that the matrices of $`S_i=S|_{W_i}`$ are equal.

To find the centralizer unfolding of $`L`$ first choose a basis for $`𝐮_{W_1}=\{M:W_1W_1|\mathrm{ad}_S(M)=0\}`$. Only in this step is it necessary to compute commuting matrices. The next step is to extend the basis for $`𝐮_{W_1}`$ to a basis for $`𝐮_W=\{M:WW|\mathrm{ad}_S(M)=0\}`$. Then we extend this basis to the set of maps on $`V`$ which commute with $`N`$. The final step is to construct a basis for $`𝐮_V=\{M:VV|\mathrm{ad}_L(M)=0\}`$. We make this more precise in the following Unfolding Lemma, which is a corrected version of that in .

###### Lemma 2.5

*(Unfolding Lemma)*

1. Construct a basis $`B^{(1)},\mathrm{},B^{(r)}`$ of $`𝐮_{W_1}`$.
2. Extend the basis of $`𝐮_{W_1}`$ to a basis of $`𝐮_W`$ by defining $`B_{ij}^{(k)}:WW`$ by:

$$B_{ij}^{(k)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}B^{(k)}\hfill & :W_jW_i\hfill \\ 0\hfill & :W_j^{}W_i^{},(i^{},j^{})(i,j)\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\{B_{ij}^{(k)}|i,j=1,\mathrm{},p\mathrm{and}k=1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ is a basis of $`𝐮_W`$.
3. Extend the basis of $`𝐮_W`$ to a basis of $`𝐮_V`$ by defining $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}:VV`$ by:

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}N^me_{j,l}=\{\begin{array}{cc}N^mB_{ij}^{(k)}e_{j,l}\hfill & ji\hfill \\ N^{m+n_in_j}B_{ij}^{(k)}e_{j,l}\hfill & j<i\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`l=1,\mathrm{},q`$ and $`m=0,\mathrm{},n_j1`$. Then the $`N^n\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ for $`0n<\mathrm{min}(n_i,n_j)`$ form a basis of $`𝐮_V`$.
4. Let $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_d`$ be a basis of $`𝐮_V`$, then $`L(\mu )=L+_{i=1}^d\mu _iB_i^{}`$ is a miniversal deformation of $`L`$.

Proof. The construction in the proposition is a formalization of the construction by Arnol’d , which in turn is based on Gantmacher’s construction in . We restrict ourselves to the case that $`L`$ has a real eigenvalue. First we prove that the $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_d`$ are linearly independent, then we prove that they span $`𝐮_V`$. By construction the $`B^{(1)},\mathrm{},B^{(r)}`$ are linearly independent. Then the $`B_{ij}^{(k)}`$ are also linearly independent since they map $`W_j`$ to $`W_i`$. In step 3) the $`B_{ij}^{(k)}`$ are only extended to $`V`$ so the $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ are still linearly independent. (Here we have to take into account that the height of $`N`$ on $`W_j`$ may be smaller than the height of $`N`$ on $`W_i`$ so that $`N^{m+n_in_j}=0`$ as soon as $`N^m=0`$.) The $`N^n\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ are linearly independent because they map $`W_j`$ to $`N^nW_i`$. The number of $`N^n\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ is equal to $`_{i,j}\mathrm{min}(n_i,n_j)=_i(2i1)n_i`$ which is equal to the number of parameters in the Arnol’d unfolding, so the $`N^n\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ span $`𝐮_V`$. Thus the $`N^n\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}^{(k)}`$ form a basis of $`𝐮_V`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Normal Forms and Unfoldings in an Eigenspace of an (Anti)-Automorphism

We outline a general theory for maps in eigenspaces of Lie algebra (anti)-automorphisms of order two acting on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and show that a $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ can split into at most two $`𝐆`$-orbits when intersected with such an eigenspace. Here $`𝐆`$ is the structure preserving transformation group.

To characterize normal forms in Section 2.1 and find their unfoldings in Section 2.2 we made essential use of the following facts. First, the equivalence classes are the orbits of the adjoint action of a transformation group. Second, the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition leads to a reduction of the normal form and unfolding problems to semi-simple maps. Third, the Lie algebra of the transformation group enables us to characterize tangent spaces to orbits and hence to find miniversal unfoldings as complements.

In this section we show that the eigenspaces of (anti)-automorphisms have all the Lie algebraic structure that is needed to generalize these facts. Appropriate *structure preserving* transformation Lie groups can be defined and the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition still holds. The latter leads to a Reduction Lemma which can be used to simplify the computation of normal forms and miniversal unfoldings.

### 3.1 (Anti)-Automorphisms

We begin by describing some properties of (anti)-automorphisms of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Where it is convenient we identify $`V`$ with $`^n`$ and hence $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$.

###### Definition 3.1

A linear map $`\gamma :\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ if $`\gamma (AB)=\gamma (A)\gamma (B)`$ and an anti-automorphism if $`\gamma (AB)=\gamma (B)\gamma (A)`$.

We will generally denote an automorphism by $`\varphi `$, an anti-automorphism by $`\psi `$ and will write $`\gamma `$ if we do not want to make a distinction. Let

$$\sigma (\gamma )=\{\begin{array}{c}1,\text{ if }\gamma \text{ is an automorphism}\hfill \\ 1,\text{ if }\gamma \text{ is an anti-automorphism.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that for any $`\gamma `$ the Lie bracket $`[A,B]=ABBA`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ satisfies

$$\gamma \left([A,B]\right)=\sigma (\gamma )[\gamma (A),\gamma (B)].$$

Thus $`\gamma `$ is a Lie algebra automorphism or anti-automorphism.

The next proposition describes all (anti)-automorphisms of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$ and shows that they have associated *structure maps* $`𝐬\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(n,)`$. A proof based on the symmetries of the Dynkin diagram can be found in Freudenthal & de Vries .

###### Proposition 3.1

Every automorphism of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$ has the form $`\varphi _𝐬(L)=𝐬^1L𝐬`$, $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$, for some $`𝐬\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(n,)`$. The anti-automorphisms of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$ are all of the form $`\psi _𝐬=\varphi _𝐬\psi _I`$ where $`\psi _I(L)=L^{}`$.

Here $`L^{}`$ is defined as $`x,L^{}y:=Lx,y`$, for all $`x,y^n`$ and $`,`$ is an inner product on $`^n`$. In the next lemma we collect some simple properties of an (anti)-automorphism of order two.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`\gamma _𝐬`$ be an (anti)-automorphism of order two on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with structure map $`𝐬\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$. Then:

1. $`\gamma _{\alpha 𝐬}=\gamma _𝐬`$ for all $`\alpha `$;
2. The eigenvalues of $`\gamma _𝐬`$ are $`\pm 1`$;
3. $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is semi-simple.

Note that a) holds for any (anti)-automorphism and c) is true for (anti)-automorphisms of finite order. The next proposition lists some properties of structure maps.

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`𝐬`$ be a structure map associated to an (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma _𝐬`$ of order two. Then $`𝐬`$ has the following properties:

1. $`det𝐬=\pm 1`$;
2. $`𝐬`$ is orthogonal;
3. $`𝐬^2=\pm I`$;
4. There exists a basis such that the matrix of $`𝐬`$ is given by $`𝐬=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_p& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill I_q\end{array}\right)`$ or $`𝐬=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill I_n\\ \hfill I_n& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).`$

Here a) is true in general because it is a consequence of property a) in Lemma 3.2 and b) holds for any (anti)-automorphism of finite order.

Proof of Proposition 3.3. Using $`\gamma _{\alpha 𝐬}=\gamma _𝐬`$ for all $`\alpha `$, we can scale $`𝐬`$ such that $`det𝐬=\pm 1`$. For the remaining parts we distinguish between automorphisms and anti-automorphisms. We use the fact that $`𝐬`$ transforms as $`𝐬g𝐬g^1`$ or $`𝐬g𝐬g^{}`$ under a coordinate transformation $`g`$ depending on whether $`𝐬`$ is associated to an automorphism or an anti-automorphism, see Section 3.2. Let $`\gamma _𝐬=\varphi _𝐬`$ be an automorphism. Then $`\varphi _𝐬^2=I`$ immediately implies $`𝐬^2=\pm I`$. This in turn implies that $`𝐬`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ or $`\pm i`$ and that $`𝐬`$ is semi-simple, which yields the normal forms in d). Thus after a suitable transformation $`𝐬`$ is orthogonal. Let $`\gamma _𝐬=\psi _𝐬`$ be an anti-automorphism. Then $`\psi _𝐬^2=I`$ implies $`𝐬^{}=\pm 𝐬`$ and so is semi-simple. Thus $`𝐬`$ has either real or purely imaginary eigenvalues. Restrict $`𝐬`$ to an indecomposable $`𝐬`$-invariant space, then by applying the map $`g=\rho I`$ the eigenvalues of $`𝐬`$ are scaled to $`\pm 1`$ or $`\pm i`$. This transformed $`𝐬`$ is orthogonal and moreover satisfies $`𝐬^2=\pm I`$. Thus it takes one of the forms in d) with respect to a suitable basis. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.2 Eigenspaces of (Anti)-Automorphisms

The eigenspace of an (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma `$ corresponding to an eigenvalue $`\mu `$ is denoted by

$$\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)=\{L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\gamma (L)=\mu L\}.$$

Here we only consider (anti)-automorphisms of order two so that $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ is again a real space. The next lemma gives some basic properties of the eigenspaces of $`\gamma `$.

###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`\gamma `$ be an (anti)-automorphism of order two on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Then:

1. $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ if and only if $`\mu =\sigma (\gamma )`$;
2. $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ is a Lie submodule of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ over the Lie subalgebra $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$;
3. $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ splits as a sum of eigenspaces, $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)=\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_1(V)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_1(V)`$.

Note that a) and b) hold for any (anti)-automorphisms of finite order.

Proof of Lemma 3.4. Let $`A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ and $`B\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\nu (V)`$. Then $`\gamma ([A,B])=\sigma (\gamma )[\gamma (A),\gamma (B)]=\sigma (\gamma )\mu \nu [A,B]`$. Since $`\gamma `$ is of order two it is semi-simple and its eigenvalues are $`\pm 1`$, and so $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ splits as in c). $`\mathrm{}`$

#### Jordan-Chevalley Decomposition

The Jordan-Chevalley Decomposition 2.1 holds in any Lie subalgebra $`𝐠`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$, see . The next proposition states that it holds in any eigenspace of an (anti)-automorphism of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Note that $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ need not be real for the proposition to hold.

###### Proposition 3.5

If $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ and $`L=S+N`$ with $`S`$ semi-simple, $`N`$ nilpotent and $`[S,N]=0`$, then both $`S`$ and $`N`$ are elements of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$.

Proof. Let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ have Jordan-Chevalley decomposition $`L=S+N`$ with $`S,N\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Then $`\gamma (L)=\mu L=\mu S+\mu N`$ and so $`\mu S+\mu N`$ is the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`\gamma (L)`$. We also have $`\gamma (L)=\gamma (S)+\gamma (N)`$. Since $`\gamma (S)=𝐬^1S𝐬`$ or $`\gamma (S)=𝐬^1S^{}𝐬`$ we see that $`\gamma (S)`$ is semi-simple. Furthermore $`\gamma (N)^n=\gamma (N^n)=0`$ and so $`\gamma (N)`$ is nilpotent. Finally $`[\gamma (S),\gamma (N)]=\sigma (\gamma )\gamma ([S,N])=0`$. Thus $`\gamma (S)+\gamma (N)`$ is the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`\gamma (L)`$. Since this decomposition is unique we have $`\gamma (S)=\mu S`$ and $`\gamma (N)=\mu N`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.1

Note that the subspaces of symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(n,)`$, the $`\pm 1`$ eigenspaces of the anti-automorphism $`LL^{}`$, both consist entirely of semi-simple matrices. Thus for both these eigenspaces the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition is trivial. $``$

#### Coordinate Transformations

We next look at coordinate transformations. If $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$, then applying the coordinate change $`g`$ transforms $`L`$ to $`gLg^1`$. An automorphism $`\varphi _𝐬`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ transforms to $`\varphi _{g𝐬g^1}`$ and an anti-automorphism $`\psi _𝐬`$ to $`\psi _{g𝐬g^{}}`$. We therefore consider the action of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ on pairs $`(L,𝐬)`$ given by $`(L,𝐬)g.(L,𝐬)`$, where $`g.(L,𝐬)`$ is a shorthand for $`(gLg^1,g𝐬g^1)`$ if $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is an automorphism and $`(gLg^1,g𝐬g^{})`$ if $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is an anti-automorphism. Classifying pairs with respect to this action is equivalent to first bringing $`𝐬`$ into normal form using any transformation from $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$, and then classifying maps $`L`$ using only transformations which preserve $`𝐬`$. The group of such transformations is

$`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)|g𝐬g^1=𝐬\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^1`$ $`=`$ $`\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)|g𝐬g^{}=𝐬\}`$
for automorphism and anti-automorphisms, respectively. The group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ can be indentified with the set of invertible elements in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and so the (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma _𝐬`$ can also be regarded as an operator on $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$. Thus $`\gamma _𝐬(g)=𝐬^1g𝐬`$ for automorphisms and $`\gamma _𝐬(g)=𝐬^1g^{}𝐬`$ for anti-automorphisms. As before we set $`\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)`$ equal to $`+1`$ for automorphisms to $`1`$ for anti-automorphims. Then the group of *structure preserving* transformations can be characterized as

$$\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}(V)=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)|\gamma _𝐬(g)=g^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}\}.$$

With help of the structure preserving transformation group we summarize the discussion so far in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.6

*(Orbit Lemma)*
The $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit of the pair $`(L,𝐬)`$ is equivalent to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}(V)`$-orbit of $`L`$.

There is, however, a slightly larger transformation group that also preserves the eigenspaces of $`\gamma _𝐬`$. This is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ consisting of transformations which preserve the (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma =\gamma _𝐬`$, rather than the structure map $`𝐬`$ itself. We denote this group by

$$\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)\begin{array}{cccc}\varphi _{g𝐬g^1}\hfill & =& \varphi _𝐬,\hfill & \text{if }\gamma =\varphi _𝐬\text{ is an automorphism}\hfill \\ \psi _{g𝐬g^{}}\hfill & =& \psi _𝐬,\hfill & \text{if }\gamma =\psi _𝐬\text{ is an anti-automorphism.}\hfill \end{array}\}$$

Equivalently, if $`\varphi _g(L)=g^1Lg`$ for $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$, then

$$\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)=\left\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)\right|\varphi _g\gamma =\gamma \varphi _g\}.$$
(1)
In this paper we will use the groups $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\pm 1}(V)`$ in the normal form and unfolding theories. However in Lemma 3.11 we show that the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$-orbit through $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ is precisely the intersection of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. Thus the difference between the two groups is closely related to the phenomenon of orbit splitting. The following proposition describes some of the elementary properties of these transformation groups.

###### Remark 3.2

With a slight abuse of notation we define $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}(V):=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)|detg=\pm 1\}`$. Note that the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}(V)`$-orbits through any $`L`$ are equal. We can therefore always work with the subgroups $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}(V)=\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}(V)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)=\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}(V)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ rather than $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma _𝐬)}(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ themselves.

###### Proposition 3.7

Let $`\gamma `$ be an (anti)-automorphism of order two on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ with structure map $`𝐬`$. Let $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ be the eigenspace of $`\gamma `$ with eigenvalue $`\mu `$.

1. The groups $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ preserve the eigenspace $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$.
2. The Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ is the eigenspace $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$.
3. The group $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ is equal to either the whole of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$ or to a normal subgroup of index two. If $`dimV`$ is odd then $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)=\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$. If $`\gamma `$ is an automorphism then the same results hold with $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^1(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ in place of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^1(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$.

Parts a) and b) of Proposition 3.7 also hold for (anti)-automorphisms of any finite order.

###### Example 3.3

Let $`\psi `$ be the anti-automorphism $`LL^{}`$, for which the structure map $`𝐬`$ is the identity map I. Then $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^1(V)=\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^1(V)=\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$ is the group of orthogonal transformations. However $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ consisting of elements $`g`$ such that $`gg^{}`$ is a scalar multiple of the identity. Thus part c) of Proposition 3.7 does not hold with $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^1(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ in place of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_𝐬^1(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$. $``$

###### Example 3.4

Consider the set of infinitesimally $`R`$-reversible maps on $`^2`$ with $`R=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$ and let $`\varphi (L)=R^1LR`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_R^{+1}(V)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right)\right|ab=\pm 1\}`$ has two cosets in $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$. One coset is $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_R^{+1}(V)`$, the other is $`h\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_R^{+1}(V)`$, where $`h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. In this case it is also true that $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)=\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_R^{+1}(V)h\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_R^{+1}(V)`$. $``$

Proof of Proposition 3.7. The proofs of parts *a)* and *b)* are straightforward calculations.

For part *c)* we use the homomorphism $`\rho :g\gamma (g)g^{\sigma (\gamma )}`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$. The characterization in equation (1) implies that for every element $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ the element $`\rho (g)=\gamma (g)g^{\sigma (\gamma )}`$ commutes with every linear map $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ and so must be a real nonzero scalar multiple of the identity, $`\gamma (g)g^{\sigma (\gamma )}=\lambda I`$, say. Let $`n=dimV`$. Then taking determinants, and noting that $`det\gamma (g)=detg`$, implies that $`\lambda ^n=1`$ for automorphisms and $`\lambda ^n=(detg)^2`$ for anti-automorphisms. It follows that $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ for any $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ if $`\gamma `$ is an automorphisms, and for $`g\mathrm{𝐒𝐥}_\gamma (V)`$ if $`\gamma `$ is an anti-automorphism. Hence $`\rho `$ takes values in $`_2=\{\pm I\}`$. If $`n`$ is odd then $`\lambda =1`$ in both cases and $`\rho `$ is the constant mapping to the identity. The results now follow. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.3 Reduction

We will now reduce to the semi-simple case using a method analogous to that described in Section 2.1. The next lemma follows almost immediately from Lemma 2.2.

###### Lemma 3.8

*(Reduction Lemma)*
Let $`L`$ be a map in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\gamma _𝐬(A)=\mu A\}`$, where $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is an (anti)-automorphism of order two with structure map $`𝐬`$. Furthermore let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition and let $`V_\lambda `$ be an indecomposable $`L`$-invariant subspace. Then there exists an indecomposable $`𝐬`$-invariant subspace $`X_\lambda =V_\lambda +𝐬V_\lambda `$. Furthermore for each $`X_\lambda `$ there exists an $`S`$-invariant complement $`Y_\lambda `$ of $`NX_\lambda `$ in $`X_\lambda `$ such that $`X_\lambda =Y_\lambda NX_\lambda =Y_\lambda NY_\lambda \mathrm{}N^{n1}Y_\lambda `$. If $`S`$ is given on $`Y_\lambda `$, then $`L`$ is determined on $`X_\lambda `$ up to similarity.

On $`Y_\lambda `$ we have a reduced (anti)-automorphism. For automorphisms it is easy to see that the reduction of $`\varphi _𝐬`$ is simply $`\varphi _𝐬`$ restricted to $`Y_\lambda `$ so that $`Y_\lambda =W_\lambda +𝐬W_\lambda `$. Since $`Y_\lambda `$ is $`𝐬`$-invariant, the normal form of $`𝐬`$ on $`X_\lambda `$ follows from the normal form of $`𝐬`$ restricted to $`Y_\lambda `$.

###### Remark 3.5

Either $`V_\lambda 𝐬V_\lambda =\{0\}`$ or $`V_\lambda 𝐬V_\lambda =V_\lambda `$. For example for infinitesimally $`R`$-reversible maps we have $`X_{\pm i\beta }=V_{\pm i\beta }`$, but $`X_\alpha =V_\alpha RV_\alpha =V_\alpha V_\alpha `$. $``$

For anti-automorphisms the situation is somewhat more complicated. Recall that an anti-automorphism comes from a non-degenerate bilinear form $`\omega `$ which is either symmetric or anti-symmetric, $`\omega (y,x)=\epsilon \omega (x,y)`$ with $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$. Then on $`X_\lambda `$ the map $`L`$ satisfies $`\omega (Lx,y)=\mu \omega (x,Ly)`$. On $`Y_\lambda `$ we have a reduced form.

###### Lemma 3.9

Let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ on the indecomposable $`𝐬`$-invariant subspace $`X_\lambda `$. Let $`Y_\lambda `$ be an $`S`$-invariant complement to $`NX_\lambda `$ in $`X_\lambda `$. Then $`\tau (x,y)=\omega (x,N^{n1}y)`$ is a non-degenerate bilinear form on $`Y_\lambda `$ with $`\tau (y,x)=\epsilon \mu ^{n1}\tau (x,y)`$. Furthermore $`\tau (Sx,y)=\mu \tau (x,Sy)`$.

See Appendix A for a proof. The reduced anti-automorphism is $`\psi _𝐭`$ where the structure map $`𝐭`$ is defined by $`\tau (x,y)=x,𝐭y_Y`$ for all $`x,yY=Y_\lambda `$. Then $`Y_\lambda =W_\lambda +𝐭W_\lambda `$. Here $`Y_\lambda `$ is *not* $`𝐬`$-invariant. However the freedom in choosing $`Y_\lambda `$ can be used to put $`𝐬`$ into a normal form with respect to the splitting $`X_\lambda =Y_\lambda NY_\lambda \mathrm{}N^{n1}Y_\lambda `$, again see Appendix A.

Now we obtain an unfolding lemma which uses the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-unfolding from Lemma 2.5 as a starting point.

###### Lemma 3.10

*(Unfolding Lemma)*
Let $`\gamma `$ be an (anti)-automorphism and let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. Then the restriction of the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ centralizer unfolding of $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ is equivalent to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ centralizer unfolding in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$.

Proof. Let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ and let $`T_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}=\{ULLU|U\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)\}`$ be the tangent space at $`L`$ to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit of $`L`$. Let $`N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}`$ be its orthogonal complement with respect to an inner product on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. To simplify notation let $`𝐆=\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ and $`𝐠=\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$. Then $`T_𝐆=\{ULLU|U𝐠\}`$ is the tangent space at $`L`$ to the $`𝐆`$-orbit of $`L`$. Let $`N_𝐆`$ be its orthogonal complement in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. By shifting $`L`$ to the origin in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ we have $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)=T_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}^{}N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)=T_𝐆^{}N_𝐆`$. Now let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be the orthogonal projection onto $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(T_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)})=\{ULLU|U\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V),\gamma (ULLU)=\mu (ULLU)\}=\{ULLU|U𝐠\}=T_𝐆`$, since $`\gamma (ULLU)=\mu (ULLU)`$ iff $`U𝐠`$, and

$$\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)=\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V))=\mathrm{\Pi }(T_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}^{}N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)})=\mathrm{\Pi }(T_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)})^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)})=T_𝐆^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}).$$

Since orthogonal complements are unique, we have $`\mathrm{\Pi }(N_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)})=N_𝐆`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 3.4 Orbit Splitting

The transformation group $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ preserves $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ as a linear space and so maps $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits into $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits. The difference between the groups $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$ gives rise to *splitting* of orbits. This means that a $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ splits into different $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits when intersected with $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. In particular orbit splitting implies that eigenvalues and Jordan structure no longer suffice to characterize $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits. Examples of additional invariants are *symplectic* and *reversible signs* .

###### Lemma 3.11

*(Intersection Lemma)*
Let $`V`$ be an indecomposable $`𝐬`$-invariant space and $`\gamma _𝐬`$ an (anti)-automorphism of order two with structure map $`𝐬`$. Let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}(L)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)=\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)}(L).$$

Proof. If $`M\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)}(L)`$ then clearly $`M\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}(L)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. Next we assume $`M\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)}(L)\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$. The $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbits of $`L`$ and $`M`$ are, of course, the same. From the Orbit Lemma 3.6 we know that the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits of $`L`$ and $`M`$ correspond to the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbits of the pairs $`(L,𝐬)`$ and $`(M,𝐬)`$. These orbits are not necessarily the same. From the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-classification of pairs in Section 4 we see that the normal form of $`(L,𝐬)`$ is either $`(L_0,𝐬_0)`$ or $`(L_0,\epsilon 𝐬_0)`$ with $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$. That is either eigenvalues and Jordan structure determine the orbit or there is an additional sign. In that case $`(L_0,𝐬_0)`$ and $`(L_0,𝐬_0)`$ are *not* equivalent, there exists no $`g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ such that $`g.(L_0,𝐬_0)=(L_0,𝐬_0)`$. The normal form of $`(M,𝐬)`$ is $`(L_0,\epsilon 𝐬_0)`$ and in the absence of a sign we set $`\epsilon =1`$. If there is no sign then there are $`g_1,g_2\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ such that $`g_1.(L,𝐬)=(L_0,𝐬_0)`$ and $`g_2.(M,𝐬)=(M_0,𝐬_0)`$. But then we have $`(M,𝐬)=g_2^1g_1.(L,𝐬)`$ and thus $`g_2^1g_1\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$. If there is a sign we perform the same computation to find $`g_1,g_2\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$ such that $`(M,𝐬)=g_2^1g_1.(L,\epsilon 𝐬)`$ and thus $`g_2^1g_1\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)`$. Hence we may conclude that $`M\mathrm{Orb}_{\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_\gamma (V)}(L)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following result is an immediate corollary of Proposition 3.7 and Lemma 3.11.

###### Theorem 3.12

*(Orbit Splitting Theorem)*
If $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ then the $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)`$-orbit of $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ intersects $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ in at most two $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(V)`$-orbits.

###### Example 3.6

Recall from Example 1.1 that the space of infinitesimally $`R`$-reversible maps is defined by $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_R(V):=\{L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\varphi _R(L)=L\}`$, where $`\varphi _R`$ is an automorphism defined by $`\varphi _R(L):=R^1LR`$ with *structure map* $`R`$ satisfying $`R^2=I`$, $`R\pm I`$. The structure map $`R`$ has eigenvalues $`+1`$ and $`1`$ with corresponding eigenspaces $`E_+=\{aV|Ra=a\}`$ and $`E_{}=\{bV|Rb=b\}`$. For an infinitesimally $`R`$-reversible map $`L`$ we have $`LE_+E_{}`$ and $`LE_{}E_+`$. Let $`V`$ be an indecomposable $`L`$,$`R`$-invariant subspace. Then eigenvectors of $`L`$ for eigenvalue zero either belong to $`E_+`$ or to $`E_{}`$. The new invariant, called the *reversible sign* indicates to which eigenspace such an eigenvector belongs. $``$

###### Example 3.7

Infinitesimally symplectic linear maps are defined by $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}(V):=\{L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\omega (Lx,y)+\omega (x,Ly)=0,x,yV\}`$, where $`\omega `$ is a non-degenerate skew symmetric bilinear form on $`V`$, see Example 1.2. With help of an inner product $`,`$ on $`V`$ we can find a map $`J`$ satisfying $`J^{}=J`$ and $`J^2=I`$ such that $`\omega (x,y)=x,Jy`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}(V)=\{L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\psi _J(L)=L\}`$, where $`\psi _J`$ is the anti-automorphism defined by $`\psi _J(L):=J^1L^{}J`$. Here $`J`$ is the *structure map*. Since $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\sigma (\psi _J)}(V)=\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_1(V)=\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}(V)`$, Proposition 3.7 says that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}(V)`$ is a Lie algebra, as we already knew. The invertible transformations that preserve the symplectic structure are exactly those $`g`$ for which $`\omega (gx,gy)=\omega (x,y)`$. Indeed according to Proposition 3.7 they are given by $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_1(V)=\{g\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(V)|\psi _J(g)=g^1\}`$, which is equivalent to $`g^{}Jg=J`$, reflecting the transformation rule for bilinear forms. The order of $`\psi _J`$ is two. So if splitting of an orbit occurs there are at most two inequivalent normal forms. A well known example is the distinction between 1:1 resonance and 1:-1 resonance. In both cases there are double eigenvalues $`\pm 𝐢`$. But there is an additional invariant, namely a *symplectic* sign distinguishing the two cases. These signs are intimately related to the Morse index of the corresponding quadratic Hamilton functions. In Hamiltonian systems a single pair of complex conjugate imaginary eigenvalues is forced to remain on the imaginary axis when parameters of the system vary. When two such pairs meet they may remain on the imaginary axis, which is called *passing* or they may move into the complex plane which is called *splitting*. Computing the unfoldings in the 1:1 case one finds passing of imaginary eigenvalues (see Cotter , Galin  and Koçak ), which is a codimension three phenomenon, see table 5 type 8d. In the 1:-1 case one finds splitting of imaginary eigenvalues (see van der Meer ), which is a codimension one phenomenon, see table 5 type 8c. $``$

## 4 Normal Forms and Examples of Unfoldings

### 4.1 Normal Forms

In the present setting, where $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is an (anti)-automorphism of order two with structure map $`𝐬`$, we can classify maps satisfying $`\gamma _𝐬(L)=\mu L`$ into the eight different types listed in Table 1.

Applying the Reduction Lemma 3.8 it is straightforward to obtain normal forms for semi-simple maps of the types listed in Table 1. If $`\gamma _𝐬`$ is an anti-automorphism we apply the construction of Appendix A to put the structure map $`𝐬`$ into normal form. Finally we reduce to the smaller space $`Y`$ on which we consider the semi-simple part $`S`$ of $`L`$ and the reduced structure map $`𝐭`$ (see Appendix A), such that $`S\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (Y)=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(Y)|\gamma _𝐭(A)=\mu A\}`$. Since we consider semi-simple maps in their own right we denote the reduced structure map again by $`𝐬`$. Note that in view of the Orbit Lemma 3.6 the normal forms in Tables 2 and 3 can be regarded as representatives of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}_𝐬^{\sigma (\gamma )}(Y)`$-orbits of $`S`$ once a choice for $`𝐬`$ has been made, but they can also be seen as representatives of $`\mathrm{𝐆𝐋}(Y)`$-orbits of the pair $`(S,𝐬)`$.

###### Theorem 4.1

*(Normal Form Theorem)*
Let $`\gamma _𝐬`$ be an (anti)-automorphism of order two with structure map $`𝐬`$ and let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (X)`$ be a linear map in one of the eigenspaces of $`\gamma _𝐬`$, where $`X`$ is an indecomposable $`(L,𝐬)`$-invariant space. Furthermore let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L`$. Then the normal form of $`L`$ on $`X`$ is determined by the normal form of $`S`$ on $`Y`$, where $`YX`$ is a reduced space as in Proposition 3.8. The normal forms of $`S`$ are listed in Tables 2 and 3.

###### Remarks 4.1

Let us make some remarks on the various cases in Tables 2 and 3.

1. There are only two cases where there are no signs at all, namely infinitesimally $`𝐬`$-reversible semi-simple maps of type $``$ and anti-symplectic semi-simple maps.
2. In each of the other cases the sign has a geometric meaning. Let $`S`$ be a semi-simple map in an eigenspace of an automorphism, see Table 1.

1. For $`𝐬`$-equivariant maps of type $``$ there are two isotypic components, labelled by the eigenvalues of $`𝐬`$. The sign indicates on which of the two isotypic components $`L`$ acts. Similarly for $`𝐬`$-equivariant maps of type $``$. Here the sign disappears for real eigenvalues of $`L`$. The latter are forced to be double and are non-generic.
    2. For infinitesimally $`𝐬`$-reversible maps of type $``$ the sign for zero eigenvalues of $`L`$ indicates to which eigenspace of $`𝐬`$ the corresponding eigenvector belongs.
    3. In case of symmetric and anti-symmetric maps the sign is related to the signature of the underlying bilinear form. If the signature is denoted by $`(p,q)`$, that is

    $$x,y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}x_iy_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}x_{p+i}y_{p+i},$$

    then for signature $`(n,0)`$ or $`(0,n)`$, symmetric maps only have real eigenvalues whereas anti-symmetric maps only have imaginary eigenvalues. In this case the sign distinguishes between $`(n,0)`$ and $`(0,n)`$.
    4. For infinitesimally symplectic maps the structure map itself is symplectic. The dynamical interpretation is that the structure map defines a preferred direction of rotation. This gives a sign for imaginary eigenvalues of an infinitesimally symplectic map.
3. In case of types 3 and 4 the structure map $`𝐬`$ satisfies $`𝐬^{}=𝐬`$ and $`𝐬^2=I`$. Therefore $`𝐬`$ defines a complex structure on $`X`$. Maps of type 3 commute with $`𝐬`$, but maps of type 4 anti-commute with $`𝐬`$. Consequently maps of type 3 can be considered as $``$-linear maps whereas maps of type 4 can be considered as $``$-semi-linear maps.
4. In case of anti-automorphisms the reduced structure map $`𝐭`$ can be either symmetric or skew in eigenspaces with $`\mu =1`$. This means that a reduced semi-simple infinitesimally symplectic map is either infinitesimally symplectic or anti-symmetric with respect to the reduced structure map. Similarly a reduced semi-simple anti-symmetric map is either anti-symmetric or infinitesimally symplectic. $``$

We conclude this section with a proof of the Normal Form Theorem.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. We will not give proofs for all the different cases for they are very similar to each other. Instead we give some representative proofs for automorphisms and anti-automorphisms with and without signs. The types refer to Table 1. We use the following standard matrices.

$$I=I_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$

1. Type 3; complex eigenvalues; $`𝐬^2=I`$. The maps $`S`$ and $`𝐬`$ commute, both have complex eigenvalues, and so $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }=W_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$. Let $`e`$ be any vector in $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ and define $`f:=\frac{1}{\beta }(S\alpha )e`$. Then $`e,f`$ is a basis of $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ on which we have $`S=\alpha I+\beta J`$ and $`𝐬=J`$. Note that we can change the sign of $`\beta `$ in $`S`$ by applying the transformation $`R`$ or $`T`$. Then the sign of $`𝐬`$ changes as well. Therefore we assume $`\beta >0`$ and put the sign in $`𝐬=\pm J`$.
2. Type 4; real eigenvalues; $`𝐬^2=I`$. The maps $`S`$ and $`𝐬`$ anti-commute. If $`eW_\alpha `$ then $`𝐬eW_\alpha `$, so $`Y_\alpha =W_\alpha W_\alpha `$. Then $`e,𝐬e`$ is a basis of $`Y_\alpha `$ and we have $`S=\alpha R`$ and $`𝐬=J`$. Note that $`𝐬S𝐬^1=S`$, so we may assume that $`\alpha 0`$. There is no sign in this case.
3. Type 5; complex eigenvalues; $`𝐬^2=I`$. Here $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }=W_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$. Let $`e`$ be any vector in $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ and define $`f:=\frac{1}{\beta }(S\alpha )e`$. Then $`e,f`$ is a basis of $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$. On this basis $`S=\alpha I+\beta J`$. Let $`\tau `$ be the reduced form on $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$, that is $`\tau (x,y)=x,𝐬y`$. Then indeed $`\tau (e,f)=\frac{1}{\beta }(e,Se)=\frac{1}{\beta }(Se,e)=\tau (f,e)`$. If $`u`$ is a vector in $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ such that $`𝐬u=u`$, then $`𝐬(S\alpha )u=(S\alpha )𝐬u=(S\alpha )u`$. So $`𝐬`$ is indeed symmetric and has eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ on $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$. Thus there exists an orthogonal transformation such that $`u,\frac{1}{\beta }(S\alpha )u`$ is a new basis of $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ and $`S=\alpha I+\beta J`$, $`𝐬=R`$. Note that $`𝐬S𝐬^1=\alpha I\beta J`$, so we may assume $`\beta 0`$ and there is no sign.
4. Type 6; imaginary eigenvalues; $`𝐬^2=I`$. Again $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }=W_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$. Let $`e`$ be any vector in $`Y_{\pm i\beta }`$ and define $`f:=\frac{1}{\beta }Se`$. Then $`e,f`$ is a basis of $`Y_{\pm i\beta }`$. On this basis $`S=\beta J`$. The reduced form $`\tau `$ on $`Y_{\alpha \pm i\beta }`$ is symmetric, so $`\tau (e,f)=\tau (f,e)`$. On the other hand $`\tau (e,f)=\frac{1}{\beta }\tau (e,Se)=\frac{1}{\beta }\tau (Se,e)=\tau (f,e)`$, so $`\tau (e,f)=0`$. Furthermore $`\tau (f,f)=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\tau (Se,Se)=\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\tau (S^2e,e)=\tau (e,e)`$. Thus on the basis $`e,f`$ we have $`S=\beta J`$, $`𝐬=\pm I`$ and we may assume that $`\beta >0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2 Examples of Unfoldings

Our aim is to present a list of low codimension unfoldings. We will concentrate on unfoldings of zero eigenvalues. Since such unfoldings give a parametrization of the full space of maps we also get information on the unfoldings of real, imaginary and complex eigenvalues. The classification is complete up to codimension two. Where appropriate we include some higher codimension cases to show the consequences of signs. In constructing unfoldings we use Lemmas 3.10 and 2.5 and we summarize the results in a theorem.

###### Theorem 4.2

*(Unfolding Theorem)*
Let $`\gamma _𝐬`$ be an (anti)-automorphism of order two with structure map $`𝐬`$ and let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (X)`$ be a linear map, with $`X`$ an indecomposable $`(L,𝐬)`$-invariant space. Furthermore let $`L=S+N`$ be the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L`$. Then the unfoldings of $`L`$ up to codimension two are listed in Tables 4 and 5.

Here we consider real maps with real parameters. In such maps simple real eigenvalues are forced to remain on the real axis when parameters are varied. Maps which are elements of an eigenspace corresponding to eigenvalue $`1`$ of an (anti)-automorphism have eigenvalues which come in complex conjugate $`(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda })`$ *and* opposite $`(\lambda ,\lambda )`$ pairs. Thus a pair of simple opposite imaginary eigenvalues is forced to remain on the imaginary axis when parameters are varied. However there may also be collisions of such eigenvalues on the real or imaginary axis as the parameter varies. Generically eigenvalues *split* into the complex plane at collisions, but in the presence of signs generic *passing* also occurs.

There are several examples where we have passing or splitting depending on the signs. In $`𝐬`$-equivariant maps of type $``$, type 1 in Table 1, passing of real eigenvalues with different signs and splitting of real eigenvalues with equal signs are both codimension one phenomena. This can be inferred from 1c and 1d in Table 4. In infinitesimally $`𝐬`$-reversible maps of type $``$, type 2 in Table 1, only zero eigenvalues are signed. At collisions real and imaginary eigenvalues generically split. Maps of type 3 generically do not have eigenvalues on the real or imaginary axis. Maps of type 4 generically do have opposite pairs of real eigenvalues, but since there are no signs they split at collisions. Real eigenvalues of maps of type 5 with equal signs pass but split when the signs are different at collisions. This follows from 5b, 5c and 5d in Table 5. Similarly imaginary eigenvalues of anti-symmetric maps of type 6 split or pass when the signs are different or equal respectively. See 6e and 6f in Table 5. Note that passing is a codimension 3 phenomenon, but splitting is a codimension 1 phenomenon. This should come as no surprise because the anti-symmetric maps are closely related to infinitesimally symplectic maps of type 8. Here we have the same codimensions for splitting and passing, see 8c and 8d in Table 5. Maps of type 7 can generically have real eigenvalues. Since there are no signs they generically split at collisions.

## 5 Generalizations

Here we will generalize the results for a single (anti)-automorphism of order two to an abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of (anti)-automorphisms of order two. In general the subset $`𝐠`$ in the Introduction will be an isotypic component of the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$, but for abelian groups these are equivalent to simultaneous eigenspaces. To make this more precise, let the $`V`$ be a finite dimensional real vector space and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a abelian group of (anti)-automorphisms of order two acting on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p`$ with $`\gamma _i^2=I`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$. Then the simultaneous eigenspaces are given by

$$\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _p}(V)=\{L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)|\gamma _1(L)=\mu _1L,\mathrm{},\gamma _p(L)=\mu _pL\},$$

where the eigenvalues $`\mu _i`$ are $`\pm 1`$. The structure map associated to $`\gamma _i`$ is denoted by $`𝐬_i`$. Apart from Example 1.3 we encounter this situation with infinitesimally reversible equivariant and infinitesimally symplectic reversible equivariant maps. See  for applications of the results of this article.

The theory developed for a single (anti)-automorphism almost immediately extends to an abelian group of (anti)-automorphisms. Let us review Section 3 and make some comments. The structure maps can again be taken orthogonal, but here we need to take a closer look at anti-automorphisms, see Appendix B. From the proof of Proposition 3.5 it follows immediately that the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition also holds in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _p}(V)`$. Moreover the *structure preserving* transformation group $`𝐆`$ is the intersection of the structure preserving transformations groups for each (anti)-automorphism $`\gamma _i`$. Once we have identified the transformation group we can classify its orbits in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _p}(V)`$. There is a Reduction Lemma similar to 3.8 where indecomposable $`𝐬`$-invariant subspaces are replaced by indecomposable $`𝐬_1,\mathrm{},𝐬_p`$-invariant subspaces. In the same way we have an Unfolding Lemma and an Orbit Splitting Theorem for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But in the latter we now have at most $`2^p`$ inequivalent $`𝐆`$-orbits.

###### Remark 5.1

The indecomposable $`𝐬_1,\mathrm{},𝐬_p`$-invariant subspaces can be relatively large. Let us look at an $``$-linear map on $`^4`$. The quaternionic structure on $`^4`$ is determined by two structure maps $`𝐜`$ and $`𝐪`$ with $`𝐜^2=I`$, $`𝐪^2=I`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐪}=\mathrm{𝐪𝐜}`$, see . Then $``$-linear maps on $`^4`$ are defined as $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{1,1}(^4):=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^4)|\varphi _𝐜(A)=A,\varphi _𝐪(A)=A\}`$, where $`\varphi _𝐜(A):=𝐜^1A𝐜`$ and $`\varphi _𝐪(A):=𝐪^1A𝐪`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{I,\varphi _𝐜,\varphi _𝐪,\varphi _𝐜\varphi _𝐪\}`$ since clearly $`\varphi _𝐜`$ and $`\varphi _𝐪`$ commute. Let $`L\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{1,1}(^4)`$ have a real eigenvalue $`\alpha `$, then the indecomposable $`L,𝐜,𝐪`$-invariant space is $`X_\alpha =V_\alpha 𝐜V_\alpha 𝐪V_\alpha \mathrm{𝐜𝐪}V_\alpha `$. $``$

###### Example 5.2

The maximum number of $`2^p`$ inequivalent $`𝐆`$-orbits occurs in an example of an infinitesimally reversible symplectic linear map. We have already encountered such maps in Example 1.3. They are elements of the simultaneous eigenspace $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{1,1}(^{2n}):=\{A\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(^{2n})|\varphi _R(A)=A,\psi _J(A)=A\}`$, where $`\varphi _R(A):=R^1AR`$ and $`\psi _J(A):=J^1A^{}J`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{id,\varphi _R,\psi _J,\psi _{RJ}\}`$ is generated by $`\varphi _R`$ and $`\psi _J`$, where $`\psi _J\varphi _R=\psi _{RJ}`$. Let $`L`$ be a map in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{1,1}(^4)`$ with two blocks of double zero eigenvalues and a nilpotent part of height two, see . Then there are $`4=2^2`$ inequivalent $`𝐆`$-orbits in $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{1,1}(^4)`$. $``$

As mentioned in the Introduction our main motivation for studying eigenspaces of (anti)-automorphisms of order two comes from real ordinary differential equations. Other obvious generalizations apart from the one given in this section are not necessarily in this context. Such generalizations include single (anti)-automorphisms of finite order. Then the eigenspace $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ need not be real. This problem can be overcome by taking the real invariant space $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_{\mu ,\overline{\mu }}(V)`$ as the object of study, though one could also look at the complex space $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}_\mu (V)`$ in its own right. One could also look at abelian and non-abelian groups generated by (anti)-automorphisms of finite order, and more generally still one might consider general compact groups of (anti)-automorphisms. We will not pursue these matters here.

## Acknowledgments

It is a great pleasure to thank Richard Cushman for valuable comments and discussions. This research was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EPSRC (IH, JSWL), the Nuffield Foundation (JSWL), and by European Community funding for the Research Training Network ‘MASIE’ (HPRN-CT-2000-00113).

## Appendix A Standard Form of a Bilinear Form

Here we generalize a result of Burgoyne & Cushman , which in turn is based on a theorem of Springer & Steinberg , to obtain a normal form for a skew or indefinite symmetric bilinear form on $`V`$ which respects the splitting of $`V`$ in the Reduction Lemma 3.8.

Let $`V`$ be real vector space and let $`\omega `$ be a nondegenerate bilinear form on $`V`$ which is either symmetric or skew, that is for each nonzero $`xV`$ there exists an $`yV`$ such that $`\omega (x,y)0`$ and for all $`x,yV`$, $`\omega (y,x)=\epsilon \omega (x,y)`$ with $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$. If $`,`$ is the standard inner product on $`V`$ then there is an invertible linear map $`𝐬`$ with $`𝐬^{}=\epsilon 𝐬`$ such that $`\omega (x,y)=x,𝐬y`$. We may assume that after scaling $`𝐬^2=\epsilon I`$, so $`𝐬`$ is orthogonal.

Let $`L`$ be a linear map on $`V`$ such that for all $`x,yV`$, $`\omega (Lx,y)=\mu \omega (x,Ly)`$ with $`\mu =\pm 1`$. This is equivalent to $`Lx,𝐬y=\mu x,𝐬Ly`$ or $`L^{}𝐬=\mu 𝐬L`$. Let $`\psi _𝐬(L)=𝐬^1L^{}𝐬`$. Then $`L`$ satisfies $`\psi _𝐬(L)=\mu L`$.

Now we assume that $`V`$ is an indecomposable $`L`$,$`𝐬`$-invariant space. If $`L=S+N`$ is the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition of $`L`$ then there is an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W`$ of $`NV`$ in $`V`$ such that $`V=WNW\mathrm{}N^{n1}W`$, where $`n`$ is the height of $`N`$. Although $`𝐬`$ has a normal form as in Lemma 3.3, since $`𝐬`$ is orthogonal, we wish to find a normal form of $`𝐬`$ which respects the above splitting of $`V`$.

If $`\omega `$ is definite then it must be symmetric and thus $`𝐬=\pm I`$. Then every $`L`$ satisfying $`\psi _𝐬(L)=\mu L`$ is semi-simple. Therefore in the present situation we need only consider indefinite forms. The main result of this section can now be stated.

###### Proposition A.1

Let $`\omega `$ and $`L`$ be defined as above. For every $`S`$-invariant complement $`W_1`$ of $`NV`$ in $`V`$ there is an invertible transformation $`g`$ such that $`W=gW_1`$ is again $`S`$-invariant and on $`WNW\mathrm{}N^{n1}W`$ the matrix of $`𝐬`$ takes the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}& \\ & & \end{array}\right),$$

where $``$ is a $`m\times m`$ block and $`m=dimW`$.

The procedure to transform $`W_1`$ runs as follows. Note that the matrix of $`𝐬`$ is upper triangular with respect to the main anti-diagonal. Furthermore blocks of $`𝐬`$ on an anti-diagonal differ only by a sign, see the proof of Proposition A.1 below. By adding a component of $`NW_1`$ to $`W_1`$ and setting $`W_2=W_1+Ng_1W_1`$ for a map $`g_1`$ to be specified later, we clear the first co-anti-diagonal. Then we set $`W_3=W_2+N^2g_2W_2`$, clearing the second co-anti-diagonal without affecting the first. This process stops after $`n1`$ steps.

The following lemmas are useful in the proof of Proposition A.1. Although there is freedom in choosing an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W`$ of $`NV`$ in $`V`$ the space $`N^{n1}W`$ is unique.

###### Lemma A.2

If $`W`$ is an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W`$ of $`NV`$ in $`V`$, then $`N^{n1}W`$ is unique.

Proof. Let $`n`$ be the height of $`N`$ on $`V`$. For every $`xN^{n1}W`$ we have $`Nx=0`$. Since the eigenspaces of $`N`$ are unique $`N^{n1}W`$ is unique. Thus if $`U`$ is also an $`S`$-invariant complement $`W`$ of $`NV`$ in $`V`$ then $`N^{n1}U=N^{n1}W`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The matrix of $`𝐬`$ with respect to a basis in $`V=WNW\mathrm{}N^{n1}W`$ has the following properties.

###### Lemma A.3

Let $`\omega (x,y)=x,𝐬y_V`$ and blocks of $`𝐬`$ are denoted by $`\beta _{ij}`$. Then $`\beta _{i,j}=\mu \beta _{i1,j+1}`$ and $`\beta _{ij}=0`$ if $`i+jn`$.

Proof. This follows immediately from $`\omega (N^ix,N^jy)=\mu \omega (N^{i1}x,N^{j+1}y)=\mu ^i\omega (x,N^{i+j}y)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the proof of the proposition we need the bilinear forms $`\tau _j(x,y)=\omega (N^jx,y)`$ on $`W`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Furthermore let $`T_j`$ be defined as $`\tau _j(x,y)=x,T_jy_W`$ for all $`x,yW`$.

###### Lemma A.4

$`T_{n1}`$ is an invertible map.

Proof. This follows from the fact that $`\tau _{n1}`$ is nondegenerate on $`W`$. The form $`\omega `$ is nondegenerate on $`V`$, so for every nonzero $`xV`$ there is a $`yV`$ such that $`\omega (x,y)0`$. In particular for every $`xW`$ there is a $`yV`$ such that $`\omega (N^{n1}x,y)0`$. Every such $`y`$ has a unique decomposition $`y=y_1+y_2`$ with $`y_1W`$ and $`y_2NV`$. Then $`0\omega (N^{n1}x,y)=\mu ^{n1}\omega (x,N^{n1}y)=\mu ^{n1}\omega (x,N^{n1}y_1+N^{n1}y_2)=\mu ^{n1}\omega (x,N^{n1}y_1)`$. Thus $`\tau _{n1}`$ is nondegenerate on $`W`$ and therefore $`T_{n1}`$ is invertible on $`W`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition A.1. Note that the blocks $`\beta _{ij}`$ differ from the matrices of $`T_{j1}`$ by a sign only. Therefore if the bilinear forms $`\tau _j`$ are identically zero on $`W`$ for $`j=1,n2`$, the matrix of $`𝐬`$ has the desired form.

Suppose $`\tau _{n2}0`$ on $`W`$. Let $`W_2=W_1+NgW_1`$ where $`g`$ is chosen so that $`\tau _{n2}((I+Ng)x,(I+Ng)y)=0`$ for all $`x,yW_1`$. After a short computation we find $`\tau _{n2}(x+Ngx,y+Ngy)=x,(T_{n2}+\mu T_{n1}g+g^{}T_{n1})y_W`$. Assuming that $`g^{}T_{n1}=\mu T_{n1}g`$ we set $`g=\frac{1}{2}\mu T_{n1}^1T_{n2}`$. Then $`\tau _{n2}=0`$ on $`W_2`$.

Now assume that $`\tau _{n2}=0,\mathrm{},\tau _{nj+1}=0`$ on $`W_{j1}`$. Let $`W_j=W_{j1}+N^{j1}gW_{j1}`$, where $`g`$ is chosen so that $`\tau _{nj}((I+N^{j1}g)x,(I+N^{j1}g)y)=0`$ for all $`x,yW_{j1}`$. Again we find $`\tau _{nj}(x+N^{j1}gx,y+N^{j1}gy)=x,(T_{nj}+\mu ^{j1}T_{n1}g+g^{}T_{n1})y_W`$ and we set $`g=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^{j1}T_{n1}^1T_{nj}`$, so that $`\tau _{nj}=0`$ on $`W_j`$. It is easily checked that now $`\tau _{n2}=0,\mathrm{},\tau _{nj}=0`$ on $`W_j`$.

We still have to check that $`g^{}T_{n1}=\mu ^{j1}T_{n1}g`$ in each step, but this follows from $`T_{nj}^{}T_{n1}=\mu ^{j1}T_{n1}T_{nj}`$ because $`N^{}T_{n1}=\mu T_{n1}N`$. Furthermore it is easy to see that each $`W_j`$ is $`S`$-invariant. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Appendix B Orthogonality of Structure Maps

In this appendix we give a precise statement of the properties of structure maps associated to the generators of an abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of (anti)-automorphisms of order two. Their properties are essentially those of a structure map of a single (anti)-automorphism, but it is not a priori clear that we can transform them as in Proposition 3.3 so that they can all be assumed to be orthogonal. It might happen that a transformation which takes one structure map in good shape spoils another. The proposition below shows that this does not happen because of the commutation relations of the (anti)-automorphisms.

###### Proposition B.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a abelian group of (anti)-automorphisms of order two on $`\mathrm{𝐠𝐥}(V)`$ generated by $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p`$. Then we may assume that $`\gamma _i=\gamma _{𝐬_i}`$ where the structure maps $`𝐬_i`$ have the following properties:

1. $`det𝐬_i=\pm 1`$.
2. $`𝐬_i`$ is orthogonal.
3. $`𝐬_i^2=\pm I`$.
4. $`𝐬_i𝐬_j=\pm 𝐬_j𝐬_i`$.

Proof. Throughout the proof $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐭`$ will be any pair of structure maps from the set $`\{𝐬_1\mathrm{}𝐬_p\}`$.

Part a) follows from $`\gamma _{\alpha 𝐬}=\gamma _𝐬`$ for all $`\alpha `$, so we can scale $`𝐬`$ such that $`det𝐬=\pm 1`$. For every pair $`\gamma _𝐬,\gamma _𝐭\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have $`\gamma _𝐬\gamma _𝐭=\gamma _𝐭\gamma _𝐬`$ and $`\gamma _𝐬^2=I`$, $`\gamma _𝐭^2=I`$. We distinguish three different cases.

1. $`\gamma _𝐬=\varphi _𝐬`$ and $`\gamma _𝐭=\varphi _𝐭`$ are automorphisms. From $`\varphi _𝐬^2=I`$ we have $`𝐬^2=\pm I`$, so $`𝐬`$ is semi-simple and has eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$ or $`\pm i`$. In order that $`\varphi _𝐬\varphi _𝐭=\varphi _𝐭\varphi _𝐬`$ we must have $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐭}=\pm \mathrm{𝐭𝐬}`$. Then $`𝐬,𝐭`$ generates a finite group. By a transformation, corresponding to averaging the inner product on $`V`$ over this group, we obtain that $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐭`$ are orthogonal. We can do this at once for all structure maps associated to automorphisms in $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p`$.
2. $`\gamma _𝐬=\varphi _𝐬`$ is an automorphism and $`\gamma _𝐭=\psi _𝐭`$ is an anti-automorphism. Because of 1) we assume that $`𝐬`$ has properties a), b) and c). Now $`\psi _𝐭^2=I`$ implies $`𝐭^{}=\pm 𝐭`$ and so $`𝐭`$ is semi-simple, moreover $`𝐭`$ has either real or purely imaginary eigenvalues. Then it follows from $`\varphi _𝐬\psi _𝐭=\psi _𝐭\varphi _𝐬`$ that $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐭}=\pm \mathrm{𝐭𝐬}`$. The latter implies that there exist indecomposable $`𝐬,𝐭`$-invariant subspaces on which $`𝐭`$ has either real eigenvalues in configurations $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha \alpha `$ or $`\pm \alpha `$, or purely imaginary eigenvalues in configurations $`\pm i\beta `$ or $`(\pm i\beta )(\pm i\beta )`$. A scaling transformation acts on this subspace as $`g=\rho I`$, taking the eigenvalues of $`𝐭`$ to $`\pm 1`$ or $`\pm i`$. Since $`𝐬`$ transforms as $`𝐬𝐬g^1`$ it is invariant under the scaling $`g`$. Thus $`𝐭`$ has properties a), b), c) and d).
3. $`\gamma _𝐬=\psi _𝐬`$ and $`\gamma _𝐭=\psi _𝐭`$ are anti-automorphisms. Because of 2) we assume that $`𝐬`$ has properties a), b) and c). Again $`\psi _𝐭^2=I`$ implies $`𝐭^{}=\pm 𝐭`$ and so $`𝐭`$ is semi-simple, moreover $`𝐭`$ has either real or purely imaginary eigenvalues. From $`\psi _𝐬\psi _𝐭=\psi _𝐭\psi _𝐬`$ we infer that $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐬}=\pm \mathrm{𝐬𝐭}^1`$. Again we look for a transformation that takes eigenvalues of $`𝐭`$ to $`\pm 1`$ or $`\pm i`$ but leaves $`𝐬`$ invariant. Summarising we have eight different cases $`𝐬^2=\epsilon _1I`$, $`𝐬^{}=\epsilon _1𝐬`$, $`𝐭^{}=\epsilon _2𝐬`$, $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐬}=\epsilon _3\mathrm{𝐬𝐭}^1`$, where $`\epsilon _i=\pm 1`$. Let us look at $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2=1`$ and $`\epsilon _3=\epsilon =\pm 1`$, the other cases being very similar. On any indecomposable $`𝐬,𝐭`$-invariant subspace $`𝐭`$ has eigenvalues $`\pm i\beta `$ and $`\pm \frac{i}{\beta }`$, $`\beta >0`$. Suppose $`e`$ is a vector such that $`𝐭^2e=\beta ^2e`$. Let $`f`$ be defined as $`f:=\frac{1}{\beta }𝐭e`$. Then $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐬}e=\epsilon \mathrm{𝐬𝐭}^1e=\epsilon \frac{1}{\beta }𝐬f`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐬}f=\epsilon \mathrm{𝐬𝐭}^1f=\epsilon \frac{1}{\beta }𝐬e`$. Since $`𝐬^2=I`$, $`𝐬^2v=v`$ for each vector $`v`$. Thus on the basis $`e,f,𝐬e,𝐬f`$, $`𝐭`$ and $`𝐬`$ have the following matrices

$$𝐭=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill \beta & & \\ \hfill \beta & \hfill 0& & \\ & & \hfill 0& \hfill \epsilon \beta ^1\\ & & \hfill \epsilon \beta ^1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),𝐬=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ & & \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& & \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& & \end{array}\right).$$

Now let $`g`$ be a transformation with blockdiagonal matrix $`\mathrm{diag}(a^1I_2,aI_2)`$ with $`a=\sqrt{\beta }`$. Then $`𝐭`$ and $`𝐬`$ transform as

$$g𝐭g^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1& & \\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& & \\ & & \hfill 0& \hfill \epsilon \\ & & \hfill \epsilon & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),g𝐬g^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}& & \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ & & \hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0& & \\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& & \end{array}\right)=𝐬.$$

So we see that $`𝐭`$ has the properties listed in the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Restricted and unrestricted Hartree-Fock calculations of conductance for a quantum point contact

## Abstract

Very short quantum wires (quantum contacts) exhibit a conductance structure at a value of conductance close to $`0.7\times 2e^2/h`$. It is believed that the structure arises due to the electron-electron interaction, and it is also related to electron spin. However details of the mechanism of the structure are not quite clear. Previously we approached the problem within the restricted Hartree-Fock approximation. This calculation demonstrated a structure similar to that observed experimentally. In the present work we perform restricted and unrestricted Hartree-Fock calculations to analyze the validity of the approximations. We also consider dependence of the effect on the electron density in leads. The unrestricted Hartree-Fock method allows us to analyze trapping of the single electron within the contact. Such trapping would result in the Kondo model for the “0.7 structure”. The present calculation confirms the spin-dependent bound state picture and does not confirm the Kondo model scenario.

The quantized conductance $`G=nG_2`$, $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, $`G_2=2e^2/h`$, through a narrow quantum point contact was discovered in 1988 . This quantization can be understood within a one-dimensional (1D) non-interacting electron gas picture, see e.g. Ref.. In the present work we are interested in a deviation from the integer quantization. This deviation, the so called “0.7 structure” has been found in experimental works . The structure is a shoulder-like feature or a narrow plateau at $`G0.7G_2`$. More recent work demonstrates that there are some above barrier excitations related to the structure , and that the structure evolves down to $`G0.5G_2`$ in longer quantum contacts . Dependence of the structure on the longitudinal magnetic field has been studied already in the pioneering work . This study clearly demonstrated that the effect is somehow related to the electron spin. Authors of a recent experimental work  argue that the structure signals formation of a Kondo-like correlated spin state.

There have been suggestions to explain the “0.7 structure” by spontaneous magnetization of the 1D quantum wire , or by formation of a two-electron bound state with nonzero total spin . These suggestions implicitly assume that 2D leads connected to the contact are qualitatively important for the effect because there is the rigorous Lieb-Mattis theorem  that claims that the ground state of a 1D many-body system has zero spin.

A Hatree-Fock calculation of the conductance has been performed in the Ref. . This calculation demonstrated a structure similar to that observed experimentally. The ground state has zero spin in accordance with the Lieb-Mattis theorem, but nevertheless the structure found in the calculation is intrinsically related to the spin because it disappears without account of the exchange electron-electron Coulomb interaction. The structure is related to the formation of the charge density wave within the contact or in other words to the spin-dependent bound state within the contact.

The present work has been stimulated by the recent suggestion that the 0.7-structure signals formation of a Kondo-like correlated spin state , see also Ref. . The restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) approximation employed in Ref.  is not sufficient to follow this suggestion. However the unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) approach can shed light on the problem. In the present work we consider only zero temperature case. The RHF method implies that spin up and spin down single electron orbitals are identical while in the UHF method those orbitals are completely independent. The RHF is explicitly rotationally invariant, but it is not very effective in accounting for electron-electron correlations. The UHF is much better at accounting for the correlations, but it violates the rotational invariance. There is no doubt that even UHF cannot account for the long range Kondo-like dynamics. However it can indicate localization of a single electron within the contact. This would immediately imply the Kondo-like dynamics. Our calculation shows that such localization can take place in longer contacts and at low electron density in leads. However it always leads to a very special dependence of conductance on the gate voltage which is different from that observed experimentally. In the regime when the dependence of conductance on the gate voltage is similar to the experimental one the results of RHF and UHF are practically identical and this indicates the validity of both approximations. We also study dependence of the “0.7 structure” on the electron density in the leads. The structure disappears at high density and it is getting more pronounced at the low density in a qualitative agreement with experiment.

It is well known, see Ref. , that in the independent particle approximation, i.e. in the case of an ideal electron gas, the conductance for a given transverse channel is proportional to the barrier transmission probability at Fermi energy $`T`$,

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}T.$$
(1)
In case of interacting particles this formula should be also valid because before and after the potential barrier the density of electrons is high enough, and hence the interaction is negligible. However one cannot use a single particle description to calculate the transmission probability $`T`$ because in the vicinity of the barrier the electron density is low, and hence the many-body effects are very important. To calculate the transmission probability $`T`$ the following method is applied. Consider electrons on a 1D ring of the length $`L`$ with a potential barrier of the length $`l`$ somewhere on the ring. It is important that $`Ll`$. There is no current in the ground state of the system. Now let us apply a magnetic flux through the ring. This flux induces the electric current. Note that it is not a real magnetic field, this is a fictitious gauge field that generates the current without applying any voltage. It is especially convenient to take the gauge field that provides the Bohm-Aharonov phase $`\phi =\pi /2`$. We use this choice in our calculations. The induced current can be calculated by solving many-body Schroedinger equation. It can be an exact solution or an approximate one like RHF or UHF. It has been demonstrated in Ref. that to find the barrier transmission probability at Fermi energy one has to solve the many-body problem twice: without the barrier and with the barrier. The ratio of electric currents squared gives the transmission probability, $`T=(J_U/J_0)^2`$. This formula is valid without an external magnetic field. Repeating considerations of Ref. one can prove that with the magnetic field, i.e. with the spin splitting, the effective transmission probability is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{2}T_{}+\frac{1}{2}T_{},T_\sigma =\left(\frac{J_{U\sigma }}{J_{0\sigma }}\right)^2,$$
(2)
where $`J_{}`$ is the electric current of electrons with spin up and spin down correspondingly. Equation (2) can be also applied for UHF calculations without an external magnetic field. The relation $`T=(J_U/J_0)^2`$ has been applied recently to study conductance through a system of strongly correlated spinless fermions . In this work the many-body problem has been treated exactly via the Density Matrix Renormalization Group algorithm.

The Hamiltonian of the many body system we consider is of the form

$$H=\underset{i}{}\left[\frac{(p_i𝒜)^2}{2}+U(x_i)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j}{}V(x_i,x_j),$$
(3)
where indexes $`i`$ and $`j`$ numerate electrons, $`x_i`$ is the periodic coordinate on the ring of length $`L`$ ($`0<x<L`$), and $`𝒜=\pi /2L`$ is the fictitious gauge field. The electron-electron Coulomb repulsion is of the form

$$V(x,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a_t^2+D^2(x,y)}},$$
(4)
where $`a_t2`$ is the effective width of the transverse channel, see Ref. , and $`D(x,y)`$ is the length of the shortest arc between the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ on the ring. We use atomic units, so distances are measured in unites of Bohr radius, $`a_B=ϵ\mathrm{}^2/me^2`$, and energies are measured in units of $`E_{unit}=me^4/\mathrm{}^2ϵ^2`$, where $`m`$ is the effective electron mass and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant. For experimental conditions of works  these values are the following: $`a_B10^2\mu m`$, $`E_{unit}10^2eV`$. To model the gate potential we use the following formula for the potential barrier

$$U(x)=\frac{U_0}{e^{(|x|l/2)/d}+1},d=l/10.$$
(5)
Plots of $`U(x)`$ for l=8,10,12 are shown in Fig.1.

To solve the many-body problem described by the Hamiltonian (3) we use the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation. In the HF approximation the many body wave function is represented in the form of the Slater determinant of single particle orbitals $`\phi _{i\sigma }(x)`$. The index $`i`$ shows the coordinate state of the orbital, and the index $`\sigma =\pm 1/2`$ shows the spin state of the orbital. Each orbital obeys the equation

$$\widehat{h}\phi _{i\sigma }=ϵ_{i\sigma }\phi _{i\sigma },$$
(6)
where $`ϵ_{i\sigma }`$ is the single particle energy and $`\widehat{h}`$ is the HF Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{h}\phi _{i\sigma }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(p𝒜)^2}{2}}+U_{eff}(x)\right)\phi _{i\sigma }(x){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \phi _{j\sigma }^{}(y)\phi _{i\sigma }(y)V(x,y)𝑑y\phi _{j\sigma }(x)},`$ (7)
$`U_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`U(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{j\sigma }{}}{\displaystyle |\phi _{j\sigma }(y)|^2V(x,y)𝑑y}.`$ (8)
The summations are performed over all filled orbitals. In the Restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) method an additional constraint, $`\phi _i(x)=\phi _i(x)`$, is imposed on the solutions of Eqs. (7). This provides rotational invariance of the solution. In the Unrestricted Hartree-Fock method (UHF) the additional constraint is omitted. As a result the UHF method provides much better account of electronic correlations. The price for this is a spontaneous violation of the rotational invariance.

For computations we use a finite grid. In the grid modification of the Hamiltonian (7) the kinetic energy $`(p𝒜)^2\phi `$ is replaced by $`\left[2|\phi (n)|^2\phi ^{}(n+1)e^{iAh}\phi (n)\phi ^{}(n)e^{iAh}\phi (n+1)\right]/2h^2`$. Here $`h`$ is the spacing of the grid and $`\phi (n)`$ is the wave function on site $`n`$ of the grid. The electric current corresponding to the grid Hamiltonian reads

$$J_\sigma =\underset{j}{}\frac{i}{2h}\left[\phi _{j\sigma }^{}(n)e^{iAh}\phi _{j\sigma }(n+1)\phi _{j\sigma }^{}(n+1)e^{iAh}\phi _{j\sigma }(n)\right].$$
(9)
The current is conserved because of the gauge invariance of HF equations.

For computations we use a grid of 400 points on a ring of length $`L=80`$. Total z-projection of the spin is zero, so the number of electrons with spin up is equal to that with spin down, $`N=N_{}`$. We perform calculations for the total number of electrons $`N=N_{}+N_{}=78,118,158`$. This corresponds to the following values of the number density of electrons on the ring: $`n_0=N/L1,1.5,2`$. This is the effective linear density, therefore one cannot compare $`n_0`$ quantitatively with the density of electrons in real two-dimensional leads used in experiments . However a qualitative comparison is possible: the smaller the real density, the smaller $`n_0`$, and hence the smaller the Coulomb screening. Results of calculations for three different values of the barrier length, $`l=8`$, $`l=10`$, $`l=12`$, and three different values of the electron density in the “leads”, $`n_01`$, $`n_01.5`$, and $`n_02`$, are shown in Fig.2. The transmission probability $`T`$ is plotted versus the gate potential $`U_0`$. Solid lines correspond to the RHF approximation.

The RHF calculation for $`n_02`$ has been performed earlier in Ref. . All the plots presented in Fig.2 clearly demonstrate structures of the conductance. An important point is that reduction of the electron density in leads and hence reduction of screening results in enhancement of the structure. Another feature is the evolution of the structure down for longer contacts. The results of UHF calculations are shown in the same Fig.1 by dotted and dashed lines. The dotted line shows the transmission probability for the spin “up” channel and the dashed line shows the same for the spin “down” channel. Certainly the choice of “up” and “down” is arbitrary, one can swap the spins. The UHF method always gives two degenerate solutions. For $`l=8`$ the UHF results are not presented because they are hardly distinguishable from that of the RHF method shown by solid lines. According to Eq. (2) the observable transmission coefficient is the average of $`T_{}`$ and $`T_{}`$. The results of RHF and UHF methods are very close. To demonstrate the closeness we also present in Fig.3 plots of electron densities $`n_{}(x)`$ and $`n_{}(x)`$ for parameters ($`U_0=6.1`$, $`n_0=1.5`$) and ($`U_0=6.4`$, $`n_0=1.5`$) that correspond to two points on the shoulder in Fig.2b. Solid lines represent the RHF density, $`n_{}(x)=n_{}(x)`$. The dotted line and the dashed line represent UHF densities $`n_{}(x)`$ and $`n_{}(x)`$ correspondingly. In case (a) ($`U_0=6.1`$, $`n_0=1.5`$) the dotted and the dashed lines are not distinguishable from the solid one. In case (b) ($`U_0=6.4`$, $`n_0=1.5`$) they are distinguishable, but very close.

According to Fig.2 the RHF and UHF methods really disagree only at $`l=12`$, $`n_0=1`$, $`U_0>3.7`$: relatively long contact, very low electron density in leads, and small conductance. This is the regime where the Kondo model is relevant. To understand what is going on in this situation we present in Fig.4 plots of electron densities $`n_{}(x)`$ and $`n_{}(x)`$ at $`U_0=4`$. As in the above figures, the solid line represents the RHF calculation, and dotted and dashed lines represent the UHF calculation.

Clearly in this situation the RHF approximation is wrong. According to the UHF calculation the spin down electron density within the contact is practically zero and, on the other hand, there is one spin up electron localized in the contact. There is no doubt that in this case dynamics of the contact is Kondo-like. In this case even the UHF method does not give a correct transmission coefficient because the method does not take into account long-range Kondo dynamics. However, fortunately, the answer is well known; the transmission coefficient is peaked up to unity, see Ref. . So, the correct plot of the transmission coefficient at $`l=12`$ and $`n_0=1`$ coincides with that presented in Fig.2c for $`U_0<3.7`$, and then there is a narrow peak up to $`T=1`$ at $`U_04`$. It is interesting to note that the transmission coefficients calculated within the Hartree-Fock approximation for $`n_0=1`$ and for shorter contacts (Fig.2a,b) have a qualitatively similar dependence: deep minimum and a narrow peak. This similarity clearly demonstrates how the several-electron bound state that can be assessed by the Hartree-Fock method (Fig.2a, $`n_0=1`$) evolves to the multi-electron Kondo bound state that cannot be assessed by this method (Fig.2c, $`n_0=1`$).

It is interesting that for longer contacts one can trap more than one electron in the contact. To illustrate this in Fig.5 we show UHF electron densities $`n_{}(x)`$ and $`n_{}(x)`$ for a contact of length $`l=20`$ and density in the leads $`n_0=0.56`$. In this case the two electron solution of the type shown in Fig.5a is realized at the gate potential $`1.3<U_0<1.85`$, then at $`1.85<U_0<2.15`$ the solution “jumps” to the single electron state shown in Fig.5b. At the higher gate potential there are no electrons in the contact. So adjusting the length of the contact, the density of electrons in leads, and the gate potential one can pin within the contact a single electron like it is shown in Fig.4 and Fig.5b or even the two electron “molecule” shown in Fig.5a. However, before getting to this very strongly correlated regime the transmission probability dips down to the value of few percent. At most the probability in the dip is 20% as it is shown in Fig.2c ($`n_0=1`$). There are no such dips in experimental data. Therefore it is unlikely that Kondo dynamics can be relevant to the effects observed in works . On the other hand the plots shown in Figs.2a,b,c for $`n_0=1.5`$ and $`n_0=2`$ look very similar to the experimental data. Structures on these plots are related to the few-electron spin dependent bound state. The closest physical analogy in this case is probably the Peierls spin-density instability.

In conclusion, within a one-dimensional model we have analyzed the conductance of a short quantum contact at zero temperature. Restricted (RHF) and unrestricted (UHF) Hartree-Fock methods have been used in the analysis. Both methods clearly demonstrate structures very similar to that observed in Refs. . Agreement between RHF and UHF methods confirms the validity of both approximations. The conductance structure is related to the charge density wave developed in the contact. This is a spin dependent effect because without the exchange interaction the structure disappears, so this is a kind of spin-dependent bound state within the contact. Reduction of the electron density in the leads and hence reduction of the screening results in enhancement of the structure. The structure evolves down for longer contacts.

Having the contact long enough, the density of electrons in the leads low enough, and adjusting the gate potential one can pin within the contact a single electron or even a two electron “molecule”. The single electron would imply Kondo-like dynamics as has been suggested in Refs. . However, according to our calculations, before getting to this regime the transmission probability as a function of the gate voltage dips down to at least 20%. Such dip has never been observed experimentally. Therefore it is unlikely that Kondo dynamics can be relevant to the effects observed in works .

I am grateful to P. G. Silvestrov for very helpful discussions. The work has been started at the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California Santa Barbara, supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No PHY99-07949. The work has been completed at INT at the University of Washington, supported DOE Grant DE-FG03-00ER41132. I acknowledge both institutes for hospitality and support.