text:
# OPERADS AND COHOMOLOGY

## 1 Introduction and outline of the paper

Operads, in essence, were invented by Gerstenhaber  and Stasheff . The notion of an operad was formalized by May  as a tool for iterated loop spaces. In 1994/95 , Gerstenhaber and Voronov published main principles of the operad calculus. Quite a remarkable research activity on operad theory and its applications can be observed in the last decade (e. g. ). It may be said that operads are also becoming an interesting and important mathematical tool for QFT and deformation quantization.

In this paper, the essential parts of the operad algebra are presented, which are relevant to understand how the cohomology and Gerstenhaber algebra can be associated with a pre-operad. We start from simple axioms. Basic algebraic constructions associated with a linear pre-operad are introduced. Their properties and the first derivation deviations of the pre-coboundary operator are explicitly given. Under certain condition (formal associativity constraint), the Gerstenhaber algebra structure appears in the associated cohomology. At last, it is also concisely discussed how operads and Gerstenhaber algebras are related to mechanics and operadic physics.

## 2 Pre-operad (composition system)

Let $`K`$ be a unital associative commutative ring, and let $`C^n`$ ($`n`$) be unital $`K`$-modules. For *homogeneous* $`fC^n`$, we refer to $`n`$ as the *degree* of $`f`$ and often write (when it does not cause confusion) $`f`$ instead of $`\mathrm{deg}f`$. For example, $`(1)^f:=(1)^n`$, $`C^f:=C^n`$ and $`_f:=_n`$. Also, it is convenient to use the *reduced* degree $`|f|:=n1`$. Throughout this paper, we assume that $`:=_K`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

A linear *pre-operad* (*composition system*) with coefficients in $`K`$ is a sequence $`C:=\{C^n\}_n`$ of unital $`K`$-modules (an $``$-graded $`K`$-module), such that the following conditions hold.

1. For $`0im1`$ there exist *partial compositions*

$$_i\mathrm{Hom}(C^mC^n,C^{m+n1}),|_i|=0.$$
2. For all $`hfgC^hC^fC^g`$, the *composition (associativity) relations* hold,

$$(h_if)_jg=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{|f||g|}(h_jg)_{i+|g|}f\hfill & \text{if }0ji1,\hfill \\ h_i(f_{ji}g)\hfill & \text{if }iji+|f|,\hfill \\ (1)^{|f||g|}(h_{j|f|}g)_if\hfill & \text{if }i+fj|h|+|f|.\hfill \end{array}$$
3. There exists a unit $`\mathrm{I}C^1`$ such that

$$\mathrm{I}_0f=f=f_i\mathrm{I},0i|f|.$$

In the 2nd item, the *first* and *third* parts of the defining relations turn out to be equivalent.

###### Example 2.2 (endomorphism pre-operad ).

Let $`A`$ be a unital $`K`$-module and $`_A^n:=nd_A^n:=\mathrm{Hom}(A^n,A)`$. Define the partial compositions for $`fg_A^f_A^g`$ as

$$f_ig:=(1)^{i|g|}f(\mathrm{id}_A^ig\mathrm{id}_A^{(|f|i)}),0i|f|.$$

Then $`_A:=\{_A^n\}_n`$ is a pre-operad (with the unit $`\mathrm{id}_A_A^1`$) called the *endomorphism pre-operad* of $`A`$.

## 3 Associated operations

Throughout this paper fix $`\mu C^2`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

The *cup-multiplication* $`:C^fC^gC^{f+g}`$ is defined by

$$fg:=(1)^f(\mu _0f)_fgC^{f+g},||=1.$$

The pair $`\mathrm{Cup}C:=\{C,\}`$ is called a $``$-algebra (cup-algebra) of $`C`$.

###### Example 3.2.

For the endomorphism pre-operad (Example 2.2) $`_A`$ one has

$$fg=(1)^{fg}\mu (fg),\mu fg_A^2_A^f_A^g.$$

###### Definition 3.3.

The *total composition* $`:C^fC^gC^{f+|g|}`$ is defined by

$$fg:=\underset{i=0}{\overset{|f|}{}}f_igC^{f+|g|},||=0.$$

The pair $`\mathrm{Com}C:=\{C,\}`$ is called the *composition algebra* of $`C`$.

###### Definition 3.4 (tribraces and tetrabraces).

Define the Gerstenhaber *tribraces* $`\{,,\}`$ as a double sum

$$\{h,f,g\}:=\underset{i=0}{\overset{|h|1}{}}\underset{i+f}{\overset{|f|+|h|}{}}(h_if)_jgC^{h+|f|+|g|},|\{,,\}|=0.$$

The *tetrabraces* $`\{,,,\}`$ are defined by

$$\{h,f,g,b\}:=\underset{i=0}{\overset{|h|2}{}}\underset{j=i+f}{\overset{|h|+|f|1}{}}\underset{k=j+g}{\overset{|h|+|f|+|g|}{}}((h_if)_jg)_kbC^{h+|f|+|g|+|b|}.$$

It turns out that $`fg=(1)^f\{\mu ,f,g\}`$. In general, $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$ is a *non-associative* algebra. By denoting $`\mu ^2:=\mu \mu `$ it turns out that the associator in $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$ reads

$$(fg)hf(gh)=\{\mu ^2,f,g,h\}.$$

Thus the *formal associator* $`\mu ^2`$ is an obstruction to associativity of $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$. For the endomorphism pre-operad $`_A`$, $`\mu ^2`$ reads as an associator as well:

$$\mu ^2=\mu (\mu \mathrm{id}_A\mathrm{id}_A\mu ),\mu _A^2.$$

## 4 Identities

In a pre-operad $`C`$, the Getzler identity

$$(h,f,g):=(hf)gh(fg)=\{h,f,g\}+(1)^{|f||g|}\{h,g,f\}$$

holds, which easily implies the Gerstenhaber identity

$$(h,f,g)=(1)^{|f||g|}(h,g,f).$$

The *commutator* $`[,]`$ is defined in $`\mathrm{Com}C`$ by

$$[f,g]:=fg(1)^{|f||g|}gf=(1)^{|f||g|}[g,f],|[,]|=0.$$

The *commutator algebra* of $`\mathrm{Com}C`$ is denoted as $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C:=\{C,[,]\}`$. By using the Gerstenhaber identity, one can prove that $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C`$ is a *graded Lie algebra*. The Jacobi identity reads

$$(1)^{|f||h|}[[f,g],h]+(1)^{|g||f|}[[g,h],f]+(1)^{|h||g|}[[h,f],g]=0.$$

## 5 Pre-coboundary operator

In a pre-operad $`C`$, define a *pre-coboundary* operator $`\delta :=\delta _\mu `$ by

$`\delta f`$ $`:=\mathrm{ad}_\mu ^{right}f:=[f,\mu ]:=f\mu (1)^{|f|}\mu f`$
$`=f\mathrm{I}+f\mu +(1)^{|f|}\mathrm{I}f,\mathrm{deg}\delta =+1=|\delta |.`$
It turns out that $`\delta _\mu ^2=\delta _{\mu ^2}`$. It follows from the Jacobi identity in $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C`$ that $`\delta `$ is a (right) derivation of $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C`$,

$$\delta [f,g]=(1)^{|g|}[\delta f,g]+[f,\delta g].$$

But $`\delta `$ need not be a derivation of $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$, and $`\mu ^2`$ again appears as an obstruction:

$$\delta (fg)f\delta g(1)^g\delta fg=(1)^{|g|}\{\mu ^2,f,g\}.$$

## 6 Derivation deviations

The *derivation deviation* of $`\delta `$ over $``$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{dev}_{}\delta (fg):=\delta (fg)f\delta g(1)^{|g|}\delta fg.$$

###### Theorem 6.1 ().

In a pre-operad $`C`$, one has

$$(1)^{|g|}\mathrm{dev}_{}\delta (fg)=fg(1)^{fg}gf.$$

The derivation deviation of $`\delta `$ over $`\{,,\}`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{dev}_{\{,,\}}\delta (hfg):=\delta \{h,f,g\}`$ $`\{h,f,\delta g\}`$
$`(1)^{|g|}\{h,\delta f,g\}(1)^{|g|+|f|}\{\delta h,f,g\}.`$
###### Theorem 6.2 ().

In a pre-operad $`C`$, one has

$$(1)^{|g|}\mathrm{dev}_{\{,,\}}\delta (hfg)=(hf)g+(1)^{|h|f}f(hg)h(fg).$$

Thus the *left* translations in $`\mathrm{Com}C`$ are not derivations of $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$, the corresponding deviations are related to $`\mathrm{dev}_{\{,,\}}\delta `$. It turns out that the *right* translations in $`\mathrm{Com}C`$ are derivations of $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$,

$$(fg)h=f(gh)+(1)^{|h|g}(fh)g.$$

By combining this formula with the one from Theorem 6.2 we obtain

###### Theorem 6.3.

In a pre-operad $`C`$, one has

$$(1)^{|g|}\mathrm{dev}_{\{,,\}}\delta (hfg)=[h,f]g+(1)^{|h|f}f[h,g][h,fg].$$

## 7 Associated cohomology and Gerstenhaber algebra

Now, it can be clarified how the Gerstenhaber algebra can be associated with a linear pre-operad. If (formal associativity) $`\mu ^2=0`$ holds, then $`\delta ^2=0`$, which in turn implies $`\mathrm{Im}\delta \mathrm{Ker}\delta `$. Then one can form an associated cohomology ($``$-graded module) $`H(C):=\mathrm{Ker}\delta /\mathrm{Im}\delta `$ with homogeneous components

$$H^n(C):=\mathrm{Ker}(C^n\stackrel{\delta }{}C^{n+1})/\mathrm{Im}(C^{n1}\stackrel{\delta }{}C^n),$$

where, by convention, $`\mathrm{Im}(C^1\stackrel{\delta }{}C^0):=0`$. Also, in this ($`\mu ^2=0`$) case, $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$ is *associative*,

$$(fg)h=f(gh),$$

and $`\delta `$ is a *derivation* of $`\mathrm{Cup}C`$. Recall from above that $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C`$ is a graded Lie algebra and $`\delta `$ is a derivation of $`\mathrm{Com}^{}C`$. Due to the derivation properties of $`\delta `$, the multiplications $`[,]`$ and $``$ induce corresponding (factor) multiplications on $`H(C)`$, which we denote by the same symbols. Then $`\{H(C),[,]\}`$ is a *graded Lie algebra*. It follows from Theorem 6.1 that the induced $``$-multiplication on $`H(C)`$ is *graded commutative*,

$$fg=(1)^{fg}gf$$

for all $`fgH^f(C)H^g(C)`$, hence $`\{H(C),\}`$ is an *associative graded commutative* algebra. It follows from Theorem 6.3 that the *graded Leibniz rule* holds,

$$[h,fg]=[h,f]g+(1)^{|h|f}f[h,g]$$

for all $`hfgH^h(C)H^f(C)H^g(C)`$. At last, it is also relevant to note that

$$0=|[,]|||=1.$$

In this way, the triple $`\{H(C),,[,]\}`$ turns out to be a *Gerstenhaber algebra* . The defining identities of the Gerstenhaber algebra are (G1)-(G6).

In the case of an endomorphism pre-operad, the Gerstenhaber algebra structure appears on the Hochschild cohomology of an associative algebra .

## 8 Discussion: x-mechanics

Some people like commutative diagrams. Consider the following one:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{Poisson algebras}& \stackrel{\text{algebraic abstraction}}{}& \text{mechanics}\\ & & \\ \text{Gerstenhaber algebras}& \stackrel{\text{algebraic abstraction}}{}& \text{x-mechanics}\end{array}$$

*Poisson algebras* can be seen as an algebraic abstraction of mechanics. Here $``$ means *similarity*: Gerstenhaber algebras are graded analogs of the Poisson algebras.

It may be expected that there exists a kind of mechanics (x-mechanics) associated with operads and Gerstenhaber algebras. According to the diagram, x-mechanics is a graded analogue of mechanics and *observables* of an x-mechanical model must satisfy the (homotopy ) Gerstenhaber algebra identities.

Cohomologies and Gerstenhaber algebras associated with pre-operads are natural objects for modelling x-mechanical systems. Physically relevant examples of the Gerstenhaber algebras and *odd symplectic* structures are provided by the Batalin-Vilkovisky algebras . Relevance of the operad structure in handling the renormalization problems in QFT were recently stressed in .

## Acknowledgement

Research was in part supported by the Estonian Science Foundation Grant 5634.


format: text

text:
# Process 𝛾^∗𝛾→𝜎 at large virtuality of 𝛾^∗

## Appendix

Let us rewrite the expression for $`J_m(q_1,q_2)`$ (12), using the Feynman parameterization

$`J_m(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{1}{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(m^2k^22k(q_1xq_2y)q_1^2x)^3}}.`$
Shifting the variable $`kk(q_1xq_2y)`$ and integrating over momenta and $`y`$, we obtain

$`J_m(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(q_1q_2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right).`$ (42)
Let us rewrite the expression for $`B^{\mu \nu }`$ (see (13)), using the Feynman parameters

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{g^{\mu \nu }(m^2k^2)+4k^\mu k^\nu }{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}=`$ (43)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{g^{\mu \nu }(m^2k^2)+4k^\mu k^\nu }{(m^2k^22k(q_1xq_2y)q_1^2x)^3}}.`$
Again, after the change of variables, we have for $`B^{\mu \nu }`$

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{A^{\mu \nu }}{(m^2k^2q_1^2x(1x)2(q_1q_2)xy)^3}},`$
$`A^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }(m^2k^2+2k(q_1xq_2y)q_1^2x^2+2(q_1q_2)xy)+`$
$`+4(k^\mu k^\nu k^\mu (q_1xq_2y)^\nu (q_1xq_2y)^\mu k^\nu +`$ (44)
$`+(q_1xq_2y)^\mu (q_1xq_2y)^\nu ).`$
The integration over momenta gives

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{m^2q_1^2x^2+2(q_1q_2)xy}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)2(q_1q_2)xy}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4q_1^\nu q_2^\mu }{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{xy}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)2(q_1q_2)xy}}.`$ (45)
Let us denote the denominator in (Appendix) as $`Z`$

$$Z=m^2q_1^2x(1x)2(q_1q_2)xy.$$
(46)
Using this equation, we substitute the mass squared $`m^2`$ in the numerator of (Appendix)

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)={\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{Z+4(q_1q_2)xy+q_1^2x(12x)}{Z}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^\nu q_2^\mu }{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{4xy}{Z}}.`$ (47)
Now it is easy to separate the gauge-invariant and noninvariant parts in (Appendix)

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }(q_1q_2)q_1^\nu q_2^\mu }{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{4xy}{Z}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{Z+q_1^2x(12x)}{Z}}.`$
The first term in (Appendix) is gauge-invariant, while the other is noninvariant and can also be divided in two terms

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y+{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{x(12x)}{Z}}.`$ (49)
The first term in (49) is a constant and is cancelled by the Pauli-Villars regularization. Integrating over $`y`$ in the second term, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{2(q_1q_2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x(12x)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2(q_1^2+2(q_1q_2))x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right).`$ (50)
After the substitution $`12x=z`$, one can see that this part equals zero

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{4(q_1q_2)}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑zz\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4m^2+(q_1^2+2(q_1q_2)(1z^2)}{4m^2+q_1^2(1z^2)}}\right)=0.`$ (51)
Therefore, the expression for $`B^{\mu \nu }`$ becomes gauge invariant after the Pauli-Villars regularization is implemented and then lifted off

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^\nu q_2^\mu (q_1q_2)g^{\mu \nu })(I(m^2)I(M^2))|_{M^2\mathrm{}},`$ (52)
$`I(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{4xy}{Z}}.`$ (53)
Integrating over $`y`$ in $`I(m^2)`$ we obtain

$`I(m^2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_1q_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{(q_1q_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{(q_1q_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x(1x)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right).`$ (54)
Now, let us show that $`I(m^2)`$ can be expressed through the integral

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{D(0)D(q_2)}{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1x}{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{(kq_2)}{(m^2k^22k(q_1xq_2y)q_1^2x)^3}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right).`$ (55)
Noting that the following identity is satisfied:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x(1x)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right),`$ (56)
we obtain for (Appendix)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{D(0)D(q_2)}{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}}𝑑x(1x)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2p^2x(1x)}{m^2q_1^2x(1x)}}\right).`$ (57)
Using (42) and (57), we rewrite $`I(m^2)`$ as follows:

$`I(m^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_1q_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{(q_1q_2)}}J_m(q_1,q_2)`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{2(q_1q_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4k\frac{D(0)D(q_2)}{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}.`$
Formally, the first term in (58) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{(q_1q_2)}}J_m(0,0)`$ (59)
because

$`J_m(0,0)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{D(0)^3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(4\pi )^2m^2}}.`$ (60)
Finally, the regularized expression for $`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)`$ has the form

$`B^{\mu \nu }(q_1,q_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(q_1^\nu q_2^\mu (q_1q_2)g^{\mu \nu })({\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{(q_1q_2)}}J_m(q_1,q_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{(q_1q_2)}}J_m(0,0)`$ (61)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{q_1^2}{2(q_1q_2)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle }d^4k{\displaystyle \frac{D(0)D(q_2)}{D(0)D(q_1)D(q_2)}}).`$
Equation (61) is expressed in terms of formal integrals. This gives us an advantage of further implementing a regularization different from the Pauli-Villars scheme.


text:
# Dynamics of spin-2 Bose condensate driven by external magnetic fields

## I INTRODUCTION

Recent experiments on 23Na condensates confined in an optical trap have stimulated extensive interest in the study of multicomponent spinor Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs). Due to the hyperfine spin of atoms, BECs of alkali-metal atoms have internal degrees of freedom which are frozen in a magnetic trap. Introduction of an optical trap liberates them to allow BEC to be in a superposition of magnetic sublevels. Therefore, the spinor BEC can be represented by a vector order parameter. The $`F=1`$ spinor BEC was first theoretically studied by Ho, Ohmi and Machida by generalizing the Gross-Pitaevskii equation under the restriction of gauge and spin-rotation symmetry. Within the mean-field theory, they predicted a rich set of new phenomena such as spin textures and topological excitations. Law et al. constructed an excellent algebraic representation of the $`F=1`$ BEC Hamiltonian to study the exact many-body states, and found that spin-exchange interactions cause a set of collective dynamic behavior of BEC. Since the spinor BEC appears feasible by using the $`F=2`$ multiplet of bosons such as 23Na, 87Rb, or 85Rb, it is necessary to investigate the ground-state structure and magnetic response of $`F=2`$ spinor BEC. Recently, Ciobanu et al.  generalized the approach for the $`F=1`$ spinor BEC developed by Ho to study the ground-state structure of the $`F=2`$ spinor BEC. They found that there are three possible phases in zero magnetic field, which are characterized by a pair of parameters describing the ferromagnetic order and the formation of singlet pairs. From current estimates of scattering lengths they also found that the spinor BEC of 87Rb and 23Na have a polar ground state, whereas those of 85Rb and 83Rb are cyclic and ferromagnetic, respectively. Koashi and Ueda studied the exact eigenspectra and eigenstates of $`F=2`$ spinor BEC. They found that, compared to $`F=1`$ spinor BEC, the $`F=2`$ spinor BEC exhibits an even richer magnetic response due to quantum correlations among three bosons.

Different from superfluid 3He, a new feature in a spinor BEC is that its response to an external magnetic field is dominated by the electronic rather than nuclear spin. This opens up possibilities of manipulating the magnetism of superfluid vapors. Observation of spin domains by Stenger et al. at MIT offers a remarkable example of such manipulations. Pu et al. investigated the effects of external magnetic fields on the dynamics of $`F=1`$ spinor BEC and found various magnetic field-induced effects, such as stochastization in population evolution, metastability in spin composition, and dynamic localization in spin space. In this paper we investigate the time evolution of the $`F=2`$ spinor BEC in the presence of external magnetic fields with longitudinal and transverse field strengths $`B_z(t)`$ and $`B_x`$, respectively. Here the longitudinal magnetic field lifts the energy degeneracy of the spin states through Zeeman effects, whereas the transverse field appears as a coupling between different spin components. We assume the longitudinal field to be time-dependent and that the transverse field is static. Using perturbation theory, a general formula for the oscillation period to describe the passing across the initial spin-polarized state is obtained. Another aspect we are interested is the effects of the external noise and the nonlinear spin-exchange interactions on the quantum coherent behavior of the spinor BEC.

In Sec. II the Hamiltonian for the spin-2 BEC system is presented. The Rabi oscillation and dynamic spin localization is shown in Sec. III. In Sec. IV we discuss the effects of external noise on the dynamics of the spinor BEC. A full numerical discussion based on an effective one-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equation is given in Sec. V. A summary is given in Sec. VI.

## II THE MODEL: Single-mode approximation

We consider the $`F=2`$ spinor BEC subject to a spatial-uniform magnetic field $`\widehat{B}(t)`$. The Hamiltonian invariant under spin space rotation and gauge transformation is written in terms of the five-component field operators: $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{+2},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }_2,`$ corresponding to the sublevels $`m_F=+2,\mathrm{},2`$ of the hyperfine state $`F=2`$. Namely, it is given by $`H=H_0+H_B`$,

$`H_0={\displaystyle }d𝐫[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2M}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +U\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_0}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{c}_1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+(F_i)_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta )^2`$ (1)
$`+\overline{c}_2\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}^+2\alpha ;2\alpha ^{}`$ $``$ $`00\times 002\beta ;2\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta \mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}],`$ (2)
$$H_B=\mu _Bg_f𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^+(\widehat{B}(t)F)_{\alpha ,\beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ,$$
(3)
where $`\overline{c}_0,`$ $`\overline{c}_1`$, and $`\overline{c}_2`$ are related to scattering lengths $`a_0,`$ $`a_2,`$ and $`a_4`$ of the two colliding bosons, with total angular momenta 0, 2, and 4, by $`\overline{c}_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(3a_4+4a_2)/7M,`$ $`\overline{c}_1=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(a_4a_2)/7M,`$ and $`\overline{c}_2=4\pi \mathrm{}^2(3a_410a_2+7a_0)/7M`$. In addition, we have introduced in Eqs. (1) and (2) $`5\times 5`$ spin matrices $`F_i`$ ($`i=x,y,z`$)

$$F_x=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
$$F_y=i\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& 0\\ 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{3/2}& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
$$F_z=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
We assume the external magnetic field is weak so that the coordinate wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫)`$ is independent of the spin state and solely determined by the first three terms of Eq. (1), namely, $`[\mathrm{}^2^2/2M+U+\overline{c}_0(N1)\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\right|^2]\mathrm{\Phi }=\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$, with $`N`$ being the total particle number. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =\widehat{a}_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ into Eqs. (1) and (2) and keeping only spin-dependent terms, we obtain

$$H_0^{}=\frac{c_1}{2}\widehat{F}\widehat{F}+\frac{2c_2}{5}\widehat{S}_+\widehat{S}_{},$$
(7)
and

$$H_B=\mu _Bg_f\widehat{B}(t)\widehat{F},$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{F}_i=\widehat{a}_\alpha ^+(F_i)_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{a}_\beta `$, $`\widehat{S}_+=\widehat{S}_{}^+=(\widehat{a}_0^+)^2/2\widehat{a}_1^+\widehat{a}_1^++\widehat{a}_2^+\widehat{a}_2^+`$, and $`c_i=(\overline{c}_i)𝑑𝐫\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\right|^4`$. We further assume that the magnetic fields consist of longitudinal and transverse components. Without loss of generality, the transverse direction of the field is chosen to be along the $`x`$ axis, i.e., $`\widehat{B}(t)=B_l(t)\widehat{z}+B_x\widehat{x}`$. In such a case, the second-quantized Hamiltonian of $`H_B`$ is

$`H_B`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _Bg_fB_l(t)(\widehat{a}_2^+\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_1^+\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_1^+\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^+\widehat{a}_2)`$ (10)
$`\mu _Bg_fB_x(\widehat{a}_2^+\widehat{a}_1+\sqrt{3/2}\widehat{a}_1^+\widehat{a}_0+\sqrt{3/2}\widehat{a}_0^+\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_1^+\widehat{a}_2+h.c.).`$
Similar to Ciobanu et al., mean-field approximation is used such that the field operators $`\widehat{a}_\alpha `$ are replaced by $`c`$ numbers $`a_\alpha =\sqrt{P_\alpha }e^{i\theta _\alpha }`$, where $`P_\alpha =N_\alpha /N`$ is the population in spin $`\alpha `$ and $`\theta _\alpha `$ the phase of wave function $`a_\alpha `$. Furthermore, since this paper deals with the quantum coherent behavior of the system under the influence of the external magnetic fields, we assume that the initial spin state of the BEC is the eigenstate in the absence of external fields, consequently, contribution from Hamiltonian (6) is a constant energy shift, and can be neglected in the dynamics. The semiclassical equations of motion in Heisenberg representation can be derived from the Hamiltonian $`H_B`$ (We introduce the state vector $`a=(a_2,\mathrm{},a_2)^T`$)

$$i\stackrel{.}{a}=H_{eff}(t)a,$$
(11)
where

$$H_{eff}(t)=b_l(t)F_zb_xF_x.$$
(12)
Here we have defined $`b_l(t)=\mu _Bg_fB_l(t)`$ and $`b_x=\mu _Bg_fB_x`$. The time evolution of the system has a rich set of intriguing features with different initial conditions. In this paper, we consider the case that the system begins with unperturbed spin-0 state $`a(0)=(0,0,1,0,0)^T`$, i.e., the $`P0`$ polar phase defined by Ciobanu et al.. This phase is possible to be realized in 87Rb and 23Na.

## III RABI OSCILLATIONS AND DYNAMIC SPIN LOCALIZATION

In this section, we analyze the time evolution of $`F=2`$ BEC described by Eq. (9) with initial polar state $`a(0)=(0,0,1,0,0)^T`$. Assuming that $`a(t)=e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )F_z}\phi (t)`$, we obtain

$$i\stackrel{.}{\phi }(t)=H_I(t)\phi (t),$$
(13)
where $`H_I(t)=b_x\mathrm{exp}(i_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )F_z)F_x\mathrm{exp}(i_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )F_z)`$. Making use of the identity

$$\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda F_z)F_x\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda F_z)=F_x\mathrm{cos}\lambda F_y\mathrm{sin}\lambda ,$$
(14)
the formal solution of Eq. (11) is obtained

$$\phi (t)=\widehat{T}e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau [X(\tau )F_x+Y(\tau )F_y]}\phi (0),$$
(15)
where $`X(t)=b_x\mathrm{cos}[_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )]`$, $`Y(t)=b_x\mathrm{sin}[_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )]`$, and $`\widehat{T}`$ denotes time ordering. Considering the situation in which the transverse magnetic field $`b_x`$ is weak, we may approximate Eq. (13) by the following solution

$$\phi (t)=e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau [X(\tau )F_x+Y(\tau )F_y]}\phi (0).$$
(16)
This solution is valid to the first order in $`b_x`$ and preserves unitarity. After a straightforward calculation, we obtain the time evolution of the population of spin-$`\alpha `$ state as

$$P_\alpha (t)=\left|a_\alpha (t)\right|^2=\left|\underset{\beta =2}{\overset{2}{}}d_{\beta \alpha }^2(\pi /2)d_{\beta 0}^2(\pi /2)e^{i\alpha _0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )}e^{i\beta \lambda }\right|^2,$$
(17)
where $`\lambda =\sqrt{(_0^t𝑑\tau X(\tau ))^2+(_0^t𝑑\tau Y(\tau ))^2}`$, and the matrix element is defined as

$$d_{\beta \alpha }^2(\theta )=2\beta e^{i\theta F_y}2\alpha ,\text{ }(\beta ,\alpha =2,\mathrm{},2).$$
(18)
In particular, the population of the initial spin-0 state at time $`t`$ is

$$P_0(t)=\left|a_0(t)\right|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\left|_0^t𝑑\tau _1b_xe^{i_0^{\tau _1}𝑑\tau _2b_l(\tau _2)}\right|.$$
(19)
Thus to the first-order approximation in $`b_x`$ we obtain the analytical expression of the evolution probability for the spinor BEC remaining in the initial polar state. Expression (17) is valid for arbitrary time-dependent external magnetic fields. Obviously, $`e^{i_0^t𝑑\tau b_l(\tau )}`$ can be expanded as a discrete Fourier series, and the time integral is either bounded or increases linearly in time (on top of an oscillatory piece). In the former case, $`P_0`$ remains close to unity at all times because of the smallness of $`b_x`$. This high population of the initial spin state is just the spin localization. In the latter case, $`P_0`$ oscillates between $`0`$ and $`1`$, implying population transfer between $`P_0`$ and other $`P_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\pm 1`$, $`\pm 2`$). Hence we have the spin delocalization, i.e., Rabi oscillation. Thus, we obtain the oscillation period $`T`$ as

$$T=\frac{\pi }{lim_t\mathrm{}\left|\frac{1}{t}_0^t𝑑\tau _1b_xe^{i_0^{\tau _1}𝑑\tau _2b_l(\tau _2)}\right|}.$$
(20)
This result is still valid for any time-dependent external fields. We give two examples of special time-dependent external magnetic fields.

(a) Sinusoidal field $`b_l(t)=b\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$. According to Eq. (18), the oscillation period is

$$T=\frac{\pi }{b_xJ_0(b/\omega )},$$
(21)
where $`J_0`$ is the zeroth order Bessel function of the first kind. From this result, it can be seen that when $`J_0(b/\omega )0`$, there exists a finite oscillation period, indicating that the population can transit from an initial polar state to other spin states within the driving process. When $`b=0`$, the longitudinal field-free oscillation has period $`T_0=\pi /b_x`$. The fact $`\left|J_0(b/\omega )\right|1`$ implies that $`TT_0`$. This shows that the invasion of the longitudinal magnetic field will suppress the coherent population transfer among the five spin components. The extreme case occurs when the reduced amplitude of the longitudinal magnetic field $`b/\omega `$ is a root of $`J_0`$. In this case, we have $`T\mathrm{}`$, which implies that the population transfer is totally suppressed. Hence the system will stay in the initial polar state during the whole driving process. This is just the phenomenon of spin localization. The above analysis is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the scaled oscillation period $`T/T_0`$ is plotted against $`b/\omega `$. It can be seen that the oscillation period increases significantly when $`b/\omega `$ approaches the roots of Bessel function $`J_0`$.

(b) A combination of static and sinusoidal magnetic fields $`b_l(t)=b_0+b\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$. In this case, the oscillation period is

$$T=\frac{\pi }{\left|b_xlim_N\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(b_0\pi N/\omega )}{N\mathrm{sin}(b_0\pi /\omega )}\widehat{J}_{b_0/\omega }(b/\omega )\right|},$$
(22)
where $`\widehat{J}`$ is the Anger function defined by

$$\widehat{J}_a(b)=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^\pi 𝑑x\mathrm{cos}(axb\mathrm{sin}x).$$
(23)
There exists an infinite oscillation period when $`b_0/\omega k`$ ($`k`$ is an integer), which means that the population time evolution will undergo localization in the initially populated spin-0 state during the whole driving process. When $`b_0/\omega =k`$, the oscillation period becomes

$$T=\frac{\pi }{b_xJ_k(b/\omega )},$$
(24)
where $`J_k`$ are $`k`$-th order Bessel functions. From this result, we find that we can have a finite oscillation period only when $`b/\omega `$ is not equal to a root of $`J_k`$, and in this case the evolution of the initial polar phase is delocalized into other spin states. If $`b/\omega `$ becomes a root of $`J_k`$, the oscillation period approaches infinity, and we have the spin localization.

## IV EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL NOISE

In practice, since the external magnetic field may have a fluctuation component, the effects of external noise has to be considered. Another motivation for the introduction of an external noise is to provide the fluctuations required to destroy the coherence of the population transfer process and, in suitable cases, leads to a rate process for the decay of the population. In the following, we study the dynamics of the system when the external magnetic field has a fluctuating component. In the simplest case, the statistical properties of the imposed magnetic field can be prescribed to be independent of the characteristics of the system. As a versatile choice for the noise, an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) process is used. This permits the investigation of the role of the strength and size of correlation time of the noise on the time evolution of the spinor BEC. Without loss of generality, the external longitudinal magnetic field $`b_l(t)`$ is assumed to contain two components, a stochastic part $`f(t)`$ and a systematic part $`b_0+b_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$, i.e.,

$$b_l(t)=b_0+b_1\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)+f(t).$$
(25)
The noise $`f(t)`$ is assumed to be characterized by an OU process whereby it has zero average value and correlation function

$$f(t)f(s)=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}(\left|ts\right|/\tau _c).$$
(26)
Here the quantities $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\tau _c`$ are the strength and decay constant of the noise, respectively. When the noise is external to the system, and therefore not necessarily thermal in character, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\tau _c`$ can be varied in a controlled manner, and are not restricted by the physical properties of the system. In the absence of an analytic solution, a numerical investigation of population $`P_\alpha (t)`$ is adapted. The population distribution in the five components of spinor BEC with the external noise are solved numerically by generating trajectories for the different realization of the noise. The procedure to integrate the stochastic equations is as follows. A stochastic term is added at each step with its statistical properties described by an OU process. The OU process is generated by solving a Langevin equation with a delta-correlated noise term. This ensures that the correlation function of $`f(t)`$ has the desired statistical property given by Eq. (24).

We present in Fig. 2 the time evolution of the population $`P_0(t)`$ of spin-0 state in the static magnetic field \[$`b_1=0`$ in Eq. (23)\] for the value of $`b_0=10b_x`$. In the absence of noise, as shown in Fig. 2(a), the population of spin-0 state is always close to unity during time evolution. This effect is purely the static spin localization. In this case, the longitudinal magnetic field lifts the degeneracy of the five spin components and consequent energy mismatch hinders the BEC transfer from the initially occupied polar state to its neighbours in the spin space. In the case of the intermediate ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c1`$) noise modulation, as shown in Fig. 2(b) (solid curve), it can be seen that the population of spin-0 state has a damped oscillation with a slow monotonic decay superimposed. The combination of noise and static magnetic field, suppressing population transfer, produces the decay. It also shows in Fig. 2(b) that with increasing strength of noise, the decay becomes more rapid. Therefore, the decaying time can be controlled by varying the magnetic field or the strength of noise.

Figure 3 shows the time dependencies of $`P_0(t)`$ in the time-dependent longitudinal magnetic field with the systematic part $`b_l=b\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$. The field parameters are chosen as $`b=2b_x`$ and $`\omega =10b_x`$, corresponding to the Rabi oscillation with scaled period $`T=T_0/J_0(0.2)`$, as shown in Fig. 3(a). In the case of a weak noise $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=0.2`$ (dashed curve), the population $`P_0`$ is still oscillatory in our scope of time, but its oscillation amplitude decreases with time. When the strength of the noise increases to $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=1.0`$ (dotted curve), the Rabi oscillation breaks down completely and the system decays fast towards equilibrium. This suggests that the coherent Rabi oscillation for a spinor BEC is sensitive to the external noise and is destroyed even in a weak coupling regime. We also present in Fig. 4 the time evolution of $`P_0`$ for the value of $`b/\omega =2.402`$, corresponding to the dynamic localization, as shown in Fig. 4(a). In Fig. 4(b), we can see that in the case of intermediate ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c1`$) noise modulation (solid curve), the population $`P_0`$ still remains close to unity for an extremely long time. This insensitivity to the presence of weak noise reflects the strength of the systematic field. When the strength of noise increases to a strong coupling regime, a more rapid and less oscillatory decay is observed in the population evolution, as shown in Fig. 4(b) (dotted curve).

Figure 5 shows the time evolution of $`P_0`$ in the external longitudinal magnetic fields consisting of static and time-periodic components \[Eq. (23)\]. The field parameters are chosen as $`b_0/b_x=10`$, $`\omega /b_x=10`$, and $`b_1/b_x=38.3`$, corresponding to the spin dynamic localization, as shown in Fig. 5(a). In the case of intermediate ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _c1`$) noise modulation, similar to that shown in Fig. 4(b), the population $`P_0`$ of spin-0 state remains close to unity in our scope of time. Even in the strong coupling regime (dashed curve), the fast oscillations still exist, suggesting the fundamental interplay between the systematic and noise fields. With further increase of the strength of noise, the system decays rapidly towards equilibrium, and therefore, the spinor BEC initially localized in spin-0 state is delocalized and diffuses among all spin states, as shown in Fig. 5(b) (dotted curve).

## V Dynamic spin localization beyond single-mode approximation

In the above discussions, the single-mode assumption (SMA) has been used: the wave function for each spin component retains the same spatial profile during the time development. Therefore, the possibility of high-energy mode excitation is neglected and the system dynamics is fully described by the internal population transfer among the spin components. This SMA treatment is valid for a small particle number $`N`$. When $`N`$ is large, the nonlinear spin-mixing processes induce the large energy transfer from the initial ground state to the excited modes, thus destroying the validity of the SMA. However, when the initial state is taken to be the eigenstate of the mean-field G-P equation, the SMA is expected to describe well the dynamics in the absence of dissipation and external driving. In this section, we go beyond the SMA by means of a numerical simulation of the time-spatial evolution of the system.

Due to anisotropic nature of the optical trapping potential, the cigar shaped BEC is assumed to be quasi-one-dimensional and hence the wave function associated with the spin-$`\alpha `$ state may be written as

$$\psi _\alpha (x,y,z,t)=\varphi _{}(x,y)\varphi _\alpha (z,t)e^{i\omega _{}t},$$
(27)
where $`z`$ is the direction of weak confinement, $`\varphi _{}(x,y)`$ is the ground-state wave function of the two-dimensional harmonic oscillator, and $`\omega _{}`$ the tight confinement frequency. Inserting Eq. (25) into Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain the equations of motion for the longitudinal wave functions $`\varphi _\alpha (z,t)`$ in a dimensionless form

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _2}{t}=\psi _2+f_{}\psi _1+f_z\psi _2+\psi _2^{}s_{}b_x\psi _12b_l(t)\psi _2$$
(28)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _1}{t}=\psi _1+f_+\psi _2+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}f_{}\psi _0+f_z\psi _1\psi _1^{}s_{}b_x(\psi _1+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\psi _0)b_l(t)\psi _1$$
(28)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _0}{t}=\psi _0+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}(f_+\psi _1+f_{}\psi _1)+\psi _0^{}s_{}b_x(\psi _1+\psi _1)$$
(29)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _1}{t}=\psi _1+\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}f_+\psi _0+f_{}\psi _2f_z\psi _1\psi _1^{}s_{}b_x(\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}\psi _0+\psi _2)+b_l(t)\psi _1$$
(30)
$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _2}{t}=\psi _2+f_{}\psi _1f_z\psi _2+\psi _2^{}s_{}b_x\psi _1+2b_l(t)\psi _2$$
(31)
where $`=d^2/dz^2+z^2/4+\overline{c}_0N\eta (|\varphi _2|^2+|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _0|^2+|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)`$ with transverse structure factor $`\eta =|\varphi _{}(x,y)|^4𝑑x𝑑y/|\varphi _{}(x,y)|^2𝑑x𝑑y`$, $`f_+=\overline{c}_1(\varphi _2^{}\varphi _1+\sqrt{3/2}\varphi _1^{}\varphi _0+\sqrt{3/2}\varphi _0^{}\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\varphi _2)`$, $`f_{}=f_+^{}`$, $`f_z=(\overline{c}_1/2)_{i=2}^2|\varphi _i|^2`$, and $`s_{}=(2\overline{c}_2/5)(\varphi _0^2/2\varphi _1\varphi _1+\varphi _2\varphi _2)`$. The above equations have been written in dimensionless form and the units for length, energy, and time are $`\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(2m\omega _z)}`$, $`\mathrm{}\omega _z`$, and $`1/\omega _z`$, respectively, where $`\omega _z`$ is the axial trapping frequency. In the numerical simulation of the dynamic equations (26), the initial wave functions are taken to be ground state of the one-dimension G-P equations $`\varphi _i(z,0)=\mu \varphi _i(z,0)`$, where $`\varphi _i(z,0)`$ satisfies the normalization $`|\varphi _i(z,0)|^2𝑑z=N_i/N`$ with $`N_i`$ the initial particle number in spin-$`i`$ component.

We first discuss the dynamics of the system in the absence of coupling magnetic fields. Figure 6 shows the time evolution of the population of spin-$`0`$ component for two kinds of initial population. The solid line in Fig. 6 corresponds to the initial state that five spin components are initially equally populated, whereas the dotted line corresponds to the case that the BEC initially populates spin-0 components. It shows (solid line) that during time evolution, the population of spin-0 component develops into a complex oscillatory structure, implying the excitation of high-energy modes. The excitation originates from the fact that the initial state is not a mean-field eigenstate of the SMA Hamiltonian (6), thus leading to a redistribution of the total energy $`E`$ between the symmetric and unsymmetrical parts (denoted by $`E_s`$ and $`E_a`$, respectively) of the total Hamiltonian. When $`E_a`$ is sufficiently large, the higher modes are excited by the nonlinear spin-mixing processes and the SMA description breaks down for large value of particle number $`N`$. When the initial state is chosen to be the SMA eigenstate, the population of spin-$`0`$ state does not vary in time (dotted line). Thus, SMA treatment is appropriate for the spin polarized state with the BEC localized in spin-0 component.

In the presence of external magnetic fields, the five spin components are coupled. The atomic population is featured by Rabi oscillations among the spin states. To see the validity of the SMA in studying the dynamic spin localization, We present in Fig. 7 the time evolution of the population of spin-0 state for several values of amplitude of oscillatory magnetic field. It shows that the weak transverse magnetic field couples the five spin components, inducing Rabi oscillation between the initial populated spin-0 state and the other spin states. The presence of an additional oscillatory magnetic field slows down the oscillation periods. Finally, when the field parameter is modulated to satisfy $`b/\mathrm{}\omega =2.4`$, as shown in Fig. 7(b), the Rabi oscillation completely stops and population of spin-0 state always remains close to unity during its time development. The good agreement between the SMA results and exact numerical solution suggests that the phenomenon of dynamic spin localization is well-defined beyond the simple SMA. This robustness of dynamic localization against nonlinear atomic interaction is contrast to the case of two-component BEC system, where there is no energy-stable spin-polarized states.

## VI CONCLUSION

In summary, by the application of the external magnetic fields which may contain a random component, we have elaborated on the control of population transfer among the internal spin states for the $`F=2`$ spinor BEC. After taking the mean-field approximation a general formula is obtained for the oscillation period to describe the quantum transition from the initial spin polar state to other spin states. In particular, when the frequency and reduced amplitude of the longitudinal magnetic field are related in a specific manner, the population of the initial spin-0 state is dynamically localized during the time evolution. In addition, the effects of external noise on the coherent population transfer dynamics of the spinor BEC are studied. We found that (i) The Rabi oscillations are sensitive to the external noise, and even weak coupling can destroy completely the Rabi oscillations in an earlier length of time. (ii) When the strength of noise is weak, because of strong suppression caused by the systematic field, the static and dynamic localization may remain for experimentally relevant times. (iii) When the strength of noise is strong, delocalization due to phase randomness occurs during time evolution and the initially localized BEC diffuses among five spin components. (iv) The Rabi oscillation and dynamic spin localization is robust against the nonlinear spin exchange interaction. Thus in order to observe the static or dynamic localization in spin space one should produce stable magnetic fields, which has as little as possible the stochastic component. Although it is difficult to keep the external noise from intruding on dynamics, recent observation of the well-defined coherence between the two BECs suggests that the external noise can be greatly suppressed in experimental setup. Therefore, we expect such macroscopic coherent quantum controls as Rabi oscillation and dynamic localization may be realized in spinor BEC experiments.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was partially supported by a grant from the Research Committee of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Grant No. G-T308).

Figure captions

Fig. 1. Scaled oscilltion period $`T/T_0`$ of the sinusoidal magnetic field case, versus the reduced field strength $`b/\omega `$.

Fig. 2. Time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ with and without external noise in the static magnetic field, $`b/b_x=10`$. (a) the case without the noise, (b) the case with the noise $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=1.0`$ (solid curve), $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=5.0`$ (dashed curve), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=10.0`$ (dotted curve). $`b_x\tau _c`$ is fixed to be 1.0 for the case with the noise.

Fig. 3. Time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ with and without external noise in sinusoidal magnetic field, $`b/b_x=2`$, $`\omega /b_x=10`$. (a) the case without the noise, (b) the case with the noise $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=0.2`$ (solid curve), $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=0.6`$ (dashed curve), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=1.0`$ (dotted curve). $`b_x\tau _c`$ is fixed to be 1.0 for the case with the noise.

Fig. 4. Time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ with and without external noise in sinusoidal magnetic field, $`b/b_x=24.02`$, $`\omega /b_x=10`$. (a) the case without the noise, (b) the case with the noise $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=1.0`$ (solid curve), $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=5.0`$ (dashed curve), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=10.0`$ (dotted curve). $`b_x\tau _c`$ is fixed to be 1.0 for the case with the noise.

Fig. 5. Time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ with and without external noise in a combination of static and sinusoidal magnetic field, $`b_0/b_x=10`$, $`b_1/b_x=38.3`$, $`\omega /b_x=10`$. (a) the case without the noise, (b) the case with the noise $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=1.0`$ (solid curve), $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=5.0`$ (dashed curve), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }/b_x=10.0`$ (dotted curve). $`b_x\tau _c`$ is fixed to be 1.0 for the case with the noise.

Fig. 6. time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ for two kinds of initial population: $`N_i/N=0.2,`$ $`i=2,\mathrm{},2`$ (solid line), $`N_0/N=1`$ (dashed line). Other parameters are $`\omega _z=2\pi \times 60`$Hz, $`a_0=34.9a_B`$, $`a_2=45.8a_B`$, $`a_4=64.5a_B`$ for 23Na ($`a_B`$ is the Bohr radius), $`\eta =1`$, $`N=10000`$.

Fig. 7. Time evolution of $`P_0(t)`$ in the presence of a uniform field $`b_x=1`$. (a) the case without sinusoidal magnetic field, (b) the case with sinusoidal magnetic field $`b_l(t)=b\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$, $`\omega =10`$, $`b=24`$. Other parameters are the same as used in Fig. 6.


text:
# Chromatic properties of generic planar configurations of points

## 1. Introduction

A finite set $`𝒫=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_n\}`$ of $`n`$ points in the oriented affine plane $`^2`$ is a generic configuration if three points in $`𝒫`$ are never collinear. Two generic configurations of $`n`$ points $`𝒫^1`$ and $`𝒫^2`$ are isotopic if they can be joined by a continuous curve of generic configurations.

Two generic configurations $`𝒫^1`$ and $`𝒫^2`$ are isomorphic if there exists a bijection $`\phi :𝒫^1𝒫^2`$ such that the two triangles having vertices $`P,Q,R𝒫^1`$ and $`\phi (P),\phi (Q),\phi (R)𝒫^2`$ induce either always identical or always opposite orientations for all triplets $`\{P,Q,R\}`$ of points in $`𝒫^1`$. In the former case we call $`𝒫^1`$ and $`𝒫^2`$ orientedly isomorphic. The (oriented) isomorphism classes of all generic configurations are called (oriented) order types by some authors, especially in Computer Sciences (see  and ).

Isotopic configurations are of course orientedly isomorphic. We ignore to what extend the converse holds.

A line $`L^2`$ separates two points $`P,Q^2L`$ if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are in different connected components of $`^2L`$. Given a generic configuration $`𝒫`$, we denote by $`n(P,Q)`$ the number of separating lines defined by pairs of points in $`𝒫\{P,Q\}`$.

###### Definition 1.1 (Orchard relation).

We set $`PQ`$ if we have $`n(P,Q)(n3)(mod2)`$ for two distinct points $`P,Q𝒫`$ of a generic configuration $`𝒫`$.

The following result is then a special case of a more general fact, see .

###### Theorem 1.2 (Orchard Theorem).

The Orchard relation is an equivalence relation on the set of points $`𝒫`$ of a generic configuration, which consists of at most two classes.

The name of this result comes from the fact that it yields a canonical rule to plant trees of two species at prescribed generic locations in an orchard.

We call the induced (generally non-trivial) partition the Orchard partition of $`𝒫`$. Orchard partitions yield invariants for studying generic configurations of points in the affine plane. Iterative use of the Orchard partition, i.e. dividing the set of points into Orchard classes, and iterating this on each class, produces an invariant which distinguishes many pairs of non-isomorphic generic configurations and which is easy to compute and handle.

The present paper is devoted to the illustration of the planar Orchard Theorem applied to generic configurations of $`n`$ points in the affine plane. Such configurations arise naturally and many features of them have been considered by other authors. This paper yields another such contribution devoted to Orchard properties.

Configurations with trivial Orchard partition (monochromatic configurations) are especially noteworthy to study since they are the “atoms” of the theory. We will describe a few infinite monochromatic families and constructions involving monochromatic configurations.

We introduce and study also some properties of a notion which we call infinitesimal-closedness. This property is useful for understanding some monochromatic families and has also some independent interest.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 recalls the proof of the Orchard Theorem in the planar case. We also recall and prove the corresponding flip proposition. Section 3 lists all generic configurations having up to $`6`$ points, together with their Orchard partitions. Section 4 deals with infinitesimally-close points and the effect on the Orchard relation after deleting two such points.

The remaining part of the paper is centered on monochromatic configurations. Section 5 gives the complete list of monochromatic configurations up to $`7`$ points. Section 6 deals with some constructions preserving monochromatic configurations. Section 7 describes some monochromatic families.

Section 8 uses a data-base of Aichholzer, Aurenhammer and Krasser for collecting some statistics related to the Orchard partitions on the set of all generic configurations having at most $`9`$ points.

## 2. Proofs of the Orchard Theorem and of the flip property for planar configurations

In this section we prove the planar version of the Orchard Theorem and the flip property along the lines of . The planar setting allows a slight simplification.

Three points $`P_i,P_j,P_k`$ of a generic planar configuration $`𝒫=\{P_1,\mathrm{}P_n\}`$ define three lines which subdivide the projective plane into four triangles: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Denote by $`\alpha _i`$ the number of lines connecting two points in $`𝒫\{P_i,P_j,P_k\}`$ and separating (in the affine plane of course) $`P_i`$ from both points $`P_j`$ and $`P_k`$. The numbers $`\alpha _j`$ and $`\alpha _k`$ are defined analogously.

For $`\{0,i,j,k\}`$ denote by $`\sigma _{}`$ the number of points in $`𝒫\{P_i,P_j,P_k\}`$ which are in the interior of the triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

We have

$$n(P_i,P_j)=\alpha _i+\alpha _j+\sigma _0+\sigma _k$$

$$n(P_j,P_k)=\alpha _j+\alpha _k+\sigma _0+\sigma _i$$

$$n(P_i,P_k)=\alpha _i+\alpha _k+\sigma _0+\sigma _j$$

###### Proof.

We prove the first formula. The others follow by symmetry.

For a line $`L`$ separating $`P_i`$ from $`P_j`$ we have two cases: $`P_kL`$ or $`P_kL`$.

In the first case, $`P_kL`$, the line $`L`$ separates either $`P_i`$ from $`P_k`$ or $`P_j`$ from $`P_k`$ (see e.g. line $`L_1`$ in Figure 2). Such a line $`L`$ yields hence a contribution of $`1`$ to either $`\alpha _i`$ or $`\alpha _j`$.

If $`P_kL`$, then $`L`$ is defined by the point $`P_k`$ and by another point $`Q`$ which belongs either to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ or to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ (consider line $`L_2`$ or $`L_3`$ in Figure 2).

###### Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Reflexivity and symmetry of the Orchard relation are obvious. We have to establish transitivity.

Let $`P_i,P_j,P_k`$ be three points such that $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_jP_k`$. We have to show that $`P_iP_k`$.

Since $`P_iP_j`$ and $`P_jP_k`$ we have $`n(P_i,P_j)(n3)(mod2)`$ and $`n(P_j,P_k)(n3)(mod2)`$. Adding the equations

$$n(P_i,P_j)=\alpha _i+\alpha _j+\sigma _0+\sigma _k(n3)(mod2)$$

$$n(P_j,P_k)=\alpha _j+\alpha _k+\sigma _0+\sigma _i(n3)(mod2)$$

obtained by Lemma 2.1, we get

$$\alpha _i+\alpha _k+\sigma _i+\sigma _k0(mod2).$$

The interiors of the four triangles $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ contain all points of $`𝒫\{P_i,P_j,P_k\}`$ by genericity and we have hence

$$\sigma _i+\sigma _j+\sigma _k+\sigma _0=n3.$$

We get therefore

$$n(P_i,P_k)=\alpha _i+\alpha _k+\sigma _0+\sigma _j\alpha _i+\alpha _k+\sigma _i+\sigma _k+(n3)(n3)(mod2)$$

which shows that $`P_iP_k`$.

The fact that the Orchard relation has at most two classes follows from the implication $`P_i\sim ̸P_j`$ and $`P_j\sim ̸P_kP_iP_k`$ (the proof of which is, up to a minor change, as above). ∎

A flip is the most elementary move relating non-isomorphic generic configurations:

###### Definition 2.2 (Flip).

Two generic configurations $`𝒫^1,𝒫^2`$ of $`n`$ points are related by a flip if there exists a continuous path of configurations $`𝒫(t)`$, $`1t1`$, such that:

1. $`𝒫(1)=𝒫^1`$ and $`𝒫(1)=𝒫^2`$.
2. $`𝒫(t)`$ is generic for all $`1t1`$ except for $`t=0`$. The configuration $`𝒫(0)`$ has exactly three aligned points, each crossing transversally at $`t=0`$ the line spanned by the two other points.

Geometrically, a flip transforms an almost “flat” triangle formed by three points of $`𝒫`$ which are nearly aligned into its “mirror”, see Figure 3 for an illustration. We leave it to the reader to show that every pair of generic configurations with $`n`$ points can be related by a path involving only isotopies and a finite number of flips.

A flip affects the Orchard relation only locally as shown by the following proposition:

###### Proposition 2.3 (Flip Proposition).

Let $`𝒫=𝒫(1)=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_n\}`$ and $`𝒫^{}=𝒫(1)=\{P_1^{},\mathrm{},P_n^{}\}`$ be two generic configurations related by a flip involving three points $`R,S,T𝒫`$ corresponding to $`R^{},S^{},T^{}𝒫^{}`$. For any two points $`P,Q`$ we have:

1. if $`P,Q\{R,S,T\}`$ or $`P,Q𝒫\{R,S,T\}`$, then:

$$PQ\mathrm{if}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{only}\mathrm{if}P^{}^{}Q^{}$$
2. if $`P\{R,S,T\}`$ and $`Q𝒫\{R,S,T\}`$ then:

$$PQ\mathrm{if}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{only}\mathrm{if}P^{}\sim ̸^{}Q^{}$$

###### Proof.

A point $`V(t)𝒫(t)\{R(t),S(t),T(t)\}`$ is never aligned with two other points of $`𝒫(t)`$. This shows the equality

$$n(P(1),Q(1))=n(P(1),Q(1))$$

for $`P(t),Q(t)𝒫(t)\{R(t),S(t),T(t)\}`$ or $`P(t),Q(t)\{R(t),S(t),T(t)\}`$.

On the other hand, $`V(t)\{R(t),S(t),T(t)\}`$ will be involved transversally in the unique alignement $`\{R(0),S(0),T(0)\}`$ during the flip. For such a point $`V(t)`$ and $`P(t)𝒫(t)\{R(t),S(t),T(t)\}`$ we have hence

$$n(V(1),P(1))=n(V(1),P(1))\pm 1$$

which proves the result. ∎

## 3. All generic configurations up to $`6`$ points

This section contains the complete list (up to unoriented isomorphisms) of all generic configurations having at most $`6`$ points together with the corresponding Orchard partitions.

We represent the two classes by black and white vertices. The choice of the black class is of course arbitrary: In case of classes having different cardinalities, black is used for the class containg more elements. In case of a draw, the choice of the black class is arbitrary.

### 3.1. Generic configurations with up to $`5`$ points

Figures 4 and 5 present all generic configurations (up to non-oriented isomorphism) having at most $`5`$ points, together with their Orchard partitions. Since all these classes admit an orientation-reversing symmetry, these classes coincide with oriented isomorphism classes.

### 3.2. Generic configurations of $`6`$ points

Figures 6, 7 and 8 contain all non-oriented isomorphism classes of generic configurations with $`6`$ points (sorted by the size of their convex hull), together with their Orchard partitions.

## 4. Infinitesimally-close points

In this section, we study configurations containing a pair $`P,Q`$ of points with $`n(P,Q)=0`$ (no separating lines). Such pairs of points will be useful for constructing monochromatic configurations.

###### Definition 4.1.

Two points $`P,Q`$ are infinitesimally-close if $`n(P,Q)=0`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

Infinitesimally-close points are Orchard-equivalent if the total number of points in the configuration is odd and they are not equivalent otherwise.

The following proposition describes the change in the Orchard relation induced by deleting two infinitesimally-close points:

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`R,S𝒫`$ be two infinitesimally-close points of a generic configuration $`𝒫`$ having $`n`$ points. Denote by $`L`$ the line containing $`R`$ and $`S`$ and by $`𝒫^{}=𝒫\{R,S\}`$ the subconfiguration of $`𝒫`$ after deletion of $`R`$ and $`S`$.

1. If $`P,Q𝒫\{R,S\}`$ are not separated by $`L`$, then

$$P_𝒫Q\mathrm{if}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{only}\mathrm{if}P_𝒫^{}Q.$$
2. If $`P,Q𝒫\{R,S\}`$ are separated by $`L`$, then

$$P_𝒫Q\mathrm{if}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{only}\mathrm{if}P\sim ̸_𝒫^{}Q.$$

###### Proof.

If $`P,Q`$ are not separated by $`L`$, then $`n_𝒫(P,Q)`$ and $`n_𝒫^{}(P,Q)`$ have the same parity. Indeed, if a separating line between $`P`$ and $`Q`$ is generated by $`R`$ (say) and a second point $`T𝒫\{R,S,P,Q\}`$, then the line generated by $`S`$ and $`T`$ separates $`P`$ and $`Q`$ too. The number of such lines is hence even.

If the line $`L`$ spanned by $`R`$ and $`S`$ separates two points $`P,Q𝒫\{R,S\}`$ then the number $`n_𝒫(P,Q)n_𝒫^{}(P,Q)`$ is odd since it contains, together with all pairs of lines mentioned above, also the line $`L`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.4.

Generic configurations consisting of few points have generally pairs of infinitesimally-close points. Generic configurations having a huge number of points however have only rarely infinitesimally-close points.

### 4.1. Infinitesimal contractions and infinitesimally equivalent configurations

Let $`𝒫`$ be a configuration with two infinitesimally-close points $`R`$ and $`S`$. This implies that the two configurations $`𝒫\{R\}`$ and $`𝒫\{S\}`$, obtained by deleting either $`R`$ or $`S`$ from $`𝒫`$, are isotopic. We call the isotopy class $`𝒫^{}`$ of $`𝒫\{R\}`$ the infinitesimal contraction of $`𝒫`$ along $`[R,S]`$. Two configurations $`𝒫,𝒫^{}`$ related through an infinitesimal contraction are infinitesimally related. Two configurations $`𝒫^1`$ and $`𝒫^2`$ which can be joined by a path of infinitesimally related configurations are infinitesimally equivalent and the set of all configurations infinitesimally equivalent to $`𝒫`$ forms of course an equivalence class. Nothing interesting can be said concerning Orchard properties of such a class since removal of a point changes the Orchard relation dramatically. It has however a nice property given by the following result.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Each equivalence class of infinitesimally related configurations contains a unique (up to isomorphism) minimal representative. The minimal representative of a configuration $`𝒫`$ can always be constructed as a subconfiguration reached through a succession of infinitesimal contractions starting at $`𝒫`$.

###### Proof.

We have to prove unicity of a minimal representative. Choose a minimal sequence $`\gamma (0),\gamma (1),\mathrm{},\gamma (l)`$ with $`\gamma (i)`$ minimally adjacent to $`\gamma (i+1)`$ relating two such minimal representatives. By minimality of $`\gamma (0)`$ and $`\gamma (l)`$ there is a first index $`i`$ such that $`\gamma (i+1)`$ is an infinitesimal contraction of $`\gamma (i)`$ along $`[R,S]`$. This implies that the point $`R`$ or $`S`$ has been added before, thus contradicting the minimality of the sequence $`\gamma (0),\mathrm{},\gamma (l)`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

1. Infinitesimal contractions admit a sort of inverse: Given a generic configuration $`𝒫`$ of $`n`$ points, choose a point $`R𝒫`$ and one of the $`(n1)`$ opposite pairs of cones delimited by lines through $`R`$ and $`𝒫\{R\}`$. Add now a new point $`S`$ very close to $`R`$ in the interior of one of the two chosen opposite cones. This clearly yields a configuration with $`n(R,S)=0`$ and every configuration of $`(n+1)`$ points infinitesimally adjacent to $`𝒫`$ can be constructed in this way.
2. The notion of infinitesimal equivalence behaves well with respect to isotopy: If two generic configurations are isomorphic but not isotopic, then their minimal representatives are also only isomorphic but not isotopic.

## 5. Monochromatic configurations

This section is devoted to the study of monochromatic configurations which are configurations with trivial Orchard partition.

Figures 9-12 contain all monochromatic configurations (up to non-oriented isomorphism) having at most $`7`$ points.

## 6. Monochromatic constructions

This section contains a few constructions of monochromatic configurations.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`𝒫`$ be a monochromatic configuration having two infinitesimally-close points $`P`$ and $`Q`$ in its convex hull. Then $`𝒫\{P,Q\}`$ is also monochromatic.

###### Proof.

Use Proposition 4.3. ∎

This proposition can be used as follows:

###### Construction 6.2.

Let $`𝒫=𝒫^{}\{P,Q\}`$ be a generic configuration with an odd number of points having two infinitesimally-close vertices $`P,Q`$ in its convex hull. Suppose that $`𝒫^{}`$ is monochromatic and $`n(P,P_0)`$ is even for some point $`P_0𝒫^{}`$. Then $`𝒫`$ is monochromatic.

###### Proof.

Apply the previous proposition. ∎

###### Remark 6.3.

The same construction works also for a configuration $`𝒫`$ with an Orchard partition $`(n,n)`$: Add (generically) two infinitesimally-close points $`P,Q`$ to $`𝒫`$ such that $`P,Q`$ are in the convex hull of $`𝒫\{P,Q\}`$. The configuration $`𝒫\{P,Q\}`$ has then Orchard partition $`(n+1,n+1)`$.

There are of course many more constructions. Let us close this section by mentioning another one:

Given a monochromatic configuration $`𝒫`$ having an odd number of points, add generically two infinitesimally-close points $`P,Q`$. This yields a configuration $`𝒫^{}`$ having two classes $`𝒞^1`$ and $`𝒞^2`$, with $`P,Q𝒞^1`$, which are separated by the line $`L`$ through $`P,Q`$. Add now another pair of infinitesimally-close points $`P^{},Q^{}`$ defining a line $`L^{}`$ parallel to $`L`$ in such a way that $`L^{}`$ separates $`P,Q`$ from all points in $`𝒞^2`$. In the resulting configuration, the classes $`𝒞^1`$ and $`𝒞^2`$ merge. Only the new points $`P^{},Q^{}`$ might be outside this class. In this case, shift them along $`L^{}`$ into a suitable position.

## 7. Some families of monochromatic configurations

In this section we describe some monochromatic families.

###### Proposition 7.1.

Vertices of a convex polygon having $`2n+1`$ edges yield a monochromatic configuration.

###### Proof.

Two adjacent vertices $`P`$ and $`Q`$ of the polygon satisfy clearly $`n(P,Q)=0`$. This implies $`PQ`$ since $`n`$ is odd. ∎

###### Remark 7.2.

The above family can also be obtained by iterating Construction 6.2 starting with the unique configuration consisting of one point.

###### Remark 7.3.

The same argument shows that vertices of a convex polygon with $`2n`$ edges have alternating colours.

Another monochromatic family can be described as follows:

###### Proposition 7.4.

The following configuration $`𝒫`$ of $`2n`$ points is monochromatic for $`n3`$: Consider $`n`$ vertices spanning a regular polygon $`R`$ (any convex polygon will in fact work) having $`n`$ sides. Add $`n`$ more points which are interior to $`R`$ and very close to the midpoints of all edges in $`R`$ (Figure 13 displays the example $`n=5`$).

###### Proof.

Consider first two adjacent vertices $`P`$ and $`Q`$ of the polygon $`R`$. Denote by $`S𝒫`$ the point near the barycenter $`(P+Q)/2`$ of $`P`$ and $`Q`$. The points $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are separated by all lines through $`S`$ and one of the remaining $`2n3`$ points of $`𝒫\{P,Q,S\}`$. Moreover, there are two more separating lines going through vertices adjacent to $`P`$ and $`Q`$ and through the corresponding near-midpoints of the edges adjacent to the edge $`[P,Q]`$. We have hence $`n(P,Q)=2n12n3(mod2)`$ which shows that $`PQ`$.

The points $`P`$ and $`S`$ are separated by exactly one of the two extra lines mentioned above and hence we have $`PS`$ too. ∎

###### Remark 7.5.

One can prove the last result also by starting with a convex polygon having $`2n`$ vertices $`\{s_0,\mathrm{},s_{2n1}\}`$. By Remark 7.3, we have $`s_as_b`$ if and only if $`ab(mod2)`$. Perform now flips with respect to all triangles of vertices $`s_{2i},s_{2i+1},s_{2i+2}`$, $`0in1`$ (with indices read $`(mod2n)`$). A vertex $`s_k`$ is hence involved in either $`2`$ or $`1`$ flips according to the parity of $`k`$ and the resulting final configuration is monochromatic by the Flip Proposition (Proposition 2.3).

A monochromatic family involving congruences is given as follows:

###### Proposition 7.6.

Let $`n5`$ be an odd number, such that $`(n+1)0(mod8)`$ or $`(n+1)6(mod8)`$. The $`n`$ vertices of a regular polygon having $`n`$ sides together with its barycenter yield a monochromatic configuration $`𝒫`$ of $`(n+1)`$ points (Figure 14 shows the case $`n=5`$).

###### Proof.

It is easy to check that $`n(P,Q)=1`$ for two adjacent vertices of the regular $`n`$gon.

We have yet to show that $`n(P,C)`$ is odd when $`P`$ is a vertex of the regular $`n`$gon and $`C`$ is its barycenter. Any line $`L`$ separating $`C`$ from $`P`$ comes together with its mirror obtained by reflecting $`L`$ with respect to the line joining $`C`$ and $`P`$ (see lines $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ in Figure 15). Only separating lines orthogonal to the segment $`[C,P]`$ (like for instance line $`L_3`$ in Figure 15) have hence to be taken into acount when counting separating lines $`(mod2)`$.

Such lines are in bijection with the set

$$\{k|0<k\frac{2\pi }{n}<\frac{\pi }{2}\}=\{1,2,\mathrm{},\frac{n}{4}\},$$

and the result follows. ∎

###### Remark 7.7.

For $`n1(mod8)`$ or $`n3(mod8)`$, the configurations considered in Proposition 7.6 have Orchard partition $`(n,1)`$.

A somewhat similar family is given by:

###### Proposition 7.8.

Let $`n3`$ be an odd number. The following construction yields a monochromatic configuration of $`2n+1`$ points: Draw the $`n`$ vertices $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{P}_n`$ of a regular $`n`$-gon. Now replace each vertex $`\stackrel{~}{P}_i`$ by two infinitesimally-close points $`P_i,P_i^{}`$, in order to obtain a configuration with convex hull of size $`2n`$. Add now a last point $`C`$ at the barycenter of this $`2n`$-gon (See Figure 10 number (2) for an example for $`n=3`$).

###### Proof.

We have to check that $`n(P_i,P_i^{})`$, $`n(P_i^{},P_{i+1})`$ and $`n(P_1,C)`$ are even.

It is obvious that $`n(P_i,P_i^{})=0`$. Moreover, $`n(P_i^{},P_{i+1})=2`$ with two separating lines defined by the midpoint $`C`$ and the two vertices opposite to the segment $`[P_i^{},P_{i+1}]`$.

It remains to check that $`n(C,P_i)`$ is even. This follows from the fact that each line separating $`C`$ from $`P_i`$ has at least one of its defining points in a pair of infinitesimally-close points different from $`P_i`$ and $`P_i^{}`$. ∎

## 8. Some statistics

Aichholzer, Aurenhammer and Krasser have computed a data-base of all generic configurations having $`n10`$ points, up to unoriented isomorphism (see  and ). Assuming completeness of their data-base, we have computed the Orchard partitions for all generic configurations having $`n9`$ points. The results for configurations of $`7,8`$ and $`9`$ points are presented in Tables 1-3 according to the size of the configuration’s convex hull and the size of the two equivalence classes of the Orchard partition.

Monochromatic configurations are of course partitions of type $`(0,)`$.

## Acknowledgment

The second author wishes to thank Mikhail Zaidenberg and the Institut Fourier for hosting his stay.