text:
# Naturally light invisible axion and local 𝑍₁₃⊗𝑍₃ symmetries

## Abstract

We show that by imposing local $`Z_{13}Z_3`$ symmetries in an $`SU(2)U(1)`$ electroweak model we can implement an invisible axion in such a way that (i) the Peccei-Quinn symmetry is an automatic symmetry of the classical Lagrangian; and (ii) the axion is protected from semi classical gravitational effects. In order to be able to implement such a large discrete symmetry, and at the same time allow a general mixing in each charge sector, we introduce right-handed neutrinos and enlarge the scalar sector of the model. The domain wall problem is briefly considered.

It has been known for a long time that the complex nature of the QCD vacuum solves the old $`U(1)_A`$ problem  but also implies the existence of the $`\overline{\theta }F\stackrel{~}{F}`$ term in the classical Lagrangian . This $`CP`$-nonconserving $`\overline{\theta }`$ angle (which has also an electroweak contribution) should be smaller than $`10^9`$ in order to be consistent with the measurement of the electric dipole moment of the neutron . Why is $`CP`$ only weakly violated in QCD? This is the strong $`CP`$ problem and an elegant way to solve it is by introducing a chiral symmetry $`U(1)_{\mathrm{PQ}}`$ . This Peccei-Quinn (PQ) symmetry implies also the existence of a pseudo Goldstone boson—the axion . The invisible axion is almost a singlet (here denoted by $`\varphi `$) under the $`SU(2)U(1)`$ gauge symmetry . In addition, since this particle can occur in the early universe in the form of a Bose condensate which never comes into thermal equilibrium, it can be a significant component of the cold dark matter if its mass is of the order of $`10^5`$ eV , which makes it important in its own right. However such a small mass for the axion can be spoiled by semiclassical gravity effects since it could induce renormalizable or non-renormalizable effective interactions which break explicitly any global symmetry, and in particular the PQ symmetry. The most dangerous of these effective operators are of the form $`\varphi ^D`$, where $`D`$ is the mass dimension of the effective operator. In this case the axion could gain a mass which is greater than the mass coming from instanton effects and also the $`\overline{\theta }`$ angle is not less than $`10^9`$ in a natural way. This can be avoided if the dimension of the effective operators is $`D\stackrel{>}{}12`$ . Hence, unless $`D`$ is high enough, invisible axion models do not solve the strong CP problem in a natural way. Thus the invisible (very light) axion must be protected against gravity effects.

Some years ago Krauss and Wilczek  pointed out that local symmetries can masquerade as discrete global symmetries to an observer equipped with only low-energy probes. We can see this as follows. Consider a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with two complex scalar fields $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ carrying charge $`Ne`$ and $`e`$, respectively. It is possible, for instance, that $`\eta `$ undergoes condensation at some very high energy scale $`v`$, but $`\xi `$ produces quanta of relatively small mass and does not condense. Before the condensation the theory is invariant under the transformation $`\eta ^{}(x)=\mathrm{exp}[iNe\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)]\eta (x)`$, $`\xi ^{}(x)=\mathrm{exp}[ie\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)]\xi (x)`$ and $`A_\mu ^{}(x)=A_\mu (x)_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$, here $`A_\mu `$ is the $`U(1)`$ gauge field. The condensate characterized by the vacuum expectation value $`\eta (x)=v`$ in the homogeneous ground state is invariant only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an integer multiple of $`2\pi /Ne`$. This residual transformation still acts nontrivially on $`\xi `$ but now as a discrete $`Z_N`$ group. The effective theory well below $`v`$ will be the theory of the single complex scalar field $`\xi `$, neither the gauge field nor the scalar $`\eta `$ will appear in the effective theory since these fields are very heavy. The only implication of the original gauge symmetry for the low energy effective theory is the absence of interaction terms forbidden by the $`Z_N`$ symmetry. For instance if there were more charged scalar fields in the theory, the discrete symmetry would forbid many couplings that were otherwise possible. Hence, since no processes like black-hole evaporation or wormhole tunneling can violate a discrete gauge symmetry it means that local $`Z_N`$ symmetries violate the no-hair theorem . These symmetries may be the consequences of gauge $`U(1)`$’s symmetries which are embedded in a larger grand unified theory or from a fifth dimension as it was shown for the case of $`U(1)_Y`$ in Ref.  or even in superstring inspired models .

In fact, it has long been known that superstring theories exhibit PQ-like symmetries. It happens that in the reduction of a ten-dimensional theory to four dimensions an arbitrary large number of massless (up to the effect of the coupling $`F\stackrel{~}{F}`$) scalar four-dimensional fields, which cannot be gauged away, arise . On the other hand, in superstring theory, also naturally local discrete symmetries arise . These facts are welcome since superstring theory is considered a good candidate for the unification of the four interactions. Hence it is reasonable to require that any global or local symmetry that is introduced in low energy models can be derived from the superstring theory. However, since we already do not know the details of the theory that describes quantum gravity, we will apply the ideas above in a more conservative scenario: a multi-Higgs extension of the standard model.

We show below that in this situation, the axion, as a solution to the strong CP problem, can be achieved by introducing appropriated discrete symmetries and also the PQ symmetry arises as an automatic or accidental symmetry of the classical Lagrangian in the sense that it is not imposed on the Lagrangian but it is just a consequence of the particle content, renormalizability, and the gauge and Lorentz invariance of the model . The automatic PQ symmetry has been also considered up to now only in the context of grand unified or supersymmetric theories  or, recently, in 3-3-1 models . The same can be said with respect to the axion protection from gravity effects .

The model we will put forward can be viewed as a way of stabilizing the Dine-Fischler-Srednicki (DFS) axion . As is well known the DFS axion suffers from two difficulties: (i) the PQ symmetry has to be imposed by hand and (ii) the axion is not stable from the gravitational effects as discussed before. With respect to the first problem we expect that the PQ symmetry is not an ad hoc symmetry but an accidental one. It could be the consequence of discrete symmetries $`Z_N`$ which in addition, if $`N`$ is large enough, it can stabilize the axion from the semi-classical gravity effect. In this vain a large $`Z_N`$ symmetry solves both difficulties of the DFS axion model. The lowest order effective operator contributing to these parameters have $`D=13`$ since operators with dimension up to $`D=12`$ are forbidden by the local discrete symmetry $`Z_{13}Z_3`$. Moreover, after imposing these discrete symmetries the PQ chiral symmetry is automatically implemented in a model with $`SU(3)_CSU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ gauge symmetry (a similar analysis for avoiding $`B`$\- and $`L`$-violating operators in supersymmetric versions of this model was done in Ref. ).

The axion is made invisible if it is almost a singlet under the gauge group and for this reason we add a singlet $`\varphi `$ which gets a vacuum expectation value denoted by $`v_\varphi `$ . The suppression of the explicit breakdown of the PQ symmetry by gravity is obtained by adding a large $`Z_N`$ symmetry among the matter multiplets, in such a way that effective operators like $`\varphi ^{N1}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{(N1)4}`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass, are automatically suppressed. At the same time this local discrete symmetry makes the PQ symmetry an automatic symmetry of the classical Lagrangian. For instance, a $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry implies that the first nonforbidden operator is of dimension thirteen and the first contribution to the axion mass square is proportional to $`v_\varphi ^{11}/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^910^{21}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or $`10^{11}m_a^2`$, if $`m_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/v_\varphi 10^5`$ eV is the instanton induced mass (we have used $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=10^{19}`$ GeV and $`v_\varphi =10^{12}`$ GeV). We see also that the naturalness of the PQ solution to the $`\overline{\theta }`$-strong problem is not spoiled since in this case we have $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}v_\varphi ^N/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^{N4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4`$  and it means also that $`\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}10^{11}`$ for $`N=13`$.

In order to be able to implement this rather large symmetry the representation content of the model is augmented: we add right-handed neutrinos and several scalar Higgs multiplets. Presently, right-handed neutrinos may be a necessary ingredient of any electroweak model if, as indicated by recent experimental solar  and atmospheric  data, neutrinos are massive particles. On the other hand, each of the extra Higgs scalar multiplets that we will introduce has already been considered, separately, as viable extensions of the minimal $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ model . However, in general the doublets can be coupled to all fermion doublets, having flavor changing neutral currents if we will. In other words, there is not an underlying reason to constraint the interactions of the multi-Higgs extensions. Below we will show how this reason arises in an extension of the DFS axion model.

The representation content is the following: $`Q_L=(ud)_L^T(\mathrm{𝟐},1/3)`$, $`L_L=(\nu l)_L^T(\mathrm{𝟐},1)`$ denote any quark and lepton doublet; $`u_R(\mathrm{𝟏},4/3)`$, $`d_R(\mathrm{𝟏},2/3)`$, $`l_R(\mathrm{𝟏},2)`$, $`\nu _R(\mathrm{𝟏},0)`$ are the right-handed components; and we will assume that each charge sector gain mass from a different scalar doublets, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_u`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ generate Dirac masses for $`u`$-like, $`d`$-like quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos, respectively \[all of them of the form $`(\mathrm{𝟐},+1)=(\phi ^+,\phi ^0)^T`$\]. We also add a neutral complex singlet $`\varphi (\mathrm{𝟏},0)`$ as in , a singly charged singlet $`h^+(\mathrm{𝟏},+2)`$, as in the Zee’s model  and finally, a triplet $`\stackrel{}{𝒯}(\mathrm{𝟑},+2)`$ that can be written as

$$Tϵ\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{𝒯}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}T^0& T^+\\ T^+& \sqrt{2}T^{++}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`ϵ=i\tau _2`$.

Next, we will impose the following $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry among those fields:

$`Q\omega _5Q,u_R\omega _3u_R,d_R\omega _5^1d_R,`$ (2)
$`L\omega _6L,\nu _R\omega _0\nu _R,l_R\omega _4l_R,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_u\omega _2^1\mathrm{\Phi }_u,\mathrm{\Phi }_d\omega _3^1\mathrm{\Phi }_d,\mathrm{\Phi }_l\omega _2\mathrm{\Phi }_l,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \omega _6^1\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ,\varphi \omega _1^1\varphi ,Tw_4^1T,`$ (5)
$`h^+\omega _1h^+,`$ (6)
with $`\omega _k=e^{2\pi ik/13},k=0,1,\mathrm{},6`$.

With this representation content and the $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry defined in Eq. (6) the allowed Yukawa interactions are given by

$`_Y`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_{iL}(F_{i\alpha }u_{\alpha R}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_u+\stackrel{~}{F}_{i\alpha }d_{\alpha R}\mathrm{\Phi }_d)+\overline{L_{aL}}(G_{ab}\nu _{bR}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu `$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{ab}l_{bR}\mathrm{\Phi }_l)+f^{ab}\overline{(L_{aiL})^c}L_{bjL}ϵ_{ij}h^++\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$ (8)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=ϵ\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, with $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`a=e,\mu ,\tau `$; $`G,\stackrel{~}{G},F,\stackrel{~}{F}`$ are arbitrary $`3\times 3`$ matrices and $`f^{ab}`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ antisymmetric matrix. Notice that we have the Zee’s interaction  but the interaction $`\overline{(L_{iaL})^c}F_{ab}(ϵ\stackrel{}{\tau }\stackrel{}{𝒯})_{ij}L_{bLj}`$ is not allowed by the $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry, i.e., this is not an automatic symmetry of the model. Moreover, the $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry also implies that there is no flavor changing neutral currents since there is a doublet for each charge sector in Eq. (8). The neutrino interactions with the doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ imply a Dirac bare mass; while the singlet $`h^+`$ induces, through the radiative corrections, like in the Zee’s model, Majorana masses to the left-handed neutrinos .

The most general scalar potential among the several scalar multiplets introduced above must be invariant under the gauge $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ and also under the discrete $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry. However, an extra discrete $`Z_3`$ symmetry will be added in order to avoid an interaction in the scalar potential and in Eq. (8). We then have

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _k^2\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k+\mu _\varphi ^2\varphi ^{}\varphi +\mu _T^2\mathrm{Tr}(T^{}T)+\mu _h^2h^+h^{}+\lambda ^k(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k)^2+\lambda ^{kk^{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}|^2+\lambda ^{k\varphi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k)\varphi ^{}\varphi +\lambda _1^{kT}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_k\mathrm{Tr}(T^{}T)`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _2^{kT}(\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}T^{})(T\mathrm{\Phi }_k)+\lambda ^{kh}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_kh^{}h^++\lambda _1(\varphi ^{}\varphi )^2+\lambda _2(\mathrm{Tr}T^{}T)^2+\lambda _3\mathrm{Tr}(T^{}T)^2+\lambda _4\mathrm{Tr}(T^{}T)|\varphi |^2+\lambda _5(h^{}h^+)^2`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\lambda _6\mathrm{Tr}(T^{}T)h^{}h^++[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_d^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_l\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_l+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_d^TT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_u\varphi +\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_u^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_u^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_l+f_1\mathrm{\Phi }_u^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_d\varphi ^{}+f_2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_u^TT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_u+f_3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_l^TT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu `$ (11)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],`$ (12)
where $`kk^{}`$ run over all doublets, i.e., $`k,k^{}=u,d,l,\nu `$ and we have omitted summation symbols. The trilinear $`\mathrm{\Phi }_uϵ\mathrm{\Phi }_lh^{}\varphi ^{}`$ is allowed by the $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry but it is forbidden by the $`Z_3`$ symmetry with parameters denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1^1`$ if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_l`$ transform with $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ,\nu _R,l_R`$ transform with $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1`$ while all the other fields remain invariant i.e., transform with $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_0`$. This $`Z_3`$ symmetry forbids also a Majorana mass term $`\overline{(\nu _{aR})^c}M_{ab}\nu _{bR}`$ in Eq. (8). It is in this context that the PQ symmetry is an automatic symmetry of the classical Lagrangian of the model and the axion mass and the $`\overline{\theta }`$ angle are protected against gravitational effects, as discussed in the Introduction.

We have confirmed that the axion is an invisible one. After redefining the neutral fields as usual $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k^0=(v_k+\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^0+i\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }_k^0)/\sqrt{2}`$, $`T^0=(v_T+\mathrm{Re}T^0+i\mathrm{Im}T^0)/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`\varphi =(v_\varphi +\mathrm{Re}\varphi +i\mathrm{Im}\varphi )/\sqrt{2}`$ there are only two neutral Goldstone bosons: one which is eaten by the $`Z^0`$, $`G^0`$, and another one which has a small mixture with the $`G^0`$, the axion which is almost singlet, i.e., $`a\mathrm{Im}\varphi `$. This has been done considering the full $`6\times 6`$ mass matrix in the pseudoscalar sector.

Besides, the fact that the Peccei-Quinn chiral symmetry is an automatic symmetry of the model, the discrete $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry suppresses also gravitational effects up to operators of dimension twelve. It means that the contributions to the axion mass and to the $`\overline{\theta }`$ angle are like those we have shown above. The assignment of the PQ charges for all the fermion and scalar fields in the model are the following (using the notation $`\psi ^{}=e^{i\alpha X_\psi }\psi `$ with $`X_\psi `$ the PQ charge of the multiplet $`\psi `$): $`X_Q=3`$, $`X_{u_R}=3`$, $`X_{d_R}=3`$, $`X_L=6`$, $`X_{l_R}=8`$, $`X_{\nu _R}=4`$, $`X_{\mathrm{\Phi }_u}=6`$, $`X_{\mathrm{\Phi }_d}=6`$, $`X_{\mathrm{\Phi }_l}=2`$, $`X_{\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu }=10`$, $`X_T=12`$, $`X_{h^+}=12`$, $`X_\varphi =12`$. It is straightforward to verify that the Yukawa interactions in Eq. (8) and the scalar potential in Eq. (12) are invariant under the PQ transformations given above. In the present model we have still a global discrete symmetry, namely $`Z_{18}U(1)_{\mathrm{PQ}}`$. Hence, the model has the domain wall problem  and the usual mechanism for avoiding it can be applied .

Larger $`Z_N`$ symmetries are possible if we add more fields in any electroweak model. However, notice that if $`N`$ is a prime number the axion can transform under this symmetry with any assignment (but the trivial one); otherwise, we have to be careful with the way we choose the singlet $`\varphi `$ transforms under the $`Z_N`$ symmetry.

In the present model the axion couples to quarks and leptons (including neutrinos). Those couplings are proportional to $`X_fm_fv_\varphi ^1`$, where $`X_f`$ and $`m_f`$ are the PQ charge and the mass of the fermion $`f`$. On the other hand, the axion-photon coupling $`c_{a\gamma \gamma }`$ is, in general, proportional to $`2N_{\mathrm{DW}}^1_fX_fQ_f^21.95`$, where the sum is over all generations and the numerical factor comes from the light quarks through a Fujikawa relation  and it is the same in the present model; $`N_{\mathrm{DW}}`$ is the domain wall factor which is equal to 18 in the present model. We have $`c_{a\gamma \gamma }0.62`$, and not 0.75 as in the invisible axion of Refs. . The coupling of the axion with neutrinos in the present model may have astrophysics and/or cosmological consequences.

It is still possible to assign the PQ charge as in Sec. II of Ref.  and the PQ charges are quantized. However, in that case it appears as an extra Goldstone boson coupling with leptons and photons. Thus, in order to avoid such an extra Goldstone we have to break softly the $`Z_3`$ symmetry, say, by adding $`\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_l\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ in the scalar potential.

Summarizing, we have obtained a model with an automatic PQ symmetry, with an invisible axion which is protected against gravitational effects in the context of a multi-Higgs extension of the standard model. This is important for three reasons. First, multi-Higgs extensions, with or without supersymmetry, are used by the experimentalists as reference models for searching extra scalar particles . Second, these models are used by phenomenologists to get an appropriate mass matrix in the lepton and quark sectors. In fact, as we said before, all the extra fields that we have added to the minimal version of the model have already been introduced in the literature with different goals; we have just put all of them together. The necessity of protecting the invisible axion from gravitational effects, as we have done above, gives a rationale for those scalar multiplets. Finally, we would like to mention that one of the issues that remains arbitrary in most multi-Higgs extensions is the flavor violating neutral currents in the scalar sector. We can implement it or not at will. However, in our case these effects are automatically avoided since the Yukawa interactions are already determined for the $`Z_{13}`$ symmetry. Then, our model automatically does not have flavor changing neutral currents in all sectors of the model.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), and partially by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq).


format: text

text:
# Remarks on algebraic fiber spaces

## 1. Introduction

The following is the main theorem of \[F2\]. In this paper, we recall the Albanese dimension and collect its basic properties. Then we explain how to generalize Theorem 1.1 in Section 3. We note that Section 3 is not self-contained. Finally, we explain Fujita-Kawamata’s semi-positivity theorem and prove an inequality of irregularities for algebraic fiber spaces in Section 4.

###### Theorem 1.1 (Main theorem of \[F2\]).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties with connected fibers. Let $`F`$ be a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$. Assume that $`F`$ has maximal Albanese dimension. Then $`\kappa (X)\kappa (Y)+\kappa (F)`$.

The main theorem of this paper is Theorem 1.3 below. See also Theorem 3.4. Before we state the main theorem, we recall Albanese dimension and define Albanese fiber dimension for non-singular projective varieties. The notion of Albanese dimension was already defined by many mathematicians.

###### Definition 1.2 (Albanese dimension and Albanese fiber dimension).

Let $`X`$ be a non-singular projective variety. Let $`\mathrm{Alb}(X)`$ be the Albanese variety of $`X`$ and $`\alpha _X:X\mathrm{Alb}(X)`$ the Albanese map. We define the Albanese dimension $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$ as follows;

$$\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X):=dim(\alpha _X(X)).$$

We call $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X):=dimX\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$ the Albanese fiber dimension of $`X`$. By the definition, it is obvious that $`0\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)dimX`$ and $`0\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)dimX`$. We note that $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=\mathrm{rank}_{𝒪_X}(\mathrm{Im}(H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)_{}𝒪_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1))`$.

We say that $`X`$ has maximal Albanese dimension when $`dimX=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$, equivalently, $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=0`$.

The following is the main theorem of this paper, which is a generalization of Theorem 1.1. See also Theorem 3.4 below.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties with connected fibers. Let $`F`$ be a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)3`$. Then $`\kappa (X)\kappa (Y)+\kappa (F)`$.

The following corollary is obvious by Theorem 1.3 and Proposition 2.14 (2) below.

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties with connected fibers and $`F`$ a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$. Assume that $`dimF=4`$ and the irregularity $`q(F)>0`$. Then $`\kappa (X)\kappa (Y)+\kappa (F)`$.

The idea of the proof of Theorem 1.3 is to combine Theorem 1.1 with Theorem 1.5 below. It is a special case of \[Ka3, Corollary 1.2\].

###### Theorem 1.5 (c.f. \[Ka3, Corollary 1.2\]).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Assume that $`dimXdimY3`$ or sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$ are birationally equivalent to Abelian varieties. If $`\kappa (Y)0`$, then

$$\kappa (X)\kappa (F)+\mathrm{max}\{\kappa (Y),\mathrm{Var}(f)\},$$

where $`F`$ is a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$.

For $`\mathrm{Var}(f)`$ and other positive answers to Iitaka’s conjecture, see \[M, Sections 6, 7\].

We summarize the contents of this paper: In section 2, we define Albanese dimension and Albanese fiber dimension for complete (not necessarily non-singular) varieties and collect their several basic properties. Section 3 sketches the proof of the main theorem: Theorem 1.3. The proof depends on Theorem 1.1 and the arguments in \[F2\]. In section 4, which is an appendix, we explain Fujita-Kawamata’s semi-positivity theorem and prove an inequality about irregularities for algebraic fiber spaces (Theorem 4.13). It may be useful for the study of the relative Albanese map. The statement is as follows;

###### Theorem 1.6 (Inequality of irregularities).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties with connected fibers. Then

$$q(Y)q(X)q(Y)+q(F),$$

where $`F`$ is a general fiber of $`f`$.

We recommend the readers who are only interested in Theorem 1.6 to read Section 4 directly after checking the notation below. Section 4 is independent of the results in Sections 2 and 3. Section 4 is intended to the readers who are not familiar with the technique of the higher dimensional algebraic geometry. It is an expository section.

###### Acknowledgements.

I talked about parts of this paper at RIMS in June 2002. I would like to thank Professors Shigefumi Mori and Noboru Nakayama, who pointed out some mistakes. I was partially supported by the Inoue Foundation for Science.

We fix the notation used in this paper.

###### Notation.

We will work over the complex number field $``$ throughout this paper.

* A sufficiently general point $`z`$ (resp. subvariety $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) of the variety $`Z`$ means that $`z`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) is not contained in the countable union of certain proper Zariski closed subsets. We say that a subvariety $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (resp. point $`z`$) is general in $`Z`$ if it is not contained in a certain proper Zariski closed subsets.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism between varieties. A sufficiently general fiber (resp. general fiber) $`X_y=f^1(y)`$ of $`f`$ means that $`y`$ is a sufficiently general point (resp. general) in $`Y`$.
* An algebraic fiber space $`f:XY`$ is a proper surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$ with connected fibers.
* Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between varieties. We put $`dimf:=dimXdimY`$. Let $`X`$ be a variety and $``$ a coherent sheaf on $`X`$. We write $`h^i(X,)=dim_{}H^i(X,)`$. If $`X`$ is non-singular projective, then $`q(X):=h^1(X,𝒪_X)`$ denotes the irregularity of $`X`$.
* The words locally free sheaf and vector bundle are used interchangeably.
* Since most questions we are interested in are birational ones, we usually make birational modifications freely whenever it is necessary. If no confusion is likely, we denote the new objects with the old symbols.
* Let $`X`$ be a non-singular projective variety. If the Kodaira dimension $`\kappa (X)>0`$, then we have the Iitaka fibration $`f:XY`$, where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are non-singular projective varieties and $`Y`$ is of dimension $`\kappa (X)`$, such that the sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$ is non-singular, irreducible with $`\kappa =0`$. Since the Iitaka fibration is determined only up to birational equivalence, we used the above abuses in (v). For the basic properties of the Kodaira dimension and the Iitaka fibration, see \[U, Chapter III\] or \[M, Sections 1,2\].

## 2. Albanese dimension

In this section, we collect several basic properties of the Albanese dimension and the Albanese fiber dimension. The next lemma is easy to check.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`f:WV`$ be a birational morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Then $`(\mathrm{Alb}(V),\alpha _Vf)`$ is the Albanese variety of $`W`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)`$.

###### Proof.

This is obvious. See, for example, \[U, Proposition 9.12\]. ∎

By the above lemma, we can define the Albanese dimension and the Albanese fiber dimension for singular varieties.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complete variety. We define $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X):=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a non-singular projective variety that is birationally equivalent to $`X`$. We put $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X):=dimX\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$.

By Lemma 2.1, the Albanese dimension $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$ and the Albanese fiber dimension $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$ are well-defined birational invariants of $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.3 (Varieties of maximal Albanese dimension).

Let $`X`$ be a complete variety. If $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=0`$, then we say that $`X`$ is of maximal Albanese dimension or has maximal Albanese dimension. We note that $`\kappa (X)0`$ if $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=0`$. By \[Ka1, Theorem 1\], $`\kappa (X)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=0`$ implies that $`\alpha _X:X\mathrm{Alb}(X)`$ is birational.

###### Definition 2.4 (Albanese dimension of fibers).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. By taking the Stein factorization of $`f`$, we obtain;

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& & Z\\ & & \\ & Y& & .\end{array}$$

We shrink $`Z`$ suitably and take a finite étale cover $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{X}:=X\times _Z\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ has a section. Then, we obtain a relative Albanese map $`\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Z})\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ (see also 3.1 below). By this relative Albanese map, it is easy to see that the Albanese dimension $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X_z)`$ is independent of $`zU`$, where $`U`$ is a suitable non-empty Zariski open set of $`Z`$ and $`X_z`$ is a fiber of $`XZ`$. We note that we can assume that the irregularity $`q(X_z)`$ is independent of $`zU`$.

We put $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f):=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X_z)`$, where $`z`$ is a general point of $`Z`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f):=dimf\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)`$. We call $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)`$) the Albanese dimension (resp. Albanese fiber dimension) of $`f`$.

The following proposition will play important roles in the proof of the main theorem (c.f. \[F2, Proposition 2.3 (3)\]).

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`V`$ be a non-singular projective variety and $`X`$ a closed subvariety of $`V`$. If $`X`$ is general in $`V`$, then

$$\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)dimXdim\alpha _V(X)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be a resolution. We consider the following commutative diagram;

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\stackrel{~}{X}& & & & \mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X})\\ & & & & & & \\ V& & \stackrel{\alpha _V}{}& & \mathrm{Alb}(V).\end{array}$$

Since $`X`$ is general in $`V`$, $`dimVdimX\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)dim\alpha _V(X)`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)dimXdim\alpha _V(X)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)`$. ∎

The next example shows that the equality does not necessarily holds in Proposition 2.5.

###### Example 2.6.

Let $`X:=^1\times E`$, where $`E`$ is an elliptic curve. Let $`p:XE`$ be the second projection and $`C`$ an irreducible curve on $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(C)=0`$ unless $`p(C)`$ is a point. If $`C`$ is a fiber of $`p`$, then it is obvious that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(C)=1`$. We note that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=1`$.

###### Example 2.7.

Let $`A`$ be an Abelian surface and $`X`$ a one point blow-up of $`A`$. Let $`E`$ be the $`(1)`$-curve on $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(E)=1`$ since $`E^1`$. Therefore, $`1=\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(E)>\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(A)=0`$.

###### Corollary 2.8 (Easy addition of the Albanese dimension).

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Then

$$\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)dim\alpha _X(F)+dimY\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)+dimY.$$

###### Proof.

This easily follows from Proposition 2.5. We note that Definition 2.4. ∎

###### Example 2.9.

Let $`A`$ be an Abelian surface and $`H`$ be a non-singular very ample divisor on $`A`$. We take a general member $`H^{}|H|`$. We can write $`H^{}=H+(h)`$, where $`h(A)`$. Consider the rational map;

$$h:A^1.$$

By blowing up the points $`HH^{}`$, we obtain an algebraic fiber space;

$$f:XY,$$

which is birationally equivalent to $`h`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=2`$, $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)=1`$. Therefore, we can not replace $`dimY`$ with $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)`$ in Corollary 2.8.

The following claim is a variant of \[F2, Proposition 2.4\].

###### Proposition 2.10.

Let $`V`$ be a non-singular projective variety and $`f:VW`$ be the Iitaka fibration. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)`$. In particular, if $`V`$ is of maximal Albanese dimension, then so is $`W`$.

###### Proof.

We put $`m:=\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)`$ and $`n:=dimV`$. Let $`F`$ be a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$. Then $`\kappa (F)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)m`$ by Proposition 2.5. By \[Ka1, Theorem 1\], $`\alpha _F:F\mathrm{Alb}(F)`$ is an algebraic fiber space. By the following diagram;

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}F& & & & \mathrm{Alb}(F)\\ & & & & & & \\ V& & \stackrel{\alpha _V}{}& & \mathrm{Alb}(V),\end{array}$$

$`\alpha _V(F)`$ is an Abelian variety. Since there exists at most countably many Abelian subvarieties in $`\mathrm{Alb}(V)`$, there is an Abelian subvariety $`A`$ of $`\mathrm{Alb}(V)`$ such that $`\alpha _V(F)`$ is a translation of $`A`$ for general fibers $`F`$. We note that $`dimAdimF=ndimW=n\kappa (V)`$.

Let $`\psi :\mathrm{Alb}(V)\mathrm{Alb}(V)/A`$ be the quotient map. By the definition of $`A`$, $`\psi \alpha _V`$ induces a rational map $`\phi :W\mathrm{Alb}(V)/A`$. Since $`\mathrm{Alb}(V)/A`$ is Abelian, $`\phi `$ is a morphism. By the universality of $`(\mathrm{Alb}(W),\alpha _W)`$, $`\phi `$ factors through $`\mathrm{Alb}(W)`$. Therefore,

$`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)`$ $``$ $`dim\phi (W)`$
$`=`$ $`dim\psi (\alpha _V(V))`$
$``$ $`nmdimF`$
$`=`$ $`\kappa (V)m.`$
Note that $`dimW=\kappa (V)`$. Thus, we have the required inequality $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)m`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.11.

We can generalize Proposition 2.10 as follows without difficulties. Details are left to the readers.

Let $`VW`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. If $`q(f)=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(f)`$, then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)`$.

The following example says that the equality doesn’t necessarily hold in Proposition 2.10.

###### Example 2.12.

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface and $`C`$ is a non-singular projective curve with the genus $`g(C)2`$. We put $`X:=S\times C`$. Then the second projection $`XC`$ is the Iitaka fibration. It is easy to check that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=2`$ and $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(C)=0`$.

We collect several basic properties of the Albanese dimension and Albanese fiber dimension for the reader’s convenience. First, we recall the following obvious fact.

###### Lemma 2.13.

Let $`X`$ be a non-singular projective variety. Then the irregularity $`q(X)=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)=0`$.

###### Proposition 2.14.

(1) Let $`X`$ be a complete variety with $`dimX=n`$. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)n`$.

(2) Let $`X`$ be an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional non-singular projective variety with the irregularity $`q(X)>0`$. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)n`$.

(3) Let $`f:XY`$ be a generically finite morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Then $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)`$. Equivalently, $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)`$.

(4) Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)+dimf`$.

(5) Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be non-singular projective varieties. Then $`\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)+\mathrm{d}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)`$. Equivalently, $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X\times Y)=\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(X)+\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

The claims (1), (3), and (4) are obvious by the definition. For (2), we note that $`\alpha _X(X)`$ is not a point by Lemma 2.13. For (5), note that $`(\mathrm{Alb}(X)\times \mathrm{Alb}(Y),\alpha _X\times \alpha _Y)`$ is the Albanese variety of $`X\times Y`$ by the Künneth formula. ∎

###### Lemma 2.15.

Let $`V`$ be a non-singular projective variety and $`H`$ a non-singular ample divisor on $`V`$. Then $`\mathrm{Alb}(H)\mathrm{Alb}(V)`$ is surjective (resp. an isomorphism) if $`dimV2`$ (resp. $`dimV3`$).

###### Proof.

Apply the Kodaira vanishing theorem to $`H^1(V,𝒪_V(H))`$ and $`H^2(V,𝒪_V(H))`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.16.

Let $`V`$ be a non-singular projective variety and $`H`$ a non-singular ample divisor on $`V`$. Assume that $`H`$ is general in $`V`$. Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(H)=\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(V)1`$ if $`dimV3`$.

###### Proof.

It is obvious by Lemma 2.15. ∎

The following lemma is a key lemma in Section 3 (see 3.1 below).

###### Lemma 2.17.

Let $`X`$ be a non-singular projective variety and $`\alpha _X:X\mathrm{Alb}(X)`$ the Albanese mapping. We consider the Stein factorization;

$$XW\alpha _X(X).$$

Then $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(W)=0`$, that is, $`W`$ has maximal Albanese dimension.

###### Proof.

It is obvious by the definition. See Proposition 2.14 (3). ∎

## 3. Sketch of the proof of the main theorem

In this section, we sketch the proof of the main theorem: Theorem 1.3. We explain how to modify the arguments in \[F2, Section 4\]. For the details, see \[F2\].

###### 3.1Algebraic fiber space associated to the relative Albanese map.

Let $`f:XY`$ be an algebraic fiber space. From now on, we often replace $`Y`$ with its non-empty Zariski open set and $`X`$ with its inverse image. We denote the new objects with the old symbols. We can assume that $`f`$ is smooth. We can assume that there exists a finite étale cover $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ such that $`\pi `$ is Galois and $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{X}:=X\times _Y\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ has a section. Then there exists the relative Albanese map $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}:\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. We note that $`\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})\mathrm{Pic}^0(\mathrm{Pic}^0(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})/\stackrel{~}{Y})`$. Put $`k:=\mathrm{deg}\pi `$ and $`G:=\mathrm{Gal}(\stackrel{~}{Y}/Y)`$ the Galois group of $`\pi `$. Then $`G`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{X}=X\times _Y\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ and $`\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})=\mathrm{Alb}(X/Y)\times _Y\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. Thus $`G`$ acts on $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ as follows;

$$(g\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}})(x)=g^1(\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}(gx)),$$

where $`gG`$ and $`x\stackrel{~}{X}`$. We put $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}:=_{gG}g\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}:\stackrel{~}{X}\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{X}\times _{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\mathrm{Alb}(\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ be the graph of $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X\times _Y\mathrm{Alb}(X/Y)`$ the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. By the construction of $`\beta _{\stackrel{~}{X}/\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ induces a morphism $`\beta _{X/Y}:X\mathrm{Alb}(X/Y)`$ over $`Y`$. Let us see $`\beta _{X/Y}`$ fiberwise. Then it is the composition of the Albanese map and the multiplication by $`k`$ of the Albanese variety up to a translation. By taking the Stein factorization of $`\beta _{X/Y}`$, we obtain $`XZY`$. Compactify $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$. Then, after taking resolutions, we obtain;

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}f:X& \stackrel{g}{}& Z& \stackrel{h}{}& Y\end{array}$$

such that

* it is birationally equivalent to the given fiber space $`f:XY`$.
* $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`Z`$ are non-singular projective varieties.
* $`g`$ and $`h`$ are algebraic fiber spaces.
* the general fibers of $`h`$ have maximal Albanese dimension.
* if $`\kappa (X_y)0`$ for sufficiently general fibers $`X_y`$ of $`f`$, then $`\kappa (X_z)0`$ for sufficiently general points $`zZ`$. This is an easy consequence of the easy addition of the Kodaira dimension.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

Let $`f:XY`$ be the given fiber space.

###### Step 1.

If $`\kappa (Y)=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\kappa (F)=\mathrm{}`$, then the inequality is obviously true. From now on, we assume that $`\kappa (Y)0`$ and $`\kappa (F)0`$.

###### Step 2.

If $`\kappa (F)=0`$, then we construct the fiber space associated to the relative Albanese map 3.1, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}f:X& \stackrel{g}{}& Z& \stackrel{h}{}& Y,\end{array}$$

such that $`dimXdimZ3`$ by the assumption $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)3`$ and the sufficiently general fiber of $`h`$ are of maximal Albanese dimension by 3.1 (iv). By 3.1 (v), the Kodaira dimension of the sufficiently general fiber of $`g`$ is non-negative. Therefore, by Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.5,

$`\kappa (X)`$ $``$ $`\kappa (Z)+\kappa (X_z)`$
$``$ $`\kappa (Z)`$
$``$ $`\kappa (Y)+\kappa (Z_y)`$
$``$ $`\kappa (Y),`$
where $`z`$ (resp. $`y`$) is a sufficiently general point of $`Z`$ (resp. $`Y`$). Note that $`\kappa (Z_y)0`$ since $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(Z_y)=0`$ (see Definition 2.3). Therefore, we obtained the required inequality when $`\kappa (F)=0`$. From now on, we assume that $`\kappa (F)>0`$.

###### Step 3.

We recall the following useful lemma (\[F2, Lemma 4.2\]).

###### Lemma 3.2 (Induction Lemma).

Under the same notation as in Theorem 1.3, it is sufficient to prove that $`\kappa (X)>0`$ on the assumption that $`\kappa (Y)0`$ and $`\kappa (F)>0`$.

###### Remark 3.3.

We prove this lemma in \[F2\] on the assumption that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)=0`$. The same proof works on the weaker assumption that $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)3`$. We only have to replace the words “maximal Albanese dimension” with “$`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}()3`$” in the proof of \[F2, Lemma 4.2\]. The key point is Proposition 2.5. By this, the inductive arguments work. Details are left to the reader.

###### Step 4.

By taking the fiber space associated to the relative Albanese map 3.1, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}f:X& \stackrel{g}{}& Z& \stackrel{h}{}& Y.\end{array}$$

Since we want to prove $`\kappa (X)>0`$, we can assume that the sufficiently general fibers of $`g`$ and $`h`$ have zero Kodaira dimension by Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.5 (see Step 2 above). On this assumption, the general fibers of $`h`$ are birationally equivalent to Abelian varieties. We can further assume that $`\mathrm{Var}(g)=\mathrm{Var}(h)=0`$ by Theorem 1.5. Therefore, we can apply the same proof as in \[F2\]. Then we obtain $`\kappa (X)>0`$. For the details, see the latter part of \[F2, Proof of the theorem\]. We note that $`\kappa (F)1`$.

Therefore, we complete the proof. ∎

The following theorem is obvious by the proof of Theorem 1.3. For the conjecture $`C_{n,m}^+`$, see \[M, Section 7\] and Theorem 1.5.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Suppose that $`C_{n,m}^+`$ holds for every algebraic fiber spaces on the assumption that $`nmk`$. Let $`f:XY`$ be an algebraic fiber space. If $`\mathrm{fd}_{\mathrm{Alb}}(F)k`$, where $`F`$ is a sufficiently general fiber of $`f`$, then $`\kappa (X)\kappa (Y)+\kappa (F)`$.

## 4. Appendix: Semi-positivity and Inequality of Irregularities

The aim of this section is to explain Fujita-Kawamata’s semi-positivity theorem in the geometric situation, that is, we prove the semi-positivity of $`R^if_{}\omega _{X/Y}`$ on suitable assumptions, where $`f:XY`$ is a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties. Then we prove an inequality of irregularities for algebraic fiber spaces (see Theorem 4.13), which is an easy consequence of the semi-positivity theorem. This inequality seems to be useful when we treat (relative) Albanese variety.

In spite of its importance, the results and the statements about the semi-positivity theorem are scattered over various papers (see \[M, §5\]). This is one of the reason why I decided to write down this section <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1It took long time to find the statement \[Ka2, Theorem 2\]. I hope that this section will contribute to distribute Fujita-Kawamata’s semi-positivity package.. It is surprising that there are no good references about the semi-positivity of $`R^if_{}\omega _{X/Y}`$. Kawamata’s proof of the semi-positivity theorem (c.f. \[Ka2, Theorem 2\] and \[Ka1, §4\]) heavily relies on the asymptotic behavior of the Hodge metric near a puncture. It is not so easy for the non-expert to take it out from \[S, §6\]. We recommend the reader to see \[P, Sections 2, 3\] or \[Z\]<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2For the proof of the semi-positivity theorem \[Ka2, §4 (2)\], it is sufficient to know the asymptotic behavior of the Hodge metric of the VHS on a curve.. Our proof depends on \[Ka2, Proposition 1\], \[Ko1\], \[Ko2\], and Viehweg’s technique. It is essentially the same as \[Ko1, Corollary 3.7\]. It is much simpler than the original proof. We note that Kawamata’s proof can be applied to non-geometric situations. So, his theorem is much stronger than the results explained in this section. See the original article \[Ka1, §4\].

###### Remark 4.1.

This section is a supplement of \[M, §5 Part I\], especially, \[M, (5.3) Theorem\]. The joint paper with S. Mori \[FM\] generalized \[M, §5 Part II\] and treated several applications. The paper \[F1\] gave a precise proof of \[M, (5.15.9)(ii)\] from the Hodge theoretic viewpoint.

Let us recall the definition of semi-positive vector bundles.

###### Definition 4.2 (Semi-positive vector bundles).

Let $`V`$ be a complete variety and $``$ a locally free sheaf on $`V`$. We say that $``$ is semi-positive if and only if the tautological line bundle $`𝒪_{_V()}(1)`$ is nef on $`_V()`$. We note that $``$ is semi-positive if and only if for every complete curve $`C`$ and morphism $`g:CV`$ every quotient line bundle of $`g^{}`$ has non-negative degree.

The following result is obtained by Kollár and Nakayama. For the details, see, for example, the original articles \[Ko2, Theorem 2.6\], \[N, Theorem 1\], or \[M, (5.3), (5.4)\].

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`f:VW`$ be a projective surjective morphism between non-singular varieties. We assume that there exists a simple normal crossing divisor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`W`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth over $`W\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`R^if_{}𝒪_V`$ and $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ are locally free for every $`i`$. Put $`W_0:=W\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`V_0:=f^1(W_0)`$, $`f_0:=f|_{V_0}`$, and $`k:=dimf`$. Moreover, if all the local monodromies on $`R^{k+i}f_0_{V_0}`$ around $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are unipotent, then $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is characterized by the canonical extension of $`R^{k+i}f_0_{V_0}`$.

The following is the main theorem of this section (see \[M, (5.3) Theorem\]).

###### Theorem 4.4 (Semi-positivity theorem).

Let $`f:VW`$ be a surjective morphism between non-singular projective varieties with $`k:=dimf`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a simple normal crossing divisor on $`W`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth over $`W_0:=W\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Put $`V_0:=f^1(W_0)`$ and $`f_0:=f|_{V_0}`$. We assume that all the local monodromies on $`R^{k+i}f_0_{V_0}`$ around $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are unipotent. Then $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is a semi-positive vector bundle on $`W`$.

Before we prove Theorem 4.4, we fix the notation and convention used below.

###### 4.5.

Let $`f:VW`$ be a surjective morphism between varieties. Let

$$f^s:V^s:=V\times _WV\times _W\mathrm{}\times _WVW\text{(product taken }s\text{ times)}$$

$$V^{(s)}=\text{desingularization of}V^s,f^{(s)}:V^{(s)}W.$$

###### Lemma 4.6.

On the same assumption as in Theorem 4.4, we have that $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})^s`$ is a direct summand of $`R^{si}f_{}^{(s)}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$ for every positive integer $`s`$. We note that $`(f_{}\omega _{V/W})^sf_{}^{(s)}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$ for every positive integer $`s`$.

###### Proof.

We use the induction on $`s`$. First, when $`s=1`$, the claim is obvious. Next, we assume that $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})^{(s1)}`$ is a direct summand of $`R^{(s1)i}f_{}^{(s1)}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W}`$. We consider the following commutative diagram;

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}V& & V\times _WV^{(s1)}& & V^{(s)}\\ f& & & & g& & \\ W& \underset{f^{(s1)}}{}& V^{(s1)}& \underset{id}{}& V^{(s1)}.\end{array}$$

We can assume that $`(f^{(s1)})^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is simple normal crossing without loss of generality. Since $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is the canonical extension of $`R^if_0\omega _{V_0/W_0}`$ by Theorem 4.3 (see \[Ko2, Theorem 2.6\], \[N, Theorem 1\]), we have the following isomorphism: $`f^{(s1)}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}R^ig_{}\omega _{V^{(s)}/V^{(s1)}}`$ by \[Ka2, Proposition\]. Therefore,

$`R^jf_{}^{(s1)}R^ig_{}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$ $``$ $`R^jf_{}^{(s1)}R^ig_{}(\omega _{V^{(s)}/V^{(s1)}}g^{}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W})`$
$``$ $`R^jf_{}^{(s1)}(R^ig_{}\omega _{V^{(s)}/V^{(s1)}}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W})`$
$``$ $`R^jf_{}^{(s1)}(f^{(s1)}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W})`$
$``$ $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}R^jf_{}^{(s1)}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W},`$
for every $`j`$. By \[Ko2, Theorem 3.4\], $`R^{(s1)i}f_{}^{(s1)}R^ig_{}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$ is a direct summand of $`R^{si}f_{}^{(s)}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$. We assumed that $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})^{(s1)}`$ is a direct summand of $`R^{(s1)i}f_{}^{(s1)}\omega _{V^{(s1)}/W}`$. Therefore, $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})^s`$ is a direct summand of $`R^{si}f_{}^{(s)}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$. ∎

The following lemma is obvious by Kollár’s vanishing theorem \[Ko1, Theorem 2.1\]. For the regularities, see \[Kl, p.307 Definitions 1, 2 and Proposition 1\].

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a surjective morphism between projective varieties, $`X`$ non-singular, $`m:=dimY+1`$. Let $`L`$ be an ample line bundle on $`Y`$ which is generated by its global sections. Then $`R^if_{}\omega _X`$ is $`m`$-regular (with respect to $`L`$) for every $`i`$. That is, $`H^j(Y,R^if_{}\omega _XL^{(mj)})=0`$ for every $`j>0`$. In particular, $`R^if_{}\omega _XL^l`$ is generated by its global sections for $`lm`$.

The next lemma is not difficult to prove. For the proof, see, for example, \[Ko1, Proof of Corollary 3.7\].

###### Lemma 4.8.

Let $``$ be a vector bundle on a complete variety $`Y`$. Assume that there exists a line bundle $``$ on $`Y`$ and $`^s`$ is generated by its global sections for every $`s`$. Then $``$ is semi-positive.

###### Sketch of the proof.

It is not difficult to see that $`𝒪_{_Y()}(s)\pi ^{}`$ is nef for every $`s`$, where $`\pi :_Y()Y`$. Therefore, $`𝒪_{_Y()}(1)`$ is nef. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.4.

Let $`L`$ be an ample line bundle on $`W`$ which is generated by its global sections. We put $`:=R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ and $`:=L^m\omega _W`$, where $`m=dimY+1`$. Then $`R^{si}f_{}^{(s)}\omega _{V^{(s)}/W}`$ is generated by its global sections for every $`s`$ by Lemma 4.7. By Lemma 4.6, $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})^s`$ is generated by its global sections. Therefore, $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is semi-positive by Lemma 4.8. ∎

The following theorem is well-known. We write it for the reader’s convenience. We will use it in the proof of Theorem 4.13. We reduce it to Theorem 4.4 by the semi-stable reduction theorem.

###### Theorem 4.9.

In Theorem 4.4, if $`W`$ is a curve, then the assumption on the monodoromies is not necessary, that is, $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is always semi-positive for every $`i`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`\mathrm{Supp}f^{}(P)`$ is simple normal crossing for every point $`PW`$. By the semi-stable reduction theorem, we consider the following commutative diagram;

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}V& & V\times _W\stackrel{~}{W}& \stackrel{\nu }{}& V^{}& & \stackrel{~}{V}\\ f& & g& & f^{}& & \stackrel{~}{f}& & \\ W& \underset{\pi }{}& \stackrel{~}{W}& \underset{id}{}& \stackrel{~}{W}& \underset{id}{}& \stackrel{~}{W},\end{array}$$

where $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{W}W`$ is a finite cover, $`\nu `$ is the normalization, and $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is a semi-stable reduction of $`f`$. By the flat base change theorem, we have $`\pi ^{}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}R^ig_{}\omega _{V\times _W\stackrel{~}{W}/\stackrel{~}{W}}`$ for every $`i`$. We consider the following exact sequence, which is induced by the trace map;

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & \nu _{}\omega _{V^{}/\stackrel{~}{W}}& \stackrel{tr}{}& \omega _{V\times _W\stackrel{~}{W}/\stackrel{~}{W}}& & \delta & & 0,\end{array}$$

where $`\delta `$ is the cokernel of $`tr`$. Since $`\mathrm{Supp}R^{i1}g_{}\delta \stackrel{~}{W}`$, we obtain a generically isomorphic inclusion;

$$0R^if_{}^{}\omega _{V^{}/\stackrel{~}{W}}R^i\stackrel{~}{f}_{}\omega _{\stackrel{~}{V}/\stackrel{~}{W}}R^ig_{}\omega _{V\times _W\stackrel{~}{W}/\stackrel{~}{W}}\pi ^{}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}.$$

We note that $`\nu `$ is finite and $`V^{}`$ has at worst rational Gorenstein singularities. Since $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is semi-stable, all the local monodromies are unipotent (see, for example, \[M, (4.6.1)\]). Thus $`R^i\stackrel{~}{f}_{}\omega _{\stackrel{~}{V}/\stackrel{~}{W}}`$ is semi-positive by Theorem 4.4. By the above inclusion, we can check easily that $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is semi-positive. We note that $`W`$ is a curve. ∎

The following theorem is a slight generalization of Theorem 4.4. It seems to be well-known to specialists. It is buried in Kawamata’s proof of the semi-positivity theorem (see \[Ka1, §4\]). We note that $`W`$ is not necessarily complete in Theorem 4.10 below.

###### Theorem 4.10.

Let $`f:VW`$ be a proper surjective morphism between non-singular varieties with connected fibers. Assume that there exists a simple normal crossing divisor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`W`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth over $`W_0:=W\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We put $`V_0:=f^1(W_0)`$, $`f_0:=f|_{V_0}`$, and $`k:=dimf`$. We assume that all the local monodromies on $`R^{k+i}f_0_{V_0}`$ around $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are unipotent. Let $`C`$ be a complete curve on $`W`$. Then the restriction $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})|_C`$ is semi-positive.

###### Proof.

By Chow’s lemma, desingularization theorem, and \[Ka2, Proposition 1\], we can assume that $`V`$ and $`W`$ are quasi-projective and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor. We note that if $`\psi :W^{}W`$ is a proper birational morphism from a quasi-projective variety, then there exists a complete curve $`C^{}`$ on $`W^{}`$ such that $`\psi (C^{})=C`$. Let $`g:\stackrel{~}{C}CW`$ be the normalization of $`C`$. If $`CW_0\mathrm{}`$, then $`g^{}R^if_{}\omega _{X/Y}R^ih_{}\omega _{D/\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ is semi-positive by Theorem 4.4, where $`D`$ is a desingularization of the main component of $`V\times _W\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`h:D\stackrel{~}{C}`$. So, we have to treat the case when $`C\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By cutting $`W`$, we can take an irreducible surface $`S`$ on $`W`$ such that $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`CS`$. Take a desingularization $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{S}SW`$ of $`S`$ such that $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is simple normal crossing on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and there is a smooth projective irreducible curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with $`\pi (\stackrel{~}{C})=C`$. By \[Ka2, Proposition 1\], we have $`\pi ^{}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}R^ih_{}\omega _{T/\stackrel{~}{S}}`$, where $`T`$ is a desingularization of the main component of $`V\times _W\stackrel{~}{S}`$ and $`h:T\stackrel{~}{S}`$. So, it is sufficient to check that $`\pi ^{}R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}R^ih_{}\omega _{T/\stackrel{~}{S}}`$ is semi-positive on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. We compactify $`h:T\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Then we obtain an algebraic fiber space $`\overline{h}:\overline{T}\overline{S}`$. After modifying $`\overline{h}`$ birationally, we can assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=(\overline{S}\stackrel{~}{S})\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`\overline{S}`$. We can assume that $`\overline{h}`$ is smooth over $`\overline{S}\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We note that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. By Kawamata’s covering trick \[Ka1, Theorem 17\], we can take a finite cover $`\phi :S^{}\overline{S}`$ which induces a unipotent reduction $`h^{}:T^{}S^{}`$ (see \[Ka1, Corollary 18\] or \[M, (4.5)\]). We put $`U:=\phi ^1(\stackrel{~}{S})`$. By Theorem 4.4, $`R^ih_{}^{}\omega _{T^{}/S^{}}`$ is semi-positive and $`(R^ih_{}^{}\omega _{T^{}/S^{}})|_U\phi ^{}((R^i\overline{h}_{}\omega _{\overline{T}/\overline{S}})|_{\stackrel{~}{S}})\phi ^{}(R^ih_{}\omega _{T/\stackrel{~}{S}})`$. Therefore, it is easy to check that $`(R^ih_{}\omega _{T/\stackrel{~}{S}})|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ is semi-positive since $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{S}`$. So, we obtain the required result. ∎

The following corollary is obvious by Theorem 4.10. It will be useful when we study algebraic fiber spaces in the relative setting.

###### Corollary 4.11.

In the same notation and assumptions as in Theorem 4.10, we further assume that $`W`$ is proper over a variety $`B`$. Then $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is semi-positive over $`B`$, that is, $`(R^if_{}\omega _{V/W})|_F`$ is semi-positive for every fiber $`F`$ of $`WB`$.

###### Remark 4.12.

In the proof of Theorem 4.10, we only use the following fact that $`R^if_{}\omega _{V/W}`$ is characterized as the canonical extension of the bottom Hodge filtration.

The next theorem is an easy consequence of the semi-positivity theorem. For the proof, we use Theorem 4.9.

###### Theorem 4.13.

Let $`f:XY`$ be an algebraic fiber space. Then

$$q(Y)q(X)q(Y)+q(F),$$

where $`F`$ is a general fiber. Moreover, if $`q(F)=0`$, then $`\mathrm{Alb}(X)\mathrm{Alb}(Y)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

By modifying $`f`$ birationally, we can assume that there exists a simple normal crossing divisor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`Y`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth over $`Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{Supp}f^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is simple normal crossing. By Leray’s spectral sequence, we have

$$0H^1(Y,𝒪_Y)H^1(X,𝒪_X)H^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_X)0.$$

We note that $`H^2(Y,𝒪_Y)H^2(X,𝒪_X)`$ is injective. Therefore, $`q(Y)q(X)=q(Y)+h^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_X)`$. Let $`H`$ be a very ample divisor on $`Y`$ such that $`h^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_X𝒪_Y(H))=0`$. We take $`H`$ general. We have;

$$0R^1f_{}𝒪_X𝒪_Y(H)R^1f_{}𝒪_XR^1f_{}𝒪_{f^1H}0.$$

Thus, we obtain that $`h^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_X)h^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_{f^1H})`$. By repeating this argument, we can assume that $`Y`$ is a curve. By Theorem 4.9, $`(R^if_{}𝒪_X)^{}R^{dimfi}\omega _{X/Y}`$ is semi-positive. Then $`h^0(Y,R^1f_{}𝒪_X)q(F)`$ by Lemma 4.14 below. We note that the rank of $`R^1f_{}𝒪_X`$ is $`q(F)`$. Thus, we get the required inequality. The latter part is obvious. ∎

###### Lemma 4.14.

Let $``$ be a vector bundle on a non-singular projective curve $`V`$. Assume that the dual vector bundle $`^{}`$ is semi-positive. Then $`h^0(V,)r`$. In particular, if $`h^0(V,)=r`$, then $``$ is trivial.

###### Proof.

We take a basis $`\{\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _l\}`$ of $`H^0(V,)`$. We have to prove that $`lk`$. We define $`\psi _i:=\phi _1\mathrm{}\phi _i:𝒪_V^i`$ for every $`i`$. We put $`\psi _0=0`$ for inductive arguments.

###### Claim.

$`\mathrm{Im}\psi _i𝒪_V^i`$ is a subbundle of $``$ for every $`i`$, where $`\mathrm{Im}\psi _i`$ denotes the image of $`\psi _i`$.

###### Proof of Claim.

We use the induction on $`i`$. We assume that $`\mathrm{Im}\psi _{i1}𝒪_V^{(i1)}`$ is a subbundle of $``$. Thus, we have $`h^0(V,\mathrm{Im}\psi _{i1})=i1`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{Im}\psi _i`$ has rank $`i`$. Let $``$ be the double dual of $`\mathrm{Im}\psi _i`$. Then $``$ is a rank $`i`$ subbundle of $``$ such that $`\psi _i`$ factors through $``$. Since $`^{}`$ is semi-positive by the semi-positivity of $`^{}`$ and $``$ is semi-positive by the definition of $``$, we obtain that $`\psi _i:𝒪_V^i`$. ∎

Thus we obtain that $`lr`$, that is, $`h^0(V,)r`$. The latter part is obvious. ∎

The following corollary is a slight generalization of \[Ka1, Corollary 2\]. The proof is obvious by Theorem 4.13.

###### Corollary 4.15.

Let $`f:XY`$ be an algebraic fiber space. Assume that sufficiently general fibers have zero Kodaira dimension. Then $`0q(X)q(Y)q(F)dimf`$, where $`F`$ is a general fiber of $`f`$. Furthermore, if $`q(X)q(Y)=dimf`$, then general fibers are birationally equivalent to Abelian varieties.


text:
# FERMILAB-Pub-02/266-T A Model of 𝐶𝑃𝑇 Violation for Neutrinos

## 1 Introduction

$`CPT`$ violating neutrino masses allow the possibility - of reconciling the LSND , atmospheric , and solar oscillation  data without resorting to sterile neutrinos. As argued in our previous work , there are good reasons to imagine that $`CPT`$ violating dynamics couples directly to the neutrino sector, but not to other Standard Model degrees of freedom. For $`CPT`$ violating Dirac mass splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ on the order of 1 eV or less, the feed-through to other Standard Model processes is completely negligible, suppressed by $`G_F(\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2`$ times loop factors.

$`CPT`$ violation in the neutrino sector would be a very exciting development, and raises important theoretical issues. $`CPT`$ is conserved quite generally in local relativistic quantum field theory , and even in large classes of nonlocal effective field theories . While it is straightforward to construct field theories which break $`CPT`$ via spontaneous violation of Lorentz invariance , this would seem to entail other drastic consequences , unless restricted to the context of cosmology. As far as is known, $`CPT`$ is not gauged in string theory, and thus there is no general argument that it should be respected at high energies . However this begs the question of how $`CPT`$ violation will appear in the effective low energy theory.

If $`CPT`$ violation is observed in the neutrino sector, must we give up either on-shell Lorentz invariance or effective quantum field theory in our description of the low energy world? To answer this question, we have constructed what we believe is the minimal relativistic quantum field theory model of explicitly $`CPT`$ violating neutrinos. The $`CPT`$ violation arises from a Dirac type local bilinear coupling $`\overline{\nu }_LN_R+\overline{N}_R\nu _L`$, where $`\nu _L(x)`$ is the usual left-handed Dirac-Weyl neutrino that occupies an electroweak doublet with a Standard Model charged lepton. The other field, $`N_R(x)`$, is a Standard Model singlet fermion with novel properties, which we call homeotic.

In the next section we develop the relativistic quantum field theory of homeotic fermions, in analogy to that of Dirac and Dirac-Weyl fermions. Homeotic fermions obey standard Fermi statistics, and we exhibit interacting lagrangian field theories for homeotic fermions which are both unitary and causal. Not surprisingly, the theory of free homeotic fermions is physically equivalent to the usual field theory of free Dirac fermions: it has the same degrees of freedom, the same hamiltonian and the same symmetries. However the homeotic free field theory has a nonlocal lagrangian, and the homeotic fields have noncanonical anticommutation relations.

By adding nonlocal relativistic four-fermion interactions to the free homeotic theory, we obtain a causal interacting field theory with a well-defined unitary S-matrix. Indeed this interacting homeotic theory appears to have the same S-matrix as Dirac theory with a local four-fermion interaction. The homeotic theory with only local four-fermion interactions, on the other hand, is acausal and does not have a well-defined S-matrix. Naively this theory would violate crossing symmetry at tree level.

The homeotic field theories are $`CPT`$ invariant, but $`CPT`$ is of necessity realized by a different symmetry operator than for Dirac theory. The bilinear mass term discussed above, which couples a left-handed Dirac-Weyl fermion to a right-handed homeotic fermion, thus violates $`CPT`$.

The resulting field theory provides the simplest relativistic quantum field theory model for $`CPT`$ violating neutrino oscillations. There are still issues in understanding the off-shell description of neutrino propagation, as discussed in the work of Greenberg . But there is great virtue in having a simple explicit model.

## 2 Free homeotic fermions

In this section we develop the field theory of free homeotic fermions, in analogy with free Dirac theory. We employ the notation and conventions of Peskin and Schroeder . Recall that in Dirac theory we introduce positive and negative frequency solutions of the Dirac equation:

$`\psi _+(x)`$ $`=u_+(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx},p^2=m^2,p_0>0;`$ (2.1)
$`\psi _{}(x)`$ $`=u_{}(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx},p^2=m^2,p_0<0,`$ (2.2)
and the 4-component spinors $`u_+(p)`$, $`u_{}(p)`$ satisfy

$$(\overline{)\text{p}}m)u_\pm (p)=0.$$
(2.3)
Note that $`u_+(p)`$, $`u_{}(p)`$ are usually written as $`u(p)`$, $`v(p)`$, respectively, where $`u(p)`$, $`v(p)`$ obey the equations

$`(\overline{)\text{p}}m)u(p)=0,`$ (2.4)
$`(\text{}\overline{)\text{p}}m)v(p)=0.`$ (2.5)
The homeotic theory is built from spinors $`u_+(p)`$, $`u_{}(p)`$ which satisfy

$$(\overline{)\text{p}}mϵ(p_0))u_\pm (p)=0,$$
(2.6)
where $`ϵ(p_0)`$ is the sign function of the standard delta calculus. Note that solutions of Eq. (2.6) automatically satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation and thus the usual on-shell dispersion relation $`p^2=m^2`$. This in turn implies that the equation of motion Eq. (2.6) is Lorentz covariant, since $`ϵ(p_0)`$ is Lorentz invariant for timelike 4-momenta.

Rewriting $`u_+(p)`$, $`u_{}(p)`$ as $`u(p)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}(p)`$, respectively, we see that homeotic fermions are built out two sets of $`u`$-spinors, both satisfying the usual positive frequency relation

$$(\overline{)\text{p}}m)u(p)=(\overline{)\text{p}}m)\stackrel{~}{u}(p)=0.$$
(2.7)
On-shell fields of the homeotic theory are assembled from the obvious plane wave expansions:

$`\psi (x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_𝐩}}\underset{s}{}\left[a_𝐩^su^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx}+b_𝐩^s\stackrel{~}{u}^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx}\right]},`$ (2.8)
$`\psi ^{}(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2E_𝐩}}\underset{s}{}\left[b_𝐩^s\stackrel{~}{u}^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx}+a_𝐩^su^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ipx}\right]},`$ (2.10)
where $`𝐩`$ denotes 3-momenta, and $`s=1`$, 2, is a spin label. The homeotic field $`\psi (x)`$ is a solution of the equation of motion

$$i\overline{)}\psi (t,𝐱)=\frac{im}{\pi }𝐏𝑑t^{}\frac{1}{tt^{}}\psi (t^{},𝐱),$$
(2.11)
where P denotes the principal value integral, which we will now assume throughout.

This equation of motion can be obtained from variation of the following nonlocal action:

$$𝐒=d^4x\overline{\psi }(x)i\overline{)}\psi (x)+\frac{im}{\pi }d^3x𝑑t𝑑t^{}\overline{\psi }(t,𝐱)\frac{1}{tt^{}}\psi (t^{},𝐱).$$
(2.12)
This action is Lorentz invariant, as can be seen by rewriting the mass term as

$$\frac{im}{\pi }d^3xd^3x^{}𝑑t𝑑t^{}\overline{\psi }(t,𝐱)\frac{\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐱^{})}{tt^{}}\psi (t^{},𝐱^{}),$$
(2.13)
and observing that the integral

$$d^3x𝑑t\frac{\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱)}{t}f(t,𝐱)$$
(2.14)
with an arbitrary scalar function $`f(t,𝐱)`$, is invariant under boosts.

To quantize this theory, we treat $`a_𝐩^s`$ and $`b_𝐩^s`$ as anticommuting Fock operators obeying

$$\{a_𝐩^r,a_𝐪^s\}=\{b_𝐩^r,b_𝐪^s\}=(2\pi )^3\delta ^{(3)}(𝐩𝐪)\delta ^{rs}.$$
(2.15)
These relations guarantee conventional Fermi statistics. The Hilbert space built from the corresponding Fock vacuum supports a standard representation of the Lorentz group.

The homeotic fields $`\psi (x)`$ do not have canonical anticommutation relations:

$`\{\psi _a^{}(x),\psi _b(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{s}{}\frac{1}{2E_𝐩}\left[u_a^s(p)u_b^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ip(xy)}+\stackrel{~}{u}_a^s(p)\stackrel{~}{u}_b^s(p)\mathrm{e}^{ip(xy)}\right]_{x^0=y^0}}`$ (2.16)
$`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab}+m(\gamma ^0)_{ab}\left[D(xy)+D(yx)\right],`$ (2.18)
where $`D(xy)`$ is the familiar function invariant under proper orthochronous Lorentz transformations:

$$D(xy)=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2E_𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{ip(xy)}.$$
(2.19)
The general anticommutator function  of the homeotic theory is given by

$$\{\overline{\psi }_a(x),\psi _b(y)\}=\left(i\overline{)}_x+m\right)_{ab}D(xy)+\left(i\overline{)}_y+m\right)_{ab}D(yx),$$
(2.20)
which differs from the Dirac result by the sign of the first term proportional to $`m`$.

An important feature of Eq. (2.18) is that the noncanonical term occurs only for anticommuting homeotic fermion components of opposite chiralities:

$`\{\psi _{La}^{}(x),\psi _{Lb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab},`$ (2.21)
$`\{\psi _{Ra}^{}(x),\psi _{Rb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab},`$ (2.22)
$`\{\psi _{La}^{}(x),\psi _{Rb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`m\delta _{ab}\left[D(xy)+D(yx)\right].`$ (2.23)
We stress again that homeotic fermions obey conventional Fermi statistics; this was guaranteed from the start by Eqs. (2.15).

Note that in the strict nonrelativistic limit ($`|𝐩|0`$ with $`m`$ fixed) the equal-time anticommutators reduce to

$`\{\psi _{La}^{}(x),\psi _{Lb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab},`$ (2.24)
$`\{\psi _{Ra}^{}(x),\psi _{Rb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab},`$ (2.25)
$`\{\psi _{La}^{}(x),\psi _{Rb}(y)\}_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲)\delta _{ab},`$ (2.26)
where the third anticommutator would vanish if these were Dirac fermions. Evidently one of the zero momentum modes, $`\psi _L`$$`+`$$`\psi _R`$, is canonically quantized, while the other one, $`\psi _L`$$``$$`\psi _R`$, has a vanishing anticommutator. Thus zero mode quantization requires special care in homeotic theory.

The symmetrized stress-energy tensor derived from the action (2.12) has the same form as in Dirac theory and is conserved on-shell:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }(x)=\frac{i}{4}[\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu ^\nu \psi ^\nu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi +(\mu \nu )].$$
(2.27)
From this expression we obtain the hamiltonian of the free homeotic theory:

$`𝐇`$ $`={\displaystyle d^3x(x)}={\displaystyle d^3x\mathrm{\Theta }^{00}(x)}={\displaystyle d^3x\frac{i}{2}\left[\psi ^{}\dot{\psi }\dot{\psi }^{}\psi \right]}`$ (2.28)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{s}{}E_𝐩\left[a_𝐩^sa_𝐩^s+b_𝐩^sb_𝐩^s\right]},`$ (2.29)
where we have dropped the normal ordering constant. Similarly, we obtain the momentum operator:

$$𝐏^𝐢=d^3x\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}(x)=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{s}{}𝐩^𝐢\left[a_𝐩^sa_𝐩^s+b_𝐩^sb_𝐩^s\right].$$
(2.30)
The boost operator is defined by

$$𝐊^𝐢=d^3x\left(x^i\mathrm{\Theta }^{00}x^0\mathrm{\Theta }^{0i}\right)=t𝐏^𝐢+d^3x𝐱^𝐢(x).$$
(2.31)
As a straightforward but nontrivial check of Lorentz invariance, one can verify that the definitions (2.29-2.31) together with the anticommutation relations (2.20) produce the on-shell relation

$$[𝐊^𝐢,𝐇]=i𝐏^𝐢.$$
(2.32)
The action (2.12) also has a global $`U(1)`$ symmetry under phase rotations of $`\psi (x)`$. The conserved charge is

$$Q=\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{s}{}\left[a_𝐩^sa_𝐩^sb_𝐩^sb_𝐩^s\right].$$
(2.33)
These symmetry operators (2.29-2.33) are the same as in Dirac theory. The matrix elements of the free homeotic theory are in one-to-one equivalence with matrix elements of free Dirac theory.

## 3 Interacting homeotic fermions

In the free homeotic theory, the conserved charge $`Q`$ of Eq. (2.33) is not given by the spatial integral of a local charge density. Instead (following a trick of Pauli’s ) we find the expression

$`Q={\displaystyle d^3x\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\psi }`$ (3.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle d^3x\frac{1}{t_1t_2}\left[\overline{\psi }(t_1,𝐱)\psi (t_2,𝐱)+\overline{\psi }(t_2,𝐱)\psi (t_1,𝐱)\right]}.`$ (3.2)
The corresponding conserved current is:

$$J^\mu (x)=J_D^\mu (x)+\delta ^{\mu 0}\frac{m}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t_1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2\frac{1}{t_1t_2}\left[\overline{\psi }(t_1,𝐱)\psi (t_2,𝐱)+\overline{\psi }(t_2,𝐱)\psi (t_1,𝐱)\right],$$
(3.3)
where $`J_D^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$ is the conserved current of Dirac theory.

As with any conserved abelian current in the canonical formalism, the following current algebra relations hold:

$`[J^0(x),J^0(y)]_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.4)
$`[J^0(x),J^i(y)]_{x^0=y^0}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.5)
$`[J^i(x),J^j(y)]_{x^0=y^0}`$ $``$ $`\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲),`$ (3.6)
where it is understood that in the canonical formalism we fail to pick up the expected Schwinger term in the second and third expression .

### 3.1 A causal interacting theory

We can construct a model of interacting homeotic fermions by introducing a simple current-current four-fermion interaction:

$$H_I(t)=d^3x_I(x)=d^3xJ^\mu (x)J_\mu (x).$$
(3.7)
Since the homeotic fields do not obey canonical anticommutation relations, we must carefully define what we mean by a relativistic quantum field theory. The obvious approach is to go to the interaction picture and attempt to construct a perturbative S-matrix. One can easily verify that the homeotic free hamiltonian $`H_0`$ generates conventional interaction picture time evolution:

$$H_I(t)=\mathrm{e}^{iH_0t}H_I\mathrm{e}^{iH_0t},$$
(3.8)
where it is understood that the mass parameter which appears in $`H_0`$, and thus in the anticommutation relations (2.18), is the physical mass.

The perturbative S-matrix is defined as the matix elements of the Dyson series:

$$𝒮=1+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(i)^n}{n!}d^4x_1\mathrm{}d^4x_nT\left\{_I(x_1)\mathrm{}_I(x_n)\right\},$$
(3.9)
where $`T`$ denotes time-ordering. The current algbera relations (3.6) imply the causality condition

$$[_I(x),_I(y)]_{x^0=y^0}\delta ^{(3)}(𝐱𝐲),$$
(3.10)
which in turn guarantees the Lorentz invariance of the time-ordering in (3.9). Together with the properties of the free homeotic theory detailed above, this is sufficient to prove that our interacting homeotic theory has a unitary Lorentz invariant S-matrix. This in turn can be regarded as proof that the homeotic theory is a sensible relativistic quantum field theory. Indeed this S-matrix appears equivalent to what we would have obtained from Dirac theory with an analogous current-current interaction.

This interacting homeotic theory is quite a rara avis: despite the fact that the lagrangian is highly nonlocal the field theory is unitary, causal, and Lorentz invariant. It also exhibits crossing symmetry and conserves $`CPT`$. However, $`CPT`$ is not realized in the standard way. The $`CPT`$ operator on Dirac spinors is $`\gamma ^5`$, but on homeotic spinors it is $`\gamma ^2\gamma ^5`$. This difference comes from the charge conjugation operation (time reversal and parity are realized in the standard way) and is the direct consequence of the lack of $`v(p)`$ spinors in the homeotic theory. Whereas in Dirac theory charge conjugation relates a $`u(p)`$ spinor to $`\gamma ^2v^{}(p)`$, in homeotic theory it merely exchanges $`u(p)\stackrel{~}{u}(p)`$. Note that the nonstandard $`CPT`$ properties of homeotic theory are essential to reconciling $`CPT`$ conservation with the existence of the conserved current (3.3): both of the terms in (3.3) are even under $`CPT`$, in contrast to the Dirac case where $`\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$ is $`CPT`$ odd.

The perturbative Feynman rules of this theory are easily derived. The propagator is defined unambiguously following the discussion of Weinberg :

$$i\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^h(x,y)=\theta (x^0y^0)\{\psi _a^+(x),\psi _{b}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}(y)\}\theta (y^0x^0)\{\psi _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(y),\psi _a^{}(x)\},$$
(3.11)
where $`\psi ^\pm (x)`$ denote the positive/negative frequency contributions to $`\psi (x)`$. A simple calculation gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ab}^h(x,y)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i\left[\overline{)\text{p}}+mϵ(p_0)\right]_{ab}}{p^2m^2+iϵ}\mathrm{e}^{ip(xy)}.$$
(3.12)
This propagator is not equivalent to the usual Feynman propagator and does not give causal propagation. However there is a conspiracy in this theory: acausal propagation combined with nonlocal interactions yield a causal theory, as exemplified by the S-matrix.

### 3.2 An acausal interacting theory

Suppose that instead of (3.7) we had attempted to define an interacting homeotic theory from a local four-fermi interaction:

$$H_I(t)=d^3x_I(x)=d^3x(\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi )(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi ).$$
(3.13)
Despite the fact that this theory has a simple local interaction, it exhibits strange properties. This theory preserves the global $`U(1)`$ invariance, as demonstrated by the fact that the local “current” $`J_D^\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$ commutes with the charge $`Q`$ defined in (3.2). However this local current is not conserved, and does not obey the current algebra relations (3.6). We find instead

$$[J^\mu (x),J^\nu (y)]_{x^0=y^0}=im\left[D(xy)+D(yx)\right]\left(\overline{\psi }(x)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi (y)+\overline{\psi }(y)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\psi (x)\right).$$
(3.14)
As a result, the causality condition Eq.(3.10) fails to hold, and the S-matrix is not well-defined. Put another way, if we compute tree-level $`22`$ scattering of these homeotic fermions using naive Feynman rules, we find that the amplitudes violate crossing symmetry. Thus if the S-matrix were well-defined, we would be exhibiting a simple local interaction that violates crossing symmetry, which would be quite remarkable.

## 4 $`CPT`$ violation and neutrinos

The left-handed neutrinos of the Standard Model are Dirac-Weyl fermion; they could not be represented as homeotic fermions unless we drastically altered the gauge interactions of the Standard Model to somehow make them compatible with the nonlocality of the free homeotic lagrangian.

Because neutrinos have mass, it is natural to suppose that the left-handed neutrinos $`\nu _L^i(x)`$, $`i=1`$,2,3, have bilinear couplings to right-handed neutrinos $`N_R^i(x)`$. These right-handed neutrinos are Standard Model singlets, and might not carry any conserved local charges. This fact is usually used as motivation for assuming that the $`N_R^i`$ neutrinos have Majorana masses; instead we will use it as motivation for assuming that the $`N_R`$ neutrinos are homeotic.

Consider the simplest possible model, where the $`N_R^i`$ neutrinos are the right-handed components of free homeotic fermions $`N^i`$. We assume the bilinear coupling

$$md^4x\left(\overline{\nu }_L(x)N_R(x)+\overline{N}_R(x)\nu _L(x)\right),$$
(4.1)
where we are now suppressing flavor indices for simplicity. This coupling is both local and Lorentz invariant.

We can assume that $`m`$ is parametrically small compared to other contributions to the neutrino mass matrix, in which case it is sensible to treat (4.1) perturbatively, i.e., to consider

$$md^3x\left(\overline{\nu }_L(x)N_R(x)+\overline{N}_R(x)\nu _L(x)\right)$$
(4.2)
as part of the interaction hamiltonian density $`_I(x)`$.

Remarkably, the hybrid Dirac-homeotic theory thus defined obeys the causality condition Eq.(3.10). This can be worked out explicitly, but it is nearly obvious from the anticommutation relations (2.23) for homeotic fermions. We see there that right-handed homeotic fermions have canonical anticommutation relations with other right-handed homeotic fermions. Since the interaction hamiltonian density constains only right-handed homeotic fermion fields (and Dirac-Weyl fermion fields), the causality condition is obeyed just as it is for an ordinary Dirac mass term. This simple hybrid theory thus has a well-defined unitary Lorentz invariant S-matrix. The lagrangian is nonlocal, but the nonlocality appears only in the kinetic terms of the homeotic fermions.

This theory also violates $`CPT`$. This is apparent from the fact that the $`CPT`$ symmetry operator is of necessity different for Dirac theory and homeotic theory. We can see the $`CPT`$ violation explicitly by evaluating (4.2) on-shell. For simplicity, suppose that (4.2) is a perturbation on a theory of a Dirac neutrino ($`\nu _L`$, $`\nu _R`$) and a homeotic neutrino ($`N_L`$, $`N_R`$) with equal masses. Then on-shell (4.2) becomes:

$$\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{1}{2E_𝐩}\underset{s}{}[m(a_{𝐩D}^sa_{𝐩h}^sb_{𝐩h}^sb_{𝐩D}^s)+E_𝐩(b_{𝐩D}^sa_{𝐩h}^s\mathrm{e}^{2iE_𝐩t}+a_{𝐩D}^sb_{𝐩h}^s\mathrm{e}^{2iE_𝐩t})+h.c.],$$
(4.3)
where $`a_{𝐩D}^s`$, $`b_{𝐩D}^s`$ are Dirac creation operators, and $`a_{𝐩h}^s`$, $`b_{𝐩h}^s`$ are homeotic creation operators. Since $`CPT`$ exchanges $`a_{𝐩D}^sb_{𝐩D}^s`$ and exchanges $`a_{𝐩h}^sb_{𝐩h}^s`$, the expression (4.3) is $`CPT`$ odd.

Applied to neutrinos, this model produces precisely the $`CPT`$ violating neutrino mass spectra postulated in our phenomenological work. Here we have obtained it from a simple unitary causal framework.

## 5 Discussion

In this paper we have introduced what is certainly the simplest Lorentz invariant field theory model for $`CPT`$ violating neutrino oscillations. This model can be used to study a number of important issues, such as $`CPT`$ violating baryogenesis, and off-shell neutrino propagation.

Homeotic fermions are interesting in their own right. They are in some sense a unique alternative to Dirac fermions. They allow interacting field theories which are nonlocal but causal. There appears to be a deep connection – a kind of duality – between nonlocality in homeotic theory and “negative frequency spinors” in Dirac theory. Homeotic supersymmetry is likely to have novel properties, which could be of phenomenological importance.

### Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Bill Bardeen, Liubo Borissov, Quico Botella, Wally Greenberg, Howard Haber, Rob Myers and Arkady Vainshtein for comments and suggestions. We thank our classical consultant Maria Spiropulu for suggesting the term “homeotic”. We also thank the Aspen Center for Physics for providing a stimulating research enviroment. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-AC02-76CHO3000.


text:
# Flux enhancement in the inner region of a geometrically and optically thick accretion disk

## 1 Introduction

Recent observations by the Chandra Observatory of nearby galaxies have confirmed the presence of Ultra-Luminous X-ray objects (ULX) ( e.g. Kaaret et al. 2001; Matsumoto et al. 2001; Zezas & Fabbiano 2002 ) which were detected earlier by ROSAT (e.g. Roberts & Warwick 2000). A large number of ULX, that are defined as off center X-ray sources with luminosities $`>10^{39}`$ ergs/sec, were detected by ROSAT (Colbert & Ptak 2002). Since the luminosities of these sources are greater than the Eddington luminosity ($`L_{Edd}4\pi GMm_pc/\sigma _T`$) for a ten solar mass black hole, it has been proposed that they harbor intermediate mass black holes (IMBH) with a mass range of $`10^210^5M_{}`$. The upper limit on the black hole mass is set by dynamic friction which would drive a larger mass black hole to the center of the galaxy in a Hubble time (Kaaret et al. 2001). Some ULX are variable and show soft to hard state transitions similar to stellar mass galactic black hole systems (Kubota et al. 2001). Colbert & Mushotzky (1999) found that the ASCA spectral data of some of the ULX discovered by ROSAT can be well fit by the bulk motion Comptonization model (e.g. Shrader & Titarchuk 1998). They used the spectral fit parameters to directly estimate the mass of the black holes in these systems using the method developed by Borozdin et al. (1999) and obtained masses in the range of $`10^210^4M`$, which indicated that these systems harbor IMBH.

The existence of IMBH leads to a paradigm shift from the earlier view that there are two kinds of black holes ( stellar and super-massive) in the universe. The formation mechanism of IMBH is uncertain and several possible mechanisms have been suggested. Portegies Zwart & McMillian (2002) have proposed that stellar collisions in a dense cluster could lead to the formation of IMBH. An IMBH may also have been formed by the merger of neutron stars or smaller black holes that are the remnants of massive stars in molecular clouds (Taniguchi et al. 2000). On the other hand, Madau & Rees (2001) have suggested that IMBH are remnants of massive ( $`>300M_{}`$) primordial stars. These models have to be confirmed by detailed simulations and their predictions regarding number density and location of ULX have to be compared with observations ( e.g. Zezas & Fabbiano 2002). Apart from the formation issues, there are also uncertainties as to how these IMBH occur in binaries. King et al. (2001) argue that since standard co-evolution may not be possible, these IMBH have to form binaries by stellar capture which should be a rare event. They further argue that in such systems it would be difficult to maintain persistent levels of high accretion. Considering these uncertainties it is prudent to consider alternate models for ULX.

One alternate model for ULX, is that they are stellar size black hole systems with super-Eddington luminosities. It has been difficult to construct steady state models for super-Eddington luminosities. Recently, Begelman (2002), have proposed that a disk may have super-Eddington luminosities, if there are time-varying inhomogeneities due to the photon-bubble instability. This interesting result also needs to be confirmed both observationally and theoretically by time-dependent numerical simulations. A simpler alternate model is that ULX are sub-Eddington stellar mass black hole systems with beamed emission. Since some of the spectra of ULX have a dominant thermal component, the emission cannot arise from a relativistic jet. However, as pointed out by King et al. (2001), there could be significant beaming if the emission is from the inner regions of a geometrically thick disk. If the geometry of the disk confines the emission to a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the apparent luminosity would be a factor $`\chi _L2\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ larger than the real luminosity. If the opening angle of the disk is $`\alpha `$ then $`\chi _L1/(1\text{cos}\alpha )`$ and hence $`\chi _L>10`$ for $`\alpha <25^o`$. While, such a scenario may not be applicable for the brightest ULX ( $`L>10^{41}`$ ergs/sec), it could make the larger number of ULX ( $`L10^{3940}`$ ergs/sec), harbor regular stellar mass black holes ( King et al. 2001). Hence the number of IMBH in a galaxy could be significantly smaller then that estimated by taking the entire ULX population into account, which could perhaps alleviate some of the difficulties faced by IMBH formation theories.

In this paper, our motivation is to study and evaluate the observed luminosity enhancement from geometrically thick disks. Our primary goal is to study the feasibility of the hypothesis that ULX are sub-Eddington stellar mass black hole systems with geometrically thick accretion disk and hence we simply assume the structure of the disk instead of solving for it self-consistently. For simplicity we ignore relativistic light-bending effects. In the next section, the assumptions, calculations and results are presented, while the last section is devoted to summarizing the work and discussion.

## 2 Flux from a geometrically thick disk

We approximate the geometry of a thick disk by a bi-cone “funnel” as shown in Figure 1. In this simple geometry the shape of the funnel is specified by the opening angle ($`\alpha `$), the radius of the marginal stable orbit ($`R_{ms}`$) and the radial extent of the funnel ($`R`$). For radii greater than $`R`$, it is assumed that the height decreases with radius and the flux from this outer region is neglected in the calculation. All through this work $`R_{ms}`$ is taken to be $`6GM/c^2`$ (i.e. for a Schwarzschild metric) and $`R=11R_{ms}=66GM/c^2`$. However, the results presented in this work are scale invariant and only depend on the ratio $`(RR_{ms})/R_{ms}=10`$. Thus they would be equally valid for $`R_{ms}=2GM/c^2`$ (i.e. for a maximal rotating black hole) and $`R=22GM/c^2`$. The value of $`R`$ has been chosen such that the inner funnel extends to well beyond the region of maximum flux dissipation. Realistic thick disks may not extend to such large radii and hence the luminosity enhancement computed below may be considered as an upper limit. Increasing the value of $`R`$ does not significantly change the results.

The flux dissipated due to viscosity is assumed to be

$$F_d=\frac{C}{r_h^3}(1(\frac{R_{ms}}{r_h})^{1/2})$$
(1)
where $`r_h`$ is the horizontal distance from the black hole and $`C`$ is some arbitrary constant. Although the above expression is strictly valid only for a Keplerian disk, for this work it is adequate since it insures that the maximal flux dissipation occurs deep inside the funnel, which in turn would give the maximum luminosity enhancement. The surface flux at a distance $`r=r_h/\text{sin}\alpha `$, from the black hole due to this dissipation is

$$F_{sd}(r)=F_d(r_h)\text{sin}\alpha $$
(2)
The total surface flux will be the sum of $`F_{sd}`$ and the incident flux due to the other parts of the disk. Hence

$$F(r)=F_{sd}(r)+\frac{F(r^{})}{\pi d^2}\text{cos}\beta \text{cos}\beta ^{}𝑑A^{}$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the distance of the line joining points $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$, $`\beta `$ ($`\beta ^{}`$) is the angle between line $`d`$ and the normal to the surface area $`dA`$ ($`dA^{}`$). Equation (3) is solved iteratively till $`F(r)`$ converges. The structure of the flow inside the marginal stable orbit will depend on the details of the hydrodynamic flow and accretion rate. Here, we consider two extreme conditions where the flow is optically thin and when it is optically thick. For the optically thin case, it is assumed that radiation from the other side of the disk can go through the region $`r<R_{ms}`$. Hence the integral in equation (3) includes the contribution from the other side provided both cos$`\beta `$ and cos$`\beta ^{}`$ are positive. In the other extreme scenario, when the flow is optically thick, it is assumed that there is a non-zero $`F(r)`$ inside the marginal stable orbit, which is equal to the flux incident on it (i.e. the integral term in eqn. 3). In both cases, we ignore the presence of the black hole. Figure 2, shows $`F(r)`$ versus the horizontal distance $`r_h`$ for $`\alpha =15^o`$ for both the optically thick and optically thin case. The dissipative flux $`F_{sd}`$ is also shown for comparison.

The flux observed at earth from such a thick disk is given by

$$F_o(i)=\frac{1}{\pi D^2}F(r)\text{cos}\beta _o\text{H}(A,i)𝑑A$$
(4)
where $`i`$ is the inclination angle of the system with respect to the observer, $`D`$ is the distance to the source, $`\beta _o`$ is the angle between the normal to the surface area and the direction to the observer. The Heaviside function $`H(A,i)`$ is zero if the region ($`dA`$) is shielded and unity otherwise. The flux enhancement $`\chi `$ which is the ratio of the apparent luminosity to the real luminosity is

$$\chi (i)=\frac{4\pi D^2F_o(i)}{L_A}$$
(5)
The real luminosity is given by

$$L_A=2F_{sd}(r)𝑑A$$
(6)
where the factor $`2`$ takes into account radiation from both sides of the disk. Note that with this definition , $`\chi =2\text{cos}(i)`$ for a flat disk. Moreover, by conservation of total energy,

$$_0^{\pi /2}\chi (i)𝑑\text{cos}i=1$$
(7)
is true for any geometry.

Figure 3, shows the variation of $`\chi `$ with inclination angle ($`i`$) for two different values of opening angle $`\alpha `$. The flat disk value ($`\chi =2\text{cos}(i)`$) is also plotted for comparison. $`\chi `$ is plotted only for the case when the innermost region is optically thin, since the alternate case when the region is optically thick produces a nearly identical curve. This implies that the results presented here are not sensitive to the exact geometry of the innermost regions. To verify the numerical computation, eqn. (7) has been checked for all $`\chi `$. As discussed in the introduction, for $`\alpha =15^o`$, the expected enhancement was $`1/(1\text{cos}\alpha )30`$. However, from Figure 3, the computed enhancement is only $`5`$ which is nearly an order of magnitude less than the expectation. The reason for this is that the “funnel” disk does not confine the flux to a narrow solid angle, and there is significant flux even when $`i>\alpha `$ (Figure 3). This flux at large angles is mainly due to the outer regions of the disk which have been illuminated by the inner part.

## 3 Summary and Discussion

In this work, it is shown that a geometrically thick funnel shaped disk does not confine the radiation to a narrow solid angle even when the opening angle is small. There is significant flux at viewing angles greater than the opening angle of the disk which in turn implies that the apparent luminosity of such a disk is only a factor $`2`$ higher than that of a flat disk even when the opening angle is as small as $`15^o`$. Thus sub-Eddington stellar mass ($`M<10M_{}`$) systems with geometrically thick disks, cannot account for the low luminosity ($`L10^{40}`$ ergs/sec) ULX observed by Chandra.

There are two simplifying assumptions made in this calculations which are discussed below. First, radiation is assumed to move in straight lines i.e. light bending effects have been ignored. The effect of light bending could either enhance or decrease the surface flux ($`F(r)`$) calculated here (eqn. 3) by either bending the radiation toward or away from the surface area. Similarly, the component of the observed flux from the innermost regions would be affected. However, it seems unlikely that the surface flux at the outermost (or the topmost) region of the funnel will be strongly effected by this effect. Hence, there would still be significant flux at inclination angles ($`i>\alpha `$). Since, eqn (7) is always valid, this would imply that light bending will not significantly enhance the observed flux at low $`i`$. The second simplifying assumption made here is that the impinging flux is radiated isotropically. This would be valid for the case when the incident radiation is absorbed and re-radiated, but instead, if the radiation is scattered off the surface then the reflected radiation could be anisotropic. However, for Thomson scattering the difference in the differential cross-section between forward/backward scattering and scattering at right angles, is only a factor of 2. Indeed, detailed calculations of the angle dependent reflected spectra shows variations within a factor of a few (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995). Thus this effect could at most effect the calculations by a similar factor and the main conclusions of this work should remain unchanged.

It should be emphasized that the results of this work argues against sub-Eddington thick accretion disk models for ULX. However, ULX could indeed be super-Eddington thick (or thin) accretion disks around stellar mass black holes or they could be accretion disks harboring intermediate size black holes.

K.S acknowledges the Visiting Student Program at IUCAA.