format: text

text:
# Information dynamics in cavity QED

## I Introduction

In this paper, we consider a system consisting of a single two-level atom, located inside an externally driven optical cavity. The atom interacts with a single light mode inside the cavity, which is coupled to the environment via a partially transparent mirror. The output field from the cavity is monitored using the homodyne detection scheme, in which the cavity output is added to a reference field at a beam-splitter and then analyzed by two photodetectors (see Fig. 1).

In two recent ground-breaking experiments HoodEtAl\_1998 ; PinkseEtAl\_2000 , a similar setup was used to observe the trajectory of the atom inside the cavity. In these experiments, the atomic position was inferred from the strength of the atom-cavity coupling, which can be estimated directly from the photocurrents Mabuchi\_1996 . To characterize the performance of this atom-cavity microscope, Kimble introduced a quantity called optical information HoodEtAl\_2000 ; DohertyEtAl\_2001 , which measures the rate at which the measurement provides information about the system. In Refs. HoodEtAl\_2000 ; DohertyEtAl\_2001 , however, no formal definition of optical information is given, and only a heuristic derivation of its value is provided. Recently, a number of related definitions of information gain have been proposed and investigated numerically for a simpler quantum-optical system Gambetta2001 .

The question of how much information about a monitored system is provided by a continuous measurement is interesting in its own right. In this paper, we consider two, as it turns out, complementary cases. In Sec. III.1 we calculate the optimal rate at which a homodyne measurement provides information about the quantum state of the system composed of the electromagnetic field and the internal state of the atom. In Sec. III.2, we calculate the optimal rate at which the measurement gives information about the coupling strength between the atom and the intra-cavity field. In Sec. II, we introduce our mathematical model and main assumptions, and Sec. IV concludes the paper with a short discussion.

## II Model

The evolution of the state, $`\rho `$, of an open quantum system subject to a continuous measurement can often be described by a stochastic master equation of the form BelavkinStaszewski\_1992 ; WisemanMilburn\_1993b ; WisemanMilburn\_1993a

$$d\rho =(\rho )dt+(\rho )dW,$$
(1)
which is understood in the sense of the Itô stochastic differential calculus Gardiner\_1985b . Any particular measurement record is represented by some realization of the stochastic process $`W(t)`$. The superoperator $``$ is linear and defines the “unconditional” evolution, i.e., the evolution in the absence of measurements. By contrast, the superoperator $``$ is nonlinear and accounts for the effects of the measurement.

The cavity-QED system we are considering here is illustrated in Fig. 1. A single two-level atom, with ground state $`|\mathrm{g}`$ and excited state $`|\mathrm{e}`$ is located inside a high-finesse optical cavity, which is driven by an external laser field of strength $`E`$. The atom interacts with a single light mode of the cavity. We denote by $`g`$ the strength of the atom-cavity coupling, and by $`\kappa `$ the cavity field decay rate. In this paper, we assume that the atom, the cavity and the driving laser are all resonant.

In the absence of measurements, $`=0`$ in Eq. (1), and the joint density operator of atom and intra-cavity field, $`\rho `$, obeys the master equation

$$\dot{\rho }=(\rho ),$$
(2)
where

$$(\rho )=[E(a^{}a)+g(a^{}\sigma \sigma ^{}a),\rho ]+\kappa (2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a).$$
(3)
Here $`a`$ is the annihilation operator for the cavity field mode, and $`\sigma =|\mathrm{g}\mathrm{e}|`$. In the following we focus our attention on the important case of the strong driving regime ($`E/g1`$). In this regime the system approaches a steady state of the form AlsingCarmichael\_1991

$$\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(|\alpha ;+\alpha ;+|+|\alpha ^{};\alpha ^{};|).$$
(4)
Here $`|\alpha ;+`$ and $`|\alpha ^{};`$ are two orthogonal quantum states defined by

$`|\alpha ;+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\alpha \left(|\mathrm{g}+i|\mathrm{e}\right),`$ (5)
$`|\alpha ^{};`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|\alpha ^{}\left(|\mathrm{g}i|\mathrm{e}\right),`$ (6)
where $`|\alpha `$ is the coherent field state with amplitude

$$\alpha =\frac{E}{\kappa }\left[1\left(\frac{g}{2E}\right)^2+i\frac{g}{2E}\sqrt{1\left(\frac{g}{2E}\right)^2}\right].$$
(7)
Let us now assume that the field escaping from our system undergoes a continuous measurement via the standard homodyne measurement scheme PlenioKnight\_1998 . In this scheme we have only one free complex parameter: the reference field $`\beta `$ that is added to the cavity output at a beam splitter prior to the detection by two detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ (see Fig. 1). If the measurement record consists of the scaled difference photocurrent $`dq/dt(I_2I_1)/|\beta |`$, where $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are the photocurrents detected by $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, respectively, then the measurement operator $``$ in the stochastic master equation (1) is given by WisemanMilburn\_1993b ; WisemanMilburn\_1993a

$$(\rho )=\sqrt{2\kappa \eta }\left(e^{i\varphi }a\rho +e^{i\varphi }\rho a^{}\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho (e^{i\varphi }a+e^{i\varphi }a^{})\right]\rho \right),$$
(8)
where $`\eta `$ is the efficiency of the photodetection and $`\varphi =\mathrm{arg}\beta `$ is the phase of the reference field. The realization of the Wiener process $`W(t)`$ in Eq. (1) is connected to the experimentally observed difference photocurrent via the relation WisemanMilburn\_1993b ; WisemanMilburn\_1993a

$$dq=2\kappa \eta \mathrm{tr}\left[\rho (e^{i\varphi }a^{}+e^{i\varphi }a)\right]dt+\sqrt{2\kappa \eta }dW.$$
(9)
In the special case $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$ this equation becomes

$$dq=4\kappa \eta \mathrm{Re}(\alpha )\mathrm{cos}\varphi dt+\sqrt{2\kappa \eta }dW.$$
(10)
## III Inference

### III.1 Information about the quantum state

The amount of information provided by the measurement about the quantum state, $`\rho `$, is quantified by the reduction of the von Neumann entropy,

$$H(\rho )\mathrm{tr}(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho ).$$
(11)
In this subsection we calculate the rate at which this entropy changes as a result of measurements. The average rate of entropy change in the presence of continuous observations is given by

$$\dot{H}(\rho )=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\frac{H(\rho +\delta )H(\rho )}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}$$
(12)
where the average $``$ is taken over all possible measurement outcomes observed over the time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and

$$\delta =(\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }t+(\rho )\mathrm{\Delta }W.$$
(13)
We now assume that the system is initially in a steady state, $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$, defined by the relation

$$(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})=0.$$
(14)
For simplicity, we furthermore assume that

$$[(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}),\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}]=0.$$
(15)
This last assumption is satisfied by Eqs. (4) and (8). At the end of this section we will outline a more general framework which is free from these assumptions. Since the stochastic master equation (1) preserves the positivity of the density operator, $`\rho `$, the support $`(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})`$ must lie in the support of $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$, $`\mathrm{supp}((\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}))\mathrm{supp}(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})`$. Now consider a basis in which $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ and $`(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})`$ are both diagonal. In this basis, let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ be the nonzero diagonal elements of $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ and let $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_m`$ be the corresponding diagonal elements of $`(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})`$.

Substituting $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ into Eq. (12), we obtain

$`\dot{H}(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{H(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}+(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})\mathrm{\Delta }W)H(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}})}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_{k=1}^m(a_k+b_k\mathrm{\Delta }W)\mathrm{ln}(a_k+b_k\mathrm{\Delta }W)+_{k=1}^ma_k\mathrm{ln}a_k}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(b_k)^2}{2a_k}},`$ (18)
where we have expanded the logarithm to second order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ and used the relation $`(\mathrm{\Delta }W)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

For any state $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$ of the form (4) we have

$$(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha )=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{2\kappa \eta }\mathrm{Im}(\alpha )(|\alpha ;+\alpha ;+||\alpha ^{};\alpha ^{};|).$$
(19)
Since $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$ and $`(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha )`$ commute, we can apply Eq. (16). For the particular value for $`\alpha `$ given by Eq. (7), the diagonal elements of $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$ and $`(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha )`$ are

$$a_{1,2}=1/2,\mathrm{and}b_{1,2}=\pm g\mathrm{sin}\varphi \sqrt{\frac{\eta }{2\kappa }\left(1(\frac{g}{2E})^2\right)}.$$
(20)
Finally, we obtain the main result of this subsection: the rate of information gain about the quantum state of the system is

$$R_Q\dot{H}(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha )=\frac{g^2\eta }{\kappa }\left(1\left(\frac{g}{2E}\right)^2\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi .$$
(21)
Here the minus sign indicates that the information gain corresponds to the reduction of uncertainty about the system state which is measured by the von Neumann entropy.

We now finish this subsection by developing some general formalism that makes no assumptions regarding the superoperators $``$ and $``$. Equation (11) can be expanded in the form

$`H(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n}}\rho (\rho \text{1}\text{l})^n\right]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n}}(\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n+1}+\stackrel{~}{\rho }^n)\right],`$ (23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\rho \text{1}\text{l}`$. Equation (12) then becomes

$$\dot{H}(\rho )=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n\mathrm{\Delta }t}\mathrm{tr}[(\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\delta )^{n+1}\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n+1}]+\mathrm{tr}[(\stackrel{~}{\rho }+\delta )^n\stackrel{~}{\rho }^n].$$
(24)
Keeping the terms to the second order in $`\delta `$, we have

$$(\rho +\delta )^n=\rho ^n+\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\rho ^l\delta \rho ^{n1l}+\underset{p=0}{\overset{n2}{}}\underset{q=0}{\overset{n2p}{}}\rho ^p\delta \rho ^{n2(p+q)}\delta \rho ^q+O(\delta ^3).$$
(25)
Using the cyclic property of the trace,

$`\mathrm{tr}[(\rho +\delta )^n\rho ^n]`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[n\rho ^{n1}\delta +{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{n2p}{}}}\rho ^{p+q}\delta \rho ^{n2(p+q)}\delta +O(\delta ^3)\right]`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[n\rho ^{n1}\delta +{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}(s+1)\rho ^s\delta \rho ^{n2s}\delta +O(\delta ^3)\right].`$ (27)
Combining Eqs. (24) and (26), we obtain

$`\dot{H}(\rho )=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\mathrm{tr}(n+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^n\delta +`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(s+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^s\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n1s}\delta `$ (28)
$`+n\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n1}\delta +`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}(s+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^s\delta \stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n2s}\delta .`$ (29)
Substituting Eq. (13) and using $`\mathrm{\Delta }W=0`$, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }W)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ we finally arrive at

$`\dot{H}(\rho )={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{n}}\mathrm{tr}(`$ $`[(n+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^n+n\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n1}](\rho )`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(s+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^s(\rho )\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n1s}(\rho )`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{n2}{}}}(s+1)\stackrel{~}{\rho }^s(\rho )\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{n2s}(\rho )).`$ (32)
This formula is valid without any restrictions on the superoperators $``$ and $``$. It is straightforward to show that, under the previous assumptions $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ and $`[(\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}),\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}]=0`$, Eq. (30) reduces to Eq. (16) as required.

### III.2 Information about the atom-cavity coupling

Since the quantized degrees of freedom described by the density operator $`\rho `$ of the previous sections do not include the atomic position, a different approach is needed to obtain information about the atom’s trajectory inside the cavity. The key is the fact that the atom-cavity coupling $`g`$ depends on the position of the atom in a known way (see, e.g., Ref. HoodEtAl\_2000 ). In this subsection, we will therefore focus on calculating the rate at which the measurement provides information about the parameter $`g`$.

Let $`q`$ be a photocharge obtained by integrating the difference photocurrent, given by Eq. (9), over a small time interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Introduce a small parameter $`ϵ`$ such that $`\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }tϵ^{3/2}`$ and $`|\beta |ϵ^1`$. The existence of such $`ϵ`$ is assumed in the standard derivation of Eqs. (8) and (9) WisemanMilburn\_1993a ; WisemanMilburn\_1993b . Equation (9) is derived in the limit of small $`ϵ`$ when $`q`$ can be treated as a Gaussian random variable,

$$G(q,q,v^2)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi v^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(qq)^2}{2v^2}\right),$$
(33)
with mean

$$q=2\kappa \eta \mathrm{tr}[\rho (e^{i\varphi }a^{}+e^{i\varphi }a)]\mathrm{\Delta }t+O(ϵ^2)$$
(34)
and variance

$$v^2=2\kappa \eta \mathrm{\Delta }t+O(ϵ^2).$$
(35)
So far we have treated the atom-cavity coupling $`g`$ as a known parameter. This means that the above equations give us the conditional probability density $`P(q|g)`$ of registering measurement result $`q`$ given that the atom-cavity coupling is equal to $`g`$,

$$P(q|g)=G(q,q,v^2).$$
(36)
The conditional probability of the atom-cavity coupling to be equal to $`g`$ given a particular measurement result $`q`$ can be derived from the Bayes rule,

$$P(g|q)=\frac{P(q|g)P(g)}{P(q|g)P(g)𝑑g},$$
(37)
where $`P(g)`$ is a probability distribution that characterizes our knowledge of $`g`$ prior to obtaining $`q`$.

To quantify the information gain, we use the entropy $`S`$ of a continuous probability distribution $`f(x)`$ defined by

$$S[f(x)]f(x)\mathrm{ln}f(x)𝑑x.$$
(38)
The average rate at which observation of $`q`$ gives us information about $`g`$ is then given by

$$R_g\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)P(q|g)𝑑q,$$
(39)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=S[P(g|q)]S[P(g)].$$
(40)
On the relatively slow time scales of the atomic motion one can assume to a very good approximation that the quantized degrees of freedom described by the density matrix $`\rho `$ are in the steady state given by Eq. (4). In this case Eq. (34) gives

$`(qq)^2`$ $`=`$ $`q^24q\kappa \eta \mathrm{tr}\left[\rho (e^{i\varphi }a^{}+e^{i\varphi }a)\right]\mathrm{\Delta }t+O(qϵ^2)+O(ϵ^3)`$ (41)
$`=`$ $`q^28qE\eta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \left(1({\displaystyle \frac{g}{2E}})^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }t+O(qϵ^2)+O(ϵ^3).`$ (42)
We can now derive a simple formula for $`R_g`$ if we make the further convenient assumption that the prior distribution $`P(g)`$ is a Gaussian with variance $`v_0^2`$,

$$P(g)=G(g,g,v_0^2).$$
(43)
The posterior probability density $`P(g|q)`$ will then also be a Gaussian,

$$P(g|q)=G(g,m,v_1^2),$$
(44)
where the variance $`v_1^2`$ is given by

$$v_1^2=\frac{v_0^2\kappa E}{\kappa E+qv_0^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi }.$$
(45)
This expression, where we neglected the $`O(qϵ^2)`$ and $`O(ϵ^3)`$ terms in Eq. (41), is valid for small $`q`$. The value of the mean $`m`$ is irrelevant for the current argument. By a direct calculation, we obtain the entropy change

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(v_0^2/v_1^2)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+q\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\kappa E}v_0^2\right)q\frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{2\kappa E}v_0^2.$$
(46)
Due to the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$, the Gaussian $`P(q|g)`$ in Eq. (39) is strongly peaked at small values of $`q`$. Hence we can substitute the above estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ into Eq. (39). We thus obtain our final result, the average information rate

$$R_g=\frac{2v_0^2\eta }{\kappa }\left(1\left(\frac{g}{2E}\right)^2\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi .$$
(47)
## IV Discussion

Comparing the expressions Eq. (21) for the information rate $`R_Q`$ and Eq. (47) for the information rate $`R_g`$, one notices their very similar structure. The rate $`R_Q`$, referring to information about the quantum state of the atom-cavity system, is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$, whereas the rate $`R_g`$, referring to information about the parameter $`g`$, is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$. In both formulas, $`\varphi `$ is the phase of the reference field $`\beta `$. The proportionality factor in $`R_g`$ is obtained from the proportionality factor in $`R_Q`$ by substituting for $`g^2`$ twice the prior variance, $`2v_0^2`$, of the random variable $`g`$.

This means that there is a trade-off between the two information rates: the more we learn about the coupling parameter (and hence the atomic position), the less we can learn about the atom-cavity quantum state and vice versa. This is a manifestation of the uncertainty principle applied to the conjugate field quadratures $`X=a+a^{}`$ and $`Y=i(aa^{})`$. Let us elaborate on this point by considering our starting equations, i.e. Eq. (9), which gives our measurement record, and Eqs. (1), (3), and (8) for the corresponding change of the system density matrix. As before, we assume the steady state $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}`$ as the initial condition for these equations. The qualitative conclusions of this discussion do not depend on any specific prior distribution for $`g`$.

We notice that the average photocurrent is proportional to the expectation value of the expression $`e^{i\varphi }a^{}+e^{i\varphi }a`$. In this sense the cases $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ correspond to measuring the expectation values of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ quadratures respectively. In the case of $`\varphi =0`$ the nonlinear contribution from the measurement, given by Eq. (8), becomes proportional to $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$. From Eq. (1) we therefore see that the system density matrix remains equal to $`\rho _{\mathrm{ss}}^\alpha `$ at all times, independent of the measurement record. This means that for $`\varphi =0`$ the measurement record contains no information about the quantum state of the system, in agreement with (21). At the same time the setting $`\varphi =0`$ maximizes the average photocurrent, which carries information about $`g`$ \[see Eq. (10)\]. The second stochastic term in (10) does not depend on $`g`$ and so, from the point of view of learning about $`g`$, this stochastic term is nothing but noise superimposed on the average photocurrent. We therefore see that maximizing the average photocurrent increases the signal-to-noise ratio for measuring $`g`$ and thus $`\varphi =0`$ gives us the maximum information about $`g`$, in agreement with Eq. (47). In summary, the case $`\varphi =0`$ is ideal for measuring $`g`$ and it gives no information about the internal state. In the case $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ we have the opposite situation: we obtain maximum information about the atom-cavity state and no information about $`g`$, because the measured photocurrent becomes independent of $`g`$. For a numerical comparison of the two information rates for a simpler quantum-optical system and a wide range of detection schemes, see Ref. Gambetta2001 .

At first sight, learning about the quantum state of the system seems to be a very different problem form learning about the atomic position. It so happens that within our framework these two tasks are best accomplished by monitoring conjugate observables, namely the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ field quadratures. With a straightforward modification our calculations can be also applied to the heterodyne detection scheme. For heterodyne detection, both field quadratures are monitored simultaneously, at the cost of reducing the respective maximal information rates.

## V Acknowledgments

ANS would like to thank Charlene Ahn, Kevin Birnbaum, Jeff Kimble, and Theresa Lynn for many helpful discussions. Part of this work was carried out at the Institute for Quantum Information at Caltech, the hospitality of which is gratefully acknowledged. This research was partially funded by project Q-ACTA of the IST-FET programme of the EU.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Classical Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser theory deals with Hamiltonian perturbations of an integrable Hamiltonian system and proves the persistence of quasi-periodic (Diophantine) invariant Lagrangean tori. In  Pöschel proved the existence of Whitney smooth action angle variables on a nowhere dense union of tori having positive Liouville measure. See also . This version of the KAM theorem can be formulated as a kind of structural stability restricted to this union of quasi-periodic tori. As such it is referred to as *quasi-periodic stability* . In this context, the conjugacy between the integrable system and its perturbation is smooth in the sense of Whitney. This paper deals only with the case of Hamiltonian systems with Lagrangean invariant tori.

In this paper we aim to establish a global quasi-periodic stability result for fibrations of Lagrangean tori, by glueing together local conjugacies obtained from the classical KAM theorem. This glueing uses a partition of unity  and the fact that invariant tori of the unperturbed integrable system have a natural affine structure . The global conjugacy is obtained as an appropriate convex combination of the local conjugacies. This construction is reminiscent of that used to construct connections or Riemannian metrics in differential geometry.

### 1.1 Motivation

A motivation for globalizing the KAM theorem is the nontriviality of certain torus fibrations in Liouville integrable systems. For example, in two degrees of freedom, consider the spherical pendulum. Here an obstruction to the triviality of the foliation by Liouville tori is given by monodromy, see . A natural question is whether (nontrivial) monodromy also can be defined for nonintegrable perturbations of the spherical pendulum. Answering this question is of interest in the study of semiclassical versions of such classical systems, see . The results of the present paper imply that for an open set of Liouville integrable Hamiltonian systems, under a sufficiently small perturbation, the geometry of the fibration is largely preserved by a Whitney smooth diffeomorphism. For a geometrical discussion of all the obstructions for a toral fibration of an integrable Hamiltonian system to be trivial see .

Remark. For a similar result in two degrees of freedom near focus-focus singularities see . We expect that generalizations of our results will be valid in the Lie algebra setting of .

### 1.2 Formulation of the result

We now give a precise formulation of our result. Consider a $`2n`$-dimensional, symplectic, real analytic manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\sigma )`$ with a surjective real analytic map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{B},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is an $`n`$–dimensional affine manifold. The map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is a foliation with singularities in the sense of Stefan-Sussman . Its regular leaves are Lagrangean $`n`$–tori. If $`B\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is the set of regular values of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, we assume that $`M=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(B)`$ is connected. Let $`\pi :MB`$ be the restriction and corestriction of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(B)`$. By the Liouville–Arnold integrability theorem  it follows that for every $`bB`$ there is a neighbourhood $`U^bB`$ and a symplectic diffeomorphism

$$\phi :V^b=\pi ^1(U^b)𝕋^n\times A^b,m(\alpha ^b(m),a^b(m)),$$

with symplectic form $`_{j=1}^nda_j^bd\alpha _j^b`$ such that $`a^b=(a_1^b,a_2^b,\mathrm{},a_n^b)`$ is constant on fibers of $`\pi .`$ As usual we call $`(a^b,\alpha ^b)`$ action angle variables and $`(V^b,\phi ^b)`$ an action angle chart.

Now consider a real analytic Hamiltonian function $`H:\stackrel{~}{M},`$ which is integral of $`\pi `$, that is, $`H`$ is constant on fibers of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Then the corresponding Hamiltonian vector field $`X_H`$, defined by $`X_H\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\sigma =dH`$, is tangent to these fibers. This leads to a push forward vector field

$$(\phi _{}^bX_H)(\alpha ,a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _j^b(a)\frac{}{\alpha _j^b},$$

on $`A^b^n`$ with frequency vector $`\omega ^b(a)=(\omega _1^b(a),\mathrm{},\omega _n^b(a))`$. We call $`\omega ^b:A^b^n`$ the local frequency map.

We say that $`H`$ is a *nondegenerate* integral of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi },`$ if for a collection $`\{(V^b,\phi ^b)\}_{bB}`$ of action angle charts whose domains $`V^b`$ cover $`M`$, each local frequency map $`\omega ^b:A^b^n`$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image.

Remark. Using the (local) affine structure on the space of actions $`B\stackrel{~}{B}`$, for each $`bB`$ the second derivative of $`h^b=(H|V^b)(\phi ^b)^1`$ on $`V^b`$ is well-defined. By nondegeneracy we just mean that $`D^2h^b`$ has maximal rank everywhere on $`V^b`$ for each $`bB`$.

Suppose that $`H`$ is a nondegenerate integral on $`B`$. If $`B^{}B`$ is a relatively compact subset of $`B`$, that is, the closure of $`B^{}`$ is compact, then there is a finite subcover $`\{U^b\}_b`$ of $`\{U^b\}_{bB}`$ such that for every $`b`$ the frequency map $`\omega ^b`$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image. Accordingly, let $`M^{}=\pi ^1(B^{})`$ and consider the corresponding bundle $`\pi ^{}:M^{}B^{}.`$ We now state our main result.

(KAM-global) Let $`(M,\sigma )`$ and $`H:M`$ be as above with $`B^{}B`$ open and relatively compact. Let $`F:M`$ be a real analytic function.444Generally the perturbation $`H+F`$ is not integrable. If $`F|_M^{}`$ is sufficiently small in the compact-open topology on holomorphic extensions, then there exists a subset $`CB^{}`$ and a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:MM`$ with the following properties.

1. The subset $`C`$ is a nowhere dense set of large measure in $`B^{}`$;
2. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ diffeomorphism onto its image and is close to the identity map in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ topology;
3. The restriction $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\Phi }|_{\pi ^1(C)}`$ conjugates $`X_H`$ to $`X_{H+F}`$, that is,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}X_H=X_{H+F}.$$

Remarks.

1. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ generally is not symplectic. Since its derivatives are bounded, the bundle $`\pi ^{}:M^{}B^{}`$ and its perturbation are diffeomorphic. Moreover, the affine structure on the Diophantine tori is preserved.
2. The measure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^1(C))`$, which is the union of perturbed tori, is large.
3. The restriction to real-analytic systems with the compact-open topology on holomorphic extensions is not essential. Indeed, there are direct generalizations of theorem 1 to the world of $`C^k`$-systems endowed with the (weak) Whitney $`C^k`$-topology for $`k`$ sufficiently large, see . For similar $`C^k`$-versions of the local KAM theorem, see .

## 2 Proof

This section is devoted to proving theorem 1. The idea is to glue together the local conjugacies (obtained by the standard local KAM theorem ) with help of a partition of unity.

### 2.1 The local KAM theorem

We need a precise formulation of the local KAM theorem. The phase space here is $`𝕋^n\times A,`$ where $`A^n`$ is bounded, open, connected and $`(\alpha ,a)=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _n,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ is a set of action angle coordinates with symplectic form $`_{j=1}^nda_jd\alpha _j.`$ Suppose that we are given a real analytic Hamiltonian function $`h:𝕋^n\times A,`$ which is integrable, that is, $`h`$ does not depend on the angle variables $`\alpha `$. We shall now formulate a few concepts we need in the proof of theorem $`1`$.

The Hamiltonian vector field $`X_h`$ corresponding to $`h`$ has the form

$$X_h(\alpha ,a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega _j(a)\frac{}{\alpha _j},$$

with $`\omega (a)=h/a.`$ The nondegeneracy assumption now means that the corresponding frequency map $`\omega :aA\omega (a)^n`$ is a diffeomorphism onto its image.

Also we need the concept of Diophantine frequencies. Let $`\tau >n1`$ be a fixed constant and let $`\gamma >0`$ be a ‘parameter’. Let

$$\mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n)=\{\omega ^n|\omega ,k|\gamma |k|^\tau ,\text{ for all }k^n\{0\}\}.$$

Elements of $`\mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n)`$ are called *Diophantine* frequency vectors. Consider the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega (A).`$ For $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }>0`$ also consider the shrunken version $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}=\{\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }=\omega (A)\mathrm{dist}(\omega ,\mathrm{\Gamma })>\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{D}_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }})=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}\mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n).`$ From now we take $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma `$ sufficiently small to ensure that $`\mathrm{D}_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma )`$ is a nowhere dense set of positive measure, compare . Recall that this measure tends to full measure in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as $`\gamma 0.`$ Finally define the shrunken domain $`A_\gamma =\omega ^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma )A`$ as well as its nowhere dense counterpart $`\mathrm{D}_\gamma (A_\gamma )=\omega ^1(\mathrm{D}_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ))A_\gamma ,`$ which again has large measure in $`A`$ for $`\gamma `$ small.

We now perturb $`h`$ to a real analytic Hamiltonian function

$$h+f:𝕋^n\times A,$$

which we assume is holomorphic on the complexified domain

$$D_{\varrho ,\kappa }=(𝕋^n+\kappa )\times (A+\varrho ),$$

for positive constants $`\kappa `$ and $`\varrho <1`$. Here

$$A+\varrho =\{y|ya|\varrho \text{ for some }aA\}.$$

Similarly we define $`𝕋^n+\kappa /(2\pi ).`$

We now are ready to formulate the standard local KAM theorem.

(KAM-local)   Suppose that the integrable real analytic Hamiltonian function $`h:𝕋^n\times A`$ is nondegenerate and that both $`h`$ and its real analytic perturbation $`h+f`$ have a holomorphic extension to the domain $`D_{\varrho ,\kappa }=(𝕋^n+\kappa )\times (A+\varrho ),`$ with positive constants $`\kappa `$ and $`\varrho <1.`$ Then

* there exists a positive constant $`\delta `$, *independent* of $`\gamma `$, $`\varrho `$, and of the domain $`A`$;
* if $`|f|_{D_{\varrho ,\kappa }}\gamma ^2\delta `$, where $`||_{D_{\varrho ,\kappa }}`$ is the supremum-norm on $`D_{\varrho ,\kappa }`$, then there is a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A:𝕋^n\times A𝕋^n\times A`$ with the following properties

+ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ diffeomorphism onto its image, which is real analytic in the angle variables $`\alpha `$ and is close to the identity map in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ topology;
    + The map $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}=\mathrm{\Phi }^A|_{𝕋^n\times \mathrm{D}_\gamma (A_\gamma )}`$ conjugates $`X_h`$ to $`X_{h+f}`$, that is, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^A}_{}X_h=X_{h+f}`$.

Remarks.

1. Observe that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ maps $`A_\gamma `$ into $`A`$.
2. In general, the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ is not symplectic. Notice that theorem 2 is stated in its stability form , namely, the theorem asserts that the integrable system is *quasi-periodically stable*.
3. The nowhere dense set $`\mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n)`$ has a raylike structure. Whenever $`\omega \mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n)`$, we also have $`s\omega \mathrm{D}_\gamma (^n)`$ for $`s1`$. In the ray direction of $`A_\gamma `$ the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ is real analytic. Moreover, analytic dependence on extra parameters is preserved in the following sense: if this analytic dependence holds for $`h+f`$, then it also holds for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$.
4. In applications, given the perturbation the parameter $`\gamma `$ is chosen as small as possible. In particular, if the perturbation is of the form $`h+\epsilon f`$, then we can take $`\gamma =\mathrm{O}(\sqrt{\epsilon })`$.

### 2.2 Application of the local KAM theorem

Let us return to the global problem of perturbing $`H`$ to $`H+F`$ on $`M^{}=\pi ^1(B^{}).`$ Recall that we have an atlas $`\{(V^b,\phi ^b)\}_{bB}`$ of action angle charts on $`M,`$ where $`V^b=\pi ^1(U^b)=(\phi ^b)^1(𝕋^n\times A^b).`$ For each $`bB`$ there exists a constant $`\gamma ^b>0`$ such that the shrunken domain $`V_{\gamma ^b}^bV^b`$ defined by $`V_{\gamma ^b}^b=(\phi ^b)^1(𝕋^n\times A_{\gamma ^b}^b)`$ is open and nonempty. This implies that $`\{V_{\gamma ^b}^b\}_{bB}`$ still is a covering of $`M.`$ Given any choice of an open relatively compact set $`B^{}B,`$ there exists a finite subcover $`\{V_{\gamma ^j}^j\}_{j𝒥}`$ of $`M^{}=\pi ^1(B^{}).`$ Note that $`V_{\gamma ^j}^jV^j,`$ $`j𝒥.`$ In each action angle chart $`(V^j,\phi ^j)`$ where $`\phi ^j:V^j=\pi ^1(U^j)𝕋^n\times A^j`$, we have a local perturbation problem. Indeed, defining $`h^j=H(\phi ^j)^1`$ and $`f^j=F(\phi ^j)^1`$, we are in the setting of the local KAM theorem 2 on the phase space $`𝕋^n\times A^j`$. Accordingly we are given positive constants $`\kappa =\kappa ^j`$ and $`\varrho =\varrho ^j`$ and we specify $`\gamma =\gamma ^j`$ as just obtained.

In this setting the nowhere dense set $`CB^{}`$ is defined by pulling back the sets $`\mathrm{D}_{\gamma ^j}(A_{\gamma ^j}^j)A_{\gamma ^j}^jA^j`$ using the second component of the chart map $`\phi ^j`$. On overlaps we just take the intersection of finitely many domains $`V_{\gamma ^j}^jV^j.`$ Note that for small $`\gamma ^j,`$ $`j𝒥,`$ the nowhere dense set $`\pi ^1(C)M^{}`$ has large measure. (Compare with the first claim of the global KAM theorem 1).

Therefore, given the appropriate (equicontinuous) smallness conditions on the collection of functions $`\{f^j\}_{j𝒥}`$, by the local KAM theorem 2 we obtain diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j=\mathrm{\Phi }^{A^j}:𝕋^n\times A^j𝕋^n\times A^j,`$ such that restricted to $`\mathrm{D}_{\gamma ^j}(A_{\gamma ^j}^j),`$ we have

$$(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }^j})_{}X_{h^j}=X_{h^j+f^j}.$$

From the above construction we deduce that each of the Diophantine invariant tori $`T`$ of $`X_H`$ under consideration is diffeomorphic by $`(\phi ^j)^1\mathrm{\Phi }^j\phi ^j`$ to an invariant torus $`T^{}`$ of $`X_{H+F}.`$ This map conjugates the quasi-periodic dynamics of $`X_H`$ and $`X_{H+F},`$ where the frequency vector is invariant. Thus, by nondegeneracy of $`H`$, the correspondence which associates the torus $`T`$ to the torus $`T^{}`$ is unique, and hence is independent of the index $`j𝒥`$ used to define the conjugation. In other words, on the union $`\pi ^1(C)`$ of Diophantine tori the action coordinates match under the transition maps $`\phi ^j(\phi ^i)^1.`$

At the level of the angle coordinates the matter of matching is quite different. First, in cases where the $`n`$-torus bundle $`\pi :MB`$ is nontrivial, generally the angle coordinates on $`\pi ^1(C)`$ do not have to match under the transition maps $`\phi ^j(\phi ^i)^1.`$ Second, the angle components of local KAM conjugacies $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ generally do not have to match either.

### 2.3 Partition of Unity

To overcome the two matching problems at the level of angles as mentioned above, we introduce a partition of unity.

Subordinate to the covering $`\{V_{\gamma ^b}^b\}_{bB^{}}`$ of $`M^{}`$ there is a partition of unity $`\{(V_{\gamma ^j}^j,\xi ^j)\}_{j𝒥}`$ by $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions $`\xi ^j:M`$ such that, for every $`j𝒥`$ we have

1. the support of $`\xi ^j`$ is a compact subset of $`V_{\gamma ^j}^j`$;
2. the function $`\xi ^j`$ takes values in the interval $`[0,1];`$
3. the function $`\xi ^j`$ is constant on the fibers of the bundle projection $`\pi ^{}:M^{}B^{}`$
4. $`_{j=1}^N\xi ^j1`$ on $`M^{}`$.

The lemma follows by carrying out the standard partition of unity construction  on $`B^{}`$ and pulling everything back by $`\pi .`$

### 2.4 Glueing

For each $`j𝒥`$ consider the map

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^j=(\phi ^j)^1(\mathrm{\Phi }^j)^1\phi ^j,$$

which takes a perturbed torus $`T^{}`$ to its unperturbed (integrable) counterpart $`T`$ and thereby conjugates the quasi-periodic dynamics. Note that the local KAM conjugagy $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j`$ maps $`𝕋^n\times A_{\gamma ^j}^j`$ into $`𝕋^n\times A^j.`$ Therefore $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^j)^1`$ maps $`V_{\gamma ^j}^j`$ into $`V^j.`$

We now use the fact that the integrable tori $`T`$ have a natural affine structure, see the proof of the Liouville-Arnold theorem . Indeed, this structure is induced by the transitive $`^n`$-action

$$G:^n\times TT,((t_1,\mathrm{},t_n),m)(g_1^{t_1}\mathrm{}g_n^{t_n}(m)),$$

where $`g_{\mathrm{}}^t,`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ is the flow of the Hamiltonian vector field associated to the action $`a_{\mathrm{}}^j,`$ $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. We make the following assertions about the chart overlap maps on $`M^{}.`$555Note that for the tori $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ the affine structure also is determined by the quasi-periodicity of the flow.

For a perturbation function $`F,`$ sufficiently close to $`0`$ in the compact-open topology on holomorphic extensions, on the overlaps $`V^iV^j`$

1. The transition map $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i(\mathrm{\Psi }^j)^1`$ is close to the identity in the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ topology;
2. For each integrable $`n`$-torus $`TV_{\gamma ^i}^iV_{\gamma ^j}^j,`$ which by $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^i)^1`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Psi }^j)^1`$ is diffeomorphic to $`T^{},`$ the maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i|_T^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^j|_T^{}`$ only differ by a small translation.

Proof. The first item directly follows from the equicontinuity condition regarding the size of the $`\{f^j\}_{j𝒥}`$. The second item follows from the former, see . $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark. On an overlap $`TV_{\gamma ^i}^iV_{\gamma ^j}^j,`$ $`ij,`$ consider the angle components $`\alpha ^i`$ and $`\alpha ^j`$ of the chart maps $`\phi ^i`$ and $`\phi ^j,`$ both taking values in the standard torus $`𝕋^n.`$ Here $`\alpha ^j=S_{i,j}\alpha ^i+c_{i,j}`$ for $`S_{i,j}Sl(n,)`$ and $`c_{i,j}𝕋^n`$, see . In the case of nontrivial monodromy we do not always have $`S_{i,j}=\mathrm{Id},`$ since the transition maps $`\phi ^i(\phi ^j)^1`$ are not all close to the identity map. We have avoided this problem by considering the maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ instead.

Proof of theorem 1. The global conjugacy of theorem 1 is obtained by taking the sum

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\xi ^j\mathrm{\Psi }^j,$$
(1)
using the partition of unity of lemma 1.

Equation (1) has to be interpreted fibrewise as follows. In each integrable torus $`T,`$ by lemma 2, the maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^j`$ only differ by a small translation. The finite convex combination is then a conjugacy, which is globally well-defined. The fact that for small $`F`$ the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-close to the identity map, follows by Leibniz’ rule. This proves the global KAM theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 An application

Applying theorem 1 largely amounts to checking the global nondegeneracy of the Hamiltonian function $`H.`$

As an example let us consider the spherical pendulum . The configuration space is the 2-sphere $`S^2=\{q^3q,q=1\}`$ and the phase space its cotangent bundle $`\stackrel{~}{M}=T^{}S^2=\{(q,p)^6q,q=1\mathrm{and}q,p=0\}.`$ The energy-momentum map $`:T^{}S^2^2`$, given by

$$(q,p)=(I,E)=\left(q_1p_2q_2p_1,H(q,p)=\frac{1}{2}p,p+q_3\right),$$

leads to a Lagrangean fibration, whose generic fiber is a $`2`$-torus. The image $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $``$ is the closed part of the plane lying in between the two curves meeting at a corner, see figure 1. The set of singular values of $``$ consists of the two boundary curves and the points $`(I,E)=(0,\pm 1).`$ The latter correspond to the equilibria $`(q,p)=(0,0,\pm 1,0,0,0).`$ The boundary curves correspond to the horizontal periodic motions of the pendulum. The set $`B`$ of regular $``$-values therefore consists of the interior of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ minus the point $`(I,E)=(0,1),`$ corresponding to the unstable equilibrium point $`(0,0,1,0,0,0)`$. The point $`(I,E)=(0,1)`$ is the centre of the nontrivial monodromy. The corresponding fiber $`^1(1,0)`$ is a once pinched $`2`$-torus.

On $`B`$ one of the two frequency maps is single valued and the other multi-valued . Horozov  established global nondegeneracy of $`H`$ on $`B.`$ This implies that the global KAM theorem 1 can be applied to any relatively compact open subset $`B^{}B.`$ From this we deduce that the integrable dynamics on the $`2`$-torus bundle $`^{}:M^{}B^{}`$ of the spherical pendulum is quasi-periodically stable. This means that any sufficiently small perturbation of the spherical pendulum, integrable or not, has an equivalent KAM $`2`$-torus bundle which has the same geometry as the bundle $`^{}`$. In particular, the torus bundle can be said to have nontrivial monodromy.

Asymptotics near the horizontal periodic solutions and both the equilibria lead to the following considerations. (Compare this with the problem of small twist .) The parameter $`\gamma `$ as it occurs in the Diophantine conditions, can be taken small in an appropriate way, see , thereby creating Lebesgue density points of quasi-periodicity at the horizontal periodic solutions and at both equilibria.

Remarks.

1. From the asymptotic considerations of Rink  near focus-focus singularities in Liouville integrable Hamiltonian systems of $`2`$ degrees of freedom, the above results regarding the spherical pendulum follow in the case where $`B^{}`$ is a small annular region around $`(0,1).`$ This is sufficient for the existence of nontrivial monodromy in nearly integrable perturbations of the spherical pendulum.
2. The present global approach does not depend on knowing the precise geometry of the integrable approximation. It clearly applies near focus-focus singularities.
3. A straightforward generalization of the global KAM theorem 1 exists in all cases of (local) quasi-periodic stability considered in . In , partly following , a general Lie algebraic approach is taken, which leads to various versions of the (local) KAM theorem. For instance, the general (disspative) case, the volume preserving case, etc, see . This includes the case of lower dimensional isotropic tori in Hamiltonian systems. Often external parameters are needed for quasi periodic stability. In this case the torus bundles live in the product of phase space and parameter space. For a reversible analogue see . We expect that the present glueing construction directly carries over to global torus bundles in these settings.
4. The present paper opens the possibility to define geometric concepts like monodromy, Chern classes, etc. (compare ), for KAM torus bundles in nearly integrable systems, by integrable approximation. It is a quite different matter how to define such concepts in a more direct way, say by construction of certain appropriate Whitney smooth sections.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Bob Rink, Michael Sevryuk, Carles Simó, and to Floris Takens for helpful discussions. Also the first author (HWB) acknowledges the hospitality of the Universitat de Barcelona. The authors were partially supported by European Community funding for the Research and Training Network MASIE (HPRN-CT-2000-00113).