text:
# 1 Allowed discrete Wilson lines.

KUNS-1836

Heterotic string backgrounds and CP violation
Tatsuo Kobayashi 1 and Oleg Lebedev 2

1Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
2Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK

Abstract
In the framework of $`Z_N`$ orbifolds, we discuss effects of heterotic string backgrounds including discrete Wilson lines on the Yukawa matrices and their connection to CP violation.

1. Introduction.

The heterotic string  compactified on an orbifold  has a number of phenomenologically attractive features. These include the possibility of obtaining realistic gauge groups and a small number of chiral generations at low energies ,. Also, the Yukawa couplings of the twisted states exhibit a hierarchy , which is a highly desirable feature from the phenomenological perspective.

Realistic models require the presence of backgrounds , – the Wilson lines  and the antisymmetric background field. The former are required if we are to obtain a realistic gauge group and 3 chiral generations, while the latter is suggested by the observed CP violation. In this Letter, we study the connection between CP violation and the backgrounds. In particular, we analyze the effects of the backgrounds on the Yukawa couplings and whether these effects may lead to physical CP violation. We build on earlier work ,  and now include the effects of discrete Wilson lines and the $`U`$–moduli. We also discuss certain subtleties appearing in the definition of the CP symmetry from a higher dimensional perspective.

The relevant to the discussion of CP violation part of the low energy Lagrangian is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=Y_{ij}^uH^uQ_iU_j^c+Y_{ij}^dH^dQ_iD_j^c,$$
(1)
where $`Y_{ij}^{u,d}`$ are the Yukawa matrices and $`i,j`$ are the generational indices labeling the three chiral families. Here we exhibit the Yukawa interactions in the two Higgs doublet model, while for the Standard Model the two doublets are related: $`H^u(H^d)^c`$. When the Higgses develop vacuum expectation values, these interactions are responsible for generating the quark mass matrices. These may have complex phases, which can be absorbed into the definition of the quark fields if $`Y_{ij}^u=|Y_{ij}^u|e^{i(\alpha _i+\beta _j^u)}`$, $`Y_{ij}^d=|Y_{ij}^d|e^{i(\alpha _i+\beta _j^d)}`$, but otherwise lead to observable CP violation. We will study the Yukawa matrices in $`Z_N`$ orbifolds which are defined by dividing a 6D torus by a space group which consists of the $`Z_N`$ twists and lattice shifts. We will focus on the Yukawa couplings among twisted states which reside at the orbifold fixed points $`f`$ defined by

$$\theta f=f+l,$$
(2)
where $`\theta `$ is the orbifold twist and $`l`$ is a torus lattice shift. The untwisted couplings are moduli independent and do not lead to CP violation. We will deal mostly with renormalizable couplings although some statements about nonrenormalizable couplings will be made as well.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we define the CP symmetry and discuss under what circumstances it is violated by the backgrounds. In section 3, we present the full moduli dependence of the heterotic Yukawa couplings. Section 4 is devoted to the effects of discrete Wilson lines. Section 5 presents our conclusions.

2. CP symmetry and the string action.

The bosonic part of the heterotic string action in the presence of constant backgrounds is given by***We omit the pure gauge part of the action which does not pertain to our considerations.

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma \left(G_{ij}^\alpha X^i_\alpha X^jB_{ij}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^i_\beta X^j+A_{iI}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha X^i_\beta X^I\right).$$
(3)
Here $`X^i`$, $`i`$=1,..10 are the space–time coordinates, $`X^I`$, $`I`$=1,..16 are the gauge space left–moving coordinates, and $`G_{ij}`$, $`B_{ij}`$, and $`A_{iI}`$ are the background metric, the antisymmetric field, and the Wilson line, respectively.

In what follows we will discuss CP properties of the twisted Yukawa couplings which presumably are the source of the observed CP violation in the quark sector. CP violation in the Yukawa couplings $`Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is directly related to CP properties of the string action since

$$Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\mathrm{const}\underset{X_{\mathrm{cl}}}{}e^{S_{\mathrm{cl}}},$$
(4)
where $`X_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ are solutions to the string equations of motion in the presence of the twist fields, $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the $`Euclidean`$ action, and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ label the twisted sectors.

Further, we will study a class of the $`Z_N`$ orbifold compactifications of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string which admit the decomposition $`T^2T^2T^2`$ such that the backgrounds have a block–diagonal form. To discuss the CP symmetry, one introduces the orthogonal coordinates $`X^{}=O^1X`$ in which the metric is diagonal

$$GO^TGO=\eta ,$$
(5)
with $`\eta `$ being the Minkowski metric. Henceforth, we will work in this basis and will omit the prime. The bosonic part of the CP transformation can be defined as ,See also ,.

$`X^I`$ $``$ $`X^I,I=1,\mathrm{..16},`$
$`X^i`$ $``$ $`X^i,i=1,5,7,9,`$
$`X^i`$ $``$ $`X^i,i=2,3,4,6,8,10.`$ (6)
This is a combination of the conventional reflection of the three spacial coordinates, a reflection of three of the compactified coordinates, and a reversal of the gauge charges. Although a four dimensional P operation is not a proper Lorentz transformation, it becomes one when supplemented by the reflection of the compactified coordinates. In terms of the complex coordinates of the internal manifold, this amounts to the complex conjugation $`Z^iZ^i`$ . The reversal of the gauge charges is an automorphism of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ group and therefore is also a symmetry of the system (when no backgrounds are present).

The above definition does not appear to be unique in the sense that one can extend a conventional P operation to a proper Lorentz transformation in a number of ways, for instance, through a reflection of only one of the compactified coordinates. Such “truncated CP” appears as a well defined symmetry at the classical bosonic action level, but it is $`not`$ a symmetry of the theory as a whole. In particular, since it acts in the 6D subspace, it is not a gauge symmetry in the fermionic sector . Also, it is not a symmetry of the compactification: it transforms the twist $`(\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ into $`(\theta _1^{},\theta _2,\theta _3)`$ which does not belong to a subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ (unless $`\theta _1=e^{i\pi }`$ ), which leads to a non–supersymmetric orbifold. Similar arguments apply to Calabi–Yau compactifications.

The presence of string backgrounds $`B_{ij}`$ and $`A_{iI}`$ $`generally`$ violates the CP symmetry as defined in Eq.(6). First, consider the antisymmetric background $`B_{ij}`$. Under our factorization assumption, it can be written as

$$B=B_{(1)}B_{(2)}B_{(3)},$$
(7)
where $`B_{(i)}`$ corresponds to the $`i`$-th compactified plane. The invariance of the action under twisting

$$\theta ^TB\theta =B,$$
(8)
where $`\theta `$ is the orbifold twist, and the antisymmetry require

$$B_{(i)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{b}_{(i)}\\ \mathrm{b}_{(i)}& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
Then, clearly if $`\mathrm{b}_{(i)}0`$, the symmetry (6) is violated. On the other hand, this background preserves the block–diagonal part of the (proper) Lorentz symmetry. Indeed, the orbifold twist splits as

$$\theta =\theta _{(1)}\theta _{(2)}\theta _{(3)},$$
(10)
where

$$\theta _{(i)}=\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _i& \mathrm{sin}\theta _i\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _i& \mathrm{cos}\theta _i\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
rotates the $`i`$-th plane by $`\theta _i`$. This is a proper Lorentz transformation, so Eq.(8) signifies the invariance of the B–background under this class of Lorentz transformations. However, the reflection symmetry of the background–free action

$$S_0=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\tau 𝑑\sigma ^\alpha X^i_\alpha X^i$$
(12)
is lost. Note that this action is invariant under the full Lorentz group including orientation changing transformations

$$X^iX^i$$
(13)
for any $`i`$.

This observation raises the question “What is the higher dimensional symmetry that ensures that the low–energy 4D Yukawa couplings conserve CP ?” To answer this question, let us first note that 4D field theory tells us that complex Yukawa couplings break conventional CP (if the phases cannot be rotated away) while real ones conserve it. From Eq.(4) it is clear that CP is broken when the Euclidean action has a non–vanishing imaginary part. The $`^\alpha X^i_\alpha X^i`$ piece always gives a real contribution, while the $`B_{ij}`$ contribution is imaginary. The difference arises from the $`\tau `$–dependence combined with the Wick’s rotation: a quadratic $`_\tau `$ dependence gives a real result while a linear one produces a factor of $`i`$, i.e. we have

$`^\alpha _\alpha \mathrm{vs}ϵ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha _\beta .`$
The $`ϵ^{\alpha \beta }`$–piece leads to antisymmetric with respect to the Lorentz (or Lorentz–gauge) indices contributions to the action. Such contributions necessarily break some reflection symmetries (13). We thus conclude that the parity symmetry (13) ensures that the Yukawa couplings conserve CP. Under our factorization $`T^2T^2T^2`$ assumption, this is equivalent to requiring the CP symmetry (6).

Now, it is clear that, from the bosonic action perspective, the “truncated CP” does not reduce to the conventional 4D CP symmetry. Consider, for instance, $`B_{ij}0`$ in the third plane only. This configuration conserves “pseudo–CP” defined with the reflection of one axis in the first plane only. Yet, the Yukawa couplings violate CP in the usual sense.

Non–vanishing $`B_{ij}`$ does not necessarily result in observable CP violation since at isolated points in the parameter space the effect of $`B_{ij}`$ may simply amount to $`SS+2\pi in`$. Further constraints come fromApart from producing CP violating Yukawa couplings, $`B_{ij}`$ (with 4D indices) also couples to $`F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ which violates CP. This term is constrained to be extremely small experimentally leading to the notorious strong CP problem.
(i) flavor–dependence,
(ii) modular invariance.
The first of them means that, if we associate quark flavors with orbifold fixed points, the CP violating phases produced by $`B_{ij}`$ should depend on the relative positions of the fixed points in such a way that they could not be eliminated by a redefinition of the quark fields . This amounts to non–vanishing of the Jarlskog invariant§§§In supersymmetric models, CP violation is governed by a class of $`K`$\- and $`L`$\- invariants in addition to the Jarlskog invariant .  . The second requirement (which is related to the first one) means that the CP phases cannot be eliminated by a modular transformation whenever the system possesses a modular symmetry , . Whether these requirements are satisfied or not depends on the orbifold and the relevant moduli, but in principle observable CP violation can be achieved even at the renormalizable level if $`B_{ij}0`$ .

The discussion of the Wilson lines proceeds (at first) along similar lines. Consider the case of continuous Wilson lines. A continuous Wilson line is realized through the correspondence between the space group and rotations and shifts of the gauge $`E_8\times E_8`$ lattice :

$$(\theta ,l)(\mathrm{\Theta },a),$$
(14)
where $`\theta `$ is a point group element, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a rotation of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ lattice, and $`l`$ and $`a`$ are related by

$$l^\mathrm{i}=\underset{\alpha }{}n_\alpha e_\alpha ^\mathrm{i},a^\mathrm{I}=\underset{\alpha }{}n_\alpha A_\alpha ^\mathrm{I}.$$
(15)
Here $`n_\alpha `$ are some integers, $`e_\alpha ^\mathrm{i}`$ are the torus basis vectors, and $`A_\alpha ^\mathrm{I}`$ are the Wilson lines.

For the $`standard`$ embedding ($`\theta =\mathrm{\Theta }`$) , we have

$$A=A_{(1)}A_{(2)}A_{(3)}$$
(16)
where $`A_{(i)}`$ are $`2\times 2`$ blocks. The twist invariance

$$\theta ^TA\theta =A$$
(17)
requires

$$A_{(i)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_{(i)}& b_{(i)}\\ b_{(i)}& a_{(i)}\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
A priori, $`a_{(i)}0`$ or $`b_{(i)}0`$ violate the symmetry (6). However, embedding of the space group into the gauge group imposes additional constraints. In particular, on shell, effectively we have

$$_\alpha X_L^i_\alpha X^I$$
(19)
for each of the $`2\times 2`$ blocks (one can, for instance, take $`i`$=$`I`$), while $`X_R^i`$ decouple from the Wilson lines. This identification restores the CP invariance so that $`S_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ gives a CP conserving contribution to the Yukawa couplings. These arguments equally apply to a class of non–standard embeddings for which an orbifold twist is associated with a rotation of more than one planes in the gauge space. The explicit formulae will be given in the next section.

The case of discrete Wilson lines is more complicated and will be dealt with separately in one of the subsequent sections.

Similar discussion applies to the non–renormalizable couplings. The relevant $`n`$–point amplitude is given by

$$A\underset{X_{\mathrm{cl}}}{}X_{\mathrm{cl}}^i\mathrm{}e^{S_{\mathrm{cl}}}.$$
(20)
The classical solutions $`X_{\mathrm{cl}}^i`$ are not affected by $`B_{ij}`$ and $`A_{iI}`$ since they enter neither the equations of motion nor the boundary conditions. Thus CP violation arises through $`e^{S_{\mathrm{cl}}}`$ and the arguments above apply. We note that these couplings are exponentially suppressed by the radii of the compactified dimensions in symmetric orbifolds .

3. Moduli dependence of the Yukawa couplings.

To make our arguments more explicit, here we present the full moduli dependence of the heterotic Yukawa couplings. The Yukawa couplings are calculated via pairing two real coordinates in each plane into a complex one (see  and  for details). The action is then written as

$`S_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2z(Z^i\overline{}\overline{Z}^i+\overline{}Z^i\overline{Z}^i)}{\displaystyle \frac{B_{i,i+1}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2z(Z^i\overline{}\overline{Z}^i\overline{}Z^i\overline{Z}^i)}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle }d^2z[𝒜_{iI}(Z^i\overline{}Z^I\overline{}Z^iZ^I)+𝒜_{iI}^{}(Z^i\overline{}\overline{Z}^I\overline{}Z^i\overline{Z}^I)\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],`$
where $`z=e^{2(\tau +i\sigma )}`$, $`Z^i=X^i+iX^{i+1}`$, $`i=1,3,5`$; $`Z^I=X^I+iX^{I+1},I=1,3,..,15`$; and

$`𝒜_{iI}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(A_{iI}A_{i+1,I+1}iA_{i+1,I}iA_{i,I+1}),`$
$`𝒜_{iI}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(A_{iI}+A_{i+1,I+1}iA_{i+1,I}+iA_{i,I+1}).`$ (22)
Here h.c. replaces a quantity with the corresponding barred one and conjugates $`𝒜,𝒜^{}`$. We omit the pure gauge contribution to the action since it vanishes on shell.

The classical solutions are completely determined by their singular behavior at the twist operator insertion points and the boundary conditions. If the twist field of order $`k/N`$ is placed at the point $`z_1`$ on the world sheet, another twist field of order $`l/N`$ is placed at $`z_2`$, etc., the solution to the equations of motion has the form

$`Z=c(zz_1)^{(1k/N)}(zz_2)^{(1l/N)}(zz_3)^{k/Nl/N},`$
$`\overline{}\overline{Z}=\overline{c}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_1)^{(1k/N)}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_2)^{(1l/N)}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_3)^{k/Nl/N},`$
$`\overline{}Z=d(\overline{z}\overline{z}_1)^{k/N}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_2)^{l/N}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_3)^{(1k/Nl/N)},`$
$`\overline{Z}=\overline{d}(zz_1)^{k/N}(zz_2)^{l/N}(zz_3)^{(1k/Nl/N)}`$ (23)
for each complex plane. The constants $`c,d`$ are to be determined by the the following $`monodromy`$ conditions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }Z^i={\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑zZ^i+{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\overline{z}\overline{}Z^i=v^i,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{Z}^i={\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑z\overline{Z}^i+{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\overline{z}\overline{}\overline{Z}^i=\overline{v}^i,`$ (24)
with the complex lattice vector $`v^i`$ defined by $`v^i=v^{(i)}+iv^{(i+1)}`$ and $`\overline{v}^i=v^{(i)}iv^{(i+1)}`$. Here the contour $`𝒞`$ is chosen such that $`Z^i`$ gets shifted but not rotated upon going around $`𝒞`$. These equations allow to solve for $`c,d`$ in terms of the winding vectors $`v^i`$.

In the case of the standard embedding, $`\overline{}\overline{Z}^i`$ and $`\overline{}\overline{Z}^I`$ have the same structure . In particular, they have the same singular behaviour at the twist operator insertion points:

$$\overline{}\overline{Z}^I=\overline{c}^{}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_1)^{(1k/N)}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_2)^{(1l/N)}(\overline{z}\overline{z}_3)^{k/Nl/N},$$
(25)
while $`\overline{Z}^I=Z^I=0`$ since $`X^I`$ are left moving. The constant $`c^{}`$ is determined by the monodromy condition for $`Z^I`$:

$`{\displaystyle _𝒞}𝑑\overline{z}\overline{}\overline{Z}^I=\overline{u},`$ (26)
Here $`u`$ is the gauge space representation of the space group element $`v`$ which appears in the monodromy condition for $`Z^i`$ (see  for a detailed discussion).

It has been shown , that the Yukawa couplings are determined by the holomophic instantons, i.e. classical solutions with holomorphic $`Z^i`$ and antiholomorphic $`\overline{Z}^i`$ (i.e. $`d=0`$). Omitting the intermediate details, let us give the final result ,:

$`Y_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=\mathrm{const}\times `$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_i,m_i𝐙}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,3,5}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_i+A_i\overline{A}_i}{\mathrm{Re}U_i}}\left(n_i^22n_im_i\mathrm{Im}U_i+m_i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi |\mathrm{sin}(k_i\pi /N)||\mathrm{sin}(l_i\pi /N)|}{2\mathrm{sin}^2(k_il_i\pi /N)|\mathrm{sin}((k_i+l_i)\pi /N)|}}\right].`$
Here we have used the following definitions of the moduli

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}}{2\pi ^2}}\left(1i\mathrm{b}\right),`$
$`U={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{11}}}\left(\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}ig_{12}\right),`$
$`A\overline{A}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g}}{4\pi ^2}}\left|a+ib\right|^2`$ (28)
for each of the three planes. Here the integers $`n_i,m_i`$ are determined by the space group selection rule. The background parameters b, $`a,b`$ are given by Eqs.(9),(18). The orbifold metric $`g_{ab}`$ is

$$g_{ab}=e_ae_b$$
(29)
and we assume $`e_1^2=e_2^2=R^2`$ and $`e_1e_2=R^2\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$, where $`R`$ is the compactification radius and $`\varphi `$ is an angle between $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$.

A comment about the $`U`$–dependence is in order. Although we display the $`U`$–dependence explicitly, in all relevant cases the value of the $`U`$–modulus is fixed once the orbifold is specified ($`U=ie^{i\varphi }`$). It is a continuous modulus only if the orbifold possesses a $`Z_2`$ plane. In this case the allowed Yukawa coupling is of the form $`\theta \theta \theta ^2`$ in this plane, which reduces to a 2–point twist–antitwist correlator. This gives just a multiplicative constant irrelevant to our discussion.

It is clear from Eq.(27) that the only potential source of CP violation is the T–moduli (apart from, possibly, discrete Wilson lines which will be discussed in the next section). The U– and A–moduli only affect the magnitudes of the Yukawa couplings. In particular, the presence of continuous Wilson lines always makes the hierarchy among the Yukawa couplings stronger.

The flavor–dependence necessary for physical CP violation comes from the dependence of $`n_i,m_i`$ on the positions of the fixed points (for analogous discussion of Type I models, see ). The space group selection rule requires $`ne_1+me_2=(1\theta ^{kl})(f_1f_2+\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in each plane, where $`f_{1,2}`$ are the fixed points where the fields are placed and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lattice vector. If the fixed points do not coincide, $`n`$ or $`m`$ do not start from zero and the coupling is suppressed by the distance between the fixed points. The consequent CP phases depend on the relative positions of the fixed points. Given a favorable configuration, observable CP violation can result at the renormalizable level . This only occurs in the even order orbifolds where the space group selection rule is not diagonal. In the odd order orbifolds, CP violation, if it occurs at the renormalizable level, has to result from either “mixing” of the fixed points due to an anomalous $`U(1)`$ or a nonminimal Higgs sector (e.g. 6 Higgs doublets, etc.). Of course, it can also come entirely from non–renormalizable operators in which case not much can be said quantitativelySee  on related subjects..

Concerning the effect of the target space modular symmetries, one can show that, due to the axionic shift invariance $`T_iT_i+i`$, the CP phases can be rotated away if Im$`T_i=\pm 1/2`$ . No CP violation occurs in this case. We note that the axionic shift symmetry is unbroken by the presence of Wilson lines, unlike the duality symmetry, so it is a symmetry of many realistic models. Thus, under the above assumptions, the T–moduli have to be stabilized away from the lines Im$`T_i=\pm 1/2`$ which include the fixed points of the modular group. This imposes non–trivial constraints on realistic models  since the moduli are often stabilized at the fixed points $`T=1,e^{\pm i\pi /6}`$ (as suggested by symmetries of the scalar potential).

4. Discrete Wilson lines and CP violation.

A priori, the presence of discrete Wilson lines violates CP. In this section, we show that this $`does`$ $`not`$ occur at least at the renormalizable level if the low energy physics is described by the Standard Model (or its minimal supersymmetric version).

A discrete Wilson line is realized through an abelian embedding of the space group into the gauge group of the orbifold :

$$(\theta ,l)(1,v+a),$$
(30)
where $`v`$ is a shift of the $`E_8\times E_8`$ lattice, and $`l`$ and $`a`$ are related by (15). If we associate a Wilson line $`a_1`$ with $`e_1`$, then the same Wilson line is also associated with $`\theta e_1`$. This can be seen as follows: to respect the group multiplication rules, one has to associate $`(\theta ,e_1)(\theta ^1,e_1)=(1,e_1+\theta e_1)`$ with $`(1,v+a_1)(1,v+a_1)=(1,2a_1)`$ from which the above statement follows. Thus we have

$$a^I(e_i)=a^I(\theta e_i),$$
(31)
up to a gauge lattice vector. Further, since $`(\theta ,l)^N=(1,0)`$, such Wilson lines have to be $`discrete`$:

$$Na^I=0$$
(32)
up to a lattice vector.

Consider an example of the $`Z_3`$ orbifold. Denote the two $`SU(3)`$ root vectors by $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$. The twist $`\theta `$ rotates them as follows:

$$\theta e_1=e_2,\theta e_2=e_1e_2.$$
(33)
Then the Wilson lines satisfy the following conditions:

$$a_1=a_2,3a_1=0,$$
(34)
up to a lattice vector. Here we use the shorthand notation $`a_ia^I(e_i)`$.

Similarly, one can study constraints on discrete Wilson lines for other orbifolds . The results are presented in Table 1. The second column shows the orbifold twists, while the third column gives an example of a 6D Lie lattice which realizes the orbifold twist by its Coxeter element (in general, there are more than one 6D lattices realizing the same orbifold twist). The constraints on the discrete Wilson lines depend on which 6D lattice is used. The 6D lattice shown in the third column is the one leading to most degrees of freedom for the discrete Wilson lines (see  for other lattices). The constraints are shown in the fourth column, where each equation is meant to be satisfied up to a gauge lattice vector.

To discuss the discrete Wilson lines further, we will need some facts about the selection rules for the Yukawa couplings. With every fixed point let us associate a space group element $`(\theta ^k,n_ie^i)`$ according to

$$\theta ^kf_{k,n_ie^i}=f_{k,n_ie^i}+n_ie^i,$$
(35)
where $`n_i`$ is an integer. Henceforth, we will denote a fixed point by its space group element $`(\theta ^k,n_ie^i)`$. The fixed points $`(\theta ^p,\mathrm{}_ie^i+(1\theta ^p)\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with different $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are equivalent to each other. The twisted states of the orbifold are located at the fixed points (in even orbifolds a physical state corresponds to a linear combination of the fixed points in the the same twisted sector ).

The Yukawa couplings among the three states corresponding to the fixed points $`(\theta ^p,\mathrm{}_ie^i)`$, $`(\theta ^q,m_ie^i)`$ and $`(\theta ^r,n_ie^i)`$ are allowed only if certain selection rules are satisfied. In particular, the space group invariance requires that

$$(\theta ^p,\mathrm{}_ie^i)(\theta ^q,m_ie^i)(\theta ^r,n_ie^i)=(1,\underset{s=p,q,r}{}(1\theta ^s)\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(36)
We note that the right hand side of this equation is equivalent to $`(1,0)`$.

As an example, consider this selection rule for the $`Z_3`$ orbifold. Each 2D $`Z_3`$ orbifold has three fixed points $`0`$, $`e^1/3+2e^2/3`$, and $`2e^1/3+e^2/3`$, or in our notation, $`(\theta ,0)`$, $`(\theta ,e^1e^2)`$, and $`(\theta ,e^1)`$, respectively. Since the fixed points shifted by $`(1\theta )\mathrm{\Lambda }=ne^1+(3mn)e^2`$ are equivalent, we can denote these fixed points by $`(\theta ,ke^1)`$ with $`k=0,1,2`$. Then the Yukawa coupling of the states corresponding to the fixed points $`(\theta ,\mathrm{}e^1)`$, $`(\theta ,me^1)`$ and $`(\theta ,ne^1)`$ is allowed if

$$\mathrm{}+m+n=0\mathrm{mod}3,$$
(37)
and similarly for the other 2D planes. This selection rule implies that once $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`m`$ are specified, $`n`$ is fixed uniquely (mod 3). This sort of a selection rule is diagonal in the sense that the positions of the two of the fixed points determine the third one uniquely. The resulting quark Yukawa matrices are diagonal. Note that this orbifold allows for non–trivial Wilson lines (Table 1).

The space group selection rule is not always diagonal . Consider the $`G_2`$ plane with the twist $`e^{2\pi i/6}`$ of the $`Z_6`$-I orbifold. Denote the lattice basis vectors as $`e_3`$ and $`e_4`$. The $`\theta `$ twist has one fixed point $`(\theta ,0)`$, $`\theta ^2`$ has three fixed points $`(\theta ^2,pe_3)`$ ($`p=0,1,2`$), and $`\theta ^3`$ has four fixed points $`(\theta ^3,ne_3)`$ ($`n=0,1,2,3`$). It is easy to show that the coupling $`(\theta ,0)(\theta ^2,pe_3)(\theta ^3,ne_3)`$ is allowed for any $`p`$ and $`n`$. That means that the positions of the two fixed points do not determine the position of the third one uniquely and the Yukawa matrices can have off–diagonal elements. On the other hand, discrete Wilson lines in this plane are not allowed (Table 1).

These two examples suggest that whenever off–diagonal Yukawa matrix elements are allowed, the discrete Wilson lines are $`forbidden`$. This is indeed true as can be checked by inspecting all orbifolds. The reason for that is as follows. A space group element $`(\theta ^p,n_ie^i)`$ is embedded into the gauge space as $`(1,pv+n_ia^i)`$. The selection rule (36) then implies

$$(1,pv+\mathrm{}_ia^i)(1,qv+m_ia^i)(1,rv+n_ia^i)=(1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E_8\times E_8}).$$
(38)
Since $`p+q+r=0`$ mod $`N`$ and $`Nv`$ is a lattice vector, we have

$$(\mathrm{}_i+m_i+n_i)a^i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E_8\times E_8}.$$
(39)
Suppose now that $`\mathrm{}_1=0,1`$ are both allowed such that the selection rule is not diagonal. Taking the difference of (39) with $`\mathrm{}_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1=1`$, we obtain

$$a^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{E_8\times E_8}$$
(40)
which is equivalent to zero.

This result has important implications. Suppose that the presence of discrete Wilson lines results in CP phases in the Yukawa couplings. Since in this case the Yukawa matrices are bound to be diagonal, these CP phases can always be rotated away by a redefinition of the right handed quarks. Thus, at the renormalizable level, discrete Wilson lines do not lead to CP violationThis argument may not apply if there are many Higgs doublets in the low energy theory (as in Ref.)..

This result may be altered by the presence of non–renormalizable operators contributing to the Yukawa matrices. Although they involve exponentially small factors , they are not necessarily small numerically  and thus can have a non–negligible effect. The difficulty with an explicit calculation of the discrete Wilson line contribution is that the standard action (3) is not invariant (or does not transform as $`SS+2\pi n`$) under an $`E_8\times E_8`$ lattice shift of the Wilson line for $`arbitrary`$ $`X^i`$. For the same reason, it is not generally twist–invariant. This problem remains open.

5. Conclusion.

We have studied a connection between heterotic string backgrounds and CP violation in the Yukawa couplings. We find that only the antisymmetric background field $`B_{ij}`$ is a viable candidate for the source of observed CP violation. The continuous Wilson lines and the $`U`$–moduli conserve CP, whereas the discrete Wilson lines do not lead to physical CP phases at least at the renormalizable level.

Acknowledgements. T.K. is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.14540256 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. O.L. is supported by PPARC.


format: text

text:
# Ext vanishing and infinite Auslander-Buchsbaum

## 0. Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian local commutative ring, and let $`X`$ be a finitely generated $`R`$-module of finite projective dimension. The classical Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem states

$$\mathrm{pd}X=\mathrm{depth}R\mathrm{depth}X.$$

This can also be phrased as an Ext vanishing theorem, namely, if $`M`$ is any $`R`$-module, then

$$\mathrm{Ext}_R^i(X,M)=0\text{ for }i>\mathrm{depth}R\mathrm{depth}X.$$
(1)
In  is proved a surprising variation of this: Suppose that $`R`$ is complete in the $`𝔪`$-adic topology. Then equation (1) remains true if $`X`$ is any $`R`$-module of finite projective dimension, provided $`M`$ is finitely generated. In other words, the condition of being finitely generated is shifted from $`X`$ to $`M`$.

In theorem 2.4 below, this result will be generalized to the situation of a non-commutative noetherian $``$-graded connected algebra.

The route goes through an “infinite” version of the non-commutative Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem, given in theorem 1.4. This result is a substantial improvement of the original non-commutative Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem, as given in \[3, thm. 3.2\], in that the condition of dealing only with finitely generated modules is dropped.

The notation of this paper is standard, and is already on record in several places such as  or . So I will not say much, except that throughout, $`k`$ is a field, and $`A`$ is a noetherian $``$-graded connected $`k`$-algebra. However, let me give one important word of caution: Everything in sight is graded. So for instance, $`\text{D}(A)`$ stands for $`\text{D}(\text{Gr}A)`$, the derived category of the abelian category $`\text{Gr}(A)`$ of $``$-graded $`A`$-left-modules and graded homomorphisms of degree zero.

## 1. Auslander-Buchsbaum

###### Definition 1.1.

For $`X`$ in $`\text{D}(A)`$, define the $`k`$-flat dimension by

$`\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X.`$
###### Remark 1.2.

Using a minimal free resolution, it is easy to see that if the cohomology of $`X`$ is bounded and finitely generated, then

$$\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{pd}X,$$

where $`\mathrm{fd}`$ stands for flat dimension and $`\mathrm{pd}`$ stands for projective dimension.

In the following lemma is used $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$, the full subcategory of $`\text{D}(A)`$ consisting of complexes with bounded cohomology, and $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$, the full subcategory of $`\text{D}(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$ consisting of complexes with cohomology vanishing in low degrees.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`X`$ in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`S`$ in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$ have $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{h}^i(S)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$. Then

$$\mathrm{inf}S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{inf}S\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X.$$

###### Proof.

Observe that $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$ implies

$$\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X>\mathrm{},$$

hence

$$\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
If

$$\mathrm{inf}S=\mathrm{}$$
(3)
then $`S`$ is zero. Then $`S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$ is also zero, so

$$\mathrm{inf}S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
Combining equations (2), (3), and (4) shows that for $`\mathrm{inf}S=\mathrm{}`$, the lemma’s equation reads

$$\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}\text{(something smaller than }\mathrm{}\text{)}$$

which is true.

So for the rest of the proof, I can assume $`\mathrm{inf}S<\mathrm{}`$, that is, $`S`$ is non-zero. Note that $`S`$ is in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$, so $`\mathrm{inf}S>\mathrm{}`$, so $`\mathrm{inf}S`$ is a finite number.

Let me first do the case where $`S`$ is concentrated in degree zero. Here $`S`$ is just a graded $`A`$-right-module which is finite dimensional over $`k`$, and the lemma claims

$$\mathrm{inf}S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X.$$
(5)
To prove this, note that $`\mathrm{dim}_kS<\mathrm{}`$ gives that there is a short exact sequence $`0k(\mathrm{})S\stackrel{~}{S}0`$ of graded $`A`$-right-modules. This gives a distinguished triangle $`k(\mathrm{})S\stackrel{~}{S}`$ in $`\text{D}(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$, and tensoring with $`X`$ and taking the cohomology long exact sequence gives a sequence consisting of pieces

$$\mathrm{h}^i(k(\mathrm{})\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)\mathrm{h}^i(S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)\mathrm{h}^i(\stackrel{~}{S}\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X).$$

Induction on $`\mathrm{dim}_kS`$ now shows that the lowest $`i`$ with

$$\mathrm{h}^i(k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)0$$

equals the lowest $`i`$ with

$$\mathrm{h}^i(S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)0,$$

and equation (5) follows. The induction works because $`\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X>\mathrm{}`$, and even works for $`\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{}`$.

Let me next do the case where $`S`$ is general. There is a standard spectral sequence

$$E_2^{pq}=\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)\mathrm{h}^{p+q}(S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X).$$

Since $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, the spectral sequence is first quadrant up to shift, hence converges. Now, $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{h}^q(S)<\mathrm{}`$ holds for each $`q`$, so if $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)`$ is non-zero, then the special case of the lemma dealt with above applies to $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$ and shows

$$\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X.$$
(6)
There are now two cases: First, if

$$\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{}$$
(7)
then equation (6) gives that if $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)`$ is non-zero, then $`\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{}`$, that is, $`\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ is zero for each $`p`$. Of course this also holds for $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)`$ equal to zero, and so in the spectral sequence, $`E_2^{pq}`$ is identically zero. Therefore the limit $`\mathrm{h}^{p+q}(S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ of the spectral sequence is also zero, so $`S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$ is zero, so

$$\mathrm{inf}S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
But $`\mathrm{inf}S`$ is a finite number, and combining this with equations (7) and (8) says that the lemma’s equation reads

$$\mathrm{}=\text{(a finite number)}(\mathrm{})$$

which is true.

Secondly, if

$$\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X>\mathrm{},$$

then equation (6) says that if $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)`$ is non-zero, then $`\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}M)`$ is non-zero for $`p=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$, but zero for $`p<\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$. And of course, if $`\mathrm{h}^q(S)`$ is zero, then $`\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(S)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ is zero for each $`p`$. So in the spectral sequence, $`E_2^{pq}`$ is non-zero for $`p=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$ and $`q=\mathrm{inf}S`$, but zero for lower $`p`$ or $`q`$. Hence $`E_2^{\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X,\mathrm{inf}S}`$ can be used in a standard corner argument which shows that the lowest non-zero term in the limit $`\mathrm{h}^{p+q}(S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ of the spectral sequence has degree $`p+q=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X+\mathrm{inf}S`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{inf}S\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X=\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X+\mathrm{inf}S,$$

proving the lemma’s equation. ∎

###### Theorem 1.4 (Infinite Auslander-Buchsbaum).

Assume that $`A`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(k,A)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$. Let $`X`$ in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{depth}X=\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X.$$

###### Proof.

I have

$$\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,X)\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X,$$

where the second $``$ holds because it holds if $`X`$ is just a graded flat module, so also holds if $`X`$ is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded complex of graded flat modules, and this is the case since $`X`$ is in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ and has $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$.

Thus

$`\mathrm{depth}X`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,X)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$
$`\stackrel{(\mathrm{a})}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A)\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X,`$
where (a) is by lemma 1.3. The lemma applies because $`\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A)`$ is in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$, and has $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{h}^i\mathrm{RHom}_A(k,A)=\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(k,A)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$ by assumption. ∎

###### Remark 1.5.

Theorem 1.4 even holds for $`\mathrm{depth}A=\mathrm{}`$, where the theorem states $`\mathrm{depth}X=\mathrm{}`$.

On the other hand, suppose $`\mathrm{depth}A<\mathrm{}`$. Then it is easy to see that it makes sense to rearrange the equation in theorem 1.4 as

$$\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{depth}X.$$

If the cohomology of $`X`$ is bounded and finitely generated, then this equation reads

$$\mathrm{pd}X=\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{depth}X$$

by remark 1.2. This is the original non-commutative Auslander-Buchsbaum theorem, as proved in \[3, thm. 3.2\].

## 2. Ext vanishing

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`X`$ in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`T`$ in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$ be so that $`\mathrm{h}^i(T)`$ is a graded torsion module for each $`i`$. Then

$$\mathrm{inf}T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{inf}T\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X.$$

###### Proof.

As in the proof of lemma 1.3, it is easy to see that for $`\mathrm{inf}T=\mathrm{}`$, the lemma’s inequality trivially reads $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. So for the rest of the proof I can assume $`\mathrm{inf}T<\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`T`$ is in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$, so $`\mathrm{inf}T>\mathrm{}`$, so $`\mathrm{inf}T`$ is a finite number.

Let me first do the case where $`T`$ is concentrated in degree zero. Here $`T`$ is just a graded torsion module, and the lemma claims

$$\mathrm{inf}T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{inf}k\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X.$$

If $`F`$ is a flat resolution of $`X`$, then this amounts to

$$\mathrm{inf}T_AF\mathrm{inf}k_AF.$$
(9)
To prove this, note that as $`T`$ is a graded torsion module, it is the colimit of the system

$$T1T2\mathrm{}$$

where

$$Tj=\{tTA_jt=0\}.$$

Each quotient $`Tj/Tj1`$ is annihilated by $`A_1`$ so has the form $`_\alpha k(\mathrm{}_\alpha )`$, so there are short exact sequences of the form

$$0Tj1Tj\underset{\alpha }{}k(\mathrm{}_\alpha )0.$$

Tensoring such a sequence with $`F`$ gives a short exact sequence of complexes because $`F`$ consists of graded flat modules. The corresponding cohomology long exact sequence consists of pieces

$$\mathrm{h}^i(Tj1_AF)\mathrm{h}^i(Tj_AF)\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{h}^i(k_AF)(\mathrm{}_\alpha ).$$

Induction on $`j`$ now makes clear that

$$\mathrm{h}^i(k_AF)=0$$

implies

$$\mathrm{h}^i(Tj_AF)=0\text{ for each }j\text{,}$$

and this further gives

$$\mathrm{h}^i(T_AF)\mathrm{h}^i(\mathrm{colim}Tj_AF)\mathrm{colim}\mathrm{h}^i(Tj_AF)=0,$$

so the inequality (9) follows.

Let me next do the case where $`T`$ is general. There is a standard spectral sequence

$$E_2^{pq}=\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(T)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)\mathrm{h}^{p+q}(T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X).$$

Since $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, the spectral sequence is first quadrant up to shift, hence converges. Now, each $`\mathrm{h}^q(T)`$ is a graded torsion module, so if $`\mathrm{h}^q(T)`$ is non-zero, then the special case of the lemma dealt with above applies to $`\mathrm{h}^q(T)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$ and shows

$$\mathrm{inf}\mathrm{h}^q(T)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X.$$

Hence if $`\mathrm{h}^q(T)`$ is non-zero, then $`\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(T)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ is zero for $`p<\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$. And of course, if $`\mathrm{h}^q(T)`$ is zero, then $`\mathrm{h}^p(\mathrm{h}^q(T)\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ is zero for each $`p`$. So in the spectral sequence, $`E_2^{pq}`$ is zero for $`p<\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X`$ or $`q<\mathrm{inf}T`$. Therefore the limit $`\mathrm{h}^{p+q}(T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)`$ of the spectral sequence is zero for $`p+q<\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X+\mathrm{inf}T`$, and this says

$$\mathrm{inf}T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X+\mathrm{inf}T,$$

proving the lemma’s inequality. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`A`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{depth}A<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(k,A)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$.

Let $`X`$ in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`T`$ in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$ be so that $`\mathrm{h}^i(T)`$ is a graded torsion module for each $`i`$. Then

$$\mathrm{inf}T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{inf}T+\mathrm{depth}X\mathrm{depth}A.$$

###### Proof.

Using lemma 2.1 and remark 1.5 gives $``$ and $`=`$ in

$$\mathrm{inf}T\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X\mathrm{inf}T\mathrm{k}.\mathrm{fd}X=\mathrm{inf}T+\mathrm{depth}X\mathrm{depth}A.$$

In the following theorem is used $`\text{D}_{\mathrm{fg}}^{}(A)`$, the full subcategory of $`\text{D}(A)`$ consisting of complexes whose cohomology vanishes in high degrees and consists of finitely generated graded modules.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`A`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{depth}A<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(k,A)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$.

Let $`X`$ in $`\text{D}^\mathrm{b}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`M`$ be in $`\text{D}_{\mathrm{fg}}^{}(A)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{sup}\mathrm{RHom}_A(X,M)\mathrm{sup}M\mathrm{depth}X+\mathrm{depth}A.$$

###### Proof.

It is easy to see that since $`M`$ is in $`\text{D}_{\mathrm{fg}}^{}(A)`$, the Matlis dual $`M^{}`$ is in $`\text{D}^+(A^{\mathrm{op}})`$ and has $`\mathrm{h}^i(M^{})`$ a graded torsion module for each $`i`$. So

$`\mathrm{sup}\mathrm{RHom}_A(X,M)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sup}\mathrm{RHom}_A(X,M^{\prime \prime })`$
$`\stackrel{(\mathrm{a})}{=}`$ $`\mathrm{sup}((M^{}\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{inf}M^{}\underset{A}{\overset{\mathrm{L}}{}}X`$
$`\stackrel{(\mathrm{b})}{}`$ $`\mathrm{inf}M^{}\mathrm{depth}X+\mathrm{depth}A`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sup}M\mathrm{depth}X+\mathrm{depth}A,`$
where (a) is by adjunction and (b) is by lemma 2.2. ∎

The following is the special case of theorem 2.3 where $`X`$ and $`M`$ are concentrated in degree zero, that is, where $`X`$ and $`M`$ are graded modules.

###### Theorem 2.4 (Ext vanishing).

Assume that $`A`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{depth}A<\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(k,A)<\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$.

Let $`X`$ in $`\text{Gr}(A)`$ have $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, and let $`M`$ be in $`\text{gr}(A)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(X,M)=0\text{ for }i>\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{depth}X.$$

This says that for $`\mathrm{fd}X<\mathrm{}`$, the number $`\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{depth}X`$ plays the role of projective dimension of $`X`$, but only with respect to finitely generated graded modules $`M`$.

Of course, this fails when $`M`$ is general, as illustrated by the following example.

###### Example 2.5.

Let $`A`$ be the polynomial algebra $`k[x]`$. Then the conditions of theorem 2.4 are satisfied, and it is classical that $`\mathrm{depth}A`$ is $`1`$.

Let $`X`$ be $`k[x,x^1]`$. Then $`\mathrm{depth}X1`$ because $`X`$ is a graded torsion free module, so $`\mathrm{depth}A\mathrm{depth}X0`$ and theorem 2.4 gives

$$\mathrm{Ext}_A^i(X,M)=0\text{ for }i>0$$

for $`M`$ in $`\text{gr}(A)`$.

However, this must fail when $`M`$ is general, for otherwise $`X`$ would be a projective object of $`\text{Gr}(A)`$ which it is certainly not.

Acknowledgement.  I thank Anders Frankild for showing me .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

An interesting class of Post–Newtonian features is represented by the orbital effects of order $`𝒪(c^2)`$ induced by the linearized general relativistic gravitoelectromagnetic forces on the motion of a test body freely falling in the gravitational field of a central mass.

Among them, of great interest is the gravitomagnetic Lense–Thirring effect or dragging of inertial frames  whose source is the proper angular momentum $`𝑱`$ of the central mass which acts as source of the gravitational field. Its effect on the precessional motion of the spins $`𝒔`$ of four freely orbiting superconducting gyroscopes should be tested, among other things, by the important GP–B mission  at a claimed accuracy level of the order of 1$`\%`$ or better.

Another possible way to measure such elusive relativistic effects is the analysis of the laser–ranged data of some existing, or proposed, geodetic satellites of LAGEOS–type as LAGEOS, LAGEOS II  and the proposed LAGEOS III–LARES . In this case the whole orbit of the satellite is to be thought of as a giant gyroscope whose longitude of the ascending node $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the argument of perigee $`\omega `$ (In the original paper by Lense and Thirring the longitude of the pericentre $`\varpi =\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega `$ is used instead of $`\omega `$) undergo the Lense–Thirring precessions

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2GJ}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}},`$ (1)
$`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6GJ\mathrm{cos}i}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}},`$ (2)
where $`a,e`$ and $`i`$ are the semimajor axis, the eccentricity and the inclination, respectively, of the orbit and $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant. In recent years first attempts would have yielded a measurement of the Lense–Thirring dragging of the orbits of the existing LAGEOS and LAGEOS II at a claimed accuracy of the order of $`20\%30\%`$ . However, at present, there are some scientists who propose different error budgets .

## 2 The sources of error in the performed test

The observable used in the tests reported in  is the following linear combination of the orbital residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_2\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}60.2,$$
(3)
where $`c_1=0.304`$, $`c_2=0.350`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$ is the solved–for least square parameter which is 0 in Newtonian mechanics and 1 in General Relativity. The gravitomagnetic signature is a linear trend with a slope of 60.2 milliarcseconds per year (mas yr-1 in the following).

The latest, 2002, measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect, obtained by processing the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II data over a time span of almost 8 years with the orbital processor GEODYN II of the Goddard Space Flight Center, yields

$$\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}1\pm 0.02\pm \delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}},$$
(4)
where $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}}`$ accounts for all the possible systematic errors due to the mismodelling in the various competing classical forces of gravitational and non–gravitational origin affecting the motion of the LAGEOS satellites. In  $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}}`$ is estimated to be of the order of $`20\%`$$`30\%`$.

The main source of gravitational errors is represented by the aliasing classical secular precessions induced on the node and the perigee of a near Earth satellite by the mismodelled even zonal coefficients of the multipolar expansion of Earth gravitational field: indeed, they mimic the genuine relativistic trend111Another source of error which would plague an attempted measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with only one orbital element would be the so called Lense–Thirring ‘imprint’. It consists of the fact that in the solutions of the various Earth gravity models General Relativity is assumed to be true, so that the recovered $`J_l`$ are biased by this a priori assumption. Then, any claimed measurement of the gravitomagnetic precessions based, among other things, on such recovered values of the even zonal harmonics would lack in full credibility and reliability. It turns out that such sort of Lense–Thirring ‘imprint’ is concentrated, at least for the LAGEOS satellites, mainly in the first two–three even zonal harmonics  which do affect the single orbital elements. . Eq.(3) is designed in order to cancel out the effects of the first two even zonal harmonics of geopotential which induce mismodelled precessions of the same order of magnitude, or even larger, than the gravitomagnetic shifts, according to the Earth gravity model EGM96  (See Table 1). The evaluation of the impact of the remaining uncancelled even zonal harmonics of higher degree on eq.(3) is of the utmost importance. According to a Root–Sum–Square calculation  with the full covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$ it amounts to almost 13$`\%`$. However, according to the authors of , it would not be entirely correct to automatically extend the validity of the covariance matrix of EGM96, which is based on a multi–year average that spans the 1970, 1980 and early 1990 decades, to any particular time span like that, e.g., of the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II analysis which extends from the middle to the end of the 1990 decade. Indeed, there would not be assurance that the errors in the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential during the time of the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II experiment remained correlated exactly as in the EGM96 covariance matrix, in view of the various secular, seasonal and stochastic variations that we know occur in the terrestrial gravitational field and that have been neglected in the EGM96 solution. Of course, the same would also hold for any particular future time span of some years. If, consequently, the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EGM96 is used, the error due to geopotential, calculated in a Root–Sum–Square fashion, i.e. by taking the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual errors induced by the various even zonal harmonics, amounts to almost222It is interesting to note that, according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of the GRIM5–C1 Earth gravity model , the RSS error due to the uncancelled even zonal harmonics amounts to 13.3$`\%`$. The GRIM5–S1 and GRIM5–C1 models represent the latest solutions based on conventional satellite tracking data of the pre–CHAMP and GRACE era. They are well tested and calibrated with respect to other existing models . $`45\%`$ . A really conservative upper bound of the error due to geopotential is given by the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors for the various even zonal harmonics. For EGM96 it amounts to 83$`\%`$ (See Table 3). Note that in the EGM96 solution (and in the previous Earth gravity models like JGM3) the recovered even zonal harmonics are highly correlated; in fact, it is likely that the optimistic 13$`\%`$ result obtained with the full covariance matrix is due to a lucky correlation between $`J_6`$ and $`J_8`$ . Then, in this case, the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors should represent a truly realistic estimate of the impact of the misomodelled even zonal harmonics of geopotential.

Another important class of systematic errors is given by the non–gravitational perturbations which affect especially the perigee of LAGEOS II. For this subtle and intricate matter we refer to . The main problem is that it turned out that their interaction with the structure of LAGEOS II changes in time due to unpredictable modifications in the physical properties of the LAGEOS II surface (orbital perturbations of radiative origin, e.g. the solar radiation pressure and the Earth albedo) and in the evolution of the spin dynamics of LAGEOS II (orbital perturbations of thermal origin induced by the interaction of the electromagnetic radiation of solar and terrestrial origin with the physical structure of the satellites, in particular with their corner–cube retroreflectors). Moreover, such tiny but insidious effects were not entirely modelled in the GEODYN II software at the time of the analysis of , so that it is not easy to correctly and reliably assess their impact on the total error budget of the measurement performed during that particular time span. According to the evaluations in , the systematic error due to the non–gravitational perturbations over a time span of 7 years amounts to almost 28$`\%`$. However, according to , their impact on the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II is, in general, quite difficult to be reliably assessed.

So, by adding quadratically the gravitational and non–gravitational errors of333The estimates obtained there are based on levels of accuracy in knowing the non-gravitational forces which do not coincide with those of the force models included in GEODYN when the analysis of  was performed.  we obtain for the systematic uncertainty $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}}30\%`$ if we assume a 13$`\%`$ error due to geopotential, and $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}}54\%`$ if we assume a 45$`\%`$ error due to geopotential. The sum of the absolute values of the errors due to gepotential added quadratically with the non–gravitational perturbations would yield a total systematic error of $`\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{systematic}}`$ 87.6$`\%`$. It must be noted that the latter estimate is rather similar to those released in . Moreover, it should be considered that the perigee of LAGEOS II is also sensitive to the eclipses effect on certain non–gravitational perturbations. Such features are, generally, not accounted for in all such estimates. An attempt can be found in  in which the impact of the eclipses on the effect of the direct solar radiation pressure on the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring measurement has been evaluated: it should amount to almost 10$`\%`$ over an observational time span of 4 years.

## 3 The opportunities offered by the new terrestrial gravity models

From the previous considerations it could be argued that, in order to have a rather precise and reliable estimate of the total systematic error in the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with the LAGEOS satellites it would be better to reduce the impact of the geopotential in the error budget and/or discard the perigee of LAGEOS II which is very difficult to handle and is a relevant source of uncertainty due to its great sensitivity to many non–gravitational perturbations.

The forthcoming more accurate Earth gravity models from the CHAMP  and, especially, GRACE  missions, if the great expectations related to the latter will be finally confirmed, will yield an opportunity to realize both these goals, at least to a certain extent. In order to evaluate quantitatively the opportunities offered by the new terrestrial gravity models we have preliminarily used the recently released EIGEN2 gravity model . It is a CHAMP-only gravity field model derived from CHAMP GPS satellite–to–satellite and accelerometer data out of the period 2000, July to December and 2002, September to December. Although higher degree and order terms are solved in EIGEN2, the solution has full power only up to about degree/order 40 due to signal attenuation in the satellite’s altitude. Higher degree/order terms are solvable applying regularization of the normal equation system. However, in the case of the LAGEOS satellites it does not pose problems because their nodes and perigees are sensitive to just the first five–six even zonal harmonics444This means that the error in the Lense–Thirring measurement due to the even zonal harmonics of geopotential does not change any more if the even zonal harmonic coefficients of degree higher than 10–12 are neglected in the calculation.. It is important to note that for EIGEN2 it is likely that the released sigmas of the even zonal harmonic coefficients, which are the formal errors, are rather optimistic, at least for the low degree even zonal harmonics up to $`l=20`$ .

In Table 1 we quote the errors in the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with single orbital elements of the LAGEOS satellites according to EGM96 up to degree $`l=70`$ (See also Table II of ).

In Table 2 we quote the errors in the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with single orbital elements of the LAGEOS satellites according to EIGEN2 555The correlation matrix of EIGEN2 is downloadable from http://op.gfz-potsdam.de/champ/results/ in the form of lower triangular matrix. In it the recovered even zonal harmonics are disentangled to a higher degree than in EGM96, so that a Root–Sum–Square calculation with the variance matrix should be adequate in reliably assessing the systematic error induced by the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of geopotential.  up to degree $`l=70`$.

It can be noticed that, for EIGEN2, the results obtained with the variance matrix in a Root–Sum–Square way are much more similar to those obtained with the full covariance matrix than for EGM96; this fact could be explained by noting that the even zonal harmonics are better resolved and uncorrelated in EIGEN2 than in EGM96 for which, instead, some favorable correlations may finally yield the obtained results (See also ). The simple sum of the absolute values of the individual errors for the various degrees yields a pessimistic upper bound of the error due to the bad knowledge of geopotential. However, Table 2 clearly shows that the use of single orbital elements of the LAGEOS satellites in order to measure the Lense–Thirring effect is still unfeasible. Moreover, when a single orbital element is analyzed, the effects of the secular variation of the even zonal harmonics have to be considered as well. It turns out that they can be accounted for by an effective time rate

$$\dot{J}_2^{\mathrm{eff}}\dot{J}_2+0.371\dot{J}_4+0.079\dot{J}_6+0.006\dot{J}_80.003\dot{J}_{10}\mathrm{}$$
(5)
whose magnitude is of the order of $`(2.6\pm 0.3)\times 10^{11}`$ yr-1. Its impact on a possible Lense–Thirring measurement is not negligible at all. It has been evaluated, in a conservative way, by doubling the difference between the maximum and minimum values of the adjusted $`\dot{J}_2^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the longest arcs of Table 1 in , according to an approach followed in .

With regard to eq.(3), it turns out that the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential, according to the full covariance matrix of EIGEN2 up to degree $`l=70`$, amounts to 7$`\%`$, while if the diagonal part666It should be noted that the correlations represent the state of processing of the about seven months of CHAMP data incorporated in the EIGEN2 solution. No temporal variations in the zonal coefficients were solved for, so no evolution of coefficients and their correlations can be predicted directly from the solution. In future it will be tried to resolve temporal variations from solutions covering different data epochs (P. Schwintzer, private communication). So, a possible conservative approach might consist in using only the diagonal part of the covariance matrix. However, the calibration of EIGEN2 errors should be extensively and exhaustively checked. only is adopted it becomes 9$`\%`$ (RSS calculation). The sum of the absolute values yields an upper bound of 16$`\%`$ (See Table 3). Of course, even if the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II data had been reprocessed with the EIGEN2 model, the problems posed by the correct evaluation of the impact of the non–gravitational perturbations on the perigee of LAGEOS II would still persist, unless significant improvements in the modeling of the non–gravitational perturbations on the perigee of LAGEOS II will occur.

A possible approach could be the use of linear combinations of orbital residuals of the nodes and the perigees of the other existing geodetic satellites of LAGEOS type like Starlette, Stella, Ajisai, etc., so to cancel out as many even zonal harmonics as possible. In , in which the full covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$ has been used, it turned out that, due to the lower altitude of the other satellites to be employed, they are more sensitive than the LAGEOS satellites to the even zonal harmonics of higher degree of the geoptential and the combinations including their orbital elements are not competitive with those including only the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II elements. The following combination, which includes the node of Ajisai, seemed to yield a slight improvement in the systematic gravitational error

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Ajisai}}+c_3\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}61.2,$$
(6)
with $`c_1=0.443,c_2=0.0275,c_3=0.341`$ Indeed, according to the full covariance matrix of EGM96 up to degree $`l=70`$, it would amount to 10.3$`\%`$. Note that it turns out that, with the inclusion of Ajisai, the first ten even zonal harmonics have full power in affecting the systematic error due to geopotential in the Lense–Thirring measurement. If the correlations among the even zonals are neglected, the variance matrix of EGM96, used in a RSS calculation, yields a 64.4$`\%`$ error. The sum of the absolute values of the individual errors yields an upper bound of 82$`\%`$. By using the covariance matrix of EIGEN2 up to degree $`l=70`$ the systematic gravitational error raises to 13.4$`\%`$ (13.6$`\%`$ with the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of EIGEN2 up to degree $`l=70`$. RSS calculation.). The sum of the absolute values of the individual errors yields an upper bound of 16$`\%`$ (See Table 3). Since the non–gravitational part of the error budget of eq.(6) is almost similar to that of eq.(3), as it can be inferred from the magnitude of the coefficients of eq.(6) and eq.(3) which weigh the various orbital elements, it is obvious that eq.(6) would not represent any substatntial improvement with respect to the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II observable of eq.(3).

### 3.1 A new nodes–only combination

A different approach could be followed by taking the drastic decision of canceling out only the first even zonal harmonic of geopotential by discarding at all the perigee of LAGEOS II. The hope is that the resulting gravitational error is reasonably small so to get a net gain in the error budget thanks to the fact that the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II exhibit a very good behavior with respect to the non–gravitational perturbations. Indeed, they are far less sensitive to their tricky features than the perigee of LAGEOS II. Moreover, they can be easily and accurately measured, so that also the formal, statistical error should be reduced. A possible combination is

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}48.2,$$
(7)
where $`c_1=0.546`$. A similar approach is proposed in , although without quantitative details. According to the full covariance matrix of EIGEN2 up to degree $`l=70`$, the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics from $`l=4`$ to $`l=70`$ amounts to 8.5 mas yr-1 yielding a 17.8$`\%`$ percent error, while if the diagonal part only is adopted it becomes 22$`\%`$ (RSS calculation). EGM96 would not allow to adopt eq.(7) because its full covariance matrix up to degree $`l=70`$ yields an error of 47.8$`\%`$ while the error according to its diagonal part only amounts even to777It reduces to 60$`\%`$ according to the diagonal part only of the covariance matrix of the GRIM5–C1 model (RSS calculation). 104$`\%`$ (RSS calculation: see Table 3). Note also that eq.(7) preserves one of the most important features of the other combinations of orbital residuals: indeed, it allows to cancel out the very insidious 18.6-year tidal perturbation which is a $`l=2,m=0`$ constituent with a period of 18.6 years due to the Moon’s node and nominal amplitudes of the order of 103 mas on the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II . Moreover, also the secular variations of the even zonal harmonic coefficients of geopotential do not affect the proposed combination: indeed, eq.(7) is designed in order to cancel out just all the effects of the first even zonal harmonic coefficient. On the other hand, the impact of the non–gravitational perturbations on eq.(7) over a time span of, say, 7 years can be quantified in just 0.1 mas yr-1, yielding a 0.3$`\%`$ percent error. The results of Tables 2 and 3 of  have been applied to eq.(7) by adding in quadrature the various mismodelled perturbing effects for such combination of orbital elements. To them a 20$`\%`$ mismodelling in the Yarkovsky–Rubincam and Yarkovsky–Schach effects and Earth’s albedo and a 0.5$`\%`$ mismodelling in the direct solar radiation pressure have been applied. It is also important to notice that, thanks to the fact that the periods of many gravitational and non–gravitational time–dependent perturbations acting on the nodes of the LAGEOS satellites are rather short, a reanalysis of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II data over just a few years could be performed. So, with a little time–consuming reanalysis of the nodes only of the existing LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites with the EIGEN2 data it would at once be possible to obtain a more accurate and reliable measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect, avoiding the problem of the uncertainties related to the use of the perigee of LAGEOS II. Moreover, it should be noted that the forthcoming, more accurate and robust solutions of the terrestrial gravity fields including the data from both CHAMP and GRACE should yield better results for the systematic error due to the geopotential. Of course, in order to push the gravitational error at the level of a few percent a new LAGEOS–like satellite as the proposed LARES should at least be used .

### 3.2 First promising results from GRACE

Very recently the first preliminary Earth gravity models including some data from GRACE have been released; among them the GGM01C model888It can be retrieved on the WEB at http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/gravity/, which combines the Center for Space Research (CSR) TEG-4 model999The GRACE–only GGM01S model was combined with the TEG-4 information equations (created from historical multi–satellite tracking data; surface gravity data and altimetric sea surface heights) to produce the preliminary gravity model GGM01C.  with data from GRACE, seems to be very promising for our purposes. Indeed, the released sigmas are not the mere formal errors but are approximately calibrated. See Table 4 for the effect on the single elements; the improvements with respect to Table 1 and Table 2 are evident, although not yet sufficiently good in order to allow for a rather accurate measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect by means of only one orbital element.

The error due to geopotential in the combination of eq.(3), evaluated by using the variance matrix only in a Root–Sum–Square fashion, amounts to 2.2$`\%`$ (with an upper bound of 3.1$`\%`$ obtained from the sum of the absolute values of the individual terms). Instead, the combination of eq.(7) would be affected at almost 14$`\%`$ level (RSS calculation), with an upper bound of almost 18$`\%`$ from the sum of the absolute values of the single errors. According also to GGM01C, the combination of eq.(6) seems to be not particularly competitive with respect to that of eq.(3). Indeed, the RSS error amounts to 0.8$`\%`$, while the upper bound due to the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors is of the order of 2$`\%`$. See Table 4 also for the combinations of orbital elements. Note that also for GGM01C the covariance matrix is almost diagonal, so that the Root–Sum–Square calculations should yield a realistic evaluation of the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of geopotential.

It may be interesting to consider the following combination

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Ajisai}}+c_3\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Starlette}}+c_4\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Stella}}\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}57.4,$$
(8)
with $`c_1=4.174,c_2=2.705,c_3=1.508,c_4=0.048`$. According to a Root–Sum–Square calculation with the variance matrix of GGM01C up to101010It has been checked that the error due to the even zonal harmonics remains stable if other even zonal harmonics are added to the calculation. Moreover, it turns also out that, up to $`l=42`$ there are no appreciable fluctuations in the calculated classical secular precessions. $`l=42`$ the impact of the remaining even zonal harmonics of degree $`l10`$ amounts to 21.6 mas yr-1 which yields a $`37.6\%`$ percent error in the measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with eq.(8). The upper bound due to the sum of the absolute values of the individual errors amounts to 123$`\%`$. If the future GRACE–based gravity solutions will improve the high degree ($`J_{10},J_{12},J_{14},\mathrm{}`$) even zonal harmonics more than the low degree ($`J_2,J_4,J_6,J_8`$) ones, the combination of eq.(8) could deserve some interest in alternative to that of eq.(7).

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have used, in a very preliminary way, the data from the recently released EIGEN2 Earth gravity model, including six months of CHAMP data, in order to reassess the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential in the LAGEOS–LAGEOS II Lense–Thirring experiment. The main results are summarized in Table 3 for EGM96 and EIGEN2 and Table 4 for GGM01C which includes the first data from GRACE. It turned out that, by neglecting the correlations between the various harmonics, such kind of error changes from 45$`\%`$ (or, perhaps more realistically, 83$`\%`$) of EGM96 to 9$`\%`$ of EIGEN2. Since the correct evaluation of the error budget of such experiment is plagued by the uncertainties due to the impact of the non–gravitational perturbations on the perigee of LAGEOS II, we have considered an observable including only the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II. It turns out that the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential, according to EIGEN2 and neglecting the correlations between the various harmonics, amounts to 22$`\%`$. However, such an observable is almost insensitive to the non–gravitational perturbations which would enter the error budget at a level lower than 1$`\%`$.

It must be emphasized that the EIGEN2 solution is very preliminary and exhaustive tests should be conducted in order to assess reliably the calibration of the claimed errors, especially in the lower degree even zonal harmonics to which the orbits of the LAGEOS satellites are particularly sensitive. If and when more robust and confident solutions for the terrestrial gravitational field will be hopefully available, especially from GRACE, the proposed observable based on the nodes of the two LAGEOS satellites only could represent a good opportunity for measuring the Lense–Thirring effect in an efficient, fast and reliable way. The first results obtained with the very preliminary GGM01C model, which includes the first data from GRACE and for which the tentatively calibrated errors are available, point toward this direction.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to L. Guerriero for his support while at Bari. L. I. gratefully thanks F. Vespe for his kind suggestions and fruitful discussions.