text:
# Components of maximal dimension in the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on open surfaces

## Introduction

In the moduli space $`M`$ of smooth hypersurfaces of degree $`d`$ in $`^3`$ over $``$, the locus of those surfaces that possess curves which are not complete intersections of the given surface with another surface is called the Noether-Lefschetz locus and denoted by $`M_{NL}`$. One can show that $`M_{NL}`$ is the union of a countable number of closed algebraic subsets of $`M`$. The classical theorem of Noether-Lefschetz affirms that every component of $`M_{NL}`$ has positive codimension in $`M`$ when $`d4`$. Note that the theorem is false if $`d=3`$ since a smooth cubic surface has the Picard number $`7`$. Since the infinitesimal method in Hodge theory was introduced in \[CGGH\] as a powerful tool to study $`M_{NL}`$, fascinating results have been obtained concerning irreducible components of $`M_{NL}`$. First we have the following.

###### Theorem 0.1 (\[G1\])

For every irreducible component $`T`$ of $`M_{NL}`$, $`\mathrm{codim}(T)d3`$.

The basic idea of the proof of the result is to translate the problem in the language of the infinitesimal variation of Hodge structures on a family of hypersurfaces. Then, by the Poincaré residue representation of the cohomology of a hypersurface, the result follows from the duality theorem for the Jacobian ring associated to a hypersurface. We note that the inequality is the best possible since the family of hypersurfaces of degree $`d3`$ containing a line has codimension exactly $`d3`$. M.Green \[G2\] and C.Voisin \[V\] has shown the following striking theorem.

###### Theorem 0.2

If $`d5`$, the only irreducible component of $`M_{NL}`$ having codimension $`d3`$ is the family of surfaces of degree $`d`$ containing a line.

In this paper we study an analog of the above problem in the context of Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture. For a quasi-projective smooth variety $`U`$ over $``$, the space of Beilinson-Hodge cycles is defined to be

$$F^0H^q(U,(q)):=H^q(U,(q))F^qH^q(U,)$$

where $`H^q(U,(q))`$ is the singular cohomology with coefficient $`(q)=(2\pi \sqrt{1})^q`$ and $`F^{}`$ denotes the Hodge filtration of the mixed Hodge structure on the singular cohomology defined by Deligne \[D\]. Beilinson’s conjecture claims the surjectivity of the regulator map (cf. \[Bl\] and \[Sch\])

$$reg_U^q:CH^q(U,q)F^0H^q(U,(q))$$

where $`CH^q(U,q)`$ is Bloch’s higher Chow group. Taking a smooth compactification $`UX`$ with $`Z=XU`$, a simple normal crossing divisor on $`X`$, we have the following formula for the value of $`reg_U^q`$ on decomposable elements in $`CH^q(U,q)`$;

$$reg_U^q(\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_q\})=d\mathrm{log}g_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{log}g_qH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))=F^0H^q(U,),$$

where $`\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_q\}CH^q(U,q)`$ is the products of $`g_jCH^1(U,1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_{Zar}^{})`$. Beilinson’s conjecture is an analog of the Hodge conjecture which claims the surjectivity of cycle class maps from Chow group to space of Hodge cycles on projective smooth varieties. The conjecture is known to hold in case $`q=1`$ (cf. \[J\], Th.5.1.3) but open in general in case $`q2`$.

The main subject of study in this paper is the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on the complement of the union of a normal crossing divisor in a surface in $`^3`$. Let $`X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_s^3`$ be smooth surfaces intersecting transversally and put

$$Z=\underset{1js}{}Z_j\text{ with }Z_j=XY_j,U=XZ.$$
(0-1)
Let $`H^2(U,(2))_{triv}`$ be the image of the natural restriction map

$$H^2(^3\underset{1js}{}Y_j,(2))H^2(U,(2)).$$

One can show (\[AS2\], Lem.(2-1))

$$H^2(U,(2))_{triv}=reg_U^2(CH^2(U,2)_{dec}),$$

where $`CH^2(U,2)_{dec}CH^2(U,2)`$ is the so-called decomposable part, the subspace generated by the image of the product map $`CH^1(U,1)CH^1(U,1)CH^2(U,2)`$. It implies that

$$H^2(U,(2))_{triv}\mathrm{Im}(reg_U^2)F^0H^2(U,(2)).$$

We define $`F^0H^2(U,(2))_{prim}:=F^0H^2(U,(2))/H^2(U,(2))_{triv}`$ called the space of primitive Beilinson-Hodge cycles.

Now fix integers $`d1`$ and $`e_j1`$ with $`1js`$. Let $`M`$ be the moduli space of sets of hypersurfaces $`(X,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_s)`$ of degree $`(d,e_1,\mathrm{},e_s)`$ which intersect transversally. Let $`(𝒳,𝒴_1,\mathrm{},𝒴_s)`$ be the universal family over $`M`$ and put

$$𝒵=𝒳(_{1js}𝒴_j),𝒰=𝒳𝒵.$$

For $`tM`$ let $`U_tX_tZ_t`$ be the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳𝒵`$.

###### Definition 0.3

The Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on $`𝒰/M`$ is

$$M_{NL}=\{tM|F^0H^2(U_t,(2))_{prim}0\}$$

The analogy with the classical Noether-Lefschetz locus is explained as follows. Instead of the map

$$H^2(^3\underset{1js}{}Y_j,(2))H^2(U,(2))F^2H^2(U,)$$

we consider

$$H^2(^3,(1))H^2(X,(1))F^1H^2(X,).$$

By noting that the space on the left hand side is generated by the cohomology class of a hyperplane, and that that on the right hand side is identified with $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$, the space defined in the same way as Def.0.3 is nothing but the classical Noether-Lefschetz locus.

One can show as before that $`M_{NL}`$ is the union of a countable number of closed analytic subsets. By the analogy a series of problems on $`M_{NL}`$ arise, the problems to show the counterparts of Th.0.1 and Th.0.2 in the new context. In \[AS2\] the following result is shown.

###### Theorem 0.4

Assume $`d4`$. For every irreducible component $`T`$ of $`M_{NL}`$,

$$\mathrm{codim}_M(T)d+\mathrm{min}\{d,e_1,\mathrm{},e_s\}2.$$

We should note that the estimate in Th.0.4 is far from being optimal to the contrary to the case of Th.0.1. It is observed in the main theorem of this paper (Th.(0-4) below) that the optimal estimate in some case is given by a quadratic polynomial in $`d`$. The basic strategy of the proof of Th.0.4 is the same as that of Th.0.1. A new input is the theory of generalized Jacobian rings developed in \[AS1\], which give an algebraic description of the cohomology of the open surface $`U`$. In particular the duality theorem for such rings plays a crucial role.

In order to state the main result of this paper, which is considered a counterpart of Th.0.2, we need restrict ourselves to the special case that $`s=3`$ and $`e_j=1`$ for $`1j3`$. Let $`P=[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]`$ be the homogeneuous coordinate ring of $`^3`$. For the rest of the paper we let $`M`$ be the moduli space of hypersurface of degree $`d`$ in $`^3`$ which transversally intersects $`Y=_{1j3}Y_j`$ with $`Y_j=\{z_j=0\}^3`$. Let $`𝒳/M`$ be the universal family and $`X_t`$ be its fiber over $`tM`$ and put $`U_t=X_t(X_tY)`$. Let $`M_{NL}M`$ be defined as in Def.0.3. In order to determine the irreducible components of $`M_{NL}`$ of maximal dimension, we need introduce some notations. For an integer $`l>0`$ let $`P^lP`$ be the subspace of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`l`$.

###### Definition 0.5

For a pair $`(p,q)`$ of non-negative coprime integers such that $`d=r(p+q)`$ with $`r`$, and $`\underset{¯}{c}=[c_\nu ]_{1\nu r}=[c_1:\mathrm{}:c_r]^r()`$, and $`\sigma 𝔖_3`$, the permutation group on $`(1,2,3)`$, we let $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})M`$ be the subset of those surfaces defined by an equation

$$F=wA+\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\nu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q)\text{ for some }wP^1,AP^{d1},c^{}.$$

We will see the following facts (cf. §1):

* $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ is smooth irreducible and $`\mathrm{codim}_M(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c}))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$.
* If $`c_\nu `$ is a root of unity for $`1\nu r`$, $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})M_{NL}`$.

We now state the main theorem in this paper.

###### Theorem 0.6

Assume $`d4`$.

* For every irreducible component $`TM_{NL}`$, $`\mathrm{codim}(T)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$.
* The equality holds if and only if $`T=T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ for some $`\sigma `$, $`(p,q)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{c}=[c_\nu ]_{1\nu r}`$ such that $`c_\nu `$ is a root of unity for $`1\nu r`$.
* If $`X`$ is a general member of $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$, $`reg_U^2`$ is surjective so that Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture holds for $`U=X(XY)`$.

A key to the proof of Th.0.6 is a result by Otwinowska (\[Ot\], Th.2) on the Hilbert function of graded algebras of dimension 0.

Finally we discuss an implication of Th.0.6 on the injectivity of the regulator map. Let $`X`$ be a member of $`M`$. We are interested in the regulator map to Deligne cohomology

$$\rho _X:CH^2(X,1)H_D^3(X,(2)),$$

where $`CH^2(X,1)`$ is Bloch’s higher Chow group defined to be the cohomology of the complex

$$K_2((X))\stackrel{_{tame}}{}\underset{CX}{}(C)^{}\stackrel{_{div}}{}\underset{xX}{},$$

where the sum on the middle term ranges over all irreducible curves on $`X`$ and that on the right hand side over all closed points of $`X`$. The map $`_{tame}`$ is the so-called tame symbol and $`_{div}`$ is the sum of divisors of rational functions on curves. We have the localization exact sequence

$$CH^2(U,2)CH^1(Z,1)CH^2(X,1),$$

where

$$CH^1(Z,1)=\mathrm{Ker}(\underset{1i3}{}(Z_i)^{}\stackrel{_{div}}{}\underset{xZ}{})\text{ with }Z_i=XY_i.$$

By \[AS2\], Th.(6-1) we get the following.

###### Theorem 0.7

For $`tMM_{NL}`$, $`\rho _{X_t}`$ is injective on the subspace

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_t:=\mathrm{Im}(CH^1(Z_t,1)CH^2(X_t,1))CH^2(X_t,1).$$

In §6 we show there exists $`tMM_{NL}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t0`$ so that Th.0.7 has a non-trivial implication on the injectivity of $`\rho _{X_t}`$. For this we need introduce some special locus in the moduli space $`M`$.

###### Definition 0.8

Let $`T_{12}M`$ be the locus of those $`X`$ defined by an equation

$$F=wA+z_1z_2B+c_1z_1^d+c_2z_2^d\text{ for some }wP^1,AP^{d1},BP^{d2},c_1,c_2^{}.$$

We define $`T_{23}`$ (resp. $`T_{31}`$) similarly by replacing $`(z_1,z_2)`$ by $`(z_2,z_3)`$ (resp. $`(z_3,z_1)`$).

We note that $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})T_{12}`$ with $`\sigma `$, the identity, and $`p=1,q=0`$. For $`X`$ in $`T_{12}`$ defined by such an equation as above we consider the following element

$$c_{12}(X)=((\frac{z_2}{w})_{|Z_1},(\frac{w}{z_1})_{|Z_2},1)(Z_1)^{}(Z_2)^{}(Z_3)^{}.$$

It is easy to check $`c_{12}(X)CH^1(Z,1)`$. For $`X`$ in $`T_{23}`$ (resp. $`T_{31}`$) we define an element $`c_{23}(X)`$ (resp. $`c_{31}(X)`$) in $`CH^1(Z,1)`$ by the same say. Let $`[c_{ij}(X)]CH^2(X,1)`$ be the image of $`c_{ij}(X)CH^1(Z,1)`$ for $`(i,j)=(1,2)`$ or $`(2,3)`$ or $`(3,1)`$.

###### Theorem 0.9

* If $`d4`$, $`T_{12}M_{NL}`$ and $`\rho _{X_t}([c_{12}(X_t)])0`$ for $`tT_{12}M_{NL}`$.
* If $`d6`$, $`T_{12}T_{23}M_{NL}`$ and $`\rho _{X_t}([c_{12}(X_t)]),\rho _{X_t}([c_{23}(X_t)])`$ are linearly independent for $`t(T_{12}T_{23})M_{NL}`$.
* If $`d10`$, $`T_{12}T_{23}T_{31}M_{NL}`$ and $`\rho _{X_t}([c_{12}(X_t)]),\rho _{X_t}([c_{23}(X_t)]),\rho _{X_t}([c_{23}(X_t)])`$ are linearly independent for $`t(T_{12}T_{23}T_{31})M_{NL}`$.

The authors are grateful to Prof. A. Otwinowska for stimulating discussions and her teaching us on her work \[Ot\].

## 1 Component of $`M_{NL}`$

Let the notaion be as in Th.0.6. In what follows we fix $`0M`$ and let $`X`$ be the fibers over $`0M`$ of the universal family $`𝒳/M`$ and write

$$U=XZ,Z=\underset{1j3}{}Z_j\text{ with }Z_j=XY_j.$$

###### Definition 1.1

We put

$$\alpha _U=\{\frac{z_2}{z_1},\frac{z_3}{z_1}\}CH^2(U,2),$$

$$\omega _U=d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_2}{z_1}d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_3}{z_1}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z)),$$

where $`z_j/z_i`$ is viewed as an element of $`CH^1(U,1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_{U_{Zar}}^{})`$. Note that $`\omega _U=reg_U^2(\alpha _U)`$, under the identification $`F^2H^2(U,)H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z))`$.

###### Lemma 1.2

* $`CH^2(U,2)_{dec}`$ is generated by $`\alpha _U`$ and $`\{c,z_j/z_i\}`$ with $`c`$ and $`1i,j3`$.
* $`H^2(U,(2))_{triv}=\omega _U`$.

Proof The first assertion follows from \[AS2\] Lem.(2-1). The second assertion follows from the fact $`H^2(U,(2))_{triv}=reg_U^2(CH^2(U,2)_{dec})`$ by loc.cite.

Let $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})M`$ be as in Def.0.5.

###### Lemma 1.3

$`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ is smooth irreducible and $`\mathrm{codim}_M(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c}))=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$.

Proof Left to the readers as an easy exercise.

Assume $`0T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ and that $`X`$ is defined by such an equation as in Def.0.5:

$$F=wA+\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\nu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q).$$

We note that $`w_{1j3}z_j`$ by the assumption that $`X`$ transversally intersects $`Y`$.

###### Definition 1.4

We define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(U):=\omega _U\xi _UH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z))=F^0H^2(U,),$$

$$\xi _U=d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q}{z_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}}d\mathrm{log}\frac{w}{z_{\sigma (1)}}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z)).$$

We note that $`\xi _U`$ is apparently holomorphic only on $`UW`$, where $`W=U\{w=0\}`$ while it is easy to see that its residue along any irreducible component of $`W`$ is zero. Rewriting the equation of $`X`$ as

$$wA+\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\nu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q)=wA+\underset{\mu I}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\mu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q)^{e_\mu },(e_\mu 1)$$
(1-1)
where $`c_\mu c_\mu ^{}`$ if $`\mu \mu ^{}I`$, $`W`$ is the disjoint sum of the following smooth irreducible components for $`\mu I`$;

$$W_\mu =U\{w=cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\mu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q=0\}.$$

We consider the condition:

$`\underset{¯}{c}=[c_\nu ^{}]_{1\nu r}`$ such that $`c_\nu ^{}`$ is a root of unity for $`1\nu r`$. (1-2)
###### Proposition 1.5

* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(U)H^2(U,(2))=\{\begin{array}{c}\omega _U\xi _U\\ \omega _U\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& \text{if }(\text{1-2})\text{ holds}\hfill \\ & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(U)H^2(U,(2))\mathrm{Im}(reg_U^2)`$.

###### Corollary 1.6

If the condition (1-2) holds, $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})M_{NL}`$.

The corollary follows immediately from Pr.1.5 and Lem.1.2.

Noting $`\omega _UH^2(U,(2))`$, Pr.1.5 follows from the following two claims.

Claim 1$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(U)H^2(U,(2))\omega _U\xi _U`$.

Claim 2$`\xi _UH^2(U,(2))`$ if and only if (1-2) holds, in which case $`\xi _U\mathrm{Im}(reg_U^2)`$.

We prove Claim 1. For simplicity we assume that $`\sigma 𝔖_3`$ is the identity. The following argument works in general case as well. Define

$$Z_{ij}=X\{z_i=z_j=0\}(1ij3),$$

$$Z_i=X\{z_i=0\},V_i=Z_i(\underset{1ji3}{}Z_j).$$

We consider the composite map of the successive residue maps

$$\delta _{ij}:H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z))\stackrel{Res_{Z_i}}{}H^0(Z_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_i}(\mathrm{log}V_i))\stackrel{Res_{Z_{ij}}}{}H^0(Z_{ij},𝒪_{Z_{ij}})\mathrm{\Psi },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=H^0(Z_{ij},)=_{xZ_{ij}}`$. For $`\varphi H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z))`$, $`\varphi H^2(U,(2))`$ implies $`\delta _{ij}(\varphi )\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Now an easy residue calculation shows

$$\delta _{12}(\omega _U)=\delta _{23}(\omega _U)=\delta _{31}(\omega _U)=\underset{¯}{u},$$

$$\delta _{12}(\xi _U)=p\underset{¯}{u},\delta _{31}(\xi _U)=q\underset{¯}{u},\delta _{23}(\xi _U)=0,$$

where $`\underset{¯}{u}=(1,1,\mathrm{},1)\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Thus, if $`\varphi =a\omega _U+b\xi _UH^2(U,(2))`$ with $`a,b`$, it implies $`(a+bp),a,(abq)`$. Noting that at least one of $`p`$ and $`q`$ is not zero, it implies $`a,b`$ and the proof of Claim 1 is complete.

Next we prove Claim 2. Consider

$$\beta =\{\frac{z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q}{z_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}},\frac{w}{cz_{\sigma (1)}}\}CH^2(U^{},2)(U^{}:=UW)$$

We have the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}CH^2(U,2)& \stackrel{reg_U^2}{}& F^0H^2(U,(2))& \stackrel{}{}& F^2H^2(U,)\\ & & \iota _1& & \iota _2\\ CH^2(U^{},2)& \stackrel{reg_U^{}^2}{}& F^0H^2(U^{},(2))& \stackrel{}{}& F^2H^2(U^{},)\end{array}$$

and we have $`reg_U^{}^2(\beta )=\iota _2(\xi _U)`$ in $`F^2H^2(U^{},)`$. Since $`\iota _2`$ is injective, the first part of the claim follows from the following assertion:

$`reg_U^{}^2(\beta )\mathrm{Im}(\iota _1)`$ if and only if (1-2) holds. (1-3)
To show this we consider the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}CH^2(U,2)& & CH^2(U^{},2)& \stackrel{_1}{}& CH^1(W,1)\\ reg_{D,U}^2& & reg_{D,U^{}}^2& & reg_{D,W}^1\\ H_D^2(U,(2))& & H_D^2(U^{},(2))& & H_D^1(W,(1))\end{array}$$

where $`reg_{D,}^{}`$ denotes the regulator map to Deligne cohomology. We have the commutative diagram (cf. \[EV\])

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}0H^1(U,(1))/(1)& & H_D^2(U,(2))& \stackrel{\pi _U}{}& F^0H^2(U,(2))0\\ & & & & \iota _1\\ 0H^1(U^{},(1))/(1)& & H_D^2(U^{},(2))& \stackrel{\pi _U^{}}{}& F^0H^2(U^{},(2))0\\ \psi & & & & _2\\ 0H^0(W,)/(1)& & H_D^1(W,(1))& \stackrel{\pi _W}{}& F^0H^1(W,(1))0\end{array}$$

where the composite of $`reg_{D,}^{}`$ with $`\pi _{}`$ conincide with the regulator map to singular cohomology. The horizontal sequences are exact. The vertical sequences are localization sequences and they are exact except the most right one. We have (cf. (1-1))

$$\mathrm{Coker}(\psi )/(1)\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{Coker}(\underset{\mu I}{};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}(e_\mu )_{\mu I}).$$

To see this we note the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}CH^1(U^{},1)& \stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}& _{\mu I}\\ reg_U^{}^1& & \\ H^1(U^{},(1))& & H^0(W,)\end{array}$$

where $`\varphi `$ is given by taking orders of fuctions along the compoenents of $`W`$. One easily sees that $`reg_U^{}^1`$ is surjective and that $`CH^1(U^{},1)`$ is generated by $`^{}`$, $`w/z_1`$ and $`z_j/z_i`$ with $`1i,j3`$ and the desired assertion follows. Thus the above diagram gives rise to the exact sequence

$$F^0H^2(U,(2))\stackrel{\iota _1}{}F^0H^2(U^{},(2))_{}\stackrel{𝛿}{}/(1)\mathrm{\Phi },$$

where $`F^0H^2(U^{},(2))_{}=\mathrm{Ker}(_2)`$. Now an easy calculation shows $`_1(\beta )=(c_\mu ^{e_\mu })_{\mu I}`$. Noting the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{cccc}0& ^{}& & CH^1(W_\mu ,1)\\ & \mathrm{log}& & reg_{D,W_\mu }^1& & \\ 0& /(1)& & H_D^1(W_\mu ,(1))& \stackrel{\pi _{W_\mu }}{}& F^0H^1(W_\mu ,(1))0\end{array}$$

it implies $`reg_U^{}^2(\beta )F^0H^2(U^{},(2))_{}`$ and

$$\delta (reg_U^{}^2(\beta ))=\text{ the class of }(e^\mu \mathrm{log}c_\mu )_{\mu I}\text{ in }\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

This proves (1-3). In order to show the second part of Claim 2, assume that there is $`c^{}^{}`$ such that $`c_\nu ^{}:=cc_\nu `$ is a root of unity for $`1\nu r`$. Taking

$$\beta ^{}=\{\frac{z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q}{cc^{}z_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}},\frac{w}{z_{\sigma (1)}}\}CH^2(U^{},2),$$

$`reg_U^{}^2(\beta ^{})=reg_U^{}^2(\beta )=\iota _2(\xi _U)`$ and $`_1(\beta )=(c_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{e_\mu })_{\mu I}=0CH^1(W,1)`$. It implies that $`\beta ^{}`$ has a lift $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }CH^2(U,2)`$. Then $`reg_U^2(\beta ^{\prime \prime })=\xi _UF^0H^2(U,(2))`$ by the injectivity of $`\iota _2`$. This completes the proof of Claim 2.

## 2 Infinitesimal interpretation

In this section we take the first step of the proof of Th.0.6. Let the assumption and the notation be as in §1. Take $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, a simply connected neighbouthood of $`0`$ in $`M`$. For $`\lambda H^2(U,)`$ and $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`\lambda (t)H^2(U_t,)`$ be the flat translation of $`\lambda `$ with respect to the Gauss-Maninn connection

$$:H_𝒪^2(𝒰/M)\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1H_𝒪^2(𝒰/M),$$

where $`H_𝒪^p(𝒰/M)`$ is the sheaf of holomorphic sections of the local system $`H_{}^p(𝒰/M):=R^pf_{}`$ with $`f:𝒰M`$, the natural morphism. We sometime consider $`\lambda `$ a section over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`H_{}^2(𝒰/M)`$ via $`H^2(U,)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta },H_{}^2(𝒰/M))`$. Put

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda =\{t\mathrm{\Delta }|\lambda (t)F^2H^2(U_t,)\}.$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is a closed analytic subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ since it is defined by the vanishing of the image of $`\lambda `$ under the map

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta },H_{}^2(𝒰/M))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta },H_𝒪^2(𝒰/M)/F^2H_𝒪^2(𝒰/M))$$

where $`F^qH_𝒪^p(𝒰/M)H_𝒪^p(𝒰/M)`$ is the Hodge subbundle. Taking $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sufficiently small if necessary, we have by Lem.1.2(2)

$`M_{NL}\mathrm{\Delta }=_\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ with $`\lambda `$ ranging over $`F^0H^2(U,(2))\omega _U`$. (2-1)
By Griffiths transversality, $``$ induces

$$\overline{}:H^{2,0}(U)\mathrm{\Omega }_{M,0}^1H^{1,1}(U),$$

where for integers $`p,q`$ we put $`H^{p,q}(U)=H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M,0}^1`$ is the fiber of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M^1`$ at $`0M`$. Let $`T_0(M)`$ be the tangent space of $`M`$ at $`0`$. Via the natural isomorphism $`T_0(M)\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{M,0}^1,)`$, it induces the pairing

$$<,>:T_0(M)H^{2,0}(U)H^{1,1}(U).$$

For $`\lambda H^{2,0}(U)`$ write

$$V_\lambda :=\{T_0(M)|<,\lambda >=0\}.$$

By the construction we have

$$T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )V_\lambda .$$
(2-2)
###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`\lambda H^{2,0}(U)`$ and assume $`\lambda \omega _U`$.

* $`\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(M)}(V_\lambda )\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$.
* Assume $`d4`$ and that $`T\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is an ireducible component of $`\mathrm{codim}_\mathrm{\Delta }(T)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$. Then $`T=\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$, and $`0T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for some $`\sigma ,p,q,\underset{¯}{c}`$, and $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }(U)`$. Moreover, if $`\lambda H^2(U,(2))`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda =T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Theorem 2.2

Assume $`0T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ for some $`\sigma ,p,q,\underset{¯}{c}`$. Then we have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(U)=\{\omega H^{2,0}(U)|<,\omega >=0\text{ for }T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c}))\}$$

In the rest of this section we deduce Th.0.6 from Th.2.1 and Th.2.2. Th.0.6(1) and (2) follow immediately from Th.2.1 and (2-1) and Pr.1.5 by noting

$$\mathrm{codim}_\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })}(V_\lambda )$$

where the last inequality is due to (2-2). Assume $`0T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$. We shall show that there exists a subset $`E\mathrm{\Delta }_T:=T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is the union of a countable number of proper closed analytic subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ such that $`F^0H^2(U_t,(2))\mathrm{\Sigma }(U_t)`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_TE`$. By Pr.1.5 the last condition implies $`F^2H^2(U_t,(2))\mathrm{Im}(reg_{U_t}^2)`$. Hence Th.0.6(3) follows. Write $`H^2(U,(2))=\{\lambda _i\}_{iI}`$ as a set and put

$$A=\{iI|\mathrm{\Delta }_T\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _i}\},B=\{iI|\mathrm{\Delta }_T\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _i}\},E=\mathrm{\Delta }_T(\underset{iB}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda _i}).$$

Note that $`I`$ is countable and $`I=AB`$ and $`AB=\mathrm{}`$. For $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_TE`$, we have $`F^0H^2(U_t,(2))=\{\lambda _i(t)\}_{iA}`$ so that $`H^2(U_t,)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_T,H_{}^2(𝒰/M))`$ induces

$$F^2H^2(U_t,(2))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }_T,H_{}^2(𝒰/M)F^2H_𝒪^2(𝒰/M)),$$

which further implies

$$F^2H^2(U_t,(2))\mathrm{Ker}(H^{2,0}(U_t)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Delta }_T,t}^1H^{1,1}(U_t)).$$

Th.2.2 implies that the last space is equal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(U_t)`$ and the desired assertion follows. This completes the proof of Th.0.6.

## 3 Reduction to Jacobian rings

Let the assumption be as in §2. In this section we rephrase the theorems in §2 in terms of Jaocibian rings and prove Th.2.1(1) and Th.2.2. Let $`P=[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]`$ be the homogeneuous coordinate ring of $`^3`$. For an integer $`l>0`$ let $`P^lP`$ be the subspace of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`l`$. Let the assumption be as in §2 and fix $`FP^d`$ which defines $`X^3`$. Consider the ideal of $`P`$;

$$J_F=<\frac{F}{z_0},z_1\frac{F}{z_1},z_2\frac{F}{z_2},z_3\frac{F}{z_3}>.$$

The assumption that $`X`$ transversally intersects $`Y`$ is equivalent to the condition:

* $`J_F`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(d1,d,d,d)`$.

Write

$$R_F=P/J_F,J_F^l=J_FP^l,R_F^l=\mathrm{Im}(P^lR_F)=P^l/J_F^l.$$

Note $`FJ_F^d`$. We have the following well-known facts:

1. We have the canonical surjective homomorphism

$$\psi :P^dT_0(M);G\{F+ϵG=0\}_{[ϵ]}^3,$$

where $`[ϵ]`$ is the ring of dual numbers. We have $`\mathrm{Ker}(\psi )=F`$.
2. We have the isomophisms

$$\varphi :P^{d1}\stackrel{}{}H^{2,0}(U),\varphi ^{}:R_F^{2d1}\stackrel{}{}H^{1,1}(U),$$

such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P^dP^{d1}& \stackrel{𝜇}{}& R_F^{2d1}\\ \psi \varphi & & \varphi ^{}\\ T_0(M)H^{2,0}(U)& \stackrel{<,>}{}& H^{1,1}(U)\end{array}$$

commutes up to non-zero scalar where $`\mu `$ is the multiplication.
3. We have the following formula

$$\varphi (G)=Res_X\frac{G}{z_1z_2z_3}\mathrm{\Omega }(GP^{d1}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=_{i=0}^3(1)^iz_idz_0\mathrm{}\widehat{dz_i}\mathrm{}dz_3H^0(^3,\mathrm{\Omega }_^3^3)`$ and

$$Res_X:H^0(^3,\mathrm{\Omega }_^3^3(\mathrm{log}Y))H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2(\mathrm{log}Z))(Y=\{z_1z_2z_3=0\}^3)$$

is the residue map.

We omit the proof of the following lemma which can be easily shown by using (3-4).

###### Lemma 3.1

* Putting $`\omega _F=\frac{F}{z_0}`$, $`\varphi (\omega _F)=\omega _U`$ (cf. Def.1.1).
* Assume $`0T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ and that $`X`$ is defined by such an equation as Def.0.5:

$$F=wA+\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\nu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q).$$

Put

$$\xi _F=\frac{w}{z_0}(qz_{\sigma (2)}\frac{A}{z_{\sigma (2)}}pz_{\sigma (3)}\frac{A}{z_{\sigma (3)}})\frac{A}{z_0}(qz_{\sigma (2)}\frac{w}{z_{\sigma (2)}}pz_{\sigma (3)}\frac{w}{z_{\sigma (3)}})P^{d1}.$$

Then we have $`\varphi (\xi _F)=\xi _U`$ (cf. Def.1.4).

In what follows we identify $`P^{d1}=H^{2,0}(U)`$ via $`\varphi `$. For $`\lambda P^{d1}`$ write

$$I_\lambda ^d=\{xP^d|\lambda x=0R_F^{2d1}\}.$$

(2-2) implies

$`\psi ^1(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))I_\lambda ^d.`$

In view of the above lemmas Th.2.1(1) and Th.2.2 follow from the following theorems.

###### Theorem 3.2

Assuming $`\lambda J_F^{d1}=\omega _F`$, $`dim(P^d/I_\lambda ^d)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$. The equality holds if and only if $`I_\lambda ^d`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(1,d1,d,d)`$.

###### Theorem 3.3

Let the assumption be as in Lem.3.1(2).

* $`\psi ^1(T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})))=wP^{d1}+J_F^d.`$
* $`I_\lambda ^d=wP^{d1}+J_F^d`$ if $`\lambda =a\omega _F+b\xi _F`$ with $`b0`$.
* $`\omega _F\xi _F=\{\lambda P^{d1}|\lambda x=0R_F^{2d1}\text{ for }xwP^{d1}+J_F^d\}.`$

In the rest of this section we prove Th.3.2 and Th.3.3. We need the following theorems. The first one is Macaulay’s theorem and we refer \[GH\], p659, for the proof. The second one is due to A. Otwinowska and is shown by the same method as the proof of \[Ot\], Th.2.

###### Theorem 3.4

There exists a natural isomorphism

$$\tau _F:R_F^{4d5}\stackrel{}{}$$

and the pairing induced by multiplication

$$R_F^lR_F^{4d5l}R_F^{4d5}\stackrel{\tau _F}{}$$

is perfect for $`l`$.

###### Theorem 3.5

Let $`IP`$ be a homogeneous ideal satisfying the conditions:

* $`I`$ is Gorenstein of degree $`N>0`$, namely there exists a non-zero linear map $`\mu :P^N`$ such that $`I^l=\{xP^l|\mu (xy)=0\text{ for }yP^{Nl}\}.`$
* $`I`$ contains a homogeneous ideal $`J`$ which is complete intersection of degree $`(e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3)`$ with $`e_0e_1e_2e_3`$.
* There is an integer $`b`$ such that $`e_0be_11`$ and $`N+3=e_2+e_3+b`$.

For $`l1`$ we have

$$dim(P^l/I^l)dim(P^l/<z_0,z_1^b,z_2^{e_2},z_3^{e_3}>P^l).$$

Moreover, if the equality holds for some $`l_0Nb`$, then there is a complete intersection ideal $`I_0`$ of degree $`(1,b,e_2,e_3)`$ such that $`I^l=I_0^l`$ for all $`ll_0`$.

Now we start the proof of Th.3.2. For $`\lambda P^{d1}`$ consider the linear map

$$\lambda ^{}:P^{3d4};x\tau _F(\lambda x).$$

For an integer $`l0`$ define

$$I_\lambda ^l=\{xP^l|\lambda ^{}(xy)=0\text{ for }yP^{3d4l}\}.$$

By Th.3.4 $`\lambda ^{}0`$ if and only if $`\lambda J_F^{d1}`$ and $`I_\lambda ^l`$ in case $`l=d`$ coincides with $`I_\lambda ^d`$ defined before. Define a homogeneous ideal of $`P`$ by

$$I_\lambda =\underset{l0}{}I_\lambda ^lP.$$

We take $`N=3d4`$, $`(e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3,b)=(d1,d,d,d,d1)`$ and apply Th.3.4 to $`I=I_\lambda `$ and $`J=J_F`$ noting (3-1). Since

$$dim(P^d/<z_0,z_1^{d1},z_2^d,z_3^d>P^d)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5,$$

it implies Th.3.2.

Next we show Th.3.3. Let $`\mathrm{PGL}_4`$ be the group of projective transformations on $`^3`$ and let $`G\mathrm{PGL}_4`$ be the subgroup of such $`g\mathrm{PGL}_4`$ that $`g(Y_j)=Y_J`$ for $`1j3`$. It is evident that $`G`$ naturally acts on $`M`$ and $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})M`$ is stable under the action. Let $`T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})_{(w,c)}T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ be the closed subset of those surfaces defined by equations of the form

$$wB+\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_{\sigma (1)}^{p+q}c_\nu z_{\sigma (2)}^pz_{\sigma (3)}^q)\text{ for some }BP^{d1}.$$

It is easy to see that the natural map $`G\times T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})_{(w,c)}T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ is smooth and surjective and that $`\psi ^1(T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})_{(w,c)}))=wP^{d1}`$. The map $`T_0(M)\stackrel{\psi ^1}{}P^d/FR_F^d`$ identifies $`R_F^d`$ with the quotient of $`T_0(M)`$ by the infinitesimal action of the tangent space at the identity of $`G`$. It implies

$$\psi ^1(T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})))=\pi ^1\pi \psi ^1(T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c}))_{(w,c)}))=wP^{d1}+J_F^d.$$

This completes the proof of Th.3.3(1).

For $`\lambda =a\omega _F+b\xi _F`$, an easy calculation shows $`\lambda wJ_F^d`$ so that $`I_\lambda ^dwP^{d1}+J_F^d`$. Assuming $`b0`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5\underset{()}{}dim(P^d/I_\lambda ^d)dim(P^d/wP^{d1}+J_F^d)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{()}{=}\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(M)}(T_0(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})))\mathrm{codim}_M(T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c}))\underset{()}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5,\end{array}$$

where $`()`$ follows from Th.3.2, $`()`$ from Th.3.3(1), and $`()`$ from Lem.1.3. Thus the above inequalities are all equalities so that $`I_\lambda ^d=wP^{d1}+J_F^d`$. This completes the proof of Th.3.3(2).

For $`\lambda P^{d1}`$ we have the following equivalences

$`\lambda wy=0R_F^{2d1}\text{ for }yP^{d1}`$ $`\lambda wyz=0R_F^{4d5}\text{ for }yP^{d1},zP^{2d4}`$
$`\lambda wx=0R_F^{4d5}\text{ for }xP^{3d5}`$
$`\lambda w=0R_F^d`$
where the first and the last euivalences follows from Th.3.4. Hence it suffices to show

$$\omega _F\xi _F=\mathrm{Ker}(P^{d1}\stackrel{𝑤}{}R_F^d).$$

We have already senn that the left hand side is contained in the righ hand side. Thus it suffices to show $`dim(\mathrm{Ker}(P^{d1}\stackrel{𝑤}{}R_F^d)=2`$. We have $`dim(P^{d1})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1+3}{3}\right)`$. By (3-1) we have

$$dim(R_F^d)=dim(P^d/P^d<z_0^{d1},z_1^d,z_2^d,z_3^d>)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+3}{3}\right)(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+3}{3}\right)+3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0+3}{3}\right)).$$

We easily see that $`<w>+J_F`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(1,d1,d,d)`$ so that

$$\begin{array}{c}dim(\mathrm{Coker}(P^{d1}\stackrel{𝑤}{}R_F^d))=dim(P^d/P^d<z_0,z_1^{d1},z_2^d,z_3^d>)\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+3}{3}\right)\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1+3}{3}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1+3}{3}\right)+2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0+3}{3}\right)\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0+3}{3}\right)\end{array}$$

These imply the desired assertion and the proof of Th.3.3 is complete.

## 4 Proof of key theorem

In this and next sections we prove Th.2.1(2) to complete the proof of Th.0.6. Let the assumption be as in Th.2.1(2). For $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`F_tP^d`$ define $`X_t^3`$, $`R_{F_t}`$ be the corresponding Jacobian ring. For $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ let $`I_{\lambda (t)}P`$ be defined in the same manner as $`I_\lambda `$ with $`\lambda `$ replaced by $`\lambda (t)H^{2,0}(U_t)`$, the flat translation of $`\lambda `$. For $`tT`$ we have

$$\mathrm{codim}_\mathrm{\Delta }(T)\mathrm{codim}_{T_t(\mathrm{\Delta })}(T_t(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))dim(P^d/I_{\lambda _t}^d)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5,$$

where $`T_t()`$ denotes the tangent space at $`t`$. The second inequality follows from (3-5) and the last from Th.3.2. Hence the assumption implies that the above inequalities are all equalities, which implies $`T=\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ and $`\psi ^1(T_t(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))=I_{\lambda _t}^d`$. It also implies that $`I_{\lambda (t)}`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(1,d1,d,d)`$ so that $`I_{\lambda _t}^1=w_t`$ for some $`w_tP^1`$ determined up to non-zero scalar. It gives rise to the morphism

$$h:\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda \stackrel{}{}(P^1)=^3;t[w_t]:=w_t.$$
(4-1)
For $`[w]\stackrel{}{}(P^1)`$ define the closed subset $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w}=h^1(w)\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. Note $`\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w})3.`$ In what follows we put $`[w]=h(0)\stackrel{}{}(P^1)`$. For an integer $`l0`$ put $`P_w^l=P/wP^{l1}`$. For $`tM`$ put

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_t=\mathrm{Im}(J_{F_t}^dP_w^d)=\mathrm{Im}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}z_i\frac{F_t}{z_i}+P^1\frac{F_t}{z_0}P_w^d).$$

If $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w}`$, $`I_{\lambda (t)}`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(1,d1,d,d)`$ with $`I_{\lambda _t}^1=w`$. Noting $`J_{F_t}^dI_{\lambda _t}^d`$, it implies

$$dim(\mathrm{\Phi }_t)dim(I_{\lambda _t}^d/wP^{d1})=dim(P_w^1)+2dim(P_w^0)=5.$$

Thus we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w}M_w`$ where $`M_w=\{tM|dim(\mathrm{\Phi }_t)5\}`$, which is a closed algebraic subset of $`M`$. Put $`E_w=^3P_w^1`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\gamma _1:\gamma _2:\gamma _3:L]\stackrel{}{}(E_w)`$ put

$$M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\{tM|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _iz_i\frac{F_t}{z_i}+L\frac{F_t}{z_0}wP^{d1}\}.$$

We note $`M_w=_\mathrm{\Gamma }M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ranging over $`\stackrel{}{}(E_w)`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

* If $`M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{codim}_{M_w}(M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }})5`$.
* For $`tM_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, $`\psi ^1(T_t(M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}))=\{GP^d|_{i=1}^3\gamma _iz_i\frac{G}{z_i}+L\frac{G}{z_0}wP^{d1}\}.`$

Proof Lem.4.1(2) follows directly from (3-2). We prove Lem.4.1(1). For $`tM`$ put

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=\{(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3,L)E_w|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _iz_i\frac{F_t}{z_i}+L\frac{F_t}{z_0}wP^{d1}\}.$$

It is a linear subspace of $`E_w`$ and $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)=6dim(\mathrm{\Phi }_t)`$. For an integer $`0e5`$ put $`M_w^{(e)}=\{tM_w|dim(\mathrm{\Phi }_t)=5e\}`$ which is a locally closed subset of $`M_w`$. Letting $`G^{(e)}`$ be the Grassman variety of $`(e+1)`$-dimensional linear subspaces in $`E_w`$, we define the morphism $`\pi ^{(e)}:M_w^{(e)}G^{(e)}`$ by $`\pi ^{(e)}(t)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G^{(0)}=\stackrel{}{}(E_w)`$ put $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(e)}=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}G^{(e)}|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. By definition we have set-theoretically

$$M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\underset{0e5}{}M_w^{(e)}\times _{G^{(e)}}G_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(e)}.$$

It proves Lem.4.1(1) by noting that $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(e)}`$ is smooth of $`\mathrm{codim}_{G^{(e)}}(G_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(e)})=5e`$.

Now we fix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\gamma _1:\gamma _2:\gamma _3:L]\stackrel{}{}(E_w)`$ such that $`0M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. It means

$`_{i=1}^3\gamma _iz_i\frac{F}{z_i}+L\frac{F}{z_0}wP^{d1}.`$

Put $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w}M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. By Lem.4.1(1) and the fact $`\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w})3`$ (cf. (4-1)), we have

$$8=3+5\mathrm{codim}_{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda }(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w,\mathrm{\Gamma }})\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\lambda ,w,\mathrm{\Gamma }})).$$

It implies that $`T_0(M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ contains a subspace of codimension$`8`$ in $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )`$. Recall that we have shown $`\psi ^1(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))=I_\lambda ^dwP^{d1}`$. Hence Lem.4.1(2) implies that there exists a subspace $`Q`$ of codimension$`8`$ in $`P^{d1}`$ such that

$$G(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _iz_i\frac{w}{z_i}+L\frac{w}{z_0})wP^{d1}\text{ for }GQ.$$

If $`_{i=1}^3\gamma _iz_i\frac{w}{z_i}+L\frac{w}{z_0}w`$, it implies $`GwP^{d2}`$. Since $`\mathrm{codim}_{P^{d1}}(wP^{d2})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)`$, this is a contradiction if $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)>8`$ which holds when $`d4`$. Thus we get the condition:

$`_{i=1}^3\gamma _iz_i\frac{w}{z_i}+L\frac{w}{z_0}w`$.

Now a key lemma is the following.

###### Lemma 4.2

There exists $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ such that $`w_t_{i=1}^3z_i`$.

We will prove Lem.4.2 in the next section. Admitting Lem.4.2, we finish the proof of Th.2.1(2). Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^o=\{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda |w_t\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}z_i\}.$$

By Lem.4.2 it is a non-empty open subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. We may assume $`0\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^o`$. By transforming by an element of $`G`$ (cf. the proof of Th.3.2), we may suppose $`w=z_0`$. The condition (4-3) now reads $`Lz_0`$. Then $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3`$ are not all zero and the condition (4-2) implies

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _iz_i\frac{F}{z_i}z_0P^{d1}.$$

Writing $`F=z_0B+C`$ with $`C`$, a homogeneous polynomial of degree $`d`$ in $`[z_1,z_2,z_3]`$, the above condition is equivalent to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _iz_i\frac{C}{z_i}=0.$$

Write

$$C=\underset{\underset{¯}{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)}{}c_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}z^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }},(z^{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}=z_1^{\alpha _1}z_2^{\alpha _1}z_2^{\alpha _2},c_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }})$$

and take $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ with $`c_{\underset{¯}{\alpha }}0`$. The above condition implies that $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }`$ is an integral point lying on the sectional line $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`x_1x_2x_3`$-space defined by

$$\mathrm{}:\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}x_id=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\gamma _ix_i=0,x_i0(i=1,2,3).$$

Furthermore the condition (3-1) implies that $`C`$ is divisible by neither of $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$. Writing $`\pi _i:x_i=0`$, it implies that $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\pi _i`$ intersect at an integral point for $`1i3`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{}`$ passes through one of the points $`(d,0,0)`$, $`(0,d,0)`$, $`(0,0,d)`$. Assuming that $`\mathrm{}`$ passes through the first point, we get $`\gamma _1=0`$ and hence $`\alpha _2:\alpha _3=\gamma _3:\gamma _2=p:q`$ for some coprime non-negative integer $`p,q`$. Writing $`\alpha _2=pj,\alpha _3=qj`$ with $`j`$, we get $`\alpha _1=d(p+q)j`$ since $`_{i=1}^3\alpha _i=d`$. The condition that $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\pi _1`$ intersect at an integral point implies that $`r:=d/(p+q)`$ is an integer and hence $`\alpha _1=(p+q)(rj)`$. Thus we can write

$$C=\underset{j=0}{\overset{r}{}}b_j(z_1^{p+q})^{rj}(z_2^pz_3^q)^j=\underset{1\nu r}{}(cz_1^{p+q}c_\nu z_2^pz_3^q)\text{ for some }b_j,c_\nu ,c.$$

Hence $`XT_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})`$ for $`\sigma `$, the identity, and $`\underset{¯}{c}=[c_\nu ]_{1\nu r}`$. By definition $`\lambda x=0R_F^{2d1}`$ for $`xI_\lambda ^dwP^{d1}+J_F^d`$. Thus Th.3.3(3) shows $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }(U)`$. This proves the first assertion of Th.2.1(2). To show the second assertion, we note that $`\underset{¯}{c}^r`$ has been uniquely determined by $`0\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^o`$. Applying the same argument to any $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^o`$, we get a holomorphic map $`g:\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^o^3`$ defined by the condition:

$$g(t)=\underset{¯}{c}_t:=[c_{\nu ,t}]_{1\nu r}\text{ with }F_tw_tP^{d1}+\underset{1\nu r}{}(c_tz_1^{p+q}c_{\nu ,t}z_2^pz_3^q)$$

If $`\lambda H^2(U,(2))`$, then $`\lambda (t)H^2(U_t,(2))`$ for any $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the assumption $`\lambda J_F^{d1}`$ implies $`\lambda (t)J_{F_t}^{d1}`$ in view of Lem.3.1(1). By Pr.1.5 it implies $`\underset{¯}{c}_t^r(\overline{})`$ and hence that $`g`$ is constant. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^oT_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda T_{(p,q)}^\sigma (\underset{¯}{c})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by taking the closure in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally, comparing the codimension in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we conclude that the last inclusion is the equality and the proof of Th.3.3 is complete.

## 5 Proof of key lemma

In this section we prove Lem.4.2. Assume that $`w_t_{i=1}^3z_i`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. Recall that we have fixed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\gamma _1:\gamma _2:\gamma _3:L]\stackrel{}{}(E_w)`$ such that $`0M_{w,\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. If $`L_{i=1}^3z_i`$, (4-2) implies $`\frac{F}{z_0}=0`$ on $`[1:0:0:0]^3`$, which contradicts (3-1). Hence we have

$`L_{i=1}^3z_i`$

We may write

$$w_t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_i(t)z_i\text{ and }w=w_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_iz_i,$$

where $`a_i(t)`$ is a holomorphic function on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ with $`a_i=a_i(0)`$. The condition (4-3) now reads $`_{i=1}^3\gamma _ia_iz_i_{i=1}^3a_iz_i,`$ which implies the condition:

$`\gamma _1a_1:\gamma _2a_2:\gamma _3a_3=a_1:a_2:a_3`$.

The proof is now divided into some cases. Frist we suppose that we are in:

There exists $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ such that $`a_i(t)0`$ for $`1i3`$.

Without loss of generality we may suppose that $`t=0`$ satisfies the above condition. (5-2) implies $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma _3`$. If $`\gamma _i=0`$ for $`1i3`$, $`Lw`$. Then (4-2) implies $`\frac{F}{z_0}wP^{d1}`$ so that $`\frac{F}{z_0}=0`$ on $`[1:0:0:0]`$, which contradicts (3-1). Thus we may assume $`\gamma _i=1`$ for $`1i3`$. By noting $`dF=_{i=0}^3z_i\frac{F}{z_i}`$, (4-2) now reads:

$`dF+(Lz_0)\frac{F}{z_0}wP^{d1}.`$

Claim 1$`Lw`$.

Proof Assume $`Lw`$. (5-3) implies $`dFz_0\frac{F}{z_0}wP^{d1}`$. By the assumption $`a_10`$ we can write

$$F=wA+z_0B+C\text{ with }B[z_0,z_2,z_3]P^{d1},C[z_2,z_3]P^d.$$

Then $`\frac{F}{z_0}=w\frac{A}{z_0}+z_0\frac{B}{z_0}+B`$ and hence $`d(z_0B+C)z_0(z_0\frac{B}{z_0}+B)=0`$ by noting $`wP^{d1}[z_0,z_2,z_3]=0`$. It implies $`C=0`$ and $`(d1)B=z_0\frac{B}{z_0}`$. From the last equation we immediately deduce $`B=cz_0^{d1}`$ with some $`c`$. Hence $`F=wA+cz_0^d`$, which is singular on $`\{w=A=z_0=0\}`$. It contradicts (3-1) and completes the proof of Claim 1.

Now choose $`u_{i=1}^3a_iz_i`$ such that $`w,L,u`$ are linearly independent and write

$$F=wA+\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{d}{}}L^\nu B_\nu ,\text{ with }B_\nu [z_0,u]P^{d\nu }.$$

Then the condition (5-2) implies

$$d(\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{d}{}}L^\nu B_\nu )+(Lz_0)\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{d}{}}L^\nu \frac{B_\nu }{z_0}=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{d}{}}L^\nu (dB_\nu z_0\frac{B_\nu }{z_0}+\frac{B_{\nu 1}}{z_0})wP^{d1}$$

where $`B_1=0`$ by convention. Hence we get $`dB_\nu z_0\frac{B_\nu }{z_0}+\frac{B_{\nu 1}}{z_0}=0`$ for $`0\nu d`$. We easily solve the equations to get $`B_\nu =c(1)^\nu \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{\nu }\right)z_0^{d\nu }`$ for some $`c`$ and hence

$$F=wA+c\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{d}{}}(1)^\nu L^\nu \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{\nu }\right)z_0^{d\nu }=wA+c(z_0L)^d.$$

The equation is singular on $`\{w=A=z_0L=0\}^3`$, which contradicts (3-1). This completes the proof in Case (1).

By Case (1) we may suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda _{1i3}\{t\mathrm{\Delta }|a_i(t)=0\}`$. Since we have shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ is irreducible, we may suppose $`a_3(t)=0`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. Now we assume that we are in:

There exists $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ such that $`a_1(t)a_2(t)0`$.

Put $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1=\{t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda |a_1(t)a_2(t)0\}`$. It is a non-empty open subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. Without loss of generality we may assume $`0\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1`$. Thus $`a_3=0`$ and $`a_1a_20`$. (5-2) implies $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$. Assuming $`\gamma _30`$, (4-2) implies $`z_3\frac{F}{z_3}=0`$ on $`\{z_1=z_2=\frac{F}{z_0}=0\}`$, which contradicts (3-1). Thus $`\gamma _3=0`$. If $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=0`$, the same argument as in the begining of Case (1) induces a contradiction. Thus we may assume $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=1`$. Hence (4-2) now reads:

$`_{i=1}^2z_i\frac{F}{z_i}+L\frac{F}{z_0}wP^{d1}.`$

Claim 2$`L_{i=1}^2z_i`$ and $`Lw`$.

Proof Assume $`L_{i=1}^2z_i`$. By (5-1) we may suppose $`L=z_3+l_1z_1+l_2z_2`$. Then (5-4) implies $`\frac{F}{z_0}<z_1,z_2>`$, which contradicts (3-1). The proof of the second assertion is smilar to that of Claim 1 and omitted.

Noting $`[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]=[z_0,w,L,z_3]`$, we may write

$$F=wA+\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d}{}}z_3^\mu G_\mu \text{ with }AP^{d1},G_\mu [z_0,L]P^{d\mu }.$$

Noting $`_{i=1}^2z_i\frac{w}{z_i}=w`$, (5-4) implies

$$\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d}{}}z_3^\mu (\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}z_i\frac{G_\mu }{z_i}+L\frac{G_\mu }{z_0})wP^{d1}.$$

Noting $`(d\mu )G_\mu =_{i=0}^3\frac{G_\mu }{z_i}`$ and $`\frac{G_\mu }{z_3}=0`$, we get

$$0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}z_i\frac{G_\mu }{z_i}+L\frac{G_\mu }{z_0}=(d\mu )G_\mu +(Lz_0)\frac{G_\mu }{z_0}\text{ for }1\mu d.$$

We solve the last equation in the same manner as Case (1) to get $`G_\mu =b_\mu (Lz_0)^{d\mu }`$ with $`b_\mu `$ and hence

* $`F=wA+_{\mu =0}^db_\mu z_3^\mu (Lz_0)^{d\mu }.`$

Claim 3Put $`\eta _F=A+_{i=1}^2z_i\frac{A}{z_i}+L\frac{A}{z_0}`$.

* $`\varphi (\eta _F)=\frac{z_3}{w}d(\frac{z_0L}{z_3})dlog\frac{z_1}{z_2}`$.
* $`\omega _F\eta _F=\{yP^{d1}|yx=0R_F^{2d1}\text{ for }xwP^{d1}+J_F^d\}`$ (cf. Lem.3.1).

Claim 3(1) is easily proven by using (3-(3-3)) and Claim 3(2) is proven by the same argument as the proof of Th.3.3(3). We omit the details.

By Claim 3 $`\lambda (t)H^{2,0}(U_t)`$, the flat translation of $`\lambda `$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$, is written as

$$\lambda (t)=f_1(t)\eta (t)+f_2(t)\omega (t)\text{ for }t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1.$$

Here $`f_1(t)`$ and $`f_2(t)`$ are holomorphic functions on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1`$ and

$$\omega (t)=d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_2}{z_1}d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_3}{z_1},\eta (t)=\frac{z_3}{w_t}d(\frac{z_0L_t}{z_3})dlog\frac{z_1}{z_2},$$

where $`w_t`$ is as in the begining of this section and

$$F_t=w_tA_t+\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d}{}}b_{\mu ,t}z_3^\mu (L_tz_0)^{d\mu },L_t=l_1(t)z_1+l_2(t)z_2$$

is the defining equation of $`X_t`$ such as (5-5), which varies holomorphically with $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1`$. Recalling $`Y=_{1j3}Y_j`$ with $`Y_j=\{z_j=0\}^3`$, write

$$Z_t=X_tYZ_{3t}=X_tY_3V_t=Z_{3t}(Y_1Y_2)S_t=Z_{3t}Y_2.$$

We consider the composite of the residue maps

$$\theta _t:H^{2,0}(U_t)=H^0(X_t,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_t}^2(\mathrm{log}Z_t))\stackrel{Res_{Z_{3t}}}{}H^0(Z_{3t},\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_{3t}}^1(\mathrm{log}V_t))\stackrel{Res_{S_t}}{}^{S_t}\stackrel{}{}^d,$$

where the last isomorphism is obtained by choosing $`ϵ_t:\{1,2,\mathrm{},d\}\stackrel{}{}S_t`$, an isomorphism of local systems of sets over $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`\lambda (t)`$ is flat, we get the condition:

$`\theta _t(\lambda (t))^d`$ is constant with $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ^1`$.

We shall show that the condition induces a contradiction, which completes the proof of Lem.4.2 in Case (2). In order to calculate $`\theta _t(\lambda (t))`$ we introduce some notations. Let $`𝔸=\{z_2=z_3=0\}\{[0:1:0:0]\}^3`$ be identified with $``$ via $`[z_0:z_1]z_0/z_1`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{(s_1,\mathrm{},s_d)|s_\nu 𝔸,s_\nu s_\mu \text{ for }1\nu \mu d\}.$$

We define a holomorphic map

$$\pi :\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma };t(s_\nu (t))_{1\nu d}\text{ with }ϵ_t(\nu )=s_\nu (t).$$

Now an easy residue calculation shows

$$\theta _t(\omega (t))=(1,\mathrm{},1),\theta _t(\eta (t))=(\frac{l_1(t)s_\nu (t)}{a_1(t)})_{1\nu d}$$

and hence

$$\theta _t(\lambda (t))=(p(t)s_\nu (t)+q(t))_{1\nu d}\text{ with }p(t)=\frac{f_1(t)}{a_1(t)},q(t)=f_1(t)\frac{l_1(t)}{a_1(t)}+f_2(t).$$

Therefore (5-6) implies that for $`T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )`$, we have

$$0=(p(t)s_\nu (t)+q(t))=p(0)s_\nu (t)+s_\nu (0)p(t)+q(t)\text{ for }1\nu d.$$

Letting $`\pi _{}:T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })T_{\pi (0)}(\mathrm{\Sigma })^d`$ be the differential of $`\pi `$, we get

$$p(0)\pi _{}()=p(0)(s_\nu (t))_{1\nu d}=p(t)(s_\nu (0))_{1\nu d}+q(t)(1,\mathrm{},1).$$

Since $`\lambda \omega _F`$, $`f_1(0)0`$ and hence $`p(0)0`$. Thus it implies $`dim(\pi _{}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )))2`$. Therefore we get a contradiction if we show the following.

Claim 4$`dim(\pi _{}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )))d`$.

Proof Let $`Q=[z_0,z_1]`$ and $`Q^l=P^lQ`$ for an integer $`l0`$. For $`GP`$ write $`\overline{G}=G\mathrm{mod}<z_2,z_3>Q`$. Consider the morphism

$$\rho :\mathrm{\Sigma }N:=\stackrel{}{}(Q^d);\underset{¯}{s}=(s_\nu )_{1\nu d}[F_{\underset{¯}{s}}]\text{ with }F_{\underset{¯}{s}}=\underset{1\nu d}{}(z_0s_\nu z_1).$$

It is finite etale and induces an isomorphism on the tangent spaces. Hence it suffices to show Claim 4 by replacing $`\pi `$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:=\rho \pi `$. We have $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(t)=[\overline{F}_t]`$ and we have the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P^d& \stackrel{\mathrm{mod}<z_2,z_3>}{}& Q^d\\ \psi & & \psi ^{}\\ T_0(\mathrm{\Delta })& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}{}& T_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }(0)}(N)\end{array}$$

where $`\psi ^{}`$ is defined in the same say as $`\psi `$ in (3-1) and $`\mathrm{Ker}(\psi ^{})=\overline{F}`$. We have shown that $`\psi ^1(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))=I_\lambda ^dwP^{d1}+J_F^d`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda )\psi ^{}(z_1Q^{d1}+\overline{F})`$. Noting $`F<z_1,z_2,z_3>`$ so that $`\overline{F}z_1Q^{d1}`$, this implies

$$dim(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(T_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ))dimz_1Q^{d1}=d.$$

This completes the proof of Claim 4.

By Case (2) we may assume now that we are in:

$`a_2(t)=a_3(t)=0`$ for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$.

In this case we may assume $`w=z_1`$. We have

$$I_\lambda I:=<z_1>+J_F=<z_1,\frac{F}{z_0},z_2\frac{F}{z_2},z_3\frac{F}{z_3}>$$

so that $`I`$ is complete intersection of degree $`(1,d1,d,d)`$. Hence $`I=I_\lambda `$ and $`I_\lambda ^d=z_1P^{d1}+J_F^d`$. As before we can show the following.

Claim 5Put $`\kappa _F=\frac{F}{z_1}`$.

* $`\varphi (\kappa _F)=\frac{z_0}{z_1}d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_2}{z_0}dlog\frac{z_3}{z_0}`$.
* $`\omega _F\kappa _F=\{yP^{d1}|yx=0R_F^{2d1}\text{ for }xz_1P^{d1}+J_F^d\}`$.

As before Claim 5 implies

$$\lambda (t)=f_1(t)\kappa (t)+f_2(t)\omega (t)\text{ for }t\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda ,$$

where $`f_1(t)`$, $`f_2(t)`$ and $`\omega (t)`$ are as before and

$$\kappa (t)=\frac{z_0}{z_1}d\mathrm{log}\frac{z_2}{z_0}dlog\frac{z_3}{z_0}H^{2,0}(U_t).$$

An easy residue caluculation shows $`\theta _t(\lambda (t))=(f_1(t)s_\nu (t)+f_2(t))_{1\nu d}`$ and the same argument as Case (2) induces a contradiction. This completes the proof of Lem.4.2.

## 6 Injectivity of regulator map

In this section we prove Th.0.9. Fix $`0M`$ and let the notaion be as in the begining of §1. By Lem.1.2, if $`0MM_{NL}`$, we have

$$F^0H^2(U,(2))=reg_U^2(\alpha _U)\text{ with }\alpha _U=\{\frac{z_2}{z_1},\frac{z_3}{z_1}\}CH^2(U,2).$$

By \[AS2\], Th.(6-1), it implies that the kernel of the composite map

$$CH^1(Z,1)CH^2(X,1)\stackrel{\rho _X}{}H_D^3(X,(2))$$

is generated by

$$_U(\alpha _U)=\delta :=((\frac{z_3}{z_2})_{|Z_1},(\frac{z_1}{z_3})_{|Z_2},(\frac{z_2}{z_1})_{|Z_2})CH^1(Z,1),$$

where $`_U:CH^2(U,2)CH^1(Z,1)`$.

Claim 1Write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=_{1j3}(Z_j)^{}`$.

* Assume $`0T_{12}`$ and that $`X`$ is defined by an equation as Def.0.8:

$$F=wA+z_1z_2B+c_1z_1^d+c_2z_2^d.$$

Then the following elements are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$;

$$\delta ,((\frac{z_2}{w})_{|Z_1},(\frac{w}{z_1})_{|Z_2},1).$$
* Assume $`0T_{12}T_{23}`$ and that $`X`$ is defined by an equation as Def.0.8:

$`F`$ $`=wA+z_1z_2B+c_1z_1^d+c_2z_2^d`$
$`=vA+z_2z_3B^{}+c_2z_2^d+c_3z_3^d`$
Then the following elements are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$;

$$\delta ,((\frac{z_2}{w})_{|Z_1},(\frac{w}{z_1})_{|Z_2},1),(1,(\frac{z_3}{v})_{|Z_2},(\frac{v}{z_2})_{|Z_3}).$$
* Assume $`0T_{12}T_{23}`$ and that $`X`$ is defined by an equation as Def.0.8:

$`F`$ $`=wA+z_1z_2B+c_1z_1^d+c_2z_2^d`$
$`=vA+z_2z_3B^{}+c_2z_2^d+c_3z_3^d`$
$`=uA+z_3z_1B^{\prime \prime }+c_3z_3^d+c_1z_1^d`$
Then the following elements are linearly independent in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$;

$$\delta ,((\frac{z_2}{w})_{|Z_1},(\frac{w}{z_1})_{|Z_2},1),(1,(\frac{z_3}{v})_{|Z_2},(\frac{v}{z_2})_{|Z_3}),((\frac{u}{z_3})_{|Z_1},1,(\frac{z_1}{u})_{|Z_3}).$$

Proof We only show Claim 1(3). The other are easier and left to the readers. Assume the contrary. Then there are integers $`e,l,m,n`$ not all zero such that

$`({\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{w}})^l({\displaystyle \frac{u}{z_3}})^n({\displaystyle \frac{z_3}{z_2}})^e1\mathrm{mod}z_1,`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z_1}})^l({\displaystyle \frac{z_3}{v}})^m({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{z_3}})^e1\mathrm{mod}z_2,`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{v}{z_2}})^m({\displaystyle \frac{z_1}{u}})^n({\displaystyle \frac{z_2}{z_1}})^e1\mathrm{mod}z_3.`$
We note $`u,v,w_{1j3}z_j`$ since otherwise it would contradicts (3-1). Hence the condition implies $`l=m=n=e`$ and $`u,v,w`$ coincides up to non-zero constant. Thus we get

$$Fz_1z_2B+c_1z_1^d+c_2z_2^dz_2z_3B^{}+c_2z_2^d+c_3z_3^dz_3z_1B^{\prime \prime }+c_3z_3^d+c_1z_1^d\mathrm{mod}w,$$

which is absurd. This completes the proof of Claim 1.

By Claim 1, the proof of Th.0.9 is complete if we show that $`T_{12}M_{NL}`$ (resp. $`T_{12}T_{23}M_{NL}`$, resp. $`T_{12}T_{23}T_{31}M_{NL}`$) if $`d4`$ (resp. $`d6`$, resp. $`d10`$). Indeed we have

$$\mathrm{codim}_M(T_{12})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+3}{3}\right)\left(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{3}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{2}\right)+2\right)=2d1.$$

One note that $`T_{12}T_{23}T_{31}\mathrm{}`$ since the Fermat surface $`z_0^d+z_1^d+z_2^d+z_3^d=0`$ belongs to it. Hence, for any irreducible component $`T`$ of $`T_{12}T_{23}`$ (resp. $`T_{12}T_{23}T_{31}`$), $`\mathrm{codim}_M(T)2(2d1)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{codim}_M(T)3(2d1)`$). By Th.0.6(1) it suffices to check $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)5`$ is greater than $`2d1`$ (resp. $`2(2d1)`$, resp. $`3(2d1)`$) if $`d4`$ (resp. $`d6`$, resp. $`d10`$). This completes the proof of Th.0.9.


format: text

text:
# A Z-MONITOR TO CALIBRATE HIGGS PRODUCTION VIA VECTOR BOSON FUSION WITH RAPIDITY GAPS AT THE LHC

## 1 Introduction

Hunting the Higgs boson(s) is now the highest priority of the international high-energy physics programme. To ascertain whether a Higgs signal can be seen, it is crucial to show that the background does not overwhelm the signal. For instance, the major difficulty in observing inclusive production of the Higgs in the preferred mass range around 115 GeV via the dominant $`Hb\overline{b}`$ mode is the huge $`b\overline{b}`$ QCD background. An attractive possibility to reduce the background is to study the central production of the Higgs in events with a large rapidity gap on either side. An obvious advantage of the rapidity gap approach is the clean experimental signature – hadron free zones between the remnants of the incoming protons and the Higgs decay products.

The cross section is large enough in the semi-inclusive case when the protons dissociate,

$$ppX+H+Y$$
(1)
where the plus sign denotes a large rapidity gap. A significant contribution to process (1) comes from Higgs production via $`WW/ZZ`$ fusion, i.e. $`qqqqH`$. Since this process is mediated by colourless $`t`$-channel $`W/Z`$ exchanges there is no corresponding gluon bremsstrahlung in the central region, and thus Sudakov suppression of the rapidity gaps does not occur. Another characteristic feature of the vector boson fusion Higgs production process is that it is accompanied by energetic quark jets in the forward and backward directions.

The most delicate issue in calculating the cross section for processes with rapidity gaps concerns the soft survival factor $`\widehat{S}^2`$. This factor has been calculated in a number of models for various rapidity gap processes, see for example $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Although there is reasonable agreement between these model expectations, it is always difficult to guarantee the precision of predictions which rely on soft physics.

Fortunately, calculations of $`\widehat{S}^2`$ can be checked experimentally by computing the event rate for a suitable calibrating reaction and comparing with the observed rate. As shown in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ the appropriate monitoring process for the double-diffractive mechanism is central dijet production with a rapidity gap on either side. To date, such a check has been the prediction of diffractive dijet production at the Tevatron in terms of the diffractive structure functions measured at HERA $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The evaluation of the survival factor $`\widehat{S}^2`$ based on the formalism of $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ appears to be in remarkable agreement with the CDF data. We expect that future measurements in Run II of the Tevatron will provide us with further detailed information on $`\widehat{S}^2`$.

As was pointed out in $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$, the survival factor for the gaps surrounding $`WWH`$ fusion can be monitored experimentally by observing the closely related central production of a $`Z`$ boson with the same rapidity gap and jet configuration.

We develop these ideas further by considering the decays of both (light) Higgs and $`Z`$ bosons into $`b\overline{b}`$ pairs, the dominant decay channel of the former. In each case we require two forward energetic jets, and rapidity gaps on either side of the centrally produced decay products. Both $`H`$ (Fig 2) and $`Z`$ (Fig 2) can be produced by electroweak vector boson fusion, for which gaps are ‘natural’, but the $`Z`$ can also be produced via $`𝒪(\alpha _S^2\alpha _W)`$ QCD processes (Fig 5), with both quarks and gluons exchanged in the $`t`$-channel. Finally, there is a large continuum $`𝒪(\alpha _S^4)`$ $`b\overline{b}`$ background (Fig 5).

## 2 Parton Level Signal and Background Rates

At the parton level, we define a set of selection cuts to pick out the ‘natural’ features of our two signals. Table 1 shows the effect of applying these cuts in sequence to the Higgs signal. $`p_{Tj}`$ and $`\eta _j`$ are the transverse momentum and rapidity of the forward jet partons. Of course, the depletion of the backgrounds is much greater. The rates are shown in Figure 6.

## 3 Gap Survival Probability

### 3.1 Parton Level

The QCD-induced $`b\overline{b}`$ background is still large after cuts, exceeding by two orders of magnitude the $`Z/H`$ cross sections. Further suppression can be achieved by requiring a completely clean gap, i.e. without any soft hadrons. The only way to create a gap in a QCD induced event is to screen the colour flow across the gap by an additional gluon; that is, to consider graphs of the type shown in Fig. 5. Using a leading logarithmic approximation to this loop integral, one obtains the probability to screen out the octet colour flow

$$P_a=C_a\left(_{Q_0}^{p_{T\mathrm{min}}}\alpha _S(Q_T^2)\frac{dQ_T^2}{Q_T^2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{N_c\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }{2\pi }_{Q_T}^{p_{T\mathrm{min}}}\alpha _S(Q^2)\frac{dQ^2}{Q^2}\right\}\right)^2=C_a\left(\frac{2\pi }{N_c\mathrm{\Delta }\eta }\right)^2.$$
(2)
Numerically, this suppresses the backgrounds by a factor of ten.

Another point we must take into account is the fact that now the $`b\overline{b}`$-pair may be produced in a colour singlet state only, and the ordinary $`ggb\overline{b}`$ hard subprocess cross section (which includes both colour singlet and octet contributions) should be replaced by the pure colour singlet cross section. Numerically, this suppresses the background by a further factor of ten. Our arguments are further explained in a recent paper $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

### 3.2 Hadron Level

We now require there to be no hadrons in the gaps at hadron level, i.e. we must take into account soft interactions of spectator partons. Using the formalism of Ref. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ we obtain for our kinematics

$$\widehat{S}_Z^2=0.31;\widehat{S}_H^2=0.31;\widehat{S}_{QCDb\overline{b}}^2=0.27.$$
(3)
## 4 Results

Figure 7 summarises our results, which are based on the parton level cross sections after application of cuts (Fig. 6). The QCD-induced cross sections (both the QCD $`Z`$ production of Fig. 5d and the direct QCD $`b\overline{b}`$ production of Fig. 5) are then multiplied by the probability to screen out the colour octet contribution for the relevant initial state (Eqn. 2). To take into account the fact that the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair in the background processes can only be produced in the colour singlet state the ordinary $`ggb\overline{b}`$ cross section is replaced by the pure singlet cross section. Finally both the signals and backgrounds are multiplied by the relevant soft survival probability of Eqn. 3.

## Acknowledgements

I have been fortunate to undertake this work with Valery Khoze, Misha Ryskin and James Stirling.

## References


text:
# Asymptotic Behaviour of ErgodicIntegrals of ‘Renormalizable’ Parabolic Flows

## 1. Introduction

A fundamental problem in smooth ergodic theory is to establish quantitative estimates on the asymptotics behaviour of ergodic integrals of smooth functions. For several examples of hyperbolic flows, such as geodesic flows on compact manifolds of negative curvature, the asymptotic behaviour of ergodic integrals is described by the Central Limit Theorem (Y. Sinai, M. Ratner). In these cases, the dynamical system can be described as an approximation of a ‘random’ stochastic process, like the outcomes of flipping a coin. Non-hyperbolic systems as not as well understood, with the important exception of toral flows. For generic non-singular area-preserving flows on the $`2`$-torus logarithmic bounds on ergodic integrals of zero-average functions of bounded variation can be derived by the Denjoy-Koksma inequality and the theory of continued fractions. For a general ergodic flow, ergodic integrals are bounded for all times for a special class of functions: coboundaries with bounded ‘transfer’ functions (Gottschalk-Hedlund). In the hyperbolic examples and in the case of generic toral flows, a smooth function is a coboundary if and only if it has zero average with respect to all invariant measures.

In this article, we are interested in flows with parabolic behaviour. Following A. Katok, a dynamical system is called parabolic if the rate of divergence of nearby orbits is at most polynomial in time, while hyperbolic systems are characterized by exponential divergence. Toral flows are a rather special parabolic example, called elliptic, since there is no divergence of orbits. It has been known for many years that typical examples of parabolic flows, such as horocycle flows or generic nilpotent flows are uniquely ergodic, but until recently not much was known on the asymptotic behaviour of ergodic averages, with the exception of some polynomial bounds on the speed of convergence in the horocycle case (M. Ratner, M. Burger), related to the polynomial rate of mixing. We have been able to prove, in collaboration with L. Flaminio, that for many examples of parabolic dynamics the behaviour of ergodic averages is typically described as follows.

A smooth flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }^X`$ on a finite dimensional manifold $`M`$ has deviation spectrum $`\{\lambda _1>\mathrm{}>\lambda _i>\mathrm{}>0\}`$ with multiplicities $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_i,\mathrm{}^+`$ if there exists a system $`\{𝒟_{ij}|i^+,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}jm_i\}`$ of linearly independent $`X`$-invariant distributions such that, for almost all $`pM`$, the ergodic integrals of any smooth function $`fC_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ have an asymptotic expansion

$$_0^Tf\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^X(t,p)\right)𝑑t=\underset{i}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}c_{ij}(p,T)𝒟_{ij}(f)T^{\lambda _i}+R(p,T)(f),$$
(1.1)
where the real coefficients $`c_{ij}(p,T)`$ and the distributional remainder $`R(p,T)`$ have, for almost all $`pM`$, a sub-polynomial behaviour, in the sense that

$$\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}_{j=1}^{m_i}|c_{ij}(p,T)|^2}{\mathrm{log}T}=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{log}R(p,T)}{\mathrm{log}T}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(1.2)
The notion of a deviation spectrum first arose in the work of A. Zorich and in his joint work with M. Kontsevich on non-exact Hamiltonian flows with isolated saddle-like singularities on compact higher genus surfaces. Zorich discovered in numerical experiments on interval exchange transformations an unexpected new phenomenon . He found that, although a generic flow on a surface of genus $`g2`$ is uniquely ergodic (H. Masur, W. Veech), for large times the homology classes of return orbits exhibit unbounded polynomial deviations with exponents $`\lambda _1>\lambda _2>\mathrm{}>\lambda _g>0`$ from the line spanned in the homology group by the Schwartzmann’s asymptotic cycle. In his later work ,  and in joint work with M. Kontsevich , Zorich was able to explain this phenomenon in terms of conjectures on the Lyapunov exponents of the Teichmüller flow on moduli spaces of holomorphic differentials on Riemann surfaces. Kontsevich and Zorich also conjectured that Zorich’s phenomenon is not merely topological, but it extends to ergodic integrals of smooth functions. “There is, presumably, an equivalent way of describing the numbers $`\lambda _i`$. Namely, let $`f`$ be a smooth function … Then for a generic trajectory $`p(t)`$, we expect that the number $`_0^Tf\left(p(t)\right)𝑑t`$ for large $`T`$ with high probability has size $`T^{\lambda _i+o(T)}`$ for some $`i\{1,\mathrm{},g\}`$. The exponent $`\lambda _1`$ appears for all functions with non-zero average value. The next exponent, $`\lambda _2`$, should work for functions in a codimension $`1`$ subspace of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S)`$, etc.”

Around the same time, we proved that for a generic non-exact Hamiltonian flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }^X`$ on a higher genus surface not all smooth zero average functions are smooth coboundaries . In fact, we found that, in contrast with the hyperbolic case and the elliptic case of toral flows, there are $`X`$-invariant distributional obstructions, which are not signed measures, to the existence of smooth solutions of the cohomological equation $`Xu=f`$. This result suggested that Zorich’s phenomenon should be related to the presence of invariant distributions other than the (unique) invariant probability measure. In fact, in  we were able prove the Kontsevich-Zorich conjectures that the deviation exponents are non-zero and that generic non-exact Hamiltonian flows on higher genus surfaces have a deviation spectrum. Recently, in collaboration with L. Flaminio, we have proved that other classical parabolic examples, such as horocycle flows on compact surfaces of constant negative curvature  and generic nilpotent flows on compact $`3`$-dimensional nilmanifolds , do have a deviation spectrum, but of countable multiplicity, in contrast with the case of flows on surfaces which have spectrum of finite multiplicity equal to the genus.

We will outline below a general framework, derived mostly from  and successfully carried out in , , for proving that a flow on a pseudo-homogeneous space has a deviation spectrum. Our framework is based on the construction of an appropriate renormalization dynamics on a moduli space of pseudo-homogeneous structures, which generalizes the Teichmüller flow. A renormalizable flow for which the space of smooth functions is stable (in the sense of A. Katok), has a deviation spectrum determined by the Lyapunov exponents of a renormalization cocycle over a bundle of basic currents. Pseudo-homogeneous spaces are a generalization of homogeneous spaces. The motivating non-homogeneous example is given by any punctured Riemann surface carrying a holomorphic differential vanishing only at the punctures. It turns out that renormalizable flows are necessarily parabolic. In fact, the class of renormalizable flows encompasses all parabolic flows which are reasonably well-understood, while not much is known for most non-renormalizable parabolic flows, such as generic geodesic flows on flat surfaces with conical singularities. Our approach unifies and generalizes several classical quantitative equidistribution results such as the Zagier-Sarnak results for periodic horocycles on non-compact hyperbolic surfaces of finite volume  or number theoretical results on the asymptotic behaviour of theta sums .

## 2. Renormalizable flows

Let $`𝔤`$ be a finite dimensional real Lie algebra. A $`𝔤`$-structure on a manifold $`M`$ is defined to be a homomorphism $`\tau `$ from $`𝔤`$ into the Lie algebra $`𝒱(M)`$ of all smooth vector fields on $`M`$. This notion is well-known in the theory of transformation groups (originated in the work of S. Lie) under the name of ‘infinitesimal $`G`$-transformation group’ (for a Lie group $`G`$ with $`𝔤`$ as Lie algebra). The second fundamental theorem of Lie states that any infinitesimal $`G`$-transformation group $`\tau `$ on $`M`$ can be ‘integrated’ to yield an essentially unique local $`G`$-transformation group. A $`𝔤`$-structure $`\tau `$ will be called faithful if $`\tau `$ induces a linear isomorphism from $`𝔤`$ onto $`T_xM`$, for all $`xM`$. Let $`\tau `$ be a $`𝔤`$-structure. For each element $`X𝔤`$, the vector field $`X_\tau :=\tau (X)`$ generates a (partially defined) flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ on $`M`$. Let $`E_t(X_\tau )M`$ be the closure of the complement of the domain of definition of the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X(t,)`$ at time $`t`$. A faithful $`𝔤`$-structure will be called pseudo-homogeneous if for every $`X𝔤`$ there exists $`t>0`$ such that $`E_t(X_\tau )E_t(X_\tau )`$ has zero (Lebesgue) measure. A manifold $`M`$ endowed with a pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structure will be called a pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-space. All homogeneous spaces are pseudo-homogeneous.

Let $`𝒯_𝔤(M)`$ be the space of all pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structures on $`M`$. The automorphism group $`\text{Aut}(𝔤)`$ acts on $`𝒯_𝔤(M)`$ by composition on the right. The group $`\text{Diff}(M)`$ acts on $`𝒯_𝔤(M)`$ by composition on the left. The spaces

$$\text{T}_𝔤(M):=𝒯_𝔤(M)/\text{Diff}_0(M),_𝔤(M):=\text{T}_𝔤(M)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(M),$$
(2.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(M):=\text{Diff}^+(M)/\text{Diff}_0(M)`$ is the mapping class group, will be called respectively the Teichmüller space and the moduli space of pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structures on $`M`$. The group $`\text{Aut}(𝔤)`$ acts on the Teichmüller space $`\text{T}_𝔤(M)`$ and on the moduli space $`_𝔤(M)`$, since in both cases the action of $`\text{Aut}(𝔤)`$ on $`𝒯_𝔤(M)`$ passes to the quotient.

Let $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$ be the subgroup of automorphisms with determinant one. An element $`X𝔤`$ will be called a priori renormalizable if there exists a partially hyperbolic one-parameter subgroup $`\{G_t^X\}\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$, $`t`$ ($`t`$), in general non-unique, with a single (simple) Lyapunov exponent $`\mu _X>0`$ such that

$$G_t^X(X)=e^{t\mu _X}X.$$
(2.2)
It follows from the definition that the subset of a priori renormalizable elements of a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is saturated with respect to the action of $`\text{Aut}(𝔤)`$. The subgroup $`\{G_t^X\}`$ acts on the Teichmüller space and on the moduli space of pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structures as a ‘renormalization dynamics’ for the family of flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ generated by the vector fields $`\{X_\tau |\tau 𝒯_𝔤(M)\}`$ on $`M`$. It will be called a generalized Teichmüller flow (map). A flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ will be called renormalizable if $`\tau _𝔤(M)`$ is a recurrent point for some generalized Teichmüller flow (map) $`G_t^X`$. If $`\mu `$ is a probability $`G_t^X`$-invariant measure on the moduli space, then by Poincaré recurrence the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ is renormalizable for $`\mu `$-almost all $`\tau _𝔤(M)`$.

Let $`R`$ be an inner product on $`𝔤`$. Every faithful $`𝔤`$ structure $`\tau `$ induces a Riemannian metric $`R_\tau `$ of constant curvature on $`M`$. Let $`\omega _\tau `$ be the volume form of $`R_\tau `$. The total volume function $`A:𝒯_𝔤(M)^+\{+\mathrm{}\}`$ is $`\text{Diff}^+(M)`$-invariant and $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$-invariant. Hence $`A`$ is well-defined as an $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$-invariant function on the Teichmüller space and on the moduli space. It follows that the subspace of finite-volume $`𝔤`$-structures has an $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$-invariant stratification by the level hypersurfaces of the total volume function. Since different hypersurfaces are isomorphic up to a dilation, when studying finite-volume spaces it is sufficient to consider the hypersurface of volume-one $`𝔤`$-structures:

$$\text{T}_𝔤^{(1)}(M):=\text{T}_𝔤(M)A^1(1),_𝔤^{(1)}(M):=_𝔤(M)A^1(1).$$
(2.3)
Let $`\tau `$ be a faithful $`𝔤`$-structure and let $`X𝔤`$. If the linear map $`ad_X`$ on $`𝔤`$ has zero trace, the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ preserves the volume form $`\omega _\tau `$ and $`X_\tau `$ defines a symmetric operator on $`L^2(M,\omega _\tau )`$ with domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. If $`\tau `$ is pseudo-homogeneous, by E. Nelson’s criterion , $`X_\tau `$ is essentially skew-adjoint. It turns out that any a priori renormalizable element $`X𝔤`$ is nilpotent, in the sense that all eigenvalues of the linear map $`ad_X`$ are equal to zero, hence the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ is volume preserving and parabolic. In all the examples we have considered, the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is traceless, in the sense that for every element $`X𝔤`$, the linear map $`\text{ad}_X`$ has vanishing trace. In this case, any pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structure induces a representation of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ by essentially skew-adjoint operators on the Hilbert space $`L^2(M,\omega _\tau )`$ with common invariant domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

## 3. Examples

Homogeneous spaces provide a wide class of examples. Let $`G`$ be a finite dimensional (non-compact) Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ and let $`M=G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a (compact) homogeneous space. The Teichmüller space $`\text{T}_G(M)\text{T}_𝔤(M)`$ and the moduli space $`_G(M)_𝔤(M)`$ of all homogeneous $`G`$-space structures on $`M`$ are respectively isomorphic to the Lie group $`\text{Aut}(G)`$ and to the homogeneous space $`\text{Aut}(G)/\text{Aut}(G,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, where $`\text{Aut}(G,\mathrm{\Gamma })<\text{Aut}(G)`$ is the subgroup of automorphisms which stabilize the lattice $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The Teichmüller and moduli spaces $`\text{T}_G^{(1)}(M)`$ and $`_G^{(1)}(M)`$ of homogeneous volume-one $`G`$-space structures are respectively isomorphic to the subgroup $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(G)`$ of orientation preserving, volume preserving automorphisms and to the homogeneous space $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(G)/\text{Aut}^{(1)}(G,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

In the Abelian case $`𝔤=^n`$, any $`X^n`$ is a priori renormalizable. In fact, the group $`\text{Aut}^{(1)}(^n)=\text{SL}(n,)`$ acts transitively on $`^n`$ and $`X_1=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is renormalized by the one-parameter group $`G_t:=\text{diag}(e^t,e^{t/n},\mathrm{},e^{t/n})\text{SL}(n,)`$. Finite volume Abelian homogeneous spaces are diffeomorphic to $`n`$-dimensional tori $`𝕋^n`$. The generalized Teichmüller flow $`G_t`$ on the moduli space of all volume-one Abelian homogeneous structures on $`𝕋^n`$ is a volume preserving Anosov flow on the finite-volume non-compact manifold $`\text{SL}(n,)/\text{SL}(n,)`$. Hence, in this case, almost all homogeneous flows are renormalizable, by Poincaré recurrence theorem. The dynamics of the flow $`G_t`$ has been investigated in depth by D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis in connection with the theory of Diophantine approximations.

In the semi-simple case, let $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(2,)`$ be the unique $`3`$-dimensional simple Lie algebra. There is a basis $`\{H,H^{},X\}`$ with commutation relations $`[X,H]=H`$, $`[X,H^{}]=H^{}`$ and $`[H,H^{}]=2X`$. The elements $`H`$, $`H^{}`$ are renormalized by the one-parameter group $`G_t:=\text{diag}(e^t,e^t,1)\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔤)`$, while $`X`$ is not a priori renormalizable. The unit tangent bundle of any hyperbolic surface $`S`$ can be identified to a homogeneous $`𝔤`$-space $`M:=\text{PSL}(2,)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The vector fields $`H`$, $`H^{}𝔤`$ generate the horocycle flows and the vector field $`X`$ generates the geodesic flow on $`S`$. Since $`G_t`$ is a group of inner automorphisms, it is in fact generated by the geodesic vector field $`X`$, every point of the moduli space is fixed under $`G_t`$. Hence horocycle flows are renormalizable on every homogeneous space $`\text{PSL}(2,)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In the nilpotent, non-Abelian case, let $`𝔫`$ be the Heisenberg Lie algebra, spanned by elements $`\{X,X^{},Z\}`$ such that $`[X,X^{}]=Z`$ and $`Z`$ is a generator of the one-dimensional center $`Z_𝔫`$. The element $`X`$ is renormalized by the one-parameter subgroup $`G_t:=\text{diag}(e^t,e^t,1)\text{Aut}^{(1)}(𝔫)`$. Since the group $`\text{Aut}(𝔫)`$ acts transitively on $`𝔫Z_𝔫`$, every $`Y𝔫Z_𝔫`$ is a priori renormalizable, while the elements of the center are not. A compact nilmanifold modeled over the Heisenberg group $`N`$ is a homogeneous space $`M=N/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a co-compact lattice. These spaces are topologically circle bundles over $`𝕋^2`$ classified by their Euler characteristic. The moduli space $`_N^{(1)}(M)`$ of volume-one homogeneous $`𝔫`$-structures on $`M`$ is a $`5`$-dimensional finite-volume non-compact orbifold which fibers over the modular surface $`\text{SL}(2,)/\text{SL}(2,)`$ with fiber $`𝕋^2`$. The generalized Teichmüller flow is an Anosov flow on $`_N^{(1)}(M)`$ .

The motivation for our definition of a pseudo-homogeneous space comes from the theory of Riemann surfaces of higher genus. Any holomorphic (Abelian) differential $`h`$ on a Riemann surface $`S`$ of genus $`g2`$, vanishing at $`Z_hS`$, induces a (non-unique) pseudo-homogeneous $`^2`$-structure on the open manifold $`M_h:=SZ_h`$ In fact, the frame $`\{X,X^{}\}`$ of $`TS|M_h`$ uniquely determined by the conditions

$$\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2}ı_X(h\overline{h})=\mathrm{}(h),\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2}ı_X^{}(h\overline{h})=\mathrm{}(h)$$
(3.1)
satisfies the Abelian commutation relation $`[X,X^{}]=0`$ and the homomorphism $`\tau _h:^2𝒱(M_h)`$ such that $`\tau _h(1,0)=X`$, $`\tau _h(0,1)=X^{}`$ is a pseudo-homogeneous $`^2`$-structure on $`M_h`$. Let $`ZS`$ be a given subset of cardinality $`\sigma `$ and let $`\kappa =(k_1,\mathrm{},k_\sigma )(^+)^\sigma `$ with $`k_i=2g2`$. Let $`_\kappa (S,Z)`$ be the space of Abelian differentials $`h`$ with $`Z_h=Z`$ and zeroes of multiplicities $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_\sigma )`$. The projection of the set $`\{\tau _h𝒯_^2(M)|h_\kappa (S,Z)\}`$ into the moduli space $`_^2(M)`$ of pseudo-homogeneous $`^2`$-structures on $`M:=SZ`$ is isomorphic to a stratum $`(\kappa )`$ of the moduli space of Abelian differentials on $`S`$. The flow induced on $`(\kappa )`$ by the one-parameter group of automorphism $`G_t=\text{diag}(e^t,e^t)\text{SL}(2,)`$ coincides with the Teichmüller flow on the stratum $`(\kappa )`$.

## 4. Cohomological equations

Let $`(𝔤,R)`$ be a finite dimensional Lie algebra endowed with an inner product. Any pseudo-homogeneous $`𝔤`$-structure $`\tau `$ on a manifold $`M`$ induces a Sobolev filtration $`\{\text{W}_\tau ^s(M)\}_{s0}`$ on the space $`W_\tau ^0(M):=L^2(M,\omega _\tau )`$ of square-integrable functions. Let $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$ be the non-negative Laplace-Beltrami operator of the Riemannian metric $`R_\tau `$ on $`M`$. The Laplacian is densely defined and symmetric on the Hilbert space $`W_\tau ^0(M)`$ with domain $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, but it is not in general essentially self-adjoint. In fact, if $`𝔤`$ is traceless, by a theorem of E. Nelson , $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$ is essentially self-adjoint if and only if the representation $`\tau `$ of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ on $`W_\tau ^0(M)`$ by essentially skew-adjoint operators induces a unitary representation of a Lie group. Let then $`\overline{\mathrm{}}_\tau `$ be the Friederichs extension of $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$. The Sobolev space $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$, $`s>0`$, is defined as the maximal domain of the operator $`(\text{I}+\overline{\mathrm{}}_\tau )^{s/2}`$ endowed with the norm

$$f_{s,\tau }:=(\text{I}+\overline{\mathrm{}})^{s/2}f_{0,\tau }.$$
(4.1)
The Sobolev spaces $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$ are defined as the duals of the Hilbert spaces $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$, for all $`s>0`$. Let $`C_B^0(M)`$ be the space of continous bounded functions on $`M`$. The pseudo-homogeneous space $`(M,\tau )`$ will be called of bounded type if there is a continous (Sobolev) embedding $`W_\tau ^s(M)C_B^0(M)`$ for all $`s>\text{dim}(M)/2`$. The bounded-type condition is essentially a geometric property of the pseudo-homogeneous structure.

Let $`X𝔤`$. Following A. Katok, the space $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$ is called $`W_\tau ^t(M)`$-stable with respect to the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ if the subspace

$$R^{s,t}(X_\tau ):=\{fW_\tau ^s(M)|f=X_\tau u,uW_\tau ^t(M)\}$$
(4.2)
is closed in $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$. The flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ will be called tame (of degree $`\mathrm{}>0`$) if $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$ is $`W_\tau ^s\mathrm{}(M)`$-stable with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ for all $`s>\mathrm{}`$. In all the examples of §3, generic renormalizable flows are tame. In particular, it is well known that generic toral flows are tame, horocycle flows and generic nilpotent flows on $`3`$-dimensional compact nilmanifolds were proved tame of any degree $`\mathrm{}>1`$ in , , generic non-exact Hamiltonian flows on higher genus surfaces were proved tame in . These results are based on the appropriate harmonic analysis: in the homogeneous cases, the theory of unitary representations for the Lie group $`\text{SL}(2,)`$  and the Heisenberg group ; in the more difficult non-homogeneous case of higher genus surfaces, the theory of boundary behaviour of holomorphic functions on the unit disk plays a crucial role .

If the Sobolev space $`W_\tau ^s(M)`$ is stable with respect to the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$, the closed range $`R^{s,t}(X_\tau )`$ of the operator $`X_\tau `$ coincides with the distributional kernel $`^s(X_\tau )W_\tau ^s(M)`$ of $`X_\tau `$, which is a space of $`X_\tau `$-invariant distributions. Let $`X`$ be any smooth vector field on a manifold $`M`$. A distribution $`𝒟𝒟^{}(M)`$ is called $`X`$-invariant if $`X𝒟=0`$ in $`𝒟^{}(M)`$. Invariant distributions are in bijective correspondence with (homogeneous) one-dimensional basic currents for the orbit foliation $`(X)`$ of the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }^X`$. A one-dimensional basic current $`C`$ for a foliation $``$ on $`M`$ is a continous linear functional on the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^1(M)`$ of smooth $`1`$-forms with compact support such that, for all vector fields $`Y`$ tangent to $``$,

$$ı_YC=_YC=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}(ı_YC=dC=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}).$$
(4.3)
It follows from the definitions that the one-dimensional current $`C:=ı_X𝒟`$ is basic for $`(X)`$ if and only if the distribution $`𝒟`$ is $`X`$-invariant. Let $`(X)`$ be the space of all $`X`$-invariant distributions and $`(X)`$ be the space of all one-dimensional basic currents for the orbit foliation $`(X)`$. The linear map $`ı_X:(X)(X)`$ is bijective.

Let $`(M,\tau )`$ be a pseudo-homogeneous space. There is a well-defined Hodge (star) operator and a space $`\text{C}_\tau ^0(M)`$ of square-integrable $`1`$-forms on $`M`$ associated with the metric $`R_\tau `$. Since the Laplace operator $`\mathrm{}_\tau `$ extends to $`\text{C}_\tau ^0(M)`$ with domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^1(M)`$, it is possible to define, as in the case of functions, a Sobolev filtration $`\{\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)\}_{s0}`$, on the space $`\text{C}_\tau ^0(M)`$. The Sobolev spaces $`\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$ are defined as the duals of the Sobolev spaces $`\text{C}^s(M)`$, for all $`s>0`$. Let $`^s(X_\tau ):=(X_\tau )\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$ be the subspaces of basic currents of Sobolev order $`s`$ for the orbit foliation $`(X_\tau )`$. The space $`^s(X_\tau )`$ is the image of $`^s(X_\tau ):=(X_\tau )W_\tau ^s(M)`$ under the bijective map $`ı_X:(X)(X)`$. In the case of minimal toral flows the space $`^s(X_\tau )`$ is one-dimensional for all $`s0`$ (as all invariant distributions are scalar multiples of the unique invariant probability measure). In the parabolic examples we have studied, $`^s(X_\tau )`$ has countable dimension, as soon as $`s>1/2`$, for horocycle flows or generic nilpotent flows, while for generic non-exact Hamiltonian flows on higher genus surfaces the dimension is finite for all $`s>0`$ and grows linearly with respect to $`s>0`$. This finiteness property seems to be an exceptional low dimensional feature.

## 5. The renormalization cocycle

The Sobolev spaces $`\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$ of one-dimensional currents form a smooth infinite dimensional vector bundle over $`𝒯_𝔤(M)`$. Such bundles can be endowed with a flat connection with parallel transport given locally by the identity maps $`\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)\text{C}_\tau ^{}^s(M)`$, for any $`\tau \tau ^{}𝒯_𝔤(M)`$. Since the diffeomorphism group $`\text{Diff}(M)`$ acts on $`\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$ by push-forward, we can define (orbifold) vector bundles $`\text{C}_𝔤^s(M)`$ over the Teichmüller space $`\text{T}_𝔤(M)`$ or the moduli space $`_𝔤(M)`$ of pseudo-homogeneous structures on $`M`$. If $`X𝔤`$ is a priori renormalizable, a generalized Teichmüller flow (map) $`G_t^X`$ can be lifted by parallel transport to a ‘renormalization cocycle’ $`R_t^X`$ on the bundles of currents $`\text{C}_𝔤^s(M)`$ over the Teichmüller space or the moduli space. It follows from the definitions that the sub-bundles $`_𝔤^s(X)\text{C}_𝔤^s(M)`$ with fibers the subspaces of basic currents $`^s(X_\tau )\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$ are $`R_t^X`$-invariant. It can be proved that, for any $`G_t`$-ergodic probability measure $`\mu `$ on the moduli space, if the flows $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ are tame of degree $`\mathrm{}>0`$ for $`\mu `$-almost all $`\tau _𝔤(M)`$, then the sub-bundles $`_𝔤^s(X)`$ are $`\mu `$-almost everywhere defined with closed (Hilbert) fibers of constant rank, for all $`s>\mathrm{}`$.

In the examples considered, with the exception of flows on higher genus surfaces, the Hilbert bundles of basic currents $`_𝔤^s(X)`$ are infinite dimensional, and to the author’s best knowledge, available Oseledec-type theorems for Hilbert bundles do not apply to the renormalization cocycle. However, the cocycle has a well defined Lyapunov spectrum and an Oseledec decomposition. We are therefore led to formulate the following hypothesis:

$`H_1(s)`$. The renormalization cocyle $`R_t^X`$ on the bundle $`_𝔤^s(X)`$ over the dynamical system $`(G_t^X,\mu )`$ has a Lyapunov spectrum $`\{\nu _1>\mathrm{}>\nu _k>\mathrm{}>0>\mathrm{}\}`$ and an Oseledec’s decomposition

$$_𝔤^s(X)=E_𝔤^s(\nu _1)\mathrm{}E_𝔤^s(\nu _k)\mathrm{}N_𝔤^s,$$
(5.1)
in which the components $`E_𝔤^s(\nu _k)`$ correspond to the Lyapunov exponents $`\nu _k>0`$, while the component $`N_𝔤^s`$ has a non-positive top Lyapunov exponent. Our result on the existence of a deviation spectrum requires an additional technical hypothesis, verified in our examples.

$`H_2(s)`$. Let $`\gamma _\tau ^1(p)`$ be the one-dimensional current defined by the time $`T=1`$ orbit-segment of the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ with initial point $`pM`$. $`(a)`$ The essential supremum of the norm $`\gamma _\tau ^1(p)_{\tau ,s}`$ over $`pM`$ is locally bounded for $`\tau \text{supp}(\mu )_𝔤(M)`$; $`(b)`$ The orthogonal projections of $`\gamma _\tau ^1(p)`$ on all subspaces $`E_\tau ^s(\nu _k)\text{C}_𝔤^s(M)`$ are non-zero for $`\mu `$-almost all $`\tau _𝔤(M)`$ and almost all $`pM`$.

Let $`X𝔤`$ be a priori renormalizable and let $`\mu `$ be a $`G_t^X`$\- invariant Borel probability measure on $`_𝔤(M)`$, supported on a stratum of bounded-type $`𝔤`$\- structures. If the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ is tame of degree $`\mathrm{}>0`$ and the hypoteses $`H_1(s)`$, $`H_2(s)`$ are verified for $`s>\mathrm{}+\text{dim}(M)/2`$, for $`\mu `$\- almost $`\tau _𝔤`$, the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ has a deviation spectrum with deviation exponents

$$\nu _1/\mu _X>\mathrm{}>\nu _k/\mu _X>\mathrm{}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(5.2)
and multiplicities given by the decomposition (5.1) of the renormalization coycle.

In the homogeneous examples, the Lyapunov spectrum of the renormalization cocycle is computed explicitly in every irreducible unitary representation of the structural Lie group. In the horocycle case, the existence of an Oseledec’s decomposition (5.1) is equivalent to the statement that the space of horocycle-invariant distributions is spanned by (generalized) eigenvectors of the geodesic flow, well-known in the representation theory of semi-simple Lie groups as conical distributions . In the non-homogeneous case of higher genus surfaces, the Oseledec’s theorem applies since the bundles $`_𝔤^s(X)`$ are finite dimensional. We have found in all examples a surprising heuristic relation between the Lyapunov exponents of the renormalization cocycle and the Sobolev regularity of basic currents (or equivalently of invariant distributions): the subspaces $`E_\tau ^s(\nu _k)`$ are generated by basic currents of Sobolev order $`1\nu _k/\mu _X0`$. The Sobolev order of a one-dimensional current $`C`$ is defined as the infimum of all $`s>0`$ such that $`C\text{C}_\tau ^s(M)`$.

In the special case of non-exact Hamiltonian flow on higher genus surfaces the Lyapunov exponents of the renormalization cocycle are related to those of the Teichmüller flow. In fact, let $`S`$ be compact orientable surface of genus $`g2`$ and let $`(\kappa )`$ be a stratum of Abelian differentials vanishing at $`ZS`$. Let $`_\kappa (X)_^2(X)`$ be the measurable bundle of basic currents over $`(\kappa )_^2(SZ)`$ and let $`H_\kappa ^1(SZ,)`$ be the bundle over $`(\kappa )`$ with fibers isomorphic to the real cohomology $`H^1(SZ,)`$. Since basic currents are closed, there exists a cohomology map $`j_\kappa :_\kappa (X)H_\kappa ^1(SZ,)`$ such that, as proved in , the restrictions $`j_\kappa |_\kappa ^s(X)`$ are surjective for all $`s>>1`$ and, for all $`s1`$, there are exact sequences

$$0_\kappa ^{s1}(X)^{\underset{}{\delta _\kappa }}_\kappa ^s(X)^{\underset{}{j_\kappa }}H_\kappa ^1(SZ,).$$
(5.3)
The renormalization cocycle $`R_t^X`$ on $`_\kappa ^s(X)`$ projects for all $`s>>1`$ onto a cocycle on the cohomology bundle $`H_\kappa ^1(SZ,)`$, introduced by M. Kontsevich and A. Zorich in order to explain the homological asymptotic behaviour of orbits of the flow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau ^X`$ for a generic $`\tau (\kappa )_^2(SZ)`$ . The Lyapunov exponents of the Kontsevich-Zorich cocycle on $`H_\kappa ^1(SZ,)`$,

$$\lambda _1=1>\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _g\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}Z1}{\stackrel{}{0=\mathrm{}=0}}\lambda _g\mathrm{}\lambda _2>\lambda _1=1,$$
(5.4)
are related the Lyapunov exponents of the Teichüller flow on $`(\kappa )`$ , . Since the bundle map $`\delta _\kappa `$ shifts Lyapunov exponents by $`1`$ and, as conjectured in  and proved in , the Kontsevich-Zorich exponents $`\lambda _1=1>\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _g`$ are non-zero, the strictly positive exponents of the renormalization cocycle coincide with the Kontsevich-Zorich exponents. This reduction explains why in the case of non-exact Hamiltonian flows on surfaces the Lyapunov exponents of the Teichmüller flow are related to the deviation exponents for the ergodic averages of smooth functions.