text:
# Estimate of dimension of Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on open complete intersections

Introduction

Jacobian rings for open complete intersections

Trivial part of cohomology of complements of hypersurfaces

Hodge theoretic implication of generalized Jacobian rings

Case of plane curves

Beilinson’s Tate conjecture

Implication on injectivity of Chern class map for $`K_1`$ of surfaces

References

0. Introduction

In his lectures in \[G1\], M. Green gives a lucid explanation how fruitful the infinitesimal method in Hodge theory is in various aspects of algebraic geometry. A significant idea is to use Koszul cohomology for Hodge-theoretic computations. The idea originates from Griffiths work \[Gri\] where the Poincaré residue representation of the cohomology of a hypersurface played a crucial role in proving the infinitesimal Torelli theorem for hypersurfaces. Since then many important applications of the idea have been made in different geometric problems such as the generic Torelli problem and the Noether-Lefschetz theorem for Hodge cycles and the study of algebraic cycles (see \[G1, Lectures 7 and 8\]).

In this paper we apply the method to study an analog of the Noether-Lefschetz theorem in the context of Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture. Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture and its Tate variant concern the regulator maps for open varieties (cf. \[J1, Conjecture 8.5 and 8.6\]). To be more precise we let $`U`$ be a smooth variety over a field $`k`$ of characteristic zero.

(Hodge version) When $`k=`$ we have the regulator map from the higher Chow group to the singular cohomology of $`U()`$ (cf. \[Bl\] and \[Sch\])

$$reg_U^q\text{ }:\text{ }CH^q(U,q)H^q(U,(q))F^qH^q(U,)$$

where $`(q)=(2\pi \sqrt{1})^q`$ and $`F^{}`$ denotes the Hodge filtration of the mixed Hodge structure on the singular cohomology defined by Deligne \[D1\]. 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 $`CH^q(U,q)`$;

$$reg_U^q(\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_q\})=\frac{dg_1}{g_1}\mathrm{}\frac{dg_q}{g_q}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))=F^qH^q(U,),$$

where $`\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_q\}CH^q(U,q)`$ is the products of $`g_jCH^1(U,1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_{Zar}^{})`$.

(Tate version) When $`k`$ is a finitely generated field over $``$ we have the étale regulator map from the higher Chow group to the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic etale cohomology

$$reg_{et,U}^q\text{ }:\text{ }CH^q(U,q)_{\mathrm{}}H_{et}^q(U_{\overline{k}},_{\mathrm{}}(j))^{Gal(\overline{k}/k)}$$

where $`U_{\overline{k}}=U\times _k\overline{k}`$ with $`\overline{k}`$, an algebraic closure of $`k`$.

###### Conjecture 0.1

In case $`k=`$, $`reg_U^q`$ is surjective.

###### Conjecture 0.2

In case $`k`$ is finitely generated over $``$, $`reg_{et,U}^q`$ is surjective.

We call them Beilinson’s Hodge and Tate conjectures respectively. They are analogs of the Hodge and Tate conjectures for algebraic cycles on smooth projective varieties. The following are some remarks on the conjectures.

The conjectures hold in case $`q=1`$. They follows from the injectivity of Abel-Jacobi map (and its $`\mathrm{}`$-adic variant) for divisors on smooth proper varieties.

If $`U`$ is proper over $`k`$, we have

$`H^q(U,(q))F^qH^q(U,)=0\text{ in case }k=,`$
$`H_{et}^q(U_{\overline{k}},_{\mathrm{}}(q))^{Gal(\overline{k}/k)}=0\text{ in case }k\text{ is finitely generated over },`$
by the Hodge symmetry and by the reason of weight respectively. Thus Beilinson’s conjectures are interesting only for non-proper varieties.

When $`X`$ is a projective smooth surface and $`UX`$ is the complement of a simple normal crossing divisor $`ZX`$, then the surjectivity of $`reg_U^2`$ or $`reg_{et,U}^2`$ has an implication on the injectivity of the regulator maps for $`CH^2(X,1)`$, which can be viewed as an analog of the Abel’s theorem for $`K_1`$ of surfaces. The detail will be explained in §6.

As a naive generalization of Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture, one may expect the surjectivity of the more general regulator map (in case $`k=`$)

$$reg_U^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }CH^q(U,2qp)(2\pi \sqrt{1})^qW_{2q}H^p(U,)F^qH^p(U,)$$

where $`W_{}`$ denotes the weight filtration. Jannsen (\[J1, 9.11\]) has shown that the above map in case $`p=1`$ and $`q3`$ is odd, is not surjective in general by using a theorem of Mumford \[Mu\], which implies the Abel-Jacobi for cycles of codimension$`2`$ on smooth projective varieties is not injective even modulo torsion.

Before introducing the setup of the main result of this paper, we explain its background, the Noether-Lefschetz problem for Hodge cycles. Let $`X^n`$ be a smooth projective variety over $``$. Recall that the Hodge conjecture predicts that the space of Hodge cycles in codimension $`q`$ on $`X`$:

$$F^0H^{2q}(X,(q)):=H^{2q}(X,(q))F^qH^{2q}(X,)$$

is generated by classes of algebraic subvarieties on $`X`$. One defines the space of trivial cycles in codimension $`q`$ on $`X`$ to be

$$H^{2q}(X,(q))_{triv}:=\mathrm{Image}(H^{2q}(^n,(q))H^{2q}(X,(q)))F^0H^{2q}(X,(q)).$$

It is generated by the class of the section on $`X`$ of a linear subspace of codimension $`q`$ in $`^n`$. Now let $`S`$ be a non-singular quasi-projective variety over $``$ and assume that we are given $`𝒳_S^n`$, an algebraic family over $`S`$ of smooth projective varieties. Let $`X_t`$ be the fiber of $`𝒳`$ over $`tS`$. Then the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Hodge cycles in codimension $`q`$ on $`𝒳/S`$ is defined to be

$$S_{NL}^q=\{tS|F^0H^{2q}(X_t,(q))H^{2q}(X_t,(q))_{triv}\}.$$

It is the locus of such $`tS`$ that there are non-trivial Hodge cycles in codimension $`q`$ on $`X_t`$ and hence that the Hodge conjecture is non-trivial for $`X_t`$. One can prove $`S_{NL}^q`$ is the union of countable number of (not necessarily proper) closed algebraic subsets of $`S`$ (cf. \[CDK\]).

The celebrated theorem of Noether-Lefschetz affirms that in case $`𝒳/S`$ is the universal family of smooth surface of degree$`4`$ in $`^3`$, $`S_{NL}^1S`$, which implies the Picard group of general surface of that kind is generated by the class of a hyperplane section.

In this paper we propose the following analog of the above problem in the context of Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture. Assume that we are given schemes over $``$

$`Y=\underset{1js}{}Y_j^nXZ=\underset{1js}{}Z_j,V=^nY,U=XZ`$

where $`X`$ is projective smooth, $`Y_j^n`$ is a smooth hypersurface, $`Y`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`^n`$, $`Z_j=XY_j`$ intersecting transversally, and $`Z`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`X`$. We are interested in the space of Beilinson-Hodge cycles in degree $`q`$ on $`U`$:

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

and the regulator map $`reg_U^q:CH^q(U,q)F^0H^q(U,(q))`$. Since $`U`$ is affine, $`H^q(U,(q))=0`$ for $`q>\mathrm{dim}(U)`$ by the weak Lefschetz theorem. Thus we are interested only in case $`1q\mathrm{dim}(U)`$. For a positive integer $`qn`$ we put

$$H^q(U,(q))_{triv}=\mathrm{Image}(H^q(V,(q))H^q(U,(q))).$$

We will define a subspace $`CH^q(U,q)_{triv}CH^q(U,q)`$ such that (cf. Definition2.1)

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

and hence that $`H^q(U,(q))_{triv}\mathrm{Image}(reg_U^q)F^0H^q(U,(q))`$. We note that in case $`\mathrm{dim}(X)>1`$ we have (cf. Lemma2.3)

$$CH^q(U,q)_{triv}=CH^q(U,q)_{dec}$$

where $`CH^q(U,q)_{dec}CH^q(U,q)`$ is the subspace generated by decomposable elements, namely products of elements in $`CH^1(U,1)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_{S_{Zar}}^{})`$. Now assume that we are given schemes over $`S`$, a non-singular quasi-projective variety over $``$,

$`𝒴=\underset{1js}{}𝒴_j_S^n𝒳𝒵=\underset{1js}{}𝒵_j,𝒱=_S^n𝒴,𝒰=𝒳𝒵`$

whose fibers satisfies the same conditions as (0-3). Let $`U_t`$ be the fiber of $`𝒰`$ over $`tS`$.

###### Definition 0.3

For $`1q\mathrm{dim}(U_t)`$ we define the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles in degree $`q`$ on $`𝒰/S`$ to be

$$S_{NL}^q=\{xS|F^0H^q(U_t,(q))H^q(U_t,(q))_{triv}\}.$$

By definition $`S_{NL}^q`$ is the locus of such $`tS`$ that there are non-trivial Beilinson-Hodge cycles in degree $`q`$ on $`U_t`$ and hence that Beilinson’s Hodge conjecture is non-trivial for $`U_t`$. We note that a standard method in Hodge theory shows that $`S_{NL}^q`$ is the union of countable number of (not necessarily proper) closed analytic subsets of $`S`$.

A main purpose of this paper is to study the Noether-Lefschetz locus in case the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are smooth complete intersection of multi-degree $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_r)`$ in $`^n`$. In this case the Lefschetz theory implies $`S_{NL}^q=\mathrm{}`$ unless $`q=m:=nr=\mathrm{dim}(U_t)`$ (cf. Lemma2.3). Thus we are interested only in $`S_{NL}:=S_{NL}^m`$. In order state the main result we will introduce an invariant $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)`$ in §3 that measures the “generality” of the family (0-4), or how many independent parameters $`S`$ contains (cf. Definition3.2 and Lemma3.4). Assume that the fibers of $`𝒴_j_S^n`$ for $`1js`$ is a hypersurface of degree $`e_j`$ and put

$$\delta _{min}=\mathrm{min}\{d_i,e_j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}js,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}ir\}.$$

###### Theorem 0.4

For any irreducible component $`ES_{NL}`$,

$$\mathrm{codim}_S(E)\delta _{min}(nr1)+\underset{1ir}{}d_ic_S(𝒳,𝒵)n.$$

The original proof of the Noether-Lefschetz theorem was based on the study of monodromy action on cohomology of surfaces (cf. \[D2\]). The idea of improving the Noether-Lefschetz theorem by means of the infinitesimal method in the theory of variations of Hodge structures was introduced by Carlson, Green, Griffiths and Harris (cf. \[CGGH\]). By using the method closer analyses have been made on the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Hodge cycles on hypersurfaces, particularly on the problem to give a lower bound of codimensions of its irreducible components and to determine the components of maximal dimension (cf. \[G4\], \[G5\], \[V\] and \[Ot\]).

The proof of Theorem0.4 follows the same line of arguments as \[G4\] by using the variation of mixed Hodge structures arising from cohomology of the fibers of $`𝒰/S`$. A technical renovation is the results stated in §1 on generalized Jacobian rings, which give an algebraic description of the infinitesimal part of the variation of mixed Hodge structures. It is a natural generalization of the Poincaré residue representation of the cohomology of hypersurfaces in \[Gri\].

Having a result such as Theorem0.4, a natural quesiton to ask is if the estimate in the theorem is optimal. In this paper we can give a positive answer to this quesiton only in case the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are plane curves (cf. Theorem4.1). In case the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are of dimension$`>1`$, the estimate seems far from being optimal. Indeed in a forthcoming paper \[AS2\] we will show that the optimal estimate of codimensions of the Neother-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson’s Hodge cycles on complements of three hyperplanes in surfaces of degree $`d`$ in $`^3`$ is given explicitly by a quadratic polynomial in $`d`$.

Concerning Beilinson’s Tate conjecture, we will show the following results. Let $`k`$ be a finitely generated field over $``$. Let $`S`$ be a quasi-projective variety over $`k`$ and assume that we are given schemes over $`S`$ which satisfy the same condition as (0-4). Assume that the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are smooth complete intersection of multi-degree $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_r)`$ in $`^n`$. Write $`m=nr`$.

###### Theorem 0.5

Assume $`\underset{1ir}{}d_in+1+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)`$.

Let $`K=k(S)`$ be the function field of $`S`$. For any a finite generated field $`L`$ over $`K`$ we have

$$H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{L}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^{Gal(\overline{L}/L)}=reg_{et,U_L}^m(CH^m(U_L,m)_{triv}_{\mathrm{}}),$$

where $`reg_{et,U_L}^m:CH^m(U_L,m)_{\mathrm{}}H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{L}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^{Gal(\overline{L}/L)}`$ is the etale regulator map for $`U_L=𝒰\times _S\mathrm{Spec}(L)`$ (cf. (0-2)).

Assume that $`k`$ is a finite extension of $``$ and $`S(k)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\pi :S_k^N`$ be a dominant quasi-finite morphism. There exist a subset $`H_k^N(k)`$ such that:

For $`xS`$ such that $`\pi (x)H`$ and for any subgroup $`G\mathrm{Gal}(k(\overline{x})/k(x))`$ of finite index we have

$$H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{x}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^G=reg_{et,U_x}^m(CH^m(U_x,m)_{triv}_{\mathrm{}}),$$

where $`reg_{et,U_x}^m:CH^m(U_x,m)_{\mathrm{}}H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{x}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^{Gal(k(\overline{x})/k(x))}`$ is the etale regulator map for $`U_x`$, the fiber of $`𝒰`$ over $`xS`$, with $`\overline{x}`$, a geometric point over $`x`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be any finite set of primes of $`k`$ and let $`k_v`$ be the completion of $`k`$ at $`v\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then the image of $`H`$ in $`_{v\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k^N(k_v)`$ is dense.

Now we explain how the paper is organized. In §1 we state the fundamental results on the generalized Jacobian rings, the duality theorem and the symmetrizer lemma. The proof is given in another paper \[AS1\]. It is based on the basic techniques to compute Koszul cohomology developed by M. Green (\[G2\] and \[G3\]). In §2 we define the trivial part of cohomology of complements of unions of hypersurface sections in smooth projective varieties, which is necessary to set up the Noether-Lefschetz problem for Beilinson-Hodge cycles. In §3 Hodge theoretic implications of the results in §1 are stated, which plays a crucial role in the proof of Theorem0.4 given in this section. The case of plane curves is treated in §4, where the estimate in Theorem0.4 is shown to be optimal. Theorem0.5 is proven in §5 by using the results in §2. In §6 we explain an implication of the Beilinson’s conjectures on the injectivity of Chern class maps for $`K_1`$ of surfaces.

1. Jacobian rings for open complete intersectionn

The purpose of this section is to introduce Jacobian rings for open compolete intersections and state their fundamental properties. Throughout the whole paper, we fix integers $`r,s0`$ with $`r+s1`$, $`n2`$ and $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$, $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_s1`$. We put

$$𝕕=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}d_i,𝕖=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}e_j,\delta _{min}=\underset{\underset{1js}{1ir}}{\mathrm{min}}\{d_i,e_j\},d_{max}=\underset{1ir}{\mathrm{max}}\{d_i\},e_{max}=\underset{1js}{\mathrm{max}}\{e_j\}.$$

We also fix a field $`k`$ of characteristic zero. Let $`P=k[X_0,\mathrm{},X_n]`$ be the polynomial ring over $`k`$ in $`n+1`$ variables. Denote by $`P^lP`$ the subspace of the homogeneous polynomials of degree $`l`$. Let $`A`$ be a polynomial ring over $`P`$ with indeterminants $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r`$, $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s`$. We use the multi-index notation

$$\mu ^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\mu _1^{a_1}\mathrm{}\mu _r^{a_r},\lambda ^{\underset{¯}{b}}=\lambda _1^{b_1}\mathrm{}\lambda _s^{b_s},\text{for }\underset{¯}{a}=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)_0^r,\underset{¯}{b}=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_s)_0^s.$$

For $`q`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, we write

$$A_q(\mathrm{})=\underset{𝕒+𝕓=q}{}P^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{d}+\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{e}+\mathrm{}}\mu ^{\underset{¯}{a}}\lambda ^{\underset{¯}{b}}(𝕒=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_i,𝕓=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}b_j,\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{d}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_id_i,\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{e}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}b_je_j)$$

By convention $`A_q(\mathrm{})=0`$ if $`q<0`$.

###### Definition 1.1

For $`\underset{¯}{F}=(F_1,\mathrm{},F_r)`$, $`\underset{¯}{G}=(G_1,\mathrm{},G_s)`$ with $`F_iP^{d_i}`$, $`G_jP^{e_j}`$, we define the Jacobian ideal $`J(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})`$ to be the ideal of $`A`$ generated by

$$\underset{1ir}{}\frac{F_i}{X_k}\mu _i+\underset{1js}{}\frac{G_j}{X_k}\lambda _j,F_i,G_j\lambda _j(1ir,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}js,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}kn).$$

The quotient ring $`B=B(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})=A/J(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})`$ is called the Jacobian ring of ($`\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G}`$). We denote

$$B_q(\mathrm{})=B_q(\mathrm{})(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})=A_q(\mathrm{})/A_q(\mathrm{})J(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G}).$$

###### Definition 1.2

Suppose $`nr+1`$. Let $`^n=\text{Proj }P`$ be the projective space over $`k`$. Let $`X^n`$ be defined by $`F_1=\mathrm{}=F_r=0`$ and let $`Z_jX`$ be defined by $`G_j=F_1=\mathrm{}=F_r=0`$ for $`1js`$. We also call $`B(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})`$ the Jacobian ring of the pair $`(X,Z=_{1js}Z_j)`$ and denote $`B(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})=B(X,Z)`$ and $`J(\underset{¯}{F},\underset{¯}{G})=J(X,Z)`$.

In what follows we fix $`\underset{¯}{F}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{G}`$ as Definition1.1 and assume the condition

$`F_i=0`$ ($`1ir`$) and $`G_j=0`$ ($`1js`$) intersect transversally in $`^n`$.

We mension three main theorems. The first main theorem concerns with the geometric meaning of Jacobian rings.

###### Theorem 1.3

Suppose $`nr+1`$. Let $`X`$ and $`Z`$ be as Definition1.2.

For intergers $`0qnr`$ and $`\mathrm{}0`$ there is a natural isomorphism

$$\varphi _{X,Z}^q\text{ }:\text{ }B_q(𝕕+𝕖n1+\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{}H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{nrq}(\mathrm{log}Z)(\mathrm{}))_{prim}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z)`$ is the sheaf of algebraic differential $`q`$-forms on $`X`$ with logarithmic poles along $`Z`$ and ‘$`prim`$’ means the primitive part:

$$H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z)(\mathrm{}))_{prim}=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Coker}(H^q(^n,\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^q)H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q))\\ H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z)(\mathrm{}))\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& \text{ if }q=p\text{ and }s=\mathrm{}=0\text{,}\hfill \\ & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

There is a natural map

$$\psi _{(X,Z)}:B_1(0)H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))_{alg}H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))$$

which is an isomorphism if $`\mathrm{dim}(X)2`$. Here $`T_X(\mathrm{log}Z)`$ is the $`𝒪_X`$-dual of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}Z)`$ and the group on the right hand side is defined in Definition1.4 below. The following map

$$H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z))H^{q+1}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{p1}(\mathrm{log}Z)).$$

induced by the cup-product and the contraction $`T_X(\mathrm{log}Z)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{p1}(\mathrm{log}Z)`$ is compatible through $`\psi _{(X,Z)}`$ with the ring multiplication up to scalar.

Roughly speaking, the generalized Jacobian rings describe the infinitesimal part of the Hodge structures of open variety $`XZ`$, and the cup-product with Kodaira-Spencer class coincides with the ring multiplication up to non-zero scalar. This result was originally invented by P. Griffiths in case of hypersurfaces and generalized to complete intersections by Konno \[K\]. Our result is a further generalization.

###### Definition 1.4

Let the assumption be as in Theorem1.3. We define $`H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))_{alg}`$ to be the kernel of the composite map

$$H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))H^1(X,T_X)H^2(X,𝒪_X),$$

where the second map is induced by the cup product with the class $`c_1(𝒪_X(1))H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ and the contraction $`T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1𝒪_X`$. It can be seen that

$$\mathrm{dim}_k(H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))/H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))_{alg})=\{\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\begin{array}{cc}& \text{ if }X\text{ is a }K3\text{ surface,}\hfill \\ & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The second main theorem is the duality theorem for the generalized Jacobian rings.

###### Theorem 1.5

Let the notation be as as above.

There is a natural map (called the trace map)

$$\tau :B_{nr}(2(𝕕n1)+𝕖)k.$$

Let

$$h_p(\mathrm{}):B_p(𝕕n1+\mathrm{})B_{nrp}(𝕕+𝕖n1\mathrm{})^{}$$

be the map induced by the following pairing induced by the multiplication

$$B_p(𝕕n1+\mathrm{})B_{nrp}(𝕕+𝕖n1\mathrm{})B_{nr}(2(𝕕n1)+𝕖)\stackrel{𝜏}{}k.$$

When $`r>n`$ we define $`h_p(\mathrm{})`$ to be the zero map by convention.

The map $`h_p(\mathrm{})`$ is an isomorphism in either of the following cases.

$`s1`$ and $`p<nr`$ and $`\mathrm{}<e_{max}`$.

$`s1`$ and $`0\mathrm{}e_{max}`$ and $`r+sn`$.

$`s=\mathrm{}=0`$ and either $`nr1`$ or $`nr=p=0`$.

The map $`h_{nr}(\mathrm{})`$ is injective if $`s1`$ and $`\mathrm{}<e_{max}`$.

We have the following auxiliary result on the duality.

###### Theorem 1.6

Assume $`nr1`$ and consider the composite map

$$\eta _{(X,Z)}\text{ }:\text{ }H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{nr}(\mathrm{log}Z))\stackrel{(\varphi _{X,Z}^0)^1}{}B_0(𝕕+𝕖n1)\stackrel{h_{nr}(0)^{}}{}B_{nr}(𝕕n1)^{}$$

where the second map is the dual of $`h_{nr}(0)`$. Then $`\eta _{(X,Z)}`$ is surjective and we have (cf. Definition1.7 below)

$$\mathrm{Ker}(\eta _{(X,Z)})=_X^{nr}(G_1,\mathrm{},G_s).$$

###### Definition 1.7

Let $`G_1,\mathrm{},G_s`$ be as in Definition1.1 and let $`Y_j^n`$ be the smooth hypersurface defined by $`G_j=0`$. Let $`X^n`$ be a smooth projective variety such that $`Y_j`$ ($`1js`$) and $`X`$ intersect transversally. Put $`Z_j=XY_j`$. Take an integer $`q`$ with $`0qs1`$. For integers $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_{q+1}s`$, let

$$\omega _X(j_1,\mathrm{},j_{q+1})H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))(Z=\underset{1js}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}Z_j)$$

be the restriction of

$$\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{q+1}{}}(1)^{\nu 1}e_{j_\nu }\frac{dG_{j_1}}{G_{j_1}}\mathrm{}\widehat{\frac{dG_{j_\nu }}{G_{j_\nu }}}\mathrm{}\frac{dG_{j_{q+1}}}{G_{j_{q+1}}}H^0(^n,\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^q(\mathrm{log}Y))$$

where $`Y=\underset{1js}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}Y_j^n`$. We let

$$_X^q(G_1,\mathrm{},G_s)H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))$$

be the subspace generated by $`\omega _X(j_1,\mathrm{},j_{q+1})`$. For $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_qs1`$ we have

$$e_1^{q1}\omega _X(1,j_1,\mathrm{},j_q)=\frac{dg_{j_1}}{g_{j_1}}\mathrm{}\frac{dg_{j_q}}{g_{j_q}}\text{with }g_j=(G_j^{e_1}/G_1^{e_j})_{|X}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_U^{})(U=XZ)$$

and $`\omega _X(1,j_1,\mathrm{},j_q)`$ with $`1<j_1<\mathrm{}<j_qs`$ form a basis of $`_X^q(G_1,\mathrm{},G_s)`$.

Our last main theorem is the generalization of Donagi’s symmetrizer lemma \[Do\] (see also \[DG\], \[Na\] and \[N\]) to the case of open complete intersections at higher degrees.

###### Theorem 1.8

Assume $`s1`$. Let $`VB_1(0)`$ is a subspace of codimension $`c0`$. Then the Koszul complex

$$B_p(\mathrm{})\stackrel{q+1}{}VB_{p+1}(\mathrm{})\stackrel{𝑞}{}VB_{p+2}(\mathrm{})\stackrel{q1}{}V$$

is exact if one of the following conditions is satisfied.

$`p0`$, $`q=0`$ and $`\delta _{min}p+\mathrm{}c`$.

$`p0`$, $`q=1`$ and $`\delta _{min}p+\mathrm{}1+c`$ and $`\delta _{min}(p+1)+\mathrm{}d_{max}+c`$.

$`p0`$, $`\delta _{min}(r+p)+\mathrm{}𝕕+q+c`$, $`𝕕+e_{max}n1>\mathrm{}𝕕n1`$ and either $`r+sn+2`$ or $`pnr[q/2]`$, where $`[]`$ denotes the Gaussian symbol.

2. Trivial part of cohomology of complements of hypersurfaces

In this section we introduce some notions necessary to set up the Noether-Lefschetz problem for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on the complement of the union of hypersurface sections in a smooth projective variety. We fix the base field $`k`$ which is either $``$ or finitely generated over $``$. Assume that we are given schemes over $`k`$

$`Y=\underset{1js}{}Y_j^nXZ=\underset{1js}{}Z_j,V=^nY,U=XZ`$

where $`X`$ is projective smooth, $`Y_j^n`$ is a smooth hypersurface of degree $`e_j`$, $`Y`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`^n`$, $`Z_j=XY_j`$ intersecting transversally, and $`Z`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`X`$. In what follows $`CH^i(,j)`$ denotes the Bloch’s higher Chow group (cf. \[Bl\]).

###### Definition 2.1

Assume $`s2`$.

Let $`G_jH^0(^n,𝒪_^n(e_j))`$ be a non-zero element defining $`Y_j^n`$. For $`1js1`$ put

$$g_j=(G_j^{e_s}/G_s^{e_j})_{|U}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒪_U^{})=CH^1(U,1).$$

Let $`CH^1(U,1)_{triv}CH^1(U,1)`$ be the subspace generated by $`k^{}`$ and $`g_j`$ with $`1js1`$.

For $`q1`$ let $`CH^q(U,q)_{dec}CH^q(U,q)`$ be the subspace generated by the products of elements in $`CH^1(U,1)`$ and let

$$CH^q(U,q)_{triv}CH^q(U,q)_{dec}$$

to be the subspace generated by the products of elements in $`CH^1(U,1)_{triv}`$.

For $`q1`$ let $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))`$ be the subspace generated by the wedge products of $`dg_j/g_jH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(\mathrm{log}Z))`$ with $`1js1`$.

Let $`H^p(U,q)`$ denotes the singular cohomology $`H^p(U,(q))`$ of $`U()`$ in case $`k=`$ (resp. the étale cohomology $`H_{et}^p(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}}(q))`$ in case $`k`$ is finitely generated over $``$, where $`\overline{U}=U\times _k\overline{k}`$ with $`\overline{k}`$, an algebraic closure of $`k`$). For $`q1`$ let

$$H^q(U,q)_{triv}H^q(U,q)$$

be the subsapce generated by the image of $`CH^q(U,q)_{triv}`$ under the regulator map introduced in (0-1) and (0-2).

In case $`s=0,1`$ we put $`M_{triv}=0`$ by convention for $`M=CH^q(U,q)`$, $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))`$, $`H^q(U,q)`$.

###### Remark 2.2

In case $`k=`$ we have

$$H^q(U,(q))_{triv}_{}=H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}$$

under the identification $`F^qH^q(U,)=H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^q(\mathrm{log}Z))`$.

###### Lemma 2.3

Assume $`s1`$ and $`q1`$.

If $`\mathrm{dim}(X)>1`$, $`CH^q(U,q)_{dec}=CH^q(U,q)_{triv}`$.

If $`qn`$, $`H^q(U,q)_{triv}=\mathrm{Image}(H^q(V,q)H^q(U,q)).`$

If $`X^n`$ is a smooth complete intersection, $`H^q(U,q)=H^q(U,q)_{triv}`$ for $`q\mathrm{dim}(X)`$.

*Proof.* To show Lemma2.3(1) it suffices to show $`CH^1(U,1)_{triv}=CH^1(U,1)`$, which follows at once from the exact sequence

$$0k^{}CH^1(U,1)\underset{1js}{}CH^1(X)$$

where the second map is induced by the residue maps along $`Z_j`$ and the last by the class of $`Z_j`$ in $`CH^1(X)`$.

We show Lemma2.3(3). Since $`U`$ is affine by the assumption $`s1`$, $`H^q(U,q)=0`$ for $`q>\mathrm{dim}(X)`$ by the weak Lefschetz theorem. Thus we may assume that $`1q<\mathrm{dim}(X)`$ so that $`\mathrm{dim}(X)>1`$. If $`s=1`$, $`Z=Z_1`$ is a smooth complete intersection of dimension$`1`$ and we have the exact sequence

$$H^{q2}(Z,q1)\stackrel{𝛼}{}H^q(X,q)H^q(U,q)H^{q1}(Z,q1)\stackrel{𝛽}{}H^{q+1}(X,q)$$

where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the Gysin maps. The assumption $`q\mathrm{dim}(X)`$ implies $`q1\mathrm{dim}(Z)`$ and the Lefschetz theory implies that $`\alpha `$ is surjective and $`\beta `$ is injective so that $`H^q(U,q)=0`$. If $`q=1`$ the desired assertion follows from the exact sequence

$$0H^1(U,1)\underset{1js}{}H^0(Z_j,0)H^2(X,1),$$

where the last map is the Gysin map and the injectivity of the first map follows from the vanishing of $`H^1(X,1)`$ by the assumption on $`X`$. Now assuming $`\mathrm{dim}(X)>1`$, $`s>1`$ and $`q>1`$, we proceed by the double induction on $`\mathrm{dim}(X)`$ and $`s`$. Put

$$U^{}=X\underset{j=2}{\overset{𝑠}{}}Z_j,W=U^{}U=Z_1(Z_1\underset{j=2}{\overset{𝑠}{}}Z_j).$$

We have the short exact sequence

$$H^q(U^{},q)H^q(U,q)H^{q1}(W,q1).$$

By induction $`H^q(U^{},q)=H^q(U^{},q)_{triv}`$ and $`H^{q1}(W,q1)=H^{q1}(W,q1)_{triv}`$ while it is easy to check that the residue map $`H^q(U,q)_{triv}H^{q1}(W,q1)_{triv}`$ is surjective. This proves the desired assertion for $`H^q(U,q)`$.

To show Lemma2.3(2) let $`H^q(V,q)_{triv}H^q(V,q)`$ be defined as $`H^q(U,q)_{triv}`$ by taking $`X=^n`$. By definition we have $`H^q(U,q)_{triv}=\mathrm{Image}(H^q(V,q)_{triv}H^q(U,q)).`$ By Lemma2.3(3) $`H^q(V,q)_{triv}=H^q(V,q)`$ if $`qn`$. This proves the desired assertion.

3. Hodge theoretic implication of generalized Jacobian rings

In this section we prove Theorem0.4 by using the results in §1. Let the assumption be as in §2. We fix a non-singular affine algebraic variety $`S`$ over $`k`$ and the following schemes over $`S`$

$`𝒴=\underset{1js}{}𝒴_j_S^n𝒳𝒵=\underset{1js}{}𝒵_j,𝒱=_S^n𝒴,𝒰=𝒳𝒵`$

whose fibers are as (2-1). We assume that the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are smooth complete intersections of multi-degree $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_r)`$ and those of $`𝒴_j_S^n`$ for $`1js`$ are hypersurfaces of degree $`e_j`$. For integers $`p,q`$ we introduce the following sheaf on $`S_{zar}`$

$$H^{p,q}(𝒰/S)=R^qf_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^p(\mathrm{log}𝒵),$$

where $`f:𝒳S`$ is the natural morphism and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^p(\mathrm{log}𝒵)=\stackrel{𝑝}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^1(\mathrm{log}𝒵)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^1(\mathrm{log}𝒵)`$, the sheaf of relative differentials on $`𝒳`$ over $`S`$ with logarithmic poles along $`𝒵`$. In case $`s1`$ the Lefschetz theory implies $`H^{p,q}(𝒰/S)=0`$ if $`p+qnr`$. In case $`s=0`$ it implies $`H^{p,q}(𝒳/S)_{prim}=0`$ if $`p+qnr`$ where “$`prim`$” denotes the primitive part (cf. Theorem1.3(1)). The results in §1 implies that under an appropriate numerical condition on $`d_i`$ and $`e_j`$ we can control the cohomology of the following Koszul complex

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_S^{q1}H^{a+2,b2}(𝒰/S)\overline{}\mathrm{\Omega }_S^qH^{a+1,b1}(𝒰/S)\overline{}\mathrm{\Omega }_S^{q+1}H^{a,b}(𝒰/S).$$

Here $`\overline{}`$ is induced by the Kodaira-Spencer map

$`\kappa _{(𝒳,𝒵)}\text{ }:\text{ }\mathrm{\Theta }_SR^1f_{}T_{𝒳/S}(\mathrm{log}𝒵),`$

with $`\mathrm{\Theta }_S=om_{𝒪_S}(\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1,𝒪_S)`$ and $`T_{𝒳/S}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)=om_{𝒪_𝒳}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^1(\mathrm{log}𝒵),𝒪_𝒳)`$, and the map

$$R^1f_{}T_{𝒳/S}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)R^{b1}f_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^{a+1}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)R^bf_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^a(\mathrm{log}𝒵)$$

induced by the cup product and $`T_{𝒳/S}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^{a+1}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^a(\mathrm{log}𝒵)`$, the contraction. For the application to the Beilinson’s conjectures the kernel of the following map plays a crucial role

$$\overline{}^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(𝒰/S)\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1_𝒪H^{p1,q+1}(𝒰/S).$$

In case $`s=0`$ we let $`\overline{}^{p,q}`$ denote the primitive part of the above map:

$$H^{p,q}(𝒳/S)_{prim}\overline{}\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1_𝒪H^{p1,q+1}(𝒳/S)_{prim}.$$

Now we fix a $`k`$-rational point $`0S`$ and let $`UXZ`$ denote the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳𝒵`$. Taking the fibers of the above maps we get

$`\overline{}_0^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(U)\mathrm{\Omega }_{S,0}^1H^{p1,q+1}(U)(s1),`$
$`\overline{}_0^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(X)_{prim}\mathrm{\Omega }_{S,0}^1H^{p1,q+1}(X)_{prim}(s=0)`$
where $`H^{p,q}(U)=H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p(\mathrm{log}Z))`$ and $`H^{p,q}(X)_{prim}=H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^p)_{prim}`$. Let $`T_0(S)`$ be the tangent space of $`S`$ at $`0`$ and fix a linear subspace $`TT_0(S)`$. Via the canonical isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{S,0}^1\mathrm{Hom}_k(T_0(S),k)`$, the above maps induce

$`\overline{}_{0,T}^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(U)\mathrm{Hom}_k(T,H^{p1,q+1}(U))(s1),`$
$`\overline{}_{0,T}^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(X)_{prim}\mathrm{Hom}_k(T,H^{p1,q+1}(X)_{prim})(s=0)`$
Now the key result is the following. See Definition3.2 below for the definition of $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0`$. Put

$$𝕕=\underset{1ir}{}d_i,\delta _{min}=\mathrm{min}\{d_i,e_j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}js,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}ir\}.$$

###### Theorem 3.1

Assume $`p+q=m:=nr1`$. Let $`c=\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(S)}(T)`$.

Assuming $`1pm1`$ and $`\delta _{min}(p1)+𝕕n+1+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0+c`$, $`\mathrm{Ker}(\overline{}_{0,T}^{p,q})=0.`$

Assuming $`\delta _{min}(nr1)+𝕕n+1+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0+c`$, $`\mathrm{Ker}(\overline{}_{0,T}^{m,0})=H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}`$ (cf. Definition2.1).

###### Definition 3.2

We define

$$c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0=\mathrm{dim}_k(\mathrm{Image}(\psi _{(X,Z)})/\mathrm{Image}(\psi _{(X,Z)})\mathrm{Image}(\kappa _{(X,Z)}))\}.$$

where $`\kappa _{(X,Z)}\text{ }:\text{ }T_0(S)H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))`$ (resp. $`\psi _{(X,Z)}:B_1(0)H^1(X,T_X(\mathrm{log}Z))`$) is the fiber at $`0`$ of the map (3-2) (resp. the map in Theorem1.3(2) for $`(X,Z)`$). We also define

$$c_S(𝒳,𝒵)=\underset{tS}{\mathrm{min}}\{c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_t\}$$

where $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_t`$ is defined by the same way as $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0`$ for the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳𝒵`$ over $`tS`$.

###### Remark 3.3

If $`nr2`$ and $`X`$ is not a $`K3`$ surface, $`\psi _{(X,Z)}`$ is surjective so that $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0=\mathrm{dim}_k\mathrm{Coker}(\kappa _{(X,Z)}).`$

Let $`P=[z_0,\mathrm{},z_n]`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`^n`$ and let $`P^dP`$ be the space of the homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$. The dual projective space

$$\stackrel{}{}(P^d)=_k^{N(n,d)}(N(n,d)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+d}{d}\right)1)$$

parametrizes hypersurfaces $`Y^n`$ of degree $`d`$ defined over $`k`$. Let

$$B\underset{1ir}{}_k^{N(n,d_i)}\times \underset{1js}{}_k^{N(n,e_j)}$$

be the Zariski open subset parametrizing such $`((X_i)_{1ir},(Y_j)_{1js})`$ that $`X_1+\mathrm{}+X_r+Y_1+\mathrm{}+Y_s`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`_k^n`$. We consider the family

$$𝒳_B𝒵_B=\underset{1js}{}𝒵_{B,j}\text{ over }B$$

whose fibers are $`XZ=\underset{1js}{}Z_j`$ with $`X=X_1\mathrm{}X_r`$ and $`Z_j=XY_j`$. We omit the proof of the following.

###### Lemma 3.4

Let $`EB`$ be a non-singular locally closed subvariety of codimension $`c0`$ and let $`SE`$ be a dominant map. Assume that the family $`(𝒳,𝒵)/S`$ is the pullback of $`(𝒳_B,𝒵_B)/B`$ via $`SB`$. Then we have $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)c`$.

Now we prove Theorem3.1. We only show the second assertion and leave the first to the readers. The fact $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}\mathrm{Ker}(\overline{}_{0,T}^{m,0})`$ follows from the fact that it lies in the image of

$$H^0(𝒳,\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/k}^m(\mathrm{log}𝒵))\mathrm{\Gamma }(S,f_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/S}^m(\mathrm{log}𝒵))H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z)),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/k}^{}(\mathrm{log}𝒵)`$ is the sheaf of differential forms of $`𝒳`$ over $`k`$ with logarithmic poles along $`𝒵`$. Thus we are reduced to show the injectivity of the induced map

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z))/H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}\mathrm{Hom}_k(T,H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{m1}(\mathrm{log}Z))).$$

By Theorem1.5 and Theorem1.6 in §1 this is reduced to show the surjectivity of

$$WB_{nr1}(𝕕n1)B_{nr}(𝕕n1)$$

where $`B_1(0)W:=\psi _{(X,Z)}^1(\kappa _{(X,Z)}(T))`$. By definition $`W`$ is of codimension$`c+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)_0`$ in $`B_1(0)`$. Hence the desired assertion follows from Theorem1.8$`(i)`$ in §1.

Having Theorem3.1, Theorem0.4 is proven by a standard method in Hodge theory (cf. \[G1, p.75\]), which we recall in what follows. Let the assumption be as in Theorem0.4. Fix $`0ES_{NL}`$ and let $`UXZ`$ be as before. Choosing a simply connected neighbourhood $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`0`$ in $`S()`$ we have the natural identification for $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ via flat translation with respect to the Gauss-Maninn connection:

$$H^m(U,(m))\stackrel{}{}H^m(U_t,(m));\lambda \lambda _t$$

where $`U_t`$ is the fiber of $`𝒰`$ over $`tS`$. By definition of $`S_{NL}`$ there exists $`\lambda F^0H^m(U,(m))`$ not contained in $`H^m(U,(m))_{triv}`$ such that $`\lambda _tF^mH^m(U_t,)`$ for $`tE\mathrm{\Delta }`$. By noting Remark2.2 it implies that $`\lambda \mathrm{Ker}(\overline{}_{0,T}^{m,0})H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^m(\mathrm{log}Z))_{triv}`$, where $`TT_0(S)`$ is the tangent space of $`E`$. Hence we have

$$\mathrm{codim}_S(E)\mathrm{codim}_{T_0(S)}(T)\delta _{min}(nr1)+\underset{1ir}{}d_inc_S(𝒳,𝒵)$$

where the second inequality follows from Theorem3.1. This completes the proof of Theorem0.4.

4. Case of plane curves

One may naturally asks if the estimate in Theorem0.4 is optimal. In this section we answer the question in case $`n=2`$ and $`r=1`$, namely in case the fibers of $`𝒳/S`$ are plane curves. We work over $``$. Let $`P=[z_0,z_1,z_2]`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`^2`$ and let $`P^dP`$ be the space of the homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$. Let

$$SP^d/^{}\times \underset{1js}{}P^{e_j}/^{}=^{N(2,d)}\times \underset{1js}{}^{N(2,e_j)}(N(2,u)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u+2}{2}\right)1)$$

be the moduli space of such sets of plane curves $`(X,(Y_j)_{1js})`$ that $`XY_1\mathrm{}Y_s`$ is a simple normal crossing divisor on $`^2`$. Let $`𝒳_S^n𝒴_j`$ be the universal families over $`S`$ and put $`𝒵=𝒳\underset{1js}{}𝒴_j`$ and $`𝒰=𝒳𝒵`$. Let $`U_tX_tZ_t`$ denote the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳𝒵`$ over $`tS`$ . We are interested in the Noether-Lefschetz locus for Beilinson-Hodge cycles on $`U_t`$;

$$S_{NL}=\{tS|F^0H^1(U_t,(1))H^1(U_t,(1))\}.$$

Noting that $`reg_{U_t}^1`$ is known to be surjective and that $`\mathrm{Ker}(reg_{U_t}^1)=^{}CH^1(U_t,1),`$ we have

$$S_{NL}=\{tS|CH^1(U_t,1)CH^1(U_t,1)_{triv}\}.$$

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`ES_{NL}`$ be an irreducible component. Then $`\mathrm{codim}_S(E)d2`$. Moreover there exists $`E`$ for which the equality holds.

*Proof.* The inequality follows from Theorem0.4 together with the fact $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)=0`$, which follows from Lemma3.4. As for the second assertion we consider the subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S`$ of those $`tS`$ that satisfy the condition: there exists the unique point $`x_tZ_t`$ such that $`X_tH_t=\{x_t\}`$ set-theoretically, where $`H_t`$ is the tangent line of $`X_t`$ at $`x_t`$. It is easy to check that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is locally closed algebraic subset of $`S`$. Thus it suffices to show the following.

###### Lemma 4.2

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }S_{NL}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is equidimensional, and $`codim_S(\mathrm{\Sigma })=d2`$.

*Proof.* Fix any $`t\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and let $`Y_j`$ and $`U`$ denote the fibers of $`𝒴_j`$ and $`𝒰`$ over $`t`$ for simplicity. Choose $`LP^1`$ defining $`H_t^2`$ and $`G_jP^{e_j}`$ defining $`Y_j`$ which contains $`x_t`$. Then it is easy to see that $`(G_j/L^{e_j})_{|U}CH^1(U,1)`$ while it is not contained in $`CH^1(U,1)_{triv}`$. This proves the first assertion of Lemma4.2. In order to show the remaining assertions, let $`M`$ be the space of pairs $`(x,H)`$ of a point $`x^2`$ and a line $`H^2`$ passing through $`x`$. Define the morphism $`\pi \text{ }:\text{ }\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ by $`\pi (t)=(x_t,H_t)`$. Considering the action of $`\mathrm{PGL}_3()`$, the group of linear transformations on $`^2`$, one easily see that $`\pi `$ is surjective. Thus it suffices to show the following.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the fiber of $`\pi `$ over $`(0,H_0)`$ with $`0:=(0:0:1)`$ and $`H_0^n`$ defined by $`z_0P^1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is equidimensional and $`codim_S(\mathrm{\Sigma })=d2+\mathrm{dim}(M)=d+1`$.

*Proof.* Let $`TS^{}:=\underset{1js}{}_k^{N(2,e_j)}`$ be the closed subset parametrizing such $`(Y_j)_{1js}`$ that $`0Y_j`$ for some $`j`$. Clearly $`T`$ is equidimensional and of $`\mathrm{codim}_S^{}(T)=1`$. By definition one sees that $`X_t`$ for $`tE_0`$ is defined by an equation of the form $`z_0A+z_1^d`$ with $`AP^{d1}`$. This implies that $`E_0`$ is identified with a non empty open subset of $`P^{d1}\times T`$, where $`P^{d1}`$ is veiwed as an affine space over $``$. This shows that $`E_0`$ is equidimensional and that $`\mathrm{codim}_S(E_0)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+2}{2}\right)1\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)+\mathrm{codim}_S^{}(T)=d+1`$ as desired.

###### Remark 4.4

It is interesting to ask if the components $`E`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are the only ones satisfying $`\mathrm{codim}_S(E)=d2`$. It is possible to give a positive answer to this question in case $`s=2`$ and $`e_1=e_2=1`$ by using the method in \[Gr5\] and \[V\]. The general case remains open.

5. Beilinson’s Tate conjecture

In this section we show Theorem0.5. Let the assumption be as in the beginning of §3. Write $`m=nr`$ and $`𝕕=\underset{1ir}{}d_i`$. Theorem0.5(1) is an immediate consequence of Theorem5.1 and Remark5.2 below.

###### Theorem 5.1

Assume that $`k`$ is finitely generated over $``$ and that $`𝕕n+1+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)`$. Let $`\overline{k}`$ be an algebraic closure of $`k`$ and put $`\overline{S}=S\times _k\overline{k}`$. Let $`\overline{\eta }`$ be a geometric generic point of $`\overline{S}`$ and let $`U_{\overline{\eta }}X_{\overline{\eta }}`$ be the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳`$ over $`\overline{\eta }`$.

Assuming $`s1`$, $`H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^{\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })}=H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))_{triv}.`$

$`H_{et}^m(X_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))_{prim}^{\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })}=0.`$

###### Remark 5.2

Let $`\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be a dominant morphism and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ be the base change. Then $`c_S(𝒳,𝒵)=c_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(\stackrel{~}{𝒳},\stackrel{~}{𝒵})`$. Hence Theorem5.1 holds after replacing $`𝒳𝒵`$ by the base change. In particular Theorem5.1 holds if one replaces $`\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })`$ by any open subgroup of finite index.

###### Theorem 5.3

Assume that $`k=`$ and $`𝕕n+1+c_S(𝒳,𝒵)`$. Let $`UX`$ be the fibers of $`𝒰𝒳`$ over a fixed base point $`0S()`$.

Assuming $`s1`$, $`H^m(U,(m))^{\pi _1(S,0)}=H^m(U,(m))_{triv}.`$

$`H^m(X,(m))_{prim}^{\pi _1(S,0)}=0.`$

First we deduce Theorem5.1 from Theorem5.3. By the Lefschetz principle we may assume that $`k`$ is a subfield of $``$. We fix an embedding $`\overline{k}(\overline{\eta })`$ and let $`0\overline{S}()`$ be the corresponding $``$-valued point of $`\overline{S}`$. Write $`S_{}=S_k`$ and put $`U_{}=𝒳\times _S\mathrm{Spec}()`$ via $`\mathrm{Spec}()\stackrel{0}{}\overline{S}S`$. We have the comparison isomorphisms (\[SGA4, XVI Theorem4.1\])

$$H^m(U_{},)_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{}H_{et}^m(U_{},_{\mathrm{}})\stackrel{}{}H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}})$$

that are equivariant with respect to the maps of topological and algebraic fundamental groups:

$$\pi _1^{top}(S_{},0)\pi _1^{alg}(S_{},0)\pi _1^{alg}(\overline{S},\overline{\eta }).$$

The desired assertion follows at once from this.

In order to show Theorem5.3 we need a preliminary. We assume $`k=`$. Let $`S_{an}`$ be the analytic site on $`S()`$. For a coherent sheaf $``$ on $`S_{zar}`$ let $`^{an}`$ be the associated analytic sheaf on $`S_{an}`$. We introduce local systems on $`S_{an}`$

$$H_{}^q(𝒰/S)(p)=R^qg_{}(p)\text{ and }H_{}^q(𝒰/S)=R^qg_{},$$

where $`g:𝒰S`$ is the natural morphism. Let $`H_𝒪^q(𝒰/S)`$ be the sheaf of holomorphic sections of $`H_{}^q(𝒰/S)`$ and let $`F^pH_𝒪^q(𝒰/S)H_𝒪^q(𝒰/S)`$ be the holomorphic subbundle given by the Hodge filtration on the cohomology of fibers of $`𝒰/S`$. We have the analytic Gauss-Manin connection

$$\text{ }:\text{ }H_𝒪^q(𝒰/S)\mathrm{\Omega }_{S_{an}}^1H_𝒪^q(𝒰/S)\text{with }\mathrm{Ker}()=H_{}^q(𝒰/S)$$

that satisfies $`(F^pH_𝒪^q(𝒰/S))\mathrm{\Omega }_{S_{an}}^1F^{p1}H_𝒪^q(𝒰/S).`$ The induced map

$$F^pH_𝒪^{p+q}(𝒰/S)/F^{p+1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{S_{an}}^1F^{p1}H_𝒪^{p+q}(𝒰/S)/F^p$$

is identified with $`(\overline{}^{p,q})^{an}`$ via the identification $`F^pH_𝒪^{p+q}(𝒰/S)/F^{p+1}=H^{p,q}(𝒰/S)^{an}`$ where

$$\overline{}^{p,q}\text{ }:\text{ }H^{p,q}(𝒰/S)\mathrm{\Omega }_S^1_𝒪H^{p1,q+1}(𝒰/S)$$

is defined in §3. Therefore Theorem3.1 implies the following.

###### Theorem 5.4

Let the assumption be as in Theorem5.3.

If $`s1`$, $`F^1H_𝒪^m(𝒰/S)H_{}^m(𝒰/S)`$ is generated over $``$ by the image of

$$H^m(U,(m))_{triv}H^m(U,(m))^{\pi _1(S,0)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_{an},H_{}^m(𝒰/S)(m))H_{}^m(𝒰/S).$$

If $`s=0`$, $`F^1H_𝒪^m(𝒳/S)H_{}^m(𝒳/S)_{prim}=0`$, where $`H_{}^q(𝒳/S)_{prim}`$ is the primitive part of $`H_{}^q(𝒳/S)`$.

Now we start the proof of Theorem5.3. First we show Theorem5.3(2). Write $`H=H^m(X,)_{prim}^{\pi _1(S,0)}`$. We have the natural isomorphism

$$H\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_{an},H_{}^m(𝒳/S)_{prim}).$$

By \[D1\] $`H`$ is a sub-Hodge structure of $`H^m(X,)`$ so that we have the Hodge decomposition

$$H=\underset{p+q=m}{}H^{p,q}\text{with }H^{p,q}\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_{an},F^pH_𝒪^m(𝒳/S)H_{}^m(𝒳/S)_{prim}).$$

By Theorem5.4 this implies $`H^{p,q}=0`$ for $`p1`$ which implies $`H=0`$ by the Hodge symmetry.

Next we show Theorem5.3(1). By Lemma5.5 below we have

$$H^m(U,(m))^{\pi _1(S,0)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_{an},H_{}^m(𝒰/S)(m))\mathrm{\Gamma }(S_{an},H_{}^m(𝒰/S)F^1H_𝒪^m(𝒰/S)).$$

Hence the assertion follows from Theorem5.4(1).

###### Lemma 5.5

Let the assumption be as in Theorem5.3. Then $`H:=H^m(U,)^{\pi _1(S,0)}`$ is a submixed Hodge structure of $`H^m(U,)`$ and $`F^1H_{}=H_{}`$ where $`H_{}=H`$.

*Proof.* The fact that $`H`$ is a submixed Hodge structure follows from the theory of mixed Hodge modules \[SaM\]. We show the second assertion. We recall that the graded subquotients of the weight filtration of $`H^m(U,)`$ is given by

$$Gr_{m+p}^WH^m(U,)=\underset{1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_ps}{}H^{mp}(Z_{j_1}\mathrm{}Z_{j_p},(p))_{prim}.(0pm)$$

Therefore it suffices to note that $`H^m(X,)_{prim}^{\pi _1(S,0)}=0`$ by Theorem5.3(2).

Now we show Theorem0.5(2). It will follows from Theorem5.6 below by using the theory of Hilbert set (cf. \[La\]).

###### Theorem 5.6

Under the assumption of Theorem0.5(2), there exists an irreducible variety $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ over $`k`$ with a finite etale covering $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ for which the following holds: Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }=\pi \varphi `$ and let $`H^N(k)`$ be the subset of such points that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(y)`$ is irreducible. For $`xS`$ such that $`\pi (x)H`$ and for any subgroup $`GGal(k(\overline{x})/k(x))`$ of finite index we have

$$H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{x}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^G=H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{x}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))_{triv},$$

where $`\overline{x}`$ is a geometric point over $`x`$ and $`U_{\overline{x}}`$ is the fiber of $`𝒰/S`$ over $`\overline{x}`$.

*Proof.* (cf. \[T\] and \[BE\]) By choosing a $`k`$-rational point $`0`$ of $`S`$, we get the decomposition

$$\pi _1(S,\overline{\eta })=\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })\times \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{k}/k),$$

where the notation is as in Theorem5.1 and $`\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })`$ is identified with the quotient of $`\pi _1(S,\overline{\eta })`$ which classifies the finite etale coverings of $`S`$ that completely decompose over $`0`$. Let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Image}(\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })\mathrm{GL}_{_{\mathrm{}}}(H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))).$$

From the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains an $`\mathrm{}`$-adic Lie group as a subgroup of finite index, we have the following fact (cf. \[T\]): There exists a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of finite index such that a continuous homomorphism of pro-finite group $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is surjective if and only if $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is surjective as a map of sets. Let $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ be a finite etale covering that corresponds to the inverse image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in $`\pi _1(\overline{S},\overline{\eta })`$ and let $`H`$ be defined as in Theorem5.6. Fix $`xS`$ with $`\pi (x)H`$ and let $`\overline{x}`$ be a geometric point of $`x`$. By choosing a “path” $`\overline{x}\overline{\eta }`$, we get the map $`\mathrm{Gal}(k(\overline{x})/k(x))=\pi _1(x,\overline{x})\stackrel{𝜄}{}\pi _1(S,\overline{\eta })`$. By the definition of $`H`$ the composite of $`\iota `$ with $`\pi _1(S,\overline{\eta })\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is surjective so that $`\mathrm{Gal}(k(\overline{x})/k(x))`$ surjects onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by the above fact. It implies that for any subgroup $`G\mathrm{Gal}(k(\overline{x})/k(x))`$ of finite index, its image $`\pi `$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of finite index and hence that we have

$$H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{x}},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^G\stackrel{}{}H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))^\pi =H_{et}^m(U_{\overline{\eta }},_{\mathrm{}}(m))_{triv}$$

where the last equality follows from Theorem5.1 and Remark5.2. This completes the proof of Theorem5.6.

Now Theorem0.4(2) is a consequence of Theorem5.6 and the following result (cf. \[La\]):

###### Lemma 5.7

Let $`k`$ be a number field and let $`V`$ be an irreducible variety over $`k`$. Let $`\pi :V_k^N`$ be an etale morphism and let $`H_k^N(k)`$ be the subset of such points $`x`$ that $`\pi ^1(x)`$ is irreducible. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be any finite set of primes of $`k`$ and let $`k_v`$ be the completion of $`k`$ at $`v`$. Then the image of $`H`$ in $`_{v\mathrm{\Sigma }}_k^N(k_v)`$ is dense.

6. Implication on injectivity of regulator maps for $`K_1`$ of surfaces

Let $`X`$ be a projective smooth surface over a field $`k`$. Let $`UX`$ be the complement of a simple normal crossing divisor $`ZX`$. In this section we discuss an implication of the surjectivity of $`reg_U^2`$ and $`reg_{et,U}^2`$ on the regulator maps for $`CH^2(X,1)`$. Recall that $`CH^2(X,1)`$ is by definition the cohomology of the following complex

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

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. Thus an element of $`\mathrm{Ker}(_{div})`$ is given by a finite sum $`_i(C_i,f_i)`$, where $`f_i`$ is a non-zero rational function on an irreducible curve $`C_iX`$ such that $`_idiv(f_i)=0`$ on $`X`$. We recall that $`K_2(k(X))`$ is generated as an abelian groups by symbols $`\{f,g\}`$ for non-zero rational functions $`f,g`$ on $`X`$ and that

$$_{tame}(\{f,g\})=((f)_0,g)+((f)_{\mathrm{}},1/g)+((g)_0,1/f)+((g)_{\mathrm{}},f),$$

where $`(f)_0`$ (resp. $`(f)_{\mathrm{}}`$) is the zero (resp. pole) divisor of $`f`$. An important tool to study $`CH^2(X,1)`$ is the regulator map: In case $`k=`$ it is given by

$$reg_{D,X}\text{ }:\text{ }CH^2(X,1)H_D^3(X,(2)),$$

where the group on the right hand side is the Deligne cohomology group (cf. \[EV\] and \[J2\]). Assuming the first Betti number $`b_1(X)=0`$, we have the following explicit desciption of $`reg_{D,X}`$. Take $`\alpha =_i(C_i,f_i)\mathrm{Ker}(_{div})`$. Under the isomorphism (cf. \[EV, 2.10\])

$$H_D^3(X,(2))\frac{H^2(X,)}{H^2(X,(2))+F^2H^2(X,)}\frac{F^1H^2(X,)^{}}{H_2(X,)},$$

$`reg_{D,X}(\alpha )`$ is identified with a linear function on complex valued $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-forms $`\omega `$ and we have

$$reg_{D,X}(\alpha )(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{1}}\underset{i}{}_{C_i\gamma _i}\mathrm{log}(f_i)\omega +_\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ,$$

where $`\gamma _i:=f_i^1(\gamma _0)`$ with $`\gamma _0`$, a path on $`_{}^1`$ connecting $`0`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a real piecewise smooth $`2`$-chain on $`X`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_i\gamma _i`$ which exists due to the assumption $`\alpha \mathrm{Ker}(_{div})`$ and $`b_1(X)=0`$. In case $`k`$ is finitely generated over $``$ we have the regulator map

$$reg_{cont,X}\text{ }:\text{ }CH^2(X,1)_{\mathrm{}}H_{cont}^3(X,_{\mathrm{}}(2)),$$

where $`H_{cont}^i`$ denotes the continuous etale cohomology of $`X`$ (cf. \[J3\]).

Now let $`ZXU`$ be as in the begining of this section and write $`Z=_{1ir}Z_i`$ with $`Z_i`$, smooth irreducible curves intersecting transversally with each other. We consider the following subgroup of $`\mathrm{Ker}(_{div})`$

$$CH^1(Z,1)=\mathrm{Ker}(\underset{1ir}{}k(Z_i)^{}\stackrel{_{div}}{}\underset{xZ}{}).$$

By the localization theory for higher Chow group we have the exact sequence

$$CH^2(U,2)\stackrel{_Z}{}CH^1(Z,1)\stackrel{𝜄}{}CH^2(X,1)$$

where the first map coincides up to sign with the composite of the natural map $`CH^2(U,2)K_2(k(X))`$ and $`_{tame}`$.

###### Theorem 6.1

Assume $`k=`$ and that there exists a subspace $`\mathrm{\Delta }CH^2(U,2)`$ such that the restriction of $`reg_U^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is surjective. Let $`\alpha CH^1(Z,1)`$ and assume $`reg_{D,X}(\iota (\alpha ))=0`$. Then $`\alpha _Z(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in $`CH^1(Z,1)`$. In particular $`\iota (\alpha )=0CH^2(X,1)`$.

Assume that $`k`$ is finitely generated over $``$. The analogous fact holds for $`reg_{et,U}^2`$ and $`reg_{cont,X}`$.

The following result is a direct consequence of Theorem6.1 and Definition0.3. Let $`𝒵𝒳`$ be as (0-4) in the introduction and let $`Z_tX_t`$ be the fibers over $`tS`$.

###### Corollary 6.2

Let the assumption be as in Theorem0.4. For any $`tSS_{NL}`$, $`reg_{D,X_t}`$ restricted on the image of $`CH^1(Z_t,1)`$ is injective modulo torsion.

###### Remark 6.3

In the forthcoming paper \[AS2\] we study the Noether-Lefschetz locus in case (0-4) is the universal family of smooth surfaces of degree $`d`$ and three hyperplanes in $`^3`$ intersecting transversally. In this case it is shown that there exist $`tSS_{NL}`$ such that the image of $`CH^1(Z_t,1)`$ in $`CH^2(X_t,1)`$ is non-torsion if $`d`$ is large enough. Thus Corollary6.2 has indeed non-trivial implication on the injectivity of the regulator map.

Now we start the proof of Theorem6.1. The idea of the following proof is taken from \[J1, 9.8\]. We only treat the first assertion. The second is proven by the same way. We have the commutative diagram (cf. \[Bl\] and \[J2, 3.3 and 1.15\]).

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}CH^2(X,2)& & CH^2(U,2)& & CH^1(Z,1)& & CH^2(X,1)\\ ch_{D,X}^{2,2}& & ch_{D,U}^{2,2}& & ch_{D,Z}^{1,1}& & ch_{D,X}^{2,1}\\ H_D^2(X,(2))& \stackrel{𝜄}{}& H_D^2(U,(2))& & H_{D,Z}^3(X,(2))& & H_D^3(X,(2))\end{array}$$

Here the horizontal sequences are the localization sequences for higher Chow groups and Deligne cohomology groups and they are exact. The vertical maps are regulator maps. By a simple diagram chasing it suffices to show that $`ch_{D,Z}^{1,1}`$ is injective and $`ch_{D,U}^{2,2}(\mathrm{\Delta })+\mathrm{Image}(\iota )`$ spans $`H_D^2(U,(2))`$. In order to show the first assertion we note the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \underset{1ir}{}CH^1(Z_i,1)& & CH^1(Z,1)& & \underset{xW}{}\\ & ch_{D,Z_i}^{1,1}& & ch_{D,Z}^{1,1}& & ch_{D,x}^{0,0}\\ 0& \underset{1ir}{}H_D^1(Z_i,(1))& & H_{D,Z}^3(X,(2))& & \underset{xW}{}H_D^0(x,(0))\\ & & & =& & \\ & \underset{1ir}{}H_{D,Z_i}^3(X,(2))& & H_{D,Z}^3(X,(2))& & \underset{xW}{}H_{D,x}^4(X,(2))\end{array}$$

where $`W=_{1ijr}Z_iZ_j`$. The horizontal sequences come from the Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence and they are exact. Thus the desired assertion follows from the fact that $`ch_{D,Z_i}^{1,1}`$ is an isomorphism (cf. \[J2, 3.2\]). To show the second assertion we recall the exact sequence (cf. \[EV, 2.10\])

$$0H^1(U,)/H^1(U,(2))\stackrel{𝛾}{}H_D^2(U,(2))\stackrel{𝛽}{}H^2(U,(2))F^2H^2(U,)0$$

and the same sequence with $`U`$ replaced by $`X`$. We have $`ch_{B,U}^{2,2}=\beta ch_{D,U}^{2,2}`$ and the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}^{}CH^1(U,1)& & CH^1(U,1)CH^1(U,1)\\ \mathrm{log}ch_{B,U}^{1,1}& & \text{product}\\ /(1)H^1(U,(1))& & CH^2(U,2)\\ & & ch_{D,U}^{2,2}\\ H^1(U,)/H^1(U,(2))& \stackrel{𝛾}{}& H_D^2(U,(2))\end{array}$$

Therefore the desired assertion follows from the surjectivity of

$$CH^1(U,1)\stackrel{ch_{B,U}^{1,1}}{}H^1(U,(1))/H^1(X,(1))$$

which is easily seen.


format: text

text:
# Quantum diffusion on a cyclic one dimensional lattice

## I INTRODUCTION

The problem of a classical particle performing a random walk in various geometrical spaces and the quantum random walk have been thoroughly studied and compared. The classical and quantum cases have striking differences. One of these differences is that, whereas the classical spread increases with time as $`\sqrt{T}`$, in the quantum case we have a stronger linear time dependence of the width of the distribution. In the quantum mechanical case, we can identify two different causes for the spreading of the probability distribution describing the position of a particle. There is a spreading of the distribution caused by the random walk itself, also present in the classical case, and superposed to it, there is the quantum mechanical spreading of the probability distribution due to the time evolution of a particle in a localized state. This second type of spreading is the main interest of this contribution. For this study, we will consider a quantum mechanical particle initially localized in one site of a one dimensional cyclic lattice with $`N`$ points. In most treatments of quantum random walks in a lattice it is assumed that the number of sites, $`N`$, is large compared with the number of jumps of the time evolution and therefore the system does not notice whether the lattice is infinite or cyclic, that is, finite with periodic boundary conditions. In our analysis we will not assume that $`N`$ is large and we will find some peculiar and interesting features like, for instance, a very different behaviour for even or odd values of $`N`$. There are several motivations, besides the general academic interest, for allowing low values of $`N`$. For instance, cyclic lattices with a few sites have been built (quantum corrals) with nanofabrication techniques and in quantum computers we deal with systems with $`N=2`$ (qubits) or $`N=3`$ (qutrits). In all these cases we may be interested in the quantum diffusion time of an initially localized state. The quantum behaviour in the continuous case $`N\mathrm{}`$ is also interesting because it can be experimentally tested building small conducting rings with microfabrication techniques.

## II DEFINITION OF THE MODEL

In this work we will consider a particle moving in a one dimensional periodic lattice with $`N`$ sites and lattice constant $`a`$ represented in Figure 1. The quantum mechanical treatment of this system requires an $`N`$ dimensional Hilbert space $``$. The lattice sites will be labelled by an index $`x`$ running through the values $`0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$. We will adopt a very useful notation for the principal $`N^{th}`$ root of the identity defined by

$$\omega =e^{i\frac{2\pi }{N}}.$$
(1)
Integer powers of this quantity build a cyclic group with the important property

$$1=\omega ^{Nn},n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.$$
(2)
The position of the particle in the lattice can take any value (eigenvalue) $`a(xj)`$ where $`a`$ has units of length, $`j=(N1)/2`$ and the integer number $`x`$ can take any value in the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}`$. The eigenvalues have been chosen in a way that position can take positive or negative values in the interval $`[aj,aj]`$. Notice that $`j`$ is integer for odd $`N`$ and half-odd-integer if $`N`$ is even. The state of the particle in each position is represented by a Hilbert space element $`\phi _x`$ and the set $`\{\phi _x\}`$ is a basis in $``$. In the spectral decomposition, we can write the position operator $`X`$ as

$$X=\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}a(xj)\phi _x\phi _x,,$$
(3)
that clearly satisfies $`X\phi _x=a(xj)\phi _x`$. Momentum is formalized in the Hilbert space by means of a basis $`\{\varphi _p\}`$, unbiased to the position basis, where $`p`$ is an integer number that can take any value in the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}`$. The momentum operator is given in terms of its spectral decomposition as

$$P=\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}g(pj)\varphi _p\varphi _p,,$$
(4)
where $`g`$ is a constant with units of momentum. The eigenvalues of $`P`$ have been defined in a way to allow for movement of the particle in both directions, anti-clockwise (positive eigenvalues) and clockwise (negative eigenvalues) along the circular lattice. Notice however that the state of zero momentum is only possible when $`N`$ is odd. We will find in this work that there are several important differences in the system when $`N`$ is even or odd. The position and momentum bases are related by a unitary transformation similar to the Discrete Fourier Transform

$$\phi _x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{(pj)(xj)\alpha (xp)}\varphi _p,$$
(5)
and

$$\varphi _p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{(pj)(xj)+\alpha (xp)}\phi _x,$$
(6)
with

$$\phi _x,\varphi _p=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\omega ^{(pj)(xj)+\alpha (xp)},$$
(7)
where $`\alpha `$ is a parameter such that

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \text{for }N\text{ odd},\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}& \text{for }N\text{ even}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The constants $`a`$ and $`g`$ are not independent but are related by

$$agN=2\pi .$$
(9)
This condition follows from the requirement that in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the commutation relation of position and momentum should be $`[X,P]i`$ (we adopt units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$). Notice that for *finite* $`N`$, the commutation relation $`[X,P]=i`$ is impossible.

All these definitions are compatible with the physical requirement that momentum is the generator of translation and position generates increase in momentum. That is,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{iaP}\phi _x& =\omega ^\alpha \phi _{[x+1]}\hfill \\ \hfill e^{igX}\varphi _p& =\omega ^\alpha \varphi _{[p+1]},\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where the symbol $`[]`$ denotes modulo $`N`$, that is, $`[N]=0`$. Notice that an $`N`$-fold application of these translation operators is equal to the identity $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ if $`N`$ is odd but is equal to $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ if $`N`$ is even. This is reminiscent of a $`2\pi `$ rotation of a spin $`1/2`$ system.

In equations (5), (6) and (7) we could absorb the phases $`\alpha x`$ and $`\alpha p`$ in the bases $`\{\phi _x\}`$ and $`\{\varphi _p\}`$ by an appropriate phase transformation (this is only relevant for even $`N`$ because $`\alpha 0`$). However this option would result in a complication of Eqs. (10) where the phase $`\omega ^\alpha `$ would not appear but a sign change would appear in the translation from site $`x=N1`$ to site $`x=0`$ and also from $`p=N1`$ to $`p=0`$ loosing thereby the homogeneity of the lattice because not all lattice sites would be equivalent. Later in this work it will be convenient to take this option.

## III SPREADING OF A LOCALIZED STATE AND DIFFUSION TIME

At any instant of time, the state of the particle will be determined by a Hilbert space element $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ that in the position representation is given by the coefficients $`c_x(t)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}c_x(t)\phi _x.$$
(11)
A given state $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ at an initial time $`t=0`$ will evolve according to the time evolution unitary operator given in terms of the hamiltonian $`H`$ as

$$U_t=\mathrm{exp}(iHt).$$
(12)
In this work we are interested in the time evolution of a state corresponding to a particle initially localized in a lattice site, say at $`x=0`$, at rest, that is, with $`P=0`$. Such a state is given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\phi _0`$, that is, $`c_x(0)=\delta _{x,0}`$. Let us assume a free particle with hamiltonian $`H=P^2/2m`$. With this hamiltonian we can easily find that the state for any time will be given by

$$c_x(T)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{\left(x(pj+\alpha )(pj)^2T\right)},$$
(13)
where we have introduced a dimensionless time parameter $`T=t/\tau `$ with a *time scale* $`\tau `$ defined by

$$\tau =\frac{2ma}{g},$$
(14)
that, as we will see later, corresponds essentially to the diffusion time. We have chosen the free particle hamiltonian, however many of the following results do not depend on the specific form of this hamiltonian and are also valid for any hamiltonian invariant under the transformation $`PP`$. During the time evolution of a particle, initially in the site $`x=0`$, the expectation value of the position and momentum will remain zero, $`X=P=0`$ but, due to the quantum spreading of the state, the probability distribution of the occupation of other lattice sites will grow. We will study some features of this quantum diffusion. The probability of occupation of the lattice site $`x`$ at time $`T`$ is given by

$$|c_x(T)|^2=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{q=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{(pq)x(pq)(p+q2j)T}.$$
(15)
One of the sums can be analytically performed after a change of the summation indices but it is not really convenient to do it.

Due to the periodicity of the lattice, we expect that the amplitudes and probabilities of Eqs.(13) and (15) will be periodic in time. This is indeed the case but with different periodicity for $`N`$ even or odd. That is, for the amplitude we have

$$c_x(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}c_x(T+N)\hfill & \text{ for }N\text{ odd }\hfill \\ c_x(T+4N)\hfill & \text{ for }N\text{ even }\hfill \end{array},$$
(16)
and for the probability we get

$$|c_x(T)|^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}|c_x(T+N)|^2\hfill & \text{ for }N\text{ odd }\hfill \\ |c_x(T+N/2)|^2\hfill & \text{ for }N\text{ even }\hfill \end{array}.$$
(17)
It is remarkable that the period of the amplitude is equal to the period of the probability for $`N`$ odd, but it is eight times longer if $`N`$ is even. The periodicity shown in Eqs.(16) and (17) correspond to our particular initial state but it follows essentially from the hamiltonian and the cyclic relation (2) and therefore this periodicity is also valid for arbitrary states and probabilities.

From the symmetry of the lattice and of the initial state we expect that the particle will diffuse with equal probability clockwise or anti-clockwise, that is, $`|c_{Nx}(T)|=|c_x(T)|`$ but for the amplitude we may have a different phase on both sides of the initial position. We will now show that the amplitude on lattice points symmetric with respect to the initial position $`x=0`$ are related by

$$c_{Nx}(T)=\omega ^{2\alpha x}c_x(T).$$
(18)
In order to prove this, consider

$$c_{Nx}(T)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{\left(N(pj+\alpha )x(pj+\alpha )(pj)^2T\right)}.$$
(19)
Using (2) we eliminate $`N(pj+\alpha )`$ in the exponent and we add $`Nx`$. Therefore

$$c_{Nx}(T)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{\left(x(Np+j\alpha )(pj)^2T\right)}.$$
(20)
Now we define another summation index $`q=Np`$ with values in $`\{N,N1,\mathrm{},1\}`$.

$$c_{Nx}(T)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega ^{\left(x(q+j\alpha )(Nqj)^2T\right)}.$$
(21)
Since $`N=2j+1`$, the squared parenthesis in the exponent becomes $`(q1j)^2`$. Then

$$c_{Nx}(T)=\frac{\omega ^{x(1+2j2\alpha )}}{N}\underset{q=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega ^{\left(x(q1j+\alpha )(q1j)^2T\right)}.$$
(22)
Finally, redefining the summation index $`p=q1`$ and using again (2), we find that the right hand side of this equation is $`\omega ^{2\alpha x}c_x(T)`$. A remarkable consequence of relation (18) is that, *for even $`N`$, a quantum particle in a localized state will never diffuse to the antipode location.* The antipode location, $`x=N/2`$, exists only for even $`N`$. The proof follows from Eq.(18) since we have $`c_{NN/2}=\omega ^{N/2}c_{N/2}`$, but $`\omega ^{N/2}=1`$ therefore $`c_{N/2}=c_{N/2}`$. That is,

$$c_{N/2}(T)=0T.$$
(23)
This is a remarkable result that can be checked by explicit evaluation from Eq.(13) redefining the summation index $`q=pj`$ running from $`j`$ to $`j`$. Doing this we obtain a sum whose terms are anti-symmetric under $`qq`$; therefore they add to zero. Another physically appealing proof of this result is provided by Feynman’s “sum over paths” method. In this case, a path contributing to the probability amplitude for the transition from $`x=0`$ at $`t_i`$ to $`x=N/2`$ at $`t_f`$ is defined by a set $`\{x_k;t_k\}`$ for each partition of the time interval $`t_i<t_k<t_f`$. It turns out that for each path $`\{x_k;t_k\}`$ going from $`x=0`$ to $`x=N/2`$ there is another path $`\{z_k;t_k\}`$, symmetric with respect to $`x=0`$, that is, $`z_k=Nx_k`$ but with the same values of $`\{t_k\}`$, that cancels its contribution to the probability amplitude, simply because $`dz_k=dx_k`$. In the case $`N=2`$, besides the initial location, there is only one remaining location, the antipode. Therefore, for all time, the particle will remain in its initial position. Clearly, for $`N=2`$ the states $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1`$ are not only position eigenvectors but also eigenstates of the hamiltonian and therefore they are stationary states. For odd values of $`N`$ the antipode does not exists but we can study the transition probability to diffuse to the “farthest” locations $`x=(N\pm 1)/2`$. We will later see a remarkable difference in the odd-$`N`$ case. We will see that, contrary to what happens in the even case in which the antipodes are never reached, if $`N`$ is odd a sharp distribution will build up in an environment of the antipode at the time $`T=N/2`$. This is precisely the time when the state is reconstructed in the $`N`$-even case but at the original site.

We will now calculate the *diffusion time*, that is, the time that is required for a particle, initially localized in one lattice site, to “diffuse” to the whole cyclic lattice. Since the state is periodic in time, with period proportional to $`N`$, we expect that the state reconstruction happens after the whole lattice is visited and therefore the diffusion time should be, at most, proportional to $`N`$. In order to calculate the diffusion time we must find the time dependence of the width of the probability distribution of position. It turns out that for finite $`N`$, or for periodic distributions, the quantities $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X^2\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X\mathrm{\Psi }(t)^2`$ *are not* appropriate estimates for the center $`\overline{X}`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the distribution along a cyclic lattice or ring. The main reason why they are not appropriate is that any physical quantity in a cyclic lattice should be periodic, that is, invariant under $`xx+Na`$ and clearly the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ does not complies to this. Two simple examples: first, let us suppose a distribution given by $`|c_{N1}|^2=|c_0|^2=|c_1|^2=1/3`$. Clearly the center of the distribution is at the location corresponding to the label $`x=0`$, that is, at the position $`aj=a(N1)/2`$, but the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is $`_{x=0}^{N1}a(xj)|c_x|^2=a(N3)/6`$. For another example, consider a uniform distribution that fills completely a ring. In our case of a cyclic lattice we have $`|c_x|^2=1/N,x`$. Clearly, this distribution *does not have a center;* it should be undefined on the ring because all points are equivalent, but the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t),X\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is $`_{x=0}^{N1}a(xj)|c_x|^2=0`$.

The problem of defining the center $`\overline{X}`$ and width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of a distribution in a ring or cyclic lattice has been solved using the concept of the  *centroid* of a distribution on a ring. Let us build a map of the ring into a unit circle in the complex plane. In order to define the centroid $`Z`$ for a probability distribution $`|c_x|^2`$ on the sites $`x=0,1,\mathrm{},N1`$ of a cyclic lattice, let us consider the unit circle in the complex plane with $`N`$ points located at $`\omega ^x`$. The centroid of the distribution is a complex number $`Z=\rho e^{i\theta }`$ given by

$$Z=\rho e^{i\theta }=\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^x|c_x|^2.$$
(24)
The radial projection of the centroid on the unit circle maps the center of the distribution on the ring. Therefore,

$$\overline{X}=a(\frac{\theta }{2\pi }Nj),$$
(25)
and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the distribution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^2=(aN)^2(1|Z|^2),$$
(26)
where the factor $`aN`$ has been chosen such that for a uniform distribution covering the whole lattice ($`Z=0`$) the width of the distribution is equal to the size of the lattice. Notice that when only one site is occupied, the width is zero. These definitions are clarified in an example shown in Figure 2.

We can now study the time dependence of the width for our initial condition of a particle at rest, localized in $`x=0`$. Let us calculate first the centroid. From Eqs.(24) and (15) we obtain

$$Z=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{p=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{q=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^x\omega ^{(pq)x(pq)(p+q2j)T}.$$
(27)
The sum over $`x`$ can be performed:

$$\underset{x=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\omega ^{(pq+1)x}=N(\delta _{q,p+1}+\delta _{q,0}\delta _{p,N1}).$$
(28)
The first term of the parenthesis corresponds to the vanishing of the exponent of $`\omega `$ and the second term is for the case when the exponent is equal to $`Nx`$. With the Kronecker deltas we perform the sum over $`q`$, and the remaining sum over $`p`$ has a known result. We get then,

$$Z=\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}(N1)T\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}T\right)}+1\right).$$
(29)
As expected, the centroid has the same time periodicity as the probability distribution, that is, $`N`$ for odd number of lattice sites and $`N/2`$ for an even number of sites. Due to the initial condition of a particle in the site $`x=0`$ and to the symmetric diffusion, the centroid is real at all times. The study of the time dependence of the centroid, shown in Figs. 3a and 3b for $`N=16`$ and $`17`$, allows a simple qualitative description of the time evolution of the distribution. In the figures we notice that the centroid oscillates most of the time with values close to zero, corresponding to distributions close to (but not necessarily equal to) uniform distributions covering the whole lattice. At time $`T=N/2`$ the centroid assumes the value of $`Z=1`$ in the $`N`$-even case, as expected because at this time the initial state is reconstructed, and for odd $`N`$ it takes the value $`(N2)/N`$, close to $`Z=1`$ for large $`N`$, implying that at the time $`T=N/2`$ the distribution is concentrated at the antipodes of the initial location; however, precisely at the antipode there is no lattice site for odd $`N`$ and the state can not be reconstructed in one location. We see here a sharp distinction in the behaviour of diffusion in the even and odd case: the antipode is never reached in the $`N`$-even case but the distribution peaks in the neighbourhood of the antipode (at time $`T=N/2`$) in the $`N`$-odd case.

With the knowledge of the centroid, we can now calculate the time dependence of the width of the distribution. In particular we want to find the *diffusion time* $`T_D`$, that we define as the time when the width assumes its maximal value $`aN`$ for the first time. Notice that when the centroid vanishes, the width assumes its maximal value. From Eq.(29) we see that the centroid vanishes for $`T=1`$ for all $`N`$, therefore the width is maximal ($`aN`$) at $`T=1`$. However Eq.(29) has another root for a time $`T`$ smaller than $`1`$ when $`N>4`$. Of course, when $`N=2`$ the diffusion time is infinite because the particle never diffuses out of the initial site. Summarizing we have

$$T_D=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\hfill & ,\text{ for }N=2\hfill \\ 1\hfill & ,\text{ for }N=3\hfill \\ \frac{N}{2(N2)}\hfill & ,\text{ for }N4\hfill \end{array}.$$
(30)
It might at first seem strange that the defined diffusion time *decreases* towards a constant value $`T_D=1/2`$ with an *increasing* number of sites $`N`$, but we can see that this is to be expected as a consequence of indeterminacy principle. Increasing the number of sites $`N`$ with the same initial condition of a particle in one site, is equivalent to a sharper localization of the initial state. This implies a wider momentum spread, responsible for a faster diffusion that decreases the diffusion time. The explicit time dependence of the width of the distribution is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=a\sqrt{N^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}(N1)T\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi }{N}T\right)}+1\right)^2}.$$
(31)
This quantity is zero at $`T=0`$, grows with time, and takes the maximal value $`aN`$ at $`T=T_D`$; then it oscillates with values close to the maximal value except at time $`T=N/2`$ when the width becomes zero for $`N`$-even or decreases to $`a2\sqrt{N1}`$ for odd $`N`$. At this time, that we call *first reconstruction time* $`T_R=N/2`$, the particle is reconstructed at the original site ($`N`$ even) or is concentrated near the antipode ($`N`$ odd). Notice that at this reconstruction time $`T_R`$ the *state* is reconstructed only if $`N`$ is even whereas for odd $`N`$ the probability distribution for the location of the particle peaks but there is no exact reconstruction of the particle in one location of the antipode. For very short times $`TT_D`$ the system does not notices the geometry of the cyclic lattice and the width grows linearly with time with a diffusion speed *increasing* with the lattice size $`N`$. Indeed, the first term in the Taylor expansion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=a2\pi \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}(N1)(N2)}T\text{ for }TT_D.$$
(32)
We can now investigate whether the reconstruction of a localized state for the particle at time $`T_R=N/2`$ at the original site ($`N`$ even) or the concentration of the particle near the antipodes ($`N`$ odd) is affected by the parity of the initial state. The initial state considered above, a particle in *one site*, has necessarily even parity. In order to be able to study also the effect of an odd parity initial state we will consider an initial state of a particle at rest, $`P=0`$, in an even or odd superposition of two neighbouring position eigenstates corresponding to the sites $`x=0`$ and $`x=1`$:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (0)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\phi _0\pm \omega ^\alpha \phi _1\right)$$
(33)
With this initial state, we can calculate the time evolution of the centroid. However, the centroid will no longer be a real number. It is therefore convenient to make a rotation of the centroid in the complex plane by an angle $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ in order to obtain the real quantity $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pm (T)=\omega ^{1/2}Z_\pm (T)`$, where $`Z_\pm (T)`$ is the centroid corresponding to the two initial states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm (0)`$. This results in

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pm (T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(N1)2T\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}2T\right)}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(N1)(2T1)\right)}{2\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(2T1)\right)}}`$ (34)
$`\pm `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(N1)(2T+1)\right)}{2\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}(2T+1)\right)}}+\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{N}}\right)1).`$ (35)
In Figures 4a and 4b we see the time evolution of the (rotated) centroid $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_+(T)`$ for an even initial state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+(0)`$ for even and odd $`N`$. For a qualitative comparison with Figure 1, we have taken $`N=33`$ and $`N=34`$ in order to have similar relation between the size of the lattice and the number of sites of the initial state. From this comparison it is clear that the behaviour is similar. At time $`T=N/2`$, a localized *even* state is reconstructed at the original locations if $`N`$ is even or the particle is localized at the antipodes if $`N`$ is odd. In Figures 5a and 5b we can see that this is also true when the initial state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(0)`$ is *odd*, but the effect is much blurred by rapid oscillations of the centroid. Shortly before and after every reconstruction of the particle, it is *almost* reconstructed but on the opposite side of the lattice. For both, even and odd parity states, the initial value of the centroid, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pm (0)=\mathrm{cos}(\pi /N)`$, is exactly recovered for even $`N`$ at time $`T=N/2`$ (this must be so because the state is periodic) and for odd $`N`$ the centroid reaches the minimum value $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_\pm (N/2)=((N2)\mathrm{cos}(\pi /N)\pm 2)/N`$. For large $`N`$ this minimum value approaches $`\mathrm{cos}(\pi /N)`$, corresponding to the occupation of two neighbouring sites at the antipodes.

## IV THE CONTINUOUS LIMIT

We have found that there are very strong differences in the behaviour of the system when $`N`$ takes even or odd values. Of course, all these differences must be compatible with the continuous limit when $`N\mathrm{}`$ where we can not differentiate between even or odd $`N`$. In this section we will investigate this limit. First we must redefine the indices of summation in a symmetric way such that they can take positive and negative values. Let then

$$\begin{array}{cc}y=a(xj)\hfill & [aj,aj]\hfill \\ q=g(pj)\hfill & [gj,gj].\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
Anticipating that in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ the position and momentum eigenfunctions will not be normalizable, we define these eigenfunctions in terms of the symmetric indices as

$$\phi _y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}\phi _x\text{ and }\varphi _q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\varphi _p.$$
(37)
If in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ we also take $`a0`$ or $`g0`$ then the summations become integrals according to the scheme

$$\underset{y=aj}{\overset{aj}{}}a_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\text{ or }\underset{q=gj}{\overset{gj}{}}g_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑q.$$
(38)
The limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ is constrained by the condition $`Nag=2\pi `$ and therefore we will consider three different limits $`L1,L2,L3,`$ that will correspond to three different physical systems:

$$L1:\{\begin{array}{c}N\mathrm{},a0,g0,\hfill \\ y[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}],q[\mathrm{},\mathrm{}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
$$L2:\{\begin{array}{c}N\mathrm{},a0,Na=L,g=\frac{2\pi }{L},\hfill \\ y[L/2,L/2],q=\frac{2\pi }{L}n,n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{}\hfill & N\text{even},\hfill \\ 0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\hfill & N\text{odd}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
$$L3:\{\begin{array}{c}N\mathrm{},g0,Ng=G,a=\frac{2\pi }{G},\hfill \\ q[G/2,G/2],y=\frac{2\pi }{G}n,n=\{\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{}\hfill & N\text{even},\hfill \\ 0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\hfill & N\text{odd}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
In the limit $`L1`$ both variables $`y`$ and $`q`$ are continuous and unbound whereas in $`L2`$ the variable $`y`$ is bounded and continuous but $`q`$ is unbound and discrete; these properties are exchanged in $`L3`$.

In the limit $`L1`$, the physical system becomes a free particle moving in a one dimensional infinite space where position and momentum observable can take continuous values. In the limit $`L2`$, the physical system is a free particle moving in a ring of perimeter $`L`$. Position is continuous and takes values from $`L/2`$ to $`L/2`$ whereas momentum is a discrete variable. We will later see that among the two choices for the number $`n`$, only the values $`0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ are physically meaningful. This system also corresponds to a particle in a box with periodic boundary conditions. Finally, in the limit $`L3`$, the physical system is a particle moving in a one dimensional infinite lattice with lattice constant $`a=2\pi /G`$ and continuous momentum restricted to the Brillouin zone $`[G/2,G/2]`$.

The striking differences in the behaviour of the system between even and odd $`N`$ appear in the time periodicity of the state and probability, and in the first reconstruction time for the probability distribution. These differences involve a time scale $`t=N\tau Na/g=2\pi /g^2`$. In both limits, $`L1`$ and $`L3`$, this time scale is *infinite* and therefore we should not worry about whether $`N`$ is even or odd when taking the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$; however in the limit $`L2`$ the time scale is *finite* and proportional to $`L^2`$. In this last case we will see that the even $`N`$ case is mathematically sound but does not corresponds to any reasonable physical system.

It is convenient, in order to analyse the $`L1`$ and $`L2`$ limits, to adopt the position representation of the eigenfunctions where the momentum eigenvectors are given by Eqs.(7,37) as

$$\varphi _q(y)=\phi _y,\varphi _q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iqy+i\alpha (gyaq)}.$$
(42)
In the limit $`L1`$, where $`a0`$ and $`g0`$, this eigenfunction becomes

$$\varphi _q(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iqy},$$
(43)
provided that, in the even $`N`$ case ($`\alpha =1/2`$), The values of $`y`$ and $`q`$ remain finite (otherwise a minus sign can appear). Expanding the position eigenfunctions in the momentum basis we obtain

$$\phi _y^{}(y)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qe^{iq(yy^{})}=\delta (yy^{}).$$
(44)
We obtain therefore the usual position and momentum eigenfunctions for a free particle moving in a line.

Let us now consider the $`L2`$ limit where we have two possibilities: $`\alpha =0,n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha =1/2,n=\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{}`$. In the first case Eq.(42) results in

$$\varphi _q(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}n},n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},$$
(45)
and in the second case, assuming $`m=\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\varphi _q(y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}m+i\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\pi }{L}y}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}(m+\frac{1}{2})}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}n},n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}.$$
(46)
Therefore *both* cases lead to the same position representation of the momentum eigenfunction. So far it would seem that the even and odd $`N`$ cases are identical in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ however this is not so as we will see next. It turns out that in the even $`N`$ case, when $`\alpha =1/2`$, the momentum operator in the position representation *is not* given by the derivative operator as usual. In order to prove this, consider the first equation in (10) written in terms of the symmetric variables, that is,

$$e^{iaP}\phi _y=e^{i\frac{2\pi }{N}\alpha }\phi _{[y+a]}=e^{i\frac{2\pi }{Na}a\alpha }\phi _{[y+a]}.$$
(47)
Applying the limit $`L2`$ we get,

$$(1iaP)\phi _y=(1+i\frac{2\pi }{L}a\alpha )\phi _{y+a}.$$
(48)
Therefore

$$P\phi _y=i\underset{a0}{lim}\frac{\phi _{y+a}\phi _y}{a}\frac{2\pi }{L}\alpha \phi _{y+a},$$
(49)
where we see that only in the odd $`N`$ case, when $`\alpha =0`$, is the momentum operator given by the derivative operator.

The inadequacy of even $`N`$ in the limit is more conveniently seen if we absorb the phase $`e^{i\alpha (gyaq)}`$ in the eigenfunctions as was mentioned at the end of section II. In this case the $`\alpha `$-dependent phase in Eq.(42) would not appear and we would have two different position representations of the momentum eigenfunctions given by

$`\varphi _q^1(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}(0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{})}\text{ for odd }N`$ (50)
$`\varphi _q^2(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}(\pm 1/2,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{})}\text{ for even }N.`$ (51)
The momentum eigenfunctions $`\varphi _q^1(y)`$ are the same as the ones obtained before in Eq.(45) and the other ones, $`\varphi _q^2(y)`$, are mathematically sound but are inadequate for physical systems because they are anti-symmetric, $`\varphi _q^2(L/2)=\varphi _q^2(L/2)`$ and have period $`2L`$, whereas all reasonable physical states for a particle in a ring are symmetric and have space periodicity $`L`$.

As a further confirmation that the $`L2`$ limit corresponds with the odd $`N`$ case, we will show that an initial state in a ring is reconstructed at the antipodes at the reconstruction time $`t_R=T_R\tau =N\tau /2=mL^2/(2\pi )`$ as it happens in the case of finite but odd $`N`$. In order to prove this we assume an arbitrary initial state expanded in terms of the momentum base

$$\psi (y,0)=\underset{q}{}c_q\varphi _q(y).$$
(52)
We apply the time evolution operator to this state, considering that

$$e^{i\frac{P^2}{2m}t}\varphi _q(y)=e^{i\frac{q^2}{2m}t}\varphi _q(y),$$
(53)
and using Eq.(45) we get

$$\psi (y,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}}{}c_ne^{\frac{i}{2m}\left(\frac{2\pi }{L}\right)^2n^2t+iy\frac{2\pi }{L}n}.$$
(54)
Consider now this state at the reconstruction time $`t_R=mL^2/(2\pi )`$,

$$\psi (y,t_R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}}{}c_ne^{i\pi n^2}e^{iy\frac{2\pi }{L}n}.$$
(55)
Now, since $`n^2`$ and $`n`$ have the same parity, it is $`e^{i\pi n^2}=e^{i\pi n}`$, and we get,

$$\psi (y,t_R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}}{}c_ne^{i(y\frac{L}{2})\frac{2\pi }{L}n}.$$
(56)
Therefore

$$\psi (y,t_R)=\psi (y\frac{L}{2},0).$$
(57)
with the meaning that the state at the reconstruction time $`t_R`$ is equal to the initial state, but shifted to the antipode $`yL/2`$.

A particle in a localized state in a continuous ring will flip back and forth between the original position and its antipode. If the particle is electrically charged, the system will radiate electromagnetic energy and decay to a nonlocalized stationary state (not necessarily the ground state) and a small fluctuation away of a nonlocalized state will grow, absorbing electromagnetic energy of the appropriate frequency (for an electron in a ring of $`10\mu `$ to $`100\mu `$ of perimeter, the radiation will be in the radio frequencies). This radiation, or the corresponding absorption, could be experimentally detected, in particular if one builds a material with a large number of conducting rings. Such a material, whose dielectric properties follow from a fundamental quantum mechanical effect, could find technological applications.

Finally, the $`L3`$ limit is treated equal to the $`L2`$ case but in terms of the momentum representation of the eigenfunctions. Similar arguments show that the even $`N`$ case leads, in the limit, to unphysical situations.

## V CONCLUSION

In this work we have studied the diffusion of a quantum mechanical particle, initially localized, in a ring with $`N`$ sites. This diffusion has qualitative features quite different from the diffusion of a particle performing a classical random walk. It is well known that in a classical random walk, the width of the distribution grows like $`\sqrt{T}`$ whereas quantum mechanical diffusion grows initially proportional to $`T`$. Furthermore, we see in Eq. (32) that the speed of quantum diffusion, for large $`N`$, increases linearly with the size of the lattice $`aN`$. This non local effect is contrary to the classical behaviour and can be understood qualitatively as a consequence of Heisenberg’s indeterminacy principle: if the initial state is a particle in *one site* of the lattice, increasing the number of sites is equivalent to a sharper localization relative to the lattice size, and this results in a wider momentum spread, responsible for the increase in diffusion speed. Since the diffusion speed increases with the number of sites $`N`$ it is reasonable to expect that the time necessary to diffuse to the whole lattice will be constant independent of the lattice size. This is indeed the result shown in Eq.(30) where we see that, for large $`N`$, the diffusion time $`T_D`$ is constant. This is again in contradiction with the behaviour of the classical random walk where the covering time (the time it takes for a random walk to visit all the lattice sites) for a cyclic lattice increases quadratically with $`N`$ (precisely, $`N(N1)/2`$).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work received partial support from “Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas” (CONICET) and from ADPCyT (Picto 03-08431), Argentina.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIGURE 1. Cyclic lattice with $`N`$ sites characterized by a label $`x`$ running from $`x=0`$ to $`x=N1`$ and lattice constant $`a`$. The position observable corresponding to site $`x`$ has the eigenvalue $`a(xj)`$ where $`j=(N1)/2`$ and can take positive and negative values.

FIGURE 2. An example for the centroid of a distribution. The symbol $``$ shows the position of the centroid $`Z=\rho e^{i\theta }`$ for a distribution where the filled dots have a constant occupation probability and all other sites are empty. The center $`\overline{X}`$ of the distribution is shown and the width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is proportional to the chord $`C`$ shown.

FIGURE 3. Time dependence of the centroid for even (a) and odd (b) number of sites. At time $`N/2`$ the state is reconstructed at the original site for even $`N`$ and is concentrated at the antipodes for odd $`N`$.

FIGURE 4. Time dependence of the (rotated) centroid for even (a) and odd (b) number of sites for an initial even state occupying two neighbouring sites. At time $`N/2`$ the state is reconstructed at the original sites for even $`N`$ and is concentrated at the antipodes for odd $`N`$.

FIGURE 5. Time dependence of the (rotated) centroid for even (a) and odd (b) number of sites for an initial odd state occupying two neighbouring sites. At time $`N/2`$ the state is reconstructed at the original sites for even $`N`$ and is concentrated at the antipodes for odd $`N`$.