text:
# Para-quaternionic reduction

## 1. Introduction

In the paper we try to develope theory of the para-quaternionic structures on a manifold. Algebra of para-quaternions is known but rarely used so far. A nice overview of para-quaternions and related classical geometries is given in  (para-quaternions were referred as generalized quaternions). The para-quaternionic sectional curvature of the para-quaternionic projective space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ has been studied in . The para-hyperKähler manifolds have been studied in , where they are referred as neutral hyperKähler manifolds. Quite recently, the author have learnt that, independently, the notion of a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold has been developed in . Although the basic definitions and conclusions are the same, the investigations in  and this paper go in different directions. In  the para-quaternionic sectional curvature of the para-quaternionic Kähler manifold and its relations to the Osserman condition have been studied.

In this paper we systematically study the para-hyperKähler and para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds. We characterize them as the manifolds with holonomies contained in $`sp(n,)sp(1,)`$ and $`sp(n,),`$ respectively. They are necessarily of the dimension $`4n,n2`$ and of the signature $`(2n,2n).`$ Since $`sp(n,)`$ are $`sp(n)`$ are real forms of the same complex Lie algebra, para-hyperKähler and para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds enjoy similar properties to the quaternionic counterparts: hyperKähler and quaternionic Kähler manifolds. Some facts concerning the quaternionic geometry given in  can be carried in the para-quaternionic setting by means of the complexification. The classification of para-hyperKähler symmetric spaces is given in . The decomposition of the space of curvature tensors of a para-quaternionic type, given here, is analogous to the decomposition in the quaternionic case (see ). The reduction methods for the hyperKähler and quaternionic Kähler manifolds are well known (see ). Here we describe the reduction methods for the para-hyperKähler and para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds.

However, many questions remained open in the para-quaternionic case. It is known (see ) that the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ of a Kähler manifold $`M`$ is at least locally a hyperKähler manifold. It is an interesting question what the natural space, on which para-hyperKähler structures can arise, is. In  quaternionic Kähler manifolds have been studied as certain quotients of special types of the hyper-Kähler manifolds. Does similar relation between para-hyperKähler and para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds exist?

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we establish a basic notation and give basic properties of the para-quaternions and Lie algebras related to them. Subsection 2.5 enables us to use the Grassman formalism in the para-quaternionic vector space. In Section 3 we define the notions of the para-hyperKähler and para-quaternionic Kähler manifold and give their characterizations in terms of the algebra of holonomy (Theorems 3.2 and 3.4). A detailed analysis of the para-quaternionic projective space is given in Subsection 3.3. In Section 4 we give the decompositions of spaces of the curvature tensors of the type $`gl_{2n}()sp(1,)`$ (Theorem 4.1) and $`sp(n,)sp(1,)`$ (Theorem 4.2). Finally, in Section 5 we describe the reduction techniques for the para-hyperKähler manifolds (Theorem 5.1) and for the para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds (Theorem 5.2) and give some examples.

## 2. The linear algebra of para-quaternions

### 2.1. The algebra of para-quaternions

In this section we will define the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of para-quaternions and review its basic properties. Para-quaternions enjoy similar properties to quaternions. The most important difference is the existence of zero divisors in the algebra of para-quaternions.

Both quaternions and para-quaternions are real Clifford algebras. Let $`^{p,q}`$ be the Euclidean space with an inner product $`\eta `$ of signature $`(p,q)`$, i.e. there exists a basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{p+q}`$ of $`^{p,q}`$ such that $`\eta (e_i,e_j)=0`$ for $`ij`$, $`\eta (e_i,e_i)=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},p,`$ and $`\eta (e_i,e_i)=+1`$ for $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},p+q.`$ The real Clifford algebra $`C(p,q)`$ is the universal unital real algebra which is generated by $`^{p,q}`$ subject to the relations

$$vw+wv=2\eta (v,w),v,w^{p,q}.$$

In particular,

$$:=C(2,0)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{}:=C(1,1)C(1,2)$$

are algebras of quaternions and para-quaternions, respectively. Usually, we do not write the product sign. In other words, the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ of para-quaternions is generated by unity $`1`$ and generators $`i,j,k`$ satisfying

(1)
$$i^2=1,j^2=1=k^2,ij=ji=k.$$

Using the notation $`J_1=i,J_2=j,J_3=k`$ and constants $`ϵ_1:=1,ϵ_2:=1=:ϵ_3`$, we can write the relations (1) as

$$J_\alpha ^2=ϵ_\alpha ,J_\alpha J_\beta =ϵ_\gamma J_\gamma ,$$

where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3).`$

Notice that the relation

$$q=a+bi+cj+dk=a+bi+j(cdi)=:z_1(q)+jz_2(q)$$

allows us to identify $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ with $`^2`$ using the map

(2)
$$\stackrel{~}{}qz(q):=\left(\begin{array}{c}z_1(q)\\ z_2(q)\end{array}\right)^2.$$

For a para-quaternion

$$q=a+bi+cj+dk,$$

with $`a,b,c,d,`$ we define its conjugate, real and imaginary part, by

$$\overline{q}:=abicjdk,\mathrm{}q:=a,\mathrm{}q:=bi+cj+dk,$$

respectively. We define the scalar product on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ by

(3)
$$q,q^{}:=\mathrm{}(q\overline{q}^{})=aa^{}+bb^{}cc^{}dd^{},$$

where $`q=a+bi+cj+dk`$ and $`q^{}=a^{}+b^{}i+c^{}j+d^{}k.`$ The corresponding square norm is multiplicative, i.e.

$$|qq^{}|^2=|q|^2|q^{}|^2,q,q^{}\stackrel{~}{}.$$

Together with the scalar product (3), para-quaternions $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ can be naturally identified with $`^{2,2}`$; a $`4`$-dimensional real vector space with scalar product of signature $`(2,2).`$ The commutator

$$[q,q^{}]=qq^{}q^{}q,q,q^{}\stackrel{~}{H},$$

defines a Lie algebra structure on the vector space $`\stackrel{~}{}.`$ Moreover, there is a Lie algebra decomposition

$$\stackrel{~}{}=1\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{},$$

where $`1`$ is the center and

$$\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}su(1,1)so(2,1)sl_2()sp(1,)$$

is the semisimple part. The Lie groups corresponding to the algebras $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ are

$$\stackrel{~}{}^+:=\{q\stackrel{~}{}|q|^2>0\},\stackrel{~}{}_1:=\{q\stackrel{~}{}|q|^2=1\},$$

respectively. The group $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ of unit para-quaternions is isomorphic to $`SU(1,1).`$ Geometrically, $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is a pseudosphere $`S^{2,1}^{2,2},`$ diffeomorphic to $`S^1\times ^2.`$

### 2.2. Vector spaces over para-quaternions

Consider a right module $`\stackrel{~}{}^n^{4n},n1`$ over the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, where the multiplication of $`(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ and $`q\stackrel{~}{}`$ is given by

$$(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n)q:=(h_1q,\mathrm{},h_nq).$$

Right multiplications by $`i,j,k,`$ respectively, induce endomorphisms $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ of $`^{4n}`$ satisfying

$$J_\beta J_\gamma =ϵ_\alpha J_\alpha ,J_\alpha ^2=ϵ_\alpha \mathrm{Id},$$

where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3).`$

The map $`z:\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ given by relation (2) enables us to define a real isomorphism $`z:\stackrel{~}{}^n^{2n}`$ by the formula

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{}^n\left(\begin{array}{c}h_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ h_n\end{array}\right)=hz(h):=\left(\begin{array}{c}z(h_1)\\ \mathrm{}\\ z(h_n)\end{array}\right)^{2n}.$$

If we regard $`\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ as a right vector space over $`,`$ then $`z`$ is a complex isomorphism.

In $`\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ we define the scalar product of real signature $`(2n,2n)`$ by

(5)
$$h,h^{}:=\mathrm{}(h\overline{h}^{})=h_1\overline{h}_1^{}+\mathrm{}+h_n\overline{h}_n^{},$$

where $`h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_n),`$ $`h^{}=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_n^{}).`$ Hence we can identify $`\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ with $`^{2n,2n}.`$ Notice that the scalar product (5) can be written in terms of the complex representation (4) by

(6)
$$h,h^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\mathrm{}(z_1(h_i)\overline{z_1(h_i^{})}z_2(h_i)\overline{z_2(h_i^{})}).$$

It is a hermitian scalar product of real signature $`(2n,2n)`$ on $`^{2n},`$ represented by the following diagonal block matrix

(7)
$$E_n:=diag(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right))gl_{2n}().$$

With respect to the scalar product (5), $`J_1`$ is an isometry, while $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ are anti-isometries of $`\stackrel{~}{}^n.`$ All three endomorphisms $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ are skew-symmetric with respect to the metric, i.e.

$$J_\alpha ,=,J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3.$$

### 2.3. Para-quaternionic structures in a real vector space $`V`$

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`V`$ be a $`4n`$-dimensional real vector space with pseudo-Riemannian scalar product $`g`$ of signature $`(2n,2n),n1.`$

* A triple $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ of endomorphisms of $`V`$ satisfying the relations

(8)
$$J_\beta J_\gamma =ϵ_\alpha J_\alpha ,J_\alpha ^2=ϵ_\alpha \mathrm{Id},$$

where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3),`$ is called a para-hypercomplex structure on $`V.`$
* A subalgebra $`𝔊\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is called a para-quaternionic structure on $`V`$ if there exists its basis $`J_1,J_2,J_3,`$ satisfying the relations (8). We say that the para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ and the para-hypercomplex structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ correspond to each other.
* A para-hypercomplex structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ is called hermitian with respect to $`g`$ if its endomorphisms are skew-symmetric with respect to $`g.`$
* A para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ on $`V`$ is called hermitian with respect to $`g`$ if some (and hence any) corresponding para-hypercomplex structure is hermitian with respect to $`g.`$

Any two bases $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ and $`(J_1^{}J_2^{},J_3^{})`$ of $`𝔊`$ are related by a $`SO(2,1)`$ transformation. The existence of a para-hypercomplex structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ allows us to equip $`V`$ with the structure of a right module over $`\stackrel{~}{}.`$ Namely, for $`eV`$ and $`q=a+bi+cj+dk\stackrel{~}{}`$ we define multiplication, i.e. a right module structure on $`V,`$ by

$$eq:=ae+bJ_1e+cJ_2e+dJ_3e.$$

One can check that there always exist vectors $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_nV`$ such that the vectors

(9)
$$e_1,\mathrm{},e_n,J_1e_1,\mathrm{},J_1e_n,J_2e_1,\mathrm{},J_2e_n,J_3e_1,\mathrm{},J_3e_n$$

are linearly independent. Hence we can make the identification

(10)
$$V^{4n}\stackrel{~}{}^n.$$

The basis (9) is called the basis adopted with the para-hypercomplex structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_3).`$ Clearly, if the vectors $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ are orthonormal then the adopted basis (9) is a pseudo-orthonormal basis of $`V`$ with respect to the scalar product $`g.`$ This implies that the signature of $`g`$ is $`(2n,2n)`$ and that this condition was not necessary in Definition 2.1.

To each endomorphism $`J𝔊`$ corresponds a nondegenerate $`2`$-form $`\omega _J`$ on $`V`$ by the formula

$$\omega _J(,):=g(J,).$$

The above correspondence is an isometry of the subspace $`𝔊\mathrm{End}V`$ and its image in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V.`$ Let $`\omega _1:=\omega _{J_1},\omega _2:=\omega _{J_2},\omega _3:=\omega _{J_3}.`$

One can prove that the $`4`$-form

(11)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔊):=\omega _1\omega _1\omega _2\omega _2\omega _3\omega _3$$

is invariant under the action of the group $`SO(2,1)`$ and hence independent of the choice of basis $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ of $`𝔊.`$ The following lemma is a consequence of the Riemannian version by means of complexification.

###### Lemma 2.0.1.

The maximal subalgebra of $`so(2n,2n)`$ preserving the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ given by (11), is $`sp(n,)sp(1,).`$

### 2.4. Para-quaternionic linear maps

Let $`V`$ be a $`4n`$ dimensional real vector space, $`𝔊`$ a para-quaternionic structure on $`V`$ and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`L\mathrm{End}V`$ be a $``$-linear map.

$`L`$ is para-quaternionic if for any $`J𝔊`$ there exists $`J^{}𝔊`$ such that $`[L,J]=J^{}.`$

$`L`$ is para-hypercomplex if $`[L,J_\alpha ]=0,\alpha =1,2,3.`$

We denote the algebra of all para-quaternionic (resp. para-hypercomplex) linear maps with respect to $`𝔊`$ (resp. $``$) by $`aut(𝔊)`$ (resp. $`aut()).`$ By the very definitions, $`aut(𝔊)`$ and $`aut()`$ are the normalizer and centralizer of $`𝔊`$ in $`\mathrm{End}V.`$ There is a decomposition

$$aut(𝔊)=aut()𝔊.$$

Because of the identification $`V\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ we sometimes use the notation $`aut()=gl_n(\stackrel{~}{}).`$ The algebra $`gl_n(\stackrel{~}{})`$ can be identified with the algebra of all $`n\times n`$ matrices with para-quaternionic entries, acting by left multiplication on column vectors of $`\stackrel{~}{}^n.`$

Let $`𝔊`$ be a hermitian para-quaternionic and $``$ the corresponding para-hypercomplex structure with respect to the scalar product $`g`$ on $`V.`$ We define subalgebras of $`aut(𝔊)`$ and $`aut()`$ preserving the metric $`g`$ by

$$sp(𝔊):=\{Laut(𝔊)g(L,)=g(,L)\},sp():=aut()sp(𝔊).$$

Since $`𝔊sp(𝔊),`$ we have the decomposition

$$sp(𝔊)=sp()𝔊.$$

We use the notation $`sp_n(\stackrel{~}{})=sp().`$

###### Lemma 2.0.2.

The following isomorphisms hold:

i) $`gl_n(\stackrel{~}{})=aut()gl_{2n}(),`$ ii) $`sp_n(\stackrel{~}{})=sp()sp(n,).`$

Proof: First we are going to find a complex representation of the algebra $`gl_n(\stackrel{~}{}).`$ The isomorphism $`z:\stackrel{~}{}^n^{2n}`$ given by (4) induces the Lie algebra isomorphism $`z:gl_n(\stackrel{~}{})gl_{2n}()`$ by

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_{11}+jb_{11}& \mathrm{}& a_{1n}+jb_{1n}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ a_{n1}+jb_{n1}& \mathrm{}& a_{nn}+jb_{nn}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{cc}a_{11}& \overline{b}_{11}\\ b_{11}& \overline{a}_{11}\end{array}& \mathrm{}& \begin{array}{cc}a_{1n}& \overline{b}_{1n}\\ b_{1n}& \overline{a}_{1n}\end{array}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \begin{array}{cc}a_{n1}& \overline{b}_{n1}\\ b_{n1}& \overline{a}_{n1}\end{array}& \mathrm{}& \begin{array}{cc}a_{nn}& \overline{b}_{nn}\\ b_{nn}& \overline{a}_{nn}\end{array}\end{array}\right)=:\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_{pq}& \overline{b}_{pq}\\ b_{pq}& \overline{a}_{pq}\end{array}\right].$$

We use the above notation for block matrices. Hence we have the following complex representation of $`gl_n(\stackrel{~}{}):`$

$$z(gl_n(\stackrel{~}{}))=\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_{pq}& \overline{b}_{pq}\\ b_{pq}& \overline{a}_{pq}\end{array}\right]a_{pq},b_{pq},p,q=1,..,n\}M_{2n}().$$

Define the map $`\mu :z(gl_n(\stackrel{~}{}))gl_{2n}()`$ by

(12)
$$\mu (Q)=MQM^1,$$

where the matrix $`Mgl_{2n}()`$ is the block diagonal matrix

$$M=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}diag(\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right)).$$

One can check directly that

$$\mu (\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_{pq}& \overline{b}_{pq}\\ b_{pq}& \overline{a}_{pq}\end{array}\right])=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}a_{pq}\mathrm{}b_{pq}& \mathrm{}a_{pq}+\mathrm{}b_{pq}\\ \mathrm{}b_{pq}\mathrm{}a_{pq}& \mathrm{}a_{pq}+\mathrm{}b_{pq}\end{array}\right]gl_{2n}().$$

The composition $`\mu z:gl_n(\stackrel{~}{})gl_{2n}()`$ is a Lie algebra isomorphism, so that statement i) is proved.

According to the relation (6), we can represent the algebra $`sp_n(\stackrel{~}{})`$ in terms of the matrix $`E_n,`$ given by (7), in the following way:

$`(\mu z)(sp_n(\stackrel{~}{}))`$ $`=\{\mu (Q)Qz(gl_n(\stackrel{~}{})),\mu (Q)^{}\mu (E_n)=\mu (E_n)\mu (Q)\}=`$
$`=\{Agl_{2n}()A^TF_n=F_nA\},`$
where

$$F_n=diag(\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right))=\frac{i}{2}\mu (E_n).$$

The matrix $`F_n`$ represents the nondegenerate two form

$$\omega =e_1f_1+\mathrm{}+e_nf_n$$

in $`^{2n},`$ where $`e_1,f_1,\mathrm{},e_n,f_n`$ is a basis of $`^{2n}.`$ Hence $`sp_n(\stackrel{~}{})sp(n,).`$  $``$

As an immediate consequence of the previous theorem we have the following:

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`𝔊`$ be a para-quaternionic structure and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure hermitian with respect to a scalar product $`g`$ on a $`4n`$-dimensional ($`n1`$) real vector space $`V.`$ The following isomorphisms hold:

i) $`aut()gl_{2n}(),`$ $`aut(𝔊)gl_{2n}()sp(1,),`$

ii) $`sp()sp(n,),`$ $`sp(𝔊)sp(n,)sp(1,).`$

###### Remark 2.1.1.

The case $`V^4`$ is covered by Theorem 2.1, but deserves attention. In fact, the algebra $`aut(𝔊)\mathrm{Id}so(2,2)`$ is the algebra of conformal transformations of $`V.`$ Moreover, by splitting $`so(2,2)=sp(1,)sp(1,)`$ and $`sp(𝔊)𝔊`$ we have

$$aut(𝔊)=\mathrm{Id}𝔊𝔊^{},$$

where $`𝔊^{}`$ is another para-quaternionic structure on $`V`$ and $`[𝔊,𝔊^{}]=0.`$

### 2.5. Grassman description of a para-quaternionic vector space

###### Lemma 2.1.1.

Let $`V`$ be a real, $`4n`$-dimensional vector space. If we represent $`V`$ as a tensor product

(13)
$$V=EH,$$

where $`E^{2n}`$, $`H^2,`$ then the endomorphisms

(14)
$$J_1=\mathrm{Id}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),J_2=\mathrm{Id}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),J_3=\mathrm{Id}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

of $`V`$ form a para-hyperKähler structure on $`V.`$ Conversely, for any para-hyperKähler structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_2)`$ on $`V`$ there exists a decomposition (13) of $`V`$ and a basis of $`H`$ in which endomorphisms $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ are of the form (14).

Proof: The first statement is obvious. To check the second let $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ be a para-hypercomplex structure on $`V`$ and let $`H:=\mathrm{Id}J_3,J_1+J_2.`$ The space $`H`$ is a subalgebra of $`\mathrm{Id},J_1,J_2,J_3\stackrel{~}{}.`$ Let

$$E:=e_1,\mathrm{}e_n,J_2e_1,\mathrm{},J_2e_n,$$

for vectors $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_nV,`$ such that (9) is a basis of $`V.`$ Then the map $`\varphi :EHV`$ defined by

$$\varphi (eh):=h(e),ehEH=V,$$

is a vector space isomorphism. It is easy to check that the endomorphisms $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ have the form (14) in the basis $`h_1=\mathrm{Id}J_3,`$ $`h_2=J_1+J_2`$ of $`H.`$  $``$

It is clear that Lemma 2.1.1 holds for the para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊=J_1,J_2,J_3.`$

The algebra $`aut(𝔊)gl_{2n}sp(1,)`$ acts irreducibly on $`V=EH`$ by

(15)
$$(A,J)(eh)=Aeh+eJh,$$

for any $`(A,J)gl_{2n}sl(1,),`$ $`ehV.`$ The algebra $`sp(𝔊)=sp(n,)sp(1,)`$ acts on $`V=EH`$ by the formula (15) preserving some nondegenerate two forms $`\omega ^E`$ and $`\omega ^H`$ on $`E`$ and $`H,`$ respectively. The scalar product

(16)
$$g=\omega ^E\omega ^H$$

on $`V`$ of signature $`(2n,2n)`$ is invariant under the action of $`sp(𝔊).`$ The para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊=J_1,J_2,J_3`$ is hermitian with respect to the scalar product (16).

Conversely, for any para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊,`$ hermitian with respect to a given metric $`g`$ on $`V,`$ there exist forms $`\omega ^E`$ and $`\omega ^H`$ such that relation (16) holds.

We conclude this section with the following interesting lemma:

###### Lemma 2.1.2.

Let $`𝔊`$ and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ be a para-quaternionic and corresponding para-hypercomplex structure hermitian with respect to a scalar product $`g`$ on a vector space $`V.`$ Then

* The algebra $`sp(𝔊)=sp(n,)sp(1,)`$ acts on $`V`$ irreducibly.
* The algebra $`sp()=sp(n,)`$ acts on $`V`$ reducibly. Moreover, there exist a $`S^1`$ family of isotropic $`2n`$-dimensional subspaces $`V_\varphi ,`$ $`\varphi S^1,`$ invariant with respect to the action of $`sp().`$

Proof: The first statement is obvious since the action (15) is a tensor product of irreducible actions. To prove ii), let $`h_1,h_2`$ be a basis of $`H.`$ For any $`\varphi [0,\pi ]`$ the $`2n`$-dimensional subspace

$$V_\varphi :=\{e(h_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi +h_2\mathrm{sin}\varphi )eE\}$$

is $`sp()`$ invariant and isotropic.  $``$

## 3. Para-quaternionic structures on manifolds

### 3.1. Para-hyperKähler manifolds

###### Definition 3.1.

* A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g),n1`$ is called almost hermitian para-hypercomplex if there exist three global sections $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ of $`\mathrm{End}(TM)`$ with the following property: for each point $`pM`$ the triple $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ is a hermitian para-hypercomplex structure with respect to the metric $`g`$ of $`T_pM`$.
* An almost hermitian para-hypercomplex manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g),n1`$ is para-hyperKähler if $`J_\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3,`$ and $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection with respect to the metric $`g.`$

Note that the definition implies that the signature of the metric $`g`$ is $`(2n,2n).`$

###### Theorem 3.1.

The following conditions are equivalent for an almost hermitian para-hypercomplex manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g,(J_1,J_2,J_3))`$ ($``$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection):

* $`J_\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3,`$
* $`\omega _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3,`$
* $`d\omega _\alpha =0,\alpha =1,2,3.`$

The proof is similar as in the Riemannian case.  $``$

###### Remark 3.1.1.

The para-hyperKähler manifold is Kähler since $`J_1`$ is an integrable complex structure and $`d\omega _1=0.`$ The structures $`J_2`$ and $`J_3`$ are not complex, but they are product structures.

The following characterization of para-hyperKähler manifolds follows from the definition of the algebra $`sp()sp(n,)`$ and the discussion in Section 2.5.

###### Theorem 3.2.

A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(M^{4n},g)`$ is para-hyperKähler if and only if $`hol(M)sp(n,).`$

According to the results of Section 2.5 we can decompose the tangent space of a para-hyperKähler manifold $`M`$ as $`TM=EH,`$ where $`E`$ and $`H`$ are parallel $`2n`$-dimensional and $`2`$-dimensional vector bundles, respectively. The metric $`g`$ of the manifold $`M`$ can be written in the form

$$g=\omega ^E\omega ^H$$

where $`\omega ^E`$ and $`\omega ^H`$ are certain nondegenerate forms on $`E`$ and $`H,`$ respectively. The Levi-Civita connection $``$ is $`sp(n,)T^{}M`$ valued and is given by

$$(eh)=^Eeh+e^Hh$$

for any $`eh\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM).`$ The conditions that $``$ is Levi Civita and commutes with the hypercomplex structure are equivalent to

$$^H\omega ^H=0=^E\omega ^E,^H\text{ is flat.}$$

An interesting consequence of the flatness of $`^H`$ and Lemma 2.1.2 b) is the following:

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`M=(M^{4n},g)`$ be a para-hyperKähler manifold. There exists a $`S^1`$ family $`V_\varphi ,\varphi S^1,`$ of isotropic, parallel, $`2n`$-dimensional distributions of $`TM.`$

However, since the distributions $`V_\varphi `$ are isotropic, this does not imply decomposability of the manifold $`M.`$

###### Example 3.1.

The para-quaternionic vector space $`\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ with the metric $`g`$ given by formula (5) is a para-hyperKähler manifold. The required endomorphisms $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ of $`T\stackrel{~}{}^n\stackrel{~}{}^n`$ can be defined as right multiplications by $`i,j`$ and $`k,`$ respectively.

Using the method of para-hyperKähler reduction from this flat example Section 5.1 we will obtain another example of para-hyperKähler manifold.

###### Example 3.2.

All Riemannian homogenous hyperKähler manifolds are flat. In particular, all Riemannian symmetric hyperKähler spaces are flat. The indefinite hyperKähler symmetric spaces are not necessarily flat. They are classified in . Indefinite hyperKähler and para-hyperKähler symmetric spaces have the same complexification. Accordingly, classification of complex hyperKähler symmetric spaces from  lead to classification of para-hyperKähler symmetric spaces in . It is interesting fact that para-hyperKähler symmetric spaces exist in all dimensions $`4n`$ unlike the indefinite hyperKähler symmetric spaces which exist only in dimensions $`8n.`$ For example, there are up to the isomorphism only two (mutually anti-isometric) non-flat para-hyperKähler symmetric spaces given as follows.

Let us take the matrix $`A`$

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1/2& 1/2& 0\\ 1/2& 0& 0& 1/2\\ 1/2& 0& 0& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Define a subalgebra $`f=Aso(2,2)`$ acting on the vector space $`m=^{2,2}`$ from the left. Let $`E_1,E_2,E_3,E_4`$ be a pseudo-orthonormal basis of $`m.`$ Define the Lie algebras $`g_\pm =m+f`$ by the nonzero commutators

$`[A,M]`$ $`=A(M),Mm,`$
$`[E_1,E_2]=[E_3,E_1]`$ $`=[E_4,E_2]=[E_3,E_4]=\pm A`$
The symmetric spaces corresponding to the symmetric decompositions $`g_\pm =m+f`$ are required para-hyperKähler spaces. These spaces appeared in  as examples of rank $`2`$ Osserman symmetric spaces. Note that the algebras $`g_\pm `$ are solvable.

### 3.2. Para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds

###### Definition 3.2.

A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g),n2,`$ is almost hermitian para-quaternionic if there exists a subbundle $`𝔊`$ of $`\mathrm{End}(TM)`$ with the following property: for each point $`pM`$ the fiber $`𝔊_p`$ of $`𝔊`$ is a hermitian para-quaternionic structure of $`T_pM`$ with respect to the metric $`g`$.

We can locally choose a para-hypercomplex structure $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ which is a basis of $`𝔊.`$ Hence any almost hermitian para-quaternionic manifold is locally almost hermitian para-hypercomplex.

As in Section 2.3 we can locally define nondegenerate two forms $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3.`$ However the $`4`$-form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔊)=\omega _1\omega _1\omega _2\omega _2\omega _3\omega _3$$

is defined globally on $`M.`$

###### Definition 3.3.

* An almost hermitian para-quaternionic manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g),`$ $`n2,`$ is called para-quaternionic Kähler if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and $`M`$ is not para-hyperKähler.
* A pseudo-Riemannian $`4`$-dimensional manifold $`(M^4,g)`$ with a metric $`g`$ of signature $`(2,2)`$ is called para-quaternionic Kähler if it is self-dual and Einstein.

Clearly, the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ implies $`d\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ which has strong consequences on the topology of $`M.`$

According to Lemma 2.0.1 and Theorem 3.2 for a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold we have $`hol(M)sp(n,)sp(1,),`$ $`hol(M)sp(n,).`$ The converse statement follows from the results of Section 2.5, so we have the following characterization.

###### Theorem 3.4.

A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g),n2,`$ is para-quaternionic Kähler if and only if

$$hol(M)sp(n,)sp(1,),hol(M)sp(n,).$$

Note that for a $`4`$-dimensional manifold $`M`$ with a metric $`g`$ of signature $`(2,2)`$ the condition $`hol(M)so(2,2)=sp(1,)sp(1,)`$ is always satisfied. On the other hand, the condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ is satisfied since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a $`4`$-form. These were the reasons for the separate definition of a $`4`$-dimensional para-quaternionic Kähler manifold.

Similarly to the para-hyperKähler case we can write $`TM=EH`$ where $`E`$ and $`H`$ are certain $`2n`$-dimensional and $`2`$-dimensional vector bundles, respectively. If we write the metric in the form

$$g=\omega ^E\omega ^H$$

for some $`2`$-forms $`\omega ^E`$ and $`\omega ^H`$ then the Levi-Civita connection $``$ is given by

$$(eh)=^Eeh+e^Hh$$

for any $`eh\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM).`$ The condition that $``$ is Levi-Civita is equivalent to

$$^H\omega ^H=0=^E\omega ^E.$$

The connection $``$ preserves the subbundle $`𝔊\mathrm{End}(TM).`$ One can easily check that the structure equations are

$$J_\alpha =ϵ_\alpha (\mu _\beta J_\gamma \mu _\gamma J_\beta ),$$

where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$ and $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3`$ are structure $`1`$-forms.

###### Example 3.3.

We shall show that the quotient $`sl_{n+2}()/sl_n()sp(1,)`$ is a para-quaternionic Kaḧler, pseudo-Riemannian symmetric space. Its holonomy $`sl_n()sp(1,)`$ $`sp(n,)sp(1,)`$ is not full. An example of a para-quaternionic symmetric space with full holonomy is given in Section 3.3.

Consider the symmetric decomposition $`sl_{n+2}()=m+f`$ of the algebra $`sl_{n+2}(),`$ where

$$f=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& 0\\ 0& B\end{array}\right)Asl_2(),Bsl_n()\}sl_n()sp(1,).$$

One can easily check that the adjoint action of the algebra $`sp(1,)`$ defines a para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ on the vector space $`m^{4n}`$ invariant under holonomy. Hence the pseudo-Riemannian symmetric space $`sl_{n+2}()/(sl_n()sp(1,))`$ is para-quaternionic Kähler. One can find a basis of $`𝔊`$ and then decompose $`m=EH`$ using the proof of Theorem 2.1.1.

### 3.3. The para-quaternionic projective space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$

Consider the vector space $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}`$ with a natural scalar product $`,`$ of signature $`(2(n+1),2(n+1))`$ defined in Section 2.2. Denote by

$$S=S^{2(n+1),2n+1}\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}$$

the pseudosphere of unit vectors in $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}`$ with the induced metric. Its signature is $`(2(n+1),2n+1).`$

The group $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ of unit para-quaternionic numbers acts freely and isometrically on $`S`$ from the right by the formula

$$xq=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})q:=(x_1q,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}q),$$

$`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})S,q\stackrel{~}{}_1.`$ The para-quaternionic projective space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is defined as the orbit space

$$\stackrel{~}{}P^n:=S/\stackrel{~}{}_1.$$

Denote by

$$\pi :S\stackrel{~}{}P^n,\pi ((x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1})):=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1}]$$

the natural projection.

Since the orbits of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ are nondegenerate of signature $`(2,1)`$ the metric $`,`$ pushes down to the pseudo-Riemannian metric $`g`$ of signature $`(2n,2n)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n.`$ The manifold $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ has the constant para-quaternionic sectional curvature (see ).

Let us show that $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold. The vertical subspace $`T_x^vS`$ of $`T_xS,xS,`$ with respect to the action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ is

$$T_x^vS:=Ker(d_x\pi )=xi,xj,xk\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}.$$

Moreover, there is an orthogonal decomposition

$$T_xS=T_x^vST_x^hS$$

of $`T_xS,`$ $`xS,`$ invariant to the action of $`\stackrel{~}{}_1.`$ The right multiplication by $`h\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ preserves $`T_x^hS.`$ Let

$$s:\stackrel{~}{}P^nS$$

be a horizontal section. For any $`h\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ define the endomorphism $`J_h`$ of $`T\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ by

$$J_h(X):=\pi _{}(s_{}(X)h),$$

where $`XT\stackrel{~}{}P^n.`$ Since the endomorphisms $`J_h`$ and $`J_h^{}`$ corresponding to different sections $`s`$ and $`s^{}=sq,q\stackrel{~}{}_1,`$ are $`Ad(q)`$ related, they generate a global subbundle $`𝔊`$ of $`\mathrm{End}(T\stackrel{~}{}P^n).`$ One can easily check that $`𝔊`$ is an almost para-quaternionic Kähler structure on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ and that the corresponding $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔊)`$ is parallel. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold.

###### Theorem 3.5.

The para-quaternionic projective space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is the homogenous space

(17)
$$\stackrel{~}{}P^n=Sp(n+1,)/Sp(1,)Sp(n,)$$

where $`Sp(1,)Sp(n,)=(Sp(1,)\times Sp(n,))/Z_2`$ and $`Sp(n,)`$ denotes the (connected) group of symplectic transformations.

Proof: The map $`\mu `$ defined by formula (12) is a Lie group isomorphism and

$$Sp(n+1,)\mu ^1(Sp(n+1,))=\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B& \overline{A}\end{array}\right)SU(n+1,n+1)\}$$

holds. Using the representation $`z:\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}^{2(n+1)}`$ given by (4), we obtain an isometric action of $`\mu ^1(Sp(n+1,))`$ on the pseudosphere $`S\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}.`$ This action commutes with the right multiplication by the para-quaternionic numbers defining the space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ and hence the group $`\mu ^1(Sp(n+1,))`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n.`$ The induced action is isometric and preserves the para-quaternionic-structure $`𝔊`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n.`$ To show its transitivity we will show that the point

$$o=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)+j(0,0,\mathrm{},0)S\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}$$

can be mapped to any point $`a_1+jb_1S`$ by a matrix $`M\mu ^1(Sp(n+1,))`$.

Notice that $`|a_1+jb_1|^2=1`$ imply

$$|\overline{b}_1+j\overline{a}_1|^2=1,a_1+jb_1,\overline{b}_1+j\overline{a}_1=0$$

and $`a_1+jb_1,\overline{a}_2+j\overline{b}_2=0`$, $`|a_2+jb_2|^2=1`$ implies

$$\overline{b}_1+j\overline{a}_1,\overline{b}_2+j\overline{a}_2=0.$$

Hence we can construct a matrix $`M\mu ^1(Sp(n+1,))SU(n+1,n+1)`$ having the vectors

$$(z(a_1+jb_1),z(\overline{b}_1+j\overline{a}_1),\mathrm{},z(a_{n+1}+jb_{n+1}),z(\overline{b}_{n+1}+j\overline{a}_{n+1}))$$

as columns and mapping the point $`oS`$ to a point $`a_1+jb_1S.`$ One can easily check that the stabilizer of the point $`[o]=\pi (o)\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is isomorphic to $`Sp(1,)Sp(n,).`$  $``$

###### Theorem 3.6.

The space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is a para-quaternionic Kähler, pseudo-Riemannian symmetric space

$$\stackrel{~}{}P^n=sp(n+1,)/(sp(n,)sp(1,)).$$

Its curvature tensor is given by the formula

(18)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(A,B)C& =g(B,C)Ag(A,C)B+\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha (g(J_\alpha B,C)J_\alpha A\hfill \\ & g(J_\alpha A,C)J_\alpha B)2_\alpha ϵ_\alpha g(J_\alpha A,B)J_\alpha C.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof: Since the calculations are simple unlike the notation, we give only the idea. The notation is the same as in the proof of Theorem 3.5. First one should find the symmetric algebra decomposition

(19)
$$sp(n+1,)\mu ^1(sp(n+1,))=m^{}+f^{}$$

by interpreting the proof of the Theorem 3.5. Then one should find expressions for the metric $`g^{}`$ and endomorphisms $`J_1^{},J_2^{},J_3^{}`$ in terms of matrices from $`m^{}`$ (representing tangent vectors). The next step is to carry the decomposition (19) together with all corresponding structures into the decomposition

(20)
$$sp(n+1,)=m+f,f=sp(n,)sp(1,),$$

by the isomorphism $`\mu .`$ Using the expression $`R(A,B)C=[[A,B],C]`$ for the curvature of a symmetric space one easily checks the relation (18).  $``$

###### Remark 3.6.1.

Let $`e^1,f^1,\mathrm{},e^{n+1},f^{n+1}`$ be a basis and $`\omega =e^1f^1+\mathrm{}+e^{n+1}f^{n+1}`$ be a nondegenerate $`2`$-form on $`^{2(n+1)}.`$ One can identify $`sp(n+1,)`$ and $`S^2^{2(n+1)}`$ by

$$(ab)(x)=\omega (a,x)b+\omega (b,x)a,x^{2(n+1)},$$

where $`abS^2^{2(n+1)}`$ denotes a symmetric product of vectors. The decomposition (20) is obtained after stabilizing $`e_0,f_0`$ under that action.

Concerning the topology of para-quaternionic projective spaces the following is known (see ).

###### Theorem 3.7.

The space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n`$ is homotopically equivalent to the complex projective space $`P^n.`$

## 4. Space of curvature tensors of the para-quaternionic type

In this we shall just state the basic results. For details the reader is referred to  where a similar decomposition has been done in the quaternionic case.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`V`$ be a real vector space and let $`𝔏`$ be any subalgebra of $`\mathrm{End}(V).`$ The space $`(𝔏)`$ of curvature tensors of type $`𝔏`$ is the space of $`𝔏`$ valued $`2`$-forms $`R`$ on $`V`$ satisfying the Bianchi identity

$$R(X,Y)Z+R(Y,Z)X+R(Z,X)Y=0,$$

for all $`X,Y,ZV.`$

The space $`(𝔏)`$ is an $`𝔏`$ module.

Let $`𝔊\mathrm{End}(V)`$ be a para-quaternionic structure on a $`4n`$-dimensional real vector space $`V`$ and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure. To describe the decomposition of the module $`(𝔏)`$ on irreducible submodules in case $`𝔏\{aut(𝔊),aut()\}`$ we need some additional notation.

We say that a bilinear form $`BBil(V)`$ is hermitian with respect to a para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ if

$$B(JX,Y)=B(X,JY),$$

for all $`J𝔊`$, $`X,YV.`$ Denote by $`Bil_𝔊(V)`$ the set of all bilinear forms on the space $`V`$ with respect to $`𝔊`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_𝔊:Bil(V)Bil_𝔊(V)`$ the projector

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_𝔊(B)(X,Y):=\frac{1}{4}\left(B(X,Y)+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}ϵ_\alpha B(J_\alpha X,J_\alpha Y)\right),$$

$`BBil(V),X,YV,`$ which is well defined, i.e. independent of the basis $`J_1,J_2,J_3`$ of $`𝔊.`$ The set of bilinear forms decomposes as follows:

$$Bil(V)=S_𝔊^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔊^2+S_{mix}^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mix}^2,$$

where $`S_𝔊^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔊^2`$ are the sets of symmetric and antisymmetric forms in $`Bil_𝔊(V),`$ respectively, and $`S_{mix}^2:=(\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{\Pi }_𝔊)(S_𝔊^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mix}^2:=(\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{\Pi }_𝔊)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔊^2)`$ their complements.

For any $`BBil(V)`$ define

(21) $`R^B(X,Y)Z`$ $`:=(B(Y,X)B(X,Y))Z+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}ϵ_\alpha (B(X,J_\alpha Y)`$ $`B(Y,J_\alpha X))Z+B(X,J_\alpha Z)J_\alpha YB(Y,J_\alpha Z)J_\alpha X),`$
for all $`X,Y,ZV.`$ One can check that the map

$$\varphi :Bil(V)(aut(𝔊)),\varphi (B):=R^B$$

is a well defined monomorphism. Its image

$$^{Bil}:=\varphi (Bil(V))(aut(𝔊))$$

is an $`aut(𝔊)`$ module.

###### Remark 4.0.1.

Let the para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ be hermitian with respect to the scalar product $`g`$ on $`V.`$ Comparing the expression (21) for $`B=g`$ and the expression (18) for the curvature at any point of the para-quaternionic projective space $`\stackrel{~}{}P^n,`$ we can see that $`R^g=R_{\stackrel{~}{}P^n}.`$

For a curvature tensor $`R`$ we define its Ricci tensor $`Ric(R)`$ by

$$Ric(R)(Y,Z):=\mathrm{Tr}(XR(X,Y)Z),$$

$`X,Y,ZV.`$ One can check that the Ricci map $`Ric:^{Bil}Bil(V)`$ is a monomorphism. Hence a curvature tensor $`R(aut(𝔊))`$ has an unique decomposition $`R=W(R)+Ric(R)`$ with respect to the decomposition

$$(aut(𝔊))=𝔚^{Bil},𝔚:=Ker(Ric).$$

$`W(R)`$ is called Weil part and $`Ric(R)`$ is called Ricci part of the tensor $`R.`$

Now we can state the main theorem:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`𝔊`$ be a para-quaternionic structure on a $`4n`$-dimensional vector space $`V`$ and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure.

* For $`n2`$ the module $`(aut(𝔊))`$ is the sum of the following irreducible submodules

$$(aut(𝔊))=𝔚+(S_h^2)+(S_{mix}^2)+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^2)+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mix}^2),$$

where $`𝔚`$ is the kernel of the Ricci map and $`(S_h^2),`$ $`(S_{mix}^2),`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^2),`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mix}^2)`$ are images of $`S_𝔊^2,`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝔊^2,`$ $`S_{mix}^2,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mix}^2,`$ respectively, by the map $`\varphi .`$

For $`n=1`$ the above decomposition holds but the module $`𝔚`$ is decomposable as

$$𝔚=𝔚_++𝔚_{}=(𝔊)+(𝔊^{}),$$

where $`𝔊^{}`$ is para-quaternionic structure on $`V`$ described in Remark 2.1.1.
* $`(aut())=𝔚+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^2),n2,`$ $`(aut())=𝔚_{}+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_h^2),n=1.`$

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`𝔊`$ be a para-quaternionic hermitian structure with respect to the scalar product $`g`$ on a $`4n`$-dimensional, vector space $`V,`$ $`n2`$ and let $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ be a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure.

* Any curvature tensor $`R(sp(𝔊))`$ is Einstein i.e.

$$Ric(R)=\frac{K(R)}{4n}g,$$

holds, where $`K(R)`$ is the scalar curvature of $`R.`$
* $`(sp(𝔊))=R_{\stackrel{~}{}P^n}+(sp())`$ where $`(sp())𝔚`$ is an irreducible submodule and $`R_{\stackrel{~}{}P^n}`$ is the curvature of the para-quaternionic projective space.

We have the following important consequences concerning para-quaternionic Kähler manifolds.

###### Theorem 4.3.

* A para-quaternionic Kähler manifold is an Einstein manifold.
* A para-quaternionic Kähler manifold of dimension $`4n,n2,`$ with zero scalar curvature is a locally para-hyperKähler manifold.

The following lemma is important both for the proofs of the previous theorems and for various applications.

###### Lemma 4.3.1.

Let $`𝔊`$ be a para-quaternionic hermitian structure with respect to the scalar product $`g`$ on a $`4n`$-dimensional, vector space $`V`$ and $`=(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ a corresponding para-hypercomplex structure.

* A curvature tensor $`R(\mathrm{End}(V))`$ belongs to $`(aut(𝔊))`$ if and only if

$$[R,J_\alpha ]=\frac{ϵ_\alpha }{2n}\left(\mathrm{Tr}(J_\gamma R)J_\beta \mathrm{Tr}(J_\beta R)J_\gamma \right),$$

where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3).`$
* Tensors belonging to the module $`𝔚`$ are traceless.
* The following commutator relations hold:

$$[𝔚,𝔊]=0,n2\text{ and }[𝔚,𝔊^{}]=0,n=1,$$

where the para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊^{}`$ is described in Remark 2.1.1.

## 5. Reduction techniques

### 5.1. Para-hyperKähler reduction

Let $`M=(M^{4n},g,(J_1,J_2,J_3))`$ be a para-hyperKähler manifold and let $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\omega _3`$ be the global nondegenerate $`2`$-forms associated with $`J_1,J_2,J_3.`$ Let a Lie group $`G`$ acts freely on $`M`$ by isometries and preserves para-hyperKähler structure i.e. $`g^{}J_\alpha =J_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3,`$ holds for a $`gG.`$ Let $`V`$ be a Killing vector field on $`M`$ generated by an element $`V^{}𝔤=Lie(G).`$

If it exists, the map $`f=(f_1,f_2,f_3):M𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤^{}`$ such that

$$d(f_\alpha (V))=\omega _\alpha (V^{},),$$

$`\alpha =1,2,3,`$ holds for any $`V𝔤`$ at any point of the manifold $`M,`$ is called the moment map for the action $`G`$ on $`M`$.

###### Theorem 5.1 (Para-hyperKähler reduction).

Let a Lie group $`G`$ act freely and isometrically on a para-hyperKähler manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g,(J_1,J_2,J_3))`$ and preserve its para-hyperKähler structure. Let $`f=(f_1,f_2,f_3):M𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤^{}`$ be the corresponding equivariant moment map. Suppose that $`\xi 𝔤^{}𝔤^{}𝔤^{}`$ is such that

$$𝔎_\xi :=f^1(\xi )$$

(on which $`G`$ acts by isometries) is a smooth submanifold of $`M.`$ Suppose that the quotient

$$M_\xi :=𝔎_\xi /G$$

has a smooth manifold structure for which the projection $`\pi _\xi :𝔎_\xi M_\xi `$ is a smooth pseudo-Riemannian submersion and $`g_\xi `$ is the induced metric on $`M_\xi .`$ Then the pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(M_\xi ,g_\xi )`$ is a para-hyperKähler manifold with respect to the para-hyperKähler structure obtained by projection $`\pi `$ from the structure on $`M.`$

###### Example 5.1.

The natural para-hyperKähler structure on the para-quaternionic vector space $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}`$ is described in Example 3.1. Let the group $`G=S^1`$ of unit complex numbers act on $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}`$ by left multiplication, i.e.

$$e^{it}h=e^{it}(h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n+1}):=(e^{it}h_1,\mathrm{},e^{it}h_{n+1}),t,$$

for $`h=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_{n+1})\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}.`$ The action is isometric and preserves the para-hyperKähler structure on $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}.`$ We identify $`\stackrel{~}{}^{n+1}`$ with $`^{2(n+1)}=^{n+1}^{n+1}`$ by $`h=(z,w).`$ After a straightforward calculation one finds that the equivariant moment map of $`G`$ is

$$f(z,w)=(|z|^2+|w|^2,\mathrm{}(zw),\mathrm{}(zw)).$$

According to the notation of Theorem 5.1 choose $`\xi =(1,0,0).`$ Then

$$𝔎_\xi =\{(z,w)^{2(n+1)}|z|^2+|w|^2=1,zw=0\}^{2(n+1)}.$$

The action of the group $`G`$ on $`𝔎_\xi `$ is given by $`e^{it}(z,w)=(e^{it}z,e^{it}w),t.`$ After simple transformations one obtains that the resulting para-hyperKähler manifold is a (real) submanifold of $`P^{2n+1}`$ of real codimension two, given in homogenous coordinates by

$$M_\xi =\{[z,w]P^{2n+1}|z|^2=|w|^2,\mathrm{}(\overline{z}w)=0\}.$$

###### Remark 5.1.1.

It is interesting that the resulting manifold is compact. Analogous action in the quaternionic case results in a hyperKähler structure on the (noncompact) cotangent space $`T^{}P^n`$ of the complex projective space $`P^n.`$

### 5.2. Para-quaternionic Kähler reduction

Let $`M=(M^{4n},g,𝔊)`$ be a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold. Let a Lie group $`G`$ act freely and isometrically on $`M`$ and preserve the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔊),`$ i.e. $`g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ holds for a $`gG.`$

Denote by $`V`$ the unique Killing vector field corresponding to a Lie algebra vector $`V^{}𝔤=Lie(G).`$ The section $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ of the bundle $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(𝔊)`$ of one forms with values in $`𝔊`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_V^{}(X):=\underset{\alpha }{}\omega _\alpha (V,X)J_\alpha ,$$

for $`XTM,`$ is well defined globally. Here is the main reduction theorem.

###### Theorem 5.2 (Para-quaternionic Kähler reduction).

If a Lie group acts freely and isometrically on the para-quaternionic Kähler manifold $`M=(M^{4n},g,𝔊)`$ and preserves the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔊)`$ then there exist a unique section $`f`$ of bundle $`𝔤^{}𝔊`$ such that

(22)
$$f_V^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }_V^{},$$

for every $`V^{}𝔤.`$ Moreover, the group $`G`$ acts by isometries on the preimage $`𝔎:=f^1(0)`$ of the zero-section $`0𝔤^{}𝔊.`$ Suppose that $`𝔎`$ is a smooth submanifold of $`M`$ and that the quotient $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=𝔎/G`$ has a smooth structure for which the projection $`\pi :𝔎\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a pseudo-Riemannian submersion with induced metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{M}.`$ Then the pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold with respect to the structure $`𝔊^{}`$ induced on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ from the structure $`𝔊`$ by the projection $`\pi .`$

###### Remark 5.2.1.

Theorems 5.1 and 5.2 can be applied in case of a locally free action of the group $`G.`$ In that case the resulting para-quaternionic Kähler space may have an orbifold (rather than a manifold) structure (see ).

For the proof of the Theorem 5.2 we need several lemmas.

###### Lemma 5.2.1.

The unique solution $`f_V^{},V^{}𝔤`$ of equation (22) is given by

$$f_V^{}=\frac{4n}{K}\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{Tr}(J_\alpha L_V)J_\alpha ,$$

where $`K`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M`$ and $`L_V=_V𝔏_V`$ is the Nomitzu operator ($`𝔏`$ is the Lie derivative).

Proof: Notice that the scalar curvature of a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold is different from zero. Since $`V`$ is a Killing vector field preserving para-quaternionic Kähler structure both operators $`𝔏_V`$ and $`_V,`$ and hence the Nomitzu operator $`L_V`$ take values in the holonomy $`sp(n,)sp(1,).`$ Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_{4n}`$ be a local pseudo-orthonormal reper. Then the relation

$`_k\mathrm{Tr}(J_\alpha L_V)`$ $`=`$ $`_k\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}(J_\alpha )_j^i(V_{;i}^j)\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}(_kJ_\alpha )_j^iV_{;i}^j+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}(J_\alpha )_j^i(_kV_{;i}^j)=`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ_\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}(\mu _\gamma (e_k)J_\beta \mu _\beta (e_k)J_\gamma )_j^iV_{;i}^j+{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4n}{}}}(J_\alpha )_j^ig(R(V,e_k)e_i,e_j)`$
holds for any $`k=1,\mathrm{},4n`$ and any $`\alpha =1,2,3.`$ In other words, the relation

(23)
$$\mathrm{Tr}(J_\alpha L_V)=ϵ_\alpha (\mu _\gamma \mathrm{Tr}(J_\beta L_V)\mu _\beta \mathrm{Tr}(J_\gamma L_V))+\mathrm{Tr}(J_\alpha R(V,)),$$

holds, where $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ is a cyclic permutation of $`(1,2,3).`$ Summing up over $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ most of the terms cancel and one obtains

(24)
$$f_V=\frac{4n}{K}ϵ_\alpha \mathrm{Tr}(J_\alpha R(V,))J_\alpha .$$

Since the curvature tensor $`R`$ of the manifold $`M`$ is of type $`sp(n,)sp(1,)`$, according to Theorem 4.2 ii) the only component of the curvature tensor which does not commute with all $`J_\alpha `$ is its projection $`R^{}`$ onto $`𝔊`$

$$R^{}(X,Y)=\frac{K}{(4n)^2}\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha g(J_\alpha X,Y)J_\alpha .$$

Substituting $`R^{}`$ from the last relation into relation (24) one easily checks (22).  $``$

###### Lemma 5.2.2.

The quotient space $`\stackrel{~}{M}=(𝔎/G,\stackrel{~}{g})`$ from Theorem 5.2 has an almost hermitian para-quaternionic structure.

Proof : Let $`V`$ be a Killing vector field corresponding to a vector $`V^{}𝔤=Lie(G).`$ If $`e_k`$ is a vector tangent to $`𝔎=f^1(0)`$ then using relation (23) one obtains

$$0=_kf_V^{}=\underset{\alpha }{}ϵ_\alpha tr(J_\alpha R(V,e_k))J_\alpha =ϵ_\alpha \frac{K}{4n}g(J_\alpha V,e_k)J_\alpha ,$$

and hence

$$\text{the vectors }J_\alpha V,\alpha =1,2,3,\text{ are orthogonal to }𝔎.$$

Denote by $`g^{}TM`$ the distribution spanned by all vector fields $`V`$ generated by the Lie algebra $`𝔤.`$ Then the subbundle $`𝔙:=g^{},J_1g^{},J_2g^{},J_3g^{}`$ of $`TM`$ is $`𝔊`$ invariant. Moreover we have an orthogonal, $`𝔊`$ invariant splitting of $`TM`$

(25)
$$TM=𝔙𝔙^{}$$

which allows us to descend the para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ of $`M`$ to an almost para-quaternionic structure $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M},`$ hermitian with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{g}.`$ We use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{J}_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3,`$ for the basis of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}`$ and the corresponding $`2`$-forms. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ the $`4`$-form associated to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔊}.`$  $``$

In dimension four para-hyperKähler manifolds are characterized as pointwise Osserman manifolds which we are going to define. Hence we need the definition of a (pointwise) Osserman manifold. Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Riemannian or pseudo-Riemannian manifold of any signature, and $`R`$ its curvature tensor. We define its Jacobi operator in the unit direction $`XT_pM`$ (i.e. $`|X|^2=\pm 1`$) by

$$K_X(Y):=R(X,Y)X.$$

It is a self-adjoint operator with respect to the metric $`g.`$ We say that the manifold $`M`$ is pointwise Osserman if the Jordan form of $`K_X`$ is independent of the direction $`X.`$ We say that $`M`$ is (globally) Osserman if the Jordan form of $`K_X`$ is independent of both, the direction $`XT_pM`$ and the point $`p`$ of $`M.`$

###### Theorem 5.3.

() A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ of signature $`(2,2)`$ is pointwise Osserman if and only if it is Einstein and self-dual.

###### Lemma 5.3.1.

The $`4`$-dimensional manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}=𝔎/G`$ obtained by the para-quaternionic Kähler reduction (Theorem 5.2) from a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold $`M`$ is a pointwise Osserman manifold.

Proof: We explain just the main steps. To simplify the notation we suppose that the group $`G`$ is one-dimensional and that $`V`$ is the Killing vector field of its action. Denote by $`V_X=_XV`$ the covariant derivative of the vector field $`V,`$ where $``$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $`g`$ on $`M.`$ Let $`i:𝔎M`$ denote immersion, and let $`\pi :𝔎\stackrel{~}{M}=𝔎/G`$ be the natural projection.

At first, using fundamental relations for immersion and submersion one relates the curvature tensors $`R`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ of $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M},`$ respectively. Then, having a curvature tensor $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M},`$ one can prove that the Jacobi operator $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ of the manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ in a point $`\pi (u),u𝔎,`$ and in the unit direction $`\stackrel{~}{X}T_{\pi (u)}\stackrel{~}{M},`$ is given by

$`\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{K}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{R}(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y})\stackrel{~}{X})=h(R(X,Y)X)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|V|^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}}ϵ_\alpha \left(g(X,J_\alpha (V_X))g(Y,h(J_\alpha (V_Y)))g(Y,h(J_\alpha (V_X)))^2\right)+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|V|^2}}3g(Y,h(V_X)).`$
Here $`X=\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{X}),Y=\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ are horizontal lifts to $`T_u𝔎`$ of unit vectors $`\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}T_{\pi (u)}M`$ and $`h(Z)`$ denotes the $`𝔙^{}`$ part (see (25)) of the vector $`ZT_uM.`$

Using the decomposition of the curvature tensor $`R`$ from Theorem 4.2 ii) one obtains that

$$h(R(X,Y),X)=\frac{K}{4n}Y,$$

where $`K`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M.`$ Since the Jacobi operator $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ is self-adjoint and the vector $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is an eigenvector with eigenvalue $`0`$, we are interested only in the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ to the orthogonal complement of $`\stackrel{~}{X}.`$ One can calculate the matrix of the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔎}_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ (for example in the basis $`\stackrel{~}{J}_1\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{J}_2\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{J}_3\stackrel{~}{X}`$) and show that it is diagonalizable with eigenvalues

(26)
$$\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\frac{K}{4n}\frac{2|h(V_X)|^2}{|V|^2},\lambda _2=\frac{K}{4n}+\frac{4|h(V_X)|^2}{|V|^2}.$$

One can show that the ratio $`\frac{|h(V_X)|^2}{|V|^2}`$ is independent of the unit direction $`X=\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ and hence the manifold $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is pointwise Osserman.  $``$

###### Remark 5.3.1.

In general the ratio $`\frac{|h(V_X)|^2}{|V|^2}`$ may depend of the point $`\pi (u),u𝔎,`$ and hence $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is not necessarily Osserman as we will see in Example 5.2.

Proof of Theorem 5.2: The existence of the unique moment map $`f𝔤^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^0(𝔊)`$ is proved in Lemma 5.2.1. The moment map $`f`$ enjoys an important equivariance property in the following sense. For any $`gG,`$ $`Vg`$ and any point $`pM`$

$$f_{g_{}(V)}(p)=\stackrel{~}{g}(f_V(g^1(p)))$$

holds, where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the map induced on $`𝔊`$ by $`g.`$ From this equivariance property it follows that the submanifold

$$𝔎:=\{pMf(p)=0\}M$$

of $`M,`$ is invariant under the (isometric) action of $`G.`$

According to Lemma 5.2.2 there exists the natural almost hermitian para-quaternionic structure $`𝔊`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with $`4`$-form $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.`$ It remains to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a para-quaternionic Kähler manifold. If $`dim\stackrel{~}{M}>4`$ its enough to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is parallel with respect to the Levi-Civita connection of the metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}.`$ The proof is the same as in the Riemannian case (see ). If $`dim\stackrel{~}{M}=4`$ the proof follows from Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.3.1.  $``$

###### Remark 5.3.2.

In practice $`𝔎`$ must not be a differentiable submanifold of $`M.`$ In that case we can take a subset which is a submanifold of $`M`$ and which is invariant under the action of $`G`$ as shown in Example 5.2.

###### Example 5.2.

This example is from  and it is a para-quaternionic version of the example by Galicki and Lawson (see ). Let $`p,q`$ be distinct, relatively prime natural numbers. We define the action of the Lie group $`G:=\{e^{jt}t\}(+)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^2`$ by

$$\varphi _{p,q}(t)[u_0,u_1,u_2]:=[e^{jqt}u_0,e^{jpt}u_1,e^{jpt}u_2],$$

where $`e^{jt}:=\mathrm{cosh}t+j\mathrm{sinh}t`$ and $`[u_0,u_1,u_2]`$ are homogenous coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^2.`$ The action is free, isometric and preserves the para-quaternionic structure on $`\stackrel{~}{}P^2.`$ One can show that the preimage of $`0\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ by the moment map $`f_{p,q}:\stackrel{~}{}P^2\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is given by

$$𝔎_{p,q}^0=\{[u_0,u_1,u_2]\stackrel{~}{}P^2q\overline{u}_0ju_0+p\overline{u}_1ju_1+p\overline{u}_2ju_2=0\}.$$

The set $`𝔎_{p,q}`$ of regular points of $`𝔎_{p,q}^0`$ is

$$𝔎_{p,q}=\{[u_0,u_1,u_2]𝔎_{p,q}^0q^2|u_0|^2+p^2|u_1|^2+p^2|u_2|^20\}.$$

The group $`G`$ acts freely and isometrically on $`𝔎_{p,q}.`$ The manifolds $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{p,q}=𝔎_{p,q}/G`$ obtained by the para-quaternionic reduction are $`4`$-dimensional, Einstein and self-dual manifolds of signature $`(2,2).`$ In  it is proved by computation of the eigenvalues (26) that the manifolds $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{p,q}`$ are neither globally Osserman nor locally homogenous.

###### Remark 5.3.3.

It is interesting that in case of action by $`e^{it}`$ instead of $`e^{jt}`$ one obtains an empty set as a preimage of $`0\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{}`$ by the moment map.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to professor Dmitri Alekseevsky for an invaluable help on the all stages of the work. Special thanks to dr. Sandra Breimesser who read the first draft of the manuscript and suggested many language improvements.


format: text

text:
# NT@UW-03-07 Shapes of the Proton

## Acknowledgments

I thank the USDOE for partial support of this work. I thank M. Burkardt for useful discussions, and C. Glasshauser and J. Ralston for emphasizing the importance of understanding the shape of the proton.


text:
# A simple model for the clustering of subhalos as a function of mass

## 1 Motivation

11footnotetext: Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University, 4 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003 blanton@nyu.edu

The excursion set formalism of Press & Schechter (1974) (and the subsequent improvements of Bond et al. 1991, Lacey & Cole 1993, and Sheth et al. 2001) predicts the mass function of bound, virialized objects in the universe. The extensions of Mo & White (1996) and Sheth et al. (2001) predict the clustering relative to dark matter of these halos. However, the large-scale, sufficiently high resolution $`N`$-body calculations of Kravtsov & Klypin (1999) and other investigators show that each CDM dark matter halo can contain multiple subhalos, presumably ex-halos not fully mixed into the larger, surrounding halo. The halos themselves do not have properties similar to those of galaxies — most notably, they grow to be much more massive. However, it is plausible that galaxies reside in subhalos.

Here I predict the clustering of subhalos as a function of redshift, mass, and scale, using a modification of the method of Mo & White (1996). I use the formation rate of halos to determine when to identify halos of a particular mass and then evaluate the clustering of those halos at the redshift of observation. Where cosmological parameters are necessary for these calculations I use those given by Bennett et al. (2003) in their Table 3.

## 2 Estimating the clustering of subhalos of a specific mass

Consider a set of subhalos which when they reach mass $`M`$ are identifiable galaxies that retain their unique identities throughout history until $`z=0`$, even after they merge into larger halos. Let us make one simplifying assumption: whether a subhalo of a given mass retains its identity during mergers into larger halos is independent of when it formed and its large scale environment. In other words, of all subhalos of mass $`M`$ which ever existed, those which survive form a representative sample. This assumption is violated in the real universe and in simulations, but it provides an alternative to the standard treatment, in which each subhalo always loses it identity immediately after its formation.

One can calculate the dependence on redshift of the formation rate of such subhalos from the extended Press-Schechter theory, the clustering at each redshift using the ansatz of Mo & White (1996), and integrate the results to the observed redshift $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ using the continuity equation (Nusser & Davis 1994; Fry 1996; Tegmark & Peebles 1998). Notably, the same procedure cannot predict the abundance of subhalos as a function of mass, without further specification of the conditions of subhalo formation and survival (Sheth & Pitman 1997; Benson et al. 2001; Somerville et al. 2001).

The Press-Schechter formulae are derived by assuming that the primordial overdensity field $`\delta `$ is a Gaussian random field. The smoothed density field is distributed as a Gaussian with variance $`\sigma ^2(M)`$, where $`M`$ corresponds to the average mass contained within a smoothing length $`R`$. One associates each parcel of mass in the original distribution to halos of mass $`M`$ at a particular redshift $`z`$ if at that point in space, the smoothed density field on scale $`R`$ linearly extrapolated (using the growth function $`D(z)`$) to $`z`$ is exactly some $`\delta _{c,0}`$. The conventional choice is $`\delta _{c,0}=1.7`$. We define $`\delta _c(z)=\delta _{c,0}/D(z)`$. The fraction of mass in such a state is

$`f(M,z)dM`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _c(z)}{\sigma ^3(M)}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^2(M)}{dM}}\right]`$ (2)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\delta _c^2(z)/2\sigma ^2(M)\right]dM.`$
Lacey & Cole (1993) derive expressions for the probability of merging between dark matter halos. The fraction of mass in halos of mass $`M_2`$ which just entered from halos of mass $`M_1`$ is:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2f(M_1|M_2,z)}{dzdM_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[1\sigma ^2(M_2)/\sigma ^2(M_1)\right]^{3/2}}}`$ (4)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma (M_1)}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta _c}{dz}}\right)f(M_1,z).`$
The formation rate of mass $`M`$ halos is proportional to the fraction of mass in $`M`$ halos which has entered recently from all smaller halos. One can calculate this from the fraction entering $`M`$ from each smaller mass halo, integrated over all possible smaller mass halos:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df_{\mathrm{form}}(M,z)}{dz}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^M}𝑑M_1{\displaystyle \frac{df(M_1|M,t)}{dzdM_1}}f(M)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\delta _c}{dz}}\right)f(M,z)`$ (7)
$`\times \underset{M_1M}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left[\sigma ^2(M_1)\sigma ^2(M)\right]^{1/2}}}`$
The divergence is irrelevant to the final result; below, I will discuss only the “shape” of the formation rate, which I express as

$$\frac{dG}{dz}=\delta _c(z)\left(\frac{d\delta _c}{dz}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\delta _c^2/[2\sigma ^2(M)]\right).$$
(8)
The Press-Schechter formalism has a simple prediction that the clustering of halos of a particular mass is indendent of their formation history. Thus the overdensity the newly born halos of mass $`M`$ relative to their mean density is the same as the overdensity of all halos of mass $`M`$ relative to their mean, for which Mo & White (1996) obtain:

$`1+\delta _h|\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\delta _0/\delta _c}{\left[1\sigma ^2(M_0)/\sigma ^2(M)\right]^{3/2}}}`$ (11)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta _c\delta _0)^2}{2\left[\sigma ^2(M)\sigma ^2(M_0)\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _c^2}{2\sigma ^2(M)}}\right]`$
$`\times \left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _0^2}{2\sigma ^2(M_0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta _02\delta _c)^2}{2\sigma ^2(M_0)}}\right]\right\}.`$
Assume a subhalo is in a mass overdensity $`\delta `$ at the redshift of observation $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$, which determines the linearly extrapolated overdensity $`\delta _0`$. From this, one can find $`\delta _{\mathrm{form}}(M,z_f,\delta _0)\delta _h|\delta `$ at formation for subhalos of mass $`M`$ formed at some redshift $`z_f>z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ which end up in mass overdensities of $`\delta `$ at redshift $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Then:

$`1+\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}(M,z_{\mathrm{obs}})|\delta ={\displaystyle \frac{1+\delta (z_{\mathrm{obs}})}{G(M,z_{\mathrm{obs}})}}`$ (12)
$`\times {\displaystyle _{z_{\mathrm{obs}}}^{\mathrm{}}}dz_f[1+\delta _{\mathrm{form}}(M,z_f,\delta _0)]{\displaystyle \frac{dG(M,z_f)}{dz_f}},`$ (13)
To calculate quantities in the nonlinear regime, one must relate $`\delta _0`$ to $`\delta `$, which I do using the formulae given by Mo & White (1996) for an Einstein-de Sitter universe (the solution to the nonlinear spherical collapse problem is roughly independent of cosmology).

The integrals above may be done explicitly to yield

$`1+\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}(M,z_{\mathrm{obs}})|\delta =`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{[1+\delta (z_{\mathrm{obs}})]\mathrm{exp}\left(\delta _c^2/[2\sigma ^2(M)]\right)}{\sigma ^2(M)\left[1\sigma ^2(M_0)/\sigma ^2(M)\right]^{3/2}}}`$ (15)
$`\times \{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{exp}((\delta _c\delta _0)^2/[2\mathrm{\Delta }^2])\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{exp}(x_c^2+\mathrm{\Phi }^2)`$ (16)
$`+\sqrt{2\pi }(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2)\delta _0\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\mathrm{erfc}(x_c)\}`$ (17)
where

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^2(M)\sigma ^2(M_0)`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`4\sigma ^2(M)3\sigma ^2(M_0)`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta _0^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2/[\sigma ^2(M_0)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2]`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma ^2(M_0)[\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2]`$ (21)
$`x_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _c(2\sigma ^2(M)\sigma ^2(M_0))\delta _0/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Sigma }^2}}}`$ (22)
To calculate the cross-correlation $`\delta _{sh}\delta `$ I follow Mo & White (1996) and use the log-normal form for the distribution of the dark matter overdensity $`\delta `$:

$`\delta _{sh}\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\delta \delta \delta _{sh}|\delta f(\delta )`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\delta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(x^2/[2\sigma _l^2])}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma _l(1+\delta )}}\delta _{sh}|\delta \delta ,`$ (24)
where $`x=\mathrm{ln}(1+\delta )+\sigma ^2/2`$ and $`\delta ^2=\mathrm{exp}(\sigma ^2)1`$.

At linear scales the above equations can be reduced to a linear bias of the form

$$b_{\mathrm{sh}}(z)=1+\frac{\delta _c(z)}{\sigma ^2(M)D(z)},$$
(25)
which has the notable property that it is always greater than unity.

Note that I have not specified what overall number of subhalos end up at each mass! In fact, without further assumptions, one cannot do so. I have only assumed that the subhalos that survive at each mass have clustering properties representative of all the subhalos ever to have that mass. I ignore that this condition is almost certainly violated in the real universe.

## 3 Results

First consider Figure 1, showing the halo overdensity as a function of dark matter overdensity on scales of $`R=4`$ $`h^1`$ Mpc, for three different halo masses, at redshifts $`z=0`$$`5`$, as labeled. The left column is the results of Mo & White (1996) for halos identified at the same redshift as they are observed. The right column is the results of Equation 14. Particularly at low redshift, at fixed mass the relationship between (sub)halo overdensity and mass overdensity is much more linear and close to unbiased for the full set of subhalos than it is for the set of halos which just formed. This effect is commonly understood as resulting from the fact that the densest regions are usually fully contained in large mass halos by low redshift, and thus cannot form new subhalos.

Consider now Figure 2. The top panels show the rate of formation $`dG/dz`$ of subhalos of masses $`M=10^9M_{}`$ on the left and $`10^{11}M_{}`$ on the right. The bottom panel shows as the solid line the results for large-scale, linear bias of Equation 25. The dotted line is the bias at formation of Equation 11. To demonstrate what is going on, I use the linear continuity equation to extrapolate backwards from the $`z=0`$ results of the solid line. This dashed line crosses the dotted line at around the median of the $`dG/dz`$ distribution. The results for the bias at $`z=0`$ are similar what one would get by assuming that all the halos formed at the median $`dG/dz`$ value.

This description sounds similar to the usual method suggested by Mo & White (1996), to identify halos at one redshift and evaluate their clustering at another redshift. However, different mass halos form at different times. Consider the top panel of Figure 3, which shows as the solid lines the results of Equation 14 as a function of mass for smoothing scales of $`R=8`$ and 30 $`h^1`$ Mpc (as labeled), defining bias as $`b=\delta _{sh}\delta /\delta \delta `$. For comparison, consider the dashed lines, which show the bias as a function of mass using the Mo & White (1996) results for halos identified at $`z=1.5`$ and observed at $`z=0`$. In general, for my results the bias is less different than unity, because the bias near the median time of formation is typically closer to unity. Furthermore, the low mass halos which form very early naturally debias according to the continuity equation. The bias is much less mass dependent under my assumptions than it is under the assumption that all halos stop merging at some fixed redshift.

These results are extremely close to what one would get assuming all subhalos were formed at the median of the $`dG/dz`$ distribution, determine by setting

$$\delta _c^2(z_{\mathrm{med}})=2\sigma ^2(M)\delta _{c,0}^2\mathrm{ln}2+\delta _c(z_{\mathrm{obs}}).$$
(26)
The dashed lines in the bottom panel of Figure 3 show the mass dependence using the standard Mo & White (1996) treatment but setting the redshift of identification at each mass to $`z_{\mathrm{med}}`$.

Finally, although at low mass the bias is a very weak function of mass for the subhalos, recently assembled subhalos are in lower density regions than older subhalos. Figure 4 plots the bias of subhalos as a function of their mass and age, showing that at low masses age is important while at high masses mass is important. Accepting that galaxy luminosity is related to subhalo mass, and that the optical color of a galaxy relates to the time of subhalo assembly, this trend is qualitatively similar to the trend found in Hogg et al. (2003). Those authors show that for low luminosity galaxies, color is most closely related to galaxy overdensity, while for high luminosity galaxies, luminosity is the most closely related to galaxy overdensity.

However, the transformation from age of assembly and mass of a subhalo to color and luminosity of a galaxy is by no means simple or even necessarily one-to-one. In particular, the simplest interpretation of the hierarchical merging scenario of galaxy formation is that the most massive galaxies have assembled the most recently; however, it is observationally the case that the most massive galaxies have the oldest, reddest stellar populations. So if this scenario has any truth at all, it must be the case that age of assembly and color are not related at least for the most luminous galaxies, and so drawing firm conclusions for the low mass subhalos would be premature.

Other results of Hogg et al. (2003) are more difficult to understand with this picture, such as the large overdensities associated with red, low luminosity galaxies. This discrepancy may indicate that such galaxies preferentially survive in large mass clusters rather than in lower mass groups.

## 4 Discussion

An observational consequence of the model presented here is that the clustering of galaxies should be a weak function of their mass, especially at low masses. Many papers have claimed that the average clustering is a weak function of luminosity at luminosities less than $`L_{}`$ (Hamilton 1988; Giuricin et al. 2001; Norberg et al. 2002; Zehavi et al. 2002; Blanton et al. 2003; Hogg et al. 2003). Since dynamical and lensing studies suggest that $`L_{}`$ galaxies have total masses of order $`10^{12}M_{}`$ (McKay et al. 2002), the observational results are in agreement with Figure 3. In addition, this model qualitatively explains the trend in Hogg et al. (2003) that at low luminosity, galaxy clustering is a strong function of color.

These suggestive comparisons to observations inspire testing of the assumptions used here with $`N`$-body simulations. Unfortunately, identifying subhalos in simulations is difficult. While many investigators are using high resolution simulations and identifying subhalos, not much literature quotes directly subhalo bias with respect to mass overdensity. The results of Kravtsov & Klypin (1999) show that the relationship between their subhalo population and the mass overdensity is more linear and closer to $`b=1`$ than the Mo & White (1996) prediction for halos, but that if they identify halos at $`z=z_{\mathrm{obs}}+1`$ and observe them at $`z_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ the formulae of Mo & White (1996) provide a reasonable fit. It would be interesting use similar simulations to predict clustering as a function of subhalo mass and to compare with the simple estimates I present here.

Differences from this model in the observations or in the simulations may indicate a breakdown of the assumption that subhalo survival probability is independent of environment and may provide an insight into the nature of that process.

A significant improvement of this model is to express the argument here in terms of the “halo model” of galaxy formation predicting the distribution of subhalos within each halo (see Berlind & Weinberg 2002 and references therein). This requires an extension of the typical excursion set picture of Press-Schechter, and is implemented by Sheth (in preparation).

I thank Ravi Sheth for helping me along with this project, David W. Hogg for useful discussions, and David H. Weinberg for useful comments on the text. I am grateful for the hospitality of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, at which most of this work was done.


text:
# Measurement of branching fraction ratios and CP asymmetries in 𝑩^±→𝑫_{𝑪𝑷}𝑲^±

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the KEKB accelerator group for the excellent operation of the KEKB accelerator. We acknowledge support from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science; the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources; the National Science Foundation of China under contract No. 10175071; the Department of Science and Technology of India; the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education of Korea and the CHEP SRC program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation; the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research under contract No. 2P03B 17017; the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Russian Federation; the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia; the National Science Council and the Ministry of Education of Taiwan; and the U.S. Department of Energy.


text:
# References

USM-TH-137

CPT-2003/P.4529

Transverse single-spin asymmetries in gauge boson production

Ivan Schmidt***e-mail: ischmidt@fis.utfsm.cla, Jacques Soffere-mail: Jacques.Soffer@cpt.univ-mrs.frb

aDepartamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María,

Casilla 110-V, Valparaíso, Chile

bCentre de Physique Th$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$orique, CNRS, Luminy Case 907,

F-13288 Marseille Cedex 9, France

Abstract

Transverse single-spin asymmetries (SSA) in inclusive reactions are now considered to be directly related to the transverse momentum $`k_T`$ of the fundamental partons involved in the process. Several possible leading-twist QCD mechanisms have been proposed to explain the available data, in particular the Sivers effect which was resurrected recently. We show that from the measurement of transverse SSA in inclusive production of gauge bosons, one can learn more about the Sivers functions and possibly to achieve a reliable flavor separation.

PACS numbers: 13.87.Fh, 13.60.Hb, 13.65.+i, 13.85.Ni

The existence of puzzling and significant experimental results for transverse single-spin asymmetries (SSA) in several high energy processes, has been known for a long time. Let us mention in particular, the SSA in hyperon (and antihyperon) inclusive production $`pNY^{}X`$, at various energies , and in pion inclusive production $`pp^{}\pi X`$ with a center-of-mass (c.m.) energy $`\sqrt{s}20\text{GeV}`$ , an effect which seems to survive at $`\sqrt{s}=200\text{GeV}`$, as observed for $`\pi ^0`$ production, in the first spin run at BNL-RHIC . For the large amount of significant effects accumulated in the hyperon production, in particular $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s, many theoretical attempts to explain them have been proposed , with strong limitations in most cases, so it is clear that this polarization phenomena is not easy to understand within the pQCD framework. Recently an azimuthal asymmetry has been also observed in semi-inclusive deep-inelastic scattering (SIDIS) $`lp^{}l\pi X`$, for targets polarized transversely ($`A_{UT}`$) and longitudinally ($`A_{UL}`$) to the direction of the unpolarized incoming lepton beam direction . In a kinematic region where the generalized QCD parton model is valid, the description of such a reaction involves both distribution functions $`q(x)`$ and fragmentation functions $`D_q^\pi (z)`$, where the scaling variable has been omitted purposely. However in a phenomenological approach based on the generalization of the factorization theorem, one can replace $`q(x)`$ by $`q(x,𝐤_T)`$, with an explicit dependence on $`𝐤_T`$, the transverse momentum of the quark inside the nucleon and similarly for the fragmentation function, replacing $`D_q^\pi (z)`$ by $`D_q^\pi (z,𝐤_T^\pi )`$, where $`𝐤_T^\pi `$ is the transverse momentum of the $`\pi `$ with respect to the direction of the fragmenting quark. When dealing with polarized processes, the introduction of this transverse momentum dependence opens the way to possible new spin effects, namely the Sivers effect , related to the distribution function and the Collins effect , related to the fragmentation function. More precisely, the Collins function describes an azimuthal asymmetry in the hadronization process of a transversely polarized quark, while the Sivers function does the same for the production of a quark form a transversely polarized hadron, usually the proton. The Sivers effect was first discarded in Ref.  on the basis of time reversal invariance. However it was shown recently in Ref.  that the observed asymmetry in SIDIS mentioned above, which was until then attributed only to the Collins effect, could be also explained by an effective Sivers effect. This mechanism is due to QCD final-state interactions from gluon exchange between the struck quark and the proton spectators, and it survives in the Bjorken limit. Collins himself has reconsidered his proof of the vanishing of the Sivers function  and it was shown in Ref.  that the model results of Ref.  are recovered properly in the light-cone gauge. In Drell-Yan processes, QCD initial-state interactions from gluon exchange between the incoming annihilating antiquark and the target spectators, can also give rise to a non-zero Sivers function   For a phenomenological study of transverse SSA in Drell-Yan processes, see also Ref. .. The SSA predicted for the Drell-Yan process $`\pi p^{}l^+l^{}X`$ is similar and of opposite sign to the SSA in $`lp^{}l\pi X`$ .

Once we have identified these two fundamental leading-twist QCD mechanisms to generate SSA, the Sivers and Collins effects, in order to study them in more detail it is important to be able to discriminate between them. §§§ The interference fragmentation function with the measurement of two pions in the final state is another possible leading-twist mechanism to produce non-zero SSA in several processes .. One way to achieve this is to consider weak interaction processes, as proposed in Ref. . We recall that with the Collins mechanism, the SSA is obtained from the transversity distribution function $`h_1^q`$ of a quark of the initial polarized hadron, convoluted with the Collins, $`𝐤_T`$ \- dependent fragmentation function. However in weak interaction processes, such as neutrino DIS on a polarized target or $`W`$ production in polarized hadron-hadron collisions, since the charged current only couples to quarks of one chirality, $`h_1^q`$ decouples and thus the observed SSA is not due to the Collins effect. This is not the case for the Sivers effect which will be able to generate a non-zero SSA, as we will see now.

Let us consider the inclusive production of a $`W^+`$ gauge boson in the reaction $`pp^{}W^+X`$, where one proton beam is transversely polarized. In the Drell-Yan picture in terms of the dominant quark-antiquark fusion reaction, the unpolarized cross-section reads

$$d\sigma =dx_ad^2𝐤_{Ta}dx_bd^2𝐤_{Tb}[u(x_a,𝐤_{Ta})\overline{d}(x_b,𝐤_{Tb)}+(u\overline{d})]d\widehat{\sigma }^{abW^+}.$$
(1)
Similarly, the SSA defined as

$$A_N^{W^+}=\frac{d\sigma ^{}d\sigma ^{}}{d\sigma ^{}+d\sigma ^{}}$$
(2)
can be expressed such as

$`d\sigma A_N^{W^+}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx_ad^2𝐤_{Ta}dx_bd^2𝐤_{Tb}[\mathrm{\Delta }^Nu(x_a,𝐤_{Ta})\overline{d}(x_b,𝐤_{Tb})`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{d}(x_a,𝐤_{Ta})u(x_b,𝐤_{Tb})]d\widehat{\sigma }^{abW^+}.`$
We recall the general definition of the $`𝐤_T`$ -dependent parton distributions inside a transversely polarized proton, up labeled with $``$ or down with $``$, namely

$`q(x,𝐤_T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[q_{}(x,𝐤_T)+q_{}(x,𝐤_T)]`$ (4)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[q_{}(x,𝐤_T)+q_{}(x,𝐤_T)]=q(x,k_T),`$
whereas for the Sivers functions  we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }q^N(x,𝐤_T)`$ $`=`$ $`q_{}(x,𝐤_T)q_{}(x,𝐤_T)`$ (5)
$`=q_{}(x,𝐤_T)q_{}(x,𝐤_T)=\mathrm{\Delta }q^N(x,k_T)𝐒_p\widehat{𝐩}\times 𝐤_T.`$
Here $`𝐒_p`$ denotes the transverse polarization of the proton of three-momentum $`𝐩`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ is a unit vector in the direction of $`𝐩`$. A priori the $`𝐤_T`$ -dependence of all these parton distributions is unknown, but as a first approximation one can assume a simple factorized form for the distribution functions and take for example, as in Ref.,

$$q(x,k_T)=q(x)f(k_T),$$
(6)
where $`f(k_T)`$ is flavor independent, and a similar expression for the corresponding Sivers functions. In such a situation, it is clear that the SSA will also factorize and then it reads

$$A_N^{W^+}(\sqrt{s},y,𝐩_T)=H(p_T)A^+(\sqrt{s},y)𝐒_p\widehat{𝐩}\times 𝐩_T,$$
(7)
where $`𝐩_T`$ is the transverse momentum of the $`W^+`$ produced at the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ and $`H(p_T)`$ is a function of $`p_T`$, the magnitude of $`𝐩_T`$. Obviously if the outgoing $`W^+`$ has no transverse momentum, the SSA will be zero , as expected. In the above expression we have now

$$A^+(\sqrt{s},y)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^Nu(x_a)\overline{d}(x_b)\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{d}(x_a)u(x_b)}{u(x_a)\overline{d}(x_b)+\overline{d}(x_a)u(x_b)},$$
(8)
where $`y`$ denotes the $`W^+`$ rapidity, which is related to $`x_a`$ and $`x_b`$. Actually we have $`x_a=\sqrt{\tau }e^y`$ and $`x_b=\sqrt{\tau }e^y`$, with $`\tau =M_W^2/s`$, and we note that a similar expression for $`A_N^W^{}`$, the SSA corresponding to $`W^{}`$ production, is obtained by permuting $`u`$ and $`d`$. For the $`y`$-dependent part of the SSA, one gets for $`y=0`$

$$A^+=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^Nu}{u}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{d}}{\overline{d}})\text{and}A^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^Nd}{d}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{u}}{\overline{u}})$$
(9)
evaluated at $`x=M_W/\sqrt{s}`$. Moreover a real flavor separation can be obtained away from $`y=0`$, since for $`y=1`$ one has

$$A^+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{d}}{\overline{d}}\text{and}A^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^N\overline{u}}{\overline{u}}$$
(10)
evaluated at $`x=0.059`$ and for $`y=+1`$ one has

$$A^+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^Nu}{u}\text{and}A^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^Nd}{d}$$
(11)
evaluated at $`x=0.435`$, at a c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=500\text{GeV}`$. So the region $`y1`$ is very sensitive to the antiquark Sivers functions, whereas the region $`y+1`$ is sensitive to the quark Sivers functions. It is interesting to notice the close correspondence between the expression for $`A^+`$ (see Eq. (8)) and the parity violating-asymmetry $`A_L^{W^+}`$ introduced in Ref. . Clearly, as well known, $`A_L^{W^\pm }`$ allows the flavor separation of the quark helicity distributions, similarly the measurement of $`A_N^{W^\pm }`$ is a practical way to separate the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks Sivers functions and their corresponding antiquarks $`\overline{u}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$. A straightforward interpretation of a non-zero $`A_L^{W^\pm }`$ is, in fact, a little bit more complicated because of its $`p_T`$ \- dependence, namely the factor $`H(p_T)`$ in Eq. (7), which is unknown. It is possible to avoid this difficulty and to increase statistics by integrating over the $`p_T`$ \- range of the produced $`W^\pm `$’s. This is part of the reason why we cannot make any reliable prediction for these SSA, but the observation of significant effects will be the unambiguous signature for the presence of non-zero Sivers functions. On the experimental side, we recall that a vast spin programme is under way at BNL-RHIC, which will operate with polarized proton beams, both transversely and longitudinally, up to $`\sqrt{s}=500\text{GeV}`$ . All appropriate studies have been now completed in view of the measurement of $`A_L^{W^\pm }`$, which will be precisely determined, because the high luminosity of the machine allows a copious production of $`W^\pm `$. So our proposal to measure $`A_N^{W^\pm }`$ is pretty obvious and does not requiere any further experimental effort. Another point worth mentioning is the fact that if one considers prompt photon production $`pp^{}\gamma X`$, with a transversely polarized proton, the SSA for this reaction, which does not involve any fragmentation function, is also directly sensitive to Sivers functions. Moreover, since the dominant subprocess is gluon Compton scattering $`gq\gamma q`$, by selecting the rapidity of the produced photon, it is possible to separate quark the Sivers function from the gluon Sivers function, this last object having not yet been considered in the literature. This process has been also carefully studied for the determination of the gluon helicity distribution at BNL-RHIC .

To summarize, these SSA which are very well accessible at BNL-RHIC, might open the way to a new class of relevant spin effects at high enrgies, contrary to naive expectations.

Acknowledgments:  This work is partially supported by Fondecyt (Chile) under Grant Number 1039355 and by the cooperation programme Ecos-Conicyt C99E08 between France and Chile.