text:
# Reversors and Symmetries for Polynomial Automorphisms of the Plane

## 1 Introduction

Polynomial maps provide one of the simplest, nontrivial classes of nonlinear dynamical systems. A subset of these, called polynomial automorphisms, have polynomial inverses—thus these maps are diffeomorphisms. Since this subset is closed under composition, polynomial automorphisms form a group that we denote by $`𝒢`$. These maps can have quite complicated dynamics, as exemplified by the renowned Hénon quadratic map , which is in $`𝒢`$. The family of generalized Hénon maps ,

$$h(x,y)=(y,p(y)\delta x),$$
(1)
for any polynomial $`p,`$ is also in $`𝒢`$ whenever $`\delta 0`$, since

$$h^1(x,y)=(\delta ^1(p(x)y),x),$$

is also polynomial. These maps are area-preserving when $`\delta =\pm 1`$, and orientation-preserving when $`\delta >0`$.

The structure of $`𝒢`$ is well understood, thanks to a classic result of Jung . In this paper we will make use of Jung’s theorem to investigate polynomial automorphisms that have symmetries or reversing symmetries in $`𝒢`$. Our results also extensively use the normal form for polynomial automorphisms as compositions of generalized Hénon maps obtained by Friedland and Milnor .

A diffeomorphism $`g`$ has a symmetry if it is conjugate to itself; that is, there exists a diffeomorphism $`S`$ such that

$$g=S^1gS.$$
(2)
Similarly, $`g`$ has a reversing symmetry, or is “reversible”, if it is conjugate to its inverse ; that is, there exists a diffeomorphism $`R`$ such that

$$g^1=R^1gR.$$
(3)
For example, generalized Hénon maps are reversible when $`\delta =1`$, and they have a nontrivial symmetry when there is an $`\omega 1`$ such that $`p(\omega y)=\omega p(y)`$. Reversible maps occur often in applications. For example, reversibility often arises for Hamiltonian systems because their phase spaces consist of coordinates $`q`$ and momenta $`p`$, and a transformation that reverses the momenta, $`R(q,p)=(q,p)`$, often corresponds to reversal of time. Our goal in this paper is to classify the polynomial automorphisms that satisfy (2) or (3) with $`S,R𝒢`$.

The basic properties of symmetries and reversors are discussed in  and reviewed in . The set of symmetries of $`g`$ is never empty since the identity always satisfies (2). Moreover, since the composition of any two symmetries is also a symmetry, they form a group

$$\text{Sym}(g)=\{S𝒢:S^1gS=g\}.$$
(4)
In group theory terminology, $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ is the centralizer of $`g`$ in $`𝒢`$. Note that the family $`\{g^j:j\}`$ is a subgroup of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$. We will say that $`S`$ is a nontrivial symmetry of $`g`$ in the case that $`Sg^j`$. If all of the symmetries of $`g`$ are trivial then $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ is isomorphic to $``$ (or to $`_n`$ if $`g`$ has finite order).

Similarly, whenever $`R`$ is a reversor for $`g`$, then so are each of the members of the family

$$\{R_{j,k}=g^jR^{2k+1}:j,k\},$$
(5)
Thus if $`R`$ is a reversor, then its inverse is one as well. On the other hand, the composition of any two reversors is a symmetry of $`g`$ (and is not a reversor unless $`g`$ is an involution). Thus for example, if $`R`$ is a reversor then $`R^2`$ is a symmetry. Moreover, the composition of a symmetry and of a reversing symmetry of $`g`$ yields a reversing symmetry. It follows that the set of all symmetries and reversing symmetries of $`g`$ is a group, usually referred as the group of reversing symmetries of $`g`$

$$\text{Rev}(g)=\{f𝒢:f^1gf=g^{\pm 1}\}.$$
(6)
The group $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ is a normal subgroup of $`\text{Rev}(g)`$ and $`\text{Rev}(g)/\text{Sym}(g)`$ is isomorphic to $`_2`$, the permutation group with two elements. The properties of the group of reversing symmetries have been investigated in several recent papers  as well as the papers in the collection .

Reversors arising in physical examples often are involutions, $`R^2=id`$, so that $`R`$ generates a group $`R=\{id,R\}_2`$. If $`g`$ possesses an involutory reversing symmetry $`R`$, then $`\text{Rev}(g)=\text{Sym}(g)R`$ ;111 Recall that the semidirect product $`𝒢=𝒩`$ where $`𝒩`$ is a normal subgroup of $`𝒢`$ is defined so that if $`g=(n,m)𝒢`$ then the product is $`g_1g_2=(n_1m_1n_2m_1^1,m_1m_2)`$. This contrasts with the direct product $`𝒩\times `$ where $`g_1g_2=(n_1n_2,m_1m_2)`$.  therefore, in this case it suffices to determine the structure of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ to obtain a full description of $`\text{Rev}(g)`$. However, reversors need not be involutions; examples of maps with noninvolutory reversors (called weakly reversible by Sevryuk ) were given by Lamb . As we will see in §4, any reversor in $`\text{Rev}(g)`$ has finite order, $`R^k=id`$. Note that if $`k`$ were odd, then $`g`$ would itself be an involution and thus is dynamically trivial; so if we restrict to nontrivial maps in $`𝒢`$, then their reversors have even order. Moreover, for real maps and reversors, we will show that the order must be two or four. After we submitted the current paper, we learned that Roberts and Baake have also announced this result for real maps in $`𝒢`$ .

We will also demonstrate that if $`g`$ has a nontrivial symmetry, then there is a subgroup of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ generated by an finite-order map and a “root” of $`g`$. In particular, we will show

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose $`g`$ is a polynomial automorphism of the plane that possesses nontrivial symmetries. Then $`g`$ is conjugate to a map of the form

$$s(H)^q,$$

where $`H`$ is a composition of generalized Hénon maps (1), $`s`$ is a diagonal linear map with finite order, $`s^k=id`$, and either $`sid`$ or $`q1`$. The normal form has commuting symmetries $`s`$ and $`H`$,and $`\text{Sym}(G)H\times s\times _k`$.

This theorem is stated in a more detailed way in §3 as Thm. 7 and Cor. 9. Note that for the real case, $`s`$ is at most order two (this result was also announced in ).

In a previous paper we obtained normal forms for the automorphisms that are reversible by an involution in $`𝒢`$ . Just as in , these normal forms are constructed from compositions of generalized Hénon maps; however, in this case, the reversors are introduced by including two involutions in this composition. We showed there that the involutions can be normalized to be either “elementary” involutions, or the simple affine permutation

$$t(x,y)=(y,x).$$
(7)
The second major result of the current paper is that in the general case, reversible automorphisms also have at least two basic reversors that are also either elementary or affine. In particular we will prove

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose $`g`$ is a nontrivial reversible automorphism. Then $`g`$ possesses a reversor of order $`2n`$ in $`𝒢`$ and is conjugate to one of the following classes:

* $`\tau _\omega ^1H^1\tau _\omega H,`$
* $`\tau _\omega ^1H^1e_2H`$,
* $`e_1^1tH^1e_2Ht`$,

where

* the map $`H`$ is a composition of generalized Hénon transformations (1),
* $`\tau _\omega `$ is the affine reversor, $`\tau _\omega (x,y)=(\omega y,x)`$, such that $`\omega `$ is a primitive $`n^{\text{th}}`$ root of unity, and
* the maps $`e_1,e_2`$ are elementary reversors,

$$e_i(x,y)=(p_i(y)\delta _ix,ϵ_iy)$$

where $`p_i(ϵ_iy)=\delta _ip_i(y)`$ and $`ϵ_i^2,\delta _i^2`$ are primitive $`n^{\text{th}}`$ roots of unity.

As we will see in §4, the reversor is an involution ($`n=1`$) unless the polynomials in the Hénon maps and the elementary transformations satisfy a common scaling condition. In this case we will see that $`\omega `$, $`ϵ_i^2`$ and $`\delta _i^2`$ lie in subsets of the $`n^{\text{th}}`$ roots of unity that we will explicitly construct.

We also show in §4 that the maps in Thm. 2 can be normalized, and that once this is done the normal forms are unique up to finitely many choices. These details are contained in the more complete statement, Thm. 12.

We finish the paper with a discussion of some examples and their dynamics.

## 2 Background

We start by giving some definitions and basic results concerning the algebraic structure of the group $`𝒢`$, presenting our notation, and reviewing the work of Friedland and Milnor .

### Jung’s Theorem

The group $`𝒢`$ is the group of polynomial automorphisms of the complex plane, the set of bijective maps

$$g:(x,y)(X(x,y),Y(x,y)),X,Y[x,y],$$

having a polynomial inverse. Here $`[x,y]`$ is the ring of polynomials in the variables $`x`$ and $`y`$, with coefficients in $``$. In general, we consider this complex case, but in some instances we will restrict to the case of real maps. The degree of $`g`$ is defined as the largest of the degrees of $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

The subgroup $`𝒢`$ of elementary (or triangular) maps consists of maps of the form

$$e:(x,y)(\alpha x+p(y),\beta y+\eta ),$$
(8)
where $`\alpha \beta 0`$ and $`p(y)`$ is any polynomial. The subgroup of affine automorphisms is denoted by $`𝒜`$. The affine-elementary maps will be denoted by $`𝒮=𝒜`$.

We let $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ denote the group of diagonal affine automorphisms,

$$\widehat{s}:(x,y)(\alpha x+\xi ,\beta y+\eta ).$$
(9)
The group $`\widehat{𝒮}`$ is the largest subgroup of $`𝒮`$ normalized by the permutation $`t`$ (7), i.e., such that $`t\widehat{𝒮}t=\widehat{𝒮}`$. On the other hand, the centralizer of $`t`$ in $`𝒮`$ is the subgroup of maps that commute with $`t`$

$$C_𝒮(t)=\{s𝒮:sts^1=t\}.$$

These are the diagonal automorphisms (9) with $`\alpha =\beta `$ and $`\xi =\eta `$. Conjugacy by $`t`$ will be denoted by $`\varphi `$,

$$\varphi (g)=tgt.$$
(10)
Thus if $`sC_𝒮(t)`$, then $`\varphi (s)=s`$.

According to Jung’s Theorem  every polynomial automorphism $`g𝒮`$, can be written as

$$g=g_mg_{m1}\mathrm{}g_2g_1,g_i\left(𝒜\right)𝒮,i=1,\mathrm{}m,$$
(11)
with consecutive terms belonging to different subgroups $`𝒜`$ or $``$. An expression of the form (11) is called a reduced word of length $`m`$. An important property of a map written in this form is that its degree is the product of the degrees of the terms in the composition \[3, Thm. 2.1\]. A consequence of this fact is that the identity cannot be expressed as a reduced word \[3, Cor. 2.1\]. This means that $`𝒢`$ is the free product of $``$ and $`𝒜`$ amalgamated along $`𝒮`$. The structure of $`𝒢`$ as an amalgamated free product determines the way in which reduced words that correspond to the same polynomial automorphism, are related.

###### Theorem 3.

(cf. \[3, Cor. 2.3\], or \[16, Thm. 4.4\]) Two reduced words $`g_m\mathrm{}g_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1`$ represent the same polynomial automorphism $`g`$ if and only if $`n=m`$ and there exist maps $`s_i𝒮,i=0,\mathrm{},m`$ such that $`s_0=s_m=id`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g_i}=s_ig_is_{i1}^1`$.

From this theorem it follows that the length of a reduced word (11) as well as the degrees of its terms are uniquely determined by $`g`$. The sequence of degrees $`(l_1,\mathrm{},l_n)`$ corresponding to the maps $`(g_1,\mathrm{},g_m)`$, after eliminating the $`1`$’s coming from affine terms, is referred to as the polydegree of $`g`$.

A map is said to be cyclically-reduced in the trivial case that it belongs to $`𝒜`$ or when it can be written as a reduced word (11) with $`m2`$ and $`g_m`$, $`g_1`$ not in the same subgroup $``$ or $`𝒜`$.

### Conjugacies of Polynomial Autormorphims

Two maps $`g,\stackrel{~}{g}𝒢`$ are conjugate in $`𝒢`$ if there exists $`f𝒢`$ such that $`g=f\stackrel{~}{g}f^1`$. If $`f`$ belongs to some subgroup $``$ of $`𝒢`$ we say that $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are $``$-conjugate. It can be easily seen that every $`g𝒢`$ is conjugate to a cyclically-reduced map. Moreover, an explicit calculation shows that every affine map $`a`$ can be written as $`a=st\stackrel{~}{s}`$, where $`t`$ is given by (7) and $`s,\stackrel{~}{s}`$ are affine-elementary maps. From these facts it follows that every polynomial automorphism is either trivial (i.e., conjugate to an elementary or an affine map) or is conjugate to a reduced word of the form,

$$g=te_m\mathrm{}te_2te_1,e_i𝒮,i=1,\mathrm{}m,m1.$$
(12)
Moreover this representative of the conjugacy class is unique up to modifications of the maps $`e_i`$ by diagonal affine automorphisms and cyclic reordering. More precisely we have the following theorem (following \[16, Thm. 4.6\]).

###### Theorem 4.

Two nontrivial, cyclically-reduced words $`g=g_m\mathrm{}g_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1`$ are $`𝒢`$-conjugate if and only if $`m=n`$ and there exist automorphisms $`s_i𝒮,i=0,\mathrm{},m`$ with $`s_ms_0`$, and a cyclic permutation,

$$(\widehat{g}_m,\mathrm{},\widehat{g}_1)=(\stackrel{~}{g}_k,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{g}_1,\stackrel{~}{g}_m,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{g}_{k+1})$$

such that $`\widehat{g}_i=s_ig_is_{i1}^1`$. In that case,

$$s_0gs_0^1=\widehat{g}_m\mathrm{}\widehat{g}_1.$$

In particular, if $`g=te_m\mathrm{}te_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=t\stackrel{~}{e}_m\mathrm{}t\stackrel{~}{e}_1`$ are conjugate, there exist diagonal automorphisms $`s_i\widehat{𝒮},s_ms_0`$, and a cyclic reordering,

$$(\widehat{e}_m,\mathrm{},\widehat{e}_1)=(\stackrel{~}{e}_k,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\stackrel{~}{e}_m\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_{k+1}),$$

such that $`t\widehat{e}_i=s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$ and

$$s_0gs_0^1=t\widehat{e}_m\mathrm{}t\widehat{e}_1.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`g=g_m\mathrm{}g_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1`$ be two nontrivial, cyclically-reduced, conjugate words. By assumption, there is a reduced word $`f=f_k\mathrm{}f_1𝒢`$, such that $`g=f\stackrel{~}{g}f^1`$. Then,

$$g_m\mathrm{}g_1=f_k\mathrm{}f_1\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1f_1^1\mathrm{}f_k^1.$$
(13)
However, the word on the right hand side of (13) is not reduced. Since $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is cyclically-reduced, we can suppose, with no loss of generality, that $`f_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_1`$ belong to the same subgroup $`𝒜`$ or $``$, so that $`f_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_n`$ lie in different subgroups. Taking into account Thm. 3 and that (13) represents a cyclically-reduced map, we can reduce to obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1f_1^1\mathrm{}f_k^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{k+1}\stackrel{~}{s}_k\hfill & \text{if }nk\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{s}_nf_{n+1}^1\mathrm{}f_k^1\hfill & \text{if }n<k,\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
where $`\stackrel{~}{s}_n,\stackrel{~}{s}_k𝒮`$. Moreover there exist $`\stackrel{~}{s}_i𝒮,\stackrel{~}{s}_0=id`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_i\stackrel{~}{s}_{i1}f_i^1=\stackrel{~}{s}_i,`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{min}(n,k)`$.

For the case $`nk`$,

$`g_m\mathrm{}g_1`$ $`=f_k\mathrm{}f_1\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{k+1}\stackrel{~}{s}_k`$
$`=(\stackrel{~}{s}_k^1\stackrel{~}{g}_k)\stackrel{~}{g}_{k1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_1\stackrel{~}{g}_n\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{k+2}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{k+1}\stackrel{~}{s}_k),`$
and applying Thm. 3 we have the result. The case $`n<k`$ follows analogously.

To prove the second statement of this theorem it is enough to recall that given $`s𝒮`$, $`tst`$ stays in $`𝒮`$ if and only if $`s`$ is diagonal. ∎

This implies that the length of a cyclically-reduced word is an invariant of the conjugacy class. Since a nontrivial, cyclically-reduced word has the same number of elementary and affine terms, we refer to this number as the semilength of the word. Thm. 4 also implies that two cyclically-reduced maps that are conjugate have the same polydegree up to cyclic permutations. We will call this sequence the polydegree of the conjugacy class.

### Generalized Hénon transformations

A generalized Hénon transformation is any map of the form (1) where $`\delta 0`$ and $`p(y)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`l2`$. Notice that a generalized Hénon transformation can be written as the composition

$$h=te,e(x,y)=(p(y)\delta x,y).$$

If $`p(y)`$ has leading coefficient equal to $`1`$ ($`\pm 1`$ in the case of real automorphisms) and center of mass at $`0`$,

$$p(y)=y^l+O(y^{l2}),$$
(15)
we say that the polynomial is normal, and consequently that the Hénon transformation is normalized. In , Friedland and Milnor obtained normal forms for conjugacy classes of elements in $`𝒢`$, in terms of generalized Hénon transformations.

###### Theorem 5.

\[3, Thm. 2.6\] Every nontrivial $`g𝒢`$ is conjugate to a composition of generalized Hénon transformations, $`h_m\mathrm{}h_1`$. Additionally it can be required that each of the terms $`h_i`$ be normalized and in that case the resulting normal form is unique, up to finitely many choices.

To prove this result it is enough to take Thm. 4 into account and check that, given a map $`g=te_m\mathrm{}te_i`$, it is possible to choose diagonal affine automorphisms $`s_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, in such a way that $`s_m`$ coincides with $`s_0`$, and for every $`i`$, $`s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$ is a normalized Hénon transformation. In the next section we will use the following generalization of Thm. 5.

###### Lemma 6.

Given a cyclically-reduced map of the form (12), there exist diagonal affine automorphisms $`s_m,s_0C_𝒮(t)`$, such that

$$s_mgs_0^1=h_m\mathrm{}h_1,$$

where every term $`h_i`$ is a normal Hénon transformation. The Hénon maps are unique up to finitely many choices.

###### Proof.

Consider a cyclically reduced map (12), with

$$te_i:(x,y)(\beta _iy+\eta _i,\alpha _ix+p_i(y)),i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$

We look first for diagonal affine maps $`s_i,i=0,\mathrm{},m`$, with $`s_0,s_mC_𝒮(t)`$ and such that the maps $`t\widehat{e}_i=s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$ are Hénon transformations. If we denote

$$s_i(x,y)=(u,v)=(a_ix+b_i,c_iy+d_i),$$

the problem reduces to the set of equations,

$$a_0=c_0,b_0=d_0,a_m=c_m,b_m=d_m,$$

and

$$\beta _ia_i=c_{i1},b_i=d_{i1}\eta _ia_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$

This system can be easily solved in terms of $`2m`$ parameters; a particular solution is obtained by choosing $`c_0=\mathrm{}=c_{m1}=1`$ and $`d_0=\mathrm{}=d_{m1}=0`$. We can assume now that the terms $`te_i`$ in (12) are already Hénon maps, but not necessarily in normal form. In that case,

$$te_i:(x_{i1},x_i)(x_i,x_{i+1}),x_{i+1}=p_i(x_i)\delta _ix_{i1}.$$

Setting $`s_i(x_i,x_{i+1})=(y_i,y_{i+1}),y_i=a_ix_i+b_i`$ and $`t\widehat{e}_i=s_i(te_i)s_{i1}^1`$, we have,

$$t\widehat{e}_i:(y_{i1},y_i)(y_i,y_{i+1}),y_{i+1}=\widehat{p}_i(y_i)\widehat{\delta }_iy_{i1},$$

$$\widehat{p}_i(y)=a_{i+1}p_i\left(\frac{yb_i}{a_i}\right)+\text{const.},\widehat{\delta }_i=\frac{a_{i+1}}{a_{i1}}\delta _i.$$

In order to have leading coefficients equal to $`1`$ we need

$$\kappa _ia_{i+1}=a_i^{l_i},i=1,\mathrm{},m,$$

where $`\kappa _i`$ is the leading coefficient of $`p_i`$. On the other hand we require $`a_{m+1}=a_m,a_1=a_0`$, since by assumption $`s_m,s_0C_𝒮(t)`$. It is easy to see that these conditions yield $`a_1`$ up to $`l^{th}`$-roots of unity, where $`l=l_1\mathrm{}l_{m1}(l_m1)`$. All other $`a_i`$ are then uniquely determined. Finally, the coefficients $`b_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, can be chosen so that the next to highest order terms are equal to zero and we set $`b_0=b_1`$ and $`b_{m+1}=b_m`$ to ensure that $`s_0,s_m`$ are in the centralizer of $`t`$.

The above arguments also show that the terms $`t\widehat{e}_i`$ are unique up to replacing the polynomials $`\widehat{p}_i(y)`$ and parameters $`\widehat{\delta }_i`$ with $`\zeta ^{l_i\mathrm{}l_0}\widehat{p}_i(y/\zeta ^{l_{i1}\mathrm{}l_0})`$ and $`\zeta ^{l_il_{i1}}\widehat{\delta _i}`$ respectively, where $`\zeta `$ is any $`l\text{th-}`$ root of unity and $`l_0=1`$. ∎

### Roots of Unity

As the proof of Lem. 6 shows, the normal forms for polynomial automorphisms are unique only up to a scaling by certain roots of unity. In subsequent sections, we will see that symmetric and reversible automorphisms are associated with several subgroups of the roots of unity. In anticipation of these results, we provide some notation for these subgroups.

Let $`𝒰`$ be the group of all roots of unity in $``$ (the points with rational angles on the unit circle) and $`𝒰_n`$ be the group of $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity:

$$𝒰_n\{z:z^n=1\}.$$
(16)
Given a sequence of normal (15) (nonlinear) polynomials, $`p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_m(y)`$, and some root of unity $`\zeta `$, define the set $`(\zeta )=(\zeta ;p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_m(y))`$, by

$$(\zeta )\{\omega :\omega p_{2i+1}(\omega y)=\zeta p_{2i+1}(y),\omega p_{2i}(\omega y)=p_{2i}(\zeta y),12i,2i+1m\}.$$
(17)
It can be observed that if $`\omega (\zeta )`$ then $`\omega ^1(\zeta ^1)`$, while if $`\omega _1(\zeta _1)`$ and $`\omega _2(\zeta _2)`$ it follows that $`\omega _1\omega _2(\zeta _1\zeta _2)`$. Thus, the set

$$_{}\underset{\zeta 𝒰}{}(\zeta ),$$
(18)
is a subgroup of $`𝒰`$. Moreover, unless the sequence of polynomials reduces to one monomial, there are only finitely many $`\zeta 𝒰`$ such that $`(\zeta )`$ is nonempty. In this case $`_{}`$ has finite order, hence it coincides with one of the groups $`𝒰_n`$. On the other hand given any $`\omega _{}`$, the definition (17) implies that there is a unique

$$\zeta (\omega )=\zeta \text{ such that }\omega (\zeta ).$$
(19)
Now we define the set

$$_𝒜\{\omega 𝒰:p_i(\omega y)=\omega p_i(y),i=1,\mathrm{},m\}.$$
(20)
It can be seen that $`_𝒜`$ is a subgroup of the group of roots of unity $`𝒰`$. Moreover, $`\omega _𝒜`$ iff $`\zeta (\omega )=\omega ^2`$, i.e. iff $`\omega (\omega ^2)`$, so that $`_𝒜`$ is a subgroup of $`_{}`$. Note that $`_𝒜`$ has finite order for any nonempty sequence of (nonlinear) polynomials.

Finally we define the subgroup $`𝒩`$ of $`_{}`$ by

$$𝒩\{\omega :\omega p_i(\omega y)=\zeta p_i(y),\text{ for some }\zeta _𝒜\}=\underset{\zeta _𝒜}{}(\zeta ),$$
(21)
and the subgroup of $`_𝒜`$ defined by

$$𝒩^{}\{\zeta _𝒜:(\zeta )\mathrm{}\}.$$
(22)
These groups have the ordering

$$𝒩^{}_𝒜𝒩_{}𝒰.$$
(23)
###### Example 2.1.

Given the three normal polynomials

$$p_1(y)=y^5,p_2(y)=y^{13}+ay^5,p_3(y)=y^{21},$$

then if $`a0`$ we find that $`(\zeta )`$ is nonempty only for $`\zeta 𝒰_4`$ and that

$$𝒩^{}=_𝒜=𝒰_4𝒩=_{}=𝒰_8.$$

On the other hand, if $`a=0`$ then

$$𝒩^{}=_𝒜=𝒰_4𝒩=𝒰_8_{}=𝒰_{16}.$$

## 3 Symmetric Automorphisms

In this section we investigate the structure of cyclically reduced words that represent polynomial automorphisms possessing nontrivial symmetries. We will show that if $`g`$ is a nontrivial polynomial automorphism with nontrivial symmetries, then $`g`$ is conjugate to a map of the form $`sH^q`$. In this form, $`s`$ is a finite-order, affine-elementary symmetry and $`H`$ is a cyclically reduced symmetry. This decomposition of $`g`$ gives rise to a subgroup of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ isomorphic to $`\times _n`$ where $`n`$ is the order of $`s`$. Similar subgroups have been found for the particular case of polynomial mappings of generalized standard form .

Using Thm. 5 we can, with no loss of generality, assume that $`g`$ is in Hénon normal form.

###### Theorem 7.

Suppose that $`g=h_mh_{m1}\mathrm{}h_1`$ is a polynomial automorphism in Hénon normal form with a nontrivial symmetry in $`𝒢`$. Then there exist diagonal linear transformations $`s,\stackrel{~}{s}`$ such that $`s`$ has finite order and

$$g=s^j(\stackrel{~}{g})^q,\text{ where }\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{s}h_r\mathrm{}h_1;$$
(24)
where $`s,\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are commuting symmetries of $`g`$, $`m=qr`$, and either $`sid`$ or $`q1`$.

###### Proof.

By assumption there is a nontrivial symmetry, $`f`$, and by the condition (2), since $`g`$ is cyclically reduced, $`f`$ must be either an affine-elementary map or a nontrivial cyclically reduced word. The set $`\{g^jf^k:j,k\}`$ is a subgroup of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$. By replacing $`f`$ with some convenient element in that subgroup if necessary and using Thm. 4, we may assume that $`f=s_mh_k\mathrm{}h_1,`$ with $`s_m`$ a diagonal affine map, and $`0k<m`$. In this case the relation $`fgf^1=g`$ becomes

$$s_mh_k\mathrm{}h_1h_m\mathrm{}h_{k+1}s_m^1=h_m\mathrm{}h_1.$$

Since $`h_i=te_i`$, Thm. 3 then implies the existence of diagonal affine maps $`s_i,i=0\mathrm{}m1`$, with $`s_0=s_m`$ such that

$$h_{i+k}=s_i^1h_is_{i1},$$
(25)
where the indices should be understood $`\text{mod }m`$.

Let $`r=\mathrm{gcd}(m,k)`$ the greatest common divisor of $`m`$ and $`k`$, and define integers $`q,p`$ such that $`m=qr,`$ $`k=pr`$. In this case there exist integers $`j`$ and $`a`$ such that $`r=jkam`$ where we may assume $`j,a>0`$ . It then follows that $`rjk\text{mod }m,`$ so that $`h_{r+i}=h_{jk+i}`$. Iterating (25) we obtain

$$h_{i+r}=s_{i+(j1)k}^1\mathrm{}s_{i+k}^1s_i^1(h_i)s_{i1}s_{i1+k}\mathrm{}s_{i1+(j1)k}.$$

Defining $`\stackrel{~}{g}_n=h_{nr}h_{nr1}\mathrm{}h_{(n1)r+1}`$, we then obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{n+1}=\stackrel{~}{s}_n^1\stackrel{~}{g}_n\stackrel{~}{s}_{n1},\text{ for }n=1,\mathrm{},q1,$$
(26)
where $`\stackrel{~}{s}_n=s_{nr}s_{nr+k}\mathrm{}s_{nr+(j1)k}`$. Since $`m=qr`$, we can use induction on (26) to obtain

$$g=\stackrel{~}{s}_{q1}^1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{s}_1^1\stackrel{~}{s}_0^1\stackrel{~}{g}^q$$
(27)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{s}_0h_r\mathrm{}h_1=\stackrel{~}{s}_0\stackrel{~}{g}_1.$$
(28)
The leading affine-elementary map in (27) is actually the $`j`$-th power of a simpler map since $`rjk\text{mod }m`$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{s}_n=s_{njk}s_{(nj+1)k}\mathrm{}s_{((n+1)j1)k}`$. Using this we regroup the $`q`$ groups of $`j`$ terms as $`j`$ groups of $`q`$ to obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{s}_0\stackrel{~}{s}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{s}_{q1}`$ $`=(s_0s_k\mathrm{}s_{(j1)k})(s_{jk}\mathrm{}s_{(2j1)k})\mathrm{}(s_{(q1)jk}\mathrm{}s_{(jq1)k})`$
$`=(s_0s_k\mathrm{}s_{(q1)k})(s_{qk}\mathrm{}s_{(2q1)k})\mathrm{}(s_{(j1)qk}\mathrm{}s_{(jq1)k})`$
$`=(s_0s_k\mathrm{}s_{(q1)k})^j`$
since $`qk0\text{mod }m`$. Thus we have shown that whenever $`g`$ has a symmetry it has the form (24) with

$$ss_{(q1)k}^1\mathrm{}s_k^1s_0^1.$$

We still have to prove that $`s\text{Sym}(g)`$. Using (25) and the fact that $`h_{m+i}=h_i`$ allows us to obtain

$$h_i=s_{m+ik}^1\mathrm{}s_{m+iqk}^1(h_{m+iqk})s_{m+i1qk}\mathrm{}s_{m+i1k}.$$

As $`qk0\text{mod }m`$ the above relations imply

$$s_{m+rqk}\mathrm{}s_{m+rk}(h_r\mathrm{}h_1)=(h_r\mathrm{}h_1)s_{mqk}\mathrm{}s_{mk},$$

which readily yields $`s\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{g}s`$. To see that $`s`$ must be of finite order, note that since $`g`$ is assumed to be in normal Hénon form, the relation

$$sh_m\mathrm{}h_1s^1=h_m\mathrm{}h_1$$

means that $`s`$ is a diagonal linear transformation

$$s:(x,y)(a_0x,a_1y),$$

that conjugates a normal form to itself. Then, as in Lem. 6, the scaling factors $`a_0,a_1`$ must be roots of unity, so that $`s`$ has finite order. Similarly since each of the $`s_i`$ are diagonal, so is $`\stackrel{~}{s}_0`$.

To finish we show that if $`f`$ is a nontrivial symmetry then either $`sid`$ or $`q1`$. To see this we observe that (26) gives

$`f`$ $`=s_mh_k\mathrm{}h_1,`$
$`=s_m(\stackrel{~}{s}_{p1}^1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{s}_0^1)(\stackrel{~}{s}_0h_r\mathrm{}h_1)^p,`$
$`=s^a\stackrel{~}{g}^p,`$
where we used $`k=pr`$ and that $`jkr\text{mod }m`$. Therefore if $`q=1`$ then $`m=r=k`$ so that $`j=p=1`$, so that when $`s=id`$ then $`f=\stackrel{~}{g}=g`$ is a trivial symmetry. ∎

Note that since $`s`$ has finite order and is a diagonal linear map, then if it is real it must be an involution.

From this theorem we see that every polynomial automorphism that possesses nontrivial symmetries and is not the $`q`$-fold iteration of a nontrivial automorphism must have nontrivial symmetries conjugate to affine-elementary maps. In the case of a map given in Hénon normal form it is not difficult to establish conditions under which the group of such symmetries is nontrivial.

###### Proposition 8.

If $`s`$ is an affine-elementary symmetry of the Hénon normal form map $`g=h_m\mathrm{}h_1`$, then $`s=s_\omega `$ where

$$s_\omega (x,y)=(\frac{\zeta (\omega )}{\omega }x,\omega y),\omega 𝒰_k$$
(29)
where $`𝒰_k=_{}`$ if $`m`$ is even, and $`𝒰_k=_𝒜`$ if $`m`$ is odd. Thus the set of affine elementary symmetries is a cyclic group isomorphic to $`𝒰_k`$.

###### Proof.

According to Thm. 3, $`s𝒮`$ is a symmetry if and only if there exist maps $`s_i\widehat{𝒮},`$ $`i=0,\mathrm{},m,`$ $`s_0=s_m=s,`$ such that

$$s_ih_is_{i1}^1=h_i.$$
(30)
Moreover, given that $`g`$ is in normal form, each of the maps $`s_i`$ must be of the form $`s_i(x,y)=(a_ix,a_{i+1}y)`$. In that case (30) translates into the conditions

$$a_{i1}=a_{i+1},a_0=a_m,$$

$$p_i(a_ix)=a_{i+1}p_i(x).$$

When $`m`$ is even, we must have $`a_{2k+1}=\omega `$ and $`a_{2k}=\zeta (\omega )/\omega `$ for $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\zeta (\omega )`$ is defined by (19). Thus $`s=s_0`$ has the promised form. Since $`\zeta (\omega ^2)=(\zeta (\omega ))^2`$, the set of symmetries $`s𝒮`$ is a cyclic group isomorphic to $`_{}`$.

In a similar way if $`m`$ is odd, all $`a_i`$ must be equal to some $`\omega _𝒜`$, (20), so that $`s(x,y)=(\omega x,\omega y)`$. Moreover since $`\zeta (\omega )=\omega ^2`$ for $`\omega _𝒜`$, the symmetries $`s𝒮`$ are of the promised form, and they form a cyclic group isomorphic to $`_𝒜`$. ∎

Finally, as a corollary to these results we can prove a more complete statement of Thm. 1.

###### Corollary 9.

Suppose $`g`$ is a polynomial automorphism of the plane that possesses nontrivial symmetries. Then $`g`$ is conjugate to a map of the form

$$s_\omega (H)^q,$$

where $`H=h_nh_{n1}\mathrm{}h_1`$ is a composition of normal generalized Hénon maps (1) and $`s_\omega `$ is given by (29) where $`\omega _{}`$ if $`nq`$ is even and $`\omega _𝒜`$ if $`nq`$ is odd. The normal form has commuting symmetries $`s_\omega `$ and $`H`$, and either $`\omega 1`$ or $`q1`$.

###### Proof.

According to Thm. 7, $`g`$ is conjugate to $`s^j(\stackrel{~}{s}H)^q`$. Using Thm. 6, we can conjugate this map with a new diagonal-affine transformation to normalize the map $`\stackrel{~}{s}H`$. The conjugacy commutes with $`s^j`$ since both are diagonal, and according to Prop. 8, $`s^j`$ has the promised form. ∎

## 4 Reversible automorphisms

In  we described conjugacy classes for polynomial automorphisms that are reversible by involutions. Although the involution condition appears in a natural way in many cases and it was originally one of the ingredients in the definition of reversible systems , this requirement can be relaxed. Indeed, many of the features still hold in the more general case (see, e.g.,  for further discussion). Moreover, all maps with an involutory reversor are reversible in the more general sense. Finally, it is certainly true that there exist reversible maps that do not possess any involution as a reversor; for example . We begin by showing that the general reversor in $`𝒢`$ is conjugate to one that is affine or elementary. Then we will show that every reversor in $`𝒢`$ is of finite order. Finally we prove the main theorem.

### Affine and Elementary Reversors

###### Lemma 10.

If $`g𝒢`$ is nontrivial and reversible, then it is conjugate to an automorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ that has an elementary or an affine reversor. If the semilength of $`g`$ is odd, then $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ has an affine reversor.

###### Proof.

Following (12), we may assume that $`g=te_m\mathrm{}te_1`$ is written as a cyclically reduced word. Similarly let $`R`$ be the reduced word for a reversing symmetry of $`g`$. Since both $`g`$ and $`g^1=R^1gR`$ are cyclically reduced, then unless $`R`$ is in $`𝒜`$, it cannot be a nontrivial cyclically reduced map. Recall that if $`R`$ is a reversor for $`g`$ so are the maps $`Rg^j`$ and that they have the same order as $`R`$ if this order is even. Thus without loss of generality, we can assume that $`R`$ is shorter than $`g`$; otherwise as in the proof of Thm. 4, there is an $`\stackrel{~}{R}=Rg^j`$ for some $`j`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ shorter than $`g`$ and is also a reversor. Moreover, by replacing $`R`$ with $`Rg`$ if necessary, we can assume that

$$R=s_0^1e_kt\mathrm{}te_1,s_0\widehat{𝒮},k<m,s_0\widehat{𝒮}.$$
(31)
Following Thm. 4 and given that $`g=Rg^1R^1`$, there must exist maps $`s_i\widehat{𝒮}`$ such that $`te_i^{}^1=s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$ for $`i^{}=ki+1`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, where the indices are taken modulus $`m`$. Consider then the map $`\widehat{g}=fgf^1`$, where $`f=te_\nu \mathrm{}te_1`$, and $`k=2\nu `$ or $`k=2\nu +1`$. Then a simple calculation shows that $`\widehat{g}`$ has a reversor $`\widehat{R}=fRf^1`$ that is either $`s_\nu ^1t`$ when $`k`$ is even or $`s_\nu ^1e_{\nu +1}`$ when $`k`$ is odd. Thus $`\widehat{g}`$ is conjugate to $`g`$ and has a reversor in $`𝒜`$.

Now suppose that the semilength of the conjugacy class is odd and that $`g=te_{2k+1}\mathrm{}te_1`$ has an elementary reversor, $`R=s_0^1e_1`$. Reordering terms we see that the map

$$\widehat{g}=te_{k+1}\mathrm{}te_2te_1te_{2k+1}\mathrm{}te_{k+2}$$

has an affine reversing symmetry $`\widehat{R}`$, conjugate to some reversor in the family $`Rg^j`$. Therefore in the case of conjugacy classes of odd semilength we may always assume affine reversors. ∎

###### Remark.

Along the same lines of the proof of the previous lemma it can be seen that if $`R`$ is any reversor of a cyclically reduced, nontrivial automorphism $`g`$, then $`R`$ can be written as $`R_0g^j`$ for some $`j`$ and $`R_0`$ shorter than $`g`$. Since $`(R_0g^j)^{2\mu +1}g^l=R_0^{2\mu +1}g^{j+l}`$ it follows that the reversors generated by $`R_0g^j`$ form a subset of the family generated by $`R_0`$.

We can go further by conjugating with maps in $`S`$ and replacing $`g`$ by its inverse if necessary, so that $`g`$ can be taken to have the form (12) and $`R_0`$, the form (31). Then, a short calculation shows that the reversors generated by $`R_0`$ are of the form

$$R=R_0^{2\mu +1}g^j=(s_0^1ts_k^{2\mu }ts_0^1)e_kt\mathrm{}te_1g^j,s_0,s_k\widehat{𝒮}$$

whenever the index $`\mu 0`$. For negative $`\mu `$ a similar result follows; however if the reversor has finite order, it is enough to consider only one of these possibilities. Now, since $`s_0,s_k\widehat{𝒮}`$ the term inside the parenthesis in the above expression reduces to an elementary affine map. When $`j0`$ no further simplifications are possible, so that the reduced word that represents $`R`$ has length $`2k1,`$ if the length is considered modulus $`2m`$. For $`j<0`$ an additional simplification yields

$$R=(s_0^1ts_k^{2\mu }ts_0^1)te_{k+1}^1\mathrm{}e_m^1tg^{j+1},$$

so that, modulus $`2m`$, the length of the word becomes $`2(mk)+1`$. We can conclude that if any two reversors of a nontrivial, cyclically reduced map belong to a common family, then their modulus $`2m`$ lengths must coincide or be complementary (i.e. their sum is equal to $`2m`$).

### Finite-Order Reversors

We now show that reversors in $`𝒢`$ have finite order. Recall that when $`R`$ is a reversing symmetry for $`g`$, each of the maps (5) is also a reversor and that whenever that $`R`$ has finite order, the order must be even, unless $`g`$ is an involution.

###### Theorem 11.

Every polynomial reversor of a nontrivial, polynomial automorphism has finite even order. In the case of real transformations the order is $`2`$ or $`4`$.

###### Proof.

Following Thm. 5, we may assume that $`g`$ is in Hénon normal form and from Lem. 10 that $`R`$ is an affine or an elementary reversing symmetry for $`g`$. Now, it is easy to see that if $`R`$ is affine, $`R=s_0^1t`$, and if $`R`$ is elementary, $`R=s_0^1e_1`$, for some $`s_0\widehat{𝒮}`$, and $`e_1(x,y)=(p_1(y)\delta _1x,y)`$ a normalized elementary map. The condition $`g=Rg^1R^1`$ is then equivalent to the existence of diagonal linear maps, $`s_i(x,y)=(a_ix,a_{i+1}y)`$$`s_m=s_0`$, such that

$$te_i^{}^1=s_ite_is_{i1}^1,\text{where}\{\begin{array}{cc}i^{}=mi+1,\hfill & R\text{ affine}\hfill \\ i^{}=mi+2,\hfill & R\text{ elementary}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(32)
Here the indices are understood modulus $`m`$. This in turn means that

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta _i\delta _i^{}=\frac{a_{i1}}{a_{i+1}}=\frac{a_{(i+1)^{}}}{a_{(i1)^{}}}\hfill \\ p_i^{}(a_iy)=\delta _i^{}a_{i+1}p_i\left(y\right)\hfill \end{array},i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(33)
Defining $`\omega _i=a_ia_i^{}`$, then (33) implies

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega _i=\omega _i^{},\omega _{i1}=\omega _{i+1}\hfill \\ p_i(\omega _iy)=\omega _{i1}p_i\left(y\right)\hfill \end{array},i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$
(34)
Thus all the odd $`\omega _i`$ are equal, as are all the even $`\omega _i`$. Furthermore $`\omega _m\omega _0`$. It follows that when $`R`$ is affine or when the semilength of $`g`$ is odd, all of the $`\omega _i`$ coincide. Then (34) implies that all $`\omega _i`$ are primitive roots of unity of the same order. The proof is complete upon noting that $`R^2(x,y)=(x/\omega _0,y/\omega _1)`$ which means that $`R`$ has order $`2n`$, where $`n`$ is the order of $`\omega _i`$. It can be observed that (34) implies that $`2n`$ must be a factor of $`2(l_il_{i1}1)`$, for all indices $`i`$. Finally we see that $`R`$ is real only if $`\omega _0,\omega _1=\pm 1`$, so that the order of $`R`$ is $`2`$ or $`4`$. ∎

It is not hard to find normal forms for elementary and affine reversors.

###### Definition (Normalized Elementary Reversor).

An elementary map of the form

$$e:(x,y)(p(y)\delta x,ϵy),p(ϵy)=\delta p(y),$$
(35)
with $`p(y)`$ a normal polynomial and $`ϵ^2,\delta ^2`$ some primitive $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity, will be called a normalized elementary reversor of order $`2n`$. Note that $`e^2=(\delta ^2x,ϵ^2y)`$.

###### Definition (Normalized Affine Reversor).

Given any primitive $`n^{th}`$-root of unity $`\omega `$, the map

$$\tau _\omega :(x,y)(\omega y,x)$$
(36)
is a normalized affine reversor of order $`2n`$. Note that $`\tau _\omega ^2=(\omega x,\omega y)`$

These normal forms will form the building blocks for the conjugacy classes of reversible automorphisms.

Let us suppose now that the map $`g=h_m\mathrm{}h_1`$ is in Hénon normal form and that it has either an elementary or an affine reversing symmetry of order $`2n`$. In that case the proof of Thm. 11 implies there exist some primitive $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity, $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _1`$, that solve (34). Comparing this with (17), we see that $`\omega _1(\zeta )`$, for $`\zeta =\omega _0\omega _1`$. Since $`\omega _1`$ generates $`𝒰_n`$, and $`_{}`$, (18), is a group containing $`(\zeta )`$, this implies that $`𝒰_n_{}`$. If in addition the reversor is affine, then $`\omega _0=\omega _1`$ so that $`\omega _1_𝒜`$, (20), which implies that $`𝒰_n_𝒜`$.

Reversibility imposes stronger conditions than are apparent in (34) for some cases. This occurs for words with even semilength that have an elementary reversor, and for words with odd semilength (in this case, as we noted in Lem. 10 we can assume that there is an affine reversor). We note that $`i^{}=i`$ for $`i=k+1`$ if the reversor is affine and $`m=2k+1`$, while this identity follows for $`i=1,k+1`$ if the reversor is elementary and $`m=2k`$. For such indices, (33) implies the existence of some constants $`\widehat{ϵ}_i`$ and $`\widehat{\delta _i}`$ such that

$$p_i(\widehat{ϵ}_iy)=\widehat{\delta }_ip_i(y),\widehat{ϵ}_i^2=\omega _i,\widehat{\delta }_i^2=\omega _{i1},$$
(37)
where the constants $`\omega _i`$ also satisfy (34) for the corresponding indices.

We can use (34) and (37) to construct reversible maps. Let us suppose, for example, that we have $`k`$ normalized Hénon transformations, $`h_1(y),\mathrm{},h_k(y)`$, a normal polynomial $`p_{k+1}(y)`$, and a $`n^{th}`$-root of unity, $`\omega _𝒜(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_{k+1}(y))`$, such that (37) holds for $`i=k+1`$, if we set $`\omega _k=\omega _{k+1}=\omega `$. Then it is possible to choose the coefficient $`\delta _{k+1}`$ and the remaining Hénon transformations, in such a way that the map $`g=h_{2k+1}\mathrm{}h_1`$ has an affine reversing symmetry of order $`2n`$. Furthermore the number of possible choices is finite. As similar statements follow in the other cases, we have a way to generate all conjugacy classes for reversible automorphisms. These conditions also enables us to give an explicit description of conjugacy classes for reversible automorphisms, as well as to provide normal forms, as we show next.

### Normal Form Theorem

We are now ready to prove the main result, which was given in the introduction as Thm. 2. Given the previous lemmas, we can now restate the result here in more detail:

###### Theorem 12.

Let be $`g`$ a nontrivial automorphism that possesses a reversor of order $`2n`$, and $`\omega `$ any primitive $`n^{th}`$-root of unity. Then $`g`$ is conjugate to a cyclically reduced map of one of the following classes:

* $`\tau _\omega ^1(h_1^1\mathrm{}h_k^1)\tau _\omega (h_k\mathrm{}h_1),\omega _𝒜(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_k(y))`$
* $`\tau _\omega ^1(h_1^1\mathrm{}h_k^1)e_{k+1}(h_k\mathrm{}h_1),\omega _𝒜(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_{k+1}(y))`$,
* $`e_1^1(th_2^1\mathrm{}h_k^1)e_{k+1}(h_k\mathrm{}h_2t),\omega _{}(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_{k+1}(y))`$,

where

* the maps $`h_i`$ are normalized Hénon transformations,
* $`\tau _\omega `$ is the normalized affine reversor (36), and
* if $`(\omega _i)`$ is the sequence defined by $`\omega _1=\omega ,\omega _2=\zeta (\omega )/\omega ,\omega _{i+1}=\omega _{i1}`$, then the maps $`e_1,e_{k+1}`$ are normal elementary reversors (35), with $`ϵ_i^2=\omega _i,\delta _i^2=\omega _{i1}`$.

Furthermore these normal forms are unique up to finitely many choices.

Conversely, $`\tau _\omega `$ is a reversing symmetry for any map having normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ or $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐄}}`$ while $`e_1`$ is an elementary reversor for any map of the form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$.

###### Proof.

We consider the conjugacy class of a polynomial automorphism $`g=te_m\mathrm{}te_1`$, having a reversing symmetry $`R_0`$, of order $`2n`$. We may assume that $`g`$ is given in Hénon normal form and according to Lem. 10 that $`R_0`$ is affine or elementary. Moreover, when $`m`$ is odd it may be assumed that $`R_0`$ is affine. Then $`R_0`$ is of the form $`s_0^1t`$ or $`s_0^1e_1`$, for some scaling $`s_0:(x,y)(a_0x,a_1y)`$. Throughout the present discussion we continue using the notation introduced in Thm. 11. In particular we know that the polynomials $`p_i(y)`$ satisfy (34). Moreover if $`R_0`$ is affine and $`m=2k+1`$ the polynomial $`p_{k+1}(y)`$ also satisfies (37), while if $`R_0`$ is elementary and $`m=2k`$, this condition is satisfied by $`p_1(y)`$ and $`p_{k+1}(y)`$.

We discuss the case $`R_0`$ affine; the case that $`R_0`$ is elementary follows in a similar way. Note that if $`R_0`$ is affine then, $`R_0=\widehat{s}_0\tau _\omega ^1\widehat{s}_0^1`$, for $`\omega =a_0a_1`$ and some diagonal linear map $`\widehat{s}_0`$. Letting $`m=2k`$ or $`m=2k+1`$, then (32) implies that

$$g=(s_0^1t)\left(e_1^1t\mathrm{}te_k^1[te_{k+1}^1]s_kte_k\mathrm{}te_1\right)=R_0R_1,$$

where the term in brackets is absent if $`m=2k`$. Notice that $`R_1`$ is also a reversing symmetry of order $`2n`$, conjugate to either $`s_kt`$ if $`m`$ is even, or to $`e_{k+1}^1s_k=\varphi (s_{k+1})e_{k+1}`$ when $`m`$ is odd. In the first of these cases we also note that there exists a diagonal linear map $`\widehat{s}_k`$ such that $`s_kt=\widehat{s}_k\varphi (\tau _\omega )\widehat{s}_k^1`$. In the second case, note that the map $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{k+1}=e_{k+1}^1s_k`$ is an elementary reversor of the form (35), except that the polynomial $`p_{k+1}(y)`$ may not be normalized. Therefore $`g`$ is $`𝒮`$-conjugate to a map of the form

$$\tau _\omega ^1e_1^1t\mathrm{}te_k^1t[e_{k+1}][\tau _\omega ]te_k\mathrm{}te_1,$$
(38)
where some of the maps $`te_i`$ have been modified, but only by scalings of their variables, so that the polynomials $`p_i(y)`$ still have center of mass at $`0`$. Furthermore $`e_{k+1}`$ is a (not necessarily normalized) elementary reversor of the form (35), with $`ϵ_{k+1}^2=\delta _{k+1}^2=\omega `$. Finally, the brackets indicate the terms that may be omitted, depending on $`m`$ odd or even.

We can now replace each of the maps $`te_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ with normalized Hénon transformations, as well as the maps $`e_i^1t`$ with the corresponding inverses, by applying Lem. 6 to $`f=te_k\mathrm{}te_1`$. In this case the conjugating maps turn out to be linear transformations. Note that the diagonal linear maps that commute with $`t`$ also commute with any $`\tau _\omega `$ and that the only effect of the conjugacies we apply on $`e_{k+1}`$ is to rescale the polynomial $`p_{k+1}(y)`$. In this way we obtain a map of the form (38), conjugate to $`g`$, where each of the terms $`te_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, is a normalized Hénon transformation. For the even semilength case this already shows that $`g`$ is conjugate to a map of the form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, for some $`n^{th}`$-root of unity $`\omega _𝒜(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_k(y))`$.

When $`m`$ is odd, we still have to normalize $`e_{k+1}`$ to make the leading coefficient of $`p_{k+1}(y)`$ equal to $`1`$. This can be achieved by choosing some convenient scalings

$$s_i:(x,y)(a_ix,a_{i+1}y),i=0,\mathrm{}k,$$
(39)
$`\varphi (s_0)=s_0`$, to replace $`te_{k+1}`$ with $`\varphi (s_k)te_{k+1}s_k^1`$, and then each of the terms $`te_i`$ with $`s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$, while the corresponding $`te_i^1`$ are replaced by $`\varphi (s_{i1})te_i^1\varphi (s_i^1)=\varphi (s_ite_is_{i1}^1)^1`$. It is not hard to see that appropriate coefficients $`a_i`$ can be chosen to give the normal form, and that they are unique up to $`l\text{th-}`$roots of unity, with $`l=l_1\mathrm{}l_{k1}(l_kl_{k+1}1)`$.

We still need to show that we can replace $`\omega `$ in these expressions with any given root of unity of order $`n`$, and that the forms thus obtained are uniquely determined up to finitely many possibilities.

Let us consider the case of normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$. Using Thm. 4 we see that the terms $`te_i`$ can be modified only by scalings of the variables, since we require those terms to stay normal. If we apply to the terms $`te_i^1`$ the images under the isomorphism $`\varphi `$ of the transformations we use to modify $`te_i`$, as we did to obtain the normal forms, the structure of the word is preserved and the parameter $`\omega `$ does not change either. In the more general case we may replace $`te_i`$ with $`t\widehat{e}_i=s_ite_is_{i1}^1`$$`s_i`$ given by (39), while for $`i=2,\mathrm{},k1`$$`te_i^1`$ is replaced by $`t\widehat{e}_i^1=\stackrel{~}{s}_{i1}te_i^1\stackrel{~}{s}_i^1`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{s}_i:(x,y)(\stackrel{~}{a}_{i+1}x,\stackrel{~}{a}_iy),i=1,\mathrm{},k1.$$

In this case, and if $`k2`$, it follows that $`t(e_k^1t\tau _\omega )`$ must be replaced by $`t(\widehat{e}_k^1t\tau _{\widehat{\omega }})=\stackrel{~}{s}_{k1}te_k^1t\tau _\omega s_k^1`$ while $`\tau _\omega ^1e_1^1`$ becomes replaced with $`\tau _{\widehat{\omega }}^1\widehat{e}_1^1=s_0\tau _\omega ^1e_1^1\stackrel{~}{s}_1^1`$. If $`k=1`$ we have to replace $`\tau _\omega ^1e_1^1t\tau _\omega `$ with $`\tau _{\widehat{\omega }}^1e_1^1t\tau _{\widehat{\omega }}=s_0\tau _\omega ^1e_1^1t\tau _\omega s_1^1`$.

For the structure of the word to remain unchanged we need

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_1=a_0,\lambda _{i1}=\lambda _{i+1},\text{and}p_i(\lambda _iy)=\lambda _{i+1}p_i(y),$$
(40)
where $`i`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`k`$$`\stackrel{~}{a}_{k+1}`$ is defined to be equal to $`a_k`$, and $`\lambda _i=\stackrel{~}{a}_i/a_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k+1`$, while $`\lambda _0`$ is just defined to be equal to $`\lambda _2`$. We also note that then $`\widehat{\omega }=\lambda _1\lambda _2\omega `$. Now, for the map $`\widehat{g}`$ obtained in this way, to be in normal form, it is also necessary that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ lies in $`_𝒜=_𝒜(\widehat{p}_1(y),\mathrm{},\widehat{p}_k(y))=_𝒜(p_1(y),\mathrm{},p_k(y))`$. It follows that, if we set $`\zeta =\lambda _1\lambda _2=\widehat{\omega }/\omega `$$`\zeta `$ is also an element of the group $`_𝒜`$.

We thus have that the solutions $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ of (40), yielding alternative normal forms for $`g`$, are of the form $`(\lambda ,\zeta /\lambda )`$, for some $`\zeta _𝒜`$ and $`\lambda (\zeta )`$. Therefore to obtain all possible normal forms it suffices to consider all $`\lambda 𝒩`$ (21), and set $`\lambda _1=\lambda ,\lambda _2=\zeta (\lambda )/\lambda `$. The requirement that the polynomials $`\widehat{p}_i(y)`$ have leading coefficients equal to $`1`$ allows to determine the coefficients $`a_i,\stackrel{~}{a}_i`$ up to $`l\text{th-}`$roots of unity, for $`l=l_1\mathrm{}l_{k1}(l_k1)`$. If $`𝒩=𝒰_d`$ (23), all possible normal forms arise by taking $`a_1`$ as any $`(ld)\text{th-}`$root of unity, and $`\lambda `$ as $`a_1^l`$.

We show now that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ can be chosen as any primitive $`n^{th}`$-root of unity. Note that the possible $`\widehat{\omega }`$ are of the form $`\zeta \omega `$ for some $`\zeta 𝒩^{}`$. We know that for any $`\omega _𝒜`$, $`(\omega ^2)`$ is a nonempty set, since it contains $`\omega `$. Let us denote by $`_𝒜^2`$ the subgroup of $`_𝒜`$ that consists of elements of the form $`\omega ^2,\omega _𝒜`$. It then follows that $`_𝒜^2`$ is a subgroup of $`𝒩^{}`$. Now, given that $`_𝒜=𝒰_r`$ for some $`r`$, it is not difficult to see that $`_𝒜^2`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`_𝒜`$ if $`r`$ is even while $`_𝒜=_𝒜^2`$, if $`r`$ is odd. In the last case, and in general whenever $`𝒩^{}=_𝒜`$, we see that $`g`$ can be written in normal form with $`\omega `$ replaced by any $`r\text{th-}`$root of unity, and in particular by any primitive $`n^{th}`$-root of unity.

However if $`_𝒜`$ has even order, it is possible that $`𝒩^{}`$ reduces to $`_𝒜^2_𝒜`$ and then it is no longer clear that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ can be chosen as an arbitrary $`n^{th}`$-root of unity. A short calculation shows that $`\widehat{\omega }`$ can still be taken as any $`n^{th}`$-root of unity as long as the number $`r/n`$ be even. When $`r/n`$ is odd the only admissible $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity are the numbers $`\mathrm{exp}\frac{i2\pi \nu }{n}`$, with $`\nu `$ odd. In particular all primitive $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity are still possible, but $`\widehat{\omega }`$ cannot be taken equal to $`1`$, i.e. $`g`$ lacks involutory reversing symmetries associated to this normal form. It is still possible that there exist involutory reversors, however corresponding to a different reordering of the terms, in the case that the map has other families of reversing symmetries.

In the case of normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐄}}`$ condition (40) should hold for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k+1`$ (although $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{k+1}`$ is not necessarily equal to $`a_k`$), if $`\lambda _{k+2}`$ is defined to be equal to $`\lambda _k`$. We still have $`\widehat{\omega }=\lambda _1\lambda _2\omega `$, but we need in addition that

$$\widehat{ϵ}_{k+1}=\lambda _{k+1}ϵ_{k+1},\widehat{\delta }_{k+1}=\lambda _k\delta _{k+1},\widehat{ϵ}_{k+1}^2=\widehat{\delta }_{k+1}^2=\widehat{\omega }.$$

These conditions imply that the solutions $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ for (40), yielding normal forms for $`g`$ must be of the form $`\lambda _1=\lambda _2=\lambda `$ for some $`\lambda _𝒜`$. In other words the set $`𝒩`$ coincides with $`_𝒜`$, while the corresponding $`𝒩^{}`$ equals $`_𝒜^2`$. The statements about admissible $`\widehat{\omega }`$ then follows, basically unchanged.

We can make analogous considerations for normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$. The possible normal forms are obtained in this case by considering any $`\lambda _{}`$. If we set $`\lambda _1=\lambda `$ and $`\lambda _2=\zeta (\lambda )/\lambda `$, the remaining $`\lambda _i`$ become determined by $`\lambda _{i+1}=\lambda _{i1}`$. Once $`\lambda `$ is fixed the requirement that all polynomials $`p_i(y)`$ be normal, determine the coefficients $`a_i,\stackrel{~}{a}_i`$ up to $`l\text{th-}`$ roots of unity, $`l=l_1\mathrm{}l_{k1}(l_kl_{k+1}1)`$. Additionally we have

$$\widehat{ϵ}_i=\lambda _iϵ_i,\widehat{\delta }_i=\lambda _{i1}\delta _i,\widehat{ϵ}_i^2=\widehat{\omega }_i,\widehat{\delta }_i^2=\widehat{\omega }_{i1},i=1,k+1.$$

In that case $`\widehat{\omega }_1=\lambda _1^2\omega _1`$. Therefore the possible $`\widehat{\omega }_1`$ are of the form $`\zeta \omega _1`$, with $`\zeta _{}^2`$. Respect to which $`\widehat{\omega }`$ are allowed, there follows similar conclusions to those obtained in the case of normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, after replacing $`𝒩`$ with $`_{}`$ and $`𝒩^{}`$ with $`_{}^2`$.

Finally, the last assertion of the Theorem follows by direct calculation. ∎

###### Corollary 13.

A map $`f𝒜𝒮`$ is a reversing symmetry for some nontrivial, cyclically reduced automorphism $`g𝒢`$ if and only if $`f`$ is $`𝒮`$-conjugate to either a normalized affine reversor or to a normalized elementary reversor.

###### Corollary 14.

Every polynomial involution is conjugate to either of the normal involutions,  i) $`(x,y)(p(y)x,y),p(y)`$a normal polynomial,  ii) $`(x,y)(p(y)x,y)`$$`p(y)`$ normal and even,  iii) $`(x,y)(p(y)+x,y)`$$`p(y)`$ normal and odd, or  iv) $`(x,y)(y,x)`$.

###### Proof.

Every involution is a reversing symmetry for some nontrivial automorphism. ∎

###### Corollary 15.

An elementary, nonaffine, map

$$e:(x,y)(p(y)\delta x,ϵy+\eta )$$
(41)
is a reversing symmetry of a nontrivial, cyclically reduced map in $`𝒢`$ if and only if it has finite even order $`2n`$, $`e^2𝒮`$, and $`ϵ^2,\delta ^2`$ are primitive $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity.

On the other hand an affine, nonelementary, map

$$a:(x,y)\widehat{a}(x,y)+(\xi ,\eta ),$$
(42)
$`\widehat{a}`$ a linear transformation, is a reversing symmetry of a nontrivial, cyclically reduced map in $`𝒢`$ if and only if it has finite even order $`2n`$, and $`a^2𝒮`$.

###### Proof.

That these conditions are necessary follows easily from Cor. 13. To see the sufficiency we prove that elementary (resp. affine) maps satisfying such conditions are $`𝒮`$-conjugate to normalized elementary reversors (resp. normalized affine reversors).

Let us consider the case of an elementary map (41) of order $`2n`$, such that $`ϵ^2,\delta ^2`$ are primitive $`n^{th}`$-roots of unity and $`e^2`$ is an affine transformation. It is not difficult to see that the condition $`e^{2n}=id`$ implies that if $`\eta 0`$ then $`ϵ1`$. This observation allows to prove that $`e`$ can always be conjugated to an elementary map (41), having $`\eta =0`$. Moreover, the conjugating maps can be chosen in $`C_𝒮(t)`$.

Next, we see that when $`\eta =0`$ the conditions $`e^2𝒮,e^{2n}=id`$ reduce to the fact that $`ϵ^{2n}=\delta ^{2n}=1`$, plus the existence of some constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that,

$`p(ϵy)\delta p(y)`$ $`=Ay+B,`$
$`A(\delta ^{2n2}+\delta ^{2n4}ϵ^2+\mathrm{}+ϵ^{2n2})`$ $`=0,`$
$`B(\delta ^{2n2}+\delta ^{2n4}+\mathrm{}+1)`$ $`=0.`$
Straightforward calculations then show that it is possible to choose maps in $`𝒮`$ that conjugate $`e`$ to a normalized elementary reversor. It may be interesting to note that if $`ϵ^2\delta ^2`$ the condition $`e^{2n}=id`$ may be omitted and still it can be granted that $`e`$ is an elementary reversor of order $`2n`$.

The case of affine reversors can be worked out in a similar way. It is convenient to prove first that, under the given conditions, an affine map is $`𝒮`$-conjugate to its linear part. To obtain this result it is useful to treat the cases $`n=1`$ and $`n2`$ separately. If $`n2`$, the conditions $`a^{2n}=id,a^2𝒮`$ ($`a`$ nonelementary) are equivalent to $`\widehat{a}^2=\omega (id)`$, where $`\omega =det\widehat{a}`$ is a root of unity of order $`n`$. When $`n=1`$ we need, in addition, that the vector $`(\xi ,\eta )`$ be an eigenvector of $`\widehat{a}`$ with associated eigenvalue $`1`$. Finally, it is not difficult to check that a linear, nonelementary map $`\widehat{a}`$ of order $`2n`$, that satisfies the hypothesis $`\widehat{a}^2𝒮`$, is $`𝒮`$-conjugate to $`\tau _\omega `$ for $`\omega =det\widehat{a}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 16.

A polynomial automorphism is reversible by involutions in $`𝒢`$ if and only if it is conjugate to any of the normal forms $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐄}}`$, or $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$, with $`\omega =1`$, so that $`e_1`$ and $`e_{k+1}`$ are normal elementary involutions and $`h_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, are arbitrary normal Hénon transformations.

###### Corollary 17.

A real polynomial automorphism has real reversors in $`𝒢`$ if and only if it is reversible by involutions, so that it is conjugate to one of the (real) normal forms $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐄}}`$, or $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$, with $`\omega =1`$, or if it has a reversing symmetry of order $`4`$ and is conjugate to a normal form map $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, with $`\omega =1`$, so that the maps $`h_i`$ represent normal, real, Hénon transformations, whose respective polynomials $`p_i(y)`$ are odd.

###### Proof.

We noted earlier that the only possible real, reversing symmetries are of order $`2`$ or $`4`$. However there are no elementary, real, reversing symmetries of order $`4`$, since this would imply that $`e`$ is of the form (41), with $`ϵ^2,\delta ^2`$ primitive square roots of unity. Therefore the only possible normal form for a real map with a real reversor of order $`4`$ is $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, with $`\omega =1`$. ∎

## 5 Examples

In this section we illustrate some of the concepts and results of §3 and §4. We present several examples to illustrate the general theory. We do not assert that these examples are necessarily new, merely illustrative—examples of maps with nontrivial symmetry groups are well known . Examples of maps with noninvolutory reversors have been presented before; for example, Lamb found “modified Townsville” with a reversor of order $`4n+2`$ for any $`n`$—these maps also have involutory reversors . In addition, Roberts and Baake have shown that “generalized standard maps,” a particular case of semilength-two maps, can have $`4^{th}`$ order reversors .

For the case of semilength-one, i.e. a single generalized Hénon map, (1), the structure of the reversing symmetry group is well known. As shown in Prop. 8, there is an affine-elementary symmetry $`S(x,y)=(\omega x,\omega y)`$ for any $`\omega _𝒜=\{\omega :p(\omega y)=\omega p(y)\}`$. Since we can take $`\omega `$ to generate $`_𝒜`$, and $`S`$ and $`h`$ commute, $`\text{Sym}(h)=h\times S\times _𝒜`$. For example when $`p`$ is odd, the Hénon map has the reflection symmetry $`S(x,y)=(x,y)`$.

The reversible cases of (1) can be obtained using (33). When $`\delta \pm 1`$, there are no reversors, so that $`\text{Rev}(h)=\text{Sym}(h)`$. If $`\delta =1`$, then $`h`$ has the involutory reversor $`t`$, which commutes with $`S`$ so that $`\text{Rev}(h)=\text{Sym}(h)t=(ht)\times S`$. The case $`\delta =1`$ is reversible with reversor $`R=(ϵy,ϵx)`$, providing $`ϵ^2_𝒜`$ and $`p(ϵy)=ϵp(y)`$. There are two possibilities: if the order of $`_𝒜`$ is odd, then there is an involutory reversor $`R(x,y)=(y,x)`$, and the group has the same structure as the case $`\delta =1`$ (for the real case this is the same as Table 5 of ). Otherwise the reversors are complex and noninvolutory. In this case there is an $`ϵ`$ such that the group $`R_{2k}`$ gives all affine-elementary symmetries and reversors, and thus we can write $`\text{Rev}(h)=hR_{2k}`$.

Thus we conclude that if $`k`$ is the order of $`_𝒜`$, then the symmetries of the generalized Hénon map are

1. $`\delta \pm 1\text{Rev}(h)=\text{Sym}(h)=h\times S`$,
2. $`\delta =1`$ or $`\delta =1`$ and $`k`$ is odd $`\text{Rev}(h)=(ht)\times S`$,
3. $`\delta =1`$ and $`k`$ is even $`\text{Rev}(h)=hR`$,

where $`h`$, $`S_𝒜_k`$, $`t_2`$, and $`R_{2k}`$.

Similarly the symmetries for the semilength two case, $`g=h_2h_1`$, are also easily found; the results are given in Table 1. There are two possible forms $`𝐒_𝐄`$ and $`𝐒_𝐀`$, corresponding to the groups $`_{}`$ and $`_𝒜`$, respectively. For example in case $`𝐒_𝐄`$, there is a symmetry $`s(x,y)=(\zeta (\omega )x/\omega ,\omega y)`$ for any $`\omega _{}`$. If $`_𝒜`$ is trivial or $`\delta _1\delta _2`$, then there are no other nontrivial symmetries, so that $`\text{Sym}(g)=\times _{}`$. However, when $`\delta _1=\delta _2`$, then there can be additional nonaffine symmetries corresponding to case $`𝐒_𝐀`$ providing the polynomials $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are related by the scaling shown in the table.

According to Thm. 12, there are also two possible reversible cases of semilength-two, corresponding to normal forms $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ and $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$. The conditions for the existence of these can by found by using (33); they are also given in Table 1. Thus, for example, when there is a normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$, the polynomials in $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ must be identical up to a scaling. Moreover, if there are noninvolutory reversors, then the group $`_𝒜`$ must be nontrivial, which implies that $`p_i(y)=yq_i(y)`$ for some polynomials $`q_i(y)`$ such that the degrees of their nonzero terms are not coprime.

Whenever a reversible map has a noninvolutory reversor, then it also has nontrivial symmetries. For example, for the case $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ in Table 1, a noninvolutory reversor corresponds to $`\omega _𝒜\{1\}`$. In this case $`\tau _\omega ^2=s`$ is a symmetry, since $`\omega _𝒜_{}`$. If in addition $`\delta _1=\delta _2=1`$, then $`e^1=e`$, and the map has a “square root”, and consequently a symmetry of the form $`\stackrel{~}{s}h`$.

For longer words the degrees of the terms can be useful as an indication of which terms may be centers of symmetry, since the normal forms in Thm. 12 have polydegrees that are symmetric about the centers, and the polydegree of a reduced word is a conjugacy invariant. However, explicit conditions analogous to those in Table 1 are more difficult to write.

Finally we give several examples to illustrate Table 1.

###### Example 5.1.

As an example consider the composition of two cubic Hénon maps, $`g=h_2h_1`$ where

$$h_1(x,y)=(y,y^3+y\delta _1x),h_2(x,y)=(y,y^3y\delta _2x),$$
(43)
For $`(p_1,p_2)`$,

$$𝒩^{}=_{}^2=\{1\}_𝒜=_{}=𝒰_2;$$

Since $`_{}`$ is nontrivial, this system has symmetries of the form $`𝐒_𝐄`$; indeed, since $`\zeta (\omega )=1`$, the affine transformation $`S_1(x,y)=(x,y)`$ is a symmetry. If $`\delta _1\delta _2`$, all symmetries are of the form $`S_1^ag^p`$ so $`\text{Sym}(g)=g\times S_1\times _2`$. If however $`\delta _1=\delta _2=\delta `$, then since $`ip_2(iy)=p_1(y)`$, there are symmetries of the form $`𝐒_𝐀`$. We find that $`g=(S_2)^2`$ with the symmetry $`S_2=(iy,ip_1(y)i\delta x)`$. As the group generated by $`S_2`$ is still isomorphic to $``$, we have $`\text{Sym}(g)=S_2\times S_1\times _2`$.

There are two possible reversible cases for $`g`$. When $`\delta _i^2=1`$, Table 1 shows that $`g`$ potentially can be put in normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$. The scaling relations imply that $`\delta _1=\delta _2=\delta =\pm 1`$ for this to be the case. Then $`R_1=(p_1(y)\delta x,\delta y)`$ is an involutory reversor, and generates a family (5) of reversors that contains all reversors with this ordering.

When $`\delta _1\delta _2=1`$, (43) potentially has a reversor with normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$. In this case the scaling relations also require $`\delta _1=\delta _2=\delta =\pm 1`$, and there is a reversor $`R_2=(i\delta y,ix)`$. When $`\delta =1`$, $`R_2`$ is an involution; however, when $`\delta =1`$, it is order four and $`R_2^2=S_1`$. In both cases, $`\delta =\pm 1`$, there is an involutory reversor,$`R_1`$; therefore, every reversor can be written as the composition of a symmetry and $`R_1`$; for example $`R_2=S_2R_1`$.

Thus we conclude that there are three distinct cases:

1. $`\delta _1=\delta _2𝒰_2\text{Rev}(g)=(S_2\times S_1)R_1`$,
2. $`\delta _1=\delta _2𝒰_2\text{Rev}(g)=\text{Sym}(g)=S_2\times S_1`$,
3. $`\delta _1\delta _2\text{Rev}(g)=\text{Sym}(g)=g\times S_1`$,

where $`S_2`$, $`S_1_2`$ and $`R_1_2`$.

###### Example 5.2.

Let $`g=h_2h_1`$ where

$$h_1(x,y)=(y,y^3+x),h_2(x,y)=(y,y^3x),$$

In this case the associated groups of roots of unity are larger:

$$𝒩^{}=_𝒜=𝒰_2_{}^2=𝒰_4𝒩=_{}=𝒰_8.$$

and $`\zeta (\omega )=\omega ^4`$. Table 1 shows that the nontrivial symmetries are generated by $`S_1=(\omega ^3x,\omega y)`$ with $`\omega =e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}}`$ a primitive, eighth root of unity, and $`S_1𝒰_8`$. Since $`\delta _1\delta _2`$ there are no symmetries of the form $`𝐒_𝐀`$. Thus $`\text{Sym}(g)=g\times S_1\times _8`$.

Since $`\delta _1\delta _21`$, $`g`$ cannot be written in form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$; however, it can be written in form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$, for $`\widehat{ϵ}_1^8=1`$. The reversors are generated by $`R_1=(\widehat{ϵ}_1(y^3+x),\widehat{ϵ}_1^3y),`$ a sixteenth order reversor. Note that $`R_1^2=S_1`$, and that $`R_1`$ commutes with $`S_1`$. Thus $`\text{Rev}(g)=gR_1(Z_{16})`$.

Note that $`_{}^2=𝒰_4`$, so that $`\omega `$ in the $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ normal form may be replaced only by primitive $`8`$th-roots of unity. Thus, there are no real normal forms and though $`g`$ is reversible in the group of complex automorphisms, it lacks real reversors.

###### Example 5.3.

Consider the $`g=h^2`$, where $`h`$ is a normal Hénon transformation. Symmetries of the form $`𝐒_𝐄`$ correspond to maps $`S^jg^p`$ with $`S`$ a generator of the group of affine-elementary symmetries of $`g,`$ that is $`S=s_\omega `$ for $`\omega `$ of maximum order in $`_{}`$.

Symmetries of the form $`𝐒_𝐀`$ correspond to maps $`s\stackrel{~}{g}^p`$, where $`s`$ is an affine-elementary symmetry of $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{s}h`$ is a symmetry of $`g`$ that commutes with $`s`$. It turns out that $`s`$ is also in $`\text{Sym}(h),`$ so that $`s=s_\omega `$ for some $`\omega _𝒜`$. Moreover, since $`h\text{Sym}(g),`$ it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ also belongs to $`\text{Sym}(g)`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{s}=s_\omega `$ for some $`\omega _{}`$. Thus we can conclude that $`\text{Sym}(g)=S,h`$. If $`_𝒜=_{}`$, then $`S`$ is a symmetry of $`h`$, and so $`\text{Sym}(g)=S\times h_k\times `$. On the other hand if $`_𝒜_{}`$, $`S`$ is not a symmetry of $`h`$ and, unlike the previous examples, $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ is a nonabelian group. In this case, however, $`S`$ is a normal subgroup of $`\text{Sym}(g)`$ so that $`\text{Sym}(g)=Sh_k`$.

According to Table 1, the existence of reversors of the form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$ requires $`\delta ^2=1`$ plus some scaling conditions on the polynomial $`p(y)`$. The associated reversors are in that case of the form

$$R(x,y)=(\frac{1}{\widehat{ϵ_2}}(p(y)\delta x),\frac{1}{\widehat{ϵ_1}}y),$$

$`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$ as in Table 1. For $`\delta =1`$ we see that the scaling conditions are trivially satisfied when $`\widehat{ϵ}_1=\widehat{ϵ}_2=1`$ so that $`R`$ is an involution. On the other hand, when $`\delta =1`$ the scaling conditions are satisfied only when $`p(y)`$ is odd or even. In that case $`\widehat{ϵ_i}\{\pm 1\}`$ and again $`R`$ is an involution.

Reversors of the form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ exist only if $`\delta ^2=1`$ and $`p(y)`$ satisfies the condition $`cp(cy)=\delta \omega p(y)`$ with $`\omega _𝒜`$ for some constant $`c`$. The associated affine reversing symmetry is then of the form $`R(x,y)=(cy/\omega ,x/c)`$. Again it can be seen that when $`\delta =1`$ the scaling relation is trivially satisfied taking $`c=\omega =1`$, while when $`\delta =1`$ that relation is satisfied if and only if $`p(y)`$ is either an odd or an even polynomial.

We thus have the following two possible structures for the group of reversing symmetries of $`g`$:

1. $`\delta \pm 1`$ or $`\delta =1`$ with $`p(y)\pm p(y)`$ $``$ $`\text{Rev}(g)=\text{Sym}(g)=Sh`$,
2. $`\delta =1`$ or $`\delta =1`$ with $`p(y)=\pm p(y)`$ $``$ $`\text{Rev}(g)=(Sh)R`$,

where $`S_k`$, $`h`$, and $`R_2`$ and $`k`$ is the order of $`_{}`$. If $`k`$ is also the order of $`_𝒜`$, then $`\text{Sym}(g)=S\times h`$.

## 6 Dynamics

The dynamics of a map is affected in a number of ways by the existence of reversing symmetries. In particular, those orbits that are “symmetric” share many of the typical properties of the orbits of symplectic maps, i.e., their spectral and bifurcation properties. Although our main interest is to discuss plane polynomial diffeomorphisms, we begin with a general discussion, and later focus on the polynomial case. We start by briefly reviewing some of the well known implications of reversibility .

Let $`𝒪(x)`$ denote the orbit of $`x`$ under a diffeomorphism $`g`$. When $`R\text{Rev}(g)`$, then the symmetry maps orbits into orbits, $`R(𝒪(x))=𝒪(R(x))`$. Thus orbits either come in symmetric pairs, or are themselves invariant under $`R`$. If $`R`$ is a reversor, then an orbit and its reflection are generated in reverse order.

If $`𝒪(R(x))=𝒪(x)`$, the orbit is said to be symmetric with respect to $`R`$. Observe then that the orbit is symmetric respect to any of the reversing symmetries in the subgroup $`g,R`$ generated by $`g`$ and $`R`$.

If $`R`$ is a reversor, then for symmetric orbits forward stability implies backward stability. Moreover, there can be no attractors that are symmetric under $`R`$; indeed, if $`A`$ is a symmetric omega-limit set, then it cannot be asymptotically stable .

By contrast, an asymmetric orbit can be attracting, just as long as its symmetric partner is repelling.

If $`R`$ is a reversor, and $`x`$ is a point on a symmetric orbit of period $`n`$, then the matrix $`Dg^n(x)`$ is conjugate to its inverse. Thus every multiplier of a periodic symmetric orbit must be accompanied by its reciprocal. When $`g`$ is real, it follows that eigenvalues other than $`\pm 1`$ must appear either in pairs $`(\lambda ,\lambda ^1)`$, with $`\lambda `$ real or on the unit circle, or in quadruplets, $`(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda },\lambda ^1,\overline{\lambda }^1)`$. Unlike the symplectic case, $`1`$ and $`1`$ may have odd multiplicity. This situation imposes severe restrictions on the motion of eigenvalues for parameterized families of maps: thus if the multiplicity of $`1`$ or $`1`$ is odd, it must continue to remain so, as long as reversibility is preserved. Therefore, whenever $`1`$ or $`1`$ have odd multiplicity, they should persist as eigenvalues. In the plane this means that for families of reversible, orientation-reversing maps, the spectrum is restricted to the set $`\{1,1\}`$. In all the other cases families of reversible maps must preserve orientation.

Though generally reversible maps need not be volume-preserving, reversible polynomial automorphisms are, since their jacobians are necessarily constant. In addition, note that maps with the normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$ are orientation-preserving. Maps with the normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐄}}`$ or $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$ can either preserve or reverse orientation.

We denote the fixed set of a map $`R`$ by

$$\text{Fix}(R)\{x:R(x)=x\}.$$

If $`S\text{Sym}(g)`$ then its fixed set is an invariant set. By contrast, the fixed sets of reversors are not invariant, but contain points on symmetric orbits.

Indeed, as is well-known, to look for symmetric periodic orbits it is enough to restrict the search to the set $`\text{Fix}(R)\text{Fix}(gR)`$ . Therefore if the reversing symmetry has a nontrivial fixed set, it can be used to simplify the computation of periodic points. Indeed, Devaney’s original definition of reversibility  required that the fixed set of the reversor be a manifold with half the dimension of the phase space. This is the case for maps on the plane that are reversible by orientation-reversing involutions . From this point of view the noninvolutory polynomial reversors we have described are not very interesting, since for each of them the associated symmetric orbits reduce to a single fixed point.

We will now show that this is always the case for order $`4`$ reversing symmetries of the plane. In addition, we will recall the result that in this case the symmetric fixed point is hyperbolic .

We start by showing that the fixed set of any order $`4`$ transformation of the plane is a point. This is a well-known result of Brouwer, who showed that finite period transformations of $`^2`$ are topologically equivalent to either a rotation or to the composition of a rotation and a reflection about a line through the origin . Nevertheless, we present an elementary proof of the local nature of the fixed set similar to that given by MacKay for the case of involutions  because this proof provides additional information that we find useful later. To complete the description of the fixed set some general results on transformation groups turn out to be necessary.

###### Lemma 18.

Suppose $`R`$ is an order $`4`$ diffeomorphism of $`^2`$. Then its fixed set is a point.

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`R`$ has a fixed point, without loss of generality, at $`(0,0)`$. We see that then $`f=R^2`$ is an orientation-preserving involution, since the jacobian matrix for $`f`$ at $`(0,0)`$ equals the square of the corresponding jacobian matrix of $`R`$. A simple calculation then shows that $`Df(0,0)=\pm I`$. Thus we can write

$$f:(x,y)\pm (x,y)+(f_1(x,y),f_2(x,y)),$$

with $`f_k(x,y)=o(|(x,y)|)`$. Define new variables $`u`$ and $`v`$ according to the local diffeomorphism

$$(u,v)=\pm (x,y)+\frac{1}{2}(f_1(x,y),f_2(x,y))$$

where the sign is chosen in accordance with $`Df(0,0)`$. In these local variables the map $`f`$ reduces to $`(u,v)\pm (u,v)`$. We thus have shown that at each fixed point of $`R`$, $`f`$ is locally conjugate to $`\pm id`$. Moreover, whenever $`R`$ has a fixed point, the above condition holds at each of the fixed points of $`f`$. This implies that if $`f`$ is locally the identity, then $`f=id`$ on its domain, as long as this domain is connected. Therefore, given that $`R`$ has order $`4`$ and is not an involution, we conclude that $`(0,0)`$ is an isolated fixed point and that the (real) normal form for $`DR(0,0)`$ is given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
To prove that $`R`$ actually has a unique fixed point, we proceed to extend the map $`R`$ to $`S^2`$, by adding a point at infinity and make it a fixed point of $`R`$. Now, according to Smith’s classical results on transformation groups (see ), the fixed set for a transformation of order $`p^k`$, ($`p`$ prime) acting on a $`n`$-sphere has the homology-$`\text{mod }p`$ of an $`r`$-sphere for some $`1rn`$, where $`r=1`$ corresponds to the empty set. We know however that the fixed set of $`R`$, acting on the sphere, is nonempty, and that fixed points (at least other than the fixed point at infinity) are isolated. Therefore the fixed set of $`R`$ must have the $`\text{mod }p`$ homology of $`S^0`$, hence it consists exactly of two points. Restricted to the plane we see that $`R`$ has exactly one fixed point. ∎

Notice that whenever a reversing symmetry $`R`$ for some map $`g`$ has a single fixed point, this point becomes a symmetric fixed point of $`g`$. It was shown by Lamb for the case that $`R`$ is a rotation by $`\pi /4`$ that this point cannot be elliptic . Using the previous lemma, it is easy to generalize this to arbitrary order 4 reversors.

###### Lemma 19.

Suppose $`g`$ is a reversible map of $`^2`$ with a real reversor $`R`$ of order $`4`$. Then the associated symmetric fixed point is not elliptic.

###### Proof.

We may assume that the fixed point is the origin and the jacobian matrix of $`R`$ at $`(0,0)`$ is given by (44). The reversibility condition implies that

$$DR(0,0)Dg(0,0)=Dg(0,0)^1DR(0,0).$$

This equation implies that $`Dg(0,0)`$ is a symmetric matrix with determinant equal $`1`$. As symmetric real matrices have real eigenvalues, we conclude that the point $`(0,0)`$ cannot be elliptic, and that the map is orientation-preserving. ∎

To illustrate some of this phenomena, we give two examples.

###### Example 6.1.

Consider a normal form of type $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐀𝐀}}`$:

$`g`$ $`=\tau _\omega ^1h^1\tau _\omega h,`$
$`h(x,y)`$ $`=(y,y^3by\delta x),\omega =1,`$
so that $`\tau _\omega (x,y)=(y,x)`$ is an order $`4`$ reversor for $`g`$. If we let $`p(y)=y^2by`$ and assume $`b0`$, then $`_𝒜(p)=𝒰_2`$, while $`𝒩^{}=\{1\}`$, so the only reversing symmetries for this ordering are order four. Fixed points of this map must satisfy the equations

$$(1\delta )x^{}=p(y^{}),(1\delta )y^{}=p(x^{})$$

where $`p(x)=x^3bx`$. Since the reversor $`\tau _\omega `$ has a fixed point at the origin, the origin is always a symmetric fixed point. In general, the stability of a fixed point is determined by

$$Tr(Dg)=\frac{1}{\delta }\left(p^{}(y^{})p^{}(x^{})+\delta ^2+1\right)$$

At the origin this becomes $`Tr(Dg(0,0))=\delta ^1(b^2+\delta ^2+1)`$, which implies, in accord with Lem. 19, that the origin is hyperbolic, since $`|Tr(Dg(0,0)|>2`$, except when $`(b,\delta )=(0,\pm 1)`$, where it is parabolic.

The remaining $`8`$ fixed points are born together in $`4`$ simultaneous saddle-node bifurcations when

$$b=b_{sn\pm }\pm 2\sqrt{2}|\delta 1|.$$

These lines are shown in Fig. 1; inside the cone $`b_{sn}bb_{sn+}`$ the map $`g`$ has only one fixed point. The dynamics of this situation are depicted in Fig. 2 for the case that $`\delta =1.3`$.

Outside this cone the map has eight asymmetric fixed points. An example is shown in Fig. 3; for this case four of the fixed points are elliptic and four are hyperbolic. Note that the four islands surrounding the elliptic fixed points in this figure are mapped into one another by $`\tau _\omega `$. The elliptic fixed points undergo a period-doubling when $`Tr(Dg(x^{},y^{}))=2`$, which corresponds to the curve

$$b^4(713\delta +7\delta ^2)b^22(2\delta 1)^2(\delta 2)^2=0$$

This gives the dashed curves shown in Fig. 1. For example if we fix $`\delta =1.3`$ and increase $`b`$, then period-doubling occurs at $`b1.6792`$. The four new period two orbits are stable up to $`b1.7885`$, when they too undergo a period-doubling bifurcation. Thus in Fig. 4, there are $`4`$ unstable period-two orbits and $`4`$ more corresponding period four orbits. In this case the stable and unstable manifolds of the saddles intersect, forming a complex trellis.

In contrast to Lem. 19, real maps with order $`4`$ complex reversors, can have elliptic symmetric fixed points.

###### Example 6.2.

Consider for instance the polynomial map, given in Hénon normal form

$$g=h_2h_1,\text{with}h_k(x,y)=(y,p_k(y)+x),$$
(45)
and assume that $`i_𝒜(p_1(y),p_2(y))`$. According to Table 1, $`g`$ can be written in normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$ with associated order $`4`$ reversors. Direct calculations show that $`g`$ is conjugate to the map $`\widehat{g}=t\widehat{e}_1^1t\widehat{e}_2`$, where

$$\widehat{e}_1(x,y)=(\widehat{p}_1(y)+ix,iy),\text{and}\widehat{e}_2(x,y)=(\widehat{p}_2(y)ix,iy)$$

are elementary normal reversors and the $`\widehat{p}_k`$ are rescalings of $`p_k`$. Therefore for some scaling $`s`$ the map $`s^1\widehat{e}_2s`$ is an order $`4`$ reversor for $`g`$ and the origin is a symmetric fixed point. Furthermore $`Tr(Dg(0,0))=2+p_1^{}(0)p_2^{}(0)`$, so that whenever $`4<p_1^{}(0)p_2^{}(0)<0`$, the origin is an elliptic point. An example is shown in Fig. 5.

In this example the map $`g`$ also possesses involutory reversors. In fact this is always the case for orientation-preserving semilength-two maps with normal form $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐄}}`$. That is, whenever the map has order $`4`$ reversors there also exist involutory reversors, as can be readily obtained using conditions on Table 1.

## 7 Conclusions

We have shown that maps in $`𝒢`$ that have nontrivial symmetries have a normal form $`s_\omega (H)^q`$ in which either there is a finite-order, linear symmetry $`s_\omega `$, or in which the map has a root $`H`$ that is a composition of normal Hénon maps. The symmetry $`s_\omega `$ (29) generates a group isomorphic to $`_{}`$ (18) if the semilength of the map is even, and $`_𝒜`$ (20) if it is odd. This result is encapsulated in Cor. 9.

Similarly, we have shown that reversors for automorphisms in $`𝒢`$ have normal forms that are either affine or elementary. These can be further normalized so that the reversors correspond either to the simple affine map $`\tau _\omega `$ (36), or to an elementary reversor of the form (35). These reversors have finite, even order. The case that the order is two, i.e. involutory reversors, is typical in the sense that the existence of reversors of higher order requires that the polynomials in the map satisfy extra conditions so that one of the groups $`_𝒜`$ or $`_{}`$ is nontrivial. If a map has real reversors, then they must be order $`2`$ or $`4`$.

Using these, we obtained three possible normal forms for reversible polynomial automorphisms of the plane, Thm. 12. These correspond to having either two affine, two elementary, or one affine and one elementary reversor.

It would be interesting to generalize these results to higher-dimensional polynomial maps. The main difficulty here is that Jung’s decomposition theorem has not been generalized to this case. Nevertheless, one could study the class of polynomial maps generated by affine and elementary maps.


format: text

text:
# Duplex-single strand denaturing transition in DNA oligomers

## Abstract

We have measured the temperature driven denaturing, or melting transition in poly d(A)-poly d(T) DNA oligomers of various lengths in different buffer conditions. Our findings are in clear disagreement with two state, reaction kinetics model, and we find that the so-called zipper model, where denaturing proceeds through opening of the duplex at the ends describes well the temperature dependence of the average number of open base pairs. Analysis of the length dependence of the transition parameters however suggest that bubble formation is important and that the transition, in the thermodynamic limit, is continuous, albeit close to first order.

Replication and translation, the fundamental processes in biology, involve the separation of double stranded DNA Watson (1988). Duplex-single strand transition occurs also when DNA is heatedWartell and Benight (1985); Azbel (1979), upon changing the buffer surrounding the DNA, or under the influence of an external force or torqueNoy et al. (1997); Lubensky and Nelson (2000); Cocco and Monasson (1999). This so-called denaturing transition has been extensively studied both in natural and synthetic duplexes. Aside from its inherent interest, the process is also of primary importance for applications in the biotech arena. For example, thermal denaturation is an essential step in the Polymerase Chain Reaction amplification procedure.

For the thermally driven transition of native DNA segments of several thousand base pairs the transition occurs in discrete steps, these steps being determined by the particular base pair sequences Marx et al. (2000); Turner et al. (1990). In long native DNA the transition is smooth, presumably reflecting a large number of discrete steps occurring at different temperatures. The denaturing transition was also investigated in short oligomers, in the vast majority of cases with random distribution of CG and TA base pairs.

Several models have been proposed to describe this duplex-single strand transition. The standard view of the thermal denaturation of DNA is that it represents the classic competition between energy and entropy. At low temperatures, the thermodynamics is dominated by the binding energy of the base pairs. As the temperature is raised, sections of the DNA separate to take advantage of the greater entropy available to two separated single DNA strands, as opposed to smaller entropy to be found in the smaller configuration space accessible to tightly inter-wound double-stranded DNA. In the thermodynamic limit (or for circular DNA) melting transition occurs because of the growth and accretion of denaturation bubbles. For finite size oligomers “fraying” at the ends of a section of linear DNA is likely to be important as we will discuss below.

Here we address the simplest possible scenario: the denaturing of short oligomers, where each strand is a homopolymer (composed of identical base pairs). Under such circumstances variations of base pair interaction energies (different for CG and AT pairs) do not occur, and the oligomer can be regarded as a duplex held together by identical base pair interaction energy at the different sites. We are not aware of experiments which address the situation where differences between binding energies associated with different base pairs and other complications do not arise and which thus would allow the experimental test of simple, but important descriptions of the melting transition.

For finite oligomers, the following argument can be made: the binding energy between two bases located at the end of the molecule is smaller than the binding energy for pairs away from the ends, consequently the unbinding occurs most likely by a “zipper” like sequential opening of the base pairs, starting at the ends where the binding is weakest. Such model for DNA melting has been proposed by C. Kittel Kittel (1969). In this so-called zipper model, the melting of a linear DNA oligomer occurs entirely as a result of strand separation at the ends. One assigns an energy $`ϵ_0`$ to each bound base pair, and an entropy equal to $`S_0`$ to each unbound pair. Then, the partition function of an N-base-pair oligomer is given by

$$Q_N=\underset{N_1+N_2N}{}e^{(N_1+N_2)(S_0ϵ_0)/k_BT}$$
(1)
where $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are the number of separated base pairs at the two ends of the linear strand. The zipper model, and this partition function, ought to be reasonably accurate as long as one can ignore the effects of excluded volume, which should be the case for oligomers that are not too long, and if the oligomer is uniform. Here, we use the zipper model as an fitting form for the experimental data. A much simpler model, assuming that only two configurations occur, completely closed and completely separated strands, has also been used to describe denaturing. We call this model the “two-state” model; for this description the appropriate partition function has the form:

$$Q_N=1+\mathrm{exp}\left[N\left(\frac{ϵ_0}{k_BT}S_0\right)\right]$$
(2)
The two-state model predicts a first order melting transition in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$). As it turns out, the zipper model also leads to the same conclusion5 Kittel (1969). Using the partition functions as given in Eqs. (1) and (2), physical quantities, such as the average number of paired bases, and the distribution of oligomers with different numbers of open base pairs, can be calculated.

The zipper model is a theoretical scenario in which denaturation takes place via unraveling at the ends of a DNA duplex. However, another contributing factor in the thermal denaturation of long DNA molecules is the denatured “bubble,” a portion of denatured DNA bounded by duplexed segments. Entropic considerations militate in favor of an accumulation of such bubbles in a sufficiently long DNA molecule. In fact, the most physically reasonable picture of the denaturing transition is in terms of the proliferation and merging of denatured bubbles. Poland and Scheraga Poland and Scheraga (1966a, b) have proposed a model of the transition based on this notion. This model admits of elaboration and is amenable to analysis in the context of field-theoretical approaches to the statistical mechanics of critical phenomena. It is consistent with either a continuous or a first order transition, depending on the influence of base pair inhomogeneity Cule and Hwa (1997); Singh and Singh (2001) and excluded volume Kafri et al. (2000). Furthermore, the Poland-Scheraga model, along with the closely-related model of Peyrard and Bishop Peyrard and Bishop (1989), produces results that are consistent with scaling and hyperscaling analysis of both continuous and first order transitions not .

In this paper we focus on the average number of open base pairs as function of temperature, using the intensity of the UV absorption at the wavelength of 260 nm. This parameter predominantly measures base stacking which is directly related to the number of open base pairs Cantor and Schimmel (1980a). Other spectroscopic methods are also available for monitoring the melting transition. In a separate study Kauffman et al. (2002) we have demonstrated that for the oligomer dA15/dT15 three different spectroscopic methods (UV absorption, CD spectroscopy, and a fluorescence based method) give rise to identical (within experimental error) melting curves. We believe therefore that the assumption we make, namely that the measured UV absorption correctly represents the average number of open base pairs is justified.

We have used synthetic poly(A) and poly(T) oligomers of three different lengths - 15, 30 and 60 bases, PAGE purified, purchased from Operon Technologies. Single strands were dissolved in 1.5 M Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS). For recombination, solutions of complementary strands were mixed in equimolar ratio, warmed up to 90C in a water bath, followed by a slow cool down to room temperature. This resulted in complete recombination of the complementary strands as confirmed with hypochromicity measurements. A quantity of few $`\mu `$L was isolated from the stock solutions and it was dissolved in 500 mL of 50 mM PBS buffer adjusting the final DNA concentration to 1 OD. For measurement in buffers of higher molarities the appropriate volumes of 1.5 M PBS were added to the samples in order to obtain 100 mM and 200 mM buffer concentrations. This led to a slight dilution of DNA solutions. Absorption measurements were done in a standard quartz cuvette with a Bekman-Coulter 640 UV/Vis spectrophotometer with an integrated Peltier heating block and a temperature controller that enable temperature control between 10C and 90C. Temperature dependent absorption measurements were done in steps of 1 K. Before the absorption measurement the samples were thermalized at every temperature for 5 min—the time needed for the cuvette and solution inside to reach the temperature of the heating block. The absorption is smaller for a DNA duplex than for the same DNA in single strand form Cantor and Schimmel (1980a); this is referred to as hyperchromicity. The main component of this effect is the screening of the intra-base excitations by dipole-dipole interactions between stacked bases, with significantly smaller screening for a single strand DNA on which bases are unstacked. For poly d(A)-poly d(T) this difference, the ratio of the intensity for single strand and duplex DNA, is 1.4 (see below). In Fig. 1, the temperature dependence of the UV absorption intensity is displayed for three different oligomer lengths. For all oligomers we observe a smooth transition from the duplex to the single strand state, with the transition temperature (defined as the half-point of the transition—see below) and width, increasing with increasing length. The linear slope visible in the melting curves after the sigmoidal transition region is a well-known phenomenon attributed to residual base unstacking in the single strands. The linear slope before the transition is indicative of temperature driven conformational changes in the double helix; this phenomenon, known as “premelting,” is not well understood Cantor and Schimmel (1980b). These phenomena are not accounted for in the models above: the first one is not related to strand separation, while the degrees of freedom relevant for the second are not taken into account by the zipper model.

We start with a comparison between the experimental results and the two state and zipper models discussed above. Such comparison is shown in Fig. 1.

In the zipper model, the fitting parameter $`ϵ_0`$ (in Kelvin) was allowed to vary between 6405 and 7090, and the parameter $`S_0`$ was fixed at 20.8. The points utilized for the fit were those closest to the transition. The dominant temperature dependence of the UV absorption in the vicinity of the melting transition is due to the separation of base pairs. At temperatures significantly higher and lower than the nominal melting temperature, the absorbance exhibits a temperature dependence as a result of effects that are unrelated to the denaturation of the DNA, as discussed above.

The fitting results for zipper model are summarized in the table below (Table 1). The binding energy increases with salt concentration, because of ionic screening (the temperature at the midpoint is ).The fact that the two-state model fits the data for the 15mer but not the 60mer indicates that gradual opening of the duplex plays an important role in the melting in the case of larger oligomers.

Figure 2 displays the temperature derivative of the UV absorption.

In this case the absorption has been normalized so that the integrated weight under each peak is equal to one in all cases. Two curves are shown for each data set. One represents the results of taking the derivative of the best fit of the zipper model to the data. The other was obtained by taking the temperature derivative of a three-point Lagrange interpolation through the data. While there are systematic differences between the two derivative curves, the tendencies of both are the same, as can be seen in Fig. 3, representing a log-log plot of the maximum of the derivative curve against the number of base pairs in the oligomers. This last figure is relevant to the analysis discussed below.

In light of the likely relevance of standard scaling notions to DNA melting, we have applied finite size scaling to our data. According to finite size scaling analysis, the specific heat of a $`d`$-dimensional system with (linear) size $`L`$ that undergoes a continuous phase transition will take the form

$$c|t|^{d\nu 2}f\left(L|t|^\nu \right)$$
(3)
in the immediate vicinity of the transition. In the above expression, $`t`$ is the reduced temperature and $`\nu `$ is the correlation function exponent. As no finite system exhibits thermodynamic singularities, the behavior of the function $`f`$ is such that the singularity in $`t`$ in the prefactor is cancelled as $`t0`$. This implies a specific heat at the bulk transition temperature that goes as $`L^{(2d\nu )/\nu }`$. In the case at hand, $`d=1`$, so the specific heat at the bulk transition temperature scales as $`L^{(2\nu )/\nu }`$. This sort of dependence on $`L`$ also characterizes the maximum in the specific heat. The temperature derivative of the UV absorption should behave in essentially the same way as does the specific heat at the denaturing transition, against $`L`$, and we have evaluated the maximum values of dn/dT using two procedures. The first involves the Lagrange interpolation through the data. The second, which we call the “Zipper interpolation” refers to a theoretical fit to the observed temperature dependence, using Eq. (1), with $`ϵ_0`$ as a free parameter for each oligomer and identifying the maximum of the derivative of the fit. The length dependence of the maxima are displayed in Fig. 3, and we find that the optimal fit is consistent with a specific heat that scales as $`L^{0.86}`$, which implies a $`\nu =1.075`$ and a specific heat diverging as $`|t|^{0.925}`$ in an infinite system. Consequently, the transition is continuous, but close to first order. Our findings are, therefore, consistent with the picture that bubble formation, in addition to opening at the ends, is important for the denaturing process. This is so even in the case of relatively short oligomers.

The experiments and analysis given above lead to several conclusions. First, it is clear from Fig 2 that the zipper model is a better fit to the experiments than the two state model for longer oligomers. This is in agreement with observations Cantor and Schimmel (1980a) that the dependence of the melting temperature on oligomer concentration is not significant above a length of about 14, while for shorter oligomers the transition is a chemical equilibrium between single strand and duplex species, which depends on concentration Cantor and Schimmel (1980c). Contrasting our results obtained on different lengths suggest that bubble formation, and a scaling scenario of the denaturing transition, is likely to be important. Experiments on longer oligomers, where the bubble formation process is expected to be more important would be desirable in order to distinguish between the zipper model and phase transition scenario. Finally we note that we have analyzed only the average, or mean number of open base pairs. The measurements described here do not offer insight into effects associated with fluctuations.