text:
# On the monodromy group of confluenting linear equations

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Brief statements of results, the plan of the paper and the history

Consider a linear analytic ordinary differential equation

$$\dot{z}=\frac{A(t)}{t^{k+1}}z,z^n,|t|1,k$$
(1.1)
with a nonresonant irregular singularity of order (the Poincaré rank) $`k`$ at 0 (or briefly, an irregular equation). This means that $`A(t)`$ is a holomorphic matrix function such that the matrix $`A(0)`$ has distinct eigenvalues (denote them by $`\lambda _i`$). Then the matrix $`A(0)`$ is diagonalizable, and without loss of generality we suppose that it is diagonal.

###### 1.1 Definition

Two equations of type (1.1) are analytically (formally) equivalent, if there exists a change $`z=H(t)w`$ of the variable $`z`$, where $`H(t)`$ is a holomorphic invertible matrix function (respectively, a formal invertible matrix power series), that transforms one equation into the other.

The analytic classification of irregular equations (1.1) is well-known (, , , , ): the complete system of invariants for analytic classification consists of a formal normal form (1.4) and Stokes operators (1.6) defined in 1.2; the latters are linear operators acting in the solution space of (1.1) comparing appropriate ”sectorial canonical solution bases”.

On the other hand, an irregular equation (1.1) can be regarded as a result of confluence of Fuchsian singular points (recall that a Fuchsian singular point of a linear equation is a first order pole of its right-hand side). Namely, consider a deformation

$$\dot{z}=\frac{A(t,\epsilon )}{f(t,\epsilon )}z,f(t,\epsilon )=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}(t\alpha _i(\epsilon )),$$
(1.2)
of equation (1.1) that splits the irregular singular point 0 of the nonperturbed equation into $`k+1`$ Fuchsian singularities $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$ of the perturbed equation, i.e., $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )\alpha _j(\epsilon )`$ for $`ij`$. The family (1.2) depends on a parameter $`\epsilon _+0`$, $`f(t,0)t^{k+1}`$, $`A(t,0)A(t)`$.

The monodromy group of a Fuchsian equation acts linearly in its solution space by analytic extensions of solutions along closed loops. The analytic equivalence class of a generic Fuchsian equation is completely determined by the local types of its singularities and the action of its monodromy group.

Everywhere below by $`M_i`$ we denote the monodromy operator of the perturbed equation (1.2) along a loop going around the singular point $`\alpha _i`$ (the choice of the corresponding loops will be specified later). The monodromy group of the perturbed equation is generated by appropriately chosen operators $`M_i`$.

In 1984 V.I.Arnold proposed the following question. Consider a generic deformation (1.2). Is there an operator

$$M_{i_l}^{d_l}\mathrm{}M_{i_1}^{d_1}$$
(1.3)
from the monodromy group of the perturbed equation that converges to a Stokes operator of the nonperturbed equation?

A version of this question was proposed independently by J.-P.Ramis in 1988.

It appears that already in the simplest case of dimension 2 and Poincaré rank $`k=1`$ generically each operator from the monodromy group (except for that along a circuit (and its powers) around both singularities) tends to infinity (Theorem 4.6 in Section 4), so, no one tends to a Stokes operator.

In other terms, generically, no word (1.3) with $`d_i`$ tends to a Stokes operator. But if $`k=1`$, then appropriate words (1.3) with noninteger exponents $`d_i`$ tend to Stokes operators (Theorem 2.16 in 2.2).

The previous question and its nonlinear analogues were studied by J.-P.Ramis, B.Khesin, A.Duval, C.Zhang, J.Martinet, the author and others (see the historical overview in 1.3). It was proved by the author in  that appropriate branches of the eigenfunctions of the monodromy operators $`M_i`$ of the perturbed equation tend to appropriate canonical solutions of the nonperturbed equation (Theorem 2.5 in 2.1). In the case of Poincaré rank $`k=1`$ this implies (Corollary 2.6 in 2.1) that Stokes operators of the nonperturbed equation are limits of transition operators between appropriate eigenbases of the monodromy operators $`M_i`$. This Corollary has a generalization for higher Poincaré rank .

The proofs of the results of the present paper are based on the previously mentioned results from , which are recalled in 2.1.

In 1.2 we recall the analytic classification of irregular equations (1.1) and the definitions of sectorial canonical solution bases and Stokes operators.

In 2.2 we state Theorem 2.16 on convergence of appropriate word (1.3) with noninteger exponents $`d_i`$ to a Stokes operator in the case of Poincaré rank $`k=1`$. Its proof is given in Section 3. The corresponding exponents $`d_i`$ do not depend on the choice of deformation. In fact, in the case of the higher Poincaré rank $`k=2`$ and $`n=2`$ one can also prove a similar statement, but now the choice of the corresponding exponents $`d_i`$ will depend on the choice of deformation. The latter case will be discussed in 2.3.

In Section 4 in the case, when $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, for a typical nonperturbed equation (1.1) we prove the divergence of the operators from the monodromy group of the perturbed equation (except for the monodromy along a circuit around both singularities and its powers).

### 1.2 Analytic classification of irregular equations. Canonical solutions and Stokes operators

Let (1.1) be an irregular equation, $`\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, be the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix $`A(0)`$.

One can ask the question: is it true that the variables $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ in the equation can be separated, more precisely, that (1.1) is analytically equivalent to a direct sum of one-dimensional linear equations, i.e., a linear equation with a diagonal matrix function in the right-hand side? Generically, the answer is “no”. At the same time any irregular equation (1.1) is formally equivalent to a unique direct sum of the type

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\dot{w_i}=\frac{b_i(t)}{t^{k+1}}w_i,\hfill & \\ i=1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1.4)
where $`b_i(t)`$ are polynomials of degrees at most $`k`$, $`b_i(0)=\lambda _i`$. The normalizing series bringing (1.1) to (1.4) is unique up to left multiplication by constant diagonal matrix. The system (1.4) is called the formal normal form of (1.1) (, , , , ).

Generically the normalizing series diverges. At the same time there exists a finite covering $`\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}S_j`$ of a punctured neighborhood of zero in the $`t`$\- line by radial sectors $`S_j`$ (i.e., those with the vertex at 0) that have the following property. There exists a unique change of variables $`z=H_j(t)w`$ over each $`S_j`$ that transforms (1.1) to $`(1.4)`$, where $`H_j(t)`$ is an analytic invertible matrix function on $`S_j`$ that can be $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smoothly extended to the closure $`\overline{S}_j`$ of the sector so that its asymptotic Taylor series at 0 coincides with the normalizing series. The previous statement on existence and uniqueness of sectorial normalization holds in any good sector (see the two following Definitions); the covering consists of good sectors (, , , , ).

Case $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$.

###### 1.2 Definition

A sector in $``$ with the vertex at 0 is said to be good, if it contains only one imaginary semiaxis $`i_\pm `$, and its closure does not contain the other one (see Fig.1).

General case.

###### 1.3 Definition

(see, e.g., ). Let $`k`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\}`$ be a $`n`$\- ple of distinct numbers, $`t`$ be the coordinate on $``$. For a given pair $`\lambda _i\lambda _j`$ the rays in $``$ starting at 0 and forming the set $`\mathrm{Re}(\frac{\lambda _j\lambda _i}{t^k})=0`$ are called the $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- imaginary dividing rays corresponding to the pair $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)`$. A radial sector is said to be $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good, if for any pair $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)`$, $`ji`$, it contains exactly one corresponding imaginary dividing ray and so does its closure.

###### 1.4 Remark

In the case, when $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$, the imaginary dividing rays are the imaginary semiaxes, and the notions of good sector and $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sector coincide.

###### 1.5 Remark

The ratio $`\frac{w_i}{w_j}(t)`$ of solutions of equations from (1.4) tends to either zero or infinity, as $`t`$ tends to zero along a ray distinct from the imaginary dividing rays corresponding to the pair $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)`$. Its limit changes exactly when the ray under consideration jumps over one of the latter imaginary dividing rays.

We consider a covering $`\underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}S_j`$ of a punctured neighborhood of zero by good (or $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good) sectors numerated counterclockwise and put $`S_{N+1}=S_0`$. The standard splitting of the normal form (1.4) into the direct sum of one-dimensional equations defines a canonical base in its solutions space (uniquely up to multiplication of the base functions by constants) with a diagonal fundamental matrix. Denote the latter fundamental matrix by

$$W(t)=\mathrm{diag}(w_1,\mathrm{},w_n).$$

Together with the normalizing changes $`H_j`$ in $`S_j`$, it defines the canonical bases $`(f_{j1},\mathrm{},f_{jn})`$ in the solution space of (1.1) in the sectors $`S_j`$ with the fundamental matrices

$$Z^j(t)=H_j(t)W(t),j=0,\mathrm{},N+1,$$
(1.5)
where for any $`j=0,\mathrm{},N`$ the branch (”with the index $`j+1`$”) of the fundamental matrix $`W(t)`$ in $`S_{j+1}`$ is obtained from that in $`S_j`$ by the counterclockwise analytic extension for any $`j=0,\mathrm{},N`$. (We put $`S_{N+1}=S_0`$. The corresponding branch of $`W`$ ”with the index $`N+1`$” is obtained from that ”with the index 0” by the right multiplication by the monodromy matrix of the formal normal form (1.4).) In a connected component of the intersection $`S_jS_{j+1}`$ there are two canonical solution bases coming from $`S_j`$ and $`S_{j+1}`$. Generically, they do not coincide. The transition between them is defined by a constant matrix $`C_j`$:

$$Z^{j+1}(t)=Z^j(t)C_j.$$
(1.6)
The transition operators (matrices $`C_j`$) are called Stokes operators (matrices) (see , , , , ). The nontriviality of Stokes operators yields the obstruction to analytic equivalence of (1.1) and its formal normal form (1.4).

###### 1.6 Remark

Stokes matrices (1.6) are well-defined up to simultaneous conjugation by one and the same diagonal matrix.

###### 1.7 Example

Let $`k=1,n=2`$. In this case without loss of generality we assume that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2_+`$ (one can achieve this by linear change of the time variable). Then the above covering consists of two sectors $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ (Figure 1). The former contains the positive imaginary semiaxis and its closure does not contain the negative one; the latter has the same properties with respect to the negative (respectively, positive) imaginary semiaxis. There are two components of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$. So, in this case we have a pair of Stokes operators. The Stokes matrices (1.6) are unipotent: the one corresponding to the left intersection component is lower-triangular; the other one is upper-triangular (, , , , ).

###### 1.8 Remark

Stokes operators of an irregular equation (1.1) with a diagonal matrix in the right-hand side are identity operators. In this case (1.1) is analytically equivalent to its formal normal form. In general, two irregular equations are analytically equivalent, if and only if they have the same formal normal form and the corresponding Stokes matrix tuples are obtained from each other by simultaneous conjugation by one and the same diagonal matrix, cf. the previous Remark. Thus, formal normal form and Stokes matrix tuple taken up to the previous conjugation present the complete system of invariants for analytic classification of irregular equations (see , , , , ).

### 1.3 Historical overview

Earlier in 1919 R. Garnier  had studied some particular deformations of some class of linear equations with nonresonant irregular singularity. He obtained some analytic classification invariants for these equations by studying their deformations. The complete system of analytic classification invariants (Stokes operators and formal normal form) for general irregular differential equations was obtained later in 1970-th years in the papers by Jurkat, Lutz, Peyerimhoff , Sibuya  and Balser, Jurkat, Lutz . Later Jurkat, Lutz and Peyerimhoff had extended their results to some resonant cases . It is well-known that the monodromy operators of a linear ordinary differential equation belong to its Galois group (see , ). In 1985 J.-P.Ramis have proved that the Stokes operators also belong to the Galois group (, see also ). In 1989 he considered the classical confluenting family of hypergeometric equations and proved convergence of appropriate branches of monodromy eigenfunctions of the perturbed equation to canonical solutions of the nonperturbed one by direct calculation . In the late 1980-th years B.Khesin also proved a version of this statement, but his result was not published. In 1991 A.Duval  proved this statement for the biconfluenting family of hypergeometric equations (where the nonperturbed equation is equivalent to Bessel equation) by direct calculation. In 1994 C. Zhang  had obtained the expression of Garnier’s invariants via Stokes operators (for the class of irregular equations considered by Garnier).

The conjecture saying that Stokes operators are limit transition operators between monodromy eigenbases of the perturbed equation was firstly proposed by A.A.Bolibrukh in 1996. It was proved by the author in . Later this result was extended to a generic resonant case .

Nonlinear analogues of the previous statements for parabolic mappings (i.e., one-dimensional conformal mappings tangent to identity) and their Écalle-Voronin moduli, saddle-node singularities of two-dimensional holomorphic vector fields and their Martinet-Ramis invariants (sectorial central manifolds in higher dimensions) were obtained by the author in . Generalizations and other versions of the statement on parabolic mappings were recently obtained in the joint paper  by P.Mardesic, R.Roussarie, C.Rousseau, and in two unpublished joint papers by the following authors: 1) X.Buff and Tan Lei; 2) A.Douady, Francisco Estrada, P.Sentenac.

A particular case of the result from  concerning parabolic mappings (analogous to the previously mentioned statements on linear equations) was obtained by J.Martinet .

## 2 Main results. Stokes operators and limit monodromy

Everywhere below (whenever the contrary is not specified) we consider that the (nonperturbed) irregular equation under consideration has Poincaré rank $`k=1`$. In the present Section we recall the statements from  expressing the Stokes operators as limit transition operators between monodromy eigenbases of the confluenting Fuchsian equation (Theorems 2.5, 2.11 and Corollary 2.6 in Subsection 2.1). In 2.2 we state the results expressing the Stokes operators as limits of some words (1.3) of noninteger powers of monodromy operators (Theorem 2.16). In 2.3 we discuss the extension of these results to the case of higher Poincaré rank in dimension two.

### 2.1 Stokes operators as limit transition operators between monodromy eigenbases

We formulate the result from the title of the Subsection firstly in the case, when $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, and then in the general case.

Case $`n=2`$, $`k=1`$. Let $`\lambda _i`$, $`i=1,2`$, be the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A(0)`$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2_+`$: one can achieve this by linear change of the time variable.

We consider a deformation of (1.1),

$$\dot{z}=\frac{A(t,\epsilon )}{f(t,\epsilon )}z,f(t,\epsilon )=(t\alpha _0(\epsilon ))(t\alpha _1(\epsilon )),f(t,0)t^2,A(t,0)=A(t),$$
(2.1)
where $`A(t,\epsilon )`$ and $`f(t,\epsilon )`$ depend continuously on a parameter $`\epsilon 0`$ so that $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ for $`\epsilon >0`$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\alpha _0+\alpha _10`$. We formulate the statement from the title of the Subsection for a generic deformation (2.1), see the following Definition.

###### 2.1 Definition

A family of quadratic polynomials $`f(t,\epsilon )`$ depending continuously on a nonnegative parameter $`\epsilon `$, $`f(t,0)t^2`$, with roots $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$, $`i=0,1`$, $`\alpha _0+\alpha _10`$, is said to be generic, if $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ for $`\epsilon 0`$, and the line passing through $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$ and $`\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ intersects the real axis by angle bounded away from 0 uniformly in $`\epsilon `$. A family (2.1) of linear equations with $`n=2`$, $`k=1`$, $`\lambda _1\lambda _2_+`$ is said to be generic, if so is the corresponding family of polynomials $`f(t,\epsilon )`$.

###### 2.2 Definition

(see, e.g., ). A singular point $`t_0`$ of a linear analytic ordinary differential equation $`\dot{z}=\frac{B(t)}{tt_0}z`$ is said to be Fuchsian, if it is a first order pole of the right-hand side (i.e., the corresponding matrix function $`B(t)`$ is holomorphic at $`t_0`$). The characteristic numbers of a Fuchsian singularity are the eigenvalues of the corresponding residue matrix $`B(t_0)`$ (which are equal to the logarithms divided by $`2\pi i`$ of the eigenvalues of the corresponding monodromy operator).

###### 2.3 Remark

A family (2.1) of linear equations is generic, if and only if the difference of the characteristic numbers at $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$ (or equivalently, at $`\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$) of the perturbed equation is not real for small $`\epsilon `$ and moreover has argument bounded away from $`\pi `$ uniformly in $`\epsilon `$ small enough. The latter condition implies that the monodromy operator of the perturbed equation around each singular point $`\alpha _i`$ has distinct eigenvalues (moreover, their modules are distinct), and hence, a well-defined eigenbase in the solution space (for small $`\epsilon `$).

The singularities of the perturbed equation from a generic family have imaginary parts of constant (and opposite) signs (by definition). Without loss of generality everywhere below we consider that

$$\mathrm{Im}\alpha _0>0,\mathrm{Im}\alpha _1<0,\text{see Fig.2}.$$

###### 2.4 Definition

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (see the previous Definition) whose singularity families satisfy the previous inequalities. Let $`S_j`$, $`j=0,1`$, be a pair of good sectors in the $`t`$\- line (see Definition 1.2) such that for any $`\epsilon `$ small enough $`\alpha _j(\epsilon )S_j`$, $`j=0,1`$, $`i_+S_0`$, $`i_{}S_1`$ (see Fig. 1). The sector $`S_j`$ is said to be the sector associated to the singularity family $`\alpha _j`$, $`j=0,1`$.

We show that appropriate branches of the eigenfunctions of the monodromy operator $`M_i`$ around $`\alpha _i`$ of the perturbed equation converge to canonical solutions of the nonperturbed equation in the corresponding sector $`S_i`$. This will imply the statement from the title of the Subsection.

To formulate the latter statement precisely, consider the auxiliary domain

$$S_i^{}=S_i[\alpha _0(\epsilon ),\alpha _1(\epsilon )],$$
(2.2)
which is simply-connected, and the canonical branches of the monodromy eigenfunctions on the domain $`S_i^{}`$. In more details, consider a small circle going around $`\alpha _i`$ and take a base point on it outside the segment $`[\alpha _0(\epsilon ),\alpha _1(\epsilon )]`$. In the space of local solutions of the perturbed equation at the base point consider the monodromy operator $`M_i`$ acting by the analytic extension of a solution along the circle from the base point to itself in the counterclockwise direction. The eigenfunctions of $`M_i`$ have well-defined branches (up to multiplication by constants) in the corresponding disc with the segment $`[\alpha _0(\epsilon ),\alpha _1(\epsilon )]`$ deleted. Their immediate analytic extension yields their canonical branches on $`S_i^{}`$. In other terms, we identify the space of local solutions with the space of solutions on $`S_i^{}`$ by immediate analytic extension, consider $`M_i`$ as an operator acting in the latter space and take its eigenfunctions.

The canonical basic solutions of the nonperturbed equation are numerated by the indices 1 and 2, which correspond to the eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ of $`A(0)`$. To state the results previously mentioned, let us define the analogous numeration of the monodromy eigenfunctions at $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$. The monodromy eigenfunctions are numerated by the characteristic numbers (see Definition 2.2) of the corresponding singularity. The latters are proportional to the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A(\alpha _i(\epsilon ),\epsilon )`$, which tend to $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$. This induces the numeration of the monodromy eigenfunctions by the indices 1 and 2 corresponding to the limit eigenvalues $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$.

###### 2.5 Theorem

(see ). Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear ordinary differential equations (see Definition 2.1), $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$ be its singularity family, $`S_i`$ be the corresponding sector (see the previous Definition), $`S_i^{}`$ be the domain (2.2). Consider the eigenbase on $`S_i^{}`$ of the monodromy operator of the perturbed equation around $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$. The appropriately normalized eigenbase (by multiplication of the basic functions by constants) converges to the canonical solution base (1.5) on $`S_i`$ of the nonperturbed equation.

###### 2.6 Corollary

(see ). Let (2.1) be a generic linear equation family (see Definition 2.1), $`\alpha _i`$ be its singularity families, $`S_i`$ be the corresponding sectors (see the previous Definition) chosen to cover a punctured neighborhood of zero, $`S_i^{}`$ be the corresponding domains (2.2). Let $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the corresponding Stokes matrices (1.6) of the nonperturbed equation in the left (respectively, right) component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$. Consider the eigenbase on $`S_i^{}`$ of the monodromy operator of the perturbed equation around $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$. Denote by $`Z_\epsilon ^i(t)`$ the fundamental matrix of this eigenbase. Let $`C_0(\epsilon )`$ ($`C_1(\epsilon )`$) be the transition matrix between the monodromy eigenbases $`Z_\epsilon ^i(t)`$, $`i=0,1`$, in the left (respectively, right) component of the intersection $`S_0^{}S_1^{}`$:

$$Z_\epsilon ^1(t)=Z_\epsilon ^0(t)C_0(\epsilon )\text{for}\mathrm{Re}t<0;Z_\epsilon ^0(t)=Z_\epsilon ^1(t)C_1(\epsilon )\text{for}\mathrm{Re}t>0.$$
(2.3)
For any $`j=0,1`$ and appropriately normalized monodromy eigenbases $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$, $`i=0,1`$ (the normalization of $`Z_\epsilon ^0`$ (only) depends on the choice of $`j`$) $`C_j(\epsilon )C_j`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$.

Case $`k=1`$, $`n`$ is arbitrary. To state the analogues of Theorem 2.5 and Corollary 2.6 in this more general case, let us firstly extend the notions of a generic family of linear equations and a sector associated to a singularity family.

###### 2.7 Definition

Let $`n,k`$, $`n2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ be a set of $`n`$ distinct complex numbers, $`\lambda _i\lambda _j`$ be a pair of them. A ray in $``$ starting at 0 is called a $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- real dividing ray associated to the pair $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)`$, if for any $`t`$ lying in this ray $`\mathrm{Im}\frac{\lambda _i\lambda _j}{t^k}=0`$. (Or equivalently, it is a ray bisecting an angle between two neighbor imaginary dividing rays (see Definition 1.3) associated to $`(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)`$.)

###### 2.8 Definition

Let (1.1) be an irregular equation with $`k=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the vector of eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix $`A(0)`$. Let (2.1) be its deformation depending continuously on a nonnegative parameter $`\epsilon `$, $`f(t,0)t^2`$, $`\alpha _0+\alpha _10`$. The family (2.1) is said to be generic, if $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ for $`\epsilon 0`$, and the line passing through $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$ and $`\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ intersects each $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- real dividing ray by angle bounded away from 0 uniformly in $`\epsilon `$.

###### 2.9 Definition

Let (2.1) be a generic family (see the previous Definition), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the corresponding eigenvalue tuple of $`A(0)=A(0,0)`$. Let $`\alpha _0`$, $`\alpha _1`$ be the corresponding singular point families, $`V_i`$ be the half-plane (depending on $`\epsilon `$) containing $`\alpha _i`$ and bounded by the symmetry line of the segment $`[\alpha _0,\alpha _1]`$. The sector associated to $`\alpha _i`$ is a $`(1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sector (see Definition 1.3) independent on $`\epsilon `$ that contains $`V_i`$ for any $`\epsilon `$ small enough.

###### 2.10 Remark

In the previous Definition the sectors $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ associated to $`\alpha _0`$, $`\alpha _1`$ respectively cover a punctured neighborhood of zero, so, the nonperturbed equation has a pair of Stokes operators ($`C_0`$, $`C_1`$) associated to this covering.

###### 2.11 Theorem

(see ). Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (see Definition 2.8), $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$, $`S_0^{}`$, $`S_1^{}`$ be respectively the corresponding associated sectors (see the previous Definition) and the domains (2.2). Then the statement of the previous Theorem remains valid. The same is true for Corollary 2.6. In more details, consider the eigenbases $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$ on $`S_i^{}`$ of the monodromy operators around the singular points $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$ of the perturbed equation, $`i=0,1`$. Let $`C_0(\epsilon )`$, $`C_1(\epsilon )`$ be the transition matrices (2.3) between them in the connected components of the intersection $`S_0^{}S_1^{}`$. Let $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the Stokes matrices of the nonperturbed equation in the corresponding limit connected components of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$. Then for any $`j=0,1`$ and appropriately normalized monodromy eigenbases $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$ (the normalization of $`Z_\epsilon ^0`$ (only) depends on the choice of $`j`$) $`C_j(\epsilon )C_j`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$.

### 2.2 Stokes operators as limits of commutators of appropriate powers of the monodromy operators

The Stokes and monodromy operators act in different linear spaces: in the solution spaces of the nonperturbed (respectively, perturbed) equations. To formulate the statement from the title of the Subsection, let us firstly identify these solution spaces and specify the loops defining the monodromy operators.

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (in the sense of some of Definitions 2.1 and 2.8). Take a ”base point” $`t_0`$ in the unit disc punctured at 0.

###### 2.12 Remark

The space of local solutions of a linear equation at a nonsingular point $`t_0`$ is identified with the space of initial conditions at $`t_0`$ (which is common for the nonperturbed and the perturbed equations). This identifies the solution spaces of the latters. The space thus obtained will be denoted by $`H_{t_0}`$.

###### 2.13 Remark

Let (1.1) be an irregular equation with $`k=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the eigenvalue tuple of the corresponding matrix $`A(0)`$. Let $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ be $`(1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sectors covering a punctured neighborhood of zero in the $`t`$\- line. Let $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the Stokes operators (1.6) corresponding to the connected components of their intersection. Each operator $`C_i`$ is well-defined in the space $`H_{t_0}`$ of local solutions of (1.1) at any point $`t_0`$ lying in the corresponding component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$.

Now let us define the monodromy operators acting in the previous space $`H_{t_0}`$.

###### 2.14 Definition

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (in the sense of one of Definitions 2.1 and 2.8), $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$, $`i=0,1`$, be its singularity families. Fix a point $`t_0`$ (independent on $`\epsilon `$) disjoint from the line passing through $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$ and $`\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ for any $`\epsilon `$. Let $`l_i`$ be a small circle centered at $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$ whose closed disc is disjoint from $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$, $`a_i=[t_0,\alpha _i]l_i`$, the segment $`[t_0,a_i]`$ be oriented from $`t_0`$ to $`a_i`$. Consider the closed path $`\psi _i=[t_0,a_i]l_i[t_0,a_i]^1`$, $`i=0,1`$, which starts and ends at $`t_0`$ (in the case, when $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, $`\lambda _1\lambda _2`$, we choose $`t_0`$, see Fig.3). Define $`M_i:H_{t_0}H_{t_0}`$ to be the corresponding monodromy operator of the perturbed equation.

We show that commutators of appropriate noninteger powers of the operators $`M_i`$ (see the following Definition) tend to the Stokes operators.

###### 2.15 Definition

Let $`d`$, $`M:HH`$ be a linear operator in a finite-dimensional linear space having distinct eigenvalues. The $`d`$-th power of $`M`$ is the operator having the same eigenlines, as $`M`$, whose corresponding eigenvalues are some values of the $`d`$-th powers of those of $`M`$.

Let $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ be sectors in $``$ with vertex at 0 covering a punctured neighborhood of 0. Their left (right) intersection component is the component of their intersection crossed while going from $`S_0`$ to $`S_1`$ in the counterclockwise (respectively, clockwise) direction.

###### 2.16 Theorem

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (in the sense of one of Definitions 2.1 and 2.8), $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$, $`i=0,1`$, be its singularity families. Let $`S_i`$, $`i=0,1`$, be the corresponding associated sectors (see Definitions 2.4 or 2.9 respectively) forming a covering of a punctured neighborhood of zero, $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the Stokes operators (1.6) of the nonperturbed equation corresponding to the left (respectively, right) component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$ (see the previous paragraph). Let $`t_0`$ be a fixed point of unit disc lying in the left component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$, $`H_{t_0}`$ be the corresponding local solution space (see Remark 2.12). (Then the operator $`C_0`$ ($`C_1`$) acts in the space $`H_{t_0}`$ (recpectively, $`H_{t_0}`$, see Remark 2.13.)) Let $`M_i:H_{\pm t_0}H_{\pm t_0}`$ be the corresponding monodromy operators from Definition 2.14. Then for any pair of numbers $`d_0,d_1>0`$ such that $`d_0+d_1<1`$

$$M_1^{d_1}M_0^{d_0}M_1^{d_1}M_0^{d_0}C_0\text{in the space}H_{t_0},$$

$$M_0^{d_0}M_1^{d_1}M_0^{d_0}M_1^{d_1}C_1\text{in the space}H_{t_0},\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

Theorem 2.16 is proved in Section 3.

### 2.3 The case of higher Poincaré rank

Theorem 2.5 on convergence of the monodromy eigenbases to canonical solution bases is stated and proved in  for arbitrary irregular equation (for arbitrary Poincaré rank and dimension). It holds for any generic family (1.2) defined to satisfy the following conditions: 1) $`\alpha _i0`$, $`f_\epsilon ^{}(0,0)0`$ (then $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )=a_i\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{k+1}}(1+o(1))`$, where the points $`a_i`$ form a regular polygon centered at 0); 2) no one of the previous points $`a_i`$ lies in a real dividing ray (see Definition 2.7), in other terms, no radial ray of $`\alpha _i`$ tends to a real dividing ray. To each singularity family $`\alpha `$ we put into correspondence a $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sector $`S`$ (similarly to Definition 2.9) so that the canonical branches in $`S_\epsilon ^{}=S_{i=0}^k[0,\alpha _i(\epsilon )]`$ of the corresponding monodromy eigenfunctions converge to the canonical solutions of the nonperturbed equation on $`S`$. In the case of higher Poincaré rank for some pairs of neighbor singularities of the perturbed equation the corresponding sectors cannot not be chosen intersected; then the corresponding transition operator between the monodromy eigenbases tends to a product of Stokes operators. Each Stokes matrix is contained in some of the previous limit products, and its elements are expressed as polynomials in the elements of the corresponding limit product. On the other hand, in dimension two there are always two pairs of neighbor singularity families such that for each singularity pair the corresponding sectors may be chosen intersected. Then the transition operator between the corresponding appropriately normalized monodromy eigenbases tends to the Stokes operator of the nonperturbed equation corresponding to the intersection of the sectors.

###### 2.17 Example

Consider the case, when $`k=n=2`$. Then the perturbed equation has three singularities, and the number of $`(2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sectors covering a punctured neighborhood of zero is equal to 4. One can prove the following version of Theorem 2.16.

Consider a generic deformation (1.2) of an irregular equation (1.1) with $`k=n=2`$. Let $`\alpha _0`$, $`\alpha _1`$ be a pair of singularity families numerated counterclockwise and corresponding to intersected sectors (denote the latters by $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ respectively). Let $`t_00`$ be a fixed (base) point lying between the radial rays of $`\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$, $`\alpha _1(\epsilon )`$ for all $`\epsilon `$. Let $`M_0`$, $`M_1`$ be the corresponding monodromy operators (see Definition 2.14). Let $`C`$ be the Stokes operator corresponding to the intersection $`S_0S_1`$. Then for appropriate $`d_0,d_10`$ (depending on the family of equations)

$$M_1^{d_1}M_0^{d_0}M_1^{d_1}M_0^{d_0}C,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

More precisely, there exist $`s_i`$, $`l_0,l_1>0`$ (depending on the family of equations but not on $`\epsilon `$) such that the previous statement holds whenever $`d_0`$, $`d_1`$ satisfy the following system of inequalities:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{s_i}d_i>0,i=0,1\hfill & \\ l_0d_0+l_1d_1<1\hfill & \end{array}.$$

###### 2.18 Remark

The previous coefficients $`l_i`$ depend on how close the radial rays of $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=0,1`$, approach the real dividing rays: if the minimal angle between the radial ray of $`\alpha _i`$ and some real dividing ray is small, then the corresponding coefficient $`l_i`$ should be chosen large enough (hence, the corresponding exponent $`d_i`$ should be taken small enough).

The author believes that the previous statements extend to the general case of arbitrary Poincaré rank and dimension.

## 3 Convergence of the commutators to Stokes operators. Proof of Theorem 2.16

Firstly we prove Theorem 2.16 in the case, when $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$. Its proof for the case of $`k=1`$ and arbitrary $`n`$ is analogous: the modifications needed will be discussed in Subsection 3.4

Thus, from now on we consider that $`k=1`$, $`n=2`$, until the contrary will be specified. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)=(1,1)`$.

### 3.1 Properties of the monodromy and the transition operators. The plan of the proof of Theorem 2.16

Let us prove the convergence of the first commutator from Theorem 2.16; the proof of the convergence of the second commutator is analogous.

Thus, from now on we assume that the base point $`t_0`$ lies in the left component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$, and one can put $`t_0=\frac{1}{2}`$.

###### 3.1 Definition

Consider a linear diagonalizable operator acting on $`^2`$ with eigenvalues of distinct modules. Its projective multiplier is the ratio of its eigenvalue with the lower module over that with the higher module. Its projectivization is the Möbius transformation $`\overline{}\overline{}`$ induced by its action and the tautological projection $`^20^1=\overline{}`$.

###### 3.2 Remark

In the conditions of the previous Definition the projectivization is a hyperbolic transformation (see  and Definition 4.6 in Section 4); in particular, it has an attracting fixed point. The projective multiplier is well-defined and its module is always less than 1. It is equal to the multiplier of the projectivization at its attracting fixed point.

Let us write down the monodromy operators in the eigenbase of $`M_0`$ (which converges to the canonical solution base of the nonperturbed equation on $`S_0`$). Then the matrix of $`M_0`$ is diagonal: denote it

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\epsilon )=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _{01},\lambda _{02})(\epsilon ).$$

By Corollary 2.6, the matrix of $`M_1`$ is

$$M_1=C(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\epsilon )C^1(\epsilon ),C(\epsilon )C_0,\text{as}\epsilon 0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(\epsilon )=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _{11},\lambda _{12})(\epsilon ).$$
(3.1)
The transition matrix $`C(\epsilon )`$ tends to the Stokes matrix $`C_0`$, which is lower-triangular. Thus, the upper-triangular element of $`C(\epsilon )`$ (denoted by $`u(\epsilon )`$) tends to 0.

First of all we find the asymptotics of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _{ij}`$ of $`M_i`$:

###### 3.3 Proposition

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (see Definition 2.1), $`t_0=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`M_i`$ be the monodromy operators of the perturbed equation from Definition 2.14, $`f_{i1,\epsilon }`$, $`f_{i2,\epsilon }`$ be their basic eigenfunctions, $`\lambda _{i1}`$, $`\lambda _{i2}`$ be the corresponding eigenvalues. Then

$$\lambda _{01},\lambda _{12}\mathrm{},\lambda _{02},\lambda _{11}0,$$

$$\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{01}=(1+o(1))\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{02}=(1+o(1))\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{11}=(1+o(1))\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{12},\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

###### 3.4 Corollary

In the conditions of the previous Proposition the projective multipliers of $`M_0`$ and $`M_1`$ are equal respectively to

$$\mu _0=\frac{\lambda _{02}}{\lambda _{01}},\mu _1=\frac{\lambda _{11}}{\lambda _{12}};\mu _i0,\text{as}\epsilon 0,$$

$$\mathrm{ln}\mu _0=(1+o(1))\mathrm{ln}\mu _1,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

###### Proof.

of Proposition 3.3. It follows from definition that $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{01}=(1+o(1))\frac{2\pi i}{\alpha _0\alpha _1}`$. The real part of the right-hand side of the previous formula is positive and tends to infinity (since $`\mathrm{Im}(\alpha _0\alpha _1)>0`$ by assumption, and $`\alpha _i0`$), which implies that $`\lambda _{01}\mathrm{}`$. The similar formulas written for all the $`\lambda _{ij}`$ prove the rest of the statements of the Proposition. ∎

Let $`d_0,d_1>0`$, $`d_0+d_1<1`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_i=M_i^{d_i},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{d_i},i=0,1.$$

We prove that

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1^1\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_0^1C_0.$$

By definition and (3.1), the matrix of the previous commutator in the eigenbase of $`M_0`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1^1\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_0^1=C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1.$$
(3.2)
Let $`u(\epsilon )`$ be the upper-triangular element of the transition matrix $`C(\epsilon )`$, $`\mu _1(\epsilon )`$ be the projective multiplier of $`M_1`$. For the proof of the convergence to $`C_0=limC(\epsilon )`$ of the previous commutator we firstly prove that

$$u=O(\mu _1),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.3)
More precisely, we show in the next Subsection that $`u=(c_1+o(1))\mu _1`$, where $`c_1`$ is the upper-triangular element of the other Stokes matrix $`C_1`$.

Let $`\nu _0=\mu _0^{d_0}`$, $`\nu _1=\mu _1^{d_1}`$ be the projective multipliers of the operators $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ respectively. Formula (3.3) together with the previous Corollary and the condition $`d_0+d_1<1`$ imply that

$$u(\epsilon )=o(\nu _0\nu _1),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.4)
Using (3.4) we show (in the next Lemma proved in 3.3) that if we eliminate subsequently the terms $`C^{\pm 1}(\epsilon )`$ in (3.2) (from the right to the left) except for the left $`C(\epsilon )`$, then on each step the asymptotics of the modified expression (3.2) remains the same: the modified expression can be obtained from the initial one by composing it with an operator tending to the identity. At the last step the final modified expression will be just $`C(\epsilon )`$, which tends to $`C_0`$. This will prove the convergence of (3.2) to $`C_0`$.

Now the convergence of the commutator (3.2) is implied by the following Lemma (modulo (3.3)).

###### 3.5 Lemma

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ be two families of two-dimensional complex diagonalizable linear operators depending on a positive parameter $`\epsilon `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i=(\lambda _{i1},\lambda _{i2})`$ be the (diagonal) matrices of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$, $`i=0,1`$, in their eigenbases. Let $`C(\epsilon )`$ be the transition matrix between the eigenbases, more precisely, in the eigenbase of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ one have $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1=C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1C^1(\epsilon )`$. Let the eigenbases converge to some bases in the space so that the corresponding transition matrix $`C(\epsilon )`$ tends to a unipotent lower-triangular matrix (denoted by $`C_0`$). Let

$$\nu _0=\frac{\lambda _{02}}{\lambda _{01}}0,\nu _1=\frac{\lambda _{11}}{\lambda _{12}}0,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.5)
Let $`\nu _0`$, $`\nu _1`$ and the upper-triangular element $`u(\epsilon )`$ of the matrix $`C(\epsilon )`$ satisfy (3.4). Then

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1^1\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_0^1C_0,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

The Lemma will be proved in Subsection 3.3.

###### Proof.

of Theorem 2.16 modulo (3.3) and Lemma 3.5. The operators $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i=M_i^{d_i}`$ satisfy the conditions of the previous Lemma: all the conditions follow from the previous Proposition, Corollary and (3.3). This together with the Lemma implies the convergence of the first commutator in Theorem 2.16. This proves Theorem 2.16 modulo (3.3) and Lemma 3.5. ∎

### 3.2 The upper-triangular element of the transition matrix. Proof of (3.3)

We prove the following more precise version of (3.3).

###### 3.6 Lemma

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations (see Definition 2.1), $`\alpha _i`$ be its singularity families, $`S_i`$ be the corresponding sectors (see Definition 2.4) chosen to cover a punctured neighborhood of zero, $`S_i^{}`$ be the corresponding domains from (2.2). Let $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the Stokes matrices (1.6) of the nonperturbed equation (corresponding to the left (respectively, right) component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$),

$$C_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& 0\\ & c_0& 1\end{array}\right),C_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& c_1\\ & 0& 1\end{array}\right),\text{see Example 1.7}.$$

Let $`M_i`$ be the monodromy operator of the perturbed equation around $`\alpha _i(\epsilon )`$ acting in the space of solutions on $`S_i^{}`$. Let $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$ be the (fundamental matrix of) its eigenbase. Let $`C_0(\epsilon )`$ be the transition matrix (2.3) between the bases $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$ in the left component of the intersection $`S_0^{}S_1^{}`$. Let the previous eigenbases be normalized to converge so that $`C(\epsilon )C_0`$ (see Corollary 2.6):

$$C_0(\epsilon )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1+o(1)& u(\epsilon )\\ & c_0+o(1)& 1+o(1)\end{array}\right),u(\epsilon )0.$$

Let $`\lambda _{11},\lambda _{12}`$ be the eigenvalues of $`M_1`$, $`\mu _1=\frac{\lambda _{11}}{\lambda _{12}}`$ be the corresponding projective multiplier. Then the upper-triangular element $`u(\epsilon )`$ of the matrix $`C_0(\epsilon )`$ has the asymptotics

$$u(\epsilon )=(c_1+o(1))\mu _1^1,\text{as}\epsilon 0,$$
(3.6)
where $`c_1`$ is the upper-triangular element of the Stokes matrix $`C_1`$.

###### Proof.

The transition matrix $`C_0(\epsilon )`$, $`Z_\epsilon ^1=Z_\epsilon ^0C_0(\epsilon )`$, compares the monodromy eigenbases in the left component of the intersection $`S_0^{}S_1^{}`$, in particular, on a real interval in $`_{}`$. It is not changed, when we extend the basic solutions analytically from $`_{}`$ to $`_+`$ along the real line. Denote $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^i`$ the corresponding branch on $`_+`$ of the extended fundamental matrix $`Z_\epsilon ^i`$, $`i=0,1`$. It follows from definition that $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^1`$ is obtained from $`Z_\epsilon ^1|__+`$ by applying the inverse monodromy operator $`M_1^1`$:

$$Z_{\epsilon ,+}^1=Z_\epsilon ^1|_{S_1^{}}M_1^1;\text{the matrix}M_1\text{is diagonal}.$$
(3.7)
On the other hand, we can choose a renormalization of the eigenbase $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^0`$ by multiplication of the basic solutions by constants (i.e., changing it to $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^0L(\epsilon )`$, $`L(\epsilon )=diag(l_1(\epsilon ),l_2(\epsilon ))`$ is some family of diagonal matrices) so that in the right component of the intersection $`S_0^{}S_1^{}`$ the transition matrix $`C_1(\epsilon )`$ between $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^0L(\epsilon )`$ and $`Z_\epsilon ^1`$ tends to the Stokes matrix $`C_1`$:

$$Z_{\epsilon ,+}^0L(\epsilon )=Z_\epsilon ^1|_{S_1^{}}C_1(\epsilon ),C_1(\epsilon )C_1.$$

By definition, $`Z_{\epsilon ,+}^1=Z_{\epsilon ,+}^0C_0(\epsilon )`$. Substituting the latter and (3.7) to the previous formula yields

$$C_0(\epsilon )=L(\epsilon )C_1^1(\epsilon )M_1^1.$$
(3.8)
The matrices $`C_i(\epsilon )`$ tend to the Stokes matrices $`C_i`$, which are unipotent. The matrices $`L(\epsilon )`$, $`M_1`$ are diagonal and depend on $`\epsilon `$. This implies that

$$L(\epsilon )=M_1(1+o(1)),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

This together with (3.8) implies (3.6). ∎

### 3.3 Commutators of operators with asymptotically common eigenline. Proof of Lemma 3.5

In the proof of Lemma 3.5 we use the following Proposition.

###### 3.7 Proposition

Let $`C(\epsilon )`$ be a family of two-dimensional matrices depending on a parameter $`\epsilon 0`$ and converging to a unipotent lower-triangular matrix, as $`\epsilon 0`$. Let $`u=u(\epsilon )`$ be the upper-triangular element of $`C(\epsilon )`$ (thus, $`u(\epsilon )0`$). Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon )=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _1(\epsilon ),\lambda _2(\epsilon ))`$ be a family of diagonal matrices depending on $`\epsilon >0`$ such that

$$\nu =\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}0,u=o(\nu ),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.9)
Then

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\epsilon )C(\epsilon )\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon )Id,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.10)
###### Proof.

The diagonal elements of the matrix in (3.10) are equal to those of $`C(\epsilon )`$, and thus, tend to 1. Its lower-triangular element tends to 0: it is equal to that of $`C(\epsilon )`$ (which tends to a finite limit) times $`\nu `$ (which tends to 0 by (3.9)). Its upper-triangular element, which is equal to $`u\nu ^1`$, tends to 0 by (3.9). This proves (3.10). ∎

Consider the commutator (3.2):

$$C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1.$$
(3.11)
Using the previous Proposition, we firstly ”kill” the right $`C^1(\epsilon )`$: we show that expression (3.11) is equal to

$$C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1(Id+o(1)).$$
(3.12)
Then we kill similarly the right $`C(\epsilon )`$ in (3.12) and the remaining $`C^1(\epsilon )`$. Finally we get that the initial commutator is equal to $`C(\epsilon )`$ times the commutator of diagonal matrices (which is identity) times $`(Id+o(1))`$. This implies that (3.2) tends to $`C_0=limC(\epsilon )`$.

The first step: killing of $`C^1`$. Let

$$Q(\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0C^1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1.$$

By definition, expression (3.11) is equal to

$$C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^1C^1(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1Q(\epsilon ).$$

It suffices to show that $`Q(\epsilon )Id`$. This follows from the previous Proposition applied to the families of matrices $`C^1(\epsilon )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1(\epsilon )`$: these families satisfy the conditions of the previous Proposition. Indeed, by (3.5), $`\nu =\nu _00`$. The upper-triangular element of $`C^1`$ (denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$) is $`\stackrel{~}{u}=O(u)=o(\nu _0\nu _1)=o(\nu _0)`$ by (3.4). This proves (3.9) for $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$. The conditions of the Proposition are checked. Thus, by (3.10), $`Q(\epsilon )Id.`$

The second step: killing of the right $`C`$ in (3.12). It repeats the previous discussions with the families $`C(\epsilon )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\epsilon )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^1`$.

The third step: killing of the left $`C^1`$. Done analogously by applying the previous Proposition to the matrix families $`C^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1`$. Lemma 3.5 is proved.

### 3.4 Convergence of the commutators to Stokes operators: the higher-dimensional case

The proof of Theorem 2.16 in higher dimensions repeats that in the two-dimensional case with some changes specified below.

Let (2.1) be a generic family of equations, $`\alpha _i`$ be its singularity families, $`i=0,1`$, $`S_i`$, be the corresponding associated sectors. Consider their ”left intersection component” that is crossed while going counterclockwise from $`S_0`$ to $`S_1`$. Let $`t_0`$ be a point lying in this component. Let $`H_{t_0}`$ be the corresponding local solution space, $`M_i:H_{t_0}H_{t_0}`$ be the corresponding monodromy operators (see Definition 2.14). Let $`Z_\epsilon ^0`$ be the eigenbase of the monodromy operator $`M_0`$, where the eigenfunctions are taken in the order of decreasing of the modules of the corresponding eigenvalues (it appears that these modules are really distinct, see the next Proposition). Let $`Z_\epsilon ^1`$ be that of $`M_1`$, and the order of the eigenfunctions coincide with the order of increasing of the modules of the eigenvalues. Let $`C(\epsilon )`$ be the transition matrix between them:

$$Z_\epsilon ^1=Z_\epsilon ^0C(\epsilon ).$$

Let $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$ be the Stokes matrices of the nonperturbed equation in the left (respectively, right) connected component of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$.

###### 3.8 Proposition

In the above conditions for any $`\epsilon `$ small enough each monodromy operator $`M_i`$, $`i=0,1`$, has distinct eigenvalues (denote them $`\lambda _{i1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{in}`$). Moreover, for any $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`j<k`$, one has $`\frac{\lambda _{0j}}{\lambda _{0k}}\mathrm{}`$, $`\frac{\lambda _{1j}}{\lambda _{1k}}0`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$. Appropriately normalized eigenbases $`Z_\epsilon ^0`$ and $`Z_\epsilon ^1`$ converge to canonical solution bases of the nonperturbed equation in $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ respectively. Let $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _n`$ be the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A(0)`$ numerated in the order of increasing of the values $`\mathrm{Re}\frac{\lambda _j}{i\alpha _0(\epsilon )}`$. The numeration of each (converging) monodromy eigenbase corresponds to the numeration of the limit canonical solution base by the previous eigenvalues $`\lambda _j`$.

In dimension two the Proposition follows from Proposition 3.3. In higher dimension its proof is analogous to that of Proposition 3.3.

The Stokes matrices $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ are lower- (respectively, upper-) triangular. This is implied by the last statement of the previous Proposition and the following well-known fact.

###### 3.9 Proposition

(see, e.g., ). Let $`k,n`$, $`n2`$, (1.1) be an irregular equation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ be the eigenvalues of the corresponding matrix $`A(0)`$. Let $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ be a pair of intersected $`(k,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$\- good sectors. Let there exist a $`tS_0S_1`$ such that the sequence of the values $`\mathrm{Re}\frac{\lambda _j}{t^k}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, increases. Consider the canonical sectorial solution bases of (1.1) numerated by $`\lambda _j`$. Then the Stokes matrix of (1.1) in the connected component containing $`t`$ of the intersection $`S_0S_1`$ is lower-triangular. In the case of the inverse order of the eigenvalues it is upper-triangular.

The point $`t=i\alpha _0(\epsilon )`$ satisfies the conditions of the previous Proposition with $`k=1`$ (the last statement of Proposition 3.8). Hence, by Proposition 3.9, the Stokes matrix $`C_0`$ is lower-triangular and $`C_1`$ is upper-triangular.

Let

$$C(\epsilon )=(C_{ij}(\epsilon )),C_1^{}=C_1^1=(C_{1,ij}^{}).$$

Formula (3.6) of Lemma 3.6 extends to higher dimension as follows:

$$C_{jk}(\epsilon )=(C_{1,jk}^{}+o(1))(\frac{\lambda _{1j}}{\lambda _{1k}}),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.13)
The proof of (3.13) repeats that of (3.6) in Subsection 3.2.

Let $`d_0,d_1>0`$, $`d_0+d_1<1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{ij}=\lambda _{ij}^{d_i}`$, $`i=0,1`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. One has

$$C_{jk}(\epsilon )=O(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1j}}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1k}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{0k}}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{0j}}),\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$
(3.14)
Formula (3.14) follows from (3.13), the inequality $`d_0+d_1<1`$ and the asymptotic formula $`\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{0j}=(1+o(1))\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{1j}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, which is proved analogously to Proposition 3.3. As at the end of Subsection 3.1, Theorem 2.16 is implied by (3.14) and the following higher-dimensional analogue of Lemma 3.5.

###### 3.10 Lemma

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ be two families of $`n`$\- dimensional diagonalizable linear operators depending on a positive parameter $`\epsilon `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i=\mathrm{diag}(\lambda _{i1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{in})`$ be the (diagonal) matrices of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i`$ in their eigenbases. Let $`C(\epsilon )=(C_{jk}(\epsilon ))`$ be the transition matrix between their eigenbases, more precisely, in the eigenbase of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0`$ the matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ is $`C(\epsilon )\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1C^1(\epsilon )`$. Let the eigenbases converge to some bases in the space so that the transition matrix $`C(\epsilon )`$ converges to a unipotent lower-triangular matrix (denoted by $`C_0`$). Let for any $`j<k`$, $`j,k=1,\mathrm{},n`$,

$$\frac{\lambda _{0j}}{\lambda _{0k}}\mathrm{},\frac{\lambda _{1j}}{\lambda _{1k}}0,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

Let in addition the asymptotic formula (3.14) hold. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_1^1\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_0^1C_0,\text{as}\epsilon 0.$$

The proof of the Lemma repeats that of Lemma 3.5 with obvious changes.

## 4 Generic divergence of monodromy operators along degenerating loops

In the present Section we consider only two-dimensional irregular equations with Poincaré rank $`k=1`$ and their generic deformations. As before, without loss of generality we assume that $`\lambda _1\lambda _2_+`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\alpha _0>0`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\alpha _1<0`$.

Let (2.1) be a generic family of linear equations, $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=0,1`$, be its singularity families, $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ be the corresponding associated sectors forming a covering of a punctured neighborhood of 0. Let $`t_0_{}`$ be arbitrary fixed base point independent on $`\epsilon `$. Let $`M_0=M_0(\epsilon )`$, $`M_1=M_1(\epsilon )`$ be the corresponding monodromy operators of the perturbed equation (see Definition 2.14).

Consider the circle centered at 0 and passing through $`t_0`$ with the counterclockwise orientation (it bounds a disc containing both singularities of the perturbed equation for any small $`\epsilon `$). The monodromy operator along the previous circle is called the complete monodromy.

###### 4.1 Remark

The complete monodromy of the perturbed equation in a generic family (2.1) converges to the monodromy of the nonperturbed equation along the counterclockwise circuit. In the previous conditions the complete monodromy is equal to $`M_0M_1`$.

In the present Section we state and prove the Theorem saying that for any generic deformation (2.1) of a typical equation (1.1) (see the next Definition) each word (1.3) with integer exponents tends to infinity in $`GL_n`$, except for the powers $`(M_0M_1)^k`$ of the complete monodromy.

### 4.1 The statement of the divergence Theorem

###### 4.2 Definition

Let (1.1) be an irregular equation, as at the beginning of the paper, $`t_00`$ be arbitrary fixed base point, $`M:H_{t_0}H_{t_0}`$ be the counterclockwise monodromy operator around zero. Consider some branches at $`t_0`$ of all the sectorial canonical solutions of (1.1) as elements of $`H_{t_0}`$ and take the collection of the complex lines in $`H_{t_0}`$ generated by them. The equation is said to be typical, if for any $`k0`$ no line from the previous collection is transformed by $`M^k`$ to another line from the same collection.

###### 4.3 Remark

The definition of typical equation does not depend on the choice of the base point and the branches of the canonical solutions. The condition that an equation (1.1) is typical is equivalent to a countable number of polynomial inequalities on the formal monodromy eigenvalues and the elements of the Stokes matrices.

###### 4.4 Remark

Both Stokes operators of a typical equation are nontrivial.

Each monodromy operator word (1.3) can be rewritten as

$$M_{j_n}^{s_n}\mathrm{}M_{j_1}^{s_1},s_i=\pm 1,M_{j_k}^{s_k}M_{j_{k1}}^{s_{k1}}1\text{for any}k=2,\mathrm{},n,$$
(4.1)
where $`n=_{i=1}^l|d_i|`$ in the notations of (1.3). We consider those words (4.1) that do not coincide literally with powers of the complete monodromy.

###### 4.5 Definition

A word (4.1) is said to be reduced, if it does not coincide (literally) with neither $`M_0M_1\mathrm{}M_0M_1`$, nor $`M_1^1M_0^1\mathrm{}M_1^1M_0^1`$.

###### 4.6 Theorem

Let (1.1) be a typical equation (see Definition 4.2), (2.1) be its generic deformation, $`t_0`$, $`M_0,M_1:H_{t_0}H_{t_0}`$, be as at the beginning of the Section. Then any monodromy operator given by a reduced word (4.1) tends to infinity (together with its projectivization, see Definition 3.1), as $`\epsilon 0`$.

### 4.2 Projectivization. The scheme of the proof of Theorem 4.6

Instead of invertible linear operators $`^2^2`$ we will consider their projectivizations, which are Möbius transformations $`\overline{}\overline{}`$. Denote $`m_0`$, $`m_1`$ the projectivizations of the monodromy operators $`M_0,M_1:^2^2`$. We show that any reduced word $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{j_n}^{s_n}\mathrm{}m_{j_1}^{s_1}`$ tends to infinity in the Möbius group, as $`\epsilon 0`$. This will prove the Theorem.

Recall the following

###### 4.7 Definition

(see ). A Möbius transformation $`m:\overline{}\overline{}`$ is said to be hyperbolic, if it has one repelling fixed point (then there is a unique attracting fixed point and each orbit except for the repeller tends to the attractor). A hyperbolic transformation with repeller $`a`$ and attractor $`b`$ will be presented as the picture at Fig.4

In the proof of the divergence of a reduced word $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ of the projectivizations we use their following properties.

###### 4.8 Proposition

Let (2.1), $`S_i`$, $`t_0`$, $`M_i`$ be as at the beginning of the Section (the nonperturbed equation is not necessarily typical), $`m_i`$ be the projectivizations of $`M_i`$, $`i=0,1`$ (see Definition 3.1). Let $`Z_\epsilon ^i=(f_{i1,\epsilon },f_{i2,\epsilon })`$ be the eigenbases of $`M_i`$, $`(f_{{}_{i}{}^{}1},f_{i2})`$ be the sectorial canonical solution bases on $`S_i`$ of the nonperturbed equation, $`i=0,1`$. Let $`p_{ij,\epsilon },p_{ij}\overline{}`$ be the tautological projection images of $`f_{ij,\epsilon }`$ and $`f_{ij}`$ respectively. Then $`m_i`$ are hyperbolic transformations (see the previous Definition) with fixed points $`p_{ij,\epsilon }`$: $`p_{02,\epsilon }`$, $`p_{01,\epsilon }`$ are respectively the repelling and attracting fixed points of $`m_0`$; $`p_{11,\epsilon }`$, $`p_{12,\epsilon }`$ are respectively the repelling and attracting fixed points of $`m_1`$.

###### Proof.

The Proposition follows from Proposition 3.3 ∎

###### 4.9 Proposition

Let (2.1), $`S_i`$, $`t_0`$, $`M_i`$ be as at the beginning of the Section, $`p_{ij}`$, $`p_{ij,\epsilon }`$ be the tautological projection images of the canonical basic solutions of the nonperturbed equation and the eigenfunctions of $`M_i`$ respectively (see the previous Proposition). Then

$$p_{02}=p_{12},p_{ij}=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}p_{ij,\epsilon },\text{see Fig.5a,b}.$$
(4.2)
###### Proof.

The statements on the limits in (4.2) follow from Theorem 2.5. The coincidence of $`p_{02}`$ and $`p_{12}`$ in (4.2) follows from the lower-triangularity of the Stokes matrix $`C_0`$ (see Example 1.7). ∎

As it is shown below, Theorem 4.6 is implied by the two previous Propositions and the following Lemma.

###### 4.10 Lemma

Let $`p_{02}=p_{12}`$, $`p_{01}`$, $`p_{11}`$ be a given triple of distinct points in $`\overline{}`$. Let $`m_i=m_i(\epsilon )`$, $`i=0,1`$, be two families of hyperbolic Möbius transformations depending on a positive parameter $`\epsilon `$, $`\mu _0`$, $`\mu _1`$ be the multipliers of their attractors. Let $`p_{01,\epsilon }`$, $`p_{12,\epsilon }`$ be respectively the attractors of $`m_0`$ and $`m_1`$, $`p_{02,\epsilon }`$, $`p_{11,\epsilon }`$ be their repellers. Let $`p_{ij,\epsilon }p_{ij}`$, $`\mu _i0`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$. Let in addition the product $`m_0m_1`$ converge to a Möbius transformation $`m`$ such that for any $`k0`$, $`i=0,1,`$ $`j=1,2`$ the image $`m^kp_{ij}`$ coincide with no other $`p_{ls}`$. Then any reduced word $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{j_n}^{s_n}\mathrm{}m_{j_1}^{s_1}`$ (see Definition 4.5) tends to infinity.

The projectivizations of the monodromy operators satisfy the conditions of the Lemma. Indeed, the multipliers $`\mu _i`$ tend to 0 by Corollary 3.4. The convergence $`p_{ij,\epsilon }p_{ij}`$ follows from the previous Proposition. The product $`m_0m_1`$ tends to the projectivization (denoted by $`m`$) of the monodromy of the nonperturbed equation. The inequalities $`m^kp_{ij}p_{ls}`$ follow from typicality (see Definition 4.2). This together with the Lemma proves divergence of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. Theorem 4.6 is proved modulo the Lemma.

### 4.3 Divergence of word of projectivizations. Proof of Lemma 4.10

As it is shown below, Lemma 4.10 is implied by the following statement.

###### 4.11 Lemma

In the conditions of the previous Lemma let $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{j_n}^{s_n}\mathrm{}m_{j_1}^{s_1}`$ be a reduced word such that

$$m_{j_n}^{s_n}m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}(m_0m_1)^{\pm 1}.$$
(4.3)
Let $`x\overline{}`$ be arbitrary point such that

$$m^sxp_{ij}\text{for any}s=n,\mathrm{},n,i=0,1,j=1,2;m=\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}m_0m_1.$$
(4.4)
Then the image $`\stackrel{~}{m}x`$ converges to the limit of the attractor of $`m_{j_n}^{s_n}`$.

Let us prove Lemma 4.10 modulo Lemma 4.11. If the reduced word $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ under consideration satisfies (4.3), then it tends to infinity. Indeed, by Lemma 4.11, the image $`\stackrel{~}{m}x`$ of a generic $`x`$ tends to the attractor of $`m_{j_n}^{s_n}`$, hence, $`\stackrel{~}{m}\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise, $`\stackrel{~}{m}=(m_0m_1)^km^{}`$, where $`k0`$, $`m^{}`$ is a word satisfying (4.3) of a length less than that of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$. The new word $`m^{}`$ tends to infinity by the previous statement. The product $`m_0m_1`$ in the previous expression for $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ has a finite limit. Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ tends to infinity as well. Lemma 4.10 is proved.

###### Proof.

of Lemma 4.11. In the proof of Lemma 4.11 we use the following obvious

###### 4.12 Proposition

Let $`m^{}=m^{}(\epsilon )`$ be a family of hyperbolic Möbius transformations depending on a positive parameter $`\epsilon `$, $`m^{}\mathrm{}`$, as $`\epsilon 0`$, so that the attractor and the repeller of $`m^{}`$ tend to distinct limits (hence, the multiplier of the attractor tends to 0). Then for any point $`x\overline{}`$ distinct from the limit of the repeller its image $`m^{}x`$ tends to the same limit, as the attractor. The same statement holds for arbitrary family $`x(\epsilon )`$ of points bounded away from the limit of the repeller.

We prove Lemma 4.11 by induction in the length $`n`$ of the word. For $`n=1`$ its statement is obvious. Suppose we have proved the Lemma for the words of any length less than a given $`n`$. Let us prove it for a word $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m_{j_n}^{s_n}\mathrm{}m_{j_1}^{s_1}`$ of the length $`n`$.

Without loss of generality we assume that $`m_{j_n}^{s_n}=m_0`$: the contrary case is treated analogously. Then by (4.3) and the inequality $`m_{j_n}^{s_n}m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}1`$ (see (4.1)),

$$m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}m_1,m_0^1,\text{thus,}m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}=m_0\text{or}m_1^1.$$
(4.5)
Consider the word

$$m^{}=m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}\mathrm{}m_{j_1}^{s_1}=m_{j_n}^{s_n}\stackrel{~}{m}.$$

Suppose firstly that it satisfies (4.3). Then for any $`x`$ satisfying (4.4) $`m^{}x`$ tends to the limit (denoted $`p_{ij}`$) of the attractor of $`m_{j_{n1}}^{s_{n1}}`$ by the induction hypothesis. The latter attractor can be either $`p_{01,\epsilon }`$, or $`p_{11,\epsilon }`$, which are the attractor of $`m_0`$ and the repeller of $`m_1`$ respectively. This follows from (4.5). Hence, the limit $`p_{ij}`$ is either $`p_{01}`$, or $`p_{11}`$; in both cases it does not coincide with the limit $`p_{02}`$ of the repeller of $`m_0`$. Therefore, the image $`m_0p_{ij}`$ (and hence, $`m_0(m^{}x)=\stackrel{~}{m}x`$) tends to the same limit, as the attractor of $`m_0`$ (by the previous Proposition).

Now suppose that the word $`m^{}`$ does not satisfy (4.3). Then

$$m^{}=(m_0m_1)^km^{\prime \prime },$$

where $`k0`$, and $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ is a word satisfying (4.3) of a length less than that of $`m^{}`$. The induction hypothesis applied to $`m^{\prime \prime }`$ implies that for any $`x`$ satisfying (4.4) its image $`m^{\prime \prime }x`$ tends to the limit of the attractor of the last left element of the word $`m^{\prime \prime }`$, thus, to some $`p_{ij}`$. Therefore, $`m^{}xm^kp_{ij}`$. The image $`m^kp_{ij}`$ coincides with no $`p_{sl}`$ (in particular, with the limit $`p_{02}`$ of the repeller of $`m_0`$). This follows from the last condition of Lemma 4.10. Therefore, $`m_0m^kp_{ij}`$ tends to the limit of the attractor of $`m_0`$ (and so does $`m_0m^{}x=\stackrel{~}{m}x`$ by the previous Proposition). The induction step is over. Lemma 4.11 is proved. The proof of Lemma 4.10 is completed.∎

I am grateful to V.I.Arnold, Yu.S.Ilyashenko and A.A.Bolibrukh for stating the problems. I wish to thank them and V.Kleptsyn for their interest to the work and helpful remarks. The research was supported by part by CRDF grant RM1-2358-MO-02 and by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFFI) grant 02-02-00482.

CNRS, Unité de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées, M.R.,
École Normale Supérieure de Lyon
46 allée d’Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07 France


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Measuring the $`W`$ mass, $`M_W`$, is an important objective for the Tevatron experiments in Run II. One hopes to measure $`M_W`$ with a precision of $`\pm 30`$ MeV per experiment per channel . Together with the anticipated precision of 2 GeV for the top quark mass from Tevatron data , a determination of the $`W`$ mass with an uncertainty of 30 MeV would make it possible to predict the Higgs boson mass, $`M_H`$, from one-loop electroweak corrections to $`M_W`$ with an accuracy of approximately $`30\%`$ . With the best fit central value close to the LEP II direct search lower bound of $`M_H>114.4`$ GeV , and the rather poor $`\chi ^2`$ which results from a fit of the current precision electroweak data to the Standard Model (SM) , this would bring considerable additional pressure on the SM.

This document is structured as follows. The basic techniques used to measure the $`W`$ mass and the expected statistical and overall uncertainties are briefly discussed in Sec. 2. The detector-related and theoretical uncertainties affecting the $`W`$ mass and width measurements are described in more detail in Sec. 3 and Sec. 4, respectively. Alternative methods of measuring the $`W`$ mass at the Tevatron are discussed in section 5. Section 6 concludes this document.

## 2 $`M_W`$ Measurement from the $`M_T`$ Lineshape

The determination of $`M_W`$ depends on the two body nature of the $`W`$ decay, $`W\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$. The kinematical Jacobian peak and sharp edge at the value of $`M_W/2`$ is easily observed in the measurement of the transverse momentum ($`p_T`$) of either of the leptons. However, the Jacobian peak in the $`p_T`$ distribution is smeared out by finite $`W`$ width effects, detector resolution effects, and, in particular, the effect of the finite transverse momentum of the $`W`$ boson, $`p_T^W`$. Figure 2 shows a calculation of the $`p_T(e)`$ distribution (unsmeared) with $`p_T^W=0`$; the effect of finite $`p_T^W`$; and the inclusion of detector smearing effects. It is apparent that $`p_T(e)`$ is very sensitive to the transverse motion of the $`W`$ boson.

Historically, precise understanding of $`p_T^W`$ has been lacking, although it is currently modeled by measurable parameters through the resummation formalism of Collins, Soper, and Sterman . For this reason, the transverse mass, $`M_T`$, was suggested  and has been the traditional measurable. It is defined by

$$M_T=\sqrt{2p_T(\mathrm{})p_T(\nu )(1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{\mathrm{},\nu }))},$$
(2.1)
where $`\varphi _{\mathrm{},\nu }`$ is the angle between the charged lepton and the neutrino in the transverse plane. The observables are the lepton transverse energy or momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_T(\mathrm{})`$ and the non-lepton transverse energy $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ (recoil transverse energy against the $`W`$), from which the neutrino momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}_T(\nu )`$ and the transverse mass $`M_T`$ are derived. $`M_T`$ is invariant under transverse boosts to first order in the velocity of the $`W`$ boson. Figure 2 shows that the sensitivity of $`M_T`$ to $`p_T^W`$ is indeed almost negligible.

While considerably more stable to the phenomenology of the production model, the requirement that the neutrino direction be accurately measured leads to a set of experimental requirements which are difficult in practice to control.

Both CDF and DØ have determined the $`W`$ boson mass using the transverse mass approach. The combined $`p\overline{p}`$ collider result is

$$M_W=80.454\pm 0.059\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(2.2)
Presuming that Run II is to deliver an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1, the statistical precision on $`M_W`$ can be estimated from the existing data. Figure 3 shows the statistical uncertainties in these measurements as a function of $`1/\sqrt{N_W}`$ ($`N_W`$ is the number of $`W`$ boson events), demonstrating a predictable extrapolation to $`N_W700,000`$ which corresponds to the expected Run II dataset per experiment per channel. The statistical uncertainty from this extrapolation is approximately 13 MeV. Taking into account the detector related and theoretical uncertainties discussed in more detail below, a total uncertainty of $`\pm 30`$ MeV for $`M_W`$ is projected. The current CDF and DØ Run II data samples are approximately 70 pb-1 .

For integrated luminosities larger than 2 fb-1, the systematic errors rapidly become dominant. For 15 fb-1, the goal for Run IIb, one hopes to achieve a precision of

$$\delta M_W=\pm 17\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(2.3)
For even larger data sets, the determination of the energy resolution will be systematically limited by the uncertainty in the width of the $`Z`$ boson . This will restrict the accuracy to about 15 MeV per channel per experiment.

At the LHC, for 10 fb-1, one expects about $`6\times 10^7`$ $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) events, resulting in a statistical error of $`<2`$ MeV . If the lepton energy and momentum scales can be determined with a precision of 0.02% or better, the $`W`$ mass can be measured with a total uncertainty of $`\pm 15`$ MeV .

## 3 Detector-specific Uncertainties

Much of the understanding of experimental systematics comes from a detailed study of $`Z`$ bosons and hence as luminosity improves, systematic uncertainties should diminish in kind. Certainly, the scale and resolution of the recoil energy against the $`W`$ come from measurements of the $`Z`$ system. Likewise, background determination, underlying event studies, and selection biases depend critically, but not exclusively, on $`Z`$ boson data. Most importantly, the lepton energy and momentum scales depend solely on the $`Z`$ boson datasets. In the Run I $`W`$ mass measurement, the largest systematic uncertainties originated from the lepton energy and momentum scales, and the modeling of the $`W`$ recoil. Non-$`Z`$ related recoil systematics were estimated to enter at the 10 MeV level.

Figure 4 shows the CDF and DØ systematic uncertainties for both electrons and muons as a function of $`1/\sqrt{N_W}`$.

The calorimeter scale uncertainties for electrons is currently tied to the determination of fiducial di-lepton decay resonances, notably the $`Z`$ boson, but also the $`J/\psi `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and the $`E/p`$ dependence on the energy $`E`$, using electrons from $`W`$ and $`Z`$ decays. As the statistical precision improves, the dominant feature of the scale determination becomes its value in the region of $`M_W`$, so offsets and any low energy nonlinearities become relatively less important and hence reliance on the low mass resonances is reduced. On the other hand, for the muon momentum scale determination, where the observable is the curvature, low mass resonances are also important. Figure 4 suggests that this uncertainty is truly statistical in nature and extrapolates to approximately the 15 MeV level. The ability to bound non-linearities using collider data may become a limiting source of error in Run II.

Figure 4 also shows the non-scale systematic uncertainties from both the CDF and DØ electron measurements of $`M_W`$ and the CDF muon measurement. Here the extrapolation is not as straightforward, but there is clearly a distinct statistical nature to these errors. That they appear to extrapolate to negative values suggests that the systematic uncertainties may contain a statistically independent component for both the muon and the electron analyses.

$`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ data constrain both the lepton scales and resolutions and an empirical model of the hadronic recoil measurement. The determination of the lepton scales and resolutions requires a measurement of the $`Z`$ boson mass, $`M_Z`$ and width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$, and calibration of these observables using the available LEP data. In order to do this, it is necessary to use exactly the same theoretical input which has been used to extract $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ at LEP, ie. to include the reducible and irreducible $`𝒪(g^4m_t^2/M_W^2)`$ corrections to the effective leptonic weak mixing parameter, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{eff}}^l`$, and the $`W`$ mass , in the calculation. A calculation of the complete $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrections to $`pp{}_{}{}^{^{()}}\gamma ,Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ which also takes into account the $`𝒪(g^4m_t^2/M_W^2)`$ corrections has recently been completed .

## 4 Theoretical Uncertainties

The $`M_T`$ lineshape simulation requires a theoretical model, as a function of the $`W`$ mass and width, of the differential cross section. The $`W`$ mass is extracted by comparing data with templates of the $`M_T`$ distribution for different values of $`M_W`$. The theoretical model must take into account both QCD corrections and electroweak corrections.

QCD provides an understanding of the $`p_T^W`$ distribution and thus of the hadronic recoil in $`W`$ events. For a quantitative understanding of the $`W`$ (and $`Z`$) boson $`p_T`$ distribution it is necessary to resum soft gluon radiation. In the low $`p_T`$ region, the perturbative calculation must be augmented by a non-perturbative contribution which depends on three parameters which are tuned to fit the $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ data. Electroweak radiative corrections, in particular final-state QED radiation is important, because bremsstrahlung shifts the $`W`$ mass to smaller values and affects the isolation variables needed to select a clean $`W`$ sample.

To date, ad hoc event generators have been used in the $`W`$ mass measurement. In Run II, this measurement will reach a precision of tens of MeV, requiring much more attention to detail in Monte Carlo calculations. Precision electroweak measurements in Run II should strive to use Monte Carlo programs that are common to both collider experiments and include state-of-the-art QCD and electroweak calculations. Currently, simulations are largely based on two programs: RESBOS  which includes resummed QCD corrections but ignores electroweak radiative corrections, and WGRAD  which includes $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ electroweak corrections, but ignores QCD corrections. A merging of the two programs would be highly desirable in order to achieve the goal of a unified program which includes both QCD and electroweak radiative corrections.

The current $`W`$ production model has a number of shortcomings which lead to systematic uncertainties in the $`W`$ mass measurement. These uncertainties are discussed in the following.

### 4.1 Parton Distribution Functions

The transverse mass distribution is invariant under the longitudinal boost of the $`W`$ boson. However, the incomplete rapidity coverage of the detectors introduces a dependence of the measured $`M_T`$ distribution on the longitudinal momentum distribution of the produced $`W`$’s, determined by the parton distribution functions (PDF’s). Therefore, quantifying the uncertainties in the PDFs and the resulting uncertainties in the $`W`$ mass measurement is crucial.

The measurement of the $`W`$ charge asymmetry at the Tevatron, which is sensitive to the ratio of $`d`$ to $`u`$ quark densities in the proton, is of direct benefit in constraining PDF effects in the $`W`$ mass measurement. This has been demonstrated by the CDF experiment. From the variation among the six reference PDFs, an uncertainty of 15 MeV was taken which is common to the electron and muon analyses. Since the Run Ib charge asymmetry data is dominated by statistical uncertainties, a smaller uncertainty is expected for the Run II measurement. Measurements of Drell-Yan production at the Tevatron can be used to get further constraints on PDFs.

Since the PDF uncertainty originates from the finite rapidity coverage of the detectors, it is expected to decrease with the more complete rapidity coverage of the Run II detectors. The advantage of a larger rapidity coverage has been demonstrated by the DØ experiment : the uncertainty on the $`W`$ mass measurement using their central calorimeter was 11 MeV, while that using both the central and end calorimeter was 7 MeV. With the upgraded calorimeters and trackers for the rapidity range $`|\eta |>1`$, the CDF experiment can measure the $`W`$ mass over a larger rapidity range in Run II.

There has been a systematic effort to map out the uncertainties allowed by available experimental constraints, both on the PDFs themselves and on physical observables derived from them . This approach will provide a more reliable estimate and may be the best course of action for precision measurements such as the $`W`$ mass or the $`W`$ production cross section.

### 4.2 $`W`$ Boson Transverse Momentum

The neutrino transverse momentum is estimated by combining the measured lepton transverse momentum and the $`W`$ recoil: $`\stackrel{}{p}_T(\nu )=(\stackrel{}{p}_T(\mathrm{})+\stackrel{}{u})`$. It is clear therefore that an understanding of both the underlying $`W`$ boson transverse momentum distribution and the corresponding detector response, usually called the recoil model, is crucial for a precision $`W`$ mass measurement. For the CDF Run Ib $`W`$ mass measurement, the systematic uncertainties from these two sources were estimated to be $`1520`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`3540`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, respectively, in each channel .

The strategy employed in Run I, which is expected to be used also in Run II, is to extract the underlying $`p_T^W`$ distribution from the measured $`p_T^Z`$ distribution ($`Y`$ is the weak boson rapidity):

$$\frac{d^2\sigma }{dp_T^WdY}=\frac{d^2\sigma }{dp_T^ZdY}\times \frac{d^2\sigma /dp_T^WdY}{d^2\sigma /dp_T^ZdY},$$
(4.1)
where the ratio of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ differential distributions is obtained from theory. This method relies on the fact that the observed $`p_T^Z`$ distribution suffers relatively little from detector smearing effects, allowing fits to be performed for the true distribution. The experimental uncertainties, as in many aspects of the $`W`$ mass measurement, are dominated by the available $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ statistics and should scale correspondingly with the delivered luminosity in Run II. Theoretical uncertainties in the ratio of $`W`$ to $`Z`$ transverse momentum distributions contribute a further $`𝒪(5)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ to the overall error. The two sources of uncertainty are compared for the CDF Run Ib $`W\mu \nu `$ analysis in Fig. 5.

### 4.3 QCD Higher Order Effects

The charged leptons in $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ are produced with an angular distribution determined by the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$ calculation of Ref.  which, for $`W^+`$ bosons with a helicity of $`1`$ with respect to the proton direction, has the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{CS}}}}1+a_1(p_T^W)\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{CS}}+a_2(p_T^W)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{CS}}.`$ (4.2)
Here, $`\theta _{\mathrm{CS}}`$ is the polar direction of the charged lepton with respect to the proton direction in the Collins-Soper frame . $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are $`p_T`$ dependent parameters. For $`p_T^W`$ = 0, $`a_1=2`$ and $`a_2=1`$, providing the angular distribution of a $`W`$ boson fully polarized along the proton direction. For the $`p_T^W`$ values relevant to the $`W`$ mass analysis $`(p_T^W<30`$ GeV), the change in $`W`$ polarization as $`p_T^W`$ increases only causes a modest change in the angular distribution of the decay leptons .

While the uncertainty associated with the change in the angular distribution of the $`W`$ decay lepton due to higher order QCD corrections (a few MeV) has been negligible for the Run I measurements, it can not be ignored for the Run II measurements.

### 4.4 Electroweak Radiative Corrections

The understanding of electroweak radiative corrections is crucial for precision $`W`$ mass measurements at the Tevatron. The dominant process is final state photon radiation (FSR) from the charged lepton, the effect of which strongly depends on the lepton identification criteria and the energy or momentum measurement methods employed. Calorimetric energy measurements, such as those employed in the electron channel, are more inclusive than track based momentum measurements used in the muon channel and the effect of FSR is consequently reduced. In the CDF Run Ib $`W`$ mass measurement the mass shifts due to radiative effects were estimated to be $`65\pm 20`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`168\pm 10`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ for the electron and muon channels, respectively . These effects will be larger in Run II due to increase in tracker material in CDF and magnetic tracking in DØ.

The Monte Carlo program used for the Run I $`W`$ mass measurement incorporated a calculation of QED corrections by Berends and Kleiss . This treatment, however, does not include initial state radiation (ISR), or soft and virtual corrections. Furthermore, multi-photon radiation effects are ignored in Ref. . The systematic uncertainties of the missing radiative corrections were estimated to be $`20`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ and $`10`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the electron and muon channels, respectively . Clearly these systematic uncertainties become much more significant in the context of statistical uncertainties of $`𝒪(10)`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ expected for $`2`$ $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ in Run II.

In the last few years two independent calculations of the full $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ electroweak (EW) corrections to $`W`$ production in Monte Carlo form have been carried out . Calculating the EW radiative corrections to resonant $`W`$ boson production, the problem arises how an unstable charged gauge boson can be treated consistently in the framework of perturbation theory. This problem has been studied in Ref.  with particular emphasis on finding a gauge invariant decomposition of the EW $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrections into a QED-like and a modified weak part. In Ref. , it was demonstrated how gauge invariant contributions that contain the infrared (IR) singular terms can be extracted from the virtual photonic corrections. These contributions can be combined with the also IR-singular real photon corrections in the soft photon region to form IR-finite gauge invariant QED-like contributions corresponding to initial state, final state and interference corrections. The collinear singularities associated with initial state photon radiation can be removed by universal collinear counter terms generated by “renormalizing” the parton distribution functions, in complete analogy to gluon emission in QCD.

The various individual contributions to the electroweak $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ corrections on the $`M_T`$ distribution are shown in Fig. 6.

The initial state QED-like contribution uniformly increases the cross section by about 1% for electron (Fig. 6a) and muon (Fig. 6b) final states. It is largely canceled by the modified weak initial state contribution. The interference contribution is very small. The final state QED-like contribution significantly changes the shape of the transverse mass distribution and reaches its maximum effect in the region of the Jacobian peak, $`M_TM_W`$.

Since final state photon radiation has a significant impact on the $`W`$ mass extracted from data, one has to worry about the effects of multi-photon radiation. A first attempt towards the inclusion of the $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ real photon corrections in $`q\overline{q}^{}W\mathrm{}\nu \gamma \gamma `$ and $`q\overline{q}Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}\gamma \gamma `$ was made in Ref. . More recently, two calculations of higher order QED corrections to $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ decays have been performed which include both real and virtual corrections. Ref.  uses Yennie-Frautschi-Suura exclusive exponentiation to calculate multi-photon radiation effects whereas a QED parton shower approach is employed in Ref. . Using a simplified detector model, multi-photon radiation in $`W`$ decays was found  to shift the $`W`$ mass by a few MeV in the electron channel, and by about $`1015`$ MeV in the muon channel. In view of the expected precision of $`1530`$ MeV for $`M_W`$ in Run II and at the LHC, it will be important to take multi-photon radiation effects into account when extracting the $`W`$ mass from data.

So far, no calculation exists which includes multi-photon radiation effects in hadronic $`Z`$ boson production. In $`Z\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, both final state leptons couple to photons, in contrast to $`W\mathrm{}\nu `$ where only one of the final state particles carries electric charge. As a result, one expects that multi-photon radiation affects the $`Z`$ boson mass and width more strongly than the corresponding $`W`$ observables. Since $`M_Z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z`$ are crucial in determining the lepton energy and momentum scales, a calculation of $`Z`$ boson production in hadronic collisions which takes into account higher order QED corrections is needed.

## 5 Other Methods of Determining $`M_W`$ at Hadron Colliders

While the traditional transverse mass determination has been the optimal technique for the extraction of $`M_W`$ in previous hadron collider experiments, other techniques may be employed in the future. These methods may shuffle or cancel some of the systematic and statistical uncertainties resulting in more precise measurements.

### 5.1 Transverse Momentum Fitting

As noted in Sec. 2, the most obvious extensions of the traditional transverse mass approach to determining $`M_W`$ are fits of the Jacobian kinematical edge from the transverse momentum of both leptons. DØ has measured $`M_W`$ using all three distributions and the uncertainties are indeed ordered as one would expect: The fractional uncertainties on $`M_W`$ from the DØ Run I measurements for the three methods of fitting are: 0.12% ($`M_T`$), 0.15% ($`p_T(e)`$), and 0.21% ($`p_T(\nu )`$). As expected, the $`p_T(e)`$ method is slightly less precise than the measurement using the transverse mass. However, for a central electron ($`|\eta |1`$), the uncertainty in the $`p_T(e)`$ measurement due to the $`p_T^W`$ model is 5 times that in the $`M_T`$ measurement. This is nearly balanced by effects from electron and hadron response and resolutions which are relatively worse for $`M_T`$. Accordingly, when there are sufficient statistics to enable cuts on the measured hadronic recoil, the measurement uncertainty from the $`p_T^W`$ model might be better controlled and enable the $`p_T(e)`$ measurement to compete favorably with the $`M_T`$ measurement which relies so heavily on modeling of the hadronic recoil. In order to optimize the advantages of all three measurements, the DØ final Run I determination of $`M_W`$ combined the separate results .

The resolution sensitivity for muon measurements is even less than that for electrons so that has the benefit of slightly favoring a transverse mass measurement with muons over that for electrons.

### 5.2 Ratio Method

The $`W`$ mass can also be determined from the ratio of the transverse mass distributions of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson . The advantage of the method is that one can cancel common scale factors in ratios and directly determine the quantity $`r^{meas}\frac{M_W}{M_Z}`$, which can be compared with the precise value of $`M_Z`$ from the LEP experiments. The downside of the ratio method is that the statistical precision of the $`Z`$ sample is directly propagated into the resultant overall $`\delta M_W`$.

DØ has carried out a “proof of principle” analysis, determining $`M_W`$ from the ratio of the transverse mass distributions of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson . Since the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ boson mass are different, the $`Z`$ boson data are rescaled to fit the $`W`$ boson data. The preliminary DØ result for $`M_W`$ from Run Ib data using the transverse mass ratio method is

$$M_W=80.115\pm 0.211(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.050(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(5.1)
For comparison, the result from the fit to the $`M_T`$ distribution is

$$M_W=80.440\pm 0.070(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.096(\mathrm{syst}.)\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(5.2)
As expected, the transverse mass ratio method results in a much improved systematic uncertainty. The statistical uncertainty, however, is significantly larger than for the fit to the $`M_T`$ distribution.

As mentioned in Sec. 2, systematic uncertainties begin to limit the precision for $`M_W`$ which can be achieved from the fit to the transverse mass distribution at the Tevatron for integrated luminosities of 15 fb-1 or more. Such high luminosities may be achievable in Run IIb. Up to 30 fb-1 are conceivable if additional upgrades are made to the accelerator complex . Table 1 shows the expected precision of the $`W`$ mass measurement from the transverse mass fit and the $`W`$ to $`Z`$ transverse mass ratio, extrapolated from the Run Ib measurement by DØ .

For integrated luminosities larger than about 15 fb-1 the transverse mass ratio method gives an uncertainty for $`M_W`$ which is smaller than that obtained with the traditional method of fitting the $`M_T`$ distribution.

## 6 Conclusions

The measurements of the $`W`$ mass in Run I of the Tevatron contribute significantly to the world average of $`M_W`$. Close inspection of the various systematic error sources leads us to believe that a $`W`$ mass measurement in Run II at the $`30`$ $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ level per experiment is achievable. Alternative methods for determining $`M_W`$ at the Tevatron have been discussed and may turn out to be more appropriate in the Run IIb operating environment than the traditional transverse mass fitting approach. Determination of the $`W`$ mass at the LHC will be extremely challenging, using detectors that are not optimized for this measurement. Clearly, the $`W`$ mass measurement at the Tevatron in Run II will contribute significantly to a reduction of the overall uncertainty of $`M_W`$, and thus to a precise indirect determination of the Higgs boson mass.

## Acknowledgements

The material presented in this report is largely based on the work of the “Precision Physics” Working Group of the “Run II Workshop on QCD and Weak Boson Physics”, held at Fermilab in 1999, and the work of the 2001 Snowmass “Working Group on Precision Electroweak Measurements”. I would like to thank the members of the working groups, in particular R. Brock, Y.K. Kim and D. Wackeroth for many useful discussions. I would also like to thank the organizers of this workshop for the invitation and financial support. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY-0139953.