text:
# Probing the mechanism of EWSB with a Rho parameter defined in terms of Higgs couplings

## 1 Introduction

The mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), which is triggered spontaneously through a Higgs doublet in the minimal standard model (SM), has remained without direct experimental verification so far. Precision measurements of electroweak observables constrain the Higgs mass below about 200 GeV at 95% CL  within the standard model. Thus, it is expected that a Higgs particle could be discovered at the Run 2 of the Tevatron, provided sufficient luminosity is achieved . But it is intriguing to notice that the EW observables prefer a SM like Higgs with mass below 114.1 GeV , which is the present lower limit from LEP 2. The data indicate that the Higgs boson should have already been discovered , and the fact that it was not, could be taken as a hint of new physics, which could be related with the freedom to choose the Higgs sector . Extensions of the Higgs sector have been proposed for a while , and in particular models with Higgs triplets (real or complex) have been considered well motivated, partly because such representations arise in the context of left-right symmetric models , or are associated with low-energy mechanisms aimed to generate neutrino masses , as an alternative to the usual see-saw mechanism. More recently, Higgs triplets with $`𝒪`$ (TeV) masses, have been predicted in connection with the so-called “Little Higgs” models , which attempt to explain the required lightness of the Higgs as being associated with a global symmetry.

Models with Higgs triplets can violate the custodial symmetry SU$`(2)_c`$ of the Higgs-Gauge sectors. This symmetry protects the relation between the gauge boson masses and the weak mixing angle, which can be conveniently parameterized through Veltman’s rho parameter , i.e. $`\rho =m_W^2/m_Z^2c_W^2`$, which is equal to one at tree-level; loop corrections to this parameter could be very important, as it was exemplified by the prediction of a top quark heavier than originally expected. However, when one considers models with Higgs triplets, with their neutral component acquiring a v.e.v. that contributes to EWSB, then the $`\rho `$ parameter could deviate from one even at tree-level. Several Higgs triplets, with ad hoc quantum numbers, are required in order to preserve the custodial symmetry .

A simple analysis of the SM Lagrangian reveals that the Gauge boson masses and their Higgs couplings originate from the terms:

$$(D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }^0\mathrm{\Phi }^0[g^2W^{+\mu }W_\mu ^{}+g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}Z^\mu Z_\mu ]+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
After SSB, one can write the neutral component in terms of the SM Higgs boson ($`h_0`$) and the Goldstone boson ($`G_Z^0`$), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^0=(v+h^0+iG_Z^0)/\sqrt{2}`$, and the gauge bosons ($`W^\pm `$ and $`Z^0`$) acquire the masses: $`m_W^2=g^2v^2/4`$ and $`m_Z^2=g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v^2/4`$, respectively, with $`g^{}=g/c_W`$. In this case it happens that the same source of EWSB that contributes to the Gauge boson masses, induces the Higgs-Gauge couplings, which in turn are given by: $`g_{hWW}=g^2v/2`$, $`g_{hZZ}=g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}v/2`$, and therefore one can define the parameters $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _h`$, which satisfy:

$$\rho \frac{m_W^2}{m_Z^2c_W^2}=1=\frac{g_{hWW}}{g_{hZZ}c_W^2}\rho _h.$$
(2)
We could also express this result by saying that both the neutral Higgs and Goldstone boson have the same couplings to the gauge bosons in the SM. Thus, if the SM is the correct theory of EWSB, a measurement of the Higgs-Gauge couplings should give $`\rho _h=1`$. However, small deviation from one for $`\rho _H`$ can be expected to appear because of radiative effects, while the experimental value of $`\rho _h`$ will deviate from one because of the systematic and statistical errors.

Furthermore, when one considers physics beyond the SM aimed to explain EWSB, it is conceivable that the Goldstone bosons could have a different origin from other neutral scalar of the model, as it could happen in composite scenarios. Alternatively, even if both the Higgs and Goldstone bosons have a common origin, their Higgs-Gauge boson couplings could have different values, either because of mixing factors or because of renormalization effects. In all these cases, one would have $`\rho \rho _H`$. Given the possibility that an scalar particle could be detected in the near future, it will be important to verify whether this particle is indeed a type of Higgs boson, and the parameter $`\rho _H`$ could play a major role in this regard. This will be illustrated in the next sections with several examples.

The organization of this letter goes as follows: In section 2, we shall present a general expression for $`\rho _H`$ for a Higgs multiplet of arbitrary isospin $`T`$ and hypercharge $`Y`$; its size is discussed in detail within the context of a minimal extension of the SM that includes one doublet and a real $`(Y=0)`$ Higgs triplet; one of our main result is the argument that $`\rho 1`$ does not implies $`\rho _H=1`$. We shall also evaluate a similar parameter, but in terms of the Higgs decay widths, which would be closer to the output from future high-precision experiments for the Higgs boson. We then discuss, in section 2.2, a model with extended Higgs sectors, which do respects the custodial symmetry, i.e. $`\rho =1`$, but the Higgs particles do not necessarily satisfy $`\rho _{H_i}=1`$. Then, in section 4 we shall discuss the above parameter, for the Higgs sector that arises within the context of the “Little Higgs” model. Finally, we shall present our conclusions in section 5.

## 2 Higgs multiplets and the Rho parameter

### 2.1 A general expression for $`\rho _H`$

Let us consider a model with an arbitrary Higgs sector, consisting of a number of Higgs multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K`$ of isospin $`T_K`$ and hypercharge $`Y_K`$. From the expression for the kinetic terms, written in terms of the covariant derivative, one obtains the gauge boson masses, which satisfy the following expression for the rho parameter,

$$\rho =\frac{_K[T_K(T_K+1)\frac{1}{4}Y_K^2]v_K^2c_K}{_K\frac{1}{2}Y_K^2v_K^2}$$
(3)
where $`v_K`$ denotes the v.e.v. of the neutral component of the Higgs multiplet, while $`c_K=1/2(1)`$ for real (complex) representations. It is well known that Higgs representations for which $`T_K(T_K+1)=\frac{3}{4}Y_K^2`$, satisfy $`\rho =1`$, regardless of their v.e.v.’s. Examples of this case are: $`(T,Y)=(1/2,1),(3,4),\mathrm{}`$. Alternatively, one could choose ad hoc v.e.v.’s for models with several types of Higgs multiplets, such as triplets, to have $`\rho =1`$.

On the other hand, when one writes down the Gauge boson coupling with the neutral Higgs components $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K^0`$, which are weak eigenstates, $`\rho _H`$ satisfies a similar relation, namely:

$$\rho _{\varphi _K^0}=\frac{[T_K(T_K+1)\frac{1}{4}Y_K^2]v_K^2c_K}{\frac{1}{2}Y_K^2v_K^2}$$
(4)
Thus, whatever choice makes $`\rho =1`$ for the Higgs multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }_K`$, it will also make $`\rho _{\varphi _K^0}=1`$. However, when one has several multiplets, one needs to consider the Higgs mass eigenstates instead, which are indeed the ones that could be detected and probed at future colliders. Thus, we have to consider the rotations that diagonaliazes the real parts of the neutral components, such that the Higgs mass eigenstates $`H_i`$ are related to the weak eigenstates $`Re\varphi _K^0`$ as: $`Re\varphi _K^0=U_{Ki}H_i`$. Then, the rho parameter for the Higgs bosons $`H_i`$ is given by:

$$\rho _{H_i}=\frac{_K[T_K(T_K+1)\frac{1}{4}Y_K^2]v_K^2c_KU_{Ki}}{_K\frac{1}{2}Y_K^2v_K^2U_{Ki}}$$
(5)
From this important relation, we can discuss several consequences:

1. For models that contains several Higgs multiplets of the same type (say doublets), for which $`T_K(T_K+1)=\frac{1}{4}Y_K^2`$, one gets $`\rho _{H_i}=1`$ (as well as $`\rho =1`$), because $`U_{Ki}`$ factorize out in Ec. (5).
2. On the other hand for a model that includes doublets and some other multiplet (say triplets), for which $`\rho 1`$ is satisfied with a hierarchy of v.e.v.’s, i.e. $`v_Kv_D`$, then one has that $`\rho _{H_i}`$ could be significantly different from one (as will be shown next).
3. Finally, if one makes $`\rho =1`$ by arranging the v.e.v.’s of several multiplets (as in the model to be discussed in section 3), then because of the factors $`U_{Ki}`$, it turns out that in general $`\rho =1`$ does not necessarily imply $`\rho _H=1`$, and this could provide an important test of the type of Higgs multiplet that participates in EWSB.

### 2.2 A model with one doublet and one real triplet

We shall evaluate now the size of $`\rho _H`$ for an extension of the SM, where the Higgs sector includes one real $`(Y=0)`$ Higgs triplet, $`\mathrm{\Xi }=(\xi ^+,\xi ^0,\xi ^{})`$, in addition to the usual SM Higgs doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The Higgs potential of the model is written as :

$`V(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Xi })`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _d^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2\mu _{tr}^2\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }+\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi })^2`$ (6)
$`+\lambda _3\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }\mu _{dtr}[\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\mathrm{\Xi }_{lin}\tau )\mathrm{\Phi }],`$
where the last term involves the linear form, namely:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{lin}=(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi ^++\xi ^{}),\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(\xi ^+\xi ^{}),\xi ^0)$$
(7)
and $`\tau `$ is the vector of Pauli’s spin matrices.

After constructing the mass matrices, and performing its diagonalization, we arrive to the following mass eigenstates:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H^0\\ h^0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\alpha & \mathrm{sin}\alpha \\ \mathrm{sin}\alpha & \mathrm{cos}\alpha \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}h_d\\ h_{tr}\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
where $`h_d=Re\mathrm{\Phi }^0`$ and $`h_{tr}=Re\xi ^0`$; while the mixing angle, $`\alpha `$, is defined by:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\frac{4v_Dv_{T0}(2\lambda _3v_{T0}+\sqrt{2}\mu _{dtr})}{(8\lambda _1v_{T0}+\sqrt{2}\mu _{dtr})v_D^28\lambda _2v_{T0}^3},$$
(9)
here $`v_D=h_d`$ and $`v_{T0}=h_{tr}`$.

The Higgs-Gauge Lagrangian is given by:

$$𝒯_{\mathrm{Cin}}=(D_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mu }\mathrm{\Phi })+(D_\mathrm{\Xi }^\mu \mathrm{\Xi })^{}(D_{\mathrm{\Xi }_\mu }\mathrm{\Xi }),$$
(10)
where

$$D_\mathrm{\Phi }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}^\mu +igs_W(A^\mu Z^\mu t_W)& \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}gW^{\mu +}\\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}gW^\mu & ^\mu \frac{i}{2}\frac{g}{c_W}Z^\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(11)
and

$$D_\mathrm{\Xi }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}^\mu +ig(Z^\mu c_W+A^\mu s_W)& igW^{\mu +}& 0\\ igW^\mu & ^\mu & igW^{\mu +}\\ 0& igW^\mu & ^\mu ig(Z^\mu c_W+A^\mu s_W)\end{array}\right).$$
(12)
From this Lagrangian we can identify the masses of the Gauge bosons:

$`m_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4}}(v_D^2+4v_{T0}^2),`$ (13)
$`m_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_W^2}{c_W^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_D^2}{v_D^2+4v_{T0}^2}}\right),`$
and the couplings $`hWW`$, $`hZZ`$, $`HWW`$ and $`HZZ`$, where $`h`$ ($`H`$) corresponds to the lighter SM-like (heavier) neutral Higgs mass eigenstate:

$`g_{hWW}`$ $`=`$ $`gm_W\mathrm{cos}\alpha \left[1+\mathrm{tan}\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}\right],`$
$`g_{hZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm_W}{c_W^2}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,`$
$`g_{HWW}`$ $`=`$ $`gm_W\mathrm{sin}\alpha \left[\mathrm{cot}\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}1\right],`$
$`g_{HZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm_W}{c_W^2}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha .`$ (14)
Therefore in this model we have: $`\rho =1+\frac{4v_{T0}^2}{v_D^2}1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ and $`\rho _h^2=[1+\mathrm{tan}\alpha (\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho })^{1/2}]^2`$ and $`\rho _H^2=[\mathrm{cot}\alpha (\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho })^{1/2}1]^2`$, which are plotted in Fig. 1, as a function of $`\alpha `$ (we are plotting the square values, just to get positive defined quantities, as future colliders will not know about signs for Higgs couplings). For $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }`$, which depends on the parameters of the model, we take the maximum value allowed by data , i.e. $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }1\%`$. We can appreciate that $`\rho _h`$ can deviate significantly from one for $`\alpha \pi /2`$, while $`\rho _H`$ can show large deviating from the SM prediction for $`\alpha 0`$. Thus clearly $`\rho _h\rho \rho _H`$.

Given the estimated precision expected for the measurements of the Higgs couplings at NLC, in particular for the ratios of Higgs-Gauge couplings which were analized in , it happends that $`\rho _{H_i}`$ could be measured with a precision of order 2 %, which will allow to constrain considerably the parameter $`\alpha `$ in this Higgs triplet model.

On the other hand, one could also use the prediction for the Higgs decays into gauge bosons as a possible test of violations of the custodial symmetry. For the real decays one has:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hWW)=\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \left[1+\mathrm{tan}\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}WW),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(hZZ)=\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}ZZ),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW)=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \left[1+\mathrm{tan}\alpha \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }}\right)^{1/2}\right]^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}WW),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(HZZ)=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}ZZ).`$ (15)
Then the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(hWW)/2\mathrm{\Gamma }(hZZ)`$, is given by:

$$R_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}WW)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}ZZ)}\left[1+\mathrm{tan}\alpha \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }\right)^{1/2}\right]^2,$$
(16)
while the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(HWW)/2\mathrm{\Gamma }(HZZ)`$, is given by:

$$R_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_H}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}WW)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(h_{SM}ZZ)}\left[\mathrm{cot}\alpha \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho }\right)^{1/2}1\right]^2.$$
(17)
This ratios are plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of the Higgs mass, for two fixed values of $`\alpha `$ (0.04 and $`\pi /4`$), which represent two typical cases of small and large mixing, respectively. In this plot, we have included the decays into one real and one virtual gauge boson, $`(h,H)VV^{}`$, for the appropriate range of Higgs masses.

## 3 An extended model with custodial symmetry

The Higgs sector can be extended to include extra Higgs multiplets in a manner that respects the custodial symmetry. A minimal model with Higgs triplets that gives $`\rho =1`$ was discussed in reference , and studied in further detail in . This model includes a real (Y=0) triplet, $`\mathrm{\Xi }=(\xi ^+,\xi ^0,\xi ^{})`$, and a complex (Y=2) Higgs triplet, $`\chi =(\chi ^{++},\chi ^+,\chi ^0)`$, in addition to the SM Higgs doublet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^0)`$. The v.e.v. of the neutral components can be choossen such that $`\chi ^0=v_{T2}`$, $`\xi ^0=v_{T0}`$ and $`\varphi ^0=v_D`$. Then, when $`v_{T2}=v_{T0}=v_T`$, the gauge boson masses are given by: $`m_W^2=m_Z^2c_W^2=\frac{1}{4}g^2v^2`$, with $`v^2=v_D^2+8v_T^2`$; in this way one obtains, $`\rho =1`$.

The Higgs bosons can be classified according to their transformation properties under the custodial symmetry $`SU(2)_c`$. The spectrum includes a fiveplet $`H_5^{++,+,0,,}`$, a threeplet $`H_3^{+,0,}`$, and two singlets $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}`$. While $`H_3^0`$ does not couple to the gauge boson pairs $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$, the coupling of the remaining neutral states can be written as:

$`g_{H_i^0WW}`$ $`=`$ $`gm_Wf_{H_i^0}`$
$`g_{H_i^0ZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm_W}{c_W^2}}g_{H_i^0}`$ (18)
where the coefficients $`f_{H_i^0}`$ and $`g_{H_i^0}`$ are shown in Table 1. From this table we conclude that $`\rho _{H_1^0}=\rho _{H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}}=1`$, while $`\rho _{H_5^0}=1/2`$. Thus, using our definition of the rho parameter, one can clearly distinguish a Higgs state of the type $`H_5^0`$, which transforms non-trivially under the custodial symmetry, from the states $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}`$, which are singlets under SU(2)c. However, it should be said that these states are not yet mass eigenstates.

While $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{0}`$ predict $`\rho _{H_i}=1`$, their couplings with gauge bosons deviate from the SM prediction. Thus, in order to probe this sector of the model, one could compare the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_i^0ZZ)`$, or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_i^0WW)`$, and using the expected precision on the Higgs measurement, determine that range of parameters that could be excluded.

On the other hand, in terms of mass eigenstates the Higgs-Gauge boson couplings induce a $`\rho _{H_i}`$ parameter, whose expression is given by:

$$\rho _{H_i}=\frac{\frac{1}{2}v_D^2U_{1i}+v_T^2U_{2i}+v_T^2U_{3i}}{\frac{1}{2}v_D^2U_{1i}+2v_T^2U_{2i}}$$
(19)
Thus, as anticipated in section 2, the choice $`v_{T2}=v_{T0}=v_T`$, which makes $`\rho =1`$, does not imply that $`\rho _{H_i}=1`$. In fact, to get $`\rho _{H_i}=1`$, for Higgs states that transforms as singlets under the custodial symmetry one would need all the Higgs interactions, including the ones appearing in the Higgs potential to respect the symmetry SU(2)c.

## 4 Higgs triplets from the Little Higgs models

A new approach was recently proposed to address the naturalness problem of the Higgs sector, dubbed the “little Higgs models”, where the Higgs mass is protected from acquiring quadratic divergences by being promoted as a pseudo-Goldstone boson of a global symmetry . The SM Higgs acquires mass via symmetry breaking at the EW scale ($`v`$). While the global symmetry is broken at high-energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$. The important new feature of these models is that the Higgs remains light thanks to the global symmetry, which includes new fields that cancel the quadratic divergences. Furthermore, these extra Higgs fields exist as Goldstone boson multiplets from the global symmetry breaking.

A minimal model, called the “littlest Higgs”, is based on a global symmetry $`SU(5)`$ which is broken into $`SO(5)`$ at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s=4\pi f`$, while the locally gauged subgroup is $`[SU(2)\times U(1)]^2`$, which in turn breaks into the EW gauge symmetry of the SM. This leaves 14 Goldstone bosons, including a real singlet and a real triplet, which become the longitudinal modes of the heavy gauge bosons, as well as a complex doublet and complex triplet, which acquire masses radiatively, of order $`v`$ and $`f`$, respectively. Thus, the “littlest Higgs model”, predicts the existence of several states with $`𝒪`$ (TeV) masses, which give place to violations of the custodial symmetry .

Following  one has that the light (SM-like) gauge bosons masses contribute to the rho parameter, i.e. $`\rho =M_{W_L}^2/M_{Z_L}^2c_W^2=1+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$, with:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =Ar_f^2+Br_t^2$$
(20)
where $`A=\frac{5}{4}(c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2`$, $`B=4`$, $`r_f=v/f`$, and $`r_t=v^{}/v`$; $`v^{}`$ denotes the v.e.v. of the Higgs triplet of the model.

On the other hand, for the light Higgs state $`h`$, the model predicts the following Higgs-Gauge couplings,

$`g_{hWW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2v}{2}}\left[1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c^2s^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right)r_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_0^22\sqrt{2}s_0r_t\right]`$ (21)
$`g_{hZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ig^2v}{2c_W^2}}\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}(c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c^2s^2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right)r_f^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s_0^2+4\sqrt{2}s_0r_t\right].`$
For the purpose of comparison with $`\rho `$, we expand $`\rho _h`$ in terms of $`r_f`$ and $`r_t`$, which gives:

$$\rho _h=1+\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _h=1+A^{}r_f^2+B^{}r_t^2$$
(22)
and now: $`A^{}=(c^2s^2)^2+\frac{5}{2}(c_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2`$, and $`B^{}=6\sqrt{2}s_0`$. Therefore, since $`AA^{}`$, $`BB^{}`$ one clearly has: $`\rho \rho _H`$. Thus, a measurement of the Higgs couplings at NLC will provide an independent test of the underlying symmetry of the Higgs sector.

For instance, when $`\theta =\theta ^{}=\pi /4`$ i.e. $`A=0`$, and $`r_t=0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =0`$ exactly, thus, the custodial symmetry is preserved and $`\rho _h=1`$ too. Furthermore, even if $`r_t=r_f/4=1/20`$ (maximum value allowed in Ref. ), one gets $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho 1\%`$ which lays within the experimental limits. In general, for values of parameters $`s_02\sqrt{2}r_t`$, $`0r_t<r_f/4`$, $`1/20r_f1/5`$, $`1/10\mathrm{cot}\theta =c/s2`$, and $`1/10\mathrm{tan}\theta ^{}=s^{}/c^{}2`$, one obtains that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ is within the experimental limits. However, even for $`\theta =\theta ^{}=\pi /4`$, i.e. $`A^{}=0`$ and $`r_t=1/20`$, one gets $`\rho _H0.91`$ which could be probed at NLC.

## 5 Conclusions and discussion

In this letter we proposed a definition of the rho parameter based on the Higgs couplings with the gauge bosons, namely, $`\rho _{H_i}\frac{g_{H_iWW}}{g_{H_iZZ}c_W^2}`$, as a possible test of the custodial symmetry. We discuss the size of such violation in the context of general models with Higgs triplets, including the “Little Higgs” model recently proposed. We find that even for Higgs models that incorporate the custodial symmetry, to make $`\rho =1`$, the Higgs couplings allow $`\rho _H1`$. Furthermore, in models where $`\rho 1`$ we also obtain that the Higgs bosons could aquire values of $`\rho _H`$ significantly different from one. We find that $`\rho _H`$ could be tested at the level of few percent, given the expected Higgs tests that may be achieved at the planned next linear collider (NLC), where we will be entering into the era of precision measurements for the Higgs sector. Violations of the custodial symmetry could also be tested through the ratio of decay widths, $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(hWW)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(hZZ)}`$, with similar precision.

In summary, given the possibility that an scalar particle could be detected in the near future, it will be important to verify whether this particle is indeed a type of Higgs boson, and the parameter $`\rho _H`$ could play a major role in this regard. This parameter meassures the transformation properties of the Higgs bosons under the custodial symmetry.

We akcnowledge financial support from CONACYT and SNI (México). Conversations with J. Erler and J. Hernández-Sánchez are appreciated.


format: text

text:
# p-Laplacian Type Equations Involving Measures

## 1. Introduction

Throughout this paper we let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open set in $`^n`$ and $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$ a fixed number. We shall consider equations

$$\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)=\mu ,$$
$`1.1`$
where $`\mu `$ is a Radon measure. We suppose that the mapping $`𝒜^n\times ^n^n`$, $`(x,\xi )𝒜(x,\xi )`$, is measurable in $`x`$ and continuous in $`\xi `$ and that it verifies the structural conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒜(x,\xi )\xi \lambda |\xi |^p,|𝒜(x,\xi )|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\xi |^{p1},\text{ and }\\ \left(𝒜(x,\xi )𝒜(x,\zeta )\right)(\xi \zeta )>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\end{array}$$
$`1.2`$
for a.e. $`x^n`$ and all $`\xi \zeta ^n`$. A prime example of the operators is the $`p`$-Laplacian

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_pu=\mathrm{div}(|u|^{p2}u).$$

In Section 2 we discuss how nonlinear potential theory is related to equations like (1.1); it corresponds to nonnegative measures. Then in Section 3 we discuss the existence and uniqueness for (1.1) with general measures.

## 2. Potential theoretic approach

A continuous solution $`uW_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ of $`\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)=0`$ is called $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. An $`𝒜`$-superharmonic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a lower semicontinuous function $`u\mathrm{\Omega }\{\mathrm{}\}`$ that is not identically $`\mathrm{}`$ in any component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and that obeys the following comparison property: for each open $`D\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and each $`hC(\overline{D})`$, $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`D`$, the inequality $`uh`$ on $`D`$ implies $`uh`$ in $`D`$.

For $`k>0`$ and $`s`$, let

$$T_k(s)=\mathrm{max}(k,\mathrm{min}(s,k))$$

be the truncation operator. Then we have

2.1. Theorem.  If $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-superharmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$$T_k(u)W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{ for all }k>0.$$

This enables us to show that $`𝒜`$-superharmonic functions have a “gradient”: Suppose that a function $`u`$ that is finite a.e. has the property that $`T_k(u)W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for all $`k>0`$. Then we define the (weak) gradient of $`u`$ as

$$u(x)=DT_k(u)\text{ if }|u(x)|<k.$$

Here $`DT_k(u)`$ is the distributional gradient of the Sobolev function $`T_k(u)W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then $`u`$ is well defined. Observe that if $`u`$ is locally integrable, then it is the distributional derivative of $`u`$. However, it may happen that $`u`$ or $`u`$ fails to be locally integrable and so $`u`$ is not always distributional derivative, see , ; this is a real issue only for $`p<21/n`$.

2.2. Theorem.  Suppose that $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-superharmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

If $`p>n`$ $`𝒜`$-superharmonic functions are continuous and locally in $`W^{1,p}`$, moreover Radon measures then are in the dual of Sobolev space $`W^{1,p}`$. This makes the cases $`p>n`$ very special and quite simple by the classical results of Leray and Lions. Henceforth we shall be concerned mainly with cases $`1<pn`$.

For $`𝒜`$-superharmonic $`u`$ we have by Theorem 2.2 that $`|u|^{p1}`$ is locally integrable. So the distribution

$$\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)(\phi ):=_\mathrm{\Omega }𝒜(x,u)\phi dx,\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

is well defined. $`𝒜`$-superharmonic functions give rise to equation (1.1).

2.3. Theorem.  If $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-superharmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then $`\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)`$ is represented by a nonnegative Radon measure $`\mu `$.

As to the existence we have:

2.4. Theorem.  Given a finite nonnegative Radon measure $`\mu `$ on bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there is an $`𝒜`$-superharmonic function $`u`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)=\mu \hfill & \\ T_k(u)W_0^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{ for all }k>0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`2.5`$
If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is undounded, then there also is an $`𝒜`$-superharmonic solution to (1.1). This is rather easily seen if $`1<p<n`$. The case $`pn`$ requires a more careful analysis, see .

In light of Theorem 2.2 we have that a solution $`u`$ to (2.5) satisfies

$$uW_0^{1,q}(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{ for all }q<\frac{n(p1)}{n1}$$

(for $`p>21/n`$). One naturally asks if such a solution is unique. Unfortunately this is not the case in general (except for $`p>n`$). To see this consider the function

$$u(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}|x|^{\frac{pn}{p1}}1\hfill & \text{ if }1<p<n,\hfill \\ \mathrm{log}|x|\hfill & \text{ if }p=n.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the $`p`$-Laplacian cases, $`u`$ is then a $`p`$-superharmonic solution to (2.5) with $`\mu `$=0 in the punctured ball $`\mathrm{\Omega }=B(0,1)\{0\}`$, but $`v0`$ is another solution. This is rather artificial example but there are more severe ones. The question of uniqueness is a real issue to which we shall return in Section 3 below.

## Regularity and estimates

In the classical potential theory the uniqueness can be solved by the aid of the Riesz decomposition theorem which states that superharmonic functions are sums of a potential and a harmonic function. No such decomposition is available in the nonlinear world. However, this lack can be compensated for to an extent by estimating in terms of the Wolff potential of the measure $`\mu `$,

$$𝕎_\mu ^{1,p}(x_0,r)=_0^r\left(\frac{\mu (B(x_0,t))}{t^{np}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p1}}\frac{dt}{t}.$$

2.6. Theorem.  Let $`u`$ be a nonnegative $`𝒜`$-superharmonic function in $`B(x_0,3r)`$ with $`\mu =\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)`$. Then

$$c_1𝕎_\mu ^{1,p}(x_0,r)u(x_0)c_2𝕎_\mu ^{1,p}(x_0,2r)+c_3\underset{B(x_0,r)}{inf}u,$$

where $`c_j=c_j(n,p,\lambda ,\mathrm{\Lambda })>0`$.

Theorem 2.6 was discovered by the author with Malý  and later generalized for equations depending also on $`u`$ by Malý and Ziemer . Mikkonen  worked out the argument for weighted operators, this was later written up in a metric space setup in . Recently a totally different proof that works for quasilinear subelliptic operators was found by Trudinger and Wang . Labutin  gave a generalization for $`k`$-Hessian operators.

As the first major application of the potential estimate in 2.6 the author and Malý established the necessity of the Wiener test for the regularity for the Dirichlet problem: We say that $`x_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`𝒜`$-regular boundary point of bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if

$$\underset{xx_0}{lim}u(x)=\phi (x_0)$$

whenever $`\phi C^{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ and $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`u\phi W_0^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then it turns out that regularity is independent of the particular operator and it depends only on its type $`p`$. More precisely, define the $`p`$-capacity of the set $`E`$ as

$$\mathrm{cap}_p(E):=inf_^n|v|^p+|v|^pdx,$$

where the infimum is taken over all $`vW^{1,p}(^n)`$ such that $`v1`$ on an open neighborhood of $`E`$. Then

2.7. Theorem.  A boundary point $`x_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is regular if and only if

$$_0^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{cap}_p(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }B(x_0,t))}{t^{np}}\right)^{\frac{1}{p1}}\frac{dt}{t}=\mathrm{}.$$

Maz’ya  introduced the Wiener type test in 2.7 and proved its sufficiency. Gariepy and Ziemer  generalized the result by a different argument. Lindqvist and Martio  proved the necessity for $`p>n1`$; the general case was treated in . For generalizations see .

Theorem 2.6 can also be used to characterize singular solutions and (Hölder) continuity of $`𝒜`$-superharmonic functions (see ). Recall that $`𝒜`$-harmonic functions are locally Hölder continuous: there is a constant $`\varkappa (0,1]`$ depending only on the structure such that

$$\mathrm{osc}(u,B(x,r))c(\frac{r}{R})^\varkappa \mathrm{osc}(u,B(x,R))$$
$`2.8`$
whenever $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`B(x,R)`$, $`r<R`$ . For the $`p`$-Laplacian $`\varkappa =1`$. We have

2.9. Theorem.  Suppose that $`uW_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is $`𝒜`$-superharmonic with $`\mu =\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)`$. If $`u`$ is $`\alpha `$-Hölder continuous, then

$$\mu \left(B(x,r)\right)cr^{np+\alpha (p1)}\text{ whenever }B(x,2r)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

The converse holds if $`\alpha <\varkappa `$.

The case $`\alpha =\varkappa `$ is quite different and it is not yet well understood.

Rakotoson and Ziemer  proved that the condition of Theorem 2.9 for the measure gives the Hölder continuity of the solution with some exponent. Lieberman  showed that for smooth operators like the $`p`$-Laplacian the condition $`\mu \left(B(x,r)\right)cr^{n1+\epsilon }`$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$ implies that the solution is in $`C^{1,\beta }`$.

Theorem 2.9 can be employed to establish the following removability result which is due to Carleson  in the Laplacian case.

2.10. Theorem.  Suppose that $`uC^{0,\alpha }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }E`$. If $`E`$ is of $`np+\alpha (p1)`$ Hausdorff measure zero, then $`u`$ is $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

If $`E`$ is of positive $`np+\alpha (p1)`$ Hausdorff measure and $`\alpha <\varkappa `$, then there is $`uC^{0,\alpha }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ that is $`𝒜`$-harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }E`$ but not in the whole $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

## 3. General Radon measures

In this section we let $`\mu `$ be any signed Radon measure and consider equation (1.1). More specifically, we shall discuss the problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{div}𝒜(x,u)=\mu \hfill & \\ u=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \end{array}$$
$`3.1`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bounded domain in $`^n`$. Here the equation is understood in the distributional sense, i.e.

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }𝒜(x,u)\phi dx=_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi 𝑑\mu ,\phi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

where we, of course, assume that $`x𝒜(x,u)`$ is locally integrable. The boundary values $`u=0`$ are assumed in a weak Sobolev space sense. The existence of the solution to this problem is known:

3.2. Theorem.  For each Radon measure $`\mu `$ of finite total variation, there is a solution $`u`$ to (3.1) such that

We next discuss the uniqueness of such a solution. There are examples of mappings $`𝒜`$ for which there is a solution $`u`$ of equation $`𝒜(x,u)=0`$ such that $`u`$ satisfies ii) and iii) of Theorem 3.2, but fails to be $`𝒜`$-harmonic, see . See also the nonuniqueness example in an irregular domain after Theorem 2.4 above.

There are various approaches trying to treat the uniqueness problem by attaching additional attributes to the solution. To formulate these we need to recall a decomposition of measures. The $`p`$-capacity, defined in Section 2, is an outer measure. Hence the usual proof of the Lebesgue decomposition theorem gives us that any Radon measure $`\mu `$ can be decomposed as

$$\mu =\mu _0+\mu _s,$$

where $`\mu _0`$ and $`\mu _s`$ are Radon measures such that $`\mu _0`$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the $`p`$-capacity (i.e., $`\mu _0(E)=0`$ whenever $`\mathrm{cap}_p(E)=0`$) and $`\mu _s`$ is singular with respect to the $`p`$-capacity (i.e., there is a Borel set $`B`$ such that $`\mathrm{cap}_p(B)=0`$ and $`\mu _s(EB)=0`$ for all $`E`$).

Let $`u`$ be a solution to (3.1) described in Theorem 3.2. We say that

Observe that we assume here that $`u`$ satisfies equation (3.1) in the distributional sense. The entropy condition in this context was first used in ; the renormalized solution was introduced by Lions and Murat  and in the refined form in . The artificial function we had as a counterexample for the uniqueness (after Theorem 2.4) is not entropy nor renormalized solution. Existence is known; most existence proofs follow a similar idea to that in . The uniqueness can be established for certain measures since one can use truncated solutions as test functions.

3.3. Theorem.  Suppose that $`\mu `$ is a finite Radon measure. Then there is a renormalized and an entropy solution of (3.1). Moreover such a solution is unique if $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the $`p`$-capacity.

The uniqueness with $`\mu L^1`$ was proved in  and  see also , . For measures absolutely continuous wrt $`p`$-capacity, the uniqueness is established e.g. in .

A renormalized solution is always an entropy solution, whence the concepts coincide at least if $`\mu `$ is absolutely continuous wrt $`p`$-capacity; see .

In case of a general measure the uniqueness of renormalized solution appears to be an open problem. There are some partial results: Assume that the following strong monotoneity assumption holds. For all $`0\xi ,\eta ^n`$

$$\left(𝒜(x,\xi )𝒜(x,\eta )\right)(\xi \eta )\{\begin{array}{cc}\beta |\xi \eta |^p\hfill & \text{ if }p2,\hfill \\ \beta \frac{|\xi \eta |^2}{(|\xi |+|\eta |)^{2p}}\hfill & \text{ if }p<2.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`3.4`$
Assume also the Hölder continuity:

$$|𝒜(x,\xi )𝒜(x,\eta )|\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma \left(b(x)+|\xi |+|\eta |\right)^{p2}|\xi \eta |^2\hfill & \text{ if }p2,\hfill \\ \gamma |\xi \eta |^{p1}\hfill & \text{ if }p<2,\hfill \end{array}$$
$`3.5`$
where $`bL^p`$ is nonnegative. For instance, the $`p`$-Laplacian satisfies these assumptions. Then we have:

3.6. Theorem.  Suppose the additional assumptions (3.4) and (3.5) hold. If $`u`$ and $`v`$ are two renormalized solutions of (3.1) with measure $`\mu `$ such that either $`uvL^p(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ or $`uv`$ is bounded from one side, then $`u=v`$.

Rakotoson  proved that a continuous renormalized solution is unique in smooth domains; continuity requires the measure be rather special.

## Borderline case p = n

We close this paper by considering the special case when $`p=n`$. Then the uniqueness can be reached:

3.7. Theorem.  Suppose that $`𝒜`$ verifies additional assumption (3.4) with $`p=n`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is bounded and regular. For each Radon measure $`\mu `$ of finite total variation, there is a unique solution $`u`$ to (3.1) such that

The regularity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ refers to the fact that the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ needs to be thick enough to exclude counterexamples we had in Section 2. Zhong  formulated a weak condition for this by requiring that the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is uniformly $`p`$-thick, i.e., $`\mathrm{cap}_p(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }B(x,r))r^{np}`$ for all small $`r>0`$; see  for more information about uniform thickness.

In fact stronger uniqueness properties than in Theorem 3.7 hold: by using a Hodge decomposition argument Greco, Iwaniec, and Sbordone  proved that for $`p`$-Laplacian the solution is unique in the grand Sobolev space $`W^{1,n)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, i.e.

$$u\underset{q<n}{}W_0^{1,q}(\mathrm{\Omega })\text{ and }\underset{\epsilon >0}{sup}\epsilon _\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^{n\epsilon }𝑑x<\mathrm{}.$$

The regularity $`u\mathrm{weak}L^n(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in Theorem 3.7 (proved in ) is better than $`uW^{1,n)}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

By using a maximal function argument similar to that introduced by Lewis , Zhong  proved a stronger uniqueness result: the solution is unique in

$$u\underset{q<n}{}W_0^{1,q}(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Even stronger result appeared in : there is a $`\epsilon >0`$ depending on the structural assumptions and on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that any solution in $`W_0^{1,n\epsilon }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is actually the unique solution declared in Theorem 3.7. A similar result follows from the estimates in .

## References


text:
# On Dwork cohomology and algebraic 𝒟-modules

## 1 Review of algebraic $`𝒟`$-modules

For the reader’s convenience, we recall here the notions and results from the theory of algebraic $`𝒟`$-modules that we need. Our references were .

### 1.1 Basic operations

Let $`X`$ be a smooth algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero, and let $`𝒪_X`$ and $`𝒟_X`$ be its structure sheaf and the sheaf of differential operators, respectively. Let $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒟_X)`$ be the abelian category of left $`𝒟_X`$-modules, $`𝖣^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ its bounded derived category, and $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ the full triangulated subcategory of $`𝖣^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ whose objects have quasi-coherent cohomologies.

Let $`f:X\stackrel{}{}Y`$ be a morphism of smooth algebraic varieties, and denote by $`𝒟_{XY}`$ and $`𝒟_{YX}`$ the transfer bimodules. We use the following notation for the operations of tensor product, inverse image, and direct image for $`𝒟`$-modules111About the tensor product, note that $`_{𝒪_X}^L^{}(_{𝒪_X}𝒟_X)_{𝒟_X}^L^{}_{𝒟_X}^L(𝒟_X_{𝒪_X}^{})`$, where $`_{𝒪_X}𝒟_X`$ (resp. $`𝒟_X_{𝒪_X}^{}`$) is given the natural stucture of left-right (resp. left-left) $`𝒟_X`$-bimodule, and $`_{𝒟_X}^L`$ always uses up the “trivial” $`𝒟_X`$-module structure.

$``$ $`:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\times 𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X),`$ $`(,^{})`$ $`_{𝒪_X}^L^{},`$
$`f^{}`$ $`:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X),`$ $`𝒩`$ $`𝒟_{XY}_{f^1𝒟_Y}^Lf^1𝒩,`$
$`f_+`$ $`:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y),`$ $``$ $`Rf_{}(𝒟_{YX}_{𝒟_X}^L).`$
If $`f:X\stackrel{}{}Y`$ and $`g:Y\stackrel{}{}Z`$ are morphisms of smooth algebraic varieties, then there are natural functorial isomorphisms

$`f^{}g^{}`$ $``$ $`(gf)^{},`$ (1.1)
$`g_+f_+`$ $``$ $`(gf)_+.`$ (1.2)
For $`𝒩,𝒩^{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)`$, there is a natural isomorphism

$$f^{}(𝒩𝒩^{})f^{}𝒩f^{}𝒩^{}.$$
(1.3)
For $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`𝒩𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)`$, there is a projection formula222In the appendix we recall the proofs of base change and projection formulae.

$$f_+(f^{}𝒩)f_+𝒩.$$
(1.4)
Consider a Cartesian square of smooth algebraic varieties

(1.5)
For $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, there is a base change formula$`^\text{2}`$

$$f_+^{}h^{}{}_{}{}^{}[d_X^{}d_X]h^{}f_+[d_Y^{}d_Y],$$
(1.6)
where $`d_X`$ denotes the dimension of $`X`$.

### 1.2 Relative cohomology

Let $`S`$ be a closed subscheme of $`X`$, and denote by $`_S𝒪_X`$ the corresponding ideal of $`𝒪_X`$. For $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒪_X)`$ one sets333In other words, for any open subset $`VX`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}(V)=\{s(V):(_S|_V)^ms=0,m0\}`$. Recall that if $``$ is quasi-coherent, Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, the subsheaf of $``$ whose sections are supported in $`S`$.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}()=\underset{m}{\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}}om_{𝒪_X}(𝒪_X/_S^m,).$$

We point out that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}()=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S^{\text{red}}]}()`$. If $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒟_X)`$ one checks that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}`$ has a natural left $`𝒟_X`$-module structure, and one considers the right derived functor

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X).$$

Let $`i:XS\stackrel{}{}X`$ be the open embedding, and $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$. There is a distinguished triangle in $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{}i_+i^{}\stackrel{+1}{}.$$
(1.7)
For $`S,S^{}X`$ possibly singular closed subvarieties, and $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, one has

$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X,`$ (1.8)
$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S^{}]}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[SS^{}]}.`$ (1.9)
Let $`f:X\stackrel{}{}Y`$ be a morphism of smooth varieties, $`ZY`$ a possibly singular closed subvariety, and set $`S=f^1(Z)X`$. Then there is an isomorphism

$$f_+\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[Z]}f_+.$$
(1.10)
Let $`Y`$ be a closed smooth subvariety of $`X`$ of codimension $`d`$, and denote by $`j:Y\stackrel{}{}X`$ the embedding. Recall that Kashiwara’s equivalence states that the functors $`j^{}[d]`$ and $`𝒩j_+𝒩`$ establish an equivalence between the category $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒟_Y)`$ of quasi-coherent $`𝒟_Y`$-modules, and the full abelian subcategory of $`\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathrm{qc}}(𝒟_X)`$ whose objects $``$ satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[Y]}\stackrel{}{}`$. This extends to derived categories. In particular, the functor

$$j_+:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_Y)\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)\text{is fully faithful,}$$
(1.11)
and for $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ one has

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[Y]}j_+j^{}[d].$$
(1.12)
### 1.3 Fourier-Laplace transform

To $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(X;𝒪_X)`$ one associates the $`𝒟_X`$-module444Equivalently, $`𝒟_Xe^\phi `$ is the sheaf $`𝒪_X`$ with the $`𝒟_X`$-module structure given by the flat connection $`1d\phi `$.

$$𝒟_Xe^\phi =𝒟_X/_\phi ,_\phi (V)=\{P𝒟_X(V):Pe^\phi =0\},VX\text{ open}.$$

For $`f:X\stackrel{}{}Y`$ a morphism of smooth algebraic varieties, and $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(Y;𝒪_Y)`$, one has

$$f^{}𝒟_Ye^\psi 𝒟_Xe^{\psi f}.$$
(1.13)
Let us denote by $`𝔸_X^1`$ the trivial line bundle on $`X`$, and by $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸_X^1;𝒪_{𝔸_X^1})`$ its fiber coordinate. Let $`\pi :V\stackrel{}{}X`$ be a vector bundle of finite rank, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\pi }:\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{}{}X`$ be the dual bundle, $`\gamma _V:V\times _X\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{}{}𝔸_X^1`$ be the natural pairing, and $`V\stackrel{p_1}{}V\times _X\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{p_2}{}\stackrel{ˇ}{V}`$ be the natural projections. The Fourier-Laplace transform for $`𝒟`$-modules is the functor

$`_V:𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_V)`$ $`\stackrel{}{}𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}})`$
$`𝒩`$ $`p_2{}_{+}{}^{}(p_1^{}𝒩\gamma _V^{}_1).`$
The Fourier-Laplace transform is involutive, in the sense that (cf \[10, Lemma 7.1 and Appendix 7.5\])

$$_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}_V(\mathrm{id}_V)^{}.$$
(1.14)
Let $`f:V\stackrel{}{}W`$ be a morphism of vector bundles over $`X`$, and denote by $`{}_{}{}^{t}f:\stackrel{ˇ}{W}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{ˇ}{V}`$ the transpose of $`f`$. Then for any $`𝒩𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_V)`$ and $`𝒫𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_W)`$ there are natural isomorphisms555See the appendix for a proof.

$`_Wf_+𝒩`$ $``$ $`(^tf)^{}_V𝒩,`$ (1.15)
$`_Vf^{}𝒫`$ $``$ $`(^tf)_+_W𝒫.`$ (1.16)
If $`X`$ is viewed as a zero-dimensional vector bundle over itself, the projection $`\pi :V\stackrel{}{}X`$ and the zero-section $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }:X\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{ˇ}{V}`$ are transpose to each other. Hence (1.16) gives for $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ and $`𝒬𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}})`$ the isomorphisms666Note that isomorphism (1.17) is the content of \[5, Lemma 2.3\], of which we have thus provided a more natural proof.

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }_+`$ $``$ $`_V\pi ^{},`$ (1.17)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}𝒬`$ $``$ $`\pi _+_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}𝒬.`$ (1.18)
## 2 Dwork cohomology

Let $`s:X\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{ˇ}{V}`$ be a section of the vector bundle $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\pi }:\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{}{}X`$ of rank $`r`$, and set $`\stackrel{~}{s}=\mathrm{id}_V\times _Xs:V\stackrel{}{}V\times _X\stackrel{ˇ}{V}`$. Recall that $`\gamma _V:V\times _X\stackrel{ˇ}{V}\stackrel{}{}𝔸_X^1`$ denotes the pairing, and let $`F\mathrm{\Gamma }(V;𝒪_V)`$ be the function

$$F=t\gamma _V\stackrel{~}{s}.$$

Let us denote by $`S`$ the reduced zero locus of $`s`$, which is a possibly singular closed subvariety of $`X`$, and by $`j:S\stackrel{}{}X`$ the embedding. The geometric framework is thus summarized in the commutative diagram with Cartesian squares

Then $`j_1=j_2=j`$ on $`S=\stackrel{~}{S}^{\text{red}}`$. Generalizing previous results of , Theorem 0.2 of  gives the following link between relative cohomology and Dwork cohomology

###### Theorem 2.1

For $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$ there is an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}[r]\pi _+(\pi ^{}𝒟_Ve^F).$$

Our aim here is to provide a more natural proof of this result.

* For $`=𝒪_X`$, the statement reads

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X[r]\pi _+𝒟_Ve^F.$$
(2.1)
For a general $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, there are isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X\text{by }(\text{1.8}),$$

and

$$\pi _+(\pi ^{}𝒟_Ve^F)\pi _+𝒟_Ve^F\text{by }(\text{1.4}).$$

It is thus sufficient to prove (2.1). Setting $`=\gamma _V^{}𝒟_{𝔸_X^1}e^t`$, there is a chain of isomorphisms

$`𝒟_Ve^F`$ $`\stackrel{~}{s}^{}`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.13})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{s}^{}𝒪_V`$
$`p_1{}_{+}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{s}_{+}^{}(\stackrel{~}{s}^{}𝒪_V)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.2})`$
$`p_1{}_{+}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{s}_+𝒪_V)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.4})`$
$`p_1{}_{+}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{s}_+\pi ^{}𝒪_X)`$
$`p_1{}_{+}{}^{}(p_2^{}s_+𝒪_X)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.6})`$
$`=_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}s_+𝒪_X.`$
Hence we have

$`\pi {}_{+}{}^{}𝒟_{V}^{}e^F`$ $`\pi {}_{+}{}^{}_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}^{}s_+𝒪_X`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}s_+𝒪_X`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.18}),`$
and to prove (2.1) we are left to establish an isomorphism

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}s_+𝒪_X\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X[r].$$
(2.2)
By (1.11), this follows from the chain of isomorphisms

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }_+\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}s_+𝒪_X`$ $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }_+\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}s_+s^{}𝒪_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}`$
$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }(X)]}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[s(X)]}𝒪_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}[2r]`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.12})`$
$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }(S)]}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }(X)]}𝒪_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}[2r]`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.9})`$
$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }(S)]}\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }_+𝒪_X[r]`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.12})`$
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }_+\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X[r]`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.10}).`$
$``$

###### Remark 2.2

Kashiwara’s equivalence allows one777This is done for example in . For $`S`$ a singular closed subvariety of a smooth variety $`X`$, the idea is to define $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒟_S)`$ as the full abelian subcategory of $`\mathrm{Mod}(𝒟_X)`$ whose objects $``$ satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}\stackrel{}{}`$. to develop the theory of algebraic $`𝒟`$-modules on possibly singular varieties, so that the formulae stated in the previous section still hold. In this framework, (2.2) is obtained by

$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\iota }^{}s_+𝒪_X`$ $`j_+j^{}𝒪_X`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.6})`$
$`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[S]}𝒪_X[r]`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.12}).`$
## Appendix A Appendix

### A.1 Base change and projection formulae

The base change formula (1.6) is proved in \[4, Theorem VI.8.4\] for $`h`$ a locally closed embedding888In the language of Gauss-Manin connections, the base change formula is stated in \[1, § 3.2.6\] for $`h`$ flat.. Let us recall how to deal with the general case.

* The Cartesian square (1.5) splits into the two Cartesian squares

where $`p_2`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ are the natural projections. Since $`(\mathrm{id}_Y^{},h)`$ is a closed embedding, by  the base change formula holds for the Cartesian square on the left hand side. We are thus left to prove the base change formula for the Cartesian square on the right hand side. For $`𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_X)`$, one has the chain of isomorphisms

$`(\mathrm{id}_Y^{}\times f)_+p_2^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`(\mathrm{id}_Y^{}\times f)_+(𝒪_Y^{})`$
$`𝒪_Y^{}f_+`$
$`p_2^{}f_+,`$
where $``$ denotes the exterior tensor product. $``$

Let us also recall, following , how projection formula is deduced from base change formula.

* Consider the diagram with commutative square

where $`\delta _X`$ and $`\delta _Y`$ are the diagonal embeddings, $`\delta _f`$ is the graph embedding, $`f^{}=f\times \mathrm{id}_Y`$, and $`f^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{id}_X\times f`$. Then there is a chain of isomorphisms

$`f_+(f^{}𝒩)`$ $`f_+\delta _X^{}(f^{}𝒩)`$
$`f_+\delta _X^{}f^{\prime \prime }(𝒩)`$
$`\delta _Y^{}f_+^{}(𝒩)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.6})`$
$`\delta _Y^{}(f_+𝒩)`$
$`f_+𝒩.`$
$``$

### A.2 Fourier-Laplace transform

The formulae stated in section 1.3 for the Fourier-Laplace transform of algebraic $`𝒟`$-modules have their analogues for the Fourier-Deligne transform of $`\mathrm{}`$-adic sheaves (see  or \[11, §III.13\]), and for the Fourier-Sato transform of conic abelian sheaves (see ). Apart from , we do not have specific references for the algebraic $`𝒟`$-module case. We thus provide here some proofs.

* The following arguments are parallel to those in the proof of \[12, Théorème 1.2.2.4\] or \[8, Proposition 3.7.14\]. Consider the diagram with Cartesian squares

where the morphisms $`p_i`$, $`q_i`$, $`r_i`$, for $`i=1,2`$ are the natural projections. Note that $`\gamma _V\alpha =\gamma _W\beta `$. The isomorphism (1.15) is obtained via the following chain of isomorphisms999Note that these arguments still apply if one replaces $`_1=𝒟_{𝔸_X^1}e^t`$ with an arbitrary quasi-coherent $`𝒟_{𝔸_X^1}`$-module. On the other hand, in order to prove (1.16) we will use the fact that the Fourier transform is involutive. , where we set $`_1=𝒟_{𝔸_X^1}e^t`$.

$`(^tf)^{}_V𝒩`$ $`=(^tf)^{}p_2{}_{+}{}^{}(p_1^{}𝒩\gamma _V^{}_1)`$
$`r_2{}_{+}{}^{}\alpha _{}^{}(p_1^{}𝒩\gamma _V^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.6})`$
$`r_2{}_{+}{}^{}(\alpha ^{}p_1^{}𝒩\alpha ^{}\gamma _V^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.3})`$
$`r_2{}_{+}{}^{}(r_1^{}𝒩\alpha ^{}\gamma _V^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.1})`$
$`r_2{}_{+}{}^{}(r_1^{}𝒩\beta ^{}\gamma _W^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.1})`$
$`q_2{}_{+}{}^{}\beta _{+}^{}(r_1^{}𝒩\beta ^{}\gamma _W^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.2})`$
$`q_2{}_{+}{}^{}(\beta _+r_1^{}𝒩\gamma _W^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.4})`$
$`q_2{}_{+}{}^{}(q_1^{}f_+𝒩\gamma _W^{}_1)`$ $`\text{by }(\text{1.6})`$
$`=_Wf_+𝒩.`$
Applying the functor $`_{\stackrel{ˇ}{W}}`$ to the isomorphism (1.15) with $`𝒩=_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}𝒬`$, $`𝒬𝖣_{\mathrm{qc}}^\mathrm{b}(𝒟_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}})`$, and using (1.14), we get

$$f_+_{\stackrel{ˇ}{V}}𝒬_{\stackrel{ˇ}{W}}(^tf)^{}𝒬.$$

The isomorphism (1.16) is obtained from the one above by interchanging the roles of $`f`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{t}f`$. $``$

* Dipartimento di Matematica Pura ed Applicata; Università di Padova; via G. Belzoni, 7; 35131 Padova; Italy
Email: baldassa@math.unipd.it, dagnolo@math.unipd.it


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a quite recent paper , Nakano et. al. report on an exotic strangeness $`S=+1`$ baryon state observed as a sharp resonance at $`1.54\pm 0.01`$GeV in photo-production from neutrons. The confirmation of this finding would give formidable support to topological soliton models  for a description of baryons in the non-perturbative regime of QCD. Higher multiplets containing states carrying exotic quantum numbers arise naturally in the $`SU(3)`$ version of these models. These were called exotic because, within quark models, such states cannot be built of only 3 valence quarks and additional quark-antiquark pairs must be added. So, the terms pentaquark and septuquark characterize the quark contents of these states. Strictly, in soliton models there is nothing exotic about these states, they just come as members of the next higher multiplets.

Indeed, beyond the minimal $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$ baryons, also a $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ baryon multiplet was mentioned early by Chemtob . Within a simple $`SU(3)`$ symmetric Skyrme model Biedenharn and Dothan  estimated the excitation energy of the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ with spin $`J=1/2`$ to be only $`0.60`$ GeV (sic!) above the nucleon. This multiplet and a $`\{27\}`$ with spin $`J=3/2`$ both contain low lying $`S=+1`$ states, called $`Z`$ and $`Z`$* in the following. First numbers for these exotic states taking the configuration mixing caused by symmetry breaking into account were given in , albeit some $`0.1`$ GeV too high if the value found in  proves correct. Diakonov, Petrov and Polyakov  postulated the experimental $`P11(1.71)`$ nucleon resonance a member of the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ multiplet and by this the $`Z`$ again with low excitation energy ($`0.59`$ GeV). Weigel  showed that similar low numbers ($`0.63`$ GeV) may be obtained in an extended Skyrme model calculation, which includes a scalar field.

It should be added, that the excitation energies of similar exotic states have been estimated for arbitrary baryonic numbers . It turned out, that all these states appear to be above threshold for the decay due to strong interactions. In general the excitation energies for the $`B>1`$ systems are comparable to those for baryons, e.g. the $`S=1`$ dibaryon state belonging to the $`\{\overline{35}\}`$ multiplet was calculated, to be only $`0.59`$ GeV above $`NN`$-threshold .

In this paper we address the following questions concerning the $`B=1`$ sector. Is an exotic $`Z`$ at $`1.54`$ GeV as reported in  compatible with soliton models and the known baryon spectrum? Provided the $`Z`$ is actually located at this position, what does it imply for the other exotic states?

## 2 $`SU(3)`$ soliton model

There exists a large number of different soliton models, pure pseudoscalar ones, models with scalar fields and/or vector and axial-vector mesons and even models which include quark degrees of freedom. There comes also a vast number of possible terms in the effective action for each of these models, partly with free adjustable parameters. However, the $`SU(3)`$ symmetric part always leads to the same collective hamiltonian with only 2 model dependent quantities determining the baryon spectrum (section 2.1). Unfortunately the situation for the symmetry breaking part is less advantageous, but still there appears one dominating standard symmetry breaker which will be the third model dependent quantity needed (section 2.2). Thus, instead of refering to a specific model (which comes with a number of free parameters as well) we are going to adjust these 3 quantities to the known $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$ baryon spectra and to the just reported $`Z`$ . Using this input, we try to answer the questions posed in the introduction. It will also be shown that the values needed for the three quantities are not too far from what may be obtained in a standard Skyrme model.

In the baryon sector, the static hedgehog soliton configuration located in the non-strange $`SU(2)`$ subgroup is collectively and rigidly rotated in $`SU(3)`$ space. There are other approaches like the soft rotator approach and the bound state approach, but probably for $`B=1`$ the rigid rotator approach is most appropriate.

### 2.1 $`SU(3)`$ symmetric part

The $`SU(3)`$ symmetric effective action leads to the collective Lagrangian

$$L^S=M+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_a^R)^2+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }_K\underset{a=4}{\overset{7}{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_a^R)^2\frac{N_CB}{2\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }_8^R.$$
(1)
depending on the angular velocities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a^R,a=1,\mathrm{},8`$. It is generic for all effective actions whose non-anomalous part contains at most two time derivatives, the term linear in the angular velocity depends on the baryon number $`B`$ and the number of colors $`N_C`$ and it appears due to the Wess-Zumino-Witten anomaly.

The soliton mass $`M`$, the pionic and kaonic moments of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$ are model dependent quantities. The latter two are relevant to the baryon spectrum, the soliton mass $`M`$, subject to large quantum corrections, enters the absolute masses only. With the right and left angular momenta

$$R_a=\frac{L^0}{\mathrm{\Omega }_a^R},L_a=\underset{b=1}{\overset{8}{}}D_{ab}R_b,$$
(2)
which transform according to Wigner functions $`D_{ab}`$ depending on the soliton’s orientation, the hamiltonian obtained by a Legendre transfomation

$$H^S=M+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi }𝑹^2+\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Theta }_K}\left(C_2(SU(3))𝑹^2N_C^2B^2/12\right)$$
(3)
may be expressed by the second order Casimir operators of the $`SU(3)`$ group and its nonstrange $`SU(2)`$ subgroup

$$C_2(SU(3))=\underset{a=1}{\overset{8}{}}R_a^2,𝑹^2=\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}R_a^2.$$
(4)
The eigenvalues of these operators for a given $`SU(3)`$ irrep $`(p,q)`$ with dimensionality $`N=(p+1)(q+1)(p+q+2)/2`$ are

$`C_2(SU(3))|\{N\}(p,q),(Y_RJJ_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p^2+q^2+pq}{3}}+p+q\right]|\{N\}(p,q),(Y_RJJ_3)`$
$`𝑹^2|\{N\}(p,q),(Y_RJJ_3)`$ $`=`$ $`J(J+1)|\{N\}(p,q),(Y_RJJ_3),`$ (5)
where $`(Y_RJJ_3)`$ denote the right hypercharge and the baryon’s spin. The latter relation is due to the hedgehog ansatz which connects the spin to the right isospin. The states are still degenerate with respect to the left (flavor) quantum numbers $`(YTT_3)`$ suppressed here. The constraint $`R_8=N_CB/2\sqrt{3}`$ fixes $`Y_R=N_CB/3`$  and is written as triality condition

$$Y_{max}=\frac{p+2q}{3}=B+m,$$
(6)
with $`Y_{max}`$ representing the maximal hypercharge of the $`(p,q)`$ multiplet. Thus, baryons belong to irreps of $`SU(3)/Z_3`$. With the octet being the lowest $`B=1`$ multiplet, the number of colors must be $`N_C=3`$. It also follows a spin-statistics-baryon number relation $`(1)^{2J+B}=1`$, which for $`B=1`$ allows for half-integer spins only .

From a quark model point of view, the integer $`m`$ must be interpreted as the number of additional $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs present in the baryon state . When $`B=1`$, we obtain for $`m=0`$ the minimal multiplets $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$, for $`m=1`$ the family of pentaquark multiplets $`\{\overline{10}\}`$, $`\{27\}`$, $`\{35\}`$, $`\{28\}`$, and for $`m=2`$ the septuquark multiplets $`\{\overline{35}\}`$, $`\{64\},\{81\},\{80\}`$ and $`\{55\}`$ (Fig. 1). For the masses of the multiplets $`\{8\}J=1/2`$, $`\{10\}J=3/2`$, $`\{\overline{10}\}J=1/2`$, $`\{27\}J=3/2`$ and $`\{\overline{35}\}J=3/2`$ simple relations

$`M_{\{10\}}M_{\{8\}}=3/2\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi ,`$
$`M_{\{\overline{10}\}}M_{\{8\}}=3/2\mathrm{\Theta }_K,`$
$`M_{\{27\}}M_{\{10\}}=1/\mathrm{\Theta }_K,`$ (7)
$`M_{\{\overline{35}\}}M_{\{10\}}=15/4\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$
hold. It is noticed that the mass difference of the minimal multiplets depends on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi `$ only 111It was shown for arbitrary $`B`$  that coefficient of $`1/2\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$ in $`(3)`$, $`C_2(SU(3))𝑹^23B^2/4=3B/2`$ for any minimal multiplet with $`p+2q=3B`$; $`N_c=3`$. , whereas the mass differences between minimal and non-minimal multiplets depend on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi `$.

With values $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi 5`$ GeV-1 and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K2.5`$ GeV-1 from a naive Skyrme model the estimate $`M_{\{\overline{10}\}}M_{\{8\}}0.60`$ GeV  was obtained, according to (7). The mass of the $`\{27\}`$ lies then $`0.10`$ GeV higher. In Fig. 1 we show the spectrum of all baryon multiplets with an excitation energy up to $`2.5`$ GeV using these moments of inertia for illustration. The sequence of the lowest baryon multiplets

$$\{8\}J=\frac{1}{2},\{10\}J=\frac{3}{2},\{\overline{10}\}J=\frac{1}{2},\{27\}J=\frac{3}{2},\{35\}J=\frac{5}{2}\mathrm{}$$
(8)
turns out to be unique within a large range of moments of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi /3<\mathrm{\Theta }_K<\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi /2`$, covering many realistic cases. Diagrams for the lowest non-minimal baryon multiplets $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ and $`\{27\}`$ which accomodate the interesting $`S=+1`$ states are depicted in Fig. 2.

So far we have considered the $`SU(3)`$ symmetric case. In order to explain the splitting of baryon states within each multiplet we have to take the explicit symmetry breaking into account.

### 2.2 $`SU(3)`$ symmetry breaking

The dominant standard symmetry breaker comes from mass and kinetic terms in the effective action which account for different meson masses and decay constants e.g. $`m_Km_\pi `$ and $`F_KF\pi `$

$$L^{SB}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1D_{88})\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}D_{8a}\mathrm{\Omega }_a^R+\mathrm{},$$
(9)
(first term). There may be further terms of minor importance which depend on the specific effective action used. As an example we will optionally include such a term which arises from $`\rho \omega `$ mixing in vector meson lagrangians (second term). This may serve as a test for the model dependence of our results. The corresponding hamiltonian is

$$H^{SB}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1D_{88})\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi }\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}D_{8a}R_a+\mathrm{}.$$
(10)
The quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are again model dependent quantities, they determine the strength of symmetry breaking. To begin with we consider only the standard symmetry breaker $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

It was early noticed that a perturbative treatment of this symmetry breaker leads to a splitting $`(M_\mathrm{\Lambda }M_N):(M_\mathrm{\Sigma }M_\mathrm{\Lambda }):(M_\mathrm{\Xi }M_\mathrm{\Sigma })=2:2:1`$ for the $`\{8\}`$ baryons  in variance with observation. Because symmetry breaking is strong, eq. (10) must be diagonalised in the basis of the unperturbed eigenstates of $`H^S`$. By this procedure the states of a certain multiplet pick up components of higher representations. Nevertheless we will address also the mixed states as $`\{8\}`$ states, $`\{10\}`$ states and so on, according to their dominant contribution.

The best values for the moments of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$ and the symmetry breaker $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are listed in Table 1 (fit A). Optionally the symmetry breaker $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is also included (fit B).

First we show in Fig. 3 the dependence of the $`Z`$ and $`Z`$* energies on the kaonic moment of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K`$ with the other parameters kept fixed. The sensitive dependence expected from eq. (7) persists when symmetry breaking is included. If the experimental datum for $`Z`$ proves correct, a relatively large kaonic moment of inertia (Table 1) is required.

Let us compare with what is obtained from a standard Skyrme model  (the only parameter of this model $`e=4.05`$) with mass and kinetic symmetry breakers included with mesonic parameters. There appear time derivatives in the kinetic symmetry breaker which were neglected in  (adiabatic approximation) with the argument that they are suppressed by two orders in an $`1/N_C`$ expansion and there should come many other symmetry breaking terms at this order which are also not taken into account. This leads to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi =5.88`$ GeV-1, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.32`$ GeV and a relatively small kaonic moment of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K=2.19`$ GeV-1 (connected with larger $`Z`$ and $`Z`$* masses, Fig. 3). However, the non-adiabatic terms in the kinetic symmetry breaker are not really small, giving a sizeable contribution to the kaonic moment of inertia $`\mathrm{\Theta }_K=2.80`$ GeV-1 together with symmetry breaking terms and even terms non-diagonal in the angular momenta. Since the latter were never properly treated, these numbers should be compared with reservation to those given in Table 1. Nevertheless, it seems that the standard Skyrme model potentially may provide values close to fit B. Relative to fit A, the standard symmetry breaker from the Skyrme model appears too weak indicating that an important symmetry breaking piece is missing in this model. Concluding this discussion, it should be stressed, that the non-adiabatic terms in the kinetic symmetry breaker are of course not the only possibility to arrive at larger kaonic moments of inertia. The inclusion of other degrees of freedom or the consideration of additional terms in the effective action sensitively influences this quantity. In this respect the position of the exotic $`Z`$ baryon proves an important constraint on soliton models.

The resulting baryon spectrum is shown in Fig. 4. It is noticed that for fit A, with the standard symmetry breaker alone, (i) the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ mass difference is too large, (ii) the splitting in the $`J=1/2`$ multiplets relative to that in the $`J=3/2`$ multiplets is overestimated, and (iii) the corresponding $`SU(2)`$ symmetry breaker may account only for half the neutron-proton split (not shown here, see e.g.). Essentially all three deficiencies may be cured by including the second symmetry breaker, fit B. This does of course not mean, that the additional symmetry breaker must be exacly of the form (10), other operator structures are possible. As mentioned, we include fit B mainly to get a notion of the model dependence of our results.

It seems that the levels of the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ are relatively stable in contrast to the $`\{27\}`$ whose states depend sensitively on the specific form of the symmetry breakers such that even the ordering of the levels gets changed.

The lowest states of the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ and $`\{27\}`$ are listed in Tables 2 and 3. We distinguish states with exotic quantum numbers from those with non-exotic quantum numbers $`2Y1`$ and $`T1+Y/2`$. Generally, the former are ”cleaner”, because they cannot mix with vibrational excitations (apart from their own radial excitations).

Because additional vibrations on top of these states can only enhance the energy, these turn out to be really the lowest states with exotic quantum numbers starting with the $`S=1`$ baryon states $`Z`$ and $`Z`$\*. The latter are experimentally accessible via the reactions

$`\gamma N`$ $`\overline{K}Z`$ $`\overline{K}KN`$
$`\pi N`$ $`\overline{K}Z`$ $`\overline{K}KN`$
$`NN`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma })Z`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma })KN`$
and in $`KN`$ scattering. The novel measurement  was a photo-production experiment of the first type. The $`S1`$ exotics are more difficult to measure, e.g. the $`X`$ of Table 2 via the reactions

$`\pi N`$ $`\pi X`$ $`\pi \pi \mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`NN`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ $`\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }.`$
We included also the lowest exotic states with strangeness $`S=+2`$ and $`S=4`$ with main components in the $`\{\overline{35}\}`$ and $`\{35\}`$ multiplets respectively. The $`S=+2`$ state $`Z`$\** still can be produced in binary reactions, e.g. $`K^0pK^{}Z`$\**,++, but the energy of this state is already quite considerable, $`2.4`$ GeV. On the other hand, the $`S=4`$ state is more difficult to produce, but detection seems to be simpler because final $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`K^{}`$ are easy to see.

In contrast, the states with non-exotic quantum numbers in Table 3 mix strongly with vibrational excitations of the $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$ baryons. For example the $`N`$* rotational state, identified with the nucleon resonance $`P11(1.71)`$ in , mixes strongly with a $`2\mathrm{}\omega `$ radial excitation which may even lead to a doubling of states as found in . This situation renders an easy interpretation difficult. Probably the cleanest of these states with non-exotic quantum numbers is the one called $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$* which predominantly couples to the non-resonant magnetic dipole mode. But even here it is not excluded that the good agreement with the position of the experimental $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ resonance $`P03(1.89)`$ is accidential. Also, there is not even a candidate for the rotational state called $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$* listed by the PDG in the required energy region with the empirical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance $`P33(1.92)`$ lying $`0.1`$ GeV too high. On the other hand in 5 cases we do have candidates close to the estimated energies. There is certainly some evidence that the numbers presented are not unreasonable.

It should be added that the energies for the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ baryons presented here differ substantially from what was obtained in ref. using simple perturbation theory. Their $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ splitting is overestimated by more than a factor of 1.5 .

## 3 The $`S=1`$ baryon spectrum

So far we have considered rotational states only. The real situation is complicated by the fact that there is a whole tower of vibrational excitations connected with each of these rotational states. We will briefly address this issue on a quite qualitative level particularly for the $`S=1`$ sector. Possibly this may be of help for experimentalists in search for further exotic baryons.

The lowest states in the $`S=1`$ sector are the rotational states $`Z`$ and $`Z`$* discussed in the previous section. As mentioned, we believe that the energies of these 2 states should be close to each other with that of $`Z`$* somewhat larger ($`0.100.15`$ GeV). Such rotational states appear as sharp resonances with small widths relative to the broader vibrational states. The width of $`Z`$ was given in  to be smaller than $`25`$ MeV, and that of $`Z`$* should be somewhat larger due to phase space arguments. Probably the $`Z`$* will be the next exotic state detected.

Certainly, in soliton models there exist radial excitations (breathing modes) for each rotational state. For most of the $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$ baryons such excitations correspond to wellknown resonances as e.g. the Roper resonance for the nucleon. A breathing mode excitation energy $`0.45`$ GeV for the $`Z`$ was calculated in , and that of $`Z`$* should be considerably smaller because the latter object is more extended due to centrifugal forces connected to a larger spin (similar situation as for Roper and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance $`P33(1.60)`$). Therefore we may expect excited $`P01`$ and $`P13`$ states close together as indicated in Fig. 5 (the order may be reversed!).

In addition, there will be strong quadrupole excitations as those obtained in soliton models  and seen empirically in the well studied $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$ sectors (with roughly $`0.4`$ and $`0.6`$ GeV excitation energy). In these sectors there appear also a number of S-wave resonances through $`\overline{K}N`$, $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`K\mathrm{\Xi }`$ bound states just below the corresponding thresholds . Although such an interpretation seems less clear in the $`S=1`$ sector, a low lying $`S01`$ resonance is nevertheless expected, just by inspection of the other sectors.

Tentatively, this leads to a $`S=+1`$ baryon spectrum depicted in Fig.5. The T-matrix poles $`P01(1.83)`$, $`P13(1.81)`$, $`D03(1.79)`$ and $`D15(2.07)`$ extracted from early $`KN`$ scattering experiments  qualitatively would fit with such a scheme, the spacings however are considerably smaller than in Fig.5. So, in case these T-matrix poles prove correct, a strong quenching of the spectrum shown in Fig. 5 has to be understood. The existence of such poles, particularly in the $`D`$-waves, would likewise favour a $`Z`$ located considerably below these resonances compatible with the datum $`1.54`$ GeV.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that a low position of the exotic $`S=+1`$ baryon $`Z`$ with quantum numbers $`J=1/2`$ and $`T=0`$ at the reported $`1.54`$ GeV is compatible with soliton models and the known baryon spectrum. For all members of the $`\{\overline{10}\}`$ and $`\{27\}`$ multiplets with non-exotic quantum numbers we find candidates close to the estimated energies, with one exception: the empirical $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance $`P33(1.92)`$ lies $`0.1`$ GeV too high. There will be a strong mixing of these states with vibrational modes of the $`\{8\}`$ and $`\{10\}`$ baryons, which may lead to considerable energy shifts and even to a doubling of states. Also the T-matrix poles of early $`KN`$ scattering experiments favour a low $`Z`$ sufficiently below these resonances, with the caveat, that when these poles are correct a strong quenching of the $`S=1`$ baryon spectrum compared to other sectors has to be explained.

However, the soliton model by itself does not exclude a $`Z`$ baryon at higher energies. Therefore the confirmation of this datum, which proves a stringent constraint on these models, is most important.

Under the assumption, that the exotic $`Z`$ is actually located at the reported position, we have estimated the energies of other exotic baryons. First of all, there will be a further $`S=+1`$ baryon $`Z`$* with quantum numbers $`J=3/2`$ and $`T=1`$, some $`0.100.15`$ GeV above the $`Z`$. This will probably be the next state to be discovered in similar experiments also as a sharp resonance with a somewhat larger width yet. Moreover there will be a tower of vibrational excitations built on these two exotic states, which should appear as broader resonances several $`0.1`$ GeV above these energies.

There are also several low lying $`S1`$ baryons with exotic isospin, starting with a $`J=1/2`$ state with quantum numbers $`S=0`$ and $`T=2`$ at $`1.7`$ GeV. These states are more difficult to access experimentally. The lowest $`S=+2`$ and $`S=4`$ baryon states may also be of some interest although they are already expected at high energies $`2.32.4`$ GeV.

VBK is indebted to B.O.Kerbikov, A.E.Kudryavtsev, L.B.Okun’ and other participants of the ITEP Thursday seminar for stimulating discussions; his work was supported by RFBR, grant 01-02-16615.


text:
# Untitled Document

treves2.tex

On Treves’ Algebraic Characterization of the KdV Hierarchy.

L. A. Dickey111Math. Dept., University of Oklahoma, e-mail: ldickey@math.ou.edu

## Abstract

We have found a possibility to streamline the proof of the Treves’ theorem  on an algebraic characterization of the KdV hierarchy which makes it significantly shorter, following essentially the logic of the original proof.

1. One of possible methods to construct the equations of the KdV hierarchy is based on the recursion formula

$$R_{n1}^{\prime \prime \prime }+4uR_{n1}^{}+2u^{}R_{n1}=4R_n^{},R_0=1.$$
$`(1.1)`$
Quantities $`R_n`$ are differential polynomials in $`u`$, i.e., polynomials in $`u`$ and its derivatives. There is a grading in the algebra of differential polynomials of $`u`$: $`w(u)=2`$, $`w()=1`$ where $`=d/dx`$. Eq. (1.1) determines $`R_n`$ up to a constant of integration. Two sequences of $`R_n`$ obtained with different choice of constants are related by a linear triangular transformation, i.e., terms of one sequence are linear combinations of terms of the other sequence with less or equal numbers. If the requirement is imposed that $`\{R_n[u]\}`$ are homogeneous in weight differential polynomials, $`w(R_n)=2n`$, then the recursion formula (1) uniquely determines all $`R_n`$’s. The equations of the KdV hierarchy are

$$_{t_n}u=R_n^{}[u],$$
$`(1.2)`$
it is supposed that $`u`$ depends on parameters $`t_n`$. All $`R_m`$’s are first integrals of each Eq. (1.2) in the sense that

$$_{t_m}R_n=Q_{nm}$$

where $`Q_{nm}`$ is a differential polynomial (see, e.g., , ). Any linear combination of $`R_n`$ is also a first integral. Two first integrals are equivalent if they differ by a differential polynomial which is the derivative of another polynomial.

Treves  gave the following criterion of the fact that a given differential polynomial $`P[u]`$ is equivalent (differs by an exact derivative) to a linear combination of $`R_n`$:

Theorem (Treves). A differential polynomial $`P[u]`$ is $`_nc_nR_n[u]+Q[u]`$ where $`Q`$ is a differential polynomial if and only if the following criterion is satisfied: let the formal series

$$\frac{2}{x^2}+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kx^k,a_k=\mathrm{const}$$

be substituted for $`u`$ in $`P[u]`$. Then

$$\mathrm{res}_xP\left[\frac{2}{x^2}+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kx^k\right]=0.$$
$`(1.3)`$
The residue $`\mathrm{res}_x`$ symbolizes, as usual, the coefficient of $`x^1`$.

The theorem is remarkable for the following two reasons. (1) This criterion has a touch of that enigmatical universality which distinguishes the celebrated Sato bilinear identity: there is no hint on the KdV equations in Eq. (1.3), it has a very general character, and nevertheless the hierarchy is invisibly present there. (2) It suggests the use of the “trial functions” in the form of formal Laurent series in x in the study of differential polynomials. This can work for other problems, too. For example, it is possible to prove the following necessary and sufficient criterion for a differential polynomial of $`u`$ to be a derivative of another differential polynomial: if an arbitrary semi-infinite Laurent series $`_N^{\mathrm{}}a_nx^n`$ is substituted for $`u`$, the residue of the obtained Laurent series is zero. The Treves theorem states that if the class of trial series is restricted in an appropriate way then the Hamiltonians of the KdV hierarchy should be added to the exact derivatives.

2. Necessity of the criterion (1.3).

Proof. With the second term, $`Q[u]`$, it is clear: when any Laurent series of $`x`$ is substituted for $`u`$, then $`Q[u(x)]`$ is a Laurent series and its derivative, $`Q[u(x)]`$, has the zero residue. Now we have to prove that the formal series in powers of $`x`$

$$R_n\left[\frac{2}{x^2}+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kx^k\right]=\widehat{R}_n(x)$$

satisfy (1.3). The sequence of formal series in powers of $`x`$: $`\{\widehat{R}_n(x)\}`$ satisfies the recursion formula

$$\widehat{R}_{n1}^{\prime \prime \prime }(x)+4\left(\frac{2}{x^2}+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kx^k\right)\widehat{R}_{n1}^{}(x)+2\left(\frac{2}{x^2}+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_kx^k\right)^{}\widehat{R}_{n1}(x)=4\widehat{R}_n^{}(x).$$

Taking $`\widehat{R}_0=1`$, the other $`\widehat{R}_n`$ can be recovered from the sequence of the recursion relations uniquely up to arbitrary additive constants. The choice of the constants is irrelevant since if the theorem is proven for one choice of constants it is true for all the others since the residue is a linear functional. For simplicity, the free of $`x`$ terms can be taken as zero.

Let us find $`\widehat{R}_1`$ and $`\widehat{R}_2`$. We have $`2(4x^3+2a_2x+3a_3x^2+\mathrm{})=4\widehat{R}_1^{}`$ whence

$$\widehat{R}_1=\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{1}{2}(a_2x^2+a_3x^3+\mathrm{}).$$

Denote $`a_0+a_2x^2+a_3x^3+\mathrm{}=\varphi `$ and $`T_1=_0^{\mathrm{}}T_{1,k}x^k=(1/2)(a_2x^2+a_3x^3+\mathrm{})`$, so, $`\widehat{R}_1=x^2+T_1`$. The next recursion formula is

$$((2)(3)(4)x^5+T_1^{\prime \prime \prime })+4(2x^2+\varphi )(2x^3+T_1^{})+2(4x^3+\varphi ^{})(x^2+T_1)=4\widehat{R}_2^{}.$$

The terms with $`x^5`$ go. The terms with $`x^3`$ are $`8a_0+8T_{1,0}=8a_0`$. The terms with $`x^2`$ are $`8T_{1,1}+8T_{1,1}=0`$, and the terms with $`x^1`$ are $`16T_{1,2}8a_2+8T_{1,2}+4a_2=8T_{1,2}4a_2=4a_24a_2=0`$. Now, $`4\widehat{R}_2^{}=(8a_0)x^3+`$ (terms with nonnegative powers of $`x`$). Therefore, $`\widehat{R}_2=A_2x^2+T_2`$ where $`A_2`$ is a constant and $`T_2`$ is a series in positive powers of $`x`$.

Now we can make a hypothesis that all $`\widehat{R}_m`$ have a form $`\widehat{R}_m=A_mx^2+T_m`$ where $`A_m`$ is a constant and $`T_m`$ a series in positive powers of $`x`$ $`(T_{m1,0}=0)`$, and prove it by induction. The recursion formula has the form:

$$(2)(3)(4)A_{m1}x^5+T_{m1}^{\prime \prime \prime }+4(2x^2+\varphi )(2A_{m1}x^3+T_{m1}^{})$$

$$+2(4x^3+\varphi ^{})(A_{m1}x^2+T_{m1})=4R_m^{}.$$

Collect the terms with the same power of $`x`$:

$`x^5:`$ $`24A_{m1}+16A_{m1}+8A_{m1}=0,`$
$`x^3:`$ $`A_{m1}a_0=A_m,`$
$`x^2:`$ $`8T_{m1,1}+8T_{m1,1}=0,`$
$`x^1:`$ $`16T_{m1,2}8A_{m1}a_2+8T_{m1,2}+4A_{m1}a_2=8T_{m1,2}4A_{m1}a_2.`$
In the cases of $`\widehat{R}_1`$ and $`\widehat{R}_2`$ this term was zero. Therefore, we make another hypothesis that it is always zero, and also prove it by induction. Thus, we suppose

$$2T_{m1,2}+A_{m1}a_2=0.$$
$`(2.1)`$
We continue:

$`x^0:`$ $`6T_{m1,3}83T_{m1,3}8A_{m1}a_3+4a_0T_{m1,1}`$
$`+2A_{m1}3a_3+8T_{m1,3}=4T_{m,1},`$
or

$`x^0:`$ $`10T_{m1,3}+4a_0T_{m1,1}14A_{m1}a_3=4T_{m,1},`$
$`x^1:`$ $`432T_{m1,4}84T_{m1,4}8A_{m1}a_4`$
$`+42a_0T_{m1,2}+8T_{m1,4}+2A_{m1}4a_4=8T_{m,2}`$
or, taking into account (2.1), $`a_0a_2A_{m1}=2T_{m,2}`$. We had the equation $`A_{m1}a_0=A_m`$. Therefore,

$$x^1:A_ma_2+2T_{m,2}=0$$

which is nothing but our hypothesis (2.1) for the next number $`m`$. The rest of equations determine $`T_{m,3},\mathrm{}`$ Now both the hypotheses are proven and we have

$$\widehat{R}_m=A_mx^2+T_m,(T_m=T_{m,1}x+T_{m,2}x^2+\mathrm{}).$$

Take the residue:

$$\mathrm{res}_x\widehat{R}_m=0$$

q.e.d.

3. Sufficiency of the criterion (1.3). Beginning of the proof.

A differential polynomial $`P[u]`$ is a polynomial $`P(\xi _0,\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{})`$ where $`u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{}`$ are substituted for $`\xi _0,\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{}`$. As it was said before, there is a grading: $`w(u^{(n)})=n+2`$, $`w()=1`$. If all terms of a polynomial $`P`$ have the same weight $`\kappa `$ then $`P(\lambda ^2u,\lambda ^3u^{},\lambda ^4u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{})=\lambda ^\kappa P(u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$.

We must prove the second part of the Treves theorem:

A differential polynomial $`P[u]`$ satisfying the Treves condition

$$\mathrm{res}_xP\left[2/x^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!}\right]=0$$
$`(3.1)`$
for any $`\{a_n\}`$ is a sum of an exact derivative $`S[u]`$ and a linear combination of the KdV polynomial $`R_k[u]`$.

Proof. First we are proving a lemma:

Lemma. If a differential polynomial satisfies the Treves condition (3.1) then so does each homogeneous in weight component of this polynomial.

Proof of the lemma. Let $`P=P_\kappa `$ where $`P_\kappa `$ a homogeneous polynomial of weight $`\kappa `$. Since $`\{a_n\}`$ are arbitrary, we can replace them by $`a_n\lambda ^{n+2}`$. Now,

$$\mathrm{res}_xP_\kappa (2/x^2+\lambda ^2a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n+2}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!},4/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n+2}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{n1!},12/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^{n+2}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})$$

$$=\mathrm{res}_xl^\kappa P_\kappa (2/(lx)^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n\frac{(lx)^n}{n!},4/(lx)^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{(lx)^{n1}}{n1!},12/(lx)^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{(lx)^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})$$

$$=\lambda ^{\kappa 1}\mathrm{res}_xP_\kappa \left[2/x^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!}\right].$$

If this is zero, then each term is zero since $`\lambda `$ is arbitrary, q.e.d.

Therefore, we can consider each component of weight $`\kappa `$ separately. It is easy to prove by induction, using the recursion relation for $`R_k`$ (1.1), that all $`R_k`$ (recall that $`w(R_k)=2k`$) contain the term $`u^k`$ with a non-zero coefficient. Thus, if the given polynomial $`P_\kappa `$, $`\kappa =2k`$ contains this term, then there is a constant $`c`$ such that $`PcR_k`$ is without this term and satisfies the Treves condition (3.1) since both $`P_\kappa `$ and $`R_k`$ do. If $`\kappa `$ is odd, $`P_\kappa `$ cannot have terms $`cu^l`$. Further we are showing that a polynomial of the weight $`\kappa `$ satisfying (3.1) and without terms $`cu^l`$ is an exact derivative. Let $`P`$ be such a polynomial. Any non-zero polynomial can always by transformed by adding an exact derivative to a “reduced form” which means that all its monomials have a form

$$c(u^{(j_1)})^{q_1}\mathrm{}(u^{(j_\mu )})^{q_\mu },j_1<\mathrm{}<j_\mu ,q_\mu 2.$$

The number $`\mu `$ is the order of the term. After this reduction, the polynomial $`P`$ still satisfies (1.1) since an exact derivative always does, and it does not have terms $`cu^l`$. A reduced polynomial cannot be an exact derivative. Therefore, what we need to prove is that $`P`$ is identically zero. Making an obvious change of variables, we will write the Treves condition as

$$\mathrm{res}_xP\left[1/x^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!}\right]=0$$

or

$$\mathrm{res}_xP(1/x^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!},2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{})=0.$$
$`(3.2)`$
We can differentiate this equation with respect to $`a_0`$. Since $`a_0`$ enters only the first argument of $`P(u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$, this will be

$$\mathrm{res}_x\frac{}{u}P(1/x^2+a_0+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^n}{n!},2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{})=0.$$

We can repeat this operation again and again until the polynomial does not contain $`u`$ and still is not zero if it was not initially, since there is no term $`u^k`$ and the others contain besides $`u`$ other variables, $`u^{},u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, it preserves its reduced form. Thus, we can assume that $`P`$ does not contain $`u`$ and is $`P(u^{},u^{\prime \prime },\mathrm{})`$. The Treves condition is then

$$\mathrm{res}_xP(2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})=0.$$

Now take the derivative with respect to $`a_j`$:

$$\mathrm{res}_x\underset{i=1}{\overset{j}{}}\frac{^i}{x^i}\left(\frac{x^j}{j!}\right)\frac{}{u^i}P(2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})=0.$$

Adding an exact derivative, “integrating by parts”, we do not change the residue:

$$\mathrm{res}_x\frac{x^j}{j!}\frac{\delta }{\delta u}P(2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})=0,j=2,3,\mathrm{}$$

where $`\delta /\delta u=_0^{\mathrm{}}(1)^i^i(/u^{(i)})`$ ($`=/x`$) is the variational derivative. Since $`P/u=0`$,

$$\frac{\delta P}{\delta u}=\frac{\delta P}{\delta u^{}}=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{i+1}^i\frac{P}{u^{(i+1)}}=Q,w(Q)=\kappa 3.$$

Then the last equation, being integrated by parts, takes the form

$$\mathrm{res}_xx^jQ(2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})=0,j=1,2,\mathrm{}$$

which means that the negative (principal) part of the Laurent expansion of the function

$$xQ(2/x^3+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n1}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}/x^4+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{})$$
$`(3.3)`$
vanishes.

If we prove that $`Q=0`$, it will follow that $`\delta P/\delta u=0`$, i. e., $`P`$ is an exact derivative which is impossible for a non-zero reduced differential polynomial. Thus, it will be proven that reduced $`P`$ is zero, or that $`P`$ is an exact derivative.

The homogeneity means $`Q(\lambda ^3\xi _1,\lambda ^4\xi _2,\mathrm{})=\lambda ^{\kappa 3}Q(\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{})`$. Taking the derivative with respect to $`\lambda `$ and letting $`\lambda =1`$, we get the Euler identity

$$3\xi _1Q/\xi _1+4\xi _2Q/\xi _2+\mathrm{}=(2k3)Q.$$
$`(3.4)`$
Using the fact that $`Q`$ is homogeneous, one can rewrite (3.3) as

$$\frac{1}{x^{\kappa 4}}Q(2+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n+2}}{(n1)!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}+\underset{2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\frac{x^{n+2}}{(n2)!},\mathrm{}).$$
$`(3.5)`$
4. The proof continued.

Now, we must expand (3.5) in powers of $`x`$. If doing this directly, the expression is too involved. The following trick (Treves) simplifies the task. Let

$$\eta _j(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{j+n}\frac{x^n}{n!}.$$

The conversion of this formula is $`a_j=_{n=o}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^n\eta _{j+n}x^n/n!`$. Indeed,

$$\underset{n=o}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\eta _{j+n}\frac{x^n}{n!}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{j+n+m}\frac{x^m}{m!}\frac{x^n}{n!}=\underset{p=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{j+p}\frac{x^p}{p!}\underset{n=0}{\overset{p}{}}(1)^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p}{n}\right)=a_j.$$

The expression (3.5) takes the form

$$\frac{1}{x^{\kappa 4}}Q(2+\eta _1x^3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}+\eta _2x^4,\mathrm{},(1)^j(j+1)!+\eta _jx^{j+2},\mathrm{}).$$

Quantities $`\eta _j`$ are not independent since $`a_1=0`$. This gives a relation $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^n\eta _{1+n}(x^n/n!)=0`$ or

$$\eta _1=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{(n+1)}\eta _{1+n}\frac{x^n}{n!}$$

whence the expression (3.5) is

$$\frac{1}{x^{\kappa 4}}Q(2+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^{(n+1)}\eta _{1+n}\frac{x^{n+3}}{n!},\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}6}+\eta _2x^4,\mathrm{}).$$
$`(4.1)`$
Expand $`Q()`$ in powers of $`\eta `$’s. We have

$$\frac{}{\eta _j}Q()=x^{j+2}D_jQ()\mathrm{where}D_j=\frac{}{\xi _j}+\frac{(1)^j}{(j1)!}\frac{}{\xi _1}$$

Therefore, the expression (4.1) is

$$\underset{q_2,\mathrm{},q_r}{}\frac{D_2^{q_2}\mathrm{}D_r^{q_r}Q(\theta )}{q_2!\mathrm{}q_r!x^{\kappa 4\lambda (q)}}\eta _2^{q_2}\mathrm{}\eta _r^{q_r}$$
$`(4.2)`$
where

$$(\theta )=(2!,3!,\mathrm{},(1)^\mu (\mu +1)!),\lambda (q)=\underset{j=2}{\overset{r}{}}(j+2)q_j.$$

We had independent variables $`a_2,a_3,\mathrm{},x`$ Now we changed them to new independent variables $`\eta _2,\eta _3,\mathrm{},x`$. The condition that the expression (4.2) does not contain negative powers of $`x`$ becomes

$$D_2^{q_2}\mathrm{}D_r^{q_r}Q(\theta )=0\mathrm{when}\lambda (q)<\kappa 4.$$
$`(4.3)`$
It is convenient to replace the operators $`D_j`$ by $`L_j`$:

$$L_2=D_2\mathrm{and}L_j=D_j+(j1)^1D_{j1},j>2.$$

We have, $`L_j=/\xi _j+/\xi _{j1}`$. This is a triangular change of operators: $`L_j`$ is a linear combination of $`D_i`$ with $`ij`$ and vice versa. Therefore, we can replace (4.3) by an equivalent equation

$$L_2^{q_2}\mathrm{}L_r^{q_r}Q(\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{})|_{\xi _1=2,\xi _2=6,\mathrm{}}=0,\mathrm{when}\lambda (q)<\kappa 4.$$
$`(4.4)`$
5. End of the proof.

Lemma. The condition (4.3) (or, equivalently, (4.4)), implies $`Q0`$.

Proof. We use induction on $`\mu `$, the number of arguments of the polynomial $`Q(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _\mu )`$. For $`\mu =1`$ the theorem is trivial. Indeed, since $`Q`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of weight $`\kappa 3`$, and $`\xi _1`$ has the weight 3, $`Q=c\xi _1^{(\kappa 3)/3}`$ if $`\kappa 3`$ is divisible by 3 and zero otherwise. If $`c0`$, then $`Q(2)0`$ which contradicts Eq. (4.3). Thus, $`c=0`$ and $`Q=0`$. Let the lemma be proven for $`\mu 1`$.

We have $`Q=_{r_1,\mathrm{},r_\mu }a_{r_1,\mathrm{},r_\mu }\xi _1^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\xi _\mu ^{r_\mu }`$ where

$$3r_1+4r_2+\mathrm{}+(\mu +2)r_\mu =\kappa 3.$$
$`(5.1)`$
This homogeneity implies the Euler equation

$$(3\xi _1_{\xi _1}+4\xi _2_{\xi _2}+\mathrm{}+(\mu +2)\xi _\mu _{\xi _\mu })Q(\xi )=(\kappa 3)Q(\xi ).$$
$`(5.2)`$
Besides,

$$(_{\xi _1}+_{\xi _2})^{q_2}(_{\xi _2}+_{\xi _3})^{q_3}\mathrm{}(_{\xi _{\mu 1}}+_{\xi _\mu })^{q_\mu }Q((\theta ))=0$$
$`(5.3)`$
$$\mathrm{when}\lambda (q)=4q_2+5q_3+\mathrm{}+(\mu +2)q_\mu <\kappa 4.$$

One has to prove that under these conditions $`Q0`$.

Let us apply the operator $`_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}1}`$ to (5.2) and put $`(\xi )=(\theta )`$:

$$(3!_{\xi _1}+4!_{\xi _2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{\mu 1}(\mu +1)!_{\xi _{\mu 1}})_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}1}Q((\theta ))$$

$$+(1)^\mu (\mu +2)!_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}}Q((\theta ))A$$

where

$$A=c_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}1}Q((\theta ))$$

Suppose it is already proven that all partial derivatives of order $`q1`$ vanish. Then we have $`A=0`$ and

$$_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}}Q((\theta ))$$

$$=((1)^\mu \frac{3!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _1}+(1)^{\mu +1}\frac{4!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{(\mu +1)!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _{\mu 1}})\times $$

$$\times _{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}1}Q((\theta ))$$

We have diminished the order of the derivative with respect to $`\xi _\mu `$ by 1. We can proceed until the derivative disappears at all:

$$_{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}_{\xi _\mu }^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}}Q((\theta ))$$

$$=((1)^\mu \frac{3!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _1}+(1)^{\mu +1}\frac{4!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{(\mu +1)!}{(\mu +2)!}_{\xi _{\mu 1}})^{qi_1\mathrm{}i_{\mu 1}}\times $$

$$\times _{\xi _1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}_{\xi _{\mu 1}}^{i_{\mu 1}}Q((\theta )).$$

Thus, computing a derivative of $`q`$th order one can always replace $`_{\xi _\mu }`$ by the expression in parentheses in the last two formulas. Denote this expression as $`_{\xi _\mu }^{}`$. In particular, (5.3) implies

$$(_{\xi _1}+_{\xi _2})^{q_2}(_{\xi _2}+_{\xi _3})^{q_3}\mathrm{}(_{\xi _{\mu 1}}+_{\xi _\mu }^{})^{q_\mu }Q((\theta ))=0$$
$`(5.4)`$
if $`4q_2+5q_3+\mathrm{}+(\mu +2)q_\mu <\kappa 4`$. Derivations $`_{\xi _1},\mathrm{},_{\xi _{\mu 1}},_{\xi _\mu }^{}`$ can be expressed as linear combinations of $`(_{\xi _1}+_{\xi _2}),\mathrm{},(_{\xi _{\mu 1}}+_{\xi _\mu }^{})`$, therefore any partial derivative of order $`q<(\kappa 4)/(\mu +2)`$ of $`Q`$ at the point $`(\theta )`$ is a linear combination of the expressions in the left-hand side of (5.4), and, therefore, vanishes. The induction is proven.

This is still not the whole story. We have proven only that the derivatives of order $`<(\kappa 4)/(\mu +2)`$ vanish at the point $`(\theta )`$. In particular $`_{\xi _\mu }^jQ(\theta )=0`$ when $`j<(\kappa 4)/(\mu +2)`$. On the other hand, this derivative vanishes when $`j>(\kappa 3)/(\mu +2)`$ since $`r_\mu (\kappa 3)/(\mu +2)`$ (see (5.1)). If $`\kappa 3`$ is not divisible by $`\mu +2`$, this means that the derivatives of all orders with respect to $`\xi _\mu `$ vanish. Q does not depend on $`\xi _\mu `$. Since we use the induction on $`\mu `$, we have assumed that for $`\mu 1`$ the theorem is proven, so $`Q0`$. If $`(\kappa 3)/(\mu +2)`$ is an integer, say $`n`$, then the only non-zero derivative with respect to $`\xi _\mu `$ at $`(\theta )`$ can be the $`n`$th one. Then, $`Q`$ has a form $`Q^{}(\xi _\mu (1)^\mu (\mu +1)!)^n`$. However, this is homogeneous only if $`Q^{}Q0`$ q.e.d. The theorem is also proven.

References.

 F. Treves, An algebraic characterization of the Korteweg-de Vries hierarchy, Duke Math. Journal, 108, No. 2, 251-294, 2001

 I. M. Gelfand and L. A. Dickey, Asymptotic of the resolvent of Sturm-Liouville’s equations and algebra of the Korteweg-de Vries equation, Uspehi Math. Nauk (Russian Math. Surveys), 30, No. 5, 87-100, 1975

 L. A. Dickey, Soliton equations and Hamiltonian systems, Advanced Series in Math. Physics, World Scientific, 1st ed. vol 12, 1991, 2nd ed. vol 26, 2003