text:
# Belyi-extending maps and the Galois action on dessins d’enfants

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we work in the direction of a program to understand $`G_{}=\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$, the absolute Galois group, originally sketched by Grothendieck in his ambitious research outline . One part of the program involves understanding $`G_{}`$ by studying its action on certain combinatorial structures, structures so simple at first glance that Grothendieck called them *dessins d’enfants* (children’s drawings). We construct new invariants of the action of $`G_{}`$ on dessins d’enfants. In fact, we give an example of how an invariant produced from our method distinguishes between two dessin orbits on which previously known invariants agree.

Our basic tools are *Belyi-extending* maps $`\beta :^1^1`$ that are defined over $``$, ramified only over $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, and send $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ into $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. These maps have the property that when $`(X,p)`$ is a Belyi pair, $`(X,\beta p)`$ is also a Belyi pair. It follows that each of these $`\beta `$ acts on the set of dessins. Moreover, the action of a Belyi-extending map $`\beta `$ on dessins commutes with the $`G_{}`$ action on dessins. This implies that two dessins $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are in the same Galois orbit when $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ and $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)`$ are. Thus if $`I`$ is a $`G_{}`$-invariant of dessins (e.g. the monodromy group, the rational Nielsen class), so is $`I\beta `$. In , Ellenberg defines the class of Belyi-extending maps (without naming them) and notes that when $`I`$ is the monodromy group, the maps give new invariants as described above. He uses this perspective to construct the cartographic group, but does not go any further with it.

Building $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ turns out to be quite straightforward. In Section 3.2 we give a simple, concrete way to construct $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ geometrically from $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then in Section 3.3, we see how, given a $`\beta `$, we can easily write down a formula that will produce $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (when the dessins are given as pairs of permutations). Implementing these procedures in Maple allowed us to find an example where one of our new invariants distinguishes between two dessins orbits previously indistinguished.

The action of $`G_{}`$ on dessins can be refined to an action on the algebraic fundamental group of $`_{}^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. This allows one to inject $`G_{}`$ into the Grothendieck-Teichmüller group (see ). Belyi-extending maps can be used to get relations (called “new-type” relations) on the image of this injection, analogously to the way the new dessin invariants are produced. In  and  examples of these relations were produced using specific, very natural Belyi-extending maps. In , Nakamura discusses the general properties necessary for a map to give new-type relations via the Belyi-extending procedure, computes these relations in some specific examples, and gives a list of examples left for further work. Belyi-extending maps that are composites of $`PGL(2)`$-transforms of the power-raising maps have been systematically studied in , , and .

## 2. Brief Review of Background and Definitions

### 2.1. Belyi’s Theorem and Dessins d’Enfants

We start with the following remarkable theorem.

###### Theorem 1 (Belyi’s Theorem, ).

A compact Riemann surface $`C`$ is the analytic space associated to an algebraic curve defined over $`\overline{}`$ if and only if there exists a holomorphic map $`p_C`$ from $`C`$ to $`_{}^1`$ with ramification only over three points.

Such a map $`p_C`$ is called a *Belyi map* and $`(C,p_C)`$ is called a *Belyi pair*. We usually (and in this paper) assume without loss of generality that the three points are $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. Two Belyi pairs $`(C,p_C)`$ and $`(C^{},p_C^{})`$ are isomorphic if there is a Riemann surface isomorphism $`f:CC^{}`$ such that $`p_C^{}f=p_C`$. Grothendieck found Belyi’s Theorem both “deep and disconcerting” as it showed a “profound identity between the combinatorics of finite maps on the one hand, and the geometry of algebraic curves defined over number fields on the other” . He defined dessins d’enfants to capture the combinatorial side of this identity, and we will define them here and see how this identity unfolds.

Definition.  A *dessin d’enfants* (or a *dessin*) is a connected graph with a fixed bipartite structure (vertices labelled 0 or 1 so that each edge has a vertex labelled 0 and a vertex labelled 1) and with fixed cyclic orderings of the edges at each vertex.

Given a Belyi pair, we can define a dessin on the Riemann surface $`C`$ as the inverse image via $`p_C`$ of the real interval . The natural orientation of $`C`$ determines a cyclic ordering on the edges incident to each vertex. The dessin divides $`C`$ into faces that correspond to pre-images of $`\mathrm{}.`$ There is a one-to-one correspondence between dessins and Belyi pairs up to isomorphism. A dessin has well-defined faces because of the cyclic orderings at each vertex, and we can glue in these faces to give the Belyi pair, which is unique up to isomorphism by the Riemann Existence Theorem. For a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let the Riemann surface of the associated Belyi pair be called $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Notation and Conventions.  Throughout this paper, $`^1`$ denotes $`_{}^1`$ and $`U`$ denotes $`^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. We compose paths in fundamental groups so that $`\delta _2\delta _1`$ is the path that follows $`\delta _1`$ and then $`\delta _2`$. Through Section 3, we will let the open real edge $`\overline{01}`$ be the base-point of the fundamental group of $`U`$. To generate $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$, we choose $`x`$, a counter-clockwise loop around $`0`$, and $`y`$, a counter-clockwise loop around $`1`$. We let $`F_2`$ be the free group on $`x`$ and $`y`$, which gives us an isomorphism $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})F_2`$. In $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$ and $`F_2`$, we let $`z`$ be the element such that $`xyz=1`$. In $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$, $`z`$ is a loop that encircles $`\mathrm{}`$ once.

This notation allows us to describe several other sets that also correspond to dessins and Belyi pairs. The following sets are all in one-to-one correspondence:

1. isomorphism classes of Belyi pairs with Belyi map of degree $`d`$,
2. isomorphism classes of dessins d’enfants with $`d`$ edges,
3. isomorphism classes of degree $`d`$ connected covering spaces of $`U`$,
4. conjugacy classes of index $`d`$ subgroups of $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$,
5. conjugacy classes of homomorphisms of $`F_2`$ onto a transitive subgroup of the symmetric group $`S_d`$,
6. conjugacy classes of ordered pairs of permutations that generate a transitive subgroup of $`S_d`$.

We have seen the correspondence between (1) and (2), and the correspondence between (5) and (6) is clear. The correspondence between (3) and (4) follows from the standard theory of covering spaces. To see that (1) and (3) correspond, we consider a Belyi pair $`p_C:C^1`$. We can remove $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ from $`^1`$ and $`p_c^1(\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$ from $`C`$ to get a covering space $`p_c:Cp_c^1(\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})U`$, and we can recover the Belyi pair by compactification of the covering space and $`U`$. To see that (2) and (6) correspond, we note from an ordered pair of permutations in $`S_d`$ we can make a dessin with edges $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},d\}`$ by taking the cycles of the first permutation to be the cyclic edge orderings around the vertices labelled $`0`$ and the cycles of the second permutation to be the cyclic edge orderings around the vertices labelled $`1`$. This determines a graph with fixed bipartite structure and cyclic edge orderings, and the permutations generate a transitive group exactly when the graph is connected, i.e. a dessin. Often when we refer to a dessin, we implicitly also refer to the corresponding Belyi pair, covering space, class of subgroups, homomorphism of $`F_2`$, and permutation pair.

### 2.2. Action of $`G_{}`$

Dessins d’enfants are particularly interesting because the absolute Galois group acts on them. Since $`G_{}`$ acts on elements of $`\overline{}`$, it acts on the coefficients of polynomials over $`\overline{}`$, and thus on smooth, algebraic curves defined over $`\overline{}`$ with maps to $`^1`$ ramified only over $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. This action is well-defined on dessins. Moreover, Grothendieck  noted that this action is faithful. It has been since shown by Matzat  and Lenstra  that $`G_{}`$ acts faithfully on smaller sets of dessins such as the dessins corresponding to Riemann surfaces of genus $`1`$ and *dessin trees*, dessins whose underlying graph structure is that of a tree. Thus, in theory we could understand $`G_{}`$ by understanding how it acts on dessins, or even dessin trees. Understanding the $`G_{}`$ action on dessins is one step towards understanding $`G_{}`$.

### 2.3. $`G_{}`$-invariants of Dessins

The next question is how we should study this action, and one plan is to look at the orbits of the action. A goal of current research is to find invariants of the $`G_{}`$ action on dessins. In this paper, we refer to functions on dessins that are constant on $`G_{}`$-orbits as Galois or $`G_{}`$-invariants. The theoretical ideal would be to find a “complete” list of invariants, in the sense that any two distinct $`G_{}`$-orbits could be distinguished by some known invariant. The search is in particular for invariants that are easily computed from the combinatorial structure of the dessin, and here we will describe the well-known $`G_{}`$-invariants that meet this criteria.

The *valency list* of a dessin is an ordered triple of the sets of valencies of the vertices labelled $`0,1,`$ and $`\mathrm{},`$ respectively. (The $`\mathrm{}`$ valencies are just half the number of edges of each face.) The valency list of a dessin is a good first invariant. From it coarser invariants such as the degree of the Belyi map and the genus of the Riemann surface in the Belyi pair can be computed. The automorphism group of a dessin is isomorphic to the automorphism group of the corresponding Belyi pair, and is a $`G_{}`$-invariant. The automorphisms of the Belyi pair are defined over $`\overline{}`$ and thus are acted on by $`G_{}`$ in a way that is compatible with the $`G_{}`$ action on Belyi pairs.

#### The Monodromy Group

We can understand the correspondence between dessins and permutation pairs further by considering covering spaces. A connected covering space $`h:ZU`$ of degree $`d`$, corresponding to a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, determines a transitive homomorphism

$$\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }:F_2S_d$$

up to conjugation in $`S_d`$. This homomorphism is given by the left action of $`\pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$ on the $`d`$-element set $`h^1(\overline{01})`$. This action is called the *monodromy action* and defined as follows. Let $`eh^1(\overline{01})`$ and let $`\gamma \pi _1(U,\overline{01})`$. Then if $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is the lift of $`\gamma `$ to $`Z`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(0)`$ on the edge $`e`$, we define $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma )`$ to act on $`e`$ on the left by taking it to the element of $`h^1(\overline{01})`$ that contains $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(1)`$. Intuitively, we start at $`e`$ and then follow the lift of the path $`\gamma `$ to get $`\gamma e`$. It is clear that the action of $`x`$ and $`y`$ on $`h^1(\overline{01})`$, the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, are the permutations that correspond to the cyclic edge orderings at $`0`$ and $`1`$ respectively.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a dessin corresponding to the subgroup $`H`$ of $`F_2,`$ then the *monodromy group* of $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ $`M(\mathrm{\Gamma }),`$ is the image of $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Equivalently,

$$M(\mathrm{\Gamma })=F_2/\underset{gF_2}{}gHg^1.$$

The monodromy group is also a $`G_{}`$-invariant of dessins and is easily computed since it is generated by the permutations corresponding to the cyclic edge orderings at $`0`$ and $`1.`$

#### The Rational Nielsen Class

The *Nielsen class* $`n(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the data

$$(M(\mathrm{\Gamma });\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x),\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(y),\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)).$$

The Nielsen class is defined up to abstract isomorphism of pairs $`(G;a,b,c)`$ for a group $`G`$ and elements $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ that generate $`G`$ and satisfy $`abc=1`$. Denote the conjugacy class of $`s`$ by $`[s]`$ and let $`\widehat{}^\times `$ be the invertible elements in the profinite completion of $``$. The *rational Nielsen class* of a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$N(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{(M(\mathrm{\Gamma });[\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)^\lambda ],[\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)^\lambda ],[\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)^\lambda ])\lambda \widehat{}^\times \}.$$

The rational Nielsen classes are also defined up to abstract isomorphism (isomorphisms need not preserve which tuple corresponds to which $`\lambda `$). The rational Nielsen class is another $`G_{}`$-invariant.

## 3. Invariants from Belyi-extending Maps

### 3.1. New Invariants

To find new invariants we consider a special sort of map as suggested by Ellenberg in \[5, Section 2, Subsection: Cartographic group, and variants\].

Definition.  A map $`\beta :^1^1`$ is called *Belyi-extending* if $`\beta `$ is a Belyi map defined over $`,`$ and $`\beta (\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}.`$

Belyi-extending maps have recently been used to find “newtype” equations satisfied by the absolute Galois group in terms of its action on the fundamental group of $`^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ (see , ). Thus it is natural to investigate whether these maps give new information about the action of the absolute Galois group on covering spaces of $`^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, i.e., dessins.

Note that if $`h`$ is a Belyi map and $`\beta `$ is Belyi-extending, then $`\beta h`$ is also a Belyi map. If $`\beta `$ is a Belyi-extending map and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a dessin corresponding to the Belyi pair $`(X_\mathrm{\Gamma },p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$, define $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to be the dessin corresponding to $`(X_\mathrm{\Gamma },\beta p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`(X_\mathrm{\Gamma },p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ be a Belyi pair corresponding to a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\beta `$ be a Belyi-extending map. If $`I`$ is a $`G_{}`$-invariant of dessins, so is $`I\beta `$.

###### Proof.

Note that for $`\sigma G_{}`$, $`\sigma (\beta )=\beta `$, and thus $`\sigma ((X_\mathrm{\Gamma },\beta p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }}))=(\sigma (X_\mathrm{\Gamma }),\beta \sigma (p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }})).`$ Thus, $`\sigma (\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }))=\beta (\sigma (\mathrm{\Gamma })),`$ and so for an invariant $`I`$, $`I(\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }))=I(\sigma (\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })))=I(\beta (\sigma (\mathrm{\Gamma }))),`$ which proves the proposition. ∎

As Ellenberg notes in , the proof of Proposition 2 is the same as the proof he gives in the specific case $`\beta (t)=4t(1t)`$ and $`I`$ being the monodromy group. Since the monodromy group is a useful and easily computable invariant, we use it to define a whole new class of invariants.

Definition.  If $`\beta `$ is a Belyi-extending map and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a dessin, then we define the $`G_{}`$-invariant $`M_\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to be $`M(\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$, the monodromy group of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Note that $`M=M_{\mathrm{id}}=M_t`$. Also the invariant $`M_{4t(1t)}`$ is defined as the *cartographic group* in . Along with these $`M_\beta ,`$ we could consider the automorphism groups, rational Nielsen classes, and other invariants of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as new invariants for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ In this paper we will further investigate the $`M_\beta .`$

#### Two New Cartographic Groups

Consider the map $`\alpha (t)=4t(1t)`$; $`M_\alpha `$ is the cartographic group. It turns out that $`\alpha _1=\alpha (1/t)`$ and $`\alpha _2=\alpha (t/(t1))`$ lead to new Galois invariants we call the *$`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group*, $`M_{\alpha _1}`$, and the *$`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group*, $`M_{\alpha _2}`$. These invariants distinguish some orbits indistinguished by the monodromy group, rational Nielsen class, automorphism group, and traditional cartographic group invariants. (Take most examples, such as \[10, Ex. 5\], of the cartographic group separating orbits and exchange the roles of $`0`$, $`1`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$.) Given the symmetry of the situation, these are natural group invariants to define after defining the cartographic group, but they have not previously been mentioned in the literature to the author’s knowledge.

### 3.2. Geometric Construction of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

We have some examples of easily computable $`G_{}`$-invariants of dessins and to extend these to useful invariants via Belyi-extending maps, we will show how to effectively construct $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ drawn as a graph with cyclic edge orderings, we describe how to construct $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ in a geometric fashion. We will then see that the geometric construction can be translated into a combinatorial method.

For a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can form an associated tripartite graph with cyclic edge orderings, which we call $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. To construct $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we start with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and add a vertex labelled $`\mathrm{}`$ for each face of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, connecting the vertex with edges to all of the face’s vertices in the cyclic order they occur. (Recall that faces and cyclic orderings of edges around faces are determined by the cyclic edge orderings at the vertices of the dessin.) We can view the real line of $`^1`$ as a triangle with vertices at $`0`$, $`1`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$. Then if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is associated to the Belyi map $`p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }}:X_\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is simply the inverse image of that triangle via $`p_{X_\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

For a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we draw $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as a black graph in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over a black $`01\mathrm{}`$ triangle in $`X=^1`$. See Figure 1. Now we color gray the dessin in $`X`$ associated to the Belyi map $`\beta :XY=^1`$, where the $`\overline{01}`$ edge of $`Y`$ is also colored gray. This gives an overlay of a gray dessin and the black triangle in $`X`$, which we call the *extending pattern* of $`\beta `$. The extending pattern contains the combinatorial information of a super-imposed gray dessin and labelled black triangle. This information includes the vertices, edges, and cyclic edge orderings. In Figure 1, we mark the $`0`$ and $`1`$ vertices of the gray dessin with filled and open circles, respectively.

We can slice $`X`$ along the real segments $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$ to get a diamond $`𝒟`$ composed of the closed upper hemisphere and the open lower hemisphere attached along the edge $`\overline{01}`$.

Figure 2 shows $`𝒟`$ in black. Note that $`𝒟`$ maps continuously and surjectively onto $`X`$. The pre-images of $`𝒟`$ in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ partition the surface into diamonds, and the boundaries of the diamonds are the $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$ edges of $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Each diamond is composed of a closed triangle over the upper hemisphere of $`X`$ and an open triangle over the lower hemisphere of $`X`$, attached at an edge over $`\overline{01}`$. We can view the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ in $`𝒟`$ as in Figure 2.

To construct $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as an overlay on $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we copy the gray dessin from the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ in $`𝒟`$ to each diamond in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In Figure 1, we have started this construction by copying the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ into one diamond of $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Doing this for every diamond of $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will draw $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as a gray dessin on top of $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and only depends on the combinatorial information of $`T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and the extending pattern of $`\beta `$. Thus, $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is determined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the extending pattern of $`\beta `$. We call two Belyi-extending maps *equivalent* if they have the same extending pattern.

Remark.  If $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ have extending patterns that are the same except that the gray labels $`0`$, $`1`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ have been permuted, then $`\beta _1=h\beta _2`$, where $`h`$ is a complex automorphism of $`(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$ (one of $`t,1t,1/t,1/(1t),(t1)/t,t/(t1)`$). It should be noted that for such an $`h`$, $`M=Mh`$ and thus $`M_{\beta _1}=M_{\beta _2}`$. If $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ have extending patterns that are the same except that the labels of the black triangle have been permuted, then $`\beta _1=\beta _2h`$, where $`h\mathrm{Aut}(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$. This is the case for the traditional cartographic group, our new $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group, and our new $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group. Since often the Belyi-extending $`\beta `$ will not be symmetric with respect to $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\beta h`$ can give different information as Belyi-extending maps. For example, when $`\beta _1=\beta _2h`$, the invariants $`M_{\beta _1}`$ and $`M_{\beta _2}`$ usually give different information about $`G_{}`$-orbits of dessins, as with the cartographic groups. Heuristically, if the invariant $`M_\beta `$ was somehow sensitive to the 0 vertices of a dessin, $`M_{\beta (1t)}`$ would be sensitive in that way to the 1 vertices.

### 3.3. Combinatorial Construction of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

Combinatorially, we have the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ and we want a formula in which we can plug the monodromy permutations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to get the monodromy permutations of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Recall that

$$\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }:\pi _1(^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\},\overline{01})F_2S_d$$

gives the monodromy action on the edges of the dessin $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this section, let $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }(w)=w_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The extending pattern of $`\beta `$ gives us the permutation pair $`[x_\beta ,y_\beta ]`$ corresponding to the Belyi pair $`(^1,\beta )`$, and let $`E_\beta `$ be the set of edges of the corresponding dessin. Let $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the set of edges of a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, which is just $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ (since we will not use information about $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to construct our formula for $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$).

###### Proposition 3.

Given the geometric construction of Section 3.2, we can naturally identify the edges of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with the elements of $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }\times E_\beta `$.

###### Proof.

From Section 3.2, $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be partitioned into diamonds, and each diamond can be naturally identified with the element of $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that it contains. Also, each of these diamonds contains exactly one pre-image of every element of $`E_\beta `$. Thus, each edge of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ can uniquely be identified by the diamond it is in and the element of $`E_\beta `$ it is over. ∎

First we will find the permutation $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$, and then note $`y_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ can be found analogously. Let $`(a,b)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }\times E_\beta `$ be an edge of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and we will find $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}(a,b)`$. The monodromy elements $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ and $`x_\beta `$ come from the same loop $`x`$ in the fundamental group of the downstairs $`^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. Thus the action of $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ in the covering space associated to $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ restricts to the action of $`x_\beta `$ in the covering space associated to $`(^1,\beta )`$. This means that $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ acts as $`x_\beta `$ on the $`E_\beta `$ factor of the edges of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Now consider the $`0`$ vertex of the edge $`b`$ in the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ (the vertex of $`b`$ that is above $`0`$, not the $`0`$ vertex of the black triangle). Note if in the cyclic edge orderings around this $`0`$ vertex, the black $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ segment or the black $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$ segment is between the edges $`b`$ and $`x_\beta b`$. We wish to find which of these black segments, if any, the monodromy path $`x_\beta `$ that takes $`b`$ to $`x_\beta b`$ crosses. We say the path *crosses* one of these segments if it goes from the closed upper hemisphere of $`X`$ to the open lower hemisphere of $`X`$ or vice versa by way of intersecting the segment. From this information, we can find $`w(b)`$, the action of $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ on the $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ factor, so that $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}(a,b)=(w(b)a,x_\beta b)`$. If, in going counter-clockwise around the 0 vertex of $`b`$ to get from $`b`$ to $`x_\beta b`$, the monodromy path crosses

1. the black $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ from the upper to lower hemisphere of $`X`$, then $`w(b)=x_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,
2. the black $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ from the lower to upper hemisphere of $`X`$, then $`w(b)=x_\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$,
3. the black $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$ from the lower to upper hemisphere of $`X`$, then $`w(b)=y_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,
4. the black $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$ from the upper to lower hemisphere of $`X`$, then $`w(b)=y_\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$,
5. neither the black $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ nor the black $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$, then $`w(b)`$ is the identity, and
6. two of these edges, then $`w(b)`$ is the product of the elements of $`M(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ given above for those edges, such that the element corresponding to the first edge crossed is on the right.

Often, and always when the relevant vertex is in the interior of the diamond, the action will fall into case (5). The results of the cases given are clear because when a path crosses a black $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$ or $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$, it goes from one diamond in $`X_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to another and the relationship between the first diamond and the second is exactly as listed above. So given the extending pattern of $`\beta `$, we can determine exactly which elements of $`E_\beta `$ fall into each of the six cases above. This allows us to write down a formula for $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ in terms of $`x_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`y_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`x_\beta `$. Similarly we can write $`y_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ in terms of $`x_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`y_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`y_\beta `$.

Remark.  There is a unified story to the multiple cases given above. In each case, the action of $`x_{\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ on the $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ factor is an element $`w(b)`$ that depends on $`b`$, the value in the $`E_\beta `$ factor. To determine $`w(b)`$, consider the path $`\rho (b)`$ in $`X=^1`$ that starts at the edge $`b`$ and goes counterclockwise around the $`0`$ vertex of $`b`$ very near the vertex and ends at $`x_\beta b`$. The path $`\rho (b)`$ can be viewed as an element of $`\pi _1(X\{0,1,\mathrm{}\},𝒟)`$, where the base-point is the map of $`𝒟`$ into $`X`$ described in Section 3.2. However, we can canonically identify $`\pi _1(X\{0,1,\mathrm{}\},𝒟)`$ with $`\pi _1(X\{0,1,\mathrm{}\},\overline{01})`$ since $`\overline{01}`$ lies inside $`𝒟`$. This allows us to identify the path $`\rho (b)`$ with an element $`W(b)\pi _1(X\{0,1,\mathrm{}\},\overline{01})`$. Then $`w(b)`$ is just the image of $`W(b)`$ in $`M(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Some examples will illustrate the combinatorial construction.

Example.  Consider the map $`\gamma (t)=27(t^3t^2)/4.`$ Note that $`\gamma (\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})=\{0,\mathrm{}\},`$ $`\gamma `$ is ramified only over $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, and $`\gamma `$ is defined over $``$. Thus $`\gamma `$ is Belyi-extending.

We can draw the extending pattern of $`\gamma `$, as shown in Figure 3. We see that $`[x_\gamma ,y_\gamma ]=[(ab),(bc)]`$. Let the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be denoted $`1,2,\mathrm{},d`$. Then $`x_{\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ is composed of all the cycles of the form

$`\left((k,a)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,b)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,a)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,b)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,a)\mathrm{}\right)`$
and $`\left((k,c)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,c)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,c)\mathrm{}\right)`$
for $`1kd`$, and $`y_{\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ is composed of all the cycles of the form

$$\left((k,b)(k,c)\right),$$

for $`1kd`$.

Thus we can write a simple procedure that will, for the permutation pair of any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, produce the permutation pair of $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. With this we can make computations in a program such as Maple about $`M_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from the permutation pair of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ We can also easily compute $`M_{\gamma h}`$ for any $`h\mathrm{Aut}(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$ by exchanging the roles of $`x_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`y_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }y_\mathrm{\Gamma })^1`$ in the procedure.

Example.  Consider the map $`\xi (t)=27t^2(t1)^2/(4(t^2t+1)^3),`$ and note that it is Belyi-extending. This is the quotient map by the automorphisms of $`(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$.

The extending pattern of $`\xi `$ is shown in Figure 4. We see that $`[x_\xi ,y_\xi ]=[(af)(bc)(de),(ab)(cd)(ef)]`$. Let the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be denoted $`1,2,\mathrm{},d`$ and let $`z_\mathrm{\Gamma }=(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }y_\mathrm{\Gamma })^1`$. Then $`x_{\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ is composed of all the cycles of the forms

$$\left((k,a)(k,f)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,a)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,f)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,a)(x_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,f)\mathrm{}\right),$$

$$\left((k,c)(k,b)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,c)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,b)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,c)(y_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,b)\mathrm{}\right),\text{ and}$$

$$\left((k,e)(k,d)(z_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,e)(z_\mathrm{\Gamma }k,d)(z_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,e)(z_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2k,d)\mathrm{}\right),$$

for $`1kd`$, and $`y_{\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ is composed of all the cycles of the forms

$$\left((k,a)(k,b)\right),\left((k,c)(k,d)\right),\text{ and}\left((k,e)(k,f)\right),$$

for $`1kd`$.

Note that since $`\xi =\xi h`$ for any $`h\mathrm{Aut}(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$,we get no new invariants from considering $`\xi h`$.

The new invariants that we have produced with Belyi-extending maps can give information about the $`G_{}`$-orbits of dessins that we can’t get from old invariants.

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the dessin corresponding to the permutation pair

$$[(1234)(567)(89),(1847)(2310)(56)]$$

and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the dessin corresponding to the permutation pair

$$[(1234)(567)(89),(1389)(210)(456)]$$

(shown in Figure 5).

Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have the same valency lists, automorphism groups, monodromy groups, cartographic groups, and rational Nielsen classes. However, the $`M_\xi `$ groups of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ differ in size. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are in different $`G_{}`$-orbits

###### Proof.

All of the necessary computations can be done with Maple. We can compute that $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }(z)=(1673)(210)(498)`$ and $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }(z)=(18210)(67)(345)`$, and thus see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have the same valency lists. We can compute with Maple, or notice by drawing the dessins, that both have trivial automorphism group. We can notice this easily since both have a single 0 vertex of degree 1, which means that any automorphism fixes the incident edge and thus all edges. We can compute with Maple the monodromy and cartographic groups of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as permutation groups and can verify that these invariants are the same for the two dessins. In fact, just computing the size of the monodromy groups of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ shows that each has order $`10!/2`$. This implies that both monodromy groups are the alternating group $`A_{10}`$ since they are index two subgroups of $`S_{10}.`$ Notice that in the monodromy group of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega },`$ $`[g]`$ includes all elements of the same cycle type as $`g`$ for which the relabelling permutation from that element to $`g`$ is even. Then note that $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$, conjugation by $`(83524)(79)(106)`$ relabels $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }(y)`$ to $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }(y)`$, and conjugation by $`(6859431072)`$ relabels $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Delta }(z)`$ to $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ have the same rational Nielsen class. However, computation in Maple using the description of $`\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ above shows that $`M_\xi (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has size $`19752284160000`$ while $`M_\xi (\mathrm{\Omega })`$ has size $`214066877211724763979841536000000000000`$. (This example was constructed so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would have the $`S_3`$ symmetry that $`\xi `$ quotients by, but there is no reason to think this would be the only example where $`M_\xi `$ provides new information, only the easiest to construct.) ∎

Using the procedure we have described for getting $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we can compute that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ agree on some other $`G_{}`$-invariants we have defined in this paper. They agree on the $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group, the $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic group, and the groups $`M_{\gamma h}`$ for any $`h\mathrm{Aut}(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$. There are other known Galois invariants of dessins which we have not checked here, such as Ellenberg’s braid group invariant  and Fried’s lifting invariants . However, these invariants are not readily computable from the combinatorial data of the dessin. Our new invariants from Belyi-extending maps have the benefit of being easily computable with a computer algebra package.

## 4. Directions for Further Research

The most well-known example (\[16, Ex. 1\]) of two dessins which have been computed to be in different orbits (by finding Belyi maps that give the dessins) but are indistinguished by the known Galois invariants are shown in Figure 6.

However, finding Belyi maps that produce a certain dessin is very difficult computationally, and so usually when we know two dessins are in different orbits it is because we know an invariant on which they differ. It is likely there are many dessin orbits which could be distinguished by computing new invariants but which are not currently distinguished by any means.

Since Belyi-extending maps give us new, computable $`G_{}`$-invariants of dessins, a natural direction of research is to find such maps. Recall that we can take such a map and compose on the left or right an automorphism of $`(^1,\{0,1,\mathrm{}\})`$ to get another such map. We refer to a set of Belyi-extending maps that arise from each other by composing with automorphisms a *family of Belyi-extending maps*. Considering other maps in the family of $`\alpha `$ was what led us to the $`\overline{0\mathrm{}}`$\- and $`\overline{1\mathrm{}}`$-cartographic groups. Finding Belyi-extending maps amounts to looking for rational solutions to polynomial equations and though this is difficult to do in general, it can be done in many specific cases. Recall that for a Belyi-extending map $`\beta `$ and a dessin $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the only structure that determines how to get $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the extending pattern of $`\beta `$ defined in Section 3.2 and that we call two Belyi-extending maps equivalent if they have the same extending pattern.

The following degree 3 maps are Belyi-extending, non-equivalent, and all in distinct families. Their extending patterns are shown in Figure 7, with the extending pattern of $`\beta _i`$ labelled $`i`$.

* $`\beta _1(t)=\gamma (t)=\frac{27}{4}(t^3t^2)`$
* $`\beta _2(t)=2t^3+3t^2`$
* $`\beta _3(t)=\frac{t^3+3t^2}{4}`$
* $`\beta _4(t)=\frac{27t^2(t1)}{(3t1)^3}`$
* $`\beta _5(t)=t^2(t1)/\left(t\frac{4}{3}\right)^3`$

The following maps are quotient maps of $`^1`$ by some of its finite automorphism group actions. The equations for the maps $`\beta _T`$ and $`\beta _O`$ were found in . They are all Belyi-extending, non-equivalent, and in distinct families. It is important to note that there could be other Belyi-extending maps that are quotients by group actions, because it is not just the quotient that determines the equivalence class of the maps but also the position of the real triangle in the domain, i.e. the precise extending pattern and not just the dessin $`(^1,\beta )`$.

$`\mu _n(t)=t^n`$

$`\nu _n(t)=(t^n+1)^2/(t^n1)^2`$

$`\xi (t)=\frac{27t^2(t1)^2}{4(t^2t+1)^3}`$

$`\beta _T(t)=\frac{t^3(t^3+8)^3}{(t^620t^38)^2}`$

$`\beta _O(t)=\frac{108t^4(t^41)^4}{(t^8+14t^4+1)^3}`$

The above Belyi-extending maps or other maps in their families could potentially lead to new $`G_{}`$-invariants of dessins. The family of Belyi-extending maps is closed under composition, so composing the above maps gives infinitely many Belyi-extending maps. For all of these Belyi-extending maps $`\beta `$ there are many new invariants to consider. We could compose any $`G_{}`$-invariant with the action of $`\beta `$ on dessins to get a new dessin invariant; however, the monodromy group, rational Nielsen class, and automorphism group give the most easily computable new invariants. It can be shown that the invariants $`M_{\mu _n}`$ and the rational Nielsen classes of $`\mu _n(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ can be constructed from previously known invariants of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but we saw that $`M_\xi `$ is a new invariant and it is not known whether any of the other maps give new invariants. Investigating this question for various $`\beta `$ would be a interesting direction of further research.

## 5. Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Richard Hain for suggesting that she study the exciting field of dessins d’enfants and advising her along the way, Jordan Ellenberg for helpful conversations, and Makoto Matsumoto for his support, encouragement, and careful, detailed answers to many questions.


format: text

text:
# QCD AND W MASS DETERMINATION AT LEP

## 1 Introduction

At LEP, W bosons are produced in the reaction $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ with the subsequent decay of the W’s into quark pairs, $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}^{}}`$, or a lepton and a neutrino, $`\mathrm{}\nu `$. About 10000 W pair events are registered by each of the four experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, corresponding to a total luminosity of $`4\times 700`$ $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$.

One of the main goals of the LEP programme is to determine the mass of the W boson, $`M_\mathrm{W}`$, from the reconstructed invariant mass spectra. In this measurement, the systematic uncertainty turns out to be comparable to the statistical precision that can be reached. Especially in the fully hadronic decay channel, $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{qqqq}`$, the presence of final state interactions (FSI), like colour reconnection $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (CR) and Bose-Einstein correlations $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (BEC), may cause a cross-talk and momentum transfer between the reconstructed W bosons, which leads to a bias in the measured W mass. Therefore, both effects, CR and BEC, are studied in more detail. The latter one is discussed elsewhere $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in these proceedings.

## 2 Colour Reconnection

In $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}\mathrm{qqqq}`$ events, the two quarks originating from each W boson form a colour singlet. In absence of FSI, the fragmentation processes of the quark pairs, measured as hadronic jets in the detector, are independent. Energy-momentum is separately conserved in the two W systems. However, in case of colour reconnection the momentum distribution of hadrons is rearranged. In the string picture of fragmentation this is due to a reconnection of strings between the original colour singlets. Several Monte Carlo (MC) models $`^\mathrm{?}`$ exist to describe the CR effect in W pair events: the Sjöstrand-Khoze (SKI, SKII) and generalised-area-law (GAL) models implemented in Pythia, and the CR models of Ariadne (AR2) and Herwig (HW). The GAL model is not investigated here since there are strong limits on the size of its CR effect from Z peak data $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In the default configuration, all models predict a fraction of reconnected events of about 30%. In the SKI model, which is commonly used as a benchmark, this fraction can continuously be varied. The event reconnection probability is calculated according to $`P_{reco}=1\mathrm{exp}(k_If)`$, where $`k_I`$ is a free parameter and $`f`$ the overlap integral of the strings that are identified with colour flux tubes in the SKI model.

A measurement $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of the charged particle multiplicity, $`N_{ch}`$, in $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ events is found not to be sensitive enough to CR. ALEPH measures a multiplicity difference in $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ and $`\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu `$ events of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ch}=N_{ch}(\mathrm{qqqq})2N_{ch}(\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu )=0.31\pm 0.23(stat.)\pm 0.10(syst.)`$, to be compared with a maximal effect from CR of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ch}=0.46\pm 0.03`$ in the Herwig model. All other models predict even smaller values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ch}`$. The analysis of the particle momentum distribution yields that differences between the fragmentation models are larger than the expected CR effect, even in the soft momentum regime.

The string reconnection picture proposes that sensitivity is gained by studying the ratio of the particle flow in the region between the jets of each hadronically decaying W (intra-W) and in the region between jets of different W’s (inter-W). To determine the flow in the two regions, the particle momenta are projected on planes that are spread between the directions of the four jets, where the first two jets belong to one W and the last two jets to the second W. The angles, $`\varphi `$, of the particles to the jet directions are normalised such that the rescaled angular difference between two neighbouring jets is one. Figure 1 a shows the measured ratio of the particle flow $`dn/d\varphi `$ in the intra-W and inter-W regions. The SKI model predicts a clear depletion of the flow in the central angular interval.

To quantify the CR effect, the ratio $`R_N=_{0.2}^{0.8}𝑑n/𝑑\varphi (\mathrm{intra}\mathrm{W})𝑑\varphi /_{0.2}^{0.8}𝑑n/𝑑\varphi (\mathrm{inter}\mathrm{W})𝑑\varphi `$ is calculated and normalised to the expectation without CR, $`r=R_N^{data}/R_N^{noCR}`$. Combining the results of the LEP experiments and taking their different CR sensitivities due to different W pair purities into account, the following values of $`r`$ are found for LEP data $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and MC:

$`r_{\mathrm{AR}}^{\mathrm{LEP}}=0.959\pm 0.010(stat.)\pm 0.010(syst.),`$ $`r_{\mathrm{AR2}\mathrm{CR}}^{\mathrm{MC}}=0.989;`$
$`r_{\mathrm{HW}}^{\mathrm{LEP}}=0.950\pm 0.011(stat.)\pm 0.010(syst.),`$ $`r_{\mathrm{HW}\mathrm{CR}}^{\mathrm{MC}}=0.987;`$
$`r_{\mathrm{SKI}}^{\mathrm{LEP}}=0.969\pm 0.011(stat.)\pm 0.011(syst.),`$ $`r_{\mathrm{SKI100}\%\mathrm{CR}}^{\mathrm{MC}}=0.891.`$
The main systematic uncertainties are due to hadronisation modelling ($`\pm 0.008`$) and $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\mathrm{gg}`$ background shape and scale ($`\pm 0.003`$). Data deviates from the AR2 and HW CR predictions by $`2.1\sigma `$ and $`2.6\sigma `$, respectively. The extreme 100% SKI scenario can be excluded at $`5.2\sigma `$. However, the agreement with the no-CR scenarios is in all cases only at a level of about $`2\sigma `$. When the SKI parameter $`k_I`$ is left free, the best agreement with data is found for $`k_I=1.18`$, corresponding to a reconnection probability of 49%. The 68% confidence level lower and upper limits are 0.39 and 2.13, respectively. Thus, data favours a moderate reconnection fraction, as it is modelled in SKI. However, in the case of AR2 and HW no conclusion can be drawn, because these models do not predict significant changes in the colour flow.

## 3 Measurement of the W Boson Mass

The W boson mass is determined in a maximum likelihood fit by comparing data to MC samples with different underlying W masses. The W mass variation is implemented by means of MC reweighting or convolution techniques. The most sensitive W mass estimator is the average invariant mass, which is calculated from the reconstructed final state fermions. A kinematic fit, imposing energy-momentum conservation and equal invariant masses of the two decaying W’s, improves the resolution on the measured quantities.

With the current techniques a comparable statistical precision $`^\mathrm{?}`$ on $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ is reached in the $`\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ channel, of 32 and 35 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$, respectively. However, using the measured limits on the SKI parameter $`k_I`$, the systematic uncertainty due to CR is ranging between 75 and $`105\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the hadronic channel, increasing with centre-of-mass energy. This reduces the weight of this channel in the combined W mass result to just 11%.

Since recently, alternative W mass estimators are investigated that are based on modified jet reconstruction algorithms. By removing low momentum particles or restricting the cone size of the quark jets the CR bias is found be reduced in the SKI model, which is illustrated in Figure 1 b. This observation is turned into a measurement of CR. By comparing the W mass bias in data and MC as a function of momentum or cone cut, the CR scenario that fits best to data can be determined. The DELPHI CR measurement $`^\mathrm{?}`$ improves from $`k_I=2.4_{2.2}^{+14.6}`$ using only the colour flow method to $`k_I=1.96_{1.30}^{+2.60}`$ combining it with the result using the alternative mass estimator. The results of both methods are practically uncorrelated because different event samples are used in the analyses. Also the correlation with the W mass measurement is found to be only about 10%. The analyses by the other LEP experiments are still in preparation. Therefore, the current W mass measurements do not yet include information from the alternative W mass estimators.

The current statistical and systematic uncertainties on the W mass are given in Figure 2 a. In the hadronic channel, uncertainties on CR and BEC dominate. For the combined results the fragmentation uncertainties become important because they are correlated between the $`\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ channels. These uncertainties are derived from comparisons between different fragmentation models $`^\mathrm{?}`$, Pythia, Ariadne and Herwig, and from a variation of the model parameters, that are tuned with Z peak data. The uncertainty due to the LEP beam energy is expected to be reduced with the final energy calibration.

Finally, the results on the LEP combined W mass measurements $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are

$`M_\mathrm{W}(\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`80.411\pm 0.032(stat.)\pm 0.030(syst.)\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`M_\mathrm{W}(\mathrm{qqqq})`$ $`=`$ $`80.420\pm 0.035(stat.)\pm 0.101(syst.)\mathrm{GeV}`$
$`M_\mathrm{W}(\mathrm{ffff})`$ $`=`$ $`80.412\pm 0.029(stat.)\pm 0.031(syst.)\mathrm{GeV},`$
where the $`\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ results are 18% correlated. The mass difference between the $`\mathrm{qqqq}`$ and $`\mathrm{qq}\mathrm{}\nu `$ channels is found to be $`+22\pm 43\mathrm{MeV}`$, neglecting FSI uncertainties. This indicates that there are no extreme CR effects present in data. However, a better understanding of the QCD effects in the hadronic W decay is needed to improve the current W mass result. Combining the LEP result with the $`M_\mathrm{W}`$ measurements at $`p\overline{p}`$ colliders, yields $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`M_\mathrm{W}=80.426\pm 0.034\mathrm{GeV}`$.

The mass of the W boson is an important parameter in the Standard Model of electroweak interactions. In Figure 2 the direct measurements of the masses of the W boson and the Top quark $`^\mathrm{?}`$ are compared to the values that are determined in a Standard Model analysis $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of all remaining LEP and SLD data, probing the Standard Model at the level of its radiative corrections. Good agreement between direct and indirect measurements is found. Also shown is the Standard Model prediction for different values of the Higgs boson mass. Both data sets prefer small values of $`M_\mathrm{H}`$, close to the current lower limit from Higgs boson searches $`^\mathrm{?}`$ at LEP.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the experiments ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL for making their most recent and preliminary results available. I also like to thank the LEP Electroweak and WW Working Groups for preparing the results in form of nice graphs and plots.

## References


text:
# Automated Method for Building 𝐶𝑁𝑂𝑇 Based Quantum Circuits for Boolean Functions

## 1 Introduction

Implementing Boolean functions on quantum computers is an essential aim, in the exploration of the benefits, which may be gained from systems operating by quantum rules. It is important to find the corresponding quantum circuits, which can carry out the operations we use to implement on our conventional computers. On classical computers, a circuit can be built for any Boolean function using AND, OR and NOT gates. This set of gates cannot, in general be used to build quantum circuits because the operations are not reversible . A corresponding set of reversible gates must be used to build a quantum circuit for any Boolean operation. In classical computer science, many clever methods have been used to obtain more efficient digital circuits  for a given Boolean function. Recently, there have been efforts to find an automatic way to create efficient quantum circuits implementing Boolean functions. It is shown that  any unitary gate can be represented as a composition of simpler gates but it is not necessarily the most efficient circuit for this operation. A method proposed in  used a modified version of Karnaugh maps and depends on a clever choice of certain minterm gates to be used in minimization process, however it appears that this method has poor scalability. Another work , includes a very useful set of transformations for quantum Boolean circuits and proposes a method for building quantum circuits for Boolean functions by using extra auxiliary qubits, however, this will increase the number of qubits to be used in the final circuits.

In our construction for building quantum circuits for Boolean functions, we will use only one auxiliary qubit; which we initially set to zero, to hold the result of the Boolean function, together with $`CNOT`$ based transformations (gates) which work as follows : $`CNOT\left(C|t\right)`$ is a gate where the target qubit $`t`$ is controlled by a set of qubits $`C`$ such that $`tC`$, the state of the qubit $`t`$ will be flipped from $`|0`$ to $`|1`$ or from $`|1`$ to $`|0`$ if and only if the conditions stated by the $`CNOT`$ gate is evaluated to true. The condition that a certain qubit evaluates to true depends on whether the state of the qubit is $`|0`$ (cond-0; $`\delta `$=1) or $`|1`$ (cond-1; $`\delta `$=0) according to the condition being set, where $`\delta `$ is a Boolean parameter that will be used in the Boolean algebraic expressions to indicate the condition being set on the qubit; i.e. the new state of target qubit $`t`$ is the result of $`XOR`$-ing the old state of $`t`$ with the $`AND`$-ing of the states of the control qubits $`C`$ (under the condition being set on each control qubit). For example, consider the $`CNOT`$ gate shown in Fig.1, it can be represented as $`CNOT\left(\{x_1,\overline{x_2},x_3\}|x_4\right)`$, where $``$ and $``$ mean that the condition on the qubit will evaluate to true if and only if the state of that qubit is $`|0`$ (cond-0) and $`|1`$ (cond-1) respectively, while $``$ denotes the target qubit which will be flipped if and only if all the conditions set on the control qubits being evaluated to true. This means that the state of the qubit $`x_4`$ will be flipped if and only if $`x_1=x_3=|1`$ and $`x_2=|0`$. In general, the target qubit in a 4–qubit gate will be changed according to the operation $`x_4x_4\left(x_1\delta _1\right)\left(x_2\delta _2\right)\left(x_3\delta _3\right)`$, now to represent the gate shown in Fig.1, we will set $`\delta _1=\delta _3=0`$ and $`\delta _2=1`$, so the operation for this gate on $`x_4`$ will be $`x_4x_4x_1\overline{x_2}x_3`$,

Some special cases of the general $`CNOT`$ gate have their own names, $`CNOT`$ gate with one control qubit with cond-1 is called Controlled-$`Not`$ gate; Fig.2(a), $`CNOT`$ gate with two control qubits both with cond-1 is called Toffoli gate; Fig.2(b), and $`CNOT`$ gate with no control qubits at all is called $`NOT`$ gate; Fig.2(c), where $`C`$ will be an empty set (C = $`\mathrm{\Phi })`$, we will refer to this case as $`CNOT\left(x_i\right)`$ where $`x_i`$ is the qubit which will be unconditionally flipped.

## 2 Quantum Boolean Function

A Boolean function, $`F`$, is a function that takes $`n`$ Boolean variables as inputs and gives one Boolean variable as output,

$$F(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)\{0,1\},x_i\{0,1\}$$
(1)
To represent a Boolean function of $`n1`$ inputs, a quantum circuit with $`n`$ qubits will be used where the extra qubit will be initialised with value $`0`$, this will then carry the result of the Boolean function at the end of the computation. Any Boolean function can be represented by a truth table, In order to be reversible; the truth table must have $`n`$ inputs and $`n`$ outputs. For example: Consider the Boolean function $`F(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\overline{x_1}+x_2x_3`$, classically it’s truth table is represented as shown in Table.1 and for quantum computing purposes, the representation will be as shown in Table.2.

From the second representation, we can see that the $`F_{ini}`$ will be flipped only if the result of the function $`F`$ is 1, $`F(x_1,x_2,x_3)=1`$.

## 3 Automatic Construction of Quantum Boolean Circuits

### Stage 1:

A quantum Boolean circuit $`U`$ of size $`m`$ over $`n`$ qubit quantum system with qubits $`|x_1,|x_2,\mathrm{},|x_n`$ can be represented as a sequence of $`CNOT`$ gates ,

$$U=CNOT\left(C_1|t_1\right)\mathrm{}CNOT\left(C_i|t_i\right)\mathrm{}CNOT\left(C_m|t_m\right),$$
(2)
where $`t_i\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\};C_i\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\};t_iC_i`$.

Using the modified truth table, we will choose $`CNOT\left(C_i|t_i\right)`$ according to the following steps:

1. Select the input configurations from the truth table where $`F_{fin}`$ is 1.
2. Add a single $`CNOT`$ gate for every selected configuration taking the $`F_{ini}`$ as the target qubit.
3. Set the condition on the control qubit for gates being added according to it’s value in the configuration from the truth table, i.e. the qubit with value 0 in the truth table will be set to cond-0 in the corresponding $`CNOT`$ gate and the qubit with value 1 will be set to cond-1 in the corresponding $`CNOT`$ gate.
4. For input configurations where $`F_{fin}`$ is 0, we will not add any gates (as if we are applying identities on them).

For example, according to the truth table shown in Table.2, we will select only the configurations with $`F_{fin}=1`$ as shown in Table.3 and construct the corresponding quantum circuit as shown in Fig.3.

The maximum number of CNOT gates we can add in this stage will be up to 2n-1 CNOT gate where $`n`$ is the number of qubits in the quantum system.

### Stage 2:

In the following transformations we will trace the operations being applied on the target qubit only, since no control qubits will be changed during the operations of the circuit. These circuit transformations are an extension and generalization of some of the equivalence between reversible circuits shown in . We will apply this transformations on every $`CNOT`$ gate in the circuit we have, which will expand the number of $`CNOT`$ gates in the circuit, after which we will apply the Rule of Minimization on the whole circuit to get the final circuit, which implements the Boolean finction.

Let $`x_i`$’s be the control qubit, $`x_n`$ be the target qubits and $`\delta _i\{0,1\}`$ where i=1,2,…,$`n`$-1, the general operation to be applied on the target qubit is given by

$$x_nx_n\left(x_1\delta _1\right)\left(x_2\delta _2\right)\mathrm{}\left(x_{n2}\delta _{n2}\right)\left(x_{n1}\delta _{n1}\right)$$
(3)
Multiplying all terms we get the following transformation:

$$\begin{array}{c}x_n\left(x_1\delta _1\right)\left(x_2\delta _2\right)\mathrm{}\left(x_{n2}\delta _{n2}\right)\left(x_{n1}\delta _{n1}\right)\hfill \\ =x_nx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}\delta _{n1}\mathrm{}\delta _1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\mathrm{}\delta _1\delta _2\mathrm{}\delta _{n1}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
### Examples

Example 1: If one control qubit with cond-0. Let $`\delta _1`$ = 1 as shown in Fig.4. The following two circuits are equivalent:

$$\begin{array}{c}CNOT(x_1).CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).CNOT(x_1)\hfill \\ =CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).CNOT(\{x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
#### Proof:

From Eqn.4, putting $`\delta _1`$ = 1 and $`\delta _i=0;i=2,\mathrm{},n1`$ to get Eqn.6. The L.H.S. of Eqn.6 will represent L.H.S. circuit in Fig.4, and the R.H.S of Eqn.6 will represent the R.H.S. circuit in Fig.4.

$$x_n\overline{x_1}x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}=x_nx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}$$
(6)
Example 2: If two control qubit with cond-0. Let $`\delta _1`$ = 1 and $`\delta _2`$ = 1 as shown in Fig.5. The following two circuits are equivalent:

$$\begin{array}{c}CNOT(x_1).CNOT(x_2).CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(x_2).CNOT(x_1)=CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(\{x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).CNOT(\{x_1,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(\{x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n)\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
#### Proof:

From Eqn.4, putting $`\delta _1`$ = 1, $`\delta _2`$ = 1 and $`\delta _i=0;i=3,\mathrm{},n1`$ to get Eqn.8. The L.H.S. of Eqn.8 will represent the L.H.S. circuit in Fig.5, and the R.H.S of Eqn.8 will represent the R.H.S. circuit in Fig.5.

$$x_n\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}\mathrm{}x_{n1}=x_nx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_2x_3\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_1x_3\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_3x_4\mathrm{}x_{n1}$$
(8)
Example 3: The last possible case where all $`\delta `$’s will be equal to 1 as shown in Fig.6. The following two circuits are equivalent:

$$\begin{array}{c}CNOT(x_1).CNOT(x_2)\mathrm{}CNOT(x_{n1}).CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(x_{n1})\mathrm{}CNOT(x_2).CNOT(x_1)=CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(\{x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).CNOT(\{x_1,x_3,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,x_4,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\}|x_n)\mathrm{}CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n3},x_{n1}\}|x_n).\hfill \\ CNOT(\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{n2}\}|x_n)\mathrm{}CNOT(\{x_1\}|x_n).CNOT(\{x_2\}|x_n)\hfill \\ \mathrm{}CNOT(\{x_{n1}\}|x_n).CNOT(x_n)\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
#### Proof :

From Eqn.4; putting all $`\delta _i`$ = 1, $`i`$=1,…,$`n`$-1 to get Eqn.10, The L.H.S. of Eqn.10 represents the L.H.S. circuit in Fig.6 and The R.H.S. of Eqn.10 represents the R.H.S. circuit in Fig.6.

$$x_n\overline{x_1}\overline{x_2}\mathrm{}\overline{x_{n1}}=\overline{V},$$
(10)
where,

$$\begin{array}{c}V=x_nx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_2x_3\mathrm{}x_{n1}x_1x_3\mathrm{}x_{n1}\hfill \\ x_1x_2x_4\mathrm{}x_{n1}\mathrm{}x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n3}x_{n1}x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n2}\hfill \\ x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{n1}\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying these transformations on the circuit, we get from stage-1 we will get a new circuit with up to $`3^{n1}`$ $`CNOT`$ gates.

### Stage 3:

Now we have a quantum circuit where all $`CNOT`$ gates are applied on the target qubit $`t`$ with no control qubits with cond-0. In stage-3 of our method we carry out minimization to obtain the final simpler circuit. The method employs the following rule.

#### Rule of Minimization:

$$\begin{array}{c}CNOT(C_i|t).CNOT(C_1|t)\mathrm{}CNOT(C_n|t).CNOT(C_j|t)\hfill \\ =CNOT(C_1|t)\mathrm{}CNOT(C_n|t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
if and only if $`C_i=C_j`$ as shown in Fig.7

Now applying this rule recursively on the circuit we have, we will get a new quantum circuit that on average (see next section) efficiently represents our Boolean function. For example, the final quantum circuit for $`F(x_1,x_2,x_3)=\overline{x_1}+x_2x_3`$ is shown in Fig.8.

## 4 Analysis and Results

Applying the above method on a truth table, after stage-1 the number of gates will be up to $`2^{n1}`$ $`CNOT`$ gates with some controlled qubits with cond-0 and others with cond-1, the case where the number of $`CNOT`$ gates to be $`2^{n1}`$ will occur only when all the $`F_{fin}`$ being set to 1 in the truth table, in this case the most optimum nonzero-gate circuit to be found using this method where only $`CNOT(F_{ini})`$ will exist in the final circuit as shown in Fig.9.

After stage-2, where the transformations being applied to eliminate all $`\delta `$’s equal to 1, we will be left with a new quantum circuit where the number of $`CNOT`$ gates will be up to $`3^{n1}`$ gates. Starting the minimization of the circuit, analysing the method for $`n`$–qubit circuit, we get the following results: the number of possible circuits $`S`$ for all possible input configurations is given by

$$S=\underset{r=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{N!}{r!(Nr)!}=\underset{r=0}{\overset{N}{}}{}_{}{}^{N}C_{r}^{}$$
(12)
where $`N=2^{n1}`$ and $`r`$ is the number of $`CNOT`$ gates to be found in the final circuit.

From Eqn.12 we can see that the probability that the number of $`CNOT`$ gates in the final circuit is $`2^{n1}`$ ($`r=N`$); which is the worst case, will be $`1/S`$ which means that the probability for this case will decrease as the number of qubits increase, similarly the probability that the final circuit to have zero-gates (identity; $`r=0`$) is $`1/S`$ which will decrease as the number of qubits increase as well. The most likely case to appear is the average where $`r=2^{n2}\left[\pm 1\right]`$, for example consider a 3-qubit circuit: The number of possible circuits is 16 as shown in Fig.10 and the probability that a 4-gate circuit or 0-gate circuit to appear is 0.0625 and the probability that $`2\left[\pm 1\right]`$-gates circuit to appear is 0.875. And for a 4-qubit circuit: The number of possible circuits is 256 and the probability that an 8-gate circuit or 0-gate circuit to appear is 0.00390625 and the probability that $`4\left[\pm 1\right]`$-gates circuit to appear is 0.7109375.

There is no clear proof at this time that the cost of implementing multiple input $`CNOT`$ gates is higher than $`CNOT`$ gates with fewer inputs, but a further optimization for the cost of $`CNOT`$ gates used in this method can be achieved with a small increase in the number of $`CNOT`$ gates used by applying circuit reduction from the canonical form shown in .

This method is also used to implement Boolean arithmetic operations like addition and multiplication and also used to implement $`m`$-to-$`n`$ Boolean logic, these results will be presented in a subsequent paper.

## 5 Comparing our Method with Previous Works

The method  uses a modified version of Karnaugh maps and depends on a clever choice of certain minterms to be used in minimization process. The choice process means that the circuits generated from this method are not unique (for example, two alternatives are shown in Fig.11).Our method will generate a unique form of a circuit similar to that shown in Fig.11(b), which contains a smaller number of $`CNOT`$ gates. The generation of circuits with this method may become very difficult problem for larger quantum circuits because of the usage of Karnaugh maps.

In another work  a method is described that requires auxiliary qubits in the quantum circuits obtained. In Fig. 12 we give a comparison of a circuit obtained by this method (Fig. 12(a)) and the equivalent, but much simpler, circuit obtained by the method proposed in this paper (Fig. 12(b)).

## 6 Reversible Version of Classical Operations

The construction of reversible classical Boolean circuits has received much attention . As a direct result from the 3-qubit quantum circuits shown in Fig.15 , we can pick a set of these circuits which represent the reversible version of the classical irreversible operations: AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, XOR and XNOR . Using these versions of quantum circuits as reversible classical gates together with a reversible FAN-OUT version similar to that shown in  as shown in Table.4, we can build a classical non-quantum reversible version of any known digital circuits.

Using the gates shown in Table.4, we can build the reversible version of any digital circuit and apply the same methods of simplification and optimization applied on those kind of circuits (as shown in Fig.13). Of course this architecture need more investigation to estimate its efficiency.