text:
# The Discovery of an Embedded Cluster of High-Mass Stars Near SGR 1900+14

## 1 Introduction

The Hartmann et al. (1996, V96); Vrba et al. (1996, V96) survey of the original Network Synthesis Localization (NSL) of SGR 1900+14 (Hurley et al., 1994) found a pair of nearly identical M5 supergiant stars, separated by 3.3 arcsec, and at an estimated distance of 12-15 kpc. While just outside of the original NSL, they lie within the ROSAT HRI localization of the quiescent X–ray source RX J190717+0919.3 thought to be associated with SGR 1900+14 (Hurley et al., 1996). On the basis of the small probability that even one supergiant would lie within the ROSAT error circle and that at least one other supergiant had been associated with an SGR (1806–20; van Kerkwijk et al. (1995); Kulkarni et al. (1995)), V96 proposed that the M star pair may be associated with the SGR 1900+14 source. The position of the M star pair has continued to be consistent with more recent X–ray and gamma–ray observations which, taken together, have narrowed considerably the actual location of SGR 1900+14 from the original NSL area of 5 arcmin2. These recent X–ray and gamma–ray observations have also detected variations with a period of 5.16 sec (Hurley et al., 1999a; Murakami et al., 1999; Kouveliotou et al., 1999) and a deceleration of $`\dot{P}10^{10}`$ sec/sec. Taken together, these are interpreted as evidence that the SGR source is a magnetar, though there remains some uncertainty in this interpretation (Marsden, Rothschild, & Lingenfelter, 1999).

Additionally, a variable and fading radio source was detected shortly after the 27 August SGR 1900+14 superburst by Frail, Kulkarni, & Bloom (1999), providing strong evidence that it was the radio counterpart to the SGR. Its subarcsec accurate position is located only a few arcseconds from the M stars. These positional coincidences, the lack of a plerionic radio source, and, despite arguments for SNR G42.8+0.6 in the literature, the lack of a coincident supernova remnant, suggest that the system of proximate, high–mass M stars should not yet be dismissed as an evolutionary companion to the pulsating X–ray source associated with the SGR.

Finding direct evidence that the M star pair may be associated with SGR 1900+14 has proven elusive as summarized by Guenther, Klose, & Vrba (2000). Also difficult is a theoretical understanding of how isolated, albeit high mass, stars could play a role in the formation of a pulsating X–ray source, despite the presence of a high mass luminous blue variable (LBV) very near the SGR 1806–20 localization position, a remarkably similar situation to that for SGR 1900+14. Recent near– and mid–infrared observations of SGR 1806–20 (Fuchs et al., 1999, F99), however, have revealed the LBV to be only the most luminous member of a compact cluster of massive stars. Such proximate regions of recent star formation provide a natural location for the birth of such pulsating X–ray sources, which cannot be very old, without the need for invoking enormous space velocities from the nearest supernova remnants.

In this paper we present evidence for a similar compact cluster of high-mass stars which has heretofore been hidden in the glare of its brightest components, the pair of M5 supergiant stars.

## 2 Observations

The 1998 outburst season of SGR 1900+14 presented an opportunity to search for optical and near-infrared variability of the double M stars, or other sources within the ROSAT HRI error circle, which might be correlated to the SGR outbursts via some process such as mass transfer to a compact object. Beginning in early May and continuing through mid–July 1998 we carried out an I– and J–band monitoring campaign at the U.S. Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (NOFS) which eventually comprised 2025 short exposure frames of data with 54,460 seconds of open shutter time during 16 nights, intended to sample variability timescales down to a few seconds. The results of this work found no variablity for any object within the ROSAT HRI error circle and are presented more fully in Vrba et al. (2000).

However, it was recognized that the numerous short I–band exposures constituted several hours of total exposure time, which could be stacked to form a deep I–band image to search for a counterpart at the position of the Frail, Kulkarni, & Bloom (1999) variable radio source. To the 1998 data were added additional short exposure frames from 1995 and 1999. In all, 217 frames of individual exposure time between 1 and 10 minutes were coadded to form a net image of about 6.5 hours total exposure. All frames were obtained with one of two Tektronix 2K CCDs on the 1.55–m Strand Astrometric Telescope at the USNOFS. It was additionally recognized that, since the exposures used were short enough not to saturate the three bright M stars (A, B,and C of V96), their light could largely be removed by PSF subtraction.

Figure 1 is an approximately 45 x 45 arcsec portion of the median–filtered composite I–band image centered on the V96 M stars, with a limiting detection magnitude of I $``$ 26.5. In this image the M stars ABC have been removed, although their positions are still apparent due to imperfect subtraction. The position of the variable radio source is shown, but no counterpart is visible to I $``$ 26.5, which is consistent with the non-detections in the near infrared of Eikenberry & Dror (1999). Unfortunately, none of the nearly 200 frames from 1998 were obtained simultaneously with a gamma–ray burst from SGR 1900+14.

Of greater interest is that the subtracted I–band image shows what appears to be a cluster of stars, and possibly nebulosity, centered on the position of the M stars. The IRAS source found at this location by van Paradijs et al. (1996) shows a steeply rising energy spectrum that can be interpreted as warm dust in the cluster region. Figure 1 also shows identification numbers of the possible cluster stars. On UT 1999 October 28 we used the ASTROCAM IR imager, which employs an SBRC 10242 InSb detector, at the 1.55–m telescope to obtain a 1600 second net exposure J–band image of this region. An approximately 45 x 45 arcsec region of this image is shown in Figure 2, where again the M stars were somewhat successfully PSF–subtracted.

We obtained photometry for the cluster stars from the I– and J–band frames, calibrated with several I– and J–band local standards which had previously been set up for our variability monitoring program. The photometric results are presented in Table 1 where the results for stars 5 and 6 are presented together as they could not be separated in the J–band observations. The observed (I–J) $``$ 7 colors are far larger than for any unreddened star and indicate that they suffer extremely high extinction.

## 3 Nature of the Cluster

Assuming that the cluster stars are at the same distance and suffer the same extinction as the M supergiant stars (12-15 kpc; AV = 19.2$`\pm `$1.0; V96) we placed all stars in an $`M_I`$ vs. (I–J) CM diagram (Figure 3), assuming normal interstellar extinction (Bessel & Brett, 1988), and where the error bars include the ranges in distance and AV values given above. The solid curves show the approximate loci for supergiants and dwarfs later than A0 and for giants later than G0 while the dashed lines show the M0 (I–J) colors, for reference. The large uncertainty of the intrinsic (I–J) colors of the stars after subtracting a huge baseline of extinction renders them essentially useless in estimating their spectral types. However, at this assumed distance and extinction the stars have luminosities far greater than that of main sequence stars. We note that even assuming the stars are at a much closer distance (for instance d $``$ 5 kpc as has often been quoted by association with the SNR G42.8+0.6) has little affect on the conclusion that these are highly luminous stars.

Several examples of compact high mass young clusters serve as templates for these objects: NGC 3603 (Moffat, Drissen, & Shara, 1994), W43 (Blum, Damineli, & Conti, 1999), and several clusters summarized in Figer, McLean, & Morris (1999). These clusters are characterized by 10 – 30 cluster members, radii of 0.2 – 1.0 pc, and ages of 1 – 10 Myr. The SGR 1900+14 cluster has at least 13 members (including stars A and B) and an approximate 7 arcsec radius which, at a distance of 12 – 15 kpc, corresponds to a cluster radius of $``$ 0.4 pc. A remarkably similar example to that of the SGR 1900+14 cluster is described by Moffat (1976) in which a group of 12 luminous stars surround the M3 I supergiant star HD143183 within a cluster radius of 0.6 pc. These examples support the idea that the small cluster of stars near SGR 1900+14 and dominated by the M5 supergiants is likely a real association. A formal astrometric solution, not previously presented, for the positions of the M supergiants based on 21 USNO-A2.0 stars gives the result ($`\pm `$ 0.1 arcsec):

Star A: $`\alpha `$ = 19h 07m 15.35s, $`\delta `$ = +09d 19’ 21.4” (J2000)

Star B: $`\alpha `$ = 19h 07m 15.13s, $`\delta `$ = +09d 19’ 20.7” (J2000)

## 4 Discussion

If the cluster was the birthplace of SGR 1900+14, this essentially excludes SNR G42.8+0.6 as playing any role in the SGR. Although one can envision scenarios in which the SNR progenitor was ejected from the cluster by dynamical interaction or a much earlier supernova, this leaves the necessity of the neutron star having been kicked back to almost exactly its place of origin by the supernova that formed SNR G42.8+0.6 (since the cluster and SGR localizations are coincident), an unlikely coincidence both in space and timing. However, despite the association of G42.8+0.6 with SGR 1900+14 in the literature, there has been no evidence supporting this association offered, such as the probablity of finding any SNR within a given distance, based on the number density of SNRs in the Galactic plane.

A more plausable scenario is one in which the cluster and associated dense gas/dust cloud hides a recent supernova. Evidence for this cloud comes from Figures 1 and 2 and the coincident extended strong far–infrared source indicating compact warm and extended cool dust (see V96). Optical extinction from this cloud combined with a 12–15 kpc distance explains why the supernova would not have been noticed historically. A very young SNR expanding into the dense wind–blown bubble due to mass loss from the supergiant stars in the cluster would be consistent with the otherwise unexplained persistent X–ray source at this position, RX J190717+0919.3 (Hurley et al., 1996). While no quiescent radio source is known at this position, a combination of self–absorption within the dense medium and rapid decay (Reynolds, 1988) could account for this. The supernova remnant evolutionary calculations of Truelove & McKee (1999) indicate that for an ejecta mass of 1 M, and an external density medium of 10 cm-3, one finds characteristic sizes of $``$ 1 pc at t = 1000 yr; similar to that of the cluster dimensions at the estimated M supergiant distances.

The most likely position for the SGR itself is the Frail, Kulkarni, & Bloom (1999) fading radio source located at $`\alpha `$ = 19h 07m 14.33s, $`\delta `$ = +09d 19’ 21.1” (J2000), with positional accuracy of $`\pm `$ 0.15 arcsec in each coordinate. With these astrometric positions we estimate the approximate distances from the center and edge of the cluster to the radio position as 12 arcsec (0.7–0.9 pc) and 5 arcsec (0.3–0.4 pc), respectively, based on the 12–15 kpc distance estimate. Thus, even at the extreme minimum age of the SGR based on the simplest magnetar physics ($``$ 700 yr; Kouveliotou et al. 1999) this implies a tangential velocity of $``$ 420 km s-1 from the near edge of the cluster. While still an ample velocity for the runaway neutron star, it obviates the enormous space velocities implied by associating it with G42.8+0.6 (Kouveliotou et al., 1999), which is about 12 arcmin away (Hurley et al., 1999b).

While an isolated instance of the compact, high mass cluster found at/near SGR 1900+14 would be dismissed as a chance superposition, its striking similarity to the cluster found near SGR 1806-20 by Fuchs et al. (1999) must be recognized. In that case, an LBV supergiant is found associated with a cluster of at least another four massive young stars enshrouded in a bright dust cloud as imaged by ISO and located only 7 arcsec from the SGR gamma–ray localization. With an approximate cluster radius of 8 arcsec and an estimated distance of 14.5 kpc, this implies a cluster radius of $``$ 0.6 pc. Now that similar compact clusters have been found near the positions of the two best studied SGRs (1806-20 and 1900+14) the possiblity that young SGR neutron stars have their origins in compact clusters should be considered seriously.


format: text

text:
# FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR CP VIOLATION IN HADRON MACHINES

## 1 Introduction

While the first statistically significant observation of CP violation in the B meson system will most likely take place in one of the $`e^+e^{}`$ $`b`$-factory experiments (BaBar, Belle), this talk will try to prove that the contribution from experiments in hadron colliders will be dominant in the future, starting in 2001.

Figure 1 shows the standard CP violation triangle. The angle $`\beta `$ is the most easily accessible, in particular through the asymmetry in the decays $`B^0/\overline{B}^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$. First determinations by CDF , OPAL  and ALEPH  have recently become available. When combined, they give a two-standard deviation measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$:

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.78\pm 0.37.$$
(1)
The combination is totally dominated by the CDF result. By summer 2000, the electro-positron colliders should get a measurement with an uncertainty about $`\pm 0.15`$ . The task is substantially more involved for the other two angles, $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$. It is not obvious when will BaBar or Belle be able to obtain a measurement.

Hadronic uncertainties diminish the usefulness of a determination of the length of the side of the triangle opposite $`\beta `$. The length of the side opposite $`\gamma `$, can be obtained from the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, the frequency of the oscillations in the $`B_s^0\overline{B}_s^0`$ system. The current limit from LEP is :

$$x_s=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_s}>21.8.$$
(2)
Standard Model expectations for $`x_s`$ are in the range 20–30 . When the determination of $`x_s`$ will become available, it will be possible to combine it with $`x_d`$, the similar parameter in the $`B_d`$ system, now measured to be

$$x_d=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_d}=0.717\pm 0.026,$$
(3)
in order to obtain the length of the side of the triangle opposite $`\gamma `$ through the relation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}\frac{\left|V_{td}\right|}{\left|V_{ts}\right|}\frac{\left|V_{td}\right|}{\left|V_{cb}\right|}.$$
(4)
Since the lepton machines are only scheduled to run at the energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$(4S) resonance, no $`B_s`$ mesons will be produced. Therefore, $`x_s`$ will only be determined in hadron machine experiments.

The standard CP triangle in fig. 1 is the only one obtained from the standard Wolfenstein parametrization of the CKM matrix . However, one should remember that this is just an expansion of the complete matrix in powers of $`\lambda `$, the sinus of the Cabibbo angle, valid up to order $`𝒪(\lambda ^3)`$. If one proceeds with the expansion up to $`\lambda ^4`$, one encounters a new imaginary contribution to $`V_{ts}`$, which gives raise to a new unitarity triangle. A new angle, $`\delta \gamma `$, appears, which in the Standard Model is proportional to $`\lambda ^2`$, and, therefore, very small, of order $`𝒪(10^2)`$. It is easily accessible through the decay $`B_sJ/\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi `$, the $`B_s`$ equivalent to the “golden channel” $`B_dJ/\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$. Again, this is not possible in the lepton machines, which do not produce $`B_s`$.

The experimental program in the coming years has two clear goals:

* First, to observe for the first time CP violation in the B system. As explained above, this will most likely be achieved by BaBar and/or Belle, followed by HERA-B at DESY, CDF and D0.
* Then, to test whether CP violation is generated by the Standard Model. Here, all the experiments mentioned before will contribute but, most probably, the second-generation dedicated experiments, LHCb and BTeV, will be needed.

In the remaining of the talk, the capabilities of the experiments foreseen in future hadron colliders will be reviewed. Section 2 will cover the near future: CDF and D0 at the Fermilab Tevatron, scheduled to start physics data-taking in spring 2001. The more distant future, from 2005 on, will be covered in Section 3. ATLAS, CMS and LHCb are approved to take data at CERN’s LHC, while BTeV, if approved, will run at the Tevatron. Special emphasis will be put in the two dedicated $`b`$-experiments, LHCb and BTeV. Finally, section 4 will give a short summary of the talk.

## 2 The Near Future: CDF and D0

### 2.1 The detector upgrades

The upgraded Tevatron at Fermilab is scheduled to start collider physics operation in spring 2001 with two upgraded detectors, CDF and D0. The luminosity delivered in the first two years of operation is expected to reach about 2 fb-1, which is equivalent to a production of about 1011 $`b`$ pairs per year. The challenge in a hadron collider experiments is not producing the $`b`$ pairs, but rather triggering on them, selecting them and getting rid of the background. CDF has proven to be able to do all this with their recent determination

$$\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.79_{0.44}^{+0.41}$$
(5)
using the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ channel.

Both CDF and D0 are undergoing substantial upgrades . Among other improvements, CDF is getting a new, longer, vertex detector, that will provide 3D coordinates in a larger acceptance region. A new time-of-flight system will allow kaon identification at low momentum, and can, therefore, be used for kaon tagging: using the kaon charge to decide on the flavor of the decaying $`b`$ hadron. More importantly, a new pipelined, deadtimeless trigger system will allow purely hadronic events (no leptons) to be triggered efficiently. This will vastly increase the physics capabilities of CDF, as it will be shown later. The new all-hadron trigger requires two high transverse momentum tracks at level 1 and, using vertex detector information, finds their vertex at level 2 and requires the decay length to be positive.

D0 upgrades are not less important. The detector will have for the first time a solenoidal coil, with a 2 Tesla field that, together, with the new scintillating-fiber central tracking system, will provide precise momentum measurements for all charged tracks. Furthermore, a new four-layer vertex detector will also be added. These changes should allow D0 to reconstruct and tag B decays using standard displaced vertes techniques.

A comparison between the $`b`$-physics capabilities of CDF and D0 shows a clear advantadge for the former, due, in particular, to its unique all-hadron trigger. In order to trigger on hadronic B decays, D0 has to rely on semileptonic decays of the opposite-side B hadron, therefore paying the price of the 10% semileptonic branching ratio.

### 2.2 $`B_s`$ oscillations

As mentioned in the introduction, the measurement of the mass difference of the two $`B_s`$ sates, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, is needed in order to determine the length of the side of the standard CKM triangle opposite the angle $`\gamma `$. The mass difference is obtained from the difference between mixed and unmixed $`B_s`$ decays as a function of proper time:

$$\frac{N_{unmixed}(t)N_{mixed}(t)}{N_{unmixed}(t)+N_{mixed}(t)}=D\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }m_st\right),$$
(6)
where $`D`$ is the so-called dilution factor, explained later. In order to be able to perform the measurement one needs to determine:

* The proper decay time. Hence good decay length resolution is needed.
* The $`B_s`$ flavor at production time (tagging). The dilution factor $`D`$ in the previous equation is $`D=12p_{mistag}`$, where $`p_{mistag}`$ is the probability of getting the flavor wrong.
* The $`B_s`$ flavor at decay time, using, for instance, flavor-specific decays.

CDF has studied the flavor-specific decay channel $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ or $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+`$ with $`D_s^{}\varphi \pi ^{},K^0K^{}`$. As one can see, there are no leptons and, therefore, the purely hadronic trigger is mandatory. CDF expects about 20000 selected events in the first two years of operation with a signal-to-background ratio between 1/2 and 2 . The significance of the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ (in number of standard deviations) or of the related, dimensionless parameter $`x_s`$ introduced above, is given by

$$Sig(x_s)=\sqrt{\frac{Nϵ_{tag}D^2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(x_s\sigma _t/\tau \right)^2/2\right)\sqrt{\frac{S}{S+B}},$$
(7)
where $`N`$ is the number of selected events, $`ϵ_{tag}`$ is the tagging efficiency, $`D`$ is the dilution factor, $`\sigma _t`$ is the proper time resolution, $`\tau `$ is the $`B_s`$ lifetime and $`S`$ and $`B`$ are the number of signal and background events selected, respectively. Looking at the formula, one sees that the “quality factor” $`ϵ_{tag}D^2`$ gives the effective tagging efficiency and that good proper time resolution is, clearly, crucial. No matter how many events one can collect, the reach in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is going to be limited by the time resolution to something of order $`𝒪\left((13)/\sigma _t\right)`$. CDF expects a time resolution around 50 fs and a quality factor $`ϵ_{tag}D^2=0.113`$, which translate into a sensitivity to $`x_s<63`$ at the five standard deviation level . This goes well beyond the current LEP limit of 21.8 and the expected range in the Standard Model, from 20 to 30. In summary, CDF should be able to determine $`x_s`$ quite precisely unless it is much larger than expected.

### 2.3 Measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$

The standard prodecure to determine the angle $`\beta `$ uses the time integrated asymmetry in the $`B^0/\overline{B}^0`$ decays to $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s`$:

$`A_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N(B^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s)N(\overline{B}^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s)}{N(B^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s)+N(\overline{B}^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_s)}}`$
$`=`$ $`D_{mix}\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,\text{with}`$
$`D_{mix}`$ $`=`$ $`x_d/\left(1+x_d^2\right)0.47.`$ (8)
Here $`D_{mix}`$ is a dilution factor due to $`B_d^0\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Since $`x_s`$ is much larger than $`x_d`$ this dilution factor is very small in the $`B_s^0`$ asymmetries, so that time-dependent measurements are needed.

The experimentally observed asymmetry is further diluted by mistagging and background:

$`A_{obs}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{tag}D_{bgd}A_{CP}`$
$`D_{tag}`$ $`=`$ $`12p_{mistag},D_{bgd}=\sqrt{S/\left(S+B\right)},`$ (9)
so that the final uncertainty on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ can be written as

$$\delta \left(\mathrm{sin}2\beta \right)=\frac{1}{D_{mix}D_{tag}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{ϵ_{tag}N}}\sqrt{\frac{S+B}{S}}.$$
(10)
CDF believes they can obtain a total $`ϵ_{tag}D_{tag}^2`$ around 9.1 %, including the kaon tagging using the proposed time-of-flight system. With the statistics available in the first two years of data-taking, that would imply $`\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.07`$ . On the other hand, total $`ϵ_{tag}D_{tag}^2`$ for D0 is expected to be around 5.0 %, implying $`\delta (\mathrm{sin}2\beta )0.15`$, using only the muon decay of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ . Analyses are underway to quantify the precision attainable in the electron channel.

### 2.4 Other CP Angles

Determination of CP angles other than $`\beta `$ can also be attempted by CDF. It will be more difficult for D0 because of their lack of a fully hadron trigger. A quick summary of CDF capabilities follows:

* $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$ could, in principle, be obtained from the $`B^0\overline{B}^0`$ asymmetry in the $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay. However, the large penguin contribution, with different phase, my preclude the effective extraction of $`\alpha `$ from this channel. Some other methods will be described in section 3. In any case, CDF can have a quality factor around 9.1% for this channel, leading to a precision in the determination of the asymmetry of $`\delta A(\pi ^+\pi ^{})0.09`$ .
* There are several ways of studying the angle $`\gamma `$. CDF has explored, for instance, the use of the asymmetries in the decays $`B_s^0/\overline{B}_s^0D_s^\pm K^{}`$ and $`B^\pm K^\pm D_{CP}^0`$, where $`D_{CP}^0`$ is the $`CP=1`$ eigenstate of the $`D^0`$ system. For the moment, however, there are no quantitative estimates of the possible $`\mathrm{sin}2\gamma `$ reach.
* Finally, the asymmetry in the decays $`B_s^0/\overline{B}_s^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi `$, the “golden decay” equivalent in the $`B_s`$ sector, can be determined to about 10% by CDF, depending on the value of $`x_s`$ . This asymmetry provides a direct determination of $`\delta \gamma `$. They expect about 6000 events with $`ϵ_{tag}D_{tag}9.7\%`$. While only an asymmetry of order a few percent is expected in the Standard Model, a larger value, if found, would be a sign of new physics. It should be noted that since in this channel the triggering is based on the leptonic decays of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$, D0 should be able to do a similar job.

## 3 The More Distant Future: ATLAS, CMS, LHCb, BTeV

### 3.1 The situation in 2005

In about 2005 ATLAS, CMS and LHCb will start taking data at the LHC accelerator at CERN. At about the same time, BTeV, if approved, will start at the Tevatron. At that time a lot of progress will have been made by the earlier experiments, both at hadron machines and at the electron-positron factories. In particular, one could expect $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ to be measured with a precision around 0.04 by a combination of BaBar, Belle, HERA-B, CDF and D0. The length of the side opposite $`\gamma `$ will be known thanks to the $`B_s`$ oscillations measurements at HERA-B, CDF and D0 but it is rather unclear the amount of information that will be gathered about $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$. The outcome of the combination of all the different measurements should be one of the following:

* either a clear inconsistency with the Standard Model predictions will be seen in the precise measurements ($`\beta `$ and $`B_s`$ mixing);
* or a hint of inconsistency with the less precise measurements ($`\alpha `$, kaon results) will appear;
* or all measurements will look consistent with the Standard Model.

In any case, the next generation of experiments will be needed for a full understanding of the CP violation mechanism. That will involve more precise measurements of the same parameters in the same channels, measuring the same parameters in different channels and determining for the first time some parameters, notably the angle $`\gamma `$.

### 3.2 The detectors

Around year 2005, four new hadron-machine experiments with interesting capabilities in $`b`$ physics will start taking data. Two of them are specifically designed for $`b`$ physics, LHCb  and BTeV . Both of them cover only the forward region, since most of the $`b\overline{b}`$’s produced are in this region. BTeV actually covers also the backward region, thus doubling the acceptace. The larger cross section available at LHC energies (500 $`\mu `$b vs. 100$`\mu `$b) more than compensates for the smaller acceptance of LHCb. Covering only the forward/backward regions has clear advantages:

* $`b\overline{b}`$ production peaks forward;
* limited solid angle coverage leads to limited cost;
* the $`b`$ hadrons have higher momentum which leads to easier vertex finding and improved decay time resolution;
* open geometry allows for easy installation and maintenance.

These advantadges compensate for the higher minimum bias background, occupancies and radiation dose that have to be overcome at low angles.

The main advantadges that LHCb and BTeV have over the all-purpose detectors, ATLAS and CMS, are in particle identification and, especially, in the triggering capabilities. LHCb and BTeV have RICH systems that allow $`\pi /K`$ separation in a large momentun range ($`1<p<150`$ for LHCb, $`3<p<70`$ GeV for BTeV). This is mandatory to separate signal from background in the $`B\pi \pi ,KK,K\pi `$ channels and adds the possibility of using kaon tagging, as mentioned in chapter 2 for CDF.

Both LHCb and BTeV can trigger efficiently in all-hadron events, thanks to their vertex triggers. In contrast, ATLAS and CMS need a high-$`p_T`$ lepton to start the triggering sequence. This considerably reduces the $`b`$-physics capabilities of the two multipurpose detectors.

### 3.3 Physics Reach

#### 3.3.1 $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$

The angle $`\beta `$ can be measured very precisely by the second generation $`b`$ experiments using the same “golden” decay used by CDF and D0: $`B^0/\overline{B}^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_S`$. Since the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is only reconstructed through its lepton-pair decays, the triggering and particle-id advantadges of LHCb and BTeV are of no importance and the kind of precision that can be achieved by the four experiments is very similar, ranging from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}2\beta =\pm 0.015`$ for LHCb to $`\pm 0.025`$ for CMS , with ATLAS and BTeV somewhere in between.

#### 3.3.2 $`x_s`$ reach

The $`B_s`$ mixing analysis is much improved by the availability of a pure hadron trigger and, therefore, the differences between the reach of the experiments are large. Whereas ATLAS and CMS could only reach $`x_s`$ values around 50 , lower than what can be explored already at CDF with their hadron trigger, the dedicated experiments can go up to 60 (BTeV) or 75 (LHCb) . It should be said, however, that Standard Model expectations for $`x_s`$ are in the range 20–30, easily accessible by the first generation experiments.

#### 3.3.3 $`\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$

The asymmetry in the $`B_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ channel has already been mentioned in section 2 as a possibility for measuring $`\alpha `$, although, at present, its usefulness is not clear due to the large penguin contribution with different phase. In any event, LHCb and BTeV can measure the asymmetry in this all-hadron channel with a $`\pm 0.025`$ precision .

More promising, if more involved, seems to be the $`B_d^0/\overline{B}_d^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ channel, which proceeds through $`\rho `$ intermediate states. Here, all amplitudes can be determined and the remaining ambiguities can be resolved using the intereference regions in the Dalitz plot . The analysis seems feasible, but no experiment has yet made public the precision it could achieve in $`\alpha `$.

#### 3.3.4 $`\mathrm{sin}2\gamma `$

There are several ways of getting to the angle $`\gamma `$, all of them rather challenging. For example, it can be obtained from the simultaneous measurement of six time-integrated decay rates in the $`B_d^0D^0K^0`$ channel: $`B_d^0D^0K^0,B_d^0\overline{D}^0K^0,B_d^0D_{CP}^0K^0,\overline{B}_d^0\overline{D}^0\overline{K}^0,\overline{B}_d^0D^0\overline{K}^0,\overline{B}_d^0D_{CP}^0\overline{K}^0`$, with $`D^0`$ decaying to $`K^{}\pi ^+`$, $`\overline{D}^0`$ to $`K^+\pi ^{}`$, and $`D_{CP}^0`$ to either $`K^+K^{}`$ or $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The final state, therefore, consists in all cases in four charged kaons or pions resonating in different masses. It is clear that proper pion/kaon separation is crucial. LHCb claims a precision in $`\gamma `$ around 10o from this channel .

BTeV has studied a similar channel: $`B^{}D^0/\overline{D}^0K^{}`$, where $`D^0`$ and $`\overline{D}^0`$ go to the same final state, and the corresponding $`B^+`$ decays. Using now nine time-integrated decays, the precision in $`\gamma `$ is found to be about 13o .

#### 3.3.5 Other CP angles

Apart from $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, other CP angles are also accessible to the second generation CP experiments:

* The small angle $`\delta \gamma `$ introduced in section 1 can be measured precisely using the $`B_s^0/\overline{B}_s^0J/\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi `$ asymmetry as already mentioned above. Precisions around $`0.50.9^\mathrm{o}`$ seem possible, even for ATLAS and CMS , because of the leptonic decays of the $`J/\mathrm{\Psi }`$.
* The combination $`\gamma 2\delta \gamma `$ can be determined with a precision around 10o  by both BTeV and LHCb through the decay $`B_s^0D_s^{}K^+`$ and its charge conjugated. Since $`\delta \gamma `$ is expected to be small in the Standard Model, this can be viewed as yet another way of getting $`\gamma `$, only in this case through $`B_s`$ decays, and, hence, a very interesting check.
* LHCb has also studied the extraction of $`2\beta +\gamma =\pi +\beta \alpha `$ from $`B^0D^+\pi ^{}`$. The precision that can be obtained is around 9o . Again, since $`\beta `$ will be well known, this method could be used to obtain $`\gamma `$ or $`\alpha `$.

The ability of measuring a single angle with different processes can be very useful in checking whether the Standard Model by itself is able to explain CP violation.

## 4 Summary

This talk has tried to convey the message that hadron machines have a very comprehensive program for understanding the origin of CP violation in the period 2001–2015 or so, at the Tevatron and LHC.

In a first phase, starting in 2001, CDF and, to a lesser extend, D0 will be able to measure $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ to about 0.07 and study $`B_s`$ mixing for values of the mixing parameter $`x_s`$ up to 63.

In a second phase, from 2005 on, LHCb, BTeV, if approved, plus ATLAS and CMS will improve on $`\beta `$ and $`x_s`$ and will be able to determine both $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ to about 10o, thus putting strong constraints on the Standard Model ability to explain all the phenomenology of CP violation in the $`b`$ sector.

## 5 Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Giorgio Capon and the rest of the organizers of the workshop for the kind invitation to give this talk and for their patience while waiting for me to finish writing this manuscript.


text:
# References

HZPP-0003

Feb. 25, 2000

Anisotropy of Dynamical Fluctuations as a Probe

for Soft and Hard Processes in High Energy Collisions111This work is supported in part by the NSFC under project 19975021.

Liu Lianshou, Chen Gang and Fu Jinghua

Institute of Particle Physics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079 China

ABSTRACT

It is shown using Lund Monte Carlo that, unlike the average properties of the hadronic system inside jets, the anisotropy of dynamical fluctuations in these systems changes abruptly with the variation of the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. A transition point exists, where the dynamical fluctuations in the hadronic system inside jet behave like those in soft hadronic collisions. Thus the anisotropy property of the dynamical fluctuations can serve as a probe for the soft and hard processes in high energy collisions.

PACS number: 13.85 Hd

Keywords: dynamical fluctuations, hadronic jet, hard and soft  processes

As is well known, the presently most promissing theory of strong interaction — Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD) has the special property of both asymptotic freedom and colour confinement. For this reason, in any process, even though the energy scale, $`Q^2`$, is large enough to be able to do perturbative QCD (pQCD) calculation, there must be a non-perturbative hadronization phase before the final state particles can be observed. Therefore, the transition or interplay between hard and soft processes is a very important problem.

In current literature, this transition is determined by some cut-parameter. For example, in doing theoretical calculation a parameter $`Q_0^2`$ is introduced. When $`Q^2>Q_0^2`$ the perturbative QCD is assumed to be applicable and the process is hard. While when $`Q^2<Q_0^2`$ the perturbative calculation is unallowed and the process becomes soft (nonperturbative). However, the value of $`Q_0^2`$ is not determined exactly. It decreases steadily as the developement of perturbative technique.

In experimental data analysis people use some “jet-algorithm” (e.g. Jade  or Durham  ones) to combine the final-state particles into “jets”. Each jet is assumed to be originated from a hard parton, and the hadrons in the jet is produced softly from this hard parton. Thus the transition between hard and soft processes is described as the production of hard partons and the subsequent hadronization of these partons. In this formalism there is also a parameter — $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. The value of this parameter determines how the hadrons are grouped into jets, and whether an event is a “2-jet event” or a “3-jet”, “4-jet” ones,

Let us concentrate on the 2-jet events. By definition, these two jets should be developed softly from two hard partons and no hard process is involved in the evolution. If there is any hard process in the developement then we say that a third jet appears. Historically, it was the observation of the third jet in e+e- collisions that confirmed the existence of gluon . In this sense, there should be a definite value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, which is consistent with the physical meaning of “jet”.

On the other hand, due to the success in pQCD calculation of jet, people sometimes take the number of jets in an event as indefinite, depending on the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, which can be chosen arbitrarily. Their stress is in ultilizing this dependence to confront the pQCD calculation with experiments. From this point of view, the physical meaning of jet and the associated concepts —— “soft” and “hard” are neglected. A process is hard or soft is not judged physically, but is determined through the technical problem of whether the process can be calculated by perturbative QCD.

Let us remind that physically, soft and hard are distinguished through the magnitude of transverse momentum. In hadron-hadron collisions at energies below top-ISR most of the final-state hadrons have low transverse momenta and the process is soft. At collider energies high-transverse-momentum jets, coming from hard parton collisions, start to appear . The transverse momenta of this jets are higher than 10 – 20 GeV/$`c`$. Besides, there are also mini-jets with transverse momenta higher than about 4 – 5 GeV/$`c`$ , which are generally refered to as semi-hard. The critical value of transverse momentum for the transition between soft and hard (semi-hard) is about 4 – 5 GeV/$`c`$.

The following important questions arise: 1) Does the number of jets in an event possess any definite meaning? If yes, how to determine this number, i.e. how to decide the correct value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ for the determination of this number. 2) Is it in principle possible to locate the transition between soft and hard processes in the hadronic final states of high energy e+e- collisions? If yes, how to do that?

In order to answer these questions, let us remind that the qualitative difference between the typical soft process — moderate energy hadron-hadron collisions and the typical hard process — high energy e+e- collisions can be observed most clearly in the property of dynamical fluctuations therein. It is found recently  that inspite of the similarities in the average properties, the dynamical fluctuations in the hadronic systems from these two processes are qualitatively different —— the former is anisotropic in the longitudinal-transvere plane and isotropic in the transverse planes while the latter is isotropic in three dimensional phase space.

This observation inspired us to think that the dynamical-fluctuation property may provide a probe for the transition betweem soft and hard processes inside the hadronic final state of high energy e+e- collisions. In the present letter we show, using Lund Monte Carlo simulation, that this is indeed the case.

In total 500 000 events are generated for 91.2 GeV e+e- collisions using JETSET7.4. The resulting hadronic systems are analysed using Durham and/or Jade jet-algorithms. The fractions $`R_2`$, $`R_3`$, $`R_4`$ of the 2-, 3-, 4-jet events in the whole sample are plotted versus the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ for both Durham and Jade algorithms in Fig.1. It can be seen clearly form the figures that the definition of “jet” depends strongly on the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. When $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is big, most of the events are taken to be “2-jet” events. In the limit of very large $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, the whole sample consists of only “2-jet” events. On the contrary, when the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ decreases continuously, the jets are divided further and further, and gradually most of the events become “multi-jet” (more than two jets) ones.

At the energy in consideration, it is certainly impossible that all the events are 2-jet ones. Neither is it possible that most of the events are multi-jet ones. In order to determine a reasonable value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, we have to use the dependence of some physical property of the system on $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. As example, we show in Fig.2 the dependence of average charged multiplicity $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ and average ellipticity $`e`$ on $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ for the “2-jet” sample determined by Durham algorithm. The ellipticity $`e`$ is an event-shape parameter defined as the ratio of minor $`T_3`$ to major $`T_2`$ in thrust analysis

$$e=T_3/T_2.$$
(1)
By definition $`e1`$. When $`e=1`$ the jet cone is circular in the momentum space. It is expected that, when $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ increases, more and more “inpurities” (multi-jet events) are mixed into the “2-jet” event sample, and the jet cone will diviate more and more from being circular. So the average ellipticity $`e`$ will drcrease with the increasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. It can be seen from the figure that this is indeed the case. However, the value of $`e`$ changes smoothly with $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ and it is hard to get a probe for a reasonable value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ by using $`e`$. The same holds also for $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}`$ and other average quantities.

Fig.1 The ratio of 2-, 3-, 4-jet events Fig.2 Average charged multiplicity and ellipticity

as function of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as function of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$

Let us turn now to consider the dynamical fluctuations. These fluctuations can be characterized by the anomalous scaling of factorial moments (FM) :

$`F_q(M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_m(n_m1)\mathrm{}(n_mq+1)}{n_m^q}}`$
$``$ $`(M)^{\varphi _q}(M\mathrm{}),`$
where a region $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in 1-, 2- or 3-dimensional phase space is divided into $`M`$ cells, $`n_m`$ is the multiplicity in the $`m`$th cell, and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes vertically averaging over the event sample. Note that when the fluctuations exist in higher-dimensional (2-D or 3-D) space the projection effect  will cause the second-order 1-D FM goes to saturation according to the rule222In order to elliminate the influence of momentum conservation , the first few points ($`M=1,2`$ or 3) should be omitted when fitting the data to Eq.(3).:

$$F_2^{(a)}(M_a)=A_aB_aM_a^{\gamma _a},$$
(3)
where $`a=1,2,3`$ denotes the different 1-D variables. The parameter $`\gamma _a`$ describes the rate of going to saturation of the FM in direction $`a`$ and is the most important characteristic for the higher-dimensional dynamical fluctuations. If $`\gamma _a=\gamma _b`$ the fluctuations are isotropic in the $`a,b`$ plane; while when $`\gamma _a\gamma _b`$ the fluctuations are anisotropic in this plane. The degree of anisotropy is characterized by the Hurst exponent $`H_{ab}`$, which can be obtained from the values of $`\gamma _a`$ and $`\gamma _b`$ as

$$H_{ab}=\frac{1+\gamma _b}{1+\gamma _a}.$$
(4)
The dynamical fluctuations are isotropic when $`H_{ab}=1`$, and anisotropic when $`H_{ab}1`$.

For the 250 GeV/$`c`$ $`\pi `$(K)-p collisions from NA22 the Hurst exponents are found to be :

$$H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }=0.99\pm 0.01,H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}=0.48\pm 0.06,H_{y\phi }=0.47\pm 0.06,$$
(5)
which means that the dynamical fluctuations in this moderate energy hadron-hadron collisions are isotropic in the transverse plane and anisotropic in the longitudinal-transvere planes. This is what should be , because there is almost no hard collisions at this energy and the direction of motion of the incident hadrons (longitudinal direction) should be previleged. Note that the special role of longitudinal direction in these soft processes is present both in the magnitude of average momentum and in the dynamical fluctuations in phase space.

In high energy e+e- collisions, the longitudinal direction is chosen along the thrust axis, which is the direction of motion of the primary quark-antiquark pair. Since this pair of quark and antiquark move back to back with very high momenta, the magnitude of average momentum of final state hadrons is also anisotropic due to momentum conservation. However, the dynamical fluctuations in this case come from the QCD branching of partons , which is isotropic in nature. Therfore, although the momentum distribution still has an elongated shape, the dynamical fluctuations in this case should be isotropic in 3-D phase space.

A Monte Carlo study for e+e- collisions at 91.2 GeV confirms this assertion . The dynamical fluctuations are approximately isotropic in the 3-D phase space, the corresponding Hurst exponents being

$$H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }=1.18\pm 0.03,H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}=0.95\pm 0.02,H_{y\phi }=1.11\pm 0.02.$$
(6)
The present available experimental data for e+e- collisions at 91.2 GeV also show isotropic dynamical fluctuations in 3-D .

Now we apply this technique to the “2-jet” sample obtained from a certain, e.g. Durham, jet-algorithm with some definite value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. Doing the analysis for different values of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, the dependence of dynamical-fluctuation property of the “2-jet” sample on the value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ can be investigated.

Let us try to discuss what results can be expected?

As we have shown in Fig.1, when $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is very big the “2-jet” sample coincides with the whole event sample, $`R_2=1`$. In this case, the fluctuations are known to be isotropic in the 3-D phase space, cf. Eq.(6), i.e. the parameter $`\gamma _a`$ for the three 1-D variables ($`y,p_\mathrm{t},\phi `$) equal to each other ($`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi =\gamma _y`$).

($`a`$) ($`b`$)

Fig.3 The variation of $`\gamma `$ with $`R_2`$ and $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$

As the decreasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ the multi-jet events, which contaminate the “2-jet” sample, will be cleared away gradually, and at a certain value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, a “pure” 2-jet sample will be formed. The word “pure” is used here to indicate that these two jets are developed softly from initial partons and no other jet(s) has been mixed in.

It can be expected that the dynamical fluctuations in the “pure” 2-jet sample will mimic those in the soft hadronic collisions, i.e. isotropic in the transverse plane and anisotropic in the longitudinal-transverse planes ($`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$).

Thus the variation of $`\gamma `$’s with the decreasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ (or decreasing of $`R_2`$) is expected to be: At first, when $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is very big, the “2-jet” sample is identical to the whole event sample ($`R_2=1`$), and the three $`\gamma `$’s equal to each other; As the decreasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ (the deceasing of $`R_2`$) the three $`\gamma `$’s depart, and becomes, at a certain value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, isotropic in ($`p_\mathrm{t},\phi `$) and anisotropic in ($`y,p_\mathrm{t}`$) and ($`y,\phi `$), $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$.

The results of simulation are presented in Fig.3($`a`$). It can be seen from the figure that the above expectation comes true. The characteristic behaviour $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$ arrives at $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}0.0048`$ ($`R_20.48`$). The values of $`\gamma `$’s and the corresponding Hurst exponents at this point are listed in Table I. For convenience we will call this point, where $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=\gamma _\phi \gamma _y`$, as transition point.

Table I Parameter $`\gamma `$ and Hurst exponents at the transition point

| $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.0048`$ (Durham) $`R_{2\mathrm{j}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}}=0.48`$ | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\gamma _y`$ | $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ | $`\gamma _\phi `$ | $`H_{yp_\mathrm{t}}`$ | $`H_{y\phi }`$ | $`H_{p_\mathrm{t}\phi }`$ |
| 1.074$`\pm `$0.037 | 0.514$`\pm `$0.080 | 0.461$`\pm `$0.021 | 0.73$`\pm `$0.06 | 0.70$`\pm `$0.06 | 0.96$`\pm `$0.10 |

Fig.4 Comparison of the speed of going to saturation of

$`F_2`$ for different 1-D variables at different $`R_2`$

Note that in the Durham algorithm that we are using the test variable $`y`$ is essentially the relative transverse momentum $`k_{}`$ squared . The transition point $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}0.0048`$ corresponds to $`k_{}4`$ GeV/c, which is consistent with the critical value of transverse momentum between soft and hard (semi-hard) components in hadron-hadron collisions.

It is instructive also to follow the evolusion of $`\gamma `$’s with the increasing of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ (incresing of $`R_2`$).

It can be seen from Fig.3($`a`$) that, when $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`R_2`$) is very small, where the two “jets” are highly undeveloped and each consists mainly of one hard parton, $`\gamma _\phi `$ is consistent to zero, i.e. there is no dynamical fluctuation in $`\phi `$ at all. On the other hand, at this point $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ is almost as large as $`\gamma _y`$, showing that the dynamical fluctuations in this undeveloped “2-jet” system behaves as an isotropic 2-D fractal in the ($`y,p_\mathrm{t}`$) plane.

When $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`R_2`$) increases, $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ departs with $`\gamma _y`$ and approaches to $`\gamma _\phi `$. What is important is that $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\gamma _\phi `$, instead of going up parallelly, cross over each other, turns from $`\gamma _\phi <\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ to $`\gamma _\phi >\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$, resulting in a sharp transition point. After that, the three $`\gamma `$’s approach eventually to a common value, and the “2-jet” sample approachs to the whole event sample.

In order to show the evolusion of the anisotropy property of dynamical fluctuations with the variation of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`R_2`$) more clearly, we take three typical points: $`(A)`$ $`R_2=0.18`$, $`(B)`$ $`R_2=0.48`$, $`(C)`$ $`R_2=1`$, indicated by arrows in Fig.3($`a`$). Point $`A`$ corresponds to the case of undeveloped jets, $`B`$ is the transition point and $`C`$ is the whole sample. Since the anisotropy property of dynamical fluctuations determines solely by the rate of approaching to saturation of FM, which is characterized by the parameter $`\gamma `$, we rescale the $`F_2(p_\mathrm{t})`$ and $`F_2(\phi )`$ appropriately, letting them coincide with $`F_2(y)`$ at $`M=3`$ and arrive at a common saturation height with $`F_2(y)`$. The results are shown in Fig.4. It can be seen from the figure that when $`R_2=0.18`$, $`F_2(\phi )`$ does not increase with $`M`$, i.e. no dynamical fluctuation at all in $`\phi `$, while at this point $`F_2(p_\mathrm{t})`$ and $`F_2(y)`$ go to saturation almost with the same speed. When $`R_2=0.48`$ (transition point), $`F_2(p_\mathrm{t})`$ and $`F_2(\phi )`$ go to saturation almost with the same speed, much slower than $`F_2(y)`$ do. When $`R_2=1`$ (whole sample) all three $`F_2`$ coincide and go to saturation with an identical speed.

For comparison, we have also done the same analysis using Jade algorithm. The results, shown in Fig.3($`b`$), are qualitatively the same: At small $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`R_2`$), $`\gamma _\phi `$ vanishes and $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}\gamma _y`$; As $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ($`R_2`$) increases $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}`$ and $`\gamma _\phi `$ approaches each other and cross over at $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}0.158`$ ($`R_20.39`$). This is the transition point for Jade algorithm. The parameter $`\gamma `$’s at this point are $`\gamma _y=1.22\pm 0.04`$, $`\gamma _{p_\mathrm{t}}=0.51\pm 0.09`$, $`\gamma _\phi =0.59\pm 0.08`$.

In this letter we have shown using Lund Monte Carlo that, unlike the smooth change of average properties of the hadronic system inside jets, the anisotropy of dynamical fluctuations in these systems changes abruptly with the variation of the cut parameter $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. At $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV, the dynamical fluctuations in the whole e+e- collision sample (large $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ limit) are fully isotropic in the 3-D phase space, and become highly anisotropic (almost no fluctuation at all in $`\phi `$) for small $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ where the “jet” is highly undeveloped. A transition point exists, where the hadronic system inside jet behaves like that of the soft hadronic collisions, i.e. the dynamical fluctuations are isotropic in the transverse plane and anisotropic in the longitudinal-transverse planes. The corresponding relative transverse momentum at the transition point is about $`k_{}4`$ GeV/c, which is consistent with the critical value of transverse momentum between soft and hard (semi-hard) components in hadron-hadron collisions. Thus the the transition point determines the physically meaningful value of $`y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, and thereby gives the number of jets in an events. The anisotropy property of the dynamical fluctuations can serve as a sensible probe for hard and soft processes.

This observation is not only meaningful in the study of jets in e+e- collisions but also enlightening in the jet-physics in relativistic heavy ion collisions, which will become important  after the operation of the new generation of colliders at BNL (RHIC) and CERN (LHC).

Acknoledgement

The authors are grateful to Wu Yuanfang and Xie Qubin for valuable discussions.


text:
# Beam Energy Evolution of HBT Systematics at the AGS

## Abstract

We present preliminary results of the first $`\pi `$ interferometry (HBT) excitation function at intermediate AGS energies. The beam energy evolution of the correlations’ dependence on $`m_T`$, centrality, and emission angle with respect to the reaction plane are discussed. Comparisons with predictions of the RQMD cascade model are made.

Two-particle intensity interferometry (HBT) measurements have long been used to study the geometry and dynamics of heavy ion collisions (see, e.g. ). Pion correlation functions are sensitive to the pion source size, shape, decay-time, and long-lived particle (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) production. In addition, dynamic effects such as flow produce space-momentum correlations resulting in dependences of the correlation functions on $`\pi `$ momentum.

In this paper, we discuss an excitation function (2-8 AGeV) of $`\pi ^{}`$ HBT measurements. Studying the evolution of the correlations as a function of $`E_{beam}`$ is important for two reasons. Firstly, a sudden increase, at some $`E_{beam}`$, in the lifetime of the hadronic fireball has long been proposed as a robust signal of the onset of QGP formation . Secondly, the sensitivity of correlation functions to the underlying physics makes such measurements potent tools to test the dynamics of microscopic models of heavy ion collisions. Many models attempt to extrapolate to the RHIC energies. Confidence in the ability to extrapolate (determined by the correct underlying physics and its evolution with energy) would be enhanced if the model reproduces an excitation function of detailed HBT systematics.

Using the large-acceptance EOS Time Projection Chamber  the E895 collaboration measured charged particles from Au+Au collisions at 2, 4, 6, and 8 AGeV at the Brookhaven AGS. Good particle identification minimized $`e^{}`$ contamination of the $`\pi ^{}`$ sample. Momentum resolution, largely due to multiple Coulomb scattering and straggling in the 3% interaction length target, was on the order of 1.5-3%. The experimental correlation functions have been corrected for the momentum resolution with an iterative method similar to that employed by the NA44 collaboration . This correction typically increases the fitted $`\lambda `$ parameter by 15%, and the radii by 5%.

Track merging and splitting effects were eliminated by a two-track geometrical cut based on the tracking algorithm. As expected, this cut discards some pairs (in the “real” and event-mixed distributions) at low relative momentum, q. However, due to detector geometry, this cut preferentially discards low-q pairs at high $`p_T`$; thus, to minimize phasespace bias effects, we restrict our analysis to low $`p_T`$ and use narrow windows in $`p_T`$.

A full Coulomb-wave integration  over a spatial source of 5-fm Gaussian radius was used to generate the Coulomb correction, which was applied pair-wise to the event-mixed denominator of the correlation function. Identical Coulomb correction functions were applied to data and to correlation functions from the RQMD (see below). Further details of the analysis have been reported previously .

The high quality of the data is seen in Figure 1, where projections in the Bertsch-Pratt (BP), or out-side-long, system are shown for midrapidity pions from central events at each bombarding energy. The relative momentum $`q`$ was calculated in the fixed Au+Au c.m. frame. The functional form

$$C(q_{out},q_{side},q_{long})=1+\lambda e^{R_{out}^2q_{out}^2R_{side}^2q_{side}^2R_{long}^2q_{long}^22R_{ol}^2q_{out}q_{long}}$$
(1)
was fit to the data, using a maximum-likelihood technique . The cross-term  $`R_{ol}^2`$ was consistent with zero in all cases and uncorrelated with the other parameters.

Correlation functions were also constructed in the Yano-Koonin-Podgoretskiĭ (YKP) decomposition ; here, the effective lifetime $`R^0`$ is fit more directly. We fit to the form

$$C(q_0,q_{},q_{})=1+\lambda e^{R_{}^2q_{}^2R_{}^2(q_{}^2q_0^2)(R_o^2+R_{}^2)(qU)^2}$$
(2)
The excitation function of the fit results is presented in Figure 3. Also shown are results of fits to correlation functions generated by using the $`\pi ^{}`$ freeze-out points from the RQMD (v2.3) model  as input to the two-particle correlator code CRAB . Both the data and the model show a decrease in the $`\lambda `$ parameter, due to increased production of long-lived $`\pi ^{}`$-emitting particles at higher energy .

While the longitudinal radii, $`R_{long}`$ and $`R_{}`$, display little dependence on beam energy, the observed decrease of the transverse radii $`R_{side}`$ and $`R_{out}`$ comes as something of a surprise. At low energy, the YKP fits suggest that the model produces a $`\pi ^{}`$ source that is too small and too long-lived; this leads in the BP decomposition to an underprediction in $`R_{side}`$, but a reasonable agreement in $`R_{out}`$, as the space and time effects partially cancel.

Part of the reason for the decrease in the apparent transverse size is revealed in Figure 3. It is clear that the $`m_T`$-dependence of $`R_{side}`$ (and the space-momentum correlation that causes it) becomes stronger with $`E_{beam}`$ in the data, while the model suggests a $`m_T`$-dependence rather independent of energy, and reminiscent of trends at higher energy. The observed trend may suggest that collective transverse flow builds with bombarding energy, and is only strong enough to affect $`R_{side}(m_T)`$ above $`E_{beam}`$4 AGeV.

Although dynamics determines the $`m_T`$-dependence of the radii, it is worthwhile to check that the HBT radii track somewhat with geometry. Figure 5 shows the impact parameter ($`b`$) dependence of the HBT radii ($`b`$ was estimated from the charged particle multiplicity). $`\lambda `$ increases with $`b`$, as the production of long-lived $`\pi `$-emitting particles is suppressed relative to direct pions. The transverse radii ($`R_{side}`$ and $`R_{out}`$) decrease for more peripheral collisions, as expected, while $`R_{long}`$ shows little $`b`$-dependence. The trends suggest that the measured pion source reflects the overlap volume of the colliding nuclei.

More detailed information may be obtained by studying the HBT signal as a function of $`\pi ^{}`$ emission angle with respect to the reaction plane. The reaction plane is calculated only from momenta of Z$`2`$ nuclei, for every event , so auto-correlations are not an issue. From an overlap-volume picture, one expects an anisotropic apparent shape in the transverse direction for non-central collisions, with a larger spatial scale perpendicular to the reaction plane. Deviations may reflect the non-isotropic flow dynamics of the system prior to freeze-out, or may carry information concerning the opacity of the source .

Preliminary results for 2, 4, and 6 AGeV collisions at $`b57`$ fm are shown in Fig. 5. At the lower energy, $`R_{side}`$ (the radius most closely related to geometry ) exhibits a $`\varphi _{rp}`$-dependence consistent with geometric considerations. While RQMD simulations (with perfect reaction plane resolution) display similar trends at all energies, at higher energy, the $`R_{side}`$ oscillation is not seen in our data. Since the radii are not corrected for the finite dispersion, this is due at least in part to the worsening resolution with which the reaction plane is measured. Further study of this novel HBT signal is required.

In summary, we are mapping out the systematics of pion correlations in the energy range between the Bevalac and maximum AGS energy. Large jumps in source size or lifetime at some collision energy, which might indicate the onset of QGP formation, are not observed. Surprisingly, the apparent source size is larger at the lower beam energies; this appears largely a consequence of weaker space-momentum correlations there. The RQMD model, with or without meanfield effects, does not reproduce the data; in the model at low energy, the effective size is too small, the lifetime too large, and $`R(m_T)`$ does not evolve with beam energy. The impact parameter dependence of the radii follows naive expectations from geometry. An HBT analysis correlated with the event-wise reaction plane reveals a significant oscillation in $`R_{side}`$, at low beam energy.


text:
# Lifts of smooth group actions to line bundles

## 1. Introduction and statement of the results

Let $`X`$ be a connected smooth compact manifold with a smooth left action of a compact connected Lie group $`G`$. Our aim is to study liftings of the action of $`G`$ to complex line bundles $`LX`$. Of course, it is not always possible to find such a lift. For example, if $`xX`$ has trivial stabiliser, then the restriction $`L|_{Gx}`$ has to be topologically trivial.

The problem which we consider is very natural and has been already studied by several people. The general question on lifting of smooth actions to principal bundles was considered for example by R. Palais and T. Stewart \[PS, S\]. The more concrete problem of lifting actions to complex line bundles was studied for example by B. Kostant in \[Ko\], where he proved that if $`G`$ is simply connected, $`X`$ is symplectic and the action of $`G`$ is Hamiltonian, then there is always some lift of the action to $`L`$ (see Theorem 4.5.1 in \[Ko\]), and by A. Hattori and T. Yoshida \[HY\] and R. Lashof \[L\].

Let $`EGBG`$ be the universal $`G`$-principal bundle. Fix a point $`x_0BG`$, and denote by $`\iota :XX_G`$ the inclusion of the fibre over $`x_0BG`$ of the Borel construction $`X_G=EG\times _GXBG`$.

Our first result is a new proof of the following theorem, which was proved in \[HY\]. Our method of proof is however different from theirs.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`LX`$ be a line bundle. The action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ lifts to a linear action on $`L`$ if and only if

$$c_1(L)\iota ^{}H_G^2(X;).$$

Furthermore, if $`c_1(L)\iota ^{}H_G^2(X;)`$, then the different lifts of the action are classified by $`\iota ^1(c_1(L))`$.

Fix from now on a metric on $`L`$. All the connections we will take on $`L`$ will be assumed to be unitary with respect to this metric, and all the actions of $`G`$ on $`L`$ will keep the metric fixed.

Let $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$. To describe lifts of the action of $`G`$ and invariant connections on $`L`$ we will use the Cartan model for real equivariant cohomology (see section 2 for the necessary definitions). Suppose that $`c_1(L)=\iota ^{}l`$ for some $`lH_G^2(X;)`$, and let $`\alpha \mu `$ be a closed element in the Cartan complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X;i)`$ representing the class $`2\pi ilH_G^2(X;i)`$, where $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2(X;i)^G`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^0(X;i𝔤^{})^G`$. Any connection $``$ on $`L`$ whose curvature is $`\alpha `$ can be combined with $`\mu `$ to obtain an infinitesimal lift of the action (see section 3 for definitions and Theorem 3.1), and we will study whether there is a connection $``$ which defines an infinitesimal lift that exponentiates to an action of $`G`$. Let $`𝕋^\alpha `$ be the gauge equivalence classes of connections on $`L`$ whose curvature is $`\alpha `$, and let $`a_1:H_1(G;)H_1(X;)`$ be the map induced by the map $`a_1(x):GggxX`$ for any $`x`$ (since $`X`$ is connected, the map in homology is independent of $`x`$).

###### Theorem 1.2.

The set $`𝕋_\alpha ^G(\mu )`$ of gauge equivalence classes of connections with curvature $`\alpha `$ which, combined with $`\mu `$, define an infinitesimal lift which exponentiates to an action of $`G`$, is a subtorus of $`𝕋^\alpha `$ of dimension $`b_1(X)dim(\mathrm{Im}a_1_{})`$, where $`b_1(X)=dimH^1(X;)`$. In particular, if $`X`$ is symplectic and the action of $`G`$ is Hamiltonian, then $`𝕋_\alpha ^G(\mu )=𝕋^\alpha `$.

In fact, we get in this way all the possible lifts of the action. This is due to the following reasons: (1) given any lift, there is some invariant connection (just take any connection and average); (2) using the construction of differential forms in the Cartan complex representing the first equivariant Chern class $`c_1^G(L)`$ of $`L`$ (see \[BV\]) we get a closed element $`\alpha \mu `$ representing the class $`2\pi ic_1^G(L)`$; and (3), the group $`G`$ is connected, so a lift of the action is uniquely determined by the infinitesimal action on $`L`$.

The results and techniques in this paper have interesting consequences in the case in which $`X`$ is symplectic and the action of $`G`$ is Hamiltonian. The following corollary is an analogue of a well known result in Geometric Invariant Theory (see Corollary 1.6 in \[MFK\]).

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`G`$ act on a symplectic manifold $`(X,\omega )`$ in a Hamiltonian fashion. Then there exists an integer $`d1`$ with the following property. For any line bundle $`LX`$ with a connection $``$ whose curvature is $`G`$ invariant, there is a lift of the action of $`G`$ to $`L^d`$ such that the induced connection $`^d`$ on $`L^d`$ is $`G`$-invariant.

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`G`$ act on a symplectic manifold $`(X,\omega )`$ in a Hamiltonian fashion. Let $`\epsilon >0`$.There exists a symplectic form $`\omega ^{}`$ such that

(1) $`\omega ^{}`$ is preserved by $`G`$,

(2) $`|\omega \omega ^{}|_{C^0}<\epsilon `$,

(3) the action of $`G`$ on $`(X,\omega ^{})`$ is Hamiltonian,

(4) there is a natural number $`k>0`$, a Hermitian line bundle $`LX`$ with a unitary connection $``$ with curvature $`ik\omega ^{}`$ and a linear action of $`G`$ lifting the action on $`X`$ and preserving $``$.

This paper is organized as follows: in section 2 we recall some facts on equivariant cohomology which we will need; in section 3 we state the relation between infinitesimal lifts and 2-forms in the Cartan complex; in section 4 we define and prove some key properties of the monodromy map $`M_\gamma `$, which measures how far an infinitesimal lift is to exponentiate to an action of $`G`$; in section 5 we study how to chose connections which provide liftings of the action of $`G`$; finally, in section 6 we give the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, and Corollaries 1.3 and 1.4.

Acknowledgements. I thank M. Vergne for having pointed out to me the paper of Kostant \[Ko\]. I also thank O. García–Prada for some comments on the paper.

## 2. Equivariant cohomology

In this section we recall some basic facts on equivariant cohomology. For more information the reader is refered to \[AB, BGV, GS\].

Let $`\pi :X_G=EG\times _GXBG`$ be the Borel construction of $`X`$. The equivariant cohomology of $`X`$ is by definition the singular cohomology of $`X_G`$, and is denoted, for any ring $`R`$, as

$$H_G^{}(X;R):=H^{}(X_G;R).$$

Let $`𝔤`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$ be the complex of differential forms on $`X`$. Denote by $`X:𝔤\mathrm{\Gamma }(TX)`$ the map which assigns to any $`s𝔤`$ the vector field on $`X`$ generated by the infinitesimal action of $`s`$. So, if $`f\mathrm{\Omega }^0(X)`$, $`xX`$ and $`s𝔤`$, then $`X(s)(f)(x)=lim_{\epsilon 0}\epsilon ^1(f(e^{\epsilon s}x)f(x))`$. Consider the complex

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X)=(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)[𝔤])^G$$

(as usual the supscript G means $`G`$-invariant elements) with the grading obtained from the usual grading in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$ and twice the grading in $`[𝔤]`$ given by the degree, together with the differential $`d_𝔤`$ defined by

$$d_𝔤(\eta )(s)=d(\eta (s))+\iota _{X(s)}\eta (s),$$

where $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X)`$, $`s𝔤`$, and $`\iota _v:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$ is the contraction map. One can check that $`d_𝔤^2=0`$, and the complex $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X),d_𝔤)`$ is called the Cartan complex. It will be our main tool in this paper. Note that in this paper we consider sometimes elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X;i)=i\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X)`$.

The following classical theorem (which is a generalisation of de Rham’s theorem) is proved for example as Theorem 2.5.1 in \[GS\].

###### Theorem 2.1.

There is a natural isomorphism $`H_G^{}(X;)H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}(X),d_𝔤)`$.

We will need an explicit description of the isomorphism given by the theorem in degree 2, as given by the following lemma. The proof can easily be deduced from the proof of Theorem 2.5.1 in \[GS\].

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`\alpha \mu \mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X)`$ satisfy $`d_𝔤(\alpha \mu )=0`$. Let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }X_G`$ be a continuous map. Let $`P_f:=(\pi f)^{}EG\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and let $`\varphi _f`$ be the induced section of $`\pi _f:X_f=P_f\times _GX=(\pi f)^{}X_G\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that both $`P_f`$ and $`\varphi `$ are smooth, and let $`A`$ be a connection on $`P_f`$. We then get a projection $`\pi _A:TX_f\mathrm{Ker}d\pi _f`$, which allows to pullback $`\alpha `$ to a form $`\pi _A^{}\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2(X_f)`$ vanishing on the tangent vectors which are horizontal with respect to $`A`$. Then

$$[\mathrm{\Sigma }],f^{}[\alpha \mu ]=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi _f^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )\mu ,F_A,$$

where $`F_A\mathrm{\Omega }^2(P_f\times _{\mathrm{Ad}}𝔤)`$ is the curvature of $`A`$.

Observe that a constant and equivariant map $`\mu :X𝔤^{}`$ represents an integral element $`[\mu ]H_G^2(X;)`$ if and only if for any $`u𝔤`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(u)=1`$ we have $`\mu ,u`$.

Finally, the map $`\iota ^{}:H_G^2(X;)H^2(X;)`$ can be written as follows using the Cartan and de Rham complexes: if $`\alpha \mu `$ is a closed element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X)`$, then

(1)
$$\iota ^{}[\alpha \mu ]=[\alpha ]H^2(X;)$$

(of course, since $`d_𝔤(\alpha \mu )=0`$ we have $`d\alpha =0`$).

## 3. Infinitesimal lift of the action

Let $``$ be a connection on $`L`$ whose curvature $`\alpha =^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2(X;i)`$ is $`G`$-invariant. We will call an infinitesimal lift of the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ to an action on $`L`$ any map $`\stackrel{~}{X}:𝔤\mathrm{\Gamma }(TL)`$ which satisfies111Since the action of $`G`$ is on the left, for any $`s,s^{}𝔤`$ we have $`X([s,s^{}])=[X(s),X(s^{})].`$ $`\stackrel{~}{X}([s,s^{}])=[\stackrel{~}{X}(s),\stackrel{~}{X}(s^{})]`$ for any $`s,s^{}𝔤`$ and such that

$$d\pi \stackrel{~}{X}=X.$$

Let $`u=2\pi ii=\mathrm{Lie}(S^1)`$. Let $`U_L\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{Ker}d\pi )`$ be the vertical tangent field generated by the infinitesimal action of $`s`$ on $`L`$ given by fibrewise multiplication.

Let $`X^{}:𝔤\mathrm{\Gamma }(TL)`$ be the map which assigns to $`s𝔤`$ the horizontal lift of $`X(s)`$ obtained using $``$. The following is well known (see for example Section 3 in \[Ko\]).

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`\mu :Xi𝔤^{}`$ be a map which satisfies $`d\mu (s)=\iota _{X(s)}\alpha `$ for any $`s𝔤`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }:=X^{}+i\mu U_L`$ is an infinitesimal lift of the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$.

Conversely, for any infinitesimal lift $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ which leaves $``$ invariant, the function $`\mu :Xi𝔤^{}`$ defined by $`\stackrel{~}{X}:=X^{}+i\mu U_L`$ satisfies $`d\mu (s)=\iota _{X(s)}\alpha `$ for any $`s𝔤`$.

Note that the condition $`d\mu (s)=\iota _{X(s)}\alpha \text{ for any }s𝔤`$ is equivalent to asking

$$d_𝔤(\alpha \mu )=0.$$

## 4. The monodromy map $`M_\gamma `$

Let $`(L,)X`$ be as in the preceeding section, let $`\alpha =^2`$ be the curvature of $``$, and let $`\mu :Xi𝔤^{}`$ be a map which satisfies $`d\mu (s)=\iota _{X(s)}\alpha `$ for any $`s𝔤`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}=\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }:𝔤\mathrm{\Gamma }(TL)`$ be the corresponding infinitesimal lift.

Let $`\gamma :S^1G`$ be any representation. As before, let $`u=2\pi ii=\mathrm{Lie}(S^1)`$. For any $`xX`$ and $`yL_x`$, let $`\nu _x:[0,1]L`$ be the integral line of the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{X}(\gamma _{}(u))`$ with initial value $`\nu _x(0)=y`$. We then have $`\nu _x(1)L_x`$, and there is a unique $`M_\gamma (x)=M_\gamma ^{,\mu }(x)S^1`$ (independent of $`y`$) such that $`\nu _x(1)=M_\gamma (x)\nu _x(0)`$.

The map $`M_\gamma :XS^1`$ which we have defined measures the extent to which the infinitesimal action given by $`(,\mu )`$ exponentiates to an action of the group. We will see below (viz. Lemma 5.2) that the condition $`M_\gamma =1`$ for any $`\gamma `$ is enough to ensure that the infinitesimal action exponentiates.

Let $`xX`$ be any point, and let $`\mathrm{Mon}^{}(S^1x)S^1`$ be the monodromy of parallel transport using $``$ along the path $`[0,1]t\gamma (e^{2\pi it})x`$. The following formula for $`M`$ can be easily proved using coordinates in a neigbourhood of $`S^1x`$ (see also Theorem 2.10.1 in \[Ko\]):

(2)
$$M_\gamma ^{,\mu }(x)=\mathrm{Mon}^{}(S^1x)\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mu (x),\gamma _{}(u)).$$

An easy consequence of this formula is that $`M`$ is gauge invariant, i.e., for any gauge transformation $`g:LL`$,

(3)
$$M_\gamma ^{g^{},\mu }(x)=M_\gamma ^{,\mu }(x).$$

Let $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(X;i)`$, so that $`+\eta `$ is another connection on $`L`$. Then we also deduce from (2) that

(4)
$$M_\gamma ^{+\eta ,\mu }(x)=M_\gamma ^{,\mu }(x)\mathrm{exp}\left(_{S^1}\gamma _x^{}\eta \right),$$

where $`\gamma _x:S^1X`$ maps $`\theta `$ to $`\gamma (\theta )xX`$.

### 4.1. Cohomological interpretation of $`M`$

In this subsection we assume $`G=S^1`$ and $`\gamma =\mathrm{id}`$, and we denote $`M=M_\gamma `$. We identify $`i`$ with $`(i)^{}`$ by assigning to $`\alpha i`$ the map $`ia\alpha ,a=\alpha a/2\pi `$. In particular, $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^0(X;)^{S^1}`$. Let us suppose that the action of $`S^1`$ on $`X`$ is generically free, i.e., the isotropy group is trivial for generic $`xX`$ (if this is not true, then either the action of $`S^1`$ on $`X`$ is trivial, and the results in this section are obvious, or there is a biggest common stabiliser $`\{1\}ZS^1`$, which acts freely on $`X`$, and we replace $`X`$ by $`X/Z`$ and $`S^1`$ by $`S^1/Z`$).

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`xX`$ be a point with trivial stabiliser, and let $`O_x:S^1X`$ be the map $`O_x(\theta )=\theta x`$. Assume that $`O_x(S^1)`$ is homologous to zero. Then, if $`\frac{i}{2\pi }[\alpha \mu ]H_{S^1}^2(X;)`$, we have $`M(x)=1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ be a compact surface with a fixed isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S^1`$ and compatible orientation, and let $`b_0:\mathrm{\Sigma }_0X`$ be a map such that $`b_0|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}=O_x`$. Note that $`\iota b_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)=\iota O_x(S^1)`$ is contained in $`ES^1\times _{S^1}(S^1x)X_{S^1}`$. Since the action of $`S^1`$ on $`S^1xX`$ is free, $`ES^1\times _{S^1}(S^1x)`$ is contractible. So, denoting the unit disk by $`𝔻`$, we may take a map $`B_1:𝔻ES^1\times _{S^1}(S^1x)`$ such that $`cB_1|_{S^1}=\iota b_0|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$, where $`c(\theta )=\theta ^1`$ for $`\theta S^1`$ (such a $`B_1`$ is unique up to homotopy rel $`S^1`$). Let us patch together the maps $`B_0:=\iota b_0`$ and $`B_1`$ to get a map $`B:\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0_{S^1}(𝔻)X_{S^1}`$, where the minus sign refers to inversed orientation, so that we take the isomorphism $`c`$ to identify $`(𝔻)`$ with $`S^1`$. We claim that

(5)
$$M(x)=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Sigma }],B^{}[\alpha +\mu ].$$

Clearly, once we check the claim, the lemma is proved. To prove (5), we will apply Lemma 2.2 to the map $`B`$. Let $`\pi :X_{S^1}BS^1`$ denote the projection. Then we have $`\pi B_0=\{x_0\}`$, so that $`P_B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$ (we use here the notation of Lemma 2.2) is the trivial bundle. Let us fix a trivialisation $`P_B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\times S^1`$ of it. Using the induced trivialisation $`X_B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\times X`$, the restriction $`\varphi _B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$ is given by $`(\mathrm{id},b_0)`$. Since $`𝔻`$ is contractible, $`P_B`$ is obtained by patching the trivial bundles over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ and $`𝔻`$ through a gluing map $`\rho :\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=S^1S^1`$. The map $`b_0|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$ has winding number $`1`$, so the section $`\varphi _B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$ will only glue with a section of the trivial bundle $`(𝔻)\times (S^1x)(𝔻)\times X`$ if the gluing map $`\rho `$ is the identity $`\rho (\theta )=\theta `$. Hence, the bundle $`P_B`$ must have degree $`1`$.

Take now a connection $`A`$ on $`P_B`$ which coincides over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ with the flat connection induced by the chosen trivialisation of $`P_B|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}`$. Then the curvature of $`A`$ is supported in $`𝔻`$. By Lemma 2.2, the RHS of (5) is equal to

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )+\mu ,F_A.$$

Now, by our choice of $`A`$, $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu ,F_A=_𝔻\mu ,F_A`$. On the other hand, the image of the restriction $`\varphi _B|_𝔻`$ is contained in $`P_B\times _{S^1}(S^1x)X_B`$, and since $`\mu `$ is $`S^1`$ equivariant, we may write $`_𝔻\mu ,F_A=\frac{1}{2\pi }\mu (x)_𝔻F_A`$. Finally, by Chern–Weil $`_𝔻F_A=2\pi i\mathrm{deg}(P_B)=2\pi i`$.

Using again that $`\varphi _B(𝔻)P_B\times _{S^1}(S^1x)`$, we deduce that $`\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )`$ vanishes on $`𝔻`$. Indeed, the vertical part of any tangent vector to $`P_B\times _{S^1}(S^1x)`$ lies in $`\mathrm{Ker}d\pi _B|_{P_B\times _{S^1}(S^1x)}`$, which is a real line bundle, so for any $`y𝔻`$ and $`u,vT_y𝔻`$, $`\pi _A(d\varphi _B(u))`$ and $`\pi _A(d\varphi _B(v))`$ are linearly dependent, and hence $`\alpha (\pi _A(d\varphi _B(u)),\pi _A(d\varphi _B(v)))=0`$. So $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )`$. And this is equal to $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}b_0^{}\alpha `$. Taking into account that $`\alpha `$ is the curvature of a connection $``$ on the line bundle $`LX`$, one can check that

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}b_0^{}\alpha \right)=\mathrm{Mon}^{}(S^1x)$$

(see Theorem 1.8.1 in \[Ko\]). Now, using (2) and the preceeding computations we deduce

$`M(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}\left(\left({\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )\right)i\mu (x)\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\varphi _B^{}(\pi _A^{}\alpha )+\mu (x),F_A\right)\text{ (since }F_A=2\pi i\text{)}`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Sigma }],B^{}[\alpha +\mu ].`$
###### Corollary 4.2.

Assume that for some $`xX`$, $`O_x(S^1)`$ is homologous to zero. Then, if $`\frac{i}{2\pi }[\alpha \mu ]H_{S^1}^2(X;)`$, we have $`M=1`$.

###### Proof.

Indeed, the condition of $`O_x(S^1)`$ being homologous to zero is independent of $`x`$, the function $`M`$ is continuous, and by assumption the set of $`xX`$ with trivial stabiliser is dense. ∎

When the orbit $`S^1x`$ is not homologous to zero, the map $`M(x)`$ will depend on the connection $``$ (and not only on $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$), as we will see below.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`x,x^{}X`$ be two points with trivial stabiliser. Then $`M(x)=M(x^{})`$.

###### Proof.

This can be proved either with local coordinates or using the same technique as above. We sketch the second strategy. For that, let $`\rho :[0,1]X`$ be a path such that $`\rho (0)=x`$ and $`\rho (1)=x^{}`$, let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=[0,1]\times S^1`$ and let $`b_0:\mathrm{\Sigma }_0(t,\theta )\theta \rho (t)`$. Glue two disks $`𝔻_0`$ and $`𝔻_1`$ to the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ with suitable orientations to get a closed oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and extend the map $`\iota b_0`$ to a map $`B:\mathrm{\Sigma }X_{S^1}`$ just as in the preceeding lemma (i.e., so that the image of $`𝔻_0`$ is contained in $`ES^1\times _{S^1}(S^1x)`$ and that of $`𝔻_1`$ in $`ES^1\times _{S^1}(S^1x^{})`$). As before one can check that

$$M(x)M(x^{})=\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Sigma }],B^{}[\alpha +\mu ].$$

Now, however, the map $`B`$ is homotopic to the trivial map, and from this the result follows. ∎

###### Corollary 4.4.

The map $`M:X`$ is constant.

For the last lemma of this section, we return to the general situation, in which $`G`$ is any compact connected Lie group.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`\gamma :S^1G`$ be a morphism, and let $`gG`$. We then have

$$M_\gamma =M_{g\gamma g^1}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\rho :S^1G`$ be a smooth map such that $`\rho (1)=1`$ and $`\rho (1)=g`$. Consider on $`X\times S^1`$ the action of $`S^1`$ given by

$$\theta (x,\alpha )=\rho (\alpha )\gamma (\theta )\rho (\alpha )^1x\text{ for }\theta S^1\text{ and }(x,\alpha )X\times S^1\text{.}$$

Let $`\pi _1:X\times S^1X`$ be the projection, and take on $`X\times S^1`$ the bundle $`\pi _1^{}L`$ with the connection $`_{M\times S^1}=\pi _1^{}`$. Finally, let $`\mu _{M\times S^1}(x,\alpha )=\mu (x),\mathrm{Ad}(\rho (\alpha ))\gamma _{}(u)`$. The monodromy $`N=M^{_{M\times S^1},\mu _{M\times S^1}}`$ satisfies

$$N|_{X\times \{\alpha \}}=M_{\rho (\alpha )\gamma \rho (\alpha )^1}.$$

Applying Corollary 4.4 to $`N`$, we deduce our result. ∎

## 5. The choice of the connection

Recall that the map $`a_1:H_1(G;)H_1(X;)`$ is induced from the map $`a_1(x):GggxX`$, where $`xX`$ is an arbitrary point. Through this section we will make the following topological assumption:

(6)
$$\mathrm{Im}a_1\mathrm{Tor}H_1(X;)=0.$$

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2(X;i)^G`$ an invariant $`2`$-form representing $`2\pi ic_1(L)`$. Let $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^0(X;i𝔤^{})^G`$ satisfy $`d\mu (s)=\iota _{X(s)}\alpha `$ for any $`s𝔤`$, so that $`\alpha \mu \mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X;i)`$ is a closed form in the Cartan complex, and hence represents an equivariant cohomology class $`[\alpha \mu ]H_G^2(X;i)`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Suppose that $`\frac{i}{2\pi }[\alpha \mu ]H_G^2(X;)`$. Then one can chose a connection $``$ on $`L`$ whose curvature is $`\alpha `$ and such that for any morphism $`\gamma :S^1G`$ we have $`M_\gamma ^{,\mu }=1`$. More preciely, the set $`𝕋_\alpha ^G(\mu )`$ of gauge equivalence classes of connections satisfying this property is a torus of dimension $`b_1(X)dim(\mathrm{Im}a_1_{})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A_\alpha `$ be the set of connections on $`L`$ whose curvature is $`\alpha `$. Let $`TG`$ be a maximal torus. By Lemma 4.5 it is enough to consider $`M_\gamma `$ for $`\gamma :S^1T`$, since for any $`\gamma :S^1G`$ there exists $`gG`$ such that $`g\gamma g^1(S^1)T`$.

Let $`𝔱=\mathrm{Lie}T`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{exp}:𝔱T)`$, so that $`T=𝔨/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The morphisms $`\gamma :S^1T`$ are in 1–1 correspondence with elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For any $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we have

(7)
$$M_{\gamma ^{}+\gamma }^{,\mu }=M_\gamma ^{}^{,\mu }M_\gamma ^{,\mu }.$$

To see this, observe the following. Let $`yL`$, and let $`\nu (y;):𝔱L`$ be the map defined as follows. For any $`s𝔱`$, let $`\nu _s^y:[0,1]L`$ be the path such that $`\nu _s^y(0)=y`$ and $`\nu _{s}^{y}{}_{}{}^{}=\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }(s)(\nu _s^y)`$. Then we set $`\nu (y;s)=\nu _s^y(1)`$. With this definition, if $`s𝔱`$ and $`vT_s𝔱𝔱`$ (use the canonical isomorphism) then $`D\nu (y;s)(v)=\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }(v)(s)`$ (this is a consequence of $`[\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }(v),\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }(v^{})]=0`$ for any $`v,v^{}𝔱`$). From this it follows that

(8)
$$\nu (\nu (y;s);s^{})=\nu (y;s+s^{}),$$

which clearly implies (7).

Consider now the map

$$c:\mathrm{\Lambda }H^1(X;)$$

which sends $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the homology class $`[\gamma (S^1)]`$ represented by any orbit of the $`S^1`$ action on $`X`$ induced by $`\gamma :S^1T`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{Ker}c`$. Using condition (6), we deduce from Lemma 4.1 that for any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and any connection $`A_\alpha `$ we have $`M_\gamma ^{,\mu }=1`$. (Note that the map $`\gamma ^{}:H_G^2(X;)H_{S^1}^2(X;)`$ induced by $`\gamma `$ lifts to the Cartan complex as $`\gamma ^{}(\alpha \mu )=\alpha \gamma ^{}(\mu )`$. Let now $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^{}`$. This is a free abelian module. Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be a basis. By (7), if a connection $`A_\alpha `$ satisfies $`M_{e_j}^{,\mu }=1`$ for any $`1jr`$, then $`M_\gamma ^{,\mu }=1`$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Finally, by gauge invariance of $`M_\gamma ^{,\mu }(x)`$ (3), we can consider gauge classes of connections on $`L`$ rather than connections. So let $`𝕋_\alpha =A_\alpha /\mathrm{Map}(X,S^1)`$ be the gauge equivalence classes of connections on $`L`$ with curvature $`\alpha `$. Picking a base connection $`A_\alpha `$, we can identify

$$T_\alpha =+H^1(X;)/H^1(X;).$$

Furthermore, formula (4) implies that if $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(i)`$ satisfies $`d\eta =0`$, then

$$M_{e_j}^{,\mu }=M_{e_j}^{+[\eta ],\mu }[\eta ],c(e_j),$$

where $`[\eta ]H^1(X;)`$ is the class represented by $`\eta `$. On the other hand, the images by $`c`$ of $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$ are all linearly independent. Hence, $`c(e_1),\mathrm{},c(e_r)`$ is a space of dimension $`r`$, so the set of gauge equivalence classes of connections $`[]𝕋_\alpha ^G(\mu )`$ such that $`M_\gamma ^{,\mu }=1`$ for all $`\gamma `$ is the image under the quotient

$$H^1(X;)H^1(X;)/H^1(X;)$$

of an affine subspace of codimension $`r`$. On the other hand, we have $`r=dim(\mathrm{Im}a_1)`$ so $`rb_1(X)=dimH^1(X;)`$, and hence this set is nonempty. More precisely, the set $`𝕋_\alpha ^G(\mu )𝕋_\alpha `$ is a torus of dimension $`b_1(X)r0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.2.

The infinitesimal lift $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ defined by $`(,\mu )`$ exponentiates to give a linear action of $`G`$ on $`L`$ if and only if for any representation $`\gamma :S^1G`$ we have $`M_\gamma =1`$.

###### Proof.

Given $`yL`$ and $`gG`$, we define $`gyL`$ in the obvious way: let $`g=\mathrm{exp}(s)`$, where $`s𝔤`$, let $`\nu _s^y:[0,1]L`$ be the integral curve of the vector field $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{,\mu }(s)`$ with initial value $`\nu _s^y(0)=y`$; then $`gy:=\nu (y;s)=\nu _s^y(1)`$.

There are two things to check: that $`gy`$ is well defined and that the resulting map $`G\times LL`$ is indeed an action of $`G`$ on $`L`$. Observe first that both things are clear when $`G=T`$ is a torus (see formula (8)). We now sketch how to deal with the general case. Suppose that $`s,s^{}𝔤`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{exp}(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s^{})`$. We want to check that, for any $`yL`$, $`\nu _s^y(1)=\nu _s^{}^y(1)`$. Now, it is easy to prove that there exists some $`s^{\prime \prime }𝔤`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(s^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{exp}(s)=\mathrm{exp}(s^{})`$ and such that $`[s,s^{\prime \prime }]=[s^{},s^{\prime \prime }]=0`$. Then, applying (8) to some torii $`T,T^{}`$ such that $`s,s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Lie}T`$ and $`s^{},s^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Lie}T^{}`$, we deduce that $`\nu (y;s)=\nu (y;s^{\prime \prime })=\nu (y;s^{})`$. This proves well definedness. Finally, by Baker–Campbell–Haussdorf, $`\nu `$ satisfies $`\nu (\nu (y;s);s^{})=\nu (y;\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{exp}(s)\mathrm{exp}(s^{})))`$ for $`s,s^{}`$ small enough, and from this it follows easily that $`\nu `$ defines an action of $`G`$ on $`L`$. ∎

## 6. Proofs of the results

We prove the theorems in two steps. First we assume that condition (6) is satisfied. Then we deduce the results in the general case.

### 6.1. Proofs of the theorems when (6) holds

#### 6.1.1. Proof of Theorem 1.2

Combine Lemma 5.2 with the ideas at the end of the proof of Lemma 5.1.

#### 6.1.2. Proof of Theorem 1.1

If the action of $`G`$ lifts to $`L`$, then the first equivariant Chern class $`c_1^G(L)`$ of $`L`$ is an integral class and provides a lift of $`c_1(L)`$. Now suppose that $`c_1(L)=\iota ^{}(l)`$, where $`lH_G^2(X;)`$. Take $`\frac{i}{2\pi }(\alpha \mu )\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X)`$ whose cohomology class is equal in $`H_G^2(X;)`$ to $`l`$. By Theorem 1.2, there is some connection $``$ on $`L`$ which defines a lift of the action of $`G`$ to $`L`$. Let $`L_\alpha `$ denote the line bundle $`L`$ with the action of $`G`$. Applying the Chern–Weil construction to equivariant bundles as defined in \[BV\] for the connection $``$, we deduce that the form $`\frac{i}{2\pi }(\alpha \mu )`$ represents $`c_1^G(L)`$. Now, since we have used de Rham theory, we have lost control of torsion, so that all we know in principle is that

$$c_1^G(L)l\mathrm{Tor}H_G^2(X;).$$

To deduce that $`c_1^G(L)=l`$, we observe that the restriction of $`\iota ^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{Tor}H_G^2(X;)`$ is an injection (indeed, $`\mathrm{Tor}H_G^2(X;)=\mathrm{Ext}(H_1(X_G;),)`$, $`\mathrm{Tor}H^2(X;)=\mathrm{Ext}(H_1(X;),)`$ and, since $`G`$ is connected, $`\pi _1(BG)=0`$, so the long exact sequence of homotopy groups for $`XX_GBG`$ tells us that $`\pi _1(X)\pi _1(X_G)`$ is exhaustive). So, from $`\iota ^{}(c_1^G(L)l)=0`$ we deduce that $`c_1^G(L)=l`$ in $`H_G^2(X;)`$.

To prove that $`\iota ^1(c_1(L))`$ classifies the lifts of the action to $`L`$ it is enough to check that if $`G`$ acts on $`L`$ and $`c_1^G(L)=0`$, then $`L`$ can be $`G`$-equivariantly trivialised, i.e., there is an equivariant nowhere vanishing section of $`L`$. So assume that $`G`$ acts on $`L`$ and $`c_1^G(L)=0`$. Take a $`G`$-invariant connection $``$ on $`L`$, let $`\alpha =^2`$ and let $`\mu `$ be the map given by Theorem 3.1. Now, by assumption $`[\alpha \mu ]=0H_G^2(X;i)`$. Since the set of forms representing a fixed cohomology class is connected, we can join $`\alpha \mu `$ to $`0\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X;i)`$ through a path $`\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X;i)`$ all of whose forms represent $`0H_G^2(X;i)`$. Fix a trivialisation $`LX\times `$. It is easy to see, using the proof of Lemma 5.1, that $`\gamma `$ can be lifted continuously to give $`t`$ a connection $`_t`$ defining a lift to $`L`$ of the action with Chern–Weil form equal to $`\gamma (t)`$, in such a way that $`_1`$ is the trivial connection on $`L`$. So we get a homotopy between the initial action of $`G`$ on $`L`$ and the trivial action defined from a trivialisation $`LX\times `$. Since $`G`$ is compact, this implies that the initial action of $`G`$ on $`L`$ is trivial.

### 6.2. Proof of the theorems in the general case

Suppose that $`T=\mathrm{Im}a_1\mathrm{Tor}H_1(X;)`$ is nonzero. Let $`T^{}H_1(X;)`$ be a complementary submodule of $`T`$, and let $`G_T`$ be the connected Lie group which fits in the exact sequence

$$1TG_T\stackrel{q}{}G1$$

with $`q_{}H_1(G_T;)=T^{}`$. The action of $`G`$ induces an action of $`G_T`$ on $`X`$, and we have a commutative diagram

Now, the action of $`G_T`$ clearly satisfies condition (6), so we may apply the results obtained in the preceeding subsection and get lifts of the action of $`G_T`$ to $`L`$, together with invariant connections.

To prove Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 for the action of $`G`$ it is enough to check that, if $`L_\alpha `$ is a $`G_T`$ bundle isomorphic to $`L`$ (as bundles over $`X`$) such that

$$c_1^{G_T}(L_\alpha )q^{}H_G^2(X;)$$

then the action of $`G_T`$ on $`L_\alpha `$ descends to an action of $`G`$, or, equivalently, the action of $`TG_T`$ on $`L_\alpha `$ is trivial (note that, on the other hand, $`q^{}`$ is injective). This follows from the sequence of maps

$$H_G^2(X;)\stackrel{q^{}}{}H_{G_T}^2(X;)\stackrel{r^{}}{}H^2(BT;),$$

which is induced by the fibration $`BTX_{G_T}X_G`$, and consequently satisfies $`r^{}q^{}=0`$. The map $`r^{}`$ is obtained from the $`T`$-equivariant inclusion $`x_0X`$ (where $`x_0`$ is any point). And, since a representation $`\rho :T^{}`$ is trivial if and only if $`c_1^T(ET\times _\rho )=0`$, we deduce that if $`c_1^{G_T}(L_\alpha )q^{}H_G^2(X;)`$ then $`r^{}c_1^{G_T}(L_\alpha )=0`$ and hence $`T`$ acts trivially on $`L_\alpha `$.

### 6.3. Proof of Corollary 1.3

A theorem of Kirwan (see Proposition 5.8 in \[Ki\]) says that if $`G`$ acts in a Hamiltonian fashion on $`X`$ then there is an isomorphism $`H_G^{}(X;)H^{}(X;)H^{}(BG;)`$. In particular, this means that there exists an integer $`d1`$ such that if $`aH^2(X;)`$ then $`da\iota ^{}H_G^2(X;)`$. So, given the line bundle $`L`$, there exists $`lH_G^2(X;)`$ such that $`c_1(L^d)=\iota ^{}l`$. Let now $`\frac{i}{2\pi }(\alpha ^{}\mu ^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X)`$ represent $`l`$ in $`H_G^2(X;)`$, and let $`_d`$ be a connection on $`L^d`$ whose curvature is $`\alpha ^{}`$. Let $`\eta :=(^d_d)^G`$, where G means the projection to the invariant subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X;i)^G`$ using the standard averaging trick: $`\zeta ^G=\frac{1}{|G|}_{gG}g\zeta `$. Then

$$\alpha \mu :=(\alpha ^{}\mu ^{})+d_𝔤\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X;i)$$

represents $`2\pi il`$, and the curvature of $``$ is $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{Im}a_1=0`$, since any Hamiltonian action of $`S^1`$ on a compact manifold has fixed points, and hence the orbits are contractible. Consequently, by Theorem 1.2, the lift $`\stackrel{~}{X}^{^d,\mu }`$ exponentiates to an action of $`G`$ on $`L`$ which leaves $``$ fixed.

### 6.4. Proof of Corollary 1.4

Let $`\mu :X𝔤^{}`$ be a moment map for the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$. By Corollary 1.3, it suffices to take any closed $`\omega ^{}\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2(X)`$ near $`\omega \mu `$ and representing a class $`[\omega ^{}\mu ^{}]H_G^2(X;2\pi )`$.