text:
# Time Resolved GRB Spectroscopy1footnote 11footnote 1Paper presented at the 5th Huntsville Symposium, Huntsville (Alabama), 19 - 22 October 1999.

## Introduction

We study a sample of 43 GRBs selected for the high-quality of their time-resolved spectra obtained with the BATSE Spectroscopy Detectors (sensitive in the energy range $`251800`$ keV). The time over which each spectrum was accumulated was varied so that the signal-to-noise ratio was greater than 15 (in the hard X-ray energy band). These data provide excellent temporal resolution: in many cases we obtain more than 10 spectra per burst with accumulation times as short as 256 ms.

## Spectral Models

We fitted each GRB time-resolved spectrum with two models: (1) the Band model , and (2) the Optically Thin Synchrotron Shock Model (OTSSM) A:mtav:3 ; A:mtav:4 . The (purely phenomenological) 4-parameter Band model A:mtav:1  consists of two power-law components (of spectral indexes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$) joined smoothly by an exponential roll-over near a break energy $`E_0`$.

$`N(E)`$ $`=`$ $`A\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{100\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_0}}\right)\mathrm{for}E\left(\alpha \beta \right)E_0`$ (1)
$`N(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[A\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(\alpha \beta \right)E_0}{100\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \alpha \right)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{100\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^\beta \mathrm{for}E\left(\alpha \beta \right)E_0`$ (2)
We used the (three-parameter) OTSSM of Refs. A:mtav:3 ; A:mtav:4 . We performed an independent spectral fitting for the Band and OTSSM models for each of the time-resolved spectra of all GRBs of our sample. For each GRB we obtain 4 (3) best fit parameters as a function of time representing the complete spectral evolution.

## Results

We find GRB spectral evolutions of two types: (1) a “tracking behaviour”, with spectral parameters in approximate one-to-one correspondence with the changing energy flux, and (2) a “hard-to-soft evolution”, with spectral parameters evolving independently of the energy flux (see, e.g., ref. A:mtav:2 ).

Fig.1 shows the distribution for all collected time-resolved spectra of the low-energy spectral index $`\alpha `$. A few bursts show values $`\alpha `$ –2/3 typically during the initial-rising part of their most intense pulses. The high energy spectral index $`\beta `$ is less constrained, and in some cases varies substantially over consecutive spectra within the same burst. The $`\beta `$ distribution (Fig.2 – left panel) is peaked near –2 for the Band model representation, and is broader for the OTSSM fits. Break energies $`E_0`$ are typically well below 500 keV. Interestingly, we find that the OTSSM provides a very good representation of time-resolved spectral data. Fig.2 (right panel) show the cumulative distribution of the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ for the Band and OTSSM models.

## Discussion

We studied 43 GRBs from the BATSE spectral archive selected by their large signal-to-noise ratios. We collected information for a total of 1046 spectra.

Our results indicate that the OTSSM is quite successful in describing the majority of GRB spectra. Fig.3 shows the spectral evolution of the remarkable GRB 990123 demonstrating the validity of the OTSSM for very intense bursts. However, violations of the simple OTSSM are apparent in about $`15\%`$ (at $`3\sigma `$ level) of our time resolved spectra. These violations (typically with a low-energy index $`\alpha >2/3`$) always occur at the beginning of major GRB pulses (as in Fig.4).

The OTSSM was derived A:mtav:3  for idealized plasma and hydrodynamic conditions that are most likely valid far from the central source. Several plasma and dynamic conditions (probably involving emission sites close to a central object) may produce the apparent suppression of soft photons at the beginning of some GRB pulses.


format: text

text:
# On the homotopy theory of arrangements, II

## 1. Combinatorial and topological structure

One significant change in the study of the homotopy theory of arrangements since the publication of  has been the introduction of matroid-theoretic terminology and techniques into the subject. In this section we review this approach and describe progress toward the topological classification of hyperplane complements. Refer to  for further details on matroids.

### 1.1. The matroid of an arrangement

Let $`V=^{\mathrm{}}`$ and let $`𝒜=\{H_1,\mathrm{},H_n\}`$ be a central arrangement of hyperplanes in $`V`$. For each hyperplane $`H_i`$ choose a linear form $`\alpha _iV^{}`$ with $`H_i=\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _i)`$. The product $`Q(𝒜)=_{i=1}^n\alpha _i`$ is the defining polynomial of the arrangement.

The underlying matroid $`G(𝒜)`$ of $`𝒜`$ is by definition the collection of subsets of $`[n]:=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ given by

$$G(𝒜)=\{S[n]|\{\alpha _i|iS\}\text{is linearly dependent}\}.$$

Elements of $`G=G(𝒜)`$ are called dependent sets. Minimal dependent sets are called circuits. Independent sets and bases are defined in the obvious way. The rank $`\mathrm{rk}(S)`$ of a set $`S[n]`$ is the size of a maximal independent subset of $`S`$. The rank of $`G`$ (or $`𝒜`$) is $`\mathrm{rk}([n])`$. The closure $`\overline{S}`$ of a set $`S`$ is defined by

$$\overline{S}=\{T[n]|TS\text{and}\mathrm{rk}(T)=\mathrm{rk}(S)\}.$$

A set $`S`$ is closed if $`\overline{S}=S`$. Closed sets are also called flats. The collection of closed sets, ordered by inclusion, forms a geometric lattice $`L(G)`$ which is isomorphic to the intersection lattice $`L(𝒜)`$ defined and studied in . The isomorphism $`L(G)L(𝒜)`$ is given by $`S_{iS}H_i`$.

Thus the matroid $`G(𝒜)`$ contains the same information as the intersection lattice $`L(𝒜)`$. One of the simple advantages of the matroid-theoretic approach is the fact that the matroid $`G(𝒜)`$ is determined uniquely by any of a number of different pieces of data besides the set of flats. For instance, the set of circuits, the rank function, or the set of bases, each determine the matroid, and thus the intersection lattice. Besides giving a nice conceptual framework for the combinatorial structure of arrangements, techniques and deep results from the matroid theory literature have been applied with some benefit in the study of the topology of arrangements.

The line generated by $`\alpha _i`$ in $`V^{}`$ depends only on $`H_i`$, and thus $`𝒜`$ determines a unique point configuration $`𝒜^{}`$ in the projective space $`(V^{})P^\mathrm{}1`$. The dual point configuration $`𝒜^{}`$ can be used to depict the combinatorial structure of an arrangement in case $`\mathrm{rk}(𝒜)4`$ if the defining forms $`\alpha _i`$ have real coefficients. (In this case $`𝒜`$ is called a complexified arrangement.) One merely plots the points $`\alpha _i`$ in a suitably chosen affine chart $`^\mathrm{}1`$ in the real projective space $`P^\mathrm{}1`$, for instance by scaling the $`\alpha _i`$ so that the coefficient of $`x_1`$ in each is equal to 1, and then ignoring this coefficient. Dependent flats of rank two (or three) are seen in these affine configurations as lines (or planes) containing more than two (or three) points. These lines and planes are usually explicitly indicated in the picture. This is especially useful for arrangements of rank four. Since the hyperplanes are indicated by points in $`^3`$, they don’t obscure the internal structure as a collection of affine planes in $`^3`$ would (see Figure 5). These depictions of projective point configurations are generalized to give affine diagrams of arbitrary matroids. Dependent flats are again explicitly indicated with “lines” or “planes,” which in the general case may not be straight or flat in the euclidean sense. It is common to refer to flats of rank one, two, or three in an arbitrary matroid as points, lines, or planes respectively. These diagrams are useful for the study of arrangements which are not complexified real arrangements (see Figures 1 and 2).

### 1.2. Basic topological results

The seminal result in the homotopy theory of arrangements is the calculation of the cohomology algebra of the complement $`M=M(𝒜):=^{\mathrm{}}_{i=1}^nH_i`$ by Orlik and Solomon . Motivated by work of Arnol’d , and using tools established by Brieskorn , they gave a presentation of $`H^{}(M)`$ in terms of generators and relations. The presentation $`A(𝒜)`$ depends only on the underlying matroid $`G=G(𝒜)`$, and is now called the Orlik-Solomon (or $`OS`$) algebra of $`G`$. Henceforth we will refer to the $`OS`$ algebra $`A(𝒜)`$ rather than the cohomology ring $`H^{}(M)`$. The algebra $`A(𝒜)`$ is defined as the quotient of the exterior algebra on generators $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ by the ideal $`I`$ generated by “boundaries” of dependent sets of $`G`$. See  for a precise definition.

This result of  gave rise to a collection of “homotopy type” conjectures, which assert that various homotopy invariants of the complement depend only on $`G(𝒜)`$. A great deal of research in the homotopy theory of arrangements has been focused on conjectures of this type. Note that such conjectures may have “weak” or “strong” solutions: one may show that the invariant depends only on the matroid, or one may give an algorithm to compute the invariant from matroidal data.

The major positive result in this direction is the lattice-isotopy theorem, proved by the second author in . It asserts that the homotopy type, indeed the diffeomorphism type of the complement remains constant through a “lattice-isotopy,” that is, a one-parameter family of arrangements in which the intersection lattice, or equivalently, the underlying matroid remains constant.

This result is often recast in terms of matroid realization spaces, which are related to the well-known “matroid stratification” of the Grassmannian. We describe this connection. The defining forms $`\alpha _i`$ of $`𝒜`$ can be identified with row vectors, and thus the arrangement $`𝒜`$ can be identified with an $`n\times \mathrm{}`$ matrix $`R`$ over $``$. This matrix is called a realization of the underlying matroid. Two realizations $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ are equivalent if there is a nonsingular diagonal $`n\times n`$ matrix $`S`$ and a nonsingular $`\mathrm{}\times \mathrm{}`$ matrix $`T`$ such that $`R^{}=SRT`$. The corresponding arrangements will then be linearly isomorphic. The set of equivalence classes of realizations of a fixed matroid $`G`$ is called the (projective) realization space $`(G)`$ of $`G`$. Now assume the matrix $`R`$ has rank $`\mathrm{}`$, i.e., that $`𝒜`$ is an essential arrangement. Then the column space of $`R`$ is an $`\mathrm{}`$-plane $`P_R`$ (sometimes denoted $`P_𝒜`$) in $`^n`$. Note that an isomorphic copy of the arrangement $`𝒜`$ inside $`P_R`$ is formed by the intersection of $`P_R`$ with the coordinate hyperplanes in $`^n`$. Postmultiplying $`A`$ by a nonsingular matrix doesn’t affect $`P_R`$. Thus we see that the realization space $`(G)`$ can be identified with a subset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)`$ of the space of orbits of the diagonal $`(^{})^n`$ action on the Grassmanian $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$-planes in $`^n`$. The subsets $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(G)=\{P_R|R\text{is a realization of}G\}𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ are called matroid strata, although they do not comprise a stratification in the usual sense, since the closure of a stratum may not be a union of strata . These strata play a central role in the theory of generalized hypergeometric functions, especially when the original arrangement $`𝒜`$ is generic. The topology of the strata themselves can be as complicated as arbitrary affine varieties over $``$ even for matroids of rank three, by a celebrated theorem of Mnëv . These strata are connected by “deletion maps,” whose fibers are themselves complements of arrangements .

Realizations in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)`$ correspond to arrangements which have the same underlying matroid $`G`$, as determined by the arbitrary ordering of the hyperplanes. Thus, for the study of homotopy type as a function of intrinsic combinatorial structure (i.e., without regard to labelling), the true “moduli space” for arrangements should be the quotient of $`𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ by the action of the $`S_n\times (^{})^n`$. Then linear isomorphism classes of arrangements with isomorphic underlying matroids (or isomorphic intersection lattices) correspond to points of the orbit space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)/\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$.

Randell’s lattice-isotopy theorem can be reformulated as follows: two arrangements which are connected by a path in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(G)`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)`$) have diffeomorphic complements. Thus one is led to the difficult problem of understanding the set of path components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G)/\mathrm{Aut}(G)`$.

More detailed combinatorial data will suffice to uniquely determine the homotopy type of the complement. For instance, in the case of complexified real arrangements, the defining forms $`\alpha _i,1in`$ determine an underlying oriented matroid. This is most easily described in terms of bases: the matroid $`G(𝒜)`$ is determined by the collection $``$ of maximal independent subsets $`B[n]`$. These can naturally be identified with ordered subsets of $`[n]`$. The oriented matroid $`\widehat{G}(𝒜)`$ is then a partition $`=_+_{}`$ of the set of ordered bases of $`G(𝒜)`$ into positive and negative bases, corresponding to the sign of the (nonzero) determinant of the corresponding ordered sets of linear forms. The work of Salvetti , as refined by Gelfand and Rybnikov , shows that the underlying oriented matroid of a complexified real arrangement uniquely determines the homotopy type of the complement. In fact one can construct a partially ordered set $`𝒦(\widehat{G})`$ directly from the oriented matroid $`\widehat{G}`$ whose “nerve”, or collection of linearly ordered subsets, forms a simplical complex homotopy equivalent to the complement. In subsequent work, Björner and Ziegler  (see also Orlik ) generalized the construction to arbitrary arrangements (or arrangements of subspaces), in terms of combinatorial structures called 2-matroids  or complex oriented matroids . They showed that this detailed combinatorial data determines the complement up to piecewise-linear homeomorphism.

The relation between Randell’s lattice-isotopy theorem and the combinatorial complexes of  has not been fully explored. In particular, it would be interesting to cast the notion of lattice-isotopy in combinatorial terms, i.e., as a sequence of elementary “isotopy moves” on the posets $`𝒦(\widehat{G})`$ which leave the homotopy type of the nerve unchanged. A first step in this direction was accomplished in . We pose this as our first open problem.

###### Problem 1.1.

Prove a combinatorial lattice-isotopy theorem, that “isotopic” (complex) oriented matroids (with the same underlying matroid) determine homotopy equivalent cell complexes.

### 1.3. Homotopy classification

The fundamental question whether the homotopy type of $`M(𝒜)`$ is uniquely determined by $`G(𝒜)`$ was answered in the negative by Rybnikov in . The basic building block of his construction is the MacLane matroid, whose affine diagram is pictured in Figure 1.

For this matroid $`G`$, the realization space $`(G)`$ consists of two conjugate complex realizations $`R`$ and $`\overline{R}`$, corresponding to arrangements $`𝒜`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$. One can “amalgamate” these realizations along one of the three-point lines (rank-two flats) to form arrangements $`𝒜𝒜`$ and $`𝒜\overline{𝒜}`$ of rank four with thirteen hyperplanes. These arrangements have the same underlying matroid, of rank four on 13 points, pictured in Figure 2.

Rybnikov establishes some special properties of this matroid, for instance, that any automorphism of the $`OS`$ algebra arises from a matroid automorphism, which must preserve or interchange the factors of the amalgamation. Using these he is able to show that the arrangements $`𝒜𝒜`$ and $`𝒜\overline{𝒜}`$ have nonisomorphic fundamental groups, since the first has an automorphism which switches the factors preserving orientations of the natural generators, while the only automorphism of the second which switches factors must reverse orientations. Refer to Section 4.1 for a more detailed description of the fundamental group. Rybnikov actually uses the rank-three truncation of this matroid, and 3-dimensional generic sections of these arrangements, but this operation does not affect the fundamental group.

The last part of Rybnikov’s argument is quite delicate and very specialized. None of the known invariants of fundamental groups, for instance those described elsewhere in this paper, will distinguish these two groups.

###### Problem 1.2.

Find a general invariant of arrangement groups that distinguishes the two Rybnikov arrangements, and generalize his construction.

To date this is the only known example of this phenomenon. In particular it is not known if this behavior is exhibited by complexified arrangements.

###### Problem 1.3.

Prove that the underlying matroid of a complexified arrangement determines the homotopy type, or find a counter-example.

Partial results along these lines were obtained by Jiang and Yau  and Cordovil . In  a condition on the underlying matroid $`G`$ is given which implies that the realization space of $`G`$ is path-connected, so that any two arrangements realizing $`G`$ have diffeomorphic complements by the lattice-isotopy theorem. In  it is shown that complexified arrangements whose underlying matroids are isomorphic via a correspondence which preserves a (geometrically defined) “shelling order” will have identical braid-monodromy groups.

The extent to which arrangements with non-isomorphic matroids can have homotopy equivalent complements has also been studied (see, e.g., ) with some degree of success. One approach to this problem is purely combinatorial, namely to classify $`OS`$ algebras up to graded algebra isomorphism. This approach is adopted in . A powerful invariant is developed in , sufficient to distinguish all known non-trivial examples which are not already known to be isomorphic.

At this point all known examples of matroids with isomorphic $`OS`$ algebras can be explained by two simple operations . The first of these is a construction involving a well-known equivalence of affine arrangements arising from the “cone-decone” construction \[65, Prop. 5.1\], along with the trivial fact that the complement of the direct sum of affine arrangements, denoted $``$ in , is diffeomorphic to the cartesian product of the complements of the factors. In fact this construction can be applied to arbitrary pairs of matroids to yield central arrangements with non-isomorphic matroids and diffeomorphic complements . This construction always yields arrangements with non-connected (i.e., nontrivial direct sum) matroids. Jiang and Yau  show that this phenomenon cannot occur in rank three, that is, the diffeomorphism type of the complement of a rank-three arrangement uniquely determines the underlying matroid. Thus the rank-three examples of , which have non-isomorphic underlying matroids, have complements which are homotopy equivalent but not diffeomorphic.

The second operation which yields isomorphic $`OS`$ algebras is truncation. It is shown in  that the truncations of two matroids with isomorphic $`OS`$ algebras will have the same property. (It is not known if truncation preserves homotopy equivalence). These two “moves” suffice to explain the examples produced in , indeed all known examples of this phenomenon. Thus it seems an orderly classification of $`OS`$ algebras may be within reach.

###### Problem 1.4.

Classify $`OS`$ algebras up to graded isomorphism.

In the alternative, we suggest the following.

###### Problem 1.5.

Find a pair of arrangements with homotopy equivalent complements and whose underlying matroids are non-isomorphic, connected, and inerectible (i.e., not truncations).

Cohen and Suciu in  approach this same problem of homotopy classification using invariants of the fundamental group. Their approach has the advantage that it may also be used to distinguish the complements of arrangements with the same underlying matroid. Some of this work is described elsewhere in this paper. Here we merely remark on the surprising connection described in  between the characteristic varieties of  arising from the Alexander invariant of the fundamental group, and the resonant varieties of , which arise from the $`OS`$ algebra.

## 2. Algebraic properties of the group of an arrangement

The topology of hyperplane complements seems to be to a large extent controlled by the fundamental group. These “arrangement groups” have relatively simple global structure, being pieced together out of free groups in a fairly straightforward way (see Sections 4.1 and 3.3), but have surprisingly delicate fine structure. At the time of the writing of  there was a great deal of activity around the study of the lower central series of these groups, and connections with rational homotopy theory and Chen’s theory of iterated integrals. In this section we report on progress in these areas in the intervening years.

### 2.1. The LCS formula, quadratic algebras, rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ and parallel arrangements

Discoveries of Kohno  and the authors  showed that Witt’s formula for the lower central series of finitely generated free Lie algebras (or, equivalently, free groups) generalized to a wide class of hyperplane complements. The so-called LCS formula reads

$$\underset{n1}{}(1t^n)^{\varphi _n}=\underset{i0}{}b_i(t)^i,$$

relating the ranks $`\varphi _n`$ of factors in the lower central series of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(M)`$ to the betti numbers $`b_i=dim(A^i(𝒜))`$ of $`M`$. In  it is shown that this formula holds for all fiber-type arrangements. These are arrangements whose underlying matroids are supersolvable . This result was ostensibly extended to rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements in . (See also Section 2.2.) We refer the reader to  for a precise definition of rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement. Briefly, if $`𝒮`$ is the 1-minimal model of $`M`$ (or, equivalently, of $`A(𝒜)`$), then $`𝒜`$ is rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ if $`H^{}(𝒮)A(𝒜)`$. It is shown in  that fiber-type arrangements are rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

The technical results of  were used in  to show that fundamental groups of fiber-type arrangements (in particular, the pure braid group) are residually nilpotent. This result turned out to be important for the theory of knot invariants of finite type .

The situation surrounding the LCS formula was very much in flux during the preparation of , a fact reflected in the equivocal footnotes in the table of implications in that paper. The situation has been clarified somewhat in the meantime. Our purpose here is to briefly summarize the current understanding of these issues.

Recall that an arrangement of rank three is parallel if for any four hyperplanes of $`𝒜`$ in general position, there is a fifth hyperplane in $`𝒜`$ containing two of the six pairwise intersections. The $`OS`$ algebra $`A(𝒜)`$ is quadratic if the relation ideal $`I`$ (defined in Section 1.2) is generated by its elements of degree two. We will sometimes say $`𝒜`$ is quadratic. This is a combinatorial condition, which will be discussed in further detail in Section 3.2. In general the quotient of the exterior algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ by the ideal generated by the degree two elements of $`I`$ is called the quadratic closure of $`A(𝒜)`$, denoted $`\overline{A}(𝒜)`$. Here is a summary of cogent results established in .

1. If $`𝒜`$ is a rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement, then $`𝒜`$ is quadratic.
2. Every parallel arrangement is quadratic.
3. Every rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement satisfies the LCS formula.
4. Every quadratic arrangement satisfies the LCS formula at least to third degree.

In  we cited an unpublished note which claimed that every parallel arrangement is a rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$. Using the construction of , in 1994 Falk wrote a Mathematica program to compute $`\varphi _4`$, and checked the smallest example of a parallel, non-fiber-type arrangement of rank 3. This arrangement, labelled $`X_2`$ in , consists of the planes $`x\pm z=0,y\pm z=0,x+y\pm 2z=0`$, and $`z=0`$, and is pictured in Figure 3. We obtained the result $`\varphi _4=15`$, whereas the LCS formula would predict $`\varphi _4=10`$.

So the implications

$$\text{parallel}\text{rational }K(\pi ,1),$$

$$\text{quadratic}\text{rational }K(\pi ,1),$$

$$\text{parallel}\text{LCS},$$

and

$$\text{quadratic}\text{LCS}$$

recorded in  are all false.

Subsequently, work of Shelton-Yuzvinsky , and Papadima-Yuzvinsky  provided further clarification. Let $``$ denote the holonomy Lie algebra of $`M`$, the quotient of the free Lie algebra on generators $`x_1,\mathrm{}x_n`$ by the image of the map $`H_1(M)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(H_1(M))`$ dual to the cup product. Let $`U=U(𝒜)`$ be its universal enveloping algebra, a dual object to the 1-minimal model $`𝒮`$. The Hilbert series of $`U`$ is $`_{n1}(1t^n)^{\varphi _n}`$. Kohno constructs a chain complex $`(R,\delta )`$ which, when exact, forms a resolution of $``$ as a trivial $`U`$-module. In this case $`𝒜`$ is a rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement, and the LCS formula holds.

Shelton and Yuzvinsky  realized that $`U(𝒜)`$ is the Koszul dual of the quadratic closure of $`A(𝒜)`$. We refer the reader to  for a precise definition; loosely speaking, the defining relations for the Koszul dual $`U`$ form the orthogonal complement to those of $`\overline{A}(𝒜)`$ inside the tensor product $`T_2(A^1(𝒜))`$. They observed that the Aomoto-Kohno complex $`(R,\delta )`$ is the usual Koszul complex of $`U`$, and thus is exact if and only if $`U`$ is a Koszul algebra — $`U`$ is Koszul iff $`\mathrm{Ext}_U^{p.q}(,)=0`$ unless $`p=q`$. It follows from this that $`A(𝒜)`$ is a quadratic algebra. (This observation was also made by Hain .) The LCS formula is then a consequence of Koszul duality. They give a combinatorial proof that $`A(𝒜)`$ is quadratic and that $`U(𝒜)`$ is Koszul if $`𝒜`$ is a supersolvable arrangement.

The results of  were strengthened and extended in  to give a description of $`H^{}(𝒮)`$ in terms of Koszul algebra theory, for more general spaces. In particular, it is shown in  that $`𝒜`$ is rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ if only if the $`OS`$ algebra is Koszul. In addition, Papadima and Yuzvinsky gave an alternate proof that the arrangement $`X_2`$ above fails the LCS formula. Finally, using a “central-to-affine” reduction argument, they were able to prove the following.

###### Theorem 2.1.

 For arrangements of rank three, the LCS formula holds if and only if the arrangement is fiber-type.

Peeva  applies techniques of commutative algebra and Gröbner basis theory to obtain a short proof that supersolvable arrangements satisfy the LCS formula, in addition to other related computational results.

In research closely related to the lower central series of arrangement groups, Kohno used the iterated integral/holonomy Lie algebra approach to construct representations of the (pure) braid group, and more generally to study the monodromy of local systems over hyperplane complements. This work is also closely tied to the theory of generalized hypergeometric functions. See  for a description of these developments. Cohen and Suciu pursued similar ideas using methods more closely connected to those of  in .

### 2.2. The $`D_n`$ reflection arrangements

The fundamental groups of the reflection arrangements of type $`D_n`$ have been studied using some of the technical machinery of . Note that these arrangements, for $`n>3`$, are not supersolvable. The author of  constructs a presentation which he claims presents these fundamental groups as “almost direct products” in the sense of . He used this to show that these groups are residually nilpotent. In 1994 we tried to use this presentation to get more precise calculations for the lower central series of these groups, at least for $`n=4`$. In fact we found that the presentation in  is not correct. Even for the $`D_3`$ arrangement, which is supersolvable, the results one deduces from  do not jibe with the LCS formula, which is known to hold for $`D_3`$. In  Liebman and Markushevich adopt a different approach and derive a different presentation to show that the $`D_n`$ arrangement groups are residually nilpotent.

It was in the course of this research that we started computing $`\varphi _4`$ by machine. In addition to finding the counterexample $`X_2`$ described above, we also computed $`\varphi _4=183`$ for the $`D_4`$ reflection arrangement. The LCS formula yields $`\varphi _4=186`$. So the $`D_4`$ arrangement fails the LCS formula, contrary to another assertion  reported on in .

The work of Shelton and Yuzvinsky  make it clear why the argument of  for the LCS formula for the $`D_n`$ reflection arrangements fails: these arrangements, for $`n>3`$, do not have quadratic $`OS`$ algebras, by . Hence the Aomoto-Kohno complex $`R_{}`$ cannot be exact for these arrangements.

So we are left with no examples of arrangements which are not supersolvable, yet are rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$, and no examples of arrangements satisfying the LCS formula which are not rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

###### Problem 2.2.

Find examples of non-supersolvable or non-rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements satisfying the LCS formula, or prove that such examples do not exist.

### 2.3. Work of Cohen and Suciu on the Chen groups

As noted above, the ranks of the quotients in the lower central series of fiber-type arrangements are determined by the betti numbers of the complement. From this point of view, the pure braid groups look like products of free groups (though they are not; see .) In the last few years, Cohen and Suciu have introduced the Chen groups into the study of arrangements, providing a computable tool for distinguishing similar arrangements.

The Chen groups of a group $`G`$ are the lower central series quotients of $`G`$ modulo its second commutator subgroup $`G^{\prime \prime }`$. If for any group $`G`$ we let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(G)`$ denote the $`k^{th}`$ lower central series subgroup, then the homomorphism $`GG/G^{\prime \prime }`$ induces an epimorphism

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(G)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k+1}(G)}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(G/G^{\prime \prime })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k+1}(G/G^{\prime \prime })}=k^{th}\text{ Chen group}$$

Thus the ranks $`\varphi _k`$ of quotients of lower central series groups are no less than the corresponding ranks $`\theta _k`$ of Chen groups. In the case of the pure braid group, the ranks $`\theta _k`$ are determined in ; they are given by the generating function

$$\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\theta _kt^{k2}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{4}\right)\frac{1}{(1t)^2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{4}\right)$$

In particular, these numbers differ from those for the product of free groups, providing a tidy proof that the pure braid groups are not such products.

Cohen and Suciu  provide a detailed study of these groups including a method for their computation from a presentation of the Alexander invariant (see the discussion of presentations of the fundamental group below.) It is interesting that while these groups are very effective in distinguishing similar groups, there is not yet an example of combinatorially equivalent arrangements with different Chen ranks. In particular, they do not distinguish the examples of Rybnikov  of combinatorially equivalent, homotopically different arrangements (see Section 1.3).

### 2.4. Cohomological properties of the fundamental group

In 1972 Deligne  proved that for a complexification of a real simplicial arrangement, the complement $`M`$ is aspherical (also expressed by saying that $`M`$ is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ space.) That is, the universal cover of $`M`$ is contractible. Since all real reflection arrangements are simplicial, this solved a question raised and partially answered by Brieskorn in . The original study of this sort of problem was the work of Fadell and Neuwirth  on the pure braid group. Following , the authors introduced in  the notion of fiber-type arrangement and observed that for this class $`M`$ is aspherical, essentially by the iterated fibration argument of Fadell and Neuwirth. So it is natural to ask: for what arrangements is $`M`$ aspherical? It is known by work of Hattori  that not all are — the arrangement defined by $`Q=xyz(x+y+z)`$ is the simplest example.

Here we wish to touch upon the algebraic consequences of asphericity. Now if $`M`$ is aspherical, the (known) cohomology of $`M`$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of the group. Since $`M`$ has cohomological dimension $`\mathrm{rk}(𝒜)<\mathrm{},\pi _1(M)`$ does also. In addition, $`\pi _1(M)`$ has no torsion, and there is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ space, $`\pi =\pi _1(M)`$, with the homotopy type of a finite complex (namely, $`M`$). So here is another open problem:

###### Problem 2.3.

Are all arrangement groups torsion-free?

The answer is of course yes for real reflection arrangements and for fiber-type (or supersolvable) arrangements. One approach to this question is to show that all arrangement groups are orderable. Here we say a group $`G`$ is *orderable* provided that there is a linear order $`<`$ on $`G`$ so that $`g<h`$ implies $`cg<ch`$ for all $`cG`$. It follows easily that an orderable group has no torsion. The braid group was shown orderable by Dehornoy in ; at the Tokyo meeting L. Paris proved that the group of a fiber-type arrangement is orderable . It is not known whether all arrangement groups are orderable. Note that the group of an arrangement has a finite presentation of a fairly restricted type, as described in Section 4.1, and that the relators all lie in the commutator subgroup.

There are some useful observations concerning these ideas in . For instance, we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.4.

For $`j2`$ the Hurewicz map

$$\varphi :\pi _j(M)H_j(M)$$

is trivial.

As a consequence, the second homology of $`\pi _1(M)`$ is isomorphic to $`H_2(M)`$. In addition, it is mentioned there that the arrangement defined by

$$Q=xyz(y+z)(xz)(2x+y)$$

has the property that there is no arrangement with aspherical complement with the same intersection lattice in rank one and two. The following result is also proved in .

###### Theorem 2.5.

The complement of a central arrangement of rank three is aspherical provided that the fundamental group has cohomological dimension three and is of type FL.

A group $`\pi `$ is type FL provided that $``$ (as a trivial $`[\pi ]`$-module) has a finite resolution by free $`[\pi ]`$-modules. An equivalent statement is that there should exist a finite CW complex which is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$-space. Theorem 2.5 shows that for central rank three arrangements asphericity is determined by the fundamental group.

## 3. Arrangements with aspherical complements

Much of the early history of the topology of arrangements revolves around the “$`K(\pi ,1)`$ problem,” the problem of determining which arrangements have aspherical complements. (Such an arrangement is called a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement.) This history is described in some detail in  (see also Section 2.4). In addition, we proved an ad hoc necessary condition \[37, Thm. 3.1\] for asphericity involving “simple triangles,” and introduced the notion of formal arrangement, which was shown to be a necessary condition for $`K(\pi ,1)`$ and rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements. A great deal of progress was made in these areas in the intervening years, which we report on in this section.

### 3.1. Free arrangements are not aspherical

In our earlier survey, we highlighted the Saito conjecture, that all free arrangements are aspherical. In 1995 Edelman and Reiner  provided counterexamples, which we briefly describe.

Let $`S`$ denote the polynomial ring of $`V.`$ A linear map $`\theta :SS`$ is a derivation if for $`f,gS,`$ we have $`\theta (fg)=f\theta (g)+g\theta (f)`$. The module of $`𝒜`$derivations is defined by

$$D(𝒜)=\{\theta \theta (Q)QS\}$$

where $`Q`$ is the defining polynomial of the arrangement. Then the arrangement is *free* provided that $`D(𝒜)`$ is a free $`S`$-module.

It is known  that reflection arrangements are free; for their many pleasant properties see . In 1975 K. Saito conjectured that free arrangements should be aspherical. In their study of tilings of centrally symmetric octagons in , Edelman and Reiner found the family of arrangements given by

$$Q(𝒜_\alpha )=xyz(xy)(xz)(yz)(x\alpha y)(x\alpha z)(y\alpha z)$$

with $`\alpha .`$ They proved that the corresponding arrangements are free for all $`\alpha `$, while they are not aspherical for $`\alpha 1,0,1`$. The proof of freeness is direct, using addition-deletion \[65, Theorem 4.51\] while the non-asphericity follows from the “simple triangle” criterion of . The counter-example $`𝒜_2`$ is pictured in Figure 4.

### 3.2. Formality and related concepts

The fundamental group of arrangement is determined by a generic 3-dimensional section. Based on the idea that $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements should be extremal in some sense, we developed the notion of formal arrangement in . This has been the subject of several papers since , which provide a better understanding of the concept. Here is a “modern” definition, equivalent to the original from .

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:^nV^{}`$ be given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=_{i=1}^nx_i\alpha _i`$, where the $`\alpha _i`$ are the defining forms for $`𝒜`$. Let $`K=\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and let $`F`$ be the subspace of $`K`$ spanned by its elements of weight three (i.e., having three nonzero entries). Then the arrangement $`𝒜`$ is formal if $`F=K`$.

The orthogonal complement $`K^{}^n`$ coincides with the point $`P_𝒜𝒢_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ defined in Section 1.2. Thus the arrangement $`𝒜`$ is isomorphic to the arrangement in $`K^{}`$ formed by the coordinate hyperplanes. In the same way, the orthogonal complement $`F^{}K^{}`$ defines an arrangement $`𝒜_F`$, called the formalization of $`𝒜`$. So $`𝒜`$ is formal if and only if $`𝒜=𝒜_F`$. If $`𝒜`$ is not formal, $`𝒜_F`$ has strictly greater rank, and $`𝒜`$ is a (not necessarily generic) section of $`𝒜_F`$. Also, $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜_F`$ have isomorphic generic “planar” (i.e., rank-three) sections.

These properties of formalization were asserted in , but the arguments we had in mind were not correct. The clarification described here is due to Yuzvinsky . Examples in  show that non-formal arrangements need not be generic sections of their formalizations. The arrangement of Example 2.19 of  has the property that the free erection of the underlying matroid is not realizable, but (contrary to the assertion in ) there is nevertheless a realizable (formal) erection. Matroid “erection” is the reverse of (corank one) truncation; truncation is the matroid-theoretic analogue of generic section. The free erection of an erectible matroid is the unique erection with “the most general position” — see .

These observations are enough to establish the following results from . The third assertion follows immediately from the second.

1. If $`𝒜`$ is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement, then $`𝒜`$ is formal.
2. If $`𝒜`$ is quadratic, then $`𝒜`$ is formal.
3. If $`𝒜`$ is a rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement, then $`𝒜`$ is formal.

We asked whether free arrangements are also necessarily formal. This was established by Yuzvinsky.

###### Theorem 3.1.

 If $`𝒜`$ is a free arrangement, then $`𝒜`$ is formal.

The preceding result was generalized by Brandt and Terao . They define the notion of $`k`$-formal arrangement. A formal arrangement has the property that all relations among the defining equations are consequences of relations which are “localized” at rank-two flats, in the sense that an element of $`K`$ of weight three gives rise to a three-element subset of a rank-two flat. A formal arrangement is $`3`$-formal if all relations among these local generators of $`F=K`$ are themselves consequences of relations which are localized at rank-three flats of $`𝒜`$. This construction is iterated to define the notion of $`k`$-formal arrangement for every $`k2`$. See  for the precise definition. An arrangement of rank $`r`$ is automatically $`k`$-formal for every $`kr`$. The original notion of formality coincides with the case $`k=2`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

 If $`𝒜`$ is a free arrangement of rank $`r`$, then $`𝒜`$ is $`k`$-formal for every $`2k<r`$.

The converse is false .

Related work appears in , where the authors show that the discriminantal arrangements of Manin and Schechtman  (see Section 3.4.2) are formal, and the “very generic” discriminantal arrangements are $`3`$-formal, though none are free.

An arrangement is locally formal  if, for every flat $`X[n],`$ the arrangement $`𝒜_X=\{H_i|iX\}`$ is formal. Since freeness, quadraticity, and $`K(\pi ,1)`$-ness are all “hereditary properties,” in that they are inherited by the localizations $`𝒜_X`$, one has that every free, quadratic, or $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement is locally formal.

We asked in  whether formality is a “combinatorial property”, depending only on the underlying matroid. Yuzvinsky constructed counter-examples in .

###### Theorem 3.3.

 There exist arrangements $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ with the same underlying matroid, such that $`𝒜_1`$ is formal and $`𝒜_2`$ is not formal.

In Figure 5 are the dual point configurations of Yuzvinsky’s arrangements. The dotted line in Figure 5(b) indicates where to “fold” the configuration to erect it to a rank-four configuration. The nontrivial planes in the erection are

$$12389,12456,13458,13678,14579,23567,24789,25689,\text{and}34679.$$

Note that these two configurations are lattice-isotopic (over $``$), so neither is free or $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

If $`𝒜`$ is not formal, then the underlying matroid of $`𝒜`$ is a strong map image (under the identity map) of that of $`𝒜_F`$ (see  for the general definition), and the two matroids have the same rank-three truncations. These combinatorial properties gave rise to several attempts to replace the notion of formality with some clearly matroidal condition, and strengthen Theorem 3.1 and assertion (i) above. For example one can ask for conditions on a matroid $`G`$ so that every (complex) realization of $`G`$ is formal. One is naturally led to the notion of line-closure.

Let $`G`$ be a matroid on ground set $`[n]`$. The line-closure of a subset $`S`$ of $`[n]`$ is the smallest subset of $`[n]`$ which contains every line (that is, rank-two flat) spanned by points of $`S`$. A set is line-closed if it is equal to its line-closure. The matroid $`G`$ is line-closed if every line-closed subset of $`[n]`$ is a flat of $`G`$. In his current work in progress , the first author has established the following result.

###### Theorem 3.4.

An arrangement $`𝒜`$ is quadratic only if the underlying matroid $`G(𝒜)`$ is line-closed.

###### Corollary 3.5.

The underlying matroid of a rational $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement is necessarily line-closed.

The converse of Theorem 3.4, that $`𝒜`$ is quadratic when $`G(𝒜)`$ is line-closed, is very likely also true. A crucial step in the proof is yet to be completed, however, so this assertion remains an open problem.

Yuzvinsky  defined a formal matroid to be a matroid $`G`$ possessing a basis (of $`\mathrm{rk}(G)`$ points) whose line-closure is $`[n]`$. Every line-closed matroid is formal in this sense. In fact a matroid $`G`$ is line-closed if and only if the line-closure of every basis of each flat $`X`$ is equal to $`X`$. Every realization of a formal matroid is formal.

In  we define a matroid $`G`$ to be taut if $`G`$ is not a strong map image of a matroid $`G^{}`$ of greater rank with the same points and lines, and locally taut if every flat of $`G`$ is taut. Every line-closed matroid is locally taut, in fact every formal matroid is taut. Every realization of a (locally) taut matroid is (locally) formal. There exist matroids which are taut but not formal . A weak version of the first part of the following problem was suggested by Yuzvinsky in his talk .

###### Problem 3.6.

Prove that the matroid of a free or $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement is necessarily taut.

Joseph Kung has pointed out to us that a locally taut matroid is uniquely determined by its points and lines, which suggests the following interesting problem.

###### Problem 3.7.

Prove that the underlying matroid of a locally formal arrangement (e.g. a free or $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement) is uniquely determined by its points and lines.

This last problem is a variant on the following questions from , the first of which is Terao’s Conjecture, and both of which remain open.

###### Problem 3.8.

Prove that freeness and $`K(\pi ,1)`$-ness of arrangements are matroidal properties.

We will refrain from discussing Terao’s Conjecture further, except to pose a weak version which fits the spirit of this paper, and is interesting in its own right.

###### Problem 3.9.

Prove that freeness is preserved under lattice-isotopy.

### 3.3. Tests for asphericity

Some progress was also made on the problem of finding sufficient conditions for an arrangement to be $`K(\pi ,1)`$. The main results are the weight test of  and its application to factored arrangements by Paris . A new technique involving modular flats was recently discovered and presented at the conference .

The complement $`M`$ of a 2-dimensional affine arrangement $`𝒜`$ is built up out of $`K(\pi ,1)`$ spaces, specifically $`(r,r)`$ torus link complements, in a relatively simple way, as is reflected in the Randell-Salvetti-Arvola presentations (see Section 4.1). In fact this structure mirrors precisely constructions from geometric group theory related to complexes of groups. This observation allows one to construct a relatively well-behaved cell complex which has the homotopy type of the universal cover of $`M`$, and to apply the weight test of Gersten and Stallings  to derive a test for asphericity of $`M`$.

###### Theorem 3.10.

 If $`𝒜`$ is a complexified affine arrangement in $`^2`$ that admits an $`𝒜`$-admissible, aspherical system of weights, then $`𝒜`$ is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement.

The question remains what an $`𝒜`$-admissible, aspherical system of weights is. This involves the complex $`B`$ of bounded faces in the subdivision of $`^2`$ determined by $`𝒜`$. A weight system is an assignment of a real number weight to each “corner” of each 2-cell in $`B`$. The system is aspherical if the sum of weights around any $`d`$-gon at most $`d2`$. The system is $`𝒜`$-admissible if certain sums of weights at vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are at least $`2\pi `$. See  for more detail.

The universal cover complex constructed in  may be used in some cases to construct explicit essential spheres showing that $`M`$ is not aspherical. Radloff  used this method to prove some necessary conditions for $`K(\pi ,1)`$-ness, along the lines of the “simple triangle” test of , and found several new examples of non-$`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements.

Falk and Jambu introduced the notion of factored arrangement in , originally in an attempt to find a combinatorial criterion for freeness. A factorization of an arrangement $`𝒜`$ is a partition of $`[n]`$ such that each flat of $`G(𝒜)`$ of rank $`p`$ meets precisely $`p`$ blocks, and meets one of them in a singleton, for each $`p`$. This property is necessary and sufficient for the $`OS`$ algebra $`A(𝒜)`$ to have a complete tensor product factorization - see . When $`𝒜`$ has a factorization, we say $`𝒜`$ is factored.

Paris realized that a factorization of a rank-three arrangement provides a template for a very simple $`𝒜`$-admissible, aspherical weight system.

###### Theorem 3.11.

 If $`𝒜`$ is a factored, complexified arrangement in $`^3`$, then $`𝒜`$ is a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement.

Every supersolvable arrangement is factored, so this result provides a new, wider class of $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements, at least in rank three.

###### Problem 3.12.

Show that factored arrangements of arbitrary rank are $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

A flat $`X`$ of a matroid $`G`$ is modular if $`\mathrm{rk}(XY)+\mathrm{rk}(XY)=\mathrm{rk}(X)+\mathrm{rk}(Y)`$ for every flat $`Y`$. The following result was discovered independently by Paris and Falk-Proudfoot

###### Theorem 3.13.

 If $`X`$ is a modular flat of arbitrary rank in $`G(𝒜)`$, then there is a topological fibration $`M(𝒜)M(𝒜_X)`$ whose fiber is the complement of a projective arrangement.

This generalizes the corank-one case, which gives rise to fiber-type arrangements, established in . The new result can be used to construct or recognize $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangements if the base (whose matroid is the modular flat $`X`$) and fiber (whose matroid is the complete principal truncation of $`G(𝒜)`$ along $`X`$) are known to be $`K(\pi ,1)`$. This method is used to construct some interesting new examples in . Refer to Paris’ paper  in this volume for more details.

### 3.4. Some crucial examples

In this section we want to briefly discuss some specific and interesting types of arrangements for which the $`K(\pi ,1)`$ problem is unsolved. These might be regarded as test subjects for new techniques; they qualify as “the first unknown cases.”

First we cite another improvement to the table of implications in . Recall the definition of parallel arrangement from Section 2.1. In  we had listed the implication “parallel $``$ $`K(\pi ,1)`$” as “not known, of significant interest.” In unpublished work, Luis Paris has shown this implication to be false. Specifically, he showed that the Kohno arrangement $`X_2`$ (defined in Section 2.1) is not $`K(\pi ,1)`$. The proof establishes that the fundamental group contains a subgroup isomorphic to $`^4`$; the result then follows from \[37, Thm. 3.2\]. The copy of $`^4`$ is generated by $`a,b,c,`$ and the commutator $`[d,e]`$, where $`a,b,c,d,`$ and $`e`$ are the canonical generators corresponding to the hyperplanes $`x\pm z=0,z=0,`$ and $`x+y\pm 2z=0`$ respectively.

#### 3.4.1. Complex reflection arrangements

Fadell and Neuwirth showed in 1962 that the complement of the $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ reflection (or braid) arrangement is $`K(\pi ,1)`$. In 1973 Brieskorn proved this for many real reflection arrangements, followed soon thereafter by Deligne’s proof of the general case. Orlik and Solomon extensively studied arrangements of hyperplanes invariant under finite groups generated by complex reflections (see \[65, Chapter 6\]). It is natural to ask if all such arrangements are aspherical. We believe the conjecture that they are is due to Orlik, though it was proposed long before it ever appeared in print. It is known  that the answer is affirmative in all cases except six exceptional, non-complexified arrangements, some of which have rank three. The proofs for the known cases use a variety of techniques, and essentially proceed from the Shepard-Todd classification of irreducible unitary reflection groups (see, e.g., ). What seems to be missing is a unifying property, similar to the simplicial property for real reflection arrangements exploited by Deligne. The closest approach to this goal is the work reported in \[65, p. 265\] which proves the asphericity of arrangements associated to Shephard groups (symmetry group of a regular convex polytope.) Here the problem is reduced to the (already solved) problem for an associated real reflection arrangement.

###### Problem 3.14.

Give a uniform proof that all unitary reflection arrangements are $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

#### 3.4.2. Discriminantal arrangements

Experience seems to show us that questions involving asphericity are quite complex for all arrangements but tractible for restricted classes (reflection, fiber-type, generic). One interesting class is that of the discriminantal arrangements introduced by Manin and Schechtmann . Rather than give the full definition here we will describe the rank three examples, where the problem is already interesting.

Consider a real affine arrangement of lines in the plane, obtained by taking a collection of $`n`$ points, no three of which are collinear, and drawing all $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ lines through pairs of these points. Then embed this configuration in the plane $`z=1`$ in three-space and cone over the origin to obtain a central real three-arrangement. Then complexify.

This process can result in arrangements with distinct matroidal and topological structure, even for fixed $`n`$ . The discriminantal arrangements are obtained from “very generic” collections of points, for which no three of the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ lines are concurrent except at the original $`n`$ points.

The arrangement $`C(4)`$ is linearly equivalent to the braid arrangement of rank three. An easy calculation shows that the Poincaré polynomial associated to the cohomology of $`C(n)`$ does not factor over $``$ for $`n5`$, so that these arrangements are not free and are not of fiber-type. Also $`C(n)`$ is not simplicial for $`n5`$. The arrangements $`C(n)`$ for $`n6`$ are not aspherical, by \[37, Thm. 3.1\].

For $`n=5`$, one obtains a complexified central three-arrangement of $`10`$ planes. This arrangement is not factored. More generally $`C(5)`$ does not support an admissible, aspherical system of weights, so the weight test fails. On the other hand, all of the standard necessary conditions for asphericity hold.

###### Problem 3.15.

Determine whether the discriminantal arrangement $`C(5)`$ is $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

A solution to this problem would also determine whether the space of configurations of six points in general position in $`P^2`$ is aspherical , a result which would be of significant interest.

#### 3.4.3. Deformations of reflection arrangements

A “deformation” of a reflection arrangement is an affine arrangement with defining equations of the form

$$\alpha _i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{\mathrm{}})=c_{ij},$$

where the $`\alpha _i`$ are the positive roots in some root system, and $`c_{ij}`$. This class of arrangements is of great interest to combinatorialists, and is the subject of the paper of Athanasiadis in this volume .

As is our custom, we “cone” to obtain a central arrangement. For instance, based on the root system of type $`B_2`$, we obtain the $`B_2`$ Shi arrangement, defined by the polynomial

$$Q=xyz(x+y)(xy)(xz)(yz)(x+yz)(xyz).$$

(Shi arrangements are obtained by setting $`c_{i1}=0`$ and $`c_{i2}=1`$ for all $`i`$.) This nine-line complexified arrangement has a factorization, given by the partition

$$\{\{4\},\{1,2,5,7\},\{3,6,8,9\}\},$$

and is therefore a $`K(\pi ,1)`$ arrangement. On the other hand, the Shi arrangement constructed in a similar way from the root system of type $`G_2`$ is not factored or simplicial, and has no simple triangle.

###### Problem 3.16.

Decide whether the $`G_2`$ Shi arrangement is $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

More generally, we propose the following.

###### Problem 3.17.

Decide which Shi arrangements are $`K(\pi ,1)`$.

## 4. Topological properties of the group of an arrangement

At the time of the publication of , a presentation of the fundamental group of the complement of a complexified arrangement had been derived . In the meantime, a similar presentation was found for arbitrary complex arrangements , and several different “spines” for the complement, some of them modelled on group presentations, were constructed . These group presentations have been used to study the Milnor fibration and Alexander invariants of the complement. We report briefly on these ideas here.

### 4.1. Presentations of $`\pi _1`$

We have seen earlier in the discussion of the lower central series, Chen groups and group cohomology that certain classes of arrangements (fiber-type, simplicial) have well-behaved fundamental groups. Due to work of Arvola , Randell  and Salvetti  an explicit presentation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ can be written. See \[65, Section 5.3\] for a clear exposition of Arvola’s presentation for any complex arrangement, and  for the explicit presentation and some applications of Randell’s presentation, which holds for complexified arrangements and is naturally simpler than the general case. A different approach, using the notion of “labyrinth,” is adopted by Dung and Vui in  to arrive at similar presentations for arbitrary arrangement groups.

In these presentations one first takes a planar section (or, more precisely, the projective image), so that one is working with an affine arrangement in $`^2`$. Then there is one generator for each line of the arrangement, and one set of relations for each intersection. In all cases the relations consist entirely of commutators, but to date this has not shed much light on the questions of group cohomology, torsion in the fundamental group, or other properties (such as orderability) of the fundamental group. A general theme for questions is: to what extent do arrangement groups mimic the properties of the pure braid groups.

The concept of braid monodromy was introduced by B. Moishezon . Libgober showed in  that the braid monodromy presentation of the fundamental group yields a two-complex with the homotopy type of the complement of an algebraic curve (e.g., a line arrangement) transverse to the line at infinity.

Motivated in part by , the first author showed in  that for arbitrary line arrangements the 2-complex modelled on the presentation of  serves as an efficient model for constructing the homotopy type of the complement (in the case of 3-arrangements). This construction was then used to construct a number of examples with different intersection lattice but same homotopy type (see also Section 1.3).

In related work Cohen and Suciu  have given an explicit description of the braid monodromy of a complex arrangement, using Hansen’s theory of polynomial covering maps. They show that the resulting presentation of the fundamental group is equivalent to the Randell-Arvola presentation via Tietze transformations that do not affect the homotopy type of the associated 2-complex. It follows that the complement is homotopy equivalent to the 2-complex modelled on either of these presentations, generalizing the result of . For this work Cohen and Suciu used extensively the concept of braided wiring diagram, which we briefly describe below. The notion of braided wiring diagram generalizes Goodman’s concept of wiring diagram , and was earlier considered for arrangements in . (Wiring diagrams appear in combinatorics as geometric models for rank-three oriented matroids.) The presentations of  and  use versions of this idea. In brief, the braided wiring diagram can be thought of as a template for the fundamental group (or, for line arrangements, the homotopy type.)

Here is a sketch of the construction. For examples and further details, in particular, a beautiful derivation using polynomial covering space theory, see . Since we are interested in the fundamental group, consider an affine arrangement $`𝒜`$ in $`^2`$. Choose coordinates in $`^2`$ so that the projection to the first coordinate is generic. Suppose that the images $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_n`$ of the intersections of the lines have distinct real parts. Choose a basepoint $`y_0\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_n\}`$, and assume the real parts of $`y_i`$ are decreasing with $`i`$. Let $`\xi `$ be a smooth path which begins with $`y_0`$ and passes in order through the $`y_i`$, horizontal near each $`y_i`$. Then the braided wiring diagram is $`𝒲=\{(x,z)\xi \times Q(x,z)=0\}.`$ (Recall that $`Q`$ is the defining polynomial of the arrangement.)

This braided wiring diagram should be viewed as a picture of the braid monodromy of the fundamental group of the arrangement (or as a picture of the fundamental group itself). In a sense, it carries the attaching (or amalgamating) information as one computes the fundamental group using the Seifert-Van Kampen theorem. Each actual node in the wiring diagram gives a set of relators, as does each crossing. In particular, it is shown in  that the braided wiring diagram recovers the Arvola or Randell presentation of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Indeed, in the real case, the braided wiring diagram can be identified with the usual drawing of the arrangement in $`^2`$.

As is the case with ordinary braids, there are “Markov moves” with which one can modify such a wiring diagram to realize any braid-equivalence of the underlying braid monodromies. These are given explicitly in . Rudimentary moves of this type, called “flips,” first appeared in . Among the consequences we note the following results which relate braid monodromy and braided wiring diagrams to lattice isotopy of line arrangements (that is, arrangements in $`^2`$).

###### Theorem 4.1.

 Lattice-isotopic arrangements in $`^2`$ have braided wiring diagrams which are related by a finite sequence of Markov moves and their inverses.

###### Theorem 4.2.

 Line arrangements with braid-equivalent monodromies have isomorphic underlying matroids.

### 4.2. The Milnor fiber

The defining polynomial $`Q=_{i=1}^n\alpha _i`$ is homogeneous of degree $`n`$ and can be considered as a map

$$Q:M^{}$$

It is well-known that this map is the projection of a fiber bundle, called the Milnor fibration, and that the Milnor fiber $`F=Q^1(1)`$ should be of interest. In  it was shown that this Milnor fibration is constant in a lattice-isotopic family, so that the Milnor fiber is indeed an invariant of lattice-isotopy. Because of this we propose the following definition, analogous to the definition made in the theory of knots.

###### Definition 4.3.

Two arrangements are called *(topologically) equivalent* if they are lattice-isotopic. We say the arrangements have the same *(topological) type.*

Thus, arrangements are topologically equivalent if and only if they lie in the same path component of some matroid stratum in the Grassmannian. With this terminology, we have the following result.

###### Theorem 4.4.

 The Milnor fiber and fibration are invariants of topological type.

Now, $`F`$ is simply an $`n`$fold cover of the complement of the projectivized arrangement in $`P^\mathrm{}1.`$ Since the algorithms of the previous section work to compute the fundamental group of this latter space, questions involving the fundamental group and cohomology of $`F`$ are also questions involving the group of the arrangement. In particular, while the cohomology of $`M`$ is determined by the intersection lattice, that of $`F`$ may not be. The situation is analogous to that of plane curves, where work going back to Zariski  shows that not only the type but the position of the singularities affects the irregularity. (The irregularity here is simply half the “excess” in the first betti number of $`F`$.)

Early results concerning the Milnor fiber of an arrangement (often in the general context of plane curves) appear in work of Libgober  and Randell , particularly with respect to Alexander invariants. Libgober’s work gave considerable information about the homology of the Milnor fiber in relation to the number and type of singularities of the arrangement, their position and the number of lines. The paper  observed that the Alexander polynomial was equal to the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy on the Milnor fiber.

The paper of Artal-Bartolo  included an interesting example: for the rank three braid arrangement $`A_3`$ the first betti number of the Milnor fiber is seven, an excess of two over the five “predicted” by the number of lines. (This result can be obtained as an interesting exercise by applying the Reidemeister-Schreier rewriting algorithm to the presentations of the fundamental group.) Orlik and Randell  showed that in the generic case the cohomology of the Milnor fiber is minimal, given by the number of lines, below the middle dimension.

Cohen and Suciu carry forward the study of the Milnor fiber in . Using the group presentation and methods of Fox calculus they give twisted chain complexes whose homology gives that of the Milnor fiber. Their methods are effective, and several explicit examples are given. The monodromy action on the Milnor fiber is of course crucial, and this monodromy is determined as well.

Finally, we note the following problem, which remains open after many years.

###### Problem 4.5.

Prove that the homology of the Milnor fiber of $`𝒜`$ depends only on the underlying matroid.

###### Acknowledgements .

The idea to hold a birthday conference in honor of Peter Orlik was initially suggested by the second author in 1995. We would like to thank Mutsuo Oka And Hiroaki Terao for their hard work in organizing the meeting. We also wish to thank the referee for his helpful observations concerning deformations of arrangements.

The two authors were both students of Peter Orlik in Madison, Randell in the early 1970’s and Falk in the early 1980’s. We are happy to have the chance to thank him, in print, for introducing us to the field of hyperplane arrangements and for his enthusiasm, friendship and support through the years.


text:
# A consistent electromagnetic duality

## Abstract

We present a new view for duality in classical electromagnetic theory, based on the physical properties of a dual theory, eliminating the problems of the usual treatment of the subject.

Keywords : electromagnetic duality, Heaviside duality, magnetic charges. PACS numbers : 11.15.-q, 11.30.-j, 12.15.-y

The concept of duality has received considerable attention in gauge theories. It provides useful tools to construct solutions to the field equations, namely, those which are self-dual or anti-self-dual, or allows to study regimes of the theory which prevent the use of perturbation expansions .

Duality in classical electromagnetic theory was discovered by Heaviside  a century ago for the Maxwell equations in vacuum. He saw that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐄=& \frac{𝐁}{t}\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 𝐁=& \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{𝐄}{t}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(1)
exchanged among themselves under the replacements

$$𝐄c𝐁,c𝐁𝐄.$$
(2)
This symmetry of the system, duality (we shall refer to it as Heaviside duality) , originated a lot of speculation about its meaning: is the electric field equivalent to the magnetic induction field, and the reverse?. With the advent of nonabelian gauge theories for elementary particle physics, a lot of work in Physics and Mathematics has been performed to clarify the meaning and applicability of duality, as exposed above, or in its modern nonabelian versions.

Let us recall that the original fields in the Maxwell equations have electric charges or currents and/or time varying fields as their sources. Even in vacuum, electric fields are considered the ones accelerating electric charges parallel to their direction, whereas magnetic fields provide transverse acceleration for electric charges.

Magnetic materials are related to elementary magnetic dipoles but single isolated magnetic charges have never been observed. Dirac  introduced magnetic monopoles in this framework to provide sources for the magnetic induction field, i. e.,

$$𝐁=g\mu _0\delta (𝐱)$$
(3)
To preserve the relation with the magnetic potential,

$$𝐁=𝐀$$
(4)
a topological structure had to be included (, ). It determined the famous Dirac relation between the electric charge of a test particle and the strength of the monopole field :

$$qg=2\pi n\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mu _0}.$$
(5)
It is usually assumed that the introduction of magnetic monopoles is related to Heaviside duality, though the relation is somewhat vague 222It is worth pointing that the same quantum of flux appears here as in the proposed Aharonov-Bohm  effect .

There remains unwanted aspects of the theory at the electromagnetic level. Standing high is the fact that the lagrangian of the theory changes sign under duality, that is, Heaviside duality is a symmetry for the equations of motion but not for the lagrangian providing them. Neglecting sources,

$$L\{𝐄,𝐁\}=\frac{ϵ_0}{2}d^3x\left(𝐄^2c^2𝐁^2\right)$$
(6)
Heaviside duality may be extended to a continuous variation . The generator for infinitesimal transformation has been proposed to be non-local  or built breaking explicit Lorentz invariance

In this article we present a new interpretation for duality which provides a consistent physical picture and avoids all the problems alluded before. The matter being largely speculative, our point is, notwithstanding, the physical basis for the symmetry.

Let us look at the equations for would be classical magnetodynamics, the dual theory to real electrodynamics. They are :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐄^{}=& 0\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 𝐁^{}=& \mu _0\rho _m\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 𝐄^{}=& \frac{1}{ϵ_0}𝐣_m\frac{𝐁^{}}{t}\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 𝐁^{}=& \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{𝐄^{}}{t}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(7)
The primes indicate that though the symbols appear in their positions for the original Maxwell electrodynamics equations, they satisfy different equations than in electrodynamics. The physical content of the equations is different: the sources for the magnetic field are now magnetic charges and/or currents, and time variations of the electric field. The latter, now, is generated only by magnetic currents or by the time variation of the magnetic field.

With the same arguments of the usual case, an axial vector electric potential and a pseudo-scalar magnetic potential may be introduced  from the homogeneous equations:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐄^{}=& 𝐖\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill 𝐁^{}=& \frac{\psi }{t}+\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{𝐖}{t}\hfill \end{array}\}.$$
(8)
With these potentials, a second order lagrangian may be constructed from which the Euler-Lagrange equations are the ones above for the fields and their magnetic charges and currents. In three dimensional notation, the lagrangian is:

$$L\{𝐁^{},𝐄^{}\}=\frac{ϵ_0}{2}d^3x\left(c^2𝐁_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐄_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\rho _m\psi 𝐣_m𝐖$$
(9)
One can easily obtain in covariant four-dimensional notation the corresponding lagrangian, envolving an anti-symmetric tensor of second rank, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$. Its space-space components are the components of the electric (primed) field, while the time-space ones are

$$G_{0k}=cB_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}$$
(10)
This exchange of components with respect to the corresponding tensor in electrodynamics, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, makes tempting to identify one as the dual of the other. This is not allowed, the corresponding fields satisfy different differential equations and have correspondingly different physical content. It may be correct to say that in the magnetodynamic case the lagrangian density is written in terms of the dual of what would be the field intensity tensor with the same fields.

We are now in position to analyze duality. The wave equations for the fields in electrodynamics and magnetodynamics are the same. That is, in this harmonic sector (in the sense of differential forms) the meaning of the exchange in the original Heaviside duality has the meaning of an exchange between the magnetodynamic and electrodynamic equations:

$$𝐄c𝐁^{}c𝐁𝐄^{}$$
(11)
and the corresponding ones for the other fields.

One can write a lagrangian density with satisfactory dual symmetry under the exchange of electric and magnetic fields in the electrodynamic and the magnetodynamic sectors. It is

$$=\frac{ϵ_0}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{ϵ_0}{4}G_{\mu \nu }G^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{c}j_{e}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}A^\mu \frac{1}{c}j_{m}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}W^\mu +(gaugefixingterms).$$
(12)
Our extended version for duality exchanges the terms in the lagrangian. Of course, for the free space equations, one has Heaviside duality in both sectors. One can also add monopoles by looking for topologically non-trivial configurations for the potentials. Monopoles are seen as not directly related to the extended electromagnetic duality.

The generator of duality continuous transformations may be easily obtained. From the lagrangian, the corresponding momenta to the potentials $`A^\mu `$ and $`W^\mu `$ are

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =& \frac{}{(^0A^\mu )}=\hfill & \hfill ϵ_0E_k\delta _{k\mu }& \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}=& \frac{}{(^0W^\mu )}=\hfill & \hfill ϵ_0cB_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\delta _{k\mu }& \end{array}\}.$$
(13)
In terms of the fields and their momenta, the transformations, parametrized by the continuous transformations as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐄=& \mathrm{cos}\eta 𝐄\mathrm{sin}\eta c𝐁^{}\hfill \\ & \\ \hfill c𝐁=& \mathrm{sin}\eta 𝐄^{}+\mathrm{cos}\eta c𝐁\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(14)
and the corresponding ones for the other couple of fields, are obtained from the generator:

$$M=d^3x[A^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu W^\mu ]$$
(15)
which is perfectly local and covariantly written.

In conclusion, to make a consistent mathematical treatment of electromagnetic duality, preserving locality, Lorentz invariance and positivity of the energy,the physical properties of dual systems must be enlarged correctly.

Our proposal looks very similar to what is known as Hodge lemma in mathematical terms : the space of second rank tensors in a compact manifold (we work in non-compact four-dimensional spacetime) decomposes in harmonic terms (solutions to the wave equation), curl of vectors (A, in our case) and divergences of higher rank tensors (or their duals, in our case, W). The spaces of this decomposition are mutually orthogonal.

It is true that Nature presents us only electric charges and currents, but duality points for a complementary world closely related to the former. The fact that this symmetry is not apparent in the real world points to some kind of breaking, and may be a fruitful field of research.

Acknowledgments We acknowledge partial support from CNPq during part of this work, and discussions with Prof. C. J. Wotzasek.


text:
# The role of outflows and star formation efficiency in the evolution of early-type cluster galaxies

## 1. Introduction

One of the long-standing problems in astrophysics is the process of star formation in galaxies. The standard scenario assumes stars to form from gas that falls in the potential wells of dark matter halos. Subsequent interacting or merging stages among galaxies might trigger additional bursts of star formation. The complex nature of star formation makes this problem rather an untractable one from an analytical point of view, so that the best approach towards understanding the distribution of stellar populations in galaxies requires a heavy use of rough approximations and all-too-often dangerous generalizations. It is the purpose of current phenomenological models describing the formation and evolution of the stellar component in galaxies to reveal the mechanisms which describe the wide range of galaxy colors and luminosities as well as their connection to morphology. The current status of the determination of the ages of the stellar populations in galaxies is rather controversial due to the degeneracy between age and metallicity (Worthey 1994). Observations of early-type galaxies by two different groups using similar techniques targeting narrow spectral indices to infer a luminosity-weighted age give contradictory results. While Trager et al. (2000) find a large age spread in the sample of field and group early-type systems of González (1993), Kuntschner (2000) reports a large metallicity spread in Fornax cluster ellipticals. So far, any observational measurement of age is plagued by many degeneracies which render a direct estimate uncertain. An alternative approach modelling the formation and chemical enrichment of the stellar component of galaxies is needed in order to reveal the actual scenario of galaxy formation.

## 2. Modelling chemical enrichment

The model presented here describes the process of star formation in early-type galaxies in terms of four parameters: star formation efficiency ($`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), ejected gas fraction in outflows ($`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$), formation redshift ($`z_F`$) and infall timescale ($`\tau _f`$). The latter two parameters refer to the epoch ($`t=t(z_F)`$) at maximum and spread of a Gaussian profile for the infalling gas, i.e.:

$$f(t)e^{\left(tt(z_F)\right)^2/2\tau _f^2}$$
(1)
This gas will be turned into stars according to a linear Schmidt-type law, where the proportionality constant is the star formation efficiency parameter. The model is described in more detail in Ferreras & Silk (2000a,b). This generic description allows us to include multi-burst scenarios in galaxies undergoing several merging stages with enough gas to fuel star formation at each merging event. Figure 1 shows a comparison between two star formation histories: one with three equally strong starburst events and a second one as a simplification to the former using our approach. The top panel shows the evolution of the gas mass — which is proportional to the star formation rate. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the metallicity and the top inset traces the evolution of rest frame $`UV`$ color for both scenarios. One can see that at times after the last bursting episode, the evolution in both cases is roughly undistinguishable. Hence, we conclude that our four-parameter model can account not only for a standard “monolithic” scenario but also for multi-burst formation histories. Furthermore, a Gaussian profile for infall avoids the overproduction of low metallicity stars. In fact, a suitable choice of infall parameters ($`\tau _f`$,$`z_F`$) can reproduce the local metallicity distribution of stars (Rocha-Pinto & Maciel 1996).

For a given set of four parameters ($`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$,$`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$,$`z_F`$,$`\tau _f`$) we can trace a star formation history and convolve it in age and metallicity with the simple stellar populations of Bruzual & Charlot (in preparation). Hereafter a closed cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`H_0=60`$ km s-1 Mpc-1), and a hybrid Initial Mass Function between Scalo and Salpeter (Ferreras & Silk 2000b) are used. Out of these four parameters, we find only $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can generate the range of observed $`UV`$ colors in nearby early-type cluster galaxies (Bower, Lucey & Ellis 1992). Hence, the luminosity sequence of these systems could be explained either by a range of outflows ($`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$-sequence), by a range of star formation efficiencies ($`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-sequence), or by some combination thereof. Figure 2 shows the predicted color-magnitude relation (CMR) of Coma galaxies at the redshift of cluster Cl0016+16 ($`z=0.55`$, Ellis et al. 1997) assuming a $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$-sequence (left) or a $`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-sequence (right), and a range of infall parameters ($`z_F`$,$`\tau _f`$). A sequence driven by $`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ results in an age spread for the stellar populations. This causes the remarkable departure of the predictions from the observed CMR (shaded area) for extended star formation histories ($`z_F=10`$, $`\tau _f=2`$ Gyr). However, because of the age-metallicity degeneracy, we find that quite a large range of the parameters agree with the observations within error bars. Hence, we cannot use photometric measurements of moderate redshift clusters in order to determine whether age ($`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) or metallicity ($`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$) drive the CMR.

## 3. $`M/L`$ ratio as tracer of age evolution

One of the most age-sensitive observables is the mass-to-light ratio. Hence, the predicted evolution of $`M/L`$ with lookback time should be different for sequences driven by age or by metallicity. We consider the evolution with redshift of the slope of the correlation between $`M/L`$ in rest frame $`B`$-band and stellar mass. This slope change is parametrized by $`\eta _B`$ defined as follows:

$$\eta _B(z)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M/L_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M}|_z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M/L_B}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}M}|_{z=0}$$
(2)
For a $`B_{\mathrm{out}}`$-sequence (driven by outflows), the range of luminosities is related by a spread in metallicities. As we evolve the cluster to higher redshifts, the mass-to-light ratio will decrease uniformly across the luminosity sequence because of lookback time, and there will also be a relative change of $`M/L`$ among early-type galaxies caused by its very weak metallicity dependence, which makes the decrease in mass-to-light ratio slighly larger in galaxies with a higher metallicity, thereby flattening the slope of $`M/L`$ vs $`M`$ (i.e. $`\eta _B\mathrm{}<0`$). On the other hand, a $`C_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-sequence (driven by efficiency) will introduce a significant age spread which varies with galaxy mass, so that $`M/L`$ at the fainter end (which has a lower efficiency and thus a larger age spread) will decrease more than the bright end, steepening the slope (i.e. $`\eta _B>0`$, see figure 5 in Ferreras & Silk 2000b).

This behavior makes the study of the evolution of $`M/L`$ with redshift a suitable candidate to infer the star formation history of early-type cluster galaxies. Unfortunately, this observable still poses a long string of uncertainties which prevent it from establishing a clearcut way of breaking the degeneracy between age and metallicity: mass-to-light ratios require time-consuming spectral observations in order to measure velocity dispersions, and can only be achieved with 10m class telescopes for clusters at moderate and high redshifts. Furthermore, the measured $`M/L`$ ratios (inferred from observations of velocity dispersions, surface brightnesses and galaxy sizes) rely on a set of assumptions about the structure of the galaxy. Any correlation between galaxy structure and mass or luminosity will add systematic errors which are hard to estimate. However, alternative age-dependent observables such as Balmer spectral indices are also plagued by model-dependent uncertainties. Despite all these caveats, the study of the evolution of $`M/L`$ with lookback time is still one of the best methods to determine the stellar demography in galaxies.

## References

Bower, R. G., Lucey, J. R. & Ellis, R. S. 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601

Ferreras, I. & Silk, J. 2000a, ApJ, March 20, astro-ph/9910385

Ferreras, I. & Silk, J. 2000b, MNRAS, in press

González, J. J. 1993, Ph.D. thesis, University of California

Kuntschner, H. 2000, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/0001210)

Rocha-Pinto, H. J. & Maciel, W. J. 1996, MNRAS, 279, 447

Trager, S. C., et al. 2000, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0001072)

Van Dokkum, P. G., et al. 1998, ApJ, 504, L17

Worthey, G. 1994, ApJS, 95, 107