text:
# Mass generation from tachyon condensation for vector fields on D-branes

## 1 Introduction

It was recently proposed by Sen  that the decay of unstable D-brane configurations in bosonic and type II string theory can be systematically described using string field theory. As a quantitative test of this prediction, Sen suggested that the energy gap between an unstable brane configuration and the vacuum should be precisely computable using tree level string field theory. Subsequent work has verified this conjecture in a variety of contexts. Calculations using level-truncated string field theory to analyze the decay of the bosonic D-brane have given an energy gap which agrees with the brane energy to 99.91% ; a suggestion for streamlining these calculations was made in . Similar calculations for unstable D-branes in superstring field theory have shown agreement to a level of approximately 90% . D0/D4 brane configurations in superstring field theory with a background B field were considered in . Lower-dimensional D-branes have been constructed as solitonic tachyon configurations on the bosonic D25-brane . It has been shown that the string field theory analysis simplifies significantly in the limit of a large B field  and for p-adic strings . Fundamental string excitations have been constructed in the large B limit . A discussion of background independence in the context of tachyon condensation recently appeared in . It has also been suggested that renormalization group analysis of conformal field theory may provide a simpler approach to some tachyon condensation calculations of this type .

This set of results provides some of the first concrete evidence that string field theory can be used as a practical calculational tool to study nonperturbative aspects of string physics, particularly in the case of processes involving creation and annihilation of D-branes, which are essentially nonperturbative phenomena from the string theory point of view. Recent arguments  that R-R charge is best described through K-theory, which arises naturally in the context of the annihilation through tachyon condensation of an infinite number of branes and anti-branes, indicate that further development of the technology of string field theory may provide very useful clues to the fundamental structures underlying string theory and M-theory.

When a single unstable D-brane (or a brane and antibrane of type II string theory) annihilate by tachyon condensation, there is a puzzle involving the fate of the U(1) gauge field living on the brane . In particular, from the point of view of the field theory living on the brane there does not seem to be any obvious mechanism for removing this field from the theory after the brane annihilation process has completed. This puzzle has been discussed by numerous authors; one particularly interesting suggestion was made in , where it was argued that the gauge theory becomes confining in the new vacuum.

In this note we address this puzzle by calculating the term quadratic in the U(1) field $`A_\mu `$ on a bosonic D-brane after decay to the stable vacuum using the level truncation approach to string field theory. Surprisingly, we find that this quadratic term has a nonzero coefficient, indicating that stringy effects give a mass to the U(1) vector field in the stable vacuum. The possible appearance of such mass terms was discussed previously in . We do not have control at this point over the kinetic term for the vector field, so we phrase our discussion in terms of the lifting of the zero modes on the D-brane associated with translation invariance in a perpendicular direction for a brane of dimension $`p<25`$. These zero modes are T-dual to the zero modes associated with constant gauge fields on the D25-brane. The appearance of a quadratic term for these fields indicates that as the D-brane is annihilated, at some point the translation/gauge zero modes of the configuration are lifted by stringy effects. This gives a natural resolution of the U(1) puzzle, in which stringy effects spontaneously give a mass to the gauge field in the true vacuum.

In Section 2 we review the string field theory analysis of tachyon condensation on a bosonic D-brane and the structure of the effective potential for the tachyon field. In Section 3 we give numerical evidence that the U(1) field on the D-brane has a nonzero mass in the stable vacuum. Section 4 contains a discussion of this result.

## 2 Tachyon condensation on bosonic D-branes

In this section we briefly review the string field theory description of the annihilation of a bosonic D-brane, following . We follow the notation and conventions of .

Witten’s cubic open string field theory action is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{g}{3!}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ is the BRST operator and $``$ is the string field theory star product. In Feynman-Siegel gauge, the string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has the expansion

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\left(\varphi +A_\mu \alpha _1^\mu +\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}B_{\mu \nu }\alpha _1^\mu \alpha _1^\nu +\beta b_1c_1+\mathrm{}\right)|0$$
(2)
where $`|0=c_1|\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the state in the string Hilbert space associated with the tachyon field. Explicit descriptions of the vertex operator for the cubic terms in the action (1) were given in the oscillator basis in .

For the purposes of determining the Lorentz-invariant stable vacuum, it is sufficient to restrict attention to the scalar fields $`\psi ^i`$ in the string field, in terms of which we write

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{scalar}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi ^i|s_i$$
(3)
where $`|s_i`$ are all the scalar states in $``$. (We write the tachyon field as $`\psi ^1=\varphi `$.) The zero momentum action for the scalar string fields can be written as

$$V=\underset{i,j}{}d_{ij}\psi ^i\psi ^j+g\kappa \underset{i,j,k}{}t_{ijk}\psi ^i\psi ^j\psi ^k$$
(4)
where $`g`$ is the string coupling constant and

$$\kappa =\frac{3^{7/2}}{2^7}.$$

The quadratic and cubic coefficients $`d_{ij}`$ and $`t_{ijk}`$ appearing in this potential can be explicitly computed for any finite number of terms. The formalism needed to perform these calculations is reviewed in  using notation and conventions which we follow in this paper.

The level truncation approach to string field theory involves systematically truncating the string field theory action by including fields up to some fixed level $`L`$ (where the tachyon is taken to have level 0), and interactions up to a total level $`I`$. Level truncation has been shown to give a good systematic approximation to string field theory for particular calculations such as the energy of the stable vacuum. In , the terms in (4) were calculated up to truncation level (4, 8). The equations of motion for the fields $`\psi ^i`$ were solved in this approximation, and it was shown that the resulting vacuum energy differs from the perturbative vacuum energy by $`98.6\%`$ of the 25-brane energy $`(2\pi ^2g^2)^1`$ predicted by Sen. All the terms in (4) up to truncation level (10, 20) were determined in , and it was shown that in this approximation the energy gap between the stable and perturbative vacua agrees with Sen’s prediction to $`99.91\%`$. The values $`\psi ^i`$ of the scalar fields up to level 10 were determined in truncations up to (10, 20) to 10 decimal places; we will use these values in the calculations of this paper.

One way of thinking about the process of tachyon condensation is in terms of the effective potential $`V(\varphi )`$ which arises from integrating out all the scalar fields $`\psi ^i,i>1`$ from (4). In terms of this effective potential, the stable vacuum arises at $`\varphi _{}`$ where $`V^{}(\varphi _{})=0`$, and Sen’s conjecture states that

$$V(0)V(\varphi _{})=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2g^2}.$$
(5)
In , this effective potential was studied both from the point of view of its perturbative expansion

$$V(\varphi )=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n(g\kappa )^{n2}\varphi ^n=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+g\kappa \varphi ^3+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
and nonperturbatively using numerical techniques to solve the equations of motion arising from (4) in the level-truncated theory for all fields except $`\varphi `$. One particularly interesting feature of this effective potential is that at every level of truncation up to (10, 20) a branch point appears near $`\varphi 0.25/g`$. The effective potential seems to have a critical point near this value. The physical meaning of this critical point is unclear, although some speculations were made in . The existence of this critical point does, however, indicate a finite radius of convergence for the effective potential $`V(\varphi )`$. The stable vacuum $`\varphi _{}`$ lies outside this radius of convergence, although $`\varphi _{}`$ lies in the opposite direction on the $`\varphi `$ axis and seems to be within the region where the branch of the effective potential containing $`\varphi =0`$ is well defined.

## 3 Lifting of zero modes

One of the most important outstanding questions related to D-brane annihilation by tachyon condensation is the structure of the theory in the stable vacuum. Since in this vacuum the D-brane has completely disappeared from the picture, we do not expect to see open string modes in this vacuum. According to Sen’s conjecture the kinetic terms for all the open string modes should vanish in the stable vacuum, essentially decoupling all massive string modes from the theory. How the fate of the massless U(1) field on the brane can be understood is, however, a puzzle which has been discussed from several points of view  but not fully resolved.

A full string field theory analysis of the fate of the massless vector field on the brane after tachyon condensation would involve a complicated calculation involving subtle momentum-dependent factors. Even without considering momentum-dependence, however, there is an interesting calculation which seems to shed light on the U(1) puzzle. The significance of this calculation is most clear in a T-dual setting, where we consider a bosonic D$`p`$-brane with $`p<25`$. Under T-duality in $`k`$ compact directions, the components of the $`U(1)`$ field in the compact directions become transverse scalar fields $`X^i`$. For a D$`p`$-brane in noncompact space, the string field theory action is the same as for a D25-brane, with the differences that the fields all have momentum only in $`p+1`$ dimensions of space-time and that the transverse scalars $`X^i`$ have the physical interpretation of describing the position of the D-brane in the transverse dimensions.

Shifting the position of a D$`p`$-brane in one of the transverse directions corresponds, then, to turning on a translation zero mode of the theory associated with a constant field $`X^i`$. The physical question we will address with the calculation in this section is whether these translation zero modes still exist in the stable vacuum arising from tachyon condensation on a bosonic D$`p`$-brane with $`p<25`$. In order to answer this question, we only need to calculate the coefficient of the quadratic term $`X^iX^i`$ in the effective action arising from integrating out all massive string fields in the stable vacuum. We find that indeed this term seems to have a nonzero coefficient. This indicates that the translation zero modes are lifted by stringy effects in the stable vacuum. While we perform our calculations in a fixed gauge, this physical result is gauge-independent.

Although the physical interpretation of this mass term is clearest in the T-dual context of a D$`p`$-brane $`p<25`$, we carry out this calculation in the context of the zero-momentum action on a D25-brane. In this picture, the quadratic term we derive represents a spontaneously generated mass for the vector field $`A_\mu `$ in the stable vacuum. We discuss the physical meaning of this term and the question of gauge invariance in the following section; in this section we simply perform the string field theory calculation of the term in question.

To make the discussion precise, we introduce some new notation. We are interested in the zero-momentum string field theory action for all string fields at odd levels which transform as Lorentz vectors. We write this vector part of the string field as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{vector}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\eta _\mu ^{(m)}|v_{(m)}^\mu `$
$`=`$ $`A_\mu \alpha _1^\mu |0+\eta _\mu ^{(2)}\alpha _1^\mu (\alpha _1\alpha _1)|0+`$
$`\eta _\mu ^{(3)}\alpha _3^\mu |0+\eta _\mu ^{(4)}\alpha _1^\mu b_1c_1|0+\mathrm{}`$
where $`\eta _\mu ^{(m)}`$ are the odd-level vector fields in the theory, with $`\eta _\mu ^{(1)}=A_\mu `$. We are interested in the zero-momentum scalar-vector-vector couplings in the string field theory action

$$\kappa gC_{imn}\psi ^i\left(\eta ^{(m)}\eta ^{(n)}\right)$$
(8)
and the zero-momentum mass terms for the vector fields in the perturbative vacuum

$$D_{mn}\left(\eta ^{(m)}\eta ^{(n)}\right)$$
(9)
In terms of these couplings, the complete set of zero-momentum quadratic terms for the vector fields in the stable vacuum can be written as

$$S_{\mathrm{v2}}=\underset{m,n}{}M_{mn}\left(\eta ^{(m)}\eta ^{(n)}\right)$$
(10)
where

$$M_{mn}=D_{mn}+g\kappa \underset{i}{}C_{imn}\psi ^i$$
(11)
is the mass matrix for the vector fields.

If the zero modes of $`A_\mu `$ persist in the stable vacuum, we would expect that in the full theory the mass matrix $`M_{mn}`$ would have a vanishing eigenvalue. We can test this using the level truncation method by truncating at a sequence of levels $`(L_v,L_s,I)`$ where $`L_v`$ and $`L_s`$ are the maximum levels of vector fields and scalar fields considered, and $`I`$ is the maximum total level considered in any interaction. We describe here explicitly the mass matrix in the level truncations (1, 0, 2), (1, 2, 4) and (3, 4, 8).

Level (1, 0, 2) truncation:

There is only a single scalar at level zero ($`\varphi `$) and a single vector at level one ($`A_\mu `$). The complete zero-momentum string field theory action for these fields is

$$S_{1,0,2}=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+\kappa g\varphi ^3+\frac{16}{9}\kappa g\varphi A_\mu A^\mu .$$
(12)
At this level the mass matrix is

$$M=\left(\frac{16}{9}\kappa g\varphi \right)(0.59259)$$
(13)
when we use the level (0, 0) approximation $`g\kappa \varphi _{(0,0)}=1/3`$. Thus, in the level (1, 0, 2) truncation the smallest eigenvalue of $`M`$ is $`0.59`$.

Level (1, 2, 4) truncation:

There are two additional scalars appearing at level 2. Including these scalars the mass matrix becomes

$$M=\left(\kappa g\left[\frac{16}{9}\varphi \frac{1568}{243}\psi ^2\frac{176}{243}\psi ^3\right]\right)(0.67289)$$
(14)
using the level (2, 4) approximation to the scalar expectation values. We see that including scalars at higher level has shifted the mass of the vector slightly, but in an upward direction.

Level (3, 4, 8) truncation:

Using the level (4, 8) approximations for the 10 scalars at level 4 or less we find a mass matrix for the four vectors appearing in (3) given approximately by

$$M\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0.67910& 2.82440& 0.08261& 0.26102\\ 2.82440& 82.15982& 0.31499& 1.03418\\ 0.08261& 0.31499& 4.70145& 0.02849\\ 0.26102& 1.03418& 0.02849& 0.95150\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
The smallest eigenvalue of this matrix (in absolute value) is $`0.61206`$, and the associated eigenvector is $`(0.98919,0.03598,0.01819,0.14101)`$.

We have continued this analysis of the zero-momentum mass matrix up to level (9, 10, 20). The results for the smallest eigenvalue of $`M`$ are given in Table 1. As is apparent from the table, there is no sign of a vanishing eigenvalue in the limit of large level. Quite to the contrary, the smallest eigenvalue seems to be converging to a number in the vicinity of $`0.59`$. For each of the eigenvalues given in Table 1, the associated eigenvector is dominated by the component in the direction of $`A_\mu `$, just as in the (3, 4, 8) example given explicitly above.

One way of physically interpreting the mass matrix for the vector fields $`\eta ^{(n)}`$ is in terms of the effect of this mass matrix on the effective action for the tachyon field $`\varphi `$ and the massless vector $`A_\mu `$. Integrating out all fields but $`\varphi `$ and $`A_\mu `$ gives an effective action of the form

$$S_{\varphi ,A}=V(\varphi )+G(\varphi )A_\mu A^\mu +𝒪(A^4)$$
(16)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is the effective tachyon potential discussed in Section 2 and $`G(\varphi )`$ is another function of $`\varphi `$. The quadratic term for the vector field in the stable vacuum has a coefficient $`G(\varphi _{})`$.

We can determine $`G(\varphi _{})`$ in terms of the matrix $`M`$ by solving the equations of motion for the vector fields at leading order. These equations of motion state that

$$M_{mn}\eta _\mu ^{(n)}=0,m>1.$$
(17)
Thus, we have

$$\eta _\mu ^{(n)}=(M^1)_{n1}\alpha _\mu $$
(18)
for some $`\alpha _\mu `$, so

$$\eta _\mu ^{(n)}=\frac{(M^1)_{n1}}{(M^1)_{11}}A_\mu ,$$
(19)
so

$$G(\varphi _{})=\frac{1}{(M^1)_{11}}.$$
(20)
For the examples above with $`L_v=1`$, this simply gives $`G(\varphi _{})=M_{11}`$ as expected. For the matrix (15) describing level truncation (3, 4, 8), this gives

$$G(\varphi _{})_{(3,4,8)}0.63343.$$
(21)
This quantity was also calculated by Sen and Zwiebach in the course of their analysis of marginal deformations of the bosonic D-brane away from the perturbative vacuum . Using an independent computational technique they arrived at precisely the same value in this level truncated theory111I would like to thank these authors for comparing the details of this calculation and for extended discussions regarding its significance.. We have extended this calculation of $`G(\varphi _{})`$ up to the level (9, 10, 20) truncation for which we have determined $`M_{mn}`$. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1. We see that $`G(\varphi _{})`$ seems to approach a nonzero number near $`0.62`$ in the limit of large levels, indicating that a mass for the vector field is spontaneously generated in the stable vacuum. The rate at which $`G(\varphi _{})`$ converges to its limiting value is similar to the rate at which $`V(\varphi _{})`$ approaches its limiting value as higher levels are incorporated; for example, the difference in $`G(\varphi _{})`$ between the level (7, 8, 16) and level (9, 10, 20) truncations is less than $`0.2\%`$. This similarity with the rate of convergence of $`V(\varphi _{})`$ gives us confidence that the level truncation method is giving us a good sequence of approximations to a limiting value for $`G(\varphi _{})`$ near 0.62.

## 4 Discussion

In this note we have described a calculation which shows that the transverse scalars $`X^i`$ and U(1) gauge field $`A_\mu `$ get mass terms from stringy effects when a bosonic D-brane annihilates through tachyon condensation. In particular, we have found that in the stable open string field theory vacuum associated with tachyon condensation on a D$`25`$-brane, there is a term of the form

$$G(\varphi _{})A_\mu A^\mu ,G(\varphi _{})0.62$$
(22)
in the effective potential $`S(\varphi ,A_\mu )`$. While we performed this calculation in a particular gauge, the result that zero modes of transverse scalars and the world-volume gauge field are lifted in the stable vacuum is a physically observable gauge-independent effect.

The appearance of the term (22) seems very surprising from a field theory point of view. In the vicinity of the perturbative vacuum, we expect to have a massless U(1) gauge field on the brane, and gauge invariance under this U(1) seems to guarantee the absence of such a mass term. How does this field theoretic picture mesh with the structure of the string field theory action? To understand the connection it is helpful to consider the (non gauge-fixed) string field theory action around the perturbative vacuum

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2+\kappa g\varphi ^3+\frac{16}{9}\kappa g\varphi A_\mu A^\mu +\mathrm{}$$
(23)
It is interesting to note that the leading terms (23) appearing in the string field theory action have also been calculated directly from the point of view of the sigma model using a nonstandard regularization scheme . The action (23) does not have a gauge invariance under the transformations

$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (24)
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }`$
Instead, (23) is invariant under the BRST transformation

$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9}}\kappa gA^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}`$
$`\delta A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}`$ (25)
After integrating out all massive fields in the theory, the effective action $`S(\varphi ,A_\mu )`$ for the tachyon and string vector field continues to have an invariance under a symmetry whose leading terms are given by (25). Thus, $`S(\varphi ,A)`$ is not gauge-invariant in the sense of (24).

In the neighborhood of the perturbative vacuum, it is possible to find a field redefinition $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=f(\varphi ,A),\stackrel{~}{A}=g(\varphi ,A)`$ to a new set of fields under which the effective action $`S(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{A})`$ becomes gauge invariant under (24). Such a field redefinition was recently discussed explicitly in . Under this field redefinition, the zero-momentum part of $`S(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{A})`$ must become independent of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ by gauge invariance. From the first few terms in the effective action $`S(\varphi ,A)`$, which coincide with (23), and from (25), it is clear that the first term in this field redefinition must be

$$\varphi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\frac{16}{9}g\kappa A_\mu A^\mu +\mathrm{}$$
(26)
This redefinition cancels the term of the form $`\varphi A_\mu A^\mu `$ in $`S(\varphi ,A)`$. It was furthermore shown in  that $`S(\varphi ,A)`$ contains a term of the form $`A_\mu A^\mu A_\nu A^\nu `$ which was determined to within a few percent using level truncation including fields up to level 20; this term is also precisely cancelled by (26).

Although the existence of a field redefinition of this type seems to mean that there is a set of variables in terms of which the effective action $`S(\varphi ,A)`$ has the standard gauge invariance (24), care must be taken with respect to the range of validity of such a field redefinition, as emphasized in . This field redefinition is only defined in a perturbative fashion, and therefore we expect that it will only be well-defined in a finite sized neighborhood of the perturbative vacuum. The apparent existence of a nonzero mass term (22) for $`A_\mu `$ in the nonperturbative stable vacuum of the open bosonic string field theory can in fact be interpreted as evidence that the U(1) gauge theory description of the bosonic D-brane theory has a finite range of validity. If this interpretation is correct, it would mean that as the tachyon condenses and the theory moves towards the nonperturbative stable vacuum, at a certain point the theory undergoes a phase transition beyond which an effective gauge field theory description of the system such as suggested in  would no longer be applicable. This is clearly an important issue to understand better, since recent analyses of physics in the nonperturbative vacuum  rely on extending such a gauge-invariant field theory action all the way to the stable vacuum. Since the results found in these papers are generally physically correct, it may be that even if a mass term such as we have found does exist for the U(1) field in the stable vacuum, some qualitative aspects of the physics in this vacuum are correctly captured by a gauge-invariant field theory.

One possible scenario which seems to be consistent with the picture given here is that the transformation law for $`A_\mu `$ in the effective theory $`S(\varphi ,A_\mu )`$ may be of the form

$$\delta A_\mu =f(\varphi )_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{}$$
(27)
where $`f(\varphi _{})=0`$. This seems to be the simplest way to ensure that an action of the form (16) retains BRST symmetry at a point where $`V^{}(\varphi _{})=0`$ and $`G(\varphi _{})0`$. This scenario might also help explain why the locally defined gauge field theory comes close to capturing the physics of the true vacuum correctly, as it is possible that the field theory picture is valid for all $`\varphi <\varphi _{}`$.

A skeptic might argue that the numerical results presented here are rather flimsy evidence on which to base a claim that gauge theory breaks down in the process of tachyon condensation. It is certainly not impossible, for example, that the numbers in Table 1, while appearing to converge to quantities in the neighborhood of 0.6, actually are the beginning of two very long sequences of numbers which converge slowly to 0. This seems unlikely, at least to the present author, since the apparent convergence of the value of $`G(\varphi _{})`$, in particular, seems to be proceeding in a closely analogous fashion to the convergence of $`V(\varphi _{})`$ as studied in . These functions arise in a very parallel fashion in the string field theory picture, so it would seem very surprising if the level truncation approach gives such a good approximation to $`V(\varphi )`$ near the stable vacuum and is nonetheless giving misleading information for $`G(\varphi _{})`$. As further evidence that the scenario outlined above is a correct description of the physics, it is also relevant to consider the fact that the perturbative expansion of $`V(\varphi )`$ has a radius of convergence noticeably smaller than $`\varphi _{}`$. This seems to lend credence to the possibility that the field redefinition needed to give a gauge-invariant formulation of the D-brane theory may have a similar radius of convergence and may not be well-defined in the vicinity of the stable vacuum.

The results presented here seem to give a very simple solution to the puzzle regarding the fate of the massless U(1) field, when viewed from the point of view of string field theory. In the picture we have given, the U(1) field becomes massive due to stringy effects when the tachyon condensation becomes sufficient to bring the theory near the stable vacuum. It is not clear whether there is a way to bring this intrinsically stringy effect back into the domain of field theory, so that this phenomenon might be described either in terms of a Higgs effect or confinement as suggested in .

In this work we have neglected momentum dependence in the string field theory action. Including all momentum-dependent terms in the action and constructing the full momentum-dependent quadratic string field theory action in the vicinity of the stable vacuum would make possible a detailed study of the pole spectrum of the theory, extending earlier work in , which would shed a great deal of light on the fate of the open string excitations in the stable vacuum. In particular, to precisely understand the fate of the U(1) vector field it is clearly desirable to have control over the kinetic terms of the vector fields as well as the mass terms studied here. One likely scenario, which was suggested by Sen , is that all the kinetic terms will vanish in the stable vacuum. If this is true and the quadratic matrix $`M_{nm}`$ for the vector fields indeed has a lower bound on its spectrum as suggested by the results described here, all the vector fields in the theory will become infinitely massive and hence decouple in the stable vacuum. This would fit in very nicely with the expected decoupling of all open string fields in this vacuum. Another, more bizarre, possibility is that the kinetic terms for the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ become infinite in the effective action $`S(\varphi ,A)`$ using the standard string field theory normalization conventions we have used here. This would essentially drive the mass of the gauge field back to zero even in the presence of the mass term we have found. This possibility would seem to be very unlikely as it is difficult to reconcile with the decoupling of the other massive string modes, but it is worth mentioning since it seems to be the only possibility other than an extraordinary conspiracy at high level that would restore the massless U(1) field at the stable vacuum. Work is currently in progress to give a complete analysis of the spectrum of the level-truncated string fields around the stable vacuum, including all momentum-dependent factors. When completed, such an analysis may give new insights as to how the complete set of open string fields including the apparently massive U(1) decouple in the stable vacuum.

Finally, it would clearly be of interest to extend the analysis in this note to the case of the superstring. While there seem to be complications in using Witten’s cubic superstring field theory for this kind of calculation (see  and references therein), the approach of Berkovits  has led to successful calculations of the energy of unstable D-branes in type II string theory to an accuracy of about 90% . It would be very interesting to see whether the world-volume U(1) field on such a brane has a mass analogous to that computed in this note in the supersymmetric type II vacuum. On the one hand, it is natural to expect that the physics of this U(1) field should not be particularly different in the supersymmetric case from the bosonic case. On the other hand, however, arguments for a simple form of the action describing the tachyon and U(1) field were given in . Some of these arguments relied on supersymmetry. It may be that supersymmetry helps to protect the U(1) gauge field from the spontaneously generated mass we have found here in the bosonic case. More work in this direction is clearly needed to clarify this issue.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to particularly thank Ashoke Sen and Barton Zwiebach for extensive discussions on the issues discussed in this paper and for comparing detailed aspects of their own calculations with those I have described here. I would also like to thank Justin David, Kentaro Hori, Albion Lawrence and Leonardo Rastelli for helpful discussions. Thanks also to the Aspen Center for Physics, where this work was completed, and to the participants in the Aspen Summer ’00 M-theory and Duality Workshop for many stimulating discussions relevant to the subject matter of this note. This work was supported in part by the A. P. Sloan Foundation and in part by the DOE through contract #DE-FC02-94ER40818.


format: text

text:
# Longitudinal Laser Shaping in Laser Wakefield Accelerators

## Abstract

We study the energetics of wake excitation during the laser-plasma interaction in application to laser wakefield accelerators. We find that both the wake amplitude and the accelerating efficiency (transformer ratio) can be maximized by properly shaping the longitudinal profile of the driving laser pulse. The corresponding family of laser pulse shapes is derived in the nonlinear regime of laser-plasma interaction. Such shapes provide theoretical upper limit on the magnitude of the wakefield and efficiency by allowing for uniform photon deceleration inside the laser pulse. We also construct realistic optimal pulse shapes that can be produced in finite-bandwidth laser systems.

Current plasma accelerators can be broadly subdivided into two classes – the laser driven scheme, and the electron beam driven scheme . While the accelerating plasma waves excited in these two schemes are very similar, the physics of wakefield excitation is quite different between them. In the beam-driven Plasma Wakefield Accelerator (PWFA) the electron beam loses energy to the plasma through interaction with the induced electrostatic field, while in the laser-driven Laser Wakefield Accelerator (LWFA) energy loss occurs via photon redshift or deceleration . This process is due to the presence of wake-induced stationary modulations in the refractive index of the plasma as seen in the laser comoving frame . With the recent advances in laser technology, the creation of ultrashort pulses with virtually arbitrary temporal profiles is now possible by using amplitude and phase pulse shapers . Since perturbations to the refractive index of the plasma depend on pulse shape, different laser shapes will vary in their coupling to the plasma. A natural question therefore arises: what laser shape is the “optimal” for laser-plasma accelerators?

The number of parameters involved in selecting a particular pulse shape can be overwhelming. One can characterize a shape by the value of its total energy, length, maximum laser field, amplitude of plasma wake, etc., in addition to an infinite-dimensional space of actual shape functions. Luckily, not all of these parameters are independent or even well-defined. In this Letter we argue that the only two meaningful parameters that describe a laser shape from the stand point of wake excitation are the total pulse energy and its depletion length. Using these parameters different laser shapes can be consistently classified and cross-compared while desired properties such as wake amplitude or efficiency can be optimized.

Let us consider a homogeneous unmagnetized plasma which is charge neutral, at rest, and has initial density $`n_p`$ in the absence of electromagnetic wave. Laser propagates along the $`z`$ axis with initial frequency $`\omega _0\omega _p\sqrt{4\pi e^2n_p/m_e}`$. In the laser comoving frame, the plasma response can be written in terms of the independent dimensionless variables $`\zeta =k_p(zv_gt)`$ and $`\tau =k_pct`$, where $`k_p`$ is the plasma wavenumber, and $`v_gc`$ is the laser group velocity (for convenience the laser is moving in the negative $`z`$ direction). Introducing dimensionless normalized scalar and vector potentials $`\varphi (\zeta )`$ and $`a(\zeta )`$, the parallel and perpendicular electric fields are $`E_{}=(mc^2k_p/e)\varphi /\zeta `$ and $`E_{}=(mc/e)a/t=(mc^2k_p/e)a/\zeta `$. The wakefield generation equation can then be written as :

$$\frac{d^2x}{d\zeta ^2}=\frac{n_e}{n_p}1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+a^2(\zeta )}{x^2}1\right),$$
(1)
where $`n_e`$ is the perturbed electron plasma density, $`x1+\varphi `$ is the modified electrostatic potential, and $`a^2(\zeta )`$ is the dimensionless laser intensity envelope averaged over fast oscillations. Prior to the arrival of the laser the normalized wakefield $`eE_{}/m_ec\omega _p=dx/d\zeta `$ is zero. A formal solution for the electric field outside the laser can be written as the first integral of (1): $`[^{out}(\zeta )]^2=(x1)^2/x+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2x^{}/x^2𝑑\zeta `$, which reaches a maximum value at $`x=1`$:

$$[_{max}^{out}]^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )\left(\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{1}{x}\right)𝑑\zeta .$$
(2)
This expression can be understood in terms of the deposition of laser energy into plasma. Due to negligible scattering, the photon number in the laser is essentially constant, and the laser energy loss is predominantly in the form of frequency redshift, or photon deceleration :

$$\frac{\omega }{z}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega }k_p\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{n_e}{\gamma n_p}=\frac{\omega _p^2}{2\omega }k_p\left(\frac{}{\zeta }\frac{1}{x}\right).$$
(3)
The energy density in the wake from (2) can then be interpreted as the intensity-weighted integral of the photon deceleration throughout the pulse. Let’s denote the wake-dependent part of the photon deceleration function as $`\kappa (\zeta )x^{}/x^2`$. It is closely related to the characteristic laser depletion length $`l_d`$, or the distance in which the maximally decelerated laser slice redshifts down to $`\omega _p`$ assuming a nonevolving wakefield. From (3), $`l_d=[(\omega _0/\omega _p)^21]/k_p\kappa _{max}`$, where $`\kappa _{max}`$ is the maximum of $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ inside the laser. The value of the peak wakefield in (2) is bounded from above by the total laser energy and the maximum photon deceleration:

$$[_{max}^{out}]^2=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )\kappa (\zeta )𝑑\zeta \kappa _{max}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a^2(\zeta )𝑑\zeta .$$
(4)
One possible optimization problem can then be formulated as follows: given some fixed laser energy $`\epsilon _0`$ (i.e., the integral of $`a^2`$), and the desired depletion length (i.e., $`\kappa _{max}=\kappa _0`$), what laser shape would produce the largest possible wakefield? From (4) it is clear that such a shape should maintain a constant maximal photon deceleration throughout the pulse. If the laser is present for $`\zeta >0`$, then in order to satisfy the boundary conditions the photon deceleration should rise from $`0`$ to value $`\kappa _0`$ at the very beginning of the pulse, e.g., like a step-function: $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0\theta (\zeta ^+)`$. Here, $`\zeta ^+\zeta 0^+`$ in order to avoid ambiguities with the values of step-function at 0. The corresponding laser profile is then found from the wake equation (1):

$$a_l^2(\zeta )=\frac{2\kappa _0\delta (\zeta ^+)}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^4}+\frac{4\kappa _0^2\theta ^2(\zeta ^+)}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^5}+\frac{1}{(1\kappa _0\zeta )^2}1,$$
(5)
where $`\zeta [0,\zeta _f<1/\kappa _0]`$, and $`\delta (\zeta ^+)`$ is a delta-function such that $`_0^{\zeta >0}\delta (y^+)𝑑y=1`$. A schematic drawing of the optimal laser intensity variation and its associated plasma wakefield are shown in Fig. 1. Generally, the shape consists of a $`\delta `$-function at the front followed by a ramp in intensity which is cut off at $`\zeta _f`$. In the linear regime, when $`a^21`$, $`\kappa _00`$, the ramp reduces to a triangular shape found in : $`a^2=2\kappa _0(\delta (\zeta ^+)+\zeta )`$. We note that (5) describes a family of shapes, rather than a fixed shape. The actual profile of the optimal pulse depends on the deceleration parameter $`\kappa _0`$ set by the desired depletion length and the pulse length $`\zeta _f`$, which is determined from the available total energy:

$$\epsilon _0=2\kappa _0+\frac{\zeta _f[\kappa _0^2+(1\kappa _0\zeta _f)^3]}{(1\kappa _0\zeta _f)^4}.$$
(6)
Although the pulse length cannot exceed $`\zeta _c1/\kappa _0`$, the rise of $`a^2`$ towards the end of the pulse guarantees that any finite laser energy can be accommodated for $`\zeta _f<\zeta _c`$. The two terms in (6) represent the energy contained in the $`\delta `$-function precursor and the main pulse. It is clear that for a fixed total energy there exists a maximum value of $`\kappa _0=\epsilon _0/2`$ which is achieved when $`\zeta _f0`$, i.e., all of the energy is concentrated in the $`\delta `$-function. This shape, which is a particular case of the general optimal shape (5), excites the largest possible wakefield and has the smallest depletion length among all pulses of fixed energy. For circularly polarized pulses with cylindrical transverse crossection of radius $`r_0`$ and wavelength $`\lambda `$, the maximum achievable wake is then given by:

$$E_{\mathrm{max}}=6.54E_{wb}\left[\frac{U_0}{1\mathrm{J}}\right]\left[\frac{\lambda }{1\mu \mathrm{m}}\right]^2\left[\frac{10\mu \mathrm{m}}{r_0}\right]^2\left[\frac{n_p}{10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3}\right]^{1/2}$$
(7)
where $`U_0`$ is the total pulse energy (in Joules) and $`E_{wb}=96[n_p/10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3]\mathrm{GV}/\mathrm{m}`$ is the nonrelativistic wavebreaking field.

The method used for obtaining the optimal shape (5) is actually more general and can be used to determine laser shapes that generate other variations in the nonlinear index of refraction. Having a physical requirement for the refractive index $`\eta [1(\omega _p/\omega )^2n_e/\gamma n_p]^{1/2}=[1(\omega _p/\omega )^21/x]^{1/2}`$, which for this case is the requirement of uniformity of photon deceleration, provides a constraint on $`x(\zeta )`$, which can then be used to find the laser shape from the wake equation. Alas, such a “reverse” solution is not always guaranteed to yield a physical (i.e., positive) $`a^2(\zeta )`$, so, in general, caution is advised. While the generation of large accelerating gradients is a prerequisite for a successful accelerating scheme, the efficiency of acceleration should also be considered. For an accelerating scheme that involves transfer of energy from the driver beam to the accelerating beam, efficiency is measured in terms of the transformer ratio, or the ratio of the maximum rate of energy gain per particle of accelerating beam to the maximum rate of energy loss per particle of the driving beam. In the case of laser-plasma accelerators, where the driving and accelerating beams consist of particles of different species, the following kinematic definition is more useful:

$$R\frac{|\gamma _a/z|_{max}}{|\gamma _d/z|_{max}},$$
(8)
where $`\gamma _d`$ and $`\gamma _a`$ are Lorentz factors for the driving and accelerating beams. In LWFA the particles in the trailing electron bunch are accelerated via electrostatic interaction with the wake, so $`|\gamma _a/z|_{max}=|eE_{}^{max}|/m_ec^2=k_p|_{max}^{out}|`$. For the laser propagating in plasma $`\gamma _d\omega /\omega _p`$, so $`|\gamma _d/z|`$ is the photon frequency shift given by (3). The transformer ratio for LWFA is then:

$$R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}=\frac{2\omega }{\omega _p}\frac{|x/\zeta |_{max}^{out}}{|(1/x)/\zeta |_{max}^{in}}||_{max}^{out}k_pl_d.$$
(9)
It follows from this definition that the transformer ratio is not only a measure of local accelerating efficiency, but is also directly related to the maximum energy that can be transferred to the accelerating beam particle over the laser depletion length (assuming no evolution of the wake during propagation).

As there is no absolute maximum of $`R`$, we can only look for a shape that maximizes $`R`$ subject to constraints. For instance, among the pulses of fixed energy and depletion length $`R`$ is maximized by a pulse that produces the largest wakefield. But this is precisely the optimal shape found above. A more general proof involves considering all pulses irrespective of total energy that create a given value of wakefield. It can then be shown  that a pulse which has the largest depletion length among these must maintain a constant photon deceleration inside the pulse, which again points to the shape (5). From (9) the optimal transformer ratio is then:

$$R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}=\frac{2\omega }{\omega _p}\sqrt{\frac{1+(k_pL_p)^2[1\kappa _0(k_pL_p)]^3}{[1\kappa _0(k_pL_p)]^4}},$$
(10)
where $`L_p=\zeta _f/k_p`$ is the pulse length. In the linear regime optimal transformer ratios for both LWFA and PWFA schemes scale identically with the pulse/beam length: $`R^{\mathrm{L}WFA}(2\omega /\omega _p)\sqrt{1+(k_pL_{pulse})^2},`$ $`R^{\mathrm{P}WFA}\sqrt{1+(k_pL_{beam})^2}`$ . The LWFA scheme is intrinsically more efficient by a factor of $`2\omega /\omega _p`$, which is needed for viability of LWFA since lasers are typically “slower” drivers than electron beams.

The advantage of using the optimal pulse shape is best seen in comparison with the unshaped (Gaussian) pulse. For a given Gaussian pulse (or any other non-optimal shape) one can always construct a corresponding optimally shaped pulse with the same laser energy such that the photon deceleration across the optimal pulse equals to the peak photon deceleration in the unshaped one (i.e., both pulses have equal depletion lengths). Unshaped pulses deplete first in the region where photon deceleration is the largest, whereas a laser with the optimal shape loses all its energy in a depletion length due to uniform photon deceleration, thus enhancing instantaneous energy deposition and wakefield. For a numerical example, we consider the optimal and Gaussian pulses of total energy $`0.5\mathrm{J}`$, wavelength $`1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and cylindrical radius $`10\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in a plasma with $`n_p=10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The transformer ratio, the maximum wakefield, the required pulse length, and the corresponding peak $`a_0`$ are shown in Fig. 2 as functions of depletion length.

From Fig. 2 we see that the transformer ratio and the maximum wakefield are consistently larger for shaped pulses. In fact, the lines for optimal pulse wakefield and transformer ratio represent theoretical upper limits for all pulses of given energy. The Gaussian pulse achieves a maximum transformer ratio when its length (measured here as FWHM) equals $`1/2`$ of the relativistic plasma wavelength. The effects of shaping are especially prominent for longer pulses, where Gaussian pulse yields almost no wake excitation due to plasma oscillations inside the pulse that cause part of the laser photons to absorb energy from the wake. On the other hand, a shaped laser postpones plasma oscillation until the end of the pulse, and all photons decelerate uniformly. For very short pulses, the differences between the two shapes are minimal. This is due to the fact that very short Gaussian pulses of fixed energy asymptotically approach the delta-function limit of the short optimal shape.

Although short pulses generally produce the largest wakefields, their efficiency is close to minimal possible, as the depletion length decreases faster than increase in the wake. Therefore, the choice of the appropriate pulse shape for LWFA stage will depend on specific experimental conditions. If the laser-plasma interaction distance is limited by instabilities, diffraction or dephasing, then in order to maximize the electron energy gain one should try to achieve the largest accelerating gradient, which can be accomplished with ultrashort pulses. If, however, the interaction length is less constrained, such as the case for propagation in plasma channels , then using a finite-length shaped pulse will result in a greatly improved overall energy gain per stage. An added benefit of pulse shaping is the suppression of modulational instability that affects unshaped pulses that are longer than plasma wavelength. When all photons redshift, or “slow down”, at the same rate, different laser slices do not overrun each other, and the 1D laser self-modulation is suppressed.

As the optimal pulse shape is associated with a delta-function precursor, the feasibility of such a structure may be a concern. We note that the purpose of this precursor is to bring the photon deceleration from zero in the quiescent plasma before the laser to a finite value $`\kappa _0`$ at the beginning of the main pulse. This can also be achieved with a more physical prepulse, whose shape can be found once a smooth function $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ is chosen. For our example we choose $`\kappa (\zeta )=\kappa _0[1+\mathrm{tanh}\alpha (\zeta \zeta _0)]/2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is a steepness parameter and $`\zeta _0`$ is an arbitrary offset. The corresponding laser shape is then:

$$a^2=\frac{\kappa _0\alpha \mathrm{s}ech^2\alpha \zeta _1}{\chi ^4(\zeta _1)}+\frac{\kappa _0^2[1+\mathrm{tanh}\alpha \zeta _1]^2}{\chi ^5(\zeta _1)}+\frac{1}{\chi ^2(\zeta _1)}1,$$
(11)
where $`\zeta _1\zeta \zeta _0\zeta _f`$ and $`\chi (\zeta _1)1+(\kappa _0/2\alpha )\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\kappa _0[\zeta _1+\frac{1}{\alpha }\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \zeta _1)]/2`$. As before, the pulse length $`\zeta _f`$ can be found from the available pulse energy. For a step-function photon deceleration ($`\alpha \mathrm{}`$) expression (11) asymptotes to equation (5). However, for finite values of $`\alpha `$ the delta-function precursor spreads out and can even disappear as shown in Fig. 3. The family of shapes given by (11) is better suited for the finite-bandwidth laser systems that have a lower limit on achievable feature size. The values of the maximum wakefield for pulses in Fig. 3 are within few percent of the value for an equivalent delta-function optimal pulse because the bulk of the modified laser pulse still experiences constant maximal photon deceleration. The wakefield further degrades with longer rise times of $`\kappa (\zeta )`$. It is also possible to construct optimal shapes that propagate in a pre-existing plasma oscillation and act as wakefield amplifiers . Such shapes also do not require delta-function precursors.

Several issues should be addressed before the laser pulse shaping concept can be fully utilized. Even without the delta-function precursor, the finite laser bandwidth will necessarily smooth out sharp rises and falls of the optimal pulse shape. Although we do not anticipate adverse effects when the feature size is much smaller than the plasma wavelength, the 1D self-consistent laser evolution and stability of realistic optimal shapes are currently under investigation. Another consideration is the influence of the laser-plasma interaction in the transverse dimension on the evolution of the pulse. Many of the laser-plasma instabilities are seeded by the wakefield-induced perturbations of the index of refraction. As we have demonstrated in this Letter, the nonlinear index of refraction can be effectively controlled through laser shaping, thus suggesting the method of delaying the onset of these instabilities. Whether this approach increases the growth rates of other instabilities, particularly in the transverse dimension, remains to be investigated.

We would like to thank J. Arons, A. Charman, T. Katsouleas, W. B. Mori, and J. Wurtele for fruitful discussions and suggestions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This paper has been superseded by hep-th/0105110 and hep-th/0208112. The results in the published letter are not incorrect, but the original presentation has been extensively rewritten to clarify that thermal duality relations arise naturally as a consequence of modular invariance in closed string gases. Corresponding results for the type I open and closed string gas are included in hep-th/0208112 giving a more unified picture of the statistical mechanics of fermionic string gases, and of the phase transition to the long string phase. The pedagogical case of the free closed bosonic string gas appears in hep-th/0105110.


text:
# From moment graphs to intersection cohomology

## 1. Statement of the Main Results

To a variety $`X`$ with an appropriate torus action (§1.1), we will associate a moment graph (§1.2), a combinatorial object which reflects the structure of the $`0`$ and $`1`$-dimensional orbits. There is a canonical sheaf (§1.3) on the moment graph, combinatorially constructed from it (§1.4), which we denote by $``$. The main result (§1.5) uses the sheaf $``$ to compute the local and global equivariant and ordinary intersection cohomology of $`X`$ functorially.

### 1.1. Assumptions on the Variety $`X`$

We assume that $`X`$ is an irreducible complex algebraic variety endowed with two structures:

1. An action of an algebraic torus $`T(^{})^d`$. We assume that

1. for every fixed point $`xX^T`$ there is a one-dimensional subtorus which is contracting near $`x`$, i.e. there is a homomorphism $`i:^{}T`$ and a Zariski open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$ so that $`lim_{\alpha 0}i(\alpha )y=x`$ for all $`yU`$ (this implies $`X^T`$ is finite), and
    2. $`X`$ has finitely many one-dimensional orbits
2. A $`T`$-invariant Whitney stratification by affine spaces.

It follows that each stratum contains exactly one fixed point, since a contracting $`^{}`$ action on an affine space must act linearly with respect to some coordinate system (see , Theorem 2.5). Let $`C_x`$ denote the stratum containing the fixed point $`x`$, so $`X=_{xX^T}C_x`$. Every one dimensional orbit $`L`$ has exactly two distinct limit points: the $`T`$ fixed point $`x`$ in the stratum $`C_x`$ containing $`L`$ and another fixed point lying in some stratum in the closure of $`C_x`$.

The main case we are interested in is when $`X`$ is a Schubert variety in a flag variety or affine flag variety. More generally, if $`M`$ is a smooth projective variety with a $`T`$ action satisfying (a) and (b) above, one can take a homomorphism $`^{}T`$ for which $`M^{^{}}=M^T`$ and consider the corresponding Bialnicki-Birula decomposition of $`M`$ into cells. If it is a stratification, then the closure of any cell satisfies our hypotheses.

### 1.2. Moment graphs

Let $`𝔱`$ be a complex vector space. A $`𝔱`$ moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a finite graph with a two additional structures:

1. for each edge $`L`$, a one dimensional subspace $`V_L`$ of the dual vector space $`𝔱^{}`$ called the direction of $`L`$, and
2. a partial order $``$ on the set of vertices with the property that if an edge $`L`$ connects vertices $`x`$ and $`y`$, then either $`xy`$ or $`yx`$ (but $`yx`$).

We denote the set of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`𝒱`$, and the set of edges by $``$. For a vertex $`x𝒱`$, we denote by $`U_x`$ (for “up”) the set of edges connecting $`x`$ to a vertex $`y`$ where $`xy`$, and by $`D_x`$ (for “down”) the set of edges connecting $`x`$ to a vertex $`y`$ where $`yx`$.

Constructing a moment graph from $`X`$. Given a variety $`X`$ as in §1.1, we construct a moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as follows. The vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the $`T`$ fixed points in $`X`$, and the edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the one dimensional orbits of $`X`$. The vector space $`𝔱`$ is the Lie algebra of $`T`$. For an edge $`L`$, every point on the one dimensional orbit has the same stabilizer in $`T`$; its Lie algebra is a hyperplane in $`𝔱`$. The direction $`V_L`$ is the annihilator of that hyperplane in $`𝔱^{}`$. The partial order is defined by saying that for $`x`$ and $`y`$ in $`𝒱`$, $`xy`$ if and only if the stratum $`C_y`$ is in the closure of $`C_x`$. Note that $`D_x`$ is the set of one dimensional orbits contained in $`C_x`$.

###### Remarks.

Similar structures (for smooth varieties) are considered by Guillemin and Zara in , , .

The term moment graph is motivated by the following. If $`X`$ is projective, there is a moment map $`\mu :X𝔱_K^{}`$ to the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal compact torus $`T_KT`$. For $`L`$, the image $`\mu (\overline{L})`$ is a line segment joining $`\mu (x)`$ and $`\mu (y)`$, where $`\{x,y\}=\overline{L}𝒱`$. The vector $`\mu (x)\mu (y)`$ spans the space $`V_L`$, using the identification $`𝔱^{}𝔱_K^{}_{}`$.

### 1.3. Sheaves on the moment graph

Let $`A=Sym(𝔱^{})`$ be the ring of polynomial functions on $`𝔱`$. Given $`L`$, denote the quotient ring $`A/V_LA`$ by $`A_L`$. For us, a “module” over $`A`$ or $`A_L`$ will always be a finitely generated graded module.

###### Definition.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a $`𝔱`$ moment graph. A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$ is a triple $`=(\{M_x\},\{M_L\},\{\rho _{x,L}\})`$ where $`M_x`$ is an $`A`$-module defined for each vertex $`x𝒱`$, $`M_L`$ is an $`A_L`$-module (also an $`A`$-module by the homomorphism $`AA_L`$) defined for each $`L`$, and $`\rho _{x,L}:M_xM_L`$ is a homomorphism of $`A`$-modules defined whenever the vertex $`x`$ lies on the edge $`L`$.

Let $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the finite set $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒱`$ of vertices and edges of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Given a subset $`ZS(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we define a module $`(Z)`$ of “sections” on $`Z`$ by

$$(Z)=\{(\{s_x\},\{s_L\})\underset{aZ}{}M_a\rho _{x,L}(s_x)=s_L\text{if }x\text{ lies on }L\}.$$

In other words, an element of $`(Z)`$ is a choice of an element of $`M_x`$ for each $`xZ𝒱`$, together with a choice of an element of $`M_L`$ for each $`LZ`$, such that these elements are compatible under the homomorphisms $`\rho _{x,L}`$.

In a similar way, we have a “sheaf of rings” $`𝒜=(\{A_x\},\{A_L\},\{q_{x,L}\})`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, given by letting $`A_x=A`$ for all $`x𝒱`$, and letting the $`q_{x,L}:A_xA_L=A/V_LA`$ be the quotient homomorphisms. Then we can define a ring of sections $`𝒜(Z)`$ of $`𝒜`$ in the same way as above, and $`(Z)`$ becomes a module over $`𝒜(Z)`$.

A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$ can be thought of as a sheaf in the usual sense. Put a topology on $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by declaring $`OS(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ to be open if whenever $`xO𝒱`$ is a vertex, all edges $`L`$ adjacent to $`x`$ are in $`O`$ as well. Given a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$, sending an open set $`O`$ to $`(O)`$ defines a sheaf on $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$; restriction homomorphisms are defined in the obvious way. In the same way $`𝒜`$ defines a sheaf of rings on $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and the sheaf $``$ is a sheaf of modules over $`𝒜`$.

###### Proposition 1.1.

This association gives a bijection between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaves and sheaves of modules over $`𝒜`$ on the topological space $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Because of this, we will also refer to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaves as $`𝒜`$-modules.

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to be the minimal open set with the same vertices as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a complete subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then restriction gives an isomorphism $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})=(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

The proposition now follows immediately, since the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf can be recovered from the sheaf on $`S(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as follows:

$$M_x=(x^{}),M_L=(L),$$

and $`\rho _{x,L}`$ is given by restriction $`(x^{})(L)`$. ∎

### 1.4. Construction of the canonical $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$

For an $`A`$-module $`M`$, we denote by $`\overline{M}`$ the graded vector space $`M_A=M/(𝔱^{})M`$. Recall that a projective cover $`P`$ of an $`A`$-module $`M`$ is a free $`A`$-module on the smallest number of generators with a surjection $`PM`$. This is equivalent to saying that the induced homomorphism $`\overline{P}\overline{M}`$ is an isomorphism.

A projective cover $`P`$ may be constructed by setting $`P=\overline{M}A`$, and defining the map to $`M`$ by choosing any splitting of the quotient $`M\overline{M}`$. In particular, projective covers of $`M`$ are isomorphic up to a non-unique isomorphism.

Given a $`𝔱`$ moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ arising from a variety $`X`$, there is a canonical $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$ constructed by the following inductive procedure. Begin at the “top” of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$: since $`X`$ is irreducible by assumption, there is a unique vertex $`x_0`$ which is maximal in the partial order; put $`M_{x_0}=A`$.

Now suppose $``$ is known on the full subgraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}`$ consisting of all vertices $`y`$ with $`y>x`$, together with all edges joining them. We extend it to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$, the full subgraph of all vertices $`yx`$. First extend it to the set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}U_x=\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\{x\}`$ as follows. If $`LU_x`$ and $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}`$ is the upper vertex of $`L`$, put $`M_L=M_y/V_LM_y`$ and let $`\rho _{y,L}`$ be the quotient homomorphism.

Next, define a module $`M_x`$ to be the image of the restriction homomorphism

(1)
$$\varphi :(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x})(U_x).$$

Then let $`M_x`$ be the projective cover of $`M_x`$. The composition

$$M_xM_x(U_x)=\underset{LU_x}{}M_L$$

defines the homomorphisms $`\rho _{x,L}`$.

Since projective covers are always isomorphic, this defines a sheaf uniquely up to isomorphism. To get a strong functorial result, we need to show our sheaves are “rigid”. This follows from the following local result.

###### Proposition 1.2.

If $`M_xM_x`$ and $`N_xM_x`$ are two projective covers, then there is a unique isomorphism $`M_xN_x`$ commuting with the projective cover homomorphisms.

The proof, which we postpone, uses the algebraic geometry of $`X`$. Denote by $`Aut_𝒜()`$ the group of automorphisms of $``$ as a graded $`𝒜`$-module.

###### Corollary 1.3.

The restriction $`Aut_𝒜()Aut_A((x_0))`$ is a bijection, where the second group is the group of automorphisms of $`(x_0)`$ as a graded $`A`$-module. As a result, the group of automorphisms of $``$ is just multiplication by scalars in $`^{}`$.

Another definition of $``$. There is another way to describe the sheaf $``$. Call an $`𝒜`$-module $`𝒩`$ pure if for all $`x𝒱`$

1. $`𝒩(x)`$ is a free $`A`$-module,
2. $`𝒩(L)=𝒩(x)/V_L𝒩(x)`$ whenever $`LD_x`$, and
3. the restrictions of $`𝒩(x^{})𝒩(U_x)`$ and $`𝒩(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x})𝒩(U_x)`$ have the same image.

###### Theorem 1.4.

$``$ is the unique indecomposable pure sheaf with $`(x_0)=A`$. Any pure $`𝒜`$-module is a direct sum of sheaves obtained by applying the same construction to the subgraphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ consisting of all vertices $`yx`$ and all edges joining them, or by applying shifts to these sheaves.

###### Proof.

The first statement is clear. The second follows by an easy induction from the following statement: if $`𝒮`$ is a pure $`𝒜`$-module on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`𝒮|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}}`$ splits as a direct sum of two pure sheaves, then this splitting can be extended to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ (see , Theorem 2.3 for the analogous result for toric varieties).

### 1.5. The main results

Suppose that a torus $`T`$ acts on a variety $`X`$ as in §1.1, that the $`𝔱`$ graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is constructed from $`X`$ as in §1.2, and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$ is constructed from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as in §1.4.

###### Theorem 1.5.

There is a canonical identification

$$IH_T^{}(X)=(\mathrm{\Gamma })$$

of the $`T`$-equivariant intersection cohomology of $`X`$ with the space of the global sections of $``$. They are free $`A`$-modules. The intersection cohomology of $`X`$ is given by

$$IH^{}(X)=\overline{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=(\mathrm{\Gamma })_A.$$

The local intersection homology groups of $`X`$ at $`xX`$ are invariants of the singularity type of $`X`$ at $`x`$. Since these are constant along a stratum $`C_xX`$, to know them all it is enough to compute them at the fixed point $`xC_x`$.

###### Theorem 1.6.

The local equivariant intersection cohomology at $`xX`$ is canonically isomorphic to the stalk $`M_x`$:

$$IH_T^{}(X)_x=(\{x\})=M_x$$

The local intersection cohomology of $`X`$ is given by

$$IH^{}(X)_x=\overline{(\{x\})}=\overline{M_x}.$$

It follows from results in  that similar calculations hold in ordinary cohomology if the sheaf $``$ is replaced by the sheaf $`𝒜`$. We have $`H_T^{}(X)=𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$; $`H^{}(X)=\overline{𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$; and (trivially) $`H_T^{}(X)_x=𝒜(\{x\})=A`$, and $`H^{}(X)_x=\overline{𝒜(\{x\})}=`$.

###### Theorem 1.7.

The module structures over the cohomology ring of the intersection cohomology groups mentioned above are given by the module structure over $`𝒜`$ of $``$. For example, the module structure of $`IH^{}(X)`$ over $`H^{}(X)`$ is the module structure of $`\overline{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ over $`\overline{𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$.

Finally, we also prove an unrelated result, Theorem 3.6, that says the intersection cohomology stalks of $`X`$ can only grow larger at smaller strata. In the case of Schubert varieties, this gives another proof of an inequality on Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials originally proved by Irving .

### 1.6. Remarks on the proof

There is an equivariant intersection homology $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf $``$ defined by

$$M_x=IH_T^{}(X)_x,M_L=IH_T^{}(X)_L;$$

these are free modules over $`A`$, $`A_L`$ respectively. The homomorphism $`\rho _{x,L}:M_xM_L`$ is the composition

$$IH_T^{}(X)_x\stackrel{}{}IH_T^{}(X)_{xL}IH_T^{}(X)_L.$$

We will prove the following slight improvement of Theorem 1.6:

###### Theorem 1.8.

The equivariant intersection homology $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf is canonically isomorphic to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf constructed in §1.4.

Using results of , this result implies all of the others in §1.5 (the action of $`T`$ on $`X`$ is equivariantly formal, , for weight reasons). Note also that because of Corollary 1.3, the identifications in section §1.5 are all canonical. Because of this, we can use these sheaves to study how the intersection homology sheaves extend each other to form more complicated perverse sheaves – this will be explored in .

For the equivariant intersection homology $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf, we have $`M_{x_0}=A`$ for the maximal vertex $`x_0`$ because $`x_0`$ is a smooth point of $`X`$. If $`LD_y`$, we have $`M_L=M_y/V_LM_y`$ because $`L`$ and $`y`$ lie in the same stratum $`C_y`$. So everything comes down to the calculation of $`M_x`$ in terms of the sheaf $`|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}}`$.

Let $`NX`$ be a $`T`$-invariant normal slice to $`C_x`$ through $`x`$. It can be embedded as a $`T`$-invariant closed subvariety of an affine space $`^r`$ with a linear action of $`T`$. If $`T`$ has a subtorus contracting $`^r`$ to $`\{0\}`$, then $`IH_T^{}(N)`$ is the projective cover of $`IH_T^{}(N_0)`$ where $`N_0=N\{0\}`$. This was originally proved by Bernstein and Lunts in ; we will give a somewhat simpler proof.

Thus we see that our theorem amounts to showing that $`M_x=IH_T^{}(N_0)`$. The localization theorem of  says that for nice enough (e.g. projective) $`T`$-varieties $`Y`$ with isolated fixed points, restriction gives an injection $`IH_T^{}(Y)IH_T^{}(Y^T)`$, and the submodule is cut out by relations determined by the one-dimensional orbits. We can apply this to the projective variety $`N_0/^{}`$ for a contracting subtorus $`^{}T`$; the result is that the restriction

(2)
$$IH_T^{}(N_0)\underset{LU_x}{}IH_T^{}(N_0)_L$$

is an injection. We then use a surjectivity result coming from the weight filtration of mixed Hodge theory to argue that $`M_x`$ is the image of (2).

This calculation is similar to the calculation of equivariant IH for toric varieties described in , , . In both cases there is an induction from larger strata to smaller ones, at each step calculating the equivariant IH of a punctured neighborhood of the singularity at a new stratum and taking the projective cover.

There are two main differences between our situation and the toric case. First, in our case we only need data from the zero and one-dimensional orbits — since the strata are contractible, knowledge of the stalk at $`x`$ is as good as knowledge of the stalks on all of $`C_x`$. Second, in the toric case strata have affine neighborhoods which are themselves unions of strata. So the definition of sheaves on fans, which are parallel to our $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaves, uses only one module for each stratum, and the computation of the module analogous to $`M_x`$ is simpler.

We remark that the definition of $``$ in §1.4 makes sense for general moment graphs, whether or not they arise from a variety $`X`$. However, we do not know how to show that it satisfies the degree restrictions of intersection cohomology, or that Corollary 1.3 holds, without using the variety. Such a result might be useful, for instance, in interpreting the the coefficients of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials for non-crystallographic Coxeter groups such as $`H_3`$ and $`H_4`$. In this case there is a clear definition of a moment graph (see §2.1), but no underlying variety.

### 1.7. Computational simplifications

The main difficulty in computing the sheaf $``$ is in taking the image of the homomorphism $`\varphi `$ from (1). Fortunately, there is a major simplification, which we give as Theorem 4.3. Essentially it says that to check whether an element of $`(U_x)`$ is in the image of $`\varphi `$ it is enough to check that it can be extended to give sections of $``$ on planar subgraphs of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}`$.

Some of the relations cutting out the image of $`\varphi `$ are easy to describe. Suppose $`x<y`$, and take a subspace $`V𝔱^{}`$. If we have an increasing path $`x=x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_n=y`$ with $`x_i`$ joined to $`x_{i+1}`$ by an edge $`L_i`$, we call it a $`V`$-path if $`V_{L_i}V`$ for all $`i`$.

For an $`A`$-module $`M`$, we put

$$M_V=M_A(A/VA)=M/VM.$$

If we have a $`V`$-path from $`x`$ to $`y`$ as above, then $`(M_{x_{i+1}})_V(M_{L_i})_V`$ are isomorphisms, so we can compose their inverses with $`(M_{x_i})_V(M_{L_i})_V`$ to get a homomorphism $`(M_x)_V(M_y)_V`$.

###### Proposition 1.9.

This homomorphism depends only on $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`V`$, and not on the path.

In particular, taking $`V=𝔱^{}`$, we get a homomorphism $`m_{y,x}:\overline{M_x}\overline{M_y}`$.

Similarly, by composing all but the first homomorphism we can get a homomorphism $`m_{y,L_1}^V:(M_{L_1})_V(M_y)_V`$. It is independent of the path chosen.

###### Corollary 1.10.

If $`\{\alpha _L\}_{LU_x}`$ is in $`M_x`$, then $`m_{y,L}^V(\alpha _L)`$ is independent of $`L`$ and $`V`$ for any $`y`$.

If there are only finitely many two dimensional orbits in the punctured neighborhood $`N_0`$ of a fixed point $`x`$, the image of the map (1) is exactly the set of $`\{\alpha _L\}`$ satisfying these relations. This will hold if and only if for every three distinct edges $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, $`L_3`$ in $`U_x`$, the total span of the $`V_{L_i}`$ is three-dimensional.

This happens, for instance, when $`X`$ is a Grassmannian, i.e. $`X=G/P`$ where $`P`$ is a maximal parabolic in a semisimple complex algebraic group $`G`$. In general, however, $`N_0`$ may have infinitely many two-dimensional orbits, and there are additional relations beyond those imposed by the corollary above. We will see an example of these extra relations in §2.3.

### 1.8. Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Gottfried Barthel, Jean-Paul Brasselet, Karl-Heinz Fieseler, Ludger Kaup, Mark Goresky, Victor Guillemin, and Catalin Zara for stimulating conversations.

## 2. Schubert varieties

Our main motivation for this work was the case of Schubert varieties. A flag variety $`M`$ is stratified by Schubert cells $`C_x`$, whose closures $`\overline{C_x}`$ are the Schubert varieties. Our results give a functorial calculation of $`IH^{}(\overline{C_x})_y`$ for a $`T`$-fixed point $`y\overline{C_x}`$. The Poincaré polynomials of these groups are the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials $`P_{x,y}`$, which are important in representation theory.

Our calculation uses only data (the moment graph) from the interval $`[y,x]`$ in the Bruhat order. Brenti  has given a formula for the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials using only data from this graph (whereas the original Kazhdan-Lusztig algorithm used the entire interval $`[0,x]`$). We have not been able to understand Brenti’s formulas in terms of our construction.

### 2.1. Schubert varieties for a complex algebraic group.

Let $`G`$ be a semisimple complex algebraic group, $`B`$ a Borel subgroup, $`PB`$ a parabolic subgroup, and $`TB`$ a maximal torus. Then $`M=G/P`$ is a flag variety. The Schubert cells $`C_x`$ of $`M`$ are the orbits of $`B`$ on $`M`$. Let $`X=\overline{C_x}M`$ be a Schubert variety. Then the action of $`T`$ on $`X`$ satisfies the assumptions of §1.1, taking as strata the Schubert cells in $`X`$.

To calculate the local or global intersection homology of $`X`$ as in §1.5 we need to determine the moment graph for $`X`$, as defined in §1.2. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`G`$, and $`W_P`$ the parabolic subgroup of $`W`$ corresponding to $`P`$ ($`W_P`$ is the Weyl group of the Levi of $`P`$). Then $`W`$ acts on $`𝔱^{}`$, the dual of the Lie algebra of $`T`$. Let $`v𝔱^{}`$ be a vector whose stabilizer is $`W_P`$. Then the following sets are canonically equivalent, and we abuse notation by identifying them: the orbit $`𝒪`$ of $`v`$ under $`W`$, the quotient set $`W/W_P`$, the set of Schubert cells of $`M`$, and the set of fixed points $`M^T`$ of $`M`$. There is a Bruhat partial order on this set (given by the usual Bruhat order on the maximal elements of the cosets of $`W/W_P`$), which corresponds to the closure relation on the Schubert cells. The moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`X`$ is determined as follows:

* The vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are those $`y𝒪`$ such that $`yx`$.
* Edges $`L`$ connect pairs of vertices $`y`$ and $`z`$ such that $`y=Rz`$ where $`R`$ is a reflection (not necessarily simple) in $`W`$.
* The direction $`V_L𝔱^{}`$ is spanned by $`yz`$.
* The partial order is the Bruhat order.

So the embedding of $`𝒪`$ in $`𝔱^{}`$ gives a linear map of the moment graph to $`𝔱^{}`$ in which the direction of $`L`$ is the angle of the image of $`L`$. Such a graph is drawn below in §2.3.

### 2.2. Affine Schubert varieties and the loop group.

Let $`G`$ be a semisimple complex algebraic group, $`G(((t)))`$ the corresponding loop group, $`I`$ an Iwahori subgroup, $`PI`$ a parahoric subgroup. Then $`M=G/P`$ is an affine flag variety. The Schubert cells $`C_x`$ of $`M`$ are the orbits of $`I`$ on $`M`$. Let $`X=\overline{C_x}M`$ be an affine Schubert variety. It is a finite dimensional projective algebraic variety, even though $`M`$ is infinite dimensional. Let $`AG()`$ be a maximal torus whose inclusion in $`G(((t)))`$ lies in $`I`$. Let $`T`$ be the torus $`A\times ^{}`$ which acts on $`M`$ as follows: $`A`$ acts through $`G()`$ and $`^{}`$ acts by “rotating the loop”, i.e. $`\lambda ^{}`$ sends the variable $`t`$ to $`\lambda t`$. Then $`T`$ preserves $`X`$, and the action of $`T`$ on $`X`$ satisfies the assumptions of §1.1, taking as strata the Schubert cells in $`X`$.

As before, to calculate the local or global intersection homology of $`X`$ we need to specify the moment graph for $`X`$. Let $`W`$ be the affine Weyl group $`W`$ of $`G(((t)))`$, and $`W_P`$ the parabolic subgroup of $`W`$ corresponding to $`P`$ (note that $`W_P`$ is a finite group). Then $`W`$ acts on $`𝔱^{}`$, the dual of the Lie algebra of $`T`$ in a somewhat nonstandard way satisfying the following properties:

1. The projection of $`𝔱^{}`$ to $`𝔞^{}`$ is $`W`$ equivariant, where the action of $`W`$ on $`𝔞^{}`$, the dual to the Lie algebra of $`A`$, is the standard one.
2. Reflections in $`W`$ act by pseudoreflections on $`𝔱^{}`$, i.e. order two affine maps that fix a hyperplane.

Up to affine equivalence, there are only two actions satisfying these properties, and the action in question is the one that is not the product action.

With this set-up, the construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is identical to the construction for semisimple algebraic groups above. Let $`v𝔱^{}`$ be a vector whose stabilizer is $`W_P`$. We identify the following sets, which are canonically equivalent: the orbit $`𝒪`$ of $`v`$ under $`W`$, the quotient set $`W/W_P`$, the set of Schubert cells of $`M`$, and the set of fixed points $`M^T`$ of $`T`$. There is a Bruhat partial order on this set, defined as above, which corresponds to the closure relations of the Schubert cells. The moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`X`$ is determined by the same procedure: The vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are those $`y𝒪`$ such that $`yx`$; edges $`L`$ connect pairs of vertices $`y`$ and $`z`$ such that $`y=Rz`$ where $`R`$ is a reflection in $`W`$; the direction $`V_L𝔱^{}`$ is spanned by $`yz`$; and the partial order is the Bruhat order.

As before, the embedding of $`𝒪X`$ in $`𝔱^{}`$ gives the structure. The points of $`𝒪`$ lie on a paraboloid in $`𝔱^{}`$. The case of the loop Grassmannian (an affine flag manifold for a particular parahoric $`P`$), is worked out in , which also has some pictures of $`𝒪`$.

### 2.3. Example

Take $`G=SL_3()`$, and take $`X=G/B`$. The moment graph is pictured in Figure 1. Since $`X`$ is smooth, we must have $`M_w=A`$ for all $`w`$. Still, it is instructive to see what Theorem 1.8 says in this case.

The induction begins with $`M_{w_0}=A`$ for the longest word $`w_0=sts`$. If $`w=st`$ or $`ts`$, there is only one edge $`L`$ in $`U_w`$, giving $`M_w=A/V_LA`$. Since this module is generated in degree $`0`$, we have $`M_wA`$.

If $`w=s`$ or $`t`$, there are two edges, say $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$, in $`U_w`$. $`M_w`$ consists of pairs of polynomials in $`M_L`$ and $`M_L^{}`$ whose constant terms agree — this is exactly the relation implied by Corollary 1.10. As a module this is just $`A/V_LV_L^{}A`$, which again has a single generator in degree zero.

We see a new phenomenon when we look at $`w=1`$. The relations from Corollary 1.10 only affect the degree zero part; without further relations we would have $`dim(M_w)_2=3`$, which would imply that $`M_w`$ has a generator in degree $`2`$.

The fact that we get the right relation from Theorem 1.8 follows from the projective dual of Pappus’ theorem in projective plane geometry. Degree two sections of $`=𝒜`$ can be seen as infinitesimal motions of the vertices which preserve the parallelism classes of the edges. If you remove the vertex labeled $`1`$ from Figure 1 and allow the remaining vertices to move, the constraints imposed by the edges ensure that the three lines through $`1`$ will still meet in a point.

### 2.4.

For a Schubert variety $`XG/B`$, there is another description of $`M_X=IH_T^{}(X)`$ as a module over $`R=H_T^{}(G/B)`$, coming from results due to Soergel (, see  for a non-equivariant version). In essence, he shows how to compute the equivariant cohomology of a resolution of $`X`$; by the decomposition theorem it is a direct sum of $`M_X`$ and shifted copies of $`M_X^{}`$ for smaller Schubert varieties $`X^{}`$. He proves that the $`M_X`$ are indecomposable $`R`$-modules, so in principle it is possible to compute the desired submodule.

## 3. Equivariant intersection cohomology

### 3.1. Definitions and conventions

All our sheaves and cohomology groups will be taken with complex coefficients. For $`X`$ a complex algebraic variety, let $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X)`$ be the intersection cohomology object in the derived category $`D^b(X)`$, shifted so that it restricts to the constant local system in degree $`0`$ on the smooth locus of $`X`$. Its hypercohomology $`^d(\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X))=IH^d(X)`$ is the intersection cohomology of $`X`$.

If $`i:YX`$ is the inclusion of a subvariety, we put

$$IH^d(X)_Y=^d(i^{}\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X)).$$

The adjunction $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X)i_{}i^{}\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X)`$ gives rise to a homomorphism $`IH^{}(X)IH^{}(X)_Y`$. If $`i`$ is a normally nonsingular inclusion, then there is a canonical isomorphism $`i^{}\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X)\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(Y)`$, giving a homomorphism

$$IH^{}(X)IH^{}(Y).$$

### 3.2. Equivariant IH

Now suppose an algebraic torus $`T`$ acts on $`X`$. More sophisticated treatments of equivariant intersection cohomology can be found in ,,, but the following is enough for our purposes. Fix an isomorphism $`T(^{})^d`$, and let $`E_k=(^k\{0\})^d`$ carry the $`T`$-action given by termwise multiplication. Let $`E_k`$ sit inside $`E_{k+1}`$ as the set of points whose $`(k+1)`$st coordinates are all zero. The quotient $`B_k=E_k/T(^{k1})^d`$ is a finite-dimensional approximation to the classifying space $`BT=B_k`$. The cohomology ring $`H^{}(BT)`$ is canonically isomorphic to the symmetric algebra $`A=S(𝔱^{})`$.

Let $`X_k=(X\times E_k)/T`$. The inclusion $`X_kX_{k+1}`$ is normally nonsingular. This gives a natural homomorphism $`IH^n(X_{k+1})IH^n(X_k)`$; it is an isomorphism when $`2(k1)n`$. We define the equivariant intersection cohomology by

$$IH_T^n(X)=\underset{}{lim}IH^n(X_k).$$

Similarly, if $`YX`$ is a $`T`$-invariant subvariety, we put

$$IH_T^n(X)_Y=\underset{}{lim}IH^n(X_k)_{Y_k}.$$

The natural map $`X_kB_k`$ makes $`IH^{}(X_k)`$ into a module over $`H^{}(B_k)`$. Taking limits, $`IH_T^{}(X)`$ becomes an $`A`$-module. Since $`X_1=X`$, we have a homomorphism $`IH_T^{}(X)IH^{}(X)`$; it factors to give a homomorphism

$$\overline{IH_T^{}(X)}IH^{}(X).$$

The following lemma gives the isomorphism used in §1.6 to define the homomorphisms $`\rho _{x,L}`$ in the sheaf $``$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Suppose $`X`$ has an algebraic $`^{}`$ action which commutes with the action of $`T`$ and contracts a locally closed subvariety $`YX`$ onto another subvariety $`Y^{}`$. Then $`IH_T^{}(X)_YIH_T^{}(X)_Y^{}`$ is an isomorphism.

### 3.3. Localization

We recall the result from  that we will need.

###### Theorem 3.2.

If either (a) $`X`$ is projective, or (b) $`IH^i(X)`$ vanishes for $`i`$ odd, then $`IH_T^{}(X)`$ is a free $`A`$-module, and the localization homomorphism

$$\lambda :IH_T^{}(X)IH_T^{}(X)_{X^T}$$

is an injection.

If $`X`$ has finitely many one-dimensional orbits, then

$$(s_x)\underset{xX^T}{}IH_T^{}(X)_x=IH_T^{}(X)_{X^T}$$

is in the image of $`\lambda `$ if and only if $`s_x`$ and $`s_y`$ map to the same element of $`IH_T^{}(X)_L`$ whenever $`L`$ is a one-dimensional orbit with $`\{x,y\}\overline{L}`$.

### 3.4. Hodge Intersection Cohomology

The proofs of our results rely on the weight filtration on intersection cohomology of a complex variety. This filtration was constructed by Saito as part of his theory of mixed Hodge modules; see  for a good introduction. In this section we extract some simple results from the theory which suffice for our needs.

Given a complex variety $`X`$ and an open subvariety $`U`$, the weight filtration is an increasing filtration $`W_iIH^{}(X)`$ and $`W_iIH^{}(X,U)`$ on the intersection cohomology groups $`IH^{}(X)`$ and $`IH^{}(X,U)`$. It is strongly compatible with the homomorphisms in the long exact sequence for the pair $`(X,U)`$: taking the associated graded $`Gr_k^W`$ of all terms in the sequence gives another exact sequence.

The homomorphisms $`IH^{}(X)IH^{}(Y)`$ induced by a normally nonsingular inclusion $`XY`$ are also strictly compatible with the weight filtration. Thus we get an induced weight filtration on the equivariant intersection cohomology $`IH_T^{}(X)`$ of a variety with an algebraic $`T`$-action.

###### Lemma 3.3.

We have $`W_kIH^d(X,U)=0`$ if $`k<d`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`IH^{}(X,U)=(i^!\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X))`$, where $`i:XUX`$ is the inclusion. According to , the functors $`i^!`$ and $``$ can only increase weights. ∎

###### Definition.

We define the Hodge intersection cohomology of $`(X,U)`$ by

$$HIH^d(X,U)=Gr_d^WIH^d(X,U)=W_dIH^d(X,U).$$

If $`X`$ carries a $`T`$-action, we let $`HIH_T^d(X)=W_dIH_T^d(X)`$.

If $`HIH^{}(X)=IH^{}(X)`$, we say that $`X`$ is pure. Projective varieties and quasiconical affine varieties are always pure. The following proposition generalizes these two cases.

###### Proposition 3.4.

If $`X`$ has an action of $`T=^{}`$ which contracts $`X`$ onto $`X^T`$, and $`X^T`$ is proper, then $`X`$ is pure.

###### Proof.

We have $`IH^{}(X)=^{}(\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X))=^{}(i^{}\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X))`$, where $`i:X^TX`$ is the inclusion. The middle expression vanishes for weights less than the degree, while the right one vanishes for weights greater than the degree (the functor $`i^{}`$ can only decrease weights, and hypercohomology of mixed Hodge modules on proper varieties preserves weights). ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

If $`UX`$ is an open subvariety, then the restriction $`HIH^{}(X)HIH^{}(U)`$ is a surjection. If $`X`$ carries an action of $`T`$ and $`U`$ is $`T`$-invariant, then $`HIH_T^{}(X)HIH_T^{}(U)`$ is a surjection.

For example, take $`X=^1`$, and $`U=X\{p,q\}`$ for $`pq`$. Then $`IH^1(X)IH^1(U)`$ is not surjective, but $`HIH^1(U)=0`$.

###### Proof.

Lemma 3.3 implies that the connecting homomorphism $`Gr_d^WIH^d(U)Gr_d^WIH^{d+1}(X,U)`$ vanishes. The equivariant case then follows from the nonequivariant case, since for $`k`$ large enough we have $`HIH_T^n(X)=HIH^n(X_k)`$ and $`HIH_T^n(U)=HIH^n(U_k)`$. ∎

### 3.5. Monotonicity for local stalks

Theorem 3.5 has the following consequence, which is independent from the rest of the paper. Let $`X`$ be a $`T`$-variety satisfying the conditions of §1.1. Take $`x,yX^T`$ and assume that $`xy`$, so $`x\overline{C_y}`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

There is a surjection $`IH^{}(X)_xIH^{}(X)_y`$.

###### Proof.

For any $`xX^T`$, let $`U`$ be a $`T`$-invariant affine neighborhood of $`x`$, and let $`\rho _x`$ be the composition of restriction and localization homomorphisms

$$IH^{}(X)IH^{}(U)\stackrel{}{}IH^{}(U_x)_x=IH^{}(X)_x.$$

It is a surjection, using Theorem 3.5 and Lemma 3.1. So it is enough to find a homomorphism $`m:IH^{}(X)_xIH^{}(X)_y`$ with $`m\rho _x=\rho _y`$. Such an $`m`$ is given by the composition

$$IH^{}(X)_x\stackrel{}{}IH^{}(U)IH^{}(X)_y^{}\stackrel{}{}IH^{}(X)_{C_y}\stackrel{}{}IH^{}(X)_y,$$

where $`y^{}`$ is any point in $`C_yU`$. The last two isomorphisms result from the equisingularity of $`X`$ along $`C_y`$. ∎

The homomorphism $`m`$ does not depend on the choice of point $`y^{}`$, and in fact it can be described in our moment graph language; it is the homomorphism $`m_{y,x}:\overline{M_x}\overline{M_y}`$ given by Proposition 1.9.

If $`X`$ is a Schubert variety in a flag variety or affine flag variety, this gives an inequality on Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials: let $`P_{x,y}^i`$ be the $`i`$th coefficient of $`P_{x,y}`$.

###### Corollary 3.7.

$`P_{x,z}^iP_{y,z}^i`$ if $`xy`$.

This was proved algebraically in the case of ordinary flag varieties by Irving (, Corollary 4), using the Koszul dual interpretation of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials as multiplicities of simple objects in the socle filtration of a Verma module. To our knowledge the corresponding statement for affine flag varieties was not previously known.

### 3.6. The local calculation

The following theorem describes the local $`IH_T^{}`$ groups of quasihomogeneous singularities. It was proved by Bernstein and Lunts in ; we will give a proof we feel is slightly simpler.

Suppose that a torus $`T`$ acts linearly on $`^r`$, and a subtorus $`^{}T`$ contracts $`^r`$ to $`\{0\}`$. Let $`X^r`$ be a $`T`$-invariant variety, and put $`X_0=X\{0\}`$. By Lemma 3.1, we have $`IH_T^{}(X)_xIH_T^{}(X)`$.

Recall that for any $`A`$-module $`M`$ we put $`\overline{M}=M_A`$.

###### Theorem 3.8.

The restriction homomorphism makes $`IH_T^{}(X)`$ into a projective cover of $`IH_T^{}(X_0)`$. Its kernel is isomorphic to the local equivariant intersection homology with compact supports

$$IH_{T,c}^{}(X)=IH_T^{}(X,X_0);$$

it is a free $`A`$-module, and $`\overline{IH_{T,c}^{}(X)}=IH_c^{}(X)`$.

###### Proof.

The claim that $`IH_T^{}(X)`$ is a free module follows from the collapsing of the spectral sequence $`H^p(B_k;IH^q(X))IH_T^{p+q}(X)`$. This in turn happens because the intersection cohomology of the varieties $`X_k=(X\times E_k)/T`$ is pure, by Proposition 3.4. A similar argument shows that $`IH_{T,c}^{}(X)`$ is free.

Theorem 9.1 of  shows that $`IH_T^{}(X_0)=IH_{T/^{}}^{}(X_0/^{})`$. Since $`X_0/^{}`$ is projective, we have $`HIH_T^{}(X_0)=IH_T^{}(X_0)`$, and so Theorem 3.5 implies that $`IH_T^{}(X)IH_T^{}(X_0)`$ is a surjection.

All that remains to prove the first statement is to show that $`\overline{IH_T^{}(X)}\overline{IH_T^{}(X_0)}`$ is an injection. But in the commutative square:

the left homomorphism is an isomorphism, and the lower one is an injection — it is an isomorphism in degrees $`<dim_{}(X)`$ and $`IH^{}(X)`$ vanishes in higher degrees.

Finally, the second statement of the theorem follows from the long exact sequence for $`IH_T^{}`$ of the pair $`(X,X_0)`$. ∎

## 4. Proofs

### 4.1. The main theorem

We now have all the ingredients to prove Theorem 1.8. Let $``$ be the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf defined by the inductive construction of §1.4, and let $`^{}`$ be the equivariant intersection cohomology $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-sheaf of §1.6. We need to show that these sheaves are isomorphic.

Their restrictions to the top vertex $`x_0`$ clearly agree, since $`M_{x_0}=A`$ by definition and $`X`$ is smooth at $`x_0`$. Further, if $``$ and $`^{}`$ agree at a vertex $`y`$, they agree at all edges $`LD_y`$, since $`M_L=M_y/V_LM_y`$ and $`X`$ is equisingular along $`yLC_y`$.

Now take a vertex $`x𝒱`$ and assume inductively that $``$ and $`^{}`$ have isomorphic restrictions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}`$. We need to show they agree on all of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$. By the previous remark, they agree on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}U_x`$.

By our assumptions, $`x`$ has a $`T`$-invariant affine neighborhood $`U`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

There is a $`T`$-invariant closed subvariety $`NU`$ which is a normal slice to $`C_x`$ through $`x`$.

###### Proof.

We can find a diagonal linear action of $`T`$ on some affine space $`^r`$, and an equivariant embedding $`U^r`$. The tangent space $`T_xC_x`$ will be generated by a subset of the coordinate directions. Take the linear span of the remaining coordinates and intersect with $`U`$. ∎

Applying Lemma 3.1 to $`U`$ and to $`N`$ and using the fact that $`NU`$ is a normally nonsingular inclusion, we obtain isomorphisms $`IH^{}(U)IH^{}(U)_xIH^{}(X)_x`$ and $`IH^{}(U)IH^{}(N)`$.

If we can show that $`IH_T^{}(N_0)M_x`$, where $`N_0=N\{x\}`$, then Theorem 3.8 implies that $`M_xIH_T^{}(X)_x`$, as required. Let $`X_{>x}=_{y>x}C_y`$. Consider the following diagram of restriction homomorphisms:

We will show that $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism, $`\beta `$ is an injection, and $`\gamma `$ is a surjection; the result follows.

To see that $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism, we apply Theorem 3.2 to $`X_{>x}`$; we claim that $`IH^d(X_{>x})`$ vanishes for $`d`$ odd. It follows from the previous steps of the induction that the local stalks $`IH^{}(X)_y\overline{M_y}`$ vanish in odd degrees for $`y>x`$. Applying Verdier duality we see that $`^{}(i_y^!\mathrm{𝐈𝐂}^{}(X))`$ vanishes in odd degrees if $`i_y:C_yX`$ is the inclusion and $`y>x`$. Since this can also be written $`IH^{}(X_{>y}C_y,X_{>y})`$, the claim follows by induction using the long exact sequence of a pair.

To see that $`\beta `$ is an injection, note that any contracting subtorus $`^{}T`$ acts almost freely (only finite stabilizers) on $`N_0`$. By , Theorem 9.1, we have isomorphisms

$$IH_T^{}(N_0)IH_{T/^{}}^{}(N_0/^{}),$$

$$(U_x)\underset{y(N_0/^{})^T}{}IH_{T/^{}}^{}(N_0/^{})_y.$$

Since $`N_0/^{}`$ is projective, we can apply Theorem 3.2.

Finally, $`\gamma `$ is a surjection because $`IH_T^{}(X)IH_T^{}(N)`$ and $`IH_T^{}(N)IH_T^{}(N_0)`$ are surjections. The first homomorphism factors as $`IH_T^{}(X)IH_T^{}(U)\stackrel{}{}IH_T^{}(N)`$, so the surjectivity follows from Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.4. The second surjection is part of Theorem 3.8.

Note that we have shown that $`IH^{}(X)`$ vanishes in odd degrees, so Theorem 3.2 can be applied to deduce the theorems in §1.5 from Theorem 1.8.

### 4.2. Automorphisms

Proposition 1.2 now follows from Theorems 1.8 and 3.8, the degree vanishing conditions for local intersection cohomology and compactly supported intersection cohomology, and the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`M_i`$, $`M_i^{}`$, $`i=1,2`$ be graded modules over a polynomial ring $`A`$, with $`M_i`$ free, and let $`\varphi _i:M_iM_i^{}`$ be homomorphisms with $`\overline{\varphi }:\overline{M_i}\overline{M_i^{}}`$ an isomorphism. Also suppose that for some $`d`$, $`M_1`$ is generated in degrees $`<d`$ and $`ker\varphi _2`$ is generated in degrees $`d`$.

Then if $`f^{}:M_1^{}M_2^{}`$ is a homomorphism of graded modules, there is a unique $`f:M_1M_2`$ so that $`\varphi _2f=f^{}\varphi _1`$.

### 4.3. Planar relations

For the results of this last section, we need to assume that the moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is constructed from a projective variety $`X`$.

Fix a vertex $`x𝒱`$ of the moment graph. If $`H𝔱^{}`$ is a sub-vector space, consider the graph with the same vertex set as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but with only those edges $`L`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for which $`V_LH`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^H`$ the connected component of this graph containing $`x`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x}^H`$, $`U_x^H`$ be the intersections of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x}`$, $`U_x`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^H`$.

Let $`\varphi :(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x})(U_x)`$ and $`\varphi ^H:(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{>x}^H)(U_x^H)`$ be the restrictions. Given $`\xi (U_x)`$, let $`\xi ^H`$ be its restriction to $`(U_x^H)`$. Let $``$ be the set of all two-dimensional subspaces $`H𝔱^{}`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}^H`$ has more than one edge.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Take $`\xi (U_x)`$. Then $`\xi Im(\varphi )`$ if and only if $`\xi ^HIm(\varphi ^H)`$ for all $`H`$.

The “only if” direction is trivial. Note that for two-planes $`H`$, $`\varphi ^H`$ is automatically surjective.

Pick a subtorus $`^{}T`$ which is contracting near $`x`$. Its Lie algebra is a one-dimensional subspace $`𝔱_0𝔱`$; let $`𝔱_0^{}𝔱^{}`$ be its annihilator. Since the action is contracting, we have $`V_L𝔱_0^{}`$ for all $`LU_x`$. Let $`A_0=Sym(𝔱_0^{})`$; it is a subring of $`A`$. Note that the set of all possible $`𝔱_0`$ forms an open subset of the set of points in the projective space $`(𝔱)`$ which are rational with respect to the lattice of characters. Thus $`𝔱_0`$ can be chosen to avoid any finite collection of vectors.

###### Lemma 4.4.

$`M_x`$ and $`(U_x)`$ are free $`A_0`$-modules.

###### Proof.

The result for $`(U_x)`$ is clear from the construction of $``$. Since in §4.1 we showed that

$$M_xIH_T^{}(N_0)IH_{T/^{}}^{}(N_0/^{}),$$

we can apply the first part of Theorem 3.2. ∎

Now take $`\xi (U_x)`$. Define an ideal $`I(\xi )`$ in $`A_0`$ by

$$I(\xi )=\{aA_0a\xi Im(\varphi )\}.$$

The previous lemma plus the injectivity of $`M_x(U_x)`$ implies the following.

###### Proposition 4.5.

(Chang and Skjelbred ) The ideal $`I(\xi )`$ is principal.

Take a vector space $`H\{\{0\}\}`$. We say a vector $`v𝔱_0^{}`$ is $`H`$-good if $`vH`$, and if, in the case $`H=\{0\}`$, $`v`$ is in some plane $`J`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

If $`\xi ^HIm(\varphi ^H)`$, then there is a nonzero $`pI(\xi )`$ which is a product of $`H`$-good linear factors.

Note that the condition $`\xi ^{\{0\}}Im(\varphi ^{\{0\}})`$ is vacuous.

Theorem 4.3 immediately follows from the lemma: a generator of $`I(\xi )`$ must be a product of linear factors, but if $`\xi Im(\varphi ^H)`$ for all $`H`$, none of the possible factors can actually occur, and so $`\xi Im(\varphi )`$.

Before proving the lemma, we need the following easy consequence of the projectivity of $`X`$. We say a moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is flexible at $`x`$ if for any $`H𝔱^{}`$ and any $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }^H`$, $`yx`$, there is a degree two section $`\zeta 𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }^H)_2`$ so that $`\zeta _x=0`$, $`\zeta _y0`$, and $`\zeta _zH`$ for all vertices $`z\mathrm{\Gamma }^H`$.

###### Proposition 4.7.

The moment graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of a projective variety is flexible at all its vertices.

###### Proof.

The moment map gives an embedding $`\mu `$ of the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into $`𝔱^{}`$ so that if $`z`$ and $`w`$ are joined by an edge $`L`$, then $`\mu (z)\mu (w)`$ is a nonzero vector in $`V_L`$. If we choose a linear projection $`p:𝔱^{}H`$ which does not kill $`\mu (y)\mu (x)`$, then letting $`\zeta _z=p(\mu (z)\mu (x))`$ provides the required section. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 4.6.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ be the union of $`U_x\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}^H`$ with the set of upper vertices of edges in $`U_x`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ be any extension of $`\xi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. We will construct an element $`\stackrel{~}{p}𝒜(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})`$ so that

1. $`\stackrel{~}{p}|_{U_x}`$ comes from an element $`pA_0`$ which is a product of $`H`$-good linear factors, and
2. for any vertex $`y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and any adjacent edge $`L\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_yAV_L`$.

If we can do this, $`\stackrel{~}{p}\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ can be extended to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}`$ by placing a $`0`$ on all vertices and edges outside of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, and so $`pI(\xi )`$, as claimed.

Assume that we have chosen $`𝔱_0`$ so that the lines $`H𝔱_0^{}`$ for $`H`$ are all distinct. Pick a vertex $`y\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and an adjacent edge $`L\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. We will construct a degree two section $`a𝒜(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})_2`$ satisfying property (1) above and for which $`a_yV_L`$. The section $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ we want is the product of these sections over all choices of $`y`$ and $`L`$.

If $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}^H`$, then $`y`$ is the upper vertex of an edge $`L^{}U_x`$. Since $`L^{}𝔱_0^{}`$, there are nonzero vectors $`vV_L`$, $`v^{}𝔱_0^{}`$ with $`vv^{}V_L^{}`$. The section which is $`v`$ on $`y`$ and $`v^{}`$ everywhere else does the trick. Note that $`V_L+V_L^{}`$, so $`v^{}`$ lies in a plane in $``$.

Now suppose $`y\mathrm{\Gamma }_{>x}^H`$, so $`H\{0\}`$. Let $`\zeta 𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }^H)_2`$ be the section guaranteed by Proposition 4.7. It extends to a section $`\zeta 𝒜(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }})_2`$ which is zero on all of $`U_x`$. We can assume that $`𝔱_0`$ has been chosen so $`\zeta _y𝔱_0^{}`$. Thus we can find $`vV_L`$ so that $`v^{}=v\zeta _y𝔱_0^{}`$, and putting $`a=v^{}+\zeta `$ gives the required section. ∎