text:
# Untitled Document

Supported in part by the NSF-grant DMS-0070816 and the MSRI Supported in part by the NSF-grant DMS-0097314 and the MSRI

Invariant Stein domains in Stein symmetric spaces

and a non-linear complex convexity theorem

Simon Gindikin and Bernhard Krötz

Abstract

We prove a complex version of Kostant’s non-linear convexity theorem. Applications to the construction of $`G`$-invariant Grauert tubes of Riemannian symmetric $`G/K`$ spaces are given.

Introduction

Let $`X=G/K`$ be a semisimple non-compact Riemannian symmetric space. We may assume that $`G`$ is semisimple with finite center and we write $`G=NAK`$ for an Iwasawa decomposition of $`G`$. By our assumption, $`G`$ sits in its universal complexification $`G_C`$ and so $`XX_C:=G_C/K_C`$. Note that $`X_C`$ is a Stein symmetric space. Observe that the group $`G`$ does not act properly (i.e. with compact isotropy subgroups) on $`G_C/K_C`$ since $`K_C`$ is not compact. Write $`U`$ for the compact real form of $`G_C`$. The maximal connected subdomain of $`GUK_C/K_CX_C`$ on which $`G`$ acts properly and which contains $`X`$ was introduced in \[AkGi90\]. It is given by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:=G\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega })K_C/K_C$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a polyhedral convex domain in $`a:=\mathrm{Lie}(A)`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:=\{Xa:(\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma })|\alpha (X)|<\frac{\pi }{2}\}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the restricted root system with respect to $`a`$.

One of our principal aims is to construct a broad class of $`G`$-invariant Stein subdomains in $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Let us remind the reader that it is a notoriously difficult problem to verify that certain unions of orbits of non-compact groups are Stein. For example the problem posed in \[AkGi90\] whether $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is Stein was unsolved until the last year.

The Iwasawa decomposition on $`G`$ cannot be holomorphically extended to the whole group $`G_C`$; we have that $`N_CA_CK_CG_C`$ is an open Zariski dense subset. The Iwasawa domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ is defined as the maximal connected $`G`$-invariant subdomain in $`X_C`$ which contains $`X`$ and is contained in $`N_CA_CK_C/K_C`$:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_I:=\left(\underset{gG}{}g(N_CA_CK_C/K_C)\right)_0,$$

where $`()_0`$ refers to the connected component containing $`X`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ is the connected component of an open intersection of Stein domains, it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ is Stein (cf. proof of Theorem 3.4).

The domains $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ again became of recent interest. One has $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$. Here are the results in chronological order:

$``$$`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ for all classical groups $`G`$ (cf. \[KrSt01a\]). $``$$`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ for all classical groups $`G`$ (cf. \[GiMa01\]). $``$$`\mathrm{\Xi }_I\mathrm{\Xi }`$ for all $`G`$ (cf. \[Ba01\]).

In \[KOS01\] it will be shown that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ for the exceptional cases. Also it is announced in \[Hu01\] that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$. This will then give us $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ in the general case. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is Stein. Also, in the preprint \[BHH01\] a complex-geometric proof of the Steinness of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is given.

Geometrically, the domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a rather complicated object. If $`G`$ is a group of Hermitian type, then $`\mathrm{\Xi }=X\times \overline{X}`$ (cf. \[BHH01\], \[GiMa01\] or \[KrSt01b\]). If $`X=G/K`$ is classical, then there exists a group of Hermitian type $`SG`$ with maximal compact subgroup $`UK`$ such that $`G/K`$ is a real form of the Hermitian symmetric space $`S/U`$. In \[BHH01\] and \[KrSt01b\] a $`G`$-equivariant subdomain $`\mathrm{\Xi }_0\mathrm{\Xi }`$ was exhibited which is biholomorphic to $`S/U`$. Further one has $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }_0=S/U`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of type $`C_n`$ or $`BC_n`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }C_n,BC_n`$, then $`S/U\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and the explicit geometric structure of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is very intricate. For many exceptional spaces $`G/K`$ the geometric structure is even more complicated.

The domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (in \[Gi98\] it is called complex crown of $`X`$) is universal in the sense that many analytical and geometrical constructions on the Riemannian symmetric space $`X`$ extend to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In \[KrSt01a\] it was shown that the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ implies that all eigenfunctions on $`X`$ for the algebra of $`G`$-invariant differential operators $`D(X)`$ extend holomorphically to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In \[GiMa01\] the problem $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ is included in a broad class of geometrical problems connected with Matsuki duality. These geometrical problems include in particular the problem of the parametrization of compact complex cycles in flag domains (cf. \[Wo92\]).

Let us now come to the contents of this paper. Our first main result is a complex version of Kostant’s non-linear convexity theorem (cf. \[Kos73\]). Write $`GA,ga(g)`$ for the middle projection in $`G=NAK`$.

Theorem. (Kostant) Let $`Xa`$. Then

$$a(K\mathrm{exp}(X))=\mathrm{exp}(conv(𝒲X)),$$

where $`𝒲=N_K(a)/Z_K(a)`$ denotes the Weyl group and $`conv()`$ refers to the convex hull of $`()`$.

One shows that the middle projection $`a:GA`$ holomorphically extends to

$$a:G\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega })K_CA_C.$$
$`(1)`$
Then our main result is:

Theorem A. (Complex Convexity Theorem) For all $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have that

$$a(G\mathrm{exp}(iX))A\mathrm{exp}(iconv(𝒲X)).$$

Our convexity theorem features interesting applications to the geometry of the domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and its generic subdomains which are defined as follows: Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a non-empty convex $`𝒲`$-invariant open subset. Then we can form the domains

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ):=G\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )K_C/K_C.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and that the Iwasawa projection (1) naturally factors to a holomorphic mapping $`a:\mathrm{\Xi }A_C`$. Finally we define for every $`gG`$ the horospherical tube $`T(g,\omega )X_C`$ by

$$T(g,\omega ):=g\left(N_CA\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )K_C/K_C\right).$$

As an application of Theorem A we now obtain:

Theorem B. Let $`\omega `$ be an open convex Weyl group invariant subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then the following assertions hold: (i) $`a(\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ))=A\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )`$. (ii) $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )=\left(_{gG}T(g,\omega )\right)_0`$. (iii) The domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is Stein.

Let us emphasize that in the the case of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )=\mathrm{\Xi }`$, the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ means only the existence of an Iwasawa projection $`a:\mathrm{\Xi }A_C`$; (i) in Theorem B gives a more precise information on the image of this projection. Further (ii) in the above theorem is a much stronger statement than (iii); in particular, (ii) implies (iii) since all horospherical tubes $`T(g,\omega )`$ are Stein.

Theorem B can be considered as an analogue of Lassalle’s results for compact symmetric spaces (cf. \[La78\]). We can interpret Theorem A and Theorem B as statements for $`G`$-orbits in $`X_C`$ intersecting $`A\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega })K_C/K_C`$ which in in the case of compact symmetric spaces $`G/K`$ are true for arbitrary $`G`$-orbits (cf. \[La78\]).

It is our pleasure to thank the MSRI, Berkeley, for its hospitality during the Integral geometry program where this work was accomplished. We thank Dmitri Akhiezer for his careful screening of the manuscript and his worthy suggestions. Further we would like to thank Karl-Hermann Neeb for his kindness to proofread the paper and Laura Geatti for sharing her knowledge with us on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

1. Notation

Let $`G`$ be a connected semisimple Lie group sitting inside a complexification $`G_C`$. We denote by $`g`$ and $`g_C`$ the Lie algebras of $`G`$ and $`G_C`$, respectively. Let $`K<G`$ be a maximal compact subgroup and $`k`$ its Lie algebra. Denote by $`\theta :GG`$ a Cartan involution which has $`K`$ as a fixed point set.

Let $`g=kp`$ the Cartan decomposition attached to $`k`$. Take $`ap`$ a maximal Abelian subspace and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(g,a)a^{}`$ be the corresponding root system. Related to this root system is the root space decomposition according to the simultaneous eigenvalues of $`ad(H),Ha:`$

$$g=am\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }}{}g^\alpha ,$$

here $`m=z_k(a)`$ and $`g^\alpha =\{Xg:(Ha)[H,X]=\alpha (H)X\}`$. For the choice of a positive system $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one obtains the nilpotent Lie algebra $`n=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }^+}g^\alpha `$. Then one has the Iwasawa decomposition on the Lie algebra level

$$g=nak.$$

We write $`A`$, $`N`$ for the analytic subgroups of $`G`$ corresponding to $`a`$ and $`n`$. For these choices one has for $`G`$ the Iwasawa decomposition, namely, the multiplication map

$$N\times A\times KG,(n,a,k)nak$$

In particular, every element $`gG`$ can be written uniquely as $`g=n(g)a(g)\kappa (g)`$ with each of the maps $`\kappa (g)K`$, $`a(g)A`$, $`n(g)N`$ depending analytically on $`gG`$. The last piece of structure theory we shall recall is the little Weyl group. We denote by $`𝒲=N_K(a)/Z_K(a)`$ the Weyl group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(a,g)`$.

Finally we define the domain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{Xa:(\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma })|\alpha (X)|<\frac{\pi }{2}\}.$$

Clearly $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is convex and $`𝒲`$-invariant.

2. The complex convexity theorem

Let us first give the relevant notation. Denote by $`K_C`$, $`A_C`$, $`N_C`$ the complexifications of $`K`$, $`A`$ and $`N`$. Then $`N_CA_CK_C`$ is a proper Zariski-open, hence dense subset of $`G_C`$. Throughout this paper we will assume that $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ holds, i.e.,

$$G\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega })N_CA_CK_C$$

(see the introduction for proofs of this statement). We now set $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }:=A\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Omega })A_C`$. Then $`GT_\mathrm{\Omega }N_CA_CK_C`$.

One can show that one has a well defined holomorphic middle projection $`N_CA_CK_CA_C/(A_CK_C)`$. Due to the simple connectedness of $`T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this projection restricted to $`GT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ lifts to $`A_C`$ (cf. \[KrSt01a, proof of Th. 1.8(iii)\]) and we obtain an analytic mapping

$$G\times T_\mathrm{\Omega }A_C,(g,a)a(ga)$$

holomorphic in the second variable such that

$$gaN_Ca(ga)K_C$$

holds.

If $`V`$ is a vector space and $`EV`$ is a subset, then we denote by $`conv(E)`$ the convex hull of $`E`$ in $`V`$.

Theorem 2.1. (Complex Convexity Theorem) Assume that $`G`$ is classical. Then we have for all $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that

$$a(G\mathrm{exp}(iX))A\mathrm{exp}(iconv(𝒲X)).$$

The proof of Theorem 2.1 will be given in several steps.

Fix $`aT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and consider the function

$$f_a:Ka_C,k\mathrm{log}a(ka).$$

Further we write $`p_{a_C}:g_Ca_C`$ for the projection along $`k_C+n_C`$. For $`xGT_\mathrm{\Omega }K_CN_CA_CK_C`$ we write $`b(x)=n(x)a(x)`$ for the triangular part of $`x`$.

Lemma 2.2.For any $`aT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`kK`$ and $`Xk`$ we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}f_a(\mathrm{exp}(tX)k)=p_{a_C}(Ad(b(ka))^1X).$$

Proof. This result can be easily deduced from the known case for $`aA`$ by analytic continuation. However, for conveniene for the reader, we briefly recall the proof. We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}f_a(\mathrm{exp}(tX)k)& =\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\mathrm{log}a(\mathrm{exp}(tX)ka)\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\mathrm{log}a(\mathrm{exp}(tX)b(ka))\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}[\mathrm{log}a(b(ka)^1\mathrm{exp}(tX)b(ka))+\mathrm{log}a(ka)]\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}\mathrm{log}a(\mathrm{exp}(tAd(b(ka))^1X))=p_{a_C}(Ad(b(ka))^1X),\hfill \end{array}$$

proving the lemma.

Write $`g_C^R`$ for $`g_C`$ considered as a real Lie algebra and $`\kappa _R`$ for the Cartan-Killing form on $`g_C^R`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be the Cartan-Killing form on $`g`$ and recall the following relation between $`\kappa `$ and $`\kappa _R`$:

$$(X,X^{},Y,Y^{}g)\kappa _R(X+iY,X^{}+iY^{})=2(\kappa (X,X^{})\kappa (Y,Y^{})).$$

For every $`\lambda (g_C^R)^{}`$ we define $`H_\lambda g_C^R`$ by $`\lambda (X)=\kappa _R(X,H_\lambda )`$ for all $`Xg_C^R`$.

For every $`\lambda (a_C^R)^{}`$ and $`aT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we now define the function

$$f_{a,\lambda }:KR,k\lambda (f_a(k)).$$

Lemma 2.3.Let $`aT_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`kK`$. Then the following assertions hold: (i) For all $`Xk`$ one has $`\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}f_{a,\lambda }(\mathrm{exp}(tX)k)=\kappa _R(X,Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda ).`$ (ii) We have $`df_{a,\lambda }(k)=0`$ if and only if

$$k_{\kappa _R}Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda .$$

Proof. (i) is immediate from Lemma 2.2 and the notations introduced from above.

(ii) follows from (i).

Write $`ia_R^{}`$ for the subspace of $`(a_C^R)^{}`$ which vanishes on $`a`$. Our next goal is to determine the critical set of $`f_{a,\lambda }`$ for $`\lambda ia_R^{}`$.

We also denote by $`\theta `$ the holomorphic extension of the Cartan involution to $`G_C`$. Further we write $`G_CG_C,x\overline{x}`$ for the complex conjugation with respect to the real form $`G`$.

Lemma 2.4.Suppose that $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is regular. Set $`a=\mathrm{exp}(iX)`$ and let $`kK`$. Then the following implication holds

$$kaNA_CK_CkN_K(a).$$

Proof. We write $`ka=nbk^{}`$ for $`nN`$, $`bA_C`$ and $`k^{}K_C`$. Then

$$ka^2k^1=ka(\theta (ka)^1)=nbk^{}(\theta (nbk^{}))^1=nb^2\theta (n)^1.$$

Set $`x:=ka^2k^1`$. Then

$$\overline{x}=ka^2k^1=x^1.$$

Thus we obtain that

$$\overline{x}=n\overline{b}^2\theta (n)^1=\theta (n)b^2n^1.$$

Therefore $`x=\theta (n)\overline{b}^2n^1`$ and so

$$x^2=\theta (n)\overline{b}^2n^1nb^2\theta (n)^1A_C\theta (N_C).$$

Now let $`0<t1`$ and write $`a_t:=\mathrm{exp}(itX)`$ and accordingly we define $`x_t`$. Then we obtain that

$$\mathrm{log}x_t^2=\mathrm{log}(k\mathrm{exp}(i4tX)k^1)=Ad(k)(i4tX)a_C+\theta (n_C)$$

for small $`t`$ and hence for all $`t`$ by analyticity. But $`Ad(k)(i4tX)ip`$. Hence by the regularity of $`X`$ we obtain that $`kN_K(a)`$, as was to be shown.

Proposition 2.5.Suppose that $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and set $`a=\mathrm{exp}(iX)`$. Let $`\lambda ia_R^{}`$ be such that $`H_\lambda ia`$ is regular. Then we have

$$df_{a,\lambda }(k)=0kN_K(a).$$

Proof. The implication “$``$” follows immediately from Lemma 2.3 (ii).

$``$”: Suppose that $`df_{a,\lambda }(k)=0`$. Then Lemma 2.3 (ii) implies that $`k_{\kappa _R}Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda `$, or equivalently $`Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda ig+p`$. Assume that $`kN_K(a)`$. By Lemma 2.4 we have $`n(ka)=\mathrm{exp}(Y)`$ for some $`Yn_C\backslash n`$. Hence

$$Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda =H_\lambda +\underset{n_C}{\underset{}{[Y,H_\lambda ]}}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{[n_C,n_C]}{\underset{}{[Y,[Y,H_\lambda ]]}}+\mathrm{}.$$

Thus the fact that $`H_\lambda ia`$ is regular implies that $`Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda ia+(n_C\backslash in)`$. But this contradicts $`Ad(n(ka))H_\lambda ig+p`$, proving our proposition.

Proof of Theorem 2.1. First we observe that it is sufficient to prove

$$a(K\mathrm{exp}(iX))A\mathrm{exp}(iconv(𝒲X))$$

for all $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$. By a simple density/continuity argument we may further assume that $`X`$ is regular. Suppose that there exists a $`kK`$ such that $`a(k\mathrm{exp}(iX))A\mathrm{exp}(iconv(𝒲X)),`$ or equivalently

$$Im\mathrm{log}a(k\mathrm{exp}(iX))conv(𝒲X).$$

Then we find a regular element $`\lambda ia_R^{}`$ such that

$$f_{\mathrm{exp}(iX),\lambda }(k)>\underset{Yiconv(𝒲X)}{\mathrm{max}}\lambda (Y).$$

But Proposition 2.5 implies that $`f_{\mathrm{exp}(iX),\lambda }`$ takes its maximum at an element $`kN_K(a)`$. Hence $`f_{\mathrm{exp}(iX),\lambda }(k)=\lambda (Ad(k)iX)`$; a contradiction to our inequality from above.

3. Applications

Let now $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open Weyl group invariant convex set. Then we define the domain

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ):=G\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )K_C/K_C.$$

If $`\omega =\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then we set $`\mathrm{\Xi }:=\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Write $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ for the toplogical boundary of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ in $`G_C/K_C`$. Note the following properties of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$:

$``$$`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is open in $`G_C/K_C`$ (cf. \[AkGi90\]). $``$$`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is connected and $`G`$-invariant. $``$$`G`$ acts properly on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ (cf. \[AkGi90\]). $``$One has $`G\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )K_C/K_C\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$. Moreover if $`\overline{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then we have $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )=G\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )K_C/K_C`$ (cf. \[KrSt01b, Prop. 4.1\]).

From our discussions in the previous section it is clear that we have a holomorphic projection

$$a:\mathrm{\Xi }_\omega A_C,xa(x)$$

with $`xN_Ca(x)K_C/K_C`$ for all $`x\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Finally we define the Abelian tube domain

$$T_\omega :=A\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )A_C.$$

An immediate consequence of our complex convexity theorem then is:

Lemma 3.1.We have

$$a(\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ))=T_\omega .$$

Remark 3.2. From Lemma 3.1 we obtain in particular that $`a(\mathrm{\Xi })T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is interesting to observe that this inclusion for $`G=Sp(n,R)`$ extends a result of Siegel.

Consider the vector space $`V:=Symm(n,R)`$ of real symmetric matrices with its subcone of positive definite matrices $`V_+`$. Then we have the symmetric Siegel domain

$$S^+:=V+iV_+V_C.$$

Recall that $`S^+Sp(n,R)/U(n)`$.

If we write $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ for the $`j`$-th principal minor on $`V_C`$, then Siegel’s Lemma says

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_j(z)0\text{for }zS^+$$
$`(3.1)`$
and all $`1jn`$. Now consider the rational functions

$$\chi _j(z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_j(z)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{j1}(z)}$$

on $`V_C`$. Then the inclusion $`a(\mathrm{\Xi })T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for $`G=Sp(n,R)`$ implies

$$Im\chi _j(z)>0\text{for }zS^+$$
$`(3.2)`$
and for all $`j`$. Note that (3.2) implies (3.1). To see this one identifies $`S^+`$ with the symmetric space $`Sp(n,R)/U(n)`$. Then with $`S^{}:=\overline{S^+}`$ one has a biholomorphism $`\mathrm{\Xi }S^+\times S^{}`$ (cf. \[GiMa01\] or \[KrSt01b\]). Realizing $`A`$ as diagonal matrices in $`G`$, one then easily shows that $`a(\mathrm{\Xi })T_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies (3.2).

The example discussed above admits a natural generalization to all tube domains $`V+iV_+`$ associated to an Euclidean Jordan algebra $`V`$ and cone $`V_+`$.

For every $`gG`$ we define the horospherical tube associated to $`\omega `$ by

$$T(g,\omega ):=g\left(N_CT_\omega K_C/K_C\right)G_C/K_C.$$

Note that $`T(\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ is biholomorphic to $`N_C\times T_\omega `$. In particular, all horospherical tubes $`T(g,\omega )`$ are Stein.

Theorem 3.3.For any non-empty open convex $`𝒲`$-invariant set $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ the domain $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is the connected component of the intersection of horospherical tubes:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )=\left(\underset{gG}{}T(g,\omega )\right)_0.$$

Proof. From Lemma 3.1 we obtain that

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )N_CT_\omega K_C/K_C=a^1(T(\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )).$$

Thus the fact that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is $`G`$-invariant and connected implies that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )\left(_{gG}T(g,\omega )\right)_0.`$ On the other hand we obtain from $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }_I`$ (cf. the discussion in the introduction) and Lemma 3.1 that $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\left(_{gG}T(g,\mathrm{\Omega })\right)_0`$. From this and Lemma 3.1 we hence get

$$\left(\underset{gG}{}T(g,\omega )\right)_0\mathrm{\Xi }T(\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )=\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega ),$$

completing the proof of the theorem.

An interesting application of Theorem 3.3 is the following:

Proposition 3.4.Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open convex $`𝒲`$-invariant set. Then the intersection

$$I(\omega ):=\underset{gG}{}T(g,\omega )$$

is open. In particular, $`I(\omega )`$ and every connected component of $`I(\omega )`$ is Stein. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$ is Stein.

Proof. (following a suggestion of Dmitri Akhiezer) Since $`G=KAN`$ and since $`AN`$ leaves $`T(\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ invariant, we obtain

$$I(\omega )=\underset{kK}{}T(k,\omega ).$$

Hence $`I(\omega )`$ is an intersection of open sets over the “compact parameter space” $`K`$. In particular $`I`$ is open. Since all horospherical tubes $`T(k,\omega )`$ are Stein, we obtain that $`I`$ is Stein. With $`I(\omega )`$ all its connected components are Stein, concluding the proof of the theorem.

As a final application of the complex convexity theorem we prove a result on the characterization of the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

Proposition 3.5.Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open convex $`𝒲`$-invariant set. Let $`(z_n)_{nN}`$ be a sequence with $`z_nz_0\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$. Then

$$(Im\mathrm{log}a(z_n))_{nN}$$

is a sequence in $`\omega `$ and every accumulation point of this sequence lies in $`\omega `$.

Proof. Set $`X_n:=Im\mathrm{log}a(z_n)`$. By Lemma 3.1 we have $`X_n\omega `$. Since $`\overline{\omega }`$ is compact in $`a`$, we may assume that $`X_nX_0`$ with $`X_0\overline{\omega }`$.

If $`X_0\omega `$, then we find a convex Weyl group invariant open set $`\omega _1`$ such that $`\overline{\omega _1}\omega `$ and $`X_n\omega _1`$. Then Theorem 3.3 implies that $`z_n\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega _1)`$ and so $`z_0\overline{\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega _1)}`$. Now $`\overline{\omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega _1)=G\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _1)K_C/K_C`$. Thus $`z_0\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$, contradicting the assumption $`z_0\mathrm{\Xi }(\omega )`$. This concludes the proof of the proposition.

References

\[AkGi90\]    Akhiezer, D. N., and S. G. Gindikin, On Stein extensions of real symmetric spaces, Math. Ann. 286, 1–12, 1990 .

\[Ba01\]    Barchini, L., Stein Extensions of Real Symmetric Spaces and the Geometry of the Flag Manifold, preprint .

\[BHH01\]    Burns, D., S. Halverscheid, and R. Hind, The Geometry of Grauert Tubes and Complexification of Symmetric Spaces, preprint .

\[Gi98\]    Gindikin, S., Tube domains in Stein symmetric spaces, Positivity in Lie theory: open problems, 81–97, de Gruyter Exp. Math., 26, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998 .

\[GiMa01\]    Gindikin, S., and T. Matsuki, Stein Extensions of Riemann Symmetric Spaces and Dualities of Orbits on Flag Manifolds, MSRI preprint 2001-028 .

\[Hu01\]    Huckleberry, A., On certain domains in cycle spaces of flag manifolds, preprint .

\[Kos73\]    Kostant, B., On Convexity, the Weyl Group and the Iwasawa Decomposition, Ann. scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. $`4^e`$ série, t. 6, 413–455, 1973 .

\[KrSt01a\]    Krötz, B., and R. J. Stanton, Holomorphic extensions of representations: (I) automorphic functions, preprint .

\[KrSt01b\]    —, Holomorphic extensions of representations: (II) geometry and harmonic analysis, preprint .

\[KOS01\]    Krötz, B., M. Otto, and R. J. Stanton, Complex crowns of Riemannian symmetric spaces – excercises for the exceptional cases, in preparation .

\[La78\]    Lassalle, M., Séries de Laurent des fonctions holomorphes dans la complexification d’un espace symétrique compact, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 11 (1978), no. 2, 167–210 .

\[Wo92\]    Wolf, J. A., The Stein condition for cycle spaces of open orbits on complex flag manifolds, Ann. of Math. (2) 136 (1992), no. 3, 541–555 .

Simon Gindikin   Department of Mathematics Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08903 USA gindikin@math.rutgers.edu   Bernhard Krötz   The Ohio State University Department of Mathematics 231 West 18th Avenue Columbus, OH 43210–1174 USA kroetz@math.ohio-state.edu


format: text

text:
# Doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reactions as a test for current approaches to nucleiDevoted to the memory of Sergey Fayans.

## 1 Introduction

The doorway states for one-nucleon transfer reactions are eigenstates of nucleon in the static field of nucleus which is the convolution of the free-space nucleon-nucleon forces with the nucleon density distributions in nucleus . They are model-independent quantities because (a) the free-space $`NN`$ forces are independent of nuclear medium effects and (b) the nucleon density distributions are deduced from the electron–nucleus  and proton–nucleus  elastic scattering data. The corresponding eigenvalue problem is that of nucleon in central field which can be solved with any desired accuracy. For these reasons the doorway states can be used as a very trustworthy test for current nuclear models.

Let us discuss some results of Ref. from this point of view.

1. The nuclear relativity within the Walecka  model is confirmed to be actually existing phenomenon.

2. The dominant contribution to the isovector part of the static field arises from the many-particle $`NN`$ forces because the $`\rho `$ meson (vector–isovector) and $`\delta `$ meson (scalar–isovector) fields arising from the two-particle forces nearly cancel each other. At the same time the isovector nuclear potential is exclusively of the $`\rho `$ meson origin within the quantum hadrodynamics . The reason for this wrong QHD result is the neglect of the $`\delta `$ meson field in spite of the fact that both the $`\rho `$ and $`\delta `$ meson exchanges are taken into account in the two-particle $`NN`$ forces .

3. The contributions from the two-particle, three-particle and four-particle forces to the isoscalar part of the static field are found to be $`U_280`$MeV, $`U_3+96`$MeV, $`U_4104`$MeV. This is in conflict with such leading principles of the effective field theory as the naive dimensional analysis and the naturalness . Indeed, the values of the forces which are estimated according to the above principles are

$$V_230\text{ MeV },V_3\frac{V_2^2}{m}1\text{ MeV },V_4\frac{V_2^3}{m^2}0.03\text{ MeV },$$
(1)
($`m`$ is the mass of nucleon) and therefore the expected relation between $`U_2`$, $`U_3`$ and $`U_4`$ is $`|U_2|:|U_3|:|U_4|1:10^{\frac{3}{2}}:10^3`$. In fact it is $`1:1.2:1.3`$ thus suggesting that there is something wrong with the naturalness. Discussion of this point is continued in the next Section.

## 2 Nonlinearity as a source of many-particle forces

As discussed in Ref. the isoscalar part of the static field may contain contributions from higher (five-particle, six-particle, etc.) many-particle forces. They could be taken into account by increasing the number of terms in the power series expansion

$$U_{st}(r)=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\rho ^n(r)$$
(2)
for the static field  ($`\rho (r)`$ is the nucleon density distribution) thus introducing an indeterminate number of additional adjustable parameters. Instead we use the fact that ultimately the underlying reason for many-particle forces is the nonlinearity of strong interaction. We introduce an auxiliary scalar-isoscalar field $`\varphi `$ with the Lagrangian density

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi U(\varphi )g\overline{\psi }\psi \varphi `$ (3)
$`U(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\lambda _3\varphi ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _4\varphi ^4,`$ (4)
thus obeying the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\varphi +\lambda _3\varphi ^2+\lambda _4\varphi ^3=g\rho _s+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,$$
(5)
$`\rho _s(r)=A_0|\overline{\psi }(r)\psi (r)|A_0`$ is the nuclear scalar density. As discussed in Ref. the many-particle forces of all ranks are taken into account in this way.

The field $`\varphi `$ contains the ”two-particle” component $`\varphi _2`$ obeying the equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\varphi _2=g\rho _s+\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _2.$$
(6)
This component must be eliminated because the ”two-particle” contribution to the static field is determined by the free-space two-particle forces . So the many-particle contribution to the scalar–isoscalar field is

$$W(r)=g(\varphi (r)\varphi _2(r)).$$
(7)
Let us analyse this expression disregarding for a moment the Laplace terms of Eqs. (5) and (6) which are responsible for the finite range of the forces, although these terms are included in the actual calculations. But as demonstrated in Ref. they are of little importance thus not affecting the results of the below analysis. As demonstrated in Ref. the radial dependence of $`W(r)`$ has the form which is schematically shown in Fig.1. As seen from the figure it is negative at $`r<r_1`$, positive at $`r>r_1`$ with a maximum $`W_m`$ in this region, and vanishing at $`r=r_1`$. Without the Laplace terms

$$W(r)=\frac{g\lambda _4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\varphi ^2(r)\left(\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _4}+\varphi (r)\right).$$
(8)
So

$$\varphi (r_1)=\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _4}.$$
(9)
But as follows from (6) and (7)

$$\varphi (r_1)=\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\rho _s(r_1)$$
(10)
and therefore

$$\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _4}=\frac{g\rho _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2},$$
(11)
where $`\rho _1=\rho _s(r_1)`$. Let us introduce the dimensionless quantities $`y(r)`$ and $`y_2(r)`$,

$$\varphi (r)=\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\rho _1y(r),\varphi _2(r)=\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\rho _1y_2(r).$$
(12)
In these units

$$W(r)=\frac{g^4\rho _1^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^8}y^2(r)(1y(r))\lambda _4.$$
(13)
The maximum $`W_m`$ occurs at $`y=2/3`$, so

$$\lambda _4=\frac{27\mathrm{\Lambda }^8W_m}{4g^4\rho _1^3},\lambda _3=\frac{27\mathrm{\Lambda }^6W_m}{4g^3\rho _1^2}.$$
(14)
The parameter $`\lambda _4`$ is negative since $`W_m>0`$, see the figure. The parameter $`\lambda _3`$ is negative too provided the coupling constant $`g`$ is positive. Actually the sign of $`g`$ is insignificant since the physical field is $`g\varphi `$ thus being expressed through $`g^2`$.

The potential energy of the scalar field is also of the form (4) within the relativistic mean-field approach , the parameters $`\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _4`$ being negative too. In this way the sign of the RMF parameters is confirmed. It should be mentioned that the values of the RMF parameters are determined from the experimental data which include the important correlation effects (binding energies, density distributions, low-energy spectra etc.), and therefore they are model-dependent (the model-independent treatment of the correlations does not exist). In contrast, our parameters are determined from the doorway state energies thus being model-independent.

In terms of the $`y`$ and $`y_2`$ quantities the contribution to the scalar–isoscalar field from the many-particle forces is

$`W(r)={\displaystyle \frac{9xW_m}{4}}(y(r)y_2(r))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta \left(\rho _s^{}(r)\right)^2`$ (15)
$`x={\displaystyle \frac{4g^2\rho _1}{9\mathrm{\Lambda }^2W_m}},\rho _s^{}(r)=\rho _{sn}(r)\rho _{sp}(r).`$ (16)
The second term in the rhs of (15) arises from the symmetry energy. The quantities $`y(r)`$ and $`y_2(r)`$ obey the equations

$`y(r)+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{x}}y^2(r)(1y(r))={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s(r)}{\rho _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }y(r)`$ (17)
$`y_2(r)={\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s(r)}{\rho _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }y_2(r).`$ (18)
The details of calculations will be described in the forthcoming publication. The resulting values of the parameters are found to be

$$\rho _1=0.146\text{ fm}^3,W_m=11.393\text{ MeV },x=16.004,\mathrm{\Lambda }=986.64\text{ MeV },\beta =5.583\text{ fm}^5.$$
(19)
The NDA prescription  for the scalar field potential energy is

$$U(\varphi )=f_\pi ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\kappa _n}{n!}\left(\frac{\varphi }{f_\pi }\right)^n,$$
(20)
where $`f_\pi =93`$ MeV. According to the concept of naturalness all the coefficients $`\kappa _n`$ must be of order of unity. Comparison between (20) and (4) together with (14) and (16) gives

$$\kappa _2=1,\kappa _3=\frac{2f_\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\lambda _3=4\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{f_\pi }{x\rho _1}\left(\frac{\rho _1}{xW_m}\right)^{1/2},\kappa _4=\frac{6f_\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\lambda _4=8\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\frac{f_\pi ^2}{x^2\rho _1W_m}.$$
(21)
As follows from the values (19) of the parameters $`\kappa _3=1.6`$, $`\kappa _4=20.5`$, the concept of naturalness thus being not confirmed.

As demonstrated by the calculations for the few-nucleon systems the effect of many-particle forces is relatively small . This result is confirmed but the underlying physical reason is different from that provided by the effective field theory. According to the latter it is decrease of the strength with increasing rank of the force, see Eq.(1). As follows from above this scenario does not hold: the actual reason is the cancellation of the contributions from many-particle forces of different ranks (the physics is believed to be the same for complex nuclei and few-nucleon systems).


text:
# Efficient computation of low-lying eigenmodes of non-Hermitian Wilson-Dirac type matrices

## 1 Introduction

The spectra of Wilson-Dirac type matrices $`M`$ have an elliptic shape, with the real parts of the eigenvalues being positive. Since the large eigenmodes correspond to the doublers, only the small ones should contain physics.

Employing the Arnoldi algorithm , the straightforward approach to the described eigenproblem is to ask the algorithm for the eigenmodes of smallest modulus. By introducing shifts along the real axis ($`M+\sigma I`$), the part of the spectrum to be found by the algorithm can be influenced.

On the other hand we observe that the Arnoldi algorithm converges much faster when asking for eigenmodes of largest modulus or largest real part of $`(M+\sigma I)`$ instead, where on a quenched $`4^4`$ ($`8^4`$) lattice a gain factor of about 2 (5) in CPU time can be achieved. The disadvantage of this approach is that the computed eigenmodes are not as ’low-lying’ as before (in general their imaginary parts are larger). This problem can be cured by a modified approach, which will be described in the following.

## 2 The polynomial transformation $`p_{\sigma ,n}`$

In order to focus the search for large eigenmodes of $`(M+\sigma I)`$ on the ones close to the real axis (i.e. on low-lying eigenmodes of $`M`$), we propose to determine the eigenmodes of largest real parts of

$$p_{\sigma ,n}(D)=\left(D+\sigma I\right)^n,$$
(1)
with $`D`$ defined through $`M=I\kappa D`$. Using $`D`$ is only a matter of notation, one could as well work with $`p(M)=(M+\sigma I)^n`$.111For polynomial acceleration of eigenmode algorithms, see e.g.

For the standard Wilson-Dirac matrix, $`D`$ can be even-odd preconditioned. The polynomial transformation then takes the form

$$p_{\sigma ,n}(D_{eo}D_{oe})=\left(D_{eo}D_{oe}+\sigma I\right)^n,$$
(2)
where $`e`$ and $`o`$ stand for even and odd respectively.

The spectral windows amenable to $`p_{\sigma ,n}`$ can be identified by determining those complex numbers, $`a`$, which are mapped into $`S=\{a|\text{real}(p_{\sigma ,n}(a))c\}`$, where $`c`$ depends on the number of eigenmodes to be determined. This is illustrated in Fig. (1). The curves enclose the complex numbers belonging to $`S`$, with their shape being fixed by $`\sigma `$ and $`n`$. With respect to the eigenmode algorithm, $`S`$ represents the regions of sensitivity, i.e. the algorithm is capable to find eigenmodes lying inside the wedge-like regions $`S`$.

## 3 Results

The spectral windows of the standard and the clover improved Wilson-Dirac matrix amenable to $`p_{\sigma ,n}`$ are displayed in Fig. (3).

The left frame shows that the computed eigenmodes are indeed enclosed by the curves defined through $`S`$ and that they are close to the real axis, i.e. low-lying.

Furthermore the second frame illustrates that with too large an exponent $`n`$, physically uninteresting eigenmodes with large imaginary parts will be computed by the algorithm.

Finally the right frame demonstrates that preconditioning can help to substantially reduce $`n`$ without changing the interesting window of sensitivity, as the curves cutting the real axis nearly coincide.

In Fig. (3) further such examples are given. The left frame shows 200 eigenmodes as found on a quenched $`8^4`$ lattice. The right frame compares, for a full QCD $`16^3\times 32`$ lattice, the eigenmodes found for the exponents $`n=1`$ and $`n=24`$. The plotted curves enclose the regions of the complex plane that were searched for eigenvalues, i.e. inside the curves all eigenvalues are captured.

One might suspect that the polynomial transformation $`p_{\sigma ,n}(D)`$ goes along with a polynomial increase of the execution time due to additional matrix vector multiplications. That this is not so can be seen for the even-odd preconditioned matrix in Fig. (4) and for clover improvement in Fig. (5), where the dependence of the number of matrix vector multiplications and of the CPU time on the exponent $`n`$ are displayed.222Surprisingly in some cases only for $`n=4`$ no convergence was found.

For the even-odd preconditioned Wilson-Dirac matrix one can see that the run time increases strongly on the $`4^4`$ and is almost stable on the $`8^4`$ lattice, whereas a dramatic decrease is found on the realistic lattice sizes $`12^3\times 24`$ and $`16^3\times 32`$. For the last two lattices the CRAY T3E-1200 found an acceleration factor of 8, whereas the CRAY T3E-600 produced a gain factor of 9 and 14 respectively.

For the even-odd preconditioned Wilson-Dirac matrix this systematics seems to be delayed. On the $`8^4`$ lattice an increase in computing time is detected, whereas on the $`12^3\times 24`$ an acceleration factor of $`1.6`$ was found.

Furthermore the results indicate that the factor of acceleration grows with the size of the lattice.

Why does the polynomial transformation accelerate the algorithm?

At first one might expect that through the polynomial transformation the density of the eigenvalues is decreased. This would explain the acceleration, since the convergence is sensitive to this quantity. But if that is the right explanation, the number of matrix vector multiplications would be decreasing as well. Since this is not always the case (see Fig. (4) and Fig. (5)), a different mechanism must be at work. Taking a look at the time spent in the Arnoldi subroutines for different exponents $`n`$ immediately provides the answer: When employing the polynomial $`p_{\sigma ,n}`$ one has to enter the Arnoldi subroutines less often, since in one Arnoldi step one performs $`n`$ multiplications instead of only one and thus saves the time normally spent in those routines. This means that for large $`n`$, the computing time is almost exclusively used for the matrix vector multiplications. Hence the optimal choice of polynomial is met, if just one Arnoldi factorization has to be performed.

## 4 Summary and comments

It could be shown that through the polynomial transformation $`p_{\sigma ,n}`$ wedge-shaped spectral windows are accessible. In case of the even-odd preconditioned Wilson-Dirac matrix this led to an acceleration factor of an order of magnitude on typical lattices sizes, whereas for the clover improved Wilson-Dirac matrix a factor of the order of 2 was found. It could be shown that this factor grows with the size of the lattice. Comparing with a search for the eigenmodes of smallest modulus of $`M`$, which provides a similar part of the spectrum as $`p_{\sigma ,n}(D)`$, the factor of acceleration is even larger.

The possible accuracy with which one can determine the eigenmodes is not affected by the polynomial transformation.

Acknowledgments I thank Ivan Hip for his help and the staff of the NIC Research Center Jülich, where the computations were carried out.