text:
# A Barth–Lefschetz theorem for toric varieties

( Dedicated to the memory of Michael Schneider)

1991 AMS Subject Classification: 14 F 25 (14 M 25, 14 M 07)

By the well known theorem of Barth–Lefschetz for complex projective space $`Y=^r`$ one has

$$H^q(Y,X;)=0\text{for}q2nr+1$$

for any $`n`$-dimensional submanifold $`XY`$. This was proved first by Barth \[B\] generalizing a theorem of Lefschetz on hypersurfaces $`X`$. Using Le Potier’s vanishing theorem \[LP\] a new proof was given in a joint paper with Schneider \[SZ\]. That article contains also references to further proofs of the theorem. Using the same arguments as in \[SZ\], Debarre \[D\] was able to show that the theorem of Barth–Lefschetz holds for abelian varieties $`Y`$ as well, assuming that the normal bundle of $`X`$ in $`Y`$ is ample.111 In fact, this is a special case of a result on submanifolds of projective homogeneous manifolds which has been proved earlier by Sommese \[So\] using different methods.

The idea behind this paper was to study the more general situation of a submanifold $`X`$ in a smooth projective toric variety $`Y`$. Giving up $`^r`$ as ambient space, which is very special indeed, one needs some additional assumptions on the submanifold $`X`$. One requirement is that the normal bundle of $`X`$ in $`Y`$ is ample, which is always true if $`Y=^r`$. Besides that, the submanifold should meet the boundary of $`Y`$ transversally, which again can be achieved in $`^r`$ using the homogeneity of projective space.

For an arbitrary such submanifold $`X`$ in $`Y`$ one cannot expect that the result of Barth–Lefschetz still holds. In theorem 16 a precise toric characterization is given in which cases it does. The main theorem 10 settles the general case. It gives a formula for all Hodge numbers $`h^{p,q}(X)`$ for any such submanifold $`X`$ in the Barth–Lefschetz range $`p+q2nr`$.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`0FE_0\mathrm{}E_k0`$ be an exact sequence of sheaves on a scheme $`Z`$. Let $`q0`$ and assume

$$H^{qi}(Z,E_i)=H^{qi1}(Z,E_i)=0\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}0}ik1.$$

Then

$$H^q(Z,F)H^{qk}(Z,E_k).$$

Proof. By induction on $`k`$ and cutting the sequence into two pieces. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`Y`$ denote a smooth projective toric variety of dimension $`r>0`$, given by a fan $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in some lattice $`N^r`$. The dual lattice to $`N`$ will be called $`M`$. Each cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to precisely one orbit of the action of $`T_N=(^{})^r`$ on $`Y`$. The closure of this orbit is denoted by $`V(\sigma )`$. It is again a smooth projective toric subvariety of codimension equal to the dimension of $`\sigma `$. Put

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(i):=\{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }:\text{dim}\sigma =i\}.$$

For each $`0ir`$ the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }(i)`$ is finite because $`Y`$ is compact. Since $`Y`$ is smooth, Ishida’s complex of degree $`p`$

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^p𝒦^0(Y;p)\mathrm{}𝒦^p(Y;p)0$$

is exact for $`p=0,\mathrm{},r`$, where

$$𝒦^j(Y;p)=\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(j)}{}𝒪_{V(\sigma )}_{}\stackrel{pj}{}(M\sigma ^{}).$$

Note that $`M\sigma ^{}`$ is a free $``$-module of rank $`rj`$.

Let $`X`$ be a submanifold of $`Y`$ of dimension $`n`$ with ample normal bundle $`𝒩_{X/Y}`$. We assume $`X`$ to be in general position. This is made precise in the following definition.

###### Definition 2

We say that $`XY`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal if for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(k)`$ with $`1kn`$ the intersection of $`X`$ with $`V(\sigma )`$ is either empty or transversal, and if it is empty for $`k>n`$.

From now on we will assume that $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal. In particular this implies that $`XV(\sigma )`$ is smooth, if it is not empty, and

$$𝒩_{X/Y}|XV(\sigma )𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}$$

is ample with rk $`𝒩_{X/Y}|XV(\sigma )=`$ rk $`𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}`$.

We will need the following vanishing theorem due to Le Potier.

###### Theorem 3

(Le Potier) Let $`Z`$ be a smooth projective manifold of dimension $`m`$ and $`E`$ an ample vector bundle of rank $`s`$ on $`Z`$. Then

$$H^q(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^pE^{})=0\text{for}p+qms.$$

In particular by what we said above, for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(i)`$ one has

$$H^q(XV(\sigma ),𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}^{})=0\text{for}q2nri.$$

We will use this to prove a vanishing theorem for symmetric powers of the conormal bundle $`𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`X`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal submanifold of $`Y`$ with ample normal bundle $`𝒩_{X/Y}`$. Then for all $`k1`$

$$H^q(X,S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{})=0\text{for}q2nr.$$

Note that if $`X`$ is a hypersurface in $`Y`$ then the theorem is true even without any condition on the position of $`X`$. This follows immediately from Kodaira’s vanishing theorem.

Proof. Since $`S^{k+1}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$ is a direct summand of $`S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$ it suffices to show

$$H^q(X,S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{})=0\text{for}k0\text{and}q2nr.$$

If $`k=0`$ this is just Le Potier’s theorem. We proceed by induction on $`k`$. Take symmetric powers of the conormal seqence

$$0𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^10$$

to get

$$0S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}S^{k1}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^k|X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^k0.$$

Tensoring this with $`𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$ gives

$$0S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}E_1\mathrm{}E_k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}0$$

where

$$E_i=S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}1}ik.$$

It suffices to prove

$$H^{qi+1}(X,E_i)=H^{qi}(X,E_i)=0\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}1}ik$$

and $`q2nr`$, because then by lemma 1

$$H^q(X,S^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{})H^{qk}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^k𝒩_{X/Y}^{})$$

and we are reduced to Le Potier’s theorem.

So fix an integer $`1ik`$. We may assume $`ir`$ since otherwise $`E_i=0`$ and we are done. By tensoring Ishida’s complex of degree $`i`$ with $`S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}0E_i𝒦^0(Y;i)S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}𝒦^i(Y;i)S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}0.\end{array}$$

If $`0\nu i1`$ and $`XV(\sigma )\mathrm{}`$ for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(\nu )`$, then $`𝒩_{X/Y}^{}|XV(\sigma )𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}^{}`$ as mentioned above, and one has

$$H^q(XV(\sigma ),S^{ki}𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}^{}𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}^{})=0$$

for $`q2nr\nu `$ by induction on $`k`$. Hence

$$H^q(X,𝒦^\nu (Y;i)S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{})=0$$

for $`0\nu i1`$ and $`q2nr\nu `$. This implies by lemma 1

$$H^q(X,E_i)H^{qi}(X,𝒦^i(Y;i)S^{ki}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{})$$

for $`q2nr`$. Again by induction on $`k`$ this vanishes as we have $`qi2nri`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As in \[SZ\] we will compare the cohomology groups $`H^k(Y,)`$ and $`H^k(X,)`$ using Hodge decomposition and factoring the natural map via

$$H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j).$$

###### Proposition 5

Let $`XY`$ be as above. The natural map

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)$$

is surjective if $`i+j2nr`$ and injective if $`i+j2nr+1`$.

Proof. Consider the $`j`$-th symmetric power of the conormal sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0S^j𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{}𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{j1}|X& & \mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j0\hfill \\ \hfill & & \hfill \\ & M_j^{}& \\ \hfill & & \hfill \\ \hfill 0& & 0\hfill \end{array}$$

and cut it into two pieces. We have to prove $`H^i(M_j^{})=0`$ for $`i+j2nr+1`$. Look at Ishida’s complex of degree $`\nu `$ tensored with $`S^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{}`$ for $`1\nu j1`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^\nu |XS^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{}𝒦^0(Y;\nu )S^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{}\mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}𝒦^\nu (Y;\nu )S^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{}0.\end{array}$$

As in the proof of theorem 4 we use the isomorphism $`𝒩_{X/Y}^{}|XV(\sigma )𝒩_{XV(\sigma )/V(\sigma )}^{}`$ for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(\mu )`$ if $`XV(\sigma )\mathrm{}`$. We obtain

$$H^q(X,𝒦^\mu (Y;\nu )S^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{})=0\text{for}q2nr\mu $$

and $`0\mu \nu 1`$ by theorem 4. By the same theorem and by lemma 1 we have

$$H^q(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^\nu |XS^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{})H^{q\nu }(X,𝒦^\nu (Y;\nu )S^{j\nu }𝒩_{X/Y}^{})=0$$

if $`q2nr`$. Now we apply this and lemma 1 to the long exact sequence containing $`M_j^{}`$ above. We get

$$H^{i+j1}(X,S^j𝒩_{X/Y}^{})H^i(X,M_j^{})$$

for $`i+j12nr`$. Since the left hand side vanishes by theorem 4, we finally obtain $`H^i(X,M_j^{})=0`$ for $`i+j2nr+1`$ as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

Before we can proceed we need to show the following general fact.

###### Proposition 6

Let $`Z`$ be a smooth projective variety and let $`WZ`$ be a submanifold with ample normal bundle $`𝒩_{W/Z}`$. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_s`$ be hypersurfaces on $`Z`$ such that $`D_iW=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Assume that there are integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_s`$ such that $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}a_iD_i`$ is linearly equivalent to $`0`$. Then $`a_i=0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$.

Proof. Assume that the claim does not hold. We denote by $`D_0`$ the effective divisor $`a_iD_i`$ where the sum runs over all $`a_i>0`$, and by $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ the effective divisor $`|a_i|D_i`$ where $`a_i<0`$. Since by assumption $`D_0D_{\mathrm{}}`$ is linearly equivalent to $`0`$, there exists a global meromorphic function $`g`$ on $`Z`$, such that

$$(g)=D_0D_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Since $`g`$ has neither poles nor zeroes when restricted to $`W,`$ its restriction has to be equal to a constant $`c`$, say. Hence the function $`gc`$ vanishes on $`W`$, and it is defined near $`W`$. Since it is not identically $`0`$, there is some integer $`k`$ such that $`gc`$ belongs to $`_W^k`$ but $`gc`$ does not belong to $`_W^{k+1}`$, where $`_W`$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $`W`$ in $`Z`$. Hence $`gc`$ provides a non-zero section of $`_W^k/_W^{k+1}=S^k𝒩_{W/Z}^{}`$, which contradicts the ampleness of $`𝒩_{W/Z}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 7

Let $`XY`$ be as before. Let $`s`$ be the number of $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ such that $`V(\sigma )X=\mathrm{}`$. Then there is a short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X\underset{\stackrel{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)}{V(\sigma )X\mathrm{}}}{}𝒪_X(V(\sigma )X)𝒪_X^{\delta (1)rs}0.$$

Proof. By \[BC\] there is an exact generalized Euler sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}{}𝒪_Y(V(\sigma ))𝒪_Y^{\delta (1)r}0.$$

By construction the second map factors as

$$\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}{}𝒪_Y(V(\sigma ))\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}{}𝒪_Y\underset{i=1}{\overset{\delta (1)r}{}}𝒪_Y$$

where the first map is injective, and the second map is obtained from the standard exact sequence

$$0M\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}{}V(\sigma )\text{Pic}(Y)0$$

by tensoring with $`𝒪_Y`$. Here $`V(\sigma )`$ denotes the free group generated by the boundary divisors $`V(\sigma )`$, and we use $`\text{Pic}(Y)^{\delta (1)r}`$. Now proposition 6 implies that the map

$$\underset{\stackrel{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)}{V(\sigma )X=\mathrm{}}}{}V(\sigma )\text{Pic}(Y)$$

is injective. This remains true when we tensor with $`𝒪_X`$. Hence the gereralized Euler sequence restricted to $`X`$ splits off $`s`$ copies of $`𝒪_X`$, one for each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ with $`V(\sigma )X=\mathrm{}`$, and thus reduces to a short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X\underset{\stackrel{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)}{V(\sigma )X\mathrm{}}}{}𝒪_X(V(\sigma )X)𝒪_X^{\delta (1)rs}0$$

as claimed. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using this observation, we can begin to determine Hodge numbers of $`XY`$.

###### Proposition 8

Let $`XY`$ be as above and connected. Then for the Hodge numbers of $`X`$ holds

$$h^{i,0}(X)=h^{0,i}(X)=0$$

for $`1i2nr`$.

Proof. Note that for $`i1`$ we have a natural inclusion

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1$$

as a direct summand. Tensoring the exact sequence of corollary 7 with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}|X`$ we get an injective map

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}|X\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X\underset{\stackrel{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)}{V(\sigma )X\mathrm{}}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}|X𝒪_X(V(\sigma )X)$$

Hence for each $`\tau \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ there is a chain of injections

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X𝒪_X(V(\tau )X))H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)$$

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}|X\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X)\underset{\stackrel{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)}{V(\sigma )X\mathrm{}}}{}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{i1}|X𝒪_X(V(\sigma )X))$$

If $`i=1`$ then the sum of cohomology groups on the right hand side vanishes, and so does the whole chain. Inductively this shows

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)=0$$

for all $`i1`$. Because of proposition 5 and Hodge symmetry the claim follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 9

Let $`\delta (i)`$ denote the number of elements in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(i)`$. We write $`\delta _{X,\sigma }`$ for the number of connected components of $`XV(\sigma )`$ for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Put

$$\delta _X(i):=\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(i)}{}\delta _{X,\sigma }.$$

Using this notation we can state our main theorem.

###### Theorem 10

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth projective toric variety of dimension $`r`$ and let $`X`$ be a $`n`$-dimensional, connected and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal submanifold of $`Y`$ with ample normal bundle. Then for $`i+j2nr`$ the following formula holds for the Hodge numbers of $`X`$.

$$h^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{k=0}^j(1)^{jk}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{rk}{jk}\right)\delta _X(k)\hfill & \text{if}i=j\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}ij.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. If $`i=j=0`$ this is clear. If either $`i=0`$ or $`j=0`$ vanishing of the cohomology was proved in proposition 8. By proposition 5 it is sufficient to determine the dimensions of $`H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)`$ for $`i+j2nr`$. Let us assume $`i>j`$ first. Since proposition 8 implies $`H^q(X,𝒦^\nu (Y;j)|X)=0`$ for $`1q2nr\nu `$ we have by lemma 1 applied to Ishida’s complex of degree $`j`$ and restricted to $`X`$

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)H^{ij}(X,𝒦^j(Y;j)|X)=0.$$

Because of proposition 5 and Hodge symmetry we have

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)H^j(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i)H^j(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)$$

for $`i+j2nr`$. Hence the proposition is true for $`i<j`$ as well.

It remains to look at the case $`i=j`$ and $`i0`$. In particular we have then $`i\frac{2nr}{2}`$. If $`i=1`$ the claim follows from the short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1|X𝒦^0(Y;1)|X𝒦^1(Y;1)|X0$$

and proposition 8. Otherwise consider Ishida’s complex of degree $`i2`$ cut into pieces.

$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i𝒦^0(Y;i)^10\\ 0^1𝒦^1(Y;i)^20\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0^{i1}𝒦^{i1}(Y;i)𝒦^i(Y;i)0\end{array}$$

The $`^\nu `$ for $`1\nu i1`$ are inductively defined by this short exact sequences. We restrict them to $`X`$. Since $`H^\mu (X,𝒦^\nu (Y;i)|X)=0`$ for $`1\mu 2nr\nu `$ we have

$$H^q(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)H^{q1}(X,^1|X)\mathrm{}H^{qi+1}(X,^{i1}|X)$$

if $`2nrqi`$. This vanishes if $`qi`$ as we have seen just before. In other words

$$H^q(X,^p|X)=0\text{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}1}pi1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}\hspace{0.25em}1}q2nrp\text{and}p+qi.$$

If $`q=i`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)& & H^{i1}(X,^1|X)\mathrm{}H^1(X,^{i1}|X).\hfill \end{array}$$

We obtain also an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{c}0H^0(X,^{i1}|X)H^0(X,𝒦^{i1}(Y;i)|X)\\ H^0(X,𝒦^i(Y;i)|X)H^1(X,^{i1}|X)0\end{array}$$

as well as

$$\begin{array}{c}0H^0(X,^{i2}|X)H^0(X,𝒦^{i2}(Y;i)|X)H^0(X,^{i1}|X)0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0H^0(X,^1|X)H^0(X,𝒦^1(Y;i)|X)H^0(X,^2|X)0\\ 0H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)H^0(X,𝒦^0(Y;i)|X)H^0(X,^1|X)0\end{array}$$

By proposition 8 the last exact sequence simply says

$$H^0(X,𝒦^0(Y;i)|X)H^0(X,^1|X).$$

Taking everything together we get a long exact sequence

$$0H^0(X,𝒦^0(Y;i)|X)H^0(X,𝒦^1(Y;i)|X)\mathrm{}$$

$$\mathrm{}H^0(X,𝒦^i(Y;i)|X)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)0.$$

So adding up all contributions finally gives

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)& =& _{\nu =0}^i(1)^{i\nu }h^0(X,𝒦^\nu (Y;i)|X)\hfill \\ & =& _{\nu =0}^i(1)^{i\nu }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r\nu }{i\nu }\right)\delta _X(\nu ).\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 11

The vanishing statement of the theorem above can be proved without referring to the toric nature of $`Y`$. We only need to know that $`H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j)=0`$ for $`ij`$, and that the normal bundle of $`X`$ in $`Y`$ is ample. This fact, and the proof of the lemma below, were kindly pointed out to me by Claire Voisin.

Let $`j:XY`$ denote the inclusion. Then there is a commutative diagram

where the horizontal maps are given by the cup-products with the cohomology class $`[X]H^{2r2n}(Y)`$ of $`X`$ in $`Y`$, and the top Chern class $`c_{rn}:=c_{rn}(𝒩_{X/Y})`$ of the normal bundle of $`X`$, respectively. This implies that $`j_{}`$ is injective if the cup-product map $`c_{rn}`$ is injective. Since the map $`j_{}`$ repects the Hodge decompositions on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and since $`H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j)=0`$ for all $`0i,jr`$ with $`ij`$, the vanishing $`H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)=0`$ for $`ij`$, and $`j2nr`$ follows immediately from the lemma below.

###### Lemma 12

Let $`j:WZ`$ be the inclusion of an $`n`$-dimensional submanifold $`W`$ into an $`r`$-dimensional smooth projective variety $`Z`$, with ample normal bundle. Then the cup-product

with the top Chern class $`c_{rn}:=c_{rn}(𝒩_{W/Z})`$ of the normal bundle of $`W`$ in $`Z`$ is injective for $`k2nr`$.

Proof. Let $`𝒩_{W/Z}`$ be the normal bundle of $`W`$ in $`Z`$. By assumption, the tautological bundle $`𝒪_{(𝒩_{W/Z})}(1)`$ on the projective bundle $`\pi :(𝒩_{W/Z})X`$ is ample. Hence we can apply the hard Lefschetz theorem to it. If $`h:=c_1(𝒪_{(𝒩_{W/Z})}(1))`$, then we have that for $`idim((𝒩_{W/Z}))1=r2`$ the cup-product map

is injective. Furthermore we have a relation

$$0=\underset{i=0}{\overset{rn}{}}(1)^{rni}h^i.\pi ^{}\left(c_{rni}(𝒩_{W/Z})\right)$$

in the cohomology of $`(𝒩_{W/Z})`$. Now let $`\alpha H^k(X)`$ and assume $`c_{rn}\alpha =0`$. Lifting into the cohomology on $`(𝒩_{W/Z})`$ gives the relation

$$\pi ^{}(c_{rn}\alpha )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{rn}{}}(1)^{i1}h^i.\pi ^{}\left(c_{rni}(𝒩_{W/Z})\alpha \right).$$

As mentioned above, if $`k2nr`$, then the cup-product with $`h`$ is injective on $`H^{k+2r2n2}((𝒩_{W/Z}))`$ by the Hard Lefschetz theorem. Therefore the class $`_{i=1}^{rn}(1)^{i1}h^{i1}.\pi ^{}\left(c_{rni}(𝒩_{W/Z})\alpha \right)`$ is equal to $`0`$ as well. But since the expression of a cohomology class on $`(𝒩_{W/Z})`$ by powers of $`h`$ in this form is unique, we conclude that $`\pi ^{}(\alpha )=0`$, and hence $`\alpha =0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let us return to the question of how the theorem of Barth–Lefschetz generalizes to smooth projective toric varieties.

###### Definition 13

Let $`XY`$ be $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal. We say that $`X`$ has the property (BL) if $`\delta _{X,\sigma }=1`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ with $`2t2nr`$ and $`\delta _{X,\sigma }1`$ if $`2t=2nr+1`$. For such an $`X`$ in particular $`\delta _X(t)=\delta (t)`$ for all $`2t2nr`$.

###### Remark 14

Note that if $`Y=^r`$ we can always assume that $`XY`$ of dimension $`n`$ has the property (BL). This is seen as follows. If $`G=PGL(r)`$ is the group of homogeneous transformations on $`^r`$ then by Kleinman’s theorem for any $`V(\sigma )`$ there is a nonempty open subset $`U`$ of $`G`$, such that every transformation of $`X`$ by an element of $`U`$ intersects $`V(\sigma )`$ transversally or not at all. Since there are only finitely many subvarieties $`V(\sigma )`$ in $`Y`$ there exists a homogeneous transformation which moves $`X`$ into $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal position. Now for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ with $`2t2nr+1`$ and $`XV(\sigma )\mathrm{}`$ put $`V:=V(\sigma )`$. Since codim$`{}_{Y}{}^{}V=t`$ we have codim$`{}_{Y}{}^{}XV=rn+tr`$, hence $`\delta _{X,\sigma }1`$. Let $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ be two connected components of $`XV`$. If $`2t2nr`$ then dim$`D_1`$ $`+`$ dim$`D_2=2(nt)r`$, so $`XV`$ is connected.

###### Remark 15

It was conjectured by Hartshorne \[H\] that each smooth $`XY`$ with ample normal bundle is connected if $`2nr0`$. This would imply that $`\delta _{X,\sigma }1`$ if $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ with $`2t2nr`$. If $`X`$ is a hypersurface this is always true.

###### Theorem 16

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth projective toric variety of dimension $`r`$ and let $`X`$ be a $`n`$-dimensional submanifold with ample normal bundle which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversal. Then the natural map

$$H^k(Y,)H^k(X,)$$

is surjective for $`k2nr`$ and injective for $`k2nr+1`$ if and only if $`X`$ has the property (BL).

Proof. We use the Hodge decompositions of $`H^k(Y,)`$ and $`H^k(X,)`$. Because of proposition 5 it suffices to prove the theorem for the second map of the factorization

$$H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j).$$

By theorem 10 it is enough to consider the case $`i=j`$, since $`H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j)=0`$ if $`ij`$ and $`H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j|X)=0`$ if $`ij`$ and $`i+j2nr`$. Obviously $`H^0(Y,𝒪_Y)=H^0(X,𝒪_X)=`$ if and only if $`\delta _X(0)=1`$. If $`i1`$ we found in the proof of theorem 10 a long exact sequence that computed $`H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)`$. Using the restriction map from the analogous exact sequence for the toric variety $`Y`$ to $`X`$ we get a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0\hfill & H^0(Y,𝒦^0(Y;i))& \mathrm{}& H^0(Y,𝒦^i(Y;i))& & H^i(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i)& 0\\ & \alpha _{i,0}& & \alpha _{i,i}& & \rho & \\ 0\hfill & H^0(𝒦^0(Y;i)|X)& \mathrm{}& H^0(𝒦^i(Y;i)|X)& & H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^i|X)& 0\end{array}$$

The property (BL) is equivalent to the property that the maps

$$\alpha _{\nu ,k}:H^0(Y,𝒦^k(Y;\nu ))H^0(X,𝒦^k(Y;\nu )|X)$$

are isomorphisms if $`0k\frac{2nr}{2}`$ and injective if $`k=\frac{2nr+1}{2}`$. Note that $`\alpha _{\nu ,k}`$ is injective or an isomorphism for some value of $`\nu `$ if and only if it is for all possible values of $`\nu `$. Using this, the theorem follows by an easy induction on $`i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 17

$`(i)`$ Consider the special case $`Y=^r`$. For any submanifold $`XY`$ the normal bundle is ample. So by what we said in remark 14 this theorem implies the usual Barth–Lefschetz theorem for projective space.
$`(ii)`$ Because of Kleinman’s theorem for homogeneous spaces this result is true for a submanifold $`XY`$ with ample normal bundle without any condition on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-transversality if $`Y`$ is equal to a product of projective spaces.

Acknowledgements.  I am grateful to the Graduiertenkolleg “Komplexe Mannigfaltigkeiten” at the University of Bayreuth as well as to the University of Bath for their hospitality. In particular I wish to thank Dr. G.K. Sankaran for many helpful conversations. Partially this work has been supported by the EU HCM project “Algebraic Geometry in Europe” (AGE), contract number ERBCHRXCT 940557.

Jörg Zintl
Fachbereich Mathematik
Universität Kaiserslautern
Postfach 3049
67653 Kaiserslautern
Germany
zintl@mathematik.uni-kl.de


format: text

text:
# Radio, Sub-mm, and X-ray Studies of Gamma-Ray Burst Host Galaxies

## 1 Background: The Star Formation History of the Universe

The formation and evolution of galaxies from high redshift to the current time is a major focus of modern cosmology. This involves mapping the conversion of gas into stars, and the associated buildup of heavy elements. The former is succinctly parameterized by using the light from massive stars as a surrogate for the star-formation rate (SFR; see mfd+96 ) and the latter has focused on studies of the intergalactic medium (e.g. rauch98 ) and damped-Ly$`\alpha `$ systems (e.g. sw00 ). GRBs can contribute to both these important areas through multi-wavelength studies of their host galaxies, and through absorption spectroscopy of their optical afterglows. Here I address the first issue.

Adelberger & Steidel (2000)(as00, ) provide a balanced review of the various diagnostics to measure the evolution of SFR: optical (rest-frame UV), far-infrared (FIR), sub-millimeter, and decimeter radio measurements. Each of these techniques has its distinct strengths as well as weaknesses. For example, radio measurements offer superb astrometry but the current VLA sensitivity is only able to identify the tip of the star-formation iceberg rkf+98 . Optical surveys offer the highest sensitivity but are vulnerable to dust extinction and may well miss galaxies forming stars at the most prodigious rate. The FIR and sub-mm approach has maximal sensitivity to dusty galaxies, but it lacks astrometric precision thereby creating a non-trivial bottleneck of requiring detection at other wavelengths; in particular detection by the VLA.

The principal question is the following: Given that each of these techniques provides a restricted view of the cosmic SFR history, and that the optical/UV technique has provided by far the largest sample, can we conclude that optical/UV studies have more or less accounted for the bulk of the cosmic star formation?

Adelberger & Steidel (2000) seem to think so; a number of other authors, especially those using long wavelength techniques (e.g. bcr00 ; prb+00 ) are of the opinion that this issue is not settled. In the near term, we have reached a stalemate since sub-mm surveys have reached the confusion limit. SIRTF, through its IRAC survey, and ALMA, with its unprecedented $`\mu `$Jy sensitivity will certainly contribute to this critical sub-field of modern astronomy. Nonetheless, since the bulk of the stellar energy is effectively radiated in the FIR band, all these techniques require significant extrapolation to measure the true power radiated by galaxies. In the distant future, one can envisage FIR interferometers as providing the most decisive picture of the cosmic evolution of stellar energy density.

## 2 GRB Host Galaxies: Strengths

The host galaxies of GRBs offer a unique perspective into the SFR history of the Universe for the following reasons:

1. The existing data show excellent circumstantial evidence linking GRBs to massive stars (e.g. bkd01 ). More to the point, every well-studied GRB so far has been identified with a host galaxy (Fig. 1).
2. GRBs are so bright that they are detectable to redshifts $`>20`$ (should they exist; lr00 ). Thanks to the broad-band afterglow spectrum (X-ray through decimeter radio) not only can the host be accurately localized, but the redshift can also be obtained. Usually $`z`$ is obtained via optical spectroscopy, though with GRB 990705 afv+00  we now have a redshift from X-ray spectroscopy of the afterglow.
3. The immense dust-penetrating power of GRBs (only limited by Compton thick column densities) results in a sample of galaxies that is independent of the global dust properties.
4. Again thanks to the afterglow, a GRB host galaxy need only be detected via imaging (with $`z`$ via absorption spectroscopy) and this has resulted in the faintest luminosity distribution of star-forming galaxies with some hosts 12 magnitudes below $`L_{}`$ (Fig. 1). In contrast, current state of the art optical/UV/NIR surveys reach $`L_{}`$.

## 3 GRB Host Galaxies: Possible Drawbacks

It is clear that the sample of GRB hosts offers powerful diagnostics in our quest to decipher the SFR history of the Universe. However, it has two limitations. First, we have to assume that the GRB rate is linearly proportional to SFR. The circumstantial evidence for the association of GRBs with massive stars, and hence SFR is good pgg+00 ; bkf01 ; bkd01 ; fbm+01 ; rei01 . Second, the GRB sample is quite small, especially when compared to the optical/UV sample.

However, the first problem is not as severe as one may think at first glance. All techniques used so far – optical/UV, ISOCAM, sub-mm and decimeter – require large extrapolations (and implicitly, constancy of spectral energy densities) to obtain the bolometric power. Converting this uncertain bolometric estimate to SFR requires detailed assumptions of the IMF of stars and the distribution of ISM in these distant galaxies. The severity of the second problem diminishes when one realizes that the number of securely identified sub-mm galaxies is, as of August 2001, only four! (M. Longair, talk at ESO Lighthouse conference).

## 4 The Origin of Radio and Sub-mm Emission from Galaxies

Having argued that GRBs offer a unique perspective into the cosmic star formation, I now provide a short overview of the underlying sources and emission mechanisms of radio and sub-mm emission from galaxies. The radio luminosity from star-forming galaxies is a combination of synchrotron and thermal emission components, both directly related to the formation rate of massive stars via simple relationships c92 . This is simply due to the fact that radio synchrotron emission comes from electrons accelerated in supernova shocks, the end products of massive stars, and thermal emission comes from HII regions and is dominated by the most luminous (i.e. massive) stars. In addition, since the lifetime of massive stars is $`10^7`$ years, and the lifetime of the synchrotron emitting electrons is $`10^8`$ years, radio emission traces the instantaneous SFR c92 .

Similarly, sub-mm (and FIR) emission traces star formation since it arises from star-light reprocessed by dust. In this case too the massive stellar population dominates the power output in the host, and therefore the amount of reprocessed radiation. Since the emission in the radio and sub-mm regimes is a tracer of the massive stellar population, it is not surprising that there is a simple relation between the radio and sub-mm luminosities of star forming galaxies. It turns out that this relation is sensitively dependent on redshift cy99  cy00  dce00 .

One complication to the preceding discussion is the possibility of emission from an obscured AGN, which will contribute to both the radio and sub-mm luminosities of the host. Observations with X-ray satellites can provide an estimate of the fraction of emission (if any) that arises from an active nucleus.

## 5 Recent Detections: GRB 980703 and GRB 010222

Recently, we have detected the host galaxy of GRB 980703 in the radio bkf01 , and the host of GRB 010222 in the sub-mm fbm+01 . Fig. 2 shows the light-curve of the 8.46 GHz emission from GRB 980703; the flattening at $`t>350`$ days can only be explained in terms of host emission. We detect similar levels of emission at 1.43 and 4.86 GHz. At a redshift of $`z=0.966`$ these flux levels translate to an emitted luminosity at 1.43 GHz of $`L_{\mathrm{em}}(1.43)4.7\times 10^{30}`$ erg sec-1 Hz-1.

What can we learn about the host galaxy of GRB 980703 from the observed radio luminosity? First, the emitted 1.43 GHz luminosity immediately translates to a formation rate of stars more massive than 5 M, $`\mathrm{SFR}(\mathrm{M}>5\mathrm{M}_{})90`$ M/yr, and a total star formation rate (using the Salpeter IMF) of $`500`$ M/yr. Second, based on this luminosity and the radio/sub-mm relation, we find that this galaxy is an Ultra-Luminous Infra-Red Galaxy (ULIRG; see sm96 ), with $`L_{\mathrm{FIR}}10^{12}`$ L. A comparison to the properties of radio-selected galaxies at $`z1`$ from a survey of the HDF hpw+00 , shows that the host of GRB 980703 is by no means an unusual galaxy. On the other hand, a comparison to the optically-derived SFR ($`20`$ M/yr; dkb+98 ) shows that most of the star formation in this galaxy is obscured.

An alternative explanation for the radio emission is that it originates from an AGN. Surveys of the Hubble Deep Field (HDF), its flanking fields, and the Small Selected Area 13 (SSA13) have shown that approximately 20% of the radio sources are AGN rfk+99 ; r00 ; bcr00 .

We consider the AGN hypothesis unlikely based on optical spectroscopy. Optical spectra of the source obtained by Djorgovski et al. (1998) show no evidence for an unobscured AGN: high-ionization lines such as Mg II $`\lambda 2799`$, \[NeV\]$`\lambda 3346`$, and \[NeV\]$`\lambda 3426`$ are absent, and the \[OIII\]$`\lambda 4959`$ to H$`\beta `$ ratio is approximately 0.4, much lower than $`[\mathrm{OIII}]/\mathrm{H}\beta >1.3`$ for AGN (Rola, Terlevich and Terlevich, 1997). In addition, AGN have redder colors for similar \[OII\] EW, relative to normal galaxies k92 . Using the spectrum of GRB 980703 we evaluate the color index, $`(4150)2.5\mathrm{log}[f_\nu (5000\mathrm{\AA })/f_\nu (4100\mathrm{\AA })]0\pm 0.1`$; an AGN with the same \[OII\] EW would have a value $`>0.3`$ (k92, ).

However, it is not possible to rule out the existence of an obscured AGN. Future observations with XMM will probe this possibility directly.

The high resolution afforded by VLA observations has shown that the GRB-host offset of GRB 980703 is negligible (see Fig. 3), indicating that the burst most probably took place within a nuclear starburst; in this case the resolution of the VLA allows a better offset determination than HST observations bkd01 . The nuclear starburst origin lends strong support to the collapsar model of GRBs.

The sub-mm detection of the host of GRB 010222 paints a similar picture (Fig. 4). The implied SFR is close to 1000 $`M_{}`$/yr, and the FIR luminosity clearly indicates that this host is also a ULIRG fbm+01 .

## 6 Future Prospects

Future radio/sub-mm/FIR studies of GRB hosts will be augmented by X-ray observations in order to assess the importance of obscured AGN in these host galaxies. There is some indication from studies of local ULIRGs sm96  that high SFR is usually accompanied by some AGN activity. Thus, the advent of observatories such as the EVLA, SKA, SIRTF, and ALMA, in addition to XMM and Chandra will greatly increase our ability to study the properties of these hosts with greater sensitivity and resolution. For example, with a factor ten increase in resolution and a factor five increase in sensitivity over the current VLA, we will be able to probe scales of approximately 5 mas with the EVLA; for a galaxy at $`z1`$ this translates to a physical scale of 150 pc. In addition, EVLA will detect galaxies with a total SFR as low as 50 M/yr at $`z1`$.

The potential of a GRB-selected galaxy sample is immense and unique. The dust-penetrating power of GRBs and their broad-band afterglow emission, offer a number of unique diagnostics: the obscured star formation fraction, the ISM within the disk, the local environment of the burst, and global and line-of-sight extinction, to name a few. In addition, GRBs allow us to select a wide range of galaxies independent of their emission propertied in any wavelength regime, and in addition they supply redshift information for these galaxies; the lack of accurate redshifts is one of the main problems of sub-mm studies of high-redshift galaxies.

It appears, therefore, that the numerous and detailed optical studies of GRB hosts are only the tip of the iceberg in our understanding of galaxies at high redshifts.


text:
# Rayleigh loops in the random-field Ising model on the Bethe lattice

## I Introduction

A ferromagnetic material is characterized by a remanent magnetization even at zero field. In several instances, however, it is convenient to demagnetize the sample, bringing it to a state of zero magnetization at zero field. In practice, this can done applying a slowly varying AC field, decreasing its amplitude after each cycle. In this way, the system explores a complex energy landscape, due to the interplay between structural disorder and interactions, until it is trapped into a low energy minimum. If the demagnetization process is performed adiabatically and thermal effects do not play an important role, the demagnetized state is reproducible for a given realization of the quenched disorder and can thus be used as a reference to define magnetic properties.

The hysteresis loops at low fields, starting from the demagnetized state, are usually described by the Rayleigh  law: when the field is cycled between $`\pm H^{}`$ , the magnetization $`m`$ follows $`m=(a+bH^{})H\pm b((H^{})^2H^2)/2`$, where the signs $`\pm `$ distinguish the upper and lower branch of the loop. Consequently the area of the loop scales with the peak field $`H^{}`$ as $`W=4/3b(H^{})^3`$ and the response to a small field change, starting from the demagnetized state is given by $`M^{}=a(H^{})\pm b(H^{})^2`$ . This law has been measured in a variety of materials, but a few papers have reported significant deviations from the simple quadratic law but no explanation has been provided .

The current theoretical interpretation of this law is based on a 1942 paper by Néel , who derived the law formulating the magnetization process as the dynamics of a point (i.e. the position of a domain wall) in a random potential. In this framework, the initial susceptibility $`a`$ is associated to reversible motions inside one of the many minima of the random potential, while the hysteretic coefficient $`b`$ is due to irreversible jumps between different valleys. The main drowback of Néel theory relies in its purely phenomenological nature, being based on a zero dimensional model which does not include collective effects considered very important for the magnetization process .

In the past few years, the zero temperature random-field Ising model (RFIM) has been used to describe the competition between quenched disorder and exchange interactions and their effect on the hysteresis loop . In three and higher dimensions, the model shows a phase transition between a continuous cycle for strong disorder and a discontinuous loop, with a macroscopic jump, at low disorder. The two phases are separated by a second order critical point, characterized by universal scaling laws  . A behavior of this kind is not restricted to the RFIM but has also been observed in other models, with random bonds , random anisotropies  or vectorial spins . In addition, a similar disorder induced phase transition in the hysteresis loop has been experimentally reported for a Co-Co0 bilayers .

The RFIM is probably the simplest model including disorder and exchange interactions that can be treated analytically. The model has been solved exactly in one dimension  and on the Bethe lattice , while mean-field theory  and renormalization group  have been used to analyze the transition. Recently the one dimensional solution of the model, has been generalized to obtain the complete demagnetization process and to derive the Rayleigh loops . The RFIM does not display a phase transition in one dimensions, while numerical simulations indicate that the transition has an important effect on the demagnatization process. In particular, in the low disorder phase the discontinuity in the saturation curve prevents the magnetization to reach a demagnetized state  but this behavior has not been understood theoretically. It has been shown exactly that the RFIM displays a disorder induced phase transition on the Bethe lattice when the coordination number $`z4`$  and can thus be used to clarify the issue.

Here we generalize the analysis of Refs.  and  to obtain exact recursion relations for the demagnetization process on the Bethe lattice and show that demagnetization is only possible in the high disorder phase. In the low disorder phase the remanent magnetization after a series of nested loops of decreasing amplitude does not vanish but scales to zero as the transition is approached. Furthermore, in the low disorder phase the Rayleigh law is not obeyed and low field loops are not symmetric. The Rayleigh law is instead recovered in the high disorder phase and the Rayleigh parameters $`a`$ and $`b`$ behave qualitatively as in $`d=1`$, displaying a peak in the disorder.

The paper is organized as follows: in section II we describe the model. In section III we recall the results obtained in Refs.  and generalize them for a series of nested loops. Section IV discusses the effect of the phase transition on the magnetization and section V analyzes the Rayleigh law. A brief discussion of the perspectives is reported in section VI. Finally, the complete derivation of the recursion relations is reported in the Appendix.

## II The model

In this section we recall briefly a model used to describe hysteresis loops in magnetic materials : the ferromagnetic Random Field Ising Model (RFIM). This model is characterized by the Hamiltonian

$$=J\underset{i,j}{}s_is_jH\underset{i}{}s_i\underset{i}{}h_is_i$$
(1)
where $`J>0`$, the $`_{i,j}`$ is restricted on the pairs of nearest neighbors on a lattice of coordination number $`z`$, $`s_i`$ is the Ising spin on the site $`i`$, $`H`$ is a homogeneous external field, and $`h_i`$ represents a quenched random field on the spin $`s_i`$ modelling the presence of lattice defects. The fields $`\{h_i\}`$ are independently drawn from a symmetric distribution $`\rho (h_i)`$. In the following the numerical results are referred to a Gaussian distribution with variance $`R^2`$.

In this paper we study the case of a Bethe lattice with a generic coordination number $`z`$. In particular we are interested in the case $`z=4`$ which is known to be the minimal case showing a disorder induced phase transition towards a discontinuous hysteresis loop.

In order to mimic the microscopic spin dynamics, we use the flipping rules used in Refs.  obtained from the Glauber dynamics at temperature $`T`$ and with an external field of frequency $`\omega `$ taking the limit $`T0`$ first and then $`\omega 0`$. The basic rule of this $`T=0`$ dynamics is that the spins align with the local field:

$$s_i=\text{sign}(h_{i,eff}),$$
(2)
where the effective local field felt by the spin $`i`$ is

$$h_{i,eff}=\frac{}{s_i}=J\underset{jn(i)}{}s_j+H+h_i$$
(3)
and the sum runs over the $`z`$ nearest neighbors of the site $`i`$.

Note that though the model is defined through three external parameters $`J,H,R`$, the dynamics is determined by the two reduced quantities $`H/R`$ and $`J/R`$ only. For the sake of simplicity, from now on we rename these two ratios $`H`$ and $`J`$ respectively and consider $`R=1`$. Given $`H`$ and $`J`$, we can write the probability $`p_m(H)`$ that a spin $`i`$, with $`m`$ ($`0mz`$) of its neighbors up, is also up. This is given by the probability that $`h_{i,eff}>0`$:

$$p_m(H)=P(h_{i,eff}>0)=_{(z2m)JH}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑h^{^{}}\rho (h^{^{}}).$$
(4)
## III Hysteresis loops

In general a change in the applied field $`H`$ produces a rearrangement of the spins, so that each spin $`i`$ is stable being aligned with its effective field $`h_{i,eff}`$. It is important to note that each spin flip modifies the effective field on the nearest neighbors and sometimes generates an avalanche of spin flips through the lattice. In the following we will consider the case of a slowly varying external field: its value is kept constant until the next metastable state is reached. Two important properties of the $`T=0`$ dynamics are (i) the Abelian property – the stable state after an avalanche does not depend on the order in which the spins flip –, and (ii) the return point memory – when the field is changed adiabatically the stable state only depends on the point where the field was last reversed. These two properties can be used to obtain exactly the shape of the hysteresis loops. We first recall the derivation of the saturation curve and those of the first minor loops and then procede with the general analysis of minor loops.

### A Saturation loop

When the external field $`H`$ is cycled from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and back the magnetization describe the saturation loop. The key quantity describing the lower half of the saturation loop is the conditional probability $`U_0(H)`$  defined as the probability that a given spin flips before a fixed nearest neighbor, conditioned to this neighbor being down. The probability $`U_0(H)`$ satisfies the following equation :

$$U_0(H)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{z1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_0(H)]^m[1U_0(H)]^{z1m}p_m(H).$$
(5)
It can be shown that the probability that a spin is up at external field $`H`$ is

$$p(H)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{z}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z}{m}\right)[U_0(H)]^m[1U_0(H)]^{zm}p_m(H).$$
(6)
The related magnetization is given by $`m_l(H)=12p(H)`$, which describes the lower half of the hysteresis loop. The upper half of the hysteresis loop can then be obtained by symmetry (i.e. $`m_u(H)=m_l(H)`$).

### B First minor loops

If the external field $`H`$ is raised from $`\mathrm{}`$ to a finite value $`H_0`$ (i.e. we are on the lower half of the major loop) and then it is reversed, the magnetization describes the upper half of a minor hysteresis loop. When the field is reversed from $`H_0`$ to $`H_1<H_0`$ we define the conditional probability $`D_1(H_1)`$ for a spin to be down before a fixed nearest neighbor, conditioned to this neighbor being up. The probability $`D_1(H_1)`$ satisfies the following equation

$$D_1(H_1)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{z1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_0(H_0)]^m\left\{[1U_0(H_0)]^{z1m}[1p_{m+1}(H_0)]+[D_1(H_1)]^{z1m}[p_{m+1}(H_0)p_{m+1}(H_1)]\right\}.$$
(7)
The related probability that a spin is up at $`H_1`$ is

$$p(H_1)=p(H_0)\underset{m=0}{\overset{z}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z}{m}\right)[U_0(H_0)]^m[D_1(H_1)]^{zm}[p_m(H_0)p_m(H_1)].$$
(8)
Equation (7) holds as long as $`H_1`$ is larger than $`H_02J`$ . In one dimension it has been shown  that at $`H=H_02J`$ the upper half of minor loop merges with the upper half of the major loop with the same local slope. This proof can be extended to the case of a Bethe lattice as long as the saturation loop is continuous . The case in which the saturation loop displays a discontinuity is discussed below for the case $`z=4`$.

### C General formula for nested loops

The method used to find $`U_0`$ and $`D_1`$ can be generalized to obtain a complete characterization of all minor loops. In particular we are interested in nested minor loops, since they are directly related to the demagnetization process of the disordered ferromagnet. Nested loops is defined as follows: after having reached $`H_1`$, we reverse again the field increasing its value up to $`H_2H_0`$ (lower half of the first minor loop). This process is then iterated in a sequence of fields $`H_{2n}[H_{2n1},H_{2n+1}]`$ and $`H_{2n+1}[H_{2n},H_{2n+2}]`$ with $`n1`$, where $`H_{2n}`$ and $`H_{2n+1}`$ refer to the final value of the field $`H`$ in the lower half of the $`n^{th}`$ minor loop, and for the upper half of the $`(n+1)^{th}`$ minor loop respectively. The generalizations of $`U_0`$ to the minor loops is called $`U_{2n}(H_{2n})`$ while the generalization of $`D_1(H_1)`$ is called $`D_{2n+1}(H_{2n+1})`$. In what follows, we simply indicate $`U_{2n}(H_{2n})`$ with $`U_{2n}`$ and $`D_{2n+1}(H_{2n+1})`$ with $`D_{2n+1}`$.

Since $`H_{2n}<H_{2n2}`$, the set of spins contributing to $`U_{2n}`$ will be a subset of those contributing to $`U_{2n2}`$, so that we can write

$$U_{2n}=U_{2n2}\eta _{2n1}+\eta _{2n}$$
(9)
where $`\eta _{2n1}`$ represents the fraction of spins that were up at $`H_{2n2}`$ before their fixed nearest neighbor and down at $`H_{2n1}`$, while $`\eta _{2n}`$ is the fraction of the set contributing to $`\eta _{2n1}`$ which flip up again at $`H_{2n}`$. The explicit derivation of $`\eta _{2n1}`$ and $`\eta _{2n}`$ is a little involved and it is thus discussed in the appendix.

The magnetization at $`H=H_{2n}`$ is as usual obtained as $`m_{2n}m(H_{2n})=12p(H_{2n})`$, where the probability $`p(H_{2n})`$ that a spin is up at $`H_{2n}`$ is given by the probability $`p(H_{2n1})`$ that it was already up at $`H_{2n1}`$ summed to the probability to flip up when the field goes from $`H_{2n1}`$ to $`H_{2n}`$:

$$p(H_{2n})=p(H_{2n1})+\underset{m=0}{\overset{z}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z}{m}\right)[U_{2n}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{zm}[p_m(H_{2n})p_m(H_{2n1})].$$
(10)
The generalization of $`D_1`$ to nested minor loops is called $`D_{2n+1}`$ and analogously to $`U_{2n}(H_{2n})`$ is given by

$$D_{2n+1}=D_{2n1}\zeta _{2n}+\zeta _{2n+1},$$
(11)
where $`\zeta _{2n}`$ is the fraction of spins that were down at $`H_{2n1}`$ before their fixed nearest neighbor and up at $`H_{2n}`$ and $`\zeta _{2n+1}`$ is the fraction of the set of spins contributing to $`\zeta _{2n}`$ which flip down again at $`H_{2n}`$. The exact expression for the fractions $`\zeta _{2n}`$ and $`\zeta _{2n+1}`$ are reported in the appendix.

The magnetization at $`H=H_{2n+1}`$ is $`m_{2n}m(H_{2n})=12p(H_{2n+1})`$, where $`p(H_{2n+1})`$ is the probability for a spin to be up at $`H_{2n+1}`$. This probability can be written as the analogous probability at $`H=H_{2n}`$ minus the probability to flip down between $`H_{2n}`$ and $`H_{2n+1}`$:

$$p(H_{2n+1})=p(H_{2n})\underset{m=0}{\overset{z}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z}{m}\right)[U_{2n}]^m[D_{2n+1}]^{zm}[p_m(H_{2n})p_m(H_{2n+1})].$$
(12)
In principle, an arbirary series of nested loop can be obtained solving the recursion relation for $`U_{2n}`$, $`D_{2n+1}`$, and using the result to obtain the magnetization. A similar procedure was used in $`d=1`$ to obtain a closed expression for the magnetization along the demagnetization curve. This is not possible for the Bethe lattice where an explicit solution for the problem is not available and one should resort to a numerical integration.

## IV Disorder induced phase transition and demagnetization

Previous numerical studies of the zero temperature dynamics of the RFIM on a regular lattice in finite dimension  have shown that in $`d3`$ the system shows a phase transition from a strong disorder phase to a weak disorder phase, separated by a second order critical point (in $`d=2`$ the presence of a phase transition is still controversial). In the strong disorder phase the major hysteresis loop is continuos, whilst in the weak disorder phase the loop shows a macroscopic jump in the magnetization at a critical value of the field. Note that if we use the reduced parameters $`J/R`$ and $`H/R`$, fixing $`R=1`$, strong disorder corresponds to small values of $`J`$ and the phase transition will be charcterized by a critical value $`J_c`$ of the exchange coupling $`J`$. On the Bethe lattice, a phase transition is observed for coordination numbers $`z4`$, while for $`z3`$ one has only the strong disorder phase . The presence of the phase transition has strong implications on the possibility of demagnetizing the system. In particular in the weak disorder phase phase it is not possible to demagnetize the system through an oscillating external field with decreasing amplitude.

Before we specialize to the case $`z=4`$, let us note that for $`H=J`$ one has $`p_{z1m}(J)=1p_m(J)`$. This allows, after a little algebra, to show that for $`H=J`$, $`U_0(J)=1/2`$ is a solution for any $`J`$, any $`z`$ and any random field distribution. For $`z=4`$ Eq. (5) is a cubic equation in $`U_0`$, with coefficients depending on $`H`$ and $`J`$ through the $`p_i`$. In order to find the critical point it is enough to find the value of $`H`$ and $`J`$ corresponding to a triple solution of the equation. Implementing this requirement for any simmetric density function of the disorder, one finds $`H_c=J_c`$, where $`J_c`$ satisfies the equation $`p_0(J)+p_1(J)=1/3`$. For a Gaussian distribution of the disorder, this translates in the following implicit equation for $`J_c`$:

$$\text{Erf}(J_c)+\text{Erf}(3J_c)=1/3$$
(13)
resulting in $`J_c=0.56140099587319\mathrm{}`$, in accordance with the result quoted Ref. .

Above the transition ($`J>J_c`$ or weak disorder phase) the hysteresis loop becomes discontinuous . In fact at $`J=J_c`$ the and $`H=J_c`$ the susceptibility $`m/H`$ diverges, and for $`J>J_c`$ one observes a discontinuity whith a spinodal singularity. At this point one can measure a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ in the magnetization. It is easy to show, through an expansion of Eq. (5) to the lowest order in $`JJ_c`$ around $`J_c`$, that for $`JJ_c^+`$ it is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m(JJ_c)^\beta $$
(14)
with $`\beta =1/2`$ as in the mean field case. The analytical derivation of this result can be easily sketched as follows: first of all the three solutions of Eq. (5) at $`H=J`$ can be found explicitly. They are$`U_0^{(a)}=1/2`$ and $`U_0^{(b),(c)}=1/2(1\pm \sqrt{(13(p_0+p_1))/(13p_1+p_0)})`$, where, for $`H=J`$, $`(13(p_0+p_1))>0`$ only for $`J>J_c`$ and $`=0`$ at $`J=J_c`$. The gap can be measured by $`\mathrm{\Delta }UU_0^{(b)}U_0^{(c)}`$, and it is simple to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(JJ_c)^{1/2}`$, which gives Eq. (14) considering that to the lowest order $`\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }U`$. Actually, the position of the gap in the mgnetization of the major loop of the hysteresis cicle is located at $`H_g>J`$, which could give corrections to the previous result. However, one can show that $`(H_gJ)(JJ_c)`$, implying corrections to the previous value of the gap of the same order in $`(JJ_c)`$. Then this correction does not alter the found scaling behavior.

We recall that usually it is possible to demagnetize a material by applying a slowly oscillating external field appropriately chosen. In practice, this corresponds to a series of nested loops, starting from the completely magnetized situation (e.g. $`m=1`$ and $`h\mathrm{}`$) and then applying in succession the fields $`H_0=J`$, $`H_1=H_0(1\epsilon )`$, …, $`H_{2n+1}=H_{2n}(1\epsilon )`$ in the limits $`\epsilon 0^+`$ and $`n+\mathrm{}`$ . This sequence, for $`J<J_c`$, leads to a completely demagnetized state. This is due to two fundamental properties of the strong disordered phase: (i) the “return point memory” property which has been defined in the previous paragraph; (ii) the fact that, if we are on a certain point of the saturation loop (e.g. at $`H=J_0`$ on the lower half) and invert the field to $`H_1`$ the system meets the other half on the saturation loop if $`H_1=H_02J`$. This implies that in order that the first minor loop is symmetric with respect to the origin $`H=0`$ and $`m=0`$ without touching the saturation curve we have to start from $`H_0=J`$ on the lower half of the saturation loop (or equivalently from $`h_0=J`$ on the upper half).

At $`J>J_c`$ the demagnetization process is no more possible, because the discontinuity prevents minor loops to be symmetric with respect to the origin of the axes. In fact there is now an inaccessible region of the plane $`(H,m)`$ around the origin . However, the field succession described above still provides a well defined procedure (apart the broken simmetry $`mm`$ and $`HH`$) to minimal possible residual magnetization, that we denote $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$, at $`H=0`$. Following this procedure, by numerically integrating Eqs. (9,11) with $`\epsilon =10^3`$, we find that $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ displays the same scaling behavior of the gap in the saturation loop as $`J`$ approaches $`J_c`$ from above: $`m_{\mathrm{}}(JJ_c)^{1/2}`$ (see fig(6)). Notice that in numerical simulations in the $`d=3`$ RFIM  $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ was found to coincide, in the low disorde phase, with the saturation magnetization $`m_0(0)`$.

## V Rayleigh law

The Rayleigh law describes the hysteresis behavior at low field in a vast class of materials. Exact values for the Rayleigh parameters have been obtained for the one dimensional RFIM , where the initial susceptibilty $`a`$ and the hysteretic coefficient $`b`$ both display a peak in the disorder $`R`$. A similar behavior is observed in simulation for $`d=2,3`$ but only in the high disorder phase, while in the low disorder phase $`a`$ and $`b`$ are not defined.

In the case of the Bethe lattice, we could not obtain an explicit expression of the Rayleigh parameters even in the high disorder phase. We thus resort to numerical integration and analyze the demagnetization curves close to $`H=0`$. We estimate the susceptibility $`a`$ and the hysteretic coefficient $`b`$ using a linear fit of $`m_{2n}/H_{2n}`$ vs $`H_{2n}`$. According to the Rayleigh law for $`n\mathrm{}`$ we have $`m_{2n}/H_{2n}=a+bH_{2n}`$, and similarly for negative fields $`m_{2n+1}/H_{2n+1}=abH_{2n+1}`$. The values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ as a function of the exchange coupling $`J`$ are shown in Figs 3 and 4. When plotted as a function of the disorder $`R`$, $`a`$ and $`b`$ show a peak in the high disorder phase, in agreement which the results on Euclidean lattices.

In the low disorder phase the demagnetization curve is not symmetric with respect to $`H=0`$ and consequently the Rayleigh law does not hold. In particular, we can define two values for the coefficient $`b`$:

$`m_{2n}/H_{2n}=a+b^+H_{2n}\text{and}`$

$$m_{2n+1}/H_{2n+1}=ab^{}H_{2n+1}.$$
(15)
The values of $`a`$, $`b^+`$, and $`b^{}`$ as a function of the exchange coefficient $`J`$ are shown in fig (3,4); also the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }b=b^+b^{}`$ is shown in fig (5), Again, as $`JJ_c^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ approaches $`0`$ as $`(JJ_c)^{1/2}`$ (see fig(6)).

## VI discussion

In conclusion, the present analysis allows to clarify the role of a disorder induced phase transition on the demagnetization properties of a ferromagnet. In particular, we find that in the low disorder phase the jump in the saturation curve gives rise to an inaccessible region in the ($`m`$,$`H`$) plane close to $`H=0`$ and $`m=0`$. Even after an infinitesimally fine series of nested loop the final magnetization $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ does not vanish. Approaching the transition, however, $`m_{\mathrm{}}`$ scales to zero with an exponent $`1/2`$, which is the same as the one controlling the size jump in the saturation curve. While this value could be an artifact of the Bethe approximation, the impossibility to demagnetize the system in the low disordered phase has already been observed in three dimensional numerical simulations .

## acknowledgments

This work is supported by the INFM PAIS-G project on “Histeresis in disordered ferromagnets”. We thank L. Dante, G. Durin and A. Magni for useful discussions and G. Caldarelli for his warm encouragement.

## appendix

Here we derive the expressions for $`\eta _{2n1}`$, $`\eta _{2n}`$, $`\zeta _{2n}`$ and $`\zeta _{2n+1}`$ appearing in Eqs. (9) and (11). We first note that these quantities can be defined in a recursive way. In particular, $`\eta _{2n1}`$ represents the fraction of the set of spins which, at $`H_{2n2}`$, contribute to $`U_{2n2}`$, but are down at $`H_{2n1}`$. To obtain the weight associated to this fraction, consider a spin $`i`$ with a given neighbor $`j`$ kept down (i.e. the spin $`j`$ is conditioning the probabilities). When the spin $`i`$ flips down at $`H_{2n1}`$, apart from $`j`$ all the other neighbors can be either up or down. Consider for instance the case in which $`m`$ of these neigbors are up and $`z1m`$ down. Under these conditions, the spin $`i`$ flips down if its effective field is positive at $`H_{2n2}`$ and negative at $`H_{2n1}<H_{2n2}`$. The associated contribution to $`\eta _{2n1}`$ is then given by

$$[U_{2n2}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{z1m}[p_m(H_{2n2})p_m(H_{2n1})]$$
(16)
where $`[U_{2n2}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{z1m}`$ is the probability that, at the moment at which the spin $`i`$ flips down, $`m`$ given neighbors are up and $`z1m`$ (other than $`j`$) are down, and $`[p_m(H_{2n2})p_m(H_{2n1})]`$ is the probability that the spin $`i`$, having $`m`$ up neighbors, is up at $`H_{2n2}`$ but not at $`H_{2n1}`$. To obtain $`\eta _{2n1}`$, we have first to multiply Eq. (16) by a combinatorial factor $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{n}\right)`$, taking into account all the equivalent choices of the site $`j`$, and then sum over $`m`$ from $`0`$ to $`z1`$. The results reads:

$$\eta _{2n1}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{z1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_{2n2}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{z1m}[p_m(H_{2n2})p_m(H_{2n1})].$$
(17)
An analogous procedure can be implemented to derive $`\eta _{2n}`$, the fraction of the set of spins contributing to $`\eta _{2n1}`$ which flip back up at $`H_{2n}`$. Using a derivation similar to the one discussed above, we obtain

$$\eta _{2n}=\underset{m=0}{\overset{z1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_{2n}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{z1m}[p_m(H_{2n})p_m(H_{2n1})].$$
(18)
The quantities $`\zeta _{2n}`$ and $`\zeta _{2n+1}`$ can be obtained proceeding as in the evaluation of $`\eta _{2n1}`$ and $`\eta _{2n}`$, noticing that in this case the fixed neighbor $`j`$ (conditioning the probabilities) has to be kept kept up. Moreover the spin $`i`$ must flip from down to up at $`H_{2n}`$, in order to contribute to $`\zeta _{2n}`$, and then flip back down at $`H_{2n+1}`$ in order to contribute also to $`\zeta _{2n+1}`$. The final results reads

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\zeta _{2n}\hfill & =\hfill & _{m=0}^{z1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_{2n}]^m[D_{2n1}]^{z1m}[p_{m+1}(H_{2n})p_{m+1}(H_{2n1})]\hfill \\ & & \\ \zeta _{2n+1}\hfill & =\hfill & _{m=0}^{z1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{z1}{m}\right)[U_{2n}]^m[D_{2n+1}]^{z1m}[p_{m+1}(H_{2n})p_{m+1}(H_{2n+1})].\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)