text:
# Thickness dependence of critical currents in thin superconductors

## Abstract

Mechanisms of vortex dynamics and pinning and self-field effects which could account for the thickness dependence of the critical current density $`J_c`$ of superconducting films are addressed. It is shown that at low magnetic fields B, the 2D single-vortex pinning and thermal fluctuations yield $`J_c(1/\sqrt{d})\mathrm{exp}[(d_m/d)^{1/2}]`$, if the film thickness d is smaller than the pinning correlation length along B. The model describes the dependence of $`J_c`$ on d observed on $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ coated conductors for $`d<2\mu `$m. Measurements of $`J_c(d)`$ in strong magnetic fields are proposed to probe whether the dependence of $`J_c`$ on d is mostly determined by the 2D pinning or changes in the material microstructure as the film gets thicker.

\]

Critical current densities $`J_c`$ of superconducting films are typically much greater (by orders of magnitude) than those of bulk conductors. This difference is usually ascribed to denser and stronger pinning defect microstructures in epitaxial films, lesser effect of current-blocking obstacles such as grain boundaries, microcracks, etc. A general trend is that $`J_c(d)`$ first increases as the film thickness $`d`$ decreases, followed by a decrease of $`J_c`$ and the critical temperature $`T_c`$ for smaller $`d`$. This issue of what is behind the size dependence of $`J_c`$ is important for high-$`T_c`$ multifilamentary conductors and $`YBa_2Cu_3O_7`$ (YBCO) coated conductors, in which a significant degradation of $`J_c(d)`$ as the YBCO film thickness increases was reported lanl1 ; lanl2 ; ornl . This behavior of $`J_c(d)`$ has been attributed to the change of the microstructure as the YBCO film gets thicker, in particular, ”dead” layers with reduced $`T_c`$ and $`J_c`$ near the buffer layer and the surface, lesser epitaxy and the biaxial texture, etc. lanl1 ; lanl2 ; ornl ; nature

In this Letter I propose an alternative approach, based on the fact that pinning of vortices of finite length depends on the film thickness if it gets smaller than the bulk pinning correlation length $`L_c`$ along the field direction. For bulk superconductors, $`J_c`$ is determined by the balance of the Lorentz force $`JBV_c/c`$ and the pinning force $`(n_if_p^2V_c)^{1/2}`$ in the correlation volume $`V_c=R_c^2L_c`$, where $`R_c`$ is the correlation length transverse to the field direction, $`n_i`$ is the volume density of pinning centers, and $`f_p`$ is an elementary pinning force per pin blat . If $`d`$ becomes smaller than $`2L_c`$, a crossover occurs from the 3D thickness-independent bulk pinning to the 2D collective pinning for which $`J_c(d)`$ depends on d 2d ; kes ; brandt ; moge . This transition was indeed observed on $`Nb_3Ge`$, $`Mo_3Si`$ 2d ; kes  and $`Mo_xGe_{1x}`$ moge  films.

For a film of thickness d and width w in a perpendicular magnetic field, the 2D collective pinning theory gives brandt

$`J_c={\displaystyle \frac{c\gamma }{Br_p^3C_{66}d}}[\mathrm{ln}(2l_c/R_c)/8\pi ]^{1/2},`$ (1)
$`R_c=r_p^2C_{66}[8\pi d/\gamma \mathrm{ln}(2a/R_c)]^{1/2}.`$ (2)
Here $`R_c`$ is the pinning correlation length transverse to the vortex lines, $`C_{66}\varphi _0B(1b)^2/64\pi ^2\lambda ^2`$ is the shear elastic modulus, $`\lambda `$ is the London penetration depth, $`l_c=(C_{66}cr_p/BJ_c)^{1/2}`$, $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum, $`b=B/B_{c2}`$, $`B_{c2}`$ is the upper critical field, and c is the speed of light. The parameter $`\gamma =f_p^2r_p^2n_i`$ quantifies the pinning strength of randomly distributed point defects, each acting on the vortex with the maximum force $`f_p`$ in the interaction radius $`r_p`$. As follows from Eq. (1), the critical current $`I_c=J_cdw`$ is nearly independent of $`d`$. The condition of the 2D pinning, $`d<2L_c`$, has the form 2d

$$d[\mu m]<2B^{1/4}[Tesla]/\sqrt{J_c}[MA/cm^2]$$
(3)
For $`B=1T`$ and $`J_c=1MA/cm^2`$, the transition from the thickness-independent 3D pinning $`J_c`$ to the 2D pinning $`J_c1/d`$ occurs for $`d`$ below $`2\mu `$m, in qualitative agreement with the experimental data on coated conductors lanl1 ; lanl2 . Thus, the dependence $`J_c(d)`$ observed on coated conductors may be due to the crossover from the 3D to 2D collective pinning, even if the pinning microstructure is unaffected by the film thickness.

Eqs. (1) and (2) correspond to high fields, for which $`R_c`$ is much greater than the intervortex spacing $`a=(\varphi _0/B)^{1/2}`$, and pinning-induced deformations of the vortex lattice are described by the continuum elasticity theory brandt . The condition $`R>a`$ is equivalent to $`B>B_s`$, where the crossover field $`B_sB_{c2}`$ can be found from Eqs. (1) and (2):

$$B_s(8\pi )^{3/2}J_c\lambda ^2/cr_p\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}(2l_c/R).$$
(4)
If $`r_p`$ equals the coherence length $`\xi `$ (core pinning), $`J_c=1MA/cm^2`$, $`\lambda (77K)0.6\mu `$m, $`\lambda /\xi =100`$, and $`\mathrm{ln}(2l_c/R)1`$, Eq. (4) yields the crossover field $`B_s7.6`$ T much higher than the typical field range in which most of the $`J_c`$ measurements on coated conductors have been performed. So we turn to the 2D single-vortex pinning at low fields $`B<B_s`$, for which the macroscopic elasticity of the vortex lattice is irrelevant.

We first consider self-field limitations of $`J_c`$ at zero field, and estimate a mean current density $`J_{c1}=cB_{c1}/2\pi d`$ which produces the parallel field equal to the lower critical field $`B_{c1}=(\varphi _0/4\pi \lambda _{ab}\lambda _c)[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda /\xi )+0.5]`$ in the middle of the film. For typical YBCO parameters, $`\lambda _{ab}(77)=0.6\mu `$m, $`\lambda _c/\lambda _{ab}=7`$, $`d=2\mu `$m, $`B_{c1}(77K)=14.7`$ Oe, the threshold value $`J_{c1}`$ is about $`0.12MA/cm^2`$. The so-obtained lower critical current density $`J_{c1}`$ is an order of magnitude lower than typical $`J_c`$ values of coated conductors lanl1 ; lanl2 , so the onset of dissipation at $`J_c`$ is most likely due to depinning of self-field vortices which penetrated the film at $`JJ_c`$. However, the onset of flux penetration and the $`J_{c1}`$ values are strongly affected by the surface and geometrical barriers which can be locally reduced by surface and edge defects in the YBCO film and buffer layer. Thus, $`J_{c1}`$ values can vary in a wide range $`cB_{c1}/2\pi d<J_{c1}<cB_c/2\pi d`$, where the upper limit corresponds to an ideal surface, and $`B_c=\varphi _0/2\sqrt{2}\pi \xi \lambda `$ is the thermodynamic critical field. The self-field effects could therefore contribute to the size dependence of $`J_c`$ in zero field, but they disappear at higher fields much greater than the full penetration field $`B_pJ_cd/c`$.

Now we consider the 2D single-vortex pinning in a film in a perpendicular field $`B<B_s`$. For $`d<L`$, pinning only causes overall displacements, but not distortions of vortex lines which thus remain nearly straight and perpendicular to the film surface. In this case even a rigid vortex of finite length $`d`$ is pinned by randomly distributed point defects, unlike an infinite sample where the pinning force of a straight vortex in a random pinning potential is zero. Indeed, let the film thickness be much greater than the mean spacing between the pinning centers, then the vortex interacts with $`N=r_p^2dn_i`$ pinning centers, adjusting its position so that the net pinning force vanishes (see inset in Fig. 1). The transport current displaces the vortex from the local minimum of the pinning potential, so now the random elementary pinning forces do not exactly compensate each others. The balance of the total maximum pinning force $`f_p\sqrt{N}`$ from uncorrelated pinning centers in a finite volume $`r_p^2d`$ and the Lorentz force $`\varphi _0dJ/c`$ yields the following equation for $`J_c`$:

$$\varphi _0J_cd/c=f_p\sqrt{N}\mathrm{exp}(u^2/r_p^2).$$
(5)
Here the exponential Debye-Waller factor accounts for the smearing of the pinning force by thermal vortex fluctuations blat . The mean-squared vortex displacement $`u^2`$ is given by the equipartition theorem:

$$\alpha _Lu^2=kT,\alpha _L=f_p\sqrt{N}/r_p,$$
(6)
where k is the Boltzmann constant, and $`\alpha _L`$ is the Labush spring constant. Eqs. (5) and (6) yield

$$J_c=\frac{c}{\varphi _0}\sqrt{\frac{\gamma }{d}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{kT}{r_p\sqrt{\gamma d}}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\gamma (T,B)=U_p^2n_i`$, and $`U_p=f_pr_p`$ is the elementary pinning energy. The function $`J_c(d)`$ shown in Fig. 1 has a maximum at $`d=d_m`$ due to the competition of pinning and thermal fluctuations. Indeed, pinning increases $`J_c1/\sqrt{d}`$ due to enhancement of relative fluctuations of the pinning potential $`N^{1/2}`$ as d decreases. At the same time, the amplitude of thermal vortex vibrations $`ud^{1/4}`$ in the exponential factor also increases as d decreases. Here $`d_m`$ and the maximum current density $`J_m=J_c(d_m)`$ are given by

$$d_m=\frac{k^2T^2}{\gamma r_p^2},J_m=\frac{c\gamma r_p}{e\varphi _0kT},$$
(8)
where $`e=2.718`$. The optimum thickness $`d_m(T)`$ increases at $`T`$ increases, diverging at $`T_c`$. For instance, for randomly distributed point pinning centers (say, oxygen vacancies beasley ; dcl ), $`r_p\xi (T)`$, and $`U_pB_c^2(1b)^2\sigma \xi (0)`$ and $`U_pB_c^2(1b)^2\sigma \xi ^2/\xi (0)`$ for the s and d-wave pairing, respectively, where $`\sigma `$ is the scattering cross-section of the pin pin . Hence, $`\gamma (T)\gamma _0[1(T/T_c)^2]^2`$ for the d-wave high-$`T_c`$ superconductors. The value $`d_m`$ can also be written in the form independent of particular pinning mechanisms:

$$d_m=\left[ckT/J_c(d_1,T,B)\varphi _0r_p\sqrt{d_1}\right]^2,$$
(9)
where the parameter $`\gamma =d_1(J_c\varphi _0/c)^2`$ is expressed in terms of the observed $`J_c`$ at a sufficiently large thickness $`d_1>d_m`$ for which the 2D pinning still holds, but the thermal exponential factor in Eq. (7) is close to 1. For $`J_c=1MA/cm^2`$ at $`d_1=1\mu m`$ and $`T=77K`$ lanl2 , $`r_p=\xi (77K)=60\AA `$, Eq. (9) yields $`d_m0.8\AA `$. This small values of $`d_m`$ indicates that thermal fluctuations do not affect $`J_c`$ of YBCO coated conductors at $`77`$ K and B well below the irreversibility field $`B^{}`$. However, the situation changes for low-$`T_c`$ weak pinning superconductors with $`J_c10^310^4A/cm^2`$, and $`d0.021\mu `$m, such as $`Nb_3Ge`$, $`Mo_3Si`$ kes  and $`Mo_xGe_{1x}`$ beasley  films. For instance, for $`Mo_xGe_{1x}`$ amorphous films with $`J_c=5\times 10^3A/cm^2`$, $`T_c=7.2`$ K, and $`d_1=1200\AA `$, Eq. (9) yields $`d_m=780\AA `$ for $`r_p=\xi (T)=60\AA `$ and $`T=4.2`$ K. Because $`d_m`$ strongly depends on T and B, the appropriate tuning of T and B can bring $`d_m`$ into the range of $`d10^210^4\AA `$ for which the nonmonotonic dependence of $`J_c(d)`$ can be observed. Thus, low-$`T_c`$ films can be convenient model systems to probe the 2D-3D pinning crossover, and the interplay between vortex pinning and thermal fluctuations, which causes the nonmonotonic $`J_c(d)`$.

Now I turn to YBCO coated conductors, focusing on two main issues. 1. Can Eq. (7) account for the observed dependence $`J_c(d)`$ lanl1 ; lanl2 ? 2. Can Eq. (7) help answer the question whether the observed $`J_c(d)`$ behavior is mostly determined by the thickness-dependent microstructure or the 2D pinning? Shown in Fig. 2 are the experimental data on the critical current $`I_c=dJ_c(d)w`$ of YBCO coated conductors on flexible metal tapes lanl2  along with the curve $`I_c\sqrt{d}`$ which follows from Eq. (7) for $`dd_m`$. For $`d<2\mu `$m, the 2D pinning theory does capture the behavior of $`I_c(d)`$. However, at larger d, the $`I_c(d)`$ values are weakly dependent on d, exhibiting a shallow minimum at thicknesses $`3<d<6\mu `$m which are just in the 2D-3D pinning crossover region.

Although the 2D pinning model is in a reasonable agreement with the observed behavior of $`J_c(d)`$ at small d, the relative contribution of the 2D pinning as compared to the essential microstructural factors (lesser epitaxy and higher porosity in thicker films) at low fields remains unclear. However, the 2D pinning contribution can be probed more directly by measuring $`J_c(d)`$ at higher B of the order of the irreversibility field $`B^{}`$. If such measurements reveal the nonmonotonic dependence $`J_c(d)`$, it would unambiguously indicate the key role of the 2D pinning. Indeed, any thickness-dependent microstructure can hardly cause the maximum in $`J_c(d)`$ in macroscopic films with $`d1\mu `$m at high fields, while resulting in the decreasing $`J_c(d)`$ at lower fields. The nonmonotonic $`J_c(d)`$ can be observed if $`d_m`$ gets in the range $`0.1<d<6\mu `$m where $`J_c(d)`$ is usually measured. As follows from Eq. (9), this implies reducing $`J_c`$ from the typical zero field values $`13MA/cm^2`$ down to $`J_c10^4A/cm^2`$. Such $`J_c`$ reduction can be achieved by increasing B and/or T (around 5T at 77K ornl ). Another easily tested feature of the 2D pinning is that the crossover thickness (3), above which $`J_c`$ becomes independent of d, increases as T and B are increased.

The above results may also be applied to thin filaments of radius $`d_mR<L_c`$ in a field $`B2\pi J_cR/c`$. For $`B<B_s`$, the critical current $`I_c`$ of the round filament can be obtained by averaging Eq. (7), $`I_c=4_0^RyJ_c(2y)𝑑x`$, with the local ”thickness” $`2y=2\sqrt{R^2x^2}`$, and $`\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{d_m/d})=1`$. Hence,

$$I_c=2.47c\sqrt{\gamma }R^{3/2}/\varphi _0,$$
(10)
where $`2.47=\sqrt{2}B(1/2,5/4)`$, and $`B(a,b)`$ is the Euler beta function. The 2D pinning gives rise to a weaker size dependence of $`I_cR^{3/2}`$ for $`B<B_s`$ and $`I_cR`$ for $`B>B_s`$ (see Eq. (1)) as compared to the 3D $`I_cR^2`$.

In summary, the 2D vortex pinning and self-field effects are suggested as possible mechanisms of the thickness dependence of $`J_c`$ in coated conductors. A nonmonotonic dependence of $`J_c(d)`$ is obtained which accounts both the 2D pinning and thermal fluctuations of vortices. An experimental test of the 2D pinning mechanism is proposed.

This work was supported by the AFOSR MURI (F49620-01-1-0464), NSF MRSEC (DMR 9214707), and DOE HEP (DE-FG02-91ER40643).


format: text

text:
# Temporal aspects and frequency distributions of solar soft X-ray flares

## 1 Introduction

With the availability of space-borne instrumentation, observations of solar flare phenomena in X-rays became possible in the 1960s. Disk-integrated soft X-ray emission measurements of the Sun have been collected more or less continuously since 1974 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), providing an almost unbroken record fully covering solar cycles 21 and 22 and the rising phase of cycle 23 (Garcia 2000).

Statistical investigations on temporal aspects of solar flares observed in various soft X-ray wavelengths have been carried out by Culhane & Phillips (1970), Drake (1971), Thomas & Teske (1971), Phillips (1972), Datlowe et al. (1974), and Pearce & Harrison (1988). In the meantime a wealth of data has accumulated, which makes worthwhile re-investigating the temporal characteristics of soft X-ray (SXR) flares on an extensive statistical basis. In the present analysis we make use of SXR flares observed by GOES during 1976–2000.

Moreover, on the basis of this comprehensive data set, we calculate frequency distributions of SXR flares as function of the peak flux, the fluence, i.e. the integrated flux from the start to the end of a flare, and the event duration. Frequency distributions of flare occurrence are related to the observational expectations from different flare models. Furthermore, they contain information about the possibility of coronal heating by nanoflares. Frequency distributions of solar flares from disk-integrated SXR measurements as function of the peak flux have been carried out by Drake (1971), Lee et al. (1995) and Feldman et al. (1997). However, only in the paper by Drake (1971) are frequency distributions of SXR fluence measurements also presented. Shimizu (1995) used spatially resolved observations from transient SXR brightenings and investigated frequency distributions as function of energy.

Soft X-ray measurements are an important counterpart to observations of flares in hard X-rays (HXR). From several observations it is reported that the SXR light curve has a similar shape as the time integral of the HXR curve. This led to the idea that there is a causal relationship between hard and soft X-ray emission of a flare, the so-called Neupert effect (Neupert 1968; Dennis & Zarro 1993). It supports a flare model, known as the thick-target model (Brown 1971), in which the HXR emission is electron-ion bremsstrahlung produced by energetic electrons as they reach the dense layers of the chromosphere. Only a small fraction of the electron beam energy is lost through radiation; most of the loss is due to Coulomb collisions, which serve to heat the ambient plasma. Due to the rapid deposition of energy by the particle beams, the energy cannot be radiated away at a sufficiently high rate and a strong pressure imbalance develops, causing the heated plasma to expand up into the corona (“chromospheric evaporation”), where this hot dense plasma gives rise to the enhanced SXR emission (e.g., Antonucci et al. 1984; Fisher et al. 1985; Antonucci et al. 1999, and references therein). In this paper we make use of the flare frequency distributions and the correlations among distinct flare parameters to infer information about the validity of the Neupert effect in solar flares by statistical means.

The paper is structured as follows. The data set is described in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3.1 a statistical investigation of temporal properties of SXR flares is presented. Correlations among various flare parameters, such as characteristic times, peak flux and fluence, are analyzed in Sect. 3.2. In Sect 3.3 frequency distributions as function of the peak flux, the fluence and the duration are derived. In Sect. 4 we give a summary and discussion of the main results. Finally, the conclusions are drawn in Sect. 5.

## 2 Data Set

The present analysis is based on solar SXR flares observed by GOES in the 0.1–0.8 nm wavelength band during the period January 1976 to December 2000. We make use of the GOES flare listing in the Solar Geophysical Data (SGD), which contains almost 50 000 single events for the time span considered.

### 2.1 GOES flare observations

Since 1974 broad-band soft X-ray emission of the Sun has been measured almost continuously by the meteorology satellites operated by NOAA: the Synchronous Meteorological Satellite (SMS) and the Geostationary Operational Environment Satellite (GOES). The first GOES was launched by NASA in 1975, and the GOES series extends to the currently operational GOES 8 and GOES 10. From 1974 to 1986 the soft X-ray records are obtained by at least one GOES-type satellite; starting with 1983, data from two co-operating GOES are generally available (Garcia 1994, 2000).

The X-ray sensor, part of the space environment monitor system aboard GOES, consists of two ion chamber detectors, which provide whole-sun X-ray fluxes in the 0.05–0.4 and 0.1–0.8 nm wavelength bands. The initial series of satellites maintained attitude control via spin-stabilization. GOES 8, launched in April 1994, and all subsequent GOES are three-axis stabilized, making it possible to observe the Sun uninterrupted by spacecraft rotations. This new operational mode facilitated an improved signal-to-background ratio and a higher time resolution, 0.5 seconds (prior to 1994, the time resolution was 3 seconds). Aside from the observing mode, the basic X-ray detector is unchanged with respect to the previous instrumentation (Garcia 2000). However, beginning with GOES 8, the dynamic range of the X-ray sensor was extended in order to permit the most energetic SXR events to be recorded.

Solar soft X-ray flares are classified according to their peak burst intensity measured in the 0.1–0.8 nm wavelength band by GOES. The letters (A, B, C, M, X) denote the order of magnitude of the peak flux on a logarithmic scale, and the number following the letter gives the multiplicative factor, i.e., $`\mathrm{A}n=n\times 10^8`$, $`\mathrm{B}n=n\times 10^7`$, $`\mathrm{C}n=n\times 10^6`$, $`\mathrm{M}n=n\times 10^5`$, and $`\mathrm{X}n=n\times 10^4`$ W m<sup>-2</sup>. In general, n is given as a float number with one decimal (prior to 1980, $`n`$ is listed as an integer). No background subtraction is applied to the data.

In the present statistical analysis we utilize the 1-minute average GOES data, as listed in the SGD. The definition of the start of a GOES X-ray event comprises the fulfillment of three conditions during four consecutive 1-minute long intervals of observation: 1) all four values are above the B1 threshold; 2) all four values are strictly increasing; 3) the last value is greater than 1.4 times the value which occurred three minutes earlier. The maximum time is given by the 1-minute averaged value of the SXR peak time. The end time is defined by the return of the flux to half the peak value above the pre-flare level. The temporal parameters calculated in the present analysis refer to these definitions of the start, end and maximum times of the SXR flares.

### 2.2 Data description and reduction

Table 1 lists the number of flares reported for the period January 1976 to December 2000, subdivided into the different SXR flare classes. No class A flares are listed, since the SGD cover only SXR events $``$B1 (see also the definition of flare onset in Sect. 2.1). As it can be seen from Table 1, the bulk of flares belongs to class C ($``$66%). Larger flares, i.e. M and X, are less frequent and occur primarily during times of maximum solar activity. Smaller flares, i.e. A and B, actually occur more frequently than C class flares. However, during periods of maximum activity the X-ray background is too high to detect A and B class flares from full-disk measurements (in extreme cases the X-ray background may even reach M-level). Thus, the distribution of detected flares among the SXR classes with the distinct maximum at class C results as an interaction of both these effects, i.e. the infrequent occurrence of large flares and the restriction of detecting small flares to periods of minimum solar activity. The increased X-ray background during maximum solar activity may be due to emission from many flare events as well as due to a steady coronal heating mechanism (e.g., Feldman et al. 1997).

The present paper investigates temporal flare parameters as well as characteristics of the measured SXR flux. For the temporal analysis, the reported start, maximum and end times were checked. Moreover, due to the fact that prior to 1997 the reported SXR flare times were taken from the H$`\alpha `$ event, if there was a correlated one, also those flares were rejected from further analysis. Applying these selection criteria, for the temporal part of the analysis the data set was reduced to a number of 26 745 events, covering 8 844 B, 16 507 C, 1 331 M and 63 X class flares. Peak flux values are basically listed for each event and the respective analysis makes use of the overall data set as listed in Table 1. SXR fluence data, i.e. the integrated flux from the start to the end of an event, are available since January 1997, amounting to 8 400 events.

## 3 Analysis and Results

### 3.1 Statistics of temporal flare parameters

We statistically analyzed temporal aspects of SXR flares, i.e. the duration, rise and decay times. The temporal parameters have been derived only from those events, which fulfilled the selection criteria given in Sect. 2.2. Figure 1 shows the distributions of the duration, rise and decay times considering the total of events. Each histogram reveals a pronounced negative skewness.

In Table 2 we list various statistical measures characterizing the distributions of the temporal parameters, the arithmetic mean, the median, the mode and the 90th percentile $`P_{90}`$. The obtained results for the mode of the duration, 7.0 minutes, is in agreement with previous studies, although different definitions of the start and end time of SXR events are used. Phillips (1972) and Pearce & Harrison (1988) report a mode in the range 5–10 minutes. Feldman et al. (1997) obtained SXR lifetime peaks in the range 6–8 minutes. Drake (1971) reports higher values, 16 minutes, considering only flares greater than about C2.

Figure 2 shows the distributions of the duration separately for the different classes of SXR flares. It can be seen that with increasing flare class the skewness of the distributions decreases and the center of the distribution moves to larger values. In Table 3 we list the median values (plus confidence intervals) and the 90th percentile values of the temporal parameters calculated for the different classes of SXR flares. Since the relevant distributions are significantly asymmetric (see Figs. 1 and 2), they are better represented by the median, $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, than by the arithmetic mean. As a measure of statistical significance we make use of the 95% confidence interval, $`\stackrel{~}{x}\pm c_{95}`$, with

$$c_{95}=\frac{1.58(Q_3Q_1)}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
(1)
$`Q_1`$ and $`Q_3`$ denote the first and the third quartile, respectively, $`n`$ the total number of data values.

Table 3 reveals that on average the characteristic times increase with the flare class. The differences from one class to the other are larger than the 95% confidence limits, indicating the statistical significance of the effect. However, due to the rather poor statistics of X class flares, the respective 95% confidence limits are somewhat larger. From Table 2 and 3 it follows that the median values of the rise and decay times are quite similar, for the overall number of flares as well as for the different flare classes. We want to stress that this fact is in particular related to the used definition of the end time of an event, i.e. the return of the flux to half the peak value above the background level at the time of the flare onset, which obviously underestimates the decay phase. However, the actual end of an X-ray event, i.e. the return of the coronal plasma to the state before the SXR flare, is difficult to determine, since the background level may change during the flare endurance and/or the decay phase may be overlaid by other events. Therefore, definitions of the characteristic times based on the peak flux are commonly used in statistical SXR flare studies (e.g., Culhane & Phillips 1970; Drake 1971; Pearce & Harrison 1988; Lee et al. 1995).

### 3.2 Correlations among flare parameters

Figure 3 shows the correlation scatter plots of the characteristic times, i.e. duration, rise and decay times, as function of the peak flux. The cross-correlation coefficients, calculated in log-log space, give similar values with $`r0.25`$, indicating a low correlation between the characteristic times and the peak flux.

In Figure 4 the scatter plots of the characteristic times as function of the fluence are shown. The cross-correlation coefficients give $`r=0.68`$ for the duration, $`r=0.64`$ for the rise times, and $`r=0.61`$ for the decay times. The outcome that the correlation between the fluence and the characteristic times is distinctly higher than those between the peak flux and the characteristic times is not unexpected, since the fluence intrinsically increases with the endurance of the event.

The top panel of Figure 5 shows the scatter plot of the fluence versus the peak flux. The corresponding cross-correlation coefficient, $`r=0.88`$, is higher than that of the fluence and the duration, $`r=0.68`$. From the linear fit in log-log space we obtain the relation $`(F_\mathrm{P})^{1.10}`$ with $``$ denoting the fluence and $`F_\mathrm{P}`$ the peak flux. The bottom panel of Figure 5 shows the scatter plot of the fluence versus the peak flux multiplied by the flare duration, yielding $`r=0.99`$. From this high cross-correlation coefficient it follows that the product of the peak flux and the duration, $`F_\mathrm{P}\times t_{\mathrm{dur}}`$, is a good estimate of the fluence, $``$, without accounting for the actual time profile. From the regression analysis we obtain the relation: $`(F_\mathrm{P}\times t_{\mathrm{dur}})^{0.96}`$.

### 3.3 Frequency distributions

Frequency distributions have been calculated for various types of flare-associated activity, such as radio bursts, soft X-rays, hard X-rays, interplanetary type III bursts and interplanetary particle events (cf. Crosby et al. 1993; Aschwanden et al. 1998; and references therein). It has been shown that above a certain threshold (often attributed to the sensitivity of the observations) most of these frequency distributions can be represented by power-laws of the form

$$\mathrm{d}N=Ax^\alpha \mathrm{d}x,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{d}N`$ denotes the number of events recorded with the parameter $`x`$ of interest in the interval $`[x,x+\mathrm{d}x]`$. $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ are constants, which can be determined from a fit to the data. For the distributions of different flare-related parameters, values in the range $`1.4\alpha 2.4`$ have been obtained (cf. Crosby et al. 1998). Theoretical considerations on various aspects concerning frequency distributions of flare-related phenomena, such as truncation effects, problems of the histogram method, time resolution of the observations, can be found, e.g., in Lee et al. (1993), Parnell & Jupp (2000) and Isliker & Benz (2001).

In Figure 6 we show the frequency distributions for the peak flux, the fluence and the duration. The distributions of the peak flux and the fluence reveal power-laws over 2–3 decades. From the slopes of the distributions in log-log space we obtain $`\alpha =2.11`$$`\pm `$0.13 for the peak flux, and $`\alpha =2.03`$$`\pm `$0.09 for the fluence. The frequency distribution of the event duration can also be well represented by a power-law, with $`\alpha =2.93`$$`\pm `$0.12.

Figure 7 illustrates the frequency distributions of the peak fluxes calculated separately for periods of minimum and maximum solar activity. The top panel shows the respective distributions of solar cycle 22 (calculated from the years 1986 and 1989), the bottom panel for the current cycle 23 (1996/2000). From the figure it can be clearly seen that during times of minimum activity the power-law behavior extends to smaller peak fluxes, since during these periods also less intense flares can be detected, evidence that the turn-over of the power-law distribution in fact is caused by the sensitivity of the observations, and the power-law is expected to extend to even smaller sizes. On the other hand, during times of maximum solar activity the power-law ranges to larger peak fluxes due to the enhanced occurrence of intense flares. However, as it can be inferred from Figure 7, the slope of the distribution, i.e. the power-law index, does not reveal any remarkable change in the course of the solar cycle.

A few previous papers present frequency distributions as function of the SXR peak flux and fluence, respectively. Drake (1971) analyzed SXR flares measured in the 0.2–1.2 nm wavelength range from Explorer 33 and 35, finding $`\alpha =1.75`$$`\pm 0.10`$ for the peak flux distribution, and $`\alpha =1.44\pm 0.01`$ for the fluence distribution. Lee et al. (1995), investigating the peak fluxes of SXR flares with hard X-ray counterparts observed by GOES in the 0.1–0.8 nm band during 1981–1989, obtained $`\alpha =1.86`$$`\pm 0.10`$. Additionally, they investigated peak count rates for the Ca XIX soft X-ray line emission measured by the BCS instrument aboard SMM, finding $`\alpha =1.79`$$`\pm 0.01`$. Feldman et al. (1997) investigated GOES peak fluxes observed in the 0.1–0.8 nm wavelength band during the period 1993–1995. By dividing the flares into domains according to the X-ray background level, they were able to extend the power-law relationship to A1 brightness level, obtaining an average value of $`\alpha =1.88`$$`\pm `$0.21 from a least squares fit and $`\alpha =1.99`$ from a non-parametric fit to the data.

It has to be noted that the value of $`\alpha `$ obtained in the present paper for the peak flux distribution is somewhat larger than those of the above cited papers. This difference might be caused by the fact that we did not apply a background subtraction, as some other authors did (e.g., Drake 1971; Feldman et al. 1997). Since the background subtraction is relatively stronger on smaller flares than large ones, it is expected to result in a slightly flattened frequency distribution. In the analysis of the peak flux distributions, Drake (1971) applied a correction in order to account for the effect that his data analysis method discriminates against small events on the basis of the actual background level. However, no such correction was applied in the analysis of the fluence distribution, which probably is the cause for the significantly smaller value of the power-law index of the fluence distribution he obtained.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

### 4.1 Temporal flare characteristics

A loose correlation was found between the characteristic times and the flare peak fluxes, $`r0.25`$. This outcome is also reflected in the increasing values for the duration, rise and decay times with increasing flare class, as listed in Table 3. The average values of the duration (defined as the median of the distribution) give 10 min for B, 12 min for C, 24 min for M, and 30 min for X class flares. Thus, on average the duration increases from B to X class flares by a factor 3.

As it can be inferred from Table 3, this increase is caused in a similar manner by the rise as well as the decay times. This differs to what was found for H$`\alpha `$ flares (Temmer et al. 2001), revealing a distinctly more pronounced increase of the decay times than of the rise times with increasing flare importance, indicating that the cooling phase of the H$`\alpha `$ flare is more strongly affected by the event strength than the phase of heating-up the plasma at the flare site. However, we cannot exclude that a similar effect might exist in the case of the SXR flares, since the definition of the event end time by the return of the flux to half the peak value possibly causes a stronger underestimation of the actual decay time of intense events than weaker ones.

### 4.2 Statistical flare models

The distributions of the peak flux, the fluence and the duration revealed a power-law behavior over several decades, the determined power-law indices are $`\alpha =2.11`$$`\pm `$0.13, $`\alpha =2.03`$$`\pm `$0.09 and $`\alpha =2.93`$$`\pm `$0.12, respectively. The first attempt to explain the power-law distributions of flare-related phenomena was done by Rosner & Vaiana (1978), who developed a model based on a stochastic flaring probability and exponential energy build-up between successive events. However, the correlation between the strength of a flare and the elapsed time since the previous event, predicted by the model, is not supported by observations (Biesecker 1994; Crosby et al. 1998; Hudson et al. 1998; Wheatland 2000).

Lu & Hamilton (1991) were the first to propose an avalanche model of solar flares, relating the power-law distributions to the scale-invariant properties of a self-organized system in a critical state. Contrary to the energy storage model, no correlation between elapsed time and event size is expected from avalanche flare models. Moreover, since the avalanche size distribution is insensitive to much of the microphysics, from such a model it is also expected that the power-law distributions do not change over the solar cycle (see, e.g., Lu & Hamilton 1991; Lu et al. 1993). Crosby et al. (1993) and Lu et al. (1993) reported such invariance of $`\alpha `$ in the course of the solar cycle for the occurrence of hard X-ray flares. In the present analysis we calculated peak flux distributions separately from periods of minimum and maximum solar activity (see Figure 7), which confirms the invariance of $`\alpha `$ also for SXR flares. This outcome is similar to the finding of Feldman et al. (1997) that the power-law index of the peak flux distributions of SXR flares is insensitive to the actual SXR background level, which is closely related to the solar cycle (e.g., Wilson 1993).

### 4.3 Frequency distributions and correlations among flare parameters

Significant correlations among the characteristic times and the fluence, $`r0.65`$, were found. (Note that all cross-correlations were calculated in log-log space.) The correlation analysis of the fluence, $``$, and the peak flux, $`F_\mathrm{P}`$, revealed a high cross-correlation coefficient, $`r=0.88`$. From the regression analysis it follows $`(F_\mathrm{P})^{1.10}`$. It is also shown that it is justified to estimate the fluence of an event by the product of the peak flux and the duration, since the respective cross-correlation coefficient amounts to $`r=0.99`$, whereas $`(F_\mathrm{P}\times t_{\mathrm{dur}})^{0.96}`$.

The obtained power-law index of the peak flux distribution, $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}=2.11`$, is similar to that of the fluence distribution, $`\alpha _{}=2.03`$. Assuming that on average the fluence $``$ of an event corresponds to its peak flux $`F_\mathrm{P}`$, which can be justified by the high correlation among these parameters, then $`\frac{\mathrm{d}N()}{\mathrm{d}}\mathrm{d}=\frac{\mathrm{d}N(F_\mathrm{P})}{\mathrm{d}F_\mathrm{P}}\mathrm{d}F_\mathrm{P}`$, where both quantities can be represented by power-law functions with power-law index $`\alpha _{}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}`$, respectively. On the other hand, from the scatter plot (Fig. 5, top panel) we find that $``$ versus $`F_\mathrm{P}`$ is well fitted by the relation $`(F_\mathrm{P})^s`$ with $`s=1.10`$. Thus we obtain (cf. Lu et al. 1993):

$$F_\mathrm{P}^{(1\alpha _\mathrm{P})/(1\alpha _{})}=(F_\mathrm{P})^s.$$
(3)
With this relation, the power-law index of the fluence distribution, $`\alpha _{}`$, can be derived from the power-law index of the peak flux distribution, $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}`$, and the slope of the linear regression curve in log-log space, $`s`$, as:

$$\alpha _{}=1+\frac{(\alpha _\mathrm{P}1)}{s}.$$
(4)
With $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}=2.11`$ and $`s=1.10`$ we obtain $`\alpha _{}=2.01`$, which is very close to the value determined from the fluence distribution, $`\alpha _{}=2.03`$ (cf. Fig. 6, middle panel). This means that the relation of the power-law indices for the distribution of the peak flux and the fluence can be interpreted in terms of the correlation between both quantities. Since $`s`$, the slope obtained from the regression analysis of the fluence versus the peak flux, is close to unity, the value of $`\alpha _{}`$ is close to $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}`$; if $`s`$ is larger, then $`\alpha _{}`$ would decrease with respect to $`\alpha _\mathrm{P}`$.

### 4.4 The Neupert effect

Several observations revealed that the shape of the SXR light curve closely matches the time integral of the HXR emission. It has been argued that this observation is evidence for a causal relationship between the nonthermal hard X-ray emission and the thermal soft X-ray emission, the so-called Neupert effect (Neupert 1968; Dennis & Zarro 1993). The underlying idea is that the hard X-rays come from accelerated electrons impinging on coronal or chromospheric plasma, whereas the bulk of the energy deposited by the nonthermal electrons is converted into heating of the ambient thick-target plasma (Brown 1971). The soft X-ray emission is due to thermal bremsstrahlung from hot dense plasma that evaporated into the corona, as a consequence of the rapid energy deposition. In this case, the hard X-ray emission is proportional to the time profile of the accelerated electrons. The soft X-ray emission, which is emitted by the plasma heated by the same nonthermal electron population, is proportional to the accumulated energy deposited by the electrons up to a given time. Thus, it is expected to see the Neupert effect (see McTiernan et al. 1999).

The Neupert effect, as it is commonly stated in the literature, can be expressed as

$$F_{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}=k_{\mathrm{HXR}},$$
(5)
where $`k`$ is a proportionality factor that depends on several factors (e.g., the magnetic field geometry, the viewing angle, etc.), and therefore may vary from flare to flare. However, if $`k`$ does not depend systematically on the flare size, then the HXR fluence and the SXR peak flux distributions should have the same shape. In particular, the respective power-law indices should be equal, i.e., $`\alpha _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}=\alpha _{,\mathrm{HXR}}`$ (cf. Lee et al. 1993, 1995). However, the power-law index derived for the HXR fluence distribution, $`1.4\alpha _{,\mathrm{HXR}}1.6`$ (cf. Lee et al. 1993, and references therein) is smaller than those of the SXR peak flux distribution, $`1.8\alpha _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}2.0`$ (Drake 1971; Lee et al. 1995; Feldman et al. 1997; this paper). It has already been pointed out by Lee et al. (1993, 1995) that such statistical considerations lead to a discrepancy with the Neupert effect in its simple form as stated in Eq. 5.

A possible explanation for this discrepancy might be that the HXR and SXR emissions are not necessarily indicative for the energies involved. As discussed in Lee et al. (1995), the Neupert effect should exist not necessarily between the X-ray emissions but between the energies. Namely the energy deposited by the nonthermal electrons, $`ϵ_e^{}`$, should be equal to the maximum thermal energy contained in the plasma heated by the same electrons, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}`$, i.e.

$$ϵ_e^{}=ϵ_{\mathrm{th},\mathrm{max}}.$$
(6)
In this case, the proportionality factor $`k`$, which relates the X-ray emissions, may be a function of the flare size, still being compatible with the Neupert effect for the energies (Eq. 6). One reason to expect that $`k`$ indeed depends on the flare size is the finding of Feldman et al. (1996) that the observed SXR temperature tends to increase with flare size. Therefore, the amount of SXR emission per HXR electron may be different for large flares than for small ones (McTiernan 2001, private communication). Moreover, as shown by McTiernan et al. (1999), consistency of the observed HXR and SXR emission with the Neupert effect depends on the temperature response of the SXR detector used. It has been noted that the Neupert effect is more commonly associated with high than low temperature SXR emission.

Another possibility, of course, is that the Neupert effect is not working for the bulk of flares but just a subset of it. Most evidence for the Neupert effect indeed has been found for large and impulsive flares (e.g., Dennis & Zarro 1993; McTiernan 1999). Applying the same considerations as in Sect. 4.3, whereas

$$_{\mathrm{HXR}}(F_{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}})^s,$$
(7)
we find

$$s=\frac{(\alpha _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}1)}{(\alpha _{,\mathrm{HXR}}1)}.$$
(8)
Since from observations it is known that $`\alpha _{,\mathrm{HXR}}<\alpha _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}`$, it can be inferred from Eq. 8 that $`s`$ is larger than 1. Under the assumption that the X-ray emissions are representative for the involved energies (i.e. the proportionality factor $`k`$ does not depend systematically on the flare size), $`s`$ is expected to be equal to 1 (cf. Eqs. 5 and 7). In this case, the found difference of the power-law indices, $`\alpha _{,\mathrm{HXR}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{P},\mathrm{SXR}}`$, indicate that the increase (decrease) of the SXR peak flux with increasing (decreasing) HXR fluence is smaller than it would be in the case of the Neupert effect. Any deviation from the Neupert effect basically means that the hot plasma giving rise to the SXR emission is not heated exclusively by the thermalization of the accelerated electrons responsible for the HXR emission (Dennis & Zarro 1993; Lee et al. 1993). Thus, the soft X-ray emission might be a better indicator of the total energy released in a flare than the HXR emission, and analogously the SXR flare frequency distributions might better reflect the total energy distribution of solar flares than the HXR frequency distributions (see also Lee et al. 1993; Feldman et al. 1997).

On the other hand, if we assume that the Neupert effect formulated for the energies (Eq. 6) is valid for the bulk of flares, but the SXR and HXR emissions are not directly indicative for the nonthermal and thermal energies (i.e., $`k`$ may depend systematically on the flare size), then the difference of the power-law indices of the HXR fluence and the SXR peak flux distributions can be considered to contain information on $`k`$ as function of the flare size. Since $`s>1`$, and comparing Eqs. 5 and 7, $`k`$ is expected to decrease with increasing HXR fluence or increasing SXR peak flux, respectively. In that case, the functional dependency of $`k`$ on the flare size gives an indication that the amount of SXR emission per HXR electron is smaller for large flares than for small ones. However, in the present study we cannot decide on these different possibilities.

### 4.5 Coronal heating by nanoflares

The actual value of the power-law index $`\alpha `$ determined from various flare-related phenomena is in particular of interest with respect to the idea of heating the corona by numerous small magnetic reconnection events extending below the observational limit, so-called nanoflares (Parker 1988). Hudson (1991) calculated that if the total power needed to heat the corona is generated by flare-like events of different sizes, then the total power is equal to the integral of event energies times their frequency of occurrence. Assuming that the frequency of events as function of the event energy follows a power-law of the form given in Eq. 2 and that the energies of the largest events are much larger than those of the smallest ones, Hudson (1991) has shown that if $`\alpha <2`$, large events dominate the total power in the distribution and nanoflares cannot contribute much to it. Otherwise, if $`\alpha 2`$, the more numerous small-scale events dominate and may provide a significant contribution to coronal heating.

However, the flare energy is not an observable quantity, and the investigations of flare frequency distributions most often rely on peak flux or peak count rate measurements. In a few papers though, the observed quantities have been transformed into flare energies, and frequency distributions as function of energy have been determined (see also Benz & Krucker 2001). Krucker & Benz (1998) and Parnell & Jupp (2000) analyzed energy distributions of events from quiet Sun regions, so-called network flares (Krucker et al. 1997), observed in Extreme Ultraviolet emission, finding $`\alpha `$ in the range 2.3–2.6 and 2.1–2.6, respectively. Such outcome suggests that the events at the low energy range dominate the total power in the distribution. However, using data from the Soft X-ray Telescope aboard Yohkoh, Shimizu (1995) studied transient brightenings discovered in solar active regions, obtaining frequency distributions as function of energy with $`\alpha `$ in the range 1.5–1.6. He estimated that the energy provided by small events is at most 20% of the total energy required to heat the active region corona. Crosby et al. (1993) analyzed frequency distributions of HXR flares. Assuming a thick-target model, they calculated the total energy in electrons and obtained from the distribution $`\alpha 1.5`$.

In general, one has to be cautious in relating the frequency distributions of observed quantities to those of flare energies, as the energy available from flares in detail depends on their number, emission measure and temperature (e.g., Feldman et al. 1997). Hudson (1991) made use of empirical conversion formulae to obtain the frequency distributions of the total (radiated) flare energy from observed peak flux measurements in various wavelengths. The assumed proportionalities, which ensure a one-to-one correspondence of the respective power-law indices, are criticized, e.g., by Feldman et al. (1997). However, the fluence is a better representation of the total energy available in flares than peak flux measurements. Under the assumption that the fluence is proportional to the total radiated flare energy (e.g. Krucker & Benz, 1998), the found power-law index of the fluence distribution, $`\alpha _{}`$, is also representative of the energy distribution.

Since the determined power-law index relevant to coronal heating, $`\alpha _{}=2.03\pm 0.09`$, is very close to the critical value of 2, we investigated the influence of the background subtraction on the fluence distribution, using the SXR flux just before the onset of the flare. For the analysis we integrated this background level over the event duration and subtracted it from the given fluence data for the subsample January 1997 – July 1999. As expected, from the distribution of the background subtracted fluence data we obtain a somewhat smaller power-law index, $`\alpha _{}=1.88\pm 0.11`$. However, within the given error limits this value is still rather close to 2. Moreover, it has to be noted that the derived power law index is still distinctly larger than those obtained by Drake (1971), with $`\alpha _{}=1.44\pm 0.01`$, which is the only other paper dealing with fluence distributions of SXR flares.

## 5 Conclusions

Frequency distributions of SXR flare occurrence as function of the peak flux, the fluence and the event duration have been calculated. All distributions can be described by power-law functions over several decades. The distributions, derived separately for the times of minimum and maximum solar activity do not reveal any remarkable change in the power-law index, consistent with the predictions of avalanche flare models (e.g., Lu & Hamilton 1991; Lu et al. 1993).

Relating the SXR fluence measurements to the total radiated flare energy, the determined power-law index $`\alpha _{}`$ is also representative of the flare energy distribution. The obtained values of $`\alpha _{}`$ are 2.03 for the raw fluence data and 1.88 for the background subtracted fluence data. Both values are rather close to the critical value of 2, and no distinct conclusion can be drawn whether small-scale events provide a significant contribution to coronal heating or not. Moreover, deviations from the assumed proportionality between SXR fluence and flare energies would also cause deviations from the one-to-one correspondence of the respective power-law indices. If the slope of energy versus fluence in log-log space is less than one, then the power-law index of the energy distribution would be smaller than those of the fluence distribution, and vice versa.

The power-law index of SXR peak flux distributions (see Drake 1971; Lee et al. 1995; Feldman et al. 1997; this paper) is significantly larger than those reported for HXR fluence distributions (cf. Lee et al. 1993, and references therein), statistical evidence that the Neupert effect in its commonly stated form relating the X-ray emissions (Eq. 5) is not valid for the bulk of flares. However, this outcome does not necessarily mean that the Neupert effect does not work for the more fundamental relationship between the energies (Eq. 6). Depending on the validity of the Neupert effect for the bulk of solar flares, the differences in the power-law indices contain information upon additional energy sources for the SXR-emitting plasma, or upon the amount of SXR emission per HXR electron as a function of the flare size. From the present analysis, based only on SXR data, we cannot distinguish between these different possibilities. Moreover, a mixing of both cases might exist, making a distinction even more difficult. Therefore, a detailed statistical analysis of related SXR and HXR flares is in preparation in order to obtain deeper insight into the Neupert effect.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are very grateful to Bojan Vršnak for the careful reading of the manuscript and his helpful comments. A. V. thanks Hana Mészárosová for the provision of a cross-check on the flare frequency distributions. The authors also would like to thank James M. McTiernan for instructive comments on the Neupert effect. A. V., M. T. and A. H. acknowledge the Austrian Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF grant P13655-PHY) for supporting this project. M. M. acknowledges the support of the Italian Space Agency (ASI) and the Ministry for University and Research (MURST).


text:
# Filtration of the classical knot concordance group and Casson-Gordon invariants

## 1. Introduction

A knot in the 3-sphere is (topologically) slice if it bounds a locally flat 2-disk in the 4-ball. Two knots are said to be (topologically) concordant if the connected sum of one and the mirror image of the other with reversed orientation is slice. (Equivalently, there is a locally flat embedding of an annulus $`S^1\times [0,1]`$ into $`S^3\times [0,1]`$ whose restrictions to the boundary components give the knots.) This concordance relation is an equivalence relation, and the concordance classes form an abelian group $`𝒞`$, the classical knot concordance group, under the connected sum operation. In $`𝒞`$, the identity element is the class of slice knots.

In \[COT1\], Cochran, Orr, and Teichner (henceforth COT) define a geometric filtration of the classical knot concordance group $`𝒞`$

$$0\mathrm{}_{(n.5)}_{(n)}\mathrm{}_{(1.5)}_{(1.0)}_{(0.5)}_{(0)}𝒞$$

where $`_{(m)}`$ is the set of $`(m)`$-solvable knots. (See Definition 3.4.) They show that $`(1.5)`$-solvable knots have vanishing Casson-Gordon invariants and that $`_{(2.0)}/_{(2.5)}0`$, thus giving the first examples of knots with vanishing Casson-Gordon invariants which are not (topologically) slice. (Refer to \[CG\] for Casson-Gordon invariants.) In \[COT2\], they extend their results to show $`_{(2.0)}/_{(2.5)}`$ has infinite rank. We improve their results further and prove:

###### Theorem 1.1 (Main Theorem).

In the above filtration, $`_{(1.0)}/_{(1.5)}`$ has an infinite rank subgroup of knots for which Casson-Gordon invariants vanish.

Theorem 1.1 implies that Casson-Gordon invariants are not a complete set of obstructions to $`(1.5)`$-solvability. By contrast to the above result, the examples of \[COT1\] are $`(2.0)`$-solvable.

To show Casson-Gordon invariants of our examples vanish, we use the following theorem of Livingston.

###### Theorem 1.2.

(\[Liv, Theorem 0.5\]) A knot $`K`$ has a prime power branched cyclic cover with nontrivial homology if and only if its Alexander polynomial has a nontrivial factor that is not an n-cyclotomic polynomial with n divisible by three distinct primes.

The group of examples in Theorem 1.1 have a spanning set of knots with a fixed Seifert form and Alexander polynomial. The shared Alexander polynomial of these generators is $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30})^2`$, the square of the 30-cyclotomic polynomial. By Theorem 1.2, these generators have prime power branched cyclic covers which are homology spheres. (One might compare this to the fact that if every finite branched cyclic cover of a knot is a homology sphere, then its Alexander polynomial is 1, hence the knot is topologically slice by Freedman’s work \[F\].) It follows from the definition of Casson-Gordon invariants that Casson-Gordon invariants vanish for these knots. (See Proposition 6.5.) In fact, since any prime power branched cyclic cover is a homology sphere all the concordance invariants known prior to Cochran-Orr-Teichner’s $`L^{(2)}`$-signature invariants, such as Gilmer’s extension of Casson-Gordon invariants (\[G\]), Kirk and Livingston’s twisted Alexander invariants (\[KL\]), and Letsche’s invariants (\[Le\]), vanish for these knots.

Theorem 1.1 has a significant geometric consequence. Freedman’s disk embedding theorem (\[F\]), together with the Cappell-Shaneson homology surgery approach (\[CS\]) to classifying knot concordance group, suggest that the Casson-Gordon invariants obstruct the construction of a second layer of Whitney disks for a Cappell-Shaneson surgery kernel of an algebraically slice knot. That this is so was shown in \[COT1, Section 8 and 9\]. Indeed, in \[COT1\], they showed that a knot is $`(1.5)`$-solvable if and only if for zero surgery on the knot in $`S^3`$, there exists an $`H_1`$-bordism which contains a spherical Lagrangian admitting a Whitney tower of height $`(1.5)`$. (See \[COT1, Theorem 8.4\] and Section 3 in this paper). Since $`(1.5)`$-solvable knots have vanishing Casson-Gordon invariants, it follows that Casson-Gordon invariants obstruct a Whitney tower of height $`(1.5)`$ in the above sense. Precise definitions of a Whitney tower and other terminologies are given in \[COT1, Section 8\] and are reviewed in Section 3 in this paper.

We briefly discuss Whitney towers here. In 4-manifolds, Whitney disks may no longer be embedded, but may themselves have intersections, which might or might not occur in algebraically cancelling pairs. If these intersections occur in algebraically cancelling pairs, one can construct immersed Whitney disks for these cancelling pairs of points in the usual manner. Very roughly speaking, a Whitney tower is obtained by iterating this procedure. We have the following corollary of Theorem 1.1.

###### Corollary 1.3.

There is an algebraically slice knot with vanishing Casson-Gordon invariants such that zero surgery on the knot in $`S^3`$ does not bound an $`H_1`$-bordism which contains a spherical Lagrangian admitting a Whitney tower of height (1.5).

###### Proof.

It follows from Theorem 1.1 and \[COT1, Theorem 8.4\]. ∎

Corollary 1.3 says that Casson-Gordon invariants are not a complete set of obstructions to a second layer of Whitney disks.

To find the knots generating the subgroup in Theorem 1.1, we follow the method of COT. We begin by constructing a ribbon knot with the rational Alexander module $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. In particular, its Alexander polynomial is $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. Henceforth we refer to this ribbon knot as the seed knot to the examples of Theorem 1.1. (See Remark 2.3. See \[K\] for the definition of a ribbon knot. In particular, a ribbon knot is a slice knot.) We modify this seed knot using a family of Arf invariant zero knots in a way described in \[COT2, Setion 3\] and reviewed in Section 4 in this paper. The resulting knots are shown to have the same Seifert form with the seed knot, so their prime power branched cyclic covers are also homology spheres by Theorem 1.2. Another important fact, which will be used significantly in this paper, is that $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$ has a unique nontrivial proper submodule. (See the proofs of Lemma 6.3, Proposition 6.4 and Theorem 1.1.)

This paper is organized in the following manner. In Section 2, we construct a ribbon knot whose rational Alexander module is cyclic of order $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$, i.e., $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. This will be our seed knot. In Section 3, we explain the definition and properties of the Cochran-Orr-Teichner filtration of the classical knot concordance group and its relation to Whitney towers. In Section 4, we discuss how to construct a family of $`(n)`$-solvable knots from a given ribbon knot using a certain Arf invariant zero knot. This method, applied to the ribbon knot mentioned above, will be used to construct the generators of the desired subgroup. In Section 5, $`L^{(2)}`$-signatures and their properties are reviewed. Finally, in Section 6, we provide the construction of a set of generators of the subgroup in Theorem 1.1 and the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Remark 1.4.

For any $`n`$ which is divisible by at least three distinct primes, we can also find an infinite rank subgroup of $`_{(1.0)}/_{(1.5)}`$ that has generators with the Alexander polynomial $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_n(t))^2`$ (the square of the $`n`$-cyclotomic polynomial). The only difference in the proof will be finding a seed knot with the rational Alexander module $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_n(t))^2`$ as we do for $`n=30`$ in Section 2.

The author thanks Kent Orr for his helpful advice and encouragement. He also would like to thank Chuck Livingston, Se-Goo Kim, and Jae Choon Cha for helpful conversations.

## 2. construction of the seed knot

In this section, we construct our seed knot. That is, we will construct a knot which is a ribbon knot and has the rational Alexander module $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. Then by Theorem 1.2 of C. Livingston, the seed knot will have prime power branched cyclic covers that are homology spheres.

First, we find a Seifert matrix whose Alexander polynomial is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)=t^8+t^7t^5t^4t^3+t+1`$. This can be done by applying Levine’s arguments in \[L, 14 on page 236\] which originated from Seifert \[S\]. But we will need a Seifert surface that is a boundary connected sum of disks with two bands, and it’s not clear how to find such a Seifert surface from the resulting Seifert matrix. So we modify Levine’s arguments a little. The final matrix is

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 0& 1& 9& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 9& 1& 0& 1& 26& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 26& 1& 24& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

That is, $`det(A^TtA)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)`$. One can easily construct a knot, say $`K_1`$, and its Seifert surface whose Seifert matrix with respect to a certain choice of basis is the matrix $`A`$. The Seifert surface is obtained in the usual way as the boundary connected sum of disks with two bands under proper twists and intertwining among bands. Figure 1 is a part of $`K_1`$ and its Seifert surface. The rectangles containing integers symbolize full twists between the two strands which pass vertically through the rectangles. Thus the rectangle labelled $`+24`$ symbolizes 24 right-handed full twists. Let $`u_i,1i8`$, be the simple closed curves on the Seifert surface each of which goes once around a band. With proper orientations, $`\{u_i\}_{1i8}`$ is a basis with respect to which the Seifert matrix is the matrix $`A`$. It is known that $`A^TtA`$ is a presentation matrix of the rational Alexander module of $`K_1`$. By column and row operations on $`A^TtA`$ over $`[t,t^1]`$-coefficients, we determine that the rational Alexander module of $`K_1`$ is isomorphic to $`[t,t^1]/\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)`$, whose only generator is represented by a dual of $`u_8`$. (A dual of $`u_8`$ is a simple closed curve in the complement of the Seifert surface such that it has linking number one with $`u_8`$ and no linking with the other $`u_i`$’s.)

Let $`K_2=K_1\mathrm{\#}(K_1)`$, the connected sum of $`K_1`$ and its inverse. Then $`K_2`$ is a ribbon knot. (See, for instance, \[K, Proposition 5.10 p.83\].) Its rational Alexander module is $`[t,t^1]/\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)[t,t^1]/\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)`$, and its Seifert surface is obtained as the boundary connected sum of the Seifert surface of $`K_1`$ and that of $`K_1`$ which is the mirror image of the Seifert surface of $`K_1`$. See Figure 2 below. Let $`M_2`$ denote zero surgery on $`K_2`$ in $`S^3`$. The rational Alexander module of $`K_2`$, $`H_1(M_2;[t,t^1])`$, is generated by $`v_i,1i16`$, where for $`1i8`$, $`v_i=u_i`$, and for $`9i16`$, $`v_i`$ is the mirror image of $`u_{(17i)}`$. With this choice of basis, the Seifert matrix of $`K_2`$ is the matrix $`B=\left(b_{ij}\right),1i,j16`$, defined by

$$b_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{ij}:& 1i,j8\hfill \\ \hfill a_{(17i)(17j)}:& 9i,j16\hfill \\ \hfill 0:& \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Even though $`K_2`$ is a ribbon knot, its rational Alexander module is generated by two elements. In particular, it’s not cyclic. So we modify $`K_2`$ a little more. Choose an unknot $`\alpha `$ around the Seifert surface of $`K_2`$ as in Figure 2. After $`+1`$ surgery on $`\alpha `$, $`K_2`$ will be modified to a new knot, say $`K_s`$, in $`S^3`$ since the resulting ambient manifold obtained by $`+1`$ surgery on an unknot in $`S^3`$ is homeomorphic with $`S^3`$. A part of $`K_s`$ is illustrated in Figure 3. Let $`w_i,1i16`$, denote the image of $`v_i`$ under the surgery. $`\{w_i\}_{1i16}`$ is a basis of the Seifert form of $`K_s`$. The Seifert matrix with respect to this basis is obtained by changing the matrix $`B`$ such that only $`b_{ij}`$ with $`7i,j10`$ are changed from

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}24& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 24\end{array}\right)`$ to $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}24& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 24\end{array}\right)`$.

Denote the resulting matrix by $`C`$. Let $`M_s`$ denote zero surgery on $`K_s`$ in $`S^3`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The rational Alexander module of $`K_s`$ is cyclic of order $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$, i.e., $`H_1(M_s;[t,t^1])[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$.

###### Proof.

$`C^TtC`$ is a presentation matrix of $`H_1(M_s;[t,t^1])`$. By column and row operations on $`C^TtC`$ over $`[t,t^1]`$-coefficients, we find out that $`H_1(M_s;[t,t^1])[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$ whose only generator is a dual of $`w_9`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.2.

$`K_s`$ is a ribbon knot.

###### Proof.

One can construct a ribbon disk for the ribbon knot $`K_2`$ using the method in \[K, Proposition 5.10\]. In particular, a ribbon disk can be obtained such that $`\alpha `$ is disjoint from the ribbon disk and the spanning disk of $`\alpha `$ has no intersection with the singularities of the ribbon disk. After $`+1`$ surgery along $`\alpha `$, the image of the ribbon disk of $`K_2`$ would be a ribbon disk of $`K_s`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.3.

By Proposition 2.1 and 2.2, $`K_s`$ has the rational Alexander module which is cyclic of order $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$ and it is a ribbon knot. So $`K_s`$ is our desired seed knot.

## 3. filtering the knot concordance group and Whitney towers

This section and the next two sections are brief expositions of some of the work in \[COT1\] and \[COT2\]. These sections contain no new results but serve to clarify ideas and make this paper more self-contained.

In \[COT1\], Cochran, Orr, and Teichner established a geometric filtration of the knot concordance group $`𝒞`$

$$0\mathrm{}_{(n.5)}_{(n)}\mathrm{}_{(1.5)}_{(1.0)}_{(0.5)}_{(0)}𝒞$$

where $`_{(n)}`$ is the subgroup of *(n)-solvable knots* for $`n\{0,0.5,1.0,1.5,\mathrm{}\}`$. The precise definition of this filtration and Whitney towers, and their relations will be discussed in this section.

Let $`G^{(i)}`$ denote the i-th derived subgroup of a group $`G`$, inductively defined by $`G^{(0)}G`$ and $`G^{(i+1)}[G^{(i)},G^{(i)}]`$. For a CW-complex $`W`$, we denote the regular covering of $`W`$ corresponding to the subgroup $`\pi _1(W)^{(n)}`$ by $`W^{(n)}`$. If $`W`$ is a spin $`4`$-manifold, then we have the usual intersection form

$$\lambda _n:H_2(W^{(n)})\times H_2(W^{(n)})[\pi _1(W)/\pi _1(W)^{(n)}]$$

A more detailed description of $`\lambda _n`$ and the self-intersection invariant $`\mu _n`$ can be found in \[W, Chapter 5\] and \[COT1, Section 7\]. In particular, $`\lambda _0`$ is the ordinary intersection form on $`H_2(W)`$.

Now fix a closed oriented 3-manifold $`M`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

An $`H_1`$-bordism is a 4-dimensional spin manifold $`W`$ with boundary $`M`$ such that the inclusion map induces an isomorphism $`H_1(M)\stackrel{}{}H_1(W)`$.

An $`(n)`$-surface is a generic immersion of a closed oriented surface $`F`$, say $`f:FX`$, such that $`f_{}(\pi _1(F))\pi _1(X)^{(n)}`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`W`$ be an $`H_1`$-bordism such that $`\lambda _0`$ is a hyperbolic form on $`H_2(W)`$.

1. A Lagrangian for $`\lambda _0`$ is a direct summand of $`H_2(W)`$ of half rank on which $`\lambda _0`$ vanishes.
2. An $`(n)`$-Lagrangian is a submodule of $`H_2(W^{(n)})`$ on which $`\lambda _n`$ and $`\mu _n`$ vanish and which maps onto a Lagrangian of $`\lambda _0`$ on $`H_2(W)`$.
3. A spherical Lagrangian is a submodule of $`\pi _2(W)`$ on which $`\lambda _n,\mu _n`$ $`(n0)`$ vanish and which maps onto a Lagrangian of $`\lambda _0`$.
4. For $`kn`$, $`(k)`$-duals of an $`(n)`$-Lagrangian generated by $`(n)`$-surfaces $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_g`$ are $`(k)`$-surfaces $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_g`$ such that $`H_2(W)`$ has rank $`2g`$ and

$$\lambda _k(\mathrm{}_i,d_j)=\delta _{i,j}.$$

Before giving the definition of $`(n)`$-solvability, we discuss Whitney towers. Let $`W`$ be a 4-manifold with boundary $`M`$ and $`\gamma `$ be a framed circle in $`M`$. A Whitney disk is an immersed disk $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`W`$ which bounds $`\gamma `$ and such that the unique framing on the normal bundle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ restricts to the given framing on $`\gamma `$. $`\gamma `$ is called its Whitney circle.

###### Definition 3.3.

1. A Whitney tower of height $`(0)`$ is a collection $`𝒞_0`$ of 2-spheres $`S_iW^4`$.
2. For $`n`$, a Whitney tower of height $`(n)`$ on $`𝒞_0`$ is a sequence $`𝒞_j=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,k}\}_k,j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, of collections of framed immersed Whitney disks $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,k}`$ in general position such that for $`j=2,\mathrm{},n`$, the collection $`𝒞_j`$ pairs up all $`𝒞_{j1}`$-(self)-intersections and has interiors disjoint from $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{j1}`$.
3. For $`n`$, a Whitney tower of height $`(n.5)`$ on $`𝒞_0`$ is a sequence $`𝒞_j=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,k}\}_k,j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$ of collections of framed immersed Whitney disks such that $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_n`$ consist of a Whitney tower of height $`n`$ on $`𝒞_0`$ and $`𝒞_{n+1}`$ pairs up all $`𝒞_n`$-(self)-intersections and has interiors disjoint from $`𝒞_1,\mathrm{},𝒞_{n1}`$ (but $`𝒞_{n+1}`$ is allowed to intersect the previous collection $`𝒞_n`$).

Refer to \[COT1, Section 7\] for more details about Whitney towers.

###### Definition 3.4.

A $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ is *$`(n)`$-solvable* (resp. *$`(n.5)`$-solvable*) if there is an $`H_1`$-bordism $`W`$ which contains an $`(n)`$-Lagrangian (resp. $`(n+1)`$-Lagrangian) with $`(n)`$-duals. If $`M`$ is zero surgery on a knot or a link then the corresponding knot or link is called $`(n)`$-solvable (resp. $`(n.5)`$-solvable).

In Definition 3.4, $`M`$ is said to be (n)-solvable via (resp. (n.5)-solvable via) $`W`$, and $`W`$ is called an (n)-solution (resp. (n.5)-solution) for $`M`$.

###### Theorem 3.5.

(\[COT1, Theorem 8.4, 8.8\]) Let $`M`$ be a closed oriented $`3`$-manifold and $`n\{0,0.5,1.0,1.5,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`M`$ is $`(n)`$-solvable if and only if there is an $`H_1`$-bordism which contains a spherical Lagrangian admitting a Whitney tower of height $`(n)`$.

###### Remark 3.6.

The exterior of a slice disk is an $`(n)`$-solution for the slice knot (and for its zero surgery $`M`$) for all $`n`$.

## 4. constructing $`(n)`$-solvable knots

In this section, we obtain an $`(n)`$-solvable knot by modifying a given ribbon knot $`K`$. For this purpose, we make use of a grafting construction, which produces a satellite knot of $`K`$. For further details on this construction and more general cases, the reader should consult \[COT2, Section 3\].

Simply speaking, seize a collection of parallel strands of $`K`$ in one hand and tie these into a knot, say $`J`$. More precisely, choose a circle, say $`\eta `$, in $`S^3K`$ which bounds an embedded disk in $`S^3`$. Now cut open $`K`$ along this disk and tie all the strands passing through this disk into $`J`$, or more exactly, through a tubular neighborhood of $`J`$ with $`0`$-framing. Then the resulting ambient manifold is still homeomorphic with $`S^3`$, and under this identification, we obtain a new knot $`K^{}`$ which is the image of $`K`$. We denote the resulting knot $`K^{}`$ by $`K(J,\eta )`$. Moreover, this construction has another very useful description. $`K(J,\eta )`$ is obtained by taking the union of the exterior of $`\eta `$ and that of $`J`$ along the boundary in such a way that the resulting ambient manifold is homeomorphic with $`S^3`$.

Making use of the above construction, we get the following proposition due to COT. We outline a proof here for completeness and to establish notation for what follows. $`M`$ (resp. $`M_J`$) denotes zero surgery on $`K`$ (resp. $`J`$) in $`S^3`$. Note that a knot is $`(0)`$-solvable if and only if it has Arf invariant zero. (\[COT1, Remark 8.2\].)

###### Proposition 4.1.

If $`\eta \pi _1(M)^{(n)}`$ and $`J`$ has Arf invariant zero, then $`K(J,\eta )`$ is $`(n)`$-solvable.

###### Proof.

This is a special case of \[COT2, Proposition 3.1\]. Let $`W`$ be the exterior of a ribbon disk for $`K`$ in $`B^4`$. (Note that $`W`$ may be viewed as an $`(n)`$-solution.) Let $`W_J`$ be the $`(0)`$-solution for $`J`$ such that a canonical epimorphism $`\pi _1(M_J)`$ extends to $`\pi _1(W_J)`$. By doing surgery on elements in $`\pi _1(W_J)^{(1)}`$, we can assume that $`\pi _1(W_J)`$. Let $`\mu _J`$ denote the meridian of a tubular neighborhood of $`J`$ and let $`\mathrm{}_J`$ be the $`0`$-framed longitude. Then $`W_J=M_J=E_J(S^1\times D^2)`$ where $`S^1\times \{\}`$ is $`\mu _J`$, and $`\{\}\times D^2`$ is $`\mathrm{}_J`$. Let $`W^{}`$ be the 4-manifold obtained from $`W_J`$ and $`W`$ by identifying the solid torus $`S^1\times D^2W_J`$ with $`\eta \times D^2W`$. Observe that $`W^{}=M^{}`$, zero surgery on $`K^{}=K(J,\eta )`$. Then $`W^{}`$ is an $`(n)`$-solution for $`K^{}`$. See \[COT2, Proposition 3.1\] for more details. ∎

## 5. Detecting $`(n)`$-solvability using $`L^{(2)}`$-signatures

A group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called poly-torsion-free-abelian (PTFA) if it admits a normal series $`1=G_0G_1\mathrm{}G_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that the factors $`G_{i+1}/G_i`$ are torsion-free abelian. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is PTFA, then the group ring $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a right Ore domain, hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ embeds in its classical right ring of quotients $`𝒦_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. (\[COT1, Proposition 2.5\].) Let $`M`$ be an oriented closed 3-manifold. Suppose $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a homomorphism where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a PTFA group and suppose there are an oriented compact $`4`$-manifold $`W`$ bounded by $`M`$ and a homomorphism $`\psi :\pi _1(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which extends $`\varphi `$, *i.e.*, $`(M,\varphi )=(W,\psi )`$. Then the *(reduced) $`L^{(2)}`$-signature* or *von Neumann $`\rho `$-invariant* $`\rho (M,\varphi )`$ is defined to be $`\rho (M,\varphi )=\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(W,\psi )\sigma _0(W)`$ where $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ is the $`L^{(2)}`$-signature of the intersection form on $`H_2(W;𝒦_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ is the ordinary signature. We refer the reader to \[COT1, Section 5\] for more discussion of $`L^{(2)}`$-signatures. The following theorem, due to COT, gives an obstruction for a knot being $`(n.5)`$-solvable.

###### Theorem 5.1.

(\[COT1, Theorem 4.2\]) Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`(n)`$-solvable group and $`M`$ is $`(n)`$-solvable. If $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ extends over some $`(n.5)`$-solution $`W`$ for $`M`$, then $`\rho (M,\varphi )=0`$.

###### Corollary 5.2.

If $`K`$ is a slice knot and $`\varphi `$ extends over the exterior of a slice disk, then $`\rho (M,\varphi )=0`$ for any PTFA group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`M`$ is zero surgery on $`K`$ in $`S^3`$.

As to calculating $`\rho `$-invariants, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ and $`\varphi `$ is not trivial , then $`\rho (M,\varphi )`$ is easily calculated as a certain integral over $`S^1`$. (See \[COT2, Property 2.4\].) In particular, if $`K`$ has Arf invariant zero (i.e., $`K`$ is $`(0)`$-solvable), then we can assign a real value $`\rho (K)`$ to $`K`$ that is “canonically” induced from $`\rho `$-invariants as follows. Let $`M`$ be zero surgery on $`K`$ in $`S^3`$. Choose a $`(0)`$-solution $`W`$ of $`M`$ such that a canonical epimorphism $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)`$ extends to $`\psi :\pi _1(W)`$ and $`\pi _1(W)`$ as we did in the proof of Proposition 4.1. Then we can calculate $`\rho (M,\varphi )`$ via $`(W,\psi )`$ and we define $`\rho (K)`$ to be $`\rho (M,\varphi )`$. These “canonical” real numbers will play an important role in our work. (See Proposition 4.1 and the paragraph preceding Proposition 6.4.)

Now we investigate how $`\rho `$-invariants change under the grafting construction described in Section 4. Though there is no general additive property of $`\rho `$-invariants, if the representations of the fundamental groups of the relevant manifolds are matched up nicely under the grafting construction, we can derive an additive property. In particular, to prove the main theorem, we only need to look into $`\rho `$-invariants of $`K(J,\eta )`$ where $`K`$ is a ribbon knot and $`J`$ has Arf invariant zero.

Suppose $`K`$ is a ribbon knot and $`J`$ has Arf invariant zero. Let $`W`$ be the exterior of a ribbon disk for $`K`$. $`W_J`$, $`W^{}`$, $`M_J`$, $`M^{}`$, $`\eta `$ are defined as in Proposition 4.1. Suppose we are given homomorphisms $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\varphi _J:\pi _1(M_J)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\varphi ([\eta ])=\varphi _J([\mu _J])`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a PTFA group. Then $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi _J`$ produce a unique homomorphism $`\varphi ^{}:\pi _1(M^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (For this, observe that $`M^{}=(M(\eta \times D^2))\underset{S^1\times S^1}{}E_J`$ where $`M(\eta \times D^2)M`$ and $`E_JM_J`$. Use Van Kampen Theorem noticing that for $`\{\}\times D^2\eta \times D^2`$, $`\varphi ([\{\}\times D^2])=\varphi _J([\mathrm{}_J])=0`$). Then we have the following proposition due to COT.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Suppose $`\varphi ^{}`$ extends to $`\psi ^{}:\pi _1(W^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . Then $`\rho (M^{},\varphi ^{})=\rho (J)`$ if $`\varphi (\eta )1`$, and $`\rho (M^{},\varphi ^{})=0`$ if $`\varphi (\eta )=1`$.

###### Proof.

By \[COT2, Proposition 3.2\], $`\rho (M^{},\varphi ^{})=\rho (M,\varphi )+\rho (M_J,\varphi _J)`$. $`\rho (M,\varphi )=0`$ by Corollary 5.2. Since $`\eta `$ generates $`\pi _1(W_J)`$, $`\rho (M_J,\varphi _J)=\rho (J)`$ if $`\varphi (\eta )1`$ and $`\rho (M_J,\varphi _J)=0`$ if $`\varphi (\eta )=1`$ by Property 2.3 and 2.5 in \[COT2\]. ∎

## 6. Proof of main theorem

We begin this section by briefly reviewing some very useful machinery for the proof of the main theorem. This originates from \[COT1, Section 2, 3, and 4\], so for all the detailed arguments and more generalized facts, the readers should consult \[COT1\].

###### Definition 6.1.

The family of rationally universal groups $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U\}`$ is defined inductively by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U=`$, $`_0^U=[t,t^1]`$ and for $`n0`$, setting

$$S_n=[\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U,\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U]\{0\},_n^U=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U)S_n^1$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}^U=𝒦_n/_n^U\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U.$$

Here $`𝒦_n`$ is the right ring of quotients of $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U]`$.

It is shown in \[COT1, Proposition 2.5\] that $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U]`$ is an Ore domain, i.e., $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U]`$ has a right ring of quotients. (Note that inductively $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U`$ is PTFA.) The semi-direct product is defined via the left multiplication of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U`$ on $`𝒦_n/_n^U`$. One can show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^U`$ is an $`(n)`$-solvable group for all $`n0`$. Observe that $`𝒦_0=(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U=(t)/[t,t^1]`$.

Suppose $`M`$ is a closed 3-manifold with $`\beta _1(M)=1`$ and we have a homomorphism $`\varphi _0:\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$. Then we can define the rational Alexander module $`𝒜_0(M)H_1(M;_0^U)`$ and the (non-singular) Blanchfield form $`B\mathrm{}_0:𝒜_0(M)\times 𝒜_0(M)𝒦_0/_0^U`$. Then,

$$𝒜_0(M)H_1(M;_0^U)H^2(M;_0^U)H^1(M;𝒦_0/_0^U).$$

and there is a bijection $`f:H^1(M;𝒦_0/_0^U)\text{Rep}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U}^{}(\pi _1(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U)`$
($`\text{Rep}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U}^{}(\pi _1(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U)`$ is defined to be the representations from $`\pi _1(M)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$ which agree with $`\varphi _0`$ after composing with the projection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ modulo $`𝒦_0/_0^U`$-conjugations.) So any choice $`x_0𝒜_0(M)`$ will (together with $`\varphi _0`$) induce $`\varphi _1:\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$. We refer to this as the coefficient system corresponding to $`x_0`$ (and $`\varphi _0`$). One can think of (the image of) this element $`x_0`$ as an element of $`\mathrm{Hom}_{_0^U}(𝒜_0(M),𝒦_0/_0^U)`$ under the Kronecker map from $`H^1(M;𝒦_0/_0^U)`$. This image is called the character induced by $`x_0`$. Now we obtain some very useful facts which are summarized in the following remark.

###### Remark 6.2.

(\[COT1, Theorem 3.5, 3.6, and 4.4\]) Suppose $`M=W`$ is a compact 3-manifold with $`\beta _1(M)=1`$ and $`\varphi _0:\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ is given.

* The isomorphism $`H_1(M;_0^U)H^1(M;𝒦_0/_0^U)`$ with $`f`$ gives a natural bijection $`\stackrel{~}{f}:𝒜_0(M)\text{Rep}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U}^{}(\pi _1(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U)`$.
* If $`x𝒜_0(M)`$, then the character induced by $`x`$ is given by $`yB\mathrm{}_0(x,y)`$.
* Assume that the non-trivial map $`\varphi _0:\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ extends to a map $`\psi _0:\pi _1(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ and that $`\varphi _1`$ is a representative of a class in $`\text{Rep}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U}^{}(\pi _1(M),\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U)`$ corresponding to $`xH_1(M;_0^U)`$. Let

$$P_0\mathrm{Ker}\{j_{}:H_1(M;_0^U)H_1(W;_0^U)\}.$$

Then if $`M`$ is $`(1)`$-solvable via $`W`$, then $`\varphi _1`$ extends to $`\pi _1(W)`$ if and only if $`xP_0`$.
* Suppose $`M`$ is $`(1)`$-solvable via $`W`$ and $`\varphi _0`$ is a non-trivial coefficient system that extends to $`\pi _1(W)`$. Then the Blanchfield form $`B\mathrm{}_0`$ is hyperbolic, and in fact the kernel of $`j_{}:H_1(M;_0^U)H_1(W;_0^U)`$ is self-annihilating. (i.e., $`\mathrm{ker}j_{}=(\mathrm{ker}j_{})^{}`$.)

From Theorem 5.1 and Remark 6.2, to prove that a knot $`K`$ is not $`(1.5)`$-solvable, basically we need to investigate the representations of the fundamental group induced from all self-annihilating submodules of $`𝒜_0(M)H_1(M;[t,t^1])`$ where $`M`$ is zero surgery on $`K`$ in $`S^3`$. But in case $`𝒜_0(M)`$ has a unique proper submodule, we have the following useful lemma.

###### Lemma 6.3.

Suppose $`M`$ is $`(1)`$-solvable and $`𝒜_0(M)`$ has a unique proper submodule $`P`$. If there exists $`pP`$ such that $`\rho (M,\varphi )0`$ for $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$ induced from $`p`$, then $`M`$ is not $`(1.5)`$-solvable.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`M`$ is $`(1.5)`$-solvable via $`W`$. Let $`𝒜_0(W)H_1(W;[t,t^1])`$. Since $`W`$ is also a $`(1)`$-solution of $`M`$, the kernel of the inclusion-induced map $`i_{}:𝒜_0(M)𝒜_0(W)`$ is self-annihilating with respect to $`B\mathrm{}_0`$ by Remark 6.2 (iv). Since $`𝒜_0(M)`$ has a unique proper submodule $`P`$, $`\mathrm{Ker}i_{}=P`$. By Remark 6.2 (i) and (iii) , $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$ induced from $`p(P)`$ extends to $`\pi _1(W)`$. Then since $`W`$ is assumed to be a $`(1.5)`$-solution of $`M`$, by Theorem 5.1, $`\rho (M,\varphi )=0`$. This leads us to a contradiction. ∎

Through this section, $`K_s`$ denotes our seed ribbon knot which was constructed in Section 2 and $`\eta `$ is the designated circle in the complement of the Seifert surface of $`K_s`$ in $`S^3`$ as in Figure 4. Notice that $`\eta `$ is a dual of $`w_9`$, so it represents the homology class which generates the rational Alexander module of $`K_s`$.

By \[COT2, Proposition 2.6\], there are infinitely many Arf invariant zero knots $`J_i(i)`$ such that $`\{\rho (J_i)\}_i`$ is linearly independent over integers. In particular, $`\rho (J_i)0`$. Let $`K_iK_s(J_i,\eta )`$ be the family of knots resulting from the grafting construction as described in Section 4. In the following propositions, we exploit important properties of $`K_i`$.

###### Proposition 6.4.

$`K_i`$ $`(i)`$ are $`(1)`$-solvable but not $`(1.5)`$-solvable.

###### Proof.

$`\eta `$ lifts to a closed circle in the infinite cyclic cover of $`S^3K_s`$, hence $`\eta \pi _1(M)^{(1)}`$ where $`M`$ is zero surgery on $`K_s`$ in $`S^3`$. Now it is clear from Proposition 4.1 that $`K_i`$ are $`(1)`$-solvable.

We need to show that $`K_i`$ are not $`(1.5)`$-solvable. Fix $`i`$. Let $`W^{}`$ denote the $`(1)`$-solution for $`K_i`$ formed as in the proof of Proposition 4.1 and let $`M^{}`$ denote zero surgery on $`K_i`$ in $`S^3`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U=`$. Let $`\pi _1(M^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ be the canonical epimorphism which extends uniquely to an epimorphism $`\pi _1(W^{})`$. Looking into the grafting construction more closely, one can see that $`K_i`$ has the same Seifert form as that of $`K_s`$, so the rational Alexander module $`𝒜_0(M^{})`$ is isomorphic to $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. Let $`𝒜_0(W^{})H_1(W^{};[t,t^1])`$. By Remark 6.2 (iv), since $`W^{}`$ is a $`(1)`$-solution for $`M^{}`$, the kernel of the inclusion-induced map $`i_{}:𝒜_0(M^{})𝒜_0(W^{})`$ is self-annihilating with respect to the (non-singular) Blanchfield form $`B\mathrm{}_0`$. Since $`𝒜_0(M^{})`$ has a unique proper submodule, say $`P_0`$, which is generated by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t)`$, $`\mathrm{Ker}i_{}=P_0`$. Choose a non-zero $`p_0P_0`$ such that $`B\mathrm{}_0(\eta ,p_0)0`$. Such a $`p_0`$ exists since $`\eta `$ generates $`𝒜_0(M^{})`$ and $`B\mathrm{}_0`$ is non-singular for which $`P`$ is self-annihilating. Then $`p_0`$ induces $`\varphi :\pi _1(M^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$ by Remark 6.2 (i). By Remark 6.2 (iii), $`\varphi `$ extends to $`\psi :\pi _1(W^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$. Now we compute $`\rho (M^{},\varphi )`$ using $`(W^{},\psi )`$. Since $`B\mathrm{}_0(\eta ,p_0)0`$, $`\varphi (\eta )1`$ by Remark 6.2 (ii). By Proposition 5.3, $`\rho (M^{},\varphi )=\rho (J_i)`$, which is nonzero by our choice of $`J_i`$. By Lemma 6.3, $`K_i`$ is not $`(1.5)`$-solvable. ∎

###### Proposition 6.5.

$`K_i`$ have vanishing Casson-Gordon invariants.

###### Proof.

Because $`K_i`$ and $`K_s`$ have the same Seifert form, they have the same Alexander polynomial which is $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. By Theorem 1.2, any prime power branched cyclic cover of $`K_i`$ is a homology sphere. Hence all Casson-Gordon invariants vanish on $`K_i`$ by \[Lit, Corollary B2\]. ∎

Now we are ready to prove the main theorem.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

First, we show that no non-trivial linear combination of $`K_i,i`$ is $`(1.5)`$-solvable. We follow \[COT2\]. Refer to the proof of \[COT2, Theorem 4.1\]. The only crucial difference in this proof is that we deal with $`(1.5)`$-solvability instead of $`(2.5)`$-solvability, so we use the second order invariants instead of the third order invariants. Since the proof will follow almost the same course of COT’s proof for \[COT2, Theorem 4.1\], some details will be omitted. For convenience, we follow the notations used in \[COT2\].

Suppose that a non-trivial linear combination $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^mn_i^{}K_i,n_i^{}0`$, is $`(1.5)`$-solvable. We may assume all $`n_i^{}>0`$ by replacing $`K_i`$ by $`K_i`$ if $`n_i^{}<0`$ and $`n_1^{}>1`$ if $`m=1`$. Let $`M_i`$ denote $`M_{K_i}`$, and note that $`M_i=M_{K_i}`$. Let $`M_0`$ denote $`0`$-surgery on $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^mn_i^{}K_i`$. Let $`W_0`$ be a $`(1.5)`$-solution of $`M_0`$. Let $`W_i`$ $`(i>0)`$ denote the specific $`(1)`$-solution for $`M_i`$ constructed as in Proposition 4.1 with the exterior of a ribbon disk for $`K`$. Let $`n_1=n_1^{}1`$ and $`n_i=n_i^{}`$ if $`i>1`$. Let $`W`$ be the union of $`W_0`$, $`C`$ ($`C`$ is defined in the next paragraph), and all the copies of $`W_i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},m)`$ where there are $`n_i`$ copies of $`W_i`$ below $`C`$. Refer to Figure 5 below. Later we will show that $`W`$ is a $`(1)`$-solution of $`M_1`$.

The 4-manifold $`C`$ is a standard cobordism between $`0`$-surgery on $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^mn_i^{}K_i`$ and the disjoint union of $`0`$-surgeries on the summands of $`\mathrm{\#}_{i=1}^mn_i^{}K_i`$. Briefly, start with a collar on the disjoint union of $`0`$-surgeries, and add $`1`$-handles to get a connected 4-manifold whose upper boundary is given by surgery on the link consisting of the split union of $`K_i`$’s, each with $`0`$-framing. Next add $`0`$-framed $`2`$-handles to get a $`0`$-surgery on a connected sum of $`K_i`$’s on the upper boundary. See \[COT2, Theorem 4.1\] for more details, and note that $`C`$ has a handlebody decomposition, relative to $`_{i=1}^mn_i^{}M_i`$, consisting of $`(_{i=1}^m|n_i|)`$ $`1`$-handles and the same number of $`2`$-handles. Moreover, $`H_1(C;)`$ and the inclusion from any of its boundary components induces an isomorphism on $`H_1`$. One can also see that $`H_2(C)H_2(n_i^{}M_i)`$.

We prove that $`W`$ is a $`(1)`$-solution of $`M_1`$. Since the inclusion-induced homomorphisms $`H_1(M_i)H_1(W_i)`$ are isomorphisms for $`i0`$, the inclusion-induced $`H_1(M_1)H_1(W)`$ is also an isomorphism. For $`i0`$, $`H_2(M_i)H_2(W_i)`$ is the zero map since the boundary map $`H_3(W_i,M_i)H_2(M_i)`$, the dual map of the inclusion induced $`H^1(W_i)H^1(M_i)`$, is an isomorphism. Using this and Mayer-Vietoris sequence we can prove that $`H_2(W)H_2(W_0)_{i=1}^mn_iH_2(W_i)`$. Now if one looks carefully at $`(1)`$-Lagrangians and their duals for $`W_0`$ and the $`W_i`$’s, one can see that they form $`(1)`$-Lagrangian and its dual for $`W`$. So $`W`$ is a $`(1)`$-solution for $`M_1`$.

We repeat the argument in Proposition 6.4. Let $`\pi _1(M_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^U`$ be the canonical epimorphism which extends uniquely to an epimorphism $`\pi _1(W)`$. Recall that the rational Alexander module $`𝒜_0(M_1)=H_1(M_1;[t,t^1])`$ is isomorphic to $`[t,t^1]/(\mathrm{\Phi }_{30}(t))^2`$. Let $`𝒜_0(W)=H_1(W;[t,t^1])`$. By Remark 6.2 (iv), since $`W`$ is a $`(1)`$-solution for $`M_1`$, the kernel of the inclusion-induced map $`j_{}:𝒜_0(M_1)𝒜_0(W)`$ is self-annihilating with respect to the Blanchfield form $`B\mathrm{}_0`$. Since $`𝒜_0(M_1)`$ has a unique proper submodule, say $`P_0`$, the latter is this kernel. Choose a non-zero $`p_0P_0`$, inducing $`\varphi _1:\pi _1(M_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$ by Remark 6.2 (i). By Remark 6.2 (iii), $`\varphi _1`$ extends to $`\psi _1:\pi _1(W)\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$. Therefore $`\rho (M_1,\varphi _1)`$ can be computed using $`(W,\psi _1)`$.

We compute $`\rho (M_1,\varphi _1)`$ using $`(W,\psi _1)`$. Let $`\varphi _{(i,j)}`$ denote the restriction of $`\psi _1`$ to the $`j^{\text{th}}`$ copy of $`\pi _1(M_i),1jn_i`$. Let $`\varphi _0`$ denote the restriction of $`\psi _1`$ to $`\pi _1(M_0)`$. Let $`𝒦_1`$ denote the classical right ring of quotients of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U`$. $`H_{}(M_i;𝒦_1)=0`$ for $`i0`$ (\[COT1, Propositions 2.9 and 2.11\]), so a Mayer-Vietoris sequence shows that $`H_2(W;𝒦_1)H_2(W_0;𝒦_1)H_2(C;𝒦_1)H_2(W_1;𝒦_1)\mathrm{}H_2(W_m;𝒦_1)`$ where $`W_i`$ occurs $`n_i`$ times. Here the coefficient systems on $`W_i`$ $`(i0)`$ and $`C`$ are induced by inclusions into $`W`$. By \[COT2, Lemma 4.2\] $`H_2(C;𝒦_1)=0`$. And the intersection form on $`H_2(W;𝒦_1)`$ splits along the direct sum. From \[COT1, Section 5\], $`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^U}^{(2)}`$ can be viewed as a homomorphism from the Witt group of non-singular hermitian forms on finitely generated $`𝒦_1`$ modules, so we have

$$\rho (M_1,\varphi _1)=\rho (M_0,\varphi _0)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_i}{}}\rho (M_i,\varphi _{(i,j)})$$

Here $`\rho (M_0,\varphi _0)=0`$ by Theorem 5.1 because $`\varphi _0`$ extends to $`(1.5)`$-solution $`W_0`$. By Proposition 5.3, $`\rho (M_i,\varphi _{(i,j)})=\rho (M_i,\varphi _{(i,j)})=\rho (J_i)`$ or 0. So we deduce that

$$\rho (M_1,\varphi _1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_i\rho (J_i)=0$$

for some non-negative constants $`c_i`$’s.

Now as in Proposition 6.4, pick $`p_0P_0`$ such that $`\varphi _1(\eta )1`$. Note that $`P_0`$ is equal to the kernel of the inclusion-induced map $`i_{}:𝒜_0(M_1)𝒜_0(W_1)`$. Then by Proposition 5.3, $`\rho (M_1,\varphi _1)=\rho (J_1)`$, so we have

$$\rho (J_1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}c_i\rho (J_i)=0$$

which contradicts that $`\{\rho (J_i)\}_i`$ is linearly independent over integers.

Now it remains to show that Casson-Gordon invariants vanish on the subgroup generated by $`K_i`$. Recall that every prime power branched cyclic cover of $`K_i`$ is a homology 3-sphere. One can show that the connected sum of two homology 3-spheres is a homology 3-sphere. Since a finite branched cyclic cover of the connected sum of two knots over $`S^3`$ is homeomorphic with the connected sum of the finite branched cyclic covers of the knots, the assertion follows from \[Lit, Corollary B2\]. ∎