text:
# Local automorphisms of operator algebras on Banach spaces

## 1. Introduction and Statement of the Results

The importance of the study of automorphism groups of algebraic structures needs no justification. Recently, we have published several results on the local behaviour of the automorphism groups of operator algebras. Roughly speaking, we have studied the question of how the automorphisms of certain operator algebras (or of function algebras) are determined by their local actions. One area of such investigations was initiated by P. Šemrl who introduced the concept of 2-local automorphisms. If $`𝒜`$ is any algebra, then a transformation (no linearity is assumed) $`\varphi :𝒜𝒜`$ is called a 2-local automorphism of $`𝒜`$ if for every $`A,B𝒜`$ there exists an (algebra) automorphism $`\varphi _{A,B}`$ of $`𝒜`$ such that $`\varphi (A)=\varphi _{A,B}(A)`$ and $`\varphi (B)=\varphi _{A,B}(B)`$. It is then a remarkable fact on the algebra $`𝒜`$ if every 2-local automorphism of $`𝒜`$ is an automorphism. Observe that for 1-local automorphisms (the definition should be self-explanatory) without any extra properties reasonable results of that kind can not be expected.

The first result on 2-local automorphisms is due to Šemrl  who proved that if $`H`$ is a separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space, then every 2-local automorphism of the algebra $`B(H)`$ of all bounded linear operators on $`H`$ is an automorphism. Moreover, since in the finite dimensional case he was only able to get a long proof involving tedious computations, Šemrl suggested it would be of some interest to produce a short proof in that case. One aim of this paper is to present such a proof. Furthermore, we extend Šemrl’s result quite significantly, namely, in addition to the case of separable Hilbert spaces, we get the same conclusion for general Banach spaces with Schauder bases. We recall that most classical separable Banach spaces have Schauder bases (see the first chapter in ) and hence our generalization really has sense.

Now we turn to the formulation of our assertions. If $`𝔽`$ is a field, then $`M_n(𝔽)`$ stands for the algebra of all $`n\times n`$ matrices with entries in $`𝔽`$. It is well-known that the automorphisms of the algebra $`M_n(𝔽)`$ are exactly the transformations $`ATAT^1`$ where $`TM_n(𝔽)`$ is nonsingular (see, for example, \[7, Lemma, p. 230\]). In what follows, if $`AM_n(𝔽)`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{eigv}(A)`$ the system of all eigenvalues of $`A`$ listed according to multiplicity. We emphasize that $`\mathrm{eigv}(A)`$ generally differs from the spectrum of $`A`$ as a linear operator.

Our first theorem gives a nonlinear characterization of the automorphisms of $`M_n(𝔽)`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose that $`𝔽`$ is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. Let $`\varphi :M_n(𝔽)M_n(𝔽)`$ be a transformation (linearity is not assumed) such that

(1)
$$\mathrm{eigv}(\varphi (A)\varphi (B))=\mathrm{eigv}(AB)$$

holds for every $`A,BM_n(𝔽)`$. Then there exists a nonsingular matrix $`TM_n(𝔽)`$ and $`\lambda \{1,1\}`$ such that $`\varphi `$ is either of the form

$$\varphi (A)=\lambda TAT^1(AM_n(𝔽))$$

or of the form

$$\varphi (A)=\lambda TA^tT^1(AM_n(𝔽)).$$

We mention that similar characterizations of the automorphisms of operator algebras and of function algebras can be found in  but there we had to assume that the transformations in question are all surjective. The main advantage of the present theorem is that we can omit that assumption and this fact makes us possible to get the following corollary concerning 2-local automorphisms of matrix algebras over general fields.

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`𝔽`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. Then every 2-local automorphism of $`M_n(𝔽)`$ is an automorphism.

Since the field $``$ of real numbers is not algebraically closed, we formulate the analogous statement for $`M_n()`$ as a separate proposition.

###### Proposition 3.

Every 2-local automorphism of $`M_n()`$ is an automorphism.

The arguments applied in the proof of our results above lead us to an extension of Šemrl’s theorem for the case of certain subalgebras of the algebra $`B(X)`$ of all bounded linear operators on the Banach space $`X`$ with a Schauder basis. We believe that with some extra work Šemrl’s original proof could also be improved to produce the following result (although only in the infinite dimensional case) but our proof has the advantage that it puts both the finite and the infinite dimensional cases into the same perspective.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`X`$ be a real or complex Banach space with a Schauder basis. Suppose that $`𝒜`$ is a subalgebra of $`B(X)`$ which contains the ideal of all compact operators on $`X`$. If $`\varphi `$ is a 2-local automorphism of $`𝒜`$, then $`\varphi `$ is an automorphism of $`𝒜`$.

## 2. Proofs

In the proof of our first result we shall need the following folklore result whose proof requires only elementary linear algebra. If $`X`$ is a linear space over $`𝔽`$ and $`A,B:XX`$ are linear operators of rank at least 2 with the property that for every $`xX`$ the vectors $`Ax,Bx`$ are linearly dependent, then the operators $`A,B`$ are linearly dependent.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

Since the statement is obvious for $`n=1`$, we suppose that $`n2`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{tr}`$ the usual trace functional on $`M_n(𝔽)`$. It follows from the property (1), i.e., from the equality $`\mathrm{eigv}(\varphi (A)\varphi (B))=\mathrm{eigv}(AB)`$ that

(2)
$$\mathrm{tr}\varphi (A)\varphi (B)=\mathrm{tr}AB$$

holds for every $`A,BM_n(𝔽)`$.

As usual, denote by $`E_{ij}M_n(𝔽)`$ the matrix whose $`ij`$ entry is 1 and its all other entries are 0. We assert that the $`\varphi (E_{ij})`$’s are linearly independent. Suppose that

$$\underset{i,j}{}\lambda _{ij}\varphi (E_{ij})=0$$

for some scalars $`\lambda _{ij}𝔽`$. Fix indices $`k,l\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. We have

$$\underset{i,j}{}\lambda _{ij}\varphi (E_{ij})\varphi (E_{kl})=0.$$

Taking trace, we obtain

$$\underset{i,j}{}\lambda _{ij}\mathrm{tr}\varphi (E_{ij})\varphi (E_{kl})=0.$$

By the property (2) of $`\varphi `$, it follows that

$$\underset{i,j}{}\lambda _{ij}\mathrm{tr}E_{ij}E_{kl}=0.$$

Since $`E_{ij}E_{kl}=\delta _{jk}E_{il}`$, from this equality we easily deduce that $`\lambda _{lk}=0`$. As $`k,l`$ were arbitrary, it follows that the matrices $`\varphi (E_{ij})`$, $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ form a linearly independent set in $`M_n(𝔽)`$. This implies that the range of $`\varphi `$ linearly generates $`M_n(𝔽)`$.

We are now in a position to prove that $`\varphi `$ is linear. If $`A,BM_n(𝔽)`$, we compute

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{tr}\varphi (A+B)\varphi (C)=\mathrm{tr}(A+B)C=\mathrm{tr}AC+\mathrm{tr}BC=\\ \mathrm{tr}(\varphi (A)\varphi (C)+\varphi (B)\varphi (C))=\mathrm{tr}(\varphi (A)+\varphi (B))\varphi (C)\end{array}$$

for any $`CM_n(𝔽)`$. Since the linear span of the $`\varphi (C)`$’s is the whole space $`M_n(𝔽)`$, it follows that $`\varphi (A+B)=\varphi (A)+\varphi (B)`$. The homogenity of $`\varphi `$ can be proved in a very similar way. So, $`\varphi `$ is a surjective linear transformation on $`M_n(𝔽)`$ which is hence bijective.

Let $`AM_n(𝔽)`$ be of rank one. Then, using (1) and the surjectivity of $`\varphi `$, it follows that $`\varphi (A)B,B\varphi (A)`$ both have at most one nonzero eigenvalue and its multiplicity is one. This implies that $`\varphi (A)`$ is of rank one. Consequently, $`\varphi `$ preserves the rank-one elements of $`M_n(𝔽)`$. The form of all such linear transformations on $`M_n(𝔽)`$ is well-known. It follows from  that there are nonsingular matrices $`T,S`$ in $`M_n(𝔽)`$ such that $`\varphi `$ is either of the form

(3)
$$\varphi (A)=TAS(AM_n(𝔽))$$

or of the form

$$\varphi (A)=TA^tS(AM_n(𝔽)).$$

Without loss of generality we can assume that $`\varphi `$ is of the first form. Composing our transformation $`\varphi `$ with the automorphism $`ASAS^1`$, it follows that we can assume that the matrix $`S`$ appearing in (3) is the identity $`I`$. We have

(4)
$$\mathrm{tr}TATB=\mathrm{tr}AB$$

for every $`A,BM_n(𝔽)`$. If we fix $`AM_n(𝔽)`$ for a moment and let $`B`$ run through $`M_n(𝔽)`$, it follows from (4) that $`TAT=A`$. Now, if $`A`$ runs through the set of all rank-one matrices in $`M_n(𝔽)`$, we deduce from the equality $`TAT=A`$ that $`T`$, as a linear operator on the linear space $`X`$, has the property that for every $`xX`$, the vector $`Tx`$ is a scalar multiple of $`x`$. This gives us that $`T`$ is of the form $`\lambda I`$ for some scalar $`\lambda 𝔽`$. Clearly, we have $`\lambda ^2=1`$ and this completes the proof of our statement. ∎

###### Proof of Corollary 2.

First we recall again that the automorphisms of $`M_n(𝔽)`$ are exactly the transformations of the form $`ATAT^1`$ with some nonsingular matrix $`TM_n(𝔽)`$. Let now $`\varphi :M_n(𝔽)M_n(𝔽)`$ be a 2-local automorphism. Clearly, $`\varphi `$ satisfies (1). Since $`\varphi (I)=I`$, we infer from Theorem 1 that there exists a nonsingular matrix $`TM_n(𝔽)`$ such that $`\varphi `$ is either of the form

$$\varphi (A)=TAT^1(AM_n(𝔽))$$

or of the form

$$\varphi (A)=TA^tT^1(AM_n(𝔽)).$$

Choosing $`A,BM_n(𝔽)`$ such that $`AB=0,BA0`$, it follows from the 2-local property of $`\varphi `$ that this second possibility above is excluded and we obtain the desired conclusion. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 3.

The statement follows from obvious modifications of the proof of Corollary 2 and that of Theorem 1. The only difference is that instead of referring to the result of Marcus and Moyls on the form of all linear transformations on $`M_n(𝔽)`$ preserving rank-one matrices, here we have to refer to an analogous statement concerning the algebra of matrices over the real field due to Omladič and Šemrl \[5, Main Theorem\]. ∎

In the proof of Theorem 4 we need the following notation and definitions. Let $`X`$ be a (real or complex) Banach space. The algebra of all bounded linear operators on $`X`$ is denoted by $`B(X)`$ and $`F(X)`$ stands for the ideal of all finite rank operators in $`B(X)`$. An operator $`PB(X)`$ is called an idempotent if $`P^2=P`$. Two idempotents $`P,Q`$ in $`B(X)`$ are said to be (algebraically) orthogonal if $`PQ=QP=0`$. The dual space of $`X`$ (that is the set of all bounded linear functionals on $`X`$) is denoted by $`X^{}`$. The Banach space adjoint of an operator $`AB(X)`$ is denoted by $`A^{}`$. If $`xX`$ and $`fX^{}`$, then $`xf`$ stands for the operator (of rank at most 1) defined by

$$(xf)(z)=f(z)x(zX).$$

It requires only elementary computation to show that

$$Axf=(Ax)f,xfA=x(A^{}f),xfyg=f(y)xg$$

hold for every $`x,yX`$, $`f,gX^{}`$ and $`AB(X)`$. It is easy to see that the elements of $`F(X)`$ are exactly the operators $`AB(X)`$ which can be written as a finite sum

(5)
$$A=\underset{i}{}x_if_i$$

for some $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nX`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_nX^{}`$. Using this representation, the trace of $`A`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{tr}A=\underset{i}{}f_i(x_i).$$

It is known that $`\mathrm{tr}A`$ is well-defined, that is, it does not depend on the particular representation (5) of $`A`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{tr}`$ is a linear functional on $`F(X)`$ with the property that

$$\mathrm{tr}TA=\mathrm{tr}AT$$

holds for every $`AF(X)`$ and $`TB(X)`$. Finally, we recall that, similarly to the case of matrix algebras, every automorphism of any subalgebra of $`B(X)`$ which contains $`F(X)`$ (these are the so-called standard operator algebras on $`X`$) is of the form $`ATAT^1`$ where $`TB(X)`$ is invertible (see, for example, ).

###### Proof of Theorem 4.

In view of our previous results we can assume that $`X`$ is infinite dimensional. Let $`\varphi `$ be a 2-local automorphism of $`𝒜`$. If $`P𝒜`$ is a finite rank idempotent, then $`\varphi (P)=\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is also a finite rank idempotent and the ranks of $`P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ are the same. Consider the subalgebra $`𝒜_P`$ of $`𝒜`$ which consists of all operators $`A𝒜`$ for which $`PAP=A`$. It follows from the 2-local property of $`\varphi `$ that $`\varphi (P)\varphi (A)\varphi (P)=\varphi (A)`$. Consequently, $`\varphi `$ maps $`𝒜_P`$ into $`𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{P}}`$. Clearly, both algebras $`𝒜_P`$ and $`𝒜_{\stackrel{~}{P}}`$ are isomorphic to $`M_n(𝕂)`$ ($`𝕂`$ stands for the real or complex field) where $`n=\mathrm{rank}P=\mathrm{rank}\stackrel{~}{P}`$. It is easy to see that $`\varphi `$ has the property (2). Now, one can follow the arguments given in the proofs of our previous results to show that $`\varphi `$ is linear and multiplicative on $`𝒜_P`$. Since $`P𝒜`$ was an arbitrary finite rank idempotent, we can infer that the restriction $`\psi `$ of $`\varphi `$ onto $`F(X)`$ is an algebra endomorphism of $`F(X)`$ which preserves the rank.

Since $`\psi `$ is an algebra homomorphism of $`F(X)`$, we have an injective linear operator $`T:XX`$ such that

(6)
$$TA=\psi (A)T(AF(X)).$$

Indeed, similarly as in  we define

$$Tx=\psi (xf_0)y_0(xX)$$

where $`y_0X`$ and $`f_0X^{}`$ are fixed such that $`\psi (xf_0)y_00`$ for some $`xX`$. It is evident that $`T`$ is a nonzero linear operator on $`X`$. It follows from the multiplicativity of $`\psi `$ that $`TA=\psi (A)T`$ $`(AF(X))`$. To see the injectivity of $`T`$, let $`Tx=0`$ and $`x0`$. Then we have $`TAx=\psi (A)Tx=0`$ for every $`AF(X)`$. This gives us that $`Ty=0`$ holds for every $`yX`$ which is an obvious contradiction.

We show that $`T`$ is continuous. To see this, we apply the closed graph theorem. Let $`(x_n)`$ be a sequence in $`X`$ and $`yX`$ be such that $`x_n0`$ and $`Tx_ny`$. We have to show that $`y=0`$. Since $`TA`$ is continuous for every $`AF(X)`$, from (6) we infer that

(7)
$$\psi (A)y=0(AF(X)).$$

Here is the point where we have to use that $`X`$ has a Schauder basis. Namely, this condition implies that we have a sequence $`(P_n)`$ of pairwise orthogonal rank-one idempotents in $`B(X)`$ whose sum strongly converges to $`I`$. In particular, $`(P_n)`$ is uniformly bounded. Clearly, we can write $`P_n=x_nf_n`$ where $`x_nX,f_nX^{}`$ are such that $`f_i(x_j)=\delta _{ij}`$ (the Kronecker symbol) and $`x_i<m,f_j<M`$ $`(i,j)`$ for some positive real numbers $`m,M`$. Choose a sequence $`(\lambda _n)`$ of positive real numbers with the property that $`_{n=k+1}^{\mathrm{}}\lambda _n<\lambda _k`$ holds for every $`k`$. For example, one can define $`\lambda _n=(1/3)^n`$ $`(n)`$. In particular, it follows that $`_n\lambda _nP_n`$ converges in the norm topology and hence its sum is a compact operator. Pick another sequence $`(\mu _n)`$ of positive real numbers for which $`_n\mu _n<\mathrm{}`$. The operator $`_n\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}`$ is also compact.

By the 2-local property of $`\varphi `$, composing $`\varphi `$ with an automorphism of $`𝒜`$ if necessary, we can (and do) assume that for the particular operators $`_n\lambda _nP_n`$ and $`_n\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}`$ we have

(8)
$$\varphi (\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n)=\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n\text{ and }\varphi (\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1})=\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}.$$

Let $`n_0`$ be arbitrary. By the 2-local property of $`\varphi `$ we have an invertible bounded linear operator $`UB(X)`$ such that

$$\varphi (\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n)=U(\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n)U^1\text{and}\varphi (P_{n_0})=UP_{n_0}U^1.$$

From

$$\underset{n}{}\lambda _nUP_nU^1=U(\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n)U^1=\varphi (\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n)=\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n$$

we can infer that $`UP_nU^1=P_n`$ holds for every $`n`$. Indeed, let $`UP_nU^1=Q_n`$ $`(n)`$. Dividing both sides of the equality

$$\underset{n}{}\lambda _nQ_n=\underset{n}{}\lambda _nP_n$$

by $`\lambda _1`$ and then taking the $`k`$th powers of the operators on both sides and, finally, letting $`k`$ tend to infinity, by the property of the sequence $`(\lambda _n)`$ we easily obtain that $`Q_1=P_1`$. Therefore, we have

$$\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _nQ_n=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _nP_n$$

and one can proceed in the same way to show that $`Q_n=P_n`$ holds for every $`n`$. In particular, we have $`\varphi (P_{n_0})=Q_{n_0}=P_{n_0}`$. But $`n_0`$ was arbitrary and hence we obtain that

(9)
$$\varphi (P_n)=P_n(n).$$

We now go back to the proof that $`T`$ is continuous. By (7) we have $`\psi (P_n)y=0`$ $`(n)`$ and this, together with (9), yields that $`P_ny=0`$ holds for every $`n`$. This implies that $`y=0`$ verifying the continuity of $`T`$.

Beside the fact that $`\psi `$ is an algebra endomorphism of $`F(X)`$, we know that $`\psi `$ is rank preserving. The form of linear rank preservers on operator algebras is known. In fact, a description of such transformations is given, for example, in . It follows from the arguments used in the first half of Section I in  that we have two possibilities: either there are linear operators $`S:XX`$ and $`R:X^{}X^{}`$ such that

$$\psi (xf)=SxRf(xX,fX^{})$$

or there are linear operators $`R:XX^{}`$ and $`S:X^{}X`$ such that

$$\psi (xf)=SfRx(xX,fX^{}).$$

(To be honest we note that in  only complex spaces were considered but the arguments given there also apply to the real case.) This second possibility can be excluded easily after referring to the multiplicativity of $`\psi `$. So, we have linear operators $`S:XX`$ and $`R:X^{}X^{}`$ such that

(10)
$$\psi (xf)=SxRf(xX,fX^{}).$$

It follows from (6) that

$$Txf=Txf=SxRfT=SxT^{}Rf.$$

This implies that $`Tx,Sx`$ are linearly dependent for every $`xX`$. Hence, $`S`$ is a scalar multiple of $`T`$. Therefore, in what follows we can (and do) assume that the linear operator $`S`$ appearing in (10) is equal to $`T`$.

By the local form of $`\varphi `$ it follows that $`\psi `$ is trace preserving. Consequently, we have

$$(Rf)(Tx)=f(x)(xX,fX^{}).$$

This means that $`T^{}R`$ equals the identity on $`X^{}`$. In particular, the range of $`T^{}`$ is closed which is well-known to imply that the range of $`T`$ is also closed. On the other hand, $`T`$ has dense range which follows from (6) and (9). Therefore, we can infer that $`T,T^{}`$ are invertible and $`R=T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=T_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$. This gives us that

(11)
$$\psi (xf)=TxfT^1(xX,fX^{})$$

and hence we have $`\varphi (A)=\psi (A)=TAT^1`$ for every $`AF(X)`$. We show that $`\varphi (A)=TAT^1`$ holds also for every $`A𝒜`$. In order to do this, let $`A𝒜`$ be arbitrary. Pick any $`xX,fX^{}`$ and let $`B=xf`$. By the 2-local property of $`\varphi `$ we have an invertible element $`U`$ of $`B(X)`$ for which

$$\varphi (A)=UAU^1\text{and}\varphi (B)=UBU^1.$$

Since $`BF(X)`$, we can compute

$$\begin{array}{c}TBT^1\varphi (A)TBT^1=\varphi (B)\varphi (A)\varphi (B)=\\ UBU^1UAU^1UBU^1=UBABU^1.\end{array}$$

Taking traces in this equality, we get

$$f(T^1\varphi (A)Tx)f(x)=f(Ax)f(x).$$

This implies that for any $`xX,fX^{}`$ with $`f(x)0`$ we have

(12)
$$f(T^1\varphi (A)Tx)=f(Ax).$$

Moreover, if $`xX`$, $`0fX^{}`$ and $`f(x)=0`$, then we can find a sequence $`(x_n)`$ in $`X`$ such that $`x_nx`$ and $`f(x_n)0`$ for every $`n`$. Hence, we deduce that the equality (12) holds without any assumption on $`x`$ and $`f`$. This gives us that

(13)
$$\varphi (A)=TAT^1(A𝒜).$$

To complete the proof it remains to show that in fact we have $`\varphi (A)=A`$ for every $`A𝒜`$ (this is to prove that $`\varphi `$ is surjective). From (9) we learn that $`\varphi (x_nf_n)=x_nf_n`$ for every $`n`$. Due to (11) this readily imples that $`Tx_n=ϵ_nx_n`$ and $`T_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}f_n=\delta _nf_n`$ hold for some scalars $`ϵ_n,\delta _n`$. Moreover, we have $`ϵ_n\delta _n=1`$ for every $`n`$. Obviously, we can suppose that $`ϵ_1=\delta _1=1`$. We have supposed in (8) that

$$\varphi (\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1})=\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}.$$

By (13) this yields

$$\underset{n}{}\mu _nTx_nT_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}f_{n+1}=\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}.$$

Therefore, we have

$$\underset{n}{}ϵ_n\delta _{n+1}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}=\underset{n}{}\mu _nx_nf_{n+1}.$$

Considering the values of the operators on both sides at $`x_2,x_3,\mathrm{}`$ one after the other, we get in turn that $`\delta _2=1,ϵ_2=1,\delta _3=1,ϵ_3=1,\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, $`T`$ is the identity on $`X`$ and we have

$$\varphi (A)=A(A𝒜).$$

This completes the proof. ∎


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetry breaking at a TeV scale has emerged as the leading theoretical candidate for the phenomenological formulation of standard model extensions.

M-theory compactifications on $`S^7`$ manifolds  and Joyce manifolds  realize closely the generation of the standard model. In this paper we examine the formulation upon compactifying eleven dimensional  M-theory  on $`dS_{3,1}\times S^7`$, with twisting the $`S^7`$; there is a four-form flux turned on to make the background a solution to the classical equations of motion. Twisting the $`R_{3,1}`$ is also viable, as well as incorporating the Robertson-Walker spacetime in order to describe a different era in the cosmological evolution. We consider these scenarios to model the spacetime with no inhomogeneties.111Perturbations of the underlying spacetime may be inserted to model large scale strucure. The local spacetime is $`R_{3,1}`$, but there is a cosmological constant that is quantum generated; this constant agrees with data and modifies the geometry to de Sitter space. String modes and branes are incorporated via wrapping membranes on the compact cycles of the internal geometry.

In addition to the supersymmetry breaking and gauge group generation, the question of the origin of mass is answered. The known fermion masses may be obtained via a symmetry of the fermion interactions, and the masses come from perturbative resummations or membrane configurations in the compactified theory. Breaking supersymmetry at approximately 2, or 1 to 3, TeV is ideal.

The mass pattern is apparent and linear on a log scale and follow in accordance with a symmetry of the fermions; the associated charges are in the centers of the $`SO(3,1)`$ and $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge groups. This fermionic symmetry requires the modded seven-sphere and is also made possible via modding the $`R_{3,1}`$. In addition, there is a scenario at the GUT scale.

The gauge couplings may be explained via running and unification up to the GUT scale, but we do not analyze this scenario in too much detail. The presented compactification scenario works in the GUT scale unified theory after adjusting some of the parameters. The three couplings $`\alpha _{QED},\alpha _{EW}`$, and $`\alpha _S`$ also have a symmetric form that comes about from the geometry of the compactified theory.

The quantum modifications to the unified gravity/standard model are analyzed, and the corrections shown not to modify the theory, apart from the usual renormalization of the fields. The setup is well-suited for supersymmetric phenomenology below a TeV, and collider energy scales are in the range to be tested by the Large Hadron Collider. Gravity corrections are suppressed by the dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{pl}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a TeV.

In addition to model building, the feasibility of performing the complicated quantum calculations in gravity and gauge theory has improved much; there is progress in the art of gauge and gravity calculations, but little progress has been made beyond the multi-loop level due to the complications of the integrals. Quantum chromodynamics amplitudes have been well studied to one-loop and partially to two loops using a variety of techniques. Additional progress has been in this direction through the use of the derivative expansion in three types of theories: scalar, maximally supersymmetric models, and non-supersymmetric gauge theories with matter. This work may be examined in .

The perturbative quantum structure of the gravity and standard model, in the derivative expansion is an infinite expansion in energies. Loop graphs are conventionally an expansion in the coupling constant; the derivative expansion enables one to perform all loop integrations. The theory becomes pseudo-classical after this reformulation, and the spectrum of quantum chromodynamics is analyzed. The derivative calculations, presented in , allow for a non-perturbative definition of QCD together with a perturbative formulation of gravity. This approach contains simple techniques to evaluate the quantum corrections in the gravitational theory, as well as the quantum corrections in the most general lagrangian formulation.

In subsequent work a holographic definition of QCD is given, containing gravity in one of the scenarios presented here. Previous holographies equate gravity to gauge theory; this pseudo-holographic work has both states in the theory, without one being the bound state of another.

The outline of this work is as follows. In Section 2 we examine the fundamental constants of masses and gauge couplings. Charges and symmetries are introduced, and the quantized masses are found from these charges. In Section 3 we build the compactification scenarios containing the standard model and generate the masses and couplings of the standard model. In section 4, the electroweak model and QCD are discussed in relation to the former. In Section 4 we examine the quantum corrections to the gravity theory. Cosmology and its pertinence to the model in this work is in section 5. Discussions conclude.

## 2 Mass and Coupling quantizations

The masses of the fermions, and bosons, are examined and derived via the geometry of the underlying gravity theory. A feature of having geometry break the supersymmetry as well as generate the fermion masses that we do not require a chiral theory initially. QCD is believed to have a chiral phase transition at $`T=0`$ in $`d=4`$ and this conjecture is not required; furthermore, anomaly cancellation is avoided and leaves more room for further generations.

The geometry, and contributing M2 and M5 branes, generate a symmetric mass pattern agrees with observed phenomenology of the standard model; in fact, this work via extrapolating the fermionic symmetry would of predicted the top quark mass. The masses are labeled in accord with the integers,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}})^{n_j/16}\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{n_j/16}`$ (2.1)
and follow from the representations of $`SU(3)/Z_3U(2)/Z_2SO(3,1)`$, the standard model gauge group in four dimensions.

The masses of the observed fermions fall into the pattern for the leptons, with masses measured in electron Volts,

$`m_e=\alpha _e\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{5/16}.5\times 10^6`$ (2.2)
$`m_\mu =\alpha _\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{4/16}1.1\times 10^8`$ (2.3)
$`m_\tau =\alpha _\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{3/16}1.7\times 10^9`$ (2.4)
and the quarks

$`m_t=\alpha _t\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{1/16}1.7\times 10^{11}`$ (2.5)
$`m_b=\alpha _b\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{2/16}4.7\times 10^9`$ (2.6)
$`m_c=\alpha _c\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{3/16}1.5\times 10^9`$ (2.7)
$`m_s=\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{4/16}1.5\times 10^8`$ (2.8)
$`m_u=\alpha _u\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{5/16}8\times 10^6`$ (2.9)
$`m_d=\alpha _d\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{6/16}4\times 10^6.`$ (2.10)
The parameters $`\alpha `$ are of order unity, and the $`\rho `$ variable is

$`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{pl}m_{pl}=2.1\times 10^{28}\mathrm{eV}.`$ (2.11)
The parameters are obtained from the classical breaking of supersymmetry, at the TeV scale. All of these numbers, except two that miss be a factor of 2 and 3, match the fermions if we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^{12}`$ ev; of course this is not a prediction for supersymmetry at a TeV, but it is suggestive in the $`13`$ range. The $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are almost degenerate and we may interchange them with the caveat that quantum corrections are the cause.

It is important to note that chirality does not enter into the description of the fermions as they are massive, and neither does $`SU(3)`$ anomaly cancellation (although the content cancels the anomaly). We find the group theory origin of these quantum numbers in the following. The pattern is quantization of the masses, and there is a sum rule,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}n_l={\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}n_q,`$ (2.12)
from

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}m_q=21,{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}m_l=12.`$ (2.13)
The neutrino content is believed to be approximately .01 ev. We split the three neutrinos as

$`m_{\nu _e}=\alpha _{\nu _e}\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{15/16}.001`$ (2.14)
$`m_{\nu _\mu }=\alpha _{\nu _\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{14/16}.01`$ (2.15)
$`m_{\nu _\tau }=\alpha _{\nu _\tau }\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{13/16}.1,`$ (2.16)
The netrinos may also be generated via a perturbative gravity calculation,

$`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_{pl}}}=.01\mathrm{eV},`$ (2.17)
with $`\alpha 10`$ from the one-loop factors. This corresponds to a one-loop gravity calculation. The sum rule for these neutrinos is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}m_\nu =2{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}m_q=7/2{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}m_l,`$ (2.18)
with,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}m_\nu =42.`$ (2.19)
Neutrinos dont couple to photons, and barring the SU(3) couplings, this one-loop gravity calculation would generate the neutrino masses; the higher-loop contributions in gravity mixed with matter are suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{pl}=10^{16}`$. This is the second mechanism for generating the observed values of the neutrino masses, without the mass splittings to first order.

The gauge bosons have masses

$`m_{W^\pm }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{1/16}8\times 10^{10}`$ (2.20)
$`m_Z=\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho ^{1/16}9.2\times 10^{10}.`$ (2.21)
$`m_\gamma =m_{\mathrm{glue}}=m_{\mathrm{graviton}}=0`$ (2.22)
Scalars generically get perturbative masses on the order of a TeV; if the mass were generated gravitationally then it would be in the 100 GeV range.

The remaining scales are:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}}\right)^{6/16}`$ (2.23)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{EW}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}}\right)^{1/16}.`$ (2.24)
Breaking the supersymmetry at TeV scale generates the observed mass pattern of the standard model, and the quantum gravitational sector is incorporated in a direct fashion.

The gauge couplings at the strong scale point are

$`\alpha _{QED}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{137}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(23)6}},`$ (2.25)
$`\alpha _{EW}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(23)3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (2.26)
$`\alpha _S1,`$ (2.27)
with the coupling relation,

$`\alpha _{QED}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\right)^{1/2}\alpha _{EW}.`$ (2.28)
These factors may be interpreted via the underlying geometry. This completes the review of the masses and couplings of the standard model, with the exception of the Higgs mass.

The final number we examine is the cosmological constant; the experimental value is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}}\right)^4,`$ (2.29)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at 2 TeV. This number is derivable if we break a maximally supersymmetric gravity theory in such a way that there are eight independent scales. The breaking pattern is generated by this work, and as such, the value of the cosmological constant in this era is generated. The corrections are $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{\mathrm{pl}})`$ and are suppressed. We turn to deriving the mass quantizations.

## 3 Geometry of Masses

The following model is contained in M-theory, with supersymmetry breaking at a around a TeV (LHC). We begin with a $`S^7/Gamma\times R_{3,1}^{}`$ background in eleven dimensions; in subsequence we examine a $`S^7\times R_{3,1}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be used in a holographic formulation of QCD. The seven sphere in the first case contains four independent parameters,

$`\lambda z_i^a\overline{z}_{i,a}+\lambda _7X_7^2+\lambda X_8^2=R_7^2,`$ (3.1)
with the $`a`$ index labeling the components of the complex number $`z_i`$. To begin we take a quotient $`X_7X_7`$ and $`X_8X_8`$ to eliminate the extraneous fields generating along these cycles, and denote this by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The geometry contains an $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$ (the index $`a=1,2,3`$) group of isometries. One may think of this as coming from an $`SU(5)`$ group, via a complexified SO(5), from the metric

$`\lambda z_iz_i+\overline{\lambda }\overline{z}^i\overline{z}^i+\lambda _7X_7^2+\lambda X_8^2=R_{S_7}^2.`$ (3.2)
The $`R_{3,1}`$ term with a quantum induced constant becomes $`dS^4`$. We begin with the topology,

$`sum_{j=1}^4\lambda _jX_j^2=R_{dS}^2,`$ (3.3)
possessing five independent parameters, and a weak curvature. The quantum gravity with eight parameters of supersymmetry breaking generates the value in eqn. ((2.29)) as a two-loop effect. We work with the geometry in eqn. (3.3) stabilized around this value, which is almost the flat $`R_{3,1}`$. This is the simplest case, and it is easy to analyze the early universe with a supermassive black hole and the Robertson-Walker geometry.

In order to achieve the mass pattern we require a symmetry of the fermions such that only the gravitational instantonic terms, and their quantum corrections, are allowed to contribute to the particle’s masses. This could be achieved in conjuction with a monodromy of the quantum theory with respect to the supersymmetry breaking scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\pi i}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The Lagrangian for the four components of fermions is,

$`=\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}i_{\dot{\alpha }}^\alpha \psi _\alpha +\overline{\chi }^{\dot{\alpha }}i_{\dot{\alpha }}^\alpha \chi _\alpha +m\left(\psi ^\alpha \chi _\alpha +\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}\right)`$ (3.4)
The simplest symmetry is

$`\psi _\alpha ^ae^{2\pi in/30}\psi _\alpha ^a\chi _\alpha ^ae^{2\pi in/30}\chi _\alpha ^a`$ (3.5)
and

$`\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^ae^{2\pi in/30}\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^a\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^ae^{2\pi in/30}\overline{\chi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^a,`$ (3.6)
combined with the mass term rotating due to the monodromy,

$`mme^{2\pi in/15}.`$ (3.7)
In four-component notation we have,

$`\psi e^{2\pi in/30}\psi ,\overline{\psi }e^{2\pi in/30}\overline{\psi }.`$ (3.8)
With these transformations the mass terms for the fermions are invariant when,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}})^{n/15}\overline{\psi }\psi ,`$ (3.9)
which is the monodromy of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\pi i}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The charge assignments for the fermions follows from the compactification on the $`S^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and its quotient.

We list the appropriate quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the $`S^7`$. The masses are generated through the symmetry generated by the twist of the $`S^7`$ coordinates:

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}z_1& 1=e^{\pi i}& & & z_1\\ z_2& & 1& & z_2\\ z_3& & & 1=e^{\pi i}& z_3\end{array}\right)`$ (3.10)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}z^1& 1=e^{5i\pi }& & z^1\\ z^2& & 1=e^{2\pi i}& z^2\end{array}\right),`$ (3.11)
with the six coordinates labeled as $`z_j^a`$ (pertaining to the SU(2) and SU(3)); this action is $`G_a`$.

The second action is,

$`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}z_1& 1=e^{\pi i}& & & z_1\\ z_2& & 1& & z_2\\ z_3& & & 1=e^{\pi i}& z_3\end{array}\right)`$ (3.12)
and,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}z^1& 1=e^{2i\pi }& & z^1\\ z^2& & 1=e^{7\pi i}& z^2\end{array}\right),`$ (3.13)
which we label $`G_b`$. These $`Z_3\times Z_2`$ actions are in the center of $`SU(2)\times SU(3)`$ and have a $`U(1)`$ component. The $`Z_3`$ pertains to $`z_i`$ picking one of three factors, and the $`Z_2`$ to the two values given a single $`z_i`$ coordinate. There are six possibilities of the quotient, three $`z_i`$ and two $`z^a`$; this corresponds to the sextet structure, or the doublet-triplet, of all of the fermions. We give the charges below. The commutation of $`G_a`$ and $`G_b`$ requires a $`Z_3`$ action.

The symmetry of the $`S^7`$ quotient with the generators above affect the fields in $`R_{3,1}`$ via the compactification. The net quantum four-dimensional field $`\psi `$ is $`\psi _\psi (X)\times \varphi ^a(Y)`$, with $`\varphi ^a`$ carrying the $`SU(3)/Z_3\times SU(2)/Z_2\times U(1)`$ indices. The $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are coordinates of the base and compactified spaces. The group action on the compact fields generates a projection, by definition,

$`\varphi (GY)=G\varphi (Y).`$ (3.14)
In this manner there is an action on $`\psi `$, the phase because the group pertaining to the quotient action is diagonal, so that the net field $`\varphi (Y)\times \psi (X)`$ is invariant. The kinetic term,

$`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\overline{\psi }\psi }`$ (3.15)
is invariant, and the four-dimensional symmetry allows a mass term only if there is a compensating transformation on the mass. This is via the monodromy of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the supersymmetry breaking scale.

The fermion assignments due the group action follow from the quotient, or rather from the center of the gauge group $`SU(2)\times SU(3)`$ together with the $`U(1)`$. The phases are for the sextet of the quarks ,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}SU(3)\\ 1\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}SU(2)\times U(1)\\ 5\\ 2\end{array}\right)`$ (3.16)
with six actions,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& 6\\ b& 5\\ c& 4\\ s& 3\\ d& 2\\ u& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (3.17)
The same for the leptons and quark

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}SU(3)\\ 1\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}SU(2)\times U(1)\\ 4\\ 14\end{array}\right)`$ (3.18)
with six actions,

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}e& 5\\ \nu _e& 15\\ \mu & 4\\ \nu _\mu & 14\\ \tau & 3\\ \tau _{\nu _\tau }& 13\end{array}\right).`$ (3.19)
The fermions transform in the way described, and these combinations allow the classical mass term exhibited earlier. There are corrections, of course, allowed by the symmetry, which include both perturbative and non-perturbative terms; the former comes from the usual loop graphs and the latter with M2 and M5 branes wrapped on the $`S^7`$ for example.

The charge assignments follow naturally with the doublet-triplet structure of the fermions. The fermion doublets and triplets are

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ c\\ t\end{array}\right)`$ (3.20)
and,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \nu _e\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\mu \\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\tau \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right).`$ (3.21)
The U(1) charge assignment for the quarks and lepton/neutrino doublets are $`(2,1)/3`$ and $`(1,0)`$. One may think of the $`\pm 1`$ in the SU(3) as $`3(\frac{1}{3})`$.

An alternate charge assignment, in conjuction with a mass displacement, potentially due to a singularity is the following. Flip the SU(3) assignment to $`(1,0,1)`$. One may extract the $`(5,2)`$ and $`(4,14)`$ to, $`(21)+3`$ and $`(10,0)+14`$; the two factors are a $`U(1)`$ charge and a uniform constant for all of the fermions. The charge assignments then have the interpretation of a $`SU(3)`$ charge, $`U(1)`$ charge, and a constant. The constant may have the interpretation of the contribution to the mass from a resolved singularity. (Another phase split is to write $`(5,2)=(3/2,3/2)+7/2`$ and $`(4,14)=(3/2,21/2)+7/2`$.) This procedure can be carried through on $`dS_{3,1}\times S^7`$ with a quotient in and singularity of the $`dS_{3,1}`$; in this case the interpretation is that of $`N=8`$ supergravity with a singularity, and resoluton to a black hole.

## 4 QCD and Electroweak sector

The QCD and Electroweak sector follow in a direct sense from the previous calculations. There are scalars arising from the $`7`$ and $`8`$ directions of the $`S^7`$ and the matter content for the gauge theory is already present. The Lagrangian for the gauge sector is,

$`_g={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\mathrm{Tr}F_{SU(3)}^2+\mathrm{Tr}F_{SU(2)}^2\frac{1}{4}F_{U(1)}^2\right)}`$ (4.1)
which is generated from the $`S^7`$ because the group action is taken in the center. The action for the gravititational part is,

$`_{gr}={\displaystyle d^4\sqrt{g}\left(R+V\right)},`$ (4.2)
and the fermionic components are,

$`_f={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(\overline{\psi }_j(i\omega )\psi _j\right)},`$ (4.3)
with $`\omega `$ the total spin connection from the gauge degrees of freedom.

The Higgs is required for the conventional mass generation of the guage bosons and fermions; the scalars present may generate the masses for the $`SU(2)`$ and arise from the fields on the $`z_i^a`$ sector of the $`S^7/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

$`={\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(_{U(2)_\mu }\varphi _{U(2)}^\mu \overline{\varphi }+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi \overline{\varphi }\right)}+\lambda _\varphi \varphi ^4+\mathrm{}`$ (4.4)
the remaining sector of scalars do not couple directly to the U(2) and the potential term is due to the non-supersymmetry of the background. The mass term is generically at the TeV scale due to quantum effects to the scalar propagator. The minimal coupling to the gauge field is sufficient to generate the mass term for the SU(2) gauge fields. The gamma5 couplings have not been examined in detail.

There are eight scalar modes in N=8 supersymmetric theory on $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ with all radii different. As there are three couplings dictating the shape of the $`S^7`$, there are four massless moduli describing the zero mode perturbations. Only one complex scalar is charged under the $`U(2)`$ and the other two, pertaining to the seven and eighth direction do not couple; this combination is sufficient to generate the masses of the W’s and Z’s through the standard Higgs mechanism. The scalar content is in agreement with the MSSM. There are also towers of KK modes that may couple, and their masses are larger than a TeV.

## 5 Quantum Corrections

The masses and low-energy amplitudes are stable under quantum corrections. In detail to one loop the matter fields do not correct the mass forms as only the Z-factors are relevant to renormalize to this order; in general to higher loops the matter and gravitational degrees of freedom do not alter the masses a substantial amount, but might explain the $`d`$ and $`u`$-quark splittings. The scenario is preserved under the logs and power corrections.

There are two types of quantum corrections to the background and fields: log corrections that modify the exponentiated term,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}}\right)^{n/16}\right]^m\times (\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{ln}^p\mathrm{\Lambda }),`$ (5.1)
and combinations. Second, we have further exponentiated terms that arise from wrapping M2 and M5 branes on the compact space, and other non-perturbative corrections in the $`dS_{3,1}`$; these generate

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}}\right)^{n/16}\right]^m,`$ (5.2)
These terms may arise in a manner that respects the symmetry of the fermionic kinetic terms. Usual renormalization theory takes care of large corrections in the Z-factor or other parameters in the standard model. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2\pi i}`$ symmetry is restrictive in the same sense as the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ chiral structure prohibits masses in chiral theories. Note also that log terms may exponentiate via,

$`x^{n/16}=e^{n/16\mathrm{ln}x}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{16}}\mathrm{ln}x\right)^j.`$ (5.3)
Such a term appears order by order to violate this symmetry, but the infinite summation is in accord. Perturbation theory must obey the symmetry, and to one loop order it does without summing.

Most of the corrections from gravity are minor, being suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{pl}`$. However, because the neutrinos are so light, the question is raised if a gravity correction might modify its mass substantially. A one-loop contribution to the fermions masses, which is combatible with the fermion symmetry, is

$`\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_{pl}}}=.0001\beta ,`$ (5.4)
and is a factor smaller than the lightest neutrino mass in this scenario. Of course there is a factor $`\beta `$ from the loop integral but to first approximation this result is smaller, or on the order of the lightest candidate neutrino mass.

The gravity sector is trivial because of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{pl}`$ factor; being an effective theory up to a TeV scale, in a string-inspired regulator through the M-theory formulation, the gravitational corrections are a power series,

$`A_n={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}A_n^{(j)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{m_{\mathrm{pl}}}}\right)^j`$ (5.5)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/m_{\mathrm{pl}}=10^{16}`$, a very small parameter. Expansions in loops (or $`h/2\pi `$) is the most traditional means to generating the perturbative expansion describing amplitudes in a quantum field or string theory. However, such expansions are typically problematic in that multi-loop diagrams are difficult to compute (in the exception of ladder diagrams or certain infinite subsets of diagrams). In  the initiation of derivative expansions in the context of gravity theories was initially explored; the derivative expansion for QCD, scalar, and $`N=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theories was recently developed and the same techniques are useful in the perturbative gravitational context. Integrals may be eliminated and perturbative gravitational amplitudes may be constructed through a recursive and algebraic approach. We refer the reader to these papers.

## 6 Cosmology

The model here has a cosmological constant,

$`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}V(\mathrm{\Lambda },m_{pl})},V(\mathrm{\Lambda },m_{pl})=\mathrm{\Lambda }^4{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}}\right)^{2n}.`$ (6.1)
The first term is, with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ TeV, $`10^{15}`$ erg/cm3 and is in agreement with cosmological data. The curvature of space induced by this constant is

$`R_{dS}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_{pl}}}\right)^4`$ (6.2)
and is roughly 15 billion light-years. This value of the cosmological constant, and its small corrections, are in accord with the large scale structure of the universe.

The de Sitter space solution may be regarded at late times from the big bang, in models of the early universe. We may replace the de Sitter space with the Robertson-Walker topology. Its metric is,

$`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+kr^2}}dr^2+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right].`$ (6.3)
The warp factor is,

$`H_0={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}|_0q_0=H_0^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\dot{a}}}{a}}\right)`$ (6.4)
in terms of present day Hubble and deceleration parameters. At late times, $`a^2(t)1`$, and the spacetime is flat. A modification of the Robertson-Walker metric is

$`ds^2=\lambda _tdt^2+a^2(t)\left(\lambda _idx_idx_i\right),`$ (6.5)
and contains four free-parameters, pertinent to breaking supersymmetry with the maximal number of free parameters. At late times, this metric may be replaced with the de Sitter space soluton considered in this paper,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\lambda X_i^2=R_{dS}^2.`$ (6.6)
Perturbations due to massive objects are expected to change this idealic geometry.

## 7 Discussion

The standard model content, masses and couplings, have been examined in detail in the context of M-theory compactified on a $`S^7`$. The masses arise from classical gravitational configurations, from M2 and M5 branes, and the couplings from the geometry of the $`S^7`$.

The masses of the standard model are quantized and fit experimental data. The quarks and leptons are have these masses in line with the high energy symmetries of M-theory and/or supergravity. The origin of mass is gravitational from this point of view, and they are derived in this work. The couplings suggest grand unification at $`10^{24}`$ eV, but this is not required.

Supersymmetry breaking in the model considered here occurs at 2 TeV with some flexibility. With this breaking the cosmological constant comes out to the experimental value also. The quantum corrections, including gravitational, are examined and do not substantially alter the predictions made at the classical level. In addition to the M-theory on $`S^7`$, there is a pure 4-D background solution leading to the standard model parameters.

## Acknowledgements

GC thanks the DOD, 444025-HL-25619, for support, and Emil Martinec for correspondence.


text:
# Vortex Ring Reconnections

## Abstract

We investigate numerically the Navier-Stokes dynamics of reconnecting vortex rings at small $`Re`$ number. We find that reconnections are dissipative due to the smoothing of vorticity gradients at reconnection kinks and to the formation of secondary structures of stretched anti-parallel vorticity which transfer kinetic energy to small scales where it is subsequently dissipated efficiently. In addition, the relaxation of the reconnection kinks excites Kelvin waves which due to strong damping are of low wavenumber and affect directly only large scale properties of the flow.

In flow phenomena as diverse as quantum Kivotides et al. (2002) magnetic Christensson and Hindmarsh (1999) and incompressible Leonard (1985) fluids, it is useful to study the physics of turbulence by modeling the system as a collection of tubular flux loops which in the case of vortical fields are called vortex filaments. An intrinsic property of such highly structured systems is their ability to dynamically change their topology via reconnection mechanisms. Does this change in topology affect in turn properties of fluid turbulence like the intermittency and the scalar-mixing (which depend directly on the structure of the flow) or like the dynamics of energy in wavenumber space? Or is it the case that reconnection events are not generic and thus have no direct impact on the mean properties of turbulent flows? The aim of this letter is to address these issues by fully resolving the Navier-Stokes dynamics of interacting vortex rings for three simple geometries having great potential for illuminating the physics of reconnection. Although the flows considered are not strictly turbulent, the hope is that in a future structural approach to the problem of turbulence a significant part of the flow complexity could be traced back to the physics of similar vortex interactions.
Incompressible vortex reconnections have an extensive bibliography (for a review of the work up to 1994, see Kida and Takaoka (1994)). In Shelley et al. (1993); Pumir and Kerr (1987) reconnections of vortex tubes were considered with an emphasis on the possibility of singularity formation as $`Re\mathrm{}`$. In Winckelmans (1995) the strong interactions between vortex rings were computed with the interest in developing numerical methods and turbulence models rather than in focusing on the physics of reconnection. In Aref and Zawadzki (1991) it is discussed how a linked vortex configuration could be achieved starting from an unlinked initial state and in Zawadzki and Aref (1991) it is considered how the mixing of a nondiffusing passive scalar is affected during vortex ring collision. The reconnection of two approaching (but not colliding) vortex rings was studied experimentally in Schatzle (1987) and theoretically in Ashurst and Meiron (1987). This letter extends these studies by considering generic vortex configurations and by capturing more features of vortex reconnections in a turbulent flow.

We solve the Navier-Stokes equations for an unbounded three-dimensional incompressible viscous flow. We employ the vorticity formulation:

$$\left(\frac{}{t}+𝒖\right)𝝎=\left(𝒖\right)𝝎+\nu ^2𝝎,$$
(1)
$$𝒖=0,$$
(2)
where $`𝒖`$ is the velocity and $`𝝎`$ is the vorticity. We use a vortex particle method Cottet and Koumoutsakos (2000). In this method, the vorticity is discretized with Lagrangian elements. These elements which carry a vector-valued Gaussian distribution of vorticity are convected and stretched by the local velocity obtained by the Biot-Savart law. The complexity of the velocity computation is normally $`𝒪(N^2)`$ with $`N`$ being the number of particles; we have used a multipole algorithm that reduces this complexity to $`𝒪(N\mathrm{log}(N))`$. The viscous diffusion is modeled by the Particle Strength Exchange scheme.
We calculate some global quantities: the kinetic energy $`E`$, the enstrophy $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the helicity $`H`$, defined as

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝒖𝒖𝑑𝒙},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝝎𝝎𝑑𝒙},`$ (4)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝝎𝒖𝑑𝒙}.`$ (5)
For unbounded flows, the relation between kinetic energy and enstrophy is

$$\frac{d}{dt}E=\nu \mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(6)
We also compute the evolution of the spectrum of the kinetic energy $`E(k)`$ which, in terms of the Fourier transform of vorticity $`\widehat{𝝎}=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/2}}𝝎(𝒓)e^{i𝒓𝒌}𝑑𝒓`$, is defined as

$$E(k)=\frac{1}{2}(2\pi )^3_{|𝒌|=k}\widehat{𝝎}\widehat{𝝎}^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_k,$$
(7)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ denotes $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _kd\theta _kd\varphi _k`$, the solid angle element in spherical coordinates. The calculation of the spectrum requires a double summation over the vortex elements which results to $`𝒪(N^2)`$ complexity. Because of this, the calculation of the spectrum is much more costly than the solution of the Biot-Savart law. Since the number of particles grows substantially during our simulations, from around $`N=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ at $`t=0`$ to $`\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ in the end, our computational resources did not allow us to compute the spectra for all times.

We consider three reconnection configurations at the same Reynolds number: $`Re=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\nu }=250`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the circulation of one ring and $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity. This small value of the $`Re`$ was dictated by the computational cost and the need for well-resolved reconnection regions. All the rings have the same initial $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. All of our conclusions are conditioned upon the small value of the $`Re`$ number, as well as, on the common initial circulation and should not be extrapolated uncritically to other settings. The vorticity distribution in the cross-section of every ring is Gaussian with a cut-off

$$\omega _\theta =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2\pi \sigma ^2}e^{\frac{r^2}{2\sigma ^2}}$$
(8)
where $`r`$ is the distance to the core center, $`\sigma `$ is the core radius and $`\omega _\theta `$ is the azimuthal vorticity. We chose $`\sigma =0.05R`$ (where $`R`$ is the radius of the ring), to ensure that the rings are still thin when reconnections occur. Our results were made dimensionless in the following manner: $`t=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }t^{}}{R^2}`$, $`x=\frac{x^{}}{R}`$, $`\omega =\frac{R^2\omega ^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ where $`t^{}`$, $`x^{}`$, $`\omega ^{}`$ are dimensional.

We study three configurations. In the first case (Fig. 2, 2 and 3), the initial rings are placed at a distance of $`R/4`$ apart in the z direction, offset by $`R`$ along the y axis and they move in opposite directions along the z axis. The second geometry (Fig. 5, 5 and 6), consists of two rings of different radii ($`R`$ and $`R/2`$) moving in the same direction along the z axis, with the center of the small ring in collision course with the circumference of the large one. The small ring has a larger self-induced velocity and catches up with the large ring. Finally, in case three (Fig. 8, 8 and 9), the two rings are linked at $`90^o`$ a ring going through the other in its center. One is moving in the positive z direction; the other, in the positive y direction.

All three evolutions have basic common features which will be discussed in the context of the first configuration for clarity. The spectrum at $`t=0`$ (Fig.3) has the characteristic oscillations of the spectrum of isolated vortex rings and a cuf-off at the scale of ring core radius $`\sigma =0.05`$, $`k=20`$. Our data suggest that the reconnection starts around $`t=0.6`$ when an acceleration of energy decay appears, and ends around $`t=1.4`$. Specifically, as the rings approach each other, they stretch and deform near the collision points so that their respective vorticities become locally anti-parallel. The two ends of this stretching region eventually become reconnection kinks in which (in the absence of singularities), the strong vorticity gradients are smoothed out by diffusion. This is also seen in the graphs of the global quantities (Fig.2) where the beginning of the reconnection process corresponds to a hump in the graph of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and to a steepening of the slope of $`E(t)`$ between $`t=0.6`$ and $`t=1.4`$. The time length of the reconnection is significantly longer than the viscous time scale $`t_v=\sigma ^2/\nu =\mathrm{6.25\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ and of the same order as the convective time $`t_c=R^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$. This contradicts the findings of Schatzle (1987) where it is reported that the viscous scale is much larger than the reconnection duration. However, in Schatzle (1987) the $`Re`$ number was 1600. The conclusion that the duration of reconnection is inversely proportional to the $`Re`$ number and thus to the circulation of the vortices is plausible (also in agreement with Shelley et al. (1993); Garten et al. (2001)), but it is subject to the condition in Schatzle (1987) that the rings are merely touching themselves rather than colliding.
After some time ($`t=1.6`$), we can say that two new rings are formed. The pairs of filaments between the reconnection regions are stretched further as the new rings move apart from each other ($`t=1.6`$ to $`5.6`$). Viscous diffusion weakens the vorticity magnitude in these structures while the reconnection kinks relax in the form of low wavenumber Kelvin waves. These stretched vorticity structures are responsible for a continued transfer of energy to the smallest scales until these structures are dissipated away. This we conclude by noticing that the high wavenumber cut-off of the spectrum becomes a non-exponential one (although still very steep) and that between $`t=0.8`$ and $`2.4`$ there is a significant decay of the energy spectrum for $`k<20`$ but little change for $`k>20`$.
It is conceivable that for $`Re`$ numbers higher than 250 an intermediate scaling range (that is in between the $`k^1`$ and $`k^7`$ regimes) could appear with inertial type of scaling. It is also expected that with increasing $`Re`$ number the hump observed in the global enstrophy during the reconnection could become more pronounced and (according to the previous discussion) shorter in duration.
The initial helicity is non-zero in the linked configuration. As the rings evolve and unlink themselves, the corresponding helicity increases as expected and one clearly notices a slope steepening between $`t`$=3 and 5 (Fig.8) when the reconnection action occurs in this case.

In conclusion, we studied three generic vortex ring configurations and we found that in all cases the rings reconnect. This suggests that reconnection is a common phenomenon in vortex filament encounters and perhaps also in turbulent flows. In addition, we observe an intensification of dissipation which is local in time and could be a mechanism contributing to turbulence intermittency. A by-product of reconnection is the formation of stretched structures with anti-parallel vorticity which transfer energy to the smallest scales where it is rapidly dissipated. Without this energy redistribution in wavenumber space the decay of global kinetic energy would have been slower. This important effect depends directly on the details of the initial vortex configuration (compare with experiments in Schatzle (1987)). The observed intensification of small scale motions hints to an enhancement of small scale mixing of passive scalars with $`Sc1`$. The excited Kelvin waves represent a fast mechanism for energy transfer, but the small $`Re`$ number of our calculations is not suitable for understanding their full importance. In particular, they are confined to low wavenumbers in opposition to the Kelvin waves observed in reconnections in quantum fluids Kivotides et al. (2001). This is because quantum filaments are inviscid and have a very thin core ($`\sigma 0.1nm`$) so that high wavenumber Kelvin waves propagate without damping even for rings with small circulation.
Besides illuminating important physics, the present work will guide future introduction of phenomenological reconnection models into vortex filament computational methods. In this way, the applicability of the latter methods will be extended to flows with complex vorticity configurations.

###### Acknowledgements.

Research partially supported by the Office of Naval Research and the Department of Energy.


text:
# The inverted XY universality of the superconductivity phase transition

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The (3-d) U(1) gauge + Higgs (Ginzburg-Landau, GL) theory is an effective theory for the superconductor-insulator phase transition. Despite the formal simplicity of the GL theory, and numerous analytical and numerical studies, the universal properties of the transition have not yet been fully resolved. Theoretical duality arguments  suggest that the phase transition is in the 3d XY model universality class, but with an inverted temperature axis. Thus, the symmetric and broken phases in the XY model correspond to the insulator and superconducting phases of the superconductor.

The duality gives concrete predictions for the behaviour of several critical observables in superconductors. For example, the Abrikosov vortex tension $`𝒯`$ should scale with the XY model exponent $`\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}=0.6723`$111Accurate value of $`\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}`$ can be found in Ref. . Experimentally, it is easier to access the penetration depth $`\lambda `$ (or the inverse photon mass), which is also argued to scale with the XY exponent $`\nu ^{}=\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}`$.

However, the XY universality has not been unambiguously observed. Two different high-$`T_c`$ YBa2Cu3O7-δ experiments  report $`\nu ^{}`$ in the range $`0.3\mathrm{}0.5`$. Monte Carlo simulations of the GL model favour $`\nu ^{}0.3`$ .222 In the London limit (fixed length Higgs), where the duality is on a firmer footing, simulations appear to give $`\nu ^{}0.67`$ .

One reason for the confusing results both in experiments and numerical simulations is that the duality is expected to be valid only in a very narrow temperature range around the critical temperature, requiring extreme precision and large volumes in the measurements. Moreover, the duality relates “simple” observables (like the field expectation value in the XY model) to non-local observables in the dual theory (vortex network in the GL theory). This makes it very difficult to know whether the problems are caused by insufficient resolution near the critical temperature, or by the difficult nature of the observables themselves.

In order to gain insight into this problem we study a special limit of the GL theory, the frozen superconductor (FZS) (an integer-valued gauge theory), which is exactly dual to the XY-Villain model at all temperatures. Thus, the transition in FZS is bound to be in the XY model universality class. Studying the critical quantities of FZS can shed light on the problems faced in both the GL theory simulations and superconductor experiments. Detailed results are published in .

Our starting point is the lattice GL model in the London limit:

$$_{\mathrm{GL}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i<j}{}F_{\stackrel{}{x},ij}^2+\kappa \underset{i}{}s\left(\theta _{\stackrel{}{x}+i}\theta _\stackrel{}{x}qA_{\stackrel{}{x},i}\right).$$
(1)
Here $`A_{x,i}`$ is a real-valued gauge field, $`\theta _x`$ is the spin angle variable, and $`F_{\stackrel{}{x},ij}`$ is the non-compact plaquette. We use the Villain form hopping term

$$s(x)=\mathrm{ln}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}(x2\pi k)^2\right].$$
(2)
We shall study the following 2 limiting cases of the GL model:

i) Let $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and define $`\beta =4\pi ^2/q^2`$. Now the GL model becomes the Frozen Superconductor (FZS):

$$Z_{\mathrm{FZS}}(\beta )=\underset{\{I_{\stackrel{}{x},i}\}}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\beta }{2}\underset{\stackrel{}{x},i>j}{}\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{}{x},ij}^2\right).$$
(3)
Here $`\mathrm{}_{\stackrel{}{x},ij}=I_{\stackrel{}{x},i}+I_{\stackrel{}{x}+i,j}I_{\stackrel{}{x}+j,i}I_{\stackrel{}{x},j}`$, and the link variables $`I_{\stackrel{}{x},i}`$ take integer values.

ii) Let $`q0`$, and the GL model becomes the XY model with the Villain action

$$Z_{\mathrm{XY}}(\kappa )=D\theta \mathrm{exp}\left(\kappa \underset{\stackrel{}{x},i}{}s(\theta _{\stackrel{}{x}+i}\theta _\stackrel{}{x})\right).$$
(4)
The frozen superconductor and the XY-Villain model are exactly dual to each other with the identification $`\beta =1/\kappa `$, i.e.

$$Z_{\mathrm{XY}}(\kappa )=Z_{\mathrm{FZS}}(\beta =1/\kappa ).$$
(5)
This relation is valid at infinite volume; on a finite volume there are corrections proportional to the surface area of the volume. For a proof of this relation see .

## 2 CRITICAL OBSERVABLES

The XY-Villain model has a symmetry breaking transition at $`\kappa =\kappa _c0.333068(7)`$ . Because of the exact duality, FZS must have a transition at $`\beta _c=1/\kappa _c`$, which is of XY model universality, and the phases are related as follows:

XY model: $``$ FZS:    symmetric $`\kappa <\kappa _c`$ $``$ superconducting $`\beta >\beta _c`$  broken $`\kappa >\kappa _c`$ $``$ Coulomb $`\beta <\beta _c`$

### Vortex tension

The duality implies that the XY model scalar correlation function equals the FZS Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen “vortex operator.” In particular, the XY model scalar mass $`m`$ equals the tension $`𝒯`$ of the vortex line between a monopole-antimonopole pair in FZS. Thus, in the symmetric/superconducting phase of the XY/FZS model we should find

$$m(\kappa )=𝒯(1/\kappa )|\kappa \kappa _c|^{\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}},$$
(6)
and in the broken/Coulomb phases $`m=𝒯=0`$.

This is indeed the case: in Fig. 1 we show the results for $`𝒯`$ and $`m`$. As predicted by duality, $`𝒯=m`$ within the statistical errors, and the tension critical exponent is $`0.672(9)`$, compatible with $`\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}`$.

### Photon mass

The most natural observable for the FZS model (and the one usually measured in high-$`T_c`$ superconductor experiments) is the photon mass $`m_\gamma =1/\lambda `$, the inverse of the penetration depth. The duality relates $`\lambda `$ to the correlation length of the Noether current operator in the XY-Villain model. Parametrizing the critical behaviour of $`m_\gamma `$ with the exponent $`\nu ^{}`$, we have $`m_\gamma |\beta \beta _c|^\nu ^{}`$ in the superconducting phase. The theoretical prediction is $`\nu ^{}=\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}`$ .

Fig. 2 shows the $`m_\gamma `$ values measured from the plaquette correlation functions in FZS. A power law fit yields $`\nu ^{}0.54`$, not compatible with the prediction from the duality. However, this value agrees with (one of) the experimental results  and Monte Carlo simulations of the GL theory . The dashed line shows $`2\times 𝒯`$. Since the photon operator we use couples to two vortices, and the measured $`m_\gamma >2\times 𝒯`$, we conclude that the observed $`m_\gamma `$ shows pre-asymptotic behaviour, and the true asymptotic value is $`m_\gamma =2\times 𝒯(\beta \beta _c)^{\nu _{\mathrm{XY}}}`$, which agrees with the duality.

### Anomalous dimension

At the critical point ($`\beta =\beta _c`$), the photon (plaquette) correlation function is predicted to have a large anomalous dimension $`\eta _A=1`$

$$\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{p})\mathrm{}(\stackrel{}{p})|\stackrel{}{p}|^{\eta _A},\text{ when }|\stackrel{}{p}|0.$$
(7)
This is indeed what we observe: at $`\beta _c`$ the correlation function in FZS shows a clear power law dependence, with the power $`\eta _A=0.98(4)`$.

## 3 CONCLUSIONS

Because of the exact duality between the frozen superconductor (FZS) and the XY model, the critical observables in FZS must behave according to the corresponding XY model critical exponents. We have measured several observables in the frozen superconductor, and we duly find the behaviour predicted by the duality (for quantities other than reported here, see ). The sole exception is the photon mass $`m_\gamma `$, which appears to scale with an exponent substantially smaller than the XY model prediction. Exactly analogous behaviour has been observed superconductor experiments and in GL theory simulations.

Since the observed behaviour of $`m_\gamma `$ differs from predictions even when the duality is exact, the similar discrepancies observed in other studies do not mean that the duality hypothesis is not valid in real superconductors. The apparent incorrect scaling behaviour may be due to the large anomalous dimension $`\eta _A`$ of the photon propagator.


text:
# Bipartite graphs whose edge algebras are complete intersections

## 1. Introduction

For any graph $`G`$ with vertices $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N\}`$ we define the edge algebra associated with $`G`$ as the sub-algebra of $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_N]`$ generated by the monomials

$$\left\{x_ix_j\right|(x_i,x_j)\text{ is an edge of }G\}.$$

We denote this monomial algebra by $`k[G]`$.

There has been a recent effort to relate the algebraic properties of $`k[G]`$ with the structure of $`G`$. For example,  and  give a criterion for the normality of $`k[G]`$ and the authors of the latter recently obtained a characterization of all bipartite graphs whose edge algebras are Gorenstein (.)

In this paper I follow this line of inquiry and I will present a characterization of all bipartite graphs whose edge algebras are complete intersections (theorem 3.5.)

We shall denote by $`\mathrm{E}(G)`$ the set of edges of $`G`$ and by $`\mathrm{V}(G)`$ its set of vertices. The cardinality of these sets will be denoted by $`\mathrm{e}(G)`$ and $`\mathrm{v}(G)`$ respectively.

We fix the following presentation of $`k[G]`$: define a map $`\varphi :k[\mathrm{E}(G)]k[G]`$ by $`\varphi (x_r,x_s)=x_rx_s`$ and let $`K_G`$ be the kernel of $`\varphi `$. Note that $`K_G`$ is a binomial prime ideal containing no monomials. We also recall that if $`G`$ is connected then $`dim(k[G])`$ equals $`\mathrm{v}(G)1`$ if $`G`$ is bipartite, $`\mathrm{v}(G)`$ otherwise (corollary 7.3.1 in .)

The next section will describe a set of generators and a Gröbner basis for $`K_G`$. We will then obtain a number of straightforward corollaries linking the structure of $`G`$ with that of $`k[G]`$. We will then restrict our attention to bipartite graphs, and we will characterize those graphs whose edge algebras are complete intersections.

## 2. A Gröbner basis for $`K_G`$

We first introduce some graph theoretical terminology:

Let $`G`$ be a graph. A walk of length $`l`$ in $`G`$ is a sequence of edges

$$(v_1,v_2),(v_2,v_3),\mathrm{},(v_{l1},v_l),(v_l,v_{l+1});$$

this walk is closed if $`v_{l+1}=v_1`$; if, in addition, $`l3`$ and every vertex in the walk occurs precisely twice this closed path is a cycle of length $`l`$.

A closed walk $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_l`$ is minimal if no two consecutive (modulo $`l`$) edges are equal. A walk $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{2l}`$ is trivial if after a cyclic permutation of the edges we have $`e_1=e_2,e_3=e_4,\mathrm{}e_{2l1}=e_{2l}`$.

A closed walk $`e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_r^{}`$ is contained in a closed walk $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_s`$ if after a cyclic permutation of the edges of the walks we have $`e_1=e_1^{},\mathrm{},e_r=e_r^{}`$. All other graph theoretical terminology in this paper conforms with .

If we fix any monomial order in $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]`$ then given any closed walk of even length $`w=e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2l}`$ we define

$$\psi (w)=\psi ^+(w)\psi ^{}(w)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}e_{2i1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}e_{2i}k[\mathrm{E}(G)]$$

where $`\psi ^+(w)\psi ^{}(w)`$. It is not hard to see that $`\psi (w)K_G`$ for all closed walks $`w`$ of even length and it turns out that these generate $`K_G`$ (lemma 1.1 in .)

###### Theorem 2.1.

Fix any lexicographic monomial order in $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]`$. Let $`𝒲`$ be the set of minimal closed walks in $`G`$ of even length and let $`𝒢_G=\{\psi (w)|w𝒲\}`$. Then there exists a subset of $`𝒢_G`$ which is a Gröbner basis for $`K_G`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that any binomial in $`K_G`$ reduces to zero with respect to $`𝒢_G`$. Pick a counterexample $`ABK_G`$ with $`A>B`$ of minimal degree having disjoint support. Let $`e_1`$ be the largest variable occurring in $`A`$. If $`e_1=(v_1,v_2)`$ then some variable $`e_2=(v_2,v_3)`$ must occur in $`B`$. If $`v_3=v_1`$ then $`AB=e_1(A/e_1B/e_1)`$ where the second factor is a binomial in $`K_G`$ of smaller degree and by the minimality of the degree of $`AB`$ it reduces to zero, and we are done.

Assume now that $`v_3v_1`$. We can now pick a variable $`e_3=(v_3,v_4)`$ occurring in $`A/e_1`$ and a variable $`e_4=(v_4,v_5)`$ occurring in $`B/e_2`$. If $`v_5=v_1`$ then $`\psi ^+(e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4)`$ divides $`A`$ and we are done. We may continue in this fashion until we produce a closed walk $`w=e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{2l}`$ such that $`\psi ^+(w)`$ divides $`A`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.2.

If $`G`$ has at most one odd cycle then

$$𝒢_G=\{\psi (c)|c\text{ is a even cycle in }G\}$$

is a Gröbner basis for $`K_G`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to show that if $`w=(e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2l})`$ is a minimal walk in $`G`$ then $`\psi ^+(c)`$ divides $`\psi ^+(w)`$ for some even cycle $`c`$ contained in $`w`$. Pick as a counterexample such a $`w`$ with minimal length. Since $`w`$ is minimal, there exists some cycle $`c^{}`$ contained in $`w`$, say $`c^{}=(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_r)`$. If $`r`$ is odd then $`(e_{r+1},e_{r+2},\mathrm{},e_{2l})`$ is a closed walk of odd length, and, therefore, cannot be trivial and must contain an even cycle.

We have shown that $`w`$ must contain an even cycle, say $`c=(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{2s})`$. If $`s=l`$ we are done, otherwise let $`w^{}`$ be the even cycle $`(e_{2s+1},e_{2s+2},\mathrm{},e_{2l})`$. $`\psi ^+(w)`$ must be divisible by $`\psi ^+(c)`$ or by $`\psi ^+(w^{})`$. If the former occurs we are done, if the latter occurs, the minimality of the length of $`w`$ implies that there exists an even cycle $`c^{}`$ in $`w^{}`$ such that $`\psi ^+(c^{})`$ divides $`\psi ^+(w^{})`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`G`$ have at most one odd cycle, and let $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_r`$ be the blocks of $`G`$.

1. $`k[G]`$ is a complete intersection if and only if $`k[B_i]`$ is a complete intersection for all $`1ir`$.
2. $`k[G]`$ is Gorenstein if and only if $`k[B_i]`$ is Gorenstein for all $`1ir`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`K_G`$ is generated by elements involving edges in one block we can write

$$k[G]k[\mathrm{E}(G)]/K_Gk[\mathrm{E}(B_1)]/K_{B_1}_k\mathrm{}_kk[\mathrm{E}(B_r)]/K_{B_r}$$

proving (1).

We can find a system of parameters for $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]/K_G`$ where each parameter is in some $`k[B_i]`$. Killing these parameters gives us a zero-dimensional $`k`$-algebra whose socle is the tensor product of $`r`$ non-zero vector spaces. Thus the type of $`k[G]`$ is one if and only if all these vector spaces are one dimensional. ∎

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`G`$ be a connected graph and let $`d=dimk[G]`$. Let $`(1,h_1,h_2,\mathrm{})`$ be the $`h`$-vector of $`k[G]`$. If $`2L`$ is the length of the smallest minimal even closed walk in $`G`$ then $`h_i=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)d+i1}{\mathrm{e}(G)d1}}\right)`$ for all $`0i<L`$ while $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)d+L1}{\mathrm{e}(G)d1}}\right)h_L`$ is the number of (minimal) closed walks of length $`2L`$ in $`G`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{H}(i)`$ be the Hilbert function of $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]/K_G`$ (where the degrees of the variables are one,) and consider the short exact sequence

$$0K_GK[\mathrm{E}(G)]k[\mathrm{E}(G)]/K_G0.$$

Since the minimal degree of a generator of $`K_G`$ is $`L`$ we have $`\mathrm{H}(i)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)+i1}{\mathrm{e}(G)1}\right)`$ for all $`i<L`$ while $`\mathrm{H}(L)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)+L1}{\mathrm{e}(G)1}\right)\gamma `$ where $`\gamma `$ is the number of closed walks of length $`\gamma `$ in $`G`$.

Now $`h_i`$ is the coefficient of $`t^i`$ in $`(1t)^d_{j=0}^i\mathrm{H}(j)t^j`$, and for $`i<L`$ this is the coefficient of $`t^i`$ in $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1t)^d}{(1t)^{\mathrm{e}(G)}}}`$, i.e., $`h_i=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)d+i1}{\mathrm{e}(G)d1}}\right)`$. On the other hand, $`h_L`$ is the coefficient of $`t^L`$ in

$$(1t)^d\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)+j1}{\mathrm{e}(G)1}\right)t^j\gamma t^L\right)=\frac{(1t)^d}{(1t)^{\mathrm{e}(G)}}(1t)^d\gamma t^L$$

and, therefore, $`h_L=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{e}(G)+L1}{\mathrm{e}(G)1}}\right)\gamma `$. ∎

## 3. Bipartite graphs whose edge algebra is a complete intersection

We begin this section by producing a minimal set of generators for $`k[G]`$ where $`G`$ is bipartite (i.e., all cycles in $`G`$ are even.) We shall assume that we fixed some unspecified monomial order in $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]`$ so that for any closed walk $`w`$ of even length in $`G`$, $`\psi (w)`$ is well defined.

###### Definition 3.1.

A bipartite graph $`G`$ is a CI graph if any two cycles with no chords have at most one edge in common.

For any graph $`G`$ we will denote the set of cycles in $`G`$ with no chords by $`𝒞(G)`$.

The following observation, also proved in , provides a link between the structures of $`G`$ and $`k[G]`$.

###### Theorem 3.2.

If $`G`$ is a bipartite graph then

$$𝒮=\{\psi (c)|c𝒞(G)\}$$

is a minimal set of generators of $`K_G`$.

###### Proof.

We first show that $`𝒮`$ generates $`K_G`$. Pick as a counterexample a cycle $`c=e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2l}`$ of minimal length such that $`\psi (c)`$ is not contained in $`<𝒮>`$. Then $`c`$ must have a chord $`e`$ and we obtain after a cyclic permutation of the edges of $`c`$ two cycles $`c_1=e,e_1,\mathrm{},e_{2r1}`$ and $`c_2=e,e_{2r},\mathrm{},e_{2l}`$ in $`G`$ whose length is smaller than the length of $`c`$. By the minimality of $`c`$ we have $`\psi (c_1),\psi (c_2)<𝒮>`$ but since

$$e_2e_4\mathrm{}e_{2r2}(ee_{2r+1}e_{2r+3}\mathrm{}e_{2l1}e_{2r}e_{2r+2}\mathrm{}e_{2l})$$

$$e_{2r+1}e_{2r+3}\mathrm{}e_{2l1}(ee_2e_4\mathrm{}e_{2r2}e_1e_3\mathrm{}e_{2r1})=$$

$$e_1e_3\mathrm{}e_{2r1}e_{2r+1}\mathrm{}e_{2l1}e_2e_4\mathrm{}e_{2r2}e_{2r}\mathrm{}e_{2l}$$

$`\psi (c)`$ is in the ideal generated by $`\psi (c_1)`$ and $`\psi (c_2)`$, a contradiction.

Assume now that for some $`c=e_1\mathrm{}e_{2l}𝒞`$ we have $`\psi (c)<𝒮\{\psi (c)\}>`$. In this case there is a monomial in one of the generators of $`<𝒮\{\psi (c)\}>`$ which divides a monomial in $`\psi (c)`$, i.e., there exists $`d=f_1\mathrm{}f_{2r}𝒞`$ such that after a cyclic permutation of the edges of $`d`$ we have $`f_1=e_{2i_11},f_3=e_{2i_21},\mathrm{},f_{2r1}=e_{2i_r1}`$. But then if any of $`f_2,f_4,\mathrm{}f_{2r}`$ is not an edge in $`c`$ then it must be a chord of $`c`$ and, therefore, all the edges of $`d`$ are in $`c`$, implying that $`c=d`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`G`$ be a graph with no triangles with the property that any two cycles with no chords in $`G`$ share at most one edge.

1. If two cycles with no chords have a common edge then there is no edge connecting them other than the common edge.
2. There exists an edge in at most one cycle with no chords.
3. If $`e`$ is an edge on precisely one cycle with no chords then $`e`$ is not a chord of any cycle.
4. If $`G`$ is connected then there are precisely $`\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1`$ cycles with no chords in $`G`$.

###### Proof.

It is enough to prove the lemma for all the connected components of $`G`$, so we will assume henceforth that $`G`$ is connected.

1. Let $`c_1,c_2𝒞(G)`$ have the edge $`(v_1,v_2)`$ as a common edge. Write

$$c_1=(v_1,v_2)(v_2,u_3)\mathrm{}(u_r,v_1)(r>3)$$

and

$$c_2=(v_1,v_2)(v_2,w_3)\mathrm{}(w_s,v_1)(s>3).$$

If there is an edge other than $`(v_1,v_2)`$ connecting $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$, since $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ have no chords we can pick $`3ir`$ minimal such that there exists an edge in $`G`$ connecting $`u_i`$ with a vertex of $`c_2`$, and we can pick $`3js`$ minimal such that $`(u_i,w_j)`$ is an edge.

We cannot have $`i=j=3`$ otherwise we would have a triangle in $`G`$, and we may assume that $`i>3`$. The cycle

$$c_3=(v_2,u_3)(u_3,u_4)\mathrm{}(u_{i1},u_i)(u_i,w_j)(w_j,w_{j1})\mathrm{}(w_3,v_2)$$

has no chords and $`\mathrm{\#}(c_3c_1)>1`$, a contradiction.
2. Let $`𝔊`$ be the bipartite graph whose vertices are

$$𝒞(G)\left\{e\mathrm{E}(G)\right|e\text{ is in some }c𝒞(G)\}$$

and whose edges are

$$\left\{(e,c)\right|e\mathrm{E}(G),c𝒞(G)\text{ and }e\text{ is an edge of }c\}.$$

If any edge is in at least two cycles with no chords then the degree of the vertices of $`𝔊`$ is at least two and we can pick a minimal cycle $`c_1,e_1,c_2,e_2,\mathrm{},c_r,e_r`$ in $`𝔊`$, i.e., we produce a sequence $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_r)𝒞(G)`$ together with a sequence of edges $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$ such that for all $`1i<r`$ we have $`e_ic_ic_{i+1}`$ and $`e_rc_rc_1`$ and in addition only consecutive (modulo $`r`$) cycles in this sequence have a common edge.

We first note that there is no edge connecting two vertices in different $`c_i,c_j`$ other than one of $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$; if there were such an edge $`e`$ then by part (1) of the lemma $`i`$ and $`j`$ are not consecutive (modulo $`r`$.) After a cyclic permutation of the cycles we may assume that $`1i<j<r`$ and write $`e=(v_1,v_2)`$ with $`v_1c_i`$ and $`v_2c_j`$. We can find a path $`p`$ between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ lying in $`(c_i\mathrm{}c_j)\{e_i,e_{i+1},\mathrm{},e_{j1}\}`$; add to this path the edge $`e`$ to obtain a cycle $`c`$. If $`c`$ has chords replace it with another cycle with no chords containing a sub-path of $`p`$ and an edge $`e^{}`$ connecting two vertices in $`c_i^{}`$ and $`c_j^{}`$ with $`ii^{}<j^{}j`$. Thus we may assume that $`c`$ has no chords and we may replace $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_r`$ with a possibly shorter sequence $`c_i,c_{i+1},c`$ implying that $`r=3`$. But when $`r=3`$ any two cycles are consecutive and we are done by the first part of this lemma.

Consider the graph $`H=(c_1\mathrm{}c_r)\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_r\}`$; $`H`$ has at most two connected components, one of which must be a cycle $`c`$ (one of these components may be a single vertex, but not both.)

Assume first that $`H=c`$. For any $`e_i`$ there is a path $`p`$ in $`H`$ connecting the endpoints of $`e_i`$, and if we pick this path to have minimal length, the cycle $`c^{}`$ obtained by concatenating $`p`$ and $`e_i`$ has no chords. But $`p`$ must have an edge in common with either $`c_{i1}`$ or with $`c_i`$, and, therefore, $`c^{}`$ must share at least two edges with $`c_{i1}`$ or with $`c_i`$.

Consider now the case where $`H`$ has two connected components, one of which is the cycle $`c`$. We have shown that this cycle cannot have a chord, i.e., $`c𝒞(G)`$, and, therefore, $`\mathrm{\#}(cc_i)1`$ for all $`1ir`$. But since every edge in every $`c_i`$ except two are in $`H`$ we must have $`\mathrm{\#}(cc_i)=1`$ for all $`1ir`$. This immediately shows that both connected components of $`H`$ are cycles and also that $`r>3`$ because $`G`$ has no triangles.

Let the two connected components of $`H`$ be $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_r`$ and $`g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_r`$ where $`f_i,g_ic_i`$ for all $`1ir`$ and consider the cycles

$$c^{}=e_r,g_1,g_2,e_2,f_3,f_4,\mathrm{},f_r$$

and

$$c^{\prime \prime }=g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_r.$$

These cycles have no chords and their intersection is $`\{g_1,g_2\}`$, a contradiction.
3. Any chord is an edge of at least two cycles with no chords.
4. We proceed by induction on $`\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)`$. If $`\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)=1`$ then $`G`$ is a tree and the claim is trivial. Assume that $`\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)0`$ and pick an edge $`e`$ precisely in one $`c𝒞(G)`$. Consider the graph $`H=G\{e\}`$; by removing the edge $`e`$ we removed from $`G`$ one cycle with no chords, and since $`e`$ is not a chord of any cycle in $`G`$, removing $`e`$ does not add any new cycles with no chords. Thus $`H`$ has one less cycle with no chords than $`G`$ and by the induction hypothesis $`H`$ has $`\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)`$ such cycles.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`G`$ be any graph.

1. $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G)\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1`$.
2. If $`G`$ has two cycles with no chords with more than one common edge then $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G)>\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1`$.

###### Proof.

1. If $`e`$ is any edge in $`G`$ we denote by $`G_{(e)}`$ the graph obtained from $`G`$ by “shrinking” $`e`$, i.e., by removing the edge $`e`$ and identifying its endpoints. We also denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_e`$ the number of triangles in $`G`$ of which $`e`$ is an edge.

We have $`\mathrm{e}(G_{(e)})=\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{\Delta }_e1`$ and $`\mathrm{v}(G_{(e)})=\mathrm{v}(G)1`$. We also have $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G_{(e)})=\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G)\mathrm{\Delta }_eϵ_e`$ where $`ϵ_e0`$ is the number of cycles with no chords in $`G`$ which acquire a chord after shrinking $`e`$.

We can now use induction on $`\mathrm{e}(G)`$:

$$\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G)=\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G_{(e)})+\mathrm{\Delta }_e+ϵ_e\mathrm{e}(G_{(e)})\mathrm{v}(G_{(e)})+1+\mathrm{\Delta }_e=$$

$$\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{\Delta }_e1\mathrm{v}(G)+1+1+\mathrm{\Delta }_e=\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1.$$
2. Pick $`c_1,c_2𝒞(G)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\#}(c_1c_2)>1`$. We can find a path

$$p=(u,w_1),(w_1,w_2),\mathrm{},(w_l,v)$$

where $`u,v`$ are vertices in $`c_1`$ and $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_l`$ are vertices in $`c_2c_1`$. Note that $`(u,v)`$ cannot be an edge in $`G`$, otherwise, since $`c_2`$ has no chords, $`c_2`$ would be the concatenation of $`p`$ and $`(u,v)`$ and would have only one edge in common with $`c_1`$.

We can now shrink $`G`$ successively at all edges of $`p`$ but one. After this shrinking $`c_1`$ will acquire a chord, thus at least one of the $`ϵ_e`$’s obtained in this process will be positive, and the inequality follows.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`G`$ be a bipartite graph. $`k[G]`$ is a complete intersection if and only if $`G`$ is a CI graph.

###### Proof.

If $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are two disjoint graphs then $`k[G_1G_2]=k[G_1]_kk[G_2]`$, thus we may assume that $`G`$ is connected.

$`k[G]`$ is a complete intersection if and only if $`K_G`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{e}(G)dim(k[G])=\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1`$ elements (cf. corollary 7.3.1 in ) and theorem 3.2 implies that $`k[G]`$ is a complete intersection if and only if $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G)=\mathrm{e}(G)\mathrm{v}(G)+1`$; the result now follows from lemmas 3.3(4) and 3.4.

###### Example 3.6.

Consider the graph $`G_n`$ with vertices $`\{x,y,u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2,\mathrm{},u_n,v_n\}`$ and edges

$$\{(x,y)\}\{(x,u_1),\mathrm{},(x,u_n)\}\{(y,v_1),\mathrm{},(y,v_n)\}\{(u_1,v_1),\mathrm{},(u_n,v_n)\}.$$

$`G_n`$ is bipartite with $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(G_n)=n`$ and since $`\mathrm{e}(G_n)\mathrm{v}(G_n)+1=3n+1(2n+2)+1=n`$ we conclude that $`k[G_n]`$ is a complete intersection. Notice, however, that if $`H_n`$ is the graph obtained from $`G_n`$ by removing the edge $`(x,y)`$ we have $`\mathrm{\#}𝒞(H_n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ cycles with no chords, and, therefore, $`K_{H_n}`$ is a prime ideal of height $`n`$ which is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$–generated.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`G`$ be a graph as in lemma 3.3. Then $`G`$ is planar.

###### Proof.

The following proof is based on the proof of lemma 11.13(a) in .

Pick a counterexample $`G`$ with minimal $`\mathrm{e}(G)`$; $`G`$ will necessarily be a block and we may pick an edge $`e=(u_1,u_4)\mathrm{E}(G)`$ lying in a unique $`c𝒞(G)`$. We may shrink the edge $`e`$ in $`G`$ without affecting the hypothesis of the theorem unless $`c`$ is a cycle of length four; we shall assume henceforth that $`c=(u_1,u_2),(u_2,u_3),(u_3,u_4),(u_4,u_1)`$.

Let $`H=G\{e\}`$; note that $`H`$ satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem and that $`u_1`$ and $`u_4`$ must lie in different blocks $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ of $`H`$ thus we may pick a cutpoint in all paths in $`H`$ from $`u_1`$ to $`u_4`$ and with no loss of generality we may take this cutpoint to be $`u_2`$.

Let $`B_2^{}=B_2\{(u_2,u_4),(u_2,u_3)\}`$ and let $`B_2^{\prime \prime }=B_2\{(u_1,u_4),(u_1,u_2),(u_2,u_3)\}`$ (note that the edge $`(u_2,u_3)`$ may have already been present in $`B_2`$.) Clearly, $`B_2^{\prime \prime }`$ contains no triangles and since the only cycle of $`B_2^{\prime \prime }`$ not in $`B_2`$ is $`c`$, we see that $`B_2^{\prime \prime }`$ satisfies the hypothesis of the theorem.

If $`B_2^{\prime \prime }G`$ we may deduce that it is planar, and $`B_2^{}`$, being homeomorphic to it, must also be planar. We may then embed $`H\{(u_2,u_4)\}`$ in the plane in such a way that $`(u_1,u_2)`$ and $`(u_2,u_4)`$ are exterior edges; adding now the edge $`(u_1,u_4)`$ will not affect the planarity of the graph, and we conclude that $`G`$ is planar.

Assume now that $`B_2^{\prime \prime }=G`$. If $`u_2`$ and $`u_4`$ belong to different blocks of $`F=B_2\{(u_2,u_3)\}`$ then so do the edges $`(u_2,u_3)`$ and $`(u_3,u_4)`$ and we can embed $`F`$ in the plane so that these edges bound the exterior face. We can then add the edges $`(u_1,u_2)`$ and $`(u_1,u_4)`$ without affecting the planarity. If $`u_2`$ and $`u_4`$ lie in the same block of $`F`$ we can find minimal path $`p`$ in $`F\{u_3\}`$ connecting $`u_2`$ with $`u_4`$. The cycle obtained by concatenating $`p`$ with $`(u_1,u_2)`$ and $`(u_1,u_4)`$ has no chords and is different from $`c`$, contradicting the fact that $`(u_1,u_4)`$ lies in a unique cycle with no chords. ∎

###### Corollary 3.8.

Let $`G`$ be a connected CI graph. Then either $`G`$ is a single edge or $`\mathrm{e}(G)2(\mathrm{v}(G)2)`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`G`$ must be planar and with no triangles, the result follows easily from Euler’s formula for planar graphs (see also corollary 11.17(b) in .) ∎

###### Remark 3.9.

1. It is not hard to see that a bipartite outerplanar graph is a CI graph but the reverse inclusion does not hold, e.g. the graph $`G_n`$ in example 3.6 is not outerplanar for $`n3`$ since it contains a subgraph homeomorphic to $`K_{2,3}`$. Therefore the family of CI-graphs is strictly between the families of bipartite outerplanar graphs and bipartite planar graphs.
2. When $`G`$ is not bipartite, $`k[G]`$ may be a complete intersection without $`G`$ being planar. For example let $`G`$ be the following graph:

A computation with Macaulay2 () shows that $`k[G]`$ is a complete intersection; the solid lines show a subgraph of $`G`$ homeomorphic to $`K_{3,3}`$.

## 4. Algorithmic applications and some examples

In this section we will generalize theorem 3.2 which will result in an algorithm for computing $`𝒞(G)`$. Throughout this section we shall assume that $`k[\mathrm{E}(G)]`$ is equipped with a monomial order so that for any closed walk $`w`$ of even length $`\psi (w)`$ is well defined.

###### Theorem 4.1.

The elements of $`\{\psi (c)|c𝒞(G)\text{ is an even cycle}\}`$ form part of a minimal set of generators for $`K_G`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`W`$ be a set of closed walks of even length such that $`\{\psi (w)|wW\}`$ is a minimal set of generators for $`K_G`$ and let $`c𝒞(G)`$. We will show that $`cW`$.

Since $`\psi (c)K_G`$ there exists a $`wW`$ and a monomial in $`\psi (w)`$ which divides $`\psi ^+(c)`$.

If $`w`$ contains no odd cycles then the proof of theorem 3.2 shows that $`w𝒞(G)`$ and that $`w=c`$.

If $`w=(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{2l})`$ contains an odd cycle, say $`(e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_{2r+1})`$ then each of $`\psi ^+(w)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(w)`$ is divisible by one of $`e_1e_{2r+1}`$ or $`e_1e_{2r+2}`$. But this is impossible since $`\psi ^+(c)`$ is not divisible by any two edges sharing a common vertex. ∎

As a corollary we obtain an algorithm for producing $`𝒞(G)`$ as follows: given a graph $`G`$ construct the ideal $`I_G`$ generated by

$$\{euv|u,vV(G),e=(u,v)\mathrm{E}(G)\}R=k[\mathrm{V}(G),\mathrm{E}(G)].$$

Using a lexicographic order in $`R`$ with $`v>e`$ for any $`v\mathrm{V}(G)`$ and $`e\mathrm{E}(G)`$ compute a Gröbner basis for $`I_G`$ and eliminate the variables corresponding to vertices of $`G`$. The resulting set will contain a minimal subset of generators for $`K_G`$; we can now pick those corresponding to $`𝒞(G)`$.

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`G`$ be the following graph:

Applying the algorithm above using a lexicographical order in which $`e_1>e_2>\mathrm{}>e_{12}`$ we obtain a Gröbner basis for $`K_G`$ corresponding to the cycles:

The first ten elements give us $`𝒞(G)`$.

###### Example 4.3.

The minimal generators of $`K_G`$ when $`G`$ is not bipartite can correspond to quite complicated paths. Let $`G`$ be the following graph:

There are twenty minimal generators of $`K_G`$ corresponding to the following walks (up to symmetry):

Notice that the last generator corresponds to the Euler path in $`G`$. It is possible to generalize this example to obtain Eulerian graphs in which the Euler paths correspond to minimal generators of $`K_G`$ and where there are minimal generators of $`K_G`$ corresponding to closed walks containing an arbitrarily large number of odd cycles.

## Acknowledgment

I would like to express my gratitude to Victor Neumann-Lara for our pleasant discussions on Graph Theory and his many useful suggestions.


text: # 1 Selection 1. Δϕ_(𝑍,𝑗𝑒𝑡)=180^∘±15^∘. UA1 algorithm.