text:
# On strong multiplicity one for automorphic representations

## 1. Introduction

Let $`K`$ be a number field with ring of adeles $`𝐀_K`$. Let $`𝒜(n,K)`$ denote the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible, unitary, cuspidal automorphic representations of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$. Given $`\pi 𝒜(n,K)`$, $`\pi `$ can be expressed as a restricted tensor product $`\mathrm{`}_{v\mathrm{\Sigma }_K}^{}\pi _v`$, where $`v`$ runs over all the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_K`$ places of $`K`$, and $`\pi _v`$ is an irreducible, unitary representation of $`GL_n(K_v)`$. At almost all finite places $`v`$, $`\pi _v`$ is unramified, and let $`A_v(\pi )`$ denote the conjugacy class in $`GL(n,𝐂)`$ determined by the Langlands-Satake parameter associated to $`\pi _v`$.

Let $`S`$ be a finite set of places of $`K`$. The strong multiplicity one theorem of Jacquet, Piatetski-Shapiro and Shalika \[JS\], asserts that any $`\pi 𝒜(n,K)`$ is uniquely determined by the collection of the local components $`\{\pi _vv\mathrm{\Sigma }_KS\}`$ of $`\pi `$. In view of the possible applications to the functoriality principle of Langlands, it is desirable to have refined versions of the strong multiplicity one theorem. In this note, we give an analytical proof of a stronger version of the strong mulitplicity one theorem, based on the analytical properties of the Rankin-Selberg $`L`$-functions.

Let $`𝒪_K`$ denote the ring of integers of $`K`$. If $`v`$ is a finite place of $`K`$, then we denote the corresponding prime ideal by $`P_v`$, and by $`Nv`$ the norm of $`v`$ to be the number of elements in the residue field $`𝒪_K/P_v`$. Let $`S`$ be a set of finite places of $`K`$ satisfying the following convergence condition:

(1)
$$\underset{vS}{}Nv^{\frac{2}{n^2+1}}<\mathrm{}.$$

Our main theorem is as follows:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ be irreducible, unitary, cuspidal automorphic representations of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$. Let $`S`$ be a set of finite places of $`K`$ satisfying the convergence criterion given in (1). Suppose that at almost all but finitely many places $`vS`$, the local components of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are isomorphic:

$$\pi _{1,v}\pi _{2,v}.$$

Then $`\pi _1\pi _2.`$

An advantage with this formulation, is that the ignorant set of places $`S`$ can be infinite, and in fact the convergence criterion allows us to handle sets $`S`$ of positive density.

###### Example.

Let $`K/𝐐`$ be a cyclic extension of prime degree greater than $`(n^2+1)/2`$ over $`𝐐`$, and take $`S`$ to be the collection of unramified finite places in $`K`$, which are not of degree one over $`𝐐`$.

More generally, let $`K/𝐐`$ be a Galois extension with Galois group $`G`$. Let $`\sigma _v`$ denote the Frobenius element at an unramified finite place $`v`$ of $`K`$ over $`𝐐`$. Then the collection $`S`$ of finite unramified places $`v`$ of $`K`$, such that the order of $`\sigma _v`$ is greater than $`(n^2+1)/2`$ satisfies the convergence condition (1).

The above theorem, combined with the results on solvable base change of automorphic representations established by Langlands, Arthur and Clozel \[AC\], and the characterisation of the fibres of solvable base change \[R3\], allow us to handle sets $`S`$ of positive density, consisting of places of $`K`$ having suitable splitting properties with respect to solvable extensions of $`K`$:

###### Corollary 1.

Suppose $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are irreducible, unitary, cuspidal automorphic representations of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$. Let $`L/K`$ be a solvable extension, and $`S`$ be a set of finite places in $`K`$, unramified in $`L`$, such that for any place $`w`$ of $`L`$ dividing a place $`v`$ in $`S`$ of residue characteristic $`p`$, the norm $`Nw`$ is greater than $`p^{(n^2+1)/2}`$. Suppose that at almost all but finitely many places $`v`$ of $`K`$ not belonging to $`S`$, the local components of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are isomorphic:

$$\pi _{1,v}=\pi _{2,v}.$$

Assume further that the base change of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ to $`GL_n(𝐀_L)`$ is cuspidal. Then there is an idele class character $`\chi `$ of $`K`$, corresponding via class field theory to a character of the Galois group of the extension $`L/K`$, such that

$$\pi _1\pi _2\chi .$$

###### Proof.

Let $`BC_{L/K}`$ be the base change map defined by Arthur and Clozel (\[AC\]), from $`𝒜(n,K)`$ to $`𝒜(n,L)`$. By Theorem 1, it follows from the hypothesis of the corollary, that $`BC_{L/K}(\pi _1)BC_{L/K}(\pi _2)`$. Since the base change representations are cuspidal, the corollary follows from the description of the fibres of solvable base change given by Theorem 2 of \[R3\]. ∎

A conjecture of Ramakrishnan \[DR2\], asserts that if the Dirichlet density of the set of places $`S`$ of $`K`$ is less than $`1/2n^2`$, then the set of local components $`\pi _v`$ for $`v`$ not in $`S`$, determines $`\pi `$ uniquely. Ramakrishnan in \[DR1\], proved this conjecture in the case $`n=2`$, using the automorphicity of the symmetric square lifting for $`GL(2)`$. In \[R2\], Ramakrishnan’s conjecture is verified for a particular class of automorphic representations of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$, and also that Ramanujan’s conjecture (and not a weak Ramanujan conjecture, as wrongly stated there) implies Ramakrishnan’s conjecture.

In the $`l`$-adic context, apart from Ramakrishnan’s conjecture, much more is known about the nature of strong multiplicity one results \[R1\]. For example, suppose $`\rho _1,\rho _2:G_KGL_n(𝐐_l)`$ are absolutely irreducible $`l`$-adic representations of the absolute Galois group $`G_K`$ of a global field $`K`$, unramified outside a finite set of places. Suppose that the algebraic envelope of the image of one of the representations is connected, and that the traces of the Frobenius elements agree at a set of unramified finite places of positive density of $`K`$. Then there is a character $`\chi :G_K𝐐_l^{}`$ of finite order, such that $`\rho _2\rho _1\chi `$.

Analogously, it can be expected \[R2\], that if $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ are cuspidal, automorphic representations of ‘general type’ on $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$ (when $`n=2`$, general type is the same as non automorphically induced from a Hecke character of a quadratic extension of $`K`$), such that $`a_v(\pi _1)=a_v(\pi _2)`$ at a set of unramified finite places of positive density, then there exists an idele-class character $`\chi `$ of $`K`$, such that $`\pi _1\pi _2\chi `$. Here for an unramified finite place $`v`$ of an automorphic representation $`\pi `$, the Dirichlet coefficient $`a_v(\pi )`$ of $`\pi `$ at $`v`$, is the trace of $`A_v(\pi )`$. The above results represent a small step towards this general direction.

## 2. Proof

The method of proof is analogous to the proof of Ramakrishnan’s conjecture for Artin (finite) representations of the absolute Galois group: let $`G`$ be a finite group, and let $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ be inequivalent representations of $`G`$ to $`GL(n,𝐂)`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\#}\{gGTr(\rho _1(g))=Tr(\rho _1(g))\}(11/2n^2)|G|.$$

The proof of this result follows from considering the equality,

$$\frac{1}{|G|}\underset{gG}{}|Tr(\rho _1(g))Tr(\rho _2(g))|^22,$$

and using the fact that the character value at an element $`g`$ in $`G`$, is a sum of $`n`$ roots of unity.

In analogy, we consider the $`L`$-function associated to an automorphic representation, as the ‘character’ of the representation. Then the convolution product of characters becomes the Rankin-Selberg $`L`$-function $`L(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ associated to a pair of unitary, cuspidal automorphic representations $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$. The analytic properties of the convolution $`L`$-function have been studied extensively by Jacquet, Piatetskii-Shapiro, Shalika, Shahidi and Waldspurger in a series of papers \[JS\], \[JPSh\], \[Sh\], \[MoW\].

The local factors of the Rankin-Selberg $`L`$-function $`L(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ at an unramified finite place $`v`$ of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ is defined as,

(2)
$$L(s,\pi _{1,v}\times \pi _{2,v})=\mathrm{det}(1A_v(\pi _1)A_v(\pi _2)Nv^s)^1.$$

Let $`T`$ be a set of places of $`K`$ containing the archimedean places of $`K`$. Define the Dirichlet series

$$L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)=\underset{vT}{}L(s,\pi _{1,v}\times \pi _{2,v}).$$

If $`T`$ is finite, then $`L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ satisfies the following properties (\[JS\], \[JPSh\], \[Sh\], \[MoW\]):

* The Dirichlet series $`L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ is absolutely convergent in the half plane $`\text{Re}(s)>1`$.
* The function $`L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ admits a meromorphic continuation to $`1`$. Further, if $`L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ is holomorphic at $`s=1`$, then it is non-vanishing at $`s=1`$.
* Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ denote the contragredient representation of an automorphic representation $`\pi `$. The function $`L_T(s,\pi _1\times \pi _2)`$ has a simple pole at $`s=1`$ if and only if $`\pi _1\stackrel{~}{\pi }_2`$.

Consider the following Dirichlet series

$$L_T(s)=\frac{L_T(s,\pi _1\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_1)L_T(s,\pi _2\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_2)}{L_T(s,\pi _1\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_2)L_T(s,\pi _2\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_1)}$$

It follows from the properties of Rankin-Selberg convolutions listed above, that if $`T`$ is finite, then $`L_T(s)`$ has a pole of order $`2`$, provided $`\pi _1\simeq ̸\pi _2`$.

Now let $`T`$ be a finite set of places of $`K`$ containing the archimedean places of $`K`$, the ramified places of $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$, and the finite number of places $`w`$ not in $`S`$, as in the hypothesis of the theorem, where it is not known that the local $`\pi _{1,w}`$ and $`\pi _{2,w}`$ are isomorphic. Let $`S^{},T^{}`$ denote respectively the complement of $`S`$ and $`T`$ in the set of all places of $`K`$. We have the hypothesis of the theorem that the local components $`\pi _{1,v}`$ and $`\pi _{2,v}`$ are isomorphic at all places of $`K`$ outside $`T`$ and $`S`$. Hence we obtain,

(3)
$$L_T(s)=L_{TS^{}}(s)=\underset{vST^{}}{}\frac{L(s,\pi _{1,v}\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_{1,v})L(s,\pi _{2,v}\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_{2,v})}{L(s,\pi _{1,v}\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_{2,v})L(s,\pi _{2,v}\times \stackrel{~}{\pi }_{1,v})}$$

At an unramified finite place $`v`$ of an automorphic representation $`\pi `$, with associated Langlands-Satake parameter $`A_v(\pi )`$, define for any natural number $`k`$,

$$a_{v,k}(\pi )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{v,i}(\pi )^k,$$

where $`\alpha _{v,1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{v,n}`$ are the eigenvalues of matrix representative of $`A_v(\pi )`$. Expanding $`\mathrm{log}L_T(s)`$ in terms of the Euler product expansion given by (3), and by the definition of the local $`L`$-factors as given by (2), we obtain in the region $`\sigma =\text{Re}(s)>1`$

(4)
$$\mathrm{log}L_T(s)=\underset{vST^{}}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|a_{v,k}(\pi _1)a_{v,k}(\pi _2)|^2Nv^{ks}k^1.$$

We recall the estimate for an eigenvalue $`\alpha _v`$ of $`A_v(\pi )`$ proved by Luo, Rudnick and Sarnak \[LRS\] for an unramified finite place $`v`$ of a unitary, automorphic representation $`\pi `$ of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$:

(5)
$$|\alpha _v|Nv^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{n^2+1}}.$$

It follows from this estimate, that for $`\sigma >1`$ we have a majorization

$$\left|\mathrm{log}L_T(s)\right|4n^2\underset{vST^{}}{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k^1Nv^{k\sigma +k2k/(n^2+1)}.$$

The convergence condition satisfied by $`S`$ as given in (1), ensures that the right hand expression has a finite limit as $`s1^+`$. But this implies that $`\pi _1\pi _2`$, and that proves the theorem.

###### Remark.

The theorem can be extended to pairs of isobaric, unitary automorphic representations $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ of $`GL_n(𝐀_K)`$.

###### Remark.

It is possible to use the method to compare two isobaric, unitary automorphic representations $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ on $`Gl_n(𝐀_K)`$ and $`GL_m(𝐀_K)`$ respectively ($`nm`$). Instead of requiring the equality of local components, we impose the hypothesis

$$a_{v,k}(\pi _1)=a_{v,k}(\pi _2)k=1,\mathrm{},[(n^2+1)/2].$$

The Luo-Rudnick-Sarnak estimates (5), ensure that the contribution of the sum over the places $`vS^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{log}L_T(s)`$ is $`O(1)`$ as $`s1^+`$, and the rest of the proof goes through.

If we assume further the Ramanujan conjectures, then the method of proof allows us to show that if the Dirichlet density of $`S`$ is less than $`1/2n^2`$, then the collection of Dirichlet coefficients (rather than the local components) $`\{a_v(\pi )vS\}`$ uniquely determines $`\pi `$.

###### Remark.

We give a brief indication of the proof of a slight strenthening of Ramakrishnan’s theorem \[DR1\], that if the Dirichlet density $`d:=lim_{s1^+}_{vS}Nv^s/\mathrm{log}(s1)`$ of $`S`$ is at most $`1/8`$, then the collection of Dirichlet coefficients $`\{a_v(\pi )vS\}`$ of $`\pi `$ (rather than local components) uniquely determines $`\pi `$, where $`\pi `$ is a cuspidal automorphic of $`GL_2(𝐀_K)`$.

Using the estimate $`|\alpha _v(\pi )|Nv^{1/5}`$ proved in \[LRS\] (even the weaker estimate $`Nv^{1/4ϵ}`$ for some positive $`ϵ`$ will suffice), we see that the hypothesis implies,

(6)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{log}& L_T(s)=\underset{vST^{}}{}|a_v(\pi _1)a_v(\pi _2)|^2Nv^s+O(1)\text{as}s1^+\hfill \\ & 2\underset{vST^{}}{}(|a_v(\pi _1)|^2+|a_v(\pi _2)|^2)Nv^s+O(1)\text{as}s1^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`\pi 𝒜(2,K)`$, let $`\text{Ad}(\pi )`$ denote the adjoint lift of $`\pi `$, an automorphic representation of $`GL(3,𝐀_K)`$ constructed by Gelbart and Jacquet \[GJ\]. If $`\text{Ad}(\pi )`$ is not cuspidal, then it is automorphically induced and we have the estimate $`|a_v(\pi )|^24`$. Hence we obtain,

(7)
$$\underset{s1}{lim}\frac{_{vST^{}}|a_v(\pi )|^2Nv^s}{\mathrm{log}(s1)}=4d.$$

If $`\text{Ad}(\pi )`$ is cuspidal, then consider

$$L^4(s):=L_T(s,\pi \times \stackrel{~}{\pi }\times \pi \times \stackrel{~}{\pi })=L_T(s,\text{Ad}(\pi )\times \text{Ad}(\pi ))L_T(s,\text{Ad}(\pi ))^2\zeta _{K,T}(s).$$

From the properties of the Rankin-Selberg $`L`$-functions we obtain

$$\mathrm{log}L^4(s)=2\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}(s1)+f(s)=\underset{vT}{}\frac{|a_v(\pi )|^4}{Nv^s}+O(1)\text{as}s1^+,$$

where $`f(s)`$ is holomorphic at $`s=1`$. By Cauchy-Schwarz, we get

(8)
$$\underset{s1}{lim}\frac{_{vST^{}}|a_v(\pi )|^2Nv^s}{\mathrm{log}(s1)}=\sqrt{2d}.$$

From (6), (7) and (8), we obtain,

$$2=\underset{s1}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}L_T(s)}{\mathrm{log}(s1)}\{\begin{array}{cc}4\sqrt{2d}\hfill & \text{if }\text{Ad}(\pi _1)\text{ and }\text{Ad}(\pi _2)\text{ are cuspidal},\hfill \\ 2\sqrt{2d}+8d\hfill & \text{if only one of }\text{Ad}(\pi _1)\text{ or }\text{Ad}(\pi _2)\text{ is cuspidal},\hfill \\ 16d\hfill & \text{if }\text{Ad}(\pi _1)\text{ and }\text{Ad}(\pi _2)\text{ are not cuspidal}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In all the three cases, this leads to a contradiction if $`d<1/8`$. This proves Ramakrishnan’s theorem.

It is not clear whether the methods contained in this paper, will be sufficient to prove that $`S`$ can be taken to be a set of places of density at most $`1/2`$, provided that both $`\text{Ad}(\pi _1)`$ and $`\text{Ad}(\pi _2)`$ are cuspidal. Such a result can be expected in analogy with the results in the $`l`$-adic context (and hence valid also for holomorphic modular forms) obtained in \[R1\].

Our original approach to the results of this paper was to use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, and to obtain a region of convergence to the left of $`2`$ for the sum $`_v|a_v(\pi )|^4Nv^s`$. Using the methods contained in \[DI\], it is possible to obtain a region of convergence to the left of $`2`$, provided $`K=𝐐`$. But over number fields, it is not clear how to obtain such a result. However, even over $`𝐐`$, these results do not yield stronger results than our main theorem towards strong multiplicity one.


format: text

text:
# Scholarly mathematical communication at a crossroads

## I The status quo

Let us start with an idealization of the traditional system of scholarly communication. Mathematicians write uncertified, temporary preprints. They submit them to journals, which edit them, bless them with peer review, and then distribute them. In fact this system was created more by circumstance than by design, and it has always been supplemented by other venues of research literature such as letters, books, and lecture notes. Also, Zentralblatt and Math Reviews have long organized an otherwise hopelessly disorganized array of journals.

Electronic communication changed this picture in two important ways. First, it made the informal preprint layer of the literature vastly more efficient. Second, and more importantly, it created enormous new pressure to further organize the literature and accelerated a trend toward giantism. As useful as Math Reviews and Zentralblatt are on paper, they are far more useful on-line. The publishers are also agglomerating: Elsevier (which now owns Academic Press) and Springer both have large on-line libraries of mathematics papers that other publishers may never be able to match.

The preprint trend and the giantism trend together also led to the arXiv, which I will describe in more detail below.

First I would like to comment on the specter of giantism. Naturally most people don’t like monopolies. But working mathematicians want a universal digital library of mathematics, and there is no clear way to sustain two of them. The same forces that propel Microsoft, America Online, and Amazon.com are at play in this market. So the question is not whether there should be a centralized archive of the mathematical literature, but who should control it. I believe that a proprietary monopoly would be grossly against our interests, even if it were owned by a non-profit professional society. But with proper oversight, a non-proprietary archive could remain useful and free.

One interesting precedent for such an archive is CTAN, the Comprehensive TeX Archive Network ctan . All TeX users, including commercial publishers, depend either directly or indirectly on CTAN.

## II The arXiv

The arXiv was created in 1991 by Paul Ginsparg as an e-mail-based service in high-energy physics; it moved to the Web in 1993 arXiv . (Ginsparg was recently awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for the arXiv.) Now maintained at Cornell, it was originally called hep-th, and it was for several years also called the Los Alamos archives and the xxx e-print archive. It does not claim copyright to its articles, and all access is free. It has some public oversight in that it has advisory committees in each of its disciplines, and is partly supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation. (I have heard publishing figures criticize the public “subsidy” of the arXiv. For the record, NSF award #0132355 is only $320,000 per year. This is a negligible fraction of the tax dollars that are spent on math and physics journals.)

Authors usually submit articles to the arXiv directly, before submitting them to journals. The arXiv distributes new submissions across the web and blesses them as permanent at the end of each weekday. Submissions may be revised, but all versions of each article are numbered and old versions cannot be revoked. The arXiv is described in an article by Allyn Jackson Jackson:servers , but readers who want to know more should also browse it on the web. One convenient means for doing so is the Front for the Mathematics ArXiv (Figure 1) front .

The arXiv now has about 180,000 articles in physics, 20,000 in mathematics, and nearly 3,000 in computer science. In many areas of physics, it is already a universal library for the current literature. Many people hope that it will become just as important in mathematics. The success of the math arXiv to date is encouraging, but it will take many years for it to become universal. As the home page of the Front indicates, it is much more popular in some areas of mathematics (algebraic geometry, quantum algebra, geometric topology) than in others (applied mathematics, number theory). Finding ways to improve or further popularize the arXiv will help us reach the ultimate goal sooner.

Significantly, the arXiv upsets the traditional dichotomy between unpublished preprints and refereed publications. Since arXiv articles are both permanent and widely distributed, authors and readers take them just as seriously as journal papers. (That is why arXiv documents are called articles, or e-prints, and not preprints.) For example, one of the most important papers in quantum algebra is a still-unpublished arXiv article by Maxim Kontsevich Kontsevich:poisson .

A few journals are also arXiv overlays, which means that they submit their published papers to the arXiv by proxy. One of the most successful overlay journals is *Geometry and Topology* gandt . Here again the distinction between preprints and publications blurs, since readers generally do not keep track of authors’ versus journals’ versions of papers.

Nonetheless the arXiv does not completely displace journals. They are no longer needed to typeset, distribute, or archive the mathematical literature, but they still perform the crucial function of peer review. This is why almost all arXiv articles are still submitted to journals or conference proceedings. Overlay journals also illustrate this point: While journal status does not distinctly affect the text of an arXiv article, the fact that an article has been accepted by a journal does still matter to readers, and even more to authors.

Serious peer review probably cannot fit directly into the arXiv. The arXiv is lightly moderated to screen out miscued and misclassified submissions (which is why submissions are not announced immediately), but this is a superficial effort compared to refereeing papers, or to reviewing them for Math Reviews or Zentralblatt. Rather, in heavily arXived areas of research, journals are a *de facto* second layer of the permanent literature, with the arXiv as the first layer. (Hence the term “overlay”.)

## III Peer review

In the idealized journal system, the diligent referee first checks the main results of a submitted paper. If they are correct, the referee and the editor then consider whether the results meet the journal’s standard. In practice the system is far from ideal. Referees have very little accountability (although some do an admirable job anyway). Many papers are accepted on the basis of name recognition or out of guilt – just because the referees sat on them for too long. Authors need not take no for an answer, because they can scout for journals that will publish them. Journal editors should serve as a second line of defense, but in practice they are only slightly more accountable than referees. (Again, some do an admirable job anyway.) In the end, readers do not know who refereed any given paper or why it was accepted. Because papers can only be published once, the system reduces peer review to simple binary approval.

In my opinion, Math Reviews and Zentralblatt are inherently more useful forms of peer review, because the reviews are not anonymous. Their publishers do not agree with me; by their own rules, reviewers are not required to fully referee papers. But some do so anyway. Many mathematicians know of notoriously mistaken papers that were inexplicably published. The community is often angry with the referees of such papers, but anonymity protects them from the readers rather than the authors. Typically the Math Review sets the record straight. My favorite such case is the celebrated review by Gábor Fejes Tóth of Wu-Yi Hsiang’s inadequate proof of the Kepler sphere-packing conjecture MR95g:52032 . Even in the usual case when both authors and referees do a good job, Math Reviews obviously inform readers more than any referee reports could, since the latter are confidential.

In the presence of the arXiv, it is relatively easy to reform journals so that they function much more like Math Reviews. If a journal is purely an arXiv overlay, then it need not take possession of its papers. So why should it wait for authors to submit to it? It could instead allow anyone to nominate (“submit”) any arXiv article for review, whether or not it has been published elsewhere. Let us call such a review service an “open journal”. If an open journal reduces selection to its utilitarian minimum, it should add some other value for readers to take it seriously. It is therefore natural for open journal referees to write public, non-anonymous reports like those in Math Reviews. (But reviewers who are not interested in a submission can reject it privately and anonymously.)

Open journals have been tried before, both in connection with the arXiv and elsewhere. For example Quick Reviews quickrev  is a review service in quantum computation maintained by Daniel Gottesman; it is mostly but not exclusively arXiv-based. But existing experiments lack a crucial feature: They are not designed to substitute for journal names in the author’s list of publications. For this purpose an open journal should do three things. It should retain the trappings of a traditional journal, such as an editorial board, an on-line masthead, and a bibliographic citation style. It should also keep the author informed of the status of papers under review. And it should prod editors and reviewers to attend to submissions, as traditional journals do.

While many readers presume that referees check the results of papers, in practice editors would scare away their referees if they actually demanded this. This inconsistency is only tenable because refereeing is anonymous. My best idea to address the problem is to have the reviewers check one of three options:

1. I have checked the main results.
2. I do not doubt the main results.
3. I doubt the main results.

Some reviews might need to be co-signed to support option 1. Presumably option 3 would be rarely used.

It remains to be seen whether the open journal model will succeed. Or one might ask, who will pay people to do all of the work? I see two reasons to be cautiously optimistic. First, as we already know, publishers pay the mathematicians who manage, edit, and referee traditional journals very little or not at all. Most of the paid work for a traditional journal is for typesetting and distribution. Most of the incentive for the mathematicians involved is in credit for professional service. In principle this incentive could also sustain open journals. Second, I think that once the arXiv is sufficiently established in mathematics, journals will naturally evolve toward the open model. But I hope that, through leadership, we can reach the future sooner.


text:
# Global Charges of Stationary Non-Abelian Black Holes

## Abstract

We consider stationary axially symmetric black holes in SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills-dilaton theory. We present a mass formula for these stationary non-Abelian black holes, which also holds for Abelian black holes. The presence of the dilaton field allows for rotating black holes, which possess non-trivial electric and magnetic gauge fields, but don’t carry a non-Abelian charge.

Introduction Black holes in Einstein-Maxwell (EM) theory are uniquely characterized by their global charges: their mass $`M`$, their angular momentum $`J`$, their electric charge $`Q`$, and their magnetic charge $`P`$ nohair1 ; nohair2 . For EM black holes remarkable relations between their horizon properties and their global charges hold nohair2 , such as the Smarr formula sma ,

$$M=2TS+2\mathrm{\Omega }J+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q+\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{mag}}P,$$
(1)
where $`T`$ represents the temperature of the black holes and $`S`$ their entropy, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes their horizon angular velocity, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{mag}}`$ represent their horizon electrostatic and magnetic potential, respectively.

When non-Abelian fields are coupled to gravity, black hole solutions are no longer uniquely characterized by these global charges su2bh ; review . Thus the EM “no-hair” theorem does not readily generalize to theories with non-Abelian gauge fields coupled to gravity, and neither does the mass formula, Eq. (1) sudwald ; iso1 .

SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills (EYM) theory, for instance, possesses sequences of static spherically and axially symmetric hairy black hole solutions, which carry non-Abelian magnetic fields but no non-Abelian charge su2bh ; kk ; it further possesses sequences of rotating EYM black holes, which carry non-Abelian electric and magnetic fields, but only a non-Abelian electric charge vs ; kkrot .

In many unified theories, including Kaluza-Klein theory and string theory, a scalar dilaton field arises naturally. When a dilaton field is coupled to EM theory, this has profound consequences for the black hole solutions emd ; FZB ; Rasheed . Although uncharged Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) black holes simply correspond to the EM black holes, charged EMD black hole solutions possess qualitatively new features. Charged static EMD black hole solutions, for instance, exist for arbitrarily small horizon size emd , and the surface gravity of ‘extremal’ solutions depends in an essential way on the dilaton coupling constant $`\gamma `$. Extremal charged rotating EMD black holes, known exactly only for Kaluza-Klein (KK) theory with $`\gamma =\sqrt{3}`$ FZB ; Rasheed , can possess non-zero angular momentum, while their event horizon has zero angular velocity Rasheed .

The known EMD black hole solutions are still uniquely characterized by their mass, their angular momentum, and their electric and magnetic charge; and the mass formula Eq. (1) holds for the KK black hole solutions as well Rasheed .

Here we consider stationary black hole solutions of SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills-dilaton (EYMD) theory, and present a mass formula for these black holes. After showing, that EMD black holes satisfy the mass formula

$$M=2TS+2\mathrm{\Omega }J+\frac{D}{\gamma }+2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q,$$
(2)
where the dilaton charge $`D`$ enters instead of the magnetic charge $`P`$, we argue that this mass formula holds for all non-perturbatively known black hole solutions of SU(2) EYMD theory eymd ; kk ; long . The mass formula Eq. (2) generalizes the mass formula obtained previously for static purely magnetic non-Abelian black holes kk , $`M=2TS+D/\gamma `$.

We then note that, while similar in many respects to the rotating EYM black holes kkrot , the EYMD black holes possess new features. In particular, we show that beyond a certain dilaton coupling strength $`\gamma `$, the presence of the dilaton allows for a new type of black hole: a rotating black hole which carries both electric and magnetic non-Abelian gauge fields but no non-Abelian charge.

Abelian mass formula Let us first consider the mass formula for EMD black hole solutions of the action

$$S=\left(\frac{R}{16\pi }+L_M\right)\sqrt{g}d^4x$$
(3)
with matter Lagrangian

$$4\pi L_M=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{4}e^{2\gamma \varphi }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
We start from the general expression for the mass of black holes wald

$$M=2TS+2\mathrm{\Omega }J_\mathrm{H}\frac{1}{4\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }R_0^0\sqrt{g}𝑑x𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi ,$$
(5)
and express $`R_0^0`$ with help of the Einstein equations and the dilaton equation of motion,

$$R_0^0=\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}^\mu \varphi \right)+2e^{2\gamma \varphi }F_{0\alpha }F^{0\alpha }.$$
(6)
Evaluating the integral involving the dilaton d’Alembertian we obtain the dilaton term, $`D/\gamma `$, in the mass formula kk .

We then replace the horizon angular momentum $`J_\mathrm{H}`$ by the global angular momentum $`J`$ wald ,

$$J=J_\mathrm{H}+\frac{1}{4\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }e^{2\gamma \varphi }F_{\phi \alpha }F^{0\alpha }\sqrt{g}𝑑x𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi ,$$
(7)
and obtain

$`M2TS2\mathrm{\Omega }J{\displaystyle \frac{D}{\gamma }}=`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}e^{2\gamma \varphi }\left(F_{0\alpha }+\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\phi \alpha }\right)F^{0\alpha }\sqrt{g}𝑑x𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi .`$
To evaluate the remaining integral, we make the replacements $`F_{\alpha 0}=_\alpha A_0`$ and $`F_{\alpha \phi }=_\alpha A_\phi `$, and employ the gauge field equations of motion. The mass formula Eq. (2) then holds, provided

$$2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha \left[(A_0+\mathrm{\Omega }A_\phi )e^{2\gamma \varphi }F^{0\alpha }\sqrt{g}\right]dxd\theta d\phi .$$
(9)
To show Eq. (9) we choose a gauge, where the gauge potential vanishes at infinity, and note that the electrostatic potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}=\chi ^\mu A_\mu =A_0+\mathrm{\Omega }A_\phi ,$$
(10)
defined with Killing vector $`\chi =\xi +\mathrm{\Omega }\eta `$ ($`\xi =_t`$, $`\eta =_\phi `$) is constant at the horizon. Thus we obtain

$$2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q=\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}\frac{1}{2\pi }_\mathrm{H}e^{2\gamma \varphi }({}_{}{}^{}F_{\theta \phi }^{})𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi ,$$
(11)
which holds because the conserved charge $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ isodil ,

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}=\frac{1}{4\pi }_\mathrm{H}e^{2\gamma \varphi }({}_{}{}^{}F_{\theta \phi }^{})𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi ,$$
(12)
does not depend on the choice of 2-sphere, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(x_\mathrm{H})=\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mathrm{})=\stackrel{~}{Q}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}=Q`$ for $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=0`$. When the Smarr formula holds Rasheed , Eq. (2) implies $`D/\gamma =\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{mag}}P\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q`$.

Non-Abelian black holes We now turn to the non-Abelian black holes of the SU(2) EYMD action with matter Lagrangian

$$4\pi L_M=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}e^{2\gamma \varphi }\mathrm{Tr}(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }),$$
(13)
field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ and gauge field $`A_\mu =1/2\tau ^aA_\mu ^a`$.

For the metric we choose the stationary axially symmetric Lewis-Papapetrou metric in isotropic coordinates,

$$ds^2=fdt^2+\frac{m}{f}\left(dx^2+x^2d\theta ^2\right)+\frac{l}{f}x^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(d\phi \frac{\omega }{x}dt\right)^2.$$
(14)
For the gauge field we employ the ansatz kkrot ,

$$A_\mu dx^\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }dt+A_\phi (d\phi \frac{\omega }{x}dt)+\left(\frac{H_1}{x}dx+(1H_2)d\theta \right)\frac{\tau _\phi }{2},$$
(15)
$$A_\phi =\mathrm{sin}\theta \left[H_3\frac{\tau _x}{2}+(1H_4)\frac{\tau _\theta }{2}\right],\mathrm{\Psi }=B_1\frac{\tau _x}{2}+B_2\frac{\tau _\theta }{2},$$
(16)
where the symbols $`\tau _x`$, $`\tau _\theta `$ and $`\tau _\phi `$ denote the dot products of the Cartesian vector of Pauli matrices with the spherical spatial unit vectors. With respect to the residual gauge degree of freedom kk  we choose the gauge condition $`x_xH_1_\theta H_2=0`$ kkrot . All functions depend only on $`x`$ and $`\theta `$. The above ansatz satisfies the Ricci circularity and Frobenius conditions wald .

The event horizon of stationary black holes resides at a surface of constant radial coordinate $`x=x_\mathrm{H}`$, and is characterized by the condition $`f(x_\mathrm{H})=0`$. At the horizon we impose the boundary conditions kkrot ; long  $`f=m=l=0`$, $`\omega =\omega _\mathrm{H}=\mathrm{\Omega }x_\mathrm{H}`$, $`_x\varphi =0`$, $`H_1=0`$, $`_xH_2=_xH_3=_xH_4=0`$, $`B_1\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$, $`B_2+\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta =0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the horizon angular velocity.

The boundary conditions at infinity, $`f=m=l=1`$, $`\omega =0`$, $`\varphi =0`$, $`H_1=H_3=0`$, $`H_2=H_4=\pm 1`$, $`B_1=B_2=0`$, ensure, that black holes are asymptotically flat and magnetically neutral. Axial symmetry and regularity impose the boundary conditions on the symmetry axis ($`\theta =0`$), $`_\theta f=_\theta l=_\theta m=_\theta \omega =0`$, $`_\theta \varphi =0`$, $`H_1=H_3=B_2=0`$, $`_\theta H_2=_\theta H_4=_\theta B_1=0`$, and agree with the boundary conditions on the $`\theta =\pi /2`$-axis, except for $`B_1=0`$, $`_\theta B_2=0`$.

To show the mass formula Eq. (2) for the non-Abelian black holes, we need to consider the asymptotic expansion for the metric, the gauge field and the dilaton functions kkrot ; long . The mass $`M`$, the angular momentum $`J=aM`$, the non-Abelian electric charge $`Q`$ (where $`|Q|`$ is the gauge invariant non-Abelian electric charge of Ref. iso1 ), and the dilaton charge $`D`$ are obtained from the asymptotic expansion via

$$f1\frac{2M}{x},\omega \frac{2J}{x^2},$$
(17)
$$\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta B_1+\mathrm{sin}\theta B_2\right)\frac{Q}{x},\varphi \frac{D}{x}.$$
(18)
We further need the horizon area $`A`$ and the horizon temperature $`T=\kappa _{\mathrm{sg}}/2\pi `$ with surface gravity $`\kappa _{\mathrm{sg}}`$ wald ,

$$\kappa _{\mathrm{sg}}^2=1/4(_\mu \chi _\nu )(^\mu \chi ^\nu ).$$
(19)
To derive the mass formula for the non-Abelian black holes we first follow the arguments employed in the Abelian case. With the replacements $`F_{\alpha 0}=D_\alpha A_0`$ and $`F_{\alpha \phi }=D_\alpha (A_\phi u)`$ radu2 , (where $`u=\tau _z/2`$, and $`D_\alpha =_\alpha +i[A_\alpha ,]`$,) the mass formula holds, provided (see Eq. (9)),

$`2\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}Q=`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{Tr}\left[D_\alpha (A_0+\mathrm{\Omega }(A_\phi u))e^{2\gamma \varphi }F^{0\alpha }\sqrt{g}\right]𝑑x𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi ,`$
Since the trace of a commutator vanishes, we replace the gauge covariant derivative by the partial derivative, and again make use of the fact that the electrostatic potential is constant at the horizon, $`\chi ^\mu A_\mu =\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{H}=\mathrm{\Omega }u`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{el}}=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ long . Hence the integral vanishes at the horizon, and we are left with the integral at infinity. Evaluating this integral with help of the asymptotic expansion long  then yields the desired result. Thus the mass formula Eq. (2) holds for the non-Abelian black holes as well long .

Numerical results We solve the set of eleven coupled non-linear elliptic partial differential equations numerically, subject to the above boundary conditions, employing compactified dimensionless coordinates, $`\overline{x}=1(x_\mathrm{H}/x)`$ kkrot .

Starting with a static spherically symmetric SU(2) EYMD black hole with horizon radius $`x_\mathrm{H}`$, corresponding to $`\omega _\mathrm{H}=0`$, we choose a small but finite value for $`\omega _\mathrm{H}`$. The resulting rotating black hole then has non-trivial functions $`\omega `$, $`H_1`$, $`H_3`$, $`B_1`$, $`B_2`$. By varying $`\omega _\mathrm{H}`$, while keeping the horizon parameter $`x_\mathrm{H}`$ and the dilaton coupling constant $`\gamma `$ fixed, we obtain a set of rotating hairy black holes, analogous in many respects to the EYM black holes kkrot .

In Fig. 1 we display the specific angular momentum $`a=J/M`$, the non-Abelian electric charge $`Q`$, and the relative dilaton charge $`D/\gamma `$ for black holes with horizon parameter $`x_\mathrm{H}=0.1`$ and dilaton coupling constant $`\gamma =1`$ as functions of the mass $`M`$. As expected kkrot , these global charges are close to the corresponding global charges of the embedded Abelian solutions foot1  with $`Q=0`$ and $`P=1`$.

In Fig. 2 we exhibit the global charges as functions of the dilaton coupling constant $`\gamma `$. With increasing $`\gamma `$ the mass $`M`$ and the relative dilaton charge $`D/\gamma `$ decrease monotonically, the specific angular momentum $`a`$ and the non-Abelian electric charge $`Q`$ pass extrema long . Interestingly, the non-Abelian electric charge $`Q`$ can change sign in the presence of the dilaton field.

Thus we observe the surprising feature that the non-Abelian charge $`Q`$ of rotating EYMD black holes can vanish. Cuts through the parameter space of solutions with vanishing $`Q`$ are exhibited in Fig. 3. Solutions with $`Q=0`$ exist only above $`\gamma _{\mathrm{min}}1.15`$. These $`Q=0`$ EYMD black holes represent the first black hole solutions, which carry non-trivial non-Abelian electric and magnetic fields and no non-Abelian charge foot2 . As a consequence, these special solutions do not exhibit the generic asymptotic non-integer power fall-off of the stationary non-Abelian gauge field solutions kkrot ; long .

Let us now turn to the horizon properties of the EYMD black holes. In Fig. 4 we show the area parameter $`x_\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{A/4\pi }`$, the temperature $`T`$, the deformation of the horizon (as quantified by the ratio of equatorial and polar circumferences) $`L_e/L_p`$, and the Gaussian curvature at the poles $`K`$. As for EM black holes sma , the Gaussian curvature of the horizon can become negative and the topology of the horizon is that of a 2-sphere.

The numerically constructed stationary axially symmetric EYMD black holes satisfy the mass formula, Eq. (2), with an accuracy of $`10^3`$. So do the numerically constructed EMD black holes. EYM black holes are included in the limit $`\gamma 0`$, since $`D/\gamma `$ remains finite. Further details of the rotating non-Abelian black hole solutions will be given elsewhere long .

Outlook The mass formula holds for the non-perturbatively known SU(2) EYMD black hole solutions. However, there may be further black hole solutions in SU(2) EYMD theory, with different boundary conditions and symmetries. For such black holes, the mass formula will have to be reconsidered.

Contrary to expectation, black holes in SU(2) EYMD theory are not uniquely characterized by their mass $`M`$, their angular momentum $`J`$, their non-Abelian electric charge $`Q`$, and their dilaton charge $`D`$ long . Thus a new uniqueness conjecture for non-Abelian black holes will have to include an additional charge ash .

Acknowledgment FNL has been supported in part by a FPI Predoctoral Scholarship from Ministerio de Educación (Spain) and by DGICYT Project PB98-0772.


text:
# Supernova relic neutrinos and observational implications for neutrino oscillation

## I Introduction

A core-collapse supernova explosion produces a number of neutrinos and 99% of the gravitational energy is transformed to neutrinos. It is generally believed that the core-collapse supernova explosions have traced the star formation history in the universe and have emitted a great number of neutrinos, which should make a diffuse background. This supernova relic neutrino (SRN) background is one of the targets of the currently working large neutrino detectors such as Super-Kamiokande (SK). Comparing the predicted SRN flux with the observations provides potentially valuable information on the nature of neutrinos as well as the star formation history in the universe. This SRN background has been theoretically discussed in a number of previous papers Totani95 ; Ando02 .

On the other hand, there are observational constraints on the SRN flux. Most recently, SK collaboration set an upper bound of 1.2 $`\overline{\nu }_e\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ for the SRN flux in the energy region $`E_\nu >19.3\mathrm{MeV}`$ Malek02 . (This limit can constrain only the flux of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, since that flavor is the most easily detected by SK.) It is two orders of magnitude lower than the previous one obtained by Kamiokande II Zhang88 , and is the same order as some typical theoretical predictions Totani95 ; Ando02 . For example, Ando et al. Ando02  (hereafter AST) predicted that the total SRN flux integrated over entire energy was $`11\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, while the corresponding SK limit calculated with the AST spectral shape is $`31\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Since the theoretical calculations contain many ambiguities such as the supernova rate in the universe and neutrino spectrum from each supernova, this severe observational SRN limit can provide a number of valuable information on the various fields of astrophysics and cosmology (e.g. Ref. Fukugita02 ). Further, in the near future, it is expected that the upper limit will be much lower (about factor 3) when the current SK data of 1,496 days are reanalyzed using some technique to reduce background against detection. In that case, the SRN signal might be detected and the very severe constraint not only on the star formation history but also on the nature of neutrinos might be obtained.

Thus, it is obviously important and very urgent to give more precise prediction for the SRN flux and event rate. For that reason, in this paper, we investigate the SRN flux using the most realistic models to date. In particular, we include the new features which have not been considered in all of the past studies Totani95 ; Ando02 , illustrating them below. First, when we calculate the neutrino conversion probability in supernova, we adopt the realistic time-dependent density and $`Y_e`$ profiles, which are calculated by the Lawrence Livermore group Takahashi02b . During the neutrino burst ($`10`$ sec), the shock wave propagating the supernova matter changes density profile dramatically, and it is expected to affect the adiabaticity of resonance points Schirato02 . Second, we consider the Earth matter effect. (For that effect on the future Galactic supernova neutrino burst, see Refs. Dighe00 ; Lunardini01 ; Takahashi02  and references therein.) Since SRN come from all the directions, half of them pass through the Earth matter, and it is also expected to change the SRN spectrum. Finally, neutrino oscillation with inverted mass hierarchy $`(m_3m_1)`$ is also investigated. In that case, the resonance also occurs in anti-neutrino sector, and it is expected that the SRN spectrum would be quite different from that in the case of normal mass hierarchy. Further, we repeat the discussions given in the recent SK paper Malek02  and obtain the 90% C.L. upper limit for the SRN flux estimated using various oscillation models.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we give the models of original neutrino spectrum and supernova density profile. We also illustrate the neutrino oscillation models investigated in this paper, and qualitative behavior of flavor conversions for these models. In Section III, we show the calculated SRN fluxes, and in Section IV, we compare the result with AST calculation. We also compare them to the observational upper limit from SK and discuss the validity of various oscillation models. Model dependence of our calculations are also discussed in the same section.

## II Adopted models and neutrino conversions

### II.1 Supernova and Earth models

As for the neutrino spectrum at production, we use that calculated by the Lawrence Livermore group Totani98 . The mean energies are different between flavors, such as

$$E_{\overline{\nu }_e}16\mathrm{MeV},E_{\overline{\nu }_x}22\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(1)
This hierarchy of mean energies is explained as follows. Since $`\overline{\nu }_x`$’s interact with matter only through the neutral-current reactions in supernova, they are weakly coupled with matter compared to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s. Thus the neutrino sphere of $`\overline{\nu }_x`$’s is deeper in the core than that of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s, which leads to higher temperatures for $`\overline{\nu }_x`$’s. Therefore, flavor conversions are expected to enhance the mean energy of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s. However, recent studies of neutrino flux and spectra formation in a supernova core (e.g. Ref. Keil02 ) have shown that average $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ energy exceeds the average $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy by only a small amount, 10% being a typical number. We discuss this new aspect in Section IV.3.

We calculate neutrino conversion probabilities in supernova using the realistic time-dependent density and $`Y_e`$ profiles, which are also calculated by the Lawrence Livermore group Takahashi02b . Among the past studies Totani95 ; Ando02 , AST first estimated the effects of neutrino oscillation quantitatively, however, they calculated conversion probability using static pre-collapse progenitor model Woosley95 . As the recent study indicates Schirato02 , the density profile changes drastically during neutrino burst ($`10`$ sec) owing to shock propagation in supernova matter. When the shock propagates through the regions where matter-enhanced neutrino flavor conversion occurs (so called resonance point), it is expected to affect the adiabaticity of the resonance. (For the resonance and its adiabaticity, see the next subsection for details.) We show the $`\rho Y_e`$ profile of supernova at 0.5, 2, 5, 10, and 15 seconds after bounce in the upper panel of Fig. 1. As is seen clearly, the resonance takes place more than once at $`2`$ sec, and this is not expected when we use the static progenitor model. (As is discussed in the next subsection, the resonance for the anti-neutrino sector occurs only in the case of inverted mass hierarchy, or INV model in our notation.)

Further, we include the Earth matter effect using realistic density profile of the Earth Dziewonski81 . This effect has not been considered in the past studies including AST Totani95 ; Ando02 , on the other hand, it has been discussed in the case of the future Galactic supernova neutrino burst by various authors (see Refs. Dighe00 ; Lunardini01 ; Takahashi02  and references therein). Although the effect is expected to be very small for anti-neutrinos Dighe00 ; Lunardini01 ; Takahashi02 , we include it because the half of the SRN pass through the Earth matter.

### II.2 Neutrino conversions

As for oscillation parameters, we adopt the latest results which are updated recently by the SK and SNO solar neutrino observations Fukuda02 ; Ahmad02 . We adopt only large mixing angle (LMA) solution, whose parameters are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=5.0\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=0.42.$$
(2)
On the other hand, from the atmospheric neutrino experiments Fukuda99 , we use the values

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2|=2.8\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=1.0,$$
(3)
in our calculations. Whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2=m_3^2m_1^2`$ is positive (normal mass hierarchy) or negative (inverted mass hierarchy) is not known well, although the future Galactic neutrino burst is expected to provide useful information on the mass hierarchy Dighe00 ; Lunardini01 ; Takahashi02c  and actually several implications for it have been obtained with the neutrino burst from SN 1987A Lunardini01b . For $`\theta _{13}`$, which is not also sufficiently constrained, we adopt two large and small values,

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.04,1.0\times 10^6,$$
(4)
both of which satisfy the upper bound from reactor experiment Apollonio99 . (Investigating neutrino oscillation using intermediate values for $`\theta _{13}`$ is beyond the scope of this study, however, it is given in Ref. Takahashi02b  for the future Galactic supernova neutrino burst.) From these discussions, we adopt four parameter sets, named as NOR-S, NOR-L, INV-S, and INV-L, where NOR and INV represent the normal and inverted mass hierarchy respectively. The suffixes -L and -S attached to NOR and INV stand for large and small $`\theta _{13}`$, respectively. In addition, we also investigate in case of no oscillation, for comparison.

Now, we qualitatively discuss the behavior of anti-neutrino conversions during propagation in supernova matter111Here, we note that there is a wrong statement in Section 2.2 in AST. We wrote there “We can naively deal with anti-neutrino oscillation effect as vacuum oscillation, since $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s are not affected by the resonance.” As is illustrated in the text, this is wrong, however, the calculations in AST is including supernova matter effect appropriately. (see e.g., Ref. Dighe00  for details).

We consider, first, the case of normal mass hierarchy. The state of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ produced at deep in the core is coincide with mass eigenstate $`\overline{\nu }_1`$, owing to large matter potential. This state can propagate to the supernova surface without being disturbed by the level crossing between different mass eigenstates (it is said that there are no resonance points). Thus, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ at production becomes $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ at the surface of the supernova and the observed $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux is given by

$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ $`=`$ $`|U_{e1}|^2F_{\overline{\nu }_1}+|U_{e2}|^2F_{\overline{\nu }_2}+|U_{e3}|^2F_{\overline{\nu }_3}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`|U_{e1}|^2F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0+(1|U_{e1}|^2)F_{\overline{\nu }_x}^0,`$
where $`U_{\alpha i}`$ is the mixing matrix between mass and flavor eigenstates, $`F`$ the flux at the Earth, $`F^0`$ the flux at production, and the suffix $`x`$ represents $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, of which flavor neutrinos are considered to have the same flux. As $`|U_{e1}|^20.7`$ for the LMA models, the flavor mixing is expected to harden the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum.

However, in the case of inverted mass hierarchy, this situation changes dramatically. Since $`\overline{\nu }_3`$ is the lightest, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is created as $`\overline{\nu }_3`$ in the supernova core. In that case, it is well known that at a so called resonance point, there occurs a level crossing between $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_3`$. At this resonance point, complete $`\overline{\nu }_1\overline{\nu }_3`$ conversion occurs when the so called adiabaticity is sufficiently small compared to one (it is said that resonance is nonadiabatic), while never occurs when it is large (adiabatic resonance). In the lower panel of Fig. 1, we show the adiabaticity $`\gamma `$ of each model, which is written by

$$\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}{2E_\nu \mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}|d\mathrm{ln}n_e/dr|_{\mathrm{res}}},$$
(6)
where $`E_\nu `$ is the neutrino energy and $`n_e`$ is the electron number density; we have assumed $`E_\nu =20`$ MeV in the figure.222Note that the definition of $`\gamma `$ \[Eq. (6)\] is available only at the resonance points, although in Fig. 1 we have shown it as a function of radius over the entire region in supernovae. The behavior of the adiabaticity shown in the lower panel of Fig. 1 can be qualitatively understood as follows. The supernova profile on which the adiabaticity depends is the gradient of logarithmic density, $`|d\mathrm{ln}n_e/dr|^1`$. Then, if we assume the simple power-law density profile ($`n_e=n_0r^\alpha `$, $`n_0`$ and $`\alpha `$ are constants), the adiabaticity is proportional to the radius. This global behavior can be seen in the lower panel of Fig. 1; changes in the power-law index $`\alpha `$ and $`n_0`$ are responsible for the variability of $`\gamma `$ in the small scale.

From Fig. 1, we can expect that for INV-S, the resonance is always nonadiabatic. On the other hand, for INV-L, it is basically adiabatic but at the first resonance point, the adiabaticity becomes comparable to one particularly at $`10`$ sec. The situation is very complicated for INV-L model, and there is no way but to calculate numerically for the case. From here, however, we estimate the flux in the case of the resonance is completely nonadiabatic or completely adiabatic, for simplicity. When the resonance is nonadiabatic, the situation is the same as in the case of normal mass hierarchy (because $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ at production becomes $`\overline{\nu }_1`$ at the stellar surface), and the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux we observe is represented by Eq. (5). On the other hand, adiabatic resonance forces $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ at production to become $`\overline{\nu }_3`$ when it appears from the stellar surface and therefore, the observed $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux is given by

$$F_{\overline{\nu }_e}=|U_{e3}|^2F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0+(1|U_{e3}|^2)F_{\overline{\nu }_x}^0.$$
(7)
Since $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is constrained to be much smaller than 1 from reactor experiment Apollonio99 , Eq. (7) indicates that complete conversion takes place between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }`$.

## III Results

We calculate the SRN flux using the formula

$$\frac{dF_\nu }{dE_\nu }=c_0^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}R_{\mathrm{SN}}(z)\frac{dN_\nu (E_\nu ^{})}{dE_\nu ^{}}(1+z)\frac{dt}{dz}𝑑z,$$
(8)
where $`E_\nu ^{}=(1+z)E_\nu `$, $`R_{\mathrm{SN}}(z)`$ is supernova rate per comoving volume at redshift $`z`$, $`dN_\nu /dE_\nu `$ energy spectrum of emitted neutrinos, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the redshift when the gravitational collapses began, which we assumed to be 5. As supernova rate, we use the most reasonable model to date, which is based on the optical/UV observation of star formation history in the universe by Hubble Space Telescope Madau96 , and the model was also used in AST as “SN1”. In this model, the supernova rate exponentially increases with $`z`$ and peaks at $`z1.5`$ and exponentially decreases in further high-$`z`$ region (see Fig. 1 in Ref. Porciani01 ). Since for the optical/UV observation, there is still uncertainty due to dust extinction, we introduce a factor $`f`$ as $`R_{\mathrm{SN}}(z)=fR_{\mathrm{SN1}}(z)`$ and assume that it is independent of $`z`$. (This argument is almost the same one as that in Ref. Fukugita02 .) The case $`f=1`$ corresponds to the local supernova rate of $`R_{\mathrm{SN}}(0)=8.5\times 10^5h_{70}^3\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$, while the observational local supernova rate is $`R_{\mathrm{SN}}=(1.2\pm 0.4)\times 10^5h_{70}^3\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ Madau98 , where $`h_{70}=H_0/70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. For a while, we set $`f=1`$ as a fiducial value.

Figure 2 shows SRN flux for the various oscillation models explained in Section II. Flavor conversions enhance the average $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy. Three models NOR-S, NOR-L, and INV-S are degenerated and the model INV-L has the hardest energy spectrum as is expected from the qualitative discussions in Section II.2 \[see Eqs. (5) and (7)\]. In the same figure, we also show the flux in the case of no oscillation, for comparison. In that case, the flavor conversion does not take place, then the original $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux is actually observed \[$`F_{\overline{\nu }_e}=F_{\overline{\nu }_e}^0`$, in contrast with the Eqs. (5) and (7) for the oscillation cases\], resulting in the softest spectrum in the five models under consideration.

Recent SK upper bound for the SRN flux Malek02  constrain the theoretical predictions by factor $`3`$. For example, AST predicted the SRN flux integrated over entire energy to be $`11\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, while the corresponding SK limit calculated with the AST spectral shape is $`31\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The AST model cited above corresponds to NOR-L model in this study. We repeat the analysis given in the SK paper Malek02  and obtain the flux upper limit at 90% C.L. for various oscillation models. We summarize the results in Table 1. As shown in the table, all the oscillation models are not ruled out yet, since the theoretical predictions are still smaller than the corresponding SK limit, while the observational upper limit is rather severer for the INV-L model.

## IV Discussion

### IV.1 Comparison with the other calculations

The conversion probability for INV-L model is expected to be time-dependent as discussed in Section II.2. We show in the upper panel of Fig. 3 the conversion probability $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ obtained with density profiles for 5, 10, and 15 seconds after bounce. The conversion probability in the case that the static progenitor model is used is also shown for comparison. At 5 seconds after bounce, it is almost the same for all energy as in the case of static model, while at 15 seconds, it changes by $`10`$% at 30 MeV, and by $`20`$% at 60 MeV. However, since almost all of neutrinos are emitted by 5 seconds after bounce, the effective conversion probability is expected to be almost the same as that in the case of static model. Actually, we calculated the time-averaged probability by the flux and the result is also shown in the same figure, indicating only $`5`$% difference even at 60 MeV.

We also compared the flux calculated in Section III with that obtained by the AST calculation Ando02 . The AST calculation adopted the static progenitor model and did not include the Earth matter effect. We show in the lower panel in Fig. 3, the flux difference as a function of neutrino energy. For the three models NOR-S, NOR-L, and INV-S, the difference comes from the presence of the Earth matter effect, since these models are not affected by the time-dependent density profile as illustrated in Section II.2. The Earth matter effect changes flux by $`15`$% at 60 MeV. For INV-L model, the Earth matter effect is absent (for this reason, see e.g., Ref. Dighe00 ), and thus, the flux difference comes from the difference of the supernova model (static or time-dependent). As shown in the upper panel of Fig. 3, this effect is small and it makes only $`5`$% difference at 60 MeV. In Table 2, we show the difference of the energy-integrated flux. In the detection energy range, $`E_\nu >19.3`$ MeV, a few % difference is expected.

### IV.2 Implications for neutrino oscillation and the future

Theoretical predictions of the SRN flux depend on the factor $`f`$, which we have assumed to be one until here, in a proportional manner. This parameter $`f`$ is not known well because it concerns dust extinction of optical/UV photons, and actually even though we take $`f=2`$, it does not conflict with the local supernova rate observation. \[Observational local supernova rate is $`R_{\mathrm{SN}}=(1.2\pm 0.4)\times 10^4h_{70}^3\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ Madau98 , while SN1 model in AST predicts $`R_{\mathrm{SN1}}(0)=8.5\times 10^5h_{70}^3\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$.\] However, even if we adopt $`f1.4`$, we cannot conclude that the INV-L model is already ruled out, although from Table 1 it appears that the predicted flux of the INV-L model becomes larger than the corresponding upper limit. This is because the SRN flux contains uncertainty other than the parameter $`f`$, which is that concerning the original neutrino spectrum: in particular, the difference of average energies between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s and $`\overline{\nu }_x`$’s, about which we give a more detailed discussion in the next subsection. Thus, although the current SRN observation includes useful information on the combined quantity of supernova rate in the universe and neutrino oscillation parameters, it is difficult to give an explicit solution to the one specific problem at the present stage.

Now, we consider the future possibility to detect SRN or to set severer constraint on neutrino models. The largest background against SRN detection at SK is so called invisible muon decay products. This event is illustrated as follows. The atmospheric neutrinos produce muons by interaction with the nucleons (both free and bound) in the fiducial volume. If these muons are produced with energies below Čherenkov radiation threshold (kinetic energy less than 53 MeV), then they will not be detected (“invisible muons”), but their decay-produced electrons and positrons will be. Since the muon decay signal will mimic the $`\overline{\nu }_epe^+n`$ processes in SK, it is difficult to distinguish SRN from these events. Recent SK limits are obtained by the analysis including this invisible muon background. In the near future, however, it will be plausible to distinguish the invisible muon signals from the SRN signals, using the gamma rays emitted from nuclei which interacted with atmospheric neutrinos Suzuki02 . Therefore, if we can detect gamma ray events, whose energies are about 5-10 MeV, before invisible muon events by muon life time, we can subtract them from the candidates of SRN signals. In that case, the upper limit would be much lower (by factor $``$3) when the current data of 1,496 days are reanalyzed Suzuki02 , and the SRN signal might be detected or the more powerful information on the combined quantities of the supernova rate and the neutrino mixing parameters would be obtained. In Table 1, we also show the expected event rate of the SRN signal for various models. The integrated energy ranges are set from 19.3 MeV to the energy where the SRN flux dominates the atmospheric $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux. Then, without invisible muon events, the SK data of 1,496 days would be sufficient to permit the SRN detection and set very severe constraint on the neutrino mixing parameters. In particular, inverted mass hierarchy with large $`\theta _{13}`$ (INV-L model) would be ruled out first among five models we have considered.

There is another possibility to enhance the average $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy, or resonant spin-flavor conversions. This mechanism is induced by interaction between nonzero magnetic moment of neutrinos and supernova magnetic field. We investigate this mechanism in another paper Ando02b  for details.

### IV.3 Uncertainty concerning supernova neutrino spectra

In this study, we used the original neutrino spectrum calculated by the Lawrence Livermore group Totani98 . Unfortunately, their study as well as the other published full numerical supernova collapse simulations have not yet included the nucleon bremsstrahlung process or nucleon recoils, even though it is no longer controversial that these effects are important. Recent studies (e.g. Ref. Keil02 ) including all these processes have shown that average $`\overline{\nu }_x`$ energy exceeds the average $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy by only a small amount, 10% being a typical number. If it is the case, the oscillated SRN flux is likely to be close to the value in the case for no oscillation, and the recent SK limit is not severe enough to constrain the various oscillation parameters. However, it is premature to conclude that their results are correct, since it is based on the neutrino transport study on the background of an assumed neutron star atmosphere, and this approach lacks hydro-dynamical self-consistency. Further, it is also because the mean energies and their ratios change significantly between the supernova bounce, accretion phase, and the later neutron star cooling phase. Whichever is the case, the future SK limit is expected to be sufficiently severe to constrain various oscillation parameters as well as supernova rate in the universe.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Super-Kamiokande collaboration including Y. Suzuki for useful discussions, and also would like to thank H.E. Dalhed for giving numerical data of density profiles including shock propagation. This work was supported in part by grants-in-aid for scientific research provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan through Research grant no. S14102004.


text:
# On Uniqueness and Differentiability in the Space of Yamabe Metrics

## 1. Introduction.

Let $`M`$ be a closed $`n`$-dimensional manifold. For a given smooth metric $`g`$ on $`M`$, let $`[g]`$ denote the conformal class of $`g`$, consisting of smooth metrics on $`M`$ pointwise conformal to $`g`$. By the solution to the Yamabe problem , , in each conformal class $`[g]`$ there is a Yamabe metric $`\gamma `$ of constant scalar curvature $`s_\gamma `$; the metric $`\gamma `$ minimizes the total scalar curvature (or Einstein-Hilbert action)

$$𝒮(\overline{g})=v^{(n2)/n}_Ms_{\overline{g}}𝑑V_{\overline{g}}.$$

when $`𝒮`$ is restricted to the class of conformal metrics $`\overline{g}[g]`$. Here $`s_g`$ denotes the scalar curvature of $`g`$, $`dV_g`$ the volume form, and $`v`$ the total volume of $`(M,g)`$. The sign of $`s_\gamma `$, i.e $`s_\gamma <0`$, $`s_\gamma =0`$ or $`s_\gamma >0`$ depends only on the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$.

A number of general features of the class of Yamabe metrics of non-positive scalar curvature are well understood, cf. ,  for example. Thus, negative conformal classes have a unique unit volume Yamabe metric. The space $`𝒴^{}`$ of all unit volume negative Yamabe metrics forms a smooth infinite dimensional manifold $`𝒴^{}`$, transverse to the space of conformal classes, in the space of all unit volume metrics on $`M`$. The scalar curvature $`s`$ defines a smooth function $`s:𝒴^{}`$, whose critical points are exactly Einstein metrics (of negative scalar curvature) on $`M`$. Similar results hold for the space of non-positive Yamabe metrics. All of these results essentially derive from the fact that Yamabe metrics satisfy an elliptic equation, the Yamabe equation, whose solutions satisfy a maximum principle when $`s_\gamma 0`$.

It has been an open issue for some time to what extent such general features continue to hold for the space $`𝒴^+`$ of positive unit volume Yamabe metrics on $`M`$ where the corresponding Yamabe equation does not satisfy a maximum principle. Thus, in general, uniqueness of Yamabe metrics fails for positive conformal classes. For example, the conformal class $`[\gamma _0]`$ of the round metric $`\gamma _0`$ on $`S^n`$ admits a large, non-compact, family of Yamabe metrics. On $`S^{n1}\times S^1`$, there are 1-parameter families of Yamabe metrics in the conformal class of a product metric, for infinitely many values of radii of $`S^{n1}`$ and $`S^1`$, cf. , .

The purpose of this note is to establish some partial answers to these issues. Some of the main results are as follows:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Generically, Yamabe metrics are unique in their conformal class. Thus, there is an open and dense set $`𝒰`$ in the space of positive conformal classes such that each $`[g]𝒰`$ has a unique unit volume Yamabe metric $`\gamma [g]`$.

We also prove that the scalar curvature function $`s:𝒴^+`$ is differentiable at any Yamabe metric $`\gamma `$ which is unique in its conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$, for $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$, cf. Proposition 2.2. Moreover, if $`s`$ is differentiable at a metric $`\gamma `$, and $`\gamma `$ is a critical point of $`s`$ on $`𝒴^+`$, then $`\gamma `$ must be an Einstein metric, (and hence unique by Obata’s theorem ).

The scalar curvature $`s:𝒴^+`$ is continuous, cf. . It is unknown if $`s`$ is differentiable everywhere; at present there are no solid reasons to substantiate this. However, we show that away from $`[\gamma _0]`$, positive directional derivatives of $`s`$ always exist, i.e. the derivative

$$s^{}(h)=\frac{d}{dt}^+s_{[\gamma +th]}|_{t=0}$$

exists, for any symmetric bilinear form $`h`$; here $`s_{[g]}`$ denotes the scalar curvature of (any) unit volume Yamabe metric in the conformal class $`[g][\gamma _0]`$ and $`t>0`$.

It has long been an open problem whether a Yamabe metric $`\gamma `$ which is a local maximum of $`s`$ on $`𝒴^+`$ is necessarily an Einstein metric, cf. . Some recent progress on this question has been made in dimension 3 in . The following result gives a partial answer in any dimension.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Suppose $`\gamma 𝒴^+`$ is a local maximum for s. If there are most two Yamabe metrics in the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$, then $`\gamma `$ is Einstein.

I would like to thank the referee for several very useful comments on the paper.

## 2. Proofs of the Results.

Let $`𝒴`$ denote the space of all unit volume Yamabe metrics on a given $`n`$-manifold $`M`$. Henceforth, all metrics will be assumed to have unit volume, for convenience. The discussion and results to follow are all essentially trivial for Yamabe metrics of non-positive scalar curvature. Let $`𝒞`$ denote the space of unit volume constant scalar curvature metrics on $`M`$, and $`𝕄`$ the space of all unit volume metrics on $`M`$, so that $`𝒴𝒞𝕄`$. Unless stated otherwise, all metrics will be assumed to be $`(C^{\mathrm{}})`$ smooth.

It is well-known, cf. , that generically $`𝒞`$ is an infinite dimensional manifold. More precisely, at all metrics $`g`$ for which $`s_g/(n1)`$ is not an eigenvalue of the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, (with non-negative spectrum), a neighborhood of $`g`$ in $`𝒞`$ has the structure of a smooth manifold. Observe that $`𝒞`$ can be described as the 0-level set of the mapping

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:𝕄C^{\mathrm{}}(M,),\mathrm{\Phi }(g)=\mathrm{\Delta }_gs_g.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a real-analytic map, $`𝒞`$ thus has the structure of an infinite dimensional real-analytic variety. It would be interesting to know if this structure could lead to further information on the structure of $`𝒞`$.

Consider the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$ of all smooth Yamabe metrics in a given conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒴[\gamma ]`$. If $`g`$ is a fixed representative metric in $`\gamma `$, then all Yamabe metrics $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$ are of the form

(2.1)
$$\gamma =\varphi ^{4/(n2)}g,$$

for some positive smooth function $`\varphi :M`$. By the solution to the Yamabe problem , , the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$ is compact, i.e. is a compact subset of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, for all $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$, cf. also \[7, Prop. 2.1\]. In the following, we will always work with conformal classes $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$. In addition, the sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$ as $`\gamma `$ varies are also compact in the following sense; if $`[\gamma _i][\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$ smoothly, then any sequence of Yamabe metrics $`(\gamma ^j)_i[\gamma _i]`$ has a subsequence converging smoothly to a Yamabe metric $`\gamma ^j[\gamma ]`$.

We begin by discussing the differentiability properties of the scalar curvature function $`s`$ on $`𝒴`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be a unit volume Yamabe metric, with $`\gamma [\gamma _0]`$, and let $`g_t`$ be a smooth curve of unit volume metrics of the form

(2.2)
$$g_t=\gamma +th+O(t^2),$$

for $`hT_\gamma 𝕄`$. We assume that $`g_t`$ is orthogonal to the conformal classes in the sense that

(2.3)
$$dV_{g_t}=dV_\gamma .$$

In particular, (2.3) implies that $`tr_\gamma h=0`$.

Choose a sequence $`t_i0`$, and let $`\gamma _i`$ be a unit volume Yamabe metric in the conformal class of $`[g_{t_i}]`$. Thus, $`\gamma _i`$ is of the form

(2.4)
$$\gamma _i=\varphi _i^{4/(n2)}g_i,$$

where $`g_i=g_{t_i}`$. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, may assume that $`\gamma _i\gamma ^{}`$ smoothly, where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is some Yamabe metric in $`[\gamma ]`$. Since $`g_ig`$ smoothly, one has $`\varphi _i\varphi `$ smoothly, where $`\gamma ^{}=\varphi ^{4/(n2)}\gamma `$. In general, $`\varphi 1`$, since the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$ may have more than one Yamabe metric. However, by changing the curve $`g_t`$ to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{g}_t=\varphi ^{4/(n2)}g_t`$, we may and do assume, without loss of generality, that $`\varphi =1`$. This simplifies some of the computations below.

The functions $`\varphi _i`$ satisfy the Yamabe equation

(2.5)
$$c_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_i}\varphi _i+s_{g_i}\varphi _i=\varphi _i^qs_{\gamma _i},$$

where $`c_n=4(n1)/(n2)`$ and $`q=(n+2)/(n2)`$.

Next, linearize (2.5) about the limit $`(\gamma ,1)`$ of $`(g_i,\varphi _i)`$. The linearization of the scalar curvature is given by

$$L(h)=\frac{d}{dt}s_{g+th}|_{t=0}=\mathrm{\Delta }trh+\delta \delta hRic,h,$$

cf.  for instance. The adjoint operator $`L^{}`$ to $`L`$ is given by

$$L^{}f=D^2f\mathrm{\Delta }fgfRic.$$

Since $`g_i\gamma `$ smoothly,

(2.6)
$$s_{g_i}=s_\gamma +t_iL(h)+O(t_i^2).$$

Also write

$$\varphi _i^qs_{\gamma _i}=(\varphi _i^q\varphi _i)s_\gamma +\varphi _i^q(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )+\varphi _is_\gamma .$$

Substituting these expressions in (2.5) gives

$$c_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_i}(\varphi _i1)(\varphi _i^q\varphi _i)s_\gamma =\varphi _i^q(\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i})t_i\varphi _iL(h)t_i+O(t_i^2),$$

so that

(2.7)
$$c_n\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_i}(\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})\psi _is_\gamma (\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})=\varphi _i^q(\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i})\varphi _iL(h)+O(t_i),$$

where

(2.8)
$$\psi _i=(\varphi _i^4+\mathrm{}+\varphi _i)/((\varphi _i^{q1})^{n3}+(\varphi _i^{q1})^{n4}+\mathrm{}+\varphi _i^{q1}+1).$$

Here we use the identity that if $`y=x^{a/b}`$, then $`(y1)=(x1)(x^{a1}+\mathrm{}+1)/(y^{b1}+\mathrm{}+1)`$, with $`x=\varphi `$, $`y=\varphi ^{q1}`$, $`a=4`$, $`b=n2`$.

Integrating (2.7) over $`M`$ with respect to $`g_i`$ then gives the identity

(2.9)
$$s_\gamma (\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})\psi _i𝑑V_{g_i}=(\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i})\varphi _i^q𝑑V_{g_i}\varphi _iL(h)𝑑V_{g_i}+O(t_i).$$

To understand the linearization, i.e. the behavior as $`t_i0`$, the main point is to prove that the left side of (2.9) vanishes in the limit $`t_i0`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`g_t`$ be as in (2.2), with $`t=t_i0`$, $`t_i>0`$, and $`s_\gamma >0`$. Let $`\gamma _i`$ be Yamabe metrics in $`[g_i]`$, with $`\varphi _i`$ as in (2.4) satisfying $`\varphi _i1`$ smoothly as $`t_i0`$. Then

(2.10)
$$(\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})\psi _i𝑑V_{g_i}0,\mathrm{as}i\mathrm{}.$$

Proof: Note first that since $`\varphi _i^q1`$ and $`\psi _i\psi =\frac{4}{n2}`$ smoothly, the only terms in (2.9) which may become unbounded are those with $`t_i`$ in the denominator. Also, the measures $`dV_{g_i}`$ converge smoothly to the measure $`dV_g`$.

Suppose first that $`(\varphi _i1)/t_i`$ is bounded in $`L^2`$, so that it has a weakly convergent subsequence: $`(\varphi _i1)/t_i\varphi ^{}`$ weakly in $`L^2`$. The left side of (2.9) is then bounded, and hence the term $`(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/t_i`$ on the right is also bounded. It then follows from elliptic regularity associated to the equation (2.7) that $`(\varphi _i1)/t_i\varphi ^{}`$ smoothly. Thus, it suffices to show in this case that

(2.11)
$$\varphi ^{}𝑑V_\gamma =0,$$

since $`\psi =lim\psi _i=4/(n2)`$. However, since the metrics $`s_{g_i}`$ and $`s_{\gamma _i}`$ have unit volume, one has

(2.12)
$$\frac{\varphi _i^{2n/(n2)}1}{t_i}𝑑V_{g_i}=0.$$

Taking the limit of (2.12) as $`t_i0`$ and using the fact that $`\varphi ^{}`$ exists gives (2.11).

If $`(\varphi _i1)/t_i`$ is not bounded in $`L^2`$, the proof is more complicated, but based on similar ideas together with the fact that $`\gamma _i`$ are Yamabe metrics. To begin, we assume that $`(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/t_i`$ is bounded, and hence converges to a limit

(2.13)
$$s^{}=\underset{t_i0}{lim}\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i},$$

(again in a subsequence). The situation where (2.13) does not hold is dealt with later, based on a simple renormalization argument. The assumption (2.13) implies that the limit of the left side of (2.9) as $`t_i0`$ also exists.

First, we claim that

(2.14)
$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}(\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})\psi _i𝑑V_{g_i}0.$$

To see this, since $`\varphi _i1`$ smoothly, one has

$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i}\varphi _i^q𝑑V_{g_i}=s^{}.$$

On the other hand, by the Yamabe property of $`\gamma _i`$ and the fact that $`g_i`$ is of unit volume,

(2.15)
$$s_{\gamma _i}s_{g_i}𝑑V_{g_i}.$$

Hence, by (2.13),

$$s^{}\underset{i\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{s_{g_i}s_\gamma }{t_i}𝑑V_{g_i}.$$

However, (2.6) gives

$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}\frac{s_{g_i}s_\gamma }{t_i}𝑑V_{g_i}=L(h)𝑑V_\gamma .$$

Via (2.9), this gives the claim (2.14).

We now claim the opposite inequality to (2.14) holds. To see this, consider the sequence of metrics $`\stackrel{~}{g}_i=\varphi _i^{4/(n2)}\gamma `$ in the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$. They all have unit volume, by (2.2) and (2.12). Since $`\gamma `$ is a Yamabe metric, i.e. it minimizes $`𝒮`$ in its conformal class, it follows that

(2.16)
$$(c_n|d\varphi _i|^2+s_\gamma \varphi _i^2)𝑑V_\gamma =[c_n|d(\varphi _i1)|^2+s_\gamma (1+(\varphi _i1))^2]𝑑V_\gamma s_\gamma .$$

Expanding out the term on the right then gives, since $`t_i>0`$ and $`s_\gamma >0`$,

$$[c_n\frac{|d(\varphi _i1)|^2}{t_i}+s_\gamma (2\frac{(\varphi _i1)}{t_i}+\frac{(\varphi _i1)^2}{t_i})]𝑑V_\gamma 0.$$

Also, integration by parts gives

(2.17)
$$c_n\frac{|d(\varphi _i1)|^2}{t_i}𝑑V_\gamma =c_n(\varphi _i1)\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma (\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i})𝑑V_\gamma =s_\gamma \psi _i\frac{(\varphi _i1)^2}{t_i}𝑑V_\gamma +o(1).$$

Here the second equality uses (2.7), together with the fact that $`\frac{1}{t_i}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma )(\varphi _i1)0`$ since $`g_i\gamma `$ smoothly. (The term $`\frac{1}{t_i}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{g_i}\mathrm{\Delta }_\gamma )`$ converges to the derivative $`(\mathrm{\Delta })_h^{}`$ of the Laplacian in the direction $`h`$; this applied to $`(\varphi _i1)`$ tends to 0, since $`(\varphi _i1)0`$). Combining these estimates, (and using $`s_\gamma >0`$), it follows that

(2.18)
$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}2\frac{(\varphi _i1)}{t_i}+\frac{(\varphi _i1)^2}{t_i}+\psi _i\frac{(\varphi _i1)^2}{t_i}dV_\gamma 0.$$

Observe that from the derivation of (2.7), we have $`\psi _i(\varphi _i1)^2=(\varphi _i1)(\varphi _i^q\varphi _i)`$. Now compute $`2(\varphi _i1)+(\varphi _i1)^2+(\varphi _i1)(\varphi _i^q\varphi _i)=(\varphi _i1)(2+(\varphi _i1)+\varphi _i^q\varphi _i)=(1+\varphi _i^q)(\varphi _i1)=\varphi _i\varphi _i^q+\varphi _i^{q+1}1`$. The last two terms here integrate to 0, by (2.12), since $`q+1=2n/(n2)`$. It follows then from (2.18) that

$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}\frac{\varphi _i^q\varphi _i}{t_i}𝑑V_\gamma 0,$$

i.e.

(2.19)
$$\underset{t_i0}{lim}\psi _i\frac{\varphi _i1}{t_i}0.$$

Combining (2.14) and (2.19) proves the result in case (2.13) holds.

Finally, suppose the ratio $`(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/t_i`$ in (2.13) is unbounded. Then divide each term in (2.9) by $`C_i`$, where $`C_i\mathrm{}`$ is chosen to make the resulting ratio in (2.13) equal to 1, in absolute value; thus $`(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/C_it_i`$ remains bounded, and bounded away from 0. Performing exactly the arguments as above following (2.13), dividing by $`C_i`$ as called for, leads to the conclusion that $`(\varphi _i1)/C_it_i0`$, and $`\varphi _iL(h)/C_i0`$, but $`(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/C_it_i`$ is bounded away from 0. This contradicts (2.9), and so completes the proof. ∎

Proposition 2.1 and (2.9) imply that the limit

(2.20)
$$s^{}(h)=\underset{t_i0^+}{lim}\frac{s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma }{t_i},$$

exists, and is given by

(2.21)
$$s^{}(h)=L^{}1,h𝑑V_\gamma =z,h𝑑V_\gamma ,$$

where $`z`$ is the trace-free Ricci curvature, $`z=Ric\frac{s}{n}g`$.

The discussion above easily proves the following result.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Suppose $`\gamma `$ is the unique Yamabe metric (of unit volume) in $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$. Then $`s`$ is differentiable on $`𝒴`$ at $`\gamma `$, and the derivative is given by (2.21).

Proof: Let $`[g_t]=[\gamma +th]`$ be any variation of the conformal class of $`\gamma `$. If $`\gamma _t`$ is any Yamabe metric in $`[g_t]`$ written in the form (2.4), then as discussed following (2.4), $`\varphi _t1`$ as $`t0`$. It follows from (2.21) that for any $`h`$, and for any sequence of Yamabe metrics converging to $`\gamma `$ along the curve $`[g_t]`$, one has

$$s^{}(h)=z,h𝑑V_\gamma .$$

The right hand side is linear in $`h`$, and hence $`s`$ is differentiable at $`\gamma .`$

###### Corollary 2.3.

Any critical point $`\gamma `$ of $`s`$ on $`𝒴`$, for which $`\gamma `$ is unique in its conformal class is necessarily an Einstein metric.

Proof: If $`\gamma `$ is unique in its conformal class, then Proposition 2.2 implies that $`s`$ is differentiable on $`𝒴`$ at $`\gamma `$. By (2.21), a critical point $`\gamma `$ of $`s`$ then satisfies $`z=0`$, i.e. $`\gamma `$ is Einstein.

Now suppose there is more than one Yamabe metric in the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$. Such metrics are of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\varphi ^{4/(n2)}\gamma `$, for some positive function $`\varphi `$. A standard formula for conformal changes, cf.  gives,

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=z+(n2)\varphi ^{2/(n2)}D_0^2\varphi ^{2/(n2)},$$

where $`D_0^2`$ is the trace-free Hessian with respect to $`\gamma `$. Since $`h`$ transforms as $`\stackrel{~}{h}=\varphi ^{4/(n2)}h`$ on passing from $`\gamma `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, and $`dV_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}=\varphi ^{2n/(n2)}dV_\gamma `$, one has

$$\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{h}𝑑V_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}=\varphi ^{(2n4)/(n2)}z_\gamma +(n2)\varphi ^{2/(n2)}D_0^2\varphi ^{2/(n2)},h𝑑V_\gamma .$$

Set $`u=\varphi ^{2/(n2)}`$, so that

(2.22)
$$\stackrel{~}{z},\stackrel{~}{h}𝑑V_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}=u^{n2}z_\gamma +(n2)u(D_0^2u^1),h𝑑V_\gamma .$$

The forms

(2.23)
$$Z_\varphi =u^{n2}(z_\gamma +(n2)uD_0^2u^1),$$

are viewed as tangent vectors $`Z_\varphi T_\gamma 𝕄`$, corresponding to the set of Yamabe metrics $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$ in $`[\gamma ]`$, cf. the discussion preceding (2.1). Let $`g_t`$, $`t0`$, be a smooth curve of unit volume metrics as in (2.2) and let $`\gamma _i`$ be an associated sequence of Yamabe metrics as in (2.4). It follows from (2.21) and (2.22)-(2.23) that if $`\gamma _i`$ converges to a Yamabe metric $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\varphi ^{4/(n2)}\gamma `$ in $`[\gamma ]=[g(0)]`$, then

(2.24)
$$s^{}(h)=Z_\varphi ,h𝑑V_\gamma ,$$

where $`s^{}=lim_{t_i0^+}(s_{\gamma _i}s_\gamma )/t_i`$.

One thus has a map

(2.25)
$$𝒵:\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]\{Z_\varphi \},𝒵(\varphi ^{4/(n2)}\gamma )=Z_\varphi .$$

It will be shown below that $`𝒵`$ is 1-1, cf. Lemma 2.5. While of course $`Z_\varphi `$ may be defined for any Yamabe metric in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$, we only define $`Z_\varphi `$ for a Yamabe metric $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ in $`[\gamma ]`$ arising as a limit of a sequence $`\gamma _i`$ as in (2.24), and call such $`Z_\varphi `$ admissible. It is not known if all $`Z_\varphi `$ are admissible, i.e. if $`𝒵`$ is then defined on all of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[\gamma ]`$. There may Yamabe metrics $`\overline{\gamma }`$ in $`[\gamma ]`$ which are not moved in any perturbation of the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$; such $`\overline{\gamma }`$ are thus not near a Yamabe metric in any conformal class close to $`[\gamma ]`$, and so are “isolated” Yamabe metrics.

It is a consequence of (2.24) that $`s^{}`$ is independent of the sequence $`t_i`$, among sequences for which $`\gamma _i\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ as above. However, apriori, even within the fixed curve $`g_t`$ specified in (2.24), different sequences $`t_i0`$ may give sequences of Yamabe metrics converging to different Yamabe limits in $`[\gamma ]`$. Thus, apriori, one may have a collection of distinct $`\varphi `$’s associated to a given $`h`$. Of course in general the collection of $`\varphi `$’s and $`Z_\varphi `$’s changes with $`h`$.

This analysis leads to the following result.

###### Proposition 2.4.

The scalar curvature function s: $`𝒴`$ has (positive) directional derivatives in any direction $`hT_\gamma 𝕄`$, $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$, with derivative given by

(2.26)
$$s^{}(h)=\frac{d}{dt}^+s_{[\gamma +th]}|_{t=0}=\underset{\varphi }{\mathrm{min}}Z_\varphi ,h𝑑V_\gamma ,$$

where the minimum is taken over all admissible $`Z_\varphi `$ in $`[\gamma ]`$.

Proof: This is an immediate consequence of the discussion above and the fact that Yamabe metrics minimize the scalar curvature functional $`𝒮`$ in the conformal class; in particular, $`s_\gamma `$ is independent of the representative $`\gamma [\gamma ]`$. ∎

As above, let $`\{\gamma ^\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ denote the set of unit volume Yamabe metrics in the conformal class $`[\gamma ]`$, $`[\gamma ][\gamma _0]`$. By the compactness mentioned at the beginning of this section, if $`[\gamma _i][\gamma ]`$ smoothly, then any sequence of Yamabe metrics $`(\gamma ^j)_i[\gamma _i]`$ has a subsequence converging smoothly to some Yamabe metric $`\gamma ^j[\gamma ]`$. However, the cardinality of the sets $`\{\gamma ^\lambda \}`$ may well change in passing to limits. The cardinality may drop, for instance when distinct Yamabe metrics in a sequence of conformal classes merge to a common limit. The cardinality of $`\{\gamma ^\lambda \}`$ may also increase in the limit, due to the “birth” of a new Yamabe metric, not arising as a limit of a given sequence.

We are now in position to prove Theorem 1.1.

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

It is well-known, cf.  for instance, that the set of conformal classes containing only finitely many unit volume Yamabe (or more generally constant scalar curvature) metrics is generic, i.e. forms an open and dense set in the space of all Yamabe metrics, with respect to the $`C^2`$ (or stronger) topology. For simplicity, we assume $`[\gamma ]`$ is generic in this sense. Then nearby conformal classes $`[g_t]`$, in any direction $`g_t=\gamma +th`$, are also generic, and so have only finitely many Yamabe metrics.

The proof is by contradiction, and so suppose there exists an open set $`𝒱`$ of generic Yamabe metrics such that, for each $`\gamma 𝒱`$ there are at least two distinct Yamabe metrics in $`[\gamma ]`$. Using the compactness mentioned above, by passing to a smaller $`𝒱`$ if necessary, we may assume that there is a fixed upper bound on the number of distinct Yamabe metrics in $`[\gamma ]`$, $`\gamma 𝒱`$.

Now fix some $`\gamma _o𝒱`$, and consider the class of variations $`hT_{\gamma _o}𝕄`$ with $`h_{C^2}=1`$. As discussed above, each such $`h`$ determines a subset of Yamabe metrics $`\{\gamma ^\lambda (h)\}`$ of the full set of Yamabe metrics $`\{\gamma ^\lambda \}`$ in $`[\gamma _o]`$, (namely those which persist under perturbation in the direction $`h`$). As $`h`$ changes, this subset can of course change. However, since there is a fixed bound on the cardinality of $`\{\gamma ^\lambda \}`$, there is an open set $`U`$ of $`hT_\gamma 𝕄\{h_{C^2}=1\}`$, with the following property: there is a fixed subset $`\{\gamma ^\lambda ^{}\}\{\gamma ^\lambda \}`$, of cardinality at least two, such that for each $`hU`$, there is a sequence $`t_i0^+`$ such that $`[\gamma _o+t_ih]`$ has at least two Yamabe metrics converging in subsequences to at least two distinct elements of $`\{\gamma ^\lambda ^{}\}`$. We may assume that $`\gamma _o\{\gamma ^\lambda ^{}\}`$. Henceforth, set $`\gamma _o=\gamma `$ to simplify the notation.

Since the scalar curvature of a Yamabe metric depends only on the conformal class of the metric, it then follows that, for all $`hU`$, one has

(2.27)
$$s^{}(h)=Z_\varphi ,h𝑑V_\gamma =z,h𝑑V_\gamma ,$$

for all $`\varphi `$ representing the Yamabe metrics in $`\{\gamma ^\lambda ^{}\}`$. In particular, (2.27) holds for at least one $`\varphi 1`$. The condition (2.27) is linear and since it holds for all $`hU`$, it must hold for all $`h`$ in the linear span of $`U`$, and hence it holds for all (trace-free) $`hT_{\gamma _o}𝕄`$. This implies that one has pointwise

(2.28)
$$Z_\varphi =z,$$

i.e.

(2.29)
$$u^{n2}(z+(n2)uD_0^2u^1)=z,$$

for some $`\varphi 1`$.

Thus to prove Theorem 1.1, it suffices to prove that (2.29) has only trivial solutions. This is done by a computation in the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.5.

For $`(M,[\gamma ])(S^n,[\gamma _0])`$, the only solution to (2.29) is

(2.30)
$$u=\varphi =1.$$

Proof: We first prove this in case $`n>3`$ and afterwards prove the case $`n=3`$. Write (2.29) as

(2.31)
$$u^{(n2)}(1u^{n2})z=(n2)u(D_0^2u^1),$$

where as above, $`u=\varphi ^{2/(n2)}`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{g}=u^2g`$, as noted following Corollary 2.3,

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=z+(n2)uD_0^2u^1.$$

Combining this with (2.31) gives

(2.32)
$$z=\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{z}.$$

The metrics $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`g`$ are Yamabe, and so by the Bianchi identity,

$$\delta _g(\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{z})=\varphi ^2\delta _g\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z}(_g\varphi ^2)=0.$$

A simple computation shows that

$$\delta _g\stackrel{~}{z}=u^2\delta _{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{z}u^2\stackrel{~}{z}(_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{log}u^1).$$

Since $`_g\varphi ^2=u^2_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\varphi ^2`$, these equations and (2.32) give

$$\stackrel{~}{z}(_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{log}u)=\stackrel{~}{z}(_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\mathrm{log}\varphi ^2).$$

Since $`\varphi ^2=u^{n2}`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{z}(_{\stackrel{~}{g}}u)=0`$, because $`n>3`$. Interchanging the roles of $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ then gives

(2.33)
$$z(_gu)=0.$$

To complete the proof when $`n>3`$, return to (2.31). Let $`f(u)=u^{(n1)}(1u^{n2})`$. Assuming $`f(u)`$ is not identically $`0`$, divide (2.31) by $`f(u)`$ and pair it with $`D^2u^1`$ to obtain

(2.34)
$$D^2u^1,z=\frac{(n2)}{f(u)}D^2u^1,D^2u^1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u^1}{n}g.$$

The left side of (2.34) is smooth, and hence so is the right side. Let $`U^+=\{u1\}`$. Applying the divergence theorem over the domain $`U^+`$ gives

$$_{U^+}D^2u^1,z=_{U^+}du^1,\delta z+_{U^+}z(du^1,\nu )=0,$$

where we have used the Bianchi identity and (2.33). Hence

$$_{U^+}\frac{n2}{f(u)}\{|D^2u^1|^2\frac{1}{n}(\mathrm{\Delta }u^1)^2\}=0.$$

Since $`f(u)0`$ in $`U^+`$, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality shows that the integrand here is pointwise non-positive, and so one must have

(2.35)
$$D^2u^1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }u^1}{n}g,$$

on $`(U^+,\gamma )`$. The same arguments apply to the complementary region $`U^{}`$, and so (2.35) holds on $`(M,\gamma )`$. By (2.31), this of course implies $`z=0`$, at least on the domain where $`f(u)0`$. Taking the divergence of (2.35) on this domain and using the identity $`divD^2\psi =d\mathrm{\Delta }\psi +Ric(\psi )`$ gives

$$d(\frac{n1}{n}\mathrm{\Delta }u^1+\frac{su^1}{n})=0.$$

Since $`u`$ is smooth on $`M`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }u^1+\frac{s}{n1}u^1=c`$ on $`M`$, with $`c=\frac{s}{n1}u^1`$. Let $`v=u^1\frac{n1}{s}c`$, so that $`v=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=\frac{s}{n1}v`$. It follows then from (2.35) that

(2.36)
$$D^2v=\frac{s}{n(n1)}vg.$$

By Obata’s theorem , it is well-known that the only non-zero solution to (2.36) is with $`v`$ a $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ eigenfunction of the Laplacian on the round metric $`\gamma _0`$ on $`S^n`$, (up to a constant rescaling). Since by assumption $`(M,[\gamma ])(S^n,[\gamma _0])`$, it follows then that $`v=0`$ and hence $`u=1`$. This completes the proof in case $`n>3`$.

For $`n=3`$, a different argument must be used, since the proof of (2.33) does not hold in this case. Instead, return to (2.32), and recall that $`\omega =d(r\frac{s}{4}g)`$ is a conformal invariant of weight 0 in dimension 3, cf. ; thus if $`\stackrel{~}{g}=u^2g`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega `$. The metrics $`g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are Yamabe, and so

$$\stackrel{~}{dz}=dz.$$

On the other hand, by (2.32), one has

$$dz=d\varphi ^2\stackrel{~}{z}+\varphi ^2d\stackrel{~}{z},$$

and one easily computes from the definition that $`d\stackrel{~}{z}=\stackrel{~}{dz}`$. Hence $`(1\varphi ^2)dz=d\varphi ^2z`$. This implies that $`d\varphi ^2z=0`$ on the level set $`\{\varphi =u=1\}`$. Taking the trace of this $`(2,1)`$ form gives $`z(du)=0`$ on $`\{u=1\}`$. The remainder of the proof then follows exactly as following (2.34). ∎

The proof of Theorem 1.1 now follows easily. Lemma 2.5 implies there are no non-trivial solutions of (2.29). Hence the open set $`𝒱`$ must be empty, which proves the result.

The proof of Theorem 1.2 is now also very simple.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Suppose that the scalar curvature function $`s`$ has a local maximum on $`𝒴`$ at $`\gamma `$, i.e. $`s_\gamma ^{}s_\gamma `$, for any unit volume Yamabe metric $`\gamma ^{}`$ near $`\gamma `$. Then by Proposition 2.4, the positive directional derivative $`s^{}(h)`$ exists for any $`h`$ and

$$s^{}(h)0.$$

Consider then the collection of tangent vectors $`Z_\varphi `$ in $`T_\gamma 𝕄`$ with $`Z_\varphi =z`$ for $`\varphi =1`$. Any $`h`$ determines at least one $`Z_\varphi `$, (and maybe several), and (2.26) gives

$$Z_\varphi ,h𝑑V_\gamma 0.$$

Hence, each $`h`$ must lie in the positive half-space of its corresponding $`Z_\varphi `$. However, if there are only two Yamabe metrics in $`[\gamma ]`$, there are most two such $`Z_\varphi `$ and the two corresponding half-spaces do not cover all of $`T_\gamma 𝕄`$ unless

$$z=Z_\varphi .$$

From (2.23), this implies

(2.37)
$$u^1(1+u^{n2})z=(n2)D_0^2u^1.$$

We now argue as in the proof of Lemma 2.5. Thus, pair (2.37) with $`z`$; integrating over $`M`$ and using the Bianchi identity implies that $`z=0`$, i.e $`\gamma `$ is Einstein. ∎

It would be of interest to know if this method of proof can be generalized to prove that any local maximum of $`s`$ on $`𝒴`$ is necessarily Einstein.

May, 2003