text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The close connection between symmetry and degeneracy has been explored since the very foundation of Quantum Mechanics. Famous examples include degeneracies of the energy spectra in angular momentum in the 3d harmonic oscillator  and in the Hydrogen atom (well known as the accidental degeneracy) . Here we undertake a detailed study of the connection between symmetries and degeneracies of a Hamiltonian that describes the exchange interaction of two spins, $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐊}`$, and also includes Zeeman splitting for spin $`\widehat{𝐒}`$:

$$\widehat{H}(x)=x(K+1/2)\widehat{S}_z+\widehat{𝐊}\widehat{𝐒}$$
(1)
where $`S=1`$ and $`K`$ is arbitrary.

Our interest in this system was motivated by experiments  on spin relaxation in polarized alkali-metal vapors. In this case $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ has a meaning of the total electronic spin, $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ is the nuclear spin, and the dimensionless constant $`x`$ represents the magnetic field. A diagram of energy levels of Hamiltonian (1) for a typical value of $`K=2`$ is shown on Fig. 1. In addition to degeneracies at $`x=0`$ (no Zeeman splitting) the spectrum displays less trivial $`(2K+1)`$-fold degeneracies at $`x=\pm 1`$. These degeneracies show up as resonances in the spin relaxation rate and provide the key evidence for a particular mechanism of spin relaxation (see  for details). The degeneracies at $`x=\pm 1`$ have been also discussed in .

Despite the simplicity of Hamiltonian (1), it is not trivial to determine its symmetry at $`x=1`$. To the best of our knowledge there is no general textbook algorithm for extracting symmetries. In this paper we propose such an algorithm. We demonstrate how, using only a minimal intuition into the reasons for degeneracy, one can find hidden symmetries whenever the eigenstates and the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are known.

Before proceeding further let us formulate the general problem of identifying the symmetry responsible for a particular spectral degeneracy. Symmetries manifest themselves through operators that commute with the Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}`$. Consider a set of these operators $`𝒜=\{\widehat{A}_i\}`$. If not all of the operators $`\widehat{A}_i`$ commute with each other, this symmetry implies some spectral degeneracy. Indeed, if

$$[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{H}]=[\widehat{A}_j,\widehat{H}]=0\text{and}[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{A}_j]0,$$
(2)
there exists an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`|\alpha `$ for which $`\widehat{A}_i|\alpha \widehat{A}_j|\alpha `$. This state is necessarily degenerate, since according to equation (2) $`\widehat{A}_i|\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{A}_j|\alpha `$ are eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}`$ of the same energy as $`|\alpha `$ (see e.g. ).

Is a particular set of operators $`𝒜`$ sufficient to account for given spectral degeneracies? The positive answer to this question implies that

1. all degenerate states can be labelled by eigenvalues of a number of mutually commuting operators from the set $`𝒜`$
2. any degenerate state can be obtained from any other state in the same eigenspace by a repeated action of operators $`\widehat{A}_i`$ or their linear combinations.

Provided that conditions 1) and 2) are met one can complete the analysis by clarifying the physical significance of operators $`\{\widehat{A}_i\}`$. An additional, more abstract, question one might ask is what is the group generated by operators $`\{\widehat{A}_i\}`$.

Consider for example the degeneracy of Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=0`$. One can introduce $`\widehat{𝐆}=\widehat{𝐊}+\widehat{𝐒}`$ and identify, e.g., $`\widehat{A}_1=\widehat{G}_x`$ and $`\widehat{A}_2=\widehat{G}_y`$. The commutator of $`\widehat{A}_1`$ with $`\widehat{A}_2`$ yields $`\widehat{A}_3=\widehat{G}_z`$. Eigenvalues of $`\widehat{G}_z`$ and $`\widehat{𝐆}^2`$ can be used to label the degenerate states, while linear combinations of $`\widehat{G}_x`$ and $`\widehat{G}_y`$, $`\widehat{G}_+`$ and $`\widehat{G}_{}`$, connect all degenerate states in a given eigenspace. Finally, any operator that commutes with $`\widehat{H}(0)`$ can be written in terms of $`\widehat{G}_x`$, $`\widehat{G}_y`$, $`\widehat{G}_z`$, and $`\widehat{𝐆}^2`$. The group generated by the components of $`\widehat{𝐆}`$ is $`SU(2)`$ and the group elements have a meaning of rotations in 3d space.

Frequently, we encounter a situation when the spectrum is known exactly and yet the symmetries are hidden. In such cases the following formal expression for commuting operators serves as a useful starting point. One can show quite generally that, up to an operator that annihilates all degenerate states, all integrals of motion must be of the form

$$\widehat{X}=\underset{n}{}\widehat{P}_n\widehat{Y}\widehat{P}_n$$
(3)
Here $`\widehat{P}_n`$ is an operator that projects out the $`n`$th degenerate eigenspace and $`\widehat{Y}`$ is an arbitrary operator. We prove equation (3) in the Appendix. The problem of finding the symmetry thus reduces to making appropriate choices for $`\widehat{Y}`$. This choice can be either guided by limiting cases, e.g., the classical limit, where the symmetry is simple to identify, or by an intuition as to what type of conservation laws (e.g. scalars or vectors or etc.) one expects to find. However, examples we considered show that many apparently different choices for the operator $`\widehat{Y}`$ produce equivalent conservation laws. Thus, it is usually sufficient to explore the simplest options - the basic operators of the problem. For example, if the Hamiltonian is written in terms of $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}`$, natural choices for $`\widehat{Y}`$ would be $`\widehat{𝐫}^2`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}^2`$ if one is looking for a conserved scalar or $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ if a conserved vector is expected.

The paper is organized as follows. First, we determine and analyze in detail the spectrum of Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=1`$ (Section 2). We show that, apart from the zero field degeneracy at $`x=0`$, there are degeneracies only at $`x=\pm 1`$, the spectrum at $`x=1`$ being simply related to that at $`x=1`$. Given the eigenstates, integrals of motion (3) can be evaluated without knowing projectors $`\widehat{P}_n`$ explicitly. In this case the general strategy is to compute the matrix elements of $`\widehat{X}`$ in equation (3) and use them to determine $`\widehat{X}`$ in terms of basic operators of the problem. We will illustrate this approach in Section 6.

In Section 3 we use (3) to explicitly derive commuting operators that connect all degenerate states at $`x=1`$. We demonstrate that the symmetry group of Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=1`$ is $`SU(2)`$. The physical meaning of symmetry operators is clarified in Section 4, where we consider the limit of large $`K`$.

In Section 5 we rewrite the Hamiltonian in the form that makes the analogy to the large $`K`$ limit particularly clear and allows us to establish some additional properties of the energy spectrum. In Section 6 we provide another example of the general approach of finding symmetries based on (3) by deriving the Runge-Lenz vector from (3).

## 2 Energy Spectrum

Here we analyze the spectrum of Hamiltonian (1) at arbitrary $`x`$ and consider in detail the spectrum at $`x=1`$. The results discussed in this section were originally derived in . We will follow  closely adopting in most cases the same notation.

First, we note that the $`z`$ component of the total spin is conserved.

$$[\widehat{G}_z,\widehat{H}(x)]=0$$
(4)
Since $`S=1`$, there are at most three independent states for each eigenvalue $`m`$ of $`\widehat{G}_z`$. In the basis $`|K_z,S_z`$ these states are $`|m1,1`$, $`|m,0`$, and $`|m+1,1`$. The block of the Hamiltonian (1) that corresponds to $`m`$ for $`|m|K1`$ is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{2}(x(K+1/2)+m1)& \sqrt{(K+m)(Km+1)}& 0\\ \sqrt{(K+m)(Km+1)}& 0& \sqrt{(Km)(K+m+1)}\\ 0& \sqrt{(Km)(K+m+1)}& \sqrt{2}(x(K+1/2)m1)\end{array}\right]$$
(5)
with the eigenvalue equation

$$\begin{array}{c}E^3+2E^2a(x)EK^2b(x)=0\hfill \\ \\ a(x)=(1+x^2)(K+1/2)^2+2x(K+1/2)m5/4\hfill \\ \\ b(x)=K^2+K+x(K+1/2)m\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
In addition to $`3\times 3`$ blocks (5) the Hamiltonian also has two $`2\times 2`$ blocks for $`|m|=K`$ and two $`1\times 1`$ blocks for $`|m|=K+1`$. Energies for these values of $`m`$ are also solutions of (6).

Degeneracies occur only at $`x=0`$ and $`x=\pm 1`$ (see Fig. 1). The energy spectrum at $`x=1`$ is identical to that at $`x=1`$ while the eigenstates are related via a unitary transformation (a rotation by $`\pi `$ around any axis in $`xy`$ plane). Therefore, it is sufficient to consider only $`x=1`$.

The spectrum at $`x=1`$ has the following features:

* There are $`2K+1`$ degenerate states $`|Dm`$ (“D” for degenerate states) with the energies $`E_{Dm}=1/2`$
* There is a gap at $`m=K`$ in the values of $`m`$ that can be assigned to degenerate states $`|Dm`$, $`m=K,K1,\mathrm{},K+1`$ and $`K1`$
* There are $`2K+2`$ non-degenerate states $`|Tm`$ (“T” for top states) with energies $`E_{Tm}>1/2`$ and $`m=K+1,K,\mathrm{},K`$
* There are $`2K`$ non-degenerate states $`|Bm`$ (“B” for bottom states) with energies $`E_{Bm}<1/2`$ and $`m=K1,K,\mathrm{},K`$
* Energies of the top $`|Tm`$ and bottom $`|Bm`$ states are related by $`E_{Tm}+E_{Bm}=3/2`$ ($`|m|<K`$)

Finally, we can use (5) to compute the energies at $`x=1`$ and the wave-functions $`|Dm`$ of the degenerate states

$$E_{Dm}=1/2E_{Tm}=3/4+\sqrt{\text{B}(m)^2+1/16}E_{Bm}=3/2E_{Tm}$$
(7)
$$\left[\begin{array}{c}m1,1|Dm\hfill \\ m,0|Dm\hfill \\ m+1,1|Dm\hfill \end{array}\right]=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\text{B}(m)}\left[\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{(K+1+m)(K+1m)}\\ \sqrt{2(K+1+m)(K+m)}\\ \sqrt{(K+m)(Km)}\end{array}\right]$$
(8)
where

$$\text{B}(m)=(2K+1)(K+m+1/2)$$
(9)
## 3 Symmetries

In this section we derive integrals of motion responsible for degeneracies at $`x=1`$. We write them in terms of components of $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ and show that the symmetry group is $`SU(2)`$.

Our starting point is the general expression for commuting operators (3). Hamiltonian (1) has only one degenerate subspace at $`x=1`$, so there is only one projection operator in (3).

$$\widehat{X}=\widehat{P}\widehat{Y}\widehat{P}$$
(10)
Even though we do not need to know projection operators explicitly to evaluate (3), in the case of Hamiltonian (1) the projector $`\widehat{P}`$ has a simple meaning in the large $`K`$ limit, so we derive it bellow from the eigenvalue equation (6).

When the energy $`E`$ is replaced by $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`m`$ is replaced by $`\widehat{G}_z`$, eigenvalue equation (6) translates into a cubic identity for the Hamiltonian . At $`x=1`$ this identity can be factored out as follows

$$(\widehat{H}+1/2)\underset{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\underset{}{\left[\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2(\widehat{H}+1/2)(\widehat{H}+1)\right]}}=0$$
(11)
where

$$\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)=(2K+1)(K+\widehat{G}_z+1/2)$$
(12)
States with $`E=1/2`$ are degenerate with respect to the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{G}_z`$. The operator in the square brackets, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$, is then an “unnormalized projection operator” that projects out the degenerate subspace.

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}|Nm=0\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}|Dm=\text{B}(m)^2|Dm$$
(13)
The operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ can be normalized to a usual projection operator for the degenerate subspace .

$$\widehat{P}=\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2}=1\frac{(\widehat{H}+1/2)(\widehat{H}+1)}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2}$$
(14)
Now we have to identify appropriate choices for the operator $`\widehat{Y}`$ in equation (10). Let us first try the simplest options \- operators that are linear in components of $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐊}`$. Consider, for example, a conserved vector111Projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$ is a scalar, because the Hamiltonian is a scalar. To see this the operator $`\widehat{S}_z`$ in Hamiltonian (1) should be written as $`\widehat{𝐒}𝐛`$, where $`𝐛`$ is a unit vector along the magnetic field. By the same argument $`\widehat{G}_z=\widehat{𝐆}𝐛`$ is a conserved scalar. Therefore, $`𝐋`$ is a vector.

$$\widehat{𝐋}=\widehat{P}\widehat{𝐊}\widehat{P}$$
(15)
Let us determine the action of components of $`\widehat{𝐋}`$ on the eigenstates of Hamiltonian. Since $`\widehat{P}`$ is a projector for the degenerate subspace222We use the usual notation $`\widehat{L}_1\widehat{L}_x\frac{\widehat{L}_++\widehat{L}_{}}{2}`$, $`\widehat{L}_2\widehat{L}_y\frac{\widehat{L}_+\widehat{L}_{}}{2i}`$, and $`\widehat{L}_3\widehat{L}_z`$. ,

$$\widehat{L}_i|Nm=0i=1,2,3.$$

To calculate the action of $`\widehat{L}_i`$ on degenerate states recall that due to selection rules (see e.g. ) the components of a vector can have nonzero matrix elements only for transitions $`mm`$ and $`mm\pm 1`$. We note also the following relation between matrix elements of operators $`\widehat{X}`$ and $`\widehat{Y}`$ in equation (10)

$$m^{}|\widehat{X}|m=Dm^{}|\widehat{Y}|Dm$$
(16)
where $`|m`$ and $`|m^{}`$ are any two eigenstates of $`\widehat{G}_z`$ with eigenvalues $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ respectively. Using equations (16) and (8), we obtain

$$\widehat{L}_+|Dm=\sqrt{\frac{(K^2m^2)((2K+2m+3)^21)}{(2K+2m+2)^21}}|D,m+1$$
(17)
The action of $`\widehat{L}_{}`$ can be determined directly from equation (17) and the action of $`\widehat{L}_z`$ from equations (16) and (8) with $`m^{}=m`$.

Note that equation (17) is not well defined for $`m=K1`$. For the state $`|D,K1`$ instead of equation (17) we get

$$\widehat{L}_\pm |D,K1=0$$
(18)
Equation (18) reflects the existence of a gap at $`m=K`$ in the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{G}_z`$ assigned to degenerate states. An operator that connects the state $`|D,K1`$ to the rest of degenerate subspace must change $`m`$ by at least two. According to selection rules such an operator is neither a scalar nor a component of a vector. Let us first consider values of $`mK1`$ and revisit the problem of the gap at the end of the section.

Since equation (17) is not of the standard form for a raising operator in $`su(2)`$, commutation relations for $`\widehat{L}_\pm `$ are “deformed” versions of $`su(2)`$ commutation relations. However, one can derive usual $`su(2)`$ operators from $`\widehat{L}_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{G}_z`$. Define

$$\widehat{N}_+=(\widehat{N}_{})^{}=\widehat{A}(\widehat{G}_z)\widehat{A}(\widehat{G}_z+1)\widehat{L}_+\widehat{N}_z=(\widehat{G}_z1/2)\widehat{P}$$
(19)
where

$$\widehat{A}(\widehat{G}_z)=\frac{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z+1/2)}$$

Operators $`\widehat{N}_i`$ form an $`su(2)`$ algebra:

$$[\widehat{N}_i,\widehat{N}_j]=\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{N}_k$$

All degenerate states with $`mK1`$ are connected by operators $`N_\pm `$. Each of these states is labelled by $`N_z`$ and by an eigenvalue of the Casimir operator

$$\widehat{𝐍}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{N}_i^2=\widehat{N}_{}\widehat{N}_++\widehat{N}_z^2+\widehat{N}_z$$

Operator $`\widehat{𝐍}^2`$ has eigenvalues $`N(N+1)`$ with (half)integer values of $`N`$.

$$|Dm=|N=K1/2,N_z=m1/2mK1$$

Thus, degenerate states with $`mK1`$ transform under the $`2K`$-dimensional representation of this $`su(2)`$, while nondegenerate states are singlets.

Note that by selection rules taking any other vector, e.g. a linear combination of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐒}`$, instead of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ in the definition of $`\widehat{𝐋}`$, equation (15), will produce the same results and lead to the same $`su(2)`$ algebra.

As was mentioned above, to connect the state $`|D,K1`$ to the rest of the degenerate subspace, one needs an operator that can change $`m`$ by at least two. Let us consider, for example, operators

$$\widehat{M}_\pm =\widehat{P}\widehat{S}_\pm ^2\widehat{P}$$
(20)
Using operators $`\widehat{M}_\pm `$ and operators $`\widehat{N}_i`$, one can construct a new $`su(2)`$ algebra with a representation that incorporates the state $`|D,K1`$. We define

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{J}_+=(\widehat{J}_{})^{}=\sqrt{\frac{K+\widehat{G}_z}{K+\widehat{G}_z1}}\widehat{N}_+\sqrt{3K+3/2}\widehat{P}\widehat{S}_+^2\widehat{P}_{K1}\hfill \\ \\ \widehat{J}_z=\widehat{G}_z\widehat{P}+\widehat{P}_{K1}\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
Here333Note that $`\widehat{P}_{K1}=\widehat{P}_{K1}\widehat{P}=\widehat{P}\widehat{P}_{K1}\widehat{P}`$ and $`\widehat{G}_z\widehat{P}=\widehat{P}\widehat{G}_z=\widehat{P}\widehat{G}_z\widehat{P}`$. Hence, operators $`J_\pm `$ and $`J_z`$ defined by equations (21) are indeed of the general form (3). $`\widehat{P}_{K1}`$ denotes the projector onto the state $`|D,K1`$

$$\widehat{P}_{K1}|D,K1=|D,K1\widehat{P}_{K1}|mK1=0$$

The operator $`\widehat{P}_{K1}`$ can be written in terms of $`\widehat{G}_z`$ as follows

$$\widehat{P}_{K1}=\frac{1}{(2K+2)!}\underset{mK1}{}(m\widehat{G}_z)$$

One can check by a direct computation using equations (21), (19), (17), and (14) that

1. Operators $`\widehat{J}_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{J}_z`$ commute with Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=1`$ and form an $`su(2)`$ algebra.
2. All degenerated states are uniquely labelled by eigenvalues of $`\widehat{J}_z`$ and $`\widehat{𝐉}^2`$

$$|Dm=|J=K,J_z=mK+1mK$$

and

$$|D,K1=|J=K,J_z=K$$

Thus, $`J_z`$ runs from $`K`$ to $`K`$ with no gap and the degenerate subspace transforms under a (2K+1)-dimensional representation of the $`su(2)`$ defined by equations (21).
3. All nondegenerate states are singlets, i.e. they have $`J=J_z=0`$

Note that operators $`\widehat{M}_\pm `$ are linear combinations of components of a conserved rank 2 tensor $`\widehat{M}_{ij}=\widehat{P}\widehat{S}_i\widehat{S}_j\widehat{P}`$. By the same argument as for vectors, inserting any other rank 2 tensor instead of operator $`\widehat{Y}`$ in equation (10) will result in equivalent operators. Higher rank tensors are not needed. Indeed, operators $`\widehat{J}_i`$ already connect all degenerate states. Therefore, components of tensors of a rank greater than two can be written in terms of products of operators $`\widehat{J}_i`$ in the same way as components of any tensor that commutes with Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=0`$ can be expressed through $`\widehat{G}_x`$, $`\widehat{G}_y`$, and $`\widehat{G}_z`$.

## 4 Large $`K`$ Limit

To gain some insight into the conservation laws derived in the previous section let us consider the limit $`K1`$. In this limit the meaning of symmetry turns out to be transparent. Our intention in this section is not to present a rigorous analysis, but rather to develop an intuition about symmetries responsible for degeneracy.

If $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ is a classical vector, we can write the Hamiltonian at $`x=1`$ as

$$\widehat{H}_{cl}=|(K+1/2)𝐳+\widehat{𝐊}|\widehat{S}_𝐧$$
(22)
where $`𝐳`$ is a unit vector along the $`z`$-axis and operator $`\widehat{S}_𝐧`$ is the projection of $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ onto the axis parallel to the vector $`(K+1/2)𝐳+\widehat{𝐊}`$. For each orientation of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ there are three energies corresponding to $`S_𝐧=+1,`$ $`1`$ and $`0`$ – “top”, “bottom” and “middle” levels . Middle levels have zero energy, independent on the direction of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$.

Now let us take into account quantization of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ in the limit $`K1`$. We assume nevertheless that $`\widehat{S}_𝐧`$ still can be interpreted as a projection of $`\widehat{𝐒}`$ 444The large $`K`$ limit can be treated more accurately by introducing a preferred direction for $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ and representing $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ in terms of Holstein–Primakoff bosons..

The direction of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ is specified by $`K_zm`$. States $`|S_𝐧=0,G_z=m`$ are degenerate with respect to $`m`$. Evidently, symmetries responsible for this degeneracy “rotate $`\widehat{𝐊}`$” for states with $`\widehat{S}_𝐧=0`$, while keeping it unchanged for states with $`\widehat{S}_𝐧0`$. Generators for such rotations are

$$\widehat{L}_{x,y}^{cl}=(1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2)\widehat{K}_{x,y}(1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2)$$
(23)
Operators $`\widehat{L}_{x,y}^{cl}`$ commute with the Hamiltonian (22) which follows from the spin-1 identity

$$\widehat{S}_𝐧(1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2)=0$$
(24)
In deriving (23) we made use of a projection operator

$$\widehat{P}_{cl}=1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2\widehat{P}_{cl}|Dm=|Dm\widehat{P}_{cl}|Nm=0$$
(25)
where $`|Dm`$ and $`|Nm`$ denote degenerate and non-degenerate states respectively. Operators $`\widehat{L}_{x,y}^{cl}`$ together with $`\widehat{L}_z^{cl}=(1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2)\widehat{K}_z(1\widehat{S}_𝐧^2)`$ form an $`su(2)`$ algebra

$$[\widehat{L}_i^{cl},\widehat{L}_j^{cl}]=i\epsilon _{ijk}\widehat{L}_k^{cl}+O(1/K)$$
(26)
The degenerate subspace transforms under a $`2K+1`$ dimensional representation of this $`su(2)`$, while nondegenerate states are singlets. Neglecting terms of the order of $`1/K`$, we can write Hamiltonian (22) as

$$\widehat{H}_{cl}=\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)\widehat{S}_𝐧$$
(27)
Note that the operator $`\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)`$ defined by equation (12) can be interpreted as an “effective magnetic field operator”, which explains notation (12). Combining equation (27) with spin-1 identity (24), we obtain

$$\widehat{S}_𝐧^2=\frac{\widehat{H}_{cl}^2}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2}\widehat{P}_{cl}=1\frac{\widehat{H}_{cl}^2}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2}$$
(28)
$$\widehat{H}_{cl}\left[\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2\widehat{H}_{cl}^2\right]=0$$
(29)
Now let us compare these results to the “quantum” case. First, one can check that operators $`\widehat{L}_i^{cl}`$, $`\widehat{H}_{cl}`$, and $`\widehat{P}_{cl}`$ defined above are indeed the limits of the corresponding operators introduced in the previous section. Namely,

$$\widehat{H}\widehat{H}_{cl}\widehat{P}\widehat{P}_{cl}\widehat{J}_i\widehat{N}_i\widehat{L}_i\widehat{L}_i^{cl}\text{as }K\mathrm{}$$
(30)
Therefore, we can think of the operator

$$\widehat{I}_n^2\frac{(\widehat{H}+1/2)(\widehat{H}+1)}{\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)^2},$$
(31)
appearing in the definition of $`\widehat{P}`$, equation (14), as a projection of a spin one onto a “quantum axis” along $`(K+1/2)𝐳+\widehat{𝐊}`$. Further, the spin-1 identity, equation (24), and its descendent equation (29) are the limit of equation (11). Equation (30) shows that the difference between $`\widehat{N}_i`$ and $`\widehat{J}_i`$ disappears in the limit of large $`K`$. Thus, the gap in the values of $`m`$ has no analogs in the leading order of this limit. Note also that in the leading order in $`1/K`$ the middle levels of Hamiltonian (1) are degenerate at any $`x`$ and for all integer values of $`S`$. An analysis of the subleading corrections to the large $`K`$ limit may provide a simple explanation of why the degeneracies occur only for $`S=1`$.

## 5 Generalized Symmetries

In this section we deviate somewhat from the main topic of the paper and discuss generalized symmetries of Hamiltonian (1). Generalized symmetries are anticommutation relations that explain, for example, the following relation between energies of top and bottom levels (see Section 2):

$$E_{Tm}+E_{Bm}=3/2|m|<K1$$

We also show that the analogy to the large $`K`$ limit can be pushed even further if we replace the Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=1`$ with an effective Hamiltonian by keeping only the blocks with $`|m|<K1`$.

First, we note that there exists a basis where the block of the Hamiltonian (5) at $`x=1`$ reads

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \text{B}(m)& 0\\ \text{B}(m)& 1/2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1/2\end{array}\right]$$
(32)
Indeed, matrix (32) has the same eigenvalue equation as matrix (5) at $`x=1`$. Therefore, matrices (32) and (5) represent the same operator in two different basises. From equation (31) we find that $`\widehat{I}_𝐧^2`$ for $`|m|<K`$ in this basis is

$$\widehat{I}_𝐧^2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(33)
Comparing matrix (32) and equation (27), and using (33), we conclude that it is natural to define $`\widehat{I}_𝐧`$ as

$$\widehat{I}_𝐧=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(34)
Thus, we can write (cf. (27))

$$\widehat{H}_{eff}=\widehat{\text{B}}(\widehat{G}_z)\widehat{I}_11/4\widehat{I}_31/4\widehat{I}_1^21/2$$
(35)
where $`\widehat{I}_1`$, $`\widehat{I}_2`$, and $`\widehat{I}_3`$ are the first three Gell-Mann matrices of $`su(3)`$.

$$\widehat{I}_1\widehat{I}_𝐧=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\widehat{I}_2=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\widehat{I}_3=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

Matrices $`\widehat{I}_1`$, $`\widehat{I}_2`$, and $`\widehat{I}_3`$ generate an $`su(2)`$ subgroup of $`su(3)`$ known as the isospin subgroup. We note that

$$\widehat{H}_{eff}\widehat{I}_2+\widehat{I}_2\widehat{H}_{eff}=\frac{3}{2}\widehat{I}_2$$
(36)
Anticommutation relations of this type are sometimes called generalized symmetries. Equation (36) shows that if $`|m`$ is an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian at $`x=1`$ with $`|m|<K`$ and the energy $`E`$, $`\widehat{I}_2|m`$ is either also an eigenstate but with the energy $`3/2E`$ or $`\widehat{I}_2|m=0`$. Examining the eigenstates of matrix (32) one can verify that $`\widehat{I}_2|Nm0`$ and $`\widehat{I}_2|Dm=0`$. Therefore, we get

$$E_{Tm}+E_{Bm}=\frac{3}{2}\widehat{I}_2|Tm=|Bm\widehat{I}_2|Bm=|Tm\widehat{I}_2|Dm=0$$
(37)
Note also that since for each $`|m|<K`$ the operator $`\widehat{𝐊}\widehat{𝐒}`$ has three eigenvalues $`K1`$, $`1`$, and $`K`$

$$E_{Tm}+E_{Dm}+E_{Bm}=Tr(\widehat{H})=(K+1/2)Tr(\widehat{S}_z)+Tr(\widehat{𝐊}\widehat{𝐒})=2$$
(38)
## 6 Hydrogen Atom

Here we derive the nontrivial conservation laws for the Hydrogen atom from the general expression (3).

The Hamiltonian in atomic units (see e.g. ) is

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{\widehat{𝐩}^2}{2}\frac{1}{\widehat{r}}$$
(39)
In addition to the angular momentum $`\widehat{𝐋}=\widehat{𝐫}\times \widehat{𝐩}`$, Hamiltonian (39) also conserves the Runge–Lenz vector

$$\widehat{𝐀}=\frac{\widehat{𝐫}}{r}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{𝐩}\times \widehat{𝐋}\widehat{𝐋}\times \widehat{𝐩})$$
(40)
Integrals of motion (40) explain the degeneracy in angular momentum. Components of vectors $`\widehat{𝐋}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐀}`$ can be combined to yield generators of the $`so(4)`$ symmetry  of Hamiltonian (39).

Let us show that conservation laws (40) can be derived directly from equation (3) using only the knowledge of exact eigenstates of Hamiltonian (39). The conservation of angular momentum is not specific to $`1/r`$ potential. We therefore assume that we know that the angular momentum is conserved, but do not know any other conservation laws of Hamiltonian (39).

According to (3) the conservation laws are of the form

$$\widehat{X}=\underset{n}{}\widehat{P}_n\widehat{Y}\widehat{P}_n$$
(41)
where $`\widehat{P}_n`$ projects out the eigenspace of (39) with eigenvalue $`E_n=1/2n^2`$. We take a straightforward approach and try the simplest choices for $`\widehat{Y}`$.

First, we look for a conserved scalar and try $`\widehat{Y}_1=\widehat{𝐫}^2`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_2=\widehat{𝐩}^2`$. This choice as well as any other powers of $`|\widehat{𝐩}|`$ and $`|\widehat{𝐫}|`$ result only in trivial commuting operators - combinations of $`\widehat{H}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐋}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. For example,

$$\widehat{X}_1=\underset{n}{}\widehat{P}_n\widehat{𝐫}^2\widehat{P}_n=\frac{1}{4\widehat{H}}\left(\frac{5}{2\widehat{H}}+\widehat{𝐋}^21\right)$$

Next, we search for a conserved vector and try $`\widehat{Y}=\widehat{𝐫}`$. To evaluate

$$\widehat{𝐁}=\underset{n}{}\widehat{P}_n\widehat{𝐫}\widehat{P}_n$$
(42)
explicitly it is advantageous to use parabolic coordinates. The eigenstates of discrete spectrum are specified by three integers $`|n_1,n_2,m`$, where $`m`$ is the z-projection of the angular momentum and the principle quantum number is $`n=n_1+n_2+|m|+1`$ (see e.g. ). Evaluating the matrix elements of $`B_z`$ in this basis, we find that only diagonal matrix elements are nonzero and

$$\widehat{B}_z|n_1,n_2,m=\frac{3n}{2}(n_1n_2)|n_1,n_2,m$$
(43)
To express $`\widehat{B}_z`$ through components of $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐩}`$ we have to identify operators that have eigenvalues $`n`$, $`n_1`$, and $`n_2`$. All we need to do is to follow backwards the derivation of eigenstates in parabolic coordinates. Substituting these operators instead of $`n`$, $`n_1`$, and $`n_2`$ into equation (43), we find

$$\widehat{B}_z=\frac{3\widehat{A}_z}{4\widehat{H}}$$

Since the choice of z-axis is arbitrary, we conclude that

$$\widehat{𝐁}=\frac{\widehat{𝐀}}{4\widehat{H}}$$

with $`\widehat{𝐀}`$ given by equation (40).

Thus, the substitution of $`\widehat{Y}=\widehat{𝐫}`$ into equation (3) produces the Runge-Lenz vector - the nontrivial conservation law responsible for the “accidental” degeneracy in Hydrogen atom. One can check that the alternative choice $`\widehat{Y}=\widehat{𝐩}`$ yields the same result.

## 7 Conclusion

We have derived a complete set of symmetry generators of Hamiltonian (1) at $`x=1`$ and established that the symmetry group of the Hamiltonian is $`SU(2)`$. The degenerate subspace transforms under a $`(2K+1)`$-dimensional representation of this $`SU(2)`$, nondegenerate states being singlets. For $`K1`$ the degenerate states correspond to $`\widehat{S}_𝐧=0`$ where $`𝐧`$ is a unit vector along $`𝐳+\widehat{𝐊}/K`$ and the symmetry operators have a meaning of rotations of $`\widehat{𝐊}`$ for these states. We outlined a general approach for finding symmetries that can be used when the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are known. The formal starting point in this approach is the general expression for conservation laws (3). We have seen that for both Hamiltonian (1) and the Hydrogen atom simplest choices for $`\widehat{Y}`$ produce all nontrivial conservation laws.

We do not have a satisfactory explanation of why multiple degeneracies at nonzero value of $`x`$ occur only for $`S=1`$ and not for other integer values of $`S`$. If this question is to be answered on the symmetry grounds, further insight into the nature and simple manifestations of symmetries derived in this paper is needed. In particular, the analysis of subleading corrections to large $`K`$ limit may be an interesting avenue to pursue.

## 8 Appendix: Commuting Operators

Here we prove equation (3) for Hamiltonian (1). The proof can be readily generalized to any Hermitian operator whose eigenstates span the Hilbert space.

In the energy representation Hamiltonian (1) can be written as

$$\widehat{H}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}& 0\\ & \\ 0& 𝒟\end{array}\right]$$
(A.1)
where $``$ is a $`(2K+1)\times (2K+1)`$ identity matrix and $`𝒟`$ is a diagonal matrix with no two diagonal elements equal to each other or to $`1/2`$. The block $`1/2`$ corresponds to the degenerate subspace, $`𝒟`$ to the remaining levels. Since any matrix commutes with an identity matrix and only diagonal matrices commute with $`𝒟`$, an operator $`\widehat{X}`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian if and only if it is of the form

$$\widehat{X}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 0\\ & \\ 0& 𝒟^{}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝒜& 0\\ & \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]+\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ & \\ 0& 𝒟^{}\end{array}\right]$$
(A.2)
where $`𝒜`$ is an arbitrary $`(2K+1)\times (2K+1)`$ matrix and $`𝒟^{}`$ is a diagonal matrix of an appropriate size. Using the projection operator $`\widehat{P}`$, we can rewrite (A.2) as

$$\widehat{X}=\widehat{P}\widehat{Y}\widehat{P}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(A.3)
where $`\widehat{Y}`$ is an arbitrary operator and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ represents the second operator on the left hand side of equation (A.2). The action of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ on the degenerate subspace is trivial. Namely,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|Dm=0$$

Thus, with no loss of generality the search of commuting operators can be restricted to operators of the form

$$\widehat{X}=\widehat{P}\widehat{Y}\widehat{P}$$
(A.4)
## 9 Acknowledgment

We are grateful to Natalia Saulina for helpful discussions. B. L. A. also acknowledges travelling support of the EPSRC under the grant GR/R33311.


format: text

text:
# A Remark on Unified Error Exponents: Hypothesis Testing, Data Compression & Measure Concentration

## 1 Introduction

Let $`A`$ be a finite set and $`P`$ a probability distribution on $`A`$. Suppose that the distance (or “distortion”) $`\rho (x,y)`$ between any two points $`x,yA`$ is measured by a given nonnegative function $`\rho :A\times A[0,\mathrm{})`$, and for strings $`x_1^n=(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ and $`y_1^n=(y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n)`$ in $`A^n`$ let $`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)`$ be the corresponding coordinate-wise distance (or single-letter distortion measure) on $`A^n\times A^n`$:

$`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\rho (x_i,y_i).`$
Since $`A`$ is a finite set, the function $`\rho `$ is bounded above by

$$D_{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{x,yA}{\mathrm{max}}\rho (x,y)=\underset{x_1^n,y_1^nA^n}{\mathrm{max}}\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n).$$

Without loss of generality we assume throughout that $`P(a)>0`$ for all $`aA`$, and that for each $`aA`$ there exists a $`bA`$ with $`\rho (a,b)=0`$ (otherwise we may consider $`\rho ^{}(x,y)=[\rho (x,y)\mathrm{min}_{zA}\rho (x,z)]`$ instead of $`\rho (x,y)`$).

Given a $`D0`$, we want to cover “most” of $`A^n`$ using balls $`B(y_1^n,D)`$, where

$`B(y_1^n,D)=\{x_1^nA^n:\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)D\}`$
is the closed ball of radius $`D`$ centered at $`y_1^nA^n`$. To be precise, given a set $`C_nA^n`$, we write $`[C_n]__D`$ for the $`D`$-blowup of $`C_n`$,

$$[C_n]__D\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{y_1^nC_n}{}B(y_1^n,D).$$

A $`D`$-covering of $`A^n`$ is a sequence of subsets $`C_n`$ of $`A^n`$, $`n1`$, such that the $`P^n`$-probability of the part of $`A^n`$ which is not covered by $`C_n`$ within distance $`D`$ has exponentially small probability,

$`\text{Pr}\{\text{“error”}\}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}1P^n([C_n]__D)`$ $``$ $`2^{nE},`$ (1)
for some $`E>0`$. We are interested in “efficient” coverings of $`A^n`$, that is, given a “mass function” $`M:A(0,\mathrm{})`$, we want to find $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ that satisfy (1) and also have small mass

$`M^n(C_n)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}{\displaystyle \underset{y_1^nC_n}{}}M^n(y_1^n)={\displaystyle \underset{y_1^nC_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}M(y_i).`$
Clearly there is a trade-off between finding coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with small mass, and coverings with a good (i.e., large) error-exponent $`E`$ as in (1). Typically, the better the error-exponent, the larger the $`C_n`$, and the bigger their mass would tend to be.

Motivated, in part, by the following example and by the applications illustrated in the examples of the following section, in our main result we give a precise characterization of this trade-off.

Example: Measure Concentration on the Binary Cube.

Consider the $`n`$-dimensional binary cube $`A^n=\{0,1\}^n.`$ We measure distance on $`A^n`$ by the proportion of mismatches between two binary strings $`x_1^n`$ and $`y_1^n`$, i.e., we take $`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)`$ to be the Hamming distance,

$`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}𝕀_{\{x_iy_i\}},x_1^n,y_1^nA^n,`$ (2)
which also coincides with the normalized graph distance when $`A^n`$ is equipped with the nearest-neighbor graph structure. For simplicity, in this example we consider natural logarithms and exponentials.

A well-known measure concentration inequality \[10, Prop. 2.1.1\]\[9, Thm. 3.5\] gives a precise lower bound on the sphere-covering error probability of an arbitrary $`C_n`$: For any $`D0`$, any product distribution $`P^n`$ on $`A^n`$, and any $`C_nA^n`$,

$`\text{Pr}\{\text{“error”}\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}P^n([C_n]__D){\displaystyle \frac{e^{nD^2/2}}{P^n(C_n)}}.`$
Therefore, if $`\{C_n\}`$ is any $`D`$-covering consisting of sets with $`P^n(C_n)e^{nr}`$ for some $`r>0`$, then the union of the balls $`B(y_1^n,D)`$ centered at the points $`y_1^nC_n`$ covers all of $`A^n`$ except for a set of probability no greater than

$`e^{n\left(\frac{D^2}{2}r\right)}.`$ (3)
It is then natural to ask, what is the best achievable error exponent among all $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with probability no greater that $`e^{nr}`$? In other words, we are asking for small sets with the largest possible “boundary,” sets $`C_n`$ with “volume” $`P^n(C_n)`$ no greater than $`e^{nr}`$ but whose $`D`$-blowups $`[C_n]__D`$ cover as much of $`A^n`$ as possible. As pointed in , this question can be thought of as the opposite of the usual isoperimetric problem.

Taking $`M=P`$ in the general setting described above, we obtain the answer to this question as a corollary to our general result in the following section; see Corollary 3.

## 2 Results

Given any $`D0`$ and any $`R`$, let $`E(R,D)`$ denote the best achievable error-exponent among all $`D`$-coverings with mass asymptotically bounded by $`2^{nR}`$. Letting $`𝒞(R)`$ denote the collection of all sequences of subsets $`C_n`$ of $`A^n`$ with $`lim\; sup_n\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}M^n(C_n)R`$, define,

$$E(R,D)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{\{C_n\}𝒞(R)}{sup}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right],$$

where ‘log’ denotes the logarithm taken to base 2.

A weaker version of this problem was recently considered in , where it was shown that the probability of error can only decrease to zero if $`R`$ is greater than $`R(D;P,M)`$,

$`R(D;P,M)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{(X,Y):XP,E\rho (X,Y)D}{inf}\left\{H(P_{X,Y}P\times P_Y)+E[\mathrm{log}M(Y)]\right\},`$ (4)
where the infimum is taken over all jointly distributed random variables $`(X,Y)`$ such that $`X`$ has distribution $`P`$ and $`E\rho (X,Y)D`$, and $`P_{X,Y}`$ denotes the joint distribution of $`X,Y`$, $`P_Y`$ denotes the marginal distribution of $`Y`$, and $`H(\mu \nu )`$ denotes the relative entropy between two probability measures $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ on the same finite set $`S`$,

$$H(\mu \nu )\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{sS}{}\mu (s)\mathrm{log}\frac{\mu (s)}{\nu (s)}.$$

Therefore, the error-exponent $`E(R,D)`$ can only be nontrivial (i.e., nonzero) for $`R>R(D;P,M)`$. Also note that any $`C_nA^n`$ has

$$\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}M^n(C_n)\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}M^n(A^n)=\mathrm{log}M(A).$$

Hence, from now on we restrict attention to the range of interesting values for $`R`$ between $`R(D;P,M)`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{max}}\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\mathrm{log}M(A)`$.

Theorem.  For all $`D[0,D_{\mathrm{max}})`$ and all $`R(D;P,M)<R<R_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the best achievable exponent of the error probability, among all $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with mass asymptotically bounded by $`2^{nR}`$, is

$$E(R,D)=E^{}(R,D)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{Q:R(D;Q,M)>R}{inf}H(QP),$$

where $`R(D;P,M)`$ is defined in (4) and $`H(QP)`$ denotes the relative entropy (or Kullback-Leibler divergence) between two distributions $`P`$ and $`Q`$.

Remarks.

1. A slightly different error-exponent.  Alternatively, we can define a version of the optimal error-exponent by considering only $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with mass bounded by $`2^{nR}`$ for all $`n`$:

$$E^{}(R,D)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left\{\underset{C_n:M^n(C_n)2^{nR}}{\mathrm{min}}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]\right\}.$$

From the theorem it easily follows that $`E^{}(R,D)`$ is also equal to $`E^{}(R,D)`$ at all points $`R`$ where $`E^{}(R,D)`$ is continuous and, since it is nondecreasing in $`R`$, $`E^{}(R,D)`$ is indeed continuous at all except countably many values of $`R`$. But in general it may fail to be continuous everywhere, as illustrated in the discussions by Marton  and Ahlswede  for the special case of lossy data compression (which corresponds to taking $`M(x)1`$; see Example 2 below).

2. Proof.  The proof of the theorem is a modification of Marton’s  original argument for the case of error-exponents in lossy data compression. The optimal sets $`\{C_n\}`$ achieving $`E^{}(R,D)`$ are randomly generated, and they are universal in that their construction only depends on $`R`$, $`D`$, and $`M`$. Therefore, they achieve the optimal error-exponent simultaneously for all distributions $`P`$.

Example 1: Hypothesis Testing.

Let $`P_0`$ and $`P_1`$ be two probability distributions $`A`$ with all positive probabilities. Suppose that the null hypothesis that a sample $`X_1^n=(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ of $`n`$ independent observations comes from $`P_0`$ is to be tested against the simple alternative that $`X_1^n`$ comes from $`P_1`$. Any test between these two hypotheses is simply a decision region $`C_nA^n`$: If $`X_1^nC_n`$ we declare that $`X_1^nP_1^n`$, otherwise we declare $`X_1^nP_0^n`$. The set $`C_n`$ is called the critical region, and the type-I and type-II probabilities of error associated with the test are, respectively,

$`\alpha _n=P_0^n(C_n)\text{and}\beta _n=P_1^n(C_n^c).`$
Clearly we wish to have $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n`$ both decrease to zero as fast as possible. In particular, we may ask how quickly $`\beta _n`$ can decay to zero if we require that $`\alpha _n`$ decays exponentially at some rate $`r>0`$, i.e., $`\alpha _n2^{nr}`$. In statistical terminology, we are asking for the fastest rate of decay of the type-II error probability among all tests with significance level $`\alpha _n2^{nr}`$.

Formally, we want to identify the best exponent of the error probability $`\beta _n=1P_1^n(C_n)`$ among all $`C_n`$ with $`P_0^n(C_n)2^{nr}`$. Taking $`P=P_1`$, $`M=P_0`$, $`R=r`$, and allowing no distortion, this question reduces exactly to the our earlier sphere-covering problem. \[To be precise, allowing no distortion means we take $`D=0`$ with $`\rho (x,y)`$ being Hamming distortion as in (2).\] Accordingly, $`R(D;P,M)=R(0;P_1,P_0)`$ turns out to be equal to $`H(P_1P_0)`$, and from the theorem we immediately obtain the following classical result of Hoeffding. Also see \[2, Thms. 9, 10\] and \[3, Ex.12, p.43\] for versions of this result in the information theory literature.

Corollary 1. (Hypothesis Testing)  Let $`\{C_n\}`$ be an arbitrary sequence of tests with associated error probabilities $`\alpha _n`$ and $`\beta _n`$ as above. Among all tests with

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\alpha _nr$$

for some $`r(0,H(P_1P_0))`$, the fastest achievable asymptotic rate of decay of $`\beta _n`$ is

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\beta _n=\underset{Q:H(QP_0)<r}{inf}H(QP_1).$$

As mentioned earlier, the optimal decision regions $`C_n`$ in the Corollary are randomly generated. Therefore, although they do achieve asymptotically optimal performance, they are not optimal for finite $`n`$ in the Neyman-Pearson sense.

Example 2: Lossy Data Compression.

Suppose data $`X_1^n=(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ is generated by a stationary, memoryless source, i.e., $`X_1^n`$ are i.i.d. (independent and identically distributed) random variables, with distribution $`P`$ on the finite alphabet $`A`$. The objective of lossy data compression is to find efficient representations $`y_1^nA^n`$ for all source strings $`x_1^nA^n`$. In particular, suppose that the maximum amount of distortion $`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)`$ that we are willing to tolerate between any source string $`x_1^n`$ and its representation $`y_1^n`$ is some $`D0`$, where $`\{\rho _n\}`$ is a family of single-letter distortion measures as in (1). Then the problem is to find an efficient codebook $`C_nA^n`$ such that for most of the source strings $`x_1^n`$ there is a $`y_1^nC_n`$ with $`\rho _n(x_1^n,y_1^n)D`$.

Here, an efficient codebook $`C_n`$ is one that leads to good compression, i.e., one whose size is as small as possible. And, on the other hand, we also want to make sure that the probability that a source string cannot be represented by any element of $`C_n`$ with distortion $`D`$ or less, is small. Taking $`M`$ to be counting measure ($`M(x)=1`$ for all $`xA`$), the mass $`M^n(C_n)`$ of the codebook becomes its size $`|C_n|`$, and the problem of finding a good codebook reduces to the earlier sphere-covering question. Accordingly, the rate-function $`R(D;P;M)`$ reduces to Shannon’s rate-distortion function $`R(D;P)`$, and the theorem yields Marton’s error-exponents result.

Corollary 2. (Lossy Data Compression)  Let $`D0`$ be a given distortion level, and $`R(D;P)<R<\mathrm{log}|A|`$. Among all sequences of codebooks $`\{C_n\}`$ with asymptotic rate no greater than $`R`$ bits/symbol,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|C_n|R,$$

the fastest achievable asymptotic rate of decay of the probability of error is

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]=\underset{Q:R(D;Q)>R}{inf}H(QP).$$

Example 3: Measure Concentration on the Binary Cube.

Consider again the setting of the example described in the introduction. There we asked for the best achievable error exponent among all $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with probability no greater that $`e^{nr}`$. Taking $`M=P`$ in the theorem, we obtain the answer to this question in the following Corollary. Let $`H_e(PQ)`$ denote the relative entropy expressed in nats rather than bits, $`H_e(PQ)=(\mathrm{log}_e2)H(PQ)`$, and similarly write $`R_e(D;P,M)=(\mathrm{log}_e2)R(D;P,M)`$.

Corollary 3. (Converse Measure Concentration) Let $`D0`$ and $`0<r<R_e(D;P,P)`$. Among all $`D`$-coverings $`\{C_n\}`$ with

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}_eP^n(C_n)r,$$

the fastest achievable asymptotic rate of decay of the probability of error is

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}_e\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]=^{}(r,D),$$

where

$$^{}(r,D)\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{Q:R_e(D;Q,P)>r}{inf}H_e(QP).$$

Although the exponent $`^{}(r,D)`$ above is not as explicit as $`(\frac{D^2}{2}r)`$ in (3), it is easy to evaluate numerically and it contains much more useful information. For example, Figure 1 shows the graph of $`^{}(r,D)`$ as a function of $`r`$, for $`D=0.3`$, $`P`$ being the Bernoulli(0.4 ) distribution, and $`r`$ running over the range $`r(0.6109,0.6393)`$ where $`^{}(r,D)`$ is nontrivial (i.e., finite and nonzero). In this case, (3) is only useful when $`(\frac{D^2}{2}r)`$ is positive, i.e., for $`r(0,0.045)`$: There (3) says that, whenever $`P^n(C_n)e^{nr}`$ for some $`r(0,0.045)`$, the probability of error decays exponentially fast. But in that range, and in fact for all $`r`$ up to $`0.61`$, we have $`^{}(r,D)=\mathrm{}`$ so there are sets $`C_n`$ with $`P^n(C_n)e^{nr}`$ and probability of error decaying super-exponentially fast. Moreover, in the range $`r(0.6109,0.6393)`$ where $`^{}(r,D)`$ is nontrivial, we can choose $`C_n`$ with $`P^n(C_n)e^{nr}`$ and $`\text{Pr}\{\text{“error”}\}e^{n^{}(r,D)}`$.

Finally we remark that the “extremal” sets in the classical isoperimetric problem, namely, those $`C_n`$ that achieve equality in (3), are very different from the extremal sets in Corollary 3. The former are well-known to be Hamming balls $`B_n`$ centered at $`0^n=(0,0,\mathrm{},0)A^n`$, $`B_n=\{x_1^n:\rho _n(x_1^n,0^n)\delta \}`$ (see \[8, p. 174\]\[10, Sec. 2.3\]), while the latter are collections of strings $`y_1^n`$ randomly selected from a collection of suitable strings.

Extensions.

1. Different alphabets.  Although we assumed from the start that $`\rho (x,y)`$ is a distortion measure on $`A\times A`$, it is straightforward to generalize the main result as well as the subsequent discussion above to the case when $`\rho (x,y)`$ is a distortion measure between the “source” alphabet $`A`$ and a different (“reproduction”) alphabet $`\widehat{A}`$, as long as it is still the case that for each $`aA`$ there exists a $`b\widehat{A}`$ with $`\rho (a,b)=0`$. The necessary modifications to the statements and proofs follow exactly as in the case of Marton’s result; see \[3, Sec. 2.4\].

2. Strong converse.  As mentioned earlier, the theorem is stated only for values of $`R`$ above $`R(D;P,M)`$ since we trivially have $`E(R,D)=0`$ for $`R<R(D;P,M)`$; see \[6, Thm. 1\]. In that range it is also possible to prove a “strong converse” showing that, not only $`E(R,D)=0`$, but in fact the probability of error goes to one exponentially fast with a certain rate.

## 3 Proof

First we prove the converse part of the theorem, asserting that $`E(R,D)E^{}(R,D)`$.

Note that the rate-function $`R(D;P,M)`$ defined in (4) is jointly uniformly continuous in $`D0`$ and $`P`$; this can be easily seen to be the case by arguing along the lines of the proof of \[3, Lemma 2.2.2\] for the rate-distortion function $`R(D;P)`$. Now let $`\{C_n\}`$ be an arbitrary $`D`$-covering with $`\{C_n\}𝒞(R)`$. Take any $`Q`$ on $`A`$ such that $`R(D;Q,M)>R`$ (if no such $`Q`$ exists then the claim is trivially true), and let $`\delta >0`$ be such that $`R(D;Q,M)>R+\delta `$. Since $`\{C_n\}𝒞(R)`$, we have $`\mathrm{log}M^n(C_n)<n(R+\delta /2)`$, eventually, and by the continuity of $`R(D;Q,M)`$ in $`D`$ we can find an $`\eta >0`$ small enough so that

$$\mathrm{log}M^n(C_n)<n(R+\delta /2)<nR(D+\eta ;Q,M),\text{eventually.}$$

Therefore, by the “weak converse” in \[6, Thm. 1\], we must also have

$`E_{Q^n}\left[\underset{y_1^nC_n}{\mathrm{min}}\rho _n(X_1^n,y_1^n)\right]>D+\eta ,\text{eventually,}`$ (5)
where $`X_1^n`$ denote $`n`$ i.i.d. random variables with distribution $`Q^n`$. Writing

$$Z_n\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\underset{y_1^nC_n}{\mathrm{min}}\rho _n(X_1^n,y_1^n),$$

the bound in equation (5) implies that

$$D+\eta <E[Z_n]DQ^n(Z_nD)+D_{\mathrm{max}}Q^n(Z_n>D)$$

i.e.,

$$Q^n(Z_n>D)>\frac{\eta }{D_{\mathrm{max}}D}.$$

From Stein’s lemma \[3, Cor. 1.1.2\] we also know that, for any $`P`$ and any $`ϵ>0`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[\underset{B_nA^n:Q^n(B_n)>ϵ}{\mathrm{min}}P^n(B_n)\right]=D(QP).$$

Taking $`ϵ=\eta /(D_{\mathrm{max}}D)>0`$ and applying this to the events

$$B_n\stackrel{\mathrm{}}{=}\{Z_n>D\}=[C_n]__D^c,$$

yields

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]D(QP),$$

and since this holds for all $`Q`$ with $`R(D;Q,M)>R`$, we obtain

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]E^{}(R,D).$$

Finally, since $`\{C_n\}𝒞(R)`$ was arbitrary, this establishes that $`E(R,D)E^{}(R,D)`$, as required.

To prove the direct part of the theorem, asserting the existence of a $`D`$-covering $`\{C_n\}𝒞(R)`$ such that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\left[1P^n([C_n]__D)\right]E^{}(R,D),$$

we follow the same outline as in the proof of the direct part of \[3, Thm. 2.4.5\].

Using the joint uniform continuity of $`R(D;P,M)`$ in $`D0`$ and $`P`$, the proof of the type-covering lemma \[3, Lemma 2.4.1\] can be generalized to the corresponding statement with $`R(D;P,M)`$ in place of $`R(D;P)`$. The main new observation here is that, since all the elements $`y_1^n`$ of the covering set $`B`$ are drawn from the set $`T_{[Y^{}]}^n`$ of $`Y^{}`$-typical strings, where $`(X^{},Y^{})`$ achieve the infimum in the definition (4) of $`R(D;P,M)`$, their mass $`M^n(y_1^n)`$ satisfies

$$\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}M^n(y_1^n)E[\mathrm{log}M(Y^{})]+\delta _n\left[\underset{y}{}\mathrm{log}M(y)\right],$$

where the sequence $`\delta _n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

Finally, following the same steps as in the proof of the direct part of \[3, Thm. 2.4.5\] and replacing $`R(D;P)`$ by $`R(D;P,M)`$, we obtain the existence of a $`D`$-covering $`\{C_n\}𝒞(R)`$ with error exponent no worse than $`E^{}(R,D)\delta ,`$ where $`\delta >0`$ is an arbitrary constant. This proves that $`E(R,D)E^{}(R,D)`$, and completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Amir Dembo and Neri Merhav for asking us (independently) whether the results of  could be extended to the case of error-exponents.


text:
# Generic behavior of asymptotically holomorphic Lefschetz pencils.

## 1. Introduction

In this article we analyze the generic behavior of vanishing spheres in the symplectic pencils introduced by Donaldson in , henceforth referred to as Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencils (see Section 2 for precise definitions), and show it to be similar to the case of Lefschetz pencils for complex projective varieties. Using the pencils as a tool, we start the study of the symplectic analogue of the dual variety in algebraic geometry, which we believe will be of interest in symplectic topology.

The property of Lefschetz pencils on projective algebraic varieties that we seek to extend is classical:

###### Theorem 1.1 (cf. SGA 7 XVIII, 6.6.2).

Let $`M`$ be a complex projective manifold, and $`LM`$ an ample line bundle. For $`k`$ large enough the pencils associated to quotients of holomorphic sections of the line bundle $`L^k`$ have vanishing spheres which are conjugated under the action of the group $`\mathrm{Diff}^+(F)`$ of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of the generic fiber $`F`$.

The main result of this article is a generalization of the previous theorem to the symplectic case. By establishing the irreducibility of symplectic analogues to the dual variety, defined in (1), we will prove a more precise version, which replaces the diffeomorphism group of $`F`$ with its smallest possible subgroup. For that we need the following

###### Definition 1.2.

Two Lagrangian submanifolds $`L_0`$ and $`L_1`$ are Lagrangian isotopic if there is a continuous family of Lagrangian submanifolds $`\{L_t\}_{t[0,1]}`$ connecting them.

Then, we show

###### Theorem 1.3.

For $`k`$ large enough Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencils have vanishing spheres that, up to Lagrangian isotopy, are conjugated under the action of the group of symplectomorphisms generated by the Dehn twists of the fiber along the vanishing spheres of the pencil itself.

We point out that the conjugating group of symplectomorphisms of Theorem 1.3 is not elementary, as Donaldson’s pencils exist for large $`k`$ and have $`O(k^{dimM/2})`$ singular fibers. Nevertheless, this group may be substantially smaller than the full symplectomorphism group of the fiber. Note that its action on the homology of the fiber is trivial except in middle degree, while in many instances, such as products and bundles of symplectic manifolds, there exist symplectomorphisms acting nontrivially in other cohomology groups.

Finally we will give the following application of theorem 1.3:

###### Theorem 1.4.

For $`k`$ large enough Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencils satisfy that all the vanishing spheres are homologically non-trivial.

In the case of dimension $`4`$, I. Smith  has already proved that the vanishing spheres appearing in the Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencils are homologically non-trivial for $`k`$ even. On the other hand, for general symplectic Lefschetz pencils in $`4`$-manifolds  gives a lower bound for the number of homologically non-trivial vanishing spheres.

In the cases of dimension greater than $`4`$, Theorem 1.4 is still a meaningful result, as homologically trivial Lagrangian spheres are known to exist in higher dimensional symplectic manifolds at least in dimension $`4k+2`$ (see the examples of \[17, 3.d\] and , for instance), and there is great flexibility in constructing symplectic Lefschetz pencils adapted to given Lagrangian submanifolds ().

Theorem 1.1 is a consequence of the irreducibility of the dual variety, which is the subset of the dual projective space defined by hyperplanes tangent to an embedded projective variety. It is not too hard to give a definition of this variety in the symplectic case, by combining ideas of  and . This dual “symplectic” variety appears as an “asymptotically holomorphic” divisor. The divisor is not smooth and, in particular, has self-intersections. It is difficult to control the behavior of self-intersections for this kind of divisor (for an example without known solution see ). Therefore we have chosen an alternative route to prove Theorem 1.3. However it makes sense to speak in a “rough sense” of the complement of the dual variety, i.e., the space of transverse hyperplanes. We will give some topological properties of this space.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 we give the definitions and results introduced in  needed to carry out the proofs. In Section 3 we establish our symplectic analogue to the irreducibility of the dual variety, on which the whole paper rests. A discussion of the topology of the set of “transverse” sections is carried out in Section 4. Using this, Theorems 1.3 and 1.4 are proved in Section 5. Finally, in Section 6 we briefly discuss the possibility of obtaining a symplectic invariant from the space of transverse sections.

Acknowledments: Some of the results contained in Section 4 are the result of conversations between D. Auroux and the third author. In particular, the statement of Theorem 4.2 was suggested by him to us. We thank Universidad Autónoma de Madrid for its hospitality to the first author during the elaboration of this work. We are also grateful to L. Katzarkov and I. Smith for useful comments.

## 2. Donaldson’s asymptotically holomorphic theory

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold of integer class, i.e., satisfying that $`[\omega ]/2\pi `$ admits an integer lift to $`H^2(M;)`$. We define $`L`$ to be a hermitian bundle with connection whose curvature is $`R_L=i\omega `$. Moreover fixing a compatible almost complex structure $`J`$, this defines a Riemannian metric $`g(u,v)=\omega (u,Jv)`$ on $`M`$. We also consider the sequences of metrics $`g_k=kg`$, $`k1`$. The following definitions are needed.

###### Definition 2.1.

A sequence of sections $`s_k`$ of the bundles $`L^k`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$ if it satisfies the following bounds (in $`g_k`$-metric)

$$|s_k|c,|^rs_k|c(r=1,2,3),|^r\overline{}s_k|ck^{1/2}(r=1,2).$$

###### Definition 2.2.

A sequence of sections $`s_k`$ of the hermitian bundles $`E_k`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero at the point $`xM`$ if one the two following conditions is fulfilled

1. $`|s_k(x)|\epsilon `$.
2. $`s_k:T_xM(E_k)_x`$ is surjective and it admits a right inverse of norm bounded by $`\epsilon ^1`$, using the norm $`g_k`$ in $`M`$.

The sequence is said to be transverse to zero in a set $`U`$ if it is transverse to zero at every point of the set.

We need to introduce notations to control $`1`$-parametric families of sections. In particular $`(J_t)_{t[0,1]}`$ will denote a $`1`$-parametric family of almost complex structures compatible with $`\omega `$. We can associate to this family a sequence of families of metrics $`g_{k,t}`$. A family of sequences of sections $`s_{k,t}`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$ if $`s_{k,t}`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$ with respect to the almost complex structure $`J_t`$ and the metric $`g_{k,t}`$ for each $`t[0,1]`$. (Note that such a family is a continuous path in the space of sections of $`L^k`$ with the $`C^3`$-topology.) The same remark must be applied for families of $`\epsilon `$-transverse sequences.

There exist local objects that are close to being holomorphic, as given by the following two lemmas

###### Lemma 2.3 (Lemma 3 in ).

Let $`x_tM`$, $`t[0,1]`$, be a path in $`M`$. Then there exist complex Darboux coordinates depending continuously on $`t`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t:B_{g_k}(x_t,k^{1/2})B_^n(0,k^{1/2})`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t(x_t)=0`$ such that the inverse $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t=\mathrm{\Phi }_t^1`$ of the coordinate map is nearly pseudo-holomorphic with respect to the almost complex structure $`J_t`$ on $`M`$ and the canonical complex structure on $`^n`$. Namely, the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ satisfies $`|^r\mathrm{\Psi }_t|=O(1)`$ for $`r=1,2,3`$ and $`|\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi }_t(z)|=O(k^{1/2}|z|)`$, and $`|^r\overline{}\mathrm{\Psi }_t|=O(k^{1/2})`$ for $`r=1,2`$.

We also have

###### Lemma 2.4 (Lemma 3 in ).

There exist constants $`\lambda >0`$ and $`c_s>0`$ such that, given any continuous path $`x_t:[0,1]M`$, and large $`k`$, there exist sections $`s_{k,x_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ of $`L^k`$ over $`M`$ with the following properties:

1. The sections $`s_{k,x_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ have $`C^3`$-bounds with respect to $`J_t`$, independent of $`t`$.
2. They depend continuously on $`t`$.
3. The bound $`|s_{k,x_t}^{\text{ref}}|>c_s`$ holds over the ball of $`g_k`$-radius $`1`$ around $`x_t`$.
4. $`|s_{k,x_t}^{\text{ref}}(q)|\mathrm{exp}(\lambda d_k(x_t,q)^2)`$, where $`d_k`$ is the distance associated to $`g_k`$.
5. $`s_{k,x_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ is supported in a ball around $`x_t`$ of $`g_k`$-radius $`ck^{1/6}`$ for some constant $`c`$.

Recall from :

###### Definition 2.5.

A symplectic Lefschetz pencil on $`(M,\omega )`$ is a surjective map $`\varphi :MN^1`$, with $`N`$ a codimension 4 symplectic submanifold, such that every point $`pM`$ has a complex–valued coordinate neighbourhood $`\psi :UM^n`$ sending $`p`$ to $`(0,\mathrm{},0)`$, the standard symplectic structure $`\omega _0`$ of $`^n`$ to $`\omega `$, and such that

1. For $`pN`$, $`N`$ has local equation $`\{z_1=z_2=0\}`$, and $`\varphi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=z_2/z_1`$.
2. For finitely many critical points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\mathrm{\Lambda }MN`$, $`\varphi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=z_1^2+\mathrm{}+z_n^2`$ (the ordinary quadratic singularity in algebraic geometry).
3. For all other points $`pMN`$, $`pp_1,\mathrm{},p_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\varphi (z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)=z_1`$.

The main result of  is

###### Theorem 2.6 (Theorem 2 in ).

Given a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ such that the cohomology class $`[\omega ]/2\pi `$ has an integer lift to $`H^2(M,)`$, there exists a symplectic Lefschetz pencil whose fibers are homologous to the Poincaré dual of $`k[\omega ]/2\pi `$, for $`k`$ large enough.

Donaldson’s proof of Theorem 2.6 goes through the following two steps:

###### Proposition 2.7.

Given a sequence of sections $`s_k^1s_k^2`$ of $`L^kL^k`$ which has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$, then for any $`\delta >0`$, there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ and a sequence of sections $`\sigma _k^1\sigma _k^2`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied for $`k`$ large

1. $`|s_k^j\sigma _k^j|_{C^1}\delta `$, for $`j=1,2`$.
2. $`\sigma _k^1`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero over $`M`$.
3. $`\sigma _k^1\sigma _k^2`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero over $`M`$.
4. Denoting by $`Z_{k,\epsilon }=\{pM:|\sigma _k^1|\epsilon \}`$, the map $`\left(\sigma _k^2/\sigma _k^1\right)`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero in $`MZ_{k,\epsilon }`$.

Moreover, given a $`1`$-parametric family of sequences of sections $`s_{k,t}^1s_{k,t}^2`$, $`t[0,1]`$, of $`L^kL^k`$ which have $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$, then there exists a family of sequences of sections $`\sigma _{k,t}^1\sigma _{k,t}^2`$ satisfying the properties above for each $`t[0,1]`$. The result also holds for continuous families of sequences of sections parametrized by $`tS^1`$.

The second step in the proof is

###### Proposition 2.8.

Given $`\rho >0`$ and a sequence of sections $`s_k^1s_k^2`$ satisfying the last three properties of Proposition 2.7, then the maps

$$\varphi _k:MZ(s_k^1s_k^2)^1$$

are well defined and for $`k`$ large enough there exists a perturbation producing a map $`\widehat{\varphi }_k`$ which defines a symplectic Lefschetz pencil and verifies $`\widehat{\varphi }_k\varphi _k_{C^1,g_k}<\rho `$.

The same result holds for continuous families of sequences of sections $`s_{k,t}^1s_{k,t}^2`$, $`t[0,1]`$ or $`tS^1`$, satisfying the conditions of Proposition 2.7.

For proofs of these results we refer the reader to . The $`1`$-parametric version with parameter space $`S^1`$ follows easily from the version with parameter space $`[0,1]`$.

We will call Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencils the Lefschetz pencils yielded by Proposition 2.8. The $`1`$-parametric part of Proposition 2.8 shows that the symplectic Lefschetz pencils obtained by this procedure are all isotopic for any given $`k`$ large enough.

## 3. Vanishing spheres for symplectic Lefschetz pencils

After blowing-up the symplectic submanifold $`N`$, any pencil becomes a fibration $`\stackrel{~}{M}^1`$. We can define a canonical symplectic connection outside the critical points in this fibration using the symplectic orthogonal of the tangent space to the fiber as the horizontal subspace. The parallel transport and geometric monodromy so defined act by symplectomorphisms in the fibers (cf. \[13, Lemma 6.18\]).

It is possible to define a parallel transport ending in a singular fiber, and the local computation of the Picard–Lefschetz formula in algebraic manifolds (see \[1, vol. 2, ch. 1\]) shows that in this case Lagrangian spheres in the regular fibers contract to the singular point, forming a Lagrangian disk in the manifold $`M`$. These spheres are called the Lagrangian vanishing spheres in the regular fiber.

For a basepoint regular value $`w^1`$, a Lagrangian vanishing sphere in the fiber $`F=p^1(w)`$ is determined by every path from $`w`$ to a critical value $`w_i`$. The choice of a set of non–intersecting paths $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _s`$ from $`w`$ to the singular values $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_s`$ of the pencil defines a set of vanishing spheres in $`F`$ that, together with a choice of isotopy from the product of monodromies around all critical values to identity, determine the diffeomorphism type of the pencil, in particular of the total space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ ().

Lefschetz pencils on a projective manifold $`M^N`$ are defined by lines in the dual projective space $`^1l(^N)^{}`$ intersecting the dual variety $`M^{}`$ transversely at smooth points. The hyperplane sections defined by the line $`l`$ cover $`M`$, are smooth outside the finite intersection $`lM^{}`$, where they consist of a hyperplane section with an ordinary quadratic singularity (see SGA 7 XVII, XVIII for a complete discussion).

The conjugacy modulo diffeomorphism of Theorem 1.1 follows from the irreducibility of the dual variety $`M^{}`$ for high $`k`$: its smooth points form a connected open set $`UM^{}`$, and given two critical values $`w_i,w_j`$ of the pencil, a path connecting them in $`U`$ defines a smooth family of hyperplane sections of $`M`$ whose parallel transport induces the conjugacy of vanishing spheres.

In the symplectic case, instead of considering families of pencils interpreted as lines in the dual projective space, we consider the families in abstract. The result we want to prove is

###### Proposition 3.1.

The sequences of pencils provided by Theorem 2.6 satisfy, for $`k`$ large enough, that all Lagrangian vanishing spheres of a generic fiber are equivalent under the action of an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of the fiber.

###### Proof.

Choose a sequence of sections $`s_k=s_k^1s_k^2`$ satisfying the conditions of Proposition 2.7, and let $`\varphi _k=s_k^2/s_k^1`$ be the associated maps to $`^1`$. For each $`k`$ select critical points $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ of the map $`\varphi _k`$. From  we know that these points will become the critical points of the pencil after the perturbation performed in Proposition 2.8. Now choose a path $`p_t`$ in $`M`$ joining $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$. We can choose this path to avoid a $`c^{}`$-neighborhood of $`Z(s_k^1)`$ for some uniform $`c^{}`$, since by  the $`\epsilon `$-transversality implies that $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ are away from a $`c^{}`$-neighborhood of $`Z(s_k^1)`$, for large $`k`$. Also we may suppose that $`p_t`$ is stationary in $`[0,\beta ]`$ and $`[1\beta ,1]`$, for some small $`\beta >0`$. Also let $`\lambda _t=\varphi _k(p_t)`$, which is a uniformly bounded path in $``$.

Choose a family of sections $`s_{k,p_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ of $`L^k`$ satisfying the properties of Lemma 2.4 for the path $`p_t`$. We use these sections to trivialize $`L^k`$ in a neighborhood $`U_t`$ of fixed $`g_k`$-radius $`O(1)`$ of $`p_t`$. The map $`\varphi _k`$ is given by

$`f_k:U_t`$ $``$ $``$
$`q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_k^2}{s_k^1}}(q),`$
which has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c_1c`$ (with the obvious adapted definition) where $`s_k`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c`$ and $`c_1>0`$ is a constant depending only on the geometry of the manifold (not depending on $`k`$, the initial sections, etc).

By Lemma 2.3, we may trivialize the neighborhood $`U_t`$ by a chart $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t:B_^n(0,1)U_t`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t(0)=p_t`$, and

$$\widehat{f}_{k,t}=f_k\mathrm{\Phi }_t:B_^n(0,1)$$

has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c_2c`$ in the unit ball of $`^n`$. Moreover $`\widehat{f}_{k,j}`$ is $`\epsilon /c_2`$-transverse to zero for $`j=0,1`$. Again the constant $`c_2>0`$ depends only on the geometry of the manifold $`M`$. Identifying the tangent space at the origin to $`^n`$ we define $`\widehat{h}_{k,j}`$, $`j=0,1`$, as the quadratic form on $`^n`$ associated to $`\widehat{f}_{k,j}(0)`$. Moreover, it is possible to construct a path of non-degenerate quadratic forms $`\widehat{h}_{k,t}`$ starting and ending at the two previous quadratic forms. Also the eigenvalues of the quadratic forms of the path can be bounded below and above by the eigenvalues of the two initial quadratic forms. We can assume that the path $`\widehat{h}_{k,t}`$ is stationary in $`[0,\beta ]`$ and $`[1\beta ,1]`$. Again $`\widehat{h}_{k,t}`$ is $`\epsilon /c_3`$-transverse to zero and $`\widehat{h}_{k,t}`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c_3c`$ on $`B_^n(0,1)`$, where $`c_3>0`$ only depends on the geometry of the manifold. On the other hand, note that $`\widehat{h}_{k,t}`$ is naturally defined all over $`^n`$. Now we define the following section to the trivialized bundle $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{}\left(L^kL^k\right)`$ on $`B_^n(0,1)`$:

$$\widehat{l}_{k,t}=(1,\lambda _t+\widehat{h}_{k,t}).$$

The goal now is to go back to the manifold. First, note that by Lemma 2.3 the chart $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ may be extended as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_t:B_^n(0,k^{1/2})V_t,$$

where $`V_t`$ is a neighborhood of $`p_t`$ of $`g_k`$-radius $`O(k^{1/2})`$, $`p_tU_tV_t`$. Also $`s_{k,p_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ is supported in a ball of $`g_k`$-radius $`O(k^{1/6})`$. Then

$$u_{k,t}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\beta t}{\beta }s_k+\frac{t}{\beta }(\widehat{l}_{k,0}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1)s_{k,p_0}^{\text{ref}},\hfill & t[0,\beta ]\hfill \\ (\widehat{l}_{k,t}\mathrm{\Phi }_t^1)s_{k,p_t}^{\text{ref}},\hfill & t[\beta ,1\beta ]\hfill \\ \frac{t1+\beta }{\beta }s_k+\frac{1t}{\beta }(\widehat{l}_{k,1}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^1)s_{k,p_1}^{\text{ref}},\hfill & t[1\beta ,1]\hfill \end{array}$$

is a well-defined section of $`L^kL^k`$. It is easy to check that $`u_{k,t}`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`c_4c`$, where $`c_4`$ depends only on the geometry of the manifold, using that $`|\overline{}\mathrm{\Phi }_t(z)|=O(k^{1/2}|z|)`$ and that $`s_{k,p_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ has Gaussian decay. Now in a small neighborhood of $`p_t`$ the map

$$\varphi _{k,t}=\frac{u_{k,t}^2}{u_{k,t}^1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(1\mu )s_k^2+\mu s_{k,p_0}^{\text{ref}}(\lambda _0+\widehat{h}_{k,0}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^1)}{(1\mu )s_k^1+\mu s_{k,p_0}^{\text{ref}}},\hfill & \mu =\frac{t}{\beta }[0,1]\hfill \\ \lambda _t+\widehat{h}_{k,t}\mathrm{\Phi }_t^1,\hfill & t[\beta ,1\beta ]\hfill \\ \frac{(1\mu )s_k^2+\mu s_{k,p_1}^{\text{ref}}(\lambda _1+\widehat{h}_{k,1}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^1)}{(1\mu )s_k^1+\mu s_{k,p_1}^{\text{ref}}},\hfill & \mu =\frac{1t}{\beta }[0,1]\hfill \end{array}$$

is well-defined, $`\varphi _{k,t}`$ has a zero in $`p_t`$ and is $`\epsilon /c_4`$-transverse to zero in that small neighborhood. This is clear in the second interval. In the first and third intervals it is easy to check if we have previously normalized $`s_{k,p_t}^{\text{ref}}`$ to be a positive real multiple of $`s_k^1`$ at the point $`p_t`$. Note that $`s_k^1`$ is uniformly bounded below since we are working off a neighborhood of $`Z(s_k^1)`$.

Now we apply Proposition 2.7 to the family $`u_{k,t}`$ choosing $`\delta =\mathrm{min}\{\frac{\epsilon }{4c_4},\frac{\epsilon }{2}\}`$. We obtain a new family $`\widehat{u}_{k,t}`$ which satisfies the required transversality conditions with a constant $`\epsilon ^{}`$ depending on $`\delta `$. The map $`\widehat{\varphi }_{k,t}=\frac{\widehat{u}_{k,t}^2}{\widehat{u}_{k,t}^1}`$ is well defined outside $`Z(\widehat{u}_{k,t})`$. It is clear that there is a path of zeroes of $`\widehat{\varphi }_{k,t}`$ which is $`C^0`$-close to $`p_t`$. Moreover, choosing $`\alpha >0`$ small, we define the family

$$\stackrel{~}{s}_{k,t}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\alpha t}{\alpha }s_{k,0}+\frac{t}{\alpha }\widehat{u}_{k,0},\hfill & t[0,\alpha ]\hfill \\ \widehat{u}_{k,\frac{t\alpha }{12\alpha }},\hfill & t[\alpha ,1\alpha ]\hfill \\ \frac{t1+\alpha }{\alpha }s_{k,1}+\frac{1t}{\alpha }\widehat{u}_{k,1},\hfill & t[1\alpha ,1]\hfill \end{array}$$

This defines a family of sections that are $`\mathrm{min}(\epsilon ^{},\epsilon )`$-transverse to zero in the sense that they satisfy the various properties of Proposition 2.7.

Therefore the points $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ are joined by a path of zeroes of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{k,t}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{k,t}`$ is the map associated to $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{k,t}`$. After applying Proposition 2.8, this path becomes a path of critical points of the family of Lefschetz pencils. By the same arguments as in the algebraic case the vanishing spheres associated to the two critical points are conjugated through the action of an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism. The last point is to recall that the $`C^3`$-bounds and the estimated transversality constants obtained along the way are independent of the chosen points $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$. This implies that the constructions begin to work for a given $`k`$ for all possible pairs of points. This concludes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

The above argument may be continued to prove that the Lagrangian vanishing spheres are conjugated by symplectomorphisms of the fiber. To check this, it suffices to use the parallel transport defined by the symplectic orthogonal horizontal space in the family of Lefschetz pencils on $`M`$. We skip this refinement to prove directly the stronger statement of Theorem 1.3.

## 4. Topology of the space of $`\epsilon `$-transverse sections

In the case of a complex projective manifold, where Lefschetz pencils arise from lines in the dual projective space, the embedding into it of the dual variety has a further property that facilitates the study of its complement:

###### Theorem 4.1 (Lefschetz hyperplane section theorem, Hamm–Lê, see ).

Let $`M^N`$ be a complex projective manifold, $`M^{}(^N)^{}`$ its dual variety, and let $`H(^N)^{}`$ be a generic linear subvariety of complex dimension $`d`$. Then the homotopy group morphisms $`\pi _i(H(HM^{}))\pi _i((^N)^{}M^{})`$ induced by the natural inclusion of spaces are isomorphisms for $`i<d`$, and an epimorphism for $`i=d`$.

We are specially interested in the symplectic version of a particular case of Theorem 4.1 in this paper: whether the fundamental group of the space of regular values of a Lefschetz pencil generates the fundamental group of the complement of the dual variety. Our Theorem 4.2 is somewhat weaker than that, due to difficulties arising from the nature of the symplectic dual variety (see Question 6.1).

Let $`M`$ be a symplectic manifold of integer class and let $`LM`$ be the associated line bundle. For a compatible almost complex structure $`J`$, $`\epsilon >0`$, and $`k`$ large enough, define

(1)
$$M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}=\{s:ML^k:s\text{ is }\epsilon \text{-transverse, }s\text{ has }C^3\text{-bounds }1\text{ (for }J\text{)}\},$$

with the natural $`C^3`$-topology. Observe that $`M_{\epsilon _1,k,j}^{}M_{\epsilon _2,k,J}^{}`$, for $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2`$. Note first that the isotopy result of  shows that for $`k`$ large enough (how large depending on $`\epsilon `$), the zero sets of the sections $`s_kM_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$ have isotopic zero sets $`W_k=Z(s_k)`$.

Now we aim to understand better the fundamental group of the spaces $`M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$. We will study a suitably modified version of it. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$ denote the subspace of sections of $`L^k`$ whose zero locus is a smooth symplectic submanifold of $`M`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$ be its projectivization. Therefore the space $`M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$ is an open subset of the space $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$. We denote by $`\rho _{\epsilon ,k,J}:M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$ the natural map and set

(2)
$$\pi _{\epsilon ,k,J}=(\rho _{\epsilon ,k,J})_{}(\pi _1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}))\pi _1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)).$$

Denote $`\mathrm{Map}(W_k)=\text{Diff}^+(W_k)/\text{Diff}_0(W_k)`$ the mapping class group of the fiber, i.e. its oriented diffeomorphisms modulo isotopies. As in the algebraic case there is a geometric monodromy map

(3)
$$\mu :\pi _1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{},)\mathrm{Map}(W_k)$$

which factors through $`(\rho _{\epsilon ,k,J})_{}`$, thus defining a map $`\pi _{\epsilon ,k,J}\mathrm{Map}(W_k)`$.

The proposed way for studying the topology of $`M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$ is by means of a Lefschetz hyperplane theorem that allows a finite dimensional reduction. The idea is to restrict ourselves to a linear subspace of finite dimension. More specifically, choose sufficiently generic sections $`s_k^0,\mathrm{},s_k^N`$ in $`M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$ and let $`V_{k,N}`$ be their linear span. Then one may ask whether there is an isomorphism $`\pi _j(V_{k,N}M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{})\pi _j(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{})`$ for $`j`$ below the middle dimension as in Theorem 4.1. In the case of the fundamental group we consider a symplectic Lefschetz pencil $`\varphi _k=s_k^2/s_k^1`$, which defines a natural map:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_k:^1\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_l\}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$
$`[q_1,q_2]`$ $``$ $`[q_1s_k^2q_2s_k^1]`$
where $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_l^1`$ are the images of the critical points.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be small enough. Then there exists $`k_0`$ such that for any $`kk_0`$ the image of the geometric monodromy map

$$\mu :\pi _1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{})\mathrm{Map}(W_k)$$

lies in the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Map}(W_k)`$ generated by the positive generalized Dehn twists of a single Donaldson’s Lefschetz pencil $`\varphi _k:MN_k^1`$.

###### Proof.

First we need to introduce some definitions. Abusing notation we will denote by $`L`$ the pull-back of the bundle $`L`$ to the manifold $`M\times S^1`$. Then we can define $`C^3`$-bounds of a sequence of sections of $`L^kM\times S^1`$ just by requiring that the restriction to each fiber of $`\pi :M\times S^1S^1`$ satisfy these bounds. In the same way the section $`s:M\times S^1L^k`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero if the restriction to the fiber $`\pi ^1(z)`$ is $`\epsilon `$-transverse for any $`zS^1`$.

We fix, once for all, as a base point, a section $`s_{k,0}^2M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$, that exists by  for some small $`\epsilon >0`$. Take an element $`A\pi _1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{},s_{k,0}^2)`$. Fix a representative $`\alpha :S^1M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$, i.e., $`[\alpha ]=A`$. The map $`\alpha `$ defines canonically a section $`s_k^2`$ of $`L^kM\times S^1`$ by the formula

$$s_k^2(x,e^{2\pi it})=(\alpha (e^{2\pi it}))(x).$$

with the base point condition that $`s_k^2(,1)=s_{k,0}^2`$. It is clear that $`s_k^2`$ has $`C^3`$-bounds $`1`$ and it is $`\epsilon `$-transverse to zero. Now, choose another $`\epsilon `$-transverse section $`s_k^1`$ of $`L^kM`$ such that $`s_k^1s_{k,t}^2`$ is a section of $`L^kL^k`$ with $`C^3`$-bounds $`1`$ for all $`tS^1`$. Moreover we may also assume that $`s_k^1s_{k,j}^2`$ is already an $`\epsilon `$-transverse Lefschetz pencil (for $`\epsilon `$ small enough), for $`j=0,1`$. Denote again by $`s_k^1`$ the pull-back of the section to $`M\times S^1`$. Applying the $`S^1`$-parametric version of Propositions 2.7 and 2.8 we perturb $`s_k^1s_k^2`$ into $`\sigma _k^1\sigma _k^2`$, a new section that defines a $`S^1`$-family of $`\epsilon ^{}`$-transverse Lefschetz pencils, for some $`\epsilon ^{}<\epsilon `$.

Note that in the process of Proposition 2.7 it is necessary to perturb only $`s_{k,t}^2`$. This is because the condition (ii) is already satisfied by $`s_{k,t}^1=s_k^1`$, the condition (iv) is obtained in  only perturbing $`s_{k,t}^2`$ and the proof of the condition (iii) can be changed using the alternative proof written in  that does not need to perturb $`s_k^1`$. So $`\sigma _k^1=s_k^1`$. Moreover, the perturbation in $`s_{k,t}^2`$ can be very small so that the sequence of sections $`\sigma _{k,t}^2`$ is isotopic to the previous one. Also we may assume that $`\sigma _{k,j}^2=s_{k,j}^2`$ for $`j=0,1`$, since $`s_k^1\sigma _{k,j}^2`$ are already Lefschetz pencils.

Now we want to compute the monodromy associated to the zero set of $`\sigma _k^2`$, which is the same as the one of $`s_k^2`$.

For each fiber $`M\times \{e^{2\pi it}\}`$ we know that the images of the critical points of the associated Lefschetz pencil $`\varphi _{k,t}`$ are a finite number of disjoint points. For the whole family of pencils over $`S^1`$ the critical values describe a braid in $`^1`$, so we can choose a continuous family of paths $`\lambda _t:[0,1]^1`$ joining $`0`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$, such that each $`\lambda _t`$ avoids the critical values of the pencil $`\varphi _{k,t}`$.

Now, the disk bounded by $`\sigma _{k,t}^2`$, $`\lambda _0`$, $`\lambda _1`$ and the constant path $`s_k^1`$ defines a base-pointed homotopy between the loops $`\sigma _{k,t}^2`$ and $`\lambda _0^1\lambda _1`$. The latter loop is contained in the regular values of the Lefschetz pencil $`\varphi _{k,0}=[s_k^1,\sigma _{k,0}^2]`$, therefore the monodromy of the family of sections of $`M`$ over it is a product of direct generalized Dehn twists.

As $`\epsilon ^{}`$ depends on $`\epsilon `$, we may find $`k_\epsilon `$ only dependent on $`\epsilon `$ such that, for any $`kk_\epsilon `$, all $`\epsilon ^{}`$-transverse pencils are isotopic. Furthermore the isotopy between two pencils $`[s_k^1,s_{k,0}^2]`$ and $`[\sigma _k^1,s_{k,0}^2]`$ of $`M`$ may be achieved by a family of pencils that keeps fixed the section $`s_{k,0}^2`$. Thus the image of the geometric monodromy map $`\mu `$ is contained in the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Map}(W_k)`$ generated by a single pencil, which may be assumed to be $`\epsilon `$-transverse. ∎

## 5. Nontriviality of the vanishing spheres

Now we will prove Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. The first one is an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Recalling the proof of Theorem 1.1, take two vanishing spheres $`S_0`$, $`S_1`$ in a fiber of a Donaldson Lefschetz pencil and join them by a path of Lagrangian spheres $`S_t`$ such that $`S_tW_t^{}`$, where $`W_t^{}`$ is a family of fibers in a family of pencils $`\varphi _{k,t}`$. This means that $`W_t^{}=Z(s_{k,t})`$, $`s_{k,t}M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$. We can suppose that $`s_{k,0}=s_{k,1}`$ is the base point. Now $`s_{k,t}`$ can be homotoped, by Theorem 4.2, to a path inside a Lefschetz pencil whose zero set we denote by $`W_t`$. As usual, parallel transport along the path generates a family of symplectomorphisms $`\varphi _{t,s}:W_tW_{t+s}`$. The symplectomorphism $`\varphi _{0,1}`$ is generated by the composition of the generalized Dehn twists associated to the critical points of the pencil bounded by the path.

However $`S_0`$ is not, in general, preserved by $`\varphi _{0,1}`$. Denote by $`S_{t,s}=\varphi _{t,s}(S_t)`$. Then we have that the continuous family $`S_{t,1t}`$ provides a Lagrangian isotopy in $`W_0=W_1`$ between $`S_1=S_{1,0}`$ and $`S_{0,1}`$. This shows that the the spheres $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$ are conjugated by $`\varphi _{0,1}`$, up to Lagrangian isotopy. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.1.

The spheres are conjugated only up to Lagrangian isotopy. We can also claim that they are conjugated up to Hamiltonian isotopy because the obstruction of a Lagrangian isotopy to be lifted to a Hamiltonian isotopy lies in the family of groups $`H^1(L_t)`$ (cf. Exercise 6.1.A in ). This is an infinitesimal condition to be fulfilled for each member of the family. In our case this cohomology groups vanish in the case of dimension strictly bigger than $`4`$. In dimension $`4`$, we can check that the spheres at the starting and end points of the family are exact (using the local models close to critical points) and this is enough to get a Hamiltonian isotopy (recall that in dimension $`4`$ the fibers are Riemann surfaces).

Theorem 1.3 admits an extension from the symplectomorphism group of the fiber to that of the total space.

###### Theorem 5.2.

For a Donaldson’s pencil on $`M`$ with $`k`$ large enough, fix a generic fiber $`W`$. If $`S_0,S_1W`$ are Lagrangian spheres that appear as vanishing cycles of the pencil then there exists a symplectomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:MM`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(W)=W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(S_0)`$ equals $`S_1`$ up to Lagrangian isotopy in the fiber $`W`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 3.1 that there exists a loop of approximately holomorphic sections $`s_{k,t}`$ such that for $`t=0,1`$ the zero set $`Z(s_{k,t})=W`$, and there is a family of Lagrangian spheres $`S_t`$ in $`W_t=Z(s_{k,t})`$ connecting the two given vanishing spheres.

Now by Proposition 4 in , there is a continuous family of symplectomorphisms $`\varphi _t:MM`$ such that $`\varphi _t(W_0)=W_t`$. Again, we cannot assume that $`S_t`$ is preserved by the family. However, if we construct $`S_{t,s}=\varphi _s(S_t)W_{t+s}`$, we have that the family $`S_{t,1t}`$ defines a Lagrangian isotopy in $`W_1=W_0`$ between $`S_1`$ and $`S_{0,1}=\varphi _1(S_0)`$. So, we have shown, up to Lagrangian isotopy in the fiber, that $`\varphi _1`$ is the required symplectic map. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.4. The proof of Theorem 1.4 works looking for a contradiction. Theorem 1.3 implies that all the vanishing spheres are either homologically trivial or homologically non-trivial. Let us suppose that they are homologically trivial.

Let $`\varphi _k:MN_k^1`$ be the Lefschetz pencil obtained from Theorem 2.6 for $`k`$ large, and denote by $`F_k`$ a regular fiber. We blow-up the manifold $`M`$ along $`N_k`$ to obtain a fibration $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k:\stackrel{~}{M}_k^1`$.

Now let us compute the (growth of the) Betti numbers of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_k`$. First, by \[3, Proposition 5\], $`\chi (F_k)=(1)^{n1}\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1})`$, where $`\mathrm{vol}(M)=_M\left(\frac{\omega }{2\pi }\right)^n`$. Now the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem  implies that $`b_i(F_k)=b_i(M)`$, which is uniformly bounded for $`i<n1`$ (i.e., independently of $`k`$). By Poincaré duality, $`b_{2n2i}(F_k)`$ is also uniformly bounded. Therefore

(4)
$$b_{n1}(F_k)=\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1}).$$

A handlebody decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_k`$ is obtained as follows: take a tubular neighbourhood $`\nu (F_k)`$ of a smooth fiber $`F_k`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$, and attach $`n`$-handles along $`(n1)`$-spheres embedded in the boundary $`\nu (F_k)=F_k\times S^1`$ as the vanishing cycles at different fibers. Since all of these spheres are homologically trivial, the homology group $`H_{n1}`$ does not change. So $`H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_kF_k\times D^2)H_{n1}(F_k)`$. Finally, we have to attach $`F_k\times D^2`$ to get $`\stackrel{~}{M}_k`$. We have a Mayer-Vietoris exact sequence

$$H_{n1}(F_k\times S^1)H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_kF_k\times D^2)H_{n1}(F_k\times D^2)H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_k)H_{n2}(F_k\times S^1)$$

Using that $`b_{n2}(F_k\times S^1)`$ is uniformly bounded, that $`H_{n1}(F_k\times S^1)H_{n1}(F_k\times D^2)`$ is surjective with kernel uniformly bounded and (4), we get

(5)
$$b_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_k)=\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1}).$$

Analogously to the computation of $`F_k`$, and using that $`\chi (N_k)=(1)^{n2}(n1)\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1})`$, we get that all the Betti numbers of $`N_k`$ are bounded except for $`b_{n2}(N_k)=(n1)\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1})`$. In the blow up $`\stackrel{~}{M}_k`$, the exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{N}_k`$ is a fibration over $`N_k`$ by $`^1`$. There is a spectral sequence with $`E_2`$-term $`H_{}(N_k)H_{}(S^2)`$ and abutting to $`H_{}(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)`$. This gives that all $`b_i(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)`$ are bounded, for $`in2,n`$, and that $`b_{n2}(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)=b_n(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)=(n1)\mathrm{vol}(M)k^n+O(k^{n1})`$.

Consider the following pieces of long exact sequences in homology,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{i}_{}}{}& H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_k)& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{j}_{}}{}& H_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_k,\stackrel{~}{N}_k)& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{}_{}}{}& H_{n2}(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)\\ & & & & & & \\ H_{n1}(N_k)& \stackrel{i_{}}{}& H_{n1}(M)& \stackrel{j_{}}{}& H_{n1}(M,N_k)& \stackrel{_{}}{}& H_{n2}(N_k)\end{array}$$

The kernel of $`\stackrel{~}{i}_{}`$ is uniformly bounded, since $`b_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{N}_k)`$ is so. Also $`\mathrm{im}\stackrel{~}{j}_{}=\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{}_{}\mathrm{ker}_{}=\mathrm{im}j_{}`$ is uniformly bounded. Therefore, $`b_{n1}(\stackrel{~}{M}_k)`$ is uniformly bounded. This is a contradiction with (5). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6. Towards a symplectic invariant

In the case of complex projective manifolds, the topology of the space of smooth sections of the ample bundle $`LM`$ is governed by the hyperplane section theorem of Hamm–Lê (Theorem 4.1), which in particular shows how the monodromy of generic families of dimension $`1`$ or $`2`$ of hyperplane sections capture the geometric monodromy of all families of sections.

In order to extend these properties from the complex algebraic to the symplectic case and define a new set of symplectic invariants, the next natural step is to prove that the groups $`\pi _{\epsilon ,k,J}`$ defined in (2), are independent of $`J`$ and of $`\epsilon `$ for $`k`$ large enough. The authors have not been able to prove this, thus can only pose the following

###### Question 6.1 (symplectic Hamm–Lê hyperplane sections).

Does the morphism $`\pi _l(^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k))\pi _l(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k))`$ induce an isomorphism $`\pi _l(^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k))(\rho _{\epsilon ,k,J})_{}\pi _l(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{})`$ for $`l<j`$ and an epimorphism for $`l=j`$, for a $`(j+1)`$-dimensional “generic” family of Donaldson’s $`\epsilon `$-transverse sections?

An affirmative answer would yield a family of invariants, the $`\epsilon `$–transverse homotopy groups of the complement $`M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}`$ of the dual variety, which would be an extension of the Auroux and Katzarkov invariants of . It must be warned that the only evidence available for an affirmative answer is the case of complex algebraic manifolds, and the authors have been able to make only a modest extension to the general symplectic case:

###### Corollary 6.2.

For $`\epsilon >0`$ small and $`k`$ large enough, we have $`(\rho _{\epsilon ,k,J})_{}(H_1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{}))=/mH_1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k))`$, where $`m`$ is a divisor of the number $`n_k`$ of singular fibers in the Lefschetz pencil $`\varphi _k:MN_k^1`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 4.2 the image of $`H_1(M_{\epsilon ,k,J}^{})`$ is generated by some compositions of monodromies around critical points of a single Donaldson’s Lefschetz pencil. But the proof of Proposition 3.1 shows that all the loops around different critical points are freely homotopic. Therefore this abelian group is cyclic, generated by the $`1`$-cycle $`\gamma `$ bounding a small disk $`D`$ around a critical value of the pencil.

The inclusion of the regular values of any Donaldson’s Lefschetz pencil in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_s(L^k)`$ induces a homology $`n_k\gamma 0`$. ∎

The “natural” value for $`m`$ above should be the number $`n_k`$.