text:
# Self-assembly in the major ampullate gland of Nephila clavipes

## Abstract

We present a tentative interpretation of the origin of nematic liquid crystalline order exhibited by dragline silk fibroin solutions collected from the spider Nephila clavipes. Liquid crystallinity is thought to confer certain rheological properties on the fibroin solution which are exploited during the dragline spinning process. We show that the feasibility of liquid crystallinity under physiological conditions depends critically on parameters characterising the amino-acid sequence of the fibroin molecules.

“Dragline” silk secreted by the major ampullate gland of the orb-weaver spider Nephila clavipes is one of the best-characterised natural silks, notable in respect of its singular mechanical properties . The spinning process itself, however, i.e., the structural transition undergone by fibroins initially dispersed in the aqueous environment of the gland, culminating with the extrusion of water-insoluble fiber, remains relatively poorly understood . Recent in vitro experiments  have suggested that the solution in the gland enters a nematic (or twisted nematic) liquid crystalline state, which might play a rheological role in the spinning process and hence affect the mechanical quality of the extruded fiber .

Interestingly, Gatesy et al. have argued that, in the evolutionary context, mechanical performance of natural silks exerts a particularly acute selection pressure on the amino-acid sequence of the constituent fibroin molecules. A stabilizing source of selection pressure appears necessary to explain the remarkably long evolutionary timescale ($``$125 million years) over which the characteristic repeated-motif sequences of orb-weaving spiders have remained essentially unchanged. In this regard, correspondence between sequence and the ability to form a liquid crystalline phase in the gland, affecting spinning conditions, and hence dragline quality, would present a relevant perspective.

Our objective here is to tentatively establish such a connection, addressing at the molecular level how nematic order emerges in the gland, and is controlled by sequence-related parameters. We develop from the premise that the dragline fibroin solution belongs to a general class of fibrillizing globular protein systems of which hemoglobin S is a well-known example. The globules of these systems assemble reversibly into supramolecular rod-like structures, which, beyond a critical axial ratio, undergo a nematic ordering transition.

The details of the assembly process are as follows. We identify three generic sources of protein-protein interaction contributing to an effective binding potential between fibroins. The principal contribution derives from the free energy of transfer $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ of nonpolar amino acid from a hydrophobic environment to water - the so-called hydrophobic effect. According to data collated and interpreted by Dill et al. , $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ has a magnitude of approximately 2 kcal/mol, increasing with temperature up to a maximum at 60-80oC:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }F(T)=\mathrm{\Delta }H^0+\mathrm{\Delta }C_p(TT_0)T[\mathrm{\Delta }S^0+\mathrm{\Delta }C_p\mathrm{ln}(T/T_0)],`$where $`\mathrm{\Delta }H^0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }S^0=6.7`$ cal/K/mol are the enthalpy and entropy of transfer at room temperature $`T_0=298K`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }C_p=55`$ cal/K/mol is the heat capacity.

If we assume that each fibroin monomer is in a dense-packed roughly spherical globular state (radius $`r`$), the hydrophobic effect generates an effective fibroin-fibroin binding potential

$$\gamma _hn_h\mathrm{\Delta }F(T)10\mathrm{cal}/\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{\AA }^2,$$
(1)
per unit area of surface buried at the binding contact, where, with $`a1`$nm a characteristic residue lengthscale, $`n_ha^2`$ is the area density of hydrophobic residues exposed at the globule surface.

Dispersion forces likewise favour association, but contribute a much smaller term

$$\gamma _d=\frac{A}{24\pi a^2}<1\mathrm{c}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}/\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{\AA }^2,$$
(2)
where the Hamaker constant $`A`$ gives the strength of water-mediated dispersion interaction between amino-acids residues, This estimate assumes $`A500`$ cal/mol, as for typical alkane chains in water .

Thirdly, the silk fibroin sequence  features a number $`N_{\mathrm{Arg}}20`$ of arginine residues, which carry a positive charge at normal pH . These residues generate an electrostatic double layer effect which we can examine, to a first approximation, by treating fibroin globules as conducting spheres each carrying a charge $`\alpha N_{\mathrm{Arg}}`$, where the ‘degree of ionization’ $`\alpha `$ reflects the extent to which the solvent is able to penetrate into the globule interior.

The free energy of formation of the double layer is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2N_{\mathrm{Arg}}^2e^2}{8\pi ϵr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{r}}\right)(r>>\xi ),`$where $`\xi `$ is the Debye screening length, and $`ϵ7\times 10^{11}`$ F/m is the dielectric constant of water. The limit $`r>>\xi `$ is appropriate at salt concentrations beyond the order of $`10^2M`$, for which the Debye length is comparable with the amino-acid residue dimension, $`\xi a`$.

A negative contribution to the binding potential per unit area of fibroin-fibroin interface follows from the unfavourable cost of breaking up this double layer,

$$\gamma _e\frac{\alpha ^2N_{\mathrm{Arg}}^2e^2}{32\pi ^2ϵr^3}\left(\frac{\xi }{r}\right)$$
(3)
We observe that binding is only feasible if the degree of ionization is very low, since otherwise only three or four arginine residues would be sufficient to generate magnitudes $`\gamma _e10\mathrm{cal}/\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{\AA }^2`$ comparable with the hydrophobic term, hence preventing association.

The buried surface area of a fibroin embedded within a supramolecular mesogen scales with the fibroin size as $`r^2`$, yielding for the net binding free energy due to the respective contributions

$$E_b=\mathrm{const}\times r^2(\gamma _h+\gamma _d+\gamma _e),$$
(4)
where the constant is a geometrical factor of order $`4\pi `$ which depends on the morphology of the supramolecular structure. In a ‘close-packed’ estimate for $`r`$, we have $`r/a=(3N/4\pi )^{1/3}6`$, where $`N700`$ is the total number of residues per globule according to the sequence data .

The binding potential is attractive when the hydrophobic term dominates over the electrostatic repulsion, yielding magnitudes $`E_b10RT`$ cal/mol. In order to relate $`E_b`$ to mesogen assembly, we adopt a well-known approximate result of generalized Flory-Huggins lattice statistics , giving for the mean axial ratio of rods reversibly assembled from associating monomers at volume fraction $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ,

$$x(\mathrm{\Phi },T)=s^3\mathrm{\Phi }^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(E_b/2RT).$$
(5)
Here $`s`$ specifies the number of monomer ‘strands’ in the rod cross-section. In the example of hemoglobin S fibrils, $`s=14`$ entwined strands have been identified from crystallographic data . Unfortunately, in the absence of similar data for silk fibrils in the major ampullate gland, $`s`$ is an unknown parameter in the present context .

Nematic-isotropic coexistence is naively calculated in Fig.1 (for a hypothetical choice of $`s`$), by solving Onsager-like criteria  defining respectively the isotropic (I) and nematic (I) nodal lines bounding the biphasic region,

$$x(\mathrm{\Phi },T)|_I=5/\mathrm{\Phi }x(\mathrm{\Phi },T)|_N=8/\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(6)
In this type of calculation, we neglect thermodynamic coupling between nematic ordering and mesogen assembly , and related coupling to polydispersity  and flexibility  of the mesogens. Anisotropic electrostatic  and dispersion force  contributions to the effective mesogen-mesogen interaction, which is purely steric in the Onsager approach, are similarly neglected.

In summary, we have shown that it is feasible for silk solutions to exhibit nematic liquid crystalline order along broadly similar lines to the hemoglobin S mechanism. The hydrophobic effect drives thermodynamically reversible assembly of supramolecular mesogens, which are capable of ordering according to an Onsager-like criterion.

This interpretation remains only tentative, insofar as we do not have cystallographic data to hand against which to elucidate structural features of fibroin monomers and fibrils which are implicit to the approach. In particular, values for $`s`$, characterising mesogen morphology, and $`n_h`$, specifying the hydrophobic surface topology of fibroin monomers, are unknown.

The strong sensitivity of the model to these parameters, along with unspecified geometrical constants, renders the semi-quantitative phase diagram calculated in the figure somewhat academic. However, the reentrant nature of the phase diagram, reflecting the temperature dependence of the hydrophobic effect, presents a strong qualitative signature which might be looked for experimentally.

There is some scope for comment on the suggestion that spiders regulate their silk gland in vivo by pumping in additional protons and salts (see  and references therein). According to our Eqns (3-4), there is a strengthening of the net fibroin-fibroin binding potential in response to added salt, due to increased screening of the electrostatic double layer repulsion, which should favour mesogen assembly and the onset of a nematic phase. This is in line with very recent observations of Chen et al., who report that nanofibril formation can be induced in Nephila senegalensis major ampullate fibroin solutions by the addition of KCl. These authors also observe a marked transition in the rheological character of the solution occuring between pH 6.4 and 6.8, which provides us with some justification for the significance attributed in the model to histidine residues (pK value 6.5).

Finally, the model affords some insight into how sequence mutations might be expected to interfere with liquid crystallinity of the fibroin solution. The strong shift of the biphasic region calculated in the figure, for example, roughly reflects a single site hydrophobic$``$ polar mutation in the surface of the interacting globules. We infer that mutations are in general easily capable of disrupting the dragline spinning process by rendering the nematic phase physiologically inaccessible. Arguably, this has attendant consequences for the evolution of the fibroins. Sequence mutations which interfere with liquid crystallinity are discouraged by selection pressure, since by disrupting the spinning process they would also degrade mechanical performance of the extruded dragline.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Charged leptons have been used for more than two decades as a very powerful tool for studying the momentum structure of the nucleon, in a wide variety of experimental approaches. More recently, high-energy polarised beams and high-density polarised targets have become accessible and have proven to be indispensable tools in studying the angular momentum structure of the nucleon.

At large enough $`Q^2`$, the four-momentum-transfer squared of the photon mediating the lepton-nucleon interaction, short-range phenomena (‘hard’ photon-parton interactions) are successfully described by perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). In contrast, long-range (‘soft’) phenomena and especially parton correlations in hadrons, over a broad range in $`Q^2`$, are still lacking a satisfactory theoretical description. Here it may be expected that contemporary theoretical developments will at some point turn into a calculable field theoretical description of hadronic structures.

The spin of the nucleon as a whole is $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}`$, irrespectively of the resolving power $`Q^2`$ of the virtual photon. Due to angular momentum conservation in QCD the individual contributions of the parton’s spins and orbital angular momenta always add up to this value, although they vary considerably with $`Q^2`$. Precise measurements at high and especially moderate $`Q^2`$ are required to be able to reliably ‘bridge’ into the ‘critical’ region of $`Q^20.5`$ GeV2 to eventually test theoretical descriptions of soft phenomena.

In this paper, based on recent theoretical developments in the field, an experimentalist’s perspective is given on physics prospects for possible future electron-nucleon fixed-target experiments in the center-of-mass energy range of up to a few tens of GeV2, with high resolution, high luminosity and polarised beams and/or targets.

## 2 Overview of the Relevant Quantities

The cross section of the inclusive reaction $`eNeX`$ is not yet exactly calculable from theory. Instead it is presently parameterised by non-perturbative ‘structure functions’ which in turn, in the framework of the quark-gluon picture of the nucleon, are expressed in terms of Parton Distribution Functions (PDFs). These functions have proven to be very useful in the description of the momentum and spin structure of partons. However, they do not yet include the parton’s orbital angular momenta which are considered to be essential among the various components that eventually make up the half-integer spin of the nucleon. This striking deficiency is cured in the formalism of ‘Generalized Parton Distributions’ (GPDs)  which reached the level of practical applications only recently. This theoretical framework is capable of simultaneously treating several types of processes ranging from inclusive to hard exclusive scattering. Exclusive lepton-nucleon scattering is ‘non-forward’ in nature since the photon initiating the process is virtual and the final state particle is usually real, forcing a small but finite momentum transfer to the target nucleon. While it is very appealing that GPDs embody forward (‘ordinary’) PDFs as well as Nucleon Form Factors as limiting cases, they clearly contain a wealth of information well beyond these, notably about the hitherto unrevealed orbital angular momenta of partons (see below).

The scheme presented in Fig. 1 is intended as an easy-to-read overview

of the various quantities that are considered relevant for a comprehensive description of the angular momentum structure of the nucleon. It is based on the formalism of GPDs which are placed in the middle of three concentric rings. The two limiting cases are located in the adjacent rings: Nucleon Form Factors, the first moments of their appropriate GPDs, are shown in the innermost ring, while PDFs, their ‘forward’ limits, are located in the outermost ring. Today’s experimental knowledge of the different functions is illustrated in different colours or shades of grey, from light (no data exist) to dark (well known), see legend. The emphasis in Fig. 1 is placed on the physics message and not on completeness; some GPDs have been omitted. Empty sectors mean that the function does not exist, decouples from observables in the forward limit, or no strategy is known for its measurement. GPDs will be discussed in detail in the next chapter, PDFs in chapter 4, and Nucleon Form Factors in chapter 5.

## 3 Generalized Parton Distributions

Generalized Parton Distributions depend on a resolution scale $`Q^2`$, two longitudinal momentum fractions ($`x,\xi `$) and $`t`$, the momentum transfer at the nucleon vertex. The ‘skewedness’ $`\xi `$ parameterises the longitudinal momentum difference of the two partons involved in the interaction (cf. Fig. 2). Through their dependence on $`\xi `$ the GPDs carry information about correlations between two different partons in the nucleon. Note that in the ‘forward’ limit $`\xi =0`$ and $`t=0`$.

For each parton species222Here $`f`$ stands for the quark flavors $`u,d,s`$, but here also for the gluon index $`g`$. $`f`$ there exist four GPDs ($`H^f,\stackrel{~}{H}^F,E^f,\stackrel{~}{E}^f`$) that do not flip the parton helicity and additional four ($`H_T^f,\stackrel{~}{H}_T^f,E_T^f,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}_T^f`$) that do flip it . In terms of chirality the two sets of quark GPDs can be also referred to as chirally-even and chirally-odd ones, respectively, while gluons do not have chirality. The nucleon helicity, on the other hand, is conserved by the $`H`$-functions, but not by the $`E`$-functions. Finally, the chirally-even, i.e. parton-helicity non-flip quark GPDs can also be classified into unpolarised $`(H^f,E^f)`$ and polarised $`(\stackrel{~}{H}^f,\stackrel{~}{E}^f)`$ ones. The nucleon-helicity conserving quark GPDs $`H^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^f`$ have as forward limits the well-known unpolarised and longitudinally polarised quark PDFs $`q_f,\overline{q}_f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_f,\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{q}_f`$, respectively. In the case of gluons, $`g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ are the forward limits of $`H^g`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^g`$, respectively. The nucleon-helicity non-conserving GPDs $`E^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^f`$ decouple from observables in the forward limit, i.e. they have no corresponding PDFs. As forward limit of the parton-helicity flip quark GPDs $`H_T^f`$ the transversity PDFs $`\delta q_f,\delta \overline{q}_f`$ are obtained, while gluons have no transversity .

The recent strong interest in GPDs was stimulated by the finding  that the sum of the unpolarised chirally-even GPDs, $`\frac{1}{2}(H^f+E^f)`$, carries information about the total angular momentum $`J^f`$ of the parton species $`f`$ in the nucleon. In the limit of vanishing $`t`$ the second moment of this sum approaches $`J^f`$, measured at the given $`Q^2`$. The total angular momentum carried by quarks of all flavors, $`J^q=_fJ^f`$, and that carried by gluons, $`J^g`$, are not known yet. The same holds for the corresponding orbital momenta, $`L^q`$ and $`L^g`$. Through the simple integral relation $`L^q=J^q\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ being the quark’s spin contribution (cf. next chapter), a measurement of $`J^q`$ would allow to determine $`L^q`$. Note that there is an ongoing unresolved controversy in the literature about the appropriate definition of angular momentum operators for quarks and gluons .

GPDs can in principle be revealed from measurements of various cross sections and spin asymmetries in several exclusive processes. However, there is no doubt that for a determination of individual GPDs from experimental cross sections and asymmetries a rather complicated procedure will have to be developed. Unlike in the case of forward PDFs a direct extraction of GPDs appears presently not feasible. The usual deconvolution procedure can not be applied, because the involved momentum fraction $`x`$ is an entirely internal variable, i.e. it is always integrated over in the process amplitudes. A principal way to circumvent this problem by distinguishing the $`logQ^2`$ behaviour from the $`1/Q^2`$ behaviour  appears hard to realise even under substantially improved experimental conditions in the future. Hence an iteration process based on the comparison of theoretical model GPDs to experimental data seems to be the unavoidable choice. This most probably will require the combination of results from various reaction channels into a ‘global fit’ of the involved GPDs. Clearly, further theoretical work on the sensitivity of experimentally available quantities to different properties of the model functions, especially higher orders (see e.g. Ref. ) and higher twists (see e.g. Ref. ), seems to be of great importance.

The chirally-even GPDs $`(H^f,\stackrel{~}{H}^f,E^f,\stackrel{~}{E}^f)`$ for $`u`$ and $`d`$-quarks, which are presently the most intensely discussed functions, can be accessed experimentally in several reactions. Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering (DVCS), $`epep\gamma `$ (cf. left panel of Fig. 2), is presently considered the cleanest one. In this reaction the first and, so far, the only GPD-related experimental results were published recently. Note that there is still no data available that can be related to parton-helicity non-flip gluon GPDs. They can in principle be accessed in DVCS and meson production at small $`\xi `$, i.e. preferentially at large center-of-mass energies.

A $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ behaviour333Here $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal angle of the produced real photon around the direction of the virtual photon, relative to the lepton scattering plane. is predicted  for the azimuthal dependence of the single beam-spin asymmetry in the DVCS cross section. This prediction was recently proven at two different center-of-mass energies, by HERMES  and CLAS . The asymmetry is given by the imaginary part of the interference term between the DVCS and Bethe-Heitler amplitudes. The involved combination of GPDs contains $`H^f,\stackrel{~}{H}^f`$ and $`E^f`$, where $`H^f`$ is the dominant function driven by kinematical factors (cf. Ref. ). Access to the real part of the same interference term is opened by measuring the beam-charge asymmetry in DVCS. First results on this observable were presented by HERMES  very recently and confirmed the predicted $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ behaviour. It has to be noted that the imaginary part is probed at the special argument $`(\xi ,\xi ,t)`$ which constitutes a second independent ‘slice’ in the $`(x,\xi ,t)`$-plane, in addition to the ‘forward slice’ $`(x,0,0)`$. The $`x`$-dependence away from the line $`x=\xi `$ is contained in the principal value integral of the real part .

Information on chirally-even GPDs can also be accessed in Deeply Virtual Exclusive production of pseudoscalar and vector Mesons (DVEM), $`epepM`$ (cf. right panel of Fig. 2). While DVCS is suppressed in comparison to meson production by the additional electromagnetic coupling, the latter is suppressed by a factor $`1/Q^2`$ over the former. In fixed-target exclusive meson production, this results in an increase by a factor of about 10 in count rate, as compared to DVCS. On the other hand, compared to the outgoing real photon in DVCS the exclusively produced meson introduces one more complication, namely the distribution amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ as an additional unknown. Here $`z`$ is the momentum fraction carried by the meson. Cross sections and spin asymmetries for different channels are described by different sets of GPDs (for more details see e.g. Ref. ). The comparison of pseudoscalar and vector meson production reveals that the final state meson acts in fact as a helicity filter. Fig. 3 illustrates which of the chirally-even GPDs can be accessed in which reaction channels.

Although there exists already a huge number of theoretical papers on chirally-even GPDs, only a few attempts have been made to construct models for them (cf. e.g. Ref.  and references therein, ). They have to reproduce the $`x`$-dependence of forward PDFs and the $`t`$-dependence known from Nucleon Form Factors. The crucial problem of the correlations between the different GPD variables is still under strong theoretical debate. It remains to be shown to which extent future experiments will be in a position to successfully distinguish between different GPD models. A very first glimpse of the function $`H`$ can be expected to emerge from mid-term future measurements of various hard exclusive reactions, especially DVCS, at the HERMES experiment upgraded with a Recoil Detector  surrounding an unpolarised target. The projected measurements with an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1 will be able to distinguish between two different sets of ‘contemporary’ model GPDs over a certain range in the longitudinal momentum variable $`\xi =x_B/(2x_B)`$, where $`x_B`$ is the Bjorken scaling variable. (For details see Refs. ).

Considerably less theoretical work and no experimental results exist on either quark or gluon helicity-flip GPDs ($`H_T^f,\stackrel{~}{H}_T^f,E_T^f,\stackrel{~}{E}_T^f`$). The first proposal how to experimentally access helicity-flip quark GPDs is based on the simultaneous production of two $`\rho `$ mesons  at large rapidity separation. This may experimentally be feasible but requires large center-of-mass energies. No model has been proposed yet for these functions and therefore no projections are available yet. Helicity-flip gluon GPDs can in principle be accessed through measurements of a distinct angular dependence of the DVCS cross sections .

As mentioned above, the forward limit of the second moment of the sum $`\frac{1}{2}(H^f+E^f)`$ determines the total angular momentum $`J^f`$ of the parton species $`f`$ in the nucleon. In this context a forward orbital angular momentum (OAM) distribution was introduced  as $`L^f(x)=J^f(x)\mathrm{\Delta }q_f(x)`$, where $`J^f(x)`$ is the forward limit of the GPD sum $`\frac{1}{2}(H^f+E^f)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_f(x)`$ is the helicity distribution (cf. next chapter). Since the forward limit of the GPD $`H^f`$ is known from the well-measured PDFs $`q_f`$ and $`\overline{q}_f`$, a determination of $`J^f(x)`$ requires a measurement of the GPD $`E^f`$. This is expressed in Fig. 1 by placing the symbol $`J^f`$ in the outermost ring of the $`E^f`$ sector. Experimental access to $`E^f`$ may be achieved through DVCS measurements with an unpolarised beam and a transversely polarised target. Projections for the statistical accuracy attainable when measuring the relevant single target-spin asymmetry $`A_{UT}(\varphi )`$ are given in Ref.  for both a possible low-luminosity (0.8 fb-1) measurement in the mid-term future and a high-luminosity measurement (100 fb-1) in the far future. Note that the present HERMES measurements using a transversely polarised target, aiming at a determination of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark transversity (cf. next chapter), are planned to collect about 0.15 fb-1. Also, important additional knowledge on $`E^f`$ can be expected from exclusive vector meson production with transverse target polarisation .

## 4 Parton Distribution Functions

A Parton Distribution as forward limit of a Generalised Parton Distribution depends only on the constituent’s momentum fraction $`x`$ that in deep inelastic lepton-nucleon scattering (DIS) is identified with the Bjorken scaling variable $`x_B`$. Additionally, it depends on a resolution scale $`Q^2`$, as mentioned above. On the simplest (twist-2) level, as long as multi-parton correlations are not considered, the complete set of quark PDFs consists (for every flavor $`u,d,s`$) of number density $`q_f`$, longitudinally polarised (helicity) distribution $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_f`$, and transversity distribution $`\delta q_f`$. Only these three functions together form the minimum data set necessary for meaningful confrontations with theoretical models of the ground state of the nucleon.

In-depth studies of DIS over the last two decades resulted in unpolarised quark distributions that are precisely known for valence and well known for sea quarks . Their longitudinally polarised counterparts were measured only recently , still with large uncertainties for the sea distributions. In contrast, the transverse spin structure of the nucleon is still completely unexplored, even in the forward limit. Several experiments will deliver first data in the near future: COMPASS at CERN , HERMES at DESY  and RHIC-spin at BNL . Its interpretation will to a large extent be based on the analysis of (single) spin asymmetries in (semi-inclusive) hadron production cross sections. However, precise information on sea quark as well as highly precise data on valence quark distributions can only be expected from the next generation of electron-nucleon scattering experiments. For a brief overview including projections and further references see, e.g., Ref. .

For a given flavor, the first moment of the sum (difference) of quark and anti-quark helicity (transversity) distributions represents the axial (tensor) charge of the nucleon. Precise measurements of these integrals are of special interest. The flavor sum of the axial charges, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q^2)`$, describes the quark’s contribution to the total longitudinal spin of the nucleon. Experimentally, a value far below the originally expected non-relativistic limit is found, irrespectively of the underlying renormalisation scheme. This behaviour gave rise to the ‘spin crisis’ of the nineties. It may be attributed to the fact that the $`Q^2`$-evolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ involves the polarised gluon distribution. In contrast, the hitherto totally unmeasured flavor sum of the tensor charges, $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }(Q^2)`$, decouples as an all-valence object from gluons and sea quarks and hence is expected to be much closer to the non-relativistic limit (cf. the discussion on lattice QCD results below). Measurements of the tensor charge will give access to the hitherto unmeasured chirally-odd operators in QCD which are of great importance to understand the role of chiral symmetry in the structure of the nucleon . Also, the tensor charge is required as input to calculate the electric dipole moment of the neutron  in beyond-the-standard-model theories where the quarks may have electrical dipole moments themselves .

Lattice calculations, performed in the context of the operator-product expansion (OPE), lead to reliable results on the ‘valence’ tensor charge $`\delta \mathrm{\Sigma }\delta u+\delta d`$; their precision improves with time as better methods and computers are used (e.g. $`0.562\pm 0.088`$ in 1997 , $`0.746\pm 0.047`$ in 1999 ). Nevertheless, these values are far away from the non-relativistic limit of $`\frac{5}{3}`$ expected for a nucleon consisting of just three valence quarks. In contrast, lattice OPE calculations do not yet lead to reliable results on the ‘valence’ axial charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d`$, because the quark-line disconnected diagram cannot be calculated yet. The ‘quenched’ approximation leads to the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.18\pm 0.10`$ . This is surprisingly consistent with the earlier result $`0.18\pm 0.02`$ obtained with the simpler method of dynamically staggered fermions . Note that next-to-leading order QCD analyses of experimental data yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.20.4`$, depending on the factorisation scheme . All numbers quoted above refer to $`Q^2`$-values of a few GeV2.

## 5 Elastic Form Factors

The $`t`$-dependent elastic form factors of the nucleon can in principle be obtained from the Generalised Parton Distributions (once they are known) by integrating over their momentum-fraction variables, i.e. as their first moments. The first moments of the unpolarised chirally-even GPDs $`H^f`$ and $`E^f`$ constitute the Dirac (charge) and Pauli (current) form factors $`F_1^f(t)`$ and $`F_2^f(t)`$. Note that measurements are usually done for the electric and magnetic Sachs form factors $`G_E`$ and $`G_M`$ which are linear combinations of the Dirac and Pauli form factors. The polarised chirally-even GPDs $`\stackrel{~}{H}^f`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}^f`$ yield the axial-vector and pseudoscalar form factors $`g_A^f`$ and $`h_A^f`$ (also denoted as $`G_A`$ and $`G_P`$). Also for the helicity-flip quark GPDs ($`H_T^f,\stackrel{~}{H}_T^f,E_T^f,\stackrel{~}{E}_T^f`$) form factors exist; for example the first moment of $`H_T^f`$ at $`t=0`$ is the tensor charge of quark species $`f`$. The corresponding sectors in Fig. 1 contain no symbols because in the literature there is no unique naming convention nor are there ways for their measurement. For that reason the gluon form factors are also omitted.

Measurements of proton and neutron elastic form factors are accomplished by widely different experimental approaches. Beam energies of a few GeV and less are sufficient to determine their $`Q^2`$-dependence which can, in most cases, be approximately described by the $`1/Q^2`$ dipole form factor. For a recent review of existing measurements and for further references, see Ref. .

## 6 Experimental Requirements

Presently, almost the entire field of GPD-related physics constitutes experimentally virgin territory. Stimulated by the physics insight that can be expected from measurements of GPDs, experimentalists are striving to optimise and upgrade their existing facilities to obtain experimental results that can be used to extract first information about GPDs themselves.

There is little doubt that a completely new step in experimentation, concerning both fixed-target and collider facilities, is required for future GPD measurements. In Fig. 4 a brief summary of the abovementioned major physics topics is given in conjunction with experimental requirements for a future fixed-target electron-nucleon scattering facility. It must offer luminosities of at least 1035 per cm2s requiring an accelerator with a duty cycle of 10% or more. Beam energies above 30 GeV are needed to cover a kinematic range suitable for extracting cross sections and their scale dependence in exclusive measurements. For the non-exclusive studies of the hadron structure, including precise measurements of polarised Parton Distribution Functions, variable beam energies in the range of 50-200 GeV are required. In both cases, highest possible polarisation of beam and targets as well as the availability of both beam charges is required to fully exploit the potential of asymmetry measurements. Large-acceptance detector systems with high-rate capabilities must reach a mass resolution of a third of the pion mass, mandatory for the measurement of exclusive channels. For more detailed discussions of the various present-day options for such a facility see, e.g., Refs.  which also contain further references. Note that precise measurements of Nucleon Form Factors, while constituting an essential part of the physics menu addressed in this paper, will be pursued at lower-energy facilities.

## 7 Conclusions

As can be concluded from today’s knowledge, major steps in both theory and experimentation are required to accomplish a comprehensive understanding of the angular momentum structure of the nucleon. Physics objectives can be identified for a future fixed-target electron-nucleon scattering facility with polarised targets, high-luminosity, and variable beam energies of 30-200 GeV. Precise measurements of hard exclusive processes will have to be performed in several reaction channels towards a determination of as many as possible Generalised Parton Distributions in a ‘global’ fit. Independently, very precise measurements of the GPD limiting cases, namely forward Parton Distribution Functions on the one hand, and Nucleon Form Factors on the other, will be of great importance for further developments of the theory, because they eventually will have to complement and confirm the GPD results.

## Acknowledgements

I am deeply indebted to M. Diehl and X. Ji for enlightening discussions, to F. Ellinghaus, R. Kaiser and J. Volmer for a careful reading of the manuscript, and to K. Jansen and G. Schierholz for valuable comments on the lattice QCD section. Many thanks to B. Seitz for commenting on, and to A. Hagedorn for producing Fig. 1. The help of K. Pipke in preparing Fig. 4 is acknowledged.


text:
# Splitting jet sequences

## Introduction

It is well known, that the splitting of the first jet sequence of a vector bundle $`E`$ on a complex manifold $`X`$ implies that $`E`$ admits a holomorphic affine connection. In this note we show that the splitting of a higher jet sequence

$$0S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1EJ_k(E)J_{k1}(E)0,$$

where $`k>1`$, does not only have consequences for $`E`$, but also has strong consequences for the base manifold $`X`$. The following result is in a sense an infinitesimal converse to a result of Biswas, \[B2\], saying that if $`X`$ is a complex manifold admitting a holomorphic projective structure, then the higher jet sequences of certain tensor powers of a theta characteristic on $`X`$ split holomorphically in a charateristic manner (see 1.6):

Theorem. Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $`n`$ and $`E`$ a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$. If the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits for some $`k>1`$, then $`X`$ admits a holomorphic normal projective connection and $`J_{k1}(E)`$ admits a holomorphic affine connection. Moreover

1. if $`detE^{}`$ is not nef and $`X`$ is projective or if $`X`$ contains a rational curve, then $`X_n`$ and $`E𝒪__n(k1)`$,
2. if $`detE^{}0`$, then $`X`$ is covered by a torus and $`E`$ admits a holomorphic affine connection,
3. if $`detE^{}`$ is ample, then $`X`$ is covered by the unit ball.

Here $`E^{}=om(E,𝒪_X)`$ denotes the dual of $`E`$.

The Theorem implies for example that the Chern classes of a compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ carrying a vector bundle $`E`$ with splitting $`k`$–th jet sequence for some $`k>1`$ are related as follows:

$$(n+1)^\mu c_\mu (E)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{\mu }\right)(k1)^\mu c_1(T_X)^\mu ,r^\mu (k1)^\mu c_\mu (T_X)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{\mu }\right)c_1(E)^\mu .$$

Motivation to this note was the following problem. Projective space $`_n`$, étale quotients of complex tori and manifolds, whose universal cover is the unit ball in $`^n`$ are basic examples of complex compact Kähler manifolds carrying a flat holomorphic normal projective connection. By \[JR\] this is not a complete list. Whether any compact complex Kähler manifold with a holomorphic normal projective connection carries a holomorphic projective structure, as in the affine case, seems still to be an open problem. While the uniformization theorem says that the answer to the problem is “yes” in the case of curves, Kobayashi and Ochiai showed that it is as well “yes” in the case of surfaces (\[KO\]). It is as well “yes” for projective threefolds (\[JR\]).

Splitting jet sequences may be a key to the understanding of this problem. In the affine case, we find for example:

Corollary. Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold. The first jet sequence of $`𝒪_X`$ is always split exact. One of the higher jet sequences

$$0S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1J_k(𝒪_X)J_{k1}(𝒪_X)0,$$
(0.1)
$`k>1`$, splits if and only if $`X`$ is covered by a torus, i.e., admits a flat holomorphic affine connection. The splitting of one higher jet sequence of $`𝒪_X`$ implies the splitting of all jet sequences of $`𝒪_X`$.

The question is whether a similar result holds if one replaces $`𝒪_X`$ in (0.1) by certain powers of a (numerical) theta characteristic on $`X`$ as suggested by Biswas’s result.

## 1 Projective structures and connections

In this section we briefly recall some basic definitions and results. Throughout this section, we assume that $`X`$ is a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $`n`$, even though the Kähler condition is not always necessary. Concerning our notations see 1.7.

###### 1.1

Holomorphic affine and projective structures. (\[KO\] or \[KW\]). $`X`$ is said to admit a holomorphic affine (resp. projective) structure, if it can be covered by coordinate charts, such that the coordinate change is given by restrictions of holomorphic affine (resp. projective) transformations of $`^n`$ (resp. $`_n`$). A manifold with a holomorphic affine structure admits a holomorphic projective structure. The “list of standard examples” of compact complex Kähler (–Einstein) manifolds admitting a holomorphic projective structure, already mentioned above, consists of

1. the projective space $`_n`$,
2. étale quotients of complex tori,
3. manifolds, whose universal cover is the unit ball $`𝔹^n^n`$.

In 3.) note that the group of automorphisms of $`𝔹^n`$ is $`\mathrm{SU}(1,n)`$, a subgroup of $`\mathrm{PGl}(n+1)`$. By the uniformization theorem, every compact complex curve is in the list of standard examples, i.e., admits a holomorphic projective structure. The manifolds in 2.) admit a holomorphic affine structure.

There is one more (projective) example in dimension $`3`$, namely étale quotients of smooth modular families of false elliptic curves parametrized by a Shimura curve (\[JR\]).

The corresponding infinitesimal notions to holomorphic affine and projective structures are holomorphic affine and projective connections. Before we come to this we recall the definition of the Atiyah class of a holomorphic vector bundle:

###### 1.2

The Atiyah class and $`a(E)`$. (\[A\]). Let $`E`$ be a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$ and $`\{U_\alpha ;z_\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},z_\alpha ^n\}_{\alpha I}`$ coordinate charts with coordinates $`z_\alpha ^i`$ where $`E`$ is trivial. Let $`\{U_\alpha ;e_\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},e_\alpha ^r\}_{\alpha I}`$ be a local frame for $`E`$. Let $`g_{\alpha \beta }H^0(U_\alpha U_\beta ,\mathrm{Gl}(r,𝒪_X))`$ be transition functions of $`E`$ such that $`e_\beta ^k=_lg_{\alpha \beta }^{lk}e_\alpha ^l`$.

The Atiyah class of $`E`$ is the splitting obstruction of the first jet sequence, i.e., it is the image of $`\mathrm{id}_E`$ under the first connecting morphism

$$H^0(X,nd(E))\mathrm{Ext}^1(E,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1).$$

The Dolbeault isomorphism $`H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)H^{1,1}(X,nd(E))`$ maps the Atiyah class to $`[\mathrm{\Theta }_h]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_h`$ denotes the canonical curvature of $`E`$ with respect to a hermitian metric $`h`$ on $`E`$. In particular, the trace of the Atiyah class is $`2\pi ic_1(E)`$ in $`H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$.

If we define $`a(E)`$ as $`\frac{1}{2\pi i}`$ times the Atiyah class of $`E`$, then the trace of $`a(E)`$ is $`c_1(E)`$, which makes this definition convenient for our purposes. In local coordinates, $`a(E)`$ is the class of the Chech cocycle $`a(E)_{\alpha \beta }Z^1(𝒰,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$, where

$$a(E)_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{i,j,l}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{jl}}{z_\alpha ^i}dz_\alpha ^ie_\alpha ^je_\beta ^l=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{1j,lr}dg_{\alpha \beta }^{jl}e_\alpha ^je_\beta ^l.$$

See \[A\] for the functorial behavior of $`a(E)`$ under pull–back, tensor products and direct sums.

###### 1.3

Holomorphic affine and projective connections. (\[KO\] or \[KW\]) $`X`$ is said to have a holomorphic affine connection if

$$a(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)=0\text{ in }H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1),$$

where $`T_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ denote the holomorphic tangent sheaf and the sheaf of holomorphic $`1`$–forms, respectively. If $`X`$ has a holomorphic affine structure, then $`X`$ has a (flat) holomorphic affine connection. Since we assume $`X`$ Kähler, the existence of a holomorphic affine connection implies that $`X`$ is covered by a torus (\[KW\], 2.4.1. Theorem). In other words: a compact Kähler manifold admits a holomorphic affine connection if and only if it is covered by a torus.

$`X`$ is said to have a holomorphic (normal) projective connection if

$$a(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)=\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1}\frac{c_1(K_X)}{n+1}+\frac{c_1(K_X)}{n+1}\mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1}\text{ in }H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1),$$

where we use the identifications

$$nd(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1nd(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)$$

and consider $`c_1(K_X)`$ as an element in $`H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$. (See \[MM\] for a more differential geometric description of projective connections). From now on we will drop the appellation “normal”. If $`X`$ has a holomorphic projective connection and $`c_1(T_X)=0`$ in $`H^1(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$, then $`X`$ has a holomorphic affine connection. Hence: a compact Kähler manifold with a holomorphic projective connection and $`c_1(T_X)=0`$ is covered by a torus.

If $`X`$ has a holomorphic affine (projective) structure, then $`X`$ admits a holomorphic affine (projective) connection. A holomorphic affine (projective) connection is said to be flat or integrable if it corresponds to a holomorphic affine (projective) structure. The examples in 1.1 all carry a flat holomorphic projective connection.

Gunning’s formula on the Chern classes of a Kähler manifold with a holomorphic projective connection says (\[Gu\], p.94)

$$(n+1)^\mu c_\mu (T_X)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{\mu }\right)c_1^\mu (T_X)\text{ in }H^\mu (X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^\mu ).$$
(1.4)
Important for our purposes will be moreover the following result of Kobayashi and Ochiai:

###### 1.5

Theorem \[Kobayashi, Ochiai\]. The list of Kähler–Einstein manifolds admitting a holomorphic projective connection is the list of standard examples.

In Holomorphic projective structures and compact complex surfaces I, II, \[KO\], Kobayashi and Ochiai show that the list of compact Kähler surfaces admitting a holomorphic projective connection is precisely the list of standard examples. It was proved in On manifolds with holomorphic normal projective connections, \[JR\], that even in the case of projective threefolds the notion of holomorphic projective structures and connections coincide and that there is besides the standard examples only one more type that completes the list: étale quotients of smooth modular families of false elliptic curves.

###### 1.6

Projective structures and splitting jet sequences. In Differential operators on complex manifolds with a flat projective structure (\[B2\]) I. Biswas shows, that if $`X`$ is a complex manifold equipped with a projective structure and $`\theta `$ is a theta characteristic on $`X`$, i.e. a holomorphic line bundle such that $`\theta ^{n+1}K_X`$, then, for any $`k0`$, the jet bundle $`J_k(\theta ^k)`$ has a natural flat connection and the restriction homomorphism,

$$J_l(\theta ^k)J_k(\theta ^k)$$

admits a canonical splitting for $`lk`$ (\[B2\], Theorem 3.7.). In particular, the $`(k+1)`$–th jet sequence of $`\theta ^k`$ splits in the situation of the theorem.

###### 1.7

Notation and conventions. For a compact complex manifold $`X`$, the canonical divisor is denoted by $`K_X`$. We will identify line bundles and divisors and write $`K_X`$ instead of $`𝒪_X(K_X)`$. The tensor product of line bundles will be denoted by $`+`$ or $``$. A line bundle is called nef, if the intersection number with every irreducible curve is non–negative. It is called big, if the top self intersection class is positive. A vector bundle is called nef, if $`𝒪_{(E)}(1)`$ is nef on $`(E)`$. The symbol $``$ denotes numerical equivalence. A theta characteristic is a line bundle $`\theta \mathrm{Pic}(X)`$, such that $`\theta ^{n+1}=K_X`$.

## 2 Splitting jet sequences

The main result of this section is the following first order consequence of the splitting of jet sequences:

###### 2.1

Theorem. Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle on the compact complex manifold $`X`$. If the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits for some $`k1`$, then

1. the $`(k1)`$–th jet bundle of $`E`$ admits a holomorphic affine connection, i.e., $`a(J_{k1}(E))=0`$ in $`H^1(X,nd(J_{k1}(E))\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$,
2. in $`H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ holds

$$(k1)\mathrm{id}_Ea(T_X)=a(E)\mathrm{id}_{T_X}+\mathrm{id}_{T_X}a(E).$$

Proof. Let $`a_k(E)`$ be $`\frac{1}{2i\pi }`$ times the splitting obstruction of the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$. Then $`a_k(E)`$ is an element in $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(J_{k1}(E),S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)`$ and $`a_1(E)=a(E)`$ from 1.2.

1.) The first jet sequence of $`J_{k1}(E)`$ and the $`k`$–th of $`E`$ give the diagram:

Applying $`\mathrm{Hom}(J_{k1}(E),)`$ to the diagram gives a map

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(J_{k1}(E),S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)\mathrm{Ext}^1(J_{k1}(E),\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1J_{k1}(E)),$$

mapping $`a_k(E)`$ to $`a_1(J_{k1}(E))=a(J_{k1}(E))`$. This shows the first part of the theorem.

2.) If $`k=1`$, i.e., if the first jet sequence of $`E`$ splits, then $`a(E)=a(J_0(E))=0`$ by 1.), and the claim is trivial. So assume $`k>1`$. Applying $`\mathrm{Hom}(,S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)`$ to the $`(k1)`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ gives a map

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(J_{k1}(E),S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)\mathrm{Ext}^1(S^{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E,S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E).$$
(2.2)
The image of $`a_k(E)`$ under this map will be called $`\overline{a}_k(E)`$. Since the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits by assumption, $`\overline{a}_k(E)=0`$. A contraction map

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(S^{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E,S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E)H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)$$

will show the claim.

Compute now $`\overline{a}_k(E)`$ locally: choose coordinate charts $`\{U_\alpha ;z_\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},z_\alpha ^n\}_{\alpha I}`$ in $`X`$, such that $`E`$ is trivial on each $`U_\alpha `$ with local frame $`\{U_\alpha ;e_\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},e_\alpha ^r\}_{\alpha I}`$ and transition functions $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$. Let $`h_{\alpha \beta }^i(z_\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},z_\alpha ^n)=z_\beta ^i`$ on $`U_{\alpha \beta }`$ be a holomorphic coordinate change. Then

$$\{U_\alpha ;\{dz_\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}dz_\alpha ^{i_k}e_\alpha ^l\}_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1\mathrm{}i_k}{1lr}},\mathrm{},\{dz_\alpha ^ie_\alpha ^l\}_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1in}{1lr}},\{e_\alpha ^l\}_l\}_{\alpha I}$$

is a local frame for $`J_k(E)`$. Denote by $`j_kg_{\alpha \beta }`$ the transition functions of $`J_k(E)`$. Then

$$j_kg_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S^k\frac{z_\beta }{z_\alpha }g_{\alpha \beta }& v_{\alpha \beta }\\ 0& j_{k1}g_{\alpha \beta }\end{array}\right),$$

where $`v_{\alpha \beta }:J_{k1}|_{U_\beta }S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E|_{U_\alpha }`$ defines the extension class $`a_k(E)`$. We are only interested in the image $`\overline{a}_k`$, defined in (2.2). This means that we will apply $`v_{\alpha \beta }`$ not to sections of $`J_{k1}(E)`$ but only to sections of the subbundle $`S^{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E`$ on $`U_\beta `$. Denote the corresponding columns of $`v_{\alpha \beta }`$ by $`\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }`$. Then

$$\overline{a}_k=[\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }]\mathrm{Ext}^1(S^{k1}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E,S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1E).$$

The map $`\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }`$ can be computed directly in terms of the local frames of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ and $`E`$ on $`U_\alpha `$ and $`U_\beta `$. For example in the case $`k=2`$:

$$\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{id}_E\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ij}{u}}{}\frac{^2z_\beta ^u}{z_\alpha ^iz_\alpha ^j}dz_\alpha ^idz_\alpha ^jdz_\beta ^u+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ij}{\{r,s\}=\{i,j\}}}{l,m}}{}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{lm}}{z_\alpha ^r}e_\alpha ^le_\beta ^mdz_\alpha ^idz_\alpha ^jdz_\alpha ^s.$$

In the general case the first sum runs over all $`i_1\mathrm{}i_k`$ and all pairs $`(i_r,i_s)`$, $`rs`$ and all $`u`$, and each $`dz_\alpha ^idz_\alpha ^jdz_\beta ^u`$ has to be replaced by

$$dz_\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}dz_\alpha ^{i_k}dz_\beta ^udz_\alpha ^{i_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{dz_\alpha ^{i_r}}\mathrm{}\widehat{dz_\alpha ^{i_s}}\mathrm{}dz_\alpha ^{i_k}.$$

The second sum has to be modified analogously.

Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`r`$ with basis $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r`$. The natural maps

$$A_k:S^{k1}V^{}S^{k2}VS^kV^{}S^{k1}V$$

defined by $`b_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}b_{i_{k1}}^{}b_{u_1}\mathrm{}b_{u_{k2}}_{s=1}^rb_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}b_{i_{k1}}^{}b_s^{}b_{u_1}\mathrm{}b_{u_{k2}}b_s`$ split; the splitting map $`C_k:S^kV^{}S^{k1}VS^{k1}V^{}S^{k2}V`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of contraction maps. Therefore all composition maps

$$F_{k,i}=A_k\mathrm{}A_i:S^iV^{}S^{i1}VS^kV^{}S^{k1}V,i<k,$$

admit a natural splitting, namely $`S_{k,i}=C_i\mathrm{}C_k`$.

Applied to the above situation, where $`V`$ is the vector space generated by $`dz_\alpha ^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we get

$$\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }=(k2)!^1F_{k,2}(\phi _2)+(k1)!^1F_{k,1}(\phi _1),$$

where $`\phi _2S^2\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1|_{U_\alpha }T_X|_{U_\beta }`$ and $`\phi _1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1|_{U_\alpha }`$ are given by

$$\phi _2=\mathrm{id}_E\underset{u,i,j}{}\frac{^2z_\beta ^u}{z_\alpha ^iz_\alpha ^j}dz_\alpha ^idz_\alpha ^jdz_\beta ^u,\phi _1=\underset{i,j,l}{}\frac{g_{\alpha \beta }^{jl}}{z_\alpha ^i}dz_\alpha ^ie_\alpha ^je_\beta ^l.$$

The map $`T_2:S^2V^{}VV^{}V^{}V`$, defined by mapping $`b_ib_jb_l^{}`$ to $`\frac{1}{2}(b_ib_j+b_jb_i)b_l^{}`$, gives

$$2(k1)!T_2S_{k,2}\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }=(k1)\mathrm{id}_Ea(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{id}_{T_X}a(E)_{\alpha \beta }+a(E)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{id}_{T_X}.$$

If the $`k`$–th jet sequence of of $`E`$ splits, then $`[\overline{v}_{\alpha \beta }]=0`$, i.e., the class of the left hand side is zero. Since $`a(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)=a(T_X)`$, the claim follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### 2.3

Corollary. Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle on the compact Kähler manifold $`X`$. If the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits for some $`k>1`$, then $`X`$ admits a holomorphic projective connection and

$$(k1)\mathrm{id}_Ec_1(T_X)=(n+1)a(E)\text{ in }H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1).$$
(2.4)
In particular, if $`X`$ is a surface, a projective threefold or if $`X`$ admits a Kähler–Einstein metric, then $`X`$ admits a projective structure and is one of the manifolds from section 1.1.

The identity (2.4) is obviously true even in the case $`k=1`$, since the splitting of the first jet sequence means nothing but that $`a(E)=0`$.

###### 2.5

Remark. The corollary should be understood as follows. Assume that $`X`$ carries a theta characteristic $`\theta \mathrm{Pic}(X)`$. If $`E`$ is a vector bundle on $`X`$, such that the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits for some $`k>1`$, then the $`i`$–th jet sequence of $`E\theta ^{ki}`$ splits for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. We will not prove this here; it will not be used in the sequel. Corollary 2.3 proves the case $`i=1`$: the splitting of the first jet sequence of $`E\theta ^{k1}`$ means the vanishing of $`a(E\theta ^{k1})`$ or, equivalently, $`a(E)=\mathrm{id}_E\frac{k1}{n+1}c_1(T_X)`$.

Proof of Corollary 2.3. From the proof of the Theorem we know that the class of

$$(k1)\mathrm{id}_Ea(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)_{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{id}_{T_X}a(E)_{\alpha \beta }+a(E)_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{id}_{T_X}$$

in $`H^1(X,nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)`$ is zero. For the identity (2.4) consider the contraction of the last two factors in $`nd(E)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1T_X\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$. Then

$$(k1)\mathrm{id}_Ec_1(T_X)=na(E)+a(E)$$

since $`\mathrm{id}_{T_X}a(E)`$ maps to $`na(E)`$ and $`a(E)\mathrm{id}_{T_X}`$ to $`a(E)`$. This shows (2.4). Consider on the other hand the contraction of the first two factors $`nd(E)EE^{}`$:

$$r(k1)a(T_X)=\mathrm{id}_{T_X}c_1(E)+c_1(E)\mathrm{id}_{T_X}.$$

The claim follows now from the first set of equalities in the following Corollary 2.6, which are a direct consequence of the identity (2.4). $`\mathrm{}`$

Using Gunning’s formula (1.4) on the Chern classes of a compact Kähler manifold with projective connection and formula (2.4) in Corollary 2.3 we obtain:

###### 2.6

Corollary. In the situation of Corollary 2.3, the Chern classes of $`E`$ and $`X`$ are related as follows:

$$(n+1)^\mu c_\mu (E)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r}{\mu }\right)(k1)^\mu c_1(T_X)^\mu ,r^\mu (k1)^\mu c_\mu (T_X)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{\mu }\right)c_1(E)^\mu .$$

For $`k=1`$ this just means that the Chern classes of a vector bundle with trivial Atiyah class vanish.

Corollary 2.6 proves the first part of the theorem in the introduction. Before we come to the proof of the second part, we give the following

###### 2.7

Example. If $`E`$ is an indecomposable vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on the smooth compact curve $`C`$, then the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits if and only if

$$2c_1(E)=r(k1)c_1(T_C)=2r(k1)(1g(C)).$$
(2.8)
Note that if $`E`$ is decomposable, i.e., $`E=E_i`$ for some indecomposable vector bundles $`E_i`$, then the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits if and only if the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E_i`$ splits for all $`i`$.

Indeed, if the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits, then formula (2.8) holds by Corollary 2.6. Conversely, assume that $`E`$ is a vector bundle on $`C`$ satisfying $`2c_1(E)=r(k1)c_1(T_C)`$. Then $`c_1(E\theta ^{k1})=0`$, where $`\theta `$ denotes a theta characterstic on $`C`$. By \[A\], Proposition 14 and 19 the bundle $`N=E\theta ^{k1}`$ can then be written with constant transition functions. Therefore $`J_k(E)=J_k(\theta ^{1k})N`$ for all $`k`$. The claim follows now from Biswas’ result.

## 3 Classification

We can now either consider special manifolds $`X`$ carrying a holomorphic vector bundle $`E`$ where one of the higher jet sequences split and study $`E`$, or, conversely, we can consider special bundles and ask what this splitting means for $`X`$. We start with the first case. In \[JR\], Ye’s result whereafter projective space is the only smooth Fano variety $`X`$ admitting a holomorphic projective connection (\[Y\]) was generalized to the case of a compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ that contains a rational curve. Using only direct consequences of the splitting of jets we prove here:

###### 3.1

Proposition. Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold and $`E`$ a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$. If $`X`$ contains a rational curve and if the $`k`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ splits for some $`k>1`$, then $`X_n`$ and $`E𝒪__n(k1)`$.

###### 3.2

Remark. Every vector bundle on $`_1`$ splits into a sum of line bundles.

Proof of Proposition 3.1. Let $`f:_1X`$ be any rational curve in $`X`$. We want to show $`X=_n`$: by Theorem 2.1, $`a(J_{k1}(E))=0`$, hence $`a(f^{}J_{k1}(E))=0`$ on $`_1`$. Then the vector bundle $`f^{}J_{k1}(E)`$ arises from a representation of the fundamental group of $`_1`$ by \[A\] Theorem 8, which means $`f^{}J_{k1}(E)`$ is trivial. Consider the jet bundle diagrams from \[Gr\]:

Since $`f^{}S^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_X^1f^{}ES^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }__1^1f^{}E`$ is generically surjective for all $`\mu `$, it follows by induction that all the vertical maps are generically surjective. Hence

$$0J_{k1}(f^{}E)^{}f^{}J_{k1}(E)^{}=𝒪__1^m$$

is injective. Therefore $`J_{k1}(f^{}E)`$ is nef, meaning that if we write $`J_{k1}(f^{}E)`$ as a sum of line bundles, non of them will have negative degree. Write $`f^{}E`$ as a sum of line bundles $`𝒪__1(a_i)`$. Since $`J_{k1}(f^{}E)`$ is nef, $`J_{k1}(𝒪__1(a_i))`$ is nef for all $`i`$. A direct computation shows: if $`J_{k1}(𝒪__1(a))`$ is nef on $`_1`$ for some $`k>1`$, then $`a>0`$. Hence $`f^{}E`$ is ample. Dualizing the pull back of the $`(k1)`$–th jet sequence of $`E`$ yields a surjective map

$$f^{}J_{k1}(E)^{}f^{}E=f^{}E^mf^{}(S^{k1}T_Xnd(E)).$$

Since $`f^{}E`$ is ample and $`𝒪__1`$ is a direct summand of $`f^{}nd(E)`$, $`f^{}S^{k1}T_X`$ is ample. Since $`k>1`$, $`f^{}T_X`$ is ample. It follows now that $`X`$ is projective and by Mori’s Theorem (\[M\] and \[MP\], p.41, 4.2. Theorem in particular), $`X=_n`$.

Let now $`l`$ be a line in $`X=_n`$. Decompose $`E|_l=_{i=1}^r𝒪_l(a_i)`$ and consider the natural inclusion $`J_{k1}(𝒪__1(a_i))J_1(J_1(\mathrm{}J_1(𝒪__1(a_i))\mathrm{}))`$. The bundle on the right can be computed from $`J_1(𝒪__1(l))=𝒪__1(l1)^2`$ for $`l0`$ and $`J_1(𝒪__1)=𝒪__1𝒪__1(2)`$. This gives that all $`a_ik1`$, since $`k2`$ and we know from above, that $`E`$ is ample. Corollary 2.6 implies then $`E|_l=_r𝒪__1(k1)`$. This means the bundle $`F=E𝒪__n(k+1)`$ is trivial on every line in $`X=_n`$, hence trivial (this fact on $`_n`$ can be easily shown by induction on $`n`$.). $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the rest of the Theorem from the introduction now follows immediately using the numerical equivalence $`detE^{}\frac{r(k1)}{n+1}K_X`$. Indeed, if we assume that $`X`$ is projective and that $`detE^{}`$ is not nef, then $`K_X`$ is not nef since $`k>1`$, and $`X`$ contains a rational curve by the cone theorem (see for example \[MP\], p.37, 2.6. Theorem). Proposition 3.1 implies $`X_n`$ and $`E_r𝒪__n(k1)`$ proving 1.) of the Theorem. Concerning 2.), if $`detE^{}0`$, then $`K_X0`$, $`X`$ admits a holomorphic affine connection and is covered by a complex torus. Finally, if $`detE^{}`$ is ample, then $`K_X`$ is ample. By the theorem of Aubin and Yau, $`X`$ admits a Kähler–Einstein metric so that $`X`$ is covered by the unit ball by Theorem 1.5.

###### 3.3

Corollary. Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold. The first jet sequence of $`𝒪_X`$ is always split exact. One of the higher jet sequences

$$0S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1J_k(𝒪_X)J_{k1}(𝒪_X)0,$$

$`k>1`$, splits if and only if $`X`$ is covered by a torus, i.e., admits a flat holomorphic affine connection. The splitting of one higher jet sequence of $`𝒪_X`$ implies the splitting of all jet sequences of $`𝒪_X`$.

Proof. By the main Theorem just proved the splitting of one of the higher jet sequences of $`𝒪_X`$ implies that $`X`$ is an étale quotient of a torus $`T`$. If $`\mu :TX`$ is étale, then $`\mu ^{}J_i(𝒪_X)=J_i(𝒪_T)`$ implying that the $`i`$–th jet sequence of $`𝒪_X`$ splits if and only if the $`i`$–th jet sequence of $`𝒪_T`$ is split exact. Since $`𝒪_T`$ is a theta characteristic on a torus, the result now follows from Biswas’ result. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`X`$ a curve, a Kähler surface or a projective threefold, Corollary 3.3 has the following more general form: assume that there exists a theta characteristic $`\theta \mathrm{Pic}(X)`$. If one of the sequences

$$0S^k\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\theta ^{1k}J_k(\theta ^{1k})J_{k1}(\theta ^{1k})0$$

splits for $`k>1`$, then they all split and $`X`$ has a projective structure.


text:
# Formation of bulges in very late-type galaxies from SSCs

## 1 Introduction

Bulges are basic building blocks of the Hubble sequence, as shown from the studies on the growth of galactic bulges by mergers (e.g. Walker et al. 1996; Agueri et al. 2001), or by secular evolution (e.g. Norman et al. 1996; Zhang 1999). It is important to understand whether these processes could push late-type spirals across the Hubble sequence toward early-type spirals. Also, studies show that elliptical galaxies, which are thought to be similar to the bulges of early-type spirals, can be formed through mergers of spirals with similar masses (e.g. Barnes & Hernquist 1991).

A significant amount of data on bulges have been accumulated (e.g. Andredakis et al. 1995; Carollo 1999; Seigar et al. 2002), with a common perception of $`R^{1/4}`$ and exponential bulges for early- and late-type spirals, respectively. Among them, the HST survey of early- to intermediate-type spirals (Carollo 1999, C99 hereafter) has yielded new insight into the nuclear region of these systems.

The most interesting results from this survey are that 11 of the 12 S0a - Sab galaxies display $`R^{1/4}`$ bulges, while 14 out of the 20 Sb - Sc galaxies have exponential bulges. The majority of these bulges illustrate nuclear cusps, steeper ones for $`R^{1/4}`$ structures and shallower for exponential bulges. C99 argued convincingly that the shallower cusps in exponential bulges are of stellar origin, and claimed that they are the old end of star clusters with masses of about $`10^6M_{}`$.

Probably consistent with this argument is an evolved super star cluster (SSC) located in the nucleus of M33 (Kormendy & McClure 1993). The occurrence of old-end star clusters at the nuclei of galaxies has been reported in other two nearby Sc galaxies, NGC 247 and NGC 2403 (Davidge & Courteau 2002). In fact, nuclear star clusters may be a common phenomenon (e.g. Davidge & Courteau 2002; Böker et al. 1999, and references therein) in late-type galaxies. Possibly related to the existence of nuclear star clusters is the presence of circumnuclear young massive star clusters, or circumnuclear SSCs (e.g. Larsen & Richtler 1999; Whitmore et al. 1999; Meylan 2001).

A question then arises whether there is a physical relation between these two common phenomena in late-type spirals, i.e., the common existence of nuclear/circumnuclear star clusters and the exponential bulges with nuclear stellar cusps. If this is the case, what is the physical process responsible for this relation? A prevailing view for the formation of bulges in late-type galaxies is the secular evolution of disks due to the bar formation/destruction (e.g. Pfenniger & Norman 1990; Norman, Sellwood, & Hasan 1996). However, Bureau argued in his review (2002) against this scenario based on the consideration of the fast duty cycle of the bar formation/destruction, inferred from the omnipresence of bars (Seigar & James 1998).

In this paper we report our study, motivated by Carollo’s claims and the observations mentioned above, on the dynamical evolution of circumnuclear SSCs moving in the dark matter halo as a possible process for the formation of bulges with nuclear cusps in very late-type galaxies.

It has been suggested (e.g., Tremaine et al. 1975) that the dynamical friction acting on globular clusters moving on orbits near the centre of a galaxy would lead to the formation of a nucleus. The underlying physical processes in our scenario, however, are sinking of SSCs due to the dynamical friction and tidal stripping of SSCs on their way to the center. The inclusion of tidal stripping, which is not considered in the previous work, is crucial in producing an exponential bulge with nuclear stellar cusp.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 SSC model

Recent high resolution observations of starburst galaxies have revealed the existence of many compact, young, and very luminous SSCs in the central regions of galaxies (Surace & Sanders 1999, Scoville et al. 2000, de Grijs et al. 2001). Numerical simulations (Mihos & Hernquist 1996, Barnes & Herquist 1996) have also shown that interaction or merger among galaxies can trigger strong starbursts around the nuclear regions. While galaxies are merging or interacting, some gas components could lose their angular momentum and fall into the central region. High pressure of the warm interstellar gas could induce global collapse of giant molecular clouds and thus form circumnuclear SSCs (Jog & Solomon 1992, Harris & Pudritz 1994).

Although there is already a body of observational data on SSCs, their dynamical properties are not yet well understood. SSCs are believed to be the progenitors of present-day globular clusters (GC, e.g. Origlia et al. 2001). It seems reasonable to model SSCs, then, in light of this situation.

Based on the analogy with GCs, we assume that SSCs have a similar mass spectrum as the initial GC mass function but with larger mean value. According to Vesperini (2000,2001), the log-normal mass function for SSCs (SSCMF) can be written as

$$Log_{10}(\frac{M}{M_{}})N(\mathrm{exp}(mean)=2\times 10^6M_{},variance=0.08)$$
(1)
where the mean value is chosen by the following consideration. Model calculations indicate (e.g., Takahashi & Portegies Zwart 2000) that compact SSCs with steep IMFs survive large mass loss (more than 90% of their initial masss) and thus are the most likely progenitors of GCs. Considering the mean GC’s mass of about $`12\times 10^5M_{}`$, we may infer the mean SSC’s mass of about $`2\times 10^6M_{}`$. The measured masses of SSCs detected in NGC4038/39 are consistent with this prediction, being in the range of $`6.5\times 10^54.7\times 10^6M_{}`$ (Mengel et al. 2001), and 4 out of 5 clusters have masses larger than $`2\times 10^6M_{}`$.

Using the above-mentioned SSCMF, we generate randomly 100 sets of SSCs, each containing 100 SSCs (comparable to the number observed by Fellhauer 2001 and Whitmore et al. 1999). For simplicity, the SSC is modeled as a truncated isothermal sphere with three parameters: the central density ($`\rho _c`$), the velocity dispersion ($`\sigma `$), and the initial truncated radius ($`R_0`$). Taking a range of $`\rho _c`$ between $`5.3\times 10^3M_{}/pc^3`$ and $`3.4\times 10^4M_{}/pc^3`$ (Larsen et al. 2001, Campbell et al. 1992), we assume a linear function of cluster mass, $`M`$, for $`\rho _c(M)`$. And with $`R_0`$ taken to be the local tidal radius, $`\sigma `$ can be derived from $`M`$ and $`\rho _c`$.

According to the observational results of NGC1156, NGC1313, and NGC5236 (Larsen & Richtler 1999), the number of circumnuclear SSCs is approximately proportional to $`\frac{1}{R}`$, where $`R`$ is the projected distance from the galactic center. We assume that the SSCs are distributed over the range of $`0.46.4kpc`$ (Larsen & Richtler 1999). All SSCs are assigned a local circular speed.

### 2.2 Background

In general, small galaxies appear to be dominated by dark matter (DM) even in their inner regions (e.g. Marchesini et al. 2002, Wilkinson et al. 2002, and references therein). In particular, due to their bulge-less appearance and large mass-to-light ratio, very late-type spirals are thought to be dark-matter-dominated at all radii. Analyses of high resolution $`H_\alpha `$ rotation curves, in combination with accurate HI rotation curves, confirms that late-type spirals are completely dominated by dark matter (Persic et al. 1996, Marchesini et al. 2002). Therefore, considering the bulge-formation process in very late-type galaxies (Sdm type and later) we only take a dark matter halo as the initial background. For the dark halo, we assume the universal density profile (Navarro et al. 1997, hereafter NFW), which can be written as (e.g., Binney & Merrifield, 1998)

$$\rho _h(r)=\frac{M_{0h}}{r(a_h+r)^2}$$
(2)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the halo center.

As the halos evolve , their growth can have effect on the bulge formation process. Here we restrict our study to determining if the mechanism works for SSCs formed in halos at different evolutionary stages. We will focus on a time scale of 1 Gyr so that we can neglect the evolution of the halo. We consider two halos with quite different masses: a large one with mass $`M_{200}=10^{12}h^1M_{}`$ (Y.P. Jing, private communication) and a smaller halo with mass $`M_{200}=3\times 10^{11}M_{}`$. Further, we assume a Hubble constant $`H_0=75\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`h`$ = 0.75 and a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmological model (Jing, 2000). Then the NFW halos are determined via the scaling law (see Table 1).

Table 1. Parameters of the chosen NFW halos

| $`M_{200}(M_{})`$ | $`r_{200}(kpc)`$ | $`c`$ | $`a_h(kpc)`$ | $`M_{0h}(M_{})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`10^{12}h^1`$ | 216.8 | 8.5 | 25.5 | $`7.8\times 10^{10}`$ |
| $`3\times 10^{11}`$ | 131.9 | 10 | 13.2 | $`1.6\times 10^{10}`$ |

While the mass outside several hundred $`pc`$s remains dominated by a dark halo, the mass within $`100pc`$ can be significantly changed by the fallen SSCs together with their stripped mass. In order to account for this effect, we add a spherical component, represented by shells of equal density, which varies according to the changing SSC mass contribution.

### 2.3 Dynamical friction

We define $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_M`$ (with $`V_M=|\stackrel{}{V}_M|`$) equal to, respectively, the mass and velocity of cluster experiencing the dynamical friction. Assuming the background matter has a Maxwellian velocity distribution with dispersion $`\sigma _{bkgd}`$, and is composed of particles with mass much smaller than $`M`$, the dynamical friction formula may be written as (e.g., Binney & Tremaine, 1987)

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{V}_M}{dt}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{log}(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)G^2M\rho }{V_M^3}[\mathrm{erf}(X)\frac{2X}{\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(X^2)]\stackrel{}{V}_M$$
(3)
where erf is the error function, and,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{b_{max}V_{typ}^2}{GM}\hfill \\ X=\frac{V_M}{\sqrt{2}\sigma _{bkgd}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The quantity $`b_{max}`$ is the so-called maximum impact parameter and $`V_{typ}`$ a typical measure of the relative velocity between $`M`$ and a background particle. Neither $`b_{max}`$ nor $`V_{typ}`$ is precisely defined. Fortunately, uncertainty in either quantity causes no significant difference in the resulting value of the dynamical friction. Following Binney & Tremaine (1987), we use $`b_{max}2kpc`$ and take $`V_{typ}V_M`$. The velocity dispersion $`\sigma _{bkgd}(r)`$ can be roughly estimated from the Jeans equation.

### 2.4 Stripping

We assume that the stellar mass outside a sphere of radius $`R_t`$, which corresponds to the instantaneous Hill stability region around the SSC center, will be stripped. Since stripping goes on continuously as $`r`$ (the distance between halo and SSC centers) decreases, only a thin outer layer is stripped at a time. On average, the stars stripped when the SSC goes from $`r`$ to $`rdr`$ contribute to a region radially bounded by $`r+R_t(r)`$ and $`rdrR_t(rdr)`$. As a first-order approximation, the mass of the stripped stars is considered to be, at some later epoch, uniformly distributed in the shell bounded by $`r+R_t(r)`$ and $`rdrR_t(rdr)`$. By summing up all of the stellar mass stripped at various $`r`$s, the stripped stellar mass distribution can be derived.

If a single massive object is embedded in the center of an SSC, stripping cannot proceeded further when only this object is left. X-ray observations show many so-called super-Eddington sources associated with SSCs (Matsumoto et al. 2001, Strikland et al. 2001). It is not yet clear whether the observations indicate intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs, ranging from several hundreds to about one thousand solar masses, Ebisuzaki et al. 2001) or are due to the beam effect (King et al. 2001). If massive black holes do form in SSCs, they would most likely be at the center. Therefore, in our simulations, we consider two extreme cases: stripping is not allowed when the mass of the stripped SSC is less than $`1M_{}`$ and $`1000M_{}`$, respectively.

## 3 Results

Figure 1 shows the surface density profiles of simulated individual galaxies with high-density central components formed at 1 Gyr (with a proportion of about 65% and 90% for the larger and smaller halos, respectively). Comparing our simulations with the results of the HST survey by Carollo et al. (1999) is very instructive. Among their surveyed sources, 13 galaxies are of Hubble types Scd and later. For these galaxies (at distances greater than 13 Mpc) the smallest area the HST can resolve is 5 pc from the center. About 50% of the 13 galaxies contain exponential bulges with central stellar clusters. The remaining ones do not have accurate fits, though some of them display central cusps. Our mean model profiles (also in Fig.1) share some characteristics with the above observational results, i.e., the general presence of resolved compact clusters on top of the exponential bulges.

In order to give a quantitative comparison with the observations, following Carollo et al., we first fit the outer part of the mean profile with an exponential model. We then subtract this model of the exponential bulge, leaving the cusp component. This, in turn, is fit with the cusp model of Carollo & Stiavelli (1998, eq(3)), which was also used to fit the bulge of one Sd galaxy (ESO499 G37). The overall model is thus given by

$$\sigma (R)=\sigma _0\mathrm{exp}(1.678\frac{R}{R_e})+\sigma _1(1+\frac{R_c}{R})^\gamma \mathrm{exp}(\frac{R}{R_s})$$
(5)
The resulting profiles are also shown in Fig. 1, and the associated values of the parameters are given in Table 2. Except at radii less than about 2 pc, the fittings shown in Fig. 1 are quite satisfactory and are in agreement with HST observations. Recent HST observations, however, can not discriminate such a difference within about 2 pc, as we described above.

Table 2. The fitted values of parameters in (5)

| $`M_{200}`$ | $`\sigma _0`$ | $`R_e`$ | $`\sigma _1`$ | $`R_c`$ | $`\gamma `$ | $`R_s`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`(M_{})`$ | ($`M_{}/pc^2`$) | (pc) | ($`M_{}/pc^2`$) | ($`pc`$) |  | ($`pc`$) |
| $`10^{12}h^1`$ | 127 | 361 | 317 | 8 | 2.2 | 23 |
| $`3\times 10^{11}`$ | 146 | 327 | 212 | 18 | 1.7 | 27 |

The consistency between observations and simulations indicates that the dynamical evolution of SSCs proposed in this paper could be an explanation for the formation of exponential bulges with central stellar cusps for very late-type galaxies.

As mentioned above, the proportion of the bulges formed at 1 Gyr in the larger halo is significantly less than in the smaller halo, 65% vs. 90% . This is because larger halos have a stronger stripping effect on SSCs at a large distance from the center (due to their less centrally concentrated mass distribution), and, therefore, SSCs become less massive there, causing slower sinking to the bulge area. In a smaller halo, the SSCs can deposit more of their mass in the inner regions, as shown in Fig.2, resulting in more significant cusp components with $`R_c`$ a factor of 2 larger than in the larger halo, as indicated in Table 2. The close correspondences between other parameters in Table 2 follow from the similarities of the NFS density profiles with different masses (Navarro et al. 1997).

In order to see what could happen to the galaxies where no high-density central component is formed at 1 Gyr, we extend the simulation to 1.5 Gyr. The bulge formation rates are then increased to about 90% and 99% for the larger and smaller halos, respectively. This result implies that the proposed mechanism may be a viable mode for the formation of bulges and the nuclear star clusters.

The properties of the formed bulges, as shown in Fig. 1, are largely independent of the existence of IMBHs in SSCs, except for the region very near the galactic center (with radius of about 1 pc), as shown in Fig. 3. The difference arises because the tidal disruption cannot strip the SSC with only an IMBH left.

## 4 Discussion

In our simulation, we have made some assumptions either due to the lack of information or for simplicity. An important assumption is that the background is composed of dark matter only, though we have considered the background variation later. Indeed, this assumption is compatible with what we investigate in this paper: the formation of bulges at the early stage. Accordingly, the SSCs we have studied are circumnuclear ones presumably originating from the mergers of very late-type galaxies. These galaxies have disk components only. In this case, the dark matter dominates over luminous systems at all radii. As a first step of our investigations it is reasonable to make such an assumption. On the other hand, it is interesting to see what the theoretical prediction will be if more components are added, such as disks and a pre-existing bulge, in the background. The logical next step of our investigations is to study a way for the first-formed bulge to grow up further. Probably a new merger is needed. A new merger occurs between two disk galaxies with small bulges. A study of this kind is under our consideration.

As mentioned in Sect. 3, different halos will produce different bulge formation rates (more concentrated halos tend to be more effective in producing bulges). To try other halo models is under our consideration. Also, it would be very intriguing to consider a more realistic case, i.e., the one of halo variation incorporating several starbursts.

There would certainly be accumulated compact objects from the stripped inner part of the SSCs, as well as the remaining SSCs themselves—such as neutron stars, stellar BHs, or LMXBs with BHs—in the deep potential well of the galactic center. Whether these objects can form a BH at the galactic center is worth further study.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Mark Wilkinson, the referee, for his constructive comments, which helped to substantially improve the manuscript. Drs. W. Zheng and R. Hanisch are thanked for their kind help in improving the English. The authors are also grateful to Drs. Y.P. Jing, X.P. Wu, X.Y. Xia and C.G. Shu. for their valuable discussions. Fu is greatly indebted to the colleagues in Astronomie et Systemes Dynamiques, IMC-CNRS UMR8028. This work is supported by NKBRSF G19990754 and NSFC.