text:
# Surface Bundles versus Heegaard Splittings

## 1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to show a direct relationship between the action of a surface automorphism on the curve complex and the Heegaard splittings of the associated surface bundle.

We begin by restricting attention to automorphisms of closed orientable surfaces with genus at least two. Let $`\phi :FF`$ be such an automorphism. The translation distance, $`d_𝒞(\phi )`$, is the shortest distance $`\phi `$ moves any vertex in the curve complex. (We defer precise definitions to Section 2.) As a bit of notation let $`M(\phi )`$ denote the mapping torus of $`\phi `$. The following theorem gives a link between translation distance and essential surfaces in $`M(\phi )`$.

Theorem 3.1. If $`GM(\phi )`$ is a connected, orientable, incompressible surface then either $`G`$ is isotopic to a fibre, $`G`$ is homeomorphic to a torus, or $`d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (G)`$.

An underlying theme in the study of Heegaard splittings is that, in many instances, strongly irreducible splitting surfaces may take the place of incompressible surfaces. We prove:

Theorem 6.1. If $`H`$ is a strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting of $`M(\phi )`$ then

$$d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (H).$$

This result gives new information about Heegaard splittings of hyperbolic three-manifolds. Previous work, by Y. Moriah and H. Rubinstein , discussed the low genus splittings of negatively-curved manifolds with very short geodesics. Restricting attention to surface bundles and applying Theorems 6.1 and 3.1 gives:

Corollary 3.2. Any Heegaard splitting $`H`$ of the mapping torus $`M(\phi )`$ with $`\chi (H)<d_𝒞(\phi )`$ is a stabilization of the standard splitting.

This improves a result due, independently, to H. Rubinstein  and M. Lackenby  (see our Corollary 3.4).

The two theorems indicate an interesting connection between the combinatorics of the curve complex and the topology of three-manifolds. This is in accordance with other work. For example, Y. Minsky et.al. have used the curve complex to prove the Ending Lamination Conjecture. A major step is using a path in the curve complex to give a model of the geometry of a hyperbolic three-manifold.

Another example of this connection is found in  and . These papers study surface bundles where the fibre is a once punctured torus. Here the Farey graph takes the place of the curve complex. An analysis of $`\phi `$-invariant lines in the Farey graph allows a complete classification of incompressible surfaces in such bundles.

As we shall see in the proofs of Theorems 6.1 and 3.1, essential surfaces and strongly irreducible splittings in the mapping torus $`M(\phi )`$ yield $`\phi `$-invariant lines in the curve complex of the fibre. It is intriguing to speculate upon axioms for such lines which would, perhaps, lead to classification results for essential surfaces or strongly irreducible splittings. This would be a significant step in the over-all goal of understanding the topology of surface bundles.

At the heart of our proof of Theorem 6.1 lies the idea of a “graphic”, due to Rubinstein and Scharlemann . The graphic is obtained, as in D. Cooper and M. Scharlemann’s paper , by comparing the bundle structure with a given height function and applying Cerf theory. As in their work, our situation requires a delicate analysis of behavior at the vertices of the graphic.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: basic definitions regarding Heegaard splittings, surface bundles, and the curve complex are found in Section 2. With this background we restate the main theorem and corollaries in Section 3. Of main importance is the nature of simple closed curve intersections between a fibre of the bundle and the Heegaard splitting under discussion. This is covered in Section 4, in addition to a preliminary sketch of the proof of Theorem 6.1. Our version of the Rubinstein-Scharlemann graphic is discussed in Section 5. Concluding the paper Section 6 proves Theorem 6.1 and poses a few open questions. We also discuss the possibility of strengthening the inequality given in the main theorem. For example, using a larger “moduli space” such as the pants complex or Teichmuller space does not work.

We thank I. Agol and M. Culler for several helpful conversations. In particular Agol has shown us a construction, using techniques from his paper , of surface bundles over the circle containing strongly irreducible splittings of high genus.

## 2. Background material

This section presents the definitions used in this paper. A more complete reference for the curve complex may be found in  while the paper  is an excellent survey on Heegaard splittings.

### 2.1. The curve complex

Fix a closed orientable surface $`F`$ with genus $`g(F)2`$. If $`\alpha F`$ is an essential simple closed curve then let $`[\alpha ]`$ be the isotopy class of $`\alpha `$.

###### Definition.

The set $`\{[\alpha _0],\mathrm{},[\alpha _k]\}`$ determines a $`k`$-simplex if for all $`ij`$ the isotopy classes $`[\alpha _i]`$, $`[\alpha _j]`$ are distinct and there are $`\alpha _i^{}[\alpha _i]`$, $`\alpha _j^{}[\alpha _j]`$ with $`\alpha _i^{}\alpha _j^{}=\mathrm{}`$.

###### Definition.

The curve complex of $`F`$ is the simplicial complex $`𝒞(F)`$ given by the union of all simplices, as above.

We will restrict our attention to the zero and one-skeleta, $`𝒞^0(F)𝒞^1(F)`$. Giving each edge length one the graph $`𝒞^1(F)`$ becomes a metric space. Let $`d_𝒞(\alpha ,\beta )`$ be the distance between the vertices $`[\alpha ],[\beta ]𝒞^0(F)`$. When it can cause no confusion we will not distinguish between an essential simple closed curve and its isotopy class.

###### Definition.

Suppose that $`\phi `$ is a homeomorphism of $`F`$. The translation distance of $`\phi `$ is

$$d_𝒞(\phi )=\mathrm{min}\{d_𝒞(\alpha ,\phi (\alpha ))\alpha 𝒞^0(F)\}.$$

### 2.2. Heegaard splittings

Fix a compact, orientable three-manifold $`M`$. Recall that a compression-body is a three-manifold obtained as follows: Choose a closed, orientable surface $`H`$ which is not a two-sphere. Let $`N=H\times I`$. Attach two-handles to the boundary component $`H\times \{0\}`$. Glue three-handles to all remaining boundary components which are two-spheres. We henceforth identify $`H`$ with the surface $`H\times \{1\}V`$.

If the resulting compression-body has only one boundary component then it is a handlebody.

###### Definition.

A surface $`HM`$ is a Heegaard splitting of $`M`$ if $`H`$ cuts $`M`$ into a pair of compression-bodies $`V`$ and $`W`$.

###### Definition.

A properly embedded disk $`D`$ inside a compression-body $`V`$ is essential if $`DHV`$ is essential.

Using this simple definition we arrive at an important notion, introduced by A. Casson and C. Gordon :

###### Definition.

A Heegaard splitting $`HM`$ is strongly irreducible if all pairs of essential disks $`DV`$ and $`EW`$ satisfy $`DE\mathrm{}`$.

If the splitting $`H`$ is not strongly irreducible then $`H`$ is weakly reducible. M. Scharlemann’s  “no nesting” lemma shows the strength of Casson and Gordon’s definition:

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`HM`$ is a strongly irreducible splitting and $`DM`$ is an embedded disk with $`DH`$ and with $`\mathrm{interior}(D)`$ transverse to $`H`$. Then there is a disk $`D^{}`$ properly embedded in $`V`$ or $`W`$ with $`D^{}=D`$.

We take the following bit of terminology almost directly from . Let $`M=F\times I`$ where $`F`$ is a closed orientable surface. Let $`\alpha =\{\mathrm{pt}\}\times \mathrm{I}`$ be a properly embedded arc. Take $`N`$ a closed regular neighborhood of $`M\alpha `$ in $`M`$. Let $`H=NM`$. Then $`H`$ is the standard type 2 splitting of $`M`$. The standard type 1 splitting is isotopic to the surface $`F\times \{1/2\}`$.

Scharlemann and Thompson then prove:

###### Theorem 2.2.

Every Heegaard splitting of $`M=F\times I`$ is a stabilization of the standard type 1 or 2 splitting.

Note that it is common to refer to stablizations of “the” standard splitting as being standard themselves.

### 2.3. Surface bundles

Fix $`F`$, a closed, orientable surface with genus $`g(F)2`$. Let $`\phi :FF`$ be a surface diffeomorphism which preserves orientation.

###### Definition.

The surface bundle with monodromy $`\phi `$ is the manifold

$$M(\phi )=(F\times [0,2\pi ])/\{(x,2\pi )(\phi (x),0)\}.$$

Let $`F(\theta )`$ be the image of $`F\times \theta `$. These surfaces are fibres of the bundle $`M(\phi )`$. There is a natural smooth map $`\pi _F:M(\phi )S^1`$ defined by $`\pi _F(x)=\theta `$ whenever $`xF(\theta )`$. The map $`\pi _F`$ realizes $`M(\phi )`$ as a surface bundle over the circle.

We now define the standard Heegaard splitting of the surface bundle $`M(\phi )`$. Pick $`x,yF`$ such that $`xy`$ and $`\phi (y)x`$. Fix $`A`$ and $`B`$ disjoint closures of regular neighborhoods of $`x\times [0,\pi ]`$ and $`y\times [\pi ,2\pi ]`$ respectively. Set

$$V=\overline{(F\times [\pi ,2\pi ]B)A}$$

and

$$W=\overline{(F\times [0,\pi ]A)B}.$$

Then $`H=V=W`$ is the standard Heegaard splitting of $`M(\phi )`$. Note that the genus of the standard splitting is $`2g(F)+1`$. Finally, the standard splitting is always weakly reducible because the tubes $`AH`$ and $`BH`$ admit disjoint compressing disks.

## 3. Main theorem and corollaries

Let $`F`$ be a closed orientable surface with genus $`g(F)2`$. Let $`\phi :FF`$ be an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism. The surface bundle $`M(\phi )`$ is irreducible and has minimal Heegaard genus two or larger. Here then is a precise statement of our main theorem:

Theorem 6.1. If $`HM(\phi )`$ is a strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting then the translation distance of $`\phi `$ is at most the negative Euler characteristic of $`H`$. That is,

$$d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (H).$$

This is a deeper version of the following theorem (from ):

###### Theorem 3.1.

If $`GM(\phi )`$ is a connected, orientable, incompressible surface then either

* $`G`$ is isotopic to a fibre or
* $`G`$ is a torus and $`d_𝒞(\phi )1`$ or
* $`d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (G)`$.

For completeness we include a proof.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.1..

Suppose that $`G`$ is not isotopic to a fibre of the surface bundle. If $`G`$ is a torus then the map $`\phi `$ is reducible. It follows that $`d_𝒞(\phi )1`$. Assume, therefore, that $`G`$ is not a torus.

Briefly, the rest of the proof is as follows: Isotope $`G`$ into a “good position” and examine the transverse intersections of $`G`$ with the fibres. From these extract a sequence of curves which provide a path in the curve complex of the fibre. This path gives the desired bound. Here are the details.

Applying a theorem of W. Thurston  isotope $`G`$ until all non-transverse intersections with the fibres occur at a finite number of saddle tangencies. Furthermore, there is at most one tangency between $`G`$ and any fibre $`F(\theta )`$.

It follows that every transverse curve of intersection between $`G`$ and $`F(\theta )`$ is essential in both surfaces. Any transverse curve failing this would, perforce, be inessential in both. But that would lead directly to a center tangency between $`G`$ and some fibre.

Let $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ be the critical angles where $`G`$ fails to be transverse to $`F(\theta _i)`$. Every critical angle gives a saddle for $`G`$. It follows that $`n=\chi (G)2`$ as $`G`$ is orientable and not a torus. Pick regular angles $`\{\tau _i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ where $`\theta _{i1}<\tau _i<\theta _i`$, with indices taken mod $`n`$. Apply a rotation to force $`\tau _0=0=2\pi `$. Let $`\alpha _i`$ be any curve component of $`F(\tau _i)G`$ and recall that $`\alpha _iF(\tau _i)`$ is essential.

The curve $`\alpha _{i+1}`$ may be isotoped back through $`F\times [\tau _i,\tau _{i+1}]`$ to lie on the fibre $`F(\tau _i)`$, disjointly from $`\alpha _i`$. See Figure 1. In this fashion produce a sequence of curves $`\{\alpha _i^{}\}_{i=0}^n`$ (indices not taken mod $`n`$) in $`F(\tau _0)=F(0)`$ such that

* $`\alpha _i^{}`$ is isotopic to $`\alpha _i`$ through $`F\times [0,\tau _i]`$ for $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ while $`\alpha _0^{}=\alpha _0`$ and $`\alpha _n^{}`$ is obtained by isotoping $`\alpha _0`$ off of $`F(2\pi )`$ back through $`F\times [0,2\pi ]`$,
* $`\alpha _i^{}\alpha _{i+1}^{}=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$, and
* $`\phi (\alpha _n^{})`$ is isotopic to $`\alpha _0^{}`$.

Thus

$$d_𝒞(\phi )d_𝒞(\alpha _n^{},\phi (\alpha _n^{}))n=\chi (G)$$

and the theorem follows. ∎

Theorems 6.1 and 3.1 have direct consequences:

###### Corollary 3.2.

Any Heegaard splitting $`HM(\phi )`$ satisfying $`\chi (H)<d_𝒞(\phi )`$ is a stabilization of the standard splitting.

###### Remark 3.3.

In particular, when the translation distance of $`\phi `$ is bigger than $`4g(F)`$, the standard splitting is the unique minimal genus splitting, up to isotopy.

###### Corollary 3.4.

Suppose that $`\phi `$ is pseudo-Anosov. If $`n`$ is sufficiently large then the standard Heegaard splitting of $`M(\phi ^n)`$ is the unique splitting of minimal genus, up to isotopy.

This follows from our Corollary 3.2 and Lemma 4.6 of .

###### Remark 3.5.

H. Rubinstein  and M. Lackenby  have independently and concurrently obtained Corollary 3.4 using techniques from minimal surface theory. Note also that a closed hyperbolic surface bundle $`M(\phi )`$ is covered by the bundle $`M(\phi ^n)`$. Thus Corollary 3.4 may be considered as weak evidence for a “yes” answer to M. Boileau’s question, stated as Problem 3.88 in .

###### Proof of Corollary 3.2.

Let $`HM(\phi )`$ be a Heegaard splitting with $`\chi (H)<d_𝒞(\phi )`$. As the genus of the fibre $`F`$ is two or greater, the genus of $`H`$ is at least two. Thus the translation distance $`d_𝒞(\phi )>2`$ and $`\phi `$ is irreducible. By Theorem 6.1 the splitting $`H`$ cannot be strongly irreducible. Thus $`H`$ is weakly reducible.

If $`H`$ is reducible then $`H`$ is stabilized as $`M`$ is irreducible . In this case destabilize $`H`$ and apply induction. Suppose instead that $`H`$ is irreducible. Following  there are disjoint disk systems $`𝐃V`$ and $`𝐄W`$ with the following property: compressing $`H`$ along $`𝐃𝐄`$ and deleting all resulting two-sphere components yields a nonempty incompressible surface $`G`$. This surface need not be connected. Also note that $`\chi (G)<\chi (H)`$.

If a component of $`G`$ were a torus then either the genus of $`F`$ was one or $`\phi `$ was reducible. Both possibilities yield contradiction. If a component of $`G`$ is not isotopic to the fibre then apply Theorem 3.1 to find $`d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (G)<\chi (H)`$. Again, this gives a contradiction.

The only possibility remaining is that $`G`$ is isotopic to a collection of fibres. Note that the surface $`G`$ was obtained via compressing a separating surface. Thus $`G`$ itself must be separating. Hence $`G`$ is the union of an even number of fibres. Thus the genus of $`H`$ is at least that of the standard splitting. (Note that even this much of the proof establishes, when $`d_𝒞(\phi )>4g(F)`$, that the standard splitting has minimal genus.)

Let $`NF\times I`$ be the closure of some component of $`MG`$. Let $`𝐀`$ be the compressing disks of $`𝐃𝐄`$ which meet $`N`$. Finally, let $`H^{}N`$ be the surface obtained by compressing $`H`$ along all disks of $`(𝐃𝐄)𝐀`$.

Then $`H^{}`$ is a Heegaard splitting for $`N`$ such that both boundary components of $`N`$ lie on the same side of $`H^{}`$. By Theorem 2.2 it follows that $`H^{}`$ is a stabilization of standard type 2 splitting of $`NF\times I`$. The identical argument applies to all other components of $`M(\phi )G`$. We conclude that $`H`$ is obtained by amalgamation of these splittings (see ). It follows that $`H`$ itself is a stabilization of the standard splitting of $`M(\phi )`$ and this completes the proof. ∎

## 4. Analyzing intersections

Briefly, the proof of Theorem 6.1 is as follows: Isotope the splitting surface $`H`$ into a “good position” and examine the transverse intersections of $`H`$ with the fibres. From these extract a sequence of curves which provide a path in the curve complex of the fibre. This path gives the desired bound. As might be expected the details are more delicate than in the proof of Theorem 3.1. In particular a replacement for Thurston’s theorem is needed.

The rest of this section discusses the nature of intersections between a Heegaard splitting surface and the fibres of a surface bundle over the circle.

Fix a surface automorphism $`\phi :FF`$. Recall that $`\pi _F:M(\phi )S^1`$ is the associated map realizing $`M(\phi )`$ as a bundle over the circle. Let $`HM(\phi )`$ be a Heegaard splitting. Pick a fibre $`F(\theta )=\pi _F^1(\theta )`$ which meets $`H`$ transversely.

###### Definition.

A simple closed curve component $`\alpha F(\theta )H`$ is non-compressing if $`\alpha `$ is either essential in both surfaces or inessential in both.

Note that, as $`F(\theta )`$ is incompressible, no curve of intersection may be essential in $`F(\theta )`$ and also inessential in the splitting surface.

###### Definition.

A simple closed curve component $`\alpha F(\theta )H`$ is mutually essential if $`\alpha `$ is essential in both surfaces. The curve $`\alpha `$ is mutually inessential if $`\alpha `$ is inessential in both surfaces.

Wiggle $`H`$ slightly so that $`\pi _F|H`$ is a Morse function. Let $`pH`$ be a saddle critical point of $`\pi _F|H`$. Let $`c=\pi _F(p)`$ and let $`P`$ be the component of $`H\pi _F^1[cϵ,c+ϵ]`$ containing $`p`$.

###### Definition.

If every component of $`P`$ is mutually essential we call $`p`$ an essential saddle. If every component of $`P`$ is non-compressing but at least one is inessential in $`H`$ then we call $`p`$ an inessential saddle.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Fix $`HM(\phi )`$ so that $`\pi _F|H`$ is Morse. If $`F^{}`$ is isotopic to the fibre $`F(\theta )`$, the surface $`H^{}`$ is isotopic to $`H`$, and $`F^{}`$ is transverse to $`H^{}`$ then $`F^{}H^{}`$ contains at least one curve which is not a mutually inessential curve.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`F^{}H^{}`$ meet only in mutually inessential curves. Then, by an innermost disk argument, there is a further isotopy making them disjoint. This cannot be, as handlebodies do not contain closed embedded incompressible surfaces. ∎

###### Lemma 4.2.

Fix $`HM(\phi )`$ so that $`\pi _F|H`$ is Morse. Suppose angles $`\theta _{}<\theta _+`$ are given such that:

* The splitting $`H`$ intersects $`F(\theta _\pm )`$ transversely.
* For every angle $`\theta [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$ all simple closed curve components of $`F(\theta )H`$ are non-compressing.
* Every saddle of $`\pi _F|H`$ in $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$ is inessential.

Then there is a curve of $`F(\theta _{})H`$, essential in $`F(\theta _{})`$, which is isotopic, through $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$, to a curve of $`F(\theta _+)H`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{\theta _i\}`$ be the critical angles of $`\pi _F|H`$ which lie in $`[\theta _{},\theta _+]`$. Choose $`r_i`$ slightly greater than the $`\theta _i`$ and let $`R=\{r_i\}\{\theta _{}+ϵ\}`$. Refer to $`R`$ as the set of regular angles.

For every $`rR`$ surger $`H`$ along every curve of $`F(r)H`$ which bounds a disk in $`F(r)`$, innermost first. Let $`H^{}`$ be the intersection of the surgered surface with $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$. Note that $`\pi _F|H^{}`$ has exactly two new critical points for every surgery curve. See Figure 2.

###### Claim.

The surface $`H^{}`$ is a union of spheres, disks, and annuli. Every annulus component has boundary which is essential in one of the $`F(\theta _\pm )`$.

###### Proof.

Fix attention on a component $`H^{\prime \prime }H^{}`$. Begin by examining the critical points of $`\pi _F|H^{\prime \prime }`$ and drawing conclusions about the Euler characteristic of $`H^{\prime \prime }`$.

If $`\pi _F|H^{\prime \prime }`$ has no critical points then $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is a horizontal annulus. In this case the boundary of $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ must be essential in its fibre, by the construction of $`H^{}`$. Note that this kind of situation is the desired conclusion of the lemma at hand.

If $`\pi _F|H^{\prime \prime }`$ has more critical points of even index than odd then $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is a disk or sphere.

Now, suppose $`pH^{\prime \prime }`$ is a critical point of saddle type and let $`\pi _F(p)=\theta `$. Let $`P`$ be the component of $`H\pi _F^1[\theta ϵ,\theta +ϵ]`$ meeting $`p`$.

As $`p`$ is not an essential saddle at least one boundary component of $`P`$ is inessential in its fibre. If all three are inessential then $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is a two-sphere. If exactly two components of $`P`$ are inessential in their fibres then one of the two surfaces $`F(\theta \pm ϵ)`$ is compressible in $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$, a contradiction. Assume, therefore, that exactly one component of $`P`$ is inessential in the containing fibre. Call this curve $`\alpha `$.

Assume that $`\pi _F(\alpha )=\theta ϵ`$; that is, the inessential curve $`\alpha `$ lies to the left of the saddle point. (The other case is handled similarly.) Let $`rR`$ be the regular value appearing just before the critical value $`\theta =\pi _F(p)`$. That is, $`r<\theta ϵ<\theta `$. Note that $`\pi _F|H`$ has no critical values between $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. See Figure 3.

Deduce that, in the surface $`H`$, there is a horizontal annulus isotopic to $`\alpha \times [r,\theta ϵ]`$. Thus the surface $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ has a center tangency with the fibre just before the angle $`r`$. This gives a disk capping off the curve $`\alpha `$. Again, see Figure 3. It follows that every saddle in $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is paired with at least one critical point of even index. Thus, if not a sphere or disk, $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is an annulus.

Finally, if $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ is an annulus then $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ has two boundary components. By construction, each of these is an essential curve in one of the surfaces $`F(\theta _\pm )`$. This finishes the claim. ∎

Now to complete the proof of the lemma. Suppose that no component of $`H^{}`$ meets both boundary components of $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$. Thus, by the claim, every component of $`H^{}`$ meeting $`F(\theta _{})`$ is boundary parallel in $`F\times [\theta _{},\theta _+]`$. Isotope $`F(\theta _{})`$ across these boundary-parallelisms to obtain a surface $`F^{}`$ which intersects the splitting surface $`H`$ only in mutually inessential curves. This contradicts Lemma 4.1.

So there is a component $`H^{\prime \prime }H^{}`$ which meets both $`F(\theta _{})`$ and $`F(\theta _+)`$. By the claim above this $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ must be isotopic to a horizontal annulus with boundary essential in the containing fibres. The lemma is proved. ∎

## 5. The graphic and its labellings

To begin, this section discusses height functions subordinate to a Heegaard splitting. We then compare one of these to a bundle structure to obtain a “graphic” in the sense of . This technique is similar that of . We also refer to  as an informative paper on this topic.

Fix attention now on a Heegaard splitting $`H`$ of a closed, orientable, three-manifold $`M`$. Recall that $`H`$ cuts $`M`$ into a pair of handlebodies $`V`$ and $`W`$.

### 5.1. Height functions

Choose a diffeomorphism between the handlebody $`V`$ and a regular neighborhood of a connected, finite, polygonal graph $`\mathrm{\Theta }^3`$. For simplicity assume that every vertex of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has valence two or three. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ be the image of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ inside of $`V`$. Any such $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ is a spine of $`V`$.

###### Definition.

A smooth map $`\pi _H:MI`$ is a height function with respect to the splitting $`H`$ if

* the level $`H(t)=\pi _H^1(t)`$ is isotopic to $`H`$ for all $`t(0,1)`$,
* the graphs $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V=\pi _H^1(0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_W=\pi _H^1(1)`$ are spines for $`V`$ and $`W`$,
* there is a map $`h:H\times IM`$ (a sweep-out) such that

+ $`h|H\times (0,1)`$ is a diffeomorphism,
    + $`\pi _Hh`$ is projection onto the second factor,
    + for small $`ϵ`$ the image of $`h|H\times [0,ϵ]`$ gives the structure of a mapping cylinder to $`V(ϵ)=\pi _H^1[0,t]`$, for some deformation retraction $`V(ϵ)\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$,
    + the previous condition also holds for the handlebody $`W(1ϵ)=\pi _h^1[1ϵ,1]`$.

The last two conditions on the sweep-out ensure that if an embedded surface $`F(M,H)`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Theta }_W`$) transversely then $`FV(ϵ)`$ (or $`FW(1ϵ)`$) is a collection of properly embedded disks.

### 5.2. The graphic

Let $`HM(\phi )`$ be a Heegaard splitting of the given surface bundle. Choose a bundle map, $`\pi _F`$, and a height function, $`\pi _H`$, as above and insist that the two functions are generic with respect to each other. Define the map $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }:M(\phi )S^1\times I`$ by $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=(\pi _F(x),\pi _H(x))`$. As a bit of terminology, we sometimes call $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F(\theta ))`$ a vertical arc and call $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t))`$ a horizontal circle. Also, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)=\pi _{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\theta ,t)=F(\theta )H(t)`$.

The graphic of the map $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\pi _F,\pi _H)`$ is the set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\overline{\{(\theta ,t)S^1\times (0,1)F(\theta )\text{ is not transverse to }H(t)\}}$$

where the closure is taken in $`S^1\times I`$. As in the papers cited above: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a graph with smooth edges meeting the boundary of the annulus transversely.

###### Definition.

The regions of the graphic are the open cells of $`S^1\times (0,1)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

If $`(\theta ,t)`$ is a point of a region then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)=F(\theta )H(t)`$ is a collection of simple closed curves embedded in $`M(\phi )`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

Suppose that $`(\theta ,t),(\theta ^{},t^{})`$ are two points in the same region. Then the combinatorics of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ^{},t^{})`$ are identical, as follows:

Suppose that $`\alpha `$ is a short horizontal or vertical arc embedded in the interior of a region $`R`$. Suppose also that $`(\theta ,t),(\theta ^{},t^{})`$ are the endpoints of $`\alpha `$. Let $`\gamma `$ be a component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$. Then there is an ambient isotopy taking $`\gamma `$ to $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ^{},t^{})`$ supported in a neighborhood of an annulus of $`F(\theta )`$ (if $`\alpha `$ is vertical) or an annulus of $`H(t)`$ (if $`\alpha `$ is horizontal). Furthermore this ambient isotopy may be chosen to take $`F(\theta )`$ to $`F(\theta ^{})`$ and $`H(t)`$ to $`H(t^{})`$

By crawling along horizontal and vertical arcs any pair of points in $`R`$ may be joined. Thus most properties of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ depend only on the region containing $`(\theta ,t)`$.

As above, the edges are the one-dimensional strata of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Remark 5.2.

When $`(\theta ,t)`$ lies on an edge there is one component, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\theta ,t)`$, of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ which is not a simple closed curve. This $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the singular component. The name of the point $`(\theta ,t)`$ is omitted when clear from context.

There are two kinds of edge: those representing a center tangency between a fibre and a level surface and those representing a saddle tangency. Crossing an edge of the graphic from region $`R`$ to $`R^{}`$ causes the combinatorics of the curves to change. If the edge represents a center tangency then a single curve of $`R`$ disappears (appears). It follows that this curve is mutually inessential; in other words it bounds a disk in both the fibre and the level. In this situation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a single point.

If the edge represents a saddle then two curves in $`R`$ touch as the edge is crossed and become a single curve in $`R^{}`$ (or the reverse). When $`(\theta ,t)`$ lies on such an edge the singular component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a four valent graph with one vertex, embedded in both the fibre $`F(\theta )`$ and the level $`H(t)`$.

The vertices are the zero-dimensional strata of the graphic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Remark 5.3.

There are several possibilities for a vertex $`v=(\theta ,t)`$:

1. All vertices of valence one occur at height $`0`$ or $`1`$.
2. A vertex with valence two in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a birth-death vertex. Both edges lie in the same quadrant with respect to the vertex. (As in .) See Figure 4.
3. A vertex of valence four is a crossing vertex. Here the four edges lie in distinct quadrants and the tangent directions of opposite edges agree. The edges cut a small neighborhood of the vertex into four regions. Again see Figure 4. There are two further subcases:

* If the singular component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ has two components then $`v`$ is a disjoint crossing vertex.
    * If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has only one component then $`v`$ has entangled saddles. In this case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a four valent graph with exactly two vertices.

Finally, general position implies that for every angle $`\theta `$ the vertical arc $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F(\theta ))=\{\theta \}\times I`$ meets the graphic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at most once nontransversely, either at a vertex or at a tangency with the interior of an edge. The same holds for horizontal circles $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t))=S^1\times \{t\}`$.

### 5.3. Labellings

The following labellings will play an important role in the proof of Theorem 6.1. Recall that the level surface $`H(t)`$ cuts $`M(\phi )`$ into a pair of handlebodies $`V(t)`$ and $`W(t)`$.

###### Definition.

For each $`t(0,1)`$ the level $`H(t)`$ is labelled $`𝕍`$ (or $`𝕎`$) if there is a value $`\theta [0,2\pi ]`$ and a simple closed curve component $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)=F(\theta )H(t)`$ which bounds an essential disk in $`V(t)`$ (resp. $`W(t)`$).

A slightly finer labelling is also required.

###### Definition.

A region $`R`$ is labelled with a $`𝕍`$ (or $`𝕎`$) if there is a $`(\theta ,t)R`$ and a simple closed curve component $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ such that $`\gamma `$ bounds an essential disk in $`V(t)`$ ($`W(t)`$).

As we shall see in the proof below each level and region receives at most one label (or none at all) and these labels reveal a great deal of information about relative positions of the fibre and level surface.

## 6. Proof of the main theorem

This section, after reiterating the statement, proves our main theorem.

###### Theorem 6.1.

If $`HM(\phi )`$ is a strongly irreducible Heegaard splitting then the translation distance of $`\phi `$ is at most the negative Euler characteristic of $`H`$. That is,

$$d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (H).$$

Pick a bundle map $`\pi _F:M(\phi )S^1`$ and a height function $`\pi _H:M(\phi )I`$ which respect the given fibre and splitting. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V=\pi _H^1(0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_W=\pi _H^1(1)`$ are spines for the handlebodies $`V`$ and $`W`$, respectively, while the surfaces $`H(t)=\pi _H^1(t)`$ impose a product structure on $`M(\phi )(\mathrm{\Theta }_V\mathrm{\Theta }_W)`$.

As above obtain a graphic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the annulus $`S^1\times I`$. We begin by obtaining a few fairly standard facts about the labellings defined in the previous section.

### 6.1. Analyzing the labelling

###### Claim 6.2.

For all sufficiently small positive values $`ϵ`$ the level $`H(ϵ)`$ is labelled $`𝕍`$ while $`H(1ϵ)`$ is labelled $`𝕎`$.

This follows directly from the construction of the height function and genericity.

###### Claim 6.3.

No level or region is labelled with both a $`𝕍`$ and a $`𝕎`$. Also, if a region $`R`$ is labelled then every level $`H(t)`$, such that $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t))R\mathrm{}`$, receives the same label. Finally, if a level $`H(t)`$ is labelled then some region meeting $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t))`$ receives the same label.

This follows from strong irreducibility, the fact that the curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)=F(\theta )H(t)`$ form a singular foliation of $`H(t)`$, and Remark 5.1.

###### Remark 6.4.

Suppose that $`H(t)`$ is labelled and $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ is a witness of this fact. Then there is a $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ^{},t)`$ which is also a witness, for all $`\theta ^{}`$ sufficiently close to $`\theta `$.

###### Remark 6.5.

Suppose $`H(t)`$ is labelled with a $`𝕍`$ (or $`𝕎`$). By incompressibility of $`F(\theta )`$ the given curve $`\gamma `$ bounds a disk $`DF(\theta )`$. By the “no nesting” lemma, Lemma 2.1, $`D`$ is isotopic rel $`\gamma `$ to a disk properly embedded in $`V(t)`$ (resp. $`W(t)`$).

From Remark 5.2 deduce:

###### Claim 6.6.

If two regions are both adjacent to an edge representing a center tangency, then both regions have the same label.

The next claim is not strictly required for the proof of Theorem 6.1. We include it both to simplify our proof of the theorem and to shed light on the general situation.

###### Claim 6.7.

Suppose that $`H(t^{})`$ is labelled $`𝕍`$. Suppose $`0<t<t^{}`$. Then $`H(t)`$ is labelled $`𝕍`$ as well. Identically, if $`t^{}<t<1`$ and $`H(t^{})`$ is labelled $`𝕎`$, then $`H(t)`$ is labelled $`𝕎`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the case where $`H(t^{})`$ is labelled $`𝕍`$. By hypothesis we are given an angle $`\theta ^{}`$ and a curve $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ^{},t^{})`$ bounding an essential disk in $`V(t^{})`$. We may choose an angle $`\theta `$ close to $`\theta ^{}`$ so that firstly, by Remark 6.4, there is a curve $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t^{})`$ bounding an essential disk in $`V(t)`$ and secondly, by general position, the point $`(\theta ,t)`$ lies in a region of the graphic. That is, $`(\theta ,t)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

By Remark 6.5 the curve $`\gamma ^{}`$ bounds a disk $`D^{}F(\theta )`$. Furthermore, choosing a different $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t^{})`$ if necessary, assume that $`\gamma ^{}`$ is “innermost.” That is, all curves of $`\mathrm{interior}(D^{})H(t^{})`$ are inessential in $`H(t^{})`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{},t)=D^{}H(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$. Suppose that all components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{},t)`$ are inessential in $`H(t)`$. Isotope $`D^{}`$ rel $`\gamma ^{}`$ off of $`H(t)`$ to a disk $`E`$ with $`EV(t)=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`N=\overline{V(t^{})V(t)}`$ and note that $`NH\times I`$ while $`N=H(t)H(t^{})`$. Thus we may further isotope $`E`$ rel $`\gamma ^{}`$ out of $`\mathrm{interior}(N)`$. This pushes $`E`$ to a disk $`E^{}W(t^{})`$. Thus $`\gamma ^{}`$ either bounds an essential disk in $`W(t^{})`$ or is trivial in $`H(t^{})`$. The first implies that $`H`$ is reducible while the second directly contradicts the hypothesis of the claim.

Thus there is a curve, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(D^{},t)`$, which is essential in $`H(t)`$ and is the innermost such in $`D^{}`$. Let $`DD^{}`$ be the disk which $`\gamma `$ bounds. Recall that all curves of $`\mathrm{interior}(D)N`$ are inessential in $`N`$. So there is an isotopy of $`D`$ rel $`\gamma `$ to a disk lying inside of $`M(\phi )(H(t^{})H(t))`$.

Now, if this disk lies in $`N=\overline{V(t^{})V(t)}`$ then $`\gamma `$ could not be essential in $`H(t)`$. It follows that $`\gamma `$ bounds a disk in $`V(t)`$. Thus $`H(t)`$ is labelled with a $`𝕍`$, as claimed. ∎

As a bit of notation set $`L(V)=\{t(0,1)H(t)\text{ is labelled }𝕍\}`$ and $`L(W)=\{t(0,1)H(t)\text{ is labelled }𝕎\}`$. Define $`t_V=supL(V)`$ and $`t_W=infL(W)`$

###### Claim 6.8.

The sets $`L(V)`$ and $`L(W)(0,1)`$ are nonempty, disjoint, connected, and open. Also, $`t_Vt_W`$.

###### Proof.

The first sentence follows from Claims 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, and the fact that if $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t)`$ is a simple closed curve then there are $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,tϵ)`$ and $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t+ϵ)`$ with combinatorics identical to $`\gamma `$. The second follows from the fact that $`L(V)`$, $`L(W)`$ are disjoint open intervals and that $`infL(V)=0`$ by Claim 6.2. ∎

It follows that if $`t_Vt_0t_W`$ then $`H(t_0)`$ is unlabelled.

### 6.2. Analyzing the unlabelled level

The unlabelled level $`H(t_0)`$ found above will serve as a replacement for Thurston’s theorem used in the proof of Theorem 3.1. There are two cases to consider: $`t_V<t_W`$ or $`t_V=t_W`$. Each is dealt with, in turn, below.

### 6.3. Unlabelled interval

Suppose that $`t_V<t_W`$. Pick a level $`H(t_0)`$ which avoids the vertices of the graphic, which is not tangent to any edge of the graphic, and has $`t_V<t_0<t_W`$. It immediately follows that for every $`\theta `$ and for every nonsingular $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta ,t_0)`$ the curve $`\gamma `$ is non-compressing — either essential in both $`F(\theta )`$ and $`H(t_0)`$ or inessential in both. In the terminology of Rubinstein-Scharlemann  the level $`H(t_0)`$ is compression-free with respect to every fibre.

We now come to the heart of this case: Let $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ be the critical angles of $`\pi _F|H(t_0)`$ corresponding to essential saddles. (As defined in Section 4, the saddle point $`p`$ is essential when all boundary components of the associated pair of pants are mutually essential curves.) Choose the indexing so that $`\theta _i<\theta _{i+1}`$ are adjacent.

Suppose first that $`n=0`$. Rotate the $`S^1`$ coordinate, if necessary, so that $`F(0)`$ meets $`H(t_0)`$ transversely. Cut $`M(\phi )`$ along $`F(0)`$. Note that $`H(t_0)`$, inside of $`F\times [0,2\pi ]`$, satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 4.2. Thus there is an mutually essential curve of $`F(0)H(t_0)`$ isotopic, through $`F\times [0,2\pi ]`$, to a curve of $`F(2\pi )`$. Thus $`d_𝒞(\phi )1<2\chi (H)`$, as desired.

Suppose now that $`n>0`$. Choose $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small and positive. So, for each critical angle, there is an essential saddle in $`H(t_0)(F\times [\theta _iϵ,\theta _i+ϵ])`$. The pair of pants given by this saddle contributes $`1`$ to the Euler characteristic of $`H(t_0)`$. Thus $`n\chi (H)`$.

By Lemma 4.2, there are also mutually essential curves $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _i+ϵ,t_0)`$ and $`\alpha _i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _{i+1}ϵ,t_0)`$ such that $`\alpha _i^{}`$ is isotopic to $`\alpha _i`$ through $`F\times [\theta _i+ϵ,\theta _{i+1}ϵ]`$. Also $`\alpha _i`$ may be isotoped back through $`F\times [\theta _iϵ,\theta _i+ϵ]`$ to lie in $`F(\theta _iϵ)`$, disjoint from $`\alpha _{i1}^{}`$. (This is shown by Figure 1, although the labels will be different.)

As in the proof of Theorem 3.1 the $`\alpha _i`$ give a path of length $`n`$ in $`𝒞^1(F(0))`$ starting at $`\alpha _0`$ and ending at $`\phi (\alpha _0)`$. This implies $`d_𝒞(\phi )\chi (H)`$, as desired.

### 6.4. Only a vertex

The more difficult situation occurs when $`t_0=t_V=t_W`$. By our general position assumption the horizontal circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meets the graphic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at most once nontransversely.

###### Claim 6.9.

There are regions $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ labelled $`𝕍`$ and $`𝕎`$, respectively, such that the closures $`\overline{R}`$ and $`\overline{R^{}}`$ both meet $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$. Also, neither $`R`$ nor $`R^{}`$ meet $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$. The horizontal circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meets a crossing vertex $`(\theta _0,t_0)`$ of the graphic.

###### Proof.

As $`t_0=t_V`$ and by Claim 6.3 there is a region $`R`$ such that $`\overline{R}\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ is nonempty and $`R`$ lies below $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ in the annulus $`S^1\times I`$. Similarly there is a region $`R^{}`$ above the horizontal circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$

Now, if $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ is transverse to the edges of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then every region $`R^{\prime \prime }`$ with closure meeting $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ also has interior meeting $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$. Then, as $`H(t_0)`$ is unlabelled, so are $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$. This is a contradiction.

Suppose that $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ is only tangent to an edge of the graphic. Then every region, but one, whose closure meets the circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ also meets $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ along its interior. As above, this gives a contradiction. Thus $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meets a vertex at the point $`(\theta _0,t_0)`$.

Finally, to rule out the possibility that the vertex is a birth-death vertex: When $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F(\theta _0))`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meet in a birth-death vertex there are only two edges of the graphic incident on the vertex. As in Figure 4 the slopes of the two edges have the same sign and we may assume that, as the edges leave the vertex, both edges head “northeast”. (The other three cases are similar.) Again, every region, but one, whose closure meets the circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ also meets $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ along its interior. Again, this is a contradiction. ∎

Now focus attention on this vertex at $`(\theta _0,t_0)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _0,t_0)`$ be the union of the singular components. Let $`P`$ be the components of $`H(t_0)(F\times [\theta _0+ϵ,\theta _0ϵ])`$ meeting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We will call $`P`$ a foliated regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, taken in $`H(t_0)`$. Similarly, let $`Q`$ be a foliated regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, taken in $`F(\theta _0)`$. Finally, let $`_\pm P=PF(\theta _0\pm ϵ)`$ while $`_\pm Q=QH(t_0\pm ϵ)`$.

###### Claim 6.10.

The vertex at $`(\theta _0,t_0)`$ has entangled saddles. Also, some component $`\beta _{}Q`$ bounds an essential disk in $`V(t_0ϵ)`$ (and some component $`\delta _+Q`$ bounds in $`W(t_0+ϵ)`$).

###### Proof.

As $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F(\theta _0))`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meet in a crossing vertex there are four regions adjacent with closure meeting the vertex. Call these “north”, “east”, “south”, and “west”. See Figure 4. Again, our general position assumption ensures that $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meets the graphic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ at most once nontransversely. Thus $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ exactly once nontransversely. Thus all regions whose closure meets $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$, other than the north and south, also meet $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$ along their interior. It follows from Claim 6.3 that all these regions except the south (the region $`R`$) and north ($`R^{}`$) are unlabelled.

Choose a curve $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _0,t_0ϵ)`$ which bounds an essential disk in $`V(t_0ϵ)`$. Moving along a straight arc from $`(\theta _0,t_0ϵ)`$ to $`(\theta _0+ϵ,t_0)`$ cannot induce ambient isotopy on $`\beta `$. If it did the east region would be labelled with a $`𝕍`$, an impossibility.

Thus, the southeast edge represents a saddle tangency. Also, this saddle meets a regular neighborhood of $`\beta `$, taken inside of $`F(\theta _0)`$. Symmetrically, the same holds for the southwest edge. We conclude that both saddles lie inside the same component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _0,t_0)`$. An identical argument locates $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _0,t_0+ϵ)`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is connected, contains two saddle tangencies, and has $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ as boundary components of $`Q`$, the vertical foliated neighborhood. ∎

Note that the curves $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ may be isotoped to curves $`\beta _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ lying inside of $`P`$, the regular neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }H(t_0)`$. Since $`\beta `$ and $`\delta `$ bound disks in $`V(t_0ϵ)`$ and $`W(t_0+ϵ)`$ the curves $`\beta _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ bound disks in $`V(t_0)`$ and $`W(t_0)`$.

###### Remark 6.11.

Recall that the Heegaard splitting $`H`$ and the fibre $`F`$ both have genus at least two. The graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has only two vertices and four edges. Thus, by an Euler characteristic argument, there is an essential simple closed curve in $`H(t_0)`$ disjoint from the subsurface $`P`$ (and similarly for $`QF(\theta _0)`$). So if $`t_V=t_W`$ then the Heegaard splitting $`H`$ satisfies Thompson’s disjoint curve property, defined in .

We now examine the properties of the foliated neighborhoods of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; that is, $`PH(t_0)`$ and $`QF(\theta _0)`$. Taking into account symmetry, orientability of $`H`$, and the co-orientation of the foliation itself there are four possibilities for $`P`$, as shown in the first column of Figure 5. Note that there are four ways of resolving the two saddles of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These, after performing a small isotopy, yield the curves $`_\pm P`$ and $`_\pm Q`$. Recall that $`\beta _{}Q`$ and $`\delta _+Q`$ may be isotoped to $`\beta _0,\delta _0P`$, as shown in the second column of Figure 5.

In the fourth row, there are two possibilities for $`\beta _0`$; either $`\beta _0`$ agrees with $`\beta ^{}`$ or with $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$ (the solid curves). The curve $`\delta _0`$ is treated similarly (see the dashed curves). Wherever $`\beta _0`$ and $`\delta _0`$ lie inside the twice-punctured torus, we see that $`\beta _0`$ only meets $`\delta _0`$ once. Thus the splitting surface $`H`$ is stabilized, contradicting strong irreducibility. It follows that the foliated neighborhood $`P`$ is homeomorphic to a four-times punctured sphere, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in various positions, as shown.

###### Claim 6.12.

Every component of $`P`$ is essential in $`H(t_0)`$.

###### Proof.

In each of the three cases if any component of $`P`$ bounds a disk in $`H(t_0)`$ then a component of $`P`$ bounds a disk in $`\overline{H(t_0)P}`$. Isotope $`\beta _0`$ across this disk to make $`\beta _0`$ disjoint from $`\delta _0`$. This contradicts the strong irreducibility of $`H`$. ∎

###### Claim 6.13.

The components of $`P`$ are mutually essential curves.

###### Proof.

All are essential in $`H(t_0)`$ by the above claim. If one of the curves bounds a disk in the containing fibre then, by Lemma 2.1, that curve bounds a disk in $`V(t_0)`$ or $`W(t_0)`$. In this case $`H(t_0)`$ was labelled with a $`𝕍`$ or a $`𝕎`$. This contradicts Claim 6.8 and the hypothesis $`t_0=t_V=t_W`$. ∎

Now to carry out an analysis similar to that for the case $`t_V<t_W`$. Let $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=1}^{n1}`$ be the angles corresponding to the essential saddles of $`\pi _F|H(t_0)`$. Let $`(\theta _0,t_0)`$ be the vertex with entangled saddles meeting the horizontal circle $`\pi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(H(t_0))`$. Choose the indexing so that $`\theta _i<\theta _{i+1}`$ are adjacent. Choose $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small and positive. So for each critical angle, $`i>0`$, there is an essential saddle in $`H(t_0)(F\times [\theta _iϵ,\theta _i+ϵ])`$ which contributes $`1`$ to the Euler characteristic of $`H(t_0)`$. As the curves of $`P`$ are mutually essential (Claim 6.13) the four-punctured sphere $`P`$ contributes $`2`$ to the Euler characteristic of $`H(t_0)`$. Altogether, the $`n1`$ essential saddles and $`P`$ contribute $`n+1`$ to the negative Euler characteristic of $`H(t_0)`$. That is, $`n+1\chi (H)`$.

By Lemma 4.2, there are also mutually essential curves $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _i+ϵ,t_0)`$ and $`\alpha _i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _{i+1}ϵ,t_0)`$ such that $`\alpha _i^{}`$ is isotopic to $`\alpha _i`$ through $`F\times [\theta _i+ϵ,\theta _{i+1}ϵ]`$. Also, for $`i>0`$, $`\alpha _i`$ may be isotoped back through $`F\times [\theta _iϵ,\theta _i+ϵ]`$ to lie in $`F(\theta _iϵ)`$, disjoint from $`\alpha _{i1}^{}`$. For $`i=0`$ this last may not hold. Instead, after isotoping $`\alpha _0`$ through $`F\times [\theta _0ϵ,\theta _0+ϵ]`$ to obtain $`\alpha _0^{\prime \prime }`$, both $`\alpha _0^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\alpha _{n1}^{}`$ may lie in a translate of $`Q`$, the vertical foliated neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. As in Remark 6.11 the subsurface $`Q`$ does not fill $`F(\theta _0ϵ)`$. In any case $`d_𝒞(\alpha _0^{\prime \prime },\alpha _{n1})2`$ when considered in the curve complex of the fibre.

Thus, similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1, the $`\alpha _i`$ give a path of length $`n+1`$ in the graph $`𝒞^1(F(0))`$. Therefore $`d_𝒞(\phi )n+1\chi (H)`$, as desired. This deals with the case where $`t_V=t_W`$ and proves the theorem.

We end here with a few remarks and comments:

###### Question.

What can be said about the higher genus Heegaard splittings of surface bundles with high translation distance?

###### Question.

Suppose that $`M`$ has two distinct surface bundle structures. What can be learned from the graphic induced on $`S^1\times S^1`$?

###### Question.

It seems likely that the techniques of Section 6.1 are sufficiently soft to allow a taut foliation to replace the surface bundle structure. See also Question 9.5 of D. Calegari’s problem list on foliations .

###### Remark 6.14.

There is no inequality, as in Theorem 3, between the genus of a strongly irreducible splitting of $`M(\phi )`$ and the stretch factor of the pseudo-Anosov automorphism $`\phi `$. Here is the required construction: Fix $`HM(\phi )`$ a genus two, strongly irreducible splitting. (For example, let $`M(\phi )`$ be the longitudinal filling on D. Rolfsen’s $`6_2`$ knot . As the knot is tunnel number one let $`H`$ be the resulting genus two Heegaard splitting.)

Isotope $`H`$ until all curves of $`F(0)H`$ are mutually essential. Let $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }=F(0)H`$ be one component. Let $`N(\gamma )`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`\gamma `$. Let $`\mu ,\lambda N(\gamma )`$ be a meridian, longitude pair with $`\mu `$ bounding a disk in $`N(\gamma )`$ while $`\lambda `$ is isotopic to $`N(\gamma )H`$ (which, in turn, is isotopic to $`N(\gamma )F`$). Then $`M_n`$, the $`1/n`$ Dehn surgery on $`\overline{MN(\gamma )}`$, is still a surface bundle, with monodromy $`\phi _n`$, say. The stretch factor of $`\phi _n`$ grows linearly with $`n`$ (see ) while the Heegaard genus of $`M_n`$ remains equal to two. Thus the minimal genus splitting remains strongly irreducible. This completes the construction.

###### Remark 6.15.

It has been asked whether the main theorem of this paper can be improved to refer to translation distance in the pants complex. (See .) It is straight-forward to provide candidate counterexamples in genus two, somewhat similar to the above. A subtle argument, shown to us by D. Canary and Y. Minsky, then proves that the volumes increase without bound. We plan on providing the details of this construction in a future paper.


format: text

text:
# Spin injection efficiency from two adjoining ferromagnetic metals into a two-dimensional electron gas

## Abstract

In order to enhance spin injection efficiency from ferromagnetic (FM) metal into a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG), we introduce another FM metal and two tunnel barriers (I) between them to investigate the current polarization in such ballistic FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction. Our treatment is based on the free-electron scattering theory. It is found that due to quantum interference effect, the magnitude and sign of the current polarization exhibits periodical oscillating behavior with variation of the thickness of the middle FM metal layer or its exchange energy strength. For some suitable parameters, the spin injection efficiency may arrive over $`80\%`$ in this junction and can also be controlled by the electron density of 2DEG. Our results may shed light on the development of new spin-polarized device

In the recent years there have been much theoretical and experimental work in the spin electronics (spintronics) field\[1-3\], in which the degrees of freedom of both electronic spin and charge are exploited. The magnetoelectronic device based on the spin-polarized transport in the semiconductors, which was first proposed by Datta and Das, has numerous potential applications in the information technology (IT) industry. The injection of spin-polarized carriers from ferromagnetic (FM) semiconductor into nonmagnetic semiconductor (SM)\[5-6\] has been achieved successfully with an efficiency $`90\%`$. Jonker et al. even observed full polarized current by using an external magnetic field. Whereas spin injection from FM metal into SM is more attractive because FM metals such as Fe have a relatively high Cuire temperature, which makes them indispensable for the room temperature devices. However, the spin injection efficiency in this FM/SM junction are very low and moreover, there exist much debate on it.

As Schmidt et al. pointed out, the basic obstacle for spin-polarized injection from FM metal into SM in the diffusive system results from the conductivity mismatch between them. Although many authors\[10-12\] have shown that this kind of conductivity mismatch could be improved by introduction of a tunnel barrier (I) between them, which can assume the tunnel conductance difference between two spin channels, the efficiency of spin injection still remain low in comparison with that from ferromagnetic-SM into SM. For instance, by interposing a tunnel barrier between FM metal and SM, Zhu et al. have observed experimentally $`2\%`$ efficiency of spin injection from Fe into n-GaAs at room temperature; Heersche et al. theoretically calculated this ballistic FM/I/2DEG(two-dimensional electron gas) junction and obtained $`10\%`$ current polarization. A Schottky barrier formed at the Fe/AlGaAs interface by Hanbicki et al. as a tunnel barrier can make the efficiency of spin injection $`30\%`$ in this junction.

In the present work, we show theoretically that the high efficiency of spin injection from FM metal into 2DEG might be achieved by introducing another FM material (FM metal or ferromagnetic SM) between them besides two tunnel barriers. In the ballistic approximation, we treat this FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction with the free-electron scattering theory, which has been widespread employed to deal with the interface scattering of electrons\[17-18\]. The first FM metal of the FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction is a source of spin injection electrons (FM1), while the middle FM metal is taken as a resonant device to tune the tunnel current (FM2). Due to the quantum interference effect, the moderate thickness of the FM2 layer or its strength of spin exchange splitting energy may induce very high degree of current polarization. FM1 can even be a normal metal in our model since FM2 is crucial to cause the spin-polarized current. Increasing exchange energy of both FM1 and FM2 as well as the strength of two tunnel barriers would lead to enhancement of current polarization. The electron density of 2DEG affects the quantum interference effect so that it can also influence the degree of current polarization.

In the free electron approximation, the Hamiltonian for the FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction reads

$$=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Delta }^2+V(x)+U_1\delta (x)+U_2\delta (xL)\theta (x)𝐡_\mathrm{𝟏}\sigma \theta (x)\theta (Lx)𝐡_\mathrm{𝟐}\sigma ,$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the effective electron mass, $`m=m_e`$ in two FM metals for $`x<L`$ and $`m=m_s`$ in 2DEG for $`x>L`$. Here we hypothesize that FM1 and FM2 have same effective electron masses. $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are respectively the internal molecular fields of the FM1 and FM2 layer and $`\sigma `$ denotes the Pauli spin operator. $`\theta (x)`$ is the step function. The two thin tunnel barriers are described by $`\delta `$-type potentials, which does not lose generality. We wish to point out that even our two-dimensional model were replaced by three-dimensional one with different barrier shape such as rectangle one, or Schottky barrier between FM and SM, the qualitative results in this papers would not change. $`U_1`$ at $`x=0`$ and $`U_2`$ at $`x=L`$ are related with the barrier’s width and height. The potential energy $`V(x)`$ is zero for $`x<L`$ and $`E_B`$ for $`x>L`$. The schematic band structures of the FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction is shown in Fig. 1. The spin quantum axis is taken along $`y`$ direction and the magnetizations of two FM metals are assumed to be parallel for simplicity while the net tunnel current flows in the $`x`$ direction.

In the two-band model, the energy eigenvalues of a single electron with spin $`\sigma `$ ($``$ or $``$) are $`E_{}^{fm1}=(\mathrm{}𝐊_{}^{fm1})^2/2m_e`$ and $`E_{}^{fm1}=(\mathrm{}𝐊_{}^{fm1})^2/2m_e+\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in the FM1 layer, $`E_{}^{fm2}=(\mathrm{}𝐊_{}^{fm2})^2/2m_e`$ and $`E_{}^{fm2}=(\mathrm{}𝐊_{}^{fm2})^2/2m_e+\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ in FM2 layer, and $`E_\sigma ^{sm}=E_B+(\mathrm{}𝐊_\sigma ^{sm})^2/2m_s`$ in 2DEG, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=2h_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=2h_2`$ are the exchange energies of FM1 and FM2, respectively. $`E_B`$ is the difference between the lower conduction-band edge of 2DEG and that of FM. In the two-dimensional system, the density of states in 2DEG is constant for the energy dispersion of free electrons and $`E_\sigma ^{sm}=E_B+\pi \mathrm{}^2n_{2DEG}/m_s`$ with $`n_{2DEG}`$ being the electron density of 2DEG. In the small bias approximation, only electrons near the Fermi energy ($`E_F`$) surface contribute greatly to the net tunnel current so that we can take $`E_{}^{fm1}=E_{}^{fm2}=E_{}^{sm}=E_F`$ and $`E_{}^{fm1}=E_{}^{fm2}=E_{}^{sm}=E_F`$. Thus, the magnitude of Fermi wave vectors in three regions can be explicitly expressed as

$$k_{}^{fm1(2)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{2m_eE_F},$$
(2)
$$k_{}^{fm1(2)}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{2m_e(E_F\mathrm{\Delta }_{1(2)})},$$
(3)
and

$$k_\sigma ^{sm}=\sqrt{2\pi n_{2DEG}}.$$
(4)
It is assumed that the interfaces between the tunnel barriers and FM metals or 2DEG are ideally smooth and without diffusive scattering so that the momentum along $`y`$ direction keep constant when electrons are scattered by them. We define $`k_\sigma ^y=k_\sigma ^{fm1}\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ in three regions and the corresponding momenta along $`x`$ direction become

$$k_{\sigma ,x}^{fm1}(\varphi )=k_\sigma ^{fm1}\mathrm{cos}\varphi $$
(5)
for $`x<0`$,

$$k_{\sigma ,x}^{fm2}(\varphi )=\sqrt{(k_\sigma ^{fm2})^2(k_\sigma ^y)^2}$$
(6)
for $`0<x<L`$, and

$$k_{\sigma ,x}^{sm}(\varphi )=\sqrt{(k_\sigma ^{sm})^2(k_\sigma ^y)^2}$$
(7)
for $`L<x`$.

Considering a single electron tunneling through the FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction, a reflective wave would appear in the FM1 layer and a transmission wave in 2DEG. In the FM2 layer, the electron will be multireflected due to the presence of two barriers. For some suitable width (L) of the FM2 layer, resonant reflection or transmission may occur. This may in turn result in high degree of spin injection from FM1 into 2DEG. The wave functions in three regions are given by

$$\psi _\sigma (fm1)=e^{(i𝐤_\sigma ^{fm1}𝐫)}+r_\sigma e^{(i𝐤_\sigma ^{fm1}𝐫)}$$
(8)
for $`x<0`$,

$$\psi _\sigma (fm2)=a_\sigma e^{(i𝐤_\sigma ^{fm2}𝐫)}+b_\sigma e^{(i𝐤_\sigma ^{fm2}𝐫)}$$
(9)
for $`0<x<L`$, and

$$\psi _\sigma (sm)=t_\sigma e^{(i𝐤_\sigma ^{sm}𝐫)}$$
(10)
for $`x>L`$. Here, $`r_\sigma `$, $`a_\sigma `$, $`b_\sigma `$, and $`t_\sigma `$ are spin-dependent parameters. According to the requirements of wave functions continuing and their derivatives continuing at scattering interface $`x=0`$ and $`x=L`$, the transmission amplitude $`t_\sigma `$ of a single electron tunneling through this FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction is straightforward

$$t_\sigma =\frac{\frac{\alpha ^{++}}{\alpha ^+}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha ^+}}{\frac{\beta ^+}{\alpha ^+}exp(ik_{\sigma ,x}^{fm2})\frac{\beta ^{}}{\alpha ^+}exp(ik_{\sigma ,x}^{fm2})}.$$
(11)
where $`\alpha ^{\pm \pm }=ik_{\sigma ,x}^{fm2}\pm ik_{\sigma ,x}^{fm1}\pm Q_1`$ and $`\beta ^\pm =ik_{\sigma ,x}^{fm2}\pm i(k_{\sigma ,x}^{sm})^{}Q_2`$ with $`(k_{\sigma ,x}^{sm})^{}=m_ek_{\sigma ,x}^{sm}/m_s`$ and $`Q_{1(2)}=2m_eU_{1(2)}/\mathrm{}^2`$. When the junction is applied on a small voltage $`V`$ and $`K_BTE_F`$ for low temperature, the spin-dependent charge current density can be evaluated by

$$J_\sigma =\frac{e^2Vk_\sigma ^{fm1}}{h\pi }_0^{\varphi _\sigma ^C}𝑑\varphi T_\sigma \mathrm{cos}\sigma ,$$
(12)
where the transmission coefficient $`T_\sigma =m_ek_{\sigma ,x}^{sm}|t|^2/m_sk_{\sigma ,x}^{fm1}`$ and $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ is the critical incident angle of electrons in FM1 to guarantee all momenta appearing in the integral to be real variables, i.e, no attenuating wave occurs in 2DEG. $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ is determined by Eq.(7) due to $`k_\sigma ^{sm}k_\sigma ^{fm1}`$, $`k_\sigma ^{fm2}`$.

From equations above, we can calculate numerically the spin-dependent current density as a function of the thickness (L) of the FM2 layer, in which multireflection would lead to resonant transmission of the electronic wave. Thus the transmission coefficient $`T_\sigma `$ will exhibit oscillating behavior as well as the current density $`J_\sigma `$. Their periods can be approximately expressed as $`L_\sigma =\pi /k_\sigma ^{fm2}`$ since the critical angle $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ is very mall from Eq. (7). Due to the presence of exchange energy of FM2 and $`k_{}^{fm2}k_{}^{fm2}`$, the current density $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ have different vibrating periods so that the current polarization $`p=(J_{}J_{})/(J_{}+J_{})`$ may arrive rather high degree at some suitable thickness $`L`$ as shown in Fig. 2. This characterization is the same as the tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) effect in the FM/I/NM/I/FM junction with NM denoting a normal metal, in which high TMR could be achieved because of the resonant transmission of electronic wave in the NM layer. In Fig. 2, the short and long periodical vibration of the current polarization $`P`$ results from the superposition of two different periods of $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$. With the variation of L, plus maximum and minus maximum of $`P`$ would alternates to appear. From Fig. (2A), even a normal metal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=0`$) as FM1 can also lead to current polarization. This is just because the FM2 layer exists. Enlarging the exchange energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$) of FM1, the overall profile of $`P`$ keeps invariable whereas its amplitude increases much (the solid line e in Fig. (2B)), i.e., increasing the spin-polarized degree of FM1 will raise the spin injection efficiency from FM metal into 2DEG. When $`L=0`$ and our model becomes FM/I/2DEG junction, the normal metal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$=0) as FM1 would result in zero current polarizaiton (Fig. 2A). While another FM metal (FM2) is interposed into such a single junction, the current polarization ($`L0`$) would increase greatly in comparison with that of $`L=0`$ as shown in Fig. (2A-2B). As is generally admitted, the tunnel barriers can result in the growth of the current polarization, which is indeed found in our calculation by comparing three lines in Fig. (2A). The two tunnel barriers strength increase from $`Z_{1(2)}=0.5`$ to $`Z_{1(2)}=1.0`$ by two steps (the dimensionless $`Z`$ is defined as $`Z_{1(2)}=Q_{1(2)}/k_{}^{fm1}`$), both of them lead to a remarkable increase of the current polarization.

It is also shown in Fig. (2B) that the electron density of 2DEG $`n_{2DEG}`$ affects the spin injection efficiency. The critical incident angle $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ of electrons in FM1 is determined by $`n_{2DEG}`$ (Eq. (7)). The larger $`n_{2DEG}`$ will widen $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ and the tunnel current density $`J_\sigma `$ increases greatly, whereas the spin injection efficiency decreases. In this FM/I/FM/2DEG junction, the high degree of current polarization originates from the quantum interference effect, which usually had better be single moded in order to obtain large effects for different phase shift exist in different modes. The larger $`\varphi _\sigma ^C`$ will introduce the more modes and the quantum interference effect tend to wash out so that the current polarization could decrease. This is very interesting since the $`n_{2DEG}`$ can be easily controlled by an external gate voltage\[21-22\].

Although the maximum of the current polarization $`P`$ in Fig. 2 might be obtained by tuning the thickness $`L`$ of FM2, it oscillates quickly with increase of L and the spin-flipping length of electrons in FM metal is rather smaller than that in SM. These may cause that the maximum of $`P`$ is difficult to be found in experiment. However, the FM2 layer in our model can lead to different oscillating periods of $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$. Thus, fixing its thickness $`L`$ and varying its exchange energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$), the vibrating behavior of current polarization $`P`$ should also appear. This is actually true as shown in Fig. 3. Here $`L`$ is taken as $`15`$ ($`\AA `$) that is much less than the spin flipping length in FM metal. With increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, $`P`$ will alternate its sign and it may take its maximum over $`80\%`$ at some suitable values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Since the overall trend of minority spin current density $`J_{}`$ decreases with increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, the maximum of plus current polarization $`P`$ will keep upgoing. When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2>E_F`$, the FM2 would be a half-metal, i.e., it is a well for spin-up (majority spin) electrons and a rectangle barrier for spin-down (minority spin) electrons, then the high degree of current polarization would easily form since the transmission coefficient of spin-up electron is much larger than that of spin-down electron. This case has been discussed by Carlos Egues. From Fig. 3, it is suggested that the high degree of current polarization in FM/I/FM/2DEG junction should be achieved by tuning the magnitude of exchange energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$) of FM2 in experiment. For instance, we may apply an external magnetic field on FM2 and vary its strength or we would change the concentration of magnetic ions if FM2 was a ferromagnetic semiconductor.

In summary, we have investigated the spin injection efficiency from two adjoining FM metals into 2DEG with two tunnel barriers among them by employing the free-electron scattering theory. Making use of the quantum interference effect in this ballistic FM/I/FM/I/2DEG junction, the high degree of current polarization may be achieved with some suitable thickness $`L`$ of the FM2 layer or its exchange energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. It is also shown that the electron density of 2DEG can alter the spin injection efficiency. Our model in this paper would be an alternative to achieve high efficiency of spin injection from FM metal into 2DEG.


text:
# References

WM-02-113

EXCITED BARYON PRODUCTION AND DECAYS111Invited talk at the workshop on The Phenomenology of Large $`N_c`$ QCD, held at Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA, 9-11 January 2002.

CARL E. CARLSON

Nuclear and Particle Theory Group, Department of Physics,

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA

E-mail: carlson@physics.wm.edu

> We consider decays of the lowest-lying positive parity (56-plet) and negative parity (70-plet) excited baryons. For the 70-plet, we include both single-quark and two-quark decay operators, and find, somewhat mysteriously, that the two-quark operators are not phenomenologically important. Studies of decays 70 $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\gamma `$ may strengthen or vitiate this observation. For the 56-plet decays, now using only the single-quark operator, we can predict many strong decays after fitting parameters on the assumption that the Roper is a 3$`q`$ state. Comparison of these predictions to experiment can verify the structure of the 56-plet. As a sidelight, we show a large $`N_c`$ derivation of the old Gürsey-Radicati mass formula.

1. Introduction

I should note that I have written on large $`N_c`$ topics in collaboration with the chief organizer of this conference and with the chairman of this session. Those works  concerned mass operators for excited baryons using large $`N_c`$ to segregate terms by size, and a continuation of the mass analysis work is reported elsewhere in this conference . This talk is not about that work.

This talk will discuss the decays of excited baryons, in particular strong decays of the excited positive parity states  and electromagnetic decays of the negative parity states  (work from a similar viewpoint on strong decays of the latter are reported in ). Large $`N_c`$ ideas have contributed directly to the analysis we will report on by categorizing operators by order in $`N_c`$. In addition, we will show a large $`N_c`$ derivation of an old mass formula . We need this mass formula because not all interesting states are yet found experimentally, and masses and phase space are crucial to calculating decay rates. It also happens that the large $`N_c`$ derivation of the mass formula is new and interesting.

As mentioned, we have looked at two sets of states. One set is the lowest-lying positive parity excited states of the baryons. Baryons in the ground state form a 56-dimensional representation of $`SU(6)`$. The excited positive parity states also form a 56-plet, the 56. The other set is the non-strange members of the lowest lying negative parity baryon excitations, which are members of a 70-plet in $`SU(6)`$.

Regarding the 70-plet and the electromagnetic decays, the old and well known  treatment identifies three independent operators that involve a single quark. The 19 possible decay amplitudes have been measured , and one may try to fit them in terms of matrix elements of the three single quark operators, with the overall coefficient for each operator fit to the data. The resulting fit is not awful, although with a $`\chi ^2`$ about 4 per independent data point, one might hope for better. There are additional operators that involve other quarks as well, and one should not a priori neglect them in a low momentum transfer strong interaction process. We examined the 2-body operators  and found many that are not, contrary to our hope, suppressed by large $`N_c`$ arguments. Regarding how much including them improved the fit to the data, we will let the reader find in Section 2. A hint may be found by scanning the conclusions in Section 5.

Preceding the decay discussion for the 56 will be a seemingly tangential discussion of the Gürsey-Radicati mass formula . This is a 4-parameter mass formula for a 56-plet of $`SU(6)`$ (which has 8 independent masses, not counting isospin splittings). It applies to the ground state baryons, but also to the positive parity excited 56. There are two reasons for including the Gürsey-Radicati mass formula discussion. One is that the original 1964 derivation is not to the modern taste, whereas a derivation using large $`N_c`$ ideas is both clear and illustrative of how large $`N_c`$ ideas let us estimate the sizes of terms , allowing us to keep the few largest mass operators to produce a mass relation, and to use the largest omitted term to estimate its error. The second reason is that not all the 56 states have been experimentally found, and we need the mass formula to get the masses of the missing states. The mass formula is discussed in Section 3.

Were one to select a prime motive for the 56 strong decay discussion, it would be to help determine if the Roper be dominantly an ordinary $`3q`$ baryon state , or something more exotic such as a hybrid $`q^3g`$ state , or something not really a baryon state at all, but just an enhancement in some partial wave in a scattering process .

We shall be treating the Roper as if it is a $`3q`$ member of a 56-plet of $`3q`$ states, and calculate decay rates based on assuming the dominance of the (only possible) single quark decay operator , an assumption that follows from the more detailed analysis made in the context of the negative parity 70-plet. The details of the analysis and predictions for many decays are presented in Section 4.

Conclusions, again, are in Section 5.

2. Radiative Decays of the 70

The work described here follows upon the large $`N_c`$ revival of the middle 1990’s . Most applications were to the ground state , but the excited baryons were not entirely neglected . In particular, strong decays of the 70-plet were studied  in a manner one can recognize from the study of the electromagnetic decays that follows (though familiarity with the earlier work is not assumed in what is written here).

One does know  that the 70-plet of $`SU(6)`$ has one unit of orbital angular momentum ($`L=1`$) and negative parity. It has 20 states that are not strange, and if one lumps the isospin partners together, one is left with 7 independent states.

Two of the states are $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s, characterized by $`I=3/2`$, and denoted $`\mathrm{\Delta }_J`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2}=|I=\frac{3}{2},S=\frac{1}{2},L=1,J=\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}.$$
(1)
Five of the states are nucleons, with $`I=1/2`$, and distinguished by whether the core quark spins are combined to give $`S=1/2`$ or $`3/2`$,

$`N_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2}`$ $`=`$ $`|I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},L=1,J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},`$
$`N_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}/2}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},S={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},L=1,J={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}.`$ (2)
Since nucleon states with the same $`J`$ can mix, the physical $`N_{1/2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/2}`$ states are the linear combinations

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}N(1535)\\ N(1650)\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{N1}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N1}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N1}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{N1}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{1/2}\\ N_{1/2}^{}\end{array}\right],`$ (9)
$`\left[\begin{array}{c}N(1520)\\ N(1700)\end{array}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{N3}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N3}\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{N3}& \mathrm{cos}\theta _{N3}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{3/2}\\ N_{3/2}^{}\end{array}\right].`$ (16)
Thus the non-strange sector of the 70-plet has 2 mixing angles and 7 masses.

Consider decays in the $`N^{}`$ rest frame (where $`N^{}`$ is a member of the 70-plet). Using the outgoing photon direction as the helicity direction for the $`N^{}`$, one has

$$\lambda =\lambda _\gamma \lambda _N=\pm \frac{3}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2};$$
(17)
giving the helicity $`\lambda `$ of the $`N^{}`$ also specifies the helicity $`\lambda _\gamma `$ of the photon and of the ground state exiting nucleon $`\lambda _N`$.

The decay amplitudes $`A_\lambda `$ are matrix elements  of decay operators $`𝒪_i`$

$$A_\lambda =N,\gamma \left|𝒪_i\right|N^{},\lambda ,$$
(18)
and by parity, $`A_{3/2}`$ and $`A_{1/2}`$ suffice .

We have to consider how to make the operators $`𝒪_i`$. We can use the

| quark charge matrix | $`Q`$, |
| --- | --- |
| photon polarization | $`\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{\xi }`$, |
| photon momentum | $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ (or derivative $`\stackrel{}{}`$), |
| P-wave quark polarization | $`\stackrel{}{\epsilon }`$, |
| spin operator for quark | $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$. |

With these ingredients, there are 3 one-body operators $`𝒪_i`$,

$`a_1Q_{}(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{A}),`$
$`b_1Q_{}(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{A}),`$
$`b_2Q_{}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{A}),`$ (19)
which are equivalent to the textbook  SU(6) one-body operators. The star means an operator acting on the initial P-wave quark.

Examples of two-body operators include

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c_3}{N_c}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Q_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\alpha \right)\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{A}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{N_c}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Q_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\alpha \right)\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{A}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_3}{N_c}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Q_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\alpha \right)\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{k})(\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{A}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_4}{N_c}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}Q_\alpha \stackrel{}{\sigma }_\alpha \right)\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_{}\stackrel{}{k}\right](\stackrel{}{\epsilon }\stackrel{}{k}\times \stackrel{}{A}).`$ (20)
There are 8 leading-order (in $`N_c`$) 2-body operators, which are listed in . The explicit factors of $`N_c`$ are included, so that one may expect that the $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$, $`c_i`$, and $`d_i`$ are all $`O(N_c^0)`$.

But now comes an important observation. The 2-body operators have matrix elements $`N_c`$ (since they get one contribution from each on the non-excited quarks in the baryon). Hence their contributions to the decay rates are not suppressed by large $`N_c`$ arguments as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, compared to the 1-body operators.

Following this statement comes a surprise. The 2-body operators are empirically unimportant.

Fitting data with 1-body operators alone gives $`\chi ^2=52.97`$ (with mixing angles fixed at $`\theta _{N1}=0.61`$ and $`\theta _{N3}=3.04`$, which were obtained from an earlier analysis of the hadronic decays of the 70-plet ; we can also do the fit letting the mixing angles be fit using the electromagnetic data only, and get the same mixing angles within the uncertainty limits).

Now include one 2-body operator with the three one-body operators. The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ depends on which 2-body operator is chosen, as tabulated here:

| 2-body op. | $`c_1`$ | $`c_2`$ | $`c_3`$ | $`c_4`$ | $`d_1`$ | $`d_2`$ | $`d_3`$ | $`d_4`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\chi ^2`$ | 52.85 | 52.04 | 39.21 | 52.91 | 48.38 | 52.81 | 52.23 | 52.59 |

One does best using $`c_3`$, and the result including all 8 two-body operators simultaneously is not notably better than using $`c_3`$ alone. Including the 2-body operators does not significantly improve the fit to the data.

The dynamics will have to be understood better if we are to understand why the the 2-body operators enter with small effect. Large $`N_c`$ is not violated, in that no coefficient is forced to be larger than expected, but it does appear that the 2-body terms can have coefficients that are smaller that they have to be from large $`N_c`$ ideas.

One should say that there is an experimental opportunity here. Current data on $`N^{}`$ “decays” really come from pion photoproduction, using time-reversal invariance. One then understands why all the decays that have been discussed have a ground-state nucleon in the final state. One can anticipate that modern machines (for example, Jefferson Lab) can produce enough $`N^{}`$’s to see radiative decays directly. That means that one can also think about decays into $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ final states.

There are 24 (non-isospin related) amplitudes for the decays

$$N^{}\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ;$$
(21)
the subscripts on the amplitudes $`A_\lambda `$ can now run from $`1/2`$ to $`5/2`$ (with parity invariance allowing us to fix $`\lambda _\gamma =1`$).

The 1-body operators and their coefficients are the same as for the decays into $`N\gamma `$; only the evaluation of the matrix elements changes. Hence each of the 24 decays is predicted . We can see if invariance of the 1-body operators will persist.

In addition, we have made predictions  using the 1-body operators plus the $`c_3`$ operator and can say which of the 70-plet decays are among the most sensitive to including the previous best-fit value of the $`c_3`$ term. Here are some examples, good and bad \[decay amplitudes are all in (GeV)-1/2\]:

$`A_{1/2}[\mathrm{\Delta }^+(1620)\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ]`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.073\pm 0.006\hfill & \text{1-body,}\hfill \\ 0.074\pm 0.006\hfill & \text{1-body +}c_3,\hfill \end{array}`$ (24)
$`A_{1/2}[p(1675)\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ]`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.019\pm 0.009\hfill & \text{1-body,}\hfill \\ 0.060\pm 0.013\hfill & \text{1-body +}c_3,\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
$`A_{5/2}[\mathrm{\Delta }^+(1675)\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ]`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}0.258\pm 0.012\hfill & \text{1-body,}\hfill \\ 0.337\pm 0.020\hfill & \text{1-body +}c_3.\hfill \end{array}`$ (30)
3. Mass Formula

We have explained in the Introduction why we are going to discuss a mass formula in the midst of this baryon decay talk: the derivation is clear and illustrative of large $`N_c`$ methods, the original derivation is dated, and we need the result.

We looking at a 56-plet of baryons where the spatial state, and so also the spin-flavor state, is totally symmetric. There are 56 totally symmetric 3-quark states that one can make from $`u_{}`$, $`u_{}`$, $`d_{}`$, $`d_{}`$, $`s_{}`$, and $`s_{}`$, where the arrows indicate the spin projection. The ground states form the 56, and the radially-excited states form the 56. The states are the $`N`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The mass operators for these states are built from the spin $`S^i=_\alpha \sigma _\alpha ^i/2`$ (the sum is over the quarks $`\alpha `$), the flavor operators $`T^a=_\alpha \tau _\alpha ^a/2`$ (where the $`\tau ^a`$ are a set of 3 $`\times `$ 3 matrices), and the SU(6) operators

$$G^{ia}=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{1}{2}\sigma _\alpha ^i\frac{1}{2}\tau _\alpha ^a.$$
(31)
Terms in mass operators must be rotationally symmetric, and flavor symmetric to leading order. Not all terms should be included. For example, in symmetric states matrix elements of $`T^2`$ and $`G^2`$ are linearly dependent on those of $`S^2`$ and the unit operator .

Flavor symmetry is not exact. The mass of the strange quark allows non-flavor symmetric terms in the effective mass operator, visible as unsummed flavor indices $`a=8`$ below. The effective mass operator is

$`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`a_11+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{N_c}}S^2+ϵa_3T^8+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{N_c}}a_4S^iG^{i8}`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{N_c^2}}a_5S^2T^8+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{N_c}}a_6T^8T^8`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{N_c^2}}a_7T^8S^iG^{i8}+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^3}{N_c^2}}T^8T^8T^8.`$
There is an $`ϵ`$ for each violation of flavor symmetry, where $`ϵ1/3`$. Also, a term that is a product of two or three operators comes from an interaction that has at least one or two gluon exchanges, and the strong coupling falls with number of colors as $`g^21/N_c`$ (A crucial theorem is that no perturbation theory diagrams fall slower in $`1/N_c`$ than the lowest order ones ).

Keeping the first four terms, taking the matrix elements, and reorganizing leads to

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`A+BN_s+C\left[I(I+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}N_s^2\right]`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`DS(S+1),`$
where $`N_s`$ is the number of strange quarks. This is the Gürsey-Radicati  mass formula. We use it to predict masses of 4 undiscovered members of the 56, given that 4 are known.

We can estimate the error of the formula. The constants $`a_i`$ above are nominally about 500 MeV. The first term omitted is hence nominally of order 500 MeV/$`3^3`$ or about 20 MeV, and this is the estimated error in the Gürsey-Radicati mass formula.

4. The Decays 56 $``$ 56 + Meson

Four of the 8 states in the 56 are undiscovered or unconfirmed, and existing measurements have large uncertainty. However, we anticipate new results soon from the CLAS detector at CEBAF. One member of the 56 is the Roper or N(1440), whose composition has been debated. Might it be a $`q^3g`$ state , a non-resonant cross-section enhancement , or just a 3-quark radial excitation ? Recent lattice calculations, which seem to find the negative-parity excited baryons with about the right mass, still find the positive-parity excitation at a fairly heavy mass . Our predictions depend upon the 3-quark possibility.

We assume that only single-quark operators are needed. Two-quark operators were studied for decays of orbitally-excited states , and found unnecessary. There is only one single quark operator here, so

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}G^{ia}k^i\pi ^a,$$
(34)
where $`k^i`$ is the meson 3-momentum and $`\pi ^a`$ is a meson field operator.

One gets for the decay widths,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{M_f}{6\pi M_i}k^3f(k)^2|B_f|G_{ja}|B_i|^2,$$
(35)
where $`f(k)`$ parameterizes the momentum dependence of the amplitude. For the 7 measured decays it is well fit by $`f=(2.8\pm 0.2)/k`$. With this in hand, we can predict the widths for 22 decays. The detailed results are in . The success of our predictions would bolster the view of the Roper as a 3-quark state.

5. Conclusions

Here is a summary of our conclusions in list form:

1. For 70-plet decays to $`N\gamma `$, single quark-operators are not favored by large $`N_c`$, yet they suffice to explain the data. Adding extra operators does not materially improve the fit. Why this should be so remains a mystery.
2. Decays of the 70-plet to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$ add 24 new decay channels to test large $`N_c`$ ideas or the approximation of using the single-quark operators only.
3. For 56 decays (to $`N\pi `$), the mass spread necessitated thinking about the momentum dependence of the matrix elements. We got masses of the as yet unfound members of the 56 from the Gürsey-Radicati mass formula—for which we have a modern large $`N_c`$ derivation.
4. Seven 56 decays into baryon plus meson have been observed, the remaining 22 being predicted. We assumed the states, including the Roper, were 3-quark states. The success of the predictions could shed light on whether this is true.

Acknowledgments

I thank the conference organizers for their excellent work; Chris Carone, José Goity, and Rich Lebed for pleasant times collaborating; and the National Science Foundation for support under Grant No. PHY-9900657.

Note added: New data is coming in from JLab, and since the Workshop there has been an analysis , finding good results also for electroproduction (photon off-shell) with only single quark amplitudes.


text:
# AGB Stars as Tracers of Star Formation Histories: Implications for GAIA Photometry and Spectroscopy

## 1. Introduction

Out of the numerous methods available for assessing ages of stellar populations only a few will be practically applicable for use with GAIA, because of obvious limitations related to the detection limits of GAIA etc. (e.g., Cacciari 2002). Though the main sequence turn-off (MSTO) point approach is perhaps the most reliable and accurate of all dating methods available today, it will be severely distance-limited when used with GAIA.

The extent of these limitations is illustrated in Fig. 1. The left panel shows the maximum age obtainable with GAIA employing MSTO fitting for stellar population placed at a distance of 8 kpc (assuming that the MSTO point is located at $`V18.5`$, while the detection limit of GAIA is $`V=20`$). The right panel shows the maximum distance at which ages up to 15 Gyr may be quantified (in both cases, the MSTO point on the isochrones of Girardi et al. (2000) was dated). It is obvious that in cases of negligible interstellar extinction the MSTO approach may work very efficiently with GAIA, providing reliable ages of stellar populations up to $`8`$ kpc. However, even mild interstellar extinction changes the situation dramatically, shifting the MSTO point below the detection limits of GAIA for many stellar populations within the Galaxy.

## 2. AGB stars with GAIA: star formation histories

A possible way to complement the MSTO approach would be with tracers that are intrinsically brighter than MSTO stars, which could thus be used for probing stellar populations on larger distance scales. We have shown, that stars on early-AGB (non-thermally pulsing) may be well suited for this purpose, providing reliable ages of stellar populations from the isochrone fitting to AGB sequences on the observed HR diagrams (Kučinskas et al. 2002).

Though similar approaches have been used in the past (e.g., employing AGB sequences in color-magnitude diagrams), the precision in derived ages was low. We propose to work in the $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ vs. $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ plane, using effective temperatures of individual AGB stars derived from the fits of the observed spectral energy distributions (SEDs) with synthetic SEDs. This yields a significant increase in precision of derived population ages, which is a result of the precisely derived $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of individual AGB stars. Since distances will be known for the majority of Galactic AGB stars with GAIA (which, combined with data from ground- and/or space-based infrared surveys, will give precise $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$), AGB stars will allow stellar populations on large distance scales to be traced with GAIA.

We illustrate the proposed approach employing the star clusters NGC 1783, NGC 2121 and Kron 3 in the Magellanic Clouds. The observed SEDs of AGB stars were constructed using BVRIJHK fluxes obtained from the literature. The BaSel 2.2 library of stellar spectra (Lejeune et al. 1998) was used to produce a template of synthetic photometric colors at different $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and for the metallicities of individual MC clusters. HR diagrams of individual clusters with AGB sequences were constructed using $`M_{\mathrm{bol}}`$ derived from observed integrated fluxes of individual stars and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ obtained from the SED fitting procedure (Fig. 2). AGB ages of individual clusters derived using different sets of isochrones, as well as those obtained from MSTO in previous studies, are given in Table 1.

There is indeed a good agreement between AGB ages obtained using isochrones of Bertelli et al. (1994; B94) or Lejeune & Schaerer (2001; LS01) on one hand, and MSTO estimates on the other. AGB ages obtained with Girardi et al. (2000; G00) isochrones are however considerably older than MSTO estimates (Table 1). This effect tends to increase with decreasing metallicity. It should be stressed, thus, that these intrinsic discrepancies between different sets of isochrones clearly indicate a need for better understanding of stellar evolution on the AGB, to fully exploit the potential of AGB stars for tracing stellar populations in the Galaxy and beyond.

Possibilities for tracing star formation histories using AGB stars with GAIA, employing photometric metallicities, gravities and reddenings (GAIA 1X medium band photometric system, Vansevičius & Bridžius 2002) are summarized in Table 2 (the error in age for a single star, $`\sigma (\mathrm{log}t)`$, is a lower limit since it reflects only the errors in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`E_{BV}`$). We conclude that, contrary to MSTO dating, AGB stars may provide precise estimates of ages ($`t>0.5`$ Gyr) throughout the Galaxy and beyond ($`d<250`$ kpc) for populations within a large range of metallicities, even if interstellar extinction is non-negligible. To achieve this, metallicities to $`\pm 0.2`$ dex, and effective temperatures to $`\pm 0.01`$ dex are highly desirable. A precise knowledge of interstellar reddening ($`\sigma (E_{BV})0.03`$) is also essential.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by the Wenner-Gren Foundations.

## References

Bertelli, G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Fagotto, F., Nasi, E. 1994, A&AS, 106, 275 (B94)

Cacciari, C. 2002, EAS Publ. Ser., 2, 163

Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., Chiosi, C. 2000, A&AS, 141, 371 (G00)

Kučinskas, A., Vansevičius, V., Tanabé, T. 2002, Ap&SS, 280,151

Lejeune, T., Schaerer, D. 2001, A&A, 366, 538 (LS01)

Lejeune, T., Cuisinier, F., Buser, R. 1998, A&AS, 130, 65

Marigo, P., Girardi, L. 2001, A&A, 377, 132

Mighell, K.J., Sarajedini, A., French, R.S. 1998, AJ, 116, 2395 (M98)

Rich, R.M., Shara, M.M., Fall, S.M., Zurek, D. 2000, AJ, 119, 197 (R00)

Rich, R.M., Shara, M.M., Zurek, D. 2001, AJ, 122, 842 (R01)

Mould, J., Kristian, J., Nemec, J., Jensen, J., Aaronson, M. 1989 ApJ, 339, 84 (M89)

Vansevičius, V., Bridžius, A. 2002, this volume