text:
# References

Is QCD asymptotically free?

I.M. Dremin111Email: dremin@lpi.ru

Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow 119991, Russia

## Abstract

The asymptotical behaviour of the QCD coupling strength is considered. Its upper bound is found from the present experimental data. The assumption about the finite asymptotical value of the coupling strength leads to the energy scale where the perturbative predictions would fail. Possible tests of this assumption are considered.

The property of the asymptotical freedom of the QCD coupling strength $`\alpha _S`$ is one of the most important ingredients which justifies the perturbative approach at high momentum transfer. The running $`\alpha _S`$ has been predicted by the perturbative calculations and confirmed by experiments at presently available energies. However at higher energies the dynamics and, consequently, the coupling strength behaviour can change. If our ideas about the grand unification theory (GUT) are valid, the coupling strengths of strong, electroweak and gravitation interactions should tend to a common asymptotic limit.

The fine structure constant of the electromagnetic forces is supposed to increase with the transferred momentum. The standard perturbative QED statement implies that it will become infinite in asymptotics if its present value 1/137 is taken into account. Correspondingly, if the asymptotic limit is finite, then the perturbative arguments tell us that the electromagnetic interaction vanishes (the so-called ”Moscow zero” effect). At higher momentum transfers the interacting partners penetrate deeper and the screening effect of the polarization cloud becomes less pronounced. The observed value of the charge should be smaller due to the partial screening by the virtual pairs. Nevertheless, there were proposals  to consider the variant with the finite limit for the ”bare” charge.

Thus, what concerns the limiting value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ of all coupling strengths, it must be, at least, larger than 1/137 and lower than the $`\alpha _S`$ values measured at LEP (about 0.118) because the strong coupling should decrease with the momentum transfer increase. If this tendency persists asymptotically and there is a common limit with no crossover in the behaviour of various coupling strengths, then $`\alpha _S`$ should tend to this limit from above. This would imply that QCD is not asymptotically free in a rigorous sense. Let us consider such a possibility.

The traditional lowest order expression for the running QCD coupling strength is written as

$$\alpha _S(s)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{Q_0^2}},$$
(1)
where $`s`$ is the squared momentum transfer (or energy for $`e^+e^{}`$-processes), $`\beta _0=11\frac{2}{3}n_f`$ ($`n_f`$ is the number of active flavours). $`Q_0`$ is a cut-off parameter. It can be chosen (see, e.g., ) as $`Q_0=0.65\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{MS}}`$ is the cut-off of the so-called $`\overline{MS}`$-renormalization scheme. With such a parameter the formula (1) actually reproduces quite well the higher order expression in $`\overline{MS}`$-scheme for $`\alpha _S`$. In what follows we use (1).

The value of $`Q_0`$ can be determined from (1) once the mass of $`Z^0`$-boson $`M_Z91.2`$ GeV and $`\alpha _S(M_Z)0.118`$ are known. One gets

$$Q_0=M_z\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _S(M_Z)}\right)=0.246GeV(0.153;0.088).$$
(2)
Here and everywhere below the initial number corresponds to $`n_f=3`$ and the numbers in brackets to $`n_f=4`$ and 5.

The formula (1) describes the asymptotically free behaviour of the coupling strength $`\alpha _S(s)0`$ at $`s\mathrm{}`$. This would imply the crossover with the electrodynamical fine structure constant. To avoid such crossover and provide the finite asymptotical limit for $`\alpha _S(s)`$ the following natural generalization of the expression (1) is proposed:

$$\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{ss_0}{(s+s_0)Q_0^2}}.$$
(3)
The modified coupling strength $`\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)`$ coincides with the running coupling strength (1) at low energies and tends asymptotically to the finite limit

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{4\pi }{\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_0}{Q_0^2}}.$$
(4)
It should be the common limit for all interactions in GUT. For this generalization one has to pay by the new energy scale parameter $`s_0`$:

$$s_0^{1/2}=Q_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}\right).$$
(5)
Let us consider what corrections to the ordinary $`\alpha _S`$ are introduced by this parameter. From (3) and (1) one gets

$$\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)=\alpha _S(s)\left[1\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{s}{s_0})}{\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{Q_0^2}}\right]^1.$$
(6)
In the low energy region $`Q_0^2<ss_0`$ it reduces to

$$\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)\alpha _S(s)\left[1\frac{s}{s_0\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{Q_0^2}}\right]^1.$$
(7)
Thus the power-like correction to (1) is provided by the scale $`s_0`$. At very high energies $`ss_0`$ the coupling strength tends to its asymptotical limit also in a power-like manner:

$$\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\left[1+\frac{s_0}{s\mathrm{ln}\frac{s_0}{Q_0^2}}\right].$$
(8)
The upper bound on the constant $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ is imposed by the accuracy of the present experimental data on $`\alpha _S(M_Z)`$:

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\alpha _S(M_Z)}{1x\mathrm{ln}(e^{\frac{\delta }{x}}1)},$$
(9)
where

$$x=\frac{\beta _0\alpha _S(M_Z)}{4\pi }$$
(10)
and $`\delta `$ denotes the relative error in the determination of $`\alpha _S(M_Z)`$. For $`\delta x`$ the good estimate is provided by the approximate expression:

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\alpha _S(M_Z)}{1\frac{\delta }{2}+x\mathrm{ln}\frac{x}{\delta }}.$$
(11)
With present accuracy  about 2$`\%`$ (i.e., $`\delta =0.02`$) the following upper bounds are imposed on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$:

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{}}0.1061(0.1076;0.1090).$$
(12)
It would be necessary to improve the accuracy of the determination of $`\alpha _S(M_Z)`$ to the level about 0.03$`\%`$, to reach the upper bound on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ as low as 0.08. Unfortunately, such accuracy is hardly achievable at present.

This number is important because there are various arguments  in favour of a definite limiting value of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=1/4\pi 0.0796`$. Actually, these arguments are suggested for the asymptotical value of the ”bare” electromagnetic charge $`e_0=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c}`$ but the same limit is valid for strong interactions in GUT. The strong coupling strength is the closest one to this value (0.118 at $`Z^0`$) at present. Therefore, it is most reasonable to try to get some knowledge about $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ from QCD-governed processes.

If the limiting value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=1/4\pi `$ is really preferred by nature, it becomes possible to estimate the characteristic energy scale $`s_0`$ from the formula (5):

$$\sqrt{s_0}1.6TeV(2;2.6).$$
(13)
It is seen that this scale is high but, surprisingly enough, much lower than Planck scales. It lies in the reach of the next generation of colliders. Nevertheless, to confirm or disprove these scales in experiment is very difficult if not problematic. To demonstrate this statement, we consider two methods of $`\alpha _S`$ determination in $`e^+e^{}`$ experiments.

At the beginning, let us estimate the ratio $`\alpha _S^{(m)}(s)/\alpha _S(s)`$ at various energies. At the $`Z^0`$ peak they differ by 0,03 - 0.01 per cents only. At $`\sqrt{s}=1`$ TeV this difference increases to 2 - 3 $`\%`$. For energies $`\sqrt{s}=3\sqrt{s_0}`$ it can be as large as 10 -15 $`\%`$. Thus, in principle, the experiments in the high energy region can distinguish between the two possibilities.

Now, consider the ratio $`R`$ of the hadronic to muon cross sections:

$$R=R_0(1+\frac{\alpha _S(s)}{\pi }+\mathrm{}).$$
(14)
The difference in $`R`$ is $`\pi `$ times smaller than the above differences. This implies that extremely precise measurements are needed at very high energies to discover the limiting value $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=1/4\pi `$.

Even more dramatic is the situation with the energy dependence of mean multiplicities in quark and gluon jets. It is known (for a review see, e.g., ) that these multiplicities increase as $`\mathrm{exp}c\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}s}`$ for the running coupling strength  and like a power $`s^\kappa `$ for the fixed coupling . Surely, the power law takes over the first one at high energies. If the coupling strength stops its running at high energy, one would await this effect to show up. It really does, however, at extremely high and unreachable energies.

It is easy to estimate the corresponding exponents in the DLA expressions for the multiplicities from the abovecited papers. The running coupling behaviour is

$$n_r=A\mathrm{exp}(2c\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\frac{s}{Q_0^2}).$$
(15)
Here $`c=(4N_c/\beta _0)^{1/2}`$, $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colours, $`A`$ is a common normalization constant, defined by the non-perturbative region.

The fixed coupling theory predicts the power-like growth of mean multiplicity with energy increase:

$$n_f=A\mathrm{exp}(c\mathrm{ln}\frac{s}{Q_0^2}/\mathrm{ln}^{1/2}\frac{s_0}{Q_0^2}).$$
(16)
Herefrom, the energy at which the fixed coupling regime would show up is

$$\sqrt{s}=Q_0\left(\frac{s_0}{Q_0^2}\right)^2=Q_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi }{\beta _0\alpha _{\mathrm{}}}\right).$$
(17)
These energies are far outside the particle energy region available in nature if $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=1/4\pi `$. They are about 10(23-25) eV. These estimates show that the results of the jet calculations with the running coupling strength at present energies are safe and do not depend on its particular asymptotical value.

The only hope to get in the nearest future $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ appears if its value is as ”high” as 0.1 by some unknown reasons. Then the improvement by a factor of 2 in accuracy at $`Z^0`$ peak would already allow to check this hypothesis. At the energy 1 TeV, the modified coupling strength would be larger than the traditional perturbative value by about 15 - 20 $`\%`$. In addition, some other data (shape variables etc) could be more sensitive to the variations of the coupling strength. More complete analysis is needed to compare various upper bounds.

To conclude, the absence of the asymptotical freedom in QCD is hard to confirm or disprove in experiment in the nearest future if the limiting value of the coupling strength is $`1/4\pi `$ or lower. If the asymptotical values of the coupling strength are very close to 0.1, they can be quantitatively established when the accuracy of the data processing increases. The low values of the energy scale parameter $`s_0`$ are encouraging for new prospects at the next generation of accelerators. Apart from the considered data, other experimentally measured characteristics (like event shapes) could be more sensitive to these features of QCD. The complete analysis of all the data from this point of view should be done and upper bounds on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ determined and compared to answer the question posed to the title of the paper.

This work has been supported in parts by the RFBR grants N 02-02-16779, 03-02-16134, NSH-1936.2003.2.


format: text

text:
# Einstein metrics and the number of smooth structures on a four–manifold

## 1. Introduction

All the classical obstructions to the existence of Einstein metrics on four–manifolds are homotopy invariant. If a closed orientable $`4`$–manifold $`M`$ admits an Einstein metric, then its Euler characteristic has to be non–negative, and, furthermore, the Hitchin–Thorpe inequality

(1)
$$e(M)\frac{3}{2}|\sigma (M)|$$

must hold , where $`e`$ denotes the Euler characteristic and $`\sigma `$ the signature. This condition is clearly homotopy invariant, as are the restrictions coming from Gromov’s notion of simplicial volume , and from the existence of maps of non–zero degree to hyperbolic manifolds .

Using Seiberg–Witten invariants, LeBrun  gave the first examples of simply connected smooth four-manifolds which satisfy the (strict) Hitchin–Thorpe inequality, but still do not admit Einstein metrics. As his examples were not known to be homeomorphic to manifolds admitting Einstein metrics, LeBrun’s paper implicitly raised the question whether the new obstruction might in fact be homotopy invariant, or not. This issue was disposed of by the second author in . Using LeBrun’s  work, Kotschick  proved the following result, showing for the first time that the smooth structures of $`4`$–manifolds form definite obstructions to the existence of an Einstein metric.

###### Theorem 1.

There are infinitely many pairs $`(X_i,Z_i)`$ of simply connected closed oriented smooth $`4`$–manifolds such that:

* $`X_i`$ is homeomorphic to $`Z_i`$,
* if $`ij`$, then $`X_i`$ and $`X_j`$ are not homotopy equivalent,
* $`Z_i`$ admits an Einstein metric but $`X_i`$ does not,
* $`e(X_i)>\frac{3}{2}|\sigma (X_i)|`$.

Note that 3) implies in particular that $`X_i`$ and $`Z_i`$ are not diffeomorphic.

After the proof of Theorem 1, Kotschick asked how many smooth structures with Einstein metrics and how many without such metrics exist on a given topological manifold, see  p. 6-7. He pointed out that, using for example the work of Fintushel–Stern, one can show that one has infinitely many choices for the smooth structures of the manifolds $`X_i`$ in Theorem 1. Kotschick  also remarked that by the work of Salvetti , the number of distinct smooth structures among sets of homeomorphic minimal surfaces of general type can be arbitrarily large, and that all the examples in  have ample canonical bundle, and therefore have Kähler–Einstein metrics of negative scalar curvature. Thus, the number of smooth structures admitting Einstein metrics can be arbitrarily large.

The purpose of this paper is to show that these two phenomena, infinitely many smooth structures without Einstein metrics and an arbitrarily large number of smooth structures with Einstein metrics, can be realized on the same topological manifold. We shall prove the following:

###### Theorem 2.

For every natural number $`k`$ there is a simply connected topological $`4`$-manifold $`M_k`$ which has at least $`k`$ distinct smooth structures $`Z_k^i`$ supporting Einstein metrics, and also has infinitely many distinct smooth structures $`X_k^j`$ not supporting Einstein metrics.

Moreover, all the $`Z_k^i\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ and $`X_k^j\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ for fixed $`k`$ are diffeomorphic to each other.

We shall produce lots of such examples, with ratios $`|\sigma |/e`$ which are dense in the interval $`[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$, compare Theorem 7 in Section 4.

As the $`Z_k^i`$ and $`X_k^j`$ are all homeomorphic for fixed $`k`$, Wall’s classical result  implies that they are stably diffeomorphic. That a single stabilization with $`P^2`$ suffices can be interpreted to mean that these differentiable structures are as close to each other as is possible while still being non-diffeomorphic. In fact, we shall exhibit $`Z_k^i`$ and $`X_k^j`$ as in Theorem 2 which are almost completely decomposable (ACD) in the sense of Mandelbaum , so that their connected sums with $`P^2`$ are diffeomorphic to $`pP^2\mathrm{\#}q\overline{P^2}`$ for some $`p`$ and $`q`$. Whether such a decomposable manifold can admit an Einstein metric is only known in very few cases with $`p=1`$.

To put Theorem 2 into perspective, we continue with the chronology of earlier work in this direction. After  appeared, LeBrun  refined his arguments from , and produced more examples of precisely the type exhibited in Theorem 1, where one has pairs of homeomorphic manifolds such that one is Einstein and the other is not. However, he did not discuss the number of smooth structures. This was taken up recently by Ishida and LeBrun in . They give examples of simply connected topological four-manifolds with an infinite number of smooth structures which do not admit Einstein metrics. Like LeBrun in his earlier papers , Ishida–LeBrun  do not exhibit multiple smooth structures with Einstein metrics on the same manifold where one has infinitely many smooth structures without such metrics. In fact, for the most interesting ones of their examples, no smooth structure with an Einstein metric is known.

One of the difficulties in proving results like Theorems 1 and 2 above is that there are almost no existence results for Einstein metrics on simply connected $`4`$-manifolds. Therefore, one is always forced to arrange a situation where one can appeal to the only existence result covering lots of homeomorphism types, which is the resolution of the Calabi conjecture for negative scalar curvature due to Aubin  and Yau . This then leads to questions about the geography of complex surfaces of general type, and of some related classes of four-manifolds. Thus, in the present paper we make substantial progress on two geographical questions, which are of interest independently of the applications to Einstein metrics. One is the geography of algebraic surfaces which are iterated branched covers of the plane, the other is about symplectic four-manifolds which are almost completely decomposable.

Salvetti  considered iterated cyclic branched covers of the projective plane, and used these to prove that for any $`k`$, there exists a pair of invariants $`e`$ and $`\sigma `$ such that for this pair one has at least $`k`$ homeomorphic surfaces with different divisibilities for their canonical classes. In his examples, the ratios $`\sigma /e`$ are so close to zero that one cannot use them to prove Theorem 2 with the arguments of . In fact, even the improved estimates of  do not apply. Therefore, in Section 2 below we provide a generalization of Salvetti’s arguments which shows that, by choosing the parameters judiciously, iterated cyclic branched covers of the projective plane can be used to cover other parts of the geography of surfaces. In particular, we can arrange $`k`$–tuples of homeomorphic surfaces with different divisibilities for the canonical class with characteristic numbers which are such that homeomorphic manifolds without Einstein metrics can be found using the improved estimate from .

In Section 3, which is inspired in part by the work of J. Park , we discuss the geography of minimal symplectic four-manifolds which are almost completely decomposable. Blowups of these will be used for the $`X_k^j`$ in Theorem 2. Even without the ACD requirement, our geography results are qualitatively stronger than what was known before, compare for example .

In Section 4 we combine the different ingredients to prove a more precise version of Theorem 2. We shall also exhibit infinitely many smooth structures without Einstein metrics on many other manifolds which are not homotopy equivalent to complex surfaces, for which the existence of smooth structures with Einstein metrics is an open question. See Theorem 8.

In Section 5 we give explicit examples of manifolds with very small homology which have a smooth structure supporting an Einstein metric and have infinitely many smooth structures which do not support such a metric. We also give simple explicit examples with multiple smooth structures admitting Einstein metrics.

## 2. The geography of iterated branched covers of $`P^2`$

In this section we study the spread of Chern numbers among algebraic surfaces which are iterated branched covers of the projective plane. We build on the work of Salvetti  to show that for any integer $`k`$ there are $`k`$-tuples of homeomorphic surfaces with ample canonical classes of different divisibilities, whose ratio $`c_1^2/\chi `$ can be specified arbitrarily within a certain range. Note that $`k`$-tuples of homeomorphic surfaces with canonical classes of different divisibilities were first exhibited by Catanese  using bidouble covers of $`P^1\times P^1`$. In his examples the divisibilities are even, but the method probably extends to odd divisibility. Nevertheless, we found iterated covers of the plane to be more convenient to use.

Given positive integers $`r`$, $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$ and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$, one can construct a simply-connected complex algebraic surface $`S`$ by starting from the projective plane and repeatedly passing to coverings of degrees $`d_j`$ branched along the preimages of smooth curves of degree $`n_j=d_jm_j`$ in the plane. The canonical class of $`S`$ is $`_{j=1}^r(d_j1)m_j3`$ times the pullback of the class of a line in the projective plane. Except for some small values of the parameters, the surface $`S`$ so obtained is minimal of general type and has ample canonical bundle. The Chern numbers of $`S`$ are

$`c_1^2(S)`$ $`=`$ $`d_1\mathrm{}d_r({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(d_j1)m_j3)^2,`$
$`c_2(S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d_1\mathrm{}d_r\left(({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(d_j1)m_j3)^2+({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(d_j^21)m_j^23)\right),`$
and they determine the holomorphic Euler characteristic $`\chi (S)`$ and the signature

$$\sigma (S)=\frac{1}{3}d_1\mathrm{}d_r(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}(d_j^21)m_j^23).$$

We consider the inverse problem, starting with a fixed pair of invariants, say $`c_1^2(S)`$ and $`\sigma (S)`$, and try to find $`k`$ solutions of the above equations for $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_r`$ and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$. Salvetti  considered the special case when the covering degrees $`d_j`$ are all equal and the $`m_j`$ are not too far from being equal; more precisely he assumed $`_{j=1}^rm_j^2\frac{1}{r1}(_{j=1}^rm_j)^2`$. This leads to ratios for $`c_1^2(S)/\chi (S)`$ close to $`8`$, which is not suitable for our purposes. In order to use these surfaces as the $`Z_k^i`$ in Theorem 2, we need $`c_1^2(S)/\chi (S)`$ to be somewhere below $`6`$, and the smaller we get this ratio, the easier the proof will be. In order to minimize $`c_1^2(S)/\chi (S)`$ we have to maximize the quotient of $`(d_j^21)m_j^2`$ by $`((d_j1)m_j)^2`$, i. e. we should have a few of the $`m_j`$ much bigger than the others and the corresponding covering degrees $`d_j`$ small.

We can do better and adjust $`c_1^2(S)/\chi (S)`$ to approximate any value between $`4`$ and $`8`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`k`$ be a positive integer. There are values for $`c_1^2`$ and $`\sigma `$ which are realized by at least $`k`$ iterated branched covers with different divisibilities of the canonical class. The divisibilities can be arranged to be all even, or all odd. The corresponding ratios $`c_1^2/\chi `$ are dense in the interval $`[4,8]`$.

###### Proof.

To spread out the Chern numbers, fix rational numbers $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s`$ normalized by $`\mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _s=1`$. Put $`\mu ^2=_{j=1}^s\mu _j^2`$ and note that by a suitable choice of $`s`$ and $`\mu _j`$ we can place $`\mu ^2`$ anywhere between $`0`$ and $`1`$ because the set of numbers of the form $`_{j=1}^s\mu _j^2`$ with arbitrary $`s`$ and rational $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s`$ summing up to 1 is dense in the unit interval.

Consider a tower of coverings of the projective plane by $`s`$ iterated double covers branched over curves of degree $`2\mu _jm_0`$, where the integer $`m_0`$ will be fixed later. Of course $`m_0`$ has to be a multiple of the denominators of $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _s`$. In the end we will let $`m_0`$ grow to infinity.

Now on top of this tower we consider $`16`$ further cyclic covers of very high degree $`d`$ branched over the preimages of curves of degrees $`dm_1,\mathrm{},dm_{16}`$. If $`m_0`$ is sufficiently large, the elementary number theory worked out by Salvetti  will provide us with several solutions for $`(d,m_1,\mathrm{},m_{16})`$ giving rise to the same invariants $`c_1^2`$ and $`\sigma `$ for the total covering surfaces.

For our $`s+16`$ stage tower, the formulae for the invariants specialize to

(2) $`c_1^2(S)`$ $`=`$ $`2^sd^{16}(m_0+(d1){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j3)^2`$
(3) $`\sigma (S)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}2^sd^{16}(3\mu ^2m_0^2+(d^21){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j^23).`$
Fix $`\delta >0`$. Since the sum $`_pp^1`$ over prime numbers $`p`$ diverges, for any real number $`\alpha >1`$ the number of primes between $`\alpha ^n`$ and $`\alpha ^{n+1}`$ will be unbounded for $`n\mathrm{}`$. Hence we can find $`k+1`$ odd primes such that the largest one is at most $`\alpha `$ times the smallest one. Forgetting the smallest one, we obtain a set $`D`$ of $`k`$ odd primes such that $`(d+1)/(d^{}1)<\alpha `$ for any $`d,d^{}D`$. Note that $`D`$ depends on $`\alpha `$, though this is not explicit in our notation. Put $`d^{}=\mathrm{min}(D)`$ and $`\epsilon =\delta /(d^{}1)`$. It is clear that $`\epsilon `$ converges to $`0`$ for $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\delta `$ fixed.

These $`dD`$ will be used as degrees in our tower of coverings. Put $`P=_{dD}d`$. By (2) and since the $`dD`$ are primes, we can write $`c_1^2=2^sP^{16}Q`$ for some integer $`Q`$. Furthermore, since $`c_1^2/2^sd^{16}`$ has to be a square, we can write $`Q=C^2`$ for an integer $`C`$. Similarly, we can write $`\sigma =\frac{1}{3}2^sP^{16}C^{}`$ for some integer $`C^{}`$. The equations (2) and (3) now read

(4) $`(d1){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j`$ $`=`$ $`(P/d)^8C(m_03),`$
(5) $`(d^21){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j^2`$ $`=`$ $`(P/d)^{16}C^{}3(\mu ^2m_0^21).`$
We are left with the task of solving the pair of equations

(6) $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j`$ $`=A_d,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j^2`$ $`=B_d`$
for each $`dD`$ (separately), where we have put

$`A_d`$ $`=((P/d)^8C(m_03))/(d1),`$
$`B_d`$ $`=((P/d)^{16}C^{}3(\mu ^2m_0^21))/(d^21).`$
We can achieve that both $`A_d`$ and $`B_d`$ are integers by the following

###### Lemma 1.

There are integers $`C,C^{}`$ such that for every $`dD`$ we have $`(P/d)^8Cm_03`$ mod $`d1`$ and $`(P/d)^{16}C^{}3(\mu ^2m_0^21)`$ mod $`d^21`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`D`$ consists of nearby primes we infer that $`d`$ and $`d^{}\pm 1`$ are coprime for any $`d,d^{}D`$. Hence $`P`$ is invertible $`mod_d(d1)`$ and we can find $`C`$ with $`P^8Cm_03`$ mod $`_d(d1)`$. Since $`(P/d)^8P^8`$ mod $`d1`$ for every $`d`$ the result follows.

Similarly $`P`$ is invertible mod $`_d(d^21)`$ so we find $`C^{}`$ with $`P^{16}C^{}3(\mu ^2m_0^21)`$ mod $`_d(d^21)`$. Since $`d^{16}1`$ mod $`d^21`$ the result follows. ∎

We are free to modify $`C`$ by a multiple of $`_d(d1)`$ and $`C^{}`$ by a multiple of $`_d(d^21)`$; hence we can arrange that $`A_d^{}`$ and $`B_d^{}`$ have distance less than $`P^9`$ respectively $`P^{18}`$ from any given values $`A`$ and $`B`$. Notice that with $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ satisfying Lemma 1 both $`A_d`$ and $`B_d`$ will be even for every $`d`$ (as soon as $`k2`$).

Our goal is to choose $`C,C^{}`$ in such a way that we can solve the pair of equations (6) relying on the following

###### Lemma 2 (Salvetti ).

Let $`A,r`$ be integers with $`A>0`$ and $`r16`$. The integral quadratic form $`x_1^2+\mathrm{}+x_r^2`$, under the restriction $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_r=A`$ and $`x_j>0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$, represents all integers $`BA`$ $`(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})`$ such that

$$A^2/r+\alpha _rBA^2/(r1),$$

where $`\alpha _r`$ is a constant depending only on $`r`$.

###### Proof.

This is the Lemma on page 166 of . The proof is elementary, using that each non-negative integer is a sum of four squares. ∎

Recall that we denote the smallest element of $`D`$ by $`d^{}`$. For any positive integer $`m_0`$ choose $`C(m_0)`$ such that

$$A_d^{}=((P/d^{})^8C(m_0)(m_03))/(d^{}1)$$

satisfies $`|A_d^{}\epsilon m_0|<P^9`$. Since $`P`$ does not depend on $`m_0`$, we will eventually have

$$\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^2m_0^2+240\alpha _{16}<A_d^{}^2<(2\epsilon m_0)^2$$

for all sufficiently large $`m_0`$, where $`\alpha _{16}`$ is the constant from Lemma 2 with $`r=16`$. Then the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)=\frac{A_d^{}^2}{15}(\frac{A_d^{}^2}{16}+\alpha _{16})=\frac{A_d^{}^2}{240}\alpha _{16}$$

will be bounded below by

(7)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)>\frac{\epsilon ^2}{480}m_0^2$$

for large $`m_0`$. Now choose $`C^{}(m_0)`$ such that $`B_d^{}`$ differs from $`A_d^{}^2/16+\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)/2`$ by no more than $`P^{18}`$. Then for large $`m_0`$ we will have

(8)
$$\frac{A_d^{}^2}{16}+\alpha _{16}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)<B_d^{}<\frac{A_d^{}^2}{15}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0).$$

###### Lemma 3.

If $`\alpha `$ is sufficiently close to 1 then for all $`m_00`$ we have

$$\frac{A_d^2}{16}+\alpha _{16}<B_d<\frac{A_d^2}{15}$$

for every $`dD`$.

###### Proof.

We first show that $`A_d^2`$ differs from $`A_d^{}^2`$ by no more than $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)/6`$. To see this, observe that

$`|(d1)A_d(d^{}1)A_d^{}|`$ $`=(P/d^{})^8C(m_0)|(d^{}/d)^81|`$
$`(\alpha ^81)((d^{}1)A_d^{}+m_03).`$
We divide by $`d1`$ and use $`|(d^{}1)/(d1)1|<\alpha 1`$ to obtain

$$|A_dA_d^{}|(\alpha ^81)(A_d^{}+\frac{m_03}{d1})+(\alpha 1)A_d^{}$$

or, using $`A_d^{}<2\epsilon m_0`$ and $`1/(d1)\epsilon /\delta `$,

$$|A_dA_d^{}|h(\alpha )\epsilon m_0$$

with $`h(\alpha )=(\alpha ^81)(2+1/\delta )+2(\alpha 1)`$, which goes to zero when $`\alpha 1`$. Then

$$|A_d^2A_d^{}^2|2A_d^{}|A_dA_d^{}|+|A_dA_d^{}|^2h^{}(\alpha )\epsilon ^2m_0^2$$

where $`h^{}(\alpha )=4h(\alpha )+h(\alpha )^2`$ also goes to zero when $`\alpha 1`$. This shows that as soon as $`\alpha `$ is closer to 1 than some constant depending only on $`\delta `$, the difference $`|A_d^2A_d^{}^2|`$ is less than 1/6 times the term on the right-hand side of (7).

A similar computation shows that we can assume the same bound for $`|B_dB_d^{}|`$. In detail,

$`|(d^21)B_d(d_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1)B_d^{}|`$ $`(P/d^{})^{16}C^{}(m_0)|(d^{}/d)^{16}1|`$
$`(\alpha ^{16}1)((d_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1)B_d^{}+3\mu ^2m_0^23).`$
Dividing by $`d^21`$ we obtain

$$|B_dB_d^{}|(\alpha ^{16}1)(B_d^{}+\frac{3\mu ^2m_0^23}{d^21})+(\alpha ^21)B_d^{}.$$

Using $`B_d^{}<\frac{1}{15}A_d^{}^2<\frac{4}{15}\epsilon ^2m_0^2`$ and $`1/(d^21)(\epsilon /\delta )^2`$ this gives $`|B_dB_d^{}|<h^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )\epsilon ^2m_0^2`$ where $`h^{\prime \prime }(\alpha )=(\alpha ^81)(\frac{4}{15}+3\mu ^2/\delta ^2)+\frac{4}{15}(\alpha ^21)`$ becomes arbitrarily small as $`\alpha 1`$.

Now the claim follows from the estimates (8) because replacing $`d^{}`$ by $`d`$ does not change any of the terms by more than $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m_0)/6`$. ∎

According to Lemma 2 this shows that for each $`dD`$ the pair of equations (6) is solvable by positive integers.

Next we calculate the ratios $`c_1^2/\chi `$ for these surfaces. As they all have the same invariants, we can look at the one with the reference parameter $`d=d^{}`$. For the degrees of the branch divisors we have the estimate $`_{j=1}^rm_j=A_d2\epsilon m_0`$. This gives

$`c_1^2`$ $`=2^sd^{16}(m_0+(d1){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j3)^2`$
$`=2^sd^{16}m_0^2(1+(d1)O(\epsilon ))^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^sd^{16}m_0^2(1+O(\delta ))^2,`$
and, using $`_jm_j^2(_jm_j)^2`$,

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{3}2^sd^{16}(3\mu ^2m_0^2+(d^21){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{16}{}}}m_j^23)`$
$`=`$ $`2^sd^{16}\mu ^2m_0^2(1+(d^21)O(\epsilon ^2))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^sd^{16}\mu ^2m_0^2(1+O(\delta ^2)).`$
Since we can choose $`\delta `$ arbitrarily small, then $`\alpha `$ arbitrarily close to $`1`$ (increasing $`d`$) and, finally, $`m_0`$ arbitrarily large, these estimates for $`c_1^2`$ and $`\sigma `$ show that we can arrange $`\sigma /c_1^2`$ arbitrarily close to $`\mu ^2`$.

Recall that the possible values of $`\mu ^2`$ are dense in the unit interval. Thus, $`\frac{c_1^2}{\chi }=\frac{8}{1\sigma /c_1^2}`$ ranges over values dense in $`[4,8]`$.

It remains to check the divisibilities of the canonical classes of the surfaces with fixed invariants that we have constructed. The divisibility is $`m_0+(d1)_jm_j3`$, because the pullback of the hyperplane class to the iterated covering is primitive, compare  Proposition 10 and corollary. Thus the divisibility is odd if and only if $`m_0`$ is even. This imposes no restriction on our construction. We obtain even divisibilities if and only if $`m_0`$ is odd. Since $`m_0`$ is restricted to multiples of the denominators of the $`\mu _j`$, this requires that these denominators be odd. This restriction still leaves us with a set of attainable $`\mu ^2`$ which is dense in the unit interval.

Now for each $`dD`$ we obtain a unique total covering degree $`2^sd^{16}`$. This implies that the surfaces obtained for a fixed $`c_1^2`$ and different $`d`$ have different divisibilities $`d^8\sqrt{c_1^2/2^s}`$ for their canonical classes. ∎

###### Corollary 1.

For every $`k>0`$ there are $`k`$-tuples of simply connected spin and non-spin complex algebraic surfaces with ample canonical bundles which are homeomorphic, but are pairwise non-diffeomorphic. For every $`k`$, the ratios $`c_1^2/\chi `$ of such $`k`$-tuples are dense in the interval $`[4,8]`$.

###### Proof.

The surfaces in Theorem 3 are all simply connected and have ample canonical bundles. They are spin or non-spin according to whether the divisibility of the canonical class is even or odd. Once the parity of the divisibility and the values of the Chern numbers are fixed, all these surfaces are homeomorphic by Freedman’s result . However, surfaces with different divisibilities cannot be diffeomorphic, because Seiberg–Witten theory shows that the canonical class of a minimal surface of general type is diffeomorphism-invariant (up to sign), compare , page 789. ∎

## 3. Geography of ACD symplectic manifolds

In this section we study the geography of simply connected minimal symplectic four–manifolds which are almost completely decomposable. Recall that a four–manifold $`X`$ is called almost completely decomposable or ACD if $`X\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ is diffeomorphic to $`pP^2\mathrm{\#}q\overline{P^2}`$ for some $`p`$ and $`q`$. Mandelbaum  conjectured that every simply connected complex algebraic surface is ACD, and it is very natural to extend this to simply connected symplectic four–manifolds. Mandelbaum and Moishezon proved that certain algebraic surfaces, including simply connected elliptic surfaces, complete intersections and double planes are indeed ACD, compare  and the references cited there.

The geography of minimal symplectic four–manifolds has been investigated by many authors in recent years, for example by Fintushel–Stern , Gompf , Park  and Stipsicz . Here we reprove and improve their results, although we only use manifolds with the ACD property. That the ACD condition does not constrain the geography can be taken as evidence that all simply connected symplectic manifolds may be ACD. The restriction to minimal symplectic manifolds is natural, and implies that all our manifolds will be irreducible, see , which gives the ACD property added interest.

We use the coordinates $`c_1^2=2e+3\sigma `$ and $`\chi =\frac{1}{4}(e+\sigma )`$ to state our geography results. By the work of Taubes , minimal symplectic four–manifolds satisfy $`c_1^20`$. It is clear that in the simply connected case one must have $`\chi >0`$. Thus, we try to cover lattice points in the first quadrant of the $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$–plane with simply connected minimal symplectic manifolds which dissolve after connected sum with only one copy of $`P^2`$. All our manifolds are, or can be made, non-spin, and we will not repeat this. We shall use symplectic summation along submanifolds, as pioneered by Gompf , with only a handful of building blocks. Most of these summations will be along tori of zero selfintersection, in which case the Chern invariants are additive. For the resulting manifolds we have to check minimality and the ACD property. Minimality is always true if we sum minimal symplectic manifolds with $`\chi >1`$. Proofs of this have been given by Li–Stipsicz  and by Park , with the latter attributing the result to Lorek. To prove almost complete decomposability we shall use the following “irrational connected sum lemma” of Mandelbaum, see .

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be simply connected oriented $`4`$-manifolds containing the same embedded surface $`F`$ of genus $`g1`$ with zero selfintersection. Assume that $`F`$ has simply connected complement in $`M`$. Denote by $`P`$ the sum of $`M`$ and $`N`$ along $`F`$, and assume that $`P`$ is not spin.

1. Then $`P\mathrm{\#}P^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{P^2}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`M\mathrm{\#}N\mathrm{\#}2g(P^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{P^2})`$.
2. If $`(N,F)`$ is obtained from a pair $`(N^{},F^{})`$ by blowing up a point on $`F^{}`$, then $`P\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ is diffeomorphic to $`M\mathrm{\#}N^{}\mathrm{\#}2g(P^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{P^2})`$.

We now list our building blocks.

###### Example 1 (Elliptic building blocks).

We shall denote by $`E(n)`$ the relatively minimal elliptic surface with $`\chi (E(n))=n`$ over $`S^2`$ without multiple fibers. This is the fiber sum of $`n`$ copies of $`E(1)=P^2\mathrm{\#}9\overline{P^2}`$, and is therefore ACD by the second part of Proposition 1. It is minimal as soon as $`n>1`$.

We can use logarithmic transformations on $`E(n)`$ to produce infinitely many distinct smooth structures, all of which support symplectic structures such that the fibers are symplectic submanifolds. Using such logarithmic transformations we can also change the homeomorphism type of $`E(2n)`$, which is spin, to a non-spin elliptic surface. All these elliptic surfaces with multiple fibers are ACD, see .

Gompf  has shown that the $`K3`$ surface $`E(2)`$ contains two disjoint nuclei corresponding to different elliptic fibrations in such a way that there is a symplectic form for which the tori in the two nuclei are simultaneously symplectic. This is useful because each of the nuclei contains a $`2`$-sphere intersecting the torus fiber once, so that one can perform logarithmic transformations or symplectic summations independently inside the two nuclei, without introducing a nontrivial fundamental group.

###### Example 2 (A small building block).

We shall denote by $`S`$ the simply connected symplectic manifold $`S_{1,1}`$ constructed by Gompf in , Example 5.4. It has $`c_1^2(S)=1`$, and $`\chi (S)=2`$, and contains a symplectically embedded torus $`T`$ of zero selfintersection and a symplectically embedded genus $`2`$ surface $`F`$ disjoint from $`T`$, such that $`S(TF)`$ is simply connected. That $`S`$ is irreducible was proved by Stipsicz . A fortiori it is minimal.

###### Example 3 (Building blocks with positive signature).

We use the following construction of Li–Stipsicz , compare also .

For every positive integer $`n`$ there is a symplectic manifold $`X_n`$ which is a Lefschetz fibration over the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+2}`$ of genus $`n+2`$ which admits a section of selfintersection $`n1`$. It has Chern invariants

$$\chi (X_n)=25n^2+30n+1,$$

$$c_1^2(X_n)=225n^2+180n.$$

Furthermore, the fibration and the section induce inverses of each other on the fundamental groups. Thus one can kill the fundamental group of $`X_n`$ by symplectic summation along the section. We will use a blowup of the $`K3`$ surface as follows. First we construct a smooth symplectic submanifold inside a nucleus by smoothing the union of $`n+2`$ copies of a regular fiber and one copy of a section. This gives a surface of genus $`n+2`$ and selfintersection $`2n+2`$. Blowing up $`n+1`$ points on this surface, its selfintersection drops to $`n+1`$, so that it can be symplectically summed to the section of $`X_n`$. Note that the surface has simply connected complement inside the blown-up nucleus of $`K3`$. In this way we obtain a simply connected minimal symplectic $`4`$–manifold $`Y_n`$. Using the above formulae for the Chern invariants of $`X_n`$ we obtain:

$$\chi (Y_n)=25n^2+31n+4,$$

$$c_1^2(Y_n)=225n^2+187n+7.$$

These manifolds are not spin and still contain a nucleus of a $`K3`$ surface with simply connected complement. Note that for every $`ϵ>0`$ there is an $`n`$ such that $`c_1^2(Y_n)/\chi (Y_n)>9ϵ`$.

As a warmup for our main geography result we first show how to fill up a certain region, which includes that below the Noether line. The importance of this is that the width of this region in the $`y`$ direction goes to infinity with $`x`$.

For a constant $`c`$ let $`R_c`$ denote the set of lattice points $`(x,y)`$ in the plane satisfying $`x>0`$, $`y0`$, and

(9) $`y`$ $`3x51,`$
(10) $`y`$ $`6xc.`$
###### Proposition 2.

There exists a constant $`c`$ such that all lattice points in $`R_c`$ are realized as the Chern invariants $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of infinitely many homeomorphic pairwise nondiffeomorphic simply connected minimal symplectic manifolds, all of which are almost completely decomposable.

###### Proof.

All our examples will be non-spin and will have the same Chern invariants. Thus they are homeomorphic by Freedman’s classification .

There is nothing to prove for $`y=0`$, as minimal elliptic surfaces and their logarithmic transformations give the required examples. Thus we may assume $`y>0`$. Given a positive integer $`y`$, we can write it uniquely as $`y=9k+r8`$, with $`0r8`$ and $`k>0`$. Then consider the manifold $`X(k,r,n)`$ obtained as the symplectic sum of $`k`$ copies of building block $`S`$ summed along the genus $`2`$ surface $`F`$, and of $`r`$ further copies of $`S`$ and one copy of $`E(n)`$ summed to the result along the torus $`T`$. This is again simply connected. The Chern invariants are $`c_1^2(X(k,r,n))=9k+r8`$ and $`\chi (X(k,r,n))=3k+2r+n1`$. If we take $`n2`$, then the building blocks are minimal, and so are the $`X(k,r,n)`$. Moreover, the $`X(k,r,n)`$ fill out the claimed region (for any $`c`$).

Consider now the connected sum $`X(k,r,n)\mathrm{\#}P^2`$. Applying the second part of Proposition 1 to the seam inside the elliptic piece $`E(n)=E(1)_{T^2}E(n1)`$ we can split off a copy of $`P^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{P^2}`$. Then using this to apply the first part of Proposition 1 to the remaining seams, and breaking up the elliptic pieces, we see that

$`X(k,r,n)`$ $`\mathrm{\#}P^2`$
$`(k+r)S\mathrm{\#}(3k+r+2n2)P^2\mathrm{\#}(3k+r+10n3)\overline{P^2}`$
$`(k+r)S\mathrm{\#}(3k+r+2n2)(S^2\times S^2)\mathrm{\#}(8n1)\overline{P^2}.`$
By the result of Wall  there is a $`k_0`$ such that $`S\mathrm{\#}k_0(S^2\times S^2)`$ is completely decomposable. Therefore, $`X(k,r,n)\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ dissolves as soon as $`3k+r+2n2k_0`$, which follows from (10) with $`c=3k_0+72`$.

It remains to show that there are infinitely many symplectic manifolds homeomorphic but non-diffeomorphic to $`X(k,r,n)`$, all of which are ACD. For this we replace the elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ without multiple fibers by one with multiple fibers obtained by logarithmic transformation. In this case the general fiber becomes divisible in homology, in particular its complement is no longer simply connected. Here this is irrelevant because the torus in $`S`$ has simply connected complement, so that the symplectic sum does give a simply connected manifold and Proposition 1 can be applied.

The logarithmic transformations on $`E(n)`$ produce infinitely many distinct smooth structures on the topological manifold underlying $`E(n)`$, which are detected by Seiberg–Witten invariants, cf. . This difference in the Seiberg–Witten invariants survives the symplectic sum operation along a fiber, because of the gluing formulas due to Morgan–Mrówka–Szabó  and Morgan–Szabó–Taubes . Thus, we can produce infinitely many minimal symplectic manifolds homeomorphic but non-diffeomorphic to $`X(k,r,n)`$. All these are ACD by the same argument as for $`X(k,r,n)`$ (and the fact that the elliptic building blocks are ACD even when they contain multiple fibers). ∎

###### Theorem 4.

For every $`ϵ>0`$, there is a constant $`c(ϵ)>0`$ such that every lattice point $`(x,y)`$ in the first quadrant satisfying

(11)
$$y(9ϵ)xc(ϵ)$$

is realized by the Chern invariants $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of infinitely many pairwise non-diffeomorphic simply connected minimal symplectic manifolds, all of which are almost completely decomposable.

###### Proof.

Given $`ϵ>0`$, we first choose an $`i`$ such that $`c_1^2(Y_i)/\chi (Y_i)>9ϵ`$ for the building block $`Y_i`$ in Example 3. Denote this fixed $`Y_i`$ by $`Y`$.

Let $`Y(l,k,r,n)`$ be the symplectic manifold obtained by symplectically summing $`l`$ copies of $`Y`$ along the torus $`T`$ in the $`K3`$ nucleus inside $`Y`$, and then summing the result to the manifold $`X(k,r,n)`$ from the proof of Proposition 2 using the same torus in $`Y`$ and the torus in $`X(k,r,n)`$ coming from the elliptic piece. If we choose $`c(ϵ)`$ large enough, then all the lattice points satisfying (11) are covered by the translates of $`R_c`$ which we obtain in this way. In all these summations the complement of the surface along which the summation is performed is simply connected in at least one of the summands, so that the resulting manifolds are simply connected. They are all minimal, as we may assume $`n>1`$.

Consider now the connected sum $`Y(l,k,r,n)\mathrm{\#}P^2`$. Applying the second part of Proposition 1 to the seam inside the elliptic piece $`E(n)=E(1)_{T^2}E(n1)`$ we can split off a copy of $`P^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{P^2}`$. Then using this to apply the first part of Proposition 1 to the remaining seams, and breaking up the elliptic pieces, we see that

$`Y(l,k,r,n)\mathrm{\#}P^2`$
$`lY\mathrm{\#}(k+r)S\mathrm{\#}(l+3k+r+2n2)P^2\mathrm{\#}(l+3k+r+10n3)\overline{P^2}`$
$`lY\mathrm{\#}(k+r)S\mathrm{\#}(l+3k+r+2n2)(S^2\times S^2)\mathrm{\#}(8n1)\overline{P^2}.`$
By choosing $`c(ϵ)`$ large enough, we can ensure that $`l+3k+r+2n2`$ is always larger than the “resolving number” of $`Y`$ and of $`S`$, cf. . This means that the result of Wall  can be applied to show that the above connected sum is completely decomposable. Thus, if the Chern invariants $`(x,y)`$ of $`Y(l,k,r,n)`$ satisfy $`y(9ϵ)xc(ϵ)`$ with large enough $`c(ϵ)`$, we conclude that $`Y(l,k,r,n)`$ is ACD.

It remains to show that there are infinitely many symplectic manifolds homeomorphic but non-diffeomorphic to $`Y(l,k,r,n)`$, all of which are ACD. For this we can replace the elliptic surface $`E(n)`$ without multiple fibers by one with multiple fibers obtained by logarithmic transformation as in the proof of Proposition 2. As all elliptic surfaces are ACD, and the logarithmic transformations can be assumed to have been made inside $`E(n1)`$ in a splitting $`E(n)=E(n1)_{T^2}E(1)`$, all the resulting manifolds will be ACD by the same argument as above. ∎

## 4. The main theorems

The following theorem is very close to various results proved by Mandelbaum and Moishezon, and will be proved using their technique, but it does not appear explicitly in their papers . The case of complete intersections does appear there, and it is pointed out that they are branched covers, but the latter are not treated in complete generality.

###### Theorem 5.

Iterated branched covers of the projective plane are almost completely decomposable.

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on the number of iterations. To begin, note that the cyclic cover of degree $`d`$ of the complex projective plane branched in a smooth curve of degree $`dm`$ is ACD by applying Theorem 2.9 of  to the Veronese embedding of $`P^2`$ given by the monomials of degree $`m`$.

It remains to show that if $`f:XP^2`$ is an iterated branched cover and $`Y`$ is the cyclic branched cover of $`X`$ branched over $`f^1(C_d)`$, where $`C_d`$ is a general plane curve of degree $`dm`$, then $`Y`$ is ACD if $`X`$ is.

Keeping in mind that $`f^1(C_d)`$ is ample, one can find closely related statements in , yet we cannot rely on them directly. In Theorem 2.9 of  the branch locus is assumed to be very ample, whereas Theorem 2.14 refers to the homology class of the branching locus and is not applicable to a given representative. Nevertheless we follow the line of argument of Mandelbaum and Moishezon, see in particular Theorem 4.2 in  or Theorems 4.1 and 4.2 in .

For each $`k0`$ choose a general section $`s_k`$ of the degree $`km`$ line bundle on the plane and let $`C_k`$ be its vanishing locus. Then $`f^1(C_k)`$ is a smooth curve in $`X`$ given by the equation $`f^{}s_k=0`$. Consider the line bundle $`L=f^{}𝒪(m)`$ and its compactification $`W=(L𝒪_X)`$. If $`p:WX`$ is the bundle projection and $`W_{\mathrm{}}=WL`$ is the section at infinity then the line bundle $`E=p^{}(L)(W_{\mathrm{}})`$ admits a tautological section $`y`$ without zeroes at infinity. A $`k`$-sheeted cyclic covering $`Y_k`$ of $`X`$ branched over $`f^1(C_k)`$ is described in $`W`$ as the vanishing locus of the section $`t_k=y^k(fp)^{}s_k`$ of $`E^k`$. Consider the pencil in $`|E^d|`$ generated by $`t_d`$ and $`t_1t_{d1}`$. The general member of the pencil is smooth and diffeomorphic to $`Y_d`$. The special member given by the vanishing of $`t_1t_{d1}`$ is the union of two smooth surfaces $`Y_1X`$ and $`Y_{d1}`$ intersecting in a curve which is given on $`Y_1`$ by the equation $`y^{d1}=(fp)^{}s_{d1}`$. The obvious isotopy from $`Y_1`$ to $`X`$ (embedded into $`W`$ as the zero section) transforms this curve into the curve on $`X`$ given by $`0=f^{}s_{d1}`$, i. e. $`f^1(C_{d1})`$. If this is a sphere then its preimage in $`Y_{d1}`$ is a sphere with positive self-intersection. In this case $`Y_{d1}`$ is rational hence completely decomposable.

On the other hand, if the curve $`f^1(C_{d1})`$ has genus at least $`1`$ we consider the fibration of the blowup of $`W`$ along $`(Y_1Y_{d1})Y_d`$ over $`P^1`$ given by our pencil. By  Corollary 2.7, $`Y_d`$ is the sum of a blowup of $`Y_1X`$ and of $`Y_{d1}`$ along $`f^1(C_{d1})`$. By  Theorem 2.8 (2) it follows that $`Y_d\mathrm{\#}P^2`$ is diffeomorphic to the connected sum of $`X`$ and $`Y_{d1}`$ together with $`k>0`$ copies of $`P^2`$ and $`\overline{P^2}`$. Since $`X`$ is almost completely decomposable the result follows by induction. ∎

###### Remark 1.

The same argument applies to the iterated branched covers of a quadric considered by Moishezon .

Next we exhibit manifolds covering a large geographical area satisfying the Hitchin-Thorpe inequality (1), but which have infinitely many smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics.

###### Theorem 6.

For every $`ϵ>0`$, there is a constant $`c(ϵ)>0`$ such that every lattice point $`(x,y)`$ with $`y0`$ satisfying

$$y(6ϵ)xc(ϵ)$$

is realized by the Chern invariants $`(\chi ,c_1^2)`$ of infinitely many pairwise non-diffeomorphic simply connected almost completely decomposable symplectic manifolds which do not admit Einstein metrics.

###### Proof.

We consider the manifolds $`Y(l,k,r,n)`$ in the proof of Theorem 4 above. They are all symplectic, and so have non-trivial Seiberg-Witten invariants. Therefore , if such a manifold is blown up sufficiently often, the blowup cannot admit any Einstein metric. According to Theorem 3.3 of LeBrun , $`\frac{1}{3}c_1^2(Y(l,k,r,n))`$ many blowups suffice. Thus, these manifolds cover the claimed area. The infinitely many distinct smooth structures on each remain distinct under blowing up, see for example . Clearly the ACD property is preserved by the blowups. ∎

We can now combine the results proved so far in order to prove the following more detailed version of Theorem 2.

###### Theorem 7.

For every natural number $`k`$ there are simply connected topological $`4`$-manifolds $`M_k`$ which have at least $`k`$ distinct smooth structures $`Z_k^i`$ supporting Einstein metrics, and also have infinitely many distinct smooth structures $`X_k^j`$ not supporting Einstein metrics.

The $`Z_k^i`$ and $`X_k^j`$ can be chosen symplectic and almost completely decomposable. For every fixed $`k`$, the ratios $`c_1^2/\chi `$ of the Chern invariants of such examples are dense in the interval $`[4,6]`$.

###### Proof.

We consider certain simply connected symplectic manifolds which are non-spin and have the same Chern invariants. Thus they are homeomorphic by Freedman’s classification .

The $`Z_k^i`$ are the iterated branched covers of the projective plane constructed in Theorem 3. By Corollary 1, the ratios of the Chern invariants of such examples are dense in the interval $`[4,8]`$. By Theorem 5, these manifolds are ACD. As they are Kähler with ample canonical bundle, the solution of the Calabi conjecture due to Aubin  and Yau  shows that they carry Einstein metrics.

Bringing down the upper bound for the slope to $`6`$ allows us to use manifolds from Theorem 6 having appropriate Chern invariants for the $`X_k^j`$. These are ACD by construction and do not carry Einstein metrics.

We already noted in Corollary 1 that the $`Z_k^i`$ are pairwise non-diffeomorphic by Seiberg–Witten theory . The $`X_k^j`$ are obtained by blowing up distinct smooth structures distinguished by their Seiberg-Witten invariants, and so they are also distinct because of the blowup formula . Clearly no $`Z_k^i`$ can be diffeomorphic to a $`X_k^j`$, as the former admit Einstein metrics and the latter do not. (Also, the former are irreducible , and the latter are not.) ∎

###### Remark 2.

The manifolds $`M_k`$ have another infinite sequence of smooth structures, which are very likely distinct from the $`Z_k^i`$ and the $`X_k^j`$. Fintushel–Stern  showed that one can perform cusp surgery on a torus in any iterated branched cover of the plane to construct infinitely many distinct smooth structures with non-trivial Donaldson invariants. It seems that these are irreducible, and therefore distinct from the $`X_k^j`$. On the other hand they are not complex, and therefore distinct from the $`Z_k^i`$. Whether they are ACD or admit Einstein metrics is not known.

Theorems 4 and 6 also lead to the following more general existence result for smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics.

###### Theorem 8.

For every $`ϵ>0`$ there is a constant $`c(ϵ)>0`$ such that the connected sum $`pP^2\mathrm{\#}q\overline{P^2}`$ has infinitely many smooth structures not admitting Einstein metrics for every large enough $`p0(mod8)`$ and $`q(2+ϵ)p+c(ϵ)`$.

###### Proof.

For odd $`p`$, this was already proved in Theorem 6.

For even $`p`$, we are in a situation where the numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants must vanish. Therefore, to obtain an obstruction to the existence of Einstein metrics one considers the refined Seiberg–Witten invariants of Bauer–Furuta  in the context of stable homotopy theory. Using this approach, Ishida–LeBrun  showed that a connected sum $`X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$, where the $`X_i`$ are simply connected symplectic four-manifolds with $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$, does not admit Einstein metrics if $`k\frac{1}{3}(c_1^2(X_1)+c_1^2(X_2))4`$. Applying this to the case where $`X_1`$ are the manifolds from Theorem 4 with $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$ and $`X_2`$ is the $`K3`$ surface, proves the claim of the Theorem for $`p2(mod4)`$. We just have to see that the connected sum with $`K3`$ does not collapse the infinitely many smooth structures on $`X_1\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$. These smooth structures were constructed by logarithmic transformation on an elliptic building block in $`X_1`$. As we increase the multiplicity of the logarithmic transformation, we find that there are more and more Seiberg–Witten basic classes whose numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants are $`\pm 1`$, see Fintushel–Stern , Theorem 8.7. By the result of Bauer , these basic classes give rise to monopole classes in the sense of  on $`X_1\mathrm{\#}X_2\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$. As the expected dimension of the Seiberg–Witten moduli space is positive for all these monopole classes, each smooth structure has at most finitely many such classes. This shows that we have an infinite set of smooth structures<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1See  for more details and elaborations on this argument..

It remains to deal with the case $`p0(mod4)`$. The above argument generalizes to the case of connected sums of $`4`$ symplectic manifolds $`X_i`$ with $`b_2^+3(mod4)`$ as long as the resulting manifold $`X_1\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}X_4\mathrm{\#}k\overline{P^2}`$ has $`b_2^+`$ not divisible by $`8`$ and $`k\frac{1}{3}(c_1^2(X_1)+\mathrm{}+c_1^2(X_4))12`$. This was noted by Ishida–LeBrun in , using . We apply it here taking for $`X_1`$ the manifolds from Theorem 4 with $`b_2^+3(mod8)`$, and taking the $`K3`$ surface for $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$ and $`X_4`$. This proves the claim of the Theorem for $`p4(mod8)`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.

Theorem 8 should be compared to Theorems 11 and 12 of Ishida–LeBrun , which give much weaker statements in the same direction. Namely, if $`p`$ is odd they assumed $`p1(mod4)`$ and $`q>\frac{7}{3}p+12`$, which is more restrictive than $`q(2+ϵ)p+c(ϵ)`$ for almost all $`p`$ whenever $`ϵ<\frac{1}{3}`$. The unknown constant $`c(ϵ)`$ only appears in our statement because we constructed all manifolds to be ACD. If we gave up this constraint, we could make the constant explicit. However, our method of proof, and the smooth structures under consideration, are very different. In our proof, for odd $`p`$ the smooth structures in question support symplectic forms, and, therefore , can not decompose as smooth connected sums except for the splitting off of copies of $`\overline{P^2}`$. The non-existence of Einstein metrics is detected by the numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants. The smooth structures discussed by Ishida–LeBrun  are smooth connected sums where each summand has positive $`b_2^+`$, and so in particular they cannot support symplectic forms. As the numerical Seiberg–Witten invariants of these smooth structures vanish, the non-existence of Einstein metrics can only be detected using the stable homotopy refinement  of the Seiberg–Witten invariants.

For even $`p`$, Ishida–LeBrun  assumed $`p2(mod4)`$ and $`q>\frac{7}{3}p+16`$. In this case our proof is similar to theirs—in fact we use the main result of their paper. Our improvement is due to the fact that our Theorem 4 above gives us more symplectic manifolds we can use as connected summands, whereas Ishida and LeBrun used only certain manifolds constructed by Gompf  with smaller slope of their Chern invariants.

## 5. Further examples

Since the proof of Theorem 1 in , other examples of manifolds with a smooth structure supporting an Einstein metric and one or several without an Einstein metric have appeared, and some attempts have been made to give examples with smallish homology, compare . Here are the ultimate examples, whose second Betti number is a fraction of that of the smallest previously known examples.

###### Proposition 3.

The manifolds $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}17\overline{P^2}`$ and $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}18\overline{P^2}`$ each have a smooth structure supporting an Einstein metric, and infinitely many smooth structures not supporting Einstein metrics.

###### Proof.

Take a double cover of $`P^2`$ branched in the union of two smooth cubics in general position. This gives a singular $`K3`$ surface with $`9`$ nodes. Now take a further double cover of this singular $`K3`$ surface branched in the nodes and in the preimage of a line. This gives a simply connected smooth algebraic surface $`S`$ with ample canonical bundle, whose numerical invariants are $`c_1^2(S)=1`$, $`\chi (S)=2`$, compare . It is homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}18\overline{P^2}`$ by Freedman’s classification . By the results of Aubin  and Yau  it admits a Kähler–Einstein metric.

One way to obtain a smooth manifold homeomorphic to $`S`$ which cannot admit an Einstein metric is to take a simply connected algebraic surface $`S^{}`$ with $`c_1^2(S^{})=2`$, $`\chi (S^{})=2`$, and blow it up once. Such $`S^{}`$ exist, compare Catanese–Debarre  and the discussion below. According to LeBrun , the blowup of $`S^{}`$ does not admit any Einstein metric. Another possibility is to take a symplectic manifold homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}n\overline{P^2}`$ for some $`n16`$, and blow it up until it becomes homeomorphic to $`S`$. Such manifolds have been constructed by Gompf  and D. B. Park . There are in fact infinite sets of smooth structures on them supporting symplectic forms, compare . These remain distinct under blowing up, and the blowups have no Einstein metrics by the result of , say. This proves the claim for $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}18\overline{P^2}`$.

To obtain an algebraic surface homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}17\overline{P^2}`$ which has ample canonical bundle one can proceed as follows. Take a double cover of $`P^1\times P^1`$ branched in the union of two smooth curves of bidegrees $`(3,1)`$ and $`(1,3)`$ respectively. Then take a further double cover branched in the nodes of the first covering and the preimage of a smooth curve of bidegree $`(1,1)`$ in general position with respect to the other two curves. The resulting smooth surface $`S^{}`$ has all the desired properties, compare . If we start with one of the symplectic manifolds with $`c_1^26`$ constructed by D. B. Park , then there are infinitely many smooth structures on it which remain distinct under blowing up, and the blowups homeomorphic to $`S^{}`$ do not admit any Einstein metrics by . ∎

Catanese  proved that all the algebraic surfaces $`S`$ homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}18\overline{P^2}`$ are diffeomorphic to each other. In  it is conjectured that the same is true for surfaces homeomorphic to $`3P^2\mathrm{\#}17\overline{P^2}`$. Thus, one has to take larger examples to obtain multiple smooth structures with Einstein metrics<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2It is known that $`P^2\mathrm{\#}8\overline{P^2}`$ has two distinct smooth structures supporting Einstein metrics, see , but it is not known whether this manifold has a smooth structure without an Einstein metric.. While our proof of Theorem 2 can be made effective, in practice the manifolds one obtains will have huge homology. Nevertheless, concrete examples can be given quite easily.

###### Example 4.

For any integer $`k0`$ let $`Z_2^1`$ be a smooth hypersurface of bidegree $`(5+k,6)`$ in $`P^1\times P^2`$, and let $`Z_2^2`$ be a smooth complete intersection of two hypersurfaces of bidegrees $`(2,1)`$ and $`(1+k,6)`$ in $`P^1\times P^3`$. Both have

$$c_1^2=9(17+5k),$$

$$\chi =41+10k.$$

The divisibility of the canonical class is $`gcd\{k+3,3\}=gcd\{k,3\}`$ for $`Z_2^1`$ and $`gcd\{k+1,3\}`$ for $`Z_2^2`$. Thus they are both non-spin and are homeomorphic for each $`k`$. If $`k1(mod3)`$, then they both have divisibility $`=1`$, otherwise they have different divisibilities, and can therefore not be diffeomorphic.

These surfaces have ample canonical bundles, and therefore  support Kähler–Einstein metrics. Their ratio $`c_1^2/\chi `$ is $`<4.5`$, and thus they are well within the range where Theorem 6 shows that there are infinitely many homeomorphic smooth manifolds without Einstein metrics.

Finally, as the manifolds discussed so far are all non-spin, it is worthwhile to point out the following:

###### Theorem 9.

For every $`k`$ there is a topological spin four–manifold $`M_k`$ admitting at least $`k`$ distinct smooth structures which support Einstein metrics, and which are almost completely decomposable. The ratios $`|\sigma |/e`$ of such manifolds are dense in the interval $`[\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{2}]`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the spin case of Corollary 1 together with the existence result for Kähler–Einstein metrics due to Aubin  and Yau . The ACD property was proved in Theorem 5. ∎

###### Remark 4.

Such examples are also provided by Catanese’s $`k`$-tuples of homeomorphic spin surfaces with different divisibilities of their canonical classes constructed as bidouble covers of a quadric . For almost all choices of the parameters, those surfaces have ample canonical bundles. However, the spread of their numerical invariants is probably more restricted than in our examples based on Salvetti’s construction .


text:
# Universal Sequential Decisions in Unknown Environments

## 0.1 Introduction

Every inductive inference problem can be brought into the following form: Given a string $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_{t1}x_{1:t1}x_{<t}`$, take a guess at its continuation $`x_t`$. We will assume that the strings which have to be continued are drawn from a probability distribution $`\mu `$. The maximal prior information a prediction algorithm can possess is the exact knowledge of $`\mu `$, but often the true distribution is unknown. Instead, prediction is based on a guess $`\rho `$ of $`\mu `$. We expect that a predictor based on $`\rho `$ performs well, if $`\rho `$ is close to $`\mu `$ or converges to $`\mu `$.

## 0.2 Universal probability distribution

Let $`:=\{\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{}\}`$ be a finite or countable set of candidate probability distributions on strings. We define a weighted average on $``$,

$$\xi (x_{1:n}):=\underset{\mu _i}{}w_{\mu _i}\mu _i(x_{1:n}),\underset{\mu _i}{}w_{\mu _i}=1,w_{\mu _i}>0.$$

We call $`\xi `$ universal relative to $``$, as it multiplicatively dominates all distributions in $``$, i.e. $`\xi (x_{1:n})w_{\mu _i}\mu _i(x_{1:n})`$ for all $`\mu _i`$. In the following, we assume that $``$ is known and contains the true distribution from which $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}`$ is sampled, i.e. $`\mu `$. The condition $`\mu `$ is not a serious constraint if we include all computable probability distributions in $``$ with high weights assigned to simple $`\mu _i`$. Solomonoff-Levin’s universal semi-measure is obtained if we include all enumerable semi-measures in $``$ with weights $`w_{\mu _i}2^{K(\mu _i)}`$, where $`K(\mu _i)`$ is the length of the shortest program for $`\mu _i`$ . One can show that the conditional $`\xi `$ and $`\mu `$ probabilities rapidly converge to each other:

$$\xi (x_t|x_{<t})\mu (x_t|x_{<t})\text{with }\mu \text{ probability 1.}$$
(1)
Since the conditional probabilities are the basis of the decision algorithms considered in this work, we expect a good prediction performance if we use $`\xi `$ as a guess of $`\mu `$.

## 0.3 Bayesian decisions

Let $`\mathrm{}_{x_ty_t}[0,1]`$ be the received loss when predicting $`y_t𝒴`$, but $`x_t𝒳`$ turns out to be the true tth symbol of the sequence. Let $`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }`$ be the total expected loss for the first $`n`$ symbols of the Bayes predictor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ which minimizes the $`\rho `$ expected loss. For instance for $`𝒳=𝒴=\{0,1\}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ is a threshold strategy with $`y_t^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }=0/1`$ for $`\rho (1|x_{<t})_<^>\gamma `$, where $`\gamma :=\frac{\mathrm{}_{01}\mathrm{}_{00}}{\mathrm{}_{01}\mathrm{}_{00}+\mathrm{}_{10}\mathrm{}_{11}}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be any prediction scheme (deterministic or probabilistic) with no constraint at all, taking any action $`y_t^\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒴`$ with total expected loss $`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. If $`\mu `$ is known, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ is obviously the best prediction scheme in the sense of achieving minimal expected loss $`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the predictor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi `$ based on the universal distribution $`\xi `$, on can show $`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi }/L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }=1+O(\sqrt{K(\mu )/L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }})`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi `$ has optimal asymptotics for $`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }\mathrm{}`$ with rapid convergence of the quotient to 1. If $`L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }`$ is finite, then also $`L_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi }`$ .

## 0.4 More active systems

Prediction means guessing the future, but not influencing it. One step in the direction to more active systems was to allow the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ system to act and to receive a loss $`\mathrm{}_{x_ty_t}`$ depending on the action $`y_t`$ and the outcome $`x_t`$. The probability $`\mu `$ is still independent of the action, and the loss function $`\mathrm{}^t`$ has to be known in advance. This ensures that the greedy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ strategy is still optimal. The loss function can also be generalized to depend on the history $`x_{<t}`$ and on $`t`$.

## 0.5 Agents in known probabilistic environments

The full model of an acting agent influencing the environment has been developed in . The probability of the next symbol (input, perception) $`x_t`$ depends in this case not only on the past sequence $`x_{<t}`$ but also on the past actions (outputs) $`y_{1:t}`$, i.e. $`\mu =\mu (x_t|x_{<t}y_{1:t})`$. We call probability distributions of this form chronological. The total $`\mu `$ expected loss is $`_{x_{1:n}}(\mathrm{}^1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^n)\mu (x_{1:n}|y_{1:n})`$, where we assumed a total number of $`n`$ interaction cycles. Action $`y_t(x_{<t}y_{<t})`$ and loss function $`\mathrm{}^t(x_{1:t}y_{1:t})`$ may depend on the complete history, which allows planning and delayed loss assignment.

## 0.6 Sequential decision theory

The goal is to perform the actions which minimize the total $`\mu `$ expected loss:

$`y_t:=\mathrm{arg}\underset{y_t}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_t}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{y_n}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_n}{}}(\mathrm{}^1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^n)\mu (x_{1:n}|y_{1:n}),`$ (2)
$`L_{n\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }=\underset{y_1}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_1}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{y_n}{\mathrm{min}}{\displaystyle \underset{x_n}{}}(\mathrm{}^1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^n)\mu (x_{1:n}|y_{1:n}).`$ (3)
The minimization over $`y_t`$ is in chronological order to correctly incorporate the dependency of $`x_t`$ and $`y_t`$ on the history. Note that $`y_t`$ only depends on the known history $`x_{<t}y_{<t}`$, whereas minima and expectations are taken over the unknown $`x_{t:n}y_{t:n}`$ variables. The policy (2) (called AI$`\mu `$ model) is optimal in the sense that no other policy leads to lower $`\mu `$-expected loss.

## 0.7 Bellman equations

In the case that $`\mathrm{}^t`$ is independent of $`y_{<t}`$ and $`\mu `$ is independent of $`y_{1:n}`$, policy (2) reduces to the greedy Bayes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ strategy. For (completely observable) Markov Decision Processes $`\mu =\mu (x_t|x_{t1}y_t)`$ (2) and (3) can be written as recursive Bellman equations of sequential decision theory with state space $`𝒳`$, action space $`𝒴`$, state transition matrix $`\mu (x_t|x_{t1}y_t)`$, rewards $`\mathrm{}^t`$, etc. The general (non-MDP) case may also be (artificially) reduced to Bellman equations by identifying complete histories $`x_{<t}y_{<t}`$ with states and $`\mu (x_t|x_{<t}y_{1:t})`$ with the state transition matrix. Due to the use of complete histories as state space, the AI$`\mu `$ model neither assumes stationarity, nor the Markov property, nor complete accessibility of the environment. But since every state occurs at most once in the lifetime of the system the explicit formulation (2) is more useful than a pseudo-recursive Bellman equation form. There is no principle problem in determining $`y_k`$ as long as $`\mu `$ is known and computable and $`𝒳`$, $`𝒴`$ and $`n`$ are finite.

## 0.8 Reinforcement learning for unknown environment

Things dramatically change if $`\mu `$ is unknown. Reinforcement learning algorithms are commonly used in this case to learn the unknown $`\mu `$ (or directly a value function). They succeed if the state space is either small or has effectively been made small by generalization or function approximation techniques. In almost all approaches, the solutions are either ad hoc, or work in restricted domains only, or have serious problems with state space exploration versus exploitation, or have non-optimal learning rate. Below we propose the AI$`\xi `$ model as a universal and optimal solution to these problems.

## 0.9 Unknown loss function

Furthermore, the loss function $`\mathrm{}^t(x_{1:t}y_{1:t})`$ may also be unknown, but there is an easy “solution” to this problem. The specification of the loss function can be absorbed in the probability distribution $`\mu `$ by increasing the input space $`𝒳`$. Let $`x_tx_t^{}l_t`$, where $`x_t^{}`$ is the regular input, $`l_t`$ is interpreted as the loss, $`\mathrm{}^t(x_{1:t}y_{1:t})`$ is replaced by $`l_t`$ in (2) and (3), and $`\mu `$ is only non-zero if $`l_t`$ is consistent with the loss, i.e. $`l_t=\mathrm{}^t(x_{1:t}y_{1:t})`$. In this way all possible unknowns are absorbed in $`\mu `$.

## 0.10 The universal AI$`\xi `$ model

Encouraged by the good performance of the universal sequence predictor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\xi `$, we propose a new model, where the probability distribution $`\mu `$ is learned indirectly by replacing it with a universal prior $`\xi `$. We define $`\xi (x_{1:n}|y_{1:n}):=_{\mu _i}w_{\mu _i}\mu _i(x_{1:n}|y_{1:n})`$ as a weighted sum over chronological probability distributions in $``$. Convergence $`\xi (x_n|x_{<n}y_{1:n})\mu (x_n|x_{<n}y_{1:n})`$ can be proven analogously to (1). Replacing $`\mu `$ by $`\xi `$ in (2) the AI$`\xi `$ system outputs

$$y_t:=\mathrm{arg}\underset{y_t}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{x_t}{}\mathrm{}\underset{y_n}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{x_n}{}(l_t+\mathrm{}+l_n)\xi (x_{1:n}|y_{1:n})$$
(4)
in cycle $`t`$ given the history $`x_{<t}y_{<t}`$, where $`x_tx_t^{}l_t`$. The largest class $``$ which is necessary from a computational point of view is the set of all enumerable chronological semi-measures with weights $`w_{\mu _i}2^{K(\mu _i)}`$, where $`K(\mu _i)`$ is the Kolmogorov complexity of $`\mu _i`$. Apart from the dependence on the horizon $`n`$ and unimportant details, the AI$`\xi `$ system is uniquely defined by (4) without adjustable parameters. It does not depend on any assumption about the environment apart from being generated by some computable (but unknown!) probability distribution in $``$.

## 0.11 Universally optimal AI systems

We want to call an AI model universal, if it is $`\mu `$-independent (unbiased, model-free) and is able to solve any solvable problem and learn any learnable task. Further, we call a universal model, universally optimal, if there is no program which can solve or learn significantly faster (in terms of interaction cycles). As the AI$`\xi `$ model is parameterless, $`\xi `$ rapidly converges to $`\mu `$ in the sense of (1), the AI$`\mu `$ model is itself optimal, and we expect no other model to converge faster to AI$`\mu `$ (in some sense) by analogy to the sequence prediction case, we risk the conjecture that AI$`\xi `$ is such a universally optimal system. Further support is given in  by a detailed analysis of the behaviour of AI$`\xi `$ for various problem classes, including prediction, optimization, games, and supervised learning. We discuss in which sense AI$`\xi `$ overcomes some fundamental problems in reinforcement learning, like generalization, optimal learning rates, exploration versus exploitation, etc. Computational issues are also addressed.


text:
# The Short Rotation Period of Nereid

## 1 Introduction

N II Nereid, one of the irregular satellites of Neptune, was discovered in 1949 by G. Kuiper from McDonald Observatory (Kuiper, 1949). Nereid is physically large ($`175\pm 25`$km radius) for an irregular moon (Smith et al., 1989; Thomas et al., 1991), and has an extremely eccentric orbit ($`e0.75`$).

The photometric and rotational properties of Nereid are still undetermined, despite numerous ground-based and space-based observations. Reported light curves give amplitudes from an upper limit of 0.05 magnitudes reported by Buratti et al. (1997) to a 1.5 magnitude amplitude reported by Schaefer and Schaefer (1988). Reported rotation periods range from hours to as much as a year. It should be noted that a recent study by Schaefer and Tourtellotte (2001) suggests that a large opposition effect might explain much of the controversy. The large intra-night variations reported by Schaefer and Schaefer (1988) and Williams et al. (1991), however, still remain unexplained.

The uncertainties in Nereid’s rotation state would be of relatively little concern were it not for the theories of Nereid’s origin and possible chaotic rotation state. It is suggested that Nereid formed as a regular satellite around Neptune but was ejected to its present orbit by Triton after Triton was captured from heliocentric orbit and its orbit was tidally circularized (McKinnon, 1984; Goldreich et al., 1989; Banfield and Murray, 1992). Furthermore, it has been suggested that the reported large amplitude photometric variations are the result of chaotic tumbling due to the overlap of resonances between the spin and orbit periods of Nereid, similar to that predicted (Wisdom et al., 1984) and observed (Klavetter, 1989a, b; Black et al., 1995) for the Saturnian moon Hyperion. Dobrovolskis (1995) has studied the effect of spin-orbit resonances and tidal evolution on Nereid in detail. He suggests that tides slowed Nereid’s rotation period to a few days or weeks while Nereid was in orbit close to Neptune. After Nereid was scattered by Triton the satellite has been further despun to a period of the order a month as it reached its current 360-day orbit. Dobrovolskis (1995) also points out that, for rotation periods of Nereid longer than about two weeks, Nereid is it is likely to be in spin-orbit resonance if Nereid is nearly spherical (less than 1%). Otherwise, Nereid’s rotation is likely chaotic, with its period and obliquity changing from year to year. However, for rotation periods shorter than two weeks, Nereid is unlikely to be in spin-orbit resonance or to be tumbling chaotically.

In this paper we report new, accurate relative photometry of Nereid. In the next section, we review previous observational results on the photometry of Nereid. In section 3, we discuss our observations and data reduction procedures. In section 4, we report the characteristics of Nereid’s light curve. In the final section, we summarize our conclusions.

## 2 Previous Observations

Kuiper’s original magnitude estimate of 19.5 was the only available photometry until Schaefer and Schaefer (1988) reported large amplitude photometric variations (1.5 magnitudes) and a possible rotational period of 8 to 24 hours in observations of Nereid over the period of 18-26 June of 1987.

A number of subsequent studies found similar results. Bus et al. (1988) and Bus and Larson (1989) reported photometric variations, with a peak-to-peak amplitude of approximately $`0.5`$ magnitudes, in observations covering 14 nights in June and July 1988 and in June 1989. Williams et al. (1991) reported 1.3 magnitude amplitude variations over 6 consecutive nights in July 1990 and argued for a $`13.6`$ hr period. Schaefer and Schaefer (2000) reported their entire collection of 224 photometric observations of Nereid from 1987 to 1997, in which they confirmed large brightness variations with a total amplitude of $`1.83`$ magnitudes on time scales ranging from hours to approximately a year. They also reported a shift in the brightness variations, from large amplitude rapid variations with intranight changes before $`1991`$ to slower, smaller amplitude variations, with no detectable intranight changes.

On the other hand, Voyager II, in 1989 found no brightness variations greater than $`10\%`$ (Thomas et al., 1991) and no evidence that Nereid is significantly aspherical, although the resolution (43.3km/pixel and later 61km/pixel) could not constrain this beyond the general radius determination of $`175\pm 25`$km (Smith et al., 1989).

Buratti et al. (1997) observed Nereid on three nights in July 1995 with the Palomar 5 m telescope and found no large brightness variations, although they did report a $`0.14`$ magnitude decrease between their two first nights (their first night only allowed a few images due to a forest fire). They adressed the discrepancy between their data set (and that of Voyager) and the data sets reported by Schaefer and Schaefer (1988), Bus et al. (1988) and Williams et al. (1991), suggesting that the large brightness variations observed were due to significantly understated errors of the earlier observations.

Brown and Webster (1998) observed Nereid in the R-band on two consecutive nights and found no variation beyond a $`0.09\pm 0.05`$ magnitude increase between the two nights (a 3$`\sigma `$ result that did not include any systematic errors). They concluded that their data is consistent with a light curve with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m<0.1`$ magnitude, although a long-periodic, large amplitude light curve could not be ruled out.

Most recently, Schaefer and Tourtellotte (2001) used 57 V-magnitudes collected over 52 nights in the period from June 20 to October 26 in 1998 to determine the opposition surge of Nereid. They found a suprisingly large phase coefficient of $`0.38`$ magnitudes per degree for phase angles less than $`1^{}`$ and $`0.03`$ magnitudes per degree for phase angles greater than $`1^{}`$. Schaefer and Tourtellotte (2001) noted that, although the large brightness variations found in many of the runs (11 of 16) from 1987 to 1998 could be explained by such an opposition surge, not all of the apparent variation could be accounted for by phase effects alone. A closer examination of the available data, reveal that 4 of the 5 runs that can not be explained by the phase effects are from 1987-1990 when Nereid was only $`1317^{}`$ away from the galactic center. The star densitity in these areas makes accurate photometry very difficult with even state of the art methods. All of these runs also have intranight variations, which further makes the accuracy of these observations questionable.

## 3 Observations and Data Reduction

We observed N II Nereid during a pencil beam search for faint Neptunian satellites using the 8k MOSAIC camera and a VR-filter (Allen et al., 2001) on the CTIO 4 m Blanco telescope on 2001 August 9-13 and 2002 August 12-16. Nereid was only observed on one night in 2001, but in 2002 our search fields were placed such that they slightly overlapped, ensuring that Nereid was observed on all four nights. The exposure times used were 480 seconds with a temporal resolution of 10-15 minutes in 2001, and 20 to 40 minutes in 2002 (see Table 1). The 2001 search strategy consisted of staying on one single field throughout the night, while in 2002 alternating exposures between two fields was used. The pointing of the CTIO 4m Blanco Telescope is accurate to about $`1020`$ pixels, insuring that even with Nereid’s motion of $`15`$ pixels/hour, the moon stayed within $`100`$ pixels throughout the night. It is known that the CTIO 8k MOSAIC camera causes a variation in the zeropoint across the field-of-view (FOV). Depending on the night, Nereid moved either radially or tangentially acrossed the FOV. This, together with the small change in radial distance from the FOV center during the night, the maximum change in zeropoint is $`0.002`$ magnitudes, within the statistical errors of our data.

The images were bias-subtracted, flat-fielded, and relative aperture photometry was performed (Howell, 1989). The full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) of each image was measured ($`1`$ to $`1.5`$ arcseconds). An aperture with radius $`1.21.5`$ times the FWHM ($`1.2`$ to $`2.3`$ arseconds) was used to ensure the maximum signal-to-noise ratio (Dacosta, 1992) and at the same time minimizing the chance of contamination from faint background sources. The same aperture was used on a set of 10 to 12 reference stars common to all fields throughout a night (all the refrence stars were closer than $`5`$ arcminutes and taken from the same CCD chip that contained Nereid). Comparing the instrumental magnitude of Nereid to the instrumental magnitude of the reference stars on the image and comparing this difference with that of other images reveals any brightening or fading throughout the night. This method does not require photometric conditions and efficiently removes effects due to airmass and transparency. To test this method we applied it to several stars with similar brightness as Nereid in the field. The resulting “light curves” were flat with a root-mean-square scatter of $`0.003`$ magnitudes. We take this to be our systematic error and add this to the formal photometric errors in quadrature. To avoid contamination from faint background stars and galaxies we stacked all the images from each night and found no faint sources down to $`\text{VR}25.0`$ magnitude.

The magnitude differences between the individual nights were determined by using the procedure descibed above on one of the fields from each night, but using 10 to 15 reference stars that were common between the two nights compared. Thus we were able to put our nightly relative photometry on the same relative scale for all the nights in 2002. Only a few observations of standard stars (Landolt, 1992) were performed, since the the main focus of our run a search for Neptunian satellites. The fact that the observations were done using a VR-filter (centered on 6000Å with a width of 2000Å) further complicates the situation. The standard stars used have $`VR`$ colors between $`0.490.54`$, which is slightly higher than the color of Nereid at $`VR=0.44\pm 0.03`$ (Schaefer and Schaefer, 2000), so we used the $`R`$-magnitude given by Landolt (1992) to derive a zeropoint for our observations. Due to the similarity in colors, the wider filter lets through approximately the same relative amount of flux for both the standard stars and Nereid. Using the newly derived zeropoint on our object we get an approximate $`R`$-magnitude of $`18.8`$. This is consistent with the magnitudes reported by Schaefer and Tourtellotte (2001) after accounting for the phase effects.

Due to the size of the telescope aperture and the generally excellent observing conditions at the Cerro Tololo site, we obtained relative photometry of Nereid with $`0.0030.006`$ accuracy (the S/N ratio of the object was 600-700). This accuracy is significantly better than any photometry of Nereid reported to date.

## 4 Results

Figure 1 shows our results, clearly indicating a periodicity on the order of hours. Using a Levenberg-Marquardt fitting method (Press et al., 1995), we fit the data with the simple model

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m=a\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{2\pi }{P}(tt_0)\right]k(\alpha \alpha _0)$$
(1)
where $`t`$ and $`\alpha `$ are the time and phase angle of the observations, and $`a`$, $`P`$, and $`k`$, are the amplitude, period, phase coefficient, respectively. We fix the phase angle reference point, $`\alpha _0=0.4^{}`$. In addition to these parametes, we allow the sinusodial curve to move along the time axis (through letting $`t_0`$ be a free parameter). We also allow the single night from 2001 to move freely along the magnitude axis, resulting in 6 free parameters in total.

The fit gives a rotational period of $`11.52\pm 0.14`$ hours (apparent single harmonic period of 5.76 hours) with a peak-to-peak amplitude of $`a=0.029\pm 0.003`$ magnitudes and a phase coefficient of $`k=0.14\pm 0.08`$ magnitudes per degree. To evaluate the fit we determined the chi-squared. With 68 degrees of freedom (74 observations minus 6 parameters) we get a chi-squared of 80.1. We further estimate the goodness of fit with the incomplete gamma function, $`Q(0.5N,0.5\chi ^2)`$, where $`N`$ is the numbers of degrees of freedom (Press et al., 1995). The result, $`Q=0.17`$, gives the probability that this variation can occur by chance with the given model. We have also fit the data with higher order harmonics to attempt to distinquish shape-induced variations from those resulting from surface variegations, but we see no significant improvement over the simple sinusoid with the available data.

It should be noted that the period can be well fit by values that differ by integer multiples of $`1.60\times 10^4`$ days or $`14`$ seconds, the change in period that results from one-half additional revolution between the 2001 and 2002 observations. Obviously, we cannot determine the period that well with the data at hand. Furthermore, there is a correlation between the amplitude, $`a`$ and phase coefficient, $`k`$. As the period is decreased, the phase effect coefficient increases and the amplitude decreases. As the period is increased, the phase coefficient decreases and the amplitude increases. In both cases, the chi-squared increases and $`Q(0.5N,0.5\chi ^2)`$ decreases. We estimate the uncertainty in the rotation period by the limits at which $`Q(0.5N,0.5\chi ^2)=0.001`$ . This yields a rotation period and phase coefficients between $`11.4011.68`$ hours and $`0.19`$ to $`0.05`$ mag/deg, respectively. Interestingly, Buratti et al. (1997) report a decrease of $`0.050.025`$ magitudes over a $`5.5`$ hour period in their second and third nights, although they state that this decrease was not statistically significant.

The peak-to-peak amplitude of $`0.029\pm 0.003`$ magnitudes does not constrain the shape or albedo variegations of Nereid independently. Assuming that Nereid is perfectly spherical, the albedo variation is $`<3\%`$ across the observed surface. Recall that Voyager II constrained the brightness variations of Nereid over a large range of phase angles to $`10\%`$, its radius to $`r=175\pm 25`$ km, and geometric albedo to $`0.180\pm 0.005`$ (Smith et al., 1989; Thomas et al., 1991). Our own obervations show that, assuming a uniform geometric albedo, the observed cross sectional area varies by $`3\%`$. However, we caution that we cannot determine the orientation of Nereid’s spin axis from our data and that if the observations are pole-on the equatorial irregularity could well be more than $`3\%`$.

## 5 Conclusions

From observations on one night in August 2001 and four consecutive nights in August 2002 we have established the rotational period, $`p=11.52\pm 0.14`$ hours, and a light curve peak-to-peak amplitude, $`a=0.029\pm 0.003`$ magnitudes, of the Neptunian irregular satellite Nereid. The peak-to-peak amplitude constrains the shape and/or albedo variations of Nereid. Assuming that Nereid is perfectly spherical, the albedo variation is $`3\%`$ across the observed surface. Likewise, assuming a uniform geometric albedo, the observed cross sectional area varies by $`3\%`$. Viewed from a random angle, this implies a nearly spherical body with a limit of $`3`$km out-of-round, based on the radius estimate from Voyager II (Smith et al., 1989; Thomas et al., 1991). Again, we caution that we cannot determine the orientation of Nereid’s spin axis from our data.

Nereid’s short rotation period and long orbital period Nereid place it near the 750:1 spin-orbit resonance. The phase space is essentially free of chaos for high rotation rates, those beyond the 40:1 spin-orbit resonance, regardless of the shape of Nereid (Dobrovolskis, 1995). Thus, little or no dynamical chaos is expected in the rotation of Nereid. Without such a chaotic region it seems highly unlikely that Nereid could have changed it’s rotational state in recent years. Since the rotation state of Nereid is perfectly normal for a distant irregular satellite (cf., Jupiter VI), no implications for an unusual formation history of Nereid can be drawn.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We dedicate this paper to the memory of James J. Klavetter, who gave MH his first instruction in CCD photometry and who started this project in 1988. Dr. Klavetter, shortly thereafter, wisely concluded that it would be better to wait a decade until Neptune had cleared the plane the Milky Way than to proceed with the data in hand.

We would like to thank Drs. A. Rivkin, K. Stanek, C. Kochanek, M. Lecar, and J. Wisdom for helpful discussions. We also thank Dr. A. Harris for a very helpful review.

Tommy Grav is a Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory Pre-doctoral Fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, USA.

This work was supported by NASA grants NAG5-9678 and NAG5-10438.