text:
# Relation between geometric phases of entangled bi-partite systems and their subsystems

## I Introduction

In 1984, Berry Berry  proposed in a seminal paper that a quantum system in a pure state undergoing adiabatic cyclic evolution acquires a geometric phase. This discovery has prompted a myriad of activities on various aspects of geometric phase in many areas of physics ranging from optical fibers to anyons. Simon Simon  subsequently recast the mathematical formalism of Berry’s phase within the language of differential geometry and fiber bundles. While it is possible to consider Berry’s phase under adiabatic evolution, the extension to non-adiabatic evolution is usually non-trivial. The general formalism for the non-adiabatic extension was formulated by Aharonov and Anandan Aharonov ; Anandan . Samuel and Bhandari Samuel  further generalized the geometric phase by extending it to non-cyclic evolution and sequential measurements. Further relaxation on the adiabatic, unitary, and cyclic properties of the evolution have since been carried out Mukunda ; Pati ; Manini .

The concept of geometric phase of mixed states has also been developed. Uhlmann Uhlmann  was probably first to address this issue within the mathematical context of purification. Sjöqvist et al. Sjoqvistm  have introduced a new formalism that defines the mixed state geometric phase within the experimental context of quantum interferometry. As pointed out by Slater Slater , these two approaches are not equivalent, and Ericsson et al. Ericsson  have recently shown that the parallel transport conditions used in the two approaches lead to generically distinct phase holonomy effects for entangled systems undergoing certain local unitary transformations. Singh et al. Kuldip  have given a kinematic formalism of the mixed state geometric phase with non-degenerate eigenvalues and generalized the analysis of Ref. Sjoqvistm  to degenerate states. Extension of Ref. Sjoqvistm  to the off-diagonal case Filipp  and completely positive maps ericsson03  have also been given. An experimental test of Ref. Sjoqvistm  in the qubit case has been reported du03 , using nuclear magnetic resonance technique.

The geometric phase of entangled states should be another issue worthy of attention. It may hold a potential application in holonomic quantum computation since the study of entangled spin systems effectively allows us to contemplate the design of a solid state quantum computer burkard . Moreover, it was found that one could in principle devise more robust fault-tolerant quantum computations using the notion of geometric phase in designing a conditional phase shift gate jones ; ekert2000 ; wang . Since the geometric phase depends solely on the geometry of the intrinsic spin space, it is deemed to be less susceptible to noise from the environment. As for the geometric phase of entangled states itself, Sjöqvist Sjoqvistp  considered the geometric phase for a pair of entangled spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems in a time-independent uniform magnetic field, and the relative phase for polarization-entangled two-photon systems has been considered by Hessmo and Sjöqvist Hessmo . Tong et al. Oh  calculated the geometric phase for a pair of entangled spin$`\frac{1}{2}`$ systems in a rotating magnetic field. Another interesting question, which has been mentioned in the previous papers but has not been completely discussed, is the relation between geometric phase of the entangled state and those of the subsystems.

In this paper, we consider a general entangled bi-partite system under an arbitrary bi-local unitary evolution. We extend the conclusions obtained from the special mode in Oh  to the general case. That is, we prove that the geometric phase for cyclic entangled states with non-degenerate eigenvalues under bi-local unitary evolution can always be decomposed into a sum of weighted non-modular pure state phases pertaining to the separable components of the Schmidt decomposition, irrespective of forms of local evolution operators. However, we also see that this property does not manifest itself in the case of non-cyclic evolutions. Moreover, we investigate the relation between the geometric phase of pure entangled states of the system and that of mixed states of the subsystem and conclude that the geometric phase of mixed states of one subsystem is different from that of entangled states in general even if we do not act on the other subsystem. We also point out that the two phases are equal when the evolution operator only acts on the considered subsystem and satisfies conditions where each pure state component of the Schmidt decomposition is parallel transported.

## II Non-cyclic geometric phase of entangled state

We begin by considering a quantum system $`S`$ consisting of two subsystems $`S_a`$ and $`S_b`$ subject to the bi-local unitary evolution $`U(t)=U_a(t)U_b(t)`$. The states of the system belong to the Hilbert space $`=_a_b`$, where $`_a`$ and $`_b`$ are two complex Hilbert spaces with dimensions $`N_a`$ and $`N_b`$, respectively. Vectors in $`_a_b`$ can be expanded as Schmidt decompositions. Thus, any normalized initial state of the system can be written as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{p_i}|\mu _i|\nu _i,`$ (1)
where $`|\mu _i`$ and $`|\nu _i`$ are orthonormal bases of $`_a`$ and $`_b`$, respectively, $`N=\text{min}\{N_a,N_b\}`$, and the Schmidt coefficients $`\{p_i\}`$ fulfill $`p_1+\mathrm{}+p_N=1`$. When $`U_a(t)U_b(t)`$ acts on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$, we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{p_i}|\mu _i^{}(t)|\nu _i^{}(t),`$ (2)
where $`|\mu _i^{}(t)=U_a(t)|\mu _i`$ and $`|\nu _i^{}(t)=U_b(t)|\nu _i`$.

Since $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ is a pure state, its geometric phase can be obtained by removing the dynamical phase from the total phase. As we know, when a pure state evolves from $`t=0`$ to $`t=\tau `$ along a path $`C`$ in projective Hilbert space, the non-adiabatic geometric phase can be obtained as $`\gamma (\tau )=\alpha (\tau )\beta (\tau )`$ with total phase $`\alpha (\tau )=\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )`$ and dynamical phase $`\beta (\tau )=i_0^\tau \mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t)𝑑t`$. Hereafter, we use $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ to mark total, dynamical, and geometric phases, respectively; and we use $`t`$, $`\tau `$, and $`T`$ to represent instantaneous time, finite time, and period of cyclic evolution, respectively. With Eqs. (1) and (2), we obtain the total, dynamical, and geometric phase of the entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ under a bi-local unitary evolution $`U_a(t)U_b(t)`$ as

$`\alpha _{ab}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{p_ip_j}\mu _i|U_a(\tau )|\mu _j\nu _i|U_b(\tau )|\nu _j,`$ (3)
$`\beta _{ab}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\left(i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\mu _i|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}_a(t)|\mu _i𝑑t\right)`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\left(i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }\nu _i|U_b^{}(t)\dot{U}_b(t)|\nu _i𝑑t\right),`$
$`\gamma _{ab}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{ab}(\tau )\beta _{ab}(\tau ).`$ (5)
Eq. (4) entails that the dynamical phase can always be separated into two parts corresponding to the evolution of each of the subsystems $`S_a`$ and $`S_b`$. However, the total phase as well as the geometric phase cannot be separated into two parts in general. The latter observation arises primarily from the entanglement of the two subsystems.

## III Cyclic geometric phase of entangled states

In this section, we specialize the above discussion to cyclic states with non-degenerate Schmidt coefficients $`p_i`$. Such states are characterized by the existence of a period $`T`$ such that

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(T)=e^{i\alpha _{ab}(T)}|\mathrm{\Psi }(0),`$ (6)
that is,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{p_i}|\mu _i^{}(T)|\nu _i^{}(T)=e^{i\alpha _{ab}(T)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{p_i}|\mu _i|\nu _i.$$
(7)
As $`U_a(T)`$ and $`U_b(T)`$ are unitary, the vectors $`|\mu _i^{}(T)`$ and $`|\nu _i^{}(T)`$ are also orthonormal bases of $`_a`$ and $`_b`$, respectively. Moreover, under consideration that the $`p_i`$’s are non-degenerate, i.e., that $`p_ip_j`$ for all pairs $`i,ji`$, the Schmidt decomposition is unique. So, we have $`|\mu _i^{}(T)|\nu _i^{}(T)=e^{i\alpha _{ab}(T)}|\mu _i|\nu _i`$, which implies

$`\alpha _{ab}(T)=\mathrm{arg}\left[\mu _i|U_a(T)|\mu _i\nu _i|U_b(T)|\nu _i\right],`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{arg}[0,2\pi )`$. Since the left-hand side of Eq. (8) is independent of the summation index $`i`$, $`\alpha _{ab}(T)`$ can be written as

$`\alpha _{ab}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mathrm{arg}\left[\mu _i|U_a(T)|\mu _i\nu _i|U_b(T)|\nu _i\right]`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\left[\mathrm{arg}\mu _i|U_a(T)\mu _i+\mathrm{arg}\nu _i|U_b(T)\nu _i+2\pi \stackrel{~}{n}_i\right]`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$ are integers chosen as

$`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{if}\mathrm{arg}\mu _i|U_a(T)\mu _i+\mathrm{arg}\nu _i|U_b(T)\nu _i<2\pi ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$ $`=`$ $`1,\text{if}\mathrm{arg}\mu _i|U_a(T)\mu _i+\mathrm{arg}\nu _i|U_b(T)\nu _i2\pi .`$ (10)
Substituting Eqs. (4) and (9) into Eq. (5) yields

$`\gamma _{ab}(T)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\left[\gamma _{ai}(T)+\gamma _{bi}(T)+2\pi n_i\right],`$ (11)
where

$`\gamma _{ai}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left(\mu _i|U_a(T)|\mu _ie^{_0^T\mu _i|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}_a(t)|\mu _i𝑑t}\right),`$
$`\gamma _{bi}(T)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left(\nu _i|U_b(T)|\nu _ie^{_0^T\nu _i|U_b^{}(t)\dot{U}_b(t)|\nu _i𝑑t}\right),`$ (12)
are just the $`2\pi `$modular geometric phases of the pure states $`|\mu _i`$ and $`|\nu _i`$, respectively. The “winding numbers” $`n_i`$ are integers and originate from the non-modular nature of the pure state dynamical phases Mukunda  and the integers $`\stackrel{~}{n}_i`$. Eq. (11) shows that the cyclic geometric phase for non-degenerate entangled states under a bi-local unitary evolution can always be decomposed into a sum of weighted pure state phases pertaining to the evolution of each Schmidt component. This is primarily a result of the uniqueness of the Schmidt decomposition, which entails that the Schmidt basis of the initial and final state must be identical if all $`p_i`$ are different.

The contribution from the non-modular nature of the dynamical phases to the winding numbers $`n_i`$ can be determined in a history-dependent manner bhandari91 ; bhandari02  by continuously monitoring the dynamical phase for each separate component of the Schmidt decomposition on the time interval $`[0,T]`$. In such a procedure, each $`2\pi n_i`$ is the modulus $`2\pi `$ remainder of the corresponding dynamical phase.

To illustrate the significance of the winding numbers, consider a pair of qubits (two-level systems) being initially in the entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\sqrt{p_0}|0_a|0_b+\sqrt{p_1}|1_a|1_b$$
(13)
with $`p_0p_1`$, and evolving under influence of the time-independent Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{}\omega |1_a1_a|I_b$$
(14)
with $`\omega >0`$ and $`I_b`$ the identity operator on $`_b`$. As the Schmidt components $`|0_a|0_b`$ and $`|1_a|1_b`$ are eigenstates of $`H`$, their corresponding $`2\pi `$modular geometric phases $`\{\gamma _{a0},\gamma _{b0}\}`$ and $`\{\gamma _{a1},\gamma _{b1}\}`$ all vanish. However, they acquire different dynamical phases causing a non-trivial evolution of the entangled state. For one cycle $`T=2\pi /\omega `$ one obtains $`n_0=0`$ and $`n_1=1`$, yielding the total geometric phase

$$\gamma _{ab}(T)=2\pi p_1,$$
(15)
which is non-trivial for entangled states.

## IV Comparing the phase of entangled states with that of mixed states

The above result concerning the phase of cyclic entangled states may provide some insight regarding the geometric phase of mixed states. Certainly, the state given by Eq. (2) is a pure state with density matrix $`\rho _{ab}(t)=|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$. However, if we trace out the state of subsystem $`S_b`$, we obtain the reduced density matrix $`\rho _a`$ corresponding to mixed states of subsystem $`S_a`$. By the reduced density matrix, we can deduce the geometric phase $`\gamma _a^M(T)`$ of a mixed state. Here, we wish to examine, in the case where $`U_b(t)`$ is the identity map $`I_b`$, the relation between $`\gamma _{ab}(T)`$ and $`\gamma _a^M(T)`$.

From Eqs. (1) and (2), tracing out the state of subsystem $`S_b`$, we obtain the evolution of the reduced density matrix for subsystem $`S_a`$ as

$`\rho _a(t)=U_a(t)\rho _a(0)U_a^{}(t)`$ (16)
with

$`\rho _a(0)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i|\mu _i\mu _i|.`$ (17)
For non-degenerate $`p_i`$, the geometric phase of $`\rho _a(t)`$ is found as Sjoqvistm ; Kuldip

$$\gamma _a^M(\tau )=\mathrm{arg}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i\mu _i|U_a(\tau )|\mu _ie^{_0^\tau \mu _i|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}(t)|\mu _i𝑑t}\right).$$
(18)
This expression is valid for both cyclic and non-cyclic states. In the cyclic case $`\tau =T`$ we have $`|\mu _i|U_a(T)|\mu _i|=1`$, and the above equation can be written as

$`\gamma _a^M(T)=\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_ie^{i\gamma _{ai}(T)}\right),`$ (19)
where $`\gamma _{ai}(T)`$ is the geometric phase of the pure state $`|\mu _i`$. Comparing Eq. (19) with Eq. (11) for $`U_b(t)=I_b`$, we find $`\gamma _a^M(T)\gamma _{ab}(T)`$. Thus, the cyclic geometric phase of the whole system is in general different from that of the mixed state of the considered subsystem, basically because the former is a weighted sum of pure state phases while the latter is a weighted sum of pure state phase factors.

Similarly, for non-cyclic evolution with $`U(t)=U_a(t)I_b`$, we have in general

$`\gamma _{ab}(\tau )\gamma _a(\tau )=\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|U_a(\tau )|\mu _i+i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}_a(t)|\mu _idt`$ (20)
and

$`\gamma _a^M(\tau )=\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i|\mu _i|U_a(\tau )|\mu _i|e^{i\gamma _{ai}(\tau )}\right).`$ (21)
Thus, the geometric phase of the system $`S`$ is dependent upon $`|\mu _i`$ of subsystem $`S_a`$ but independent of $`|\nu _i`$ of $`S_b`$. Only the evolution of subsystem $`S_a`$ contributes to the geometric phase of the pure state system. Yet, we find that, even in the case when the system’s geometric phase is completely determined by the evolution of subsystem $`S_a`$ and the Schmidt coefficients $`\{p_i\}`$, $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ is generally different from $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ both in the cyclic and non-cyclic case. It may seem unexpected, because only subsystem $`S_a`$ experiences a unitary evolution while subsystem $`S_b`$ is unaffected. The geometric phase of the system $`S`$ is attributed to $`U_a(t)`$ only, and it seems natural to expect the phase obtained by the system to be same as that obtained by subsystem $`S_a`$, while regarding it as mixed state. However, they are different. This shows that the geometric phase of an entangled bi-partite system is always affected by both subsystems.

## V Phase relations under parallel transport conditions

In this section, we again restrict our discussion to the case where $`U(t)=U_a(t)I_b`$. As pointed out above, even in this case, the geometric phase of the system, which is determined only by the evolution of subsystem $`S_a`$ and the Schmidt coefficients $`\{p_i\}`$, is generally different from that of the corresponding mixed state. We now try to find the reason for the difference and give conditions under which the two phases are equal.

Under the evolution $`U(t)=U_a(t)I_b`$, the state of the whole system is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sqrt{p_i}[U_a(t)|\mu _i]|\nu _i`$, which can also be expressed as the density matrix

$`\rho (t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\sqrt{p_ip_j}[U_a(t)|\mu _i\mu _j|U_a^{}(t)]|\nu _i\nu _j|.`$ (22)
The corresponding mixed state of the subsystem $`S_a`$ is

$`\rho _a(t)=\text{Tr}_b\rho (t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_iU_a(t)|\mu _i\mu _i|U_a^{}(t).`$ (23)
When $`U_a(t)`$ is given, the states $`\rho (t)`$ and $`\rho _a(t)`$ are definite, but when $`\rho (t)`$ or $`\rho _a(t)`$ is given, the evolution operator is not unique. That is, for a given path in state space, there are infinitely many unitary operators that realize the same path and so give the same geometric phase. All the operators form an equivalence set: two evolution operators are ‘equivalent’ if and only if they realize the same path. If we know any one operator out of the equivalence set, say $`\stackrel{~}{U}_a(t)`$, we can write down all the operators of the set. For $`\rho (t)`$, the equivalence set is

$$𝒮_1=\left\{\stackrel{~}{U}_a(t)e^{i\theta (t)}\right\},$$
(24)
where $`\theta (t)`$ is an arbitrary real-valued gauge function of $`t`$ with $`\theta (0)=0`$. For state $`\rho _a(t)`$, the equivalence set is

$$𝒮_2=\left\{\stackrel{~}{U}_a(t)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\theta _i(t)}|\mu _i\mu _i|\right\},$$
(25)
where $`\theta _i(t)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, are arbitrary real-valued gauge functions of $`t`$ with $`\theta _i(0)=0`$. We see that the two sets are different in general and $`𝒮_1𝒮_2`$, which shows that the evolution operators that give the same path for $`\rho _a(t)`$ may give different paths for $`\rho (t)`$. So the two kinds of geometric phases $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ and $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ cannot be the same in general, otherwise they should be associated with the same equivalence sets of evolution operators. To see exactly the difference between the two phases, we substitute

$`U_a(t)=\stackrel{~}{U}_a(t){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i\theta _i(t)}|\mu _i\mu _i|`$ (26)
into Eqs. (18) and (20), respectively, and get

$`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|\stackrel{~}{U}_a(\tau )|\mu _ie^{_0^\tau \mu _i|\stackrel{~}{U}_a^{}(t)\dot{\stackrel{~}{U}}_a(t)|\mu _i𝑑t}\right),`$ (27)
$`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|\stackrel{~}{U}_a(\tau )|\mu _ie^{i\theta _i(t)}`$ (28)
$`+i{\displaystyle _0^\tau }{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|\stackrel{~}{U}_a^{}(t)\dot{\stackrel{~}{U}}_a(t)|\mu _idt{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\theta _i(\tau ).`$
We see that $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ is invariant under choice of member in $`𝒮_2`$, while $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ is not as it depends upon $`\theta _i(t)`$.

With the above analysis, we can conclude that, for a given local evolution operator $`U_a(t)`$, the two phases $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ and $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ are different in general. But when can they be the same, that is, for what kinds of $`U_a(t)`$ can we consider the two phases to be the same? We prove that when the evolution operator $`U_a(t)`$ satisfies ‘the stronger parallel transport conditions’ Sjoqvistm

$`\mu _i|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}_a(t)|\mu _i=0,i=1,2,\mathrm{}N,`$ (29)
the two phases are the same. Substituting Eq. (29) into Eqs. (18) and (20), we find

$`\gamma _a(\tau )=\gamma _a^M(\tau )=\mathrm{arg}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}p_i\mu _i|U_a(\tau )|\mu _i\right),`$ (30)
and

$`\gamma _b(\tau )=\gamma _b^M(\tau )=0.`$ (31)
Eqs. (30) and (31) show that the two kinds of geometric phase for unitarities of the form $`U_a(t)I_b`$ are always the same when the evolution operator $`U_a(t)`$ satisfies the stronger parallel transport conditions Eq. (29).

Substituting $`U_a(t)=V_a(t)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{i\theta _i(t)}|\mu _i\mu _i|`$ into Eq. (29), we get the general form of evolution operators satisfying the stronger parallel transport conditions

$`U_a(t)=V_a(t){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|\mu _i\mu _i|e^{_0^t\mu _i|V_a^{}(t)\dot{V}_a(t)|\mu _i𝑑t},`$ (32)
where $`V_a(t)`$ is an arbitrary unitary operator. So we see that when $`U_a(t)`$ holds the form of Eq. (32), the geometric phase of the pure state of the system under the evolution $`U(t)=U_a(t)I_b`$ is the same as that of the mixed state of subsystem $`S_a`$ under the evolution $`U_a(t)`$. The phase relations are shown as Eqs. (30) and (31).

It might also be useful to consider the problem from an operational point of view. Let us first consider the two-particle Franson type interferometry setup shown in the upper panel of Fig. 1, with internal pure state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ affected by $`U_a(t)I_b`$ in the longer arms and by a $`U(1)`$ shift $`\chi `$ to one of the shorter arms. To observe the relative phase between $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )=U_a(\tau )I_b|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$, we require that the source produces particle pairs randomly. Then, if the particles arrive at the two detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ simultaneously, they both either took the upper path or the lower path, so that the intensity detected in coincidence at $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ becomes Hessmo

$`_{ab}`$ $``$ $`\left|e^{i\chi }|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)+|\mathrm{\Psi }(\tau )\right|^2`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`2+2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|U_a(\tau )I_b|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\right|\mathrm{cos}\left[\chi \mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|U_a(\tau )I_b\mathrm{\Psi }(0)\right].`$
Thus, the relative phase $`\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|U_a(\tau )I_b\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ shifts the interference oscillations when $`\chi `$ varies. To observe the phase of $`\rho _a(t)=\text{Tr}_b|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$ acquired by subsystem $`a`$ alone, we instead use the setup shown in the lower panel of Fig. 1 with the same source but where subsystem $`b`$ is ignored. Here, the output intensity at $`D_a`$ reads Sjoqvistm

$$_a2+2\left|\text{Tr}\left(\rho _a(0)U_a(\tau )\right)\right|\mathrm{cos}\left[\chi \mathrm{arg}\text{Tr}\left(\rho _a(0)U_a(\tau )\right)\right].$$
(34)
Note that $`\text{Tr}\left(\rho _a(0)U_a(\tau )\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|U_a(\tau )I_b|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ due to the triviality of the evolution of the $`b`$ subsystem.

Suppose now we first arrange these experiments so that $`U_a(t)`$ yields the pure state parallel transport condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|U_a^{}(t)\dot{U}_a(t)I_b|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=0`$. In this case, the interference pattern obtained by measuring on both subsystems in coincidence would be shifted by the pure state geometric phase $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$. On other hand, measuring only on subsystem $`a`$ would yield the same shift, but the interpretation is different: it is the total phase $`\alpha _a^M(\tau )`$ acquired by $`\rho _a(\tau )`$, which is in general at variance with $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$ as this latter phase is based upon the stronger parallel transport conditions. The situation is different when setting up $`U_a(t)`$ so as to parallel transport $`\rho _a(t)`$, i.e., by implementing $`U_a(t)`$ according to Eq. (32). Here, the coincidence and marginal interference pattern are shifted by $`\gamma _a(\tau )`$ and $`\gamma _a^M(\tau )`$, respectively, in accordance with the above analysis.

## VI Conclusion and Remarks

We have discussed geometric phases of entangled states of bi-partite systems under bi-local unitary evolution and of the mixed states of their subsystems. We conclude:

1. The cyclic geometric phase for entangled states with non-degenerate eigenvalues under bi-local unitary evolution can always be decomposed into a sum of weighted non-modular pure state phases pertaining to the separable components of the Schmidt decomposition, irrespective of forms of local evolution operators, though the same cannot be said for the non-cyclic geometric phase.
2. The mixed state geometric phase of one subsystem is generally different from that of the entangled state even by keeping the other subsystem fixed, though it seems as if the two phases might be same. However, when the evolution operator satisfies the stronger parallel transport conditions for mixed states, the two phases are the same, and the general form of the operators are given.

The difference between geometric phases of bi-partite systems and their parts has its primary cause in entanglement and thus vanishes in the limit of separable states. We hope that the present analysis may trigger multi-particle experiments to test the difference between phases of entangled systems and their subsystems.

## Acknowledgments

The work by Tong was supported by NUS Research Grant No. R-144-000-054-112. This work is also supported in part by the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore under the ASTAR Grant No. 012-104-0040 (WBS: R-144-000-071-305). E.S. acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council. M.E. acknowledge financial support from the Foundation BLANCEFLOR Boncompagni-Ludovisi, née Bildt.


format: text

text:
# An infinite family of hyperbolic graph complements in 𝑆³

## 1 Preliminaries and statements

In this paper we introduce an infinite class $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,g2\}`$ of graphs in $`S^3`$ whose exteriors support a complete finite-volume hyperbolic structure with geodesic boundary. Any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ has two connected components, one of which is a knot. We describe some geometric and topological properties of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$’s, and we show that for any $`g2`$ any non-meridinal Dehn-filling of the torus boundary of the exterior of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ gives a compact hyperbolic manifold with geodesic boundary.

### Definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ and hyperbolicity

We say that a compact orientable $`3`$-manifold is *hyperbolic* if, after removing the boundary tori, we get a complete finite-volume hyperbolic $`3`$-manifold with geodesic boundary. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a graph in a closed $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ and let $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })M`$ be an open regular neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`M`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is *hyperbolic* if $`MN(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is hyperbolic. If so, Mostow-Prasad’s Rigidity Theorem (see  for a proof in the case with non-empty geodesic boundary) ensures that the complete finite-volume hyperbolic structure with geodesic boundary on $`MN(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is unique up to isometry.

For any integer $`g2`$ let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_gS^3`$ be the graph shown in Fig. 1 (the graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ are shown in Fig. 2).

Let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^1`$ the connected components of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0S^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^1`$ has two vertices and $`g+1`$ edges. We also put $`M_g=S^3N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g)`$, $`_0M_g=N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0)`$ and $`_1M_g=N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^1)`$.

Recall that if $`M`$ is a compact $`3`$-manifold with $`M=_0M_1M`$, the *Heegaard genus* of $`(M,_0M,_1M)`$ is the minimal genus of a surface that splits $`M`$ as $`C_0C_1`$, where $`C_i`$ is obtained by attaching $`1`$-handles either to the “internal” side of a collar of $`_iM`$, if $`_iM\mathrm{}`$, or to a $`0`$-handle if $`_iM=\mathrm{}`$ (so $`C_i`$ is a handlebody in the latter case). In Section 2 we prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.1.

The graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g,g2`$ are hyperbolic and the Heegaard genus of $`(M_g,_0M_g,_1M_g)`$ is $`g+1`$. Moreover, the hyperbolic volume of $`M_g`$ grows linearly with $`g`$ as follows:

$$\underset{g\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(M_g)}{g}=5.419960359\mathrm{}$$

###### Remark 1.2.

*Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^1`$ is unknotted in $`S^3`$, the manifold $`M_g`$ is the exterior of a knot in the handlebody of genus $`g`$. The knot giving $`M_2`$, which is shown in Fig. 3, was first introduced in , where it was proved to be hyperbolic by means of Thurston’s Hyperbolization Theorem for Haken manifolds.*

### Canonical decomposition and isometries

In order to give $`M_g`$ a hyperbolic structure we geometrize a topological triangulation of $`M_g`$ by choosing suitable shapes for the tetrahedra involved. More precisely, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the standard tetrahedron, and let $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ be $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with its vertices removed. An *ideal triangulation* of a compact $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ with non-empty boundary is a realization of the interior of $`M`$ as a gluing of a finite number of copies of $`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, induced by a simplicial face-pairing of the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$’s. In Section 2 we construct for any $`g2`$ an ideal triangulation $`𝒯_g`$ of $`M_g`$ by $`2g+2`$ tetrahedra and we realize the simplices of $`𝒯_g`$ as geodesic polyhedra in $`^3`$, in such a way that the hyperbolic structure defined on them extends to the whole of $`M_g`$.

Kojima proved in  that every complete finite-volume hyperbolic manifold with non-empty geodesic boundary admits a *canonical decomposition* into geometric polyhedra. The following result is proved in Section 3:

###### Proposition 1.3.

The canonical decomposition of $`M_g`$ is given by $`𝒯_g`$.

Let $`\mathrm{Iso}(M_g)`$ be the group of isometries of $`M_g`$, let $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ be the group of combinatorial automorphisms of $`𝒯_g`$ and let $`(M_g)`$ be the group of homotopy classes of self-homeomorphisms of $`M_g`$. An easy application of Mostow-Prasad’s Rigidity Theorem gives $`\mathrm{Iso}(M_g)\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)(M_g)`$.

An oriented manifold $`M`$ is *chiral* if it does not admit an orientation-reversing self-homeomorphism. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }S^3`$ be a graph and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ be the mirror image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is *chiral* if there does not exist an orientation-preserving homeomorphism between $`(S^3,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`(S^3,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$. The definitions just given imply that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is chiral if $`S^3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is chiral. Using Proposition 1.3 we will prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`D_n`$ be the dihedral group of order $`2n`$, *i.e.* $`D_n=r,s|r^n=s^2=1,rs=sr^1`$, and let $`g2`$. Then:

1. Any element of $`\mathrm{Iso}(M_g)`$ extends to a self-homeomorphisms of $`(S^3,\mathrm{\Gamma }_g)`$;
2. The group $`\mathrm{Iso}(M_g)`$ is isomorphic to $`D_{g+1}`$;
3. All the elements of $`\mathrm{Iso}(M_g)`$ are orientation-preserving;
4. The manifold $`M_g`$ and the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ are chiral.

### Dehn fillings

Recall that a *slope* on a torus is an isotopy class of simple closed curves. For any $`g2`$, we denote by $`s_g^m`$ the *meridinal* slope on the torus boundary of $`M_g`$, *i.e.* the unique slope on $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0)`$ which bounds a disc in $`\overline{N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0)}`$. For any slope $`s`$ in $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0)`$ we denote by $`M_g(s)`$ the manifold obtained by Dehn-filling the torus boundary of $`M_g`$ along $`s`$. The next result is proved in Section 4:

###### Theorem 1.5.

Let $`g2`$ and let $`ss_g^m`$ be a slope on the torus boundary of $`M_g`$. Then $`M_g(s)`$ is hyperbolic and has Heegaard genus equal to $`g+1`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0`$ is unknotted in $`S^3`$, performing $`(0,1)`$-Dehn surgery on the boundary torus of $`M_g`$ we get the exterior of a graph in $`S^2\times S^1`$. So Theorem 1.5 easily implies the following:

###### Corollary 1.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ be the graph in $`S^2\times S^1`$ shown in Fig. 4. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ is a tunnel number one hyperbolic graph for any $`g2`$.

###### Remark 1.7.

*Theorem 1.5 also implies the following result, which generalizes Corollary 1.6: For any $`g2`$, the $`(p,q)`$-Dehn surgery on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^0`$ yields a hyperbolic tunnel number one graph in the lens space $`L_{p,q}`$.*

## 2 Triangulations and hyperbolicity

In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. To this aim we construct an ideal triangulation of $`M_g`$ and we prove that the tetrahedra of such triangulation can be given hyperbolic structures which match under the gluings.

### Defining the ideal triangulation

For any $`n3`$, let $`P_n`$ be the solid double cone based on the regular $`2n`$-gon, and let $`\dot{P}_n`$ be $`P_n`$ with its vertices removed. We fix notation as suggested in Fig. 5, viewing $`\mathrm{mod}2n`$ the index $`i`$ of the $`p_i`$’s.

Let $`X_n`$ be the topological space obtained by gluing the faces of $`\dot{P}_n`$ according to the following rules:

* For any $`i=0,2,\mathrm{},2n4,2n2`$, the face $`v_1p_ip_{i+1}`$ is identified with the face $`p_{i+1}p_{i+2}v_2`$ (with $`v_1`$ identified to $`p_{i+1}`$, $`p_i`$ to $`p_{i+2}`$ and $`p_{i+1}`$ to $`v_2`$);
* For any $`i=1,3,\mathrm{},2n3,2n1`$, the face $`v_1p_ip_{i+1}`$ is identified with the face $`p_{i+2}v_2p_{i+1}`$ (with $`v_1`$ identified to $`p_{i+2}`$, $`p_i`$ to $`v_2`$ and $`p_{i+1}`$ to $`p_{i+1}`$).

The proof of the following proposition will be sketched in the next paragraph.

###### Proposition 2.1.

For any $`n3`$, $`X_n`$ is homeomorphic to the interior of $`M_{n1}`$.

Before discussing the proof of Proposition 2.1, let us observe that we can subdivide $`P_{g+1}`$ into $`2g+2`$ tetrahedra by adding the “vertical” edge $`v_1v_2`$. Such tetrahedra give an ideal triangulation of $`M_g`$, which we denote from now on by $`𝒯_g`$. The *incidence number* of an edge in a triangulation is the number of tetrahedra incident to it (with multiplicity). The definition of $`𝒯_g`$ readily implies the following:

###### Lemma 2.2.

For any $`g2`$, the triangulation $`𝒯_g`$ has $`g+3`$ edges $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{g+2}`$ such that:

* for any $`k=0,\mathrm{},g`$, the edge $`e_k`$ is the projection in $`M_g`$ of the edges

$$v_1p_{2k},p_{2k}p_{2k+1},p_{2k+1}p_{2k+2},p_{2k+2}v_2\dot{P}_{g+1},$$

and has incidence number $`6`$;
* $`e_{g+1}`$ is the projection in $`M_g`$ of the edges $`\{v_ip_j\dot{P}_{g+1},i=1,2,j\mathrm{odd}\}`$, and has incidence number $`4g+4`$;
* $`e_{g+2}`$ is the projection in $`M_g`$ of $`v_1v_2\dot{P}_{g+1}`$, and has incidence number $`2g+2`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### Constructing the ideal triangulation

In this paragraph we sketch the proof of Proposition 2.1. To this aim we apply (a slight generalization of) the algorithm producing ideal triangulations for link complements in $`S^3`$ described in . Such an algorithm can be easily modified in order to work with graphs rather than with links.

Let us start with the following:

###### Remark 2.3.

*Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}`$ be the graph shown in Fig. 6. Then the complement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}`$ is homeomorphic to the complement of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$, *i.e.* $`S^3N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{})M_g`$.*

Applying Petronio’s algorithm to the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g^{}`$ shown in Fig. 6 we obtain the gluing diagrams shown in Fig. 7. Such diagrams encode the combinatorial rule which defines the face-pairing of $`P_{g+1}`$ described in the previous paragraph (see  for the details). This implies Proposition 2.1.

### Geometric tetrahedra

In order to construct a hyperbolic structure on $`M_g`$ we will realize the tetrahedra of $`𝒯_g`$ as geometric blocks in $`^3`$. To describe the blocks to be used we need some definitions.

A *partially truncated tetrahedron* is a pair $`(\mathrm{\Delta },)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a tetrahedron and $``$ is a set of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which are called *ideal vertices*. In the sequel we will always refer to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ itself as a partially truncated tetrahedron, tacitly implying that $``$ is also fixed. The *topological realization* $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is obtained by removing from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the ideal vertices and small open stars of the non-ideal ones. We call *lateral hexagon* and *truncation triangle* the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ respectively with a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and with the link in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of a non-ideal vertex. The edges of the truncation triangles, which also belong to the lateral hexagons, are called *boundary edges*, and the other edges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are called *internal edges*. Note that, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has ideal vertices, a lateral hexagon of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ may not quite be a hexagon, because some of its (closed) edges may be missing. A *geometric realization* of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ in $`^3`$ such that the truncation triangles are geodesic triangles, the lateral hexagons are geodesic polygons with ideal vertices corresponding to missing edges, and the truncation triangles and lateral hexagons lie at right angles to each other.

### Consistency

For any $`g2`$ let us set

$$\alpha _g=\pi /(2g+2),\beta _g=2\alpha _g,\gamma _g=\mathrm{arccos}\left((2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g)^1\right),\delta _g=\pi 2\gamma _g.$$

For any $`i=0,\mathrm{},2g+1`$ let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ be the tetrahedron in $`P_{g+1}`$ with vertices $`v_1,v_2,p_i,p_{i+1}`$. We realize the simplices of $`𝒯_g`$ as partially truncated tetrahedra

as follows (see Fig. 8):

* For any $`i=0,2,\mathrm{},2g2,2g`$, we declare $`p_i`$ to be the only ideal vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ to be the geometric realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ with dihedral angles $`\delta _g`$ along $`p_ip_{i+1}`$, $`\beta _g`$ along $`v_1v_2`$, $`\gamma _g`$ along $`p_iv_1`$ and $`p_iv_2`$, and $`\alpha _g`$ along $`p_{i+1}v_1`$ and $`p_{i+1}v_2`$;
* For any $`i=1,3,\mathrm{},2g1,2g+1`$, we declare $`p_{i+1}`$ to be the only ideal vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$ to be the geometric realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ with dihedral angles $`\delta _g`$ along $`p_ip_{i+1}`$, $`\beta _g`$ along $`v_1v_2`$, $`\alpha _g`$ along $`p_iv_1`$ and $`p_iv_2`$, and $`\gamma _g`$ along $`p_{i+1}v_1`$ and $`p_{i+1}v_2`$.

Existence and uniqueness of such geometric realizations are proved in , where it is also shown that the hyperbolic structure given on the tetrahedra of $`𝒯_g`$ extends to the whole of $`M_g`$ if and only if the matching boundary edges have the same length and the total dihedral angle around each internal edge is $`2\pi `$. Our choice of angles is such that all the conditions on dihedral angles and several conditions on boundary lengths are trivially satisfied. The only non-trivial condition to be imposed in order to ensure geometricity of $`𝒯_g`$ is that the edges $`AB`$ and $`CD`$ in Fig. 8 should have the same length. This requirement translates into the following equation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}\beta _g}{\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g\mathrm{sin}\alpha _g}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\delta _g\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g}{\mathrm{sin}\delta _g\mathrm{sin}\alpha _g},$$
(1)
which is solved by the choosen values for $`\alpha _g,\beta _g,\gamma _g`$ and $`\delta _g`$. We have thus proved that the geometric realization of $`𝒯_g`$ just described defines a (possibly incomplete) hyperbolic structure on the whole of $`M_g`$.

### Completeness

To check completeness of the hyperbolic structure defined in the last paragraph we have to determine the similarity structure it induces on the boundary torus of $`M_g`$. By construction, the torus in $`M_g`$ is tiled by $`2g+2`$ Euclidean triangles as in Fig. 9.

This shows that the structure on the boundary torus is indeed Euclidean, so the hyperbolic structure constructed in the previous paragraph is complete.

### Volume and Heegaard genus

The notion of partially truncated tetrahedron introduced before admits a generalization  to the case in which some internal edge degenerates into an ideal point, becoming a so-called *length-$`0`$ edge*. If the dihedral angle along a length-$`0`$ edge is declared to be equal to $`0`$, then the volume is a continuous function of the dihedral angles of *generalized* partially truncated tetrahedra (see ).

Let now $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_4`$ be the vertices of a tetrahedron $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and suppose that $`w_1`$ is the unique ideal vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ be the geometric realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parametrized by the following dihedral angles:

$$\mathrm{}w_1w_2=\mathrm{}w_1w_3=\gamma _g,\mathrm{}w_1w_4=\delta _g,\mathrm{}w_2w_4=\mathrm{}w_3w_4=\alpha _g,\mathrm{}w_2w_3=\beta _g,$$
(2)
and set $`V_g=\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{})`$. Let also $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ be the geometric (generalized) realization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with dihedral angles equal to $`\pi /3`$ along the edges emanating from $`w_1`$ and equal to $`0`$ along the other three edges, and set $`V_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$. Continuity of volume of generalized partially truncated tetrahedra as a function of their dihedral angles implies that

$$\underset{g\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(M_g)}{g}=\underset{g\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{(2g+2)V_g}{g}=2\underset{g\mathrm{}}{lim}V_g=2V_{\mathrm{}}=5.419960359\mathrm{}$$

Finally, the genus of $`(M_g,_0M_g,_1M_g)`$ is of course at least $`g`$, and it is actually at most $`g+1`$ because the boundary of a regular neighbourhood of $`_1M_ge_{g+1}`$ is easily seen to be a Heegaard surface. If the Heegaard genus of $`M_g`$ were $`g`$, then $`_1M_g`$ should be compressible in $`M_g`$, against the hyperbolicity of $`M_g`$.

## 3 Canonical decomposition

Kojima proved in  that a complete finite-volume hyperbolic manifold $`M`$ with non-empty geodesic boundary admits a *canonical decomposition* into partially truncated polyhedra (an obvious generalization of a partially truncated tetrahedron). This decomposition is obtained by projecting first to $`^3`$ and then to $`M`$ the faces of the convex hull of a certain family $`𝒫`$ of points in Minkowsky $`4`$-space. This family $`𝒫`$ splits as $`𝒫^{}𝒫^{\prime \prime }`$, with $`𝒫^{}`$ consisting of the points on the hyperboloid $`x^2=+1`$ which are dual to the hyperplanes giving $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{M}^3`$ is a universal cover of $`M`$. The points in $`𝒫^{\prime \prime }`$ lie in the light-cone, and they are the duals of horoballs projecting in $`M`$ to Margulis neighbourhoods of the cusps. The choice of these Margulis neighbourhoods is somewhat tricky, and carefully explained in . It will be sufficient for our present purposes to know that any choice of sufficiently small Margulis neighbourhoods leads to a set $`𝒫^{\prime \prime }`$ which works. In the sequel we will denote by $`𝒪`$ the union of sufficiently small Margulis neighbourhoods of the cusps.

### Tilts

Suppose a decomposition $`𝒯`$ of $`M`$ by partially truncated tetrahedra is given. The matter of deciding if $`𝒯`$ is the canonical Kojima decomposition of $`M`$ is faced using the *tilt formula* , that we now briefly describe.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a $`d`$-simplex in $`𝒯`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ be a lifting of $`\sigma `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{M}^3`$. To each end of $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ there corresponds (depending on the nature of the end) one horoball in the lifting of $`𝒪`$ or one component of the geodesic boundary of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ determines $`d+1`$ points of $`𝒫`$. Now let two tetrahedra $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ share a $`2`$-face $`F^{}`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{}`$ be liftings of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$ and $`F^{}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{M}^3`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2^{}=\stackrel{~}{F}^{}`$. Let $`\overline{F}`$ be the $`2`$-subspace in Minkowsky 4-space that contains the three points of $`𝒫`$ determined by $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{}`$. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{(F)}`$ be the half-$`3`$-subspace bounded by $`\overline{F}`$ and containing the fourth point of $`𝒫`$ determined by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i^{}`$. Then one can show that $`𝒯`$ is canonical if and only if, whatever $`F^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{}`$, the following holds:

* The half-$`3`$-subspaces $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^{(F)}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_2^{(F)}`$ lie on distinct $`3`$-subspaces and their convex hull does not contain the origin of Minkowsky $`4`$-space.

The tilt formula computes a real number $`t(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},F^{})`$ describing the “slope” of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(F)}`$ in terms of the intrinsic geometry of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and $`𝒪`$. More precisely, one can translate the condition just stated into the inequality $`t(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{},F^{})+t(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^{},F^{})<0`$.

### The canonical decomposition of $`M_g`$

Coming to the manifolds we are interested in, let $`g2`$, let $`𝒯_g`$ be the geometric triangulation of $`M_g`$ we have described in the previous section and let $`𝒪`$ be a suitable neighbourhood of the cusp of $`M_g`$. It was shown in  that $`𝒪`$ determines a real number $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }(v)>0`$ for the ideal vertex $`v`$ of any tetrahedron $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`𝒯_g`$. This number $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }(v)`$ represents the “height” of the trace in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ near $`v`$ of $`𝒪`$ (except that $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }(v)1`$ means that $`𝒪`$ is “very” high). Looking at the intersection of $`𝒪`$ with the tetrahedra of $`𝒯_g`$ it is easily seen that $`r_\mathrm{\Delta }(v)`$ has a certain fixed value $`r`$ whenever $`v`$ is the ideal vertex of any $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`𝒯_g`$.

Let now $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_4`$ be the vertices of a geometric partially truncated tetrahedron $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ in $`𝒯_g`$ and suppose that $`w_1`$ is the unique ideal vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$. Let the dihedral angles of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ be as prescribed in equation (2) and let $`r=r(w_1)`$ be the parameter associated with the intersection of $`𝒪`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$. For any $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ let also $`F_i^{}`$ be the face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ opposite to $`w_i`$. Using the formulae given in  we can compute the tilts of the geometric blocks of $`𝒯_g`$. Let us set

$`d_1`$ $`=`$ $`2r(\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _g\mathrm{sin}\delta _g)/(2\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{sin}\delta _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g)>0,`$
$`d_2=d_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma _g+2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g1>0,`$
$`d_4`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\delta _g+2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\delta _g1>0.`$
Then there exists a constant $`k_g>0`$, depending only on $`g`$, such that

$`t(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{},F_1^{})`$ $`=`$ $`d_1k_g\left(2\sqrt{d_2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\sqrt{d_4}\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\right),`$
$`t(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{},F_2^{})=t(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{},F_3^{})`$ $`=`$ $`d_1\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+k_g\left(\sqrt{d_2}(1\mathrm{cos}\delta _g)\sqrt{d_4}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g\right),`$
$`t(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{},F_2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`d_1\mathrm{cos}\beta _g+k_g\left(2\sqrt{d_2}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g+\sqrt{d_4}\right).`$
Now an easy computation shows that

$$\sqrt{d_2}(1\mathrm{cos}\delta _g)\sqrt{d_4}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g=2\sqrt{d_2}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g+\sqrt{d_4}=0.$$

This implies that if $`r`$ is small enough, then all the tilts are negative, so $`𝒯_g`$ is the Kojima decomposition of $`M_g`$ for any $`g2`$, and Proposition 1.3 is proved.

### Isometry group

By Proposition 1.3, the isometry group of $`M_g`$ is canonically isomorphic to the group $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ of combinatorial automorphisms of $`𝒯_g`$. For any $`g2`$, let $`r_g`$ and $`s_g`$ be the unique combinatorial automorphisms of the double cone $`P_{g+1}`$ such that:

$`r_g(p_i)=p_{i+2}i\{0,\mathrm{},2g+1\},r_g(v_1)=v_1,r_g(v_2)=v_2,`$
$`s_g(p_i)=p_ii\{0,\mathrm{},2g+1\},s_g(v_1)=v_2,s_g(v_2)=v_1.`$
If we realize $`P_{g+1}`$ as a Euclidean regular $`(2g+2)`$-gonal double cone, then $`r_g`$ is a rotation of order $`g+1`$ around the line containing $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, while $`s_g`$ is a rotation of order $`2`$ having as axis the line through $`p_0`$ and $`p_{g+1}`$. This easily implies that the following relations hold:

$$r_g^{g+1}=s_g^2=1,r_gs_g=s_gr_g^1.$$

Theorem 1.4 is now readily deduced from the following:

###### Proposition 3.1.

Both $`r_g`$ and $`s_g`$ induce combinatorial automorphisms of $`𝒯_g`$. Moreover, the group $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ is generated by $`r_g`$ and $`s_g`$ for any $`g2`$.

*Proof:* The first statement readily follows by a direct computation. In order to prove the second statement, for any $`g2`$ let $`H_g`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ generated by $`r_g`$ and $`s_g`$. Noting that $`H_g`$ acts transitively on the set of tetrahedra of $`𝒯_g`$, to conclude that $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)=H_g`$ it is enough to show that the stabilizer in $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ of one tetrahedron of $`𝒯_g`$ is trivial. So let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0P_{g+1}`$ be the tetrahedron in $`𝒯_g`$ with vertices $`p_0,p_1,v_1,v_2`$. We observe that $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ can be characterized as the only vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ satisfying the following properties:

* $`p_0`$ is asymptotic in $`M_g`$ to the boundary torus (*i.e.* it is ideal in the geometric realization);
* there exist edges $`e,e^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ such that $`p_1=ee^{}`$ and $`e,e^{}`$ are projected in $`M_g`$ to the only edge of $`𝒯_g`$ having order $`4g+4`$.

Let now $`\phi `$ be an element in $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ such that $`\phi (\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. The intrinsic description of $`p_0`$ and $`p_1`$ given above implies that $`\phi (p_i)=p_i`$ for $`i=0,1`$. Now it is easily seen that the simplicial automorphism of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ which fixes $`p_0,p_1`$ and interchanges $`v_1`$ with $`v_2`$ does not extend to an automorphism of $`𝒯_g`$, so $`\phi |_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$ must be the identity. This implies that $`\phi =1`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$, so the stabilizer of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝒯_g)`$ is trivial, and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Dehn filling

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.5. A detailed analysis of the geometry of the tetrahedra of $`𝒯_g`$ will lead us to an estimate on the size of the cusp of $`M_g`$. We will then apply a theorem of Lackenby  to prove the desired result.

### Maximal cusps, slopes and hyperbolicity

Let $`M`$ be an orientable hyperbolic $`3`$-manifold and let $`\dot{M}`$ be $`M`$ with its boundary tori removed, so that $`\dot{M}`$ admits by definition a complete finite-volume hyperbolic structure with geodesic boundary and cusps. We say that $`𝒪\dot{M}`$ is a *horocusp section* for $`M`$ if $`\dot{M}𝒪`$ is compact and the preimage of $`𝒪`$ in the universal covering of $`\dot{M}`$ is the disjoint union of open horoballs. If $`𝒪`$ is a horocusp section, then $`𝒪`$ is a union of (possibly touching or self-touching) tori and the hyperbolic structure of $`\dot{M}`$ induces on $`𝒪`$ a well-defined Euclidean metric. A horocusp section for $`M`$ is *maximal* if it is maximal among the horocusp sections for $`M`$ with respect to inclusion. We observe that a maximal horocusp section always exists, and is unique if $`M`$ has only one boundary torus.

Let now $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_k`$ be the boundary tori of $`M`$, let $`hk`$ and let $`s_i`$ be a slope on $`T_i`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. We denote by $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ the manifold obtained by Dehn-filling $`M`$ along $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_h`$. If $`𝒪`$ is a fixed horocusp section for $`M`$, then any $`s_i`$ determines a well-defined isotopy class of Euclidean geodesics on the corresponding component of $`𝒪`$. We denote by $`L_𝒪(s_i)`$ the Euclidean length of such geodesics. The following theorem is proved in :

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be hyperbolic with boundary $`M=T_1\mathrm{}T_k`$ given by $`k`$ tori. Let $`hk`$ and $`s_i`$ be a slope on $`T_i`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. Fix a horocusp section $`𝒪`$ for $`M`$ and suppose that $`L_𝒪(s_i)>6`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. Then $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ is irreducible, atoroidal and has infinite word-hyperbolic fundamental group.

### Hyperbolic Dehn fillings

Building on Theorem 4.1 we prove here the following:

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`M`$ be hyperbolic with boundary $`M=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_rT_1\mathrm{}T_k`$ given by $`r>0`$ surfaces of negative Euler characteristic and $`k`$ tori. Let $`hk`$ and $`s_i`$ be a slope on $`T_i`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. Fix a horocusp section $`𝒪`$ for $`M`$ and suppose that $`L_𝒪(s_i)>6`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. Then $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ is hyperbolic.

*Proof:* Let $`DM`$ be the double of $`M`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_r`$, *i.e.* the manifold obtained by mirroring $`M`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`M`$ is canonically embedded in $`DM`$, and $`DM`$ admits an involution $`\sigma `$ which fixes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }MDM`$ and interchanges $`M`$ with its mirror copy. Of course we have $`DM=T_1\mathrm{}T_k\overline{T}_1\mathrm{}\overline{T}_k`$, where $`\overline{T}_i=\sigma (T_i)`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Note also that for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$ the slope $`s_i`$ on $`T_i`$ determines a mirror slope $`\overline{s}_i=\sigma (s_i)`$ on $`\overline{T}_i`$. The manifold $`DM`$ can be given a hyperbolic structure simply by doubling the hyperbolic structure with geodesic boundary of $`M`$. Then $`𝒪`$ determines a horocusp section $`D𝒪`$ for $`DM`$ such that $`L_{D𝒪}(\overline{s}_i)=L_{D𝒪}(s_i)=L_𝒪(s_i)>6`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},h`$. So Theorem 4.1 implies that $`DM(s,\overline{s}):=DM(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h,\overline{s}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{s}_h)`$ is irreducible and atoroidal and has infinite, word-hyperbolic fundamental group.

Let now $`W`$ be a compression disc for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$, so $`W=\mathrm{\Sigma }W`$ does not bound a disc on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By possibly replacing $`W`$ with $`\sigma (W)`$ we can suppose that $`W`$ is properly embedded in $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$. If $`W`$ were non-separating in $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ then its double $`DW`$ would be a non-separating sphere in $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$, a contradiction since $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$ is irreducible. So let $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ be the manifolds obtained by cutting $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ along $`W`$ and for $`r=1,2`$ let $`DN_r`$ be the double of $`N_r`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_rN_r`$. By construction the sphere $`DW`$ decomposes $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$ as the connected sum of $`DN_1`$ and $`DN_2`$, so $`DN_{\overline{r}}`$ is a $`3`$-ball for $`\overline{r}=1`$ or $`2`$. This easily implies that $`N_{\overline{r}}`$ is $`3`$-ball and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N_{\overline{r}}`$ is a disc on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with boundary $`W`$, a contradiction since $`W`$ is a compression disc for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We have thus shown that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is incompressible in $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$, so Thurston’s Hyperbolization Theorem for Haken manifolds  implies that $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$ is hyperbolic.

Of course $`\sigma `$ extends to an involution $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ of $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$, which is in turn homotopic to an involutive isometry $`\overline{\sigma }`$ by Mostow-Prasad’s Rigidity Theorem. A result of Tollefson  now ensures that $`\overline{\sigma }`$ fixes a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_r^{}`$ isotopic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_r`$. Cutting $`DM(s,\overline{s})`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_r^{}`$ we obtain isometric complete finite-volume hyperbolic manifolds with geodesic boundary $`Y`$ and $`\overline{Y}`$. Since $`M(s_1,\mathrm{},s_h)`$ is homeomorphic to $`Y`$, the conclusion follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

### The maximal cusp of $`M_g`$

Coming back to the case we are interested in, we now want to determine the size of the maximal horocusp section $`𝒪_g`$ for $`M_g`$, $`g2`$. So let us fix $`g2`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ be a geometric partially truncated tetrahedron in $`𝒯_g`$ with vertices $`w_1,w_2,w_3`$ and $`w_4`$ and with dihedral angles as prescribed in equation (2). We can realize $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ in the upper half-space model of $`^3`$ in such a way that $`w_1`$ is identified with $`\mathrm{}`$, so the truncation triangles corresponding to $`w_2,w_3`$ and $`w_4`$ lie on the hyperbolic planes bounded by $`S_2,S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ respectively, where $`S_i`$ is a Euclidean circle in $`\times \{0\}^3`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$ (see Fig. 10).

We also denote by $`F_1,F_2,F_3,F_4`$ the traces at infinity of the hyperbolic planes containing the faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ with vertices $`w_2w_3w_4`$, $`w_1w_3w_4`$, $`w_1w_2w_4`$, $`w_1w_2w_3`$ respectively. By construction $`F_1`$ is a Euclidean circle perpendicular to $`S_i`$ for $`i=2,3,4`$, while $`F_j`$ is a Euclidean line perpendicular to $`S_l`$ for $`j,l\{2,3,4\}`$, $`lj`$. We denote by $`C`$ and $`R`$ the center and the radius of $`F_1`$, and we also set

$$A=F_3F_4,B=F_2F_4,D=F_2F_3,\{P,Q\}=F_1F_3,VF_1F_4.$$

Let us observe that equation (1) in Section 2 implies that the Euclidean radii of $`S_2,S_3`$ and $`S_4`$ are equal to the same value $`R^{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.3.

The following equalities hold:

$`R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`R^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma _g+2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _g}},`$ (3)
$`\overline{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`2R^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma _g+2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g1}}}.`$ (4)
*Proof:* Let $`\gamma _g^{}=\mathrm{}CAV,\gamma _g^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{}CAQ`$. Applying the Euclidean Sine Rule to the triangles $`ACV`$ and $`ACQ`$ we get $`\overline{AC}/\mathrm{sin}(\pi /2+\beta _g)=R/\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{}`$ and $`\overline{AC}/\mathrm{sin}(\pi /2+\alpha _g)=R/\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{\prime \prime }`$. So we have $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{cos}\beta _g=\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g`$. Substituting the equality $`\gamma _g^{\prime \prime }=\gamma _g\gamma _g^{}`$ in this equation and dividing by $`\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{}`$ we obtain:

$$\mathrm{cot}\gamma _g^{}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g}{\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g}.$$
(5)
Combining this relation with the equalities

$$\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{}=(1+\mathrm{cot}^2\gamma _g^{})^{1/2},\overline{AC}=R\mathrm{cos}\beta _g/\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{},R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\overline{AC}^2R^2$$

we finally get equation (3).

Since $`\overline{AB}=2\overline{AC}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g^{}`$ and $`\overline{AC}=R\mathrm{cos}\beta _g/\mathrm{sin}\gamma _g^{}`$ we have $`\overline{AB}=2R\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cot}\gamma _g^{}`$. Substituting equations (5) and (3) in this equality we now get equation (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.4.

We have $`R^{}>R`$.

*Proof:* By equation (3), we have to prove that

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g+2\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma _g+2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g>2.$$

Using that $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g=(2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g)^1`$ and $`2\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g=1+\mathrm{cos}\beta _g`$, this inequality reduces to $`2\mathrm{cos}^3\beta _g+5\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g1>0`$, which is verified since $`\beta _g=\pi /(g+1)\pi /3`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let now $`O_{\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}}`$ be the intersection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$ with the horoball centered in $`\mathrm{}`$ and bounded by the Euclidean plane $`\times \{R^{}\}\times (0,\mathrm{})^3`$. By Lemma 4.4, $`O_{\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}}\times (0,\mathrm{})`$ is an Euclidean triangular prism and touches the three boundary triangles of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$. Recall now that the geometric tetrahedra $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{1,},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{2g+2,}`$ in $`𝒯_g`$ are all isometric to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}`$. For any $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2`$ we define $`O_i\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{i,}`$ as the only subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{i,}`$ such that the pair $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{i,},O_i)`$ is isometric to the pair $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{},O_{\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{}})`$. It is easily seen that the $`O_i`$’s glue to each other in $`M_g`$ to a horocusp section for $`M_g`$. Such section is the desired maximal section $`𝒪_g`$, since it touches the geodesic boundary of $`M_g`$.

### Length of the slopes

The boundary $`𝒪_g`$ of the maximal horocusp section of $`M_g`$ is a Euclidean torus tiled by $`2g+2`$ triangles. Let $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{g+1}`$ be the edges of this tiling shown in Fig. 9 and let $`\overline{s}_g`$ be the slope on the boundary torus of $`M_g`$ determined by $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{g+1}`$. We set $`\mathrm{}_g=L_{𝒪_g}(\overline{s}_g)`$. Let us note that $`\mathrm{}_g`$ is the Euclidean length of each of the $`f_i`$’s.

###### Lemma 4.5.

The following equality holds:

$$\mathrm{}_g=2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\sqrt{\frac{4\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g1}{4\mathrm{cos}^4\alpha _g1}}.$$

*Proof:* Keeping notations from the previous paragraph, we have $`\mathrm{}_g=\overline{AD}/R^{}`$. Now $`\overline{AD}=\overline{AB}/(2\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g)`$, so by equation (4) we get

$$\mathrm{}_g=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g}{\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _g+\mathrm{cos}^2\gamma _g+2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\mathrm{cos}\beta _g\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g1}}.$$

Substituting in this equation the relations $`\beta _g=2\alpha _g`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g=(2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g)^1`$ we get the desired result. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`s,s^{}`$ are slopes on a torus, we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(s,s^{})`$ their *distance*, *i.e.* their geometric intersection.

###### Proposition 4.6.

Let $`g2`$ and let $`s`$ be a slope on the boundary torus of $`M_g`$ with $`s\overline{s}_g`$. Then $`L_{𝒪_g}(s)>6`$.

*Proof:* The torus $`𝒪_g`$ is tiled by $`2g+2`$ Euclidean triangles each of which has area equal to $`\mathrm{}_g^2\mathrm{sin}\delta _g/2`$. Using Lemma 4.5 and the relations $`\delta _g=\pi 2\gamma _g`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma _g=(2\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g)^1`$ we can easily compute the area $`A_g`$ of $`𝒪_g`$, getting $`A_g=(2g+2)(4\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g1)^{3/2}/(4\mathrm{cos}^4\alpha _g1)`$.

Let now $`\theta (s,\overline{s}_g)`$ be the Euclidean angle determined by geodesic representatives for $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}_g`$ on $`𝒪_g`$. We have $`L_{𝒪_g}(s)L_{𝒪_g}(\overline{s}_g)\mathrm{sin}\theta (s,\overline{s}_g)=\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)A_g`$, which implies that

$$L_{𝒪_g}(s)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)A_g}{\mathrm{}_g}=\frac{(g+1)\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)(4\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g1)}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha _g\sqrt{4\mathrm{cos}^4\alpha _g1}}.$$

Suppose first that $`(g+1)\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)6`$. Then, since $`4\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha _g=2+2\mathrm{cos}\beta _g2+2\mathrm{cos}\pi /3=3`$, we obtain

$$L_{𝒪_g}(s)\frac{(g+1)\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)2}{\sqrt{3}}>(g+1)\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)6,$$

and we are done.

We have now to examine the cases when $`\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_g)=1`$ and $`g=2,3,4`$ or $`5`$. Suppose for example $`g=2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_2)=1`$, and let $`s_2^{}`$ be the slope corresponding to the longest egdes of the fundamental domain for $`𝒪_2`$ shown in Fig. 9. Then we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(s_2^{},\overline{s}_2)=1`$, $`L_{𝒪_2}(s_2^{})=3\mathrm{}_2`$ and $`\theta (s_2^{},\overline{s}_2)=\delta _2=\mathrm{arccos}1/3`$. Let $`\overline{r}_2,r_2^{}`$ and $`r`$ be representatives in $`H_1(𝒪_2)`$ for $`\overline{s}_2,s_2^{}`$ and $`s`$ respectively (such representatives are uniquely defined up to sign). Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(s,\overline{s}_2)=1`$, there exists $`a`$ such that $`r=a\overline{r}_2\pm r_2^{}`$. Then

$$L_{𝒪_2}^2(s)=a^2\mathrm{}_2^2+9\mathrm{}_2^2\pm 6a\mathrm{}_2^2\mathrm{cos}\theta (\overline{s}_2,s_2^{})=(a^2+9\pm 2a)\mathrm{}_2^28\mathrm{}_2^2.$$

Since $`\alpha _2=\pi /6`$, Lemma 4.5 implies that $`\mathrm{}_2^2=24/5`$, so $`L_{𝒪_2}^2(s)824/5=38.4>6^2`$, and we are done.

A very similar computation works also in the remaining cases. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove Theorem 1.5. By Propositions 4.6 and 4.2 we deduce that for any $`g2`$ all but one Dehn-filling of $`M_g`$ are hyperbolic. If $`s_g^m`$ is the meridinal slope on the torus boundary of $`M_g`$, then $`M_g(s_g^m)`$ is the handlebody, so it is boundary-reducible, whence non-hyperbolic. This implies that $`M_g(s)`$ is hyperbolic if and only if $`ss_g^m`$.

Moreover, if $`ss_g^m`$ then the Heegaard genus of $`M_g(s)`$ is at least $`g+1`$, since $`\mathrm{genus}(M_g(s))=g`$ and $`M_g(s)`$ is not a handlebody. Since a Heegaard surface for $`(M_g,_0M_g,_1M_g)`$ embeds in $`M_g(s)`$ as a Heegaard surface for $`M_g(s)`$ itself, the genus of $`M_g(s)`$ is actually equal to $`g+1`$.

## Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from the University of Melbourne and thanks Craig Hodgson and Damian Heard for many helpful conversations.

Scuola Normale Superiore
Piazza dei Cavalieri 7
56127 Pisa, Italy
frigerio@sns.it


text:
# Enhancement of Noise-induced Escape through the Existence of a Chaotic Saddle

## Abstract

We study the noise-induced escape process in a prototype dissipative nonequilibrium system, the Ikeda map. In the presence of a chaotic saddle embedded in the basin of attraction of the metastable state, we find the novel phenomenon of a strong enhancement of noise-induced escape. This result is established by employing the theory of quasipotentials. Our finding is of general validity and should be experimentally observable.

PACS number 05.45+b

Since the seminal treatment of the noise-induced escape problem by Kramers Kramers:1940 , major progress has been made by Onsager and Machlup. They realized that the escape process consists of large fluctuations, which are very rare, and that the trajectory peaks sharply around some optimal (most probable) escape path Onsager:1953 . Thus, despite the stochastic nature of the escape process, the escape path is of almost deterministic nature, as other paths than the most probable one have an exponentially smaller probability. That theory was derived for a small noise level $`\delta 0`$. A review on noise-induced escape in equilibrium systems and the most important recent advancements is given in Hanggi:1990 .
In the last decade it has been realized, that systems that are not in thermal equilibrium or are lacking the property of detailed balance, can give rise to a large variety of interesting phenomena in the noise-induced escape problem. Only recently experiments on this problem have been conducted, using Josephson junctions, electronic circuits, lasers, and an electron in a Penning trap Vion:1996 . Some of the most interesting novel theoretical findings include a pre-exponential factor of the Kramers rate Maier:1992 , a symmetry breaking bifurcation of the optimal escape path Maier:1993  and a distribution of the escape paths originating from a cusp point singularity Dykman:1996 . Furthermore, the very intriguing phenomenon of saddle-point avoidance has been discovered Luchinsky:1999a . For a fluctuating barrier the effect of resonant activation has been theoretically predicted Doering:1992  and experimentally confirmed Mantegna:1996 . Also a stepwise growth of the escape rate for short time scales has been found Soskin:2001a . Recently, an oscillation of the escape rate in dependence on the friction for a multiwell potential was demonstrated Soskin:1999 . For periodically driven systems a number of interesting results has been obtained as well, like a resonantly decrease in the activation energy Dykman:1997 , a logarithmic susceptibility of the fluctuation probability Smelyanskiy:1997 , time oscillations of escape rates Smelyanskiy:1999  and enhancement of escape due to transient chaos Soskin:2001b .
Here we report on a new mechanism of lowering the required energy for noise-induced escape (enhancement of escape), thus a reduction of the mean first passage time. This happens, if a chaotic saddle is embedded in the open neighborhood of the basin of a metastable state. Then the escape trajectory does not only pass through a single unstable periodic orbit Khovanov:2000 . By contrast, it can pass through the chaotic saddle, i. e. a geometrically strange, invariant, non-attracting set (which is made up of an infinite number of unstable periodic orbits). The trajectory can jump between points of the chaotic saddle with no additional activation energy required. The overall lowering of the activation threshold is due to the fact, that the escape process consists now of three subsequent steps: Firstly, the trajectory jumps on one orbit on the chaotic saddle. Secondly, it switches on the chaotic saddle, without need of input energy, to select the orbit which allows the easiest escape, and thirdly it fluctuates from that orbit to the saddle point on the basin boundary. By this mechanism, the chaotic saddle is transformed into a dynamically relevant quantity, whereas in noisefree systems it is only important for transient behavior. In this way the chaotic saddle acts as a ‘shortcut’.
Since noise-induced escape has previously been studied using dissipative maps Beale:1989 , which allow analysis in a straitforward way, we demonstrate our findings for the Ikeda map Ikeda:1979 . This is an idealized model of a laser pulse i n an optical cavity. With complex variables it has the form

$$z_{n+1}=a+bz_n\mathrm{exp}\left[i\kappa \frac{i\eta }{1+|z_n|^2}\right],$$
(1)
where $`z_n=x_n+iy_n`$ is related to the amplitude and phase of the $`nth`$ laser pulse exiting the cavity. The parameter $`a`$ is the laser input amplitude and corresponds to the forcing of the system. The damping ($`1b`$) accounts for the reflection properties of mirrors in the cavity and measures the dissipation. The empty cavity detuning is given by $`\kappa `$ and the detuning due to a nonlinear dielectric medium by $`\eta `$. The Ikeda map gives rise to rich dynamical behavior, exhibiting for some parameters even highly multistable behavior Feudel:1997 .
We fix the parameters at $`a=0.85,b=0.9`$ and $`\kappa =0.4`$ and vary only $`\eta `$ in the range $`2.6<\eta <12`$. For the noiseless system two stable states are present. One fixed point (state A, $`\mathrm{}`$ in Fig. 1) undergoes a period doubling scenario and becomes a chaotic attractor at $`\eta 5.5`$ Another fixed point (state B, $`\mathrm{}`$ in Fig. 1) remains a fixed point over the whole parameter range considered. The noise-induced escape from state A is investigated. The basin boundary separating these two stable states is a smooth curve which is build by the stable manifold of the saddle point C ($``$ in Fig. 1), separating the two stable states.

With the above mentioned features of the system, there are no unusual effects expected in the noise-induced escape problem. However, for a critical value of $`\eta _c=3.5686`$ an additional period $`3`$ solution close to the fixed point (state A) emerges, with a fractal basin boundary between these two solutions and a chaotic saddle embedded in this fractal basin boundary. It is important to note, that the basin boundary between the two fixed points remains smooth over the whole parameter range considered here. Increasing $`\eta `$ further, the stable period 3 solution dissapears in a boundary crisis, yet a chaotic saddle is still present beyond the boundary crisis, completely embedded in the open neighborhood of the basin of the stable solution, as can be seen in Fig. 1 for $`\eta =4.1`$. A chaotic saddle is a geometrically strange, invariant, non-attracting set. It is computed using the PIM-triple algorithm nusse:1989 . We stress that it is the chaotic saddle, that has a remarkable effect on the average escape time from the stable fixed point.
To treat the problem of noise-induced escape we now employ the theory of quasipotentials, which gives rigorous results on the influence of noise on the invariant density and the mean first passage time. Quasipotentials have been introduced in the mathematical literature for time-continuous systems in Freidlin:1984  and for discrete time ones in Kifer:1988 . For systems of physical interest, they were first proposed in Graham:1984  and extended to systems with coexisting attractors in Graham:1986 . Discrete systems with strange invariant sets were for the first time treated in Graham:1991 . Quasipotentials can be derived through a minimization procedure of the action of escape trajectories from a Hamilton-Jacobi equation Talkner:1987 . The action to be minimized has the form

$$S_N[(z_i)_{0i<N}]=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}[z_{i+1}f(z_i)]^2,$$
(2)
for the map $`z_{n+1}=f(z_n)+\sigma \xi _n`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the standard deviation of the additive, Gaussian, white noise term $`\xi _n`$. With appropriate boundary conditions the infimum of this action with respect to $`N`$ and $`i`$ along a path is the quasipotential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The mean first exit time is then given in analogy to Kramer’s law:

$$\tau \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\sigma ^2}\right],$$
(3)
whith $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defined as the minimal quasipotential difference

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }:=inf\{\mathrm{\Phi }(y)\mathrm{\Phi }(a):aA,yG\},$$
(4)
where $`A`$ is the attractor and $`G`$ is the basin boundary. In Fig. 2 the quasipotential is shown for $`\eta =4.1`$. There is a single peak corresponding to the fixed point A and a plateau region of a practically constant quasipotential, which reflects the chaotic saddle.

Employing the quasipotential for the noise-induced escape problem, the minimum value of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ on the basin boundary has to be determined. This is exactly the minimum escape energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$, since the quasipotential at the stable solution (fixed point, periodic orbit or chaotic attractor) is zero. The point on the basin boundary, where this happens, is generally a saddle point of the system.
To quantify the escape process with the quasipotential, we plot for various values of $`\eta `$ the corresponding minimal escape energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ in Fig. 3. To elucidate the role of the chaotic saddle as the origin of an enhancement of noise-induced escape, we also include in the plot the value of the height of the plateau in the quasipotential.
In the framework of quasipotentials, the difference in height of the escape energy and the saddle plateau corresponds to the distance between the basin boundary and the chaotic saddle, whereas the height of the saddle is related to the distance between the attractor and the saddle.
The mechanism of the escape process is closely connected to the existence of an embedded chaotic saddle. It consists of two steps, namely, a noise-induced fluctuation from the attractor (state A) to the chaotic saddle, and then from the chaotic saddle to the fixed point (state B) via the saddle point on the boundary. The escape can also be incomplete, as the trajectory may fall back from the chaotic saddle to the attractor. In a successful escape, the chaotic saddle acts as a ‘shortcut’, as its presence lowers the overall escape energy. This behavior seems to be especially pronounced if the chaotic saddle is closer to the basin boundary than to the attractor (compare the region $`3.6\eta 4.5`$ of Fig. 3). Let us note that for $`\eta =5.5`$ it is not clear, if there exists a chaotic saddle, which is the case for all other values of $`\eta 3.5686`$ we have tested. The PIM-triple method, as well as the quasipotential, yield for $`\eta =5.5`$ no conclusive result, as a chaotic saddle may exist very close to the chaotic attractor and numerically it is very difficult to distinguish between the two.

It is important to quantify the influence of the relative sizes of the basins of attraction, since it is increasing with increasing $`\eta `$ and we are here only interested in the change of activation energy caused by the chaotic saddle. The distance between the attractor and the saddle point on the boundary is usually proportional to the relative size of the basin. Both quantities are expected to play a role in the stability of the metastable state located in the basin, although we are not aware of any theoretical work dealing with this relation directly. To compensate for the change of escape energy caused by the increase in size of the basin of attraction, in Fig. 4 the escape energy is divided by the ratio of the size of the basin of attraction of state A to the overall area (A + B) for $`3`$ different sections of the phase space. The sections of the phase space decrease from top to bottom. The combination of the two quantities, potential height and basin size, yields a pronounced minimum at $`\eta 5.0`$ for all $`3`$ curves, thus confirming the essential role in lowering the escape energy played by the chaotic saddle.

The most probable escape path Onsager:1953 ; Freidlin:1984  for $`\eta =5.0`$ is shown, together with the chaotic saddle, in Fig. 5. For this parameter value, there is a stable period 4 solution. As can be seen, the trajectory jumps at first directly on points of the chaotic saddle, moves secondly along points of the chaotic saddle for some iterations, until it is thirdly transported close to the basin boundary to the saddle point. Since the first step (from fixed point to saddle) and the last step (from saddle to the basin boundary) are minimal in this case, the enhancement is maximal.

Other values of the Ikeda map, where no chaotic saddle is present, have been investigated as well. For these parameter values the effect could not be found, and the graphs corresponding to Fig. 4 have a strictly monotonic shape. This demonstrates that the existence of the chaotic saddle is of crucial importance for the occurrence of the enhancement of noise-induced escape.
Moreover, the stability of a fixed point is determined by its eigenvalues. The eigenvalues are found to be $`\lambda =0.9`$ for the whole range, where it exists. Consequently, the linear approximation is of no relevance to the noise-induced escape problem, as its range of validity is much smaller than the region for the escape, which is the whole open set of the basin of attraction shown in Fig. 1.
To conclude, we have demonstrated the effect of enhancement of noise-induced escape through the existence of a chaotic saddle in the open neighborhood of the metastable state for the Ikeda map as a parameter is varied. Employing the theory of quasipotentials, it was possible to understand this lowering of the escape threshold. We stress that the reported mechanism of the lowering of the escape energy is of qualitatively different nature from a recently found effect, where also an enhancement of noise-induced escape through transient motion (typical for chaotic saddles) has been found Soskin:2001b . In this scenario, a nonadiabatically, periodically driven system exhibits a facilitation of noise-induced interwell transitions. This occurs, because the basin boundary becomes fractal and the distance between the two states is effectively reduced. In the mechanism reported here we always have a smooth basin boundary between the two states and the chaotic saddle is embedded in the basin of one state, not in the basin boundary between the states. The analysis of the exact escape path on the chaotic saddle, in contrast to the case where the trajectory leaves via a single periodic orbit Khovanov:2000  will be the presented in a much broader hashion in a future publication Kraut:2002 . The reported new phenomenon is of general relevance for many physical and chemical problems. It is predicted to occur in a variety of systems, and should experimentally be observable.
We acknowledge A. Hamm and D. Luchinsky for valuable discussions and A. Hamm also for the help in programming. This work was supported by the DFG and INTAS.


text:
# 1 Mutually correlated variation of sample’ resistance estimated for the return branch of I(V) in B-2212 mesa, Fig.8 from() (reproduced in the insert) and its overheating, Δ𝑇=𝑇_𝑠-𝑇₀, caused by the Joule dissipation, are shown by ■ and □ respectively; dotted lines represent a ‘heating-free’ I(V).

Heating-free I-V of the ‘intrinsic’ Josephson effect

Intrinsic tunnelling (ITs) is believed to occur in highly anisotropic superconductors such as Bi2212 and Bi2201, manifesting itself in the peculiar shape of an out-of-plane I-V. The low-bias brush-like part of such I-V is highly hysteresial and becomes single-valued at higher voltages, where gap-like peculiarities are located. Some important conclusions have been drawn from results obtained with this method cf.gough , assuming Josephson coupling between Cu-O planes to be the only cause of the peculiar shape of I-V. This assumption, however, is not beyond dispute from the experimental viewpoint heat-1st ; comment2201 . In particular, unlike in conventional tunnelling, the characteristic features of ITs are seen at high levels of dissipation (estimated as VI/A, where A is the area of the sample) in excess of 1kW/cm2 at $``$4.3K comment2201 . This value significantly surpasses the critical heat load for liquid 4He, $``$1W/cm2, thus signalling possible heating, especially since the poor thermal conductivity of all HTSC makes them particularly prone to local overheating. Indeed, significant heating was reported even for the ‘brush’-like part of I-V gough ; heating . Moreover, I have shown that the ‘intrinsic tunnelling’ (IT) characteristics of Bi2212 and Bi2201 can be reproduced if the heating caused by Joule dissipation is the only reason for nonlinearities observed in their current-voltage characteristics heating ; comment2201 ; crete-ije . Thus, experimental normal state c-axis resistance $`R_N(T)`$ and Newton’s Law of Cooling provide a natural explanation of the divergency between the results obtained with conventional spectroscopy and those derived from IT.

Recently the conclusions of comment2201  were addressed by Yurgens in a way similar to gough . Moreover, A. Yurgens reply  managed to reaffirm some of the experimental results of predecessors gough ; heating . Conservative estimates of overheating reply  confirmed those of comment2201  quantitatively. Unfortunately, instead of addressing the intrinsic (heating-free) shape of I-V and following gough , Yurgens constructed a ‘heating-free’ I-V using a variety of overheated I-V-T reply ; aux . In my opinion, these should be treated with caution until all sample-contact nonlinearities and overheating dependent temperature lags are addressed properly. This is especially important for cases of intermediate heating such as the ‘intrinsic Josephson effect’.

I will show that the overheating at biases corresponding to hysteresial multi-branch I-V characteristics presented in Fig.8 from aux  allows for an estimate the intrinsic heating-free shape of I-V in the ‘intrinsic’ Josephson effect. The original data are reproduced in the insert to Fig.1. Here, the last branch of I-V is plotted together with the temperature estimate, $`T_s`$, of the topmost electrode of this Bi2212 mesa-structure. Ts increase is caused by the Joule dissipation inside the mesa comment2201 . The measured data provide little information on the ‘heating-free’ I-V, addressed in the main panel of Fig.1, where the resistance of the sample is plotted together with its overheating above the base temperature, $`T_0`$. Fig.1 suggests the Ohmic response (shown by the dashed lines) to occur in the absence of overheating. At higher V$``$30mV we see a progressive rise of the overheating, which entails a corresponding reduction of $`R_c`$. This allows for an estimate of the highest heat load that this particular sample can accept at 4.3K without overheating, $`W/A0.4W/cm^2`$ (A=6x6$`\mu m^2`$ is the area of the mesa). This is consistent with the critical heat load for liquid 4He, $``$1W/cm2. In my opinion the dotted lines in Fig.1 represent the intrinsic ‘heating-free’ I(V), which has nothing in common with the Josephson behaviour.

To conclude, novel results by Yurgens reply ; aux  allow for an estimate of the intrinsic heating-free shape of I(V) in the ‘intrinsic’ Josephson effect and offer additional support to the original conclusions of heat-1st ; comment2201 ; crete-ije .

The financial support of the Leverhulme Trust (F/00261/H) is gratefully acknowledged.

V.N.Zavaritsky

Department of Physics, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, United Kingdom.