text:
# Power spectrum of many impurities in a 𝑑-wave superconductor

## Abstract

Recently the structure of the measured local density of states power spectrum of a small area of the Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 (BSCCO) surface has been interpreted in terms of peaks at an “octet” of scattering wave vectors determined assuming weak, noninterfering scattering centers. Using analytical arguments and numerical solutions of the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations, we discuss how the interference between many impurities in a $`d`$-wave superconductor alters this scenario. We propose that the peaks observed in the power spectrum are not the features identified in the simpler analyses, but rather “background” structures which disperse along with the octet vectors. We further consider how our results constrain the form of the actual disorder potential found in this material.

In the past few years, high-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments on the cuprate superconductor BSCCO yazdani ; davisnative ; davisZn ; cren ; davisinhom1 ; davisinhom2 ; Kapitulnik1 ; Kapitulnik2 ; Kapitulnik3 ; Hoffman1 ; McElroy  have obtained local information on electronic structure for the first time. The first great success of this technique was the observation of resonant defect states at low temperatures in the superconducting stateyazdani ; davisnative ; davisZn , confirming early proposals that such states should be reflected in the local density of states (LDOS) of $`d`$-wave superconductorsByersetal ; Balatsky . Subsequent experiments revealed the existence of nanoscale inhomogeneitiescren ; davisinhom1 ; davisinhom2 ; Kapitulnik1  which are currently the subject of debate, being attributed either to interaction-driven effects such as stripe-formationKapitulnik2 ; Kapitulnik3  or to Friedel oscillations of weakly-interacting quasiparticlesdavisinhom1 ; davisinhom2 . At the heart of this debate lies the important question of whether, and if so in what ranges of doping, conventional BCS-like theories describe the ground state and low energy excitations of BSCCO. Recently it has been pointed out that, in inhomogeneous systems, the Fourier transform of the LDOS (FTDOS) contains information not only about the disorder potential, but about the kinematics of the associated pure system. That this must be so at some level is clear from the original one-impurity problem solved by Friedelfriedel : a charge inserted in an electron gas gives rise to LDOS oscillations which vary at large distances as $`\mathrm{cos}2k_Fr/r^3`$, so the wavelength of the LDOS “ripples” caused by a single impurity gives the Fermi wave vector directly. A somewhat more sophisticated version of this argument,Hoffman1 ; Tingfourier ; WangLee ; Hedegard ; Tingfourierfewimp  still assuming scattering from a single or few impurities and noninteracting quasiparticles, suggested that the peaks in the FTDOS are due to scattering of quasiparticles by a weak disorder potential. In this case favored momentum transfers correspond to vectors $`𝐪`$ connecting two tips of quasiparticle constant energy contours which maximize the joint density of states (JDOS). This interpretation has been applied to recent experimentsMcElroy  which claim to map out a Fermi surface in agreement with angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES). In contrast to this, Howald et al.Kapitulnik2 ; Kapitulnik3  identify nondispersing features in the FTDOS from their experiments, which they suggest are indicative of static-stripe formation along the Cu-O bond directions.

In this Letter, we report on numerical studies of models of disordered superconducting BSCCO. Previous analyses of a single weak impurityTingfourier ; WangLee  agreed qualitatively with the simple JDOS analysis of Ref. McElroy  and succesfully predicted the dispersion of the peak positions in the FTDOS. It has been since showncapriotti  that the sharp 1-impurity peaks survive in the many-impurity case if the potential is sufficiently weak. However, the ability to correctly predict the peak positions (which depend only on the quasiparticle band structure, and not the disorder potential) does not imply that the low-energy excitations are understood. A full microscopic understanding of the superconducting state requires an accurate description of the disorder potential in the BSCCO CuO2 planes. We will show that there are both qualitative and quantitative problems describing experiments which stem from the inadequacy of the weak-impurity model, and that the FTDOS spectrum of a realistic model comprising a dilute concentration of unitary scatterers, together with a smooth disorder potential, is required to fit experiment and has features not present in the simple JDOS analysis. Understanding these discrepancies will be crucial to extracting reliable information about the clean system, as well as the nature of the disorder potential.

Many Impurities. In this section, we discuss the differences between the single and many-impurity FTDOS for weak pointlike scatterers, and compare these spectra with experiment. We first imagine a random distribution of $`N_I`$ pointlike impurities located at sites $`𝐑_i`$ with $`i=1\mathrm{}N_I`$. The LDOS can be formally decomposed $`\rho (𝐫,\omega )=\rho _0(\omega )+\delta \rho (𝐫,\omega )`$ where $`\rho _0`$ is the DOS of the homogeneous superconductor, and $`\delta \rho `$ is the local shift due to disorder given exactly by

$`\delta \rho (𝐫,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N_I}{}}}\left[\widehat{G}^0(𝐫𝐑_i)\widehat{T}_{ij}\widehat{G}^0(𝐑_j𝐫)\right]_{11}`$ (1)
where the $`\omega `$-dependence is suppressed for clarity, $`\widehat{T}(\omega )`$ is the $`2N_I\times 2N_I`$ many-impurity T-matrix (the factor of two arises from spin), $`\widehat{G}^0(𝐫,\omega )`$ is the bare electron Green’s function $`\widehat{G}^0(𝐫,\omega )=_𝐤\widehat{G}^0(𝐤,\omega )\mathrm{exp}(i𝐤𝐫)`$, $`\widehat{}`$ refers to matrices in the Nambu-spinor formalism and $`[\mathrm{}]_{ij}`$ are spinor indices. The T-matrix is expressed in terms of the 1-impurity T-matrix $`\widehat{t}_i=[1\widehat{V}_i\widehat{G}^0(𝐫=0)]^1\widehat{V}_i`$ by

$`\widehat{T}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{t}_i\delta _{i,j}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{N_I}{}}}\widehat{t}_i[1\delta _{m,i}]\widehat{G}^0(𝐑_i𝐑_m)\widehat{T}_{mj},`$ (2)
where the impurity potential at $`𝐑_i`$ is $`\widehat{V}_i=V_0\widehat{\tau }_3`$, and $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$ are the Pauli matrices. For pure potential scatterers, the T-matrix can be decomposed into two Nambu components $`\widehat{t}=t_0e^{i\varphi _0}\widehat{\tau }_0+t_3e^{i\varphi _3}\widehat{\tau }_3`$ with $`t_0`$ and $`t_3`$ real, and $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ the scattering phase shifts.

Throughout this work, we adopt the ARPES-derived tight-binding model of NormanNorman  for the band structure, and assume nearest-neighbor $`d`$-wave pairing with order-parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.16t_1=24`$ meV where $`t_1=150`$ meV is the nearest-neighbor hopping matrix element. We take, as representative, the weak scattering potential $`V_0=0.67t_1`$. We ignore the effects of tunneling matrix elementsTingfilter ; Balatskyfilter , and assume that the STM probe measures the LDOS $`\rho (𝐫,\omega )`$ directly (note that $`𝐫`$ need not correspond to a site $`𝐑`$ of the crystal lattice). The Fourier transform is then $`\rho (𝐪,\omega )=_{𝐫L\times L}e^{i𝐪𝐫}\rho (𝐫,\omega )`$, where $`L\times L`$ is a square set of $`L^2`$ positions at which measurements are made, and $`𝐪=2\pi (m,n)/L`$ are vectors in the associated reciprocal lattice.

The FTDOS is shown at $`\omega =14`$ meV in Fig. 1 for (a) a single impuritywangleecaveat  (b) a collection of $`N_I=21`$ (0.15%) weak scatterers on a $`120\times 120`$ lattice. Using the notation of Ref. McElroy , a few important peak positions which are predicted by the JDOS analysis are also shown in Fig. 1(a). To understand the relationship between Figs. 1(a) and (b), we consider Eq. (1) to leading order in $`\widehat{t}_i`$:

$`\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0,3}{}}t_\alpha (𝐪)\mathrm{Im}[e^{i\varphi _\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (𝐪,\omega )]`$ (3)
where $`t_\alpha (𝐪)=t_\alpha _ie^{i𝐪𝐑_i}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (𝐪,\omega )=_𝐤\left[\widehat{G}^0(𝐤,\omega )\widehat{\tau }_\alpha \widehat{G}^0(𝐤+𝐪,\omega )\right]_{11}.`$ Eq. (3) affords a clear separation between degrees of freedom associated with the disorder potential and those of the pure system, which is not possible if scattering processes of higher order in $`\widehat{t}_i`$ are important. Since $`t_\alpha (𝐪)`$ consists of a sum of $`N_I`$ random phases, it becomes a random function of $`𝐪`$ in the first Brillouin zone as $`N_I\mathrm{}`$. By contrast, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (𝐪,\omega )`$ is the response function of the clean system, is independent of the disorder potential, and determines the peak locations and widths in the FTDOS. As is evident in Fig. 1(c), JDOS peaks are not broadened or shifted by disorder; note in particular that the thin line representing the many-impurity case shows a sharp $`𝐪_7`$ peak which is visible only as one or two bright pixels in Fig. 1(b).

In the limit of weak potentials, Eq. (3) reduces to the result of Capriotti et alcapriotti ,

$$\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )V(𝐪)\text{Im }\mathrm{\Lambda }_3(𝐪,\omega )/\pi ,$$
(4)
which is also valid for finite range $`V(𝐫)`$. The effect of an extended potential can be understood with an example: if the single-impurity potential is $`V_0(𝐫)=v_0\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2r_0^2)`$, then $`V(𝐪)=2\pi r_0^2v_0\mathrm{exp}(q^2r_0^2/2)_i\mathrm{exp}(i𝐪𝐑_i)`$. Thus, for sufficiently weak scatterers, the $`q`$-space structure of $`\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )`$ is determined primarily by the band structure, but has an envelope which suppresses the FTDOS near the Brillouin zone edges, and is noisy because of randomness in the impurity positions. We remark that since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3(𝐪,\omega )`$ can be calculated from knowledge of the electronic structure of the pure system, Eq. (4) is, in principle, a useful tool for determining the scattering potential directly from experimental measurements of the LDOS. However, we caution the reader that Eq. (4) applies only to unphysically weak potentials. Figure 1(d) shows that even for the weak potential $`V_0=0.67t_1`$, not all peaks in the FTDOS (notably the central peak around $`q=0`$) are reproduced by Eq. (4).

While Eqs. (3) and (4) appear to suggest that the dispersing 1-impurity peaks are also present for many impurities, we can show from Eq. (3) that in the disorder average $`|\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )|^2N_I`$ and $`|\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )|^4|\delta \rho (𝐪,\omega )|^2^2N_I(N_I1)`$, implying that the noise is actually as large as the signal. As a consequence, the weak $`𝐪_1`$ peaks present in Fig. 1(a) are lost in the noise in Fig. 1(b), and the broader background features are relatively enhanced. Thus, it appears that the peaks predicted by the JDOS analysis may not be robust when many impurities are present. This is particularly true when the effects of energy resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ are considered. In Ref. McElroy , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 2`$ meVDavisprivatecommun , and we use a complex energy $`\omega +i\gamma `$ in our calculations which for $`\gamma =0.015t_1=2.25`$ meV yields a comparable resolution. We find that even for one impurity, FTDOS peaks are extremely sensitive to $`\gamma `$. All peaks are suppressed, but not broadened, as $`\gamma `$ increases (this conclusion differs from Ref. WangLee ).

It is therefore difficult to understand, based on the weak impurity analysis, why experiments measure broad and well-defined $`𝐪_1`$ and $`𝐪_7`$ peaks of roughly equal weight. Furthermore, 1-impurity calculations such as in Fig. 1(c) find in addition to JDOS peaks a highly structured dispersive “background” structure, whereas in current interpretations of experiments all features are ascribed to JDOS peaks. Our calculations suggest that, because of noise, it may be easy to confuse dispersing background features and JDOS peaks in experiments. Very recently, it was pointed out in Ref. Franz  that the scattering amplitude for processes involving $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(𝐪)`$ is not sharply peaked at the “octet” $`𝐪_\alpha `$, but our analysis shows further that the predominant structures in the presence of noise are generally considerably shifted from the $`𝐪_\alpha `$ positions, and may indeed be associated with off-shell processes.

Realistic Disorder Models. The weak-scattering pointlike disorder model is convenient for its simplicity, but does not predict FTDOS peak widths consistent with experiment. In addition, the relative weights of the features ascribed to the $`𝐪_\alpha `$ (e.g., the nearly equal weight of $`𝐪_7`$ and $`𝐪_1`$) are not correctly predicted, particularly at low energies. In this section, we explore whether the measured FTDOS can be explained by a simple “realistic” disorder model. Two types of disorder, unitary defects and intrinsic nanoscale inhomogeneties are known to be present in nominally clean BSCCO. In the experiments of Ref. McElroy , a concentration of $`0.2\%`$ unitary, pointlike native defects were observed, while in Refs. cren ; davisinhom1 ; davisinhom2 ; Kapitulnik1 ; Kapitulnik2 ; Kapitulnik3  nanoscale inhomogeneities were observed with a typical size of $`2`$ nm. In this work, we model the native defects as pointlike scatterers with an on-site potential $`V_0=30t_1`$ which produces a local resonance centered at 0 meV (the concentration and strength of the unitary defects is thus fixed by experiment within the potential scattering model). The source of the nanoscale inhomogeneity is unknown, and we take the simplest ansatz, that it arises from a smooth random potential, probably originating from charge inhomogeneities in the BiO layers. For definiteness, we model the smooth potential as $`V(𝐫)=_iV(i)\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{r}_i/\lambda )/\stackrel{~}{r}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_i=[(𝐫𝐑_i)^2+d_z^2]^{1/2}`$, where $`𝐑_i+\widehat{𝐳}d_z`$ are the defect locations, $`V(i)`$ are the defect potentials and $`\lambda `$ is a screening length. We take a bimodal distribution $`V(i)=\pm V`$ so that the smooth potential represents spatial fluctuations of the local potential about a mean which is determined by the doping level. Equation (2) applies to pointlike impurities only, so we use an implementation of the recursion methodhaydock  to solve directly for the local Green’s function $`\widehat{G}(𝐫,𝐫,\omega +i\gamma )`$, with $`\gamma =2.25`$ meV, of the inhomogeneous system. Our best-fit model consists of 0.2% unitary defects, and 8% smooth scattering centers with $`V=2t_1`$, $`d=2a`$ and $`\lambda =a`$.

We compare this mixed-impurity model with the experimental data of McElroy et al in Fig. 2. In both experiment and calculations, the local resonances are plainly evident in the LDOS for $`|\omega |15`$ meV and, in our calculations, make the dominant contribution to the FTDOS As with weak scatterers, the narrow JDOS peaks are swamped by noise, and suppressed by the finite energy resolution. However, unlike the weak scattering case, the $`𝐪_1`$ and $`𝐪_5`$ structures at 14 meV are relatively robust and remnants of the peaks can be seen. Excess weight relative to experiment in the Brillouin zone corners is probably due to finite potential range and sub-unit cell information obtained in experiment, both of which lead to a modulation of $`\delta \rho (𝐪)`$ which decays at large $`q`$unpublished .

For larger energies, the LDOS impurity resonances disappear in experiment but, because the electronic wavefunctions are excluded from the defect site, they remain clearly visible in our calculations. The discrepancy may arise because the STM tip height is adjusted to maintain a constant current at a fixed bias voltage (typically -150 meV in Ref. McElroy ), so that what is actually plotted is the LDOS relative to the average LDOS at that site. We will discuss the effect of tip-height adjustments elsewhereunpublished , and here we simply note that despite discrepancies, the Fourier transforms of the measured and predicted patterns are qualitatively similar. At energies $`|\omega |15`$ meV, the smooth random potential makes a significant contribution to the FTDOS.

The agreement between the calculated and experimental FTDOS is qualitatively good at low energies, although our calculations show more asymmetry between positive and negative energies, with the negative energy calculations fitting better, than in experiments. This is the result of the large, probably artificial, asymmetry of the model band, in which there is a van Hove singularity at $`\omega 50`$ meV that is not observed in tunneling experiments. As before, remnants of JDOS peaks (for example, the $`𝐪_1`$ peak at -14 meV or the $`𝐪_5`$ peak at 14 meV) are evident in the calculated FTDOS, but most of the structure comes from a set of broader dispersing features, which has been previously ignored. At -14 meV and -22 meV, we see that there are clear octet structures about the central peak, but that the dispersing “$`𝐪_7`$” features \[the arms along the ($`\pm \pi ,\pm \pi `$) directions extending from the central peak\] extend well beyond $`𝐪_7`$. In general, the background structures disperse qualitatively (growing or shrinking with $`|\omega |`$) as one expects from the JDOS analysis.

Since the $`𝐪_7`$ peak comes from intranodal scattering, it is a direct measure of the $`𝐤`$-dependence of the superconducting gap and scales with $`1/v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap velocity at the nodes. The measured gap is not consistent with nearest-neighbor $`d`$-wave pairing—for example the experimental value at $`\omega =14`$ meV $`𝐪_7^{exp}0.6\pi /a`$McElroy  is nearly twice the value in our nearest-neighbor $`d`$-wave model—and the authors of Ref. McElroy  have been forced to introduce a significant subleading $`\mathrm{cos}6\theta `$ harmonic in their fit of the angular dependence of the gap on the Fermi surface. The additional harmonic is associated with pairing beyond near-neighbors, in contrast to ARPES results which suggest the gap is pure near-neighbor $`d`$-wave at optimal doping. Recognizing that the observed feature at roughly twice the true $`𝐪_7`$ is in fact the background feature (similar to that seen as a “hump” in Fig. 1(c)) found in our calculations may enable one to bring the two experiments in closer agreement.

At $`\omega =\pm 22`$ meV, the calculated (110) structures, which correspond to forward (intranodal) scattering, are stronger than the $`(100)`$ structures. Preliminary numerical calculations suggest that scattering from order parameter fluctuations may contribute to $`𝐪_1`$-type peaks, leading to the interesting question of how the interplay of disorder and order parameter fluctuations manifests itself in the FTDOS. It is a general feature of our calculations at higher energies that the $`𝐪_1`$ peaks are weaker than observed in experiments, and a tendency to stripe formation along the Cu-O bonds, as proposed in Kapitulnik1 ; Kapitulnik2 ; Kapitulnik3 , could possibly enhance the weight near the $`𝐪_1`$ peaks. However, stripe formation is difficult to reconcile with the dispersal of the $`𝐪_1`$ peakHoffman1 ; McElroy .

Conclusions. Existing analyses of recent STM measurements of the FTDOS have established the fundamental point that the structures in the FTDOS are dispersive and therefore likely represent interference of disordered quasiparticle wavefunctions. We have argued, using a combination of analytical and numerical approaches, that previous weak-scattering analyses are inadequate to explain the details of the FTDOS, however. In previous works it was expected that sharp “octet” peaks would broaden into the observed structures due to impurity scattering; here we have shown that these peaks are lost in the noise created by the interference of many impurities, rather than broadened. Our work suggests that the dispersing features observed may not correspond directly to the predicted sharp peaks at all, but rather to dispersive background structures which have hitherto been ignored. We show that the simplest “realistic” disorder model of unitary impurities and a smooth random potential explains many features of the FTDOS at lower energies, but at higher energies the comparison is worse, probably reflecting our lack of knowledge of the true smooth component of the disorder, including the local order parameter fluctuations neglected here. Further refining of these comparisons will be extremely important in understanding the origin of the nanoscale inhomogeneities observed in STM experiments.

Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank D.J. Scalapino, R. Sedgewick, J.C. Davis and K. McElroy for several pivotal discussions. WAA would like to acknowledge Research Corporation Grant CC5543.


format: text

text:
# Observing the First Stars, One Star at a Time

## 1 Stellar Explosions at the Edge of the Visible Universe

Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are believed to originate in compact remnants (black holes or neutron stars) of massive stars. Their high luminosities make them detectable out to the edge of the visible universe Reichart ; Ciardi . GRBs offer the opportunity to detect the most distant (and hence earliest111Observational cosmology resembles archeology. By probing deeper into the universe, one reveals layers of it that are more ancient (due to the finite speed of light).) population of massive stars, one star at a time. In the hierarchical assembly process of halos which are dominated by cold dark matter, the first galaxies should have had lower masses (and lower stellar luminosities) than their low-redshift counterparts. Consequently, the characteristic luminosity of galaxies or quasars is expected to decline with increasing redshift. GRB afterglows, which already produce a peak flux comparable to that of quasars or starburst galaxies at $`z12`$, are therefore expected to outshine any competing source at the highest redshifts, when the first dwarf galaxies have formed in the universe.

Preliminary polarization data from the Wilkinson Microwave Background Probe (WMAP) indicates an optical depth to electron scattering of $`17\pm 4`$% after cosmological recombination WMAP . This implies that the first stars must have formed at a redshift $`z20`$ WL03 ; Cen ; Ciardi03 ; Somerville03  and reionized a substantial fraction of the intergalactic hydrogen around that time. Early reionization can be achieved with plausible star formation parameters in the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology; in fact, the required optical depth can be achieved in a variety of very different ionization histories (since WMAP places only an integral constraint on these histories holder ). One would like to probe the full history of reionization in order to disentangle the properties and formation history of the stars that are responsible for it. GRB afterglows offer the opportunity to detect stars as well as to probe the ionization state Barkana03  and metal enrichment level FL03  of the intervening intergalactic medium (IGM).

GRBs, the electromagnetically-brightest explosions in the universe, should be detectable out to redshifts $`z>10`$ Reichart ; Ciardi . High-redshift GRBs can be easily identified through infrared photometry, based on the Ly$`\alpha `$ break induced by absorption of their spectrum at wavelengths below $`1.216\mu \mathrm{m}[(1+z)/10]`$. Follow-up spectroscopy of high-redshift candidates can then be performed on a 10-meter-class telescope. There are four main advantages of GRBs relative to traditional cosmic sources such as quasars:

* The GRB afterglow flux at a given observed time lag after the $`\gamma `$-ray trigger is not expected to fade significantly with increasing redshift, since higher redshifts translate to earlier times in the source frame, during which the afterglow is intrinsically brighter Ciardi . For standard afterglow lightcurves and spectra, the increase in the luminosity distance with redshift is compensated by this cosmological time-stretching effect.
* As already mentioned, in the standard $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology, galaxies form hierarchically, starting from small masses and increasing their average mass with cosmic time. Hence, the characteristic mass of quasar black holes and the total stellar mass of a galaxy were smaller at higher redshifts, making these sources intrinsically fainter Wyithe . However, GRBs are believed to originate from a stellar mass progenitor and so the intrinsic luminosity of their engine should not depend on the mass of their host galaxy. GRB afterglows are therefore expected to outshine their host galaxies by a factor that gets larger with increasing redshift.
* Since the progenitors of GRBs are believed to be stellar, they likely originate in the most common star-forming galaxies at a given redshift rather than in the most massive host galaxies, as is the case for bright quasars Barkana03 . Low-mass host galaxies induce only a weak ionization effect on the surrounding IGM and do not greatly perturb the Hubble flow around them. Hence, the Ly$`\alpha `$ damping wing should be closer to the idealized unperturbed IGM case jordi98  and its detailed spectral shape should be easier to interpret. Note also that unlike the case of a quasar, a GRB afterglow can itself ionize at most $`4\times 10^4E_{51}M_{}`$ of hydrogen if its UV energy is $`E_{51}`$ in units of $`10^{51}`$ ergs (based on the available number of ionizing photons), and so it should have a negligible cosmic effect on the surrounding IGM.
* GRB afterglows have smooth (broken power-law) continuum spectra unlike quasars which show strong spectral features (such as broad emission lines or the so-called “blue bump”) that complicate the extraction of IGM absorption features. In particular, the continuum extrapolation into the Ly$`\alpha `$ damping wing (the Gunn-Peterson GP  absorption trough) during the epoch of reionization is much more straightforward for the smooth UV spectra of GRB afterglows than for quasars with an underlying broad Ly$`\alpha `$ emission line Nat ; Barkana03 .

Although the nature of the central engine that powers the relativistic jets of GRBs is unknown, recent evidence indicates that GRBs trace the formation of massive stars bloom ; kul ; Tot97 ; Wij98 ; BlNat00 , and in particular that long-duration GRBs are associated with Type Ib,c supernovae Stanek . Since the first stars in the universe are predicted to be predominantly massive Abel ; BCL2002 , their death might give rise to large numbers of GRBs at high redshifts.

## 2 GRB Afterglows at High Redshifts

### 2.1 Motivation

In difference from quasars of comparable brightness, GRB afterglows are short-lived and release $`10`$ orders of magnitude less energy into the surrounding IGM. Beyond the scale of their host galaxy, they have a negligible effect on their cosmological environment222Note, however, that feedback from a single GRB or supernova on the gas confined within early dwarf galaxies could be dramatic, since the binding energy of most galaxies at $`z>10`$ is lower than $`10^{51}\mathrm{ergs}`$ review .. Consequently, they make ideal probes of the IGM during the reionization epoch. Their rest-frame UV spectra can be used to probe the ionization state of the IGM through the spectral shape of the Gunn-Peterson GP  (Ly$`\alpha `$) absorption trough, or its metal enrichment history through the intersection of enriched bubbles of supernova ejecta from early galaxiesFL03 . Afterglows that are unusually bright ($`>10`$mJy) at radio frequencies should also show a detectable forest of 21 cm absorption lines due to enhanced HI column densities in sheets, filaments, and collapsed mini-halos within the IGM Carilli ; FurLoeb .

Another advantage of GRB afterglows is that once they fade away, one may search for their host galaxies. Hence, GRBs may serve as signposts of the earliest dwarf galaxies that are otherwise too faint or rare on their own for a dedicated search to find them. Detection of metal absorption lines from the host galaxy in the afterglow spectrum, offers an unusual opportunity to study the physical conditions (temperature, metallicity, ionization state, and kinematics) in the interstellar medium of these high-redshift galaxies.

### 2.2 Afterglow Flux at the Ly$`\alpha `$ Wavelength

Figure 1 shows the expected spectral flux from GRB afterglows as a function of observed time after the GRB trigger for a sequence of redshifts (assuming typical model parameters Barkana03 ). The flux is calculated at the rest-frame Ly$`\alpha `$ wavelength, where intergalactic HI should produce the Gunn-Peterson GP  trough prior to reionization. As already mentioned, the flux does not decline dramatically with increasing redshift since cosmic time stretching counteracts the luminosity distance increase.

The expected spectral shape of the Gunn-Peterson trough prior to the final overlap phase of HII regions in the IGM, is shown in Figure 2. If GRBs trace the typical sites of star formation, then most of them should be hosted by dwarf galaxies at high redshifts. Low-mass hosts would perturb only weakly the surrounding IGM (radiatively through their ionizing flux, gravitationally \[through cosmological infall, or hydrodynamically through their winds), in difference from the massive host galaxies of the brightest quasars at the same epoch Nat ; Barkana03 . Consequently, the spectral shape of the Ly$`\alpha `$ trough (which is proportional to $`e^{\tau (\lambda )}`$, where $`\tau (\lambda )`$ is the optical depth as a function of wavelength) is simpler to interpret for GRB afterglows than it is for quasars. The optical depth as a function of wavelength in the Ly$`\alpha `$ damping wing is linearly proprtional to the mean neutral fraction of the IGM, $`x_{\mathrm{HI}}`$, since its amplitude is normalized by the optical depth at the Ly$`\alpha `$ resonance, $`6.75\times 10^5x_{\mathrm{HI}}[(1+z)/10]^{3/2}`$ jordi98 ; review .

### 2.3 Statistics

The upcoming Swift satellite (see http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/), planned for launch by the end of 2003, is expected to detect about a hundred GRBs per year. Figure 3 shows the expected redshift distribution of all GRBs (solid lines), under the assumption that the GRB rate is simply proportional to the star formation rate BrL2002 . The long-dashed and the dot-dashed lines show the same rate, but taking into account the limited sensitivity of the BATSE and Swift detectors, respectively. This calculation implies that about a quarter of all GRBs detected by Swift should originate at $`z>5`$. This estimate is rather uncertain because of the poorly determined GRB luminosity function BrL2002 .

In principle, the rate of high-redshift GRBs may be significantly suppressed if the early massive stars fail to launch a relativistic outflow. This is possible, since metal-free stars may experience negligible mass loss before exploding as a supernova. They would then retain their massive hydrogen envelope, and any relativistic jet might be quenched before escaping the star. However, localized metal enrichment is expected to occur rapidly (on a timescale much shorter than the age of the then-young universe) due to starbursts in the first galaxies and so even the second generation of star formation could occur in an interstellar medium with a significant metal content, resulting in massive stars that resemble more closely the counterparts of low-redshift GRB progenitors.

We note that the known population of optically-dark GRBs kul  is most likely associated with dust-obscured GRBs at low redshifts, although a small fraction of these bursts could be optically-dark due to Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption by the IGM at high-redshift.

### 2.4 Progenitors

In the previous section, we have assumed for simplicity a constant efficiency of forming GRBs per unit mass of stars. This simplifying assumption may either overestimate or understimate the frequency of GRBs. Metal-free stars are thought to be massive Abel ; BCL2002  and their extended envelopes may suppress central jets within them (which may be produced through the collapse of their core to a spinning black hole). On the other hand, low-metallicity stars are expected to have weak winds with little angular momentum loss during their evolution, and so they may preferentially yield rotating central configurations that produce GRB jets after core collapse Heg03 ; Fynbo . The basic question: should GRBs be common in the first generation of metal-free stars? remains open for further study.

## 3 Swift: A Challenge for Infrared Follow-Ups

A small fraction ($`10`$$`25\%`$) of the GRB afterglows detected by Swift are expected to originate at redshifts $`z>5`$. This subset of afterglows can be selected photometrically using a small telescope, based on the Ly$`\alpha `$ break at a wavelength of $`1.216\mu \mathrm{m}[(1+z)/10]`$, caused by intergalactic HI absorption. The challenge in the upcoming years would be to follow-up on these candidates spectroscopically, using a large (10-meter class) telescope. A high-resolution spectrum can then be used to trace the ionization state (see Fig. 2) and metal enrichment state of the gas along the line-of-sight. For example, Figure 4 illustrates the expected number of intersections of enriched bubbles of supernova ejecta from early galaxies, as a function of the equivalent width of the metal absorption lines they produce (see FL03  for details). Measurement of this statistic for different metals can be used to constrain the initial mass function (through element abundances) and the mechanical energy output (through bubble sizes) of the first stars, as well as the significance of molecular H2 cooling in forming stars within the first mini-halos (through the number density of small bubbles).

Based on the arguments mentioned in §1, GRB afterglows are likely to revolutionize observational cosmology and replace traditional sources like quasars, as probes of the IGM at $`z>5`$. We caution, however, that this is a theoretical expectation (the highest redshift GRB detected so far Andersen  is at $`z4.5`$) and as such it is subject to uncertainties about the production of relativistic outflows by the first generation of stars.

However, note that even if GRB outflows are quenched in the massive envelopes of low-metallicity stars, one would expect them to appear at high redshifts. This follows from the fact that metallicity obtains a large range of possible values (in different spatial regions) at any slice of cosmic time. For example, the broad emission lines of all known quasars show evidence for high metallicity gas Hamann ; Dietrich , and so it is clear that there are pockets of highly enriched gas near the centers of massive galaxies at $`z>6`$, where star formation reached an advanced stage and GRB production should be as likely as it is in the local universe. The cores of the most massive galaxies at $`z>6`$ simply predate the characteristic evolution of the rest of the universe at a much lower redshift, because these cores reside in unusually overdense cosmological environments LoebPeebles . Such environments are likely to produce GRB progenitors in the same way that less overdense cosmological regions produce them at a lower redshift. Swift has the potential to educate us whether GRBs are produced only within these massive galaxies or in the more common sites of star formation at early cosmic times, namely the low-metallicity dwarf galaxies.

In either case, the near future promises to be exciting for GRB astronomy as well as for studies of the high-redshift universe.

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to my collaborators for the various calculations mentioned in this overview: Rennan Barkana, Volker Bromm, Benedetta Ciardi, Steve Furlanetto, Jim Peebles, and Stuart Wyithe. This work was supported in part by NSF grants AST-0204514, AST-0071019, NASA grant ATP02-0004-0093, NATO grant PST.CLG.979414, and the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship.

## Index


text:
# Planar Skyrmions at High and Low Density

## 1 Introduction

Topological solitons are of interest both mathematically and in many areas of physics (as models for particles, topological defects in condensed-matter physics, etc). A particularly important question is the nature of, and transition between, the high-density and low-density phases of such solitons. Ultimately, one would like to understand the thermodynamics of these systems; the starting-point for this is to investigate their zero-temperature behaviour. At its most basic, this amounts to considering a fixed number $`N`$ of solitons confined to a finite volume, and investigating the way in which static classical $`N`$-soliton solutions depend on the volume (or density). Alternatively, one may use the dimensionless ratio (size of soliton)/(size of space) as a parameter.

The typical situation is as follows. At large density, there is a high degree of symmetry and uniformity, and in particular it may not possible to identify individual solitons; in Skyrme models, for example, one gets a periodic crystal-like structure of half-Skyrmions. At low densities, by contrast, solitons (or multi-solitons) become localized in space, and there is less symmetry. The localized multi-solitons may be ‘chunks’ of the high-density crystal, or may have a quite different (for example shell-like) shape — this depends on the details of the system.

The picture for the three-dimensional Skyrme model may be summarized as follows. Let $`N`$ denote the Skyrme number, and $`E`$ the normalized energy-per-Skyrmion (so the Bogomolny-Faddeev bound is $`E1`$). At high density, the ground state is a triply-periodic lattice of half-Skyrmions , with energy $`E=1.038`$ at its most favourable density. At low density (for example for an isolated multi-Skyrmion in $`𝐑^3`$), and for relatively low values of $`N`$ (in particular for $`N22`$), the minimal-energy static Skyrmions take the form of polyhedral shells . Their normalized energy $`E`$ is a decreasing function of $`N`$, and it appears  that these polyhedra have energy $`E1.06`$ for large $`N`$. Since this is larger than the energy of the Skyrme crystal, one expects that there is a critical value $`N_\mathrm{c}`$ such that for $`N>N_\mathrm{c}`$, the minimal-energy Skyrmion resembles a chunk of the Skyrme crystal. Such a lattice chunk will have energy $`E1.038+kN^{1/3}`$, with the second term being a surface contribution. There have been attempts  to estimate the constant $`k`$, and hence to determine $`N_\mathrm{c}`$, but these have not been definitive. There are also other possibilities for the shape of large-$`N`$ Skyrmions, for example a multi-shell structure .

The present paper deals with the two-dimensional O(3) Skyrme system, which one may view as an analogue of the three-dimensional case, as well as being of interest in its own right. The 2-D Skyrme system contains, as a limiting case, the two-dimensional O(3) sigma model; the sigma-model crystal, obtained by imposing periodic boundary conditions, has been studied both as a model quantum field theory  and in connection with the dynamics of (classical) solitons . But sigma-model solitons do not have a fixed size, and in particular tend to shrink and decay; so in that sense they are not true solitons. We shall consider only the case where both the Skyrme term and a potential term $`V`$ are present, and the soliton size is consequently fixed. The interest here is in the nature of the low-density and the high-density configurations, and the transition between them; as we shall see, the details of these depend crucially on the choice of potential $`V`$. Two different systems, corresponding to two different choices of $`V`$, will be investigated in detail.

## 2 Two-Dimensional Skyrmions

The two-dimensional Skyrme system involves a unit 3-vector field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$ defined on (2+1)-dimensional space-time. We are interested only in static configurations, so $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ depends on the spatial variables $`x^j=(x^1,x^2)`$, thought of as (local) coordinates on a two-dimensional space $`S`$. If $`S`$ is a compact surface, then $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ has a winding number $`N`$, which we think of as the number of Skyrmions. One special case is where space is the plane $`𝐑^2`$ with boundary condition $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(0,0,1)`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ — this corresponds (by conformal invariance) to the 2-sphere $`S=S^2`$. Another case is that of periodic boundary conditions $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x^1,x^2)=\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x^1+L,x^2)=\stackrel{}{\varphi }(x^1,x^2+L)`$, which corresponds to the 2-torus $`S=T^2`$. In either of these cases, we may regard the spatial metric as being the flat (Euclidean) metric, and we shall do so in what follows.

The integer $`N`$ can be either positive or negative; without loss of generality, we shall assume $`N`$ to be positive. The energy density of a configuration $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ is

$$={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(_j\stackrel{}{\varphi })(_j\stackrel{}{\varphi })+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^2+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha V(\stackrel{}{\varphi }),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{}{\varphi }\times _2\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$, $`V`$ is some potential function, and $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless constant. The length-scale in this system is determined by the ratio of the coefficients of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ and $`V`$ terms, and so is fixed by choosing these coefficients to be equal as in (1). Static multi-Skyrmion solutions are critical points of the (normalized) energy functional

$$E=\frac{1}{4\pi N}d^2x.$$
(2)
There is a topological (Bogomolny) lower bound on the energy, namely

$$E1+\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }_{S^2}\sqrt{V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })}𝑑\omega ,$$
(3)
where $`d\omega `$ is the usual area element on the space $`S^2`$ of unit vectors (in other words, $`𝑑\omega =4\pi `$). Under certain circumstances, this bound can be saturated; the following statement is adapted from , see also . Write $`z=x^1+\mathrm{i}x^2`$, and let $`W=(\varphi _1+\mathrm{i}\varphi _2)/(1\varphi _3)`$ denote the stereographic projection of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$. Let $`W(z)`$ be a complex-analytic function satisfying a first-order ordinary differential equation of the form $`dW/dz=F(W)`$ for some function $`F`$. Then the configuration $`W(z)`$ saturates the bound (3), and hence is a static Skyrmion solution, provided that the potential $`V`$ is given by

$$V=\frac{16|F(W)|^4}{(1+|W|^2)^4}.$$
(4)
The simplest example of this is where $`F`$ is a constant; the corresponding system (on $`𝐑^2`$) has been investigated in some detail, for example in . In this case, there is a repulsive force between Skyrmions, and consequently there are no static multi-Skyrmion solutions.

For any system of the form (1), the nature and shape of multi-Skyrmion solutions depend on the choice of $`V`$, and many different choices have been considered . The following two sections will deal with two possible choices. They are both analogous to the three-dimensional Skyrme system, in that they allow both crystal-like and ring-like solutions (the latter being the counterpart of the polyhedral shells mentioned earlier).

To conclude this section, it is worth mentioning yet another case which has been extensively investigated, namely $`V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })=1\varphi _3`$ . In this case, the static multi-Skyrmion solutions on $`𝐑^2`$ appear to form a lattice-like structure  — for example, for even values of $`N`$ one gets a lattice of double-Skyrmions as the lowest-energy state. There are also other local minima of the energy, but there do not appear to be any ring-like solutions (except for $`N=2`$). The thermodynamics of this system has been studied numerically .

## 3 The System $`V=1\varphi _3^2`$

In this section, the potential function $`V`$ appearing in (1) is taken to be $`V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })=1\varphi _3^2`$. Let us discuss, first, the localization-delocalization transition for this system. A useful order parameter in this regard is the quantity

$$\varphi _3=\frac{1}{A}_S\varphi _3d^2x,$$

where $`A`$ is the area of the 2-space $`S`$. At high density, there is a high degree of symmetry, and we expect to have $`\varphi _3=0`$; while at low density, the field will localize in space and we will have $`\varphi _30`$. The transition between these two phases occurs at some critical density $`\rho _\mathrm{c}`$. This transition was investigated by taking space to be a sphere ($`S=S^2`$) in ; in particular, this paper looked at $`\varphi _3`$, as a function of $`A`$, for a single skyrmion on $`S^2`$. Using approximate analytic expressions for the Skyrmion indicated that the transition occurs at $`A=4\pi \sqrt{5}`$, ie the critical density is

$$\rho _\mathrm{c}=1/(4\pi \sqrt{5})=0.036.$$
(5)
Numerical simulations gave results that supported this estimate.

Let us now compare this to the situation on the torus $`T^2`$. So we are looking for doubly-periodic solutions — periodic in both $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$ with period $`L`$. If $`\alpha =0`$ (ie for the O(3) sigma-model), then solutions correspond to elliptic functions, and these have topological charge $`N=2`$ in the unit cell. So we expect the minimal-energy crystal in the Skyrme case also to have an $`N=2`$ cell. Such solutions can be found by numerical minimization of the energy functional. It turns out there are two different crystals, namely one with (approximate) symmetry $`A`$:

$`(x,y)(x,y)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$,

$`(x,y)(y,x)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$,

$`(x,y)(x+L/2,y)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _3,\varphi _2,\varphi _1)`$;

and one with symmetry $`B`$:

$`(x,y)(x,y)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$,

$`(x,y)(y,x)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _3,\varphi _2,\varphi _1)`$,

$`(x,y)(x+L/2,y)`$, $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)`$.

In the $`\alpha =0`$ system, symmetries $`A`$ and $`B`$ are equivalent; but this degeneracy is broken by the potential term $`V`$. The situation is illustrated in Figure 1, which plots the normalized energy $`E`$ for the two solutions, and the quantity $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\varphi _3_A`$ for the type-$`A`$ solution, as functions of the periodicity $`L`$.

The value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ used in obtaining these graphs is $`\alpha =0.1`$. The Bogomolny bound (3) for this system is $`E1+\pi \alpha /4=1.0785`$. The lowest crystal energy is attained when $`L=L_0=6.0`$, ie at density $`\rho =0.056`$; this solution has symmetry of type $`B`$, and normalized energy $`E_{\mathrm{crys}}=1.088`$. The type-$`B`$ solution exists for lower density, and is always delocalized, ie has $`\varphi _3=0`$.

At relatively high density, in fact for $`L<L_1=7.0`$, the solution with type-$`A`$ symmetry also has $`\varphi _3=0`$; but it is unstable, and its energy (which is not plotted in Figure 1) is higher than that of the type-$`B`$ solution. When perturbed, it decays to the type-$`B`$ solution. For $`L>L_1`$, the type-$`A`$ solution delocalizes ($`\mathrm{\Psi }0`$) and becomes stable. (It no longer has the symmetry $`A`$ — in fact $`A3`$ is invalid — but we still refer to it as the type-$`A`$ solution.) This is illustrated in the right-hand diagram of Figure 1; the numerical results indicate that

$$\underset{LL_1+}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi }0.06,$$

but this limit is difficult to study owing to the instability which sets in below $`L_1`$. In the range $`L_1<L<L_2=7.35`$, the energy of the type-$`A`$ solution is greater than that of type $`B`$ — in other words, there are two local mimina of the energy, one of which (type $`B`$) is more symmetric than the other. For $`L>L_2`$, the minimal-energy $`N=2`$ solution is the localized type-$`A`$ one.

We see, therefore, that there is a transition between a dense, highly-symmetric homogeneous phase and a low-density, less homogeneous phase. The latter appears at $`L_1=7.0`$, corresponding to a density $`\rho =2/7^2=0.041`$, and it becomes the minimal-energy state at $`L_2=7.35`$, corresponding to the critical density

$$\rho _\mathrm{c}=2/7.35^2=0.037.$$
(6)
The close agreement between (6) (for $`N=2`$ Skyrmions on $`T^2`$) and (5) (for $`N=1`$ Skyrmions on $`S^2`$) is remarkable.

Let us now consider the zero-density limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. The only known static solutions on $`𝐑^2`$ are rotationally-symmetric rings . The energy of these goes like $`E\beta +\gamma /N^2`$, where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants. The significant fact here is that $`\beta `$ is lower than $`E_{\mathrm{crys}}`$; this has been checked numerically for $`\alpha 1`$. For example, for $`\alpha =0.1`$, we get $`\beta =1.082`$, compared with $`E_{\mathrm{crys}}=1.088`$. The implication of this is that, unlike the case for three-dimensional Skyrmions, isolated crystal chunks are not energetically favourable, even for large values of $`N`$. In fact, it seems likely that the minimum-energy configuration on $`𝐑^2`$ is, for all values of $`N`$, a single O(2)-symmetric ring (other local minima may, however, exist). In this respect, the system is different from the three-dimensional Skyrme model.

## 4 The System $`V=(1\varphi _3^2)(1\varphi _1^2)`$

The motivation for the potential $`V`$ studied in this section comes from requiring that the Bogomolny bound (3) be saturated by a doubly-periodic solution. As a consequence of this, the energy of the corresponding Skyrme crystal will be as low as it possibly can be; and so an isolated multi-Skyrmion will, for $`N`$ large enough, take the form of a crystal chunk rather than a ring-like configuration. In this respect, it will be a better analogue of the three-dimensional Skyrme system.

Our assumption, therefore, is that the system should admit a solution $`W(z)`$ which is an elliptic function. One particularly simple choice is to take $`W(z)=2\mathrm{}(z)`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the Weierstrass p-function with parameters $`g_2=1`$ and $`g_3=0`$. So the function $`F`$ appearing in (4) is given by $`F(W)^2=2W(W^21)`$; and the corresponding potential function is easily seen to be

$$V(\stackrel{}{\varphi })=16(1\varphi _3^2)(1\varphi _1^2).$$
(7)
For the rest of the section we shall use this $`V`$.

The fundamental cell of the lattice is a square with sides of length $`L_0=2K(0.5)=3.708`$, where $`K(m)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind with parameter $`m`$. This cell contains two units of topological charge (that is, the map from $`T^2`$ to $`S^2`$ has winding number $`N=2`$); the distribution of charge- and energy-density indicates that it should be thought of as a square lattice of half-Skyrmions. It has the symmetry of type $`A`$ defined in the previous section. If we scale the solution to fit a lattice with edge-length $`L`$, then we get a solution with normalized energy

$$E(L)=1+2.3729\times \frac{\alpha }{2}\left(\frac{L}{L_0}+\frac{L_0}{L}\right).$$
(8)
If $`L=L_0`$, the solution saturates the lower bound (3), which in this case is $`E1+2.3729\alpha `$.

For large $`L`$ (low density) one expects that this solution (a scaled Weierstrass function) will no longer be the minimal-energy doubly-periodic $`N=2`$ solution. In fact, the minimal solution will correspond to an isolated $`N=2`$ lump at some point on $`T^2`$ — and so will have $`\varphi _30`$.

The result of a numerical investigation of this phenomenon is presented in Figure 2; it was obtained by finding local minima of the energy with $`N=2`$ for a range of values of the periodicity $`L`$. The value of $`\alpha `$ was taken to be $`\alpha =0.1`$. For $`L<5.15`$, there is only one solution, namely the Weierstrass-type one with $`\varphi _3=0`$. Its energy grows fairly rapidly with $`L`$, but it remains a stable solution (ie a local minimum), at least up to $`L=20`$. For $`L5.15`$, another solution (local minimum) appears — a spatially-localized one with $`\varphi _30`$. Its energy grows less rapidly with $`L`$, and for $`L>5.73`$ it is the lowest-energy solution. In this sense, there is a phase transition at $`L_1=5.73`$, corresponding to the critical density $`\rho _\mathrm{c}=2/5.73^2=0.061`$. It would be interesting to study this transition in other ways, for example by examining the system on a sphere (as in ) or by Monte-Carlo simulations at finite temperature (as in ).

Let us now look at the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit, and consider finite-$`N`$ solutions on the infinite plane $`𝐑^2`$, with the boundary condition $`\varphi _3=1`$ at spatial infinity. First, the system admits ring-like solutions. For these, we have $`\varphi _3=1`$ at a single point $`O`$, and $`\varphi _3=0`$ on a deformed ring centred at $`O`$. Because of the factor $`(1\varphi _1^2)`$ in (7), this ring is not quite rotationally-symmetric about $`O`$; its symmetry group is a subgroup of the rotation group O(2), namely the dihedral group $`D_{2N}`$. In other words, these solutions resemble polygonal rings, analogous to the polygonal shells of the three-dimensional Skyrme system. A numerical investigation (for the case $`\alpha =0.1`$) reveals that their normalized energy $`E`$ is very well fitted by the function

$$E=1.262+0.227/N^2$$
(9)
for $`N2`$. For example, the energy of the $`N=8`$ ring is $`E=1.266`$; for comparison, the topological lower bound is $`E=1.2373`$. This $`N=8`$ ring is depicted in the left-hand plot of Figure 3; it is a stable static solution with $`D_{16}`$ symmetry, and is best thought of as a ring of sixteen half-Skyrmions.

The other localized solution illustrated in Figure 3 corresponds to a clump of the Skyrme crystal — in the right-hand plot, we see a $`2\times 2`$ clump of crystal, again containing sixteen half-Skyrmions. The energy of such a clump is approximately equal to the (bulk) energy of the crystal plus a surface contribution. If the circumference of the clump has length $`ML_0`$, where $`M`$ is a positive integer, then one expects that the normalized energy will have the form

$$EE_0+M\delta E/N$$
(10)
where $`E_0=1+2.373\alpha `$ and where $`\delta E`$ is the contribution from a single edge of lattice-cell. One may estimate $`\delta E`$ as follows (this is analogous to the discussion in ). Start with a single cell, with coordinate range $`0xL_0`$, $`0yL_0`$. Now stretch the cell in the positive $`x`$-direction, so that the $`x`$-range becomes $`0x<\mathrm{}`$. The boundary conditions are that the field $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ remains periodic in the $`y`$-direction, maintains its original lattice-configuration on the edge $`x=0`$, and tends to its asymptotic value $`(0,0,1)`$ as $`x\mathrm{}`$. We can then relax this configuration, minimizing its energy numerically to obtain a mimimum energy $`E_1`$. The deformed cell still contains two units of Skyrme charge, so the resulting estimate for $`\delta E`$ is

$$\delta EE_12E_0.$$
(11)
For example, if $`\alpha =0.1`$, one gets $`\delta E=0.026`$. Consequently, our estimate for the energy of a localized square lattice clump of charge $`N`$, with $`\alpha =0.1`$, is

$$EE_0+2\sqrt{2}\delta E/\sqrt{N}=1.237+0.074/\sqrt{N};$$
(12)
but for low $`N`$ this will be an underestimate, since there are also corner effects to be considered. These corner effects presumably give an additional contribution to $`E`$ of the form $`C/N`$, where $`C`$ is a constant.

If we take a single lattice cell ($`N=2`$), then it resembles a square array of four half-Skyrmions, but this amounts to the same thing as a ring of four half-Skyrmions — indeed, the $`N=2`$ solution on $`𝐑^2`$ has a unique shape. For $`N=8`$, however, there is the possibility of the two solutions depicted in Figure 3, and each of these is in fact realized, as a local minimum of the energy. The formulas (12) and (9) suggest that the energy of the $`N=8`$ ring should be higher than that of the square clump, by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.0027`$. The numerical result is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.0035`$, which gives an estimate for the corner contribution which has to be added to (12), namely $`0.05/N`$.

For larger crystal chunks, the ring will be less favourable. For example, we expect, from (9) and the modified version of (12), that the minimal-energy $`N=18`$ solution will correspond to a $`6\times 6`$ square array of half-Skyrmions; and in particular, that the energy of the $`N=18`$ ring will be higher than that of the $`6\times 6`$ clump by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.0057`$. It should be emphasized, however, that there are likely to be many local minima, of which the square chunk and the ring are just two examples. All this is very similar to the situation for the three-dimensional Skyrme system.

In conclusion, this particular planar system, in addition to admitting an explicit crystal solution which saturates the topological lower bound on the energy, is a good model for three-dimensional Skyrmions.


text:
# The Hausmann-Weinberger 4–Manifold Invariant of Abelian Groups

## 1. Introduction

For any finitely presented group $`G`$ there exists a closed oriented 4–manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _1(M)=G`$. Hausmann and Weinberger \[HW\] defined the integer valued invariant $`q(G)`$ to be the least Euler characteristic among all such $`M`$. The explicit construction of a 4–manifold with $`\pi _1(M)=G`$, based on a presentation of $`G`$, yields an upper bound on $`q(G)`$. As pointed out in \[HW\], the isomorphism $`H_1(M)H_1(G)`$, the surjection $`H_2(M)H_2(G)`$, and Poincaré duality yield a lower bound. Together these bounds are

$$22\beta _1(G)+\beta _2(G)q(G)22\text{def}(G),$$
(1.1)
where $`\text{def}(G)`$ is the deficiency of $`G`$, the maximum possible difference $`gr`$ where the $`g`$ is the number of generators and $`r`$ the number of relations in a presentation of $`G`$, and $`\beta _i(G)`$ denotes the $`i`$th Betti number of $`G`$ (with some fixed coefficients).

Since \[HW\], advances have been made in the study of this invariant, most notably through the methods of $`l^2`$–homology. For instance, in \[E1, E2\] Eckmann proves that for infinite amenable groups $`G`$, $`q(G)0`$. Lück \[Lü\] extended this to all group $`G`$ with $`b_1(G)=0`$, where $`b_1`$ denotes the first $`l^2`$–Betti number. Other work includes \[JK\] and especially the paper by Kotschick \[K\] in which Problem 5.2 asks for the explicit value of $`q(𝐙^n)`$. The general problem of computing $`q(G)`$ appears as Problem 4.59 in Kirby’s problem list, \[Ki\].

Despite these past efforts, the Hausmann-Weinberger invariant remains uncomputed for some of the most elementary groups. In \[HW\] it is observed that $`q(𝐙^n)`$ is given by 2, 0, 0, 2, and 0, for $`n=0,1,2,3,`$ and $`4`$, respectively. (For the case of $`n=3`$\[HW\] refers to an unpublished argument of Kreck. Proofs appear in \[E1, K\].) If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ denotes the fundamental group of a surface of genus $`g`$\[K\] computes $`q(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g)`$ and $`q(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{g_1}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_{g_2})`$. If a closed 4-manifold $`X`$ is aspherical then $`\chi (X)=q(\pi _1(X))`$. Beyond this, few explicit values of $`q(G)`$ have been calculated. Our main theorem is the following:

###### Theorem 1.

With the exceptions of $`q(𝐙^3)=2`$ and $`q(𝐙^5)=6`$, $`q(𝐙^n)`$ is given by:

$$q(𝐙^n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(n1)(n4)/2,\hfill & \text{if }n0\text{ or }n1mod4;\hfill \\ (n2)(n3)/2,\hfill & \text{if }n2\text{ or }n3mod4.\hfill \end{array}$$

For contrast, the bounds (1.1) give only that

$$(n1)(n4)/2q(𝐙^n)(n1)(n2).$$

It is straightforward to check that an alternative way to state Theorem 1 is that for $`n3,5`$, the lower bound of (1.1) is attained when the binomial coefficient $`C(n,2)`$ is even, and if $`C(n,2)`$ is odd the value is one more than the lower bound of (1.1).

The calculations of $`q(𝐙^n)`$ can be used to estimate (and in some cases calculate) $`q(G)`$ for other groups. We examine the problem for finitely generated abelian groups and prove the following. In the statement, $`ϵ_n`$ equals zero or one according to whether $`C(n,2)`$ is even or odd, respectively.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`G=𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k𝐙^n`$ with $`d_i|d_{i+1}`$. Suppose that $`k1`$ and $`k+n3,4,5`$ or $`6`$. Then

$$0q(G)\left(1n+C(n+k1,2)\right)\mathrm{min}\{|n1|+ϵ_{n+k1},k+ϵ_{n+k}\}.$$

Moreover, $`q(𝐙/d)=2`$, $`q(𝐙/d_1𝐙/d_2)=2`$, and if $`C(k,2)`$ is even and $`k5`$, then

$$q(𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k𝐙)=C(k,2).$$

In closing this introduction we mention results concerning the evaluation of $`q(P)`$ where $`P`$ is a perfect group. Here the bounds given by (1.1) are

$$2+\beta _2(P)q(P)22\text{def}(G).$$

In \[HW\] perfect groups $`P`$ are constructed with $`\beta _2(P)=0`$ but $`q(P)>2`$. Hillman \[H\] constructed perfect groups of deficiency $`1`$ with $`q(P)=2`$ and the second author \[L\] extended this to find perfect $`P`$ with arbitrarily large negative deficiency and $`q(P)=2`$.

## 2. Notation and basic results

A slightly different invariant, $`h(G)`$, can be defined to be the minimum value of $`\beta _2(M)`$ among all oriented closed 4-manifolds $`M`$ with $`\pi _1(M)=G`$. We abbreviate $`h(𝐙^n)=h(n)`$. Clearly $`q(G)=22\beta _1(G)+h(G)`$, so the invariants are basically equivalent. It is more convenient here to work in terms of $`h`$. The bounds (1.1) on $`q(𝐙^n)`$ translate to the bounds

$$C(n,2)h(n)2C(n,2).$$

We introduce the following auxiliary function:

$$ϵ_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }C(n,2)\text{ is even;}\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{if }C(n,2)\text{ is odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`C(n,2)`$ is even if and only if $`n0`$ or $`1`$ mod 4, Theorem 1 can be restated as follows.

Theorem 1. With the exceptions of $`h(3)=6`$ and $`h(5)=14`$, $`h(n)=C(n,2)+ϵ_n`$ for all $`n`$.

Basic examples of 4–manifolds will be built from products of surfaces. For $`n`$ even we will denote by $`F_n`$ the closed orientable surface of genus $`n/2`$.

## 3. Bounds on $`h(n)`$

###### Theorem 3.

If $`h(n)=C(n,2)`$, then $`C(n,2)`$ must be even. Thus $`h(n)C(n,2)+ϵ_n`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)𝐙^n`$, we have $`\varphi _{}:H_{}(M)H_{}(𝐙^n)`$. Dually there is the map of cohomology rings $`\varphi ^{}:H^{}(𝐙^n)H^{}(M)`$. Notice that $`H^{}(𝐙^n)`$ is an exterior algebra on the generators $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_nH^1(𝐙^n)`$.

Suppose $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)𝐙^n`$ is an isomorphism and $`\beta _2(M)=C(n,2)`$. Then the map $`\varphi _2:H_2(M)H_2(𝐙^n)`$ is a surjection from $`𝐙^{C(n,2)}`$ to $`𝐙^{C(n,2)}`$, and hence is an isomorphism. It follows that $`\varphi ^2:H^2(𝐙^n)H^2(M)`$ is also an isomorphism.

Since $`(e_ie_j)^2=0`$, $`H^2(M)`$ has a basis for which all squares are zero. It follows that the intersection form of $`M`$ is even. But even unimodular forms are of even rank. ∎

###### Theorem 4.

$`h(3)6`$ and $`h(5)14`$.

###### Proof.

In general, if $`\varphi :\pi _1(M)𝐙^n`$ is an isomorphism, then $`\varphi ^2:H^2(𝐙^n)H^2(M)`$ is injective.

In the case that $`n=3`$, all products of two elements in $`H^2(𝐙^3)`$ are 0 (since $`H^4(𝐙^3)=0`$) so the intersection from on $`H^2(M)`$ vanishes on a rank 3 submodule, implying that this (nonsingular) form must have rank at least 6.

In the case that $`n=5`$, we have the map $`H^4(𝐙^5)H^4(M)𝐙`$. Any such map is given by multiplying with an element $`DH^1(𝐙^5)`$. After a change of basis, $`D`$ can be taken to be a multiple of a generator, say $`e_1`$. From this it follows that the intersection form of $`H^2(M)`$ vanishes on the 7–dimensional submodule generated by the images of the set of elements in $`H^2(𝐙^5)`$, $`\{e_{12},e_{13},e_{14},e_{15},e_{23},e_{24},e_{25}\}`$ (where $`e_{ij}=e_ie_j`$). To see this, observe that the only possible nontrivial products of two of these are $`\pm e_{1234},\pm e_{1235}`$ and $`\pm e_{1245}`$, each of which is killed upon multiplying by $`e_1`$. Since the nonsingular intersection form on $`H^2(M)`$ has a 7–dimensional isotropic subspace, it must be of rank at least 14. ∎

## 4. Algebraic and Geometric 4–Reductions.

The following algebraic construction will be used repeatedly in constructing our desired 4–manifolds.

###### Definition 5.

A 4–reduction of a group $`G`$ by a 4–tuple of elements $`[w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4],`$ $`w_iG`$, is the quotient of $`G`$ by normal subgroup generated by the 6 commutators, $`[w_i,w_j],i<j`$. This quotient is denoted $`G/[w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4]`$.

More generally, we say a group $`G`$ can be 4-reduced to the group $`H`$ using the 4–tuples $`\{[w_{1k},w_{2k},w_{3k},w_{4k}]\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ if $`H`$ is isomorphic to the quotient of $`G`$ by the normal subgroup generated by the $`6\mathrm{}`$ commutators $`[w_{ik},w_{jk}],i<j,k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$.

The geometric motivation for this comes from the following theorem.

###### Theorem 6.

If $`X`$ is a 4–manifold and $`\{w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4\}\pi _1(X)`$, then there is a 4–manifold $`X^{}`$ with $`\pi _1(X^{})=\pi _1(X)/[w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4]`$ and $`\beta _2(X^{})=\beta _2(X)+6.`$

Before proving this we make the following simple observation.

###### Lemma 7.

If a 4–manifold $`X^{}`$ is constructed from a compact 4–manifold $`X`$ via surgery along a curve $`\alpha `$, then $`\beta _2(X^{})=\beta _2(X)`$ if $`\alpha `$ is of infinite order in $`H_1(X)`$ and $`\beta _2(X^{})=\beta _2(X)+2`$ otherwise.

###### Proof.

Since $`X^{}`$ is formed by removing $`S^1\times B^3`$ and replacing it with $`B^2\times S^2`$, $`\chi (X^{})=\chi (X)+2`$. If $`\alpha `$ is of infinite order, $`\beta _1(X^{})=\beta _1(X)1`$, and similarly $`\beta _3(X^{})=\beta _3(X)1`$ by duality, so $`\beta _2(X^{})=\beta _2(X)`$. On the other hand, if $`\alpha `$ is of finite order, $`\beta _1`$ is unchanged by surgery, by duality $`\beta _3`$ is unchanged, so the change in the Euler characteristic must come from an increase in $`\beta _2`$ by 2.

###### Proof of Theorem 6.

Form the connected sum $`X\#T^4`$. This has increased the second Betti number by six. Next, perform surgery on four curves to identify the generators of $`\pi _1(T^4)`$ with the elements $`w_i`$. This does not change the second Betti number because the curves being surgered are of infinite order in $`H_1(X\#T^4)`$. Since the generators of $`\pi _1(T^4)`$ commute, the effect of this is that now the four elements $`w_i`$ commute. Thus the manifold that results from the surgeries has the stated properties. ∎

The main algebraic result concerning 4–reduction, and the key to our geometric constructions via Theorem 6, is the following.

###### Theorem 8.

For $`m>2`$ and $`n>2`$, the free product $`𝐙^m𝐙^n`$ can be 4–reduced to $`𝐙^{m+n}`$ using $`\frac{mn}{6}`$ 4–tuples if $`mn`$ is divisible by 6.

###### Proof.

If the free product $`𝐙^m𝐙^n`$ can be 4–reduced to $`𝐙^{m+n}`$ using $`\frac{mn}{6}`$ 4–tuples we will say that the pair $`(m,n)`$ is realizable. Let $``$ denote the set of realizable pairs with $`m>2,n>2`$.

First we show that $`(3,4)`$, $`(3,6)`$, and $`(5,6)`$ are in $``$.

* Consider first the pair $`(3,4)`$. Denote the generators of $`𝐙^3`$ by $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3\}`$ and let $`𝐙^4`$ be generated by $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$. The two 4–tuples $`[x_1,y_1,x_2y_2,x_3y_3]`$ and $`[x_2,x_1y_3,x_3y_2,y_4]`$ carry out the desired 4–reduction. For the convenience of the reader we provide the details next, but in subsequent examples similar calculations will be omitted.

We must show that the subgroup $`U`$ generated by these commutator 4–relations contain all 12 commutators $`[x_i,y_j]`$. It is helpful to recall that the set of elements in a group which commute with a fixed element forms a subgroup.

From the first 4–relation, $`[x_1,y_1,x_2y_2,x_3y_3]`$, we see, using the commutators $`[x_1,y_1]`$, $`[x_1,x_2y_2]`$, and $`[x_1,x_3y_3]`$, that the commutators $`[x_1,y_1]`$, $`[x_1,y_2]`$, and $`[x_1,y_3]`$ are in $`U`$. The commutators $`[y_1,x_2y_2]`$ and $`[y_1,x_3y_3]`$ give that the commutators $`[x_2,y_1]`$ and $`[x_3,y_1]`$ are in $`U`$. The last commutator, $`[x_2y_2,x_3y_3]`$, we return to momentarily.

From the second 4–relation, $`[x_2,x_1y_3,x_3y_2,y_4]`$, we have first the commutator $`[x_2,y_3]U`$. Then, from the previous relation ($`[x_2y_2,x_3y_3]`$) it follows that $`[x_3,y_2]U`$. Next, that the commutators $`[x_2,y_2]`$ and $`[x_2,y_4]`$ are in $`U`$ follow immediately. From the commutator $`[x_1y_3,x_3y_2]`$ we see that $`[x_3,y_3]U`$ (since we already had that $`[x_1,y_2]`$ is in $`U`$). From $`[x_1y_3,y_4]`$ we have $`[x_1,y_4]U`$. The commutator $`[x_3y_2,y_4]`$ gives the last needed commutator, $`[x_3,y_4]`$.
* In the case of the pair $`(3,6)`$, using similar notation, the following three 4–tuples $`[x_1,y_1,x_2y_2,x_3y_3],[x_2,x_1y_3,x_3y_4,x_2y_5],[y_6,x_1y_2,x_2x_3,x_3y_4]`$ reduce $`𝐙^3𝐙^6`$.
* Finally, for $`(5,6)`$, using similar notation, the following five 4–tuples suffice: $`[x_1,y_1,x_2y_2,x_3y_3]`$, $`[x_2,y_3,x_3y_4,x_4y_5]`$, $`[x_5,y_6,x_4y_3,x_1y_2y_5]`$, $`[x_3,y_5,x_5y_6,x_1y_4]`$, $`[x_1y_1,x_2y_4,x_4y_6,x_5y_2]`$.

For the general case of $`(m,n)`$, assume first that $`m`$ is divisible by 6. Using the realization of $`(3,4)`$ we can realize $`(6,4)`$ and have already realized $`(6,3)`$. (Separate the six generators into two groups of three and make each set commute with the other four using the construction used for $`(3,4)`$.) Combining these, we can realize $`(6k,3)`$ and $`(6k,4)`$ for any $`k`$. Now, combining these we can realize $`(6k,3a+4b)`$ for any $`a`$ and $`b`$. But all integers greater than 2, other than 5, can be written as $`3a+4b`$ for some $`a`$ and $`b`$.

In the case that neither $`m`$ nor $`n`$ are divisible by 6, we can assume 3 divides $`m`$ and we want to realize $`(3k,n)`$. Notice that $`n`$ must be even. Since we can realize $`(3,4)`$ and $`(3,6)`$, we can realize $`(3k,4)`$ and $`(3k,6)`$ for all $`k`$. Thus we can realize $`(3k,4a+6b)`$ for all $`a`$ and $`b`$, but $`4a+6b`$ realizes all even integers greater than 3. ∎

## 5. Basic Realizing Examples

We begin with the exceptional cases of $`n=3`$ and $`n=5`$ and then move on to a set of basic examples for which $`h(n)=C(n,2)+ϵ_n`$. In the next section we note that these basic examples can be used to construct the necessary examples for the proof of Theorem 1.

* $`n=3`$: Start with the 4–torus, $`T^4`$, with $`\beta _2(T^4)=6`$. Surgery on a single curve representing a generator of $`\pi _1(T^4)`$ results in a manifold $`M`$ with $`\pi _1(M)=𝐙^3`$ and $`H_2(M)=𝐙^3`$.
* $`n=5`$: Begin with $`X=F_2\times F_4`$ with $`\beta _2(X)=10`$ and $`\pi _1`$ generated by $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ and $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$. Perform a surgery to identify $`y_3`$ and $`y_4`$, so that the group is generated by $`\{x_1,x_2,y_1,y_2,y_3\}`$. Notice that $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ commute, as follows from the original surface commutator relationship $`[y_1,y_2][y_3,y_4]=1`$. This surgery, since it is along an element of infinite order in $`H_1`$, does not change $`H_2(X)`$. Hence, it only remains to arrange that the pairs of elements $`\{y_1,y_3\}`$ and $`\{y_2,y_3\}`$ commute. Performing surgery on a (rationally) null homologous curve raises $`\beta _2`$ by two, so performing surgeries to kill these two commutators raises the rank of $`H_2(X)`$ by 4, and the resulting 4–manifold $`M`$ has $`H_2(M)=𝐙^{14}`$ as desired.

We will say that the integer $`n`$ is realizable if there is a closed oriented 4–manifold $`M_n`$ with $`\pi _1(M_n)=𝐙^n`$ and $`\beta _2(M_n)=C(n,2)+ϵ_n`$. Let $`𝒮`$ be the set of realizable integers. We now show that $`0,1,2,4,6,7,8,9,11,12𝒮`$ by describing the construction of realizing 4–manifolds $`M_n`$ for each of these $`n`$.

* $`n=0`$: $`M_0=S^4`$.
* $`n=1`$: $`M_1=S^1\times S^3`$.
* $`n=2`$: $`M_2=F_2\times S^2`$. Notice that $`C(2,2)=1`$, so that $`\beta _2(M_2)=2=C(2,2)+ϵ_2`$.
* $`n=4`$: $`M_4=T^4`$.
* $`n=6`$: Build $`M_6`$ as follows. Let $`X=F_2\times F_4`$ with $`\pi _1`$ generated by the 6 elements $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$. Note that $`\beta _2(X)=10`$. Apply Theorem 6 to perform the 4–reduction $`[y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4]`$ and arrive at the 4–manifold $`M_6`$ with $`\pi _1(M_6)=𝐙^6`$ and $`\beta _2(M_6)=16=C(6,2)+ϵ_6`$ as desired.
* $`n=7`$: Begin with $`X=F_2\times F_4\#T^4`$ so $`\beta _2(X)=16`$. Let the generators of $`\pi _1`$ be $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$, and $`\{z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}`$. Perform surgeries giving $`y_1=z_2`$, $`y_2=z_3`$, $`y_4=z_4`$. Now use Theorem 6 to perform the 4–tuple reduction $`[z_1,x_1y_2,x_2y_1,y_3]`$. (In checking that this abelianizes the group, use the fact the $`[y_1,y_2]=1`$ if and only if $`[y_3,y_4]=1`$.) The resulting 4–manifold $`M_7`$ has $`\pi _1(M_7)=𝐙^7`$ and $`\beta _2(M_7)=22=C(7,2)+ϵ_7`$.
* $`n=8`$: Take $`X=F_4\times F_4\#F_2\times F_4`$, with $`\beta _2(X)=28`$ and $`\pi _1`$ generated by $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$, $`\{z_1,z_2\}`$ and $`\{w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4\}`$, respectively. Now perform surgeries to introduce the following relations:

$`z_1=x_1y_1`$,

$`z_2=x_2y_2`$,

$`w_1=x_3y_2`$,

$`w_2=x_4`$,

$`w_3=x_1y_3`$,

$`w_4=x_2y_4`$.

Since $`[w_1,w_2][w_3,w_4]=1`$ we have that $`[x_3y_2,x_4][x_1y_3,x_2y_4]=1`$. Since the $`x_i`$ commute with the $`y_i`$, this implies that $`[x_3,x_4][x_1,x_2][y_3,y_4]=1`$. From the surface relation for the $`x_i`$ $`[x_1,x_2][x_3,x_4]=1`$, it then follows that $`[y_3,y_4]=1`$. From this and the surface relation for the $`y_i`$ it follows that $`[y_1,y_2]=1`$. Now, the fact that $`[z_1,z_2]=1`$ gives that $`[x_1,x_2]=1`$, which implies that $`[x_3,x_4]=1`$ too. The remaining needed four commutator relations between the $`x_i`$ and the four commutator relations between the $`y_i`$ gives a total of 8 needed commutator relations. These are gotten by first considering the relations $`[z_1,w_i]`$ and then the relations $`[z_2,w_i]`$. The resulting $`M_8`$ has $`\pi _1(M_8)=𝐙^8`$ and $`\beta _2(M_8)=28=C(8,2)+ϵ_8`$.
* $`n=9`$: Start with $`X=T^4\#T^4\#T^4`$, with $`\beta _2(X)=18`$ and $`\pi _1`$ generated by $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$, and $`\{z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}`$. Perform three surgeries to give the identifications: $`z_2=x_3y_3`$, $`z_3=x_4`$, and $`z_4=y_4`$. Notice that since the 4–tuple relation $`[z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4]`$ held in the original group, we now have the 4–tuple relation $`[z_1,x_3y_3,x_4,y_4]`$.

Use Theorem 6 to add the following three more 4–tuple relations, raising $`\beta _2`$ to 36:

$`[z_1,y_1,x_3,x_2y_2],`$

$`[z_1x_3,x_1,y_2,x_2y_3],`$

$`[x_2y_4,x_4y_3,x_2y_1,x_1y_2y_4].`$

The resulting manifold $`M_9`$ has $`\pi _1(M_9)=𝐙^9`$ and $`\beta _2(M_9)=36=C(9,2)+ϵ_9`$.
* $`n=11`$: Start with $`X=F_4\times F_6\#T^4`$, with $`\beta _2(X)=32`$ and $`\pi _1`$ generated by $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6\}`$, and $`\{z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}`$. Perform surgery to get the following identifications:

$`y_4=z_2`$,

$`y_5=z_3`$,

$`y_6=z_4`$.

This leaves a generating set with eleven elements:

$$\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4,y_5,y_6,z_1\}.$$

(Notice that $`[x_1,x_2][x_3,x_4]=1`$ and $`[y_1,y_2][y_3,y_4]=1`$, since $`y_5`$ and $`y_6`$ now commute.) Apply Theorem 6 four times to perform the following 4–reductions:

$`[x_1,x_2,x_3,z_1],`$

$`[y_1,y_2,y_3,z_1],`$

$`[x_4y_1,y_5,y_3y_6,y_2z_1],`$

$`[x_1y_4,x_4y_6,x_2y_2z_1,y_1y_3].`$

The resulting manifold $`M_{11}`$ has $`\pi _1(M_{11})=𝐙^{11}`$ and $`\beta _2(M_{11})=32+24=56=C(11,2)+ϵ_{11}`$.
* $`n=12`$: Start with $`X=F_4\times F_4\#T^4`$ with $`\beta _2(X)=24`$ and $`\pi _1`$ generated by $`\{x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4\}`$, $`\{y_1,y_2,y_3,y_4\}`$, and $`\{z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4\}`$ as before. Now apply Theorem 6 to add seven 4–tuple relations:

$`[x_1,x_2,x_3,z_1],`$

$`[y_1,y_2,y_3,z_1],`$

$`[x_1,x_4,z_2,y_1z_3],`$

$`[y_1,y_4,z_3,x_3z_4],`$

$`[x_2y_2,x_4,y_4z_1,z_1z_4],`$

$`[x_2z_3,z_4,y_3,x_3z_2],`$

$`[x_3z_3,y_4z_2,x_1y_2,z_4x_2z_2].`$

The resulting $`M_{12}`$ has $`\beta _2(M_{12})=24+42=66=C(12,2)+ϵ_{12}`$ and $`\pi _1(M_{12})=𝐙^{12}`$ as desired.

## 6. Constructing more examples: the proof of Theorem 1

###### Theorem 9.

If $`m𝒮`$, $`n𝒮`$, $`(m,n)`$, and if one of $`m,m1,n,`$ or $`n1`$ is congruent to $`0`$ modulo $`4`$, then $`m+n𝒮`$.

###### Proof.

The stated mod 4 condition together with the fact that $`mn0(mod6)`$ assures that $`C(n+m,2)+ϵ_{n+m}=(C(n,2)+ϵ_n)+(C(m,2)+ϵ_m)+mn`$. Thus, one can build the desired $`M_{m+n}`$ by performing $`mn`$ surgeries on $`M_m\#M_n\#\frac{mn}{6}T^4`$; that is, by performing $`\frac{mn}{6}`$ 4–reductions as in Theorem 6.

We have that $`\{0,1,2,4,6,7,8,9,11,12\}𝒮`$. Furthermore, all pairs $`(n,m)`$ with $`mn0mod6`$ and $`m3`$ and $`n3`$ are in $``$.

Using Theorem 9 and the pair $`(4,6)`$ gives $`10𝒮`$. Similarly, using the pair $`(4,9)`$ gives $`13𝒮`$. The pair $`(6,8)`$ shows that $`14𝒮`$. The pair $`(6,9)`$ shows that $`15𝒮`$. The pair $`(4,12)`$ shows that $`16𝒮`$. The pair $`(8,9)`$ shows that $`17𝒮`$.

Next the pairs $`(12,n)`$ for $`n=6,\mathrm{},17`$ show that $`\{18,\mathrm{},29\}𝒮`$. Then the pairs $`(12,n)`$ for $`n=18,\mathrm{},29`$ show that $`\{30,\mathrm{},41\}𝒮`$. Repeating inductively in this way shows that $`n𝒮`$ for all $`n6`$, as desired.

## 7. Finitely generated abelian groups

We next use the manifolds constructed in the previous sections as building blocks to prove Theorem 2. Let

$$G=𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k𝐙^n$$

where $`d_i|d_{i+1}`$. Fix a prime $`p`$ that divides $`d_1`$. Then

$$\mathrm{rk}_{𝐙/p}H_1(G;𝐙/p)=k+n\text{ and }\mathrm{rk}_{𝐙/p}H_2(G;𝐙/p)=C(k+n,2)+k.$$

If $`X`$ is a closed, oriented 4–manifold with $`\pi _1(X)G`$, we have $`H_1(X;𝐙/p)H_1(G;𝐙/p)`$ and $`H_2(X;𝐙/p)`$ surjects to $`H_2(G;𝐙/p)`$. This gives the lower bound on $`q(G)`$

$$q(G)22(k+n)+C(k+n,2)+k=1n+C(n+k1,2).$$
(7.1)
To construct upper bounds, consider the following constructions of closed 4–manifolds $`X`$ with $`\pi _1(X)G`$. Let $`L(d)`$ denote a 3-dimensional lens space with $`\pi _1(L(d))=𝐙/d`$, and let $`B_n`$ denote a closed 4–manifold with $`\pi _1(B_n)=𝐙^n`$ and $`\chi (B_n)=q(𝐙^n)`$.

* Let $`X`$ be the manifold obtained by starting with $`B_{k+n}`$ and doing surgeries on the first $`k`$ generators of $`\pi _1(B_{k+n})=𝐙^{k+n}`$ in such a way as to kill $`d_1`$ times the first generator, $`d_2`$ times the second, and so forth. Then $`\pi _1(X)=𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k𝐙^n`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(X;𝐐))=\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(B_{n+k};𝐐))`$. Therefore

$$\chi (X)=22n+\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(B_{n+k};𝐐)).$$

Thus, if $`n+k3,5`$, simplifying yields

$$\chi (X)=1n+C(n+k1,2)+k+ϵ_{n+k}$$

and hence

$$0q(G)\left(1n+C(n+k1,2)\right)k+ϵ_{n+k}.$$
(7.2)
* Suppose that $`n1`$. Start with

$$Y=\left((L(d_1)\mathrm{\#}L(d_2)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}L(d_k))\times S^1\right)\mathrm{\#}B_{k+n1}.$$

Then perform $`k`$ surgeries which identify the $`k`$ generators of the connected sum of lens spaces with the first $`k`$ generators of $`\pi _1(B_{k+n1})`$. These surgeries do not change the rank of $`H_2(Y;𝐐)`$. Finally perform $`n1`$ surgeries along circles representing the commutator of the $`S^1`$ factor and the last $`n1`$ generators of $`\pi _1(B_{k+n1})`$. Each of these surgeries increase the rank of the second rational homology by 2 since the commutators are nullhomologous. This produces a 4–manifold $`X`$ with $`\pi _1(X)G`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_𝐐H_2(X;𝐐)=2(n1)+\mathrm{rk}_𝐐H_2(B_{k+n1};𝐐)`$. Hence

$$\chi (X)=\mathrm{rk}_𝐐H_2(B_{k+n1};𝐐).$$

Thus, if $`n+k13,5`$, $`\chi (X)=C(n+k1,2)+ϵ_{n+k1}.`$

Referring to Equation (7.1), this gives the upper bound

$$0q(G)\left(1n+C(n+k1,2)\right)n1+ϵ_{n+k1}$$
(7.3)
(for $`n,k`$ satisfying $`n+k13,5`$ and $`n1`$).
* Consider now the case $`n=0`$. Start with the 4–manifold obtained from $`\left((L(d_1)\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}L(d_{k1}))\times S^1\right)\mathrm{\#}B_{k1}`$ by performing surgery to identifying the generators of $`\pi _1(B_{k1})`$ with the generators for the lens spaces. This yields a closed 4–manifold $`Y`$ with $`\pi _1(Y)𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_{k1}𝐙`$. Surgering $`d_k`$ times the last generator gives a closed 4–manifold $`X`$ with $`\pi _1(X)𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(X;𝐐))=\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(B_{k1};𝐐))`$. Therefore

$$\chi (X)=2+\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(B_{k1};𝐐)).$$

Thus when $`k13,5`$, $`\chi (X)=2+C(k1,2)+ϵ_{k1},`$ and so for $`G=𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k`$,

$$0q(G)\left(1+C(k1,2)\right)1+ϵ_{k1}.$$
(7.4)
* In two cases the rational homology gives better lower bounds than the $`𝐙/p`$ homology. For $`G=𝐙/d_1\mathrm{}𝐙/d_k`$, $`\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_1(G;𝐐))=0`$ and $`\mathrm{rk}_𝐐(H_2(G;𝐐))=0`$ and hence $`q(G)2`$. Combined with Equation (7.4) this shows that $`q(𝐙/d)=2`$ and $`q(𝐙/d_1𝐙/d_2)=2`$.

The estimates (7.1), (7.3), (7.2), and (7.4) and the discussion of the previous paragraph combine to give a proof of Theorem 2.

## 8. Remarks and questions

A variant of $`q(G)`$ is obtained by defining $`p(G)`$ to be the smallest value of $`\chi (X)\sigma (X)`$ for all closed oriented 4–manifolds $`X`$ with $`\pi _1(X)=G`$. Here $`\sigma (X)`$ denotes the signature of $`X`$. Notice that all the examples we constructed for $`G`$ abelian have signature zero. We conjecture that $`p(𝐙^n)=22n+C(n,2)`$. This guess is motivated by a slight amount of redundancy which occurs in the constructions given above when $`ϵ_n=1`$. For example, in the case of $`n=6`$, the construction we gave starts with $`F_2\times F_4`$ and uses one 4–reduction to abelianize the fundamental group of $`F_4`$. In particular, the surface relation $`[y_1,y_2][y_3,y_4]=1`$ shows that one of the 6 relations coming from the 4–reduction is unnecessary. This extra bit of flexibility may perhaps be used to twist the geometric construction slightly to introduce some signature.

An interesting question is whether the invariant $`q`$ depends on the category of manifold or choice of geometric structure. For example, one might consider the infimum of $`\chi (X)`$ over smooth 4–manifolds or topological 4–manifolds or even 4–dimensional Poincaré complexes with $`\pi _1(X)=G`$. The manifolds we constructed for $`G=𝐙^n`$ are smooth and the lower bounds are homotopy invariants, so that for $`G=𝐙^n`$ the value of $`q`$ is independent of the category.