text:
# There is no Bogomolov type restriction theorem for strong semistability in positive characteristic

## Introduction

A locally free sheaf $`𝒮`$ on a smooth projective variety $`X`$ is called semistable if for every coherent torsion-free subsheaf $`𝒯𝒮`$ the inequality $`\mu (𝒯)\mu (𝒮)`$ holds, where the slope is defined by $`\mu (𝒯)=\mathrm{deg}(𝒯)/\mathrm{rk}(𝒯)`$ and the degree is defined with respect to a fixed ample divisor $`H`$ on $`X`$ by $`\mathrm{deg}(𝒯)=\mathrm{deg}(det(𝒯))=det(𝒯).H^{dimX1}`$. On a curve, this notion is independent of an ample divisor and on a projective space we always take $`H=𝒪(1)`$.

A natural question is whether the restriction of a semistable vector bundle to a hypersurface is again semistable. One motivation for this is the attempt to reduce boundedness questions to lower dimensional varieties. Let us recall briefly what is known in the easist case, for bundles on the projective plane and their restrictions to curves (see \[9, Chapter 7\]). One kind of result is that the restriction of a semistable bundle to a generic curve of sufficiently high degree is again semistable. The theorem of Flenner () gives an explicit bound for the degree of the curve in characteristic zero; the theorem of Mehta-Ramanathan () holds in arbitrary characteristic, but without a degree bound.

The theorem of Bogomolov () shows in characteristic zero that the restriction of a stable bundle is again stable for every smooth curve of sufficiently high degree, not only for the generic curve. A. Langer has recently shown that such a restriction theorem holds also in positive characteristic, see \[11, Theorem 5.2\].

A well known phenomenon in positive characteristic is that the pull-back of a semistable sheaf under the Frobenius morphism is in general no longer semistable. A bundle is called strongly semistable if every Frobenius pull-back of it is again semistable. A semistable bundle on the projective plane is also strongly semistable (the same is true for elliptic curves). What is known about restriction of strong semistability? A. Langer has shown in positive characteristic that under the condition that the discriminant of the bundle is $`0`$, then its restriction to a very general curve is strongly semistable \[11, Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.10.2\].

The general question how strong semistability behaves under restriction is open. In this paper we show by an example that we cannot hope for the best possible result, that is a result à la Bogomolov does not hold: there is no restriction theorem for strong semistability which holds for all smooth curves of sufficiently high degree.

Our example is motivated by the theory of tight closure and quite easy to write down, it is the syzygy bundle $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ on the projective plane (which is the cotangent bundle for $`a=1`$). We show that for every $`d_0`$ there exists a $`dd_0`$ (depending on the characteristic $`p`$) such that the restriction to the smooth Fermat curve $`X^d+Y^d+Z^d=0`$ is not strongly semistable.

The content of this paper is as follows: We describe the relevant properties of the example in section 1. In section 2 we make several remarks concerning further implications of the example, in particular with respect to tight closure. We show that $`(YXZ)^b(X^{2b},Y^{2b},Z^{2b})^{}`$ (which is always true in zero characteristic for solid closure) does not hold in the Fermat hypersurface domains $`R=K[X,Y,Z]/(X^d+Y^d+Z^d)`$ for infinitely many degrees $`d`$ (Remark 4). In section 3 we apply the example to the $`p`$-adic setting of a preprint of C. Deninger and A. Werner () and show that their category $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$ of vector bundles cannot contain all irreducible bundles of degree $`0`$.

I thank A. Langer and A. Werner for useful discussion.

## 1. The example

We describe now the example. Let $`p`$ denote a prime number and let $`K`$ denote a field of characteristic $`p`$. We consider the syzygy bundle $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)(n)`$, $`a1`$, on $`^2=\mathrm{Proj}K[X,Y,Z]`$ given by the defining sequence

$$0\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)(n)\underset{3}{}𝒪(na)\stackrel{X^a,Y^a,Z^a}{}𝒪(n)0.$$

For $`a=1`$ and $`n=0`$ this is just the Euler-Sequence for the cotangent bundle. The pull-back of this sequence under the $`e`$-th absolute Frobenius morphism $`F^e:^2^2`$ yields the sequences (setting $`q=p^e`$)

$$0(F^e\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a))(m)\underset{3}{}𝒪(maq)\stackrel{X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq}}{}𝒪(m)0.$$

Therefore we have $`(F^e\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a))(m)=\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)`$. For this bundle the following proposition holds.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`K`$ denote a field of positive characteristic $`p`$. Then the syzygy bundle $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ on the projective plane $`^2`$ is strongly semistable but it is not true that the restriction of this bundle is strongly semistable for all smooth curves of sufficiently high degree.

###### Proof.

First note that the bundles $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)`$ do not have non-trivial global sections for $`m<2aq`$ for all $`a`$ and $`q`$. So these bundles are semistable and also strongly semistable on the projective plane. For the main statement we have to show that for every number $`d_0`$ we find a degree $`dd_0`$ and a smooth projective curve $`C^2`$ of degree $`d`$ such that the restriction $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)|C`$ is not strongly semistable anymore.

Let $`d_0`$ be given and let $`e`$ be such that $`ap^{e1}d_0`$. Choose $`d`$ such that

$$ap^{e1}<d<3ap^{e1}/2$$

and that $`d`$ is no multiple of $`p`$. Then

$$aq=ap^e<dp<3aq/2.$$

Set $`k=dpaq>0`$. Consider the smooth curve $`C`$ given by the Fermat equation $`X^d+Y^d+Z^d=0`$. On the affine cone $`K[X,Y,Z]/(X^d+Y^d+Z^d)`$ over this curve we have

$$0=(X^d+Y^d+Z^d)^p=X^{dp}+Y^{dp}+Z^{dp}=X^kX^{aq}+Y^kY^{aq}+Z^kZ^{aq}.$$

This means that on the curve $`C`$ the syzygy bundle $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)`$ has a global non-trivial section given by $`(X^k,Y^k,Z^k)`$ of total degree $`m=k+aq=dp`$. But the degree of this syzygy bundle is by the short exact sequence

$$\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m))=2m3aq=2dp3aq<0$$

because of the second condition in the choice of $`d`$. So this bundle on the curve has negative degree but it has a global section $`0`$. Hence it is not semistable and $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)|C`$ is not strongly semistable. ∎

## 2. Some remarks

###### Remark 2.

Let $`aq=ap^e<dp<3aq/2`$ and $`k=dpaq`$ as in the proof of Proposition 1. The global section in the restricted syzygy bundle gives the following short exact sequence on the Fermat curve $`C=V_+(X^d+Y^d+Z^d)^2`$:

$$0𝒪_C\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(dp)𝒪_C(2dp3aq)0.$$

This is of course the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(dp)`$, and the maximal slope of $`F^e\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ is $`0`$ and its minimal slope is $`(2dp3aq)d`$, since $`d`$ is the degree of $`𝒪_C(1)`$.

A measure for the deviation from strong semistability of a locally free sheaf $`𝒮`$ is given by the number

$$\underset{e}{lim}\frac{\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(F^e𝒮)\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(F^e𝒮)}{p^e}.$$

This number is independent of a twist with an invertible sheaf. Thus in our example this number is $`(0(2dp3aq))d/q=(3aq2dp)d/q`$. If we set $`d=ap^{e1}+1`$, then this number is

$$\frac{d(3aq2p(ap^{e1}+1))}{q}=\frac{d(aq2p)}{q}\frac{ap^{e1}(aq2p)}{q}=a^2p^{e1}2a.$$

So for every $`a`$ this deviation measure is arbitrary big (but finite if we divide by $`d`$).

###### Remark 3.

As mentioned in the introduction, there exist restriction theorems due to Bogomolov and to A. Langer for semistable sheaves which imply that the restriction to every smooth hypersurface of sufficiently high degree is again semistable. Here the degree bound does not depend only on the variety and the rank of the bundle (as in the restriction theorem of Flenner), but also on the discriminant of the bundle. The example above shows that in positive characteristic there cannot exist a restriction theorem for semistability for all smooth hypersurfaces with a degree bound depending only on data which are invariant under the Frobenius (like the rank and invariants of the basic variety). For otherwise the restriction of a strongly semistable sheaf to a smooth hypersurface would also be strongly semistable.

###### Remark 4.

The example is motivated by the geometric interpretation of the theory of tight closure. We refer to  and  for background of this theory. In \[3, Theorem 8.4\] we proved that the tight closure of the ideal $`(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ in $`R=K[X,Y,Z]/(F)`$, where $`F`$ is homogeneous, is given by

$$(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)^{}=(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)+R_{3a/2}()$$

under the condition that the syzygy bundle $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ is strongly semistable on the curve $`C=\mathrm{Proj}R`$. Since this syzygy bundle is semistable on the projective plane, it follows in characteristic zero that this numerical formula for tight closure (or rather solid closure) holds in $`R=K[X,Y,Z]/(F)`$ for every $`F`$ of sufficiently high degree by the restriction theorem of Bogomolov. In fact this holds for every $`F`$ smooth of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(F)=d3a1`$, see \[2, Proposition 6.2\].

Here we want to remark that this is not true in positive characteristic. Let $`p`$ be a prime number. We show that for $`a=2b`$ even the formula does not hold for $`(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)`$ on $`F=X^d+Y^d+Z^d`$ for suitable but arbitrary high degree $`d`$; in fact we will show that $`X^bY^bZ^b(X^a,Y^a,Z^a)^{}`$ on such a curve. Even degree has the (dis-)advantage that there exists homogeneous elements having the critical degree $`3a/2`$.

Suppose as before that $`aq<dp<3aq/2`$ and $`k=dpaq`$. From the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (see Remark 2) we get by tensoring with $`𝒪(mdp)`$ the short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_C(mkaq)\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)𝒪_C(m+k2aq)0.$$

For $`4aq2k>2m3aq`$ the invertible sheaf on the right has negative degree but the degree in the middle is $`0`$. Let $`f=X^rY^sZ^t`$ be a monomial of degree $`r+s+t=m`$. Such an element yields via the defining sequence for $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})`$ the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech cohomology class

$$(\frac{X^rY^sZ^t}{X^{aq}},\frac{X^rY^sZ^t}{Y^{aq}},0)H^1(C,\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)).$$

The surjection $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})(m)𝒪_C(m+k2aq)`$ maps this cohomology class to the class

$$\frac{X^rY^sZ^tZ^k}{X^{aq}Y^{aq}}H^1(C,𝒪_C(m+k2aq)),$$

see \[2, Remark 4.8\].

If the formula ($``$) would hold, then $`X^rY^sZ^t(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})^{}`$, since $`m3aq/2`$. If however the cohomology class $`\frac{X^rY^sZ^tZ^k}{X^{aq}Y^{aq}}`$ is not in $`0^{}`$, which means by definition that $`X^rY^sZ^tZ^k(X^{aq},Y^{aq})^{}`$ in $`R=K[X,Y,Z]/(F)`$, then (the corresponding geometric torsor of this class is affine and this is then true for the torsor corresponding to the first class) also $`X^rY^sZ^t(X^{aq},Y^{aq},Z^{aq})^{}`$.

Let now be $`a=2b2`$, $`d`$ and $`k`$ as before and set $`m=3aq/2=3bq`$. Set $`r=s=t=bq`$, so that we have to look at the cohomology class

$$\frac{X^{bq}Y^{bq}Z^{bq}Z^k}{X^{aq}Y^{aq}}=\frac{Z^{bq}Z^k}{X^{bq}Y^{bq}}H^1(C,𝒪_C(kbq)),$$

and we have to look for examples such that $`Z^{bq+k}(X^{bq},Y^{bq})^{}`$.

We fix now the degree $`d=ap^{e1}+1`$, so that $`k=p`$ and $`d>p`$. Set $`u=p/2`$. Then for $`p3`$ and $`e2`$ we have

$$ud=p/2(2bp^{e1}+1)=bp^e+p/2+1/2+bp^{e1}bq+p.$$

So it is enough to show that $`Z^{ud}(X^{bq},Y^{bq})^{}`$. But this class is

$$\frac{Z^{ud}}{X^{bq}Y^{bq}}=\frac{(X^d+Y^d)^u}{X^{bq}Y^{bq}}=\frac{X^{ud}+uX^{(u1)d}Y^d+\mathrm{}+Y^{ud}}{X^{bq}Y^{bq}},$$

and we consider this class in $`H^1(^1,𝒪(ud2bq))`$, $`^1=\mathrm{Proj}K[X,Y]`$. The extreme summands on the left and on the right vanish, but for $`e2`$ and $`p5`$ we got that $`(u1)d<bq`$, so the second summand is $`0`$ ($`p`$ does not divide $`u`$). Therefore this class is $`0`$ and hence $`0^{}`$, since $`K[X,Y]`$ is $`F`$-regular. It follows that the cohomology class does not belong to $`0^{}H^1(C,𝒪_C(kbq))`$ and so $`(XYZ)^b(X^{2b},Y^{2b},Z^{2b})^{}`$ in $`R=K[X,Y,Z]/(F)`$.

###### Problem 5.

Describe in dependence of the prime number $`p`$ and the degree $`d`$ whether $`\mathrm{Syz}(X^2,Y^2,Z^2)`$ is strongly semistable on $`X^d+Y^d+Z^d=0`$. In particular, for fixed degree $`d`$, decide whether the set of prime numbers such that this syzygy bundle is strongly semistable is finite, infinite or contains almost all prime numbers? This question is both a special instance of a problem of Miyaoka (see \[13, Problem 5.4\]) and of a problem of tight closure theory (\[6, Question 13\]).

## 3. How big are $`𝔅_{X__p}`$ and $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$?

C. Deninger and A. Werner establish in  a $`p`$-adic analog of the well-known analytic correspondence between flat vector bundles over a compact Riemann surface $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{GL}`$-representations of the geometric fundamental group $`\pi _1(X,x)`$. They construct a functor which associates to a certain category of vector bundles on a smooth projective $`p`$-adic curve $`X__p`$ a continuous representation of the algebraic fundamental group in a vector space over $`_p`$. However it remains open how big this category of bundles is, in particular it is unclear whether it contains all irreducible (or all stable) bundles of degree $`0`$.

We describe briefly the setting of . Let $`K`$ denote a finite extension of the $`p`$-adic number field $`_p`$, and let $`\overline{K}`$ denote its algebraic closure. Let $`_p`$ denote the completion of $`\overline{K}`$ with respect to the p-adic valuation. Let $`X`$ denote a smooth projective curve over $`K`$ and set $`\overline{X}=X_K\overline{K}`$ and $`X__p=X_K_p`$. Let $`\overline{𝔛}`$ denote a finitely presented flat and proper model over the valuation domain $`𝔬_{\overline{K}}\overline{K}`$ so that $`\overline{X}`$ is the generic fiber. The special fiber is then a not necessarily irreducible projective curve over $`𝔬_{\overline{K}}/𝔪=\overline{𝔽}_p`$

They work with a special category $`𝔅=𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$ of vector bundles on $`𝔛_𝔬=\overline{𝔛}𝔬`$, where $`𝔬`$ denotes the valuation ring in $`_p`$. A vector bundle $`E`$ on $`𝔛_𝔬`$ belongs to this category if for every $`n1`$ there is a (generic étale and proper) “covering” $`\pi :𝒴\overline{𝔛}`$ (with some further technical properties) such that $`\pi ^{}E_n`$ ($`E_n=E/(p^n)`$) is trivial on the thickened fiber $`𝒴_n=𝒴/(p^n)`$.

For the bundles in this category they construct a functor $`\rho `$ from $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$ to the continuous representations $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}_{\pi _1(\overline{X},\overline{x})}(𝔬)`$ of the algebraic fundamental group $`\pi _1(\overline{X},\overline{x})`$ (\[4, Theorem 14\]). This functor yields then also a functor (\[4, Theorem 23\])

$$\rho :𝔅_{X__p}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞𝐩}_{\pi _1(\overline{X},\overline{x})}(_p),$$

where the category $`𝔅_{X__p}`$ consists of the vector bundles on $`X__p`$ which arise by restriction from a bundle in $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$ for some model $`\overline{𝔛}`$ of $`\overline{X}`$ (\[4, Definition 19\]). The category $`𝔅_{X__p}`$ contains all invertible sheaves of degree $`0`$ (\[4, Theorem 23c\]) and it is hoped that it contains all irreducible bundles of degree $`0`$ (\[4, Question 7d\]). Our example shows that this is definitely not true for $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$!

Since the Fermat equation $`U^d+Y^d+Z^d=0`$ is defined over $``$ we may consider the corresponding projective curve over any ring. We denote this curve over $`\overline{}_p=\overline{K}`$ by $`\overline{X}`$ and the relative curve over $`𝔬_{\overline{K}}`$ by $`\overline{𝔛}`$, so this is our $`p`$-adic model for $`\overline{X}`$. We consider the bundle $`E=\mathrm{Syz}(U^2,Y^2,Z^2)(3)`$ on $`𝔛_𝔬`$. The determinant of this bundle is just the structure sheaf. This bundle has degree $`0`$ and is stable and irreducible on $`\overline{X}`$, on $`X__p`$ and on the special fiber $`𝔛_𝔬𝔬/𝔪`$, since this holds over every field (of any characteristic) for $`d`$ big enough.

The condition in the definition of $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$, namely that there exists $`\pi :𝒴\overline{𝔛}`$ such that $`\pi ^{}(E_n)`$ is trivial, implies in particular that the bundle over the special fiber triviales in a finite extension. A result of Lange and Stuhler (\[Satz 1.9\]) however says that a vector bundle on a smooth projective curve over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic must be strongly semistable if it admits such a finite trivialization. But due to Proposition 1 this syzygy bundle is not strongly semistable for some degree $`d`$. Therefore for suitable degree $`d`$ the bundle $`E=\mathrm{Syz}(U^2,Y^2,Z^2)(3)`$ does not belong to $`𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬}`$.

It is however possible that there exists another model $`𝔛^{}`$ and a vector bundle $`E^{}𝔅_{𝔛_𝔬^{}}`$ such that $`E__p^{}E__p`$. Then $`E__p𝔅_{X__p}`$ would hold.


format: text

text:
# On complex surfaces with 5 or 6 semistable singular fibers over ℙ¹ Keywords: singular fiber, fibration, surface, canonical class inequality. The first author would like to thank the support of “DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm Globale Methoden in der Komplexen Geometrie” and the DFG-NSFC Chinese-German project “Komplexe Geometrie”. He is also supported by the 973 Project Foundation and the Foundation of EMC for Doctoral Program. The third author is partially supported by Conacyt Grant 41459-F.

## Introduction

We denote by $`X`$ a complex smooth projective surface, and by $`f:XC`$ a fibration over a curve $`C`$ whose generic fiber is a curve of genus $`g`$. $`f`$ is called isotrivial if all smooth fibers are isomorphic to a fixed curve. $`f`$ is called semistable if all of the singular fibers are reduced nodal curves. If there is no $`(1)`$-curve contained in the fibers, then we call $`f`$ relatively minimal. The projection $`X=F\times CC`$ is called a trivial fibration. $`s`$ is always the number of singular fibers of $`f`$.

In a well-known paper , Beauville proved that a non-isotrivial fibration $`f:X^1`$ admits at least 3 singular fibers, and if $`f`$ is semistable, then $`s4`$. The first author proved in  that if $`f`$ is a semistable fibration of genus $`g2`$, then it admits at least $`5`$ singular fibers.

Beauville  gave a beautiful explicit classification of all semistable elliptic fibrations $`(g=1)`$ over $`^1`$ with $`4`$ singular fibers. More precisely, there are exactly $`6`$ non-isotrivial such families, and all of them are modular families of elliptic curves. A very interesting natural problem is to classify semistable fibrations over $`^1`$ of genus $`g2`$ with $`5`$ singular fibers. In the survey (, §1 and Ex. 5.9), Viehweg considered this problem. The purpose of this note is to try to get some information on the structure of the surface $`X`$ when $`f`$ has $`5`$ or $`6`$ singular fibers. Our main results are the following two theorems.

###### Theorem 0.1.

Assume that $`f:X^1`$ is a non trivial semistable fibration of genus $`g2`$ with $`s`$ singular fibers. Assume also that $`f`$ is relatively minimal. Then we have:

1. If $`s=5`$, then $`X`$ is birationally rational or ruled.
2. If $`s=6`$ and $`g=2,3`$ or $`4`$, then $`X`$ is not of general type.
3. If $`s=6`$, $`g=5`$ and $`X`$ is of general type, then the minimal model $`S`$ of $`X`$ satisfies

$$K_S^2=1,p_g(S)=2,q(S)=0.$$

The fibration $`f`$ comes from a pencil on $`S`$ with $`5`$ simple base points $`(`$including infinitely near base points$`)`$.

Thus if the Kodaira dimension of $`X`$ is non negative, then $`s6`$. We have no example of case (3), and we conjecture that $`s`$ is at least 7 when $`X`$ is of general type. We shall give two examples to show that the two bounds are sharp.

1. $`s=6`$, $`g=3`$, $`K_X^2=4`$, and $`X`$ is birationally a K3 surface.
2. $`s=7`$, $`g=4`$, $`K_X^2=3`$, $`p_g(X)=2`$, $`q(X)=0`$, and $`X`$ is of general type containing 4 $`(1)`$-curves.

Our next purpose is to give some inequalities for genus $`g2`$ fibrations over $`^1`$ (not necessarily semistable), which imply the lower bounds on $`s`$.

###### Theorem 0.2.

Let $`f:X^1`$ be a relatively minimal fibration of genus $`g2`$, and let $`K_f=K_{X/^1}=K_X+2F`$ be its relative canonical divisor. Assume that $`f`$ is not locally trivial. Then

$$K_f^2\{\begin{array}{cc}4g4,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=\mathrm{},\hfill \\ 6g6,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=0,\hfill \\ 6g5,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=1,\hfill \\ 6g6+\frac{1}{2}\left(K_S^2+\sqrt{K_S^2}\sqrt{K_S^2+8g8}\right),\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=2,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`S`$ is the unique minimal model of $`X`$ when $`\kappa (X)0`$.

The bounds are optimal for infinitely many $`g`$. The example given in  satisfies $`K_f^2=4(g1)`$, $`g=2`$ and $`s=5`$. The example A) above satisfies $`K_f^2=6(g1)`$, $`g=3`$ and $`s=6`$, where $`X`$ is a K3 surface. In Theorem 2.1, we will classify the fibrations $`f:X^1`$ with minimal $`K_f^2`$ according to its Kodaira dimension.

The proof of Theorem 0.1 is to use some inequalities, particularly the following strict canonical class inequality and its refinement for a non trivial semistable fibration $`f:XC`$ of genus $`g2`$ with $`s0`$  (see also  for a differential geometric proof):

$$K_{X/C}^2<(2g2)(2g(C)2+s).$$
(0.1)
We use Reider’s method to prove Theorem 0.2. Note that the strict canonical class inequality and the inequality $`K_f^26(g1)`$ (resp. $`K_f^24(g1)`$) in Theorem 0.2 imply that $`s6`$ (resp. $`5`$).

## 1 Preliminaries

Let $`f:XC`$ be a fibration of genus $`g2`$, namely $`X`$ (resp. $`C`$) is a nonsingular complex surface (resp. curve) and the generic fiber $`F`$ of $`f`$ is a nonsingular curve of genus $`g`$. We always assume that $`f`$ is relatively minimal, i.e., there is no $`(1)`$-curve contained in the fibers. $`f`$ is called semistable if all of the singular fibers are reduced nodal curves. Denote by $`K_f=K_{X/C}=K_Xf^{}K_C`$ the relative canonical divisor of $`f`$, and by $`\omega _{X/C}`$ its corresponding invertible sheaf. The relative invariants of $`f`$ are defined as follows:

$`\chi _f=\mathrm{deg}f_{}\omega _{X/C}=\chi (𝒪_X)(g1)(g(C)1),`$
$`K_f^2=K_{X/C}^2=K_X^28(g1)(g(C)1),`$
$`e_f=\chi _{\text{top}}(X)4(g1)(g(C)1)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(\chi _{\text{top}}(F_i)(22g)).`$
These invariants are nonnegative, and $`K_f^2=0`$ (equivalently, $`\chi _f=0`$) if and only if $`f`$ is locally trivial. $`e_f=0`$ iff $`f`$ is smooth. Let

$$e_{F_i}=\chi _{\text{top}}(F_i)(22g).$$

If $`F_i`$ is semistable, then $`e_{F_i}`$ is equal to the number of nodes of $`F_i`$.

Arakelov  and Beauville  proved that $`K_f`$ is a nef divisor and the curves $`E`$ with $`EK_f=0`$ are those $`(2)`$-curves in the fibers. The map defined by $`|nK_f|`$ for large $`n`$ is the contraction morphism $`\sigma :XX^\mathrm{\#}`$ of the vertical $`(2)`$-curves (cf. ), we get the relative canonical model $`f^\mathrm{\#}:X^\mathrm{\#}C`$ of $`f`$.

In what follows, we assume that $`f:XC`$ is semistable with $`s`$ singular fibers. Denote by $`q`$ a singular point of $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then $`(X^\mathrm{\#},q)`$ is a rational double point of type $`A_{\mu _q}`$, here $`\mu _q`$ is the number of $`(2)`$-curves in $`X`$ over $`q`$. We also denote by $`q`$ the singular point of the fibers on the smooth part of $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$, in this case $`\mu _q=0`$. Then

$$e_f=\underset{q}{}(\mu _q+1)$$

is the number of nodes in the singular fibers. For convenience, we let

$$r_f:=\underset{q}{}\frac{1}{\mu _q+1}.$$

It is obvious that

$$r_fe_f.$$
(1.1)
In , we proved the strict canonical class inequality when $`s0`$:

$$K_f^2<(2g2)(2g(C)2+s).$$

The inequality follows from the following

$$K_f^2(2g2)(2g(C)2+s)\frac{(2g2)s}{e}+\frac{3r_f}{e^2},$$
(1.2)
where $`e2`$ is any integer (see , p.594, (5)). Equivalently,

$$r_f\frac{1}{3}e^2\left(K_X^2(2g2)\left(6g(C)6+s\frac{s}{e}\right)\right).$$
(1.3)
###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_r`$ be the points such that $`\mu _{q_i}0`$. Let $`\mathrm{}^{}=_{\mu _q0}\mu _q`$ be the number of $`(2)`$-curves contained in the fibers of $`f`$. Then

$$r_fe_f\mathrm{}^{}\frac{r}{2}.$$
(1.4)
###### Proof.

Note that the number of points $`q`$ such that $`\mu _q=0`$ is $`e_f_i(\mu _{q_i}+1)`$. Hence

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _q+1}}`$ $`=e_f{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\mu _{q_i}+1)+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu _{q_i}+1}}`$
$`e_f\mathrm{}^{}r+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}`$
$`=e_f\mathrm{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}.`$
This completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 1.2.

$`e_{F_i}=g1+c_ig(\stackrel{~}{F}_i)`$, where $`c_i`$ is the number of components of $`F_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ is the normalization of $`F_i`$. So

$$e_fs(g1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}c_i.$$
(1.5)
###### Proof.

Let $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{F}_iF_i`$ be the normalization of $`F_i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the subscheme of the singular locus of $`F_i`$. Then we have

$$0𝒪_{F_i}\sigma _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{F}_i}𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }0.$$

Since $`F_i`$ has only nodes as its singular points, we have $`e_{F_i}=\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Delta }=h^0(𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta })=\chi (𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Thus

$`e_{F_i}`$ $`=\chi (𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{F}_i})\chi (𝒪_{F_i})`$
$`=c_ig(\stackrel{~}{F}_i)(1g)`$
$`g1+c_i.`$
This completes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 1.3.

Denote by $`\mathrm{}=_ic_i\mathrm{}^{}`$ the number of curves in the singular fibers different from $`(2)`$-curves. Then we have

$$r_fs(g1)+\mathrm{}\frac{r}{2}.$$
(1.6)
###### Proof.

This follows from (1.4) and (1.5). ∎

###### Lemma 1.4.

If $`e^2>\frac{6g+3}{g1}`$, then

$$K_f^2\frac{2e(g1)^2\left((2g(C)2+s)es\right)}{e^2(g1)3(2g+1)}.$$
(1.7)
###### Proof.

By Cornalba-Harris-Xiao’s inequality ,

$$K_f^2\frac{4g4}{g}\chi _f,$$

we get

$$e_f\frac{2g+1}{g1}K_f^2.$$

Then from (1.1) and (1.2), we obtain

$$K_f^2(2g2)(2g(C)2+s)\frac{(2g2)s}{e}+\frac{3(2g+1)}{e^2(g1)}K_f^2,$$

it implies (1.7). ∎

## 2 The proof of Theorem 0.2

In this section, we let $`f:X^1`$ be a relatively minimal fibration of genus $`g2`$. If $`\kappa (X)\mathrm{}`$, we denote by $`S`$ the unique minimal model of $`X`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Assume that $`f`$ is not locally trivial. Then

$$K_f^2\{\begin{array}{cc}4g4,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=\mathrm{},\hfill \\ 6g6,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=0,\hfill \\ 6g5,\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=1,\hfill \\ 6g6+\frac{1}{2}\left(K_S^2+\sqrt{K_S^2}\sqrt{K_S^2+8g8}\right),\hfill & \text{ if }\kappa (X)=2.\hfill \end{array}$$

1. $`K_f^2=4g4`$ if and only if $`X`$ is the minimal resolution of the singularities of a double covering surface $`Z\stackrel{𝜋}{}^1\times C`$ ramified over a curve of numerical type $`2F_1+(2g+24g(C))F_2`$, and the fibration $`f`$ is induced by the first projection $`^1\times C^1`$. Here $`F_i`$ is a fiber of the $`i`$-th projection of $`^1\times C`$.
2. If $`\kappa (X)=0`$, then $`K_f^2=6g6`$ iff the fibration is induced by a pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|C|`$ on its minimal model $`S`$ with $`C^2=2g2`$ simple base points $`(`$including infinitely near base points$`)`$.
3. If $`\kappa (X)=1`$, then $`K_f^2=6g5`$ iff the fibration is induced by a pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|C|`$ of genus $`g`$ on its minimal model $`S`$ with $`C^2=2g3`$ simple base points.
4. If $`\kappa (X)=2`$, then $`K_S^21`$. $`K_f^2=6(g1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(K_S^2+\sqrt{K_S^2}\sqrt{K_S^2+8g8}\right)`$ iff the fibration is induced by a pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|C|`$ on $`S`$ with only simple base points and $`CrK_S`$. In particular, if $`g=2`$, then $`K_f^28`$, with equality iff $`K_S^2=1`$ and $`CK_S`$. If $`g=3`$, then $`K_f^215`$.

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`A=K_X+F`$. We claim that $`|2A|`$ (resp. $`|3A|`$) is base point free if $`g3`$ (resp. $`g=2`$). In particular, $`A`$ is nef and hence

$$K_f^24(g1)=A^20.$$

Indeed, by Ramanujan’s vanishing theorem (, p.131), $`H^1(F)=H^0(F)=0`$. So

$$h^0(A)=h^2(F)=\chi (F)=\chi _f>0.$$

Hence we can assume that $`A`$ is an effective divisor. Since $`AF=2g22`$, $`A`$ admits at least one horizontal component. Hence $`AK_f1`$.

Note that $`|2A|=|K_X+K_f|`$. If $`g3`$, $`K_f^2=AK_f+2(g1)1+4=5`$. Suppose $`|2A|`$ has a base point $`p`$, by Reider’s theorem , there is a curve $`E`$ passing through $`p`$ such that

(i) $`K_fE=0`$ and $`E^2=1`$; or (ii) $`K_fE=1`$ and $`E^2=0`$.
On the other hand, $`K_fE=K_XE+2FEK_XEE^2(mod2)`$. Thus the two cases can not exist. This proves that $`|2A|`$ has no base point.

Now we consider the case $`g=2`$. We first prove that $`A`$ is nef.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an irreducible and reduced curve with $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }<0`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be a horizontal curve. Hence $`(A+F)\mathrm{\Gamma }=K_f\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. Then we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }F2`$. On the other hand, $`|A|`$ is non empty, so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the fixed part of $`|A|`$. Hence $`2=2g2=AF\mathrm{\Gamma }F2`$. We get $`\mathrm{\Gamma }F=2`$, and $`A=\mathrm{\Gamma }+E`$, where $`E`$ consists of vertical curves. It implies that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=A\mathrm{\Gamma }E\mathrm{\Gamma }<0`$. Since $`A\mathrm{\Gamma }=K_X\mathrm{\Gamma }+2<0`$, we have $`K_X\mathrm{\Gamma }3`$. So $`p_a(\mathrm{\Gamma })<0`$, impossible. Therefore, $`A`$ is nef and $`A^20`$.

In this case, $`|3A|=|K_X+2A+F|`$. $`L=2A+F`$ is nef and $`L^2=4A^2+4AF8(g1)>4`$. If $`|3A|`$ has a base point $`p`$, then there is a curve $`E`$ passing through $`p`$ such that

(i) $`LE=0`$, $`E^2=1`$; or (ii) $`LE=1`$, $`E^2=0`$.
Since $`A`$ and $`F`$ are nef, (i) implies $`AE=FE=0`$. Note that $`A=K_X+F`$, we have $`K_XE=0`$ and $`K_XEE^2`$, a contradiction. So case (i) is impossible. In case (ii), we have $`AE=0`$ and $`FE=1`$, so $`K_XE=1`$ which is also impossible since $`E^2=0`$. This proves that $`|3A|`$ is base point free.

Now we consider the case when $`K_f^2=4g4`$, i.e., $`A^2=0`$.

In this case, the base point free linear system $`|6A|`$ is composed with a fibration $`\phi :XC`$ over a smooth curve $`C`$ . Denote by $`F^{}`$ a generic fiber of $`\phi `$. Then $`AF^{}=0`$. Since $`AF=2g22`$, $`F^{}`$ can not be the fiber of $`f`$. So $`FF^{}1`$. From $`AF^{}=0`$, we get $`K_XF^{}=FF^{}1`$. Since $`F_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, we have $`K_XF^{}=2`$ and $`FF^{}=2`$. So $`F^{}^1`$. Now we get a generally double cover $`\pi :X^1\times C`$ defined by $`\pi (x)=(f(x),\phi (x))`$. Since the pullback $`\pi ^{}F_2`$ of a generic fiber $`F_2`$ is still isomorphic to $`^1`$, and a generic $`\pi ^{}F_1`$ has genus $`g`$. By Hurwitz formula, we see that the branch curve $`B_\pi `$ of $`\pi `$ has numerical type $`2F_1+(2g+24g(C))F_2`$.

Conversely, if the branch curve $`B_\pi `$ has numerical type $`2F_1+(2g+24g(C))F_2`$, then $`B_\pi `$ is nonsingular or admits at most $`ADE`$ singularities. Thus the canonical resolution is the minimal one, and the fibration induced is relatively minimal. By easy computations (, p.183, or ), we have $`K_X^2=4(g1)`$ and hence $`K_f^2=4g4`$. This completes the proof of (1).

(2) Suppose that the Kodaira dimension of $`X`$ is non negative, and let $`S`$ be the unique minimal model of $`X`$ obtained by contracting $`(1)`$-curves. So the fibers $`F`$ of $`f`$ are contracted to a pencil $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`|C|`$ on $`S`$ with base points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_m`$ $`(`$including infinitely near base points$`)`$. We consider a generic curve $`C`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and let $`n_i`$ be the multiplicity of $`C`$ at $`p_i`$. Then $`n_i1`$. Note that $`F^2=0`$, $`K_XF=2g2`$. One can prove easily that

$`C^2`$ $`=F^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}n_i^2={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}n_i^2.`$ (2.1)
$`K_SC`$ $`=K_XF{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}n_i=2g2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}n_i.`$ (2.2)
Since $`S`$ is neither ruled nor rational, $`K_S`$ is nef and $`K_S^20`$. Hence $`K_SC0`$. Thus $`m_in_i2g2K_SC`$.

$$K_f^2=K_X^2+8(g1)=K_S^2m+8(g1)K_S^2+K_SC+6(g1).$$
(2.3)
Hence $`K_f^26g6`$. If $`K_f^2=6g6`$, i.e., $`K_X^2=(2g2)<0`$, then $`K_SC=0`$, $`K_S^2=0`$ and $`n_i=1`$ for any $`i`$. In particular, $`m=K_S^2K_X^2=2g2>0`$ and $`C^2>0`$. By Hodge index theorem, $`K_S`$ is numerically trivial, thus $`\kappa (X)=0`$. By (2.1), $`C^2=m=2g2`$. This completes the proof of (2).

(3) We have proved that if $`\kappa (X)0`$ and $`K_f^2=6g6`$, then $`\kappa (X)=0`$. So if $`\kappa (X)=1`$, we obtain $`K_f^26g5`$ and $`K_S^2=0`$. Suppose $`K_f^2=6g5`$, i.e., $`K_X^2=(2g3)<0`$, then $`m=2g3>0`$ and $`C^2>0`$. As in the proof of (2), $`K_SC0`$ (otherwise, by Hodge index theorem, $`K_S0`$ and $`\kappa (X)=0`$). So $`K_SC1`$. From our assumption $`K_f^2=6g5`$ and (2.3), we get $`K_SC=1`$. Now (2.2) implies that $`n_i=1`$ for any $`i`$, hence $`C^2=2g3`$ and $`C`$ is smooth. The fibration is induced by a pencil in $`|C|`$ with $`2g3`$ simple base points.

(4) In the case when $`\kappa (X)=2`$, we let $`x=CK_S`$, $`y=C^2`$. Then

$$x+y2g2,K_S^2yx^2.$$
(2.4)
It is easy to prove that

$$x\frac{1}{2}\left(K_S^2+\sqrt{K_S^2}\sqrt{K_S^2+8g8}\right).$$

Now from (2.3), we have

$$K_f^26g6+\frac{1}{2}\left(K_S^2+\sqrt{K_S^2}\sqrt{K_S^2+8g8}\right).$$

If the equality holds, then the equalities in (2.4) hold. We obtain easily the desired characterization. ∎

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`f:X^1`$ be a relatively minimal semistable fibration of genus $`g2`$ with $`s`$ singular fibers. If $`f`$ is non trivial and $`s=5`$, then $`X`$ is birationally ruled or rational.

###### Proof.

By the strict canonical class inequality, we have $`K_f^2<6g6`$. The corollary follows from Theorem 2.1. ∎

Note that if $`s=5`$, then $`S`$ is either $`^2`$ or a geometrically ruled surface. So

$$m=K_S^2K_X^2>K_S^2+2g2=\{\begin{array}{cc}2g+7,\hfill & \text{ if }S^2,\hfill \\ 2g+68q(X),\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

## 3 The proof of Theorem 0.1 for $`s=6`$

In this section, we assume that $`f:X^1`$ is semistable and $`s=6`$. We use freely the notations in the previous sections, including those in the proof. Denote by $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_6`$ the 6 singular fibers.

We recall the inequalities in Sect. 1 for our $`f`$:

$`(\mathrm{A})K_X^2<0,`$ by (0.1)
$`(\mathrm{B})r_f{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e\left(K_X^2e+12g12\right),`$ by (1.3)
$`(\mathrm{C})r_f6g6+\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}},`$ by (1.6)
$`(\mathrm{D})K_X^24{\displaystyle \frac{(g1)^2(2e3)e}{e^2(g1)6g3}}8(g1),\text{ if }e^2>{\displaystyle \frac{6g+3}{g1}},`$ by (1.7)
where $`r_f=_q\frac{1}{\mu _q+1}`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the number of non $`(2)`$-curves in the 6 singular fibers.

In what follows, we assume that $`X`$ is of general type, thus $`K_S^21`$. Denote respectively by $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_6S`$ the image curves of $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_6`$. By (A),

$$m=K_S^2K_X^22.$$
(3.1)
We see that $`K_SC1`$. Otherwise, by Hodge index theorem, $`K_S^2C^2(K_SC)^2=1,`$ so $`C^21`$, which implies $`m1`$. Hence

$$2K_SC2g2m.$$
(3.2)
###### Theorem 3.1.

If $`g4`$, then $`X`$ is not of general type.

###### Proof.

We shall rule out the cases $`g=2,3`$ and $`4`$ under the assumption $`\kappa (X)=2`$.

Case $`g=2`$: (3.2) implies $`m=0`$, which contradicts (3.1).

Case $`g=3`$: By (2.2), (3.1) and (3.2), $`m=K_SC=2`$, $`K_S^2=1`$, $`K_X^2=1`$, $`n_1=n_2=1`$, hence $`C^2=2`$. By Noether inequality $`K_S^22p_g(S)4`$ and Debarre’s inequality  $`K_S^22p_g(S)2q(S)`$ if $`q(S)1`$, we obtain

$$p_g(S)2,q(S)=0.$$
(3.3)
Note that

$$e_f=12\chi _fK_f^2=12(p_g(S)+1)K_X^2+4(g1)=12p_g(S)+2145.$$
(3.4)
On the other hand, from (B) for $`e=12`$, we get $`r_f48.`$ This contradicts (1.1): $`r_fe_f`$.

Case $`g=4`$: (D) for $`e=12`$ implies that $`K_X^28/5`$. Thus $`K_X^22`$ and $`m3`$. By (3.2), we see that $`m4`$.

If $`m=3`$, then $`K_S^2=1`$ and $`K_X^2=2`$, we see that (3.3) holds. As in (3.4), we obtain $`e_f50`$. (1.3) for $`e=9`$ implies that $`r_f54`$, which contradicts $`r_fe_f`$.

If $`m=4`$, then (2.2) and (3.2) imply that $`K_SC=2`$, $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_4=1`$, and $`C^2=4`$. By Hodge index theorem, we can see that $`K_S^2=1`$ and $`K_S^2C^2=(K_SC)^2`$. Hence $`C2K_S`$. This means that any $`(2)`$-curve $`E`$ on $`S`$ does not pass through any one of the 4 base points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_4`$ because $`CE=2K_SE=0`$. Hence $`(2)`$-curves in $`C_i`$ must be $`(2)`$-curves in $`F_i`$.

Note that $`K_SC_i=2`$, so $`C_i`$ has at most two components different from $`(2)`$-curves. This implies that $`F_i`$ has at most two components which are neither $`(2)`$-curves nor the exceptional curves of the 4 base points.

On the other hand, among the 4 exceptional curves on $`X`$, at least one of them is a horizontal $`(1)`$-curve. If the remaining three exceptional curves are vertical, then at least one of them is a $`(2)`$-curve. Hence the total number $`\mathrm{}`$ of non $`(2)`$-curves in the 6 singular fibers $`6\times 2+2=14`$.

Now by (C), $`r_f32`$. On the other hand, (B) for $`e=6`$ implies that $`r_f36`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Theorem 3.2.

If $`s=6`$, $`g=5`$ and $`X`$ is of general type, then the minimal model $`S`$ of $`X`$ satisfies

$$K_S^2=1,p_g(S)=2,q(S)=0.$$

The fibration comes from a pencil on $`S`$ with $`5`$ simple base points.

###### Proof.

In this case, (D) for $`e=10`$ implies that $`K_X^2\frac{864}{367}<2,`$ thus $`K_X^23`$ and $`m4`$. On the other hand, $`m2g22=6`$. If $`m=6`$, then $`C^26`$ and $`K_SC2`$, by Hodge index theorem, $`K_S^2C^2(K_SC)^24`$, and hence $`K_S^20`$, a contradiction. Thus $`m=4`$ or $`5`$.

If $`m=4`$, then $`K_S^2=1`$, $`K_X^2=3`$, $`p_g(S)2`$, $`q(S)=0`$, $`C^24`$, and $`K_SC4`$. Thus

$$e_f=12(p_g+1)K_X^2+4(g1)55.$$

From (1.3) for $`e=8`$, we have

$$r_f\frac{1}{3}e(3e+48)=e(16e)=64>e_f.$$

It contradicts (1.1).

So $`m=5`$. By (2.1) and (2.2), we have $`C^25`$, $`K_SC3`$. From (3.2), we get $`K_SC2`$. Since $`K_S^21`$, by Hodge index theorem, $`K_S^2C^2(K_SC)^2`$, we have $`K_SC=3`$ and $`K_S^2=1`$. So $`K_X^2=4`$, $`p_g2`$ and $`q=0`$. By (2.1) and (2.2), we obtain $`n_1=\mathrm{}=n_5=1`$ and $`C^2=5`$. Generic $`C`$ in the pencil is smooth. Let $`e=6`$. Then (B) gives us that $`r_f\frac{1}{3}e(4e+48)=48`$.

Now we prove that $`p_g=2`$. Otherwise $`p_g1`$, by (3.4), $`e_f12(1+1)(4)+16=44<r_f`$, a contradiction. Then we have

$$K_S^2=1,p_g=2,q=0,m=5.$$

So $`e_f=_q(\mu _q+1)=56`$, $`r_f=_q\frac{1}{\mu _q+1}48`$.

Let $`m_i=\mathrm{\#}\{q|\mu _q=i\}.`$ Then

$`e_f`$ $`=m_0+2m_1+3m_2+\mathrm{}=56,`$
$`r_f`$ $`=m_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}m_2+\mathrm{}48.`$
We see that $`e_fm_04(r_fm_0)`$, hence $`m_046`$. If $`m_0=46`$, one can prove that $`m_1=5`$ and $`m_i=0`$ for $`i>1`$. So there are at least 46 points $`q`$ such that $`\mu _q=0`$, and there are at most $`(5646)/2=5`$ points $`q`$ with $`\mu _q0`$. By (1.4) we get

$$\mathrm{}^{}+\frac{r}{2}8.$$

It implies that $`r5`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{}7`$. ∎

## 4 Two examples

Note that for any two points $`p_1,p_2`$ on $`^1=\{\mathrm{}\}`$, there exists a cyclic cover $`\phi _{p_1,p_2}:^1^1`$ ramified exactly over $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. For example, $`\tau _n:^1^1`$ defined by $`xx^n`$ is totally ramified over $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Now we are going to construct some covers of $`^1`$.

Let $`\pi :^1^1`$ be the double cover ramified over $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, and let $`\psi _e:^1^1`$ be the cyclic cover of degree $`e`$ totally ramified over the two points $`\pi ^1(0)`$. Then the composition

$$\phi _{2e}:^1\stackrel{\psi _e}{}^1\stackrel{𝜋}{}^1$$

is a covering of degree $`2e`$ ramified uniformly over $`0,1,\mathrm{}`$. The map $`\phi _{2e}`$ is the quotient map of $`^1`$ for the standard action of the diedral group of order $`2e`$ on $`^1`$. The cover has two ramification points over $`0`$ with ramification index $`e`$, and $`e`$ ramification points over $`1`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{}`$) with index 2. Now we consider the fiber product of $`\tau _n:^1^1`$ and $`\phi _{2e}:^1^1`$, we get a curve

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{(x,y)^1\times ^1|\tau _n(x)=\phi _{2e}(y)\}.$$

This curve is of type $`(2e,n)`$. The first projection $`p_1:\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$ can be viewed as the pullback of $`\phi _{2e}`$ under the base change $`\tau _n`$. So the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of critical points of $`p_1`$ is $`\tau _n^1\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains $`n+2`$ points. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is locally defined by $`\phi _{2e}(y)=\tau _n(x)`$. Thus we can see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ admits two singular points defined by $`y^e=x^n`$ over $`\tau _n^1(0)`$ and $`e`$ singular points of type $`y^2=x^n`$ over $`\tau _n^1(\mathrm{})`$. $`p_1`$ has $`e`$ simple ramification points over each point of $`\tau _n^1(1)`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }& & ^1\times ^1& \stackrel{\text{pr}_2}{}& ^1\\ p_1& & \text{pr}_1& & 2e:1\phi _{2e}& & \\ & & ^1& \underset{\tau _n}{\overset{n:1}{}}& ^1\end{array}$$

Let $`e=n=4`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of type $`(8,4)`$. Let $`X`$ be the minimal resolution of the double cover $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\times ^1`$ ramified over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`X`$ can be obtained by the canonical resolution $`\sigma :Y^1\times ^1`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the blowing-up of $`^1\times ^1`$ at the two singular points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $`\tau _n^1(0)`$. Denote by $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ the two exceptional curves, and by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ the strict transform of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`Y`$. Then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\sigma ((8,4))4E_14E_2=2\overline{\delta }`$, where $`\overline{\delta }=\sigma ^{}((4,2))2E_12E_2`$. Let $`\overline{\pi }:\overline{X}Y`$ be the double cover ramified over $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Note that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ admits only ADE singularities, so $`\overline{X}`$ admits at most rational double points, and $`X`$ is the minimal resolution of $`\overline{X}`$. Now by the formulas (, p.183), we have

$$K_{\overline{X}}=\overline{\pi }^{}(K_Y+\overline{\delta })=\overline{\pi }^{}(\sigma ^{}(2,0)E_1E_2).$$

Denote by $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ the two horizontal sections of $`\text{pr}_1:^1\times ^1^1`$ passing through the two points blown up by $`\sigma `$, and by $`\overline{C}_i`$ their strict transforms on $`Y`$. Since $`\overline{C}_1`$ and $`\overline{C}_2`$ are disjoint with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, it is easy to see that their pullback on $`\overline{X}`$ are 4 $`(1)`$-curves. Note that

$$\overline{C}_1+\overline{C}_2=\sigma ^{}(2,0)E_1E_2,$$

so $`K_{\overline{X}}=\overline{\pi }^{}(\overline{C}_1+\overline{C}_2)`$ is the sum of the 4 $`(1)`$-curves. Let $`S`$ be the surfaces obtained by contracting the 4 horizontal $`(1)`$-curves. Then we see that $`K_S0`$. By easy computation, we have

$`\chi (𝒪_S)`$ $`=\chi (𝒪_{\overline{X}})`$
$`=2\chi (𝒪_Y)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\delta }^2+K_Y\overline{\delta })`$
$`=2+0=2.`$
So $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface. The first projection of $`^1\times ^1`$ induces a semistable fibration $`f:X^1`$ of genus $`3`$ with $`n+2=6`$ singular fibers. Because $`K_X^2=4`$, $`K_f^2=12=6g6`$.

Similarly, let $`e=n=5`$, and let $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the vertical fiber of $`^1\times ^1`$ passing through the two singular points of type $`x^5=y^5`$. Then consider the double cover of $`^1\times ^1`$ ramified over $`F_{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The canonical resolution is similar to the above case. We have $`\overline{\delta }\sigma ^{}((5,3))3E_13E_2`$ and

$`K_Y+\overline{\delta }`$ $`=\sigma ^{}((3,1))2E_12E_2`$
$`=\sigma ^{}((1,1))E_1E_1+\overline{C}_1+\overline{C}_2`$
$`=\sigma ^{}((1,0))+\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}+\overline{C}_1+\overline{C}_2,`$
where $`\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}\sigma ^{}((0,1))E_1E_2`$ is the strict transform of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`Y`$. The pullback of $`\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}+\overline{C}_1+\overline{C}_2`$ on $`\overline{X}`$ consists 5 $`(1)`$-curves, the one from $`\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a vertical $`(1)`$-curve. After blowing-down this vertical $`(1)`$-curve, we get a relatively minimal semistable fibration $`f:X^1`$ of genus $`g=4`$ with $`n+2=7`$ singular fibers. We see easily that $`|K_S|`$ is a genus $`2`$ pencil with one simple base point. The pencil is in fact induced by pr<sub>2</sub>. So $`X`$ is of general type. By easy computation, we have $`\chi (𝒪_S)=3`$, hence

$$K_S^2=1,p_g(S)=2,q(S)=0.$$

In this case, $`K_X^2=3`$ and $`K_f^2=6g3`$.

Acknowlegment. The first author would like to thank Prof. H. Esnault and Prof. E. Viehweg for their hospitality and useful discussions with Viehweg while he is visiting Universtät Essen. The third author would like to thank Prof. A. Beauville for useful comments. We all thank the referee for pointing out a mistake and providing us many valuable suggestions in rewriting the manuscript which make the paper readable.


text:
# Current noise of a single-electron transistor coupled to a nanomechanical resonator

## I Introduction

Nanoelectromechanical systems in which a nanomechanical resonator is coupled to a mesoscopic conductor, such as a single-electron transistor (SET), form a new class of mesoscopic system in which there is a fascinating interplay between the electrical and mechanical degrees of freedom. Coupling to nanomechanical degrees of freedom can modify the transport properties of mesoscopic conductors substantially, giving rise to a number of novel phenomena such as electron shuttlingshut ; qs  and phonon blockade effects.pb1 ; pb2  Furthermore, nanoelectromechanical systems have important potential applications as ultra-sensitive force detectors.elect

A nanomechanical resonator coated with a thin metal layer can be coupled to a SET as a mechanically compliant voltage-gate.set ; set2  Under such circumstances the tunnelling rates of electrons through the SET island, and hence the current flowing, depend sensitively on the position of the resonator.set ; set2 ; white ; bw  It has been suggested that the SET could act as a quantum-limited displacement detector for micron-sized resonatorsZB ; set ; set2  thus making it potentially very important both for read-out of the resonator’s motion in force sensing applicationsbo  and for exploring quantum effects in electromechanical systems.ABS ; mpb  However, fluctuations in the charge on the SET island exert a stochastic force back on the resonator, affecting its motion, and hence also the average current through the SET.ZB ; ABZ  Furthermore, the coupling between the resonator and the SET also has an important influence on the SET current noise.

The effect on the dynamics of a nanomechanical resonator of coupling to a mesoscopic conductor has been investigated by a number of authors.noise ; noise2 ; noise3 ; ABZ ; hopkins ; shut ; qs  For systems where the nanomechanical resonator forms a compliant voltage gate adjacent to either a SETnoise3 ; ABZ  or a quantum point contact,noise  it has been found that the interaction with the electrons drives the resonator into a steady-state very similar to a thermal state, with an effective temperature and damping constant. In particular, when the resonator is treated as a quantum system it is found that whenever the energy associated with the bias voltage applied across the conductor is much greater than the energy quanta of the resonator, the electrons rapidly dephase the resonator and heat it to an effective temperature proportional to the bias voltage.noise ; noise2 ; noise3  An analysis of the dynamics of a resonator coupled to a SET where the resonator is treated as a classical system leads to very similar conclusions in the regime where the applied bias voltage is relatively large and the charge dynamics of the SET is adequately described by the orthodox model.ABZ

Although the dynamics of a nanomechanical resonator coupled to a mesoscopic conductor has been investigated for a number of different systems and regimes, there has been little systematic study of the concomitant current-noise spectrum of the mesoscopic conductor. Knowledge of the current-noise spectrum in nanoelectromechanical systems is of interest both because it sets limits on the sensitivity with which the current can be used as measure of the motion of the resonator and, more generally, because it has long been recognized that the current noise of mesoscopic conductors provides important additional information, beyond that available from simple average-current properties, about the interactions which the conduction electrons undergo.bandb  In this paper the current noise of a SET coupled to a nanomechanical resonator is calculated in the classical regime using an extension of the master equation approach developed in Ref. ABZ, . It is found that the current noise spectrum of the SET-resonator system can be very different from that of the uncoupled SET. In particular, the interactions between the resonator and the transport electrons can strongly enhance the SET current noise at low frequencies and give rise to additional peaks in the noise spectrum at the resonator frequency and at twice that value.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II the dynamical model of the coupled resonator-SET system that forms the basis of the following calculations is introduced. Then in Sec. III, the relationship between the overall current noise spectrum of the SET and the spectrum of the charge noise on the island and the noise spectra of the tunnel currents between the island and the leads is described. In Secs. IV and V the noise spectra of the tunnel currents through the SET junctions and the charge noise on the SET island are obtained, respectively. The full current noise spectrum of the coupled SET-resonator system is obtained in Sec. VI. Finally, Sec. VII contains the conclusions.

## II Model of the coupled SET-resonator system

A schematic diagram of the SET-resonator system is shown in Fig. 1. For simplicity, we have assumed a symmetric arrangement of capacitances and voltages. The SET island is connected to current leads by tunnel junctions with capacitance $`C_j`$ and resistance $`R`$. The total voltage applied across the SET island is $`V_{\mathrm{ds}}`$. The nanomechanical resonator forms the gate capacitor, with a capacitance $`C_g(x)`$, and a voltage $`V_g`$ applied to it. The gate capacitance depends on the displacement of the resonator, $`x`$, about its equilibrium separation from the SET island, $`d`$. The resonator is displaced from its equilibrium position by fluctuations in the SET charge and by thermal fluctuations of the resonator itself, but for realistic systemsset ; set2 ; ABZ  the resulting motion is on a scale much less than the equilibrium separation (i.e. $`xd`$), hence an expansion of the capacitance to linear order is sufficient and we may write $`C_g(x)=C_g(1x/d)`$, where $`C_g`$ is a constant.bw ; ZB ; ABZ  The gate capacitance is also assumed to be much less than that of the junction capacitances, $`C_gC_j`$, which reflects the situation in typical devices.

Under a relatively wide range of conditions, the coupled dynamics of a nanomechanical resonator and a SET can be described using a master equation formalism.ABZ  Within this formalism, the SET is assumed to be within the regime where the orthodox model is valid and the resonator is treated as a classical harmonic oscillator, with angular frequency $`\omega _0`$, and effective mass $`m`$. The effects of damping processes on the resonator, beyond those due to interactions with the SET, can be taken into account by including an extrinsic damping rate, $`\gamma _e`$. The orthodox model describes electron transport through the SET away from the Coulomb blockade regions so that processes other than sequential tunnelling of electrons may be neglected.FG  The nanomechanical resonator is expected to behave classically whenever the bias voltage applied to the SET is much greater than the energy quanta of the resonator, i.e. $`eV_{\mathrm{ds}}\mathrm{}\omega _0`$.noise  Complete details of the derivation, justification and analysis of this classical model for the coupled SET-resonator system are given in Ref. ABZ, .

When the background temperature of the SET-resonator system, $`T_e`$, is much less than the charging energy of the SET island, $`e^2/2C_jk_\mathrm{B}T_e`$, and the bias voltage is not too large, the charge state of the SET island can be assumed to be limited to two possible values, $`N`$ and $`N+1`$ excess electrons, and a pair of coupled master equations can be derived for the SET-resonator system. The bias voltage is also assumed to be much greater than the background temperature, $`eV_{\mathrm{ds}}k_\mathrm{B}T_e`$, and so the effects of thermal fluctuations on the electron tunnel rates are neglected.FG ; ABZ  Writing $`P_{N(N+1)}(x,u;t)`$ as the probability of having $`N(N+1)`$ electrons on the SET island and finding the resonator at position $`x`$ and with velocity $`u`$, the master equations for the evolution of the probability distributions take the formABZ

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_N}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2x{\displaystyle \frac{P_N}{u}}u{\displaystyle \frac{P_N}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left(\gamma _euP_N+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_N}{u}}\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_LP_{N+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_RP_N{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xP\right)`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2(xx_0){\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}}{u}}u{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left(\gamma _euP_{N+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}}{u}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_LP_{N+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_RP_N{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xP\right),`$ (2)
where $`P(x,u;t)=P_N(x,u;t)+P_{N+1}(x,u;t)`$, $`G=2mk_\mathrm{B}T_e\gamma _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L(R)}`$ is the position-independent part of the tunnel rate through the $`L(R)`$ junction. The length-scale $`x_0`$ has a simple interpretation: it is the amount by which the equilibrium separation between the SET and the resonator changes when the charge on the SET island changes from $`N`$ to $`N+1`$.

The master equations \[Eqs. (1) and (2)\] assume that the bias voltage applied across the system is the dominant energy-scale and the probability distributions for the resonator are strongly peaked at $`xx_0`$. Under such circumstances, which are readily met in practicable resonator-SET systems,ABZ  tunnelling processes that go against the direction imposed by the bias voltage may be neglected. The resulting master equations can be used to extract equations of motion for the average properties of the resonator and SET, and to characterize the steady-state of the system. Furthermore, the master equations provide the necessary information about the coupled dynamics of the SET-resonator system to allow the derivation of the SET current noise spectrum.

Analysis of the coupled master equationsABZ  shows that the SET electrons act on the resonator like another thermal bath (in addition to the substrate to which the resonator is attached) which can be characterized by an intrinsic temperature, $`T_i`$, proportional to $`V_{\mathrm{ds}}`$, and an intrinsic damping constant, $`\gamma _i`$. The overall effective temperature of the resonator is then determined by an average of the temperatures of the two baths at temperatures $`T_i`$ and $`T_e`$, with weights that depend on the respective damping constants $`\gamma _i`$ and $`\gamma _e`$.ABZ

The strength of the interaction between the resonator and the SET is conveniently described by the dimensionless parameter $`\kappa =m\omega _0^2x_0^2/(eV_{\mathrm{ds}})`$ and the frequency by $`ϵ=\omega _0\tau _t`$, where $`\tau _t=Re/V_{\mathrm{ds}}`$ is the electron tunnelling time. In terms of these dimensionless parameters, the intrinsic damping rate of the resonator due to interactions with the electrons is ABZ  $`\gamma _i=\kappa ϵ^2/\tau _t.`$ The interaction of the resonator with the electrons also leads to a slight renormalization of resonator frequency, $`ϵ^{}=ϵ(1\kappa )^{1/2}`$. Finally, the external temperature is conveniently expressed in terms of the drain-source voltage as the dimensionless parameter, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=k_\mathrm{B}T_e/eV_{\mathrm{ds}}`$.

## III SET current noise

The noise in the current through a SET is generated by the fluctuations in the time dependent current flowing through the system. Since the SET contains more than one tunnel junction, the time-dependent current which flows is not simply the tunnel current across either one of the junctions.reallyuseful ; bandb ; korot ; sun  When an electron tunnels through either junction, charge also flows in the external circuit connected to the SET island (so that the charge stored in each capacitor returns to its equilibrium value) and hence also contributes to the current. The current flowing through the SET can be measured in either the left or right-hand lead and the average current flowing through the leads must necessarily be the same.

The time dependent current through the gated SET is, in principle, slightly different in the left and right-hand leads, even for the symmetrical case we consider here where the tunnel-junction capacitances, $`C_j`$, are the same.reallyuseful  The time dependent current through the left-hand lead can be writtenreallyuseful ; bandb

$$I^{(L)}(t)=a^{(L)}\dot{Q}_L(t)+b^{(L)}\dot{Q}_R(t),$$
(3)
whilst the time dependent current through the right-hand lead is given byreallyuseful

$$I^{(R)}(t)=a^{(R)}\dot{Q}_L(t)+b^{(R)}\dot{Q}_R(t),$$
(4)
where $`\dot{Q}_{L(R)}`$ are the tunnel currents through the $`L(R)`$ junctions respectively, andreallyuseful

$`a^{(L)}=b^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_j+C_g(x)}{2C_j+C_g(x)}}`$ (5)
$`b^{(L)}=a^{(R)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_j}{2C_j+C_g(x)}}.`$ (6)
Notice, however, that the two coefficients $`a^{(i)}`$ and $`b^{(i)}`$, $`i=L,R`$, add up to unity, whichever lead we consider. Because of the dependence of these coefficients on the gate capacitance, $`C_g(x)`$, there will necessarily be a weak dependence of the coefficients on the position of the resonator. However, even the leading order position dependent term in the coefficients will be smaller by a factor $`C_g/C_j`$ than those arising within the expressions for the time dependent currents. Since we are treating the case where $`C_g/C_j1`$, the corrections generated by the position dependence of $`a^{(i)}`$ and $`b^{(i)}`$, $`i=L,R`$, will be neglected here.neglect  In fact, it turns out that the noise spectrum is relatively insensitive to the exact values of the coefficients, and hence which lead the current is measured in. Therefore, for simplicity, we will not distinguish between the two leads in what follows and set $`a^{(L)}=a^{(R)}=a`$, and $`b^{(L)}=b^{(R)}=b`$.

The current fluctuations in the SET are constrained by the conservation of charge. Charge conservation implies that the charge that has tunnelled through the left-hand junction in time $`t`$, $`Q_L(t)`$, and the charge that has tunnelled through the right junction in the same period, $`Q_R(t)`$ must be connected by the relation

$$Q_L(t)Q_R(t)=Q_D(t)$$
(7)
where $`Q_D(t)`$ is the charge dwelling on the island between the two barriers at time $`t`$. Furthermore, since the average tunnel currents through the left- and right-hand junctions are the same, they are both also equal to the average current through the SET,ABZ

$$I=\dot{Q}_L=\dot{Q}_R,$$
(8)
and hence we also have, $`\dot{Q}_D=0`$.

The spectrum of current noise in the SET is given by the Fourier transform of the current-current correlation function,korot

$$S_{II}(\omega )=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau K_{II}(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau ),$$
(9)
where

$$K_{II}(\tau )=I(t+\tau )I(t)I(t)^2.$$
(10)
The current-current correlation function, $`K_{II}(\tau )`$, is taken to be independent of $`t`$.

The noise in the total current is a combination of the noise in the tunnel currents through the left and right-hand junctions, $`S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )`$ and $`S_{I_RI_R}(\omega )`$ respectively, and the charge noise of the SET island $`S_Q(\omega )`$. Using the expression for the full current in terms of tunnel currents through the two junctions and the charge conservation relation, we can write the current noise spectrum as a sum of the three terms:brandes

$$S_{II}(\omega )=aS_{I_LI_L}(\omega )+bS_{I_RI_R}(\omega )ab\omega ^2S_Q(\omega ),$$
(11)
where

$`S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\left[\dot{Q}_L(t+\tau )\dot{Q}_L(t)\dot{Q}_L(t)^2\right]`$ (12)
$`S_{I_RI_R}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\left[\dot{Q}_R(t+\tau )\dot{Q}_R(t)\dot{Q}_R(t)^2\right]`$ (13)
$`\omega ^2S_Q(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\dot{Q}_D(t+\tau )\dot{Q}_D(t).`$ (14)
In the last equation, the SET island charge noise, $`S_Q(\omega )`$, is identified with the noise in $`\dot{Q}_D(t)`$ (this connection will be derived in Sec. V). Notice that the charge noise acts to reduce the full noise spectrum, compared to the individual tunnel current noise spectra, reflecting the well-known fact that current noise is suppressed in double barrier structures.bandb

The zero-frequency noise of the tunnel currents through the two junctions are equal, because of charge conservation, and hence $`S_{II}(0)=S_{I_LI_L}(0)=S_{I_RI_R}(0)`$. However, in order to obtain the full current noise at finite frequency we must calculate each of its three components. The noise in the tunnel currents $`S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )`$ and $`S_{I_RI_R}(\omega )`$ are obtained first, using an equation of motion method, then the charge noise, $`S_Q(\omega )`$ is calculated using a similar approach. The three elements of the current noise are then combined to obtain the full spectrum.

## IV Tunnel current noise spectra

The noise in the tunnel current across the SET junctions can be calculated using an approach due to MacDonaldmac ; macp  which relies on the fact that the number of charges that have passed across the junction as a function of time can be counted. For the SET-resonator system, the description in terms of a probability distribution is easily extended to record the number of electrons passing across one or other of the tunnel barriers linking the SET island to the leads.

Starting with the left-hand junction, we follow MacDonaldmac ; macp  in introducing the statistically stationary variable,

$$\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_L=\dot{Q}_L\dot{Q}_L$$
(15)
and write,

$$S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )=2\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_L^2(\tau )}{\tau }\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau $$
(16)
where,

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_L^2(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _t^{t+\tau }}\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_L(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right]^2`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _t^{t+\tau }}\dot{Q}_L(t^{})𝑑t^{}\dot{Q}_L\tau \right]^2`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`e^2n^2(\tau )I_0^2\tau ^2`$ (19)
with $`n(\tau )`$ the number of electrons which passed across the left-hand junction in time $`\tau `$ and $`I_0=I=\dot{Q}_L`$, the average current. The MacDonald approach has been used to calculate the current-noise in a number of mesoscopic systemsmac1 ; mac2  and the subtleties of the method are described particularly carefully by Ruskov and Korotkov.mac2

The probability distributions for the SET-resonator system are readily generalized to include the number of electrons that have passed through either one of the junctions. In order to calculate the noise in the current through the left-hand junction, we define $`P_{N(N+1)}^n(x,u;t)`$ as the probability that, after time $`t`$, $`n`$ electrons have passed across the left-hand junction, there are $`N(N+1)`$ electrons on the SET island and the resonator is at position $`x`$ with velocity $`u`$. The master equations \[Eqs. (1) and (2)\] now take the modified form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_N^n}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2x{\displaystyle \frac{P_N^n}{u}}u{\displaystyle \frac{P_N^n}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left(\gamma _euP_N^n+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_N^n}{u}}\right)+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_LP_{N+1}^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_RP_N^n{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x[P_{N+1}^{n1}+P_N^n]\right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}^n}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2(xx_0){\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}^n}{u}}u{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}^n}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left(\gamma _euP_{N+1}^n+{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{N+1}^n}{u}}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_LP_{N+1}^n\mathrm{\Gamma }_RP_N^n{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xP^n\right),`$ (21)
where $`P^n(x,u;t)=P_N^n(x,u;t)+P_{N+1}^n(x,u;t)`$. Notice that only the terms which describe the transition from charge state $`N+1`$ to $`N`$ with an electron tunnelling out through the left junction couple to a change in $`n`$.

The rate of change of the average of the squared number of charges passing through the left-hand junction in time $`\tau `$ is given bymac2

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn^2(\tau )}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑u\left[\dot{P}_{N+1}^n(x,u;\tau )+\dot{P}_N^n(x,u;\tau )\right]}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ln_{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xn_{N+1}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{e}},`$ (23)
where we have re-ordered the sum over $`n`$ in the first term, and substituted from Eqs. (20) and (21). The averages $`\mathrm{}_{N+1}`$, are with respect to the sub-ensemble of systems with $`N+1`$ charges on the SET island, i.e.

$$\mathrm{}_{N+1}=\underset{n}{}𝑑x𝑑u(\mathrm{})P_{N+1}^n(x,u;\tau ).$$

The initial conditions for the distributions, $`P_{N(N+1)}^n(x,u;\tau =0)`$, are given by the corresponding steady-state distributions for the SET-resonator system,ABZ  $`P_{N(N+1)}^{(s)}(x,u)`$,

$$P_{N(N+1)}^n(x,u;\tau =0)=\delta _{n,0}P_{N(N+1)}^{(s)}(x,u),$$

and hence we have

$$\underset{n}{}P_{N(N+1)}^n(x,u;\tau )=P_{N(N+1)}^{(s)}(x,u),$$

for all $`\tau `$.

The overall expression for the noise in the current through the left-hand junction is given by

$$S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )=2\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}\left\{2\left[e^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ln_{N+1}\frac{\kappa }{\tau _t}\frac{xn_{N+1}}{x_0}\right)I_0^2\tau \right]+eI_0\right\}\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau .$$
(24)
The quantities $`n(\tau )_{N+1}`$ and $`xn(\tau )_{N+1}`$ can be obtained by deriving their equations of motion and those of the other average quantities they couple to. The equations of motion for moments of the form $`x^pu^qn`$ and $`x^pu^qn_{N+1}`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}x^pu^qn`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑ux^pu^qn\left[\dot{P}_{N+1}^n(x,u;\tau )+\dot{P}_N^n(x,u;\tau )\right]},`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}x^pu^qn_{N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑ux^pu^qn\dot{P}_{N+1}^n(x,u;\tau )}`$ (26)
respectively. Substituting for $`\dot{P}_{N+1(N)}^n(x,u;\tau )`$ from the appropriate master equation \[Eqns. (20) and (21)\], we can derive the closed set of equations,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}n_{N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_0}{e}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_R\tau (\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)n_{N+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xn`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}xn`$ $`=`$ $`un+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lx_{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x^2_{N+1}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}un`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2[xnx_0n_{N+1}]{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}ux_{N+1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lu_{N+1}\gamma _eun`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}xn_{N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`un_{N+1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Rxn(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)xn_{N+1}+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x^2n`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}un_{N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2\left[xn_{N+1}x_0n_{N+1}\right]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Run+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}xun(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)un_{N+1}\gamma _eun_{N+1}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}x^2n`$ $`=`$ $`2xun+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lx^2_{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x^3_{N+1}`$ (32)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}u^2n`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega _0^2[xunx_0un_{N+1}]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lu^2_{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}u^2x_{N+1}2\gamma _eu^2n+{\displaystyle \frac{I_0G}{em^2}}\tau `$ (33)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}xun`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2[x^2nx_0nx_{N+1}]+u^2n+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lxu_{N+1}{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x^2u_{N+1}\gamma _exun.`$ (34)
The averages which do not involve $`n`$ are constants (i.e. independent of $`\tau `$) and are evaluated for the steady-state distributions, $`P_{N(N+1)}^{(s)}(x,u)`$.mac2  The details of the evaluation of these averages are given in Appendix A.

The set of coupled differential equations \[Eqs. (27-34)\] is readily integrated numerically to give $`n_{N+1}`$ and $`xn_{N+1}`$, from which the left-hand junction current noise spectrum can be obtained. Since we are interested in the number of electrons passing through the left-hand junction in a time $`\tau `$, all quantities involving $`n`$ will clearly be set to zero at $`\tau =0`$.mac2

Integrating the equations of motion for $`n_{N+1}`$ and $`xn_{N+1}`$ and performing the Fourier integral numericallynr  (incorporating an appropriate long-time cut-off), we can obtain the current-noise spectrum, $`S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )`$ for various choices of the system parameters. The current noise with the coupling to the resonator set to zero, $`S_{I_LI_L}^0(\omega )`$, can also be calculated analytically for comparison,korot

$`S_{I_LI_L}^0(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega I_0{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )\left[e+{\displaystyle \frac{2I_0}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)\tau }1\right)\right]`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`2eI_0{\displaystyle \frac{4I_0^2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)}{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)^2+\omega ^2}}.`$ (36)
Initially, we consider the simplest case, where there is no external damping and the resonator substrate is at zero temperature (i.e. $`\gamma _e\tau _t=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$), and examine the dependence of the tunnel current noise spectrum on the resonator frequency and the strength of the coupling to the SET. Figure 2 shows $`S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )`$ for several choices of the dimensionless coupling and frequency parameters, $`\kappa `$ and $`ϵ`$.pchoice  For ease of comparison, the frequency axis is scaled by the renormalized resonator frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega \tau _t/ϵ^{}`$. The spectra are dominated by sharp, asymmetric, peaks arising at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, the renormalized resonator frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and at twice that frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$. None of these three features appear in the current noise spectrum for a SET without a resonator. At high frequencies, beyond the range shown in Fig. 2, all of the spectra reduce to the usual single-junction value $`2eI_0`$.

The effect of the resonator on the noise spectrum depends on both the strength of the coupling between the resonator position and the SET junction tunnel rates, measured by $`\kappa `$, as well as the underlying dynamics of the resonator, which in the absence of extrinsic temperature or damping, is conveniently parameterized by $`\gamma _i\tau _t=\kappa ϵ^2`$. The coupling strength, $`\kappa `$, plays a dual role as it controls both the amount by which the resonator motion alters the electron tunnel rates, and the resonator dynamics through the intrinsic damping $`\gamma _i`$. Fig. 2 shows that the heights of the peaks depend sensitively on both $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma _i`$. The peak heights increase with an increase in $`\kappa `$, at fixed $`\gamma _i`$, whilst an increase in $`\gamma _i`$ at fixed $`\kappa `$ (i.e. an increase in $`ϵ`$) reduces the heights of the peaks. Notice, however, that the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ and 2 reduce more strongly as $`\gamma _i`$ increases than the one at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$.

We can understand the origin of the features in the current noise spectrum by splitting it into its two constituent parts: that arising from $`n_{N+1}`$ and that from $`xn_{N+1}`$. Figure 3 shows a noise spectrum for a particular choice of parameters ($`\kappa =0.1,ϵ=0.3`$), and the two functions $`F(\omega )`$ and $`G(\omega )`$, which add to give the noise spectrum

$$\frac{S_{I_LI_L}(\omega )}{2eI_0}=F(\omega )+G(\omega ).$$
(37)
The functions $`F(\omega )`$ and $`G(\omega )`$ are essentially the Fourier integrals of $`xn_{N+1}`$ and $`n_{N+1}`$, respectively, with the appropriate linear and constant terms subtracted off in each case. Written out explicitly, they have the form

$`F(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{I_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2}}I_0{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\tau _t}}\left(e{\displaystyle \frac{xn_{N+1}}{x_0}}\alpha \tau \right)\right]\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )`$ (38)
$`G(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\omega }{I_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{(1\kappa )}{2}}I_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\left(en_{N+1}\alpha \tau \right)\right]\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau ),`$ (39)
with

$$\alpha =\frac{I_0^2}{e\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\kappa /\tau _t\right)}.$$
(40)
The function $`G(\omega )`$, which contains the $`n_{N+1}`$ term, has a single feature, at the renormalized resonator frequency. In contrast, the function $`F(\omega )`$, which contains the $`xn_{N+1}`$ term, has three features: one at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, one at the renormalized frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, and one at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$. We can understand these features in terms of non-trivial correlations between the variables $`x`$ and $`n`$. From the spectrum $`G(\omega )`$, we see that the $`n`$ term has a component oscillating at frequency $`ϵ^{}`$ and since $`x`$ will also oscillate at the same frequency, it is not surprising that the combination of the two dynamical variables in the term $`xn_{N+1}`$ gives rise to a component oscillating at $`2ϵ^{}`$ as well as at $`ϵ^{}`$. The explicit dependence on $`x`$ in $`xn_{N+1}`$ also makes the features in $`F(\omega )`$ more sensitive to the magnitude of $`\gamma _i`$ than those in $`G(\omega )`$. Hence in the full spectrum the peaks that are due to $`xn_{N+1}`$ alone (at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0,2`$) reduce more rapidly with increasing $`\gamma _i`$ than the one with contributions from $`xn_{N+1}`$ and $`n_{N+1}`$ (at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$).

The enhancement of the low frequency noise is to be expected because of the effective correlations between successive electrons induced by the interactions with the resonator. It is known from other contextsloss  that zero-frequency noise can be increased when an electron tunnelling event is able to change the internal state of a mesoscopic system (such as a quantum dot). In this case, an electron passing through the SET alters the state of the resonator, which in turn alters the tunnelling rates for subsequent electrons. However, any excitation of the resonator is damped out over time and hence the zero-frequency peak in the spectrum follows a very similar pattern to the other peaks: it increases with the coupling strength, $`\kappa `$, but reduces with increasing damping, $`\gamma _i`$.

It is the approximation of the gate capacitance by the linear form, $`C_g(x)C_g(1x/d)`$, which means that there are no further peaks in the current noise beyond that at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$. If higher order terms had been included in the expression for the gate capacitance then they would have lead to higher order terms in the position dependence of the tunnel rates, which we would expect to generate peaks at higher multiples of the resonator frequency. However, within the regime we consider here, where $`x/d1`$, the additional peaks at higher frequency would be much smaller than those at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`2`$.

The effects of extrinsic damping and finite background temperature on the tunnel current noise spectrum are illustrated in Fig. 4, with the appropriate noise spectrum for the uncoupled system shown for comparison. It is clear that a non-zero value of $`\gamma _e`$ rounds down each of the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0,1`$ and 2. Furthermore, the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`2`$ are also shifted to slightly lower frequencies, reflecting the fact that the extrinsic damping causes an extra reduction in the resonator frequency (beyond that due to the interaction with the electrons). The influence of extrinsic damping gradually fades at higher frequencies where the spectrum is hardly affected by the resonator anyway. A non-zero background temperature counteracts the damping, increasing the height and broadening the peaks.

The comparison with the uncoupled case in Fig. 4, also reveals a small suppression of the noise just after the peak at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, and a similar feature after the peak at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$. We can understand the presence of this suppression in a loose way by considering the actual motion of the resonator as a competition between two components. Firstly, we can consider a resonator coupled to a thermal bath, in this case the mechanical motion would fluctuate strongly leading to an enhancement of the noise at the mechanical frequency.hopkins  Of course these thermal-like fluctuations arise already from the interaction between the resonator and the electrons,ABZ  and are increased by the presence of an extrinsic bath. However, it seems likely that the interaction between the electrons and the resonator must also induce some coordination between the electronic and mechanical motion which would tend to make the current flow more regular and hence suppress the noise, at least at the resonator frequency. As we would expect from this simple picture, Fig. 4b shows that increasing the background temperature rapidly washes out the regions of noise suppression.

The noise in the current through the right-hand junction can be obtained in exactly the same manner as that through the left-hand junction. Using MacDonald’s formula, we have

$$S_{I_RI_R}(\omega )=2\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}\left\{2\left[e^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Rn_N+\frac{\kappa }{\tau _t}\frac{xn_N}{x_0}\right)I_0^2\tau \right]+eI_0\right\}\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau ,$$
(41)
where in this case $`n(\tau )`$ is the number of electrons to pass through the right-hand junction in time $`\tau `$.

The master equations \[Eqs. (1) and (2)\] are also readily modified to include the number of electrons tunnelling (from right to left) across the right-hand junction. A closed set of equations of motion that allow $`n_N`$ and $`xn_N`$ to be determined by numerical integration are obtained following the same procedure as that used for the left-hand junction.

Carrying out the numerical integration and then the Fourier integral, as before, we can compare the resulting noise spectrum through the right-hand junction with that through the left-hand junction. As would be expected for the very symmetrical SET layout we consider here, the current noise spectra of the two junctions are very similar, but away from $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ they are not identical. In fact, the magnitudes of the peaks in the left and right-hand tunnel noise spectra at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1,2`$ differ by up to a few percent for the parameters used here. The differences in the two spectra arise because the resonator breaks the overall symmetry of the circuit.

## V Charge noise on the SET island

Apart from the contributions due to the tunnel currents across the two SET junctions, the full current-noise spectrum also contains a contribution arising from fluctuations in the charge stored on the SET island,

$$\omega ^2S_Q(\omega )=2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\dot{Q}_D(t+\tau )\dot{Q}_D(t).$$
(42)
The average charge on the SET island is a constant (i.e. $`\dot{Q}_D=0`$), thus we can use MacDonald’s formula to show explicitly that this term is indeed the charge noise spectrum,

$`S_Q(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\omega ^1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_D(\tau )^2}{\tau }}\mathrm{sin}(\omega \tau )𝑑\tau `$ (43)
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \mathrm{cos}(\omega \tau )\left[Q_D(t+\tau )Q_D(t)Q_D^2\right],`$ (44)
where an integration by parts has been performed.

Within our model of the SET, the excess charge can only be either zero or one electron, hence $`Q_D^2=eQ_D`$. Since $`Q_D(t)`$ is simply the average occupancy of the SET island multiplied by the electronic charge, $`e`$, we can use the master equations to write down a closed set of coupled equations that link the average excess charge, position, $`x`$, and velocity, $`u`$, of the resonator,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}Q_D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }_R{\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{ds}}}{eR}}Q_D(t){\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{eR}}x(t)`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}x(t)`$ $`=`$ $`u(t)`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}u(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2x(t){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2x_0}{e}}Q_D(t)\gamma _eu(t).`$ (47)
Note that these equations are equivalent to the mean-coordinate equations derived in Ref. ABZ, .

Since the equations of motion for the probability distribution are Markovian, the equations of motion for two-time correlation functions of the charge can be obtained from the equations for the average quantities \[Eqs. (45-47)\] using the regression theorem.Gardiner  Thus we obtain,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}Q_D(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{\Gamma }_RQ_D(t){\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{ds}}}{eR}}Q_D(t+\tau )Q_D(t){\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{eR}}x(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}x(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`u(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\tau }}u(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0^2x(t+\tau )Q_D(t){\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2x_0}{e}}Q_D(t+\tau )Q_D(t)\gamma _eu(t+\tau )Q_D(t).`$ (50)
The initial conditions (at $`\tau =0`$) are given by the steady state properties of the system. The charge noise spectrum is then obtained by integrating the coupled equations to obtain $`Q_D(t+\tau )Q_D(t)`$, and then performing the necessary Fourier integral.

The frequency scaled spectrum, $`\omega ^2S_Q(\omega )`$, is shown in Fig. 5 for a range of resonator couplings and frequencies. The charge noise spectrum of the SET island, like the function $`G(\omega )`$ considered earlier, contains only a single peak, at the renormalized resonator frequency. This is not surprising as the equations of motion from which $`S_Q(\omega )`$ is obtained \[Eqs. (48-50)\] have a structure which is very similar to those which determine $`G(\omega )`$ \[Eqs. (27-29)\]. Figure 5 shows that the height of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ peak in $`\omega ^2S_Q(\omega )`$ is almost independent of $`\kappa `$ and $`ϵ`$ (provided $`\kappa `$ and $`ϵ`$ are much less than unity, and also non-zero), this is because the peak height in the charge noise itself is approximately determined by the ratio of the coupling to the intrinsic damping $`\kappa /(\gamma _i\tau _t)=1/ϵ^2`$.foot

## VI Full current noise spectrum

Once the noise spectra of the tunnel currents and the charge on the island have been calculated, the full current-noise spectrum is readily obtained by combining its components in the appropriate way \[as given by Eq. (11)\]. Figure 6 shows the full current-noise spectrum for the particular choice of the parameters $`a=b`$. The overall spectrum is dominated by peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0,1`$ and $`2`$, and largely flat elsewhere. The peak in the charge noise spectrum suppresses the peak in the tunnel noise spectra at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, so that the peak at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$ can become larger in the overall spectrum. For a combination of sufficiently strong coupling and weak damping, the zero-frequency noise exceeds the Poissonian value $`2eI_0`$.

In the limit where $`\kappa `$ goes to zero, the full current noise spectrum is readily obtained analytically. In this limit the left and right-hand junction current noise spectra are the same, and the full current noise (spectrum assuming $`a=b`$) is

$$S_{II}^0(\omega )=eI_0\left[1+\left(1\frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+\omega ^2}\right],$$
(51)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. This is of course the usual result for sequential tunnelling through a symmetric double-barrier structure.korot ; sun  Thus in strong contrast to the coupled system, the current noise of the uncoupled, symmetric ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$), SET would be flat: $`S_{II}^0(\omega )/(2eI_0)=0.5`$.

Figure 6 shows in detail the dependence of the spectrum on the resonator coupling, $`\kappa `$ and intrinsic damping $`\gamma _i\tau _t=\kappa ϵ^2`$. Once the frequency of the spectra is scaled by the renormalized frequency, a relatively simple behavior emerges. Increasing the coupling strength increases the height and widths of the peaks, whilst increasing $`\gamma _i`$ (for fixed coupling) simply rounds the peaks down without affecting their widths. Although the heights of the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and 2 scale with coupling in a very similar way in the individual tunnel current spectra (see Fig. 2), the relative magnitudes of the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2`$ in the full spectrum are very sensitive to the magnitude of $`\kappa `$. This is because the peak in the frequency-scaled charge noise $`\omega ^2S_Q(\omega )`$ is almost completely insensitive to changes in $`\kappa `$ and hence gives rise to a proportionately stronger suppression of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ peak for smaller $`\kappa `$ values.

For the relatively low frequencies shown in Fig. 6, the noise is higher than the uncoupled value, even away from the immediate vicinity of the peaks. This increase in the background noise level depends on $`\kappa `$, but not $`ϵ`$, and occurs because the resonator breaks the symmetry of the tunnel rates through the two junctions. Only for the uncoupled system do the physical tunnel rates correspond to the parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. When the coupling to the resonator is switched on, the tunnel rates for both junctions depend linearly on the position of the resonator, but with opposite sign, and the strength of this coupling is given by $`\kappa `$. The coupling to the resonator can thus be thought of as giving rise to an effective renormalization of the tunnel rates and since the noise is a minimum for the symmetric tunnel rates of the uncoupled system, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ (which we choose here), the coupling always gives rise to an increased background noise level. Although it is not shown in the figures, the current noise reduces to the uncoupled value at large frequencies, $`\mathrm{\Omega }1`$, since any asymmetry in the junction tunnel rates becomes unimportant at large frequencies.

The influence of extrinsic effects on the current noise spectrum are illustrated in Fig. 7. As with the tunnel current spectra, extrinsic damping reduces the peak heights and the background noise level, whilst increasing the background temperature has the opposite effect. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that extrinsic effects can alter the relative heights of the peaks at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ and $`2`$.

The full noise spectrum could equally well be calculated for a variety of cases where $`ab`$, reflecting the balance of capacitances in the system more accurately, as discussed in Sec. II. However, now that we have obtained the individual spectra of the noise in the tunnel currents and the charge noise, it is clear that for small changes of the coefficients about the values $`a=b=1/2`$, there would be no qualitative change in the overall current spectrum and so we have not investigated such cases explicitly.

## VII Conclusions

The presence of a voltage-gate consisting of a nanomechanical resonator has a dramatic effect on the current-noise spectrum of the SET. The low frequency noise of the SET can be substantially enhanced and two additional peaks appear in the noise spectrum: at the frequency of the resonator (renormalized by the interaction with the SET) and at twice that frequency. Without extrinsic damping and with the background temperature set to zero, the peaks in the current noise are sharp, with heights controlled by the the strength of the resonator-SET coupling and the magnitude of the intrinsic damping constant.

The features in the current-noise spectrum reflect the fact that the coupled dynamics of the SET and the resonator lead to important correlations between charges flowing through the SET and the position of the resonator. In particular, the interaction between the resonator and the electrons on the SET island provide a mechanism by which the passage of one electron through the system can affect the motion of subsequent electrons. Hence it is not surprising that the noise in the measured current does not conform to any simple picture based on a combination of the usual noise spectrum of the SET and the mechanical noise spectrum of a damped harmonic oscillator.

The calculation presented here is for the particular case of a classical resonator coupled to a SET as a voltage gate. Very recently a number of other authors have considered aspects of the current noise in a similar nanoelectromechanical system known as the electron shuttle,shut  in both the classicalpist ; isac  and quantum regimes.novotny  In particular, the current noise spectrum of a classical shuttle system obtained by Isacsson and Nordisac  shows peaks at the frequency of the mechanical system and its first harmonic in close correspondence with the spectrum of the SET-resonator system described here.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank M.P. Blencowe, A.M. Martin and D.A. Rodrigues for a series of very useful discussions. This work was supported by the EPSRC under grant GR/S42415/01.

## Appendix A Calculation of Steady-State Properties

The moments of the steady-state distribution which appear in the set of equations of motion describing the motion of charges through the SET \[Eqs. (27-34)\] can be obtained analytically from the master equations \[Eqs. (1) and (2)\]. Adding Eqs. (1) and (2) leads to an equation of motion for $`P(x,u;t)`$ which in turn can be used to obtain an equation of motion for the moment $`x^nu^k`$. A similar equation of motion for the moment $`x^nu^k_{N+1}`$ can be obtained directly from Eq. (2).

Assuming a steady state, the equations of motion for $`x^nu^k`$ and $`x^nu^k_{N+1}`$ lead to the following linear equations,

$`k^2\omega _0^2\left[x^{n+1}u^{k1}x_0x^nu^{k1}_{N+1}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`nu^{k+1}x^{n1}k\gamma _eu^kx^n+k(k1){\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}u^{k2}x^n`$ (52)
$`k^2\omega _0^2\left[x^{n+1}u^{k1}_{N+1}x_0x^nu^{k1}_{N+1}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`nu^{k+1}x^{n1}_{N+1}(k\gamma _e+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)u^kx^n_{N+1}`$
$`+k(k1){\displaystyle \frac{G}{2m^2}}u^{k2}x^n_{N+1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ru^kx^n+{\displaystyle \frac{m\omega _0^2x_0}{Re^2}}x^{n+1}u^k,`$
respectively. By considering these equations for appropriate values of $`k`$ and $`n`$, a set of linear equations is generated which can be solved to obtain the necessary steady-state moments, assuming only that the steady-state probability distribution is an even function of the velocity, $`u`$.