text:
# CERN-TH/2001-077 Edinburgh 2001-01 NBI-HE-01-04 The C-Theorem and Chiral Symmetry Breaking in Asymptotically Free Vectorlike Gauge Theories

## Abstract

We confront Cardy’s suggested $`c`$-function for four-dimensional field theories with the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetries in asymptotically free vectorlike gauge theories with fermions transforming according to different representations under the gauge group. Assuming that the infrared limit of the $`c`$-function is determined by the dimension of the associated Goldstone manifold, we find that this $`c`$-function always decreases between the ultraviolet and infrared fixed points.

The $`C`$-theorem in two dimensions  demonstrates the irreversibility of renormalization group flows by construction of a $`c`$-function which is proven to decrease montonically along the flow. As such it is an important ingredient in our understanding of nonperturbative field theories. For four dimensional theories Cardy suggested a particular $`c`$-function  which he likewise conjectured to decrease along renormalization group trajectories. There is some controversy over whether this $`C`$-theorem for four-dimensional field theories has been proven  or not  (see also refs. ). Studies of supersymmetric theories with duality symmetries  have found that in all cases Cardy’s $`c`$-function does decrease along the RG flow. For non-supersymmetric gauge theories, so far the only nonperturbative case that has been considered is that of QCD: Cardy in his original paper  found that indeed the proposed $`c`$-function did decrease towards the infrared when the number of flavors $`N_f`$ of Dirac fermions was in a range compatible with asymptotic freedom, and chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken.

In this letter we will extend this analysis to consider the $`c`$-function for all asymptotically free vectorlike gauge theories with Dirac fermions. Our main assumption will be that Cardy’s conjectured form of the $`c`$-function may be used all the way towards the infrared, where chiral symmetry may be broken spontaneously, and where at the fixed point the only massless excitations are those of the associated Goldstone manifold. Comparison of the value of the $`c`$-function in the ultraviolet and the infrared will then allow us to test the conjectured $`C`$-theorem (or conversely put constraints on the allowed pattern of chiral symmetry breaking if we find that for a particular pattern the theorem is violated). We will consider systematically all possible simple compact gauge groups and all possible irreducible representations $`r`$ of $`N_f`$ Dirac fermions coupled vectorially to the gauge fields.

The number $`N_f`$ and the representation $`r`$ that the fermions carry will only be constrained by the demand that the theory must be asymptotically free. As we exclude from the beginning the presence of fundamental scalars, the one-loop $`\beta `$-function takes the form

$$\beta (g)=\frac{g^3}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{11}{3}\mathrm{}(𝒢)\frac{4}{3}\mathrm{}(r)N_f\right]+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(r)`$ are the indices of the representations carried by the gauge bosons and the fermions, respectively. These indices $`\mathrm{}`$ are defined by

$$\mathrm{}\delta _{ab}=2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(T_aT_b)$$
(2)
where $`\{T_a\}`$ are the generators of the group in the particular representation: they are closely related to the Casimirs $`C`$

$$C\delta _{ij}=(T^aT^a)_{ij}$$
(3)
(see, $`e.g.`$, ref.  for a review). Because we wish to maintain asymptotic freedom we impose the constraint

$$N_f<\frac{11}{4}\frac{\mathrm{}(𝒢)}{\mathrm{}(r)}$$
(4)
on the number of flavors of fermions. It may well be that this bound is too weak, and that both confinement and chiral symmetry breaking are lost for smaller values of $`N_f`$ (as, for example, when there is a perturbative infrared fixed point in the gauge coupling). But this bound must at least always be satisfied. We take all $`N_f`$ fermions to be strictly massless.

Cardy’s proposal for a $`c`$-function in four dimensions is based on the Euler term in the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. In the natural normalization where $`c`$ is unity for one massless scalar degree of freedom , it takes the form

$$c=N_0+11N_{1/2}+62N_1$$
(5)
at the fixed points. Here $`N_0`$ counts the number of massless real scalars, $`N_{1/2}`$ the number of massless Dirac fermions, and $`N_1`$ the number of massless vector bosons. Let next $`d(𝒢)`$ denote the dimension of the gauge group $`𝒢`$, and $`d(r)`$ the dimension of the irreducible representation $`r`$. The idea is now quite simple: we compare the value of $`c`$ in the ultraviolet, where for an asymptotically free gauge theory we have the “fundamental” gauge and fermion degrees of freedom, and thus

$$c_{UV}=11d(r)N_f+62d(𝒢),$$
(6)
with the value in the infrared, where the only massless degrees of freedom are assumed to be those of the Goldstone bosons which arise from chiral symmetry breaking. If $`d(G/H)`$ is the dimension of the Goldstone manifold $`G/H`$, this implies

$$c_{IR}=d(G/H).$$
(7)
If the $`C`$-theorem holds, we should find that $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$.

To determine the number of Goldstone bosons we need to know the pattern of chiral symmetry breaking $`GH`$ in strongly coupled (confining) vectorlike gauge theories, when $`N_f`$ (Dirac) fermions transform according to an irreducible representation $`r`$ of the gauge group $`𝒢`$. There are three generic classes of breaking to consider:333For an excellent exposition of these ideas, see $`e.g.`$ ref. .

* The fermion representation $`r`$ is pseudo-real: chiral symmetries are enhanced from $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ to $`SU(2N_f)`$, and the expected symmetry breaking pattern is $`SU(2N_f)Sp(2N_f)`$.
* The fermion representation $`r`$ is complex: the expected symmetry breaking pattern is $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)SU(N_f)`$.
* The fermion representation $`r`$ is real: chiral symmetries are again enhanced to $`SU(2N_f)`$, and the expected symmetry breaking pattern is $`SU(2N_f)SO(2N_f)`$.

Because of a connection between the Dyson classification in Random Matrix Theory and the three symmetric spaces $`G/H`$ discussed above , it has become customary to label these three symmetry breaking patterns by their Dyson indices $`\beta =1,2`$ and 4, respectively. Of course, there can be exceptions to these scenarios, when for instance the gauge theories contain fundamental scalars, or additional symmetries (such as supersymmetry). We will not consider such cases in this paper.

It is not easy to prove that these symmetry breaking patterns actually do occur dynamically. Two specific cases have been proven by Coleman and Witten : the symmetry breaking pattern of fermions in the defining representations of gauge groups $`SU(N_c)`$ or $`SO(N_c)`$ in the large-$`N_c`$ limit (cases $`\beta =2`$ and $`\beta =4`$, respectively). The one class that is being left out in the Coleman-Witten paper is the one for which the fermions transform as a pseudo-real representation of the gauge group. This can be achieved by considering gauge groups $`Sp(2N_c)`$. Taking the large-$`N_c`$ limit, we easily extend the arguments of ref. , and thus prove that indeed the chiral $`SU(2N_f)`$ symmetry in that case breaks down to $`Sp(2N_f)`$, as expected from the above classification. Anomaly matching conditions  can also be used to constrain the form of vacuum condensates .

For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to note that the three generic symmetry breaking patterns each assume maximal breaking of chiral symmetry consistent with the preservation of maximal flavor symmetry. The spontaneous breaking of flavor symmetries in vectorlike gauge theories is prohibited by the Vafa-Witten theorem . It follows that each pattern gives an upper bound on the number of Goldstone bosons in the broken theory, and thus an upper bound on the $`c`$-function in the infrared. Thus if the $`C`$-theorem is satisfied with maximal breaking, it will be satisfied in general.

The counting is thus very straightforward in the infrared. For the three different classes of maximal breaking we have:

$`c_{IR}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}d(SU(2N_f)/Sp(2N_f))\hfill & \\ d(SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)/SU(N_f))\hfill & \\ d(SU(2N_f)/SO(2N_f))\hfill & \end{array}=\{\begin{array}{cc}N_f(2N_f1)1\hfill & \text{for }\beta =1,\hfill \\ N_f^21\hfill & \text{for }\beta =2,\hfill \\ N_f(2N_f+1)1\hfill & \text{for }\beta =4.\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
The value taken by Cardy’s $`c`$-function in the infrared is thus bounded above by a function of $`N_f`$ and the value of $`\beta `$. Note that in the special case $`N_f=1`$, for the symmetry breaking classes of $`\beta =1,2`$, the Goldstone manifold is zero-dimensional. There are then no Goldstone bosons at all, and the only breaking of chiral symmetry is the explicit one due to the anomaly. The theory then has a mass gap in the infrared, and it is consistent to set $`c_{IR}=0`$ in those cases. For the $`\beta =4`$ class the Goldstone manifold is non-trivial even for $`N_f=1`$, however, consistent with the fact that this case is equivalent to having two Majorana fermions.

It is easy to show that

$$N_f^21N_f(2N_f1)1<N_f(2N_f+1)1,\text{ for all }N_f1\text{,}$$
(15)
so that for a given $`N_f`$ the tightest $`C`$-theorem constraints are found when the fermions are in real representations $`r`$, i.e. when $`\beta =4`$. We can use this observation to prove the following lemma:

Lemma: if $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$ for fermions in a real representation $`r_0`$ of $`𝒢`$ with dimension $`d(r_0)`$ and index $`\mathrm{}(r_0)`$, it will also hold for all other representations $`r`$ of $`𝒢`$ with dimension $`d(r)d(r_0)`$ and index $`\mathrm{}(r)\mathrm{}(r_0)`$.

The proof is straightforward: $`d(r)d(r_0)`$ means that $`c_{UV}`$ is greater for $`r`$ than for $`r_0`$, while $`\mathrm{}(r)\mathrm{}(r_0)`$ means that the condition (4) on $`N_f`$ from asymptotic freedom is more relaxed. If $`r`$ is not real but pseudo-real or complex, $`c_{IR}`$ is reduced for a given $`N_f`$.

Given that the adjoint representation is always real, confirming the $`C`$-theorem for the adjoint is thus sufficient to confirm it for all representations except for a finite number of low dimension. In general these must then be considered on a case by case basis. We will be systematic, and go through all the simple compact Lie groups in the Cartan classification, beginning with the orthogonal and symplectic groups, through the unitary groups to the exceptional groups.

$`SO(N_c)`$: Although from the group-theoretical perspective the $`SO(N_c)`$ groups are very different depending on whether $`N_c`$ is even or odd, here we may consider all the orthogonal groups together. We take $`N_c>6`$, since $`SO(2)`$ is abelian, and $`SO(3)SU(2)`$, $`SO(5)Sp(4)`$ and $`SO(6)SU(4)`$ will all be treated below. The dimension of $`SO(N_c)`$ is $`d(𝒢)=N_c(N_c1)/2`$, and the index of the adjoint representation is $`\mathrm{}(SO(N_c))=N_c2`$, so the condition of asymptotic freedom becomes

$$N_f<\frac{11}{4}\frac{N_c2}{\mathrm{}(r)}$$
(16)
First consider the defining representations of $`SO(N_c)`$: these are all real, so $`\beta =4`$, and furthermore have $`\mathrm{}(r)=1`$ and $`d(r)=N_c`$. In the ultraviolet we thus have

$$c_{UV}=11N_cN_f+31N_c(N_c1),$$
(17)
while in the infrared

$$c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f+1)1.$$
(18)
The condition $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$ thus becomes

$$N_f\frac{11}{4}(N_c2)+\frac{21}{4}+\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{41N_c^230N_c+1}$$
(19)
which is automatically satisfied since the condition of asymptotic freedom (16) in this case gives

$$N_f<\frac{11}{4}(N_c2).$$
(20)
For all other representations $`r`$ of $`SO(N_c)`$ we can use the lemma, since $`\mathrm{}(r)1`$ and $`d(r)N_c`$. So the $`c`$-function decreases between the ultraviolet and the infrared for all representations of all $`SO(N_c)`$ groups.

$`Sp(2N_c)`$: The adjoint representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$ have indices $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=2(N_c+1)`$, and $`d(𝒢)=N_c(2N_c+1)`$ for these gauge groups. The condition of asymptotic freedom (4) thus becomes

$$N_f<\frac{11}{2}\frac{N_c+1}{\mathrm{}(r)}.$$
(21)
All representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$ are either real or pseudo-real, and the fundamental representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$ are always pseudo-real. Thus for the fundamental representations

$$c_{UV}=22N_cN_f+62N_c(2N_c+1),$$
(22)
while

$$c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f1)1.$$
(23)
The condition $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$ then translates into

$$N_f\frac{11}{2}N_c+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{3}{4}\sqrt{164N_c^2+60N_c+1},$$
(24)
while the asymptotic freedom condition for the fundamental representation requires

$$N_f<\frac{11}{2}(N_c+1).$$
(25)
One sees that the inequality (24) is satisfied for all $`N_c`$. Because we again here have $`\mathrm{}(r)=1`$ for the fundamental representation, and all other pseudoreal representations have both larger $`\mathrm{}(r)`$ and larger dimensions $`d(r)`$, we conclude using an argument similar to that used for the lemma that the $`c`$-function decreases from the ultraviolet to the infrared for all pseudo-real representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$.

We next turn to the real representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$. The smallest real representation is not the adjoint, but rather a representation with dimension $`d(r)=N_c(2N_c1)1`$ and index $`\mathrm{}(r)=2(N_c1)`$. For this represention the condition $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$ becomes

$$N_f\frac{1}{4}\left[11N_c(2N_c1)10+\sqrt{(11N_c(2N_c1)10)^2+8(62N_c(2N_c+1)+1)}\right],$$
(26)
which is easily satisfied for all $`N_c2`$ since the asymptotic freedom condition is now

$$N_f<\frac{11}{4}\frac{N_c+1}{N_c1}.$$
(27)
Since all other real representations have both larger $`\mathrm{}(r)`$ and larger dimensions $`d(r)`$, and combining this with our result above for all pseudo-real representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$, we conclude that the $`C`$-theorem is satisfied for all representations of $`Sp(2N_c)`$.

$`SU(N_c)`$: We begin with gauge groups $`SU(N_c),N_c3`$. The fundamental representations are all complex, they have the common index $`\mathrm{}(r)=1`$, and the symmetry breaking class is the one of $`\beta =2`$. The condition $`c_{UV}c_{IR}`$ gives

$$N_f\frac{11}{2}N_c+\sqrt{121N_c^2/4+62N_c^261}.$$
(28)
Because the condition (4) in this case reads $`N_f<11N_c/2`$ the condition (28) is, as observed already by Cardy , automatically satisfied. Since all other complex representations of $`SU(N_c)`$ have both dimension and index greater than that of the fundamental, it follows from an argument similar to that used for the lemma that the $`C`$-theorem is satisfied for all complex representations of $`SU(N_c)`$.

But the groups $`SU(N_c)`$ have, in general, both real and pseudo-real representations too. Because $`d(r)`$ is not a monotonic function of $`\mathrm{}(r)`$, it is not possible to select the “lowest” real or pseudo-real representations, check those, and then conclude that all other real or pseudo-real representations will yield a decreasing $`c`$-function too. We can, however, consider all the adjoint representations of $`SU(N_c)`$. They are real, and we therefore have

$$c_{UV}=(N_c^21)(11N_f+62),$$
(29)
while

$$c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f+1)1,$$
(30)
which leads to

$$N_f\frac{1}{4}\left[11N_c^212+\sqrt{(11N_c^212)^2+8(62N_c^261)}\right],$$
(31)
a bound which is very much above the requirement of $`N_f<11/4`$ from asymptotic freedom. So for all adjoint representations of $`SU(N_c)`$ we have $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$. By the lemma, the same will be true of all representations with dimension and index greater than those of the adjoint.

For the rest, it seems that the only solution is to consider the remaining real and pseudo-real representations of the $`SU(N_c)`$ groups on a case-by-case basis. We have done this for all non-Abelian gauge groups of rank less than 9, based on the tables of ref. . For $`SU(3)`$, $`SU(5)`$, $`SU(7)`$ $`SU(8)`$ and $`SU(9)`$ it turns out that there are no such representations which also satisfy the asymptotic freedom constraint and have smaller dimension and index than the adjoint. The group $`SU(4)`$ has no pseudo-real representations, and three real representations with $`\mathrm{}(r)<22`$, as required from asymptotic freedom. The one with lowest index ($`\mathrm{}(r)=2`$) has dimension 6, which gives

$$c_{UV}=66N_f+930,c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f+1)1,$$
(32)
and hence a bound of $`N_f(65+3\sqrt{1297})/4`$, which is much above the bound $`N_f<11`$ from asymptotic freedom. Because the two other real representations have both larger indices and larger dimensions, they are even further away from the bound imposed by asymptotic freedom. $`SU(6)`$ has one relevant representation of index $`\mathrm{}(r)=6`$, which is pseudo-real and of dimension 20. One easily checks that $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

Finally we treat the special case of the gauge group $`SU(2)`$. Here the condition for asymptotic freedom (4) becomes $`\mathrm{}(r)N_f<11`$. The fundamental representation is pseudo-real, and the symmetry breaking class is the one of $`\beta =1`$. We thus have

$$c_{UV}=22N_f+186,c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f1)1,$$
(33)
and hence the condition $`N_f17`$, which well encompasses the bound from asymptotic freedom of $`N_f<11`$. By a similar argument to that used for the lemma, this implies that $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$ for all other pseudo-real representations of $`SU(2)`$. It remains to check only the real representations, those of integer isospin $`j`$, which correspond to the symmetry breaking class of $`\beta =4`$. The index of an isospin-$`j`$ representation in $`SU(2)`$ is

$$\mathrm{}(r)=\frac{2}{3}j(j+1)(2j+1).$$
(34)
Because of the bound from asymptotic freedom of $`\mathrm{}(r)<11`$ this means that we need only consider the adjoint ($`j=1`$) representation for which $`\mathrm{}(r)=4`$. Here,

$$c_{UV}=33N_f+186,c_{IR}=N_f(2N_f+1)1,$$
(35)
which leads to $`N_f<8+(3/2)\sqrt{70}`$, which again is well above the bound $`N_f<4`$ from asymptotic freedom. We conclude that $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$ for all representations of $`SU(2)`$.

The Exceptional Groups:

For $`E_6`$ the adjoint index is $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=24`$, which gives as condition for asymptotic freedom $`\mathrm{}(r)N_f<66`$. There are then only two relevant representations: the fundamental of index $`\mathrm{}(r)=6`$ and dimension 27, and the adjoint which has dimension 78. The fundamental representation is complex. In both cases we find that $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

In $`E_7`$ the adjoint index is $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=36`$, and the condition of asymptotic freedom is thus $`\mathrm{}(r)N_f<99`$. There are then two relevant representations, the fundamental of $`\mathrm{}(r)=12`$ and dimension 56, and the adjoint which has dimension 36. The fundamental representation is pseudo-real. In both cases we again find $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

The exceptional group $`E_8`$ is special in that the fundamental representation coincides with the adjoint. By the lemma this is the only relevant representation: it has $`d(𝒢)=248`$ and $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=60`$, so the condition of asymptotic freedom is $`N_f<11/4`$. It is easy to check that $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

For gauge group $`F_4`$ the adjoint index is $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=18`$, which gives $`\mathrm{}(r)N_f<99/2`$ from the condition of asymptotic freedom. There are two relevant representations, the fundamental of index $`\mathrm{}(r)=6`$ and dimension 26, which is real, and the adjoint of dimension 52. By the lemma, only the fundamental need be checked, and we get $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

Finally, the group $`G_2`$ has adjoint index $`\mathrm{}(𝒢)=2`$, which leads to $`\mathrm{}(r)N_f<22`$ from the demand of asymptotic freedom. There are then three relevant representations, all real: the fundamental of $`\mathrm{}(r)=2`$ and dimension 7, the adjoint of dimension 14, and an $`\mathrm{}(r)=18`$ representation of dimension 27. Again by the lemma it is only necessary to check the fundamental, where $`c_{UV}>c_{IR}`$.

In conclusion, we have undertaken a systematic examination of Cardy’s proposed $`c`$-function in the context of asymptotically free vectorlike gauge theories. Our main assumption has been that we can follow the renormalization group flow from the ultraviolet gauge theory degrees of freedom nonperturbatively to an infrared fixed point where the only massless excitations are those of the Goldstone bosons. We also assume that the pattern of symmetry breaking is consistent with the Vafa-Witten theorem, and that there are no exotic phenomena such as exactly massless bound-state fermions in the infrared theory. We have found that the $`c`$-function decreases along the RG trajectories in all cases considered: for all gauge groups, with fermions in any representation of the gauge group, and for all allowed patterns of symmetry breaking. Turning this around, we find that a $`C`$-theorem would impose no new constraints on the pattern of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in asymptotically free vectorlike gauge theories.

It may be of interest to apply the constraints imposed by the $`C`$-theorem on theories in which the above assumptions no longer hold. In particular, perhaps we can learn more about the possible symmetry breaking patterns in chiral (but anomaly-free) gauge theories in this way: for chiral theories the Vafa-Witten theorem no longer holds and the pattern of spontaneous symmetry breaking may be more involved. It may also be of interest to consider constraints on chiral symmetry breaking imposed by other criteria .

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Graham Shore for comments. The work of R.D.B. and P.H.D. was supported in part by EU TMR grant nos. ERBFMRXCT97-0122 and ERBFMRXCT98-0194 respectively.


format: text

text:
# Noncomplex smooth 4-manifolds with Lefschetz fibrations

## 1. Introduction

Recently, B. Ozbagci and A. Stipsicz  proved that there are infinitely many pairwise nonhomeomorphic $`4`$-manifolds admitting genus-$`2`$ Lefschetz fibration over $`S^2`$ but not carrying any complex structure with either orientation. (For the definition of Lefschetz fibration, see .) Their result depends on a relation in the mapping class group of a closed orientable surface of genus $`2`$. This relation with eight right Dehn twists was discovered by Y. Matsumoto  by a computer calculation, and it is the global monodromy of a Lefschetz fibration $`T^2\times S^2\mathrm{\#}4\overline{CP^2}S^2`$, where $`S^2`$ is the $`2`$-sphere and $`T^2`$ is the $`2`$-torus.

In this paper, we generalize Matsumoto’s relation to higher genus orientable surfaces. We find a relation involving $`2g+4`$ (resp., $`2g+10`$) Dehn twists when the genus of the surface is even (resp., odd). Following the method of Ozbagci and Stipsicz, for every positive integer $`n`$, we obtain a $`4`$-manifold $`X_n`$ admitting a genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration such that the fundamental group of $`X_n`$ is isomorphic to $`_n`$ for every $`g2`$. We then deduce that the $`4`$-manifold $`X_n`$ does not admit any complex structure. This is the main result of this paper.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For every $`g2`$, there are infinitely many pairwise nonhomeomorphic $`4`$-manifolds that admit genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibrations over $`S^2`$ but do not carry any complex structure with either orientation.

Our relation in the mapping class group given by Theorem 3.4 also shows that the minimal number of singular fibers in a nontrivial genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration over $`S^2`$ is less than or equal to $`2g+4`$ (resp., $`2g+10`$) if $`g`$ is even (resp., odd). This result was also obtained independently by C. Cadavid . By definition, a Lefschetz fibration is nontrivial if it admits singular fibers. Stipsicz proved in  that this minimal number is in fact $`2g+4`$ (resp., $`2g+10`$) if $`g`$ is even (resp., odd) and greater than or equal to $`6`$ (resp., greater than or equal to $`15`$) among all $`4`$-manifolds with $`b_2^+=1`$. See  and  for the other results related to this minimal number.

Here is how we obtain our relation in the mapping class group. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ be a closed connected orientable surface of genus $`g`$. The hyperelliptic mapping class group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ is a quotient of the braid group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$ on $`2g+2`$ strings. The quotient of the hyperelliptic mapping class group with the cyclic subgroup of order $`2`$ generated by the hyperelliptic involution is isomorphic to the mapping class group of a sphere with $`2g+2`$ holes. The hyperelliptic mapping class group is equal to the mapping class group when $`g=2`$. Using these facts, we lift Matsumoto’s relation to the braid group $`\mathrm{B}_6`$ and generalize it to a relation in $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, although we do not say so explicitly. We then project it to the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ to get our relation in the mapping class group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$.

For each positive integer $`n`$, by considering a product of conjugates of our relation with appropriate mapping classes, we obtain a relation in the mapping class group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ so that the fundamental group of the corresponding symplectic $`4`$-manifold $`X_n`$ is isomorphic to $`_n`$. It follows from \[12, proof of Theorem $`1.3`$\] that a symplectic manifold with fundamental group $`_n`$ admits no complex structures.

In the last section, we determine the diffeomorphism type of the $`4`$-manifold $`X`$ admitting a genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration over $`S^2`$ corresponding to our relation given by Theorem 3.4. If $`g`$ is even, then $`X`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g/2}\times S^2\mathrm{\#}4\overline{CP^2}`$. For this, we use a result of Stipsicz asserting that the only $`4`$-manifold with $`b_2^+=1`$ which admits a (relatively minimal) Lefschetz fibration with $`2g+4`$ vanishing cycles is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g/2}\times S^2\mathrm{\#}4\overline{CP^2}`$.

## 2. Braid groups

The braid group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$ on $`2g+2`$ strings admits a presentation with generators $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _{2g+1}`$ and relations

$$\sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i\text{if }|ij|2$$

and

$$\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i=\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\text{if }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}i2g.$$

The subgroup of $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$ generated by $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _h`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{B}_{h+1}`$. We identify this subgroup with $`\mathrm{B}_{h+1}`$.

In the group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, let us define the words $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\sigma _1\sigma _2\mathrm{}\sigma _k`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k=\sigma _k\mathrm{}\sigma _2\sigma _1`$ for each $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},2g+1`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$ for the convention. For each $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},g,`$ let us also define

$$\beta _k=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1k}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1$$

and

$$\beta =\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{g+1}.$$

We have, for example, $`\beta _0=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}^1`$, $`\beta _1=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g1}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^1`$, and $`\beta _g=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_{g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_g^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^1`$. Note that $`\beta _k`$ is the conjugate of $`\sigma _{2g+1k}`$ with the element $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}`$.

The following lemma follows easily from the defining relations of the braid group.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The following relations hold in the group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$.

1. $`\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\mathrm{\Delta }_m\sigma _{k1}`$ and $`\sigma _k^1\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\mathrm{\Delta }_m\sigma _{k1}^1`$ if $`1<km`$;
2. $`\sigma _k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m\sigma _{k+1}`$ and $`\sigma _k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m\sigma _{k+1}^1`$ if $`1k<m`$;
3. $`\sigma _k\mathrm{\Delta }_m=\mathrm{\Delta }_m\sigma _k`$ and $`\sigma _k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_m\sigma _k`$ if $`k>m+1`$; and
4. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g^k=\mathrm{\Delta }_{g1}\mathrm{\Delta }_g^{k1}\sigma _{gk+1}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^k=\sigma _{gk+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{k1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}`$ if $`1kg`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

In the braid group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, we have the following:

1. The element $`\beta `$ is equal to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g`$; and
2. The element $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$ is in the centralizer of $`\mathrm{B}_g`$; in particular, it commutes with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g`$.

###### Proof.

We claim that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^g=\mathrm{\Delta }_k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^k`$ for every $`0kg`$. First of all, the claim holds trivially for $`k=0`$. Suppose by induction that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^g=\mathrm{\Delta }_k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^k`$. By Lemma 2.1 $`(d)`$, we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk}=\sigma _{k+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}`$. Then we have

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^g`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^k`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k\sigma _{k+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{gk1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^k`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{k+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^{g(k+1)}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^{k+1}.`$
In particular, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^g=\mathrm{\Delta }_g\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g`$. The proof of $`(a)`$ follows.

For $`k<g`$, by Lemma 2.1, we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g\sigma _k=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\sigma _{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_g=\sigma _k\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g.`$ Now the proof of $`(b)`$ follows.

###### Lemma 2.3.

For every $`0kg1`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\gamma _k,$$

where $`\gamma _k=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk2}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$.

###### Proof.

We use Lemma 2.1 several times:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}^1`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}`$
$`=\sigma _{2gk}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2}^1\sigma _{k+1}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1})`$
$`=\sigma _{2gk}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2}^1\sigma _{k+1}^1(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1})\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\sigma _{2gk}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+3}^1\sigma _{k+2}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\sigma _{2gk}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+3}^1\sigma _{k+2}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\sigma _{2gk1}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2}^1\sigma _{k+1}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\sigma _{2gk1}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+3}^1\sigma _{k+2}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\sigma _{2gk2}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2}^1\sigma _{k+1}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk2}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\gamma _k.`$
The main result of this section is the next theorem.

###### Theorem 2.4.

In the braid group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, we have the relation

$$\beta _0\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1.$$

###### Proof.

Recall that, for any $`h2g+2`$, we identify the group $`\mathrm{B}_h`$ with the subgroup of $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$ generated by the elements $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _{h1}`$.

The proof of the theorem is by induction on $`g`$. Suppose that $`g=0`$. In the group $`\mathrm{B}_2`$, $`\beta _0=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_0^1`$ and $`\beta =\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Thus $`\beta _0\beta ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Hence, the conclusion of the theorem holds for $`g=0`$.

In the subgroup $`\mathrm{B}_{2g}`$ of $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, let us define

$$\gamma _k=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g1k}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g2k}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}kg1$$

and

$$\gamma =\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g.$$

Then, by the induction hypothesis

$$\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\mathrm{}\gamma _{g1}\gamma ^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g2}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1.$$

Let us also define $`\gamma _g=1`$ for the convention.

In the group $`\mathrm{B}_{2g+2}`$, we claim that

$$\beta _k\beta _{k+1}\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1k}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\gamma _k\gamma _{k+1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{g1}\gamma _g\gamma ^2.$$

The proof of this claim is by induction on $`gk`$. We start with the following computation:

$`\beta _g\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_{g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_g^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g^1(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_{g+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_{g+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{g1}^g)^2`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_{g+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_g\gamma _g\gamma ^2.`$
Hence, the claim holds for $`k=g`$. Suppose inductively that

$$\beta _{k+1}\beta _{k+2}\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1}\gamma _{k+1}\gamma _{k+2}\mathrm{}\gamma _g\gamma ^2.$$

Then by Lemma 2.3 we get

$`\beta _k\beta _{k+1}\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1k}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k^1\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk1})\gamma _{k+1}\gamma _{k+2}\mathrm{}\gamma _g\gamma ^2`$
$`=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1k}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk}\gamma _k\gamma _{k+1}\mathrm{}\gamma _g\gamma ^2.`$
Hence, the claim is proved. For $`k=0`$, in particular, we obtain

$`\beta _0\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\gamma _0\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _g\gamma ^2`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\gamma _0\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _g\gamma ^2`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1.`$
This finishes the proof of the theorem.

## 3. Mapping class groups

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ be a closed connected orientable surface of genus $`g`$ embedded in $`^3`$ such that it is invariant under the involution $`J(x,y,z)=(x,y,z)`$ (cf. Fig. 4). Notice that $`J`$ is the rotation about $`y`$-axis by $`\pi `$. We orient $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ so that the unit normal vectors are pointing outward. Let $`ȷ`$ be the isotopy class of $`J`$. Let us denote by $`M_g`$ the mapping class group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ which is the group of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$. The hyperelliptic mapping class group is defined as the centralizer $`C_{M_g}(ȷ)`$ of $`ȷ`$ in $`M_g`$, the subgroup consisting of those the mapping classes that commute with $`ȷ`$.

Throughout this paper, we use functional notation. That is, for any two mapping classes $`f`$ and $`g`$, the multiplication $`fg`$ means that $`g`$ is applied first.

For a simple closed curve $`a`$ on the oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, by the abuse of notation, a right Dehn twist about $`a`$ and its isotopy class is denoted by $`t_a`$.

Let us consider the simple closed curves $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_{2g+1}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ defined as follows: $`A_{2k}=b_k`$, $`A_1=a_1`$, $`A_{2k1}=a_ka_{k+1}^1`$, and $`A_{2g+1}=a_g`$, where $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$ are the curves shown in Fig. 4. Let $`t_k`$ denote the right Dehn twist about $`A_k`$. The simple closed curves $`A_k`$ are invariant under $`J`$. It follows that Dehn twists $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_{2g+1}`$ commute with $`ȷ`$. Hence, they are contained in the hyperelliptic mapping class group.

The involution $`J`$ has $`2g+2`$ fixed points. Hence, we have a branched covering $`p:\mathrm{\Sigma }_gS^2`$ branching over $`2g+2`$ points. Let us mark these $`2g+2`$ points on $`S^2`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ be the resulting surface. Notice that the interior of each $`p(A_k)`$ is an embedded arc on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ connecting two distinct marked points and that it is disjoint from $`p(A_l)`$ for $`kl`$. Let us denote by $`w_k`$ the isotopy class of a right half twist about $`p(A_k)`$. Thus, if we orient the arc $`p(A_k)`$ arbitrarily, then $`w_k(p(A_k))`$ (defined up to isotopy) is isotopic to the arc $`p(A_k)^1`$. Therefore, $`w_k^2`$ is the right Dehn twist about the boundary component of a regular neighborhood of $`p(A_k)`$. It is well-known that the half twists $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{2g+1}`$ generate the mapping class group $`M_{0,2g+2}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ (cf. \[1, Theorem $`4.5`$\]). Here, the group $`M_{0,2g+2}`$ is defined to be the group of the isotopy classes of the orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ that preserve the marked points setwise. The isotopies are assumed to fix each marked point.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The hyperelliptic mapping class group $`C_{M_g}(ȷ)`$ is generated by the Dehn twists $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_{2g+1}`$, the function given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_k)=w_k`$ on the generators defines a surjective homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:C_{M_g}(ȷ)M_{0,2g+2},$$

and the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`ȷ`$, which is a subgroup of order $`2`$.

Theorem 3.1 was proved by J. Birman and H. Hilden . They also obtained a presentation of the hyperelliptic mapping class group. Since $`t_it_j=t_jt_i`$ for $`|ij|2`$ and $`t_it_{i+1}t_i=t_{i+1}t_it_{i+1}`$ in the group $`C_{M_g}(ȷ)`$, the fact that $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_{2g+1}`$ generate $`C_{M_g}(ȷ)`$ implies that $`\sigma _kt_k`$ defines a surjective homomorphism $`B_{2g+2}C_{M_g}(ȷ)`$.

The following lemma is easy to prove (cf. Fig. 1 $`(a)`$).

###### Lemma 3.2.

In the group $`M_{0,2g+2}`$, the element $`(w_k\mathrm{}w_2w_1)^{k+1}`$ is equal to the right Dehn twist about the boundary component of a regular neighborhood of $`p(A_1)p(A_2)\mathrm{}p(A_k)`$.

In order to state the main result of this section, let us consider the simple closed curves $`B_k,a,b,`$ and $`c`$ illustrated in Fig. 2. Note that $`a`$ and $`b`$ are defined for odd $`g`$, and $`c`$ is defined for even $`g`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

The following relations hold in the mapping class group:

1. $`t_c=(t_g\mathrm{}t_2t_1)^{2(g+1)}`$ if $`g`$ is even; and
2. $`t_at_b=(t_g\mathrm{}t_2t_1)^{g+1}`$ if $`g`$ is odd.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`g`$ is even. Consider the branched covering $`p:\mathrm{\Sigma }_gS^2`$. Notice that $`p(c)`$ is a simple closed curve on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$. The projection $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_c)`$ of $`t_c`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ is the square of the Dehn twist about $`p(c)`$. This can be seen geometrically as follows. Consider the arcs $`p(A_1),p(A_2),\mathrm{},p(A_{2g+1})`$. Since the surface obtained by cutting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ along these arcs is a disc without any marked points in the interior, in order to show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_c)=t_{p(c)}^2`$, it is enough to check that the actions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_c)`$ and $`t_{p(c)}^2`$ on these arcs are the same (up to isotopy). To see the action of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_c)`$ on an arc $`A^{}`$, lift $`A^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, apply $`t_c`$, and then project it down to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0,2g+2}`$ (cf. Fig. 3). Since $`t_{p(c)}=(w_g\mathrm{}w_2w_1)^{g+1}`$ by Lemma 3.2, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t_c)=\mathrm{\Psi }((t_g\mathrm{}t_2t_1)^{2(g+1)})`$. Hence, $`(t_g\mathrm{}t_2t_1)^{2(g+1)}`$ is equal to either $`t_c`$ or $`ȷt_c`$. We rule out the latter possibility as follows. It is easily checked that $`(t_g\mathrm{}t_2t_1)^{2(g+1)}`$ acts trivially on the first homology group $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g;)`$. The action of $`t_c`$ is also trivial since $`c`$ is null homologous. On the other hand, $`ȷ`$ acts as the minus identity on $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g;)`$.

The part $`(b)`$ is proved similarly.

###### Theorem 3.4.

In the mapping class group $`M_g`$, the following relations between right Dehn twists hold:

* $`(t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_c)^2=1`$ if $`g`$ is even;
* $`(t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_a^2t_b^2)^2=1`$ if $`g`$ is odd.

###### Proof.

In the mapping class group $`M_g`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, for each $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},g`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k,\beta _k,`$ and $`\beta `$ as in Section 2 by replacing $`\sigma _i`$ by $`t_i`$. Recall that $`t_i`$ is the (right) Dehn twist about the simple closed curve $`A_i`$. Hence,

$$\beta _k=(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk})t_{2g+1k}(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_k\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gk})^1.$$

It is easy to see that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i\mathrm{\Delta }_{2gi}(A_{2g+1i})=B_i`$. Since $`ft_ef^1=t_{f(e)}`$ for any $`fM_g`$ and for any simple closed curve $`e`$, we conclude that $`\beta _k=t_{B_k}`$. Also, by Lemma 3.3, $`\beta ^2=t_c`$ if $`g`$ is even and $`\beta ^2=t_a^2t_b^2`$ if $`g`$ is odd. Let us define the word

$$W=\{\begin{array}{cc}(t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_c)^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}g\mathrm{is}\mathrm{even},\hfill \\ (t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_a^2t_b^2)^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}g\mathrm{is}\mathrm{odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, $`W=(\beta _0\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _g\beta ^2)^2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{2g}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Since $`t_it_j=t_jt_i`$ for $`|ij|2`$ and $`t_it_{i+1}t_i=t_{i+1}t_it_{i+1}`$ by Theorem 2.4, we obtain $`W=\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Now the element $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is of order $`2`$ in $`M_{0,2g+2}`$ (cf. Fig. 1 $`(b)`$ for $`g=6`$), where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the epimorphism in Theorem 3.1. Hence, either $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=ȷ`$. It is easy to verify that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ acts trivially on the first homology group $`H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g;𝐙)`$ but $`ȷ`$ does not. Therefore, $`W=1`$.

This finishes the proof of the theorem.

## 4. Noncomplex genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibrations

In this section, we prove the main result of this paper. We assume from now on that $`g2`$. We construct a $`4`$-manifold $`X_n`$ a admitting genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration with fundamental group $`_n`$ for every positive integer $`n`$. Then we conclude the main result of this paper from the proof of the main result of . As the model for a closed connected oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, we will consider the one embedded in $`^3`$ as shown in Fig. 4.

For any two elements $`x`$ and $`y`$ in a group, we denote $`yxy^1`$ and $`xyx^1y^1`$ by $`x^y`$ and $`[x,y]`$, respectively.

Let us consider the word $`W`$ in $`M_g`$ defined by

$$W=\{\begin{array}{cc}(t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_c)^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}g\mathrm{is}\mathrm{even},\hfill \\ (t_{B_0}t_{B_1}t_{B_2}\mathrm{}t_{B_g}t_a^2t_b^2)^2\hfill & \mathrm{if}g\mathrm{is}\mathrm{odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$

By Theorem 3.4, $`W=1`$ in $`M_g`$. Since the conjugation of a right Dehn twist with an element of $`M_g`$ is again a right Dehn twist, the word $`W^f`$ is a product of right Dehn twists for any mapping class $`f`$. For each positive integer $`n`$, we define

$$W_n=\{\begin{array}{cc}WW^{t_{a_1}}W^{t_{a_2}}\mathrm{}W^{t_{a_{r1}}}W^{t_{a_r}^n}W^{t_{b_{r+2}}}W^{t_{b_{r+3}}}\mathrm{}W^{t_{b_g}}\hfill & \mathrm{if}g=2r,\hfill \\ WW^{t_3^n}W^{t_5}W^{t_7}\mathrm{}W^{t_{2r+1}}W^{t_{b_{r+2}}}W^{t_{b_{r+3}}}\mathrm{}W^{t_{b_g}}\hfill & \mathrm{if}g=2r+1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$ are simple closed curves given in Fig. 4 (considered up to isotopy). Note that $`W_n`$ is a product of $`g(2g+4)`$ (resp., $`g(2g+10)`$) right Dehn twists if $`g`$ is even (odd).

The word $`W_n`$ is equal to the identity in the mapping class group $`M_g`$. Let $`X`$ and $`X_n`$ be the smooth $`4`$-manifolds that admit the genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibrations over $`S^2`$ whose global monodromies are $`W`$ and $`W_n`$, respectively. Thus, $`X_n`$ is the fiber sum of $`g`$ copies of $`X`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

The fundamental group $`\pi _1(X_n)`$ of $`X_n`$ is isomorphic to $`_n`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$ be the standard generators of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$ illustrated in Fig. 4. By the theory of Lefschetz fibrations, $`\pi _1(X_n)`$ is isomorphic to the quotient of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$ by the normal subgroup generated by the vanishing cycles.

Suppose first that $`g=2r`$. It is easy to check that up to conjugation the following equalities hold in $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$:

* $`B_0=b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_g;`$
* $`B_{2k1}=a_kb_kb_{k+1}\mathrm{}b_{g+1k}c_{g+1k}a_{g+1k}`$, $`1kr`$;
* $`B_{2k}=a_kb_{k+1}b_{k+2}\mathrm{}b_{gk}c_{gk}a_{g+1k}`$, $`1kr1`$;
* $`B_g=B_{2r}=a_rc_ra_{r+1}`$;
* $`c=c_r=[a_1,b_1][a_2,b_2]\mathrm{}[a_r,b_r]`$.

The vanishing cycles corresponding to $`W^{t_{a_k}}`$ are the set

$$\{a_kB_0,\mathrm{},a_kB_{2k1},B_{2k},\mathrm{},B_g,c\},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}kr1.$$

Similarly, the vanishing cycles corresponding to $`W^{t_{a_r}^n}`$ and $`W^{t_{b_{g+1k}}}`$ are

$$\{a_r^nB_0,\mathrm{},a_r^nB_{g1},B_g,c\}$$

and

$$\{B_0,\mathrm{},B_{2k2},b_{g+1k}^1B_{2k1},b_{g+1k}^1B_{2k},B_{2k+1},\mathrm{},B_g,c\},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}kr1,$$

respectively. It follows that the fundamental group of $`X_n`$ has a presentation with generators $`a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g`$ and relations

* $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^g[a_k,b_k]=1`$;
* $`B_0=B_1=B_2=\mathrm{}=B_g=c=1`$;
* $`a_1=a_2=\mathrm{}=a_{r1}=a_r^n=b_{r+2}=b_{r+3}=\mathrm{}=b_g=1`$.

It is easy to see that this presentation is equivalent to the presentation with generators $`a_r,b_r`$ and relations $`a_r^n=[a_r,b_r]=1`$.

Suppose now that $`g=2r+1`$. A similar argument as in the case of even $`g`$ shows that the fundamental group of $`X_n`$ has a presentation with generators $`a_1,b_1,a_2,b_2,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g`$ and relations

* $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^g[a_k,b_k]=1`$;
* $`B_0=B_1=B_2=\mathrm{}=B_g=a=b=1`$;
* $`(a_2a_1^1)^n=a_3a_2^1=a_4a_3^1=\mathrm{}=a_{r+1}a_r^1=b_{r+2}=b_{r+3}=\mathrm{}=b_g=1`$.

Since $`a=a_{r+1}`$, this presentation is equivalent to the presentation with generators $`a_1,b_1`$ and relations $`a_1^n=[a_1,b_1]=1`$.

This completes the proof of the theorem.

The following theorem can be concluded from \[12, proof of Theorem $`1.3`$\].

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`M`$ be an orientable $`4`$-manifold such that $`b_2^+(M)1`$ and $`\pi _1(M)=_n`$. Then $`M`$ does not carry any complex structure.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. The smooth $`4`$-manifold $`X_n`$ admits a genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration for every positive integer $`n`$. Since $`X_n`$ is symplectic by a result of R. Gompf , we have $`b_2^+(X_n)1`$. We showed above that $`\pi _1(X_n)=_n`$. Hence, the manifold $`X_n`$ is not homeomorphic to $`X_m`$ for $`nm`$. By Theorem 4.2, the manifold $`X_n`$ and the manifold obtained from it by reversing the orientation do not admit any complex structure.

## 5. The $`4`$-manifold admitting a Lefschetz fibration with global monodromy $`W`$.

In this section, we determine the $`4`$-manifold corresponding to the word $`W`$ given in Section 3.

### The case of even $`g`$.

Notice that simple closed curves $`B_0,B_1,\mathrm{},B_g`$, and $`c`$ are invariant under the involution $`J`$. Hence, the genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration $`XS^2`$ with global monodromy $`W`$ is is hyperelliptic.

###### Theorem 5.1 (,,,).

Let $`M`$ be a $`4`$-manifold that admits a hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibration of genus $`g`$ over $`S^2`$. Let $`m`$ and $`s=_{h=1}^{[g/2]}s_h`$ be the numbers of nonseparating and separating vanishing cycles in the global monodromy of this fibration, respectively, where $`s_h`$ denotes the number of separating vanishing cycles that separate the genus-$`g`$ surface into two surfaces one of which has genus $`h`$. Then the signature of $`M`$ is

$$\sigma (M)=\frac{g+1}{2g+1}m+\underset{h=1}{\overset{[g/2]}{}}\left(\frac{4h(gh)}{2g+1}1\right)s_h.$$

Since there are $`2g+4`$ vanishing cycles, Euler characteristic of $`X`$ is $`\chi (X)=2(22g)+2g+4=82g`$. There are only two separating vanishing cycles, and they bound a surface of genus $`g/2`$ on both sides. Hence, the signature of $`X`$ is

$$\sigma (X)=\frac{g+1}{2g+1}(2g+2)+\left(\frac{4\frac{g}{2}(g\frac{g}{2})}{2g+1}1\right)2=4.$$

The group $`\pi _1(X)`$ has a presentation with generators $`a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g`$ and relations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^g[a_k,b_k]=B_0=B_1=B_2=\mathrm{}=B_g=c=1`$. It is now easy to see that $`H_1(X;)=^g`$. In particular, $`b_1(X)=g`$. It follows from $`\chi (X)=82g`$ and $`\sigma (X)=4`$ that $`b_2^+(X)=1`$. By \[14, Remark $`4.5`$(a)\], $`X`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{g/2}\times S^2\mathrm{\#}4\overline{CP^2}`$ if $`g6`$.

### The case of odd $`g`$.

Suppose that $`g`$ is at least $`3`$ and odd. Let $`XS^2`$ be the genus-$`g`$ Lefschetz fibration with global monodromy $`W`$. Since there are $`2g+10`$ singular fibers, the Euler characteristic of $`X`$ is $`\chi (X)=2(22g)+2g+10=142g`$. The fundamental group $`\pi _1(X)`$ of $`X`$ has a presentation with generators $`a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g`$ and relations $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{k=1}^g[a_k,b_k]=B_0=B_1=B_2=\mathrm{}=B_g=a=b=1`$. It is now easy to see that $`H_1(X;)=^{g1}`$. In particular, $`b_1(X)=g1`$. Hence,

$$142g=22b_1(X)+b_2(X)=22(g1)+b_2(X);$$

that is, $`b_2(X)=10`$.

The manifold $`X`$ is symplectic. Since $`1b_1+b_2^+`$ is even for any symplectic manifold, we conclude that $`b_2^+(X)`$ is odd and is between $`1`$ and $`9`$. Hence, $`b_2^{}(X)`$ is also odd and is between $`1`$ and $`9`$.

We now determine the signature of $`X`$. A handlebody decomposition for $`X`$ is obtained as follows. Start with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times D^2`$, where $`D^2`$ is the $`2`$-disc. Its boundary is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\times S^1`$. Attach a $`2`$-handle along each vanishing cycle (by counting its multiplicity) with the $`1`$ framing relative to the product framing. The cores of the first two $`2`$-handles attached along $`a`$ gives us a $`(2)`$-sphere $`S_1`$. Denote the class of $`S_1`$ in $`H_2(X;)`$ by $`[S_1]`$. Similarly, the cores of the second and the third $`2`$-handles, and the third and the fourth $`2`$-handles give two $`(2)`$-spheres $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$. Note that $`[S_1][S_3]=0`$. Orient each $`S_i`$ so that $`[S_1][S_2]=[S_2][S_3]=1`$. Similarly, the four $`2`$-handles glued along $`b`$ give three $`(2)`$-spheres $`S_4,S_5,S_6`$ with $`[S_4][S_5]=[S_5][S_6]=1`$ and $`[S_4][S_6]=0`$. Since $`a`$ and $`b`$ are disjoint, $`[S_i][S_j]=0`$ for $`1i3`$ and $`4j6`$. The first handles attached along $`a`$ and $`b`$ give a surface $`S_7`$ of genus $`(g1)/2`$ such that $`[S_7]^2=2`$, $`[S_7][S_1]=[S_7][S_4]=1`$, and $`[S_7][S_i]=0`$ for $`i=2,3,5,6`$.

The homology classes $`[S_1],\mathrm{},[S_7]`$ are linearly independent. Hence, they form a basis for a subspace $`V`$ of $`H_2(X;)`$ of dimension $`7`$. The matrix of the intersection form restricted to $`V`$ in the above basis is the matrix $`A`$, where

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}2& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 2& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 2& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 2& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right)$$

It is easily check that the matrix $`A`$ is positive definite. Hence, the restriction of the intersection form to $`V`$ is negative definite.

On the other hand, we have $`[F]0`$, $`[F]^2=0`$ and $`[F]V^{}`$, where $`F`$ is a generic fiber and $`V^{}`$ is the orthogonal complement of $`V`$. Since the restriction of the intersection form to $`V^{}`$ is nondegenerate, there is a class $`[S_8]V^{}`$ with $`[S_8]^2<0`$. Thus, the restriction of the intersection form to the $`8`$-dimensional subspace generated by $`[S_1],\mathrm{},[S_8]`$ is negative definite. Therefore, $`b_2^{}(X)`$ is at least $`8`$, and hence $`b_2^{}(X)=9`$, since it is also odd. Consequently, we have $`b_2^+(X)=1`$ and $`\sigma (X)=8`$.

###### Remarks 5.2.

(1) Stipsicz  points out that when $`g`$ is odd, the manifold $`X`$ that admits a Lefschetz fibration over $`S^2`$ with global monodromy $`W`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{(g1)/2}\times S^2\mathrm{\#}8\overline{CP^2}`$.

(2) R. Fintushel and R. Stern  constructed infinite classes of simply connected homeomorphic but nondiffeomorphic symplectic manifolds, all of which admit Lefschetz fibrations of a fixed fiber genus.

Acknowledgments. I thank András I. Stipsicz and Sergey Finashin for helpful conversations and for suggestions in the computation of the signature in the case of odd $`g`$. I also thank Yildiray Ozan for answering numerous questions.


text:
# Muon anomalous magnetic moment and the stabilized Randall-Sundrum scenario

## Abstract

We study the effects of extra dimension on the muon anomalous magnetic moment in the stabilized Randall-Sundrum scenario. The effects of the Kaluza-Klein states heavier than the cut-off scale expected to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ are neglected. Contribution from the spin-2 Kaluza-Klein states dominates over that from the spin-0 radion. The recent BNL E821 results impose a strict constraint on the parameter space of the model: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 0.42.1`$ TeV with $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.010.1`$. Small $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is preferred if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ is TeV scale.

preprint:  SNUTP 01-010
PACS number(s): 11.30.Pb, 11.30.Er

Recent BNL E821 measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon  has drawn big interest since the result shows $`2.6\sigma `$ deviation from the standard model (SM) prediction and may be indeed a harbinger of the new physics at TeV scale

$$\delta a_\mu a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})=43(16)\times 10^{10}$$
(1)
where $`a_\mu (g_\mu 2)/2`$ and $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})`$ is the world average of experimental values. Since much more data have been already obtained and statistical improvements of the experiment will be achieved, it is timely to see the implication of the advocates of the new physics on $`a_\mu `$. Many supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric interpretations for this anomaly were already proposed, and the combined constraints with other experiments and observations were studied in the particular models.

In this study, we consider the implication of extra dimensional model suggested by Randall and Sundrum (RS) . RS presented a 5-dimensional non-factorizable geometry, based on $`AdS_5`$ spacetime, to generate the hierarchy. In this case, the weak scale could be geometrically generated from the warp factor which arises from the well adjusted boundary conditions reconciled with four dimensional Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$ invariance on the branes. The extra dimension is an interval with a $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry and two 3 branes with opposite tensions are located at fixed points at $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ where $`\varphi `$ is the angular coordinate of the fifth dimension. From the four dimensional effective action in RS scenario, one can get the relation between the induced four dimensional Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ and the fundamental quantum gravitation/string scale $`M_S`$;

$$M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=\frac{M_S^3}{k}(1e^{2kr_c\pi })$$
(2)
where $`k`$ is $`AdS_5`$ curvature and $`r_c`$ is the radius of extra orbifold dimension. Assuming that we live on the brane with a negative tension, a field on this brane with the fundamental mass $`m_0`$ will appear to have the physical mass $`m=e^{kr_c\pi }m_0`$. Thus the weak scales are generated via the exponential warp factor from the Planck scale with $`kr_c12`$. The masses of the KK graviton and their couplings to the SM fields could be determined by mode expansions and proper normalizations. For the n-th excited state the mass is given as ,

$$m_n=kx_ne^{kr_c\pi },$$
(3)
where $`x_n`$ is a root of the Bessel function of order 1, $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is $`AdS_5`$ curvature in the unit of Planck scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =e^{kr_c\pi }M_{\mathrm{Pl}}\mathrm{TeV}`$ is effective weak scale. It should be noted that, we impose the condition $`k<M_{\mathrm{pl}}`$ so that we trust RS solution . Thus, $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ must be smaller than 1 and we take the value in the range of $`0.01k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}1`$ as conservative bound. Then, the lowest KK graviton has mass slightly larger than $`1`$ TeV for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 3`$ TeV and so there might be a chance to see the effects of KK graviton at near future colliders.

The interaction Lagrangians for the zeroth KK graviton mode and standard model fields are suppressed by the Planck scale. But the excited modes interact with SM field through the couplings suppressed by the TeV scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$;

$$=\frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}T_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{SM})h_0^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }\underset{n}{}T_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{SM})h_n^{\mu \nu }.$$
(4)
Here note that the mass of the KK states could become as large as Planck scale or infinity if there were no physical cut-off scale. These super massive KK states could affect the calculations of physical processes or quantities. However, since we do not perfectly know the ultimate theory of quantum gravity or the relevant string theory, their effects could not be understood by a way of fully controllable methods yet. Henceforth the interaction Lagrangian given above will be understood as an effective Lagrangian with the cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ expected to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$  so that the effects of the KK states above the cut-off scale are assumed to be integrated out in our analysis.

On the other hand, one can get the large value of $`kr_c12`$ through the moduli stabilization mechanism proposed by Goldberger and Wise(GW)  without fine-tuning when the small bulk scalar mass is assumed. As a consequence, mass of the radion($`m_\varphi `$) would be a order smaller than TeV scale because it is suppressed not only by warp factor but also by the small ratio of the bulk mass of the radion and the curvature $`k`$. For typical arrangement in GW mechanism, the mass of radion would be $`m_\varphi 0.06\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 180\mathrm{GeV}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 3\mathrm{TeV}`$ . Note that the mass of radion would be smaller than that of excited KK graviton. Thus the radion could provide first chance to observe RS-scenario. The radion couples to ordinary matter through the trace of the SM energy momentum tensor $`T_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ with TeV scale suppressed coupling ;

$$=\frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }T_\mu ^\mu (\mathrm{SM}),$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =\sqrt{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ is the vacuum expectation value for the radion field.

The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is the coefficient of the operator $`(e/4m_\mu )\overline{\mu }\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\mu F_{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma ^\alpha ,\gamma ^\beta ]`$ is the Lorentz generator for spin-1/2 spinors. This term can be calculated by considering loop induced correction to $`\mu \mu \gamma `$ vertex. The extra dimensional contribution of the RS model, to the anomalous magnetic moment $`\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{RS}}`$, is dominated by one-loop diagrams with either the tower of Kaluza-Klein(KK) spin-2 graviton or radion. Since the zeroth KK-mode of graviton is just massless graviton with the Planck scale suppressed coupling, the dominant contribution would come from the KK excited states.

It is convenient to express the contribution of the KK gravitons as (See Fig.1)

$$\delta a^{KK}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi })^2𝒜$$
(6)
where $`𝒜`$ is essentially effective degree of freedom and it could be obtained by summing over all relevant contributions of all the relevant KK states in the Feynman diagrams. The muon mass is $`m_\mu `$ and the factor$`\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}`$ is the usual loop factor. By the gravitational Ward identity, we expect that those terms in the numerator of the graviton propagator containing two or more external momenta do not contribute to $`a_\mu `$ at the order $`𝒪(\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi })^2`$. The sum of the partial amplitudes at the limit of $`(\frac{m_\mu }{m_{KK}})^20`$ for our interest,

$$𝒜5\times N_\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(7)
where $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denotes the number of KK states up to cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can understand the factor 5 as the number of spin degrees of freedom for each massive spin-2 KK state and it is shown by explicit calculation. Since the universality of the gravitational coupling is preserved in this work, the one-loop finiteness of the gravitational coupling appears as the case for massive  and massless graviton . This result is different from the case of  where the bulk gauge and fermion fields are assumed to contribute to $`a_\mu `$. As was commented in , The KK-states exhibit non-decoupling properties since their couplings to matter are stronger at higher energies. But we get the finite contribution with finite $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is related as $`(k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi (N_\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi +\pi /4)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. We use the asymptotic formula for the zeroes of the Bessel function of order 1: $`x_NN\pi +\pi /4`$ at large $`N`$. The whole KK contribution is given by

$`\delta a^{KK}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi }})^2`$ (8)
with $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 𝒪(1)`$.

The dominant radion contribution to the muon anomaly arises from the only one diagram and $`\delta a^\varphi `$ is given by

$$\delta a^\varphi =\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}(\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi })^2𝑑x\frac{x^2(2x)}{x^2+R(1x)}\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}(\frac{m_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi })^2,$$
(9)
where $`R(\frac{m_\varphi }{m_\mu })^2`$ is in general free parameter. The upper bound is saturated at the limit of $`R0`$ and $`\delta a^\varphi `$ decrease with larger $`R`$. Thus $`\delta a^\varphi `$ is much smaller than $`\delta a^{KK}`$ in the preferred parameter space of the model. It is worth noting that the bound from muon anomaly experiments are relevant only for very light radion. But we do not consider that possibility here.

Finally, the total contribution to $`a_\mu `$ from the both of KK-modes and the radion could be approximated as

$$\delta a_\mu ^{\mathrm{RS}}\delta a^{KK}8.8\times 10^{11}\times (\frac{k}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}})^1\times (\frac{\mathrm{TeV}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi })^2$$
(10)
where $`\lambda `$ is set as $`\pi /4`$ to be order 1. If we ascribe the difference $`a_\mu (\mathrm{exp})a_\mu (\mathrm{SM})`$ to $`\delta a^{\mathrm{RS}}`$, for $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ in the range 0.01 - 0.1, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 0.42.1`$ TeV. The Fig.2 describes the allowed parameter space $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi ,k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}})`$ for the muon anomaly. The solid line and the dotted line denotes the lower and upper bound of the experimental value, respectively. We can see that the small $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is preferred with TeV scaled $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$. The large range of the preferred parameter space compensating $`\delta a_\mu `$ data is already disfavored from the experiments of Tevatron or LEP-II. But we still don’t dispute the possibility of RS model appearing at over TeV scale. So we are eagerly waiting for the expected improved measurements which will give much more strict constraints on the model.

In summary, we have studied the effects of Kaluza-Klein tower and radion on the $`g2`$ factor of muon in the stabilized RS model at one loop level. We discarded the effects of the KK states heavier than the cut-off scale. The Kaluza-Klein states are shown to affect much more greatly than the radion do on the muon anomalous magnetic moment. The recently reported deviation in anomalous magnetic moment is possibly accommodated in the corresponding parameter space in the range of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi 0.42.1`$ GeV with $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.010.1`$. Small $`k/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ is preferred if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi `$ is TeV scale.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank K. Y. Lee and Jung-Tay Yee for useful discussion, J. Song for valuable criticism. The work was supported by the BK21 program.


text:
# References

Recently the OPAL collaboration  at the CERN–LEP collider has extended the measurements of the photon structure function $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ into the small–$`x`$ region down to $`x10^3`$, probing lower values of $`x`$ than ever before. The observed rise of $`F_2^\gamma `$ towards low values of $`x`$, $`x<0.1`$, is in agreement with general QCD renormalization group (RG) improved expectations. It has, however, been noted that the rising small–$`x`$ data at lower scales $`Q^224`$ GeV2 lie above the original QCD expectations anticipated almost a decade ago .

It is the purpose of the present note to demonstrate that more recent and updated parameter–free QCD predictions  for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ are in general also consistent with the OPAL small–$`x`$ measurements at all presently accessible values of $`Q^2`$.

Before presenting our results it is instructive to recapitulate briefly the main differences between the original GRVγ  approach to the photonic parton distributions and the more recent parameter–free predictions of GRS . In the latter approach a coherent superposition of vector mesons has been employed, which maximally enhances the $`u`$–quark contributions to $`F_2^\gamma `$, for determining the hadronic parton input $`f_{\mathrm{had}}^\gamma (x,Q_0^2)`$ at a GRV–like  input scale $`Q_0^2\mu _{\mathrm{LO}}^2=0.26`$ GeV2 and $`Q_0^2\mu _{\mathrm{NLO}}^2=0.40`$ GeV2 for calculating the (anti)quark and gluon distributions $`f^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ of a real photon in leading order (LO) and next–to–LO (NLO) of QCD. Furthermore, in order to remove the ambiguity of the hadronic light quark sea and gluon input distributions of the photon (being related to the ones of the pion, $`f^\pi (x,Q_0^2)`$, via vector meson dominance), inherent to the older GRVγ  and SaS  parametrizations, predictions  for $`\overline{q}^\pi (x,Q^2)`$ and $`g^\pi (x,Q^2)`$ have been used by GRS  which follow from constituent quark model constraints . These latter constraints allow to express $`\overline{q}^\pi `$ and $`g^\pi `$ entirely in terms of the experimentally known pionic valence density and the rather well known quark–sea and gluon distributions of the nucleon , using most recent updated valence–like input parton densities of the nucleon. Since more recent DIS small–$`x`$ measurements at HERA imply somewhat less steep sea and gluon distributions of the proton , the structure functions of the photon will therefore also rise less steeply in $`x`$  than the previous GRVγ  ones as will be seen in the figures shown below. In this way one arrives at truly parameter–free predictions for the structure functions and parton distributions of the photon.

In Figs. 1 and 2 we compare the more recent GRS predictions  and the older GRVγ results  with the recent small–$`x`$ OPAL measurements  and, for completeness, some relevant L3 data  are shown as well. The parameter–free LO– and NLO–GRS expectations are confirmed by the small–$`x`$ OPAL data at all (small and large) experimentally accessible scales $`Q^2`$. This is in contrast to the GRVγ and SaS results which at LO are somewhat below the data at small $`Q^2`$ in Fig. 1 and seem to increase too strongly at small $`x`$ in NLO, in particular at larger values of $`Q^2`$ as shown in Fig. 2. The main reason for this latter stronger and steeper $`x`$–dependence in LO and NLO derives from the assumed vanishing (pionic) quark–sea input at $`Q_0^2=\mu _{\mathrm{LO},\mathrm{NLO}}^2`$ for the anti(quark) distributions of the photon as well as from relating the hadronic gluon input of the photon directly to its (pionic) valence distribution . This is in contrast to the more realistic (input) boundary conditions employed by GRS .

Clearly these small–$`x`$ measurements imply that the photon must contain  a dominant hadron–like component at low $`x`$, since the simple direct ‘box’ cross section (based on the subprocess $`\gamma ^{}(Q^2)\gamma q\overline{q}`$) yields $`F_{2,\mathrm{box}}^\gamma 0`$ as $`x0`$, in contrast to the data for $`x<0.1`$ in Figs. 1 and 2. The QCD RG–improved parton distributions of the photon are thus essential for understanding the data on $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, with its dominant contributions deriving from $`q^\gamma (x,Q^2)=\overline{q}^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$. It would be also interesting and important to extend present measurements  of the gluon distribution of the photon, $`g^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$, below the presently measured region 0.1 $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`x<1`$ where similarly $`g^\gamma (x<0.1,Q^2)`$ is expected to be also somewhat flatter  in the small–$`x`$ region than previously anticipated .

Figure Captions

* Comparison of the parameter–free GRS predictions , the previous GRVγ  and SaS  results for $`F_2^\gamma (x,Q^2)`$ with the recent OPAL (1.9 GeV2) small–$`x`$ measurements  at two fixed lower scales $`Q^2`$. The previous OPAL (1.86 GeV2)  and L3  data are also displayed.
* As in Fig. 1 but at two fixed scales $`Q^2`$. The recent OPAL small–$`x`$ data are taken from Ref. .