text:
# The Mass-Velocity and Position-Velocity Relations in Episodic Outflows

## 1 Introduction

As forming stars accrete mass inside molecular clouds, they simultaneously throw away a large fraction of that mass in a vigorous outflow. So-called “molecular” or “CO” outflows are one of several manifestations of these mass outflows from young stellar objects (YSOs). The molecular outflows consist primarily of swept-up ambient cloud material, and are most likely driven by an underlying (faster) flow emanating from the forming star and/or its circumstellar disk.

Spectral-line observations of molecular outflows have shown that they exhibit several common observational characteristics. A log-log plot of outflow mass as a function of velocity (a.k.a. a “mass spectrum”), usually shows power-law mass-velocity ($`Mv`$) relations where $`dM(v)/dv\alpha v^\gamma `$. Position-velocity relations of outflows often exhibit another common characteristic —a so-called “Hubble-law” where the maximum velocity of the outflowing gas increases nearly linearly with distance from the source.

Many observational and theoretical studies have found that molecular outflows have a mass spectrum with $`\gamma 2`$ (e.g., Lada & Fich 1996; Smith, Suttner, & Yorke 1997; Matzner & McKee 1999), and that the outflows can be characterized by a single Hubble-law (e.g., Meyers-Rice & Lada 1991, Shu et al. 1991; Lada & Fich 1996; Matzner & McKee 1999). But, recent outflow studies (e.g., Yu, Billawala, & Bally 1999; Arce & Goodman 2001) have shown $`\gamma `$ to be much steeper than 2 in some cases. Furthermore, the position-velocity diagrams of those steep-mass-spectrum molecular outflows are characterized by several Hubble-law “wedges,” rather than a single one. In this Letter, we show how an episodic111 We use the term “episodic outflow” to mean an outflow that varies in shape, mass loss rate, direction, and/or velocity in an unpredictable way and it is “not-strictly-periodic”. Episodic outflows (with ages about $`10^4`$ to $`10^5`$ yr) are characterized by events of violent mass ejection ($`\dot{M}_{out}10^5`$ to $`10^4`$ M yr-1) every 500 to $`10^3`$ yr or so, with states of no, or very low ($`\dot{M}_{out}10^8`$ to $`10^7`$ M yr-1) mass ejection between the violent outburst episodes. Several mechanisms which produce episodic outflows from young stars have been discussed in the literature (e.g., self-regulated thermal disk instabilities, Bell & Lin 1994; companion-disk interactions in a multiple stellar system, Reipurth 2000, and references therein). outflow could easily produce mass spectra with $`\gamma >2`$ and multiple Hubble wedges.

## 2 Mass-Velocity Relation

### 2.1 Observing the $`Mv`$ Relation

Observers measure molecular outflow mass as a function of velocity using molecular spectral line maps, usually of the 12CO(1–0) line. In practice, the mass-velocity relation is obtained by calculating mass per $`\delta v`$-wide velocity bin and plotting mass as a function of velocity offset from the host cloud’s mean velocity. The observed mass-velocity relations to date always imply more mass at low outflow velocities than at higher outflow velocities. Usually, $`\mathrm{log}(dM/dv)`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}(v)`$ has a broken-power-law appearance, with $`dM(v)/dv\alpha v^{\gamma _{low}}`$ for “low” outflow velocities, and $`dM(v)/dv\alpha v^{\gamma _{high}}`$ for “high” velocities. The border between “high” and “low” is set by the break in the power law, and $`\gamma _{high}>\gamma _{low}`$ (see Bachiller & Tafalla 1999 and references therein). Hereafter $`\gamma `$ is used to mean $`\gamma _{low}`$ whenever $`\mathrm{log}(dM/dv)`$ has a broken power-law appearance.

Most observational outflow studies estimate outflow mass by assuming either that 12CO emission is optically thin at all outflow velocities, or by correcting for a constant (velocity-independent) 12CO line opacity. In the majority of studies where the outflow mass is obtained in this conventional way, $`\gamma `$ ranges from about 0.5 to 3.5, with a concentration of values near $`\gamma 2`$ (e.g., Richer et al. 2000). In fact, however, the 12CO line is often optically thick, and the exact value of opacity depends on velocity. Not correcting for the velocity-dependent opacity will, in most cases, underestimate the value of $`\gamma `$. A few very recent outflow studies have explicitly taken the velocity-dependent opacity of the 12CO line into account when estimating outflow mass, and these studies generally find $`\gamma >2`$ (Bally et al. 1999; Yu et al. 1999; Yu et al. 2000; Arce & Goodman 2001). Discussions on the possible factors that may produce a large value of $`\gamma `$ can be found in Yu et al. (1999) and Arce & Goodman (2001). But, just because these studies have yielded a steeper mass-spectrum slope, on average, than the “conventional” outflow studies, does not necessarily mean that $`\gamma `$ would dramatically increase for all outflows if they were corrected for the velocity-dependent opacity of 12CO. In some cases, usually involving very fast outflows, the assumption that the 12CO is optically thin at the outflow velocities is fine, and there is no need for opacity correction. In general, though, we expect that a compilation of velocity-dependent-opacity-corrected mass spectra would yield a distribution of $`\gamma `$’s, with mean $`\gamma >2`$. As discussed in §2.3 below, episodic outflows could produce such a distribution of observed $`\gamma `$’s.

### 2.2 Modeling the $`Mv`$ Relation

Numerical and theoretical studies predict that a molecular outflow mass spectrum should have a power-law dependence. In the numerical models of Zhang & Zheng (1997) and of Smith et al. (1997), molecular outflows are produced by the entrainment of ambient gas by a bow shock, and $`\gamma `$ is found to be $`1.8`$ over most of the outflow velocity range. Both models also find a turn-down in the mass spectrum at very high velocities, where $`\gamma >>1.8`$. In their numerical models, Downes & Ray (1999) find that the mass spectrum has a single slope which ranges between 1.58 and 3.75, depending on certain parameters of the simulation (i.e., molecular fraction in the jet, amplitude of the jet velocity variation,222The models of Smith et al. (1997) and Downes & Ray (1999) include the effects of rapidly periodic pulsed jets, but these pulsations are too rapid and regular to be “episodic” in our definition. and the ratio of jet to ambient density). Both Smith et al. (1997) and Downes & Ray (1999) find that $`\gamma `$ increases as the jet ages. According to those models, the ambient material that once was accelerated by bow shock entrainment slows down as times goes by, which steepens the mass spectrum by shifting mass from the “fast” end of the mass-velocity relation to the “slow” end. The simulated outflows of Smith et al. (1997) and Downes & Ray (1999) are relatively young (600 and 300 years, respectively), but it seems reasonable to expect that the qualitative trend of increasing $`\gamma `$ with age would continue as the outflow evolves in time, and once-fast gas slows down. Very recent bow shock modeling by Lee et al. (2000) finds that $`\gamma `$ also depends sensitively on the inclination of the outflow axis to the line of sight.

In contrast to the numerical results, the recent analytical study by Matzner & McKee (1999; hereafter MM) concludes that it is hard to obtain a value of the power-law mass spectrum slope that is not very close to 2, for all times. Unlike the numerical studies listed above, however, the entrainment of the ambient medium in MM is not specifically caused by a bow shock; rather, it is caused by a collimated wind which sweeps the ambient gas into a momentum-conserving shell, following the models of Shu et al. (1991) and Li & Shu (1996).

### 2.3 The $`Mv`$ Relation in Episodic Outflows

As a framework for a future analytic model of an episodic outflow, consider a flow as the sum of many collimated MM-like outflows, each of which originates at a different time, with a slightly different orientation. In this hypothetical picture, the episodic “bursts” need not all have the same total mass or ejection velocity. As a result, the bursts can even run over themselves in space, with very fast young bursts overtaking older, slower ones. In this picture, an observed molecular outflow represents the time and space superposition of many MM-like individual outflow events. In cases where many events of comparable energy have taken place within a few dynamical times of each other, the effects of episodicity will be noticeable in the mass-velocity (and position-velocity, see §3) relations measured for the outflow. In addition, in order for a burst to effect the molecular outflow, the ejection angle between the different bursts should be enough so that each travels through regions of the cloud that have not yet been cleared out of gas by previous bursts. Given that most stellar jets have opening angles of a few degrees (e.g., Mundt, Ray, & Raga 1991) a change in ejection angle of only a few degrees between different bursts is enough for a burst to easily encounter “fresh and unperturbed” cloud material. In the case where the kinetic energy of one of those events completely dominates any others, the effects of episodicity will be less noticeable.

MM show that for any stellar wind with a momentum injection rate distributed in space in proportion to $`1/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, any momentum-conserving interaction between that wind and an ambient medium with a power-law density profile will have a mass spectrum with $`\gamma 2`$.333Hydromagnetic winds naturally collimate and their resultant force distribution is proportional to $`1/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (see MM and references therein). So, for the hypothetical episodic flow described above, we can assume that each outburst of an episodic (hydromagnetic) wind has a $`1/\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ force distribution. Each outburst of outflowing material will not necessarily interact with the same ambient gas conditions, as each successive burst can change the density, velocity and/or temperature distribution of the ambient gas surrounding the wind. But, MM clearly explain that a value of $`\gamma `$ close to 2 is obtained independent of the density, velocity and temperature distributions in the ambient gas. So, in an episodic outflow, we can assume that each independent outburst is responsible for putting ambient gas into motion with a power-law mass-velocity relationship with $`\gamma 2`$.

So, what will the cumulative observed $`\gamma `$ for an episodic outflow be? MM say that “$`\gamma 2`$” regardless of the time history of the flow, but that is for a “time history” where the same flow is just turned on and off, flowing into an ambient medium with a power-law density distribution. If instead we envision the bursty flow described above, where variable amounts of ambient material are accelerated to assorted maximum velocities (due either to variations in the wind, or in the ambient medium), the observed mass spectrum will be the result of superimposed bursts, and will steepen (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 shows a mass spectrum for a hypothetical episodic outflow. Each molecular outflow episode is represented as a power-law going back to zero-velocity444This is for illustrative purposes only, as in reality $`\mathrm{log}(dM/dv)`$ should flatten at very low velocities. with $`\gamma =2`$, but with a unique total mass and maximum velocity. The observed molecular outflow mass spectrum is the superposition (sum) of all past episodes’ mass spectra. A power-law fit to the sample “observed” mass spectrum in Figure 1 results in an “observed” $`\gamma `$ of 2.7. Thus, an episodic wind composed of a series of MM-like ($`\gamma =2`$) outbursts is able to create a molecular outflow with $`\gamma 2`$. In fact, without additional constraints on the maximum velocity or total mass of any outburst, practically any value of $`\gamma 2`$ can be created in this way.

## 3 Position-Velocity Relation

### 3.1 Observing p(v)

One of the best kinematic diagnostics of outflows is a position-velocity (p-v) diagram. The typical molecular outflow p-v diagram is constructed by summing spectra in strips perpendicular to the assumed outflow axis, and then contouring line intensity as a function of position along the outflow axis and velocity (see Figure 2).

The simplest molecular outflow p-v diagrams show maximum outflow velocity increasing approximately linearly as a function of distance from the source. Clear examples of this kind of “Hubble-law” velocity distribution are seen in Mon R2 (Meyers-Rice & Lada 1991) and NGC 2264G (Lada & Fich 1996; also see bottom panels of Figure 2). In other cases, p-v diagrams exhibit more complicated behavior, which can often be described as a series of “Hubble-wedges” distributed at various distances from the source (see top panels of Figure 2). These multiple wedges are seen in small molecular outflows (0.4 pc long) from Class 0 sources (e.g., L 1448, Bachiller et al. 1990) as well as in large ($`1`$ pc long) outflows from Class I sources (e.g., L1551, Bachiller, Tafalla, & Cernicharo 1994; B5 IRS1, Yu et al. (1999); HH 300, Arce & Goodman 2001).

### 3.2 Modeling p(v)

Outflow models can easily produce a single Hubble-law position-velocity relation, but so far, we do not know of any model that produces multiple Hubble-wedges.

The numerical simulations of Smith et al. (1997), Zhang & Zheng (1997), and Downes & Ray (1999) in which outflows are created by the entrainment of ambient gas by a single bow shock, all reproduce the Hubble velocity law. In these models, the Hubble velocity law is in part due to the geometry of the bow shock. A simplified explanation is that the highest forward (in the traveling direction of the jet) velocities are found in the apex of the bow shock, which is also the point furthest away from the source. The forward velocities decrease toward the wings of the bow shock, and the farthest away from the apex (or closer to the outflow source) the slower will be the entrained gas (see Figure 3 of Masson & Chernin 1993; and Figure 12 of Lada & Fich 1996).

Bow shock models are not the only ones that produce the Hubble velocity law; the studies of Shu et al. (1991), Li & Shu (1996) and MM also obtain molecular outflows with Hubble velocity laws as a natural consequence of their being created by a momentum-conserving wind. This behavior is easy to understand as “velocity-sorting,” since faster material ejected contemporaneously with slower material will travel farther from the source.

### 3.3 p(v) in Episodic Outflows

An episodic stellar wind interacting with ambient gas through bow shock prompt entrainment could produce a p-v diagram with several Hubble wedges. In an episodic flow with a significantly varying mass-ejection rate, outflowing gas would show a Hubble-like velocity distribution for each mass-ejection episode, with the tip of each Hubble wedge at a source offset corresponding to a bow-shock apex in the outflow map. Since not all outbursts from an episodic source necessarily have the same angle with respect to the plane of the sky or accelerate the ambient gas to the same maximum velocity, each “Hubble wedge” will not necessarily have the same maximum radial velocity, and the maximum velocity can change over time.

If a wind either has had only a single outburst or is dominated by one particularly strong outburst, a molecular outflow with a single Hubble velocity law can result (see Figure 2). Outflow evolution may also be responsible for creating a single Hubble law. A molecular outflow from an episodic wind which had its last outburst (or has not had an outburst in a considerable amount of time) will be subject to the same kind of velocity-sorting mentioned above, and would produce a single Hubble law in its p-v diagram.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Taken together, $`Mv`$ relations with $`\gamma >2`$ and p-v relations showing multiple Hubble wedges provide very strong evidence that “episodicity” is a key feature of molecular outflows from young stars.

### 4.1 Reconstructing History

It is tempting to try to reconstruct the outburst history of an episodic outflow by combining information from $`Mv`$ and p-v diagrams. In very simple cases, where two or three outbursts dominate the flow, this is possible (e.g., Gueth, Guilloteau, & Bachiller 1996; Narayanan & Walker 1996). In perhaps more typical cases though, where important bursts are separated by much less than the dynamical time scale for each burst, modeling is considerably more complicated —in that uniqueness problems plague the search for solutions. We expect though, that if an a priori model of the underlying jet can be made (based on either the molecular line map or other data), the consistency of this model with both the $`Mv`$ and p-v relations can be tested.

### 4.2 The need for new models

Almost since the day they were discovered, molecular outflows have been thought of as a possible (re-)supplier of the turbulent energy needed to support molecular clouds against rapid gravitational collapse (e.g. Norman & Silk 1980 and citations thereto). It has also been suggested that a molecular outflow may be able to disrupt its host core (e.g, Tafalla & Myers 1998), and/or that a combination of outflows may “churn” (Bally et al. 1999) or disrupt (Knee & Sandell 2000) a whole molecular cloud complex.

Now, dozens of observational papers, only some of which are mentioned above, have pointed to the “episodic” nature of young stellar outflows. Simply put, observers are now sure that these outflows originate from a bursty source. The outflow source may also be precessing and/or moving through the ISM, and each of its bursts may accelerate a different amount of ambient matter to a different velocity. In this Letter, we have shown that the episodic nature of outflows causes their M-v and p-v relations to be very different from those predicted by any existing analytic model.

In order to correctly asses the energetic role of outflows in a magnetized ISM, it is now necessary to account for the time history of their interaction with their surroundings. The episodic nature of outflows does not affect the total momentum injected in the ISM by outflows, and thus it does not matter in most of the ISM feedback theories (e.g., Norman & Silk 1980, and citations thereto). On the other hand, outflow episodicity may change the effective length and time scales on which the momentum is injected, which is important for a magnetized ISM with MHD turbulence (e.g., Padoan & Nordlund 1999, and references therein). We offer this Letter as a motivation for would-be modelers. Any detailed realistic model of a molecular outflow must include its episodic nature.

We are grateful to Charles Lada for expert comments on this work as it progressed, Chris Matzner (the referee) for his very useful comments and to the National Science Foundation (AST-9457456 and AST-9721455) for supporting our efforts.


format: text

text:
# Integral equations of scattering in one dimension

## I Introduction

The simple problem of one-dimensional quantum scattering continues as an active line of research . This problem has seen crucial applications in studying tunneling phenomena in a finite superlattice . A self-contained discussion of quantum scattering in one dimension using differential Schrödinger equation has appeared in the literature . Here we present a comprehensive description of the integral equations of scattering using the Green’s function technique in one dimension in close analogy with the two-  and three-dimensional cases . Apart from these interests in research, the present study of one-dimensional scattering is also interesting from a pedagogical point of view. In a one dimensional treatment one does not need special mathematical functions, like the Bessel’s functions, while still retaining sufficient physical complexity to illustrate many of the physical concepts, such as, partial-wave decomposition, Green’s function, Lippmann-Schwinger (LS) integral equations of scattering for wave function and transition operator, optical theorem and unitarity relation, which occur in two and three dimensions.

A self-contained discussion of two-dimensional scattering has appeared in the literature . There is an intrinsic difference between scattering in two and three dimensions and that in one dimension. In one dimension there are only two discrete scattering directions: forward and backward along a line. This requires special techniques in one dimension in distinction with two or three dimension where an infinity of scattering directions are permitted characterized by continuous angular variables. It is because of the above subtlety of one-dimensional scattering problem we present a complete discussion of the integral-equation formulation in this case. This special feature of one dimensional scattering leads to two partial waves. For a centrally-symmetric potential these two partial waves are decoupled, with even and odd parity .

Here we present a discussion of the integral equations of scattering in one dimension in momentum and configuration space for a centrally-symmetric potential $`V(x)=V(x)`$. Formánek  has discussed the importance of this symmetry in obtaining mathematical simplification. Interesting things can happen in the nonsymmetric case . The two partial waves are coupled in the nonsymmetric case $`V(x)V(x)`$ and nontrivial modifications of the standard scattering formulation are needed . For noncentral potentials in three dimensions (in the presence of tensor potential) the different partial-wave components also become coupled. However, in this work we shall only be limited to a discussion of the centrally symmetric case.

More specifically, we present a Green-function description of scattering in partial-wave form. Also, we derive the LS equation of scattering for wave function and a obtain a suitable transition ($`t`$) matrix. The on-the-energy shell (on-shell) $`t`$ matrix element is essentially the physical scattering amplitude. We also derive the unitarity relation for the $`t`$ matrix and show it to be consistent with the usual form of the optical theorem in three dimensions .

In Sec. II we present the LS integral equations. Sec. III deals with the unitary relations. In Sec. IV we present an illustrative application of the formalism with the delta function potential. A brief summary is presented in Sec. V.

## II Integral equation of scattering

In one dimension the scattering wave function $`\psi _k^{(+)}(x)`$ at position $`x`$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation

$$\left[\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)\right]\psi _k^{(+)}(x)=k^2\psi _k^{(+)}(x)$$
(1)
where $`V(x)`$ is a centrally-symmetric finite-range potential in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/(2m)`$ satisfying $`V(x)=0,r>R`$ and $`V(x)=V(x)`$, where $`r=|x|`$, $`m`$ the reduced mass, $`E\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m)`$ the energy, and $`k`$ the wave number. The scattering wave function is not square integrable and hence does not satisfy the usual normalization condition of a bound-state wave function. However it is useful in some cases to ‘normalize’ it according to

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\psi _k^{(+)}(x)\psi _k^{}^{(+)}(x)=2\pi \delta (kk^{}),$$
(2)
where $`\delta `$ is the Dirac delta function. The previous discussions on scattering in one dimension are based on the solution of the differential equation (1) for the wave function supplemented by the necessary boundary conditions . The present discussion will be based on the integral equations of scattering which we derive below.

In configuration space the Green’s function $`G_0^\pm lim_{\eta 0}(k^2H_0+i\eta )`$, with $`H_0`$ the kinetic energy operator, satisfies

$$\left[k^2+\frac{d^2}{dx^2}\right]G_0^{(\pm )}(x,x^{})=\delta (xx^{})$$
(3)
together with appropriate boundary conditions. The solution of this equation is given by

$$G_0^{(\pm )}(x,x^{})=\frac{i}{2k}\mathrm{exp}(\pm ik|xx^{}|)$$
(4)
In analogy with two and three dimensions one can introduce the following LS equation

$$\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x)=\varphi _k(x)+_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}G_0^{(\pm )}(x,x^{})V(x^{})\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x^{})𝑑x^{}.$$
(5)
In operator form this equation becomes

$$|\psi _k^{(\pm )}=|\varphi _k+G_0^{(\pm )}V|\psi _k^{(\pm )}.$$
(6)
The incident plane wave $`\varphi _k(x)x|k=\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$ satisfies the free Schrödinger equation $`H_0\varphi _k=k^2\varphi _k.`$ The $`\pm `$ sign in Eq. (5) refers to the outgoing and incoming wave boundary conditions, respectively. The physical scattering problem corresponds to the positive sign.

Equation (4) when substituted into Eq. (5) leads to the following asymptotic form for the wave function

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)+\frac{i}{k}f_k^{(\pm )}(ϵ)\mathrm{exp}(\pm ikr),$$
(7)
where

$$f_k^{(\pm )}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(iϵkx^{})V(x^{})\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x^{})𝑑x^{}.$$
(8)
The quantity $`f_k^{(\pm )}(ϵ)`$ is termed scattering amplitude. The parameter $`ϵ`$ is $`+1`$ for $`x>0`$ and $`1`$ for $`x<0`$ in the asymptotic region. Definition (8) of the scattering amplitude  is distinct from that in Refs. :

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_k^{(\pm )}(ϵ)=\frac{i}{2k}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(iϵkx^{})V(x^{})\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x^{})𝑑x^{}.$$
(9)
The essential difference between the two is in the phase factor $`i`$ which does not influence the cross sections. However, the present definition has the advantage of leading to an optical theorem in close analogy with that in three dimensions as we shall see in the following. The scattering amplitude of Refs.  leads to an optical theorem distinct from the one in three dimensions. The physical outgoing-wave boundary condition is given by Eq. (7) for $`\psi _k^{(+)}(x)`$. There are two discrete scattering directions in one dimension characterized by $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ in the asymptotic region in contrast to infinite possibility of scattering angles in two and three dimensions. The forward (backward) direction is given by the $`ϵ=1`$ ($`1`$). The discrete differential cross sections in these two directions are given by

$$\sigma _ϵ=\frac{1}{k^2}|f_k^{(+)}(ϵ)|^2$$
(10)
and the total cross section by

$$\sigma _{\text{tot}}=\underset{ϵ}{}\sigma _ϵ=\frac{1}{k^2}\left[|f_k^{(+)}(+)|^2+|f_k^{(+)}()|^2\right].$$
(11)
The discrete sum in Eq. (11) is to be compared with integrals over continuous angle variables in two and three dimensions. The usual reflection ($`R`$) and transmission ($`T`$) probabilities are given by $`T=|1+if_k^{(+)}(+)/k|^2`$ and $`R=|if_k^{(+)}()/k|^2`$.

Here we must comment on the dimension (unit) of cross section and scattering amplitudes. Cross section is defined to be the number of events (particles scattered) per unit time per unit incident flux. The incident flux is the number of particles incident per unit time per a section of space. The section of space has units of area and length in three and two dimensions and is dimensionless in one dimension. The corresponding incident flux is measured in units of T-1L-2, T-1L-1, and T-1 in these dimensions, respectively, where T denotes time and L length. Cross section is an observable and has units of L2 and L in three  and two  dimensions and is dimensionless in one dimension. The present cross section (11) is dimensionless. Scattering amplitude is not a physical observable and there could be some flexibility in its definition. The present definition of the scattering amplitude leads to an optical theorem which is formally similar to the optical theorem in three dimensions. Other definitions of the scattering amplitude in terms of other units are also possible, for example the one given by Eq. (9) .

Next we introduce the on-shell matrix elements of the transition operator $`t`$ via the following equations

$$ϵk|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|k=2f_k^{(\pm )}(ϵ)$$
(12)
$$k^{}|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|k=\varphi _k^{}|V|\psi _k^{(\pm )}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(ik^{}x^{})V(x^{})\psi _k^{(\pm )}(x^{})𝑑x^{},$$
(13)
with $`k^{}=ϵk`$ and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, so that $`k^2=k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$; $`ϵ=+1`$ ($`1`$) corresponds to the forward (backward) direction. The transition operator $`t`$ is taken to obey $`t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|q^{}=V|\psi _q^{}^{(\pm )}`$ with $`q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k^2`$. From Eq. (6) we find that the transition operator $`t`$ satisfies

$$t^{(\pm )}(k^2)=V+VG_0^{(\pm )}t^{(\pm )}(k^2).$$
(14)
The usual spectral representation of the free Green’s function is

$$G_0^{(\pm )}(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ipx)\mathrm{exp}(ipx^{})}{k^2p^2\pm i0}.$$
(15)
Using Eqs. (14) and (15) one obtains the following explicit LS equation for the general off-shell $`t`$ matrix elements $`q|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|q^{}`$ ($`q^2k^2q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$)

$$q|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|q^{}=q|V|q^{}+\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pq|V|p\frac{1}{k^2p^2\pm i0}p|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|q^{}.$$
(16)
where

$$q|V|q^{}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(iqx)V(x)\mathrm{exp}(iq^{}x)𝑑x$$
(17)
Using the symmetry property of $`V`$, e.g. $`V(x)=V(x)`$ and Eq. (17) it can be shown that

$$ϵq|V|q^{}=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rV(r)\mathrm{cos}(\overline{q}^{}r+ϵ\overline{q}r),$$
(18)
where $`\overline{q}=|q|`$. One can conveniently define the momentum-space partial-wave matrix elements of the potential by

$$ϵq|V|q^{}=2\underset{L=0}{\overset{1}{}}ϵ^L\overline{q}|V_L|\overline{q}^{}$$
(19)
where $`V_L`$’s are the desired partial-wave components. Using Eqs. (18) and (19) we obtain

$$\overline{q}|V_0|\overline{q}^{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\mathrm{cos}(\overline{q}r)V(r)\mathrm{cos}(\overline{q}^{}r)\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{cos}(\overline{q}x)V(x)\mathrm{cos}(\overline{q}^{}x)$$
(20)
$$\overline{q}|V_1|\overline{q}^{}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\mathrm{sin}(\overline{q}r)V(r)\mathrm{sin}(\overline{q}^{}r).$$
(21)
Defining the partial-wave elements of the $`t`$ matrix as in Eq. (19) via

$$ϵq|t^{(\pm )}(k^2)|q^{}=2\underset{L=0}{\overset{1}{}}ϵ^L\overline{q}|t_L^{(\pm )}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{}$$
(22)
one arrives at the following partial-wave projection of the LS equation (16)

$$\overline{q}|t_L^{(\pm )}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{}=\overline{q}|V_L|\overline{q}^{}+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\overline{p}\overline{q}|V_L|\overline{p}\frac{1}{k^2p^2\pm i0}\overline{p}|t_L^{(\pm )}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{}$$
(23)
The integration limits in the partial-wave form extend from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ as after partial-wave projection we generate the modulus of momentum variable.

## III Unitarity relation

In order to derive the unitarity relation we write the formal solution of the LS equation (23) as

$$t_L^{(\pm )}(k^2)=V_L+VG^{(\pm )}(k^2)V_L$$
(24)
where the full Green’s function is defined by $`G^{(\pm )}(k^2)=lim_{\eta 0}(k^2H\pm i\eta )^1`$ with $`H=H_0+V`$ the full Hamiltonian. Using the complete set of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ one has the following spectral decomposition of the full Green’s function

$$G^{(\pm )}(k^2)=\underset{n}{}\frac{|\psi _n\psi _n|}{k^2e_n}+\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{|\psi _p^{(+)}\psi _p^{(+)}|}{k^2p^2\pm i0}$$
(25)
where the summation over $`n`$ refers to the bound states $`\psi _n`$ of energy $`e_n`$ and the integration over $`p`$ to the scattering states $`\psi _p^{(+)}`$ with the normalization conditions $`\psi _n|\psi _n=1`$ and $`\psi _q^{(+)}|\psi _p^{(+)}=2\pi \delta (pq).`$ From Eq. (25) one realizes that when this expression is substituted in Eq. (24) the integral over the continuum states will contribute a square-root cut in the complex energy plane along the real positive energy axis, so that the $`t`$ matrix will possess this so called unitarity cut. The discontinuity across this cut is given by the following difference

$`\overline{q}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)t_L^{()}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{}=4i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{p}\delta (k^2p^2)\overline{q}|t_L^{(+)}(p^2)|\overline{p}\overline{p}|t_L^{()}(p^2)|\overline{q}^{}`$ (26)
or

$$\mathrm{}\overline{q}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)\overline{q}^{}=\frac{1}{\overline{k}}\overline{q}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)|\overline{k}\overline{k}|t_L^{()}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{},$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the imaginary part. When $`\overline{q}=\overline{q}^{}=\overline{k}`$, Eq. (27) becomes

$$\mathrm{}\overline{k}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)\overline{k}=\frac{1}{\overline{k}}|\overline{k}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)|\overline{k}|^2$$
(28)
which leads to the following parametrization for the on-shell $`t`$ matrix in terms of the phase shift $`\delta _L`$

$$\overline{k}|t_L^{(+)}(k^2)|\overline{k}=\overline{k}\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _L)\mathrm{sin}(\delta _L).$$
(29)
From Eqs. (12), (22) and (29) we obtain the following partial-wave projection of the scattering amplitudes :

$$f_k^{(+)}(ϵ)=\overline{k}\underset{L=0}{\overset{1}{}}ϵ^L\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _L)\mathrm{sin}(\delta _L).$$
(30)
The two phase shifts for both amplitudes $`f_k^{(+)}(+)`$ and $`f_k^{(+)}()`$ are the same. Now one naturally defines the partial-wave amplitudes

$$f_L=\overline{k}\mathrm{exp}(i\delta _L)\mathrm{sin}(\delta _L)$$
(31)
so that the total cross section of Eq. (11) becomes

$$\sigma _{\text{tot}}=2\underset{L=0}{\overset{1}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\delta _L)$$
(32)
and satisfies the following optical theorem

$$\sigma _{\text{tot}}=\frac{2}{\overline{k}}\mathrm{}f_k^{(+)}(+),$$
(33)
in close analogy with the three-dimensional case, where $`f_k^{(+)}(+)`$ is the forward scattering amplitude. The scattering amplitude (9) of  leads to the distinct optical theorem

$$\sigma _{\text{tot}}=2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{f}_k^{(+)}(+),$$
(34)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the real part.

## IV Delta Potential

Here we present an illustrative application of the formulation using the delta potential: $`V(x)=\lambda \delta (x)`$. The configuration space solution of the problem is well known . In the following we show that the integral-equation treatment leads to the same result. The solutions are analytically known in this simple case. From Eqs. (20) and (21) we find that $`\overline{q}|V_0|\overline{q}^{}=\lambda /2`$ and $`\overline{q}|V_1|\overline{q}^{}=0`$. Hence we have only one partial wave ($`L=0`$) in this case. In this case Eq. (23) has the trivial solution

$$\overline{q}|t_0^{(+)}(k^2)|\overline{q}^{}=\frac{\lambda /2}{1+\frac{\lambda }{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp}{k^2p^2+i0}}=\frac{ik\lambda /2}{ik\lambda /2}.$$
(35)
In this simple problem the $`t`$ matrix elements are independent of the momenta variables. From Eqs. (12), (22) and (35) we find that

$$\frac{i}{k}f_k^{(+)}(ϵ)=\frac{\lambda /2}{ik\lambda /2},$$
(36)
for both $`ϵ=+1`$ and $`ϵ=1`$. Consequently, Eq. (7) becomes

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\psi _k^{(+)}(x)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda /2}{ik\lambda /2}}\mathrm{exp}(ikr),`$ (37)
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)+{\displaystyle \frac{mv_0}{i\mathrm{}p_0mv_0}}\mathrm{exp}(ikr),`$ (38)
where $`\lambda =2mv_0/\mathrm{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}k=p_0`$. In Eq. (38) we have restored the factors of mass $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Equation (38) is essentially Eq. (4-95) obtained by configuration space treatment in Ref. . Although, in the scattering approach Eqs. (37) and (38) emerge as asymptotic conditions, they are exact results valid for all $`x`$ in this simple analytically soluble problem. From Eqs. (29) and (35) we find that the phase shift $`\delta _0`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{tan}\delta _0=\mathrm{}(\delta _0)/\mathrm{}(\delta _0)=\lambda /(2k)=mv_0/(\mathrm{}p_0)`$ . The bound-state energy corresponds to the pole of the $`t`$ matrix (35) which happens at $`k^2=\lambda ^2/4`$ or at $`E=\mathrm{}^2k^2/(2m)=mv_0^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$ $``$ a result well known from configuration-space methods . As the $`t`$ matrix and the scattering amplitudes are known, all relevant quantities, such as cross sections and reflection and transmission probabilities, can now be calculated. The reflection and transmission probabilities are given by $`R=|if_k^{(+)}()/k|^2=\lambda ^2/(\lambda ^2+4k^2)=mv_0^2/(2\mathrm{}^2E+mv_0^2)`$, $`T=|1+if_k^{(+)}(+)/k|^2=4k^2/(\lambda ^2+4k^2)=E/[E+mv_0^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)]`$ , such that $`R+T=1`$, whereas the cross section is given by $`\sigma _{\text{tot}}=|if_k^{(+)}(+)/k|^2+|if_k^{(+)}()/k|^2=2\lambda ^2/(\lambda ^2+4k^2)=2mv_0^2/(2\mathrm{}^2E+mv_0^2)`$.

## V Summary

In this paper we have generalized the standard treatments of two- and three-dimensional scattering to the case of one-dimensional scattering. We have introduced the concept of scattering amplitude, partial wave, phase shift, unitarity, Lippmann-Schwinger scattering equation for the wave function and the $`t`$ matrix in close analogy with three-dimensional scattering. In this case there are two partial waves: $`L=0`$ and 1 in contrast to two and three dimensions where there is an infinite number of partial waves. In one dimension the algebra is much simpler and mostly analytic. These make the integral equation formulation of scattering in one dimension along with its partial-wave projection easily tractable. Consequently, difficult concepts of scattering, such as optical theorem and unitarity, are easily understandable. Hence the present formulation will be helpful for teaching formal theory of scattering in two and three dimensions.

The work is supported in part by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento - Científico e Tecnológico, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos of Brazil.


text:
# Commutators, Lefschetz fibrations and the signatures of surface bundles

## 1. Introduction

It is an elementary fact that the Euler characteristic is multiplicative in fiber bundles. According to a classical result of Chern, Hirzebruch and Serre  the same holds for the signature, provided that the fundamental group of the base acts trivially on the cohomology of the fiber. Atiyah  and, independently, Kodaira  showed that this assumption on the monodromy is necessary, by exhibiting surface bundles over surfaces with non-zero signature.

In the case of bundles whose fiber is a sphere or torus, it is easy to see that the signature must vanish. Therefore, only the signature of surface bundles of higher genus is interesting. For a closed oriented surface $`F`$ of genus $`h2`$, Teichmüller theory implies that the identity component of the group of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms is contractible. It follows that every oriented bundle with fiber $`F`$ over a base $`B`$ is determined by (the conjugacy class of) its monodromy representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(B)\mathrm{\Gamma }_h,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ is the mapping class group of $`F`$, consisting of isotopy classes of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms. If the base $`B`$ is also $`2`$-dimensional, then the signature of the total space $`X`$ is four times the first Chern number of the flat symplectic bundle obtained by composing $`\rho `$ with the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ on the homology of $`F`$, see . In particular, the signature vanishes if the genus of $`B`$ is $`0`$ or $`1`$. The signature also vanishes for all bundles with fiber genus $`2`$, because of Igusa’s theorem $`H_2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,)=0`$. Thus, we may assume that the fiber genus $`h`$ is $`3`$.

Combining the work of Meyer  and of Harer , one sees that the signature of the total space $`X`$ is given by the homology class of $`\rho _{}[B]`$ in the homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. More precisely, the second integral homology of the mapping class group is infinite cyclic, generated by the Meyer signature cocycle corresponding to the signature of the total space. This means that determining the maximal signature of a surface bundle with given fiber and base genus is equivalent to calculating the Gromov-Thurston norm in the second homology of the mapping class group. This is essentially Problem 2.18 in Kirby’s list . To address this problem, consider the function

$$g_h(n)=\mathrm{min}\{g\text{ a }\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\text{-bundle }X\mathrm{\Sigma }_g\text{ with }\sigma (X)=4n\}.$$

Using Seiberg-Witten gauge theory, the first nontrivial lower bound for this function was proved in :

(1)
$$g_h(n)\frac{2|n|}{h1}+1.$$

The only systematic upper bound for this function was proved in , where it was shown that for every fiber genus $`h3`$ there is a surface bundle over a surface of genus $`111`$ with signature $`4`$. Pulling back to coverings of the base, one has

(2)
$$g_h(n)110|n|+1.$$

A non-explicit improvement of (2) in some cases was given in .

In this paper we obtain new upper bounds for the function $`g_h(n)`$ by constructing examples of surface bundles in which the base genus is comparatively small. We found these examples by first constructing Lefschetz fibrations with singular fibers corresponding to expressions of products of Dehn twists as products of commutators, and then taking differences of Lefschetz fibrations with the same singular fibers to obtain smooth surface bundles. We have chosen to present the examples in the way we originally found them, although it would have been possible, after the fact, to eliminate the Lefschetz fibrations from the presentation and write down the monodromy representations of the surface bundles directly. We believe that the subtraction of Lefschetz fibrations presented in Section 2, also used in , is of interest in its own right, in addition to being a useful stepping stone in the construction of surface bundles.

Our first main theorem is the following improvement of (2):

###### Theorem 1.

For every $`h3`$ there is a surface bundle of genus $`h`$ over the surface of genus $`9`$ with signature $`4`$. In particular, $`g_h(n)8|n|+1`$.

Notice that all these examples over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ have the same signature. By considering sections of our fibrations we can construct surface bundles with fiber genus $`h`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ for which the signature grows linearly with $`h`$. More precisely, we have:

###### Theorem 2.

For every $`h3`$ there are surface bundles of fiber genus $`h`$ over the surface of genus $`9`$ with signature at least $`4\frac{h2}{3}`$.

This result allows us to prove upper bounds for $`g_h(n)`$ which have the same shape as the lower bound (1), in that the fiber genus appears in the denominator. We only formulate these upper bounds in the asymptotic case, when $`n`$ becomes large. It is easy to see that the limit

$$G_h=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{g_h(n)}{n}$$

exists and is finite for all $`h`$. The inequality (1) implies $`G_h\frac{2}{h1}`$. Using our new examples, we will prove:

###### Theorem 3.

If $`h3`$ is odd, then $`G_h\frac{16}{h1}`$. If $`h4`$ is even, then $`G_h\frac{16}{h2}`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the basic facts about Lefschetz fibrations and describe the “subtraction operation” for them in detail. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of various identities in the mapping class group expressing certain products of Dehn twists as products of commutators. In Section 4 we calculate the signatures of the corresponding Lefschetz fibrations using the Meyer signature cocycle . In the last Section we give the proofs of the Theorems stated above.

## 2. Subtracting Lefschetz fibrations

We begin by recalling the definition and basic properties of Lefschetz fibrations. More details can be found in . Let $`X`$ be a compact oriented $`4`$-manifold, and $`B`$ a compact oriented surface.

###### Definition 1.

A smooth map $`f:XB`$ is called a Lefschetz fibration if it is surjective and if for each critical point $`pX`$ there are local complex coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$ on $`X`$ around $`p`$ and $`z`$ on $`B`$ around $`f(p)`$ compatible with the orientations and such that $`f(z_1,z_2)=z_1^2+z_2^2`$.

It follows that a Lefschetz fibration has at most finitely many critical points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$. It is easy to see that by a slight perturbation one can achieve that $`f`$ is injective on its critical set $`C=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_k\}`$. We will always assume that this additional property holds.

The genus of $`f`$ is defined to be the genus of a regular fiber. If $`B`$ is connected, the genus is well-defined. Even when $`B`$ is not connected, we will assume that all regular fibers have the same genus. Fibers of $`f`$ passing through elements of $`C`$ are singular fibers. Notice that if $`\nu (f(C))`$ denotes an open tubular neighborhood of the set of critical values $`f(C)`$, then the restriction of $`f`$ to $`f^1(B\nu (f(C)))`$ is a smooth surface bundle over the surface-with-boundary $`B\nu (f(C))`$.

A singular fiber $`f^1(q_i)`$, where $`q_i=f(p_i)`$, can be described by its monodromy, which is an element in the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. To determine this element, however, we need to fix a base point $`\tau Bf(C)`$, an identification of $`f^1(\tau )`$ with the closed oriented surface $`F`$ of genus $`h`$, and a loop $`c_i`$ in $`B`$ based at $`\tau `$ which has linking number $`+1`$ with $`q_i`$. The restriction of $`f`$ to the preimage of this loop is an $`F`$-bundle over $`S^1`$ which can be described by a single element $`t_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. In fact, by performing this procedure for all loops in $`Bf(C)`$ we get a map $`\phi :\pi _1(Bf(C))\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. It can be shown that $`t_i`$ is a right-handed Dehn twist along a simple closed curve $`v_if^1(\tau )`$ called the vanishing cycle corresponding to the singular fiber $`f^1(q_i)`$. Notice that, even after fixing $`\tau B`$ and the identification $`Ff^1(\tau )`$, both $`t_i`$ and $`v_i`$ depend on the chosen loop $`c_i`$.

It is convenient to fix the following conventions. Suppose that all $`q_i`$ lie on the boundary of a disk $`DB`$ centered at $`\tau B`$. Let $`a_i`$ denote the radial curve in $`D`$ connecting $`\tau `$ with $`q_i`$ and form $`c_i`$ as the boundary of an appropriate neighborhood of $`a_i`$, cf. Figure 1.

By fixing a generating system $`\{a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g\}`$ of $`\pi _1(BD)`$, the map $`\phi `$ can be encoded by a sequence $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_s,\alpha _1,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g,\beta _g)`$, where $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _i\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ tell us the monodromy of the fibration along $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$. It is easy to see that these elements satisfy the relation $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[\alpha _i,\beta _i]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^st_i=1`$ in the mapping class group. Conversely, for $`h2`$ a word of the form $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[\alpha _i,\beta _i]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^st_i`$ representing 1 in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (with $`t_i`$ being right-handed Dehn twists) gives rise to a Lefschetz fibration of genus $`h`$ over a surface $`B`$ of genus $`g`$.

As we noted already, the vanishing cycles and the corresponding Dehn twists depend on the chosen loops $`c_i`$. It is easy to see that a cyclic permutation of the indices can be compensated by changing the identification $`Ff^1(\tau )`$, so the resulting Lefschetz fibration remains the same. One can also change the word by elementary transformations without changing the Lefschetz fibration, i. e. the path $`c_i`$ can be changed as indicated by Figure 2.

By applying an elementary transformation as shown by the figure, we replace $`t_i`$ and $`t_{i+1}`$ by $`t_{i+1}`$ and $`t_{i+1}^1t_it_{i+1}`$. (Notice that this change has no effect on the product of these elements.) The new vanishing cycles are easy to determine since for any mapping class $`g`$ the conjugate $`g^1t_vg`$ of the Dehn twist $`t_v`$ is simply the Dehn twist $`t_{g(v)}`$. It is not hard to prove that if two words give rise to equivalent fibrations then the words can be transformed into each other by applying combinations of the two operations just described.

A singular fiber $`f^1(q_i)`$ is nonseparating if the corresponding vanishing cycle $`v_i`$ is nonseparating, equivalently its homology class is nonzero in $`H_1(f^1(\tau );)`$. If $`v_i`$ is a separating curve, equivalently its homology class is zero, then $`f^1(q_i)`$ is called separating. A vanishing cycle $`v_i`$ and the corresponding singular fiber are of type $`0`$ if $`v_i`$ is nonseparating; they are of type $`j\{1,\mathrm{},[\frac{h}{2}]\}`$ if the vanishing cycle separates the surface of genus $`h`$ into two components with genera $`j`$ and $`hj`$. Although the vanishing cycle depends on the chosen path $`c_i`$, its type is independent of this choice. From the classification of surfaces, one can prove that for two simple closed curves of the same type there exists a diffeomorphism of the ambient surface mapping one into the other. This implies that two singular fibers of the same type have fiber- and orientation-preservingly diffeomorphic tubular neighborhoods.

The combinatorial data of a Lefschetz fibration can be encoded as follows:

###### Definition 2.

The vector $`\mu _{comb}(X)=(\mu _0,\mathrm{},\mu _{[\frac{h}{2}]})^{[\frac{h}{2}]+1}`$ associated to the Lefschetz fibration $`f:XB`$ is constructed by taking $`\mu _j`$ to be the number of singular fibers of type $`j`$ ($`j=0,1,\mathrm{},[\frac{h}{2}]`$). Following  we say that two fibrations $`f_i:X_iB_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are combinatorially equivalent if $`\mu _{comb}(X_1)=\mu _{comb}(X_2)`$.

The construction we use to produce new examples of surface bundles is a procedure for taking the difference of two combinatorially equivalent Lefschetz fibrations. If $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are combinatorially equivalent as in Definition 2, with critical values $`\{q_i^1\}_{i=1}^s`$ and $`\{q_i^2\}_{i=1}^s`$ respectively, then a surface bundle $`X_1X_2B_1B_2`$ can be constructed in the following way: order the $`q_i^1`$’s and $`q_j^2`$’s so that singular fibers with coinciding lower index have the same type. Fix an orientation- and fiber-preserving diffeomorphism $`\varphi _i`$ between the boundaries of tubular neighborhoods of fibers with lower index $`i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$). The union of these maps will be denoted by $`\varphi `$. Now glue $`X_1(_{i=1}^s\nu (f_1(q_i^1)))`$ to $`\overline{X_2(_{i=1}^s\nu (f_2(q_i^2)))}`$ using $`\varphi `$. Notice that by reversing the orientation on $`X_2`$, the map $`\varphi `$ becomes orientation-reversing, hence the resulting manifold $`Y=X_1X_2`$ inherits a natural orientation. Since $`\varphi `$ is fiber-preserving, $`Y`$ admits a smooth fibration with fibers of genus $`h`$ over a compact surface $`B`$ which we will denote by $`B_1B_2`$.

###### Lemma 4.

If $`X_1B_1`$ and $`X_2B_2`$ are combinatorially equivalent Lefschetz fibrations with $`s`$ singular fibers, then $`Y=X_1X_2`$ is a smooth surface bundle with signature $`\sigma (Y)=\sigma (X_1)\sigma (X_2)`$ over the surface $`B=B_1B_2`$ with Euler characteristic $`\chi (B)=\chi (B_1)+\chi (B_2)2s`$.

###### Proof.

By construction, $`Y`$ is an oriented smooth surface bundle over a surface $`B`$. The claim about the Euler characteristic of the base is obvious. The claim about the signature is an instance of Novikov additivity. ∎

Note that we did not assume $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ to be connected. This means that basepoints have to be chosen in each component of $`B_i`$, and the vectors of combinatorial data have to be summed over all components to determine combinatorial equivalence. If $`X_1`$ or $`X_2`$ happens to be connected, then so is $`X_1X_2`$.

The main property we used in the above construction is that the manifolds $`X_1(_{i=1}^s\nu (f_1(q_i^1)))`$ and $`X_2(_{i=1}^s\nu (f_2(q_i^2)))`$ have diffeomorphic boundaries and, after reversing the orientation of one of them, this diffeomorphism can be chosen to be fiber-preserving and orientation-reversing. A variation of this construction goes as follows: Suppose that partitions of the critical values $`\{q_i^1\}_{i=1}^s`$ and $`\{q_i^2\}_{i=1}^s`$ are given together with a system of disjoint disks $`D_j^kB_k`$ ($`k=1,2`$ and $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$) such that each disk contains exactly one equivalence class of the partitions. Suppose furthermore that we can pair up these disks in a way that the surface bundles $`X_1|_{D_j^1}`$ are isomorphic to $`X_2|_{D_j^2}`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Then $`X_2`$ can be subtracted from $`X_1`$ along the disks $`D_j^k`$, i. e. the manifold

$$Y=(X_1(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}f_1^1(\mathrm{int}D_j^1)))\overline{(X_2(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}f_2^1(\mathrm{int}D_j^2)))}$$

admits the structure of a surface bundle. The signature $`\sigma (Y)`$ is again given by $`\sigma (X_1)\sigma (X_2)`$, while the Euler characteristic of the base is equal to $`\chi (B_1)+\chi (B_2)2m`$.

###### Remark 1.

The definition of $`X_1X_2`$ is a special case of this latter construction, corresponding to the situation when each equivalence class of the partition consists of a unique critical value. By considering a partition with larger equivalence classes we get smaller $`m`$ which results in a smaller genus for the base. Notice that in the special case of $`X_1X_2`$ the assumption $`X_1|_{D_j^1}X_2|_{D_j^2}`$ can be easily checked by determining the type of the singular fibers over the disks. In general, however, the types of the singular fibers over the disks do not specify the diffeomorphism type of the above fibration, since fibers of the same type can be glued together in many different ways resulting various fibrations over $`D_j^k`$.

###### Remark 2.

There is a generalisation of Lefschetz fibrations, called achiral Lefschetz fibrations, where one allows singular fibers whose monodromies are left-handed Dehn twists, cf. . Keeping track of the chirality of the singular fibers, it is clear that the subtraction operation described above generalises to the category of achiral Lefschetz fibrations.

We conclude this section by discussing the relation between the word specifying a Lefschetz fibration and sections of the fibration. Suppose that $`f:XB`$ is a given Lefschetz fibration. A map $`\sigma :BX`$ is called a section if $`f\sigma =\mathrm{id}_B`$. The self-intersection (or square) of the section $`\sigma `$ is simply the self-intersection number of the homology class $`[\sigma (B)]H_2(X;)`$. In the following $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}`$ denotes the mapping class group of the closed oriented surface of genus $`h`$ with one marked point and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1`$ denotes the mapping class group with respect to one boundary component (fixed pointwise). Notice that by collapsing the boundary circle to a point we get a natural surjection $`\phi :\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}`$ with kernel the subgroup generated by the Dehn twist $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ along a curve isotopic to the boundary circle (cf. , for example). Moreover, by forgetting the marked point we have an obvious map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$.

The following two well-known facts show how the existence of a section (and its square) is reflected in the monodromy representation of a Lefschetz fibration. Suppose that the monodromy representation of $`f:XB`$ is given by the relator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[a_i,b_i]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^st_i`$ representing 1 in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$.

###### Proposition 5.

The fibration admits a section if and only if $`t_i`$ and $`a_j,b_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ admit lifts $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i,\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{b}_j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{b}_j]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^s\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ represents $`1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}`$. A section of $`f:XB`$ is given once such a lift is fixed. ∎

Suppose now that a fibration $`f:XB`$ with a section is given, so a lift $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{b}_j]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^s\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[a_j,b_j]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^st_i`$ is fixed. Take a lift $`t_i^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_i`$ (and $`a_j^{},b_j^{}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j,\stackrel{~}{b}_j`$) in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1`$ and consider $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{j=1}^g[a_j^{},b_j^{}]\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^st_i^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1`$. By the discussion above, this product is in $`\mathrm{ker}\phi `$, hence it is equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^n`$ for some $`n`$.

###### Proposition 6.

(cf. ) The self-intersection number of the section given by the above lift is equal to $`n`$. ∎

Next we would like to show that after subtracting Lefschetz fibrations with sections, under favourable circumstances the resulting fibration admits a section whose self-intersection number is equal to the difference of the self-intersection numbers of the sections of the individual fibrations. For this, suppose that two fibrations $`f_i:X_iB_i`$ ($`i=1,2`$) are given by their monodromy representations $`\mathrm{\Pi }[a_j,b_j]\mathrm{\Pi }t_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }[c_j,d_j]\mathrm{\Pi }s_j`$ respectively. Suppose furthermore that the disks $`D_iB_i`$ along which the subtraction operation will be performed contain the singular fibers corresponding to the Dehn twists $`t_{i_1}\mathrm{}t_{i_k}`$ (and $`s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ resp.).

###### Proposition 7.

If the lifts $`\stackrel{~}{t}_{i_n}`$ giving rise to the sections coincide with $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{i_n}`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},k`$) in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,1}`$, then the difference of the two fibrations admits a section. The self-intersection of this section is given by the difference of the self-intersection of the individual pieces.

###### Proof.

The assumption shows that there is a diffeomorphism $`f_1^1(D_1)f_2^1(D_2)`$ mapping the sections into each other. Now the statement is obvious — notice that the self-intersection is the difference of the two self-intersections since in the subtracting operation we change the orientation of $`X_2`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.

The assumption on coinciding lifts cannot be relaxed, as the following example shows. Take two copies of the trivial bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times S^2S^2`$, fix two sections in each and blow up one section in each copy. In this way we get two Lefschetz fibrations (each with a single singular fiber) for which the subtraction operation (along the singular fibers) applies and gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\times S^2S^2`$ back. The section blown up, however, can be glued only to the section in the other copy also blown up, because otherwise we would find a homology class in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_h\times S^2`$ with odd square, which is clearly impossible.

Surface bundles with sections of self-intersection zero can be summed along their sections by performing a fiberwise connected sum. This is an instance of Gompf’s symplectic sum operation, but for our purposes the symplectic aspect is irrelevant.

###### Lemma 8.

If $`X_iB`$ with $`i=1,2`$ are two surface bundles with fiber genera $`h_i`$ over the same base surface and both fibrations admit sections with self-intersection zero, then there is a surface bundle over $`B`$ with fiber genus $`h_1+h_2`$ and signature $`\sigma (X_1)+\sigma (X_2)`$.

###### Proof.

The signature is additive when summing along embedded surfaces of self-intersection zero. ∎

## 3. Commutators in mapping class groups

Let $`F_{h,s}^r`$ be an oriented surface of genus $`h`$ with $`s`$ marked points and $`r`$ boundary components. The mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,s}^r`$ of $`F`$ consists of the isotopy classes of orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms of $`F`$ which are the identity on each boundary component and preserve the set of marked points. The isotopies are not allowed to permute marked points or to rotate boundary components. The groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,s}^0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,0}^r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,0}^0`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,s}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$, respectively.

We say that two simple closed curves $`a`$ and $`b`$ on $`F`$ are topologically equivalent if there exists a diffeomorphism of $`F`$ mapping $`a`$ to $`b`$. For a group $`G`$ and $`x,yG`$, the commutator $`[x,y]`$ denotes the element $`xyx^1y^1`$ and $`x^y`$ denotes the conjugate $`yxy^1`$.

It follows easily from the definition of a Dehn twist that if $`a`$ is a simple closed curve on $`F`$ and $`f`$ is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of $`F`$, then $`ft_af^1=t_{f(a)}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,s}^r`$.

If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are two topologically equivalent simple closed curves on $`F`$, then $`t_at_b^1`$ is a commutator. More precisely, if $`f(a)=b`$ then $`t_at_b^1=[t_a,f]`$.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be two simple closed curves on $`F`$. If $`a`$ is disjoint from $`b`$, then the supports of the Dehn twists $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$ can be chosen to be disjoint. Hence, $`t_a`$ commutes with $`t_b`$. If $`a`$ intersects $`b`$ transversely at one point, then it is easy to see that $`t_at_b(a)=b`$. It follows that $`t_a`$ and $`t_b`$ satisfy the braid relation $`t_at_bt_a=t_bt_at_b`$.

The following two relations in the mapping class group are also well-known. The first one is the lantern relation (cf. ). Let $`S`$ be a sphere with four boundary components $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, $`d_3`$ and $`d_4`$. Suppose that $`S`$ is embedded in $`F`$. Then there are three simple closed curves $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ on $`S`$, as illustrated in Figure 3 (i), which satisfy the lantern relation

$$t_{d_1}t_{d_2}t_{d_3}t_{d_4}=t_\alpha t_\beta t_\gamma .$$

The second relation is the two-holed torus relation or chain relation. Let $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$ be three nonseparating simple closed curves on $`F`$ such that $`a_2`$ intersects $`a_1`$ and $`a_3`$ transversely only once, $`a_1`$ is disjoint from $`a_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$ does not disconnect $`F`$. A regular neighbourhood of $`a_1a_2a_3`$ is a torus with two nonseparating boundary components, say $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$ (cf. Figure 3 (ii)). Clearly, $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$ are disjoint from $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$, and from each other. By using the braid relation and the fact that $`t_{a_1}`$ commutes with $`t_{a_3}`$, the relation given by Proposition 3 in  is easily shown to be equivalent to the two-holed torus relation

$$t_{a_4}t_{a_5}=(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_3})^4.$$

Now we describe various commutator relations in mapping class groups. These relations will be used in the next Section to construct the Lefschetz fibrations used in the course of the proofs of the Theorems stated in Section 1.

###### Lemma 9.

Let $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ be four simple closed curves on $`F`$ such that $`a`$ is disjoint from $`b`$, $`c`$ is disjoint from $`d`$, and the complements of $`ab`$ and $`cd`$ in $`F`$ are connected. Then $`t_at_b^1t_ct_d^1`$ is a commutator.

###### Proof.

By the classification of surfaces, there exists a diffeomorphism $`g`$ of $`F`$ such that $`g(a)=d`$ and $`g(b)=c`$. Then

$$t_at_b^1t_ct_d^1=t_at_b^1t_{g(b)}t_{g(a)}^1=t_at_b^1gt_bt_a^1g^1=[t_at_b^1,g].$$

###### Proposition 10.

Let $`h3`$ and let $`a`$ be a simple closed curve on $`F`$. In the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,s}^r`$ of $`F`$

* $`t_a^2`$ can be written as a product of two commutators,
* if $`a`$ is nonseparating, then $`t_a^4`$ can be written as a product of three commutators.

###### Proof.

Suppose that the surface of genus $`3`$ with two holes in Figure 4 is embedded in $`F`$.

Consider the curves on $`F`$ given in the figure. The sphere $`S`$ with four holes of the lantern relation, see Figure 3, can be embedded in $`F`$ so that the curves $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, $`d_3`$, $`d_4`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ become respectively $`a_2`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_4`$, $`a_5`$, $`x`$, $`a_3`$, $`b_1`$. This gives us the relation

(3)
$$t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_4}t_{a_5}=t_xt_{a_3}t_{b_1}.$$

Similarly, two other embeddings of $`S`$ give the relations

(4)
$$t_xt_{a_4}t_{a_6}t_{a_8}=t_{a_5}t_{b_2}t_{b_3}$$

and

(5)
$$t_xt_{a_5}t_{a_6}t_{a_7}=t_{a_4}t_{b_4}t_{b_5}.$$

If we multiply both sides of (3) by $`t_{b_2}t_{b_3}`$, use (4) and cancel $`t_x`$, we obtain

(6)
$$t_{a_4}^2t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_6}t_{a_8}=t_{a_3}t_{b_1}t_{b_2}t_{b_3},$$

or, equivalently,

(7)
$$t_{a_4}^2=t_{a_3}t_{a_6}^1t_{b_1}t_{a_8}^1t_{b_2}t_{a_1}^1t_{b_3}t_{a_2}^1.$$

Similarly, the equalities (4) and (5) yield the equality

(8)
$$t_x^2=t_{b_2}t_{a_6}^1t_{b_3}t_{a_7}^1t_{b_4}t_{a_6}^1t_{b_5}t_{a_8}^1.$$

Applying Lemma 9 to (7) and (8) proves that $`t_{a_4}^2`$ and $`t_x^2`$ are products of two commutators. Any nonseparating simple closed curve is topologically equivalent to $`a_4`$. If $`a`$ is a separating simple closed curve on $`F`$, then the surface of genus $`2`$ on the right hand side of $`x`$ can be embedded in $`F`$ so that $`x`$ is topologically equivalent to $`a`$. Now, the proof of (a) follows from the fact that a conjugate of a commutator is again a commutator.

Similarly, two more embeddings of the lantern give the relations

(9) $`t_{a_4}t_{a_5}t_{a_7}t_{a_8}=t_{b_6}t_{a_6}t_y`$
(10) $`t_yt_{a_2}t_{a_3}t_{a_4}=t_{a_5}t_{b_7}t_{b_8}.`$
Multiplying (9) by $`t_{b_7}t_{b_8}`$ from the left and using (10) gives

(11) $`t_{a_4}^2t_{a_2}t_{a_3}t_{a_7}t_{a_8}=t_{b_7}t_{b_8}t_{b_6}t_{a_6}.`$
By combining (6) and (11), we get

$$t_{a_4}^2t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_6}t_{a_8}t_{a_4}^2t_{a_2}t_{a_3}t_{a_7}t_{a_8}=t_{a_3}t_{b_1}t_{b_2}t_{b_3}t_{b_7}t_{b_8}t_{b_6}t_{a_6}.$$

Cancelling $`t_{a_3}`$ and $`t_{a_6}`$ yields

$$t_{a_4}^4t_{a_1}t_{a_2}^2t_{a_7}t_{a_8}^2=t_{b_1}t_{b_2}t_{b_3}t_{b_7}t_{b_8}t_{b_6}.$$

Any simple closed curve on the left hand side is disjoint from each closed curve on the right. Notice also that the complements of $`a_1b_1`$, $`a_2b_2`$, $`a_2b_3`$, $`a_7b_7`$, $`a_7b_8`$ and of $`a_8b_6`$ are all connected. Lemma 9 now implies that $`t_{a_4}^4`$ is a product of three commutators, implying (b). ∎

###### Proposition 11.

Let $`h2`$ and let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be two simple closed curves intersecting each other transversely at one point on $`F`$. Then $`t_a^4t_b^4`$ is a product of three commutators.

###### Proof.

Suppose that the two-holed torus of Figure 3 (ii) is embedded in $`F`$ in such a way that $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$ are nonseparating on $`F`$. The curve $`a_2`$ intersects $`t_{a_1}(a_2)`$ transversely at one point. Since $`a`$ intersects $`b`$ transversely at one point also and since any two such pairs are topologically equivalent, we can assume that $`a=a_2`$ and $`b=t_{a_1}(a_2)`$. By the two-holed torus relation, we have $`t_{a_4}t_{a_5}=(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_3})^4`$. Let us denote $`t_{a_i}`$ by $`t_i`$. Then, we obtain

$`t_4t_5`$ $`=`$ $`(t_1t_2t_3t_1t_2t_3)(t_1t_2t_3t_1t_2t_3)`$
$`=`$ $`(t_1t_2t_1t_3t_2t_3)(t_1t_2t_1t_3t_2t_3)`$
$`=`$ $`(t_2t_1t_2t_2t_3t_2)(t_2t_1t_2t_2t_3t_2)`$
$`=`$ $`t_2t_2t_3t_2t_2t_1t_2t_2t_3t_2t_2t_1`$
$`=`$ $`(t_2t_2t_3t_2^1t_2^1)t_2t_2t_2t_2(t_1t_2t_2t_2t_2t_1^1)t_1t_1(t_1^1t_2^1t_2^1t_3t_2t_2t_1).`$
If $`v=t_{a_2}^2(a_3)`$ and $`w=t_{a_1}^1t_{a_2}^2(a_3)`$, we have the equality

$`(t_{a_4}t_v^1t_{a_5}t_w^1)=t_a^4t_b^4t_{a_1}^2.`$
Now, $`t_{a_4}t_v^1t_{a_5}t_w^1`$ is a commutator and $`t_{a_1}^2`$ is a product of two commutators. This observation completes the proof of Proposition 11. ∎

## 4. Signature computations

The relations expressing certain products of Dehn twists as products of commutators proved in Section 3 allow us to construct corresponding Lefschetz fibrations. These fibrations, and their signatures, depend on the choices we make for the diffeomorpisms occurring in the commutator relations.

In this section the genus of the fiber $`F`$ is $`h3`$. The base $`B`$ of genus $`g`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ if it is closed, and by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r`$ if it has $`r`$ boundary components. For a smooth surface bundle $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r`$, the signature is completely determined by the corresponding monodromy representation. We shall pass back and forth between surface bundles over bases with boundary and Lefschetz fibrations over closed bases using the following well-known fact, see :

###### Proposition 12.

The signature of a fibered neighbourhood of a nonseparating, respectively separating, singular fiber in a Lefschetz fibration is equal to $`0`$, respectively to $`1`$. ∎

Now fix a symplectic basis for $`H_1(F,)`$, so that the monodromy representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_h$$

of $`X`$ composed with the action of the mapping class group on homology

$$\varphi :\mathrm{\Gamma }_hSp(2h,)$$

yields a symplectic representation $`\chi `$ of the fundamental group of the base. The following result of Meyer  allows us to calculate the signature:

###### Theorem 13.

Let $`f:X\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r`$ be an oriented surface bundle with monodromy representation $`\rho :\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. Fix a standard presentation of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r)`$ as follows:

$$\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g^r)=a_1,b_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_g,c_1,\mathrm{},c_r|\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}[a_i,b_i]\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}c_j=1,$$

and let $`\tau _h:Sp(2h,)\times Sp(2h,)`$ by the cocycle defined in .

Then the signature of $`X`$ is given by the formula

$`\sigma (X)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}}\tau _h(\kappa _i,\beta _i)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{g}{}}}\tau _h(\kappa _1\mathrm{}\kappa _{i1},\kappa _i)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}\tau _h(\kappa _1\mathrm{}\kappa _g\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{j1},\gamma _j),`$
where $`\alpha _i=\chi (a_i)`$, $`\beta _i=\chi (b_i)`$, $`\gamma _i=\chi (c_i)`$ and $`\kappa _i=[\alpha _i,\beta _i]`$. ∎

Here is a first application of this formula:

###### Proposition 14.

There is a Lefschetz fibration $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ with a unique singular fiber and with signature $`1`$, whether the vanishing cycle is separating or not.

###### Proof.

It is well-known that a Dehn twist can be written as a product of two commutators, see . We need to make explicit choices for these commutators. To this end we consider curves $`a`$, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$, $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$ on a genus $`3`$ subsurface of $`F`$ as in Figure 5.

Further, we add curves according to Figure 6.

If we choose the genus $`3`$ subsurface suitably, the vanishing cycle $`v`$ is topologically equivalent to the curve $`a`$.

Define diffeomorphisms $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ of $`F`$ as follows. If $`a`$ is nonseparating, set

$$\varphi _1=t_{c_1}t_{b_2}t_{c_2}t_{a_2}t_{b_1}t_{c_2}t_{a_1}t_{c_1}$$

and

$$\varphi _2=t_{c_3}t_{b_3}t_{a_3}t_{c_3}.$$

If $`a`$ is separating, set

$$\varphi _1=t_{c_2}t_{a_2}t_{c_1}t_{b_2}t_{a_1}t_{c_1}t_{b_1}t_{c_2}$$

and

$$\varphi _2=t_{c_2}t_{a_3}t_{b_3}t_{c_2}.$$

One can check that $`\varphi _1(a_1)=b_2`$, $`\varphi _1(b_1)=a_2`$ and $`\varphi _2(a_3)=b_3`$.

The lantern relation as in Theorem 2 of  implies that

$$t_{a_3}t_{b_3}^1t_{a_2}t_{b_2}^1t_{a_1}t_{b_1}^1t_a=1.$$

The monodromy representation of the complement of the singular fiber is given by mapping the standard generators of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^1)`$ to $`t_{a_3}`$, $`\varphi _2`$, $`\varphi _1`$, $`t_{a_1}^1t_{b_1}`$ and $`t_a`$ respectively, as

$$[t_{a_3},\varphi _2][\varphi _1,t_{a_1}^1t_{b_1}]t_a=1.$$

Evaluating the signature cocycle, Theorem 13 shows that the complement of the singular fiber has signature $`1`$ if $`v`$ is nonseparating, and has signature $`0`$ if $`v`$ is separating. Now Proposition 12 and Novikov additivity complete the proof. ∎

Mutatis mutandis, this calculation generalizes to prove the next three Propositions:

###### Proposition 15.

There is a Lefschetz fibration $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ with two singular fibers whose monodromies are Dehn twists with the same nonseparating vanishing cycle and signature equal to $`2`$.

###### Proposition 16.

There is a Lefschetz fibration $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ with four singular fibers whose monodromies are Dehn twists with the same nonseparating vanishing cycle and signature equal to $`4`$.

###### Proposition 17.

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be two nonseparating simple closed curves on $`F`$ which intersect transversely and precisely at one point. There is a Lefschetz fibration $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ with signature $`4`$ which has eight singular fibers, four of which have monodromy a Dehn twist along $`a`$ and four of which have monodromy a Dehn twist along $`b`$.

###### Proof of Propositions 15-17.

In all these proofs the signature of the Lefschetz fibration is the same as that of the complement of the singular fibers, because all the vanishing cycles are nonseparating, cf. Proposition 12.

We take curves $`x`$, $`y`$, $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_8`$, $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_8`$ on a genus $`3`$ subsurface of $`F`$ as in Figure 4. We also add curves $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$ as in Figure 6, and $`d`$ and $`e`$ as in Figure 7.

For each of the Propositions, the vanishing cycles $`a`$ and $`b`$ are topologically equivalent to certain curves $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$. We fix the latter explicitly, and construct some diffeomorphisms as required by the proofs in Section 3, so that we can write the monodromy representation of the complement of the singular fibers as a relator in the mapping class group. Then the calculation is done by implementing the formula in Theorem 13 with the following data.

For Proposition 15 the base is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ and $`a_0`$ is taken to be $`a_4`$. The relator giving the monodromy representation is

$$[t_{b_3}^1t_{a_1},\varphi _1][t_{b_1}^1t_{a_2},\varphi _2]t_{a_4}^2=1,$$

with

$$\varphi _1=t_et_{b_2}t_{a_1}t_et_{c_2}t_{a_6}t_{b_3}t_{c_2}$$

and

$$\varphi _2=t_{c_1}t_{a_3}t_{a_2}t_{c_1}t_dt_{a_8}t_{b_1}t_d.$$

For Proposition 16 the base is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^4`$ and $`a_0`$ is taken to be $`a_4`$ again. The relator giving the monodromy representation is

$$[t_{b_6}^1t_{a_2},\varphi _1][t_{b_7}^1t_{a_8},\varphi _2][t_{b_2}^1t_{a_1},\varphi _3]t_{a_4}^4=1$$

with

$$\varphi _1=t_{c_1}t_{b_8}t_{a_2}t_{c_1}t_{c_3}t_{a_8}t_{b_6}t_{c_3},$$

$$\varphi _2=t_{c_3}t_{b_3}t_{a_8}t_{c_3}t_{c_1}t_{a_2}t_{b_7}t_{c_1}$$

and

$$\varphi _3=t_{c_1}t_{b_1}t_{a_1}t_{c_1}t_{c_3}t_{a_7}t_{b_2}t_{c_3}.$$

For Proposition 17 consider the curves $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_6`$ on a genus $`2`$ subsurface of the fiber as in Figure 3 (ii). The base surface is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^8`$ and the curve $`a_0`$ is taken to be $`a_2`$ and $`b_0`$ is taken to be $`t_{a_1}(a_2)`$. We first compute the signature corresponding to the relator

$$[t_{a_1}^1t_{a_2}^2t_{a_3}t_{a_2}^2t_{a_1}t_{a_5}^1,\varphi ]t_{a_2}^4(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_1}^1)^4t_{a_1}^2=1,$$

with

$$\varphi =t_{a_2}^3t_{a_3}t_{a_6}t_{a_4}t_{a_5}t_{a_6}t_{a_3}t_{a_2}t_{a_6}t_{a_5}t_{a_3}t_{a_6}t_{a_2}^2t_{a_1},$$

which is the monodromy of a fibration $`X^{}T^2`$ with $`10`$ singular fibers. The signature of $`X^{}`$ is equal to $`6`$. Subtracting off the fibration of Proposition 15 from $`X^{}`$ gives the claim. ∎

As the expression of a given element in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ as a product of commutators is not unique, it is conceivable that the signature of the corresponding Lefschetz fibrations might be different for different choices of commutators. Then a surface bundle of nonzero signature could be constructed by subtracting the Lefschetz fibrations corresponding to different choices from each other.

## 5. Bounds on the genus function $`g_h(n)`$

We now prove the theorems about the minimal genus function $`g_h(n)`$ stated in the Introduction.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

We apply the subtraction operation to the Lefschetz fibrations $`X_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ as in Proposition 17 and 16, respectively. In $`X_1`$ we group the singular fibers into two groups each containing four singular fibers with coinciding vanishing cycles; in $`X_2`$ the singular fibers form one group. Now subtracting two copies of $`X_2`$ according to the above pattern we get a surface bundle $`Y_h\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ of fiber genus $`h`$ with $`\sigma (Y_h)=\sigma (X_1)2\sigma (X_2)=42(4)=4`$ (cf. Propositions 16 and 17). Thus $`g_h(1)9`$, and the claim now follows by pulling $`Y_h`$ back to unramified coverings of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ of degree $`|n|`$. ∎

Surface bundles over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ with higher signature can be constructed as follows.

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

Notice that the relators defining the fibrations we used in the proof of Theorem 1 represent 1 in the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1`$ of a surface with one boundary component. According to Proposition 6, this fact shows that the fibrations given by the relators $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^3[a_i,b_i]t_a^4t_b^4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^3[c_i,d_i]t_a^4`$ admit sections with vanishing self-intersection. Since the lifts of the various Dehn twists are chosen to be Dehn twists in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^1`$, Proposition 7 implies that $`Y_h\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ also admits a section with zero self-intersection for all $`h`$. Now write $`h`$ as $`3k+l`$ where $`l\{0,1,2\}`$, and apply Lemma 8 to $`k`$ copies of $`Y_3`$ together with the product $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_9\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$. The resulting surface bundle $`S_h\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ of fiber genus $`h`$ has $`\sigma (S_h)=4k=4\frac{hl}{3}4\frac{h2}{3}`$. ∎

Now we turn to the study of the asymptotic behaviour of the genus function.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.

First notice that the proof of Theorem 2 immediately yields $`G_h=lim_n\mathrm{}\frac{g_h(n)}{n}\frac{24}{hl}`$ for all $`h`$. (As before, $`l\{0,1,2\}`$ is the mod 3 residue of $`h`$.)

Now every surface of odd genus is a covering of a genus $`3`$ surface. It was shown in Lemma 4.1 of , that after replacing a given surface bundle by a pullback to some covering of the base, the resulting surface bundle admits fiberwise coverings of any given degree. From the multiplicativity of the signature in coverings and the multiplicativity of the Euler characteristic of the fiber in fiberwise coverings, for odd $`h`$ we obtain

(12)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{g_h(n)}{n}\frac{2}{h1}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{g_3(n)}{n}\frac{16}{h1}.$$

For even $`h`$ consider the fibration $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }_{8n+1}`$ of fiber genus $`h1`$ with signature $`2n(h2)`$ we got by taking fiberwise coverings. It is easy to see that since $`Y_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_9`$ admits a section of zero self-intersection, so does $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }_{8n+1}`$. Summing $`Z`$ and the product fibration $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{8n+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{8n+1}`$ along their sections (as in Lemma 8), we get a fibration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{8n+1}`$ with fiber genus $`h`$ and signature $`2n(h2)`$. These examples yield the bound $`G_h\frac{16}{h2}`$ once $`h`$ is even. Consequently the proof of Theorem 3 is complete. ∎

###### Remark 4.

For certain values of $`h`$, the examples of Kodaira  give a better upper bound, namely $`G_h\frac{44}{5(h1)}`$. Our construction has the advantage of covering all possible values of $`h`$ (and $`n`$).