text:
# Irreducible components of varieties of modules

## 1. Introduction

Let $`k`$ be an algebraically closed field. When studying the representation theory of a finitely generated $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ (associative, with unit), one would often like to classify the finite-dimensional $`A`$-modules. In general, however, this is a hopeless—or meaningless—task. For example, the 1-dimensional modules for a f.g. commutative algebra correspond to points of the corresponding affine variety, and what should it mean to classify the points? A more basic problem in that case is to compute the irreducible components of the variety. This suggests to study, for each $`d1`$, the irreducible components of the ‘module variety’ $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ of $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-modules.

More precisely, $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ is the set of $`A`$-module structures on $`k^d`$, or equivalently the set of $`k`$-algebra homomorphisms from $`A`$ to $`\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$. Now a homomorphism is determined by its value on a set of generators of $`A`$, and this gives an embedding of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ as a closed subvariety of a suitable product of copies of $`\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$. The group $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$ acts by conjugation on $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, and the orbits correspond to isomorphism classes of $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-modules. By abuse of language, if $`C`$ is a $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, we say that a $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-module $`M`$ is ‘in’ $`C`$ if the corresponding orbit is contained in $`C`$.

In addition to computing the irreducible components $`C`$ of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, one would like to be able to say something about the properties of a general module contained in $`C`$. That is, the properties which hold for all modules in some dense open subset of $`C`$. For example, is the general module in $`C`$ indecomposable? Can one say anything about the possible submodules of a general module in $`C`$? What is the general dimension of the space of homomorphisms or extensions between modules in two irreducible components? In fact the dimensions of these spaces are known to be upper semicontinuous functions (see Lemma 4.3), so given irreducible components $`C_1`$ in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)`$ and $`C_2`$ in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$ this amounts to determining the numbers

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{hom}_A(C_1,C_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)\}\text{, and}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)& =\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)\}\hfill \end{array}$$

where the modules $`M_i`$ range over all modules in $`C_i`$.

The problem we consider is motivated by the fact that many natural varieties occur as, or are related to, module varieties. This includes the variety of complexes , Lusztig’s nilpotent variety , §12, and Kleinian singularities and their deformations . The case of Lusztig’s nilpotent variety is particularly interesting, since by work of Kashiwara and Saito , its irreducible components are in 1-1 correspondence with elements of the crystal basis of a quantum group. Because these varieties arise as module varieties, one can hope to use decomposition properties of modules, and homological algebra techniques, to study the irreducible components. It is this theory that we initiate here.

The examples mentioned actually require a seemingly more general setup. Fixing orthogonal idempotents $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_nA`$ with $`e_1+\mathrm{}+e_n=1`$, and a dimension vector $`𝐝=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_n)^n`$, one can consider the set $`\mathrm{mod}_A^𝐝(k)`$ of $`k`$-algebra homomorphisms $`A\mathrm{M}_{d_1+\mathrm{}+d_n}(k)`$, sending each $`e_i`$ to the matrix whose diagonal $`d_i\times d_i`$ block is the identity, and with all other blocks zero. The natural group which acts is the product of the general linear groups of size $`d_i`$. Taking $`n=1`$ one recovers $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$. Taking $`A=kQ`$, the path algebra of a quiver $`Q`$, and letting the $`e_i`$ be the ‘trivial paths’, one obtains the space $`\mathrm{Rep}(Q,𝐝)`$ of representations of $`Q`$. All of our results below hold in this more general setup, either by adapting the proofs, or by using Bongartz’s observation  that these varieties are related by a fibre bundle construction.

In fact $`\mathrm{Rep}(Q,𝐝)`$ is a model for some of our work. There is no problem describing the irreducible components in this case, as $`\mathrm{Rep}(Q,𝐝)`$ is a vector space, hence irreducible. But the problem of determining when the general element is an indecomposable representation, and of computing the general dimension of homomorphism and extension spaces is nontrivial. A nice theory has, however, been created by Kac  and by Schofield . Our more general setup differs from this one, however, in an important way: it is possible to relate certain Ext spaces to tangent spaces in $`\mathrm{Rep}(Q,𝐝)`$, but in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ this is no longer the case. This is because Voigt’s Lemma  really involves a certain scheme $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ which need not be reduced, not even generically reduced, so its tangent spaces are not the same as for $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$.

Given subsets $`C_i\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$ which are $`\mathrm{GL}_{d_i}(k)`$-stable ($`1it`$), we consider all modules of dimension $`d=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_t`$ which are of the form $`M_1\mathrm{}M_t`$ with the $`M_i`$ in $`C_i`$, and we denote by $`C_1\mathrm{}C_t`$ the corresponding $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$. This is the image of the map

(1)
$$\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1\times \mathrm{}\times C_t\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)$$

sending a tuple $`(g,x_1,\mathrm{},x_t)`$ to the conjugation by $`g`$ of the module structure in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ which has the $`x_i`$ as diagonal blocks. It follows that if the $`C_i`$ are irreducible locally closed subsets, then the closure $`\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}`$ is irreducible.

Our first result is an analogue of the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem, and indeed follows from it quite easily. Most of the theorem is already known to the experts, but the only reference seems to be the preprint , which is not published elsewhere. For convenience we give a full proof.

###### Theorem 1.1.

If $`C`$ is an irreducible component in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, then

(2)
$$C=\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}$$

for some irreducible components $`C_i`$ of module varieties $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$, with the property that the general module in each $`C_i`$ is indecomposable. Moreover $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_t`$ are uniquely determined by this, up to reordering.

One cannot use direct sums quite as freely as this suggests, however, as the closure of a direct sum of irreducible components is not in general an irreducible component. Our main result, proved using deformation theory, is the determination of when this happens.

###### Theorem 1.2.

If $`C_i\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$ are irreducible components ($`1it`$), and $`d=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_t`$, then $`\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_i,C_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$.

These two theorems give an analogue of Kac’s ‘canonical decomposition’ for representations of quivers , Proposition 3. Thus we call (2) the *canonical decomposition* of $`C`$. It reduces the problem of computing all irreducible components of module varieties to the case of components whose general element is indecomposable. By studying the fibres of the map (1), it is easy to see that

$$dimC=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}dimC_i+\underset{ij}{}\left(d_id_j\mathrm{hom}_A(C_i,C_j)\right),$$

and also, if $`D`$ is any irreducible component of a module variety, then

$$\mathrm{hom}_A(C,D)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}\mathrm{hom}_A(C_i,D),$$

and similarly for $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1`$, or with $`C`$ and $`D`$ exchanged.

Instead of taking direct sums of the modules in two irreducible components, one can take extensions. Let $`d=d_1+d_2`$, let

$$G=\mathrm{GL}_{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{GL}_{d_2}(k),$$

and let $`S`$ be a $`G`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$. Again, by abuse of language we say that a pair of modules $`(M_1,M_2)`$ is ‘in’ $`S`$ if the product of the corresponding orbits is a subset of $`S`$. We denote by $`(S)`$ the $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ corresponding to all modules $`M`$ which belong to a short exact sequence

(3)
$$0M_2MM_10$$

with $`(M_1,M_2)`$ in $`S`$. We have the following result.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`S`$ be a $`G`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$.

* If $`S`$ is a closed subset, then $`(S)`$ is a closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$.
* If $`S`$ is an irreducible locally closed subset, and $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ has constant dimension for all $`(M_1,M_2)`$ in $`S`$, then the closure of $`(S)`$ in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ is irreducible.
* If $`S`$ is an open subset and $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$ for all $`(M_1,M_2)`$ in $`S`$, then $`(S)`$ is an open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$.

This has the following application to irreducible components.

###### Corollary 1.4.

If $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$ respectively, and if $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$, then $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ contains an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$. It may be realized as $`\overline{(S)}`$, where $`S`$ is the $`G`$-stable subset of $`C_1\times C_2`$ corresponding to the pairs of modules $`(M_1,M_2)`$ with $`dim\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$ and $`dim\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)=\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)`$.

In particular, if $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ is known to be irreducible then, under the hypotheses of the theorem, associated to every $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-module $`M`$ there must be a short exact sequence (3) with $`M_i`$ in $`C_i`$. Our results thus generalize the implications (i)$``$(ii)$``$(iii) of , Theorem 3.3. The remaining implication is clearly false in general, even for 2-dimensional modules for the algebra of dual numbers.

One source of irreducible components is provided by modules $`M`$ without self-extensions, i.e. $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M,M)=0`$. This condition ensures that the corresponding orbit $`𝒪(M)`$ is open in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, see , and so, since it is irreducible, its closure $`\overline{𝒪(M)}`$ is an irreducible component.

It is perhaps worthwhile to record the following consequence of Theorem 1.3(iii). If $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_t`$ are $`A`$-modules, we denote by $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)`$ the set of $`A`$-modules $`N`$ which have an increasing sequence $`0=N_0N_1\mathrm{}N_s=N`$ of submodules such that each quotient $`N_j/N_{j1}`$ is isomorphic to one of the $`M_i`$. We denote by $`_d(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)`$ the $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$-stable subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ corresponding to the $`d`$-dimensional modules in $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)`$.

###### Corollary 1.5.

If $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_t`$ are modules with $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_i,M_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$, then $`_d(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)`$ is open in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ for all $`d`$.

In this paper, unless otherwise stated, ‘modules’ are right modules. Although we often write maps on the left hand side, we compose them as if they were on the right. Thus the composition of a map $`\theta `$ followed by a map $`\varphi `$ is denoted $`\theta \varphi `$. By a variety we mean a locally closed subset of affine or projective space over $`k`$. We prove the results in numerical order, except that Theorem 1.2 is proved last. At the end we give various examples.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 1.1

If $`C`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, we denote by $`C^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ the subset of $`C`$ given by the indecomposable modules. This is a constructible subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, and clearly every indecomposable $`d`$-dimensional module is in $`C^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ for some irreducible component $`C`$.

Every $`d`$-dimensional module $`M`$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of indecomposables, and if the summands have dimensions $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_t`$ then $`M`$ is in a subset

$$S=C_1^{\mathrm{ind}}\mathrm{}C_t^{\mathrm{ind}}$$

for some irreducible components $`C_i\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$. Since the sets $`S`$ which arise this way are constructible in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, and their union is the whole space, if $`C`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, at least one of the sets $`S`$ must contain a dense open subset of $`C`$. We concentrate on this set.

As observed in the introduction, $`\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}`$ is an irreducible closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$. Since it contains $`C`$, which is an irreducible component, it follows that

$$C=\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}.$$

Now suppose that

$$(g,x_1,\mathrm{},x_t)\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1\times \mathrm{}\times C_t$$

is an element which is sent under the map (1) to an element of $`S`$. By the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem, any two decompositions of a module into a direct sum of indecomposables have the same number of terms. It follows that $`x_iC_i^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ for all $`i`$. Thus the inverse image of $`S`$ is $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1^{\mathrm{ind}}\times \mathrm{}\times C_t^{\mathrm{ind}}`$. Since $`C_1\mathrm{}C_t`$ contains a dense open subset of $`C`$, $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1^{\mathrm{ind}}\times \mathrm{}\times C_t^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ contains a dense open subset of $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1\times \mathrm{}\times C_t`$. It follows that each $`C_i^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ contains a dense open subset of $`C_i`$. This completes the proof of existence.

Now uniqueness. Suppose that $`C`$ is an irreducible component with

$$C=\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}=\overline{D_1\mathrm{}D_s}$$

for irreducible components $`C_i`$ and $`D_j`$ with the general element indecomposable.

We denote by $`C_i^0`$ the set of elements of $`C_i`$ which are not contained in any other irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$. Clearly $`C_i^0`$ is a dense open subset of $`C_i`$. Now the general element of $`C_i`$ is indecomposable, so $`C_i^{0,\mathrm{ind}}=C_i^0C_i^{\mathrm{ind}}`$ contains a dense open subset of $`C_i`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1^{0,\mathrm{ind}}\times \mathrm{}\times C_t^{0,\mathrm{ind}}$$

contains a dense open subset of

$$\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times C_1\times \mathrm{}\times C_t.$$

Now if $`XY`$ is a dominant morphism between irreducible varieties then the image of a dense open subset of $`X`$ must contain a dense open subset of $`Y`$. It follows that $`C_1^{0,\mathrm{ind}}\mathrm{}C_t^{0,\mathrm{ind}}`$ contains a dense open subset of $`C`$. Repeating for the $`D_j`$, and using the fact that two dense open subsets of $`C`$ must intersect, we obtain an element in

$$(C_1^{0,\mathrm{ind}}\mathrm{}C_t^{0,\mathrm{ind}})(D_1^{0,\mathrm{ind}}\mathrm{}D_s^{0,\mathrm{ind}}).$$

Thus there is an isomorphism of modules

$$M_1\mathrm{}M_tN_1\mathrm{}N_s$$

with the $`M_i`$ in $`C_i^{0,\mathrm{ind}}`$ and the $`N_j`$ in $`D_j^{0,\mathrm{ind}}`$. By the Krull-Remak-Schmidt Theorem, we have $`s=t`$, and after permuting the $`N_j`$ we have $`M_iN_i`$ for all $`i`$. It follows that $`C_i=D_i`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.3(i)

Let $`S`$ be a closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, stable for the action of $`G=\mathrm{GL}_{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{GL}_{d_2}(k)`$, and let $`d=d_1+d_2`$. By $`V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)`$ we denote the locally closed subset of pairs $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ in $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_2},k^d)\times \mathrm{Hom}_k(k^d,k^{d_1})`$ such that

$$0k^{d_2}\stackrel{\theta }{}k^d\stackrel{\varphi }{}k^{d_1}0$$

is a short exact sequence.

Let $`V_A^{\mathrm{ses}}`$ be the set of elements $`(m,(\theta ,\varphi ))`$ in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)`$ such that the image of $`\theta `$ is a submodule of $`k^d`$, with the module structure given by $`m`$. Recall that $`m`$ is an algebra homomorphism $`A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$. Identifying elements of $`\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ with endomorphisms of $`k^d`$, the condition is that $`\theta m(a)\varphi =0`$ for all $`a`$ in $`A`$. Thus $`V_A^{\mathrm{ses}}`$ is a closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)`$.

Let

$$\mu :V_A^{\mathrm{ses}}\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)$$

be the map sending an element $`(m,(\theta ,\varphi ))`$ to the pair $`(m_1,m_2)`$ where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are the unique module structures on $`k^{d_1}`$ and $`k^{d_2}`$ for which $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are module homomorphisms, where $`k^d`$ is considered as an $`A`$-module using the structure $`m`$.

It is not obvious from this, but it can be checked, that $`\mu `$ is a morphism of varieties. One uses the covering of $`V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)`$ by affine open subsets consisting of the pairs $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ where the image of $`\theta `$ is complementary to a given subspace of $`k^d`$. See  for a similar situation.

Now $`\mu ^1(S)`$ is a closed subset of $`V_A^{\mathrm{ses}}`$, and hence a closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)`$.

By $`\mathrm{Gr}(d_2d)`$ we denote the Grassmannian of $`d_2`$-dimensional subspaces of $`k^d`$. Let

$$\pi :V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)\mathrm{Gr}(d_2d)$$

be the map which sends a pair $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ to the image of $`\theta `$. Clearly $`\pi `$ is a morphism of varieties, and it is a principal $`G`$-bundle. Since $`S`$ is $`G`$-stable we know that $`\mu ^1(S)`$ is a union of fibres of the morphism

$$(1,\pi ):\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times V^{\mathrm{ses}}(d_1,d_2)\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times \mathrm{Gr}(d_2d).$$

Now the principal bundle property implies that the image $`(1,\pi )(\mu ^1(S))`$ must be closed in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times \mathrm{Gr}(d_2d)`$.

Let

$$\pi _1:\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)\times \mathrm{Gr}(d_2d)\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)$$

be the first projection. Since $`\mathrm{Gr}(d_2d)`$ is a projective variety, the image of $`(1,\pi )(\mu ^1(S))`$ under $`\pi _1`$ is closed. Now this image is clearly $`(S)`$, and the result is proved.

## 4. Derivations

Recall that if $`M`$ is an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule, then a *derivation* $`d:AM`$ is a linear map with $`d(ab)=ad(b)+d(a)b`$ for all $`a,bA`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{Der}(A,M)`$ the vector space of all derivations $`AM`$. A derivation $`d`$ is *inner* if there is some $`mM`$ with $`d(a)=amma`$ for all $`aA`$. We denote the subspace of inner derivations by $`\mathrm{Der}^0(A,M)`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_N`$ be $`k`$-algebra generators of $`A`$. If $`M`$ is an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule, then $`\mathrm{Der}(A,M)`$ is isomorphic to the subspace of $`M^N`$ consisting of the tuples $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_N)`$ with the property that

(4)
$$\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r}{}\lambda _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_{j1}}d_{i_j}a_{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}a_{i_r}\right)=0$$

for all noncommutative polynomials

$$f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r}{}\lambda _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_r}$$

over $`k`$, with the property that $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=0`$.

###### Proof.

A derivation $`d`$ is determined by its values on the generators $`a_i`$, and if $`d(a_i)=d_i`$, then

(5)
$$d(a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_r})=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_{j1}}d_{i_j}a_{i_{j+1}}\mathrm{}a_{i_r}.$$

Thus if $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=0`$, then $`d(f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N))=0`$, which implies (4). Conversely, given $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_N`$, one can define a function $`d:AM`$ using (5). The condition (4) ensures that this is well-defined. The construction of $`d`$ ensures that it is a derivation. ∎

Recall that if $`X`$ is a variety, then a function $`f:X`$ is *upper semicontinuous* if $`\{xX|f(x)n\}`$ is open in $`X`$ for all $`n`$. If $`V`$ is a vector space, then a *cone* in $`V`$ is a subset which contains 0 and is closed under multiplication by elements of the field $`k`$. The following result is well-known.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`X`$ be a variety, $`V`$ is a vector space and $`F`$ a closed subset of $`X\times V`$. If, for all $`xX`$ the set $`F_x=\{vV|(x,v)F\}`$ is a subspace of $`V`$, or more generally a cone in $`V`$, then the function $`X`$ sending $`x`$ to $`dimF_x`$ is upper semicontinuous.

If $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are $`A`$-modules, then $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2)`$ is naturally an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule, and it is well-known that

(6)
$$\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))/\mathrm{Der}^0(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2)).$$

From the construction we also have

$$\mathrm{Der}^0(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2)/\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2),$$

and hence

(7)
$$\begin{array}{c}dim\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)=dim\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))+\hfill \\ \hfill +dim\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)dimM_1dimM_2.\end{array}$$

###### Lemma 4.3.

The functions

$$\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)$$

sending a pair $`(m_1,m_2)`$ to the dimensions of the spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)`$, $`\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))`$ and $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ are upper semicontinuous (where $`M_i`$ is the module corresponding to $`m_i`$).

For $`\mathrm{Hom}`$ spaces this is well-known. For $`\mathrm{Ext}^1`$ it is known, but we could not find a convenient reference which applies for all finitely generated $`k`$-algebras $`A`$, and the usual method, using projective resolutions, does not immediately adapt.

###### Proof.

For $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)`$ one applies Lemma 4.2 with the set $`F_1`$ of

$$((m_1,m_2),\theta )(\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k))\times \mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})$$

for which $`\theta `$ is an $`A`$-module homomorphism, for the module structures given by $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$.

For $`\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))`$ one uses the set $`F_2`$ of

$$((m_1,m_2),(d_1,\mathrm{},d_N))(\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k))\times \mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})^N$$

for which $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_N)`$ satisfies the condition (4) using the module structures $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ to turn $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})`$ into an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule. This is clearly a closed subset.

Finally, a sum of upper semicontinuous functions is upper semicontinuous, so the assertion for $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ follows from equation (7). ∎

###### Lemma 4.4.

If $`X`$ is an irreducible locally closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$ on which the dimension $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ is constant, then so are the dimensions of $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))`$.

###### Proof.

The subsets of $`X`$ on which the dimensions of $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(M_1,M_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))`$ take their minimum values are nonempty open subsets of $`X`$, and so they must meet. Away from this intersection $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ must have non-minimal dimension. ∎

## 5. Proof of Theorem 1.3(ii)

Suppose that $`S`$ is an irreducible locally closed $`G`$-stable subset of $`X=\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, and suppose that $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)`$ has dimension $`e`$ for all $`(M_1,M_2)`$ in $`S`$. Let $`d=d_1+d_2`$.

Let $`Z`$ be the closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ consisting of the homomorphisms $`A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ which take an upper triangular block form for the decomposition $`d=d_1+d_2`$ with the lower $`d_2\times d_1`$ block zero. A map $`m:A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ taking this block form is a homomorphism if and only if the diagonal blocks are homomorphisms $`m_i:A\mathrm{M}_{d_i}(k)`$ and the upper triangular block $`A\mathrm{M}_{d_1\times d_2}(k)`$ is a derivation for the $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule structure on $`\mathrm{M}_{d_1\times d_2}(k)\mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})`$ given by the module structures $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$. Thus $`Z`$ is isomorphic to the closed subset $`F_2`$ used in the proof of Lemma 4.3.

By Lemma 4.4, the space $`\mathrm{Der}(A,\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_1,M_2))`$ has constant dimension on $`S`$. It follows that the projection $`\pi :(S\times \mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})^N)F_2S`$ is a sub-bundle of the trivial bundle $`S\times \mathrm{Hom}_k(k^{d_1},k^{d_2})^NS`$. In particular it is a vector bundle in its own right. Thus, since $`S`$ is irreducible, so is $`\pi ^1(S)`$.

Now the composition $`\pi ^1(S)F_2Z\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ and the conjugation action of $`\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$ combine to give a map

$$\mathrm{GL}_d(k)\times \pi ^1(S)\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k).$$

Now the left hand side is irreducible, so its image, which is $`(S)`$, has irreducible closure.

## 6. Deformations

Let $`k[[T]]`$ be the power series algebra in one variable over $`k`$. Given a homomorphism $`m:A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$, a deformation of $`m`$ is a homomorphism $`𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(k[[T]])`$ whose composition with the natural homomorphism $`\mathrm{M}_d(k[[T]])\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ is equal to $`m`$. Equivalently, for each $`aA`$, the $`(i,j)`$ component of $`m(a)`$ is the constant term of the $`(i,j)`$ component of $`𝐦(a)`$.

The next lemma follows the philosophy of Gerstenhaber’s deformation theory, see for example  or . Let $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ be positive integers and set $`d=d_1+d_2`$.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`m:A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ be a homomorphism which takes the upper triangular block form

$$m(a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{11}(a)& m_{12}(a)\\ 0& m_{22}(a)\end{array}\right),$$

where $`m_{ij}(a)`$ is a matrix of size $`d_i\times d_j`$, and let $`M_i`$ be the $`A`$-module of dimension $`d_i`$ corresponding to $`m_{ii}`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$. Then for any deformation of $`m`$ there exists an element $`𝐠`$ with block form

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 𝐠_{21}& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GL}_d(k[[T]]),$$

where $`𝐠_{21}`$ is a $`d_2\times d_1`$ matrix with entries in $`Tk[[T]]`$, such that the conjugate of the deformation by $`𝐠`$ is a deformation $`𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(k[[T]])`$, where $`𝐦`$ has the upper triangular block form

$$𝐦(a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐦_{11}(a)& 𝐦_{12}(a)\\ 0& 𝐦_{22}(a)\end{array}\right).$$

###### Proof.

We show first that if $`𝐦`$ is a deformation of $`m`$ and for some $`n1`$ the lower triangular block of $`𝐦(a)`$ has coefficients in $`T^nk[[T]]`$ for all $`aA`$, then there is a matrix

(8)
$$𝐠_n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ T^n\theta _n& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GL}_d(k[[T]])$$

where $`\theta _n\mathrm{M}_{d_2\times d_1}(k)`$, such that the lower triangular block of $`𝐠_n𝐦(a)𝐠_n^1`$ has coefficients in $`T^{n+1}k[[T]]`$ for all $`aA`$.

Write

$$𝐦(a)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c^r(a)T^r$$

for some maps $`c^r:A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$, and write each $`c^r`$ in block form

$$c^r(a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_{11}^r(a)& c_{12}^r(a)\\ c_{21}^r(a)& c_{22}^r(a)\end{array}\right).$$

Thus

$$𝐦(a)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝐦_{11}(a)& 𝐦_{12}(a)\\ 𝐦_{21}(a)& 𝐦_{22}(a)\end{array}\right)$$

where $`𝐦_{ij}(a)=_{r=0}^{\mathrm{}}c_{ij}^r(a)T^r`$.

By assumption the constant term satisfies $`c_{11}^0=m_{11}`$, $`c_{22}^0=m_{22}`$, $`c_{12}^0=m_{12}`$ and $`c_{21}^0=0`$, and we are assuming that $`c_{21}^r=0`$ for $`0rn1`$. The fact that $`𝐦`$ is an algebra homomorphism implies that

$$c^r(ab)=\underset{\stackrel{s+t=r}{s,t0}}{}c^s(a)c^t(b).$$

for all $`a,bA`$. Compare for example , p.24. Now since $`c_{21}^r=0`$ for all $`0rn1`$, we have

$$c_{21}^n(ab)=c_{22}^0(a)c_{21}^n(b)+c_{21}^n(a)c_{11}^0(b)=m_{22}(a)c_{21}^n(b)+c_{21}^n(a)m_{11}(b).$$

Identifying $`\mathrm{M}_{d_2\times d_1}(k)`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_2,M_1)`$, and considering this as an $`A`$-$`A`$-bimodule using the actions of $`A`$ on $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, it follows that $`c_{21}^n`$ defines a derivation $`A\mathrm{Hom}_k(M_2,M_1)`$. Now by (6) and our assumption that $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$, every derivation is inner. Therefore, there is a matrix $`\theta _n\mathrm{M}_{d_2\times d_1}(k)`$ with $`c_{21}^n(a)=m_{22}(a)\theta _n\theta _nm_{11}(a)`$ for all $`aA`$. Let $`𝐠_n`$ be the matrix given by (8). Then

$$𝐠_n^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ T^n\theta _n& 1\end{array}\right)$$

and so the lower triangular $`d_2\times d_1`$ block of $`𝐠_n𝐦(a)𝐠_n^1`$ is equal to

$$𝐦_{21}(a)+T^n\theta _n𝐦_{11}(a)𝐦_{22}(a)T^n\theta _nT^{2n}\theta _n𝐦_{12}(a)\theta _n.$$

This has entries in $`T^{n+1}k[[T]]`$, so $`𝐠_n`$ has the required property.

We now prove the lemma. Let $`𝐦^0`$ be a deformation of $`m`$. For each $`aA`$, the lower triangular block of $`𝐦^0(a)`$ has entries in $`Tk[[T]]`$, so by the construction above there is a matrix $`𝐠_1`$ with the property that if $`𝐦^1`$ is defined by $`𝐦^1(a)=𝐠_1𝐦^0(a)𝐠_1^1`$ then the lower triangular block of $`𝐦^1(a)`$ has entries in $`T^2k[[T]]`$. Thus there is a $`𝐠_2`$ such that the lower triangular block of $`𝐦^2(a)=𝐠_2𝐦^1(a)𝐠_2^1`$ has entries in $`T^3k[[T]]`$. Repeating in this way gives deformations $`𝐦^1,𝐦^2,\mathrm{}`$ of $`m`$ and matrices $`𝐠_1,𝐠_2,\mathrm{}`$ of the form (8). Define

$$𝐠=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ _{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}T^n\theta _n& 1\end{array}\right)\mathrm{GL}_d(k[[T]]).$$

and define $`𝐦`$ by $`𝐦(a)=\mathrm{𝐠𝐦}^0(a)𝐠^1`$.

We have

$$𝐠=𝐠_n\mathrm{}𝐠_1+O(T^{n+1})$$

where the notation $`O(T^{n+1})`$ means we ignore powers $`T^{n+1}`$ and above. Thus

$$𝐦(a)=𝐠_n\mathrm{}𝐠_1𝐦^0(a)𝐠_1^1\mathrm{}𝐠_n^1+O(T^{n+1})=𝐦^n(a)+O(T^{n+1}).$$

Thus, for all $`n`$, the lower triangular block of $`𝐦(a)`$ has entries in $`T^{n+1}k[[T]]`$. Thus it is zero. ∎

In another language, a *deformation* of a $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-module $`M`$ is a $`k[[T]]`$-$`A`$-bimodule $`𝐌`$ which is free of rank $`d`$ over $`k[[T]]`$ and with

$$k_{k[[T]]}𝐌M.$$

The lemma then says that if $`M`$ belongs to an exact sequence

$$0M_2MM_10$$

with $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$, then any deformation $`𝐌`$ of $`M`$ belongs to an exact sequence

$$0𝐌_2𝐌𝐌_10$$

with $`𝐌_i`$ a deformation of $`M_i`$.

## 7. A valuative criterion

We use the following variation on the valuative criterion for flatness , §11.8, to transfer results about deformations to module varieties. Here $`k[[T]]`$ is the power series algebra in one variable, and $`\pi ^{}:\mathrm{Spec}(k)\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])`$ is the unique morphism of schemes over $`k`$.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of schemes over $`k`$, and assume that $`Y`$ is of finite type and quasiprojective over $`k`$. Suppose that for every commutative square of morphisms of schemes over $`k`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Spec}(k)& \stackrel{p}{}& X\\ \pi ^{}& & f& & \\ \mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])& \stackrel{h}{}& Y\end{array}$$

there exists a morphism

$$h^{}:\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])X$$

such that $`\pi ^{}h^{}=p`$ and $`h^{}f=h`$, that is, the two resulting triangles commute. Then the image of $`f`$ is open in $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that the points of a scheme are in 1-1 correspondence with irreducible closed subsets, with the point $`z`$ corresponding to the closure $`\overline{\{z\}}`$. Since $`Y`$ has finite type over $`k`$, any nonempty constructible subset of $`Y`$ must contain a closed point.

Since $`\mathrm{Im}(f)`$ is a constructible subset of $`Y`$, to show it is open it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{Im}(f)`$ is closed under generization, that is, if $`zY`$, $`y\mathrm{Im}(f)`$ and $`y\overline{\{z\}}`$, then $`z\mathrm{Im}(f)`$. By the remark above, it is sufficient to prove this in the case when $`y`$ is a closed point. For in general, since $`y\mathrm{Im}(f)`$, we know that $`\mathrm{Im}(f)\overline{\{y\}}`$ is nonempty, so since it is constructible it contains a closed point $`y^{}`$. Then $`y^{}\overline{\{y\}}\overline{\{z\}}`$, and hence $`z\mathrm{Im}(f)`$.

Thus suppose that $`zY`$, let $`Z=\overline{\{z\}}`$, let $`y`$ be a closed point in $`\mathrm{Im}(f)Z`$, and assume for a contradiction that $`z\mathrm{Im}(f)`$. Since $`\mathrm{Im}(f)Z`$ does not contain $`z`$, this set must be contained in a proper closed subset $`F`$ of $`Z`$. Choose a closed point $`tZF`$. Now it is known that it is possible to join any two points of an irreducible variety by a curve, see , p.56. Thus there is a morphism $`CZ`$, where $`C`$ is a curve, and with the image containing $`y`$ and $`t`$. By passing to the normalization if necessary, we may assume that $`C`$ is smooth.

Let $`c`$ be a closed point of $`C`$ which is sent to $`y`$. The complete local ring of $`C`$ at $`c`$ is isomorphic to $`k[[T]]`$, and this gives a morphism $`h`$

$$\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])CZY$$

sending the closed point of $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])`$ to $`y`$. We complete this to a commutative square as in the statement of the lemma using the morphism $`\mathrm{Spec}(k)X`$ corresponding to a closed point $`xX`$ with $`f(x)=y`$. Thus the hypotheses of the lemma give a morphism $`h^{}`$.

Let $`\xi `$ be the generic point of $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])`$. Then $`h(\xi )`$ is the generic point of the closure of the image of $`C`$. Thus $`\overline{\{h(\xi )\}}`$ contains $`t`$. On the other hand $`h(\xi )=f(h^{}(\xi ))\mathrm{Im}(f)`$, and $`h(\xi )Z`$, so $`h(\xi )\mathrm{Im}(f)Z`$. Thus $`\overline{\{h(\xi )\}}F`$, which does not contain $`t`$. This is a contradiction. ∎

The following observation will also be useful. The proof follows from the fact that $`\eta ^1(U)`$ is closed under generization.

###### Lemma 7.2.

Let $`\eta :\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])X`$ be a morphism of schemes. If $`U`$ is an open subset of $`X`$ which contains the image of the closed point of $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])`$, then the image of $`\eta `$ is contained in $`U`$.

## 8. Proof of Theorem 1.3(iii)

Recall that $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ can be identified with the set of closed points, or the set of $`k`$-valued points, of a scheme $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ over $`k`$. It is constructed as follows. Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_N`$ be a set of $`k`$-algebra generators of $`A`$. For $`d1`$, let

$$L=k[X_{ijl}1i,jd,1lN]$$

be the polynomial ring over $`k`$ in $`Nd^2`$ commuting variables. By $`X_l=(X_{ijl})_{1i,jd}`$ we denote the $`d\times d`$ matrix with $`ij`$th entry the variable $`X_{ijl}`$. Let $`k[A,d]`$ be the quotient of $`L`$ by the ideal generated by the entries of $`f(X_1,\mathrm{},X_N)`$ for all noncommutative polynomials $`f`$ over $`k`$ in $`N`$ variables, with $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=0`$. Define

$$\mathrm{mod}_A^d=\mathrm{Spec}(k[A,d]).$$

One can show that this definition is (up to $`\mathrm{GL}_d`$-equivariant isomorphism) independent of the choice of the generators of $`A`$, so $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ is called the scheme of $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-modules. See ,  or  for the basic properties of schemes of modules.

For a finitely generated commutative $`k`$-algebra $`R`$, let $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(R)`$ be the set of $`R`$-valued points of the scheme $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$. These are by definition the morphisms

$$\mathrm{Spec}(R)\mathrm{Spec}(k[A,d])=\mathrm{mod}_A^d$$

of schemes over $`k`$. They are in 1-1 correspondence with the $`k`$-algebra homomorphisms

$$k[A,d]R.$$

Such homomorphisms correspond to $`N`$-tuples of matrices in $`\mathrm{M}_d(R)`$ which satisfy the same relations as the generators $`a_i`$. Thus they correspond to $`k`$-algebra homomorphisms

$$𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(R).$$

Thus the $`R`$-valued points of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ correspond to $`R`$-$`A`$-bimodule structures on $`R^d`$.

By $`\mathrm{GL}_d`$ we denote the general linear affine group scheme. It acts on $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ by conjugation, $`(𝐠𝐦)(a)=\mathrm{𝐠𝐦}(a)𝐠^1`$ for $`𝐠\mathrm{GL}_d(R)`$ and $`𝐦\mathrm{mod}_A^d(R)`$. The orbits correspond to isomorphism classes of $`R`$-$`A`$-bimodules which are free of rank $`d`$ over $`R`$.

Now let $`d=d_1+d_2`$, let $`S`$ be a $`G`$-stable open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, and assume that $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$ whenever $`(M_1,M_2)`$ is in $`S`$.

Let $`Z`$ be the closed subscheme of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ whose $`R`$-valued points are the homomorphisms $`𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(R)`$ which take an upper triangular block form with respect to the decomposition $`d=d_1+d_2`$. There is a morphism of schemes over $`k`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:Z\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}$$

which on $`R`$-valued points sends an upper triangular homomorphism $`𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(R)`$ to the pair $`(𝐦_1,𝐦_2)`$ consisting of the two diagonal blocks of $`𝐦`$. Now $`S`$ can be considered as an open subscheme of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}`$, and so there is a corresponding open subscheme $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1(S)`$ of $`Z`$.

Let

$$f:\mathrm{GL}_d\times \mathrm{\Delta }^1(S)\mathrm{mod}_A^d$$

be the morphism obtained from the inclusion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1(S)`$ in $`Z`$, followed by the conjugation action of $`\mathrm{GL}_d`$. We show that the hypotheses of Lemma 7.1 are satisfied by the morphism $`f`$. Thus suppose we are given morphisms $`p`$ and $`h`$ forming a commutative square as in the lemma.

The morphism $`h`$ is a $`k[[T]]`$-valued point of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$, so it corresponds to a homomorphism $`𝐦:A\mathrm{M}_d(k[[T]])`$.

The morphism $`p`$ corresponds to a pair $`(g_0,m)`$ where $`g_0\mathrm{GL}_d(k)`$ and $`m`$ is a homomorphism $`A\mathrm{M}_d(k)`$ which has upper triangular block form, and such that the diagonal blocks satisfy $`(m_1,m_2)S`$.

The commutativity of the square implies that $`𝐦`$ is a deformation of $`g_0m`$, so that $`g_0^1𝐦`$ is a deformation of $`m`$. Applying Lemma 6.1 to this deformation gives an element $`𝐠\mathrm{GL}_d(k[[T]])`$ such that $`𝐦^{}=(𝐠g_0^1)𝐦`$ is a homomorphism $`A\mathrm{M}_d(k[[T]])`$ which has upper triangular block form, and is a deformation of $`m`$.

Now $`𝐦^{}`$ defines a morphism $`\theta :\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])Z`$. The closed point of $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])`$ is sent to $`m`$, and then under $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ this is sent to $`(m_1,m_2)S`$. Thus Lemma 7.2 implies that the composition $`\theta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ has image contained in $`S`$, so that $`\theta `$ defines a morphism $`\theta ^{}:\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])\mathrm{\Delta }^1(S)`$.

Now $`g_0𝐠^1\mathrm{GL}_d(k[[T]])`$ defines a morphism $`\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])\mathrm{GL}_d`$. Combining it with $`\theta ^{}`$ gives a morphism

$$h^{}:\mathrm{Spec}(k[[T]])\mathrm{GL}_d\times \mathrm{\Delta }^1(S).$$

Since $`(g_0𝐠^1)((𝐠g_0^1)𝐦)=𝐦`$, we have $`h^{}f=h`$. We also have $`\pi ^{}h^{}=p`$. Thus the hypotheses of Lemma 7.1 are satisfied, so the image of $`f`$, which is $`(S)`$, is open.

## 9. Proof of Corollary 1.4

Let $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ be irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$ respectively, and suppose that $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$. Let $`d=d_1+d_2`$.

Let $`S`$ be the subset of $`C_1\times C_2`$ corresponding to the modules $`(M_1,M_2)`$ with the property that $`dim\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_2,M_1)=0`$ and $`dim\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)=\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)`$. This is an irreducible locally closed subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, so $`\overline{(S)}`$ is irreducible by Theorem 1.3(ii).

Let $`C_i^0`$ be the set of elements of $`C_i`$ which are contained in no other irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$. This is an open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_i}(k)`$. Let $`T=S(C_1^0\times C_2^0)`$. This is a nonempty open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)\times \mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, so by Theorem 1.3(i), $`(T)`$ is an open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, clearly nonempty. Thus $`\overline{(S)}`$ contains a nonempty open subset of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, so it must be an irreducible component.

Finally, $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ contains $`\overline{(S)}`$ by Theorem 1.3(i).

## 10. Proof of Corollary 1.5

Using the fact that $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_i,M_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$, an induction shows that any module $`N`$ in $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)`$ has a filtration

$$0=N_0N_1\mathrm{}N_t=N$$

with each $`N_j/N_{j1}`$ isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $`M_j`$. Assume by induction on $`t`$ that $`_d(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{t1})`$ is open for all $`d`$. Let $`dimM_t=r`$, and for $`i0`$ let $`𝒪_i`$ be the orbit in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{ri}(k)`$ corresponding to the direct sum of $`i`$ copies of $`M_t`$. Then

$$_d(M_1,\mathrm{},M_t)=\underset{i0}{}(𝒪_i\times _{dri}(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{t1}))$$

which is open by Theorem 1.3(iii), since $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(N,M_t)=0`$ for all $`N`$ in $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{t1})`$.

## 11. Proof of Theorem 1.2

Let $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_t`$ be irreducible components of varieties of $`A`$-modules. Assuming that

$$C=\overline{C_1\mathrm{}C_t}$$

is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, we prove that $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_i,C_j)=0`$ for all $`ij`$.

We say that a $`d`$-dimensional $`A`$-module $`M`$ is a minimal degeneration if the corresponding orbit $`𝒪(M)`$ in $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ is not contained in the closure of any other orbit. Note that $`dim𝒪(M)=d^2dim\mathrm{End}_A(M)`$, so if an orbit $`𝒪(M)`$ is contained in the closure of another orbit $`𝒪(N)`$, then $`dim\mathrm{End}_A(M)>dim\mathrm{End}_A(N)`$.

Recall that the function $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, sending a module structure to the dimension of the endomorphism algebra of the corresponding module, is upper semicontinuous. Thus if $`C`$ is an irreducible component of a variety of modules, then the set $`C^{\mathrm{min}}`$ where this function takes its minimal value (on $`C`$) is a dense open subset of $`C`$. If $`C^0`$ denotes the set of elements of $`C`$ which are not contained in any other irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, then $`C^{0,\mathrm{min}}=C^0C^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is also a a dense open subset of $`C`$.

Clearly any module in $`C^{0,\mathrm{min}}`$ is a minimal degeneration, for if $`𝒪(M)`$ is contained in the closure of another orbit $`𝒪(N)`$ then the fact that $`M`$ is in $`C^0`$ implies that $`N`$ is in $`C`$, and then $`dim\mathrm{End}_A(M)>dim\mathrm{End}_A(N)`$.

Now assume that $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_i,C_j)0`$ for some $`ij`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(X,Y)0`$ for all modules $`X`$ in $`C_i`$ and $`Y`$ in $`C_j`$. Taking a non-split short exact sequence

$$0YEX0$$

we have $`E\cong ̸XY`$ by , §2.3, Lemma 1, so that $`EZ\cong ̸XYZ`$ for any module $`Z`$, and $`𝒪(XYZ)\overline{𝒪(EZ)}`$ by . It follows that no element of $`C_1\mathrm{}C_t`$ can be a minimal degeneration.

But this set must meet $`C^{0,\mathrm{min}}`$. Contradiction.

We now prove the converse direction. By induction it suffices to prove the case when $`t=2`$, that is, if $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_1}(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{mod}_A^{d_2}(k)`$, and if $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)=\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$, then $`\overline{C_1C_2}`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, where $`d=d_1+d_2`$.

Let $`S`$ be the subset appearing in the statement of Corollary 1.4. If $`(M_1,M_2)`$ is in $`S`$, then $`\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(M_1,M_2)=0`$, so that $`(S)C_1C_2`$. Now the closure of $`(S)`$ contains an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ by Corollary 1.4. Thus, since $`\overline{C_1C_2}`$ is irreducible, it must be this irreducible component.

## 12. Remarks and examples

### 12.1.

There are only very few algebras $`A`$ such that all irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ are known for all $`d`$. It should be important to construct more explicit examples. If $`A`$ is of finite representation type, i.e. there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of indecomposable $`A`$-modules, then one can use Auslander-Reiten theory and  to compute all irreducible components of varieties of $`A`$-modules. One of the known examples of infinite representation type can be found in .

### 12.2.

Theorem 1.2 can be proved using tangent space methods, rather than deformation theory, when the scheme $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ is reduced, or at least generically reduced. It should be an important task to find methods that determine when this happens. If $`A`$ is hereditary, i.e. the global dimension of $`A`$ is one, then $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d`$ is reduced. One of the few other examples where this is known to be the case is the variety of complexes, studied by De Concini and Strickland . Namely, let $`Q`$ be the quiver

$$m\mathrm{}210$$

and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=kQ/I`$, where $`I`$ is the ideal generated by all paths of length 2. Let $`𝐝=(n_m,\mathrm{},n_1,n_0)`$ be a dimension vector, and define $`k_i=\mathrm{min}(n_{i1},n_i)`$. Then $`\mathrm{mod}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^𝐝`$, the scheme of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-modules of dimension vector $`𝐝`$, can be identified with $`\mathrm{Spec}(A/(k_1,\mathrm{},k_m))`$, as in the introduction to , and Theorem 1.7 of that paper says this scheme is reduced.

### 12.3.

As mentioned in the introduction, our main results imply that the classification of irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ can be reduced to the study of irreducible components that contain dense subsets of indecomposable modules. So we suggest the following definition. The component quiver $`𝒞(A)`$ of $`A`$ has as vertices the set of irreducible components $`C`$ of varieties of $`A`$-modules such that $`C`$ contains a dense subset of indecomposable $`A`$-modules. We draw an arrow $`C_1C_2`$ if $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$.

The component graph $`𝒞_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ is the graph with the same vertices as $`𝒞(A)`$ and an edge connecting $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ if $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)=\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$. One can easily construct examples where $`𝒞_\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ contains finite and infinite connected components.

### 12.4.

We give an example to show that $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ in Corollary 1.4 need not be a union of irreducible components. Let $`Q`$ be the quiver

$$1\stackrel{𝛼}{}2\stackrel{𝛽}{}3\stackrel{𝛾}{}4$$

and let $`A=kQ/I`$ where $`I`$ is generated by the paths $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$. The variety $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ breaks into connected components, one for each decomposition $`d=d_1+d_2+d_3+d_4`$, with the component corresponding to the representations of $`Q`$ of dimension vector $`(d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4)`$ which satisfy the relations $`\alpha \beta =0`$ and $`\beta \gamma =0`$.

For the variety $`\mathrm{mod}_A^1(k)`$ there are four connected components, each of which is actually a point. Let $`C_1`$ be the connected component for the dimension vector $`(1,0,0,0)`$.

The variety $`\mathrm{mod}_A^3(k)`$ has a connected component corresponding to the representations of dimension vector $`(0,1,1,1)`$. It consists of two irreducible components, one consisting of the representations with $`\beta =0`$, the other corresponding to the representations with $`\gamma =0`$. Let $`C_2`$ be the second of these.

Then $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ consists of the representations of dimension vector $`(1,1,1,1)`$ in which $`\gamma =0`$. It is the union of two irreducible closed subsets. The subset of representations with $`\alpha =0`$ is an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^4(k)`$. The subset of representations with $`\beta =0`$ is not an irreducible component, since it is a proper subset of the set of representations with $`\beta =0`$ still, but with both $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ arbitrary.

### 12.5.

Let $`Q`$ be the quiver with two vertices $`1`$ and $`2`$ and arrows $`\alpha :11`$, $`\beta :11`$ and $`\gamma :12`$. Define $`A=kQ/I`$ where the ideal $`I`$ is generated by $`\alpha \gamma `$ and $`\beta \gamma `$. Then $`\mathrm{mod}_A^1(k)`$ has two connected components, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, corresponding to the representations of dimension vector $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$. They are both irreducible, with $`\mathrm{dim}(C_1)=2`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}(C_2)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$. One can show that $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ is the union of two irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^2(k)`$, of dimensions $`3`$ and $`4`$.

### 12.6.

The condition that $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)=0`$ is not necessary in Corollary 1.4. Let $`Q`$ be the quiver with two vertices $`1`$ and $`2`$ and arrows $`\alpha :12`$ and $`\beta :21`$. Let $`A=kQ/I`$ where $`I`$ is generated by $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`\beta \alpha `$. Then $`\mathrm{mod}_A^1(k)`$ has two connected components, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$, corresponding to the representations of dimension vector $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,1)`$. They both consist of one point. One easily checks that $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_1,C_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(C_2,C_1)`$ are both non-zero. But $`(C_1\times C_2)`$ and $`(C_2\times C_1)`$ are both irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^2(k)`$ of dimension $`3`$.

### 12.7.

We would like to add an application to tilted algebras that we worked out with C. Geiß after the paper was submitted.

Let $`A=kQ`$ be the path algebra of a quiver $`Q`$. Recall that the irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ are indexed by the dimension vectors $`\alpha `$ for $`Q`$ with total dimension $`d`$. The numbers $`\mathrm{hom}_A(\alpha ,\beta )`$ and $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(\alpha ,\beta )`$ may be computed using the theory of general representations of quivers , and they are related by the formula $`\mathrm{hom}_A(\alpha ,\beta )\mathrm{ext}_A^1(\alpha ,\beta )=\alpha ,\beta `$ where $`,`$ is the Ringel form for $`Q`$.

Let $`T_A`$ be a tilting module, let $`t`$ be its dimension vector, and let $`B=\mathrm{End}_A(T)^{op}`$ be the corresponding tilted algebra, see . (The opposite algebra is needed, with our conventions, to ensure that $`T`$ is naturally a $`B`$-$`A`$-bimodule.) We show that the irreducible components of $`\mathrm{mod}_B^d(k)`$ are in 1-1 correspondence with the pairs of dimension vectors $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ for $`Q`$ with $`t,\alpha \beta =d`$, $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(t,\alpha )=0`$, $`\mathrm{hom}_A(t,\beta )=0`$ and $`\mathrm{hom}_A(\beta ,\alpha )=0`$.

The Brenner-Butler Theorem \[10, Theorem 2.1\] gives equivalences $`F=\mathrm{Hom}_A(T,):𝒯𝒴`$ and $`F^{}=\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(T,):𝒳`$ involving the module classes

$``$ $`=\{M\text{ an }A\text{-module}\mathrm{Hom}_A(T,M)=0\},`$
$`𝒯`$ $`=\{M\text{ an }A\text{-module}\mathrm{Ext}_A^1(T,M)=0\},`$
$`𝒳`$ $`=\{N\text{ a }B\text{-module}N_BT=0\}=\{N\mathrm{Hom}_B(N,DT)=0\},`$
$`𝒴`$ $`=\{N\text{ a }B\text{-module}\mathrm{Tor}_1^B(N,T)=0\}=\{N\mathrm{Ext}_B^1(N,DT)=0\}.`$
By upper semicontinuity, $``$ and $`𝒯`$ define open subsets $`(d)`$ and $`𝒯(d)`$ of $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$, and $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ define open subsets $`𝒳(d)`$ and $`𝒴(d)`$ of $`\mathrm{mod}_B^d(k)`$.

The irreducible components of $`𝒯(d)`$ are the ones for $`\mathrm{mod}_A^d(k)`$ containing a module in $`𝒯`$, and since $`T`$ corresponds to an open orbit, they are the ones with $`\mathrm{ext}_A^1(t,\alpha )=0`$. By a result of Bongartz \[2, Theorem 3\], the modules $`F(M)`$ with $`M`$ in such an irreducible component form an irreducible component of $`𝒴(d_1)`$, where $`d_1=t,\alpha `$. Varying $`\alpha `$, this construction gives all irreducible components of $`𝒴(d_1)`$.

Dually, the dimension vectors $`\beta `$ with $`\mathrm{hom}_A(t,\beta )=0`$ index the irreducible components of $`𝒳(d_2)`$, where $`d_2=t,\beta `$. (This requires the dual of Bongartz’s Theorem, but this follows automatically on exchanging the roles of $`A`$ and $`B`$, and using the dual of $`T`$.)

Now any $`B`$-module is a direct sum of modules in $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ by \[10, Theorem 6.3\], so any irreducible component of $`\mathrm{mod}_B^d(k)`$ is of the form $`\overline{C_1C_2}`$ where $`C_1`$ is the closure in $`\mathrm{mod}_B^{d_1}(k)`$ of an irreducible component of $`𝒴(d_1)`$, say corresponding to $`\alpha `$, and $`C_2`$ is the closure in $`\mathrm{mod}_B^{d_2}(k)`$ of an irreducible component of $`𝒳(d_2)`$, say corresponding to $`\beta `$. Moreover, the summands of the $`B`$-module in $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ are unique up to isomorphism, and it follows that different choices of $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ lead to different irreducible components.

Now the condition for $`\overline{C_1C_2}`$ to be an irreducible component is that ext vanishes generically in both directions. In one direction this is automatic, for $`\mathrm{Ext}_B^1(𝒴,𝒳)=0`$ by \[18, 4.1.6(d)\]. In the other direction we have

$$\mathrm{Ext}_B^1(F^{}(M),F(N))\mathrm{Hom}_A(M,N)$$

for $`M`$ and $`N𝒯`$. (This is obvious from the interpretation of tilting theory as an equivalence of derived categories.) The condition for this to vanish generically is that $`\mathrm{hom}_A(\beta ,\alpha )=0`$.


format: text

text:
# The BMW Deep X–ray Cluster Survey

## 1. Introduction

In the last few years, X–ray selected samples of clusters of galaxies have become a formidable tool for cosmology. Deep surveys using ROSAT PSPC archival data have been used to study the evolution of the cluster abundance and X–ray luminosity function (XLF) and constrain cosmological parameters (e.g. Borgani et al. 1999). The lack of evolution of the XLF observed for $`LL^{}410^{44}h^2`$ erg s<sup>-1</sup> out to $`z0.8`$ favours low values for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ under reasonable assumptions about the evolution of the $`LT`$ relation. At the same time, the original hint from the EMSS (Gioia et al 1990; Henry et al. 1992) of evolution at the very bright end of the XLF seems to be confirmed (Vikhlinin et al. 1998, Nichol et al. 1999, Rosati et al. 2000 and references therein). The main statistical limitation of this conclusion rests with the small sky coverage of the ROSAT deep surveys, which clashes with the intrinsic rarity of highly luminous clusters. XMM–Newton and Chandra are already attracting justified attention as the likely source for future samples, but no significant sets of serendipitously selected clusters can be reasonably expected from these observatories for at least another 2 years. This presents the window of opportunity for our survey, which uses data from the ROSAT High–Resolution Imager (HRI) archive. With respect to the PSPC, the HRI offers superior angular resolution. Our results indicate that it is actually a surprisingly good source of samples of high-redshift clusters.

Our new X–ray selected sample of candidate clusters of galaxies is based on the recently completed BMW survey of serendipitous X–ray sources over 3000 ROSAT HRI fields. The sample includes 287 candidates, with a significantly large sky coverage in comparison with other recent deep surveys. We are conducting a multi-site imaging campaing to fully identify the cluster sample. First results at ESO and TNG are extremely encouraging: with approximately an 80% rate of photometric confirmation in the first subsample of 35 candidates.

## 2. The BMW Project

The Brera Multi-scale Wavelet (BMW) project has currently completed the systematic analysis of about 3100 HRI pointings using a wavelet detection algorithm (Lazzati et al. 1999). This resulted in a catalog of $`19000`$ serendipitous sources with measured fluxes and extensions (Campana et al. 1999, Panzera et al. 2001). A clever selection of the HRI energy channels produced a reduction of the background noise by a factor of $`3`$, thus greatly improving the ability to detect low–surface–brightness sources as clusters. The BMW general catalogue is built excluding fields with $`|b_{II}|20^{}`$ or pointed on the LMC and SMC. Furthermore to build BMW cluster catalogue we have excluded cluster–targeted HRI fields to avoid the bias produced by the cluster–cluster angular correlation function, for which we have a clear positive detection in these fields. Cluster candidates were isolated on the basis of their extension, selecting at a high significance level (corresponding to $`>5\sigma `$) and using only the well–sampled HRI area between 3 and 15 armin off-axis. We ended up with a list of 287 cluster candidates which were visually classified on the DSS2 to reject obvious contaminants (30 rejections, mostly nearby galaxies). The BMW project is still under development such that a small assessment in the absolute number is expected.

## 3. Survey Sky Coverage

An important parameter characterising a survey of serendipitous sources as the BMW is its sky coverage, i.e. the effective solid angle covered as a function of the limiting flux. Being based on archival pointings, different parts of the sky are observed with different exposure times. Thus, for each value of the X–ray flux $`f_x`$ the sky coverage is given by the total area of all observed fields with limiting flux $`f_{lim}f_x`$. In addition, due to the radial dependence of the point–spread function (PSF) of the ROSAT X–ray telescope, within a single field the effective flux limit is different for different off–axis angles and extensions of the sources. For this reason, the effective solid angle covered at different flux limits must be carefully estimated considering the instrumental set–up and the detection and characterisation methods adopted (e.g. Rosati 1995). We have therefore first estimated the sky coverage of the BMW survey for extended objects by assuming a $`\beta `$ model with $`\beta =2/3`$, with a set of different core radii. For each core radius we have convolved the analytic profile with the PSF of the instrument at different off-axis angles and we have calculated the corresponding maximum in the wavelet space. Each HRI image has a detection threshold which is calculated in the wavelet space (Lazzati et al. 1999) and is only function of the background. Thus for each image we could estimate directly the limiting detection flux as a function of both the off-axis angle and source extension. In Figure 1 we compare the BMW cluster sky coverage to some previous X–ray cluster surveys. This relatively quick and straightforward method has some limitations (e.g. it does not tell us how well the wavelet extension is measured), that need to be explored through simulations. To this end, we are currently running an extensive set of simulations following the approach of Vikhlinin et al. (1998), and the first outputs for a small sample of fields give results which are very close to the semi–analytic calculation, confirming that the sky coverage of Figure 1 should be a fair representation of our data.

## 4. First Results from Optical Follow–up

¿From the 287 candidates we have further selected a high priority sample of 165 objects by excluding the HRI fields with exposure time smaller then 10 ksec. In spring 2000, we started a long–term program of multi–band photometry and spectroscopy of these fields, which is currently underway using telescopes in both emispheres (mostly the TNG in La Palma and the ESO 3.6 m telescopes). We have recently (September 2000) reached a total of 35 candidates for which deep optical imaging has been secured in at least two bands. Preliminary analysis of these observations suggests a success rate (i.e. evidence for a galaxy overdensity correlated with the X–ray source) of about 80%. The still unidentified 20% fraction does not show any obvious pathology and we plan to add deep imaging in $`K^{}`$ band, where the contrast of early–type galaxies is maximised, to definitely ascertain their nature.

## 5. Discussion

A hint of the scientific potential of the BMW catalogue can be obtained from the left panel of Figure 4 where the expected number of clusters as a function of redshift is plotted. These predictions use the computed BMW sky coverage of the high priority sample (165 objects) and integrate the local X–ray luminosity function (De Grandi et al. 1999) considering or not the evolution suggested by the RDCS, as reported in Rosati (1999). Simple comparison to the total expected numbers from Figure 4 would seem to imply that the BMW survey sees evolution in the XLF similar to the RDCS results. However, one has to await for the completion of the identification campaign to be able to place serious constraints on evolution. We should remark here the potential advantage of working with HRI data. In the right panel of Figure 4 we have plotted the apparent diameters of a rich cluster ($`r_c=250`$ kpc) and of a group of galaxies ($`r_c=100`$ kpc) as a function of redshift, together with a measure of the resolution of the ROSAT HRI compared to the PSPC. As one can see, the PSPC is not as suitable as the HRI for distinguishing groups of galaxies from point-like sources beyond redshift 0.4. Of course, this simplistic plot depends on several variables, as the underlying cosmology, the source profile and in particular does not take into account the different noise level of the 2 instruments. Nevertheless, it shows that we should be able to explore the faint end of the XLF, the realm of groups, which could not be studied from PSPC data. In fact, the potentially large number of clusters in the BMW sample, when compared to prediction of evolution or no–evolution models, could also be produced by a steeper local XLF.


text:
# Untitled Document

Theory of quantum Hall effect and high Landau levels Keshav N. Shrivastava

School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500 046, India

The angular momentum model which couples the spin and charge is discussed as a possible theory of the quantum Hall effect. The high Landau level filling fractions 5/2, 7/3 and 8/3 are understood by this model. It is found that 7/3 and 8/3 are the particle-hole conjugates and 5/2 arises due to a limiting level at 1/2 with Landau level number $`n=5`$ which makes the fraction as 5/2.

Recently, Eisenstein et al1 have found that at large values of the Landau level quantum number, $`n`$, there is much less structure in the diagonal resistivity as a function of field than at low values of $`n`$. It was pointed out by Lilly et al2 that the rich structure of fractions of the fractionally quantized Hall effect, FQHE, found at small values of $`n`$ is vertually absent for large values of $`n`$; only fragile and poorly understood states at Landau filling fractions, $`\nu =7/3,5/2`$ and 8/3 are seen in the best samples. In a recent letter3 we have shown that our earlier representation4 of the quantum Hall states works very well for the understanding of the particle-hole symmetry of the quantum Hall states. In particular we are able to understand the measured equivalence in the $`g`$ factor and effective masses of the quasiparticles. We have shown that 4/5 and 6/5 have equal masses because they are particle-hole conjugates. Yeh et al5 also find that the ratio of the effective mass to the square root of the perpendicular magnetic field is equal for some of the fractions in agreement with our calculations.3

In the present letter, we interpret the fractions 7/3, 5/2 and 8/3 seen in the measurement carried out by Eisenstein et al1. We report that 7/3 and 8/3 are particle-hole conjugates and 5/2 is the $`n=5`$ states of the level at 1/2.

Our earlier model4 has several features which are in agreement with experimental measurements. The fractions predicted by us are the same as those experimentally found by Eisenstein and Stormer6. The fractions occur in two groups. One of the groups belongs to spin +1/2 and another to -1/2. Therefore, the groups represent time reversed states. The grouping of fractions in our theory is the same as experimentally found in the measurement of Eisenstein and Stormer6. Our model also gives $`\nu =1/2`$ for very large values of $`l`$ and hence there is a limiting value at $`n/2`$ where $`n`$ is the Landau level quantum number. In our model one of the series is,

$$\nu =\frac{l}{(2l+1)}$$
(1)
which predicts one group of fractions, 0, 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 4/9, 5/11, etc. which are also observed by Willett et al7. Another group of fractions is predicted4 by the expression,

$$\nu =\frac{(l+1)}{(2l+1)}$$
(2)
which are 1, 2/3, 3/5, 4/7, etc. in complete agreement with the experimental measurement6,7. When $`l=\mathrm{}`$ both the above series approach 1/2 except that one series approaches from the right hand side and the other from the left hand side exactly as observed6. The left and the right side approaches arise from the Kramers conjugate states and the predicted approach is exactly as observed6. Since the limit is involved there is a Fermi surface at 1/2. However, we can shift the Fermi surface to higher values when higher Landau levels are occupied. The fraction 1/2 becomes $`n/2`$ with $`n`$ as the Landau level quantum number. The 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, 9/2, etc. become allowed. This predicted feature with an odd numerator with 2 in the denominator is also exactly as observed. Thus for $`n=1`$, we have two series one merging from left while the other merging from right at 1/2 and the same picture is repeated for different values of $`n`$. The entire pattern of pairwise series is observed eactly as predicted. Many fractions with 2 in the denominators have been observed by Lilly et al8.

In the C.F. model9 the spin and charge are decoupled but one of the series is the same as our series. Another series in the C.F. model is,

$$\nu _{CF}=\frac{m}{(2m1)}.$$
(3)
We point out that the above series is the same as in eq.(2) which is given in the earlier dated theory of ref. . We equate (2) and (3) so that,

$$\frac{(l+1)}{(2l+1)}=\frac{m}{(2m1)}$$
(4)
which can be simplified to yield $`m=l+1`$. Therefore, the series of (3) of C.F. is identical to that of ref.  except for the shift of the integer by one. However, in the theory of ref.  the spin and charge are coupled whereas in the C.F. model these are decoupled. In the C.F. theory 1/3 and 2/3 are treated at par. Their spin can have any value, up or down. On the other hand in the theory4 1/3 has spin down and 2/3 has spin up. The polarization experiment10 demands $`\gamma _e1`$ for 1/3, 0.5 for 2/3 and 0.3 for 3/5. This means that 1/3 is in one group with spin down whereas 2/3 and 3/5 are in another group with spin up. This feature agrees better with our model of ref.  than with C.F. model. It also means that the experiment discreminates between 1/3 and 2/3 but the C.F. model does not. Our model of ref.  discreminates 1/3 and 2/3 by virtue of spin, being up in one case and down in another. The need for a term which has spin raising and lowering operators along with a function of orientation of the magnetic field is also clear. The effective charge in the theory4 is $`(1/2)g_\pm e=\nu e`$ and the gap is $`\omega _c=\nu B/mc`$ but there is spin-charge coupling as 1/3 has spin down and 2/3 has spin up. Thus charge and spin are coupled in the theory of ref. 4 as they should be but in the C.F. model spin and charge are decoupled. According to one suggestion11 spin and charge are decoupled but in our theory fixing the value of the spin, such as 1/2, automatically fixes the charge. Spin-charge decoupling can be obtained if $`l`$ and $`s`$ belong to two different particles. According to a recent study12-14 spin and charge are coupled so that as the spin tilts, charge also moves and there is a phase transition in such a system, which forms spin textures along with a charge density wave. However, formation of charge-density waves by the symmetry breaking in the electron-phonon interaction does not depend on the spin. In the ordinary electron-phonon interaction the electrons are scattered without change in spin.

The even denominators are indeed difficult to obtain. However, it should be noted that the first one to be discovered was 1/3 and later on other denominators were seen. For a long time only odd denominators were reported which shows that even denominators are weak. For some time odd denominator rule was established but such a rule is not correct because even denominators occur as well as even numerators with odd denominators are found. Later on even denominators were reported. Therefore, it is observed that the fractional quantum Hall effect plateaus corresponding to even denominators are weak compared with those of odd denominators. There is a limiting value of the series $`l/(2l+1)`$ which for $`l1`$, gives 1/2 which has an even denominator. Because of the limit there is a Fermi surface at 1/2. However, there are other even denominators which are not linked with a Fermi surface at 1/2. Besides, when higher Landau levels are populated the Fermi surface will have to be shifted from 1/2 to $`n/2`$. Thus there are two types of even denominators, type-I are those which are limits of the series which give odd denominators and the type-II which are not the limiting values. When $`\nu `$ is a fraction then $`n\nu `$ is also allowed. Therefore, several even denominators can be generated from 1/2 which include 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, etc. However, there are other types of even denominators which require two-quasiparticle states or bound states of two quantum Hall states. We make an effort to combine a series of the type $`l/(2l+1)`$ with another series $`(m+1)/(2m+1)`$ in which both are the angular momenta series of ref. 4, such that an even denominator results,

$$\left[\frac{l}{(2l+1)}\right]+\frac{(m+1)}{(2m+1)}=\frac{1}{(2n)}.$$
(5)
The solution of which is,

$$m=\frac{[12nl(6n2)]}{[8nl4l+2n2]}.$$
(6)
For $`n=2,m=(10l+3)/(12l+2)`$ which gives $`l=0,m=3/2,n=2`$ and hence $`1/2n=1/4`$, so that even denominators can be generated if $`m`$ can become a negative fraction. For $`l=1`$, $`m=13/14,n=2`$ and $`1/2n=1/4`$ is also giving an even denominator of 4 but $`m`$ has become a negative fraction. Thus we can obtain even denominators for fractional angular momentum. In the Pauli spin matrices, if 1/2 is replaced by some other fraction, the commutators remain unchanged and it is acceptable to have values other than 1/2 without any sacrifize of quantum mechanical rules. The occurrence of even denominators may be anisotropic and hence may depend on the rotation of matrices or on the angle, which the z-axis makes with the direction of the external magnetic field.

The cyclotron frequency is $`\omega _c=(1/2)geB/mc=\nu eB/mc`$. Therefore, we can replace the charge by an effective charge, $`e_{eff}=(1/2)ge=\nu e`$. Alternatively, we can replace the field by an effective field, $`B_{eff}(1/2)geB=\nu B`$ so that the field is very much reduced. In the case of $`\nu =1/3`$, the field experienced is $`(1/3)B`$ which is reduced from $`B`$.

The series (1) and (2) above can be used to explain the high Landau levels easily. Eisenstein et al1 have found that at higher values of the Landau level quantum number, $`n`$, the number of fractions observed is much less than at the lowest Landau level. At the magnetic field of 4 to 5 Tesla only a small number of fractions are observed, the strongest ones are at 8/3, 5/2 and 7/3. Since there is a charge versus Landau level quantum number degeneracy, it is not possible to distinguish large charge from a large Landau level quantum number. In the angular momentum (1) series, $`l/(2l+1)`$ is the particle hole conjugate of $`(l+1)/(2l+1)`$. For $`l=7`$ two values, 7/15 and 8/15 are predicted and $`l=\mathrm{}`$ value is 1/2. When the same particle occurs in different levels its charge remains unchanged. We can multiply the values by $`n=5`$ so that the predicted values of 1/2, 7/15 and 8/15 become 5/2, 7/3 and 8/3. These predicted values are exactly the same as those observed experimentally by Eisenstein et al. Thus 7/3 is the particle-hole conjugate of 8/3 as seen below for $`n=5`$:

| $`l`$ | $`l/(2l+1)`$ | $`(l+1)/(2l+1)`$ | $`nl/(2l+1)`$ | $`n(l+1)/(2l+1)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | 1/2 | 1/2 | 5/2 | 5/2 |
| 7 | 7/15 | 8/15 | 7/3 | 8/3 |

Thus the angular momenta series (1) and (2) given by ref. 4 explain the quantum Hall effect correctly. Conclusions. In conclusion, we have shown that the correct series of the quantum Hall effect is derivable from angular momentum. The particle-hole symmetry recently observed in quantum Hall effect is understable from the angular momentum and even denominators are predicted correctly. We are also able to understand the high Landau levels15-16.

References.

1. J.P. Eisenstein, M.P. Lilly, K.B. Cooper, L.N. Pfeiffer and K.W. West, condmat/9909238; 13$`{}_{}{}^{t}h`$ International conference on the electronic properties of two dimensional systems, Ottawa, Canada, 1999; Physica E, 6, 29 (2000).
2. The 7/3, 5/2 and 8/3 are also mentioned in M.P. Lilly, K.B. Cooper, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 394 (1999).
3. K.N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 13, 1087 (1999).
4. K.N. Shrivastava, Phys. Lett. A113, 435 (1986); 115, 459(E) (1986).
5. A.S. Yeh, H.L. Störmer, D.C. Tsui, L.N. Pfeiffer, K.W. Baldwin and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 592 (1999).
6. J.P. Eisenstein and H.L. Störmer, Science, 248, 1510 (1990).
7. R. Willett et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1776 (1987).
8. M.P. Lilly, K.B. Cooper, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 824 (1999).
9. J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 199 (1989).
10. I.V. Kukushkin, K. von Klitzing and K. Eberl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3665 (1999).
11. C. Kim et al, Phys. Rev. Lett, 77, 4054 (1996).
12. S.M. Reimann, M. Koskinen, S. Viefers, M. Manninen and B. Mottelson, Nordita-199/36CM, cond-mat/9908208.
13. A. Karlhede and K. Lejnell, Physica E1, 41 (1997).
14. M. Franco and L. Brey, Phys. Rev. 56, 10383 (1997).
15. K. N. Shrivastava, Mod. Phys. Lett. 14,1009 (2001).
16. K. N. Shrivastava, CERN LIBRARIES, GENEVA SCAN-0103007,(2000?).


text:
# Nondistortion Quantum Interrogation using EPR entangled Photons

## Abstract

We propose a novel scheme for nondistortion quantum interrogation (NQI), defined as an interaction-free measurement which preserves the internal state of the object being detected. In our scheme, two EPR entangled photons are used as the probe and polarization sensitive measurements are performed at the four ports of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In comparison with the previous single photon scheme, it is shown that the two photon approach has a higher probability of initial state preserving interrogation of an atom prepared in a quantum superposition. In the case that the presence of the atom is not successfully detected, the experiment can be repeated since the initial state of the atom is unperturbed.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Bz, 42.50.Ct, 03.67.-a

One manifestation of the peculiar wave-particle duality of the light quantum is the possibility of interaction-free measurements, in which the presence of a classical or quantum mechanical object in an interferometer path can be inferred without apparent interaction with the probe photon. This is possible because the presence of an object modifies the interference between different branches of the photon wave function, so that there is a finite probability that the photon will exit the interferometer through a port where it should have not appeared in absence of the object. This is the idea of interaction-free measurement (IFM) first proposed by Elitzur and Vaidman . Later Kwiat et al. showed that the efficiency of IFM can be brought arbitrarily close to 1 if one takes advantage of a discrete form of the quantum Zeno effect  . More recently, Mitchison and Massar proved that interaction-free discrimination between semi-transparent and complete transparent (absent) objects can also be done with probability approaching unity .

It is interesting to ask what effect does the interaction-free measurement have on the object being detected, even though the measurement is “interaction free”. As emphasized by Vaidman , since the interaction Hamiltonian does not vanish, in general the IFM can change very significantly the quantum state of the observed object. As a matter of fact, if the wave function of the observed object was initially spread out in the space, $`|\psi =|\psi _{spatial}|\psi _{internal}`$, then a successful IFM necessarily collapses the spatial part of the wave function to the vicinity of the optical path. However, in most cases it is advantageous if we can keep the internal state of the object unperturbed and realize an (internal) initial state preserving IFM, which we may call a nondistortion quantum interrogation (NQI) . For a classical object or two level atom in the ground state, a successful IFM is also a nondistortion interrogation since the internal state of the object is not affected if the probe photon is not absorbed. However, as discussed in a recent paper by Potting et al. , this problem is more subtle for a quantum mechanical object characterized by its quantum superposition. Using a “which path” argument they showed that the absence of energy exchange during the measurement is not a sufficient condition to preserve the initial state of the object, since the quantum superposition of the object is subject to measurement dependent decoherence. Although it is possible in general to design interaction-free measurement schemes that do preserve the initial state of the quantum object, the scheme they discussed has a very low success probability.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a new scheme for NQI, which uses a pair of probe photons. Consider a multilevel atomic system shown in Fig. 1, which is the same model as used in . Starting from the initial degenerate metastable states $`|m_+`$ and $`|m_{}`$, the atom can make a transition to the excited state $`|e`$ by absorbing a $`+`$ or $``$ (circular) polarized photon with unit efficiency. It then decays irreversibly to the ground state $`|g`$ very rapidly. The absorption process is therefore

$$\widehat{a}_\pm ^{}|0|m_\pm |S|g$$
(1)
where $`|S`$ is a scattered photon which we assume will not be reabsorbed by the atom and can be filtered away from the detectors. To investigate the effect of IFM on the initial state of the atom, let us assume that the atom is initially in the superposition

$$|\psi _{atom}=\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{}$$
(2)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are unknown non-vanishing coefficients satisfying $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$.

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the Mach-Zehnder interferometer consists of two identical non-polarizing $`5050`$ beam splitters. Note that the interferometer has four ports. We use two photons, one entering from the left lower port and the other from the right lower port, as our probe. Four polarization sensitive photon detectors, $`D_{,u},D_{,l},D_{,u},D_{,l}`$, are placed at the four ports of the interferometer. When no atom is in the interferometer, the two photons exit with certainty from the two upper ports (therefore $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ fire). In presence of the atom, the interference is modified so that one or both photons have a chance to exit from the lower ports. So in the case that no absorption happened, any of the following combinations indicates the presence of the atom in the interferometer (hence a successful IFM): $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ fire; $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ fire; $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ fire. These are not necessarily nondistortion interrogation though. We will show, by properly choosing the polarization of the probe photons and photon detectors, we can perform a nondistortion interrogation of the atom with success probability half that in the original EV scheme for a two level atom .

At first glance, it appears that the two photon approach is the same with doing the measurement twice with the single photon scheme as in , once with a left entering photon and once with a right entering one. This is not true for two reasons. First, we can have correlations between the two probe photons. Second, in the two photon scheme the states of the two photons are measured together at the end of the experiment and the wave function of the whole system (atom plus photons) is collapsed only once. To make it clearer let us first look at the case that two independent photons are used as the probe. Take the state of the two photons to be

$$|\psi _{photon}=\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}|0$$
(3)
Note three indices are used to specify the state of a photon: the propagation direction ($``$ or $``$); the optical path it follows ($`l`$ower or $`u`$pper); and the direction of polarization ($`+`$ or $``$). The effect of the beam splitters on the photons is as follows:

$`\widehat{a}_{,l}^{}|0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u}^{}\pm i\widehat{a}_{,l}^{})|0`$ (4)
$`\widehat{a}_{,u}^{}|0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,l}^{}\pm i\widehat{a}_{,u}^{})|0`$ (5)
each time the photon is reflected its wave function picks up a phase shift of $`\pm \pi /2`$ depending on the propagation direction of the photon.

Suppose that the possible location of the atom is in the lower arm of the interferometer, then only photons following the lower path interact with the atom. In addition, assume that the decaying from the excited state to the ground state is so rapid that we do not need to consider the stimulated emission of the atom when it is in the excited state. Then the initial state $`|\psi _{photon}|\psi _{atom}`$ evolves into the following final state:

$`|\psi _{final}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}|0\alpha |m_+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}|0\beta |m_{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|scattered`$
where $`|scattered`$ is the normalized state vector corresponding to the situation that the atom absorbed one probe photon and emitted one scattered photon by decaying to the ground state afterward. If the probing photons were not absorbed there are three possible outcomes: $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ fire; $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ fire; $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ fire. In the case that the photons are detected by the two upper detectors, the presence of the atom is not discovered, and the state of the atom remains unchanged so we can repeat the experiment. In contrast, if only one $`+`$ or $``$ polarized photon is used, as shown in  the state of the atom is changed even if its existence is not successfully detected. In this sense the two photon scheme is closer to the original EV proposal. Here we see that the two photon scheme is not identical to doing the experiment twice with the single photon method, because the atom interacts with the larger Hilbert space spanned by the two probe photons and the whole system is measured only once. When one of the lower detectors fires, we have discovered the atom successfully without it absorbing the photon, but it is not a nondistortion interrogation because the initial superposition of the atom is destroyed and the atom is left in either $`|m_+`$ or $`|m_{}`$, with probabilities $`|\alpha |^2/4`$ and $`|\beta |^2/4`$ respectively. What happened is that the wave functions of the atom and photons got entangled when the photons were propagating through the interferometer and partially absorbed by the atom, so that a measurement of the photons projects the atom to a state which is different from its initial superposition.

Let us go one step further and make use of an EPR entangled photon pair as our probe:

$$|\psi _{photon}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}+\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{})|0$$
(10)
By the same considerations we can show that the final state of the system is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}+\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{})|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{}|0\alpha |m_++\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}|0\beta |m_{})`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,l,+}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,}^{}|0\alpha |m_++\widehat{a}_{,l,}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,+}^{}|0\beta |m_{})`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|scattered`$ (14)
If we use $`x`$ and $`y`$ polarization

$`\widehat{a}_x^{}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_+^{})|0`$ (15)
$`\widehat{a}_y^{}|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{}^{}+\widehat{a}_+^{})|0`$ (16)
the final state can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}+\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{})|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{}+\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,y}^{})|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (18)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{})|0(\alpha |m_+\beta |m_{})`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}+\widehat{a}_{,l,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{})|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{2}}}(\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,l,y}^{}\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{})|0(\alpha |m_+\beta |m_{})`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}|scattered`$ (22)
Now we see that if the polarizations of the 4 detectors are chosen to be $`x`$, $`y`$ instead of $`+`$ and $``$, there are 5 possible outcomes if no photon was absorbed: $`(a)`$ the photons are detected by $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ in the same polarization ($`x`$ or $`y`$); $`(b)`$ the photons are detected by $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ in the same polarization; $`(c)`$ the photons are detected by $`D_{,u}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ in different polarizations; $`(d)`$ the photons are detected by $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ in the same polarization; $`(e)`$ the photons are detected by $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,u}`$ in different polarizations. Among them, in case $`(b)`$ and $`(d)`$ the atom is left in its initial superposition and a successful NQI has been realized. The probability of a successful NQI is 1/8, twice higher than that of the single photon scheme as in . In case $`(c)`$ and $`(e)`$, the existence of the atom is also detected, but there is a phase shift of $`\pi `$ in the superposition of the atomic state. The probability for such an event is also $`1/8`$. If the photons are received by the two upper detectors (with probability 1/4), they must have the same polarization and the initial superposition of the atom is unperturbed. In this case the presence of the atom is not discovered and the experiment can be repeated. Also, we note that $`D_{,l}`$ and $`D_{,l}`$ never fire together. This is a consequence of the polarization selective photon-atom interaction. When the photons passed through the atom their wave functions got entangled if no photon was absorbed by the atom. The interference between the upper and lower branches of the photon wave function in the interferometer is such that the two photons never both exit from the lower ports.

In the above observation, we see that the correlation in the probe system and the joint measurement of the states of the photons are keys to the nondistortion interrogation of the atom with an increased success probability. By using an EPR entangled photon pair, we effectively expanded the Hilbert space spanned by the probe system. The joint measurement of the states of the two photons with linearly polarized photon detectors allows us to map half of the object-discovering results to initial superposition preserving interrogations.

We should point out that in the single photon scheme as in , when the upper (polarization sensitive) detector fires, it is still possible to find out the existence of the atom if the polarization of the probing photon was changed. In that case the initial atomic superposition was changed too. This is possible because polarization of the photon provides an additional degree of freedom. If a right going $`x`$ polarized photon is used as the probe, the process is

$`\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{}|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\widehat{a}_{,u,x}^{}|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}i\widehat{a}_{,u,y}^{}|0(\alpha |m_+\beta |m_{})`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}i\widehat{a}_{,l,x}^{}|0(\alpha |m_++\beta |m_{})`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{a}_{,l,y}^{}|0(\alpha |m_+\beta |m_{})`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|scattered`$ (28)
To discuss this in a more general framework, we can think of NQI as the discrimination between the absence and presence of quantum coupling (interaction Hamiltonian) between the object and probe system without destroying the probe particles. When the wave functions of the object and probe overlap in space, the coupling is present and the two parts which were initially independent (the probe and object) will be entangled. By carefully designed unitary operations and measurements on the probe system one tries to obtain information on the presence of the coupling without disturbing the internal state of the object. From this point of view, a good NQI scheme is one which is most likely to keep the internal state of the object unchanged while simultaneously bring the probe system to a state orthogonal to that corresponding to no coupling in some carefully chosen basis. What our result suggests is that the probe system and the operations and measurements on it have to be very carefully designed for the purpose of NQI, due to the fragility of quantum superposition. Nevertheless, it can be shown that NQI can be done for an object in quantum superposition with efficiency approaching unity . Whether a more general consideration can be formulated and the connection to quantum information is of further interest to us  .

In conclusion, we have provided a new scheme for nondistortion quantum interrogation by using a pair of EPR entangled photons. It enables us to monitor the presence of an object without destroying its state of superposition. Due to the expanded Hilbert space of the probe photons, it is shown that our scheme yields a higher probability for successful nondistortion interrogation of the atom than the single photon scheme. If the existence of the atom is not successfully detected, the experiment can be repeated since the atomic state is unperturbed. This method of nondistortion interrogation of quantum objects characterized by its superposition may find its application in future quantum information processing.

Work of Z.W.Z. and G.C.G. was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China. Research of X.Z. and M.J.F. was supported in part by ARO grant DAAG55-98-1-0367.