text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Generally speaking, dimensions of space-time may become a critical restriction on an allowed law of interaction in that space-time. For example, the inverse-square law of gravitational and electromagnetic forces can be considered to be resulted from the fact that the dimensions of space-time is ”3+1”. This also is related to the fact that the Huygens’ principle holds only in the (3+1)-dimensional space-time.  The number ”3+1”, the dimensions of our space-time, is really a magic number.

This kind of restriction may be expected in other space-time dimensions. The modern technology of engineering makes possible to produce low-dimensional electron systems in realistic electronic devises. Especially, in (2+1)-dimensional systems, novel phenomena as the Quantum Hall Effect  and the High-$`T_C`$ Superconductivity  were discovered. It is plausible that these phenomena may have their origins in the dimensions of the space-time.

In a sense, the dimensions ”2+1” is more mysterious because the mathematics tells us that there exists a specific term called a Chern-Simons term . This term is allowed just in (2+1) dimensions. As is well known, the Lagrangian density for the electromagnetic field is given by the Maxwell term, which is (i) gauge invariant, (ii) Lorentz invariant, and (iii) bilinear for the gauge field. The Chern-Simons term also satisfies all of (i) $``$ (iii). Therefore the Maxwell theory has a natural extension which is defined by adding the Chern-Simons term to the Maxwell Lagrangian. This extended version is called the Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory.  Thus the restriction of the space-time dimensions to ”2+1” opens a pass to a new type of theory.

In fact, there appeared many approaches to understand these macroscopic quantum effects by using (2+1)-dimensional quantum field theories with and without the Chern-Simons term. For example, the (2+1)-dimensional quantum electrodynamics ($`QED_3`$) has been used to explain the quantum Hall effect, and $`QED_3`$ with the Chern-Simons term (Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$) has provided the anyon model which is expected to give an essential mechanism for the high-$`T_C`$ superconductivity.  These investigations have produced important results and are now still in progress.

What is the physical meaning of the Chern-Simons term? The Chern-Simons term gives the gauge field a mass without breaking the gauge symmetry.  This mass is called a topological mass because the Chern-Simons term has a topological meaning as the secondary characteristic class.  Whether the gauge field is massless or massive affects the nature of interactions, e.g., the range of interactions. In this case, the most important effect of the massive gauge field is to rescue the (2+1)-dimensional Maxwell theory from the infrared catastrophe which appears in a self-energy of fermion when the Maxwell field interacts with matters.

On the other hand, it is known that nonperturbative radiative corrections can produce a mass of fermion called a dynamical mass. The dynamical mass generation of four-component fermions in $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term has been studied in Ref.. One four-component fermion is equivalent to two two-component fermions. The mass term of the two-component fermion breaks the parity ($`P`$) symmetry while the one of the four-component fermion breaks $`P\times Z_2(\mathrm{flavour}`$) symmetry. In Ref., one of the present authors and others have investigated the dynamical mass generation of a single two-component fermion in $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term. A parity-breaking solution which generates the dynamical mass has been found .

Both analyses have been extended to the cases with the Chern-Simons term. The study of the four-component dynamical mass in the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$ has been done in Ref.. The dynamical mass generation of a single two-component fermion in the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$ has been studied in Ref.. Especially, Ref. is motivated to clarify a role of the topological mass in the nonperturbative dynamics.

However, as was pointed out in Ref., the estimation of the dynamical mass for a very small value of the topological mass is very difficult technically and also is highly nontrivial. In this paper, we extend further the analysis of Ref. to the case in which the topological mass has much more smaller value.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we explain the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$. A perturbative analysis is presented in Sec. 3. The Schwinger-Dyson equation is derived in Sec. 4. An approximated analytical analysis is done in Sec. 5. Results obtained by a numerical method is shown in Sec. 6. Finally we give conclusions with a discussion in Sec. 7.

## 2 Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$

We consider the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$ with the single two-component Dirac fermion.  The Lagrangian density of the theory is given by

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }A_\mu _\nu A_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}(_\mu A^\mu )^2+\overline{\psi }(i\overline{)}e\overline{)}A)\psi ,`$ (1)
where $`e`$ is the gauge coupling constant and $`\alpha `$ is the gauge-fixing parameter. The second term in the right-hand side of Eq.(1) is the so-called Chern-Simons term. It is well-known that the term gives the gauge field the mass $`\mu `$ without breaking the gauge symmetry. In fact, a free propagator of the gauge field $`iD_{\mu \nu }(pk)`$ derived from Eq.(1) is written as

$$iD_{\mu \nu }(p)=i\frac{1}{p^2\mu ^2}\left(g_{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}\right)+\mu \frac{1}{p^2\mu ^2}\frac{1}{p^2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \rho }p^\rho i\alpha \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^4}.$$
(2)
We find a massive pole at $`p^2=\mu ^2`$. $`\mu `$ is called the topological mass.

$`\psi `$ is the two-component fermion field which belongs to the irreducible spinor representation in (2+1)-dimensions. The Dirac matrices are defined by $`\gamma ^0=\sigma _3,\gamma ^1=i\sigma _1,\gamma ^2=i\sigma _2`$ with diag$`(g^{\mu \nu })=(1,1,1)`$ where $`\sigma _i`$’s (i=1, 2, 3) are the Pauli matrices. The $`\gamma ^\mu `$’s satisfy relations as $`\{\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu \}=2g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu =iϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }\gamma _\rho +g^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`tr[\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ]=2g^{\mu \nu }`$. In this representation, there does not exist a matrix which anti-commutes with all of $`\gamma ^\mu `$’s so that we cannot define the chiral transformation. This is a specific aspect of the odd-dimensional space-time. In even-dimensions, the chiral symmetry requires that a fermion is massless. In odd-dimensions, the chiral symmetry itself does not exist. Instead, the mass term of the fermion is forbidden by parity symmetry.

Under the parity transformation 222In (2+1)-dimensions, the parity transformation is defined as
$`x=(t,x,y)x^{}=(t,x,y),\psi (x)\gamma ^1\psi (x^{}),A^0(x)A^0(x^{}),A^1(x)A^1(x^{}),A^2(x)A^2(x^{}).`$ , the mass term of the fermion and the Chern-Simons term change their signs. Thus the mass terms of both the fermion and the gauge field are forbidden by the parity symmetry. We study how the breaking of parity by the topological mass affects the mass generation of the fermion.

## 3 Perturbation

Before proceeding to a nonperturbative analysis, it would be useful to see the lowest order of perturbation. The fermion self-energy in the one-loop approximation, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)`$, is expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}(ie\gamma ^\mu )iS_F(k)(ie\gamma ^\nu )iD_{\mu \nu }(pk),$$
(3)
where $`iS_F(p)`$ is a free fermion propagator written as

$$iS_F(p)=\frac{i}{\mathit{}},$$
(4)
and $`iD_{\mu \nu }(pk)`$ is a free propagator of the gauge field given in Eq. (2).

The allowed form of the fermion propagator in the relativistic theory is written as

$$iS_F^{(1)}(p)=\frac{i}{A^{(1)}(p)\mathit{}B^{(1)}(p)}=\frac{i}{\mathit{}i\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)},$$
(5)
where $`A^{(1)}(p)`$ and $`B^{(1)}(p)`$ are functions of $`\sqrt{p_\mu p^\mu }`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)`$ depends on $`p_\mu `$’s. $`A^{(1)}(p)^1`$ is the wave function renormalization and $`B^{(1)}(p)/A^{(1)}(p)`$ is a mass induced by dynamical effects at the momentum scale $`p`$. The so-called dynamical mass $`m_{phys}`$ is defined by $`m_{phys}=B^{(1)}(0)/A^{(1)}(0)`$ as usual. It is useful to notice the relations as

$$tr\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)\right]=2iB^{(1)}(p),tr\left[\mathit{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}(p)\right]=2i\{A^{(1)}(p)1\}p^2.$$
(6)
We substitute Eqs.(4) and (2) into Eq.(3) and use Eq.(6). Then we change the metric to the Euclidean one by the Wick rotation as $`(k^0,\stackrel{}{k})(ik^0,\stackrel{}{k})`$ and $`(p^0,\stackrel{}{p})(ip^0,\stackrel{}{p})`$. Then $`k^2`$ and $`p^2`$ are replaced by $`k^2=(k^0)^2(k^1)^2`$ and $`p^2=(p^0)^2(p^1)^2`$. After that, we transform the integral variables $`k^\mu `$’s to the polar coordinates $`(k,\theta ,\varphi )`$. The angular integrations on $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ can be done explicitly. Finally we obtain

$`B^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}}`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2+\mu ^2)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2+\mu ^2}{(pk)^2+\mu ^2}}],`$
$`A^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2p^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}[2pk(\alpha +1)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu ^2}}(p^2k^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha (p^2+k^2)\right\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu ^2}}(p^2k^2)^2\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2+\mu ^2}{(pk)^2+\mu ^2}}].`$
The dynamical mass of fermion is defined in the infrared limit so that we are interested in the behaviour of $`A^{(1)}(p)`$ and $`B^{(1)}(p)`$ in this limit. In the region of $`p1`$, Eqs.(7) and (8) are written as

$`B^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{k^2+\mu ^2}}+O(p^2)\right]`$ (9)
$`A^{(1)}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\alpha 2{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{(k^2+\mu ^2)^2}}\right\}+O(p^2)\right].`$ (10)
This infrared approximation makes the integration on k possible and we have

$`B^{(1)}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |}{\mu }},A^{(1)}(0)=1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{6\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mu |}{\mu ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{ϵ}},`$ (11)
where $`ϵ`$ is the infrared cutoff in the integration on $`k`$.

It should be noticed that $`B^{(1)}(0)`$ depends on the sign of $`\mu `$. This also may be a specific aspect in (2+1)-dimensions. The dependence of $`A^{(1)}(0)`$ on $`\mu `$ shows that only the Landau gauge is free from the infrared divergence. On the other hand, $`A^{(1)}(0)`$ is singular at $`\mu =0`$ so that the theory with the Chern-Simons term may not be smoothly connected to the theory without the Chern-Simons term in the perturbation. This situation found in the perturbation motivates us to study the $`\mu 0`$ limit of the dynamical fermion mass by a nonperturbative method. This issue is extensively studied in the successive sections.

## 4 Schwinger-Dyson equation

In this section, we proceed to a nonperturbative analysis, where we use the Schwinger-Dyson technique to evaluate the dynamical mass of the fermion. The Schwinger-Dyson equation for the fermion self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)`$ is written as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)=(ie)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\gamma ^\mu iS_F^{}(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (k,pk)iD_{\mu \nu }^{}(pk)}.`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (k,pk)`$ is a full vertex function and $`D_{\mu \nu }^{}(pk)`$ is a full propagator of the gauge field. $`S_F^{}`$ is the full propagator of the fermion field which is written as

$`iS_F^{}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{i}{A(p)\mathit{}B(p)}}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathit{}i\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)}},`$ (13)
which includes the full correction beyond the perturbative fermion propagator given in Eq. (5).

To analyze Eq.(12) further, we need to introduce any suitable approximation. In this paper, we limit ourselves to use the lowest ladder approximation where the full propagator of the gauge field and the full vertex are replaced by the free propagator and the bare vertex respectively as

$`iD_{\mu \nu }^{}(pk)iD_{\mu \nu }(pk),\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu (k,pk)\gamma ^\nu ,`$ (14)
where $`iD_{\mu \nu }`$ has been given in Eq.(2). Thus the Schwinger-Dyson equation in the lowest ladder approximation becomes

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)=(ie)^2{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\gamma ^\mu iS_F^{}(k)\gamma ^\nu iD_{\mu \nu }(pk)}.`$ (15)
We substitute Eqs.(2) and (13) into Eq.(15). Following the same steps as getting Eqs.(7) and (8), we finally obtain the coupled integral equations as

$`B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{k}{A(k)^2k^2+B(k)^2}}[\{\alpha B(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2)A(k)\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}}`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2)A(k)+\mu A(k)+2B(k)\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2+\mu ^2}{(pk)^2+\mu ^2}}],`$
$`A(p)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2p^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dk{\displaystyle \frac{k}{A(k)^2k^2+B(k)^2}}[2pk(\alpha +1)A(k)`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu ^2}}(p^2k^2)^2A(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2)B(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha (p^2+k^2)A(k)\right\}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}}`$
$`+`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2A(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu ^2}}(p^2k^2)^2A(k)+\mu B(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}(p^2k^2)B(k)\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2+\mu ^2}{(pk)^2+\mu ^2}}],`$
which contain only the integration on the radial variable k. We solve these equation by an approximated analytical method and also numerically by using an iteration method in the following sections.

## 5 Approximated analytical method

### 5.1 $`\mu `$0 limit

We can check easily that Eqs.(16) and (17) reduce to the Schwinger-Dyson equations in $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term if we put the topological mass $`\mu `$ equal to zero. In fact, taking the limit as $`\mu 0`$ in Eqs. (16) and (17), we obtain

$`B(p)`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha +2){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{8\pi ^2p}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{kB(k)}{A(k)^2k^2+B(k)^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}},`$ (18)
$`A(p)`$ $`=`$ $`1\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2p^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{kA(k)}{A(k)^2k^2+B(k)^2}}\left[pk{\displaystyle \frac{p^2+k^2}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+k)^2}{(pk)^2}}\right],`$ (19)
which are the Schwinger-Dyson equations in the lowest ladder approximation derived in $`QED_3`$ without Chern-Simons term. We can see that there exists the specific gauge where the wave function renormalization is absent. Thus in the Landau gauge$`(\alpha =0)`$, Eq.(19) gives us the simple solution as $`A(p)=1`$ and the problem reduces to solve Eq. (18) with $`A(p)=1`$.

In the case with the Chern-Simons term, as is seen in Eqs.(16) and (17), there does not exist such a specific gauge where the wave function is not renormalized. So far we cannot find a self-evident reason that the Landau is still specific in $`QED_3`$ with Chern-Simons term, it must be fair to study Eqs. (16) and (17) for various values of the gauge-fixing parameter $`\alpha `$.

### 5.2 Constant approximation

Before proceeding to a numerical analysis, it is very useful if we can estimate $`A(0)`$ and $`B(0)`$ analytically even under a fairly crude approximation. The kernels of these integral equations are dumped rapidly as the integral variable $`k`$ increases so that the contribution from $`k0`$ is the most dominant one in the integrals. We approximate $`A(k)`$ and $`B(k)`$ by $`A(0)`$ and $`B(0)`$ in the integrals. We call this approximation ”the $`constant`$ approximation”. Of course this approximation might be too crude for our purpose and we only use the result as reference in the numerical analysis. Under this approximation, we can perform the remaining radial integration and obtain

$`B(0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{12\pi }}\alpha ,A(0)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{\alpha +6}},`$ (20)
where we have considered the case of $`\mu >0`$.

From Eq.(20), we can see that the dependence of $`B(0)`$ and $`A(0)`$ on the gauge-fixing parameter, the coupling constant and the topological mass has the following peculiar features:

* Dependence on the gauge-fixing parameter
$`B(0)`$ depends linearly on $`\alpha `$. It is suggestive that $`A(0)`$ is singular at $`\alpha =6`$ where B(0) vanishes. In the Landau gauge ($`\alpha =0`$), $`A(0)=1`$ and $`B(0)=e^2/2\pi `$. $`A(0)=1`$ is favourable for us because $`A(p)=1`$ means that the Ward-Takahashi identity is satisfied.
* Dependence on the coupling constant
$`A(0)`$ does not depend on $`e^2`$. It means that the deviation of $`A(0)`$ from 1 is independent of the coupling constant. This is crucially different from the perturbative result given by Eq.(11) where the deviation is proportional to $`e^2`$. On the other hand, $`B(0)`$ is proportional to $`e^2`$.
* Dependence on the topological mass
We recognize that there is no dependence on the topological mass $`\mu `$ in Eq.(20). In fact, if we apply the constant approximation to the case without the Chern-Simons term, we obtain the same results as Eq.(20). It means that the amount of the explicit parity breaking in the gauge sector by the topological mass does not affect the dynamical mass in the fermion sector in the constant approximation.

Now we proceed to a more precise numerical evaluation in the next section.

## 6 Numerical method

### 6.1 Nontrivial solutions and gauge dependence

We solve the two coupled integral equations (16) and (17) numerically by using a method of iteration. First we substitute trial functions into $`A(k)`$ and $`B(k)`$ in the right-hand sides of Eqs. (16) and (17) and then calculate the integrals numerically. The outputs so obtained, $`A(p)`$ and $`B(p)`$, are substituted back to the right-hand sides until the outputs coincide with the inputs. Finally we obtain convergent functions $`A(p)`$ and $`B(p)`$, which satisfy the integral equations, if there exist any solutions of Eqs. (16) and (17).

We have obtained the nontrivial solutions for the various values of the gauge parameter $`\alpha `$. It has been found that $`A(p)`$ is fairy close to 1 in the Landau gauge ($`\alpha =0`$). In the case of $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term, $`A(p)`$ is exactly equal to 1 in the Landau gauge under the lowest ladder approximation. However, in the case of $`QED_3`$ with the Chern-Simons term, there may be no apparent reason that $`A(p)=1`$ in the Landau gauge. It is surprising that the numerical calculation of so complicated integral equations results $`A(p)1`$ in the Landau gauge. There might be a simple reason for explaining a peculiarity of the Landau gauge.

As a way of indicating to what extent gauge symmetry is broken by the bare vertex approximation, it is helpful to study the gauge invariant condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ as a function of $`\alpha `$. The condensate is defined by $`\overline{\psi }\psi =ilim_{x0}\mathrm{tr}S_F^{}(x)`$ where $`S_F^{}(x)`$ is a propagator in real space-time coordinates.333By using the Fourier transformation and the Wick rotation, we obtain    $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle \frac{k^2B(k)}{A(k)^2k^2+B(k)^2}}.`$    We have found that the $`\alpha `$ dependence may be considered to be fairly weak.

Hereafter we present the results obtained in the Landau gauge.

### 6.2 Dependence on the topological mass

What we are most interested in is the dependence of the dynamical fermion mass on the topological mass of the gauge field. In the constant approximation, it has been shown that both $`A(0)`$ and $`B(0)`$ do not depend on the topological mass. Is this true in the more precise numerical evaluation?

We have studied the dependence of $`A(0)`$ on the dimensionless parameter $`\widehat{\mu }`$ which is defined by $`\widehat{\mu }=\mu /e^2`$. We have found that the deviation of $`A(0)`$ from $`1`$ is less than 1 %. We may say that $`A(0)`$ is almost equal to 1 in all region of $`\widehat{\mu }`$. It means that the $`\widehat{\mu }`$-dependence of $`A(0)`$ is extremely weak.

The $`\widehat{\mu }`$-dependence of $`B(0)`$ is nontrivial. One of our motivations is to see how the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$ is smoothly connected to $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term in the $`\widehat{\mu }0`$ limit. Our numerical calculation shows that very small meshes are needed to obtain reliable values of $`B(0)`$ in the region $`\widehat{\mu }1`$. Because of the limitation of our machine ability, we take another strategy in which $`B(0)`$ evaluated on meshes of zero width is estimated by an extrapolation from some $`B(0)`$’s on meshes of different finite widths. An example of the extrapolation is shown in Fig.1 where $`B(0)`$ on meshes of zero width is estimated by the curve fitting of three $`B(0)`$’s on meshes of finite widths.

In Fig.2, we show the $`\widehat{\mu }`$-dependence of $`B(0)`$ in the region $`10^5\widehat{\mu }10^2`$. $`B(0)`$’s on meshes of finite width show an abnormal behaviour in the region $`\widehat{\mu }1`$ that $`B(0)`$’s depart from $`B(0)`$ of $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term as $`\widehat{\mu }`$ decreases. This behaviour is improved by the extrapolation. $`B(0)`$’s obtained by the extrapolation smoothly tend to the value of $`B(0)`$ in $`QED_3`$ without the Chern-Simons term.

The whole shape of $`B(0)`$ in the region $`10^5\widehat{\mu }10^4`$ is given in Fig.3. $`B(0)`$ is almost constant in the region of $`\widehat{\mu }1`$ and decreases rapidly in the region $`\widehat{\mu }=1.00.01`$. In the region of $`\widehat{\mu }1`$, $`B(0)`$ becomes almost constant again. The upper dotted line in Fig.3 is the result obtained in the constant approximation (Sec.5.2) and also in the lowest order perturbation (Sec.3). The lower dotted line shows the value obtained by a nonperturbative calculation in the case without Chern-Simons term.

In other words, B(0) reproduces the result of perturbation in the region of $`e^2\mu `$, and in the region of $`e^2\mu `$, B(0) is close to the nonperturbative value obtained in the case without Chern-Simons term.

## 7 Conclusion and discussion

We have studied the dependence of the dynamical fermion mass on the topological mass in the Maxwell-Chern-Simons $`QED_3`$ nonperturbatively by using the Schwinger-Dyson method. When the topological mass is larger than the square of the coupling constant, the value of the topological mass remains to be the one obtained by the perturbation. As the topological mass decreases, the value is changed to a nonperturbative value rapidly. The transition from the perturbative value to the nonperturbative one is sharp but not critical. Though it seems not to be a phase transition, the inclusion of the Chern-Simons term changes the nature of the theory drastically.

The most plausible application of our results can be found in condensed matter physics. It will be considered extensively in forth coming papers. What we would like to stress in this opportunity is an application to a model in the early Universe. In a study of space-time evolution of the Universe, the finite temperature effect may become important. In an imaginary time formalism, an inverse of the time dimension with a periodic (anti-periodic) boundary condition for a boson (fermion) is interpreted as a temperature. Then in a high-temperature limit, the time dimension vanishes and a (3+1)-dimensional space-time collapses into 3-dimensional space in which the Euclidean version of (2+1)-dimensional models may become effective. It also would be interesting to consider a mechanism which can produce the Chern-Simons term in the high temperature limit.

One of the authors (T. M.) would like to thank Professor M. Kenmoku for his hospitality at the Nara Women’s University.


format: text

text:
# Extremely Small Energy Gap in the Quasi-One-Dimensional Conducting Chain Compound SrNbO3.41

## Abstract

Resistivity, optical, and angle-resolved photoemission experiments reveal unusual one-dimensional electronic properties of highly anisotropic SrNbO3.41. Along the conducting chain direction we find an extremely small energy gap of only a few meV at the Fermi level. A discussion in terms of typical 1D instabilities (Peierls, Mott-Hubbard) shows that neither seems to provide a satisfactory explanation for the unique properties of SrNbO3.41.

A one-dimensional (1D) interacting electron system no longer exhibits the quasiparticles known from Fermi liquid theory and is instead a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid (TLL) whose properties also include spin-charge separation and a power-law behavior of correlation functions . This 1D theory does not, however, directly apply to real 1D materials since some coupling between the 1D entities (such as chains or similar) is always present, rendering the systems quasi-1D and facilitating 2D and 3D ordering effects. Real 1D materials are thus conducive to various instabilities masking the predicted TLL characteristics . Electron-phonon coupling, for instance, can lead to a gapped charge-density wave (CDW) ground state (Peierls transition), and electron-electron interaction may cause the opening of a Mott-Hubbard (MH) gap at commensurate band filling.

Recently, a new quasi-1D material was synthesized  which belongs to the series SrNbO3.5-x of perovskite-related transition-metal oxides, with characteristics spanning a wide range: Depending on the oxygen stoichiometry, these niobium oxides exhibit quasi-1D metallic character ($`x`$$``$0.1)  or ferroelectricity ($`x`$=0) with very high transition temperature . In this Letter we focus on the unusual electronic properties of the quasi-1D metallic compound SrNbO3.41 which were determined by dc resistivity, optical spectroscopy, and angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES). Along the conducting chain direction, an extremely small energy gap of only a few meV, much smaller than for other quasi-1D compounds, is observed at the Fermi level. The gap is discussed in terms of a Peierls and a MH scenario.

SrNbO3.41 single crystals of typical size 3$`\times `$2$`\times `$0.2 mm3 were grown  by the floating zone melting technique. The precise oxygen content was determined thermogravimetrically. The analysis of the room temperature (RT) x-ray powder diffraction pattern indicates single-phase composition with lattice constants $`a=3.99`$ Å, $`b=5.67`$ Å, and $`c=32.46`$ Å, in good agreement with earlier work . The basic structural building blocks are NbO6 octahedra \[see Fig. 1(a)\] grouped into slabs which extend parallel to the ($`a,b`$) plane and for SrNbO3.4 are five octahedra wide along $`c`$. Only along the $`a`$ axis the octahedra are connected continuously via their apical oxygen atoms, forming 1D chains.

The dc resistivity of SrNbO3.41 along the three axes was measured using a four-point configuration . Polarized reflection measurements along the $`a`$ and $`b`$ axis were performed for frequencies 6-34 000 cm-1 by utilizing various spectrometers; for details see Ref. . To accomplish the Kramers-Kronig analysis, we used a Hagen-Rubens extrapolation for $`\omega `$$``$0 and a power law ($`\omega ^4`$) at high frequencies. High-resolution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`E`$=15 meV) ARPES data were recorded with a Scienta ESCA-300 analyzer using the He I$`\alpha `$ line of a discharge lamp. The samples were cleaved at RT and a base pressure of 1 $`\times `$ 10-10 mbar to expose an (001) surface, and cooled down to 25 K. By Laue diffraction the crystals were oriented to $`\pm `$1. The angular resolution was set to $`\pm `$0.5, and the Fermi level $`E_F`$ was determined to 1 meV accuracy from the Fermi cutoff of a freshly evaporated Au film recorded immediately afterwards at the same experimental conditions.

Fig. 1(b) shows the dc resistivity $`\rho `$ versus temperature $`T`$ of SrNbO3.41 along the three axes. It is highly anisotropic with very low, metal-like values along the $`a`$ direction ($`\rho _a`$(300K)=4.6$`\times `$10-4 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$cm) and a RT anisotropy of $`\rho _a`$:$`\rho _b`$:$`\rho _c`$=1:102:104. The variation of $`\rho `$ with temperature is smaller within the ($`a,b`$) plane than along $`c`$. In all directions a broad maximum or shoulder is seen between 200 and 50 K, and below 50 K we find an increase of $`\rho `$, which in the range 20-40 K can be described by an activated behavior $`\rho `$$``$$`\mathrm{exp}\{E_a/k_BT\}`$ with activation energies $`E_a`$=2-3 meV. In the range 60-130 K $`\rho _a`$ (along the chains) has a metallic $`T`$ dependence, whereas above 130 K it slightly decreases with increasing temperature

(thermally activated hopping between metallic strands may explain this). A similar temperature dependence is observed for $`\rho _b`$, however, not as clearly developed. There are no signs of metallic behavior along $`c`$.

The anisotropy in the electrical properties of SrNbO3.41 is also clearly seen in the optical response (Fig. 2). The reflectivity $`R`$ displayed in the insets of Fig. 2 shows a sharp plasma edge for the polarization E$``$$`a`$ with high values ($`R`$$``$1) at low frequencies, indicating metallic conductivity. In contrast, for E$``$$`b`$ the material is insulating and we mainly see phonon contributions between 40 and 1000 cm-1 showing significant changes with temperature which will be discussed elsewhere . For both polarization directions the low frequency ($`\omega `$$``$0) conductivity $`\sigma _1`$ agrees, in general, well with the measured dc data (Fig. 1), reproducing its rather complicated temperature behavior. At RT the E$``$$`a`$ conductivity contains a Drude-like contribution at low frequencies followed by several phonon lines between 100 and 1000 cm-1 and a broad mid-infrared band around 1500 cm-1. Upon reducing the temperature, $`\sigma _1`$ exhibits substantial changes at frequencies lower than 100 cm-1, leading to the appearance of a peak around 40 cm-1, which is already quite strong at 50 K. At 5K, this peak has shifted slightly to higher frequencies and has grown even stronger. We ascribe this feature to single-particle excitations across an energy gap in the electronic density of states with 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(5 K)$``$5 meV.

The momentum resolved electronic properties probed by ARPES reveal a quasi-1D band structure for Sr0.9La0.1NbO3.39  as well as for SrNbO3.41 : A dispersing band is found only along one high-symmetry line, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-$`\overline{X}`$, parallel to the chain direction $`a`$, and seems to cross $`E_F`$; a second band near $`E_F`$ does not show discernible dispersion. Neither band disperses along the transverse direction $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-$`\overline{Y}`$. The Fermi surface (FS) is 1D , with nesting vector 2$`k_F`$ of about 1/3 of the Brillouin zone.

Further insight is gained by band structure calculations in the local density approximation  which demonstrate that among the three inequivalent Nb sites per slab a predominant  contribution to the density of occupied states at $`E_F`$ comes from the central Nb site; the contributions of the other two Nb sites rapidly fall off with distance away from the center. Distortion is small only for the NbO6 octahedra based on the central Nb sites, and one can thus clearly relate the quasi-1D character of the dispersing band to these chains of almost “perfect” octahedra in the middle of the slabs. The importance of the central chains is also demonstrated by comparing ARPES results for SrNbO3.41 with those for Sr0.8La0.2NbO3.50 , where the central chains are missing since there the slabs are only four octahedra wide: for the latter the 1D character of the band structure has almost vanished.

The quasi-1D FS with almost complete nesting makes SrNbO3.41 prone to instabilities opening a gap at $`E_F`$, and we thus concentrate on the region around $`k_F`$ in order to very sensitively detect such signatures. Fig. 3 (a) shows the corresponding high-resolution ARPES spectra along $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$-$`\overline{X}`$ near $`E_F`$. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\theta =1.5^{}`$ the peak associated with the strongly dispersing band is located at $``$160 meV binding energy and is rather broad, but sharpens up as it approaches $`E_F`$ and appears to cross it. We define $`k_F`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\theta `$$``$0) as the emission direction for which the leading edge midpoint of the spectrum is closest to $`E_F`$. Due to a 2$`\times `$1 superstructure  the peak reappears already at $`k_F^{}`$=5.5 and disperses towards higher binding energies for increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$. Fig. 3 (b) depicts the ARPES spectra around $`k_F`$ for a narrow angular step size of 0.25 together with the Fermi cutoff of a Au film. Starting from $`0.5^{}`$ and going to higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\theta `$, the leading edge midpoint approaches $`E_F`$ but does not reach it for any of the spectra. At $`k_F`$, the spectral weight at the Fermi level is significantly suppressed (by $``$40%) compared to the leading edge midpoint, and we find a gap between the leading edge midpoint and $`E_F`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(25 K)$``$4 meV. Although this “leading edge” method is known to underestimate the gap size somewhat for a peak-like structure a fit (not shown) of the $`k_F`$ spectrum, similar to Ref.  and accounting for the peak structure, gives only a slightly larger result, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(25 K)$``$(5$`\pm `$2) meV, corroborating the leading edge result. Possible extrinsic effects such as charging or too coarse an angular step size can also be excluded as a source of the gap . The gap is thus clearly established and with a size of about 5 meV is, in fact, the smallest one found in ARPES for any quasi-1D compound.

The intensity plot of high-resolution ARPES spectra in 0.5 steps and normalized for clarity to constant total intensity is shown in Fig. 3 (c). It indicates additional states between $`k_F`$ and $`k_F^{}`$, where the strongly dispersing band is unoccupied: beyond $`k_F`$ a “shadow band” is visible which disperses away from the gap edge and exhibits a symmetry consistent with the 2$`\times `$1 superstructure. Its small intensity is compatible with the small gap size . As shadow bands are rather weak in general a clear identification in experiment has been possible only for very few quasi-1D materials .

The different experiments on SrNbO3.41 all yield clear evidence for an energy gap at $`E_F`$ along the conducting chains: a rise in the dc resisitivity, a strong peak in the optical conductivity, as well as a significant suppression of spectral weight in ARPES. All results lead to characteristic energies of a few meV – agreeing well enough to demonstrate that the gap does exist and suggesting a common origin. Some spread is present, as expected, due to the different nature of the excitation for the various techniques (the optical gap, e. g., is somewhat smaller, possibly due to excitonic effects).

Most surprising is the gap’s extreme smallness, making it unique among quasi-1D materials; the unusual properties of the gap, however, turn out to defy easy explanation: (i) A lattice superstructure with sufficiently small displacement amplitudes would of course be able to reproduce the gap and its small size. It cannot, however, plausibly explain why the gap should be situated right at $`E_F`$, considering the large width ($``$2 eV ) of the quasi-1D band. The instabilities of quasi-1D systems, on the other hand, by their very nature cause a gap located at $`E_F`$ and thus are more likely candidates for an explanation of the gap properties observed for SrNbO3.41 – such as (ii) a MH-type insulating state with a gap at $`E_F`$ due to electron-electron interaction; for this, the filling level of the quasi-1D band would have to be commensurate, 1/3. This 1/3 filling, however, would require long-range interaction and a TLL parameter $`K_\rho <`$1/3 for a MH gap to open , and the very strong correlation implied by the latter appears implausible for SrNbO3.41: correlation effects are generally small for $`4d`$ systems like niobium oxides. The possibility of a MH gap is thus unlikely yet cannot be fully excluded based on our data as theoretical results for 1/3 filling are still scarce. (iii) A Peierls instability caused by electron-phonon coupling appears possible, too, leading to a CDW state for sufficiently low temperatures with a gap at $`E_F`$ . The gap size is related to the mean-field (MF) transition temperature $`T_P^{MF}`$, and in the weak-coupling limit 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(0) = 3.52$`k_BT_P^{MF}`$; from the ARPES gap 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$(25 K)$``$10 meV one can then estimate $`T_P^{MF}`$$``$40 K . Only below this temperature the gap (or its precursor, the fluctuation-induced pseudogap) can exist; in this sense $`T_P^{MF}`$ strictly limits the temperature range where any gap-related features can possibly be observed. Yet for SrNbO3.41 one clearly sees the upturn in $`\rho _a(T)`$ (Fig. 1) to start at $``$55 K, and the low-energy peak for E$``$$`a`$ in optics (Fig. 2) is almost fully developed already at 50 K, suggesting an onset well above that temperature. A simple Peierls picture therefore is also insufficient to provide an explanation for the observed small gap . Inconsistencies between the experimental results and theorical models have been found for other quasi-1D systems as well, like the paradigmatic (NbSe4)3I, (TaSe4)2I, and K0.3MoO3. The latter two are CDW systems yet show clear discrepancies to the Peierls picture (e. g., ARPES line shape and Fermi cutoff above TP), which were attributed to correlation effects . In contrast, quasi-1D SrNbO3.41 has no obvious Peierls transition, little tendency to correlation, and the relevant energy scale is drastically smaller. It seems to be a system with characteristics distinctly its own, thus expanding the parameter space where real 1D systems remain to be fully understood.

In summary, we consistently observe in ARPES, dc resistivity, and optics that SrNbO3.41 is a compound with 1D electronic characteristics around $`E_F`$; as expected for such a system, instabilities lead to an energy gap at $`E_F`$. Most surprising is its small gap size: only a few meV by all techniques and thus much smaller than for other quasi-1D compounds. Further analysis shows the experimental findings to appear inconsistent with validity ranges for both the Peierls and Mott-Hubbard picture. These aspects promise more general implications for the understanding of real 1D systems.

We thank B. Götz, G. Hammerl, A. Loidl, L. Perfetti, C. Rojas, C. Schneider, R. Schulz, I. Vobornik, J. Voit, and H. Winter for valuable help and fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the DAAD, the BMBF (project No. 13N6918/1), and the DFG.


text:
# Monomial ideals and the Gorenstein liaison class of a complete intersection

## 1. Introduction

Liaison theory has reached a very satisfying state in codimension two, but in higher codimension there are still many open problems. Much of the theory has been built around linking with complete intersections, called CI-liaison theory. However, it has long been known that more generally it is also possible to link using arithmetically Gorenstein schemes (cf.  for example). Indeed, a development of G-liaison theory is possible (cf. , , ). In practice, however, this has been studied less because it is not so easy to find arithmetically Gorenstein schemes other than complete intersections, especially containing a given scheme. Note that in codimension two all arithmetically Gorenstein schemes are complete intersections, so both theories include the codimension two case.

Nevertheless, there has been recent work in the direction of G-liaison theory, most notably in  where a very geometric approach is taken and where this theory is compared and contrasted with the more classical CI-liaison theory. See also  for extensive background and comparisons.

In the codimension two case, one of the first important results was the theorem of Gaeta that every arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay, codimension two scheme is in the liaison class of a complete intersection (i.e. is licci, a term introduced in ). In  the authors introduced the notion of glicci schemes, i.e. those which are in the Gorenstein liaison class of a complete intersection. They generalized Gaeta’s theorem by showing that every scheme which arises as the maximal minors of a homogeneous matrix (and which have the right codimension depending on the size of the matrix) is glicci. (Note that arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay schemes of codimension two satisfy this property, thanks to the Hilbert-Burch theorem.) However, the authors of  asked if a more general result might hold:

###### Question 1.1 ().

Is it true that all arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subschemes of $`^n`$ are glicci?

Some evidence of this was provided by showing that on a smooth rational arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay surface in $`^4`$ all arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curves (i.e. divisors) are glicci. Casanellas and Miró-Roig  extended this by finding a large class of smooth surfaces in $`^4`$ where the same conclusion holds, and in a more recent paper  they extend this to a large class of smooth schemes of any codimension.

In this paper we make some further progress in this direction. We prove the glicciness of two different kinds of Cohen-Macaulay ideals. First we recall that if $`J`$ is any Artinian monomial ideal then it is shown in  how to produce the ideal $`I`$ of a non-degenerate arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay reduced union of linear varieties of any dimension whose Artinian reduction is precisely $`J`$. The first main result of this paper is that any such $`I`$ is glicci. As a corollary we get that given any numerical function which occurs as the Hilbert function of some non-degenerate arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme of $`^n`$ of any codimension, there is a reduced, glicci subscheme with precisely that Hilbert function. Example 3.3 shows that this is not true if we replace Gorenstein links by complete intersection links.

Our second main result is that any Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed monomial ideal (Artinian or not) is glicci. This result is of a rather general nature. Indeed, it is well-known that every generic initial ideal of an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme is a Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed ideal which defines a deformation of the original scheme. Thus our result says that every arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme admits a flat deformation which is glicci. In other words, we have found an affirmative answer to Question 1.1 “up to flat deformation.”

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`K`$ be an infinite field and let $`S=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and $`R=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,u_1,\mathrm{},u_t]`$, $`t0`$. We first recall the set-up and one of the main results of .

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`IR`$ and $`JS`$ be homogeneous ideals. Then we say $`I`$ is a $`t`$-lifting of $`J`$ to $`R`$ (or when $`R`$ is understood, simply a $`t`$-lifting of $`J`$) if $`(u_1,\mathrm{},u_t)`$ is a regular sequence on $`R/I`$ and $`(I,u_1,\mathrm{},u_t)/(u_1,\mathrm{},u_t)J`$.

The definition of a $`t`$-lifting can be extended to modules, but Definition 2.1 suffices for our purposes. Consider now a matrix of linear forms

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}L_{1,1}& L_{1,2}& L_{1,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ L_{2,1}& L_{2,2}& L_{2,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & & \\ L_{n,1}& L_{n,2}& L_{n,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \end{array}\right]$$

where the $`L_{j,i}`$ are in $`R`$. $`A`$ will be called the lifting matrix, for reasons that will be apparent shortly. For now we assume that there are infinitely many columns, but in practice when we have a specific ideal $`JS`$ that we want to lift we can assume that the number of columns is finite, for instance equal to the regularity of $`J`$ (or less). Assume that the polynomials $`F_j=_{i=1}^NL_{j,i}`$, $`1jn`$, define a complete intersection, $`X`$. Note that $`F_j`$ is the product of the entries of the $`j`$-th row, and that the height of the complete intersection is $`n`$, the number of variables in $`S`$.

Let $`m=_{j=1}^nx_j^{a_j}S`$ be a monomial. We associate to $`m`$ the homogeneous polynomial

$$\overline{m}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{a_j}{}}L_{j,i}\right)R.$$

Let $`J=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_r)S`$ be a monomial ideal. Associated to $`J`$ we define the ideal $`I=(\overline{m}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{m}_r)R`$.

###### Theorem 2.2 ().

* The ideal $`I`$ is saturated.
* $`S/J`$ is Cohen-Macaulay (including the case where it is Artinian) if and only if $`R/I`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. In fact, $`I`$ (as an $`R`$-module) and $`J`$ (as an $`S`$-module) have the same graded Betti numbers.
* If, for each $`j`$ and $`i`$, we have $`L_{j,i}K[x_j,u_1,\mathrm{},u_t]`$ then $`I`$ is a $`t`$-lifting of $`J`$. Otherwise we say that $`I`$ is a pseudo-lifting of $`J`$.

If the entries of $`A`$ are chosen sufficiently generally then $`I`$ in fact defines a reduced union of linear varieties with good intersection properties. Now we recall some results from .

We now recall the notion of Basic Double G-linkage introduced in , so called because of part (iv) and the notion of Basic Double Linkage (, , ).

###### Theorem 2.3 ( Lemma 4.8, Remark 4.10 and Proposition 5.10).

Let $`JI`$ be homogeneous ideals of $`R^{}=K[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, defining schemes $`WV^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{codim}W=\mathrm{codim}V+1`$. We also allow the possibility that $`J`$ is Artinian and $`V`$ is a zeroscheme. Let $`AR^{}`$ be an element of degree $`d`$ such that $`I:A=I`$. Then we have

* $`\mathrm{deg}(I+AJ)=d\mathrm{deg}I+\mathrm{deg}J`$.
* If $`I`$ is perfect and $`J`$ is unmixed then $`I+AJ`$ is unmixed.
* $`J/I[(I+AJ)/I](d).`$
* If $`V`$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay and generically Gorenstein and $`J`$ is unmixed then $`J`$ and $`I+AJ`$ are linked in two steps using Gorenstein ideals.
* The Hilbert functions are related by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h_{R^{}/(I+AJ)}(t)& =& h_{R^{}/(I+(A))}(t)+h_{R^{}/J}(td)\hfill \\ & =& h_{R^{}/I}(t)h_{R^{}/I}(td)+h_{R^{}/J}(td)\hfill \end{array}$$

Theorem 2.3 should be interpreted as viewing the scheme $`W`$ defined by $`J`$ as a divisor on the scheme $`V`$ defined by $`I`$, and adding to it a hypersurface section $`H_A`$ of $`V`$ defined by the polynomial $`A`$. Note that $`I_{H_A}=I_V+(A)`$. If $`V`$ and $`W`$ are arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay then the divisor $`W+H_A`$ is again arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay (by step 4). As an immediate application we have the following by successively applying Theorem 2.3.

###### Corollary 2.4 ().

Let $`V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_r^n`$ be arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay schemes of the same dimension, all generically Gorenstein. Let $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_r`$ be hypersurfaces, defined by forms $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_r`$, such that for each $`i`$, $`H_i`$ contains no component of $`V_j`$ for any $`ji`$. Let $`W_i`$ be the arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay schemes defined by the corresponding hypersurface sections: $`I_{W_i}=I_{V_i}+(F_i)`$. Then we have the following.

* Viewed as divisors on $`V_r`$, the sum $`Z`$ of the $`W_i`$ (which is just the union if the hypersurfaces are general enough) is in the same Gorenstein liaison class as $`W_1`$.
* In particular, $`Z`$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay.
* As ideals we have

$$I_Z=I_{V_r}+F_rI_{V_{r1}}+F_rF_{r1}I_{V_{r2}}+\mathrm{}+F_rF_{r1}\mathrm{}F_2I_{V_1}+(F_rF_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1).$$
* Let $`d_i=\mathrm{deg}F_i`$. The Hilbert functions are related by the formula

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h_Z(t)& =& h_{W_r}(t)+h_{W_{r1}}(td_r)+h_{W_{r2}}(td_rd_{r1})+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & +h_{W_1}(td_rd_{r1}\mathrm{}d_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Corollary 2.5.

We keep the notation of Corollary 2.4. If $`V_1`$ is glicci then so is $`Z`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from part (iv) of Theorem 2.3, and from the fact that Gorenstein liaison is preserved under hypersurface sections ( Proposition 5.2.17). Note that the reverse direction is not necessarily true (or in any case is not known to be true): if $`W_1`$ is glicci, it does not necessarily (or at least immediately) hold that $`V_1`$ is. See  Example 5.2.26 for some discussion. ∎

We now discuss the decomposition of a monomial ideal, which we will use in the remaining sections.

###### Definition 2.6.

Let $`>`$ denote the degree-lexicographic order on monomial ideals, i.e. $`x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{a_n}>x_1^{b_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{b_n}`$ if the first nonzero coordinate of the vector

$$(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(a_ib_i),a_1b_1,\mathrm{},a_nb_n)$$

is positive. Let $`J`$ be a monomial ideal. Let $`m_1,m_2`$ be monomials in $`S`$ of the same degree such that $`m_1>m_2`$. Then $`J`$ is a lex-segment ideal if $`m_2J`$ implies $`m_1J`$. When $`\text{char}(K)=0`$, we say that $`J`$ is a Borel-fixed ideal if

$$m=x_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{a_n}J,a_i>0,\text{ implies }\frac{x_j}{x_i}mJ$$

for all $`1j<in`$.

###### Remark 2.7.

Definition 2.6 says that if $`J`$ is Borel-fixed and $`mJ`$ is a monomial then one can reduce any power of a variable occurring in $`m`$ by one and increase the power of a larger variable by one, and the result is again in $`J`$. Note that this is not the same as lex-segment. For example, in the ring $`K[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ consider the ideal

$$J=x_1^3,x_1^2x_2,x_1x_2^2.$$

This is Borel-fixed but not lex-segment, since $`x_1^2x_3J`$. The two notions are not even equivalent in the Artinian case, as the same example shows if we adjoin to $`J`$ all monomials of degree 4. However, a lex-segment ideal is always Borel-fixed.

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`JS=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a monomial ideal. Let $`\alpha `$ be the highest power of $`x_1`$ occurring in a minimal generator of $`J`$. Then there is a uniquely determined decomposition

$$J=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^j(I_jS)$$

where $`I_0I_1\mathrm{}I_{\alpha 1}I_\alpha `$ are monomial ideals in $`T=K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Furthermore,

* $`I_j=(J:x_1^j)K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$.
* If $`J`$ is Artinian then so is each $`I_j`$ and $`I_\alpha =(1)`$.
* Assume $`\text{char}(K)=0`$. If $`J`$ is a Borel-fixed ideal (e.g. a lex-segment ideal) then $`\alpha `$ is the initial degree of $`J`$, $`I_\alpha =(1)`$, and each $`I_j`$ is again Borel-fixed.

###### Proof.

The case of Artinian lex-segment ideals was observed in .

The existence of the decomposition is clear if we choose the ideals $`I_j`$ as described in (i). Conversely, if we have the decomposition, then we get in case $`0j\alpha `$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill J:x_1^j& =& \underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}I_kS+\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^{kj}(I_kS)\hfill \\ & =& I_jS+\underset{k=j+1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^{kj}(I_kS),\hfill \end{array}$$

thus

$$(J:x_1^j)T=(I_jS)T=I_j$$

proving (i) and the uniqueness of the decomposition.

For (ii), since $`J`$ is Artinian then it contains pure powers of $`x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$, so these are automatically in $`I_0`$, making $`I_0`$ Artinian. Then the inclusions imply that the other $`I_j`$ are also Artinian. Furthermore, $`x_1^\alpha `$ is a minimal generator of $`J`$, so $`I_\alpha =(1)`$ as claimed. For part (iii), the hypothesis implies that $`x_1^\alpha `$ is a minimal generator of $`J`$. The fact that $`I_j`$ is Borel-fixed follows immediately from the definition of Borel-fixed and the description of $`I_j`$ in the statement of the Lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 2.9.

Keeping the notation of Lemma 2.8, for any $`s0`$, we have

$$h_{S/J}(s)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\alpha 1}{}}h_{T/I_j}(sj)+h_{S/I_\alpha S}(s\alpha ).$$

###### Proof.

If $`\alpha =0`$ then $`J=I_0S`$ and the claim is clear. If $`\alpha >0`$ then multiplication by $`x_1`$ provides the exact sequence

$$0S/\underset{j=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^{j1}(I_jS)(1)\stackrel{x_1}{}S/JT/I_00.$$

Hence the claim follows by induction on $`\alpha `$. ∎

###### Remark 2.10.

If $`J`$ is Artinian or Borel-fixed then the Hilbert function formula of Lemma 2.9 simplifies to

$$h_{S/J}(s)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\alpha 1}{}}h_{T/I_j}(sj)$$

since in either of these cases $`I_\alpha =(1)`$ by Lemma 2.8.

## 3. Glicci Ideals

Let $`J`$ be an Artinian monomial ideal in $`S=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let $`A`$ be a lifting matrix for $`J`$ and assume that the entries of $`A`$ are sufficiently general so that the lifted ideal is a reduced union of linear varieties.. The number of columns of $`A`$ only has to be as large as the largest degree of a minimal generator of $`J`$; if $`J`$ is lex-segment then this degree is $`=\mathrm{reg}(J)`$. Applying the pseudo-lifting procedure described in Section 2, we get an ideal $`IR=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,u_1,\mathrm{},u_t]`$ which, by Theorem 2.2, is the saturated ideal of an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme $`Z`$ of $`^{n+t1}`$ of codimension $`n`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

$`Z`$ is glicci.

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`n`$, the codimension. For codimension two it is known that any arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme of projective space is licci, so there is nothing to prove. Hence we assume $`n3`$.

By Lemma 2.8 we have

(3.1)
$$J=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^jI_j$$

where $`I_0I_1\mathrm{}I_{\alpha 1}I_\alpha =S`$ and for each $`j`$, $`I_j`$ is an Artinian ideal in $`K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Notice that the lifting matrix $`A`$ has $`n`$ rows, and if we remove the first row then the remaining matrix $`A^{}`$ can be used to lift the ideals $`I_j`$.

Let $`\overline{I}_j`$ be the ideal obtained by lifting $`I_j`$ using $`A^{}`$. Let $`Y_j`$ be the arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme of $`^{n+t1}`$ defined by $`\overline{I}_j`$. Note that $`Y_j`$ has codimension $`n1`$, but the projective space does not change since the linear forms which are the entries of $`A`$ were taken from the ring $`R`$. Note also that $`Y_{\alpha 1}\mathrm{}Y_1Y_0`$ are arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay schemes of the same dimension and generically Gorenstein, as in the set-up of Corollary 2.4.

Thanks to (3.1) we have

$$I=\overline{I}_0+L_{1,1}\overline{I}_1+L_{1,1}L_{1,2}\overline{I}_2+\mathrm{}+L_{1,1}L_{1,2}\mathrm{}L_{1,\alpha 1}\overline{I}_{\alpha 1}+(L_{1,1}L_{1,2}\mathrm{}L_{1,\alpha 1}L_{1,\alpha })$$

Hence by Corollary 2.4 (iii), the scheme $`Z`$ obtained from lifting is in fact also obtained by taking the union of the successive hypersurface sections of the $`Y_j`$. By induction, $`Y_{\alpha 1}`$ is glicci. By Corollary 2.5, then, $`Z`$ is also glicci. ∎

As a corollary of Theorem 3.1 we would like to show that given “any” Hilbert function we can find a glicci subscheme with that Hilbert function. Recall from  that the Hilbert functions which can occur for arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subschemes of a given dimension $`d`$ have been completely characterized. Indeed, for a function $`f:`$ we define the first difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(n)=f(n)f(n1)`$ and the $`k`$-th difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }^kf`$ by iteration. An O-sequence is one that satisfies Macaulay’s growth condition . A $`k`$-times differentiable O-sequence is one for which also the first $`k`$ differences are O-sequences. Then a function $`f:`$ occurs as the Hilbert function of some $`d`$-dimensional arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay scheme (in fact it can always be chosen reduced) if and only if $`f`$ is a $`(d+1)`$-times differentiable O-sequence.

We immediately get the following somewhat surprising conclusion.

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ be any $`(d+1)`$-times differentiable O-sequence. Then $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ occurs as the Hilbert function of some non-degenerate glicci subscheme of projective space.

###### Proof.

Let $`\underset{¯}{h}`$ be the $`(d+1)`$-st difference of $`\underset{¯}{H}`$. Let $`J`$ be the Artinian lex-segment ideal with Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{h}`$. If $`JK[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ then choose a lifting matrix with entries $`L_{j,i}K[x_j,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{d+1}]`$. The lifted ideal $`I`$ defines a glicci subscheme of $`^{n+d1}`$ by Theorem 3.1, and it has Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{H}`$ since it is a $`(d+1)`$-lifting. The non-degenerate property comes directly from the lifting, cf. . ∎

###### Example 3.3.

We remark that Corollary 3.2 is false for complete intersection liaison. Indeed, the $`h`$-vector $`(1,3)`$ cannot occur for any codimension 3 licci subscheme of projective space. To see this, note that the minimal free resolution of any arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme with this $`h`$-vector is linear, and , Corollary 5.13, then guarantees that it is not licci. (Note that degenerate subschemes of projective space, of codimension $`>3`$, could also have this $`h`$-vector, and we do not know if the “extra room” makes a difference in the non-licciness.)

From the proof of Corollary 3.2 one would be very tempted to conclude that we have proved that any Artinian monomial ideal is glicci, since liaison is preserved under general hyperplane sections, even for the Artinian reduction (cf.  Remark 5.2.18). However, the proofs above use bilinks, so even if a variable $`u_i`$ is a non zero-divisor for the scheme $`Z`$ (and hence any of its components), it is not necessarily true that the same true for the linked schemes. However, we can obtain an important case of this result, and in fact more, by modifying the above approach slightly.

From now on we assume $`\text{char}(K)=0`$. We begin with a lemma.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`J`$ be a Borel-fixed monomial ideal of codimension $`c`$. The following are equivalent.

* $`J`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
* $`J`$ is equidimensional.
* $`J`$ contains a pure power of $`x_c`$, and the variables $`x_{c+1},\mathrm{},x_n`$ do not occur in any of the minimal generators.
* $`J`$ is a cone over an Artinian Borel-fixed ideal in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_c]`$.

###### Proof.

The implications (i) $``$ (ii) and (iv) $``$ (i) are always true. Note that condition (iii) implies that $`J`$ in fact contains pure powers of each of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_c`$, by the Borel-fixed property. Then the implication (iii) $``$ (iv) is immediate, since Borel-fixed is already assumed.

So we have only to prove (ii) $``$ (iii). Since $`J`$ has codimension $`c`$, it contains a regular sequence of length $`c`$. By the Borel-fixed property we may take this regular sequence to consist of pure powers of variables, and again by the Borel-fixed property we can take it to be powers of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_c`$. Suppose that one of the other variables, say $`x_{c+1}`$, occurs in one of the minimal generators of $`J`$ to some power $`a1`$. By a standard trick on monomial ideals (cf. for instance  Exercise 3.8) we can then decompose $`J`$ as $`J=A(J+(x_{c+1}^a))`$ where $`A`$ is again a monomial ideal. But this shows that the primary decomposition of $`J`$ has at least one component of height $`c+1`$, contradicting the hypothesis that $`J`$ is equidimensional. ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

Any Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed monomial ideal is glicci.

###### Proof.

Let $`J`$ be a Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed monomial ideal in $`S=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ of height $`c`$. By Lemma 3.4, we may view $`J`$ as a cone over an Artinian Borel-fixed ideal in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_c]`$. By Lemma 2.8,

$$J=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}x_1^jI_j$$

where $`\alpha `$ is the initial degree of $`J`$ and the $`I_j`$ are cones over Artinian Borel-fixed ideals in $`K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_c]`$ satisfying $`I_0I_1\mathrm{}`$. We can rewrite this as

$$J=I_0+x_1I^{}$$

where $`I_0`$ is a cone over an Artinian Borel-fixed ideal in $`K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_c]S`$, and $`I^{}`$ is a Borel-fixed monomial ideal in $`S`$ whose initial degree is one less than that of $`J`$.

Following Theorem 2.2, we can lift $`I_0`$ to an ideal $`\overline{I}_0`$ in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_c]S`$; that is, we choose a lifting matrix $`A`$ whose entries are linear forms $`L_{j,i}K[x_j,x_1]`$, $`2jn`$. For example, take

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}x_2& x_2+x_1& x_2+2x_1& x_2+3x_1\mathrm{}& & & & & \\ x_3& x_3+x_1& x_3+2x_1& x_3+3x_1\mathrm{}& & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ x_n& x_n+x_1& x_n+2x_1& x_n+3x_1\mathrm{}& & & & & \end{array}\right].$$

We now make some observations.

* $`I^{}`$ is also Cohen-Macaulay by Lemma 3.4, and it has the same height $`c`$ as $`J`$ since it contains a complete intersection consisting of powers of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_c`$.
* $`I_0I^{}`$. This follows from the sequence of inclusions on the $`I_j`$.
* $`\overline{I}_0I^{}`$. This follows immediately. For instance, suppose that $`x_2^3x_3^4I_0`$. Then

$$x_2(x_2+x_1)(x_2+2x_1)(x_3)(x_3+x_1)(x_3+2x_1)(x_3+3x_1)\overline{I}_0.$$

By the Borel-fixed property of $`J`$ and the fact that $`I_0I^{}`$, it follows immediately that each term of this polynomial is in $`I^{}`$.
* $`I_0`$ and $`\overline{I}_0`$ are both Cohen-Macaulay, and $`\text{ht}(\overline{I}_0)=\text{ht}(I_0)=c1`$. This follows from the fact that $`I_0`$ is Cohen-Macaulay by Lemma 3.4 and that the Cohen-Macaulay property and the codimension are preserved under lifting.

Let $`\overline{J}=\overline{I}_0+x_1I^{}`$. An analysis similar to observation (3) above shows quickly that $`\overline{J}J`$. But both are Cohen-Macaulay of the same height in $`S`$, and they have the same Hilbert function (since the Hilbert function of $`K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_c]/I_0`$ is the first difference of that of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_c]/\overline{I}_0`$). Hence we obtain that $`\overline{J}=J`$.

Although $`I_0`$ is not necessarily generically Gorenstein, the lifting results guarantee that $`\overline{I}_0`$ is, and we have noted that $`\overline{I}_0`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. Hence Theorem 2.3 (iv) says that $`J=\overline{J}`$ is G-bilinked to $`I^{}`$, and in particular $`I^{}`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. We have noted that the initial degree of $`I^{}`$ is one less than that of $`J`$. Hence in a finite (even) number of steps we obtain that $`J=\overline{J}`$ is linked to the hyperplane section $`\overline{I}_0+(x_1)=I_0+(x_1)`$. Thus it is enough to show that $`I_0`$ is glicci. Let $`J_0`$ denote the ideal $`I_0T`$ in $`T:=K[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Then $`I_0`$ is just a cone over $`J_0`$. By induction on the height, $`J_0`$ is glicci in $`T`$. Then taking cones we get that also $`I_0`$ is glicci. Hence we have shown that $`J=\overline{J}`$ is glicci, as claimed. ∎

###### Remark 3.6.

Theorem 3.5 is of a rather general nature. It is well-known that every generic initial ideal of an arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme is a Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed ideal which defines a deformation of the original scheme. Indeed, the fact that it is Borel-fixed is due to Galligo ; that it gives a flat deformation is due to Bayer ; that it is again Cohen-Macaulay follows from a result of Bayer and Stillman (cf.  Theorem 15.13). Thus our result says that every arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay subscheme admits a flat deformation which is glicci. In other words, we have found an affirmative answer to Question 1.1 “up to flat deformation.”

###### Example 3.7.

We illustrate the above ideas by finding a glicci subscheme $`Z^3`$ with $`h`$-vector

$$\underset{¯}{h}=(1,3,6,10,4,2).$$

Note that using complete intersections it does not seem promising that a licci subscheme with this $`h`$-vector can be found since the smallest complete intersection containing it would be the complete intersection of three quartics, and the residual would have even larger degree and will not lie in a smaller complete intersection.

Instead we consider the ring $`S=K[x_1,x_2,x_3]`$ and let $`J`$ be the Artinian lex-segment ideal with Hilbert function $`\underset{¯}{h}`$. We have the decomposition

$$J=I_0+x_1I_1+x_1^2I_2+x_1^3I_3+(x_1^4),$$

where the $`I_j`$ are Artinian lex-segment ideals in $`T=K[x_2,x_3]`$ whose Hilbert functions are given as follows (note the shifting for $`I_1`$, $`I_2`$ and $`I_3`$ to apply Lemma 2.9):

|  | degree: | | |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
| $`I_0`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 |  |
| $`I_1`$ |  | 1 | 2 | 3 |  |  |  |
| $`I_2`$ |  |  | 1 | 2 |  |  |  |
| $`I_3`$ |  |  |  | 1 |  |  |  |
|  | 1 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 2 |  |

If

$$A=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}L_{1,1}& L_{1,2}& L_{1,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ L_{2,1}& L_{2,2}& L_{2,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ L_{3,1}& L_{3,2}& L_{3,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \end{array}\right]$$

is a lifting matrix with 3 rows and at least 6 columns then the lifted ideal $`I`$ is the saturated ideal of a zeroscheme $`Z`$ in $`^3`$ which

* is reduced if $`A`$ is sufficiently general,
* is glicci, by Theorem 3.1, and
* has $`h`$-vector $`\underset{¯}{h}`$.

The proof of Theorem 3.1 shows that $`Z`$ can in fact be obtained as the union of successive hyperplane sections (denoting hyperplanes with the same notation as the corresponding linear forms)

$$Z=(L_{1,1}V_0)(L_{1,2}V_1)(L_{1,3}V_2)(L_{1,4}V_3)$$

where

$$V_3V_2V_1V_0$$

are reduced arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay configurations of lines in $`^3`$ obtained by lifting $`I_0,\mathrm{},I_3`$ using the submatrix

$$A^{}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccccccc}L_{2,1}& L_{2,2}& L_{2,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \\ L_{3,1}& L_{3,2}& L_{3,3}& \mathrm{}& & & & & \end{array}\right]$$

and the $`h`$-vectors of the $`V_j`$ are given by the rows of the table above.

## 4. Further Comments

We end with some comments and questions raised by this paper. The results in this paper, as well as those in ,  and , suggest strongly to us that the answer to Question 1.1 is “yes.” The following ideas may help to ultimately give a final answer to this question.

1. We have seen that Cohen-Macaulay Borel-fixed monomial ideals are glicci. Is it in fact true that every Cohen-Macaulay monomial ideal is glicci? Or is it at least true that every Artinian monomial ideal is glicci?
2. Given a Hilbert function, our lifting gives the “worst” arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay scheme with that Hilbert function. As a result, this scheme should be the most difficult to find “good” arithmetically Gorenstein schemes containing it. Since we can find suitable ones for this “worst case,” can this suggest how to link a different arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay scheme with that same Hilbert function down to a complete intersection?