format: text

text:
# The fibre of the Bott-Samelson resolution

## 1 Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to describe, using a point of view due to Contou-Carr re \[CC\], the fibre of the Bott-Samelson resolution of a Schubert variety. The understanding of this fibre is one of the two steps towards a valuative criterion for the smoothness of a Schubert variety \[G\].

Let $`k`$ be a algebraically closed field. A variety (over $`k`$) will be a reduced separated $`k`$scheme of finite type and a point of a variety will always mean a closed point.

In this paper, we will denote by $`Par(G)`$ the variety of all the parabolic subgroups of a connected adjoint semi-simple group $`G`$ over $`k`$. Let $`T`$ be a maximal torus of $`G`$ and let $`W=N_G(T)/T`$ be the Weyl group of $`(G,T)`$. Let us fix a Borel subgroup $`B`$ of $`G`$ such that $`TBG`$. Also, let $`PB`$ be a parabolic subgroup of type $`t_0^{}S`$, where $`S`$ is a set of reflections that span $`W`$. We denote by $`Par_{t_0^{}}(G)G/P`$ the variety of all the parabolic subgroups of $`G`$ of type $`t_0^{}`$.

It is known that any Schubert variety $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$ of $`Par_{t_0^{}}(G)G/P`$ is the closure of a cell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{w})(=B\overline{w}P/P)`$ given by an element $`\overline{w}W/W_{t_0^{}}`$ or by the element $`w`$ of minimal length in the class $`\overline{w}`$. The main result of the present work (Theorem 1, section 4) can be stated as follows.

Theorem.  Let $`\pi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{w})`$ be the Bott-Samelson resolution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{w})`$ associated to a reduced decomposition $`\tau `$ of $`w`$. Let $`x=\overline{u}P\overline{u}^1`$ be the $`T`$fixed point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{w})`$ given by $`\overline{u}\overline{w}`$. Then the fibre $`\pi ^1(x)`$ admits a finite cellular decomposition, where each cell is an affine subvariety of an open subset of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$ defined by linear equations.

Here is an outline of the paper, in $`\mathrm{\S }2`$, we state some definitions and we recall some combinatorial facts. In particular, we give two relations of the presentation by generators and relations of the group $`G`$ and we also recall the combinatorial tools associated to such a group which are the building and the galleries.

In $`\mathrm{\S }3`$, we define the Bott-Samelson variety in two different ways ; the first one is due to Demazure \[De\] and Hansen \[H\] and the second one is derived from the work of Contou-Carr re \[CC\] and uses the galleries. We then state a cellular decomposition of this variety analogous to the Bruhat decomposition.

In $`\mathrm{\S }4`$, we consider the fibre of the Bott-Samelson resolution and we describe explicitly the intersection of the cellular decomposition with the fibre. The results, that we obtain there, are in agreement with some of Deodhar \[Deo\] and they give them a geometrical meaning.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Presentation of the Group

Let $`G`$ be a connected semi-simple algebraic group of adjoint type over $`k`$. Let $`T`$ be a maximal torus of $`G`$, let $`B`$ be a Borel subgroup of $`G`$ such that $`TBG`$, let $`W=N_G(T)/T`$ be the Weyl group and $`R`$ the root system of $`(G,T)`$, let $`R_0`$ be set of simple roots corresponding to $`B`$. Also, in the decomposition of the Lie algebra $`𝒢=Lie(G)=𝒯\left(_{\alpha R}𝒢^\alpha \right)`$, for each $`\alpha R`$, we choose a generator $`X_\alpha `$ of the one dimensional subvector space $`𝒢^\alpha `$ of $`𝒢`$.

For each root $`\alpha R`$, this choice allows to define a morphism $`p_\alpha :𝔾_a(k)G`$ by setting $`p_\alpha (\lambda )=exp\left(ad(\lambda X_\alpha )\right)`$. For each root $`\alpha R`$, we will denote $`U(\alpha )`$ the image of this morphism, it is a rank one unipotent subgroup of $`G`$. The group $`G`$ is then a subgroup of the free product of the torus $`T`$ and the groups $`U(\alpha )`$, for $`\alpha R`$, subject to some relations between the “$`p_\alpha ()`$” (see e.g. \[T87, 3.8\], \[Ch\]). We will use only two relations satisfied by these generators, that we recall here.

For all $`\alpha ,\beta R`$ and for all $`a,bk`$,

$$p_\alpha (a)p_\beta (b)=p_\beta (b)p_\alpha (a)\underset{p,q^{},p\alpha +q\beta R}{}p_{p\alpha +q\beta }(C_{pq\alpha \beta }a^pb^q),$$
(1)
where $`C_{pq\alpha \beta }`$ is an integer uniquely determinated by its indices and by the order in which the product is taken.

For all $`\alpha R_0`$, for all $`\beta R`$ and for all $`\lambda k`$,

$$s_\alpha p_\beta (\lambda )s_\alpha ^1=p_{s_\alpha (\beta )}(n_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ),$$
(2)
where $`n_{\alpha \beta }=\pm 1`$ and the sign is fixed by the choice of the set $`\left\{X_\alpha \right\}_{\alpha R}`$.

### 2.2 The Building

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ the set of all the parabolic subgroups of $`G`$ ordered by the opposite relation of the inclusion between parabolic subgroups. This operation endows this set with the structure of a simplicial complex. The variety $`Par(G)`$ and the complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ have the same underlying set, but different structures.

Elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ are called faces ; to each parabolic subgroup $`P`$ of $`G`$ is associated a face, denoted by $`F_P`$. A chamber of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ is a maximal face. The chambers are associated to the Borel subgroups of $`G`$. We will denote by $`C`$ the chamber associated to $`B`$.

As we have fixed a maximal torus $`TG`$, we can define a subcomplex $`𝔸`$ associated to $`T`$, called an apartment, as follows :

$$𝔸=\{PPar(G),TP\},$$

if $`P𝔸`$ then there exists a parabolic subgroup $`Q`$ containing $`B`$ and $`nN=Norm_G(T)`$ such that $`P=nQn^1`$.

The building can be expressed as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)=G\times 𝔸/`$, where $``$ is the equivalence relation :

$$(x,P)(x^{},P^{})\{\begin{array}{c}P=P^{}\hfill \\ x^1x^{}P.\hfill \end{array}$$

For each maximal torus in $`G`$ there is an apartment corresponding to it and in order to recover $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ we glue all these subcomplexes with respect to the equivalence relation $``$. This description of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ as a “union” of apartments provides a better way to deal with the building. In particular, the action of $`G`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ is strongly transitive, i.e. is transitive on the set of all the pairs $`(𝔸^{},C^{})`$ consisting of an apartment and a chamber of this apartment \[B, V, 3\].

Hence, the group $`W`$ acts on the set of all the chambers of $`𝔸`$ in a simply transitively way, and we can define a distance between two chambers of $`𝔸`$ :

$$d(C,C^{})=l(w_{CC^{}}),$$

where $`w_{CC^{}}`$ is the element of $`W`$ which maps $`C`$ to $`C^{}`$ and $`l(w)`$, for $`wW`$, is the length of any reduced decomposition of $`w`$.

To each face $`F_P`$ contained in the chamber $`F_B`$, we associate its type, that is, the type of the parabolic subgroup associated to it. A face $`F_P`$ such that $`typ(F_P)=typ(P)=\left\{s_\alpha \right\}`$ with $`\alpha R_0`$ will be called a facet. The set of types, denoted by $`typ\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(G)\right)`$, is still a complex and $`typ:\mathrm{\Delta }(G)typ\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(G)\right)`$ is a morphism of complexes.

Now, given an apartment $`𝔸^{}`$ and a chamber $`C^{}`$ of $`𝔸^{}`$, it is possible to construct a morphism of complexes $`\rho _{𝔸^{},C^{}}:\mathrm{\Delta }(G)𝔸^{}`$ called the retraction onto $`𝔸^{}`$ of centre $`C^{}`$ \[T74, 3.3\]. This morphism has the following properties : for each face $`F^{}`$ of $`C^{}`$, $`\rho _{𝔸^{},C^{}}^1(F^{})=F^{}`$ and $`\rho _{𝔸^{},C^{}}`$ is the unique morphism of complexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)𝔸^{}`$ which maps the chambers onto the chambers and such that for each apartment $`𝔸^{\prime \prime }`$ containing $`C^{}`$, it reduces to an isomorphism $`𝔸^{\prime \prime }𝔸^{}`$.

As an example of retraction, we have the one related to the Borel subgroup $`B`$ : let $`\rho =\rho _{𝔸,F_B}:\mathrm{\Delta }(G)𝔸`$ be the morphism of complexes defined by $`\rho (F_P)=F_{Int(u)(Q)}`$, with $`P=Int(bu)(Q)`$, where $`QB`$ ($`bB`$ and $`uW`$ are uniquely determinated by the Bruhat decomposition of $`G`$ relative to $`B`$), and with $`typ(P)=typ(Q)`$.

A folding of $`𝔸`$ is an idempotent and type-preserving morphism of complexes $`\varphi :𝔸𝔸`$ such that each chamber $`C`$ belonging to $`\varphi (𝔸)`$ is the image of exactly two chambers of which itself \[T, 1,8, p.7\]. The image of a folding $`\varphi (𝔸)`$ is called a root of $`𝔸`$.

If $`\alpha `$ is a root of $`𝔸`$, we define $`M_\alpha `$, the wall associated to $`\alpha `$, as the subcomplex of $`𝔸`$ composed of the faces $`F`$ such that there are two adjacent chambers $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ (i.e. $`CC^{}`$ is a codimension 1 face of $`C`$ and of $`C^{}`$) with $`C\alpha ,C^{}\alpha `$ and $`FCC^{}`$.

If we look at a graphical representation of $`𝔸`$ as the root system of $`(G,T)`$ (for instance see \[BOU, Planche X\]), the roots correspond to the roots of $`(G,T)`$ and the walls correspond to the hyperplanes related to the reflections. To each wall $`M_\beta `$ in $`𝔸`$, we can associate two foldings $`\varphi _\beta `$ and $`\varphi _\beta `$, corresponding to the roots $`\beta `$ and $`\beta `$.

Moreover, we say that a folding $`\varphi `$ is towards a chamber $`C`$ if $`C`$ belongs to the image of $`\varphi `$. For example, the foldings towards $`F_B`$ are indexed by the positive roots.

### 2.3 Galleries

###### Definition 1.

A gallery $`g`$ is a finite sequence of faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ verifying the following relations :

$$g=(F_rF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0F_0^{}),$$

and such that

i) for $`ri0`$, $`F_i`$ is a chamber ;

ii) for $`rj1`$, $`F_j^{}`$ is a facet (i.e. a face of codimension one in $`F_j`$ and $`F_{j1}`$) and $`F_0^{}`$ is a face of any type.

This definition of galleries is almost the one considered by Tits \[T74\], except that we allow their target face (i.e. $`F_0^{}`$) to be of any type (instead of being a chamber). By abuse of language, we will call them galleries.

We define the type of $`g`$ to be the gallery of types $`\tau `$ :

$$\tau =typ(g)=(t_rt_r^{}t_{r1}\mathrm{}t_1^{}t_0t_0^{}),$$

where each $`t_i`$ (resp. $`t_j^{}`$) is the type of the corresponding face.

Actually, $`g`$ corresponds to a configuration of parabolic subgroups verifying the following inclusions :

$$g=(Q_rP_rQ_{r1}\mathrm{}P_1Q_0P_0),$$

where the $`Q_j`$’s are of type $`t_j`$ and the $`P_i`$’s, of type $`t_i^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.

If $`F_r`$ and $`F_0^{}`$ are two faces of $`𝔸`$ (resp. of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$), we denote by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,F_r,F_0^{})(resp.\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(G),\tau ,F_r,F_0^{}))$$

the finite set (resp. the set) of all galleries contained in $`𝔸`$ (resp. in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$), of type $`\tau `$, of source $`F_r`$ and of target $`F_0^{}`$.

Now, we present the notion of minimality for galleries. For two faces $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ of $`𝔸`$ such that $`F^{}F`$, we denote by $`_F^{}(F)`$ the set of walls $`M`$ such that $`F^{}M,FM`$.

###### Definition 3 (\[CC, Part I, $`\mathrm{\S }`$5\]).

A gallery $`\gamma =(F_rF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0F_0^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,F_r,F_0^{}),`$ between the chamber $`F_r=C`$ and the face $`F_0^{}`$ of $`𝔸`$ is said to be minimal if :

i) for $`ri1`$ the sets $`_{F_i^{}}(F_{i1})`$ are disjoint ;

ii) $`(C,F_0^{})=_{ri1}_{F_i^{}}(F_{i1})`$, where $`(C,F_0^{})`$ denote the set of walls which separate $`C`$ from $`F_0^{}`$.

Now, if we fix $`\tau =(t_rt_r^{}t_{r1}\mathrm{}t_1^{}t_0t_0^{})`$ the type of a minimal gallery, then $`t_i=typ(B)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`ri0`$ and $`t_j^{}=\left\{s_{\alpha _{k_j}}\right\}`$ where $`\alpha _{k_j}R_0`$ is a simple root and $`t_0^{}`$ is any type. The word $`s_{\alpha _{k_r}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{k_1}}`$ built with these reflections, is a reduced decomposition of an element of $`W`$.

More precisely, we have the following

###### Proposition 1.

i) We keep the notations and $`\tau `$ is fixed as above. If $`F_r`$ and $`F_0`$ are two chambers of $`𝔸`$ such that $`d(F_r,F_0)=r0`$ and $`F_0^{}`$ is the face of type $`t_0^{}`$ contained in $`F_0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,F_r,F_0^{})=\left\{\gamma _w\right\}`$ is reduced to a single element.

ii) For any type $`t_P`$ ($`t_P`$ is the type of a parabolic subgroup $`PB`$), the construction above states a bijection between minimal gallery types and reduced decompositions of minimal length coset representatives of the classes in $`W/W_{t_P}`$.

## 3 The Bott-Samelson Variety

Let $`PB`$ a parabolic subgroup of type $`t_0^{}`$. Let us fix a reduced decomposition $`w=s_{\alpha _{k_r}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{k_1}}`$ of the element of minimal length of the class $`\overline{w}W/W_{t_0^{}}`$. To this decomposition corresponds the gallery of types $`\tau =\left(\mathrm{}\left\{s_{\alpha _{k_r}}\right\}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\left\{s_{\alpha _{k_1}}\right\}\mathrm{}t_0^{}\right)`$.

In the following, we will denote a reflection $`s_{\alpha _{k_j}}`$ more simply as $`s_{k_j}`$.

### 3.1 Two Definitions of the Bott-Samelson Variety

On one hand, we have the following presentation of the Bott-Samelson variety due to Demazure \[De\] and Hansen \[H\].

###### Definition 4 (\[De\],\[H\]).

For $`rj1`$, let us denote by $`P_{k_j}=U(\alpha _{k_j})s_{k_j}BB`$ the unique parabolic subgroup of type $`t_j^{}=\left\{s_{k_j}\right\}`$ containing $`B`$. The Bott-Samelson variety

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )=P_{k_r}\times _BP_{k_{r1}}\times _B\mathrm{}\times _BP_{k_1}/B,$$

is the quotient of the group $`P_{k_r}\times \mathrm{}\times P_{k_1}`$ by the action of the subgroup $`B^r`$ defined by $`\underset{¯}{b}.\underset{¯}{p}=(p_rb_r,b_r^1p_{r1}b_{r1},\mathrm{},b_2^1p_1b_1)`$, where $`\underset{¯}{p}=(p_r,\mathrm{},p_1)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{b}=(b_r,\mathrm{},b_1)`$.

We will denote by $`[g_r,\mathrm{},g_1]`$ the points of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$. This variety is smooth of dimension $`r`$ since it can be viewed as a sequence of $`r`$ fibrations each of fibre isomorphic to $`^1`$. Furthermore, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$ is a resolution of the Schubert variety $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$. Indeed, the morphism $`\pi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w}),\pi ([g_r,\mathrm{},g_1])=\overline{g_r\mathrm{}g_1}`$ (the class in $`G/P`$), is proper and birational \[De\].

On the other hand, let us denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(G),\tau ,C,)`$ the set of all galleries in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ of type $`\tau `$ and of source $`C`$. From the work of Contou-Carr re \[CC, I, $`\mathrm{\S }`$6\], this set is endowed with a structure of algebraic variety as a subvariety of a product of varieties of parabolic subgroups. And we recall the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2 (\[CC, I, $`\mathrm{\S }`$6\]).

The variety $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(G),\tau ,C,)`$ is isomorphic to the Bott-Samelson variety. This isomorphism is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )& & \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(G),\tau ,C,)\hfill \\ \hfill [p_r,\mathrm{},p_1]& & (E_rE_r^{}E_{r1}\mathrm{}E_1^{}E_0E_0^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`E_r=C`$, $`E_i=Int(p_r\mathrm{}p_{i+1})(C)`$, for $`r1i0`$ and $`E_j^{}=Int(p_r\mathrm{}p_{j+1})(F_{t_j^{}})`$ for $`rj0`$, where $`F_{t_j^{}}`$ is the unique facet of type $`t_j^{}`$ inside the "fondamental" chamber $`C`$.

In this context, the morphism $`\pi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$ is simply given by associating to a gallery $`g=(E_rE_r^{}E_{r1}\mathrm{}E_1^{}E_0E_0^{})`$ its target $`\pi (g)=b(g)=E_0^{}`$.

This last presentation of the Bott-Samelson resolution will give us some properties of this variety that we could not have described so easily with the first definition. Moreover, we will use freely the two systems of notations for the points of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$.

### 3.2 Open Covering of the Bott-Samelson Variety

We call combinatorial galleries the galleries that belong to the finite set $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,C,)`$, that is, the galleries in $`𝔸`$ of type $`\tau `$ and of source $`C`$. From the definition of the type $`\tau `$, we have the following description

$$\delta =[\delta _r,\mathrm{},\delta _1]\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,C,)\delta _j=s_{k_j}\text{or }\delta _j=1.$$

Let $`\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$ be a combinatorial gallery. We can define the morphism :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill U\left(\epsilon (\alpha _{k_r})\right)\times \mathrm{}\times U\left(\epsilon (\alpha _{k_1})\right)& & \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )\hfill \\ \hfill (x_r,\mathrm{},x_1)& & [p_{\epsilon (\alpha _{k_r})}(x_r)\epsilon (s_{k_r}),\mathrm{},p_{\epsilon (\alpha _{k_1})}(x_1)\epsilon (s_{k_1})],\hfill \end{array}$$

where for $`rj1`$, $`\epsilon (\alpha _{k_j})=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha _{k_j}\hfill & \text{ if }& \gamma _j=s_{k_j}\\ \alpha _{k_j}\hfill & \text{ if }& \gamma _j=1\end{array}`$ and $`\epsilon (s_{k_j})=\{\begin{array}{ccc}s_{k_j}\hfill & \text{ if }& \gamma _j=s_{k_j}\\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }& \gamma _j=1.\end{array}`$

The image of this morphism is an affine open subset of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$ that will be denoted by $`U^\gamma `$ and $`\left\{U^\gamma \right\}_{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )}`$ is a system of affine charts of the Bott-Samelson variety \[T82\]. Hence, we have :

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )=\underset{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )}{}U^\gamma ,$$

and for $`\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$, we set $`U^\gamma =Spec\left(k[x_r,\mathrm{},x_1]\right)`$.

If $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$ are two combinatorial galleries, the change of coordinates between the two charts $`U^\gamma `$ and $`U^\gamma ^{}`$ consists in inversing the variables for which the values of the $`\epsilon (\alpha _{k_j})`$’s are different.

### 3.3 Cellular Decomposition of the Bott-Samelson Variety

The variety $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$ admits a cellular decomposition analogous to the Bruhat decomposition. This idea goes back to \[CC\], but we have not found anywhere any explicit description of the cells.

First of all, from the definition in term of galleries, the variety $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )`$ can be written as :

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )=\underset{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )}{}𝒞^\gamma ,$$

where, for a combinatorial gallery $`\gamma `$, $`𝒞^\gamma =\rho ^1(\gamma )`$ represents all the galleries that retract onto $`\gamma `$. We will see that $`𝒞^\gamma `$ is an affine subvariety of $`U^\gamma U\left(\epsilon (\alpha _{k_r})\right)\times \mathrm{}\times U\left(\epsilon (\alpha _{k_1})\right)`$.

Let us fix $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]=(C=F_rF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0F_0^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$. We will denote by $`(\gamma )=\{M_{\beta _r},\mathrm{},M_{\beta _1},\{M_{x(\nu )}\}_{s_\nu t_0^{}}\}`$ the set of all the walls encountered by $`\gamma `$, where $`\beta _j=\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _j(\alpha _{k_j})`$ and $`x=\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _1`$. The first $`r`$ walls are those that contain the facets $`F_j^{}`$ and $`\{M_{x(\nu )}\}_{s_\nu t_0^{}}`$ is the set of all the walls that contain $`F_0^{}`$ of which the number depends of the type $`t_0^{}`$.

###### Definition 5.

With the previous notations, $`M_{\beta _i}`$ is a load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$ if this wall separates the chamber $`F_{i1}`$ from the chamber $`C`$ (i.e. $`F_{i1}`$ and $`C`$ are not in the same root relatively to $`M_{\beta _i}`$). We will denote by $`J(\gamma )\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ the set of the indices of the load-bearing walls.

There are two ways for a wall to be a load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$ : it could be crossed by the gallery or the gallery could have a bend at a facet $`F^{}`$ of this wall, that is, around $`F^{}`$ the gallery is shaped as $`(\mathrm{}C^{}F^{}C^{}\mathrm{})`$. The number of bends of a combinatorial gallery $`\gamma `$ is exactly the number of 1 that figure in the expression $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]`$.

###### Proposition 3.

Let us set $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]=(C=F_rF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0F_0^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$. The cell $`𝒞^\gamma `$ can be written as :

$$𝒞^\gamma =\left\{(x_r,\mathrm{}x_1)U^\gamma ,x_j=0\text{ if }jJ(\gamma )\right\}.$$

Proof.  Let $`g=[g_r,\mathrm{},g_1]=(C=E_rE_r^{}E_{r1}\mathrm{}E_jE_j^{}E_{j1}\mathrm{}E_1^{}E_0E_0^{})`$ be a gallery in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$. We are going to make explicit the condition that $`g`$ belongs to $`𝒞^\gamma `$. Let us fix an index $`j\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, we remark that $`P_{k_j}=U(\alpha _{k_j})s_{k_j}BB=U(\alpha _{k_j})s_{k_j}BB`$. Also, since $`g`$ and $`\gamma `$ have the same source, we may assume that we have already retracted $`g`$ onto $`\gamma `$ until the facet $`E_j^{}`$, that is $`g_i=\gamma _i`$ for $`rij+1`$.

Let us set $`t_i=(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})\gamma _j(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})^1`$ and $`\theta _j=(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})g_j(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})^1`$. We then have $`F_{j1}=t_jF_jt_j^1`$ and $`E_{j1}=\theta _jF_j\theta _j^1`$.

If $`jJ(\gamma )`$ then $`M_{\beta _j}`$ does not separate $`F_{j1}`$ and $`C`$. Two cases arise :

1) $`M_{\beta _j}`$ is a wall of a bend, then $`\gamma _j=1`$, $`F_{j1}=F_j`$ and $`\rho (E_{j1})=\rho _{𝔸,F_j}(E_{j1})`$, the retraction onto $`𝔸`$ of centre $`F_j`$. But $`\rho _{𝔸,F_j}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}=F_j`$ if and only if $`\theta _j=1`$, hence, if and only if $`g_j=\gamma _j=1`$. So, $`\rho _{𝔸,F_j}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}=F_j`$ if and only if $`x_j=0`$ in $`g_j=p_{\alpha _{k_j}}(x_j)`$.

2) $`M_{\beta _j}`$ is a wall crossed by $`\gamma `$, then $`\gamma _j=s_{k_j}`$ and $`\rho (E_{j1})=\rho _{𝔸,F_{j1}}(E_{j1})`$. But $`\rho _{𝔸,F_{j1}}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}`$ is equivalent to $`E_{j1}=F_{j1}`$, hence is equivalent to $`g_j=\gamma _j=s_{k_j}`$. So, $`\rho _{𝔸,F_{j1}}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}`$ is equivalent to $`x_j=0`$ in $`g_j=p_{\alpha _{k_j}}(x_j)s_{k_j}`$.

If $`jJ(\gamma )`$ then $`M_{\beta _j}`$ separates $`F_{j1}`$ and $`C`$. Again, two cases arise :

1) $`M_{\beta _j}`$ is the wall of a bend $`(F_jF_j^{}F_{j1}=F_j)`$. Let $`\sigma _j=(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})s_{k_j}(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1})^1`$ be the reflexion associated to $`M_{\beta _j}`$. Let us set $`C_j=\sigma _jF_j\sigma _j`$, this yields $`\rho (E_{j1})=\rho _{𝔸,C_j}(E_{j1})`$. But $`\rho _{𝔸,C_j}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}`$ if and only if $`\theta _j\sigma _j`$, hence if and only if $`g_jP_{k_j}\left\{s_{k_j}\right\}`$. So, $`\rho _{𝔸,C_j}(E_{j1})=F_{j1}`$ if and only if $`g_j=p_{\alpha _{k_j}}(x_j)`$ with $`x_j𝔾_a(k)`$.

2) $`M_{\beta _j}`$ is a wall crossed by $`\gamma `$. The chamber $`E_{j1}`$ is retracted onto $`F_{j1}`$ if and only if $`g_jP_{k_j}B=U(\alpha _{k_j})s_{k_j}B`$. Hence, $`\rho (E_{j1})=F_{j1}`$ if and only if $`g_j=p_{\alpha _{k_j}}(x_j)s_{k_j}`$ with $`x_j𝔾_a(k)`$.

So, we have seen that $`𝒞^\gamma =\left\{(x_r,\mathrm{}x_1)U^\gamma ,x_j=0\text{ if }jJ(\gamma )\right\}`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remarks 1.

1) The cell $`𝒞^\gamma `$ is invariant under the action of $`B`$, but, in general, the orbit of $`\gamma `$ under the action of $`B`$ is strictly contained in $`𝒞^\gamma `$.

2) The dimension of $`𝒞^\gamma `$ will be denoted by $`j(\gamma )=\mathrm{\#}J(\gamma )`$, this is the number of load-bearing walls of $`\gamma `$.

3) The number of cells of dimension $`pr`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )`$ is equal to $`(_p^r)`$.

Furthermore, let us introduce an order on the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^c(\tau )`$ of all the combinatorial galleries of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )`$. Let $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]`$ and $`\delta =[\delta _r,\mathrm{},\delta _1]`$ be two combinatorial galleries. We set $`\delta \gamma `$ if $`J(\delta )J(\gamma )`$ as subsets of $`\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, that is if $`M_{\beta _j^{}}`$ is a load-bearing wall of $`\delta `$ implies that $`M_{\beta _j}`$ is also a load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$ (where $`\beta _j^{}=\delta _r\mathrm{}\delta _j(\alpha _{k_j})`$ and $`\beta _j=\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _j(\alpha _{k_j})`$).

###### Proposition 4.

Let $`\gamma `$ be a combinatorial gallery. The closure of the cell $`𝒞^\gamma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\tau )`$ is

$$\overline{𝒞^\gamma }=\underset{\delta \gamma }{}𝒞^\delta .$$

Proof.  It follows from the fact that for all $`j\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, $`\overline{U(\alpha _{k_j})s_{k_j}B/B}=\overline{U(\alpha _{k_j})B/B}=P_{k_j}/B`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The fibre of the Bott-Samelson resolution

Let $`x=\overline{u}(P)`$ be a $`T`$fixed point of the Schubert variety $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})G/P`$ associated to $`\overline{w}W/W_{t_0^{}}`$. Let us denote by $`F_x`$ the face of $`𝔸`$ given by $`x`$. In this section, we will describe the fibre of $`\pi `$ over $`F_x`$ (i.e. over $`x`$). First of all, as a consequence of the main theorem of Zariski, $`\pi ^1(F_x)`$ is connected, since the Schubert variety $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$ is normal and the morphism $`\pi `$ is birational.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔸,\tau ,C,F_x)`$ be the set of all the combinatorial galleries over $`F_x`$. Hence,

$$\pi ^1(F_x)=\underset{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )}{}𝒞^\gamma \pi ^1(F_x).$$

Proof.  The face $`F_x`$ belongs to the apartment $`𝔸`$ and the retraction reduces to the identity on $`𝔸`$. So, all the galleries that have $`F_x`$ as target will be retracted onto an element of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )`$ by $`\rho `$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us fix $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]=(C=F_rF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_1^{}F_0F_0^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^c(\tau )`$ and set $`𝒞_x^\gamma =𝒞^\gamma \pi ^1(F_x)`$. Let $`J^2(\gamma )J(\gamma )`$ denote the set of indices of load-bearing walls that appear at least two times (as walls) in the set of all the walls encountered by $`\gamma `$. These walls will be said to be of multiplicity at least two.

###### Proposition 5.

The intersection of the cell $`𝒞^\gamma `$ with the fibre $`\pi ^1(F_x)`$, $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$, is a subvariety of the following affine subvariety of $`U^\gamma `$ :

$$𝒞_x^\gamma \left\{(x_r,\mathrm{},x_1)U^\gamma ,x_j=0\text{ if }jJ^2(\gamma )\right\}.$$

Proof.  Let $`g=[g_r,\mathrm{},g_1]=(C=E_rE_r^{}E_{r1}\mathrm{}E_jE_j^{}E_{j1}\mathrm{}E_1^{}E_0E_0^{})`$ be a gallery in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(G)`$ that retracts onto $`\gamma `$. We are going to prove that if $`M_{\beta _j}`$ appears only once in $`(\gamma )`$ then $`\pi (g)=F_x`$ implies $`g_j=\gamma _j`$. As $`g`$ and $`\gamma `$ has the same source, we can suppose that $`g`$ is already retracted onto $`\gamma `$ until the facet $`E_j^{}`$. That is the gallery $`g`$ can be written as $`g=[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _{j+1},g_j,\mathrm{},g_1]=(CF_r^{}F_{r1}\mathrm{}F_jF_j^{}E_{j1}\mathrm{}E_1^{}E_0E_0^{})`$.

Let $`iJ(\gamma )`$ be the index of the last load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$ ($`ji`$). Let us now assume that the load-bearing wall $`M_{\beta _j}`$ appears only once in $`(\gamma )`$. Hence, it is not a wall which contains $`F_x`$ and if we want to know whether $`\pi (g)=F_x`$ or not, we have to answer the question :

$$E_0^{}=(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1}g_j\mathrm{}g_i\gamma _{i1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1)F_P(\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j+1}g_j\mathrm{}g_i\gamma _{i1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1)^1=F_x\mathrm{?}$$

Or, equivalently,

$$g_j\mathrm{}g_i=\gamma _j\mathrm{}\gamma _i\mathrm{?}$$

Let us denote by $`\{i_j,i_{j1},\mathrm{},i_0\}J(\gamma )`$ the indices of the load-bearing walls such that $`i_j=j`$ and $`i_0=i`$. Thanks to proposition 5, this set indexes the variables that define $`g`$ through some “$`p_\alpha ()`$” or some “$`p_\alpha ()`$” depending on whether or not the load-bearing walls are crossed by $`\gamma `$. Using commutation rules between these “$`p_\alpha ()`$” or “$`p_\alpha ()`$” and the reflections on their left, we can reduce the previous questions to the following :

$$p_{\pm \alpha _{k_j}}(\pm x_j)p_{\delta _{i_{j1}}}(\pm x_{j1})\mathrm{}p_{\delta _{i_1}}(\pm x_1)p_{\delta _{i_0}}(\pm x_0)=1\mathrm{?}$$
(3)
Where for $`l\{i_j,i_{j1},\mathrm{},i_0\}`$, $`\delta _{i_l}=\gamma _j\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_l}(\pm \alpha _{k_{i_l}})`$ and for a load-bearing wall $`M_{\beta _{i_l}}`$, $`\beta _{i_l}=\pm \delta _{i_l}`$. The $`x_l`$’s being the variables associated to the load-bearing walls, are elements of $`𝔾_a(k)`$. The $`\pm `$’s before the roots come from the fact that a load-bearing wall could be crossed or not by $`\gamma `$. And finally, the $`\pm `$’s before the variables are related to the commutation rules between the "$`p_{\pm \alpha }()`$"’s and the reflections ; they can be completely determinated by the presentation of the group.

In any case, the $`\alpha _{k_{i_l}}`$’s are simple roots different from $`\alpha _{k_j}`$, hence the roots $`\delta _{i_l}`$ are also different from $`\alpha _{k_j}`$ since they are of the shape $`\pm \alpha _{k_{i_l}}+a_{l+1}^{i_l}\alpha _{k_{i_l+1}}+\mathrm{}+a_j^{i_l}\alpha _{k_j}`$ where the $`a_m^{i_l}`$’s are integers.

Moreover, using the commutation rules (i.e. the relations (1) and (2) of section 2) that come from the presentation of the group, between the $`p_{\delta _{i_l}}`$’s that compose the product above, it is not possible to find the root $`\alpha _{k_j}`$ as an index of one of the new “$`p_\alpha ()`$” we shall obtain.

So, if $`x_j0`$, that is if $`g_j\gamma _j`$, the answer to the question (3) is no, which implies that $`\pi (g)=E_0^{}F_x`$. Hence, if the load-bearing wall $`M_{\beta _j}`$ appears only once in the walls encountered by $`\gamma `$, we have that $`\pi (g)=F_x`$ implies $`g_j=\gamma _j`$. And the proposition is proved.

$`\mathrm{}`$

In order to describe completely $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$, for any combinatorial gallery $`\gamma `$ above $`F_x`$, and consequently, the fibre $`\pi ^1(F_x)`$, we need a closer study of the indices of the load-bearing walls. This will be based on the fact that a load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$ is also the wall of a bend if it has been crossed before by $`\gamma `$.

Let $`I=\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}\{1,\mathrm{},\theta \}`$ be the indices of the walls encountered by $`\gamma `$, $`(\gamma )=\{M_{\beta _r},\mathrm{},M_{\beta _1},\{M_{x(\nu )}\}_{s_\nu t}\}`$. The walls that eventually contain $`F_x`$ are indexed in an arbitrary order by the negative integers $`\{1,\mathrm{},\theta \}`$, with $`\theta =\mathrm{\#}t_0^{}`$.

Let $`I_m,\mathrm{},I_1`$ the subsets of $`I`$ defined in the following way : for all $`l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, if we denote $`I_l=\{i_{p_l}^l,\mathrm{},i_1^l\}`$,

$$I_lJ^2(\gamma )\mathrm{}\text{ and }M_{\beta ^l}=M_{\beta _{i_{p_l}^l}}=\mathrm{}=M_{\beta _{i_1^l}},$$

and for $`kl\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, $`M_{\beta ^k}M_{\beta ^l}`$.

The sets $`I_m,\mathrm{},I_1`$ are the sets that label the distincts load-bearing walls of multiplicity at least two. Hence, $`J^2(\gamma )`$ admits the decomposition :

$$J^2(\gamma )=I_mJ^2(\gamma )\mathrm{}I_1J^2(\gamma ).$$
(4)
Each load-bearing wall $`M`$ of multiplicity at least two is first crossed by $`\gamma `$, then, the gallery has one or many bends on this wall. Later on, $`M`$ could be crossed by $`\gamma `$ in the direction of $`C`$, and thereafter, crossed again as a load-bearing wall…This kind of behaviour has the following translation in terms of the indices.

For all $`l\{m,\mathrm{}1\}`$, the set $`I_lJ^2(\gamma )`$ can be written as $`I_lJ^2(\gamma )=J_{q_l}^l\mathrm{}J_1^l`$, where for $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, $`J_h^l`$ is defined as follows, $`J_h^l=\{j_{h,e_h}^l,\mathrm{},j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l\}`$ and $`j_{h,e_h}^l`$ is an index for which $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ is crossed (necessarily as a load-bearing wall) by $`\gamma `$ whereas the following indices labell faces belonging to $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ on which the gallery has a bend.

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )`$ be a combinatorial gallery above $`F_x`$. The variety $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$ is contained in the following affine subvariety of $`U^\gamma `$,

$$𝔍_r^2(\gamma )=\{(x_r,\mathrm{},x_1)U^\gamma ,\begin{array}{cc}x_j=0\text{ if }jJ^2(\gamma )\text{ and }& l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\},\hfill \\ x_{j_{1,e_1}^l}n_{1,e_11}^lx_{j_{1,e_11}^l}\mathrm{}n_{\mathrm{1,1}}^lx_{j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l}=0& \text{ if }j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l=i_1^l(>0)\hfill \end{array}\},$$

where the $`n_{1,e_11}^l,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l`$ are integers of value $`\pm 1`$ that are determinated by the presentation of the group $`G`$.

Proof.  Let us fix a load-bearing wall $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ of $`\gamma `$, that is an index $`l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$. Let $`g=[g_r,\mathrm{},g_1]𝒞^\gamma `$ be a gallery such that for all $`iI_lJ^2(\gamma )`$, $`g_i=\gamma _i`$. We are going to write down the conditions on the variables indexed by the indices of $`I_lJ^2(\gamma )`$ for which the gallery has $`F_x`$ as target (this is given by the class of the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$ in $`G/P`$).

Let $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ be an index of the decomposition $`I_lJ^2(\gamma )=J_{q_l}^l\mathrm{}J_1^l`$. Focusing on the part of the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$ bounded by the set $`J_h^l=\{j_{h,e_h}^l,\mathrm{},j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l\}`$, we obtain $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1=`$

$$\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}(x_{j_{h,e_h}^l})s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}\gamma _{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{j_{h,f}^l+1}p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}(x_{j_{h,f}^l})\gamma _{j_{h,f}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l+1}p_{\alpha _{j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l}}(x_{j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l})\gamma _{j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l1}\mathrm{}.$$

The dots between $`j_{h,e_h}^l`$ and $`j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l`$ are only filled with some $`\gamma _i`$. So, using the commutation rules, we can slide all the $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}`$ that occur here to the left until they meet $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}`$. Doing this for all the $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, the $`g_i`$’s that compose the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$ satisfy the equality : $`g_i=`$

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}(x_{j_{h,e_h}^l}n_{h,e_h1}^lx_{j_{h,e_h1}^l}\mathrm{}n_{h\mathrm{,1}}^lx_{j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l})s_k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}\hfill & \text{ if it exists}h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\},i=j_{h,e_h}^l;\\ \gamma _i\text{ otherwise, }\hfill & \end{array}$$

where the integers $`n_{h,f}^l`$ are equal to $`\pm 1`$ depending on the reflections that commute with the $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}`$’s during their trip to $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}`$.

Let us fix again an index $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ and let us suppose first that $`h1`$, then there exists $`i_hI_l`$ such that $`j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l>i_h>j_{h1,e_{h1}}^l`$ and $`M_{\beta _{i_h}}=M_{\beta ^l}`$ is crossed towards $`C`$ by the gallery $`\gamma `$. Hence, $`\gamma _{i_h}=s_{k_{i_h}}`$ and for all $`\lambda 𝔾_a(k)`$,

$$p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}(\lambda )s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}\gamma _{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_h+1}s_{k_{i_h}}(C)=s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}\gamma _{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_h+1}s_{k_{i_h}}(C)$$

(for $`yG`$, $`y(C)`$ is the chamber $`F_{y(B)}=F_{yBy^1}`$), and the chamber $`s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}\gamma _{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i_h+1}s_{k_{i_h}}(C)`$ is on the same side of $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ than $`C`$.

Now, if $`h=1`$, then the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$ is ending by

$$\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{1,e_1}^l}}(\lambda ^{})s_{k_{j_{1,e_1}^l}}\gamma _{j_{1,e_1}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1,$$

where $`\lambda ^{}=x_{j_{1,e_1}^l}n_{1,e_11}^lx_{j_{1,e_11}^l}\mathrm{}n_{\mathrm{1,1}}^lx_{j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l}`$. Thus, if we want that

$$\gamma _r\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{1,e_1}^l}}(\lambda ^{})s_{k_{j_{1,e_1}^l}}\gamma _{j_{1,e_1}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1(F_x)=\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _1(F_x)=F_x,$$

there are only two solutions :

1) either the wall $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ separates $`C`$ from $`F_x`$ and we must have

$$x_{j_{1,e_1}^l}n_{1,e_11}^lx_{j_{1,e_11}^l}\mathrm{}n_{\mathrm{1,1}}^lx_{j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l}=0;$$

2) either the wall $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ does not separate $`C`$ from $`F_x`$ and then for all $`\lambda ^{}𝔾_a(k)`$,

$$\gamma _r\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{1,e_1}^l}}(\lambda ^{})s_{k_{j_{1,e_1}^l}}\gamma _{j_{1,e_1}^l1}\mathrm{}\gamma _1(F_x)=F_x.$$

But to say that $`M_{\beta ^l}`$ separates $`C`$ from $`F_x`$ is equivalent to say, in terms of the indices, that $`j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l=i_1^l(>0)`$. That proves the proposition.

$`\mathrm{}`$

All we have said until now is also valid in the Kac-Moody setting \[G\]. However, the following result uses the hypothesis that the group $`G`$ is semi-simple through the fact that the Weyl group is finite, that is, the apartment $`𝔸`$ has only a finite number of walls, or equivalently, the root system is finite.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\gamma =[\gamma _r,\mathrm{},\gamma _1]\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )`$ be a combinatorial gallery above $`F_x`$. The cell $`𝒞_x^\gamma =𝒞^\gamma \pi ^1(F_x)`$ is exactly equal to the affine subvariety $`𝔍_r^2(\gamma )`$ of $`U^\gamma `$ defined in the previous definition.

Proof.  Let $`g=[g_r,\mathrm{},g_1]`$ be a point of the variety $`𝔍_r^2(\gamma )`$, in particular, it is a gallery of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(G),\tau ,C,)`$ and we shall show that fixing $`F_x`$ as the target of $`g`$ does not add any new relation, other than those that are contained in the definition of $`𝔍_r^2(\gamma )`$.

We proceed as in the previous proof : for all $`l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ and for all $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, we commute with the previous elements of the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$, all the $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}()`$’s in order to glue them with their respectives $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}()`$ (let us recall that $`J_h^l=\{j_{h,e_h}^l,\mathrm{},j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l\}`$ is a set of indices of the decomposition $`I_lJ^2(\gamma )`$). During this process, we can always avoid having to commute a $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}()`$ with a $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h^{},f^{}}^l^{}}}()`$. Actually, it suffices to describe for all $`l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ and for all $`h\{q_l,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ the trip of $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f}^l}}()`$ towards $`p_{\alpha _{j_{h,f+1}^l}}()`$ ($``$ if $`e_h1>f`$ and $`+`$ if $`f=e_h1`$). For the sake of simplicity, let us suppose that $`f=e_h1`$ and let us set $`f=j_{h,f}^l`$. So, we are interested in the following part of the word $`g_r\mathrm{}g_1`$ :

$$\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}()s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}g_{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}g_{j_{h,f}^l+1}p_{\alpha _f}()g_{f1}\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Let $`i`$ be an index such that $`j_{h,e_h}^l1if+1`$ and $`g_i=p_{\alpha _i}()s_{k_i}`$. Let us commute $`p_{\alpha _f}()`$ until the index $`i`$, we have :

$$\mathrm{}p_{\alpha _{j_{h,e_h}^l}}()s_{k_{j_{h,e_h}^l}}g_{j_{h,e_h}^l1}\mathrm{}g_{i+1}p_{\alpha _i}()s_{k_i}p_{\gamma _{i1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{f+1}(\alpha _f)}()g_{i1}\mathrm{}g_{j_{h,f}^l1}\mathrm{}.$$

Denoting $`\beta =s_{k_i}\gamma _{i1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{f+1}(\alpha _f)`$ this negative root, we have to study the commutation between $`p_{\alpha _i}()p_\beta ()`$. This amounts to the following discussion.

If $`\alpha _i\beta `$ is not a root then $`p_{\alpha _i}()p_\beta ()=p_\beta ()p_{\alpha _i}()`$ and the trip of $`p_\beta ()`$ goes on.

If $`\alpha _i\beta `$ is a root, then, from the presentation of the group $`G`$ we have, for all $`a,bk`$,

$$p_{\alpha _i}(a)p_\beta (b)=p_\beta (b)p_{\alpha _i}(a)\underset{p,q^{},p\alpha _iq\beta R}{}p_{p\alpha _iq\beta }(C_{pq}a^pb^q),$$
(6)
where $`C_{pq}`$. This product is finite since the group is of semi-simple type which implies that there is only a finite number of roots.

But the index $`i`$ belongs to $`J^2(\gamma )`$, hence there exists $`l^{}\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$ such that $`iI_l^{}J^2(\gamma )=J_{q_l^{}}^l^{}\mathrm{}J_1^l^{}`$.

Let us first suppose that $`iJ_h^{}^l^{}`$ with $`h^{}1`$, then the gallery $`\gamma `$ crosses the wall $`M_{\beta _i}`$ in the direction of $`C`$ through a facet $`F_i^{}^{}`$ with $`f>i^{}`$. Furthermore, the chambers $`F_{j_{h,e_h}^l1}`$ and $`F_i`$ are on the same side of the wall $`M_{\beta _i}`$ and they are separated by a finite number of load-bearing walls of multiplicity at least two. These walls are labelled by the roots that index the product (6). Hence, for each root $`p\alpha _iq\beta R_{}`$, there exists an index $`n_{pq}J^2(\gamma )`$ such that $`j_{h,e_h}^l>n_{pq}`$, where $`n_{pq}`$ is the first element of one of the sets (except the last) that compose $`I_{l_{pq}}J^2(\gamma )=J_{q_{l_{pq}}}^{l_{pq}}\mathrm{}J_1^{l_{pq}}`$ and, moreover,

$$\gamma _{n_{pq}}\mathrm{}\gamma _{i+1}(p\alpha _iq\beta )=\alpha _{n_{pq}}.$$

Therefore, we can glue each $`p_{p\alpha _iq\beta }()`$ with its corresponding $`p_{\alpha _{n_{pq}}}()`$, by applying the discussion until this step and, thanks to the hypothesis (in particular $`h^{}1`$), this operation will not add any new relations, other than those that define $`𝔍_r^2(\gamma )`$.

Let us now suppose that $`iJ_1^l^{}`$, that is $`i=j_{1,e_1}^l^{}`$.

If $`i_1^l^{}j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}`$, i.e. if $`M_{\beta _i}=M_{\beta ^l^{}}`$ does not separate $`C`$ from $`F_x`$, then the previous arguments and conclusion remain valid since the walls, labelled by the roots that index the product (6), will still be load-bearing walls of multiplicity at least two.

If $`i_1^l^{}=j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}(>0)`$, we have to distinguish again two cases :

1) if $`j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}<j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l`$ in $`\{r,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, then, for the same reason, we can apply the previous arguments and the conclusion is still valid ;

2) if $`j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}>j_{h\mathrm{,1}}^l`$, then, all the indices of $`J_1^l^{}`$ are between $`i`$ and $`f`$, hence, all the $`p_{\alpha _{j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}}}()`$’s can commute to $`p_{\alpha _i}()`$ and in this situation the relation $`x_{j_{1,e_1}^l^{}}n_{1,e_11}^l^{}x_{j_{1,e_11}^l^{}}\mathrm{}n_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}x_{j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l^{}}=0`$ will kill the obstacle, whence $`p_\beta (b)`$ goes on.

The theorem is then proved by repeating as long as necessary the previous discussion.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The proposition 4 of section 3 admits the following corollary.

###### Proposition 7.

The irreducible components of the fibre $`\pi ^1(F_x)`$ are given by the maximal combinatorial galleries of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )`$ relatively to the order defined in section 3. Hence, they can be written as

$$\overline{𝒞_x^\gamma }=\underset{\delta \gamma ,\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )}{}𝒞_x^\delta .$$

For all $`l\{m,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, let us set $`c_l^\gamma =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\#}\left(I_lJ^2(\gamma )\right)1\hfill & \text{ if }j_{\mathrm{1,1}}^l=i_1^l(>0),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\#}\left(I_lJ^2(\gamma )\right)\hfill & \text{ otherwise. }\hfill \end{array}`$ Then $`dim_k\left(𝒞_x^\gamma \right)=c_m^\gamma +\mathrm{}c_1^\gamma `$. And so, the dimension of the fibre is

$$dim_k\pi ^1(F_x)=Sup\left\{dim_k𝒞_x^\gamma ,\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )\right\}.$$

###### Remarks 2.

1) The relations that define the cell $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$ are linear ones.

2) Our description of the fibre is in agreement with, and gives a geometrical sense to, some results of V. Deodhar \[Deo, Proposition 3.9\]. In particular, he calculates the dimension of the fibre using its Poincar polynomial which is $`P\left(\pi ^1(F_x)\right)=_{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )}q^{d(\gamma )}`$, where $`d(\gamma )`$ is a non-negative integer defined from $`\gamma `$. Actually, for each combinatorial gallery $`\gamma `$ above $`F_x`$, this integer $`d(\gamma )`$ is equal to $`c_m^\gamma +\mathrm{}+c_1^\gamma `$. And this is in agreement with the fact that, thanks to theorem 1 and proposition 7, we have $`P\left(\pi ^1(F_x)\right)=_{\gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_x^c(\tau )}q^{dim𝒞_x^\gamma }`$.

To close this paper, we describe the restriction of the morphism $`\pi :\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\tau )\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$ to a cell $`𝒞^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is any combinatorial gallery. Let $`x`$ be the target of $`\gamma `$, $`x`$ is the centre of a Bruhat cell $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{u})\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\overline{w})`$.

###### Proposition 8.

The restriction of $`\pi `$, $`\pi _{𝒞^\gamma }:𝒞^\gamma \mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{u})`$ is locally trivial fibration of fibre $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$, i.e. $`𝒞^\gamma 𝒞_x^\gamma \times \mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{u})`$.

Proof.  Let us recall that $`𝒞^\gamma =\rho ^1(\gamma )`$ and that $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$ is defined from the load-bearing walls of multiplicity at least two. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{u})=\rho ^1(F_x)`$, where $`F_x`$ is the face associated to $`x`$.

Let $`u`$ be the element of minimal length in the class $`\overline{u}`$ and let $`u=s_{k_{j_\nu }}\mathrm{}s_{k_{j_1}}`$ be a reduced subdecomposition of $`w=s_{k_r}\mathrm{}s_{k_1}`$. For all $`l\{\nu ,\mathrm{}\mathrm{,1}\}`$, the wall $`M_{\beta _{j_l}}`$, where $`\beta _{j_l}=\gamma _r\mathrm{}\gamma _{j_l}(\alpha _{k_{j_l}})`$, is a load-bearing wall of $`\gamma `$. For each point $`x^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\overline{u})`$, we can build a gallery $`g_{F_x^{}}𝒞^\gamma `$ of target $`F_x^{}`$ (the face associated to $`x^{}`$) using the $`\nu `$ variables that correspond to the $`p_{\alpha _{k_{j_l}}}`$’s.

Furthermore, if there exist some other load-bearing walls, then they are of multiplicity at least two. And we can add some new variables to the gallery $`g_{F_x^{}}`$ associated to these walls without changing the target, following the conditions that define $`𝒞_x^\gamma `$. Hence, for such a face $`F_x^{}`$, $`\pi ^1(F_x^{})=𝒞_x^\gamma \times \left\{g_{F_x^{}}\right\}`$. This proves the proposition.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 References

\[BOU\] N. Bourbaki, Groupes et alg bre de Lie, Chapitres 4,5 et 6, Hermann, Paris (1968).

\[B\] K. S. Brown, Buildings, Springer-Verlag, New-York (1989).

\[CC\] C. Contou-Carr re, G om trie des groupes semi-simples, r solutions quivariantes et lieu singulier de leurs vari t s de Schubert, Th se d’ tat, (1983), Universit Montpellier II, published as Le Lieu singulier des vari t s de Schubert, Adv. Math., 71, (1988), 186-221.

\[Ch\] C. Chevalley, Sur certains groupes simples, Tohoku Math. J. (2), 7, (1955), 14-66.

\[De\] M. Demazure, D singularisation des vari t s de Schubert, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (4), 7, (1974), 53-88.

\[Deo\] V. Deodhar, A combinatorial setting for question in Kashdan-Lusztig theory, Geometriae Dedicata, 36, (1990), 95-119.

\[G\] S. Gaussent, Etude de la r solution de Bott-Samelson d’une vari t de Schubert, en vue d’un crit re valuatif de lissit , Th se, Universit Montpellier II, janvier 2001.

\[H\] H. C. Hansen, On cycles of flag manifolds, Math. Scand., 33, (1973), 269-274.

\[T82\] J. Tits, R sum de cours, Annuaire du Coll ge de France, Paris, (1982), 91-106.

\[T74\] J. Tits, Buildings of spherical type and finite $`BN`$pairs, Lecture notes in Math. 386, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (1974).


text:
# Phonon dispersion and electron-phonon coupling in MgB2 and AlB2

## Abstract

We present a first principles investigation of the lattice dynamics and electron-phonon coupling of the superconductor MgB2 and the isostructural AlB2 within the framework of density functional perturbation theory using a mixed-basis pseudopotential method. Complete phonon dispersion curves and Eliashberg functions $`\alpha ^2`$F are calculated for both systems. We also report on Raman measurements, which support the theoretical findings. The calculated generalized density-of-states for MgB2 is in excellent agreement with recent neutron-scattering experiments. The main differences in the calculated phonon spectra and $`\alpha ^2`$F are related to high frequency in-plane boron vibrations. As compared to AlB2, they are strongly softened in MgB2 and exhibit an exceptionally strong coupling to electronic states at the Fermi energy. The total coupling constants are $`\lambda _{MgB_2}=0.73`$ and $`\lambda _{AlB_2}=0.43`$. Implications for the superconducting transition temperature are briefly discussed.

Recently superconductivity has been observed in MgB2 with an exceptionally high transition temperature for such a simple compound (T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$39 K) . This system has in the mean time received a lot of attention from many experimentalists as well as theorists since understanding superconductivity in this binary compound should be much easier than in the high-Tc cuprate materials studied extensively for more than ten years now. This is due to the simpler lattice structure and the missing complication due to magnetism and strong electron-electron correlations. Already early experiments  as well as theories  have suggested that we are dealing here with an s-wave superconductor based on strong electron-phonon coupling although alternative coupling mechanisms have been discussed too .

Modern band-structure calculations together with ab initio determination of the phonon dispersion, electron-phonon coupling and solution of the Eliashberg equations to calculate the transition temperature should be the way to help understand the role played by the electron-phonon coupling in this material. Although during the past six weeks many contributions have been published concerning the electronic bandstructure  only a few attempts have been made to proceed along the above mentioned roadmap to a deeper understanding of the electron-phonon coupling. Most investigations are restricted to calculations of the phonon modes for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point only . Estimates of the coupling strength are therefore not very accurate thus asking for a more complete treatment of the electron-phonon coupling in the whole Brillouin zone (BZ).

We have carried out such a systematic study of the lattice dynamics and the electron-phonon coupling using the mixed-basis pseudopotential method. To get a better understanding of the relevance of the electron-phonon mechanism we have studied two isostructural systems: MgB2, which is superconducting, and AlB2, for which no superconductivity has been found so far. This offers the possibility to compare the phonon dispersion curves to identify those which are strongly influenced by electron-phonon coupling even without calculating the coupling strength. Furthermore, the calculation of the Eliashberg function $`\alpha ^2`$F for both systems allows for a consistency check of the proposed phonon-mediated pairing mechanism.

Only very recently after completion of our study we became aware of a similar investigation by Y. Kong et al.  which calculated the full phonon dispersion, the electron-phonon coupling and Tc for MgB2 within the LMTO-method. Our calculations are very similar to those presented in Ref. , however, due to the parallel treatment of MgB2 and AlB2 they offer additional information.

In contrast to all other calculations presented so far we have structurally optimized both systems, thus we remain fully in the framework set by the theory. For comparison and checks of sensitivity of our results we have also studied certain phonon modes using the experimental structure. All our calculations are carried out using the mixed-basis pseudopotential method. For Mg and Al we have used well tested pseudopotentials of Martins-Troullier- and BHS type . The boron pseudopotential was constructed according to the Vanderbild description  which led to a fairly deep p-potential for the boron atom which however could be dealt with very efficiently due to the mixed-basis formulation. The wave functions were constructed from localized s and p functions at the Boron sites supplemented by plane waves with an energy cut off of 16 Ry. Detailed tests were carried out to assure convergence with respect to the number of plane waves as well as with respect to k-point sampling . Different Monkhorst-Pack k-point sets have been used up to 13824 k-points in the BZ together with a Gaussian smearing of 0.2 eV. The calculation of the phonon dispersion is based on a recently developed mixed-basis perturbation approach  which also allowed for the calculation of the electron-phonon coupling . Finally, estimates of Tc are obtained by solving the linearized form of the Eliashberg equations . Structural parameters were found to be fairly insensitive to the k-point sets while individual phonon modes were very sensitive to the sampling thus pointing to strong electron-phonon coupling. All our calculations were carried out using the local exchange-correlation potential of Hedin and Lundqvist .

Since both systems crystallize in the so-called ”AlB2 structure” with alternating hexagonal (Mg,Al)-layers and graphite-like B-layers structural optimization required optimization of volume V and c/a ratio. Table 1 gives calculated results for V and c/a as well as the bulk modulus B together with the experimental values. For both systems a slightly smaller volume has been found by the theoretical treatment compared to the experimental one. This is a typical behavior in LDA-calculations. The c/a ratio is slightly larger. The electronic bandstructure obtained for MgB2 is very similar to the ones obtained by other groups  with hole pockets around the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point extending along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A-direction. AlB2 has a very similar bandstructure, however, due to the additional electron density no hole pockets around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A-direction exist.

In Table 2 we have summarized our phonon results for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point obtained from calculations based on the experimental structure as well as on the optimized one. With the exception of the E2g-mode (in-plane boron mode) all other modes are fairly insensitive to structural changes as can be seen from Table 2. The same holds also true for the sensitivity with respect to k-point sets. All previous calculations of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point phonon modes for MgB2 agree very well with these results with the exception of the E2g-mode where shifts of $`\pm `$100 cm-1 have been observed . As extensive studies have shown  this is mostly an effect of k-point sampling and indicates strong electron-phonon coupling for this mode. Comparing these results with those obtained for AlB2 the most dramatic changes occur again for the E2g mode which stiffens substantially and becomes the highest one, and the B1g mode (out of plane boron mode) which is strongly softened.

We have measured the E2g mode by Raman scattering from samples of commercially available MgB2 and AlB2 powders. The samples showed clear x-ray diffraction patterns and consisted of crystalline grains up to 10 $`\mu `$m (MgB2) and 50 $`\mu `$m (AlB2). Measured spectra showed only one prominent line in agreement with space group P6/mmm and were not particularly polarization dependent. Typical results are presented in Fig. 1. The experimental result for AlB2 is in almost perfect agreement with the calculated one. For MgB2 the Raman line is very broad, however, the peak position agrees reasonably well with the calculated one while the linewidth is likely to be due to strong electron-phonon coupling (see discussion below).

Having studied carefully the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point modes we calculated also the full phonon dispersion for both systems. Results are presented in Fig. 2 which were obtained by determining the dynamical matrix on a (6,6,6) reciprocal lattice grid in the hexagonal Brillouin zone. The results for MgB2 agree very well with those of Ref.  and give thus additional credibility to the theoretical treatment.

Comparing the phonon density-of-states shown in Fig. 2 certain features are worth mentioning. The biggest difference between the two systems is showing up in the intermediate region of phonon frequencies where AlB2 shows nearly a gap due to the strong dispersion of the relevant modes while for MgB2 this gap has nearly completely disappeared. High density of states at the upper and lower end of the frequency range show up in both systems. To compare with recent measurements by inelastic neutron scattering  we have calculated also the generalized density-of-states (weighted by the inelastic scattering cross section and the mass) broadened by a Gaussian with a width of 4 meV. The result in Fig. 3 should be compared directly with Fig. 1 in Ref. . An almost perfect agreement with respect to peak positions, shoulders and even with the relative ratio of contributions is obvious. We don’t find any indication of a peak in the spectra near 17 meV, as observed by Sato et al. .

In the dispersion curves shown in Fig. 2, the layered structure of the crystals is reflected in a weak dispersion of the optical branches along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A and in an anisotropy in the slopes of the acoustic branches in agreement with experiments . Besides many similarities two very significant differences between AlB2 and MgB2 can be seen. The first one is related to the branches which evolve from the doubly degenerate E2g-mode at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-point. In MgB2, these branches are strongly renormalized towards lower frequencies mostly near $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and along the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A direction. This is probably related to the hole pockets found in the electronic bandstructure of MgB2 which are absent in AlB2. The second distinctive difference is the behavior of branches starting from the B1g-mode which in MgB2 are significantly harder in certain regions of the BZ than in AlB2.

To address the superconducting properties we have calculated the so-called Eliashberg function $`\alpha ^2`$F($`\omega `$), using a very fine (36,36,36) k-point grid in performing the Fermi-surface average of the electron-phonon matrix elements . Results are presented in Fig. 4. For MgB2 we find indeed a very large contribution to $`\alpha ^2`$F in the intermediate region between 60 and 70 meV, which is mainly due to strongly softened in-plane vibrations of the boron atoms as mentioned above. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for the E2g-mode this strong coupling results in a very large linewidth of 15 meV in accordance with the broad feature seen in the Raman spectrum (Fig. 1). For AlB2, in contrast, the biggest contributions show up at very high frequencies as well as in the regime of the acoustic modes, however, they are substantially smaller than the main contribution in MgB2. From the Eliashberg function we calculate the electron-phonon coupling constant

$$\lambda =2_o^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{\alpha ^2F(\omega )}{\omega }$$

which gives $`\lambda _{MgB_2}`$=0.73 and $`\lambda _{AlB_2}`$=0.43. For the logarithmically averaged phonon frequencies as defined in Ref.  we find 60.9 meV and 49.9 meV for MgB2 and AlB2, respectively. The values for MgB2 agree well with the results of Ref. . The fairly large value of $`\lambda `$ for AlB2 however is unexpected.

Within the dirty limit of superconductivity  the calculation of the transition temperature Tc requires the knowledge of $`\alpha ^2`$F and the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$ . As commonly done, we treat $`\mu ^{}`$ as an adjustable parameter. A Tc of 40 K for MgB2 is obtained for $`\mu ^{}`$=0.05. The same $`\mu ^{}`$-value leads to T$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$ 9 K for the system AlB2. This result is in contrast to the experimental situation where no superconductivity has been found so far for AlB2. There are basically two possibilities to reconcile the theoretical results with the experimental situation. One possibility is a different screening in AlB2 compared to MgB2 which has been speculated about in Ref. , leading to different values for $`\mu ^{}`$. Alternatively, the approximation of an isotropic superconductor (dirty limit) might not hold. Due to the fact that we have dealt with both systems on equal footing new questions have emerged which need further studies.

We have presented here first principles calculations of the phonon dispersion and electron-phonon coupling for two systems MgB2 and AlB2 which crystallize in the same lattice structure, however, which have fairly different phonon dispersion curves. These results are in excellent agreement with measured quantities. The calculation of the superconducting temperature, however, has a problem which might be due to approximations involved or due to the fairly restricted knowledge about the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu ^{}`$.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Reichardt, Dr. Pintschovius and Dr. Schweiss for many helpful discussions.


text:
# Vacuum Energy of 𝐶𝑃(1) Solitons

## I Introduction

Topological solitons arise as solutions of classical field equations and corresdond to points where the classical energy attains degenerate local minima. The classical energy of a topological soliton typically depends on an integer which can be interpreted as the number of solitons, and in some cases it is independent of the parameters which correspond to the positions and the sizes of individual solitons. Therefore the quantum corrections can play a dominant role in the interactions between solitons.

Many techniques have been used for the numerical computation of the vacuum energies of single solitons . These methods rely heavily on the spherical symmetry which is usually implicit in the single soliton solutions. In this paper, we propose a new technique which does not rely on any symmetry and can therefore be applied to multiple soliton solutions.

We will evaluate the vacuum energy for the $`CP(1)`$ model in $`d=1+2`$ dimensions. Previous work on single solitons in the $`CP(1)`$ model has used an approach based on heat kernel coefficients and phase shifts . It was shown that the solitons are unstable to collapse due to the quantum corrections. The $`CP(1)`$ sigma model also exhibits multi-soliton solutions. We focus on the charge-$`2`$ case and study their interaction due to quantum corrections.

The quantisation of $`CP(1)`$ solitons can be performed by following the standard perturbation techniques invented by Schwinger  and developed in the 1970s by several authors (for a review, see ). The regularisation will be performed by the zeta-function technique, which we convert into a form that can be evaluated numerically. We examine how the finite one-loop energy depends on parameters such as the separation of the two solitons and their width.

## II $`CP(1)`$ Sigma Model in $`(2+1)`$ Dimensions

The $`CP(1)`$ sigma model consists of a single complex scalar field taking a value in the one dimensional complex projective plane $`CP(1)`$. The action of the $`CP(1)`$ sigma model is given by

$$S=d^3x\frac{|_\mu u|^2}{(1+|u|^2)^2}$$
(1)
where $`\mu `$ is the spacetime index running over $`0,1,2`$ and $`|u|^2=u\overline{u}`$. The complex projective plane being mapped to a sphere stereographically, the $`CP(1)`$ model is equivalent to the $`O(3)`$ model. Let $`u`$ and $`\{\varphi ^a\},a=1,2,3`$ be coordinates of the $`CP(1)`$ and $`O(3)`$ respectively. The stereographic coordinates are given by

$$(u_1,u_2)=(\frac{\varphi ^1}{1\varphi ^3},\frac{\varphi ^2}{1\varphi ^3})$$
(2)
with $`u=u_1+iu_2`$ and $`(\varphi ^a)^2=1`$. Expressing the action (1) in terms of $`\varphi ^a`$, one can recover the $`O(3)`$ sigma model action

$$S=\frac{1}{4}d^3x(_\mu \varphi ^a)^2.$$
(3)
Topological soliton solutions for the $`O(3)`$, or equivalently $`CP(1)`$ model, were discovered by Belavin et al. . To be precise, their solutions are instantons in two-dimensional Euclidean spacetime, but at a classical level, they are the same as solitons in three-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

The static energy of the $`O(3)`$ model is given by

$$E=\frac{1}{4}d^2x(_i\varphi ^a)^2$$
(4)
where $`i`$ takes the values $`1,2`$. The finite energy condition requires a boundary condition

$$_i\varphi ^a0\mathrm{as}|𝐱|\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Without loss of generality, we can define the asymptotic value of $`\varphi ^a`$ as

$$(\varphi ^a)^21\mathrm{as}|𝐱|\mathrm{}$$
(6)
which satisfies (5). This boundary condition compactifies the space into a sphere. Since the field space is also a sphere, the homotopy group of the fields is $`\pi _2(S^2)=Z`$ and hence there are soliton solutions. The topological charge is given by

$$Q=\frac{1}{8\pi }d^2xϵ_{ij}ϵ_{abc}\varphi ^a(_i\varphi ^b)(_j\varphi ^c).$$
(7)
From the obvious identity

$$(_i\varphi ^aϵ_{ij}ϵ_{abc}\varphi ^b_j\varphi ^c)^20,$$
(8)
one can derive

$$(_i\varphi ^a)^2ϵ_{ij}ϵ_{abc}\varphi ^a(_i\varphi ^b)(_j\varphi ^c).$$
(9)
This implies

$$E2\pi |Q|.$$
(10)
The soliton solutions attain minimum energy in each topological sector and hence saturate the equality. Thus they satisfy the first order differential equation

$$_i\varphi ^aϵ_{ij}ϵ_{abc}\varphi ^b_j\varphi ^c=0.$$
(11)
This equation turns out to be equivalent to the Cauchy-Riemann conditions in the $`CP(1)`$ version

$$\frac{u_1}{x}=\frac{u_2}{y},\frac{u_2}{x}=\frac{u_1}{y}.$$
(12)
The general solution is given by the analytic function

$$u_0(z)=\frac{(zb_1)\mathrm{}(zb_m)}{(za_1)\mathrm{}(za_n)}$$
(13)
where $`z=x+iy`$, and $`a_i,(i=1,\mathrm{}n)`$ and $`b_j,(j=1,\mathrm{}m)`$ are the complex parameters characterising the position and size of solitons respectively. Note that the only singularities the field $`u`$ can have are isolated poles, since they merely correspond to the north pole of a sphere in the target space of the $`O(3)`$ model.

The degree of the mapping is equal to the topological charge of the solution (13), which is also equal to the number of solutions when expressing $`z`$ in terms of $`u_0`$,

$$Q=\mathrm{max}(m,n).$$
(14)
$`\overline{u}`$ corresponds to the anti-soliton solution and gives an opposite charge of $`u`$.

## III Charge-$`2`$ $`CP(1)`$ Solitons on the Torus

For the sake of numerical work, we consider the $`CP(1)`$ model on the torus . This requires a slight modification of the previous soliton solutions. We shall assume that the field $`u(z)`$ on the torus satisfies the periodic boundary condition

$$u(z+1+i)=u(z)$$
(15)
The fact that the only singularities of $`u_0(z)`$ are poles means $`u_0(z)`$ is a meromorphic function. Then $`u_0(z)`$ can be represented as an elliptic function.

In the charge-$`2`$ case, the solution is represented by the Weierstrass function (see appendix A). For simplicity, we shall assume that the two solitons are symmetric in their size and location. Then there are only two complex parameters required which are the degrees of freedom of the size and separation. Thus we may write

$$u_0(z)=\frac{1}{\alpha (\mathrm{}(z)+\rho )}$$
(16)
with complex parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$.

Let the separation of the solitons (located at the poles) and the width be $`2ϵ`$ and $`w`$ respectively and restrict to real parameters. For (16), one obtains

$$\rho =\mathrm{}(iϵ),\alpha =\frac{2}{w\mathrm{}^{}(iϵ)}.$$
(17)
In terms of $`ϵ`$ and $`w`$, the solution (16) becomes

$$u_0(z)=\frac{w\mathrm{}^{}(iϵ)}{2(\mathrm{}(z)\mathrm{}(iϵ))}.$$
(18)
The energy density for this solution with $`ϵ=0.3`$ and $`w=0.5`$ is plotted in fig.1.

## IV Vacuum Energy of Charge-$`2`$ $`CP(1)`$ Solitons

The static energy functional for the $`CP(1)`$ model on the torus is given by

$$E[u]=_{T_2}d^2x\frac{|_iu|^2}{(1+|u|^2)^2}.$$
(19)
The analytic expansion at $`u_0`$ is

$$E[u]=E_0+_{T_2}d^2xG\overline{\xi }\mathrm{\Delta }_f\xi +\mathrm{}$$
(20)
where $`\xi (z,\overline{z})=u(z,\overline{z})u_0(z)`$. The ‘metric’ $`G`$ and the fluctuation operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_f`$ are defined by

$$G=\frac{1}{(1+|u_0|^2)^2}$$
(21)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_f\xi \left[^2+\frac{4\overline{u_0}(_\mu u_0)}{1+|u_0|^2}^\mu \right]\xi $$
(22)
respectively. The computation of the vacuum energy depends on solving the eigenvalue problem

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_f\chi _n=\lambda _n\chi _n.$$
(23)
Zero eigenvalues correspond to changes in the parameters, or moduli, of the soliton solution. The quantisation of these parameters is treated separately. Expanding $`\xi `$ in terms of the remaining eigenfunctions gives an infinite sequence of (degeneracy two) oscillators with vacuum energy $`\lambda _n^{1/2}`$. The total vacuum energy can be regularised using the zeta-function scheme ,

$$E=E_0+\zeta \left(\frac{1}{/}2\right)$$
(24)
where the sum over non-zero eigenvalues

$$\zeta (s)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda _n^s.$$
(25)
gives the generalised Riemann zeta function for $`s>1`$. The value at $`s=1/2`$ is uniquely determined by analytic continuation.

## V Numerical Regularisation

We will now show how the zeta function regularisation scheme, which depends on analytic continuation, can be converted into a numerical subtraction scheme. Suppose that on average the eigenvalues approach the form

$$\widehat{\lambda }_n=an+b.$$
(26)
Using (26), we can define the corresponding heat kernel

$$\widehat{K}(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\widehat{\lambda }_nt}.$$
(27)
The behiour of the heat kernel as $`t0`$ gives information about the eigenvalues at large values of $`n`$. We have

$$\widehat{K}(t)=\frac{e^{bt}}{1e^{at}}=\frac{1}{at}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n\left(\frac{b}{a}\right)\frac{(at)^n}{n!}(1)^n$$
(28)
where $`b_n(x)`$ are the Bernoulli polynomials and the first three terms are given by

$$b_0(x)=1,b_1(x)=x\frac{1}{2},b_2(x)=x^2x+\frac{1}{6}.$$
(29)
For small $`t`$, the leading terms are

$$\widehat{K}(t)=\frac{1}{at}\left(\frac{b}{a}\frac{1}{2}\right)+O(t).$$
(30)
Comparing the order of $`t`$ in (B4) and (30), one can deduce

$$a=\frac{1}{B_0},b=\frac{1}{B_0}\left(B_1+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(31)
where $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ are the heat kernel coefficients for the operator (18) calculated in appendix B, $`B_0=1/(4\pi )`$ and $`B_1=2`$. Thus, $`a=4\pi `$ and $`b=6\pi `$, with the result that

$$\widehat{\lambda }_n=4\pi n6\pi .$$
(32)
We assign a zeta function to this eigenvalue

$$\widehat{\zeta }(s)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{\lambda }_n^s=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }\right)^s\zeta _H(s,\frac{1}{2})$$
(33)
where $`\zeta _H(s,\frac{1}{2})`$ is the generalised zeta function defined by

$$\zeta _H(s,a)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(n+a)^s.$$
(34)
Hurwitz has given a proof of the following formula

$`\zeta _H(s,a)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s)}{(2\pi )^{1s}}}[\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s\pi }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{s1}\mathrm{cos}(2n\pi a)`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s\pi }{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^{s1}\mathrm{sin}(2n\pi a)].`$
Using this expression, one obtains

$$\widehat{\zeta }(s)=\left(\frac{1}{4\pi }\right)^s\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1s)}{(2\pi )^{1s}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^{s1}(1)^n\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{s\pi }{2}\right).$$
(35)
Setting $`s=1/2`$ gives

$$\widehat{\zeta }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{n^{3/2}}.$$
(36)
We can obtain a finite sum by subtracting the divergent terms,

$$\zeta _{\mathrm{reg}}(s)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\lambda _n^s\widehat{\lambda }_n^s\right)$$
(37)
where all the zero modes are removed from the eigenvalues. Then one can write the true zeta function as

$$\zeta (s)=\zeta _{\mathrm{reg}}(s)+\widehat{\zeta }(s).$$
(38)
Analytic continuation now implies

$$\zeta \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)=\zeta _{\mathrm{reg}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)+\widehat{\zeta }\left(\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(39)
The above expression allows us to evaluate the one-loop energy of the solitons numerically, assuming that (37) can be evaluated numerically. In practice, there are problems with the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ at $`s=1/2`$ because the residuals $`\lambda _n\widehat{\lambda }_n`$ do not vanish as $`n\mathrm{}`$. However, we shall see in later sections how the difference does vanish ‘on average’, allowing a result to be obtained.

## VI Numerical Computation

We use the Jacobi theta functions as a representation of the Weierstrass $`\mathrm{}`$ function (see appendix A)

$$\mathrm{}(z)=\pi ^2\left[\frac{\theta _2(0)\theta _4(0)\theta _3(\pi z)}{\theta _1(\pi z)}\right]^2.$$
(40)
Thus the charge $`2`$-soliton solution (18) can be written as

$$u_0(z)=i\pi w\frac{\theta _3^2(0)\theta _2(i\pi ϵ)\theta _4(i\pi ϵ)\theta _1^2(\pi z)}{\theta _1^2(i\pi ϵ)\theta _3^2(\pi z)\theta _3^2(i\pi ϵ)\theta _1^2(\pi z)}.$$
(41)
In the following numerical computation, we shall use (41) as a soliton solution.

We shall evaluate the approximate eigenvalues $`\omega `$ in (23) by the Rayleigh-Ritz variational method. This method introduces two principles. Firstly, the eigenfunctions are stationary configurations of the functional

$$E[\xi ]=\frac{_{T_2}d^2xG\overline{\xi }\mathrm{\Delta }_f\xi }{_{T_2}d^2xG|\xi |^2}.$$
(42)
Thus the eigenfunctions satisfy

$$\frac{\delta E[\xi ]}{\delta \xi }=0.$$
(43)
And secondly, trial functions which give stationary values of $`E`$ provide upper bounds for the eigenvalues (Hylleraas-Undheim theorem).

The trial functions can be constructed as follows. We take $`N`$ linearly independent functions $`\varphi _n`$ parametrised by N variational parameters $`c_n`$ and construct the trial function as their superposition

$$\xi =\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}c_n\varphi _n.$$
(44)
Inserting into (42) one obtains the functional $`E`$ as a function of the $`N`$ variational parameters

$$E[c_1,c_2,\mathrm{}c_N]=\frac{_{m,n=1}^N\overline{c}_mc_nA_{mn}}{_{m,n=1}^N\overline{c}_mc_nB_{mn}}$$
(45)
where we defined

$`A_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{T_2}}d^2xG\overline{\varphi }_m\mathrm{\Delta }_f\varphi _n`$ (46)
$`B_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{T_2}}d^2xG\overline{\varphi }_m\varphi _n.`$ (47)
Then, from the minimum principle, the upper bound of the $`n`$th eigenvalue is given by the stationary point of $`E[c_1,c_2,\mathrm{}c_N]`$ with respect to $`c_n`$, i.e. $`E`$ satisfies

$$\frac{E[c_1,c_2,\mathrm{}c_N]}{c_n}=0.$$
(48)
Thus we obtain $`N`$ linear homogeneous equations for each upper bound of $`E_n,(n=1,\mathrm{}N)`$

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{c}_m(A_{mn}EB_{mn})=0$$
(49)
and the problem is reduced to the $`n`$th-degree secular equation of the $`N\times N`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{det}(𝐀E𝐁)=0.$$
(50)
Increasing in the number of basis states gives a lower upper bound of the exact eigenvalue in each mode.

We take the basis of trial functions $`\varphi _\stackrel{}{k}`$ to be plane waves

$$\varphi _\stackrel{}{k}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{i}{2}(\overline{k}z+k\overline{z})\right\}$$
(51)
where $`k=\frac{\pi }{L}(n+im)=2\pi (n+im)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{k}=(n,m),n,m=N,N+1,\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{},N1,N`$. $`n`$ and $`m`$ are the mode numbers in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions respectively. With this basis, the functional (45) becomes

$$E[\overline{c}_\stackrel{}{k}^{},c_\stackrel{}{k}]=\frac{\overline{c}_\stackrel{}{k}^{}c_\stackrel{}{k}A_{\overline{k}^{}k}}{B_{\overline{k}^{}k}}$$
(52)
where

$`A_{\overline{k}^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{z}𝑑z\frac{1}{(1+|u_0|^2)^2}\overline{k}^{}k\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\{(\overline{k}^{}\overline{k})z+(k^{}k)\overline{z}\}\right]}`$ (53)
$`B_{\overline{k}^{}k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\overline{z}𝑑z\frac{1}{(1+|u_0|^2)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\{(\overline{k}^{}\overline{k})z+(k^{}k)\overline{z}\}\right]}.`$ (54)
Therefore the upper bound of the spectrum can be computed from the secular equation of an $`(2N+1)\times (2N+1)`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{det}(A_{\overline{k}^{}k}EB_{\overline{k}^{}k})=0.$$
(55)
The spectrum will be more accurate as $`N`$ increases and in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, it is exact.

To solve (55) numerically, we simply used the LAPACK (Linear Algebra Package) which provides routines for solving systems of simultaneous linear equations, least-square solutions of linear systems of equations, eigenvalue problems, and singular value problems. The file actually used is chegv.f for computing all eigenvalues of an Hermitian-definite generalised eigenproblem.

## VII Numerical Results

We have plotted the first 200 eigenvalues in fig.(2) as a function of the mode number $`n=(\overline{k},k)`$ for a typical background solution. The agreement with the asymptotic formula (32) is quite striking. Fig.(3) is a plot of the regularised zeta function as a function of the number of modes $`N`$ up to which we took the sum of the eigenvalues. The fluctuations in the data reflect the fact that the eigenvalues deviate from the asymtotic formula. Although we can easily improve the accuracy of the individual eigenvalues, these fluctuations have a significant influence in preventing the convergence of the zeta-function in all of the cases which we have examined. This problem has been seen before in numerical calculations of zeta-functions . Averaging over $`N`$ has been proposed as a solution to the problem and we use this in our calculation.

Fig.(4) is a contour plot of the average value of the zeta function on the parameter space of $`ϵ`$ and $`w`$. The data shows that the more spiky and closer two solitons are, the lower the vacuum energy is. Thus the classically stable two solitons become unstable to collapse and merger when the one-loop quantum correction is taken into consideration.

As a special case of a charge-2 soliton, we also examined the one-loop energy for the solution

$$u_0(z)=\frac{w}{\mathrm{}(z)}.$$
(56)
This solution exhibits a ring-shape energy configuration as is shown in fig.(5). The numerical one-loop energy as a function of $`w`$ is given in fig.(6). The plots denote the numerical values and the line is its interpolated function which is found to be

$$0.269\sqrt{w}.$$
(57)
The rotational symmetry implies that this is also a case that can be analysed using the phase shift technique . Preliminary results suggest an identical functional form for the vacuum energy, but the phase shifts give a different overall scale .

## VIII Conclusion

In this paper, we have presented a numerical method for the computation of finite one-loop energies for solitons and studied its effect on the interaction of two $`CP(1)`$ solitons. The method does not require any symmetry to be present in the problem, but it is expensive in computer time and relies on the averaging out of residual terms in the eigenvalue spectrum. Further analysis of these eigenvalue residuals, which should be related to fundamental periods of the torus, would be useful and might improve the technique.

The results are very satisfactory and show that initially separated solitons are unstable to collapse and merger. Furthermore, the results are in qualitative agreement with the fast and reliable phase shift method  for a ring configuration, which has circular symmetry.

Interestingly, the vacuum energy is not the only effect on the dynamics of two interacting solitons. There are additional forces arising from the reduction of the quantum field theory to the $`CP(1)`$ moduli space . In this example, an additional term is given by the Ricci tensor of the moduli space, and gives a repulsive force between the two solitons which is larger than the effect of the vacuum energy at very small separations .

In principle, our methods are applicable to other solitons such as skyrmions, although moving from two to three dimensions would hughely increase the computer time. The one-loop correction to the calculation of the skyrmion mass is significant. For physical values of the pion decay constant, the classical skyrmion has a mass about $`50\%`$ larger than a nucleon mass. However, according to Moussallam and Kalafatis , including one loop energies within the framework of chiral perturbation theory, the nucleon mass can be correctly predicted to within $`20\%`$. Presumably, quantum effects within chiral perturbation theory would also have an effect on the force between two nucleons which could be calculated by the method presented here.

## A Weierstrass Elliptic Functions

An elliptic function $`f`$ is a function such that it is doubly periodic with two primitive periods $`2\omega _1,2\omega _2`$ whose ratio is not real, i.e.

$$f(z+2m\omega _1+2n\omega _2)=f(z)$$
(A1)
where $`m,n`$ are integers and

$$\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{\omega _1}{\omega _2}\right)0.$$
(A2)
Thus for an elliptic function $`f(z)`$, the $`z`$-plane can be partitioned into parallelograms with vertices $`z_0+2m\omega _1+2n\omega _2`$. The only singularities of $`f(z)`$ allowed in a period parallelogram are poles.

The weierstrass function $`\mathrm{}`$ is an even elliptic function of order $`2`$ with one double pole at $`z=2m\omega _1+2n\omega _2`$ and defined by

$$\mathrm{}(z)=\mathrm{}(z)=\frac{1}{z^2}+\underset{m,n}{}\left[\frac{1}{(zm\omega _1n\omega _2)^2}\frac{1}{(m\omega _1+n\omega _2)^2}\right]$$
(A3)
where $`m,n`$ takes all integers except for $`m=n=0`$. The series (A3) converges everywhere except at the poles.

The function $`\mathrm{}(z)`$ satisfies the differential equation

$$\left[\frac{d}{dz}\mathrm{}(z)\right]^2=4\mathrm{}(z)^3g_2\mathrm{}(z)g_34(\mathrm{}(z)e_1)(\mathrm{}(z)e_2)(\mathrm{}(z)e_3)$$
(A4)
where $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are invariants and determine the periods $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ as

$$g_2=60\underset{m,n}{}\frac{1}{(m\omega _1+n\omega _2)^4},g_3=140\underset{m,n}{}\frac{1}{(m\omega _1+n\omega _2)^6}.$$
(A5)
$`e_1,e_2`$ and $`e_3`$ are then given by

$$e_1=\mathrm{}(\omega _1),e_2=\mathrm{}(\omega _2),e_3=\mathrm{}(\omega _2).$$
(A6)
with

$$e_1+e_2+e_3=0,e_1e_2+e_2e_3+e_3e_1=\frac{g_2}{4},e_1e_2e_3=\frac{g_3}{4}.$$
(A7)
The Weierstrass function can be represented in terms of Jacobi theta functions as

$$\mathrm{}(z)=e_j+\frac{\pi ^2}{4\omega _1^2}\left[\frac{\theta _1^{}(0)\theta _{j+1}(v)}{\theta _{j+1}(0)\theta _1(v)}\right]^2j=1,2,3$$
(A8)
where

$$v\frac{\pi z}{2\omega _1}$$
(A9)
and the theta functions are defined by

$`\theta _1(z,q)`$ $``$ $`\theta _1(z)=2q^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^nq^{n(n+1)}\mathrm{sin}\{(2n+1)z\}`$
$`\theta _2(z,q)`$ $``$ $`\theta _2(z)=2q^{\frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n(n+1)}\mathrm{cos}\{(2n+1)z\}`$
$`\theta _3(z,q)`$ $``$ $`\theta _3(z)=1+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^{n^2}\mathrm{cos}(2nz)`$
$`\theta _4(z,q)`$ $``$ $`\theta _4(z)=1+2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^nq^{n^2}\mathrm{cos}(2nz),`$
with $`q=e^{i\omega _2/\omega _1}`$. $`e_1,e_2`$ and $`e_3`$ can also be expressed by the theta functions

$$\sqrt{e_1e_2}=\frac{\pi }{2\omega _1}\theta _4^2(0),\sqrt{e_2e_3}=\frac{\pi }{2\omega _1}\theta _2^2(0),\sqrt{e_1e_3}=\frac{\pi }{2\omega _1}\theta _3^2(0).$$
(A10)
We adopt the theta-function representation for the weierstrass function since the theta functions converge rapidly for $`n`$ and the series are periodic. For definiteness, we take the Lemniscatic case

$$\omega _1=i\omega _2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{and}e_2=0.$$
(A11)
Then from (A10), we can determine numerical values of $`e_1`$ and $`e_3`$ as

$$e_1=e_3=\pi ^2\theta _4^4(0)=\frac{1}{8\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)^46.875.$$
(A12)
Choosing $`j=2`$ in (A8), one obtains

$$\mathrm{}(z)=\pi ^2\left[\frac{\theta _2(0)\theta _4(0)\theta _3(\pi z)}{\theta _1(\pi z)}\right]^2.$$
(A13)
## B Heat Kernel Coefficients

The small time expansion of a heat-kernel provides us a great deal of information about operators and their eigenvalues. This expansion was substantially developed in the $`1960`$s, and more of the mathematical details can be found in the original work and reviews for example .

Consider the eigenvalue problem on a manifold $`\mathrm{M}`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\lambda \varphi $$
(B1)
The field $`\varphi `$ can have both spacetime, spinor and internal group indices, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the elliptic operator. The (integrated) heat-kernel of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is defined by

$$K(t)=\underset{n}{}e^{\lambda _nt}$$
(B2)
We consider operators of the form

$$D^2+X$$
(B3)
with a gauge covariant derivative $`D=+A`$ acting on fields which are associated with a representation of some given gauge group. For these operators, Gilkey has shown that the function $`K(t)`$ has an asymptotic expansion

$$K(t)t^{d/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_nt^n$$
(B4)
in $`d`$-dimensional space. In general, the $`B_n`$ coefficients depend on the operator, the geometry of the manifold and the boundary conditions satisfied by the fields $`\varphi `$.

The coefficients $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ for the $`CP(1)`$ model can be obtained by applying the general expressions. First, we rewrite the fluctuation operator obtained in 22 in a covariant form

$$^\mu _\mu +\frac{4\overline{u_0}(_\mu u_0)}{1+|u_0|^2}^\mu =2\left(D_zD_{\overline{z}}+D_{\overline{z}}D_z\right)\frac{4|_zu_0|^2}{(1+|u_0|^2)^2}$$
(B5)
where $`D_z`$ is a covariant derivative defined by

$$D_zu=_zu\frac{2\overline{u}_0(_zu_0)}{1+|u_0|^2}u.$$
(B6)
Then the heat kernel coefficients for this operator are

$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\mathrm{tr}(1)}`$ (B7)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x(X)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2x\frac{|_zu_0|^2}{(1+|u_0|^2)^2}}`$ (B8)
Clearly, for a torus of unit area, $`B_0=1/(4\pi )`$. For a solution of the type

$$u_0(z)=\frac{\gamma }{z^2+ϵ},$$
(B9)
one can show directly that

$$B_1=2.$$
(B10)
The same result can be seen to hold for the two-soliton solution on the torus, because the integral (B8) is the index of the mapping given by $`u`$.