text:
# Classification theorems for the 𝑪^∗-algebras of graphs with sinks

## 1. Sink extensions and the basic constructions

A directed graph $`G=(G^0,G^1,r,s)`$ consists of a countable set $`G^0`$ of vertices, a countable set $`G^1`$ of edges, and maps $`r,s:G^1G^0`$ which identify the range and source of an edge. A vertex $`vG^0`$ is a *sink* if $`s^1(v)=\mathrm{}`$, or a *source* if $`r^1(v)=\mathrm{}`$; $`G`$ is *row-finite* if each vertex emits at most finitely many edges. All graphs in this paper are row-finite and directed, and unless we say otherwise, $`G`$ will stand for a generic row-finite graph. In general, our notation should be consistent with that of  and . If $`G`$ is a row-finite graph, a *Cuntz-Krieger G-family* in a $`C^{}`$-algebra consists of mutually orthogonal projections $`\{p_v:vG^0\}`$ and partial isometries $`\{s_e:eG^1\}`$ which satisfy the *Cuntz-Krieger relations*

$$s_e^{}s_e=p_{r(e)}\text{for}eG^1\text{and}p_v=\underset{\{e:s(e)=v\}}{}s_es_e^{}\text{whenever }vG^0\text{ is not a sink.}$$

We denote by $`C^{}(G)=C^{}(s_e,p_v)`$ the $`C^{}`$-algebra of the graph $`G`$, which is generated by a universal Cuntz-Krieger $`G`$-family $`\{s_e,p_v\}`$ (see \[5, Theorem 1.2\]).

###### Definition 1.1.

An *$`n`$-sink extension* of $`G`$ is a row-finite graph $`E`$ which contains $`G`$ as a subgraph and satisfies:

1. $`H:=E^0G^0`$ is finite, contains no sources, and contains exactly $`n`$ sinks.
2. There are no loops in $`E`$ whose vertices lie in $`H`$.
3. If $`eE^1G^1`$, then $`r(e)H`$.
4. If $`w`$ is a sink in $`G`$, then $`w`$ is a sink in $`E`$.

When we say $`(E,v_i)`$ is an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$, we mean that $`v_1,\mathrm{}v_n`$ are the $`n`$ sinks outside $`G^0`$. We consistently write $`H`$ for $`E^0G^0`$ and $`S`$ for the set of sinks $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ lying in $`H`$. If $`wH`$, then there are at most finitely many paths from $`w`$ to a given sink $`v_i`$. If there is one sink $`v_1`$ and exactly one path from every $`wH`$ to $`v_1`$, we call $`(E,v_1)`$ a *1-sink tree extension* of $`G`$. Equivalently, $`(H,s^1(H))`$ is a tree.

If we start with a graph $`E`$ with $`n`$ sinks, these ideas should apply as follows. Let $`H`$ be the saturation of the set $`S`$ of sinks in the sense of , and take $`G:=EH:=(E^0H,E^1r^1(H))`$. Then $`E`$ satisfies all the above properties with respect to $`G`$ except possibly (1); if, however, $`E`$ is finite and has no sources, this is automatic too. So the situation of Definition 1.1 is quite general. Property (4) ensures that the saturation of $`S`$ does not extend into $`G`$; it also implies that an $`m`$-sink extension of an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$ is an $`(m+n)`$-sink extension of $`G`$, which is important for an induction argument in §4.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`(E,v_i)`$ be an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$. Then $`H:=E^0G^0`$ is a saturated hereditary subset of $`E^0`$. Indeed, $`H`$ is the saturation $`\overline{S}`$ of $`S:=\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$.

###### Proof.

Property (3) of Definition 1.1 implies that $`H`$ is hereditary, and property (4) that $`H`$ is saturated. Because $`\overline{S}`$ is the smallest saturated set containing $`S`$, it now suffices to prove that $`H\overline{S}`$. Suppose that $`w\overline{S}`$. Then either there is a path $`\gamma `$ from $`w`$ to a sink $`r(\gamma )S`$, or there is an infinite path which begins at $`w`$. In the first case, $`w`$ cannot be in $`H`$ because $`r(\gamma )H`$ and $`H`$ is hereditary. In the second case, $`w`$ cannot be in $`H`$ because otherwise we would have an infinite path going round the finite set $`H`$, and there would have to be a loop in $`H`$. Either way, therefore, $`wH`$, and we have proved $`H\overline{S}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 1.3.

Suppose that $`(E,v_i)`$ is an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$, and $`I(S)`$ is the ideal in $`C^{}(E)=C^{}(s_e,p_v)`$ generated by the projections $`p_{v_i}`$ associated to the sinks $`v_iS`$. Then there is a surjection $`\pi _E`$ of $`C^{}(E)`$ onto $`C^{}(G)=C^{}(t_f,q_w)`$ such that $`\pi _E(s_e)=t_e`$ for $`eG^1`$ and $`\pi _E(p_v)=q_v`$ for $`vG^0`$, and $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _E=I(S)`$.

###### Proof.

From Lemma 1.2 and \[1, Lemma 4.3\], we see that $`I(S)=I(H)`$, and the result follows from \[1, Theorem 4.1\]. ∎

###### Definition 1.4.

An $`n`$-sink extension $`(E,v_i)`$ of $`G`$ is *simple* if $`E^0G^0=\{v_i,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$. We want to associate to each $`n`$-sink extension $`(E,v_i)`$ a simple extension by collapsing paths which end at one of the $`v_i`$. For the precise definition, we need some notation. An edge $`e`$ with $`r(e)H`$ and $`s(e)G^0`$ is called a *boundary edge*; the sources of these edges are called *boundary vertices*. We write $`B_E^1`$ and $`B_E^0`$ for the sets of boundary edges and vertices. If $`wG^0`$ and $`1in`$, we denote by $`Z(w,v_i)`$ the set of paths $`\alpha `$ from $`w`$ to $`v_i`$ which leave $`G`$ immediately in the sense that $`r(\alpha _1)H`$. The *Wojciech vector* of the sink $`v_i`$ is the element $`W_{(E;v_i)}`$ of $`_{G^0}`$ given by

$$W_{(E;v_i)}(w):=\mathrm{\#}Z(w,v_i)\text{for }wG^0\text{;}$$

notice that $`W_{(E;v_i)}(w)=0`$ unless $`w`$ is a boundary vertex. If $`E`$ has just one sink, we denote its only Wojciech vector by $`W_E`$. The *simplification* of $`(E,v_i)`$ is the graph $`SE`$ with $`(SE)^0:=G^0\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$,

$$(SE)^1:=G^1\{e^{(w,\alpha )}:wB_E^0\text{ and }\alpha Z(w,v_i)\text{ for some }i\},$$

$$s|_{G^1}=s_E,s(e^{(w,\alpha )})=w,r|_{G^1}=r_E,\text{ and}r(e^{(w,\alpha )})=r(\alpha ).$$

The simplification of $`(E,v_i)`$ is a simple $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$ with the same Wojciech vectors as $`E`$. We now describe how the graph algebras are related:

###### Proposition 1.5.

Let $`(E,v_i)`$ be an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$, and let $`\{s_e,p_v\}`$, $`\{t_f,q_w\}`$ denote the canonical Cuntz-Krieger families in $`C^{}(SE)`$ and $`C^{}(E)`$. Then there is an embedding $`\varphi ^{SE}`$ of $`C^{}(SE)`$ onto the full corner in $`C^{}(E)`$ determined by the projection $`_{i=1}^nq_{v_i}+\{q_w:wG^0\}`$, which satisfies $`\varphi ^{SE}(p_v)=q_v`$ for all $`vG^0\{v_i\}`$, and for which we have a commutative diagram involving the maps $`\pi _E`$ of Corollary 1.3:

$$\text{}.$$

###### Proof.

The elements

$$P_v:=q_v\text{and}S_e:=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_e\hfill & \text{if }eG^1\hfill \\ t_\alpha \hfill & \text{if }e=e^{(w,\alpha )}\hfill \end{array}$$

form a Cuntz-Krieger $`(SE)`$-family in $`C^{}(E)`$, so there is a homomorphism $`\varphi ^{SE}:=\pi _{S,P}:C^{}(SE)C^{}(E)`$ with $`\varphi ^{SE}(p_v)=P_v`$ and $`\varphi ^{SE}(s_e)=S_e`$. We trivially have $`\varphi ^{SE}(p_v)=q_v`$ for $`vG^0S`$. To see that $`\varphi ^{SE}`$ is injective, we use the universal property of $`C^{}(E)`$ to build an action $`\beta :𝕋\mathrm{Aut}C^{}(E)`$ such that

$$\beta _z(q_w)=q_w\text{and}\beta _z(t_f)=\{\begin{array}{cc}zt_f\hfill & \text{if }s(f)G^0\hfill \\ t_f\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

note that $`\varphi ^{SE}`$ converts the gauge action on $`C^{}(SE)`$ to $`\beta `$, and apply the gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem \[1, Theorem 2.1\]. It follows from \[1, Lemma 1.1\] that $`_{i=1}^nq_{v_i}+\{q_w:wG^0\}`$ converges strictly to a projection $`qM(C^{}(E))`$ such that

$$qt_\alpha t_\beta ^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_\alpha t_\beta ^{}\hfill & \text{if }s(\alpha )G^0S\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`qC^{}(E)q`$ is spanned by the elements $`t_\alpha t_\beta ^{}`$ with $`s(\alpha )=s(\beta )G^0S`$, and by applying the Cuntz-Krieger relations we may assume $`r(\alpha )=r(\beta )G^0S`$ also, so that the range of $`\varphi `$ is the corner $`qC^{}(E)q`$. To see that this corner is full, suppose $`I`$ is an ideal containing $`qC^{}(E)q`$. Then \[1, Lemma 4.2\] implies that $`K:=\{v:q_vI\}`$ is a saturated hereditary subset of $`E^0`$; since $`K`$ certainly contains $`G^0S`$, we deduce that $`K=E^0`$. But then $`I=C^{}(E)`$ by \[1, Theorem 4.1\]. Finally, to see that the diagram commutes, we just need to check that $`\pi _{SE}`$ and $`\pi _E\varphi ^{SE}`$ agree on generators. ∎

It is convenient to have a name for the situation described in this proposition:

###### Definition 1.6.

Suppose $`(E,v_i)`$ and $`(F,w_i)`$ are $`n`$-sink extensions of $`G`$. We say that $`C^{}(F)`$ is *$`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in $`C^{}(E)`$* if there is an isomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`C^{}(F)=C^{}(s_e,p_v)`$ onto a full corner in $`C^{}(E)=C^{}(t_f,q_w)`$ such that $`\varphi (p_{w_i})=q_{v_i}`$ for all $`i`$ and $`\pi _E\varphi =\pi _F:C^{}(F)C^{}(G)`$. If $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism onto $`C^{}(E)`$, we say that $`C^{}(F)`$ is *$`C^{}(G)`$-isomorphic to $`C^{}(E)`$*.

Notice that if $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in $`C^{}(E)`$, then $`C^{}(F)`$ is Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E)`$ in a way which respects the common quotient $`C^{}(G)`$. We now describe the basic construction by which we manipulate the Wojciech vectors of graphs.

###### Definition 1.7.

Let $`(E,v_i)`$ be an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$, and let $`e`$ be a boundary edge such that $`s(e)`$ is not a source of $`G`$. The *outsplitting* of $`E`$ by $`e`$ is the graph $`E(e)`$ defined by

$$E(e)^0:=E^0\{v^{}\};E(e)^1:=(E^1\{e\})\{e^{}\}\{f^{}:fE^1\text{ and }r(f)=s(e)\}$$

$$(r,s)|_{E^1\{e\}}:=(r_E,s_E);r(e^{}):=r_E(e),s(e^{}):=v^{};r(f^{}):=v^{},s(f^{}):=s_E(f).$$

In general, we call $`E(e)`$ a *boundary outsplitting* of $`E`$.

The following example might help fix the ideas:

$$E:\text{}E(e):\text{}$$

If $`(E,v_i)`$ is an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$, then every boundary outsplitting $`(E(e),v_i)`$ is also an $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$; if $`(E,v_0)`$ is a 1-sink tree extension, so is $`(E(e),v_0)`$. We need to assume that $`s(e)`$ is not a source of $`G`$ to ensure that $`E(e)`$ is an $`n`$-sink extension, and we make this assumption implicitly whenever we talk about boundary outsplittings. As the name suggests, boundary outsplittings are special cases of the outsplittings discussed in \[7, §2.4\].

###### Proposition 1.8.

Suppose $`(E(e),v_i)`$ is a boundary outsplitting of an $`n`$-sink extension $`(E,v_i)`$ of $`G`$. Then $`C^{}(E(e))`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-isomorphic to $`C^{}(E)`$. If $`E`$ is a 1-sink tree extension, then the Wojciech vector of $`E(e)`$ is given in terms of the vertex matrix $`A_G`$ of $`G`$ by

(1.1)
$$W_{E(e)}=W_E+(A_GI)\delta _{s(e)}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`C^{}(E)=C^{}(t_h,q_w)`$. Then

$`P_v`$ $`:=\{\begin{array}{cc}q_v\hfill & \text{if }vs(e)\text{ and }vv^{}\hfill \\ t_et_e^{}\hfill & \text{if }v=v^{}\hfill \\ q_{s(e)}t_et_e^{}\hfill & \text{if }v=s(e)\hfill \end{array}`$
$`S_g`$ $`:=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_e\hfill & \text{if }g=e^{}\hfill \\ t_g(q_{s(e)}t_et_e^{})\hfill & \text{if }ge^{}\text{ and }r(g)=s(e)\hfill \\ t_ft_et_e^{}\hfill & \text{if }g=f^{}\text{ for some }fE^1\text{ with }r(f)=s(e)\hfill \\ t_g\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}`$
is a Cuntz-Krieger $`E(e)`$-family which generates $`C^{}(E)`$. The universal property of $`C^{}(E(e))=C^{}(s_g,p_v)`$ gives a homomorphism $`\varphi =\pi _{S,P}:C^{}(E(e))C^{}(E)`$ such that $`\varphi (s_g)=S_g`$ and $`\varphi (p_v)=P_v`$, which is an isomorphism by the gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem \[1, Theorem 2.1\]. It is easy to check on generators that $`\varphi `$ is a $`C^{}(G)`$-isomorphism. When $`H`$ is a tree with one sink $`v_0`$, there is precisely one path $`\gamma `$ in $`E`$ from $`r(e)`$ to $`v_0`$, and hence all the new paths from a vertex $`v`$ to $`v_0`$ have the form $`f^{}\gamma `$. Thus if $`vs(e)`$,

$`W_{E(e)}(v)`$ $`=W_E(v)+\mathrm{\#}\{f^{}E(e)^1:s(f^{})=v\text{ and }f^{}E^1\}`$
$`=W_E(v)+\mathrm{\#}\{fG^0:s(f)=v\text{ and }r(f)=s(e)\}`$
$`=W_E(v)+A_G(v,s(e)).`$
On the other hand, if $`v=s(e)`$, then

$`W_{E(e)}(s(e))`$ $`=W_E(s(e))+\mathrm{\#}\{f^{}E(e)^1:s(f^{})=s(e)\text{ and }f^{}E^1\}1`$
$`=W_E(s(e))+\mathrm{\#}\{fG^0:s(f)=s(e)=r(f)\}1`$
$`=W_E(v)+A_G(s(e),s(e))1.`$
Together these calculations give (1.1). ∎

Suppose that $`\alpha =\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _n`$ is a path in $`G`$ and there is a boundary edge $`e`$ with $`s(e)=r(\alpha )`$. Then $`E(e)`$ will have a boundary edge $`\alpha _n^{}`$ at $`r(\alpha _{n1})`$, and therefore we can outsplit again to get $`E(e)(\alpha _n^{})`$. This graph has a boundary edge $`\alpha _{n1}^{}`$ at $`r(\alpha _{n2})`$, and we can outsplit again. Continuing this process gives an extension $`E(e,\alpha )`$ in which $`s(\alpha )`$ is a boundary vertex. We shall refer to this process as *performing outsplittings along the path $`\alpha `$.* From Proposition 1.8 we can calculate the Wojciech vector of $`E(e,\alpha )`$:

###### Corollary 1.9.

Suppose $`E`$ is a 1-sink tree extension of $`G`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a path in $`G`$ for which $`r(\alpha )`$ is a boundary vertex. Then for any boundary edge $`e`$ with $`s(e)=r(\alpha )`$, we have

$$W_{E(e,\alpha )}=W_E+\underset{i=1}{\overset{|\alpha |}{}}(A_GI)\delta _{r(\alpha _i)}.$$

## 2. A classification for essential 1-sink extensions

We now ask to what extent the Wojciech vector determines a 1-sink extension. Suppose that $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are 1-sink extensions of $`G`$. Our main results say, loosely speaking, that if the Wojciech vectors $`W_{E_i}`$ determine the same class in $`\mathrm{coker}(A_GI)`$, then there will be a simple extension $`F`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$. However, we shall need some hypotheses on the way the sinks are attached to $`G`$; the hypotheses in this section are satisfied if, for example, $`G`$ is one of the finite transitive graphs for which $`C^{}(G)`$ is a simple Cuntz-Krieger algebra. We begin by describing the class of extensions which we consider in this section. Recall that if $`v,w`$ are vertices in $`G`$, then $`vw`$ means there is a finite path $`\gamma `$ with $`s(\gamma )=v`$ and $`r(\gamma )=w`$. For $`K,LG^0`$, $`KL`$ means that for each $`vK`$ there exists $`wL`$ such that $`vw`$. If $`\gamma `$ is a loop, we write $`\gamma L`$ when $`\{r(\gamma _i)\}L`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

A 1-sink extension $`(E,v_0)`$ of a graph $`G`$ is an *essential extension* if $`G^0v_0`$.

We can see immediately that simplifications of essential extensions are essential, and consideration of a few cases shows that boundary outsplittings of essential extensions are essential. To see why we chose the name, recall that an ideal $`I`$ in a $`C^{}\text{-algebra}`$ $`A`$ is essential if $`IJ0`$ for all nonzero ideals $`J`$ in $`A`$, or equivalently, if $`aI=0`$ implies $`a=0`$. Then we have:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`(E,v_0)`$ be a 1-sink extension of $`G`$. Then $`(E,v_0)`$ is an essential extension of $`G`$ if and only if the ideal $`I(v_0)`$ generated by $`p_{v_0}`$ is an essential ideal in $`C^{}(E)=C^{}(s_e,p_v)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that there exists $`wG^0`$ such that $`wv_0`$. Then since

$$I(v_0)=\overline{\text{span}}\{s_\alpha s_\beta ^{}:\alpha ,\beta E^{}\text{ and }r(\alpha )=r(\beta )=v_0\}.$$

(see \[1, Lemma 4.3\]), we have $`p_wI(v_0)=0`$, and $`I(v_0)`$ is not essential. Conversely, suppose that $`G^0v_0`$. To show that $`I(v_0)`$ is an essential ideal it suffices to prove that if $`\pi :C^{}(E)B()`$ is a representation with $`\mathrm{ker}\pi I(v_0)=\{0\}`$, then $`\pi `$ is faithful. So suppose $`\mathrm{ker}\pi I(v_0)=\{0\}`$. In particular, we have $`\pi (p_{v_0})0`$. For every $`vG^0`$ there is a path $`\alpha `$ in $`E`$ such that $`s(\alpha )=v`$ and $`r(\alpha )=v_0`$. Then $`\pi (s_\alpha ^{}s_\alpha )=\pi (p_{v_0})0`$, and hence $`\pi (p_v)\pi (s_\alpha s_\alpha ^{})0`$. Since every loop in a 1-sink extension $`E`$ must lie entirely in $`G`$, every loop in $`G`$ has an exit in $`E`$; thus we can apply \[1, Theorem 3.1\] to deduce that $`\pi `$ is faithful, as required. ∎

We can now state our classification theorem for essential extensions.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`G`$ be a row-finite graph with no sources, and suppose that $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ are essential 1-sink extensions of $`G`$ with finitely many boundary vertices. If there exists $`n_{G^0}`$ such that the Wojciech vectors satisfy $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}=(A_GI)n`$, then there is a simple 1-sink extension $`F`$ of $`G`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$.

We begin by observing that, since a full corner in a full corner of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is a full corner in $`A`$, the composition of two $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddings is another $`C^{}(G)`$-embedding. Thus it suffices by Proposition 1.5 to prove the theorem for the simplifications $`SE_1`$ and $`SE_2`$. However, since we are going to perform boundary outsplittings and these do not preserve simplicity, we assume merely that $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are 1-sink tree extensions. The following lemma is the key to many of our constructions:

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ be 1-sink tree extensions of $`G`$ with finitely many boundary vertices, and suppose that $`B_{E_1}^0B_{E_2}^0B_{E_1}^0`$. If $`\gamma `$ is a loop in $`G`$ such that $`\gamma B_{E_1}^0`$, then for any $`a`$ there are 1-sink tree extensions $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$ which are formed by performing a finite number of boundary outsplittings to $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, respectively, and for which

$$W_{E_1^{}}W_{E_2^{}}=W_{E_1}W_{E_2}+a\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\gamma |}{}}(A_GI)\delta _{r(\gamma _j)}\right).$$

###### Proof.

Since the statement is symmetric in $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, it suffices to prove this for $`a>0`$. Choose a path $`\alpha `$ in $`G`$ such that $`s(\alpha )=r(\gamma )`$ and $`r(\alpha )B_{E_1}^0`$. Since $`B_{E_1}^0`$ is finite, going along paths from $`r(\alpha )`$ to $`B_{E_2}^0`$ and then to and fro between $`B_{E_2}^0`$ and $`B_{E_1}^0`$ must eventually give either (a) a loop $`\mu `$ which visits both $`B_{E_1}^0`$ and $`B_{E_2}^0`$, and a path $`\beta `$ with $`s(\beta )=r(\alpha )`$ and $`r(\beta )=s(\mu )B_{E_1}^0`$, or (b) a vertex $`vB_{E_1}^0B_{E_2}^0`$ and a path $`\beta `$ with $`s(\beta )=r(\alpha )`$ and $`r(\beta )=v`$.

We deal with case (a) first. Since there are boundary edges $`e_1B_{E_1}^1`$ and $`e_2B_{E_2}^1`$ with $`s(e_i)`$ on $`\mu `$, we can perform outsplittings along $`\mu `$ to get new tree extensions $`E_i(e_i,\mu ^i)`$, where $`\mu ^i`$ is the loop $`\mu `$ relabelled so that it ends at $`s(e_i)`$. Because $`\mu ^1`$ and $`\mu ^2`$ have the same vertices as $`\mu `$ in a different order, Corollary 1.9 gives

$$W_{E_i(e_i,\mu ^i)}=W_{E_i}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\mu |}{}}(A_GI)\delta _{r(\mu _j)},$$

so we have $`W_{E_1(e_1,\mu ^1)}W_{E_2(e_2,\mu ^2)}=W_{E_1}W_{E_2}`$. Since $`r(\beta _{|\beta |})=s(\mu )`$, and in forming both $`E_i(e_i,\mu ^i)`$ we have performed an outsplitting at $`s(\mu )`$, $`s(\beta _{|\beta |})`$ is a boundary vertex in both $`E_i(e_i,\mu ^i)`$; say $`f_iB_{E_i}^1`$ has $`s(f_i)=s(\beta _{|\beta |})`$. Write $`\beta =\beta ^{}\beta _{|\beta |}`$, $`\gamma ^a`$ for the path obtained by going $`a`$ times around $`\gamma `$, and define

$$E_1^{}:=E_1(e_1,\mu ^1)(f_1,\gamma ^a\alpha \beta ^{})\text{ and }E_2^{}:=E_2(e_2,\mu ^2)(f_2,\alpha \beta ^{}).$$

We now compute the Wojciech vectors using Corollary 1.9: for example,

$$W_{E_1^{}}=W_{E_1(e_1,\mu ^1)}+(A_GI)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\beta |1}{}}\delta _{r(\beta _j)}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\alpha |}{}}\delta _{r(\alpha _j)}+\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\gamma |}{}}a\delta _{r(\gamma _j)}\right).$$

The formula for $`W_{E_2^{}}`$ is the same except for the last term, so

$`W_{E_1^{}}W_{E_2^{}}`$ $`=W_{E_1(e_1,\mu ^1)}W_{E_2(e_2,\mu ^2)}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{|\gamma |}{}}}a(A_GI)\delta _{r(\gamma _j)}`$
$`=W_{E_1}W_{E_2}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{|\gamma |}{}}}a(A_GI)\delta _{r(\gamma _j)},`$
as required.

In case (b), we can dispense with the first step in the preceding argument: we choose boundary edges $`f_iB_{E_i}^1`$ with $`s(f_i)=v`$, and then

$$E_1^{}:=E_1(f_1,\gamma ^a\alpha \beta )\text{ and }E_2^{}:=E_2(f_2,\alpha \beta )$$

have the required properties. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.3.

As we indicated earlier, it suffices to prove the theorem when $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are tree extensions. It also suffices to prove that we can perform boundary outsplittings on $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ to achieve extensions $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ with the same Wojciech vector; Propositions 1.5 and 1.8 then imply that we can take for $`F`$ the common simplification of $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$. We can write $`n=_{k=1}^ma_k\delta _{w_k}`$ for some finite set $`\{w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_m\}G^0`$. We shall prove by induction on $`m`$ that we can perform the required outsplittings. If $`m=0`$, then $`W_{E_1}=W_{E_2}`$, and there is nothing to prove. So we suppose that we can perform the outsplittings whenever $`n`$ has the form $`_{k=1}^ma_k\delta _{w_k}`$, and that $`n=_{k=1}^{m+1}a_k\delta _{w_k}`$. Let $`D`$ be the subgraph of $`G`$ with vertices $`D^0:=\{w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_{m+1}\}`$ and edges $`D^1:=\{eG^1:s(e),r(e)D^0\}`$. Since $`D`$ is a finite graph it contains either a sink or a loop. If $`D`$ contains a sink, then by relabelling we can assume the sink is $`w_{m+1}`$. Since $`A_G(w_{m+1},w_j)=0`$ for all $`j`$, we have

$$W_{E_1}(w_{m+1})=W_{E_2}(w_{m+1})a_{m+1}.$$

Thus either $`E_1`$ or $`E_2`$ has at least $`|a_{m+1}|`$ boundary edges leaving $`w_{m+1}`$: we may as well assume that $`a_{m+1}>0`$, so that $`W_{E_2}(w_{m+1})a_{m+1}`$. We can then perform $`a_{m+1}`$ boundary outsplittings on $`E_2`$ at $`w_{m+1}`$ to get a new extension $`E_2^{}`$. From Proposition 1.8, we have $`W_{E_2^{}}=W_{E_2}+a_{m+1}(A_GI)\delta _{w_{m+1}}`$, and therefore

$$W_{E_1}=W_{E_2^{}}+(A_GI)\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}a_k\delta _{w_k}\right).$$

Since $`E_2^{}`$ is formed by performing boundary outsplittings to the essential tree extension $`E_2`$, it is also an essential tree extension, and the inductive hypothesis implies that we can perform boundary outsplittings on $`E_1`$ and $`E_2^{}`$ to arrive at extensions with the same Wojciech vector. If $`D`$ does not have a sink, it must contain a loop $`\gamma `$. If necessary, we can shrink $`\gamma `$ so that its vertices are distinct, and by relabelling, we may assume that $`w_{m+1}`$ lies on $`\gamma `$. Because the extensions are essential, we have $`G^0B_{E_1}^0`$ and $`G^0B_{E_2}^0`$, so we can apply Lemma 2.4. Thus there are 1-sink tree extensions $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$ formed by performing boundary outsplittings to $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, and for which

$$W_{E_1^{}}W_{E_2^{}}=W_{E_1}W_{E_2}a_{m+1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{|\gamma |}{}}(A_GI)\delta _{r(\gamma _j)}.$$

But because $`W_{E_1}=W_{E_2}+(A_GI)n`$ this implies that

$$W_{E_1^{}}=W_{E_2^{}}+(A_GI)\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_j\delta _{w_j}\right),$$

where $`b_j=a_ja_{m+1}`$ if $`w_j`$ lies on $`\gamma `$, and $`b_j=a_j`$ otherwise. We can now invoke the inductive hypothesis to see that we can perform boundary outsplittings to $`E_1^{}`$ and $`E_2^{}`$ to arrive at extensions with the same Wojciech vector. This completes the proof of the inductive step, and the result follows. ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

The graph $`F`$ in Theorem 2.3 has actually been constructed in a very specific way, and it will be important in Section 4 that we can keep track of the procedures used. We shall say that one simple extension $`F`$ has been obtained from another $`E`$ *by a standard construction* if it is the simplification of a graph obtained by performing a sequence of boundary outsplittings to $`E`$. The graph $`F`$ in Theorem 2.3 has been obtained from both $`SE_1`$ and $`SE_2`$ by a standard construction.

The next example shows that the hypothesis of essentiality in Theorem 2.3 cannot be completely dropped.

###### Example 2.6.

Consider the following graph $`G`$

and its extensions $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$;

$$E_1:\text{}E_2:\text{}$$

Note that $`E_2`$ is essential but $`E_1`$ is not. On one hand, we have $`A_G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right)`$, $`W_{E_1}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$, and $`W_{E_2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$, so

$$W_{E_1}W_{E_2}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}2\\ 1\end{array}\right)=(A_GI)\left(\begin{array}{c}2\\ 1\end{array}\right).$$

On the other hand, we claim that $`C^{}(E_1)`$ is not Morita equivalent to $`C^{}(E_2)`$, so that they cannot have a common full corner. To see this, recall from \[1, Theorem 4.4\] that the ideals in $`C^{}(E_i)`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the saturated hereditary subsets of $`E_i^0`$. The saturated hereditary subsets of $`E_1^0`$ are $`\{v_1\}`$, $`\{v_1,w_2\}`$, $`\{v_1,w_1,w_2\}`$ and $`\{w_2\}`$, and those of $`E_2^0`$ are $`\{v_2\}`$, $`\{v_2,w_2\}`$ and $`\{v_2,w_1,w_2\}`$. Thus $`C^{}(E_1)`$ has more ideals than $`C^{}(E_2)`$. But if they were Morita equivalent, the Rieffel correspondence would set up a bijection between their ideal spaces.

This example shows that the way the sinks $`v_i`$ are attached to $`G`$ can affect how the ideal $`I(v_0)`$ lies in the ideal space of $`C^{}(E)`$. In the next section, we give a simple condition on the way $`v_i`$ are attached which ensures that the primitive ideal spaces of $`C^{}(E_i)`$ are homeomorphic, and show that under this condition there is a good analogue of Theorem 2.3. However, there is one situation in which essentiality is not needed: when $`C^{}(G)`$ is an $`AF`$-algebra.

###### Corollary 2.7.

Let $`G`$ be a graph with no sources for which $`C^{}(G)`$ is an $`AF`$-algebra, and let $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ be 1-sink extensions of $`G`$. If there exists $`n_{G^0}`$ such that $`W_{E_1}=W_{E_2}+(A_GI)n`$, then then there is a simple 1-sink extension $`F`$ of $`G`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$.

###### Proof.

We first recall from \[5, Theorem 2.4\] that $`C^{}(G)`$ is $`AF`$ if and only if $`G`$ has no loops. Now we proceed as in the proof of Theorem 2.3. Everything goes the same until we come to consider the finite subgraph $`D`$ associated to the support of the vector $`n`$. Since there are no loops in $`G`$, $`D`$ must have a sink, and the argument in the second paragraph of the proof of Theorem 2.3 suffices; this does not use essentiality. ∎

## 3. A classification for non-essential 1-sink extensions

Recall from \[1, §6\] that a *maximal tail* in a graph $`E`$ is a nonempty subset of $`E^0`$ which is cofinal under $``$, is backwards hereditary ($`vw`$ and $`w\gamma `$ imply $`v\gamma `$), and contains no sinks (for each $`w\gamma `$, there exists $`eE^1`$ with $`s(e)=w`$ and $`r(e)\gamma `$).

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`(E,v_0)`$ be a 1-sink extension of $`G`$. The *closure* of the sink $`v_0`$ is the set

$$\overline{v_0}:=\{\gamma :\gamma \text{ is a maximal tail in }G\text{ and }\gamma v_0\}.$$

To motivate this definition, we notice first that the extension is essential if and only if $`\overline{v_0}=G^0`$. More generally (although it is not logically necessary for our results), we explain how this notion of closure is related to the closure of sets in $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E)`$, as described in \[1, §6\]. For each sink $`v`$, let $`\lambda _v:=\{wE^0:wv\}`$, and let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_E:=\{\text{maximal tails in }E\}\{\lambda _v:v\text{ is a sink in }E\}.$$

The set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$ has a topology in which the closure of a subset $`S`$ is $`\{\lambda :\lambda _{\chi S}\chi \}`$, and it is proved in \[1, Corollary 6.5\] that when $`E`$ satisfies Condition (K) of , $`\lambda I(E^0\lambda )`$ is a homeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$ onto $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E)`$. If $`(E,v_0)`$ is a 1-sink extension of $`G`$, then the only loops in $`E`$ are those in $`G`$, so $`E`$ satisfies Condition (K) whenever $`G`$ does. A subset of $`G^0`$ is a maximal tail in $`E`$ if and only if it is a maximal tail in $`G`$, and because every sink in $`G`$ is a sink in $`E`$, we deduce that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E=\mathrm{\Lambda }_G\{\lambda _{v_0}\}`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Suppose $`G`$ satisfies Condition (K), and $`(E_1,v_1)`$, $`(E_2,v_2)`$ are 1-sink extensions of $`G`$. Then $`\overline{v_1}=\overline{v_2}`$ if and only if there is a homeomorphism $`h`$ of $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E_1)`$ onto $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E_2)`$ such that

(3.1)
$$h(I(E_1^0\lambda ))=I(E_2^0\lambda )\text{ for }\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G\text{, and }h(I(E_1^0\lambda _{v_1}))=I(E_2^0\lambda _{v_2}).$$

###### Proof.

For any 1-sink extension $`(E,v_0)`$, the map $`J\pi _E^1(J)`$ is a homeomorphism of $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(G)`$ onto the closed subset $`\{J\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E):JI(v_0)\}`$. If $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$, then $`\pi _E^1(I(G^0\lambda ))=I(E^0\lambda )`$, and hence $`h`$ is always a homeomorphism of the closed set $`\{I(E_1^0\lambda ):\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_G\}`$ in $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E_1)`$ onto the corresponding subset of $`\mathrm{Prim}C^{}(E_2)`$. So the only issue is whether the closures of the sets $`I(E_1^0\lambda _{v_1})`$ and $`I(E_2^0\lambda _{v_2})`$ match up. But

$$\overline{I(E_i^0\lambda _{v_i})}=\{I(E_i^0\lambda ):\lambda \lambda _{v_i}\}=\{I(E_i^0\lambda ):\lambda v_i\}.$$

Since other sets $`\lambda _v`$ associated to sinks are never $`v_i`$, the ideals on the right-hand side are those associated to the maximal tails lying in $`\overline{v_i}`$, and the result follows. ∎

We now return to the problem of proving analogues of Theorem 2.3 for non-essential extensions. Notice that the closure is a subset of $`G^0`$ rather than $`E^0`$: we have defined it this way because we want to compare the closures in different extensions.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Suppose that $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ are 1-sink extensions of $`G`$ with finitely many boundary vertices, and suppose that $`\overline{v_1}=\overline{v_2}=C`$, say. If $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}`$ has the form $`(A_GI)n`$ for some $`n_C`$, then there is a simple 1-sink extension $`F`$ of $`G`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$.

We aim to follow the proof of Theorem 2.3, so we need to check that the operations used there will not affect the hypotheses in Proposition 3.3. It is obvious that the closure is unaffected by simplifications. It is true but not so obvious that it is unaffected by boundary outsplittings:

###### Lemma 3.4.

Suppose $`(E,v_0)`$ is a 1-sink extension of a graph $`G`$, and $`e`$ is a boundary edge in $`E`$. Then the closures of $`v_0`$ in $`E`$ and $`E(e)`$ are the same.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`\gamma `$ is a maximal tail such that $`\gamma v_0`$ in $`E(e)`$ and $`z\gamma `$; we want to prove $`zB_E^0`$. We know $`zw`$ for some $`wB_{E(e)}^0`$. If $`wB_E^0`$, there is no problem. If $`wB_E^0`$, then $`w=s(f)`$ for some $`fG^1`$ with $`r(f)=s(e)`$, so $`zws(e)B_E^0`$. Now suppose $`\gamma v_0`$ in $`E`$ and $`z\gamma `$; we want to prove that $`zB_{E(e)}^0`$. We know that there is a path $`\alpha `$ with $`s(\alpha )=z`$ and $`r(\alpha )B_E^0`$. If $`r(\alpha )s(e)`$, we have $`zr(\alpha )B_{E(e)}^0`$. If $`r(\alpha )=s(e)`$ and $`|\alpha |1`$, we have $`zr(\alpha _{|\alpha |1})B_{E(e)}^0`$. The one remaining possibility is that $`z=s(e)`$ and there is no path of length at least 1 from $`s(e)`$ to $`s(e)`$. Because $`\gamma `$ is a tail, there exists $`fG^1`$ such that $`s(f)=s(e)`$ and $`r(f)\gamma `$. Now we use $`\gamma v_0`$ to get a path $`\beta `$ with $`s(\beta )=r(f)`$ and $`r(\beta )B_{E^0}^0\{s(e)\}`$, and we are back in the first case with $`\alpha =f\beta `$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 3.3.

Since the closures $`\overline{v_1}`$ and $`\overline{v_2}`$ are unaffected by simplification and boundary outsplitting, we can run the argument of Theorem 2.3. In doing so, we never have to leave the common closure $`C`$: by hypothesis, $`n=_{k=1}^ma_k\delta _{w_k}`$ for some $`w_kC`$, so all the vertices on the subgraph $`D`$ used in the inductive step lie in $`C`$. When $`D`$ has a sink, the argument goes over verbatim. When $`D`$ has a loop $`\gamma `$, all the vertices on $`\gamma `$ lie in $`C`$, and the hypothesis $`\overline{v_1}=C=\overline{v_2}`$ implies that $`\gamma B_{E_1}^0B_{E_2}^0B_{E_1}^0`$, so we can still apply Lemma 2.4. The rest of the argument carries over. ∎

The catch in Proposition 3.3 is that the vector $`n`$ is required to have support in the common closure $`C`$. For our applications to $`n`$-sink extensions in the next section, this is just what we need. However, if we are only interested in 1-sink extensions, this requirement might seem a little unnatural. So it is interesting that we can often remove it:

###### Lemma 3.5.

Suppose that $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ are 1-sink extensions of $`G`$, and suppose that $`\overline{v_1}=\overline{v_2}=C`$, say. Suppose that 1 is not an eigenvalue of the $`(G^0C)\times (G^0C)`$ corner of $`A_G`$. Then if $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}`$ has the form $`(A_GI)n`$ for some $`n_{G^0}`$, we have $`n_C`$.

###### Proof.

Since the maximal tails comprising $`C`$ are backwards hereditary, there are no paths from $`G^0C`$ to $`C`$. Thus $`A_G`$ decomposes with respect to the decomposition $`G^0=(G^0C)C`$ as $`A_G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& 0\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$, and $`A_GI=\left(\begin{array}{cc}BI& 0\\ C& DI\end{array}\right)`$. Writing $`n`$ as $`\left(\begin{array}{c}k\\ m\end{array}\right)`$ and noting that $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}`$ has support in $`C`$ shows that $`(BI)k=0`$, which by the hypothesis on $`A_G`$ implies $`k=0`$. But this says exactly what we want. ∎

## 4. A classification for $`n`$-sink extensions

We say that an $`n`$-sink extension is *essential* if $`G^0v_i`$ for $`1in`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

let $`(E,v_i)`$ and $`(F,w_i)`$ be essential $`n`$-sink extensions of $`G`$ with finitely many boundary vertices. Suppose that the Wojciech vectors satisfy

(4.1)
$$W_{(E;v_i)}W_{(F;w_i)}(A_GI)\left(_{G^0}\right)\text{ for }1in.$$

Then there is a simple $`n`$-sink extension $`D`$ of $`G`$ such that $`C^{}(D)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E)`$ and $`C^{}(F)`$.

We shall prove this theorem by induction on $`n`$. At a key point we need to convert $`(n1)`$-sink extensions to $`n`$-sink extensions. If $`m_{G^0}`$ and $`(E,v_i)`$ is an $`(n1)`$-sink extension, we denote by $`(Em,v_i)`$ the $`n`$-sink extension of $`G`$ obtained by adding an extra vertex $`v_n`$ and $`m(w)`$ edges from each vertex $`wG^0`$ to $`v_n`$. Note that $`Em`$ has one new Wojciech vector $`W_{(Em;v_n)}=m`$, and the other Wojciech vectors are unchanged. If $`E`$ is a simple extension, then so is $`Em`$. Conversely, if $`(F,w_i)`$ is a simple $`n`$-sink extension, then $`Fw_n:=(F^0\{w_n\},F^1r^1(w_n))`$ is a simple $`(n1)`$-sink extension for which $`(Fw_n)W_{(F;w_n)}`$ can be naturally identified with $`F`$. We need to know how the operation $`EEm`$ interacts with our other constructions:

###### Lemma 4.2.

If $`e`$ is a boundary edge for $`E`$, then $`e`$ is a boundary edge for $`Em`$, and the boundary outsplittings satisfy $`E(e)m=(Em)(e)`$. The simplification construction $`ESE`$ satisfies $`S(Em)=(SE)m`$.

###### Proof.

The only edges which are affected in forming $`E(e)`$ are $`e`$ and the edges $`f`$ with $`r(f)=s(e)`$. Since none of the new edges in $`Em`$ have range in $`E`$, they are not affected by the outsplitting. Simplifying collapses paths which end at one of the sinks $`v_i`$, and forming $`Em`$ adds only paths of length 1 ending at $`v_n`$, so there is nothing extra to collapse in simplifying $`Em`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1.

As in the 1-sink case, it suffices by Proposition 1.5 to prove the result when $`E`$ and $`F`$ are simple. So we assume this. Our proof is by induction on $`n`$, but we have to be careful to get the right inductive hypothesis. So we shall prove that by performing $`n`$ standard constructions on both $`E`$ and $`F`$, we can arrive at simple $`n`$-sink extensions of $`G`$ with all their Wojciech vectors equal; these graphs are then isomorphic, and we can take $`D`$ to be either of them. Theorem 2.3 says that this is true for $`n=1`$ (see Remark 2.5). So we suppose that our inductive hypothesis holds for all simple $`(n1)`$-sink extensions satisfying the hypotheses of Theorem 4.1. Then $`Ev_n`$ and $`Fw_n`$ are simple $`(n1)`$-sink extensions of $`G`$ with Wojciech vectors $`W_{(Ev_n;v_i)}=W_{(E;v_i)}`$ and $`W_{(Fw_n;w_i)}=W_{(F;w_i)}`$ for $`in1`$. So the Wojciech vectors of $`Ev_n`$ and $`Fw_n`$ satisfy the hypothesis (4.1). Since $`G^0v_i`$ in $`E`$, and we have not deleted any edges except those ending at $`v_n`$ and $`w_n`$, we still have $`G^0v_i`$ in $`Ev_n`$ for $`in1`$, and similarly $`G^0w_i`$ in $`Fw_n`$. By the inductive hypothesis, therefore, we can perform $`(n1)`$ standard constructions on each of $`E`$ and $`F`$ to arrive at the same simple $`(n1)`$-sink extension $`(D,u_i)`$ of $`G`$. By Lemma 4.2, $`DW_{(E;v_n)}`$ and $`DW_{(F;w_n)}`$ are obtained from $`E=(Ev_n)W_{(E;v_n)}`$ and $`F=(Fw_n)W_{(F;w_n)}`$ by $`(n1)`$ standard constructions. We now view $`(D^E,v_n):=DW_{(E;v_n)}`$ and $`(D^F,w_n):=DW_{(F;w_n)}`$ as two simple 1-sink extensions of the graph $`D`$. Since the standard constructions have not affected the path structure of $`G`$ inside $`D`$, and we assumed $`G^0v_n`$ in $`E`$, we still have $`G^0v_n`$ in $`D^E`$, and similarly $`G^0w_n`$ in $`D^F`$. Because any sink in $`G`$ has to be a sink in $`E`$, the hypothesis $`G^0v_n`$ in $`E`$ implies that $`G`$ has no sinks; thus every vertex in $`G`$ lies on an infinite path $`x`$, and hence in the maximal tail $`\gamma :=\{v:vx\}`$. Thus $`G^0v_n`$ says precisely that $`G^0`$ is the closure of $`v_n`$ in $`D^E`$. Of course the same is true of $`w_n`$ in $`D^F`$. We can therefore apply Proposition 3.3 to deduce that we can by one more standard construction on each of $`D^E`$ and $`D^F`$ reach the same 1-sink extension $`(C,u_n)`$ of $`D`$; since all the boundary vertices of $`D`$ lie in $`G`$, this standard construction for extensions of $`D`$ is a also standard for extensions of $`G`$, and hence $`C`$ can also be obtained by performing $`n`$ standard constructions to each of $`E`$ and $`F`$. This completes the proof of the inductive hypothesis, and hence of the theorem. ∎

## 5. $`K`$-theory of 1-sink extensions

###### Proposition 5.1.

Suppose that $`G`$ is a row-finite graph with no sinks, and $`(E,v_0)`$ is a 1-sink extension of $`G`$ such that $`W_E\mathrm{ker}(A_G^tI)`$. If $`(F,w_0)`$ is a 1-sink extension of $`G`$ and $`\varphi :C^{}(F)C^{}(E)`$ is a $`C^{}(G)`$-embedding, then there exists $`k_{G^0}`$ such that $`W_EW_F=(A_GI)k`$.

For the proof, we need to know the $`K`$-theory of the $`C^{}`$-algebras of graphs with sinks, which was was calculated in \[10, §3\]. We summarise some results from  in a convenient form:

###### Lemma 5.2.

Suppose $`G`$ has no sinks and $`(E,v_0)`$ is a 1-sink extension of $`G`$ with graph algebra $`C^{}(E)=C^{}(s_e,p_v)`$. Let $`\psi ^E`$ be the homomorphism of $`\left(_{G^0}\right)`$ into $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ which is determined on the standard basis elements by $`\psi ^E(\delta _v,0):=[p_v]`$ for $`vG^0`$ and $`\psi ^E(0,1)=[p_{v_0}]`$. Then $`\psi ^E`$ induces an isomorphism of the cokernel of $`((A_G^tI)W_E^t):_{G^0}\left(_{G^0}\right)`$ onto $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$.

###### Proof.

We first suppose that $`(E,v_0)`$ is simple. Then $`\left(_{G^0}\right)`$ is the group $`^{G^0}^W`$ considered in \[10, §3\], and it suffices to show that $`\psi ^E`$ is the homomorphism $`\overline{\varphi }`$ considered there. To do this, we need to check that the map $`S`$ of $`K_0(C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋)`$ onto $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ in \[10, (3.3)\] satisfies $`S([p_v\chi _1])=[p_v]`$. The map $`S`$ is built up from the homomorphisms induced by the embedding of $`C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋`$ in the dual crossed product $`(C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋)\times _{\widehat{\gamma }}`$, the Takesaki-Takai duality isomorphism $`(C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋)\times _{\widehat{\gamma }}C^{}(E)𝒦(\mathrm{}^2())`$, and the map $`aap`$ of $`C^{}(E)`$ into $`C^{}(E)𝒦(\mathrm{}^2())`$ determined by a rank-one projection $`p`$. The formulas at the start of the proof of \[9, Theorem 6\] show that, because $`p_v`$ is fixed under $`\gamma `$, the duality isomorphism carries $`p_v\chi _1C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋(C^{}(E)\times _\gamma 𝕋)\times _{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ into $`p_vM(\chi _1)`$, where $`M(\chi _1)`$ is the projection onto the subspace spanned by the basis element $`e_1`$. Thus $`S`$ has the required property, and the result for simple extensions now follows from \[10, Theorem 3.2\]. If $`(E,v_0)`$ is an arbitrary 1-sink extension, we consider its simplification $`SE`$ and the embedding $`\varphi ^{SE}`$ of $`C^{}(SE)`$ in $`C^{}(E)`$ provided by Proposition 1.5, which by \[8, Proposition 1.2\] induces an isomorphism $`\varphi _{}^{SE}`$ in $`K`$-theory. But now it is easy to check that $`\varphi _{}^{SE}\psi ^{SE}=\psi ^E`$, and the result follows. ∎

We now begin the proof of Proposition 5.1. Since the image of $`\varphi `$ is a full corner in $`C^{}(E)`$, it induces an isomorphism $`\varphi _{}`$ of $`K_0(C^{}(F))`$ onto $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$ (by, for example, \[8, Proposition 1.2\]). The properties of the $`C^{}(G)`$-embedding $`\varphi `$ imply that $`\varphi _{}([p_{w_0}])=[p_{v_0}]`$ and $`(\pi _E)_{}\varphi _{}=(\pi _F)_{}`$. We need to know how $`\varphi _{}`$ interacts with the descriptions of $`K`$-theory provided by Lemma 5.2.

###### Lemma 5.3.

The induced homomorphism $`\varphi _{}:K_0(C^{}(F))K_0(C^{}(E))`$ satisfies $`\varphi _{}(\psi ^F(0,1))=\psi ^E(0,1)`$, and for each $`z_{G^0}`$, there exists $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\varphi _{}(\psi ^F(z,0))=\psi ^E(z,\mathrm{})`$.

###### Proof.

The first equation is a translation of the condition $`\varphi _{}([p_{w_0}])=[p_{v_0}]`$. For the second, let $`\psi ^G:_{G^0}K_0(C^{}(G))`$ be the homomorphism such that $`\psi ^G(\delta _v)=[p_v]`$, which induces the usual isomorphism of $`\mathrm{coker}(A_G^tI)`$ onto $`K_0(C^{}(G))`$. If $`\rho :(_{G^0})_{G^0}`$ is given by $`\rho (z,\mathrm{}):=z`$, then we have $`(\pi _E)_{}\psi ^E=\psi ^G\rho `$, and similarly for $`F`$. Thus

(5.1)
$$(\pi _E)_{}\varphi _{}\psi ^F=(\pi _F)_{}\psi ^F=\psi ^G\rho .$$

Now fix $`z_{G^0}`$. Since $`\psi ^E`$ is surjective, there exists $`(x,y)\left(_{G^0}\right)`$ such that $`\psi ^E(x,y)=\varphi _{}(\psi ^F(z,0))`$. From (5.1) we have

$$\psi ^G(z)=(\pi _E)_{}\varphi _{}\psi ^F(z,0)=(\pi _E)_{}\psi ^E(x,y)=\psi ^G(x),$$

and hence there exists $`u_{G^0}`$ such that $`x=z+(A_G^tI)u`$. Now because $`\psi ^E`$ is constant on the image of $`(A_G^tI)W_E^t`$, we have

$$\varphi _{}(\psi ^F(z,0))=\psi ^E(x,y)=\psi ^E(z+(A_G^tI)u,y)=\psi ^E(z,yW_E^tu),$$

and $`\mathrm{}:=yW_E^tu`$ will do. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 5.1.

By Lemma 5.3, for each $`vG^0`$ there exists $`k_v`$ such that $`\varphi _{}(\psi ^F(\delta _v,0))=\psi ^E(\delta _v,k_v)`$. We define $`k=(k_v)_{G^0}`$. A calculation shows that for any $`(y,\mathrm{})\left(_{G^0}\right)`$ we have

(5.2) $`\varphi _{}\psi ^F(y,\mathrm{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{v}{}}y_v(\varphi _{}\psi ^F)(\delta _v,0)+\mathrm{}(\varphi _{}\psi ^F)(0,1)`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{v}{}}\psi ^E(y_v\delta _v,y_vk_v)\right)+\mathrm{}\psi ^E(0,1)`$
$`=\psi ^E(y,k^ty+\mathrm{}).`$
Now let $`z_{G^0}`$. On one hand, we have from (5.2) that

(5.3)
$$\varphi _{}\psi ^F\left(((A_G^tI)W_F^t)(z)\right)=\psi ^E((A_G^tI)z,k^t(A_G^tI)z+W_F^tz).$$

On the other hand, since $`\psi ^F((A_G^tI)W_F^t)=0`$, its composition with $`\varphi _{}`$ is also $`0`$. Thus the class (5.3) must vanish in $`K_0(C^{}(E))`$, and there exists $`x_{G^0}`$ such that

(5.4)
$$((A_G^tI)z,k^t(A_G^tI)z+W_F^tz)=((A_G^tI)x,W_E^tx).$$

Comparing (5.3) and (5.4) shows that $`xz\mathrm{ker}(A_G^tI)`$ and

$$k^t(A_G^tI)z+W_F^tz=W_E^tx=W_E^tz+W_E^t(xz).$$

Since we are supposing $`W_E\mathrm{ker}(A_G^tI)`$, we deduce that $`W_E^t(xz)=0`$. We have now proved that

$$k^t(A_G^tI)z=(W_E^tW_F^t)z\text{ for all }z_{G^0},$$

which implies $`(A_GI)k=W_EW_F`$, as required. ∎

###### Corollary 5.4.

Suppose that $`G`$ is a row-finite graph with no sinks and with the property that $`\mathrm{ker}(A_G^tI)=\{0\}`$. Let $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ be 1-sink extensions of $`G`$. If there is a 1-sink extension $`F`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$, then there exists $`k_{G^0}`$ such that $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}=(A_GI)k`$.

###### Corollary 5.5.

Suppose that $`G`$ is a finite graph with no sinks or sources whose vertex matrix $`A_G`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{ker}(A_G^tI)=0`$. Let $`(E_1,v_1)`$ and $`(E_2,v_2)`$ be 1-sink extensions of $`G`$ such that $`\overline{v_1}=\overline{v_2}`$. Then there is a 1-sink extension $`F`$ such that $`C^{}(F)`$ is $`C^{}(G)`$-embeddable in both $`C^{}(E_1)`$ and $`C^{}(E_2)`$ if and only if there exists $`k_{G^0}`$ such that $`W_{E_1}W_{E_2}=(A_GI)k`$.

###### Proof.

The forward direction follows from the previous corollary. For the converse, we seek to apply Proposition 3.3. To see that $`n`$ has support in the common closure $`C:=\overline{v_1}=\overline{v_2}`$, recall that $`A_G`$ decomposes as $`A_G=\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& 0\\ C& D\end{array}\right)`$ with respect to $`G^0=(G^0C)C`$. Thus $`1`$ is an eigenvalue for the $`(G^0C)\times (G^0C)`$ corner $`B`$ of $`A_G`$ if and only if it is an eigenvalue for $`A_G`$, and hence if and only if it is an eigenvalue for $`A_G^t`$. So Lemma 3.5 applies, $`\mathrm{supp}n`$ lies in $`C`$, and the result follows from Proposition 3.3. ∎


format: text

text:
# The Use of Dispersion Relations in the 𝜋𝜋 and 𝐾𝐾̄ Coupled Channel System

## I Introduction

The physics related to the IJ=00 $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system, especially the property of the narrow $`f_0(980)`$ resonance, has been a subject of long and wide interests both experimentally and theoretically (For an incomplete list of references, see for example, Ref. ). In the latest version of Review of Particle Physics , the width of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance is estimated to be about 40 to 100 MeV and it is remarked that the “width determination very model dependent”. Previous estimates on the width of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance may essentially be categorized into two classes: the first is the $`S`$ matrix or T matrix pole fit, and the second is from the invariant mass fit in production experiments. It should be stressed that in a production experiment the spectrum is highly sensitive to the structure of the production vertex and therefore the invariant mass fit should not be considered as very accurate. A numerical calculation to the formfactor-like quantity in the coupled–channel system reveals  that the behavior of the coupled–channel form-factor around the $`f_0(980)`$ region is very fragile: it can easily generate a peak or a dip, and the difference only comes from the (bare) production vertices. For the $`S`$ matrix fit or the T matrix fit, in the literature various models have been proposed to determine the pole position of the $`f_0(980)`$ narrow resonance. Different from these approaches we in this paper will use the dispersion techniques to study the IJ=00 $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system. The theory of dispersion relation starts directly from fundamental principles like unitarity and analyticity and when combining with experimental information the dispersion theory is predictive. As we will see from the discussion in this paper, the analytic structure around the $`f_0(980)`$ or the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold region is very complicated: there are branch point singularities which are very close to the $`f_0(980)`$ pole, and it is out of question that one has to carefully examine the influence of these nearby branch point singularities to the determination of the pole location of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance. Furthermore, the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift $`\delta _\pi `$, as an analytic function defined in the single channel unitarity region, is different from the $`\delta _\pi `$ defined in the coupled–channel unitarity region and the two quantities have to be treated separately in using dispersion relations. Though the analytic structure around the $`f_0(980)`$ region is very complicated, physics related to the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance can be discussed by using properly established dispersion relations.

For the simpler case of $`\pi \pi `$ scatterings in the single channel approximation, we have in Ref.  set up a dispersion relation for the real part (defined in the physical region) of the T matrix which is related to the experimental observable $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ by the following equation,

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )=\rho \left(\underset{i}{}\frac{i}{2\rho (z_i)S^{}(z_i)(zz_i)}+\frac{1}{\pi }_L\frac{\mathrm{Im}_LF}{s^{}z}𝑑s^{}\right),$$
(1)
in which $`FT(1+S)/S`$ and $`F`$ is equal to $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T`$ in the physical region. In Eq. (1) the position of zeros of $`S`$ on the physical sheet of the complex $`s`$ plane are denoted as $`z_i`$. The discontinuity of $`F`$ on the left–hand cut ($`l.h.c.`$), $`L=(\mathrm{},0]`$ manifests itself in the left–hand integral on the $`r.h.s.`$ of the above equation, where one subtraction to the integral is understood. A very attractive feature of Eq. (1) is that it explicitly shows the contributions from different types of dynamical singularities: the resonances and the left–hand cut (and bound states or virtual states can be easily included when necessary). Eq. (1) has proved to be useful in determining the pole position of the $`\sigma `$ resonance , especially in clarifying the role of the left–hand cut in the determination of the $`\sigma `$ resonance. That is, the $`l.h.c.`$ contribution to $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ is negative and concave and therefore there must exist a $`\sigma `$ resonance to explain the experimental data.

The aim of this paper, as stated above, is to extend the discussion of Ref.  to the more realistic case of the $`IJ=00`$ $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system. We will set up dispersion representations for physical observables in which the unitarity cut contributions are dissolved and the dependence of a physical quantity on the left–hand cut ($`l.h.c`$) becomes explicit. The method proposed in this paper is rather general and can in principle be extended to more complicated situation with more than two channels as well.

The material of this paper is organized as follows: The Sec. II contains the theoretical discussions on the coupled–channel system. In Sec. II A the general property of the analytic structure of the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system is reviewed, including the analytic continuation and the left–hand cuts. In Sec. II B, dispersion relations are set up for analytic functions constructed from the scattering T matrix. Such analytic functions contain no unitarity cut. In Sec. II C, the analytic properties of the newly constructed functions are analyzed in perturbation theory and in a simple narrow resonance model. The Sec. III is devoted to physical discussions using the dispersion relations founded in Sec. II. In Sec. III A the physical interpretation of the dispersion relation, Eq. (28), above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold is discussed. It is shown that the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase $`\delta _\pi `$, defined above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold contains a branch point singularity at $`s=4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$. In Sec. III B the dispersion relation for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ in the single channel unitarity region is established which is a generalization of Eq. (1) in the coupled–channel situation. The Sec. IV is for the application of our method in phenomenology where the property of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance and the influence of the nearby branch point singularities to the determination of the pole location of $`f_0(980)`$ is carefully examined. In Sec.IV A a general discussion is given to $`f_0(980)`$ and its nearby branch point singularities and Sec. IV B is devoted to fitting the pole position of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance combining the single channel and the coupled–channel dispersion relations set up in this paper. In Sec. IV C a subtlety in our procedure is discussed. The Sec. V is for the final conclusion.

## II The analytic structure of $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system: General discussions

### A The analytic continuation on the Riemann surface

As is well known, the coupled–channel partial–wave scattering matrix, $`S`$, is discontinuous on the unitarity cut. In the two channel approximation the unitarity cut includes two kinematical singularities: the first one starts from $`4m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ whereas the second cut starts from $`4m_K^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, which defines a four–sheets Riemann surface. The relation between the $`S`$ matrix and the $`T`$ matrix is,

$`S_{11}=1+2i\rho _1T_{11}^I,`$ (2)
$`S_{22}=1+2i\rho _2T_{22}^I,`$ (3)
$`S_{12}=2i\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}T_{12}^I.`$ (4)
For the $`T`$ matrix the unitarity relation on the unitarity cut reads,

$`\mathrm{Im}T_{11}=T_{11}\rho _1T_{11}^{}\times \theta (s4m_\pi ^2)+T_{12}\rho _2T_{12}^{}\times \theta (s4m_K^2),`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{Im}T_{12}=T_{12}\rho _2T_{22}^{}\times \theta (s4m_K^2)+T_{11}\rho _1T_{12}^{}\times \theta (s4m_\pi ^2),`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{Im}T_{22}=T_{22}\rho _2T_{22}^{}\times \theta (s4m_K^2)+T_{12}\rho _1T_{12}^{}\times \theta (s4m_\pi ^2),`$ (8)
where $`T_{12}=T_{21}`$ has been used. The kinematic factors $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are, $`\rho _1=\sqrt{14m_\pi ^2/s}`$ and $`\rho _2=\sqrt{14m_K^2/s}`$, respectively. One attempts to extend Eq. (6) down to the lowest threshold. That is, below the second threshold, the above equations may be written as,

$`\mathrm{Im}T_{11}=T_{11}\rho _1T_{11}^{},`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{Im}T_{12}=T_{11}\rho _1T_{12}^{},`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{Im}T_{22}=T_{21}\rho _1T_{12}^{}.`$ (11)
But in general Eq. (9) would not be correct in the presence of the anomalous threshold and when the left-hand cut comes across the $`4m_\pi ^2`$ threshold along the real axis. In the present case of $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ system there is no anomalous threshold, but the latter does happen. In the $`K\overline{K}K\overline{K}`$ amplitude the left–hand cut starts from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence the third equation of Eq. (9) only holds true above $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ along the real axis rather than above $`4m_\pi ^2`$. The $`l.h.c.`$ in $`T_{11}`$ and $`T_{12}`$ is $`(\mathrm{},0]`$, and $`L=(\mathrm{},4m_K^24m_\pi ^2]`$ for $`T_{22}`$ (for more information on the location of the $`l.h.c.`$, see Ref. ).

From Eq. (9) the analytic continuation of $`T`$ or $`T^I`$ to the second Riemann sheet can be made, We simply point out that, assuming real analyticity, the space between $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ and $`4m_K^2`$ already allows one to make analytic continuation to the second sheet. One may make use of the Källen and Wightman theorem to refine the analysis, but in here we will not discuss the subtlety, the content goes beyond the scope of this paper.

$`T_{11}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2iT_{11}^I\rho _1}}T_{11}^I,`$ (12)
$`T_{12}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2iT_{11}^I\rho _1}}T_{12}^I,`$ (13)
$`T_{22}^{II}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{22}^I2iT_{21}^I\rho _1T_{12}^I{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+2iT_{11}^I\rho _1}},`$ (14)
or in short notations,

$$𝐓^{II}𝐓^I𝐁_{II}=𝐓^I\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{1+2i\rho _1T_{11}^I}& \frac{2i\rho _1T_{12}^I}{1+2i\rho _1T_{11}^I}\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
From Eq. (6) one also obtains the $`T`$ matrix on the third and sequentially on the fourth sheet,

$$𝐓^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}}𝐓^𝐈𝐁_{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}}=\frac{1}{1+2i𝐓^𝐈\rho }𝐓^𝐈=𝐓^𝐈\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+2i\rho _2T_{22}^I}{detS}& \frac{2i\rho _1T_{12}^I}{detS}\\ \frac{2i\rho _2T_{21}^I}{detS}& \frac{1+2i\rho _1T_{11}^I}{detS}\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
$$𝐓^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}}𝐓^𝐈𝐁_{IV}=𝐓^𝐈\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \frac{2i\rho _2T_{21}^I}{1+2i\rho _2T_{22}^I}& \frac{1}{1+2i\rho _2T_{22}^I}\end{array}\right).$$
(17)
Similar discussions on the analytic continuation of the hadron form-factor, $`F(F_1,F_2)`$, can also be made. The difference between $`F`$ and $`T`$ is that the former is free from left–hand singularities on the physical sheet by construction. The spectral function of $`F`$ is obtained through the LSZ reduction formalism,

$`\mathrm{Im}F_1=F_1\rho _1T_{11}^{}+F_2\rho _2T_{12}^{},`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{Im}F_2=F_2\rho _2T_{22}^{}+F_1\rho _1T_{12}^{}.`$ (19)
The analytic continuation of $`F`$ is similar to Eqs. (15)–(17),

$$F^{II}=F^I𝐁_{II},F^{III}=F^I𝐁_{III},F^{IV}=F^I𝐁_{IV}.$$
(20)
The continuation to the fourth sheet can either be obtained by analytic continuation from the second sheet or from the third sheet, which gives of course the same result.

### B The dispersion representation with only left–hand singularities

To proceed we first notice that the method used in Ref.  to derive Eq. (1), which requires analyticity of the spectral representation, is not applicable in the coupled–channel situation. For example, one may set up the coupled–channel dispersion integral equation for the form-factor $`F`$ on the physical sheet (throughout the text dispersion integrals are always written in the un-subtracted form, but possible subtractions are understood),

$$F=\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_\pi ^2}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s^{}\frac{F(s^{})𝐊(𝐬^{})}{s^{}s},$$
(21)
which defines a 2–dimensional singular integral equations with Cauchy kernel, where the integral kernel $`𝐊`$, from the above discussion, can be written as,

$$𝐊(s)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _1T_{11}^{II}& \rho _1T_{12}^{II}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)(\theta (s4m_\pi ^2)\theta (s4m_K^2))+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _1T_{11}^{III}& \rho _1T_{12}^{III}\\ \rho _2T_{21}^{III}& \rho _2T_{22}^{III}\end{array}\right)\theta (s4m_K^2).$$
(22)
Apparently, $`𝐊`$ is not an analytic function on the real axis even though $`T`$ is, hence the method in Ref.  cannot be used here. Numerical solutions of Eq. (21) are searched for in the literature , but the numerical solution is not unique  as a reflection of the general mathematical theory , and the attempt in picking up the fundamental solution from others becomes extremely difficult numerically.

However, as will be shown in the following, the analytic structure of $`F`$ defined in Eq. (18) can be studied even though we do not know how to solve Eq. (21) analytically. The crucial observation is that, according to the way of analytic continuation, we have the following identity,

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C\{\frac{F_I(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{F_{II}(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{F_{III}(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{F_{IV}(\tau )}{\tau z}\}𝑑\tau 0.$$
(23)
where the contour C encircles the right–hand cut $`R`$($`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$) and along the contour the complex cut plan is on the left (the contour C would have encircled the entire unitarity cut if there were no $`l.h.c`$ intercrossed the right–hand cut). Since functions $`F_I`$$`F_{IV}`$ are analytic on the entire cut plane except for isolated singularities and except for the left–hand cuts the integral contour in Eq. (23) can be deformed, and $`F`$ can be expressed as sum of poles and left–hand integrals. The form-factor may contain bound state poles on the physical sheet which correspond to the bound state poles of $`S_I`$, and may contain resonances from $`B_{II}`$ to $`B_{IV}`$ on the other sheets (The virtual state, if exist, can also be incorporated into our formalism easily, but we do not discuss them here for simplicity). The analytic expression of the scalar form-factor on the physical sheet can therefore be obtained,

$$F(z)=\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{F}(s_j)}{zs_j}𝐂(s_j)+\underset{n=II,III,IV}{}\frac{F(z_i^{(n)})\stackrel{~}{𝐁}_{(n)}(z_i^{(n)})}{zz_i^{(n)}}+\frac{1}{2\pi i}_L\frac{Disc\left(F𝐂\right)}{z^{}z}𝑑z^{}\right]/𝐂(z),$$
(24)
where $`L=(\mathrm{},4m_K^24m_\pi ^2]`$. In Eq. (24) $`s_j`$ denote the positions of bound state poles of $`F`$ on the physical sheet and $`z_i^{II}`$, $`z_i^{III}`$ and $`z_i^{IV}`$ denote the position of the resonance poles on the second, third and fourth sheet, respectively. As can be seen from Eqs. (15)– (17), they are also zeros of $`S_{11}`$, det$`S`$ and $`S_{22}`$, respectively. The notations $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐁}`$ in the above equation denote the residues of the corresponding functions at their pole positions. The denominator $`𝐂`$ in the above equation is,

$$𝐂(z)1+𝐁_{II}(z)+𝐁_{III}(z)+𝐁_{IV}(z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2+\frac{1}{S_{11}}+\frac{S_{22}}{\mathrm{det}S}& 2i\rho _1T_{12}^I\left(\frac{1}{detS}+\frac{1}{S_{11}}\right)\\ 2i\rho _2T_{12}^I\left(\frac{1}{detS}+\frac{1}{S_{22}}\right)& 2+\frac{1}{S_{22}}+\frac{S_{11}}{\mathrm{det}S}\end{array}\right).$$
(25)
Eq. (24) provides an analytic expression of the form-factor $`F`$, and the solution of the integral equation (21) provided that the behavior of the form-factor on the left–hand cut is known. However, these formulae are highly non-trivial. Since $`F_I`$ is free from any left–hand singularity by construction (though $`F`$ on other sheets does contain the left–hand singularities) and contains no resonance pole on the physical sheet, the residues of $`F`$ at poles are not free: they have to be arranged in such a way that on the $`r.h.s.`$ of Eq. (24), the $`l.h.c.`$ and the zeros in the numerator (the term inside the square bracket) and in the denominator, cancel each other.The cancellation has only been verified in some very simple cases, see Ref. . Though Eq. (24) is rather complicated, one simple way to check the correctness of Eq. (24) is to look at the case when the coupled–channel decouples, that is $`T_{21}=T_{12}=0`$. In such a case it is easy to check that the effect of the third sheet is reduced to that of sheet $`II`$ and $`IV`$ and,

$$𝐂(z)=2\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1+S_{11}}{S_{11}}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1+S_{22}}{S_{22}}\end{array}\right).$$
(26)
It is then easy to figure out that Eq. (24) is reduced to two independent single channel expressions .

In principle, our method presented above can be generalized to the case with more than two coupled–channels, since the key point in deriving the analytic expression, Eq. (23), can be extended to higher dimensional case. Also, Eq. (24) needs more detailed analysis both theoretically and phenomenologically. But we will not discuss these topics here. Instead we will turn to discuss the analytic property of the coupled channel $`T`$ matrix.

The above method can be easily applied to discuss the analytic structure of the $`T`$ matrix itself, since the only difference between $`T`$ and $`F`$ is that $`T`$ is itself discontinuous on the left. We have,

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_C\{\frac{𝐓^𝐈(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{𝐓^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈}}(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{𝐓^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐈}}(\tau )}{\tau z}+\frac{𝐓^{\mathrm{𝐈𝐕}}(\tau )}{\tau z}\}𝑑\tau 0.$$
(27)
from which we get

$$𝐓^𝐈\left(z\right)𝐂\left(z\right)+𝚽\left(z\right)\frac{1}{2\pi i}_L\frac{Disc\left(𝐓^𝐈𝐂\right)}{\tau z}𝑑\tau =0,$$
(28)
where

$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\rho _1}}\left(S_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{11}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{22}}{detS}}+{\displaystyle \frac{detS}{S_{22}}}\right),`$ (29)
$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\rho _2}}\left(S_{22}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{22}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{11}}{detS}}+{\displaystyle \frac{detS}{S_{11}}}\right),`$ (30)
$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{12}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{11}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{22}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{detS}}\right),`$ (31)
and

$$𝚽(z)=\underset{j}{}\frac{\mathrm{Res}\left[\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(s_j)\right]}{s_jz}+\underset{i}{\overset{n=II,III,IV}{}}\frac{\mathrm{Res}\left[\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(z_{(n)}^i)\right]}{z_{(n)}^iz}.$$
(32)
In Eq. (32) the first term corresponds to the sum of bound state poles and the bound state may couple to channel 1 or 2, or both. The residues can be read off from Eq. (29). The second sum on the $`r.h.s.`$ of Eq. (32) corresponds to the contribution of resonance poles. It is worth noticing here that not only in $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}`$ but also in $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{12}`$ the $`l.h.c.`$ starts from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$. One can prove that the matrix function $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ defined in Eq. (29) satisfies the following property,

$$\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2).$$
(33)
In the case of $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\overline{K}`$ scattering we assume there is no bound state pole,§§§See however Refs. . so in an explicit form the function $`𝚽`$ defined in Eq. (32) can be written as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\rho _1(z_{II}^i)S_{11}^{}(z_{II}^i)(z_{II}^iz)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{22}(z_{III}^i)/2i\rho _1(z_{III}^i)}{(detS)^{}(z_{III}^i)(z_{III}^iz)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{detS(z_{IV}^i)/2i\rho _1(z_{IV}^i)}{S_{22}^{}(z_{IV}^i)(z_{IV}^iz)}}`$ (34)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{detS(z_{II}^i)/2i\rho _2(z_{II}^i)}{S_{11}^{}(z_{II}^i)(z_{II}^iz)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{11}(z_{III}^i)/2i\rho _2(z_{III}^i)}{(detS)^{}(z_{III}^i)(z_{III}^iz)}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\rho _2(z_{IV}^i)S_{22}^{}(z_{IV}^i)(z_{IV}^iz)}}`$ (35)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{12}^I(z_{II}^i)}{S_{11}^{}(z_{II}^i)(z_{II}^iz)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{12}^I(z_{III}^i)}{(detS)^{}(z_{III}^i)(z_{III}^iz)}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_{12}^I(z_{IV}^i)}{S_{22}^{}(z_{IV}^i)(z_{IV}^iz)}}.`$ (36)
### C The analytic property of the function TC

A question naturally arise at this moment is that what we have done by transforming the matrix $`𝐓`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ as expressed by Eq. (29)? The answer is of course that under such a transformation the matrix function $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ is real analytic on $`R`$. The imaginary part of $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ in the region $`(4m_\pi ^2,4m_K^24m_\pi ^2)`$ comes solely from the dynamical effects of the $`l.h.c.`$, as $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2)=\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}(\rho _1,\rho _2)`$ in this region. To see this more clearly one may perform a perturbation expansion, for example a chiral expansion, on $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$. Up to $`O(p^4)`$ term, one may write,

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}=\frac{1}{2i\rho _1}\left(8i\rho _1(T_{11}^{(2)}+T_{11}^{(4)})+8\rho _1^2T_{11}^{(2)2}+8\rho _1\rho _2T_{12}^{(2)}T_{21}^{(2)}\right)+O(p^6),$$
(37)
where the superscripts in the small brackets denote the order of chiral expansion in powers of $`p^2`$. Along the real axis above the second threshold, one can use the perturbation unitarity relation to recast Eq. (37) as,

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}=4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{11}^{(2)+(4)}+O(p^6)$$
(38)
which is indeed real. Below the second threshold but above the first threshold one uses the first equation in Eq. (9) and obtains,

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}=4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{11}^{(2)+(4)}4i\rho _2T_{12}^{(2)}T_{21}^{(2)}+O(p^6),$$
(39)
which is again real analytic. One should not draw a conclusion from Eq. (39) that $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ is real analytic down to $`4m_\pi ^2`$. A close look at Eq. (29) reveals that $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ contains the $`l.h.c.`$ up to $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ which comes from sheet $`III`$ and sheet $`IV`$ of the Riemann surface defined by the $`S`$ matrix, but these cuts do not show at order $`O(p^4)`$. In fact, it is straightforward to check the appearance of the $`l.h.c.`$ when we expand $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ to $`O(p^8)`$,

$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}=`$ $`4T_{11}4i(\rho _1T_{11}^2+\rho _2T_{12}T_{21})8(\rho _1^2T_{11}^3+\rho _1\rho _2T_{11}T_{12}T_{21}+\rho _2^2T_{12}T_{22}T_{21})`$ (42)
$`+8i(2\rho _1^3T_{11}^4+3\rho _1^2\rho _2T_{11}^2T_{12}T_{21}+2\rho _1\rho _2^2T_{11}T_{12}T_{22}T_{21}+T_{12}T_{21}\rho _2^2(T_{12}T_{21}\rho _1+2T_{22}^2\rho _2))`$
$`+O(p^{10}).`$
The $`l.h.c.`$ contribution firstly shows in the third term inside the second bracket on the $`r.h.s.`$ of the above equation. The lowest order contribution it contains is $`O(p^4)\mathrm{Im}T_{22}`$. It is easily understood that this term can not be cancelled by sequential terms in the chiral expansion since the latter are at least of order of $`O(p^6)\mathrm{Im}T_{22}`$.

For $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}`$ we have

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}=\frac{1}{2i\rho _2}\left(8i\rho _2T_{22}^{(2)+(4)}+8\rho _2^2T_{22}^{(2)2}+8\rho _1\rho _2T_{12}^{(2)}T_{21}^{(2)}\right)+O(p^6),$$
(43)
which is equally well written as

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}=4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{22}^{(2)+(4)}+O(p^6)$$
(44)
above the second threshold, and

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}=4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{22}^{(2)+(4)}4i\rho _2T_{22}^{(2)2}+4i(\mathrm{Im}T_{22}^{(4)}\rho _1T_{12}^{(2)}T_{21}^{(2)})O(p^6)$$
(45)
when $`s<4m_K^2`$. The difference between here and the 11 channel is that in here the $`l.h.c.`$ already appears in the physical sheet defined by $`S`$. For completeness we also list result for $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{12}`$,

$$(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{12}=4(T_{12}^{(2)}+T_{12}^{(4)})4i(\rho _1T_{11}^{(2)}T_{12}^{(2)}+\rho _2T_{12}^{(2)}T_{22}^{(2)})+O(p^6)$$
(46)
and the $`r.h.s.`$ is equal to $`4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{12}^{(2)+(4)}+O(p^6)`$ when $`s>4m_K^2`$ and equals to $`4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}T_{12}^{(2)+(4)}4i\rho _2T_{12}^{(2)}T_{22}^{(2)}+O(p^6)`$ when $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2<s<4m_K^2`$.

From the above discussion it is realized that $`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ indeed contains a left–hand branch point singularity at $`s=4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$. The perturbative expansion is just used for pedagogical reasons. Of course the chiral expansion is badly violated in the energy region around the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, and the perturbative results should not be used to argue in favor of the smallness of the left–hand cut contributions.

It is also helpful to understand more about the property of the function $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ by examining how it behaves in some simple models. For example in a simple Breit–Wigner narrow resonance model, one may construct the $`S`$ matrix satisfying unitarity:

$`T_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\varphi }1}{2i\rho _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1e^{2i\varphi }}{M_R^2si(\rho _1g_1+\rho _2g_2)}},`$ (47)
$`T_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g_1g_2}e^{i\varphi }}{M_R^2si(\rho _1g_1+\rho _2g_2)}},`$ (48)
$`T_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{M_R^2si(\rho _1g_1+\rho _2g_2)}},`$ (49)
where $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ are coupling constants and $`M_R`$ is the bare mass parameter. In this model the background phase is simulated by the function $`\varphi (s)`$ with

$$e^{i\varphi }=\frac{\alpha (s)+i\rho _1\beta (s)}{\alpha (s)i\rho _1\beta (s)},$$
(50)
in which $`\alpha (s)`$ and $`\beta (s)`$ are real polynomials. It is easy to verify that the background phase as defined in Eq. (50) obeys the requirement of real analyticity.

The $`T`$ matrix defined by Eq. (47) contains both the $`l.h.c.`$ (from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$) and the right–hand cuts, due to the presence of the kinematic factors. However a simple algebraic calculation reveals that the function $`\mathrm{TC}`$ is a matrix of real rational functions, that is, it is analytic on the entire $`s`$ plane with only isolated singularities. In this sense the structure of the $`S`$ matrix defined by Eqs. (47) and (50) is topologically trivial. This observation, which follows from Eq. (33) also applies to more general case of the K matrix parametrization when K takes the form of rational functions. Though topologically trivial, simple models as discussed above can still be helpful in revealing the qualitative picture of the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system.

## III The analytic structure of $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system: The two $`\delta _\pi `$s

### A The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase in coupled–channel unitarity region

In the physical region above the second threshold, there is the well known parametrization of the scattering $`S`$ matrix,

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\eta e^{2i\delta _\pi },& i\sqrt{1\eta ^2}e^{i\left(\delta _\pi +\delta _K\right)}\\ i\sqrt{1\eta ^2}e^{i\left(\delta _\pi +\delta _K\right)},& \eta e^{2i\delta _K}\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
By using it Eq. (29) can be recasted as

$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2+1}{\eta }}\mathrm{sin}2\delta _\pi ,`$ (52)
$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2+1}{\eta }}\mathrm{sin}2\delta _K,`$ (53)
$`(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂})_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1\eta ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{(\rho _1\rho _2)}}}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\delta _\pi +\delta _K)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}\mathrm{cos}(\delta _\pi \delta _K)\right),`$ (54)
and from Eq. (28) we obtain,

$`\mathrm{sin}2\delta _\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1+\eta ^2}}\rho _1\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{Disc\left(𝐓^𝐈𝐂\right)_{11}}{zs}}𝑑z\right),`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\delta _K={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{1+\eta ^2}}\rho _2\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{Disc\left(𝐓^𝐈𝐂\right)_{22}}{zs}}𝑑z\right),`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{cos}(\delta _\pi +\delta _K)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}\mathrm{cos}(\delta _\pi \delta _K)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\rho _1\rho _2}}{(1\eta ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}(s){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _L}{\displaystyle \frac{Disc\left(𝐓^𝐈𝐂\right)_{12}}{zs}}𝑑z\right).`$ (57)
In above equations the function $`𝚽`$ is a rational function with real coefficients and the left hand integrals are also real analytic functions due to the property of real analyticity of the $`T`$ matrix and $`L=(\mathrm{},4m_K^24m_\pi ^2]`$.

It is convenient to read from Eq. (55) that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ as an analytic function on the entire physical sheet, after analytic continuation, contains the $`l.h.c.`$ starting from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ to the left of the real axis. It is easy to understand that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ and $`\eta `$ have this $`l.h.c.`$ separately in such a way that the $`l.h.c.`$ starting from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ in their combination, $`S_{11}`$, cancels. The appearance of such a $`l.h.c.`$ can be clearly seen from the following expressions for $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ and $`\eta `$ which are appropriate for the analytic continuation,

$`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ $``$ $`\rho _1_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta }}S_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{S_{11}}}\eta ),`$ (58)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{S_{11}S_{22}/detS},`$ (59)
from which we read off,

$$_2^{III}=_2^I,\eta ^{III}=\eta ^I,$$
(60)
and

$$_2^{II}=_2^I,\eta ^{II}=1/\eta ^I,$$
(61)
which are correct when Eq. (6) and Eq. (9) are correct, respectively. From these properties it is realized that on the real axis $`_2`$ only contains the $`l.h.c.`$, and $`\eta `$ only contains the cut in the region $`[4m_K^24m_\pi ^2,4m_K^2]`$ (where $`\eta `$ is a pure phase) and the $`l.h.c.`$ on the left. These look good at first glance for setting up dispersion relations for these quantities. But $`\eta `$ contains many branch point singularities (and so does $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$) on the complex $`s`$ plane (corresponding to the positions of resonance poles), which prevent the usefulness of these dispersion relations.

In another combination of $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ which appears in the first equation of Eq. (52), as we demonstrated before, the right–hand cuts cancel. Eq. (55) is the appropriate one for phenomenological discussions, as similar to the single channel case . For example, one may use the experimental data of $`\delta _\pi `$, $`\delta _K`$ and $`\eta `$ in the region above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold to study the properties of the widely concerned $`f_0(980)`$ resonance. Unfortunately, the left–hand integrals in the energy region required by coupled–channel analysis are very difficult to estimate theoretically. The perturbation expansion fails badly here, and the matrix Padé approximation destroys the single channel unitarity of the $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude by giving it the $`l.h.c.`$ on the physical sheet . This shortcoming limits the phenomenological usage of our method. But our approach can still be helpful in studying the coupled–channel system, as will be discussed in Sec. IV.

### B The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase in single channel unitarity region

The analytic structure of the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift defined in the coupled–channel unitarity region (denoted as $`\delta _\pi ^{(2)}`$ later on) is remarkably different from the analytic structure of $`\delta _\pi `$ defined in the single channel unitarity region (denoted as $`\delta _\pi ^{(1)}`$ hereafter):

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(1)})\rho _1=\frac{1}{2i}(S_{11}1/S_{11}).$$
(62)
The function $``$ defined in above equation only contains the left–hand cut starting from $`s=0`$ together with the ordinary unitarity cut starting from $`4m_K^2`$. It now becomes clear that the two $`\delta _\pi `$ are not analytic continuation to each other though they match at $`s=4m_K^2`$. One can then set up a dispersion relation for $``$,

$$(s)=\underset{i}{}\frac{Res[(z_i^{II})]}{sz_i^{II}}+\frac{1}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^0\frac{\mathrm{Im}_L}{s^{}s}𝑑s^{}+\frac{1}{\pi }_{4m_K^2}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{Im}_R}{s^{}s}𝑑s^{},$$
(63)
where the poles are only from the second sheet in the absence of bound state poles. Eq. (63) is the extension of the single channel result  in the coupled–channel case. Comparing with Eq. (42) of Ref.  only the third term is new and the other two terms are the same. The first integral on the $`r.h.s.`$ of Eq. (63) has been discussed at length in Ref. , and it is fortunate that the second integral on the $`r.h.s.`$ of Eq. (63) can be estimated from experiments since

$$\mathrm{Im}_R=\frac{1}{2}(1/\eta \eta )\mathrm{cos}(2\delta _\pi ^{(2)})$$
(64)
in the coupled–channel region.

## IV Phenomenology of the coupled–channel dispersion relations

### A The $`f_0(980)`$ pole and the nearby singularities

From Eq. (63) we see that when $`s`$ approaches $`4m_K^2`$ from the lower side the value of the right integral will change rapidly since $`s=4m_K^2`$ is its branch point. It is well known that the branch point will develop a cusp structure to the real part of the dispersive integral. Also we see in the above subsection that $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(2)})`$ contains a left–hand branch point at $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$. Both of the two branch point singularities are $`very`$ close to the pole position of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance. Therefore it is necessary to carefully investigate the influence of the branch point singularities to the determination of the pole position. In a typical K matrix fit dynamical singularities rather than poles are simulated by background polynomials. However the cusp structure of the branch point singularity should not be well simulated by a smooth background polynomial, especially when the background polynomial is being used to cover a large region of $`s`$. It is even reasonable to imagine whether such a cusp phenomenon could be responsible for the sharp rise of $`\delta _{\pi \pi }`$ near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold.It is very impressive to notice that in Ref. , it was carefully tested up to 40 parameters in the background phase to check whether the background polynomial can be responsible for such a sharp rise. However, a numerical estimate to the right–hand integral in Eq. (63) indicates that the right–hand cut effect is very weak. In Fig. 1 we plot the right–hand integral contribution to $``$ from two fits found in the literature , here the integration is performed from the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold to roughly about $`\sqrt{s}1.5`$ GeV. As we see from Fig. 1 that the contribution of the right–hand integral is in the right direction to increase $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(1)})`$ rather rapidly, but the effect is too small to have any non-negligible influence to the $`f_0(980)`$ pole. This can be clearly seen by comparing Fig 1 with Fig 2. In the latter case $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ jumps from -1 to +1 near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold whereas the contribution from the right–hand integral is one order of magnitude smaller. When estimating the right–hand integral we make use of Eq. (64) which assumes implicitly two–channel unitarity. Though the two–channel unitarity no longer holds true when the $`4\pi `$ channel and the $`\eta \eta `$ channel become important, we expect the order of magnitude estimate remains valid.

The left–hand integrals appeared in the coupled–channel equations, though can not be estimated quantitatively, can also be proven to behave mildly when the narrow $`f_0(980)`$ resonance is located on the second sheet (see Eq. (72) and related discussions).

### B A combined fit of the coupled–channel and the single channel equations

The single channel dispersion relation, Eq. (63) contains only the second sheet pole whereas the coupled–channel equations, Eq. (55) contain resonance poles on all sheets, i.e., sheet II, III and sheet IV. In the single channel approximation  we have to introduce 4 parameters for each resonance pole, two of them are related to the pole position and the another two are related to the residue, or the resonance coupling to $``$. Now in the coupled–channel case each resonance pole contains 6 parameters, two of them are for the pole position, two are for the resonance coupling to $``$ (for second sheet poles only) and/or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}`$ (the second sheet pole coupling to $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{11}`$ are the same), and the last two are for the coupling in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{22}`$. The pole coupling in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{12}`$ is not independent as can be verified from Eq. (34). It is annoying to have so many parameters associated with a resonance pole. These parameters are in principle correlated to each other, but no simple relation with stringent constraint between these terms are found. Therefore in here we approximate these parameters as uncorrelated in the fit. However the property of the $`f_0^{II}(980)`$ narrow resonance obtained under such an approximation is expected not distorted much from the real situation, since the sharp rise of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold is so deterministic, as can be seen from the following discussions.

In the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system, following the conventional wisdom, we assume two second sheet poles. One corresponds to the $`\sigma `$ resonance, the another corresponds to the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance, in addition we assume there exists another 3rd sheet pole which simulate all other pole contributions.\**\**\**A shortcoming of the present method is that we can not distinguish the third sheet pole from the fourth sheet pole in Eq. (55). The right–hand integral is estimated using that depicted in Fig. 1 which is however found to have only tiny influence. We estimate the left–hand integral in Eq. (63) in the same way as in Ref. . That is we either use $`\chi PT`$ to evaluate $`\mathrm{Im}_L`$ but with a truncated integral interval at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ (here we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$= 600MeV, 700MeV, 800MeV and 1GeV), or estimate $`\mathrm{Im}_L`$ from the  Padé solution. ††††††We are not able to estimate the left hand cut at quantitative level. In a previous version we had fixed $`\mathrm{Im}_L`$ using the Padé approximant, but then we realized the problem associated with the Padé approximation . Fortunately the pole positions of the $`\sigma `$ and the $`f_0(980)`$ resonances are found not sensitive to the uncertainties related to our different choices of the left hand cut.

In the coupled–channel unitarity region, or in Eq. (55), however, we do not have a reliable method to estimate the left–hand integrals. We therefore simulate them by a group of (totally 3) polynomials. In here we restrict ourselves in a modest range of energy region, $`2m_K<\sqrt{s}<1.2GeV`$, therefore the polynomials may take simple and smooth forms, i.e., constants or linear polynomials which further introduce a few more parameters. In the absence of narrow 3rd or 4th sheet pole close to the branch point singularity at $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ the validity of this approximation can be justified. Furthermore, the matching condition,

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(1)})|_{s=4m_K^2}=\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(2)})|_{s=4m_K^2}$$
(65)
is used to reduce one parameter in the $`\pi \pi `$ channel.

In the single channel unitarity region we use the combination of the CERN–Munich data and the low energy data from $`K_{e4}`$ decay , and especially the new experimental data from the E865 Collaboration . We take the $`K`$ meson mass to be $`m_K=(m_{K^\pm }+m_{K_s})/2`$ in our fit. In the coupled–channel unitarity region we use the experimental data on $`\delta _\pi +\delta _K`$ and $`(1\eta _{00}^2)`$/4 from Refs. , and the data on $`\delta _\pi `$ from Refs. .‡‡‡‡‡‡Such a choice of data set merely reflects our prejudice by excluding the results of Refs. . In order to extract the “experimental” value of $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}`$ in the coupled–channel unitarity region we have to shift the data to same points of $`s`$ by proper extrapolation. With such a manipulation to the data, we are able to make the fit, see Fig. 2 and Figs. 35 for a typical example of the fit where the left–hand integrals in the coupled–channel equations are approximated by constants. In the fit we find that, even for a very simple parametrization form of the left–hand integral, there may exist different solutions – the position of the ‘third sheet pole’ is found to be very unstable. This even occurs when the 3rd sheet pole is correlated to the 2nd sheet pole via a Breit–Wigner narrow resonance model like that in Eq. (47). In the uncorrelated case the solutions for the 3rd (or 4th) sheet pole is quite arbitrary: The mass roughly ranges from $`0.71.2`$GeV and the width ranges from very small values to roughly about $`0.6`$GeV. This uncertainty may be partly due to the unsatisfactory quality of the manipulated data in the coupled–channel unitarity region (see Figs. 35), but it is amazing to notice that such an uncertainty for the 3rd/4th sheet pole does exist in the literature where very different solutions are also found (see the compilation of the 2000 edition of the Review of Particle Physics  for more information). Irrespective of the large uncertainty that the 3rd/4th sheet pole has, the $`\sigma `$ pole position and the $`f_0^{II}`$ pole position are however found to be rather stable against changes of the parametrization form of cuts and the uncertainties related to the first left hand cut. The results are summarized in what follows:

$`M_\sigma `$ $`=450510\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =480550\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V};`$ (66)
$`M_{f_0^{II}}`$ $`=981992MeV,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0^{II}}=3240\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V};`$ (67)
$`a_0^0`$ $`=0.240.27.`$ (68)
Very similar to the what happens in the single–channel situation , the location of the $`\sigma `$ resonance is sensitive to the choice of the scattering length used in the fit. If the $`\chi PT`$ result of $`a_0^0=0.220\pm 0.005`$  is used as a constraint in the fit we find instead the following results (here we take the Padé solution of the first left hand cut for example):

$`M_\sigma `$ $`=465468\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V},\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =610650\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V};`$ (69)
$`M_{f_0^{II}}`$ $`=981983MeV,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0^{II}}=3133\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V};`$ (70)
$`a_0^0`$ $`0.221.`$ (71)
From the results list above we find that the pole position of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance is very stable. Furthermore the inclusion of the $`f_0^{II}(980)`$ pole has only modest influence to the pole position of the $`\sigma `$ resonance by comparing with the results from Ref. .\**\**\**Previous results on this point can be found in Refs. . The main reason of the stability is due to the special data point in the upper right region in Fig. 2 from the CERN–Munich data: $`\sqrt{s}=0.99`$GeV with the value of $`\delta _\pi =234.0\pm 12.3`$ degrees. The center of mass energy of this data point already exceeds $`2m_{K^\pm }`$ though it is located below the $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ threshold. In our fit we set the $`K`$ meson mass as $`m_K=(m_{K^\pm }+m_{K_s})/2`$ which is above 0.99GeV, so we count this point in the single channel unitarity region (notice that this data point is very close to $`2m_{K^\pm }`$). Also considering the experimental error bar for the beam energy, the location and the value of this data point contributes the major uncertainty in the determination of the location of the $`f_0(980)`$ resonance (mainly affects the width). Manifestly our approach is sensitive to the experimental data near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold region. On the qualitative level, however, the picture that there exists a very narrow $`f_0(980)`$ pole on the second sheet should not be altered, as is determined unambiguously by the fact that the value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ at the matching point (see Eq. (65)) is much closer to $`+1`$ rather than to $`1`$.

### C The subtlety in our approach: if the $`f_0(980)`$ narrow resonance does not locate on the second sheet

As pointed out in the above subsection that the data point closest to the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold is crucial in determining a narrow resonance on the second sheet, named as the $`f_0^{II}(980)`$. One has to be very cautious under such a situation when the fit is very sensitive to a single data point. For example, if this point were removed from the data in fitting Eq. (63), or in other words if the value of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi )`$ at the matching point (see Eq. (65)) is closer to $`1`$ rather than to $`+1`$, the fit program would prefer a solution without the narrow second sheet pole. Instead, it would give a solution roughly at $`M_{f_0^{II}}0.86`$GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_0^{II}}0.16`$GeV and a very narrow third (or 4th) sheet pole, $`M0.960.98`$GeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }535`$MeV. Under such a circumstance it is the 3rd (or 4th) sheet pole combing with the $`l.h.c.`$ in the first equation in Eq. (55), rather than the narrow second sheet pole, being mainly responsible for the sharp rise of the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift $`above`$ the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Though rather academic, it is worth pointing out that if such a scenario would happen the narrow pole position could not be reliably estimated within the present approach, because the third (or 4th) sheet pole will have a very strong influence to the left–hand integrals in the coupled–channel dispersion equations. To make the point more clear let us write down the following formula,

$$\frac{1}{2i}Disc(\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}_{11})=4\rho _2^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{lhc}\frac{|T_{12}|^2}{S_{22}detS^{}}+h.c.,$$
(72)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lhc}`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{Im}T_{22}=\rho _1|T_{12}|^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{lhc}\theta (4m_K^24m_\pi ^2s),$$
(73)
in the single channel unitarity region. We have no knowledge on how to estimate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{lhc}`$ and we assume it behaves normally in the sense that its order of magnitude and the behavior is similar to, say, the $`l.h.c.`$ appeared in the single channel equation. Then it is apparently shown in the above formula that a very narrow resonance on the 3rd or 4th sheet near the left–hand branch point at $`s=4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ will greatly enhance the discontinuity of $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}_{11}`$ and also the cusp structure of the dispersion integral of $`\mathrm{𝐓𝐂}_{11}`$ provided that the sign is correct ($`i.e.`$, to give a sharp rise, not a sharp decrease, to $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(2)})`$). The 3rd or 4th sheet pole itself would also contribute in Eq. (55) (but not in Eq. (63)), a combined contribution of the cut and the pole may therefore explain the sharp rise of $`\mathrm{sin}(2\delta _\pi ^{(2)})`$. But of course such a scenario is unambiguously excluded by experiments.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we have studied the IJ=00 $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system by using dispersion relations which are set up after a careful analysis to the analytic structure of the coupled–channel system. The effects of various cuts on the determination of pole positions are discussed and estimated which are found to be mild in general. Especially the role of the left hand cut starting from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ is clarified. Especially, the cut has little influence to the determination of second sheet poles.

We therefore confirm, at qualitative level, the conventional wisdom in the widely used K matrix fit to simulate these dynamical singularities by mild background polynomials. To some extent, our analysis also justifies the dynamical assumption made in dynamical approaches (see for example, Refs. ) to partly neglect the $`t`$ channel exchange forces by assuming them to behave mildly.

We conclude from the discussion in this paper that there exists a very narrow second sheet pole with mass about $`981992`$MeV and width about $`3240`$MeV which is responsible for the sharp increase of the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase near (mainly below) the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold. Meanwhile the mass and the width of the $`\sigma `$ resonance is estimated to be $`M_\sigma =450510`$MeV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =480550`$MeV. However, we pointed out that the width of the narrow second sheet pole is sensitive to the data near the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold, and therefore future experiments with more accurate data are called for. We also find that the possible third sheet pole which is related to the narrow second sheet pole in the coupled channel Breit–Wigner resonance model can not be reliably fixed at present stage within our scheme. The reason is simply because only the data above the $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold can contribute to the determination of the third sheet pole and also the left hand cut starting from $`4m_K^24m_\pi ^2`$ pollutes here.

Our results on the pole locations of the $`\sigma `$ and $`f_0^{II}`$ resonances are in qualitative agreement with the results found in the literature, though the method used in this paper is rather different from those commonly used. In our opinion, the IJ=00 $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ coupled–channel system is so interesting and important and it is always meaningful to study it from different angles which can bring us more understanding and insight in the related physics. Our method may be generalized to others channels as well. But the dynamical singularities appeared in the case of unequal mass scatterings are more complicated. For example, in the case of $`\pi K`$ scattering we will run into the more complicated problem of dealing with the circular cut.

Acknowledgment: One of the author, H.Z. would like to thank Professor Chuan–Rong Wang in Fuzhou University for helpful discussions. This work is supported in part by China National Nature Science Foundation under grant No. 19775005.