text:
# On finite-dimensional maps II

## 1. Introduction

This note is inspired by a result of Uspenskij \[15, Theorem 1\]. Answering a question of R. Pol, Uspenskij proved the following theorem: Let $`f:XY`$ be a light map (i.e. every fiber $`f^1(y)`$ is $`0`$-dimensional) between compact spaces and $`𝒜`$ be the set of all functions $`g:X\text{𝕀}=[0,1]`$ such that $`g(f^1(y))`$ is 0-dimensional for all $`yY`$. Then $`𝒜`$ is a dense $`G_\delta `$-subset of the function space $`C(X,\text{𝕀})`$ provided $`Y`$ is a $`C`$-space (the case when $`Y`$ is countable-dimensional was established earlier by Torunczyk). We extend this result as follows:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a $`\sigma `$-perfect surjection such that $`dimfn`$ and $`Y`$ is a paracompact $`C`$-space. Let $`=\{gC(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1}):dimg(f^1(y))n\text{ for each }yY\}`$. Then $``$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ with respect to the source limitation topology.

###### Corollary 1.2.

Let $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`f`$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem $`1.1`$ and $`n+1m\omega `$. Then, there exists a dense $`G_\delta `$-subset $`_m`$ of $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^m)`$ with respect to the source limitation topology such that $`dimg(f^1(y))n`$ for every $`g_m`$ and $`yY`$.

Here, $`dimf=sup\{dimf^1(y):yY\}`$ and $`f`$ is said to be $`\sigma `$-perfect if there exists a sequence $`\{X_i\}`$ of closed subsets of $`X`$ such that each restriction map $`f|X_i`$ is perfect and the sets $`f(X_i)`$ are closed in $`Y`$. The $`C`$-space property was introduced by Haver  for compact metric spaces and then extended by Addis and Gresham  for general spaces (see  for the definition and some properties of $`C`$-spaces). Every countable-dimensional (in, particular, every finite-dimensional) paracompact space has property $`C`$, but there exists a compact metric $`C`$-space which is not countable-dimensional . For any spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ by $`C(X,Y)`$ we denote the set of all continuous maps from $`X`$ into $`Y`$. If $`(Y,d)`$ is a metric space, then the source limitation topology on $`C(X,Y)`$ is defined in the following way: a subset $`UC(X,Y)`$ is open in $`C(X,Y)`$ with respect to the source limitation topology provided for every $`gU`$ there exists a continuous function $`\alpha :X(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`\overline{B}(g,\alpha )U`$, where $`\overline{B}(g,\alpha )`$ denotes the set $`\{hC(X,Y):d(g(x),h(x))\alpha (x)\text{for each }xX\}`$. The source limitation topology is also known as the fine topology and $`C(X,Y)`$ with this topology has Baire property provided $`(Y,d)`$ is a complete metric space . Moreover, the source limitation topology on $`C(X,Y)`$ doesn’t depend on the metric of $`Y`$ when $`X`$ is paracompact .

All single-valued maps under discussion are continuous, and all function spaces, if not explicitely stated otherwise, are equipped with the source limitation topology.

## 2. Proofs

Let show first that the proof of Theorem 1.1 can be reduced to the case when $`f`$ is perfect. Indeed, we fix a sequence $`\{X_i\}`$ of closed subsets of $`X`$ such that each map $`f_i=f|X_i:X_iY_i=f(X_i)`$ is perfect and $`Y_iY`$ is closed. Consider the maps $`\pi _i:C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})C(X_i,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ defined by $`\pi (g)=g|X_i`$ and the sets $`_i=\{gC(X_i,\text{𝕀}^{n+1}):dimg(f_i^1(y))n\text{ for each }yY_i\}`$. If Theorem 1.1 holds for perfect maps, then every $`_i`$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X_i,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, so are the sets $`\pi _i^1(_i)`$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ because $`\pi _i`$ are open and surjective maps. Finally, observe that $``$ is the intersection of all $`_i`$ and since $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ has Baire property, we are done.

Everywhere in this section $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`f`$ and $``$ are fixed and satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1 with $`f`$ being perfect. Any finite-dimensional cube $`\text{𝕀}^k`$ is considered with the Euclidean metric. We say that a set-valued map $`\theta :H(Z)`$, where $`(Z)`$ denotes the family of all closed subsets of the space $`Z`$, is upper semi-continuous (br. u.s.c.) if $`\{yH:\theta (y)W\}`$ is open in $`H`$ for every open $`WZ`$. In the above notation, $`\theta `$ is called lower semi-continuous if $`\{yH:\theta (y)W\mathrm{}\}`$ is open in $`H`$ whenever $`W`$ is open in $`Z`$.

Proof of Theorem $`1.1`$.

For every open set $`V`$ in $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ let $`_V`$ be the set of all $`gC(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ such that $`V`$ is not contained in any $`g(f^1(y))`$, $`yY`$. Following the Uspenskij idea from , it suffices to show that each set $`_V`$ is dense and open in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$. Indeed, choose a countable base $``$ in $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$. Since a subset of $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ is at most $`n`$-dimensional if and only if it doesn’t contain any $`V`$, we have that $``$ is the intersection of all $`_V`$, $`V`$. But $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ has the Baire property, so $``$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ and we are done.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The set $`_V`$ is open in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ for every open $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix an open set $`V`$ in $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ and $`g_0_V`$. We are going to find a continuous function $`\alpha :X(0,\mathrm{})`$ such that $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )_V`$. To this end, let $`p:ZY`$ be a perfect surjection with $`dimZ=0`$ and define $`\psi :Y(\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ by $`\psi (y)=g_0(f^1(y))`$, $`yY`$. Since $`f`$ is perfect, $`\psi `$ is upper semi-continuous and compact-valued. Now, consider the set-valued map $`\psi _1:Z(\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, $`\psi _1=\psi p`$. Obviously, $`g_0_V`$ implies $`\overline{V}\backslash \psi _1(z)\mathrm{}`$ for every $`zZ`$. Moreover, $`\psi _1`$ is also upper semi-continuous, in particular it has a closed graph. Then, by a result of Michael \[10, Theorem 5.3\], there exists a continuous map $`h:Z\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ such that $`h(z)\overline{V}\backslash \psi _1(z)`$, $`zZ`$. Next, consider the u.s.c. compact-valued map $`\theta :Y(\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, $`\theta (y)=h(p^1(y))`$, $`yY`$. We have $`\mathrm{}\theta (y)\overline{V}`$ and $`\theta (y)\psi (y)=\mathrm{}`$ for all $`yY`$. Hence, the function $`\alpha _1:Y\text{}`$, $`\alpha _1(y)=d(\theta (y),\psi (y))`$, is positive, where $`d`$ is the Euclidean metric on $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$. Since, both $`\theta `$ and $`\psi `$ are upper semi-continuous, $`\alpha _1`$ has the following property: $`\alpha _1^1(a,\mathrm{})`$ is open in $`Y`$ for every $`a\text{}`$. Finally, take a continuous function $`\alpha _2:Y(0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`\alpha _2(y)<\alpha _1(y)`$ for every $`yY`$ (see, for example, ) and define $`\alpha =\alpha _2f`$. It remains to observe that, if $`g\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ and $`yY`$, then $`\theta (y)\overline{V}\backslash g(f^1(y))`$. So, $`g(f^1(y))`$ doesn’t contain $`V`$ for all $`yY`$, i.e. $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )_V`$. ∎

Remark. Analyzing the proof of Lemma 2.1, one can see that we proved the following more general statement: Let $`h:\overline{X}\overline{Y}`$ be a perfect surjection between paracompact spaces and $`K`$ a complete metric space. Then, for every open $`VK`$ the set of all maps $`gC(\overline{X},K)`$ with $`Vg(h^1(y))`$ for any $`y\overline{Y}`$ is open in $`C(\overline{X},K)`$.

The remaining part of this section is devoted to the proof that each $`_V`$ is dense in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, which is finally accomplished by Lemma 2.6.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`Z`$ and $`K`$ be compact spaces and $`K_0=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}K_i`$ with each $`K_i`$ being a closed $`0`$-dimensional subset of $`K`$. Then the set $`𝒜=\{gC(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$: $`dimg(\{z\}\times K_0)=0\text{ for every }zZ\}`$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$.

###### Proof.

Since, for every $`i`$, the restriction map $`p_i:C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})C(Z\times K_i,\text{𝕀})`$ is a continuous open surjection, we can assume that $`K_0=K`$ and $`dimK=0`$. Then $`𝒜`$ is the intersection of the sets $`𝒜_V`$, $`V`$, where $``$ is a countable base of 𝕀 and $`𝒜_V`$ consists of all $`gC(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$ such that $`Vg(\{z\}\times K)`$ for every $`zZ`$. By the remark after Lemma 1.1, every $`𝒜_VC(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$ is open, so $`𝒜`$ is $`G_\delta `$. It remains only to show that $`𝒜`$ is dense in $`C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$. Since $`K`$ is $`0`$-dimensional, the set $`C_K=\{hC(K,\text{}):h(K)\text{ is finite}\}`$ is dense in $`C(K,\text{})`$. Hence, by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, all polynomials of elements of the family $`\gamma =\{th:tC(Z,\text{}),hC_K\}`$ form a dense subset $`𝒫`$ of $`C(Z\times K,\text{})`$. We fix a retraction $`r:\text{}\text{𝕀}`$ and define $`u_r:C(Z\times K,\text{})C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$, $`u_r(h)=rh`$. Then $`u_r(𝒫)`$ is dense in $`C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$. It is easily seen that every $`gu_r(𝒫)`$ has the following property: $`g(\{z\}\times K)`$ is finite for every $`zZ`$. So, $`u_r(𝒫)𝒜`$, i.e. $`𝒜`$ is dense in $`C(Z\times K,\text{𝕀})`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`M`$ and $`K`$ be compact spaces with $`dimKn`$ and $`M`$ metrizable. If $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ is open, then the set of all maps $`gC(M\times K,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ such that $`Vg(\{y\}\times K)`$ for each $`yM`$ is dense in $`C(M\times K,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$.

###### Proof.

We are going to prove this lemma by induction with respect to the dimension of $`K`$. According to Lemma 2.2, it is true if $`dimK=0`$. Suppose the lemma holds for any $`K`$ with $`dimKm1`$ for some $`m1`$ and let $`K`$ be a fixed compact space with $`dimK=m`$. For $`g^0C(M\times K,\text{𝕀}^{m+1})`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ we need to find a function $`gC(M\times K,\text{𝕀}^{m+1})`$ which is $`ϵ`$-close to $`g^0`$ and $`Vg(\{y\}\times K)`$ for every $`yM`$. If $`K`$ is not metrizable, we represent it as the limit space of a $`\sigma `$-complete inverse system $`𝒮=\{K_\lambda ,p_\lambda ^{\lambda +1}:\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ such that each $`K_\lambda `$ is a metrizable compactum with $`dimK_\lambda m`$. Then $`M\times K`$ is the limit of the system $`\{M\times K_\lambda ,id\times p_\lambda ^{\lambda +1}:\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$, where $`id`$ is the identity map on $`M`$. Applying standard inverse spectra arguments (see ), we can find $`\lambda (0)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`g_{\lambda (0)}C(M\times K_{\lambda (0)},\text{𝕀}^{m+1})`$ such that $`g_{\lambda (0)}(id\times p_{\lambda (0)})=g^0`$, where $`p_{\lambda (0)}:KK_{\lambda (0)}`$ denotes the $`\lambda (0)`$-th limit projection of $`𝒮`$. Therefore, the proof is reduced to the case when $`K`$ is metrizable.

Let $`K`$ be metrizable and $`K=K_1K_2`$ such that $`K_1`$ is a $`0`$-dimensional $`\sigma `$-compact subset of $`K`$ and $`dimK_2m1`$ (this is possible because $`K`$ is metrizable and $`m`$-dimensional, see ). Let $`g^0=g_1^0\times g_2^0`$, where every $`g_1^0`$ is a function from $`K`$ into 𝕀, and $`g_2^0:X\text{𝕀}^m`$. We can assume that $`V=V_1\times V_2`$ with both $`V_1\text{𝕀}`$ and $`V_2\text{𝕀}^m`$ open. According to Lemma 2.2, there exists a function $`g_1:M\times K\text{𝕀}`$ which is $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{2}}}`$-close to $`g_1^0`$ and such that $`dimg_1(\{y\}\times K_1)=0`$ for every $`yM`$. Hence, $`V_1`$ is not contained in any of the sets $`g_1(\{y\}\times K_1)`$, $`yM`$.

Claim. There exists an open set $`A_1K`$ containing $`K_1`$ such that $`\overline{V_1}g_1(\{y\}\times A_1)`$ for any $`yM`$.

To prove the claim, we represent $`K_1`$ as the union of countably many compact $`0`$-dimensional sets $`K_{1i}`$ and consider the upper semi-continuous compact-valued maps $`\psi _i:M(\text{𝕀})`$ defined by $`\psi _i(y)=g_1(\{y\}\times K_{1i})`$. As in the proof of Lemma 2.1, we fix a $`0`$-dimensional space $`Z`$, a surjective perfect map $`p:ZM`$ and define the set-valued maps $`\overline{\psi }_i:Z(\text{𝕀})`$, $`\overline{\psi }_i=\psi _ip`$. It follows from our construction that each $`\overline{\psi }_i(z)`$, $`zZ`$, $`i\text{}`$, is $`0`$-dimensional. By \[10, Theorem 5.5\] (see also \[6, Theorem 1.1\]), there is $`hC(Z,\text{𝕀})`$ such that $`h(z)\overline{V_1}\backslash _{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\psi }_i(z)`$, $`zZ`$. Then $`\theta :M(\text{𝕀})`$, $`\theta (y)=h(p^1(y))`$, is u.s.c. with $`\mathrm{}\theta (y)\overline{V_1}\backslash g_1(\{y\}\times K_1)`$ for every $`yM`$. Since the graph $`G_\theta `$ of $`\theta `$ is closed in $`M\times \text{𝕀}`$, the set $`U=\{(y,x)M\times K:(y,g_1(y,x))G_\theta \}`$ is open in $`M\times K`$ and contains $`M\times K_1`$. So, $`A_1=\{xK:M\times \{x\}U\}`$ is open in $`K`$ and contains $`K_1`$. Moreover, $`\theta (y)\overline{V_1}\backslash g_1(\{y\}\times A_1)`$ for every $`yM`$, which completes the proof of the claim.

Now, let $`A_2=K\backslash A_1`$. Obviously, $`A_2`$ is a compact subset of $`K_2`$, so $`dimA_2m1`$. According to the assumption that the lemma is true for any space of dimension $`m1`$, there exists a map $`h_2:M\times A_2\text{𝕀}^m`$ which is $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{2}}}`$-close to $`g_2^0|(M\times A_2)`$ and such that $`\overline{V_2}h_2(\{y\}\times A_2)`$ for any $`yM`$. We finally extend $`h_2`$ to a map $`g_2:M\times K`$ such that $`g_2`$ is $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{\sqrt{2}}}`$-close to $`g_2^0`$. Hence,

(1)  $`K=A_1A_2`$ and $`\overline{V_j}g_j(\{y\}\times A_j)`$ for any $`yM`$, $`j=1,2`$.

Then the map $`g=g_1\times g_2:M\times K\text{𝕀}^{m+1}`$ is $`ϵ`$-close to $`g_0`$. It follows from (1) that $`\overline{V}g(\{y\}\times K)`$ for any $`yM`$.

For any open $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ we consider the set-valued map $`\psi _V`$ from $`Y`$ into $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, given by $`\psi _V(y)=\{gC(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1}):Vg(f^1(y))\}`$, $`yY`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

If $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ is open and $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ is equipped with the uniform convergence topology, then $`\psi _V`$ has a closed graph.

###### Proof.

Let $`G_VY\times C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ be the graph of $`\psi _V`$ and $`(y_0,g_0)G_V`$. Then $`g_0\psi _V(y_0)`$, so $`g_0(f^1(y_0))`$ doesn’t contain $`V`$. Consequently, there exists $`z_0V\backslash g_0(f^1(y_0))`$ and let $`ϵ=d(z_0,g_0(f^1(y_0)))`$. Since $`f`$ is a closed map, there exists a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`y_0`$ in $`Y`$ with $`d(z_0,g_0(f^1(y)))>2^1ϵ`$ for every $`yU`$. It is easily seen that $`U\times B_{4^1ϵ}(g_0)`$ is a neighborhood of $`(y_0,g_0)`$ in $`Y\times C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ which doesn’t meet $`G_V`$ (here $`B_{4^1ϵ}(g_0)`$ is the $`4^1ϵ`$-neighborhood of $`g_0`$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ with the uniform metric). Therefore $`G_VY\times C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ is closed. ∎

Recall that a closed subset $`F`$ of the metrizable apace $`M`$ is said to be a $`Z`$-set in $`M`$ , if the set $`C(Q,M\backslash F)`$ is dense in $`C(Q,M)`$ with respect to the uniform convergence topology, where $`Q`$ denotes the Hilbert cube.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`\alpha :X(0,\mathrm{})`$ be a positive continuous function, $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$ open and $`g_0C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$. Then $`\psi _V(y)\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ is a $`Z`$-set in $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ for every $`yY`$, where $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ is considered as a subspace of $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ with the uniform convergence topology.

###### Proof.

The proof of this lemma follows very closely the proof of \[14, Lemma 2.8\]. For sake of completeness we provide a sketch. In this proof all function spaces are equipped with the uniform convergence topology generated by the Euclidean metric $`d`$ on $`\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$. Since, by Lemma 2.4, $`\psi _V`$ has a closed graph, each $`\psi _V(y)`$ is closed in $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$. We need to show that, for fixed $`yY`$, $`\delta >0`$ and a map $`u:Q\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ there exists a map $`v:Q\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )\backslash \psi _V(y)`$ which is $`\delta `$-close to $`u`$. Observe first that $`u`$ generates $`hC(Q\times X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, $`h(z,x)=u(z)(x)`$, such that $`d(h(z,x),g_0(x))\alpha (x)`$ for any $`(z,x)Q\times X`$. Since $`f^1(y)`$ is compact, take $`\lambda (0,1)`$ such that $`\lambda sup\{\alpha (x):xf^1(y)\}<{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}`$ and define $`h_1C(Q\times f^1(y),\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ by $`h_1(z,x)=(1\lambda )h(z,x)+\lambda g_0(x)`$. Then, for every $`(z,x)Q\times f^1(y)`$, we have

(2)  $`d(h_1(z,x),g_0(x))(1\lambda )\alpha (x)<\alpha (x)`$

and

(3)  $`d(h_1(z,x),h(z,x))\lambda \alpha (x)<{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}`$.

Let $`q<\mathrm{min}\{r,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}\}`$, where $`r=inf\{\alpha (x)d(h_1(z,x),g_0(x)):(z,x)Q\times f^1(y)\}`$. Since $`dimf^1(y)n`$, by Lemma 2.3 (applied to the product $`Q\times f^1(y)`$), there is a map $`h_2C(Q\times f^1(y),\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ such that $`d(h_2(z,x),h_1(z,x))<q`$ and $`h_2(\{z\}\times f^1(y))`$ doesn’t contain $`V`$ for each $`(z,x)Q\times f^1(y)`$. Then, by $`(2)`$ and $`(3)`$, for all $`(z,x)Q\times f^1(y)`$ we have

(4)  $`d(h_2(z,x),h(z,x))<\delta `$ and $`d(h_2(z,x),g_0(x))<\alpha (x)`$.

Because both $`Q`$ and $`f^1(y)`$ are compact, $`u_2(z)(x)=h_2(z,x)`$ defines the map $`u_2:QC(f^1(y),\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$. Since the map $`\pi :\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )C(f^1(y),\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, $`\pi (g)=g|f^1(y)`$, is continuous and open (with respect to the uniform convergence topology), we can see that $`u_2(z)\pi (\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha ))`$ for every $`zQ`$ and $`\theta (z)=\overline{\pi ^1(u_2(z))B_\delta (u(z))}`$ defines a convex-valued map from $`Q`$ into $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ which is lower semi-continuous. By the Michael selection theorem \[9, Theorem 3.2”\], there is a continuous selection $`v:QC(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ for $`\theta `$. Then $`v`$ maps $`Q`$ into $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ and $`v`$ is $`\delta `$-close to $`u`$. Moreover, for any $`zQ`$ we have $`\pi (v(z))=u_2(z)`$ and $`Vu_2(z)(f^1(y))`$. Hence, $`v(z)\psi _V(y)`$ for any $`zQ`$, i.e. $`v:Q\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )\backslash \psi _V(y)`$. ∎

We are now in a position to finish the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Lemma 2.6.

The set $`_V`$ is dense in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ for every open $`V\text{𝕀}^{n+1}`$.

###### Proof.

We need to show that, for fixed $`g_0C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ and a continuous function $`\alpha :X(0,\mathrm{})`$, there exists $`g\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )_V`$. The space $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ with the uniform convergence topology is a closed convex subspace of the Banach space $`E`$ consisting of all bounded continuous maps from $`X`$ into $`\text{}^{n+1}`$. We define the set-valued map $`\varphi `$ from $`Y`$ into $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$, $`\varphi (y)=\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$, $`yY`$. According to Lemma 2.5, $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )\psi _V(y)`$ is a $`Z`$-set in $`\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$ for every $`yY`$. So, we have a lower semi-continuous closed and convex-valued map $`\varphi :Y(E)`$ and another map $`\psi _V:Y(E)`$ with a closed graph (see Lemma 2.4) such that $`\varphi (y)\psi _V(y)`$ is a $`Z`$-set in $`\varphi (y)`$ for each $`yY`$. Moreover, $`Y`$ is a $`C`$-space, so we can apply \[5, Theorem 1.1\] to obtain a continuous map $`h:YC(X,\text{𝕀}^{n+1})`$ with $`h(y)\varphi (y)\backslash \psi _V(y)`$ for every $`yY`$. Then $`g(x)=h(f(x))(x)`$, $`xX`$, defines a map $`g\overline{B}(g_0,\alpha )`$. On the other hand, $`h(y)\psi _V(y)`$, $`yY`$, implies that $`g_V`$. ∎

Proof of Corollary $`1.2`$.

As in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we can suppose that $`f`$ is perfect. We first consider the case when $`m`$ is an integer $`n+1`$. Let $`exp_{n+1}`$ be the family of all subsets of $`A=\{1,2,..,,m\}`$ having cardinality $`n+1`$ and let $`\pi _B:\text{𝕀}^m\text{𝕀}^B`$ denote the corresponding projections, $`Bexp_{n+1}`$. It can be shown that $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^m)=C(X,\text{𝕀}^B)\times C(X,\text{𝕀}^{A\backslash B})`$, so each projection $`p_B:C(X,\text{𝕀}^m)C(X,\text{𝕀}^B)`$ is open. Since, by Theorem 1.1, every set $`_B=\{gC(X,\text{𝕀}^B):dimg(f^1(y))n\text{ for all }yY\}`$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^B)`$, so is the set $`p_B^1(_B)`$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^m)`$. Consequently, the intersection $`_m`$ of all $`_B`$, $`Bexp_{n+1}`$, is also dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X,\text{𝕀}^m)`$. Moreover, if $`g_m`$ and $`yY`$, then $`dim\pi _B(g(f^1(y)))n`$ for any $`Bexp_{n+1}`$. The last inequalities, according to a result of Nöbeling \[4, Problem 1.8.C\], imply $`dimg(f^1(y)))n`$.

Now, let $`m=\omega `$ and $`exp_{<\omega }`$ denote the family of all finite sets $`B\omega `$ of cardinality $`|B|n+1`$. Keeping the above notations, for any $`Bexp_{<\omega }`$, $`\pi _B:Q=\text{𝕀}^\omega \text{𝕀}^B`$ and $`p_B:C(X,Q)C(X,\text{𝕀}^B)`$ stand for the corresponding projections. Then the intersection $`_\omega `$ of all $`p_B^1(_B)`$ is dense and $`G_\delta `$ in $`C(X,Q)`$. We need only to check that $`dimg(f^1(y))n`$ for any $`g_\omega `$ and $`yY`$. And this is certainly true, take an increasing sequence $`\{B(k)\}`$ in $`exp_{<\omega }`$ which covers $`\omega `$ and consider the inverse sequence $`𝒮=\{\pi _{B(k)}(g(f^1(y))),\pi _k^{k+1}\}`$, where $`\pi _k^{k+1}:\pi _{B(k+1)}(g(f^1(y)))\pi _{B(k)}(g(f^1(y)))`$ are the natural projections. Obviously, $`g(f^1(y))`$ is the limit space of $`𝒮`$. Moreover, $`g_\omega `$ implies that $`\pi _{B(k)}g_{B(k)}`$ for any $`k`$, so all $`\pi _{B(k)}(g(f^1(y)))`$ are at most $`n`$-dimensional. Hence, $`dimg(f^1(y))n`$.


format: text

text:
# Jumping deformations of complete toric varieties

## 1 Introduction

It is well-known that the Hirzebruch surface $`F_a(a0)`$ of degree $`a`$ is deformed in a one-parameter family to $`F_{a2k}`$, where $`k`$ is a positive integer such that $`a2k0`$. Especially, if $`aa^{}(`$mod 2$`)`$, then $`F_a`$ and $`F_a^{}`$ are homeomorphic. In this paper, we generalize this classical result to certain nonsingular complete toric varieties. Namely, for a nonsingular complete toric $`d`$-fold $`V`$ which have a toric fibration onto $`𝐏^1`$ such that its general fiber is isomorphic to either $`𝐏^{d1}`$ or a toric bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, we construct a complex analytic family $`\{V_t\}_{t𝐂}`$ such that $`V_0V`$ and that $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ are mutually isomorphic. Moreover, under some assumptions, the general fiber of this family can be explicitly described by the data of the fan corresponding to $`V`$.

As an application of this construction of families, we give deformation families for some toric weakened Fano varieties, that is, nonsingular toric weak Fano varieties which are not Fano but are deformed to Fano varieties. Toric weakened Fano $`d`$-folds are classified for $`d3`$ (see Sato ). Moreover, we get some examples of toric weakened Fano $`4`$-folds.

The content of this paper is as follows: In Section 2, we review the homogeneous coordinate of a toric varietiy, which is a key to our main result. In Section 3, we construct complex analytic families of nonsingular complete varieties over C as stated above. In Section 4, as an application of the construction, we study deformations among $`𝐏^{d1}`$-bundles over $`𝐏^1`$. In Section 5, we give some examples of toric weakened Fano $`3`$-folds and $`4`$-folds using the families constructed in Section 3.

The author wishes to thank Professors Tadao Oda, Masa-Nori Ishida, Tadashi Ashikaga, Takeshi Kajiwara and Yasuhiro Nakagawa for advice and encouragement.

## 2 Homogeneous coordinates of toric varieties

In this section, we recall homogeneous coordinates of toric varieties (see Cox  and Oda ).

Let $`N=𝐙^d`$ with elements regarded as column vectors, $`M:=Hom_𝐙(N,𝐙)`$, $`N_𝐑:=N𝐑`$, $`M_𝐑:=M𝐑`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a fan in $`N`$. Throughout this paper, we mean by a cone a nonsingular rational cone and by a fan in $`N`$ a nonsingular fan which contains at least one $`d`$-dimensional cone. For $`0id`$, we put $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(i):=\left\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\right|dim\sigma =i\}`$. Each $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ determines a unique element $`e(\tau )N`$ which generates the semigroup $`\tau N`$. We call

$$G(\mathrm{\Sigma }):=\left\{e(\tau )N\right|\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }(1)\}$$

the set of primitive generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Put $`G(\sigma ):=\sigma G(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. We introduce variables $`\{𝒳_\rho |\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })\}`$ and consider the polynomial ring $`S:=𝐂\left[𝒳_\rho |\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })\right]`$, which we call the homogeneous coordinate ring of the nonsingular toric $`d`$-fold $`V`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Put

$$Z:=\left\{X=(X_\rho )_{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}\right|\underset{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })G(\sigma )}{}X_\rho =0\text{ for any }\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\}𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}.$$

On the other hand, by the exact sequence

$$0M𝐙^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}\mathrm{Pic}(V)0,$$

we have an exact sequence

$$1G:=\mathrm{Hom}_𝐙(\mathrm{Pic}(V),𝐂^\times )\left(𝐂^\times \right)^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}T_N1.$$

Since $`\left(𝐂^\times \right)^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ acts naturally on $`𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$, the subgroup $`G\left(𝐂^\times \right)^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ acts on $`𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ as

$$gt:=\left(g\left(\left[D_\rho \right]\right)t_\rho \right)_{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })},$$

where $`gG`$, $`t=\left(t_\rho \right)_{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ and $`[D_\rho ]\mathrm{Pic}(V)`$ is the class of the $`T_N`$-invariant prime divisor $`D_\rho `$ corresponding to $`\rho `$. In this setting, the following holds.

###### Proposition 2.1 (Cox , Theorem 2.1)

. The subset $`𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}Z𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}`$ is invariant under the action of $`G`$, and $`V`$ is the geometric quotient of $`𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}Z`$ by $`G`$. We denote $`𝐂^{G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}Z`$ by $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

We need the following proposition for this description.

###### Proposition 2.2 (Cox , Theorem 2.1)

. For any $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have

$$U_\sigma \left(𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma :=\left\{X=\left(X_\rho \right)_{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })\right|\underset{\rho G(\mathrm{\Sigma })G(\sigma )}{}X_\rho 0\}\right)/G,$$

where $`U_\sigma V`$ is the affine toric subvariety corresponding to $`\sigma `$.

## 3 Constructions of families

In this section, we construct one-parameter complex analytic families whose fibers are nonsingular complete varieties. Especially, the special fibers are nonsingular complete toric varieties. This is a generalization of the classical results on deformations among Hirzebruch surfaces.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{N}:=\left\{𝐧N\right|\text{the }d\text{-th coordinate of }𝐧\text{ is }0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ a complete fan in $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. For a complete fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`N`$ containing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ as a subfan, we define subfans of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+:=\left\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\right|\text{the }d\text{-th coordinate of }𝐧\text{ is nonnegative for any }𝐧\sigma \}$$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:=\left\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }\right|\text{the }d\text{-th coordinate of }𝐧\text{ is nonpositive for any }𝐧\sigma \}$$

Then we have $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. We denote by $`V`$ (resp. $`V^+`$, $`V^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$) the nonsingular toric variety corresponding to the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$).

###### Remark 3.1

$`V`$ has a toric fibration $`V𝐏^1`$ whose general fiber is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

In the above situation, let

$$G(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})=\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho \},G(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)=\{𝐛_1,\mathrm{},𝐛_m\}G(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}),$$

$$G(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})=\{𝐜_1,\mathrm{},𝐜_n\}G(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}),$$

$`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐛_1\}`$ the standard basis for $`N`$ and

$$(𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho ,𝐛_2,\mathrm{},𝐛_m,𝐜_1,\mathrm{},𝐜_n)=$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& a_{\rho ,1}& b_{2,1}& \mathrm{}& b_{m,1}& c_{1,1}& \mathrm{}& c_{n,1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{1,d}& \mathrm{}& a_{\rho ,d}& b_{2,d}& \mathrm{}& b_{m,d}& c_{1,d}& \mathrm{}& c_{n,d}\end{array}\right).$$

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is isomorphic to either $`𝐏^{d1}`$ or a toric bundle over $`𝐏^1`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is isomorphic to a toric bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, suppose that the $`T_N`$-invariant prime divisors on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ corresponding to $`𝐞_1`$ and $`𝐚_1`$ correspond to fibers. Suppose further that $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐛_1\}`$ generates a $`d`$-dimensional cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$, while $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐜_1\}`$ generates a $`d`$-dimensional cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. For a nonnegative integer $`k`$, we construct a complex analytic family.

Since $`\{𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho \}G(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$, we have $`a_{1,d}=\mathrm{}=a_{\rho ,d}=0`$. We have $`c_{1,d}=1`$, by the assumption that $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐜_1\}`$ generates a $`d`$-dimensional cone in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{d1},A_1,\mathrm{},A_\rho ,B_1,\mathrm{},B_m,C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ be the $`T_N`$-invariant prime divisors corresponding to $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho ,𝐛_1,\mathrm{},𝐛_m,𝐜_1,\mathrm{},𝐜_n`$, respectively. Then by computing the divisors of the rational functions $`𝐞(𝐞_1^{}),\mathrm{},𝐞(𝐞_{d1}^{}),𝐞(𝐛_1^{})𝐂(V)`$, where $`\{𝐞_1^{},\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1}^{},𝐛_1^{}\}M`$ is the dual basis of $`\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐛_1\}`$, we have

$$D_1+a_{1,1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,1}A_\rho +b_{2,1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,1}B_m+c_{1,1}C_1+\mathrm{}+c_{n,1}C_n=0,$$

$$D_2+a_{1,2}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,2}A_\rho +b_{2,2}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,2}B_m+c_{1,2}C_1+\mathrm{}+c_{n,2}C_n=0,$$

$$\mathrm{}$$

$$D_{d1}+a_{1,d1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,d1}A_\rho +b_{2,d1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d1}B_m+c_{1,d1}C_1+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d1}C_n=0,$$

$$B_1+b_{2,d}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d}B_mC_1+c_{2,d}C_2+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d}C_n=0$$

in $`\mathrm{Pic}(V)`$, respectively. Using these equalities, we calculate the homogeneous coordinates of $`V`$, $`V^+`$, $`V^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

Let $`(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{d1},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ,Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_m,W_1,\mathrm{},W_n)𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be the homogeneous coordinate of $`V`$ corresponding to $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho ,𝐛_1,\mathrm{},𝐛_m,𝐜_1,\mathrm{},𝐜_n`$, respectively. Then the action of $`G:=\mathrm{Hom}_𝐙(\mathrm{Pic}(V),𝐂^\times )`$ on $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is as follows: $`gG`$ acts as

(1)
$$(g((a_{1,1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,1}A_\rho +b_{2,1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,1}B_m+c_{1,1}C_1+\mathrm{}+c_{n,1}C_n))X_1,$$

$$\mathrm{},g((a_{1,d1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,d1}A_\rho +b_{2,d1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d1}B_m+$$

$$c_{1,d1}C_1+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d1}C_n))X_{d1},$$

$$g(A_1)Y_1,\mathrm{},g(A_\rho )Y_\rho ,$$

$$g\left(\left(b_{2,d}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d}B_mC_1+c_{2,d}C_2+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d}C_n\right)\right)Z_1,$$

$$g(B_2)Z_2,\mathrm{},g(B_m)Z_m,g(C_1)W_1,\mathrm{},g(C_n)W_n).$$

Let $`\phi :(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{d1},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ,Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_m,W_1,\mathrm{},W_n)(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,Y_1^+,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,`$ $`Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)`$ be a surjective morphism from $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^+}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma 𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ given by

(2)
$$(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,Y_1^+,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)=$$

$$(X_1W_1^{c_{1,1}}\mathrm{}W_n^{c_{n,1}},\mathrm{},X_{d1}W_1^{c_{1,d1}}\mathrm{}W_n^{c_{n,d1}},$$

$$Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ,Z_1W_1^{c_{1,d}}\mathrm{}W_n^{c_{n,d}},Z_2,\mathrm{},Z_m),$$

where $`(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,Y_1^+,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)`$ is the homogeneous coordinate of $`V^+𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)/G^+`$ with $`G^+:=\mathrm{Hom}_𝐙(\mathrm{Pic}(V^+),𝐂^\times )`$ corresponding to $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho ,𝐛_1,`$ $`\mathrm{},𝐛_m`$, respectively. $`\phi `$ is well-defined, since $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_n0`$ on $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^+}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma `$. Moreover, since $`\phi `$ is compartible with the action of $`G`$ and $`G^+`$ by $`(1)`$, $`\phi `$ induces the isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }:\left(_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^+}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma \right)/GVV^+`$. Similarly, the morphism $`\psi :(X_1,\mathrm{},X_{d1},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ,Z_1,`$ $`\mathrm{},Z_m,W_1,\mathrm{},W_n)(X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})`$ from $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma 𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ given by

(3)
$$(X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})=$$

$$(X_1Z_1^{c_{1,1}}Z_2^{b_{2,d}c_{1,1}+b_{2,1}}\mathrm{}Z_m^{b_{m,d}c_{1,1}+b_{m,1}},\mathrm{},$$

$$X_{d1}Z_1^{c_{1,d1}}Z_2^{b_{2,d}c_{1,d1}+b_{2,d1}}\mathrm{}Z_m^{b_{m,d}c_{1,d1}+b_{m,d1}},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ,$$

$$Z_1^1Z_2^{b_{2,d}}\mathrm{}Z_m^{b_{m,d}}W_1,W_2,\mathrm{},W_n)$$

induces the isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:\left(_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\sigma \right)/GVV^{}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})/G^{}`$, where $`G^{}:=\mathrm{Hom}_𝐙(\mathrm{Pic}(V^{}),𝐂^\times )`$ and $`(X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})`$ is the homogeneous coordinate of $`V^{}`$ corresponding to $`𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,\mathrm{},𝐚_\rho ,𝐜_1,\mathrm{},𝐜_n`$, respectively.

$`g^+G^+`$ and $`g^{}G^{}`$ act on $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ and $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ as

(4)
$$(g^+((a_{1,1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,1}A_\rho +b_{2,1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,1}B_m))X_1^+,\mathrm{},$$

$$g^+\left(\left(a_{1,d1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,d1}A_\rho +b_{2,d1}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d1}B_m\right)\right)X_{d1}^+,$$

$$g^+(A_1)Y_1^+,\mathrm{},g^+(A_\rho )Y_\rho ^+,g^+\left(\left(b_{2,d}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d}B_m\right)\right)Z_1^+,$$

$$g^+(B_2)Z_2^+,\mathrm{},g^+(B_m)Z_m^+)$$

and
$$(g^{}((a_{1,1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,1}A_\rho +(c_{2,1}+c_{1,1}c_{2,d})C_2+\mathrm{}+(c_{n,1}+c_{1,1}c_{n,d})C_n))X_1^{},\mathrm{},$$

$$g^{}((a_{1,d1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,d1}A_\rho +(c_{2,d1}+c_{1,d1}c_{2,d})C_2+\mathrm{}+$$

$$(c_{n,d1}+c_{1,d1}c_{n,d})C_n))X^{}_{d1},g^{}(A_1)Y^{}_1,\mathrm{},g^{}(A_\rho )Y^{}_\rho ,$$

$$g^{}((c_{2,d}C_2+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d}C_n))W_1^{},g^{}(C_2)W_2^{},\mathrm{},g^{}(C_n)W_n^{}),$$

respectively. So, similarly as $`(2)`$ and $`(3)`$, we have isomorphisms $`(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,Y_1^+,\mathrm{},`$ $`Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)(x_1^+,`$ $`\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)`$ from $`\left(_{\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)_\sigma \right)/G^+V^+`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ and $`(X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},`$ $`W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)`$ from $`\left(_{\sigma \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})_\sigma \right)/G^{}V^{}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ given by

(5)
$$(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)=$$

$$(X_1^+(Z_2^+)^{b_{2,1}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{b_{m,1}},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+(Z_2^+)^{b_{2,d1}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{b_{m,d1}},$$

$$Y_1^+,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+(Z_2^+)^{b_{2,d}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{b_{m,d}})$$

and

(6)
$$(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)=$$

$$(X_1^{}(W_2^{})^{c_{2,1}+c_{1,1}c_{2,d}}\mathrm{}(W_n^{})^{c_{n,1}+c_{1,1}c_{n,d}},\mathrm{},$$

$$X_{d1}^{}(W_2^{})^{c_{2,d1}+c_{1,d1}c_{2,d}}\mathrm{}(W_n^{})^{c_{n,d1}+c_{1,d1}c_{n,d}},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},$$

$$W_1^{}(W_2^{})^{c_{2,d}}\mathrm{}(W_n^{})^{c_{n,d}}),$$

respectively, where $`(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+)`$ and $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{})`$ are homogeneous coordinates of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, while $`z,w𝐂^\times `$. These two coordinates are related as follows:

$$x_1^+=x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+=x_{d1}^{}w^{c_{1,d1}},y_1^+=y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+=y_\rho ^{},z=1/w.$$

We construct a one-parameter family of toric varieties parameterized by $`t𝐂`$ by changing this relation: Let $`\{V_t\}_{t𝐂}`$ be the family we obtain by patching $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ along $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ by the automorphism $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)`$ defined by

(7)
$$x_1^+=x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}}+ty_1^{}w^k,x_2^+=x_2^{}w^{c_{1,2}},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+=x_{d1}^{}w^{c_{1,d1}},$$

$$y_1^+=y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+=y_\rho ^{},z=1/w.$$

This is well-defined, since $`D_1=A_1`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ and the combinatorial structures of the neighborhoods of $`𝐞_1`$ and $`𝐚_1`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are equivalent by the assumption $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is isomorphic to either $`𝐏^{d1}`$ or a toric bundle over $`𝐏^1`$. Thus, we have the following.

###### Theorem 3.2

$`\{V_t\}_{t𝐂}`$ is a complex analytic family whose special fiber $`V_0`$ is isomorphic to $`V`$.

Next, we calculate the general fibers of this family under some assumptions. We introduce some notation.

For any $`𝐪=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_{d1})𝐙^{d1}`$ we can define a complete fan $`𝐪^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`N`$ as follows:

$$𝐪^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\left\{𝐪^{}\sigma \right|\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\},$$

where $`𝐪^{}\sigma `$ is the image of $`\sigma `$ under the automorphism of $`N_𝐑`$ corresponding to the matrix acting from the left on the elements of $`N=𝐙^d`$ regarded as column vectors

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& q_1\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& q_2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& q_{d1}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

We denotes by $`q^{}V`$ the nonsingular toric $`d`$-fold corresponding to the fan $`q^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Theorem 3.3

For any $`t`$ in $`𝐂^\times :=𝐂\{0\}`$, we have

$$V_t(2k,ka_{1,2},\mathrm{},ka_{1,d1})^{}V,$$

if the following conditions are satisfied$`:`$

1. $`b_{2,1}=\mathrm{}=b_{m,1}=0`$ and
2. $`kc_{1,d}+c_{1,1}0,\mathrm{},kc_{n,d}+c_{n,1}0.`$

Proof. Let $`t0`$.

We can define an automorphism $`(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,`$ $`\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ by

(8)
$$\widehat{x}_1^+:=x_1^+z^kty_1^+,\widehat{x}_2^+:=x_2^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+:=x_{d1}^+,$$

$$\widehat{y}_1^+:=tx_1^+,\widehat{y}_2^+:=y_2^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+:=y_\rho ^+,\widehat{z}:=z.$$

In fact, since $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is isomorphic to either $`𝐏^{d1}`$ or a toric bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, this is a morphism, and we can easily construct the inverse of this morphism. By the automorphism $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)`$ given by the relations $`(7)`$, we have

$$\widehat{x}_1^+=(x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}}+ty_1^{}w^k)w^kty_1^{}=x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}k},$$

$$\widehat{x}_2^+=x_2^{}w^{c_{1,2}},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+=x_{d1}^{}w^{c_{1,d1}},$$

$$\widehat{y}_1^+=t(x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}}+ty_1^{}w^k),\widehat{y}_2^+=y_2^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+=y_\rho ^{},\widehat{z}=1/w.$$

By considering the action of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ on $`x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+`$, these relations are equivalent to

(9)
$$\widehat{x}_1^+=x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}2k},\widehat{x}_2^+=x_2^{}w^{c_{1,2}+ka_{1,2}},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+=x_{d1}^{}w^{c_{1,d1}+ka_{1,d1}},$$

$$\widehat{y}_1^+=t(x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}k}+ty_1^{}),\widehat{y}_2^+=y_2^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+=y_\rho ^{},\widehat{z}=1/w.$$

Let

(10)
$$\widehat{x}_1^{}:=x_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{}:=x_{d1}^{},$$

$$\widehat{y}_1^{}:=t(x_1^{}w^{c_{1,1}k}+ty_1^{}),\widehat{y}_2^{}:=y_2^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{}:=y_\rho ^{},\widehat{w}:=w.$$

Then $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})`$ determines an automorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$, and in terms of this new coordinate, the automorphism $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},`$ $`y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ given by the relations $`(9)`$ is described as the automorphism $`(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ given by

(11)
$$\widehat{x}_1^+=\widehat{x}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{w}^{c_{1,1}2k},\widehat{x}_2^+=\widehat{x}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{w}^{c_{1,2}+ka_{1,2}},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+=\widehat{x}_{d1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{w}^{c_{1,d1}+ka_{1,d1}},$$

$$\widehat{y}_1^+=\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+=\widehat{y}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{},\widehat{z}=1/\widehat{w}.$$

We can show that the automorphisms $`(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,`$ $`\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ in $`(8)`$ and $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})`$ in $`(10)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ are extended to automorphisms of $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$, respectively as follows: Put

$$\widehat{X}_1^+:=X_1^+(Z_1^+)^k(Z_2^+)^{kb_{2,d}b_{2,1}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{kb_{m,d}b_{m,1}}tY_1^+(Z_2^+)^{b_{2,1}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{b_{m,1}},$$

$$\widehat{X}_2^+:=X_2^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^+:=X_{d1}^+,\widehat{Y}_1^+:=tX_1^+(Z_2^+)^{b_{2,1}}\mathrm{}(Z_m^+)^{b_{m,1}},$$

$$\widehat{Y}_2^+:=Y_2^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^+:=Y_\rho ^+,\widehat{Z}_1^+:=Z_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{Z}_m^+:=Z_m^+.$$

By the assumption $`b_{2,1}=\mathrm{}=b_{m,1}=0`$, this defines an automorphism $`(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,`$ $`Y_1^+,\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)(\widehat{X}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^+,\widehat{Y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{Z}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{Z}_m^+)`$ of $`V^+`$, and obviously the restriction of this automorphism through the isomorphisms $`(X_1^+,\mathrm{},X_{d1}^+,Y_1^+,`$ $`\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^+,Z_1^+,\mathrm{},Z_m^+)(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)`$ and $`(\widehat{X}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^+,\widehat{Y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{Z}_1^+,`$ $`\mathrm{},\widehat{Z}_m^+)(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ defined by the equalities $`(5)`$ from $`𝐔(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})/G^+V^+`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ is the automorphism $`(x_1^+,\mathrm{},x_{d1}^+,y_1^+,\mathrm{},y_\rho ^+,z)(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,`$ $`\widehat{z})`$ corresponding to the equalities $`(8)`$. Similarly, by the assumption $`kc_{1,d}+c_{1,1}0,\mathrm{},kc_{n,d}+c_{n,1}0`$, by putting

$$\widehat{X}_1^{}:=X_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^{}:=X_{d1}^{},$$

$$\widehat{Y}_1^{}:=tX_1^{}(W_1^{})^{kc_{1,d}+c_{1,1}}\mathrm{}(W_n^{})^{kc_{n,d}+c_{n,1}},$$

$$\widehat{Y}_2^{}:=Y_2^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^{}:=Y_\rho ^{},\widehat{W}_1^{}:=W_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{W}_n^{}:=W_n^{},$$

we get an automorphism $`(X_1^{},\mathrm{},X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})(\widehat{X}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^{},`$ $`\widehat{Y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{W}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{W}_n^{})`$ of $`V^{}`$ whose restriction through the isomorphisms $`(X_1^{},\mathrm{},`$ $`X_{d1}^{},Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_\rho ^{},W_1^{},\mathrm{},W_n^{})(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)`$ and $`(\widehat{X}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{X}_{d1}^{},\widehat{Y}_1^{},`$ $`\mathrm{},\widehat{Y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{W}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{W}_n^{})(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})`$ defined by the equalities $`(6)`$ from $`𝐔(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})/G^{}V^{}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{V}\times 𝐂^\times `$ is the automorphism $`(x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{},y_1^{},\mathrm{},y_\rho ^{},w)(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},`$ $`\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})`$ corresponding to the equalities $`(10)`$.

Next, to show $`V_t(2k,ka_{1,2},\mathrm{},ka_{1,d1})^{}V`$ for any $`t0`$, we have to investigate the action of $`G^{}`$ on $`𝐔(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$. However the action $`(4)`$ is obviously equivalent to the following:

(12)
$$(g^{}((a_{1,1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,1}A_\rho +(c_{2,1}c_{1,1}c_{2,d})C_2+\mathrm{}$$

$$+(c_{n,1}c_{1,1}c_{n,d})C_n))X^{}_1,\mathrm{},$$

$$g^{}((a_{1,d1}A_1+\mathrm{}+a_{\rho ,d1}A_\rho +(c_{2,d1}c_{1,d1}c_{2,d})C_2+\mathrm{}+$$

$$(c_{n,d1}c_{1,d1}c_{n,d})C_n))X^{}_{d1},g^{}(A_1)Y^{}_1,\mathrm{},g^{}(A_\rho )Y^{}_\rho ,$$

$$g^{}((c_{2,d}C_2+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d}C_n))W_1^{},g^{}(C_2)W_2^{},\mathrm{},g^{}(C_n)W_n^{}),$$

because $`B_1+b_{2,d}B_2+\mathrm{}+b_{m,d}B_mC_1+c_{2,d}C_2+\mathrm{}+c_{n,d}C_n=0`$ on $`V`$. So by the automorphism $`(\widehat{x}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^{},\widehat{y}_1^{},\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^{},\widehat{w})(\widehat{x}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{x}_{d1}^+,\widehat{y}_1^+,\mathrm{},\widehat{y}_\rho ^+,\widehat{z})`$ given by the relations $`(11)`$ and the action $`(12)`$, we have $`V_t(2k,ka_{1,2},\mathrm{},ka_{1,d1})^{}V`$ for any $`t0`$. q.e.d.

## 4 Projective space bundles over the projective line

The classical results for deformations among Hirzebruch surfaces are well-known. As a generalization of this results, for $`𝐏^2`$-bundles over $`𝐏^1`$, Nakamura  showed the following.

###### Proposition 4.1 (Nakamura )

For integers $`a,b,c,a^{},b^{},c^{}`$, let

$$V=𝐏_{𝐏^1}(𝒪(a)𝒪(b)𝒪(c))\text{ and }V^{}=𝐏_{𝐏^1}(𝒪(a^{})𝒪(b^{})𝒪(c^{})).$$

Then the following are equivalent.

1. $`a+b+ca^{}+b^{}+c^{}`$ $`(`$mod $`3)`$.
2. There exist $`𝐏^2`$-bundles over $`𝐏^1`$ $`V_0,\mathrm{},V_m`$ such that $`V_0V`$, $`V_mV^{}`$ and $`V_{i1}`$ is deformed to $`V_i`$ for any $`1im`$.
3. $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are homeomorphic.

We generalize the case $`(1)(2)`$ of Proposition 4.1 for $`𝐏^{d1}`$-bundles over $`𝐏^1`$ using the one-parameter families constructed in Theorem 3.2. Harris  studied this case. For fundamental properties of primitive collections and primitive relations, see Batyrev ,  and Sato . We use the notation as in Section 3.

Let $`V`$ be a $`𝐏^{d1}`$-bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, that is,

$$V=V(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{d1}):=𝐏_{𝐏^1}\left(𝒪𝒪(p_1)\mathrm{}𝒪(p_{d1})\right),$$

where $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{d1}`$ are nonnegative integers. Then the primitive relations of the corresponding fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are

$$𝐞_1+\mathrm{}+𝐞_{d1}+𝐚_1=0\text{and}𝐛_1+𝐜_1=p_1𝐞_1+\mathrm{}+p_{d1}𝐞_{d1},$$

where $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,𝐛_1,𝐜_1\}`$. For a nonnegative integer $`k`$ such that $`a_1k0`$, the conditions in Theorem 3.3 are satisfied. Therefore, there exists a one-parameter complex analytic family $`\left\{V_t\right\}_{t𝐂}`$ such that

$$(1)V_t\{\begin{array}{ccc}V& \text{if}& t=0\hfill \\ (2k,k,\mathrm{},k)^{}V& \text{if}& t0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We show that for $`V(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{d1})`$ and $`V(p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_{d1}^{})`$, if $`p_1+\mathrm{}+p_{d1}p_1^{}+\mathrm{}+p_{d1}^{}(`$mod$`d)`$, then there exist nonsingular toric $`d`$-folds $`V_0,\mathrm{},V_m`$ such that each $`V_i`$ is a $`𝐏^{d1}`$-bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, $`V_0V(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{d1})`$, $`V_mV(p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_{d1}^{})`$ and $`V_{i1}`$ is deformed by a one-parameter family to $`V_i`$ for any $`1im`$.

Let $`k=1`$. Suppose that there exists $`1id1`$ such that $`p_i2`$. So we may assume $`p_1p_2\mathrm{}p_l>p_{l+1}=\mathrm{}=p_{d1}=0`$ by changing the order of the indices, where $`p_12`$ . Then by the family $`(1)`$, $`V`$ is deformed to $`(2,1,\mathrm{},1)^{}V`$. The primitive relations of $`(2,1,\mathrm{},1)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are

$$𝐞_1+\mathrm{}+𝐞_{d1}+𝐚_1=0\text{and}$$

$$𝐛_1+𝐜_1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}p_12\\ p_21\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_l1\\ p_{l+1}1\\ \mathrm{}\\ p_{d1}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}(p_11)𝐞_1+p_2𝐞_2+\mathrm{}+p_l𝐞_l+𝐚_1& \text{if}& l<d1\hfill \\ (p_12)𝐞_1+(p_21)𝐞_2+\mathrm{}+(p_l1)𝐞_l& \text{if}& l=d1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`G\left((2,1,\mathrm{},1)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\right)=\{𝐞_1,\mathrm{},𝐞_{d1},𝐚_1,𝐛_1,𝐜_1^{}\}.`$ We can replace $`V`$ by $`(2,1,\mathrm{},1)^{}V`$ and carry out this operation again. This operation terminates in finite steps and $`V`$ becomes $`V(p_1,\mathrm{},p_{d1})`$ such that $`p_11,\mathrm{},p_{d1}1`$. In each step, $`p_1+\mathrm{}+p_{d1}𝐙/d𝐙`$ does not change. Thus, we have the following.

###### Proposition 4.2

For integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_d,a_1^{},\mathrm{},a_d^{}`$, let $`V=𝐏_{𝐏^1}(𝒪(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪(a_d))`$ and $`V^{}=𝐏_{𝐏^1}(𝒪(a_1^{})\mathrm{}𝒪(a_d^{}))`$. If $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_da_1^{}+\mathrm{}+a_d^{}`$ $`(`$mod $`d)`$, then there exist $`𝐏^{d1}`$-bundles over $`𝐏^1`$ $`V_0,\mathrm{},V_m`$ such that $`V_0V`$, $`V_mV^{}`$ and $`V_{i1}`$ is deformed to $`V_i`$ for any $`1im`$. Especially, $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are homeomorphic.

## 5 Weakened Fano varieties

The following definition is important for the birational geometry.

###### Definition 5.1

Let $`V`$ be a nonsingular projective variety. $`V`$ is called a Fano (resp. weak Fano) variety if its anti-canonical divisor $`K_V`$ is ample (resp. nef and big).

The following definition was proposed by Minagawa  in connection with “Reid’s fantasy” for weak Fano $`3`$-folds.

###### Definition 5.2 (Minagawa )

Let $`V`$ be a nonsingular weak Fano $`d`$-fold over $`𝐂`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ:=\left\{t𝐂\right||t|<ϵ\}`$ for a sufficiently small real number $`ϵ>0`$. Then $`V`$ is called a weakened Fano $`d`$-fold if $`V`$ is not a nonsingular Fano $`d`$-fold and there exists a small deformation $`\phi :𝒱\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$ such that $`𝒱_0:=\phi ^1(0)V`$, while $`𝒱_t:=\phi ^1(t)`$ is a nonsingular Fano $`d`$-fold for any $`t\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ\{0\}`$.

In this section, we give a deformation family for a certain toric weakened Fano $`3`$-fold using the families constructed in Section 3. Toric weakened Fano $`3`$-folds are completely classified by Sato . Moreover, we give some examples of toric weakened Fano $`4`$-folds. We use the notation as in Section 3.

###### Example 5.3

Let $`V`$ be the nonsingular toric weakened Fano $`3`$-fold of type $`X_0^3`$ in the sense of Sato , that is, the primitive relations of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are

$$𝐞_1+𝐚_1=𝐞_2,𝐞_2+𝐚_2=0\text{ and }𝐛_1+𝐜_1=2𝐞_1,$$

where $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\{𝐞_1,𝐞_2,𝐚_1,𝐚_2,𝐛_1,𝐜_1\}`$. $`V`$ is a $`F_1`$-bundle over $`𝐏^1`$, where $`F_1`$ is the Hirzebruch surface of degree $`1`$. Therefore, by Theorems 3.2 and 3.2, there exists a complex analytic family $`\{V_t\}_{t𝐂}`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}V_0V,\text{ while}\\ V_t(2,1)^{}V(t0).\end{array}$$

The primitive relations of $`(2,1)^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are

$$𝐞_1+𝐚_1=𝐞_2,𝐞_2+𝐚_2=0\text{ and }𝐛_1+𝐜_1^{}=𝐞_2,$$

where $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\{𝐞_1,𝐞_2,𝐚_1,𝐚_2,𝐛_1,𝐜_1^{}\}`$. $`(2,1)^{}V`$ is the toric Fano $`3`$-fold we want (see Section $`4`$ in Sato ).

In the same way as in Example 5.3, we get some examples of toric weakened Fano $`4`$-folds which does not decomposed into direct products of lower-dimensional varieties. In the following, $`G(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}\}`$ and the fans corresponding to toric weakened Fano $`4`$-folds are described in terms of primitive relations. We also give the types of general fibers. The types of nonsingular toric Fano $`4`$-folds are in the sense of Batyrev  and Sato .

1. $`x_1+x_4=x_2,x_2+x_3+x_5=0`$and$`x_6+x_7=2x_1`$ (type $`D_7`$).
2. $`x_1+x_4=x_2,x_2+x_6=0,x_3+x_5=x_2`$and$`x_7+x_8=2x_1`$ (type $`L_1`$).
3. $`x_1+x_4=x_2,x_2+x_6=0,x_3+x_5=x_6`$and$`x_7+x_8=2x_1`$ (type $`L_{13}`$).
4. $`x_1+x_4=x_2,x_2+x_5=x_3,x_3+x_6=0`$and$`x_7+x_8=2x_1`$ (type $`L_2`$).
5. $`x_5+x_6=0,x_3+x_7=0,x_2+x_3=x_5,x_5+x_7=x_2,x_2+x_6=x_7,x_1+x_4=x_2`$and$`x_8+x_9=2x_1`$ (type $`Q_1`$).
6. $`x_5+x_6=0,x_3+x_7=0,x_2+x_3=x_5,x_5+x_7=x_2,x_2+x_6=x_7,x_1+x_4=x_3`$and$`x_8+x_9=2x_1`$ (type $`Q_{13}`$).
7. $`x_5+x_6=0,x_3+x_7=0,x_2+x_3=x_5,x_5+x_7=x_2,x_2+x_6=x_7,x_1+x_4=x_5`$and$`x_8+x_9=2x_1`$ (type $`Q_8`$).
8. $`x_5+x_6=0,x_3+x_7=0,x_2+x_3=x_5,x_5+x_7=x_2,x_2+x_6=x_7,x_1+x_4=0`$and$`x_8+x_9=2x_1`$ (type $`Q_{11}`$).
9. $`x_5+x_8=0,x_2+x_5=x_3,x_3+x_8=x_2,x_3+x_6=x_5,x_3+x_7=0,x_2+x_6=0,x_6+x_8=x_7,x_2+x_7=x_8,x_5+x_7=x_6,x_1+x_4=x_2`$and$`x_9+x_{10}=2x_1`$ (type $`U_1`$).

Department of Mathematics,
Tokyo Institute of Technology,
2-12-1 Oh-okayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan.

E-mail address: $`\mathrm{𝚑𝚒𝚛𝚘𝚜𝚊𝚝𝚘}\mathrm{@}\mathrm{𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚑}.\mathrm{𝚝𝚒𝚝𝚎𝚌𝚑}.\mathrm{𝚊𝚌}.\mathrm{𝚓𝚙}`$


text:
# Prospects for the measurement of 𝑩_𝒔^𝟎 oscillations with the ATLAS detector at LHC

## 1 Introduction

The observed $`B_s^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ states are linear combinations of two mass eigenstates, denoted here as $`H`$ and $`L`$. Due to the non-conservation of flavour in charged weak-current interactions, transitions between $`B_s^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_s^0`$ states occur with a frequency proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s=m_Hm_L`$.

Experimentally, these $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ oscillations have not yet been observed directly. In the Standard Model, their frequency is predicted in Ref. SM\_dms  to be between 12.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and 17.6 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ with 68% CL, and lower than 20 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ at 95% CL, significantly larger than the corresponding value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ in the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ system. From measurements done by the ALEPH, DELPHI and OPAL experiments at LEP, by SLD at SLC, and by CDF at the Tevatron, a combined lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s>18.0`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ has been established at 95% CL dms\_exp . In the $`B_d^0`$$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ system, the oscillations have been directly observed and a rather precise value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d=0.472\pm 0.017`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ PDG2000  has been measured.

The values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ predicted in the Standard Model by computing the corresponding box diagrams, with the top-quark contribution assumed to be dominant, are proportional to $`|V_{td}|^2`$ and $`|V_{ts}|^2`$ respectively. The direct determination of $`V_{td}`$ and $`V_{ts}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ is, however, hampered by hadronic uncertainties. These uncertainties partially cancel in the ratio:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_d}=\frac{M_{B_s^0}}{M_{B_d^0}}\frac{\widehat{B}_{B_s^0}f_{B_s^0}^2}{\widehat{B}_{B_d^0}f_{B_d^0}^2}\left|\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right|^2,$$

where $`M_B`$ are the $`B`$-meson masses, $`\widehat{B}_B`$ are the bag parameters, and $`f_B`$ are the $`B`$-meson form factors. Using the experimentally-measured masses and a value for the ratio $`\xi =\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_s^0}}f_{B_s^0}/\sqrt{\widehat{B}_{B_d^0}}f_{B_d^0}`$ which can be computed in lattice QCD, a better constraint for $`V_{ts}/V_{td}`$ can be obtained, which can then be converted into a constraint of $`|V_{td}|`$, the worst-measured side of the unitarity triangle.

In this note, an evaluation of the capability of the ATLAS detector to measure the $`B_s^0`$ oscillations in proton-proton interactions at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is presented. Some quantities involved in the measurement are still uncertain (cross sections, shape of the background, the final characteristics of the detector), therefore the dependence of the measurement sensitivity and of the expected accuracy on these parameters is also evaluated.

## 2 Event selection

The signal channels considered in this analysis for the measurement of $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ oscillations are $`B_s^0D_s\pi `$ and $`B_s^0D_sa_1`$, with $`D_s\varphi \pi `$ followed by $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$.

The event samples were generated using PYTHIA 5.7 PYTHIA , passed then through the ATLAS full GEANT-based simulation program DICE (Inner Detector (ID) only) and reconstructed using an algorithm based on the Kalman filter implemented in the xKalman package from the ATLAS reconstruction program ATRECON. The physics model used for simulation, the description of the detector and of the reconstruction program are presented in detail in Ref. PhysTDR .

In the simulation, $`b`$-quark pairs were produced in $`pp`$-collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV by including direct production, gluon splitting and flavour excitation processes for $`b\overline{b}`$ production. The $`b`$-quark was forced to decay semileptonically giving a muon with transverse momentum111The coordinate system has the $`z`$ direction along the beam axis, with $`x`$-axis pointing to the centre of the accelerator ring and $`y`$-axis pointing upwards. The transverse momenta are computed with respect to the $`z`$ axis. $`p_\mathrm{T}>6`$ GeV and pseudo-rapidity $`|\eta |<2.4`$ which is used by the level-1 trigger to select the $`B`$ hadronic channels in ATLAS. The associated $`\overline{b}`$ was forced to produce the required $`B`$-decay channels. All the charged final-state particles from the $`B`$ decay were required to have $`p_\mathrm{T}>0.5`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2.5`$.

The reconstruction of the $`B_s^0`$ vertex proceeded via the following steps (charge-conjugate states are implicitly included). The $`\varphi `$ decay vertex was first reconstructed by considering all combinations of pairs of oppositely-charged tracks with $`p_\mathrm{T}>1.5`$ GeV for both tracks. Kinematic cuts on the angles between the two tracks $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{KK}<10^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{KK}<10^{}`$ were also imposed. Here $`\phi `$ denotes the azimuthal angle and $`\theta `$ the polar angle in the coordinate system defined previously. The two-track vertex was then fitted assigning the kaon mass to both tracks. Combinations passing a fit-probability FitProb  cut of 1% with the invariant mass within $`3\sigma _\varphi `$ of the nominal $`\varphi `$ mass were selected as $`\varphi `$ candidates. To all accepted $`\varphi `$ candidates, a third negative track with $`p_\mathrm{T}>1.5`$ GeV from the remaining ones was added. The pion mass was assigned to the third track and a three-track vertex was refitted. Combinations of three tracks which had a fit probability greater than 1% and an invariant mass within $`3\sigma _{D_s}`$ of the nominal $`D_s`$ mass were selected as $`D_s^{}`$ candidates.

For each reconstructed $`D_s^{}`$ meson, a search was made for $`a_1^+`$ candidates in three-particle combinations of the remaining charged tracks. In a first step, $`\rho ^0`$ mesons were reconstructed from all combinations of two tracks with opposite charges and with $`p_\mathrm{T}>0.5`$ GeV for both tracks, each particle in the combination being assumed to be a pion. Kinematic cuts $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{\pi \pi }<15^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{\pi \pi }<35^{}`$ were used to reduce the combinatorial background. The two selected tracks were then fitted as originating from the same vertex; from the combinations passing a fit probability cut of 1%, those with an invariant mass within 1.5 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{BW}`$ of the nominal $`\rho ^0`$ mass were selected as $`\rho ^0`$ candidates. Next, a positive track with $`p_\mathrm{T}>0.5`$ GeV from the remaining charged tracks was added to the $`\rho ^0`$ candidate, assuming the pion hypothesis for the extra track. The three tracks were then fitted as originating from a common vertex, without any mass constraints. Combinations with a fit probability greater than 1% and with an invariant mass within 300 MeV of the nominal $`a_1`$ mass were selected as $`a_1^+`$ candidates.

For the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ channel, the $`B_s^0`$ decay vertex was reconstructed by considering all $`D_s^{}`$ candidates and adding a fourth track from the remaining tracks in the event. This track was required to have opposite charge with respect to the pion track from the $`D_s^{}`$ and $`p_\mathrm{T}>1`$ GeV. The four-track decay vertex was refitted including $`\varphi `$ and $`D_s^{}`$ mass constraints, and requiring that the total momentum of the $`B_s^0`$ vertex pointed to the primary vertex (within the primary vertex spatial resolutions of $`\sigma _x=\sigma _y=28`$ $`\mu `$m and $`\sigma _z=46`$ $`\mu `$m) and the momentum of $`D_s^{}`$ vertex pointed to the $`B_s^0`$ vertex.

For the $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channel, the $`B_s^0`$ candidates were reconstructed combining the $`D_s^{}`$ candidates with the $`a_1^+`$ candidates. A six-track vertex fit was then performed with mass constraints for the tracks from $`\varphi `$ and $`D_s`$; due to the large $`a_1`$ natural width, the three tracks from the $`a_1^+`$ were not constrained to $`a_1`$ mass. As in the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ channel, the total momentum of the $`B_s^0`$ vertex was required to point to the primary vertex and the momentum of $`D_s^{}`$ vertex was required to point to the $`B_s^0`$ vertex.

In order to be selected as $`B_s^0`$ candidates, the four-track and six-track combinations were required to give a probability greater than 1% for the vertex fit. The signed separation between the reconstructed $`B_s^0`$ vertex and the primary vertex, and between the $`D_s^{}`$ and $`B_s^0`$ vertex were required to be positive (the momentum should not point backward to the parent vertex). To improve the purity of the sample, further cuts were imposed: the accepted $`B_s^0`$ candidates were required to have a proper decay time greater than 0.4 ps, an impact parameter smaller than 55 $`\mu `$m and $`p_\mathrm{T}>10`$ GeV.

Background to the channels being considered for the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ can come from two sources: from other four- or six-body $`B`$-hadron decay channels, and from combinatorial background (random combinations with some or all particles not originating from a $`B`$ decay). For $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$, the following four-body decay channels were considered as potential sources of background: $`\overline{B}_d^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$, $`B_d^0D^{}\pi ^+`$ (with $`D^{},D_s^{}\varphi \pi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{}`$ followed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+`$. The similar six-body decay channels considered as potential sources of background for $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ were: $`\overline{B}_d^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$, $`B_d^0D^{}a_1^+`$ (with $`D^{},D_s^{}\varphi \pi ^{}`$ and $`\varphi K^+K^{}`$) and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{}`$ followed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+pK^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$. The simulated four- and six-body background events were passed through the detailed detector-simulation program, reconstructed and analysed using the same programs, the same conditions and the same cuts as the signal events.

In order to study the combinatorial background, a very large sample of simulated inclusive-muon events is needed. The results presented here are based on a sample of 1.1 million $`b\overline{b}\mu X`$ events, with $`p_\mathrm{T}>6`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2.4`$ for the muon corresponding to the trigger conditions.

The $`b\overline{b}\mu X`$ sample was analysed in the framework of a fast-simulation program ATLFAST++ PhysTDR , applying the same algorithms and the same cuts that were used for the fully-simulated samples. A careful check was made of the performance of the fast-simulation program by running it on signal and background samples, and comparing the results with those from the detailed simulation. Reasonable agreement was obtained for the number of reconstructed events and the widths of the mass peaks for the reconstructed particles.

A multi-level trigger is used to select the events for this analysis. The level-1 trigger is the inclusive muon trigger mentioned before. The level-2 trigger LVL2\_Ds  reconfirms the muon from level-1 trigger, then in an un-guided search for tracks in the Inner Detector reconstructs a $`\varphi `$ meson and, adding a new track, a $`D_s`$ meson. The level-2 trigger uses dedicated online software. 63% of the signal events selected offline pass the level-2 trigger cuts; from the $`b\overline{b}\mu X`$ sample, $`(3.4\pm 0.2)\%`$ of the events are selected. The level-3 trigger (the event filter) uses a set of loose offline cuts, reducing the rate to $`(0.26÷0.41)\%`$ of the $`\mu X`$ rate, depending on the actual values which are set for the cuts.

The reconstructed $`B_s^0`$ invariant-mass distributions in the decay channels $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 2, respectively, for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

The numbers of events expected for the various signal and background channels that have been analysed are given in Table 1 for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The first cross-section column in Table 1 gives the channel cross-section, without any cuts on final-state particles, assuming a cross-section of 2.3 $`\mu `$b for the process $`b\overline{b}\mu (p_\mathrm{T}>6\mathrm{GeV},|\eta |<2.4)X`$. The effective cross-section is the cross-section after the cuts on charged final-state particles were applied during simulation.

The events reconstructed from the samples for the exclusive decay modes were counted in a $`\pm 2\sigma `$ window around the nominal $`B_s^0`$ mass. Using the fraction of events reconstructed in the simulated sample and the number of events expected for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, the expected number of reconstructed events was estimated. Corrections for muon efficiency (on average 0.82) and for level-2 trigger efficiency (0.63) were also applied.

A total of 3240 reconstructed events is expected for the $`B_s^0D_s\pi `$ and $`B_s^0D_sa_1`$ decay channels for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

The only significant background comes from the $`\overline{B}_d^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channels, and from the combinatorial background. Note that the number of reconstructed events from the two decay channels is conservative since the branching-ratio values used are upper limits. As expected, due to the combination of the $`D^{}`$ mass shift ($`M_D^{}M_{D_s}=90`$ MeV) and $`B_d^0`$ mass shift ($`M_{B_s^0}M_{B_d^0}100`$ MeV), very few $`B_d^0D^{}a_1^+,D^{}\pi ^+`$ events are reconstructed in a $`\pm 2\sigma `$ window around $`B_s^0`$ nominal mass. Due to the different decay topology, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\pi ^{}`$ channel does not give any contribution to the background.

The statistics available for estimating the combinatorial background are very limited, despite the large size (1.1 million events) of the $`\mu X`$ sample. Each simulated event was therefore passed 50 times through the fast-simulation program, different random smearing of the track parameters being applied each time. The number of background events was counted in a $`2\sigma `$ mass window around the $`B_s^0`$ nominal mass. On average, 0.12 events per pass were reconstructed in the mass window, summing the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channels. Normalising to the number of $`\mu X`$ events expected for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, applying correction factors for the reconstruction and trigger efficiencies, the combinatorial background was estimated to be 3752 events, and the range of variation was estimated to be between 2079 and 5425 events at 90% CL. Correlations between the results from the 50 passes were taken into account.

## 3 Proper-time reconstruction and resolution

The proper time of the reconstructed $`B_s^0`$ candidates was computed from the reconstructed transverse decay length, $`d_{xy}`$, and from the $`B_s^0`$ transverse momentum, $`p_\mathrm{T}`$:

$$t=\frac{d_{xy}M_{B_s^0}}{cp_\mathrm{T}}d_{xy}g$$

where $`g=M_{B_s^0}/(cp_\mathrm{T})`$.

The transverse decay length is the distance between the interaction point and the $`b`$-hadron decay vertex, projected onto the transverse plane. Figure 4 shows, for the example of the $`B_s^0D_s^{}(\varphi \pi ^{})\pi ^+`$ decay mode, the difference $`d_{xy}d_{xy}^0`$ fitted with two Gaussian functions, where $`d_{xy}^0`$ is the true transverse decay length. For each event, the decay-length uncertainty, $`\sigma _{d_{xy}}`$, was estimated from the covariance matrices of the tracks associated with the vertices. The pull of the transverse decay length, $`(d_{xy}d_{xy}^0)/\sigma _{d_{xy}}`$, was found to have a Gaussian shape with a width of $`S_{d_{xy}}=0.959\pm 0.017`$ for the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ channel and $`S_{d_{xy}}=0.954\pm 0.020`$ for the $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channel.

The distributions for $`(gg_0)/g_0`$ also have a Gaussian shape for both $`B_s^0`$ decay channels, with a width of $`S_g=(0.715\pm 0.014)\%`$ for the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ channel and $`S_g=(0.636\pm 0.013)\%`$ for the $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channel. Here $`g_0=t_0/d_{xy}^0`$, with $`t_0`$ being the true proper time. The $`(gg_0)/g_0`$ distribution for the $`B_s^0D_s^{}(\varphi \pi ^{})\pi ^+`$ decay mode is shown in Figure 4.

The proper-time resolution function $`\mathrm{Res}(t|t_0)`$ was parametrised with the sum of two Gaussian functions, with parameters given in Table 2:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Res}(t|t_0)=& f_1\frac{1}{\sigma _1\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(tt_0)^2}{2\sigma _1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}\right)+\hfill \\ & f_2\frac{1}{\sigma _2\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(tt_0)^2}{2\sigma _2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

Figures 6 and 6 show, for the decay channels $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ and $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$, the proper-time resolution together with the parametrization obtained from the function given above. The distributions show deviations from the Gaussian shape, illustrated by the significant fraction of the second, broader Gaussian function in the parametrization function. For $`B_d^0`$ mesons, the ratio of the two Gaussian functions was fixed to the ratio from $`B_s^0`$ parametrization.

The parametrization chosen above reproduces well the tails seen in the distribution for reconstructed events. It has the advantage that the integrals in the log-likelihood function given in Eq. (3) can be computed analytically, much faster than the numerical computation. The dependence of the proper-time resolution on the proper time $`\sigma (t_0)=\sqrt{(gS_{d_{xy}}\sigma _{d_{xy}})^2+(t_0S_g)^2}`$ can be neglected in the first approximation, as the factor $`S_g`$ is very small.

## 4 Likelihood function

The probability density to observe an initial $`B_j^0`$ meson ($`j=d,s`$) decaying at time $`t_0`$ after its creation as a $`\overline{B_j^0}`$ meson is given by:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p_j(t_0,\mu _0)=& \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}{2}\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_j}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_jt_0}\times \hfill \\ & \left(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_jt_0}{2}+\mu _0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_jt_0\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{H}^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}^j`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{H}^j+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}^j)/2`$ and $`\mu _0=1`$. For the unmixed case (an initial $`B_j^0`$ meson decays as a $`B_j^0`$ meson at time $`t_0`$), the probability density is given by the above expression with $`\mu _0=+1`$. The small effects of CP violation are neglected in the above relation. Unlike $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, which can be safely neglected, the width difference in the $`B_s^0`$$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ system $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ could be as much as 20% of the total width Bs\_width\_dif .

The above probability is modified by experimental effects. The probability as a function of $`\mu _0`$ and the reconstructed proper time $`t`$ is obtained as the convolution of $`p_j(t_0,\mu _0)`$ with the proper time resolution $`\mathrm{Res}_j(t|t_0)`$:

$$q_j(t,\mu _0)=N_{t_{\mathrm{min}}}^{\mathrm{}}p_j(t_0,\mu _0)\mathrm{Res}_j(t|t_0)dt_0$$

with $`N`$ a normalization factor. Assuming a fraction $`\omega _j`$ of wrong tags at production or decay, the probability becomes:

$$q_j(t,\mu )=(1\omega _j)q_j(t,\mu )+\omega _jq_j(t,\mu )$$
(2)
For each signal channel, the background is composed of oscillating $`B_d^0`$ mesons with probability given by the expression (2) and of combinatorial background, with probability given by the reconstructed proper time distribution. For a fraction $`f_j^k`$ of the $`j`$ component ($`j=s,d,`$ and combinatorial background $`cb`$) in the total sample of type $`k`$, one obtains the probability density:

$$\mathrm{pdf}_k(t,\mu )=\underset{j=s,d,cb}{}f_j^k\left[(1\omega _j)q_j(t,\mu )+\omega _jq_j(t,\mu )\right]$$

The index $`k=1`$ denotes the $`B_s^0D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ channel and $`k=2`$ the $`B_s^0D_s^{}a_1^+`$ channel. The likelihood of the total sample is written as

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m_s,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{ch}}}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{ev}}^k}{}}\mathrm{pdf}_k(t_i,\mu _i)$$
(3)
where $`N_{\mathrm{ev}}^k`$ is the total number of events of type $`k`$, and $`N_{\mathrm{ch}}=2`$. Each $`\mathrm{pdf}_k`$ was properly normalized to unity.

## 5 Extraction of $`𝚫𝒎_𝒔`$ measurement limits and accuracy

The maximum value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurable in ATLAS was estimated using a simplified Monte Carlo model. The input parameters of this model were: for each signal channel $`k`$ the number of signal events, $`N_{\mathrm{sig}}^k`$, the number of background events from $`B_d^0`$ decays, $`N_{B_d^0}^k`$, and the number of events for the combinatorial background, $`N_{\mathrm{cb}}^k`$; the characteristics of the events involved in the computation of the proper-time resolution (see below); the wrong-tag fraction. The wrong-tag fraction was assumed to be the same for both $`B_s^0`$ and $`B_d^0`$ mesons: $`\omega _s=\omega _d=0.22`$ (see Ref. wTag ). A Monte Carlo sample with $`N_{\mathrm{sig}}=N_{\mathrm{sig}}^1+N_{\mathrm{sig}}^2`$ signal events oscillating with a given frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ together with $`N_{B_d^0}=N_{B_d^0}^1+N_{B_d^0}^2`$ background events oscillating with frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{cb}}=N_{\mathrm{cb}}^1+N_{\mathrm{cb}}^2`$ combinatorial events (no oscillations), was generated in the following way. For each event with an oscillating $`b`$ hadron, the true proper time was generated according to an exponential distribution with the slope $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }))]^1`$ which takes into account the contribution of a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ for $`B_s^0`$ events and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_d`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ for $`B_d^0`$ events. The sign in the slope is chosen according to the contribution of each proper time, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\pm \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }/(2\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$, to the exponential decay from Eq. (1), $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_jt_0}\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_jt_0/2)`$, where the $`\mathrm{cosh}`$ term was factorized from the expression in parentheses and included in the exponential part. The uncertainty on the measurement of the transverse decay length, $`\sigma _{d_{xy}}`$, and the true value of the g-factor, $`g_0`$, were generated at random according to the distributions obtained from the simulated samples, fitted with appropriate combinations of Gaussian and exponential functions. From the computed true decay length, $`d_{xy}^0=t_0/g_0`$, the corresponding reconstructed decay length was generated as $`d_{xy}=d_{xy}^0+S_{d_{xy}}\sigma _{d_{xy}}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The reconstructed g-factor was generated as $`g=g_0+g_0S_g\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are random numbers distributed according to the normal distribution. From the transverse decay length and g-factor, the reconstructed proper time was then computed as $`t=gd_{xy}`$. The probability for the event to be mixed or unmixed was determined from the $`t_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ values ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ value if the event was a $`B_d^0`$ event) using the expression $`\left(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m_jt_0)/\mathrm{cosh}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_jt_0/2)\right)/2`$ left out from Eq. (1) after the exponential part is extracted. For a fraction of the events, selected at random, the state was changed between mixed and unmixed, according to the wrong-tag fraction, $`\omega _{\mathrm{tag}}`$. For the combinatorial background, the reconstructed proper time was generated assuming that it has the same distribution as the one for $`B_s^0`$ mesons. Half of the combinatorial events were added to the mixed events and half to the unmixed events.

### 5.1 $`𝚫𝒎_𝒔`$ measurement limits

The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement limits were obtained applying the amplitude fit method AFit  to the ‘data sample’ generated as above. In this method a new parameter, the $`B_s^0`$ oscillation amplitude $`𝒜`$, is introduced in the likelihood function by replacing the term ‘$`\mu _0\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_st_0`$’ with ‘$`\mu _0𝒜\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_st_0`$’ in the $`B_s^0`$ probability density function given by Eq. (1). For each value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, the new likelihood function is minimized with respect to $`𝒜`$, keeping all other parameters fixed, and a value $`𝒜\pm \sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ is obtained. One expects, within the estimated uncertainty, $`𝒜=1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ close to its true value, and $`𝒜=0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ far from the true value. One defines a $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit as the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ for which $`1/\sigma _𝒜=5`$, and a sensitivity at 95% confidence limit as the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ for which $`1/\sigma _𝒜=1.645`$. Limits are computed with the statistical uncertainty $`\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}`$, and, in some cases, with the total uncertainty $`\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{total}}=\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}+\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{syst}}`$. The systematic uncertainty $`\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{syst}}`$ is described in the next section.

### 5.2 Systematic uncertainties

The systematic uncertainties on the $`B_s^0`$ oscillation amplitude $`\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{syst}}`$ are computed as

$$\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{syst}}=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜+(1𝒜)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}}{\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜`$ is the difference between the value of the amplitude when a single parameter is changed and the analysis repeated, and the value for the ‘nominal’ set of parameters; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _𝒜^{\mathrm{stat}}`$ is defined in a similar way.

The following contributions to the systematic uncertainties were considered:

* A relative error of 5% was considered for the wrong-tag fraction for both $`B_s^0`$ and $`B_d^0`$.
* The widths of the Gaussian functions from the parametrization of the proper time resolution given in Table 2 were varied by $`\pm 1\sigma `$.
* The fraction $`f_{B_s^0}=BR(\overline{b}B_s^0)`$, the $`B_s^0`$ lifetime and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d`$ value were varied separately by the uncertainty quoted in Ref. PDG1998 .
* An uncertainty of 5% was assumed for the decay time $`\tau _{\mathrm{cb}}`$ of the combinatorial background. The shape remained exponential, only the decay time was modified.

These contributions were added in quadrature to give the systematic uncertainty.

Table 3 shows the dependence of the amplitude and its statistical and systematic uncertainties on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$, as well as the contribution of each component to the systematic uncertainty for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. In the generated event samples, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ was set to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s^{\mathrm{gen}}=\mathrm{}`$.

From Table 3, it can be seen that the dominant contributions to the systematic uncertainty come from the uncertainty on $`f_{B_s^0}`$ fraction and from the parametrization of the proper time resolution.

The uncertainty on $`f_{B_s^0}`$ fraction has the value given in Ref. PDG1998 . It is, however, expected that the uncertainty will be much smaller at the time this analysis will be done with data. Even now (October 2001), the most up-to-date preliminary value BoscWG  of $`f_{B_s^0}`$ is $`0.099\pm 0.011`$, the uncertainty being at the level of 11%, to be compared with the value of 17% used here for the consistency of the data. If one considers the intense activity in $`B`$physics, one can assume that an uncertainty of $`5\%`$ will be achieved at the time of data analysis.

The uncertainties on the parameters from the parametrization of the proper time resolution depend on the MC statistics. A larger MC sample can be generated than the one used in this work, in order to reduce these uncertainties. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the uncertainty on the widths from Table 2 can be reduced to half of the actual values.

The systematic uncertainties computed with these ‘projected’ uncertainties are given in Table 4. For the other contributions, the values from Table 3 were used.

The value of the systematic uncertainty as computed here should be considered with caution, as a rough estimate.

### 5.3 Results

The amplitude as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ for the nominal set of parameters defined in the previous sections, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s=0`$ and an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ is shown in Fig. 7. Fig. 8 shows the significance of the measurement in units of $`\sigma _𝒜`$. The $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit is 22.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and the 95% CL sensitivity is 36.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, when computed with the statistical uncertainty only. Computed with the total uncertainty, the $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit is 16.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and the 95% CL sensitivity is 34.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ for the actual systematic uncertainties, and 21 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and 35.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ for the projected systematic uncertainties.

For an integrated luminosity of 30 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, the $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit is 29.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and the 95% CL sensitivity is 41.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, computed with the statistical uncertainty only. The $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit and the 95% CL sensitivity become 18.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and 37.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, respectively, for the actual set of systematic uncertainties and 27.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and 40.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ for the projected systematic uncertainties.

## 6 Dependence of $`𝚫𝒎_𝒔`$ measurement limits on experimental quantities

Some quantities involved in the measurement of the $`B_s^0`$ oscillations are not yet known with enough precision. The cross section for $`b\overline{b}`$ production could be more than twice the assumed cross section PhysTDR ; some decay branching ratios are also not well determined. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ is not yet measured. The characteristics of the detector could be slightly different, depending on the final configuration of the detector. The shape and the fraction of the background will depend, among other factors, on the accelerator luminosity and on the characteristics of the detector. It is therefore necessary to estimate the dependence of the measurement sensitivity for various values of the parameters. The limits presented in this section are computed with the statistical error only.

The dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ was determined for an integrated luminosity of 30 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, other parameters having the nominal value. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ was used as a fixed parameter in the amplitude fit method. The results are shown in Fig. 9 and the numerical values are given in Table 5. No sizeable effect is seen up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s<30\%`$, therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s`$ was set to zero for all other cases.

The dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement limits on the integrated luminosity is shown in Fig. 10, with the numerical values given in Table 6.

The shape and the fraction of the combinatorial background were varied within reasonable values. It was assumed that the shape remains exponential and only the decay time was modified. The number of events for the combinatorial background was varied within $`\pm 50\%`$ of the number determined in Section 2, keeping the number of $`B_s^0`$ and $`B_d^0`$ events to the nominal values. The dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement limits on the decay time of the combinatorial background is shown in Fig. 11, with the numerical values given in Table 7, while the dependence on the number of events is given in Fig. 12 and Table 8.

## 7 Accuracy of the $`𝚫𝒎_𝒔`$ measurement

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ values smaller than the $`5\sigma `$ measurement limit, the expected accuracy is estimated using the log-likelihood method, with the likelihood function given by Eq. (3). In the fit, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ value was free, while the other parameters were fixed to their nominal values. An example of the likelihood function is given in Figure 13 for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ and a generated $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s^{\mathrm{gen}}=22.5`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$.

The accuracy was determined for different values of the integrated luminosity. The results are given in Table 9.

The systematic accuracy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement was obtained similarly to the systematic uncertainty on the measurement limits: one parameter was changed, keeping the other fixed to their nominal values, and the analysis was repeated. The difference between the value of the fitted $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ parameter when a single parameter is changed and the analysis repeated, and the value for the ‘nominal’ set of parameters was taken as the systematic contribution corresponding to that parameter. The total systematic uncertainty is the quadratic sum of the individual contributions. The parameters changed are the same as for the measurement limits, see Section 5.2, within the ‘actual’ uncertainties.

One can see from Table 9 that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ measurement, if within the reach of the ATLAS detector, will be dominated by the statistical errors.

## 8 Conclusions

In this note, the performance of the ATLAS detector to measure the $`B_s^0`$ oscillations was estimated using Monte Carlo simulated events, propagated through a detailed simulation of the detector. For an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, a $`5\sigma `$ measurement will be possible up to 22.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, the experiment being 95% CL sensitive up to 36.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$. These limits increase to 29.5 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ and 41.0 $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$, respectively, for an integrated luminosity of 30 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$. The effect of the systematic uncertainties on the measurement limits is rather limited, if the precision of the $`f_{B_s^0}`$ fraction is improved with respect to the actual value, and if enough Monte Carlo events are generated for the parametrization of the proper time.

If the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ value will be within the ATLAS reach, the measurement will be dominated by the statistical error. A total uncertainty of the order of $`0.07`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ is expected for a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s=22.5`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ for an integrated luminosity of 10 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$, the total uncertainty decreasing to $`0.04`$ $`\mathrm{ps}^1`$ for a luminosity of 30 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$.

The dependence of the measurement sensitivity on various parameters which will be known only at the time of the data analysis was also evaluated.

The values obtained in this note for the measurement limits and accuracies should be re-evaluated at a later time, taking into account the changes in the detector geometry and in the simulation and reconstruction software.

###### Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgements. This work has been performed within the ATLAS collaboration, and we thank collaboration members for helpful discussions. We have made use of the physics analysis framework and tools which are the result of collaboration-wide effort. The authors would like to thank P. Eerola and N. Ellis for fruitful discussions, and E. Kneringer for computing support. The work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Austria.