text:
# Invariants of Lie algebroids

## 1. Introduction

It is becoming increasingly apparent that Lie algebroids provide the appropriate setting for developing the differential geometry of singular geometric structures. The study of global properties of Lie algebroids is therefore a way of approaching the global theory of singular geometric structures, about which little is known. In this survey we shall describe several constructions of Lie algebroid invariants which have been introduced in the last few years. Although we are just starting to grasp their properties, it is clear that they play an important role in understanding the global behavior of singular geometric structures.

Let $`\pi :AM`$ be a Lie algebroid over $`M`$ with anchor $`\mathrm{\#}:ATM`$ and Lie bracket $`[,]:\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$. For general definitions and conventions we refer the reader to , and further background material is given in . We shall adopt the point of view that such a Lie algebroid describes a concrete geometric situation. In each case, the Lie algebroid plays the role of the *tangent bundle*, and many constructions to be given later can be traced back to this simple idea. Some typical cases we have in mind are:

### Ordinary Geometry:

We take $`A=TM`$, $`\mathrm{\#}`$ the identity, and $`[,]`$ the usual Lie bracket of vector fields. Later, we will see that virtually every construction for an arbitrary Lie algebroid reduces to some well-known construction when applied to this case.

### Lie Theory:

At the other extreme, we take $`A=𝔤`$ to be a Lie algebra and $`M=\{\}`$ a single point set. Although this is a somewhat degenerate case, it is useful because the local-global dichotomy for Lie algebroids resembles Lie theory. Also, the terminology is usually motivated either by this case or the previous one.

### Equivariant Geometry:

If we are given an action of a Lie algebra on a manifold, i.e., a homomorphism $`\rho :𝔤𝒳(M)`$ to the Lie algebra of vector fields on M, then we have a naturally associated action Lie algebroid. The bundle $`A`$ is the trivial vector bundle $`M\times 𝔤M`$, the anchor $`\mathrm{\#}:M\times 𝔤TM`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\#}(x,v)\rho (v)|_x,$$

and the Lie bracket is given by

$$[v,w](x)=[v(x),w(x)]+(\rho (v(x))w)|_x(\rho (w(x))v)|_x,$$

where we identify a section $`v`$ of $`M\times 𝔤M`$ with a $`𝔤`$-valued function $`v:M𝔤`$. In this case we have a particularly simple geometric interpretation for the orbit foliation of the algebroid111In this paper, foliations can be *singular* as in Sussmann . By a *regular foliation* we mean a non-singular foliation., even though the action does not always integrate to a global Lie group action.

### Foliation Theory:

Let $``$ be a regular foliation of $`M`$. The associated involutive distribution $`A=T`$ has a Lie algebroid structure with anchor the inclusion into $`TM`$ and bracket the Lie bracket of tangent vector fields to $``$. Many constructions in Lie algebroid theory, related to the geometry and topology of the orbit foliation, are inspired by constructions in foliation theory.

### Poisson Geometry:

Consider a Poisson manifold $`(M,\pi )`$, where $`\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }(^2TM)`$ is a bi-vector field satisfying $`[\pi ,\pi ]=0`$. It is well known that the cotangent bundle $`A=T^{}M`$ has a natural Lie algebroid structure, where the anchor $`\mathrm{\#}:T^{}MTM`$ is contraction with $`\pi `$, and the bracket on 1-forms is the Koszul bracket:

$$[\alpha ,\beta ]=_{\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\beta _{\mathrm{\#}\beta }\alpha d\pi (\alpha ,\beta ).$$

Many concepts to be discussed below were first introduced for Poisson manifolds and then generalized to Lie algebroids.

As a first example of an invariant let us consider Lie algebroid cohomology (see  for more details). We just mimic the usual definition of de Rham cohomology: the space of differential forms is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^r(A)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(^rA^{})`$, and we define the exterior differential $`d_A:\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(A)\mathrm{\Omega }^{+1}(A)`$ by:

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}d_AQ(\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _r)=\frac{1}{r+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{r+1}{}}(1)^k\mathrm{\#}\alpha _k(Q(\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\widehat{\alpha }_k,\mathrm{},\alpha _r)\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{r+1}\underset{k<l}{}(1)^{k+l+1}Q([\alpha _k,\alpha _l],\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\widehat{\alpha }_k,\mathrm{},\widehat{\alpha }_l,\mathrm{},\alpha _r).\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ are any sections of $`A`$. In this way we obtain a complex $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(A),d_A)`$, and the corresponding cohomology is called the *Lie algebroid cohomology* of $`A`$ (with trivial coefficients) and denoted $`H^{}(A)`$. The (dual of the) anchor induces a map

$$\mathrm{\#}^{}:H_{\text{de Rham}}^{}(M)H^{}(A),$$

which is usually neither injective nor surjective. For the geometric situations discussed above we obtain well-known cohomology theories such as de Rham cohomology, Lie algebra cohomology, foliated cohomology and Poisson cohomology. As these examples show, Lie algebroid cohomology may not be homotopy invariant and hence it may be hard to compute (to say the least).

The problem of computing Lie algebroid cohomology is intimately related with the singular behavior of the orbit foliation of the Lie algebroid. The same will be true about all other invariants to be introduced below, and this is in fact one of the main topics of the present work. The construction of the new invariants resembles the construction of Lie algebroid cohomology, in as much as, if one knows the proper conceptual general definitions, then the appropriate construction will be similar to the corresponding construction in standard geometry.

The plan of this paper is as follows. First we consider the fundamental group(oid) of a Lie algebroid (Section 2), which was introduced in  for the purpose of integrating Lie algebroids to Lie groupoids, and which is inspired by the construction of the fundamental group(oid) of a manifold. Then we consider non-linear and linear holonomy (Sections 3 and 4) in the spirit of foliation theory, which was defined in  for Lie algebroids. These will lead us naturally to primary and secondary characteristic classes (Section 5) for Lie algebroids, which were introduced in . The last invariant we shall discuss is K-theory (Section 6) which was introduced in , and may be considered as an extension of ordinary topological $`K`$-theory.

Acknowledgments

Parts of this manuscript formed the subject of a micro-course that I gave at the 2001 Krynica meeting in Geometry and Topology of Manifolds. I would like to thank Jan Kubarski, Tomasz Rybicki and Robert Wolak for the invitation, which provided an incentive to writing this survey.

Much of the work reported here is joint work with Marius Crainic, to whom I am in debt, and who also made significant contributions on his own. Many other people have also influenced my view on this subject, but I would especially like to thank Ana Cannas da Silva, Viktor Ginzburg, Kiril Mackenzie and Alan Wenstein, for many enlightening discussions, and Roger Picken and the anonymous referee for pointing out many typos and suggesting many improvements to the first version of the manuscript.

## 2. The Weinstein groupoid

In , for *any* Lie algebroid $`A`$ we have constructed a topological groupoid $`𝒢(A)`$, called the *Weinstein groupoid*, and which is a fundamental invariant of $`A`$. It should be thought of as the “monodromy groupoid” or “fundamental groupoid” of $`A`$: it is given as the set of equivalence classes of $`A`$-paths under $`A`$-homotopy

(2.1)
$$𝒢(A)=P(A)/,$$

where:

* $`P(A)`$ denotes the set of *$`A`$-paths*, i.e., paths $`a:IA`$ on the interval $`I=[0,1]`$, such that

$$\frac{d}{dt}\pi (a(t))=\mathrm{\#}a(t).$$

An $`A`$-path can be identified with a Lie algebroid morphism $`TIA`$. From a differential-geometric point of view, these are precisely the paths along which parallel transport can be performed whenever a connection has been chosen (see below and ).
* $``$ denotes an equivalence relation, called *homotopy of $`A`$-paths*, that can be described at an abstract level as follows: two $`A`$-paths $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are homotopic iff there exists a Lie algebroid homomorphism $`T(I\times I)A`$, which covers a (standard) homotopy between the base paths $`\pi (a_i(t))`$, with fixed end-points, and which restricts to $`a_i(t)`$ on the boundaries.

The groupoid structure on $`𝒢(A)`$ comes from concatenation of $`A`$-paths, which becomes associative when one passes to the quotient. The structure maps are the obvious ones (as in the monodromy groupoid).

To be able to work with $``$ one needs more concrete descriptions which are furnished in . There we show, for example, that this equivalence relation is the orbit equivalence relation of a Lie algebra action. Namely, the Lie algebra of time-dependent sections of $`A`$, vanishing at the end-points,

$$P_0\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)=\{It\eta _t\mathrm{\Gamma }(A):\eta _0=\eta _1=0,\eta \text{ is of class }C^2\text{ in }t\}$$

acts on $`P(A)`$. So we have a Lie algebra homomorphism

$$P_0\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)𝒳(P(A)),\eta X_\eta $$

for which the image is precisely the tangent space to the orbits of $``$.

Clearly, one cannot expect the differentiable structure on the path space to go over to the quotient. One can show (see ) that this action gives a smooth foliation on the Banach manifold $`P(A)`$, for which the orbits are smooth submanifolds of finite codimension equal to $`dimM+\text{rk}A`$. So the most one can say, in general, is that the Weinstein groupoid is of the same topological type as the orbit space of a foliation.

In order to give the precise obstructions for the Weinstein groupoid to be a Lie groupoid, and hence also the obstructions to integrating a Lie algebroid, we introduce certain *monodromy groups* of the Lie algebroid. For that purpose, observe that an element in the isotropy Lie algebra $`𝔤_x=Ker(\mathrm{\#}_x)`$ determines a constant $`A`$-path, and so we can set:

###### Definition 2.1.

For each $`xM`$, the monodromy group based at $`x`$ is the subgroup $`N_x(A)A_x`$ consisting of those elements $`vZ(𝔤_x)`$ which are homotopic to zero as $`A`$-paths.

Since the monodromy group $`N_x(A)`$ lies in the center $`Z(𝔤_x)`$ of the isotropy Lie algebra, we can identify it with an abelian subgroup of the simply connected Lie group $`𝒢(𝔤_x)`$ integrating the Lie algebra $`𝔤_x`$. Henceforth, we use this identification with no further comment.

The obstructions to integrability are related to the lack of discreteness of the monodromy groups. To explain this, let us observe that the monodromy based at $`x`$ arises as the image of a second order monodromy map

$$:\pi _2(L,x)𝒢(𝔤_x)$$

which relates the topology of the leaf $`L`$ through $`x`$ with the simply-connected Lie group $`𝒢(𝔤_x)`$ integrating the isotropy Lie algebra $`𝔤_x=Ker(\mathrm{\#}_x)`$. From a conceptual point of view, the monodromy map can be viewed as an analogue of a boundary map of the homotopy long exact sequence of a fibration. Namely, if we consider the short exact sequence

$$0𝔤_LA_L\stackrel{\mathrm{\#}}{}TL0$$

as analogous to a fibration, the first few terms of the associated long exact sequence will be

$$\mathrm{}\pi _2(L,x)\stackrel{}{}𝒢(𝔤_x)𝒢(A)_x\pi _1(L,x).$$

We have shown in  that $`\text{Im}`$ lies in the center of $`𝒢(𝔤_x)`$ and its intersection with the connected component of the identity of $`Z(𝒢(𝔤_x))`$ coincides with $`N_x(A)`$. With these notations we have the following fundamental result:

###### Theorem 2.2 (Obstructions to Integrability ).

For a Lie algebroid $`A`$ over $`M`$, the following are equivalent:

1. $`A`$ is integrable;
2. The monodromy groups are uniformly discrete.

Let us be more precise about (ii). In order to measure the discreteness of the groups $`N_x(A)`$, set

$$r(x)=d(0,N_x(A)\{0\})$$

where the distance is computed with respect to an arbitrary norm on the vector bundle $`A`$ and we adopt the convention $`d(0,\mathrm{})=+\mathrm{}`$. Notice that $`N_x(A)A_x`$ is discrete iff $`r(x)>0`$. Then condition (ii) can be stated as

1. For all $`xM`$, $`r(x)>0`$;
2. For all $`xM`$, $`lim\; inf_{yx}r(y)>0`$.

Since the monodromy groups $`N_x(A)`$ are isomorphic as $`x`$ varies in a leaf, (iia) is an obstruction along the leaves, while (iib) is an obstruction transverse to the leaves.

These obstructions are computable in many examples. Given any splitting $`\sigma :TLA_L`$ of the short exact sequence above, the *curvature* of $`\sigma `$ is the $`𝔤_L`$-valued 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^2(L;𝔤_L)`$ defined by:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(X,Y)\sigma ([X,Y])[\sigma (X),\sigma (Y)].$$

Assume that there exists a splitting such that this 2-form takes values in the center $`Z(𝔤_L)`$. Then the monodromy map $`:\pi _2(L,x)\nu ^{}(L)`$ is given by

(2.2)
$$([\gamma ])=_\gamma \mathrm{\Omega },$$

and this gives an effective procedure to compute the monodromy in many example (see , section 3.4). Note that in this case, $`Z(𝔤_L)`$ is canonically a flat vector bundle over $`L`$. The corresponding flat connection can be expressed with the help of the splitting $`\sigma `$ as

(2.3)
$$_X\alpha =[\sigma (X),\alpha ],$$

and it is easy to see that the definition does not depend on $`\sigma `$. In this way $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma `$ appears as a $`2`$-cohomology class with coefficients in the local system defined by $`Z(𝔤_L)`$ over $`L`$, and then the integration (2.2) is just the usual pairing between cohomology and homotopy. In practice one can always avoid working with local coefficients: if $`Z(𝔤_L)`$ is not already trivial as a vector bundle, one can achieve this by pulling back to the universal cover of $`L`$ (where parallel transport with respect to the flat connection gives the desired trivialization).

The connection given by (2.3) is the *Bott connection* on $`A_L`$, which can be introduced even for singular leaves. This connection will be discussed further below, when we consider the theory of holonomy for Lie algebroids, therefore providing a relation between these two invariants.

Many, if not all, results on integrability of Lie algebroids (see, e.g., ) follow from Theorem 2.2. We give a few examples and refer the reader to  for further examples and details.

###### Example 2.3.

Let $`A=TM`$ be the tangent bundle Lie algebroid structure. A $`TM`$-path is just an ordinary path in $`M`$ (given by its derivative), and a $`TM`$-homotopy is an ordinary homotopy in $`M`$ with fixed end points, so we have

$$𝒢(TM)=\{(x,[\gamma ],y):x,yM,\gamma \text{ is a path from }x\text{ to }y\}.$$

Therefore, $`𝒢(TM)`$ is just the fundamental groupoid $`\pi _1(M)`$.

More generally, for any foliation $``$ of $`M`$, we have the fundamental groupoid $`\pi _1()`$, where now $`T`$-paths are just $``$-paths (paths lying on any fixed leaf) and $`T`$-homotopies are homotopies within the set of $``$-paths.

In both these cases the obstructions obviously vanish, and this corresponds to the well-known fact that $`\pi _1(M)`$ and $`\pi _1()`$ are Lie groupoids.

###### Example 2.4.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a Lie algebra. Again, there are no obstructions and Theorem 2.2 gives Lie’s third theorem. The construction of $`𝒢(𝔤)`$ given above coincides with the construction of the simply-connected Lie group integrating $`𝔤`$ which is given in the recent monograph of Duistermaat and Kolk .

###### Example 2.5.

Let us give an example of a non-integrable Lie algebroid. Recall (see, e.g., ) that any closed two-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$ defines a Lie algebroid structure on $`A_\omega =TM𝕃`$, where $`𝕃=M\times `$ is the trivial line bundle over $`M`$, the anchor is $`(X,\lambda )X`$ and the Lie bracket is defined by

$$[(X,f),(Y,g)]=([X,Y],X(g)Y(f)+\omega (X,Y)).$$

Using the obvious splitting of $`A`$, which has curvature $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\sigma =\omega `$, we see that the monodromy group based at $`x`$ is given by

$$N_x(A_\omega )=\{_\gamma \omega :[\gamma ]\pi _2(M,x)\}$$

and so coincides with the group of spherical periods of $`\omega `$. If this group is non-discrete we obtain a non-integrable Lie algebroid.

For example, on the 2-sphere $`S^2`$ denote by $`\omega _{S^2}`$ the standard area form, and let $`M=S^2\times S^2`$ with the closed 2-form $`\omega _\lambda =\omega _{S^2}\lambda \omega _{S^2}`$, where $`\lambda `$. Then the monodromy group $`N_x(A_{\omega _\lambda })`$ is discrete iff $`\lambda `$ is rational.

The reader will notice that in the symplectic case this obstruction is Kostant’s “prequantization condition”.

###### Example 2.6.

Let us consider the case of a Poisson manifold. In Poisson geometry, $`A`$-paths are also called *cotangent paths* (see ). Cotangent homotopies are given by an action of the Lie algebra $`P_0\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ of time-dependent 1-forms, vanishing at the end-points, on the space of cotangent paths $`P(T^{}M)`$. The orbits of this action have codimension $`2dimM`$. In this case, this action is the restriction of a Lie algebra action on the larger space of *all* paths $`\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)=\{a:IT^{}M\}`$, which is tangent to the submanifold $`P(T^{}M)\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)`$.

Since we have a natural identification $`\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)T^{}P(M)`$, where $`P(M)`$ denotes the Banach space of paths $`\gamma :IM`$ which are piecewise of class $`C^2`$ (222We need cotangent paths to be piecewise of class $`C^1`$, so we require their base paths to be piecewise of class $`C^2`$. See also .), we have a natural symplectic structure on $`\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)`$. This brings symplectic geometry into the picture, and we have the following result which is proved in :

###### Proposition 2.7.

The Lie algebra action of $`P_0\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)`$ is Hamiltonian with equivariant moment map $`J:\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)P_0\mathrm{\Omega }(M)^{}`$ given by:

$$J(a),\eta =_0^1\frac{d}{dt}\pi (a(t))\mathrm{\#}a(t),\eta (t,\gamma (t))𝑑t.$$

Since the level set $`J^1(0)`$ is precisely the set of cotangent paths $`P(T^{}M)`$, it follows that in this case the Weinstein groupoid can be described alternatively as a Marsden-Weinstein reduction:

(2.4)
$$𝒢(T^{}M)=\stackrel{~}{P}(T^{}M)//P_0\mathrm{\Omega }(M).$$

The two alternative descriptions (2.1) and (2.4) give the precise relationship between the integrability approach introduced in , which as we have explained is valid for any Lie algebroid, and the approach of Cattaneo and Felder in , which is based on the Poisson sigma-model and which only holds for Poisson manifolds.

Since we have the alternative description of the Weinstein groupoid of a Poisson manifold as a Marsden-Weinstein reduction we obtain a symplectic form on $`𝒢(T^{}M)`$. If this groupoid is smooth this symplectic form is compatible with the groupoid structure, and we conclude that

###### Theorem 2.8 (Symplectic integration ).

If the Weinstein groupoid $`𝒢(T^{}M)`$ of a Poisson manifold $`M`$ is smooth, then it is a symplectic groupoid integrating $`M`$.

Obviously, it is possible to form quotients of the groupoid $`𝒢(T^{}M)`$ outside the symplectic category, to yield examples of groupoids integrating $`(M,\pi )`$ and which are not symplectic integrations. Results on the integrability of regular Poisson manifolds are given in , and for a detailed discussion we refer the reader to the forthcoming article .

## 3. Holonomy for Lie algebroids

The theory of holonomy for algebroids relies, as in the case of foliations, on the concept of *connection*, since one wants to compare the transverse Lie algebroid structure as we vary along a leaf. Let us start by recalling the general notion of connection which we have introduced in .

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`p:EM`$ be a a fiber bundle over $`M`$, and $`\pi :AM`$ a Lie algebroid over $`M`$. An $`A`$-connection on $`E`$ is a bundle map $`h:p^{}ATE`$ which makes the following diagram commute:

Note that in this definition $`h:p^{}ATE`$ is a generalization of the notion of *horizontal lift* of tangent vectors that one finds in the usual theory of connections: For any $`aA`$, $`h(u,a)`$ is the horizontal lift of $`a`$ to the point $`uE`$ in the fiber over $`x=\pi (a)`$, and the diagram means that $`p_{}h(u,a)=\mathrm{\#}a`$. Instead of lifting tangent vectors in $`TM`$ we lift elements of $`A`$, the bundle that replaces the tangent bundle.

Given some $`A`$-path $`a:IA`$, and a point $`u_0E`$ in the fiber over the initial base point $`x_0=\pi (a(0))`$, we can look for the horizontal lift $`\gamma :IE`$, i. e., the unique curve satisfying:

$$\dot{\gamma }(t)=h(\gamma (t),a(t)),\gamma (0)=u_0.$$

Note that this system has a solution defined only for small $`t[0,\epsilon )`$. However, suppose that $`E`$ is a vector bundle and that the connection has the property that $`h(u,0)=0`$. Then, it follows from standard results in the theory of o.d.e.’s, that the solution will be defined for all $`t[0,1]`$, provided we choose the initial condition $`u_0`$ small enough. In this way, we get a diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of zero in the fiber $`E_{x_0}`$ over the initial point onto a neighborhood of zero in the fiber $`E_{x_1}`$ over the final point. Such a map is called, of course, *parallel transport* along the $`A`$-path $`a:IA`$.

Let us consider now a fixed leaf $`i:LM`$ of the Lie algebroid $`\pi :AM`$. We denote by $`\nu (L)=T_LM/TL`$ the normal bundle to $`L`$ and by $`p:\nu (L)L`$ the natural projection. By the tubular neighborhood theorem, there exists a smooth immersion $`\stackrel{~}{i}:\nu (L)M`$ satisfying the following properties:

1. $`\stackrel{~}{i}|_Z=i`$, where we identify the zero section $`Z`$ of $`\nu (L)`$ with $`L`$;
2. $`\stackrel{~}{i}`$ maps the fibers of $`\nu (L)`$ transversely to the foliation of $`M`$;

We shall define an $`A_L`$-connection on the normal bundle $`\nu (L)`$, so that parallel transport for this connection will be the Lie algebroid holonomy.

Assume that we have fixed such an immersion, and let $`xL`$. Each fiber $`F_x=p^1(x)`$ is a submanifold of $`M`$ transverse to the foliation, and so we have the transverse Lie algebroid structure $`A_{F_x}F_x`$ (see ). Because $`F_x`$ is a linear space we can choose a trivialization and identify the fibers $`(A_{F_x})_u`$ for different $`up^1(x)`$. Finally, we choose a complementary vector subbundle $`EA`$ to $`A_{F_x}`$:

(3.1)
$$A_u=E_u(A_{F_x})_u.$$

Note that, by construction, the anchor $`\mathrm{\#}:ATM`$ maps $`A_{F_x}`$ onto $`TF_x`$, its restriction to $`E`$ is injective, and vectors in $`\mathrm{\#}E`$ are tangent to the orbit foliation.

Let $`\alpha A_x`$. We decompose $`\alpha `$ according to (3.1):

$$\alpha =\alpha ^{}+\alpha ^{},\text{where }\alpha ^{}E_x,\alpha ^{}(A_{F_x})_x.$$

For each $`uF_x=p^1(x)`$, we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_u^{}E_u`$ the unique element such that $`d_up\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_u^{}=\mathrm{\#}\alpha ^{}`$, and by $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_u^{}(A_{F_x})_u`$ the element corresponding to $`\alpha ^{}`$ under the identification $`(A_{F_x})_u(A_{F_x})_x`$. We also set $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}`$.

We can now define our connection: given $`\alpha A_x`$, $`xL`$, and $`uF_x`$, the horizontal lift to $`\nu (L)`$ is the map

$$h(u,\alpha )=\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_uT_u\nu (L).$$

By construction, we have the defining property of an $`A`$-connection:

$$p_{}h(u,\alpha )=\mathrm{\#}\alpha ,up^1(x).$$

The definition of $`h`$ depends on several choices made: tubular neighborhood, trivialization of $`A_{F_x}`$ and complementary vector bundle $`E`$. The changes of choices will eventually lead to conjugate holonomy homomorphisms (to be defined below).

Given an $`A`$-path $`a:IA`$ with initial point $`x_0`$ and final point $`x_1`$, parallel transport gives us a diffeomorphism $`H_L(a)_0:F_{x_0}F_{x_1}`$, defined on neighborhoods of the origin. More is true: $`H_L(a)_0`$ is covered by a Lie algebroid isomorphisms $`H_L(a)`$ from $`A_{F_{x_0}}`$ to $`A_{F_{x_1}}`$, so we have

This can be seen as follows. Given any $`A`$-path $`a(t)`$ in $`L`$, we can find a time-dependent section $`\alpha _t`$ of $`A`$ over $`L`$ such that $`\alpha _t(\gamma (t))=a(t)`$, where $`\gamma (t)=\pi (a(t))`$. Now we can define a time-dependent section $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$ covering $`\alpha _t`$ such that the horizontal lift of $`a(t)`$ is an integral curve of the time-dependent vector field

$$X_t=\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{\alpha _t},$$

so that $`H_L(a)_0`$ is the map induced by the time-1 flow of $`X_t`$ on $`F_{x_0}`$. Since the flow of $`X_t`$ is induced by the 1-parameter family of Lie algebroid homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t^{\alpha _t}`$ of $`A`$ obtained by integrating the family $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_t`$, the homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{\alpha _t}`$ give a Lie algebroid isomorphism $`H_L(a)`$ from $`A_{F_{x_0}}`$ to $`A_{F_{x_1}}`$, which covers $`H_L(a)_0`$.

Since $`H_L(a)`$ is the time-1 map of some flow it follows that if $`a^{}`$ is another $`A`$-path in $`L`$ such that $`x_1=x_0^{}`$ we have

(3.2)
$$H_L(aa^{})=H_L(a)H_L(a^{}),$$

where the dot denotes concatenation of $`A`$-paths. We call $`H_L(a)`$ the *$`A`$-holonomy* of the $`A`$-path $`a(t)`$. One extends the definition of $`H_L`$ for piecewise smooth $`A`$-paths in the obvious way.

Denote by $`𝔄𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})`$ the group of germs at $`0`$ of Lie algebroid automorphisms of $`A_{F_x}`$ which map $`0`$ to $`0`$, and by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A(L,x_0)`$ the group of piecewise smooth *$`A`$-loops* based at $`x_0`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

The $`A`$-holonomy of the leaf $`L`$ with base point $`x_0`$ is the map

$$H_L:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(L,x_0)𝔄𝔲𝔱(A_{F_{x_0}}).$$

Notice that the holonomy of a leaf $`L`$ depends on the tubular neighborhood $`\stackrel{~}{i}:\nu (L)M`$, on the choice of trivialization, and on the choice of complementary bundles. However, two different choices lead to conjugate homomorphisms. This Lie algebroid holonomy has, however, a major drawback: two $`A`$-paths whose base paths are homotopic may have distinct holonomy. On the other hand, one can show, that if they are homotopic as $`A`$-paths they lead to the same holonomy, so we do get a homomorphism

$$H_L:𝒢(A)_x^x𝔄𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x}).$$

For practical computations it is much more efficient to have a homomorphism defined on the fundamental group $`\pi _1(L,x)`$. In , following constructions given in  and  for the Poisson case, we have introduced a notion of *reduced holonomy* which is homotopy invariant relative to the base paths. Recall that $`𝔄𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})`$ denotes the group of germs at $`0`$ of Lie algebroid automorphisms of $`A_{F_x}`$ which map $`0`$ to $`0`$. By an *inner Lie algebroid automorphism* of $`A`$ we mean an automorphism which is the time-1 flow of some time-dependent section. We shall denote by $`𝔒𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})`$ the corresponding group of germs of *outer Lie algebroid automorphisms* (333As usual, for a Lie algebroid $`A`$, the group of outer Lie algebroid automorphisms is the quotient $`\text{Aut}(A)/\text{Inn}(A)`$.).

In  we prove the following

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`xLM`$ be a leaf of $`A`$ with associated $`A`$-holonomy $`H_L:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(L,x)𝔄𝔲𝔱(F_x)`$. If $`a_1(t)`$ and $`a_2(t)`$ are $`A`$-loops based at $`x`$ with base paths $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ homotopic then $`H_L(a_1)`$ and $`H_L(a_2)`$ represent the same equivalence class in $`𝔒𝔲𝔱(F_x)`$.

Given a loop $`\gamma `$ in a leaf $`L`$ we shall denote by $`\overline{H}_L(\gamma )𝔒𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})`$ the equivalence class of $`H_L(a)`$ for some piecewise smooth family $`a(t)`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}a(t)=\gamma (t)`$. The map

$$\overline{H}_L:\mathrm{\Omega }(L,x)𝔒𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})$$

will be called the *reduced holonomy homomorphism* of $`L`$. This map extends to continuous loops and, by a standard argument, it induces a group homomorphism $`\overline{H}_L:\pi _1(L,x)𝔒𝔲𝔱(A_{F_x})`$.

Recall that, for a foliation $``$ of a manifold $`M`$, a *saturated set* is a set $`SM`$ which is a union of leaves of $``$. A leaf $`L`$ is called *stable* if it has arbitrarily small saturated neighborhoods. In the case of the orbit foliation of a Lie algebroid a set is saturated iff it is invariant under all inner automorphisms. Hence, a leaf is stable iff it is has arbitrarily small neighborhoods which are invariant under all inner automorphisms.

We shall call a leaf $`L`$ *transversely stable* if $`NL`$ is a stable leaf for the transverse Lie algebroid structure $`A_N`$, i. e., if there are arbitrarily small neighborhoods of $`NL`$ in $`N`$ which are invariant under all inner automorphisms of $`A_N`$. Using this notion of Lie algebroid holonomy one can prove a Reeb-type stability theorem:

###### Theorem 3.4 (Stability Theorem ).

Let $`L`$ be a compact, transversely stable leaf, with finite reduced holonomy. Then $`L`$ is stable, i.e., $`L`$ has arbitrarily small neighborhoods which are invariant under all inner automorphisms. Moreover, each leaf near $`L`$ is a bundle over $`L`$ whose fiber is a finite union of leaves of the transverse Lie algebroid structure.

The local splitting theorem for Lie algebroids (see , Theorem 1.1) states that locally a Lie algebroid splits as a product of $`A_L`$ and $`A_N`$. Using holonomy one can investigate if a neighborhood of a leaf trivializes as in the local splitting theorem. An obvious necessary condition is that the Lie algebroid holonomy be trivial. We refer the reader to  for further details.

## 4. Linear Holonomy

Recall (see ) that a *linear Lie algebroid* is a Lie algebroid $`\pi :AV`$ such that:

1. The base is a vector space $`V`$ (so $`\pi :AV`$ is trivial);
2. For any trivialization, the bracket of constant sections is a constant section;
3. For any trivialization and constant section $`\alpha `$, the vector field $`\mathrm{\#}\alpha `$ is linear.

The reader should notice that a linear Lie algebroid $`A`$ is isomorphic to a (linear) action Lie algebroid $`𝔤\times V`$.

For a Lie algebroid $`A`$, the transverse Lie algebroid structure to a leaf of $`A`$ is a germ of a Lie algebroid for which the anchor vanishes at the base point. One should expect then that there is a well-defined linear approximation. In fact, we have the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`AM`$ be any Lie algebroid, fix $`x_0M`$ and denote by $`L`$ the leaf through $`x_0`$. There is a natural linear Lie algebroid structure $`A^{\text{lin}}`$ over the normal space $`N_{x_0}=T_{x_0}M/T_{x_0}L`$ with

$$A^{\text{lin}}=𝔤_{x_0}\times N_{x_0}.$$

We call $`A^{\text{lin}}N_{x_0}`$ the *linear approximation* to $`A`$ at $`x_0`$. We also have a linear version of holonomy

$$H_L^{\text{lin}}dH_L:\mathrm{\Omega }_A(L,x)\text{Aut}(𝔤)\times \text{GL}(F_x)\text{Aut}(A^{\text{lin}}).$$

Moreover, we can obtain linear holonomy as parallel transport along a linear $`A`$-connection generalizing the Bott connection of ordinary foliation theory, and which we will now recall.

First, if $`p:EM`$ is a vector bundle over $`M`$, a linear $`A`$-connection on $`E`$ is a connection $`h:p^{}ATE`$ which is linear:

$$h(u,\alpha _1+\alpha _2)=h(u,\alpha _1)+h(u,\alpha _2),h(u,\lambda \alpha )=\lambda h(u,\alpha ),$$

where $`\lambda `$, $`uE`$ and $`\alpha _iA`$.

In exactly the same way as one does with ordinary connections, we can associate with a linear connection an operator $`:\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ which satisfies

1. $`_{\alpha _1+\alpha _2}s=_{\alpha _1}s+_{\alpha _2}s`$;
2. $`_\alpha (s_1+s_2)=_\alpha s_1+_\alpha s_2`$;
3. $`_{f\alpha }s=f_\alpha s`$;
4. $`_\alpha (fs)=f_\alpha s+\mathrm{\#}\alpha (f)s`$;

where $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\alpha _2\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$, $`s,s_1,s_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$, and $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. Conversely, any operator satisfying (i)-(iv) determines a linear connection. For a detailed discussion of such connections see .

The *Bott connection* of a Lie algebroid is a pair of linear $`A`$-connections on $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\#}|_L`$ and on $`\nu ^{}(L)`$. On one hand, we have on the vector bundle $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\#}|_L`$ the linear $`A`$-connection:

(4.1)
$$_\alpha ^L\gamma [\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\gamma }],$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ are sections extending the sections $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A_L)`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{Ker}\mathrm{\#}|_L)`$. On the other hand, we have on the conormal bundle $`\nu ^{}(L)=\{\omega T_L^{}M:\omega |TL=0\}`$ the linear $`A`$-connection:

(4.2)
$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}_\alpha ^L\omega _{\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\omega }|_x,$$

where now we take a section $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ and a 1-form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ extending the sections $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A_L)`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ^{}(L))`$. It is easy to check that $`^L`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^L`$ satisfy properties (i)-(iv) above.

It is more convenient to consider the connections $`^L`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{}^L`$ together, rather than leaf by leaf. Also, we can work on the direct sum $`ATM`$ (the reason for the strange symbol will be explained later) and replace the pair of connections by a single connection, so we set:

###### Definition 4.2.

A linear connection $`=^A^M`$ on $`ATM`$ is called a basic connection if

1. $``$ is compatible with the Lie algebroid structure, i.e.,

$$^M\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\#}^A;$$
2. $`^A`$ and $`^M`$ restrict to the Bott connection on each leaf $`L`$, i. e., if $`\alpha ,\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$, $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$, with $`\mathrm{\#}\gamma |_L=0`$ and $`\omega |_{TL}=0`$, then

$$_\alpha (\gamma ,\omega )|_L=([\alpha ,\gamma ],_{\mathrm{\#}\alpha }\omega )|_L.$$

Basic connections always exist. A simple procedure, due to Crainic, for constructing a basic connection is to start with any $`TM`$-connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`A`$ and set:

$$_\alpha (\gamma ,X)=(\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\#}\gamma }\alpha +[\alpha ,\gamma ],\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{}_X\alpha +[\mathrm{\#}\alpha ,X]).$$

The holonomy along a leaf $`L`$ of a basic connection $``$ gives the linear holonomy of $`L`$ introduced above in the following way: the holonomy of the basic connection $``$ determines endomorphisms of the fiber $`A_x`$ which map $`\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\#}_x`$ isomorphically into itself, and these are the linear holonomy maps. Moreover, we have the following Bott-type vanishing theorem which lies at the basis of the secondary characteristic classes to be introduced in the next section.

###### Theorem 4.3 (Bott vanishing theorem ).

Let $`R`$ denote the curvature of a basic connection. Then for any section $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ and 1-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\#}\gamma |_L=0`$ and $`\omega |_{TL}=0`$, we have

$$R(\alpha ,\gamma )(\gamma ,\omega )|_L=0.$$

For more on Bott vanishing theorems in the special context of regular Lie algebroids we refer to the work of Kubarski ().

## 5. Characteristic classes

One can define (primary) characteristic classes for algebroids as one does in the usual Chern-Weil theory. For example, let $`EM`$ be a real vector bundle with rank $`q`$ and pick some $`A`$-connection $``$ on $`E`$. Its curvature

$$R(\alpha ,\beta )=_\alpha _\beta _\beta _\alpha +_{[\alpha ,\beta ]},$$

defines a linear map $`R_{\alpha ,\beta }=R(\alpha ,\beta ):E_xE_x`$ which satisfies $`R_{\alpha ,\beta }=R_{\beta ,\alpha }`$. Hence, the map $`(\alpha ,\beta )R_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ can be considered as a $`𝔤𝔩(E)`$-valued 2-section, and by fixing a basis of local sections for $`E`$, so that $`E_x^q`$, we have that $`R_{\alpha ,\beta }𝔤𝔩_q()`$. This matrix representation of $`R_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is defined only up to a change of basis in $`^q`$. Therefore, if

$$P:𝔤𝔩_q()\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔤𝔩_q()$$

is a symmetric, $`k`$-multilinear, $`\text{Ad}(GL_q())`$-invariant function, we can introduce a well-defined $`2k`$-form $`\lambda ()(P)\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k}(A)`$ by the formula

(5.1)
$$\lambda ()(P)(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2k})=\underset{\sigma S_{2k}}{}(1)^\sigma P(R_{\alpha _{\sigma (1),\sigma (2)}},\mathrm{},R_{\alpha _{\sigma (2k1),\sigma (2k)}}).$$

This form is closed and hence defines a certain Lie algebroid cohomology class $`[\lambda ()(P)]H^{2k}(A)`$. It is not hard to see that this cohomology class is independent of the choice of connection, so we have defined some intrinsic characteristic classes of the vector bundle $`E`$. For example, if we let $`P_k`$ be the elementary symmetric polynomials we have the $`A`$-Pontrjagin classes

$$p_k(E,A)=[\lambda (P_{2k})]H^{4k}(A).$$

As usual, one does not need to consider the classes for odd $`k`$ since we have

$$[\lambda (P_{2k1})]=0,$$

as can be seen by choosing a connection compatible with a Riemannian metric.

However, these classes do not really contain any new information. In fact, the anchor $`\mathrm{\#}:ATM`$ determines a chain map $`\mathrm{\#}^{}:(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M),d)(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(A),d_A)`$ and so we have an induced map in cohomology:

$$\mathrm{\#}^{}:H^{}(M)H^{}(A).$$

If we choose some ordinary connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`E`$ and take $`_\alpha =\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{\#}\alpha }`$ we see immediately that

$$p_k(E,A)=\mathrm{\#}^{}p_k(E),$$

where $`p_k(E)`$ are the usual Pontrjagin classes of $`E`$. The same is true for any (primary) characteristic classes one may define: we have a commutative diagram

where on the top row we have the usual Chern-Weil homomorphism and on the diagonal we have the $`A`$-Chern-Weil homomorphism (see ). These classes were introduced for Poisson manifolds by Vaisman in , and for regular Lie algebroids by Kubarski in .

The fact that all these classes arise as image by $`\mathrm{\#}^{}`$ of well-known classes is perhaps a bit disappointing. However, one can define *secondary characteristic classes* which are true invariants of the Lie algebroid, in the sense that they do not arise as images by $`\mathrm{\#}^{}`$ of some de Rham cohomology classes. These classes are analogous to the exotic classes of foliation theory introduced by Bott *et al.* (see, e.g., ). To define them introduce a pair of connections $`(^1,^0)`$ on $`ATM`$ where:

* $`^1`$ is a basic connection;
* $`^0`$ is a Riemannian connection (i.e., $`_\alpha ^0=_{\mathrm{\#}\alpha }`$ with $``$ the Levi-Civita connection);

Given an Ad -invariant, symmetric polynomial $`P`$, the classes are defined by a transgression formula in the spirit of Chern and Simons ():

(5.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda ^{1,0}(P)(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2k1})=\hfill \\ \hfill k\underset{\sigma S_{2k1}}{}(1)^\sigma _0^1P(_{\alpha _{\sigma (1)}}^{1,0},R_{\alpha _{\sigma (2)},\alpha _{\sigma (3)}}^t,\mathrm{},R_{\alpha _{\sigma (2k2)},\alpha _{\sigma (2k1)}}^t)𝑑t,\end{array}$$

where $`^{1,0}=^1^0`$ and $`R^t`$ is the curvature of $`^t=(1t)^0t^1`$. Again we have:

###### Theorem 5.1 (Secondary classes ).

Let $`k`$ be odd. Then

1. $`\lambda ^{1,0}(P)\mathrm{\Omega }^{2k1}(A)`$ is closed;
2. The cohomology class $`[\lambda ^{1,0}(P)]H^{2k1}(A)`$ is independent of the choice of connections;

In general these classes do not lie in the image of $`\mathrm{\#}^{}:H^{}(M)H^{}(A)`$, as can be seen from some of the examples given below, so we obtain genuine invariants of the Lie algebroid. In particular, if we take $`P=P_k`$ the elementary symmetric polynomials we obtain the *secondary characteristic classes* of a Lie algebroid:

$$m_k(A)=[\lambda ^{1,0}(P_k)]H^{2k1}(A),k=1,3,5,\mathrm{}$$

Explicit computation of these classes appear in . The best understood class is $`m_1`$ and it was known before  as the *modular class* of a Lie algebroid. This class was introduced first by Weinstein in , for the special case of Poisson manifolds, and by Weinstein *et al.* in  for general Lie algebroids. There the following geometric interpretation was given. Let us think of sections of the line bundle $`Q_A=^{\text{top}}A^{\text{top}}TM`$ (or $`Q_AQ_A`$ in the non-orientable case) as “transverse measures” in $`A`$. Then the modular class is the obstruction to the existence of invariant transverse measures: $`m_1(A)=0`$ iff there exists a measure invariant under the flow of any section of $`A`$. In the Poisson case, $`m_1(A)=0`$ iff there exists a (true) measure invariant under the flow of any hamiltonian diffeormorphism. The modular class was also studied in a purely algebraic context by Huebschmann  and Xu .

Crainic in  has developed, independently from , a theory of characteristic classes of representations. Recall that a *representation* of a Lie algebroid $`AM`$ is a vector bundle $`EM`$ together with a map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ satisfying:

1. $`(f\alpha )s=f\alpha s`$;
2. $`\alpha (fs)=f\alpha s+\mathrm{\#}\alpha (f)s`$;
3. $`[\alpha ,\beta ]s=\alpha (\beta s)\beta (\alpha s)`$;

If we set $`_\alpha s\alpha s`$ then we see that a representation is nothing other than a flat $`A`$-connection on $`E`$. The terminology is motivated by the case when $`A`$ is a Lie algebra.

Assume then that $`EM`$ is a representation of a Lie algebroid $`A`$ and denote by $`^1`$ the associated flat $`A`$-connection on $`E`$. Then $`^1`$ induces an adjoint connection $`^1`$ on the dual bundle $`E^{}`$. If we pick some Riemannian metric on $`E`$ we obtain an identification $`EE^{}`$, so that the adjoint connection determines a new $`A`$-connection $`^0`$ on $`E`$. We can then check that if $`P`$ is some Ad -invariant polynomial, the transgression formula (5.2) gives characteristic classes of the representation(444The classes are actually defined only for complex representations and for polynomials representing classes in the relative cohomology $`H^{}(GL(n),U(n))`$, but we shall ignore this aspect here.):

$$u(E,P)=[\lambda _E^{1,0}(P)]H^{}(A).$$

These are the characteristic classes introduced by Crainic in . Their main properties are given in the following proposition:

###### Proposition 5.2.

For representations $`E`$ and $`F`$ of a Lie algebroid $`A`$, and any characteristic class $`u()=u(,P)`$ as defined above, we have:

1. $`u(EF)=u(E)+u(F)`$;
2. $`u(EF)=\text{rk}(E)u(F)+\text{rk}(F)u(E)`$;
3. $`u(E^{})=u(E)`$;

In particular, the characteristic classes vanish if $`E`$ admits an invariant metric, hence these classes measure the obstruction to the existence of such invariant metrics.

Notice that the Crainic classes are representation dependent, while the classes introduced above were intrinsic classes of the Lie algebroid. If there existed some natural or canonical representation of a Lie algebroid $`A`$, one would expect that the (extrinsic) classes of such representation would give the intrinsic characteristic classes of $`A`$. However, a general Lie algebroid has no adjoint action as opposed to, say, a Lie algebra. It turns out that it is still possible to recover the intrinsic characteristic classes from characteristic classes of a representation if one weakens the notion of representation to a *representation up to homotopy*. Then there is a natural *adjoint representation up to homotopy* for every Lie algebroid $`A`$, and the Crainic classes of this representation yield the intrinsic characteristic classes.

The notion of connection up to homotopy is obtained as a weaker version of Quillen’s (see ) notion of superconnection. Recall that a super-vector bundle is just a $`_2`$-graded vector bundle over a manifold $`M`$. If $`(E,)`$ is a super-complex of vector bundles over $`M`$:

we can view it as an element in the $`K`$-theory of $`M`$, i.e., the formal differences $`E=E^0E^1`$. We set:

###### Definition 5.3.

An $`A`$-connection up to homotopy on a super-vector bundle $`(E,)`$ is a $``$-bilinear map $`:\mathrm{\Gamma }(A)\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$, such that:

1. $``$ perserves the grading and $`_i=_{i+1}`$;
2. $`_\alpha (fs)=f_\alpha s+\mathrm{\#}\alpha (f)s`$;
3. $`_{f\alpha }s=f_\alpha s+[H(f,\alpha ),]s`$;

where the homotopy $`H(f,\alpha ):EE`$ has degree 1.

A flat connection up to homotopy is the same as a *representation up to homotopy* (see , for details and background on these connections). For representations up to homotopy one can define extrinsic characteristic classes $`[\lambda _E^{1,0}(P)]H^{}(A)`$ in a similar manner to the case of ordinary representations (see ). The main example we are interested in is the *adjoint representation up to homotopy* of a Lie algebroid $`A`$. It is the representation

$$\text{ad}(A):\text{}$$

where we take

$$_\alpha ^{\text{ad}(A)}(\gamma ,X)=([\alpha ,\gamma ],_{\mathrm{\#}\alpha }X).$$

The reader may check that this is indeed a flat connection up to homotopy with homotopy map $`H(f,\alpha )`$ given by:

$$H(f,\alpha )\gamma =0,H(f,\alpha )X=X(f)\alpha .$$

At this point the reader will notice the close relationship between the adjoint representations up to homotopy and the basic connections introduced in the previous section: every basic connection determines a flat connection up to homotopy on the super-vector bundle $`ATM`$. To make this relationship more precise, and finally justify the use of the symbol $``$ as a “difference” similar to K-theory, we introduce a notion of equivalence among connections up to homotopy:

###### Definition 5.4.

Two connections up to homotopy $``$ and $`^{}`$ on a super-vector bundle $`E`$ are said to be equivalent if there exists some degree-zero $`\text{End}(E)`$-valued 1-form $`\theta `$ such that:

$$_\alpha ^{}=_\alpha +[\theta (\alpha ),].$$

One can then show (see  for details):

###### Proposition 5.5.

A true $`A`$-connection $``$ on $`ATM`$ is equivalent to $`^{\text{ad}(A)}`$ iff $``$ is a basic connection.

Finally, Crainic has established that the intrinsic characteristic classes of a Lie algebroid coincide with the characteristic classes of the adjoint representation:

$$[\lambda _{\text{ad}(A)}^{1,0}(P)]=[\lambda ^{1,0}(P)].$$

Namely, he shows that, in general, two equivalent representations up to homotopy have the same characteristic classes. We refer the reader to  for proofs and further details.

## 6. K-theory

It is well-known that $`K`$-theory is the most efficient of all cohomology theories admitting a geometric description. Since we have a notion of representation of a Lie algebroid it is therefore natural to look at the possibility of constructing a $`K`$-theory in the context of Lie algebroids. A first attempt in constructing a $`K^0`$-functor was made by Ginzburg in  and we recall his construction in this section. This should by no means be considered as the final word on this theory. In fact, we have good indications that a $`K`$-theory based on the notion of representations up to homotopy would be more efficient, and this is the subject of current investigation.

We denote by $`\text{Vect}_A(M)`$ the semi-ring of equivalence classes of representations of a Lie algebroid $`\pi :AM`$. The following example shows that this semi-ring is usually too large.

###### Example 6.1.

Consider the trivial Lie algebroid $`\pi :AM`$ of rank $`r`$, and let $`p:EM`$ be an ordinary vector bundle over $`M`$. Any family $`\left\{\sigma _x\right\}_{xM}`$ of representations of the abelian Lie algebras $`A_x`$ on the vector space $`E_x`$,

$$\sigma _x:A_x\text{End}(E_x),$$

determines a representation of $`A`$:

$$_\alpha s|_x=\sigma _x(\alpha (x))s(x).$$

We must therefore somehow reduce the number of relevant representations. Ginzburg in  suggests reducing the number by identifying representations which can be deformed into one another.

###### Definition 6.2.

Let $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ be representations of a Lie algebroid $`A`$. We say that $`E_0`$ and $`E_1`$ are deformation equivalent if they are isomorphic to representations that can be connected by a family $`E_t`$ of representations of $`A`$.

This clearly defines an equivalence relation on $`\text{Vect}_A(M)`$ which respects the semi-rimg structure. Denote then by $`\text{Vect}_A^{\text{def}}(M)`$ the semi-ring of equivalence classes of representations of a Lie algebroid $`A`$.

###### Example 6.3.

For a trivial Lie algebroid $`\pi :AM`$, all representations are homotopic to one another so $`\text{Vect}_A^{\text{def}}(M)=\text{Vect}(M)`$. In fact, if $`p:EM`$ is some representation with an associated flat connection $``$, then $`\overline{}^tt`$ defines a family of flat connections giving a deformation of $`(E,)`$ to the trivial representation.

Although this is not the only possible way of reducing equivalence classes of representations (see e.g.  for the related concept of *homogeneous* representations), we restrict our attention to the deformation equivalent classes, for this already gives us the flavor of any such theory.

###### Definition 6.4.

The $`K`$-ring of $`A`$ is the Grothendieck ring $`K(A)`$ associated with the semi-ring $`\text{Vect}_A`$.

To check that these rings are reasonable objects let us look at some examples:

###### Example 6.5.

In example 6.1, we saw that for a trivial Lie algebroid $`A`$ the $`K`$-ring $`K(A)`$ is equal to the ordinary $`K`$-ring of $`M`$, i.e., $`K(A)=K(M)`$.

###### Example 6.6.

Let $`A=TM`$. Then a representation $`EM`$ of $`A`$ is just a vector bundle together with an (ordinary) flat connection $``$, or equivalently, a representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Two representations are deformation equivalent iff the corresponding representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$ lie in the same path-connected component of the space of representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Hence, we conclude that $`K(TM)=\pi _0(\text{Rep}(\pi _1(M)))`$.

###### Example 6.7.

Let $`A=𝔤^{}\times 𝔤𝔤^{}`$ be the transformation Lie algebroid associated with the coadjoint action $`\text{ad}^{}:𝔤𝔤𝔩(𝔤^{})`$. Also, let $`p:E𝔤^{}`$ be some representation of $`A`$, with an associated flat connection $``$.

There is a Lie algebra representation $`\rho :𝔤V`$, where $`V=p^1(0)`$, naturally associated with the representation. It can be defined as follows: if $`y𝔤`$ and $`vV`$ choose sections $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(E)`$ such that $`\alpha (0)=y`$ and $`s(0)=v`$. Then

$$\rho (y)v_\alpha s(0),$$

and it is easy to check that this is independent of all choices.

The Lie algebra representation $`\rho `$ defines a new representation $`(\overline{E},\overline{})`$ of the Lie algebroid $`A`$: $`\overline{E}`$ is the trivial vector bundle $`𝔤^{}\times V𝔤^{}`$, and $`\overline{}`$ is the unique flat connection which for a constant section $`s(x)=v`$ satisfies

$$\overline{}_\alpha s=\rho (\alpha )v,$$

(here we identify $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(A)`$ with a function $`\alpha :𝔤^{}𝔤`$).

One can check (see ) that the representations $`(E,)`$ and $`(\overline{E},\overline{})`$ are deformation equivalent. Moreover, two representations $`(E_0,^0)`$ and $`(E_1,^1)`$ are deformation equivalent iff the associated Lie algebra representations $`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _1`$ are in the same path component of the space of representations of $`𝔤`$. Hence, we conclude that $`K(𝔤^{})=R(𝔤)`$, the ring of representations of $`𝔤`$.

To complete the properties of this $`K`$-theory we consider *Morita equivalence* of Lie algebroids. The definition is based on the notion of *pull-back Lie algebroid* due to Higgins and Mackenzie (see ): we start with a Lie algebroid $`AM`$ and we consider a surjective submersion $`\varphi :QM`$. Then the pull-back Lie algebroid $`\varphi ^{}A`$ completes the diagram

so that $`\widehat{\varphi }:\varphi ^{}AA`$ is a morphism of Lie algebroids. As a vector bundle, $`\varphi ^{}A`$ is given by:

$$\varphi ^{}A=\{(\alpha ,X)\varphi ^{}A\times TQ:\mathrm{\#}\alpha =d\rho X\},$$

where $`\varphi ^{}A`$ is the usual pull-back of vector bundles. For the anchor one takes projection into the second factor, while the bracket is given by:

$$[(f\alpha ,X),(g\beta ,Y)]=(fg[\alpha ,\beta ]+X(g)\alpha Y(f),[X,Y]),$$

whenever $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are pull-backs of sections of $`A`$, $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ and $`X,Y𝒳(Q)`$. In the sequel we shall use $`\varphi ^{}A`$ to denote the pull-back construction in the category of Lie algebroids and $`\varphi ^{}A`$ to denote the pull-back construction in the category of vector bundles. Since we have $`\varphi ^{}A\varphi ^{}A\text{Ker}\varphi _{}`$, these constructions only coincide if $`\varphi `$ is a covering.

###### Definition 6.8.

Two Lie algebroids $`A_1M_1`$ and $`A_2M_2`$ are called Morita equivalent if there exists a pair of surjective submersions, with simply connected fibers,

such that the pull-back Lie algebroids $`\varphi _1^{}A_1`$ and $`\varphi _2^{}A_2`$ are isomorphic.

###### Remark 6.9.

Morita equivalence was first introduced in the context of Poisson manifolds by Xu in , and further studied by Ginzburg and Lu in . This definition makes sense only for *integrable* Poisson manifolds. For Lie algebroids, the definition above is due to Ginzburg , and is a linear version of the notion of Morita equivalence of Lie groupoids (see e.g. ). For Poisson manifolds, this notion of Morita equivalence (applied to the cotagent bundle Lie algebroids) is weaker than Xu’s definition of Morita equivalence, but it makes sense for *all* Poisson manifolds. For this reason it is called in  *weak Morita equivalence*. The advantage of this definition is that the invariants we have been discussing are in fact (weak) Morita invariants. The notion of weak Morita equivalence is just one of several possibilities (see the discussion in ).

Let $`E`$ be a representation of the Lie algebroid $`A`$. Then $`\varphi ^{}E`$ is naturally a representation of $`\varphi ^{}A`$: the flat connections on $`E`$ and $`\varphi ^{}E`$ are related by

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{(\alpha ,X)}(fs)=X(f)s+f_\alpha s,$$

whenever $`s`$ is the pull-back of a section of $`E`$. Conversely, since the $`\text{Ker}d\varphi `$-action on $`\varphi ^{}E`$ coincides with the action obtained from the natural flat connection on $`\varphi ^{}E`$ along the $`\varphi `$-fibers, it follows that pull-back induces a bijection

$$\text{Vect}_A(M)\text{Vect}_{\varphi ^{}A}(Q).$$

Therefore, the definition implies that Morita equivalent Lie algebroids have the same representations:

###### Theorem 6.10 (Invariance under Morita Equivalence ).

Let $`\pi _1:A_1M_1`$ and $`\pi _2:A_2M_2`$ be Morita equivalent Lie algebrois. Then $`\text{Vect}_{A_1}(M_1)\text{Vect}_{A_2}(M_2)`$ and $`\text{Vect}_{A_1}^{\text{def}}(M_1)\text{Vect}_{A_2}^{\text{def}}(M_2)`$. In particular, we have:

$$K(A_1)K(A_2).$$

One can also show, that Morita equivalent Lie algebroids have isomorphic zero and first Lie algebroid cohomology groups (see ). If one assumes further that the $`\varphi _i`$-fibers are $`n`$-connected, then one can show that they have isomorphic Lie algebroid cohomologies $`H^k(A_1)H^k(A_2)`$, for all $`kn`$ (see ).

Most of, if not all, the properties of Morita equivalence, can be reduced to the statement that Morita equivalent Lie algebroids have the same orbit space. In fact, the algebroids $`\varphi ^{}A_1`$ and $`\varphi ^{}A_2`$ obviously have isomorphic foliations and isomorphic transverse structures. Hence, the assignment $`L\varphi _2(\varphi _1^1(L))`$ gives a bijection between the leaves of $`A_1`$ and the leaves of $`A_2`$. Moreover, if $`x_1=\varphi (q)`$ and $`x_2=\varphi (q)`$, it follows from the pull-back construction that the transverse Lie algebroid structures to $`A_1`$ at $`x_1`$ and to $`A_2`$ at $`x_2`$, are isomorphic. Hence:

###### Theorem 6.11.

Let $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ be Morita equivalent Lie algebroids. Then there exists a 1:1 correspondence between the leaves of $`A_1`$ and the leaves of $`A_2`$. Moreover, the transverse Lie algebroid structures of corresponding leaves are isomorphic.

At this stage it is not clear how one can extend the results of this section to representations up to homotopy, an aspect of Lie algebroid theory we feel deserves further investigation.


format: text

text:
# Transmission Phase of an Isolated Coulomb–Blockade Resonance

## I Introduction

In 1997, Schuster et al.  reported on a measurement of the transmission phase through a quantum dot (QD). These authors used an Aharanov–Bohm (AB) interferometer with the QD embedded in one of its arms. The device is schematically shown in Figure 1. The current through the device is made up of coherent contributions from both arms and is, therefore, a periodic function of the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ through the AB interferometer. A sequence of Coulomb–blockade resonances in the QD was swept by adjusting the plunger gate voltage $`V_g`$ on the QD. (The plunger gate is not shown in the Figure). The phase shift $`\delta \varphi `$ of the oscillatory part of the current was measured as a function of $`V_g`$. We refer to this phase shift as to the transmission phase through the QD. As expected, $`\delta \varphi `$ showed an increase by $`\pi `$ over each Coulomb–blockade resonance.

The AB interferometer of Ref.  was attached to six external leads. The complexity of this arrangement was caused by the failure of an earlier two–lead experiment  also aimed at measuring $`\delta \varphi `$. Instead of a smooth rise by $`\pi `$ over the width of each resonance, a sudden jump by $`\pi `$ near each resonance was observed. This feature was later understood to be caused by a special symmetry property of the two–lead experiment : The conductance $`g(\varphi )`$ and, therefore, the current are symmetric functions of $`\varphi `$ and, hence, even in $`\varphi `$. Thus, $`g`$ is a function of $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ only, and the apparent phase jump of $`\delta \varphi `$ by $`\pi `$ is actually due to the vanishing at some value of $`V_g`$ near resonance of the coefficient multiplying $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$.

Following the work of Ref. , theoretical attention was largely focused on the least expected feature of the data of Ref. : A sequence of Coulomb–blockade resonances displayed very similar behavior regarding the dependence of both, the conductance and the transmission phase, on $`V_g`$. In particular, $`\delta \varphi `$ displayed a rapid drop between neighboring Coulomb–blockade resonances. For references, see Ref. . It is only recently that Entin–Wohlman, Aharony, Imry, Levinson, and Schiller  drew attention to the behavior of $`\delta \varphi `$ at a single resonance. In Ref.  the first four authors consider a three–lead situation. Two leads are attached to the AB interferometer in a fashion analogous to Figure 1. The third lead connects directly to the QD. The authors take the arms of the AB interferometer and the three external leads as one–dimensional wires. They consider an isolated resonance due to a single state on the QD. Solving this model analytically, they come up with a disturbing result: The transmission phase increases by $`\pi `$ over an energy interval given by that part of the width of the QD which is due to its coupling to the third lead. As this coupling is gradually turned off, the rise by $`\pi `$ of $`\delta \varphi `$ becomes ever more steep, and eventually becomes a phase jump by $`\pi `$ as the coupling to the third lead vanishes. In Ref. , the model is extended to include additional one–dimensional wires directly attached to the AB ring and coupled to it in a special way. Again, it is found that the transmission phase reflects the resonance phase shift only “for specific ways of opening the system”. These results immediately poses the following questions: What is the behavior of $`\delta \varphi `$ for a single resonance in the six–lead case and, more generally, for any number of leads in a geometry like the one shown in Figure 1? Does the rise of $`\delta \varphi `$ by $`\pi `$ occur over an energy interval given by the actual width of the resonance or only by part of that width? And what happens to $`\delta \varphi `$ as the number of leads is gradually reduced to two? It is the purpose of the present paper to answer these questions within a theoretical framework which is more closely patterned after the experimental situation than is the work of Ref. . In particular, our work differs from that of Refs.  in the following respects: We do not assume that the QD is directly coupled to a lead, we do not make any specific assumptions about the way in which the leads are coupled to the AB ring, and we allow for an arbitrary number of leads (as long as this number is at least equal to two) and of channels in each lead.

## II Model

In one of the first theoretical papers  addressing the data of Ref , the transmission phase $`\delta \varphi `$ was calculated in the framework of a model designed in Ref. , and for the geometry shown in Figure 1. Inspection of the curves published in Ref.  shows that the transmission phase rises roughly by $`\pi `$ over an energy interval roughly equal to the width of each Coulomb–blockade resonance. The curves shown in Ref.  were, however, calculated in the framework of specific assumptions on a number of parameters and do not, therefore, constitute a general answer to the questions raised at the end of Section I. Still, it is useful to employ again the model used in these calculations. As we shall see, the model yields a completely general expression for the conductance and its dependence upon $`V_g`$ and $`\varphi `$ in the framework of the geometry displayed in Figure 1.

Starting point for the study of a case with $`R`$ leads where $`R`$ is integer and $`R2`$ is the Landauer–Büttiker formula

$$I_r=\underset{s=1}{\overset{R}{}}G_{rs}V_s.$$
(1)
The formula connects the current $`I_r`$ in lead $`r`$, $`r=1,\mathrm{},R`$ with the voltages $`V_s`$ applied to leads $`s`$. The conductance coefficients $`G_{rs}`$ are given by

$$G_{rs}=\frac{e^2}{h}T^{rs}=\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{ab}{}d\left(\frac{\mathrm{d}F()}{\mathrm{d}}\right)[|S_{ab}^{rs}()|^2\delta _{ab}].$$
(2)
Here $`S_{ab}^{rs}()`$ are the elements of the scattering matrix $`S`$ connecting channel $`a`$ in lead $`r`$ with channel $`b`$ in lead $`s`$ at an energy $``$ of the electron. We have used the terminology of scattering theory and identified the transverse modes of the electron in each lead with the channels. The function $`F()`$ is the Fermi function. We simplify our reasoning by considering very low temperatures where the integral in Eq. (2) can be replaced by $`[|S_{ab}^{rs}(E_F)|^2\delta _{ab}]`$, identifying the Fermi energy parametrically with the plunger gate voltage $`V_g`$. We do so because this brings out the energy dependence of the transmission phase most clearly. Subsequent averaging over temperature does not change the essential aspects. We recall that the Landauer–Büttiker formula is restricted to the case of independent electrons. This is the approximation used throughout the paper.

To proceed, we must introduce a model for the scattering matrix $`S(E_F)`$. We consider a geometrical arrangement of the type shown schematically in Figure 1 without, however, limiting ourselves to six channels. We emphasize that this geometry differs from the one considered in Ref. where, as mentioned above, the QD is directly coupled to one of the leads. The electrons move independently in the two–dimensional area defined by the leads, the AB interferometer, and the QD. A homogeneous magnetic field is applied perpendicularly to the plane of Figure 1.

The two–dimensional configuration space is divided into disconnected subspaces defined by the interior of the QD, of the AB interferometer without the QD, and by each of the leads. The free scattering states in lead $`r`$ carry the labels $`E`$ for energy and $`a`$ for the channel, with $`c_{aE}^r`$ and $`c_{aE}^r`$ the corresponding creation and destruction operators. The bound states in the closed AB ring have energies $`\epsilon _i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and associated operators $`d_i^{}`$ and $`d_i`$. The QD supports a single bound state with energy $`E_0`$ and associated operators $`q^{}`$ and $`q`$. This last simplification is introduced because we wish to investigate the behavior of $`\delta \varphi `$ at an isolated Coulomb–blockade resonance. At the expense of an increase of the number of indices, this assumption can easily be removed, see Refs. .

The single–particle Hamiltonian $`H`$ is accordingly written as the sum of two terms,

$$H=H_0+H_1.$$
(3)
Here, $`H_0`$ describes free electron motion in each of the disconnected subspaces,

$$H_0=\underset{r,a}{}dEEc_{aE}^rc_{aE}^r+\underset{i}{}\epsilon _id_i^{}d_i+E_0q^{}q.$$
(4)
The coupling between the various subspaces, and the influence of the magnetic field are contained in the coupling Hamiltonian

$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r,a,i}{}}{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}E(W_{ai}^r(E)c_{aE}^rd_i+h.c.)`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{ip}{}}(V_i^pq^{}d_i+h.c.).`$
The matrix elements $`W_{ai}^r(E)`$ describe the coupling between channel $`a`$ in lead $`r`$ and the state $`i`$ in the AB ring. There are no barriers separating the leads from the AB ring. Therefore, the coupling to the leads will change the states $`i`$ into strongly overlapping resonances. We will accordingly assume later that the resulting terms depend smoothly on energy $`E`$. We also assume that on the scale of the mean level spacing in the AB ring, the energy dependence of the $`W`$’s is smooth and, in effect, negligible. The matrix elements $`V_i^p`$ describe the coupling between the states $`i`$ and the state in the QD with energy $`E_0`$. The upper index $`p`$ with $`p=1,2`$ distinguishes the two barriers which separate the QD from the AB ring, see Figure 1. In our model, the topology of the AB ring enters via the occurrence of two independent amplitudes for decay of the state with energy $`E_0`$ on the QD into each of the states $`i`$ of the AB ring. Because of gauge invariance, the entire dependence of $`H`$ on the applied magnetic field can, without loss of generality, be put into one of the matrix elements $`V`$. We accordingly assume that the amplitudes $`W_{ai}^r(E)`$ and $`V^1`$ are real and write $`V^2`$ in the form

$$V_i^2\mathrm{exp}(+i\varphi )=(V_i^2)^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )=v^{(2)}$$
(7)
where $`v^{(2)}`$ is real. The phase $`\varphi `$ is given by $`2\pi `$ times the magnetic flux through the AB ring in units of the elementary flux quantum. Eqs. (6,7) imply that the electron picks up the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(+i\varphi )`$ as it leaves the QD through barrier $`2`$. Here and likewise in Section III, we neglect all other effects that the magnetic field may have on the motion of the electron, and take account of the Aharanov–Bohm phase only.

The Hamiltonian used in Ref.  differs from our $`H_0`$ in that it also contains the Coulomb interaction between electrons within the QD in a mean–field approximation. This interaction is known  to be important for the behavior of the phase of the transmission amplitude through the QD between resonances. It is not expected, however, to affect this phase in the domain of an isolated Coulomb–blockade resonance, or the width of such a resonance.

## III Scattering Matrix

One may wonder whether the model defined in Eqs. (3) to (7) is sufficiently general to give a completely satisfactory answer to the questions posed at the end of Section I. It is for this reason that we now derive the form of the scattering matrix from very general principles. These are unitarity, time–reversal invariance, the topology of the AB interferometer, gauge invariance, and the single–level approximation for the passage of electrons through the QD. As remarked above, the last of these assumptions can easily be lifted. At the end, it will turn out that the scattering matrix determined in this way has indeed the same form as the one calculated from Eqs. (3) to (7).

The total scattering matrix $`S`$ for the passage of electrons through the AB interferometer is the sum of two terms. We consider first the contribution $`S^{(0)}`$ from that arm of the interferometer which does not contain the QD. (In the scheme of Figure 1, the total scattering matrix $`S(E)`$ would become equal to $`S^{(0)}(E)`$ if the barriers $`1`$ and $`2`$ separating the QD from the AB ring were closed). We neglect the dependence of $`S^{(0)}`$ on energy over an interval given by the width of the resonance due to the single level in the QD in the other arm and, therefore, consider $`S^{(0))}`$ as independent of energy. Since $`S`$ is unitary, and since the contribution from the other arm vanishes for energies far from the resonance, $`S^{(0)}`$ must also be unitary. Moreover, $`S^{(0)}`$ is not affected by the presence of the magnetic field. (As in the model of Eqs. (3) to (7), the entire dependence on the magnetic field will be contained in the amplitude coupling the QD to the AB ring through barrier $`2`$, see Eq. (11) below). Hence, $`S^{(0)}`$ is time–reversal invariant and, thus, symmetric. As is the case for every unitary and symmetric matrix, $`S^{(0)}`$ can be written in the form

$$S^{(0)}=UU^T.$$
(8)
The symbol $`T`$ denotes the transpose of a matrix, and the matrix $`U`$ is unitary. It is the product of an orthogonal matrix which diagonalizes $`S^{(0)}`$, and of a diagonal matrix. The elements of the latter have the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\delta )`$ where the $`\delta `$’s are the eigenphaseshifts of $`S^{(0)}`$. We now use the more explicit notation introduced in Eq. (4) to write $`S^{(0)}`$ as $`(S^{(0)})_{ab}^{rs}`$, and $`U`$ as $`U_{a\alpha }^r`$. With $`N_r`$ the number of channels in lead $`r`$ and $`N=_rN_r`$ the total number of channels, the index $`\alpha `$ runs from $`1`$ to $`N`$. The matrix $`U`$ represents a rotation in the space of channels from the physical channels $`(r,a)`$ to the eigenchannels $`\alpha `$ of $`S^{(0)}`$.

Using Eq. (8), we write the total $`S`$–matrix $`S`$ in the form

$$S_{ab}^{rs}=\underset{\alpha \beta }{}U_{a\alpha }^r\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }i\frac{x_{\alpha \beta }}{EE_0+(i/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)U_{b\beta }^s.$$
(9)
The first term in brackets on the right–hand side of Eq. (9) represents $`S^{(0)}`$ and the second, the contribution of the single resonance due to the QD. This contribution is written in Breit–Wigner form. The numerator $`x_{\alpha \beta }`$ has the form

$`x_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`z_\alpha ^{(1)}z_\beta ^{(1)}+z_\alpha ^{(2)}z_\beta ^{(2)}`$ (11)
$`+z_\alpha ^{(1)}z_\beta ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )+z_\alpha ^{(2)}z_\beta ^{(1)}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ).`$
The amplitudes $`z_\alpha ^p`$ with $`p=1,2`$ and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N`$ are the amplitudes for decay of the Breit–Wigner resonance into the eigenchannels $`\alpha `$ through the first or the second barrier, respectively, see Figure 1. The entire magnetic–field dependence is contained explicitly in the phase factors. Therefore, the amplitudes $`z_\alpha ^p`$ can be chosen real. The four terms on the right–hand side of Eq. (11) account for the four ways in which the Breit–Wigner resonance contributes to the scattering process, see Figure 1: Formation and decay of the resonance through barrier one, formation and decay through barrier two, formation through barrier one and decay through barrier two, and formation through barrier two and decay through barrier one, respectively. Thus, the form of Eq. (11) accounts for the topology of the AB ring and for gauge invariance. In writing Eq. (11), we have assumed that passage through the QD is possible only via intermediate formation of the resonance.

The matrix $`S`$ in Eq. (9) must be unitary. This condition is met if the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ obeys the equation

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}(z_\alpha ^{(p)})^2+2\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}z_\alpha ^{(1)}z_\alpha ^{(2)}`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}|z_\alpha ^{(1)}+z_\alpha ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )|^2.`$
The last form of Eq. (13) shows that the amplitude for decay of the resonance into channel $`\alpha `$ is the sum of two terms, $`z_\alpha ^{(1)}`$ and $`z_\alpha ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$. Again, this reflects the topology of the AB interferometer. We note that the Breit–Wigner term in Eq. (9) describes both, single and multiple passage of the electron through the QD, the latter possibly in conjunction with multiple turns around the AB ring. This is seen by expanding the Breit–Wigner denominator in Eq. (9) in powers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, using Eq. (13), and identifying the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ power of pairs of coefficients $`z^{(1)},z^{(2)}`$ with the $`n`$–fold passage of the electron through the QD. The expansion gives rise, among many others, for instance to the term

$`({\displaystyle \frac{i}{EE_0}})^n(1/2)^{n1}`$ (14)
$`\times (z_\alpha ^{(1)}[{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}z_\gamma ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(+i\varphi )z_\gamma ^{(1)}]^{n1}z_\beta ^{(2)}\mathrm{exp}(+i\varphi ).`$ (15)
With $`(i)`$ the propagator in each of the eigenchannels and $`(EE_0)^1`$ the propagator through the resonance on the QD, this term describes an electron passing $`n`$ times through the QD and circling the AB ring $`(n1)`$ times counter–clockwise before leaving the AB device. (The factor $`(1/2)^{(n1)}`$ is a matter of convention).

According to Eq. (13), the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ depends upon the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$. In the context of the question addressed in the present paper, this fact is worrysome. Indeed, what is the meaning of the question “Does the transmission phase increase by $`\pi `$ over the width of the resonance?” if that width changes with the applied magnetic field? We now show that the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\varphi `$ becomes negligible when the total number $`N`$ of channels becomes large, $`N1`$. The amplitudes $`z_\alpha ^{(p)}`$ are real but may be positive or negative. For a rough estimate, we assume that the $`z`$’s are Gaussian–distributed random variables with zero mean value and a common variance $`z^2`$. Then the mean value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is easily seen to be independent of $`\varphi `$ and given by $`2Nz^2`$. The variance of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, on the other hand, is given by $`[4N^2+4N(1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi ))](z^2)^2`$. This establishes our claim: The dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ is small of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. To simplify the discussion, we will assume in the sequel that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$.

Inspection shows that the matrix $`S`$ obeys the identity

$$S(\varphi )=S^T(\varphi ).$$
(16)
This equation expresses time–reversal invariance in the presence of a magnetic field.

For later use, we write, with $`f(E)`$ real, the Breit–Wigner denominator in the form

$$\frac{1}{EE_0+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }}=f(E)\mathrm{exp}(i\xi (E)).$$
(17)
Here, $`\xi (E)`$ is the resonance phase shift. It increases by $`\pi `$ over the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the resonance. We recall that we assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to independent of $`\varphi `$. The questions raised at the end of Section I amount to asking: “What is the connection between the transmission phase and the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E)`$?” We will turn to this question presently.

It is useful to introduce the amplitudes

$$\gamma _a^r=\underset{\alpha }{}U_{a\alpha }^rz_\alpha ^{(1)},\delta _a^r=\underset{\alpha }{}U_{a\alpha }^rz_\alpha ^{(2)}.$$
(18)
The symbol $`\delta _a^r`$ should not be confused with the eigenphaseshift $`\delta _\alpha `$ of $`S^{(0)}`$. After multiplication with the matrix $`U`$, the numerator of the Breit–Wigner term takes the form

$`\gamma _a^r\gamma _b^s`$ $`+`$ $`\delta _a^r\delta _b^s+[\gamma _a^r\delta _b^s+\delta _a^r\gamma _b^s]\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ (20)
$`+i[\gamma _a^r\delta _b^s\delta _a^r\gamma _b^s]\mathrm{sin}(\varphi ).`$
The total scattering matrix is given by

$`S_{ab}^{rs}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`(S^{(0)})_{ab}^{rs}if(E)\mathrm{exp}(i\xi (E))[\gamma _a^r\gamma _b^s+\delta _a^r\delta _b^s`$ (23)
$`+[\gamma _a^r\delta _b^s+\delta _a^r\gamma _b^s]\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$
$`+i[\gamma _a^r\delta _b^s\delta _a^r\gamma _b^s]\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )].`$
The width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can also be expressed in terms of the amplitudes $`\gamma _a^r`$ and $`\delta _a^r`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{ra}{}|\gamma _a^r+\delta _a^r\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )|^2.$$
(24)
As announced above, we have shown that the scattering matrix $`S`$ can indeed be constructed from the requirements of unitarity, time–reversal invariance, the topology of the AB interferometer, gauge invariance, and the single–level approximation. Explicit construction of the scattering matrix from the Hamiltonian formulated in Eqs. (3) through (7) as done in Ref.  yields an expression which is identical in form to our $`S`$ in Eq. (23). This shows that our formal construction possesses a dynamical content. Conversely, this result shows that our model Hamiltonian in Eqs. (3) to (7) leads to the most general form of the scattering matrix which is consistent with the requirements just mentioned. We recall that our construction is strictly based upon a single–particle picture and does not account for interactions between electrons beyond the mean–field approximation.

## IV The Transmission Phase

Equipped with an explicit expression for $`S`$, we return to the transmission phase. It should first be noted that different experiments may determine different combinations of the conductance coefficients $`G_{rs}`$ introduced in Eq. (1). As shown in Ref. , the relevant quantity for the experiment of Schuster et al.  is $`T^{41}/(T^{44}N_4)`$. Here, the indices $`1`$ and $`4`$ label the source and the collector, respectively, for the electrons in the six–lead experiment. We will show presently that $`T^{rr}`$ with $`r=1,\mathrm{},R`$ is an even function of the phase $`\varphi `$ and, therefore, depends only upon $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$. A non–trivial dependence on $`\varphi `$ involving both $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ and, thus, a trigonometric dependence on $`(\varphi \pm \xi (E_F))`$, arises only from the terms $`T^{rs}`$ with $`rs`$. Without loss of generality we, therefore, focus attention on $`T^{12}`$ and, thus, on $`_{ab}|S_{ab}^{12}(E_F)|^2`$, see Eq. (1). This quantity is expected to display a non–trivial dependence on $`\varphi `$. We expect that the transmission phase $`\delta \varphi `$ increases by $`\pi `$ as the Fermi energy sweeps the Coulomb–blockade resonance. We ask how this increase depends on the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the resonance and on the number $`R`$ of leads.

It is useful to address these questions by using the unitarity relation. We write

$$\underset{ab}{}|S_{ab}^{12}|^2=N_1\underset{ab}{}|S_{ab}^{11}|^2\underset{s3}{}\underset{ab}{}|S_{ab}^{1s}|^2.$$
(25)
The advantage of Eq. (25) is that the sum over $`s`$ vanishes when there are only two leads. Thus, the influence of the number of leads is made explicit. We now discuss the dependence of the terms on the right–hand side of Eq. (25) on the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E)`$.

Each of the terms $`_{ab}|S_{ab}^{1s}|^2`$ with $`s=1,3,4,\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (25) is the sum of three contributions, involving $`|S^{(0)}|^2`$, the square of the Breit–Wigner contribution, and the interference term between $`S^{(0)}`$ and the Breit–Wigner term. The contributions from $`_{ab}|(S^{(0)})_{ab}^{1s}|^2`$ are independent of both, energy and magnetic field and, therefore, without interest. These terms only provide a smooth background. The squares of the Breit–Wigner terms are each proportional to $`f^2(E_F)`$ and are independent of the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$. This is expected. Each such term depends on the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ in two distinct ways. The squares of the terms in Eq. (23) involving either $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$, and the product of these two terms yield a dependence on $`\varphi `$ which is periodic in $`\varphi `$ with period $`\pi `$. Such terms can easily be distinguished experimentally from terms which are periodic in $`\varphi `$ with period $`2\pi `$. As we shall see, it is some of these latter terms which carry the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$. Therefore, we confine attention to terms of this latter type. A contribution of this type arises from the square of the Breit–Wigner term via the interference of that part of the resonance amplitude which is independent of $`\varphi `$ with the terms proportional to either $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$. The sum of all such contributions (from values of $`s=1`$ and $`s=3,4,\mathrm{},R`$) has the form

$$f^2(E_F)A\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\alpha _0)$$
(26)
where $`A`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ are constants wich depend on $`R`$ but not on $`E_F`$ or $`\varphi `$. We note that the constant $`A`$ is of fourth order in the decay amplitudes $`\gamma _a^r`$ and $`\delta _a^r`$. Isolated resonances in quantum dots require high barriers, i.e., small values of these decay amplitudes. Therefore, the term (26) may be negligible. We continue the discussion under this assumption but note that there is no problem in taking account of this term if the need arises.

We turn to the interference terms. We first address the case $`s=1`$ which differs from the cases with $`s3`$. We observe that $`(S^{(0)})_{ab}^{11}`$ is even in $`a,b`$. Therefore, multiplication of $`S^{(0)}`$ with the Breit–Wigner term and summation over $`a`$ and $`b`$ will cancel those parts of the Breit–Wigner term which are odd under exchange of $`a`$ and $`b`$. Inspection of Eq. (20) shows that these are the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$. As a consequence, the interference term for $`s=1`$ is even in $`\varphi `$ and a function of $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ only. Explicit calculation shows that the term proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ can be written in the form

$$4f(E_F)x^{(1)}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\mathrm{sin}(\xi (E_F)+\zeta ^{(1)}).$$
(27)
Here, $`x^{(1)}`$ and $`\zeta ^{(1)}`$ are independent of energy and explicitly given by $`x^{(1)}\mathrm{exp}(i\zeta ^{(1)})=_{ab}\gamma _a^{(1)}\delta _b^{(1)}((S^{(0)})_{ab}^{11})^{}`$. We observe that as a function of energy, $`\mathrm{sin}(\xi (E_F)+\zeta )`$ always has a zero close to the resonance energy $`E_0`$. When only two channels are open, the entire dependence on $`\varphi `$ which has period $`2\pi `$ resides in this term. The term does not display the resonance phase shift except through the zero near $`E_0`$. It is symmetric in $`\varphi `$ about $`\varphi =0`$. These facts are well known , of course, and are reproduced here for completeness only. The form (27) of the interference term was responsible for the failure of the experiment in Ref.  to measure the transmission phase.

For the interference terms with $`s3`$, the matrix $`(S^{(0)})_{ab}^{1s}`$ is not symmetric in $`a,b`$. (It is symmetric only with respect to the simultaneous interchange of $`1,s`$ and $`a,b`$). Therefore, the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$ in Eq. (23) do not cancel, and the interference terms acquire a genuine joint dependence on both, the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$ and the phase $`\varphi `$ of the magnetic flux. Proceeding as in the previous paragraph, we introduce the constants $`x\mathrm{exp}(i\zeta )=_{s3}_{ab}\gamma _a^{(1)}\delta _b^{(s)}((S^{(0)})_{ab}^{1s})^{}`$ and $`y\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )=_{s3}_{ab}\gamma _a^{(s)}\delta _b^{(1)}((S^{(0)})_{ab}^{1s})^{}`$. The $`\varphi `$–dependent part of the sum of the interference terms with $`s3`$ takes the form

$$2f(E_F)[x\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\xi (E_F)+\zeta )+y\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\xi (E_F)+\theta )].$$
(28)
This expression depends on $`\xi (E_F)`$ in the expected way.

We are now in a position to answer the questions raised at the end of Section I. Whenever the total number $`N`$ of channels coupled to the AB device is sufficiently large, the resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes independent of magnetic flux. This property can be checked experimentally. It is only in this limit that the statement “The resonance phase shift increases by $`\pi `$ over the width of the resonance” acquires its full meaning. The limit $`N1`$ may, of course, be realised even when the number $`R`$ of leads is small. We turn to the behavior of the transmission phase. We have shown that there are terms proportional to $`f^2(E_f)`$ which depend upon $`\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ but not on $`\xi (E_F)`$. The form of these terms was discussed above. For a quantum dot with high barriers, it is expected that these terms are small. The terms periodic in $`\varphi `$ with period $`2\pi `$ are listed in Eqs. (26) to (28). For a quantum dot with high barriers, we expect that the contribution (26) is small. We focus attention on the remaining terms. These depend on the value of $`R`$. For $`R=2`$, the phase dependence is given by the term (27). This term is even in the magnetic flux $`\varphi `$ and has a zero close to the resonance energy $`E_0`$. It does not, however, display the smooth increase of the resonance phase phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$ over the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the resonance. If, on the other hand, the number of leads $`R`$ is large compared to unity, then it is reasonable to expect that the terms in Eq. (28) are large compared to the term in Eq. (27). This is because the number of contributions to the terms in Eq. (28) is proportional to $`R2`$. In this case, the transmission phase faithfully reflects the energy dependence of the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$. Deviations from this limit are of order $`1/(R2)`$. As we gradually turn off the coupling to the leads $`s`$ with $`s3`$, the terms (28) gradually vanish. Nevertheless, it is possible — within experimental uncertainties that become ever more significant as the terms (28) become smaller — even in this case to determine the resonance phase shift $`\xi (E_F)`$ from the data on the transmission phase. We propose the following procedure. Add formulas (27) and (28) and fit the resulting expression to the data. This should allow a precise determination of $`\xi (E_F)`$ and of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ also in cases where the coupling to the leads $`s`$ with $`s3`$ is small. This statement holds with the proviso that the number of channels must be large enough to allow us to consider the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as independent of $`\varphi `$. Whenever the coupling to the leads $`s`$ with $`s3`$ is small, the energy dependence of the transmission phase is quite different from that of the resonance phase shift. Nevertheless, the transmission phase $`\delta \varphi `$ does reflect the energy dependence of the resonance phase shift $`\xi `$ whenever the number of leads is larger than two. In particular, this energy dependence is governed by the total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In conclusion, we have seen that in a theoretical model which is more closely patterned after the geometry of Figure 1 than is the model of Ref., the transmission phase does reflect the value of the total width. This statement applies whenever the number of leads exceeds the value two, and whenever the total number of channels is large compared to one. Both conditions are expected to be met in the experiment of Schuster et al. .

Acknowledgment. I am grateful to O. Entin–Wohlman, A. Aharony, and Y. Imry for informative discussions which stimulated the present investigation. I thank O. Entin–Wohlman for a reading of the paper, and for useful comments. This work was started when I was visiting the ITP at UCSB. The visit was supported by the NSF under contract number PHY99-07949.


text:
# Addenda to “Kinetic Theory of a Dilute Gas System under Steady Heat Conduction”

We have derived the explicit velocity distribution function of the steady-state Boltzmann equation for hard-core molecules to second order in density and the temperature gradient.kim  We correct some mistakes in the results in this addenda.

The second-order coefficients $`B_{kr}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ in eq.(38) in our recent paperkim  should be written in the form:

$`B_{kr}^{\mathrm{II}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{k,2}}{\pi \sigma ^4n^2T^2}}\left\{b_{2r}^A\left[2\left(_zT\right)^2\left(_xT\right)^2\left(_yT\right)^2\right]+b_{2r}^BT\left[2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T\right]\right\}.`$
(1)
Values for the constants $`b_{2r}^A`$ and $`b_{2r}^B`$ are summarized in Table 1. $`\sigma `$, $`n`$, $`T`$ are the diameter of hard-core molecules, density and temperature of gases, respectively. Owing to the properties of the spherical harmonic functionburnett , $`B_{kr}^{(1)\mathrm{II}}`$ can be obtained by replacing $`2(_zT)^2(_xT)^2(_yT)^2`$ and $`2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T`$ in eq.(1) by $`6_zT_xT`$ and $`6_z_xT`$, respectively, using an axis change. Similarly, $`C_{kr}^{(1)\mathrm{II}}`$ can be obtained by replacing $`2(_zT)^2(_xT)^2(_yT)^2`$ and $`2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T`$ by $`6_zT_yT`$ and $`6_z_yT`$, respectively. $`B_{kr}^{(2)\mathrm{II}}`$ can be obtained by replacing $`2(_zT)^2(_xT)^2(_yT)^2`$ and $`2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T`$ by $`6[(_xT)^2(_yT)^2]`$ and $`6(_x^2T_y^2T)`$, respectively, via an axis change; $`C_{kr}^{(2)\mathrm{II}}`$ by replacement by $`12_xT_yT`$ and $`12_x_yT`$, respectively.

The calculation of $`B_{kr}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ in Appendix D of our paperkim  should be also changed as follows. Equations (D$``$4), (D$``$5) and (D$``$6) become

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{20}^\mathrm{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma ^2T^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{b_{11}}{2}}[2\left(_zT\right)^2\left(_xT\right)^2\left(_yT\right)^2]`$ (2)
$``$ $`b_{11}T[2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T]\},`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^\mathrm{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma ^2T^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (3)
$`\times `$ $`\{[2\left(_zT\right)^2\left(_xT\right)^2\left(_yT\right)^2][{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}b_{11}3b_{12}]`$
$`+`$ $`T[2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T][b_{11}2b_{12}]\},`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{2r}^\mathrm{H}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma ^2T^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\kappa T}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\{[2\left(_zT\right)^2\left(_xT\right)^2\left(_yT\right)^2][(r+1)(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})b_{1,r+1}+(2r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})b_{1r}b_{1,r1}]`$
$`+`$ $`T[2_z^2T_x^2T_y^2T][(r+1)b_{1,r+1}+b_{1r}]\},`$
respectively. Here $`m`$ and $`\kappa `$ are the mass of hard-core molecules and the Boltzmann constant. No other corrections appear in the calculation of $`B_{kr}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ in Appendix D of our paperkim . We emphasize that the final form and the numerical values $`b_{1r}`$, $`b_{0r}`$ and $`b_{2r}`$ of the velocity distribution function to second order in eq.(39) of our paperkim  which we have used to calculate thermodynamic quantities are unchanged. We also note that the $`4`$th approximation $`b_{20}`$ in Table III of our paperkim  still deviates from Burnett’s $`4`$th approximation $`b_{20}`$ by a factor $`1.003`$.burnett  This deviation is considered to be due to errors in Burnett’s calculation, as was indicated in our paperkim . Furthermore, we note a miss print in eq. (A$``$4) of our recent paperkim . Its correct form is

$`G_{k,r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k+1}{2k+3}}\{(k+r+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})B_{k+1,r}B_{k+1,r1}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2k1}}\{B_{k1,r}(r+1)B_{k1,r+1}\}.`$
Finally, we correct the numerical values $`\lambda _{T_\mathrm{i}}`$ in each component of the kinetic temperature $`T_\mathrm{i}`$ for $`\mathrm{i}=x,y`$ and $`z`$. In eq.(44) of our paperkim , the values of $`\lambda _{T_\mathrm{i}}`$ should be identical with those of $`\lambda _P^{ii}`$ in Table IV of the paperkim . We also indicate that the second-order pressure tensor in eq.(43) of our paperkim  should be uniform from the solubility conditions for the third-order solution $`\varphi _1^{(3)}`$.