text:
# Complex impedance of a spin injecting junction

## Abstract

Theory of the ac spin injection from a ferromagnetic electrode into a normal conductor through a tunnel or Schottky contact is developed. Diffusion and relaxation of non-equilibrium spins results in a frequency-dependent complex impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$ controlled by the spin relaxation rates and the resistances involved. Explicit expression for $`𝒵(\omega )`$ is presented. Experimental investigation of the frequency dependence of $`𝒵`$ should allow measuring spin relaxation times in both conductors, their effective resistances, and also the parameters of the contact controling the spin injection.

Spin injection from magnetic contacts into semiconductor microstructures is one of the basic problems of the emerging field of spintronics. Effective spin injection has been first achieved from semimagnetic semiconductors but only at low temperatures and in an external magnetic field. Reliability of the first reports on the observation of spin injection from ferromagnetic metals into semiconductors at the level of about 1% has been questioned. The problem stems from the conductivity mismatch between a metal and a semiconductor, and the spin injection coefficient $`\gamma `$ at the level of only about $`\gamma \sigma _N/\sigma _F`$ is expected from a “perfect” Ohmic contact, $`\sigma _F`$ and $`\sigma _N`$ being conductivities of a ferromagnetic aligner and a normal conductor, respectively. If the latter is a semiconductor and the former is a metal, then $`\sigma _N\sigma _F`$ and, therefore, $`\gamma 1`$. However, it has been proposed that employing a spin selective contact with the resistance $`r_cr_F,r_N`$, where $`r_F`$ and $`r_N`$ are effective resistances of both conductors, can fix the problem. With spin selective contacts of enlarged resistance, values of $`\gamma 10\%`$ have been recently reported by different experimental groups.

Therefore, a reliable and non-destructive control of the resistances $`r_c,r_F`$, and $`r_N`$ is an important problem. Physically $`r_c`$ is the resistance of a tunnel or a Schottky barrier that is strongly technology dependent. Effective resistances of both conductors depend not only on their bulk conductivities but also on the spin diffusion lengths in these materials, $`L_F`$ and $`L_N`$, as $`r_F=L_F/\sigma _F`$ and $`r_N=L_N/\sigma _N`$. Measuring the dc resistance of a junction provides only a single quantity, its total resistance $`R`$. In what follows, I find an explicit expression for the frequency dependence of the complex impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$ of an F-N-junction in the diffusive regime and show that it can provide a lot of information on the parameters involved.

Let us consider a junction consisting of a ferromagnetic conductor (F) at $`x<0`$, a spin selective contact at $`x=0`$, and a normal conductor (N) at $`x>0`$. The theory is based on the system of standard equations relating the currents of up- and down-spin electrons $`j_,(x,t)`$ in the F region to their electrochemical potentials $`\zeta _,(x,t)`$

$$j_,(x,t)=\sigma _,\zeta _,(x,t),$$
(1)
these potentials being connected to the non-equilibrium concentrations $`n_,(x,t)`$ of both spins as

$$\zeta _,(x,t)=(eD_,/\sigma _,)n_,(x,t)\phi _F(x,t).$$
(2)
Here $`\phi _F(x,t)`$ is the electric potential and $`D_,`$ are diffusion coefficients that are related to the temperature dependent densities-of-states $`\rho _,=n_,/(e\zeta _,)`$ by Einstein equations $`e^2D_,=\sigma _,/\rho _,`$. If the Poisson equation is substituted by the quasineutrality condition

$$n_{}(x,t)+n_{}(x,t)=0,$$
(3)
then the continuity and charge conservation equations take a form

$`j_{}`$ $`(x,t)`$ $`=en_{}(x,t)/\tau _s^F,`$ (4)
$`J(t)`$ $`=`$ $`j_{}(x,t)+j_{}(x,t),`$ (5)
where $`J(t)`$ is the total current and $`\tau _s^F`$ is the spin relaxation time.

In symmetric variables

$`\zeta _F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _{}(x,t)\zeta _{}(x,t),`$ (6)
$`Z_F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{/}}2[\zeta _{}(x,t)+\zeta _{}(x,t)],`$ (7)
$`j_F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`j_{}(x,t)j_{}(x,t),`$ (8)
the basic equations are

$`^2\zeta _F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta _F(x,t)/L_F^2+_t\zeta (x,t)/D_F,`$ (9)
$`Z_F(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /2\sigma _F)\zeta _F(x,t)+J(t)/\sigma _F,`$ (10)
$$j_F(x,t)=2(\sigma _{}\sigma _{}/\sigma _F)\zeta _F(x,t)+(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)J(t),$$
(11)
where $`D_F=(\sigma _{}D_{}+\sigma _{}D_{})/\sigma _F`$ is the “bispin” diffusion coefficient, $`\sigma _F=\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\sigma _{}\sigma _{}`$, and $`L_F^2=D_F\tau _s^F`$. Similar equations operate in the N region.

Neglecting the spin relaxation in the contact, the boundary conditions at the contact are

$`j_F(0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`j_N(0,t)j(0,t),`$ (12)
$`j_,(0,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_,(\zeta _,^N(0,t)\zeta _,^F(0,t)),`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_,`$ are spin selective conductivities of the contact, $`\zeta _,^F(0,t)`$ and $`\zeta _,^N(0,t)`$ are the values of $`\zeta _,^{F(N)}(x,t)`$ at both sides of the contact, and similarly for $`j_,(0,t)`$. The first of equations (13) ensures the continuity of the spin-polarized current, and the second relates the partial spin polarized currents to the discontinuities in the corresponding electrochemical potentials.

If the time dependence of the ac signal is chosen as $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$, than in the diffusion equation (10) for the F and N regions the spin diffusion lengths should be changed to

$$\frac{1}{L_F^2(\omega )}=\frac{1}{L_F^2}(1i\omega \tau _s^F),\frac{1}{L_N^2(\omega )}=\frac{1}{L_N^2}(1i\omega \tau _s^N),$$
(14)
i.e., they become complex and frequency dependent. Nevertheless, the procedure of solving the equations for $`\zeta _F(x,t)`$ and $`\zeta _N(x,t)`$ with boundary conditions of Eq. (13) is essentially the same as in the dc regime. Because $`\zeta _F(x\mathrm{},t)0`$ and $`\zeta _N(x\mathrm{},t)0`$, the difference $`Z_N(x_N,t)Z_F(x_F,t)`$ tends to the potential drop $`\phi (x_F,t)\phi (x_N,t)`$ between these points for large $`x_F`$ and $`x_N`$. However, it is important to emphasize that the conditions under which Eqs. (10) and (11) are valid in the dc and the ac regimes are very different. In the dc regime they can be derived without using the quasineutrality condition of Eq. (3), while in the ac regime Eq. (3) should be explicitly employed.

An explicit equation for the dc resistance $`R`$ of a F-N-junction that is most convenient for our purposes is as follows:

$`R=`$ $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ $`+R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}},R_{\mathrm{eq}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{})^1,`$ (15)
$`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{FN}}}\{r_N[r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })^2+r_F(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)^2]`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`r_cr_F[(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)]^2\},`$ (17)
$`r_{FN}`$ $`=`$ $`r_F+r_N+r_c.`$ (18)
It consists of two parts. The equilibrium resistance $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the limit of $`R`$ when $`L_N,L_F0`$, i.e., when spin non-equilibrium can be neglected both in the F and N regions. It depends only on the contact resistance. $`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}`$ is the non-equilibrium resistance controlled by spin diffusion and relaxation. The parameters of the spin selective contact entering the non-equilibrium resistance $`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{},r_c=\mathrm{\Sigma }/4\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}.$$
(19)
It is worth mentioning that two different effective resistances of the contact, $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ and $`r_c`$, appear in the equilibrium and non-equilibrium parts of the total resistance $`R`$, respectively.

It is an important property of $`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}`$ that it is always positive, $`R=R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}>0`$, as it has been already concluded in Ref.. Therefore, there is a considerable difference between the spin injection and bipolar injection through a $`p`$-$`n`$junction. Bipolar injection always contributes to the conductivity, and a large resistance of the deplicion region plays no essential role. For a F-N-junction, the resistance $`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}`$ resulting from spin injection is added to $`R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$. Large positive magnetoresistance of a spin-injecting device has been recently observed in weak magnetic fields and attributed to the magnetic alignment of semimagnetic electrodes enhancing spin injection.

In the ac regime, the impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$ can be found from Eq. (18) by the transformation $`L_F,L_NL_F(\omega ),L_N(\omega )`$ of equation (14):

$`𝒵_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}(\omega )`$ (20)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_{FN}(\omega )}}`$ $`\{`$ $`r_N(\omega )\left[r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })^2+r_F(\omega )(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)^2\right]`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`r_cr_F(\omega )[(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)]^2\},`$ (22)
where

$$r_F(\omega )=L_F(\omega )/\sigma _F,r_N(\omega )=L_N(\omega )/\sigma _N.$$
(23)
Eq. (22) is the basic result of the paper.

The imaginary part of $`𝒵(\omega )`$ results in a reactive conductivity that can be compared to the diffusion capacitance of a $`p`$-$`n`$junction. The frequency dependence of $`\mathrm{Re}\{𝒵\}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\{𝒵\}`$ provides a useful tool for measuring different parameters of a F-N-junction. Because $`r_c`$ does not depend on $`\omega `$, frequency dependence comes exclusively through $`r_F(\omega )`$ and $`r_N(\omega )`$. Some general regularities follow directly from equations (14) and (22). Spin relaxation times $`\tau _s^F`$ and $`\tau _s^N`$ in a ferromagnetic aligner and a semiconductor microstructure, respectively, may differ by several orders of magnitude. Usually $`\tau _s^F\tau _s^N`$. Therefore, two different scales, $`(\tau _s^F)^1`$ and $`(\tau _s^N)^1`$, should emerge in the frequency dependence of $`𝒵(\omega )`$. This property opens an opportunity for measuring these parameters separately, and through them to evaluate $`r_F`$ and $`r_N`$. At high frequencies, $`\omega (\tau _s^F)^1,(\tau _s^N)^1`$, the diffusion contribution to $`𝒵`$ vanishes and $`𝒵R_{\mathrm{eq}}`$.

It is instructive to consider the low- and high-frequency regimes in more detail. Expansion of $`\mathrm{Im}𝒵(\omega )`$ in $`\omega `$ starts with a linear in $`\omega `$ term, and the positive sign of $`\mathrm{Im}\{𝒵\}`$ suggests that $`\mathrm{Im}\{𝒵^1\}`$ can be considered as the conductivity $`\omega C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ of a capacitor connected in parallel to the resistor $`R`$:

$`C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\tau _s^Nr_N(r_c{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+r_F{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma _F}})^2`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`\tau _s^Fr_F[r_c{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(r_c+r_N){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma _F}}]^2\}/2R^2r_{FN}^2.`$ (25)
It is seen from Eq. (25) that $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}>0`$ for all parameter values. Capacitance arising from the diffusion of non-equilibrium carriers is typical of injection devices and is well known for $`p`$-$`n`$junctions. However, the dependence of the low-frequency diffusion capacitance on the relaxation time $`\tau `$ is rather different for these systems. The square root dependence, $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}\tau ^{1/2}`$, is typical of $`p`$-$`n`$junctions. Diffusion capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ of a F-N-junction follows this law only when $`r_cr_N,r_F`$, i.e., when spin injection into a semiconductor is strongly suppressed. In the opposite limit $`r_cr_N,r_F`$ that is of major interest for spin injecting devices, it follows from Eq. (25) that $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}\tau _s^{3/2}`$. Depending on the relative magnitudes of $`r_F`$ and $`r_N`$, different combinations of $`\tau _s^F`$ and $`\tau _s^N`$ can appear in $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$. Therefore, large $`\tau _s^N`$ typical of semiconductor microstructures should enlarge $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$ considerably.

In the high frequency regime, when $`\omega \tau _s^F,\omega \tau _s^N1`$, the resistances $`r_F(\omega )`$ and $`r_N(\omega )`$ are small and one can expand $`𝒵_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$ in $`r_F(\omega )/r_c,r_N(\omega )/r_c1`$. Because in this limit $`L_F(\omega )(1+i)L_F/\sqrt{2\omega \tau _s^F}`$ and similarly for $`L_N(\omega )`$, the real and imaginary parts of $`𝒵_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$ are nearly equal and

$`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega }}}`$ (26)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r_N}{\sqrt{\tau _N}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r_F}{\sqrt{\tau _F}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma }{\sigma _F}}\right)^2\right]`$ (27)
$$C_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )=R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}(\omega )/\omega R_{\mathrm{eq}}^2.$$
(28)
It is seen from Eqs. (27) and (28) that both $`R_{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{eq}}(\omega )`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$ remain positive even in the high frequency limit.

Side by side with the diffusion capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{diff}}`$, there always exists a geometrical capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{geom}}\epsilon /4\pi X`$, where $`X`$ is the contact thickness and $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric permeability. $`C_{\mathrm{geom}}`$ depends on the specific geometry of a tunnel or Schottky contact and cannot be found in a general form. However, it does not depend on the frequency $`\omega `$ and this property is critical for eliminating the by-passing effect of the geometric capacitance $`C_{\mathrm{geom}}`$ and measuring $`𝒵_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$. It is the frequency dependence of the diffusion impedance $`𝒵_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$ with two characteristic frequencies $`(\tau _s^F)^1`$ and $`(\tau _s^N)^1`$ that should facilitate separating the diffusion and geometric contributions to the total impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$. Because Eq. (22) provides explicit expression for $`𝒵_{\mathrm{diff}}(\omega )`$, a quantitative comparison of experimental data with the theory is possible in the wide region of frequencies.

In a similar way, a frequency-dependent complex spin injection coefficient $`\gamma (\omega )=j_F(\omega )/J(\omega )`$ can be found:

$$\gamma (\omega )=[r_F(\omega )(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /\sigma _F)+r_c(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Sigma })]/r_{FN}(\omega ).$$
(29)
It describes the frequency dependence of the magnitude of the spin-polarized current $`j_F(t)`$ and the phase shift between $`j_F(t)`$ and $`J(t)`$. Non-equilibrium spins related to the current $`j_F(t)`$ can also be detected in optical experiments. Optical data should not be obscured by the by-pass current flowing through the geometric capacity $`C_{\mathrm{geom}}`$.

Because the frequency dependence of the impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$ comes completely from the frequency dependence of the diffusion lengths $`L_F(\omega )`$ and $`Ł_N(\omega )`$ that are the parameters of the bulk, a similar approach can be applied to the impedance of F-N-F-junctions. However, the equation for the dc resistance $`R`$ of a F-N-F-junction is much more cumbersome than Eq. (18).

In conclusion, an explicit expression for the complex impedance $`𝒵(\omega )`$ of a spin injecting junction is presented. The diffusion contribution to $`𝒵(\omega )`$ shows strong frequency dependence with two characteristic frequencies corresponding to the inverse spin relaxation times in the ferromagnetic emitter and the normal conductor into which spins are injected. Electrical and (or) optical detection of the time dependent spin injection should allow measuring spin relaxation times and effective resistances controlling the efficiency of spin injection.

Support from DARPA/SPINS by the Office of Naval Research Grant N000140010819 is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# A Poisson relation for conic manifolds

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(X,g)`$ be a conic manifold, that is to say, a manifold $`X`$ with boundary, endowed with a Riemannian metric that takes the form

$$g=dx^2+x^2h$$

in a neighborhood of $`X`$, with $`x`$ a boundary defining function and

$$h𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X;\mathrm{Sym}^2T^{}X)$$

nondegenerate in the sense that $`h_0h_{x=0}`$ is a metric. Trivial examples of conic metrics are obtained by blowing up isolated points on a Riemannian manifold. Less trivial examples include the *product cones* $`\overline{_+}\times Y`$ endowed with metric $`dx^2+x^2h(y,dy)`$ with $`h`$ a metric on $`Y`$. A conic manifold in the sense defined here can be regarded as the desingularization, or blow-up, of a manifold with conic singularities. The degeneracy of the metric at the boundary makes each boundary component look geometrically like a separate cone point. One geometric consequence of the degeneracy of the metric is the most geodesics fail to strike $`X`$; indeed through any point close to $`X`$ there will be precisely one direction in which the exponential map will reach the boundary in short time (see ).

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Friedrichs extension of the (nonnegative) Laplace-Beltrami operator on $`X`$. The propagation of singularities for solutions of the wave equation

$$(D_t^2\mathrm{\Delta })u=0$$

on conic manifolds was studied by the author and R. Melrose in . The results of that paper showed that while singularities propagate along geodesics over $`X^{}`$ as described by Hörmander’s theorem , a singularity striking one component of $`X`$ will, in general, give rise to a “diffracted wave” emanating spherically from that component of the boundary. The singularity of the diffracted wave, measured away from points which are “geometrically related” to the incoming singularity by time-$`\pi `$ geodesic flow in $`X`$, will in many cases be weaker than the incident singularity; for this difference in regularity to manifest itself, it suffices that the incident singularity be not too directly *focused* upon the boundary, in a sense made precise in . A plausible explanation for this distinction is as follows: If we take a sequence of geodesics in the interior of $`X`$ passing arbitrarily close, in the limit, to $`X`$, then there exists a subsequence approaching a continuous path consisting of: a geodesic striking the boundary; followed by a geodesic *within* the boundary of length $`\pi `$; followed by a geodesic emanating from the boundary. This outgoing geodesic is thus geometrically related in the sense described above to the incoming one. Thus strong singularities propagate through the boundary as one would expect from their limiting behavior in the interior; the (often weaker) diffractive wave, by contrast, sends singularities out from the boundary along rays which are geometrically inacessible and lie in this sense in a shadow region.

In the crucial example of the fundamental solution $`\mathrm{sin}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with initial pole chosen sufficiently close to the boundary, the diffracted wave is $`(n1)/2ϵ`$ derivatives smoother than the main singularity (for all $`ϵ>0`$), and is furthermore conormal to the radial surface emanating from $`X`$. Figure 1 shows the main front and the diffractive wave for such a solution, labeled by their Sobolev regularity. In this case the diffractive region is the part of the spherical wave emanating from the boundary that does not lie in the closure of the main front.

In the case of product cones, these propagation results follow from the explicit construction of the fundamental solution carried out by Cheeger and Taylor  See also the work of Gerard-Lebeau  for an analogous result in analytic category in the setting of manifolds with boundary.

Let $`X`$ be a conic manifold and let $`Y_i`$ denote the boundary components of $`X`$, with $`i=1,\mathrm{},K`$. Based on the two different kinds of propagation of singularities described above, we now make two different definitions of geodesics passing through $`X.`$

###### Definition 1.

A *diffractive geodesic* on $`X`$ is a union of a finite number of closed, oriented geodesic segments $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N`$ in $`X`$ such that all end points except possibly the initial point in $`\gamma _1`$ and the final point of $`\gamma _N`$ lie in $`X`$, and $`\gamma _i`$ ends at the same boundary component at which $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ begins, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$.

A *geometric geodesic* is a diffractive geodesic such that in addition, the final point of $`\gamma _i`$ and the initial point of $`\gamma _{i+1}`$ are connected by a geodesic of length $`\pi `$ in $`X`$ (w.r.t. the metric $`h_0=h_X`$) for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$.

A diffractive geodesic is *closed* if the initial point of $`\gamma _1`$ and the final point of $`\gamma _N`$ coincide in $`X^{}`$ and if $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _N`$ have the same tangent there, or if the initial point of $`\gamma _1`$ and the final point of $`\gamma _N`$ lie in the same component of $`X.`$

A geometric geodesic is *closed* if the initial point of $`\gamma _1`$ and the final point of $`\gamma _N`$ coincide in $`X^{}`$ and if $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _N`$ have the same tangent there, or if the initial point of $`\gamma _1`$ and the final point of $`\gamma _N`$ lie in $`X`$ and are connected by a geodesic of length $`\pi `$ in $`X.`$

The *length* of a diffractive geodesic is the sum of the lengths of its segments $`\gamma _i`$.

Let

$$\mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}=\{\pm \text{ lengths of closed diffractive geodesics}\}\{0\}$$

and

$$\mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}=\{\pm \text{ lengths of closed geometric geodesics}\}\{0\}.$$

Let $`k`$. Let $`u`$ be a distribution on $``$. We write $`u𝒞^{k0}()`$ if $`D_t^{k\delta }\varphi uL_{\text{loc}}^{\mathrm{}}()`$ for all $`\delta >0`$ and $`\varphi 𝒞_c^{\mathrm{}}().`$ Note that if $`u`$ has compact support, this coincides with $`uC_{}^{k\delta }()`$ for all $`\delta >0`$ in the notation of , Section 13.8.

This paper is devoted to establishing the following “Poisson relation” (so-called because it generalized part of the Poisson summation formula from the case in which $`X`$ is the boundaryless manifold $`S^1`$):

###### Theorem.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Friedrichs extension of the Laplacian on a compact conic manifold. Then

$$\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{cos}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒞^{n0}()𝒞^{10}(\backslash \mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬})𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}).$$

This generalizes the classical result on a boundaryless manifold, due to Chazarain  and Duistermaat-Guillemin , that the trace is smooth away from $`\{0\}\{\pm \text{lengths of closed geodesics}\}`$. Note that when the closed geodesics on a compact, boundaryless manifold are isolated and nondegenerate, the results of Chazarain and Duistermaat-Guillemin show that $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{cos}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝒞^{10}(\backslash \{0\})`$. It thus seems possible that subject to an appropriate nondegeneracy assumption, regularity in $`𝒞^{10}`$ might also hold at lengths of all closed geometric geodesics. Thus it is possible that the strength of the singularities in the wave trace allows us to distinguish lengths of geometric geodesics from diffractive ones only when the former are actually *degenerate*.

It is natural to ask whether a full trace formula of the type proved by Chazarain and Duistermaat-Guillemin, with asymptotic expansions at the singularities, holds on conic manifolds. Unfortunately the tools developed in  are insufficiently constructive to demonstrate such an expansion except perhaps at $`t=0`$. A more accessible future direction would be to extend the results of this paper to give a filtration of the singularities according to how many diffractive interactions with the boundary a closed geodesic undergoes: subject to some nondegeneracy assumptions, more diffractions should result in a weaker singularity.

The author is grateful to Richard Melrose for helpful discussions and to an anonymous referee for substantial improvements to the exposition. This research was supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0100501.

## 2. Geodesic flow

We begin by describing the lifts of the diffracted and geometric geodesics to (a rescaled version of) the cotangent bundle.

In , it is shown that by appropriate choice of product structure $`(x,y)`$ near a boundary component $`Y_i`$, we may bring any conic metric to the reduced form

(1)
$$g=dx^2+x^2h(x,y,dy),$$

i.e. we can reduce $`h`$ to a smooth family in $`x`$ of metrics on $`Y_i.`$ The existence of this normal form is equivalent to the existence of a fibration of a neighborhood of $`Y_i`$ by short geodesics reaching $`Y_i`$: with the metric in the form (1) the geodesics reaching $`Y_i`$ are precisely those of the form $`y=y_0,x=x_0t.`$ *Henceforth, we work in such product coordinates.*

Let $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X`$ denote the b-cotangent bundle of $`X`$, i.e. the dual of the bundle whose sections are smooth vector fields tangent to $`X`$. Let $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ denote the corresponding sphere bundle. Let $`\xi dx/x+\eta dy`$ denote the canonical one-form on $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X`$.

Let $`K_g`$ be the Hamilton vector field for $`g/2=(\xi ^2+h(x,y,\eta ))/(2x^2)`$, the symbol of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X;`$ note that $`K_g`$ is merely the geodesic spray in $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X`$ with velocity $`\sqrt{g}.`$ It is convenient to rescale this vector field so that it is both tangent to the boundary of $`X`$ and homogeneous of degree zero in the fibers. Near a boundary component $`Y_i`$, for a metric in the reduced form (1), we have (see )

(2)
$$K_g=x^2\left(H_{Y_i}(x)+\left(\xi ^2+h(x,y,\eta )+\frac{x}{2}\frac{h}{x}\right)_\xi +\xi x_x\right),$$

where $`H_{Y_i}(x)`$ is the geodesic spray in $`Y_i`$ with respect to the family of metrics $`h(x,)`$. Hence the desired rescaling is

$$Z=\frac{x}{\sqrt{g}}K_g.$$

By the homogeneity of $`Z,`$ if we radially compactify the fibers of the cotangent bundle and identify $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ with the “sphere at infinity” then $`Z`$ is tangent to $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X,`$ and may be restricted to it. Henceforth, then, we let $`Z`$ denote the restriction of $`(x/\sqrt{g})K_g`$ to the *compact* manifold $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ on which the coordinates $`\xi ,\eta `$ have been replaced by the (redundant) coordinates

$$(\overline{\xi },\overline{\eta })=(\xi /\sqrt{\xi ^2+h(\eta )},\eta /\sqrt{\xi ^2+h(\eta )}).$$

$`Z`$ vanishes only at certain points $`x=\overline{\eta }=0`$ over $`X`$, hence the closures of maximally extended integral curves of this vector field can only begin and end over $`X`$. Since $`Z`$ is tangent to the boundary, such integral curves either lie entirely over $`X`$ or lie over $`X`$ only at their limit points. Interior and boundary integral curves can meet only at limit points in $`\{x=\overline{\eta }=0\}{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X.`$

It is helpful in studying the integral curves of $`Z`$ to introduce the following way of measuring their lengths: Let $`\gamma `$ be an integral curve of $`Z`$ over $`X^{}`$. Let $`k`$ denote a Riemannian metric on $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X^{}`$ such that $`k(Z,Z)=1`$. Let

(3)
$$\omega =xk(,Z)\mathrm{\Omega }^1({}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X).$$

Then

$$_\gamma \omega =_\gamma xk(d\gamma /ds,Z)𝑑s=_\gamma \frac{x}{\sqrt{g}}k(K_g,Z)𝑑s=_\gamma 𝑑s=\text{length}(\gamma )$$

where $`s`$ parametrizes $`\gamma `$ as an integral curve of $`K_g/\sqrt{g}`$, the unit speed geodesic flow. With this motivation in mind, we now define, for each $`t_+`$, two relations in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$, a “geometric” and a “diffractive” relation. These correspond to the two different possibilities for geodesic flow through the boundary.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`p,q{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$. We write

$$p\stackrel{G,t}{}q$$

if there exists a *continuous,* piecewise smooth curve $`\gamma :[0,1]{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ with $`\gamma (0)=p`$, $`\gamma (1)=q`$, such that $`[0,1]`$ can be decomposed into a finite union of closed subintervals $`I_j`$, intersecting at their endpoints, where

1. on each $`I_j^{}`$, $`\gamma `$ is a (reparametrized) positively oriented integral curve of $`Z`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X,`$
2. On successive intervals $`I_j`$ and $`I_{j+1}`$, interior and boundary curves alternate,
3. $`_\gamma \omega =t`$, with $`\omega `$ as defined in (3).

We write

$$p\stackrel{D,t}{}q$$

if there exists a piecewise smooth (not necessarily continuous) curve $`\gamma :[0,1]{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ with $`\gamma (0)=p`$, $`\gamma (1)=q`$, such that $`[0,1]`$ can be decomposed into a finite union of closed subintervals $`I_j`$, intersecting at their endpoints, where

1. on each $`I_j^{}`$, $`\gamma `$ is a (reparametrized) positively oriented integral curve of $`Z`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X^{},`$
2. the final point of $`\gamma `$ on $`I_j`$ and the initial point of $`\gamma `$ on $`I_{j+1}`$ lie over the same component of $`X,`$
3. $`_\gamma \omega =t`$.

Integral curves of $`Z`$ over $`X^{}`$ are lifts of geodesics in $`X^{},`$ and it follows from (2) that the maximally extended integral curves of $`Z`$ in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{X}^{}X`$ are lifts of geodesics of length $`\pi `$ in $`X`$ (see  for details), hence:

###### Proposition 3.

$`p\stackrel{G,t}{}q`$ iff $`p`$ and $`q`$ are connected by a (lifted) geometric geodesic of length $`t`$.

$`p\stackrel{D,t}{}q`$ iff $`p`$ and $`q`$ are connected by a (lifted) diffractive geodesic of length $`t`$.

###### Proposition 4.

The sets $`\{(p,q,t):p\stackrel{G,t}{}q\}`$ and $`\{(p,q,t):p\stackrel{D,t}{}q\}`$ are closed subsets of $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X\times {}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X\times _+`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\gamma _i`$ be a sequence of “geometric” curves as described in the first part of Definition 2 with initial and final points $`p_i,q_i`$ where the $`p_i`$ converge to $`p`$ and $`q_i`$ to $`q`$, and with $`_{\gamma _i}\omega t`$. Parametrize $`\gamma _i=\gamma _i(s)`$ with respect to length in some fixed, nondegenerate Riemannian metric $`G`$ on $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$. The lengths of $`\gamma _i`$ w.r.t. $`G`$ are uniformly bounded, since only a finite number of segments are involved (note that the number of smooth integral curves into which $`\gamma _i`$ decomposes is a priori bounded because each interior segment has length bounded below by $`\mathrm{min}_{j,k}d_g(Y_j,Y_k)`$). The $`\gamma _i(s)`$ are then equicontinuous, hence applying Ascoli’s theorem we may pass to a subsequence that converges uniformly to a path $`\gamma (s)`$. This must be a geometric curve as in Definition 2, since it is continuous and away from the singular points of $`Z`$, a limit of integral curves is an integral curve. At the set $`\{x=\overline{\eta }=0\}{}_{}{}^{b}S_{X}^{}X`$ where $`Z`$ vanishes, it vanishes nondegenerately (see §1 of ), so we may arrange that the coefficients of the metric $`k`$ in (3) be bounded by some multiple of $`(x^2+\overline{\eta }^2)^1.`$ Since $`xZ`$ vanishes quadratically at $`\{x=\overline{\eta }=0\}`$, $`\omega =xk(Z,)`$ is in fact in $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$. Therefore $`_\gamma \omega =lim_{\gamma _i}\omega =t`$, as desired.

The result for the diffractive relation follows via a similar argument. ∎

As a consequence, we have:

###### Proposition 5.

For any compact conic manifold, $`\mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}`$ are closed subsets of $``$. For any $`T_+`$, the set of lifts of closed diffractive resp. geometric geodesics of length $`T`$ is a compact subset of $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$.

## 3. Results from

In , the domains of a range of powers of the Friedrichs Laplacian on a conic manifold $`X`$ are identified in terms of certain Sobolev spaces. We therefore begin by recalling some notions about b-pseudodifferential operators and Sobolev spaces.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{b}^m(X)`$ denote the space of b-pseudodifferential (or “totally characteristic”) operators of order $`m`$ on $`X`$, developed by Melrose . This calculus of operators is designed to contain the vector fields tangent to $`X`$ as operators of order one. The symbol of an operator in the b-calculus naturally lies in the the b-cotangent bundle $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X`$ introduced above. Let $`H_b^m(X)`$ denote the associated scale of Sobolev spaces, defined as usual with respect to the measure $`dxdy/x`$; for positive integral orders, these spaces may be defined by regularity under application of products of vector fields of the form $`xD_x,`$ $`D_{y_i}.`$

Let $`(X,g)`$ be a conic manifold. Let $`L_g^2(X)`$ denote the space of metric square-integrable functions on $`X`$ and let $`𝒟_s=\mathrm{Dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{s/2})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Friedrichs extension of the conic Laplacian on $`X`$ acting on $`L_g^2`$.

The following is proven in :

###### Proposition 6.

For $`s(n/2,n/2),`$ $`𝒟_s=x^{n/2+s}H_b^s(X)`$.

(Note that the factor $`x^{n/2}`$ arises because $`L_g^2(X)=x^{n/2}L_\mathrm{b}^2(X).`$)

The Cauchy problem for the wave equation is well-posed on Cauchy data in $`𝒟_s𝒟_{s1}`$ for any $`s`$ and yields a solution $`u𝒞^0(;𝒟_s)𝒞^1(;𝒟_{s1}).`$ It is convenient to introduce the family of operators $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$, $`r\backslash `$ defined by

$$\kappa (\mathrm{\Theta }_r)(t,t^{})=\psi (tt^{})\kappa (\left|D_t\right|^r)(t,t^{})$$

where $`\psi (t)`$ is a smooth function of compact support, equal to $`1`$ near $`t=0`$, and $`\kappa `$ denotes Schwartz kernel. (Hence $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$ is a version of $`\left|D_t\right|^r,`$ but with Schwartz kernel cut off to have proper support.) Using the functional calculus, we easily see that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$ maps a solution to the conic wave equation $`u𝒞^0(;𝒟_s)𝒞^1(;𝒟_{s1})`$ to a solution in $`𝒞^0(;𝒟_{sr})𝒞^1(;𝒟_{sr1}).`$ Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_r\mathrm{\Theta }_ruu𝒞(;𝒟_{\mathrm{}}).`$ (See  for details.)

Let $`_1(H)`$ denote the space of trace class operators on the Hilbert space $`H.`$ The following lemma will be crucial in what follows, as it yields a criterion for an operator to be trace-class in terms of its mapping properties on domains.

###### Lemma 7.

If $`A:𝒟_s𝒟_{s+r}`$ with $`r>n`$ then $`A_1(𝒟_s).`$

###### Proof.

To begin with we may reduce to the case in which $`s=0,`$ hence $`𝒟_s=L_g^2,`$ by using the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{s/2}:𝒟_s^{}𝒟_{s^{}s}.`$

It follows from results of  that $`A:x^{n/2}L_\mathrm{b}^2(X)x^ϵH_b^{n+ϵ}(X)`$. Let $`B`$ be an elliptic element of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{b}^{n+ϵ}(X)`$, and let $`C\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{b}^{nϵ}(X)`$ be a “small parametrix” for $`B`$ as constructed in , so that $`CBI=R\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{b}^{\mathrm{}}(X).`$ We now write

$$A=(Cx^{n/2ϵ})(x^{n/2+ϵ}BA)+(Rx^ϵ)(x^ϵA).$$

Proposition 4.57 of  states that if $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\beta <n`$ then $`x^\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{b}^\beta (X)_1(L_g^2).`$ Hence $`Cx^{n/2ϵ}`$ and $`Rx^ϵ`$ are of trace-class; since $`x^{n/2+ϵ}BA`$ and $`x^ϵA`$ are bounded on $`L_g^2`$, we conclude that $`A`$ is of trace class. ∎

Finally, we recall from  the propagation results which, together with Lemma 7, will enable us to evaluate the regularity of the wave trace. Let

$$U(t)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}& & \mathrm{sin}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\\ \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}& & \mathrm{cos}t\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}\end{array}\right)$$

be the solution operator to the Cauchy problem for the wave equation on $`X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{}(X^{})`$ denote the space of pseudodifferential operators on $`X^{}`$ with compact support. Let $`L(V_1,V_2)`$ denote the space of continuous linear maps between Fréchet spaces $`V_i`$. Let

$$_s=𝒟_s𝒟_{s1}$$

denote the “energy space,” with $`_{\mathrm{}}=_s_s`$, $`E_{\mathrm{}}=_s_s.`$

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`I_+`$ be contained in a small neighborhood of $`0.`$ Let $`A_1,A_2\mathrm{\Psi }^0(X^{})`$ be supported near $`X`$, and assume that that there do not exists points $`p\mathrm{WF}^{}A_2`$, $`q\mathrm{WF}^{}A_1`$, and $`tI`$ such that $`p\stackrel{D,t}{}q`$. Then $`A_1U(t)A_2𝒞(I;L(_{\mathrm{}},_{\mathrm{}})).`$

In the following proposition, $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ will denote the boundary defining function (in the product-type coordinates introduced in §2) in the left and right factors of the Schwartz kernel.

###### Proposition 9.

Let $`I`$, $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ be as in Proposition 8, and assume that that there do not exists points $`p\mathrm{WF}^{}A_2`$, $`q\mathrm{WF}^{}A_1`$, and $`tI`$ such that $`p\stackrel{G,t}{}q`$. Then for $`tI`$,

$$A_1U(t)A_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u_1& u_2\\ u_2& u_1\end{array}\right)$$

where $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ are conormal distributions at $`t=x+x^{}`$ in $`H^{1/2ϵ}`$ resp. $`H^{1/2ϵ}`$ for all $`ϵ>0`$.

A consequence of this proposition which we will use below is that subject to the hypotheses, the diagonal term $`u_1`$ of $`A_1U(t)A_2`$ is a Fourier integral operator of order $`ϵ`$ in the variable $`x`$, with values in $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}(Y)`$, uniformly in $`t`$. (Recall that the fundamental solution discussed in the introduction is the off-diagonal term.)

We will also need a version of Proposition 8 which applies up to the boundary of $`X`$.

###### Proposition 10.

Proposition 8 still holds if either or both of $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ are replaced by the operator of multiplication by a smooth function $`\psi _i`$ supported in a neighborhood of a component of $`X,`$ and $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_i`$ correspondingly replaced by $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{supp}\psi _i).`$

## 4. Proof of the theorem

As the proof has several parts, with ramifying subcases, this section is similarly subdivided. We begin with a sketch of the proof. We then construct the microlocal partition of unity whose properties are the central ingredient in the proof. Finally we prove successively the overall regularity of the trace of the wave operator, the smoothness away from lengths of diffractive geodesics, and the regularity away from lengths of geometric geodesics.

The strategy of the proof is an imitation of the following non-constructive proof of the Poisson relation for a compact boundaryless manifold $`X`$. Let $`1=A_i^{}A_i+R`$ be a microlocal partition of unity, with the $`A_i`$’s having microsupport in very small sets in $`S^{}X`$ and $`R\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}(X).`$ Then if we let $``$ denote equivalence modulo $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}()`$, we have

(4)
$$\mathrm{Tr}D_t^{2k}U(t)\mathrm{Tr}A_i^{}A_iD_t^{2k}U(t)=\mathrm{Tr}A_iD_t^{2k}U(t)A_i^{}=\mathrm{Tr}A_i\mathrm{\Delta }^kU(t)A_i^{}.$$

Let $`I_+`$ be a small interval containing no lengths of closed geodesics. Provided the microlocal partition of unity is sufficiently fine, there are no bicharacteristics of length $`tI`$ with both endpoints in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_i.`$ Hence by Hörmander’s propagation theorem, each term $`A_i\mathrm{\Delta }^kU(t)A_i^{}`$ maps distributions to smooth functions, therefore is of trace class. Hence the wave trace is smooth on $`I.`$ Note that to make this argument rigorous, we should actually approximate the $`A_i`$ by smoothing operators in order to justify the formal manipulations in (4).

The simple approach sketched above requires modification on a conic manifold. First, owing to the global nature of the “indicial operator” at the boundary (one of the obstructions to compactness for operators in Melrose’s b-calculus), we must settle for a partition of unity of the form $`_j\psi _j^2+_iA_i^{}A_i`$ where the $`\psi _j`$’s are smooth cutoff functions localizing at different boundary components and the $`A_i`$’s have microsupport over a relatively compact subset of $`X^{}.`$ Furthermore, we only have a solid understanding of propagation of singularities for a short time, in which singularities cannot repeatedly interact with $`X.`$ Hence we will decompose $`t=t_0+\mathrm{}t_L`$ with each term small, and write

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}U(t)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}(\underset{j}{}\psi _j^2+\underset{i}{}A_i^{}A_i)U(t_0)(\underset{j}{}\psi _j^2+\underset{i}{}A_i^{}A_i)U(t_1)\mathrm{}(\underset{j}{}\psi _j^2+\underset{i}{}A_i^{}A_i)U(t_L).\end{array}$$

We rewrite this sum as a single sum over terms of the form

$$\mathrm{Tr}(B_{i_0}^{}B_{i_0})U(t_0)(B_{i_1}^{}B_{i_1})U(t_1)\mathrm{}(B_{i_L}^{}B_{i_L})U(t_L)$$

where each $`B_i`$ is either one of the $`\psi _j`$’s or one of the $`A_i`$’s. The strategy for the part of the theorem dealing with diffractive geodesics is to show that if the partition of unity is taken sufficiently fine, one factor in each summand of the form $`B_{i_j}U(t_j)B_{i_{j+1}}^{}`$ (possibly after cyclic permutation), is smoothing. This is based on the absence of closed diffractive geodesics of length $`t`$, and on the principle that if there are no closed geodesics of length $`t`$ then there are no closed “broken” geodesics of such length which are repeatedly allowed to propagate for time $`t_j`$ and then jump arbitrarily within $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_j}.`$

The fact that our partition of unity fails to localize over the boundary is of no import in dealing with diffractive geodesics which may, after all, jump freely from one point over the boundary to another in the same component. Difficulties arise, however, in dealing with geometric geodesics. In particular, the strategy outlined above does not work in the geometric case, and instead of considering terms of the form $`B_{i_j}U(t_j)B_{i_{j+1}}^{},`$ if one of the $`B`$’s is a localizer near a boundary component we may need to consider more complicated factors $`B_{i_j}U(t_j)B_{i_{j+1}}^{}B_{i_{j+1}}U(t_{j+1})B_{i_{j+2}}^{}`$ so as to be considering interior-to-interior propagation of singularities. This situation requires the consideration of a number of cases, involving various possibilities for existence of geodesics from $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_{j+2}}`$ to $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_{j+1}}`$ and thence to $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_j}.`$

### 4.1. Microlocal partition of unity

The reader may find it helpful to refer back and forth between this section and those following in which its results are employed to prove the theorem.

For $`j=1,\mathrm{},K`$, let $`U_j`$ denote a product neigborhood of $`Y_j`$ of the form $`\{x<ϵ_j\}`$; let $`\psi _j𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$ denote a cutoff function supported in $`U_j`$, equal to $`1`$ on a smaller neighborhood $`U_j^{}=\{x<ϵ_j^{}\}`$ of $`Y_j`$. Let $`\{V_i\}_{i=1}^M`$ be an open cover of $`S^{}X\backslash \pi ^1_iU_i^{}`$.

We now establish the existence of operators $`A_i\mathrm{\Psi }_c^0(V_i)`$ such that

$$R+\underset{j=1}{\overset{K}{}}\psi _j^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}A_i^{}A_i=1.$$

with $`R\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{\mathrm{}}(X^{})`$ a compactly supported smoothing operator. ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_c^0(V_i)`$ denotes the space of pseudodifferential operators whose kernels have supports which project to compact subsets of $`V_i`$ on both left and right factors.) To do this note that using a symbolic construction in the ordinary pseudodifferential calculus, we can choose $`D_i\mathrm{\Psi }_c^0(V_i)`$ such that $`\mathrm{WF}^{}D_i^{}D_i1U_j^{}`$. Then setting $`\zeta =(1\psi _j^2)^{1/2}`$, we may set $`A_i=D_i\zeta `$, hence $`A_i^{}A_i\zeta ^2\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{\mathrm{}}(X^{}),`$ as desired.

Let $`A_{i,\delta }`$, $`\delta [0,1]`$, be a family in $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}(X^{})`$ converging strongly to $`A_i`$ as $`\delta 0`$.

Let

$$B_{i,\delta }=\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi _i\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},K,\hfill & \\ A_{ik,\delta }\text{ for }i=K+1,\mathrm{}K+M;\hfill & \end{array}$$

let $`B_i=B_{i,0}`$. Hence

$$1=B_i^{}B_i+R.$$

Let $`\overline{t}_+`$ be sufficiently small that $`\{d(Y_i,)<\overline{t}\}`$ is contained in a product neighborhood of $`Y_i`$ for all $`i`$, and such that $`\overline{t}d(Y_i,Y_j)`$ for all $`i,j`$.

Suppose that we are given $`T_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}.`$ Decompose $`T=t_0+\mathrm{}+t_L`$ such that $`\overline{t}/4<t_i<\overline{t}/2`$ for all $`i`$ (we may decrease $`\overline{t}`$ if necessary).

*In the statement of the following lemma and thenceforth, we always consider indices $`i_0,\mathrm{},i_L`$ up to cyclic shift, i.e. $`i_l`$ is always shorthand for $`i_{lmodL+1}`$.*

###### Lemma 11.

Given $`T=t_0+\mathrm{}t_L_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}`$ with each $`t_i(\overline{t}/4,\overline{t}/2),`$ we may choose the cover $`𝒞=\{\pi ^1U_i\}\{V_i\}`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ sufficiently fine that for any $`i_0,\mathrm{},i_L`$ there exist $`l`$ and an open interval $`It_{i_l}`$ such that there does not exist a lifted diffractive geodesic with length in $`I`$, ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_l},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_{l+1}}.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒞^m`$ denote a sequence of finer covers $`\{\pi ^1U_i^m\}\{V_i^m\},`$ and $`B_l^m`$ the corresponding operators in our microlocal partition of unity. If the conclusion of the lemma fails to holds then for each $`m`$ there exists an $`(L+1)`$-tuple of pairs of points $`(p_0^m,q_0^m),\mathrm{},(p_L^m,q_L^m)`$ such that $`p_l^m,q_l^m\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_l}`$ and $`t_l^mt_l`$ such that $`p_{l+1}^m\stackrel{D,t_l^m}{}q_l^m.`$ As $`m\mathrm{}`$, i.e. as the partition is refined, we can then extract a subsequence such that $`p_l^m\overline{p}_l`$ and $`q_l^m\overline{q}_l.`$ If either $`\overline{p}_l`$ or $`\overline{q}_l`$ is in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X^{}`$, then $`\overline{p}_l=\overline{q}_l`$, since the two points lie in a sequence of shrinking sets over $`X^{}`$. If $`\overline{p}_l`$ or $`\overline{q}_l`$ is in $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{X}^{}X`$ then the two points $`\overline{p}_l`$ and $`\overline{q}_l`$ must lie over the same component of $`X`$. Thus by Proposition 4, each $`\overline{p}_{l+1}`$ is connected to $`\overline{p}_l`$ by a diffractive geodesic of length $`t_l`$, hence these points must lie along a closed diffractive geodesic of length $`T`$ (recall that $`l`$ is considered modulo $`L`$ throughout), contradicting our assumptions. ∎

In the case $`T_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}`$, we will need to impose a subtler set of conditions on our refined cover.

###### Lemma 12.

Given $`T=t_0+\mathrm{}t_L_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}`$ with each $`t_i(\overline{t}/4,\overline{t}/2),`$ we may choose the cover $`\{\pi ^1U_i\}\{V_i\}`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ sufficiently fine that for any $`i_0,\mathrm{},i_L`$ there exist open intervals $`I_lt_l`$ such one of the following holds:

1. there exists $`l`$ such that $`i_l`$ and $`i_{l+1}`$ are both less than or equal to $`K`$ (i.e. are both $`B_{i_l}`$ and $`B_{i_{l+1}}`$ are $`\psi `$’s), or
2. there exists $`l`$ such that $`i_l`$ and $`i_{l+1}`$ are both greater than $`K`$ and there does not exist a geometric geodesic with length in $`I_l`$, ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+1}K},`$ or
3. there exists $`l`$ such that $`i_l,i_{l+2}>K`$ and $`i_{l+1}K`$ and there does not exist a geometric geodesic with length in $`I_l+I_{l+1},`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK}`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}.`$

###### Proof.

If the conclusion fails to hold, there must exist a sequence of shrinking covers $`𝒞^m`$ and shrinking intervals $`I_l^mt_l`$ in each of which there exists a “word” $`i_0^m,\mathrm{}i_L^m`$ and $`(p_l^m,q_l^m)\mathrm{WF}^{}B_{i_l}^m`$ such that such that no two successive $`i_l`$’s are less than or equal to $`K`$, and for all $`l=1,\mathrm{}L`$, either

* if $`i_l^m,i_{l+l}^m>K`$, there exists a lifted geometric geodesic from $`p_{i_{l+1}}^m`$ to $`q_{i_l}^m`$ with length in $`I_l^m`$ or
* if $`i_l^m>K`$ and $`i_{l+1}^mK,`$ then $`i_{l+2}^m>K`$ and there exists a lifted geometric geodesic from $`p_{i_{l+2}}^m`$ to $`q_{i_l}^m`$ with length in $`I_l^m+I_{l+1}^m.`$

As $`m\mathrm{}`$, i.e. as the partition is refined, we may extract a subsequence such that $`p_l^m\overline{p}_l`$ and $`q_l^m\overline{q}_l`$. If eventually $`i_l^m>K`$, i.e. if $`p_l^m`$ and $`q_l^m`$ eventually lie in one of the interior sets $`V_k^m`$, then $`\overline{p}_l=\overline{q}_l`$. Hence if both $`p_l^m`$ and $`p_{l+1}^m`$ are such points then $`\overline{p}_{l+1}\stackrel{G,t_l}{}\overline{p}_l`$ by Proposition 4. If, on the other hand, we eventually have $`i_l^m>K`$ but $`i_{l+1}^mK`$, then $`i_{l+2}^m>K,`$ and we must have $`\overline{p}_{l+2}\stackrel{G,t_l+t_{l+1}}{}\overline{p}_l`$ by Proposition 4. Thus, by Proposition 4, the points $`\overline{p}_l`$ must all lie along a geometric geodesic of length $`T`$, contradicting $`T\mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}.`$

###### Lemma 13.

By further refining the cover $`V_j`$ and shrinking the intervals $`I_j`$ we may assume in case 3 of Lemma 12 that either

1. there exist no *diffractive* geodesics with length in $`I_l`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\pi ^1\mathrm{supp}\psi _{i_{l+1}}`$ or
2. there exist no *diffractive* geodesics with length in $`I_{l+1}`$ ending in $`\pi ^1\mathrm{supp}\psi _{i_{l+1}}`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ or
3. any diffractive geodesic of length $`I_l+I_{l+1}`$ beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ and ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK}`$ must lie in $`\pi ^1\mathrm{supp}\psi _{i_{l+1}}`$ either for all $`tI_{l+1}`$ or for all $`tI_l`$ or
4. no diffractive geodesics with length in $`I_l`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK}`$ pass through $`X`$ or
5. no diffractive geodesics with length in $`I_{l+1}`$ beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ pass through $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\overline{t}\mathrm{min}d(Y_i,Y_j)`$ for any given values of $`i_l`$, $`i_{l+2}`$ there is at most one value of $`i_{l+1}`$—call it $`\overline{ı}`$—for which (i) and (ii) fail to hold (provided the intervals $`I_l`$ are chosen sufficiently small). If $`I_l`$ is a sufficiently small interval, the set $`_{t\overline{I}_l}\{p:q\stackrel{D,t}{}pq\pi ^1U_{\overline{ı}}^{}\}`$ is an open neighborhood of the compact set $`_{t\overline{I}_l}\{p:q\stackrel{D,t}{}p\text{ for some }q\pi ^1Y_{\overline{i}}\}`$ (cf. Lemma 4.5 of ), hence we may refine the cover $`\{V_j\}`$ so that any $`V_j`$ intersecting the latter lies inside the former. Similarly, we may arrange that any $`V_j`$ intersecting $`_{t\overline{I}_l}\{p:p\stackrel{D,t}{}q\text{ for some }q\pi ^1Y_{\overline{ı}}\}`$ lies inside $`_{t\overline{I}_l}\{p:p\stackrel{D,t}{}qq\pi ^1U_{\overline{ı}}^{}\}.`$

Any diffractive geodesic with length in $`I_l+I_{l+1}`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ must pass through the boundary component over $`Y_{\overline{ı}},`$ as there are no geometric geodesics connecting such points. Let $`\gamma `$ be such a geodesic (time-parametrized) and $``$ its length. If $`\gamma (t)`$ passes through $`Y_{\overline{ı}}`$ for some $`tI_{l+1}(I_l)`$ then by our refinement of the cover in the previous paragraph, $`\gamma (t)\pi ^1U_{\overline{ı}}^{}`$ for all $`t`$ in either $`I_{l+1}`$ or $`I_l`$, hence case (iii) holds.

If, on the contrary, every geodesic $`\gamma (t)`$ with length in $`I_l+I_{l+1}`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ passes through $`Y_{\overline{ı}}`$ at time $`\tau I_{l+1}(I_l)`$, we have two cases, $`\tau I_{l+1}(I_l).`$ We may assume, by further refinement of the cover, that just one of these inequalities holds for all the aforementioned diffractive geodesics with a given $`i_l,i_{l+2}`$; indeed we may assume that the set of lengths of geodesics connecting a $`V_j`$ to a boundary component is a single interval. Say we are in the case $`>`$. Then all geodesics from $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ to $`\pi ^1Y_{\overline{ı}}`$ have length greater than $`I_{l+1}`$, i.e. case (v) holds. The proof with sign $`<`$ is analogous: case (iv) holds. ∎

We will need one further piece of geometric information about the partition of unity.

###### Lemma 14.

Let $`\overline{t}`$ be fixed as above. If the sets $`U_jY_j`$ are chosen sufficiently small, then there are no diffractive geodesics of length in $`[\overline{t}/4,\overline{t}/2]`$ connecting points in $`U_j`$ with points in $`U_k`$ for any $`j,k`$.

###### Proof.

The result is clear for $`jk`$, since $`\overline{t}`$ is less than the distance between boundary components. Thus we treat the case $`j=k`$. It suffices to show that for any $`j`$, there exists $`ϵ`$ sufficiently small that any diffractive geodesic starting in the component of $`\{x<ϵ\}`$ containing $`Y_j`$ must lie in $`\{x>ϵ\}`$ for $`t[\overline{t}/4,\overline{t}/2]`$. Any diffractive geodesic passing through $`Y_j`$ is locally of the form $`y=y_0,x=x_0\pm t`$; along such a diffractive geodesic, $`t=x\pm x_0`$, hence either $`x`$ or $`x_0`$ must exceed $`\overline{t}/8`$ when $`t>\overline{t}/4`$. Hence it suffices, in considering such geodesics, merely to take $`ϵ=\overline{t}/8.`$

We now consider geodesics which do not pass through $`Y_j`$. We consider the unit speed geodesic flow to be the flow given by (2) in $`{}_{}{}^{b}T_{}^{}X`$, inside $`g=(\xi ^2+h(x,y,\eta ))/x^2=1`$. If $`x_0<ϵ`$, then of course $`\left|\xi _0\right|<ϵ`$. On the other hand $`\dot{\xi }=(\xi ^2+h)/x^2+𝒪(\eta ^2/x)1/2`$ if $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small. Hence $`\xi (t)\xi _0+t/2ϵ+t/2`$. Since $`\dot{x}=\xi /x`$, we obtain $`x^2t^2/22ϵt`$, which is greater than $`ϵ^2`$ for $`t>\overline{t}/4`$ if $`ϵ`$ is sufficiently small. ∎

### 4.2. Overall regularity

We begin the proof of the theorem by establishing the overall regularity

$$\mathrm{Tr}U(t)𝒞^{n0}().$$

To do this, note that for $`ϵ>0`$ and all $`s,`$

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_{nϵ}U(t):_s_{s+n+ϵ},$$

hence by Lemma 7, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{nϵ}U(t)`$ is locally in $`L^{\mathrm{}}(;_1(_s))`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{Tr}U(t)𝒞^{n0}()`$ as desired.

### 4.3. Diffractive lengths

We now show that $`U(t)𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥})`$. It suffices by selfadjointess of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to show smoothness in $`_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}.`$

We now choose the cover $`𝒞`$ as guaranteed by Lemma 11, and compute

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Tr}D_t^{k(L+1)}U(t+t_1+\mathrm{}+t_n)=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\mathrm{Tr}\left(R+B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }\right)D_t^kU(t)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(R+B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }\right)D_t^kU(t_1)\left(R+B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }\right)\mathrm{}\left(R+B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }\right)D_t^kU(t_L)\end{array}$$

in the sense of distributions (since $`1B_{i,\delta }^2R`$ approaches zero in norm as a map $`𝒟_s𝒟_{s+ϵ}`$ for all $`ϵ>0`$). Now expand out the above sum. By Lemma 11, each term of the form

$$B_{i_0,\delta }^{}B_{i_0,\delta }D_t^kU(t)B_{i_1,\delta }^{}B_{i_1,\delta }\mathrm{}B_{i_L,\delta }^{}B_{i_L,\delta }D_t^kU(t_L)$$

contains (after a possible cyclic permutation) a factor $`B_{i_l,\delta }D_t^kU(t_{i_l})B_{i_{l+1},\delta }^{}`$ that, by Propositions 8 and 10, maps $`_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}`$ (uniformly in $`\delta `$), while the rest of the terms map $`_s_{sk}`$ for all $`s`$. Hence the expression as a whole is of trace class, uniformly in $`t`$ near $`t_0`$ and as $`\delta 0`$. Any term involving a factor of $`R`$ also has this property, since $`R:_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}.`$ Thus, for all $`k_0`$, $`D_t^{k(L+1)}U(t+t_1+\mathrm{}+t_L)L^{\mathrm{}}(;_1(_s))`$ near $`t=t_0`$, proving that

$$U(t)𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(\backslash \mathrm{𝖣𝖨𝖥𝖥}).$$

### 4.4. Geometric lengths

It now remains to show

$$U(t)𝒞^{10}(\backslash \mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}).$$

Let $`T_+\backslash \mathrm{𝖦𝖤𝖮𝖬}`$ and decompose $`T`$ into a sum as before. We have for $`ϵ>0`$,

(5) $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t+t_1+\mathrm{}+t_L)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t)U(t_1)\mathrm{}U(t_L)`$
$`=\left(R+{\displaystyle B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t)\left(R+{\displaystyle B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }}\right)U(t_1)`$
$`\mathrm{}\left(R+{\displaystyle B_{i,\delta }^{}B_{i,\delta }}\right)U(t_L),`$
For brevity’s sake, let

$$W_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}U(t_j),\hfill & j0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t),\hfill & j=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying Lemma 12, we may refine the cover of $`{}_{}{}^{b}S_{}^{}X`$ sufficiently that any word

$$B_{i_0}^{}B_{i_0}W_0B_{i_1}^{}B_{i_1}W_1B_{i_2}^{}B_{i_2}\mathrm{}B_{i_L}^{}B_{i_L}W_L,$$

in (5) contains (modulo cyclic permutation) a factor of one of the following forms, corresponding to the various cases of the lemma:

1. $`\psi _{i_l}W_l\psi _{i_{l+1}}`$, or
2. $`A_{i_lK}W_lA_{i_{l+1}K}^{}`$ where there does not exist a geometric geodesic with length in $`I_l`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+1}K},`$ or
3. $`A_{i_lK}W_l\psi _{i_{l+1}}^2W_{l+1}A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}`$ where there does not exist a geometric geodesic with length in $`I_l+I_{l+1}`$ ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK},`$ and beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K};`$

The term in case 1 above is certainly of trace class, since by Lemma 14 there are no diffractive geodesics (let alone geometric ones) connecting points in $`\psi _{i_l}`$ and $`\psi _{i_{l+1}}`$ and having length in $`[\overline{t}/4,\overline{t}/2]`$. Hence any term

$$B_{i_0,\delta }^{}B_{i_0,\delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t)B_{i_1,\delta }^{}B_{i_1,\delta }U(t_1)B_{i_2,\delta }^{}B_{i_2,\delta }\mathrm{}B_{i_L,\delta }^{}B_{i_L,\delta }U(t_L),$$

containing such a factor is uniformly of trace class in $`t`$ near $`t_0`$ and as $`\delta 0`$.

Proposition 9 shows that a term of the type in case 2,

$$A_{i_lK}U(s)A_{i_{l+1}K}^{},$$

where there are no geometric geodesics with lengths in $`I_l`$ between the microsupports of the outer terms, is in fact a system of Fourier integral operators in $`x`$ of order $`+ϵ`$ with values in $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}(Y_j)`$ for some $`j`$, uniformly in $`sI_l.`$ (We are assuming for the moment that $`l0`$.) Now let $`D\mathrm{\Psi }^{1ϵ}(X^{})`$ be compactly supported and elliptic on $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK};`$ let $`E\mathrm{\Psi }^{+1+ϵ}(X^{})`$ be a compactly supported microlocal parametrix for $`D`$, hence $`\mathrm{WF}^{}ED\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK}=\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$A_{i_lK}U(t_l)A_{i_{l+1}K}^{}=EDA_{i_lK}U(t_l)A_{i_{l+1}K}^{}+S$$

where $`S`$ is a compactly supported smoothing operator on $`X^{}`$, hence does not contribute to singularities of the trace. The term

$$DA_{i_lK,\delta }U(t_l)A_{i_{l+1}K,\delta }^{}$$

is then of trace class, uniformly in $`\delta `$; hence the whole term

$$\mathrm{Tr}B_{i_0,\delta }^{}B_{i_0,\delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t)B_{i_1,\delta }^{}B_{i_1,\delta }U(t_1)B_{i_2,\delta }^{}B_{i_2,\delta }\mathrm{}B_{i_L,\delta }^{}B_{i_L,\delta }U(t_L)$$

can be written, modulo an error term mapping $`_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}},`$ as a product of factors preserving $`_s`$ for all $`s`$, times a factor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{1ϵ}U(t)`$ which maps $`_s_{s+1+ϵ}`$ for all $`s`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, times a factor $`E`$ which maps $`_s_{s1ϵ}`$, times a factor

$$DA_{i_lK,\delta }U(t_l)A_{i_{l+1}K,\delta }^{}_1(_s),$$

uniformly in $`\delta `$. Hence this term has a trace uniformly bounded as $`\delta 0`$. The terms involving the smoothing error $`R`$ do not contribute, as before. The separate case $`l=0`$ works similarly.

In the subcases (i) and (ii) of case (3) (described in Lemma 13) the corresponding term in the decomposition of $`U(t)`$ again maps $`_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}`$, hence does not contribute to singularities of the trace. To deal with subcase (iii), we decompose

$$\begin{array}{c}A_{i_lK}U(t_l)\psi _{i_{l+1}}^2U(t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}\hfill \\ \hfill =A_{i_lK}U(t_l+t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}+A_{i_lK}U(t_l)(1\psi _{i_{l+1}}^2)U(t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}.\end{array}$$

The second term maps $`_{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}`$, while the first can be dealt with just as the similar term in case (2). For case (iv), note that by Egorov’s theorem, there exists $`\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{\Psi }_c^0(X^{})`$ with microsupport in the geodesic flowout for time $`t_l`$ of $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_lK}`$ such that

$$A_{i_lK}U(t_l)\psi _{i_{l+1}}^2U(t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}=U(t_l)\stackrel{~}{A}U(t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}.$$

Now by assumption, there are no geometric geodesics of length in $`I_{l+1}`$ beginning in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}A_{i_{l+2}K}`$ and ending in $`\mathrm{WF}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}`$, hence we may proceed as in case (2), since by , the term $`\stackrel{~}{A}U(t_{l+1})A_{i_{l+2}K}^{}`$ is a Fourier integral operator in $`x`$ of order $`+ϵ`$ with values in $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}(Y_j)`$ for some $`j`$. Case (v) of Lemma 13 is analogous.


text:
# The decays 𝑔̃→𝑡̃₁𝑏̄𝑊⁻ and 𝑔̃→𝑡̃₁𝑐̄ and phenomenological implications in supersymmetric theories

## 1 Introduction

At the Tevatron as well as at the future Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the search for supersymmetric particles is among the main topics of their experimental programs. Here the strongly interacting supersymmetric partners of quarks and gluons, squarks and gluinos, are expected to have the largest cross sections. Their production as well as their decays have therefore been intensively studied in recent years .

In these studies it has been assumed that the gluino $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ decays either into $`q\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ if kinematically allowed or into $`q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$, $`q^{}\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^\pm `$ and $`g\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ otherwise. Here $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^\pm `$ denote squarks, neutralinos and charginos, respectively. These decay modes have been used in the searches for gluinos (see e.g.  and references therein). However, there exists also the possibility that the gluino decays via a three body decay into the lighter stop, namely: $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{b}W^{}`$. The necessary mass hierarchy $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_t>m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_W+m_b`$ can be obtained e.g. in the minimal supergravity model as will be shown below. In the case that this mass hierarchy is realized in nature there are further gluino decays, violating flavour, into $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$. To our knowledge this interesting possibilities have not been treated so far in the literature.

In this paper we discuss the decays $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{b}W^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$ and possible signatures. Our framework is mainly the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)  with conserved R-parity. However, we also discuss possible implications of R-parity violation for the signatures of these two decay modes. The paper is organized as follows: in the next section we present our conventions as well as the formulas for the gluino decays. In Section 3 we present our numerical results for various scenarios, with and without R-parity. Finally in Section 4 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Conventions and the formulas for the widths

The parameters relevant to our discussions are the soft susy breaking mass parameters for the squarks $`M_{Q_i}`$, $`M_{U_i}`$, $`M_{D_i}`$, the trilinear parameters $`A_{t,b}`$, the gaugino mass parameters $`M_{1,2}`$, the gluino mass $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, the higgsino mass parameter $`\mu `$ and the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =v_2/v_1`$. Here $`i`$ is a generation index.

We give the formulas for complex parameters to be as general as possible although later in the numerical discussions we confine ourselves to real parameters to reduce the numbers of free parameters. It is well known that in the third generation left and right squarks mix due to the presence of the large Yukawa couplings. We give here for completeness the formulas for the mass matrix matrices as well as for the mass-eigenstates. Neglecting a possible generation mixing the mass matrices read as:

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2& M_{\stackrel{~}{q},RL}^2\\ M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}^2& M_{\stackrel{~}{q},RR}^2\end{array}\right)(q=b,t)`$ (3)
with

$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},LL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{Q,3}^2+m_t^2+(\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2`$ (4)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},LR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_{\stackrel{~}{t},RL}^2\right)^{}=m_t(A_t\mu ^{}\mathrm{cot}\beta )`$ (5)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},RR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{U,3}^2+m_t^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2`$ (6)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{b},LL}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{Q,3}^2+m_b^2(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2`$ (7)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},LR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_{\stackrel{~}{t},RL}^2\right)^{}=m_b(A_b\mu ^{}\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ (8)
$`M_{\stackrel{~}{t},RR}^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{D,3}^2+m_b^2\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2`$ (9)
The mass eigenstates $`\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$ are $`(\stackrel{~}{q}_1,\stackrel{~}{q}_2)=(\stackrel{~}{q}_L,\stackrel{~}{q}_R)_{}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}_{}{}^{T}`$ with

$$^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& e^{i\phi _{\stackrel{~}{q}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}& \end{array}\right),$$
(10)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}^2|}{\sqrt{|M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}^2|^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2)^2}}},\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}{\sqrt{|M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}^2|^2+(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2)^2}}},`$
$`\phi _{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}).`$ (11)
The mass eigenvalues are

$$m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}^2=\frac{1}{2}\left((M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2+M_{\stackrel{~}{q},RR}^2)\sqrt{(M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LL}^2M_{\stackrel{~}{q},RR}^2)^2+4|M_{\stackrel{~}{q},LR}^2|^2}\right).$$
(12)
The decay $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{b}W^{}`$ proceeds via top–quark exchange and sbottom exchange as shown in Fig. 1. The relevant part of the Lagrangian is given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _{rs}^a\overline{b}_r\left(c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}P_L+c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}P_R\right)\stackrel{~}{g}^a\stackrel{~}{b}_{i,s}+\lambda _{rs}^a\overline{t}_r\left(c_L^{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}P_L+c_R^{\stackrel{~}{t}_i}P_R\right)\stackrel{~}{g}^a\stackrel{~}{t}_{i,s}`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`C_{tb}W_\mu ^+\overline{t}\gamma ^\mu b+d_{ij}W_\mu ^+\left(i\stackrel{~}{b}_i^\mu \stackrel{~}{t}_j^{}i\stackrel{~}{t}_j^{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{b}_i\right)+h.c.`$
Here $`r,s`$ are color indices whereas $`i,j`$ denote the mass eigenstates. The $`\lambda _{rs}^a`$ are the Gell–Mann matrices with normalization $`_aTr(\lambda ^a)^2=16`$. The couplings are given by:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}c_L^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}=\frac{g_3R_{i2}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{i\varphi _3/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & ,c_R^{\stackrel{~}{q}_i}=\frac{g_3R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}e^{i\varphi _3/2}}{\sqrt{2}}\hfill & \hfill (q=b,t)\\ d_{ij}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}\left(R_{j1}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}\right)^{}R_{i1}^{\stackrel{~}{b}}V_{tb}\hfill & ,C_{tb}=\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}V_{tb}\hfill & \end{array}`$ (16)
Here $`\varphi _3`$ is the phase of the gluino mass parameter $`M_3`$ and $`V_{tb}`$ is the (33) element of the CKM matrix. The partial width can be written as

$`256\pi ^3m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dsdt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|C_{tb}|^2}{(sm_t^2)^2+m_t^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_t^2}}`$ (17)
$`\times [|c_R^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}|^2((m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2)(m_b^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2t)`$
$`+\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2s\right)\left(um_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_b^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_W^2}}\left(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2s\right)\left(sm_b^2m_W^2\right)\left(tm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{m_W^2}}(sm_b^2m_W^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+m_W^2u))`$
$`+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(c_R^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}\left(c_L^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}\right)^{}\right)m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t\left(s2m_W^2+m_b^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(sm_b^2)^2}{m_W^2}}\right)`$
$`+|c_L^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}|^2(m_t^2(m_b^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_t^2}{m_W^2}}(sm_b^2m_W^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+m_W^2u))]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{d_{j1}C_{tb}}{(sm_t^2+im_t\mathrm{\Gamma }_t)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}^2im_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})}}`$
$`\times (c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}c_R^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2(m_b^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2t)2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2(um_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_b^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{tm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2}{m_W^2}}(2stm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2(s+m_W^2m_b^2)2m_b^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2))`$
$`+c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}c_L^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t(m_b^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2t)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_t}{m_W^2}}(sm_b^2m_W^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2))`$
$`+c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}c_R^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_b(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2s)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_b}{m_W^2}}(sm_b^2+m_W^2)(tm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2))`$
$`+c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}c_L^{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}(2m_tm_b(m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2s)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_tm_b}{m_W^2}}(tm_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2)(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+m_W^2u)))]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}}[((c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})^{}c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}+(c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})^{}c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})(m_b^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2t)`$
$`+((c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})^{}c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}+(c_L^{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})^{}c_R^{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})2m_bm_{\stackrel{~}{g}}]`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{d_{i1}^{}d_{j1}(2t+2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2m_W^2)}{(tm_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}^2+im_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_i})(tm_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}^2im_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{b}_j})}}`$
with $`\kappa (x,y,z)=\sqrt{(xyz)^24yz}`$, $`s=(p_{\stackrel{~}{g}}p_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1})^2`$, $`t=(p_{\stackrel{~}{g}}p_b)^2`$ and $`u=(p_{\stackrel{~}{g}}p_W)^2`$. The total width is obtained by integrating in the range

$`s_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_W+m_b)^2,s_{max}=(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1})^2,`$ (18)
$`t_{min,max}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2+m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2+m_W^2+m_b^2s}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2)(m_W^2m_b^2)}{2s}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa (s,m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2)\kappa (s,m_W^2,m_b^2)}{2s}}`$
We will also consider the possibility of $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$. Using the approximate formulas for scalar top – scalar charm mixing as given in  we get:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c})={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{8}}|ϵ|^2m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}^2}}\right)`$ (20)
with

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_LR_{11}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_RR_{21}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{m_{\stackrel{~}{c}_L}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2}}`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_X^2}{m_W^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}m_b^2}{2m_W^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}(M_{Q,2}^2+M_{D,3}^2+M_{H_1}^2+A_b^2)`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_X^2}{m_W^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{V_{tb}^{}V_{cb}m_b^2}{2m_W^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}m_tA_b`$ (23)
where $`M_X`$ is a high scale which we assume to be the Planck mass to get a maximal mixing. $`M_{H_1}`$ is the soft susy breaking Higgs mass term and $`V_{tb}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ are the respective elements of the CKM matrix. Assuming proper electroweak symmetry breaking one gets at tree level $`m_{H_1}^2=m_{A^0}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}2\beta m_Z^2/2|\mu |^2`$, where $`m_{A^0}`$ is the mass of the pseudoscalar Higgs boson. The formulas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ are the result of a single step integration of the corresponding RGEs assuming that the CKM matrix is the only source of flavour violation at the GUT scale. In this approximation the parameters $`M_{Q,2}^2`$, $`M_{D,3}^2`$, $`M_{H_1}^2`$, and $`A_b`$ can be evaluated at any scale because the induced error would be of higher orders. Therefore the expression should be treated as a rough estimate giving the order of magnitude for the mixing. For definiteness we take the corresponding values of the parameters at the electroweak scale. In addition one should note that this approximation is an expansion in $`m_b/(m_W\mathrm{cos}\beta )`$. Therefore one expects, that for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the quality of this approximation is better than for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In principle there is also the possibility that the gluino decays according to $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{u}`$. However, this decay is suppressed by $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^210^2`$ in the approximation used above and will therefore be neglected in the following.

Formulas for the decays $`\stackrel{~}{g}q\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}q^{}\overline{q}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k^\pm `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}g\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ can be found in . Formulas for the cross section for gluino pair production as well as associated gluino-squark production including QCD corrections are given in  and for associated gluino-gaugino production including QCD corrections in .

## 3 Numerical Results

In this section we present our numerical results for three different frameworks: (i) The MSSM without flavour violation. (ii) The MSSM with minimal flavour violation. In this case we assume that at an high energy scale the only source of flavour violation is given by the CKM matrix. RGE running induces in this case non-vanishing flavour violating couplings couplings between squarks, quarks and gluino. However, these couplings have to be small to respect the bounds on flavour changing neutral currents FCNCs . (iii) A scenario where R-parity is broken by bilinear terms . This class of models resemble in many respects also the case of R-parity violation with trilinear terms  violating lepton number as will be shown below.

The parameter space relevant for our discussion is given by: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}},m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_t>m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}>m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_W+m_b`$. In the following we take the parameters freely without referring to a high scale scheme such as minimal supergravity (mSUGRA) or gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). However, we want to stress that this mass hierarchy can be obtained in mSUGRA. This can be seen by plugging the following approximate solutions of the 1-loop RGEs (see e.g.  and references therein) in the inequalities above: $`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}}^2M_0^2+6.2M_{1/2}^2`$, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}3.5M_{1/2}`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}^2=0.43M_0^2+4.55M_{1/2}^2+m_t^2+0.2M_{1/2}A_0M_{1/2}\sqrt{2.25M_{1/2}^2+1.13M_0^2+20.2m_t^2}/2`$ where $`M_{1/2}`$, $`M_0`$ and $`A_0`$ are the universal gaugino mass parameter, the universal scalar mass and the universal trilinear coupling at the GUT scale.

In all numerical examples below we take $`m_{\stackrel{~}{g}}=500`$ GeV, $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_2}=660`$ GeV and for the first two generation squark mass parameters 600 GeV. Moreover, we fix $`A_b=865`$ GeV. The relevant Standard Model parameters used are: $`m_t=174.3`$ GeV, $`m_b=4.6`$ GeV, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2315`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.118`$ and $`\alpha (m_Z)=1/127.9`$. The parameters $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$, $`M_{D_3}`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$ define the various scenarios discussed below and are specified in Table 1. We use the GUT inspired relation $`M_1=5\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _WM_2/3`$ to reduce the number of free parameters. We will mainly discuss the dependence on the stop mixing angle as this is the most interesting parameter giving rise to the strongest dependence. The parameter $`A_t`$ can be calculated from $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and we have explicitly checked in all examples that $`|A_t|1`$ TeV avoiding problems with possible colour breaking minima.

### 3.1 The MSSM without flavour violation

In this section we discuss the case of the MSSM without any flavour violation. Before starting with numerical details, we want to note that in practice the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb)`$ is very well approximated (within an error of 1% and below) by considering solely the top–quark exchange in Eq. (17) except for the parameter region where the lighter sbottom is nearly on–shell. The reason for this is that angular momentum conservation at the $`W`$-$`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ vertex implies that either the $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$-$`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ subsystem or one of the $`W`$-boson squark subsystems form a $`P`$-wave. This in turn implies that the sbottom exchange is spin suppressed compared to the top–quark exchange.

In Fig. 2 we show the partial width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb)`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=340`$, 360, 380 and 400 GeV. One encounters a strong dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ independent of the mass. This is due to the fact that the $`W`$-boson couples only to left-handed fermions and correspondingly only to left sfermions. In case of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0`$ the lighter stop is a pure right state and the decay is only possible due to a “spin-flip” of the exchanged top quark.

In Figs. 3 and 4 we show the gluino branching ratios as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ for $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}=340`$ and $`380`$ GeV. In the first example the decay $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb`$ (full line) dominates for most of the range. We want to note that this is not a kinematical effect because $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}_1}+m_b+m_W2m_t+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0}>m_t+m_b+m_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm }`$. In the second case the decay $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb`$ is about as important as $`\stackrel{~}{g}tb\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ despite the fact that it is kinematically suppressed compared to the final states with the lighter chargino.

In both cases the asymmetry in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is mainly due to interference effects in the width for $`\stackrel{~}{g}tb\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ between stop and sbottom contributions. Together with information from stop production and decays  this asymmetry can be used to get information on the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. Note that this is asymmetry is not physical in the sense that it can be measured but is given by the structure of the theory implying that the experimental findings together with the consistency of the theory tells one which sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ is realized in nature. In addition we want to note that the branching ratio for the final state $`t\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is maximal near $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0`$ because in this case the right stop contributes most. We have checked that the behaviour shown hardly depends on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

The situation is somewhat different in scenarios where the $`|\mu ||M_{1,2}`$ as can be seen in Figs. 5 and 6. Independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the channels $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb`$ (full line) and $`\stackrel{~}{g}tb\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ (dashed dotted) line show a strong dependence on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$. The reason is that the $`W`$-boson couples the left states whereas the higgsino–like chargino couples mainly to the right stop giving rise to the peak of $`\stackrel{~}{g}tb\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ near $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}=0`$. The asymmetry in the sign of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ can be traced back to stop-chargino-bottom coupling which reads as $`gR_{11}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}V_{j1}+Y_tR_{12}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}V_{j1}`$. Here the relative sign (in case of complex parameters relative phase) between $`R_{11}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ and $`R_{12}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}`$ gives rise to the asymmetry. In both cases the final state $`t\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is less important because the lightest neutralino is to a large extent a down-type higgsino and the decay into the second lightest neutralino, which is mainly a up-type higgsino, is kinematically suppressed. This ordering is beside kinematics also the reason for BR$`(\stackrel{~}{g}b\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)>`$ Br$`(\stackrel{~}{g}b\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0)`$ in these scenarios. We want to stress here that for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the gluino mainly decays into modes containing at least one top or a stop in higgsino–like scenarios as can be seen in Fig. 6.

The signature of $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1Wb`$ clearly depends on the decay modes of the lighter stop. In the examples studied here $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ decays mainly into $`b\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ and the chargino decays further mainly into $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0q^{}\overline{q}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0l\nu `$. Depending on the parameters chosen, other 2-body decay modes of $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ can become important  or higher order decay modes are important in case all the two-body tree-level decay modes are kinematically forbidden . If for example the decay $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1`$ mode is $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1bW\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ one gets a final state $`\stackrel{~}{g}W^+W^{}b\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The same final state can be obtained via the chain $`\stackrel{~}{g}t\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0W^+W^{}b\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. Similarly, one can show that for all stop final states one finds a gluino decay into a neutralino or a chargino that contains the same particles in the final state. However, in general the energy distribution as well as the angular distribution of the final state particles will be different, which is of course important for gluino searches and measurement of gluino properties.

### 3.2 The MSSM with flavour violation

Let us now turn to the case that case that the flavour violating coupling gluino – stop – charm-quark is non-zero. As mentioned in Section 2 we use the formulas given in  to describe the mixing between top-squarks and the left scalar charm. In Fig. 7 we display the branching ratios for the scenarios 1 – 4 of Table 1. We have checked that the used values for the stop – scalar charm mixing are compatible with the bounds given in . One clearly sees that under the assumption of minimal flavour violation for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the branching ratio is at most 1 – 2 %. However, in case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ this decay mode can be potentially large giving branching ratios up to 20%. In case that this decay is important the main consequence is a reduction in the multiplicity of the final state compared to the other gluino decays.

As mentioned in Section 2 the used approximation for the description of the scalar-charm – stop mixing is the result of a single step integration of the corresponding RGEs assuming the CKM matrix is the only source of flavour violation at the high scale. Therefore, the results obtained above should not be taken literally but as a demonstration of the expected order of magnitude under the assumptions above. Clearly, additional flavour violation in the squark sector at the high scale could enlarge the branching ratio for the decay $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$. However, it cannot be much larger than 20% because otherwise the experimental bounds from low energy physics  will be violated. Moreover, in case of additional flavour violation in the squark sector also the $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{u}`$ could be potentially large because there is not necessarily a suppression of the form $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2`$ in such a case.

### 3.3 R-parity violation

In this section we are going to study scenarios where R-parity is broken. Here we focus on the model where one adds bilinear terms to the superpotential as well as to the soft SUSY breaking part . This class of models can successfully explain the neutrino mass hierarchy as well as the neutrino mixing angles (see  and references therein). It also resembles in many respects the models with explicit lepton number violating trilinear couplings $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ . This can easily be seen by a rotation of the superfields where one transforms the bilinear terms in the superpotential into trilinear terms<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1This still leaves bilinear terms in the soft SUSY breaking part of the Lagrangian. leading to $`\lambda _{ijk}ϵ_iY_{jk}^E/\mu `$ and $`\lambda _{ijk}^{}ϵ_iY_{jk}^D/\mu `$ . Here $`Y^E`$ and $`Y^D`$ are the lepton and down–quark Yukawa couplings and $`ϵ_i`$ are the parameters of the bilinear terms violating lepton number in the superpotential.

In what follows we study the scenarios discussed above as well as scenarios where the stop is the LSP and the gluino is the next heavier supersymmetric particle. The latter two scenarios can e.g. be obtained in GMSB scenarios  or in string scenarios . In the bilinear model the data from neutrino experiments imply relatively small R-parity violating couplings, e.g. $`|ϵ_i/\mu |O(10^3)`$  (for a discussion on gluino decays and production in the case of larger R-parity violating parameters see  and references therein). This implies that branching ratios for the gluino decays in scenarios 1 – 4 are practically the same as in the R-parity conserving case because the R-parity violating decay modes have a branching ratio of at most O($`10^7`$). However, now the lightest neutralino will decay further giving rise to additional jets and leptons in the final state  compared to the R-parity conserving case (for recent discussions of neutralino decays with trilinear R-parity couplings see e.g. ).

In scenarios 5 and 6 of Table 1 the stop is the LSP and the gluino is the next to lightest SUSY particle. Scenario 5 is a low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario whereas scenario 6 is a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ scenario. In the case of small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the three–body decay dominates practically with 100%. Moreover, the stop decays mainly into a lepton and a $`b`$-quark . Thus, the signature is in this case 2 $`b`$-jets, a $`W`$-boson and a charged lepton. In the case of large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ also the decay into $`\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$ becomes important as can be seen in Fig. 8. The corresponding signature is in this case a $`b`$-jet, a $`c`$-jet and a charged lepton. Note, that due to the Majoranna nature of the gluino the final state leptons can have same sign which clearly reduces the Standard Model background.

Let us finally comment on the case of gluino LSP. It decays in these scenarios into the following final states: $`q\overline{q}\nu _i`$ and $`q^{}\overline{q}l^\pm `$ and $`g\nu _i`$. For the scenarios discussed above the width of the gluino varies between O(eV) and O(keV). It turns out that in such a case final states containing top-quarks and/or bottom quarks dominate and that the branching ratios are sensitive to neutrino mixing angles similar to the case of neutralinos . This, however, is beyond the scope of this paper and will be discussed in a dedicated paper .

## 4 Conclusions

We have computed and studied the decays $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1W^{}\overline{b}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1\overline{c}`$. We have demonstrated that the branching ratio of $`\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{t}_1W^{}\overline{b}`$ is large and can even be dominant. This decay does not lead to new final states compared to the decays $`\stackrel{~}{g}t\overline{t}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^0`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{g}tb\stackrel{~}{\chi }_j^\pm `$. However, it leads in general to different energy and angular distributions of the final state particle compared to the decays into a chargino or a neutralino. This is clearly of importance for searches of gluinos at present and future colliders. In addition we have worked out possible signatures in models where R-parity is broken by lepton number violating terms.

###### Acknowledgments.

This work is supported by the Erwin Schrödinger fellowship Nr. J2095 of the ‘Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung’ of Austria and partly by the ‘Schweizer Nationalfonds’.