format: text

text:
# The Lawrence–Krammer representation is unitary

## 1. Introduction

The Lawrence–Krammer representation $`𝒦:B_nGL(𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}],n(n1)/2)`$ was first introduced by Lawrence \[Law90\] and proved to be faithful by Bigelow \[Big01\] and Krammer \[Kra00b\]. As a braid invariant $`𝒦`$ is strong enough to distinguish all braids. The characteristic polynomial $`f_\beta =det(zI_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(\beta ))`$, where $`I_{n(n1)/2}`$ denotes the $`n(n1)/2`$ dimensional identity matrix, of the Lawrence–Krammer matrix $`𝒦(\beta )`$ of a braid $`\beta B_n`$ appears to be rather good as a conjugacy invariant of braids. The author observed that $`f`$ does not detect the orientation reversal of strings of braids, hence is not a complete conjugacy invariant, and that the polynomial $`f_\beta `$ has a symmetry $`f_\beta (z,t,q)f_\beta (z^1,t^1,q^1)`$ just like the Alexander polynomial of links (see Corollary 1 and 2). Actually this paper arised in search of an explanation for these phenomena.

Let $`D_n`$ be an oriented disk with $`n`$ holes in the complex plane. The boundary $`D_n`$ consists of $`n`$ puncture boundary components and the outer boundary component. Let $`\overline{C}`$ denote the space $`\{\{x,y\}x,yD_n\}`$ of all unordered pairs of points in $`D_n`$. Let $`N(\mathrm{diag}\overline{C})`$ be an open regular neighborhood of the subset $`\mathrm{diag}\overline{C}=\{\{x,x\}xD_n\}`$. Let $`C=\overline{C}N(\mathrm{diag}\overline{C})`$. Then $`C`$ is a 4-manifold with boundary.

The fundamental group $`\pi _1(C)`$ is isomorphic to the subgroup $`B_{n,2}`$ of $`B_{n+2}`$ consisting of $`(n+2)`$-braids whose first $`n`$ strands go straight down without winding and only the last two strands freely wind around. Let $`\varphi :B_{n,2}\{t^aq^ba,b𝐙\}`$ be the homomorphism to the abelian group of monomials defined by $`\varphi (\gamma )=t^{s2l}q^l`$ where $`s`$ is the exponent sum of $`\gamma `$ in Artin generators $`\sigma _i`$ and $`l`$ is the linking number of the last two strands with the first $`n`$ strands. Note that $`\varphi (\beta ^1\gamma \beta )=\varphi (\gamma )`$ for any $`n`$-braid $`\beta B_nB_{n,2}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the covering space of $`C`$ whose fundamental group is the kernel of $`\varphi `$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the ring $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$ of two variable Laurent polynomials. The homology group $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})`$ admits a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module structure. It is a free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module with rank $`n(n1)/2`$ (see \[Big01, Section 4\]). The Lawrence–Krammer representation refers to the braid action on $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})`$ as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module automorphisms.

By the the Blanchfield duality theorem \[Bla57\] \[Kaw96, Appendix E\], we have a non-degenerate sequilinear pairing $`,:BH_2(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})\times BH_2(\stackrel{~}{C})\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by

$$X,y=\underset{a,b𝐙}{}t^aq^b(Xt^aq^by)$$

where $`()`$ denotes the ordinary intersection number and $`BH`$ denotes the torsion free part of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module $`H`$. By identifying $`BH_2(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}(H_2(\stackrel{~}{C}),\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, we obtain a pairing $`,:H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})\times H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since the braid action on $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})`$ is induced from self-homeomorphisms of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, clearly it should preserve the pairing $`,`$, i.e., the Lawrence–Krammer representation is unitary. This could be a non-constructive and terse proof of the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.

There exists a non-singular $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix $`J`$ over $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$ such that for each Lawrence–Krammer matrix $`M=𝒦(\beta )`$ of an arbitrary $`n`$-braid $`\beta B_n`$ and its conjugate transpose $`M^{}`$, the equality $`MJM^{}=J`$ holds.

The symmetry property of the characteristic polynomial $`f_\beta `$ naturally follows.

In order to find the explicit matrix $`J`$ representing the pairing, we need the concrete description of a base set of $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})`$ and its dual base in $`BH_2(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})`$. In \[Kra00a, Big01\] the *forks* were used to express relative 2-cycles in $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})`$. Bigelow showed that given each relative 2-cycle $`XH_2(\stackrel{~}{C},\stackrel{~}{C})`$ defined by a fork, $`(1q)^2(1+qt)X`$ is an image of a 2-cycle from a closed surface immersed in $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Using the set $`\{v_{i,j}1i<jn\}`$ of relative 2-cycles corresponding to *standard forks* as a base, he presented the explicit matrices for the Lawrence–Krammer representation. Let $`y_{i,j}`$ be the 2-cycle in $`H_2(\stackrel{~}{C})`$ which maps to $`(1q)^2(1+qt)v_{i,j}`$. We can define a $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix $`J_1`$ whose entries are given by $`v_{k,l},y_{i,j}`$ for $`1i<jn`$ and $`1k<ln`$. Then for the Lawrence–Krammer matrix $`M`$ of an $`n`$-braid $`\beta `$ the equality $`MJ_1M^{}=J_1`$ follows from $`v_{k,l},y_{i,j}=\beta (v_{k,l}),\beta (y_{i,j})`$.

The author did not succeed in obtaining a concrete description of $`y_{i,j}`$ as a surface or in calculating the the matrix $`J_1`$. The proof of Theorem 1 in this paper involves cumbersome matrix calculations on *biforks* defined in Section 2. The matrix $`J`$ of Theorem 1 is presented in Lemma 1 as a multiplication table of an algebra. Our proof has an advantage over the non-constructive one in that the same method also works for the proof of the following theorem, which relates the orientation reversal of a braid to the matrix transposition. As a corollory of this theorem we have $`f_\beta =f_{\beta ^{\text{rev}}}`$, where $`\text{rev}:B_nB_n`$ is the anti-automorphism given by $`\sigma _i^{\text{rev}}=\sigma _i`$.

###### Theorem 2.

There exists a non-singular $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix $`V`$ over $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$ such that for each $`n`$-braid $`\beta B_n`$ the equality $`𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})V=V𝒦(\beta )^T`$ holds.

In \[Zin01\] it was shown that the Lawrence–Krammer representation is isomorphic to a summand of the representation on the Birman–Murakami–Wenzl (BMW) algebra \[BW89, Wen90, Mur87\]. This implies that the Artin generators $`\sigma _i`$ satisfy certain cubic relations in the representation.

###### Proposition 1.

The Lawrence–Krammer representation satisfies the cubic relations

$$(𝒦(\sigma _i)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+tq^2I_{n(n1)/2})=0$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$.

The eigenvalue $`tq^2`$ is associated to a 1–dimensional eigenspace. Therefore $`\sigma _i^1(\sigma _i1)(\sigma _i+q)=\sigma _iq\sigma _i^1(1q)`$ maps to a projector on to the 1–dimensional subspace. This fact led the author to define the following skein relation of *geometric biforks*.

$$\text{}q\text{}=(1q)\text{}\text{}$$

Although all the proofs in this paper were solely done by matrix calculations independent of the geometric biforks, the definition of biforks and the main idea of the proofs came from the geometric biforks.

In \[LTW98\] it was shown that as a braid invariant the Burau representation $`:B_nGL(n1,𝐙[t^{\pm 1}])`$ is dominated by the finite type invariants. This is due to the fact that $`(\sigma _i\sigma _i^1)(1)=0`$, i.e, at $`t=1`$ the Burau matrix is a finite type invariant of order 0. Likewise the Lawrence–Krammer matrix becomes a permutation matrix at $`t=1`$ and $`q=1`$. In Section 6 we show that the matrix $`\frac{^{k+l}}{t^kq^l}𝒦(\beta )(1,1)`$ is of finite type of order $`k+l`$. Therefore the Lawrence–Krammer representation is dominated by the finite type invariants. With the faithfulness of the representation together, we obtain the following well-known fact.

###### Proposition 2 (\[Koh87, BN95\]).

The finite type invariants separate braids.

The author is interested in the question whether the finite type conjugacy invariants of braids are strong enough to distinguish all the conjugacy classes of braids. The characteristic polynomial $`f_\beta `$ of the Lawrence–Krammer matrix is rather strong as a conjugacy invariant, and is dominated by the finite type invariants. After observing that $`f_\beta `$ does not detect the orientation reversal of a braid, we raise the following question.

###### Question 1.

Is there a finite type conjugacy invariant $`v`$ of braids such that $`v(\beta )v(\beta ^{\text{rev}})`$ for some braid $`\beta `$?

## 2. Proofs of main results

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$ be the ring of two variable Laurent polynomials in $`t`$ and $`q`$. The Lawrence–Krammer module $`V_n`$ is a $`n(n1)/2`$ dimensional free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module generated by the set of standard forks $`\{X_{i,j}1i<jn\}`$. The right action of $`B_n`$ on $`V_n`$ defined by (1) gives the faithful representation $`𝒦:B_nGL(n(n1)/2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ \[Kra00b, Big01\]. We follow the convention of \[Big01\] on the sign of variable $`t`$.

$$X_{i,j}\sigma _m=\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{i,j}\text{if }m<i1\text{ or }i<m<j1\text{ or }j<m\text{ }\hfill & \\ X_{i1,j}\text{if }m=i1\text{ }\hfill & \\ X_{i,j1}\text{if }i<m=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ tq^2X_{i,j}\text{if }m=i=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ qX_{i+1,j}+(1q)X_{i,j}+tq(1q)X_{i,i+1}\text{if }m=i<j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ qX_{i,j+1}+(1q)X_{i,j}q(1q)X_{j,j+1}\text{if }m=j\text{ }\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1)
Let $`b:\{(i,j)1i<jn\}\{\lambda 1\lambda n(n1)/2\}`$ be the bijection of index sets defined by $`b(i,j)=(2ni)(i1)/2+(ji)`$. This is the lexicographic order on the double indices. We identify $`X_{i,j}`$ with the $`b(i,j)`$-th standard base element $`Z_\lambda `$, $`\lambda =b(i,j)`$, which is the row vector whose $`\lambda `$-th entry is $`1`$ and uniquely non-zero. $`X_{i,j}\sigma _m`$ denotes the $`b(i,j)`$-th row of the matrix $`𝒦(\sigma _m)`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 1.

We need only to show the relation holds for $`i=1`$ since $`\sigma _i`$’s are all conjugate to each other.

Firstly it can be routinely verified for $`j>2`$ that

$$qX_{1,j}\sigma _1^1=X_{1,j}(1q)X_{2,j}(1q^1)X_{1,2}.$$

From this we calculate the images of $`X_{1,j}`$ and $`X_{2,j}`$ by $`(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})`$ as follows.

$`X_{2,j}(𝒦(`$ $`\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})`$
$`=X_{2,j}(𝒦(\sigma _1)q𝒦(\sigma _1^1)(1q)I_{n(n1)/2})𝒦(\sigma _1)`$
$`=(X_{2,j}\sigma _1qX_{2,j}\sigma _1^1(1q)X_{2,j})𝒦(\sigma _1)`$
$`=(X_{1,j}(X_{1,j}(1q)X_{2,j}(1q^1)X_{1,2})(1q)X_{2,j})𝒦(\sigma _1)`$
$`=(1q^1)(tq^2)X_{1,2}`$
$`X_{1,j}(𝒦(`$ $`\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})`$
$`=X_{2,j}\sigma _1(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})`$
$`=X_{2,j}(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _i)+qI_{n(n1)/2})𝒦(\sigma _1)`$
$`=(1q^1)(tq^2)X_{1,2}\sigma _1`$
$`=(1q^1)t^2q^4X_{1,2}`$
We also have

$`X_{1,2}(𝒦(`$ $`\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _1)+qI_{n(n1)/2})=(tq^21)(tq^2+q)X_{1,2}`$
$`X_{i,j}(𝒦(`$ $`\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})=0\text{ for }2<i<jn`$
The previous calculations exhibit that $`(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _1)+qI_{n(n1)/2})`$ projects $`V_n`$ to the submodule generated by $`X_{1,2}`$. The equality

$$(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _1)+qI_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _1)+tq^2I_{n(n1)/2})=0$$

follows from $`X_{1,2}(𝒦(\sigma _1)+tq^2I_{n(n1)/2})=0`$. ∎

From the proof of Proposition 1 we can see that $`(𝒦(\sigma _1)I_{n(n1)/2})(𝒦(\sigma _1)+qI_{n(n1)/2})𝒦(\sigma _1^1)`$ is an idempotent. We denote this matrix by $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$.

$$X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=𝒦(\sigma _1)+q𝒦(\sigma _1^1)+(1q)I_{n(n1)/2}.$$

The first column of $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=Z_1^{}Z_1^{}`$ is the only non-zero column of $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$. We denote by $`X_{1,2}^{}`$ the column vector given by the first column of $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ so that the expression $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ makes sense also as a matrix multiplication.

Let $`M(n(n1)/2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ be the set of matrices representing endomorphisms of $`V_n`$. $`M(n(n1)/2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ assumes a $`B_n`$-bimodule structure by multiplications from the right side and from the left. Let $`_n`$ be the $`B_n`$-bisubmodule of $`M(n(n1)/2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ generated by the matrix $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$, i.e.,

$$_n=\mathrm{span}_\mathrm{\Lambda }\{𝒦(\beta )X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}𝒦(\gamma )M(n(n1)/2,\mathrm{\Lambda })\beta ,\gamma B_n\}.$$

For $`1i<jn`$, let $`A_{\pi (i,j)}`$ denote the permutation braid $`(\sigma _{i1}\mathrm{}\sigma _1)(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _2)`$ \[ERM94\]. $`A_{\pi (i,j)}`$ induces the permutation $`\pi (i,j)`$ on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ which maps $`i`$ to $`1`$, $`j`$ to $`2`$, and whose all inversions involve either $`i`$ or $`j`$. Let $`X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}=𝒦(A_{\pi (i,j)})X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}𝒦(A_{\pi (k,l)}^1)`$. We call $`X_{i,j}^{}=𝒦(A_{\pi (i,j)})X_{1,2}^{}`$ a *standard dual fork*. We call $`X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}`$ a *standard bifork*. We denote $`𝒦(\beta )X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}𝒦(\gamma )`$ by $`\beta X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}\gamma `$ in emphasis of the right and left braid action on $`_n`$.

The following lemma is the multiplication table for standard biforks.

###### Lemma 1.

For $`1i<jn`$ and $`1k<ln`$, the $`1\times 1`$ matrix $`X_{k,l}^{}X_{i,j}^{}`$ is given as follows.

$$X_{k,l}^{}X_{i,j}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\text{if }(ik)(il)(jk)(jl)>0\hfill & \\ (t^1+q)(q^1+qt)\text{if }i=k<j=l\hfill & \\ t^1(1q^1)\text{if }i=k<l<j\text{ or }k<i<j=l\hfill & \\ (1q^1)\text{if }i<j=k<l\hfill & \\ tq(1q)\text{if }i<k<j=l\text{ or }i=k<j<l\hfill & \\ q(1q)\text{if }k<l=i<j\hfill & \\ (1q)^2(t^1q^1+1)\text{if }k<i<l<j\hfill & \\ (1q)^2(q^1+t)\text{if }i<k<j<l\hfill & \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

This multiplication table can be verified routinely from the definition of $`X_{i,j}^{}`$, $`X_{k,l}^{}`$, and the Lawrence–Krammer representation. One may first calculate the table on $`B_4`$ (see (11)) in which every case of the double index correlations listed in the table occurs, and then use it for general $`n`$-braids.

We will not exhibit all the complicated calculations which could be too distracting. In Section 5 we introduce geometric bifork algebra and calculate the same multiplication table. For each picture-based calculation line in the proof of Theorem 5 the same calculation on biforks can be done in parallel by translating the isotopies to braid relations. ∎

###### Lemma 2.

The set of standard biforks $`B=\{X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}1i<jn,1k<ln\}`$ generates the algebra $`_n`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module.

###### Proof.

We need to show that for all $`\beta ,\gamma B_n`$ $`\beta X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}\gamma `$ is a linear combination of standard biforks. $`X_{k,l}\gamma `$ is a linear combination of standard forks from the definition of the Lawrence–Krammer representation. From the following formula we can see that $`\beta X_{i,j}^{}`$ is also a linear combination of standard dual forks.

$$\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{i,j}^{}\text{if }m<i1\text{ or }i<m<j1\text{ or }j<m\text{ }\hfill & \\ X_{i1,j}^{}\text{if }m=i1\text{ }\hfill & \\ X_{i,j1}^{}\text{if }i<m=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ t^1q^2X_{i,j}^{}\text{if }m=i=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ q^1X_{i+1,j}^{}+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}+t^1q^1(1q^1)X_{i,i+1}^{}\hfill & \\ \text{if }m=i<j1\hfill & \\ q^1X_{i,j+1}^{}+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}q^1(1q^1)X_{j,j+1}^{}\hfill & \\ \text{if }m=j\text{ }\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
1. If $`m<i1`$, then

$`\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ $`=\sigma _m^1A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=A_{\pi (i,j)}\sigma _{m+2}^1X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}\sigma _{m+2}^1=A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
If $`i<m<j1`$, then $`\sigma _m^1A_{\pi (i,j)}=A_{\pi (i,j)}\sigma _{m+1}^1`$. If $`j<m`$, then $`\sigma _m^1A_{\pi (i,j)}=A_{\pi (i,j)}\sigma _m^1`$. For these two cases, the same calculation works as for the case $`m<i1`$.
2. If $`m=i1`$, then

$$\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=\sigma _{i1}^1A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=A_{\pi (i1,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=X_{i1,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}.$$
3. If $`i<m=j1`$, then

$$\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=\sigma _{j1}^1A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=A_{\pi (i,j1)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=X_{i,j1}^{}X_{1,2}^{}.$$
4. If $`m=i=j1`$, then

$`\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ $`=\sigma _i^1A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=A_{\pi (i,j)}\sigma _1^1X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}\sigma _1^1=t^1q^2A_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=t^1q^2X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}.`$
5. If $`m=i<j1`$, then

$`\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _i^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=\left(q^1X_{i,i+1}^{}X_{i,i+1}^{}+q^1𝒦(\sigma _i)+(1q^1)I_{n(n1)/2}\right)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=q^1X_{i,i+1}^{}X_{i,i+1}^{}X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}+q^1\sigma _iA_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=q^1X_{i,i+1}^{}(t^1(1q^1))X_{1,2}^{}+q^1A_{\pi (i+1,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=t^1q^1(1q^1)X_{i,i+1}^{}X_{1,2}^{}+q^1X_{i+1,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}.`$
6. If $`m=j`$, then

$`\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _j^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=\left(q^1X_{j,j+1}^{}X_{j,j+1}^{}+q^1𝒦(\sigma _j)+(1q^1)I_{n(n1)/2}\right)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=q^1X_{j,j+1}^{}X_{j,j+1}^{}X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}+q^1\sigma _jA_{\pi (i,j)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=q^1X_{j,j+1}^{}((1q^1))X_{1,2}^{}+q^1A_{\pi (i,j+1)}X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`=q^1(1q^1)X_{j,j+1}^{}X_{1,2}^{}+q^1X_{i,j+1}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$
$`+(1q^1)X_{i,j}^{}X_{1,2}^{}.`$

The formula (2) of $`\sigma _m^1X_{i,j}^{}`$ for the left action of $`B_n`$ on $`_n`$, presented in the proof of Lemma 2, strikingly exhibits the duality between forks and dual forks, and between the right action and the left action of braids. If we replace in (2) $`\sigma _m^1`$ with $`\sigma _m`$, the left multiplication with the right one, $`t`$ with $`t^1`$, $`q`$ with $`q^1`$, and $`X_{i,j}^{}`$ with $`X_{i,j}`$, then we obtain exactly the same formula (1) used in the definition of the Lawrence–Krammer representation. This observation interprets that if $`Z_\lambda \sigma _m=_\mu M_{\lambda \mu }Z_\mu `$ then

$$\sigma _m^1Z_\lambda ^{}=\underset{\mu }{}\overline{M_{\lambda \mu }}Z_\mu $$
(3)
where $`\overline{M(t,q)}`$ denotes the matrix $`M(t^1,q^1)`$.

###### Lemma 3.

The set of standard biforks $`B`$ is linearly independent.

###### Proof.

Let $`J=\left(J_{\lambda \mu }\right)`$ be the $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix defined by $`J_{\lambda \mu }=Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\mu ^{}`$, the multiplication table given in Lemma 1. At $`q=1`$, $`J`$ is a diagonal matrix with non-zero diagonal entries, which implies $`detJ0`$ even for generic $`q`$.

Suppose that $`a_{\lambda \mu }Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\mu ^{}=0`$ for some $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix $`A=\left(a_{\lambda \mu }\right)`$. Then for each $`1\nu ,on(n1)/2`$

$`0=Z_\nu ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}a_{\lambda \mu }Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\mu ^{}\right)Z_o^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}Z_\nu ^{}Z_\lambda ^{}a_{\lambda \mu }Z_\mu ^{}Z_o^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}J_{\nu \lambda }a_{\lambda \mu }J_{\mu o},`$
which implies $`JAJ=0`$. Since $`J`$ is non-singular, $`a_{\lambda \mu }=0`$ for each $`1\lambda ,\mu n(n1)/2`$. ∎

Lemma 3 shows in particular that the set of standard dual forks $`\{Z_\lambda ^{}1\lambda n(n1)/2\}`$ is linearly independent. Given a matrix $`M(t,q)_n`$, $`M^{}`$ denotes the conjugate transpose $`M(t^1,q^1)^T`$. Here we assumed $`t`$ and $`q`$ are evaluated at generic unit complex numbers so that $`t^1`$ and $`q^1`$ are complex conjugates of $`t`$ and $`q`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

Let $`J=_{1i<jn}X_{i,j}^{}X_{i,j}^{}=_{1\lambda n(n1)/2}Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\lambda ^{}`$.

$`J_{\lambda \mu }`$ $`=Z_\lambda JZ_\mu ^T=Z_\lambda ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}Z_\nu ^{}Z_\nu ^{}\right)Z_\mu ^T`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\nu ^{}Z_\nu ^{}Z_\mu ^T={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\nu ^{}\delta _{\nu \mu }`$
$`=Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\mu ^{}`$
where $`\delta _{\nu \nu }=1`$ and $`\delta _{\nu \mu }=0`$ if $`\nu \mu `$. As shown above, $`J`$ is the same matrix given as the multiplication table in the proof of Lemma 3, where we showed that $`J`$ is non-singular.

It suffices to show the identity $`JM^{}=M^1J`$ for the Lawrence–Krammer matrices $`M=𝒦(\sigma _m)`$ of the Artin generators $`\sigma _m`$ of $`B_n`$.

$`M^1J`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\sigma _m^1Z_\lambda ^{}Z_\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Z_\mu ^{}\overline{M_{\lambda \mu }}\right)Z_\lambda ^{}\text{by (}\text{3}\text{)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Z_\mu ^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}Z_\lambda ^{}\overline{M_{\lambda \mu }}\right)={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Z_\mu ^{}\left(Z_\mu ^{}\overline{M}^T\right)=\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}Z_\mu ^{}Z_\mu ^{}\right)M^{}`$
$`=JM^{}`$
###### Corollary 1.

Let $`f_\beta (z,t,q)=det(zI_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(\beta )(t,q))`$ be the characteristic polynomial of $`𝒦(\beta )`$. Then $`f_\beta (z^1,t^1,q^1)`$ equals $`f_\beta (z,t,q)`$ up to multiplication by units in $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 1, $`𝒦(\beta )^{}=J^1𝒦(\beta )^1J`$ as matrices over the quotient field $`𝐐(t,q)`$.

$`f_\beta (z^1,t^1,q^1)`$ $`=det(z^1I_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(\beta )^{})`$
$`=det(z^1I_{n(n1)/2}J^1𝒦(\beta )^1J)`$
$`=det(z^1I_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(\beta )^1)`$
$`=(z)^{n(n1)/2}det(𝒦(\beta )^1)det(zI_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(\beta ))`$
$`=(z)^{n(n1)/2}det(𝒦(\beta )^1)f_\beta (z,t,q)`$
Let $`Y_{i,j}=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ for $`1i<jn`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ denote the square root of the full twist that generates the center of $`B_n`$. For each $`\sigma _mB_n`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n\sigma _m\mathrm{\Delta }_n^1=\sigma _{nm}`$.

###### Lemma 4.

With the base set $`\{Y_{i,j}1i<jn\}`$, the Lawrence–Krammer representation is given by following formula.

$$Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1=\{\begin{array}{cc}Y_{i,j}\text{if }m<i1\text{ or }i<m<j1\text{ or }j<m\text{ }\hfill & \\ Y_{i1,j}\text{if }m=i1\text{ }\hfill & \\ Y_{i,j1}\text{if }i<m=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ t^1q^2Y_{i,j}\text{if }m=i=j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ q^1Y_{i+1,j}+(1q^1)Y_{i,j}+t^1q^1(1q^1)Y_{i,i+1}\hfill & \\ \text{if }m=i<j1\text{ }\hfill & \\ q^1Y_{i,j+1}+(1q^1)Y_{i,j}q^1(1q^1)Y_{j,j+1}\hfill & \\ \text{if }m=j\text{ }\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4)
###### Proof.

From the definition (1) of the Lawrence–Krammer representation the formula for $`X_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ can be easily derived as follows.

Xi,jσm1={
Xi,jif <m-i1 or i<m<-j1 or <jm
(5)

X+i1,jif m=i<-j1
(6)

Xi,+j1if =jm
(7)

-t-1q-2Xi,jif m=i=-j1
(8)

-+q-1X-i1,j(-1q-1)Xi,jq-1(-1q-1)X-i1,i
(9)

if =m-i1

+q-1Xi,+j1(-1q-1)Xi,jt-1q-1(-1q-1)Xj,+j1
(10)

if i<m=-j1

X_{i,j}\sigma_{m}^{-1}=\left\{\hskip-5.0pt\begin{minipage}[c]{325.215pt}
\vskip-6.0pt\@@amsalign&X_{i,j}\qquad\qquad\quad\text{if $m<i-1$ or $i<m<j-1$ or $j<m$ }\\
&X_{i+1,j}\qquad\qquad\text{if $m=i<j-1$ }\\
&X_{i,j+1}\qquad\qquad\text{if $j=m$ }\\
&-t^{-1}q^{-2}X_{i,j}\quad\!\text{if $m=i=j-1$ }\\
&q^{-1}X_{i-1,j}+(1-q^{-1})X_{i,j}-q^{-1}(1-q^{-1})X_{i-1,i}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\text{if $m=i-1$ }\\
&q^{-1}X_{i,j+1}+(1-q^{-1})X_{i,j}+t^{-1}q^{-1}(1-q^{-1})X_{j,j+1}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\text{if $i<m=j-1$}
\end{minipage}\right.
The formula of this lemma is verified by the following routine calculations.

1. If either $`m<i1`$, $`i<m<j1`$ or $`j<m`$, then $`n+1i<nm`$, $`n+1j<nm<(n+1i)1`$, or $`nm<(n+1j)1`$ respectively. Therefore

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\mathrm{\Delta }_n\sigma _m^1=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\mathrm{\Delta }_n=Y_{i,j}\text{by (}\text{5}\text{).}`$
2. If $`m=i1`$, then $`nm=n+1i`$ so that by (7)

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=X_{n+1j,(n+1i)+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_n=Y_{i1,j}.`$
3. If $`i<m=j1`$, then $`nm=n+1j<(n+1i)1`$ so that by (6)

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=X_{(n+1j)+1,n+1i}\mathrm{\Delta }_n=Y_{i,j1}.`$
4. If $`m=i=j1`$, then $`nm=n+1j=(n+1i)1`$ so that by (8)

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=t^1q^2X_{n+1j,n+1i}\mathrm{\Delta }_n=t^1q^2Y_{i,j}.`$
5. If $`m=i<j1`$, then $`n+1j<nm=(n+1i)1`$ so that by (10)

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=(q^1X_{n+1j,(n+1i)+1}+(1q^1)X_{n+1j,n+1i}`$
$`+t^1q^1(1q^1)X_{n+1i,(n+1i)+1})\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=q^1Y_{i1,j}+(1q^1)Y_{i,j}+t^1q^1(1q^1)Y_{i1,i}.`$
6. If $`m=j`$, then $`nm=(n+1j)1`$ so that by (9)

$`Y_{i,j}\sigma _m^1`$ $`=X_{n+1j,n+1i}\sigma _{nm}^1\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=(q^1X_{(n+1j)1,n+1i}+(1q^1)X_{n+1j,n+1i}`$
$`q^1(1q^1)X_{(n+1j)1,n+1j})\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$
$`=q^1Y_{i,j+1}+(1q^1)Y_{i,j}q^1(1q^1)Y_{j,j+1}.`$

For a word $`W`$, $`W^{\text{rev}}`$ denotes the reverse word of $`W`$. For a braid $`\beta =W(\sigma _i)B_n`$ written as a word in Artin generators, we define $`\beta ^{\text{rev}}=W^{\text{rev}}(\sigma _i)`$. In other words $`\beta \beta ^{\text{rev}}`$ is the anti-isomorphism given by $`\sigma _i^{\text{rev}}=\sigma _i`$. Geometrically this equals reversing the orientations of the strings of a braid.

Observe in the formula (4) of Lemma 4 that if one replaces $`\sigma _m^1`$, $`Y_{i,j}`$, $`t^1`$ and $`q^1`$ with $`\sigma _m`$, $`X_{i,j}`$, $`t`$ and $`q`$, then one obtains exactly the same formula (1).

###### Theorem 3.

There exists an invertible $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ matrix $`R`$ over $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1},q^{\pm 1}]`$ such that for each $`n`$-braid $`\beta B_n`$, the equality

$$𝒦(\beta ^1)(t,q)=R^1𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})(t^1,q^1)R$$

holds.

###### Proof.

Let $`W_{b(i,j)}=Y_{i,j}`$ for $`1i<jn`$ and define the matrix $`R`$ by $`R_{\lambda \mu }=(W_\lambda )_\mu `$, the $`\mu `$-th entry of $`W_\lambda `$ for $`1\lambda ,\mu n(n1)/2`$.

It suffices to show the equality for $`M=𝒦(\sigma _m)`$. The previous observation on the similarity between Lemma 4 and the definition of the Lawrence–Krammer representation interprets that $`W_\lambda M^1=_\nu \overline{M_{\lambda \nu }}W_\nu `$. Taking the $`\mu `$-th entry of each side, we have

$`(W_\lambda M^1)_\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\overline{M_{\lambda \nu }}(W_\nu )_\mu `$
$`(RM^1)_{\lambda \mu }`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\overline{M_{\lambda \nu }}R_{\nu \mu }`$
$`RM^1`$ $`=\overline{M}R.`$
From the definition of $`Y_{i,j}`$, $`R𝒦(\mathrm{\Delta }_n^1)=P`$ for some permutation matrix $`P`$. Hence $`R`$ is invertible. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.

Let $`V=\overline{RJ}`$. Then we have

$`𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})V`$ $`=𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})\overline{RJ}=\overline{\overline{𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})}RJ}`$
$`=\overline{R𝒦(\beta ^1)J}\text{by Theorem }\text{3}`$
$`=\overline{RJ\overline{𝒦(\beta )^T}}\text{by Theorem }\text{1}`$
$`=\overline{RJ}𝒦(\beta )^T=V𝒦(\beta )^T.`$
Since transposition and conjugation do not alter the characteristic polynomial of a matrix, we obtain the following corollary from Theorem 2.

###### Corollary 2.

$`𝒦(\beta )`$ and $`𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})`$ have the same characteristic polynomial.

## 3. Explicit Matrices

In this section we exhibit how to compute the matrices $`J`$ and $`V`$ of the main theorems for low braid index.

Let $`J_4=_{1i<j4}X_{i,j}^{}X_{i,j}^{}_4`$. $`B_4`$ is generated by the two elements $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\delta _4=\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1`$. Note that $`\sigma _2=\delta _4^1\sigma _1\delta _4`$ and $`\sigma _3=\delta _4^2\sigma _1\delta _4^2`$. For the proof of Theorem 1 for 4-braids, it is enough to verify the equalities $`𝒦(\sigma _1)J_4𝒦(\sigma _1)^{}=𝒦(\delta _4)J_4𝒦(\delta _4)^{}=J`$. The three matrices $`J_4`$, $`𝒦(\sigma _1)`$ and $`𝒦(\delta _4)`$ can be explicitly written as follows:

$`𝒦(\sigma _1)`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}tq^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ tq(1q)& 1q& 0& q& 0& 0\\ tq(1q)& 0& 1q& 0& q& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$
$`𝒦(\delta _4)`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& q^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& q^2& 0\\ tq^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& q^2\\ 0& tq^2& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& tq^2& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]`$
$$J_4=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}X_{1,2}^{}& X_{1,3}^{}& X_{1,4}^{}& X_{2,3}^{}& X_{2,4}^{}& X_{3,4}^{}\end{array}\right]$$
(11)
where the $`6\times 1`$ matrices $`X_{i,j}^{}`$ are given by

$$X_{1,2}^{}=\left[\begin{array}{c}(t^1+q)(q^1+qt)\\ tq(1q)\\ tq(1q)\\ (1q^1)\\ (1q^1)\\ 0\end{array}\right]$$

and     $`X_{1,3}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _2)X_{1,2}^{}`$    $`X_{1,4}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _3\sigma _2)X_{1,2}^{}`$    $`X_{2,3}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _1\sigma _2)X_{1,2}^{}`$    $`X_{2,4}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2)X_{1,2}^{}`$    $`X_{3,4}^{}`$ $`=𝒦(\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _3\sigma _2)X_{1,2}^{}.`$

The Lawrence–Krammer matrices of Artin generators $`\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$ of $`B_3`$ can written as follows:

$$𝒦(\sigma _1)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}tq^2& 0& 0\\ tq(1q)& 1q& q\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right]𝒦(\sigma _2)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1q& q& q(1q)\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& tq^2\end{array}\right]$$

Let $`Y_{1,2}^{}=X_{1,2}^{}`$ be the $`3\times 1`$ matrix taken from the first column of $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}_3`$. Let $`V_3=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}Y_{1,2}^{}& Y_{1,3}^{}& Y_{2,3}^{}\end{array}\right]`$ where $`Y_{1,3}^{}=𝒦(\sigma _2^1)Y_{1,2}^{}`$ and $`Y_{2,3}^{}=𝒦(\sigma _1^1\sigma _2^1)Y_{1,2}^{}`$. The three columns of $`V_3`$ are explicitly written as follows:

$`Y_{1,2}^{}`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{c}(t^1+q)(q^1+qt)\\ tq(1q)\\ (1q^1)\end{array}\right]`$
$`Y_{1,3}^{}`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{c}tq(1q)\\ (1q+q^2)(tq^1+t^1q^3)q\\ t^1q^2(1q^1)\end{array}\right]`$
$`Y_{2,3}^{}`$ $`=\left[\begin{array}{c}(1q^1)\\ t^1q^2(1q^1)\\ (t^1q^2+q^1)(q^1+tq)\end{array}\right]`$
Let $`\beta =\sigma _1^2\sigma _2\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^1`$ in $`B_3`$. Then $`\beta ^{\text{rev}}=\sigma _2^1\sigma _1^2\sigma _2\sigma _1^2`$ is related to $`\beta `$ by a flype move, which changes the conjugacy class while preserving the link type of a closed braid \[BM93\]. One may check the equality $`𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})V_3=V_3𝒦(\beta )^T`$ and that $`𝒦(\beta ^{\text{rev}})`$ shares with $`𝒦(\beta )`$ the same characteristic polynomial.

## 4. The Burau representation

In this section we review the Squier’s result that the Burau representation is unitary. The reduced Burau representation $`:B_nGL_{n1}(𝐙[t^{\pm 1}])`$ is defined by these two $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrices:

$`(\sigma _1)`$ $`=I_{n1}+te_{1,2}(1+t)e_{1,1}`$
$`(\delta _n)`$ $`=t^{n1}e_{n1,1}+{\displaystyle \underset{1in2}{}}(t^ie_{i,1}+e_{i,i+1})`$
where $`e_{i,j}`$ denotes the elementary matrix whose only non-zero entry is the $`(i,j)`$ entry with value $`1`$, and $`\delta _n=\sigma _{n1}\sigma _{n2}\mathrm{}\sigma _1B_n`$.

###### Theorem 4 (Squier).

There exists a nonsingular $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ matrix $`J_0`$ over $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1}]`$ such that for each $`\beta `$ in $`B_n`$ it follows that $`(\beta )^{}J_0(\beta )=J_0`$.

The reduced Burau representation can be interpreted as the action on the homology group $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n};𝐙[t^{\pm 1}])`$ of the infinite cyclic cover $`\stackrel{~}{D_n}`$ induced by the braid homeomorphism. It is natural to expect the reduced Burau representation is unitary because homeomorphisms should preserve intersection forms. We clarify this point in the following proof. The original proof in \[Squ84\] was done by giving the matrix $`J_0`$ and directly evaluating the equality.

###### Proof.

Consider the pairing $`,:H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n},\stackrel{~}{D_n})\times H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n})𝐙[t^{\pm 1}]`$ defined by

$$x,y=\underset{k}{}t^k(t^kxy)$$

where $`()`$ denotes the usual algebraic intersection number. The pairing $`,`$ is sesquilinear. The equalities $`tx,y=t^1x,y`$ and $`x,ty=tx,y`$ follow from the definition. If an automorphism $`h_{}`$ of $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n},\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$ is induced by a homeomorphism $`h:\stackrel{~}{D_n}\stackrel{~}{D_n}`$, then $`h_{}(x),h_{}(y)=x,y`$

We embed $`D_n`$ in the complex plane $`𝐂`$ so that the $`i`$-th hole is placed around the point $`i𝐂`$. Let $`x_i\pi _1(D_n)`$ denote the standard generator represented by the closed curve winding only around the $`i`$-th hole once. Let $`y_iH_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$ be the cycle which is the lift of $`x_ix_{i+1}^1\pi _1(D_n)`$. Then $`\{y_i1in1\}`$ is a base for the free $`𝐙[t^{\pm 1}]`$–module $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$. Let $`w_iH_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n},\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$ denote the lift of the relative cycle connecting the $`i`$-th puncture boundary to the $`(i+1)`$-st one by a straight segment, for $`1in1`$. Note that $`y_i`$ maps to $`(t1)w_i`$ by the inclusion $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n})H_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n},\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$.

Let $`M=(\beta )`$ so that $`\beta (w_i)=_kM_{ki}w_k`$ and $`\beta (y_j)=_lM_{lj}y_l`$. Let $`(J_0)_{ij}=w_i,y_j`$. Then the equality $`J_0=M^{}J_0M`$ follows as below:

$`w_i,y_j`$ $`=\beta (w_i),\beta (y_j)={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}M_{ki}w_k,M_{lj}y_l`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,l}{}}\overline{M_{ki}}w_k,y_lM_{lj}`$
That $`detJ_00`$ can be shown easily by evaluating $`J_0`$ at $`t=0`$. ∎

Given a relative cycle $`vH_1(\stackrel{~}{D_n},\stackrel{~}{D_n})`$, the action of $`\sigma _iB_n`$ on $`w`$ is determined by the intersection number $`w_i,v`$ as follows:

$$\sigma _i(v)=v+w_i,vy_i$$

as pointed in \[Big99\]. From this we obtain

$`\sigma _i(w_j)`$ $`=w_j+w_i,w_jy_i`$
$`=w_j+w_i,w_j(t1)w_i`$
$`=w_j+w_i,(t1)w_jw_i`$
$`=w_j+w_i,y_jw_i.`$
This equation implies that the $`i`$-th row of the matrix $`(\sigma _i)I_{n1}`$ is the unique non-zero row with $`w_i,y_j`$ as the $`j`$-th entry. Therefore we calculate the intersection pairing $`J_0`$ by

$$J_0=\underset{1in1}{}\left((\sigma _i)I_{n1}\right).$$

The analogous formula for the Lawrence–Krammer representation obtained in the previous section is:

$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}X_{i,j}^{}X_{i,j}^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{1i<jn}{}}(I_{n(n1)/2}𝒦(b_{i,j}))(I_{n(n1)/2}+q𝒦(b_{i,j}^1))`$
where $`b_{i,j}`$ denotes the band generator $`A_{\pi (i,j)}\sigma _1A_{\pi (i,j)}^1`$.

## 5. Geometric biforks

In this section, we define geometric biforks and a skein algebra $`𝒯_n`$ generated by the geometric biforks.

Let $`P=\{p_iD^21in\}`$ be a set of $`n`$ distinct points in a disk $`D^2`$. Then $`P\times \{1,0\}D^2\times [0,1]`$ is the set of $`2n`$ distinct points on the top and bottom of the solid cylinder $`D^2\times [0,1]`$. A *geometric $`n`$-braid* is a disjoint union of $`n`$ strings in $`D^2\times [0,1]`$ having no local maxima or minima with their end points fixed in $`P\times \{1,0\}`$. A *geometric bifork* is a disjoint union of $`n`$ strings in $`D^2\times [0,1]`$ having exactly one local maximum and one local minimum with one additionally attached string, which we call a *handle*, connecting the maximum point to the minimum point without touching the other $`n2`$ strings nor making a local extremum. We distinguish the handle from the other strings by drawing it with a wavy line as in Figure 1. The two strings to which the handle is attached are called *tines*. Two geometric biforks related by an isotopy which does not create a new local extremum are considered to be the same.

We construct an arbitrary geometric bifork as follows. Connect $`p_1\times \{1\}`$ to $`p_2\times \{1\}`$ by a string with exactly one local minimum in $`D^2\times [0,1]`$ and connect $`p_1\times \{0\}`$ to $`p_2\times \{0\}`$ by a string with exactly one local maximum. Then connect the local minimum to local maximum by a straight wavy line. For $`3in`$, connect $`p_i\times \{1\}`$ to $`p_i\times \{0\}`$ by straight strings. Now we obtained a simple geometric bifork $`𝐱_{1,2}^{}𝐱_{1,2}^{}`$ which looks like a generator of the Birman–Murakami–Wenzl algebra except that it has a handle attached. We may attach arbitrary braids $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ to the top and the bottom of the geometric bifork to obtain a general geometric bifork $`\beta 𝐱_{1,2}^{}𝐱_{1,2}^{}\gamma `$ where $`\beta ,\gamma B_n`$. One can easily see that every geometric bifork can be written as $`\beta 𝐱_{1,2}^{}𝐱_{1,2}^{}\gamma `$.

We define a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–algebra $`𝒯_n`$ generated by geometric biforks with the following relations.

$`\text{}q\text{}`$ $`=(1q)\text{}\text{}`$ (12)
$`=tq^2\text{}`$ (13)
$`\text{}=\text{},`$ $`\text{}=\text{},\text{}=0`$ (14)
$`\text{}=q^2\text{},`$ $`\text{}=q(1q)\text{},\text{}=q(1q)\text{}`$ (15)
The multiplication in $`𝒯_n`$ is given by concatenation as in the braid groups.

The relations (12,13) come from the definition that $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}=𝒦(\sigma _1)+q𝒦(\sigma _1^1)+(1q)I_{n(n1)/2}`$ and $`X_{1,2}\sigma _1=tq^2X_{1,2}`$. The relations (14) mean that $`X_{1,2}\sigma _m=X_{1,2}`$ for $`m>2`$. The first relation in (15) reflects that $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}\sigma _2\sigma _1^2\sigma _2=q^2X_{1,2}^{}X_{1,2}^{}`$ and the second one is from $`X_{1,2}^{}X_{2,3}^{}=q(1q)`$.

Let $`𝐱_{i,j}^{}𝐱_{k,l}^{}=A_{\pi (i,j)}𝐱_{1,2}^{}𝐱_{1,2}^{}A_{\pi (k,l)}^1`$. We call $`𝐱_{i,j}^{}𝐱_{k,l}^{}`$ a *standard geometric bifork*. Figure 1 shows a typical one.

Given an arbitrary geometric bifork $`𝐠^{}𝐟`$, we can express $`𝐠^{}𝐟`$ as a linear combination of other geometric biforks, which have less under-crossings of tines than $`𝐠^{}𝐟`$, by using the relations (1215). Iterating this procedure, we express $`𝐠^{}𝐟`$ as a linear combination of standard geometric biforks. Therefore the set of standard geometric biforks generates $`𝒯_n`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module. One may check that the formulas (1) and (2) with $`𝐱_{i,j}^{}`$ and $`𝐱_{k,l}^{}`$ in place of $`X_{i,j}^{}`$ and $`X_{k,l}^{}`$, also hold by applying the relations (1215).

The previous observation on the relations (1215) implies that there exists a surjective $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–homomorphism $`\rho :𝒯_n_n`$, $`\rho (𝐱_{i,j}^{}𝐱_{k,l}^{})=X_{i,j}^{}X_{k,l}^{}`$.

###### Theorem 5.

The geometric bifork algebra $`𝒯_n`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra $`_n`$ of biforks.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3, the algebra $`_n`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module with rank $`(n(n1)/2)^2`$. The fact that $`𝒯_n`$ is generated by $`(n(n1)/2)^2`$ many elements implies that the surjective homomorphism $`\rho :𝒯_n_n`$ is also injective.

In order to see $`\rho `$ is an algebra homomorphism, we need $`(𝐱_{u,v}^{}𝐱_{k,l}^{})(𝐱_{i,j}^{}𝐱_{o,p}^{})=(X_{k,l}^{}X_{i,j}^{})𝐱_{u,v}^{}𝐱_{o,p}^{}`$. In the following we verify the equality $`𝐱_{k,l}^{}𝐱_{i,j}^{}=X_{k,l}^{}X_{i,j}^{}`$.

1. For $`(ik)(il)(jk)(jl)>0`$

$$\text{}=\text{}=\text{}=\text{}=0$$
2. For $`i=k<j=l`$

$`=\text{}+q\text{}+(1q)\text{}`$
$`=tq^2\text{}t^1q^1\text{}+(1q)\text{}`$
$`=(t^1+q)(q^1+qt)\text{}`$
3. For $`i=k<l<j`$ or $`k<i<j=l`$

$`=t^1q^2\text{}=t^1q^1(1q)\text{}`$
$`=t^1q^2\text{}=t^1q^1(1q)\text{}`$
4. For $`i<j=k<l`$

$$\text{}=q(1q)\text{}=q^1(1q)\text{}$$
5. For $`i<k<j=l`$ or $`i=k<j<l`$

$`=tq^2\text{}=tq^3(1q)\text{}=tq(1q)\text{}`$
$`=tq^2\text{}=tq^3(1q)\text{}=tq(1q)\text{}`$
6. For $`k<l=i<j`$

$$\text{}=q(1q)\text{}$$
7. For $`k<i<l<j`$

$`=q^1\text{}+(1q^1)\text{}+q^1\text{}`$
$`=0+(1q^1)q(1q)\text{}t^1q^3\text{}`$
$`=(1q)^2\text{}t^1q^3q^2(1q)^2\text{}`$
$`=((1q)^2(1q)^2t^1q^1)\text{}`$
$`=(1q)^2(t^1q^1+1)\text{}`$
8. For $`i<k<j<l`$

$`=q\text{}+(1q)\text{}\text{}`$
$`=0+(1q)q(1q)\text{}+tq^2\text{}`$
$`=q^1(1q)^2\text{}+tq^2q^2(1q)^2\text{}`$
$`=(q^1(1q)^2+tq^4(1q)^2q^4)\text{}`$
$`=(1q)^2(q^1+t)\text{}`$

## 6. Dominance by finite type invariants

Let $`I`$ be the ideal of the integral group ring $`𝐙[B_n]`$ generated by $`\{\sigma _i\sigma _i^11in1\}`$. Let $`A`$ be an abelian group. If a $`𝐙`$–module homomorphism $`v:𝐙[B_n]A`$ vanishes on $`I^{(k+1)}`$, we call $`v`$ a *finite type invariant of order $`k`$*. If $`v(\gamma ^1\beta \gamma )=v(\beta )`$ for each $`\beta ,\gamma B_n`$, we call $`v`$ a *conjugacy invariant*.

###### Theorem 6.

For each $`k,l0`$, the $`n(n1)/2\times n(n1)/2`$ integral matrix invariant $`𝐙[B_n]M(n(n1)/2,𝐙)`$,

$$\beta \frac{^{k+l}}{t^kq^l}𝒦(\beta )(1,1)$$

is a finite type invariant of order $`k+l`$.

###### Proof.

At $`t=1`$ and $`q=1`$, it is easy to check that $`𝒦(\sigma _m)(1,1)=𝒦(\sigma _m^1)(1,1)`$, so that at $`t=1`$ and $`q=1`$, $`𝒦`$ is a finite type invariant of order $`0`$. In the series expansion of $`𝒦(\sigma _m\sigma _m^1)=_{k,l0}a_{kl}(t+1)^k(q1)^l`$ at $`t=1`$ and $`q=1`$, the lowest degree is at least $`1`$. In other words, $`𝒦(W)`$ has the lowest degree at least $`1`$ for each $`WI^{(1)}`$.

If $`WI^{(k+l+1)}`$, then the lowest degree in the series expansion of $`𝒦(W)`$ is at least $`k+l+1`$ since $`W`$ is a linear combination of products of $`(k+l+1)`$ elements of $`I^{(1)}`$. The theorem follows from

$$\frac{^{k+l}}{t^kq^l}(t+1)^i(q1)^j|_{t=1,q=1}=0$$

for $`i+j>k+l`$. ∎


text:
# Going beyond GHZ paradox

## Abstract

We present numerical data showing, that three qutrit correlations for a pure state, which is not maximally entangled, violate local realism more strongly than three-qubit correlations. The strength of violation is measured by the minimal amount of noise that must be admixed to the system so that the noisy correlations have a local and realistic model.

The seminal paper of Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger GHZ  has initiated a completely new phase in the discussions regarding the Bell theorem BELL . Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen EPR  elements of reality were suddenly ridiculed by a straightforward argumentation. The physics community immediately noticed that the increasing complexity of entangled systems does not lead to a less pronounced disagreement with the classical views, but just the opposite! Moreover, the disagreement exponentially grew with the number of qubits involved in the GHZ-type entangled states. Indeed, prior to the publication of Ref. GHZ , it was commonly perceived that everything regarding the Bell theorem is known. However, the new insight has renewed the interest in the Bell theorem and its implications.

Another widely shared perspective was that one cannot gain additional useful insight into the Bell Theorem by increasing the dimensionality of the entangled systems. Some papers even suggested that in $`N`$ dimensional systems, increasing the dimension $`N`$ effectively brings the system closer and closer to the classical realm. However, due to the fact that the $`N>2`$ dimensional systems can reveal the Kochen-Specker paradox KOCHEN-SPECKER , this view could be challenged. The advent of the quantum information theory created the awareness that such systems require much less entanglement to be non-separable than qubits SEP . Certain strange features like bound entanglement HORODECKI  or inextensible product bases BENNET , suddenly emerged.

Recently, it was shown that higher dimensional entangled systems indeed may lead to stronger violations of local realism, even in straightforward experimental situations involving only the von Neumann-type experiments (with no sequential measurements, etc).

In the early nineties, the blueprints for straightforward Bell tests involving higher dimensional systems were given (for a summary see ZZH ). The idea was to use unbiased multiport beam splitters to define the local observables. Surprisingly, it turned out, that such observables suffice to reveal the fact that pair of entangled higher dimensional systems violate local realism more strongly than qubits KASZLIKOWSKI-PRL-2000 . This result was obtained numerically by employing the linear optimization procedures to search for underlying local realistic joint probability distribution that would reproduce the quantum prediction (with some noise admixture). The results were confirmed analytically in Refs. CHQUTRIT  and COLLINS . Later in Ref. ACIN-GISIN , it was shown that in the case of pairs of entangled higher-dimensional systems, violations of local realism are even stronger for non-maximally entangled states. In a parallel research, it has been shown that higher dimensional systems can lead to the GHZ-like paradox without inequalities GHZKASZLIKOWSKI , MASSAR .

In view of all these facts, it is tempting to test the strength of violation of local realism by triples of higher dimensional systems (starting of course with three qutrits), and that for non-maximally entangled states.

Since Bell-type inequalities for three qutrit systems are unknown at the moment, it is necessary to invoke the numerical algorithm first presented in BATURO . As we shall see, some surprising results can be obtained in this way.

We show below the result of our numerical analysis. It turns out that

1. There is a strong violation of local realism (for the standard von-Neumann type measurements) for three qutrit systems in the maximally entangled state, however it is not as strong as in the case of the three entangled qubits.
2. Allowing non-maximally entangled states, the situation changes. We find the three qutrit state which reveals correlations much much more resistant to noise, than those for entangled three qubits (maximally entangled three qubit states give maximal violation of local realism WERNER , BRUKNER , SCARANI ).

In our numerical analysis, we consider a class of pure states of three qutrits in the form of

$$|\psi =\underset{g,i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}d_{gij}|g|i|j$$
(1)
with real coefficients $`d_{gij}`$. The kets $`|g,|i,|j`$ denote the orthonormal basis states for the first, second and the third qutrit respectively. Three spatially separated observers, Alice, Bob and Cecil, are allowed to perform the measurement of two alternative local noncommuting trichotomic observables on the state $`|\psi `$. We assume that they measure observables defined by unbiased symmetric three-port beamsplitters ZZH . In such a situation the kets in (1) represent spatial beams, in which the particles can propagate. The observers select the specific local observables by setting appropriate phase shifts in the beams leading to the entry ports of the beamsplitters. The overall unitary transformation performed by such a device is given by

$$U_{j^{}j}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{i2\pi }{3}j^{}j)\mathrm{exp}(\varphi _j),$$
(2)
where $`j`$ denotes an input beam to the device, and $`j^{}`$ an output one, and $`\varphi _j`$ are the three phases that can be set by the local observer (for a more detailed description see ZZH ). Please note, that the actual physics of the device is irrelevant for our theoretical discussion here, thus it suffices just to assume that the observers perform their von Neumann measurements in the basis which is related to the “computational” basis of the initial state (1) by the transformation (2). It is interesting that the unitary transformation for all phase settings leads to a new basis for the local qutrit, which is unbiased with the respect to the “computational” one.

Let us denote Alice’s local unitary transformations associated with her device by $`U_A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_0),U_A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1)`$, Bob’s by $`U_B(\stackrel{}{\chi }_0),U_B(\stackrel{}{\chi }_1)`$ and Cecil’s by $`U_C(\stackrel{}{\delta }_0),U_C(\stackrel{}{\delta }_1)`$, where the three component vectors $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_k,\stackrel{}{\chi }_l,\stackrel{}{\delta }_m`$ ($`k,l,m=0,1`$) denote the set of the phases defining the appropriate observables. The measurement of each observable can yield three possible results which we denote by $`a`$ for Alice, $`b`$ for Bob and $`c`$ for Cecil ($`a,b,c=1,2,3`$). The probability $`P_{QM}(a_k,b_l,c_m)`$, that Alice, Bob and Cecil obtain the specific results after performing the unitary transformations $`U_A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_k)`$, $`U_B(\stackrel{}{\chi }_l)`$ and $`U_C(\stackrel{}{\delta }_m)`$, respectively, is given by the following formula

$`P_{QM}(a_k,b_l,c_m)=|a_k|b_l|c_m|U_A(\stackrel{}{\varphi }_k)U_B(\stackrel{}{\chi }_l)U_C(\stackrel{}{\delta }_m)|\psi |^2`$ (3)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{27}}{\displaystyle \underset{g^{}i^{}j^{}gij}{}}d_{g^{}i^{}j^{}}d_{gij}`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}(a_k(gg^{})+b_l(ii^{})+c_m(jj^{}))+\varphi _k^g\varphi _k^g^{}+\chi _l^i\chi _l^i^{}+\delta _m^j\delta _m^j^{})`$ ,
where, for instance, $`\varphi _k^g`$ denotes the $`g`$-th component of $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_k`$.

In the presence of random noise, in order to describe the system one has to introduce the mixed state $`\rho _F=(1F)|\psi \psi |+F\rho _{noise}`$, where $`\rho _{noise}=\frac{1}{27}I`$, and $`I`$ is the identity operator. The non-negative parameter $`F`$ specifies the amount of noise present in the system. In such a case, the quantum probabilities read

$$P_{QM}^F(a_k,b_l,c_m)=(1F)P_{QM}(a_k,b_l,c_m)+\frac{F}{27}$$

.

The hypothesis of local realism assumes that there exists some joint probability distribution $`P_{LR}(a_0,a_1;b_0,b_1;c_0,c_1)`$ that returns quantum probabilities $`P_{QM}^F(a_k,b_l,c_m)`$ as marginals, e.g.,

$`P_{QM}^F(a_0,b_0,c_0)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{a_1=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b_1=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_1=1}{\overset{3}{}}}P_{LR}(a_0,a_1;b_0,b_1;c_0,c_1).`$ (4)
Please note, that a concise notation of the full set of such conditions can be given by

$`P_{QM}^F(a_k,b_l,c_m)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{a_{k+1}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b_{l+1}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_{m+1}=1}{\overset{3}{}}}P_{LR}(a_0,a_1;b_0,b_1;c_0,c_1).`$ (5)
where $`k+1,l+1,m+1`$ are understood as modulo $`2`$. For each pure state $`|\psi `$, one can find the threshold $`F_{thr}`$ (the minimal value of $`F`$) above which such a joint probability distribution satisfying (5) exists (obviously, for any separable state $`F_{thr}=0`$, however this may hold also for some non-separable states).

There is a well defined mathematical procedure called linear programming that allows us to find the threshold $`F_{thr}`$ for the given state $`|\psi `$ and for the given set of observables. We should stress that $`F_{thr}`$ found in this way gives us sufficient and necessary conditions for violation of local realism. The procedure works as follows.

The computation of the threshold $`F_{thr}`$ is equivalent to finding the joint probability distribution $`P_{LR}(a_0,a_1;b_0,b_1;c_0,c_1)`$, i.e., the set of $`3^6`$ of positive numbers summing up to one and fulfilling $`8\times 27=216`$ conditions given by (5) such that $`F`$ is minimal. Therefore, $`F`$ and $`P_{LR}(a_0,a_1;b_0,b_1;c_0,c_1)`$ can be treated as variables lying in a $`3^6+1`$-dimensional real space. The set of linear conditions (5) and the condition that $`0F1`$ defines a convex set in this space.

Next, we define a linear function, whose domain is the convex set defined above so that it returns the number $`F`$. The task of finding $`F_{thr}`$ is then equivalent to the search for the minimum of this function. As the domain of the function is very complicated, the procedure can only be done numerically (we have used the numerical procedure HOPDM 2.30, see gondzio ).

It is obvious that the $`F_{thr}`$ depends on the observables measured by Alice, Bob and Cecil (which in turn depend on the set of phases) as well as on the state $`|\psi `$ (indeed, for some unfortunate choices of observables, or the states or both, one can have $`F_{thr}=0`$). Let us clarify, that the task of the linear optimization procedure is each time to find the minimal $`F`$, for which the relation (5) can be satisfied by some positive probabilities on its right hand side. However, the left hand side of Eq. (5) depends on the chosen states and observables, and we are interested in the case when getting the local realistic model requires a maximal possible admixture of noise, therefore we search for such states and observables, for which the minimal $`F_{thr}`$ has the largest possible value. There are two possible interesting scenarios. We can fix the state $`|\psi `$ and maximize $`F_{thr}`$ over the observables. In this way we find the best violation of local realism for this given state. Alternatively, we can maximize $`F_{thr}`$ over the coefficients defining the state, as well as over the observables. This procedure allows us to find the optimal state, and optimal observables measured on this state, which can yield the best possible violation of local realism by the class of pure states with real coefficients (1). Of course, we do not have to limit ourselves to pure states with real coefficients, nor even to pure states but then in these cases the number of parameters over which we have to optimize becomes too large for our computers to handle.

We have applied the procedure described above for the fixed state $`|\psi `$, which we have chosen to be a maximally entangled state, i.e., $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|111+|222+|333`$. Running the program we have found that the threshold amount of noise, that has to be admixed to the maximally entangled state, so that the correlations generated by it, for any sets of pairs of local settings of the phases, become describable in a local and realistic way, is $`F_{thr}=0.4`$. The optimal observables form the point of view of violations of local realism, i.e., exactly those for which the noise admixture must be maximal to get a local realistic model, are defined by the following sets of phases $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_0=(0,0,\frac{2}{3}\pi ),\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1=(0,0,0);\stackrel{}{\chi }_0=(0,0,\pi ),\stackrel{}{\chi }_1=(0,0,\frac{5}{3}\pi );\stackrel{}{\delta }_0=(0,\frac{1}{3}\pi ,0),\stackrel{}{\delta }_1=(0,\pi ,0)`$. We can therefore say, that the violation of local realism in this case is stronger than for two maximally entangled qutrits, in which case the threshold amount of noise is only $`0.304`$. However, it is weaker than the violation by three entangled qubits, for which the threshold amount of noise is $`0.5`$.

Naturally, one should check whether one can obtain better violations for non maximally entangled states. Therefore we have taken the predictions for (1), and used a procedure for the maximalization of $`F_{thr}`$ over the parameters $`d_{gij}`$ as well as the observables.

We have found that the there exists a non-maximally entangled state, and a certain set of local observables, for which one requires $`F_{thr}=0.571`$ noise admixture for the correlations to have a local realistic description. The expansion coefficients of the state are given in the table below, whereas the phases defining the optimal observables will not be presented here, as they are not easily interpretable. However, for very close local settings given by: $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }_0=(0,\frac{2}{3}\pi ,\frac{5}{9}\pi ),\stackrel{}{\varphi }_1=(0,\frac{2}{3}\pi ,0);\stackrel{}{\chi }_0=(0,\frac{17}{18}\pi ,\frac{1}{18}\pi ),\stackrel{}{\chi }_1=(0,0,0);\stackrel{}{\delta }_0=(0,\pi ,\frac{23}{36}\pi ),\stackrel{}{\delta }_1=(0,\frac{7}{36}\pi ,\frac{2}{3}\pi )`$, there is a state for which the threshold noise equals $`0.570`$.

| Basis | $`|000`$ | $`|001`$ | $`|002`$ | $`|010`$ | $`|011`$ | $`|012`$ | $`|020`$ | $`|021`$ | $`|022`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Coeff | $`+0.186`$ | $`+0.076`$ | $`+0.230`$ | $`+0.218`$ | $`+0.046`$ | $`+0.112`$ | $`+0.172`$ | $`+0.033`$ | $`+0.247`$ |

| Basis | $`|100`$ | $`|101`$ | $`|102`$ | $`|110`$ | $`|111`$ | $`|112`$ | $`|120`$ | $`|121`$ | $`|122`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Coeff | $`+0.216`$ | $`+0.050`$ | $`+0.110`$ | $`+0.160`$ | $`+0.049`$ | $`+0.236`$ | $`+0.204`$ | $`+0.055`$ | $`+0.235`$ |

| Basis | $`|200`$ | $`|201`$ | $`|202`$ | $`|210`$ | $`|211`$ | $`|212`$ | $`|220`$ | $`|221`$ | $`|222`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Coeff | $`0.078`$ | $`+0.406`$ | $`0.029`$ | $`0.023`$ | $`+0.385`$ | $`+0.035`$ | $`0.123`$ | $`+0.393`$ | $`0.128`$ |

In summary, we have shown, that for the maximally entangled state three entangled qutrits violate local realism stronger than two entangled qutrits (the threshold amount of noise $`0.304`$, see KASZLIKOWSKI-PRL-2000 ). The threshold amount of noise to get local realistic correlations is $`0.4`$. This violation is not as strong as for three entangled qubits for which one has to admix $`50\%`$ of noise to make the system describable by local realistic theories. However, we can obtain much a stronger violation for the non-maximally entangled states. In this case there exists a non-maximally entangled state (see the table) for which $`F_{thr}=0.57`$, i.e., we have to add $`57\%`$ of noise before we enter the region in which the state admits local and realistic description.

We must stress, that although for the state given in the table, the threshold amount of noise $`F_{thr}=0.57`$ gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of local realism, for the measurement of the observables given by unbiased symmetric three-port beamsplitters, it does not mean that with a different choice of observables, or by allowing complex coefficients in the state (1), one cannot increase $`F_{thr}`$.

Moreover, it is reasonable to expect, that for four or higher number of entangled qutrits the difference between the robustness against noise (i.e., the resistance of quantum correlations to classical description) of maximally entangled states and non-maximally entangled ones will still increase. Note that, optimal non-maximally entangled state of two qutrits (for which the threshold amount of noise is 0.3139) is around $`3\%`$ more resistant to noise than the maximally entangled one (for which the threshold amount of noise is 0.3038). In the case of three entangled qutrits the difference between the threshold amount of noise for non-maximally entangled state (0.571) and for maximally entangled state (0.4) is about $`40\%`$!

MZ thanks Nicolas Gisin for discussions on this topic. MZ and DK acknowledge the support of KBN, project No. 5 PO3B 088 20. DK, LCK and CHO would also like to acknowledge the support of A$``$Star Grant No: 012-104-0040.