text:
# The McCord model for the tensor product of a space and a commutative ring spectrum

## 1. Introduction

The point of this paper is to tell a story that begins with a 1969 paper of M.C.McCord \[McC\], and ends with various disparate objects of current interest, e.g. Goodwillie towers, Topological Hochschild Homology, and Topological André–Quillen Homology. Line by line, I think most of this story is known. However, taken as a whole, I think the older work sheds some light on the newer. Moreover, in this era of tremendous activity in homotopical algebra of various sorts, it seems important to remind ourselves that the genesis of many of the most useful ideas lies way back in the literature.

Conceptually, we feature the following categorical notion. Let $`𝒯`$ be the category of based topological spaces. If $`𝒞`$ is a category enriched over $`𝒯`$, there is the notion of the tensor product of a space $`K𝒯`$ with an object $`X𝒞`$: this is an object $`KX𝒞`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{Map}_𝒞(KX,Y)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_𝒞(X,Y))$$

for all $`X,Y𝒞`$.

We give an overview of the paper.

We consider various topological categories of structured objects. Let $`𝒜b`$ be the category of abelian topological monoids. Let $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be G.Segal’s category of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces \[Se\]: functors $`X:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the category of finite based sets. Let $`𝒜lg`$ be the category of commutative, associative, augmented $`S`$–algebras, where $`S`$ is the sphere spectrum.

These categories are closely related. First of all, an abelian topological monoid $`A`$ defines in a natural way $`A^\times 𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In Segal’s terminology, $`A^\times `$ is an example of a ‘special’ object, and the abelian topological groups define ‘very special objects’. A very special $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–space is roughly the same thing as an infinite loopspace, and, in this introduction, we will tempt fate and often identify these two notions. Now we note that if $`X`$ is either an abelian topological monoid or an infinite loopspace, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}X_+`$ is in the category $`𝒜lg`$.

With $`𝒞`$ equal to any of these three categories, McCord’s construction yields a functor111McCord uses the notation $`B(A,K)`$ where we use $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$; I have borrowed my notation from \[FF, Chapter 9\].

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}:𝒯\times 𝒞𝒞.$$

His construction generalizes the infinite symmetric product construction studied by Dold and Thom in the 1950’s: with $``$ denoting the natural numbers, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$.

If $`𝒞`$ is either $`𝒜b`$ or $`𝒜lg`$, there is an isomorphism

(1.1)
$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)=KX.$$

See Proposition 2.2(1), and Proposition 4.8. The latter proposition (or at least its proof) seems to be new.

Equation (1.1) is almost true if $`𝒞=𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. S. Schwede \[S\], following Bousfield and Friedlander \[BF\], defines a model category structure on $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, having the very special $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces as the fibrant objects, and such that $`ho(𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is equivalent to the homotopy category of connective spectra. With this structure, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)`$ preserves fibrant objects and the natural map $`KX\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ is a weak equivalence.

McCord’s interest stemmed from the following fundamental property:

(1.2)  for $`X𝒜b`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,X)`$ is a classifying space for $`X`$.
Suitably interpreted, the same result is true if $`X`$ is a special object of $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For $`R𝒜lg`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,R)`$ is also of interest: $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,R)=S^1R`$ equals $`THH(R;S)`$, the Topological Hochschild Homology of $`R`$ with coefficients in the bimodule $`S`$. See Proposition 7.1; this is deduced from a similar result due to J. McClure, R. Schwänzl, and R. Vogt \[MSV\].

The construction has two other basic properties, both discussed by McCord when $`𝒞=𝒜b`$.

Firstly, there are natural isomorphisms

(1.3)
$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,X)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,X)).$$

From this and (1.2) one quickly deduces that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,X)`$ is an $`n`$–fold delooping of $`X`$ for $`X𝒜b`$, or for very special $`X𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For $`RAlg`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,R)`$ can be interpreted as ‘higher’ Topological Hochshild Homology of $`R`$.

Secondly, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ comes with a nice increasing filtration. When $`𝒞=𝒜b`$, one easily sees that there is an equivalence

(1.4)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}X^d,$$

and little variants of this hold when $`𝒞=𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`𝒜lg`$. Here $`K^{(d)}`$ denotes the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$–space obtained from the $`d`$–fold smash product $`K^d`$ by collapsing the the fat diagonal to a point.222This notation, which the author likes, comes from \[Ar\].

This much of the story will be fleshed out in sections 2, 3, and 4, with the statement about $`THH`$ appearing in §7.

In \[B\], it is observed that $`𝒜lg`$ is Quillen equivalent to the category $`𝒜lg^{}`$, of commutative, nonunital $`S`$–algebras. In §5, we discuss the corresponding filtered $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}`$ construction, which again agrees with the tensor product. This reduced construction is ‘smaller’ than what is done in $`𝒜lg`$, and the category $``$ of finite sets and epimorphisms replaces $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The quotients of the filtration, and the use of $``$, may look vaguely familiar to readers of \[Ar\], and this is what we explain in §6. There is a contravariant functor from $`𝒯`$ to $`𝒜lg^{}`$ sending a based space $`Z`$ to the ring spectrum $`R=D(Z)`$, where $`D`$ denotes the S–dual, and the multiplication on $`R`$ is induced by the diagonal on $`Z`$. We note that there is a natural map in $`𝒜lg^{}`$

$$KD(Z)D(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z))$$

and reinterprete the main convergence theorem of \[Ar\] as saying that the adjoint of this,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)D(KD(Z)),$$

is an equivalence if both $`Z`$ and $`K`$ are finite dimensional complexes, and the dimension of $`K`$ is less than the connectivity of $`Z`$. See Theorem 6.6. Since $`KD(Z)`$ has a nice increasing filtration, the S–dual is a tower of fibrations. This tower is visibly equivalent to the tower found by Arone, and is thus the Goodwillie tower associated to the functor sending a space $`X`$ to the spectrum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)`$.

In §7, we discuss the following construction. Given $`R𝒜lg`$, nice properties of $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ as a functor of $`K`$ allow us to define a filtered spectrum $`TAQ(R)`$ by

$$TAQ(R)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{hocolim}\mathrm{\Omega }^n\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,R).$$

This is one of various equivalent definitions of the Topological André–Quillen spectrum of $`R`$. When $`R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}X_+`$, with $`X`$ an infinite loopspace, $`TAQ(R)`$ is the connective delooping of $`X`$. When $`R=D(Z_+)`$, the filtered spectrum $`TAQ(R)`$ is related to constructions studied by the author in \[K3\].

Using (1.4), one can identify the quotients of the filtration of $`TAQ(R)`$:

(1.5)
$$F_dTAQ(R)/F_{d1}TAQ(R)\mathrm{\Sigma }K_d_{h\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(R/S)^d,$$

where $`K_d`$ is the $`d^{th}`$ partition complex which arose in the work of Arone and Mahowald on the Goodwillie tower of the identity \[AM\].

In §8 we note that applying ordinary cohomology with field coefficients $`𝔽`$ to the filtered spectra $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,R)`$ and $`TAQ(R)`$ yield spectral sequences converging to $`H^{}(S^nR;𝔽)`$ and $`H^{}(TAQ(R);𝔽)`$, and having $`E_1`$ terms isomorphic to known functors of $`H^{}(R;𝔽)`$: see Theorem 8.1. These spectral sequences appear to be unexplored, even in the case when $`R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}X_+`$, with $`X`$ an infinite loop space, so that, e.g., the $`TAQ(R)`$ spectral sequence is calculating the cohomology of a connective spectrum from knowledge of the cohomology of its $`0^{th}`$–space. As examples, we use results of ours from \[K3\] to explain how the spectral sequence works, when $`𝔽`$ has characteristic 2, in the cases $`R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(/2_+)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(S_+^1)`$, and, most interestingly, $`D(S_+^1)`$.

In the Appendix, we note how our models need to be slightly tweaked when one considers commutative unital $`S`$–algebras not necessarily augmented.

Very influential to me in my understanding of the older work surveyed in this paper was Chapter of 9 of the unpublished book The actions of the classical small categories of topology by Bill and Ed Floyd \[FF\]. Writing this book was Ed’s project in the late 1980’s, after returning to ordinary academic life after finishing a term as provost of the University of Virginia. I have also benefited from conversations with Mike Mandell, Bill Dwyer, and Greg Arone.

Versions of this work were presented at talks at the Johns Hopkins topology conference in the spring of 2000, and at the Union College topology and category theory conference of fall 2001.

## 2. McCord’s construction

Let $`K`$ be a based space with basepoint $``$, and let $`A`$ be an abelian topological monoid.

Imagine using (1.1) to guide the construction $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$. As a first experiment, suppose $`A=`$. In this case (1.1) tells us that, for all $`A𝒜b`$, we should have

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,),A)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(,A)).$$

But, since $``$ is the free abelian (topological) monoid on one generator, we can identify $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(,A)`$ with $`A`$. Thus we are asking that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)`$ satisfy

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,),A)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,A).$$

In other words, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)`$ should be the free topological abelian monoid generated by $`K`$, a.k.a. $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$.

Note that elements in $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ are words of the form $`k_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}k_d^{n_d}`$, with $`k_iK`$ and $`n_i`$. This suggests a definition.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ be the abelian topological monoid with generators $`k^a`$ with $`kK`$ and $`aA`$ subject to the relations:

(i) $`^a=`$ for all $`aA`$,

(ii) $`k^0=`$ for all $`kK`$,

(iii) $`k^{a_1}k^{a_2}=k^{a_1+a_2}`$ for all $`a_1,a_2A`$.

Viewing $`k^a`$ as an element in $`K\times A`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ is topologized as the evident quotient space of $`_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}(K\times A)^d`$.

Note that the abelian topological monoid satisfying only the relations of type (i) and (ii) is $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KA)`$. If $`B`$ is another abelian topological monoid, a monoid map $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KA)B`$ corresponds to a map of topologial spaces $`\varphi :KAB`$ which itself corresponds to a map $`K\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(A,B)`$. This latter map takes values in $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(A,B)`$ exactly when $`\varphi (k,a_1+a_2)=\varphi (k,a_1)\varphi (k,a_2)`$. Thus we see that the quotient of $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KA)`$ having type (iii) relations imposed satisfies the universal property of $`KA`$. (Compare with \[FF, p.164\].) We have checked the first part of the next proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2.

There are the following natural identifications in $`𝒜b`$.

(1) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)=KA`$.

(2) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^0,A)=A`$.

(3) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,A)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,A))`$.

(4) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,A)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,A)`$.

The last three parts of this proposition follow formally from statement (1). For example, (3) follows by manipulating adjunctions:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,A),B)& =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(KL,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(A,B))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(L,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(A,B)))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,A),B))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜b}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,A)),B).\hfill \end{array}$$

For statement (4), one needs to also note that the coproduct in $`𝒜b`$ is the product. (In the next section, we will see that there are also reasonable direct proofs of (3) and (4).)

In the introduction to \[McC\], McCord comments that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(,A)`$ “has a tendancy to convert cofibrations …to quasifibrations”, and proves this in various cases \[McC, Thm.8.8\]. Note that statement (4) of the last proposition nicely illustrates his statement.

In particular, when applied to the cofibration $`S^0IS^1,`$ his observations suggest that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(I,A)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,A)`$ is a quasifibration with homotopy fiber $`A=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^0,A)`$. One has

###### Proposition 2.3.

If $`A`$ has a nondegenerate base point, then $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,A)`$ is a classifying space for $`A`$.

Combined with statement (3) of the previous proposition, this implies

###### Corollary 2.4.

In this case, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,A)`$ is an $`n`$–fold classifying space of $`A`$.

With such a mild point set hypothesis, this proposition and corollary occur as \[FF, Cor.9.16\].

We end this section by noting that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ is filtered by letting the $`d^{th}`$ filtration, which we denote $`F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$, be the evident quotient of $`_{r=0}^d(K\times A)^r`$. Let $`i:\mathrm{\Delta }(K,d)K^d`$ denote the inclusion of the fat diagonal into the $`d`$–fold smash product. Under reasonable conditions, e.g. if $`K`$ is a based C.W. complex, the inclusion $`i`$ will be a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$–equivariant cofibration, and we let $`K^{(d)}=K^d/\mathrm{\Delta }(K,d)`$. Assuming the basepoint in $`A`$ is also nondegenerate, the inclusion $`F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ will be a cofibration, and there is a homeomorphism

(2.1)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}A^d.$$

Statements similar to this appear in \[McC, §6\].

###### Remark 2.5.

One should note that specializing the filtration on $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ to $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ does not yield the standard filtration on $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$. For example, in this paper an element $`k^2\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K)`$ would be in filtration 1.

## 3. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces and Segal’s theorem

Our first goal in this section is to rewrite our construction $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)`$ in a way allowing for generalization.

We begin by defining more precisely the category $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the category with objects the based finite sets $`\mathrm{𝟎}=\mathrm{}_+`$ and $`𝐧=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}_+`$, $`n1`$, and with all based functions as morphisms. Note that $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is both an initial and terminal object.

We remark that, unfortunately, it was the opposite of this category that was called $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in \[Se\], and the literature is strewn with inconsistent notation.

A $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–space is then defined to be a covariant functor $`X:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯`$ that is ‘based’ in the sense that it sends $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to the one point space. These are the objects of a category $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ having the natural transformations as morphisms. This is a category enriched over $`𝒯`$: the set of morphisms between two $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces, $`\mathrm{Map}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,X^{})`$, has a natural topology. Similarly, a based contravariant functor $`Y:\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}𝒯`$ will be called a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}`$–space, and these are objects in a topological category $`𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}`$.

###### Example 3.2.

If $`A`$ is an abelian topological monoid, there is an associated $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–space $`A^\times `$ defined as follows. Firstly, $`A^\times (𝐧)=A^n`$. Then, given $`\alpha :𝐧𝐦`$, the $`i^{th}`$ component of $`\alpha _{}:A^nA^m`$ sends $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ to $`a_j`$, with the product running over $`j`$ such that $`\alpha (j)=i`$. This product is interpreted to be the unit of $`A`$ if there are no such $`j`$.

###### Example 3.3.

Since, for any $`K𝒯`$, $`K^n=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(𝐧,K)`$, there is the evident $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}`$–space $`K^\times `$ with $`K^\times (𝐧)=K^n`$.

Note that the constructions in these last examples embed $`𝒜b`$ into $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`𝒯`$ into $`𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}`$, as a full subcategories.

We now recall the coend construction. If $`X`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–space and $`Y`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}`$–space, we let $`Y_\mathrm{\Gamma }X𝒯`$ denote the quotient space

$$\underset{n}{}Y(𝐧)X(𝐧)/(),$$

where $`\alpha ^{}(y)xy\alpha _{}(x)`$ generates the equivalence relation.

It is useful to observe that, because $`X(\mathrm{𝟎})==Y(\mathrm{𝟎})`$, $`Y_\mathrm{\Gamma }X𝒯=Y\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$, where $`Y\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ is the quotient space

$$\underset{n}{}Y(𝐧)\times X(𝐧)/(),$$

where $`\alpha ^{}(y)xy\alpha _{}(x)`$ generates the equivalence relation.

By inspection, one observes

###### Lemma 3.4.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A)=K^\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }A^\times `$.

This suggests a generalization of our construction.

###### Definition 3.5.

Given $`KT`$ and $`X𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, let $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)=K^\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$.

A couple of remarks are now in order.

Firstly, a Yoneda’s lemma type argument shows that

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(𝐧,X)=X(𝐧).$$

Thus, as a functor of $`K`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ extends $`X`$ to $`𝒯`$; more precisely, this is the left Kan extension \[MacL, Chap.X\].

Secondly, we can extend our construction to

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}:𝒯\times 𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

by first letting $`X_n(𝐦)=X(\mathrm{𝐧𝐦})`$, and then by defining

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)(𝐧)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X_n).$$

It is natural to wonder if $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ can be then be interpreted as a tensor product in $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Alas, this is not the case: the simple minded construction $`KX`$ defined by $`(KX)(𝐧)=KX(𝐧)`$ is easily seen to play this role333One can then formally deduce that, given $`A,B𝒜b`$, the natural map $`KA^\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A^\times )`$ induces a homeomorphism
$$\mathrm{Map}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A^\times ),B^\times )=\mathrm{Map}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(KA^\times ,B^\times ).$$
.

Since $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ is not the tensor product in $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, formal arguments used to prove the last three statements in Proposition 2.2 don’t apply. However, we still can prove suitable versions of these.

First of all, the two remarks above (along with the observation that $`\mathrm{𝟏}=S^0`$) combine to show that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^0,X)=X`$.

Less obvious are the other two. Statement (3) of Proposition 2.2 is unchanged in our greater generality.

###### Proposition 3.6.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,X)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,X))`$.

To generalize statement (4), let $`a:\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the functor sending $`(𝐦,𝐧)`$ to $`𝐦+𝐧`$. Pulling back by $`a`$ defines $`a^{}:𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

###### Proposition 3.7.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,X)=(K^\times \times L^\times )\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}a^{}(X)`$.

Proposition 2.2(4) follows from this, once one observes that

$$a^{}(A^\times )=A^\times \times A^\times ,$$

so that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,A^\times )& =(K^\times \times L^\times )\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}(A^\times \times A^\times )\hfill \\ & =(K^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }A^\times )\times (L^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }A^\times )\hfill \\ & =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,A^\times )\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,A^\times ).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`m:\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the functor sending $`(𝐦,𝐧)`$ to $`\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}`$444More precisely, $`m`$ is the smash product followed by the lexicographic identification of $`𝐦𝐧`$ with $`\mathrm{𝐦𝐧}`$.. We let $`a_{}:𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}`$ and $`m_{}:𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}}`$ respectively denote the left adjoints to pulling back by $`a`$ and $`m`$. We have two fundamental lemmas.

###### Lemma 3.8.

$`m_{}(K^\times \times L^\times )=(KL)^\times `$.

###### Lemma 3.9.

$`a_{}(K^\times \times L^\times )=(KL)^\times `$.

Assuming these for the moment, Proposition 3.6 and Proposition 3.7 follow. For example, using Lemma 3.8, we have identifications

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,X))& =K^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }(L^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X_{})\hfill \\ & =(K^\times \times L^\times )\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}m^{}(X)\hfill \\ & =m_{}(K^\times \times L^\times )\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X\hfill \\ & =(KL)^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X\hfill \\ & =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,X),\hfill \end{array}$$

and Proposition 3.6 follows. The proof of Proposition 3.7 is similar.

###### Proof of Lemma 3.8.

Given a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}\times \mathrm{\Gamma }^{op}`$–space $`Y`$, $`m_{}(Y)`$ is explicitly given by

$$m_{}(Y)(𝐜)=\underset{𝐜m}{colim}Y$$

where $`𝐜m`$ is the category with objects all triples $`(𝐚,𝐛,\gamma )`$ with $`\gamma :𝐜\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}`$, and morphisms given by pairs $`(\alpha :𝐚𝐚^{},\beta :𝐛𝐛^{})`$ making an appropriate diagram commute.

One such triple is $`(𝐜,𝐜,\mathrm{\Delta })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝐜\mathrm{𝐜𝐜}`$ is the diagonal, and there is a canonical morphism from this triple to any other triple $`(𝐚,𝐛,\gamma )`$ given by the two components of $`\gamma :𝐜\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}`$. It follows that the canonical map $`Y(𝐜,𝐜)\underset{𝐜m}{colim}Y`$ is a quotient map.

Now we specialize to $`Y=K^\times \times L^\times `$. Both $`\underset{𝐜m}{colim}K^\times \times L^\times `$ and $`(KL)^c`$ are quotients of $`K^c\times L^c`$, thus we just need to verify that each maps to the other, as quotient spaces of $`K^c\times L^c`$.

To construct a map from the former to the latter, we observe that that the smash product construction,

$$\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(A,K)\times \mathrm{Map}_𝒯(B,L)\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(AB,KL),$$

specializes to give natural maps

$$:K^aL^b(KL)^{ab}.$$

Thus, associated to a triple $`(𝐚,𝐛,\gamma )`$, there is a canonical map

$$K^aL^b\stackrel{}{}(KL)^{ab}\stackrel{\gamma ^{}}{}(KL)^c,$$

and these induce the needed map $`\underset{𝐜m}{colim}K^\times \times L^\times (KL)^c`$.

To construct a map in the other direction, we observe that $`(KL)^c`$ is the quotient of $`K^c\times L^c`$ obtained by collapsing to a point the subspace

$$\{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_c,l_1,\mathrm{},l_c)|\text{ for all }i\text{, either }k_i=\text{ or }l_i=\}.$$

One checks easily that this subspace is precisely the union of the images of maps

$$\alpha ^{}\times \beta ^{}:K^a\times L^bK^c\times L^c$$

such that the composite $`𝐜\stackrel{\Delta }{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐜}\stackrel{\alpha \beta }{}\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}`$ is the constant map $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Thus the subspace maps to the basepoint in $`\underset{𝐜m}{colim}K^\times \times L^\times `$, i.e. the projection $`K^c\times L^c\underset{𝐜m}{colim}K^\times \times L^\times `$ factors through $`(KL)^c`$. ∎

###### Sketch proof of Lemma 3.9.

This follows easily from the observation that there are canonical decompositions

$$(KL)^c=K^aL^b,$$

with the wedge running over bijections $`\gamma :𝐜(𝐚+𝐛)`$ which are order preserving when restricted to $`\gamma ^1((𝐚+𝐛)𝐚)`$ and $`\gamma ^1((𝐚+𝐛)𝐛)`$. ∎

###### Remarks 3.10.

The two lemmas include the statements that wedge and smash are the left Kan extensions to $`𝒯\times 𝒯`$ of the composites $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{𝑎}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{𝑚}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒯`$.

We suspect that Lemma 3.9 has been observed by others. Lemma 3.8 seems less familiar. (Compare our proof of Proposition 3.6 to the proof of \[Se, Lemma 3.7\].) We note that $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }\times 𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{}{}𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{m_{}}{}𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the smash product of \[L\].

The category of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces admits products in the obvious way: if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces, one lets $`(X\times Y)(𝐧)=X(𝐧)\times Y(𝐧)`$. We have

###### Proposition 3.11.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X\times Y)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,Y)`$.

To prove this, we first note that $`X\times Y=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(X\times Y)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:𝒯^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is induced by the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus we have identifications

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X\times Y)& =K^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(X\times Y)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(K^\times )\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}(X\times Y)\hfill \\ & =(K^\times \times K^\times )\times _{\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }}(X\times Y)\hfill \\ & =(K^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }X)\times (K^\times \times _\mathrm{\Gamma }Y)\hfill \\ & =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,Y),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used the next lemma.

###### Lemma 3.12.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(K^\times )=K^\times \times K^\times `$.

###### Proof.

This can be proved in various ways. Perhaps the slickest proof is to first note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is right adjoint to $`a`$. That $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}=a^{}`$ formally follows. Finally, it is evident that $`a^{}(K^\times )=K^\times \times K^\times `$. ∎

It remains, in this section, to discuss how the $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}`$ construction interacts with the homotopy theory of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces.

Define $`\pi _{}^s(X)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{colim}\pi _{+n}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,X))`$. The colimit here arises from maps $`S^1\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^{n1},X)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^n,X)`$ which themselves are special cases ($`K=S^1`$ and $`Y=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^{n1},X)`$) of the natural transformation

$$KY\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,Y).$$

If we define weak equivalences to be maps $`f:XY`$ with $`\pi _{}^s(f)`$ an isomorphism, then Bousfield and Friedlander \[BF\], following Segal \[Se\], showed that that the localized category $`𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }[weq^1]`$ is equivalent to the homotopy category of connective spectra. Even more, this equivalence is induced by a Quillen equivalence between appropriate model categories. Schwede \[S\] modifies the cofibration and fibrations slightly. All these authors work with simplicial sets rather than topological spaces, but \[S, Appendix B\] allows for some translation into our setting.

The upshot is roughly the following. Cofibrations are maps $`f:XY`$ where $`Y`$ is obtained from $`X`$ by successively attaching appropriate sorts of free $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces. Fibrant objects agree with Segal’s notion of a very special $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–space, where $`X`$ is very special means that each map

(3.1)
$$X(𝐚+𝐛)X(𝐚)\times X(𝐛)$$

is a weak equivalence of spaces, and also

(3.2)
$$\text{the monoid }\pi _0(X(\mathrm{𝟏}))\text{ is a group.}$$

###### Proposition 3.13.

If $`K`$ is a C.W. complex, then $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)`$ preserves cofibrations and acyclic cofibrations.

###### Proposition 3.14.

If $`K`$ is a C.W. complex, and $`X`$ is cofibrant, then the natural map

$$KX\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)$$

is a weak equivalence.

###### Proposition 3.15.

If $`K`$ is a C.W. complex, and $`X`$ is cofibrant and very special, then $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ is again very special.

###### Theorem 3.16.

If $`X`$ is cofibrant and very special, then $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(,X)`$ takes cofibration sequences of C.W. complexes to a homotopy fibration sequence. In particular, there are weak equivalences of spaces

$$X(\mathrm{𝟏})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^1,X)(\mathrm{𝟏})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^2,X)(\mathrm{𝟏})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}.$$

We briefly indicate why the propositions hold. Firstly, under the cofibrancy hypotheses, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ will be nicely filtered, and satisfy

(3.3)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)=K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(X(𝐝)/X_{sing}(𝐝))$$

where $`X_{sing}(𝐝)`$ denotes the union of all the images of maps $`X(𝐜)X(𝐝)`$ with $`c<d`$.

It follows then that then $`KX(\mathrm{𝟏})\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ is a weak equivalence through a stable range, and the first two of the propositions easily can be deduced.

For the next proposition, we note that, if (3.1) holds, then

$$X_{a+b}X_a\times X_b$$

is a strict equivalence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$–spaces, where a map is a strict equivalence if evaluating on any $`𝐧`$ yields a weak equivalence of spaces. Then we have equivalences

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)(𝐚+𝐛)& =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X_{a+b})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X_a\times X_b)\hfill \\ & =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X_a)\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X_b)\hfill \\ & =\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)(𝐚)\times \text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)(𝐛),\hfill \end{array}$$

showing that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)`$ again satisfies (3.1).

For the theorem, see \[Se, Prop.3.2\] and \[BF, Lemma 4.3\]. It follows that if $`X`$ is cofibrant and very special, then $`X(\mathrm{𝟏})`$ is canonically weakly equivalent to an infinite loop space. Furthermore, for any C.W. complex $`K`$, there are weak equivalences

(3.4)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,X)K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}X(\mathrm{𝟏})^d.$$

## 4. Commutative ring spectra

We now show that the results of the previous sections extend nicely to the world of structured ring spectra.

We work within the category $`𝒮`$, the category of $`S`$–modules studied in \[EKMM\]. Given $`K𝒯`$ and $`X𝒮`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}K`$, $`KX`$, and $`\mathrm{Map}(K,X)`$ will denote the usual $`S`$–modules555What we are calling $`\mathrm{Map}(K,X)`$ is $`F_S(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}K,X)`$ in \[EKMM\]..

Let $`𝒜lg`$ be the category of unital, commutative, associative, augmented $`S`$–algebras. Thus an object in $`𝒜lg`$ is an $`S`$–module $`R`$, together with multiplication $`\mu :RRR`$, unit $`\eta :SR`$ and counit $`ϵ:RS`$ satisfying the usual identities. Morphisms preserve all structure.

This category is enriched over $`𝒯`$: given $`R,Q𝒜lg`$, the morphism space $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(R,Q)`$ is based with basepoint $`R\stackrel{\mathit{ϵ}}{}S\stackrel{𝜂}{}Q`$. We also note that the coproduct in $`𝒜lg`$ of $`R`$ and $`Q`$ is $`RQ`$.

As observed in \[B, §1\], results in \[EKMM\] show that $`𝒜lg`$ has a topological model category structure in which weak equivalences are morphisms that are weak equivalences as maps of $`S`$–modules666In Basterra’s notation, $`𝒜lg`$ is denoted $`𝒞_{S/S}`$..

We have two important sources of examples.

###### Example 4.1.

If $`A𝒜b`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}A_+𝒜lg`$. More generally, if $`X`$ is an $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$–space (e.g. an infinite loop space), then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}X_+`$ is naturally an object in $`𝒜lg`$. (See \[M, Ex.IV.1.10\] and \[EKMM, §II.4\].)

###### Example 4.2.

Given a based space $`Z`$, let $`D(Z_+)`$ denote $`\mathrm{Map}(Z_+,S)`$. This is an object in $`𝒜lg`$: the unit and the counit are respectively induced by $`Z_+S^0`$ and $`S^0Z_+`$, and the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }:ZZ\times Z`$ induces the multiplication

$$D(Z_+)D(Z_+)D(Z_+Z_+)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}D(Z_+).$$

Given $`RAlg`$, we let $`R^{}:\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒮`$ denote the functor with $`R^{}(𝐧)=R^n`$ analogous to Example 3.2.

###### Definition 4.3.

Given $`K𝒯`$ and $`R𝒜lg`$, let $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)=K^\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }R^{}`$.

We will momentarily see that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is again an object in $`𝒜lg`$.

Proofs from §3 extend immediately to prove the next proposition.

###### Proposition 4.4.

There are the following natural identifications.

(1) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(S^0,R)=R`$.

(2) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,R)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,R)`$.

(3) $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,RQ)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,Q)`$.

A consequence of this proposition is that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ takes values in $`𝒜lg`$, with multiplication given by the composite

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,RR)\stackrel{\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\mu )}{}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R).$$

We note that this multiplication agrees with the composite

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KK,R)\stackrel{\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(,R)}{}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R),$$

where $`:KKK`$ is the fold map.

With this structure, all the identifications in the last proposition are as objects in $`𝒜lg`$, and we also have the next proposition, whose proof follows from the arguments of the last section.

###### Proposition 4.5.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(KL,R)=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(L,R))`$.

Now we check that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is the categorical tensor product in $`𝒜lg`$. The following lemmas are easily verified, where we use the following notation: with $`𝒞`$ either $`𝒯`$ or $`𝒮`$, and $`X`$ and $`Y`$ functors from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`𝒞`$, $`\mathrm{Map}_𝒞^\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,Y)`$ denotes the space of natural transformations from $`X`$ to $`Y`$.

###### Lemma 4.6.

For all $`K,L𝒯`$, $`\mathrm{Map}_𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^\times ,L^\times )=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,L)`$.

###### Lemma 4.7.

For all $`R,Q𝒜lg`$, $`\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^\mathrm{\Gamma }(R^{},Q^{})=\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(R,Q)`$.

###### Proposition 4.8.

For all $`K𝒯`$ and $`R𝒜lg`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`KR`$.

###### Proof.

We check that $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ satisfies the universal property of the tensor. Given $`K𝒯`$, and $`R,Q𝒜lg`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R),Q)& =\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)^{},Q^{})\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^\mathrm{\Gamma }(\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R^{}),Q^{})\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^\times _\mathrm{\Gamma }m^{}(R^{}),Q^{})\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^\times ,\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^\mathrm{\Gamma }(m^{}(R^{}),Q^{}))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^\times ,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(R^{},Q))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯^\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^\times ,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(R,Q)^\times )\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜\mathrm{lg}}(R,Q)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Here $`m:\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is multiplication as in the last section. ∎

As before, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is naturally filtered. Let $`R/S`$ denote the cofiber of $`\eta :SR`$. If $`K`$ is a C.W. complex, and $`\eta `$ is a cofibration, then the inclusion $`F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ will be a cofibration, and there is an isomorphism of $`S`$–modules

(4.1)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(R/S)^d.$$

## 5. The reduced model

It is sometimes useful to replace $`𝒜lg`$ by a slightly different category. Let $`𝒜lg^{}`$ be the category of nonunital, commutative, associative $`S`$–algebras (the category denoted $`𝒩_S`$ in \[B\]). Basterra observes that the functor $`S:𝒜lg^{}𝒜lg`$, that wedges a unit $`S`$ onto a nonunital algebra, has as right adjoint the augmentation ideal functor $`J:𝒜lg𝒜lg^{}`$, defined by letting $`J(R)`$ be the fiber of $`R\stackrel{\mathit{ϵ}}{}S`$. She then notes that, with a natural topological model category on $`𝒜lg^{}`$, these adjoint functors form a Quillen pair, and thus induce adjoint equivalences on the associated homotopy categories.

###### Example 5.1.

If $`Z`$ is a based space, $`J(D(Z_+))=D(Z)`$. The multiplication on $`D(Z)`$ is induced by the reduced diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }:ZZZ`$.

Our $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,)`$ construction has a ‘reduced’ analogue in $`𝒜lg^{}`$.

###### Definition 5.2.

Let $``$ be the category with objects $`𝐧`$, for $`n1`$, and with morphisms from $`𝐧`$ to $`𝐦`$ equal to all epimorphisms from $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ to $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

As observed in \[Ar\] (see also \[AK\]), a based space $`K`$ defines a functor $`K^{}:^{op}𝒯`$ with $`K^{}(𝐧)=K^n`$. Also, $`J𝒜lg^{}`$ defines $`J^{}:𝒮`$ in the obvious way.

###### Definition 5.3.

Given $`KT`$ and $`J𝒜lg^{}`$, let $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)=K^{}_{}J^{}`$.

The analogues of all the properties of $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ proved in the last section hold in our setting, with virtually identical proofs. In particular, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)`$ is again an object in $`𝒜lg^{}`$, and it agrees with the categorical tensor product $`KJ`$.

From the above comments, one can formally deduce the following isomorphism in $`𝒜lg`$.

###### Proposition 5.4.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)S=\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,JS)`$.

Though we won’t show this here, this proposition can also be given a direct proof, and there are analogues in other contexts. Readers may wish to compare this result with observations in \[P\].

As usual, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)`$ is filtered: if $`_d`$ denote the full subcategory of $``$ with objects $`𝐧`$ for $`nd`$, then we let $`F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)=K^{}__dJ^{}`$. If $`K`$ is a C.W. complex, then the inclusion $`F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)`$ will be a cofibration, and there is an isomorphism of $`S`$–modules

(5.1)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,J)K^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}J^d.$$

We note that the isomorphism of the last proposition is filtration preserving.

## 6. Reinterpretation of Arone’s tower for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,X)`$

In this section, we let $`K`$ be a finite C.W. complex.

In \[Ar\], G. Arone described a model for the Goodwillie tower of the functor sending a based space $`Z`$ to the $`S`$–module $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)`$. Here we show that, if $`Z`$ is a finite complex, his tower arises as the S–dual of the filtered object $`KD(Z)`$ of the last section.

We recall Arone’s construction and some of its properties \[Ar\]. For more detail, see also \[AK\].

###### Definitions 6.1.

Let $`Z`$ be a based space.

(i) Let $`P^K(Z)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^{}(K^{},Z^{})`$, the spectrum of natural transformations from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}K^{}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}Z^{}`$.

(ii) Let $`P_d^K(Z)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^_d(K^{},Z^{})`$.

(iii) Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K,Z):\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)P^K(Z)`$ be the natural transformation that sends $`f:KZ`$ to the natural transformation with $`n^{th}`$ component equal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}f^n:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}K^n\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}Z^n`$.

The spectrum $`P^K(Z)`$ is the inverse limit of the tower of fibrations

$$\mathrm{}P_{d+1}^K(Z)P_d^K(Z)P_{d1}^K(Z)\mathrm{},$$

and the $`d^{th}`$ fiber is isomorphic to

$$\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(K^{(d)},Z^d).$$

Because $`K^{(d)}`$ is finite, and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ action on this is free away from the basepoint, this fiber is naturally homotopy equivalent to the homotopy orbit spectrum

$$(D(K^{(d)})Z^d)_{h\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}.$$

From this last description one sees that the tower has the form of a Goodwillie tower, and also that the connectivity of the fibers goes up if the connectivity of $`Z`$ is greater than the dimension of $`K`$. Arone then proves that this is the Goodwillie tower of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)`$ by proving

###### Theorem 6.2.

\[Ar\] If the connectivity of $`Z`$ is greater than the dimension of $`K`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K,Z)`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

Now we connect these constructions to $`KD(Z)`$.

###### Definitions 6.3.

Let $`Z`$ be a based space.

(i) Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(K,Z):KD(Z)D(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z))`$ be the map in $`𝒜lg^{}`$ adjoint to the composite

$$K\stackrel{\text{eval}}{}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z),Z)\stackrel{𝐷}{}\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg^{}}(D(Z),D(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)).$$

(ii) Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }(K,Z):\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)D(KD(Z))`$ be the $`S`$–module map adjoint to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(K,Z)`$.

(iii) Let $`\alpha (K,Z):P^K(Z)D(KD(Z))`$ be the map of cofiltered $`S`$–modules defined as follows. Let $`i:Z^{}D(D(Z)^{})`$ be the natural transformation adjoint to $`D(Z)^{}D(Z^{})`$. Now let $`\alpha (K,Z)`$ be the composite induced by $`i`$:

$$\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^{}(K^{},Z^{})\stackrel{𝑖}{}\mathrm{Map}_𝒮^{}(K^{},D(D(Z)^{}))=\mathrm{Map}_𝒮(K^{}_{}D(Z)^{},S).$$

A check of the definitions verifies the next lemma.

###### Lemma 6.4.

There is a commutative diagram

###### Lemma 6.5.

$`\alpha (K,Z)`$ is a homotopy equivalence if $`Z`$ is a finite complex.

###### Proof.

If $`Z`$ is finite, then $`i:Z^nD(D(Z)^n)`$ is a an equivalence for all $`n`$. Now the lemma follows by observing that $`K^{}`$ is a cofibrant $`^{op}`$–space, or more simply, note that the fibers of the towers will be equivalences, as $`K^{(d)}`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$–complex for all $`d`$. (This has been noted before; see e.g. \[AK, McC\].) ∎

Summarizing, we conclude

###### Theorem 6.6.

If both $`K`$ and $`Z`$ are finite complexes, and the dimension of $`K`$ is less than the connectivity of $`Z`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(K,Z):\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)D(KD(Z))$$

is a weak equivalence, and thus the algebra map

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}(K,Z):KD(Z)D(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z))$$

can be identified as the map from a spectrum to its double dual.

We end this section by noting how the homological version of this discussion would go.

Let $`𝔽`$ be a field, $`H𝔽`$ the associated commutative $`S`$–algebra, and $`𝒜lg_𝔽`$ the category of commutative, nonunital $`H𝔽`$ algebras. Let $`K_𝔽J𝒜lg_𝔽`$ denote the tensor product of a based space $`K`$ and an $`J𝒜lg_𝔽`$. As before, one learns that

$$K_𝔽J=K^\times _{}J^{},$$

where smash products are taken over $`H𝔽`$.

Now let $`D_𝔽(Z)=\mathrm{Map}(Z,H𝔽)`$, the $`H𝔽`$–module whose homotopy groups are the cohomology groups of $`Z`$ with $`𝔽`$–coefficients. In this case, the natural map $`i:H𝔽Z^nD_𝔽(D_𝔽(Z)^n)`$ is an equivalence for any space $`Z`$ with $`H_{}(Z;𝔽)`$ of finite type. Reasoning as before, from Arone’s theorem one deduces

###### Theorem 6.7.

If $`K`$ is a finite complex of dimension less than the connectivity of $`Z`$, and $`H_{}(Z;𝔽)`$ is of finite type, then the natural map in $`𝒜lg_𝔽`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:K_𝔽D_𝔽(Z)D_𝔽(\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,Z)),$$

is an equivalence.

###### Remark 6.8.

It seems likely that this theorem can be deduced from older convergence results for the Anderson spectral sequence \[An\], and then one can run our arguments backwords, and deduce Arone’s theorem. The novelty would then be to identify the filtration as Arone did.

## 7. Topological Hochschild homology and Topological Andre–Quillen homology

Let $`THH(R;M)`$ denote the Topological Hochschild homology spectrum associated to a $`S`$–algebra $`R`$ and an $`R`$–bimodule $`M`$ (see e.g. \[EKMM, Chap.9\]). If $`R`$ is commutative and augmented, then $`ϵ:RS`$ makes $`S`$ into an $`R`$–bimodule. We have

###### Proposition 7.1.

$`S^1R=THH(R;S)`$.

###### Proof.

This is a variant of a theorem of J. McClure, R. Schwanzl, and R. Vogt \[MSV\]. They show that if $`R`$ is a commutative $`S`$–algebra, then $`THH(R;R)`$ is the tensor product of $`R`$ with $`S^1`$ with the tensor product in the category of commutative $`S`$–algebras. In the appendix, we note that if $`R`$ is also augmented, then this would agree with $`S_+^1R𝒜lg`$. Thus

$$THH(R;R)=S_+^1R.$$

Applying $`R`$ to the pushout square in $`𝒯`$

yields a pushout square in $`𝒜lg`$

and we conclude that

$$S^1R=(S_+^1R)_RS=THH(R,R)_RS=THH(R;S).$$

Given $`K𝒯`$ and $`R𝒜lg`$, there is a natural map

$$KRKR,$$

and thus

$$K(LR)K(LR)=(KL)R.$$

This map is easily seen to be filtration preserving.

Specializing to the case when $`K=S^1`$, and $`L=S^n`$ yield filtration preserving maps

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(S^nR)S^{n+1}R,$$

or, equivalently,

$$S^nR\mathrm{\Omega }(S^{n+1}R).$$

###### Definition 7.2.

Let $`TAQ(R)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{hocolim}\mathrm{\Omega }^nS^nR.`$

M. Mandell has shown the author that this definition agrees with other definitions of Topological André Quillen Homology in the literature, e.g. \[B\]. In particular $`TAQ(R)`$ is homotopy equivalent to the cofiber of $`J(R)J(R)J(R)`$777Strictly speaking, R should be replaced by by a fibrant object in $`𝒜lg`$ and then $`J(R)`$ replaced by a cofibrant object in $`𝒜lg^{}`$..

As the next example makes clear, $`TAQ(R)`$ can be viewed as an ‘infinite delooping’ of $`R`$.

###### Example 7.3.

If $`X`$ is a connective $`S`$–module, $`TAQ(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mathrm{}}X)_+)X.`$ To see this, just recall that $`S^n`$ yields the $`(n1)`$–connected $`n`$–fold delooping of an infinite loopspace.

Note that $`TAQ(R)`$ is filtered with

$$F_dTAQ(R)/F_{d+1}TAQ(R)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{hocolim}\mathrm{\Sigma }^nS^{n(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(R/S)^d.$$

As in \[AM\], let $`K_d`$ be the unreduced suspension of the classifying space of the poset of nontrivial partitions of a set with $`d`$ elements.

###### Lemma 7.4.

\[AD\] There is a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$–equivariant map

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{hocolim}\mathrm{\Sigma }^nS^{n(d)}\mathrm{\Sigma }K_d$$

that is a nonequivariant equivalence.

The original short proof of this, due to Arone and Mahowald, appears in \[K3, Appendix\].

###### Corollary 7.5.

There is a homotopy equivalence

$$F_dTAQ(R)/F_{d+1}TAQ(R)(\mathrm{\Sigma }K_d(R/S)^d)_{h\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}.$$

## 8. Spectral sequences and examples

Applying homology or cohomology with $`𝔽`$–coefficients to our filtered models for $`S^nR`$ and $`TAQ(R)`$ yields highly structured convergent spectral sequences with $`E_1`$ terms equal to known functors of $`H_{}(R;𝔽)`$. To see why this is true, we note that there is an explicit equivariant duality map \[AK\]

$$F(^n,d)_+S^{n(d)}S^{nd},$$

where $`F(^n,d)`$ is the usual configuration space of $`d`$ distinct points in $`^n`$. Thus the homology calculations of \[CLM\] apply.

To be more precise, let $`\{E_r^,(S^nR;𝔽)\}`$ and $`\{E_r^,(TAQ(R);𝔽)\}`$ respectively denote the spectral sequences for computing $`H^{}(S^nR𝔽)`$ and $`H^{}(TAQ(R);𝔽)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(R;𝔽)`$ denote the reduced cohomology of $`R`$, i.e. $`H^{}(J(R);𝔽)`$.

###### Theorem 8.1.

For $`R𝒜lg`$ with $`H_{}(R;𝔽)`$ of finite type, there are natural isomorphisms as follows.

1. If $`𝔽`$ has characteristic 0, then

$$E_1^,(S^nR;𝔽)=S^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{1n}L(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(R;𝔽))),$$

and

$$E_1^,(TAQ(R);𝔽)=\mathrm{\Sigma }L(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(R;𝔽))).$$
2. If $`𝔽`$ has characteristic p, then

$$E_1^,(S^nR;𝔽)=S^{}(_n(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{1n}L_r(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(R;𝔽)))),$$

and

$$E_1^,(TAQ(R);𝔽)=(\mathrm{\Sigma }L_r(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(R;𝔽)))).$$

In this theorem, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^dV`$ denotes the $`d`$–fold shift of a graded vector space $`V`$, $`L`$ is the free Lie algebra functor, $`L_r`$ is the free restricted Lie algebra functor, $`S^{}`$ is the free commutative algebra functor888One has sign conventions of the usual sort., and $``$ and $`_n`$ are appropriate free Dyer–Lashof operation functors.

The author plans to write more about this elsewhere.

We end with three examples. All are nontrivial, and most of what I say follows immediately from work done in \[K3\]. More detail about the last example will appear in \[K4\].

###### Example 8.2.

If $`R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}S_+^1`$, then $`TAQ(R)\mathrm{\Sigma }H`$. At least when localized at 2, the filtration of $`TAQ(R)`$ will correspond to the symmetric product of spheres filtration of $`H`$999This presumably holds integrally: \[AD, Thm.1.14\] says that the filtration quotients are correct.. In particular, the $`d^{th}`$ associated graded spectrum is contractible unless $`d`$ is a power of $`2`$,

$$F_{2^k}=\mathrm{\Sigma }SP^{2^k}(S),\text{ and }F_{2^k}/F_{2^{k1}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{k+1}L(k).$$

Here $`L(k)`$ is as in \[MP\]. The boundary maps of the filtration yields the complex of spectra

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }L(2)\mathrm{\Sigma }L(1)\mathrm{\Sigma }L(0)H$$

occurring in the Whitehead conjecture \[K1\]. The sequence is exact in homotopy, but zero in mod 2 homology: indeed, the spectral sequence for computing $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }H;𝔽_2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }A/ASq^1`$ collapses at $`E_1`$.

###### Example 8.3.

If $`R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}/2_+`$, then $`TAQ(R)H/2`$. The $`d^{th}`$ associated graded spectrum is contractible unless $`d`$ is a power of $`2`$,

$$F_{2^k}=SP_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2^k}(S^0),\text{ and }F_{2^k}/F_{2^{k1}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^kM(k).$$

Here we recall \[MP\] that $`SP_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2^k}(S^0)`$ is defined to be the cofiber of the ‘diagonal’ $`\mathrm{\Delta }:SP^{2^{k1}}(S^0)SP^{2^k}(S^0)`$, and $`M(k)=L(k)L(K1)`$. As in the previous example, the boundary maps of the filtration yields the complex of spectra

$$\mathrm{}M(2)M(1)M(0)H/2$$

occurring in the mod 2 Whitehead conjecture \[K2\]. The sequence is exact in homotopy, but the spectral sequence for computing $`H_{}(H/2;𝔽_2)=A`$ collapses at $`E_1`$.

###### Example 8.4.

If $`R=D(S_+^1)`$, then $`TAQ(R)\mathrm{\Sigma }^1H`$. There are various ways to see this; in \[K4\], we will prove that $`S^2R\mathrm{\Sigma }HS^0`$. Localized at 2, the $`d^{th}`$ associated graded spectrum is contractible unless $`d`$ is a power of $`2`$, and

$$F_{2^k}/F_{2^{k1}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1SP_\mathrm{\Delta }^{2^k}(S^0).$$

Thus $`H^{}(F_{2^k}/F_{2^{k1}};𝔽_2)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1A/L_{k+1}`$, where $`L_k`$ is the span of all admissible sequences in the Steenrod algebra of length at least $`k`$. The boundary maps of the filtration yields a complex of spectra

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^2SP_\mathrm{\Delta }^4(S^0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^1SP_\mathrm{\Delta }^2(S^0)S^0$$

that is exact in cohomology: each map sends the bottom class of the cyclic $`A`$–module to $`Sq^1`$ applied to the bottom class of the next module.

## Appendix A Augmented versus nonaugmented ring spectra

Let $`𝒜lg_u`$ be the category of unital commutative $`S`$–algebras, but not necessarily augmented. Thus we have forgetful maps

$$𝒜lg𝒜lg_u𝒜lg^{}.$$

$`𝒜lg_u`$ is enriched over $`𝒯_u`$, the category of unbased topological spaces, so one can look for a convenient model for $`KR`$ with $`K𝒯_u`$ and $`R𝒜lg_u`$. In this appendix we describe such a model, and compare this to the construction in §4.

### A.1. $`KR`$ for unital commutative algebras

Let $`𝒮_u`$ be the category of $`S`$–modules under $`S`$, so an object is an $`S`$–module map $`\eta :SX`$.

###### Definition A.1.

Given $`K𝒯_u`$ and $`X𝒮_u`$, let $`K\overline{}X𝒮_u`$ be the pushout:

It is easy to check

###### Lemma A.2.

There is an adjunction

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝒮_u}(K\overline{}X,Y)=\mathrm{Map}_{𝒯_u}(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒮_u}(X,Y)).$$

Let $`𝒮et`$ be the category of finite sets. Given $`K𝒯_u`$, there is an apparent functor $`K^\times :𝒮et^{op}𝒯_u`$. Now note that, as it was in $`𝒜lg`$, $``$ is the coproduct in $`𝒜lg_u`$. Then $`R𝒜lg_u`$ defines $`R^{}:𝒮et𝒮_u`$.

###### Lemma A.3.

For all $`K,L𝒯_u`$, $`\mathrm{Map}_𝒯^{𝒮et}(K^\times ,L^\times )=\mathrm{Map}_{𝒯_u}(K,L)`$.

###### Lemma A.4.

For all $`R,Q𝒜lg_u`$, $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝒮_u}^{𝒮et}(R^{},Q^{})=\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(R,Q)`$.

###### Definition A.5.

Given $`K𝒯_u`$ and $`R𝒜lg_u`$, let

$$\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)=K^\times \overline{}_{𝒮et}R^{}.$$

As in §4, the lemmas combine to prove the analogue of Proposition 4.8.

###### Proposition A.6.

For all $`K𝒯_u`$ and $`R𝒜lg_u`$, $`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is again in $`𝒜lg_u`$ and is naturally isomorphic to the categorical tensor product $`KR`$.

$`\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)`$ is filtered in the usual way, and one gets an isomorphism of $`S`$–modules

(A.1)
$$F_d\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)/F_{d1}\text{SP}^{\mathrm{}}(K,R)(K_+)^{(d)}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}(R/S)^d.$$

We note that $`(K_+)^{(d)}`$ is just $`S`$ if $`d=0`$ and $`K^{\times d}/(\text{fat diagonal})`$ if $`d>0`$.

### A.2. The unbased versus the based construction

In this subsection, we denote the tensor in $`𝒜lg`$ by $``$ and the tensor in $`𝒜lg_u`$ by $`_u`$.

Given $`R𝒜lg_u`$, the product $`R\times S`$ will be in $`𝒜lg`$, with augmentation given by projection, and unit $`S\stackrel{\Delta }{}S\times SR\times S`$. This construction is right adjoint to the forgetful functor:

###### Lemma A.7.

Given $`Q𝒜lg`$ and $`R𝒜lg_u`$, there is an adjunction

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R)=\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg}(Q,R\times S).$$

Note that, if $`Q𝒜lg`$ and $`R𝒜lg_u`$, then $`\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R)`$ is based with basepoint $`QSR`$.

###### Proposition A.8.

Given $`K𝒯`$, $`Q𝒜lg`$, and $`R𝒜lg_u`$, there is an adjunction isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(KQ,R)=\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R)).$$

###### Proof.

We have natural isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(KQ,R)& =\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg}(KQ,R\times S)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg}(Q,R\times S))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_𝒯(K,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R)).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Corollary A.9.

If $`Q𝒜lg`$ and $`L𝒯_u`$, then $`L_+Q=L_uQ`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`K=L_+`$ in the proposition, and note that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Map}_𝒯(L_+,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R))& =\mathrm{Map}_{𝒯_u}(L,\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(Q,R))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Map}_{𝒜lg_u}(L_uQ,R).\hfill \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# Progress in understanding confinement.

## 1 Introduction.

In recent years a research program was developed to investigate dual superconductivity of the vacuum as a mechanism of confinement of color in QCD. The original idea goes back to t’Hooft and Mandelstam, and is, modulo duality transformation, the same as confinement of magnetic charges in a type 2 superconductor. The end points of an Abrikosov flux tube can be viewed as monopoles; their energy is proportional to the length of the flux tube, implying that an infinite energy is needed to pull apart at infinite distance a monopole antimonopole pair.

However, when going more in detail in the definition of monopoles in non abelian gauge theories, one discovers that monopoles are intrinsecally $`U(1)`$ configurations, so that a suitable $`U(1)`$ must be defined to expose them. The procedure is known as “abelian projection”, and associates a conserved magnetic charge to any operator in the adjoint representation.

Dual superconductivity can be investigated in connection with any abelian projection. The technique used is to detect if there is condensation of monopoles in the confined phase, but not in the deconfined one.

A disorder parameter has been defined, as the vacuum expectation value of an operator carrying magnetic charge. The infinite volume (thermodinamic) limit, where the phase transition can take place, is reached by a finite size scaling analysis. An unambigous demonstration emerges that magnetic charges condense in the confined phase, whilst the Hilbert space is split into superselected sectors of different magnetic charge in the deconfined regime. This happens in all the abelian projections which have been investigated, but also in an average over an infinite number of abelian projections. The conclusion is that the property is independent of the specific choice of the abelian projection. This possibility had already been considered in ref..

The conclusion is that the (yet unknown) dual excitations of the theory which condense in the confining vacuum have non zero magnetic charge in all the abelian projections.

The disorder parameter $`\mu `$ has the form

$$\mu =\frac{\stackrel{~}{Z}}{Z}$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is the partition function obtained from $`Z`$ by introducing in the action a magnetic defect on the slice of constant time $`t`$.

$`\mu `$ is then roughly an exponential of a volume integral; as such it fluctuates as te exponential of the square root of the volume, i.e. very wildly. A way to go around this difficulty was first suggested in ref.: it amounts to study instead of $`\mu `$ the quantity

$$\rho =\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mu $$

Since $`\mu (\beta =0)=1`$,

$$\mu =\mathrm{exp}_0^\beta \rho (x)𝑑x$$

The expected shape of $`\mu `$ at the phase transition is as in fig.1, and reflects in a shape like in fig.2 for $`\rho `$.

In the thermodynamical limit the shape of $`\mu `$ becomes more and more sharp at the transition point, or the negative peak in $`\rho `$ deeper and deeper. $`\rho `$ goes to a finite limit for $`T<T_c`$, goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`T>T_c`$ as $`\rho kL+k^{}`$, ($`k>0`$, $`L`$ lattice size), making $`\mu =0`$. At the transition, where the correlation length goes large with respect the lattice spacing, a scaling law is obeyed in pure gauge theory, of the form

$$\rho L^{1/\nu }=f(\tau L^{1/\nu })$$
(2)
where $`\tau =1T/T_c`$ and $`\nu `$ is the critical index of the correlation length.

Both $`T_c`$ and $`\nu `$ can be determined by fitting the scaling law to numerical determinations on lattices with different spatial size $`L`$.

A number of investigations have been performed in the last year, to settle specific points of this program. I will report on two of them.

* How to reconcile the nonzero vev of a charged operator with gauge invariance. This question is not very specific: it is also relevant for ordinary superconductors. However it is worth of discussion, being systematically asked by different people. It will be discussed in sect.2
* How does the construction work in the presence of dynamical quarks and how $`\mu `$ is related to the chiral order parameter $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$.

## 2 Gauge Invariance8

Superconductivity means condensation of charges in the ground state. The relativistic version of the Ginzburg-Landau free energy is

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu \phi 0^{}(D_\mu \phi )+\frac{m^2}{2}\phi ^{}\phi \frac{\lambda }{4}(\phi ^{}\phi )^2$$

Density of free energy plays in statistical mechanics the same role as effective lagrangean: it has to be used only at tree level.

$`m^2`$ and $`\lambda `$ depend on the temperature. If $`m^2>0`$ the potential has the typical mexican hat shape and $`\phi ^{}\phi =\frac{m^2}{\lambda }0`$ (Fig.3), meaning that $`\phi `$ itself is different from zero.

It can point, however in any direction in the complex plane Re $`\phi `$ Im $`\phi `$ along the circle of minimum, (fig.3). It would seem that on the average $`\phi =0`$ (Elitzur’s theorem). However usually a gauge fixing is made, e.g. the unitary gauge in which $`\phi `$ is real and positive and then $`\phi 0`$ is perfectly legitimate, it indicates that the ground state is not an eigenstate of charge, but is a superposition of states with different charges (Bogoliubov, Valatin).

In a gauge invariant formulation of the theory like lattice, however, the problem exists. A microscopic order parameter can be defined which is the vev of a charged, gauge invariant operator. Being gauge invariant it does not suffer of the restrictions of Elitzur’s theorem, and it signals at the same time that vacuum is not $`U(1)`$ invariant. The construction goes back to Dirac. Let $`\phi `$ be any charged operator. Under gauge transformations

$$\phi \phi e^{i\theta }$$

Define

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }=\phi \mathrm{exp}\left[id^4yC_\mu (xy)A_\mu (y)\right]$$
(3)
with

$$_\mu C_\mu =\delta ^4(xy)$$
(4)
Then under a gauge transformation with parameter vanishing at $`x\mathrm{}`$ the phase $`\overline{\theta }`$ of the second factor transforms as

$$\delta \overline{\theta }=id^4yC_\mu (xy)_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }=d^4y\mathrm{\Lambda }(y)\delta ^4(xy)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)$$

which cancels the phase change of $`\phi `$.

Under a global $`U(1)`$ $`A_\mu `$ is invariant and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ transforms as any honest charged operator.

The additional phase factor in eq.(3) can be chosen to be a Schwinger string, but then the phase factor spoils cluster property of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$. A choice which respects cluster property is Dirac choice

$$C_\mu (x)=(0,\stackrel{}{C}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}))\stackrel{}{C}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|^3}$$
(5)
which obeies eq.(1) and does not destroy cluster property.

Our operator $`\mu `$, used to detect dual superconductivity is magnetically charged, but invariant under magnetic gauge transformations, like $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$, and Dirac type, eq.(5). So it provides by its vev a perfectly legitimate disorder parameter.

## 3 Full QCD

It is a usual statement that somehow the symmetry responsible for confinement is different in pure gauge theories and in the presence of quarks. In pure gauge the order parameter is the vev of Polyakov line, and the symmetry $`Z_N`$, the centre of the group. Since in the presence of quarks $`Z_N`$ is explicitely broken, people say that the true order parameter is then the chiral condensate $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$, which signals spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry, the pseudoscalar bosons being the Goldstone particles. However also chiral symmetry is explicitely broken by the electroweak quark masses.

Moreover, even if it is intuitively clear that confinement can produce chiral symmetry breaking, it is not clear what relation exists between chiral symmetry and confinement. The numerical indication are that the two transitions take place at the same temperature, but in principle it is not understood why.

This state of the art is deeply unsatisfactory: if confinement has to be an absolute property due to symmetry, to explain the very low upper limits put by experiment on the rate of quark production in hadronic reactions, then an exact symmetry should characterize the difference between confined and unconfined phase.

Moreover there are many theoretical indications that the expansion in $`1/N_c`$, $`N_C`$ being the number of colors, is a good expansion, and that the theory at finite $`N_c`$ differs by small corrections from the limiting theory at $`N_C=\mathrm{}`$.

If this is true the mechanism of confinement is fixed by the limiting theory, and should be the same irrespective of $`N_c`$ and of the presence of quarks, which contribute in non leading terms in the expansion.

If dual superconductivity in all abelian projections is the symmetry behind confinement, then it should equally work in full QCD.

A large scale program of simulations in on the way to verify that this is the case.

Preliminary results show that indeed the symmetry pattern is the same in full QCD as in quenched theory.

A complication to the analysis is that, while in pure gauge theory there is only one length scale, say the physical correlation length, in the presence of quarks, quark masses are present,and the limit of infinite volume is a two scale problem.

A systematic investigation is on the way on the APE100 computers in Pisa.

Of course the big theoretical open problem is still open, of identifying the dual excitations which have non zero magnetic charge in all abelian projections, and whose effective theory should hopefully give a weak coupling description of the confined phase.

i thank all the people with whom i have collaborated in the research program, in particular G. Paffuti.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery  of a heavy top quark, with a mass of about 174 GeV which is close to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, raises the interesting possibility that the study of its properties will provide hints to the mechanism of symmetry breaking. While most of the gross properties of the top quark will be investigated at the Tevatron and LHC, more accurate determination of its couplings will have to await the construction of a linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider. The prospects of the construction of such a linear collider, which will provide detailed information also on the $`W^\pm `$, $`Z`$ and Higgs, are under intense discussion currently, and it is very important at the present time to focus on the details of the physics issues (  and references therein).

In this context, top polarization is of great interest. There has been a lot of work on production of polarized top quarks in the standard model (SM) in hadron  collisions, and $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions in the continuum , as well as at the threshold . A comparison of the theoretical predictions for single-top polarization as well as $`t\overline{t}`$ spin correlations with experiment can provide a verification of SM couplings and QCD corrections, or give clues to possible new physics beyond SM in the couplings of the top quark \[6-18\] (see  for a review of CP violation in top physics).

Undoubtedly, the study of the top polarization is possible because of its large mass, which ensures that the top decays fast enough for spin information not to be lost due to hadronization . Thus, kinematic distributions of top decay products can be analysed to obtain polarization information. However, most studies on top polarization, particularly on QCD corrections, have presumed an accurate reconstruction of the spin, and are generally not concerned with decay distributions. Some works do consider decay distributions, but in the top rest frame . In these cases, the onus of accurate determination of the spin quantization axis and that of the top energy-momentum and hence of the top rest frame, is largely left on the experimentalists. The remaining papers which discuss decay distributions in the laboratory frame are restricted to energy distributions of decay products , and do not calculate angular distributions.

The choice of spin quantization axis has also been an issue of discussion , and it has been remarked that a certain “off-diagonal” spin basis has certain advantages.

In an alternative approach, adopted usually in the context of the study of top polarization arising from new physics, predictions are made directly for decay-lepton  or bottom-quark  distributions in the laboratory frame. Such an approach makes the issue of the choice of spin basis for the top quark superfluous. Moreover, if the study is restricted to energy and polar angle distributions of top decay products, it even obviates the need for accurate determination of the energy or momentum direction of the top quark . Even in case azimuthal distributions are studied, where an additional direction is needed to define the azimuthal angle, the knowledge of the magnitude of the top momentum is not required. It is sufficient if the direction is determined with reasonable accuracy.

In this paper we shall be concerned with the laboratory-frame angular distribution of secondary leptons arising from the decay of the top quarks in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ in the context of QCD corrections to order $`\alpha _s`$. QCD corrections to top polarization in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ have been calculated earlier by many groups -. In cases when the corrections have been applied to the process including top decay, the discussion of angular distributions is restricted to the top rest frame . QCD corrections to the lepton energy distributions have been treated in the top rest frame in  and in the lab. frame in . This paper provides, for the first time, angular distribution in the $`e^+e^{}`$ centre-of-mass (c.m.) frame. As a first approach, this work is restricted, for simplicity, to the soft-gluon approximation (SGA). SGA has been found to give a satisfactory description of top polarization in single-top production , and it is hoped that it will suffice to give a reasonable quantitative description.

The study of the laboratory (lab.) frame angular distribution of secondary leptons, besides admitting direct experimental observation, has another advantage. It has been found  that the angular distribution is not altered, to first-order approximation, by modifications of the $`tbW`$ decay vertex, provided the $`b`$-quark mass is neglected. Thus, our result would hold to a high degree of accuracy even when $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ soft-gluon QCD corrections to top decay are included, since these can be represented by the same form factors  considered in . We do not, therefore, need to calculate these explicitly. It is sufficient to include $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ corrections to the $`\gamma t\overline{t}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$ vertices. This, of course, assumes that QCD corrections of the nonfactorizable type , where a virtual gluon is exchanged gluon between $`t`$ ($`\overline{t}`$) and $`\overline{b}`$ ($`b`$) from $`\overline{t}`$ ($`t`$) decay, can be neglected. We have assumed that these are negligible.

The procedure adopted here is as follows. We make use of effective $`\gamma t\overline{t}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$ vertices derived in earlier works in the soft-gluon approximation, using an appropriate cut-off on the soft-gluon energy. In principle, these effective vertices are obtained by suitably cancelling the infra-red divergences in the virtual-gluon contribution to the differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ against the real soft-gluon contribution to the differential cross section for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}g`$. For practical purposes, restricting to SGA, it is sufficient to modify the tree-level $`\gamma t\overline{t}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$ vertices suitably to produce the desired result. Thus, assuming $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ effective SGA vertices, we have obtained helicity amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$, and hence spin-density matrices for production. This implies an assumption that these effective vertices provide, in SGA, a correct approximate description of the off-diagonal density matrix elements as well as the diagonal ones entering the differential cross sections. Justification for this would need explicit calculation of hard-gluon effects, and is beyond the scope of this work.

We have considered three possibilities, corresponding to the electron beam being unpolarized ($`P=0`$), fully left-handed polarized ($`P=1`$), and fully right-handed polarized ($`P=+1`$). Since we give explicit analytical expressions, suitable modification to more realistic polarizations would be straightforward.

The results for the case of polar distributions of the decay lepton, restricted to $`\sqrt{s}`$ values of 400 and 800 GeV, were reported earlier in a short paper . We present here more details, as well as azimuthal distributions. We also consider the possibility of a higher energy option of the linear collider, with $`\sqrt{s}=1500`$ GeV.

Our main result may be summarized as follows. By and large the distribution in the polar angle $`\theta _l`$ of the secondary lepton w.r.t. the $`e^{}`$ beam direction is unchanged in shape on inclusion of QCD corrections in SGA. The $`\theta _l`$ distribution for $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV is very accurately described by overall multiplication by a $`K`$ factor ($`K1+\kappa >1`$), except for extreme values of $`\theta _l`$, and that too for the case of $`P=+1`$. For the other energies considered, $`\kappa `$ continues to be slowly varying function of $`\theta _l`$. This has the important consequence that earlier results on the sensitivity of lepton angular distributions or asymmetries to anomalous top couplings, obtained for $`\sqrt{s}`$ values around 400 GeV without QCD corrections being taken into account, would go through by a simple modification by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{K}`$ . The triple distributions in $`\theta _t`$, $`\theta _l`$ and $`\varphi _l`$ show an asymmetry around $`\varphi _l=180^{}`$, which is not present at Born level.

## 2 Derivation of angular distributions to $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$

We first obtain expressions for helicity amplitudes for

$$e^{}(p_e^{})+e^+(p_{e^+})t(p_t)+\overline{t}(p_{\overline{t}})$$
(1)
going through virtual $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ in the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. frame, including QCD corrections in SGA. The starting point is the QCD-modified $`\gamma t\overline{t}`$ and $`Zt\overline{t}`$ vertices obtained earlier (see, for example, ). We can write them  in the limit of vanishing electron mass as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^\gamma =e\left[c_v^\gamma \gamma _\mu +c_M^\gamma \frac{(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu }{2m_t}\right],$$
(2)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^Z=e\left[c_v^Z\gamma _\mu +c_a^Z\gamma _\mu \gamma _5+c_M^Z\frac{(p_tp_{\overline{t}})_\mu }{2m_t}\right],$$
(3)
where

$$c_v^\gamma =\frac{2}{3}(1+A),$$
(4)
$$c_v^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)(1+A),$$
(5)
$$c_a^\gamma =0,$$
(6)
$$c_a^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\right)(1+A+2B),$$
(7)
$$c_M^\gamma =\frac{2}{3}B,$$
(8)
$$c_M^Z=\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\right)B.$$
(9)
The form factors $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given to order $`\alpha _s`$ in SGA by

$`\mathrm{Re}A`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\alpha }_s[({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{4\omega _{\mathrm{max}}^2}{m_t^2}}4`$ (10)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2+3\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{\beta }}\{\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}(3\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1+\beta }}`$
$`+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{1\beta }})+4\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\pi ^2\}],`$
$$\mathrm{Re}B=\widehat{\alpha }_s\frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta }\mathrm{log}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta },$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{Im}B=\widehat{\alpha }_s\pi \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta },$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{\alpha }_s=\alpha _s/(3\pi )`$, $`\beta =\sqrt{14m_t^2/s}`$, and Li2 is the Spence function. $`\mathrm{Re}A`$ in eq. (10) contains the effective form factor for a cut-off $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ on the gluon energy after the infrared singularities have been cancelled between the virtual- and soft-gluon contributions in the on-shell renormalization scheme. Only the real part of the form factor $`A`$ has been given, because the contribution of the imaginary part is proportional to the $`Z`$ width, and hence negligibly small . The imaginary part of $`B`$, however, contributes to the triple angular distribution.

The vertices in eqs. (2) and (3) can be used to obtain helicity amplitudes for $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$, including the contribution of $`s`$-channel $`\gamma `$ and $`Z`$ exchanges. The result is, in a notation where the subscripts of $`M`$ denote the signs of the helicities of $`e^{}`$, $`e^+`$, $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$, in that order,

$$M_{+\pm \pm }=\pm \frac{4e^2}{s}\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\frac{1}{\gamma }\left[\left(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z\right)\beta ^2\gamma ^2\left(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z\right)\right],$$
(13)
$$M_{+\pm \pm }=\pm \frac{4e^2}{s}\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\frac{1}{\gamma }\left[\left(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z\right)\beta ^2\gamma ^2\left(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z\right)\right],$$
(14)
$$M_{+\pm }=\frac{4e^2}{s}\left(1\pm \mathrm{cos}\theta _t\right)\left[\pm \left(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z\right)+\beta \left(c_a^\gamma +r_Rc_a^Z\right)\right],$$
(15)
$$M_{+\pm }=\frac{4e^2}{s}\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\right)\left[\left(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z\right)\beta \left(c_a^\gamma +r_Lc_a^Z\right)\right],$$
(16)
where $`\theta _t`$ is the angle the top-quark momentum makes with the $`e^{}`$ momentum, $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{1\beta ^2}`$, and $`r_{L,R}`$ are related to the left- and right-handed $`Ze\overline{e}`$ couplings, and are given by

$$r_L=\left(\frac{s}{sm_Z^2}\right)\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _W\mathrm{cos}\theta _W},$$
(17)
$$r_R=\left(\frac{s}{sm_Z^2}\right)\mathrm{tan}\theta _W.$$
(18)
Since we are interested in lepton distributions arising from top decay, we also evaluate the helicity amplitudes for $`tbl^+\nu _l`$ ( or $`\overline{t}\overline{b}l^{}\overline{\nu }_l`$), which will be combined with the production amplitudes in the narrow-width approximation for $`t`$ ($`\overline{t}`$) and $`W^+`$ ($`W^{}`$). In principle, QCD corrections should be included also in the decay process. However, in SGA, these could be written in terms of effective form factors . As found earlier , in the linear approximation, these form factors do not affect the charged-lepton angular distribution. Hence we need not calculate these form factors. Nevertheless, to illustrate this point we will discuss an arbitrary $`\overline{t}bW`$ vertex, in the limit of vanishing bottom mass.

The most general $`\overline{t}bW`$ vertex may be written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tbW}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{tb}\overline{u}(p_b)[\gamma ^\mu (f_{1L}P_L+f_{1R}P_R)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_W}}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }(p_tp_b)_\nu (f_{2L}P_L+f_{2R}P_R)]u(p_t),`$
where $`P_{L,R}=\frac{1}{2}(1\gamma _5)`$, and $`V_{tb}`$ is the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element, which we will take to be equal to one. $`f_{1R}`$ and $`f_{2L}`$ do not contribute in the limit of vanishing $`b`$ mass, and can be omitted. Moreover, we will set $`f_{1L}=1`$, the value at tree level. The result does not depend on the value of $`f_{1L}`$, as we will see soon. The decay helicity amplitudes in the $`t`$ rest frame can be found in , and we do not repeat them here.

It was found in  that, in this case, the spin density matrix for $`tbl^+\nu _l`$, on integration over the $`b`$-quark azimuthal angle, is the same as that for the Born vertex, except for an overall factor $`\left(1+\mathrm{Re}f_{2R}\frac{m_Wm_t}{p_tp_{l^+}}\right)`$ multiplying all the matrix elements. Moreover, after performing a boost to the lab. frame, and integrating over the charged-lepton energy, that the $`f_{2R}`$ dependent factor cancelled against the corresponding factor in the correction to the top width. If we had not set $`f_{1L}=1`$, the $`f_{1L}`$ dependence would also have likewise cancelled.

The final result for the angular distribution in the lab. frame can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l}}={\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha ^2\beta m_t^2}{8s^2}}B_l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tl})^3}}`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`[𝒜(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tl})+(cos\theta _{tl}\beta )`$
$`+𝒞(1\beta ^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\mathrm{cos}\varphi _l\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{cot}\theta _l)`$
$`+𝒟(1\beta ^2)\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _l\mathrm{sin}\varphi _l],`$
where $`\theta _t`$ and $`\theta _l`$ are polar angles of respectively of the $`t`$ and $`l^+`$ momenta with respect to the $`e^{}`$ beam direction chosen as the $`z`$ axis, and $`\varphi _l`$ is the azimuthal angle of the $`l^+`$ momentum relative to an axis chosen in the $`t\overline{t}`$ production plane. $`B_l`$ is the leptonic branching ratio of the top. $`\theta _{tl}`$ is the angle between the $`t`$ and $`l^+`$ directions, given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tl}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _t\mathrm{cos}\theta _l+\mathrm{sin}\theta _t\mathrm{sin}\theta _l\mathrm{cos}\varphi _l,$$
(21)
and the coefficients $`𝒜`$, $``$, $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$ are given by

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`A_0+A_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t+A_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _t,`$ (22)
$``$ $`=`$ $`B_0+B_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t+B_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _t,`$ (23)
$`𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`C_0+C_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t,`$ (24)
$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`D_0+D_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _t,`$ (25)
with

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`2\{(2\beta ^2)[2|c_v^\gamma |^2+2(r_L+r_R)\mathrm{Re}\left(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z\right)+(r_L^2+r_R^2)|c_v^Z|^2]`$
$`+\beta ^2(r_L^2+r_R^2)|c_a^Z|^22\beta ^2\mathrm{Re}[2c_v^\gamma c_M^\gamma +(r_L+r_R)(c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2+r_R^2)c_v^Zc_M^Z]\}(1P_eP_{\overline{e}})+2\{\beta ^2(r_L^2r_R^2)|c_a^Z|^2`$
$`+(2\beta ^2)\left[2(r_Lr_R)\mathrm{Re}\left(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z\right)+(r_L^2r_R^2)|c_v^Z|^2\right]`$
$`2\beta ^2\mathrm{Re}[(r_Lr_R)(c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )+(r_L^2r_R^2)c_v^Zc_M^Z]\}(P_{\overline{e}}P_e),`$
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`8\beta \mathrm{Re}(c_a^Z\{[(r_Lr_R)c_v^\gamma +(r_L^2r_R^2)c_v^Z](1P_eP_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[(r_L+r_R)c_v^\gamma +(r_L^2+r_R^2)c_v^Z](P_{\overline{e}}P_e)\}),`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\beta ^2\{[2|c_v^\gamma |^2+4\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(c_v^\gamma c_M^\gamma \right)+2(r_L+r_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z+c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2+r_R^2)(|c_v^Z|^2+|c_a^Z|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(c_v^Zc_M^Z\right))](1P_eP_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[2(r_Lr_R)\mathrm{Re}(c_v^\gamma c_v^Z+c_v^\gamma c_M^Z+c_v^Zc_M^\gamma )`$
$`+(r_L^2r_R^2)(|c_v^Z|^2+|c_a^Z|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\left(c_v^Zc_M^Z\right))](P_{\overline{e}}P_e)\},`$
$`B_0`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{r_L\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)c_a^Z\right](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+r_R\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)c_a^Z\right](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\{[|c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z|^2+\beta ^2r_L^2|c_a^Z|^2](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`[|c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z|^2+\beta ^2r_R^2|c_a^Z|^2](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \{r_L\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)c_a^Z\right](1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+r_R\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)c_a^Z\right](1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`C_0`$ $`=`$ $`4\left\{|c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z|^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)\left(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z\right)\right]\right\}(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`4\left\{|c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z|^2\beta ^2\gamma ^2\mathrm{Re}\left[(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)\left(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z\right)\right]\right\}(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}}),`$
$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \mathrm{Re}\{[(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z)]r_Lc_a^Z(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+[(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z)]r_Rc_a^Z(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})\},`$
$`D_0`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta \mathrm{Im}[\{(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z)\}r_Lc_a^Z(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`\{(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)\beta ^2\gamma ^2(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z)\}r_Rc_a^Z(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})]\mathrm{sin}\theta _t,`$
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`4\beta ^2\gamma ^2\mathrm{Im}[(c_M^\gamma +r_Lc_M^Z)(c_v^\gamma +r_Lc_v^Z)(1P_e)(1+P_{\overline{e}})`$
$`+(c_M^\gamma +r_Rc_M^Z)(c_v^\gamma +r_Rc_v^Z)(1+P_e)(1P_{\overline{e}})]\mathrm{sin}\theta _t.`$
Integrating over $`\varphi _l`$ and $`\theta _{tl}`$ we get the $`\theta _l`$ distribution:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi \alpha ^2}{32s}}\beta B_l\{(4A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}A_2)+[2A_1({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }})`$ (26)
$`+2B_1{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2\right)`$
$`+2C_0{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2)]\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$
$`+[2A_2({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^3}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\beta ^2}}(32\beta ^2))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1\beta ^2}{\beta ^3}}\{B_2({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^23}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}+6)`$
$`C_1({\displaystyle \frac{3(1\beta ^2)}{\beta }}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}2(32\beta ^2))\}]`$
$`\times (13\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l)\}.`$
## 3 Numerical Results

After having obtained analytic expressions for angular distributions, we now examine the numerical values of the QCD corrections.

We use the parameters $`\alpha =1/128`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z^2)=0.118`$, $`m_Z=91.187`$ GeV, $`m_W=80.41`$ GeV, $`m_t=175`$ GeV and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2315`$. We consider leptonic decays into one specific channel (electrons or muons or tau leptons), corresponding to a branching ratio of $`1/9`$. We have used, following , a gluon energy cut-off of $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}=(\sqrt{s}2m_t)/5`$. While qualitative results would be insensitive, exact quantitative results would of course depend on the choice of cut-off.

In Figs. 1 (a)-(c) we show the single differential cross section $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}`$ in picobarns with and without QCD corrections, for three values of $`\sqrt{s}`$, viz., (a) 400 GeV, (b) 800 GeV and (c) 1500 GeV, and for $`e^{}`$ beam polarizations $`P=0,1,+1`$. It can be seen that the distribution with QCD corrections follows, in general, the shape of the lowest order distribution.

In Figs. 2 (a)-(c) is displayed the fractional deviation of the QCD-corrected distribution from the lowest order distribution:

$$\kappa (\theta _l)=\left(\frac{d\sigma _{Born}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}\right)^1\left(\frac{d\sigma _{SGA}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}\frac{d\sigma _{Born}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}\right).$$
(27)
It can be seen that $`\kappa (\theta _l)`$ is independent of $`\theta _l`$ to a fair degree of accuracy for $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV.

In Figs. 3 (a)-(c) we show the fractional QCD contributions $`(F_{\mathrm{SGA}}F_{\mathrm{Born}})/F_{\mathrm{Born}}`$ where $`F(\theta _l)`$, is the normalized distribution:

$$F(\theta _l)=\frac{1}{\sigma }\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}\right).$$
(28)
It can be seen that the fractional change in the normalized distributions for $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV is at most of the order of 1 or 2% (except in the case of $`P=+1`$, for $`\theta _l160^{}`$). For the other values of $`\sqrt{s}`$, it is even smaller. This implies that QCD corrected angular distribution is well approximated, at the per cent level, by a constant rescaling by a $`K`$ factor.

We now discuss the triple differential cross section, which corresponds to a distribution in $`\theta _t`$, $`\theta _l`$ and $`\varphi _l`$, for which we have obtained an analytic expression, eq. (20). This distribution, unlike the $`\theta _l`$ distribution, requires the knowledge of the direction of $`t`$. In fact, without knowing the direction of the top momentum, it is not even possible to define $`\varphi _l`$. However, the magnitude of the momentum need not be determined precisely.

We have plotted in Fig. 4(a) $`d^3\sigma /(d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l)`$, including QCD correction, against $`\varphi _l`$ for different values of $`\theta _l`$, for a fixed value of $`\theta _t=30^{}`$, for $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV, and for $`P=0`$. Fig. 4(b) gives the corresponding fractional deviations from the lowest-order values,

$$\kappa (\theta _t,\theta _l,\varphi _l)=\left[\frac{d^3\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l}\right]^1[\frac{d^3\sigma _{\mathrm{SGA}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l}\frac{d^3\sigma _{\mathrm{Born}}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _td\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\varphi _l}].$$
(29)
It can be seen that the QCD contribution remains around 28% for various values of $`\theta _l`$ and $`\varphi _l`$. The triple distributions show an asymmetry around $`\varphi _l=180^{}`$, which is not present at Born level. This asymmetry is not visible in the Fig. 4 (a), but is very clear in Fig. 4 (b), where fractional QCD contributions to the normalized distributions are plotted.

The same plots as in Fig. 4 (a), (b) are repeated for $`\sqrt{s}=800`$ GeV in Figs. 5 (a), (b) and for $`\sqrt{s}=1500`$ GeV in Figs. 6 (a), (b).

We have not shown the plots for other values of $`\theta _t`$ because they do not illustrate anything new. We have also not discussed triple distributions for the case of polarized beams for the sake of brevity.

## 4 Conclusions

To conclude, we have obtained in this paper analytic expressions for angular distributions of leptons from top decay in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$, in the $`e^+e^{}`$ c.m. frame, including QCD corrections to order $`\alpha _s`$ in the soft-gluon approximation. The distributions are in a form which can be compared directly with experiment. In particular, the single differential $`\theta _l`$ distribution needs neither the reconstruction of the top momentum direction nor the top rest frame. The triple differential distribution does need the top direction to be reconstructed for the definition of the angles. However, the magnitude of the top momentum need not be determined. In either case the results do not depend on the choice of spin quantization axis.

We find that the $`\theta _l`$ distributions are well described by rescaling the zeroth order distributions by a factor $`K`$ which for $`\sqrt{s}=400`$ GeV is roughly independent of $`\theta _l`$, except for extreme values of $`\theta _l`$, for the case of right-handed polarized electron beam. For other values of $`\sqrt{s}`$, it is a slowly varying function of $`\theta _l`$.

The triple distributions in $`\theta _t`$, $`\theta _l`$ and $`\varphi _l`$ show an asymmetry about $`\varphi _l=180^{}`$, which is absent at tree level, and would be a good test of the QCD corrections.

It would be useful to carry out the hard-gluon corrections explicitly and check if the soft-gluon approximation used here gives correct quantitative results.

Acknowledgements I thank Werner Bernreuther, Arnd Brandenburg and V. Ravindran for helpful discussions. I thank Ravindran also for clarifications regarding the contribution of the imaginary parts of form factors. I also thank Prof. P.M. Zerwas for hospitality in the DESY Theory Group, where this work was begun.