text:
# Finite-sample frequency distributions originating from an equiprobability distribution

## I Introduction

The probability $`p(i)`$ to draw an event $`i`$ from a set of $`N`$ possible events is defined as the limes

$$p(i)=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{M_i}{M},\text{with}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}M_j=M$$
(1)
where $`f(i)M_i/M`$ is the relative frequency to find the $`i`$-th event $`M_i`$ times in a randomly chosen sample of $`M`$. According to the law of large numbers the relative frequencies stochastically converge to the corresponding probabilities, hence, for very large sample size $`MN`$ we can practically identify both values. For smaller sample size, however, the distribution of relative frequencies may deviate significantly from the probability distribution (e.g. Schmitt ; PER ; Herzel  and many others). Assume further the equidistribution $`p(i)=1/N`$, then for very large sample size $`MN`$ one expects that all or almost all of the $`N`$ possible events are found in the sample and occur with approximately equal frequency, whereas in the opposite case $`MN`$ almost all events occur only once or a few times in the sample, i.e. the latter frequency distribution will deviate significantly from the former one. From this simple argumentation one may conclude that the frequency distribution which one expects depends sensitively on the sample size $`M`$. This type of finite size effects is of major relevance for statistical analysis of DNA and other biosequences, e.g. Allegrini ; Bernaola ; Holste ; Peng . In this article we want to calculate the expected frequency distribution which one finds in dependence on the sample size $`M`$.

If we draw a frequency distribution of $`N`$ different events there are $`N!`$ possibilities to arrange the events along the abscissa. An arrangement which leads to a decaying function for the frequencies or probabilities we call a Zipf order and the corresponding distribution a Zipf ordered distribution. To find a Zipf ordered frequency distribution which we have to expect if $`M`$ events from an equidistribution are drawn we have to determine in dependence on $`M`$ how many events (on average) are not drawn, i.e. are drawn zero times, how many are drawn once, twice etc.

In the next section we derive the expectation value for the number $`K_i`$ of those events which ocurr $`i`$ times in the sample. The analytic expression is then used to infer the unknown number $`N`$ of total events and to compare the theoretically expected Zipf ordered frequency distribution with the measured one. The results are useful in connection with entropy estimates computed from finite samples.

## II The number $`K_i`$ of different events each occurring exactly $`i`$ times and its expectation value $`K_i`$

The result of $`M`$ subsequent drawings from a set of $`N`$ different equiprobable events can be identified with randomly placing $`M`$ indistinguishable balls in $`N`$ indistinguishable urns, each having the same probability $`N^1`$. Denoting the number of urns containing exactly $`i`$ balls by $`k_i`$, a possible outcome can be shortly described by the vector $`(k_0,k_1,\mathrm{},k_M)`$; this is what we call a cluster configuration. The number of empty urns is given by $`k_0`$ and, consequently, the number of occupied urns by $`Nk_0`$. Any admissible cluster configuration obeys the following two conditions

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}}k_i=N`$ (total number of urns) (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{M}{}}}k_ii=M`$ (total number of balls) (3)
We are interested in the stochastic variable $`K_i`$, denoting the number of urns each filled with exactly $`i`$ balls, and its expectation value $`K_i`$. Introducing for each $`i=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ and each urn $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ its related indicator $`I_i(j)`$ by the following definition

$$I_i(j)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if urn }j\text{ contains exactly }i\text{ balls}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else },\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
the random variable $`K_i`$ is related to the stochastic indicators by $`K_i=_{j=1}^NI_i(j)`$. Due to the additivity of the expectation operator we find

$$K_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}I_i(j)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}I_i(j)=NI_i(j),$$
(5)
where we have used that all $`I_i(j)`$ are identical. The probability to find exactly $`i`$ balls in any of the urns (here labeled $`j`$) and the remaining balls distributed arbitrarily among the remaining $`N1`$ urns is the binomial distribution, hence,

$$K_i=N\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{i}\right)\frac{1}{N^i}\left(1\frac{1}{N}\right)^{(Mi)}.$$
(6)
The expectation value $`K_i`$ indicates how often events in a sample of size $`M`$ occur exactly $`i`$ times on average. We call these occupation numbers $`i`$-clusters. Obviously, for small $`MN`$ nearly all of the $`N`$ possible events are 0-clusters, i.e., they do not occur in our sample. As $`M`$ increases the number of single occupations increases as well. For still growing $`M`$ the number of multiple occupation becomes larger and, therefore, the number of 1-clusters decreases as more and more events occur multiple times in the sample. Figure 1 shows the occupation of the $`N`$ possible different events as a function of the sample size $`M`$. The lines show the theoretical result Eq. (6) and the symbols in the left of Fig. 1 show the clusters as they have been found in sets of random numbers.

If we draw only once a sample of size $`M`$ from a set of $`N`$ possible events and calculate the occupation numbers (the cluster frequencies) the cluster distribution itself is fluctuating (Fig. 2, filled dots). Averaging the cluster distribution over a number of independent selections each of size $`M`$ the cluster distribution converges to the theoretical curve predicted by Eq. (6). Figure 2 shows the cluster distribution as found from a random sample of size $`M`$ out of $`N=1000`$ allowed events together with cluster distributions averaged over 100 independent drawings.

## III Zipf ordered frequency distribution

Equation (6) allows to determine the expectation value of the number of different events $`N^{}`$ in dependence on the total number of drawn events $`M`$, which is simply related to the expected probability to find a cluster of size zero:

$$N^{}=NK_0,$$
(7)
from which we compute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}`$ $`=`$ $`1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\right)^M=1\mathrm{exp}\left[M\mathrm{log}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\right)\right]`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`1\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{N}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{N^2}}\right)\right]`$
From Eq. (8) we see that for all $`MN^2`$ Eq. (8) can be approximated to very good accuracy by

$$\frac{N_a^{}}{N}1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M}{N}\right),$$
(9)
a result which has been found before by computer simulations rosa . The maximal absolute deviation is $`N^{}N_a^{}=1/e0.37`$ (for $`N=M=1`$) which falls rapidly to $`1/(2e)0.18`$ as $`N`$ goes to infinity. In Fig. 3 the analytical result (8) is compared with a simulation. The impulses in the figure show the results of a single realization. If we average the numerical results over several runs the numerical curve falls together with the analytical one.

For the wide range of practical interest, $`5/8N_a^{}/M<1`$, from Eq. (9) we may approximate the entropy of the distribution if we know the number of different events $`N^{}`$ contained in a sample of size $`M`$:

$$S\mathrm{ld}\left(\frac{\left(3M+\sqrt{3M\left(8N^{}5M\right)}\right)M}{12\left(MN^{}\right)}\right).$$
(10)
We want to compile the results from the previous section to find the desired Zipf ordered frequency distribution. Equation (6) tells how many, in average, events do not occur in the sample (drawn zero times), how many are drawn once, twice, etc. This yields directly the Zipf ordered frequency distribution

$$f(i)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\text{0}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & Ni>NK_0\hfill \\ \text{1}\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & NK_0i>NK_0K_1\hfill \\ & \text{}\hfill & \\ j\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & N_{k=0}^{j1}K_ki>N_{k=0}^jK_k\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Using Stirling’s formula to expand the expressions in Eq. (6) the analytical result Eq. (11) can be written easily in elementary functions.

Figure 4 shows Zipf ordered frequency distributions calculated from a sample of random numbers (dashed lines) together with the theoretical distributions due to Eq. (11) (solid lines). The combinatorial theory derived in the previous section predicts the Zipf ordered frequency distribution which results from an equidistribution with good accuracy.

## IV Discussion

Based on combinatorial considerations we calculated the expectation values to find $`k_i`$ events exactly $`i`$ times in a sample of size $`M`$ which have been drawn from an equidistribution. These cluster probabilities allow to estimate the total number of events $`N`$, given the number of different events found in a sample of size $`M`$ is known. Moreover, the full Zipf ordered frequency distribution could be constructed. By numerical simulations it has been demonstrated that the analytically derived values coincide with “experimental” results, i.e., with cluster distributions and Zipf ordered frequency distributions originating from finite samples of random numbers.

###### Acknowledgements.

Discussions with Werner Ebeling and Rosa Ramírez are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Orbifolds as Groupoids: an Introduction

## Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to describe orbifolds in terms of (a certain kind of) groupoids. In doing so, I hope to convince you that the theory of (Lie) groupoids provides a most convenient language for developing the foundations of the theory of orbifolds. Indeed, rather than defining all kinds of structures and invariants in a seemingly ad hoc way, often in terms of local charts, one can use groupoids (which are global objects) as a bridge from orbifolds to standard structures and invariants. This applies e.g. to the homotopy type of an orbifold (via the classifying space of the groupoid), the K-theory of an orbifold (via the equivariant vector bundles over the groupoid), the sheaf cohomology of an orbifold (via the derived category of equivariant sheaves over the groupoid), and many other such notions. Groupoids also help to clarify the relation between orbifolds and complexes of groups. Furthermore, the relation between orbifolds and non-commutative geometry is most naturally explained in terms of the convolution algebra of the groupoid. In this context, and in several others, the inertia groupoid of a given groupoid makes its natural appearance, and helps to explain how Bredon cohomology enters the theory of orbifolds.

Groupoids play a fundamental rôle in the theory of foliations, and from this point of view their use in the context of orbifolds is only natural (cf. Theorem 3.7 below), and was exploited at an early stage, e.g. by A. Haefliger. The more precise correspondence, between orbifolds on the one hand and proper étale groupoids on the other, originates I believe with \[MP\].

The present paper closely follows my lecture at the Workshop in Madison, Wisconsin. In particular, the paper is of an introductory nature, and there are no new results presented here. There are many elaborate introductions to the theory of groupoids (e.g. \[CW, Mk\], and for more technical results mentioned in this paper appropriate references are given. I have chosen to work in the context of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-manifolds, as is common in the theory of orbifolds \[Sa, T\]. However, it will be clear that most of the definitions and results carry over to other categories such as the topological one. Many of the results also have analogues in algebraic geometry, in the theory of (Deligne-Mumford and Artin) stacks.

I am most grateful to the organizers of the workshop, A. Adem, J. Morava and Y. Ruan, for inviting me to speak there; and in particular to J. Morava for encouraging me to write up my lecture.

## 1 Lie groupoids

In this first section, we recall the basic definitions concerning Lie groupoids.

### 1.1 Groupoids.

A groupoid is a (small) category in which each arrow is an isomorphism (\[CMW\], p. 20)); for example, the category of finite sets and bijections between them. Thus, a groupoid $`G`$ consists of a set $`G_0`$ of objects and a set $`G_1`$ of arrows, together with various structure maps. To begin with, there are maps $`s`$ and $`t:\text{}`$ which assign to each arrow $`gG_1`$ its source $`s(g)`$ and its target $`t(g)`$. For two objects $`x,yG_0`$, one writes

$$g:xy\text{ or }x\stackrel{𝑔}{}y$$

to indicate that $`gG_1`$ is an arrow with $`s(g)=x`$ and $`t(g)=y`$.

Next, if $`g`$ and $`h`$ are two arrows with $`s(h)=t(g)`$, one can form their composition (or “product”) $`hg`$, with $`s(hg)=s(g)`$ and $`t(hg)=t(h)`$. In other words, if $`g:xy`$ and $`h:yz`$ then $`hg`$ is defined and $`hg:xz`$. This composition is required to be associative. It defines a map

$$G_1\times _{G_0}G_1\stackrel{𝑚}{}G_1,m(h,g)=hg$$
(1)
on the fibered product $`G_1\times _{G_0}G_1=\{(h,g)G_1\times G_1|s(h)=t(g)\}`$.

Furthermore, for each object $`xG_0`$ there is a unit (or identity) arrow $`1_x:xx`$ in $`G_1`$, which is a 2-sided unit for the composition: $`g1_x=g`$ and $`1_xh=h`$ for any two arrows $`g,h`$ with $`s(g)=x=t(h)`$. These unit arrows together define a map

$$u:G_0G_1,u(x)=1_x.$$
(2)
Finally, for each arrow $`g:xy`$ in $`G_1`$ there exists an inverse $`g^1:yx`$, which is a 2-sided inverse for composition: $`gg^1=1_y`$ and $`g^1g=1_x`$. These inverses define a map

$$i:G_1G_1,i(g)=g^1.$$
(3)
Summarizing, a groupoid consists of two sets $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$, and five structure maps $`s`$, $`t`$, $`m`$, $`u`$, and $`i`$, which are required to satisfy various identities which express that composition is associative, with a 2-sided $`1_x`$ for each $`xG_0`$, and a 2-sided inverse $`g^1`$ for each $`gG_1`$. Before we turn to examples, we add some smooth structure.

### 1.2 Lie groupoids.

A Lie groupoid is a groupoid $`G`$ for which, in addition, $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$ are smooth manifolds, and the structure maps $`s`$, $`t`$, $`m`$, $`u`$ and $`i`$ are smooth; furthermore , $`s`$ and $`t:\text{}`$ are required to be submersions (so that the domain of definition $`G_1\times _{G_0}G_1`$ of $`m`$ in (1) is a manifold). In the present context, we will always assume $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$ to be Hausdorff.

### 1.3 Examples.

We list some elementary standard examples.

* Any groupoid can be viewed as a Lie groupoid of dimension zero; we call such a Lie groupoid discrete.
* Any manifold $`M`$ can be viewed as a Lie groupoid in two ways: one can take $`G_1=M=G_0`$ which gives a groupoid all of whose arrows are units. This is called the unit groupoid on $`M`$ and denoted $`u(M)`$. The other possibility, less relevant here, is to take $`G_0=M`$ and $`G_1=M\times M`$, which gives a groupoid with exactly one arrow $`(y,x):xy`$ from any object $`x`$ to any other object $`y`$. This is called the pair groupoid, and often denoted $`M\times M`$.
* Any Lie group $`G`$ can be viewed as a Lie groupoid, with $`G_0=pt`$ the one-point space, and $`G_1=G`$. The composition in the groupoid is the multiplication of the group.
* Suppose a Lie group $`K`$ acts smoothly on a manifold $`M`$, say from the left. One can define a Lie groupoid $`KM`$ with as objects the points $`xM`$, and as arrows $`k:xy`$ those $`k`$ for which $`kx=y`$. Thus, $`(KM)_0=M`$ and $`(K\times M)_1=K\times M`$, with $`s:K\times MM`$ the projection, and $`t:K\times MM`$ the action. Composition is defined from the multiplication in the group $`K`$, in the obvious way. This groupoid is called the translation groupoid or action groupoid associated to the action. (For right actions there is a similar groupoid, denoted $`MK`$, whose arrows $`k:xy`$ are $`kK`$ with $`x=yk`$.)
* Let $`M`$ be a connected manifold. The fundamental groupoid $`\mathrm{\Pi }(M)`$ of $`M`$ is the groupoid with $`\mathrm{\Pi }(M)_0=M`$ as space of objects. An arrow $`xy`$ is a homotopy class of paths from $`x`$ to $`y`$. For any (“base”) point $`x_0M`$ the target $`t:\mathrm{\Pi }(M)_1M`$ restricts to a map $`t:s^1(x_0)M`$ on the space of all arrows with source $`x_0`$, and this latter map is the universal cover with base point $`x_0`$.

### 1.4 Isotropy and orbits.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie groupoid. For a point $`xG_0`$, the set of all arrows from $`x`$ to itself is a Lie group, denoted $`G_x`$ and called the isotropy or stabilizer group at $`x`$. This terminology fits the one for group actions (1.3(d)). In example 1.3(e), the stabilizer $`\mathrm{\Pi }(M)_x`$ is the fundamental group $`\pi _1(M,x)`$. Again inspired by group actions, the set $`ts^1(x)`$ of targets of arrows out of $`x`$ is referred to as the orbit of $`x`$, and denoted $`G_x`$. This set has the structure of a smooth manifold, for which the inclusion $`G_xG`$ is an immersion. The collection of all orbits of $`G`$ will be denoted $`|G|`$. It is a quotient space of $`G_0`$, but in general it is not a manifold.

### 1.5 Some classes of groupoids.

There are many important properties of groupoids one can study. The following ones will be particularly relevant here:

* A Lie groupoid is called proper if the map $`(s,t):G_1G_0\times G_0`$ is a proper map \[B\]. In a proper Lie groupoid $`G`$, every isotropy group is a compact Lie group.
* A Lie groupoid $`G`$ is called a foliation groupoid if each isotropy group $`G_x`$ is discrete. (For example, the holonomy and homotopy groupoids of a foliation have this property (see e.g. \[P, CM1\].)
* A Lie groupoid $`G`$ is called étale if $`s`$ and $`t`$ are local diffeomorphisms . Any étale groupoid is obviously a foliation groupoid. (The converse is true “up to Morita equivalence”, 2.4 below.)
* If $`G`$ is an étale groupoid, then any arrow $`g:xy`$ in $`G`$ induces a well-defined germ of a diffeomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}:(U_x,x)\stackrel{}{}(V_y,y)`$, as $`\stackrel{~}{g}=t\widehat{g}`$, where $`\widehat{g}:U_xG_1`$ is a section of the source map $`s:G_1G_0`$, defined on a sufficiently small nbd $`U_x`$ of $`x`$ and with $`\widehat{g}(x)=g`$. We call $`G`$ effective (or reduced) if the assignment $`g\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is faithful; or equivalently, if for each point $`xG_0`$ this map $`g\stackrel{~}{g}`$ defines an injective group homomorphism $`G_xDiff_x(G_0)`$.

## 2 Maps and Morita equivalence

The main purpose of this section is to introduce the notions of (Morita) equivalence and generalized map between Lie groupoids.

### 2.1 Homomorphisms.

Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be Lie groupoids. A homomorphism $`\varphi :HG`$ is by definition a smooth functor. Thus, a homomorphism consists of two smooth maps (both) denoted $`\varphi :H_0G_0`$ and $`\varphi :H_1G_1`$, which together commute with all the structure maps of the groupoids $`G`$ and $`H`$. So if $`h:xy`$ is an arrow in $`H`$, then $`\varphi (h):\varphi (x)\varphi (y)`$ in $`G`$, etc. In the examples 1.3(b),(c) this gives the familiar notion of a map. In example (e), any smooth map $`NM`$ is part of a unique (!) homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Pi }(N)\mathrm{\Pi }(M)`$. In example (d), if $`K`$ acts on $`M`$ and $`L`$ on $`N`$, a pair consisting of a homomorphism $`\alpha :KL`$ of Lie groups and a smooth map $`f:MN`$ which is equivariant (i.e. $`f(km)=\alpha (k)f(m)`$), induces a homomorphism $`KMLN`$ between translation groupoids. However, not every homomorphism is of this form.

### 2.2 Natural transformations.

Let $`\varphi ,\psi :HG`$ be two homomorphisms. A natural transformation $`\alpha `$ from $`\varphi `$ to $`\psi `$ (notation: $`\alpha :\varphi \psi )`$ is a smooth map $`\alpha :H_0G_1`$ giving for each $`xH_0`$ an arrow $`\alpha (x):\varphi (x)\psi (x)`$ in $`G`$, “natural” in $`x`$ in the sense that for any $`g:xx^{}`$ in $`G`$ the identity $`\psi (g)\alpha (x)=\alpha (x^{})\varphi (g)`$ should hold. We write $`\varphi \psi `$ if such an $`\alpha `$ exists. For example, if $`H`$ and $`G`$ are Lie groups (1.3(c)) $`\alpha `$ is just an element $`gG`$ by which the homomorphisms $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are conjugate. And for example 1.3(e), if $`f,g:MN`$ are two smooth maps and $`f_{},g_{}:\mathrm{\Pi }(M)\mathrm{\Pi }(N)`$ are the corresponding groupoid homorphisms, then any homotopy between $`f`$ and $`g`$ defines a transformation $`f_{}g_{}`$.

### 2.3 Fibered products.

Let $`\varphi :HG`$ and $`\psi :KG`$ be homomorphisms of Lie groupoids. The fibered product $`H\times _GK`$ is the Lie groupoid whose objects are triples $`(y,g,z)`$ where $`yH_0`$, $`zK_0`$ and $`g:\varphi (y)\psi (z)`$ in $`G`$. Arrows $`(y,g,z)(y^{},g^{},z^{})`$ in $`H\times _GK`$ are pairs $`(h,k)`$ of arrows, $`h:yy^{}`$ in $`H`$ and $`k:zz^{}`$ in $`K`$ with the property that $`g^{}\varphi (h)=\psi (h)g`$:

Composition in $`H\times _GK`$ is defined in the obvious way. This fibered product groupoid is a Lie groupoid as soon as the space $`(H\times _GK)_0=H_0\times _{G_0}G_1\times _{G_0}K_0`$ is a manifold. (For example, this is the case whenever the map $`t\pi _2:H_0\times _{G_0}G_1G_0`$ is a submersion.) There is a square of homomorphisms

(4)
which commutes up to a natural transformation, and is universal with this property.

### 2.4 Equivalence.

A homomorphism $`\varphi :HG`$ between Lie groupoids is called an equivalence if

* The map

$$t\pi _1:G_1\times _{G_0}H_0G_0,$$

defined on the fibered product $`\{(g,y)|gG_1,yH_0,s(g)=\varphi (y)\}`$, is a surjective submersion.
* The square

is a fibered product.

Condition (i) says in particular that every object $`x`$ in $`G`$ is connected by an arrow $`g:\varphi (y)x`$ to an object in the image of $`\varphi `$. Condition (ii) says in particular that $`\varphi `$ induces a diffeomorphism $`H(y,z)G(\varphi (y),\varphi (z))`$, from the space of all arrows $`yz`$ in $`H`$ to the space of all arrows $`\varphi (y)\varphi (z)`$ in $`G`$.

Two Lie groupoids $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ are said to be Morita equivalent if there exists a third groupoid $`H`$ and equivalences

$$G\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}H\stackrel{\varphi ^{}}{}G^{}.$$

This defines an equivalence relation. (To prove that the relation is transitive, one uses the fact that in a fibered product (4) above, $`\pi _1`$ is an equivalence whenever $`\psi `$ is.)

### 2.5 Generalized maps.

Roughly speaking, a “generalized map” from a Lie groupoid $`H`$ to a Lie groupoid $`G`$ is given by first replacing $`H`$ by a Morita equivalent groupoid $`H^{}`$ and then mapping $`H^{}`$ into $`G`$ by a homomorphism of Lie groupoids. One possible way to formalize this is via the calculus of fractions of Gabriel and Zisman \[GZ\]. Let $`𝒢`$ be the category of Lie groupoids and homomorphisms. Let $`𝒢_0`$ be the quotient category, obtained by identifying two homomorphisms $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi :\text{}`$ iff there exists a transformation between them (cf. 2.2). Let $`W`$ be the class of arrows in $`𝒢_0`$ which are represented by equivalences (2.4) in $`𝒢`$. Then $`W`$ admits a right calculus of fractions. Let $`𝒢_0[W^1]`$ be the category of fractions, obtained from $`𝒢_0`$ by inverting all equivalences. An arrow $`HG`$ in this category is an equivalence class of pairs of homomorphisms

$$H\stackrel{𝜀}{}H^{}\stackrel{\varphi ^{}}{}G$$

where $`\epsilon `$ is an equivalence. One may think of $`H^{}`$ as a “cover” of $`H^{}`$. If $`\delta :H^{\prime \prime }H`$ is a “finer” equivalence in the sense that there exists a homomorphism $`\gamma :H^{\prime \prime }H^{}`$ for which $`\epsilon \gamma \delta `$ (cf. 2.2), and if $`\varphi ^{}:H^{\prime \prime }G`$ is a homomorphism or which $`\varphi \gamma \varphi ^{}`$, then

$$H\stackrel{𝛿}{}H^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{\varphi ^{}}{}G$$

represents the same arrow in the category $`𝒢_0[W^1]`$ of fractions. Now a generalized map $`HG`$ is by definition an arrow in $`𝒢_0[W^1]`$.

(This formulation in terms of categories of fractions occurs in \[M1\]. There is a more subtle “bicategory of fractions” for $`𝒢`$ rather than $`𝒢_0`$, discussed in \[Pr\]. There is also a way to define these generalized morphisms in terms of principal bundles, see e.g. \[HS, Mr2\]).

### 2.6 Remark.

Let $`H`$ be a Lie groupoid, and let $`𝒰=\{U_i\}_{iI}`$ be an open cover of $`H_0`$. Let $`H_𝒰`$ be the Lie groupoid whose space of objects is the disjoint sum $`U=U_i`$. Write a point in $`U`$ as a pair $`(x,i)`$ with $`iI`$ and $`xU_i`$. Arrows $`(x,i)(y,j)`$ in $`H_𝒰`$ are arrows $`xy`$ in $`H`$. Then the evident map $`\epsilon :H_𝒰H`$ is an equivalence. Any generalized map $`HG`$ can be represented by an open cover $`𝒰`$ of $`H_0`$ and the diagram

$$H\stackrel{𝜀}{}H_𝒰\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}G$$

for some homomorphism $`\varphi `$. Another such representation, by $`\epsilon ^{}:H_𝒰^{}H`$ and $`\varphi ^{}:H_𝒰^{}G`$, represents the same generalized map iff, on a common refinement of $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒰^{}`$, the restrictions of $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ are related by a natural transformation.

### 2.7 Invariance under Morita equivalence.

For many constructions on Lie groupoids, it is important to know whether they are functorial on generalized maps. By the universal property of the category of fractions (see \[GZ\]), a construction is functorial on generalized maps iff it is functorial on homomorphisms and invariant under Morita equivalence. Explicitly, let $`F:𝒢_0𝒞`$ be a functor into some category $`𝒞`$. Then $`F`$ induces a functor on the category $`𝒢_0[W^1]`$ iff it sends equivalences to isomorphisms. For example, the functor mapping a Lie groupoid $`G`$ to its orbit space $`|G|`$ has this property, since any equivalence $`\varphi :HG`$ induces a homeomorphism $`|\varphi |:|H||G|`$.

Many properties (cf. 1.5) of Lie groupoids are invariant under Morita equivalence. For example, if $`\varphi :HG`$ is an equivalence then $`H`$ is proper (respectively, a foliation groupoid) iff $`G`$ is. Being étale is not invariant under Morita equivalence. In fact, a Lie groupoid is a foliation groupoid iff it is Morita equivalent to an étale groupoid \[CM2\]. For two Morita equivalent étale groupoids $`G`$ and $`H`$, one is effective iff the other is. Thus it makes sense to call a foliation groupoid effective (or reduced) iff it is Morita equivalent to a reduced étale groupoid.

## 3 Orbifold groupoids

In this section we explain how to view orbifolds as groupoids, and state several equivalent characterizations of “reduced” orbifolds.

### 3.1 Definition.

An orbifold groupoid is a proper foliation groupoid.

For example, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group acting properly on a manifold $`M`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }M`$ is a proper étale groupoid, hence an orbifold groupoid. Similarly, if $`K`$ is a compact Lie group acting on $`M`$, and each stabilizer $`K_x`$ is finite, then $`KM`$ is an orbifold groupoid. Observe that the slice theorem for compact group actions gives for each point $`xM`$ a “slice” $`V_xM`$ for which the action defines a diffeomorphism $`K\times _{K_x}V_xM`$ onto a saturated open nbd $`U_x`$ of $`x`$. Then $`K_xV_x`$ is an étale groupoid which is Morita equivalent to $`KU_x`$. Patching these étale groupoids together for sufficiently many slices $`V_x`$ yields an étale groupoid Morita equivalent to $`KM`$ (cf. 2.7).

### 3.2 Orbifold structures.

If $`G`$ is an orbifold groupoid, its orbit space $`|G|`$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space. If $`X`$ is an arbitrary such space, an orbifold structure on $`X`$ is represented by an orbifold groupoid $`G`$ and a homeomorphism $`f:|G|X`$. If $`\varphi :HG`$ is an equivalence, then $`|\varphi |:|H||G|`$ is a homeomorphism and the composition $`f|\varphi |:|H||G|X`$ is viewed as defining an equivalent orbifold structure on $`X`$. (One should think of $`G`$ and $`f`$ as an orbifold atlas for $`X`$, and of $`H`$ and $`f|\varphi |`$ as a finer atlas.) Recall that for any orbifold groupoid $`G`$, there exist equivalences $`EHG`$ for which $`E`$ is a proper étale groupoid (cf. 2.7). Thus, an orbifold structure on $`X`$ can always be represented by a proper étale groupoid $`E`$ and a homeomorphism $`|E|\stackrel{}{}X`$.

### 3.3 The category of orbifolds.

An orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ is a space $`X`$ equipped with an equivalence class of orbifold structures. A specific such structure, given by $`G`$ and $`f:|G|\stackrel{}{}X`$ as in 3.2, is then said to represent the orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$. For two orbifolds $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{Y}`$, represented by $`(X,G,f)`$ and $`(Y,H,g)`$ say, a map $`\underset{¯}{Y}\underset{¯}{X}`$ is a pair consisting of a continuous map $`YX`$ of spaces and a generalized map $`HG`$ of orbifold groupoids, for which the square

commutes. Because of the definition of generalized map, this notion of map between orbifolds is independent of the specific representation. Notice that, by choosing a finer representation $`(Y,H^{},g^{})`$ for $`\underset{¯}{Y}`$, one can always represent a given map $`\underset{¯}{Y}\underset{¯}{X}`$ by a continuous map $`YX`$ together with an actual groupoid homomorphism $`H^{}G`$.

Of course, for a representation $`(X,G,f)`$ as above, the space $`X`$ is determined up to homeomorphism by the groupoid $`G`$, and a similar remark applies to the maps. This means that the category of orbifolds is equivalent (\[CMW\], page 91) to a full subcategory of the category $`𝒢_0[W^1]`$ of Lie groupoids and generalized maps, viz. the category determined by the orbifold groupoids. It is often easier to work explicitly with this category. Notice also that a fibered product $`H\times _GK`$ in (4) is an orbifold groupoid whenever $`H`$, $`G`$ and $`K`$ are (and the transversality conditions are met for $`H\times _GK`$ to be smooth.) This defines a notion of fibered product of orbifolds.

### 3.4 Local charts.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie groupoid. For an open set $`UG_0`$, we write $`G|_U`$ for the full subgroupoid of $`G`$ with $`U`$ as a space of objects. In other words, $`(G|_U)_0=U`$ and $`(G|_U)_1=\{g:xy|gG_1\text{ and }x,yU\}`$. If $`G`$ is proper and étale, then for each $`xG_0`$ there exist arbitrary small neighborhoods $`U`$ of $`x`$ for which $`G|_U`$ is isomorphic to $`G_xU`$ for an action of the isotropy group $`G_x`$ on the neighborhood $`U`$ (see e.g. \[MP\]). In particular, such a $`U`$ determines an open set $`|U||G|`$, for which $`|U|`$ is just the quotient of $`U`$ by the action of the finite group $`G_x`$. Note also that in the present smooth context, one can choose coordinates so that $`U_x`$ is a Euclidean ball on which $`G_x`$ acts linearly. In the literature, one often defines an orbifold in term of local quotients. It is also possible to describe maps between orbifolds or orbifold groupoids (3.3) in terms of these local charts. This leads to the notion of strict map of \[MP\], or the equivalent notion of good map of Chen and Ruan.

### 3.5 Embedding categories.

Let $`G`$ be an étale groupoid, and let $``$ be a basis for $`G_0`$. The embedding category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ of $`G`$ determined by $``$ is a discrete (small) category with elements of $``$ as objects. For $`U,V`$, an arrow $`UV`$ in the embedding category is a smooth map $`\sigma :UG_1`$ with the property that $`\sigma (x)`$ is an arrow from $`x`$ to some point $`y=t\sigma (x)`$ in $`V`$, and such that the corresponding map $`t\sigma :UV`$, sending $`x`$ to $`y`$, is an embedding of $`U`$ into $`V`$. For two such arrows $`\sigma :UV`$ and $`\tau :VW`$, their composition $`\tau \sigma :UW`$ is defined in the obvious way from the composition in $`G`$, by

$$(\tau \sigma )(x)=\tau (t\sigma (x))\sigma (x).$$

It is possible to reconstruct the groupoid $`G`$ from the manifold $`G_0`$, its basis $``$, and this embedding category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$. Such embedding categories play an important rôle, e.g. in describing the homotopy type of $`G`$ and its characteristic classes; see also §4. It should also be observed that it is often easier to construct the embedding category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ directly, and not in terms of the groupoid $`G`$. This applies in particular to situations where an orbifold is given by local charts and “embeddings” between them, as in \[Sa\].

### 3.6 Reduced orbifolds.

An orbifold structure is said to be reduced if it is given by an effective orbifold groupoid $`G`$ (cf. 1.3(d)). An orbifold is called reduced if it is represented by a reduced orbifold structure. Any reduced orbifold can be represented by an effective proper étale groupoid $`G`$. If $`G`$ is such a groupoid, then the local charts $`G_xU`$ of 3.4 have the property that $`G_x`$ acts effectively on $`U`$. Notice that if $`G`$ is an arbitrary étale groupoid, then there is an evident quotient $`G\stackrel{~}{G}`$, which is an effective étale groupoid. The space $`\stackrel{~}{G}_0`$ of objects is the same as that of $`G`$, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{G}_0=G_0`$, and $`|G|=|\stackrel{~}{G}|`$. Thus, an arbitrary orbifold structure on a space $`X`$ always has an associated reduced structure on the same space $`X`$.

The following theorem lists some of the ways in which reduced orbifolds occur in nature.

### 3.7 Theorem.

For a Lie groupoid $`G`$, the following conditions are equivalent.

* $`G`$ is Morita equivalent to an effective proper étale groupoid.
* $`G`$ is Morita equivalent to the holonomy groupoid of a foliation with compact leaves and finite holonomy.
* $`G`$ is Morita equivalent to a translation groupoid $`KM`$, where $`K`$ is a compact Lie group acting on $`M`$, with the property that each stabilizer $`K_x`$ is finite and acts effectively on the normal bundle.

More explicitly, in (iii) the stabilizer $`K_x`$ acts on the tangent space $`T_x(M)`$, and this action induces an action on the quotient bundle $`N_x`$ of tangent vectors normal to the orbits of the action. This latter action must be effective in (iii).

This theorem is stated and proved in some detail, e.g. in \[MP\]. However, each of the equivalences seems to be a folklore result. The equivalence between (i) and (iii) is proved by the “frame bundle trick”, while the equivalence between (i) and (ii) is closely related to the Reeb stability theorem for foliations.

### 3.8 Complexes of groups.

There is a variation on the construction of embedding categories $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ which works well for reduced orbifolds, and is related to the theory of complexes of groups \[Hf, Bs, Sr\]. In general, a complex of (finite) groups over a small category $`I`$ is a pseudofunctor $`F`$ from $`I`$ into the category of (finite) groups and injective homomorphisms. This means that $`F`$ assigns to each object $`i`$ of $`I`$ a group $`F(i)`$, and to each arrow $`\sigma :ij`$ in $`I`$ an injective homomorphism $`F(\sigma ):F(i)F(j)`$. Furthermore, this assignment is “pseudo-functorial” in the sense that for any composable pair $`\sigma :ij`$ and $`\tau :jk`$ of arrows in $`I`$, there is an element $`g_{\tau ,\sigma }F(k)`$ for which

$$\widehat{g}_{\tau ,\sigma }F(\tau \sigma )=F(\tau )F(\sigma ):F(i)F(k),$$

where $`\widehat{g}_{\tau ,\sigma }:F(k)F(k)`$ is the inner automorphism $`\widehat{g}_{\tau ,\sigma }(x)=g_{\tau ,\sigma }xg_{\tau ,\sigma }^1`$. Moreover, these $`\widehat{g}_{\tau ,\sigma }`$ should satisfy a coherence condition: for $`i\stackrel{𝜎}{}j\stackrel{𝜏}{}k\stackrel{𝜌}{}l`$ in $`I`$,

$$F(\rho )(g_{\tau ,\sigma })g_{\rho ,\tau \sigma }=g_{\rho ,\tau }g_{\rho \tau ,\sigma }$$
(5)
(an identity in the group $`F(l)`$). We will assume that the pseudo functor $`F`$ is “normal” in the sense that for any identity arrow $`1:ii`$ in $`I`$, it takes the value $`id:F(i)F(i)`$. To such a pseudofunctor $`F`$ on $`I`$ one can associate a total category $`_IF`$ by the well known “Grothendieck construction”. In this particular case, this is a category with the same objects as $`I`$. Arrows $`ij`$ in $`_IF`$ are pairs $`(\sigma ,g)`$ where $`\sigma :ij`$ and $`gF(j)`$. The composition of $`(\sigma ,g):ij`$ and $`(\tau ,h):jk`$ in $`_IF`$ is defined as $`(\tau \sigma ,hF(\tau )(g)g_{\tau ,\sigma })`$; this is an associative operation, by (5) above.

### 3.9 The complex of groups associated to the reduced orbifold.

Let $`G`$ be a reduced étale groupoid, with orbit space $`|G|`$. By 3.4, there is a basis $``$ for $`G_0`$, consisting of simply connected open sets $`UG_0`$, such that for each $`U`$ in $``$ the restricted groupoid $`G|_U`$ is isomorphic to a translation groupoid $`G_UU`$, where $`G_U=G_x`$ is the stabilizer group at a suitable point $`xU`$. For such a basis $``$, the images $`q(U)|G|`$ under the quotient map $`q:G_0|G|`$ form a basis $`𝒜`$ for $`|G|`$. Fix such a basis $`𝒜`$, and choose for each $`A𝒜`$ a specific $`U=\stackrel{~}{A}`$ for which $`A=q(\stackrel{~}{A})`$. View the partially ordered set $`𝒜`$ as a category, with just one arrow $`AA^{}`$ iff $`AA^{}`$, as usual. If $`AA^{}`$, then the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is simply connected readily implies that there exists an arrow $`\lambda _{A,A^{}}:\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}^{}`$ in the embedding category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$. This arrow induces a group homomorphism

$$(\lambda _{A,A^{}})_{}:G_{\stackrel{~}{A}}G_{\stackrel{~}{A^{}}},$$

of local groups belonging to the “charts” $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}^{}`$ in $``$. If $`AA^{}A^{\prime \prime }`$, then $`\lambda _{A^{},A^{\prime \prime }}\lambda _{A,A^{}}`$ and $`\lambda _{A,A^{\prime \prime }}`$ differ by conjugation by an element $`g`$ of $`G_{A^{\prime \prime }}`$, and this element is unique if $`G`$ is effective. Thus, the assignment $`AG_{\stackrel{~}{A}}`$ and $`(AA^{})(\lambda _{A,A^{}})_{}`$ is part of a uniquely determined complex of groups, which we denote by $`G_𝒜`$. Its total category $`_𝒜G_𝒜`$ is smaller than, but in fact categorically equivalent to, the embedding category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$.

## 4 The classifying space

The purpose of this section is to introduce the homotopy type, as the classifying space of a representing groupoid.

### 4.1 The nerve of a groupoid.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie groupoid, given by manifolds $`G_0`$ and $`G_1`$ and the various structure maps. Let $`G_n`$ be the iterated fibered product

$$G_n=\{(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)|g_iG_1,s(g_i)=t(g_{i+1})\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},n1\}.$$

In other words, $`G_n`$ is the manifolds of composable strings

$$x_0\stackrel{g_1}{}x_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{g_n}{}x_n$$

of arrows in $`G`$. These $`G_n`$ together have the structure of a simplicial manifold, called the nerve of $`G`$. The face operator $`d_i:G_nG_{n1}`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$ are given by “$`d_i=\text{delete }x_i`$”; so $`d_0(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)=(g_2,\mathrm{},g_n)`$, and $`d_n(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_{n1})`$, while $`d_i(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_ig_{i+1},\mathrm{},g_n)`$ for $`0<i<n`$.

The same definition of course makes sense for groupoids in categories others than that of differentiable manifolds. In particular, if $`G`$ is only a topological groupoid then the $`G_n`$ form a simplicial topological space. The definition doesn’t involve the inverse of a groupoid either, so makes sense for topological categories, for example.

### 4.2 The classifying space.

(\[Sg2\]) For a simplicial space $`X_{}`$, we write $`|X_{}|`$ for its geometric realization. This is a space obtained by gluing the space $`X_n\times \mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ along the simplicial operators; here $`\mathrm{\Delta }^n`$ is the standard $`n`$-simplex. If $`X_{}`$ is a simplicial set (i.e. each $`X_n`$ has the discrete topology) then $`|X_{}|`$ is a CW-complex. However in general this is not the case and there are various subtleties involved in this definition. In particular, if the degeneracies $`X_{n1}X_n`$ aren’t cofibrations, one should take the “thick” realization, cf. \[Sg2\]. For a Lie groupoid $`G`$, its classifying space $`BG`$ is defined as the geometric realization of its nerve,

$$BG=|G_{}|$$

This notation should not be confused with the notation $`|G|`$ for the orbit space of $`G`$.

### 4.3 Homotopy type of an orbifold.

An important basic property of the classifying space construction is that an equivalence $`\varphi :HG`$ (cf. 2.4) induces a weak homotopy equivalence $`B\varphi :BHBG`$. This means that for any point $`yH_0`$ this equivalence $`HG`$ induces an isomorphism of homotopy groups $`\pi _n(BH,y)\pi _n(BG,\varphi y)`$. Thus, if $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ is an orbifold, one can define its homotopy type as that of $`BG`$ where $`G`$ is any orbifold structure representing $`\underset{¯}{X}`$; the definition

$$\pi _n(\underset{¯}{X},x)=\pi _n(BG,\stackrel{~}{x})$$

is then independent of the groupoid $`G`$ and the base point $`xX`$, and of a “lift” $`\stackrel{~}{x}G_0`$ for which $`q(\stackrel{~}{x})|G|`$ is mapped to $`xX`$ by the given homeomorphism $`|G|X`$.

### 4.4 Local form of the classifying space.

Let $`G`$ be a proper étale groupoid representing an orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$. The map $`q:G_0|G|`$ to the orbit space induces an obvious map, still denoted $`q:BG|G|`$. By 3.4 (and as in 3.9) there is an open cover $`|G|=V_i`$ such that $`G|_{q^1(V_i)}`$ is Morita equivalent to $`G_iU_i`$, where $`G_i`$ is a finite group acting on an open set $`U_iG_0`$. One can choose the $`V_i`$ and $`U_i`$ to be contractible. Thus $`q^1(V_i)BG`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`B(G_iU_i)`$, which is the Borel space $`EG_i\times _{G_i}U_i`$, homotopy equivalent to $`BG_i`$ if we choose $`U_i`$ to be contractible. Thus, over $`V_i`$ the map $`q:BG|G|`$ restricts to $`EG_i\times _{G_i}U_iU_i/G_iV_i`$. In particular, it follows, for example, that $`q:BG|G|`$ induces isomorphisms in rational cohomology.

### 4.5 Other models for the classifying space.

Let $`G`$ be an étale groupoid. Let $``$ be a basis for $`G_0`$ consisting of contractible open sets, and let $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ be the associated embedding category (3.5). In \[M3\] it is proved that there is a weak homotopy equivalence

$$BGB\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G).$$

Notice that $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ is a discrete small category, so the right-hand side is a CW-complex.

If $`G`$ is proper, one can choose the basis $``$ to consist of linear charts as in 3.4. Then both $`B`$ and $`q(B)`$ are contractible. Let $`𝒜=\{q(B)|B\}`$ as in 3.9. Then $`𝒜`$ is a basis for $`|G|`$, and when we view $`𝒜`$ as a category, $`B𝒜|G|`$. If $`G`$ is moreover effective, then there is an associated complex of groups $`G_𝒜`$. The classifying space of its total category $`_𝒜G_𝒜`$ is again a model for the homotopy type of the orbifold, because there is a weak homotopy equivalence

$$BGB(_𝒜G_𝒜).$$

The quotient map $`q:BG|G|`$ is modelled by the projection functor $`_𝒜G_𝒜𝒜`$, in the sense that there is a diagram

which commutes up to homotopy.

## 5 Structures over orbifolds

In this section we show how the language of groupoids leads to a uniform definition of structures “over” orbifolds, like covering spaces, vector bundles, principal bundles, sheaves, etc. We continue to work in the smooth context, although everything in this section obviously applies equally to topological groupoids.

### 5.1 $`G`$-spaces.

Let $`G`$ be a Lie groupoid. A (right) $`G`$-space is a manifold $`E`$ equipped with an action by $`G`$. Such an action is given by two maps, $`\pi :EG_0`$ and $`\mu :E\times _{G_0}G_1E`$. The latter map is defined on pairs $`(e,g)`$ with $`\pi (e)=t(g)`$, and written $`\mu (e,g)=eg`$. It satisfies the usual identities for an action, viz. $`\pi (eg)=s(g)`$, $`e1_x=e`$ and $`(eg)h=e(gh)`$ for $`z\stackrel{}{}y\stackrel{𝑔}{}x`$ in $`G`$ and $`eE`$ with $`\pi (e)=x`$. For two such $`G`$-spaces $`E=(E,\pi ,\mu )`$ and $`E^{}=(E^{},\pi ^{},\mu ^{})`$, a map of $`G`$-spaces $`\alpha :EE^{}`$ is a smooth map which commutes with the structure, i.e. $`\pi ^{}\alpha =\pi `$ and $`\alpha (eg)=\alpha (e)g`$. This defines a category ($`G`$-spaces).

If $`\varphi :HG`$ is a homomorphism of groupoids, there is an obvious functor

$$\varphi ^{}:\text{(}G\text{-spaces)}\text{(}H\text{-spaces)}$$
(6)
mapping $`E`$ to the pullback $`E\times _{G_0}H_0`$ with the induced action. If $`\varphi `$ is an equivalence (2.4) then this functor $`\varphi ^{}`$ is an equivalence of categories. Thus, up to equivalence of categories, the category ($`G`$-spaces) only depends on the Morita equivalence class of $`G`$.

### 5.2 $`G`$-spaces as groupoids.

If $`E`$ is a $`G`$-space, then one can form the translation groupoid $`EG`$ whose objects are point in $`E`$, and whose arrows $`g:e^{}e`$ are arrows $`g:\pi (e^{})\pi (e)`$ in $`G`$ with $`eg=e^{}`$. In other words, $`(EG)_0=E`$ and $`(EG)_1=E\times _{G_0}G_1`$, while the source and target of $`EG`$ are the action $`\mu `$ and the projection $`E\times _{G_0}G_1E`$. There is an obvious homomorphism of groupoids $`\pi _E:EGG`$. Observe also that for a homomorphism $`\varphi :HG`$, the square

is a fibered product (2.3) up to Morita equivalence. Notice that, while at the groupoid level the fiber of $`EGG`$ over $`xG_0`$ is the fiber $`\pi ^1(x)`$, at the level of orbit spaces $`|EG||G|`$ the fiber is $`\pi ^1(x)/G_x`$. It is easy to see that

* If $`G`$ is étale then so is $`EG`$.
* If $`G`$ is a foliation groupoid then so is $`EG`$.
* If $`E`$ is Hausdorff and $`G`$ is proper then $`EG`$ is proper.

In particular, if $`G`$ represents an orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ then any Hausdorff $`G`$-space $`E`$ represent an orbifold $`\underset{¯}{E}\underset{¯}{X}`$ over $`\underset{¯}{X}`$.

We now mention some examples:

### 5.3 Covering spaces.

A covering space over $`G`$ is a $`G`$-space $`E`$ for which $`\pi :EG_0`$ is a covering projection. The full subcategory of ($`G`$-spaces) consisting of covering spaces is denoted $`Cov(G)`$. For a groupoid homomorphism $`\varphi :HG`$, the functor $`\varphi ^{}:HG`$ in (6) restricts to a functor

$$\varphi ^{}:Cov(G)Cov(H)$$

and this is an equivalence of categories whenever $`\varphi `$ is an equivalence. So, up to equivalence of categories, there is a well defined category $`Cov(\underset{¯}{X})`$ of covering spaces of an orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$.

If $`G`$ is proper and étale while $`E`$ is a covering space of $`G`$, then $`EG`$ is again proper and étale. The map $`|EG||G|`$ of orbit spaces has local charts (cf. 3.4) $`\stackrel{~}{U}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}U/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{U}U`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=G_x`$ is a finite group, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a subgroup. This explains the relation to the definition of covering spaces of orbifolds given in \[T\].

Suppose $`|G|`$ is connected. If $`xG_0`$ is a base point, there is a fiber functor $`F_x:Cov(G)Sets`$, mapping $`E`$ to $`E_x=\pi ^1(x)`$. Grothendieck’s Galois theory applies and gives a unique (up to isomorphism) group $`\pi _1(G,x)`$ for which there is an equivalence of categories

$$Cov(G)\stackrel{}{}\pi _1(G,x)\text{-sets}$$

by which $`F_x`$ corresponds to the forgetful functor $`\pi _1(G,x)\text{-sets}\text{sets}`$. It follows from earlier remarks that if $`\varphi :HG`$ is an equivalence and $`yH_0`$ then $`\varphi `$ induces an isomorphism $`\pi _1(H,y)\pi _1(G,\varphi (y))`$. In particular, the fundamental group $`\pi _1(G,x)`$ only depends on the Morita equivalence class of $`G`$.

It is also possible to describe the fundamental group in terms of “paths”, i.e. generalized maps $`[0,1]G`$ as is done in work of Haefliger and of Mrcun. Alternatively it is not difficult to see that the map $`EB(EG)`$ induces an equivalence of categories between covering spaces of $`G`$ and covering spaces (in the usual sense) of $`BG`$. It follows that $`\pi _1(G)=\pi _1(BG)`$. (This is true more generally for arbitrary étale groupoids, see \[M4\]).

### 5.4 Vector bundles.

A vector bundle over $`G`$ is a $`G`$-space $`E`$ for which $`\pi :EG_0`$ is a vector bundle, and the action of $`G`$ on $`E`$ is fiberwise linear. (In particular, each fiber $`E_x`$ is a linear representation of the stabilizer $`G_x`$.) Write $`Vect(G)`$ for the category of vector bundles over $`G`$. Again, if $`G`$ is Morita equivalent to $`H`$ then $`Vect(G)`$ is equivalent to $`Vect(H)`$, so up to equivalence of categories there is a well defined category of vector bundles over an orbifold $`\underset{¯}{X}`$, denoted $`Vect(\underset{¯}{X})`$. From $`Vect(\underset{¯}{X})`$ one can build the Grothendieck group $`K(\underset{¯}{X})`$ in the usual way, leading to $`K`$-theory of orbifolds; see e.g. \[AR\]. If $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ is reduced, then by Theorem 3.7 $`Vect(\underset{¯}{X})`$ is equivalent to the category of $`K`$-equivariant vector bundles on a manifold $`M`$, and we are back to equivariant $`K`$-theory for compact Lie groups, \[Sg3\].

### 5.5 Principal bundles.

Let $`L`$ be a Lie group. A principal $`L`$-bundle over $`G`$ is a $`G`$-space $`P`$ with a left action $`L\times PP`$ which makes $`\pi :PG_0`$ into a principal $`L`$-bundle over the manifold $`G_0`$, and is compatible with the $`G`$-action in the sense that $`(lp)g=l(pg)`$, for any $`pP`$, $`lL`$ and $`g:xy`$ with $`y=\pi (p)`$. For such principal bundles, one can construct characteristic classes exactly as for manifolds, via a “Chern-Weil” map from the algebra $`Inv(𝔩)`$ of invariant polynomials on the Lie algebra $`𝔩`$ of $`L`$ into $`H^{}(BG)`$. For a recent geometric description of these in the general context of étale groupoids, see \[CM2\].

### 5.6 Sheaves of sets and topoi.

A $`G`$-space $`E`$ is called a sheaf of sets if $`\pi :EG_0`$ is a local diffeomorphism. The category of all sheaves of sets is denoted $`Sh(G)`$. This category is a topos, from which one can recover the groupoid $`G`$ as a topological groupoid up to Morita equivalence. More precisely, if $`G`$ is étale, the sheaf of germs of smooth functions $`G_0`$ has the structure of a $`G`$-sheaf, denoted $`𝒜_G`$. Thus $`(Sh(G),𝒜_G)`$ is a ringed topos. Up to Morita equivalence one can reconstruct $`G`$ with its smooth structure from this ringed topos. More generally, morphisms of ringed topoi $`(Sh(H),𝒜_H)(Sh(G),𝒜_G)`$ correspond exactly to generalized maps of groupoids $`HG`$. Thus, the category of orbifolds could also have been introduced as a full subcategory of the category of ringed topoi. In the language of \[SGA4\], a ringed topos represents an orbifold iff it is a “separated smooth étendue”. This is the viewpoint taken in \[MP\].

A topos is defined more generally as the category of sheaves on a site. It is easy to give an explicit site for “orbifold topoi” of the form $`Sh(G)`$. Indeed, a site for $`Sh(G)`$ is formed by any embedding category $`Emb_{}(G)`$ with its evident Grothendieck topology, where a family $`\{\sigma _i:U_iV\}`$ covers iff $`V=\sigma _i(U_i)`$. These sites are useful in the description of “higher structures” over orbifolds such as gerbes \[LU\] and 2-gerbes. They are also relevant for the definition of the “étale homotopy groups” \[AM\] of the topos $`Sh(G)`$. By the general comparison theorem of \[M4\], these étale homotopy groups coincide with the homotopy groups of the classifying space $`BG`$. For yet another approach to the homotopy theory of orbifolds, see \[Ch\].

## 6 Cohomology and inertia orbifolds

In this section we will briefly discuss sheaf cohomology of orbifolds, and its relation to the cohomology of (the various models for) its classifying space. By way of example, we will in particular discuss the case of the “inertia orbifold” of a given orbifold, and its relation to K-theory and non-commutative geometry. We begin by mentioning, as a continuation of the previous section, yet another kind of structure over an orbifold.

### 6.1 Abelian sheaves.

An abelian sheaf over an orbifold groupoid is a $`G`$-sheaf $`A`$ (cf 5.6) for which the fibers $`A_x=\pi ^1(x)`$ of $`\pi :AG_0`$ have the structure of an abelian group, and this group structure varies continuously in $`x`$ and is preserved by the action of arrows in $`G`$. For example, germs of local sections of a vector bundle over $`G`$ form an abelian sheaf. The category $`Ab(G)`$ of these abelian sheaves is a nice abelian category with enough injectives, and up to equivalence of categories it only depends on the Morita equivalence class of $`G`$. In fact, $`Ab(G)`$ is the category of abelian group objects in the topos $`Sh(G)`$, so enjoys all the general properties of the \[SGA4\] framework. In particular, the derived category of complexes of abelian $`G`$-sheaves is a convenient model for the derived category $`D(\underset{¯}{X})`$ of an orbifold, in terms of which one can define all the usual operations, prove change-of-base formulas, etc. We will not discuss these matters in detail here, but instead refer to \[M2\] and references cited here. Some of the following remarks 6.2-6.3 are just special cases of this general framework.

### 6.2 Cohomology.

Let $`G`$ be an orbifold groupoid, and let $`A`$ be an abelian $`G`$-sheaf. The cohomology $`H^n(G,A)`$ for $`n0`$ is defined as the cohomology of the complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}(G,I^{})`$. Here $`0AI^0I^1\mathrm{}`$ is a resolution by injective abelian $`G`$-sheaves; furthermore, for an arbitrary $`G`$-sheaf $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}(G,B)`$ denotes the group of sections $`\beta :G_0B`$ of $`\pi :BG_0`$ which are invariant under the $`G`$-action, i.e. $`\beta (y)g=\beta (x)`$ for any arrow $`g:xy`$ in $`G`$. These cohomology groups are functorial in $`G`$, in the sense that any homomorphism of groupoids $`\varphi :G^{}G`$ induces group homomorphisms $`\varphi ^{}:H^n(G,A)H^n(G^{},\varphi ^{}A)`$. If $`\varphi `$ is an equivalence, then this map is an isomorphism. Thus if $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ is an orbifold, there are well defined cohomology groups $`H^n(\underset{¯}{X},A)`$, constructed in terms of any representing groupoid. The cohomology groups $`H^n(G,A)`$ are also closely related to the (sheaf) cohomology groups of the classifying space $`BG`$, and to the cohomology groups of the small category $`\underset{¯}{Emb}_{}(G)`$ (cf. 3.5).

### 6.3 Direct image functor.

Let $`\varphi :HG`$ be a homomorphism between orbifold groupoids, which we may as well assume to be étale. Any $`H`$-sheaf $`B`$ defines a $`G`$-sheaf $`\varphi _{}(B)`$, whose sections over an open $`UG_0`$ are given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,\varphi _{}B)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}(U/\varphi ,B).$$

Here $`U/\varphi `$ is the “comma” groupoid whose objects are pairs $`(y,g)`$ with $`yH_0`$ and $`g:x\varphi (y)`$ an arrow in $`G`$. Arrows $`(y,g)(y^{},g^{})`$, where $`g^{}:x^{}\varphi (y^{})`$, in this groupoid $`U/\varphi `$ only exist if $`x=x^{}`$ and arrows are $`h:yy^{}`$ in $`H`$ with $`\varphi (h)g=g^{}`$ in $`G`$. This groupoid $`U/\varphi `$ is again a proper étale groupoid, and $`B`$ can be viewed as a $`U/\varphi `$-sheaf, via the evident homomorphism $`U/\varphi H`$. The higher derived functors $`\varphi _{}`$ can be described by the formula

$$R^i\varphi _{}(B)_x=\underset{}{lim}_{xU}H^i(U/\varphi ,B),$$

for the stalk at an arbitrary point $`xG_0`$.

Let us mention some examples:

(a) Let $`S`$ be a $`G`$-space and consider the projection homomorphism $`\pi :SGG`$. Then $`U/\pi `$ is Morita equivalent to the space $`\pi ^1(U)S`$ (viewed as a unit groupoid, see 1.3(b)), and $`R^i\pi _{}(B)`$ is the usual right derived functor along $`SG_0`$; or more precisely, the diagram

with unit groupoids on the left, has the property that

$$u^{}R\pi _{}=R\pi _{}v^{}.$$

(b) Let $`|G|`$ be the orbit space of $`G`$, as before. In general $`|G|`$ is not a manifold, but we can view it as a topological unit groupoid and consider the quotient homomorphism of groupoids $`q:G|G|`$. Then for any $`G`$-sheaf $`A`$, and any $`xG_0`$, there is a natural isomorphism

$$R^iq_{}(A)_{q(x)}=H^i(G_x,A_x).$$

On the right, we find the cohomology of the finite group $`G_x`$ with coefficients in the stalk $`A_x`$. In particular, $`R^iq_{}=0`$ for $`i>0`$ if the coefficient sheaf $`A`$ is a sheaf of $``$-modules.

(c) Let $`\varphi :HG`$ as above. Call $`\varphi `$ proper if $`|G_0/\varphi |G_0`$ is a proper map. For such a $`\varphi `$ we have

$$R^i\varphi _{}(B)_x=H^i(x/\varphi ,B).$$

Here $`x/\varphi U/\varphi `$ is the comma groupoid with objects $`(x\stackrel{𝑔}{}\varphi (y))`$ and arrows as in $`U/\varphi `$. The $`H`$-sheaf $`B`$ is viewed as an $`(x/\varphi )`$-sheaf via the pullback along the projection $`x/\varphi H`$.

### 6.4 The inertia orbifold.

Let $`G`$ be an orbifold groupoid, and consider the pullback of spaces

Thus, $`S_G=\{gG_1:s(g)=t(g)\}`$ is the space of “loops” in $`G`$. The map $`\beta `$ sends such a loop $`g:xx`$ to its “base point” $`\beta (g)=x`$. This map $`\beta `$ is proper, since $`(s,t)`$ is proper. Moreover, the space $`S_G`$ is in fact a manifold. This is clear from the local charts (3.4) in the case $`G`$ is étale, and it follows for general orbifold groupoids by considering local charts as in \[CM1\]. The space $`S_G`$ has the structure of a $`G`$-space, with the action defined by conjugation. Let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)=S_GG.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$ is an orbifold groupoid, and $`\beta `$ induces a proper (cf. 6.3(c)) homomorphism

$$\beta :\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)G.$$

If $`\varphi :HG`$ is an equivalence then $`\varphi ^{}(S_G)=S_H`$, and $`\varphi `$ induces an equivalence $`\varphi ^{}(S_G)HS_GG`$, hence an equivalence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(H)\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$. Thus, if $`\underset{¯}{X}`$ is the orbifold represented by $`G`$, there is a well-defined orbifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\underset{¯}{X})`$ represented by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)`$. Following usage in algebraic geometry we call $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\underset{¯}{X})`$ the inertia orbifold of $`\underset{¯}{X}`$.

For an orbifold groupoid of the form $`KM`$ (see below 3.1) the space of loops is the “Brylinski space”

$$S=\{(k,x)|xM,kK,kx=x\}$$

with its natural action by $`K`$ ($`l(k,x)=(lkl^1,lx)`$). The orbit space $`S/K`$ was already considered in \[K\].

Consider an arbitrary proper étale groupoid $`G`$ and a $`G`$-sheaf $`B`$. Then for the derived functor of $`\beta :\mathrm{\Lambda }(G)G`$, the discussion in 6.3 gives $`R^i\beta _{}(B)_x=H^i(G_x,B_x)`$ where $`G_x=\beta ^1(x)`$ is viewed as a discrete set. Thus $`R^0\beta _{}=\beta _{}`$ and $`R^i\beta _{}=0`$ for $`i>0`$. So for the composite $`q\beta :\mathrm{\Lambda }G|G|`$ we find

$$R^i(q\beta )_{}(B)_x=R^iq_{}(\beta _{}(B))_x=H^i(G_xG_x,B_x).$$

Here $`G_x`$ acts on itself from the right by conjugation. Since the discrete groupoid $`G_xG_x`$ is equivalent to the sum of the centralizer subgroups $`Z(g)`$ indexed by conjugacy classes $`(g)`$ of elements $`gG_x`$, we find

$$R^i(q\beta )_{}(B)_x=\underset{(g)}{}H^i(Z(g),B_x),$$

which fits into a Leray spectral sequence

$$H^j(|G|,R^i(q\beta )_{}(B))H^{i+j}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(G),B).$$

In particular, if $`B`$ is the constant sheaf $``$ of complex numbers, one finds that $`R^i(q\beta )_{}()_x=0`$ for $`i>0`$ while $`R^0(q\beta )_{}()_x=_{(g)}=Class(G_x,)`$, the set of class functions on $``$, which is the same as the complex representation ring $`R_{}(G_x)`$. Thus

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Lambda }(G),)=H^i(|G|,\underset{¯}{R}_{}),$$

where $`\underset{¯}{R}_{}`$ is the representation ring sheaf with stalk $`R_{}(G_x)`$ at $`x`$. One might call this the Bredon cohomology of the orbifold represented by $`G`$. (Indeed, if $`G`$ represents a reduced orbifold, then $`G`$ is Morita equivalent to a translation groupoid $`KM`$ by Theorem 3.7, and it is known in this case that $`H^i(M/K,\underset{¯}{R}_{})`$ is isomorphic to the Bredon cohomology of $`M`$ with coefficients in the representation ring system \[Ho\].)

If $`|G|`$ is compact, there is a Chern character isomorphism $`(\nu =0,1)`$

$$K^\nu (G)\stackrel{}{}\underset{i}{}H^{2i+\nu }(|G|,\underset{¯}{R}_{})$$

which is “locally” the one of \[Sl\]; see \[AR\]. This Chern character factors naturally as a composition

$$K^\nu (G)HP^\nu (C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G))\underset{i}{}H^{2i+\nu }(|G|,\underset{¯}{R}_{}).$$

The first is the non-commutative Chern character into the periodic cyclic cohomology of the convolution algebra $`C_c^{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ of $`G`$ (\[BC\]). This is the algebra of compactly supported smooth functions $`\alpha :G_1`$, with product defined exactly as for the group ring of a finite group:

$$(\alpha \beta )(g)=\underset{g=hk}{}\alpha (h)\beta (k)$$

where the sum is over all ways of writing an arrow $`g`$ in $`G`$ as a composite $`g=hk`$ in $`G`$. The second map is essentially the isomorphism occurring in a somewhat different form in \[BN, Cr, CM3\].

Ieke Moerdijk
Mathematical Institute,
University of Utrecht,
PO Box 80.010,
3508 TA Utrecht,
The Netherlands
Email: moerdijk@math.uu.nl


text:
# On the domain of singular traces.

## 1 Introduction.

After the introduction of spectral triples in Alain Connes’ Noncommutative Geometry, singular traces on $`B(H)`$ became a quite popular tool in operator algebras. With the aim of classifying them some papers have been written (,,, see also  for nonpositive traces), addressing in particular the question of singular traceability, namely when, for a given operator, there exists a singular trace taking a finite non-zero value on it. Such a problem has been completely solved in , in terms of a condition on the asymptotics of the eigenvalue sequence of the given operator, thus selecting a class of operators whose eigenvalue asymptotics are in some sense close to the sequence $`1/n`$.

The problem we address in this note is slightly different, requesting now that the given operator just belongs to the domain of a singular trace, the value zero being allowed. Also, a dual question is addressed, namely for which operators there exists a singular trace assuming the value $`\mathrm{}`$ on it.

A naïve answer would say that too slow asymptotics cannot be resummed by any (singular) trace, hence no singular trace may vanish on them, and conversely that too fast asymptotics are in the kernel of any (singular) trace, hence no singular trace can be infinite on them. Even though this statement will be true for singular traces generated by ‘regular’ asymptotics (see below), it is false in general. Indeed we show that every compact operator is in the kernel (hence in the domain) of some singular trace, and any infinite-rank operator is not in the domain (hence not in the kernel) of some singular trace.

The mentioned results will be proved for general semifinite factors, in the spirit of . The proofs are based on the new characterization of singular traceability given in , which we extend here to the continuous case, and also on the fact that ideals can be described mainly in terms of order relations.

## 2 Ideals and singular traces in a semifinite factor

Here $`(,tr)`$ is any $`\sigma `$-finite, semifinite factor with a semifinite normal faithful trace, although only in the infinite case the following discussion is non trivial.

Let us recall that a function $`\mu `$ is associated with any operator in $``$, via nonincreasing rearrangement (cf. ): set $`\mu _A(t):=inf\{s0:\lambda _A(s)t\}`$, $`t0`$, where $`\lambda _A(t):=tr(e_{|A|}(t,\mathrm{}))`$, and $`|A|=_0^{\mathrm{}}t𝑑e_{|A|}(t)`$ is the spectral decomposition of $`|A|`$. Recall that $`\mu _A`$ is non-increasing and right continuous, $`A`$ is (Breuer-)compact if $`\mu _A`$ is infinitesimal, and finite-rank if $`\mu _A`$ is eventually zero. We also set $`g_A(t)=\mathrm{log}\mu _A(e^t)`$.

### 2.1 Singular traceability

The singular traceability for a compact operator in $`B(H)`$, namely the existence of a singular trace on $`B(H)`$ which is non-trivial on (the ideal generated by) $`T`$, has been completely characterized in , and this result has been extended to semifinite factors in . Now we will use the Matuszewska indices to give an alternate description of singular traceability. Indeed Theorems 2.2 and 2.4 have been proved in  for the case of $`B(H)`$, but all the arguments extend to the general factor case. We give the proofs for the sake of completeness.

Given an operator $`A`$, we define its integral eigenvalue function $`S_A`$ as

$$S_A(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}S_A^{}(x):=_0^x\mu _A(y)𝑑y\hfill & \mu _AL^1[0,\mathrm{})\hfill \\ S_A^{}(x):=_x^{\mathrm{}}\mu _A(y)𝑑y\hfill & \mu _AL^1[0,\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Recall that a singular trace on $``$ is a tracial weight vanishing on finite rank operators.

###### Theorem 2.1.

 An operator $`T`$ is singularly traceable if and only if $`1`$ is a limit point, when $`x\mathrm{}`$, of the function $`\frac{S_A(\lambda x)}{S_A(x)},`$ for some $`\lambda >1`$. If it is true for one $`\lambda `$, it is indeed true for any $`\lambda >1`$.

The singular traceability condition can be reformulated as follows.

###### Proposition 2.2.

$`A`$ is singularly traceable if and only if $`lim\; inf\frac{x\mu _A(x)}{S_A(x)}=0`$.

###### Proof.

Assume first $`A`$ is not trace class, i.e. $`S_A(x)=S_A^{}(x)`$. Then the thesis follows by Theorem 2.1 and the following inequalities:

$$0<\frac{S_A^{}(2x)}{S_A^{}(x)}1\frac{x\mu _A(x)}{S_A^{}(x)}2\left(1\frac{S_A^{}(x/2)}{S_A^{}(x)}\right).$$

When $`A`$ is trace class, i.e. $`S_A(x)=S_A^{}(x)`$, we have, analogously,

$$0<1\frac{S_A^{}(2x)}{S_A^{}(x)}\frac{x\mu _A(x)}{S_A^{}(x)}2\left(\frac{S_A^{}(x/2)}{S_A^{}(x)}1\right)$$

and the thesis follows. $``$

We now define the Matuszewska indices $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)`$, $`\overline{\delta }(A)`$ for a compact operator $`A`$ as the indices for the corresponding eigenvalue function, cf. . As a consequence,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)}}`$ $`=\underset{h\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A(t+h)g_A(t)}{h}}=\underset{h>0}{inf}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A(t+h)g_A(t)}{h}}`$ (2.1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\delta }(A)}}`$ $`=\underset{h\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A(t+h)g_A(t)}{h}}=\underset{h>0}{sup}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}{\displaystyle \frac{g_A(t+h)g_A(t)}{h}}.`$ (2.2)
For the existence of the limits and the equalities in the definition above, see e.g. . The following Lemma holds.

###### Lemma 2.3.

$`(i)`$ If $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)>1`$ then $`g_A(t)<c+(1\epsilon )t`$, for suitable $`c,\epsilon >0`$. In particular $`A`$ is not trace class.

$`(ii)`$ If $`\overline{\delta }(A)<1`$ then $`g_A(t)>c+(1+\epsilon )t`$, for suitable $`c,\epsilon >0`$. In particular $`A`$ is trace class.

$`(iii)`$ If $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)=\overline{\delta }(A)=1`$ then $`c_1+(1\epsilon )tg_A(t)c_2+(1+\epsilon )t`$, for suitable $`c_1,c_2,\epsilon >0`$.

###### Proof.

Equalities (2.1), (2.2) imply

$$\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)^1\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{g_A(t)}{t}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{g_A(t)}{t}\overline{\delta }(A)^1,$$

from which the thesis follows. $``$

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`A`$ be compact. Then $`A`$ is singularly traceable if and only if $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)1\overline{\delta }(A)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)>1`$. By (2.1), this is equivalent to the existence of $`h>0`$ such that $`lim\; sup_t\mathrm{}\frac{g_A(t+h)g_A(t)}{h}<1`$, or, equivalently, to the existence of $`\lambda >1`$ for which $`\lambda lim\; inf_t\mathrm{}\frac{\mu _A(\lambda t)}{\mu _A(t)}>1.`$ Now observe that, by Lemma 2.3, $`A`$ is not trace class. Therefore

$$\frac{S_A(\lambda x)}{S_A(x)}=\frac{\lambda _0^x\mu _A(\lambda t)𝑑t}{_0^x\mu _A(t)𝑑t}=\lambda \frac{_0^x\left(\frac{\mu _A(\lambda t)}{\mu _A(t)}\right)\mu _A(t)𝑑t}{_0^x\mu _A(t)𝑑t},$$

hence

$$\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{S_A(\lambda x)}{S_A(x)}\lambda \underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left(\frac{\mu _A(\lambda x)}{\mu _A(x)}\right)>1,$$

which implies that $`A`$ is not singularly traceable by Theorem 2.1.
The proof when $`\overline{\delta }(A)<1`$ is analogous.
Assume now that $`A`$ is not singularly traceable, namely, by Proposition 2.2, $`inf_t\frac{t\mu _A(t)}{S_A(t)}=k>0`$. If $`A`$ is not trace-class, i.e. $`S_A=S_A^{}`$, since $`\mu _A`$ is the derivative of $`S_A^{}`$, the hypothesis means that

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}S_A^{}(t)\frac{k}{t},t.$$

Integrating on the interval $`[x,\lambda x]`$ one gets $`S_A^{}(\lambda x)\lambda ^kS_A^{}(x).`$ Since $`\frac{x\mu _A(x)}{S_A^{}(x)}1`$, one obtains

$$\frac{\mu _A(x)}{\mu _A(\lambda x)}\frac{\frac{S_A^{}(x)}{x}}{\frac{kS_A^{}(\lambda x)}{\lambda x}}\frac{\lambda ^{1k}}{k}.$$

As a consequence,

$`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)^1`$ $`=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}\lambda }}\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _A(x)}{\mu _A(\lambda x)}}`$
$`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}k+(1k)\mathrm{log}\lambda }{\mathrm{log}\lambda }}=1k<1`$
If $`A`$ is trace-class, i.e. $`S_A=S_A^{}`$, since $`\mu _A`$ is the derivative of $`S_A^{}`$, we may prove, in analogy with the previous argument, that $`S_A^{}(\lambda x)\lambda ^kS_A^{}(x).`$ Since $`S_A^{}(t)_t^{2t}\mu _A(s)𝑑st\mu _A(2t)`$, which implies $`\frac{x\mu _A(2x)}{S_A^{}(x)}1`$, one obtains

$$\frac{\mu _A(2\lambda x)}{\mu _A(x)}\frac{\frac{S_A^{}(\lambda x)}{\lambda x}}{\frac{kS_A^{}(x)}{x}}\frac{\lambda ^{1k}}{k},$$

namely

$$\frac{\mu _A(x)}{\mu _A(\lambda x)}k\left(\frac{\lambda }{2}\right)^{1+k},$$

As a consequence,

$`\overline{\delta }(A)^1`$ $`=\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{log}\lambda }}\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _A(x)}{\mu _A(\lambda x)}}`$
$`\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}k+(1+k)\mathrm{log}2+(1+k)\mathrm{log}\lambda }{\mathrm{log}\lambda }}=1+k>1.`$
$``$

###### Remark 2.5.

We say that $`A`$ is regular if $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)=\overline{\delta }(A)=:\delta (A)`$. As a consequence, for a regular $`A`$, singular traceability is equivalent to $`\delta (A)=1`$.

### 2.2 Ideals

Let us introduce the set $`M`$ of non-increasing infinitesimal right continuous functions defined on the interval $`[0,\mathrm{})`$, and the set $`G`$ of $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}]`$-valued functions on $``$ which are non-decreasing, right continuous, bounded from below and unbounded from above. Clearly the map

$$\mu g(t)=\mathrm{log}\mu (e^t)$$

gives an order-reversing one-to-one correspondence from $`M`$ to $`G`$.

Consider the action $`\lambda D_\lambda f`$ of the multiplicative group $`_+`$ on $`M`$ given by:

$$D_\lambda f(t)=\lambda f(\lambda t),\lambda ,t_+$$

We say that a face $`F`$ in $`M`$, namely a hereditary subcone of $`M`$ is dilation invariant if $`fF`$ $``$ $`D_\lambda fF`$, $`\lambda _+`$.

We proved in  that proper two-sided ideals in $``$ are in one-to-one correspondence with dilation invariant faces in $`M`$, namely for any ideal $``$ there exists a face $`F`$ such that

$$A\mu _AF,$$

and conversely if $`F`$ is a dilation invariant face then $`\{A:\mu _AF\}`$ is a two sided ideal in $``$.

We note here that the additivity property of $`F`$ does not really matter, indeed since $`\mu \nu \mu +\nu 2(\mu \nu )`$, homogeneity and the closure under $``$ are equivalent to linearity. As a consequence ideals of $``$ can be described by subsets of $`G`$, namely the following corollary holds.

###### Corollary 2.6.

There is a one to one correspondence between ideals in $``$ and subsets $`H`$ of $`G`$ such that

$`f,gHfgH`$

$`fH`$ and $`gG`$ with $`gfgH`$

$`fHf+aH`$, $`a`$

$`fHf^aH`$, $`a`$, where $`f^a(t)=f(ta)`$.
In particular, given such an $`H`$, the set $`\{A:g_AH\}`$ is a two sided ideal in $``$.

According to the previous correspondence, the ideal $`𝒦()`$ of compact operators corresponds to the whole set $`G`$, while the ideal $`()`$ of finite rank operators corresponds to eventually infinite elements of $`G`$. The principal ideal generated by an operator $`B`$ corresponds to the set $`H(B)`$ defined as follows:

$$fH(B)a,b:fb+g_B^a.$$
(2.3)
We now introduce the notion of kernel of an ideal. If $``$ is an ideal in $``$, we define its kernel $`_0`$ as the set of $`A`$ for which there exists $`T_+`$ such that

$$\epsilon >0F_\epsilon ():|A|<\epsilon T+F_\epsilon .$$

The following statement is an immediate consequence of the definition of $`_0`$.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Let $``$ be an ideal in $``$. Then $`_0`$ is an ideal contained in $``$, and any singular trace defined on $``$ vanishes on $`_0`$.

Clearly, if the face $`F`$ corresponds to $``$, the face $`F_0`$ corresponding to $`_0`$ is defined as the set of $`\mu M`$ for which there exists $`\nu F`$ such that

$$\epsilon >0x_0>0:\mu (x)<\epsilon \nu (x),x>x_0,$$

hence the subset $`H_0`$ of $`G`$, corresponding to $`F_0`$, consists of the elements $`gG`$ for which there exists $`hH`$ such that

$$c>0t_0:g(t)>c+h(t),t>t_0.$$

If $`H=H(B)`$ corresponds to the ideal generated by $`B`$, then $`gH_0(B)`$ if

$$a:c>0t_0:g(t)>c+g_B^a(t),t>t_0.$$
(2.4)
Let us prove the following.

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`B`$ be regular. Then a compact operator $`A`$ is in the ideal $`(B)`$ generated by $`B`$ if and only if there exists $`T(B)`$ regular such that $`g_Ag_T`$.

###### Proof.

By equation (2.3), $`A(B)`$ if there exist $`a,b`$ such that $`g_Ab+g_B^a`$. Clearly $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(g_B)=\underset{¯}{\delta }(b+g_B^a)`$, and $`\overline{\delta }(g_B)=\overline{\delta }(b+g_B^a)`$, therefore, choosing $`T`$ such that $`g_T=b+g_B^a`$, we obtain that $`T`$ is regular. $``$

## 3 Domains and kernels of singular traces

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`A`$ be a compact operator. Then there is a singular trace vanishing on $`A`$.

Let $`A`$ be an infinite rank operator. Then there is a singular trace which is infinite on $`A`$.

###### Proof.

In this proof, opposed to the notation of Corollary 2.6, the upper indices of $`g_A`$ are true exponents.
$`(i)`$ The statement is proved if we show that there exists a singularly traceable operator $`B`$ such that $`A_0(B)`$. According to the previous discussion this amounts to find an element $`B`$ such that $`g_A`$ satisfies condition (2.4).
Choose inductively an increasing sequence $`t_n`$ such that $`t_{n+1}t_n>n`$ and $`g_A^{1/2}(t_{n+1})g_A^{1/2}(t_n)>n`$, and set $`g(t)=g_A^{1/2}(t_n)`$ when $`t[t_n,t_{n+1})`$. Obviously $`gG`$. Then choose $`B`$ such that $`g_B=g`$. Since $`gg_A^{1/2}`$ and $`c>0`$ $`t_0:g_A(t)>c+g_A^{1/2}(t)`$, $`t>t_0`$, then a fortiori $`g_A`$ satisfies (2.4). Moreover one easily gets $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(g)=0`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(g)=\mathrm{}`$, which implies that $`B`$ is singularly traceable.
$`(ii)`$ The statement is proved if we show that there exists a singularly traceable operator $`B`$ such that $`A(B)`$. In analogy with the previous proof, this amounts to find a function $`gG`$ such that

$$c>0t_0:g_A(t)<c+g(t),t>t_0,$$
(3.1)
and then choosing $`B`$ such that $`g_B=g`$.
Choose inductively an increasing sequence $`t_n`$ such that $`t_{n+1}t_n>n`$ and $`g_A^2(t_{n+1})g_A^2(t_n)>n`$, and set $`g(t)=g_A^2(t_{n+1})`$ when $`t[t_n,t_{n+1})`$. Obviously $`gG`$. Since $`g_A^2`$ clearly satisfies (3.1) and $`gg_A^2`$, a fortiori $`g`$ satisfies (3.1). Moreover one easily gets $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(g)=0`$ and $`\overline{\delta }(g)=\mathrm{}`$, which implies that $`B`$ is singularly traceable. $``$

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`A`$ be not singularly traceable, and $`B`$ satisfy $`\delta (B)=1`$.

If $`A`$ is not trace class, then $`A`$ does not belong to the ideal $`(B)`$ generated by $`B`$, namely any singular trace on $`(B)`$ is infinite on $`A`$.

If $`A`$ is trace class, then $`A`$ belongs to the kernel $`_0(B)`$ of $`(B)`$, namely any singular trace on $`(B)`$ is zero on $`A`$.

###### Proof.

$`(i)`$ By Theorem 2.4, $`\underset{¯}{\delta }(A)>1`$, hence, by Lemma 2.3 there exist $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`t_0>0`$ such that $`g_A(t)(1\epsilon )t`$ when $`t>t_0`$. Now, for any regular $`T(B)`$, we have, by Lemma 2.3, $`g_T(t)c(1\epsilon /2)t`$. This implies that eventually $`g_T(t)g_A(t)`$. The thesis then follows from Lemma 2.8.
$`(ii)`$ By Theorem 2.4, $`\overline{\delta }(A)<1`$, hence, by Lemma 2.3, there exist $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`t_0>0`$ such that $`g_A(t)(1+\epsilon )t`$ when $`t>t_0`$. Now, we have, by Lemma 2.3, $`g_B(t)c(1+\epsilon /2)t`$. This clearly implies $`g_A`$ satisfies property (2.4) with $`a=0`$, hence the thesis. $``$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Sigma models in two-dimensional spacetime are ubiquitous in theoretical physics, with many applications in quantum field theory. Sigma models are usually based on compact Lie groups.

In this paper, we construct a sigma model based on the non-compact Heisenberg group. The present study is motivated by the more complex case studied in  where a supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory was obtained having a local infinite dimensional Kac-Moody group as its gauge group. The need for regulating the Lagrangian of the theory was essential in obtaining local Kac-Moody gauge symmetry. The Heisenberg algebra in an infinite dimensional non-compact subalgebra of the Kac-Moody algebra, the Heisenberg sigma model is the simplest theory having the new features that emerge from constructing quantum field theories based on infinite dimensional Lie algebras. This is the main motivation for studying the Lagrangian obtained in this article.

Given that the group element of the Heisenberg group is infinite dimensional, the usual procedure of obtaining a lagrangian by tracing over a representation of the group yields a divergent result. We regulate the trace to obtain a finite Lagrangian, which turns out to be a real quartic lagragian $`_4`$. After some straightforward calculation, the quartic is shown to be equivalent an imaginary cubic Lagrangian $`_3`$. Interestingly enough, the relationship of the two Lagrangians is not that of a duality transformation since the mapping does not induce an inversion of the coupling constant.

The cubic Lagrangian $`_3`$ in turn is known to be classically equivalent to the sigma model based on the $`SU(2)`$ group ; and furhermore, it is also known that this equivalence breaks down on quantizing the two theories . Our derivation provides an understanding of this quantum inequivalence, since a quantum theory based on a compact group is unlikely to have the same properties under renormalization to a similar classical theory based on a non-compact group.

In this article we will employ the backgound field method to study the renormalizability of the theory up to $`1`$-loop correction. A similar, but much more complex, calculation was carried out in  to study the renormalizability of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field with Kac-Moody gauge symmerty. We will calculate the $`\beta `$-function for both the quartic and cubic Lagrangian realizations of the theory, and show that to one loop they are identical. We will hence establish the one-loop quantum equivalence of two apparently dissimilar bosonic theories.

## 2 The Heisenberg Sigma Model Lagrangian

Consider the (non-compact) Heisenberg Algebra

$`[x,p]=ik`$ (1)
which, in terms of the creation and destruction operators, is given by

$`[a,a^{}]=k.`$ (2)
Since we would like to construct a sigma model based on the Heisenberg algebra, and we start from the finite group elements of the Heisenberg algebra. By the usual exponential mapping, we can write

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\text{exp}\text{[}i\varphi +i\omega a+i\omega ^{}a^{}\text{]}`$ (3)
Note that the field (group coordinate) $`\varphi `$ is a real variable, whereas $`\omega `$ is an arbitrary complex variable. The field $`\varphi `$ has to be introduced due to the existence of the central extension of the algebra.

The simplest nonlinear sigma model Lagrangian that gives a space-time dependence to the group coordinates $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$ is defined by

$``$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\text{[}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\text{]}.`$ (4)
However, this approach fails since the trace over the non-compact operators $`a`$, $`a^{}`$ diverges, yielding

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (5)
A similar situation was encountered in a more complex setting of defining supersymmetric gauge fields with the infinite dimensional Kac-Moody symmetry .

To successfully obtain a finite Lagrangian, one must regularize the trace $`\text{Tr}[\mathrm{}]`$ over the infinite dimensional operators. There is a wide variety of regulators which one can choose, and we expect from the principle of universality that a whole range of regulators would lead to the same renormalizable theory . We make the natural choice for the regulator of the trace given by

$`e^{\rho a^{}a}:\mathrm{Trace}\mathrm{Regulator}`$ (6)
In direct analogy with the procedure given in , we define a generalization of the non-linear sigma model by the following

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}\text{Tr}\text{[}e^{\rho a^{}a}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\text{]}`$ (7)
where a normalization constant of $`(2\lambda )^1`$ has been included. We have added the regularization factor $`e^{\rho a^{}a}`$ in the Lagrangian so that the trace over the infinite dimensional $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ converges. Thus, we have a Lagrangian that resembles the Lagrangian of the $`U(N)`$ chiral model or non-linear sigma model, and that is valid for the infinite dimensional Heisenberg group.

To write the Lagrangian in terms of the real fields, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, define

$`\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (x)+i\beta (x)`$ (8)
We have

$`i\mathrm{\Omega }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }=_\mu \varphi +k(\beta _\mu \alpha \alpha _\mu \beta )+_\mu \alpha a+_\mu \beta a^{}`$ (9)
Choosing the constant factor $`\lambda `$ such that

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\text{[}e^{\rho a^{}a}\text{]}`$ (10)
the Lagrangian (7) yields, using eq.(9), the following

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{[}\{_\mu \varphi k(\beta _\mu \alpha \alpha _\mu \beta )\}^2+f(\rho )(_\mu \alpha _\mu \alpha +_\mu \beta _\mu \beta )\text{]}`$ (11)
where

$`f(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\text{[}\text{(}a^{}a+aa^{}\text{)}e^{\rho a^{}a}\text{]}/\text{Tr}\text{[}e^{\rho a^{}a}\text{]}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{k\rho }{2})}}`$
The Lagrangian given above describes a non-trivial quartic scalar field theory consisting of three massless scalar fields. The kinetic terms of the two fields $`\alpha (x)`$, $`\beta (x)`$ are scaled by the regularization constant $`\rho `$ (through the function $`f(\rho )`$) with respect to the field $`\varphi (x)`$. We call this the quartic Lagrangian $`_4`$.

Define the (bounded) coupling constant by

$`g=\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{k\rho }{2}})[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}]`$ (13)
Rescale fields by

$`\varphi (x)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi (x)}{g}}`$
$`\alpha (x)`$ $`=`$ $`[f(\rho )]^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^1(x)`$ (14)
$`\beta (x)`$ $`=`$ $`[f(\rho )]^{\frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^2(x)`$
We then obtain the Lagrangian in the following compact form

$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\text{[}_\mu \alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^i+\text{(}_\mu \varphi ϵ_{ij}\alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^j\text{)}^2\text{]}.`$ (15)
with the action given by

$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑t_4}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`S_\alpha +S_{\mathrm{quartic}}`$ (17)
Note that, if we had started with the following regulated Lagrangian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}\text{Tr}\text{[}e^{\rho a^{}a}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}\text{]}`$ (18)
instead of (7), then we would get a Lagrangian identical to (11) since the change in ordering of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ field switches $`g`$ to $`g`$.

Dimensional analysis tells us that the coupling constant $`g`$ is dimensionless in $`d=2`$. When one quantizes the theory in $`d=2`$, one can expect the theory to be renormalizable. Since the coupling constant in $`d=2`$ is dimensionless and bounded, at least in case of the regulator that we have used, it is possible that the renormalized coupling constant also turns out to be bounded. Thus, if this theory needs renormalization (which it does), then as we let the coupling constant run, an educated guess is that it should hit a fixed point. On performig a 1-loop correction calculation for the beta function, we will see that the coupling increases for short distances; hence, we expect that the theory should have a non-trivial ultra-violet fixed point.

The quantum field theory is defined by the Feynman path integral

$`Z={\displaystyle D\alpha _iD\varphi e^{S_4}}`$ (19)
Since the field $`\varphi `$ appears only quadratically in the Lagrangian $`_4`$, one can integrate it out in the path integral to get a simpler expression. We perform the $`\varphi `$ integration in the following manner.

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D\alpha _iD\varphi e^{S_4}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D\alpha _ie^{S_\alpha }D\varphi DA_i\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^2+\frac{i}{g}A_\mu \left(_\mu \varphi ϵ_{ij}\alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^j\right)\right)}`$ (21)
Performing the $`\varphi `$ integrations yields

$`_\mu A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (22)
$`A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }_\nu \chi `$ (23)
Performing the $`A_\mu `$ Gaussian path integrations in $`d=2`$ space-time, we can rewrite the Lagrangian $``$ as

$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{[}_\mu \varphi ^i_\mu \varphi ^ii{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}gϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{\mu \nu }\varphi ^i_\mu \varphi ^j_\nu \varphi ^k\text{]}`$ (24)
with the notations

$`\alpha ^1`$ $`=`$ $`g\varphi ^1`$
$`\alpha ^2`$ $`=`$ $`g\varphi ^2`$
$`\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^3`$
where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the standard totally antisymmetric tensor. This form of the Lagrangian is complex with the interaction given by a single imaginary cubic interaction term.

The cubic Lagrangian that we have obtained is identical to that of the scalar-field theory model that is known to be classically equivalent  to the $`SU(2)`$ sigma model; this model has spontaneous particle production.

Recall that the $`SU(2)`$ sigma model in invariant under global left and right group muliplication; however, it is known that only one of the symmetries of the $`SU(2)`$ sigma model is present in the (classically) equivalent cubic Lagrangian . A simple explanation of this fact follows from the derivation of the cubic Lagrangian from the Heisenberg group: due to the regulator, the Lagrangian given eq.(7) is invariant only under the following global transformation

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(t,x)\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }(t,x)`$ (25)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a constant element of the Heisenberg group. Note multiplication on the right by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not a symmetry due to the regulator, and hence explaining the lack of invariance of the cubic Lagrangian under both left and right group muliplication.

The cubic Lagrangian also corresponds to the first two non-trival terms of the $`SU(2)`$ WZW model.

Note that the cubic Lagrangian is almost identical to a Lagrangian which describes the low-energy excitation of the one dimensional quantum antiferromagnet with short-range N$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$el order . The difference being that in the antiferromagnet case the fields must reside on a sphere while in our case we have no such restriction.

In particular, we note the following.

1. In the original Lagrangian (7), the only symmetry that is manifest is the invariance of the Lagrangian under left multiplicative of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Although not too obvious, this symmetry is present in the quartic Lagrangian $`_4`$. However, this original symmetry is hidden in the cubic Lagrangian $`_3`$. On the other hand, in the cubic Lagrangian $`_3`$ the classical symmetries of the sigma model are manifest, and these in turn are only implicit in the $`_4`$.
2. We have transformed a Lagrangian with quartic interaction to a Lagrangian with a cubic interaction using Gaussian integrations.
3. The coupling constant $`g`$ is identically transformed from one Lagrangian into one another. This contrasts with the usual duality transformation which inverts the strength of $`g`$.
4. Since the interaction in the cubic Lagrangian is one order lower than the quartic Lagrangian (15), one can expect its renormalization to be relatively simpler. The limitation of the cubic Lagrangian is that it is defined in the $`2`$-dimensional space-time, while the original Lagrangian (7) and the quartic Lagrangian (15) is defined for all space-time dimensions.

Thus, we have constructed two classically equivalent Lagrangians $`_4`$ and $`_3`$ that appear to be quite different, with the explicit symmetries of one theory being implicit in the other.

Note that although the cubic Lagrangian is classically identical to the $`SU(2)`$ sigma model, the quantum field theories are radically different, with the sigma model being asymptotically free and the cubic Lagrangian being non-asymptotically free . We consequently separately compute the beta function of both the quartic and cubic theories to check whether the classical equivalence that we have derived remains valid when the fields are quantized.

Since – unlike equivalent theories related by a duality transformation – both the quartic and cubic Lagrangians have a common weak coupling sector, we can compare the quantum behaviour of the two theories using weak coupling perturbation theory.

## 3 One-Loop Renormalization of $`_4`$ and $`_3`$

The background field method is used to obtain the one-loop $`\beta `$-function. We will obtain the result that both $`_4`$ and $`_3`$ are one-loop renormalizable, and with the same beta function, showing that the two theories are equivalent as quantum fields.

Consider the quartic Lagrangian

$`_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\text{[}_\mu \alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^i+\text{(}_\mu \varphi ϵ_{ij}\alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^j\text{)}^2\text{]}.`$ (26)
The qauntum field theory has both ultra-violet (UV) and infrared divergences. To perform the one-loop calculation, we use a UV-regulated propagator by replacing

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{p^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}{p^2}}`$
The infrared divergences are regulated by evaluating the Feynman diagrams in the dimension $`d=2+ϵ`$; we consequently have a dimesional coupling constant $`g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ`$.

The action is given by

$`S_4[\varphi ;\alpha ^i]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ}}{\displaystyle d^{2+ϵ}x\text{[}_\mu \alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^i}+\text{(}_\mu \varphi ϵ_{ij}\alpha ^i_\mu \alpha ^j\text{)}^2\text{]}.`$ (27)
Using the standard approach , we define the background fields by

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi +\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`\alpha ^i`$ $``$ $`\alpha ^i+A^i`$
where $`\varphi `$, $`\alpha ^i`$ are the quantum fields and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`A^i`$ are the background fields. The generating functional for the quartic Lagrangian is then given by

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle D\varphi D\alpha ^ie^{S_4[\varphi +\mathrm{\Phi };\alpha ^i+A^i]}}`$
Let the contribution from the one-loop be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$. The one-loop calculation yields

$`_4+\mathrm{\Delta }_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}\left[_\mu A^i_\mu A^i\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ}{\pi ϵ}}\right)+\text{(}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{ij}A^i_\mu A^j\text{)}^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^ϵ}{\pi ϵ}}\right)\right]`$ (28)
The renormalized Lagrangian is defined at some momentum scale $`\mu `$ with renormalized coupling constant $`g_R^2\mu ^ϵ`$. The one-loop renormalized Lagrangian is given by

$`_4^{\mathrm{RN}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_R,A_R,g_R]=_4+\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$ (29)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=Z_\varphi ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_R;A^i=Z_A^{\frac{1}{2}}A_R^i;g=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^{\frac{ϵ}{2}}g_RZ_g`$ (30)
We have three renormalization constants, namely $`Z_\varphi ,Z_A`$ and $`Z_g`$ and only two constants from the one-loop calculation. To recover the original vertex we impose the condition

$`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }=Z_A^2`$ (31)
We can then uniquely fix the two remaining renormalization constants and obtain

$`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_R^2}{\pi ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ;Z_A=1+{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{\pi ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ;Z_g=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g_R^2}{2\pi ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ`$ (32)
To compute the $`\beta `$ funtion, we adopt Wilson’s point of view that the bare coupling constant $`g`$ is a function of the UV-cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and varies in a manner so that the renormalized coupling constant $`g_R`$ is independent of the cutoff. The $`\beta `$ funtion is defined for the dimensionless coupling constant; we hence have

$`\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ (33)
with

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=0`$ (34)
We hence have the $`\beta `$ function given by

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}g_R({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^{\frac{ϵ}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g_R^3}{2\pi }}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ+O(g_R^4)`$ (35)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}g_R^3+O(ϵ).`$ (36)
Thus we have a positive beta function for small $`g`$ for the theory, and hence the theory is not asymptotically free.

A similar one-loop calculation for the cubic Lagrangian yields the renormalized Lagrangian to be

$`_3^{\mathrm{RN}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_R,A_R,g_R]=_3+\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ (37)
where

$`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2}{\pi ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ;Z_g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{3g_R^2}{2\pi ϵ}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mu }})^ϵ`$ (38)
Note that while $`Z_g`$ remains unchanged in going from the quartic to the cubic case, $`Z_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is different. Hence we obtain the same $`\beta `$ function for the cubic Lagrangian, establishing its one-loop equivalence to the quartic theory.

## 4  Conclusions

We have analyzed the Heisenberg sigma-model Lagrangian. The Lagrangian needs to be regularized, and we found that with a natural regulator, the Lagrangian has a quartic interaction. Moreover, it can be written as a cubic and a quartic Lagrangian with very different manifest symmetries.

One particularly interesting feature about this theory is when the dimension of space-time is two. Here, we can reformulate the real quartic Lagrangian as an equivalent theory with an imaginary cubic interaction. The two equivalent theories are not related by a duality transformation in that the coupling constants for the two theories are not inversely related. By computing the one-loop $`\beta `$ function we explicitly demostrated the one-loop quantum equivalence of the two theories. The equivalence of the cubic and quartic Lagrangians is to our knowledge the first instance of two apparently different two-dimensional bosonic theories being equivalent as quantum field theories.

We also found a simple explanation as to why the classical equivalence of the SU(2) cubic (pseudo-chiral) Lagrangian with the principal SU(2) chiral model breaks down: the cubic Lagrangian results from a sigma model based on the non-compact Heisenberg group. Under renormalization this difference in the target space causes the classical equivalence to break down.

Acknowledgement

We have benefitted from many fruitful discussions with Rajesh Parwani.