text:
# Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2

## Abstract

We apply symmetry considerations to study the possible superconducting order parameters in ferromagnetic ZrZn2. We predict that the presence and the location of the superconducting gap nodes depend on the direction of magnetization $`𝑴`$. In particular, if $`𝑴`$ is directed along the $`z`$ axis, then the order parameter should always have zeros. We also discuss how to determine the gap symmetry in ZrZn2 using ultrasound attenuation measurements.

Recently, superconductivity has been found in ZrZn2 pfl01 , which a weak itinerant ferromagnet. The most surprising fact is that the superconductivity occurs only in the ferromagnetic phase. The exchange splitting of the Fermi surfaces makes a conventional singlet BCS-like pairing strongly suppressed. A number of theories have been proposed which show how the exchange by spin fluctuations can lead to a triplet Cooper pairing both in the paramagnetic and the ferromagnetic phases fay80 , or to the enhancement of the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ on the ferromagnetic side kir01 . Another feature of the phase diagram is that $`T_c`$ grows as pressure moves away from the ferromagnetic quantum critical point, which can be explained by the exchange-type interaction of the magnetic moments of the Cooper pairs with the magnetization density walker02 .

Symmetry considerations can identify the possible order parameters, even in the absence of a firmly established microscopic mechanism of pairing, which is often the case for unconventional superconductors. The presence of ferromagnetism brings about a number of novel features in the symmetry analysis. In this article, we give a detailed analysis of the pairing symmetry in ZrZn2 and discuss its consequences for the superconducting gap structure. Our work has some overlap with the recent theoretical studies mac01 ; fom01  of the gap symmetry in another ferromagnetic superconductor UGe2 sax00 . We find that the presence and location of the gap zeros depend on the direction of magnetization. We also discuss in some detail the design of ultrasonic attenuation experiments that can be used for experimental probing the order parameter symmetry.

The symmetry group $`𝒢`$ of the system in the normal state is defined as a group of transformations which leave the system Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ invariant, i.e. $`[G,H_0]=0`$ for all elements $`G𝒢`$. In non-magnetic superconductors, time reversal symmetry $`K`$ is not broken, and $`𝒢=S\times K\times U(1)`$, where $`S`$ is the space group of the crystal, and $`U(1)`$ is the gauge group min99 . In contrast, in magnetic superconductors, time reversal symmetry is broken, and $`𝒢=S_M\times U(1)`$, where $`S_M`$ is the magnetic space group which is a group of symmetry operations leaving both the crystal lattice (the microscopic charge density) and the magnetization density $`𝑴`$ invariant lan60 . For example, if there is a crystal point group rotation $`R`$ which transforms $`𝑴`$ to $`𝑴`$, then the combined operation $`KR`$ will be an element of $`S_M`$, because the time reversal restores the original $`𝑴`$ not affecting the lattice symmetry. In the above expressions, it is assumed that the space group elements act on the orbital and spin coordinates simultaneously, which is the case when the spin-orbit coupling is present. In the absence of spin-orbit coupling, the transformations of the orbital and spin spaces are independent, so that $`𝒢=S_{orb}\times G_{spin}\times U(1)`$, where $`G_{spin}=SO(2)`$ is the group of spin rotations about the direction of $`𝑴`$.

The crystal structure of ZrZn2 in the absence of ferromagnetism is described by a face-centered cubic Bravais lattice, with the Zr atoms forming a diamond structure. For cubic ferromagnets, the only two possibilities for the easy direction of magnetization are a  or a  direction, and these possibilities are analysed in the article. Since a relatively small magnetic field ($`0.05`$T at $`T=1.75K`$) is required to line up the magnetic moments along a given direction pfl01 , it is expected that experiments could be carried out for $`𝑴`$ parallel to either  or . The change in the superconducting gap structure when $`𝑴`$ is rotated by an external magnetic field is one of the interesting and unusual properties of ZrZn2 that could be investigated experimentally.

If $`𝑴`$ is along , then $`S_M`$ is generated by: (i) the lattice translations by the primitive vectors of the fcc lattice: $`𝒕_1=(a/2)(1,1,0)`$, $`𝒕_2=(a/2)(0,1,1)`$, and $`𝒕_3=(a/2)(1,0,1)`$, where $`a`$ is the lattice constant; (ii) the rotations $`C_{4z}`$ about the $`z`$ axis by an angle $`\pi /2`$ followed by a fractional translation by a vector $`𝝉=(a/4)(1,1,1)`$; (iii) the combined rotations $`KC_{2x}`$ about the $`x`$ axis by an angle $`\pi `$ accompanied by the time reversal; and (iv) the inversion $`I`$. The point symmetry of the crystal is described by the magnetic group $`𝐃_{4h}(𝐂_{4h})=𝐃_4(𝐂_4)\times 𝐂_i`$, where $`𝐂_i=\{E,I\}`$. The subgroup in parentheses (the unitary subgroup) incorporates all symmetry elements which are not multiplied by the anti-unitary and anti-linear operation $`KC_{2x}`$, i.e. $`𝐃_4(𝐂_4)=𝐂_4+KC_{2x}\times 𝐂_4`$.

If $`𝑴`$ is along , then $`S_M`$ is generated by: (i) the primitive lattice translations, (ii) the rotations $`C_{3xyz}`$ about the  direction by an angle $`2\pi /3`$; (iii) the combined rotations $`KC_{2\overline{x}y}`$ about the $`[\overline{1}10]`$ direction by an angle $`\pi `$ accompanied by the time reversal; and (iv) the inversion $`I`$. The point symmetry is described by the magnetic group $`𝐃_{3d}(𝐂_{3i})=𝐃_3(𝐂_3)\times 𝐂_i`$, where $`𝐃_3(𝐂_3)=𝐂_3+KC_{2\overline{x}y}\times 𝐂_3`$.

Using the standard notation for the space group operations which combine rotations $`R`$ and translations $`𝒕`$: $`𝒓(R|𝒕)𝒓=R𝒓+𝒕`$, the transformation rules for the spinor wave functions can be written as

$$(R|𝒕)\psi _\sigma (𝒓)=[D^{(1/2)}(R)]_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\psi _\sigma ^{}(R^1(𝒓𝒕)).$$
(1)
Here $`\sigma =,`$ is the spin projection on the direction of $`𝑴`$, and $`D^{(1/2)}(R)`$ is the spinor representation of rotations: for a rotation by an angle $`\theta `$ around some axis $`𝒏`$, $`D^{(1/2)}(R)=U_𝒏^{(s)}(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}(i(\theta /2)(𝝈𝒏))`$. We will also need the transformation rules under the time reversal operation:

$$K\psi _\sigma (𝒓)=(i\sigma _2)_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\psi _\sigma ^{}^{}(𝒓),$$
(2)
and the inversion:

$$I\psi _\sigma (𝒓)=\psi _\sigma (𝒓).$$
(3)
In the presence of the exchange field and spin-orbit coupling, the single-particle wavefunctions are linear combinations of the eigenstates of the spin operator $`s_z`$: $`𝒓|\psi =u(𝒓)|+v(𝒓)|`$. Because the normal state Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is invariant with respect to the crystal lattice translations, the eigenfunctions are the Bloch waves $`\psi _𝒌(𝒓)`$ corresponding to wave vectors $`𝒌`$ in the Brillouin zone. If the energy spectrum consists of a single band which is doubly degenerate in zero exchange field due to the Kramers theorem, then diagonalization of the Hamiltonian in the presence of the exchange field results in two non-degenerate energy bands $`ϵ_\pm (𝒌)`$. The corresponding single-particle wave functions have the form

$$𝒓|𝒌,\pm =u_𝒌^{(\pm )}(𝒓)|+v_𝒌^{(\pm )}(𝒓)|.$$
(4)
These states are referred to as the pseudospin states. The operations from the group $`𝒢`$ conserve the pseudospin in the following sense: $`G|𝒌,\pm =\mathrm{exp}[i\varphi _\pm (𝒌,G)]|G_{orb}𝒌,\pm `$, with $`G_{orb}`$ describing the “orbital” part of the symmetry operation, e.g. rotations or reflections, and the undetermined phase factors $`\varphi _\pm `$ coming from the freedom in choosing the overall phases of $`|𝒌,\pm `$ at every point of the Brillouin zone. Here we adopt a convention introduced in Ref. ued85 , according to which the pseudospin states (4) transform similar to the spin eigenstates $`|𝒌,`$ and $`|𝒌,`$.

Let us first consider the case $`𝑴[001]`$. From Eqs. (1,2,3), the transformation rules for the creation operators of electrons in the states (4) are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}(C_{4z}|𝝉):\hfill & c_{𝒌,\pm }^{}e^{i(C_{4z}𝒌)𝝉}e^{i\pi /4}c_{C_{4z}𝒌,\pm }^{}\hfill \\ (KC_{2x}|\mathrm{𝟎}):\hfill & \lambda c_{𝒌,\pm }^{}\pm i\lambda ^{}c_{C_{2x}𝒌,\pm }^{}\hfill \\ I:\hfill & c_{𝒌,\pm }^{}c_{𝒌,\pm }^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Here $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary $`c`$-number.

The pseudospin states can be used as a basis for constructing the Hamiltonian which takes into account the Cooper pairing between electrons with opposite momenta $`𝒌`$ and $`𝒌`$. Treating the Cooper interaction in the mean-field approximation, we obtain $`H=H_0+H_{sc}`$, with the non-interacting part

$$H_0=\underset{𝒌}{}\left[ϵ_+(𝒌)c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌+}+ϵ_{}(𝒌)c_𝒌^{}c_𝒌\right],$$
(6)
describing two separate sheets of the Fermi surface corresponding to different pseudospin indices, and

$$H_{sc}=\underset{𝒌}{}\underset{\alpha ,\beta =\pm }{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }(𝒌)c_{𝒌\alpha }^{}c_{𝒌,\beta }^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(7)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)`$ represent the superconducting order parameters at the “$`+`$” and “$``$” sheets of the Fermi surface respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)`$ is the order parameter composed of quasiparticles on different sheets. From the Pauli exclusion principle, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)`$ are odd functions of $`𝒌`$, but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)`$ does not have a definite parity. Separating the odd and the even parts, the order parameter matrix can also be cast in a more familiar form $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒌)=(i𝝈\sigma _2)𝒅(𝒌)+(i\sigma _2)\psi (𝒌)`$, where $`𝒅`$ and $`\psi `$ are the pseudospin-triplet and the pseudospin-singlet components respectively min99 . The fact that the Fermi surface of ZrZn2 consists of several sheets of different topology maz97 , does not change our results.

From Eqs. (5), the band spectra $`ϵ_\pm (𝒌)`$ are invariant under the operations from the point group $`𝐃_{4h}`$. Also, we obtain the transformation rules for the order parameters under rotations $`C_{4z}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)i\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(C_{4z}^1𝒌)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)+i\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(C_{4z}^1𝒌)`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_+(C_{4z}^1𝒌)`$
(note the cancellation of the $`𝝉`$-dependent phase factors on the right-hand side of these equations), and under the combined time reversal and rotations $`KC_{2x}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}^{}(C_{2x}^1𝒌)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}(C_{2x}^1𝒌)`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{}(C_{2x}^1𝒌).`$
In the presence of the exchange band splitting $`E_{ex}`$, the low-frequency part of the spectrum of excitations (e.g. spin fluctuations) responsible for the interband Cooper pairing is cut out fay80 . Since $`E_{ex}`$ is by far the largest energy scale in the system: $`E_{ex}5\mathrm{m}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{y}800\mathrm{K}`$ santi01 , the pairing interactions $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},+}`$, which are responsible for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, are negligibly small loff  (some of the consequences of taking these interactions into account will be discussed below). On the other hand, the interband pairing terms $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,+}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},}`$ can induce order parameters of the same symmetry on both sheets of the Fermi surface. We expect the effect of these terms to be small at small spin-orbit coupling, because they are absent at zero spin-orbit coupling due to the spin conservation.

The superconducting order parameter which emerges at $`T_c`$ transforms according to one of the irreducible representations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the normal state symmetry group $`𝒢`$. It can be represented as the expansion $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)=_i\eta _{\mathrm{\Gamma },i}f_i(𝒌)`$, where $`i`$ labels the orbital basis functions, and $`\eta _{\mathrm{\Gamma },i}`$ are the order parameter components which enter, e.g., the Ginzburg-Landau free energy. In our case, $`𝒢`$ contains the anti-unitary and anti-linear operation $`KC_{2x}`$, and, instead of usual representations, one should use co-representations of the magnetic point group $`𝐃_4(𝐂_4)`$, which can be derived from one-dimensional representations of the unitary subgroup $`𝐂_4`$ brad72 . The results for odd co-representations are listed in Table 1. Note that the action of the unitary and anti-unitary orbital symmetry elements on scalar functions $`f(𝒌)`$ is defined as: $`Rf(𝒌)=f(R^1𝒌)`$, and $`KRf(𝒌)=f^{}(R^1𝒌)`$.

If the superconductivity appears on the “$`+`$”-sheet, then the order parameter is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)`$ \[in terms of the vector order parameter $`𝒅(𝒌)=d_z(𝒌)\widehat{z}+(d_+(𝒌)(\widehat{x}i\widehat{y})+d_{}(𝒌)(\widehat{x}+i\widehat{y}))/2`$, it corresponds to $`d_{}=d_xid_y`$\]. Using Eqs. (Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2) and Table 1, we obtain the following expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,A}(𝒌)=i\eta _Af_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{++,B}(𝒌)=i\eta _Bf_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{++,^1E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{1}E}f_B(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{++,^2E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{2}E}f_A(𝒌).\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
The appearance of different representations on the left-hand and the right-hand sides of these expressions can be easily understood if to look at Eqs. (Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2). The transformed order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}`$ has an extra factor $`i`$ which comes from the rotation of spin coordinates. In terms of $`𝒅(𝒌)`$, this factor is the result of the rotation of the basis spin vector $`\widehat{x}+i\widehat{y}`$, which transforms according to the $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$ representation. Thus, for instance, the first line of Eqs. (10) follows from the fact that $`A={}_{}{}^{2}E\times {}_{}{}^{1}E`$. So far, we have discussed the transformation properties of the order parameters (10) under the rotations from the unitary subgroup $`𝐂_4`$. Because of our choice of the overall phase of the basis functions (see the caption to Table 1) and the factors $`i`$ on the right-hand sides of Eqs. (10), the effect of the anti-unitary operation $`KC_{2x}`$ on $`\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to complex conjugation: $`KC_{2x}\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }=\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

As seen from Eqs. (10) and Table 1, the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ vanish at the poles of the Fermi surface $`k_x=k_y=0`$, while the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$ vanish at the equator $`k_z=0`$. One can prove that these gap zeros are not artifacts of our choice of the basis functions but are imposed by symmetry. Indeed, one of the elements of the unitary component $`𝐂_{4h}`$ of the magnetic point group is the basal plane reflection $`\sigma _h=C_{2z}\times I`$. Therefore,

$$\sigma _hf_{A,B}(𝒌)=f_{A,B}(k_x,k_y,k_z)=f_{A,B}(𝒌),$$
(11)
so that $`f_{A,B}(k_x,k_y,0)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(k_x,k_y,0)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(k_x,k_y,0)=0`$. Similarly, under a four-fold rotation around the $`z`$ axis:

$$C_{4z}f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E,^2E}(𝒌)=f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E,^2E}(k_y,k_x,k_z)=\pm if_{{}_{}{}^{1}E,^2E}(𝒌),$$

hence $`f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E,^2E}(0,0,k_z)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A(0,0,k_z)=\mathrm{\Delta }_B(0,0,k_z)=0`$. It also follows from Eq. (11) that $`f_A(𝒌)`$ and $`f_B(𝒌)`$ go to zero at $`k_z=\pm \pi /a`$, i.e. at the surface of the Brillouin zone, because $`(k_x,k_y,\pi /a)`$ and $`(k_x,k_y,\pi /a)`$ are equivalent points. In order to take into account the crystal periodicity leading to the presence of these additional gap zeros, one has to represent the basis functions as the lattice Fourier series $`f(𝒌)=_nf_ne^{i𝒌𝑹_n}`$, where summation goes over the sites $`𝑹_n`$ of the Bravais lattice of the crystal. The expansion appropriate for an odd order parameter has the form

$$f(𝒌)=\underset{n}{}c_n\mathrm{sin}𝒌𝑹_n,$$
(12)
where $`𝑹_n`$ are the sites of a fcc cubic lattice, which cannot be transformed one into another by inversion. In the nearest-neighbor approximation, we choose the following set of $`𝑹_n`$’s: $`\{𝑹_n\}=a/2\{(101),(\overline{1}01),(011),(0\overline{1}1),(110),(\overline{1}10)\}`$. Using the representation characters from Table 1, we obtain the basis functions which have symmetry-imposed zeros at the surface of the Brillouin zone:

$`f_A(𝒌)=\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_za}{2}}\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}+\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)`$
$`f_B(𝒌)=\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_za}{2}}\left(\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)`$
$`f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_za}{2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}+i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}\right)`$
$`+\lambda _1\left[e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)\right]`$
$`f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)=\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_za}{2}}\left(\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}i\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}\right)`$
$`+\lambda _2\left[e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)e^{\frac{i\pi }{4}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_xa}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_ya}{2}}\right)\right].`$
Here $`\lambda _{1,2}`$ are arbitrary real constants. The polynomial expressions for the basis functions from Table 1 are recovered in the limit of a “small” Fermi surface $`𝒌0`$ \[note that $`f_B(𝒌)`$ from Table 1 can be obtained by including the next-nearest-neighbors in the expansion (12)\]. It should be noted that these nearest-neighbor results give also gap zeros not required by symmetry, e.g. $`f_B(𝒌)=0`$ on the plane $`k_x=k_y`$. These “accidental” zeros will be removed if higher-neighbor terms are included, but if the nearest-neighbor terms turn out to be dominant, experiment could find indications of these accidental zeros.

The order parameter on the pseudospin-down sheet of the Fermi surface is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)`$ \[in terms of $`𝒅(𝒌)`$, it corresponds to $`d_+=d_x+id_y`$, and the relevant basis spin vector is $`\widehat{x}i\widehat{y}`$, which transforms according to the $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ representation\]. Its $`𝒌`$-dependence is given by the following expressions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{,A}(𝒌)=i\eta _Af_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{,B}(𝒌)=i\eta _Bf_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{,^1E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{1}E}f_A(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{,^2E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{2}E}f_B(𝒌).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
If we take into account the interband pairing interaction of the form $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,+}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},}`$, then both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ are non-zero and correspond to the same irreducible co-representation of the magnetic point group. Comparing Eqs. (10) and (13), we see that, although the orbital symmetries of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ are different, they have the symmetry-imposed gap nodes at the same locations on both sheets of the Fermi surface. For example, if the order parameter corresponds to the $`A`$ co-representation, then both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,A}(𝒌)f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,A}(𝒌)f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)`$ have point nodes at $`k_x=k_y=0`$.

The gap nodes disappear only if the interband pairing interactions $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},+}`$ are taken into account. These terms induce a non-zero order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, whose momentum dependence in the triplet channel, according to Eqs. (Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2) and Table 1, is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒌)f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A,B,{}_{}{}^{1}E`$, or $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$. To see explicitly how the structure of the nodes in the different components of the gap function is translated into zeros of the spectrum of Bogoliubov quasiparticle excitations, it is necessary to diagonalize the Hamiltonian of Eqs. (6) and (7). This gives the following condition for the energy $`E(𝒌)`$ of a quasiparticle to be zero at some $`𝒌`$:

$`ϵ_+^2ϵ_{}^2+ϵ_+^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|^2+ϵ_{}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}|^2`$ (14)
$`+ϵ_+ϵ_{}(|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }_+|^2)+|\mathrm{det}\mathrm{\Delta }|^2=0.`$
The condition for zeros in the excitation energy on the “+”-sheet of the Fermi surface (i.e. at $`ϵ_+(𝒌)=0`$) is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)=0`$, while for zeros in the excitation energy on the “$``$”-sheet (i.e. at $`ϵ_{}(𝒌)=0`$) we must have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)=0`$. Thus a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ will remove the nodes in the spectrum of elementary excitations. For example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,A}(𝒌)f_A(𝒌)`$ does not vanish at $`k_x=k_y=0`$, so that these point nodes should be filled. However, as discussed above, this effect is expected to be negligibly small.

In the absence of a complete understanding of the microscopic mechanism of the superconductivity in ZrZn2, one cannot tell which order parameter from the lists (10) and (13) corresponds to the highest critical temperature. For example, if the superconductivity is due to the exchange by spin fluctuations, then, at vanishing spin-orbit coupling, the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,A},\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,B}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$ correspond to the $`p`$-wave equal-spin-pairing superconducting states studied in Ref. fay80 ; in these terms, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$ corresponds to $`f`$-wave pairing. In Ref. walker02 , a simple phenomenological model of the phase diagram of ZrZn2 was proposed. The basic idea was that the underlying order parameter is a vector quantity transforming according to a three-dimensional representation of the cubic group. Then, the exchange-type interaction of the magnetic moments of Cooper pairs with the ferromagnetic magnetization splits the superconducting critical temperature and lowers the dimensionality of the order parameter from three to one. In this model, the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$ are the possible ones, and the experimental determination of the gap symmetry will thus be helpful in assessing the validity of the model.

A similar analysis can be done if the easy axis for magnetization is . In this case, the band spectra are invariant under the operations from the group $`𝐃_{3d}`$, the relevant magnetic point group is $`𝐃_3(𝐂_3)`$, and the transformation rules (Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2) and (Symmetry of the order parameter in superconducting ZrZn2) for the order parameter are replaced by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)e^{2i\pi /3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(C_{3xyz}^1𝒌)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)e^{+2i\pi /3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(C_{3xyz}^1𝒌)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_+(C_{3xyz}^1𝒌),`$
under rotations $`C_{3xyz}`$, and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}^{}(C_{2\overline{x}y}^1𝒌)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}(C_{2\overline{x}y}^1𝒌)`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒌)\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{}(C_{2\overline{x}y}^1𝒌),`$
under the combined operation $`KC_{2\overline{x}y}`$.

Using Table 2, we obtain the following $`𝒌`$-dependences of the order parameter at the pseudospin-up sheet:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,A}(𝒌)=i\eta _Af_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{++,^1E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{1}E}f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{++,^2E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{2}E}f_A(𝒌).\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
As above, the factors $`i`$ here guarantee that the action of $`KC_{2\overline{x}y}`$ on $`\eta _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equivalent to complex conjugation.

A consequence of the above results is that there are no gap nodes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$ have point nodes where the line $`k_x=k_y=k_z`$ cuts the Fermi surface. For completeness, we also give the expressions for the basis functions of the magnetic point group $`𝐃_3(𝐂_3)`$ in terms of the lattice Fourier series in the nearest-neighbor approximation:

$`f_A(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`S_1^++S_2^++S_3^+`$
$`+i\lambda _1\left(S_1^{}+S_2^{}+S_3^{}\right)`$
$`f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{}S_1^++\omega S_2^++S_3^+`$
$`+i\lambda _2\left(\omega ^{}S_1^{}+\omega S_2^{}+S_3^{}\right)`$
$`f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega S_1^++\omega ^{}S_2^++S_3^+`$
$`+i\lambda _3\left(\omega S_1^{}+\omega ^{}S_2^{}+S_3^{}\right),`$
where $`S_1^\pm =\mathrm{sin}(k_xa/2\pm k_ya/2)`$, $`S_2^\pm =\mathrm{sin}(k_ya/2\pm k_za/2)`$, $`S_3^\pm =\mathrm{sin}(k_za/2\pm k_xa/2)`$, and $`\lambda _{1,2,3}`$ are arbitrary real constants.

For the order parameter at the “$``$”-sheet of the Fermi surface,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_{,A}(𝒌)=i\eta _Af_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{,^1E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{1}E}f_A(𝒌)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{,^2E}(𝒌)=i\eta _{{}_{}{}^{2}E}f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
There are no gap nodes for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$, but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$ have point nodes at $`k_x=k_y=k_z`$. If the interband hybridization of the form $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,+}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},}`$ is taken into account, the order parameters are non-zero on both sheets of the Fermi surface. From Eqs. (17) and (18), we see that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++,A}(𝒌)f_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}(𝒌)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,A}(𝒌)f_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}(𝒌)`$ vanish on the line $`k_x=k_y=k_z`$. The gap nodes disappear only in the presence of the interband pairing $`c_{𝒌+}^{}c_{𝒌,}^{}c_𝒌^{}c_{𝒌^{},+}`$, which induces the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Gamma }}(𝒌)f_\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒌)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A,{}_{}{}^{1}E`$, or $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$. Again, we expect $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ to be negligibly small in the presence of the large exchange field.

The presence of the gap nodes would manifest themselves in power-law temperature dependences of the thermodynamic and transport properties min99 . For example, the electronic specific heat at low temperatures should be $`C(T)/T=\gamma _0+\gamma _1T`$ for the line nodes, and $`C(T)/T=\gamma _0+\gamma _1T^2`$ for the point nodes. The temperature-independent contributions on the right hand side of these equations come from the normal excitations at the unpaired sheet of the Fermi surface. If the magnitudes of both order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{++}`$ are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ are comparable (we expect this to be the case only if the spin-orbit coupling is strong enough), then $`\gamma _0`$ is absent and a power-law dependence should be observed.

One of the most powerful methods of determining the presence and the location on the Fermi surface of gap nodes in unconventional superconductors has been ultrasonic attenuation shi86 ; ell96 ; mor96 ; lup01 ; wal01 . The method is based on finding which sound waves are particulary weakly attenuated by the nodal quasiparticles. Nodal quasiparticles are “inactive” in attenuating a particular sound wave if the electron-phonon interaction for the nodal quasiparticle with the particular sound wave is zero. Symmetry arguments determining the inactive nodes have been developed in a previous article wal01 . We refer to that article for a detailed treatment of the basic ideas, and give here the extension of the arguments which is necessary for treating magnetic groups.

If a symmetry operation of the crystal (i.e. an element of its magnetic point group) leaves the wave vector $`𝒌`$ characterizing a given electron state invariant, then the interaction of this electron with certain phonons can be shown to be zero. Consider a phonon of wavevector $`𝒒`$ and polarization direction $`𝒆`$. The interaction of the given electron with the given phonon can be shown to be zero if the symmetry operation causes an odd number of changes of sign of the two quantities $`i𝒒`$ and $`𝒆`$ (the factor $`i`$ is important because the time reversal operation contains complex conjugation). The transformation rules for $`𝒌`$, $`𝒒`$, and $`𝒆`$ are: (i) under the point-group operations $`R`$, they transform like polar vectors, i.e. $`𝒌R^1𝒌`$, etc.; and (ii) under the combined operations $`KR`$, $`𝒌R^1𝒌`$, $`𝒆R^1𝒆`$, and $`𝒒R^1𝒒`$, so that $`i𝒒iR^1𝒒`$. For example, suppose that the magnetic group contains the symmetry element $`KC_{2x}`$. The wave vectors $`𝒌`$ of electrons lying in the $`k_x=0`$ plane are invariant under $`KC_{2x}`$. According to the rule just stated, these electrons have zero interaction with transverse phonons having their wave vectors along the $`x`$ axis because, under the operation $`KC_{2x}`$, $`i𝒒`$ remains invariant, but $`𝒆`$ changes sign.

As shown above, one should expect the order parameter in ZrZn2 to have nodes if $`𝑴[001]`$, when the magnetic point group is $`𝐃_4(𝐂_4)`$. The gap nodes are always active for longitudinal sound waves. If the order parameter has point nodes ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ in Eqs. (10)), then these point nodes are inactive for the transverse waves T100 and T110 polarized either in the basal plane or along , and also for the waves T001 polarized either along  or . (By definition a Thkl sound wave is a transverse wave having its wave vector $`𝒒`$ along the \[hkl\] direction.) If the order parameter has line nodes in the plane $`k_z=0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{1}E}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{{}_{}{}^{2}E}`$ in Eqs. (10)), then these line nodes are inactive for the transverse waves T100 and T110 polarized along , and also for T001 waves polarized either along  or . Note that the attenuation of the T100 and T110 waves polarized in the basal plane can be used to distinguish between the equatorial line nodes and the point nodes, because the former are active, but the latter are inactive. The presence of unpaired electrons on one of the sheets of the Fermi surface will not cause difficulties in symmetry determination by ultrasonic attenuation as this will simply make a contribution to the low-temperature temperature-independent background, which is easily distinguished from the temperature-dependent contribution of the gapped sheet (or sheets) of the Fermi surface.

To summarize, we have studied the symmetry of the superconducting order parameter in ZrZn2. If the spin-orbit coupling is weak then superconductivity should appear on only one of the sheets of the Fermi surface. The interband scattering can, in principle, induce non-zero order parameters on other sheets and also fill the gap zeros, but we expect these effects to be small. The symmetry of the order parameter depends on the direction of the easy axis for magnetization. If $`𝑴[001]`$, then the magnetic point group is $`𝐃_4(𝐂_4)`$, and the order parameter goes to zero on the line $`k_x=k_y=0`$ for the gap symmetries $`A`$ and $`B`$, or on the planes $`k_z=0,\pm \pi /a`$ for the symmetries $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$, on both sheets of the Fermi surface. The positions of the gap zeros can be probed by ultrasonic attenuation measurements, and to assist in the design of appropriate experiments we have given a detailed discussion of the zeros of the electron-phonon interaction in ferromagnetic ZrZn2 which are imposed by the magnetic point symmetry. If $`𝑴[111]`$, then the magnetic point group is $`𝐃_3(𝐂_3)`$, and the order parameter has point zeros on the line $`k_x=k_y=k_z`$ on both sheets of the Fermi surface, for the gap symmetry $`A`$, and on one of the sheets, for the symmetries $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}E`$. It should be possible to fix the magnetization density $`𝑴`$ along an arbitrary crystallographic direction by the application of an external magnetic field, and hence to determine the gap structure for ZrZn2 for $`𝑴`$ along both  and  and to find the changes that occur when $`𝑴`$ is rotated from  to .

We acknowledge a stimulating discussion with Louis Taillefer and support from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


format: text

text:
# Motivic Haar measure on reductive groups

## 0. Introduction

In this paper we define a version of Haar measure on groups that arise when taking the set of points of an algebraic group over a “large” local field. For an algebraic group $`G`$ defined over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic zero, we consider the set of its points $`G(F)`$ over the field $`F=k((t))`$ of Laurent series with coefficients in $`k`$. Since $`F`$ is a local field, it can be expected that $`G(F)`$ would be in many ways analogous to a $`p`$-adic group. However, there is no hope for a Haar measure on $`G(F)`$ in the usual sense, since, unlike the $`p`$-adic situation, the set $`G(F)`$ is not locally compact. Our objective is to define a “variety-valued” invariant measure on $`G(F)`$ in the case when $`G`$ is reductive, and give an explicit formula for such a measure. We are able to do this by means of the theory of motivic integration introduced by M. Kontsevich, .

In the original theory of motivic integration, the motivic measures live on arc spaces of (smooth) varieties and take values in a certain completion of the Grothendieck ring of the category of all algebraic varieties over $`k`$. The arc spaces are defined as follows. For an algebraic variety $`X`$ over $`k`$, the space of formal arcs on $`X`$ is denoted by $`𝔏(X)`$. It is the inverse limit $`\underset{}{lim}𝔏_n(X)`$ in the category of $`k`$-schemes of the schemes $`𝔏_n(X)`$ representing the functors defined on the category of $`k`$-algebras by

$$R\mathrm{Mor}_{kschemes}(\mathrm{Spec}R[t]/t^{n+1}R[t],X).$$

The set of $`k`$-rational points of $`𝔏(X)`$ can be identified with the set of points of $`X`$ over $`k[[t]]`$, that is,

$$\mathrm{Mor}_{kschemes}(\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]],X).$$

There are canonical morphisms $`\pi _n:𝔏(X)𝔏_n(X)`$ – on the set of points, they correspond to truncation of arcs. In particular, when $`n=0`$, we get the the natural projection $`\pi _X:𝔏(X)X`$. The canonical motivic measure is an additive function (whose values are, roughly speaking, equivalence classes of $`k`$-varieties) on a certain algebra of subsets of the space $`𝔏(X)`$ (see ). In the case when $`X`$ is a smooth variety over $`k`$, this function assigns to the sets of the form $`\pi _X^1(\pi _X(A))`$ with $`A`$ a subvariety of $`X`$ the equivalence class of $`A`$. Loosely speaking, the canonical motivic measure “projects under $`\pi _X`$ to the tautological measure on $`X`$” (see sections 1.2, 1.3). Such a normalization makes the motivic measure on $`𝔏(X)`$ unique,  (hence the term “canonical”).

For an algebraic group $`G`$, uniqueness implies that the canonical motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$ is automatically invariant under translations by the elements of $`𝔏(G)`$. We observe that by definition of an arc space, the set of $`k`$-points of $`𝔏(G)`$ is in bijection with the set of $`k[[t]]`$-points of $`G`$, that is, with the set of integral points in $`G(F)`$ (In the $`p`$-adic analogy, $`𝔏(G)`$ corresponds to a maximal compact subgroup inside a $`p`$-adic group). Our task is to extend the motivic measure beyond the integral points of $`G(F)`$ in such a way that it would be invariant under the translations by $`\mathrm{𝑎𝑙𝑙}`$ elements of $`G(F)`$.

For our construction, the arc spaces will not quite suffice because $`G(F)`$ is not in bijection with the set of $`k`$-points of any arc space. We will need a slightly more general setup, described in the Bourbaki talk by E. Looijenga , and also the language of ind-schemes, needed to handle objets that are “bigger” than arc spaces. We review all the necessary definitions and theorems in the next section. In Section 2, we first extend the motivic measure on $`𝔏(𝔸^n)`$ to the ind-scheme over $`k`$ whose set of $`k`$-points coincides with the $`F`$-points of $`𝔸^n`$. We then transport the motivic measure from the affine space to a full measure subset of $`G(F)`$ (namely, the big cell), using the translation-invariant differential form on $`G`$.

Acknowledgement. I am deeply grateful to my advisor T. C. Hales for suggesting this project and guiding me through it, and to F. Loeser, A.-M. Aubert, A. Bravo, Ju-Lee Kim, J. Korman, A. Kuronya, E. Lawes, N. Ramachandran, M. Roth and V. Vologodsky for helpful conversations and suggestions.

## 1. Preliminaries

### 1.1. The space of sections.

Almost everything in the following three subsections is quoted from .

We reserve the symbol $`𝔻`$ for $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$. The term $`𝔻`$-variety will mean a separated reduced scheme that is flat and of finite type over $`𝔻`$ and whose closed fiber is reduced. For a $`𝔻`$-variety, $`𝒳/𝔻`$, with closed fiber $`X`$, we consider the set $`𝒳_n`$ of sections of its structure morphism up to order $`n`$. By sections up to order $`n`$ we mean morphisms over $`𝔻`$ from $`\mathrm{Spec}k[t]/(t^{n+1})`$ to $`𝒳`$ which make the following diagram commute

where the vertical arrow is the structure morphism of $`𝒳`$.

The set $`𝒳_n`$ is the set of closed points of a $`k`$-variety (which we will also denote by the same symbol $`𝒳_n`$), , Section 4.2. Naturally, $`𝒳_0=X`$. The set $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ of sections of the structure morphism $`𝒳𝔻`$ is the projective limit of $`𝒳_n`$’s, and therefore it is a set of closed points of a provariety over $`k`$ (by definition, a provariety is a projective limit of a system of varieties; it is a scheme over $`k`$, which in our case is not of finite type). If $`𝒳/𝔻`$ is of the form $`X\times 𝔻𝔻`$, with $`X`$ – a $`k`$-variety, then we get the arc spaces described in the introduction: $`𝒳_n=𝔏_n(X)`$ and $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}=𝔏(X)`$.

As in the case of arc spaces, we have projection morphisms $`\pi _n^m:𝒳_m𝒳_n`$ and $`\pi _n:𝒳𝒳_n`$ for all $`mn`$. (When $`n=0`$, we shall write $`\pi _X`$ and $`\pi _X^m`$ instead of $`\pi _0`$, $`\pi _0^m`$.) A fiber of $`\pi _n^{n+1}`$ lies in an affine space over the Zariski tangent space of the base point.

Recall that a constructible subset of a variety $`V`$ is a finite disjoint union of (Zariski) locally closed subvarieties of $`V`$.

###### Definition 1.

A set $`A𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ is called weakly stable at level $`n`$, if it is a union of fibers of $`\pi _n:𝒳𝒳_n`$, and $`\pi _n(A)`$ is constructible. A subset $`A𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ is called stable at level n, if it is weakly stable at level $`n`$ and for all $`mn`$, $`\pi _{m+1}(A)\pi _m(A)`$ is a piecewise trivial fibration over $`\pi _m(A)`$ with fiber $`𝔸_k^d`$, where $`d=dim𝒳_0`$. (For a definition of piecewise trivial fibration, see , p.6.) A set is called (weakly) stable if it is (weakly) stable at some level $`n`$.

###### Remark 2.

It immediately follows from the definition that a set which is stable at level $`n`$ is also stable at level $`m`$ for all $`m`$, $`m>n`$. If $`𝒳/𝔻`$ is smooth and of pure dimension, a weakly stable set is automatically stable (for smooth $`𝒳`$, a fiber of the projection from $`𝒳_{n+1}`$ to $`𝒳_n`$ is an affine space of dimension $`d=dimX`$ over the tangent space of the base point, , p.4). It is also worth mentioning that it is not obvious and not always true that $`𝔏(X)`$ is stable at level $`0`$. The fact that it is stable at some level is a theorem (see e.g. , Proposition 3.1). When $`X`$ is smooth, it follows from the proof of Proposition 3.1,  that $`𝔏(X)`$ is actually stable at level $`0`$.

### 1.2. The ring $`\widehat{}`$.

Now let us describe the ring $`\widehat{}`$ where the measure will take values. Let $`𝒱_k`$ denote the category of all varieties over $`k`$, and let $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ be the Grothendieck ring of this category. Let $`𝕃=[𝔸^1]`$ denote the isomorphism class of the affine line – an element in $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$. The notation comes from its motivic interpretation: it corresponds to the so-called Lefschetz motive under the map from $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ to the ring of Chow motives, . Consider the localization of $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ at $`𝕃`$: $`=K_0(𝒱_k)[𝕃^1]`$. In order to get a measure on an interesting algebra of subsets of $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$, we need to complete the ring $``$. Given $`m`$, let $`F_m`$ be the subgroup of $``$ generated by the elements of the form $`[Z]𝕃^r`$ with $`dimZm+r`$. This is a filtration of $``$ as a ring: $`F_m.F_nF_{m+n}`$. This filtration is called the dimensional filtration. Denote by $`\widehat{}`$ the separated completion of $``$ with respect to this filtration, i.e.

$$\widehat{}=\underset{}{lim}/F_m.$$

This is called the dimensional completion. Our motivic measure will be $`\widehat{}`$-valued.

###### Remark 3.

A recent work of F. Loeser and J. Sebag  suggests that it should be possible to define a motivic measure that would take values in the ring $``$, without the completion. However, we will not pursue this idea here.

### 1.3. A measure on the space of sections

Let $`A`$ be a subset of $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ which is stable at level $`n`$. Observe that by definition of stability, the number $`(dim\pi _m(A)md)`$ is independent of the choice of $`mn`$ (here $`d`$ is the dimension of the closed fiber $`X`$ of $`𝒳`$). We call this number the virtual dimension $`dimA`$ of $`A`$. The class $`[\pi _m(A)]𝕃^{md}`$ also does not depend on $`m`$; we denote it by $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_𝒳(A)`$. The collection of stable subsets of $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a Boolean ring (i.e., is closed under finite union and difference), on which $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_𝒳`$ defines a finite additive measure.

Let $`\mu _𝒳`$ be the composition of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_𝒳`$ and the completion map $`\widehat{}`$. We call it the motivic measure on $`𝒳`$. A subset $`A𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ is called measurable if for every (negative) integer $`m`$ there exists a stable subset $`A_m𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ and a sequence $`(C_i𝒳_{\mathrm{}})_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of stable subsets such that the symmetric difference $`A\mathrm{\Delta }A_m`$ is contained in $`_iC_i`$ with $`dimC_i<m`$ for all $`i`$ and $`dimC_i\mathrm{}`$ as $`i\mathrm{}`$.

Now we cite the key proposition, which is a generalization of Denef and Loeser’s theorem, .

###### Proposition 4.

(, Proposition 2.2) The measurable subsets of $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ make up a Boolean subring and $`\mu _𝒳`$ extends to a measure on this ring by

$$\mu _𝒳(A):=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _𝒳(A_m).$$

In particular, the above limit exists in $`\widehat{}`$ and its value depends only on $`A`$.

###### Remark 5.

Notice that this definition of the measure differs from the one in  and  by a factor of $`𝕃^d`$ (with our normalization, the projection of the motivic measure under $`\pi _X`$ is the “tautological” measure on $`X`$, as it was described in the introduction).

### 1.4. The transformation rule

The following crucial results from  show that the additive function of sets $`\mu _𝒳`$ possesses the properties expected of a measure in the classical sense.

###### Proposition 6.

(, Proposition 3.1) For a $`𝔻`$-variety $`𝒳/𝔻`$ of pure relative dimension over $`𝔻`$, the preimage of any constructible subset under $`\pi _n:𝒳_{\mathrm{}}𝒳_n`$ is measurable. In particular, $`𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ is measurable. If $`𝒴𝒳`$ is nowhere dense, then $`𝒴_{\mathrm{}}`$ is of measure zero.

For $`𝒳/𝔻`$ of pure relative dimension we have a notion of an integrable function $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒳_{\mathrm{}}\widehat{}`$. This requires the fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be measurable and the sum $`_a\mu _𝒳(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(a))a`$ ($`a`$) to converge, i.e., at most countably many nonzero terms $`(\mu _𝒳(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(a_i)a_i))_i`$ are allowed, and the condition $`\mu _𝒳(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(a_i))a_iF_{m_i}\widehat{}`$ with $`lim_i\mathrm{}m_i=\mathrm{}`$ is required to hold. The motivic integral of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is then by definition the value of this series:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑\mu _𝒳=\underset{i}{}\mu _𝒳(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(a_i))a_i.$$

An integrable function of particular interest arises from an ideal, $``$, in the structure sheaf, $`𝒪_𝒳`$, of $`𝒳`$. Such an ideal defines a function $`\mathrm{ord}_{}:𝒳_{\mathrm{}}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ by assigning to $`\gamma 𝒳_{\mathrm{}}`$ the multiplicity of $`\gamma ^{}`$ as follows. Let $`\gamma (o)`$ denote the “constant term of $`\gamma `$”, that is, the image of the closed point, $`o`$, of $`𝔻`$ in the closed fiber of $`𝒳`$. The map $`\gamma ^{}`$ is the map of rings $`𝒪_{𝒳,\gamma (o)}k[[t]]`$ that induces $`\gamma `$. Then $`\gamma ^{}`$ applied to $``$ means the base change of $``$ to $`k[[t]]`$. That is, $`\gamma ^{}`$ is a sheaf on $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$, whose stalk over the closed point is the $`k[[t]]`$-module $`k[[t]]_{𝒪_{𝒳,\gamma (o)}}M`$, where $`M`$ is the $`𝒪_{𝒳,\gamma (o)}`$-module that corresponds, in the world of rings, to the stalk of $``$ at $`\gamma (o)`$, and $`k[[t]]`$ is an $`𝒪_{𝒳,\gamma (o)}`$-module via the map $`\gamma ^{}`$. An example of the function $`\mathrm{ord}_{}`$ when $`𝒳=𝔏(X)`$, and $``$ is the sheaf corresponding to a divisor, $`D`$, is considered in detail in Section 2.2 of  (where $`\gamma ^{}`$ is denoted $`\gamma D`$). The condition $`\mathrm{ord}_{}\gamma =n`$ only depends on the $`n`$-jet of $`\gamma `$, and it defines a constructible subset $`C_n𝒳_n`$. It turns out that the set defined by $`\mathrm{ord}_{}\gamma =\mathrm{}`$ is of measure zero, and the function $`𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_{}}`$ is integrable.

We can now state the theorem that is key for all applications – the transformation rule. Let $`H:𝒴𝒳`$ be a morphism of $`𝔻`$-varieties of pure relative dimension $`d`$. We define the Jacobian ideal $`𝒥_H𝒪_𝒴`$ of $`H`$ as the $`0`$-th Fitting ideal of the sheaf of relative differentials $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝒳}`$ (for definitions, see , II.8.9.2 and , Sections 16.1, 20.2).

###### Theorem 7.

(, Theorem 3.2) Let $`H:𝒴𝒳`$ be a $`𝔻`$-morphism of pure dimensional $`𝔻`$-varieties with $`𝒴/𝔻`$ smooth. If $`A`$ is a measurable subset of $`𝒴_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`H|_A`$ injective, then $`HA`$ is measurable and $`\mu _𝒳(HA)=_A𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_{𝒥_H}}𝑑\mu _𝒴`$.

###### Example 8.

Suppose $`H:𝔏(Y)𝔏(X)`$ is induced by an isomorphism $`h:YX`$. Then $`H`$ preserves the measure: $`\mu _{𝔏(X)}(HA)=\mu _{𝔏(Y)}(A)`$ for any measurable subset $`A𝔏(Y)`$.

Proof. An isomorphism of algebraic varieties induces an isomorphism on their tangent bundles. Hence, $`𝒥_H`$ is trivial (i.e. it is the ideal sheaf that coincides with the structure sheaf of $`𝔏(Y)`$). The function $`𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_{𝒥_H}}`$ is identically equal to $`1`$ on $`𝔏(Y)`$ in this case. ∎

We will need to use the transformation rule in a slightly more general situation, when $`𝒴`$ is not smooth over $`𝔻`$ but is allowed to have a singularity in the closed fiber. In this case, however, the set $`A`$ will be assumed to be away from the singularity.

For a $`𝔻`$-variety $`𝒳`$ of pure relative dimension $`d`$, we denote by $`𝒥(𝒳/𝔻)`$ the $`d`$-th Fitting ideal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳/𝔻}`$. It defines the locus where $`𝒳`$ fails to be smooth over $`𝔻`$, see , Section 9.

###### Lemma 9.

Let $`H:𝒴𝒳`$ be a $`𝔻`$-morphism of pure dimensional $`𝔻`$-varieties; assume that the generic fiber of $`𝒴`$ is smooth. Let $`A`$ be a measurable subset of $`𝒴_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`H|_A`$ injective and such that for all $`\gamma A`$, $`\gamma (o)`$ is in the regular locus of $`𝒴`$. Then the transformation rule holds for the set $`A`$: $`\mu _𝒳(HA)=_A𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_{𝒥_H}}𝑑\mu _𝒴`$.

Proof. We follow the proof of the transformation rule in . The proof rests on the Key Lemma 9.2, and that is where the assumption that $`𝒴`$ is smooth appears first. Here is the statement of Lemma 9.2, :

Suppose $`𝒴/𝔻`$ is smooth and let $`A𝒴_{\mathrm{}}`$ be a stable subset of level $`l`$. Assume that $`H|_A`$ is injective and that $`\mathrm{ord}𝒥_H|_A`$ is constant equal to $`e<\mathrm{}`$. Then for $`nsup\{2e,l+e,\mathrm{ord}_{𝒥(𝒳/D)}|_{HA}\}`$, $`H_n:\pi _nAH_n\pi _nA`$ has the structure of affine-linear bundle of dimension $`e`$. (Here $`H_n`$ is the trunctaion of the map $`H`$, that is, the map induced by $`H`$ on $`𝒴_n`$.)

We claim that the same statement holds if the assumption that $`𝒴`$ is smooth is replaced by the weaker assumption from the statement of our lemma.

There are two implications of smoothness of $`𝒴`$ that are used in the proof of Lemma 9.2. The first one is that for all points $`\gamma A`$, the $`𝒪`$-module $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝔻}`$ is torsion-free, where $`𝒪=k[[t]]`$ (recall the definition of $`\gamma ^{}`$ applied to an ideal sheaf – it is basically the base change to $`k[[t]]`$ using the map of rings $`\gamma ^{}`$). For this statement to hold for all $`\gamma A`$, it is not necessary for $`𝒴`$ to be smooth over $`𝔻`$. It is sufficient that $`\gamma (o)`$ is in $`𝒴_{reg}`$ and the generic fiber of $`𝒴`$ is smooth. We show this by computing the $`d`$th Fitting ideal of the $`k[[t]]`$-module $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝔻}`$ in the same way as as it is done in , Section 9. Recall that $`𝒥(𝒴/𝔻)`$ stands for the $`d`$-th Fitting ideal of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝔻}`$, where $`d`$ is the relative dimension of $`𝒴`$. Since Fitting ideals commute with base change, $`\gamma ^{}(𝒥(𝒴/𝔻))=\text{Fitt}_d(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝔻})`$. The latter Fitting ideal measures the length of torsion of $`\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒴/𝔻}`$: if a $`k[[t]]`$-module of rank $`d`$ has torsion of length $`e`$, its $`d`$th Fitting ideal is $`(t^e)`$. It remains to observe that the order with respect to $`t`$ of the ideal $`\gamma ^{}(𝒥(𝒴/𝔻))`$ is the multiplicity of $`\gamma `$ along the locus defined by $`𝒥(𝒴/𝔻)`$, that is, the singular locus of $`𝒴`$ (see , Section 9). By assumption, $`\gamma `$ maps $`𝔻`$ to the regular part of $`𝒴`$, thus $`\mathrm{ord}_t\gamma ^{}𝒥(𝒴/𝔻)`$ is equal to $`0`$.

The second implication of the smoothness of $`𝒴`$ that is implicitly used in the proof is that Lemma 9.1,  can be used with $`e=0`$ in the notation of that lemma (in which $`e`$ stands for the order of $`𝒥(𝒴/𝔻)`$ along $`\gamma `$). This property holds for any $`\gamma `$ if $`𝒴`$ is smooth; in our case it still holds for all $`\gamma A`$ by the assumption on $`A`$, as discussed above. ∎

### 1.5. $`k`$-spaces

Let $`G`$ be a linear algebraic group. As noted in the introduction, the set of $`k`$-points of $`𝔏(G)`$ is in bijection with $`G(k[[t]])`$. With the use of the framework of $`k`$-spaces , more can be said. The following definitions are quoted from .

Let $`k`$, as above, be an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. By definition, a $`k`$-space (resp, $`k`$-group) is a functor from the category of $`k`$-algebras to the category of sets (resp., of groups) which is a sheaf for the faithfully flat topology (see  for the details of the definition). The category of schemes can be viewed as a full subcategory in the category of $`k`$-spaces. Direct limits exist in the category of $`k`$-spaces; we’ll say that a $`k`$-space (resp., a $`k`$-group) is an ind-scheme (resp., ind-group) if it is the direct limit of a directed system of schemes. Note that an ind-group is not necessarily a limit of a directed system of algebraic groups. Let $`(X_\alpha )_{\alpha I}`$ be a directed system of schemes, $`X`$ its limit in the category of $`k`$-spaces, and $`S`$ a scheme. The set $`\text{Mor}(S,X)`$ of morphisms of $`S`$ into $`X`$ is the direct limit of the sets $`\text{Mor}(S,X_\alpha )`$, and the set $`\text{Mor}(X,S)`$ is the inverse limit of the sets $`\text{Mor}(X_\alpha ,S)`$.

### 1.6.

In , the $`k`$-group $`GL_r\left(k((t))\right)`$ is the functor on the category of $`k`$-algebras defined by $`RGL_r\left(R((t))\right)`$, and the “maximal compact subgroup” $`GL_r\left(k[[t]]\right)`$ is the subfunctor $`RGL_r\left(R[[t]]\right)`$. In order to avoid confusion between the functor and the set of $`k((t))`$-points of $`GL_r`$, we will change the notation and denote the functors defined above by $`GL_r((t))`$ and $`GL_r[[t]]`$, respectively.

There is a filtration of the $`k`$-group $`GL_r((t))`$ by the subfunctors $`GL_r^{(N)}`$, where $`GL_r^{(N)}(R)`$ is the set of matrices $`A(t)`$ in $`GL_r\left(R((t))\right)`$ such that both $`A(t)`$ and $`A(t)^1`$ have no poles of order greater than $`N`$, that is, all their entries can be written as $`_{i=N}^{\mathrm{}}a_it^i`$ with $`a_iR`$.

The construction of the previous paragraph applies to any affine variety. Indeed, let $`X=\mathrm{Spec}k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]/I`$. For a $`k`$-algebra $`R`$, define $`X^{(N)}(R)`$ to be the set of elements of $`𝔸^d(R)`$ satisfying the equations in $`I`$ and having poles of order not greater than $`N`$ in the sense defined above. By $`X((t))`$ we will denote the direct limit of $`X^{(N)}`$; naturally, $`X((t))`$ is a subfunctor of $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

Proposition 1.2 of  states that the $`k`$-group $`GL_r[[t]]`$ ($`GL_r(k[[t]])`$ in the notation of the authors) is represented by an affine group scheme and that $`(GL_r^{(N)})_{N0}`$ are represented by schemes, making the the $`k`$-group $`GL_r((t))`$ an ind-group. The proof uses only the fact that $`GL_r`$ is an affine variety: to show that $`GL_r^{(N)}`$ is represented by a scheme, one needs to think of $`GL_r`$ as the closed subset of the affine space $`M_r\times M_r`$ ($`M_r`$ being the space of all $`r\times r`$-matrices) defined by the equation $`AB=Id`$. The equation $`AB=Id`$ (which is, in fact, the system of $`r^2`$ equations in $`r^4`$ variables) can be substituted with any finite number of polynomial equations in $`d`$ variables, and the proof will carry over to any closed subvariety of $`𝔸^d`$. Thus if $`X`$ is closed in $`𝔸^d`$, the $`k`$-space $`X((t))`$ is represented by the ind-scheme that is the direct limit of schemes representing the functors $`X^{(N)}`$. We will denote these schemes by the same symbol $`X^{(N)}`$. The affine space $`𝔸^d((t))`$ itself and its filtration by $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ are discussed in detail in the next section.

In the case $`X=G`$ – a reductive algebraic group, $`G((t))`$ is an ind-group.

All of the above is summarized in the following proposition; we omit its rigorous proof.

###### Proposition 10.

Let $`G`$ be a reductive algebraic group. Then $`𝔏(G)`$ is embedded in the ind-group $`G((t))`$, and $`G((t))`$ is a direct limit of affine schemes $`(G^{(N)})_{N0}`$ in the category of $`k`$-spaces, with $`G^{(0)}=𝔏(G)`$ representing $`G[[t]]`$.

### 1.7. The space $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

We first focus our attention on affine space since we used it above to define $`X((t))`$ for $`X`$ an affine variety, and all the subsequent constructions will also be based upon it.

#### 1.7.1.

We begin with the arc space of the affine line $`𝔏(𝔸^1)`$.

By definition, $`𝔏_n(𝔸^1)`$ represents the functor

$`R\mathrm{Mor}(\mathrm{Spec}R[t]/t^{n+1}R[t],𝔸^1)=\mathrm{Mor}(k[x],R[t]/t^{n+1}R[t])`$
$`R[t]/t^{n+1}R[t]R^{n+1}.`$
Hence, $`𝔏_n(𝔸^1)𝔸^{n+1}`$, and the natural projection $`𝔏_{n+1}(𝔸^1)𝔏_n(𝔸^1)`$ corresponds to the map $`R[t]/t^{n+2}R[t]R[t]/t^{n+1}R[t]`$ that takes $`PR[t]/t^{n+2}R[t]`$ to $`(Pmodt^{n+1})`$, which, in turn, corresponds to the map $`(T_0,\mathrm{},T_{n+1})(T_0,\mathrm{},T_n)`$ from $`𝔸^{n+2}`$ to $`𝔸^{n+1}`$. We conclude that the inverse limit of the system $`𝔏_n(𝔸^1)`$ coincides with the inverse limit of the spaces $`𝔸^n`$ with natural projections. The latter is the scheme $`𝔸^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{Spec}k[T_1,T_2\mathrm{}]`$ (see e.g.  and references therein for a detailed treatment of $`𝔸^{\mathrm{}}`$, but note that all we will use here is its existence as a $`k`$-scheme).

#### 1.7.2.

We can also consider $`𝔸^1`$ with its additive group structure, that is, the group $`𝔾_a`$. Let $`𝔾_a^{(N)}`$ be the functor

$$R\{\text{elements of }R((t))\text{ with poles of order}N\}.$$

An element of $`R((t))`$ with poles of order not greater than $`N`$ is nothing but a sequence of coefficients $`(a_N,\mathrm{},a_0,a_1,\mathrm{})`$, where $`a_iR`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$; thus

$$𝔾_a^{(N)}\mathrm{Spec}k[T_N,\mathrm{},T_0,\mathrm{}]\mathrm{Spec}k[T_0,T_1,\mathrm{}]=𝔾_a^{(0)}𝔏(𝔾_a).$$

An analogous argument works for $`𝔸^d((t))`$ with $`d`$. In particular, $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ is isomorphic over $`k`$ to $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ for all $`N`$. Denote this isomorphism by $`S_N`$.

#### 1.7.3.

Recall the notations: $`F=k((t))`$, $`𝔻=\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]`$. If $`R`$ is a $`k`$-algebra, by $`R`$-points of a $`k`$-space we will simply mean the set which is an image of $`R`$ (recall that a $`k`$-space is a functor from $`k`$-algebras to sets). In all that follows we will be mostly concerned with the set of $`k`$-points of $`𝔸^d((t))`$, because this set is in bijection with $`𝔸^d(F)`$.

So far, we have described one way of thinking of $`𝔸^d((t))(k)`$: as a union of the sets of $`k`$-points of the schemes over $`k`$ forming the directed system $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$. Each isomorphism $`S_N`$ between $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ and $`(𝔸^d)^{(0)}=𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ induces a bijection on the sets of their $`k`$-points, shifting the indices of a power series corresponding to a given point by $`N`$ to the right. We recall that $`𝔏(𝔸^d)=(\mathrm{Spec}k[T_0,\mathrm{},T_n,\mathrm{}])^d`$. Now observe that the set of $`k`$-points of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ is in natural bijection with the set of $`k[[t]]`$-points of the affine space $`𝔸^d`$ as a scheme over $`k[[t]]`$, that is, of $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$. This gives another, sometimes more convenient, way of looking at $`k`$-points of $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

Fix a positive integer $`N`$ and consider the $`k[[t]]`$-morphism $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N`$ from
$`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][u_1,\mathrm{},u_d]`$ to $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ (i.e., to itself), induced by the map of rings $`x_it^Nu_i`$, $`i=1`$,..,$`d`$. On $`k[[t]]`$-points (which are again viewed as $`d`$-tuples of power series with coefficients in $`k`$), this map induces multiplication by $`t^N`$, that is, a shift of all indices to the right by $`N`$. Observe that, even though it is not an injective map of $`k[[t]]`$-schemes, on $`k[[t]]`$-points it is an injection. Thus, if we take two copies of $`𝔸^d`$ over $`k[[t]]`$ and the morphism $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N`$ between them, we can identify the set of $`k[[t]]`$-points of the image of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N`$ with $`k`$-points of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$, and then the set of $`k[[t]]`$-points of the source copy of $`𝔸^d`$ will be naturally identified with the set of $`k`$-points of $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$. This is an alternative description of the map induced on $`k`$-points of $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ by the isomorphism $`S_N:(𝔸^d)^{(N)}𝔏(𝔸^d)`$.

### 1.8. Morphisms

By definition, $`G((t))`$ is a $`k`$-space, that is, a functor. Then a morphism between two such objects is a morphism of functors (a natural transformation). However, we can use the fact that $`G((t))`$ is represented by an ind-scheme. By a morphism between two affine ind-schemes $`X=\underset{}{lim}X_i`$ and $`Y=\underset{}{lim}Y_i`$ we shall mean a map of sets $`\varphi :XY`$ such that each $`\varphi (X_i)`$ is contained in some $`Y_j`$, and the induced map $`X_iY_j`$ is a morphism of schemes.

Let $`G`$ be an algebraic group. Then we can define an action of $`G(F)`$ (the group of $`k((t))`$-points of $`G`$) on the ind-group $`G((t))`$ by left or right translations in the same way as it is done for group schemes, see e.g. Section 4.2 of .

## 2. A construction of the motivic measure on $`G((t))`$

We begin with a construction of an additively invariant motivic measure on the affine space $`𝔸^d((t))`$. Then we use the structure theory of $`G`$ to reduce the problem of constructing a measure on $`G((t))`$ to the construction on $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

### 2.1. Haar measure on the affine space.

The algebra of measurable subsets of the space $`𝔏(X)`$ was defined in Appendix in  for any variety $`X`$. In particular, we have an algebra of measurable sets in $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$. However, notice that in , the expression “a subset of a scheme” means a subset of the underlying topological space, whereas for us (as well as in ) a subset of $`𝔏(X)`$ is a subset of the set of closed points of $`𝔏(X)`$, since it is the set of closed points of $`𝔏(X)`$ which is in bijection with the set of sections of the structure morphism $`X\times _{\mathrm{Spec}k}𝔻𝔻`$. We obtain the algebra of measurable subsets (in our sense) of $`𝔏(X)`$ by taking the intersection of all elemets of the algebra of sets defined in  with the set of closed points of $`𝔏(X)`$. In general, by a subset of an ind-scheme $`X`$ which is a direct limit of $`k`$-schemes $`X^{(N)}`$ we shall mean an increasing union of subsets of the sets of closed points of the schemes $`X^{(N)}`$.

###### Definition 11.

We call a subset of $`𝔸^d((t))`$ bounded measurable if it is contained in $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ for some $`N`$ and its image under the isomorphism $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ defined in 1.7.2 is a measurable subset of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ as defined in Section 1.3.

#### 2.1.1.

Bounded measurable subsets form an algebra of sets (closed only under finite unions, though). In order to define a measure on this algebra, we need to calculate the volumes of some special subsets of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$. We do it in the case $`d=1`$ first.

###### Example 12.

Let $`𝒳=𝔏(𝔾_a)`$, and denote the corresponding motivic measure (from Proposition 4) by $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a`$. Consider a decreasing filtration of $`𝔾_a(k[[t]])`$ by the subsets $`t^nk[[t]]`$, $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Denote the corresponding algebraic subsets of $`𝔏(𝔾_a)`$ by $`B_n`$, so that the set of $`k`$-points of $`B_n`$ is $`t^nk[[t]]`$. Let us calculate their volumes. The set $`B_n`$ ($`n`$) is precisely the fiber of $`𝔏(𝔾_a)`$ over the point $`\mathrm{𝟎}_{n1}=(0,\mathrm{},0)𝔏_{n1}(𝔾_a)`$. Hence, by definition,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(B_n)`$ $`=𝕃^{n+1}[\pi _{n1}(B_n)]=𝕃^{n+1}[\{\mathrm{pt}\}]`$
$`=𝕃^{n+1}\mathrm{𝟏}=𝕃^{n+1}.`$
The total volume $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(𝔏(𝔾_a))`$ is by definition $`[𝔸^1]𝕃^0=𝕃`$, so we have

(1)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(B_n)=𝕃^n\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(𝔏(𝔾_a)).$$

#### 2.1.2.

Now we can define a motivic measure on $`𝔾_a((t))`$. We keep the notation of the previous example. Let $`A`$ be a measurable subset of $`𝔾_a^{(N)}`$, i.e., its image $`B=S_N(A)`$ in $`𝔾_a^{(0)}=𝔏(𝔸^1)`$ is measurable. Then we set

(2)
$$\mu _a(A)=𝕃^N\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(B).$$

On the level of rings, the inclusion $`𝔾_a^{(N1)}𝔾_a^{(N)}`$ corresponds to the map induced by $`T_N0`$ from $`k[T_N,T_{N+1},\mathrm{}]`$ to $`k[T_{N+1},\mathrm{}]`$. The map $`S_N`$ identifies the scheme $`𝔾_a^{(N)}`$ with $`𝔏(𝔾_a)`$, and therefore the image of its subset $`𝔾_a^{(N1)}`$ maps isomorphically onto the fiber of $`𝔏(𝔾_a)`$ over $`0`$, that is, the set $`B_1`$. Similarly, for $`M<N`$, $`S_N\left(𝔾_a^{(M)}\right)=B_{NM}`$. Then the relation (1) guarantees that the volume $`\mu _a(𝔾_a^{(N)})`$ is well defined. A similar calculation applied to an arbitrary measurable subset of $`𝔾_a^{(N)}`$ would show that the measure $`\mu _a`$ is well defined.

###### Remark 13.

It is possible to arrive at the same conclusions without writing down the sets $`B_n`$ and their volumes explicitly, but by using the transformation rule and the following lemma.

###### Lemma 14.

The order of Jacobian $`\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{S}_N}(\gamma )`$ of the map $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N:𝔏(𝔸^d)𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ is equal to $`Nd`$ for all $`\gamma 𝔏(𝔸^d)`$.

Proof. As in 1.7.3, we think of the closed points of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ as sections of the structure morphism of the scheme $`\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ over $`k[[t]]`$. We have the map $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N:\mathrm{Spec}B\mathrm{Spec}A`$, where $`A=k[[t]][x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$, $`B=k[[t]][u_1,\mathrm{},u_d]`$, $`x_it^Nu_i`$. There is an exact sequence of modules of differentials (, Section 16.1):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/k[[t]]}_AB& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{B/k[[t]]}& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{B/A}& & 0.\end{array}$$

We see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/A}`$ is a torsion $`B`$-module, and the above exact sequence is its free presentation. Hence $`\mathrm{Fitt}_0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/A})=(det(t^N\mathrm{Id}))=(t^{Nd})B`$ by , Section 20.2. Therefore the Jacobian ideal of the map $`\stackrel{~}{S}_N`$ is the ideal sheaf $`(t^{Nd})`$ on $`\mathrm{Spec}B`$. Let $`\gamma :\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]]\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][u_1,\mathrm{},u_d]`$ be a section. The stalk of $`𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{S}_N}`$ at every point is the ideal $`(t^{Nd})`$ in the local ring of that point, i.e., it is an ideal of $`k[[t]]`$ embedded into the local ring of the point. Any section $`\gamma `$ fixes $`k[[t]]`$ by definition, so the pullback of $`𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{S}_N}`$ to $`k[[t]]`$ by $`\gamma `$ is the ideal $`(t^{Nd})`$ itself. Thus $`\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{S}_N}(\gamma )=Nd`$. ∎

#### 2.1.3.

Recall the notation: $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a`$ is the canonical measure on $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$ (see Proposition 4).

###### Definition 15.

Let $`A(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ be a bounded measurable subset. Then define

$$\mu _a(A)=𝕃^{Nd}\stackrel{~}{\mu }_a(S_N(A)).$$

###### Lemma 16.

The measure $`\mu _a`$ is well defined and additively invariant.

Proof. The first statement is proved exactly the same way as in 2.1.2. The invariance follows from the transformation rule, but it is also easy to check this statement by hand, using the explicit definition of the measure $`\mu _a`$ and the fact that translations are isomorphisms. ∎

###### Remark 17.

By invariance here we mean that the translates of bounded measurable subsets are again bounded measurable, of the same measure.

It is now possible to define the full algebra of measurable sets in $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

###### Definition 18.

We call a subset $`B𝔸^d((t))`$ measurable if it can be represented as a disjoint countable union of bounded measurable subsets $`B=_nB_n`$, such that the series of their measures $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu _a(B_n)`$ converges in the ring $`\widehat{}`$. The measure of $`B`$ is defined as $`\mu _a(B)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu _a(B_n)`$.

The proof that $`\mu _a(B)`$ does not depend on a particular collection $`B_n`$ mimics standard measure theory, with the use of a norm on $`\widehat{}`$ introduced in the Appendix in . It is easy to see that the measure $`\mu _a`$ extended to the $`\sigma `$-algebra of measurable sets is still translation-invariant.

### 2.2. Notation

Let $`X`$ be an affine variety, $`X((t))`$ – the ind-scheme defined as in 1.6, and $`U`$ – a Zariski open subset of $`X`$ with $`Z=XU`$ closed. Then $`Z((t))`$ is a subfunctor of $`X((t))`$. By $`_X(U)`$ we will denote the ind-scheme which is the direct limit of the schemes $`X^{(N)}Z^{(N)}`$ – that is, the “complement of $`Z((t))`$ in $`X((t))`$”. We shall denote by $`_X^0(U)`$ the complement of $`Z[[t]]`$ in $`X[[t]]`$. Notice that $`_X^0(U)`$ is not the same as $`U[[t]]`$ –in general, it is much larger. By the construction, there is an inclusion morphism of ind-schemes $`_X(U)X((t))`$. Later we will slighly abuse the terminology by thinking of $`_X(U)`$ as a measurable subset of $`X((t))`$, meaning that the set of closed points of $`_X(U)`$ can be thought of as a subset of the set of closed points of $`X((t))`$.

###### Example 19.

$`X=𝔸^1`$, $`Z=\{0\}`$, $`U=XZ`$. Then $`𝔏(U)`$ is the set $`B_1`$ from Example 12, that is, the fiber of $`\pi _X`$ over $`0𝔏_0(X)`$, so its motivic volume is different from the volume of $`X`$. However, $`_X^0(U)`$ is the complement of $`𝔏(Z)`$ in $`𝔏(𝔸^1)`$, that is, a complement of a single point, so the motivic volume of $`_X^0(U)`$ coincides with the motivic volume of $`𝔸^1`$.

In this example, $`_X(U)=U((t))`$ is the functor that assigns to every ring $`R`$ the set of Laurent series with coefficients in $`R`$ such that at least one of the coefficients is a unit in $`R`$. Also, notice that $`U((t))𝔏(X)=_X^0(U)`$.

### 2.3.

Once and for all, we choose the standard coordinates $`x_1`$,..,$`x_d`$ on $`𝔸^d`$. Let $`\omega `$ be a top degree differential form $`\omega =gdx_1\mathrm{}dx_d`$ defined on a Zariski open subset $`U𝔸^d`$, where $`g`$ is a regular function on $`U`$. Then define the measure $`\mu _{|\omega |}`$ on $`_{𝔸^d}(U)`$ by

(3)
$$\mu _{|\omega |}(A)=_A𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t(g\gamma )}𝑑\mu _a(\gamma ),$$

where $`\mu _a`$ is the motivic measure on $`𝔸^d((t))`$, $`A`$ is a bounded measurable set contained in $`_{𝔸^d}(U)`$; $`\mathrm{ord}_t(g\gamma )`$ for $`\gamma (𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ is the order of vanishing of the formal power series $`g(\gamma )`$ at $`t=0`$ (if the series has a pole at $`t=0`$, the order is negative).

In this notation, the measure on $`𝔸^d((t))`$ defined in 2.1.3 is the one that corresponds to the form $`dx_1\mathrm{}dx_d`$.

By definition of the measure $`\mu _a`$, the integral in (3) can be written as

(4)
$$\mu _{|\omega |}(A)=_A𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t(g\gamma )}𝑑\mu _a(\gamma )=_{S_N(A)}𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t(\stackrel{~}{g}\gamma )+Nd}𝑑\mu _a(\gamma )$$

for any $`N0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{g}(t^Nx_1,\mathrm{},t^Nx_d)=g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$. In particular, since for a bounded set $`A`$ the number $`N`$ can be chosen big enough to ensure $`S_N(A)𝔏(𝔸^d)`$, the motivic integral in the right-hand side of (4) exists (see ), and therefore the integral in (3) is also defined (we can use the right-hand side of (4) as its definition).

### 2.4. A coordinate system on the big cell

Let $`G`$ be a connected reductive algebraic group defined over $`k`$. Let $`TG`$ be a maximal torus (recall that the field $`k`$ is assumed algebraically closed, so $`T`$ is automatically split), $`m`$ – its dimension, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ – a choice of simple roots of the Lie algebra of $`G`$, $`n`$ – the cardinality of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`BT`$ – the Borel subgroup corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`U`$ – its unipotent radical, $`B^{}`$ – the opposite Borel subgroup with respect to $`T`$, $`U^{}`$ – its unipotent radical. Then (, p.174), the product morphism is an isomorphism of algebraic varieties

$$U^{}\times T\times U\mathrm{\Omega }^{},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}G`$ is a Zariski open subset (a big cell). For our purposes, it is more convenient to consider its conjugate, the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=U^{}\times U\times T`$. The unipotent subgroup $`U`$ (respectively, $`U^{}`$) is isomorphic to a cartesian product of root subgroups $`U_\alpha `$ corresponding to positive (respectively, negative) roots. Choose a generator for each $`U_\alpha `$, and denote it by $`x_\alpha ^{}`$ if $`\alpha `$ is positive, and by $`y_\alpha ^{}`$ if $`\alpha `$ is negative. Each $`U_\alpha `$ can be identified with a one-dimensional subspace $`𝔤_\alpha `$ in the Lie algebra of $`G`$. Denote by $`x_\alpha `$ (resp., $`y_\alpha `$) the generator of $`𝔤_\alpha `$ that corresponds to $`x_\alpha ^{}`$ (resp., $`y_\alpha ^{}`$) under this isomorphism. This defines a coordinate system on $`U^{}\times U`$. Next, choose a coordinate system $`s_1`$,..,$`s_m`$ on $`T`$ by representing it as a product of $`m`$ copies of $`𝔾_m`$ and choosing a coordinate $`s_j`$ on each of them. Hence we have defined a coordinate map $`i:\mathrm{\Omega }𝔸^d`$, $`d=2n+m`$. It is defined over $`k`$. The image of this map is the Zariski open subset of $`𝔸^d`$ defined by $`s_1\mathrm{}s_m0`$.

### 2.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the big cell of $`G`$, as in the previous subsection. Denote by $`Z`$ the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`G`$ – a constructible subset which is a union of a finite number of closed subvarieties of $`G`$ defined over $`k`$. Recall from 1.6 that the set of $`F`$-points of $`G`$ can be identified with the set of $`k`$-points of the ind-group $`G((t))`$, which is a direct limit of the system $`(G^{(N)})_{N0}`$. Under this bijection the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(F)`$ is identified with the set of $`k`$-points of $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We recall from 2.2 that by definition $`G((t))=_G(\mathrm{\Omega })Z((t))`$. Observe that the map $`i`$ from the previous subsection extends to a map from $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to $`𝔸^d((t))`$; it is still a map over $`k`$, and we will denote it by the same letter $`i`$.

Let $`\omega `$ be a 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that is defined by the following expression in the coordinates ($`x`$,$`y`$,$`s`$) defined in 2.4:

(5)
$$\omega =dx_1\mathrm{}dx_ndy_1\mathrm{}dy_n\frac{ds_1}{s_1}\mathrm{}\frac{ds_m}{s_m}=:dxdy\frac{ds}{s}.$$

###### Lemma 20.

The form $`\omega `$ is invariant under left and right translations on $`G`$.

We omit the proof.

Recall that by a subset of the ind-scheme $`G((t))`$ we mean a union of subsets of closed points of the schemes $`G^{(N)}`$. Now we are ready to define a motivic measure on $`G((t))`$.

###### Definition 21.

Let $`B`$ be a subset of $`G((t))`$. We say that $`B`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable if $`B`$ can be represented as a (disjoint) union $`B=CA`$, where $`CZ((t))`$ and $`A`$ is a measurable subset of $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Here we say that a subset $`A`$ of $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is measurable if its image $`i(A)`$ is a measurable subset of $`𝔸^d((t))`$. For $`B=CA`$ – measurable, set

(6)
$$\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(B)=\mu _{|(i^1)^{}(\omega )|}(i(A)).$$

We call a measurable subset bounded, if it is contained in $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and its image under the map $`i`$ is a bounded measurable subset of $`𝔸^d((t))`$.

###### Proposition 22.

Let $`g`$ be an element of $`G(F)`$, and let $`A`$ be a bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable set in $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`g^1A`$ is also contained in $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and bounded. Then $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A)=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A)`$.

Proof. Let us denote by $`L_g`$ the left translation by $`g`$ viewed as an automorphism of $`G`$ defined over the field $`F`$. On the open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }g^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ it can be represented as a rational map in the coordinates $`x,y,s`$ that were defined in 2.4. We denote this map by $`h(x,y,s)`$, and its Jacobian matrix by $`J`$. More precisely, $`h`$ is a birational map from $`𝔸^d`$ to $`𝔸^d`$ over $`F`$ defined by the formula $`h(x,y,s)=i(L_g(i^1(x,y,s)))`$. Thus $`detJ`$ is an $`F`$-valued regular function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and by Lemma 20, we have

(7)
$$p(h(x,y,s))detJdxdyds=p(x,y,s)dxdyds,$$

where $`p(x,y,s)=1/s_1\mathrm{}s_m`$. Now the goal is to represent the restriction of the map $`L_g`$ to the given set $`g^1A`$ as a restriction of a $`k[[t]]`$-morphism of $`𝔻`$-varieties, so that the transformation rule for motivic measures can be applied to it.

The sets $`A`$ and $`g^1A`$ are both contained in $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and are bounded by assumption. By definition, this means that $`i(A)`$ is a measurable subset of $`(𝔸^d)^{(N)}`$ for some $`N0`$, and that $`i(g^1A)`$ is defined and is contained in $`(𝔸^d)^{(M)}`$ for some $`M0`$. We choose both integers $`M`$, $`N`$ to be minimal possible. Also, we can assume without loss of generality that $`A`$ is stable.

We will need the expression $`h(t^Mx,t^My,t^Ms)`$. We write it in the form

(8)
$$h(t^Mx,t^My,t^Ms)=(\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1(x,y,s)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y,s)},\mathrm{},\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d(x,y,s)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y,s)}),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$, $`i=1,..,d`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are in $`k[[t]][x,y,s]`$, and $`\text{gcd}(\stackrel{~}{f}_1,..,\stackrel{~}{f}_d,\mathrm{\Delta })=1`$.

Let us break up the set $`A`$ according to the order of vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`S_M(i(g^1A))`$:

$`A`$ $`=_{e0}A_e,`$
$`A_0`$ $`=\{\gamma A\mathrm{ord}_t\mathrm{\Delta }(S_Mig^1\gamma )0\};`$
$`A_e`$ $`=\{\gamma A\mathrm{ord}_t\mathrm{\Delta }(S_Mig^1\gamma )=e\}\text{ for }e1.`$
Now we are ready to construct, for each $`e=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, a scheme $`𝒳_e`$ over $`𝔻`$ and two $`𝔻`$-morphisms $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ from $`𝒳_e`$ to $`𝔸^d[[t]]`$, such that the the following conditions hold:

* There exists a measurable subset $`B`$ of $`(𝒳_e)_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`H_1`$ induces a bijection between $`B`$ and $`S_M(i(g^1A_e))`$.
* The morphism $`H_2`$ induces a bijection between $`B`$ and $`S_e(i(A_e))`$.
* The following diagram (of maps of sets) commutes:

Define the scheme $`𝒳_e`$ to be

$$𝒳_e=\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][x_1,..,x_n,y_1,..,y_n,s_1,..,s_m,z]/(z\mathrm{\Delta }t^e).$$

Let $`H_1:𝒳_e𝔸^d[[t]]=\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][u_1,..,u_d]`$ be the morphism of schemes induced by the identity map on the first $`d`$ variables:

(9)
$$u_ix_i,1in;u_iy_{in},n+1i2n;u_is_{i2n},2n<id.$$

When $`e=0`$, the map $`H_1`$ is nothing but the inclusion morphism of the open subset of $`𝔸^d[[t]]`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ into $`𝔸^d[[t]]`$.

Let $`H_2:𝒳_e𝔸^d[[t]]=\mathrm{Spec}k[[t]][u_1,..,u_d]`$ be the morphism defined by

(10)
$$u_iz\stackrel{~}{f}_i(x,y,s),i=1,\mathrm{},d.$$

Naturally, $`H_1`$ induces a bijection on $`k[[t]]`$-points. Let $`B(𝒳_e)_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the preimage of the set $`S_M(i(g^1A_e))`$ under this bijection. Then it immediately follows from the definition of $`H_2`$ that the property (iii) holds (recall that $`S_M`$ is a bijection between the sets $`i(g^1A_e)`$ and $`S_M(i(g^1A_e))`$; $`h(t^Mx,t^My,t^Ms)=(\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }},..,\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$, and “$`z=\frac{t^e}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$”). Since the map $`h`$ is a coordinate expression of a translation by a group element, it is a bijection; thus the commutativity of the diagram implies that $`H_2`$ induces a bijection between the set $`B`$ and the set $`S_e(i(A_e))`$.

In the case $`e=0`$ the scheme $`𝒳_e`$ is smooth over $`𝔻`$. For $`e>0`$, $`𝒳_e`$ has smooth generic fiber, and the singular locus in its closed fiber is defined by the equations $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y,s)=z=0`$. We observe that the $`z`$-coordinate of $`\gamma (o)`$ (the image of the closed point of $`𝔻`$) is not equal to zero for any element $`\gamma `$ of the set $`B`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is assumed to vanish exactly up to order $`e`$ on the image of $`\gamma `$ in $`S_M(i(g^1A_e))`$. That is, $`\gamma (o)`$ does not lie in the singular locus of the closed fiber of $`𝒳_e`$. Since $`A`$ is assumed to be stable, the set $`B`$ is also stable: the condition $`\mathrm{ord}_t\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma )=e`$ depends only on the $`e`$-jet of $`\gamma `$. Indeed, the stability of $`A`$ implies the stability of all the sets $`A_e`$. The only formal difference between $`B`$ and $`A_e`$ is that the points in $`B`$ have an extra coordinate $`z=z_0+z_1t+\mathrm{}+z_nt^n+\mathrm{}`$, and satisfy an extra equation $`z\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y,s)=t^e`$. By our assumption on $`A_e`$ and by the definition of $`B`$, the order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/t^e`$ is equal to $`0`$. Hence, if $`n>e`$, each equation in $`z_{n+1}`$ of the form $`(z_0+\mathrm{}+z_{n+1}t^{n+1}+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x,y,s)=t^e+t^{n+1}g(t)`$, $`g(t)k[[t]]`$ with fixed $`x`$, $`y`$, $`s`$ and fixed $`z_0`$,…,$`z_n`$ has a unique solution. Therefore, the set $`B`$ is stable at level $`e`$ or the level of $`A`$, whichever is greater.

It follows now from Lemma 9 that the transformation rule can be applied to the restriction of the morphisms $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ to the set $`B`$. Let us denote the motivic measure on $`𝒳_e`$ that was defined in Section 1.3 by $`d\mu _e`$, and the motivic measure on $`𝔸^d[[t]]`$ – by $`d\mu _a`$, as before. By the transformation rule, we have

(11) $`d\mu _a|_{S_M(i(g^1A_e))}`$ $`=𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}𝒥_{H_1}}d\mu _e|_B,`$
$`d\mu _a|_{S_e(i(A_e))}`$ $`=𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}𝒥_{H_2}}d\mu _e|_B.`$
It remains to calculate $`𝒥_{H_1}`$ and $`𝒥_{H_2}`$. We start with the Jacobian of $`H_1`$. Let $`R_1`$ be the ring $`R_1=k[[t]][u_1,..,u_d]`$, and let
$`R_2=k[[t]][x_1,..,x_n,y_1,..,y_n,s_1,..,s_m,z]/(z\mathrm{\Delta }t^e)`$. By definition, $`𝒥_{H_1}`$ is the $`0`$-th Fitting ideal of the module $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_2/R_1}`$, where the map $`R_1R_2`$ is given by the formula (9). We have the exact sequence

(12)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_1/k[[t]]}_{R_1}R_2& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{R_2/k[[t]]}& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{R_2/R_1}& & 0.\end{array}$$

Hence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_2/R_1}`$ is in this case a torsion $`R_2`$-module isomorphic to $`R_2[\sigma ]/\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Its $`0`$th Fitting ideal is $`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Notice that by the remark on definition of the set $`B`$ earlier in this proof, $`\mathrm{ord}_t(\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta })=e`$ for all $`\gamma B`$.

Let us now calculate the Jacobian of $`H_2`$. The rings $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ remain the same, but the map $`R_1R_2`$ is given by the formula (10) now. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{R_2/R_1}`$ is the $`R_2`$-module generated over $`R_2`$ by the formal symbols $`dx_1,\mathrm{},dx_n,dy_1,\mathrm{},dy_n,ds_1,\mathrm{},ds_m,dz`$ with the relations obtained by setting to zero the the formal derivatives of the polynomials $`z\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and
$`z\stackrel{~}{f}_i(x,y,s)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Hence, by definition of the Fitting ideal, the $`0`$th Fitting ideal of this module is generated by the following $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$-determinant:

$$\left|\begin{array}{cccc}z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{x_1}& \mathrm{}& z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{x_1}& z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_1}\\ z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{x_2}& \mathrm{}& z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{x_2}& z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_2}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{s_m}& \mathrm{}& z\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{s_m}& z\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{s_m}\\ \stackrel{~}{f}_1& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{~}{f}_d& \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right|=z^d\left|\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{x_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{x_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_1}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_1}\\ \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{x_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{x_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_2}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x_2}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{s_m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{s_m}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{s_m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{s_m}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_d}{\mathrm{\Delta }}& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{s_m}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right|.$$

By the formula (8), the latter determinant is equal to $`z^d\mathrm{\Delta }^d(t^{Md}detJ)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`detJ`$ is the Jacobian determinant of the map $`h`$ that was defined in the beginning of the proof (we are using the equality $`\frac{f}{x}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{x}\frac{f}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{(f/\mathrm{\Delta })}{x}`$). Finally, we see that the Jacobian ideal of the map $`H_2`$ is the ideal $`(t^{(eM)d}detJ\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{p}(t^Mx,t^My,t^Ms)=p(x,y,s)=1/s_1..s_m=\overline{p}(t^ex,t^ey,t^es)`$. With these notations, by (4), (11), and (11), get:

$`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A_e)`$ $`=𝕃^{Md}{\displaystyle _{S_M(i(A_e))}}𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t\stackrel{~}{p}\gamma }𝑑\mu _a(\gamma )`$
$`=𝕃^{Md}{\displaystyle _B}𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t\stackrel{~}{p}H_1(\gamma )\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{H_1}(\gamma )}𝑑\mu _e(\gamma );`$
$`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A_e)`$ $`=𝕃^{ed}{\displaystyle _B}𝕃^{\mathrm{ord}_t\overline{p}H_2(\gamma )\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{H_2}(\gamma )}𝑑\mu _e(\gamma ).`$
It remains to compare the subintegral expressions. We need to show that

$$M(\mathrm{ord}_t\stackrel{~}{p}H_1(\gamma )+\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{H_1}(\gamma ))=e(\mathrm{ord}_t\overline{p}H_2(\gamma )+\mathrm{ord}_t𝒥_{H_2}(\gamma ))$$

for $`\gamma B`$. This equality immediately follows from (7) and the formulas for $`𝒥_{H_1}`$ and $`𝒥_{H_2}`$.

We have shown that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A_e)=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A_e)`$ for $`e=0,1,\mathrm{}`$. Hence, by the additivity of the measure, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A)=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A)`$. ∎

###### Theorem 23.

The measure $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is translation-invariant (both on the left and on the right).

Proof. We will prove left-invariance; right-invariance is proved identically. Let $`A`$ be an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable subset of $`G((t))`$, and $`gG(F)`$. We need to show that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A)=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A)`$. We can assume that $`A`$ is bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable without loss of generality, since any unbounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable set by definition can be represented as a countable disjoint union of bounded $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable sets.

Let us break up the set $`g^1A`$ according to the maximal order of pole of the coordinates of its points: $`g^1A=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}B_nB_{\mathrm{}}`$, where

$`B_0`$ $`=g^1A𝔏(G),`$
$`B_n`$ $`=\{\gamma g^1A\gamma _G(\mathrm{\Omega });i(\gamma )(𝔸^d)^{(N)}(𝔸^d)^{(N1)}\},n1,`$
$`B_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=\{\gamma g^1A\gamma _G(\mathrm{\Omega })\}.`$
Then $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(gB_n)=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(B_n)`$ for $`n0`$ by Proposition 22; $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(B_{\mathrm{}})=0`$ by definition. It remains to show that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(gB_{\mathrm{}})=0`$: then we will have

$$\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(g^1A)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(B_n)+\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(B_{\mathrm{}})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(gB_n)+\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(gB_{\mathrm{}})=\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A).$$

The set $`gB_{\mathrm{}}`$ is contained in the set $`E=gZ((t))_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, so it suffices to show that the set $`E`$ has measure $`0`$. We can represent it as a disjoint union of bounded subsets of $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })`$: $`E=_{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}E_N`$ with $`E_0=E𝔏(G)`$ and $`E_N=E(\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N)}\mathrm{\Omega }^{(N1)})`$ for $`N1`$. It remains to observe that $`S_N(i(E_N))`$ is well defined and it is a locally closed subscheme of $`𝔏(𝔸^d)`$. Its relative dimension over $`k[[t]]`$ is less than $`d`$, and therefore by definition of the measure on the affine space we have $`\mu _a(S_N(i(E_N)))=0`$. This implies $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(E_N)=0`$ for all $`N1`$; hence $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(E)=0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 24.

The algebra of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable sets and the measure $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ itself do not depend on the choice of the torus $`T`$ or the set of positive roots (that is, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be dropped from the notation).

Proof. Follows from the theorem and the fact that all the big cells are conjugate in $`G`$ over $`k`$ (recall that we are assuming $`k`$ to be algebraically closed). ∎

### 2.6.

As stated in the introduction, the goal was to define a motivic measure on $`G((t))`$ that would extend the canonical motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$. The following theorem shows that we have achieved it.

###### Theorem 25.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be any big cell in the group $`G`$. Then $`𝔏(G)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable, and the restriction of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`𝔏(G)`$ coincides with the canonical motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$.

Proof. Let us denote the canonical motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$ by $`\mu _G`$. Denote the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`G`$ by $`Z`$, as before. First, notice that $`\mu _G(𝔏(Z))=0`$ by the axioms of the canonical measure; $`𝔏(G)=𝔏(Z)(_G(\mathrm{\Omega })𝔏(G))`$, and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(Z)=0`$ by definition of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Therefore, we only need to show that the restrictions of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mu _G`$ to $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })𝔏(G)`$ coincide (and are defined on the same algebra of sets).

Consider the multiplication map $`U^{}\times U\times TG`$ over $`k`$. This map is an isomorphism between $`𝔸^n\times 𝔸^n\times 𝔾_m^m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over $`k`$. It induces an isomorphism (over $`k[[t]]`$) of the arc spaces: $`𝔏(𝔸^n)\times 𝔏(𝔸^n)\times 𝔏(𝔾_m^m)𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. If we apply the transformation rule to this isomorohism, we immediately obtain that the restrictions of $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mu _G`$ to $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ coincide, by Example 8 and the observation that $`\mathrm{ord}_t(s_1\mathrm{}s_m)=1`$ on $`𝔾_m^m[[t]]`$.

Since $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a smaller set than $`_G(\mathrm{\Omega })𝔏(G)`$, the equality between the two measures restricted to $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is not enough. However, we claim that a finite number of translates of $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ cover the whole arc space of $`G`$, and then the theorem follows immediately.

The claim can be proved, for example, as follows. At first consider the situation over $`k`$. All possible big cells cover the group $`G(k)`$ (recall that $`k`$ is assumed algebraically closed, and hence even Borel subgroups cover $`G(k)`$). Since $`G`$ is quasicompact in Zariski topology, and the big cells are Zariski open, there exists a finite subcover by some big cells $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(k)`$,..,$`\mathrm{\Omega }_n(k)`$. The arc space $`𝔏(G)`$ itself is stable at level $`0`$ since $`G`$ is a smooth variety, and so are $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)`$,..,$`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega }_n)`$, by Remark 2. In particular, $`𝔏(G)=\pi _0^1(G)`$, $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)=\pi _0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. It follows that $`_{i=1}^n𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)=𝔏(G)`$. Hence, any $`\mu _G`$-measurable subset $`A`$ of $`𝔏(G)`$ can be broken up into a disjoint union $`A=_{i=1}^nA_i`$ with $`A_i𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$-measurable. By Corollary 24, any $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$-measurable set is also $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-measurable, and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A_i)=\mu _{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}(A_i)`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. On the other hand, we have shown in the beginning of this proof that $`\mu _{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}(A_i)=\mu _G(A_i)`$. Hence, $`\mu _\mathrm{\Omega }(A)=_{i=1}^n\mu _G(A_i)=\mu _G(A)`$. ∎

###### Remark 26.

1. It is possible to construct explicitly the finite number of translates of the given big cell $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that cover $`𝔏(G)`$. It can be done by means of Bruhat decomposition and the following statement (, Section 2.1, p.43): if $`w`$, $`s`$ are elements of the Weyl group of $`G`$ satisfying $`l(s)=1`$ and $`l(sw)=l(w)+1`$, and $`nG`$ is a representative of $`s`$, then $`nBwB`$ is contained in $`B(sw)B`$ (here $`B`$ is a fixed Borel subgroup, and $`l(w)`$ stands for length of $`w`$).

2. The statement of the last theorem can be proved directly by a Jacobian calculation in a way similar to the proof of Proposition 22. Namely, after having established the equality of the two measures on $`𝔏(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, we could subdivide the remaining part of $`𝔏(G)\mathrm{\Omega }((t))`$ into a disjoint union of subsets according to the order of pole of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-coordinates of its elements, and then repeat the procedure described in Proposition 22: construct an auxilliary $`𝔻`$-variety corresponding to each piece with a given order of pole and a $`k[[t]]`$-morphism from it to $`𝔏(G)`$ which corresponds to the natural inclusion of the big cell into $`G`$. A complicated calculation shows that the Jacobian ideal of this morphism coincides with the principal ideal generated by $`(s_1\mathrm{}s_m)`$ (recall that $`s_1`$,…, $`s_m`$ are the coordinates of the torus component of the given element of the big cell). Then the statement follows from the Jacobian transformation rule applied to this morphism.

### 2.7. Concluding remarks

Finally, I would like to mention briefly a few closely related questions which have not been discussed so far, and which I hope to return to in the future.

#### 2.7.1. Uniqueness

The classical Haar measure is unique up to a scalar multiple. The canonical motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$ is unique because it is normalized in such a way that it projects to the tautological measure on the variety $`G`$. Our construction of the motivic measure on $`G((t))`$ gives an answer that does not depend on the choice of the big cell (Corollary 24) and coincides with the unique motivic measure on $`𝔏(G)`$. However, at the moment I have no proof (and not even a precise formulation) of a general uniqueness statement.

#### 2.7.2.

The assumptions that the ground field $`k`$ is algebraically closed and has characteristic $`0`$ were adopted because we followed the exposition of  where these assumptions were made. However, it should be possible to extend our result without any difficulty to the case when $`k`$ is not algebraically closed but the group $`G`$ is assumed split over $`F`$. It would also be interesting to construct a motivic Haar measure for reductive groups that are not split over $`F`$.