text:
# Untitled Document

MULTIPLE $`\zeta `$–MOTIVES AND MODULI SPACES $`\overline{}_{0,n}`$

A. B. Goncharov(1), Yu. I. Manin(2)

(1) Brown University, Providence RI, USA

(2) Max–Planck–Institut für Mathematik, Bonn, Germany

Contents

1 Introduction and summary

2 Geometry of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ and divisors $`B`$

3 Forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ and divisors $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$

4 Multiple $`\zeta `$–motives

1 Introduction and summary

1. $`\zeta `$–values and moduli spaces. (i) The multiple $`\zeta `$-values were defined by Euler \[E\] as the series

$$\zeta (n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)=\underset{0<k_1<\mathrm{}<k_m}{}\frac{1}{k_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}k_m^{n_m}},n_m>1.$$
$`(1)`$
(ii) Recall that $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ parametrizes stable curves of genus 0 with $`n+3`$ labeled points. It is stratified according to the type of degeneration. The open stratum $`_{0,n+3}`$ can be identified with $`(^1)^{n+3}`$ minus diagonals modulo $`\mathrm{Aut}^1`$. Then

$$\overline{}_{0,n+3}:=\overline{}_{0,n+3}_{0,n+3}$$

is a normal crossing divisor, and the pair $`(\overline{}_{0,n+3},\overline{}_{0,n+3})`$ is defined over $``$. We use it to construct an unramified over $``$ framed mixed Tate motive whose period is given by the multiple $`\zeta `$–value (1).

Generally, let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be unions of some irreducible components of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$. Suppose that no irreducible component is shared by $`A`$ and $`B`$. Then we show that

$$H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A,BAB)$$
$`(2)`$
is a mixed Tate motive unramified over $``$. A choice of two non zero elements

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }_A]\mathrm{Gr}_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A);[\mathrm{\Delta }_B]\left(\mathrm{Gr}_0^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},B)\right)^{}$$
$`(3)`$
defines a framed mixed Tate motive unramified over $``$ given by the triple

$$(H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A,B_A);[\mathrm{\Omega }_A],[\mathrm{\Delta }_B]).$$
$`(4)`$
For every multiple $`\zeta `$–value (1) we construct two divisors on $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ as above such that the period of the corresponding motive is this value.

Another construction of the multiple polylogarithm motives has been given in chapter 3 of \[G5\]. The construction given here differs from the earlier one for multiple $`\zeta `$–values.

2. A sketch of the construction of multiple $`\zeta `$-motives. First, let us recall how to represent multiple $`\zeta `$–values by iterated integrals. Starting with positive integers $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_m`$ as in (1), we put $`n:=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_m`$, and $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }:=(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n)`$ where $`\epsilon _i=0`$ or $`1`$, and $`\epsilon _i=1`$ precisely when $`i\{1,n_1+1,n_1+n_2+1,\mathrm{},n_1+\mathrm{}+n_{m1}+1\}`$. Furthermore, put

$$\omega (\underset{¯}{\epsilon }):=\frac{dt_1}{t_1\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{t_n\epsilon _n}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0:=\{(t_1^0,\mathrm{},t_n^0)^n|0<t_1^0<\mathrm{}<t_n^0<1\}$$

By the Leibniz-Kontsevich formula (cf. Theorem 2.2 in \[G4\])

$$\zeta (n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)=\zeta (\underset{¯}{\epsilon })=(1)^m_{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0}\omega (\underset{¯}{\epsilon }).$$

The integral converges because $`\epsilon _10,\epsilon _n1`$.

Let us identify points of $`_{0,n+3}()`$ with sequences $`(t_1^0,\mathrm{},t_n^0)^n`$ such that $`t_i^00,1`$, $`t_i^0t_j^0`$ for $`ij`$, using the rule

$$\{0,t_1^0,\mathrm{},t_n^0,1,\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{Aut}^1(t_1^0,\mathrm{},t_n^0)$$

Moreover, consider the form $`\omega (\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ as a holomorphic form on $`_{0,n+3}`$. Meromorphically extending it to $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ we get a form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ with logarithmic singularities at the boundary $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$. Finally, we identify the open simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0`$ with its image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0)`$ in $`_{0,n+3}`$. Then we obviously have

$$\zeta (n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)=(1)^m_{\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0)}\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })$$
$`(5)`$
Now let us introduce divisors $`A=A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ and $`B`$ and interpret this integral as a period of a framed mixed Hodge structure (cf. section 4 of \[G3\] and Chapter 4).

The divisor $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$. It is the divisor of singularities of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$.

The divisor $`B`$. Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ be the closure of the open simplex $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0)`$. We define $`B`$ as the Zariski closure of the boundary of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$. Thus there is a relative homology class

$$[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n]H_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}(),B();)$$

In the Chapters 2 and 3 we will clarify the structure of arbitrary choices involved in these constructions. Moreover, we will explicitly compute $`B`$ and $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$, in terms of the standard combinatorial description of boundary components of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$.

The closed cell $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ is naturally identified with a Stasheff polytope. The divisor $`B`$ is an algebraic counterpart of the Stasheff polytope. Specifically, we show that intersecting a $`k`$–dimensional stratum of the divisor $`B`$ with the cell $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ we get a real $`k`$–dimensional face of this cell. This face is naturally identified with the corresponding face of the Stasheff polytope. This fact plus convergence of the integral (5) immediately imply the following key lemma.

Lemma 1.1.The set of the irreducible components of the divisor $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ is disjoint with the one of $`B`$.

In the Chapter 3 we will directly check this Lemma using our combinatorial calculations.

Lemma 1.1 guarantees that we can set

$$\zeta ^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m):=H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }))$$

We show in the Chapter 4 that the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ and the cycle $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ provide a framing, and the period of the corresponding mixed Hodge structure is given by (1). The fact that this period is a well defined number reflects the following strengthening of Lemma 1.1: the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ does not intersect $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ (see Corollary 3.2).

3. The simplest example: $`\zeta ^{}(2)`$. The integral representation for $`\zeta (2)`$ is given by the following formula discovered by Leibniz:

$$\zeta (2)=_{0<t_1<t_2<1}\frac{dt_1}{1t_1}\frac{dt_2}{t_2}$$

Let us consider first $`(t_1,t_2)`$ as the affine coordinates on $`^1\times ^1`$. Then the singularities of the integrand provide a rectangle $`𝒜`$ given by the punctured lines on the picture below, whereas the Zariski closure of the boundary of the integration cycle is the bold triangle $``$ on the picture.

The moduli space $`\overline{}_{0,5}`$ can be obtained by blowing up the three special points $`(0,0),(1,1),(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ on the diagonal – see the proof of the Proposition 3.1. They are the points where the divisor $`𝒜`$ (the union of the seven lines on the picture) fails to be a normal crossing divisor.

Thus we can identify $`\overline{}_{0,5}`$ with a del Pezzo surface of degree $`5`$. The boundary $`\overline{}_{0,5}`$ is given by the ten exceptional curves on it. They are the strict preimages of the seven lines on $`^1\times ^1`$ plus the three curves blowed down by the projection onto $`^1\times ^1`$. The divisors $`A=A(1,0)`$ and $`B`$ are given by two complementary algebraic pentagons. The union of these two pentagons is the whole boundary $`\overline{}_{0,5}`$. Such a decomposition of the boundary into union of two pentagons is not unique, but the automorphism group $`S_5`$ acts transitively on the set of all decompositions.

We define the $`\zeta ^{}(2)`$-motive as $`H^2(\overline{}_{0,5}A,BBA)`$. The cell $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$ is a pentagon. It provides a class $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2]`$ in the Betti realization of $`H_2(\overline{}_{0,5}A,BBA)`$. The form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1,0)`$ gives a class in the De Rham realization of $`\zeta ^{}(2)`$, and the number $`\zeta (2)`$ equals to the pairing $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1,0),[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2]`$.

Remark. It might be tempting to consider the simpler motive

$$H^2(^1\times ^1𝒜,𝒜).$$

However $`\zeta (2)`$ is not its period. Indeed, removing $`𝒜`$ we delete a vertex $`(0,0)`$ of the closed triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ does not provide an element in the Betti realization of $`H_2(^1\times ^1𝒜,𝒜)`$.

Acknowledgement. This paper was conceived at the MPIM (Bonn) in June of 1997, and its rough draft was prepared during the Fall of 2001 when A. G. visited MSRI (Berkeley). A. G. is very grateful to both institutions for providing ideal working conditions. The work of A. G. was supported by the NSF grant DMS-0099390. We are grateful to V. Fock for useful discussions.

2 Geometry of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ and divisors $`B`$

In this Chapter we give a summary of the properties of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ which will be used in the next Chapter and calculate the divisor $`B`$.

1. Reminder on moduli spaces. Let $`S`$ be any finite set, $`|S|3.`$ We remind that $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ carries a universal family of stable curves of genus $`0`$, $`\pi _S:\overline{𝒞}_{0,S}\overline{}_{0,S}`$ endowed with structure sections labeled by $`S`$, $`x_s:\overline{}_{0,S}\overline{𝒞}_{0,S}`$, $`sS.`$ Hence geometric points of $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ can be identified with stable $`S`$–labeled pointed curves.

For any $`S^{}S`$, $`|S^{}|3,`$ there is a canonical forgetful morphism $`\varphi _T:\overline{}_{0,S}\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$, $`T:=SS^{}.`$ In terms of geometric points, $`\varphi _T`$ forgets all sections marked by $`sT`$ and then contracts the unstable components.

Morphisms forgetting disjoint subsets of points commute in an obvious sense, and their product is a forgetful morphism forgetting the union of these subsets.

In particular, if $`T=\{t\}`$, we get two morphisms with common base: $`\varphi _{\{t\}}`$ and $`\pi _S^{}:\overline{𝒞}_{0,S^{}}\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$. A basic fact in the theory of moduli spaces is the existence of the canonical isomorphism

$$\mu _S:\overline{𝒞}_{0,S^{}}\overline{}_{0,S}$$
$`(6)`$
transforming $`\varphi _{\{t\}}`$ to $`\pi _S^{}`$.

2. Combinatorics of boundary strata. The space $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ is stratified by locally closed subschemes $`_\tau `$ indexed by the (isomorphism classes of the) stable trees with tails labeled by $`S`$ which are the dual graphs of the respective stable curves. Closures of all strata are smooth. The open stratum $`_{0,S}`$ parametrizes irreducible curves. Codimension one strata parametrize two–component curves and can be indexed by unordered 2–partitions $`S=S^{}S^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`|S^{(i)}|2`$ (stability), describing how the labeled points are distributed between the two components.

In what follows, we will often denote such a partition as $`S^{}|S^{\prime \prime }`$ or similarly. For example, if $`S=\{0,1,\mathrm{},s\}`$, then $`0\mathrm{}|1s`$ means that $`S^{}=\{0,\mathrm{}\},S^{\prime \prime }=\{1,s\}.`$

The total boundary is a normal crossing divisor. The closed strata of the boundary are strata of this divisor: each codimension $`d`$ stratum is an intersection of exactly $`d`$ boundary divisors, and their set is unique. A combinatorial description of this picture which we will need in the following Chapter looks as follows.

Consider two stable 2–partitions of $`S`$: $`\sigma :=\sigma _1|\sigma _2`$ and $`\tau :=\tau _1|\tau _2`$. Put

$$\delta (\sigma ,\tau ):=\mathrm{the}\mathrm{number}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{nonempty}\mathrm{intersections}\sigma _i\tau _j\mathrm{minus}2.$$

This is a kind of distance: $`\delta (\sigma ,\tau )=2`$ iff the respective divisors do not intersect; 1, iff their intersection is of codimension two; 0 iff they coincide.

A subset $`𝒟`$ of boundary divisors determines a non–empty stratum exactly when all pairwise distances between the respective partitions equal 1. Knowing this subset, we can also reconstruct the tree $`\tau `$ describing the respective degeneration type: this is the maximal tree with tails labeled by $`S`$ such that if one cuts it at the middle of any internal edge, the resulting 2–partition of $`S`$ will belong to $`𝒟`$.

Moreover, knowing the tree $`\tau `$ we can determine the structure of the stratum $`_\tau `$ itself: it is canonically isomorphic to the product

$$\underset{vV_\tau }{}_{0,F_\tau (v)}$$

where $`V_\tau `$ is the set of vertices, and $`F_\tau (v)`$ is the set of flags incident to $`v`$.

To determine the image of the boundary divisor defined by a partition of $`S`$ under the forgetful morphism $`\varphi _T:\overline{}_{0,S}\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$, one should consider the induced partition of $`S^{}`$. If it is stable, the respective divisor is the image. If it is unstable, the image is the total space $`\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$. For example, under the isomorphism (6), the $`S^{}`$–labeled structure sections of $`\overline{𝒞}_{0,S^{}}`$ correspond exactly to those boundary divisors $`ts|S^{}\{s\}`$ of $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ which become unstable after forgetting $`t`$.

For proofs and further details, see \[Kn\] and \[Man\], Ch. 3, §3.

3. Real points of $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$. Consider a stable $`S`$–labeled curve over $``$. Endowing it with the complex conjugate structure we will produce another similar curve. Thus we have a conjugation involution acting upon $`\overline{}_{0,S}().`$ Fixed points of this involution form the space of real points $`\overline{}_{0,S}().`$ A stable curve living over a real point is itself real in the following sense: it is endowed with a conjugation involution fixing all labeled points and all singular points. Thus, every irreducible component of a real stable labeled curve is a sphere $`^1()`$ endowed with a real equator $`^1()`$ carrying all labeled points and eventually all intersection points with other components.

Taken all together, such points are called special ones. In the dual graph $`\tau `$, an irreducible component becomes a vertex, and special points become flags at this vertex. Thus, a real structure of the respective curve determines an additional structure on $`\tau `$: an unoriented cyclic order on the set of flags at each vertex. To define it, just look at how the special points are distributed along the real equator of the respective component.

We will call a choice of such orders a locally planar structure on $`\tau `$.

Varying the curve along one connected component of the intersection of $`\overline{}_{0,S}()`$ with the $`\tau `$–stratum does not change the local planar structure.

The following Proposition furnishes additional details of this picture.

Proposition 2.1. (i) The set $`\overline{}_{0,S}()`$ is a connected closed real manifold. Connected components of intersections of $`\overline{}_{0,S}()`$ with complex boundary strata form a cell decomposition. Cells of it are in one–to–one correspondence with stable locally planar $`S`$–labeled trees. The relation “a cell is a codimension one component of the boundary of another cell” corresponds to the relation “a locally planar tree produces another locally planar tree by contracting an internal edge.”

(ii) Fix an unoriented cyclic order on $`S`$ and consider the respective open cell. Any choice of three consecutive labels with respect to this order allows one to introduce real coordinates which identify the open cell with the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0`$, where $`|S|=n+3.`$ This identification was denoted $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (5).

(iii) The closure of each open cell has the structure of a Stasheff polytope. In particular, its boundary strata of codimension $`1`$ are indexed by those stable 2–partitions of $`S`$ which are compatible with the respective cyclic order: they correspond to breaking the real equator into two connected arcs.

(iv) The Zariski closure of the boundary of any open cell is a union of boundary divisors having the same combinatorial shape (“an algebraic Stasheff polytope”).

Sketch of a proof. One can extract a proof of this Proposition from \[K\] (cf. also \[Dev\]). We will give here a modified version including a differential geometric picture of the degeneration of stable curves which in particular makes it clear why Stasheff polytopes appear at all. Assume that $`|S|4.`$

Let us look first at the open cells. A contemplation will convince the reader that they are labeled by the cyclic orders $`\rho `$ of $`S`$ and that an arbitrary order can arise. To identify each cell with a simplex, we choose three consecutive labels with respect to $`\rho `$ and denote them $`1,\mathrm{},0`$. For any $`sS\{1,\mathrm{},0\},`$ consider the forgetful morphism $`\overline{}_{0,S}\overline{}_{\{0,1,\mathrm{},s\}}.`$ The target space is a projective line with three special points: boundary divisors corresponding to the partitions $`s0|1\mathrm{}`$, $`s1|0\mathrm{}`$, $`s\mathrm{}|01`$.

We define $`t_s`$ as the lift from $`\overline{}_{0,\{0,1,\mathrm{},s\}}`$ of the affine coordinate on this projective line taking respectively the values $`0,1,\mathrm{}`$ at these three boundary divisors.

Put $`S\{1,\mathrm{},0\}=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$ where the labels are cyclically ordered so that $`0<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_n<1<\mathrm{}<0.`$ From our definitions it follows that with coordinates $`t_{s_i}`$, the interior part of the respective real component can be identified with the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0`$ as in the Introduction.

Now let us turn to the boundary of the closure of this simplex in $`\overline{}_{0,S}().`$ As we have already said, a point $`z_{0,S}()`$ corresponds to the Riemannian sphere $`^1()`$ with marked points labeled by $`S`$. If $`z`$ is real, this sphere has a distinguished equator $`^1()`$ carrying all marked points $`x_s(z)`$.

Endow $`^1()\{x_s(z)|sS\}`$ with a hyperbolic metric of constant curvature $`1`$. The marked points will go to infinity as the ends of infinitely thinning tubes, and the whole picture will resemble a chestnut.

When $`z`$ tends to a point of a boundary divisorial stratum, the respective variable surface carries a closed geodesic whose length tends to zero, a representative of the vanishing 1–homology class. The body of the chestnut near the limit becomes divided into two new bodies, connected by a thin tube whose length tends to infinity as well. A part of labeled points will belong to one half, the remaining ones to another half. This unordered 2–partition determines the relevant boundary component of the moduli space.

The key fact is this: if $`z`$ tends to the boundary in this way along a real path in $`_{0,S}()`$, then the vanishing geodesic intersects the real equator exactly at two points. When the vanishing cycle shrinks, the equator itself degenerates into a union of two real equators of the components of the limit curve. Hence the respective 2–partition of $`S`$ can be obtained by breaking the equator into two arcs (say, by drawing a chord).

From \[K\] it follows that all such stable 2–partitions compatible with the cyclic order arise in this way. Geometrically, such a partition arises in the limit when all points of one part of the partition try to merge.

Strata of the real boundary of larger codimension (faces) can be obtained by iterating this description, i. e. applying it in turn to the components of a degenerate curve. In this way, these strata become indexed by “cactiform” trees, whose “edges” are circles carrying marked points. As in the complex case, we have applied dualization and replaced these graphs by actual trees: vertices replace circles, halves of edges replace marked points, edges replace contact points of pairs of circles.

Equivalently, put the points labeled by $`S`$ on a circle in a plane compatibly with the chosen order. Strata of codimension $`d`$ of the closure of the respective component are in a natural bijection with the isotopy classes of stable trees with $`d`$ (internal) edges situated inside this circle and having the labeled points as ends of tails. A stratum of codimension $`d+1`$ belongs to the closure of the stratum of codimension $`d`$ if one can obtain the smaller tree from the larger one by collapsing one of its edges. The resulting polytope is called the Stasheff polytope $`K_n`$ (if $`|S|=n+3`$). Its vertices correspond to the trivalent trees.

Notice that in the Proposition 2.1 we were speaking about locally planar trees whereas the picture above refers to a global planar embedding. The point is that any given cell belongs to the boundaries of many maximal cells. They are classified precisely by those planar embeddings which are compatible with a given locally planar structure.

Any face of a Stasheff polytope is a product of Stasheff polytopes (some of them may be points).

The Zariski closure $`B`$ of the boundary of any open cell is a union of boundary divisors having the same combinatorial shape as a Stasheff polytope $`K`$ in the following sense: there is a bijection between the irreducible components $`D_i`$ of $`B`$ and the codimension one faces $`F_i`$ of $`K`$ such that a subset of $`B_i`$’s has a non–empty intersection of expected codimension iff the respective subset of $`F_i`$’s has this property.

A more elementary example: $`n+1`$ generic hyperplanes in $`^n`$ have the shape of a simplex. However, four lines in $`^2`$ do not have shape of a convex quadrangle.

4. Divisors $`B(\rho )`$. It is convenient to repeat the formal definition of $`B(\rho )`$: if $`\rho `$ is any cyclic order on $`S`$, $`B(\rho )`$ is the sum of boundary divisors corresponding to those 2–partitions that are provided by breaking the circle into two arcs. This divisor carries the total boundary of the respective open cell $`_{0,S}^\rho ().`$

3 Forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ and divisors $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$

1. Construction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$. As above, choose and fix three labels in $`S`$ which we will denote $`0,1,\mathrm{}.`$ We have shown that this choice allows us to define a meromorphic function $`t_s`$ on $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ for each $`sS\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}.`$

The additional structure is an arbitrary function $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }:S\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}\{0,1\}`$, $`s\epsilon _s`$. Choosing an order of $`S\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, we can define a meromorphic form on $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }):=\underset{sS\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}}{}\frac{dt_s}{t_s\epsilon _s}.$$
$`(7)`$
Changing the order influences only the sign of the form.

2. Divisor $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$. We continue using notation as in (7).

For $`\alpha \{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, we define $`S(\alpha )=S(\alpha ,\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ by

$$S(0):=\{s|\epsilon _s=0\},S(1):=\{s|\epsilon _s=1\},S(\mathrm{}):=S(0)S(1).$$

We will say that a 2–partition of $`S`$ has type $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }`$ if one part of it is of the form $`\{\alpha \}T`$ where $`T`$ is a non–empty subset of $`S(\alpha ).`$

Proposition 3.1. The divisor of singularities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ on $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ is the sum $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ of boundary divisors corresponding to those stable 2–partitions of $`S`$ which have some type with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }`$.

The following result is stronger than Lemma 1.1. Denote by $`\rho `$ the cyclic order $`0<s_1<\mathrm{}s_n<1<\mathrm{}<0.`$

Corollary 3.2. Assume that $`n2`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }`$ and $`\rho `$ satisfy $`\epsilon _{s_1}=1,\epsilon _{s_n}=0.`$ Then $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ does not intersect the boundary of $`_{0,S}^\rho ().`$

In particular, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ is holomorphic on $`\overline{}_{0,S}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$, the closure of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_n)`$ determines a relative cycle on $`\overline{}_{0,S}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ modulo $`B(\rho )A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$, and formula (5) can be written as the integral over this relative cycle.

Deduction of the Corollary. Assume that the intersection in question is not empty. Since it is closed, it has to contain a zero–dimensional face of (the closure of) $`_{0,S}^\rho ().`$ As was explained above, this face must correspond to a planar tree $`\tau `$ having all vertices of multiplicity three and drawn inside the circle on which the labels $`S`$ are put in the order $`\rho `$ and mark the tails of $`\tau `$. The same tree describes the respective complex zero–dimensional stratum of $`\overline{}_{0,S}.`$

Each boundary divisor containing such a stratum can be obtained by choosing an interior edge of $`\tau `$: if we cut the edge, $`S`$ will break into two parts corresponding to the distribution of tails among the resulting connected components of $`\tau `$. Clearly, the same 2–partition of $`S`$ can be obtained by breaking the circle into two connected arcs.

It remains to check that such a partition cannot have a definite type with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }.`$ In other words, no arc can contain only points of $`S`$ forming a set $`\{\alpha \}T`$, $`TS(\alpha ).`$ In fact, for $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ this is impossible, because $`1`$ and $`0`$ separate $`\mathrm{}`$ from any element $`s_i`$. For $`\alpha =0`$ this is impossible because $`s_1S(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ separate $`0`$ from any element of $`S(0).`$ The case $`\alpha =1`$ is impossible for similar reason.

3. Proof of the Proposition 3.1. We will argue by induction on $`n`$.

Case $`n=1`$. Here $`S=\{0,1,\mathrm{},s\}.`$ As we recalled in Chapter 2, $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ is a projective line with three boundary divisors corresponding to the partitions $`s0|1\mathrm{}`$, $`s1|0\mathrm{}`$, $`s\mathrm{}|01`$. Moreover, $`t:=t_s`$ is the affine coordinate on this projective line taking respectively the values $`0,1,\mathrm{}`$ at these three boundary divisors. A form $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t\epsilon }},\epsilon =0,1,`$ is singular at two partitions: $`s\epsilon |(1\epsilon )\mathrm{}`$ and $`s\mathrm{}|01`$. Comparing this with the definition in the first subsection of this Chapter, we see that these are exactly those partitions that have a definite type with respect to $`\epsilon `$.

Case $`n=2`$. Although it is not strictly necessary to treat this case separately, it will be convenient to do so: we will show both the essence of the inductive step and the geometry of the first simple but nontrivial situation.

We put $`S=\{0,1,\mathrm{},s_1,s_2\}`$, $`t_i=t_{s_i}`$, and choose $`\epsilon _1=1,\epsilon _0=0`$. For $`n=2`$, this is the only case producing a $`\zeta `$–value, namely, $`\zeta (2)`$.

Two morphisms forgetting $`x_{s_2}`$ and $`x_{s_1}`$ respectively, represent $`\overline{}_{0,S}`$ as a blow up of a quadric:

$$\beta :\overline{}_{0,S}\overline{}_{0,\{0,1,\mathrm{},s_1\}}\times \overline{}_{0,\{0,1,\mathrm{},s_2\}}^1\times ^1.$$
$`(8)`$
In coordinates $`(t_1,t_2)`$ three points are blown: $`(0,0),(1.1),`$ and $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).`$ The resulting divisors are (correspond to) respectively the following partitions of $`S`$: $`s_1s_20|1\mathrm{}`$, $`s_1s_21|0\mathrm{}`$, $`s_1s_2\mathrm{}|01`$. The strict preimage of the diagonal is the boundary divisor $`s_1s_2|01\mathrm{}`$. All in all, there are ten boundary components. We split them into a union of two “pentagons”. The pentagon $`A=A(1,0)`$ consists of the strict preimages of the divisors $`t_1=1,t_1=\mathrm{},t_2=0,t_2=\mathrm{},`$ and of the blow up of $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).`$

This is the picture we referred to in the Introduction.

It is important to understand why the pentagon $`A`$ is precisely the divisor of singularities of

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(1,0)=\beta ^{}\left(\frac{dt_1}{t_11}\frac{dt_2}{t_2}\right).$$

The point is that if we naively add up the total preimages of singularities of $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{t_11}}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_2}{t_2}}`$, we will get two spurious extra components: blow ups of $`(0,0)`$ and $`(1,1)`$. A local calculation shows that they cancel in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1,0)`$, because neither $`(0,0)`$ nor $`(1,1)`$ is a stratum of the divisor of singularities of the form on the quadric.

It is this step that is crucial – and somewhat cumbersome to check – in the general inductive reasoning.

To complete the discussion of our example, notice that the complementary pentagon which is the union of the strict preimages of $`t_1=0,t_1=t_2,t_2=1`$ and the blow ups of $`(0,0)`$ and $`(1,1)`$, is precisely $`B`$. The reader may check it as a nice exercise.

General inductive step. Let $`S=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$, $`S^{}=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n,s_{n+1}\}`$, $`\epsilon _{s_i}=\epsilon _i`$, $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }=\{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n\}`$, $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{}=\{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _{n+1}\}`$. Generalizing (8), we define a birational morphism composed of two forgetful maps

$$\beta :\overline{}_{0,S^{}}\overline{}_{0,S}\times \overline{}_{0,\{0,1,\mathrm{},s_{n+1}\}}.$$
$`(9)`$
From (7), it is clear that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{})=\beta ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })\frac{dt_{n+1}}{t_{n+1}\epsilon _{n+1}}\right).$$
$`(10)`$
The divisor of (logarithmic) singularities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })\frac{dt_{n+1}}{t_{n+1}\epsilon _{n+1}}`$ is a normal crossing divisor consisting of (lifts of) some boundary divisors of the factors. More precisely, by the inductive assumption, the latter constitute $`A(\epsilon _{n+1})`$ and $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ respectively.

Hence the divisor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{})`$ is $`\beta ^{}(\mathrm{pr}_1^{}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })+\mathrm{pr}_2^{}A(\epsilon _{n+1}))`$ minus eventual spurious components.

According to the Lemma 3.8 in \[G5\], the spurious components are those irreducible boundary divisors in $`\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$ which get blown down by $`\beta `$ to a subvariety of the product which is not a stratum of the divisor $`\mathrm{pr}_1^{}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })+\mathrm{pr}_2^{}A(\epsilon _{n+1}).`$ Let us now make explicit the combinatorics of the situation. We will systematically identify boundary divisors with partitions.

(i) First of all, a boundary divisor of $`\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$ gets blown down by $`\beta `$ if both forgetful morphisms map it into boundary divisors. Combinatorially, we take a stable partition of $`S^{}`$ and induce from it a partition of $`S`$ and of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},s_{n+1}\}`$; both results must be stable. A contemplation will convince the reader that there are three kinds of such partitions:

$$s_{n+1}0\sigma _1|\sigma _21\mathrm{},s_{n+1}1\sigma _1|\sigma _20\mathrm{},s_{n+1}\mathrm{}\sigma _1|\sigma _201$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\sigma _1|\sigma _2`$ is any partition of $`\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$ with $`\sigma _1\mathrm{}.`$

Moreover, divisors $`s_{n+1}\sigma _1|\sigma _201\mathrm{}`$ with $`|\sigma _1|2`$ also get blown down, and this completes the list: see \[Ke\], Lemma 1, p. 554.

(ii) Now let us list components of $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }).`$ They are also divided into three types (see the beginning of the Chapter):

$$0T_0|\mathrm{}1\mathrm{},1T_1|\mathrm{}0\mathrm{},\mathrm{}T_{\mathrm{}}|\mathrm{}01$$
$`(12)`$
where $`T_\alpha `$ is a non–empty subset of $`S(\alpha ).`$ Each of them has exactly two strict lifts to $`\overline{}_{0,S^{}}`$: we may add $`s_{n+1}`$ to the first or to the second parts of the partition. We will first check which of these lifts do not belong to $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{}).`$ Assume for concreteness that $`\epsilon _{n+1}=0`$; the other case is treated similarly.

Again, a contemplation will convince the reader that only the following lifts do not have a definite type with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{}`$:

$$s_{n+1}1T_1|\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}.$$
$`(13)`$
(iii) Let us now check that the components (13) are spurious. First, forgetting $`s_{n+1}`$ or all $`\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n\}`$ produces stable partitions, so such a divisor gets blown down. More precisely, its $`\beta `$–image is (not just lies in)

$$1T_1|\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}\times s_{n+1}1|0\mathrm{}$$

This product is not a stratum of the divisor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }){\displaystyle \frac{dt_{n+1}}{t^{n+1}}}.`$ In fact, the first factor is a component of the singularities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$, whereas the second one is not a singularity for $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_{n+1}}{t_{n+1}}}`$.

(iv) After adding $`s_{n+1}`$ to one of the parts of partitions in the list (12) and deleting the partitions (13) we will get almost all partitions of $`S^{}`$ having a definite type with respect to $`\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{}`$. The only exceptions will be (recall that $`\epsilon _{n+1}=0`$)

$$s_{n+1}0|S1\mathrm{},s_{n+1}\mathrm{}|S01.$$

These two components of $`A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }^{})`$ are supplied by the lifts of the poles of $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt_{n+1}}{t_{n+1}}}`$.

This concludes the proof.

4 Multiple $`\zeta `$–motives

1. Motivic background. Below we employ the abelian category $`_T()`$ of mixed Tate motives over $``$ as defined in chapter 5 of \[G3\], (see also \[L1\]), and its subcategory $`_T()`$ of unramified over $``$ mixed Tate motives (\[G4\], \[DG\]). As is shown in loc. cit., an object of $`_T()`$ is unramified over $``$ if and only if for any prime $`l`$ its $`l`$–adic realization is unramified outside of $`l`$.

To talk about the periods of mixed Tate motives we need to equip mixed Tate motives with an additional structure called framing. For a definition of framed mixed Tate objects, e. g. framed mixed Tate motives or framed Hodge–Tate structures, see for example section 3.2 of \[G4\]. To define a period of a framed Hodge–Tate structure $`H`$ we need to choose a splitting of the weight filtration on $`H_{}`$, see the next section and section 4.2 in \[G3\] for more details.

2. Multiple $`\zeta `$–motives. Keeping the notation of section 1, Chapter 2, we define

$$\zeta ^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m):=H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\epsilon ),BBA(\epsilon )).$$
$`(14)`$
Theorem 4.1. (i) $`\zeta ^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ is a mixed Tate motive unramified over $`\mathrm{Spec}()`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$ allow us to define its natural framing so that the respective period equals $`\zeta (n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$.

Proof. A non singular projective variety is called a Tate variety if its motive is a direct sum of pure Tate motives. It is well known (and follows from Knudsen’s inductive description of $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$) that all strata of the stratification defined by the divisor $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ are Tate varieties. Since $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$ is a normal crossing divisor, Corollary 3.2 above and Proposition 3.6 in \[G5\] show that $`\zeta ^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ is well defined as a mixed Tate motive over $``$.

Let us recall briefly its construction. Consider the standard cosimplicial variety

$$S_{}(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),B)$$
$`(15)`$
corresponding to the pair $`(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }))`$.

Recall that $`S_0:=\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$, and $`S_k`$ is the disjoint union of the codimension $`k`$ strata of the divisor $`BBA(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$.

Following the standard procedure, let us make a complex of varieties out of (15) with $`S_0`$ placed at the degree $`0`$. It provides an object in the Voevodsky triangulated category of motives \[V\], which in fact belongs to the triangulated subcategory $`𝒟_T()`$ of mixed Tate motives over $``$. There exists a canonical $`t`$–structure $`t`$ on the category $`𝒟_T()`$ (see Chapter 5 of \[G3\] or \[L1\] for its definition). Then $`H_t^n`$ of the above complex is the multiple $`\zeta `$–motive.

Now we will introduce a framing. Generally, a framing on a mixed motive is an algebraic counterpart of the notion of period. For the mixed Tate motives it looks as follows. Recall that a mixed Tate motive carries a canonical weight filtration $`W_{}`$ such that the associated graded motive of weight $`2k`$ is a direct sum of pure Tate motives $`(k)`$, and $`\mathrm{G}r_{2k1}^W=0`$. An $`n`$–framed (or simply framed if $`n`$ is clear from the context) mixed Tate motive is a triple $`(M,v,f)`$ where $`v`$ and $`f`$ are two non zero morphisms

$$v:(n)\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WM,f:(0)\left(\mathrm{G}r_0^WM\right)^{}=\mathrm{G}r_0^WM^{}$$

and $`M^{}`$ is the dual object.

In our situation we define a framing as follows. There are canonical isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\epsilon ))\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }))$$
$`(16)`$
and

$$\mathrm{G}r_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\epsilon )\mathrm{G}r_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},B)$$
$`(17)`$
Moreover, there are natural non–zero morphisms of pure Tate motives

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })]:(n)\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })),$$

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_n]:(0)\mathrm{G}r_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},B).$$

To construct them we employ the fact that the Hodge realization is a fully faithful functor on the category of pure Tate motives. Then the first morphism is determined in the De Rham realization by the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$. The second morphism is determined in the Betti realization by the relative homology class of the cell $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$. Combining them with the isomorphisms (16) and (17) we get the frame morphisms

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })]^{}:(n)\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\epsilon )),$$

$$[\mathrm{\Phi }_n]^{}:(0)\mathrm{G}r_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\epsilon )).$$

Let us show that $`\zeta (n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ is a period of this framed mixed Tate motive.

Recall that a mixed Hodge structure is the following linear algebra data:

i) A $``$–vector space $`H_{}`$ equipped with an increasing filtration $`W_{}`$.

ii) A decreasing filtration $`F^{}`$ on $`H_{}=H_{}`$ inducing for each integer $`n`$ a weight $`n`$ pure Hodge structure on $`\mathrm{G}r_n^WH`$, i.e.

$$\mathrm{G}r_n^WH_{}=_{p+q=n}F^p\mathrm{G}r_n^WH_{}\overline{F}^q\mathrm{G}r_n^WH_{}$$

A Hodge–Tate structure is a mixed Hodge structure with the Hodge numbers $`h^{pq}=0`$ unless $`p=q`$. It is easy to see that this is equivalent to the following condition: for every $`p`$ the natural map

$$F^pH_{}W_{2p}H_{}\mathrm{G}r_{2p}^WH_{}$$
$`(18)`$
is an isomorphism.

The Hodge realization of the multiple $`\zeta `$–motive is a Hodge–Tate structure.

An $`n`$–framed Hodge–Tate structure is a Hodge–Tate structure $`H`$ equipped with non–zero morphisms

$$v:(n)\mathrm{G}r_{2n}^WH;f:(0)\left(\mathrm{G}r_0^WH\right)^{}=\mathrm{G}r_0^WH^{}$$

To define a period of a framed Hodge-Tate structure we need to choose an additional data – a map of $``$–vector spaces $`\stackrel{~}{f}:H_{}^{}`$ lifting $`f`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{G}r_0^W\stackrel{~}{f}=f`$. Set $`f^{}:=\stackrel{~}{f}(1)`$. The composition

$$(n)\mathrm{G}r_{2p}^WH_{}F^pH_{}W_{2p}H_{}$$

where the first arrow is $`v`$ and the second arrow is provided by (18), leads to a vector $`v^{}F^pH_{}W_{2p}H_{}`$. The corresponding period is a complex number $`v^{},f^{}`$. A different choice of lifting $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ changes the period by $`2\pi i`$ times a “weight $`n1`$ period”, see s. 4.2 in \[G3\] for more details.

In our case a canonical choice of the lift $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is secured by the Corollary 3.2 which shows that the cell $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n`$ provides an element of the Betti homology

$$[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n]^{}H_n^B(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })).$$

The restriction of the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })`$ to the divisor $`B`$ is zero, so that it furnishes a De Rham cohomology class

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })]^{}H_{\mathrm{D}R}^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{\epsilon }),BBA(\underset{¯}{\epsilon })).$$

These are the classes obtained before by using isomorphisms (16) and (17). Clearly, the integral (5) computes the pairing of these two classes.

It remains to show that $`\zeta ^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ is unramified over $``$.

Definition 4.2. Let $`D`$ be a normal crossing divisor in a regular scheme $`X`$ over $`_p`$. Assume that the pair $`(D,X)`$ is proper over $`_p`$. We say that reduction modulo $`p`$ does not change the combinatorics of $`(D,X)`$ if $`X`$ and every stratum of $`D`$ are smooth over $`_p`$, and the reduction map from the strata of $`D`$ to ones at the special fiber is a bijection.

Let $`X`$ be a flat integral scheme of finite type over $`_p`$, $`D`$ a divisor. Set $`\overline{X}:=X__p\overline{}_p`$. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be the unions of two disjoint subsets of irreducible components of $`D`$.

Proposition 4.3. If the reduction modulo $`p`$ does not change the combinatorics of $`(D,X)`$ and $`(l,p)=1`$, then the $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}_p/_p)`$–module $`H_{\mathrm{et}}^n(\overline{X}\overline{A},\overline{B}\overline{B}\overline{A};_l)`$ is unramified at $`p`$.

Proof. It is proved by taking the standard simplicial resolution computing $`H^n(XA,BBA)`$ and using the proper and smooth base change theorem, see Proposition 3.9 in \[G5\] for details.

Proposition 4.4. For any prime $`p`$ the reduction modulo $`p`$ does not change the combinatorics of the divisor $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$.

In fact, the description of the combinatorics of the boundary strata given in the subsection 2.2 is valid over a field of any characteristic $`p`$ and is compatible with reduction.

This concludes the proof of the Theorem 4.1.

3. Concluding remarks. The discussion above can be applied to more general pairs $`A`$, $`B`$ sharing no common components for which we can find framing as in (3). For example, interchanging $`A`$ and $`B`$ and using the duality isomorphism

$$H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A)^{}H_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},A)(n)$$

which implies

$$\mathrm{Gr}_{2n}^WH^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A)\mathrm{Gr}_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},A)(n)$$

we get a different mixed Tate motive over $``$ with the dual framing. Hence we get a concrete

Problem. Let $`\widehat{\zeta }^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ be the mixed Tate motive obtained by interchanging the $`A`$\- and $`B`$-divisors in (14). Express $`\widehat{\zeta }^{}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)`$ via the multiple $`\zeta `$–motives.

According to the conjecture 17 b) in \[G1\] any unramified over $``$ framed mixed Tate motive is equivalent to a linear combination of framed multiple $`\zeta `$–motives. In our situation, we come to the following

Conjecture 4.5. Any mixed Tate motive (2) with a framing provided by (3) is equivalent to a $``$–linear combination of the framed weight $`n`$ multiple $`\zeta `$-motives.

The analytic version of this conjecture says that for any

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }_B^{}]H_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A,BBA)\mathrm{lifting}[\mathrm{\Delta }_B]\mathrm{Gr}_0^WH_n(\overline{}_{0,n+3},B)$$

in (3) the integral $`(2\pi i)^n_{\mathrm{\Delta }_B^{}}\omega _A`$ giving a period of the framed Hodge-Tate structure (4) is $`(2\pi i)^n\times `$ (a $``$–linear combination of the weight $`n`$ multiple $`\zeta `$–values).

4. Generalizations. Consider an iterated integral

$$\mathrm{I}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n):=_{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^0}\frac{dt_1}{t_1a_1}\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{t_na_n}a_10,a_n1.$$
$`(19)`$
Let $`\underset{¯}{a}:=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$ and $`A(\underset{¯}{a})`$ be the divisor of singularities of the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{a}):=\frac{dt_1}{t_1a_1}\mathrm{}\frac{dt_n}{t_na_n}$$

meromorphically extended to $`\overline{}_{0,n+3}`$. Then extending the definitions above in an obvious way, one can prove the following

Proposition 4.6. $`A(\underset{¯}{a})B`$ is a normal crossing divisor and $`A(\underset{¯}{a})`$ and $`B`$ share no common components.

The absence of common components follows immediately from the convergence of the integral (19).

Thus if $`a_i`$ are elements of a number field $`F`$ then

$$H^n(\overline{}_{0,n+3}A(\underset{¯}{a}),BBA(\underset{¯}{a}))$$

is a mixed Tate motive over $`F`$. The class $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_B]`$ and the form $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\underset{¯}{a})`$ provide it with a framing. If $`a_i`$ are complex numbers then the period of the corresponding framed Hodge–Tate structure is given by the integral $`\mathrm{I}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$.

This provides a different construction of the motivic multiple polylogarithms motives then the one suggested in \[G5\]. However the framed mixed Tate motives given by these two constructions are equivalent.

REFERENCES

\[DGr\] Deligne P. Resumé des premiers exposés de A. Grothendieck. SGA 7, LNM 288, 1–24.

\[DG\] Deligne P., Goncharov A.B. (in preparation).

\[Dev\] S. L. Devadoss. Tesselations of moduli spaces and the mosaic operad. In: Contemp. Math., vol. 239 (1999), pp. 91–114.

\[Dr\] Drinfeld V.G. On quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras and on a group that is closely connected with $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$. Leningrad Math. J. 2 (1991), no. 4, 829–860.

\[E\] L. Euler. Opera Omnia. Ser. 1, Vol XV, Teubner, Berlin 1917, 217–267.

\[G1\] Goncharov A.B. Polylogarithms in arithmetic and geometry. Proc. of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1, 2 (Zürich, 1994), 374–387, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995.

\[G2\] Goncharov A.B. Multiple $`\zeta `$-values, Galois groups and geometry of modular varieties. Proc. of the Third European Congress of Mathematicians. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 201, p. 361–392. Birkhäuser Verlag, 2001. math.AG/0005069.

\[G3\] Goncharov A.B. Volumes of hyperbolic manifolds and mixed Tate motives. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1999) N2, 569–618. math.alg-geom/9601021.

\[G4\] Goncharov A.B. Multiple polylogarithms and mixed Tate motives.

math.AG/0103059.

\[G5\] Goncharov A.B. Periods and mixed motives. math.AG/0202154.

\[K\] Kapranov M.M. The permutoassociahedron, MacLane’s coherence theorem and asymptotic zones for the KZ equation. J. of Pure and Appl. Algebra 85 (1993), 119–142.

\[Ke\] Keel S. Intersection theory of moduli space of stable $`N`$–pointed curves of genus zero. Trans. AMS, 330:2 (1992), 545–574.

\[Kn\] Knudsen F.F. The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves II. The stacks $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$. Math. Scand. 52 (1983), 163–199.

\[Man\] Manin Yu.I. Frobenius manifolds, quantum cohomology, and moduli spaces. AMS Colloquium Publications, vol. 47, Providence, RI, 1999, 303 pp.

\[L1\] Levine, M. Tate motives and the vanishing conjectures for algebraic $`K`$–theory. Algebraic $`K`$–theory and algebraic topology (Lake Louise, AB, 1991), 167–188, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 407, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1993.

\[S\] Silverman J. Advanced topics in the arithmetic of elliptic curves. Graduate texts in Mathematics, Springer, 1994.

\[T\] Terasoma T. Multiple zeta values and mixed Tate motives. math.AG/0104231.

\[V\] Voevodsky V. Triangulated category of motives over a field. In: Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories, 188–238, Ann. of Math. Stud., 143, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 2000.


format: text

text:
# Analysis of the distribution of HII regions in external galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Catalogs of HII regions of spiral galaxies can be used to obtain a great deal of information on their underlying galaxies. For instance, we can study the radial profile of the distribution of HII regions and compare it with the radial distribution of the light in different wavelengths. We can study also the number distribution of HII regions according to their flux and use this information to study the star formation rate in galaxies. Yet more information can be obtained by Fourier analyzing the spatial distribution of the HII regions. The distribution can then be decomposed into components of a given angular periodicity, whose pitch angles and relative amplitude can be calculated. Using such results for a large sample of galaxies should provide useful information on the properties of spiral structure in external galaxies. With this aim, we started in 1991 a study of all catalogs published until that date (García-Gómez & Athanassoula gga1 (1991), hereafter GGA; García-Gómez & Athanassoula gga2 (1993); Athanassoula, García-Gómez & Bosma athanassoula (1993)). Since then, however, a large number of new catalogs has been published, nearly doubling our initial sample. This warrants a reanalysis of our previous results, particularly since the new published catalogs extend the initial sample specially towards barred and ringed galaxies, which were sparse in the first sample. The new sample contains also a large number of active galaxies.

In this paper we will concentrate on the fundamental step of the deprojection of the HII region positions from the plane of the sky onto the plane of the galaxy, determining the position angle (hereafter PA) and the inclination angle (hereafter IA) of each galaxy using several methods of deprojection. In future papers we will study the spiral structure of the galaxies which have a sufficient number of HII regions and use the whole sample to study the global properties of the spiral structure in external galaxies. This paper is structured as follows: In Section 2 we present the new sample and in Section 3 we discuss the different methods of deprojection used to obtain the values of PA and IA. In Section 4 we give the PA and IA values adopted for the galaxies in our sample and finally in Section 5 we compare the values of the PA and IA obtained by using the different methods of deprojection.

## 2 The sample

Several new catalogs of the distribution of HII regions in external galaxies have been published in the last decade. These come mainly from the surveys of H$`\alpha `$ emission in Seyfert galaxies from Tsvetanov & Petrosian (tsvetanov (1995)), Evans et al. (evans (1996)) and González Delgado et al. (gonzalez (1997)), from the H$`\alpha `$ survey of southern galaxies from Feinstein (feinstein (1997)) and the H$`\alpha `$ survey of ringed galaxies by Crocker et al. (crocker (1996)). There have also been a considerable number of studies of the HII region distribution in individual galaxies: NGC~157, NGC~3631, NGC~6764 and NGC~6951 (Rozas et al. rozas1 (1996)); NGC~598 (Hodge et al. hodge2 (1999)): NGC~3198 (Corradi et al. corradi (1991)); NGC~3359 (Rozas et al. 2000b ); NGC~4321 (Knapen knapen2 (1998)); NGC~4258 (Courtès et al. courtes (1993)); NGC 4736 (Rodrigues et al. rodrigues (1998)); NGC~5194 (Petit et al. petit2 (1996)); NGC~5457 (Hodge et al. hodge (1990), Scowen et al. scowen (1992)); NGC~6184 (Knapen et al. knapen3 (1993)); NGC 7331 (Petit petit1 (1998)) and NGC~7479 (Rozas et al. rozas4 (1999)).

From these studies we have retained all galaxies with an inclination less than $`80^o`$ and with a sufficient number of HII regions listed. Indeed, more than $`50`$ HII regions are necessary to allow a study of the spiral structure. Nevertheless, we included also five galaxies with fewer HII regions because we judged that they described fairly well the galaxy disc. In Fig 1 we show the number of catalogs as a function of the number of HII regions they have. The solid line corresponds to catalogs of the new sample, and the dashed line corresponds to the sample used in GGA (gga1 (1991)). From this figure we see that the quality of the two samples is roughly the same.

The properties of the galaxies selected for our study and of their HII region catalogs are listed in Table 1. Column 1 gives the galaxy name. Columns 2 and 3 the Hubble type (T) and the Hubble stage (S) from the RC3 catalog (de Vaucouleurs et al. devaucouleurs (1991)). Column 4 gives the arm class (AC) as defined in Elmegreen & Elmegreen (elmegreen (1987)). Column 5 classifies the spiral structure (SS) seen in the

HII region distribution, which we obtain by eye estimates as in GGA (gga1 (1991)). If we can see a clear grand design spiral we give a classification Y in Column 5 and N on the contrary. Intermediate cases are classified as R. Finally, in Column 6 we give the number of HII regions in the catalog (N) and in Column 7 a key for the reference of this particular catalog. The number distribution of galaxies as a function of galaxy type is shown in Fig 2. The solid line corresponds to the number distribution of types for the galaxies of the new sample, while the dashed line corresponds to the sample used in GGA (gga1 (1991)). As in the previous paper the peak is for galaxies of type Sbc. Nevertheless, this sample contains many more earlier type galaxies than the previous one. Indeed, in the previous sample most galaxies are of type Sbc and later, while in the new one most are Sbc and earlier.

In Fig 3 we compare the arm class classification of Elmegreen & Elmegreen (elmegreen (1987)) with our classification of the arm structure present in the HII region distribution. The left panels refer to the galaxies in the new sample and the right panels to the galaxies in the GGA (gga1 (1991)) sample. The upper panels correspond to galaxies classified as Y, the second row of panels correspond to the galaxies classified as N and the third row contains the galaxies classified as R. The last row contains the distribution of all the galaxies according to arm class. The figure shows that galaxies classified with higher number in the arm class have a tendency to have well developed arms in the distribution of HII regions. There are, however, exceptions as e.g. NGC~5861 which has been given an arm class 12 by Elmegreen & Elmegreen (elmegreen (1987)), but has no apparent spiral structure in the HII region distribution.

We should also note that our new sample is formed mainly by barred and ringed galaxies. This is shown in Fig 4 where we can see the number distribution of galaxies as a function of bar type as given in the RC3 catalog. In the upper panel we show the distribution of bar types of the galaxies of the GGA (gga1 (1991)) sample. In the middle panel we show the distribution for the new sample and in the lower panel the distribution of bar types of the two samples combined. While the first sample was biased towards non-barred galaxies (upper panel), the new catalog is biased towards barred and/or ringed galaxies (middle panel). This gives a quite uniform total distribution (lower panel).

Our final aim is to study the spiral structure outlined by the HII region distribution. Obviously, this cannot be done with a catalog with a number of HII regions lower than 50, and only the richer catalogs will be considered for this purpose in a forthcoming paper. Nevertheless, useful information on the galaxies can be obtained even from the less rich catalogs, as e.g. the orientation of the galaxies as seen in the sky and the radial scale of the distribution, which can be compared with the radial scale length of galaxy discs (Athanassoula et al. athanassoula (1993)).

## 3 Deprojection methods.

The first step in order to study the distribution of HII regions is to deproject the images of the galaxies. For this we need two angles, namely the position angle (PA) – which is the angle between the line of nodes of the projected image and the north, measured towards the east – and the inclination angle (IA) – which is the angle between the line perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy and the line of sight –. An IA of zero degrees corresponds to a galaxy seen face-on.

Two basic groups of methods have been used so far to determine these angles. The first one is based on photometry and images, and the second one on kinematics. The most standard way to use images is to fit ellipses to the outermost isophotes and measure their axial ratio. This method, which is often used in the literature, is well suited for discs which are not warped, and requires photometric images with high signal-to-noise ratio in the outer parts, where the influence of non axisymmetric components like arms and bars is minimum. Several variants have also been proposed: Danver (danver (1942)) used a special display table to rotate the galaxy images until they were circular. Grosbøl (grosbol1 (1985)) applied the one dimensional Fourier transform to the intensity distribution in the outer parts of disc galaxies and adopted the deprojection angles that minimized the bisymmetric Fourier component.

Another classical method uses a two dimensional velocity field of the galaxy. Assuming that the emission comes from a thin planar disk, which is in circular motion around the galaxy center, we can select the deprojection angles that minimize the departures from such a flow. This method is particularly well adapted for HI kinematics, which covers the whole galaxy disk. During the last decade, however, this method has been applied also to data coming from CO and H$`\alpha `$ kinematics, which are generally more restricted to the central parts. This method is specially well suited for measuring the PA. In the case of warps, a tilted ring model can be used, but the values of the deprojection angles will not be uniquely defined, as they will change with galactocentric radius.

Searching in the literature, we can also find other kind of methods to derive the deprojection angles that do not use the techniques described above. Comte et al. (comte2 (1979)) used a plot of the HII region distribution of M 101 in a $`\mathrm{log}(r)\theta `$ plane to fit a straight line to the arms, using the hypothesis that the arms are well described by logarithmic spirals. Iye et al. (iye (1982)) applied the two dimensional Fourier analysis to the galaxy NGC~4254, using a photometric image, and chose the deprojection angles that maximize the axisymmetric component. Considère & Athanassoula (considere1 (1982)) also applied Fourier analysis but used instead published catalogs of HII regions. The criterion that they used was to maximize the signal to noise ratio in the $`m=2`$ component. This same criterion was used by Considère & Athanassoula (considere2 (1988)) but using instead photometric galactic images.

In this paper we will use two methods, which were already introduced by GGA (gga1 (1991)). For our first method we use two dimensional Fourier analysis of the galaxy image. We decompose the HII region distribution in its spiral components using a basis formed of logarithmic spirals. Since the deprojected galaxy should be more axisymmetric than the projected one, we can calculate the deprojection angles are as the angles that maximize the ratio:

$$\frac{B(0)}{_{m=1}^NB(m)},$$
(1)
where the $`B(m),m=0,\mathrm{},N`$ are defined as:

$$B(m)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A(p,m)𝑑p$$
(2)
and the function $`A(p,m)`$ is the Fourier transform of the HII region distribution, considered as a two dimensional distribution of $`\delta `$-functions of the same weight:

$`A(p,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _\pi ^{+\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\delta (uu_j)\delta (\theta \theta _j)e^{i(pu+m\theta )}dud\theta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i(pu_j+m\theta _j).}`$
In the above $`(r_j,\theta _j)`$ are the polar coordinates of each HII region on the galaxy plane, $`u_j=\mathrm{ln}r_j`$ and $`N`$ is the total number of HII regions. The details of this method are outlined in GGA (gga1 (1991)). It is clear that this method will work mainly for distributions which have a clear signal of all the components of the spectrum, specially the $`m=0`$ component which corresponds to the background disk distribution.

Our second method was also described in GGA (gga1 (1991)). This method is specially devised for HII region distributions. If an axially symmetric distribution of points is divided in $`N_s`$ equal sectors, like cake pieces, and it is sufficiently rich, then we expect to have a roughly equal number of HII regions in each piece, when viewing it from a line of sight perpendicular to the disc. If the same distribution of points is now viewed from a skew angle and we again use sectors, which are of equal surface in the plane perpendicular to the line of sight, then the number of HII regions will not be the same in all sectors. Thus the correct deprojection angles will be those for which the number of points in each sector is roughly the same, or, in other words, when the dispersion around the mean value is minimum.

None of the methods described are free from systematic errors. In fact they all work perfectly well for the theoretical case of a razor thin, axisymmetric disc in circular motion around its center but present more or less important problems for galaxies deviating from this idealized case. When we fit ellipses to the isophotes, the presence of strong bars and/or spiral arms can bias the results, if the isophotes are not sufficiently external. However, Athanassoula and Misiriotis (athanassoula2 (2002)) show that even for very strong bars the isophotes in the outermost part of the disc are sufficiently circular to be used for deprojection. If we use the velocity fields in HI, the external parts of the galaxy may be warped, in which case the deprojection angles will be ill defined. Our methods also can suffer from systematic problems. For instance, in the case of the first method, if the HII region distribution delineates mainly the $`m=2`$ arms and there are only few regions in the background disk, the ratio (1) will not be well defined and the method can find difficulties. Our methods can also find problems in the case of highly irregular distributions, as well as in strongly barred galaxies where many HII regions are concentrated in the bar region. In these cases our methods will erroneously tend to circularize the bar. A similar difficulty appears when many HII regions are located in some galaxy rings. Buta (buta4 (1995)) using his Catalog of Southern Ringed Galaxies showed that rings need not be circular. The outer features have an average intrinsic axis ratio of $`0.87\pm 0.14`$ while the inner features an average of $`0.84\pm 0.10`$. This indicates that some rings must have an oval nature. Our methods, however, will tend to circularize these structures when they dominate the HII region distribution. Thus they will attribute to a face on case an IA of $`12.5`$ degrees if there was an outer ring of axial ratio of $`0.87`$ and of $`9.8`$ degrees if there was an inner ring of axial ratio $`0.84`$. Of course if only part of the HII regions are in the ring component, then the error could be smaller. In such cases, where HII regions delineate the several components, we obtain secondary minima in the results obtained by our methods. It is thus necessary to check if some of these minima give better results than the principal minimum, which can be strongly biased by some of the effects described above.

Thus, instead of relying on a single method in the crucial step of deprojecting the galaxy image, a comparison of the values given by the different methods is in order. In this way we can choose the pair of deprojection angles that suit best a particular galaxy. Our two methods, in conjunction with the literature values, were used in our first sample of HII region distribution of spiral galaxies (GGA, gga1 (1991)). In this paper we will use this procedure to the HII region catalogs published in the last decade. We should, however keep in mind that our new sample has a high fraction of barred and ringed galaxies, where our two methods may not perform as well as for the galaxies in the GGA (gga1 (1991)) sample (see Fig. 4).

## 4 Notes on Individual Galaxies

In this section we give some comments on the deprojection angles chosen for each individual galaxy. This information is shown in Table LABEL:Tangles. In Column 1 we give the galaxy name. In Columns 2 and 3 we show the PA and IA obtained using our two methods. In the first row we show the values for our first method, while in the second row those for our second method. If there are more than one catalog for a particular galaxy, the values found using our methods are displayed in the following lines. In Columns 4 and 5 we show the main values of PA and IA respectively found in the literature. In Column 6 we give a key to describe the method used to obtain the literature values. P is used for photometric values, KH is used for values determined using HI velocity field, KC for values determined using a velocity field in CO, KO for optical velocity fields, KS is used when the values come from slit spectra determinations and finally O is used for methods different to the previous ones. In Column 7 we give a key for the reference where this particular determination can be found. This key is resolved in Table LABEL:Tref. Finally in Columns 8 and 9 we give the adopted values of the PA and IA respectively. This same structure is repeated in the second group of columns. Using the finally adopted values we can deproject the catalogs of HII regions. The deprojected distribution of the richer catalogs showing with spiral structure are shown in Fig. 5 while in Fig. 6 we present the rest.

ESO 111-10: This is a galaxy with apparent small size and the catalog of HII regions is not very rich. Nevertheless, our two methods give a good agreement when we use a secondary minimum for the second method. We adopt the mean of both methods, which agrees well with RC3.

ESO 152-26: For this galaxy the HII regions are placed mainly in the arms and in the inner ring. Our two methods give the same value for the position angle and close values for the inclination angle. Eye estimates, however, show that the value of the PA is not satisfactory, presumably because our methods try to circularize the ring. We thus use the PA from the photometry of Crocker et al. (crocker (1996)) and the mean of our IAs, which is also the mean of the literature values.

ESO 377-24: This is a small sized and not very inclined galaxy. The number of HII regions in the catalog is also small and both methods give a minimum at values more appropriate for a more inclined galaxy. Using secondary minima for both methods we get a reasonable agreement with the values from RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)). We finally adopt the values from the second method, which are in agreement with the photometry and close to the values of the first method.

IC 1438: The HII regions are placed mainly in the arms and the ring of this nearly face-on galaxy. The two methods are in good agreement. But as there is no background disk of HII regions, the first method may be biased by the presence of the spiral structure. We thus keep the PA from the second method, which coincides with that found by Crocker et al. (crocker (1996)). For the IA we take the average of our two methods.

IC 2510: This is a galaxy of a very small apparent size. Nevertheless, as it is quite inclined, our two methods give results in good agreement and we keep the mean of the two, which is, furthermore, in good agreement with the literature values.

IC 2560: Our two methods are in good agreement for this galaxy and we adopt the mean of their values, which agrees well with the PA given in the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and the Lauberts-ESO catalogs (lauberts (1982)), and with the IA of the former.

IC 3639: This is a nearly face-on galaxy in a small group. The catalog of HII regions is quite irregular and does not show any spiral structure. We adopt the values from our second method, which are in agreement with the PA of Hunt et al. (hunt (1999)) and the average IA of all methods. Note, however, that there is a lot of dispersion around the mean values, which could mean that our estimate is not very safe.

IC 4754: This is a ringed, small size galaxy. Nearly all of the HII regions of the catalog are placed in the external ring. Our methods are in agreement for the IA and the agreement for the PA is only reasonable, but the values from the PA are poorly determined as the projected catalog looks quite round. We prefer to keep the values from the second method, which are in agreement with two of the photometric values for the PA and all the values for the IA.

IC 5240: This case is quite similar to the previous one. Again the HII regions are placed mainly in the external ring, but as the galaxy is quite inclined, both methods are in reasonable agreement. As before, we keep the values from the second method, whose PA is in excellent agreement with all the literature values, and the IA with the results of the Lauberts ESO catalog (lauberts (1982)).

NGC 53: The HII regions are placed only in the outer ring and their number is quite low. On the galaxy image, it seems that the inner ring is not oriented as the main disk, but along the bar. Our first method tends to circularize this ring which is not necessarily circular. So, we keep the mean values from the photometry of the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and the Lauberts ESO catalog (lauberts (1982)).

NGC 157: This galaxy seems to be a bit irregular and this is reflected in the rich catalog of HII regions. Nevertheless the two methods are in excellent agreement between them and and in fair agreement with the literature values Thus, we keep the mean of our values.

NGC 210: The HII regions trace very well the arms and the inner ring. Our two methods are in agreement with the literature values and thus we keep the mean of our values.

NGC 598: Our two methods are in good agreement but the values that they give are not in agreement with the rest of the literature values, probably due to an incomplete sampling of the galaxy disk in the HII region catalog from Hodge (hodge2 (1999)). Thus, we prefer to keep the mean of the kinematically derived values.

NGC 1068: The HII regions are placed only in the inner bright oval, and the values obtained using both methods, while in agreement, are inadequate. The values given by Sánchez-Portal et al. (sanchez (2000)) also pertain to the inner bright oval. Thus, we take the mean of the values from the velocity fields.

NGC 1097: Our two methods agree well for the values of IA, but the discrepancy is higher for the PA. The first method gives rounder arms, so its PA and IA values must have been highly influenced by a Stocke’s effect (Stocke stocke (1955)), while the second gives a rounder central part. These latter values agree very well with the HI kinematical values from Ondrechen (ondrechen (1989)) as well as with three of the photometrical estimates, so we will adopt the values from the second method.

NGC 1386: Our two methods give identical results for this quite inclined galaxy, which are furthermore in agreement with the photometric estimates. We adopt the values from our two methods.

NGC 1433: The HII regions trace very well the inner ring of this galaxy. Both methods try to circularize this inner ring giving a strong disagreement with the kinematical values. We adopt the values from the velocity fields.

NGC 1566: This galaxy was also studied in the first paper, where we used the catalog by Comte et al. (comte2 (1979)) which traces also the external arms. For this new catalog, the HII regions are placed mainly in the inner oval part and the results of our methods disagree. The values obtained from the first catalog by GGA (gga1 (1991)) are in good agreement with the values from the kinematics, so we adopt the mean values of the GGA values and the optical velocity field from Pence et al. (pence2 (1990)).

NGC 1667: This galaxy has a small apparent size, with a catalog with a low number of HII regions. Nevertheless, as the galaxy is quite inclined, the two methods are in reasonable agreement and we give the mean of both methods.

NGC 1672: Our second method does not converge, probably due to the strong bar present in this galaxy. On the other hand our first method gives a PA value in good agreement with the photometric values form RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and the Lauberts-ESO catalogs (lauberts (1982)), but the value obtained for the IA value seems too high. We keep the values from the RC3 catalog.

NGC 1808: There is a good agreement between the two methods, but the HII regions trace only the inner bright oval part and there are no regions in the outer arms or disk. The outer disk in the galaxy image seems to be much less inclined. For this reason we prefer to keep the kinematic values from Koribalski et al. (koribalski (1993)).

NGC 1832: This galaxy was studied also in the first paper, but using a catalog with a low number of HII regions. Using this new catalog, the two methods are in good agreement, and there is a rough general agreement with the rest of the values from the literature. Thus we keep the mean of our two methods.

NGC 2985: The HII region distribution is quite irregular, but despite this fact, the first method gives values in reasonable agreement with the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) catalog. The second method does not work. We adopt the mean between our first method and RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)).

NGC 2997: This galaxy was also studied in the first paper using a similar catalog. Using the new catalog we find values for the IA that are in reasonable agreement between them, while the values for the PA are not so well constrained. The mean of the two methods are in agreement with the kinematical values from Milliard & Marcelin (milliard (1981)) and the photometric values from the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and, to a lesser extent, with the rest of the values. We adopt the mean of our two methods.

NGC 3081: For this galaxy we have two catalogs with distributions of similar shape, the HII regions being mainly in the inner ring. As both methods try to circularize this ring we prefer to adopt the mean of the values from the photometry and kinematics from Buta & Purcell (buta5 (1998)).

NGC 3198: There is a good agreement between our two methods for this quite inclined galaxy. There is also a general agreement with the rest of methods. The projected HII region distribution, however, seems somewhat irregular, and this may bias our two methods, giving higher values from the PA. For this reason we prefer to adopt the mean values from the HI kinematical studies of Bosma (bosma1 (1981)) and Begeman (begeman1 (1987)). Note that these are in good agreement with our second method and reasonable agreement with the first.

NGC 3359: Our methods are not adequate for this galaxy because a lot of HII regions are located in the bar region. We thus keep the mean of the kinematical values from the H$`\alpha `$ velocity field from Rozas et al. (2000b ) and HI velocity fields from Gottesman (gottesman (1982)) and Ball (ball (1986)).

NGC 3367: The values given by the various methods cover a broad range of values. Our two methods give the same value for the IA, which is furthermore in agreement with the value from Danver (danver (1942)). The average of the two values of the PA are in agreement with the photometry from Grosbøl (grosbol1 (1985)). We thus adopt the mean of our two methods.

NGC 3393: The situation for this galaxy is highly unsatisfactory. The PA of 160 is mainly reflecting the orientation of the bar, so it can be dismissed. The estimate of $`41`$ degrees comes from the outer isophote, but this seems to be heavily distorted, partly by the arms. Our methods should suffer from Stocke’s effect (stocke (1955)). Since our purpose in the following pages will mainly be to study the spiral structure and our two methods agree well, we will adopt their average for our future work. We stress, however, that this is due to the lack of any better estimate.

NGC 3631: This is a nearly face-on galaxy, and thus although we use a very rich catalog, the values of PA and IA are not very well constrained. We adopt the value of the PA derived in the kinematical analysis of Knapen (knapen1 (1997)). However, the kinematic analysis did not give a value for the IA, so we adopt the mean of our methods for this angle, which is in rough average with the photometric values.

NGC 3660: The catalog of HII regions is quite poor and the values of PA and IA are not very well constrained. Nevertheless, the two methods are in good agreement and in rough agreement with the photometric values from RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)). We adopt the mean of our two methods.

NGC 3783: The HII regions of this catalog populate an inner ring. Nevertheless, our two methods are in good agreement with the only PA value that we found in the literature and with the IA of RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)). There is also a rough agreement with the IA values from other studies. We adopt the mean of our methods.

NGC 3982: This is a small apparent size galaxy nearly face-on and the HII region catalog is quite poor. Both our methods have two clear minima, however, and are in good agreement between them. Moreover, they are in rough agreement with the photometry, so we adopt the mean values of all methods.

NGC 4051: The HII region distribution is somewhat irregular and the first method gives results only in rough agreement with the values from the second method. We finally adopt the kinematical values of Listz & Dickey (listz (1995)), which are in general agreement with most of the photometric values.

NGC 4123: The number of HII regions is quite low and the HII region distribution traces mainly the bar region. The first method does not work properly, so should be neglected. The values from our second method are in good agreement with the values from the kinematics. Seen the poor quality of the HII region catalog we adopt the mean values from the kinematics.

NGC 4258: As our two methods are in agreement for this quite inclined galaxy we adopt their mean value which is in agreement with the results of the velocity fields of van Albada (vanalbada1 (1980)) and van Albada & Shane (vanalbada2 (1975)).

NGC 4321 (M100): This galaxy is not very inclined and thus the value of the PA is not well constrained. On the other hand, there is a rough agreement about the IA for the rest of the methods. We adopt the kinematical values of Guhatakurta (guhatakurta (1988)).

NGC 4507: The galaxy has a small size and the HII regions populate a ring. Our two methods do not work properly because they try to circularize the ring. We adopt the deprojection angles obtained in the photometric study of Schmitt & Kinney (schmitt (2000)).

NGC 4593: This is a strongly barred galaxy for which there are three published catalogs of HII regions. Our two methods are in good agreement for the richer catalogs but the first method gives discordant results in the second catalog and the second method does not work at all. Thus we discard the values from the second catalog. The mean of our values are also in general agreement with the photometric values, except for the case of the I photometry by Schmitt & Kinney (schmitt (2000)) who give a higher PA value than the rest. We adopt the mean values of the results of our two methods applied to the first and third catalog.

NGC 4602: All values of the PA are in rough agreement, except for the value given by Mathewson & Ford (mathewson (1996)), which by eyeball estimate does not look very reasonable. We adopt an average value of our two methods and both catalogs, which also agrees with RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and Danver (danver (1942)).

NGC 4639: There is good agreement between the values obtained by our methods. Thus, we take the average values. This is also in agreement with the literature values.

NGC 4699: We adopt the average of our two methods, which is in good agreement with the photometric values.

NGC 4736: For this galaxy, we have two catalogs. In both cases, nearly all the HII regions are placed in the external ring. Our four results are only in rough agreement and they are, furthermore, not very reliable since they pertain to the ring. Thus, we prefer to adopt, the mean values given from the velocity fields (Bosma et al. bosma3 (1977), Mulder & van Driel mulder (1993), Buta buta3 (1988)) which are in good agreement between them and also with the average of our two methods and the two catalogs.

NGC 4939: We have two catalogs of similar richness for this galaxy. It is quite inclined and the two methods are in rough agreement for both catalogs. We take the averages of our two methods and the two catalogs, which is in agreement with the photometric values and the value given in GGA (gga1 (1991)).

NGC 4995: Our two methods give identical results, which we adopt, since they are also in good agreement with the photometric values from RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) and Grosbøl (grosbol1 (1985)).

NGC 5033: A number of estimates are available for the deprojection angles of this galaxy, and all cluster in a relatively narrow range of values. The results of our two methods are in good agreement between them and with the rest of the estimates. The deprojection of the HII region distribution is particularly sensitive to the adopted value of the IA. We tired several averages of the individual estimates both straight and weighted by our judgment of the quality which resulted in identical values. We adopt these mean values.

NGC 5194 (M51): Our two methods are in good agreement, but the values of the position angles in particular, using the primary minima, are quite discordant with the values obtained from the analysis of the velocity fields. Note that they are also similar to some of the derived photometric values. The deprojected galaxy using our values looks quite good, as already noted in GGA (gga1 (1991)). There is, however, a secondary minimum, which is in agreement with the values derived from the velocity fields. With these values we get also a round deprojected galaxy. We adopt the value from Rots et al. (rots (1990)), which are as stated, in agreement with the average of the secondary minima value.

NGC 5364: We take the average values from our two methods, which is in agreement with the rest of the values in the literature.

NGC 5371: The galaxy was too big to fit in the CCD frame used by Gonzàlez-Delgado et al. (gonzalez (1997)), so that, the PA values found using this catalog can not be very reliable. We thus adopt for this galaxy an average of the photometric values.

NGC 5427: Here the two methods and the three catalogs give different results, which again are very different from the literature values. This is not surprising as the galaxy is not very inclined and there is no derived velocity field in the literature. For lack of any stronger criteria and looking at the deprojected images obtained with all these values, we decided to adopt the result of the first method and the richer catalog. However, it should be stressed that these are very ill defined values.

NGC 5457 (M101): This galaxy is nearly face-on. Thus, the values of the PA are not well constrained. Our methods prefer a galaxy completely face on but, as the galaxy is quite asymmetrical, we have decided to adopt the values obtained by the HI high resolution study of Bosma et al. (bosma2 (1981)).

NGC 5643: The catalog of HII regions has an irregular distribution. The outer parts look also irregular in the galaxy images. Thus, our two methods as well as the photometric values are very unsafe. For lack of any stronger criteria, we adopt the results of the first method, which give a rounder deprojected object. It should nevertheless stressed that is a very unsafe estimate.

NGC 5861: There are very few HII regions in this catalog, so we adopt the values given by Grosbøl & Patsis (grosbol2 (1998)). It should, nevertheless be noted that, although the catalog is poor, our results are in fair agreement with the photometric ones.

NGC 6070: There is a good agreement between our two methods and the results available in the literature. We adopt the average of our two methods.

NGC 6118: For this galaxy we have, as in the former case, a good agreement between our methods and the literature values. Thus, we adopt the average of our two methods.

NGC 6221: The HII regions trace mainly the arms and give a rather irregular distribution, so that our second method is not reliable. There is a good agreement between our first method and the photometric value from Pence & Blackman (pence1 (1984)). We finally adopt our first method values. Note that the IA is in good agreement with the remaining photometric values.

NGC 6300: The results of the kinematical values of Ryder et al. (ryder1 (1996)) and of Buta (1987b ) are in perfect agreement, so we adopt these values. Our two methods are less reliable, since the HII regions are mainly lying in a ring for both catalogs. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that there is a reasonable agreement between our values and the adopted ones and also with the rest of the values.

NGC 6384: Our two methods agree between them and we have adopted the average of their values. Our IA values agree well with the photometric ones, while the PA does so reasonably well. The IA given by Prieto et al. (prieto (1992)) seems more reliable than that of Sánchez-Portal et al. (sanchez (2000)), since the data extend further out in the region which is less influenced by the oval bar. This agrees with the mean of our values. The PA we adopt is somewhat higher than those given by the photometry. The deprojected catalog, however, has a round shape and thus we keep our values.

NGC 6753: Our two methods agree reasonably well between them, so we take the average values which are in good agreement with the photometric values.

NGC 6764: Our two methods give identical results and also agree quite well with the available photometric values, so we adopt our values.

NGC 6782: We adopt the average of our two methods, which is in reasonable agreement with the photometric values, as in the previous galaxy.

NGC 6814: This is a nearly face-on galaxy and as a result the values of the angles are not well constrained. We have two catalogs of different richness. As the PA can not be well constrained using our methods, we have decided to adopt the values from the kinematics of Listz & Dickey (listz (1995)) which are in fair agreement with the values obtained by our methods for the less rich catalog from Evans et al. (evans (1996)). Note that the richer catalog of Knapen et al. (knapen3 (1993)) has a well delineated strong northern arm which can bias our results.

NGC 6902: We adopt the average of our two methods which is in good agreement with the results given in the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) catalog, and agrees also with the average of the rest of the literature determinations.

NGC 6935: The HII regions trace the outer ring only. Our second method does not work, and converges to a value with too high inclination, so we neglect it. We adopt the result from the first method which is in good agreement with the inclination of the RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)) catalog.

NGC 6937: No reasonable minimum was found by the first method and we adopt the values from the second method, which agree well with the inclination of the RC3 catalog, but not so well with the values quoted by Crocker et al. (crocker (1996)).

NGC 6951: We take the average of our two values which are in good agreement with the values derived by Grosbøl (grosbol1 (1985)).

NGC 7020: The few available estimates agree well with our two methods, so we take the average of our two values.

NGC 7098: Our two methods try to circularize the inner ring so that, even though they agree well between them, they are not very meaningful. We thus adopt the average of the photometric results.

NGC 7219: The first method does not work very well, so we list a secondary minimum. Our adopted values are the average of the two methods and are in reasonable agreement with the few available literature values.

NGC 7267: The few HII regions are mainly in and around the bar and not in the surrounding disc. We thus adopt, the value given by Crocker et al. (crocker (1996)), which is in reasonable agreement with the other photometrically determined estimates.

NGC 7314: Our two methods applied to the two catalogs give results in very good agreement. We thus adopt their mean value, which is also in good agreement with the few results available in the literature.

NGC 7329: Our second method converges to an inclination angle which seems too large. We thus neglect it and take the result of the first method, which is in reasonable agreement with the little that is available in the literature.

NGC 7331: The results of our two methods agree very well between them, and with the main kinematic estimates. We thus adopt the average of our two methods.

NGC 7479: This is a difficult galaxy since, on top of a bar, there is a major $`m=1`$ asymmetry, clearly seen in the deprojected image for both catalogs. This can bias our methods, thus we prefer to adopt the kinematical value from Laine & Gottesman (laine (1998)), which is in good agreement with the results given by our second method.

NGC 7531: This galaxy is quite inclined, so it is crucial for the PA to be accurate. Our first method gives a value which is, by visual inspection, not acceptable. We thus adopt the result of our second method, which is in good agreement with the kinematic values.

NGC 7552: The HII regions are mainly concentrated in and around the bar region and thus can not give useful information for the deprojection. We thus adopt the values from RC3 (devaucouleurs (1991)).

NGC 7590: Our two methods give results that coincide, so we adopt their average values, as they are also in reasonable agreement with the few available photometric estimates.

## 5 Discussion

In this section we compare the different methods used to determine the deprojection angles (PA, IA). Our aim is to see whether any one is inferior or superior to the others. We compared 7 methods, or groups of methods. Our two methods (method 1 and 2) constitute a group each. The values obtained by Danver (danver (1942)) form group D, those by Grosbøl (grosbol1 (1985)) form group G, and the values from the RC3 catalog form group RC3. The sixth group (kinematics, K) includes all the values obtained using information from HI or optical velocity fields. Finally the seventh group (photometry, P) includes all results obtained fitting ellipses to the outer parts of the galaxies. The values in these last two groups do not constitute homogeneous samples, but the methods used by the different authors are very similar. Moreover, the kinematical method is quite reliable, specially for the determination of the PA.

For comparing any two methods we fitted a straight line to all pairs of values, using a maximum likelihood algorithm which minimizes the $`\chi ^2`$ merit function

$$\chi ^2(a,b)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(y_iabx_i)^2}{\sigma _{iy}^2+b^2\sigma _{xi}^2},$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _{xi}^2`$ and $`\sigma _{yi}^2`$ are the errors for the $`i`$th value (Press et al. numerical (1992)).

When using our values, we assigned a weight to each catalog of HII regions as follows: If the catalog is very irregular with a small number of HII regions we assigned a weight of $`0.1`$. If the number of HII regions is small but the catalog looked quite regular we assigned a weight of $`0.3`$. If the catalog has a fair number of HII regions, but the distribution has some irregularities, we assigned a weight of $`0.6`$ and, finally, if the catalog looked regular and had a fair number of HII regions we assigned a value of $`1.0`$. We introduced a further weight, this time for the PA values of all the methods, to take into account the fact that for galaxies nearly face on, it is difficult for any of the methods to assign a reliable value of the PA. We thus assigned a low weight to the PA values of nearly face-on galaxies and a weight of 1. for all the rest. The errors were taken as the inverse of the weights, or, in cases with two weights, as the inverse of their product. In all the correlations we discarded the galaxy NGC 5194. For this galaxy, the values determined for the PA and IA using the kinematical information are in clear disagreement with the values determined using any of the other methods. This must be due to the strong interaction with the companion, NGC 5195.

Some illustrative correlations between pairs of methods are shown in Figures 7 to 9. In Fig 7 we compare the results of our two methods, in Fig 8 our first method to the kinematical values and in Fig 9 our first method to the photometrical determined values. To compare quantitatively the results of these and all the remaining correlations (not shown here) we used correlation coefficients as well as the weighted mean of the orthogonal distances of all the points to the best fitting straight line. The results of the comparison are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Tables 6 and 7 give the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the linear regressions. In all cases the values above and to the right of the main diagonal correspond to the PA, and the values under and to the left of the main diagonal correspond to the $`cos(`$IA$`)`$. We chose the $`cos`$, rather than the angle, since the former is uniformly distributed. Note that the values of the orthogonal distances and of the coefficient $`a`$ for the case of $`cos(`$IA$`)`$ have been rescaled so as to make them directly comparable to the corresponding values of the PA. For the comparisons we pooled together the data of the galaxies of the new sample presented in this paper and the galaxies of the previous sample (GGA, gga1 (1991)). Obviously a perfect fit between two methods would imply a correlation coefficient of 1, a weighted mean of the orthogonal distances of zero, as well $`a`$ = 0. and $`b`$ = 1. Random errors will introduce a scatter, which would lower the correlation coefficient and raise the value of the weighted mean of the orthogonal distances. Systematic differences, as would occur e.g. if a given method systematically overestimated or underestimated the geometric angles, would change the values of the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$.

We note that, although no two methods we have used agree perfectly, there are also no glaring discrepancies. No method seems to overestimate or underestimate either of the deprojection angles. Also no method seems to give systematically smaller correlation coefficients, which would be indicative of a large random error in the results of this method. All correlations range between acceptable and good. The worst correlation coefficient, 0.51, is found when comparing the $`cos`$(IA) of Danver and Grosbøl. This, however, is not due to one or several discordant galaxies, but rather to the fact that the galaxies are relatively few and are all clustered at low inclination angles. Nevertheless, the correlation is quite acceptable, as witnessed by the orthogonal distances and the coefficients of the regression line. It could be expected that two methods that rely on similar principles would give results closer to each other than methods based on different principles. We thus found it particularly gratifying to note the good agreement between either of our two methods and the kinematics, which is considered to give very reliable determinations and relies on very different assumptions.

One can thus conclude that all methods are acceptable for statistical analysis of samples of disc galaxies. In particular our two methods are as good as the other methods used so far and can give equally reliable estimates of the deprojection parameters. On the other hand if we are interested in the PA and IA of a particular galaxy it is best to apply several methods. The reason is that the different methods suffer from different biases - i.e. warps in the external parts, non elliptical isophotes or not well defined backgrounds - which might be more or less important in a particular case.

###### Acknowledgements.

In preparing this paper we made extensive use of the CDS Strasbourg database. CGG and CB acknowledge financial support by the Dirección de Investigación cintífica y Técnica under contract PB97-0411