text:
# 11B and 27Al NMR spin-lattice relaxation and Knight shift study of Mg1-xAlxB2. Evidence for anisotropic Fermi surface.

## Abstract

We report a detailed study of 11B and 27Al NMR spin-lattice relaxation rates ($`1/T_1`$), as well as of 27Al Knight shift (K) of Mg1-xAlxB2, $`0x1`$. The obtained ($`1/T_1T`$) and K vs. $`x`$ plots are in excellent agreement with ab initio calculations. This asserts experimentally the prediction that the Fermi surface is highly anisotropic, consisting mainly of hole-type $`2D`$ cylindrical sheets from bonding $`2p_{x,y}`$ boron orbitals. It is also shown that the density of states at the Fermi level decreases sharply on Al doping and the $`2D`$ sheets collapse at $`x0.55`$, where the superconductive phase disappears.

preprint: KNIGHTe.TEX

The discovery of superconductivity in MgB2 attained recently a lot of interest Akamitsu01 , as this binary alloy reveals a remarkably high $`T_c40`$K. MgB2 is isostructural and isoelectronic with intercalated graphite (ICG), with carbon replaced by boron, and therefore exhibits similar bonding and electronic properties as ICG. Thus the high $`T_c`$ value of MgB2 in comparison to ICG ($`5`$K) was very surprising.

Band structure calculations Cortus01 ; An01 ; Antropov01 ; Kong01 ; Singh01  have shown that Mg is substantially ionized in this compound, however the electrons donated to the system are not localized on the B anion, but rather are distributed over the whole crystal. The six B $`p`$ bands contribute mainly at the Fermi level. The unique feature of MgB2 is the incomplete filling of the two $`\sigma `$ bands corresponding to prominently covalent $`sp^2`$-hybridized bonding within the graphite-like boron layer. Two isotropic $`\pi `$ bands are derived from B $`p_z`$ states and four two dimensional $`\sigma `$-bands from B $`p_{x,y}`$. Both $`p_z`$ bands cross the Fermi level, while only two bonding $`p_{x,y}`$ bands and only near the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point (0,0,0) do so, forming cylindrical Fermi surfaces around $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-A line. Due to their 2D character, these bands contribute more than 30% to the total density of states (DOS)Cortus01 ; Antropov01 ; Pavarini01 ; Belashchenko01 . Such strong anisotropy in the Fermi surface (and possibly in the electron phonon coupling) conciles with the recently reported anisotropy in $`H_{c2}`$ Lima01 ; Patnaik01 ; Simon01 ; Budko01 ; Papavassiliou02 ; Pissas02 , and the existence of two superconducting gaps Bouqet01 ; Liu01 ; Szabo01 ; Chen01 ; Tsuda01 ; Giubileo01 ; Yang01 .

In view of these important findings, great interest has been raised on measurements of electron or hole doped MgB2, aiming to clarify how the electron DOS and the Fermi surface depend on doping. A very suitable substitution for such a study is Al, which donates three electrons (instead of two for Mg), and thus doping by one electron per atom. In addition, the end members MgB2 and AlB2 as well as the intermediate mixed crystals Mg1-xAlxB2 crystallize in the $`P6/mmm`$ space group, whereas by Al doping the lattice constants decrease almost linearly Slusky01 . The similarity of the calculated electronic density of states between MgB2 and AlB2 indicates that Al doping results in simple filling of the available electronic states. Suzuki et al. Suzuki01  predicted that in Mg1-xAlxB2 the concentration of $`\sigma `$ holes varies with $`x`$ as $`n_h=(0.81.4x)\times 10^{22}`$ cm-3, leading to $`n_h=0`$ for $`x0.6`$. A similar conclusion was deduced in Refs. An01, ; Antropov01, ; Pena02, . Under these aspects, the detrimental effect of Al doping on $`T_c`$ can be explained by the fact that doping increases the Fermi energy ($`E_F`$), while decreasing the DOS $`N(E_F)`$.

An excellent probe to study the influence of the Al substitution on the electronic structure of electron doped MgB2 is nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Knight shift, $`K`$, and nuclear spin-lattice relaxation (NSLR) rate $`1/T_1`$ measurements, give us the possibility to determine experimentally $`N(E_F)`$ through the static and fluctuating parts of the hyperfine field, induced at the position of the resonating nuclei from electrons at the Fermi surface. This allows to estimate the contribution of different atoms to $`N(E_F)`$ as well as and the anisotropy of electronic states at the Fermi level.

The Hamiltonian describing the magnetic interaction of the nucleus with the atomic electrons can be written as Abragam : $`=2(8\pi /3)\mu _B\gamma _n\mathrm{}𝐈𝐒(𝐫)\delta (𝐫)2\mu _B\gamma _n\mathrm{}𝐈[𝐒/r^33𝐫(𝐒𝐫)/r^5]\gamma _n\mathrm{}(e/mc)[𝐈(𝐫\times 𝐩)/r^3]`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`\gamma _n`$ the gyromagnetic ratio, $`𝐈`$ and $`𝐒`$ the nuclear and electron spins respectively, and $`𝐫`$ is the radius vector of the electron with the nucleus at the origin. In the formula above, the first term describes the Fermi contact interaction, the second term the spin dipolar interaction between nuclear and electron spins, and the third term the coupling with the electronic orbital moment. In the simplest case, where only contribution from the Fermi contact term is considered, the first term can be rewritten as $`_{KS}V(8\pi /3)\gamma _n\mathrm{}\chi _p|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)|^2_{F_S}𝐈𝐇_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, where $`\chi _p=M/H=\mu _B^2N_s(E_F)/V`$, and the symbol $`_{F_S}`$ means the average over all s orbitals at the Fermi surface. Due to this term the nuclear spin $`𝐈`$ ’sees’ an internal field $`V\chi _p𝐇_\mathrm{𝟎}/2\mu _B`$, which is superimposed on the applied external magnetic field, and causes a paramagnetic shift of the nuclear resonance, i.e. the Knight shift. In a similar way, the relaxation rate from the Fermi contact term is expressed by the relation Abragam : $`(1/T_1)=(64\pi ^3/9)\gamma _e^2\gamma _n^2\mathrm{}^3|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤(0)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }_𝐤^{}(0)|^2_FN_s(E_F)^2k_BT`$. A similar dependence on N2p(EF)2 holds if the nuclear Hamiltonian is dominated by the nuclear-electron orbital interaction Obata63 . Hence, the dependence of both K and $`1/T_1`$ on certain partial $`N_i(E_F)`$ is clear.

Until now, 11B, 27Al and 25Mg NSLR and Knight shift measurements have been reported for pure MgB2 and AlB2 Kotegawa01 ; Jung01 ; Baek02 ; Mali02 ; Gerashenko02 , which are in agreement with the theoretical predictions. These results, in conjunction with ab initio calculations Antropov01 ; Pavarini01 ; Belashchenko01  have shown that in MgB2 the 11B NSLR is dominated by orbital relaxation, whereas in AlB2 the 11B NSLR is overruled by the Fermi-contact interaction. On the other hand, 27Al and 25Mg NSLRs, as well as the Knight shift on all three 11B, 27Al, and 25Mg sites was shown to be controled by the Fermi-contact polarization Pavarini01 ; Baek02 . Besides, 11B-NMR NSLR relaxation rate measurements on mixed Mg1-xAlxB2, $`x0.2`$, have shown a rapid decrease of 1/(T1T) with doping that was attributed to reduction of the total N(EF) Kotegawa02 . Nevertheless, a detailed NMR study of the variation of each partial Ni(EF) with Al doping, and comparison with theory is lacking so far.

The purpose of this work is to report a systematic study of 11B and 27Al NSLR rates 1/T1, as well as of 27Al Knight shifts, as a function of Al doping for Mg1-xAlxB2, $`0x1`$. 11B Knight shift measurements were not considered, because the isotropic 11B Knight shift is small ($`+40`$ ppm for MgB2 and $`10`$ ppm for AlB2 Baek02 ), and of the same order of magnitude with the dipolar and the second order quadrupolar split in the NMR fields $`2.35`$, and $`4.7`$ Tesla that have been used in this work. Our measurements show an excellent agreement between the experimental boron 11($`1/T_1T`$) plot with that obtained from local density-functional methods Antropov01 ; Belashchenko01 , and the dominance of the orbital relaxation up to $`x0.55`$, where Tc(x) vanishes. This is a convincing evidence that up to this doping the hole-type $`2D`$ cylindrical sheets (from bonding 2px,y boron orbitals) of the Fermi surface play an essential role in the 11B NSLR. The slight decrease of both 27K and 27(1/T1T) for $`x0.55`$, and their abrupt increase above this doping value are in support of this conclusion.

Polycrystalline samples of nominal composition Mg1-xAlxB2 for $`0x1`$ were prepared by reaction of Al and Mg powders with amorphous B at temperatures between 700oC and 910oC as described elsewhere Pissas02 . We notify that: According to the available literature Slusky01 ; Xiang02 ; Li02 ; Zanbergen02  and our data, the temperature where the reaction (preparation temperature) takes place, defines the shape of the $`(00l)`$ diffraction peaks in the region $`0.05x0.5`$. The existence of significant broadening or/and splitting in these peaks manifest the existence of some kind of phase separation in this doping range. (ii) Carefully preparated samples in the region arround $`x=0.5`$ display a broad superlattice peak $`(001/2)`$ which means that ordering of Mg and Al occurs Margadonna02 .

27Al NMR line shape measurements of the central transition $`(1/21/2)`$ were performed on two spectrometers operating in external magnetic fields $`H_0=2.35`$ and $`4.7`$ Tesla. Spectra were obtained from the Fourier transform of half of the echo, following a typical $`\pi /2\tau \pi /2`$ solid spin-echo pulse sequence. The 11B $`T_1`$ of the central line was determined by applying a saturation recovery technique, and fitting with the two exponential relaxation function that is appropriate for $`I=3/2`$ nuclei Andrew61 . Correspondingly, 27Al $`T_1`$ was determined by applying the three-exponential recovery law that is appropriate for $`I=5/2`$ nuclei Mali02 ; Andrew61 .

Figure 1 shows the boron 11(1/TT1) as a function of $`x`$, in the normal state. In all cases a single component of $`T_1`$ was found to fit satisfactorily the magnetization recovery curves. Besides, a $`1/T_1T=`$constant relation was fiting the experimental data from room temperature down to $`80`$K. Our measurements reveale that by increasing doping, 11(1/TT1) decreases rapidly up to $`x=0.55`$, and subsequently exhibits a slight increase for $`x0.55`$. For reasons of comparison, we have plotted the calculated 11(1/TT1) values from Ref. Belashchenko01, , for all three orbital, dipole-dipole, and Fermi contact term contributions. Clearly, the orbital term dominates in the 11B relaxation rates for $`x0.55`$. In case of pure MgB2 the 11B orbital hyperfine interaction of $`2p`$-holes with the nuclear magnetic moments is about 3 times larger than the dipole-dipole, and the Fermi contact interaction. This is due to the fact that the boron pσ and pπ bands are all at the Fermi level (Npx=N$`{}_{py}{}^{}0.035`$, N$`{}_{pz}{}^{}0.045`$ states/eV/spin/B), whereas only a few s boron electrons are close to the Fermi level (N$`{}_{s}{}^{}0.002`$ states/eV/B)Pavarini01 ; Baek02 . This gives a ratio between the Fermi-contact and the orbital/dipole-dipole coupling constants, $`F0.35`$ Pavarini01 , and 11T$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ is mainly proportional to N2p(EF)2. It may thus be inferred that the rapid decrease of the 11B relaxation rate is due to decrease of the DOS in the $`2D`$ hole-type sheets, while a minimum 1/T1 value is obtained at $`0.55x0.60`$, where the $`2D`$ sheets appear to collapse. We also notice the discrepancy between the theoretical and experimental values for $`x>0.6`$. Most probably, calculations tend to overestimate the Fermi contact interaction at the position of the B nucleus in this doping range Baek02 .

Figure 2 demonstrates 27Al NMR line shapes of Mg1-xAlxB2 at room temperature in field $`4.7`$ Tesla. A completely similar picture was obtained in field $`2.35`$ Tesla. The spectra for $`x=0.0125`$, and $`0.025`$, were extremely weak, and therefore were acquired with $`100,000`$ signal accumulations (for comparison, signals for $`x0.1`$ were acquired with $`512`$ accumulations). In all samples the spectra consist of a central transition line, $`20`$ kHz wide, which shifts with doping, and a broad powder pattern from the satellite transitions. The low doping spectra exhibit a spurious weak peak at $`+1700`$ ppm that was produced by the probe. The strong peak at the same frequency for $`x=0.80,1.0`$ is produced by free Al that inavoidably remains during sample preparation at high doping concentrations.

In Figure 3 we show the shift of the central line peak as a function of $`x`$, in fields $`2.35`$ and $`4.7`$ Tesla. The signal of a standard aqueous solution of AlCl3 was used as reference. The coincidence of the curves in both fields is a clear evidence that the obtained spectral shift corresponds solely to the 27K shift. In typical metallic shifts of $`I=5/2`$ nuclei like 27Al, in addition to the Knight shift, the center-of-gravity position of the NMR signal should include the second-order quadrupole shift given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =(25\nu _Q^2)/(18\nu _L)`$ Cohen57 . However, recent experiments on AlB2 have shown that the quadrupolar coupling constant is $`\nu _Q80`$ kHz Baek02 , thus giving a negligibly small second order quadrupolar shift, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu 14`$ ppm. According to Figure 3, by increasing $`x`$ the 27K decreases rapidly, whereas for $`x0.55`$, i.e. at the doping value where the superconductive phase disappears Pena02 , it increases sharply becoming $`+900`$ ppm for pure AlB2. As previously shown, by Al doping of MgB2 the $`\sigma `$ hole bands are filled An01 ; Antropov01 ; Pena02 , and their contribution to N(EF) becomes zero at $`x0.55`$ Pena02 . Evidently, the gradual decrease of 27K for $`x0.55`$ reflects, (i) the initial slight decrease of $`N_s(E_F)`$ in this doping range Cortus01 , and (ii) the reduction of the Stoner enhancement by filling the $`\sigma `$ hole bands, due to decrease of the total N(EF). We notice that the Stoner enhancement renormalizes both K and $`1/T_1`$ by a factor $`S=1/(1IN(E_F))^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha =1`$ for K, and $`1\alpha 2`$ for $`1/T_1`$ Pavarini01 ; Belashchenko01 . On the other hand, the sharp increase of the Knight shift for $`x0.55`$, may be attributed to the rapid increase of Ns by further doping, after completely filling the $`2p_{x,y}`$ hole bands (Ns(Mg) in MgB2 is $`0.0092`$ states/eV/spin, whereas Ns(Al) in AlB2 is $`0.0362`$ states/eV/spin Pavarini01 ). A similar behaviour is observed in Figure 4, which exhibits the 27(1/TT1) vs. x plot. This is expected as the 27Al relaxation rate is dominated by the Fermi contact interaction, and therefore is proportional to N$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{s}{}^{}`$(Al) Baek02 .

In conclusion, 11B and 27Al NMR NSLR rate and Knight shift measurements have been employed in order to investigate the structure and the variation of the Fermi surface in MgB2 upon Al (i.e. electron) doping. Our results are completely consistent with calculations predicting a strongly anisotropic Fermi surface that is comprised from hole-type $`\sigma `$-bonding $`2D`$ cylindrical sheets, and a hole-type and electron-type, $`3D`$ $`\pi `$-bonding tubular network. The collapse of the $`2D`$ sheets at $`x0.55`$, as predicted by theory, is experimentally verified by the fast decrease of the 11B NSLR rate for $`x0.55`$ and the sharp increase of both the 27K, and 27NSLR rates for $`x0.55`$. The latter indicates a strong reshaping of the Fermi surface towards the electronic structure of AlB2, due to interplane electron contribution. Our results concile with both experimental and theoretical evidence that indicate anisotropic pairing and multi-gap superconductivity in MgB2.


format: text

text:
# 1 The lightest Higgs boson mass, the lightest neutralino mass, the second lightest neutralino mass and the lighter chargino mass as functions of the phase Φ_μ for various values of Φ≡arg(Aₜμ) and Φ₁.

## Acknowledgments

SYC, MD and JS have been partially supported by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the KOSEF–DFG collaboration project, Project No. 20015–111–02–2; SYC was also supported by the Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP) at Kyungpook National University. The work of JSL was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).


text:
# Fiber sums of genus 2 Lefschetz fibrations

## 1. Introduction

Symplectic Lefschetz fibrations have been the focus of a lot of attention since the proof by Donaldson that, after blow-ups, every compact symplectic manifold admits such structures . Genus 2 Lefschetz fibrations, where the first non-trivial topological phenomena arise, have been particularly studied. Most importantly, it has recently been shown by Siebert and Tian that every genus 2 Lefschetz fibration without reducible fibers and with “transitive monodromy” is holomorphic . The statement becomes false if reducible singular fibers are allowed, as evidenced by the construction by Ozbagci and Stipsicz  of genus 2 Lefschetz fibrations with non-complex total space (similar examples have also been constructed by Ivan Smith).

It has been conjectured by Siebert and Tian that any genus 2 Lefschetz fibration should become holomorphic after fiber sum with sufficiently many copies of the rational genus 2 Lefschetz fibration with 20 irreducible singular fibers. The purpose of this paper is to prove this conjecture by providing a classification of genus 2 Lefschetz fibrations up to stabilization by such fiber sums. The result is the following (see §2 and Definition 4 for notations):

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`F`$ be any factorization of the identity element as a product of positive Dehn twists in the mapping class group $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$. Then there exist integers $`ϵ\{0,1\}`$, $`k0`$ and $`m0`$ such that, for any large enough integer $`n`$, the factorization $`F(W_0)^n`$ is Hurwitz equivalent to $`(W_0)^{n+k}(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^m`$.

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`f:XS^2`$ be a genus $`2`$ Lefschetz fibration. Then the fiber sum of $`f`$ with sufficiently many copies of the rational genus $`2`$ Lefschetz fibration with $`20`$ irreducible singular fibers is isomorphic to a holomorphic fibration.

## 2. Mapping class group factorizations

Recall that a Lefschetz fibration $`f:XS^2`$ is a fibration admitting only isolated singularities, all lying in distinct fibers of $`f`$, and near which a local model for $`f`$ in orientation-preserving complex coordinates is given by $`(z_1,z_2)z_1^2+z_2^2`$. We will only consider the case $`dimX=4`$, where the smooth fibers are compact surfaces (of genus $`g=2`$ in our case), and the singular fibers present nodal singularities obtained by collapsing a simple closed loop (the vanishing cycle) in the smooth fiber. The monodromy of the fibration around a singular fiber is given by a positive Dehn twist along the vanishing cycle.

Denoting by $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_rS^2`$ the images of the singular fibers and choosing a reference point in $`S^2`$, we can characterize the fibration $`f`$ by its monodromy $`\psi :\pi _1(S^2\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_r\})\mathrm{Map}_g`$, where $`\mathrm{Map}_g=\pi _0\mathrm{Diff}^+(\mathrm{\Sigma }_g)`$ is the mapping class group of a genus $`g`$ surface. It is a classical result (cf. ) that the monodromy morphism $`\psi `$ is uniquely determined up to conjugation by an element of $`\mathrm{Map}_g`$ and a braid acting on $`\pi _1(S^2\{q_i\})`$, and that it determines the isomorphism class of the Lefschetz fibration $`f`$.

While all positive Dehn twists along non-separating curves are mutually conjugate in $`\mathrm{Map}_g`$, there are different types of twists along separating curves, according to the genus of each component delimited by the curve. When $`g=2`$, only two cases can occur: either the curve splits the surface into two genus $`1`$ components, or it is homotopically trivial and the corresponding singular fiber contains a sphere component of square $`1`$. The latter case can always be avoided by blowing down the total space of the fibration; if the blown-down fibration can be shown to be holomorphic, then by performing the converse blow-up procedure we conclude that the original fibration was also holomorphic. Therefore, in all the following we can assume that our Lefschetz fibrations are relatively minimal, i.e. have no homotopically trivial vanishing cycles.

The monodromy of a Lefschetz fibration can be encoded in a mapping class group factorization by choosing an ordered system of generating loops $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _r`$ for $`\pi _1(S^2\{q_i\})`$, such that each loop $`\gamma _i`$ encircles only one of the points $`q_i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ is homotopically trivial. The monodromy of the fibration along each of the loops $`\gamma _i`$ is a Dehn twist $`\tau _i`$; we can then describe the fibration in terms of the relation $`\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _r=1`$ in $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$. The choice of the loops $`\gamma _i`$ (and therefore of the twists $`\tau _i`$) is of course not unique, but any two choices differ by a sequence of Hurwitz moves exchanging consecutive factors: $`\tau _i\tau _{i+1}(\tau _{i+1})_{\tau _i^1}\tau _i`$ or $`\tau _i\tau _{i+1}\tau _{i+1}(\tau _i)_{\tau _{i+1}}`$, where we use the notation $`(\tau )_\varphi =\varphi ^1\tau \varphi `$, i.e. if $`\tau `$ is a Dehn twist along a loop $`\delta `$ then $`(\tau )_\varphi `$ is the Dehn twist along the loop $`\varphi (\delta )`$.

###### Definition 3.

A factorization $`F=\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _r`$ in $`\mathrm{Map}_g`$ is an ordered tuple of positive Dehn twists. We say that two factorizations are Hurwitz equivalent $`(FF^{})`$ if they can be obtained from each other by a sequence of Hurwitz moves.

It is well-known that a Lefschetz fibration is characterized by a factorization of the identity element in $`\mathrm{Map}_g`$, uniquely determined up to Hurwitz equivalence and simultaneous conjugation of all factors by a same element of $`\mathrm{Map}_g`$.

Let $`\zeta _i`$ ($`1i5`$) and $`\sigma `$ be the Dehn twists represented in Figure 1. It is well-known (cf. e.g. , Theorem 4.8) that $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$ admits the following presentation:

| – generators: | $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$. |
| --- | --- |
| – relations: | $`\zeta _i\zeta _j=\zeta _j\zeta _i`$ if $`|ij|2`$; $`\zeta _i\zeta _{i+1}\zeta _i=\zeta _{i+1}\zeta _i\zeta _{i+1}`$; |
|  | $`(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^6=1`$; $`I=\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5^2\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1`$ is central; $`I^2=1`$. |

It is easy to check that $`\sigma `$ can be expressed in terms of the generators $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$ as $`\sigma =(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^6=(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^6=(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3I`$.

We can fix a hyperelliptic structure on the genus 2 surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. a double covering map $`\mathrm{\Sigma }S^2`$ (with 6 branch points), in such a way that $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$ become the lifts of standard half-twists exchanging consecutive branch points in $`S^2`$. The element $`I`$ then corresponds to the hyperelliptic involution (i.e. the non-trivial automorphism of the double covering). The fact that $`I`$ is central means that every diffeomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compatible with the hyperelliptic structure, up to isotopy. In fact, $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$ is closely related to the braid group $`B_6(S^2)`$ acting on the branch points of the double covering. The group $`B_6(S^2)`$ admits the following presentation (cf. , Theorem 1.1):

| – generators: | $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_5`$ (half-twists exchanging two consecutive points). |
| --- | --- |
| – relations: | $`x_ix_j=x_jx_i`$ if $`|ij|2`$; $`x_ix_{i+1}x_i=x_{i+1}x_ix_{i+1}`$; |
|  | $`x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5^2x_4x_3x_2x_1=1`$. |

Consider a $`S^2`$-bundle $`\pi :PS^2`$, and a smooth curve $`BP`$ intersecting a generic fiber in $`6`$ points, everywhere transverse to the fibers of $`\pi `$ except for isolated nondegenerate complex tangencies. The curve $`B`$ can be characterized by its braid monodromy, or equivalently by a factorization in the braid group $`B_6(S^2)`$, with each factor a positive half-twist, defined by considering the motion of the $`6`$ intersection points of $`B`$ with the fiber of $`\pi `$ upon moving around the image of a tangency point. As before, this factorization is only defined up to Hurwitz equivalence and simultaneous conjugation (see also  for the case of plane curves).

There exists a lifting morphism from $`B_6(S^2)`$ to $`\mathrm{Map}_2/I`$, defined by $`x_i\zeta _i`$. Given a half-twist in $`B_6(S^2)`$, exactly one of its two possible lifts to $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$ is a Dehn twist about a non-separating curve. This allows us to lift the braid factorization associated to the curve $`BP`$ to a mapping class group factorization; the product of the resulting factors is equal to $`1`$ if the homology class represented by $`B`$ is divisible by two, and to $`I`$ otherwise. In the first case, we can construct a genus 2 Lefschetz fibration by considering the double covering of $`P`$ branched along $`B`$, and its monodromy is exactly the lift of the braid monodromy of the curve $`B`$. This construction always yields Lefschetz fibrations without reducible singular fibers; however, if we additionally allow some blow-up and blow-down operations (on $`P`$ and its double covering respectively), then we can also handle the case of reducible singular fibers (see §3 below and ). It is worth mentioning that Siebert and Tian have shown the converse result: given any genus 2 Lefschetz fibration, it can be realized as a double covering of a $`S^2`$-bundle over $`S^2`$ (with additional blow-up and blow-down operations in the case of reducible singular fibers) .

## 3. Holomorphic genus $`2`$ fibrations

We are interested in the properties of certain specific factorizations in $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$.

###### Definition 4.

Let $`W_0=(T)^2`$, $`W_1=(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^6`$, and $`W_2=\sigma (\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3)^2(T)`$, where $`T=\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1`$.

In this definition the notation $`(\mathrm{})^n`$ means that the sequence of Dehn twists is repeated $`n`$ times. It is fairly easy to check that $`W_0`$, $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ are all factorizations of the identity element of $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$ as a product of 20, 30, and 29 positive Dehn twists respectively (for $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ this follows immediately from the presentation of $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$; see below for $`W_2`$).

###### Lemma 5.

The factorization $`W_0`$ describes the genus 2 Lefschetz fibration $`f_0`$ on the rational surface obtained as a double covering of $`𝔽_0=^1\times ^1`$ branched along a smooth algebraic curve $`B_0`$ of bidegree $`(6,2)`$. The factorization $`W_1`$ corresponds to the genus 2 Lefschetz fibration $`f_1`$ on the blown-up K3 surface obtained as a double covering of $`𝔽_1=^2\mathrm{\#}\overline{}^2`$ branched along a smooth algebraic curve $`B_1`$ in the linear system $`|6L|`$, where $`L`$ is a line in $`^2`$ avoiding the blown-up point.

###### Proof.

$`B_0`$ can be degenerated into a singular curve $`D_0`$ consisting of 6 sections and 2 fibers intersecting in 12 nodes (see Figure 2). We can recover $`B_0`$ from $`D_0`$ by first smoothing the intersections of the first section with the two fibers, giving us a component of bidegree $`(1,2)`$, and then smoothing the remaining 10 nodes, each of which produces two vertical tangencies. The braid factorization corresponding to $`B_0`$ can therefore be expressed as $`((x_1)^2(x_2)_{x_1}^2(x_3)_{x_2x_1}^2(x_4)_{x_3x_2x_1}^2(x_5)_{x_4x_3x_2x_1}^2)^2`$, or equivalently after suitable Hurwitz moves, $`(x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5x_5x_4x_3x_2x_1)^2`$. Lifting this braid factorization to the mapping class group, we obtain $`W_0`$ as claimed. Alternately, it is easy to check that the braid factorization for a smooth curve of bidegree $`(6,1)`$ is $`x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5x_5x_4x_3x_2x_1`$; we can then conclude by observing that $`B_0`$ is the fiber sum of two such curves.

In the case of the curve $`B_1`$, by definition the braid monodromy is exactly that of a smooth plane curve of degree $`6`$ as defined by Moishezon in ; it can be computed e.g. by degenerating $`B_1`$ to a union of 6 lines in generic position ($`D_1`$ in Figure 2), and is known to be given by the factorization $`(x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5)^6`$. Lifting to $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$, we obtain that the monodromy factorization for the corresponding double branched covering is exactly $`W_1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`\tau \mathrm{Map}_2`$ be a Dehn twist, and let $`F`$ be a factorization of a central element of $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$. If $`F\tau F^{}`$ for some $`F^{}`$, then the factorization $`(F)_\tau `$ obtained from $`F`$ by simultaneous conjugation of all factors by $`\tau `$ is Hurwitz equivalent to $`F`$.

###### Proof.

We have: $`(F)_\tau \tau (F^{})_\tau F^{}\tau (\tau )_F^{}F^{}=\tau F^{}F`$. The first and last steps follow from the assumption; the second step corresponds to moving $`\tau `$ to the right across all the factors of $`(F^{})_\tau `$, while in the third step all the factors of $`F^{}`$ are moved to the right across $`\tau `$. Also observe that $`(\tau )_F^{}=\tau `$ because the product of all factors in $`F^{}`$ commutes with $`\tau `$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.

The factorizations $`T`$, $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$ are fully invariant, i.e. for any element $`\gamma \mathrm{Map}_2`$ we have $`(T)_\gamma T`$, $`(W_0)_\gamma W_0`$, and $`(W_1)_\gamma W_1`$.

###### Proof.

It is obviously sufficient to prove that $`(T)_{\zeta _i}T`$ and $`(W_1)_{\zeta _i}W_1`$ for all $`1i5`$. By moving the first $`\zeta _i`$ factor in $`T`$ or $`W_1`$ to the left, we obtain a Hurwitz equivalent factorization of the form $`\zeta _i\mathrm{}`$; therefore the result follows immediately from Lemma 6. ∎

A direct consequence of Lemma 7 is that all fiber sums of the holomorphic fibrations $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ (with monodromies $`W_0`$ and $`W_1`$) are untwisted. More precisely, when two Lefschetz fibrations with monodromy factorizations $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ are glued to each other along a fiber, the resulting fibration normally depends on the isotopy class $`\varphi `$ of a diffeomorphism between the two fibers to be identified, and its monodromy is given by a factorization of the form $`(F)(F^{})_\varphi `$. However, when the building blocks are made of copies of $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$, Lemma 7 implies that the result of the fiber sum operation is independent of the chosen identification diffeomorphisms; e.g., we can always take $`\varphi =1`$.

###### Lemma 8.

$`(W_1)^2(W_0)^3`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\rho =\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _1`$ be the reflection of the genus 2 surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ about its central axis. It follows from Lemma 7 that $`(W_1)^2W_1(W_1)_\rho =(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^6(\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1)^6`$. The central part of this factorization is exactly $`T`$; after moving it to the right, we obtain the new identity $`(W_1)^2(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^5(\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1)^5(T)_{(\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1)^5}`$. Repeating the same operation four more times, we get $`(W_1)^2_{j=0}^5(T)_{(\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _3\zeta _2\zeta _1)^j}`$. Using the full invariance property of $`T`$ (Lemma 7), it follows that $`(W_1)^2(T)^6=(W_0)^3`$.

A more geometric argument is as follows: $`(W_1)^2`$ is the monodromy factorization of the fiber sum $`f_1\mathrm{\#}f_1`$ of two copies of $`f_1`$, which is a double covering of the fiber sum of two copies of $`(𝔽_1,B_1)`$. Therefore $`f_1\mathrm{\#}f_1`$ is a double covering of $`(𝔽_2,B^{})`$ where $`𝔽_2=(OO(2))`$ is the second Hirzebruch surface and $`B^{}`$ is a smooth algebraic curve in the linear system $`|6S|`$, where $`S`$ is a section of $`𝔽_2`$ ($`SS=2`$). On the other hand $`(W_0)^3`$ is the monodromy factorization of the fiber sum $`f_0\mathrm{\#}f_0\mathrm{\#}f_0`$, which is a double covering of the fiber sum of three copies of $`(𝔽_0,B_0)`$, i.e. a double covering of $`(𝔽_0,B^{\prime \prime })`$ where $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ is a smooth algebraic curve of bidegree $`(6,6)`$. The conclusion follows from the fact that $`(𝔽_2,B^{})`$ and $`(𝔽_0,B^{\prime \prime })`$ are deformation equivalent. ∎

We can now reformulate the holomorphicity result obtained by Siebert and Tian  in terms of mapping class group factorizations. Say that a factorization is transitive if the images of the factors under the morphism $`\mathrm{Map}_2S_6`$ mapping $`\zeta _i`$ to the transposition $`(i,i+1)`$ generate the entire symmetric group $`S_6`$.

###### Theorem 9 (Siebert-Tian ).

Any transitive factorization of the identity element as a product of positive Dehn twists along non-separating curves in $`\mathrm{Map}_2`$ is Hurwitz equivalent to a factorization of the form $`(W_0)^k(W_1)^ϵ`$ for some integers $`k0`$ and $`ϵ\{0,1\}`$.

What Siebert and Tian have shown is in fact that any such factorization is the monodromy of a holomorphic Lefschetz fibration, which can be realized as a double covering of a ruled surface branched along a smooth connected holomorphic curve intersecting the generic fiber in $`6`$ points. However, we can always assume that the ruled surface is either $`𝔽_0`$ or $`𝔽_1`$ (either by the topological classification of ruled surfaces or using Lemma 8). In the first case, the branch curve has bidegree $`(6,2k)`$ for some integer $`k`$, and the corresponding monodromy is $`(W_0)^k`$, while in the second case the branch curve realizes the homology class $`6[L]+2k[F]`$ for some integer $`k`$ (here $`F`$ is a fiber of $`𝔽_1`$), and the corresponding monodromy is $`(W_0)^kW_1`$.

We now look at examples of genus 2 fibrations with reducible singular fibers.

###### Definition 10.

Let $`B_2𝔽_1`$ be an algebraic curve in the linear system $`|6L+F|`$, presenting two triple points in the same fiber $`F_0`$. Let $`P_2`$ be the surface obtained by blowing up $`𝔽_1`$ at the two triple points of $`B_2`$, and denote by $`\widehat{B}_2`$ and $`\widehat{F}_0`$ the proper transforms of $`B_2`$ and $`F_0`$ in $`P_2`$. Consider the double covering $`\pi :\widehat{X}_2P_2`$ branched along $`\widehat{B}_2\widehat{F}_0`$, and let $`X_2`$ be the surface obtained by blowing down the $`1`$-curve $`\pi ^1(\widehat{F}_0)`$ in $`\widehat{X}_2`$.

Let us check that this construction is well-defined. The easiest way to construct the curve $`B_2`$ is to start with a curve $`C`$ of degree 7 in $`^2`$ with two triple points $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. If we choose $`C`$ generically, we can assume that the three branches of $`C`$ through $`p_i`$ intersect each other transversely and are transverse to the line $`L_0`$ through $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. Therefore the line $`L_0`$ intersects $`C`$ transversely in another point $`p`$, and by blowing up $`^2`$ at $`p`$ we obtain the desired curve $`B_2`$ (see also below). Next, we blow up the two triple points $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$, which turns $`B_2`$ into a smooth curve $`\widehat{B}_2`$, disjoint from $`\widehat{F}_0`$. Denoting by $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ the exceptional divisors of the two blow-ups, we have $`[\widehat{B}_2]=6[L]+[F]3[E_1]3[E_2]`$ and $`[\widehat{F}_0]=[F][E_1][E_2]`$, so that $`[\widehat{B}_2]+[\widehat{F}_0]=6[L]+2[F]4[E_1]4[E_2]`$ is divisible by $`2`$; therefore the double covering $`\pi :\widehat{X}_2P_2`$ is well-defined.

The complex surface $`\widehat{X}_2`$ is equipped with a natural holomorphic genus 2 fibration $`\widehat{f}_2`$, obtained by composing $`\pi :\widehat{X}_2P_2`$ with the natural projections to $`𝔽_1`$ and then to $`S^2`$. The fiber of $`\widehat{f}_2`$ corresponding to $`F_0𝔽_1`$ consists of three components: two elliptic curves of square $`2`$ obtained as double coverings of the exceptional curves $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ in $`P_2`$, with 4 branch points in each case (three on $`\widehat{B}_2`$ and one on $`\widehat{F}_0`$), and a rational curve of square $`1`$, the preimage of $`\widehat{F}_0`$. After blowing down the rational component, we obtain on $`X_2`$ a holomorphic genus 2 fibration $`f_2`$, with one reducible fiber consisting of two elliptic components. It is easy to check that near this singular point $`f_2`$ presents the local model expected of a Lefschetz fibration, and that the vanishing cycle for this fiber is the loop obtained by lifting any simple closed loop that separates the two triple points of $`B_2`$ inside the fiber $`F_0`$ of $`𝔽_1`$.

###### Lemma 11.

The complex surface $`X_2`$ carries a natural holomorphic genus 2 Lefschetz fibration, with monodromy factorization $`W_2`$.

###### Proof.

We need to calculate the braid monodromy factorization associated to the curve $`B_2𝔽_1`$. For this purpose, observe that $`B_2`$ can be degenerated to a union $`D_2`$ of 6 lines in two groups of three, $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ and $`L_4,L_5,L_6`$, and a fiber $`F`$, with two triple points and 15 nodes (cf. Figure 2). The monodromy around the fiber containing the two triple points is given by the braid $`\delta =(x_1x_2)^3(x_4x_5)^3`$. The 9 nodes corresponding to the mutual intersections of the two groups of three lines give rise to 18 vertical tangencies in $`B_2`$, and the corresponding factorization is

$$x_3^2(x_4)_{x_3}^2(x_5)_{x_4x_3}^2[x_2^2(x_3)_{x_2}^2(x_4)_{x_3x_2}^2]_{(x_5x_4x_3)}[x_1^2(x_2)_{x_1}^2(x_3)_{x_2x_1}^2]_{(x_4x_3x_2x_5x_4x_3)}.$$

After suitable Hurwitz moves, this expression can be rewritten as

$$x_3x_4(x_5)^2x_4x_3[x_2x_3(x_4)^2x_3x_2]_{(x_5x_4x_3)}[x_1x_2(x_3)^2x_2x_1]_{(x_4x_3x_2x_5x_4x_3)},$$

or equivalently as $`x_3x_4x_5x_2x_3x_4x_1x_2x_3x_3x_2x_1x_4x_3x_2x_5x_4x_3`$, which is in turn equivalent to $`(x_3x_4x_5x_2x_3x_4x_1x_2x_3)^2`$. Finally, the six intersections of the lines $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_6`$ with the fiber $`F`$ give rise to 10 vertical tangencies, for which the same argument as for Lemma 5 gives the monodromy factorization $`x_1x_2x_3x_4x_5x_5x_4x_3x_2x_1`$. We conclude by lifting the monodromy of $`B_2`$ to the mapping class group, observing that the contribution $`\delta `$ of the fiber containing the triple points lifts to the Dehn twist $`\sigma `$. ∎

###### Theorem 12.

Fix integers $`m0`$, $`ϵ\{0,1\}`$ and $`k\frac{3}{2}m+1`$. Then the Hirzebruch surface $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}=(OO(m+ϵ))`$ contains a complex curve $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ in the linear system $`|6S+(m+2k)F|`$ (where $`S`$ is a section of square $`(m+ϵ)`$ and $`F`$ is a fiber), having $`2m`$ triple points lying in $`m`$ distinct fibers of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ as its only singularities.

Moreover, after blowing up $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ at the $`2m`$ triple points, passing to a double covering, and blowing down $`m`$ rational $`1`$-curves, we obtain a complex surface and a holomorphic genus 2 fibration $`f_{k,ϵ,m}:X_{k,ϵ,m}S^2`$ with monodromy factorization $`(W_0)^k(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^m`$.

###### Proof.

We first construct the curve $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ by perturbation of a singular configuration $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$ consisting of 6 sections of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ together with $`m+2k`$ fibers. Since the case of smooth curves is a classical result, we can assume that $`m1`$. Also observe that, since the intersection number of $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ with a fiber is equal to $`6`$, the $`2m`$ triple points must come in pairs lying in the same fiber: $`p_{2i1}`$, $`p_{2i}F_i`$, $`1im`$.

Let $`u_0`$ and $`u_1`$ be generic sections of the line bundle $`O_^1(m+ϵ)`$, without common zeroes. Define six sections $`S_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ ($`\alpha \{0,1\}`$, $`\beta \{0,1,2\})`$ of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ as the projectivizations of the sections $`(1,(1)^\alpha u_0+c_{\alpha \beta }u_1)`$ of $`O_^1O_^1(m+ϵ)`$, where $`c_{\alpha \beta }`$ are small generic complex numbers. The three sections $`S_{0,\beta }`$ intersect each other in $`(m+ϵ)`$ triple points, in the fibers $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_{m+ϵ}`$ above the points of $`^1`$ where $`u_1`$ vanishes, and similarly for the three sections $`S_{1,\beta }`$; generic choices of parameters ensure that all the other intersections between these six sections are transverse and lie in different fibers of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$. We define $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$ to be the singular configuration consisting of the six sections $`S_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ together with $`m+2k`$ generic fibers of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ intersecting the sections in six distinct points.

Let $`sH^0(𝔽_{m+ϵ},O(mF))`$ be the product of the sections of $`O(F)`$ defining the fibers $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_m`$ containing $`2m`$ of the triple points of $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$. Let $`s^{}`$ be a generic section of the line bundle $`L=O(D_{k,ϵ,m}4mF)=O(6S+(2k3m)F)`$ over $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$. Because $`k\frac{3}{2}m+1`$, the linear system $`|L|`$ is base point free, and so we can assume that $`s^{}`$ does not vanish at any of the double or triple points of $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$. Finally, let $`s_0`$ be the section defining $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$.

We consider the section $`s_\lambda =s_0+\lambda s^4s^{}H^0(𝔽_{m+ϵ},O(6S+(2k+m)F))`$, where $`\lambda 0`$ is a generic small complex number. Because the perturbation $`s^4s^{}`$ vanishes at order $`4`$ at each of the triple points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2m}`$ of $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$ in the fibers $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_m`$, it is easy to check that all the curves $`D(\lambda )=s_\lambda ^1(0)`$ present triple points at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2m}`$. On the other hand, since $`s^4s^{}`$ does not vanish at any of the other singular points of $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$, for generic $`\lambda `$ the curve $`D(\lambda )`$ presents no other singularities than the triple points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{2m}`$ (this follows e.g. from Bertini’s theorem); this gives us the curve $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ with the desired properties. Moreover, generic choices of the parameters ensure that the vertical tangencies of $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ all lie in distinct fibers of $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$; in that case, the double covering construction will give rise to a Lefschetz fibration.

The braid monodromy of the curve $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ can be computed using the existence of a degeneration to the singular configuration $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$ (taking $`\lambda 0`$ in the above construction); a calculation similar to the proofs of Lemma 5 and Lemma 11 yields that it consists of $`k`$ copies of the braid factorization of the curve $`B_0`$, $`ϵ`$ copies of the braid factorization of $`B_1`$, and $`m`$ copies of the braid factorization of $`B_2`$. Another way to see this is to observe that the surface $`𝔽_{m+ϵ}`$ admits a decomposition into a fiber sum of $`k`$ copies of $`𝔽_0`$ and $`m+ϵ`$ copies of $`𝔽_1`$, in such a way that the singular configuration $`D_{k,ϵ,m}`$ naturally decomposes into $`k`$ copies of $`D_0`$, $`ϵ`$ copies of a degenerate version of $`D_1`$ presenting some triple points, and $`m`$ copies of $`D_2`$. After a suitable smoothing, we obtain that the pair $`(𝔽_{m+ϵ},B_{k,ϵ,m})`$ splits as the untwisted fiber sum $`k(𝔽_0,B_0)\mathrm{\#}ϵ(𝔽_1,B_1)\mathrm{\#}m(𝔽_1,B_2)`$.

By the same process as in the construction of the surface $`X_2`$, we can blow up the $`2m`$ triple points of $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$, take a double covering branched along the proper transforms of $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$ and of the fibers through the triple points, and blow down $`m`$ rational components, to obtain a complex surface $`X_{k,ϵ,m}`$ equipped with a holomorphic genus 2 Lefschetz fibration $`f_{k,ϵ,m}:X_{k,ϵ,m}S^2`$. Because of the structure of $`B_{k,ϵ,m}`$, it is easy to see that $`f_{k,ϵ,m}`$ splits into an untwisted fiber sum of $`k`$ copies of $`f_0`$, $`ϵ`$ copies of $`f_1`$, and $`m`$ copies of $`f_2`$. Therefore, its monodromy is described by the factorization $`(W_0)^k(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^m`$. ∎

## 4. Proof of the main result

In order to prove Theorem 1, we will use the following lemma which allows us to trade one reducible singular fiber against a collection of irreducible singular fibers:

###### Lemma 13.

$`(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3(T)(W_2)\sigma (W_0)(W_1)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3`$, and observe that $`(\zeta _i)_\mathrm{\Phi }=\zeta _{6i}`$ for $`i\{1,2,4,5\}`$. Therefore, we have

$$(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3(\mathrm{\Phi })^2(\mathrm{\Phi })\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _1(\mathrm{\Phi })\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _5(\mathrm{\Phi })(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3.$$

Moreover, $`(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\mathrm{\Phi })\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _1(\mathrm{\Phi })\zeta _5\zeta _4\zeta _5(\zeta _1\zeta _2\zeta _3\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3.`$ It follows that $`(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3(\mathrm{\Phi })^2W_1`$. Recalling that $`(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3=\sigma I`$ and $`W_2=\sigma (\mathrm{\Phi })^2(T)`$, and using the invariance property of $`T`$ (Lemma 7), we have

$$(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3(T)(W_2)\sigma (T)(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3(\mathrm{\Phi })^2(T)\sigma (T)(W_1)(T),$$

which is Hurwitz equivalent to $`\sigma (T)^2(W_1)=\sigma (W_0)(W_1)`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

We argue by induction on the number $`m`$ of reducible singular fibers. If there are no separating Dehn twists, then after summing with at least one copy of $`W_0`$ to ensure transitivity, we obtain a transitive factorization of the identity element into Dehn twists along non-separating curves, which by Theorem 9 is of the expected form.

Assume that Theorem 1 holds for all factorizations with $`m1`$ separating Dehn twists, and consider a factorization $`F`$ with $`m`$ separating Dehn twists. By Hurwitz moves we can bring one of the separating Dehn twists to the right-most position in $`F`$ and assume that $`F=(F^{})\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ is a Dehn twist about a loop separating two genus 1 components. Clearly, there exists an element $`\varphi \mathrm{Map}_2`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=(\sigma )_{\varphi ^1}`$. Using the relation $`I^2=1`$, we can express each $`\zeta _i^1`$ as a product of the generators $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$, and therefore $`\varphi `$ can be expressed as a positive word involving only the generators $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$ (and not their inverses).

Starting with the factorization $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(W_0)^n`$, we can selectively move $`\sigma `$ to the right across the various factors $`W_0`$, sometimes conjugating the factors of $`W_0`$ and sometimes conjugating $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. If we choose the factors by which we conjugate $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ according to the expression of $`\varphi `$ in terms of $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _5`$, and if $`n`$ is sufficiently large, we obtain that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(W_0)^n(F^{\prime \prime })\sigma `$, for some factorization $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ involving only non-separating Dehn twists. Therefore, using Lemma 8 and Lemma 13 we have

$$F(W_0)^{n+4}F^{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }(W_0)^nW_0(W_1)^2F^{}F^{\prime \prime }\sigma W_0(W_1)^2\stackrel{~}{F}W_2,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F^{}F^{\prime \prime }(\zeta _1\zeta _2)^3(\zeta _4\zeta _5)^3TW_1`$. Next we observe that $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is a factorization of the identity element with $`m1`$ separating Dehn twists, therefore by assumption there exist integers $`\stackrel{~}{n},k,ϵ`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{F}(W_0)^{\stackrel{~}{n}}(W_0)^k(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^{m1}`$. It follows that $`F(W_0)^{n+\stackrel{~}{n}+4}\stackrel{~}{F}W_2(W_0)^{\stackrel{~}{n}}\stackrel{~}{F}(W_0)^{\stackrel{~}{n}}W_2(W_0)^k(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^m`$. This concludes the proof, since it is clear that the splitting remains valid after adding extra copies of $`W_0`$. ∎

###### Proof of Corollary 2.

First of all, as observed at the beginning of §2 we can assume that $`f`$ is relatively minimal, i.e. all vanishing cycles are homotopically non-trivial. Let $`F`$ be a monodromy factorization corresponding to $`f`$, and observe that by Theorem 1 we have a splitting of the form $`F(W_0)^n(W_0)^{n+k}(W_1)^ϵ(W_2)^m`$. If $`n`$ is chosen large enough then $`n+k\frac{3}{2}m+1`$, and so by Theorem 12 the right-hand side is the monodromy of the holomorphic fibration $`f_{n+k,ϵ,m}`$, while the left-hand side corresponds to the fiber sum $`f\mathrm{\#}nf_0`$. ∎

Remark. Pending a suitable extension of the result of Siebert and Tian to higher genus hyperelliptic Lefschetz fibrations with transitive monodromy and irreducible singular fibers, the techniques described here can be generalized to higher genus hyperelliptic fibrations almost without modification. The main difference is the existence of different types of reducible fibers, classified by the geni $`h`$ and $`gh`$ of the two components; this makes it necessary to replace $`W_2`$ with a larger collection of building blocks, obtained e.g. from complex curves in $`𝔽_1`$ that intersect the generic fiber in $`2g+2`$ points and present two multiple points with multiplicities $`2h+1`$ and $`2(gh)+1`$ in the same fiber.


text:
# 𝑔𝑔→ℎ→𝜏⁺𝜏⁻ at the Upgraded Fermilab Tevatron

## Abstract:

We study the neutral Higgs boson production via the gluon fusion process with the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final state at the upgraded Fermilab Tevatron, including a complete simulation of signal channels and leading background processes. For the SM Higgs boson, this $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel may provide important addition for the Higgs boson discovery in the mass range $`120140`$ GeV. In minimal supersymmetric models, natural enhancement for the signal rate over the SM expectation makes the $`h,H,A\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ signal observable for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and low $`M_A`$, which may lead to full coverage for SUSY Higgs parameters at the Tevatron with a moderate integrated luminosity.

Higgs Physics, Hadronic Colliders, Standard Model, Supersymmetric Standard Model

It has been extensively discussed to what extent the Higgs bosons can be discovered at the upgraded Tevatron . The leading contribution to the Higgs boson production at hadron colliders comes from gluon fusion via heavy quark loops, with a typical cross section of one pb at the Tevatron energies. However, a light Higgs boson mainly decays into $`b\overline{b}`$ and the huge QCD background precludes any hope for finding the Higgs boson in this channel. That is the reason why the most favorable process for finding the Higgs boson at the Tevatron up to 130 GeV is the associated production $`W,Z+h`$ , with a cross section of the order of $`0.5`$ pb. On the other hand, for a SM Higgs boson of mass 140 GeV $`<m_h<190`$ GeV, it may be possible to observe the mode $`hWW^{}`$  if higher luminosity of order $`1030\mathrm{fb}^1`$ becomes available.

In this paper we study the feasibility of utilizing the gluon fusion process but with the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final state

$$p\overline{p}ggh\tau ^+\tau ^{}.$$
(1)
There are several motivations to study this channel. First, it is very difficult at the Tevatron to find a SM Higgs boson signal in the mass range $`130140`$ GeV at the interplay between $`b\overline{b}`$ and $`WW^{}`$ final states. It would be desirable to find other potentially useful channels  and the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode is a natural candidate to consider since it has a branching ratio of about $`10\%`$ in the mass range of interest. Second, this mass range of the current interest is the probable region for $`m_h`$ in Supersymmetric models (MSSM) and one may expect some possible enhancement for process Eq. (1) due to sparticle loops . Thirdly, it is especially important to determine the relative coupling strength of $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`hb\overline{b}`$ since many new physics scenarios predict different relations of these Yukawa couplings . Finally, since $`\tau `$ leptons are a prominent signal for various models of new physics, the final state containing $`\tau ^\pm `$’s has been considered in many recent studies , and their experimental identification has become better understood . We find that the channel of Eq. (1) may provide important addition for the SM Higgs boson discovery in the mass range $`120140`$ GeV. Especially in the MSSM, significant improvement at low $`M_A`$ and high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ may lead to full coverage for SUSY Higgs parameters at the Tevatron.

In order to perform a complete signal and background simulation, we use the event generator PYTHIA v6.134  for both signal and backgrounds. The effects of initial and final state radiation (IFSR) and hadronization have been taken into account. Final state decays of the polarized $`\tau `$ leptons have been treated properly by making use of the package TAUOLA v2.6 . CTEQ4M parton distributions  have been used. The QCD scale $`Q`$ for both the factorization and renormalization is set to the average of transverse momenta of the outgoing particles at the parton level. Because of the limited statistics, we consider all possible $`\tau `$-decay modes, hadronic and leptonic. Detector parameters and energy resolution were chosen the same as in simulation for the Run II Workshop . In particular, the jet energies are smeared according to a Gaussian spread

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}=\frac{0.8}{\sqrt{E}\mathrm{GeV}}.$$

Due to the missing energy carried away by the two neutrinos $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ in the final state, we can only effectively reconstruct the Higgs boson mass from the decay products of $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ if the tau pairs are not back–to–back in the transverse plane . For this reason we need to consider the Higgs boson production with a finite transverse momentum ($`p_T^h`$). We adopt the process $`gg(q)hg(q)`$+initial-final state radiation (IFSR) for the signal simulation as implemented in . The cross section of this process is of the order of 0.3 pb for $`m_h`$= 120 GeV with the cut $`p_T^h>20\mathrm{GeV}`$. With the branching fraction for $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ of roughly $`10\%`$, one obtains cross sections for $`p_T^j>20`$ GeV at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV

$$\sigma (p\overline{p}hj\tau ^+\tau ^{}j)=44,28,15\mathrm{fb}\mathrm{for}m_h=120,130,140\mathrm{GeV},$$
(2)
respectively.

The leading irreducible background to the signal is $`p\overline{p}Zj\tau ^+\tau ^{}j.`$ The other reducible but huge background comes from QCD jets that can fake a $`\tau `$ final state, $`p\overline{p}jjj\tau ^+\tau ^{}j`$. Using the acceptance cuts on $`p_T^j`$, pseudo-rapidity and separation of the final state jets

$$p_T^j>20\mathrm{GeV},|\eta _\mathrm{j}|<2,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{jj}}>0.5,$$
(3)
the cross sections for the backgrounds are

$`\sigma (p\overline{p}Zj\tau ^+\tau ^{}j)`$ $`=`$ $`7\times 10^4\mathrm{fb},`$ (4)
$`\sigma (p\overline{p}jjj)`$ $`=`$ $`2.5\times 10^8\mathrm{fb}.`$ (5)
The overwhelming background is formidable and a more efficient set of kinematical cuts is necessary in order to have a chance of extracting the signal.

Although less important, there are other backgrounds that we should comment on. First, the final state $`W^\pm jj`$ with $`W^\pm e/\mu /\tau `$ and $`j\tau `$ can constitute a background to the signal. The production rate with the jet cuts of Eq. (3) is $`\sigma (W^\pm jj)=300`$ pb. With $`W`$ leptonic decay and a jet faking a $`\tau `$, this background rate becomes about 200 fb. The next potentially sizeable background is from $`W^+W^{}j`$ production. This background has a rate $`2.0`$ pb. With $`W`$ leptonic decay it becomes $`\sigma (W^+W^{}j\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}j)=220`$ fb ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$). These background rates of $`Wjj`$ and $`WWj`$ are still somewhat larger than the signal rate. However, since those backgrounds are continuous ones, they will not be important after the judicial cuts and especially after the Higgs mass reconstruction, as we will discuss next.

To unambiguously identify the Higgs boson signal, one must reconstruct the mass peak $`M_{\tau \tau }`$ at $`m_h`$. This is also the most efficient way to discriminate against the backgrounds. Due to the fact that the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ from Higgs decay are ultra-relativistic, the jet (or lepton) and the neutrino(s) from the $`\tau `$ decay are essentially collinear along $`\stackrel{}{p}_\tau `$ . We can thus solve for the two neutrino momenta as long as the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ are not collinear. Alternatively, one could consider to make use of the cluster transverse mass variable $`M_{\tau \tau }^T`$ . This transverse mass variable should reach maximum near $`m_h`$, but has a broad tail below $`m_h`$.

Depending on the $`\tau ^\pm `$ decay modes, events with $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}j`$ signature lead to final states such as: the pencil-like two $`\tau `$-jets +$`j`$; or one pencil-like $`\tau `$-jet+ lepton $`+j`$; or two leptons + $`j`$. All decay channels have at least two missing neutrinos $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$, and each charged lepton $`\mathrm{}`$ will be accompanied by another neutrino $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$. Among those channels, the leptonic channels lead to a better energy-momentum determination but have a smaller branching fraction. On the other hand, the hadronic channels have a higher rate but a poor energy resolution for mass reconstruction.

In Fig. 1 we show the normalized reconstructed mass distributions of $`M_{\tau \tau }`$ for the signal and backgrounds for $`m_h=120`$ GeV. Figures 1(a) is for both $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decaying hadronically and Fig. 1(b) for $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ decaying leptonically. Although the $`jjj`$ background rate is a lot higher than that of $`Zj`$ to begin with, the reconstructed mass spectra are sufficiently different from the peak structure of the signal. This feature is also true for other faked backgrounds $`Wjj`$ and $`WWj`$. In contrast, the $`Zj`$ background naturally presents a peak at the $`Z`$ mass and leads to a long tail after $`M_Z`$. This constitutes the major irreducible background as we will see later. This becomes the limiting factor for us to explore a Higgs boson below and near 110 GeV. As anticipated, the leptonic channels have sharper signal mass peaks. Taking into account the kinematical features of the signal and backgrounds discussed above, we devise the following set of kinematical cuts. We first require the $`\tau `$ identification for the hadronic ($`\tau _j`$) or leptonic ($`\tau _{\mathrm{}}`$) decay, Cut I:

$`\tau _j:`$ $`p_T^j>15\mathrm{GeV},|\eta ^\mathrm{j}|<2`$
$`\text{one or three tracks in }10^{}\text{ cone}\text{with no additional tracks in }30^{}\text{ cone}`$
$`\text{the invariant mass of tracks is less than 2 GeV}`$
$`\tau _{\mathrm{}}:`$ $`p_T^{\mathrm{}}>10\mathrm{GeV}|\eta ^{\mathrm{}}|<2;`$
$`\text{no additional tracks in }30^{}\text{ cone}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{jjj}\mathrm{mode}:\mathit{}_T>20\mathrm{GeV},`$
where the missing transverse energy $`\mathit{}_T`$ is defined by the imbalance of the observed particles, and it is also smeared according to Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $`0.5\sqrt{\mathrm{}}E_T`$. The $`\mathit{}_T`$ cut is to help triggering the jjj events. For the $`jj`$ channel we require $`2\tau _j`$ with no isolated electrons or muons (defined by $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}`$), for the $`j\mathrm{}`$ channel we require only one $`\tau _j`$ and one isolated lepton, and for the $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ channel we require no $`\tau _j`$ in addition to the two isolated leptons.

In Cut I, the cut on the jet invariant mass is essential for reducing the huge QCD background in which a QCD parton jet fakes a $`\tau `$. The efficiency of $`\tau `$ ID from the $`Z`$ decay is in agreement with more realistic studies . The efficiency of more energetic $`\tau `$’s from Higgs decay has not been previously studied for the Tevatron with the full detector simulation. We find that the efficiency of $`\tau `$ ID is quite $`p_T`$ and process-dependent, typically being $`6070\%`$ for $`\tau _j`$ and $`5060\%`$ for $`\tau _l`$ for $`m_h=120140`$ GeV. After the $`\tau `$-pair identification, we then impose the next level of refined kinematical cuts, Cut II:

$`p_T^{\tau _j}>m_h/6,p_T^{\tau _e}>m_h/9,`$
$`\text{additional jet (not }\tau _j\text{) with }p_T^j>m_h/6\text{and }|\eta ^j|<4\text{.}`$
Our final set of cuts defines the optimal windows in $`M_{\tau \tau }`$ and $`M_{\tau \tau }^T`$ that will be used to confirm the existence of a signal as well as to estimate the significance for the signal observation, Cut III(A):

$`m_h0.5\mathrm{\Delta }M<M_{\tau \tau }<m_h+3\mathrm{\Delta }M,`$
$`m_h4\mathrm{\Delta }M<M_{\tau \tau }^T<m_h+3\mathrm{\Delta }M,`$
for pure hadronic decay of both $`\tau `$’s and Cut III(B):

$`m_h\mathrm{\Delta }M<M_{\tau \tau }<m_h+3\mathrm{\Delta }M,`$
$`m_h4.5\mathrm{\Delta }M<M_{\tau \tau }^T<m_h+3\mathrm{\Delta }M,`$
for others channels of $`\tau `$ decay, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=\sqrt{m_h/\text{GeV}}`$ GeV.

In the case of the QCD faked background to $`\tau `$, we do not directly go through the procedure outlined in Cut I as for the signal. Instead, we use the probability for a jet to be misidentified as a $`\tau _j`$ to be $`0.5\%`$ , and $`\tau _l`$ to be $`0.01\%`$. We then apply Cuts II and III. Since the probability for QCD background to fake two leptons is very small, the background to the di-lepton channels is negligible in comparison with the signal, especially with the irreducible $`Zj`$ background.

With the substantial efforts discussed above, we have effectively suppressed the backgrounds with respect to the signal. The signal efficiencies are at a percentage level. Table 1 shows the final number of events for all signal channels and their corresponding backgrounds at the Tevatron with an integrated luminosity 10 fb-1. Also shown in Table 1 are the signal-to-background ratios (S/B). Because of the overwhelming QCD background, the S/B ratio is the highest for $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ channel of $`\tau `$ decay ($`68\%`$), intermediate for $`j\mathrm{}`$ channel ($`45\%`$), and the lowest for $`jj`$ channel ($`3\%`$). With respect to $`S/\sqrt{B}`$ and $`S/B`$ ratios, the $`j\mathrm{}`$ channel is probably the best one for signal identification. Nevertheless, the rather small $`S/B`$ ratios render the signal observation systematically challenging.

Our main results, the luminosities required for a $`95\%`$ CL exclusion or a $`5\sigma `$ discovery of the SM Higgs boson via $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV for $`m_h=120,130`$ and $`140`$ GeV, are summarized in Table 2. A $`95\%`$ CL exclusion limit for the SM Higgs boson in the mass range $`120140`$ GeV via this single channel $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ would require a total integrated luminosity of $`1432`$ fb-1. To gain an idea on the signal observation in theories beyond the SM, also given in Table 2 are the necessary enhancement factors $`\kappa `$ over the SM rate ($`\sigma _{new}=\kappa \sigma _{SM}`$) for reaching $`95\%`$ and 5$`\sigma `$ signal with 2 and 15 fb-1 luminosity.

The $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel can provide new addition in combination with the other promising channels such as $`Wh,Zh`$ and $`hWW`$  to improve the overall observability of the SM Higgs boson. To illustrate the potential improvement, we estimate the total integrated luminosities needed for the $`95\%,3\sigma ,5\sigma `$ effects for $`m_h=120140`$ GeV by combining the Run II report  and our $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ results, according to a relation

$$L^1=L_1^1+L_2^1,$$

as shown in Table 3. We have followed the convention from the Run II report that the numbers in Table 3 correspond to the delivered machine luminosity; while the significance values have been evaluated by combining CDF and D0 (doubling the delivered luminosity). Especially for the most difficult region $`m_h140`$ GeV, the luminosity needed may be reduced by about 40% with the addition of the $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel.

In the minimal supersymmetric models, there are two more neutral Higgs bosons $`H,A`$ to contribute to the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode. In addition, there are new squark-loop contributions to Higgs boson production through gluon fusion. In our analyses, we use HIGLU program  for the calculation of the cross section of Higgs production process in the MSSM. For simplicity, we fix the squark masses to 1 TeV. We find that left-right squark mixing is not a crucial factor in our analysis. This simplification allows us to illustrate the potential of the Tevatron search by the Higgs sector parameters $`M_A\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the conventional way in a two dimensional plane. In Fig. 2(a) we plot contours of the enhancement factor over the SM expectation which is defined to be the rate at $`m_h^{SM}=M_A`$. The large enhancement above the SM mainly comes from the new channels from $`H,A`$. The contributing Higgs states are also indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 2(a) with the explicit labels $`A,h,H`$. Also, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ will enhance the effects from bottom/sbottom loops. On the other hand, the decay branching fractions to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ may be enhanced by about $`30\%`$ at most for various choices of the SUSY parameters. For $`M_A150180`$ GeV, $`H,A\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ is still observable; while the SM mode dies away due to the opening of the dominant $`WW,ZZ`$ channels. When combing the cross sections from channels of $`A`$ and $`h`$ production, we have used Gaussian combination criteria. In Fig. 2(b) we show the $`95\%`$ CL exclusion and 5$`\sigma `$ discovery contours in MSSM for the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode at the Tevatron. The direct searches at LEP2  have put a lower bound on the parameters as indicated by the dotted curve. The shaded region is the uncovered $`5\sigma `$ hole at Run II with 15 fb-1  without considering the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode. We see that the addition of the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ mode could reach 5$`\sigma `$ (2$`\sigma `$) full coverage for SUSY Higgs parameters with 15 fb-1 (2 fb-1). As a final remark, we note that in some region of the parameter space $`hb\overline{b}`$ Yukawa coupling is accidentally suppressed due to radiative effects. This could lead to a substantial increase of the $`h\tau \overline{\tau }`$ branching fraction . However, we found that this gain in branching fraction is mostly balanced by the reduction in the Higgs production via the $`hb\overline{b}`$ coupling.

In summary, we have studied the potential of the upgraded Tevatron for searches of the neutral Higgs boson in the SM and in the MSSM via the $`\tau \tau +j`$ channel. We found that with this single channel alone, the total integrated luminosity needed for a $`95\%`$ CL exclusion is $`1432`$ fb-1 for $`m_h=120140`$ GeV. The addition of the $`h\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel could improve the SM Higgs observation, as presented in Table 3. For the most difficult region $`m_h140`$ GeV, the luminosity needed for a 5$`\sigma `$ signal could be reduced by about $`40\%`$. However, we must note that due to the rather small signal-to-background ratios, the search for $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channels is systematically challenging in the Standard Model case.

For the case of MSSM, the signal cross sections can be enhanced by a significant factor due to the addition of $`H,A`$, and due to high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or squark-loop contributions. We found 5$`\sigma `$ (2$`\sigma `$) full coverage for the SUSY Higgs parameters with 15 fb-1 (2 fb-1) by including the $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ channel. Our analyses is applicable for other generic neutral scalar or pseudo-scalar via gluon fusion production and with substantial branching fraction to $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. More details of our analyses will be presented in an extended version of this work .

Acknowledgments: We thank M. Carena, J. Conway, Y. Gershtein and S. Mrenna for discussions, C. Wagner and D. Morrissey for pointing out an inconsistency between Tables II and III in the earlier version. This work was supported in part by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), by Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX), and in part by US DOE grants DE-FG02-95ER40896 and DE-FG02-97ER41022 and in part by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation.


text:
# A Computer Program to visualize Gravitational Lenses

## 1 Introduction

Computer visualization is nowadays an important field of scientific research, because it often allows a better understanding of natural phenomena.

Gravitational lenses (hereafter GL), predicted by Einstein’s general relativity theory, deflect the light rays coming from a distant object. GL’s allow the formation of mutiple images of the same source object. Moreover this gravitational effect opens the possiblity of determining the mass of the deflector and the computation of the age of the Universe (Hubble’s constant), as well as other lens parameters and cosmological parameters.

An interactive computer program to visualize this gravitational effect has been developed. The program was written in the C programming language and uses the Xforms (tool kit), Mesa (graphic library) and Imlib (image library). The program runs on systems with Linux or Unix. An SGI version of this program is also available.

In the first section the gravitational lens effect is briefly reviewed. The visualization program is presented in the second section. In the third section some applications are shown: image sequences and easy visual modelling. Improved versions of this program can be produced and the author wishes to invite the interested reader to participate in this process. The author is preparing a website for downloading this program:

http://cinespa.ucr.ac.cr/software/xfgl/index.html

## 2 The Gravitational Lens Theory

### 2.1 The Gravitational Lens Equation

Due to the curvature of space-time, light rays coming from a distant source object (quasar, star or galaxy) are deflected when passing close to a lens or deflector (star, galaxy or cluster of galaxies). For weak gravitational fields the Post-Newtonian approximation is applicable. Under this approximation the deflection angle or Einstein’s angle does not depend on the direction of propagation and the trayectory are approximated by straight lines. This gravitational light deflection is depicted in figure 1. From this figure an equation, the GL equation or the ray tracing equation11footnotemark: 1 which is obeyed by light rays passing near a lens object can be deduced:

$$𝐲=𝐱𝜶(𝐱),$$
(1)
where

$$𝜶(𝐱)=\frac{1}{\pi }\kappa (𝐱^{})\frac{(𝐱𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|^2}d^2𝐱^{},$$
(2)
$$𝐲=\frac{𝜼}{\eta _0}=\frac{D_s𝜷}{\eta _0},𝐱=\frac{𝝃}{\xi _0}=\frac{D_l𝜽}{\xi _0},\eta _0=\frac{D_s}{D_l}\xi _0$$
(3)
and $`\xi _0`$ is the length scale on the lens surface. The angle $`𝜶(𝐱)`$ is called the Einstein’s angle. The surface density of the lens is given by

$$\kappa (𝐱)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝝃)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}`$ represents the critical density:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}=\frac{c^2D_s}{4\pi D_lD_{ls}}.$$
(5)
A generalization of equation (1) which considers the perturbation of a macrolens (a galaxy or cluster of galaxies) is given by

$$𝐲=𝐱𝜶(𝐱),$$
(6)
where the matrix $``$ is given by the expression

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\kappa \gamma \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \gamma \mathrm{sin}\varphi & \\ \gamma \mathrm{sin}\varphi & 1\kappa +\gamma \mathrm{cos}\varphi & \end{array}\right).$$

The components of the matrix depend upon the parameters $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$ and $`\varphi `$ which are respectively the dimensionless constant surface mass density, the dimensionless shear of the macrolens and the shear angle. The microlens (a star in a galaxy or a galaxy in a cluster of galaxies) is represented by means of the Einstein’s angle $`𝜶(𝐱)`$.

### 2.2 Gravitational Lens Models

To simulate Einstein’s angle there are several models for the lens mass distribution. The gravitational lens models are divided as follows:

* Parametric models
* Non-parametric models.

At the present time the program has only parametric models11footnotemark: 1-33footnotemark: 3. The non-parametric models are lately used to model gravitational lenses44footnotemark: 4-66footnotemark: 6. For weak lensing the Kaiser-Squires method can be applied to model lenses 77footnotemark: 7-1010footnotemark: 10. In the program these techniques have not been implemented.

The program includes the following parametric models:

* Chang Refsdal Model,
* Double Plane Lens,
* Transparent Sphere,
* Singular Isothermal Sphere,
* Nonsingular Isothermal Sphere,
* Elliptical Model,
* King Model,
* Truncated King Model,
* Hubble Model,
* De Vaucouleur Model,
* Spiral Model,
* Multipole Lens,
* Rotation Lens and
* Uniform Ring.

The interested reader is refered to the literature for a discussion of these models11footnotemark: 1-33footnotemark: 3.

## 3 The Visualization program

### 3.1 Description of the program

The program was written in C and the Mesa graphic libraries (free version of the Open GL) have been used. These graphic subroutines are available for Unix or Linux systems. The XForms Library was used to designed the control panel program1212footnotemark: 12 (see fig. 2). The Image Library permits to load an image file on the program. These libraries can be found at the following addresses:
http://bragg.phys.uwm.edu/xform
http://www.mesa3d.org/
ftp://ftp.enlightenment.org/pub/enlightenment/imlib/

The program creates a window: the Control Panel (see fig. 2). The user can control all item on it by clicking. A second window, the Image window, appears when the Image Window button is clicked on this panel (see fig. 3). The Help button on the panel give the user a concise program guide.

A version of this program which employs the SGI Graphic Libraries1111footnotemark: 11 is also available.

### 3.2 The Control Panel

All the objects are adjusted interactively with the mouse. This control panel interface has the following items:

* Source Menu (Filled Circle, Coloured Rings and Image File)
* Model Menu (the aforementioned models)
* Source Positioner
* Three counters, two for source positioning (X, Y) and one for adjusting the pixel resolution (N)
* Two inputs for positioning the observed lense images (X, Y)
* Buttons (Model Paramters, Image Window, Source, Images, Smooth, Grid, R Plot, R\_E, File, Add, Replace, Remove, Clear, OBIP, Save, Help, Exit),
* Sliders (if one chooses a model, then the corresponding sliders appear)
* A browser for showing the observed lense images

For a detailed discussion of these items see the manual program (to get the program manual send an email to the author or click the Help button on the control panel).

### 3.3 The Image Window

On this window the events (images, ray plot, etc.) appear. All variations of the parameters on the control panel are shown immediately on this window. To show the images of a chosen gravitational lens model the ray tracing method has been used. The caustic is represented by means of the ray plot method11footnotemark: 1.

## 4 Applications

In this section two of many applications of the program are discussed:

* Image sequences
* Easy visual modeling

An image sequence for an elliptical model and a visual modeling of the gravitational lens $`2237+0305`$ will be shown.

### 4.1 Image sequences

An image sequence is easy to generate with this program. The structure of the images for different positions of the source can be investigated by means of such an image sequence.

An Elliptical Lens

A sequence of images is shown in figure 4. The sequence begins on the top left-hand-side panel of the sequence. The source, concentric rings, moves from left to right. The source is not shown, only the images. The best possible resolution given by the control panel was used. In this sequence the shear $`\gamma `$ and the constant surface mass density $`\sigma `$ are non zero and the shear angle $`\varphi =0`$. There are two circles: the Einstein ring or lens scale and the core radius. The formation of a small and a large arc can be seen. In the middle of the sequence one can recognize the deformation of the Einstein ring in an ellipse. Due to the core radius an image appears in the centre, which fuses with an arc, in the case that the source moves away.

### 4.2 Easy Visual Modeling

Here an easy visual modeling of the gravitational lens system $`2237+0305`$ is shown. The model images are considered well-fit when they overlap most of the area of the observed images (represented through concentric circles), as visually estimated. At the present time a fitting subroutine is not implemented. When such a subroutine is included, this program would become an excellent tool to model gravitational lenses.

Visual Model for the Gravitational Lens $`2237+0305`$

The system $`2237+0305`$ \[see fig. 5\] was discovered in 19851313footnotemark: 13. Due to its unusual shape this lens is called Einstein cross. Attempts to model this lens have been carried out1414footnotemark: 14-2020footnotemark: 20

The data used in tables 1 and 2, was taken from Kent and Falco, and Schneider et al.1515footnotemark: 15-1616footnotemark: 16 The cosmological distances of table 2 were calculated using the equations from Schneider et al.1515footnotemark: 15 ($`H_0=100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and $`q_0=1/2`$).

Since the positions of the observed images \[table 1\] are too small to be shown in the image window, a scale factor of $`200`$ was chosen (the scale factor can be chosen by the user). Then all positions are multiplied by this scale. The positions are also rotated around the $`X`$ axis.

The lens galaxy is elliptical, so it is reasonable to choose an elliptical model in the program, although one can also try other models1515footnotemark: 15-1818footnotemark: 18. A lens model of $`N`$ ($`N=6724`$) point masses was used by Schenider et al.1515footnotemark: 15. An elliptical King model and an elliptical de Vaucouleur model were used in Kent and Falco1616footnotemark: 16. In Rix et al. a the de Vaucouleur model was used1717footnotemark: 17. A general SIS model with shear was used in Wambsganss and Paczynski1818footnotemark: 18.

The lens major axis has a particular orientation, therefore the coordinate system is rotated around an angle $`\theta `$, so that the elliptical potential has the same orientation. The angle $`\theta `$ is taken as a parameter. The constant surface mass density and the shear are zero. The visual fitting is shown in fig. 5. In table 3 the model parameters of the elliptical model are shown. These were found through variation of sliders and source positioners.

The data for the lens scale (Einstein Radius), the core scale and the source position must be divided by $`200`$. So one obtained $`\alpha _E=0^{\prime \prime }.90`$ , $`\theta _c=0^{\prime \prime }.35`$ and $`(X,Y)=(0^{\prime \prime }.14,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{\prime \prime }.06)`$ . The Einstein radius and core radius are determined by means of the equations $`_E=\alpha _ED_l`$ and $`r_c=\theta _cD_l`$ ($`_E=0.48\mathrm{Kpc}`$ and $`r_c=0.19\mathrm{Kpc}`$).

From the following equation the lens mass can be found

$$_E^2=\frac{4GM}{c^2}\frac{D_lD_{ls}}{D_s}.$$

The velocity dispersion is determined through an equation from Blandford and Kochanek2121footnotemark: 21-2222footnotemark: 22.

The major axis angle can be calculated from $`\theta ^{}=90^{}+\theta `$ ($`\theta =24^{}`$).

In table 4 all values for the different models are shown: the elliptical King model (model A)1616footnotemark: 16, the de Vaucouleur model (model B, the source position is referred to the image A)1717footnotemark: 17, the generalized SIS model (model C)1818footnotemark: 18 and the elliptical model. The models A, B and C were fitted. Our elliptical model is not reliable, because the program does not possess a fitting subroutine, but one can estimate and compare with other models.

## 5 Conclusions and Future Work

From both the didactical and scientific point of view a program to visualize the gravitational lenses is useful. This versatile program works quickly and interactively with the mouse.

With this computer program the user has a tool to visualize and to visually model gravitational lenses. The applications of the program, we have showed in this paper, are:

* Sequences of images
* Easy visual modeling

The user can produce sequences of images for a chosen gravitational lens model. Through the variation of model parameters he or she can investigate the structure of the images. The user can also attempt to visually model observed gravitational lenses. The observed position data can be used as input data and the model parameters can be easily varied in order to approximate the observed images. So the user can quickly obtain model parameter estimations. Some observed lenses have already been modeled and the user can compare those results with the output from a chosen model of the control panel.

Future Work

The program can be improved by the inclusion of some additional subroutines:

* Contour subroutine for the isochrones (time delay)
* Light curves subroutine (dependence of brightness with time)
* Subroutine for computing the image magnification
* Subroutine to calculate critical curves and caustics
* Fitting subroutine
* Root finder subroutine
* Subroutine to load images of observed gravitational lenses
* Subroutine with more complex (elliptical) models
* Subroutine for superposition of models in different lens planes
* Subroutine with cosmic string lens models
* Subroutine for non-parametric reconstruction
* Kaiser-Squires Subroutine

The author is working on implementing some of the abovementioned improvements.

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank M. Magallón for his contribution in developing part of the software discussed in this paper.

References

11footnotemark: 1

P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, E.E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses, A&A Library, Springer, Heidelberg, 1992.

22footnotemark: 2

J. Huchra, Galatic Structure And Evolution, in R. Meyers, Encyclopedia of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 203-19, Academic Press, Inc., London, 1989.

33footnotemark: 3

F. Frutos-Alfaro, Die interaktive Visualisierung von Gravitationslinsen, PHD Thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, 1998.

44footnotemark: 4

P. Saha, L. L. R. Williams, Non-parametric reconstruction of the galaxy-lens in PG 1115 + 080, astro-ph/9707356, 31 July 1997.

55footnotemark: 5

H. M. Abdel Salam, P. Saha, L. L. R. Williams, Non-parametric reconstruction of cluster mass distribution from strong lensing: modelling Abell 370, MNRAS, 294, 734-746, 1998.

66footnotemark: 6

H. M. Abdel Salam, P. Saha, L. L. R. Williams, Non-parametric Reconstruction of Abell 2218 from Combine Weak and Strong Lensing, AJ, 116, 4, 1541-1552, 1998.

77footnotemark: 7

N. Kaiser, G. Squires, Mapping the Dark Matter with Weak Gravitational Lensing, ApJ, 404, 441-450, 1993.

88footnotemark: 8

P. Schneider, C. Seitz, Steps towards nonlinear cluster inversion gravitational distortions I, A&A, 294, 411-431, 1995.

99footnotemark: 9

C. Seitz, P. Schneider, Steps towards nonlinear cluster inversion gravitational distortions II, A&A, 297, 287-299, 1995.

1010footnotemark: 10

C. Seitz, P. Schneider, Steps towards nonlinear cluster inversion gravitational distortions III, A&A, 318, 687-699, 1997.

1111footnotemark: 11

Silicon Graphics, Graphics Library Programming Guide, Silicon Graphics, Inc., 1991.

1212footnotemark: 12

M.H. Overmars, Forms Library: A Graphical User Interface Toolkit for Silicon Graphics Workstations, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University, 1991.

1313footnotemark: 13

J. Huchra, M. Gorenstein, S. Kent, I. Shapiro, G. Smith, E. Horine, R. Perley, $`2237+0305`$: A New and Unusual Gravitational Lens, AJ, 90, 691-6, 1985.

1414footnotemark: 14

H. Yee, High-Resolution Imaging of the Gravitational Lens System Candidate $`2237+030`$, AJ, 95, 1331-39, 1988.

1515footnotemark: 15

D. Schneider, E. Turner, J. Gunn, J. Hewitt, M. Schmidt and C. Lawrence, High-Resolution CCD Imaging And Derived Gravitational Lens Models of $`2237+0305`$, AJ, 95, 6, 1619-28, 1988.

1616footnotemark: 16

S. Kent, E. Falco, A Model For The Gravitational Lens System $`2237+0305`$, AJ, 96, 1570-74, 1988.

1717footnotemark: 17

H. Rix, D. Schneider and J. Bahcall, Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field Camera Imaging of the Gravitational Lens 2237 + 0305, AJ, 104, 959-67, 1992.

1818footnotemark: 18

J. Wambsganss, B. Paczynski Parameter Degeneracy in Models of the Quadruple Lens System Q $`2237+0305`$, AJ, 108, 1156-62, 1994.

1919footnotemark: 19

M. Irwin, Photometric Variations in the Q 2237 + 0305 System: First Detection of a Microlensing Event, A. J., 98, 1989-94, 1989.

2020footnotemark: 20

K-H. Chae, D.A. Turnshek, V.K. Khersonsky, Realistic Grid of Models for the Gravitationally Lensed Einstein Cross (Q2237+0305) and its Relation to Observational Constraints, Ap. J., 495, 609-616, 1998.

2121footnotemark: 21

R. Blandford, C. Kochanek, Gravitational Imaging By Isolated Elliptical Potential Wells. I. Cross Sections, ApJ, 321, 658-75, 1987.

2222footnotemark: 22

C. Kochanek, R. Blandford, Gravitational Imaging By Isolated Elliptical Potential Wells. II. Probability Distributions, ApJ, 321, 676-85, 1987.