text:
# Smooth quiver quotient varieties

## 1. Introduction and motivation

Many problems in representation theory can be reduced to representations of quivers. Suppose $`A`$ is a finitely generated algebra and $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_nA`$ is the space of $`n`$-dimensional complex representations of $`A`$. On this space is an action of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$ and one can divide out this action by taking the affine quotient to obtain a new space $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_nA:=\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_nA/\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$ classifying the equivalence classes of $`n`$-dimensional semisimple representations of $`A`$. (see )

If $`W\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_nA`$ is a semisimple representation, one can wonder what the structure of $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_nA`$ around the point $`p`$ corresponding to the equivalence class of $`W`$ looks like. If $`W`$ is a smooth point in $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_nA`$ there is a neighborhood of $`p`$ that is étale (or analytically) isomorphic to a neighborhood of the zero representation in the quotient space, $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\alpha _p},Q_p`$ of a quiver setting $`(Q_p,\alpha _p)`$ which is called the local quiver setting of $`p`$. This local quiver setting depends on the structure of $`W`$ as a direct sum of simple representations

$$W:=S_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}S_k^{a_k}.$$

(For the exact construction see )

So if one for example asks whether $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_nA`$ is smooth in the point $`p`$ one can as well ask whether its local quiver setting has a quotient space that is smooth in zero. As we will see below this is the same as asking whether this quotient space is an affine space or whether the corresponding ring of invariant functions is a polynomial ring. Such quiver settings will be called coregular.

In this paper we present a method to determine if a random given quiver setting $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is indeed coregular. Because the quotient space $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ can be seen as the product of the quotient spaces of the strongly connected components of $`(Q,\alpha )`$ (see lemma 2.4), we can restrict to strongly connected quiver settings.

The method will consist of a number of allowed reduction steps. Using these steps one attempts to simplify the quiver setting as much as possible. When this is done one has to check whether the reduced quiver setting is equal to one of $`3`$ basic quiver settings that have a smooth quotient space. The main theorem we will prove can be formulated as:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`(Q,\alpha )`$ be a genuine strongly connected quiver setting and $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ is the quiver setting obtained after all possible reductions of the form

1. If $`_{j=1}^ki_j\alpha _v`$ or $`_{j=1}^lu_j\alpha _v`$ we delete the vertex $`v`$.

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right].$$
2. Remove the loops on a vertex with dimension $`1`$.

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right].$$
3. Remove the only loop on a vertex with dimension $`k>1`$ which has a neighborhood like in one of the pictures below.

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right],$$

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right].$$

$`(Q,\alpha )`$ is coregular if and only if $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ is one of the three settings below:

$$\text{}\text{}\text{}.$$

## 2. Quiver representations

In this section we recall some generalities about representations of quivers. A *quiver* $`Q=(V,A,s,t)`$ is a quadruple consisting of a set of vertices $`V`$, a set of arrows $`A`$ and 2 maps $`s,t:AV`$ which assign to each arrow its starting and terminating vertex. We also denote this as

$$\text{}.$$

The *Euler form* of $`Q`$ is the bilinear form $`\chi _Q:^{\mathrm{\#}V}\times ^{\mathrm{\#}V}`$ defined by the matrix

$$m_{ij}=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\#}\{a|\text{}\},$$

where $`\delta `$ is the Kronecker delta. It is easy to see that that a quiver is uniquely defined by its Euler form.

A *dimension vector* of a quiver is a map $`\alpha :V`$, the size of a dimension vector is defined as $`|\alpha |:=_{vV}\alpha _v`$. A couple $`(Q,\alpha )`$ consisting of a quiver and a dimension vector is called a *quiver setting* and for every vertex $`vV`$, $`\alpha _v`$ is refered to as the dimension of $`v`$. If no vertex has dimension zero the setting is called *genuine*. If we draw pictures of quiver settings we will put the dimension of a vertex inside that vertex.

An *$`\alpha `$-dimensional complex representation* $`W`$ of $`Q`$ assigns to each vertex $`v`$ a linear space $`^{\alpha _v}`$ and to each arrow $`a`$ a matrix

$$W_a\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _{t(a)}\times \alpha _{s(a)}}().$$

The space of all $`\alpha `$-dimensional representations is denoted by $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$.

$$\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q:=\underset{aA}{}\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _{t(a)}\times \alpha _{s(a)}}().$$

To the dimension vector $`\alpha `$ we can also assign a reductive group

$$\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha :=\underset{vV}{}\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_{\alpha _𝗏}().$$

This group can be considered as the group of base changes in the vector spaces associated to the vertices. Therefore every element of this group, $`g`$, has a natural action on $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$:

$$W:=(W_a)_{aA},W^g:=(g_{t(a)}W_ag_{s(a)}^1)_{aA}$$

Two representations in $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$ are called equivalent, if they belong to the same orbit under the action of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$.

For every vertex we also define a special dimension vector

$$ϵ_v:V:w\delta _{vw},$$

and an $`ϵ_v`$-dimensional representation $`S_v`$ assigning to every arrow the zero matrix.

A representation $`W`$ is called *simple* if the only collections of subspaces $`(𝖵_v)_{vV},𝖵_v^{\alpha _v}`$ having the property

$$aA:W_a𝖵_{s(a)}𝖵_{t(a)}$$

are the trivial ones (i.e. the collection of zero-dimensional subspaces and ($`^{\alpha _v})_{vV}`$).

The direct sum $`WW^{}`$ of two representations $`W,W^{}`$ has as dimension vector the sum of the two dimension vectors and as matrices $`(WW^{})_a:=W_aW_a^{}`$. A representation equivalent to a direct sum of simple representations is called *semisimple*.

From the algebraic point of view one can look at the ring of polynomial functions over $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$ which is a polynomial ring denoted by $`[\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q]`$. On this ring there is a corresponding action of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$ and one can look at the corresponding subring of functions that are invariant under this action:

$$[\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q]^{\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha }:=\{f[\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q]|f^g=f\}.$$

The variety corresponding to this subring is denoted by $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ and by  and  this space classifies the equivalence classes semisimple $`\alpha `$-dimensional representations of $`Q`$ which are in fact the closed $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$-orbits in $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$. The ring of invariants will also be denoted by $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$.

If $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is a smooth variety then it is an affine space, this follows immediately from ( 4.3B lemma 1 p.139).

###### Theorem 2.1.

Suppose $`V`$ is a complex vector space with a linear action of a reductive group $`𝖦`$. If the affine quotient $`V/𝖦`$ is smooth in the point corresponding to $`0`$ then $`V/G=^t`$ for a $`t`$. The corresponding ring of invariants $`[V]^𝖦`$ is then a polynomial ring.

If we want to study the ring of invariants it is important to know by what functions it is generated. The solution to this problem is given in the article by Le Bruyn and Procesi about semisimple quiver representations .

A sequence of arrows $`a_1\mathrm{}a_p`$ in a quiver Q is called a *path of length $`p`$* if $`s(a_i)=t(a_{i+1})`$, this path is called a cycle if $`s(a_p)=t(a_1)`$.

To a cycle we can associate a polynomial function

$$f_c:\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q:W\mathrm{𝖳𝗋}(W_{a_1}\mathrm{}W_{a_p})$$

which is definitely $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$-invariant. Two cycles that are a cyclic permutation of each other give the same polynomial invariant, because of the basic properties of the trace map. Two such cycles are called equivalent.

A cycle $`a_1\mathrm{}a_p`$ is called *primitive* if every arrow has a different starting vertex. This means that the cycle runs through each vertex at most $`1`$ time. It is easy to see that every cycle has a decomposition in primitive cycles. It is however not true that the corresponding polynomial invariant decomposes to a product of the polynomial functions of the primitive cycles.

We will call a cycle *quasi-primitive* for a dimension vector $`\alpha `$ if the vertices that are ran through more than once, have dimension bigger than $`1`$. By cyclicly permuting a cycle and splitting the trace of a product of two $`1\times 1`$ matrices into a product of traces, we can always decompose an $`f_c`$ into a product of traces of quasi-primitive cycles. We now have the following result

###### Theorem 2.2 (Le Bruyn-Procesi).

$`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$ is generated by all $`f_c`$ where $`c`$ is a quasi-primitive cycle with length smaller than $`|\alpha |^2+1`$. We can turn $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$ into a graded ring by giving $`f_c`$ the length of its cycle as degree.

This result can be used to prove and interesting lemma about the coregularity of subquivers.

###### Definition 2.1.

Define a partial ordering on the set of quivers in the following way. A quiver $`Q^{}=(V^{},A^{},s^{},t^{})`$ is smaller than $`Q=(V,A,s,t)`$ if (up to isomorphism)

$$V^{}V,A^{}A,s^{}=s|_A^{}\text{ and }t^{}=t|_A^{},$$

$`Q^{}`$ is called a *subquiver* of $`Q`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is smooth and $`Q^{}Q`$ then $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}`$ is also smooth, where $`\alpha ^{}:=\alpha |_V^{}`$

###### Proof.

We have an embedding

by assigning to the additional arrows in $`Q`$ zero matrices. So

$$\text{}\text{}.$$

Because the action of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha `$ on $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}`$ reduces to that of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_\alpha ^{}`$, $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}]`$ is a quotient ring of $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]=[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$. The only relations that we have to divide out are the $`X_i`$ that correspond to a cycle containing one of the additional arrows we put zero, so $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}]`$ is just a polynomial ring with fewer variables. $`\mathrm{}`$

Two vertices $`v`$ and $`w`$ are said to be *strongly connected* if there is a path from $`v`$ to $`w`$ and vice versa. It is easy to check that this relation is an equivalence so we can divide the set of vertices into equivalence classes $`V_i`$. The subquiver $`Q_i`$ having $`V_i`$ as set of vertices, and as arrows all arrows between vertices of $`V_i`$ is called a *strongly connected component* of $`Q`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

1.
2. If $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is a quiver setting then

$$[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]:=\underset{i}{}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\alpha _i}Q_i]$$

where $`Q_i=(V_i,A_i,s_i,t_i)`$ are the strongly connected components of $`Q`$ and $`\alpha _i:=\alpha |_{V_i}`$.
3. $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is smooth if and only if the $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q_i`$ of all its strongly connected components are smooth.

###### Proof.

1.
2. By theorem 2.2 $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$ is generated by the traces of cycles. Every cycle belongs to a certain connected component of $`Q`$. Between $`f_c`$’s coming from cycles of different components there cannot be any relations, so we can consider the ring of invariants as a tensor-products of the rings of invariants different strongly connected components.
3. If all the strongly connected components are coregular the ring of invariants of the total quiver setting will be the tensor product of polynomial rings and hence a polynomial ring. The inverse implication follows directly from lemma 2.3.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. Reduction Steps

As we stated in the introduction we want to apply some kind of reduction on quivers. By this we mean that if we start from a general quiver setting $`(Q,\alpha )`$, we want to construct a new quiver setting with fewer vertices or arrows but with the same or a closely related ring of invariants. In this section we will consider 3 different types of reductions.

First we have to recall a result from

###### Theorem 3.1.

Consider the vector space $`\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{k\times l}()\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{l\times m}()`$ together with an action of $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_l()`$:

$$(M_1,M_2)^g:=(M_1g,g^1M_2).$$

The quotient space $`\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{k\times l}()\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{l\times m}()/\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_l()`$ is isomorphic to the space of all $`k\times m`$-matrices of rank smaller then $`l`$ (so if $`lk`$ or $`lm`$ there is no restriction on the matrices and the quotient space is $`\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{k\times m}()`$). Identification happens via the $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_l()`$-invariant map

$$\pi :(M_1,M_2)M_1M_2.$$

This lemma can now be applied to quiver settings:

###### Lemma 3.2 (Reduction $`_I`$: Removing Vertices).

Suppose $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is a quiver setting and $`v`$ is a vertex without loops such that

$$\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_v)0\text{ or }\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha )0.$$

Construct a new quiver setting $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ by changing $`Q`$:

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right]$$

(some of the top and bottom vertices in the picture may be the same). These two quiver settings now have isomorphic rings of invariants.

###### Proof.

We can split up the representation space into the following direct sum

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q& =\underset{\text{arrows starting in }v}{\underset{}{\underset{a,s(a)=v}{}\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _{t(a)}\times \alpha _{s(a)}}()}}\underset{\text{arrows terminating in }v}{\underset{}{\underset{a,t(a)=v}{}\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _{t(a)}\times \alpha _{s(a)}}()}}\text{ Rest}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{_{s(a)=v}\alpha _{t(a)}\times \alpha _v}()\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _v\times _{t(a)=v}\alpha _{s(a)}}()\text{ Rest}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _v\chi (\alpha ,ϵ_v)\times \alpha _v}()\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _v\times \alpha _v\chi (ϵ_v,\alpha )}()\text{ Rest}\hfill \end{array}$$

The $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_{\alpha _v}()`$-part only acts on the first two terms and not on the rest term. So if we take the quotient corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝖦𝖫}_{\alpha _v}()`$ we only have to consider the first two terms.

By the previous lemma and keeping in mind that either $`\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_v)0`$ or $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha )0`$ the quotient space is equal to

$$\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _v\chi (\alpha ,ϵ_v)\times \alpha _v\chi (ϵ_v,\alpha )}()\text{ Rest}$$

This space can be decomposed in the following way:

$$\underset{\begin{array}{cc}a,& t\left(a\right)=v\\ b,& s\left(b\right)=v\end{array}}{}\mathrm{𝖬𝖺𝗍}_{\alpha _{t(b)}\times \alpha _{s(a)}}()\text{ Rest}$$

This direct sum is the same as the representation space of the new quiver setting $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.3 (Reduction $`_{II}`$: Removing loops of dimension $`1`$).

Suppose that $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is a quiver setting and $`v`$ a vertex with $`k`$ loops and $`\alpha _v=1`$. Take $`Q^{}`$ the corresponding quiver without loops, then the following identity hold

$$[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q][\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q^{}][X_1,\mathrm{},X_k]$$

###### Proof.

This follows easily from 2.2 and the fact a cycle containing such a loop can never be quasi-primitive unless it is the loop itself. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.4 (Reduction $`_{III}`$: Removing a loop of higher dimension).

Suppose $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is a quiver setting and $`v`$ is a vertex of dimension $`k2`$ with one loop such that

$$\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_v)=1\text{ or }\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha )=1.$$

Construct a new quiver setting $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ by changing $`(Q,\alpha )`$:

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right],$$

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right].$$

We have the following identity:

$$[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q][\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}][X_1,\mathrm{},X_k]$$

###### Proof.

We only prove this for the first case. Call the loop in the first quiver $`\mathrm{}`$ and the incoming arrow $`a`$. Call the incoming arrows in the second quiver $`c_i,i=0,\mathrm{},k1`$.

There is a map

$$\pi :\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}\times ^k:V(V^{},\mathrm{𝖳𝗋}V_{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝖳𝗋}V_{\mathrm{}}^k)\text{ with }V_{c_i}^{}:=V_{\mathrm{}}^iV_a.$$

Suppose $`(V^{},x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}\times ^k`$ such that $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ corresponds to the traces of powers of an invertible diagonal matrix $`D`$ with $`k`$ different eigenvalues ($`\lambda _i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$) and the matrix $`A`$ made of the columns ($`V_{c_i},i=0,\mathrm{},k1`$) is invertible. The image of representation

$$V\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q:V_a=V_{c_0}^{},V_{\mathrm{}}=A\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _k^{k1}\end{array}\right)^1D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _k^{k1}\end{array}\right)A^1$$

under $`\pi `$ is $`(V^{},x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ because

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V_{\mathrm{}}^iV_a& =A\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _k^{k1}\end{array}\right)^1D^i\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _k^{k1}\end{array}\right)A^1V_{c_0}^{}\hfill \\ & =A\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _1^{k1}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^0& \mathrm{}& \lambda _k^{k1}\end{array}\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1^i\\ \mathrm{}\\ \lambda _k^i\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ & =V_{c_i}\hfill \end{array}$$

and the traces of $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the same as the ones of $`D`$. The conditions we imposed on $`(V^{},x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$, imply that the image of $`\pi `$, $`U`$, is dense, and hence $`\pi `$ is a dominant map.

We have a bijection between the generators of $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$ and $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}][X_1,\mathrm{},X_k]`$ by identifying

$$f_\mathrm{}^iX_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k,f_{\mathrm{}a\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}f_{\mathrm{}c_i\mathrm{}},i=0,\mathrm{},k1$$

Notice that higher orders of $`\mathrm{}`$ don’t occur because of the Caley Hamilton identity on $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$. So if $`n`$ is the number of generators of $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q]`$, we have two maps

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi & :[Y_1,\mathrm{}Y_n][\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q][\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q],\hfill \\ \hfill \varphi ^{}& :[Y_1,\mathrm{}Y_n][\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}][X_1,\mathrm{},X_k][\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}\times ^k].\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that we have that $`\varphi ^{}(f)\pi \varphi (f)`$ and $`\varphi (f)\pi ^1|_U\varphi ^{}(f)|_U`$. So if $`\varphi (f)=0`$ then also $`\varphi ^{}(f)|_U=0`$. Because $`U`$ is zariski-open and dense in $`\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha ^{}Q^{}\times ^2`$, $`\varphi ^{}(f)0`$. A similar argument holds for the inverse implication so $`\mathrm{𝖪𝖾𝗋}\varphi =\mathrm{𝖪𝖾𝗋}\varphi ^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have seen three possible reductions of a quiver setting which keep the ring of invariants intact or split of a tensor product with a polynomial ring. We can also apply the inverse steps of the reduction to add new vertices or loop while keeping the ring of invariants the same or tensoring it up with a polynomial ring. These inverse steps will be denoted as $`_{\mathrm{}}^1`$.

The previous three lemma’s can now be summarized as

###### Theorem 3.5.

Suppose that $`(Q,\alpha )`$ and $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ are two quiver settings that can be transformed into eachother using consecutive steps of the form $`_I`$, $`_I^1`$, $`_{II}`$, $`_{II}^1`$, $`_{III}`$ or $`_{III}^1`$. Then $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is coregular if and only if $`(Q^{},\alpha ^{})`$ is coregular.

###### Definition 3.1.

A quiver setting $`(Q,\alpha )`$ such that there cannot be applied any reduction steps $`_I`$, $`_{II}`$ or $`_{III}`$ will be called *reduced*.

It remains now to search for the reduced coregular quiver settings. As we will see there are only a very limited number of them. But before we do that we must introduce some techniques that allow us to rule out non coregular quiver settings.

## 4. Local Quiver settings

The technique of local quiver settings is very useful to rule out quiver settings that are not coregular. If we want to prove that a certain $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is coregular, we have to check that $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is smooth in every point. Take a point $`p\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$, this point will correspond to the isomorphism class of a semisimple representation $`V\mathrm{𝖱𝖾𝗉}_\alpha Q`$ which can be decomposed as a direct sum of simple representations.

$$V=S_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}S_k^{a_k},$$

A theorem by Le Bruyn and Procesi \[6, Theorem 5\] states that we can build a new quiver setting with a similar quotient space, but having a simpler structure.

###### Theorem 4.1 (Le Bruyn-Procesi).

For a point $`p\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ corresponding to a semisimple representation $`V=S_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}S_k^{a_k}`$, there is a quiver setting $`(Q_p,\alpha _p)`$ called the *local quiver setting* such that we have an étale isomophism between an open neighborhood of the zero representation in $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\alpha _p}Q_p`$ and an open neighborhood of $`p`$.

$`Q_p`$ has $`k`$ vertices corresponding to the set $`\{S_i\}`$ of simple factors of $`V`$ and between $`S_i`$ and $`S_j`$ the number of arrows equals

$$\delta _{ij}\chi _Q(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)$$

where $`\alpha _i`$ is the dimension vector of the simple component $`S_i`$ and $`\chi _Q`$ is the Euler form of the quiver $`Q`$. The dimension vector $`\alpha _p`$ is defined to be $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$, where the $`a_i`$ are the multiplicities of the simple components in $`V`$.

Suppose now that we want to find out whether a certain space $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is smooth. If this were the case we can choose a certain point $`p`$ and look at it locally. Because of the étale isomorphism, the corresponding local quiver $`Q_p`$ must have a quotient space $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\alpha _p}Q_p`$ that is smooth in the zero representation. Therefore by 2.1, $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\alpha _p}Q_p]`$ must be a polynomial ring and hence $`(Q_p,\alpha _p)`$ is coregular. This must hold for every point so we have to check all possible points $`p`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

$`(Q,\alpha )`$ is coregular if and only if for every possible semisimple $`\alpha `$-dimensional representation $`V`$, the corresponding local quiver setting is coregular.

One of the local quivers is equal to the original quiver, namely the one corresponding to the $`\alpha `$-dimensional zero-representation

$$\underset{vV}{}S_v^{\alpha _v},$$

This implies that we can only use this result to rule out quiver settings that are not coregular.

The structure of the local quiver setting only depends on the dimension vectors of the simple components. Therefore one can restrict to looking at decompositions of $`\alpha `$ into dimension vectors $`\beta _i`$ f.i.

$$\alpha =a_1\beta _1+\mathrm{}+a_k\beta _k\text{ (the }\beta _i\text{ need not to be different).}$$

One can now ask whether there is a semisimple representation corresponding to such a decomposition. The answer to this question will be positive whenever for all the $`\beta _i`$ there exist simple representations of that dimension vector and if there are two or more $`\beta _i`$ equal, there are at least as many different simple representation classes with dimension vector $`\beta _i`$ (otherwise you cannot make a direct sum with different simple representations having the same dimension vector).

To check the above conditions we must also have a characterization of the dimension vectors for which a quiver has simple representations. We recall a result from Le Bruyn and Procesi \[6, Theorem 4\].

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`(Q,\alpha )`$ be a genuine quiver setting. There exist simple representations of dimension vector $`\alpha `$ if and only if

* If $`Q`$ is of the form

$$\text{},\text{}\text{ or }\text{}$$

and $`\alpha =\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$ (this is the constant map from the vertices to $`1`$).
* $`Q`$ is not of the form above, but strongly connected and

$$vV:\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_v)0\text{ and }\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha )0$$

(we recall that a quiver is straongly connected if and only if between every two vertices there are paths connection them in both directions).

In both cases the dimension of $`\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_\alpha Q`$ is given by $`1\chi _Q(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. In all cases except for the one vertex without loops this dimension is bigger then $`0`$, so then there are infinite classes of simples with that dimension vector. In the case of the one vertex $`v`$ without loops, there is one unique simple representation $`S_v`$.

If $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is not genuine, the simple representations classes are in bijective correspondence to the simple representations classes of the genuine quiver setting obtained by deleting all vertices with dimension zero.

To rule out quiver settings that are not coregular we must find a local quiver setting that is not coregular or contains a non-coregular subquiver setting by lemma 2.3.

For symmetric quiver settings, these are quiver settings with a symmetric Euler form,  gives us a complete classification of all possible quiver settings that are coregular.

###### Definition 4.1.

A quiver $`Q=(V,A,s,t)`$ is said to be the *connected sum* of $`2`$ subquivers $`Q_1=(V_1,A_1,s_1,t_1)`$ and $`Q_1=(V_2,A_2,s_2,t_2)`$ at the vertex $`v`$, if the two subquivers make up the whole quiver and only intersect in the vertex $`v`$. So in symbols $`V=V_1V_2`$, $`A=A_1A_2`$, $`V_1V_2=\{v\}`$ and $`A_1A_2=\mathrm{}`$.

$$Q_1\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v\end{array}Q_2:=\text{}$$

If we connect three or more components we write $`Q_1\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v\end{array}Q_2\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ w\end{array}Q_3`$ instead of $`(Q_1\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v\end{array}Q_2)\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ w\end{array}Q_3`$ for sake of simplicity.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`(Q,\alpha )`$ be a symmetric strongly connected quiver setting without. Then $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is coregular if and only if $`Q`$ is a connected sum

$$Q:=Q_1\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v_1\end{array}Q_2\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v_2\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}\\ v_{l1}\end{array}Q_l,$$

where the $`(Q_i,\alpha _i)`$ are of the form

*
* $`\text{},kn`$
*
* $`\text{},`$

and $`\alpha _{v_j}=1,j=1,\mathrm{},l1`$

## 5. Reduced coregular quiver settings

First we look a the case of loops

###### Lemma 5.1.

Suppose $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is a coregular strongly connected quiver setting such that

$$wV:\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_w)<0\text{ and }\chi _Q(ϵ_w,\alpha )<0.$$

If $`v`$ is a vertex with loops then $`\alpha _v=1`$ or the neighborhood of $`v`$ has the following form

$$\mathrm{C1}:\text{}\text{ }\mathrm{C2}:\text{}\text{ }\mathrm{C3}:\text{}$$

###### Proof.

1. if $`\alpha _v3`$ there is only one loop in $`v`$
Suppose that $`\alpha _v3`$ there are at least two loops in $`v`$. In this case we have a subquiver as shown below. This subquiver can be transformed into a symmetric quiver without loops using lemma 3.2 (in both ways). By 4.4 this symmetric setting is not coregular, if $`\alpha _v>2`$.

$$\text{}\text{ }\stackrel{_I^1}{}\text{ }\underset{\text{not coregular}}{\underset{}{\text{}}}$$

2. If $`\alpha _v=2`$ we are in C1 or there is only 1 loop in $`v`$

If $`\alpha _v=2`$ and we or not in $`C1`$, $`C2`$ or $`C3`$, $`Q`$ has either at least $`3`$ loops or either two loops and a cyclic path through $`v`$ (this cyclic path can be constructed because $`Q`$ is strongly connected and contains at least $`2`$ vertices, otherwise $`(Q,\alpha )=C1`$).

In both cases we can take again the corresponding subquivers and change them to a symmetric quiver without loops which is not coregular according to 4.4.

$$\text{}\text{ }\stackrel{_I^1}{}\text{ }\underset{\text{not coregular}}{\underset{}{\text{}}}\text{ }\stackrel{_I,_I^1}{}\text{ }\text{}$$

So the only possibility with more than one loop is C1.

3. If $`\alpha _v2`$ and there is only 1 loop in $`v`$ then we are in C2 or C3

Suppose that the dimension in $`v`$ is bigger than $`1`$ and that there is only $`1`$ loop. Consider the representation

$$WL\left(\underset{wV}{}S_w^{\alpha _w1\delta _{vw}}\right)$$

where $`W`$ is a simple representation with dimension vector $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$ which is the constant map assigning $`1`$ to every vertex. Such a representation exists by 4.3 because $`Q`$ is strongly connected and $`\chi _Q(1,ϵ_w)0`$. $`S_w`$ is the representation with dimension vector $`ϵ_w`$ which assigns to every arrow a zero matrix, while $`L`$ is a representation with dimension vector $`ϵ_v`$ which assigns to the loop in $`v`$ a non-zero matrix.

For every vertex $`wv`$ with dimension bigger than $`1`$ the local quiver contains exactly one vertex corresponding to the simple representation $`S_w`$. For $`v`$ there is at least one vertex in the local quiver coming from $`L`$, which has dimension $`1`$. If $`\alpha _v>2`$ there is an extra vertex from the $`S_v`$ but we won’t consider it because it doesn’t change the proof.

The subquiver containing the vertices from $`L`$ en $`S_w,wv`$ is the same as in the original quiver because

$$\chi _Q(ϵ_u,ϵ_w)=\delta _{uw}\mathrm{\#}\{a|\text{}\}$$

In the local quiver we will draw the additional vertex coming from $`W`$ as a square. The number of arrows from another vertex coming from $`S_w`$ to the vertex coming from $`W`$ is equal to $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_w)`$ and hence one less than the number of arrows leaving $`w`$ in the original quiver. The same holds for the number of arrows in the opposite direction and for the arrows between $`L`$ and $`W`$.

We will now look closely at the neighborhood of $`v`$.

* $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})2`$ and $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_v)2`$ is impossible

The local quiver has a subquiver containing , and $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is not coregular. For $`(Q,\alpha )`$ to be a coregular quiver setting, one can suppose that either $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})=1`$ or $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_v)=1`$.
* $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})=1`$ and $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_v)2`$ implies C2.

We claim that if $`w_1`$ is the unique vertex in $`Q`$ such that $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,ϵ_{w_1})=1`$ then $`\alpha _{w_1}=1`$.

If this was not the case there is a vertex correponding to $`S_{w_1}`$ in the local quiver. If $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_{w_1})=0`$ then the dimension of the unique vertex $`w_2`$ with an arrow to $`w_1`$ has strictly bigger dimension than $`w_1`$, otherwise $`\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_{w_1})0`$. The vertex $`w_2`$ corresponds again to a vertex in the local quiver. If $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_{w_2})=0`$, the unique vertex $`w_3`$ with an arrow to $`w_2`$ has strictly bigger dimension than $`w_2`$. Proceeding this way one can find a sequence of vertices with increasing dimension, which attains a maximum in vertex $`w_k`$. Therefore $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_{w_k})1`$. This last vertex is in the local quiver connected with $`W`$, so one has a path from $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$ to $`ϵ_v`$.

$$\text{}\text{ }\stackrel{\text{local}}{}\text{ }\text{}$$

The local subquiver consisting of the vertices corresponding to $`W`$, $`S_v`$ and the $`S_{w_i}`$ is reducible via $`_I`$ to . So if $`\alpha _{w_1}>1`$, $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is not coregular.
* $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})2`$ and $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_v)=1`$ implies C3.

This follows by symmetry.
* $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})=1`$ and $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣})=1`$ implies C2 or C3.
Suppose $`w_1`$ is the unique vertex in $`Q`$ such that $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,ϵ_{w_1})=1`$ and $`w_k`$ is the unique vertex in $`Q`$ such that $`\chi _Q(ϵ_{w_k},ϵ_v)=1`$, then either $`\alpha _{w_1}=1`$ or $`\alpha _{w_k}=1`$.

If this was not the case, consider the path connecting $`w_k`$ and $`w_1`$ and call the intermediate vertices $`w_i,1<i<k`$. Starting from $`w_1`$ we go back along the path until $`\alpha _{w_i}`$ reaches a maximum. At that point we know that $`\chi _Q(\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣},ϵ_{w_k})1`$, otherwise $`\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_{w_k})0`$. In the local quiver there is a path from the vertex corresponding to $`W`$ over the ones from $`S_{w_i}`$ to $`S_v`$. Doing the same thing starting from $`w_k`$ we also have a path from the vertex from $`S_v`$ over the ones of $`S_{w_j}`$ to $`W`$.

$$\text{}\text{ }\stackrel{\text{local}}{}\text{ }\text{}$$

The subquiver consisting of $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$, $`ϵ_v`$ and the two paths through the $`ϵ_{w_i}`$ is reducible to . So if both $`\alpha _{w_1}>1`$ and $`\alpha _{w_k}>1`$, $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is not coregular.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We will now look at the reduced quiver settings without loops.

###### Lemma 5.2.

A quiver setting with dimension vector $`\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$ is coregular if and only if the number of primitive cycles equals the dimension of $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q]`$.

###### Proof.

The condition is obviously sufficient. It is also necessary because if the number of cycles is bigger than the dimension then there will be a relation between the cycles. If $`[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q]`$ is a polynomial ring, these relations must be of the form $`Y=X_1\mathrm{}X_k`$ but this is impossible because $`Y`$ is a primitive cycle. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 5.3.

A strongly connected reduced quiver setting without loops is never coregular.

###### Proof.

If $`\alpha \mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$, consider the vertex $`v`$ with the highest dimension. Then there exists indeed simple representations with dimension vector $`\alpha ϵ_v`$ because a reduced setting is never of the form

$$\text{},\text{}\text{ or }\text{}$$

and $`\alpha ϵ_v`$ satisfies the second condition of theorem 4.3:

* If there is no arrow from $`w`$ to $`v`$, $`\chi _Q(\alpha ϵ_v,ϵ_w)=\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_w)1`$.
* If there are $`k`$ arrows from $`w`$ to $`v`$ then $`\chi _Q(\alpha ,ϵ_w)\alpha _wk\alpha _v(1k)\alpha _v`$ so

$$\chi _Q(\alpha ϵ_v,ϵ_w)(1k)\alpha _v+\chi _Q(ϵ_v,ϵ_w)=(1k)\alpha _vk1.$$
* Finally for $`v=w`$

$$\chi _Q(\alpha ϵ_v,ϵ_v)=\chi (\alpha ,ϵ_v)1<1\text{ and }\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha ϵ_v)1.$$

For reasons of symmetry $`\chi _Q(ϵ,\alpha ϵ_v)`$ will also be smaller than $`0`$ for every $`wV`$.

Due to the inequality $`\chi _Q(ϵ_v,\alpha ϵ_v)1`$, the local quiver of a decomposition of the form

$$(Q,\alpha ϵ_v)(Q,ϵ_v)$$

will not be coregular.

Suppose thus $`\alpha =\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}`$. Because $`(Q,\alpha )`$ is reduced, there are at least $`2`$ arrows arriving and leaving every vertex. For a connected quiver without loops $`\mathrm{𝖣𝗂𝗆}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q]=\mathrm{\#}A\mathrm{\#}V+1`$ so we have to prove that for such quivers the number of primitive cycles is bigger than $`\mathrm{\#}A\mathrm{\#}V+1`$ or that $`Q`$ constains a subquiver that is not coregular. We will do this by induction on the vertices.

* For $`\mathrm{\#}V=2`$ the statement is true because

$$Q:=\text{},k,l2kl>k+l1.$$
* Suppose $`\mathrm{\#}V>2`$ and that we have a subquiver of the form

$$\text{}()$$

If $`k,l>1`$ we know that this subquiver is not coregular and hence neither is $`Q`$.

If both $`k`$ and $`l`$ are $`1`$ then replace this subquiver by $`1`$ vertex.

$$\left[\text{}\right]\left[\text{}\right]$$

The new quiver $`Q^{}`$ is again reduced without loops because there are at least $`4`$ arrows arriving in one of the vertices of the subquiver and we only deleted $`2`$, the same holds for the arrows leaving the subquiver. $`Q^{}`$ has one primitive cycle less than the original. By induction we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝖣𝗂𝗆}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q]& =\mathrm{𝖣𝗂𝗆}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q^{}]+1\hfill \\ & >(\mathrm{\#}A^{}\mathrm{\#}V^{}+1)+1\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\#}A\mathrm{\#}V+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

If for instance $`k>1`$ then one can look at the subquiver of $`Q`$ obtained by deleting the $`k1`$ edges, if this quiver is reduced then we are in the previous situation. If this is not the case $`Q`$ contains a subquiver of the form

$$\text{},$$

which is not coregular because it is reducible to $`()`$.
* If $`\mathrm{\#}V>2`$ and there are no subquivers of the form $`()`$, we can consider an arbitrary vertex $`v`$. Construct a new quiver $`Q^{}`$ by performing the following substitution for $`v`$

$$\left[\stackrel{l\text{ arrows}}{\stackrel{}{\underset{k\text{ arrows}}{\underset{}{\text{}}}}}\right]\left[\underset{kl\text{ arrows}}{\underset{}{\text{}}}\right].$$

$`Q^{}`$ is again reduced without loops and has the same number of primitive cycles, so by induction

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{𝖣𝗂𝗆}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q]& =\mathrm{𝖣𝗂𝗆}[\mathrm{𝗂𝗌𝗌}_{\mathrm{𝟣}\mathrm{𝟣}}Q^{}]\hfill \\ & >\mathrm{\#}A^{}\mathrm{\#}V^{}+1\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\#}A+(klkl)\mathrm{\#}V+1+1\hfill \\ & >\mathrm{\#}A\mathrm{\#}V+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

All this leads to the proof of our main theorem.

###### Proof.

Statement 1.1 follows immediately from lemmas 5.1 and 5.3 and the fact that as proven in  the quiver settings that are listed in the theorem are coregular $`\mathrm{}`$

*Acknowledgment.* I thank N. Verlinden for his generous help in the graph theoretical part of proof 5.3.


format: text

text:
# Bulk Majorons at Colliders

## I Introduction

Perhaps the simplest mechanism of lepton number violation is the spontaneous breakdown of a global symmetry. This possibility may be of relevance in nature if neutrino masses are lepton number violating. The associated Goldstone boson, the majoron, has phenomenological consequences that have been studied in the context of a variety of models models ; mm ; mmm . The majoron can be produced in neutrinoless double beta decay ggn , leading to a distinctive form for the electron sum-energy spectrum. In addition, majorons might be discerned through their astrophysical effects, in particular, by altering the total neutrino luminosity from supernovae, and possibly also the energy spectra of different supernova neutrino flavors tomas .

Most majoron models have been formulated in the context of purely four-dimensional field theories. Recent interest in the possibility of extra compactified spatial dimensions led  has led to new variations mohapatra ; triplets  on the conventional majoron scenarios. Mohapatra, et al., mohapatra  have noted that a bulk majoron field in a five-dimensional theory leads to additional contributions to neutrinoless double beta decay from the majoron Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations that are kinematically accessible to the final state. Such additional contributions would enhance the decay rate in a singlet majoron model so that effects could be manifest at a next-generation double beta decay experiment. In such a scenario, the additional KK contributions to the decay alter the shape of the electron sum energy spectrum (i.e. the spectral index) in a way that would distinguish it from that of a conventional majoron model.

In this note, we consider another possible signal for a singlet majoron that is defined on a compactified, extra-dimensional space. We will first assume that the scale of compactification $`1/R\mu _0`$ is such that the lightest KK excitation is too heavy to participate in double beta decay, so that the effects discussed in Ref. mohapatra  are absent. In addition, the compactification scale will be high enough in comparison to typical supernova core temperatures ($`\mu _0>30`$ MeV) to evade additional astrophysical bounds on the KK modes. In other words, we restrict ourselves to a choice of parameters in which the lightest KK modes are not directly constrained by the same low-energy and astrophysical bounds as the zero mode. We then focus on high-energy processes in which the sum over majoron KK modes may still lead to a substantial enhancement. Specifically, we consider the process $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}J`$, where $`J`$ represents a sum over undetected modes. Searches for neutrinoless double beta decay require that the $`J^{(0)}`$ coupling to neutrinos is extremely small ($`<O(10^5)`$tomas , so that the production rate for an individual mode $`J^{(n)}`$ is completely negligible. Nevertheless, the number of KK modes between $`30`$ MeV and the TeV scale can be enormous and provides a partially compensating effect. Our goal is to study this issue quantitatively in a simplified one generation majoron model in which the majoron can propagate in $`\delta `$ extra, compactified spatial dimensions. We will see that in the case where $`\delta =1`$, allowed parameter choices exist where $`O(10^2)`$ events per year might be produced at an NLC, while for larger $`\delta `$ the result is significantly suppressed.

## II Effective Four Dimensional Lagrangian

We consider a singlet majoron model, in which lepton number is a global symmetry that is broken spontaneously by a gauge singlet Higgs field $`\chi `$. The singlet is assigned $`2`$ units of lepton number; operators of the form $`\chi (LH)^2`$, where $`L`$ is a weak doublet lepton field and $`H`$ the standard model Higgs, are allowed in the high energy theory and generate neutrino majorana masses when both $`\chi `$ and $`H`$ obtain vacuum expectation values (vevs).

We study an extra-dimensional extension of the model in which the majoron may propagate in the bulk, while all other standard model fields are confined to an orbifold fixed point. (We describe the orbifold below.) In this context, the operator of interest may be written explicitly as

$$^{4D}(x)=d^\delta y\frac{c}{M^{2+\delta /2}}\chi \overline{L^c}^\alpha H^\beta L^\rho H^\eta ϵ_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{\rho \eta }\delta ^\delta (y),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha ,\beta ,\rho ,`$ and $`\eta `$ are weak SU(2) indices, and the superscript $`c`$ indicates charge conjugation, $`\psi ^cC\overline{\psi }^T`$, where $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. The coupling $`c`$ is undetermined in the effective theory and $`M`$ represents the scale of new physics, which we identify as the reduced Planck scale for the theory. As written in Eq. (1), the field $`\chi `$ has mass dimension $`1+\delta /2`$, where $`\delta `$ is the number of extra dimensions; all other fields have their usual four-dimensional normalization.

We first take into account spontaneous symmetry breaking and then integrate over the extra dimensions. One may assume simple potentials to assure that both $`H`$ and $`\chi `$ develop vacuum expectation values. For example, with

$$V(\chi )=\frac{m_{\chi }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\chi ^{}\chi +\frac{\lambda }{4M^\delta }\left(\chi ^{}\chi \right)^2$$
(2)
one finds that

$$\chi v_\chi =\frac{m_\chi M^{\delta /2}}{\sqrt{\lambda }}.$$
(3)
We choose instead a model-independent approach and simply assume that suitable symmetry breaking sectors exist. We thus set

$$H=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
where $`v250`$ GeV, and expand

$$\chi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(v_\chi +\phi +iJ\right).$$
(5)
Henceforth we focus on the pseudoscalar $`J`$ whose zero mode component corresponds to the conventional massless majoron field.

From Eq. (1) it now follows that a neutrino majorana mass term is generated,

$$^{4D}=\frac{1}{2}m_\nu \overline{\nu ^c}\nu $$
(6)
where

$$m_\nu =\frac{cv^2}{M^{2+\delta /2}}\frac{v_\chi }{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(7)
Similarly, the majoron coupling

$$^{4D}=d^\delta y\frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{cv^2}{M^{2+\delta /2}}J\overline{\nu ^c}\gamma ^5\nu \delta ^\delta (y)$$
(8)
can now be simplified by substituting the KK decomposition of the field J. For compactification on a circle, for example, we would expand

$$J(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{n_1=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{n_2=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{n_\delta =\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}J^{(\stackrel{}{n})}(x^\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y}}{R}\right)$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{}{n}=(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}n_\delta )`$ and $`R`$ is the radius of compactification. Since we would like to confine all fields other than $`J`$ to a 4D subspace we compactify instead on the orbifold $`S^\delta /Z_2`$, which effectively cuts the extra-dimensional space in half. Even and odd modes under this $`Z_2`$ may be written

$$J_+(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{0}}{}J_+^{(n)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y}}{R}\right)$$
(10)
$$J_{}(x^\mu ,\stackrel{}{y})=\underset{\stackrel{}{n}>\stackrel{}{0}}{}J_{}^{(n)}(x^\mu )\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{y}}{R}\right)$$
(11)
The vector $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ may either be identically $`\stackrel{}{0}`$ or it may be “positive”, $`\stackrel{}{n}>\stackrel{}{0}`$: writing the vector as a row, a positive vector is one whose first nonzero element reading from left to right is positive while all remaining elements have values that are unrestricted ncpaper . The sum in Eq. (11) is over positive $`\stackrel{}{n}`$, excluding the zero mode.

We assume that the majoron field is even under the orbifold parity so that couplings to matter at the fixed point $`\stackrel{}{y}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ are non-vanishing. In addition to substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (8) and integrating over $`\stackrel{}{y}`$, we also must rescale the majoron field to obtain canonically normalized 4D kinetic terms $`J_+^{(\stackrel{}{n})}\zeta J_+^{(\stackrel{}{n})}/(2\pi R)^{\delta /2}`$ where $`\zeta =1`$ for the zero mode and $`\zeta =\sqrt{2}`$ otherwise. Henceforth, $`J_+`$ will refer to the conventionally normalized 4D field. We finally obtain

$$^{4D}=\frac{i}{2}\xi \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^5\mathrm{\Psi }\left[J_+^{(0)}+\sqrt{2}\underset{\stackrel{}{(}n)}{}J_+^{(n)}\right],$$
(12)
where

$$\xi =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\delta /2}m_\nu }{v_\chi }.$$
(13)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/(2\pi R)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a four-component majorona spinor satisfying $`\mathrm{\Psi }^c=\mathrm{\Psi }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L\nu _L`$. Note that $`\xi `$ is dimensionless since $`v_\chi `$ has mass dimension $`1+\delta /2`$.

We let phenomenological considerations dictate our choice of model parameters. The coupling $`\xi /2g`$ is nothing more that the conventional zero-mode majoron coupling to neutrinos. Constraints on neutrinoless double beta decay restrict $`g<3\times 10^5`$ while those on supernova majoron luminosity eliminate an interval $`3\times 10^7<g<2\times 10^5`$ tomas . For the cases of $`\delta =1`$ or $`2`$ extra dimensions, we will avoid these excluded regions for a mildly large value of the operator coupling, $`c=4`$. In addition, we take the compactification scale $`1/R=100`$ MeV which is larger that the typical end point energies in neutrinoless double beta decay ($`3`$ MeV) and supernovae core temperatures ($`30`$ MeV). This assures that there are no further restrictions on $`\xi `$ from the KK majoron states. Since we will be primarily interested in effects at a $`\sqrt{s}=1.5`$ TeV NLC, we will take the cutoff of our theory to be somewhat higher, $`M=3`$ TeV111We assume only that the majoron lives in $`\delta `$ extra dimensions of radii $`\mu _0^1`$; this does not preclude other larger extra dimensions accessible to gravity only. Hence the value of $`M`$ is not fixed by the other parameter choices in our calculation.. By combining Eqs. (7) and (13) we then find $`\xi =4.6\times 10^5`$ and $`\xi =1.0\times 10^7`$ for $`\delta =1`$ and $`2`$, respectively. In either case, desired values of $`m_\nu `$ may be obtained by adjusting $`v_\chi `$; we take $`m_\nu =0.1`$ eV in our estimates below.

## III Cross Sections

To calculate the cross section for $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}J`$, we evaluate the diagrams shown in Fig. 1. Self-conjugacy of the majorana neutrino field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ leads to three distinct forms for the neutrino propagators. Summing over these, the majoron-neutrino vertex and internal lines in these diagrams take on the simplified form

$$\frac{\xi }{(p_1^2m_\nu ^2)(p_2^2m_\nu ^2)}(\overline{)}p_1^T+m_\nu )\gamma ^5(i\gamma ^0\gamma ^2)(\overline{)}p_2+m_\nu )$$
(14)
where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are momenta identified with $`l_1k_1`$ and $`l_2k_2`$, respectively, in the first diagram of Fig. 1. Using this result, one may calculate the spin-averaged invariant amplitude $`|M^2|=|M_1+M_2|^2`$:

$$M_1^2=\frac{\zeta ^2\xi ^2g_w^4}{16(p^2m_\nu ^2)^2(q^2m_\nu ^2)^2}(\frac{k_1^\alpha k_1^\mu }{m_w^2}g^{\alpha \mu })(\frac{k_2^\beta k_2^\nu }{m_w^2}g^{\beta \nu })$$

$$\times Tr\left\{\overline{)}l_1\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}p\overline{)}q\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}l_2\gamma ^\beta \overline{)}q\overline{)}p(\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2})\gamma ^\alpha \right\},$$
(15)
$$M_2^2=\frac{\zeta ^2\xi ^2g_w^4}{16(\stackrel{~}{p}^2m_\nu ^2)^2(\stackrel{~}{q}^2m_\nu ^2)^2}(\frac{k_1^\alpha k_1^\mu }{m_w^2}g^{\alpha \mu })(\frac{k_2^\beta k_2^\nu }{m_w^2}g^{\beta \nu })$$

$$\times Tr\left\{\overline{)}l_1\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}\stackrel{~}{p}\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{q}\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}l_2\gamma ^\alpha \overline{)}\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{p}(\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2})\gamma ^\beta \right\},$$
(16)
$$M_1M_2^{}=\frac{\zeta ^2\xi ^2g_w^4}{16(p^2m_\nu ^2)(q^2m_\nu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{p}^2m_\nu ^2)(\stackrel{~}{q}^2m_\nu ^2)}(\frac{k_1^\alpha k_1^\mu }{m_w^2}g^{\alpha \mu })(\frac{k_2^\beta k_2^\nu }{m_w^2}g^{\beta \nu })$$

$$\times Tr\left\{\overline{)}l_1\gamma ^\mu \overline{)}p\overline{)}q\gamma ^\nu \overline{)}l_2\gamma ^\alpha \overline{)}\stackrel{~}{q}\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{p}(\frac{1\gamma ^5}{2})\gamma ^\beta \right\},$$
(17)
where $`p=l_1k_1`$, $`q=l_2k_2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}=l_1k_2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{q}=l_2k_1`$. In Eqs. (15)-(17), we have averaged over the electron spins and summed over the $`W^{}`$ polarizations. The explicit form of $`|M|^2`$ was computed symbolically using FeynCalc fc  and is somewhat cumbersome, so we only present numerical results below. The differential cross section for producing one majoron mode of mass $`m_J`$ may be written

$$\frac{d\sigma _J}{dE_1dE_2d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)}=\frac{1}{256\pi ^4s}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi }|M|^2$$
(18)
where $`\sqrt{s}`$, $`E_1`$, and $`E_2`$ are the center of mass and $`W^{}`$ energies, respectively. The angles $`\theta _i`$ are defined relative to the beam direction, while the angle $`\varphi `$ is the azimuthal separation between the two $`W`$’s. Note that $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ is fixed by the energy-conserving delta function in the Lorentz-invariant phase space,

$$\mathrm{cos}\varphi =\frac{(\sqrt{s}E_1E_2)^2m_J^2p_1^2p_2^22p_1p_2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{2p_1p_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2},$$
(19)
where $`p_i`$ are the $`W`$ momenta and $`m_J`$ is the mass of a given majoron KK mode.

The process of interest to us, however, is not the production of a single KK mode, but a sum over all KK modes that are kinematically accessible. We therefore multiply Eq. (18) by the multiplicity of KK modes per unit mass. Hence,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dE_1dE_2d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)dm_j}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{2\pi ^{\frac{\delta }{2}}m_j^{\delta 1}}{\mu _0^\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{\delta }{2})}\frac{d\sigma _J}{dE_1dE_2d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)d(\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)}$$
(20)
The new multiplicative factor can be derived from the surface area of a $`\delta `$-dimensional sphere in $`\mu _0\stackrel{}{n}`$ space, where $`m_j=\mu _0|\stackrel{}{n}|`$. The additional factor of $`1/2`$ corrects for overcounting arising from the restriction on the values of $`\stackrel{}{n}`$ in Eq. (10).

Total and differential cross sections may be obtained by integrating Eq. (20). We evaluated the total cross section $`\sigma (\sqrt{s})`$ and the $`W`$ sum energy distribution $`d\sigma /dE_T`$, where $`E_TE_1+E_2`$, for the parameter choices described at the end of Section II. Numerical integration was performed using three independent Monte Carlo integration packages (Mathematica, the CERNLIB routine DIVON4 d4 , and the numerical recipes package VEGAS nr ), and consistent results were obtained. Fig. 2 shows the total cross section in picobarns as a function of center of mass energy for one and two extra dimensions. A cut on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _i<0.8`$ was employed to eliminate events where one or more of the $`W`$’s are close to the beam direction. We do not find that our results vary strongly with this choice. Conveniently, this cut also eliminates a kinematical region where there are infrared divergences that must be cancelled by including higher-order corrections. For a $`1.5`$ TeV NLC with a luminosity of $`3.4\times 10^{34}`$ cm-2 s-1 nlc , we find that one year of running yields $`164`$ and $`9`$ events for one and two extra dimensions, respectively. For larger values of $`\delta `$ the results are further suppressed so that detection at a TeV scale machine looks less promising. In the $`\delta =1`$ case, we display the $`W`$ sum energy spectrum in Fig. 3, which may be useful in distinguishing majoron production from other physics backgrounds, in particular, from those in which missing energy is not expected.

## IV Discussion

In this letter we have considered possible phenomenological consequences of a bulk majoron scenario, in a limit where the Kaluza-Klein excitations of the majoron $`J^{(n)}`$ are too heavy to have an effect on double beta decay measurements. Exploiting the analogy to graviton production, we entertained the possibility that the sum over KK modes would be sufficient to compensate for the weakness of the majoron-neutrino coupling and lead to potentially observable collider signatures. We showed the the rate for the process $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}J`$, where $`J`$ represents the sum over majoron KK modes that go undetected experimentally, is not negligible at a TeV-scale lepton collider. In addition, we presented numerical results for the $`W`$ sum-energy spectrum, which might be relevant experimentally.

It is worth pointing out that one possible physics background to the majoron production process we consider is $`e^{}e^{}W^{}W^{}`$, which is lepton number violating and does not occur in the standard model. However, this background may arise due to other nonstandard sources of lepton number violation in the theory: the presence of an extra, heavy majorona neutrino, for example, can lead to $`W^{}W^{}`$ production via its $`t`$-channel exchange london , while the $`s`$-channel exchange of an exotic doubly-charged Higgs in some models dch  can have the same effect. Distinguishing KK majoron production from these possibilities should be easy since majoron production implies a nontrivial $`W^{}`$ sum energy spectrum, while the other cases yield no missing energy if the $`W`$’s are completely reconstructed. Standard model backgrounds like $`e^{}e^{}e^{}e^{}W^+W^{}`$ generally require that both final state electrons are missed and that the $`W`$ charges are not identified. If both $`W`$ bosons decay leptonically, adequate charged lepton identification is required to suppress this background in determining total event rates. To find angular or sum energy distributions, it is instead desirable to consider the decays of both $`W`$ bosons to jets, so that the $`W`$ momenta can be completely reconstructed. In this case it may still be possible to reduce the background from missed final-state electrons by using jet charge identification techniques to determine the $`W`$ charges. While this is nontrivial, the use of neural networks in extracting the charges in $`W`$ pair production appears to be a promising approach mostafa .

Finally, we note that the discussion in this letter has focused on a one-generation model while realistic three-generation theories would necessarily involve lepton-flavor changing effects. A phenomenological analysis like that in Ref. tomas , that takes into account simultaneous bounds on the majoron coupling and on the neutrino mass matrix, would be well motivated. Explicit model building may also be useful in explaining the choice of parameters and scales that were selected in the present analysis for their phenomenological relevance, and would provide a framework for addressing cosmological issues. In any case, our immediate results suggests that the future collider searches for lepton number violation in the “inverse beta decay” channel may have a renewed, extra-dimensional motivation.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the National Science Foundation for support under Grant No. PHY-9900657 and the Jeffress Memorial Trust for support under Grant No. J-532.