text:
# Untitled Document

blabla

On a theorem of Artin

Arjeh M. Cohen & Luis Paris

April 2002

Abstract

We determine the epimorphisms $`AW`$ from the Artin group $`A`$ of type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ onto the Coxeter group $`W`$ of type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an irreducible Coxeter graph of spherical type, and we prove that the kernel of the standard epimorphism is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$. This generalizes an over 50 years old result of Artin.

AMS Subject Classification: Primary 20F36; Secondary 20F55. Keywords: Braid groups, Artin groups, Coxeter groups, characteristic subgroups, reflections.

1. Introduction

In 1947, Artin \[Art\] published the following two results on the braid group $`B_n`$ on $`n`$ strings.

Theorem 1.1 (Artin, \[Art\]). Suppose that $`\phi :B_n\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ is an epimorphism. Then, up to an automorphism of $`\mathrm{Sym}_n`$, the elements $`\phi (\sigma _i)`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n1)`$ are the standard generators $`(i,i+1)`$ of $`\mathrm{Sym}_n`$, with the following two exceptions for $`n=4`$:

$$\phi (\sigma _1)=(1,2,3,4),\phi (\sigma _2)=(2,1,3,4),\phi (\sigma _3)=(1,2,3,4)$$

and

$$\phi (\sigma _1)=(1,2,3,4),\phi (\sigma _2)=(2,1,3,4),\phi (\sigma _3)=(4,3,2,1),$$

where $`\sigma _i`$ denotes the $`i`$-th standard generator of $`B_n`$.

Theorem 1.2 (Artin, \[Art\]). The pure braid group $`PB_n`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`B_n`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a Coxeter graph with set of vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ (cf. \[Bou\] for terminology). For two objects $`a,b`$ and for $`m𝐍`$, define the word

$$[a,b^m=\{\begin{array}{ccc}& (ab)^{\frac{m}{2}}& \mathrm{if}m\mathrm{is}\mathrm{even},\\ & (ab)^{\frac{m1}{2}}a& \mathrm{if}m\mathrm{is}\mathrm{odd}.\end{array}$$

The Artin group of type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the group $`A`$ generated by $`n`$ elements $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n`$, and subject to the relations

$$[\sigma _i,\sigma _j^{m_{i,j}}=[\sigma _j,\sigma _i^{m_{i,j}}$$

for $`1i<jn`$, and $`m_{i,j}\mathrm{}`$, where $`(m_{i,j})_{i,j}`$ is the Coxeter matrix of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The Coxeter system of type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is denoted by $`(W,S)`$ with $`S`$ consisting of the images $`s_i`$ of $`\sigma _i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ under the natural epimorphism $`\mu :AW`$. The number of generators $`n`$ is called the rank of the Artin group (and of the Coxeter group). We say that $`A`$ is irreducible if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is connected, and that $`A`$ is of spherical type if $`W`$ is finite. Define the colored Artin group $`CA`$ of type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to be the kernel of the standard epimorphism $`\mu :AW`$.

Call two epimorphisms $`\phi _1,\phi _2:AW`$ equivalent if there is an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`W`$ such that $`\phi _2=\alpha \phi _1`$. Members of the equivalence class of the standard epimorphism are called ordinary epimorphisms. The epimorphisms which are not ordinary are called extraordinary.

Note that the Artin group $`A`$ of spherical type $`A_{n1}`$ is the braid group $`B_n`$ of Theorem 1.1 and that the corresponding Coxeter group $`W`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{Sym}_n`$. In this case, $`CA`$ is the pure braid group $`PB_{n1}`$ of Theorem 1.2. Thus, it makes sense to ask whether Artin’s results for type $`A_{n1}`$ also hold for other Coxeter graphs. In this paper, we prove the results corresponding to Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 for the irreducible Artin groups of spherical type by proving the following two theorems.

Theorem 1.3. Let $`A`$ be an irreducible Artin group of spherical type distinct from $`A_3`$ with corresponding Coxeter group $`W`$. Then the equivalence classes of extraordinary epimorphisms $`\phi :AW`$ are as given in Table 1.

| Coxeter type | epimorphism | defined in Proposition |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`I_2(m)`$ $`(m0(mod4))`$ | $`\nu _m^1,\nu _m^2`$ | 2.2 |
| $`B_n`$ ($`n`$ even) | $`\nu _n^1`$ | 3.2 |
| $`B_n`$ ($`n`$ odd) | $`\nu _n^1`$, $`\nu _n^2`$ | 3.2 |
| $`D_n`$ ($`n`$ odd) | $`\nu _n^1`$, $`\nu _n^2`$ | 4.2 |
| $`H_3`$ | $`\nu _3^1`$ | 5.2 |

Table 1. The extraordinary epimorphisms up to equivalence.

Theorem 1.4. Let $`A`$ be an irreducible Artin group of spherical type. Then $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

Each ‘family’ of irreducible Artin groups of spherical type is treated separately. Our strategy for the proof of Theorem 1.3 is to analyze the epimorphisms $`AW`$ in much the same way Artin did for type $`A_n`$, and to study epimorphisms $`A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ for types $`B_n`$, $`D_n`$. In order to prove Theorem 1.4, we establish that the kernel of every surjective composition $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mu `$ with an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`A`$ coincides with $`CA`$. For this purpose, we study an action of $`A`$ on the set $`𝐙\times T`$, where $`T`$ is the set of reflections of $`W`$, which is compatible (under $`\mu `$) with the action of $`W`$ on the set $`\{\pm 1\}\times T`$ of abstract walls of $`(W,S)`$ (Lemma 3.7).

The groups of rank two are treated in Section 2, Artin groups of type $`B_n`$ in Section 3, Artin groups of type $`D_n`$ in Section 4, and Artin groups of type $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$ in Section 5. As noted above, type $`A_n`$ is dealt with in \[Art\]. The classification of the epimorphisms $`AW`$ for $`A`$ of type $`B_n`$ and $`D_n`$ is almost done in \[Lin\]; our contribution consists of Lemmas 3.5 and 4.4 and leads to a complete classification. Our approach to these two families is the same as Lin’s, except that we do not use any homological argument.

Acknowledgments. The second author would like to thank Jean Michel who introduced him to GAP and to the package ‘Chevie’ of GAP.

2. Artin groups of rank two

We start this section with a lemma which will be used throughout the whole paper. Its proof is direct from the definition of a Coxeter group.

Lemma 2.1. Let $`A`$ be an Artin group of spherical type. If all the images of the standard generators under an epimorphism $`\phi :AW`$ are involutions, then $`\phi `$ is ordinary.

Recall from \[Bou\] that $`I_2(m)`$ denotes the Coxeter graph on two nodes which are joined by an $`m`$-valued edge. It is irreducible whenever $`m3`$. By abuse of notation, we will use $`I_2(3)`$, $`I_2(4)`$, and $`I_2(6)`$ to denote the Coxeter graph of type $`A_2`$, $`B_2`$, and $`G_2`$, respectively.

Proposition 2.2. Let $`m3`$. For the Coxeter graph $`I_2(m)`$, each epimorphism $`AW`$ is ordinary if $`m0(\mathrm{mod}4)`$. If $`m0(\mathrm{mod}4)`$, then there are two equivalence classes of extraordinary epimorphisms. These are represented by $`\nu _m^1,\nu _m^2:AW`$, where

$`\nu _m^1(\sigma _1)`$ $`=`$ $`s_1,`$ $`\nu _m^1(\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1,`$  $`\nu _m^2(\sigma _1)`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2,`$ $`\nu _m^2(\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`s_2.`$

Proof. Let $`r=s_2s_1`$. Let $`C`$ be the subgroup of $`W`$ generated by $`r`$. It is a cyclic normal subgroup of $`W`$ of order $`m`$, and $`W=C\text{ }\times \sigma _1𝐙/m𝐙\text{ }\times 𝐙/2𝐙`$. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an epimorphism, and let $`t_1=\phi (\sigma _1)`$ and $`t_2=\phi (\sigma _2)`$. Four cases have to be considered.

Case 1: $`t_1,t_2s_1C`$. Then $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are involutions, and $`\phi `$ is ordinary by Lemma 2.1.

Case 2: $`t_1,t_2C`$. Then $`\mathrm{Im}(\phi )C`$, and $`\phi `$ is not surjective. So, this case does not occur.

Case 3: $`t_1s_1C`$ and $`t_2C`$. If $`m`$ is odd, then $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are conjugate (since $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are conjugate), a contradiction with $`t_2C`$ and $`t_1C`$ as $`C`$ is a normal subgroup of $`W`$. So, $`m`$ is even. The fact that $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ generate $`W`$ implies that $`t_2`$ is of order $`m`$, so, up to an automorphism of $`W`$, we can assume that $`t_1=s_1`$ and $`t_2=r`$. Consider the equality

$$t_1t_2t_1t_2=s_1rs_1r=1.$$

If $`m2(\mathrm{mod}4)`$, then $`[t_1,t_2^m=[t_2,t_1^m`$ implies $`s_1r=rs_1`$, but this last equality does not hold. Hence, $`m0(\mathrm{mod}4)`$. Now $`\phi `$ is indeed a homomorphism as

$$[t_1,t_2^m=[t_2,t_1^m=1,$$

and $`\phi `$ is equivalent to $`\nu _m^1`$.

Case 4: $`t_1C`$ and $`t_2s_1C`$. Then Case 3 applies with the indices $`1`$ and $`2`$ interchanged. Therefore $`m0(\mathrm{mod}4)`$, and $`\phi `$ is equivalent to $`\nu _m^2`$.

Recall that $`\mu :AW`$ denotes the standard epimorphism mapping $`\sigma _i`$ to $`s_i`$. Lemma 2.3. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is ordinary, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves $`CA`$.

Proof. As $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }:AW`$ is ordinary, there is an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`W`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha \mu `$. Now

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1(CA)=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{Ker}(\mu ))=\mathrm{Ker}(\mu \mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Ker}(\alpha \mu )=\mathrm{Ker}(\mu )=CA.\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }$$

Proposition 2.4. Let $`m3`$. For the Coxeter graph $`I_2(m)`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be an automorphism. In view of Lemma 2.3, we may assume that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an extraordinary epimorphism. In particular, by Proposition 2.2, $`m0(\mathrm{mod}4)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=[\sigma _1,\sigma _2^mA`$, and let $`\delta =[s_1,s_2^mW`$. Since $`m`$ is even, by \[BS\], the center of $`A`$ is the infinite cyclic subgroup generated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }^\epsilon `$, where $`\epsilon \{\pm 1\}`$, whence

$$(\mu \mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }^\epsilon )=\delta ^\epsilon =\delta .$$

On the other hand, by Proposition 2.2, there exist an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`W`$ and $`i\{1,2\}`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha \nu _m^i`$. But

$$\nu _m^1(\mathrm{\Delta })=[s_1,s_2s_1^m=1\text{ and }\nu _m^2(\mathrm{\Delta })=[s_1s_2,s_2^m=1,$$

whence $`\delta =\mu \mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta })=(\alpha \nu _m^i)(\mathrm{\Delta })=1`$. This contradicts $`\delta 1`$, so we are done.

3. Artin groups of type $`B_n`$

For a group $`G`$ and an element $`gG`$, we denote by $`\mathrm{Conj}_g:GG`$ the inner automorphism $`hghg^1`$. Call two epimorphisms $`\phi _1,\phi _2:GH`$ conjugate if there is $`hH`$ such that $`\phi _2=\mathrm{Conj}_h\phi _1`$.

We shall label the nodes of the Coxeter graph $`B_n`$ as follows:

$$\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}\stackrel{4}{\text{ }}\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}\text{ }\underset{3}{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\underset{n1}{\overset{}{}}\text{ }\underset{n}{\overset{}{}}$$

Let $`A`$ be an Artin group of type $`B_n`$, $`n3`$, and let $`W`$ be its corresponding Coxeter group. The first step in our investigation of the epimorphisms $`AW`$ is to classify the epimorphisms $`A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ up to conjugation. This has also been carried out by Zinde \[Zin\], and the answer is as follows. Define the standard epimorphism $`\eta :A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ by

$$\eta (\sigma _1)=1,\eta (\sigma _i)=(i1,i)\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n.$$

Proposition 3.1 (Zinde, \[Zin\]). Let $`n3`$. For the Coxeter graph $`B_n`$, every epimorphism $`A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ is conjugate to $`\eta `$ if $`n4`$ and $`n6`$.

If $`n=4`$, then there are precisely three conjugacy classes of epimorphisms; these are represented by $`\eta ,\zeta _4^1,\zeta _4^2:A\mathrm{Sym}_4`$, where

$$\zeta _4^1(\sigma _1)=1,\zeta _4^1(\sigma _2)=(1,2,3,4),\zeta _4^1(\sigma _3)=(2,1,3,4),\zeta _4^1(\sigma _4)=(1,2,3,4),$$

and

$$\zeta _4^2(\sigma _1)=1,\zeta _4^2(\sigma _2)=(1,2,3,4),\zeta _4^2(\sigma _3)=(2,1,3,4),\zeta _4^2(\sigma _4)=(4,3,2,1).$$

If $`n=6`$, then there are precisely two conjugacy classes of epimorphisms; these are represented by $`\eta ,\zeta _6:A\mathrm{Sym}_6`$, where

$`\zeta _6(\sigma _1)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,2)(3,4)(5,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,5)(2,3)(4,6),`$  $`\zeta _6(\sigma _4)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,3)(2,4)(5,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,2)(3,5)(4,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _6)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,4)(2,3)(5,6).`$

Moreover, if we set

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$ $`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_4s_6,`$ $`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_2s_5s_4s_3s_2s_6s_5,`$  $`r_4`$ $`=`$ $`s_3s_2s_4s_3s_6,`$ $`r_5`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_5s_4s_6s_5,`$ $`r_6`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_2s_4s_3s_2s_6,`$

then $`r_i=\zeta _6(\sigma _i)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$, and the automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`\mathrm{Sym}_6`$ determined by $`(i1,i)r_i`$ $`(i=2,\mathrm{},6`$) satisfies $`\zeta _6=\alpha \eta `$.

The proof of Proposition 3.1 can be recovered from Artin’s proof of \[Art, Thm.1\] by an easy adaptation.

We need a more precise description of the well-known isomorphism $`W(𝐙/2𝐙)^n\text{ }\times \mathrm{Sym}_n`$. Put $`c_1=s_1`$ and, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$, denote by $`c_i`$ the element $`s_i\mathrm{}s_2s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_i`$ of $`W`$. Then $`C=c_1,\mathrm{},c_n(𝐙/2𝐙)^n`$ is the kernel of the natural epimorphism $`p:W=C\text{ }\times S\mathrm{Sym}_n`$, where $`S=s_2,\mathrm{},s_n\mathrm{Sym}_n`$. It is convenient to identify $`c_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}c_n^{a_n}C`$ with $`[a_1,\mathrm{},a_n](𝐙/2𝐙)^n`$, so that each element of $`W`$ can be viewed as the product of an element from $`(𝐙/2𝐙)^n`$ and a permutation in $`\mathrm{Sym}_n`$. Observe that the longest element $`\delta =(s_1\mathrm{}s_n)^n`$ of $`W`$ coincides with $`c_1\mathrm{}c_n`$.

Proposition 3.2. Let $`n3`$. For the Coxeter graph $`B_n`$, representatives of the equivalence classes of extraordinary epimorphisms $`AW`$ are

(i) $`\nu _n^1`$, if $`n`$ is even,

(ii) $`\nu _n^1`$ and $`\nu _n^2`$, if $`n`$ is odd, where $`\nu _n^1`$ is the homomorphism $`AW`$ determined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _n^1(\sigma _1)& =c_1\hfill \\ \hfill \nu _n^1(\sigma _i)& =c_{i1}s_i\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}i=2,\mathrm{}n,\hfill \end{array}$$

and, for $`n`$ odd, $`\nu _n^2`$ is the homomorphism $`AW`$ determined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \nu _n^2(\sigma _1)& =\delta \hfill \\ \hfill \nu _n^2(\sigma _i)& =c_{i1}s_i\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}i=2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Before proving Proposition 3.2, we establish three lemmas. Observe that $`\eta =p\mu `$.

Lemma 3.3. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an extraordinary epimorphism such that $`p\phi `$ is the standard epimorphism $`\eta :A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$. Then, up to an automorphism of $`W`$, we have $`\phi (\sigma _i)=c_{i1}s_i\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}i=2,\mathrm{},n`$.

Proof. Let $`t_i=\phi (\sigma _i)`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Note that $`t_1C`$ in view of the assumption that $`p\phi =\eta `$. Thus, either $`t_1=1`$ or $`t_1`$ is an involution. Note also that $`t_i`$ is conjugate to $`t_2`$ for $`i=3,\mathrm{},n`$.

Assume first that $`t_2`$ is an involution. For $`i=3,\mathrm{},n`$, the element $`t_i`$, being conjugate to $`t_2`$, is also an involution. Furthermore, $`t_1`$ cannot be the identity, for otherwise we would have an epimorphism $`\mathrm{Sym}_nW`$, $`s_it_{i+1}`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$). Hence, $`t_1`$ is also an involution, and, by Lemma 2.1, $`\phi `$ is ordinary. This is contrary to the hypotheses, so $`t_2`$ is not an involution.

As $`p\phi =\eta `$, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ we can write $`t_i=v_is_i`$ with $`v_i=c_1^{a_{i,1}}\mathrm{}c_n^{a_{i,n}}C`$. The inequalities $`t_i^21`$ imply $`a_{i,i}1+a_{i,i1}(mod2)`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. The equalities $`t_it_2=t_2t_i`$ imply $`a_{2,i}a_{2,3}(mod2)`$ for $`i=4,\mathrm{},n`$. Finally, the equalities $`t_it_{i+1}t_i=t_{i+1}t_it_{i+1}`$ ($`i=2,\mathrm{},n1`$) imply $`a_{i,j}a_{2,3}(mod2)`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`ji1,i`$. Write $`a=a_{2,3}`$ and $`a_i=a_{i,i1}`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. Then

$$v_i=c_1^a\mathrm{}c_{i2}^ac_{i1}^{a_i}c_i^{1+a_i}c_{i+1}^a\mathrm{}c_n^a.$$

Suppose $`a1(mod2)`$. Let $`\alpha _0`$ be the automorphism of $`W`$ determined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _0(s_1)& =s_1,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _0(s_i)& =\delta s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$(\alpha _0\phi )(\sigma _i)=\alpha _0(t_i)=c_{i1}^{1+a_i}c_i^{a_i}s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n,$$

so we can assume $`a=0`$.

Suppose $`a_n\mathrm{}a_{i+1}1(mod2)`$ and $`a_i0(mod2)`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\mathrm{Conj}_{c_{i1}}\phi )(\sigma _j)=\mathrm{Conj}_{c_{i1}}(t_j)& =t_j\mathrm{if}ji1,i,\hfill \\ \hfill (\mathrm{Conj}_{c_{i1}}\phi )(\sigma _j)=\mathrm{Conj}_{c_{i1}}(t_j)& =c_{j1}c_jt_j\mathrm{if}j=i1,i,\hfill \end{array}$$

so we can assume $`a_n\mathrm{}a_{i+1}a_i1(mod2)`$. An iteration of this argument shows that we can assume $`a_i1(mod2)`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. But then $`v_i=c_{i1}`$.

Lemma 3.4. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an extraordinary epimorphism such that $`p\phi =\eta `$.

(i) If $`n`$ is even, then $`\phi `$ is equivalent to $`\nu _n^1`$.

(ii) If $`n`$ is odd, then $`\phi `$ is equivalent to $`\nu _n^1`$ or to $`\nu _n^2`$.

Proof. Let $`t_i=\phi (\sigma _i)`$, for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. By Lemma 3.3, we can assume $`t_i=c_{i1}s_i`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. Write $`t_1=c_1^{a_1}c_2^{a_2}\mathrm{}c_n^{a_n}C`$. The equalities $`t_it_1=t_1t_i`$ ($`i=3,\mathrm{},n`$) imply $`a_ia_2(mod2)`$ for $`i=3,\mathrm{},n`$, so, $`t_1=c_1^{a_1}c_2^{a_2}\mathrm{}c_n^{a_2}`$.

Consider the epimorphism $`\mathrm{sg}:W\{\pm 1\}`$, $`s_i1`$. It satisfies $`\mathrm{sg}(t_1)(1)^{a_1+(n1)a_2}`$ and $`\mathrm{sg}(t_i)=1`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. So, if $`a_1+(n1)a_20(mod2)`$, then $`\mathrm{Im}(\phi )\mathrm{Ker}(\mathrm{sg})`$, and $`\phi `$ is not surjective. Therefore, $`a_1+(n1)a_21(mod2)`$. If $`a_11(mod2)`$ and $`a_20(mod2)`$, then $`\phi =\nu _n^1`$, and if $`a_11(mod2)`$ and $`a_21(mod2)`$, then $`n`$ is odd and $`\phi =\nu _n^2`$. Assume $`a_10(mod2)`$ and $`a_21(mod2)`$. Then $`n`$ is even. Let $`\alpha _1`$ be the automorphism of $`W`$ determined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _1(s_1)& =\delta s_1,\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _1(s_i)& =s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (\alpha _1\phi )(\sigma _1)=\alpha _1(t_1)& =c_1,\hfill \\ \hfill (\alpha _1\phi )(\sigma _i)=\alpha _1(t_i)& =c_{i1}s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n,\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`\alpha _1\phi =\nu _n^1`$.

Lemma 3.5. For the Coxeter graph $`B_6`$, there is no extraordinary epimorphism $`\phi :AW`$ such that $`p\phi =\zeta _6`$.

For the Coxeter graph $`B_4`$, there is no extraordinary epimorphism $`\phi :AW`$ such that either $`p\phi =\zeta _4^1`$ or $`p\phi =\zeta _4^2`$.

Proof. The proof is a direct calculation. It can be carried out in GAP or Magma by means of a Todd Coxeter enumeration leading to a permutation representation of $`W`$, or by use of the package ‘Chevie’ of GAP. Here, we explain how we deal with $`\zeta _6`$. The other two cases can be handled similarly.

We first compute the set $`X_i=\{xr_i;xC`$ and $`\mathrm{order}(xr_i)2\}`$, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},6`$, where $`r_i`$ is as in Proposition 3.1. We have $`|X_i|=56`$ for each $`i`$. For $`i=3,\mathrm{},6`$, let $`Y_i`$ be the set of $`(i1)`$-tuples $`(t_2,\mathrm{},t_i)`$ which satisfy

$``$ $`t_jX_j`$, for $`j=2,\mathrm{},i`$,

$``$ $`t_jt_{j+1}t_j=t_{j+1}t_jt_{j+1}`$, for $`j=2,\mathrm{},i1`$,

$``$ $`t_jt_k=t_kt_j`$, for $`|jk|2`$.

We compute successively $`Y_3`$, $`Y_4`$, $`Y_5`$, and $`Y_6`$. We have $`|Y_3|=224`$, $`|Y_4|=192`$, $`|Y_5|=64`$, and $`Y_6=\mathrm{}`$. The last equality together with Lemma 2.1 proves the lemma.

Proof of Proposition 3.2. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an extraordinary epimorphism. By Proposition 3.1 and the fact that $`p(W)=\mathrm{Sym}_n`$, we can assume that either $`p\phi `$ is the standard epimorphism, or $`n=6`$ and $`p\phi =\zeta _6`$, or $`n=4`$ and $`p\phi =\zeta _4^i`$, $`i=1,2`$. By Lemma 3.5, the last two cases do not occur, so $`p\phi `$ is standard. Now, Proposition 3.2 follows from Lemma 3.4.

Let $`A`$ be an Artin group. By Lemma 2.3, in order to prove that $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$, it suffices to show that, for a given automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$, the composition $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }:AW`$ with the standard epimorphism $`\mu :AW`$ is ordinary. For example, for an Artin group of type $`B_n`$, we would like to prove that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _n^i`$, for $`i=1,2`$. Our general strategy is to use the homomorphism $`U:A\mathrm{Sym}(𝐙\times T)`$ defined in Lemma 3.6 below.

Let $`T=\{wsw^1;wW\mathrm{and}sS\}`$ be the set of reflections in $`W`$. For all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, define the transformation $`u_i:\{\pm 1\}\times T\{\pm 1\}\times T`$ by

$$u_i(\epsilon ,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\epsilon ,s_its_i)& \mathrm{if}ts_i,\\ (\epsilon ,t)& \mathrm{if}t=s_i.\end{array}$$

The following lemma can be found in \[Bou, Ch.4, $`n^o`$1.4\].

Lemma 3.6 (Bourbaki, \[Bou\]). For each type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the assignment $`s_iu_i`$ determines a homomorphism $`u:W\mathrm{Sym}(\{\pm 1\}\times T)`$, where $`\mathrm{Sym}(\{\pm 1\}\times T)`$ denotes the group of permutations of $`\{\pm 1\}\times T`$.

Now, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, define $`U_i:𝐙\times T𝐙\times T`$ by

$$U_i(k,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(k,s_its_i)& \mathrm{if}ts_i\\ (k+1,t)& \mathrm{if}t=s_i\end{array}$$

Observe that each $`U_i`$ is a permutation of $`𝐙\times T`$ with inverse given by the same formula as for $`U_i`$, but with $`k+1`$ replaced by $`k1`$. The lemma below is easily derived by arguments similar to those of \[Bou, Ch.4, $`n^o`$1.4\].

Lemma 3.7. For each type $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the permutations $`U_i`$ of $`𝐙\times T`$ satisfy the following properties.

(1) The assignment $`\sigma _iU_i`$ determines a unique homomorphism $`U:A\mathrm{Sym}(𝐙\times T)`$.

(2) Let $`gA`$, and let $`(k,r)𝐙\times T`$. Write $`U(g)(k,r)=(k^{},r^{})`$. Then

$$u(\mu (g))((1)^k,r)=((1)^k^{},r^{}).$$

(3) For $`k𝐙`$ the element $`L_k\mathrm{Sym}(𝐙\times T)`$ defined by $`L_k(l,t)=(k+l,t)`$ commutes with each $`U_i`$. In particular, for $`gA`$ we have $`U(g)(k,t)=L_kU(g)(0,t)`$.

A direct consequence of the second part of this lemma is:

Corollary 3.8. Let $`g_1,g_2A`$, and let $`(k,r)𝐙\times T`$. Write $`(k_1,r_1)=U(g_1)(k,r)`$, and $`(k_2,r_2)=U(g_2)(k,r)`$. If $`\mu (g_1)=\mu (g_2)`$, then $`r_1=r_2`$ and $`k_1k_2(\mathrm{mod}2)`$.

We now prove the second main result for $`B_n`$.

Proposition 3.9. Let $`n3`$. For the Coxeter graph $`B_n`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

The key of the proof of Proposition 3.9 is the following lemma.

Lemma 3.10. Let $`A`$ be an Artin group of type $`B_n`$, $`n3`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be a homomorphism. Then $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _n^1`$, and $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _n^2`$ (if $`n`$ is odd).

Proof. Assume that there exists a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _n^i`$, where $`i\{1,2\}`$. Consider the following elements of $`T`$.

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`s_2,`$ $`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_2,`$ $`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`s_3,`$  $`r_4`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_1,`$ $`r_5`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1,`$ $`r_6`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2.`$

Put

$$\tau _2=\sigma _1\sigma _2,\text{ and }\tau _3=\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3,$$

so that $`\mu (\tau _j)=\nu _n^i(\sigma _j)`$ for $`j=2,3`$. Straightforward calculations give

$`U(\tau _2)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_4),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_3),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_5),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_1),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_6),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_2).`$

and

$`U(\tau _3)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_2),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_4),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_6),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_5),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_1),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_3).`$

Now $`\mu (\tau _2)=\nu _n^i(\sigma _2)=\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))`$ and $`\mu (\tau _3)=\nu _n^i(\sigma _3)=\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))`$, so, by Corollary 3.8, there exist integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_6,b_1,\mathrm{},b_6`$ such that

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+1,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2,r_3),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_3,r_5),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4,r_1),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_5,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_6,r_2).`$

and

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_1,r_2),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_2+1,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_3+1,r_6),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_4,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_5+1,r_1),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_6,r_3).`$

Using Lemma 3.7(3), we derive

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2a_5+2b_4+1,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+2a_6+2b_3+1,r_2),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2a_3+2b_5+2,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+2a_4+2b_1,r_3),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_3+2a_5+2b_6,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+2a_6+2b_2+1,r_1).`$

and

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+2b_1+2b_3+1,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+2b_1+2b_2+1,r_2),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_6+2b_2+2b_3+2,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_5+2b_4+2b_6,r_3),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2b_4+2b_5+2,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_3+2b_5+2b_6+1,r_1).`$

The equalities $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_i)=U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_i)`$ for $`i=2,3,4,5`$ are equivalent to the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_2a_4+a_6b_1b_2+b_3& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill a_1+a_3a_6b_2b_3+b_5& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill a_2+a_4a_5+b_1b_4b_6& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill a_1+a_3+a_5b_4b_5+b_6& =1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The sum of these four equations gives $`2(a_2+a_3b_2b_4)=1`$ which clearly is impossible.

Proof of Proposition 3.9. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _n)^nA`$, and recall that $`\delta =(s_1\mathrm{}s_n)^nW`$. Let $`\alpha _0:WW`$ be the automorphism determined by

$$\alpha _0(s_1)=s_1,\alpha _0(s_i)=\delta s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n,$$

and let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0:AA`$ be the homomorphism determined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma _1)=\sigma _1,\mathrm{\Psi }_0(\sigma _i)=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n.$$

Then $`\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_0=\alpha _0\mu `$. For $`n`$ even, let $`\alpha _1:WW`$ be the automorphism determined by

$$\alpha _1(s_1)=\delta s_1,\alpha _1(s_i)=s_i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n,$$

and let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1:AA`$ be the homomorphism determined by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\sigma _1)=\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _1,\mathrm{\Psi }_1(\sigma _i)=\sigma _i\mathrm{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n.$$

Then $`\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_1=\alpha _1\mu `$. Observe also that, if $`wW`$, then $`\mathrm{Conj}_w\mu =\mu \mathrm{Conj}_g`$, where $`gA`$ is such that $`\mu (g)=w`$. By \[Fra\], $`\mathrm{Aut}(W)`$ is generated as a monoid by $`\{\mathrm{Conj}_w;wW\}\{\alpha _0,\alpha _1\}`$ if $`n`$ is even, and by $`\{\mathrm{Conj}_w;wW\}\{\alpha _0\}`$ if $`n`$ is odd. In particular, by the above observations, if $`\alpha `$ is an automorphism of $`W`$, then there exists a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:AA`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha \mu `$.

Now, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be an automorphism. In order to prove Proposition 3.9, it suffices to show that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ cannot be extraordinary. Suppose that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extraordinary. By Proposition 3.2, there exist an automorphism $`\alpha :WW`$ and $`i\{1,2\}`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha \nu _n^i`$. By the preceding argument, one can find a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:AA`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha ^1\mu `$, so $`\mu (\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _n^i`$. But this equality contradicts Lemma 3.10.

4. Artin groups of type $`D_n`$

The strategy for classifying the epimorphisms $`AW`$ for the Artin groups of type $`D_n`$, $`n4`$, is the same as the strategy for the Artin groups of type $`B_n`$. First, we classify the epimorphisms $`A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ up to conjugation. This has also been carried out by Zinde \[Zin\], and the answer is as follows. Label the nodes of the Coxeter graph $`D_n`$ as follows:

$``$ $`1`$      $`2`$ $``$      $``$ $`3`$     $``$ $`4`$ $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$  $``$ $`n1`$    $``$ $`n`$
Define the standard epimorphism $`\eta :A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ as the homomorphism determined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \eta (\sigma _1)=\eta (\sigma _2)=(1,2),\hfill \\ & \eta (\sigma _i)=(i1,i)\mathrm{for}i=3,\mathrm{},n.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proposition 4.1 (Zinde, \[Zin\]). Let $`n4`$. For the Coxeter graph $`D_n`$, every epimorphism $`A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ is conjugate to $`\eta `$ if $`n4`$ and $`n6`$.

If $`n=6`$, then there are precisely two conjugacy classes of epimorphisms. These are represented by $`\eta ,\zeta _6:A\mathrm{Sym}_6`$, respectively, where

$`\zeta _6(\sigma _1)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,2)(3,4)(5,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,2)(3,4)(5,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,3)(1,5)(4,6),`$  $`\zeta _6(\sigma _4)`$ $`=`$ $`(3,1)(2,4)(5,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,2)(3,5)(4,6),`$ $`\zeta _6(\sigma _6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,3)(1,4)(5,6).`$

If $`n=4`$, for each epimorphism $`\phi :A\mathrm{Sym}_4`$, there is a diagram automorphism $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ of $`A`$ such that $`\phi \mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is conjugate to one of the three epimorphisms $`\eta ,\zeta _4^1,\zeta _4^2:A\mathrm{Sym}_4`$, where

$$\zeta _4^1(\sigma _1)=\zeta _4^1(\sigma _2)=\zeta _4^1(\sigma _4)=(1,2,3,4),\zeta _4^1(\sigma _3)=(2,1,3,4),$$

and

$$\zeta _4^2(\sigma _1)=\zeta _4^2(\sigma _2)=(1,2,3,4),\zeta _4^2(\sigma _3)=(2,1,3,4),\zeta _4^2(\sigma _4)=(4,3,2,1).\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }$$

It is well known that $`W`$ embeds into the Weyl group of type $`B_n`$ with image an index two subgroup. The embedding can be made explicit by means of the isomorphism of the Weyl group of type $`B_n`$ with $`(𝐙/2𝐙)^n\text{ }\times \mathrm{Sym}_n`$ described in the discussion preceding Proposition 3.2. The embedding maps $`s_1`$ to $`(1,1,0,\mathrm{},0)(1,2)`$ and maps $`s_i`$ to $`(i1,i)`$ for $`i2`$. So, if we denote by $`H`$ the index 2 subgroup of $`(𝐙/2𝐙)^n`$ of all elements $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ with $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n=0`$, we find that the image is $`H\text{ }\times \mathrm{Sym}_n`$. Let $`\delta =(s_1s_2)(s_3s_1s_2s_3)\mathrm{}(s_n\mathrm{}s_3s_1s_2s_3\mathrm{}s_n)`$ denote the longest element of $`W`$. Then $`\delta `$ is mappped to $`(1,1,\mathrm{},1)H`$ if $`n`$ is even and to $`(0,1,\mathrm{},1)H`$ if $`n`$ is odd. For $`n`$ odd, write $`u_1=\delta `$ and $`u_i=s_is_{i1}\mathrm{}s_2u_1s_2\mathrm{}s_{i1}s_i`$ if $`i>1`$. We use Proposition 4.1 to prove Theorem 1.3 for $`D_n`$.

Proposition 4.2. Let $`n4`$. For the Coxeter graph $`D_n`$, there are no extraordinary epimorphisms $`AW`$ if $`n`$ is even. If $`n`$ is odd, there are precisely two equivalence classes of extraordinary epimorphisms $`AW`$. These are represented by $`\nu _n^1,\nu _n^2:AW`$, where

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\nu _n^1(\sigma _1)=\nu _n^1(\sigma _2)=s_2\delta =u_2s_2,\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\nu _n^1(\sigma _i)=u_is_i\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}i=2,\mathrm{},n.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\nu _n^2(\sigma _1)=u_1s_2,\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\nu _n^2(\sigma _i)=u_is_i\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟}i=2,\mathrm{},n.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

The following two lemmas are preparations to the proof of Proposition 4.2. Denote by $`p:W\mathrm{Sym}_n`$ the natural projection with kernel $`H`$.

Lemma 4.3. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an extraordinary epimorphism such that $`p\phi `$ is the standard epimorphism $`\eta :A\mathrm{Sym}_n`$. Then $`n`$ is odd and $`\phi `$ is equivalent to $`\nu _n^1`$ or $`\nu _n^2`$.

Proof. Let $`t_i=\phi (\sigma _i)`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Write $`t_1=v_1(1,2)`$, and $`t_i=v_i(i1,i)`$ (for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$), where $`v_iH`$. The same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.3 shows that there exist $`a,a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n𝐙/2𝐙`$ such that $`v_1=(a_1,1+a_1,a,\mathrm{},a)`$, and $`v_i=(a,\mathrm{},a,a_i,1+a_i,a,\mathrm{},a)`$ ($`a_i`$ being in the $`(i1)`$-st entry) for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$. The condition $`v_iH`$ implies that $`n`$ is odd and $`a=1`$. Using again the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 3.3, we see that $`a_i=1`$ for all $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ (not necessarily for $`i=1`$), up to an automorphism of $`W`$.

Lemma 4.4. For the Coxeter graph $`D_6`$, there is no extraordinary epimorphism $`\phi :AW`$ such that $`p\phi =\zeta _6`$.

For the Coxeter graph $`D_4`$, there is no extraordinary epimorphism $`\phi :AW`$ such that either $`p\phi =\zeta _4^1`$ or $`p\phi =\zeta _4^2`$.

Proof. The proof is a straightforward calculation which can be carried out in GAP (for instance with the package ‘Chevie’ of GAP) or Magma. It follows the same scheme as the proof of Lemma 3.5.

Proof of Proposition 4.2. Let $`\phi :AW`$ be an extraordinary epimorphism. By Proposition 4.1, we can assume that either $`p\phi `$ is the standard epimorphism, or $`n=6`$ and $`p\phi =\zeta _6`$, or $`n=4`$ and $`p\phi \mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\zeta _4^i`$, where $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a diagram automorphism of $`A`$, and $`i\{1,2\}`$. By Lemma 4.4, the last two cases cannot happen, so $`p\phi `$ is standard. Proposition 4.2 now follows from Lemma 4.3.

We turn now to the proof of the second main result for $`D_n`$.

Proposition 4.5. Let $`n4`$. For the Coxeter graph $`D_n`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

Remark. By Artin’s Theorem (1.1), for the Coxeter graph $`A_n`$, each epimorphism $`AW`$ is standard, except for $`n=3`$. In particular, this shows that, for an Artin group of type $`A_n`$, $`n3`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$. Now, the proof given below also applies to $`A_3`$, viewed as the Coxeter graph $`D_3`$, and so provides an alternative proof to Theorem 1.2 for $`n=4`$.

The following lemma is a preparation to the proof of Proposition 4.5.

Lemma 4.6. Assume $`n`$ is odd. Let $`A`$ be an Artin group of type $`D_n`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be a homomorphism. Then $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _n^1`$, and $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _n^2`$.

Proof. Assume that there exists a homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _n^i`$, where $`i\{1,2\}`$. Consider the following six reflections.

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`s_1,`$ $`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`s_3s_1s_3,`$ $`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_1s_3s_2,`$  $`r_4`$ $`=`$ $`s_3,`$ $`r_5`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_2,`$ $`r_6`$ $`=`$ $`s_2.`$

Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=(\sigma _1\sigma _2)(\sigma _3\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3)\mathrm{}(\sigma _n\mathrm{}\sigma _3\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{}\sigma _n).$$

Recall the map $`U`$ defined in Lemma 3.7. The fact that $`\delta =(s_1s_2)(s_3s_1s_2s_3)\mathrm{}(s_n\mathrm{}s_3s_1s_2s_3\mathrm{}s_n)`$ is a reduced expression for the longest element of $`W`$ implies that $`U(\mathrm{\Delta })(0,r_k)=(1,\delta r_k\delta )`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},6`$. Furthermore, since $`n`$ is odd, $`\delta s_1\delta =s_2`$, $`\delta s_2\delta =s_1`$, and $`\delta s_j\delta =s_j`$ for $`j=3,\mathrm{},n`$. Let

$$\tau _2=\sigma _2\mathrm{\Delta },\tau _3=\sigma _3\sigma _2\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _2,$$

so that $`\mu (\tau _2)=s_2\delta =\nu _n^i(\sigma _2)`$ and $`\mu (\tau _3)=s_3s_2\delta s_2=\nu _n^i(\sigma _3)`$. A straightforward calculation gives

$`U(\tau _2)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,r_6),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_4),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_2),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_5),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_3),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_1).`$

and

$`U(\tau _3)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,r_5),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_1),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,r_4),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_3),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_6),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2,r_2).`$

Now $`\mu (\tau _2)=\nu _n^i(\sigma _2)=\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))`$ and $`\mu (\tau _3)=\nu _n^i(\sigma _3)=\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))`$ so, by Corollary 3.8, there exist integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_6,b_1,\mathrm{},b_6`$ such that

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+1,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_3+1,r_2),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+1,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_5+1,r_3),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_6+1,r_1).`$

and

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_1,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_2+1,r_1),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_3,r_4),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_4+1,r_3),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_5+1,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2b_6,r_2).`$

We find that

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2a_2+2b_6+1,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+2a_3+2b_4+3,r_2),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2a_3+2b_2+2,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+2a_6+2b_5+3,r_1),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+2a_5+2b_3+2,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_5+2a_6+2b_1+2,r_3).`$

and

$`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_5+2b_1+2b_3+1,r_4),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_1+2b_2+2b_6+1,r_2),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_4+2b_3+2b_5+2,r_6),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_3+2b_2+2b_4+3,r_1),`$  $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_6+2b_1+2b_5+2,r_5),`$ $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_2+2b_4+2b_6+2,r_3).`$

The equalities $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_i)=U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_i)`$ for $`i=1,2,4,5`$ are equivalent to the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_1+a_2a_5b_1b_3+b_6& =0\hfill \\ \hfill a_1+a_2+a_3b_2+b_4b_6& =1\hfill \\ \hfill a_3+a_4+a_6b_2b_4+b_5& =0\hfill \\ \hfill a_4+a_5a_6b_1+b_3b_5& =0\hfill \end{array}$$

The sum of these four equations gives $`2(a_2+a_4b_1b_2)=1`$, a contradiction.

Proof of Proposition 4.5. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be an automorphism. Suppose that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extraordinary. By Proposition 4.2, $`n`$ is odd, and there exist an automorphism $`\alpha :WW`$ and $`i\{1,2\}`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha \nu _n^i`$. By \[Fra\], $`\mathrm{Aut}W=\{\mathrm{Conj}_w;wW\}`$. Let $`wW`$ be such that $`\alpha ^1=\mathrm{Conj}_w`$, and take $`gA`$ such that $`\mu (g)=w`$. Then $`\alpha ^1\mu =\mathrm{Conj}_w\mu =\mu \mathrm{Conj}_g`$, whence $`\mu (\mathrm{Conj}_g\mathrm{\Phi })=\nu _n^i`$. This equality contradicts Lemma 4.6. Hence $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is ordinary, and so the proposition follows from Lemma 2.3.

5. The remainder

In this section, we classify up to equivalence the epimorphisms $`AW`$, and we prove that $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$, for the Artin groups of type $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$. This finishes our proofs of Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. We start with the Artin group of type $`H_3`$, which requires a separate treatment, because it is the only Artin group among those of type $`H_3`$, $`H_4`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$ which has extraordinary epimorphisms. For the corresponding Coxeter diagrams, we adopt the labelings

$$\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}\stackrel{5}{\text{ }}\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}\text{ }\underset{3}{\overset{}{}}\text{ and }\underset{1}{\overset{}{}}\stackrel{5}{\text{ }}\underset{2}{\overset{}{}}\text{ }\underset{3}{\overset{}{}}\text{ }\underset{4}{\overset{}{}}$$

for $`H_3`$ and $`H_4`$ and the labeling of \[Bou\] for the remaining types.

Lemma 5.1. For the Coxeter graph $`H_3`$, there are precisely two conjugacy classes of extraordinary epimorphisms $`AW`$. These are represented by $`\nu _3^1,\nu _3^2:AW`$, where

$$\nu _3^1(\sigma _1)=s_1s_2s_3,\nu _3^1(\sigma _2)=s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2,\nu _3^1(\sigma _3)=s_3s_2s_1,$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\nu _3^2(\sigma _1)=s_1s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3,\nu _3^2(\sigma _2)=s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3,\nu _3^2(\sigma _3)=s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. The proof is a straightforward calculation, which can be made in GAP (for instance, with the package ‘Chevie’) or Magma. First, we calculate a representative for each conjugacy class of $`W`$. Let $`C_1`$ be the set of these representatives. We compute $`C_2=\{xC_1;\mathrm{sg}(x)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{order}(x)2\}`$. We have $`|C_2|=3`$. Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_1& =\{(t_1,t_2)C_2\times W;t_1t_2,t_1t_2t_1t_2t_1=t_2t_1t_2t_1t_2\},\hfill \\ \hfill X_2& =\{(t_1,t_2,t_3)X_1\times W;t_1t_3=t_3t_1,t_2t_3t_2=t_3t_2t_3\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We successively compute $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$. We have $`|X_1|=16`$, and $`|X_2|=10`$. We verify that, if $`(t_1,t_2,t_3)X_2`$, then $`\{t_1,t_2,t_3\}`$ generates $`W`$. Let $``$ be the equivalence relation on $`X_2`$ defined by $`(t_1,t_2,t_3)(t_1^{},t_2^{},t_3^{})`$ if there exists $`wW`$ such that $`t_i^{}=wt_iw^1`$ for all $`i=1,2,3`$. We compute a representative for each equivalence class. Let $`Y`$ be the set of these representatives. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }Y=\{(s_1s_2s_3,s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2,s_3s_2s_1),\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }(s_1s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3,s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3,s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1)\}.\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Proposition 5.2. For the Coxeter graph $`H_3`$, there is a unique equivalence class of extraordinary epimorphisms $`AW`$. It is represented by $`\nu _3^1:AW`$.

Proof. Let $`\alpha :WW`$ be the automorphism determined by

$$\alpha (s_1)=s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1,\alpha (s_2)=s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2,\alpha (s_3)=s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1.$$

Then $`\alpha \nu _3^1=\nu _3^2`$.

Proposition 5.3. For the Coxeter graph $`H_3`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AA`$ be an automorphism. In order to prove Proposition 5.3, it suffices to show that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an ordinary epimorphism, cf. Lemma 2.3. In particular, we need only establish the claim that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _3^1`$ and $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _3^2`$. For, if $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is extraordinary, then by Lemma 5.1 there are $`wW`$ and $`i\{1,2\}`$ such that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{Conj}_w\nu _3^i`$; taking $`gA`$ with $`\mu (g^1)=w`$, we find $`\mu (\mathrm{Conj}_g\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{Conj}_{w^1}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _3^i`$, so we can apply the claim with $`\mathrm{Conj}_g\mathrm{\Phi }`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to derive a contradiction.

In order to settle the claim, suppose that $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _3^1`$. Let

$`r_1`$ $`=`$ $`s_1,`$ $`r_2`$ $`=`$ $`s_2,`$ $`r_3`$ $`=`$ $`s_3,`$  $`r_4`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_1,`$ $`r_5`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_3s_2,`$ $`r_6`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1s_2,`$  $`r_7`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1,`$ $`r_8`$ $`=`$ $`s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3,`$ $`r_9`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_1s_2s_1,`$  $`r_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3s_1,`$ $`r_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2,`$ $`r_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3s_1s_2,`$  $`r_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2s_1s_2s_1,`$ $`r_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3s_1s_2s_1,`$ $`r_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`s_2s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_2s_3s_1s_2s_1s_2.`$

It is easily verified that $`T=\{wsw^1;wW,sS\}=\{r_1,\mathrm{},r_{15}\}`$. Let

$$\tau _2=\sigma _2\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2,\tau _3=\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _1.$$

A direct calculation gives

$`U(\tau _2)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{12}),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_5),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_9),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{15}),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_{11}),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_4),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_7)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_8),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_8)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_6),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_9)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{13}),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{10})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_3),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{11})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_1),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_2),`$  $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{13})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{14}),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{14})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{10}),`$ $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_{15})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_7).`$

and

$`U(\tau _3)(0,r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_8),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{10}),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_3)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_2),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_4)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_5),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_5)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{12}),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_6)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_7),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_7)`$ $`=`$ $`(1,r_3),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_8)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{11}),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_9)`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_1),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{10})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_6),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{11})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{14}),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{12})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{15}),`$  $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{13})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_4),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{14})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_9),`$ $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_{15})`$ $`=`$ $`(0,r_{13}).`$

Since $`\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))=\nu _3^1(\sigma _2)=s_2s_1s_2s_3s_2=\mu (\tau _2)`$, and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))=\nu _3^2(\sigma _3)=s_3s_2s_1=\mu (\tau _3)`$, by Corollary 3.8, there exist $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_{15},c_1,\mathrm{},c_{15}𝐙`$ such that

$``$ if $`U(\tau _2)(0,r_i)=(k_i,r_j)`$, then $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2))(0,r_i)=(2b_i+k_i,r_j)`$;

$``$ if $`U(\tau _3)(0,r_i)=(k_i^{},r_j^{})`$, then $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3))(0,r_i)=(2c_i+k_i^{},r_j^{})`$.

Now, the equalities $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_i)=U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_i)`$ for $`i=2,5,6,8,10,11`$, are equivalent to the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_2b_{10}+b_{12}c_2c_3+c_5& =1,\hfill \\ \hfill b_5b_{12}+b_{14}c_2c_5+c_{11}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_5+b_6b_7+c_4c_6c_8& =1,\hfill \\ \hfill b_7+b_8b_{11}c_1+c_6c_8& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_2b_6+b_{10}+c_3c_4c_{10}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_8+b_{11}b_{14}+c_1c_{10}c_{11}& =1.\hfill \end{array}$$

The sum of these six equations gives $`2(b_2+b_5+b_8c_2c_8c_{10})=3`$ which clearly cannot hold. So, $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _3^1`$.

Suppose $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\nu _3^2`$. Using the same procedure as before, we find that the equalities $`U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _2))(0,r_i)`$ $`=U(\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma _3\sigma _2\sigma _3))(0,r_i)`$ for $`i=2,4,7,8,10,12`$, are equivalent to the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b_2b_7+b_{15}c_2+c_4c_{13}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_2+b_4b_{15}c_4+c_6c_{12}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_7b_{10}+b_{12}c_7+c_{13}c_{14}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_3+b_8b_9c_2c_8+c_{10}& =1,\hfill \\ \hfill b_3+b_8+b_{10}c_7c_{10}+c_{14}& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill b_4+b_9+b_{12}c_6+c_8c_{12}& =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The sum of these six equations gives $`2(b_2+b_8+b_{12}c_2c_7c_{12})=1`$, a contradiction. So, $`\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\nu _3^2`$.

Now, we study the remaining cases.

Proposition 5.4. For each of the Coxeter graphs $`H_4`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$, all epimorphisms $`AW`$ are ordinary.

Proof. Suppose $`\phi :AW`$ is a morphism of groups. In a case-by-case analysis, we find all possible morphisms by listing all possible $`(\phi (\sigma _1),\mathrm{},\phi (\sigma _n))`$ up to conjugacy in $`W`$. This is done by computing all sequences $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)W^n`$ satisfying $`[x_i,x_j^{m_{i,j}}=[x_j,x_i^{m_{i,j}}`$ for all $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, up to conjugacy in $`W`$, and next verifying whether the $`x_i`$ generate $`W`$. Excluding the ordinary and trivial cases, we can impose some a priori conditions on the $`x_i`$. For instance, in view of Lemma 2.1, we may assume that some $`x_i`$ has order at least 3, and surjectivity of $`\phi `$ implies that some $`x_i`$ has sign $`1`$.

It is well known (and easy to verify) that $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ are conjugate whenever $`i`$ and $`j`$ are joined by a path all of whose edges have odd labels. Since $`F_4`$ is the only diagram with two connected components with respect to this kind of connectivity, we deal with it first.

$`F_4`$. In view of Lemma 2.1 and symmetry of the diagram, we may assume that $`x_1`$ has order greater than 2. We describe a calculational proof using GAP. The group $`W`$ has 25 conjugacy classes, of which 17 contain elements $`x_1`$ of order at least $`3`$. We first compute a complete set of representatives of the conjugacy classes of pairs $`(x_1,x_2)`$ of elements of $`W`$ such that $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are of order at least $`3`$, conjugate and satisfy $`x_1x_2x_1=x_2x_1x_2`$. (For each of the 17 representatives $`x_1`$, we compute the orbits of $`C_W(x_1)`$ in the conjugacy class of $`x_1`$ of elements $`x_2`$ with $`x_1x_2x_1=x_2x_1x_2`$, and take representatives.) There are 53 such representatives. Since none of these generates $`W`$, we may assume that $`x_3`$ and $`x_4`$ are nontrivial. For each pair $`(x_1,x_2)`$ we compute representatives of the $`C_W(x_1,x_2)`$-orbits under conjugation on $`C_W(x_1)`$ with $`[x_2,x_3^4=[x_3,x_2^4`$. There are 513 such triples (with $`x_31`$). Finally, for each such triple, we compute representatives $`x_4`$ of each $`C_W(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$-orbit of elements conjugate to $`x_3`$, contained in $`C_W(x_1,x_2)`$, and satisfying $`x_3x_4x_3=x_4x_3x_4`$. There are $`441`$ such quadruples $`(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)`$. Each of these generates a proper subgroup of $`W`$. In particular, for $`F_4`$, there are no extraordinary epimorphisms.

For the remaining cases, all $`x_i`$ will be conjugate and hence have sign $`1`$. Moreover, from the diagrams it will be clear that we may assume $`x`$ to be injective when viewed as a map on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ (observe that if $`i`$ and $`j`$ are nodes with $`x_i=x_j`$, then $`x_k=x_i`$ for each node adjacent to $`i`$ but not to $`j`$ \[by an odd-labelled edge\], so by induction, $`x`$ would be a constant map, and so the corresponding $`\phi `$ would have a cyclic image, which does not occur). By the same argument, we may even assume $`x`$ to be strong injective, by which we mean that $`x_ix_j`$ for $`ij`$.

For $`J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, denote by $`X_J`$ the set of all $`W`$-conjugacy classes of strong injective maps $`x:JW`$, denoted by $`jx_j`$, such that the $`x_j`$ $`(jJ)`$ are all from the same conjugacy class in $`W`$, have order at least 3 and satisfy $`[x_i,x_j^{m_{i,j}}=[x_j,x_i^{m_{i,j}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sg}(x_i)=1`$ for all $`i,jJ`$. The sets $`X_J`$ can be calculated in GAP by similar computations to those described for $`F_4`$ above. Since $`X_J=\mathrm{}`$ for some $`J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, there are no extraordinary epimorphisms. We give some of the statistics involved.

$`H_4`$. There are $`34`$ conjugacy classes, but $`|X_{\{4\}}|=8`$. We find $`|X_{\{2,4\}}|=6`$, $`|X_{\{1,2,4\}}|=6`$, and $`|X_{\{1,2,3,4\}}|=0`$.

$`E_6`$. There are 25 conjugacy classes, but $`|X_{\{1\}}|=8`$. Now $`|X_{\{1,2,6\}}|=11`$ and $`|X_{\{1,2,4,6\}}|=0`$.

$`E_7`$. There are 60 conjugacy classes, but $`|X_{\{1\}}|=25`$, $`|X_{\{2,3,5,7\}}|=840`$, and $`|X_{\{1,2,3,5,7\}}|=0`$.

$`E_8`$. There are 112 conjugacy classes, but $`|X_{\{1\}}|=43`$, $`|X_{\{2,3,5,7\}}|=17700`$, and $`|X_{\{2,3,5,7,8\}}|=0`$.

Corollary 5.5. For each of the Coxeter graphs $`H_4`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, $`E_8`$, the colored Artin group $`CA`$ is a characteristic subgroup of $`A`$.

References

\[Art\] E. Artin, Braids and permutations, Ann. of Math. 48 (1947), 643–649.

\[Bou\] N. Bourbaki, Groupes et algèbres de Lie, Chapitres 4, 5, et 6, Hermann, Paris, 1968.

\[BS\] E. Brieskorn, K. Saito, Artin-Gruppen und Coxeter-Gruppen, Invent. Math. 17 (1972), 245–271.

\[Fra\] W.N. Franzsen, Automorphisms of Coxeter groups, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Sydney, 2001.

\[Lin\] V.Y. Lin, Artin braids and related groups and spaces, Algebra. Topology. Geometry, Vol. 17, pp. 159–227, 308, Akad. Nauk SSSR, Vsesoyuz. Inst. Nauchn. i Tekhn. Informatsii, Moscow, 1979.

\[Zin\] V.M. Zinde, Some homomorphisms of the Artin groups of the series $`B_n`$ and $`D_n`$ into groups of the same series and into symmetric groups, Uspehi Mat. Nauk 32 (1977), 189–190.

Arjeh M. Cohen  Department of Mathematics and Computer Science  Eindhoven University of Technology  PO Box 513  5600 MB Eindhoven  THE NETHERLANDS  A.M.Cohen@tue.nl    Luis Paris  Laboratoire de Topologie  Université de Bourgogne  UMR 5584 du CNRS, BP 47870  21078 Dijon cedex  FRANCE  lparis@u-bourgogne.fr


format: text

text:
# Energy nonequipartition in a sheared granular mixture

## Abstract

The kinetic granular temperatures of a binary granular mixture in simple shear flow are determined from the Boltzmann kinetic theory by using a Sonine polynomial expansion. The results show that the temperature ratio is clearly different from unity (as may be expected since the system is out of equilibrium) and strongly depends on the restitution coefficients as well as on the parameters of the mixture. The approximate analytical calculations are compared with those obtained from Monte Carlo simulations of the Boltzmann equation showing an excellent agreement over the range of parameters investigated. Finally, the influence of the temperature differences on the rheological properties is also discussed.

Although experimental and theoretical studies on granular media have been mainly focused on assemblies of identical particles, there appears to be a recent growing interest among both theorists and experimentalists in the more complicated case of polydisperse systems. In this case, several kinetic theory studies in the freely cooling  and thermostatted steady  states have shown that the kinetic temperatures of each species are different. This violation of energy equipartition has been subsequently confirmed in experiments of vibrated granular mixtures. When the system is sheared, a similar result has been recently found by Clelland and Hrenya  from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of a binary-sized mixture of inelastic, smooth hard disks engaged in rapid shear flow. Their results were compared with previous kinetic theory calculations based on the assumption of equipartition of granular energy. As Clelland and Hrenya conclude , although this equipartition-of-energy assumption does not appear to have a negative impact on the ability of those earliest theories to predict the stress tensor in simple shear flow, a multi-temperature theory must be more appropriate. In the context of kinetic theory, the only primary attempts to include temperature differences in dense granular mixtures were put forward by Jenkins and Mancini  and more recently by Huilin et al.. However, both works are phenomenological with no attempt to solve the kinetic equation. Instead, they assume that the velocity distribution functions are local Maxwellians. This can be reasonable to estimate the dense gas collisional transfer contributions to the fluxes, but not to compute their kinetic contributions. On the other hand, both theories are applicable to a general flow field.

The goal of this brief report is to explicitly get the dependence of the temperature ratio $`\gamma T_1/T_2`$ on particle properties as well as on compositional parameters of a granular binary mixture subjected to the simple shear flow. The calculation of $`\gamma `$ allows one to assess the magnitude of the equipartition violation and its dependence on the parameters of the system. On the other hand, due to the complexity of the general problem, here we will restrict ourselves to the low-density regime in which case the velocity distribution functions $`f_i`$ for the two species verify a set of two coupled nonlinear Boltzmann equations. This set of equations is first analytically solved by using a first-Sonine polynomial approximation. Then, to check the reliability of our theoretical results, the direct simulation Monte Carlo method  is also employed to numerically solve the Boltzmann equation in the shear flow state. As will be shown later, our theory presents a much better agreement with simulations than the one given by Jenkins and Mancini .

Let us consider a granular binary mixture composed by smooth inelastic disks or spheres of masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ and diameters $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. Collisions between particles are inelastic and characterized by three constant (independent) restitution coefficients $`\alpha _{11}`$, $`\alpha _{22}`$, and $`\alpha _{12}=\alpha _{21}`$, where $`\alpha _{ij}1`$ refers to the restitution coefficient for collisions between particles of species $`i`$ and $`j`$. The mixture is under simple shear flow, namely, a macroscopic state with a constant linear velocity profile $`𝐔=𝖺𝐫`$, where $`a_k\mathrm{}=a\delta _{kx}\delta _\mathrm{}y`$, $`a`$ being the constant shear rate. In addition, the partial densities $`n_i`$ and the (global) granular temperature $`T`$ are uniform. The time evolution of the temperature arises from the balance of two competing effects: viscous heating and collisional cooling. When both mechanisms cancel each other, the system reaches a steady state and the temperature achieves a constant value. This steady state is what we want to analyze here. From a microscopic point of view, the simple shear flow problem becomes spatially uniform in the local Lagrangian frame moving with the flow velocity $`𝐔`$. In this frame, $`f_i(𝐫,𝐯)f_i(𝐕)`$, where $`𝐕=𝐯𝐔`$ is the peculiar velocity. Under these conditions, the set of Boltzmann kinetic equations read

$$aV_y\frac{}{V_x}f_i(𝐕)=\underset{j}{}J_{ij}[𝐕|f_i,f_j],$$
(1)
where the Boltzmann collision operator $`J_{ij}\left[𝐕|f_i,f_j\right]`$ describing the scattering of pairs of particles is

$$J_{ij}\left[𝐕_1|f_i,f_j\right]=\sigma _{ij}^{d1}𝑑𝐕_2𝑑\widehat{𝝈}\mathrm{\Theta }(\widehat{𝝈}𝐠_{12})(\widehat{𝝈}𝐠_{12})\left[\alpha _{ij}^2f_i(𝐕_1^{})f_j(𝐕_2^{})f_i(𝐕_1)f_j(𝐕_2)\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system, $`\sigma _{ij}=\left(\sigma _i+\sigma _j\right)/2`$, $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ is a unit vector along their line of centers, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside step function and $`𝐠_{12}=𝐕_1𝐕_2`$. In addition, the primes on the velocities denote the initial values $`\{𝐕_1^{},𝐕_2^{}\}`$ that lead to $`\{𝐕_1,𝐕_2\}`$ following a binary collision: $`𝐕_1^{}=𝐕_1\mu _{ji}\left(1+\alpha _{ij}^1\right)(\widehat{𝝈}𝐠_{12})\widehat{𝝈}`$ and $`𝐕_2^{}=𝐕_2+\mu _{ij}\left(1+\alpha _{ij}^1\right)(\widehat{𝝈}𝐠_{12})\widehat{𝝈}`$. Here, $`\mu _{ij}=m_i/\left(m_i+m_j\right)`$.

Our study is focused on the evaluation of the partial temperatures $`T_i`$, which measure the mean kinetic energy of each species. In terms of $`f_i`$, they are defined as

$$\frac{d}{2}n_iT_i=𝑑𝐕\frac{1}{2}m_iV^2f_i.$$
(3)
The temperature of the mixture is $`T=x_1T_1+x_2T_2`$, where $`x_i=n_i/(n_1+n_2)`$ is the mole fraction of species $`i`$. The balance equation of the granular temperature for species $`i`$ can be obtained by multiplying the Boltzmann equations (1) by $`m_iV^2`$ and integrating over $`𝐕`$. The result is

$$aP_{i,xy}+\frac{d}{2}\zeta _ip_i=0,$$
(4)
where $`p_i=n_iT_i`$,

$$𝖯_i=m_i𝑑\mathrm{𝐕𝐕𝐕}f_i(𝐕),$$
(5)
is the partial pressure tensor of the species $`i`$ and $`\zeta _i=_j\zeta _{ij}`$ is the cooling rate for the partial temperature $`T_i`$, with

$$\zeta _{ij}=\frac{1}{dn_iT_i}𝑑𝐕m_iV^2J_{ij}[𝐕|f_i,f_j].$$
(6)
According to Eq. (4), in the steady state the temperature ratio $`\gamma T_1/T_2`$ is given by the relation

$$\gamma =\frac{x_2\zeta _2P_{1,xy}}{x_1\zeta _1P_{2,xy}}.$$
(7)
Thus, to get $`\gamma `$ one needs to determine the cooling rates $`\zeta _i`$ and the $`xy`$ element of the partial pressure tensors $`𝖯_i`$. An equation for the elements of $`𝖯_i`$ follows immediately from the definition (5) and the Boltzmann equation (1):

$$a_{km}P_{i,m\mathrm{}}+a_\mathrm{}mP_{i,mk}=\underset{j}{}A_{ij,k\mathrm{}},$$
(8)
where we have introduced the collisional moments $`𝖠_{ij}`$ as

$$𝖠_{ij}=m_i𝑑\mathrm{𝐕𝐕𝐕}J_{ij}[𝐕|f_i,f_j].$$
(9)
The determination of $`𝖯_i`$ is a closed problem provided the moments $`𝖠_{ij}`$ are explicitly known. This requires the knowledge of the velocity distribution functions $`f_i`$, which is quite an intricate problem, even in the elastic case. A useful way to estimate $`\zeta _i`$ and $`𝖠_{ij}`$ is to expand $`f_i`$ in Sonine polynomials. This approach is similar to the usual moment method for solving kinetic equations in the elastic case where the leading order truncation is known to be a good approximation. In the case of shear flow, we take the leading Sonine approximation, $`f_i(𝐕)f_{i,M}(𝐕)[1+𝖢_i:𝖣_i(𝐕)/2T_i]`$, where $`𝖢_i=(𝖯_i/p_i)𝟙`$ and $`𝐃_i(𝐕)=m_i\left[\mathrm{𝐕𝐕}(V^2/d)𝟙\right]`$. Here, $`𝟙`$ is the $`d\times d`$ unit tensor and $`f_{i,M}`$ is a Maxwellian distribution at the temperature of the species $`i`$, i.e.,

$$f_{i,M}(𝐕)=n_i\left(\frac{m_i}{2\pi T_i}\right)^{d/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{m_iV^2}{2T_i}\right).$$
(10)
With this approximation, the integrals appearing in the expressions of the cooling rates $`\zeta _{ij}`$ and the collisional moments $`𝖠_{ij}`$ can be explicitly evaluated. Retaining only linear terms in $`𝖢_i`$ and after a lengthy calculation, one gets

$$\zeta _{ij}=\frac{2\pi ^{(d1)/2}}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}n_j\mu _{ji}\sigma _{ij}^{d1}v_0\left(\frac{\theta _i+\theta _j}{\theta _i\theta _j}\right)^{1/2}(1+\alpha _{ij})\left[2\mu _{ji}(1+\alpha _{ij})\frac{\theta _i+\theta _j}{\theta _j}\right],$$
(11)
$`𝖠_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{(d1)/2}}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)}}m_in_in_j\mu _{ji}\sigma _{ij}^{d1}v_0^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i+\theta _j}{\theta _i\theta _j}}\right)^{3/2}(1+\alpha _{ij})\{[\lambda _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d+3}}\mu _{ji}(1+\alpha _{ij})]𝟙`$ (13)
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i\theta _j}{(\theta _i+\theta _j)^2}}[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{d+3}{2(d+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i+\theta _j}{\theta _i}}\lambda _{ij})𝖢_i(1{\displaystyle \frac{d+3}{2(d+2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i+\theta _j}{\theta _j}}\lambda _{ij})𝖢_j]\}.`$
In these expressions, $`v_0=\sqrt{2T(m_1+m_2)/m_1m_2}`$ is a thermal velocity defined in terms of the temperature of the mixture $`T`$, and

$$\theta _1=\frac{1+x_1(\gamma 1)}{\mu _{21}\gamma },\theta _2=\frac{1+x_1(\gamma 1)}{\mu _{12}},$$
(14)
$$\lambda _{ij}=2\frac{\mu _{ij}\theta _j\mu _{ji}\theta _i}{\theta _i+\theta _j}+\frac{\mu _{ji}}{d+3}(2d+33\alpha _{ij}).$$
(15)
Equations (11) and (13) extend previous expressions obtained in the three dimensional case. The approximation (13) allows one to solve the set of equations (8) and express $`𝖯_i`$ as a function of $`\gamma `$, while the approximation (11) gives the cooling rates $`\zeta _i`$. When all these expressions are used in Eq. (7), one gets a closed equation for the temperature ratio $`\gamma `$, that can be solved numerically.

A full presentation of the results is not possible because of the complexity of the parameter space: $`\alpha _{11}`$, $`\alpha _{22}`$, $`\alpha _{12}`$, $`m_1/m_2`$, $`x_1`$, and $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$. As in Ref. , we assume for the sake of illustration that the spheres or disks are made of the same material ($`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha `$) and have the same mass density, i.e., $`m_1/m_2=(\sigma _1/\sigma _2)^d`$. This reduces the parameter space to $`\alpha `$, $`x_1`$, and $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$. As expected, our results show that in general the kinetic temperatures of the mixture are different ($`\gamma 1`$). There are only two trivial exceptions: the elastic case ($`\alpha =1`$) and the case of mechanically equivalent particles ($`m_1=m_2`$, $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2`$). Beyond these cases, the dependence of $`\gamma `$ on the parameters of the problem is quite intricate. As an illustration, we plot the temperature ratio $`T_1/T_2`$ versus the diameter ratio $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$ for $`x_1=\frac{1}{3}`$ (Fig. 1) and $`x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$ (Fig. 2) for three different values of $`\alpha `$: $`\alpha =0.95`$, $`\alpha =0.9`$, and $`\alpha =0.8`$. We have considered the two dimensional case ($`d=2`$). Also, for comparison we show the kinetic-theory predictions of Jenkins and Mancini. It is apparent that an excellent agreement between Monte Carlo simulations (symbols) and our theory is found over the entire range of values of size and mass ratios considered. Although the solid fractions considered by Clelland and Hrenya prevent us from making a quantitative comparison between our theory and their simulations, we observe that the behavior of $`\gamma `$ in dilute systems is qualitatively similar to the one found in Ref. . Thus, for instance, at a given value of $`\alpha `$ the granular energy of the larger particle (say for instance, species 1) increases relative to that of the smaller particle as the size ratio $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2`$ increases. Both Monte Carlo simulation and theory show that the temperature ratio presents a strong dependence on the restitution coefficient. With respect to the influence of composition, comparison of Figs. 1 and 2 indicates that $`\gamma `$ exhibits a very weak dependence on the mole fraction $`x_1`$. This behavior has been also found in recent experiments  carried out on binary vibrated granular gases. We also see that all the above trends are qualitatively reproduced by the theory of Jenkins and Mancini  (which is restricted to nearly elastic disks), although these trends are however strongly exaggerated. Thus, for instance, at a size ratio $`\sigma _1/\sigma _2=3`$, in the case $`x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\alpha =0.8`$, the discrepancy between our theory and the simulation is less than $`1\%`$ while it is around of $`115\%`$ in the theory of Jenkins and Mancini .

An interesting point is to assess the influence of the temperature differences on the rheological properties of the mixture. Although the comparison carried out in Ref.  between previous theories (based on a single temperature) and simulation shows a qualitative good agreement at the level of the shear stresses, one expects that the new contributions coming from the energy difference leads to an improvement over previous theoretical predictions. In Fig. 3, we plot the dimensionless stresses $`P_{xy}^{}`$ and $`P_{yy}^{}`$ versus the restitution coefficient in the case $`x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`m_1/m_2=(\sigma _1/\sigma _2)^{1/2}=10`$. Here, $`𝖯^{}=𝖯/nT=(𝖯_1+𝖯_2)/nT`$. Also shown in this Fig. 3 is the result which would be obtained if the differences in the partial temperatures were neglected \[i.e., $`\theta _i=\mu _{ji}^1`$ in Eqs. (11) and (13)\]. In general, inclusion of the two-temperature effects represents a significant improvement of the theory, especially in the case of the shear stress $`P_{xy}^{}`$, which is the most relevant rheological property in a sheared flow problem. This justifies the use of a two-temperature description to capture the dependence of stresses on dissipation.

In summary, we have obtained an approximate evaluation of the temperature ratio of a sheared granular mixture. The accuracy of this calculation has been also confirmed by Monte Carlo simulation of the Boltzmann equation. As was also found in recent MD simulations , our results show that the temperature ratio strongly depends on dissipation and the mechanical parameters of the mixture (especially on the ratios of mass and size). In addition, the effect of temperature differences on rheology is important (especially in the case of the shear stress) and leads to an improvement of the theoretical results with respect to the predictions made from a single-temperature theory.

V. G. acknowledges partial support from the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (Spain) through Grant No. BFM2001-0718.


text:
# Reflection Spectra from Photoionized Accretion Discs

## 1 Introduction

With the discovery of Fe K$`\alpha `$ emission at 6.4 keV and spectral hardening at 20–30 keV in the X-ray spectra of Seyfert 1 galaxies (Pounds et al. 1990), it was realized that there is a significant amount of reprocessing material in the vicinity of the X-ray source. This material must be optically thick to electron scattering and relatively ’cold’ (as compared to the X-ray emitting plasma). The observation of the relativistically broadened Fe K$`\alpha `$ line in MCG–6-30-15 by Tanaka et al. (1995) confirmed that, at least in some Seyfert 1 galaxies, the reflecting material was the inner part of the accretion disc. Therefore, the possibility arises of unraveling some of the mysteries of AGN accretion flows, such as its geometry, by studying the reflection signatures in X-ray spectra.

## 2 Constant density models

Numerical models of reflection spectra from accretion discs began with the simplest case: assuming a static, neutral and constant density slab of material irradiated by a power-law continuum of X-rays. George & Fabian (1991) and Matt, Perola & Piro (1991) performed Monte-Carlo calculations of the reflection spectra in such circumstances, and provided predictions on the equivalent width (EW) of Fe K$`\alpha `$ for different reflection geometries.

Of course, assuming that the gas remains neutral while it is being bombarded by X-rays is not very satisfying, and this led Ross & Fabian (1993) to model photoionized reflectors (see also Życki et al. 1994). As might easily be imagined, allowing the gas to be ionized changes significantly the types of features imprinted on the X-ray reflection spectrum. This is illustrated in Figure 1 taken from the paper by Ross, Fabian & Young (1999) where extensive calculations are presented. Here we see X-ray reflection spectra for different cases of the ionization parameter $`\xi =4\pi F_\mathrm{X}/n_\mathrm{H}`$ where $`F_\mathrm{X}`$ is the total flux incident on the slab and $`n_\mathrm{H}`$ is the hydrogen number density of the gas.

In every case the reflector is irradiated by a power-law continuum with photon-index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ (denoted by the dotted lines in Fig. 1). When the ionization parameter is small the gas is weakly ionized and there is a large amount of photoelectric absorption by metals between 0.1 and 20 keV. This absorbed energy is thermalized by the gas and re-radiated in the soft X-rays and extreme-UV wavebands (not shown in Fig. 1). The same transitions which can absorb X-ray photons can also emit them, so the recombination and fluorescent lines of the abundant metals also occur between 0.1 and 20 keV. Due to its relatively high cosmic abundance and large fluorescent yield the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line at 6.4 keV is the most prominent of these lines. Above $``$20 keV electron scattering results in the albedo of the reflector to approach unity, until above $``$50 keV where electron recoil causes it to decrease again.

Increasing the ionization parameter of the slab removes the ability of the gas to absorb the X-ray photons, and so increases the albedo of the reflector. This occurs first at lower energies and then moves to higher energies as the gas becomes more ionized. Therefore, the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line is a strong feature in the reflection spectrum over more than three orders of magnitude in ionization parameter. The line does shift energy, however, from 6.4 keV when Fe is only weakly ionized to 6.7 keV when Fe is helium-like, having a significant impact on its observed strength (Matt, Fabian & Ross 1993, 1996). One other important effect of a larger ionization parameter is the broadening of the spectral features by Compton scattering (this can be especially seen in the $`\xi =3\times 10^3`$ model in Fig. 1).

Constant density reflection models such as the ones shown in Figure 1 are useful because their properties are easily parameterized by only two parameters ($`\xi `$ & $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). They have also been widely used to study the response of the reflection spectrum and the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line to changes in metal abundance (Matt, Fabian & Reynolds 1997; Ballantyne, Fabian & Ross 2002), and inclination angle (Ghisellini, Haardt & Matt 1994).

## 3 Non-uniform density models

Although a constant density accretion disc does have some theoretical justification (a standard thin radiation-pressure dominated accretion disc has a roughly constant vertical density profile; Shakura & Sunyaev 1973), the material on the irradiated surface is not in pressure equilibrium if the density is held fixed. Ross et al. (1999) computed the reflection spectrum from a disc where the density followed a Gaussian drop-off. The resulting spectrum exhibited much weaker reflection features than the equivalent constant density model.

The next step in non-uniform density models was to enforce the condition of hydrostatic equilibrium on the illuminated gas. Initial investigations on the disc structure of illuminated hydrostatic discs were done by Różańska & Czerny (1996) and Różańska (1999). The full radiative transfer and photoionization problem was then performed by Nayakshin, Kazanas & Kallman (2000) and subsequently investigated in a series of papers (Nayakshin & Kallman 2001; Nayakshin & Kazanas 2002). These calculations found that in many cases the illuminated gas structure took up a two-phase appearance with a hot ($``$107 K), ionized zone on the surface and a colder ($`10^5`$ K), recombined zone deeper in the atmosphere. The two zones would be in pressure balance with each other and the transition between them could be very sharp due to the thermal ionization instability (e.g., Krolik, McKee & Tarter 1981). In this case, the reflection spectrum would appear to be a diluted form of a neutral reflector as all of the emission lines would arise from the cold recombined zone and then are scattered as they pass through the outer hot ionized skin. Therefore a neutral Fe K$`\alpha `$ line at 6.4 keV would be expected even when the disc is highly illuminated.

The sharpness of the temperature drop between the two zones has a great impact on the features in the reflection spectrum. Ballantyne, Ross & Fabian (2001) and Ballantyne & Ross (2002) present a series of hydrostatic calculations which show reflection spectra with strong ionized Fe K$`\alpha `$ lines. The nearly discontinuous drop in temperature, indicative of the thermal ionization instability, seems to only occur when the Compton temperature of the illuminated gas is a few keV (see Figure 2).

However, these considerations are subject to uncertainties in the illuminating radiation field, particularly the high-energy cutoff of the incident power-law (Ballantyne & Ross 2002), and also in the true structure of the surface of accretion discs. The question of how important is the thermal ionization instability in determining the reflection spectra is still one that requires more research.

While it is possible to fit X-ray data with hydrostatic models (Nayakshin’s models are available in XSPEC), they are subject to a large number of assumptions on the accretion disc structure, and it is this author’s opinion that the constant density models are more useful in fitting AGN data. One of the problems is that in order to calculate a hydrostatic model, the height of the accretion disc at the irradiated point must be known. This requires assuming a black hole mass, accretion rate, a radius, and a full disc model before the calculation can proceed. Therefore, these models may be more useful in fitting data from Galactic black hole candidates where there are often independent estimates of at least some of these parameters.

## 4 Comparison with data

Recently, the sophisticated reflection models discussed above have been applied to the data. This section discusses two very different uses of the ionized constant density models.

Ballantyne, Iwasawa & Fabian (2001) fitted ASCA data of five Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 (NLS1) galaxies with the models of Ross & Fabian (1993). NLS1s are thought to be systems in which a smaller than ’normal’ black hole (say, 106 M) is accreting at a high fraction of its Eddington rate (Pounds, Done & Osborne 1995; Boller, Brandt & Fink 1996). In such a situation it is expected that the disc would be hot and ionized. Observations of many NLS1s have provided some evidence for this (Comastri et al. 1998, 2001; Turner, George & Nandra 1998, Vaughan et al. 1999, Turner et al. 2001a,b), but this hypothesis needed to be tested with self-consistent models. Ballantyne et al. (2001) found that four out of the five NLS1 considered were well fit by the ionized reflection models (Fig. 3), a stronger constraint than measuring the energy of the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line because the continuum is fit simultaneously with the line.

Recent XMM-Newton observations of MCG–6-30-15 and Mrk 766 by Branduardi-Raymont et al. (2001) suggested that there were strong relativistic emission lines from C, N and O in the soft X-ray part of the spectrum. Ionized reflection models can provide predictions on the strength of such lines as they are predicted along with Fe K$`\alpha `$ and the reflection continuum. Ballantyne & Fabian (2001) fit the ASCA data of MCG–6-30-15 around the Fe K$`\alpha `$ line with both constant density and hydrostatic reflection models. The models then predicted the strength and shape of the carbon and oxygen lines (see Fig. 4).

Both types of models predicted that the EWs of the soft X-ray lines should be on the order of tens of eV, and that O vii and Fe L emission should both be common in the soft X-ray band. These results raise questions about the relativistic diskline interpretation of Branduardi-Raymont et al. (2001).

The current most common reflection models in use in XSPEC are pexrav for neutral reflection and pexriv for ionized reflection (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995). Both are constant density models, and both calculate the reflection continuum, including edges. This means that emission lines, such as Fe K$`\alpha `$ must be added in separately to the model which is not an ideal situation because, as Fig. 1 shows, the properties of the line are closely linked with the reflection continuum. For ionized reflection, pexriv suffers from inaccuracies at high ionization parameters because it neglects Comptonization (see Fig. 7 in Ross et al. 1999). A better alternative for comparing reflection models to data is to use the constant density ones computed using the code of Ross & Fabian (1993). Two grids of these models (one with solar Fe abundance, the other at twice solar Fe) are now available for public use as XSPEC table models111From http://legacy.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/models/iondisc.html. The grids cover a wide range of parameter space ($`1.0\mathrm{log}\xi 6.0`$, $`1.5\mathrm{\Gamma }3.0`$, $`0.0R2`$, where $`R`$ is the reflection fraction: total=$`R\times `$reflected+incident) and of course include many emission lines computed self-consistently with the reflection continuum.

###### Acknowledgements.

DRB acknowledges financial support from the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. ACF and RRR acknowledge support from the Royal Society and the College of the Holy Cross, respectively.