text:
# A relative Shafarevich theorem

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Main statement

Let $`p`$ be a prime integer, and $`k`$ an algebraically closed field of characteristic $`p`$. In , A.Pacheco and K.Stevenson have given necessary and sufficient conditions for an extension $`G`$ of a $`p^{}`$-group by a $`p`$-group to occur as the Galois group of an étale cover of a given proper, non-singular curve $`X`$ over $`k`$. We pursue this work further by solving the case of the extension $`G`$ of an arbitrary group $`H`$ (which we suppose of course realized as a Galois group) by a $`p`$-group $`P`$.

Thanks to the work of S.Nakajima (see ), we can define, for any étale $`H`$-cover $`YX`$, a family of integers $`\delta _{Y,V}`$ parametrized by the set $`𝒮_H`$ of isomorphism classes of simple $`k[H]`$-modules. These integers describe the Galois module structure of the space $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s`$ of semi-simple differentials on $`Y`$ in the sense that they are defined by the formula :

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s\mathrm{\Omega }^2k\underset{V𝒮_H}{}P(V)^{\delta _{Y,V}}$$

(see §2.2 for a precise definition).

These “Hasse-Witt coefficients” seem to be slightly more convenient invariants for our purposes than the previously used generalized Hasse-Witt invariants (see Remark following definition 2.2). Let $`ZX`$ be an étale $`G`$-cover dominating the étale $`H`$-cover $`YX`$, and $`q:GH`$ the corresponding group extension. We show in part 2 the following formula relating the corresponding Hasse-Witt coefficients :

$$V𝒮_H\delta _{Z,q^{}V}+dim_kH^1(G,q^{}V)=\delta _{Y,V}+dim_kH^1(H,V)$$

(see proposition 2.4).

We then use this result in part 3 to prove an extension of the main Theorem of  :

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`k`$ be an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of positive characteristic $`p`$. Let also $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover of proper non-singular curves over $`k`$, with Galois group $`H`$. Suppose

is an exact sequence of finite groups, where $`P`$ is a $`p`$-group.

Then the embedding problem

has a strong solution if and only if for every simple $`k[H]`$-module $`V`$ the following inequality holds :

$$dim_kH^1(G,q^{}V)dim_kH^1(H,V)\delta _{Y,V}$$

Here are some indications about the origins of this theorem.

When $`H=1`$, the above result specialises to the classical Theorem of Shafarevich (see for instance ) : a given $`p`$-group $`P`$ occurs as the Galois group of an étale cover of $`Y`$ if and only if the minimal number of generators of $`P`$ is less than the Hasse-Witt invariant of $`Y`$.

The first to consider inequalities as in the Theorem seems to be E.Kani in , and for this reason we call them the Kani inequalities or the Kani conditions. These were given as necessary conditions for the existence of a tame cover, and since Kani considered differentials instead of semi-simple ones, his inequalities coincide with ours only when the curve $`Y`$ is ordinary.

Our main source of inspiration was , which we tried to interpret from the “Galois module” point of view. The original problem and the presentation in terms of an embedding problem is due to the authors of that paper. However, the tools employed here are quite different, in particular since we use some basic results of modular representation theory. Moreover, we make a heavy use of the convenient Proposition 2.4, which seems new, and of independant interest. As an application, we define, in paragraph 2.5, a refinement of the notion of ordinariness of a Galois étale cover, which we call $`V`$-ordinariness.

In a last paragraph, we give another proof of Theorem 1.1 in the special case solved in , namely when $`H`$ is supposed a $`p^{}`$-group (see Proposition 4.2). This proof is based on the same cohomological argument as the one given in , but it uses moreover the existence of an interesting quotient of the fundamental group of $`X`$.

### 1.2. Acknowledgements

I would like to thank both M.Emsalem and B.Erez for their support.

## 2. Hasse-Witt coefficients

### 2.1. Notations

#### 2.1.1. Curves

In the following we fix an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of positive characteristic $`p`$.

The letters $`X`$, $`Y`$, … will denote connected, complete, non-singular curves over $`k`$.

Let $`S`$ be an effective divisor on a curve $`X`$. Then the Cartier operator $`𝒞`$ acts on the space of global sections of the logarithmic differentials $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))`$ (one can define this action directly or as dual of the action of the Frobenius, see ). This action is $`p^1`$-linear. We will call semi-simple logarithmic differentials the subspace

$$H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))^s:=k\underset{𝔽_p}{}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))^𝒞$$

generated by forms fixed by $`𝒞`$ of the whole space $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))`$ of logarithmic differentials. When $`S=0`$, this subspace has dimension $`\gamma _X`$, the classical Hasse-Witt invariant of the curve $`X`$. One defines also a natural supplement of $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))^s`$ in $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))`$, the space $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X(S))^n`$ of nilpotent differentials (see ).

We will denote by $`\pi _1(X)`$ “the” fundamental group of the curve $`X`$, without specifying a base point. When considering morphisms between curves and their fundamental groups, we will always suppose that a coherent choice of base points is made.

#### 2.1.2. Representation theory

We also need a few basic notions from module theory over an artinian (non-commutative) ring $`A`$. All $`A`$-modules will be implicitly supposed of finite type. We will use these notions for the group ring $`A=k[H]`$ (sometimes $`A=𝔽_p[H]`$) where $`H`$ is a finite group whose order is (possibly) divisible by $`p`$. We refer to  for more details.

The letter $`k`$ will always denote the trivial representation.

Every finitely generated $`A`$-module $`M`$ has a well-defined (i.e. unique up to isomorphism) projective cover, which we denote by $`P(M)M`$. This allows us to define $`\mathrm{\Omega }M:=\mathrm{ker}(P(M)M)`$ and inductively $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i+1}M=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }^iM)`$.

When there are several groups acting, we will also use the notations with indices $`P_H(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_HM`$ to stress the fact that $`H`$ acts.

We will denote by $`𝒮_A`$ (or $`𝒮_H`$ when there is no doubt about the field used) a fixed complete set of representatives of the isomorphism classes of simple $`A`$-modules.

#### 2.1.3. Warning

We make use of the usual notations and vocabulary of both domains, but this is not without certain ambiguities. For an example, the letter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is used with two different meanings. We must also point out that the word semi-simple is very ambiguous. For an example we will see that, if $`Y`$ is a curve acted on by a group $`H`$, the space of semi-simple differentials on $`Y`$ is in general not semi-simple as a $`k[H]`$-module. We hope that this warning and the context will help to give a clear meaning to our assertions.

#### 2.1.4. Profinite groups

An embedding problem is a diagram in the category of profinite groups :

where the vertical arrow is an epimorphism and the horizontal sequence is exact. It is said to have a weak solution if there exists a continuous homomorphism $`\beta :\pi G`$ lifting $`\alpha `$, i.e. $`q\beta =\alpha `$. There is a strong solution if one can choose moreover $`\beta `$ to be an epimorphism. According to , Chapitre I, §3.4, Proposition 16, if $`\mathrm{cd}_p\pi 1`$ and $`P`$ is a pro-$`p`$-group, there is always a weak solution.

### 2.2. Definition

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover of proper non-singular curves, with Galois group $`H`$. Then

(i) For any reduced non-trivial effective divisor $`S`$ the space $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(S))^s`$ of semi-simple differentials logarithmic along $`S`$ is projective as a $`k[H]`$-module.

(ii) There is a projective $`k[H]`$-module $`P`$, unique up to isomorphism, such that $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s\mathrm{\Omega }^2kP`$

###### Proof.

(i) Let $`P`$ be a $`p`$-Sylow of $`H`$. According to , Theorem 1, applied to the subcover $`YY/P`$, the space $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(S))^s`$ is $`k[P]`$-free. But this is equivalent to say that this space is $`k[H]`$-projective (this is easily seen using the fact that any $`k[H]`$-module is projective relative to $`P`$ \[see for an example  for relative projectivity\]).

(ii) Choose $`S`$ to be reduced to an orbit under $`H`$. Then the short exact sequence of sheaves $`0\mathrm{\Omega }_Y\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(S)𝒪_S0`$ gives the long exact sequence

$$0H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^sH^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y(S))^sk[H]k0$$

(see the proof of , Theorem 2 for the fact that nilpotent differentials have trivial residues). In view of (i), it suffices to apply the well-known algebraic lemma comparing this sequence to the beginning of the minimal projective resolution of $`k`$, see for instance , Proposition 4.

Now, using the Krull-Schmidt theorem to decompose $`P`$, and the fact that the indecomposable projective $`k[H]`$-modules are exactly the projective covers of the simple $`k[H]`$-modules, we can make the structure of $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s`$ more precise :

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover with Galois group $`H`$ and let $`𝒮_H`$ be a set of representatives of the isomorphism classes of simple $`k[H]`$-modules. We define the Hasse-Witt coefficients of the cover as the only non-negative integers $`\delta _{Y,V}`$ verifying :

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s\mathrm{\Omega }^2k\underset{V𝒮_H}{}P(V)^{\delta _{Y,V}}$$

Remark :  It would be more coherent with previous work on the subject to consider generalized Hasse-Witt invariants defined by $`\gamma _{Y,V}:=\delta _{Y,V}dim_kP(V)`$. However, since $`dim_kP(V)`$ is hard to compute in general, and contains no geometric information, we prefer to exclude it from the definition, to concentrate on the computation of $`\delta _{Y,V}`$’s.

### 2.3. Behaviour under quotient : statement

First we introduce a useful notation.

###### Definition 2.3.

If $`M`$ is any $`k[H]`$-module of finite type, we define

$$h^i(H,M):=dim_kH^i(H,M)$$

If $`q:GH`$ is a group epimorphism and $`M`$ is a $`k[H]`$-module, we denote by $`q^{}M`$ the corresponding inflated $`k[G]`$-module. (We will also use $`M=q_{}N`$ for $`N=q^{}M`$).

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`ZX`$ be a Galois étale cover with Galois group $`G`$, and let $`YX`$ be any quotient Galois cover, with Galois group $`H`$. Denote by $`q`$ the quotient map $`GH`$. Then :

$$V𝒮_H\delta _{Z,q^{}V}+h^1(G,q^{}V)=\delta _{Y,V}+h^1(H,V)$$

Before giving the proof of Proposition 2.4, we make some remarks, beginning by another useful definition.

###### Definition 2.5.

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois $`H`$-cover, $`\pi _1(X)H`$ the corresponding group epimorphism, and $`q:GH`$ an extension of $`H`$. We will say that the pair $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$ satisfies the Kani inequalities (or conditions) if and only if :

$$V𝒮_Hh^1(G,q^{}V)h^1(H,V)\delta _{Y,V}$$

Remarks :

1. In the perspective of the proof of Theorem 1.1, it is clear that Proposition 2.4 implies that if the embedding problem of the theorem has a solution, then the Kani inequalities hold for $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$.
2. Proposition 2.4 is valid without assuming that the kernel $`P`$ of $`q:GH`$ is a $`p`$-group. However, this hypothesis is sometimes useful. For an example, it implies that the inflation map $`q^{}:𝒮_H𝒮_G`$ is one to one. Indeed, we have :

###### Theorem 2.6 (Clifford).

If $`P`$ is any normal subgroup of $`G`$ and $`M`$ is a semi-simple $`k[G]`$-module, then $`M_{|P}`$ is a semi-simple $`k[P]`$-module.

(see for instance , Chapter I.3, Theorem 4). Moreover, it is well known that if $`P`$ is a $`p`$-group, the only simple $`k[P]`$-module is the trivial one. Hence, if we suppose that $`P`$ is a $`p`$-group, any simple $`k[G]`$-module is trivial when restricted to $`P`$.

We can conclude, with this hypothesis on $`P`$, that the Hasse-Witt coefficients of the covers $`ZX`$ and $`YX`$ determine each other.
3. M.Emsalem suggested to us that one can consider more generally tame covers, and that Proposition 2.4 could also hold in this more general setting. We hope to come back to these questions in a subsequent paper.

### 2.4. Behaviour under quotient : proof

The idea is quite naturally to take the fixed part under the kernel $`P`$ of $`q:GH`$ of the two members of the isomorphism :

$$H^0(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)^s\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k\underset{U𝒮_G}{}P_G(U)^{\delta _{Z,U}}$$

and then use the three following lemmas.

#### 2.4.1. Algebraic part

In this part we assume only that we have an arbitrary exact sequence of groups :

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $`U𝒮_G`$.

$$q_{}(P_G(U)^P)\{\begin{array}{cc}P_H(V)& \mathrm{if}V𝒮_H\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}U=q^{}V\hfill \\ 0& \mathrm{else}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The proof is a straightforward computation, using the Krull-Schimdt theorem and three facts :

1. If $`U𝒮_G`$, then $`\mathrm{soc}(P_G(U))U`$,
(see , Chapter II.6, Theorem 6, or , Theorem 1.6.3) ;
2. $`q_{}(k[G]^P)k[H]`$,
so in particular $`q_{}(^P)`$ sends projectives to projectives ;
3. $`k[G]_{U𝒮_G}P_G(U)^{dim_kU}`$.

###### Lemma 2.8.

$$q_{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)^P)\mathrm{\Omega }_H^2k\underset{V𝒮_H}{}P_H(V)^{h^1(G,q^{}V)h^1(H,V)}$$

###### Proof.

We will suppose that $`p|\mathrm{\#}P`$, the proof in the opposite case being similar, and in fact easier. Then, as Kani notices (, §5, Lemma 2), one can easily show inductively that for all $`i`$, the module $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P^ik`$ is non-projective, and this implies $`H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_P^ik)0`$ (see , Proposition 3.14.4).

Restricting the exact sequence

to $`P`$ via $`r:PG`$ (which, in view of $`r^{}k[G]k[P]^{\mathrm{\#}H}`$, also sends projectives to projectives) and comparing to the minimal $`k[P]`$-resolution of the trivial module $`k`$, we get an isomorphism $`r^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_G^ik)\mathrm{\Omega }_P^ikQ`$, where $`Q`$ is a projective $`k[P]`$-module, and this implies $`H^1(P,r^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_G^ik))H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_P^ik)`$. So we have shown in particular that for any $`i`$, we have $`H^1(P,r^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_G^ik))0`$.

Now applying the functor $`q_{}(^P)`$ to the exact sequence

we get the exact sequence of $`k[H]`$-modules :

The $`k`$-vector-space underlying $`H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_Gk)`$ is $`H^1(P,r^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Gk))0`$, hence the middle arrow has to be zero, and thanks to Lemma 2.7 it comes : $`q_{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_Gk)^P)q_{}((P_Gk)^P)P_H(k)`$.

We proceed similarly, starting with the sequence

we get the exact sequence of $`k[H]`$-modules :

We claim that $`H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)k`$. In fact the underlying $`k`$-vector-space is
$`H^1(P,r^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_P^2k)`$. But the above exact sequence for $`G=P`$ (hence $`H=1`$) shows that $`H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_P^2k)k`$. So $`H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)`$ must be simple, and because there is a surjective $`k[H]`$-map $`P_H(k)H^1(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)`$, it can only be the trivial simple module. From this we deduce, comparing the above exact sequence to the minimal $`k[H]`$-projective resolution of $`k`$, that $`q_{}((\mathrm{\Omega }_G^2k)^P)\mathrm{\Omega }_H^2kR`$, where $`R`$ is a projective $`k[H]`$-module. Now, using Lemma 2.7, and the isomorphism

$$P_G(\mathrm{\Omega }_Gk)\underset{U𝒮_G}{}P_H(U)^{h^1(G,U)}$$

(see , Proposition 5), a direct computation in the Grothendieck ring of the finitely-generated $`k[H]`$-modules shows the egality between classes :

$$[R]=[\underset{V𝒮_H}{}P_H(V)^{h^1(G,q^{}V)h^1(H,V)}]$$

But since both modules involved are $`k[H]`$-projective, they have to be isomorphic.

#### 2.4.2. Geometric part

In this part the hypothesis are those of Proposition 2.4.

###### Lemma 2.9.

The pullback along $`ZY`$ induces isomorphisms

(i) of $`𝔽_p[H]`$-modules :

$$\mathrm{Pic}_0(Y)[p](\mathrm{Pic}_0(Z)[p])^P$$

(ii) of $`k[H]`$-modules :

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s(H^0(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)^s)^P$$

###### Proof.

(i) Since the map $`ZY`$ commutes with the action of $`G`$, it is clear that the pullback is equivariant.

The Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence (see for instance , Chapter III, Theorem 2.20) for the $`P`$-Galois cover $`ZY`$ and the sheaf $`𝔾_{m,Y}=𝒪_Y^{}`$ gives the exact sequence of terms of low degree :

Now since $`k`$ is of characteristic $`p`$, raising to the power $`p`$ induces a group isomorphism

In particular, the groups $`H^i(P,k^{})`$ have no $`p`$-torsion and are $`p`$-divisible , and an immediate diagram chase allows to conclude.

(ii) According to , Proposition 10, there is a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Pic}_0(Y)[p]H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞$$

Indeed, if $``$ is an invertible sheaf on $`Y`$ such that $`^p𝒪_X`$, write $`_Y(D)`$ for a divisor $`D`$ on $`Y`$, and let $`f`$ be a function on $`Y`$ such that $`pD=(f)`$. To $``$ we can then associate the form $`\omega =df/f`$, and this gives the map we were looking for. Thanks to this description, one checks immediatly that this map is compatible with the action of $`H`$, and also with the pull-back along $`ZY`$. But then (i) gives

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞(H^0(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)^𝒞)^P$$

and the lemma follows.

### 2.5. $`V`$-ordinariness

This section is not necessary for the proof of Theorem 1.1 but is just an illustration of the usefulness of Proposition 2.4. Recall that a cover $`YX`$ is said ordinary if the curve $`Y`$ is, that is if $`\gamma _Y=g_Y`$.

###### Definition 2.10.

Let $`YX`$ be an étale Galois cover of group $`H`$ and $`V𝒮_H`$.

The cover is said $`V`$-ordinary if $`\delta _{Y,V}=dimV(g_X1)h^1(H,V)+h^0(H,V)`$.

The link with the classical notion is given by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.11.

The cover $`YX`$ is ordinary if and only if it is $`V`$-ordinary for all $`V𝒮_H`$.

###### Proof.

$`YX`$ is ordinary if and only if $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s=H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)`$. But , Theorem 2, gives that

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)\mathrm{\Omega }^2k\underset{V𝒮_H}{}P(V)^{dimV(g_X1)h^1(H,V)+h^0(H,V)}$$

and the lemma follows. ∎

It is well known that a Galois étale $`p`$-cover of an ordinary curve is ordinary (this results from the comparison of the Hurwitz and the Shafarevich formulas). Here is a relative version :

###### Lemma 2.12.

Let $`ZX`$ and $`YX`$ be covers as in Proposition 2.4. Then $`ZX`$ is $`q^{}V`$-ordinary if and only if $`YX`$ is $`V`$-ordinary.

###### Proof.

This follows immediately from Proposition 2.4. ∎

Remark :  This two lemmas suggest a method to show that a cover is ordinary, by using subcovers.

## 3. Extension of covers

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover of Galois group $`H`$, and $`\pi _1(X)H`$ the corresponding group epimorphism. In this section, we show that if the pair $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$ verifies the Kani inequalities, and the kernel $`P`$ of $`GH`$ is a $`p`$-group, then the corresponding embedding problem has a solution (see Theorem 1.1).

### 3.1. Reductions

In this section, we give an adaptation of an argument of A.Pacheco and K.Stevenson (see ).

#### 3.1.1. Reduction lemma

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover of Galois group $`H`$, and $`\pi _1(X)H`$ the corresponding group epimorphism. Suppose

is an exact sequence of finite groups, $`P`$ is a $`p`$-group, and $`O`$ is a subgroup of $`P`$ normal in $`G`$. Suppose also that the Kani inequalities hold for $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$.

(i) The Kani inequalities hold for $`(\pi _1(X)H,G/OH)`$.

(ii) Suppose $`\pi _1(X)G/O`$ is a strong solution of the embedding problem

Then the Kani inequalities hold for $`(\pi _1(X)G/O,GG/O)`$.

###### Proof.

We make constant use of the argument in the second remark following Definition 2.5 : in the situation given, Clifford’s theorem (see Theorem 2.6) ensures that the maps $`q:GH`$, $`q^{}:G/OH`$ and $`q^{\prime \prime }:GG/O`$ induce canonical bijections between the sets $`𝒮_H`$, $`𝒮_G`$, and $`𝒮_{G/O}`$.

(i) Let $`V𝒮_H`$. Note that $`q_{}^{\prime \prime }((q^{}V)^O)=q_{}^{\prime \prime }(q^{}V)=q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V`$. The inflation-restriction sequence (see for instance  3.5) for $`q^{\prime \prime }:GG/O`$ and $`q^{}V`$ ensures that $`h^1(G/O,q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V)h^1(G,q^{}V)`$ and (i) follows.

(ii) This is a formal consequence of the remark at the beginning of the proof and of Proposition 2.4.

#### 3.1.2. First reduction

Suppose that Theorem 1.1 holds with the extra hypothesis that $`P`$ is abelian $`p`$-elementary. Then we claim the theorem holds in general. This is easily proved by induction on $`N=\mathrm{log}_p\mathrm{\#}P`$, thanks to Lemma 3.1, applied with $`O=\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$, the Frattini subgroup of $`P`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$ is stable by any automorphism of $`P`$, hence in particular normal in $`G`$.

Remark :  The fact that we allow some $`P`$-part in $`H`$ enables us to avoid the use of the argument that the $`p`$-cohomological dimension of $`\pi _1(X)`$ is at most $`1`$ (compare with ). However, we cannot avoid the use of this argument at a later stage.

#### 3.1.3. Second reduction

Suppose next that Theorem 1.1 holds with the extra hypothesis that $`P`$ is abelian $`p`$-elementary, and simple as $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module. Then we claim the theorem holds with the restricted extra hypothesis that $`P`$ is abelian $`p`$-elementary. The proof is the same, by induction on $`dim_{𝔽_p}P`$, thanks to Lemma 3.1, applied with $`O`$ the kernel of $`PQ`$, where $`Q`$ is any $`𝔽_p[H]`$-simple quotient of $`P`$. As $`H`$ acts by conjugation on $`P`$, the fact that $`O`$ is $`H`$-stable ensures that $`O`$ is normal in $`G`$.

### 3.2. Fundamental exact sequence

#### 3.2.1. Introduction

In the following, the data will be :

1. A Galois $`H`$-cover $`YX`$, or equivalently, a continuous surjective group homomorphism $`\pi _1(X)H`$,
2. A simple $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module of finite type $`P`$, i.e. an irreducible representation of $`H`$ over $`𝔽_p`$,
3. A group $`G`$, extension of $`H`$ by the $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module $`P`$ (or equivalently a class $`\alpha H^2(H,P)`$), such that the Kani conditions hold for $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$.

Of course 2 and 3 are equivalent to the previous data of an exact sequence $`1PGH1`$, where $`P`$ is abelian $`p`$-elementary, simple as $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module, such that the Kani conditions hold for $`(\pi _1(X)H,GH)`$.

We split this data in two because 3 appears only at a later stage, and also because we will have to distinguish two cases, depending on whether $`\alpha `$ is zero or not.

#### 3.2.2. Inflation-restriction sequence for profinite groups

In the next general proposition, we use bold letters to distinguish from our previous notations.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`1𝐅𝐆𝐇1`$ be an exact sequence of profinite groups, $`M`$ a discrete abelian group endowed with a continuous action of $`𝐆`$. The transgression morphism is the fourth arrow in the exact sequence of terms of low degree in the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence :

$$0H^1(𝐇,M^𝐅)H^1(𝐆,M)H^1(𝐅,M)^𝐇H^2(𝐇,M^𝐅)H^2(𝐆,M)$$

###### Proposition 3.3.

Suppose moreover that $`𝐅`$ acts trivially on $`M`$. Let $`𝐅^{}`$ be the commutator subgroup of $`𝐅`$, and let $`\gamma H^2(𝐇,𝐅/𝐅^{})`$ be the class of the extension :

$$1𝐅/𝐅^{}𝐆/𝐅^{}𝐇1$$

Then the transgression $`\mathrm{trans}:H^1(𝐅,M)^𝐇H^2(𝐇,M^𝐅)`$ is given explicitly by :

$$uH^1(𝐅,M)^𝐇=H^0(𝐇,\mathrm{Hom}(𝐅/𝐅^{},M))\mathrm{trans}(u)=\gamma u$$

###### Proof.

We refer to , Theorem 4 for the case of abstract groups.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover with Galois group $`H`$, and $`P`$ a simple $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module.

(i) The exact sequence of terms of low degree for the spectral sequence of the extension $`1\pi _1(Y)\pi _1(X)H1`$ is the following exact sequence of finite-dimensional $`𝔽_p`$-vector spaces :

$`0H^1(H,P)H^1(\pi _1(X),P)\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)H^2(H,P)0`$

(ii) The transgression map $`\mathrm{trans}:\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)H^2(H,P)`$ in the sequence above can be described as follows : let $`u\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)`$, $`u0`$. Then $`u`$ corresponds canonically to a Galois cover $`ZX`$ whose Galois group is an extension of $`H`$ by $`P`$, and $`\mathrm{trans}(u)`$ is precisely the opposite of the class of this extension in $`H^2(H,P)`$.

###### Proof.

(i) To show the exactness it suffices, in view of Proposition 3.3, to show that $`H^2(\pi _1(X),P)=0`$. But $`P`$ is killed by $`p`$, so this equality follows directly from $`\mathrm{cd}_p(\pi _1(X))1`$ (for which we refer to , Theorem 5.11). Moreover, the largest $`p`$-elementary quotient of $`\pi _1^{ab}(X)`$ is of finite dimension over $`𝔽_p`$ (this dimension is nothing else than the Hasse-Witt invariant $`\gamma _X`$), hence so is $`\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)`$ and the $`H^i(H,P)`$ are also known to be finite-dimensional over $`𝔽_p`$.

(ii) One point here is because $`u`$ is $`H`$-equivariant and not equal $`0`$, and $`P`$ is a simple $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module, it has to be surjective. Hence $`u`$ determines a $`P`$-Galois cover $`ZY`$, and because $`u`$ is $`H`$-invariant, $`\pi _1(Z)`$ is in fact normal in $`\pi _1(X)`$, which means that the composite cover $`ZX`$ is Galois. The last assertion can be deduced from Proposition 3.3 by a direct computation, using the explicit description of cup product of cochains given in , Chapter II, §1. ∎

#### 3.2.3. Application to the embedding problem

We see that Proposition 3.4 implies at once that if the group $`G`$ is a non-trivial extension of $`H`$ by $`P`$ (that is, its class $`\alpha `$ in $`H^2(H,P)`$ is non zero), then the corresponding embedding problem has a strong solution (i.e. $`G`$ is the Galois group of a cover of $`X`$ dominating the $`H`$-cover $`YX`$). One can of course also see this quite directly, without using the inflation-restriction sequence, but “only” the inequality $`\mathrm{cd}_p(\pi _1(X))1`$. A rather striking fact is that we do not even use the Kani inegalities here.

So the only thing which remains to be proved to end the proof of Theorem 1.1 is that we can also realize the trivial extension. The Proposition 3.4 implies that it is equivalent to the following inequality :

$$dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)>dim_{𝔽_p}H^2(H,P)$$

### 3.3. End of the proof

#### 3.3.1. Rational representations and base extension

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`𝒱`$ a simple $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module.

(i) $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$ is a semi-simple $`k[H]`$-module.

(ii) $`dim_{𝔽_p}H^i(H,𝒱)=dim_kH^i(H,k_{𝔽_p}𝒱)`$

(iii) The multiplicity of a simple $`k[H]`$-module $`V`$ in $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$ is at most 1.

If moreover $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are two simple summands of $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$ then :

(iv) $`h^i(H,V)=h^i(H,V^{})`$,

(v) for any Galois étale $`H`$-cover $`YX`$ we have $`\delta _{Y,V}=\delta _{Y,V^{}}`$.

###### Proof.

(i) There is an obvious epimorphism :

$$k[H]\frac{k[H]}{k_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{rad}𝔽_p[H]}k_{𝔽_p}\frac{𝔽_p[H]}{\mathrm{rad}𝔽_p[H]}$$

and Wedderburn’s theorem (, Theorem 1.3.5) ensures that this last algebra is semi-simple. This shows that $`\mathrm{rad}(k[H])k_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{rad}𝔽_p[H]`$, and because $`𝒱`$ is killed by $`\mathrm{rad}𝔽_p[H]`$, the module $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$ is killed by $`\mathrm{rad}(k[H])`$, hence is semi-simple as a $`k[H]`$-module.

(ii) This is true without any assumption on $`𝒱`$ because

$$H^i(H,k_{𝔽_p}𝒱)k_{𝔽_p}H^i(H,𝒱)$$

(iii), (iv) The proofs are rather technical, and since these facts are not essential in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we omit them. The idea is to first to reduce to $`k=\overline{𝔽}_p`$, and then use the Galois action on $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$.

(v) For the same reason, we give no details here, and just point out that the proof uses the fact that we have in reality the equality $`\mathrm{rad}(k[H])=k_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{rad}(𝔽_p[H])`$, which holds because this last ideal is clearly nilpotent. The idea is to indicate that the invariants employed here are in some sense defined over $`𝔽_p`$. ∎

###### Definition 3.6.

Let $`𝒱`$ a simple $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module.

(i) Let $`V𝒮_H`$. We write $`V|𝒱`$ to say that $`V`$ is a summand of $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$.

(ii) We will denote by $`\mathrm{deg}𝒱`$ the number of simple summands of $`k_{𝔽_p}𝒱`$ in a decomposition into simple $`k[H]`$-modules.

#### 3.3.2. Conclusion

In view of Lemma 3.5 the two following lemmas end the proof of Theorem 1.1.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`V𝒮_H`$ such that $`V|P`$. Then :

$$dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)=\mathrm{deg}P(h^2(H,V)+\delta _{Y,V})=dim_{𝔽_p}H^2(H,P)+\mathrm{deg}P\delta _{Y,V}$$

###### Proof.

First notice that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(Y),𝔽_p)_{𝔽_p}P`$. But then using Artin-Schreier theory we see that :

$$\mathrm{Hom}(\pi _1(Y),𝔽_p)H^1(Y,𝔽_p)H^1(Y,𝔾_{a,Y})^F(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞)^{}$$

As these isomorphisms commute with the $`H`$-action we conclude that :

$$\mathrm{Hom}_H(\pi _1^{ab}(Y),P)\mathrm{Hom}_H(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞,P)$$

So it suffices to compute :

$$dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞,P)=dim_k\mathrm{Hom}_H(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s,k_{𝔽_p}P)$$

Because $`k_{𝔽_p}P`$ is semi-simple, we need only to consider the largest semi-simple quotient of $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s`$, that is $`H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s/\mathrm{rad}(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s)`$. But using Definition 2.2, the isomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2k/\mathrm{rad}\mathrm{\Omega }^2kP(\mathrm{\Omega }^2k)/\mathrm{rad}P(\mathrm{\Omega }^2k)`$ and
$`P(\mathrm{\Omega }^2k)_{V^{}𝒮_H}P(V^{})^{h^2(H,V^{})}`$ (see , Proposition 5), we finally see that :

$$H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s/\mathrm{rad}(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s)\underset{V^{}𝒮_H}{}V_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{h^2(H,V^{})+\delta _{Y,V^{}}}$$

hence :

$$dim_k\mathrm{Hom}_H(H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^s,k_{𝔽_p}P)=\underset{V^{\prime \prime }|P}{}h^2(H,V^{\prime \prime })+\delta _{Y,V^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{deg}P(h^2(H,V)+\delta _{Y,V})$$

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`V𝒮_H`$. If the Kani inequalities hold, $`G`$ is a trivial extension of $`H`$ by $`P`$, and $`V|P`$, then $`\delta _{Y,V}>0`$

###### Proof.

Because of the Kani inequalities $`\delta _{Y,V}h^1(G,q^{}V)h^1(H,V)`$, where $`q`$ is the epimorphism $`q:GH`$. We will show that $`h^1(G,q^{}V)h^1(H,V)=1`$. In fact, using proposition 3.3, and the hypothesis that $`G`$ is the trivial extension, we get an exact sequence :

$$0H^1(H,V)H^1(G,q^{}V)H^1(P,V)^H0$$

But now :

$$H^1(P,V)^H\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔽_p[H]}(P,V)\mathrm{Hom}_{k[H]}(k_{𝔽_p}P,V)k$$

## 4. Profinite proof for the extension of a $`p^{}`$-group by a $`p`$-group

In this section, we give another proof, almost purely algebraic, of the main Theorem of  (i.e. Theorem 1.1 in the case of $`H`$ being a $`p^{}`$-group).

### 4.1. Finite quotients of a free pro-$`p`$-group with $`p^{}`$-action

Let $`\gamma `$ be a nonnegative integer and $`F_\gamma `$ be a free pro-$`p`$-group with $`\gamma `$ generators, endowed with a continuous action of a finite $`p^{}`$-group $`H`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

For each $`𝒱𝒮_{𝔽_p[H]}`$ let $`\delta _V`$ be the integer :

$$\delta _𝒱:=dim_{𝔽_p}H^1(F_\gamma H,𝒱)$$

Remark :

In this definition, $`𝒱`$ is seen as a discrete $`F_\gamma H`$-module via the canonical map $`F_\gamma HH`$. Using the exact sequence $`0F_\gamma F_\gamma HH0`$ we can also consider $`𝒱`$ as a trivial continuous $`F_\gamma `$-module, and the inflation-restriction sequence shows that $`\delta _𝒱=dim_{𝔽_p}H^1(F_\gamma ,𝒱)^H=dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(F_\gamma ,𝒱)`$. But any continuous morphism $`F_\gamma 𝒱`$ is trivial on the (profinite) Frattini subgroup $`\mathrm{\Phi }(F_\gamma )`$, hence $`\delta _𝒱=dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(F_\gamma /\mathrm{\Phi }(F_\gamma ),𝒱)`$, which shows that the $`\delta _𝒱`$’s are actually finite.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`P`$ a finite $`p`$-group endowed with an action of $`H`$.

The following assertions are equivalent :

* There exists a continuous $`H`$-epimorphism $`F_\gamma P`$
* $`𝒱𝒮_{𝔽_p[H]}dim_{𝔽_p}H^1(PH,𝒱)\delta _𝒱`$.

###### Proof.

It is quite clear that (i) implies (ii) : a $`H`$-epimorphism $`F_\gamma P`$ provides a continuous group epimorphism $`F_\gamma HPH`$, and the beginning of the corresponding inflation-restriction sequence for $`𝒱`$ :

$`0H^1(PH,𝒱)H^1(F_\gamma H,𝒱)\mathrm{}`$

allows to conclude that (ii) holds.

To see that (ii) implies (i) first notice that, as in the remark above,

$`dim_{𝔽_p}H^1(PH,𝒱)=dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(P/\mathrm{\Phi }(P),𝒱)`$. Moreover, since $`H`$ is a $`p^{}`$-group, the ring $`𝔽_p[H]`$ is semi-simple, and for any $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module of finite type, $`dim_{𝔽_p}\mathrm{Hom}_H(M,𝒱)`$ is exactly $`\mathrm{deg}𝒱`$ times the multiplicity of $`𝒱`$ in $`M`$. From this and (ii) we deduce the existence of a surjective $`H`$-map $`F_\gamma /\mathrm{\Phi }(F_\gamma )P/\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$, and so the existence of a group epimorphism $`F_\gamma HP/\mathrm{\Phi }(P)H`$. Consider now the embedding problem :

According to , Chapitre I, §4.2, Proposition 24, Corollaire 2, et §3.3, Proposition 14, we certainly have $`\mathrm{cd}_p(F_\gamma H)1`$. Hence (see 2.1.4) this embedding problem has a weak solution $`F_\gamma HPH`$. This arrow commutes with projection on $`H`$, so we get a similar diagram without $`H`$’s, but for continuous $`H`$-morphisms. Now a classical argument (the Frattini subgroup $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$ is precisely the set of non-generators in $`P`$) shows that the map $`F_\gamma P`$ must be an epimorphism. ∎

Remark :  One can of course ask if the $`\delta _𝒱`$’s do characterize the action of $`H`$ on $`F_\gamma `$. We have no answer.

### 4.2. Geometric application

Let now $`YX`$ be a Galois étale cover of curves with Galois group $`H`$, a $`p^{}`$-group. By pushing the exact sequence $`0\pi _1(Y)\pi _1(X)H0`$ via the map $`\pi _1(Y)\pi _1^{(p)}(Y)`$ we obtain a split exact sequence (because $`\mathrm{cd}_pH=0`$) which shows that $`H`$ acts naturally on $`\pi _1^{(p)}(Y)`$. Since this group is known to be pro-$`p`$-free of rank $`\gamma _Y`$ (the classical Hasse-Witt invariant of $`Y`$), we can apply the result of the previous paragraph, with $`\gamma =\gamma _Y`$.

It is easy to see that Proposition 4.2 is equivalent to Theorem 1.1. The main point is that $`F_\gamma /\mathrm{\Phi }(F_\gamma )H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Omega }_Y)^𝒞`$, which allows to see that if $`V𝒮_{k[H]}`$, $`𝒱𝒮_{𝔽_p[H]}`$ are such that $`V|𝒱`$, then the $`\delta _𝒱`$’s of the previous paragraph coincide with our former $`\delta _{Y,V}`$’s.


format: text

text:
# On the Large-𝑁_𝑐 Limit and Electroweak Interactions: Some Properties of the 𝑁_𝑐-Extended Standard Modelaafootnote aTalk given at the Workshop on the Phenomenology of Large-𝑁_𝑐 QCD, Arizona State Univ., Jan. 2002; to be published in the proceedings

## 1 Introduction

The large-$`N`$ limit has long been of use in both statistical mechanics and field theory. Early examples of its application include the exact solutions of an O($`N`$)-invariant spin model by Stanley $`^\mathrm{?}`$, 2D U($`N_c`$) QCD by ’t Hooft $`^\mathrm{?}`$, 2D models with four-fermion interactions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and O($`N`$)-invariant scalar interactions $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and the O($`N`$)-invariant nonlinear sigma model in $`d=2+ϵ`$ dimensions $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The large-$`N_c`$ expansion has been of great value as an analytic approach to the nonperturbative properties of 4D QCD $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$; work continues on properties of baryons, on finite-temperature and density behavior, and other topics (reviews include $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$).

In applications of the large-$`N_c`$ expansion to QCD, a common practice has been to turn off electroweak interactions and analyze the QCD sector by itself. However, it is of considerable interest to take into account the electroweak interactions in the context of the large-$`N_c`$ limit and, more generally, to investigate the properties of the full $`N_c`$-extended standard model (SM) defined by the gauge group

$$G=\mathrm{SU}(N_c)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)_Y$$
(1)
with fermions transforming as

$$Q_{iL}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_i\\ d_i\end{array}\right)_L:(N_c,2,Y_{Q_L})$$
(2)
$$u_{iR}:(N_c,1,Y_{u_R}),d_{iR}:(N_c,1,Y_{d_R})$$
(3)
$$_{iL}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _i\\ e_i\end{array}\right)_L:(1,2,Y__L)$$
(4)
$$\nu _{jR}:(1,1,Y_{\nu _R}),e_{iR}:(1,1,Y_{e_R})$$
(5)
where $`i`$ denotes generation, $`i=1,..N_{gen.}`$, with $`u_1=u`$, $`u_2=c`$, $`u_3=t`$, $`d_1=d`$, $`d_2=s`$, $`d_3=b`$, etc. Here $`N_c`$ is not necessarily large. For generality, we shall consider arbitrary $`N_{gen.}`$. We have analyzed this theory $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and report additional results here.

In this $`N_c`$-extended standard model the usual relations $`Q=T_3+Y/2`$, $`Y_{Q_L}=q_u+q_d`$, $`q_u=q_d+1`$, $`q_\nu =q_e+1`$, $`Y_{f_R}=2q_{f_R}`$ and the vectorial property of electric charge, $`q_{f_L}=q_{f_R}q_f`$ continue to hold. Hence $`Y_{u_R}=Y_{Q_L}+1`$, $`Y_{d_R}=Y_{Q_L}1`$, $`Y_{\nu _R}=Y__L+1`$, and $`Y_{e_R}=Y__L1`$. Before imposing anomaly cancellation conditions, there are thus two independent electric charges among the fermions; we take these to be $`q_d`$ and $`q_e`$.

In the general solution to the anomaly cancellation conditions for $`N_c3`$, the electric charges of all of the fermions will differ from their $`N_c=3`$ values. In particular, since $`q_\nu 0`$ in general, the theory should include electroweak-singlet neutrinos $`\nu _{jR}`$ in order to form Dirac mass terms $`[\overline{\nu }_L\nu _R]`$; for $`q_\nu 0`$, Majorana mass terms would violate electric charge conservation. This contrasts with the situation in the standard model where, because $`\nu _{jR}`$’s are singlets under $`G_{SM}`$, they can be, and are, excluded from the fermion content. Hence, in the context of the standard model as a renormalizable QFT with only operators of dimension $`4`$, there are no neutrino mass terms. Of course, in the context of a grand unified theory (GUT) such as SO(10), one does include $`\nu _{jR}`$’s with $`j=1,\mathrm{}N_{gen.}`$. The current evidence for neutrino masses and lepton mixing also motivates the inclusion of heavy $`\nu _{jR}`$’ to drive a seesaw mechanism and provide an explanation for small neutrino masses.

In passing, we note that a more restricted $`N_c`$-extension of the standard model avoids $`\nu _{jR}`$’s $`^\mathrm{?}`$. There are then no gauge-invariant renormalizable terms in the Lagrangian that can give neutrino masses, so in the SM as a renormalizable QFT, the neutrinos are massless, a prediction disfavored by current experimental indications. In this restricted extension, one keeps $`q_\nu =0`$ to avoid massless unconfined fermions. Here we shall consider the full generalization with $`\nu _{jR}`$’s.

The electroweak part of the gauge group $`G`$ is still $`G_{EW}=\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{U}(1)_Y`$, and the issues of electroweak symmety breaking (EWSB) are similar in the $`N_c`$-extended SM and the SM itself.

## 2 Anomaly Cancellation Conditions

The absence of anomalies is a necessary property of an acceptable quantum field theory. For the usual $`d=4`$ dimensional spacetime considered here, there are three types of possible anomalies: (i) triangle anomalies in gauged currents which, if present, would spoil current conservation and renormalizability; (ii) the global SU(2) Witten anomaly resulting from the nontrivial homotopy group $`\pi _4(SU(2))=Z_2`$ which, if present, would render the path integral ill-defined; and (iii) mixed gauge-gravitational anomalies (if one includes gravity). We discuss here the constraints due to the absence of these anomalies. For anomalies (i), (iii), we suppress generation index since the cancellation occurs separately for each generation.

### 2.1 Anomalies in Gauged Currents

The SU($`N_c)^3`$ anomaly vanishes automatically because of the vectorial nature of the gluon-fermion couplings and the SU($`N_c)^2`$ U(1)Y anomalies vanish automatically because of the vectorial nature of the electromagnetic couplings. The condition for the vanishing of the SU(2)2 U(1)Y anomaly is

$$N_cY_{Q_L}+Y__L=0,i.e.N_c(2q_d+1)+(2q_e+1)=0$$
(6)
The condition for the vanishing of the $`U(1)_Y^3`$ anomaly is

$$N_c(2Y_{Q_L}^3Y_{u_R}^3Y_{d_R}^3)+(2Y__L^3Y_{\nu _R}^3Y_{e_R}^3)=0$$
(7)
This yields the same condition as for the vanishing of the SU(2)2 U(1)Y anomaly. Solving the equation for the vanishing of this anomaly gives, say for $`q_d`$ in terms of $`q_e`$,

$$q_d=q_u1=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{Y__L}{N_c}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{1}{N_c}(2q_e+1)\right)$$
(8)
or equivalently, taking $`q_d`$ as the independent variable,

$$q_e=q_\nu 1=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+N_cY__L\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+N_c(2q_d+1)\right)$$
(9)
### 2.2 Global SU(2) Anomaly

The constraint from the Witten global SU(2) anomaly is that the number $`N_{db.}`$ of SU(2) doublets, $`N_{db.}=(1+N_c)N_{gen.}`$ is even. We consider, a priori the possibility of even and odd $`N_{gen.}`$. If $`N_{gen.}`$ is odd, the absence of the global SU(2) anomaly implies that $`N_c`$ is odd. In this case, there is a connection between $`N_{gen.}`$ and $`N_c`$. In contrast, if $`N_{gen.}`$ is even, there is no constraint on $`N_c`$. Of course, if $`N_c`$ were even, baryons would be bosons, and the properties of the world would be quite different than for odd $`N_c`$.

### 2.3 Mixed Gauge-Gravitational Anomalies

The absence of mixed gauge-gravitational anomalies does not add any further constraints; the mixed gauge-gravitational anomaly involving two graviton vertices and an $`SU(N_c)`$ or $`SU(2)`$ gauge vertex vanishes identically since $`Tr(T_a)=0`$ where $`T_a`$ is the generator of a nonabelian group. The anomaly involving a $`U(1)_Y`$ vertex is proportional to

$$N_c(2Y_{Q_L}Y_{u_R}Y_{d_R})+(2Y__LY_{\nu _R}Y_{e_R})=0$$
(10)
where the expression vanishes because of the vectorial nature of the electromagnetic coupling. Indeed, the two separate terms in parentheses each vanish individually: $`2Y_{Q_L}Y_{u_R}Y_{d_R}=0`$ and $`2Y__LY_{\nu _R}Y_{e_R}=0`$, so that this anomaly does not connect quark and lepton sectors. Hence, for a given $`N_c`$, there is a one-parameter family of solutions for the fermion charges. The values of these charges are real, but not, in general, rational numbers, so that electric and hypercharge are not quantized, although if one is rational, then all are, as is clear from (6). In the SM extension with no $`\nu _{jR}`$’s and $`q_\nu `$ fixed at zero, one does get charge quantization: $`q_e=1`$, $`q_d=q_u1=(1/2)(1+N_c^1)`$.

## 3 Issue of Grand Unification

An important question is whether one can embed the $`N_c`$-extended standard model with gauge group $`G`$ in a grand unified theory (GUT) based on a simple group $`G_{GUT}`$. We recall that grand unification is appealing since it unifies quarks and leptons, predicts the relative sizes of gauge couplings in the SM factor groups, and quantizes electric charge, since $`Q`$ is a generator of $`G_{GUT}`$. Clearly,

$$\mathrm{rank}(G_{GUT})\mathrm{rank}(G)=N_c+1$$
(11)
Following the standard procedure for constructing a GUT, one puts the fermions in complex representations to avoid bare mass terms that would produce masses of order $`M_{GUT}`$ for all fermions and requires no anomalies of types (i)-(iii) in the theory. The absence of mixed gauge-gravitational anomalies is automatic, since there are no U(1) factor groups in $`G_{GUT}`$. Ideally, one places all fermions of a given generation in a single irreducible representation of $`G_{GUT}`$, although we shall also consider weakening this condition.

In order to place all fermions of each generation into one representation, a necessary condition is that Tr$`(Y)=_fY_f=0`$ (for each generation) since the hypercharge $`Y`$ is a generator of $`G_{GUT}`$. This condition is satisfied:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(Y)=2(N_cY_{Q_L}+Y__L)+N_c(Y_{u_R}+Y_{d_R})+Y_{e_R}+Y_{\nu _R}=0$$
(12)
Since the exceptional groups have bounded ranks, they cannot satisfy the rank condition above for arbitrary $`N_c`$ and are excluded as candidates for $`G_{GUT}`$ for general $`N_c`$. To guarantee the absence of anomalies in gauged currents, one uses a “safe” group, for which the generators satisfy $`A_{abc}=\mathrm{Tr}(\{T_a,T_b\},T_c)=0a,b,c`$. Recall that SU($`N`$) is not safe for $`N3`$, SO($`N`$) has only real representations for odd $`N`$ and for $`N=0`$ mod 4, while SO($`N`$) has complex representations and is safe for $`N=2`$ mod 4, except for $`N=6`$ (SO(6) $``$ SU(4)). This leads to the choice $`G_{GUT}=`$ SO($`4k+2`$) as the GUT group in which to embed $`G`$. This is the natural generalization of the SO(10) GUT $`^\mathrm{?}`$ in which the SM gauge group $`G_{SM}=\mathrm{SU}(3)_c\times \mathrm{SU}(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ is embedded. There are then no triangle anomalies in gauged currents and also no global anomaly, since $`\pi _4(\mathrm{SO}(N))=\mathrm{}`$ for $`N6`$. Now, rank(SO($`2n))=n`$, so rank(SO($`4k+2))=2k+1`$. Substituting into the inequality rank($`G_{GUT})N_c+1`$ yields $`2kN_c`$. Consider first the case of odd $`N_{gen.}`$. For this case, $`N_c`$ must be odd for the absence of the global SU(2) anomaly in $`G`$, so the above inequality becomes $`2kN_c+1`$, and hence the minimal-rank GUT group is $`\mathrm{SO}(4k+2)=\mathrm{SO}(2N_c+4)`$ with rank $`N_c+2`$. Since $`N_c+2`$ is odd, $`2N_c+4=2`$ mod 4, and $`\mathrm{SO}(2N_c+4)`$ has a complex spinor representation of dimension $`2^{N_c+1}`$. For each generation, there are $`N_f=4(N_c+1)`$ Weyl fermions. The condition that these fit into a spinor is then

$$2^{N_c+1}=4(N_c+1)$$
(13)
But this has a solution only for $`N_c=3`$.

In the hypothetical case that $`N_{gen.}`$ is even, then the global SU(2) anomaly condition allows $`N_c`$ to be either even or odd. The case of odd $`N_c`$ has been covered. For even $`N_c`$, the minimum-rank $`G_{GUT}`$ is $`\mathrm{SO}(2N_c+2)`$. Since $`N_c`$ is even, $`2N_c+2=2`$ mod 4, and $`\mathrm{SO}(2N_c+2)`$ has a complex spinor of dimension $`2^{N_c+1}`$, so that one is again led to the same condition (13) and conclusion. This is an important result $`^\mathrm{?}`$, since it shows that one can grand-unify the $`N_c`$-extended standard model as discussed above only for the single case $`N_c=3`$.

One could also attempt a less complete type of grand unification, in which one assigns fermions of a given generation to more than one representation of $`G_{GUT}`$. Since SU($`N_{GUT}`$) is not a safe group for $`N_{GUT}3`$, one must arrange for the triangle anomaly in gauged currents to cancel between representations. Since fermions are not placed in a single representation, the conditions $`\mathrm{Tr}(Y)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(T_3)=0`$ or $`\mathrm{Tr}(Q)=0`$ are also not automatically satisfied for each representation, as they would be if all the fermions of a given generation are placed in a single representation of $`G_{GUT}`$.

As a generalization of the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) GUT $`^\mathrm{?}`$, we fix $`q_\nu =0`$ so that one can exclude $`n_{jR}`$’s, and try to fit the remaining $`4(N_c+1)1=4N_c+3`$ Weyl fermions of each generation in some conjugate fundamental representations $`(\psi _{k,L}^c)_\alpha `$ and an antisymmetric second-rank tensor rep. $`\psi _L^{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ of SU($`N_{GUT}`$), with $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}N_{GUT}`$. Since the contribution to the triangle anomaly in gauged currents from $`\psi _L^{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ is $`(N_{GUT}4)`$ times that from the fundamental representation, $`(\psi _L^\alpha )`$, we use $`N_{GUT}4`$ copies of $`(\psi _{k,L}^c)_\alpha `$, with $`k=1,2,..,N_{GUT}4`$. The condition that the fermions of each generation fit in these representations is then

$$4N_c+3=(N_{GUT}4)N_{GUT}+\frac{N_{GUT}(N_{GUT}1)}{2}=\frac{3N_{GUT}(N_{GUT}3)}{2}$$
(14)
The solution is

$$N_{GUT}=\frac{1}{2}[3+\frac{1}{3}\sqrt{3(51+32N_c)}]$$
(15)
for integer $`N_{GUT}`$. As before, one also requires

$$\mathrm{rank}(G_{GUT})\mathrm{rank}(G)=N_c+1$$
(16)
i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{rank}=\mathrm{rank}(G_{GUT})\mathrm{rank}(G)=N_{GUT}N_c20$$
(17)
Again, the only solution is $`N_c=3`$, $`N_{GUT}=5`$, i.e., SU(5), with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{rank}=0`$ $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The next two solutions with integer values of $`N_{GUT}`$ are

$$(N_c,N_{GUT},\mathrm{\Delta }_{rank})=(6,6,2),(48,13,37)$$
(18)
and both are excluded by the negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{rank}`$, which becomes increasingly negative for larger $`N_c`$. Thus, one reaches a negative conclusion even before addressing whether the above trace conditions could be satisfied. So even if one attempts this less ambitious type of grand unification of the group (1) with general $`N_c`$, it is only possible for the special case $`N_c=3`$. Of course these results do not reduce the usefulness of the large-$`N_c`$ expansion in pure QCD. However, they do show how special the value $`N_c=3`$ is from the point of view of grand unification.

## 4 Classification of Solutions for Fermion Charges

In the general $`N_c`$-extended standard model, there are several generic and special classes of solutions for the fermion charges. The classes, denoted $`Cn_q`$, for the quark charges are given in the table. Here classes $`C1_1`$, $`C2_q`$, and $`C3_q`$ are generic, while $`C2_{q,sym}`$ is a symmetric subcase of $`C2`$ and $`C4_q`$ and $`C5_q`$ are other special solutions. The charges $`q_u`$ and $`q_d`$ are monotonically increasing functions of $`N_c`$ if $`q_e<1/2`$ and monotonically increasing functions of $`N_c`$ if $`q_e>1/2`$. In the borderline case $`q_e=q_\nu =1/2`$ (whence $`Y__L=0`$), $`q_u`$ and $`q_d`$ are independent of $`N_c`$ and have the values in $`C2_{q,sym}`$, $`q_d=q_u=1/2`$ (whence $`Y_{Q_L}=0`$), so that the anomalies of type (i) cancel separately in the quark and lepton sectors.

One can also work out analogous classes of solutions $`C1_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`C5_{\mathrm{}}`$ for lepton charges satisfying the anomaly constraints $`^\mathrm{?}`$. These results show that the solutions to the anomaly cancellation conditions allow a $`T_3=\pm 1/2`$ quark or $`T_3=1/2`$ lepton rather than the neutrino as an electrically neutral fermion.

## 5 Relative Strengths of Color and Electroweak Interactions

As the above solutions show, if $`Y_{Q_L}0`$, then the lepton charges $`q_e`$ and $`q_\nu `$ will diverge as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$: $`q_e,q_\nu Y_{Q_L}N_c/2`$. A necessary condition for the lepton charges to remain finite as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ is that $`lim_{N_c\mathrm{}}q_d=1/2`$, i.e., $`lim_{N_c\mathrm{}}Y_{Q_L}=0`$. In contrast, for any fixed finite value of $`q_e`$, the quark charges $`q_u`$ and $`q_d`$ have finite limits as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$: $`lim_{N_c\mathrm{}}q_d=1/2`$, $`lim_{N_c\mathrm{}}q_u=1/2`$.

Even if all of the fermion charges remain finite as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, electroweak effects that involve quarks in loops can still lead to divergent behavior in this limit. Some examples are provided by quark loop corrections to the $`W`$, and $`Z`$ propagators, which are $`N_c`$. To keep these finite in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit, it is sufficient to require that the SU(2) and U(1)Y gauge couplings $`g`$ and $`g^{}=(3/5)^{1/2}g_1`$ satisfy $`g^2N_c=c_2`$ and $`g^2N_c=c_Y`$ analogous to the condition on the color SU(3)c coupling $`(g_s)^2N_c=c_3`$. From the relation $`e=gg^{}/\sqrt{g^2+g^2}`$, it follows that $`e^2N_c=\mathrm{const}.`$, which keeps the quark-loop contributions to the photon propagator finite. The electromagnetic corrections to the baryon mass arising from one-photon exchange between quark lines then go like $`(\delta m_B)_{em}e^2N_c^2N_c`$, which is the same as the behavior $`m_BN_c`$ in the QCD sector.

An example of a ratio of electroweak cross sections that involves $`N_c`$ is $`\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})/\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})`$ at a center-of-mass energy $`\sqrt{s}>>`$ hadron masses (i.e. quite high, given that $`m_BN_c`$) and away from the positions of narrow meson states, so that scaling can work:

$$\frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}{\sigma (e^+e^{}\mathrm{hadrons})}\frac{1}{N_c}$$
(19)
A different issue concerning the strength of electroweak interactions arises for fixed but arbitrary $`N_c`$: even if the gauge couplings $`g,g^{}`$ are small, the one-parameter solutions for the fermion charges allow arbitrarily large values of these charges and similarly for hypercharges. Hence, the actual strengths of the U(1)Y and electromagnetic interactions, $`|g^{}Y_f|`$ and $`|eq_f|`$ can be arbitrarily large. One can avoid this problem by setting some finite (not necessarily zero) input value for $`q_\nu `$.

Part of the evidence for grand unification in our actual world is that, even before calculating precision evolution of the gauge couplings, one has the requisite ordering; at a given scale $`\mu `$, of the $`3!=6`$ possible relative orderings in size of the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) couplings $`g_s^2`$, $`g^2`$, and $`g_1^2`$, one has $`g_s^2>g^2>g_1^2`$. For $`N_c3`$, since we do not have a usual GUT, different orderings might, a priori, occur, and could produce quite different theories. For example, for fixed (moderate) $`N_c`$, consider the possibility that $`g^2>>g_s^2,g_1^2`$. In this case, for sufficiently large $`g^2/(4\pi )O(1)`$, the SU(2) gauge interaction could produce the following SU(2)-invariant condensates breaking color- and/or charge as well as baryon and/or lepton number:

$$ϵ_{ab}Q_{iL}^{\alpha aT}CQ_{jL}^{\beta b}=u_{iL}^{\alpha T}Cd_{jL}^\beta d_{iL}^{\alpha T}Cu_{jL}^\beta $$
(20)
$$ϵ_{ab}Q_{iL}^{\alpha aT}C_{jL}^b=u_{iL}^{\alpha T}Ce_{jL}d_{iL}^{\alpha T}C\nu _{jL}$$
(21)
$$ϵ_{ab}_{iL}^{aT}C_{jL}^b=\nu _{iL}^TCe_{jL}e_{iL}C\nu _{jL}$$
(22)
where $`a`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`(i,j)`$ are SU(2), SU($`N_c`$), and generation indices, respectively. This shows that even though QCD and electromagnetism are vectorial gauge symmetries, they could be broken because of the SU(2)L interaction. This is prevented if $`g^2`$ is sufficiently small.

## 6 Some Properties of Bound States

First, consider baryons composed of $`r`$ up-type and $`N_cr`$ down-type quarks; these have electric charge $`q[B(r,N_cr)]=r+N_cq_d`$. The charge difference $`q[B(r,N_cr)]q[B(N_cr,r)]=2rN_c`$. Now assume that $`N_c`$ is odd and that $`m_u,m_d<<\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, as in the physical world. A strong–isospin mirror pair which constitutes a kind of generalization of the proton and neutron is

$$𝒫=B(\frac{N_c+1}{2},\frac{N_c1}{2}),𝒩=B(\frac{N_c1}{2},\frac{N_c+1}{2})$$
(23)
These baryons have charges $`q_𝒫=q_𝒩+1`$ satisfying $`q_𝒫=q_e`$ and $`q_𝒩=q_\nu `$.

One can also consider atoms. For all cases except $`C4_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`q_e=0`$), there exists a neutral Coulomb bound state of the generalized proton $`𝒫`$ and electron, $`(𝒫e)`$, which is the $`N_c`$-extended generalization of the hydrogen atom. For all cases except $`C5_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`q_\nu =0`$), there also exists a second neutral Coulomb bound state, which has no analogue in the usual $`N_c=3`$ standard model, namely, $`(𝒩\nu _1)`$, where $`\nu _1`$ denotes the lightest neutrino mass eigenstate. For our discussion of the $`(𝒫e)`$ and $`(𝒩\nu )`$ atoms, we assume, respectively, that $`q_e0`$ and $`q_\nu 0`$, so that these atoms exist, and we suppress the mass eigenstate index in $`(𝒩\nu _1)`$.

The $`(𝒫e)`$ and $`(𝒩\nu )`$ atoms are nonrelativistic bound states iff $`|q_e|\alpha _{em}<<1`$ and $`|q_\nu |\alpha _{em}<<1`$ (equivalent conditions). Then the binding energy in the ground state of the $`(𝒫e)`$ atom is $`E_{(𝒫e)}=(q_e\alpha )^2m_e/2`$ and the Bohr radius is $`a_0=1/(q_e^2\alpha m_e)`$. These formulas apply to $`(𝒩\nu )`$ with the replacements $`𝒫𝒩`$ and $`e\nu `$. For large $`N_c`$, $`e^2N_c=`$ const., and fixed $`q_e`$, the binding is very weak, $`E_{(𝒫e)},E_{(𝒩\nu )}N_c^2`$ and $`a_0N_c`$. Since the size of the nucleon $`r_NO(1)`$ as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, the electron and neutrino clouds in these respective atoms extend over much larger distances than $`r_N`$. Indeed, since $`a_0`$ diverges as $`N_c\mathrm{}`$, the notion of an individual atom reasonably well separated from other atoms requires that interatomic separations grow at least like $`N_c`$.

For large $`N_c`$ the strong interactions of mesons become weak and these mesons are long-lived. Hence, one could also consider meson-lepton Coulomb bound states. Consider, for example, the $`J=0`$ $`u\overline{d}`$ meson $`\pi ^+`$ (or the $`J=1`$ $`u\overline{d}`$ meson $`\rho ^+`$). Possible bound states of $`\pi ^+`$ with leptons include (i) $`(\pi ^+e)`$, if $`q_e<0`$ as in cases $`C2_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`C3_{\mathrm{}}`$; this would have charge $`q=1+q_e`$ and hence would be neutral for the special case $`C5_{\mathrm{}}`$; (ii) $`(\pi ^+\overline{e})`$ if $`q_e>0`$ as in case $`C1_{\mathrm{}}`$; this would have charge $`q=1q_e`$; (iii) $`(\pi ^+\nu )`$ if $`q_\nu <0`$ (case $`C3_{\mathrm{}}`$) with charge $`q=1+q_\nu `$; and (iv) $`(\pi ^+\overline{\nu })`$ if $`q_\nu >0`$ (cases $`C1_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`C2_{\mathrm{}}`$) with charge $`1q_\nu `$, hence neutral for case $`C4_{\mathrm{}}`$.

There might also be a stable purely leptonic Coulombic bound state with lepton number $`L=2`$, $`(e\nu )`$. This requires that $`q_e0`$, $`q_\nu 0`$, and $`\mathrm{sgn}(q_e)=\mathrm{sgn}(q_\nu )`$, which happens in case $`C2_{\mathrm{}}`$. Unlike the neutral atoms $`(𝒫e)`$ and $`(𝒩\nu )`$, this possible leptonic state would, in general, be charged:

In the usual world, molecules are stable because the Coulomb repulsion of the nuclei is counterbalanced by the Coulombic attraction between nuclei and the total set of electrons, yielding various bonds (ionic, covalent). For large $`N_c`$ this balancing could still occur, yielding molecules and normal crystalline matter, but on an interatomic length scale $`r_{i.a.}N_c`$.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank R. Lebed for the organization of this conference, which was also aided by the Institute for Nuclear Theory, Univ. of Washington. The research of R. S. is partially supported by the NSF grant PHY-0098527.

## References


text:
# Polarized antiquark flavor asymmetry: Pauli blocking vs. the pion cloud

## Abstract

The flavor asymmetry of the unpolarized antiquark distributions in the proton, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)>0`$, can qualitatively be explained either by Pauli blocking by the valence quarks, or as an effect of the pion cloud of the nucleon. In contrast, predictions for the polarized asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ based on $`\rho `$ meson contributions disagree even in sign with the Pauli blocking picture. We show that in the meson cloud picture a large positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ is obtained from $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ interference–type contributions, as suggested by chiral symmetry. This effect restores the equivalence of the “quark” and “meson” descriptions also in the polarized case.

That the low–energy structure of the nucleon can be described equally well in terms of quark or meson degrees of freedom has been one of the fundamental beliefs of modern hadronic physics. While often one description is far more efficient than the other, there is a basic conviction that both should give equivalent results when carried on to higher accuracy, which, unfortunately, often turns out to be impossible in practice.

Particularly interesting properties in this respect are the parton (quark– and antiquark) distributions in the nucleon. Although measured in deep–inelastic scattering at large momentum transfers, these are low–energy characteristics of the nucleon, whose origin can be understood on grounds of the same effective dynamics which gives rise to the hadronic characteristics of the nucleon such as form factors, magnetic moments, etc.

It is now well established that the antiquark distributions in the proton are not flavor symmetric: $`\overline{d}(x)>\overline{u}(x)`$. Deep–inelastic lepton scattering has convincingly demonstrated the violation of the so–called Gottfried sum rule Kumano:1997cy , and the E866 Drell–Yan pair production data Hawker:1998ty  as well as the HERMES results on semi-inclusive deep–inelastic scattering Ackerstaff:1998sr  allow to map even the $`x`$–dependence of the asymmetry. The origin of this asymmetry can qualitatively be explained in either a quark or a meson picture. In the quark picture it can be attributed to the “Pauli blocking” effect Field:ve ; Schreiber:tc ; Melnitchouk:1998rv . For instance, in the bag model, where the valence quarks are bound by a scalar field, the Dirac vacuum inside the proton differs from the free one, corresponding to the presence of a non-perturbative “sea” of quark–antiquark pairs. Since the wave function of a localized valence quark in the proton rest frame has components corresponding to antiquarks in the infinite–momentum frame, the valence quarks “block” quark–antiquark pairs of the same flavor, leading to an excess of $`\overline{d}(x)`$ over $`\overline{u}(x)`$ Schreiber:tc . The mesonic picture attributes the antiquark flavor asymmetry to the contribution of the “pion cloud” of the proton to deep–inelastic scattering (Sullivan mechanism) Sullivan:1971kd ; Thomas:1983fh . The asymmetry arises because fluctuations $`pn\pi ^+`$ are more likely than $`p\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}\pi ^{}`$ due to the larger mass of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance, which implies a larger number of $`\pi ^+`$ than $`\pi ^{}`$ in the proton’s cloud. It needs to be stressed that both explanations are of qualitative nature; the difficulties encountered when trying to turn them into serious dynamical models have been discussed in the literature, see e.g. Refs.Steffens:1996bc ; Koepf:1995yh . Nevertheless, the fact that the two pictures give compatible results for the sign and order–of–magnitude of $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ has been registered as a remarkable instance of equivalence of a quark and a meson description.

Recently the polarized antiquark flavor asymmetry, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$, has become a focus of attention. It is expected that this asymmetry will be measured with good accuracy in polarized semi-inclusive particle production at the HERMES experiment, and, in particular, in future polarized Drell–Yan pair or $`W^\pm `$ production experiments at RHIC McGaughey:1999mq ; Soffer:1997fe ; Dressler:1999zv ; Kumano:1999bt . The published semi-inclusive data from HERMES Ackerstaff:1999ey  and SMC Adeva:1995yi  do not yet allow for significant conclusions Dressler:1999zg ; improved data from HERMES are expected to be released soon. On the theoretical side, interest was caused by an estimate within the chiral quark–soliton model of the nucleon, based on the large–$`N_c`$ limit of QCD, which suggests a surprisingly large positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$, larger than the unpolarized asymmetry, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ Diakonov:1996sr .

It is natural to ask what the two standard explanations for the unpolarized asymmetry predict for the polarized case. The Pauli blocking picture implies that valence quarks “block” antiquarks of the same flavor but with opposite spin, which would give $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)>0`$ Schreiber:tc ; Cao:2001nu . Glück and Reya Gluck:2000ch  have suggested a phenomenological parametrization based on the ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)/\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)/\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)`$, which qualitatively expresses this idea. The resulting asymmetry at a scale of $`\mu ^2=1\mathrm{GeV}^2`$, as obtained with the AAC parametrization Goto:1999by  of the polarized valence and flavor–singlet sea quark distributions, is shown in Fig. 3 (dotted line). It should be stressed, however, that the simple Pauli blocking argument can predict neither the magnitude nor the $`x`$–dependence of the polarized asymmetry. Nevertheless, it is natural to assume that in such a picture the polarized asymmetry should be of the same order of magnitude as the unpolarized one Cao:2001nu .

In the meson cloud picture, the $`\pi N`$ contribution (Sullivan mechanism) gives zero polarized flavor asymmetry. The inclusion of $`\rho N`$ contributions Fries:1998at  leads to a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$, which, however, is an order of magnitude smaller than the unpolarized one, and has opposite sign to what is expected from Pauli blocking, see Fig. 2 (dotted line). Ref.Boreskov:1998hp  studied $`\rho N`$$`\pi N`$ interference contributions relevant at small $`x`$, see also Ref.Cao:2001nu , the sign again opposite to Pauli blocking. The estimate of Ref.Fries:1998at  was refined by including also higher–twist components of the $`\rho `$ meson structure function Kumano:2001cu , which, however, do not change the order of magnitude of the result. One may thus wonder whether the equivalence of the quark and meson descriptions, which was observed in the unpolarized asymmetry, fails in the polarized case.

Here we want to demonstrate that a negative polarized antiquark flavor asymmetry is by no means a necessary consequence of the meson cloud picture. In fact, a sizable positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ is naturally obtained from $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ “interference type” contributions to the nucleon parton distributions. The possibility of such contributions was first pointed out in Ref.Dressler:1999zg . Here $`\sigma `$ means the scalar–isoscalar meson, which appears as the chiral partner of the pion, and which mediates the intermediate–range $`NN`$ interaction in the meson exchange parametrization of Ref.Machleidt:hj  (Bonn potential). The problem of the dynamical nature of the $`\sigma `$ meson — whether it should be regarded as an effective description of a $`\pi \pi `$ resonance — has been discussed extensively in the literature and shall not concern us here.

To illustrate our point we have computed the $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ interference contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ in the proton in a linear sigma model with elementary $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ fields coupled to the nucleon. The isovector polarized quark– and antiquark distributions in the proton are defined by the matrix element of the twist–2 axial vector light–ray operator:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{2\pi }e^{\pm ixp^+z^{}}p|\overline{\psi }(z/2)\gamma ^+\gamma _5\tau ^3\psi (z/2)|p_{z^+,𝐳_{}=0}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\overline{U}\gamma ^+\gamma _5U\times \{\begin{array}{ccc}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }u(x)\mathrm{\Delta }d(x)\right]\hfill & & \\ \left[\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)\right]\hfill & & \end{array}.`$
Here $`0<x<1`$, and $`z^\pm =(z^0\pm z^3)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`𝐳_{}`$ are the usual light–like coordinates, $`\tau ^3`$ the isospin Pauli matrix, and $`\overline{U},U`$ the proton spinors. We consider the contribution to the matrix element from the “interference type” graphs of Fig. 1.

The blob in the upper parts of the graphs denotes the “bosonized” version of the isovector axial vector twist–2 operator, i.e., the operator expressed in terms of the $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ fields of our effective low–energy model. We suppose here that the QCD operator is normalized at a scale of $`1\mathrm{GeV}`$, up to which the effective model is assumed to be valid. On general grounds the matching of the QCD operator to an operator in the effective model must be of the form

$`\overline{\psi }(z/2)\gamma ^+\gamma _5\tau ^a\psi (z/2)|_{z^2=0}`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑yg_{\pi \sigma }(y)\sigma (yz/2)\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{+}\pi _{}^{a}(yz/2)|_{z^2=0},`$
up to terms of higher orders in derivatives of the fields, which we shall neglect. Here $`g_{\pi \sigma }(y)`$ is a scalar function, which we refer to as the “$`\pi `$$`\sigma `$ transition parton density”. The expansion of Eq.(4) in powers of the light–like distance, $`z`$, implies that the local twist–2 spin–$`n`$ operator is mapped onto the local twist–2 spin–$`n`$ operator built from the $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ fields, with the coefficient given by the $`n`$’th moment of $`g_{\pi \sigma }`$. Time reversal invariance requires $`g_{\pi \sigma }(y)=g_{\pi \sigma }(y)`$. The normalization of the function follows from considering the limit $`z0`$, in which the R.H.S. of Eq.(4) must reduce to the isovector axial current operator in the $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ fields, $`\sigma (0)\stackrel{}{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\pi _{}^{a}(0)`$, whose form is completely determined by chiral symmetry. This requires

$$_1^1𝑑xg_{\pi \sigma }(y)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}.$$
(5)
In order to constrain the $`y`$–dependence of $`g_{\pi \sigma }`$ we note that a global chiral rotation transforms the axial vector operators of Eq.(4) into the corresponding vector operators, whose matrix element between pion states defines the valence quark distribution in the pion, $`v_\pi (y)`$. Thus, in our approximation we can identify

$$g_{\pi \sigma }(y)=\frac{1}{2}v_\pi (|y|).$$
(6)
In our estimate we use the parametrization of Ref.Gluck:1999xe  for $`v_\pi (y)`$, obtained from fitting $`\pi N`$ Drell–Yan data.

The contribution of the two graphs of Fig. 1 to the polarized flavor asymmetry can be put in the form

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}g_{\pi \sigma }(y)W_{\pi \sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\right)`$ (7)
where $`W_{\pi \sigma }(x/y)`$ denotes the correlation function of the $`\pi `$– and $`\sigma `$–fields in the nucleon depending on the $`+`$ component of the fields’ momenta ($`vx/y`$)

$`W_{\pi \sigma }(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN}g_{\sigma NN}}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_{}}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{x[𝐤_{}^2+v(2v)M_N^2]}{\left[𝐤_{}^2+v^2M_N^2+(1v)M_\pi ^2\right]}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[𝐤_{}^2+v^2M_N^2+(1v)M_\sigma ^2\right]}}.`$
This function plays a role analogous to the “number of pions with momentum fraction $`v`$” in the usual $`\pi N`$ contribution to the unpolarized asymmetry Thomas:1983fh . The integral over the transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$ contains a would–be logarithmic divergence which is regularized by cutoffs associated with the $`\pi N`$ and $`\sigma N`$ vertices, not indicated in Eq.(8). For a numerical estimate we use coupling constants $`g_{\pi NN}=13.5,g_{\sigma NN}=14.6`$, $`M_\sigma =0.72\mathrm{GeV}`$, and exponential cutoffs with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pi =1.1\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma =1.6\mathrm{GeV}`$ Machleidt:hj . The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ is shown by the solid line in Fig. 2. The dashed line in the same figure shows the $`\pi N`$ contribution to the unpolarized asymmetry, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$, evaluated with the same parameters. One sees that the polarized asymmetry incurred from $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ interference is positive, and of the same order of magnitude as the unpolarized one. (In Fig. 2, for the sake of comparison, we show $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$ as generated by $`\pi N`$ contributions only; it is known that the inclusion of intermediate $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states reduces this value by almost 50% Thomas:1983fh .)

In Fig. 3 we compare the $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ interference contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ (solid line) with the asymmetry obtained with the phenomenological Pauli–blocking ansatz of Ref.Gluck:2000ch . One sees that both suggest a sizable positive flavor asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$. In this sense, one may say that the same qualitative equivalence of the “quark” and “meson” descriptions holds as in the case of unpolarized asymmetry, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$.

We stress that our point here is entirely qualitative, concerning only the sign and order–of–magnitude of the asymmetry. Neither the Pauli–blocking ansatz of Ref. Gluck:2000ch  nor the $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ contribution in the meson cloud model can claim to give a quantitative description of the $`x`$–dependence of the asymmetry. (We also refrain from quoting any error estimate for the meson cloud model.) Nevertheless, given the disagreement even in sign of the previous $`\rho `$ meson cloud estimates with the Pauli blocking picture we feel that the agreement at the present level is remarkable. Note also that in the near future experiments will be able to determine little more but the sign and order–of–magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$.

Also in Fig. 3, we compare the estimates from the $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ contribution in the meson cloud model and the Pauli blocking ansatz of Ref.Gluck:2000ch  with the result of the chiral quark–soliton model (ChQSM), which was the first to predict a large positive flavor asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ Diakonov:1996sr . This comparison is interesting also from a conceptual point of view. In the ChQSM, motivated by the large–$`N_c`$ limit of QCD Witten:1979kh , the nucleon is described by a classical pion field, in which quarks move in single–particle orbits. The quark spectrum includes a bound–state level in addition to the polarized negative and positive Dirac continua Diakonov:1987ty . In a sense, this model contains the physical essence of both the “Pauli blocking” and the “meson cloud” picture, uniting both of them in a consistent framework. The contribution of the bound–state level of quarks to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ is positive, in agreement with the “Pauli blocking” argument. The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ from the Dirac sea of quarks can be computed approximately in an expansion in gradients of the classical pion field polarizing the vacuum; the result is given as a spatial integral of the the isovector–pseudoscalar and scalar–isoscalar combinations of the classical field, reminiscent in quantum numbers of the $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ interference contribution in the meson cloud model Dressler:1999zg . Thus, the semiclassical description of the nucleon at large $`N_c`$ reproduces the physics of “meson cloud” contributions to the nucleon parton distributions without appealing to the notion of individual meson exchange graphs. In this way it avoids the conceptual problems of the meson cloud model related to the neglection of multiple exchanges and the large virtuality of the exchanged mesons (see Ref.Koepf:1995yh  for a critical discussion).

To summarize, we have argued that the “Pauli blocking” and the “meson cloud” scenario are both consistent with a positive polarized antiquark flavor asymmetry, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$, of comparable magnitude as the unpolarized one, $`\overline{d}(x)\overline{u}(x)`$. The key to this equivalence has been the inclusion of $`\pi N`$$`\sigma N`$ “interference type” contributions in the meson cloud picture, whose importance is suggested by chiral symmetry. Our qualitative arguments explain the large value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$ predicted by the chiral quark–soliton model. This should be good news for experiments aimed at extracting $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{u}(x)\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{d}(x)`$, both from semi-inclusive deep–inelastic scattering and Drell–Yan / $`W^\pm `$ production.

We are grateful to M. V. Polyakov for many helpful suggestions, and to A. W. Thomas and W. Melnitchouk for useful discussions. R. J. F. is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Feodor Lynen Fellowship), C. W. by DFG (Heisenberg Fellowship). This work has been supported by DFG and BMBF.