text:
# A coincidence theorem for holomorphic maps to 𝐺/𝑃

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a simply connected simple algebraic group over $``$ and $`PG`$ a maximal parabolic subgroup. Let $``$ be the ample generator of $`Pic(G/P)`$. Let $`E`$ denote the total space of the principal $`^{}`$ bundle associated to $`^1`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be any complex number with $`|\lambda |>1`$ and let $`\phi :EE`$ denote the bundle map $`e\lambda e`$, $`eE`$. The quotient space, denoted $`V_\lambda `$, is a compact complex homogeneous non-Kähler manifold. The manifold $`V_\lambda `$ (or simply $`V`$) is called a generalized Hopf manifold . (See also §2, .) One has an elliptic curve bundle $`q:VG/P`$ with fibre and structure group the elliptic curve $`𝕋=^{}/\lambda `$ with periods $`\{1,\tau \}`$ where $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\tau )=\lambda `$. (Note that $`\mathrm{Im}(\tau )0`$ as $`|\lambda |>1`$.) One has a diffeomorphism $`V𝕊^1\times K/L`$ where $`K`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $`G`$ and $`L`$ the semi simple part of the centralizer of a subgroup of $`K`$ isomorphic to the circle $`𝕊^1`$. If we take $`G/P`$ to be the complex projective space $`^n`$, then the above construction yields the usual Hopf manifolds $`𝕊^1\times 𝕊^{2n+1}`$.

Let $`G/P,G^{}/P^{}`$, where both $`G,G^{}`$ are simply connected simple algebraic groups over $``$ and $`P,P^{}`$, maximal parabolic subgroups of $`G,G^{}`$ respectively. Let $`EG/P,E^{}G^{}/P^{}`$ denote the principal $`^{}`$-bundles associated to the negative ample generators of the Picard groups of $`G/P,G^{}/P^{}`$ respectively. The product bundle $`E\times E^{}G/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$ is a principal $`^{}\times ^{}`$ bundle. Let $`\tau `$ be any complex number with $`Im(\tau )0`$. One has a complex analytic monomorphism $`^{}\times ^{}`$ defined by $`z(\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}\tau z),\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}z))`$. Denote the image of this group by $`_\tau `$. The group $`_\tau (^{})^2`$ acts on $`E\times E^{}`$ as bundle automorphisms and the quotient $`U=E\times E^{}/_\tau `$ is the total space of an elliptic curve bundle with fibre and structure group the elliptic curve $`(^{})^2/_\tau =𝕋`$ with periods $`\{1,\tau \}`$. Up to a diffeomorphism, $`U`$ can be identified with the space $`K/L\times K^{}/L^{}`$ where $`KG,K^{}G^{}`$ are maximal compact subgroups and $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are semi simple parts of centralizers of certain subgroups of $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ isomorphic to $`𝕊^1`$. The compact complex manifold $`U`$ is homogeneous and non-Kähler, which we call a generalized Calabi-Eckmann manifold. When $`G/P=^m`$, and $`G^{}/P^{}=^n`$, $`U`$ is a Calabi-Eckmann manifold $`𝕊^{2m+1}\times 𝕊^{2n+1}`$ . We shall denote by $`p`$ the bundle projection $`UG/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$.

The manifold $`U`$ is an example of a simply connected compact complex homogeneous manifold. Such manifolds have been completely classified by H.-C. Wang .

###### Theorem 1

. We keep the above notations. (i) Let $`\phi ,\psi :VG/P`$ be any two holomorphic maps with $`\phi `$ non-constant. Then there exists an $`xV`$ such that $`\phi (x)=\psi (x)`$.

(ii) Assume that $`dim(G/P)dim(G^{}/P^{})`$ and let $`\phi ,\psi :UG/P`$ be a holomorphic map with $`\phi `$ non-constant. Then there exists an $`xU`$ such that $`\phi (x)=\psi (x)`$.

The above theorem will be derived from the following

###### Theorem 2

. (i) Let $`M`$ be any connected compact complex analytic manifold and let $`\phi ,\psi :MG/P`$ be holomorphic where $`PG`$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup. Assume that at least one of the maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ is surjective. Then there exists an $`xM`$ such that $`\phi (x)=\psi (x)`$.
(ii) Furthermore, if $`M`$ is a projective variety, or if Kähler manifold with $`dim(M)=dim(G/P),`$ and $`f,g:MG/P`$ are continuous maps homotopic to $`\phi ,\psi `$ respectively, then there exists an $`xM`$ such that $`f(x)=g(x)`$.

The special case of theorem 1 when $`U=𝕊^{2n+1}\times 𝕊^{2n+1}`$ is a Calabi-Eckmann manifold is due to K.Mukherjea . He uses D.Toledo’s approach  to analytic fixed point theory. In particular he uses Borel’s computation of Dolbeault cohomology of Calabi-Eckmann manifolds and a certain ‘analytic Thom class’ $`\xi _\mathrm{\Delta }^0H^n(^n\times ^n;\mathrm{\Omega }^n)H^{2n}(^n\times ^n;)`$ supported on the diagonal to detect coincidences. Our proof is based on the observation that any holomorphic map from $`U`$ (resp. $`V`$) to a complex projective variety factors through $`G/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$ (resp. $`G/P`$) (see lemma 8, §3). Any non-constant holomorphic map of $`G/P`$ or of $`G/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$ into $`G/P`$ is shown to be dominant (lemma 3). Theorem 1 is then deduced from theorem 2. Theorem 2 is proved using positivity of cup products in cohomology of $`G/P`$ and the fact that any effective cycle is rationally equivalent to a positive linear combination of Schubert cycles. (Cf. , .)

## 2 Holomorphic maps to $`G/P`$

We keep the notations of §1. In particular, $`G`$ is a simply connected simple complex algebraic group. Let $`QG`$ be any parabolic subgroup (not necessarily maximal). Fix a maximal torus $`T`$ and a Borel subgroup $`B`$ containing $`T`$ such that $`BQ`$. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`G`$ with respect to $`T`$ and $`W(Q)W`$ that of $`Q`$ and let $`SW`$ denote the set of simple reflections with respect to our choice of $`B`$. Recall that the $`T`$ fixed points of $`G/Q`$ are labelled by $`W/W(Q)`$. We shall identify $`W/W(Q)`$ with the set of coset representatives $`W^QW`$ having minimal length with respect to $`S`$. The $`B`$-orbits of these $`T`$ fixed points give an algebraic cell decomposition for $`G/Q`$. Denote by $`X(w)`$ the Schubert variety $`X(w)G/Q`$ which is the $`B`$-orbit closure of the $`T`$-fixed point corresponding to $`wW^Q`$. The class of the Schubert varieties $`[X(w)],wW^Q,`$ form a $``$-basis for the singular cohomology group $`H^{}(G/Q;)`$ as well as the Chow cohomology groups $`A^{}(G/Q)`$. Recall that $`Pic(G/Q)A^1(G/Q)`$ which is infinite cyclic when $`Q`$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup.

###### Lemma 3

. Let $`PG`$ be a maximal parabolic subgroup and let $`X`$ be an irreducible complex projective variety with $`Pic(X)=`$. Suppose that $`dim(X)dim(G/P)`$. Then any non-constant algebraic map $`\phi :XG/P`$ is dominant with finite fibres; in particular $`dim(G/P)=dim(X)`$.

Proof: Let $``$ be a very ample line bundle over $`G/P`$. Let $`Z=Im(\phi )`$. As $`\phi `$ is non-constant, $`Z`$ is not a point variety and $`|Z`$ is very ample. Since the bundle $`|Z`$ is generated by global global sections, it follows that $`^{}:=\phi ^{}()`$ is generated by its sections over $`X`$. Also $`^{}`$ cannot be trivial since any non-zero section of a trivial bundle is nowhere zero, whereas sections of $`^{}`$ arising as pull-back of non-zero sections of $`|Z`$ are non-zero sections which vanish somewhere in $`X`$. Since $`Pic(X)`$ is it follows that some positive multiple of $`^{}`$ must be very ample. Hence, restricted to any fibres of $`\phi `$ the bundle $`^{}=\phi ^{}()`$ must be ample. This implies that the fibres of $`\phi `$ must be finite. Therefore $`dim(X)dim(G/P)`$. Since $`dim(X)dim(G/P)`$ by hypothesis, we must actually have equality and the map $`\phi `$ must be dominant. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4

.  (i) The assumption that $`Pic(X)=`$ is not superfluous. For example, take $`X=^1\times ^n,n2`$. Let $`\phi :X^3`$ be the composition $`\phi _1pr_1,`$ where $`pr_1`$ is the first projection map and $`\phi _1:^1^3`$ is defined by $`\phi _1(z_0:z_1)=(z_0:z_1:0:0)`$.
(ii) Suppose that $`\phi :ZG/P`$ is holomorphic and that $`XZ`$ is a complex analytic subset which satisfies the hypothesis of the lemma above. If $`\phi :ZG/P`$ is holomorphic and $`\phi |X`$ is non-constant, then $`\phi `$ must be dominant. On the other hand, suppose that $`\pi :ZM`$ is a complex analytic fibre bundle with fibre $`X`$ as in the lemma above. Suppose $`dim(X)>dim(G/P)`$, then any complex analytic map $`\psi :ZG/P`$ factors through $`\pi `$, i.e, $`\psi =\theta \pi `$ for some complex analytic map $`\theta :MG/P`$ since the lemma implies that $`\psi `$ restricted to any fibre has to be constant.
(iii) A result of K.Paranjape and V.Srinivas  says that if $`G/P`$ is not the projective space, any non-constant self morphism $`\phi :G/PG/P`$ is an automorphism of varieties. The full group of automorphisms of $`G/P`$ has been determined by I.Kantor .

We shall now prove theorem 2:

Proof of theorem 2: (i) Suppose $`\phi :MG/P`$ is surjective. Set $`d=dim(G/P),m=dim(M)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }G/P\times G/P`$ denote the diagonal of $`G/P`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta G/P\times G/P`$ denote the image of the map $`\theta :MG/P\times G/P`$, $`\theta (x)=(\phi (x),\psi (x)),xM`$. We need only show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}.`$ Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a complex analytic subspace of the projective variety $`G/P`$ and hence algebraic by GAGA . Also $`k:=dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })dim(G/P)`$ since $`\phi `$ is surjective. Now, as for any effective cycle in $`G/P\times G/P`$, the class $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]A_k(G/P\times G/P)`$ is a positive linear combination of Schubert cycles in $`G/P\times G/P`$. (Cf. . See also .) Thus, $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }]=_ia_i[X(w_i)]\times [X(w_i^{})]`$ where $`a_i`$ are positive integers, $`w_i,w_i^{}W^P`$ are suitable elements such that $`dim(X(w_i))+dim(X(w_i^{}))=dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Since $`\phi `$ is surjective, in the above expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the term $`[G/P]\times [X(w)]`$ must occur with positive coefficient for some $`wW^P`$. The same arguments can be applied to the class of the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`G/P\times G/P`$ as well. In fact, it is known that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]=_{vW^P}[X(v)]\times [X(v^{\prime \prime })]`$ where $`X(v^{\prime \prime })`$ is the Schubert variety ‘dual’ to $`X(v)`$, i.e, $`v^{\prime \prime }=w_0.v`$ where $`w_0W^P`$ represents the longest element of $`W/W_P`$. (Cf. theorem 11.11, .) Hence $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }].[\mathrm{\Delta }]=(a[G/P]\times [X(w)]+otherterms)(1\times [G/P]+otherterms)=a(1\times [X(w)])+otherterms`$, where $`a>0`$ and the coefficients of the remaining terms (with respect to the basis consisting of Schubert cocycles) in the rhs of the last equality are non-negative integers. Hence $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }][\mathrm{\Delta }]0`$ in $`A_{kd}(G/P\times G/P)`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}`$.

(ii) Let $`h:MG/P\times G/P`$ be the map $`x(f(x),g(x))`$ for $`xM`$. It suffices to show that $`h^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])H^{2d}(M;)`$ is non-zero, where we regard $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ as an element of the singular cohomology group $`H^{2d}(G/P\times G/P;)`$. Note that $`h`$ is homotopic to $`\theta =(\phi ,\psi )`$ and so we have $`h^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])=\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])`$. To complete the proof, it suffices to show that $`\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])0`$ in $`H^{}(M;)`$.

Suppose that $`M`$ is Kähler and $`dim(M)=d=dim(G/P)`$. By de Rham and Hodge theory (§15.7, ), we have $`H^r(M;)=_{p+q=r}H_\overline{}^{p,q}(M)`$ and $`\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])`$ can be thought of as an element of $`H_\overline{}^{d,d}(M;)`$. Since $`\phi `$ is dominant, $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma })=d=dim(M)`$ and the fundamental class $`\mu _MH_{2d}(M;)`$ maps to $`n[\mathrm{\Gamma }]H_{2d}(G/P\times G/P;)A_d(G/P\times G/P)`$ for some $`n1`$. From what has been shown already the intersection product $`[\mathrm{\Delta }].[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta ]0`$ in the Chow ring of $`G/P\times G/P`$. This implies that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }][\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta ]0`$ in $`H_0(G/P\times G/P)`$. Now we have (see ch. 5, §6, )

$$\theta _{}(\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])\mu _M)=n[\mathrm{\Delta }]\theta _{}(\mu _M)=n[\mathrm{\Delta }][\mathrm{\Gamma }]0.$$

It follows that $`\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])0`$ in $`H^{}(M;)`$.

If $`M`$ is a complex projective variety then, one can always find an irreducible subvariety $`ZM`$ with $`dim(Z)=dim(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta )`$ which maps onto $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It follows that $`\theta _{}([Z])=n[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta ]H_{}(G/P\times G/P)`$ for some $`n>0`$. Using the fact that $`H_{}(G/P\times G/P)`$ has no torsion, proceeding just as before we conclude that $`\theta ^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5

. (i) In the statement of theorem 2, the hypothesis that $`M`$ be nonsingular is not necessary. Indeed, H.Hironaka  has shown that any irreducible complex analytic space which is countable at infinity can be desingularized. So replacing $`M`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and the maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }:=\phi \pi ,\stackrel{~}{\psi }:=\psi \pi `$ respectively where $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ is a desingularization map, the see that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi },\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ must have a coincidence. This immediately implies that $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ must have a coincidence.
(ii) In case $`M`$ is not Kähler, it is not true in general that $`\theta ^{}([\mathrm{\Delta }])0`$ in $`H^{}(M)`$ although $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ must have a coincidence as our theorem shows. Such coincidences have been described as “homologically invisible” by Kalyan Mukherjee . He observed that when $`M`$ is the Calabi-Eckmann manifold $`𝕊^{2n+1}\times 𝕊^{2n+1}`$ with $`n1`$, for any two maps $`\phi ,\psi :M^n`$ the homomorphism $`\theta ^{}:H^{}(^n\times ^n)H^{}(M)`$ is zero in positive dimensions where $`\theta =(\phi ,\psi )`$. In particular, if $`f,g`$ are continuous maps homotopic to holomorphic maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ respectively with $`\phi `$ dominant, we do not know if $`f`$ and $`g`$ must have a coincidence.
(iii) When $`M`$ is Kähler and $`dim(M)>dim(G/P)`$, the conclusion of the theorem is still valid provided $`[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\theta ]H_{}(G/P;)`$ is in the image of $`\theta _{}:H_{}(M;)H_{}(G/P;)`$.

###### Corollary 6

. (i) Let $`PG`$ be a maximal parabolic subgroup and let $`f,g:G/PG/P`$ be any two continuous maps homotopic to holomorphic maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ respectively where $`\phi `$ is non-constant. Then $`f(x)=g(x)`$ for some $`xG/P`$.

(ii) Let $`f,g:G/P\times G^{}/P^{}G/P`$ be any two continuous maps which are homotopic to holomorphic maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ respectively with $`\phi `$ being non-constant. Assume that $`dim(G/P)dim(G^{}/P^{})`$. Then there exists an $`xG/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$ such that $`f(x)=g(x)`$.

Proof: Part (i) follows immediately from lemma 3 and theorem 2(ii). To prove (ii), suppose $`\phi |Z`$ is constant for every fibre $`ZG^{}/P^{}`$ of the first projection $`pr_1:G/P\times G^{}/P^{}G/P`$ map, then $`\phi `$ can be factored as $`\phi _1pr_1`$ where $`\phi _1:G/P\times G^{}/P^{}G/P`$ defined by $`\phi `$. It follows from 3 that $`\phi _1`$ is dominant. Hence $`\phi `$ is also dominant. Otherwise for some fibre $`ZG^{}/P^{}`$, $`\phi |Z`$ is non-constant. By lemma 3 it follows that $`\phi |Z`$ is dominant. It follows from lemma 3 again that $`\phi |Z`$ — and hence $`\phi `$ — must be dominant and the corollary follows from theorem 2. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7

.  It follows from the above corollary that any continuous map homotopic to a holomorphic map has a fixed point. However, in general, the spaces $`G/P`$ do not have fixed point property. For example, the Grassmannian $`G_k(^n)=SL(n,)/P_k`$ admits a continuous fixed point free involution whenever $`n`$ is even and $`k`$ odd or if $`n=2k`$. As another example, the complex quadric $`SO(n)/P_1`$ is diffeomorphic to the oriented real Grassmann manifold $`\stackrel{~}{G}_2(^n)`$ of oriented $`2`$-planes in $`^n`$. The involution that reverses the orientation on each element of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_2(^n)`$ is obviously fixed point free. However, it is known that $`G_k(^n)`$ has fixed point property (for continuous maps) when $`n`$ is large compared to $`k`$ and at most one of $`nk,k`$ is odd. See , .

## 3 Proof of Main Theorem

We now prove the main result of the paper, namely, theorem 1. We keep the notations of §1.

###### Lemma 8

. Let $`U,V`$ be generalized Calabi-Eckmann and generalized Hopf manifolds. (See §1.) Let $`Z`$ be a complex projective variety. Any holomorphic maps $`\phi :UZ`$, $`\psi :VZ`$ can be factored as $`\phi =\phi _1p,\psi =\psi _1q`$, where $`p:UG/P\times G^{}/P^{}`$ and $`q:VG/P`$ are projections of the principal $`𝕋`$-bundles.

Proof: It was shown in the proof of Theorem 3, , that $`H^2(V;)=H^2(K/L;)=0`$ where $`KG`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $`G`$ and $`L`$ is the semi simple part of the centralizer in $`K`$ of a subgroup of $`K`$ isomorphic to $`𝕊^1`$. The same argument shows that $`H^2(U;)=H^2(K/L\times K^{}/L^{};)=0`$. In particular the manifolds $`U,V`$ are not Kähler.

A theorem of Grauert and Remmert  says that for a compact complex homogeneous manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`n`$, the transcendence degree over $``$ of the field $`(M)`$ of meromorphic functions on $`M`$ is equal to $`n`$ if and only if it a projective algebraic variety. In the our case $`U,V`$ fibre over projective varieties of dimension $`1`$ less. It follows that $`tr.deg_{}((V))tr.deg_{}((X))=dim(G/P)`$. Suppose $`\psi `$ is not constant along a fibre. Then there exists an open set (in the analytic topology) $`NG/P`$ such that $`\psi `$ is non-constant on $`q^1(x)`$, for any $`xN`$. Let $`xN`$. Composing with a suitable meromorphic function on $`Z`$ which is non-constant on $`\psi (q^1(x))`$, we get a meromorphic function $`\theta `$ on $`V`$. We claim that $`\theta `$ is transcendental over $`(G/P)(V)`$. Assume, if possible, that $`\theta ^k+a_1\theta ^{k1}+\mathrm{}+a_k=0,a_i(G/P)`$. By changing the $`xN`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`x`$ is not on the polar divisor for any $`a_i`$. Restricting this equation to the fibre over $`x`$, we see that $`\theta |q^1(x)`$ is algebraic over $``$. Since $``$ is algebraically closed, we must have $`\theta |p^1(x)`$. This is absurd since $`\theta `$ is non-constant on $`q^1(x)`$. Hence we conclude that $`\theta `$ is constant along the fibres of $`q`$. Proof that $`\phi `$ is constant along the fibres of $`p`$ is entirely similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1: (i) By lemma 8, the maps $`\phi ,\psi `$ factor through the projection of the elliptic curve bundle $`p:VG/P`$. Write $`\phi =\phi _1p,\psi =\psi _1p`$. Now, it suffices to show that the holomorphic maps $`\phi _1`$ and $`\psi _1`$ have a coincidence. Since $`\phi _1`$ is non-constant, this is now immediate from corollary 6 (i).
(ii) Proceeding exactly as in (i), we write $`\phi =\phi _1q,\psi =\psi _2q`$, where $`\phi _1,\psi _1:G/P\times G^{}/P^{}G/P`$ are holomorphic. Note that since $`\phi _1`$ is non-constant. By corollary 6 $`\phi _1`$ and $`\psi _1`$ must have a coincidence. Hence $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ must also have a coincidence. $`\mathrm{}`$

We conclude with the following observation.

###### Lemma 9

. Let $`\pi :WM`$ be a holomorphic fibre bundle with $`M`$ compact connected, and fibre a complex torus $`𝕋`$. Suppose that $`H_2(F;)H_2(W;)`$ is zero. Then any holomorphic map $`\phi :WG/Q`$ is constant on the fibres of $`\pi `$ where $`QG`$ is any parabolic subgroup.

Proof: Assume that $`\phi :WG/Q`$ is a holomorphic map such that $`\phi |F`$ is not constant for some fibre $`F`$ of the $`T`$-bundle $`\pi :WM`$. Let $`\iota :FW`$ denote the inclusion map. Let $`CG/Q`$ be the image of $`F`$. Note that $`dim(C)=1=dim(F)`$. Since $`\phi `$ is holomorphic, $`C`$ is an algebraic subvariety of $`G/Q`$. In particular, it represents a non-zero element of $`H_2(G/Q;)`$. In fact $`C`$ is rationally equivalent to a positive linear combination of certain $`1`$-dimensional Schubert subvarieties in $`G/Q`$ . It follows that $`(\phi |F)_{}:H_2(F;)H_2(G/Q;)`$ maps the fundamental class of $`F`$ to a nonzero element of $`H_2(G/Q;)`$. On the other hand, $`(\phi |F)_{}=\phi _{}\iota _{}=0`$ in dimension $`2`$, since $`\iota _{}:H_2(T;)H_2(W;)`$ is zero by hypothesis. We conclude that $`\phi `$ must be constant on the fibres of $`\pi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 10

. (i) Let $`\pi :WM`$ be as in the above lemma. Let $`\phi ,\psi :WG/P`$ be any two holomorphic maps where $`\phi `$ is non-constant and $`PG`$ a maximal parabolic. Let $`\phi _1:MG/P`$ be such that $`\phi =\phi _1\pi `$. Suppose $`XM`$ is irreducible and has the structure of a complex projective variety with $`Pic(X)=`$ and $`dim(X)=dim(G/P)`$. If $`\phi _1|X`$ is non-constant, then, in view of the above lemma and remark 4(ii), $`\phi _1`$ must be dominant. It follows that $`\phi `$ itself must be dominant. By theorem 2 it follows that $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ must have a coincidence.

(ii) I do not know if theorem 1 still holds if one merely assumes that $`\phi ,\psi `$ are continuous maps homotopic to holomorphic maps one of which is dominant.

Acknowledgments: I am indebted to Kalyan Mukherjea for asking me the question which led to this paper and for pointing out his paper . I am grateful to the referee of this paper for his/her valuable comments and suggestions for improvements. I am grateful to Issai Kantor for a copy of his paper  and for translating into English the relevant parts of his of paper for my benefit.


format: text

text:
# PHYSICAL REVIEW B64, 184509 (2001) Ground State of the Three-Band Hubbard Model

## I Introduction

In order to investigate the mechanism of superconductivity (SC) in cuprate high-$`T_c`$ superconductors,? we examine the ground state of the two-dimensional three-band Hubbard model for CuO2 planes which are contained usually in their crystal structures. It is believed that the CuO2 plane contains the essential features of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates.?? It is not an easy task to clarify the ground state properties of the 2D three-band Hubbard model because of strong correlations among $`d`$ and $`p`$ electrons. We must treat the strong correlations properly to understand the phase diagram of the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. The quantum variational Monte Carlo method (VMC) is a tool to investigate the overall structure of phase diagram from weak to strong correlation regions. In this paper we investigate possible ground states in the three-band Hubbard model for CuO2 plane by employing VMC.

Superconductivity in the one-band Hubbard model has been studied by numerical?????????? and analytical?????? calculations. The three-band Hubbard model has also been investigated with intensive efforts recently.?????????? The exact diagonalization computations for the three-band model in early stage of high-$`T_c`$ research supported a possibility of superconductivity by showing that holes can bind in small systems.?? It is also reported that the attractive interaction works for both the $`d`$-wave and extended-$`s`$ wave channels based on finite temperature quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) simulations.? It has been shown recently that one can predict finite $`T_c`$ for the three-band Hubbard model based on perturbative calculations such as generalized RPA treatments.??? In perturbative treatments of the one-band and three-band Hubbard models, the spin fluctuations induced by the on-site Coulomb interaction promote anisotropic pairing correlations. QMC evaluations with some constraints due to the fermion sign problem are against a possibility of superconductivity in the three-band Hubbard model.?

In order to investigate the possibility and origin of superconductivity, the recent work by Kondo is important where it has been shown that the $`d`$-wave state has lower energy than the normal state for small $`U`$ by employing the perturbation theory in $`U`$ for the one-band Hubbard model.? This indicates that the ground state is superconductive with $`d`$-wave symmetry for small values of $`U`$. We can expect that this also holds for the three-band model.? It is then natural to expect that the $`d`$-wave state is stable for finite $`U`$ unless there occurs some ordering in the ground state. Among several possible long-range orderings, antiferromagnetic one should be examined because the state with antiferromagnetic ordering is considerably stable near half-filling. In fact, according to VMC work for the one-band Hubbard model, the antiferromagnetic (AF) energy gain is larger than the SC energy gain by almost two order of magnitude near half-filling. Then the competition between SC and AF states is very severe for the SC state.?? The SC region for the one-band Hubbard model is considerably restricted and a possibility of pure superconducting state is very small.? A similar feature has been obtained by VMC evaluations for $`U_d=\mathrm{}`$ three-band Hubbard model? where antiferromagnetic region extends up to 50 percent doping and the $`d`$-wave phase exists only in the infinitesimally small region near the boundary of antiferromagnetic phase. Thus VMC results performed recently are consistent with the constrained path QMC calculations? in the sense that a possibility of $`d`$-wave phase for the one-band Hubbard model and $`U_d=\mathrm{}`$ three-band Hubbard model is small at present, although an attractive interaction works for $`d`$-wave pairing.

We expect that the antiferromagnetic region will shrink for the three-band Hubbard model if we adjust parameters contained in the model. The parameters of the three-band Hubbard model are given by the Coulomb repulsion $`U_d`$, energy levels of $`p`$ electrons $`ϵ_p`$ and $`d`$ electron $`ϵ_d`$, and transfer between $`p`$ orbitals given by $`t_{pp}`$. A purpose of this paper is to investigate the property of antiferromagnetic state and a competition between antiferromagnetism and superconductivity for finite $`U_d`$ based on the three-band model following ansatz of Gutzwiller-projected wave functions.

It has also been argued that holes doped in the antiferromagnetically correlated spin systems induce incommensurate spin correlations in the ground state for the one-band Hubbard model?????? and three-band model? within the mean field approximation. In the mean-field treatment the energy scales appear to be extremely large compared to values for real materials. Recent neutron-scattering experiments revealed incommensurate spin structures???????? developed at low temperatures and at low energies. The static incommensurate structure was reported on LSCO samples: La2-xSrxCuO4, La1.6-xNd0.4CuO4 and La2-xSrxNiO4+y. The incommensurate magnetic peaks have been also reported for YBa2Cu3O7-δ by the inelastic neutron-scattering experiments. This type of inhomogeneous state may possibly provide a key concept to resolve the anomalous properties of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates in the underdoped region. We will examine a possible phase of incommensurate states for the three-band Hubbard model by variational Monte Carlo method.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section the wave functions are presented. The SC state and uniform SDW state are discussed in Section III and a stability of incommensurate state is examined in the subsequent section. A summary is given in the last section.

## II Hamiltonian and Wave Functions

The Hamiltonian is given as???

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_d{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }+ϵ_p{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}(p_{i+\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i+\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }+p_{i+\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i+\widehat{y}/2,\sigma })`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`t_{dp}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}[d_{i\sigma }^{}(p_{i+\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }+p_{i+\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }p_{i\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }p_{i\widehat{y}/2,\sigma })+h.c.]`$
$`+`$ $`t_{pp}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}[p_{i+\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i+\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }p_{i+\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }p_{i\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i+\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }+p_{i\widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}p_{i\widehat{x}/2,\sigma }+h.c.]`$
$`+`$ $`U_d{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_i^{}d_id_i^{}d_i`$
$`=`$ $`H_0+V,`$
where

$$V=U_d\underset{i}{}d_i^{}d_id_i^{}d_i.$$
(2)
$`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{y}`$ represent unit vectors along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, respectively. $`p_{i\pm \widehat{x}/2,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`p_{i\pm \widehat{x}/2,\sigma }`$ denote the operators for the $`p`$ electrons at site $`R_i\pm \widehat{x}/2`$. Similarly $`p_{i\pm \widehat{y}/2,\sigma }^{}`$ and $`p_{i\pm \widehat{y}/2,\sigma }`$ are defined. Other notations are standard and energies are measured in units of $`t_{dp}`$. For simplicity we neglect the Coulomb interaction among $`p`$ electrons.

We consider the normal state, BCS and SDW wave functions with the Gutzwiller projection. These types of functions are standard wave functions and well describe the ground-state properties with several long-range orderings. They have been investigated intensively for the one-band Hubbard model.???????? In Refs.?? it has been discussed that they can be improved systematically by operating correlation factors $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda H_0}\mathrm{e}^{\alpha V}`$. For the model shown above they are written as

$$\psi _n=P_G\underset{|k|k_F,\sigma }{}\alpha _{k\sigma }^{}|0,$$
(3)
$$\psi _{SC}=P_GP_{N_e}\underset{k}{}(u_k+v_k\alpha _k^{}\alpha _k^{})|0,$$
(4)
$$\psi _{SDW}=P_G\underset{|k|k_F,\sigma }{}\beta _{k\sigma }^{}|0,$$
(5)
where $`\alpha _{k\sigma }`$ is the linear combination of $`d_{k\sigma }`$, $`p_{xk\sigma }`$ and $`p_{yk\sigma }`$ constructed to express an operator for the lowest band of a non-interacting Hamiltonian in the hole picture. For $`t_{pp}=0`$, $`\alpha _{k\sigma }`$ is expressed in terms of a variational parameter $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}`$:

$$\alpha _{k\sigma }^{}=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}}{2E_k}\right)\right]^{1/2}d_{k\sigma }^{}+\mathrm{i}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}}{2E_k}\right)\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{w_{xk}}{w_k}p_{xk\sigma }^{}+\frac{w_{yk}}{w_k}p_{yk\sigma }^{}\right),$$
(6)
where $`w_{xk}=2t_{dp}\mathrm{sin}(k_x/2)`$, $`w_{yk}=2t_{dp}\mathrm{sin}(k_y/2)`$, $`w_k=(w_{xk}^2+w_{yk}^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`E_k=[(\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d})^2/4+w_k^2]^{1/2}`$. The Fourier transforms of $`d`$\- and $`p`$\- electron operators are defined as

$$d_{k\sigma }^{}=\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\underset{i}{}d_{i\sigma }^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kR_i},$$
(7)
$$p_{xk\sigma }^{}=\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\underset{i}{}p_{i+\widehat{x}/2\sigma }^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k(R_i+\widehat{x}/2}),$$
(8)
$$p_{yk\sigma }^{}=\frac{1}{N^{1/2}}\underset{i}{}p_{i+\widehat{y}/2\sigma }^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}k(R_i+\widehat{y}/2}),$$
(9)
where $`N`$ is the total number of cells which consist of $`d`$, $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ orbitals. Coefficients $`u_k`$ and $`v_k`$, appearing only as a ratio, are given by the BCS form:

$$\frac{v_k}{u_k}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_k}{\xi _k+(\xi _k^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_k^2)^{1/2}},$$
(10)
for $`\xi _k=ϵ_k\mu `$ where $`ϵ_k`$ is the energy dispersion for the lowest band. $`P_G`$ is the Gutzwiller projection operator for the Cu $`d`$ site and $`P_{N_e}`$ is a projection operator which extracts only the states with a fixed total electron number. The SC order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ is assumed to have the following $`d_{x^2y^2}`$\- and extended $`s`$-wave form:

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y),$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{s}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\mathrm{cos}k_x+\mathrm{cos}k_y).$$
(12)
Equation (4) is written as

$$\psi _{SC}=P_G\left(\underset{k}{}\frac{v_k}{u_k}\alpha _k^{}\alpha _k^{}\right)^{N_e/2}.$$
(13)
The wave function given by eq.(13) agrees with

$$\psi _{BCS}=P_G\underset{k}{}(u_k+v_k\alpha _k^{}\alpha _k^{})|0,$$
(14)
in the thermodynamic limit. For the commensurate SDW state $`\beta _{k\sigma }`$ is given by a linear combination of two wave numbers $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤+𝐐`$ for the commensurate vector $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$. We can also investigate the incommensurate SDW state with incommensurate vector $`𝐐=(\pi \pm 2\pi \delta ,\pi )`$ by diagonalizing the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic long-range order. The system sizes are given by $`6\times 6`$ and $`8\times 8`$ for the projected BCS wave function and $`16\times 4`$, $`24\times 6`$, $`32\times 8`$, $`40\times 10`$ and $`16\times 16`$ for the incommensurate SDW states. Our calculations are performed with the periodic and the antiperiodic boundary conditions for the $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction, respectively. This set of boundary conditions was chosen so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ does not vanish for any $`𝐤`$-points possibly occupied by electrons.

The expectation values are calculated following the standard Monte Carlo procedure by using the Metropolis algorithm. In the process of finding a minimum of energy, we should optimize many parameters included in the wave functions. For such purpose we employ correlated measurements method to reduce the required cpu time.?

## III Condensation energy and phase diagram

First, let us discuss the SDW phase near half-filling by evaluating the ground-state energy for optimized parameters $`g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}`$ and AF order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{AF}`$. We set $`ϵ_p=0`$ throughout this paper. It is expected that holes introduced by doping are responsible for the disappearance of long-range antiferromagnetic ordering.??? We show the SDW energy gain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{SDW}`$ in Fig.1 as a function of doping ratio for several values of $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{SDW}`$ increases and the SDW region becomes large as $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ increases. The figure 2 shows the SDW energy gain for several values of $`t_{pp}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{SDW}`$ is reduced as $`t_{pp}`$ increases. In Figs.3(a) and 3(b) the dependence on Coulomb repulsion $`U_d`$ is shown; the SDW phase extends up to 30 percent doping when $`U_d`$ is large. Then it follows that the SDW region will be reduced if $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ and $`U_d`$ decrease or $`t_{pp}`$ increases. In fact, Fig.4 shows the boundary of SDW phase in the $`t_{pp}`$-$`\delta `$ plane for $`U_d=8`$ where $`\delta `$ is the hole density and negative density indicates electron doping. Compared to the calculations for $`U_d=\mathrm{}`$ the SDW region is reduced greatly.?

Next, let us turn to the projected-BCS wave function, where the Gutzwiller parameter $`g`$, effective level difference $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}`$, chemical potential $`\mu `$ and superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ are considered as variational parameters. In Fig.5 we show the energy as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ where $`t_{pp}=0.0`$, $`U_d=8`$ and $`ϵ_pϵ_d=2`$ and doping ratio is given by $`\delta =0.111`$ for (a) and $`\delta =0.333`$ for (b). The $`d`$-wave superconductivity is most stable among various possible states such as isotropic $`s`$-wave and anisotropic $`s`$-wave pairing states. The squares in Fig.5 denote the values for the normal state, which are estimated independently by using an alternative Monte Carlo algorithm. The finite SC energy gain indicates that the attractive interaction works for $`d`$-wave pairing.

The SC energy gain (which is called the SC condensation energy in this paper) is also dependent on $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$, as is shown in Fig.6 for $`t_{pp}=0.2`$, $`U_d=8`$ and $`\delta =0.111`$ on $`6\times 6`$ lattice. This shows a tendency that the SC condensation energy increases as $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ increases, which is consistent with calculations for $`U_d=\mathrm{}`$.? It is noted that the dependence on $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ for the SC energy gain is rather weak compared to the SDW energy gain. We also note that the SC energy gains for $`U_d=8`$ are mostly of the same order of those for $`U_d=\mathrm{}`$.?

From the calculations for the SDW wave functions, we should set $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ and $`U_d`$ small so that the SDW phase does not occupy a huge region near half-filling. In Fig.7 we show energy gains for both the SDW and SC states for $`U_d=8`$, $`t_{pp}=0.2`$ and $`ϵ_pϵ_d=2`$, where the negative delta indicates the electron-doping case. Solid symbols indicate the results for $`8\times 8`$ and open symbols for $`6\times 6`$. For this set of parameters the SDW region extends up to 20 percent doping and the pure $`d`$-wave phase exists outside of the SDW phase. The $`d`$-wave phase may be possibly identified with superconducting phase in the overdoped region in the high-$`T_c`$ superconductors.

The superconducting condensation energy obtained by our calculations is estimated as $`E_{cond}0.0005t_{dp}=0.75`$meV per site in the overdoped region near the boundary of SDW phase from the difference between the minimum and the intercept of the $`E/N\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ curve with the vertical axis, where we set $`t_{dp}=1.5`$eV as estimated from cluster calculations.??? We have also estimated $`E_{cond}`$ from several experiments such as specific heat or critical field measurements for optimally doped samples. They are given as $`0.170.26`$meV from specific heat data??? and $`0.26`$meV from critical magnetic field value $`H_c^2/8\pi `$.?? Our value is in reasonable agreement with the experimental data as was already shown for the Hubbard model where the SC energy gain in the bulk limit is given by 0.00117t/site=0.59meV/site.? This agreement between the theoretical and experimental condensation energy is highly remarkable. We expect that this value is not far from the correct value according to the evaluations for improved wave functions,? where it was shown that the energy gain is not changed so much due to multiplicative correlation factors $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau H_0}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau V}`$. We cannot estimate the SC condensation energy in the underdoped region because the SDW state is more stable than $`d`$-wave state and the SC condensation energy is not available experimentally due to a loss of entropy in the underdoped region.?

The phase structure obtained by our calculations agrees well with the available phase diagram indicated by experiments qualitatively, which means that a large SDW phase exists in the underdoped region and there is a $`d`$-wave superconducting phase next to SDW phase in the overdoped region. Our calculations for electron-doping case predict $`d`$-wave symmetry away from half-filling, which is consistent with recent experiments on Nd1.85Ce0.15CuO4-y.?

## IV Incommensurate antiferromagnetism with spin modulation

In this section let us discuss the underdoped region where the SDW state is significantly stable as shown in the previous section. Let us note that the SDW state can be possibly stabilized further if we take into account a spin modulation in space, as has also been studied for the one-band Hubbard model??????? and the t-J model.???? We can introduce a stripe in the uniform spin density state so that doped holes occupy new levels close to the starting Fermi energy keeping the energy loss of antiferromagnetic background minimum. The wave function with a stripe can be taken of the Gutzwiller type: $`\psi _{stripe}=P_G\psi _{stripe}^0`$. $`\psi _{stripe}^0`$ is the Slater determinant made from solutions of the Hartree-Fock Hamiltonian?

$$H_{stripe}=H_{dp}^0+\frac{U}{2}\underset{i\sigma }{}[n_{di}\sigma (1)^{x_i+y_i}m_i]d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma },$$
(15)
where $`H_{dp}^0`$ is the non-interacting part of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ with variational parameter $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_p}\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}`$. $`n_{di}`$ and $`m_i`$ are expressed in terms of modulation vectors $`Q_s`$ and $`Q_c`$ for spin and charge part, respectively. Including the constant part of $`n_{di}`$ in the definition of variational parameter $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ_d}`$, we diagonalize the following one-particle Hamiltonian to determine $`\psi _{stripe}^0`$:

$$H_{stripe}=H_{dp}^0+\underset{i\sigma }{}[\delta n_{di}\sigma (1)^{x_i+y_i}m_i]d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }.$$
(16)
$`\delta n_{di}`$ and $`m_i`$ are assumed to have the form

$$\delta n_{di}=\underset{j}{}\alpha /\mathrm{cosh}((x_ix_j^{str})/\xi _c),$$
(17)
$$m_i=m\underset{j}{}\mathrm{tanh}((x_ix_j^{str})/\xi _s),$$
(18)
with parameters $`\alpha `$, $`m`$, $`\xi _c`$ and $`\xi _s`$. $`x_j^{str}`$ denotes the position of a stripe. In actual calculations we set $`\xi _c=1`$ and $`\xi _s=1`$ since the energy expectation values are mostly independent of $`\xi _c`$ and $`\xi _s`$. Since any eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian $`H_{dp}^0`$ can be a variational wave function, we optimize $`\alpha `$ instead of fixing it in order to lower the energy expectation value further. It is also possible to assume that $`\delta n_{di}`$ and $`m_i`$ oscillate according to cosine curve given as cos($`4\pi \delta x_i`$) and cos($`2\pi \delta x_i`$), respectively. Both methods give almost the same results within Monte Carlo statistical errors.

Recent neutron scattering experiments suggested that modulation vectors are given by $`Q_s=(\pi \pm 2\pi \delta ,\pi )`$ and $`Q_c=(\pm 4\pi \delta ,0)`$ in the underdoped region, where $`\delta `$ denotes the doping ratio. Here we define $`n`$-lattice stripe as an incommensurate state with one stripe per n ladders for which $`Q_s`$ is given by $`Q_s=(\pi \pm \pi /n,\pi )`$. Then the incommensurate state predicted by neutron experiments for $`\delta =1/8`$ is given by 4-lattice stripe. For the three-band model, the transfer $`t_{pp}`$ between oxygen orbitals plays an important role to determine a possible SDW state. If $`t_{pp}`$ is very large, the uniform SDW state is expected to be stabilized because holes doped on oxygen sites can move around on the lattice producing disorder effect on spin ordering uniformly. For small $`t_{pp}`$ the stripe states are considered to be realized.? Our motivation to consider non-uniform states for the three-band model lies in the idea that the distance between stripes may be dependent upon $`t_{pp}`$, i.e. for small $`t_{pp}`$ the distance between stripes is large, for intermediate values of $`t_{pp}`$ the 4-lattice stripe state is realized and for large $`t_{pp}`$ the uniform state or normal state is stable.

In Fig.8 we show the energies for commensurate and incommensurate SDW states on $`16\times 4`$ lattice at $`\delta =1/8`$ as a function of $`t_{pp}`$, where we impose the antiperiodic and periodic boundary conditions in $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction, respectively, so that the closed shell structure is followed for doped holes. We assumed that $`ϵ_pϵ_d=1.2`$, 2 and 2.4. The 8-lattice stripe state for small $`t_{pp}`$ changes into uniform state as $`t_{pp}`$ increases. It shows that incommensurate states become stable for large level difference $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$. The spin and charge densities of incommensurate state are shown in Fig.9 for $`t_{pp}=0.4`$ and $`ϵ_pϵ_d=2`$ where the charge density is a sum of hole numbers on $`d`$-, $`p_x`$\- and $`p_y`$-orbitals at site $`L`$. Spin density $`S_z(i)=n_{di}n_{di}`$ vanishes at the positions of stripes associated with peaks of hole density. The spin structure factor $`S_z(𝐪)`$ really has incommensurate peaks as is shown in Fig.10. The Figures 11(a) and 11(b) present the energies of incommensurate states for $`16\times 16`$ lattice (which contains 768 atoms) where we set antiperiodic and periodic boundary conditions in $`x`$\- and $`y`$-direction, respectively, for (a) and in $`y`$\- and $`x`$\- direction, respectively, for (b). Both figures give almost the same results as an evidence that the effect of boundary conditions is small for $`16\times 16`$ system. As expected, the structure of incommensurate state is dependent upon the values of $`t_{pp}`$.

Let us turn to a discussion of the energy gain due to a formation of stripes, which is estimated from an extrapolation to the bulk limit as shown in Fig.12. One notes that the energy gain increases as the system size increases. The energy gain per site for 4-lattice stripe state is given by $`0.015t_{dp}22.5`$meV. Furthermore the energy difference between commensurate and incommensurate states is found to be finite in the bulk limit, which is shown in Fig.13. Thus within VMC the stripe state with spin modulation is stable at $`\delta =1/8`$ doping.

The antiferromagnetic order parameter $`m`$ in eq.(18) is of the order of $`0.5t_{dp}0.75`$eV, while the SC order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ (which gives the minimum of energy) is of the order of $`0.010.015t_{dp}=15`$meV$`20`$meV at $`\delta 0.2`$. The magnitude of SC order parameter agrees with measurements of tunneling spectroscopy?? where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s17`$meV for YBCO sample.? The antiferromagnetic order parameter is larger than SC order parameter at least by one order of magnitude. The charge order parameter $`\alpha `$ in eq.(17) is small and negligible compared to $`m_i`$.

## V Summary

We have presented our evaluations for the 2D three-band Hubbard model based on the variational Monte Carlo method. Our work is regarded as a starting step for more sophisticated calculations in future such as the inclusion of correlation factors of Jastrow type or Green function Monte Carlo approaches. The SC energy scales obtained from our evaluations are consistent with experimental indications, which provides a support to our approaches.

According to VMC the attractive interaction works for $`d`$-wave pairing due to electron correlations. The strength of $`U_d`$ is also important to determine the phase boundary of the SDW phase. If $`U_d`$ is extremely large, the SDW region extends up to large doping for which the $`d`$-wave region is restricted to infinitesimally small region near the boundary of antiferromagnetic phase. For intermediate values of $`U_d`$ and $`ϵ_pϵ_d`$ the SDW region is reduced and the $`d`$-wave superconducting phase may exist. The fact that the SC condensation energy agrees reasonably with the experimental data for optimally doped samples supports our computations. The magnitude of SC order parameter is also consistent with tunneling spectroscopy experiments. From our data for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{SC}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and the relation $`N(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2/2=\mathrm{\Delta }E_{SC}`$, the effective density of state $`N(0)`$ can be estimated as $`N(0)36.7(\mathrm{eV})^14.410/t_{dp}`$ at $`\delta 0.2`$ in the overdoped region, which is not far from the BCS estimate $`N(0)2`$ to 3(eV)-1 by using $`N(0)(k_BT_c)^2/2`$ for optimally doped YBCO.? We expect that the pure $`d`$-wave state from optimal to overdoped regions may be described by the projected-BCS wave function. The phase diagram for electron-doping is consistent with the available experimental indications suggesting that the properties of electron-doped materials may be understood within our approach. In the SDW region the incommensurate spin structures are stabilized for the low-doping case to keep the energy loss minimum due to disorder effect caused by holes. A competition among the uniform SDW state, SDW state with stripes, and pure $`d`$-wave SC is highly non-trivial. A picture for the hole-doping case followed from our evaluations is that a stripe state is stable in the underdoped region and changes into the $`d`$-wave SC in the overdoped region.

We thank S. Koikegami for valuable discussions. The computations were carried out on the alpha cluster machines supported by the ACT-JST program of Japan Science and Technology Cooperation, and also on the HItachi SR8000 at the Tsukuba Advanced Computing Center of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.


text:
# On semi-global invariants for focus-focus singularities

## 1 Introduction

In the study of completely integrable Hamiltonian systems, and more generally for any dynamical system, finding normal forms is often the easiest way of understanding the behaviour of the trajectories. Normal forms generally deal with a *local* issue. But the locality here depends on one’s viewpoint: one can be local near a point, an orbit, or any invariant submanifold. If $`F=(H_1,\mathrm{},H_n)`$ is a completely integrable system on a $`2n`$-symplectic manifold $`M`$ (meaning that $`\{H_j,H_i\}=0`$), several normal forms hold:

* near a point $`m`$ where $`dH_j(m)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ are linearly independent, one can construct *Darboux-Carathéodory* coordinates: a neighbourhood of $`m`$ is symplectomorphic to a neighbourhood of the origin in $`^{2n}`$ with its canonical coordinates $`(x,\xi )`$, in such a way that $`H_jH_j(m)=\xi _j`$.
* if $`c`$ is a regular value of $`F`$, one has near any compact connected component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ of $`F^1(c)`$ the *Liouville-Arnold* theorem which states that the system is symplectomorphic to a neighbourhood of the zero section of $`T^{}(𝕋^n)`$ in such a way that there is a change of coordinates $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in $`^n`$ such that $`F\mathrm{\Phi }=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)`$. Here $`𝕋^n`$ is the torus $`^n/2\pi ^n`$ and the cotangent bundle $`T^{}(𝕋^n)`$ is equipped with canonical coordinates $`(x,\xi )`$.

The first one is typically a local normal form, while I would refer to the Liouville-Arnold theorem as a *semi-global* result, for it classifies a neighbourhood of a whole invariant Lagrangian leaf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. These two statements above are now fairly standard. They can be extended in different directions: a) trying to globalise: what can be said at the level of the whole fibration of regular fibres $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ ? This of course involves more topological invariants, as described in Duistermaat’s paper ; b) including critical points, which is the main incentive for this article.

A Morse-Bott like theoretical study of critical point of completely integrable Hamiltonian systems exists, which yields a local symplectic classification of non-degenerate singularities (see Eliasson ). These results have been used by Nguyên Tiên Zung  (extending previous results by Fomenko) to obtain a topological semi-global classification of the singular foliation. This work does not give the corresponding smooth symplectic classification, where new semi-global invariants show up, as demonstrated in the “1-D” (one degree of freedom, i.e. $`n=1`$) case by . The point of our present article is to extend the results of  to the 2-D case of *focus-focus* singularities. Note that our arguments could easily be applied in the 1-D case, thus supplying for the lack of proofs in .

Between the pure topological classification of the singular foliation and the “exact” symplectic classification, some other interesting notions of equivalence have been introduced (see eg. ), which are all weaker than what we shall present here.

The semi-global viewpoint seems to be able to shed some new light in semiclassical mechanics, where a quantum state is associated to a Lagrangian submanifold. Quantum states associated to singular manifolds have a particularly rich structure, strongly linked to the local (for this, see ) and semi-global symplectic invariants of the foliation. We expect to return on this in a future paper.

## 2 Statement of the result

In this article, $`(M,\omega )`$ is a 4-dimensional symplectic manifold, equipped with the symplectic Poisson bracket $`\{,\}`$. Any smooth function $`H`$ on $`M`$ gives rise to a Hamiltonian vector field denoted by $`𝒳_H`$.

The word smooth always means of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ category and a function $`f`$ is said *flat* at a point $`m`$ if $`f`$ and all its derivatives vanish at $`m`$.

###### Definition 2.1

A map $`F=(H_1,H_2)`$ defined on some open subset $`U`$ of $`M`$ with values in $`^2`$ is called a momentum map if $`dF`$ is surjective almost everywhere in $`U`$ and $`\{H_1,H_2\}=0`$.

###### Definition 2.2

A singular Liouville foliation $``$ is a disjoint union of connected subsets of $`M`$ called leaves for which there exists a momentum map $`F`$ defined in some neighbourhood $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $``$ such that the leaves of $``$ are the connected components of the level sets $`F^1(c)`$, for $`c`$ in some open subset of $`^2`$.

The total space of the foliation is also denoted by $``$. The above definition implies that $``$ is an open subset of $`M`$.

###### Definition 2.3

Let $`m`$. The maximum of the set $`\{\text{rank}(dF(m)),F\text{ defining }\}`$ is called the rank of $`m`$. $`m`$ is called regular if its rank is maximal ($`=2`$). Otherwise it is called singular.

If $`m`$ is a regular point, then there is an open neighbourhood of $`m`$ in which all points are regular, and if $`F_1`$ $`F_2`$ are associated momentum maps near $`m`$, one has $`F_1=\phi F_2`$, for some local diffeomorphism $`\phi `$ of $`^2`$ (these facts come from the local submersion theorem).

Note that the condition $`\{H_1,H_2\}=0`$ implies that the leaves are local Lagrangian manifolds near any regular point. However, the foliation near a regular leaf (=a leaf without any singular point) is not the most general Lagrangian foliation (which would be defined as a foliation admitting *locally* associated momentum maps), since the latter does not necessarily admit a global momentum map (see ).

In what follows, the word “Liouville” is often omitted. If $`m`$, we denote by $`_m`$ the leaf containing $`m`$.

###### Definition 2.4

A singular Liouville foliation $``$ is called of simple *focus-focus* type whenever the following conditions are satisfied:

1. $``$ has a unique singular point $`m`$;
2. the singularity at $`m`$ is of *focus-focus* type;
3. the leaf $`_m`$ is compact.

The leaf $`_m`$ is called the *focus-focus* leaf.

Recall that the second condition means that there exists a momentum map $`F=(H_1,H_2)`$ for the foliation at $`m`$ such that the Hessians of $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ span a subalgebra of quadratic forms that admits, in some symplectic coordinates $`(x,y,\xi ,\eta )`$, the following basis:

$$q_1=x\xi +y\eta ,q_2=x\eta y\xi .$$
(1)
This implies that *focus-focus* points are isolated, which ensures that the above definition is non-void. Note that *focus-focus* singularities are one of the four types of singularities of Morse-Bott type in dimension 4, in the sense of Eliasson .

###### Definition 2.5

Two singular foliations $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the symplectic manifolds $`(M,\omega )`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ are equivalent is there exists a symplectomorphism $`\phi :\stackrel{~}{}`$ that sends leaves to leaves.

###### Definition 2.6

Let $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ be singular foliations in $`M`$, and $`m\stackrel{~}{}`$ such that $`_m=\stackrel{~}{}_m`$. The germs of $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ at $`_m`$ are equal if and only if there exists a saturated neighbourhood $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`_m`$ in $``$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The classification of germs of Liouville foliations near a compact regular leaf is given by the Liouville-Arnold theorem that asserts that they are all equivalent to the horizontal fibration by tori of $`T^{}𝕋^n`$. The presence of singularities imposes more rigidity, and we have the following theorem (which is natural in view of ):

###### Theorem 2.1

The set of equivalence classes of germs of singular Liouville foliations of *focus-focus* type at the *focus-focus* leaf is in natural bijection with $`[[X,Y]]_0`$, where $`[[X,Y]]`$ is the algebra of real formal power series in two variables, and $`[[X,Y]]_0`$ is the subspace of such series with vanishing constant term.

This formal statement does not contain the most interesting part of the result, which is the geometric description of the power series involved (it is essentially the Taylor series of a regularisation of some action integral). The rest of the paper is devoted to this description – which is the “$``$” sense of the theorem, and to the proof of the “$``$” sense, for which we provide a normal form corresponding to any given power series in $`[[X,Y]]_0`$.

The articles ends up with a sketchy argument as to how the result can be extended to handle the case of several *focus-focus* points in the singular leaf.

## 3 The regularised action

Let $``$ be a singular foliation of simple *focus-focus* type. Then in some neighbourhood $`U`$ of the *focus-focus* point $`m`$, the following linearisation result holds (Eliasson ): there exist symplectic coordinates in $`U`$ in which the map $`(q_1,q_2)`$ (defined in (1)) is a momentum map for the foliation. Notice therefore that, contrary to what the picture of Figure 1 may suggest, $`_m`$ is diffeomorphic near $`m`$ to the union of two 2-dimensional planes transversally intersecting at $`m`$. Let $`A`$ be a point in $`_mU\{m\}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a small 2-dimensional surface transversal to the foliation at $`A`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the open neighbourhood of $`_m`$ consisting of leaves intersecting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In what follows, we restrict the foliation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ be a momentum map for the whole foliation $``$ satisfying the hypothesis of Definition 2.4. In a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and $`q=(q_1,q_2)`$ are regular local momentum maps, hence $`q=\phi \stackrel{~}{F}`$, for some local diffeomorphism $`\phi `$ of $`^2`$. Now let $`F=\phi \stackrel{~}{F}`$. It is a global momentum map for $``$ that extends $`q`$. We denote $`F=(H_1,H_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=F^1(c)`$.

Near $`m`$, the Hamiltonian flow of $`q_2`$ is $`2\pi `$-periodic, and – assuming $`U`$ to be invariant with respect to this flow – the associated $`S^1`$-action is free in $`U\{m\}`$. Since this action commutes with the flow of $`H_1`$, the $`H_2`$-orbits must be periodic of primitive period $`2\pi `$ for any point in a (non-trivial) trajectory of $`𝒳_{H_1}`$. On the leaf $`_m=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, these trajectories are homoclinic orbits for the point $`m`$, which implies that the flow of $`H_2`$ generates an $`S^1`$-action on a whole neighbourhood of $`_m`$ (see  for details).

For any point $`A\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, $`c`$ a regular value of $`F`$, let $`\tau _1(c)>0`$ be the time of first return for the $`𝒳_{H_1}`$-flow to the $`𝒳_{H_2}`$-orbit through $`A`$, and $`\tau _2(c)/2\pi `$ the time it takes to close up this trajectory under the flow of $`𝒳_{H_2}`$ (see Fig. 1). These times are independent of the initial point $`A`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$.

For any regular value $`c`$ of $`F`$, the set of points $`(a,b)^2`$ such that $`a𝒳_{H_1}+b𝒳_{H_2}`$ has a $`1`$-periodic flow on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is a sublattice of $`^2`$ called the *period lattice* . The vector fields $`\tau _1𝒳_{H_1}+\tau _2𝒳_{H_2}`$ and $`2\pi 𝒳_{H_2}`$ both define $`1`$-periodic flows, hence $`(\tau _1,\tau _2)`$ and $`(0,2\pi )`$ form a $``$-basis of the period lattice (see Remark 3.1). As we shall see, the classification we are looking for relies on the behaviour of this basis as $`c`$ tends to $`0`$. One immediate fact is that the cycle associated to $`𝒳_{H_2}`$ shrinks to a point (vanishing cycle). On the other hand, the coefficients of the first vector field display a logarithmic divergence, as stated in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`\mathrm{ln}c`$ be the some determination of the complex logarithm, where $`c=(c_1,c_2)`$ is identified with $`c_1+ic_2`$. Then the following quantities

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _1(c)& =& \tau _1(c)+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}c)\hfill \\ \sigma _2(c)& =& \tau _2(c)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}c)\hfill \end{array}$$

extend to smooth and single-valued functions in a neighbourhood of $`0`$. The differential 1-form

$$\sigma :=\sigma _1dc_1+\sigma _2dc_2$$

is closed.

Proof . As before, let $`U`$ be the neighbourhood of $`m`$ found using Eliasson’s result, with canonical coordinates $`(x,y,\xi ,\eta )`$. In $`U`$, we use the complex coordinates $`z=(z_1,z_2)`$ with $`z_1=x+iy`$ and $`z_2=\xi +i\eta `$, so that $`q_1(z)+iq_2(z)=\overline{z_1}z_2`$. The flow of $`q_1`$ is

$$(z_1(t),z_2(t))=(e^tz_1(0)),e^tz_2(0),$$
(2)
while the flow of $`q_2`$ is the $`S^1`$-action given by

$$(z_1(t),z_2(t))=e^{it}(z_1(0),z_2(0)).$$
(3)
Fix some small $`ϵ>0`$. Then the local submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u=\{z_1=ϵ,|z_2|\text{ small}\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s=\{|z_1|\text{ small},z_2=ϵ,\}`$ are transversal to the foliation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=\{(z_1,z_2),\overline{z_1}z_2=c\}`$; therefore, the intersections $`A(c):=\mathrm{\Sigma }_u\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and $`B(c):=\mathrm{\Sigma }_s\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ are smooth families of points.

The $`S^1`$-orbits of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{u/s}`$ form two small hypersurfaces transversal to the flow of $`q_1`$; therefore one can uniquely define $`\tau _1^{A,B}(c)`$ as the time of first hit on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ for the $`𝒳_{H_1}`$-flow starting at $`A(c)`$ (and hence flowing outside of $`U`$), and $`\tau _2^{A,B}(c)`$ as the time it takes to finally reach $`B(c)`$ under the $`𝒳_{H_2}`$-flow. $`\tau _1^{A,B}(c)`$ and $`\tau _2^{A,B}(c)`$ are smooth functions of $`c`$ in a neighbourhood of $`0`$.

Interchanging the roles of $`A`$ and $`B`$ – and thus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$, the times $`\tau _j^{B,A}(c)`$ for $`j=1,2`$ are defined in the same way. But since the corresponding flows now take place inside $`U`$, where a singular point occur, $`\tau _j^{B,A}(c)`$ is not defined for $`c=0`$. On the other hand, equations (2) and (3) yield the following explicit formula:

$$\tau _1^{B,A}(c)+i\tau _2^{B,A}(c)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{z_1(A)}{z_1(B)}=\mathrm{ln}z_1(A)\overline{z_2}(B)\mathrm{ln}\overline{c}=\mathrm{ln}ϵ^2\mathrm{ln}\overline{c}$$
(4)
Writing now

$$\tau _1(c)+i\tau _2(c)=\left(\tau _1^{A,B}(c)+\tau _1^{B,A}(c)\right)+i\left(\tau _2^{A,B}(c)+\tau _2^{B,A}(c)\right),$$

using (4), and the fact that $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{c}=\mathrm{ln}|c|i\mathrm{arg}c`$, we obtain that

$$\sigma _1(c)+i\sigma _2(c)=\tau _1^{A,B}(c)+i\tau _2^{A,B}(c)+\mathrm{ln}ϵ^2,$$

which proves the first statement of the proposition.

Let us show now that for regular values of $`c`$ the 1-form $`\tau _1(c)dc_1+\tau _2(c)dc_2`$ is closed. For this we fix a regular value $`c_0`$ and introduce the following action integral, for $`c`$ in a small ball of regular values around $`c_0`$:

$$𝒜(c):=_{\gamma _c}\alpha ,$$
(5)
where $`\alpha `$ is any 1-form on some neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ in $`M`$ such that $`d\alpha =\omega `$ (which always exists since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is Lagrangian), and $`c\gamma _c`$ is a smooth family of loops on the torus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ with the same homology class as the trajectory of the joint flow of $`(H_1,H_2)`$ during the time $`(\tau _1(c),\tau _2(c))`$. A simple argument (see for instance \[10, Lemma 3.6\]) shows that $`\frac{𝒜(c)}{c_j}=_{\gamma _c}\kappa _j`$, where $`\kappa _j`$ is the closed 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ defined by $`\iota _{𝒳_{H_i}}\kappa =\delta _{i,j}`$. In other words, the integral of $`\kappa _j`$ along a trajectory of the flow of $`H_j`$ measures the increase of the time $`t_j`$ along this trajectory. This means that

$$d𝒜(c)=\tau _1(c)dc_1+\tau _2(c)dc_2,$$
(6)
and thus proves the closedness of the right-hand side.

Another way of proving this fact would be to apply the Liouville-Arnold theorem, which ensures that any 1-form $`adc_1+bdc_2`$, where $`a`$, $`b`$ depend smoothly on $`c`$ near a regular value, such that $`(a,b)`$ is in the *period lattice*, is closed (see remark 3.1).

Adding the fact that $`\mathrm{ln}(c)dc`$ is closed as a holomorphic 1-form, we obtain the closedness of $`\sigma `$ at any regular value of $`c`$, and hence at $`c=0`$ as well. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 3.1. From this proposition, one easily recovers the result of  stating that the monodromy of the Lagrangian fibration around a *focus-focus* fibre is generated by the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that the function $`c\sigma _2(c)`$ is defined modulo the addition of a fixed constant in $`2\pi `$. We shall from now on assume that $`\sigma _2(0)[0,2\pi [`$. This amounts to choosing the determination of the complex logarithm in accordance with the determination of $`\tau _2`$.

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`S`$ be the unique smooth function defined in some neighbourhood of $`0^2`$ such that $`dS=\sigma `$ and $`S(0)=0`$. The Taylor expansion of $`S`$ at $`c=0`$ is called the symplectic invariant of Theorem 2.1. It is denoted by $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Remark 3.2. Using equation (6), one can interpret $`S`$ as a *regularised action integral*:

$$S(c)=𝒜(c)𝒜(0)+(c\mathrm{ln}cc).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 3.3. The formula (6) defines the 1-form $`\tau =\tau _1dc_1+\tau _2dc_2`$ independently of the choice of the coordinate system $`(c_1,c_2)`$. Another (standard) way of viewing this is the following. First let $``$ be the set of regular leaves of $``$, and $`\pi `$ be the projection (which is a Lagrangian fibration) $`\text{}`$. The choice of a particular semi-global momentum map $`F:=(H_1,H_2)`$ for the system (near a Lagrangian leaf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c:=\pi ^1(c)`$, for some $`c`$) is equivalent to the choice of a *local chart* $`\varphi `$ for $``$ near $`c`$: $`F=\varphi \pi `$.

Then for each $`c`$, $`T_c^{}`$ acts naturally on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ by the time-1 flows of the vector fields symplectically dual to the pull backs by $`\pi `$ of the 1-forms in $`T_c^{}`$. This action extends to a Hamiltonian action in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ if and only if we restrict to closed 1-forms on $``$. (In the local coordinates $`(c_1,c_2)`$ of $``$ given by the choice of a momentum map $`F=(H_1,H_2)`$, the constant 1-forms $`dc_1`$, $`dc_2`$ act by the flows of $`𝒳_{H_1}`$, $`𝒳_{H_2}`$, respectively).

The *stabiliser* of this action form a particularly interesting lattice in $`T_c^{}`$, which is another representation of the “period lattice” . It is the main point of the Liouville-Arnold theorem to show that, as $`c`$ varies, the points of this lattice are associated to *closed* 1-forms, called *period 1-forms*. (Indeed, in action-angle coordinates, the period 1-forms have constant coefficients). In our case, the period lattice is computed using a local chart given by Eliasson’s theorem. First we see that this lattice has a privileged direction given by the $`S^1`$-action of $`q_2`$. Then we construct a “minimal” basis of this lattice by choosing the generator of this $`S^1`$-action (ie $`2\pi dc_2`$) together with the smallest transversal vector $`\tau `$ that has positive coefficients on $`dc_1`$ and $`dc_2`$. This is what we have done in this section. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Uniqueness

In order to show that the above invariant $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$ is indeed symplectic and uniquely defined by the foliation, we need to prove that it does not depend on any choice made to define them. A priori, $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi )`$ depends on the foliation $``$ and on the choice of the chart $`\chi `$ that puts a neighbourhood of the *focus-focus* point $`m`$ into normal form. It follows from the definition that if $`\phi `$ is a symplectomorphism sending $``$ to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, then $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{\chi })=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\stackrel{~}{\chi }\phi )`$. So $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$ is well-defined as a symplectic invariant of $``$ if and only if, for any choice of two chart $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$ putting a neighbourhood of $`m`$ into normal form, $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi )=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi ^{})`$. This is guaranteed by the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.1

If $`\phi `$ is a local symplectomorphism of $`(^4,0)`$ preserving the standard *focus-focus* foliation $`\{q:=(q_1,q_2)=\text{const}\}`$ near the origin, then there exists a unique germ of diffeomorphism $`G:^2^2`$ such that

$$q\phi =Gq,$$
(7)
and $`G`$ is of the form $`G=(G_1,G_2)`$, where $`G_2(c_1,c_2)=\epsilon _2c_2`$ and $`G_1(c_1,c_2)\epsilon _1c_1`$ is flat at the origin, with $`\epsilon _j=\pm 1`$.

Remark 4.1. This uniqueness statement about Eliasson’s normal form does not appear in . $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of the lemma. The existence of some unique $`G`$ satisfying (7) is standard (because the leaves of the *focus-focus* foliation are locally connected around the origin). What interests us here are the last properties. As before, we use the complex coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)^2=^4`$, and $`c=\overline{z_1}z_2=^2`$. Let $`\delta >0`$ be such that $`\phi `$ is defined in the box $`=\{|z_1|2\delta ,|z_2|2\delta \}`$.

Since the flow of $`q_2`$ is $`2\pi `$-periodic, (7) implies that the Hamiltonian vector field $`_1G_2𝒳_{q_1}+_2G_2𝒳_{q_2}`$ is also $`2\pi `$-periodic (with $`2\pi `$ as a primitive period). But on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the only linear combinations of $`𝒳_{q_1}`$ and $`𝒳_{q_2}`$ that are periodic are the integer multiples of $`𝒳_{q_2}`$. Hence $`_1G_2(0)=0`$ and $`_2G_2(0)=\pm 1`$.

The flow of $`q_1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is radial: any line segment $`]0,A[`$ for some $`A\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is a trajectory. Then by (7) it image by $`\phi `$ must be a trajectory of $`G_1q`$. Since $`\phi `$ is smooth at the origin, the image of $`]0,A[`$ for $`A`$ close enough to $`0`$ lies in some proper sector of the plane $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ containing $`\phi (A)`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is either $`\{z_1=0\}`$ or $`\{z_2=0\}`$). But the only linear combinations of $`𝒳_{q_1}`$ and $`𝒳_{q_2}`$ which yield trajectories that are confined in a proper sector of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are the multiples of $`𝒳_{q_1}`$. Hence $`_2G_1(0)=0`$. It follows now from the previous paragraph that $`_1G_1(0)0`$ (since $`G`$ is a local diffeomorphism).

$`\phi `$ preserves the critical set of $`q`$; since left composition of $`\phi `$ by the symplectomorphism $`(z_1,z_2)(z_2,z_1)`$ leaves (7) unchanged (except for the sign of $`G_1`$), we may assume that each “axis” ($`\{z_2=0\}`$ and $`\{z_1=0\}`$ respectively) is preserved by $`\phi `$. But then $`\{z_2=0\}`$ is the local unstable manifold for both $`q_1`$ and $`G_1(q_1,q_2)`$, which says that $`_1G_1(0)>0`$.

Using (2) and (3), it is immediate to check that the joint flow of $`(q_1,q_2)`$ taken at the joint time $`(\mathrm{ln}|c/\delta |,\mathrm{arg}c)`$ sends the point $`(\overline{c},\delta )`$ to the point $`(\delta ,c)`$, and hence extends to a smooth and single-valued map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from a neighbourhood of $`(0,\delta )`$ to a neighbourhood of $`(\delta ,0)`$.

$`\phi ^1\mathrm{\Phi }\phi `$ sends a neighbourhood of $`\phi ^1(0,\delta )=(0,a)`$ to a neighbourhood of $`\phi ^1(\delta ,0)=(b,0)`$ and, because of (7), it is equal – in the complement of the singular leaf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ – to the joint flow of $`Gq`$ at the joint time $`(\mathrm{ln}|c/\delta |,\mathrm{arg}c)`$, which is equal to the joint flow of $`q`$ at the joint time

$$(_1G_1\mathrm{ln}|c/\delta |+_1G_2\mathrm{arg}c,_2G_1\mathrm{ln}|c/\delta |+_2G_2\mathrm{arg}c).$$

Since $`\phi ^1\mathrm{\Phi }\phi `$ is smooth at the origin, we obtain by restricting the first component of this map to the “Poincaré” surface $`\{(\overline{c},a)`$ with $`c`$ near $`0`$ in $`\}`$ that the map:

$$c\mathrm{exp}\left((1_1G_1)\mathrm{ln}|c|+_1G_2\mathrm{arg}c+i\left((_2G_21)\mathrm{arg}c_2G_1\mathrm{ln}|c|\right)\right)$$
(8)
is single-valued and smooth at the origin. (We have factored out the terms $`\mathrm{exp}(_jG_1\mathrm{ln}\delta )`$, $`j=1,2`$, which are obviously smooth.)

The single-valuedness of (8) implies that $`_1G_20`$ and $`_2G_2`$. Hence $`_2G_2=\pm 1`$.

Now the smoothness of (8) says that the following two functions:

$$c(1_1G_1)\mathrm{ln}|c|\text{ and }c_2G_1\mathrm{ln}|c|$$

are smooth at the origin, which easily implies that $`(1_1G_1)`$ and $`_2G_1`$ are flat at the origin, yielding the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

Suppose we define two semi-global invariants $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi )`$ and $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ by choosing two different charts $`\chi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ which put a neighbourhood of the *focus-focus* point into normal form. As before, one defines the momentum maps $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, which are the extensions to $``$ of $`q\chi `$ and $`q\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, and computes the corresponding period 1-forms $`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Then we can invoke the lemma to $`\phi =\stackrel{~}{\chi }\chi ^1`$, and the conclusions apply to $`G=\stackrel{~}{F}F^1`$.

Suppose that $`\epsilon _j=1`$, $`j=1,2`$, i.e. $`G`$ is infinitely tangent to the identity. Then the same type of arguments as above (a logarithm cannot compete against a flat term) shows that, since the vector fields $`𝒳_{H_j}`$ and $`𝒳_{\stackrel{~}{H}_j}`$ are infinitely tangent to each other, $`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ must differ by a flat term. Actually, since by remark 3.1 $`G^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ is also a period 1-form associated with the momentum map $`F`$, one has $`\tau =G^{}\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. This implies that $`\sigma (c)=\tau (c)+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}cdc)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }=(G^1)^{}\sigma `$ differ by a flat form, hence $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi )=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$.

If $`\epsilon _2=1`$, it suffices to compose with the symplectomorphism $`(x,\xi )(x,\xi )`$, which sends $`(q_1,q_2)`$ to $`(q_1,q_2)`$ and leaves $`\sigma `$ invariant (both $`\sigma _2`$ and $`dc_2`$ change sign). An analogous remark holds with the symplectomorphism $`(z_1,z_2)(z_2,z_1)`$, which sends $`(q_1,q_2)`$ to $`(q_1,q_2)`$ and leaves $`\sigma `$ invariant, while changing the sign of $`\epsilon _1`$.

## 5 Injectivity

Let $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are two singular foliations of simple *focus-focus* type on the symplectic manifolds $`(M,\omega )`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$. Assume that they have the same invariant $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}()=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(\stackrel{~}{})[[X,Y]]_0`$. We shall prove here that $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ are semi-globally equivalent, ie. there exists a foliation preserving symplectomorphism between some neighbourhoods of the *focus-focus* leaves.

For each of the foliations $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, we choose a chart of Eliasson’s type around the *focus-focus* point, and thus define the period 1-forms $`\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ on $`(^2\{0\},0)`$. The hypothesis implies that there is a smooth closed 1-form $`\pi =\pi _1dc_1+\pi _2dc_2`$ on $`(^2,0)`$ whose coefficients are flat functions of $`c`$ at the origin such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau +\pi .$$

###### Lemma 5.1

One can chose symplectic charts of Eliasson’s type at the *focus-focus* points in such a way that $`\pi =0`$, ie:

$$\stackrel{~}{\tau }=\tau .$$

Proof . 1. We first prove that there exists a local diffeomorphism $`G`$ of $`(^2,0)`$ isotopic to the identity such that $`(G^1)^{}\tau =\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. We wish to realise $`G`$ as $`G_1`$ where $`G_t`$ is a flow satisfying

$$G_t^{}(\tau +t\pi )=\tau .$$

This amounts to finding the associated vector field $`Y_t`$ which must satisfy

$$d(\iota _{Y_t}(\tau +t\pi ))=\pi .$$

We can write $`\pi =dP`$ for some smooth function $`P`$ which is flat at $`0`$. Assume we look for a field $`Y_t`$ of the form $`Y_t=f_t(c)\frac{}{c_1}`$. We obtain the following equation:

$$f_t(c)=\frac{P(c)}{\tau _1(c)+t\pi _1}=\frac{P(c)}{\mathrm{ln}|c|\sigma _1(c)+t\pi _1}.$$

Since $`P`$ is flat at $`0`$, the right-hand-side is indeed a (flat) smooth function depending smoothly on $`t`$, and the result is proved.

2. Notice also that $`G`$ is infinitely tangent to the identity, and moreover leaves the second variable $`c_2`$ unchanged. Now we show that for any diffeomorphism $`G`$ of $`(^2,0)`$ sharing these properties (which are those of Lemma 4.1) there exists a symplectomorphism $`\chi `$ near the *focus-focus* point $`m`$ such that

$$G(q_1,q_2)\chi =(q_1,q_2).$$

Here again we seek $`\chi `$ as the time-1 map of the flow of some vector field $`X_t`$. Of course we shall look now for a Hamiltonian vector field $`X_t=𝒳_{f_t}`$ to ensure the symplecticity of $`\chi _t`$. Then the requirement

$$\chi _t^{}q_t=q_0,$$

where $`q_t=(q_{t,1},q_{t,2})\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}tG(q_1,q_2)+(1t)(q_1,q_2)`$, leads to the following system

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{f_t,q_{t,1}\}\hfill & =\hfill & g_1\hfill \\ \{f_t,q_{t,2}\}\hfill & =\hfill & 0,\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`(g_1,0)=(q_1,q_2)G(q_1,q_2)`$. By hypothesis $`g_1`$ is a flat function at the origin, and the fact that $`\{q_{t,1},q_{t,2}\}0`$ implies that $`\{g_1,q_{t,2}\}=0`$. Moreover the quadratic part of $`q_t`$ is $`q_0`$, so we know (see ) that such a system admits a solution $`f_t`$.

It remains to put all our remarks together: Point 2) shows that left composition by $`\chi `$ of the Eliasson chart we have chosen at $`m`$ is again an admissible chart of Eliasson’s type, yielding the new momentum map $`G(q_1,q_2)`$. Using the $`G`$ obtained at Point 1) and in view of the naturality property (remark 3.1), the new period 1-form (denoted by $`\tau `$ again) satisfies $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now is position to construct the required equivalence. Applying the lemma we get a local symplectomorphism that allows us to identify some neighbourhoods $`U`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ of the *focus-focus* points $`m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$, and two momentum maps $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ (both equal to $`(q_1,q_2)`$ inside their respective neighbourhoods of the *focus-focus* points) which define the same closed 1-form $`\sigma `$ on $`(^2,0)`$. We denote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=F^1(c)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c=\stackrel{~}{F}^1(c)`$.

Let $`𝔘`$ be an open ball strictly contained in $`U`$, let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u𝔘`$ be a transversal section as defined in the proof of Proposition 3.1, and construct in the same way $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_u`$ for the foliation $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ (so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_u`$ are identified by the above symplectomorphism). Reduce $``$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$) to the neighbourhoods of the *focus-focus* leaves composed of the leaves intersecting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u`$ (or $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_u`$). We construct our equivalence by extending the identity outside $`𝔘`$. Let $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_c𝔘`$, and define $`t(x)]0,\tau _1(c)[`$ to be the smallest time it takes for the point $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_u\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ to reach the $`𝒳_{H_2}`$-orbit of $`x`$. (Recall that $`H_2`$ generates an $`S^1`$ action.) Now define $`s(x)/2\pi `$ as the remaining time to finally reach $`x`$ under the $`𝒳_{H_2}`$-flow. To this $`x`$ we associate the point $`\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{}`$ obtained from the point $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_u\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c`$ by letting the joint flow of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ act during the times $`(t(x),s(x))`$. This map — let’s call it $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ — is well defined because of the equality $`\tau =\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. It is a bijection since the inverse is equally well-defined just by interchanging the roles of $``$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. Between $`U`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a symplectomorphism since through Eliasson’s charts, it is just the identity. Concerning now the symplecticity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the complement of the singular points, one can prove it for $`c0`$ (which is sufficient by continuity) by invoking the Liouville-Arnold theorem, which shows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is symplectically conjugate to a translation in the fibres. Then the symplectic property near the singular points implies that this translation must be symplectic everywhere. A similar argument using the less sophisticated Darboux-Carathéodory theorem could also do. But the simplest is maybe the following. It is clear from the construction that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is equivariant with respect to the joint flows of our Hamiltonian dynamics:

$$(t_1,t_2),\mathrm{\Psi }\phi _{t_1,t_2}=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{t_1,t_2}\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(9)
where $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{t_1,t_2}`$ are the joint flows of $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ at the joint time $`(t_1,t_2)`$. Using (9) together with the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{t_1,t_2}`$ is symplectic, we see that $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega })=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$; in other words, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is invariant under the joint flow $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}`$. Since $`\omega `$ has the same property, so has $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega =0`$ near $`m`$, it must vanish as well on the whole $``$.

## 6 Surjectivity

We prove here that any formal power series $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}[[X,Y]]_0`$ is the symplectic invariant — in the sense of Definition 3.1 — of some Liouville foliation of simple *focus-focus* type. More precisely, we construct a foliation $``$ together with a local chart $`\chi `$ that puts a neighbourhood of the *focus-focus* point into normal form such that (using the notation of Section 4) $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}=(S)^{\mathrm{}}(,\chi )`$. Another proof of this result has been proposed by Castano-Bernard .

Using the same notations as before, we let $`(q_1,q_2)=\overline{z_1}z_2`$ be the standard *focus-focus* fibration $`^4^2^2`$ defined in (1). The joint flow will be denoted by $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}`$.

Invoking Borel’s construction, let $`SC^{\mathrm{}}(^2)`$ be a function vanishing at the origin and whose Taylor series is $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$. We shall denote by $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ the partial derivatives $`_XS`$ and $`_YS`$, respectively.

Let us define two “Poincaré” surfaces in $`^2`$ by means of the following embeddings of the ball $`D_\epsilon =B(0,\epsilon )`$, for some $`\epsilon ]0,1[`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }_1(c)=(\overline{c},1)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_2(c)=(e^{S_1(c)+iS_2(c)},ce^{S_1(c)+iS_2(c)}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Notice that for each $`c`$, the points $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j(c)`$, $`j=1,2`$ belong to the (non-compact) Lagrangian submanifold $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c:=\{\overline{z_1}z_2=c\}`$. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j(D_\epsilon )`$, $`j=1,2`$ are smooth 2-dimensional manifolds constructed in such a way that for any $`c0`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(c)`$ is the image of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(c)`$ by the joint flow of $`(q_1,q_2)`$ at the time $`(S_1(c)\mathrm{ln}|c|,S_2(c)+\mathrm{arg}(c))`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be this diffeomorphism, defined on all $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j(D_\epsilon )`$ by the embeddings:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(D_\epsilon )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(D_\epsilon )`$ are transversal to the Lagrangian foliation, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be extended uniquely to a diffeomorphism between small neighbourhoods of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(D_\epsilon )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(D_\epsilon )`$ by requiring that it commute with the joint flow:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\phi _{t_1,t_2}(m)\right)=\phi _{t_1,t_2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(m)\right).$$
(10)
###### Lemma 6.1

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a symplectomorphism.

Proof . One can write $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2`$ and check the result by explicit calculation. However, the reason why it works is the following:

Since we already know that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is smooth, it is enough to prove the lemma outside of the singular Lagrangian $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. So fix $`c_00`$; we can construct a Darboux-Carathéodory chart $`(x,\xi )^4`$ in a connected open subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{c_0}`$ containing both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(c_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(c_0)`$. In these coordinates, the momentum map is $`(\xi _1,\xi _2)`$ and the flow is linear: $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}`$ is the translation by $`(t_1,t_2)`$ in the $`x`$ variables.

Through this chart, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is by construction a “fibre translation”:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\xi )=(x+f(\xi ),\xi ),$$
(11)
where

$$f(\xi )=(S_1(\xi ),S_2(\xi ))+(\mathrm{ln}|\xi |,\mathrm{arg}(\xi )).$$
(12)
Now, it is easy to check that (11) defines a symplectomorphism if and only if the 1-form

$$f_1(\xi )d\xi _1+f_2(\xi )d\xi _2$$

is closed. In our case the closedness is automatic since $`S_1dX+S_2dY=dS`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$, $`j=1,2`$ be the $`S^1`$-orbit of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j(D_\epsilon )`$. Construct a 4-dimensional cylinder $`𝒞`$ by letting the $`q_2`$-flow take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, namely:

$$𝒞:=\overline{\underset{cD_\epsilon \{0\}}{}𝒞_c}$$

where $`𝒞_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is the 2-dimensional cylinder spanned by $`\phi _{t_1,t_2}(\mathrm{\Pi }_1(c))`$, for $`(t_1,t_2)[0,S_1(c)+\mathrm{ln}|c|]\times [0,2\pi ]`$.

Finally, let $`M`$ be the symplectic manifold obtained by gluing the two ends $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ of the cylinder $`𝒞`$ using the symplectomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves the momentum map $`(q_1,q_2)`$, the latter yields a valid momentum map $`F`$ on $`M`$. The corresponding Lagrangian foliation $`F^1(c)`$ is given by $`𝒞_c`$ with its two ends identified by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In particular all leaves are compact and the foliation is of simple *focus-focus* type.

The $`S^1`$ action is unchanged, while the transversal period $`(\tau _1(c),\tau _2(c))`$ on $`F^1(c)`$ is by construction the time it takes for the joint flow to reach $`\mathrm{\Pi }_2(c)`$ from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(c)`$, ie

$$(\tau _1(c),\tau _2(c))=(S_1(c)\mathrm{ln}|c|,S_2(c)+\mathrm{arg}(c)).$$

Then by definition 3.1 the symplectic invariant of the foliation is given by the Taylor expansion of the primitive of the 1-form $`S_1dc_1+S_2dc_2`$ vanishing at $`0`$, ie. $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 7 Further remarks

### Multiple *focus-focus*.

Assume now that the singular fibre $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ carries $`k`$ *focus-focus* points $`m_0,\mathrm{},m_{k1}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is a $`k`$-times pinched torus, and Theorem 2.1 can be generalised. In this case, the regularisation of the action integral $`S`$ must take into account all the singular points. In order to do this, one has to consider $`k1`$ local invariants, which are also formal power series in $`[[X,Y]]`$, and which measure the obstruction to construct a semi-global momentum map that is in Eliasson normal form simultaneously at two different singular points. Here follows a sketch of the argument.

Let $`F`$ be a semi-global momentum map. At each point $`m_j`$ one has a local normal form $`F\phi _j=G^j(q_1,q_2)`$. Because of Lemma 4.1, one can extend $`q_2`$ to a periodic Hamiltonian on a whole neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, and one can always assume that $`\phi _j`$ is orientation preserving — that means we fix once and for all the sign of the $`\epsilon _j`$. If now $`F`$ if of the form $`(H_1,q_2)`$ then $`G^j`$ takes the form $`G^j(q_1,q_2)=(F^j(q_1,q_2),q_2)`$. By the implicit function theorem, $`F^j`$ is locally invertible with respect to the variable $`q_1`$. Let $`(F^j)^1`$ be this inverse, and define $`G^{i,j}=(F^i)^1F^j`$. Again by Lemma 4.1, the Taylor expansions of $`G^{i,j}`$ are invariants of the foliation.

Assume the points $`m_i`$ are ordered according to the flow of $`H_1`$, with indices $`i/k`$. Similarly to the case $`k=1`$, one can define a regularised period 1-form $`\sigma `$ by the following formula:

$$\sigma :=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}(G_0^1G_i)^{}\left(\sigma _1^{i,i+1}(c)dc_1+\sigma _2^{i,i+1}(c)dc_2\right),$$
(13)
with

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\sigma _1^{i,i+1}(c)& =& \tau _1^{i,i+1}(c)+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}c)\hfill \\ \sigma _2^{i,i+1}(c)& =& \tau _2^{i,i+1}(c)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ln}c)\hfill \end{array},$$
(14)
where $`(\tau _1^{i,i+1}(c),\tau _2^{i,i+1}(c))`$ are the smallest positive times needed to reach $`A_{i+1}(c)`$ from $`A_i(c)`$ under the flow of $`(G^i)^1F`$ — which is the momentum map $`(q_1,q_2)`$ in the normal form coordinates near point $`A_i`$. Here we have chosen a point $`A_i(c)`$ in a Poincaré section of each local stable manifold near $`m_i`$. Of course $`\sigma _j^{i,i+1}(c)`$ depends heavily on the choice of $`A_i`$ and $`A_{i+1}`$, but the sums appearing in (13) does not, and the resulting 1-form $`\sigma `$ is closed.

Notice that the definition of $`\sigma `$ depends on the choice of a start point $`m_0`$. Thus we are here classifying a singular foliation with a distinguished *focus-focus* point $`m_0`$.

Let $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the Taylor series of the primitive of $`\sigma `$ vanishing at the origin. Then $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the $`k1`$ ordered invariants $`(G^{i,i+1})^{\mathrm{}}`$ are independent and entirely classify a neighbourhood of the critical fibre $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ with distinguished point $`m_0`$. The arguments of the proof are similar to the ones of the case $`k=1`$. An abstract construction of a foliation admitting a given set of invariants is proposed in Figure 4. There the local pictures are described by canonical coordinates respectively given by $`(q_1,q_2)`$, $`(G^{1,2}(q_1,q_2),q_2)`$, $`(G^{1,2}(G^{2,3}(q_1,q_2),q_2),q_2)`$, etc. and the gluing diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{i,i+1}`$ are constructed as in section 6 using the following functions, respectively: $`S_{0,1}=S_{1,2}=\mathrm{}=S_{k2,k1}=0`$ and $`S_{0,k1}`$ is a resummation of $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Remark 7.1. We can regard the reduced space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/S^1`$ as a cyclic graph $`𝒢`$ whose vertices are the *focus-focus* points $`m_i`$, and which is oriented by the flow of $`H_1`$. For each edge $`[i,i+1]`$ one can define a 1-form

$$\sigma ^{i,i+1}:=(G_0^1G_i)^{}\left(\sigma _1^{i,i+1}dc_1+\sigma _2^{i,i+1}dc_2\right)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(D)$$

(for some fixed small disc $`D`$ around the origin in $`^2`$). This defines a 1-cocycle on $`𝒢`$ with values in the vector space $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(D)`$. If one varies the points $`A_j`$, this cocycle is easily seen to change by a coboundary; hence the set of $`\{\sigma ^{i,i+1}\}`$ naturally defines a well-defined cohomology class on $`𝒢`$. Be the same argument as in the case $`k=1`$ (ie. essentially Arnold-Liouville’s theorem) this class is *closed*, in the sense that the cochain $`\{\sigma ^{i,i+1}\}`$, modulo some coboundary, can be chosen to consist only of closed 1-forms. Hence we end up with a class $`[\sigma ]H^1(𝒢,H^1(D))`$. Since $`𝒢`$ is homeomorphic to a circle, $`H^1(𝒢,H^1(D))H^1(D)`$ and $`[\sigma ]`$ is represented by the de Rham cohomology class of the closed 1-form $`\sigma =\sigma ^{i,i+1}`$ defined in (13).

Now, the functor that produces Taylor series of 1-forms can be applied to the coefficients of this cochain, yielding a cocycle with values in formal closed 1-forms and whose class is represented by the differential of our invariant $`(S)^{\mathrm{}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### “Exact” version.

If one intends to extend the results to a semiclassical setting, general symplectomorphism do not suffice: one needs to control the action integrals (in the standard semiclassical pseudo-differential theory, a potential $`\alpha `$ for the symplectic form: $`d\alpha =\omega `$ is part of the data). In view of Remark 3.1, this is naturally done by including the constant term in the Taylor series of $`S`$ as being the integral

$$S_0:=_{\gamma _0}\alpha ,$$

where $`\gamma _0`$ is the generator of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$.

### Acknowledgements.

This article answers a question that J.J. Duistermaat asked me when I was in Utrecht in 1998. I wrote then a short — and incomplete — draft, and that was it. Two years after I finally read the note by Toulet and al. , and a fruitful discussion with Richard Cushman made me realise that I had the result at hand. I wish to thank him for this. I would also like to thank Ricardo Castano-Bernard for interesting discussions, and for showing me an alternative proof of the “surjectivity” part using general arguments developed for mirror symmetry via special Lagrangian fibrations.

After I wrote this article, P. Molino informed me of an unpublished work of his (in collaboration with one of his students ) concerning the same problem. They defined a similar invariant, and the classification result was conjectured.