text:
# Remarks on the Schwarzian Derivatives and the Invariant Quantization by means of a Finsler Function

## 1 Introduction

The notion of equivariant quantization has been recently introduced by Duval-Lecomte-Ovsienko in the papers . The aim is to seek for an equivariant isomorphism between the space of differential operators and the corresponding space of symbols, intertwining the action of a Lie group $`G`$ acting locally on a manifold $`M`$ – see also  for related works. The computation was carried out for the projective group $`G=\mathrm{SL}(n+1,)`$ in , and for the conformal group $`G=\mathrm{O}(p+1,q+1),`$ where $`p+q=\mathrm{dim}M`$, in . It turns out that the projectively/conformally equivariant quantization maps make sense on any manifold, not necessarily flat, as shown in . For instance, the conformally equivariant map has the property that it does not depend on the rescaling of the (not necessarily conformally flat) pseudo-Riemannian metric. The existence of such maps induces naturally cohomology classes on the group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ with values in the space of differential operators acting on the space of tensor fields on $`M`$ of appropriate types. These classes were given explicitly in , and interpreted as projective and conformal multi-dimensional analogous to the famous Schwarzian derivative (see  for more details).

A Riemannian metric is a particular case of more general functions called Finsler functions. A Finsler function, whose definition seems to go back to Riemann, is closely related to the calculus of variation; it arises naturally in many context: Physics, Mathematical ecology…(see). The first main result of this paper is to extend one of the two 1-cocycles introduced by the author in  as conformal Schwarzian derivatives, to the more general framework of Finsler structures. The 1-cocycle can be built in terms of the Chern, Berwald, Cartan or Hashiguchi connection. All of these connections are considered as generalizations of the well-known Levi-Civita connection for Riemannian structures, thereby the 1-cocycle in question coincide with the conformal cocycle introduced in  when the Finsler function $`F`$ is Riemannian. This 1-cocycle, thus, can be exhibit in four ways accordingly to the used connection. This property contrasts sharply with the case of projective structures where the projectively invariant 1-cocycle has a unique expression (cf. ).

The second part of this paper deals with the conformally invariant quantization procedure. As the Finsler function gives rise to a Riemannian metric, say $`𝐦,`$ on the slit bundle $`TM\backslash 0,`$ we shall apply the Duval-Ovsienko’s quantization procedure through the metric $`𝐦.`$ That means that we associate with functions on the cotangent bundle of the manifold $`TM\backslash 0`$, differential operators acting on the space of $`\lambda `$-densities on $`TM\backslash 0.`$ The second main result of this paper is to prove that, for almost all $`\lambda `$, this map cannot descend as an operator acting on the space of $`\lambda `$-densities on $`M`$ even though the Finsler function is Riemannian.

## 2 Introduction to Finsler structures

We will follow verbatim the notation of . Let $`M`$ be a manifold of dimension $`n.`$ A local system of coordinates $`(x^i),i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ on $`M`$ gives rise to a local system of coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$ on the tangent bundle $`TM`$ through222We will use the convention of summation on repeated indices.

$$y=y^i\frac{}{x^i},i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

###### Definition 2.1

A Finsler structure on $`M`$ is a function $`F:TM[0,\mathrm{})`$ satisfying the following conditions:

(i) the function $`F`$ is differentiable away from the origin;

(ii) the function $`F`$ is homogeneous of degree one in $`y`$, viz $`F(x,\lambda y)=\lambda F(x,y)`$ for all $`\lambda >0;`$

(iii) the $`n\times n`$ matrix

$$\mathrm{g}_{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2}{y^iy^j}(F^2),$$

is positive-definite at every point of $`TM\backslash 0.`$

###### Example 2.2

(i) Let $`(M,a)`$ be a Riemannian manifold. The function $`F:=\sqrt{a_{ij}y^iy^j}`$ satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii). In this case, the Finsler function is called Riemannian.
(ii) Let $`(M,a)`$ be a Riemannian manifold, and $`\alpha `$ be a closed 1-form on $`M.`$ We put $`F:=\sqrt{a_{ij}y^iy^j}+\alpha _iy^i.`$ One can prove that $`F`$ satisfies (i), (ii) and (iii) if and only if $`\alpha \alpha _a<1`$ (see e.g. ). In this case, $`F`$ is Riemannian if and only if the 1-form $`\alpha `$ is identically zero.

Denote by $`\pi `$ the natural projection $`TM\backslash 0M.`$ The pull-back bundle of $`T^{}M`$ with respect to $`\pi `$ is denoted by $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M).`$ The universal property implies that one has a commutative diagram

(2.1)
The components $`\mathrm{g}_{ij}`$ in (iii) of the definition above are actually the components of a section of the pulled-back bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M)\pi ^{}(T^{}M).`$

The geometric object $`\mathrm{g}`$ in (iii) is called fundamental tensor; it depends on $`x`$ and on $`y`$ as well. The fundamental tensor is nothing but the Riemannian metric if $`F`$ is Riemannian.

The tensor

$$A:=A_{ijk}dx^idx^jdx^k,$$
(2.2)
where $`A_{ijk}:=F/2\mathrm{g}_{ij}/y^k,`$ is called Cartan tensor. It is symmetric on its three indices, and defines a section of the pulled-back bundle $`(\pi ^{}(T^{}M))^3.`$ The Cartan tensor measures whether the Finsler function $`F`$ is Riemannian or not.

The tensor

$$\omega :=\omega _idx^i,$$
(2.3)
where $`\omega _i:=F/y^i,`$ is called Hilbert form; it defines a section of the pulled-back bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M).`$

Throughout this paper, indices are lowered or raised with respect to the fundamental tensor $`\mathrm{g}.`$ For instance, the tensor whose components are $`A_{ij}^l`$ stands for the tensor whose components are $`A_{ijk}\mathrm{g}^{kl}.`$

We will also use the following notation: on the manifold $`TM\backslash 0,`$ the index $`i`$ runs with respect to the basis $`dx^i`$ or $`/x^i,`$ and the index $`\overline{i}`$ runs with respect to the basis $`dy^i`$ or $`/y^i.`$

## 3 The space of densities, the space of linear differential operators and the space of symbols

Let $`M`$ be an oriented manifold of dimension $`n.`$ Some backgrounds are needed here to present our results. A thorough description of all the forthcoming definitions can be found in .

### 3.1 The space of densities and the space of linear differential operators

Let $`(E,M)`$ be a vector bundle over $`M`$ of rank $`p.`$ We define the space of $`\lambda `$-densities of $`(E,M)`$ as the space of sections of the line bundle $`|^pE|^\lambda .`$ Denote by $`_\lambda (M)`$ the space of $`\lambda `$-densities associated with the bundle $`T^{}MM`$ and denote by $`_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))`$ the space of $`\lambda `$-densities associated with the bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M)TM\backslash 0`$ (see (2.1)). Both $`_\lambda (M)`$ and $`_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))`$ are modules over the group of diffeomorphisms $`\mathrm{Diff}(M):`$ for $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M),`$ $`\varphi _\lambda (M)`$ and $`\phi _\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)),`$ the actions are given in local coordinates $`(x,y)`$ by

$`f^{}\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi f^1(J_{f^1})^\lambda ,`$ (3.4)
$`f^{}\phi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi \stackrel{~}{f}^1(J_{f^1})^\lambda ,`$ (3.5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a lift of $`f`$ to $`TM`$ and $`J_f=\left|Df/Dx\right|`$ is the Jacobian of $`f`$.

It is worth noticing that the formlæ above do not depend on the choice of the system of coordinates.

By differentiating these actions, one can obtain the actions of the Lie algebra of vector fields $`\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

Consider now $`𝒟(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M)),`$ the space of linear differential operators

$$T:_\lambda (M)_\mu (M).$$

The action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`𝒟(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M))`$ depends on the two parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$; it is given by the equation

$$f_{\lambda ,\mu }(T)=f^{}Tf_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},$$
(3.6)
where $`f^{}`$ is the action (3.4) of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`_\lambda (M)`$.

Denote by $`𝒟^2(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M))`$ the space of second-order linear differential operators with the $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-module structure given by (3.6). The space $`𝒟^2(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M))`$ is in fact a $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-submodule of $`𝒟(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M)).`$

###### Example 3.1

The space of Sturm-Liouville operators $`\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+u(x):_{1/2}(S^1)_{3/2}(S^1)`$ on $`S^1,`$ where $`u(x)_2(S^1)`$ is the potential, is a submodule of $`𝒟_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^2(S^1)`$ (see ).

Likewise, we define $`𝒟(_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)),_\mu (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))),`$ the space of linear differential operators

$$U:_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))_\mu (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)),$$

with the action

$$f_{\lambda ,\mu }(U)=f^{}Uf_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},$$
(3.7)
where $`f^{}`$ is the action (3.5) of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))`$.

By differentiating the actions (3.6), (3.7), one can obtain the actions of the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{Vect}(M).`$

The formulæ (3.6) and (3.7) do not depend on the choice of the system of coordinates.

### 3.2 The space of symbols

The space of symbols $`\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M)`$ is defined as the space of functions on the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ that are polynomial on fibers. This space is naturally isomorphic to the space $`_{p0}S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^p)`$ of symmetric contravariant tensor fields on $`M.`$

We define a one parameter family of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-module on the space of symbols by

$$\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M):=\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M)_\delta (M).$$

For $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ and $`P\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M),`$ in local coordinates $`(x^i)`$, the action is defined by

$`f_\delta (P)`$ $`=`$ $`f^{}P(J_{f^1})^\delta ,`$ (3.8)
where $`J_f=|Df/Dx|`$ is the Jacobian of $`f,`$ and $`f^{}`$ is the natural action of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ on $`\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}M).`$

We then have a graduation of $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-modules given by

$$\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{Pol}_\delta ^k(T^{}M),$$

where $`\mathrm{Pol}_\delta ^k(T^{}M)`$ is the space of polynoms of degree $`k`$ endowed with the $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-module structure (3.8).

###### Remark 3.2

As $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$-modules, the spaces $`\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}M)`$ and $`𝒟(_\lambda (M),_\mu (M))`$ are not isomorphic (cf.  ).

## 4 Schwarzian derivative for Finsler structures

Let $`(M,F)`$ be a Finsler manifold of dimension $`n.`$

### 4.1 The Chern connection

There exists a unique symmetric connection $`D:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(T^{}M))\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(T^{}M)T^{}(TM\backslash 0))`$ whose Christoffel symbols are given by

$$\gamma _{ij}^k=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{g}^{ks}\left(\frac{\mathrm{g}_{si}}{x^j}+\frac{\mathrm{g}_{sj}}{x^i}\frac{\mathrm{g}_{ij}}{x^s}\right)\mathrm{g}^{ks}\left(\frac{N_j^m}{F}A_{msi}+\frac{N_i^m}{F}A_{msj}\frac{N_s^m}{F}A_{sij}\right),$$

where $`A_{ijk}`$ are the components of the Cartan tensor (2.2), $`\mathrm{g}_{ij}`$ are the components of the fundamental tensor and the components $`N_m^k`$ are given by

$$N_m^k:=\frac{1}{4}\frac{}{y^m}\left(\mathrm{g}^{ks}(\frac{\mathrm{g}_{si}}{x^j}+\frac{\mathrm{g}_{sj}}{x^i}\frac{\mathrm{g}_{ij}}{x^s})y^jy^i\right)$$
(4.9)
This connection is called Chern connection and has the following properties (see ):

(i) the connection 1-forms have no $`dy`$ dependence;

(ii) the connection $`D`$ is almost $`\mathrm{g}`$-compatible, in the sense that $`D_s(\mathrm{g}_{ij})=0`$ and $`D_{\overline{s}}(\mathrm{g}_{ij})=2A_{ijs};`$

(iii) in general, the Chern connection is not a connection on $`M;`$ however, the Chern connection can descend to a connection on $`M`$ when $`F`$ is Riemannian. In that case, it coincides with the Levi-Civita connection associated with the metric $`\mathrm{g}.`$

### 4.2 A 1-cocycle as a Schwarzian derivative

Since the connection 1-forms of the Chern connection have no $`dy`$ dependance, the difference between the two connections

$$\mathrm{}(f):=f^{}\gamma \gamma ,$$
(4.10)
where $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M),`$ transforms under coordinates change as a section of the bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M)^2\pi ^{}(TM).`$ From the construction of the tensor (4.10), one can easily seen that the map

$$f\mathrm{}(f^1)$$

defines a non-trivial 1-cocycle on $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ with values in $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(T^{}M)^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM)).`$

Our main definition is the linear differential operator $`𝒜(f)`$ acting from $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM))_\delta (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))`$ defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜(f)_{ij}^k\hfill & :=& f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}D_s\right)\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}D_s+(2\delta n)\left(\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k\mathrm{}(f)_{tj}^t\right)\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}B_{li}^s\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}B_{lt}^t\right)f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}B_{li}^s\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}B_{lt}^t\right)\right)\hfill \\ & & (2\delta n)\left(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}B_{ij}^kB_{ij}^k\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}B_{jt}^tB_{jt}^t)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.11)
where we have put

$$B_{ij}^k:=\left(A_i^{kr}\omega _j+A_j^{kr}\omega _iA_{ij}^k\omega ^rA_{ij}^r\omega ^kA_{is}^kA_j^{sr}A_{js}^kA_i^{sr}+A_u^{rk}A_{ij}^u\right)d_r(\mathrm{log}F),$$

to avoid clutter; $`D`$ is the Chern connection, $`A_{ijk}`$ are the components of the Cartan tensor (2.2), $`\omega _i`$ are the components of the Hilbert form (2.3), $`\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k`$ are the components of the tensor (4.10), $`d_r:=ud`$ and $`u`$ is the map as in (2.1).

###### Theorem 4.1

(i) The map

$$f𝒜(f^1),$$

defines a 1-cocycle on $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$, non-trivial for all $`\delta 2/n,`$ with values in the space $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM))_\delta (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)));`$
(ii) The operator (4.11) does not depend on the rescaling of the Finsler function $`F`$ by any non-zero positive function on $`M;`$
(iii) If $`M:=^n`$ and $`F`$ is Riemannian such that the metric $`\mathrm{g}`$ is the flat metric, this operator vanishes on the conformal group $`\mathrm{O}(n+1,1).`$

Proof. Let us first explain how the contraction between the tensor $`D(P)`$ and the tensor $`\mathrm{g}^1`$ is permitted, for all $`PS\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M).`$ Indeed, the tensor $`D(P)`$ should take their values in $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M)\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}(TM\backslash 0))`$, from the definition of the Chern connection. But taking into account that the tensor $`P`$ lives in $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M)`$, the components $`D_{\overline{s}}(P^{ij})=0,`$ and the components $`D_s(P^{ij})`$ behave under coordinates change as components of a tensor in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(T^{}M)).`$ It follows therefore that the contraction between $`D_s(P^{ij})`$ and $`\mathrm{g}^{sk}`$ makes a sense.

To prove (i) we have to verify the 1-cocycle condition

$$𝒜\left((fh)^1\right)=f^{}𝒜(h^1)+𝒜(f^1),\text{for all }f,h\mathrm{Diff}(M),$$

where $`f^{}`$ is the natural action on $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM))_\delta (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))).`$ This condition holds because, in the expression of the operator (4.11), $`\mathrm{}`$ is a 1-cocycle and the rest is a coboundary.

Let us proof that this 1-cocycle is not trivial for $`\delta 2/n`$. Suppose that there is a first-order differential operator $`A_{ij}^k=u_{ij}^{sk}D_s+v_{ij}^k`$ such that

$$𝒜(f^1)=f^{}AA,$$
(4.12)
It follows, by a direct computation, that

$`f^{}v_{ij}^kv_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`(2\delta n)\left(\mathrm{}(f^1)_{ij}^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k\mathrm{}(f^1)_{tj}^t\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}B_{li}^s\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}B_{lt}^t\right)f^{}\left(\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}B_{li}^s\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}B_{lt}^t\right)\right)`$
$`(2\delta n)(f^{}B_{ij}^kB_{ij}^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k(f^{}B_{jt}^tB_{jt}^t))`$
The right-hand side of this equation depends on the second jet of the diffeomorphism $`f,`$ while the left-hand side depends on the first jet of $`f,`$ which is absurd.

For $`\delta =2/n,`$ one can easily see that the 1-cocycle (4.11) is a coboundary.

Let us prove (ii). Consider a Finsler function $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\sqrt{\psi }F,`$ where $`\psi `$ is a non-zero positive function on $`M.`$ Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(f)`$ the operator (4.11) written by means of the function $`\stackrel{~}{F}.`$ To prove that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(f)=𝒜(f)`$ we proceed as follows: we write down the tensors $`\stackrel{~}{D}(P)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ associated with the Finsler function $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in terms of the tensor $`D(P)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(f)`$ associated with the Finsler Function $`F,`$ then by replacing their expressions into the explicit formula of the operator (4.11) we show that the constants arising in the expression of the operator (4.11) will annihilate the non-desired terms.

Let us first compare the Chern connections associated with the functions $`F`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F},`$ namely

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _{ij}^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\psi }}\left(\psi _i\delta _j^k+\psi _j\delta _i^k\psi _t\mathrm{g}^{tk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\psi }}\left(A_i^{kr}\omega _j+A_j^{kr}\omega _iA_{ij}^k\omega ^rA_{ij}^r\omega ^kA_{is}^kA_j^{sr}A_{js}^kA_i^{sr}+A_u^{rk}A_{ij}^u\right)\psi _r,`$
where $`\psi _r=\psi /x^r.`$
From (4.2), a direct computation gives

$`\stackrel{~}{D}_kP^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`D_kP^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\psi }}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}P^{mi}\left(\psi _m\delta _k^j\psi _t\mathrm{g}^{tj}\mathrm{g}_{km}\right)+(2n\delta )P^{ij}\psi _k\right),`$
$`+\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}P^{sj}C_{ks}^i\delta P^{ij}C_{tk}^t`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(f)_{ij}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k+f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\psi }}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\psi _i\delta _j^k\psi _t\mathrm{g}^{tk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}\right)\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\psi }}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\psi _i\delta _j^k\psi _t\mathrm{g}^{tk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}\right)`$
$`+f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}C_{ij}^kC_{ij}^k,`$
where we have put

$$C_{ij}^k:=\frac{1}{2\psi }\left(A_i^{kr}\omega _j+A_j^{kr}\omega _iA_{ij}^k\omega ^rA_{ij}^r\omega ^kA_{is}^kA_j^{sr}A_{js}^kA_i^{sr}+A_u^{rk}A_{ij}^u\right)\psi _r,$$

to avoid clutter; where $`P^{ij}`$ are the components of the tensor $`PS\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M).`$
By substituting the formulæ (4.2) into (4.11) we get by straightforward computation that $`𝒜(f)=\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(f).`$

Let us prove (iii). Suppose that $`F`$ is Riemannian, namely $`F=\sqrt{\mathrm{g}_{ij}y^iy^j}`$. In that case, the Cartan tensor $`A`$ is identically zero. The Chern connection $`D`$ can descend to a connection on $`M`$ and coincide with Levi-Civita connection associated with $`\mathrm{g}.`$ It follows that the operator (4.11) turns into the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜(f)_{ij}^k\hfill & :=& f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}D_s\right)\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}D_s\hfill \\ & & +(2\delta n)(\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k\mathrm{}(f)_{tj}^t)\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.15)
As the Chern connection and the fundamental tensor has no $`y`$ dependance, the operator (4.15) will take its values in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)_\delta (M),`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM))_\delta (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)).`$ The operator (4.15) is nothing but one of the conformally invariant operators introduced in . If, furthermore, $`M`$ is $`^n`$ and $`\mathrm{g}`$ is the flat metric then the operator (4.15) vanishes on the conformal group $`\mathrm{O}(n+1,1)`$ (cf. ).

###### Remark 4.2

(i) When the Finsler function $`F`$ is Riemannian, the formula (4.15) assures that the 1-cocycle $`𝒜`$ defined here coincides with one of the conformally invariant operators introduced in  as multi-dimensional conformal Schwarzian derivatives. We refer to  for more explanations and details concerning the relation between the classical Schwarzian derivative and the projectively/conformally invariant operators introduced in .

(ii) The tensor whose components are $`B_{ij}^{kr}`$ coming out in the formula (4.11) is only identically zero for Finsler functions that are Riemannian. Indeed, if $`B_{ij}^{kr}0`$ then a contraction by the inverse of the Hilbert form will give the equality $`nA_{ij}^k0.`$

Now, how can we adjust the 1-cocycle $`𝒜`$ in order to take its values in the space $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)_\delta (M))`$, as for the projectively/conformally invariant 1-cocycles of ? A positive answer to this question can be given by demanding an extra condition on the topology of $`M.`$ More precisely, suppose that $`M`$ admits a non-zero vector fields - which is true when the Euler Characteristic of $`M`$ is zero (cf. ). One has

###### Proposition 4.3

Let $`𝒳`$ be a fixed non-zero vector field on $`M`$ and denote by $`\stackrel{˘}{𝒜}(f)`$ the operator obtained by substituting the vector fields $`𝒳`$ into $`𝒜(f)`$ on the vertical coordinates (namely $`y`$). The map

$$f\stackrel{˘}{𝒜}(f^1),$$

defines a 1-cocycle on $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$ with values in the space $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)_\delta (T^{}M)).`$

Proof. Since the connection 1-forms of the Chern connection do not depend on the direction of $`dy,`$ the evaluation by the vector fields does not affect the 1-cocycle condition.

###### Remark 4.4

As a 1-cocycle, the cohomology class of $`\stackrel{˘}{𝒜}`$ does not depend on the chosen vector fields. However, one has a family of operators indexed by a family of non-vanishing vector fields on $`M.`$

### 4.3 The 1-cocycle $`𝒜(f)`$ in terms of the Berwald connection

There exists an other connection on the bundle $`\pi ^{}(TM)TM\backslash 0`$ called Berwald connection. Its Christoffel symbols are given, in local coordinates, by

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{jk}^{i}=\frac{N_j^i}{y^k},$$
(4.16)
where the components $`N_j^i`$ are given as in (4.9). Like the Chern connection, this connection has no torsion (see ).

As in section 4.2, we define the following object

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)=f^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ,$$
(4.17)
where $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M).`$ As the connection 1-forms of the Berwald connection have no $`dy`$ dependance, this object is actually a section of the bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M)^2\pi ^{}(TM).`$

The 1-cocycle $`𝒜(f)`$ can be expressed in terms of the Berwald connection as follows.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f)_{ij}^k\hfill & :=& f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D_{s}^{}\right)\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D_{s}^{}+(2\delta n)\left({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{tj}^t\right)\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{li}^{s}\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{lt}^{t}\right)f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{li}^{s}\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{lt}^{t}\right)\right)\hfill \\ & & (2\delta n)\left(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{jt}^{t}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{jt}^{t})\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.18)
where we have put

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}:=\left({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D_{\overline{j}}^{}(A_i^{kr})F+A_i^{kr}\omega _j+2A_j^{sk}\omega _i\right)d_r(\mathrm{log}F),$$

to avoid clutter; $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D`$ is the covariant derivative associated with the Berwald connection, $`A_{ijk}`$ are the components of the Cartan tensor (2.2), $`\omega _i`$ are the components of the Hilbert form (2.3), $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k`$ are the components of the tensor (4.17), $`d_r:=ud`$ and $`u`$ is the map as in (2.1).

Theorem 4.1 still holds for the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f).`$ For the proof we proceed as in Theorem (4.1). Part (i) is obvious form the construction of the operator. Part (ii) lead us to compare the Berwald connections associated with the Finsler function $`F`$ and $`\sqrt{\psi }F,`$ respectively. The proof then is a direct computation. Part (iii) results from the fact that, as for the Chern connection, the Berwald connection coincides with the Levi-Civita connection associated with a Riemannian metric when $`F`$ is Riemannian.

It is worth noticing that, viewed as operators, the operator $`𝒜(f)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f)`$ are not equal; however, they can be compared via the following definition.

###### Definition 4.5

(see ) A Finsler manifold is called a Landsberg space if the tensor whose components

$$\dot{A}_{ijk}:=\frac{1}{2}y_l\frac{^2N_i^l}{y^jy^k},$$

where the components $`N_i^l`$ are as in (4.9), is identically zero.

###### Proposition 4.6

If the Finsler manifold is a Landsberg space, the operators

$$𝒜(f){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f),$$

for all $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M).`$

Proof. The proof results from the fact that the Berwald connection and the Chern connection coincides when the Finsler manifold is a Landsberg space (cf. ).

###### Remark 4.7

An obvious example of a Landsberg space is a Riemannian manifold. More general examples of Finsler manifolds that are Landsberg spaces but not Riemannian are provided in . Proposition 4.6 shows that the operator $`𝒜(f)`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f)`$ does not coincide only for Riemannian manifolds but also for some manifolds little more general.

### 4.4 The 1-cocycle $`𝒜(f)`$ in terms of the Cartan connection

There exists an other connection on the bundle $`\pi ^{}(TM)TM\backslash 0`$ called Cartan connection. Its Christoffel symbols are given, in local coordinates, by

$$\begin{array}{cc}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{jk}^{i}=\gamma _{jk}^i+A_{jt}^i\frac{N_k^t}{F},\hfill & {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{j\overline{k}}^{i}=\frac{A_{jk}^i}{F},\hfill \\ {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{\overline{j}\overline{k}}^{i}=0,\hfill & {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma _{\overline{j}k}^{i}=\frac{A_{jk}^i}{F},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.19)
where $`\gamma _{jk}^i`$ are the Christoffel symbols of the Chern connection, the components $`N_j^i`$ are as in (4.9) and $`A_{jt}^i`$ are defined in the section 2. In contradistinction with the Chern or Berwald connection, this connection has the properties (cf. ):

(i) it has torsion;

(ii) the connection 1-forms do depend on the direction of $`dy.`$

As in section 4.2, we define the following geometrical object

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)=\stackrel{~}{f}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ,$$
(4.20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is a natural lift of $`f\mathrm{Diff}(M).`$ This object takes its values in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^{}(TM)T^{}(TM\backslash 0)T^{}(TM\backslash 0)),`$ in contrast with the previous object $`\mathrm{}(f)`$ defined by means of the Chern or Berwald connection. One takes the image of $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)`$ by the map $`\mathrm{Id}uu,`$ where $`\mathrm{Id}`$ is the identity map and $`u`$ is the map defined in the diagram (2.1). Let us still denote this tensor by $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f).`$

The 1-cocycle $`𝒜(f)`$ can be expressed in terms of the Cartan connection as follows.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f)_{ij}^k\hfill & :=& f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}u{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D_{s}^{}\right)\mathrm{g}^{sk}\mathrm{g}_{ij}u{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D_{s}^{}+(2\delta n)\left({}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{tj}^t\right)\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{il}^{s}\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{tl}^{t}\right)f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}\left(\mathrm{g}^{kl}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\mathrm{g}_{sj}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{il}^{s}\delta \mathrm{g}_{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{tl}^{t}\right)\right)\hfill \\ & & (2\delta n)\left(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{Sym}_{i,j}\delta _i^k(f_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{tj}^{t}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{tj}^{t})\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.21)
where we have put

$${}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}B_{ij}^{k}:=\left(A_j^{kr}\omega _iA_{ij}^r\omega ^kA_{sj}^kA_i^{sr}+A_u^{rk}A_{ij}^u\right)d_r(\mathrm{log}F),$$

to avoid clutter; $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}D`$ is the covariant derivative associated with the Cartan connection, $`A_{ijk}`$ are the components of the Cartan tensor (2.2), $`\omega _i`$ are the components of the Hilbert form (2.3), $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}(f)_{ij}^k`$ are the components of the tensor above, $`d_r:=ud`$ and $`u`$ is the map as in (2.1).

Theorem 4.1 still holds for the operator $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f).`$

###### Remark 4.8

(i) The operator $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜(f)`$ written by means of the Cartan connection coincides with the operator $`𝒜(f)`$ written by means of the Chern connection only and only when the Finsler function $`F`$ is Riemannian. Indeed, the Christoffel symbols of the Cartan connection as defined in (4.19) coincide with the Christoffel symbols of the Chern connection only and only when the components $`A_{jk}^i0.`$

(ii) the operator $`𝒜`$ can be expressed in terms of the Hashiguchi connection as well. We omit here its explicit expression. Its worth noticing that the operator $`𝒜`$ written by means of the Cartan connection coincides with the operator $`𝒜`$ written by means of the Hashiguchi connection when the Finsler manifold is a Landsberg space.

## 5 Conformally invariant quantization by means of a Sazaki type metric

### 5.1 Conformally invariant quantization

Let $`(N,a)`$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $`m.`$ Denote by $``$ the Levi-Civita connection associated with the metric $`a.`$ We recall the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.1 ()

For $`m>2`$ and for all $`\delta :=\mu \lambda \{\frac{2}{m},\frac{m+2}{2m},\frac{m+1}{m},\frac{m+2}{m}\},`$ there exists an isomorphism

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^a:\mathrm{Pol}_\delta ^2(T^{}N)𝒟^2(_\lambda (N),_\mu (N)),$$

given as follows: for all $`P\mathrm{Pol}_\delta ^2(T^{}N),`$ one can associate a linear differential operator given by

$`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^a(P)`$ $`=`$ $`P^{ij}_i_j`$
$`+(\beta _1_iP^{ij}+\beta _2a^{ij}_i(a_{kl}P^{kl}))_j`$
$`+\beta _3_i_jP^{ij}+\beta _4a^{st}_s_t(a_{ij}P^{ij})+\beta _5R_{ij}P^{ij}+\beta _6Ra_{ij}P^{ij},`$
where $`P^{ij}`$ are the components of $`P`$ and $`R_{ij}`$ (resp. $`R`$) are the Ricci tensor components (resp. the scalar curvature) of the metric $`a;`$ constants $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _6`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta _1=\frac{2(m\lambda +1)}{2+m(1\delta )},\hfill \\ \beta _2=\frac{m(2\lambda +\delta 1)}{(2+m(1\delta ))(2m\delta )},\hfill \\ \beta _3=\frac{m\lambda (m\lambda +1)}{(1+m(1\delta ))(2+m(1\delta ))},\hfill \\ \beta _4=\frac{m\lambda (m^2\mu (22\lambda \delta )+2(m\lambda +1)^2m(m+1))}{(1+m(1\delta ))(2+m(1\delta ))(2+m(12\delta ))(2m\delta )},\hfill \\ \beta _5=\frac{m^2\lambda (\lambda +\delta 1)}{(m2)(1+m(1\delta ))},\hfill \\ \beta _6=\frac{(m\delta 2)}{(m1)(2+m(12\delta ))}\beta _5\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.23)
The quantization map $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^a`$ has the following properties:
(i) it does not depend on the rescaling of the metric $`a`$;
(ii) if $`N=^m`$ and it is endowed with a flat conformal structure, this map is unique, equivariant with respect to the action of the group $`\mathrm{O}(p+1,q+1)\mathrm{Diff}(^m),`$ where $`p+q=m.`$

### 5.2 A Sazaki type metric on $`TM\backslash 0`$

Let $`(M,F)`$ be a Finsler manifold of dimension $`n.`$ The Finsler function $`F`$ gives rise to a Sazaki (type) metric $`𝐦`$ on the manifold $`TM\backslash 0,`$ given in local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$ by

$$𝐦:=\left(\mathrm{g}_{ij}+\mathrm{g}_{st}\frac{N_i^s}{F}\frac{N_j^t}{F}\right)dx^idx^j+\mathrm{g}_{is}\frac{N_j^s}{F^2}dy^idx^j+\mathrm{g}_{is}\frac{N_j^s}{F^2}dx^jdy^i+\frac{\mathrm{g}_{ij}}{F^2}dy^idy^j,$$
(5.24)
where $`\mathrm{g}_{ij}`$ are the components of the fundamental tensor and $`N_j^i`$ are given as in (4.9).

###### Remark 5.2

Let us emphasize the difference between the geometric objects $`𝐦`$ and $`\mathrm{g}.`$ The metric $`𝐦`$ is a Riemannian metric on the bundle $`TM\backslash 0,`$ whereas $`\mathrm{g}`$ defines a section of the bundle $`\pi ^{}(T^{}M)\pi ^{}(T^{}M).`$ When (and only when) $`F`$ is Riemannian, $`\mathrm{g}`$ has no $`y`$ dependence and can then descend to a metric on the manifold $`M.`$

###### Lemma 5.3

Any tensor $`P`$ on $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)`$ can be extended to a tensor on $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }(T(TM\backslash 0)^2),`$ given in local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=P^{ij}\frac{}{x^i}\frac{}{x^j}P^{it}N_t^j\frac{}{x^i}\frac{}{y^j}P^{js}N_s^i\frac{}{y^i}\frac{}{x^j}+\left(P^{st}N_s^iN_t^j+P^{ij}F^2\right)\frac{}{y^i}\frac{}{y^j},$$

where $`P^{ij}`$ are the components of the tensor $`P`$ and $`N_j^i`$ are given as in (4.9).

Proof. The objects $`N_j^i,`$ $`/x^i`$ and $`/y^i,`$ behave under coordinates change as follows: for local changes on $`M`$, say $`(x^i)`$ and their inverses $`(\stackrel{~}{x}^i),`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{N}_j^i\hfill & =& \frac{x^t}{\stackrel{~}{x}^j}\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^s}N_t^s+\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^t}\frac{^2x^t}{\stackrel{~}{x}^s\stackrel{~}{x}^j}\stackrel{~}{y}^s,\hfill \\ \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}\hfill & =& \frac{x^p}{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}\frac{}{x^p}+\frac{^2x^j}{\stackrel{~}{x}^i\stackrel{~}{x}^s}\stackrel{~}{y}^s\frac{}{y^j},\hfill \\ \frac{}{\stackrel{~}{y}^i}\hfill & =& \frac{x^p}{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}\frac{}{y^p}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.25)
By substituting these formulas into (5.3) we see that the geometrical object $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ behaves under coordinates change as a symmetric twice-contravariant tensor field on $`TM\backslash 0.`$

###### Lemma 5.4

The space $`_\lambda (M)`$ can be identified with the subspace of $`_{\frac{\lambda }{2}}(TM\backslash 0)`$ with elements of the form

$$\varphi (x)\left(dx^1\mathrm{}dx^ndy^1\mathrm{}dy^n\right)^{\frac{\lambda }{2}}.$$

Proof. The 1-forms $`dx^i`$ and $`dy^i`$ behave under coordinates change in $`TM\backslash 0`$ as follows: for local coordinates change on $`M`$, say $`(x^i)`$ and their inverses $`(\stackrel{~}{x}^i),`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{ccc}d\stackrel{~}{y}^i\hfill & =& \frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^p}dy^p+\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^sx^t}y^sdx^t,\hfill \\ d\stackrel{~}{x}^i\hfill & =& \frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^p}dx^p\hfill \end{array}$$

By substituting these formulas into (5.4) we see that the geometrical object (5.4) behaves under coordinates change as a tensor density of degree $`\lambda /2`$ on $`TM\backslash 0.`$

The second main result of this paper is to give some properties of the conformally invariant quantization map (5.1) by means of the Sazaki (type) metric (5.24). Namely

###### Theorem 5.5

For any lift of $`P\mathrm{Pol}_{2\delta }^2(T^{}M),`$ the quantization map

$$𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦:\mathrm{Pol}_\delta ^2(T^{}(TM\backslash 0))𝒟^2(_\lambda (TM\backslash 0),_\mu (TM\backslash 0)),$$
(5.26)
has the property that the operator $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ cannot descend as an operator acting on the space of differential operators on tensor densities on $`M.`$ However, when the Finsler function $`F`$ is Riemannian, viz $`F=\sqrt{\mathrm{g}_{ij}y^iy^j},`$ three properties are distinguished:

(i) If $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\mu 1,`$ the operator $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ cannot descend;

(ii) If $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\mu 1`$ (or $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\mu =1`$), the operator $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ can descend only if $`\mathrm{g}`$ is the Euclidean metric;

(iii) if $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(0,1),`$ the operator $`𝒬_{0,1}^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ can descend, given explicitly in terms of the metric $`\mathrm{g}`$ by

$$P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{}+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}(P^{ij}){}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{},$$

for all $`P\mathrm{Pol}_{2\delta }^2(T^{}M).`$

Proof. First, Lemma (5.3) and (5.4) assure that the operator $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})_{|_{_{2\lambda }(M)}}`$ is a well-defined operator.

Suppose that $`F`$ is not Riemannian. In that case, the metric $`𝐦`$ (5.24) depends, in any local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i),`$ on $`x`$ and on $`y`$ as well. It is easy to see from the map (5.1) that $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})_{|_{_{2\lambda }(M)}}`$ depends on $`y.`$ The crucial point of the proof is when $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(0,1).`$ In that case, let us exhibit the operator $`𝒬_{0,1}^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})_{|_{_0(M)}}`$ in local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$, namely

$$𝒬_{0,1}^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})_{|_{_0(M)}}=P^{ij}_{x^i}_{x^j}+(_{x^i}P^{ij}P^{sj}_{y^i}(N_s^i))_{x^j},$$
(5.27)
where the components $`N_s^i`$ are given as in (4.9). Since $`F`$ is not Riemannian, the components $`_{y^i}(N_s^i)`$ still have $`y`$ dependance.

Suppose now that $`F`$ is Riemannian. Let us prove (i) and (ii) simultaneously. Suppose, without lost of generality, that $`M=^n`$ and $`\mathrm{g}`$ is the Euclidean metric. Namely, $`\mathrm{g}:=\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$ where $`(x^i)`$ are local coordinates on $`^n.`$ To achieve the proof, we will express the quantization map (5.26) in these local coordinates, and prove that it has $`y`$ dependance.

In the coordinates mentioned above, the Christoffel symbols of the Levi-Civita connection associated with the metric $`𝐦`$ (5.24) are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{k}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=0\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\overline{j}}^{k}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^{k}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=0,\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{\overline{k}}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{i\overline{j}}^{\overline{k}}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=0,\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^{\overline{k}}{}_{}{}^{𝐦}=\frac{1}{F}\left(\omega _j\delta _i^k+\omega _i\delta _j^k\omega ^k\delta _{ij}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.28)
where $`\omega _i`$ are the components of the Hilbert form (2.3).
It follows that the contraction between the tensor $`\stackrel{~}{P}\mathrm{Pol}_\delta (T^{}(TM\backslash 0))`$ with the Ricci tensor $`Ric`$ of the metric $`𝐦`$ is given by the equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_{ij}P^{ij}=0,\hfill & R_{\overline{i}j}P^{\overline{i}j}=0,\hfill \\ R_{i\overline{j}}P^{i\overline{j}}=0,\hfill & R_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}P^{\overline{i}\overline{j}}=(n2)\omega _i\omega _jP^{ij}+(2n)\mathrm{g}_{ij}P^{ij},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.29)
where $`R_{ij}`$ are the components of the Ricci tensor $`Ric.`$
A direct computation proves that the scalar curvature of the metric $`𝐦`$ is equal to

$$3nn^22.$$
(5.30)
Now we are in position to express the quantization map (5.26) in local coordinates. Using the explicit formulæ of the connection (5.28), the formulæ (5.29) and (5.30), we will see that the quantization map $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ restricted $`_{2\lambda }(M)`$ turns out to be of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}P^{ij}_{x^i}_{x^j}\hfill \\ +\left(\beta _1_{x^i}P^{ij}+2\beta _2\mathrm{g}^{ji}\mathrm{g}_{st}_{x^i}P^{st}\right)_{x^j}\hfill \\ +\beta _3_{x^i}_{x^j}P^{ij}+2\beta _4\mathrm{g}_{ij}_{x^s}_{x^t}P^{ij}+\left((3nn^22)\beta _6+(2n)\beta _5\right)\mathrm{g}_{ij}P^{ij}\hfill \\ +3\frac{n^2\lambda (\mu 1)}{1+2n}\omega _i\omega _jP^{ij},\hfill \end{array}$$

where constants $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _6`$ are given as in (5.23). As the constant $`\frac{n^2\lambda (\mu 1)}{1+2n}`$ does not vanish when $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\mu 1`$, the quantization map still have $`y`$ dependence, and then does not take it is values in $`_{2\mu }(M).`$ Part (i) is proven. To achieve the proof of part (ii), let us consider a non-Euclidean metric $`\mathrm{g}.`$ In local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$, the operator $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ restricted to $`_{2\lambda }(M)`$ will have a component of the form

$$(1\beta _1)\left(\frac{1}{F^2}_{x^j}(N_s^u)N_i^v\mathrm{g}_{uv}\mathrm{g}^{ks}P^{ij}\right)_{x^k},$$

which has $`y`$ dependance. The constant $`1\beta _1`$ does not vanish under the condition $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\mu 1`$ (or $`\lambda 0`$ and $`\mu =1`$). Part (ii) is proven.

Let us prove part (iii). For $`(\lambda ,\mu )=(0,1),`$ the quantization map, written in any local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i)`$, has the form

$$P^{ij}_{x^i}_{x^j}+(_{x^i}P^{ij}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{g}^{uv}_{x^i}\mathrm{g}_{uv}P^{ij})_{x^j}$$
(5.31)
Using the following formulæ:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P^{ij}_{x^i}_{x^j}\hfill & =& P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{}+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{i}P^{jk}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{},\hfill \\ _{x^i}P^{ij}_{x^j}\hfill & =& {}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{}+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^{i}P^{jk}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}+P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

we see that the formula (5.31) turns into the form

$$P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{}+{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{i}^{}P^{ij}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{g}}_{j}^{}.$$

The formula above has certainly no $`y`$ dependance. Part (iii) is proven.

###### Remark 5.6

Theorem above shows that the quantization map $`𝒬_{\lambda ,\mu }^𝐦(\stackrel{~}{P})_{|_{_{2\lambda }(M)}}`$ does not reproduce the quantization map $`𝒬_{2\lambda ,2\mu }^\mathrm{g}(P)`$ even if $`F`$ is Riemannian.

## 6 Open problems

1) Following , there exists two 1-cocycles on the group $`\mathrm{Diff}(M)`$, say $`c_1,c_2,`$ with values in $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)_\delta (M))`$ and $`𝒟(S\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM^2)_\delta (M),_\delta (M))`$ respectively, that are conformally invariant; namely, they depend only on the conformal class of the Riemannian metric. These 1-cocycles were introduced in  as conformal multi-dimensional Schwarzian derivatives. In this paper, we have introduce the 1-cocycle $`𝒜`$ (see (4.11)) as the Finslerian analogous to the 1-cocycle $`c_1;`$ however, the computation to extend the 1-cocycle $`c_2`$ seems to be more intricate.

2) We ask the following question:
Is there a map

$$𝒬:\mathrm{Pol}(T^{}(TM\backslash 0))_{\mu \lambda }(\pi ^{}(T^{}M))𝒟(_\lambda (\pi ^{}(T^{}M)),_\mu (\pi ^{}(T^{}M))),$$

having the following properties:

(i) it does not depend on the rescaling of the Finsler function by a non-zero positive function on $`M;`$

(ii) it coincides with the Duval-Ovsienko’s conformally invariant map when $`F`$ is Riemannian?

We believe that a positive answer to this question will probably produce the 1-cocycle $`c_2`$ discussed in part 1). It should be stressed, however, that the quantization map and the 1-cocycle $`c_2`$ may not exist in the generic Finsler setting. Such a situation happened in Conformal Geometry where a large number of invariant differential operators do not generalize to arbitrarily “curved” manifolds. For example, the power of the Laplacian, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^k,`$ where $`k`$ is an integer, are the unique differential operators acting on the space of tensor densities of appropriate weights, that are invariant under the action of the conformal group (see ); however, their curved analogues do not exist when the dimension of the manifold $`\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{M}`$ is greater than $`4`$ and even, and $`k>\mathrm{dim}\mathrm{M}/2`$, as recently proven in .

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to acknowledge numerous fruitful discussions with A. Cardona, Ch. Duval, V. Ovsienko and M. Stienon.


format: text

text:
# COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND TEMPERATURE AT GALAXY CLUSTERS

## 1 Introduction

The (present) CMB temperature was precisely measured by the Far Infrared Absolute Spectrometer (FIRAS) on board the COBE satellite, $`T_0=2.725\pm 0.002`$K, in the frequency range 2-20 cm<sup>-1</sup> Mather et al. (2001). These measurements essentially rule out all cosmological models in which the CMB spectrum is non-Planckian at $`z=0`$. Models with a purely blackbody spectrum but with a different $`T(z)`$ dependence than in the standard model are, however, unconstrained by the FIRAS database. Also unconstrained are models with spectral distortions that are now negligible, but were appreciable in the past. A specific example is the relation $`T(z)=T_0(1+z)^{1a}`$, where $`a`$ is a parameter of the theory (see, e.g., Lima et al. 2000). More generally, models in which ratios of some of the fundamental constants vary over cosmological time are also of considerable interest.

So far, $`T(z)`$ has been determined mainly from measurements of microwave transitions in interstellar clouds which contain atoms and molecules that are excited by the CMB (as reviewed by LoSecco et al. 2001). The temperature has been determined in the Galaxy, as well as in clouds at redshifts up to $`z3`$ (Levshakov et al. 2001). These measurements are affected by substantial systematic uncertainties stemming from the unknown physical conditions in the absorbing clouds (Combes and Wiklind 1999).

The possibility of determining $`T(z)`$ from measurements of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich (SZ) effect had been suggested long ago (Fabbri, Melchiorri & Natale 1978, Rephaeli 1980). (For general reviews of the effect and its cosmological significance, see Rephaeli 1995a, Birkinshaw 1999.) The proposed method is based on the steep frequency dependence of the change in the CMB spectral intensity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, due to the effect, and the weak dependence of ratios $`\mathrm{\Delta }I(\nu _i)/\mathrm{\Delta }I(\nu _j)`$ of intensity changes measured at two frequencies ($`\nu _i,\nu _j`$) on properties of the cluster (Rephaeli 1980). Because of this, and the fact that – in the standard cosmological model – the effect is essentially independent of $`z`$, SZ measurements have the potential of yielding much more precise values of $`T(z)`$ than can be obtained from ratios of atomic and molecular lines. With the improved capability of reasonably precise spectral measurements of the SZ effect, the method can now be used to measure $`T(z)`$ in nearby and moderately distant clusters. Here we report first results from spectral analysis of SZ measurements in the Coma and A2163 clusters of galaxies.

## 2 $`T(z)`$ from SZ

The CMB intensity change due to Compton scattering in a cluster can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{2k^3T^3}{h^2c^2}\frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x1)^2}d\tau [\theta f_1(x)\beta +R(x,\theta ,\beta )],$$
(1)
where $`x=h\nu /kT`$ is the non-dimensional frequency, $`\theta =kT_e/mc^2`$ is the electron temperature in units of the electron rest energy, and $`\beta `$ is the line of sight (los) component of the cluster (peculiar) velocity in the CMB frame in units of $`c`$. The integral is over the Compton optical depth, $`\tau `$. Both the thermal (Sunyaev & Zeldovich 1972) and kinematic Sunyaev & Zel’dovich (1980) components of the effect are included in equation (1), separately in the first two (additive) terms, and jointly in the function $`R(x,\theta ,\beta )`$. In the non-relativistic limit (which is valid only at low electron temperatures and frequencies) the spectral dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is fully contained in the product of the $`x`$-dependent pre-factor times the function $`f_1(x)=x(e^x+1)/(e^x1)4`$. The more exact treatment of Compton scattering in clusters necessitates a relativistic calculation (Rephaeli 1995b) due to the high electron velocities. The function $`R(x,\theta ,\beta )`$ includes the additional spectral, temperature, and (cluster) velocity dependence that is obtained in a relativistic treatment. This function can be approximated by an analytic expression that includes terms to orders $`\theta ^5`$ and $`\beta ^2\theta `$:

$$R(x,\theta ,\beta )\theta ^2[f_2(x)+\theta f_3(x)+\theta ^2f_4(x)+\theta ^3f_5(x)]\beta \theta [g_1(x)+\theta g_2(x)]+\beta ^2[1+\theta g_3(x)].$$
(2)
The spectral functions $`f_i`$ and $`g_i`$ were determined by Itoh et al. (1998), Itoh et al. (2002), and Shimon & Rephaeli (2002). For our purposes here this analytic approximation is sufficiently exact even close to the crossover frequency. The non-relativistic limit, $`R0`$, applies if the sum of all these terms can be ignored at the desired level of accuracy.

The $`z`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is fully determined by the functions $`\nu =\nu (z)`$, and $`T=T(z)`$. The temperature-redshift relation may assume various forms in non-standard cosmologies; here we consider two examples. In the first, $`T(z)=T(0)(1+z)^{(1a)}`$, where $`a`$ is taken to be a free parameter, but with the standard scaling $`\nu =\nu _0(1+z)`$ unchanged. With these relations the non-dimensional frequency obviously depends on $`z`$, $`x=x_0(1+z)^a`$, if $`a0`$; here, $`x_0=h\nu _0/kT(0)`$. Another functional form which seems also to be of some theoretical interest is $`T(z)=T(0)[1+(1+d)z]`$ (LoSecco et al. 2001), for which $`x=x_0(1+z)/[1+(1+d)z]`$. Obviously, in the standard model $`a=d=0`$.

For a slow moving ($`\beta <10^3`$) cluster, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ in the non-relativistic limit depends linearly on the Comptonization parameter, $`y=\theta 𝑑\tau `$, which includes all dependence on the cluster properties. A ratio of values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ at two frequencies is then essentially independent of these cluster properties. In the more general case, the first term in the square parentheses in eq. (1) still dominates over the other two, except near the crossover frequency (whose value generally depends on $`T_e`$, except in the non-relativistic limit where $`x_c=3.83`$; Rephaeli 1995b, Nozawa et al. 1998, Shimon & Rephaeli 2002), where the sum of the temperature dependent terms vanish. For values of $`x`$ outside some range (roughly, $`3.5<x<4.5`$), the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, and – particularly, a ratio of values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ – on $`\beta `$ is very weak since the observed temperature range in clusters corresponds to $`0.006<\theta <0.03`$, whereas typically $`\beta <0.002`$.

## 3 Data Analysis

We have analyzed results of SZ measurements in the Coma cluster (A1656) and A2163. Measurements of Coma, $`z=0.0231\pm 0.0017`$ Struble and Rood (1999) were made with the MITO DePetris et al. (2002) telescope in 20 hours of integration. We also use the result of measurements at 32 GHz made with the OVRO 5.5m telescope (Herbig et al. 1995, Mason et al. 2001). A2163, $`z=0.203\pm 0.002`$ Arnaud et al. (1992), was observed with the SuZIE array (Holzapfel et al. 1997a), and with both the OVRO and BIMA interferometric arrays (LaRoque et al. 2000).

When observing a cluster the SZ part of the measured signal is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_i=G_iA\mathrm{\Omega }|_i_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }I(0)ϵ_i(\nu )𝑑\nu ,$$
(3)
where $`G_i`$ is the responsivity of the $`i^{th}`$ photometric channel, $`A\mathrm{\Omega }|_i`$ is the corresponding throughput, and $`ϵ_i(\nu )`$ is the spectral efficiency. The full measured signal includes also contributions from the atmosphere, CMB anisotropies, and – at very high frequencies – also emission from dust. Multifrequency observations allow us to remove contributions from both the primary CMB anisotropy and the kinematic SZ effect, as has been attempted in the analysis of MITO measurements of the Coma cluster (DePetris et al. 2002).

The ratio of signals in two different photometric channels $`i`$ and $`j`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }S_i}{\mathrm{\Delta }S_j}=\frac{G_i}{G_j}\frac{A\mathrm{\Omega }|_i}{A\mathrm{\Omega }|_j}\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x1)^2}\{d\tau [\theta f_1(x)\beta +R(x,\theta ,\beta )]\}ϵ_i(\nu )d\nu }{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^4e^x}{(e^x1)^2}\{d\tau [\theta f_1(x)\beta +R(x,\theta ,\beta )]\}ϵ_j(\nu )d\nu }.$$
(4)
The main dependence on the cluster properties in $`y`$ cancels out when $`\beta `$ is negligible. Multi-frequency observations that include measurements at the crossover frequency (e.g., MITO) afford effective separation of the thermal and kinematic components, exploiting their very different spectral shapes. This was demonstrated in the analysis of MITO measurements of the Coma cluster (De Petris et al. 2002). Since the above ratio depends weakly on the cluster velocity, the residual uncertainty due to velocities of even $`\pm 500`$ km/s can be ignored in comparison with other errors. The ratio is also weakly dependent on the gas temperature at a level which we found to correspond to $`1`$% uncertainty in the estimation of the CMB temperature (for a typical observational error in $`T_e`$). Moreover, the uncertainty associated with the absolute calibration, $`G_i`$, is largely removed once we fit data from several photometric channels, as long as they are calibrated with a source with a known spectrum (e.g., a planet) even if its absolute calibration is uncertain. Only relative uncertainties among the various spectral channels are important; these include differences in angular response and in atmospheric transmittance. A standard blackbody source with a precisely calibrated temperature is therefore not required. We expect these considerations to imply that the precision of CMB temperature measurements via the SZ effect will not be appreciably affected by most of the known systematic errors. The level of precision in the measurement of $`T(z)`$ is limited largely by other observational uncertainties, as discussed below.

The responsivity $`G_i`$ of each channel is usually determined from detailed observations of very well measured sources such as planets (mostly Jupiter or Saturn) and the Moon. While the temperature uncertainty of these sources can be as large as 10$`\%`$, their spectra are relatively well known. For a source at a temperature of $`T_S`$ and with a throughput $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$, the signal in the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the spectrum is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_i=G_iA_i\mathrm{\Omega }_ST_S\frac{2k}{c^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\nu ^2ϵ_i(\nu )\eta (\nu )𝑑\nu .$$
(5)
Since we are interested in the ratio of the signals in two channels, $`T_S`$ drops out from the final expression, and the uncertainty in the ratio of values of the brightness temperature in the two channels depends only on the emissivity of the planet, $`\eta (\nu )`$, convolved with the spectral efficiencies of the channels, $`ϵ_i(\nu )`$. Note that the throughputs of individual channels, $`A\mathrm{\Omega }|_i`$, are usually made almost equal by an appropriate choice of the optical layout.

The main uncertainty in the MITO measurements is due to imprecise knowledge of the bandwidth and transmittance of the filters. Therefore, we have precisely measured the total efficiency of our photometer by means of a lamellar grating interferometer. The response of the photometer is measured when it is illuminated with a laboratory blackbody at different temperatures ranging from liquid $`N_2`$ to room temperature. The effect of the uncertainty in our bandwidths has two main consequences. The first is the error in the ratio of responsivities of channel $`i`$ and channel $`j`$, $`G_i/G_j`$. We estimate this error by computing the ratio of expected signals evaluated by convolving Moon and Jupiter spectra with the spectra of our filters, and taking into account spectroscopic uncertainties; we obtain a final error estimate which is less than 1$`\%`$. The second consequence of bandwidth uncertainty enters in the integrations over the SZ spectral functions in eq.. However, this latter error is smaller than the former and is practically negligible.

Also quite precisely measured were the angular responses of the telescope and the photometer in the four channels. We have studied differences in the response of the four channels to both a point source, such as Jupiter, and an extended source, such as the Moon, as they cross the field of view. The optical layout of our photometer is such that all four detectors observe the same sky region. The differences among channels are less than 1% for extended sources. Finally, we have also studied the change in relative efficiency of our observations under different atmospheric conditions. The simulations show a change of $`1`$ mK in the estimated CMB temperature if the water vapor content changes from 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, as determined by convolving theoretical atmospheric spectra with our filters. The uncertainties in determining the water vapor content, related to our procedure of measuring the atmospheric transmittance through a sky-dip technique, are at a level of 30$`\%`$. However, when the effect of this error is propagated through our procedure and analysis we estimate that it amounts to a negligible error in the final result for the CMB temperature.

In conclusion, systematic errors contribute less than 3% to the observed MITO signals, and are quite negligible with respect to the 10$`\%`$ contribution associated with the residual noise of the four detectors. For the OVRO measurement, we use the total error as specified by Mason et al. (2001); the statistical weight of this low frequency measurement is such that it only contributes $`12`$% to the final results.

Our assessment of the errors in the SuZIE and OVRO & BIMA measurements of A2163 (LaRoque et al. 2000) is far less certain than those in the MITO measurements, since we do not know the exact spectral responses of their filters and the atmospheric conditions during each of these observations. We have used Gaussian profiles for the SuZIE filters, with peak frequencies and FWHM values as given by Holzapfel et al. (1997a). For the OVRO & BIMA data point, we also take a Gaussian profile with a peak frequency at 30 GHz and a 1 GHz bandwidth. We have employed data provided by SuZIE, for which a correction due to thermal dust emission has been taken into account. The Coma and A2163 data are collected in Table 1 and Table 2. Finally, the value we used for the electron temperature is $`(8.25\pm 0.10)`$ keV, as measured with XMM in the central region of Coma Arnaud et al. (2001); the value for A2163 is $`12.4_{1.9}^{+2.8}`$ keV Holzapfel et al. 1997b .

In both sets of cluster observations, we have minimized the difference between theoretical and experimental ratios (properly weighted by statistical errors) with $`T`$ as a free parameter. The results are $`T_{Coma}(0)=2.726_{0.064}^{+0.078}`$ K which, when multiplied by $`(1+z)`$ with $`z=0.0231\pm 0.0017`$, yields

$$T_{Coma}=2.789_{0.065}^{+0.080}\mathrm{K}.$$
(6)
The main uncertainty is in the SZ observations, with only a small error ($`7\times 10^4`$ K) due to the uncertainty ($`0.1`$ keV) in the electron temperature. For A2163 we obtain $`T_{A2163}(0)=2.807_{0.085}^{+0.084}K`$, and when multiplied by $`(1+z)`$ with $`z=0.203\pm 0.002`$, yields

$$T_{A2163}=3.377_{0.102}^{+0.101}\mathrm{K}.$$
(7)
The larger error in $`T_e`$ ($`2`$ keV) translates to an uncertainty of $`1.5\times 10^2`$ K in the deduced CMB temperature at the redshift of A2163. The mean of the above two values for $`T(0)`$ is $`T=2.766_{0.053}^{+0.058}`$ K, in good agreement with the COBE value.

Using the COBE value of the temperature and the two values deduced here for $`T(z)`$ at the redshifts of Coma and A2163, we fit the three data points by the relation $`T(z)=T(0)(1+z)^{1a}`$; the best fit is shown by the dashed line in Figure 1. It corresponds to $`a=0.16_{0.32}^{+0.34}`$ at 95% confidence level (CL). With the alternative scaling $`T(z)=T(0)[1+(1+d)z]`$, we obtain a best fit value of $`d=0.17\pm 0.36`$ at the 95% CL.

These first SZ results for $`T(z)`$ are clearly consistent with the standard relation, although the most probable values of both $`a`$ and $`d`$ indicate a slightly stronger $`z`$ dependence. Our values for these two parameters are quite similar to those deduced by LoSecco & Mathews (2001) from measurements of microwave transitions. Their results – based on two firm detections at redshifts $`2.338`$ and $`3.025`$ – are $`a=0.05\pm 0.13`$ and $`d=0.10\pm 0.28`$ (at 95% CL). Thus, our SZ-based values already provide the same level of precision even though the two clusters are at much lower redshifts ($`z0.2`$). SZ measurements of higher redshift clusters will clearly provide a preferred alternative to the atomic and molecular lines method. If we fit the above relations to the combined data sets (consisting of all five temperatures), we obtain $`a=0.09\pm 0.20`$ and $`d=0.14\pm 0.28`$ (at $`95\%`$ CL). Finally, Molaro et al. (2002) have recently questioned the validity of the temperature measurement at $`z=2.338`$ (by LoSecco & Mathews 2001), and have revised the value at $`z=3.025`$ to $`12.1_{3.2}^{+1.7}`$K. We have thus repeated the fit excluding the fourth data point and using the latter value for the fifth; the results from this fit are essentially unchanged: $`a=0.11\pm 0.22`$, and $`d=0.16\pm 0.32`$.

## 4 Discussion

The method employed here to measure $`T(z)`$ can potentially yield very precise values which will tightly constrain alternative models for the functional scaling of the CMB temperature with redshift, and thereby provide a strong test of non-standard cosmological models. In order to improve the results reported here, multi-frequency measurements of the SZ effect in a significantly larger number ($`20`$) of clusters are needed. The clusters should include nearby ones in order to better understand and control systematic errors. Exactly such observations are planned for the next 2-3 years with the upgraded MITO project (Lamagna et al. 2002), and the stratospheric BOOST experiment (Lubin P., private communication) and OLIMPO experiment (Masi et al. 2003). These experiments will employ sensitive bolometric arrays at four frequency bands with high spatial resolution.

As detector noise is reduced, the uncertainty in the electron temperature may contribute the dominant relative error. For example, an uncertainty of $`2`$ keV – as in the case of Abell 2163 – becomes dominant when detector noise is reduced to a level ten times lower than the values used here. Therefore, it will be necessary to select clusters for which the gas temperature is precisely (to a level of $`0.1`$ keV) known. With the large number of clusters that have already been – or will be – sensitively observed by the XMM and Chandra satellites, it should be possible to optimally select the SZ cluster sample.

With the currently achievable level of precision in intracluster gas temperature measurements, the present technique makes it possible to determine $`a`$ and $`d`$ with an uncertainty that is not less than $`0.03`$ on both parameters, even with ideal (i.e., extremely high sensitivity) SZ measurements. The projected sensitivities of the future Planck and Herschel satellites will enable reduction of the overall error in the values of these two parameters by more than an order of magnitude. In addition to limits on alternative CMB temperature evolution models, such a level of precision will open new possibilities of testing the time variability of physical constants. For example, it will be feasible to measure a possible variation of the fine structure constant, thereby providing an alternative to the current principal method which is based on spectroscopic measurements of fine structure lines in quasar absorption spectra.


text:
# Simple optical measurement of the overlap and fidelity of quantum states: An experiment

## Abstract

We present the experimental results of measurements of the overlap of both pure and mixed polarization states of photons. The fidelity and purity of mixed states were also measured. The experimental apparatus exploits the fact that a beam splitter can distinguish the singlet Bell state from the other Bell states, i.e., it realizes projections into the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces of photons’ Hilbert space.

Recently it was theoretically shown by several authors that many important characteristics of quantum states such as the purity, overlap, and fidelity can be measured directly radim ; ek-hor  without carrying out a complete quantum-state reconstruction. However, the proposed experimental setups were rather complicated. They involved cavity QED, non-linear optics, etc. The only reported experimental test is based on NMR Fei02 . In this Letter we show that for two qubits, encoded into the polarization states of photons, the same goal can be achieved with a simple beam splitter. Besides, the same setup with a beam splitter can serve as the recently proposed FiDuFi  universal measurement device programmed by a quantum state (where the polarization of one photon is measured, while the polarization state of the other photon serves as the “program”).

Let us consider a flip operator $`V`$ in the Hilbert space $``$ of two distinguishable but equivalent subsystems: $`V|\psi |\varphi =|\varphi |\psi `$. Let us further consider a factorable state $`\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B}`$ in the same Hilbert space. Then it follows from a direct calculation that $`\mathrm{Tr}(V\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B})=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B})F`$; note that $`\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B}`$ is not a direct product. Taking into account the relation $`V=\mathrm{\Pi }^+\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ are projectors to the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces of $``$, respectively, one finally obtains

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B}\right)=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^+\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B}\right)\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B}\right).$$
(1)
It means that if we were able to implement projections to the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces we could measure the overlap of two general states living in $``$. In particular, we would be able to measure the overlap of two pure states, $`|\psi |\varphi |^2`$, the fidelity $`\psi |\rho |\psi `$ comparing the state $`\rho `$ with the “original” state $`|\psi `$, and also to calculate the Hilbert-Schmidt distance of two general states:

$$d(\rho _\mathrm{A},\rho _\mathrm{B})=\left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B})^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
(2)
Besides, having a device realizing projective measurement $`\{\mathrm{\Pi }^+,\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\}`$, we could experimentally implement the simplest version of a quantum “multimeter” controlled by quantum “software” that has been proposed in Ref. FiDuFi . In this concept, one qubit (the “program”) determines the measurement basis for a projective measurement on the other qubit. Of course, any such measurement can be realized only approximately (with some error-rate). It has been shown FiDuFi  that under given conditions, the optimal multimeter that maximizes the average fidelity is represented by a projective measurement on the “program” and “data” together. This measurement is described exactly by projectors to the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces of the “program-data” Hilbert space.

Now let us turn our attention to the polarization states of two photons. The states corresponding to the horizontal and vertical linear polarizations will be denoted as $`|H`$ and $`|V`$, respectively. In such a case the projector into the antisymmetric subspace has the following form $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|`$, where

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|H_1|V_2|V_1|H_2\right)$$
(3)
is nothing else but a singlet state BCJ . What happens if a singlet impinges on a beam splitter? It is an elementary exercise to show that a beam splitter transforms it to the state $`(|H_3|V_4|V_3|H_4)/\sqrt{2}`$ (the labeling of the inputs and outputs of the beam splitter is shown in Fig. 1). Such a state results in a simultaneous detection at both detectors placed in modes 3 and 4 Weinfurter94 ; Braunstein95 ; innsbruck ; Mattle96 ; Bouwmeester97 . The singlet is the only one of the four Bell states (completing the basis in the Hilbert space of two qubits) that produces such a coincidence detection. The other Bell states make only one of the detectors fire. This fact makes the measurement on two qubits consisting of projectors $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}`$ experimentally feasible. The beam splitter can be seen as a universal quantum device suitable for the experimental realization of all the tasks discussed above.

The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. A Kr+-ion laser of wavelength 413.1 nm illuminates a 10-mm-long nonlinear crystal of LiIO3 (cut $`\theta =90^{},\varphi =0^{}`$), where spontaneous parametric non-collinear degenerate type-I down-conversion occurs. After passing through the respective half-wave plates (HWP), the down-converted photons are coupled into optical fibers and combined at a fused 50/50 fiber coupler, thus forming a Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer Mandel . Since optical fiber deforms polarization states, one of the arms of the interferometer contains a polarization controller to match the polarizations of signal and idler beams at the coupler. The polarization controller consists of several loops of fiber acting as a set of a half-wave plate and two quarter-wave plates. Single-photon counting modules (employing silicon avalanche photodiodes with quantum efficiency $`\eta =51\%`$) are placed at the output ports of the coupler and electronics measure their coincidence rate. With this setup, visibilities exceeding 98 % were reached. Higher visibilities could not be reached due to the fact that the splitting ratio of the fiber coupler was not exactly 50/50 and due to the imperfections of the half-wave plates. A typical Hong-Ou-Mandel dip is shown in Fig. 2. Different time delays were generated by moving the coupling lens L2 and the tip of the fiber towards the nonlinear crystal. Moving the coupling stage $`200\mu `$m away from the center of the dip also served to measure the coincidence rate $`C_{200}`$ on the shoulder for normalization purposes (it represents a half of the impinging-pair rate). According to Eq. (1) the overlap is calculated from measured data as follows:

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _A\rho _B)=12\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}(\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\rho _A\rho _B)=1\frac{C_0}{C_{200}},$$
(4)
where $`C_0`$ is a coincidence rate when the arms of the interferometer are balanced.

Each data point at presented plots has been derived from 50–200 one-second measurement periods. On average, 3300 coincidences per second were measured on the shoulder away from the dip. Statistical errors are smaller than the symbols of points in the graphs. Other errors stem from the non-unit visibility and optical-path fluctuations. The accuracy of polarization-angle settings was better than $`\pm 0.3^{}`$.

The main results of this Letter are shown in Figs. 3–6. First we measured the overlap of two pure states. Generated downconverted photon pairs were linearly polarized in the vertical direction. The polarization of photons in Arm 1 was kept fixed and the polarization angle $`\theta `$ of photons in Arm 2 was varied by rotating the half-wave plate HWP2. Thus we measured the overlap between the states $`|V`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |V+\mathrm{sin}\theta |H`$. The experimental results shown in Fig. 3 are in very good agreement with the theoretically expected dependence $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ that is also plotted in Fig. 3.

In the next round of the measurements we simultaneously changed the polarization states of both photons by rotating both half-wave plates. In the first arrangement, both photons were linearly polarized in the same direction $`\theta `$ after passing through the half-wave plates and one would expect the overlap to be equal to one for all $`\theta `$. In the second arrangement the two photons were linearly polarized in perpendicular directions, hence their polarization states were orthogonal and the theory predicts $`F=0`$ for all $`\theta `$.

However, a different behavior was observed – see Fig. 4. The dependence of the overlap on angle $`\theta `$ can be explained by the modification of the polarization state inside the fibers due to birefringence and other effects. This effect must be compensated for by the polarization controller whose proper setting should ensure that if the two photons enter the fibers in the identical polarization states, then they also arrive at the fiber coupler in identical polarization states. It is relatively easy to satisfy this condition for some chosen basis states, say $`|H`$ and $`|V`$, for which the visibility of the dip is tuned to maximum by manipulating the polarization controllers; however, this does not guarantee that the above condition will be satisfied for any polarization state. What happens in the fibers is that the horizontally polarized photon acquires certain non-zero phase shift with respect to the vertically polarized one. This shift is different, in general, for the fiber in Arm 1 and Arm 2. Therefore, the polarization of the two photons at the coupler is not the same even if the input polarization states are identical. However, this phase shift does not play any role if at least one of the photons is in the basis state $`|H`$ or $`|V`$. Due to the technical difficulties with the fiber polarization controller, we were not able to compensate for such phase shifts. The phenomenon can be described by an effective phase shift $`\varphi `$ of one of the input polarization states. In our setup, we thus effectively prepare the following polarization states of photons,

$`|\psi _1`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\theta |V+\mathrm{sin}\theta |H,`$
$`|\psi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\vartheta |V+\mathrm{sin}\vartheta |H,`$ (5)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\vartheta `$ are controlled by rotating the half-wave plates, and the fixed phase shift $`\varphi `$ is a parameter of our apparatus. The outcomes of measurements with $`\vartheta =\theta `$ and $`\vartheta =\theta +\pi /2`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The formulas for the overlaps read:

$`F_{||}`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2),`$
$`F_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2).`$ (6)
The solid lines in Fig. 4 display the best fits of the form $`A+B\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )`$, with $`A_{}=0`$, $`B_{}=0.112`$, $`A_{||}=0.992`$, and $`B_{||}=0.107`$. A very good agreement between the theory (6) and experimental data is observed. From the fit we can extract the absolute value of the phase shift, $`|\varphi |=39.4^{}\pm 0.3^{}`$. In the future experiment, we plan to insert a Pockels cell between the half-wave plate HWP1 and the fiber which will allow us to compensate for the phase shift $`\varphi `$ and vary it at will.

So far we have focused on the overlap of two pure states. Our device can also be used to measure the fidelity of a mixed state with respect to a pure state or the overlap of two mixed states. The mixed state $`\rho `$ was created as a mixture of three pure states $`|V`$, $`|X`$ and $`|Y`$,

$$\rho =p|VV|+\frac{1p}{2}(|XX|+|YY|),$$
(7)
where $`|X`$ and $`|Y`$ stand for two mutually orthogonal polarization states. In the experiment, states $`|X`$ and $`|Y`$ were generated by setting $`\theta =45^{}`$ and $`\theta =45^{}`$, respectively. The measured dependence of the fidelity $`F=\psi |\rho |\psi `$ on the parameter $`p`$ is shown in Fig. 5 for two different pure states $`|V`$ and $`|A=(|V+|H)/\sqrt{2}`$.

Let us now turn our attention to the overlap of two mixed states. A particularly interesting case occurs if $`\rho _\mathrm{A}=\rho _\mathrm{B}=\rho `$ because the overlap is then equal to the purity of $`\rho `$, $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho _\mathrm{A}\rho _\mathrm{B})=\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^2)`$. To demonstrate this, we prepared both photons in the same mixed state (7) following the procedure described above. The measured purity is plotted in Fig. 6 as a function of $`p`$. If we know the purity $`P`$ of the qubit state $`\rho `$, we can immediately determine the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ from the formula

$$\lambda _{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{2P1}).$$
(8)
Our experimental setup thus enables a direct estimation of the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$ without the necessity to reconstruct the whole density matrix provided that two copies of $`\rho `$ are available simultaneously for a joint measurement on $`\rho \rho `$. The obtained eigenvalues are plotted in Fig. 6. They are in good agreement with the theoretically expected behavior. The largest errors of eigenvalues occur when $`\rho `$ is close to the maximally mixed state where $`P1/2`$ and a small error in $`P`$ causes a large error in $`\lambda `$ as can be deduced from Eq. (8). Note also that if we know the spectrum of $`\rho `$, then we can determine several important characteristics of $`\rho `$ such as the von Neumann entropy $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho )=_{j=1}^2\lambda _j\mathrm{ln}\lambda _j`$.

Finally, we experimentally determined the overlap of two different mixed states $`\rho _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{B}`$ of the form (7). The results for several different parameters $`p_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`p_\mathrm{B}`$ are summarized in Table 1. If we combine these data with the direct measurement of the purity of states $`\rho _\mathrm{A}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{B}`$, we can calculate the Hilbert-Schmidt distance $`d(\rho _\mathrm{A},\rho _\mathrm{B})`$ from Eq. (2) – the results are also shown in Table 1.

As mentioned in the introduction, our experimental device can also serve as a “quantum multimeter” FiDuFi . The polarization state of one input photon, $`|\psi `$, represents a program (it determines the measurement basis spanned by $`|\psi `$ and its orthogonal counterpart $`|\psi _{}`$). The other input photon represents the measured qubit (in some “unknown” state $`|\phi `$). A coincident detection corresponds to the measurement result “one”, a detection at only one of the detectors corresponds to the measurement result “two”. The probabilities of the results “one” and “two”, respectively, read: $`p_{,||}(\psi ,\phi )=\left[1|\psi |\phi |^2\right]/2`$. Of course, in reality the performance of the multimeter is impaired by the low detection efficiency. Nevertheless, we can still verify the predicted fidelity of such a multimeter. It is given by the formula FiDuFi :

$$F(\psi )=\frac{1}{2}\left[p_{||}(\psi ,\psi )+p_{}(\psi ,\psi _{})\right].$$
(9)
As we can measure the overlaps, we can also determine this function. For the three program states of the form $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |V+\mathrm{sin}\theta |H`$, the corresponding fidelities are shown in the following table:    $`\theta `$: $`0^{}`$ $`45^{}`$ $`45^{}`$    $`F`$: 0.742 0.748 0.748   The deviation from the theoretical value $`3/4`$ is mainly due to the non-unit visibility.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic, projects LN00A015 and RN19982003012.