format: text

text:
# COMPUTATIONS OF TURAEV-VIRO-OCNEANU INVARIANTS OF 3-MANIFOLDS FROM SUBFACTORS

## 1 . Introduction

At the beginning of the 1990’s, a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional unitary topological quantum field theory, in short, TQFT, was introduced by A. Ocneanu  by using a type II1 subfactor with finite index and finite depth as a generalization of the Turaev-Viro TQFT  which was derived from the quantum group $`U_q(sl(2,))`$ at certain roots of unity. We call such a TQFT a Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT. K. Suzuki and the second author  have found a Verlinde basis in the sense of  for the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT from an $`E_6`$-subfactor, and computed the invariant for basic $`3`$-manifolds including lens spaces $`L(p,q)`$, where $`p,q`$ are less than or equal to $`12`$, and showed that the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from the $`E_6`$-subfactor distinguishes the lens spaces $`L(3,1)`$ and $`L(3,2)`$. So, the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant distinguishes orientations for specific manifolds. That is remarkable result since the original Turaev-Viro invariant cannot distinguish orientations. (More precisely, it coincides with the square of absolute value of the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant .)

In , we showed that a Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT $`Z`$ from a subfactor has a Verlinde basis and that the invariant $`Z(M)`$ of a closed oriented $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ is given by the formula

$$Z(M)=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0}{\overset{m}{}}S_{0i_1}\mathrm{}S_{0i_r}J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r),$$

if $`M`$ is obtained from the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along a framed link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_r`$. Here, $`S_{ij}`$ is the matrix component of $`Z(S)`$ with respect to a Verlinde basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ of $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$, $`S`$ is the orientation preserving diffeomorphism on $`S^1\times S^1`$ corresponding to the modular transformation $`S:\tau 1/\tau `$, and $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0,1,\mathrm{},m)`$ are framed link invariants of $`L`$ determined by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of the complement of $`L`$ in $`S^3`$. By the above formula, if we want to compute the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of a closed 3-manifold $`M`$, we need to compute the $`S`$-matrix and the framed link invariants $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$. Since we know that the method of a concrete construction of Verlinde basis (see ), we can compute the $`S`$-matrix with respect to this Verlinde basis in principle. So, if a $`3`$-manifold $`M`$ is obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along an “easy” framed link $`L`$, then we can compute the $`S`$-matrix, the framed link invariants $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ and $`Z(M)`$.

The concept of a tube algebra, which plays a crucial role in the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT, was first introduced by Ocneanu . In analysis of the Longo-Rehren subfactor, which corresponds to the center construction in the sense of Drinfel’d, M. Izumi  formulated a tube algebra in terms of sectors for a finite closed system of endomorphisms of a type III subfactor. He also explicitly gave an action of $`SL(2,)`$ on the center of this tube algebra in the language of sectors, and derived several formulas on Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of lens spaces for concretely given subfactors . However, it is not clear how the $`S`$-matrix in Izumi’s sector theory and the $`S`$-matrix in the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT are related.

In this paper, we establish a rigorous correspondence between the two tube algebras, that one comes from the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT introduced by Ocneanu and another comes from the sector theory introduced by Izumi, and construct a canonical isomorphism between the centers of the two tube algebras, which is a conjugate linear isomorphism preserving the products of the two algebras and commuting with the actions of $`SL(2,)`$ (see Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.3). Moreover, we compute Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants from several subfactors for basic $`3`$-manifolds including lens spaces and Brieskorn $`3`$-manifolds by using Izumi’s data written in terms of sectors  and using the Dehn surgery formula. One of the most important results on computations is that the $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ and the Poincaré homology $`3`$-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,5)`$ are distinguished by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from the exotic subfactor constructed by Haagerup and Asaeda , and $`L(p,1)`$ and $`L(p,2)`$ are distinguished by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`/p`$ for $`p=3,5`$ . From this fact, it is natural for us to expect that the lens spaces $`L(7,1)`$ and $`L(7,2)`$ are distinguished by a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`/7`$. However, we do not know yet that there exists such a subfactor.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu topological quantum field theory from a subfactor. In Section 3, we discuss on the fusion algebra associated with the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT . The product of the fusion algebra and the representation of $`SL(2,)`$ associated with the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT are concretely calculated by using singular triangulations. In Section 4, we construct a conjugate linear isomorphism between Izumi’s tube algebra and Ocneanu’s one preserving the products of algebras and commuting with the actions of $`SL(2,)`$. In Section 5, we calculate Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants from several subfactors for some basic $`3`$-manifolds including lens spaces and Brieskorn $`3`$-manifolds based on Izumi’s data using the Dehn surgery formula, and derive formulas in terms of the $`S`$\- and $`T`$-matrices.

Throughout this paper, we assume that a closed oriented surface is geometrically realized as a polyhedron. We use the following notations. The $`r`$-simplex with vertices $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_r`$ in an Euclidean space is denoted by $`|v_0v_1\mathrm{}v_r|`$, and the simplicial complex consisting of all faces of $`|v_0v_1\mathrm{}v_r|`$ is denoted by $`K(|v_0v_1\mathrm{}v_r|)`$. For a $`2`$-simplex $`|v_0v_1|`$ we denote by $`v_0,v_1`$ the oriented edge with the direction from $`v_1`$ to $`v_0`$.

We refer to Evans and Kawahigashi’s book  as a general reference on subfactor theory, and refer to Turaev’s book  as a general reference on topological quantum field theory.

## 2 . Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT’s from Subfactors

In this section, we review the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT’s arising from subfactors  in terms of sectors. It is formulated by a similar method of Turaev and Viro  and by using initial data derived from subfactors. A theory of sectors in subfactor theory was first established by Longo  based on ideas in quantum field theory, and it was developed by Izumi . To describe the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT’s using sectors, we recall some notions in subfactor theory.

Let $`M`$ be an infinite factor. We denote by $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ the set of $``$-endomorphisms $`\rho :MM`$ such that the index of the subfactor $`\rho (M)M`$ is finite. For $`\rho ,\sigma \text{End}(M)_0`$ the intertwiner space $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$ is a vector space over $``$ defined by

$$(\rho ,\sigma ):=\{VM|V\rho (x)=\sigma (x)V\text{for}xM\}.$$

A $``$-endomorphism $`\rho \text{End}(M)_0`$ is called irreducible, if $`(\rho ,\rho )=id_M`$. If $`\rho `$ is irreducible, then for any $`\sigma \text{End}(M)_0`$ the intertwiner space $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$ is a Hilbert space with the inner product defined by

$$V,W=W^{}V,V,W(\rho ,\sigma ).$$

For $`\rho \text{End}(M)_0`$ we denote by $`d(\rho )`$ the square root of the minimal index of $`M\rho (M)`$, and call it the statistical dimension of $`\rho `$. It is known that for every $`\rho \text{End}(M)_0`$ there exists a $``$-endomorphism $`\overline{\rho }\text{End}(M)_0`$ and a pair of intertwiners $`R_\rho (id,\overline{\rho }\rho )`$, $`\overline{R}_\rho (id,\rho \overline{\rho })`$ such that

$$\overline{R}_\rho ^{}\rho (R_\rho )=R_\rho ^{}\overline{\rho }(\overline{R}_\rho )=\frac{1}{d(\rho )},R_\rho ^{}R_\rho =\overline{R}_\rho ^{}\overline{R}_\rho =1.$$

Let $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ be two elements in $`\text{End}(M)_0`$. We say that $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are equivalent if there exists a unitary $`uM`$ such that $`u\rho _1(x)=\rho _2(x)u`$ for all $`xM`$. We denote by $`\text{Sect}(M)`$ the equivalence classes of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$, and denote by $`[\rho ]`$ the class of $`\rho \text{End}(M)_0`$ in $`\text{Sect}(M)`$. Each element in $`\text{Sect}(M)`$ is called a sector of $`M`$. The set $`\text{Sect}(M)`$ becomes a $``$-semiring over $``$ with the sum $`[\rho ][\sigma ]`$, the product $`[\rho ][\sigma ]=[\rho \sigma ]`$ and the conjugation $`\overline{[\rho ]}=[\overline{\rho }]`$ .

A finite subset $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\rho _0,\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _n\}`$ of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ is called a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ closed under sector operations if the following four conditions are satisfied .

1. $`[\rho _i]=[\rho _j]`$ if and only if $`i=j`$.
2. $`\rho _0=id_M`$.
3. for all $`i`$ there exists $`j`$ such that $`\overline{[\rho _i]}=[\rho _j]`$.
4. there exist non-negative integers $`N_{ij}^k`$ such that

$$[\rho _i][\rho _j]=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}N_{ij}^k[\rho _k].$$

We note that the condition (iv) is equivalent to the following condition.

1. for all $`i,j,k=0,1,\mathrm{},n`$, there exists an orthonormal basis $`\{(T_{ij}^k)_\nu \}_{\nu =0}^{N_{ij}^k}`$ of $`(\rho _k,\rho _i\rho _j)`$ such that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N_{ij}^k}{}}(T_{ij}^k)_\nu (T_{ij}^k)_\nu ^{}=1,\rho _i\rho _j=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_{ij}^k}{}}(T_{ij}^k)_\nu \rho _k(T_{ij}^k)_\nu ^{}.$$

If $`NM`$ is an inclusion of infinite factors with finite index and finite depth, then we can obtain a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ closed under sector operations by taking irreducible components in $`([\iota ]\overline{[\iota ]})^n`$, $`([\iota ]\overline{[\iota ]})^n[\iota ]`$, $`\overline{[\iota ]}([\iota ]\overline{[\iota ]})^n`$ and $`(\overline{[\iota ]}[\iota ])^n`$, where $`\iota :NM`$ is the inclusion map (See  for detail). We call it a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from $`NM`$.

Frobenius reciprocities for sectors were established by Izumi  as an analogue to Frobenius reciprocities for group representations and bimodules with left and right actions of II1-factors . Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. For $`\rho ,\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ denote the intertwiner space $`(\zeta ,\rho \eta )`$. Then, two conjugate linear maps $`(\stackrel{~}{})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta :_{\rho \eta }^\zeta _{\overline{\rho }\zeta }^\eta `$ and $`(\widehat{})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta :_{\rho \eta }^\zeta _{\zeta \overline{\eta }}^\rho `$ are defined by

$$(\stackrel{~}{A})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta =\sqrt{\frac{d(\rho )d(\eta )}{d(\zeta )}}\overline{\rho }(A^{})R_\rho ,(\widehat{A})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta =\sqrt{\frac{d(\rho )d(\eta )}{d(\zeta )}}A^{}\rho (\overline{R}_\eta )$$

for all $`A_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$, respectively. They give rise to an action of the symmetric group $`S_3`$ of degree $`3`$ between the following spaces:

$$_{\rho \eta }^\zeta ,_{\overline{\zeta }\rho }^{\overline{\eta }},_{\eta \overline{\zeta }}^{\overline{\rho }},_{\overline{\eta }\overline{\rho }}^{\overline{\zeta }},_{\overline{\rho }\zeta }^\eta ,_{\zeta \overline{\eta }}^\rho .$$

The maps $`(\stackrel{~}{})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ and $`(\widehat{})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ are called the (left) Frobenius reciprocity maps . For simplicity, we frequently write $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and $`\widehat{A}`$ instead of $`(\stackrel{~}{A})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ and $`(\widehat{A})_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$, respectively.

We will describe the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT’s arising from subfactors in the setting of sectors . Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. We fix an orthonormal basis $`_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ of $`_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ for each $`\rho ,\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

A simplicial complex $`𝒦`$ which edges are oriented is called a locally ordered complex, if there is no cyclic order for the $`3`$ edges of any triangle in $`𝒦`$. By a color of a locally ordered complex $`𝒦`$, we mean a map

$$\xi :\{\text{the oriented edges and the triangles in }𝒦\text{ }\}\mathrm{\Delta }\underset{\rho ,\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}_{\rho \eta }^\zeta $$

satisfying the following two conditions.

1. $`\xi (E)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for each oriented edge $`E`$ in $`𝒦`$.
2. If $`\xi (v_0,v_1)=\rho ,\xi (v_1,v_2)=\eta ,\xi (v_0,v_2)=\zeta `$ for a triangle $`|v_0v_1v_2|`$ in $`𝒦`$, then $`\xi (|v_0v_1v_2|)_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$.

We follow the convention that $`\xi (E)=\overline{\xi (E)}`$ for each oriented edge $`E`$ in $`𝒦`$, where $`E`$ denotes the same edge $`E`$ with opposite orientation.

For a color $`\xi `$ we define a positive real number $`d(\xi )`$ by

$$d(\xi )=\underset{e\text{ : edges of }K}{}d(\xi (e)).$$

Let $`X`$ be a compact oriented $`3`$-manifold possibly with boundary. We fix a locally ordered complex $`𝒦`$ that is a triangulation of $`X`$, and choose a locally ordered complex $`𝒯`$ that is a triangulation of $`X`$ satisfying $`𝒯=𝒦`$. To a color $`\phi `$ of $`𝒯`$ and a tetrahedron $`\sigma =|v_0v_1v_2v_3|`$ in $`𝒯`$ depicted as in Figure 1, we assign a complex number defined by

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{d(i)d(j)}}A^{}B^{}a(C)D,$$

where $`\phi (v_0,v_1)=a`$, $`\phi (v_1,v_2)=b`$, $`\phi (v_2,v_3)=c`$, $`\phi (v_0,v_2)=i`$, $`\phi (v_1,v_3)=j`$, $`\phi (v_0,v_3)=k`$, $`\phi (|v_1v_2v_3|)=A`$, $`\phi (|v_0v_1v_2|)=B`$, $`\phi (|v_1v_2v_3|)=C`$, $`\phi (|v_0v_1v_3|)=D`$ (see Figure 2). We denote the above complex number or its complex conjugate by $`W(\sigma ;\phi )`$ according to compatibility of orientations for $`M`$ and $`\sigma `$. Here, the orientation for $`\sigma `$ is given by the order $`v_0<v_1<v_2<v_3`$.

For a color $`\xi `$ of $`𝒯`$, we set

$$Z(X;𝒯,\xi ):=\lambda ^{\mathrm{}𝒯^{(0)}+\frac{\mathrm{}(𝒯)^{(0)}}{2}}\sqrt{d(\xi )}\underset{\begin{array}{c}\phi \text{:color of }𝒯\\ \phi |_𝒯=\xi \end{array}}{}d(\phi |_{𝒯𝒯})\underset{\sigma :\text{tetrahedra}}{}W(\sigma ;\phi ),$$

where $`𝒯^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒯^{(0)}`$ are the sets of vertices of $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒯`$, respectively, and $`\lambda =\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}d(\rho _i)^2`$, which is called the global index of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is proved that $`Z(X;𝒯,\xi )`$ does not depend on the choice of orthonormal bases $`_{\rho \eta }^\zeta `$ $`(\rho ,\eta ,\zeta \mathrm{\Delta })`$, and the choice of triangulations $`𝒯`$ of $`X`$ such that $`𝒯=𝒦`$ . In particular, if $`X`$ is closed, then $`Z(X;𝒯,\xi )`$ is a topological invariant of the closed oriented $`3`$-manifold $`X`$. So we may denote it by $`Z(X)`$, and refer this invariant as the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of $`X`$.

The method of the construction of $`Z(X;𝒯,\xi )`$ as mentioned above gives rise to a functor $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that satisfies the axioms of topological quantum field theory as posed by Atiyah . (Although the same functor was denoted by $`Z_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the previous paper , we use the notation $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for such a functor in order to improve the appearance of notations used later.) We briefly describe the method of constructing such a functor $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ following Turaev and Viro’s paper  and Yetter’s paper .

Let $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ denote the set of locally ordered complexes that are triangulations of a closed oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For $`𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we denote by $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)`$ the $``$-vector space freely spanned by the colors of $`𝒦`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{}`$, then we set $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦):=`$. By a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional cobordism with triangulated boundary we mean a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional cobordism $`(X;\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$ between oriented closed surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ triangulated by locally ordered complexes $`𝒦_1`$ and $`𝒦_2`$, respectively. We denote it by $`(X;𝒦_1,𝒦_2)`$. For such a cobordism $`W=(X;𝒦_1,𝒦_2)`$, a $``$-linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W:V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1;𝒦_1)V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2;𝒦_2)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_W(\xi _1)=\underset{\xi _2\text{ : the colors of }𝒦_2}{}Z(X;𝒯,\xi _1\xi _2)\xi _2,$$

for all colors $`\xi _1`$ of $`𝒦_1`$, where $`𝒯`$ is a triangulation of $`X`$ such that $`𝒯=𝒦_1𝒦_2`$, and $`\xi _1\xi _2`$ is the color of $`𝒯`$ given by $`(\xi _1\xi _2)|_{𝒦_i}=\xi _i(i=1,2)`$.

For a locally ordered complex $`𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and a stellar subdivision $`𝒦^{}`$ of $`𝒦`$, which is denoted by $`𝒦^{}𝒦`$, we have a cobordism with triangulated boundary $`Id_{𝒦^{},𝒦}:=(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1];𝒦^{},𝒦)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{1\}`$ are triangulated by $`𝒦^{}`$ and $`𝒦`$, respectively. This cobordism induces the $``$-linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦^{},𝒦}}:V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦^{})`$. Let $`\iota _𝒦:V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)_{𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })}V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)`$ be the canonical injection, and $`W(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ the subspace of $`_{𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })}V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)`$ spanned by

$$\{\iota _𝒦^{}(x)(\iota _𝒦\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒦^{},𝒦})(x)|xV(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦^{}),𝒦,𝒦^{}𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma }),𝒦^{}𝒦\}.$$

We consider the quotient space

$$Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\underset{𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })}{}V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)/W(\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}^2=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}`$, the following lemma holds.

###### Lemma 2.1 (Yetter ).

Let $`u_𝒦:V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be the composition of $`\iota _𝒦`$ and the natural projection $`_{𝒦𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma })}V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Then, $`u_𝒦`$ is surjective and $`\text{Ker}u_𝒦=\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}`$. In particular, $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is finite-dimensional, and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)/\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}`$ as vector spaces.

By the above lemma, we can verify that the linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_W`$ induces a linear map $`Z_W^\mathrm{\Delta }:Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$ for each cobordism with triangulated boundary $`W`$, and $`Z_W^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not depend on the choice of triangulations.

Let $`f:(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,𝒦_1)(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,𝒦_2)`$ be an isomorphism between closed oriented surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ triangulated by locally ordered complexes $`𝒦_1`$ and $`𝒦_2`$, respectively. Then, a $``$-linear isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }(f):V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1;𝒦_1)V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2;𝒦_2)`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(f)(\xi _1)=\xi _1f^1,$$

for all colors $`\xi _1`$ of $`𝒦_1`$. Here, $`\xi _1f^1`$ is a color of $`𝒦_2`$ such that $`(\xi _1f^1)(E)=\xi _1(f^1(E))`$ for each edge and face $`E`$ of $`𝒦_2`$.

Let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ be an orientation preserving PL-homeomorphism between closed oriented surfaces. For $`𝒦_i𝒫(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)(i=1,2)`$, there exists a refinement $`𝒦_i^{}`$ of $`𝒦_i`$ such that $`f`$ is an isomorphism from $`𝒦_1^{}`$ to $`𝒦_2^{}`$ as a locally ordered complex. Then, we have a linear map

$$f_\mathrm{\#}:=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦_2^{},𝒦_2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(f)\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦_1,𝒦_1^{}}}.$$

By Lemma 2.1, we can verify that the linear map $`f_\mathrm{\#}`$ induces the linear isomorphism $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(f):Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$, and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(f)`$ does not depend on the choice of triangulations.

In the above manner, we have a functor $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that assigns to each closed oriented surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the $``$-vector space $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, to each $`(2+1)`$-dimensional cobordism $`W`$ the $``$-linear map $`Z_W^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and to each orientation preserving PL-homeomorphism $`f`$ between closed oriented surfaces the $``$-linear isomorphism $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(f)`$. This functor $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies the axioms for $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT. Furthermore, the TQFT $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is unitary, since $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ becomes a Hilbert space with the inner product induced from the hermitian form on $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma };𝒦)`$, which is defined by

$$\xi _0,\xi _1_{TQFT}=Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,1];𝒦\times [0,1],\xi _0\xi _1)$$

for all pairs of colors $`\xi _0`$ and $`\xi _1`$ of $`𝒦`$ .

## 3 . Fusion Algebras Associated with Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT’s

For a short while, we consider a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT $`Z`$ in a general situation apart from subfactors. We describe the definition of the fusion algebra in the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT $`Z`$, and introduce our version of Verlinde basis of $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$ (see Definition 3.1).

Let $`W`$ be the cobordism $`(Y\times S^1;\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3)`$, where $`Y`$ is the $`3`$-holed sphere in $`^3`$ depicted in Figure 3 and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i=C_i\times S^1`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. Then, $`W`$ induces a linear map $`Z_W:Z(S^1\times S^1)Z(S^1\times S^1)Z(S^1\times S^1)`$. It can be easily verified that the map $`Z_W`$ gives an associative algebra structure on $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$. The identity element of this algebra is given by $`Z_{W_0}(1)`$, where $`W_0:=(D^2\times S^1;\mathrm{},S^1\times S^1)`$. We call this algebra the fusion algebra associated with $`Z`$.

Let us recall that the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{S^1\times S^1}`$ of the torus $`S^1\times S^1`$ is isomorphic to the group $`SL(2,)`$ of integral $`2\times 2`$-matrices with determinant $`1`$. It is well-known that this group is generated by $`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ with relations $`S^4=I,(ST)^3=S^2`$. The matrices $`S`$ and $`T`$ correspond to the orientation preserving diffeomorphisms from $`S^1\times S^1`$ to $`S^1\times S^1`$ which are defined by

$$S(z,w)=(\overline{w},z),T(z,w)=(zw,w)$$
(3.1)
for all $`(z,w)S^1\times S^1`$, respectively, where we regard $`S^1`$ as the set of complex numbers of absolute value $`1`$. To define the Verlinde basis, we need one more orientation preserving diffeomorphism $`U:S^1\times S^1S^1\times S^1`$ defined by $`U(z,w)=(z,\overline{w})`$ for all $`(z,w)S^1\times S^1`$ (see Figure 4).

###### Definition 3.1 ().

Let $`Z`$ be a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT. A basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ of $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$ is said to be a Verlinde basis if it has the following properties.

1. $`v_0`$ is the identity element of the fusion algebra associated with $`Z`$.
2. 1. $`Z(S)`$ is represented by a unitary and symmetric matrix with respect to the basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$.
    2. $`Z(S)^2v_0=v_0`$, and $`Z(S)^2v_i\{v_j\}_{j=0}^m`$ for all $`i`$.
    3. We define $`S_{ji}`$ by $`Z(S)v_i=_{i=0}^mS_{ji}v_j`$. Then,

    1. $`S_{i0}0`$ for all $`i`$.
        2. $`N_{ij}^k:=_{l=0}^m\frac{S_{il}S_{jl}\overline{S_{lk}}}{S_{0l}}(i,j,k=0,1,\mathrm{},m)`$ coincide with the structure constants of the fusion algebra with respect to $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$.
3. $`Z(T)`$ is represented by a diagonal matrix with respect to the basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$.
4. $`Z(U)v_i=v_i^{}`$ for all $`i`$ under the identification $`Z(S^1\times S^1)Z(S^1\times S^1)^{}`$.

###### Remarks 3.2.

1. If $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ is a Verlinde basis, then $`S_{i0}`$ is a real number for all $`i`$.

2. A Verlinde basis is unique up to order of elements, since $`w_i=S_{0i}_{j=0}^m\overline{S_{ji}}v_j`$ $`(i=0,1,\mathrm{},m)`$ are all orthogonal primitive idempotents in the fusion algebra satisfying $`1=w_0+w_1+\mathrm{}+w_m`$. This fact follows from that the $`S`$-matrix diagonalizes the fusion rules in conformal field theory .

3. The map $`\overline{}:\{0,1,\mathrm{},m\}\{0,1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ defined by $`Z(S)^2v_i=v_{\overline{i}}`$ is an involution satisfying $`\overline{0}=0`$.

4. The last condition (iv) was introduced in  and modified in .

We go back to the setting of subfactors. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. To calculate the product of the fusion algebra and the representation of $`SL(2,)`$ associated with the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ arising from subfactors, we show that the fusion algebra associated with $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be regarded as a subalgebra of the tube algebra, which plays a crucial role in the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu TQFT. We review the definition of a tube algebra  in $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which was first introduced by Ocneanu .

The tube algebra $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a finite-dimensional $`C^{}`$-algebra over $``$ which is defined by

$$\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{\rho ,\xi ,\zeta ,\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}_{\rho \eta }^\zeta _{\eta \xi }^\zeta $$

as $``$-vector spaces. The product of $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$(X_1X_2)(Y_1Y_2)=\delta _{\xi ,\eta }\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{d(\rho )d(\zeta )}d(\xi )}\underset{\begin{array}{c}r,c\mathrm{\Delta }\\ Z_1_{\rho c}^r\\ Z_2_{c\zeta }^r\end{array}}{}Z(D^2\times S^1;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2;\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}{}^{\zeta ,c,r,Z_1,Z_2})Z_1Z_2$$

for $`X_1X_2_{\rho a}^p_{a\xi }^p`$, $`Y_1Y_2_{\eta b}^q_{b\zeta }^q`$, where $`\delta _{\xi ,\eta }`$ is Kronecker’s delta, $`\lambda `$ is the global index of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`_{\rho c}^r`$ and $`_{c\zeta }^r`$ are orthonormal bases of $`_{\rho c}^r`$ and $`_{c\zeta }^r`$, respectively, and $`Z(D^2\times S^1;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2;\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}{}^{\zeta ,c,r,Z_1,Z_2})`$ is the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of the solid torus $`D^2\times S^1`$ triangulated by $`𝒯`$ with colored boundary illustrated as in Figure 5. (Here, the two triangles shaded inside are identified.) We remark that the normalization of the product is slightly different from one in Ocneanu’s definition .

Let $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ denote the subalgebra of $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined by

$$V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)=\underset{\rho ,\zeta ,\eta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}_{\rho \eta }^\zeta _{\eta \rho }^\zeta .$$

We regard $`S^1\times S^1`$ as a quotient space obtained from a square by identifying the opposite sides. Then, $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ is canonically identified with $`V(S^1\times S^1;𝒦)`$ as a vector space, where $`𝒦`$ is the locally ordered complex depicted in Figure 6 that gives a singular triangulation of $`S^1\times S^1`$.

Under the identification $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)=V(S^1\times S^1;𝒦)`$, each element $`X_1X_2`$ in $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ such that $`X_1_{\rho a}^p`$ and $`X_2_{a\rho }^p`$, corresponds to the color of $`𝒦`$ depicted in Figure 7.

Now, we have two products on $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$. One is obtained from the product of the tube algebra $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by restricting to $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$. Another comes from the product of the fusion algebra $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$. They are not same, but are closely related as follows.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Let $`P:V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ be the conjugate linear map defined by $`P(X_1X_2)=X_2X_1`$ for all $`X_1_{\rho a}^p`$ and $`X_2_{a\rho }^p`$. Then, the product $`m_{\text{tube}}`$ of the subalgebra $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ of $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the product $`m_{\text{fusion}}`$ of the fusion algebra associated to $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are related by the following commutative diagram.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{m_{\text{tube}}}{}& V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ PP& & P& & \\ V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& & V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ uu& & u& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{m_{\text{fusion}}}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\end{array}$$

Here, $`u`$ is the universal arrow associated to $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ defined as in Lemma 2.1.

Proof. The $`3`$-holed sphere $`Y`$ in $`^3`$ is obtained as an identifying space of a regular heptagon. It is triangulated as in the right-hand side of Figure 8.

Therefore, the $`3`$-manifold $`Y\times S^1`$ is realized in $`^3`$ by the (singular) locally ordered complex $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ illustrated in Figure 9 (the cube with vertices $`\underset{¯}{v}_0,\underset{¯}{v}_1,\underset{¯}{v}_4,\underset{¯}{v}_5`$, $`\overline{v}_0,\overline{v}_1,\overline{v}_4,\overline{v}_5`$ and the cube with vertices $`\underset{¯}{v}_2,\underset{¯}{v}_3,\underset{¯}{v}_5,\underset{¯}{v}_6`$, $`\overline{v}_2,\overline{v}_3,\overline{v}_5,\overline{v}_6`$ are decomposed as product complexes, respectively).

Hence, the product of the fusion algebra of $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by the linear map

$$Z_{\text{fusion}}^\mathrm{\Delta }:Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1),$$

which is induced from the cobordism with triangulated boundary

$$W_{\text{fusion}}:=(Y\times S^1;(C_1\times S^1,𝒦_1)(C_2\times S^1,𝒦_2),(C_3\times S^1,𝒦_3)),$$

where $`𝒦_i(i=1,2,3)`$ is the sub-complex of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ such that

$`𝒦_1`$ $`=K(|\underset{¯}{v_0}\overline{v_0}\overline{v_1}|)K(|\underset{¯}{v_0}\underset{¯}{v_1}\overline{v_1}|),`$
$`𝒦_2`$ $`=K(|\underset{¯}{v_2}\overline{v_2}\overline{v_3}|)K(|\underset{¯}{v_2}\underset{¯}{v_3}\overline{v_3}|),`$
$`𝒦_3`$ $`=K(|\underset{¯}{v_4}\overline{v_4}\overline{v_6}|)K(|\underset{¯}{v_4}\underset{¯}{v_6}\overline{v_6}|).`$
We note that $`𝒦_i`$ is a copy of $`𝒦`$ for each $`i=1,2,3`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_1,\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_2,`$ be the sub-complexes of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ depicted in Figure 10. The geometrical realizations of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_2`$ are $`S^1\times S^1\times [0,1]`$, and the geometrical realization of $``$ is $`H\times S^1`$, where $`H`$ is the quotient space obtained from a $`2`$-simplex by identifying its three vertices. Let $`Z(S^1\times S^1\times [0,1];{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})`$ and $`Z(H\times S^1;a,{}_{\rho ,p,X_1,X_2;\eta ,q,Y_1,Y_2}{}^{\zeta ,r,Z_1,Z_2})`$ be the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of $`S^1\times S^1\times [0,1]`$ triangulated by $`𝒦\times [0,1]`$ and of $`H\times S^1`$ triangulated by $``$ assigned colors to their boundaries as in Figure 11, respectively.

Then, the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of $`Y\times S^1`$ triangulated by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}`$ assigned colors as in Figure 12 to $`𝒦_1,𝒦_2,𝒦_3`$ is given by

$`Z(Y\times S^1;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2;\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}{}^{\zeta ,c,r,Z_1,Z_2})={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{d(c)}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\rho ^{},\eta ^{},p^{},q^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\\ X_1^{}_{\rho ^{}c}^p^{},X_2^{}_{c\rho ^{}}^p^{}\\ Y_1^{}_{\eta ^{}c}^q^{},Y_2^{}_{c\eta ^{}}^q^{}\end{array}}{}}Z(H\times S^1;c,{}_{\rho ^{},p^{},X_1^{},X_2^{};\eta ^{},q^{},Y_1^{},Y_2^{}}{}^{\zeta ,r,Z_1,Z_2})`$
$`\times Z(S^1\times S^1\times [0,1];{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\rho ^{},c,p^{},X_1^{},X_2^{}})Z(S^1\times S^1\times [0,1];{}_{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}{}^{\eta ^{},c,q^{},Y_1^{},Y_2^{}}).`$
Since

and

$$Z(H\times S^1;c,{}_{\rho ^{},p^{},X_1^{},X_2^{};\eta ^{},q^{},Y_1^{},Y_2^{}}{}^{\zeta ,r,Z_1,Z_2})=\frac{1}{d(c)}\overline{Z(D^2\times S^1;{}_{c,\rho ^{},p^{},X_2^{},X_1^{};c,\eta ^{},q^{},Y_2^{},Y_1^{}}{}^{c,\zeta ,r,Z_2^{},Z_1^{}})},$$

it follows that the following diagram commutes.

This implies that the diagram in the proposition is commutative. This completes the proof. ∎

Let $`S`$ and $`T`$ be the orientation preserving diffeomorphisms on $`S^1\times S^1`$ as in (3.1). We will compute the actions $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ on $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ by using the singular triangulation $`𝒦`$ of $`S^1\times S^1`$ depicted in Figure 6.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Let $`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}:V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1:V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ be the $``$-linear maps defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}(X_1X_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r\mathrm{\Delta }\\ Z_1_{\overline{a}\rho }^r\\ Z_2_{\rho \overline{a}}^r\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{d(p)d(r)}}{d(\rho )}}Z_2^{}\stackrel{~}{X}_2^{}\overline{a}(\widehat{X}_1)Z_1Z_1Z_2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1(X_1X_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r\mathrm{\Delta }\\ Z_1_{\rho p}^r\\ Z_2_{p\rho }^r\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{d(a)d(r)}}{d(p)}}Z_2^{}X_1^{}\rho (X_2)Z_1Z_1Z_2`$
for all $`X_1_{\rho a}^p`$ and $`X_2_{a\rho }^p`$. Then, the actions $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ on $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ are determined by the following commutative diagrams.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ u& & u& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1),\end{array}$$
(3.2)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1}{}& V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ u& & u& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(T)^1}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\end{array}$$
(3.3)
Here, $`u`$ is the universal arrow associated to $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ defined as in Lemma 2.1.

Proof. Let $`𝒦`$, $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ be the locally ordered complexes depicted in Figure 13 that give singular triangulations of $`S^1\times S^1`$ (the opposite sides are identified). By considering the lifts of $`S`$ and $`T`$ to the universal covering

$$^2S^1\times S^1,(x,y)(\text{exp}(2\pi iy),\text{exp}(2\pi ix)),$$

we see that $`S`$ and $`T^1`$ are simplicial maps from $`𝒦`$ to $`_1`$ and from $`𝒦`$ to $`_2`$, respectively.

So, for the color depicted in Figure 7, we have

Let $`S_\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`T_\mathrm{\#}^1`$ be the linear maps from $`V(S^1\times S^1;𝒦)`$ to $`V(S^1\times S^1;𝒦)`$ defined by

$$S_\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{_1,𝒦}\mathrm{\Phi }(S),T_\mathrm{\#}^1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{_2,𝒦}\mathrm{\Phi }(T^1).$$

Then we have

where $`Z(𝒯_1;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})`$ is the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of $`(S^1\times S^1)\times [0,1]`$ which boundary is triangulated by $`𝒦`$ and $`_1`$ assigned to its boundary the color depicted as in the left-hand side of Figure 14, and $`Z(𝒯_2;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})`$ is the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of $`(S^1\times S^1)\times [0,1]`$ which boundary is triangulated by $`𝒦`$ and $`_2`$ assigned to its boundary the color depicted as in the right-hand side of Figure 14.

By tetrahedral symmetry on quantum $`6j`$-symbols, it can be proved that

$$Z(𝒯_1;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})=Z(𝒯_2;{}_{\overline{a},p,\rho ,\stackrel{~}{X}_2,\widehat{X}_1}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}).$$

Let $`(𝒯_3;_2,𝒦)`$ be the cobordism obtained by gluing one tetrahedron to the bottom of $`𝒦\times [0,1]`$. Then, we have

$$Z(𝒯_2;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})=Z(𝒯_3;{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2}),$$

since the cobordism $`(𝒯_2;_2,𝒦)`$ is isomorphic to the cobordism $`(𝒯_3;_2,𝒦)`$ (see Figure 15).

Since

it follows that

This implies that $`S_\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}`$, and whence, the diagram (3.2) commutes.

By a similar argument, it is also proved that

and whence, $`T_\mathrm{\#}^1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{Id_{𝒦,𝒦}}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1`$. This proves that the diagram (3.3) commutes. ∎

We note that the group $`SL(2,)`$ is not only generated by $`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)`$, but also generated by $`S^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`T^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. The matrices $`S^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$ correspond to the orientation preserving diffeomorphisms from $`S^1\times S^1`$ to $`S^1\times S^1`$ defined by $`S^{}(z,w)=(w,\overline{z})`$ and $`T^{}(z,w)=(z,zw)`$ for all $`(z,w)S^1\times S^1`$, respectively. Since $`S^{}`$ and $`T^{}`$ has also the relations $`(S^{})^4=I,(S^{}T^{})^3=(S^{})^2`$, we have a group isomorphism $`Q:SL(2,)SL(2,)`$ such that $`Q(S)=S^{}`$ and $`Q(T)=T^{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Let $`\overline{P}:Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ be the conjugate linear isomorphism induced from $`P`$ defined as in Proposition 3.3. Then, the following diagram commutes for all $`RSL(2,)`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(R)}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ \overline{P}& & \overline{P}& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(R^{})}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\end{array}$$

Here, $`R^{}`$ denotes the image of $`R`$ by the group isomorphism $`Q:SL(2,)SL(2,)`$.

Proof. Let $`𝒦`$, $`_1^{}`$ and $`_2^{}`$ be the locally ordered complexes depicted in Figure 16 that give singular triangulations of $`S^1\times S^1`$ (the opposite sides are identified).

Since $`S^{}`$ and $`T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ are simplicial maps from $`𝒦`$ to $`_1^{}`$ and from $`𝒦`$ to $`_2^{}`$, respectively, we have

Thus, we have

where $`Z(𝒯_1^{};{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})`$ and $`Z(𝒯_2^{};{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})`$ are the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of $`S^1\times S^1\times [0,1]`$ based on the triangulations $`𝒯_1^{}`$ and $`𝒯_2^{}`$ with colored boundaries as in Figure 17, respectively.

Since

$$Z(𝒯_1^{};{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})=\overline{Z(𝒯_1;{}_{a,\rho ,p,X_2,X_1}{}^{b,\eta ,q,Y_2,Y_1})}\text{ and }Z(𝒯_2^{};{}_{\rho ,a,p,X_1,X_2}{}^{\eta ,b,q,Y_1,Y_2})=\overline{Z(𝒯_2;{}_{a,\rho ,p,X_2,X_1}{}^{b,\eta ,q,Y_2,Y_1})},$$

the following diagrams commute.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ \overline{P}& & \overline{P}& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^{})}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1),\end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(T^1)}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ \overline{P}& & \overline{P}& & \\ Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\end{array}$$

This completes the proof. ∎

## 4 . Correspondence between Izumi’s Tube Algebra and Ocneanu’s Tube Algebra

Izumi  translated the notion of Ocneanu’s tube algebra  into the language of sectors, and gave explicit formulas of the tube algebra operations and of the $`S`$\- and $`T`$-matrices. He also showed that $`SL(2,)`$ acts on the center of the tube algebra and that the Verlinde identity holds. It is a natural question whether Izumi’s tube algebra and Ocneanu’s one are isomorphic as algebras, and whether the centers of these tube algebras are isomorphic as algebras commuting with $`SL(2,)`$-actions. In this section, we show that there exists a conjugate linear isomorphism between the center of Izumi’s tube algebra and that of Ocneanu’s one, which preserves products of algebras and commutes with $`SL(2,)`$-actions.

Let us recall the definition of the tube algebra in sector theory, which was introduced by Izumi . Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. The tube algebra $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ introduced by Izumi is a $`C^{}`$-algebra defined as follows. As a $``$-vector space, $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is spanned by

$$\{(\xi \zeta |X|\zeta \eta )|\xi ,\zeta ,\eta \mathrm{\Delta },X(\xi \zeta ,\zeta \eta )\}.$$

The product of $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$(\xi \zeta |X|\zeta \eta )(\xi ^{}\zeta ^{}|Y|\zeta ^{}\eta ^{})=\delta _{\eta ,\xi ^{}}\underset{\nu \zeta \zeta ^{}}{}\underset{A_{\zeta \zeta ^{}}^\nu }{}(\xi \nu |A^{}\zeta (Y)X\xi (A)|\nu \eta ^{}),$$

where $`\delta _{\eta ,\xi ^{}}`$ is Kronecker’s delta and $`\nu \zeta \zeta ^{}`$ means that $`\nu `$ appears in the product $`\zeta \zeta ^{}`$ as an irreducible component. The $``$-structure is given by

$$(\xi \zeta |X|\zeta \eta )^{}=d(\zeta )(\eta \overline{\zeta }|\overline{\zeta }(\xi (\overline{R}_\zeta ^{})X^{})R_\zeta |\overline{\zeta }\xi ).$$

Izumi showed that $`SL(2,)`$ acts on the center $`𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . The action is given by

$$S_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\xi \eta |X|\eta \xi )=d(\xi )(\overline{\eta }\xi |R_\eta ^{}\overline{\eta }(X\xi (\overline{R}_\eta ))|\xi \overline{\eta }),$$

$$T_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\xi \eta |X|\eta \xi )=\underset{\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}d(\zeta )(\zeta \overline{\zeta }|R_\zeta \overline{R}_\zeta ^{}|\overline{\zeta }\zeta )(\xi \eta |X|\eta \xi )$$

for $`S^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`T^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. In particular, the action of $`T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is given by

$$T_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}^{1}(\xi \eta |X|\eta \xi )=(\xi p|X_1^{}\xi (X_2)|p\xi )$$

for $`X=X_2X_1^{},X_1(p,\xi \eta ),X_2(p,\eta \xi )`$ and $`p,\xi ,\eta \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Izumi’s tube algebra is isomorphic to Ocneanu’s one in the following sense.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Let $`\phi :\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the $``$-linear map defined by

$$\phi (X_1X_2)=w^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{d(a)}{d(p)d(\rho )}\right)^{1/4}\left(\frac{d(a)}{d(p)d(\xi )}\right)^{1/4}(\rho a|X_2X_1^{}|a\rho )$$

for $`X_1X_2_{\rho a}^p_{a\xi }^p`$. Then, $`\phi `$ is an algebra isomorphism. Furthermore, the restriction of $`\phi `$ to the subspace $`V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ gives rise to an $``$-linear isomorphism $`\overline{\phi }:Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })`$ such that the following diagram commutes for all $`RSL(2,)`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)& \stackrel{Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(R)}{}& Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\\ \overline{\phi }& & \overline{\phi }& & \\ 𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })& \stackrel{Q(R)_\mathrm{\Delta }}{}& 𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })\end{array}$$

Here, $`Q:SL(2,)SL(2,)`$ is the group isomorphism satisfying $`Q(S)=S^{}`$ and $`Q(T)=T^{}`$.

To prove the above theorem, we need the following theorem which was announced by Ocneanu  and was proved in . This is an important theorem about the tube algebra.

###### Theorem 4.2 ().

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Then,

$$Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)𝒵(\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta })$$

as vector spaces.

Proof of Theorem 4.1. First, we show that $`\phi `$ is a homomorphism of algebras. For $`X_1X_2_{\rho a}^p_{a\xi }^p`$ and $`Y_1Y_2_{\eta b}^q_{b\zeta }^q`$, the product in $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$`(X_1X_2)(Y_1Y_2)=`$ $`\delta _{\xi ,\eta }\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d(a)d(b)d(r)}{d(c)d(p)d(q)d(\xi )}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}Z_1_{\rho c}^r\\ Z_2_{c\zeta }^r\end{array}}{}}Z_2^{}({\displaystyle \underset{A_{ab}^c}{}}A^{}a(Y_2Y_1^{})X_2X_1^{}\xi (A))Z_1(Z_1Z_2).`$
Thus, we have

$`d(\rho )^{1/4}d(\zeta )^{1/4}\phi ((X_1X_2)(Y_1Y_2))`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{\xi ,\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^1}{\sqrt{d(\xi )}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d(a)d(b)}{d(p)d(q)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}Z_1_{\rho c}^r\\ Z_2_{c\zeta }^r\end{array}}{}}Z_2^{}({\displaystyle \underset{A_{ab}^c}{}}A^{}a(Y_2Y_1^{})X_2X_1^{}\xi (A))Z_1(\xi c|Z_2Z_1^{}|c\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{\xi ,\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^1}{\sqrt{d(\xi )}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d(a)d(b)}{d(p)d(q)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}c,r\mathrm{\Delta }\\ cab\\ rc\xi \end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}Z_1_{\rho c}^r\\ Z_2_{c\zeta }^r\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{A_{ab}^c}{}}(\xi c|Z_2Z_2^{}A^{}a(Y_2Y_1^{})X_2X_1^{}\xi (A)Z_1Z_1^{}|c\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{\xi ,\eta }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^1}{\sqrt{d(\xi )}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d(a)d(b)}{d(p)d(q)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{\Delta }\\ cab\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{A_{ab}^c}{}}(\xi c|A^{}a(Y_2Y_1^{})X_2X_1^{}\xi (A)|c\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`d(\rho )^{1/4}d(\zeta )^{1/4}\phi (X_1X_2)\phi (Y_1Y_2).`$
Hence, $`\phi `$ preserves the products. It is clear that $`\phi `$ is bijective. Thus, $`\phi `$ is an algebra isomorphism.

Let $`\phi ^{}`$ be the algebra isomorphism from the center of $`\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the center of $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induced from $`\phi `$. We regard $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ as a subspace of the center $`𝒵(\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta })`$, and denote by $`\overline{\phi }`$ the restriction of $`\phi ^{}`$ to $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$. We will show that $`\overline{\phi }`$ induces an $`SL(2,)`$-equivariant map from $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ to $`𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the sense of the statement in the theorem. By Lemma 3.4, for $`X_1_{\rho a}^p`$ and $`X_2_{a\rho }^p`$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}(X_1X_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r\mathrm{\Delta }\\ Z_1_{\overline{a}\rho }^r\\ Z_2_{\rho \overline{a}}^r\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{d(p)d(r)}}{d(\rho )}}Z_2^{}\stackrel{~}{X}_2^{}\overline{a}(\widehat{X}_1)Z_1Z_1Z_2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1(X_1X_2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r\mathrm{\Delta }\\ Z_1_{\rho p}^r\\ Z_2_{p\rho }^r\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{d(a)d(r)}}{d(p)}}Z_2^{}X_1^{}\rho (X_2)Z_1Z_1Z_2.`$
It follows immediately from the second equation that $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{T}_\mathrm{\#}^1=T_{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\phi ^{}`$. Since

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d(\rho )}}Z_2^{}\stackrel{~}{X}_2^{}\overline{a}(\widehat{X}_1)Z_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d(\rho )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d(\rho )d(a)}{d(p)}}Z_2^{}(\overline{a}(X_2^{})R_a)^{}\overline{a}(X_1^{}\rho (\overline{R}_a))Z_1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d(a)}{d(p)}}Z_2^{}R_a^{}\overline{a}(X_2)\overline{a}(X_1^{}\rho (\overline{R}_a))Z_1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d(a)}{d(p)}}Z_2^{}R_a^{}\overline{a}(X_2X_1^{}\rho (\overline{R}_a))Z_1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d(a)}{d(p)d(\rho )}}Z_2^{}S_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\rho a|X_2X_1^{}|a\rho )Z_1,`$
we see also that $`\phi ^{}\stackrel{~}{S}_\mathrm{\#}=S_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\phi ^{}`$. Thus, $`\overline{\phi }`$ is an $`SL(2,)`$-equivariant homomorphism.

Since $`dimZ^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)=dim𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })`$ by Theorem 4.2 and $`\overline{\phi }`$ is injective, it follows that $`\overline{\phi }`$ is an $`SL(2,)`$-equivariant isomorphism. This completes the proof. ∎

By Theorem 4.1, Proposition 3.3 and Lemma 3.5, we have :

###### Corollary 4.3.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Let $`\phi :\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the algebra isomorphism defined as in the above theorem, and $`P:V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ the conjugate linear isomorphism defined as in Proposition 3.3. Then, the composition $`\phi P:V^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induces a conjugate linear isomorphism $`\varphi :Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)𝒵(\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which preserves the products of these two algebras and commutes with the actions of $`SL(2,)`$.

###### Remark 4.4.

Izumi has introduced an inner product $`,_{\text{Tube}}`$ on $`\text{Tube}_I\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as follows .

$$(\xi \zeta |X|\zeta \eta ),(\xi ^{}\zeta ^{}|Y|\zeta ^{}\eta ^{})_{\text{Tube}}=\delta _{\xi ,\xi ^{}}\delta _{\zeta ,\zeta ^{}}d(\xi )^2R_\zeta ^{}\overline{\zeta }(XY^{})R_\zeta .$$

Let $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ be a Verlinde basis of $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$, and $`\{w_i\}_{i=1}^m`$ the primitive idempotents in the fusion algebra $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ obtained from $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ by applying the transformation $`S`$ (see Remarks 3.2). Then, the basis $`\{\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{d_i}\varphi (w_i)\}_{i=0}^m`$ is orthonormal with respect to the inner product $`,_{\text{Tube}}`$, where $`d_i=\lambda S_{0i}`$ and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)v_i=_jS_{ji}v_j`$ .

On the other hand, since the Verlinde basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ is orthonormal with respect to the inner product $`,_{\text{TQFT}}`$ based on the TQFT defined as in Section 3, and $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)`$ is unitary with respect to the inner product $`,_{\text{TQFT}}`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{d_i}}w_i,{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{d_j}}w_j_{\text{TQFT}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }S_{0i}}}w_i,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda }S_{0j}}}w_j_{\text{TQFT}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)^{}(v_i),Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S)^{}(v_j)_{\text{TQFT}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}v_i,v_j_{\text{TQFT}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}\delta _{ij}.`$
Therefore, $`\varphi `$ does not preserve the inner products.

## 5 . Calculations of Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of Basic $`3`$-manifolds

Izumi explicitly gave an action of $`SL(2,)`$ on the center of the tube algebra in the language of sectors, and derived some formulas on Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of lens spaces by applying formulas in  to subfactors constructed by his method . In the previous section, we established a rigorous correspondence between the $`S`$\- and $`T`$-matrices in Izumi’s sector theory and the ones in Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT. Via this correspondence and the Dehn surgery formula of the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant, we can compute the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of $`3`$-manifolds in the language of sectors. In this section, using techniques on sectors due to Izumi , we compute the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants from several subfactors for basic $`3`$-manifolds including lens spaces and Brieskorn $`3`$-manifolds. One of the most important result is that the homology $`3`$-sphere $`S^3`$ and the Poincaré homology $`3`$-sphere $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,5)`$ are distinguished by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from the exotic subfactor constructed by Haagerup and Asaeda , and $`L(p,1)`$ and $`L(p,2)`$ are distinguished by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`/p`$ for $`p=3,5`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Since any finite dimensional $`C^{}`$-algebra is semisimple, we may assume that $`\mathrm{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=0}^r\text{M}_{n_i}()`$ as algebras, where $`\text{M}_{n_i}()`$ is the set of $`n_i\times n_i`$-matrices over $``$. From each direct summand of $`\mathrm{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i=0}^r\text{M}_{n_i}()`$, we pick up a minimal projection $`p_i`$. Then, we have proved that $`\{p_i\}_{i=0}^r`$ is a Verlinde basis of $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ in the sense of Definition 3.1 . Thus, we have :

###### Theorem 5.1 ().

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite system of $`\text{End}(M)_0`$ obtained from a subfactor $`NM`$ of an infinite factor $`M`$ with finite index and finite depth. Then, there exists a Verlinde basis of $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ in the sense of Definition 3.1.

Let us recall the Dehn surgery formula of $`Z(M)`$ . Let $`Z`$ be a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT, and $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ a basis of $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$.

We introduce a framed link invariant in the following way. Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_r`$ be a framed link with $`r`$-components in the 3-sphere $`S^3`$, and $`h_i:D^2\times S^1N(L_i)`$ be the framing of $`L_i`$ for each $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, where $`N(L_i)`$ denotes the tubular neighborhood of $`L_i`$. We fix an orientation for $`N(L_i)`$ such that $`j_i:=h_i|_{D^2\times S^1}:S^1\times S^1N(L_i)`$ is orientation preserving. Since the orientation for $`N(L_i)`$ is not compatible with the orientation for the link exterior $`X:=\overline{S^3N(L_1)\mathrm{}N(L_r)}`$, we can consider the cobordism parametrized boundary $`𝒲_L:=(X;\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}j_i,\mathrm{})`$ (See  for detail). This cobordism induces a $``$-linear map $`Z_{𝒲_L}:\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}Z(S^1\times S^1)`$. It is easy to see that for each $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ the complex number $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r):=Z_{𝒲_L}(v_{i_1}\mathrm{}v_{i_r})`$ is a framed link invariant of $`L`$. In this setting, we proved the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.2 (Dehn surgery formula ).

Let $`Z`$ be a (2+1)-dimensional TQFT and $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$ a basis of the fusion algebra $`Z(S^1\times S^1)`$ such that $`v_0`$ is the identity element in the fusion algebra. Let $`M`$ be a closed oriented 3-manifold obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along a framed link $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_r`$. Then, the 3-manifold invariant $`Z(M)`$ is given by the formula

$$Z(M)=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0}{\overset{m}{}}S_{i_10}\mathrm{}S_{i_r0}J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r),$$

where $`S_{ji}`$, $`i,j=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ are defined by $`Z(S)v_i=_{j=0}^mS_{ji}v_j`$, and $`S:S^1\times S^1S^1\times S^1`$ is the orientation preserving diffeomorphism defined by $`S(z,w)=(\overline{w},z)`$ for all $`(z,w)S^1\times S^1`$.

This is a quite general formula which is a conclusion of the axioms of $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT. The right-hand side of this formula looks very similar to the formula of the Reshetikhin-Turaev invariant of closed 3-manifolds, although many things are missing in the above general formula, compared to the Reshetikhin-Turaev formula . (See  for more details on the Dehn surgery formula and its applications.)

From Proposition 5.2, if we want to compute the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant of a closed 3-manifold $`M`$, we need to compute the $`S`$-matrix and the framed link invariants $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$. Since we know that the existence of the isomorphism $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)𝒵(\text{Tube}\mathrm{\Delta })`$ by Theorem 5.1, we can compute the $`S`$-matrix with respect to a Verlinde basis of $`Z^\mathrm{\Delta }(S^1\times S^1)`$ in principle (see also Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2). If a 3-manifold $`M`$ is obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along an “easy” framed link $`L`$, then we can compute the $`S`$-matrix, the framed link invariants $`J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ and $`Z(M)`$. In particular, for $`3`$-manifolds $`M`$ such as lens spaces and Brieskorn 3-manifolds we have useful formulas for $`Z(M)`$ as follows.

Let $`Z`$ be a $`(2+1)`$-dimensional TQFT with Verlinde basis $`\{v_i\}_{i=0}^m`$. For $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$, we write

$$Z(T)v_i=t_iv_i\text{and}Z(S)v_i=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}S_{ji}v_j.$$

Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be coprime positive integers. We present $`p/q`$ in the continued fraction

$$\frac{p}{q}=a_1\frac{1}{a_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_n}}}}}}},$$

where $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n2`$ are integers. Then, the lens space $`L(p,q)`$ is obtained by identifying two solid tori $`D^2\times S^1`$ gluing the diffeomorphism $`f=T^{a_1}ST^{a_2}S\mathrm{}T^{a_{n1}}ST^{a_n}:S^1\times S^1S^1\times S^1`$ . It follows from the Dehn surgery formula that

$$Z(L(p,q))=\underset{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_n=0}{\overset{m}{}}S_{i_10}t_{i_1}^{a_1}S_{i_1i_2}t_{i_2}^{a_2}S_{i_2i_3}\mathrm{}t_{i_{n1}}^{a_{n1}}S_{i_{n1}i_n}t_{i_n}^{a_n}S_{i_n0}.$$

In particular, we have

$``$ $`Z(L(p,1))=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_i^pS_{i0}^2`$ for any $`p`$.

$``$ $`Z(L(p,2))=\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_i^{\frac{p+1}{2}}t_j^2S_{i0}S_{j0}S_{ij}`$ for any odd integer $`p`$,

$``$ $`Z(L(p,3))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{i,j,k=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_i^{\frac{p+2}{3}}t_j^2t_k^2S_{i0}S_{j0}S_{k0}S_{ij}S_{kj}\hfill & \text{if }p1(\text{mod}3),\hfill \\ \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_i^{\frac{p+1}{3}}t_j^3S_{i0}S_{j0}S_{ij}\hfill & \text{if }p2(\text{mod}3).\hfill \end{array}`$

The Brieskorn 3-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r)=\{(u,v,w)^3|u^p+v^q+w^r=0,|u|^2+|v|^2+|w|^2=1\}`$, where $`p,q,r2`$, is obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along the framed link presented by the diagram depicted in Figure 18 . Then, it follows from the Dehn surgery formula that

$``$ $`Z(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r))=\underset{i,j,k,l=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_i^pt_j^qt_k^rt_l{\displaystyle \frac{S_{i0}S_{j0}S_{k0}S_{il}S_{jl}S_{kl}}{S_{l0}}}.`$

This is obtained as a special case of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`L(q,p_1,\mathrm{},p_r)`$ be the framed link presented by the diagram as in Figure 19, and $`M`$ the $`3`$-manifold obtained from $`S^3`$ by Dehn surgery along $`L(q,p_1,\mathrm{},p_r)`$, where $`q,p_1,\mathrm{},p_r`$ stand for those integral framings. Then, $`Z(M)`$ is given by

$$Z(M)=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r,j=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_{i_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}t_{i_r}^{p_r}t_j^q\frac{S_{i_10}\mathrm{}S_{i_r0}S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_rj}}{S_{j0}^{r2}}.$$

Proof. Let $`L`$ be the framed link $`L(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. The framed link $`L`$ is isomorphic to the framed link presented by the diagram as in Figure 20.

By fusing the $`(r1)`$-th component and $`r`$-th component, we obtain

$`J(L;j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r2},i_{r1},i_r)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}}N_{i_{r1},i_r}^kJ(L^{};j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r2},k)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{li_{r1}}S_{li_r}\overline{S_{lk}}}{S_{l0}}}J(L^{};j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r2},k)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,l=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{li_{r1}}S_{li_r}\overline{S_{lk}}}{S_{l0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_{r2}j}S_{kj}}{S_{j0}^{r2}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{li_{r1}}S_{li_r}}{S_{l0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_{r2}j}}{S_{j0}^{r2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{d}{}}}\overline{S_{lk}}S_{kj}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_{r2}j}S_{i_{r1}j}S_{i_rj}}{S_{j0}^{r1}}},`$
where $`L^{}`$ is the framed link from $`L`$ removing the $`r`$-th component $`L_r`$. Hence, by induction on $`r`$ it can be proved that the framed link invariant $`J(L;j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$ of $`L=L(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is given by

$$J(L;j,i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)=\frac{S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_rj}}{S_{j0}^{r1}}.$$
(5.4)
By substituting the equation (5.4) into the formula

$`Z(M)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0}{\overset{m}{}}}S_{i_1,0}\mathrm{}S_{i_r,0}J(L(q,p_1,\mathrm{},p_r);i_1,\mathrm{},i_r)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r=0}{\overset{m}{}}}S_{i_1,0}\mathrm{}S_{i_r,0}t_j^qt_{i_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}t_{i_r}^{p_r}J(L;i_1,\mathrm{},i_r),`$
we obtain

$$Z(M)=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r,j=0}{\overset{m}{}}t_{i_1}^{p_1}\mathrm{}t_{i_r}^{p_r}t_j^q\frac{S_{i_10}\mathrm{}S_{i_r0}S_{i_1j}\mathrm{}S_{i_rj}}{S_{j0}^{r2}}.$$

This completes the proof. ∎

We can compute a plenty of Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants of some basic manifolds based on Izumi’s data  of the $`S`$\- and $`T`$-matrices. For example, we have the following list of values for Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariants from subfactors by partially using the Maple software Release 5 for computations.

the $`D_5^{(1)}`$-subfactors \[6, Example 3.2\]

$`Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(3,1))=\overline{Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(3,2))}={\displaystyle \frac{1+2w^2}{6}}`$, where $`w^3=1`$

$`Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(5,1))=Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(5,2))=Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(7,1))=Z^{D_5^{\left(1\right)}}(L(7,2))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$

the $`E_6`$-subfactor that $`c_2=e^{\frac{7\pi \sqrt{1}}{12}}`$ \[6, Example 3.4\]

$`Z^{E_6}(L(p,1))`$ =$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\{((1)^p+1)e^{\frac{p\pi i}{3}}+2e^{\frac{5p\pi i}{6}}+i^p+2(1)^p+5\}`$

$`Z^{E_6}(L(p,2))`$ =$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}i}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}+i}{12}}e^{\frac{(p+1)\pi i}{6}}`$

$`Z^{E_6}(L(p,3))`$
$`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{24}(93(1)^{\frac{p1}{3}}\sqrt{3}i(1(1)^{\frac{p1}{3}})2\sqrt{3}i^{\frac{p1}{3}})\hfill & \text{if }p1(\text{mod}3)\hfill \\ \frac{1}{24}(93(1)^{\frac{p+1}{3}}+\sqrt{3}i(1(1)^{\frac{p+1}{3}})2\sqrt{3}i^{\frac{p+1}{3}})\hfill & \text{if }p2(\text{mod}3)\hfill \end{array}`$
| $`(p,q,r)`$ | $`(2,3,5)`$ | $`(2,3,7)`$ | $`(2,5,7)`$ | $`(3,5,7)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z^{E_6}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r))`$ | $`\frac{2(3+\sqrt{3})+3(1\sqrt{3})i}{12}`$ | $`\frac{2(3+\sqrt{3})+3(1\sqrt{3})i}{12}`$ | $`\frac{\sqrt{3}+9+6i}{12}`$ | $`\frac{2\sqrt{3}i}{2}`$ |

| $`(p,q,r)`$ | $`(2,3,8)`$ | $`(2,3,9)`$ | $`(2,4,5)`$ | $`(2,4,6)`$ | $`(2,4,7)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z^{E_6}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r))`$ | $`\frac{(3\sqrt{3})(1+\sqrt{3})i}{4}`$ | $`\frac{3+i}{4}`$ | $`\frac{2+i}{2}`$ | $`\frac{3+i}{2}`$ | $`\frac{2+i}{2}`$ |

| $`(p,q,r)`$ | $`(2,5,5)`$ | $`(2,5,6)`$ | $`(3,3,4)`$ | $`(3,3,5)`$ | $`(3,3,6)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z^{E_6}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r))`$ | $`\frac{3+i}{4}`$ | $`\frac{3\sqrt{3}i}{3}`$ | $`\frac{\sqrt{3}(1i)}{4}`$ | $`\frac{\sqrt{3}i}{2}`$ | $`\frac{3\sqrt{3}}{4}i`$ |

| $`(p,q,r)`$ | $`(3,4,5)`$ | $`(4,4,4)`$ | $`(3,4,4)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`Z^{E_6}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(p,q,r))`$ | $`\frac{2(\sqrt{3}+3)+3(1\sqrt{3})i}{12}`$ | $`\frac{3i\sqrt{3}}{3}`$ | $`\frac{3(1+\sqrt{3})+(3\sqrt{3})i}{6}`$ |

a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`G=/3`$ \[9, Example A-1\]

$`Z^{E_6,/3}(L(3,1))=\overline{Z^{E_6,/3}(L(3,2))}=\frac{(7\sqrt{7}i)(\sqrt{21}1)}{70}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/3}(L(5,1))=Z^{E_6,/3}(L(5,2))=\frac{2}{15}+\frac{4\sqrt{21}}{105}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/3}(L(7,1))=Z^{E_6,/3}(L(7,2))=\frac{(1+\sqrt{3}i)(\sqrt{21}1)}{30}`$

a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`G=/4`$ \[9, Example A-2\]

$`Z^{E_6,/4}(L(3,1))=Z^{E_6,/4}(L(3,2))=\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/4}(L(5,1))=Z^{E_6,/4}(L(5,2))=\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/4}(L(7,1))=Z^{E_6,/4}(L(7,2))=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`G=/2\times /2`$ \[9, Example A-3\]

$`Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(3,1))=Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(3,2))=\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(5,1))=Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(5,2))=\frac{2+\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(7,1))=Z^{E_6,/2\times /2}(L(7,2))=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{16}`$

a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with $`G=/5`$ \[9, Example A-4\]

$`Z^{E_6,/5}(L(3,1))=Z^{E_6,/5}(L(3,2))=\frac{\sqrt{5}7}{55}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/5}(L(5,1))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Z^{E_6,/5}(L(5,2))=\frac{1+3\sqrt{5}}{33}`$

$`Z^{E_6,/5}(L(7,1))=Z^{E_6,/5}(L(7,2))=\frac{3}{55}+\frac{\sqrt{5}}{33}`$

the Haagerup subfactor of Jones index $`\frac{5+\sqrt{13}}{2}`$ \[9, Appendix C\]

$`Z^{Haagerup}(L(3,1))=Z^{Haagerup}(L(3,2))=\frac{13\sqrt{13}}{26}`$

$`Z^{Haagerup}(L(5,1))=Z^{Haagerup}(L(5,2))=\frac{13+3\sqrt{13}}{78}`$

$`Z^{Haagerup}(L(7,1))=Z^{Haagerup}(L(7,2))=\frac{13+3\sqrt{13}}{78}`$

$`Z^{Haagerup}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(2,3,5))=\frac{\sqrt{13}}{26}+\frac{7}{6}=Z^{Haagerup}(S^3)+1`$

From the above results of computations, we expect that the following conjecture will hold true.

###### Conjecture 5.4.

If there exists a generalized $`E_6`$-subfactor with group symmetry $`G=/7`$, then the lens spaces $`L(7,1)`$ and $`L(7,2)`$ will be distinguished by the Turaev-Viro-Ocneanu invariant from the subfactor.


text:
# Cascade approach to current fluctuations in a chaotic cavity

## I  INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, there has been a large interest in current correlations in mesoscopic conductors. Recently, also higher cumulants of current have received a significant attention of theorists. In a series of papers a scattering approach to the distribution of charge transmitted through an arbitrary multi-terminal, multi-mode mesoscopic conductor, i.e. the so-called full counting statistics has been developed. As was shown in Ref., the ensemble-averaged cumulants of arbitrary order can be calculated for any two-terminal conductor where the distribution of the transmission eigenvalues is known, e.g. for diffusive wires, chaotic cavities,, double-barrier tunnel junctions, or combinations of different conductors.

Recently, Nazarov presented a method for calculating the full counting statistics of charge transfer in conductors with a large number of quantum channels based on equations for the semiclassical Keldysh Green’s functions. Subsequently, this method was extended to multiterminal systems. Also, other approaches to higher cumulants, such as the nonlinear sigma model for diffusive wires, have been proposed.

Common to all approaches is that they are based on a quantum mechanical formulation. To obtain the cumulants for semiclassical systems, i.e. systems much larger than the Fermi wavelength, an ensemble average is performed and the number of transport modes is set to infinity, i.e. single-mode weak-localization-like corrections are neglected. Therefore it is of interest to have a completely semiclassical theory for the higher cumulants, which does not involve any quantum-mechanical quantities.

A step in this direction was made by de Jong, who calculated the distribution of charge transmitted through a double-barrier tunnel junction by applying a master equation to the transport in each completely independent transverse quantum channel. The results were in agreement with the quantum-mechanical theory in the limit of large channel number.

An attempt to construct a fully semiclassical theory of higher cumulants of current in a chaotic cavity was made by Blanter, Schomerus, and Beenakker based on the principle of minimal correlations. According to this principle, the fluctuations of the semiclassical distribution function of electrons in the cavity and the fluctuations of outgoing currents are related only through the condition of electron-number conservation, which is equivalent to the dephasing-voltage-probe approach in quantum mechanics. However an attempt to extend the minimal-correlation approach to the fourth cumulant has led to a discrepancy with quantum-mechanical results, which highly surprised the authors.

Meanwhile the correlations imposed by the particle-number conservation are not the only possible ones in semiclassics. Quite recently the semiclassical Boltzmann–Langevin approach has been extended to higher cumulants. This extension takes into account the effect of lower cumulants on higher cumulants through the fluctuations of the distribution function and therefore it was termed cascade approach. Its equivalence with quantum-mechanical results has been proven for diffusive metallic conductors. In this paper, we show that the cascade approach is not restricted to diffusive metals or to conductors where the scattering is described by a collision integral, but it may be also applied to other systems that allow a semiclassical description, e.g. to chaotic cavities. To this end, we semiclassically calculate the third and fourth cumulants of current in a chaotic cavity taking into account cascade correlations and show that these values coincide with ensemble-averaged quantum-mechanical results.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the model of chaotic cavity to be considered. The minimal-correlation results for the second cumulant of current are presented in Section III. In Section IV we

calculate the third and fourth cumulants of current by means of the cascade approach. In Section V, the third cumulant of current is calculated by means of the quantum-mechanical circuit theory and its equivalence with the cascade results is shown. Section VI presents a conclusion where the results are summarized.

## II  THE MODEL

Consider a chaotic cavity with two contacts of arbitrary transparency. The left contact has $`N_L1`$ channels and transparency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$, and the right contact has $`N_R`$ channels and a transparency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$. The conductances of the leads $`G_L=(e^2/\pi \mathrm{})N_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_L`$ and $`G_R=(e^2/\pi \mathrm{})N_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ are also assumed to be much larger than $`e^2/\mathrm{}`$, and the total conductance of the system is that of two resistors connected in series

$$G=\frac{G_LG_R}{G_L+G_R}.$$

Because of strong chaotic scattering in the cavity, the electrons entering the cavity lose the memory of their phase on the time scale of the order of the time of flight through the cavity yet retain their energy. Therefore despite the quantum nature of the contacts, the cavity is a semiclassical object in the sense that the electrons inside it may be described by a semiclassical distribution function that depends only on the electron energy. Its average value is given by an expression

$$f(\epsilon )=\frac{G_Lf_L(\epsilon )+G_Rf(\epsilon )}{G_L+G_R},$$
(1)
where $`f_L(\epsilon )`$ and $`f_R(\epsilon )`$ are the distribution functions in the left and right electrodes.

## III  The principle of minimal correlations

If the distribution function in the cavity were not allowed to fluctuate, the cavity could be considered just as a reservoir with non-Fermian distribution of electrons. The contacts would be independent generators of current noise and the cumulants of the corresponding extraneous noise currents could be obtained by differentiating the corresponding quantum-mechanical characteristic functions for the charge transmitted in time $`t`$

$$\chi _{L,R}(\lambda ,t)=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{tN_{L,R}}{2\pi \mathrm{}}d\epsilon \mathrm{ln}\{1$$

$$+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}f(\epsilon )[1f_{L,R}(\epsilon )](e^{i\lambda }1)$$

$$+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}f_{L,R}(\epsilon )[1f(\epsilon )](e^{i\lambda }1)\}\}$$
(2)
with respect to the parameter $`\lambda `$ the corresponding number of times.

In what follows, we will be interested only in the Fourier transforms of the current cumulants in the low-frequency limit and it will be implied that all the subsequent equations contain only low-frequency Fourier transforms of the corresponding quantities. Equation (2) leads to the following expressions for the cumulants of the noise current generated by the contacts:

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^n=𝑑\epsilon \stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^n_\epsilon ,$$
(3)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^2_\epsilon =G_{L,R}[f_{L,R}(1f)+f(1f_{L,R})$$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}(f_{L,R}f)^2],$$
(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^3_\epsilon =eG_{L,R}(ff_{L,R})\{13\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}[f(1f_{L,R})$$

$$+f_{L,R}(1f)]+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}^2(ff_L)^2\},$$
(5)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^4_\epsilon =e^2G_{L,R}\{f_{L,R}(1f)+f(1f_{L,R})$$

$$+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}(12f_{L,R}^2f+12f^2f_{L,R}12f_{L,R}^2f^2$$

$$7f_{L,R}^27f^2+2ff_{L,R})$$

$$+12\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}^2(f_{L,R}f)^2[f_{L,R}(1f)+f(1f_{L,R})]$$

$$6\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}^3(f_{L,R}f)^4\}.$$
(6)
Since we are interested here only in low-frequency fluctuations, the pile-up of electrons in the cavity is forbidden. On the other hand, the noise currents $`\stackrel{~}{I}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_R`$ are absolutely independent, which would apparently result in a violation of the current-conservation law if these were the only contributions to the current noise. To ensure the current conservation at low frequencies, one has to take into account fluctuations of the distribution function $`\delta f(\epsilon )`$ in the cavity. Now the fluctuations of the current outgoing from the cavity to the left and right electrodes assume a form of Langevin equations, where $`\stackrel{~}{I}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_R`$ play the role of extraneous sources.

$$\delta I_{L,R}=\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}+\frac{1}{e}G_{L,R}𝑑\epsilon \delta f(\epsilon ).$$
(7)
Extracting $`\delta f`$ from the condition of current conservation

$$\delta I_L+\delta I_R=0,$$

one obtains

$$\delta I_L=\frac{G_R\stackrel{~}{I}_LG_L\stackrel{~}{I}_R}{G_L+G_R}.$$
(8)
By squaring this equation and using the independence of $`\stackrel{~}{I}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_R`$, one easily obtains that the second cumulant of the measurable current is

$$I_L^2=\frac{G_R^2\stackrel{~}{I}_L^2+G_L^2\stackrel{~}{I}_R^2}{(G_L+G_R)^2}.$$
(9)
In the zero-temperature limit it gives

$$I_L^2=eI[G_LG_R(G_L+G_L)+G_L^3(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)$$

$$+G_R^3(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)]/(G_L+G_R)^3,$$
(10)
where $`I`$ is the average current flowing through the cavity. In the high-transparency limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=1`$ it reproduces the expression obtained by Blanter and Sukhorukov by means of the minimal-correlation principle and the exact quantum-mechanical results.

## IV  Cascade corrections

A straightforward extension of the minimal correlation approach to higher cumulants has led to a discrepancy with the quantum mechanical results. The reason is that the cavity is not just a reservoir with a nonequlibrium distribution of electrons. As suggested by Eqs. (7), their distribution function $`f(\epsilon )`$ also exhibits fluctuations. As the cumulants of the currents $`\stackrel{~}{I}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_R`$ are functionals of the distribution function in the cavity, its fluctuation $`\delta f`$ changes them too. Since the characteristic time scale for $`\delta f`$ is of the order of the dwell time of an electron in the cavity, these changes are slow on the scale of the correlation time of extraneous currents, and therefore the cumulants of these currents adiabatically follow $`\delta f`$. This results in additional correlations, which may be termed “cascade” because lower-order correlators of extraneous currents contribute to higher-order cumulants of measurable quantities. One can write for the low-frequency transforms of the corresponding quantities

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^n=𝑑\epsilon \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R}^n}{\delta f(\epsilon )}\delta f(\epsilon ),$$
(11)
where $`\delta \mathrm{}/\delta f`$ denotes a functional derivative of the corresponding quantity with respect to $`f(\epsilon )`$. For example, the third cumulant of the current may be written as the sum of the minimal-correlation value

$$I_L^3_m=\frac{G_R^3\stackrel{~}{I}_L^3G_L^3\stackrel{~}{I}_R^3}{(G_L+G_R)^3}$$
(12)
and the cascade correction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I_L^3=3𝑑\epsilon \frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon )}\delta f(\epsilon )\delta I_L.$$
(13)
The factor 3 is due to the fact that this equation in general includes three different currents and allows three inequivalent permutations of them.

The cascade corrections are conveniently presented in a diagrammatic form (see Figs. 2 and 3). The rules for constructing these diagrams strongly differ from the ones known for Green’s functions in quantum mechanics. The diagrams do not present an expansion in any small parameter and their number is strictly limited for a cumulant of a given order. All diagrams present graphs, whose outer vertices correspond to different instances of current and whose inner vertices correspond either to cumulants of extraneous currents or their functional derivatives. The number of arrows outgoing from an inner vertex corresponds to the order of the cumulant and the number of incoming arrows corresponds to the order of a functional derivative. Since the $`n`$th cumulant presents a polynomial of the distribution function of degree $`n`$, the number of incoming arrows at any inner vertex cannot exceed the number of outgoing arrows. Apparently, the difference between the total order of cumulants involved and the total number of functional differentiations should be equal to the order of the cumulant being calculated. As there should be no back-action of higher cumulants on lower cumulants, all diagrams are singly connected. Therefore any diagram for the $`n`$th cumulant of the current may be obtained from a diagram of order $`m<n`$ by combining it with a diagram of order $`nm+1`$, i.e. by inserting one of its outer vertices into one of the inner vertices of the latter. Hence the most convenient way to draw diagrams for a cumulant of a given order is to start with diagrams of lower order and to consider all their inequivalent combinations that give diagrams of the desired order. The analytical expressions corresponding to each diagram contain numerical prefactors equal to the numbers of inequivalent permutations of the outer vertices.

Unlike the case of a diffusive conductor, the third and fourth cumulants include now all possible diagrams and not only those that are constructed of second-order cumulants (Fig. 2, diagram $`a`$). The third cumulant is presented by diagrams $`b`$ and $`c`$ in Fig. 2. Diagram $`b`$ presents the minimal-correlation value (12) and diagram $`c`$ presents the only possible cascade correction (13) obtained by combining two second cumulants.

We are now in position to evaluate the diagrams. The functional derivative is easily obtained by differentiating Eq. (4) and substituting it into (9), which gives

$$\frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon )}=\frac{G_LG_R}{(G_L+G_R)^2}\{G_L[12f_R+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(f_Rf)]$$

$$+G_R[12f_L+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(f_Lf)]\}.$$
(14)
To calculate the fluctuation $`\delta f`$, one has to write down equations (7) and the current-conservation law in the energy-resolved form. This immediately gives

$$\delta f(\epsilon )=\frac{e}{G_L+G_R}\left[(\stackrel{~}{I}_L)_\epsilon +(\stackrel{~}{I}_R)_\epsilon \right]$$
(15)
where $`(\stackrel{~}{I}_{L,R})_\epsilon `$ are energy-resolved extraneous currents. Since fluctuations at different energies are completely independent, one easily obtains that

$$\delta f(\epsilon )\delta I_L=\frac{e}{(G_L+G_R)^2}\left[G_L\stackrel{~}{I}_R^2_\epsilon G_R\stackrel{~}{I}_L^2_\epsilon \right].$$
(16)
Hence the total third cumulant, which is the sum of (12) and (13), is of the form

$$I_L^3=\frac{e^2I}{(G_L+G_R)^6}\{(G_L+G_R)[(G_L+G_R)^2$$

$$\times (G_L^3+G_R^3)3(G_L+G_R)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_LG_R^4+\mathrm{\Gamma }_RG_L^4)$$

$$+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2G_R^5+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2G_L^5]3G_LG_R[G_L^2(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^2(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)]$$

$$\times [G_L^2(12\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^2(12\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)]\}.$$
(17)
In the case of perfectly transparent leads $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=1`$ the cascade correction to the third cumulant is zero and the minimal-correlation result

$$I_L^3=e^2I\frac{G_LG_R(G_LG_R)^2}{(G_L+G_R)^4}$$

is reproduced. This is why the discrepancy between the minimal-correlation and quantum-mechanical results was noted by Blanter and co-workers only for the fourth cumulant.

The fourth cumulant is presented by a sum of six diagrams shown in Fig. 3. Diagram $`a`$ presents the minimal-correlation value

$$I_L^4_m=\frac{G_R^4\stackrel{~}{I}_L^4+G_L^4\stackrel{~}{I}_R^4}{(G_L+G_R)^4}.$$
(18)
The rest of diagrams are obtained by combining the diagrams for the third and second cumulants. Diagrams $`b`$ and $`c`$ are obtained by inserting the second cumulant into the diagram $`c`$ for the third cumulant, and diagram $`d`$ is obtained by plugging diagram $`c`$ for the third cumulant into the second cumulant. Diagrams $`e`$ and $`f`$ are obtained by inserting diagram $`b`$ into diagram $`a`$ and diagram $`a`$ into diagram $`b`$. The corresponding analytical expressions contain numerical prefactors 1, 6, 12, 3, 6, and 4 that present the numbers of inequivalent permutations of four currents entering into the cumulant.

The first correction is given by an expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1I_L^4=6𝑑\epsilon _1𝑑\epsilon _2\frac{\delta ^2I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta f(\epsilon _2)}$$

$$\times \delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta I_L\delta f(\epsilon _2)\delta I_L.$$
(19)
The second functional derivative

$$\frac{\delta ^2I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta f(\epsilon _2)}=2\delta (\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)\frac{G_LG_R(G_R\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+G_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)}{(G_L+G_R)^2}$$
(20)
is obtained by differentiating (9) twice with respect to $`f(\epsilon )`$, and the two correlators in (19) are given by (16).

The second cascade correction is given by an expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2I_L^4=12𝑑\epsilon _1\frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1)}𝑑\epsilon _2\frac{\delta \delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta I_L}{\delta f(\epsilon _2)}$$

$$\times \delta f(\epsilon _2)\delta I_L,$$
(21)
where the first functional derivative is given by (14),

$$\frac{\delta \delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta I_L}{\delta f(\epsilon _2)}=2\delta (\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)\frac{G_LG_R}{(G_L+G_R)^2}[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)f$$

$$+(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)f_L(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)f_R],$$
(22)
and the last correlator is given by (16).

The third contribution is given by an expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_3I_L^4=3𝑑\epsilon _1𝑑\epsilon _2\frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _1)}\delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta f(\epsilon _2)\frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon _2)},$$
(23)
where the functional derivatives are given by (14) and the second cumulant of the distribution function

$$\delta f(\epsilon _1)\delta f(\epsilon _2)=e^2\delta (\epsilon _1\epsilon _2)\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}_L^2_{\epsilon _1}+\stackrel{~}{I}_R^2_{\epsilon _1}}{(G_L+G_R)^2}$$
(24)
is obtained by multiplying equations (15) with $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon =\epsilon _2`$.

The fourth cascade correction involves third-order cumulants of extraneous currents and is given by an expression

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_4I_L^4=6𝑑\epsilon \frac{\delta I_L^2}{\delta f(\epsilon )}\delta f(\epsilon )\delta I_L^2_m,$$
(25)
where

$$\delta f(\epsilon )\delta I_L^2_m=e\frac{G_R^2\stackrel{~}{I}_L^3_\epsilon +G_L^2\stackrel{~}{I}_R^3_\epsilon }{(G_L+G_R)^3}$$
(26)
is obtained by multiplying one equation (15) and two equations (7) and averaging them with the correlators (5).

The fifth correction is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_5I_L^4=4𝑑\epsilon \frac{\delta I_L^3_m}{\delta f(\epsilon )}\delta f(\epsilon )\delta I_L.$$
(27)
The functional derivative in the integrand

$$\frac{\delta I_L^3_m}{\delta f(\epsilon )}=e\frac{G_LG_R}{(G_L+G_R)^3}\{G_R^2[16\mathrm{\Gamma }_Lf(1f)$$

$$6\mathrm{\Gamma }_L(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)(ff_L)^2]$$

$$G_L^2[16\mathrm{\Gamma }_Rf(1f)6\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)(ff_L)^2]\}$$
(28)
is calculated similarly to (14).

The total fourth cumulant of current is given by the sum of its minimal-correlation value (18) and the cascade

corrections given by (19), (21), (23), (25), and (27). The full resulting expression of rather complicated form is given in the Appendix, and here we give only its limiting values

$$I_L^4=e^3V\frac{G_L^2G_R^2}{(G_L+G_R)^7}[G_L^48G_RG_L^3+12G_L^2G_R^2$$

$$8G_LG_R^3+G_R^4]$$
(29)
in the high-transparency limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_R=1`$ and

$$I_L^4=e^3V\frac{G_LG_R}{(G_L+G_R)^7}[G_L^68G_L^5G_R$$

$$+31G_L^4G_R^240G_L^3G_R^3+31G_L^2G_R^48G_LG_R^5+G_R^6]$$
(30)
in the low-transparency limit where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R0`$.

## V  Circuit-theory results

We now show that the same results for the cumulants can be obtained within an ensemble-averaged quantum mechanical Green’s function approach. We use the circuit theory of full counting statistics, recently developed by Nazarov and Bagrets,  which allows us to calculate cumulant by cumulant in a systematic way. For shortness of the presentation, we only calculate the first three cumulants.

The circuit theory representation of the junction is shown in Fig 4. It consists of three “nodes”, the two reservoirs and the dot, connected via two “resistances”, the left and right point contact. Each node is assigned a $`2\times 2`$ matrix Green’s function, i.e. $`\overline{g}_L,\overline{g}_R`$ and $`\overline{g}`$. The matrices are subjected to a normalization condition $`\overline{g}_L^2=\overline{g}_R^2=\overline{g}^2=1`$. The Green’s functions of the two reservoirs are known,

$`\overline{g}_L`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\chi \overline{\tau }_z/2}g_Le^{i\chi \overline{\tau }_z/2},\overline{g}_R=g_R,`$ (31)
$`g_{L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}12f_{L,R}(\epsilon )& 2f_{L,R}(\epsilon )\\ 2(1f_{L,R}(\epsilon ))& 2f_{L,R}(\epsilon )1\end{array}\right),`$ (34)
where $`\overline{\tau }_z`$ is the Pauli matrix, $`f_{L,R}(\epsilon )`$ are the Fermi distribution function of the reservoirs and $`\chi `$ is the counting field (due to current conservation, it is only necessary to count the electrons in one reservoir). The matrix $`\overline{g}(\chi )`$ is determined from a matrix current conservation equation

$`\overline{I}_L+\overline{I}_R=0,\overline{I}_{L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{L,R}[\overline{g}_{L,R},\overline{g}]}{4+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}[\{\overline{g}_L,\overline{g}\}2]}}`$ (35)
where $`[..,..]`$ is the commutator and $`\{..,..\}`$ the anti-commutator. Knowing $`g(\chi )`$, the full counting statistics of charge transfer can be found. However, in the system under study, it is not possible to find an explicit expression for $`g(\chi )`$ in the general case (arbitrary $`N_L,N_R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_L,\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$), and the full counting statistics has to be studied by numerical means. Here we are only interested in the first three cumulants, which can be found analytically by an expansion of the Green’s functions in the counting field $`\chi `$.

The first three cumulants are given by (evaluated at the left contact)

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\text{tr}[\overline{\tau }_z\overline{I}_L]}|_{\chi =0}`$ (36)
$`I_L^2`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\text{tr}\left[\overline{\tau }_z\frac{d\overline{I}_L}{d\chi }\right]}|_{\chi =0}`$ (37)
$`I_L^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^3}{h}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\text{tr}\left[\overline{\tau }_z\frac{d^2\overline{I}_L}{d\chi ^2}\right]}|_{\chi =0}`$ (38)
To calculate these cumulants, we thus need to expand the Green’s functions, and correspondingly the matrix currents, to second order in the counting field $`\chi `$, i.e.

$`\overline{g}(\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}^{(0)}+\chi \overline{g}^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{2}}\overline{g}^{(2)},\overline{g}^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{d^n\overline{g}}{d\chi ^n}}|_{\chi =0}`$ (39)
and similarly for the other quantities. For simplicity, we consider the case with zero temperature and the left reservoir held at a finite voltage $`eV`$. In this case, only the energies $`0<\epsilon <eV`$ need to be considered, where $`f_L(\epsilon )=1`$ and $`f_R(\epsilon )=0`$, and we drop the energy notation below.

For the first cumulant, we have the matrix currents to zeroth order in the counting field,

$`\overline{I}_{L,R}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{L,R}[\overline{g}_{L,R}^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(0)}]}{4+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}[\{\overline{g}_{L,R}^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(0)}\}2]}}.`$ (40)
where from Eq. (34), one has $`\overline{g}_{R,L}^{(0)}=g_{R,L}`$. From the matrix current equation in Eq. (35), i.e. $`I_R^{(0)}+I_L^{(0)}=0`$, we then obtain

$`\overline{g}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}12f& 2f\\ 2(1f)& 2f1\end{array}\right),f={\displaystyle \frac{G_L}{G_L+G_R}}`$ (43)
where $`f`$ is the distribution function in the dot, as in Eq. (1). Knowing $`\overline{g}^{(0)}`$ we find $`\overline{I}_L^{(0)}`$ from Eq. (40) and then the current from Eq. (38)

For the second cumulant, we need to expand the matrix currents to first order in $`\chi `$. Noting that the expressions in the matrix denominator appearing in the expansion, is $`4+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{L,R}[\{\overline{g}_{L,R}^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(0)}\}2]=4`$, we obtain

$`\overline{I}_L^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_L}{4}}\left([\overline{g}_L^{(1)},\overline{g}^{(0)}]+[\overline{g}_L^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}]\right)`$ (44)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_L}{16}}\left(\{\overline{g}_L^{(1)},\overline{g}^{(0)}\}+\{\overline{g}_L^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}\}\right),`$ (45)
$`\overline{I}_R^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_R}{4}}[\overline{g}_R^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}]+{\displaystyle \frac{G_R}{16}}\{\overline{g}_R^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}\}.`$ (46)
In addition to the matrix current equation $`\overline{I}_L^{(1)}+\overline{I}_R^{(1)}=0`$, we get an extra condition for $`\overline{g}^{(1)}`$ from the normalization condition $`\overline{g}(\chi )^2=1`$, namely

$`\overline{g}^2(\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`1+\chi \{\overline{g}^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}\}+O(\chi ^2)=1`$ (47)
$``$ $`\{\overline{g}^{(0)},\overline{g}^{(1)}\}=0`$ (48)
Staring from the ansatz (equivalent to the parametrization in Ref. )

$`\overline{g}^{(1)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{11}^{(1)}& h_{12}^{(1)}\\ h_{21}^{(1)}& h_{11}^{(1)}\end{array}\right),`$ (51)
Eq. (48) gives $`h_{21}^{(1)}=h_{11}^{(1)}(12f)/fh_{12}^{(1)}(1f)/f`$. Inserting $`\overline{g}^{(1)}`$ into the matrix current equation $`\overline{I}_L^{(1)}+\overline{I}_R^{(1)}=0`$ gives $`h_{11}^{(1)}=h_{12}^{(1)}+4f^2`$ and then

$`h_{12}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_L}{(G_L+G_R)^4}}[G_L^3+G_L^2G_R(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)`$ (52)
$`+`$ $`G_LG_R^2+G_R^3(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)].`$ (53)
From $`h_{12}^{(1)}`$ we thus obtain all components of $`\overline{g}^{(1)}`$. Inserting this into the matrix currents in Eq. (46) we get the second cumulant from Eq. (38). It coincides exactly with Eq. (10).

The calculation of the third cumulant proceeds along the same lines. One first expands the matrix currents to second order in $`\chi `$ (not presented due to the lengthy expressions). The requirement that the $`O(\chi ^2)`$ term in Eq. (48) should be zero gives $`\{\overline{g}^{(2)},\overline{g}^{(0)}\}+2(\overline{g}^{(1)})^2=0`$. Using the ansatz

$`\overline{g}^{(2)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{11}^{(2)}& h_{12}^{(2)}\\ h_{21}^{(2)}& h_{11}^{(2)}\end{array}\right),`$ (56)
one gets $`h_{21}^{(2)}=\left[(g_a^{(1)})^2+g_b^{(1)}g_c^{(1)}\right]/f+h_{11}^{(2)}(12f)/fh_{12}^{(2)}(1f)/f`$. The matrix current equation $`\overline{I}_L^{(2)}+\overline{I}_R^{(2)}=0`$ then gives $`h_{11}^{(2)}`$ and $`h_{12}^{(2)}`$ (not written out), which fully determines $`\overline{g}^{(2)}`$. Inserting this into the expression for the matrix currents we find the third cumulant from Eq. (38). It coincides exactly with Eq. (17).

We point out that it is in principle possible to obtain analytical expressions for all higher cumulants in the same way, although the procedure is rather cumbersome already for the third cumulant.

The third and fourth cumulants of current may be also obtained by means of random-matrix theory using the diagrammatic technique proposed by Brouwer and Beenakker. Substituting the resulting transmission probabilities for the whole system and using Eq. (2), one obtains expressions that coincide with Eq. (17) and the expression for the fourth cumulant given in the Appendix.

## VI  Conclusion

In summary, we have shown that the semiclassical cascade approach gives the same results for the third and fourth cumulants of current in a chaotic cavity with imperfect leads as the circuit theory. This leads us to the conclusion that this approach may be applied to a wide class of systems that may include both semiclassical and quantum-mechanical elements. The advantage of the cascade approach is its physical transparency and a relative simplicity. For example, if the system consists of a number of cavities connected by contacts whose cumulants of current are known, this approach allows one to easily construct the cumulants of the current for the whole system. In principle, it also allows an inclusion of inelastic scattering processes and a calculation of cross-correlated cumulants of current in multiterminal systems. Therefore it presents a reasonable alternative to the full counting statistics based on the circuit theory.

We are grateful to M. Büttiker and E. V. Sukhorukov for fruitful discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss National Foundation, the program for Materials and Novel Electronics Properties, Russian Foundation for Basic Research, grant 01-02-17220, and by the INTAS Open grant 2001-1B-14. One of us is thankful to the Geneva University for hospitality.

APPENDIX

In the case of arbitrary transmissions of the contacts the fourth cumulant is given by the expression

$$I_L^4=e^3I[(\mathrm{\Gamma }_R1)(6\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^26\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+1)G_L^9$$

$$+(60\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^230\mathrm{\Gamma }_R36\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^3+5)G_RG_L^8$$

$$+(30\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^31060\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^2+45\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^2G_L^7$$

$$+(120\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^260\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^230+92\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+55\mathrm{\Gamma }_L168\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^3G_L^6$$

$$+(72\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+4+72\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^26\mathrm{\Gamma }_L96\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^251\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^4G_L^5$$

$$+(46\mathrm{\Gamma }_R51\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+72\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2+72\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R96\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^5G_L^4$$

$$+(92\mathrm{\Gamma }_L60\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^230168\mathrm{\Gamma }_L\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+120\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_R+55\mathrm{\Gamma }_R)G_R^6G_L^3$$

$$+(45\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+30\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^31060\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2)G_R^7G_L^2$$

$$+(36\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^330\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+5+60\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^2)G_R^8G_L$$

$$+(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)(6\mathrm{\Gamma }_L^26\mathrm{\Gamma }_L+1)G_R^9]/(G_L+G_R)^9.$$