format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

SUBRINGS INVARIANT UNDER ENDOMORPHISMS

SHULIM KALIMAN 111 The author was partially supported by the NSA grant MDA904-00-1-0016.

Department of Mathematics, University of Miami

Coral Gables, Florida 33124, USA

Abstract. Let $`S`$ and $`R`$ be the rings of regular functions on affine algebraic varieties over a field of characteristic 0, $`R`$ be embedded as a subring in $`S`$, and $`F:SS`$ be an endomorphism such that $`F(R)R`$. Suppose that every ideal of height 1 in $`R`$ generates a proper ideal in $`S`$, and the spectrum of $`R`$ has no selfintersection points. We show that if $`F`$ is an automorphism so is $`F|_R:RR`$. When $`R`$ and $`S`$ have the same transcendence degree then the fact that $`F|_R`$ is an automorphisms implies that $`F`$ is an automorphism.

1. Introduction. In \[CZ\] E. Connell and J. Zweibel proved the following fact. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic 0, $`S`$ and $`R`$ be isomorphic to $`k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, $`R`$ be a subring of $`S`$, and $`F:SS`$ be an endomorphism for which $`F(R)R`$. Then $`F`$ is an automorphism iff $`F|_R:RR`$ is an automorphism.

Though the result is very natural the proof is not simple and it is based to a great extend on the Zariski Main theorem. We shall study the question when an analogue of this theorem holds for a wider class of rings. If one suppose that $`S`$ and $`RS`$ are the rings of regular functions on affine algebraic varieties (over $`k`$) then a similar theorem is not valid without an extra assumption. Put $`S=k[x,x^1,y]`$ and $`R=k[x,y]`$. Consider the automorphism of $`S`$ that sends $`x,x^1,y`$ to $`x,x^1,xy`$ respectively. Then its restriction to $`R`$ is not an automorphism though the image of $`R`$ is contained in $`R`$. This counterexample is based on the fact that $`x`$ is a unit in $`S`$ but not in $`R`$. Meanwhile it is easy to check that under the assumption of the Connell-Zweibel theorem every element of the subring which is invertible in the ambient ring must be automatically invertible in the subring. It turns out that this property is crucial in the case when $`R`$ is a UFD. In a more general setting we prove

Theorem A. Let $`S`$ and $`R`$ be affine domains over a field $`k`$ of characteristic 0, $`R`$ be embedded as a subring in $`S`$, and $`F:SS`$ be an endomorphism for which $`F(R)R`$.

(i) Suppose that $`R`$ is the ring of regular functions on an affine algebraic variety without selfintersection points 222 The absence of selfintersection points is essential. Indeed, in the example above we can replace $`R`$ by its subring which consists of polynomials in $`k[x,y]`$ taking the same values at points (0,0) and (1,1). This gives a counterexample to Theorem A in the presence of selfintersection points. (for instance, $`R`$ is integrally closed) and every ideal of height 1 in $`R`$ generates a proper ideal in $`S`$. Then if $`F`$ is an automorphism so is $`F|_R:RR`$.

(ii) Let $`S`$ and $`R`$ have the same transcendence degree. Then if $`F|_R`$ is an automorphism so is $`F`$.

Using the “Lefschetz principle” (e.g., see \[BCW\]) one can reduce the problem to the case when $`k=𝐂`$. Furthermore, we prefer to work with a geometrical reformulation of this theorem. More precisely, Theorem A is a consequence of

Theorem B. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be irreducible complex affine algebraic varieties. Suppose that $`\rho :XY`$, $`f:XX`$, and $`g:YY`$ are morphisms such that $`\rho `$ is dominant and the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{cccc}X& \stackrel{f}{}& X& \\ \rho & & \rho & (1)\\ Y& \stackrel{g}{}& Y& \end{array}$$

(i) Suppose that $`Y`$ has no selfintersection points, $`f`$ is an automorphism, and $`g`$ is not. Then there exists a closed hypersurface $`DY`$ such that $`\mathrm{codim}_Yg(D)2`$ and $`\rho ^1(D)`$ is empty.

(ii) Let $`dimY=dimX`$. Then if $`g`$ is an automorphism so is $`f`$.

Besides the Zariski Main Theorem \[H, Ch. 5, Th. 5.2\] our other main tool follows from a remarkable theorem of Ax \[A\] (later rediscovered by Kawamata \[I\])

Theorem. Let $`Z`$ be a complex algebraic variety and let $`h:ZZ`$ be an injective morphism. Then $`h`$ is an automorphism.

The idea of the proof is the following. Using the Zariski and Ax theorems we prove that if $`g`$ (resp. $`f`$) is not an automorphism under the assumption of Theorem B (i) (resp. B(ii)) then there exists a divisor $`DY`$ (resp. $`EX`$) such that $`\mathrm{codim}_Yg(D)2`$ and $`g(D)D`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{codim}_Xf(E)2`$ and $`f(E)E`$). The next argument is especially simple in the smooth equidimensional case: we show that the zero multiplicity of the Jacobians of $`g^s\rho `$ and $`\rho f^s`$ are different at $`x\rho ^1(D)`$ (resp. $`xE`$) for some $`s>0`$. In the non-smooth case we show that the dimensions of the images of a $`k`$-jet space at $`x`$ under $`g^s\rho `$ and $`\rho f^s`$ are different.

It is our pleasure to thank M. Miyanishi for drawing our attention to the paper of Ax.

2. The existence of the exceptional divisor.
2.1. Replacing $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in diagram (1) with their normalizations $`X^0`$ and $`Y^0`$ (which are also affine) we get a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X^0& \stackrel{f^0}{}& X^0\\ \rho ^0& & \rho ^0\\ Y^0& \stackrel{g^0}{}& Y^0\end{array}$$

As $`Y`$ has no selfintersection points the normalization $`Y^0Y`$ is a homeomorphism. Hence for any divisor $`DY`$ and its proper transform $`D^0Y^0`$ we have $`(\rho ^0)^1(D^0)\mathrm{}`$ iff $`\rho ^1(D)\mathrm{}`$. Hence it is not difficult to prove the following.

Lemma. Theorem B is true if it is true under the additional assumption that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are normal.

2.2. Lemma. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be as in diagram (1). Then

(a) if $`f`$ is birational so is $`g`$,

(b) if $`dimX=dimY`$ and $`g`$ is birational then $`f`$ is birational.

Proof. Consider (a). It follows from the semi-continuity theorem \[H, Ch. 3, Th. 12.8\] that the number of connected components in $`\rho ^1(y)`$ is an upper semi-continuous function on $`Y`$. In particular, this number is the same for general points $`yY`$. Denote it by $`n`$. Note that $`g`$ is dominant since otherwise $`f`$ is not dominant. Let $`k`$ be the number of components in the preimage of a general point of $`yY`$ under $`g`$. There are $`n`$ components in $`(\rho f)^1(y)`$ and $`kn`$ components in $`(g\rho )^1(y)`$ . By commutativity of diagram (1) we have $`k=1`$. That is, the degree of $`g`$ is 1 and $`g`$ is birational. The proof of (b) is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary. Under the assumption of Theorem B $`f`$ is birational iff $`g`$ is birational.

2.3. By the semi-continuity theorem $`X_1=\{xX|dimf^1(f(x))>dimXdimY\}`$ is a closed algebraic subvariety of $`X`$. Let $`X_0=XX_1`$ and $`Y^0`$ be the largest Zariski open subset of $`\rho (X_0)`$. In Theorem B (ii) we need also the Zariski open subset $`X^0`$ of $`X`$ that is the largest subset such that $`\rho |_{X^0}`$ is quasi-finite.

Lemma. (1) Under the assumption of Theorem B (i) the restriction of $`g`$ to $`Y^0`$ is an automorphism provided that $`Y`$ is normal.

(2) Under the assumption of Theorem B (ii) the restriction of $`f`$ to $`X^0`$ is an automorphism provided that $`X`$ is normal.

Proof. The the commutativity of diagram (1) implies that $`f(X_1)X_1`$ in the first statement. By the Ax theorem the restriction of $`f`$ to $`X_1`$ is an automorphism of $`X_1`$ whence we have the similar fact for $`X_0`$. The commutativity of diagram (1) implies that the restriction of $`g`$ to $`\rho (X_0)`$ is a homeomorphism of $`\rho (X_0)`$ whence (1) follows from the Zariski Main theorem. In (2) let $`EX`$ be the set of points where $`f`$ is not étale. By the Zariski Main Theorem any $`xE`$ is not a connected component of $`f^1(f(x))`$, and by the commutativity of diagram (1) $`f^1(f(x))`$ is contained in $`\rho ^1(\rho (x))`$. Thus $`X^0XE`$. As $`\rho =g\rho f^1`$ for $`xX^0`$ we have $`f(x)X^0`$, i.e. $`X^0X^0`$ whence by the Ax theorem $`f|_{X^0}:X^0X^0`$ is an automorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

2.4. Proposition. Let $`g:YY`$ be a birational endomorphism of a normal affine algebraic variety which is not an autmorphism, but for a Zariski open subset $`Y^0`$ of $`Y`$ the restriction of $`g`$ to $`Y^0`$ is an automorphism. Then there exists an exceptional divisor $`D`$ with respect to $`g`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{codim}_Yg(D)2`$). Furthermore, replacing $`g`$ with $`g^m`$ for some $`m>0`$ one can suppose that $`g(D)D`$.

Proof. Let $`D^{}=YY^0`$. Denote by $`D_0^{}`$ the Zariski open subset of $`D^{}`$ that consists of points such that the restriction of $`g`$ to a neighborhood of any of these points is a quasi-finite morphism. For every $`yD^{}`$ its image $`g(y)`$ cannot belong to $`Y^0`$ (that is, $`g(D^{})D^{}`$) since otherwise $`g(y_1)=g(y)`$ for some $`y_1Y^0`$ whence the preimage of $`g(y)`$ is not connected contrary to the Zariski Main theorem. The same theorem implies that the restriction of $`g`$ to $`Y^0D_0^{}`$ is an embedding. Suppose that $`C`$ is an irreducible component of $`D^{}`$ which is a hypersurface and which meets $`D_0^{}`$ (i.e. $`D_0^{}C`$ is dense in $`C`$), and let $`D_1`$ be the union of such hypersurfaces. Then the closure of $`g(C)`$ is also a hypersurface which is an irreducible component of $`D^{}`$. Assume that this component is not contained in $`D_1`$. Denote by $`D_0^{\prime \prime }`$ the subset of $`D^{}`$ that consists of points such that the restriction of $`g^2`$ to a neighborhood of any of these points is a quasi-finite morphism. Note that under this assumption $`C`$ does not meet $`D_0^{\prime \prime }`$. Thus replacing, if necessary, $`g`$ with $`g^m`$ for some natural $`m`$ we can suppose that $`g(D_1)D_1`$. In particular, $`D_1g(D_1D_0^{})`$ is of codimension at least 2 in $`Y`$. Assume that $`D^{}`$ does not contain an exceptional divisor with respect to $`g`$. Then the codimension of the complement to $`g(Y^0D_0^{})`$ in $`Y`$ is at least 2. Since $`g^1`$ is well-defined on $`g(Y^0D_0^{})`$ it can be extended to $`Y`$ by the theorem about deleting singularities for normal algebraic varieties in codimension 2 \[D, Ch. 7.1\]. This contradicts the assumption that $`g`$ is not an automorphism whence there exists an exceptional divisor $`D`$ with respect to $`g`$ which is, of course, contained in $`D^{}`$.

For the second statement note that for every $`yD`$ its image $`y_1=g(y)`$ must belong to an irreducible component of $`D^{}`$ which is a hypersurface since otherwise $`g^1`$ can be extended to $`y_1`$ by the theorem about deleting singularities in codimension 2. Suppose that $`C`$ and $`D_1`$ are as above. In particular, the closure of $`g(D_1)`$ is $`D_1`$, and $`g(CD_0^{})`$ is dense in $`g(C)`$. Let $`C_0`$ be the complement in the closure of $`g(C)`$ to the union of the other components of $`D^{}`$ that are hypersurfaces. Note that $`g^1(C_0)`$ is contained in $`D_0^{}`$ by the theorem about deleting singularities. Furthermore, applying this theorem again we see that that $`g^1(D_1D)`$ is also contained in $`D_0^{}`$, i.e. $`y_1`$ cannot belong to $`D_1D`$. Thus $`y_1D`$ and $`g(D)D`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary. If $`g`$ (resp. $`f`$) is not an automorphism under the assumption of Theorem B (i) (resp. B(ii)) then there exists an exceptional divisor $`D`$ with respect to $`g`$ (resp. $`E`$ with respect to $`f`$). Furthermore, one can suppose that $`g(D)D`$ (resp. $`f(E)E`$).

2.5. We can already prove Theorem B in the case of smooth varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$ (for simplicity we shall consider the case when $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are of the same dimension). Consider a holomorphic mapping $`h:VU`$ of equidimensional complex manifolds $`V`$ and $`U`$ and the Jacobian of this mapping in local coordinate systems at $`vV`$ and $`u=h(v)`$, i.e. the determinant of the Jacobi matrix. The Jacobian itself depends on the choice of these local coordinate systems but the order of its zeros at $`v`$ does not. We denote this order by $`Jd_h(v)`$ . The following the two properties of $`Jd_h`$ are simple.

($`\alpha `$) $`Jd_h(v)>0`$ iff $`h`$ is not a local embedding in a neighborhood of $`v`$;

($`\beta `$) if $`e:UW`$ is another holomorphic mapping of equidimensional complex manifolds then $`Jd_{eh}Jd_h(v)+Jd_e(u)`$, and the equality holds in the case when either $`h`$ is a local embedding at $`v`$ or $`e`$ is a local embedding at $`u`$.

Let the assumption of Theorem B (i) hold and $`D`$ be as in Corollary 2.4. Assume that $`\rho ^1(D)\mathrm{}`$, $`x\rho ^1(D),x^{}=f(x)`$, and $`y=\rho (x)`$. Since $`\rho f=g\rho `$ and $`f`$ is an automorphism we have by ($`\beta `$) $`Jd_{\rho f}(x)=Jd_\rho (x^{})=Jd_\rho (x)+Jd_g(y)`$. Since $`g`$ is not a local embedding at $`y`$ we see that $`Jd_g(y)>0`$. Furthermore, since $`g(D)D`$, replacing $`g`$ (resp. $`f`$) by $`g^m`$ (resp. $`f^m`$) we can make $`Jd_g(y)>>0`$. One the other hand $`Jd_\rho (x^{})`$ is bounded as $`Jd_\rho `$ is bounded on $`X`$. This contradiction concludes the proof of Theorem B (i) in the smooth case. The proof of Theorem B (ii) in the smooth case is similar.

3. Jets on manifolds.
3.1. In order to deal with the general case we need to consider the variety of $`k`$-jets $`J^k(M)`$ from the germ $`(𝐂,0)`$ of the complex line at the origin into a complex manifold $`M`$. The following notation and simple facts will be used. For $`kl`$ we denote by $`\tau _M^{k,l}:J^k(M)J^l(M)`$ the natural projection. The map $`\tau _M^{k,0}:J^k(M)J^0(M)M`$ is a $`𝐂^s`$-fibration where $`s=kdimM`$. This fibration admits a natural $`𝐂^{}`$-action generated by the $`𝐂^{}`$-action on $`(𝐂,0)`$. The restriction of this action to any fiber generates an embedding of this fiber into a weighted projective space. Hence we can extend $`\tau _M^{k,0}`$ to a proper holomorphic fibration $`\overline{\tau }_M^{k,0}:\overline{J}^k(M)M`$ whose fibers are isomorphic to this weighted projective space. For every subset $`Z`$ of $`J^l(M)`$ we denote by $`J_Z^k(M)`$ the set $`\{jJ^k(M)|\tau _M^{k,l}(j)Z\}`$. Note that if $`Z`$ is a variety then

$$dimJ_Z^k(M)=dimZ+(kl)dimM.$$
$`(2)`$
Any holomorphic map of complex manifolds $`\phi :MN`$ generates a holomorphic map $`\phi ^{(k)}:J^k(M)J^k(N)`$ such that $`\tau _N^{k,l}\phi ^{(k)}=\phi ^{(l)}\tau _M^{k,l}`$. In particular, if $`ZJ^l(M),Z^kJ_Z^k(M)`$, $`W=\phi ^{(l)}(Z)`$, and $`W^k=\phi ^{(k)}(Z^k)`$ then $`W^kJ_W^k(N)`$. Another useful observation is that $`\phi ^{(k)}`$ commutes naturally with the $`𝐂^{}`$-actions on $`J^k(M)`$ and $`J^k(N)`$ whence it can be extended to a holomorphic map $`\overline{\phi }^{(k)}:\overline{J}^k(M)\overline{J}^k(N)`$.

3.2. Proposition. Let $`\phi :MN`$ be a non-degenerate holomorphic map of complex manifolds. Let $`l0`$ and $`Z_0`$ be an algebraic subvariety of $`J^l(M)`$. Then there exists $`rl`$ such that for every $`kr`$, $`Z=J_{Z_0}^r(M),Z^k=J_Z^k(M)`$, $`W=\phi ^{(r)}(Z)`$, and $`W^k=\phi ^{(k)}(Z^k)`$ we have $`dimW^k=dimW+(kr)dimN`$ (i.e., by (2), $`W^k`$ is dense in $`J_W^k(N)`$).

Proof. First note that we can suppose that $`Z_0`$ is irreducible (then in the non-irreducible case for every irreducible component of $`Z_0`$ one can find its own number $`r`$ and take the maximum of these numbers in the statement of Lemma).

Step 1. Let us show that for every $`l0`$ it suffices to prove the statement under the additional assumption that $`\tau _M^{l,0}(Z_0)`$ is a point $`x_0M`$.

Let $`B=\tau _M^{r,0}(Z)=\tau _M^{l,0}(Z_0)`$ and $`xB`$. Put $`\theta ^k=\tau _N^{k,r}|_{W^k}:W^kW`$, $`Z_x^k=\{jZ^k|\tau _M^{r,0}(j)=x\}`$, and $`W_x^k=\phi ^{(r)}(Z_x^k)`$. Since $`\theta ^k(W_x^k)=W_x^r`$ it suffices to show that for general $`xB`$ we have $`dimW_x^kdimW_x^r=(kr)dimN`$. Since we assume that Lemma is correct under the additional assumption, for every $`xB`$ the number $`r`$ can chosen so that we have this equality. Furthermore, by Baire’s category theorem we can suppose that there exists $`r`$ for which the equality holds for every $`x`$ in a subset $`LB`$ which is not contained in any analytic subset of $`B`$. Consider $`\stackrel{~}{W}^k`$ equal to the image of $`Z^k`$ in $`B\times W^k`$ under the holomorphic map $`(\tau _M^{k,0},\phi ^{(k)})`$. Note that $`W_x^k`$ can be viewed as a fiber of the natural projection $`\stackrel{~}{W}^k\tau _M^{k,0}(Z^k)=B`$. As $`\phi ^{(k)}`$ and $`\tau _M^{k,0}`$ can be extended to $`\overline{\phi }^{(k)}`$ and $`\overline{\tau }_M^{k,0}`$ from 3.1 this projection can be extended to a proper holomorphic map into $`B`$ whence, by semi-continuity theorem (e.g., see \[BN, Th. 2.3\]) the dimension of $`W_x^k`$ is constant on a complement $`U`$ to a proper analytic subset of $`B`$. Consider the natural projection $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k:\stackrel{~}{W}^k\stackrel{~}{W}^r`$ generated by $`\tau _N^{k,r}`$ and its restriction to $`W_x^k`$ which may be viewed as $`\theta ^k`$. The dimension of a general fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k`$ is $`dim\stackrel{~}{W}^kdim\stackrel{~}{W}^r`$ where the last number coincides with $`dimW_x^kdimW_x^r`$ for general $`x`$, i.e. for $`xU`$. Since $`L`$ meets $`U`$ we see that $`dimW_x^kdimW_x^r=(kr)dimN`$ for $`xU`$ which concludes the first step.

Step 2. If $`ZJ_{x_0}(M)`$ the fact becomes local analytic, and one can suppose that $`M`$ (resp. $`N`$) coincides with the germ $`(𝐂^m,o_m)`$ (resp. $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$) of a Euclidean space at the origin (of course, we put $`x_0=o_m`$). Let $`(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n)`$ be the coordinate form of a holomorphic map $`\phi `$ and let $`\phi _{i,0}`$ the the minor homogeneous form in the Taylor decomposition of $`\phi _i`$. We need

Claim. For $`Z_0J_{x_0}(M)`$ it suffices to prove the local version of Lemma in the case of homogeoneous $`\phi `$, i.e. $`\phi _i=\phi _{i,0}`$ for every $`i`$ and the degrees of these coordinate functions are the same number $`s`$.

First note that if $`\theta :𝐂^n𝐂^n`$ is a polynomial map Lemma holds for morphism $`\phi `$ provided it holds for morphism $`\varphi =\theta \phi `$. The coordinate functions $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$ of $`\varphi `$ are elements of the algebra generated by $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n`$. These elements can be chosen so that there minor homogeneous forms are algebraically independent \[M-L\]. Thus we can suppose from the beginning that $`\phi _{1,0},\mathrm{},\phi _{n,0}`$ are algebraically independent (i.e. morphism $`\psi _0=(\phi _{1,0},\mathrm{},\phi _{n,0})`$ is dominant). Furthermore, replacing $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n`$ by their powers, we suppose that each $`\phi _{i,0}`$ has the same degree $`s`$. Let $`\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _m)`$ be a coordinate system on $`𝐂^m`$. Put $`\psi _{i,c}=c^s\phi _{i,0}(c\xi )`$ where $`c𝐂^{}`$, and put $`\psi _c=(\psi _{1,c},\mathrm{},\psi _{n,c})`$. Clearly, $`\phi ^{(k)}(J_Z^k(M))`$ and $`\psi _c^{(k)}(J_Z^k(M))`$ are isomorphic for $`c0`$, and $`\psi _c\psi _0`$ as $`c0`$. This yields a surjective morphism from $`\phi ^{(k)}(J_Z^k(M))`$ to $`\psi _0^{(k)}(J_Z^k(M))`$ which implies the statement of the Claim and concludes Step 2.

Step 3. We shall use induction by $`l`$. Let $`l=0`$. By Step 1 we can suppose that $`Z_0`$ consists of one element $`j_0`$ which is presented by a constant map from $`(𝐂,0)`$ into a point $`x_0M`$. That is, $`j_0(t)=x_0`$ where $`t`$ is a coordinate on $`(𝐂,0)`$. By Step 2 we can suppose that $`M=𝐂^m,x_0=o_m,N=𝐂^n`$, and $`\phi :𝐂^m𝐂^n`$ is homogeneous of degree $`s`$. If $`n=m`$ then, since $`\phi `$ is dominant, it is a local analytic isomorphism at a general point $`x`$ of $`𝐂^n`$. Hence for $`y=\phi (x)`$ the restriction of $`\phi ^k`$ to $`J_x^k(M)`$ is an isomorphism between $`J_x^k(M)`$ and $`J_y^k(N)`$. In the case when $`m>n`$ applying the above argument to the restrictions of $`\phi `$ to general $`n`$-dimensional submanifolds of $`M`$ we can see that the restriction of $`\phi ^{(k)}`$ to $`J_x^k(M)`$ is an epimorphism onto $`J_y^k(N)`$ for general $`xM`$. Every $`jJ_{o_m}^k(M)`$ is of form

$$j(t)=tj_1(t)$$
$`(3)`$
where $`j_1J_x^{k1}(M)`$ and $`x𝐂^n`$. Put $`r=s`$ and consider the Zariski open subset of $`J_{o_m}^r(M)`$ which consists of $`j^0`$ such that $`j^0(t)=tj_1^0(t)`$ where $`j_1^0`$ is an element of $`J^{r1}(M)`$ for which $`x=j_1^0(0)`$ is a general point of $`𝐂^n`$. In particular, $`j^0`$ is a general element of $`Z=J_{o_m}^r(M)`$, and the restriction of $`\phi ^{(k)}`$ to $`J_x^k(M)`$ is an epimorphism onto $`J_y^k(N)`$ where $`y=\phi (x)`$. Let $`jJ_{j^0}^k(M)`$ and $`j_1J_{j_1^0}^{k1}`$ be as in (3). Note that

$$\phi ^{(k)}(j)=t^s\phi ^{(ks)}(j_2)$$
$`(4)`$
where $`j_2=\tau _M^{k1,ks}(j_1)`$. Hence $`\phi ^{(r)}(j^0)=t^sy`$. Since the restriction of $`\phi ^{(ks)}`$ to $`J_x^{ks}(M)`$ is an epimorphism onto $`J_y^{ks}(N)`$ we see that the restriction of $`\phi ^{(k)}`$ to $`J_{j^0}^k(M)`$ is an epimorphism onto $`J_{\phi (j^0)}^k(N)`$ which proves the statement for $`l=0`$ and concludes Step 3.

Step 4. Assume that Lemma is proven for $`l1`$. That is, for every $`Z_0^{}J_x^{l1}(M)`$ there exists $`r_0l1`$ such that for $`Z^{}=J_{Z_0^{}}^{r_0}(M)`$, $`W^{}=\phi ^{(r_0)}(Z^{})`$, and every $`kr_0`$ the image $`\phi ^{(k)}(J_Z^{}^k(M))`$ is dense in $`J_W^{}^k(N)`$. By Step 1 we can suppose that $`\tau _M^{l,0}(Z_0)=x_0`$ whence by Step 2 $`M=𝐂^m,x_0=o_m,N=𝐂^n`$, and $`\phi :𝐂^m𝐂^n`$ is homogeneous of degree $`s`$. This means that $`Z_0`$ is of form $`Z_0=tZ_0^{}`$ and $`Z=tZ^{}`$. Put $`r=r_0+s`$, $`Z^{\prime \prime }=\tau _M^{r1,rs}(Z^{})`$ and $`W^{\prime \prime }=\phi ^{(rs)}(Z^{\prime \prime })`$. Then $`Z^{\prime \prime }=J_{Z_0^{}}^{r_0}(M)`$ since $`\tau _M^{r1,l1}=\tau _M^{rs,l1}\tau _M^{r1,rs}`$. By (4), $`W=t^sW^{\prime \prime }`$ and the statement of Lemma is equivalent to the fact that $`\phi ^{(ks)}(J_{Z^{\prime \prime }}^{ks}(M))`$ is dense in $`J_{W^{\prime \prime }}^{ks}(N)`$. But this is true by the induction assumption for $`l1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

4. Jets on algebraic varieties.
4.1. We need an analogue of $`J^k(M)`$ in the case of non-smooth algebraic varieties. In the rest of the paper for every algebraic variety (resp. analytic set) $`Y`$ and $`yY`$ we denote by $`(Y,y)`$ the germ of $`Y`$ at $`y`$ in the Zariski (resp. Euclidean) topology. Let $`(Y,y)(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ be a closed embedding where $`o_n`$ is the origin in $`𝐂^n`$. Let $`t`$ be a coordinate on $`(𝐂,0)`$. We denote by $`\widehat{J}𝐂^n`$ the set of formal jets $`\widehat{j}`$ which are $`n`$-tuples $`\widehat{j}=(\widehat{j}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{j}_n)`$ of formal power series in $`t`$. Its subset $`\widehat{J}_{o_n}𝐂^n`$ consists of $`\widehat{j}`$ such that $`\widehat{j}_i(0)=0`$ for every $`i`$. We define the set of formal jets $`\widehat{J}_yY`$ of $`Y`$ at $`y`$ as a subset of $`\widehat{J}_{o_n}𝐂^n`$ such that $`\widehat{j}\widehat{J}_yY`$ iff for every regular function $`h`$ from the defining ideal of $`(Y,y)`$ in $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ the formal series $`h\widehat{j}`$ is zero.

Definition. Let $`\tau ^k:\widehat{J}𝐂^nJ^k𝐂^n`$ be the forgetting projection. The set of $`k`$-jets of $`Y`$ at $`y`$ is $`J_y^kY:=\tau ^k(\widehat{J}_y^kY)`$.

Remark. We call $`\widehat{j}(\tau ^k)^1(j)`$ a formal extension of $`jJ^k𝐂^n`$. By Artin’s theorem \[P, Th. 4.4\] for $`jJ_y^kY`$ its formal extension $`\widehat{j}\widehat{J}_yY`$ can be chosen convergent. That is, we can treat $`\widehat{j}(t)`$ as a germ of a curve in $`Y`$.

4.2. Lemma. The closure of $`J_y^kY`$ in $`J_{o_n}^k𝐂^n`$ is an algebraic variety, it is independent (up to an isomorphism) from the choice of a coordinate $`t`$ on $`(𝐂,0)`$ and from the choice of the closed embedding $`(Y,y)(𝐂^n,o_n)`$, and $`\tau _Y^{k,l}(J_y^kY)=J_y^lY`$ where $`\tau _Y^{k,l}=\tau _{𝐂^n}^{k,l}|_{J_y^kY}`$ and $`lk`$. Furthermore, any morphism $`\phi :(Y,y)(Z,z)`$ generates a morphism $`\phi ^{(k)}:J_y^kYJ_z^kZ`$.

Proof. For the first statement note that $`\widehat{J}_yY`$ is given in $`\widehat{J}_{o_n}𝐂^n`$ by a countable number of polynomial equations on the coefficients of the coordinates $`\widehat{j}_i`$ of formal jets $`\widehat{j}=(\widehat{j}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{j}_n)`$. This implies that $`\tau _{𝐂^n}^k(\widehat{J}_yY)`$ is the intersection of at most countable number of constructive sets whence the closure of $`J_y^kY`$ is an algebraic variety. The other statements are immediate consequence of the definition. $`\mathrm{}`$

4.3. Consider a coordinate form $`(j_1(t),\mathrm{},j_n(t))`$ of a $`jJ_{o_n}^k𝐂^n`$ where $`t(𝐂,0)`$ and each $`j_i`$ is a polynomial in $`t`$ of degree at most $`k`$. We say that the multiplicity of $`j`$ is $`m=\mathrm{min}\{s|l:\frac{d^s}{dt^s}j_l(0)0\}`$. The subset of jets of multiplicity $`m`$ in $`J_{o_n}^k(𝐂^n)`$ will be denoted by $`J_{o_n}^{k,m}(𝐂^n)`$. Notation $`\widehat{J}_{o_n}^m𝐂^n,\widehat{J}_y^mY,J_y^{k,m}Y`$ have the similar meaning. For any $`h`$ from the defining ideal of $`(Y,y)`$ in $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ consider its homogeneous decomposition $`h=h_0+h_1+\mathrm{}`$ where $`h_0`$ is the minor homogeneous form. One can treat the tangent space of $`𝐂^n`$ at $`o_n`$ as 1-jets. Then the reduced tangent cone $`C_yY`$ consists of all 1-jets $`j(t)`$ such that $`h_0j(t)=0`$ for any $`h_0`$ as above. This implies.

Lemma. Every $`jJ_y^{k,k}Y`$ is of form $`j(t)=j^1(t^k)`$ where $`j^1C_yY`$.

4.4. Let $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ be the blowing-up of $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ at $`o_n`$ and $`E`$ be its exceptional divisor. Let $`(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n)`$ be a coordinate system on $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n)=(\xi _1,\xi _2/\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n/\xi _1)`$ is a local coordinate system on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$. Without loss of generality we can suppose that $`\frac{d^m}{dt^m}j_1(0)0`$. Then $`(j_1,j_2/j_1,\mathrm{},j_n/j_1)`$ can be viewed as an $`n`$-tuple of power series so that the first $`(km)`$ terms of every entry are well-defined. This enables us to define for $`l=0,\mathrm{},km`$ morphism $`\theta _n^{k,m,l}:J_{o_n}^{k,m}𝐂^nJ_E^l\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$ such that in this local coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ we have $`\theta _n^{k,m,l}(j)=([j_1]_l,[j_2/j_1]_l,\mathrm{},[j_n/j_1]_l)`$ where for every power series $`a`$ we denote by $`[a]_l`$ the sum of its first $`l`$ terms. Let us discuss the dimension of fibers of $`\theta _n^{k,m,km}`$. Among the last $`m`$ coefficients of $`j_1`$ (which is a polynomial of degree at most $`k`$) there are at most $`\mathrm{min}(m,km+1)`$ nonzero ones. Knowing these coefficients and $`\theta _n^{k,m,km}(j)`$ one can recover $`j`$. Thus fibers of $`\theta _n^{k,m,km}`$ are of dimension $`\mathrm{min}(m,km+1)`$.

For formal jets we define the similar morphism $`\widehat{\theta }_n^m:\widehat{J}_{o_n}^m𝐂^n\widehat{J}_E\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n:=_{\stackrel{~}{y}E}\widehat{J}_{\stackrel{~}{y}}\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$ given locally by $`(\widehat{j}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{j}_n)(\widehat{j}_1,\widehat{j}_2/\widehat{j}_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{j}_n/\widehat{j}_1)`$.

4.5. As usual we consider a closed embedding $`(Y,y)(𝐂^n,o_n)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ as a proper transform of $`Y`$, $`E_Y=E\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, and $`\sigma _Y=\sigma |_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$, i.e. $`\sigma _Y:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ is the blowing-up of $`(Y,y)`$ at $`y`$. Put $`\theta _Y^{k,m,l}=\theta _n^{k,m,l}|_{J_Y^{k,m}Y}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }_Y^m=\widehat{\theta }_n^m|_{\widehat{J}_y^mY}`$. It is easy to see that $`\theta _Y^{k,m,0}(J_y^{k,m}Y)E_Y`$.

Lemma. For every $`\stackrel{~}{y}E_Y`$ the fiber $`E^{\stackrel{~}{y}}=(\theta _Y^{k,m,0})^1(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ is of dimension at most $`dimJ_{\stackrel{~}{y}}^{km}\stackrel{~}{Y}+\mathrm{min}(m,km+1)`$ and for any $`l=0,\mathrm{},km`$ the image $`\theta _Y^{k,m,l}(E^{\stackrel{~}{y}})`$ is contained in $`J_{\stackrel{~}{y}}^l\stackrel{~}{Y}`$.

Proof. The first statement follows from the second one for $`l=km`$, the fact that $`\theta _Y^{k,m,l}=\tau _Y^{r,l}\theta _Y^{k,m,r}`$ for $`r>l`$, and the remark about the dimension of $`\theta _n^{k,m,km}`$-fibers in 4.4. For the second statement put $`\stackrel{~}{j}=\theta _Y^{k,m,l}(j)`$ where $`jJ_y^{k,m}Y`$. Consider a formal extension $`\widehat{j}\widehat{J}_yY`$ of $`j`$, i.e. for every regular function $`h`$ from the defining ideal of $`(Y,y)`$ in $`(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ we have $`h\widehat{j}=0`$. Note that $`\widehat{\theta }_Y^m(\widehat{j})`$ is a formal extension of $`\stackrel{~}{j}(t)`$. Suppose that $`j_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ are as in 4.3 and 4.4, and $`\frac{d^m}{dt^m}j_1(0)0`$. Then for every regular function $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ from the defining ideal of $`(\stackrel{~}{Y},\stackrel{~}{y})`$ there exist $`h`$ as above and $`s>0`$ so that $`h(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n)=\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1^s\stackrel{~}{h}(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n)`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{h}\widehat{\theta }_Y^m(\widehat{j})=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{j}J_{\stackrel{~}{y}}^l\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Induction on $`k`$ and Lemma 4.5 imply.

Corollary. The dimension of $`J_y^{k,m}(Y)`$ is at most $`(km+1)dimY+\mathrm{min}(m1,km)`$. In particular, $`dimJ_y^k(Y)kdimY`$.

4.6. Lemma. Let $`\phi :(Y,y)(Z,z)`$ be a morphism, $`jJ_y^{k,m}(Y)`$ be such that the multiplicity of $`\phi ^{(k)}(j)`$ is $`m`$ (i.e. $`\phi ^{(k)}(j)J_z^{k,m}(Z)`$). Let $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ (resp. $`\delta :\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$) be the blowing-up of $`Y`$ at $`y`$ (resp. $`Z`$ at $`z`$) and $`\psi :\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ be the rational map generated by $`\phi `$. Then $`\psi `$ is regular at $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\theta _Y^{k,m,0}(j)`$ and sends it to $`\stackrel{~}{z}=\theta _Z^{k,m,0}(\phi ^{(k)}(j))`$. Furthermore, for $`E^{\stackrel{~}{y}}=(\theta _Y^{k,m,0})^1(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ we have $`\theta _Z^{k,m,l}\phi ^{(k)}|_{E^{\stackrel{~}{y}}}=\psi ^{(l)}\theta _Y^{k,m,l}|_{E^{\stackrel{~}{y}}}`$.

Proof. Let $`(Y,y)(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$ be as in 4.5. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ can be viewed as a subvariety of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$. Let $`(𝐂^s,o_s)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^s`$ play the similar role for $`(Z,z)`$. Then $`\phi `$ is a restriction of a morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:(𝐂^n,o_n)(𝐂^s,o_s)`$ which generates a rational map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^s`$ such that $`\psi `$ is the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Thus we can suppose that $`(Y,y)=(𝐂^n,o_n)`$ and $`(Z,z)=(𝐂^s,o_s)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }=(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n)`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_s)`$ be a local coordinate system on $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^n`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{𝐂}^s)`$. Making linear coordinate changes we can suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{y}=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ in this local coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{z}=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$) and $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\xi })=(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\xi }_n\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1)`$ (resp. $`\delta (\stackrel{~}{\zeta })=(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_s\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1)`$). This implies that locally the coordinate form of $`\psi `$ is $`(\phi _1\sigma ,\phi _2\sigma /\phi _1\sigma ,\mathrm{}\phi _s\sigma /\phi _1\sigma )`$ where $`\phi =(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _s)`$, and for every $`j=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)E^{\stackrel{~}{y}}`$ we have $`\frac{d^m}{dt^m}j_1(0)0`$ (resp. $`\frac{d^m}{dt^m}(\phi _1j)(0)0`$). Thus changing the coordinate $`t`$ on $`(𝐂,0)`$ we can suppose that $`j_1(t)=t^m`$. Recall that for every power series $`a(t)`$ the sum of its first $`l`$ terms is denoted by $`[a]_l`$. Treating each $`j_i`$ as a polynomial of degree at most $`k`$ we have $`\theta _s^{k,m,l}\phi ^{(k)}(j)=([\phi _1j]_l,[\phi _2j/\phi _1j]_l,\mathrm{},[\phi _sj/\phi _1j]_l)`$. Since $`j_1(t)=t^m`$ we have on the other hand $`\sigma \theta _n^{k,m,l}(j)=([j_1]_l,[j_2/j_1]_l[j_1]_l,\mathrm{},[j_n/j_1]_l[j_1]_l)=(j_1^{},[j_2]_{l+m},\mathrm{},[j_n]_{l+m})=:j^{}`$ where $`j_1^{}=[j_1]_{l+m}`$ for $`lm`$, and $`j_1^{}`$ is zero for $`l<m`$. Hence $`\psi ^{(l)}\theta _n^{k,m,l}(j)=([\phi _1j^{}]_l,[\phi _2j^{}/\phi _1j^{}]_l,\mathrm{},[\phi _sj^{}/\phi _1j^{}]_l)`$. As $`\frac{d^m}{dt^m}(\phi _1j)(0)0`$ one can see that the last expression coincides with those for $`\theta _s^{k,m,l}\phi ^{(k)}(j)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

4.7. Let $`h:Y_1Y_2`$ be a morphism of algebraic varieties, $`y_1Y`$, and $`y_2=h(y_1)`$. Then $`h`$ generates a morphism $`h_{}:C_{y_1}Y_1C_{y_2}Y_2`$ of the reduced tangent cones at $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$ respectively where $`h_{}`$ is just the restriction of the induced linear map of the tangent spaces $`T_{y_1}Y_1T_{y_2}Y_2`$. It is known \[D, Ch. 2.5.2\] that if $`h`$ is not unramified at $`y_1`$ (in particular, when it $`y_1`$ is not a connected component of $`h^1(y_2)`$) then the induced map of (non-reduced) tangent cones is not an embedding. We need a similar claim for reduced tangent cones.

Lemma. Let $`h:(Y_1,y_1)(Y_2,y_2)`$ be a morphism such that $`y_1h^1(y_2)Z_1`$ for some irreducible analytic branch $`(Z_1,y_1)`$ of $`(Y_1,y_1)`$. Let $`(Z_2,y_2)`$ be the proper transform of $`(Z_1,y_1)`$ under $`h`$.

(1) Then $`h_{}`$ is not an embedding.

(2) Let $`V_i`$ be the subspace of $`T_{y_i}Y_i`$ generated by $`C_{y_i}Z_i`$ and $`dimV_1dimV_2`$. Then the closure of $`h_{}(C_{y_1}Z_1)`$ is a proper subvariety of $`C_{y_2}Z_2`$, i.e. $`dimh_{}(C_{y_1}Z_1)<dimY_2`$.

Proof. Let $`Y_i`$ be a closed subvariety of $`𝐂^n`$ with coordinates $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ so that $`y_i`$ is the origin. Consider the homotety $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)(tx_1,\mathrm{},tx_n)`$ where $`t𝐂^{}`$ and the image of $`Y_i`$ in $`𝐂^n𝐂^n\times t`$ under it. The closure of the union of these images is a subvariety $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_i`$ of $`𝐂^{n+1}𝐂^n\times 𝐂_t`$ such that for the natural projection $`\tau _i:\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_i𝐂`$ to the $`t`$-axis, $`\tau _i^1(0)`$ is isomorphic to $`C_{y_i}Y_i`$ and there is an isomorphism $`\phi _i:Y_i\times 𝐂^{}\tau _i^1(𝐂^{})`$ over $`𝐂^{}`$ (e.g., see \[D, Ch. 3.6.2\]). Moreover, $`h`$ generates a morphism $`\stackrel{ˇ}{h}:\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_1\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_2`$ such that $`\tau _1=\tau _2\stackrel{ˇ}{h}`$, $`\phi _2^1\stackrel{ˇ}{h}\phi _1|_{Y_1\times t}=h`$ for nonzero $`t`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{h}|_{\tau _1^1(0)}=h_{}`$. The closure $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_i`$ of $`\phi _i(Z_i\times 𝐂^{})`$ is an irreducible analytic subvariety of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Y}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_i\tau _i^1(0)`$ is isomorphic to $`C_{y_i}Z_i`$. By the assumption for any fixed $`t𝐂^{}`$ the variety $`\widehat{Z}_1^t:=\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}_1\stackrel{ˇ}{h}^1(\phi _2(y_2\times t))\phi _1(y_1\times t)`$, i.e. $`\widehat{Z}_1^t`$ is at least of dimension 1 and the closure $`\widehat{Z}_1`$ of $`_{t𝐂^{}}\widehat{Z}_1^t`$ is at least of dimension 2. Hence $`\widehat{Z}_1^0=\widehat{Z}_1\tau _1^1(0)`$ contains a curve. Let $`v_i`$ be the vertex of $`C_{y_i}Y_i`$. Note that $`\phi _i(y_i\times t)`$ approaches $`v_i`$ as $`t0`$. Hence by continuity $`\stackrel{ˇ}{h}(\widehat{Z}_1^0)=v_2`$, and, therefore, $`h_{}`$ is not an embedding.

As $`(Z_i,y_i)`$ is an irreducible analytic branch of $`(Y_i,y_i)`$ it follows easily from \[M, Ch. 5A\] that $`C_{y_i}Z_i`$ is irreducible. Hence if the closure of $`h_{}(C_{y_1}Z_1)`$ is not a proper subvariety, it coincides with $`C_{y_2}Z_2`$ and, therefore, $`h_{}(C_{y_1}Z_1)`$ generates $`V_2`$. This implies that $`h_{}(V_1)=V_2`$ whence $`h_{}|_{V_1}:V_1V_2`$ is an isomorphism as $`dimV_1dimV_2`$. Thus the restriction of $`h_{}`$ to $`C_{y_1}Z_1V_1`$ is an embedding contrary to (1). $`\mathrm{}`$

4.8. Lemma. Let $`(Y_1,y_1)(Y_2,y_2)\mathrm{}(Y_s,y_s)`$ be a sequence of birational morphisms of germs of algebraic varieties and $`g_{i_1,i_2}:(Y_{i_1},y_{i_2})(Y_{i_2},y_{i_2})`$ be the composite morphisms for $`i_1<i_2`$. Suppose that $`dimY_i=n2`$ and $`g_{i,i+1}^1(y_{i+1})Z_iy_i`$ for any irreducible analytic branch $`(Z_i,y_i)`$ of $`(Y_i,y_i)`$. If $`sdimT_{y_1}Y_1`$ then $`dim(g_{1,s})^{(1)}(C_{y_1}Y_1)n1`$.

Proof. Let $`V_i`$ be the subspace of $`T_{y_i}Y_i`$ generated by $`C_{y_i}Z_i`$ where $`(Z_i,y_i)`$ is the proper transform of $`(Z_1,y_1)`$ under $`g_{1,i}`$, i.e. $`g_{1,i}^{(1)}(V_1)V_i`$. As $`sdimT_{y_1}Y_1`$ and $`g_{1,i_2}=g_{i_1,i_2}g_{1,i_1}`$ there exist $`i_1<i_2`$ so that $`dimV_{i_1}dimV_{i_2}`$. By Lemma 4.7 $`dimg_{i_1,i_2}^{(1)}(C_{y_{i_1}}Y_{i_1}^1)<n`$. As $`g_{1,i_1}^{(1)}(C_{y_1}Y_1^1)C_{y_{i_1}}Y_{i_1}^1`$ we have the desired conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$

4.9. In order to generalize the above Lemma to the case of $`k`$-jet cones we need

Lemma. Let $`(Y,y)`$ be an irreducible germ of an analytic set, $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{Y}(Y,y)`$ be its blowing-up at $`y`$, and $`E_Y`$ be the exceptional divisor. Then $`E_Y(\stackrel{~}{Z},\stackrel{~}{y})`$ is a divisor in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ where $`(\stackrel{~}{Z},\stackrel{~}{y})`$ is any irreducible analytic branch of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ at any point $`\stackrel{~}{y}E_Y`$.

Proof. Consider the union $`U`$ of all irreducible germs $`(\stackrel{~}{Z},\stackrel{~}{y})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}E_Y`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ that do not contain an open subset of $`E_Y`$. If $`U\mathrm{}`$ then $`U`$ is a proper analytic subset of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ of the same dimension. Hence if $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu \stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is normalization then $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu `$ contains at least two connected components: the proper transform $`U^{}`$ of $`U`$ and another component $`U^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`\nu (U^{\prime \prime })E_Y`$. There is a natural proper morphism from $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu `$ into the normalization $`Y_\nu `$ of $`(Y,y)`$. As $`(Y,y)`$ is irreducible the preimage $`y_\nu `$ of $`y`$ in $`Y_\nu `$ is a point. But the preimage of $`y_\nu `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_\nu `$ is not connected (it has points in both $`U^{}`$ and $`U^{\prime \prime }`$) in contradiction with the Zariski Main Theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

4.10. Lemma. Let the assumption of Lemma 4.8 hold and $`k>0`$. Suppose that $`s=(2l)^{k1}l`$ and $`l\mathrm{max}_ZdimTZ`$ where $`Z`$ is the result of any sequence of $`r`$ blowing-ups of any $`(Y_i,y_i)`$ at $`y_i`$ and infinitely near points with $`1is`$ and $`0rk1`$. Then $`dimg_{1,s}^{(k)}(J_{y_1}^{k,m}Y_1)(km+1)(n1)+\mathrm{min}(m1,km)`$ for every $`1mk`$. In particular, $`dimg_{1,s}^{(k)}(J_{y_1}^kY_1)k(n1)`$.

Proof. Let $`k=m`$. Then every $`jJ_{y_i}^{k,k}Y_i`$ is of form $`j=j_0h`$ where $`j_0C_{y_i}Y_i`$ and $`h:𝐂𝐂,tt^k`$. Hence $`g_{i_1,i_2}^{(k)}(j)=g_{i_1,i_2}^{(1)}(j_0)h`$. In this case the statement follows from Lemma 4.8. In particular, Lemma is true for $`k=1`$. We use now induction on $`k`$ and inside it induction on $`km`$. Let $`s_0=s/2+1`$ and for $`i<s_0`$ let $`S_i^0`$ be the subvariety of $`J_{y_i}^{k,m}Y_i`$ such that $`g_{i,s_0}^{(k)}(S_i^0)J_{y_{s_0}}^{k,m+1}Y_{s_0}`$. By induction $`g_{1,s}^{(k)}(S_1^0)g_{s_0,s}^{(k)}(J_{y_{s_0}}^{k,m+1}Y_{s_0})`$ is of dimension at most $`(km)(n1)+\mathrm{min}(m,km1)`$. Thus (since $`n>1`$) it suffices to consider jets from $`S_1`$ where $`S_i=J_{y_i}^{k,m}Y_iS_i^0`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_i`$ be the blowing-up of $`Y_i`$ at $`y_i`$. Its exceptional divisor $`E_i`$ is naturally isomorphic to the base of the cone $`C_{y_i}Y_i`$ and $`g_{i_1,i_2}`$ generates a birational map $`h_{i_1,i_2}:\stackrel{~}{Y}_{i_1}\stackrel{~}{Y}_{i_2}`$. Deleting the indeterminacy points (i.e. replacing $`E_i`$ by its Zariski open subset $`E_i^{}`$) we can suppose that $`h_{i_1,i_2}`$ is regular on $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{i_1}^{}=(\stackrel{~}{Y}_iE_i)E_i^{}`$ for $`i_2s_0`$. Note that for every $`jS_{i_1}`$ the multiplicity of $`g_{i_1,i_2}(j)`$ is $`m`$ whence by Lemma 4.6 $`\theta _{Y_i}^{k,m,0}(S_i)E_i^{}`$. By Lemma 4.8 for every $`(2l)^{k1}>q0`$ there exist $`lq<i_1<i_2l(q+1)`$ such that the dimension of $`g_{i_1,i_2}^{(1)}(C_{y_{i_1}}Y_{i_1})`$ is at most $`n1`$ whence $`dimh_{i_1,i_2}(E_{i_1}^{})n2`$, i.e. $`E_{i_1}^{}`$ is the exceptional divisor of $`h_{i_1,i_2}`$. Put $`e_{i_1,i_2}=h_{li_1,li_2}`$ and $`Z_i=\stackrel{~}{Y}_{li}^{}`$. We get a sequence of birational morphisms $`Z_1Z_2\mathrm{}Z_{s_1}`$ where $`s_1=(2l)^{k2}l`$. Note that $`E_{li_1}`$ is an exceptional divisor of $`e_{i_1,i_2}`$ and, by Lemma 4.9 it meets every irreducible analytic branch $`(Z_i^1,z_i)`$ of $`(Z_i,z_i)`$ where $`z_i`$ is any point of $`E_{li_1}^{}`$. Thus this new sequence of birational morphisms satisfies the assumption of this Lemma. By induction $`dime_{1,s_1}^{(km)}(J_{z_1}^{km}Z_1)(km)(n1)`$, and Lemma 4.6 implies that $`\theta _{Y_{ls_1}}^{k,m,km}g_{1,ls_1}^{(k)}(S_1)_{\stackrel{~}{y}_1E_1^{}}h_{1,ls_1}^{(km)}(J_{\stackrel{~}{y}_1}^{km}\stackrel{~}{Y}_1)_{z_1h_{1,l}(E_1^{})}e_{1,s_1}^{(km)}(J_{z_1}^{km}Z_1)`$. As $`dimh_{1,l}(E_1^{})n2`$, we have $`dim\theta _{Y_{ls_1}}^{k,m,km}g_{1,ls_1}^{(k)}(S_1)(km+1)(n1)1`$. Taking into consideration the remark about the dimension of $`\theta _n^{k,m,km}`$-fibers in 4.4 we get the desired conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$

5. The proof of Theorems B and A.
5.1 By Lemma 2.1 we can suppose that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are normal in Theorem B. In the case when $`n=dimY=1`$ the result follows from the fact that a bijective morphism of smooth curves is an isomorphism. Consider $`n>1`$. Suppose that under the assumption of Theorem B (i) $`f`$ is an automorphism and $`g`$ is not. By Corollary 2.4 there exists an exceptional divisor $`D`$ for $`g`$. Assume $`x`$ be a general point in $`\rho ^1(D)\mathrm{}`$. In particular, $`x_s=f^s(x)`$ is also a general point in $`\rho ^1(D)`$. Let $`\psi :Y𝐂^n`$ be a dominant morphism. As $`f^s`$ is an automorphism $`dim(\psi \rho f^s)^{(k)}(J_x^kX)=(\psi \rho )^{(k)}(J_{x_s}^kX)=(\psi \rho )^{(k)}(J_x^kX)`$ as both $`x`$ and $`x_s`$ are general points. By Proposition 3.2 there exists $`n_0`$ such that for any $`k`$ we have $`dim(\psi \rho )^{(k)}(J_x^kX)knn_0`$. On the other hand $`Y`$ is locally analytically irreducible since it is normal. By Lemma 4.10 $`dim(\psi g^s\rho )^{(k)}(J_x^kX)k(n1)`$ for sufficiently large $`s`$. Since $`\psi \rho f^s=\psi g^s\rho `$ we get a contradiction which proves that $`g`$ is an automorphism. The proof of Theorem B (ii) is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

5.2. Theorem B yields Theorem A in the case of $`k=𝐂`$. We need to reduce the general case to this one. Let $`\overline{k}`$ be the algebraic closure of the field $`k`$. Recall that $`\overline{k}`$ is a faithfully flat $`k`$-module. This means that an endomorphism $`\phi :TT`$ of a $`k`$-algebra $`T`$ is an automorphism iff the endomorphism $`\phi _kId_{\overline{k}}:T_k\overline{k}T_k\overline{k}`$ is an automorphism. Thus we can replace the rings $`S`$ and $`R`$ in Theorem A by $`S_k\overline{k}`$ and $`R_k\overline{k}`$ respectively. That is, we can suppose from the beginning that $`k`$ is algebraically closed. We consider case (i) only since the other case is similar. It is equivalent to the analogue of Theorem B (i) in which $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are already affine algebraic varieties over $`k`$. Note that Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 hold for every algebraically closed field whence we can suppose that $`Y`$ is normal and $`g`$ is birational. Hence if we assume that $`g`$ is not an automorphism then a coordinate function of $`g^1`$ has a pole at a point $`y_0Y`$. Let $`k^{}`$ be the subfield of $`k`$ generated by a finite number of elements which include the coordinates of $`y_0`$ in the ambient Euclidean space, the coefficients of coordinate functions of $`\rho ,g,f`$ and $`f^1`$ (as polynomials over $`k`$), and the coefficients of generators of the defining ideals of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Consider our varieties and morphisms over $`k^{}`$ instead of $`k`$ and denote the corresponding objects by $`X^{},Y^{},f^{},g^{}`$, and $`\rho ^{}`$. Note that $`g^{}`$ is not an automorphism as $`y_0Y^{}`$. But $`k^{}`$ can be embedded as a subfield in $`𝐂`$ by the “Lefschetz principle” \[BCW\]. Hence theorem B (i) implies that the coordinate functions of $`(g^{})^1`$ cannot have a pole at $`y_0`$. Contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

REFERENCES

\[A\] J. Ax, Injective endomorphisms of varieties and schemes, Pacific J. Math., 31 (1969), 1–7.
\[BCW\] H. Bass, E. Connell, D. Wright, The Jacobian conjecture: reduction of degree and the formal expansion of the inverse, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1982), 287–330.
\[BN\] S. Bell, R. Narasimhan, Proper holomorphic mappings of complex spaces, Encyclopaedia of Math. Sci., Several Compl. Var., 69, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, e.a., 1990, 1–38.
\[CZ\] E. Connell, J. Zweibel, Subrings invariant under polynomial maps, Houston Journal of Math., 20 (1994), 175–185.
\[D\] V. I. Danilov, Algebraic varieties and schemes, Algebraic Geometry I (Encyclopaedia of Math. Sci., v. 23) (Russian), VINITI, Moscow, 1988.
\[H\] R. Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin-Heidelberg, 1977.
\[I\] S. Iitaka On logarithmic Kodaira dimension for algebraic varieties, In: Complex Analysis and Algebraic Geometry, 175–189, Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 1978.
\[M-L\] L. Makar-Limanov, On the hypersurface $`x+x^2y+z^2+t^3=0`$ in $`𝐂^4`$ or a $`𝐂^3`$-like threefold which is not $`𝐂^3`$, Israel J. Math. 96 (1996), 419–429.
\[M\] D. Mumford, Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg- New York, e.a., 1976.
\[P\] Th. Peternell, Modifications, Encyclopaedia of Math. Sci., Several Compl. Var., 74, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg- New York, e.a., 1994, 221–258.


text:
# Supercurrent-carrying density of states in diffusive mesoscopic Josephson weak links

## I Introduction

Many quantum phenomena in many-body systems are based on probing the spectrum of states corresponding to the desired observable, the states being filled according to an appropriate distribution function. A similar viewpoint can be taken also on the Josephson effect: supercurrent is carried by states in the weak link and their occupation is determined by a distribution function antisymmetric between the electron and hole spaces. This aspect is directly reflected in the mathematical structure of the supercurrent formula derived from the Keldysh Green’s-functions method.wilhelm ; yip ; volkov  Such an approach has been taken in some recent experimentsmorpurgo ; baselmans ; huang ; schaepers ; baselmanssquid ; kutchinsky  controlling the Josephson effect in phase-coherent normal-metal wires through the control of the distribution function by an injection of normal quasiparticle current. One of the most remarkable results of these experiments is the inversion of the sign of the supercurrent for a given phase difference across the weak link when the junctions turn into a $`\pi `$ state.

Quantitative fit to the experimentally obtained results has been very successful for the equilibrium supercurrentPascal  using the equilibrium quasiclassical theory. In the nonequilibrium case, detailed knowledge of the relaxation mechanisms controlling the shape of the interactions, but also the precise spectrum of supercurrent-carrying states, is required.huang ; baselmanssquid  Previously,wilhelm  for the calculation of this spectrum, one has assumed a two-probe setup with some idealized conditions on the length scales and on the nature of the interfaces. In this paper, we systematically investigate the spectrum of this current-carrying density of states, or spectral supercurrent, show how it is calculated, and how it depends on the length of the weak link, presence of additional terminals, or on the nonidealities in the interfaces between the normal-metal weak link and the superconductors. We also discuss the current-phase relation of such a system: at low temperatures, it can be far from sinusoidal, and at certain conditions, its period can even be halved.baselmansphase  We focus on the diffusive limit where the dimensions $`d`$ of the weak link are much greater than the elastic mean free path $`l`$. This is the typical limit for most normal-metal weak links. The corresponding ballistic limit $`dl`$ has been extensively described in the literaturekulik ; ishii ; bardeenjohnson ; gunsenheimer ; beenakkervanhouten ; buttikerklapwijk ; vanwees91  in terms of Andreev bound states (ABS). We show qualitatively a connection between the discrete ABS and the continuous diffusive-limit spectral supercurrent.

This paper is organized as follows. After this introduction, Sec. II introduces to the theoretical formalism which is based on the real-time Usadel equation for the quasiclassical Green’s function in the diffusive limit.usadel ; review  In the case of nonideal interfaces or in multiterminal geometries, the boundary conditions to these functions are also essential. Understanding the results of the following sections does not require a detailed reading of this part but it is enough to grasp the idea of the relation of the spectral supercurrent and the observable one. In Sec. III we look how the spectral supercurrent depends on the length of the weak link compared to the superconducting coherence length and separate two extreme cases. In the limit of a short junction where the coherence length is much longer than the weak link, one obtains an analytical solution for the spectral supercurrent without further approximations. The current-phase relation in diffusive normal-metal weak links is considered in Sec. IV. We show how, especially at low temperatures, higher harmonics appear in addition to the usual sinusoidal phase dependence and indicate how the period can be halved in a nonequilibrium situation. Section V considers the effect of additional normal-metal terminals on the current-carrying density of states, and in Sec. VI, we discuss how nonidealities in the normal metal — superconductor (NS) interface change its shape. Finally, in Sec. VII, we summarize the main results.

To be specific, we consider the structure shown in Fig. 1. The main wire with length $`L`$ and cross section $`A_w`$ between the superconductors forms the weak link whereas the additional wires with length $`L_c`$ and integrated cross section $`A_c`$ are used for the control of the distribution functions and therefore referred to as the control wires. We assume that the superconducting and normal reservoirs are much larger than the weak link and the control wire, such that the Green’s functions describing them take their bulk values very close to the interfaces. Furthermore, we assume that the width of the control wires is much smaller than the length $`L`$ of the weak links. This allows us to consider the wires as quasi-one-dimensional structures by assuming translational invariance in the transverse directions.

## II Theoretical background

Circuits composed of normal and superconducting metals in the diffusive limit (dimensions larger than the elastic mean free path $`l`$) are effectively described in terms of the quasiclassical Green’s functions $`\stackrel{˘}{G}`$ satisfying the Usadel equationsusadel ; review

$$D(\stackrel{˘}{G}\stackrel{˘}{G})=[i(E+i\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{˘}{\tau _3}+\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }},\stackrel{˘}{G}],$$
(1)
where $`D=\frac{1}{3}v_Fl`$ is the diffusion constant, $`E`$ is energy relative to the chemical potential of the superconductors (which is assumed to be the same for all S terminals), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ describes a small inelastic scattering rate, and $`\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ the superconducting pair potential (we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout). Since we aim to describe nonequilibrium effects, we adopt the Keldysh real-time formalismrammersmith  and hence

$$\stackrel{˘}{G}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{G}^R& \widehat{G}^K\\ 0& \widehat{G}^A\end{array}\right),\stackrel{˘}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}& 0\\ 0& \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\end{array}\right),\stackrel{˘}{\tau }_3=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{\tau }_3& 0\\ 0& \widehat{\tau }_3\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
All of the submatrices denoted by a hat ($`\widehat{G}^R`$, etc.) are $`2\times 2`$ matrices in Nambu particle-hole space, in particular, $`\widehat{\tau }_3`$ is the third Pauli matrix and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ has the form

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{\Delta }(x)\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(x)& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The pair potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ can in principle be obtained from a self-consistency relation.review ; solsferrer  However, since we consider only superconducting reservoirs much wider than the weak link, we adopt the usual step-function form for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x)`$ (finite constant in the superconductors, zero in the normal-metal wires).

In addition to Eq. (1), Usadel Green’s function satisfies a normalization condition $`\stackrel{˘}{G}^2=\stackrel{ˇ}{1}`$. Therefore it can be parametrized with four scalar parameters as follows.review  The Keldysh Green’s function $`\widehat{G}^K`$ describing the occupation numbers of different quantum states, i.e., the (non)equilibrium state of the system can be expressed with two real distribution functions $`f_L`$ and $`f_T`$ as $`\widehat{G}^K=\widehat{G}^R(f_L+f_T\widehat{\tau }_3)(f_L+f_T\widehat{\tau }_3)\widehat{G}^A`$ whereas the retarded and advanced Green’s functions, $`\widehat{G}^R`$ and $`\widehat{G}^A`$, describing the spectral properties which do not directly depend on the distribution functions are

$$\widehat{G}^R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(\theta )& \mathrm{sinh}(\theta )\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )\\ \mathrm{sinh}(\theta )\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )& \mathrm{cosh}(\theta )\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
and $`\widehat{G}^A=\widehat{\tau }_3(\widehat{G}^R)^{}\widehat{\tau }_3`$. Here $`\theta (x;E)`$ and $`\chi (x;E)`$ are in general complex scalar functions.

In what follows, we describe a quasi-one-dimensional situation, where the functions are assumed to vary only in one dimension $`x`$. Expressing the coordinate $`x`$ in terms of the separation $`L`$ of the superconductors between which the supercurrent flows, $`xx^{}L`$, the spectral equations for $`\widehat{G}^{R(A)}`$ read in a normal metal ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$)

$`_x^{}^2\theta `$ $`=2i(E^{}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})\mathrm{sinh}(\theta )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_x^{}\chi )^2\mathrm{sinh}(2\theta ),`$ (5)
$`j_E`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta )_x^{}\chi ,_x^{}j_E=0.`$ (6)
Here, the prime over the (dimensionless) quantities denotes the fact that the energies are expressed in the units of the Thouless energy $`E_T=D/L^2`$ corresponding to the length $`L`$. Below, we tacitly assume all lengths and energies expressed in these natural units even if not marked by a prime. The kinetic equations satisfied by the distribution functions $`f_L`$ and $`f_T`$ are described, e.g., in Ref. review, , where the part of the distribution function which is symmetric about the chemical potential of the superconductors corresponds to $`f_T`$ and the antisymmetric part to $`f_L`$. These two components acquire different space and energy dependent diffusion coefficients due to the superconducting proximity effect.

If the interfaces to the reservoirs are ideal metallic, the parameters are continuous at the boundaries to the reservoirs and can be identified with the bulk values, $`\theta _S=\mathrm{artanh}(\mathrm{\Delta }/E)`$ and $`\theta _N=0`$ in the superconducting and normal-metal reservoirs, respectively. In general, e.g., if a supercurrent is driven through the system, there can be a phase difference, which we choose to be applied symmetrically between the superconductors, such that in the left superconductor $`\chi =\varphi /2`$ and in the right $`\chi =\varphi /2`$. Below, if not mentioned otherwise, we choose $`\varphi =\pi /2`$, which typically yields a supercurrent close to the critical current of the junction.

Nonideal interfaces with reduced transmissivities are not directly described by the Usadel equation, because they are of microscopic, atomic-scale thickness. They can, however, be taken into account using boundary conditions derived by Zaitsevzaitsev  for Eilenberger Green’s functions (valid independent of the mean free path) and later simplified in the diffusive limit by Kuprianov and Lukichev for a tunneling casekuprianovlukichev  and Nazarov for a general interface,nazarovbc  described by a scattering matrix. For an interface characterized by the transmission eigenvalues $`T_n`$, the Green’s functions $`\stackrel{˘}{G}_1`$ on the right-hand side and $`\stackrel{˘}{G}_2`$ on the left-hand side of the interface satisfynazarovbc ; belzigspin

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma _N^1A_1\stackrel{˘}{G}_1_x\stackrel{˘}{G}_1& =\sigma _N^2A_2\stackrel{˘}{G}_2_x\stackrel{˘}{G}_2\hfill \\ & =\frac{2e^2}{\pi }\underset{n}{}\frac{T_n[\stackrel{˘}{G}_1,\stackrel{˘}{G}_2]}{4+T_n(\{\stackrel{˘}{G}_1,\stackrel{˘}{G}_2\}2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
evaluated at the position of the interface. In most cases, the individual transmission eigenvalues are not known, but since typical interfaces contain a huge number of channels, it is enough to integrate over the probability distribution of the eigenvalues to obtain the desired boundary condition.

In the case of a tunneling interface (where all the transmission eigenvalues of the interface are small) the boundary conditions between the parametrized functions in wires 1 and 2 reduce toreview ; kuprianovlukichev

$`_x\theta _1=[\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _1)`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )]/r_b,`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta _1)_x\chi _1`$ $`=\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )/r_b.`$ (9)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \chi _1\chi _2`$ and $`\theta _{1(2)}\theta (x_b^{+()})`$ and $`\chi _{1(2)}\chi (x_b^{+()})`$ are the parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\chi `$ at the interface, $`x=x_b`$, but on the side of the wire 1 (2). The nonideality of the interface is characterized by the ratio of its resistance $`R_I`$ and of the weak-link resistance $`R_N`$, $`r_bR_I/R_N`$ and the derivatives point towards the wire 1. In the case of a dirty interface, where the boundary condition is evaluated using the distribution function of the transmission eigenvalues corresponding to an interface with a random array of scatterers in a 2D layer,schep  we get

$`_x\theta _1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}[\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )]}{r_b𝒟}},`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta _1)`$ $`_x\chi _1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )}{r_b𝒟}}.`$ (11)
Here we denoted the denominator $`𝒟\sqrt{1+\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{cosh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _2)\mathrm{sinh}(\theta _1)\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }\chi )}`$. This denominator reflects the contribution of open conduction channels which are not present in Eq. (9).

Note that both types of boundary conditions indicate a form of a conservation of a spectral current over the interface, the second equation being the conservation of the spectral supercurrent $`j_E`$.

In geometries with more than two terminals, we assume that narrow quasi-one-dimensional wires connect to each other at some point of the structure. Therefore we need to impose appropriate matching conditions.zaitsevmc ; nazarovbc ; gwz ; review  In this case, they are the continuity of the functions $`\theta `$ and $`\chi `$ and the conservation of the spectral currents. Assuming that the derivatives in the $`N`$ wires $`i=1,\mathrm{}N`$ with cross sections $`A_i`$ and normal-state conductivities $`\sigma _N^i`$ point towards the crossing point at $`x_c`$, we get

$`\theta _i(x_c)=\theta _j(x_c)`$ $`i,j=1,\mathrm{}N,`$ (12)
$`\chi _i(x_c)=\chi _j(x_c)`$ $`i,j=1,\mathrm{}N,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_i\sigma _N^i_x\theta _i(x_c)`$ $`=0,`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_i\sigma _N^i_x\chi _i(x_c)`$ $`=0.`$ (15)
In the last condition we used the continuity of the parameters $`\theta `$ across the crossing point.

Below, we assume the system depicted in Fig. 1: two superconductors connected by “horizontal” mesoscopic normal wires to which we connect normal reservoirs by the “vertical” mesoscopic normal wires (labeling of the wires as in Fig. 1). When considering the supercurrent between the two superconductors, for the spectral equations it is enough to treat any number of “vertical” wires by a single wire for which the product of $`\sigma _NA`$ is simply the sum of these products in the individual wires. In the case that the dependence on the length $`L_c`$ of these wires becomes important, the smallest of them characterizes the situation the best. In this case, since there can be no supercurrent flowing to the normal reservoirs, Eq. (15) reduces to $`j_E^1=j_E^2`$. Furthermore, for simplicity, we assume the system left-right symmetric, such that the part of the weak link in the left-hand side of the cross is similar to that in the right-hand side.

Finally, the observable supercurrent is obtained from the solutions to the spectral and kinetic equations by

$$I_S=\frac{E_T}{2eR_N}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}\mathrm{Im}\left[j_E(E^{})\right]f_L(E^{}).$$
(16)
In the reservoirs with voltage $`V`$ with respect to the potential of the superconductors (which are assumed equal for both superconductors in order to avoid the ac Josephson effect), $`f_L`$ obtains the form

$$f_L(E;V,T)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E+eV}{2k_BT}\right)+\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{EeV}{2k_BT}\right)\right].$$
(17)
It can be shownwilhelm ; huang  that, in the absence of inelastic interactions and for energies $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`f_L`$ remains constant throughout the control wires, and hence the reservoir value can directly be used for the calculation of the supercurrent.

In this paper, we will consider two limits for $`f_L`$. These are the equilibrium finite-temperature limit, where $`f_L=\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)`$, and the zero-temperature nonequilibrium case when $`f_L`$ is driven in a normal-metal wire,wilhelm  $`f_L=\vartheta (EeV)\vartheta (eVE)`$, where $`\vartheta (E)`$ is the Heaviside step function.

The spectrum of supercurrent-carrying states typically consists of both the states carrying the supercurrent parallel to the phase gradient and those carrying it in the opposite direction,wilhelm ; kulik  depending on their energy. Hence, by controlling the occupation of these states by the above steplike distribution function, one is able to vary the sign of the observable supercurrent and, e.g., obtain the $`\pi `$ state.

The form of the spectrum can be qualitatively understood by considering a ballistic (scattering-free) weak link. There, the quasiparticles form bound stateskulik ; ishii ; bardeenjohnson ; gunsenheimer ; beenakkervanhouten ; buttikerklapwijk ; vanwees91  which contain an Andreev reflectionandreev  at both NS interfaces. Since the first reflection at the left is from hole- to particle (particle- to hole) -like states and the second at the right interface from particle- to hole (from a hole- to particle) -like states, the net result is a transfer of a Cooper pair from the left superconductor to the right (from right to left). Bound-state energies are found by requiring that the total phase the quasiparticles acquire within a single cycle is a multiple of $`2\pi `$. This leads to (for $`E_m\mathrm{\Delta }`$)

$$E_m^\pm =\frac{1}{2\tau }\left[2\pi \left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\pm \varphi \right],$$
(18)
the sign in front of the phase depending on the direction of the supercurrent flow. Here $`\tau =v_F/L`$ is the time of flight between two successive Andreev reflections and $`L`$ is the corresponding length of the trajectory. The supercurrent-carrying density of states is then found from

$$j_S(E;\varphi )\underset{m}{}\frac{E_m^\pm }{\varphi }\delta (EE_m),$$
(19)
resulting into a peaklike spectrum that contains states carrying both positive ($`E=E_m^+`$) and negative ($`E=E_m^{}`$) supercurrent. In the presence of disorder, the distribution of the times of flight $`\tau `$ depends on the impurity potential and the spectral supercurrent is conveniently characterized by its impurity-averaged smooth density of states. However, the resulting spectrum still contains many properties similar to the clean limit, such as the varying sign of the supercurrent carried at different energies. This analogy holds, even though on a formal level, the calculation within our quasiclassical technique does not directly invoke these concepts.

## III Short- and long-junction limits

The spectrum of current-carrying states in the weak link depends very much on the ratio of the length $`L`$ of the weak link and the superconducting coherence length $`\xi _0=\sqrt{D/2\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, or in other words, on the ratio between the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Thouless energy $`E_T=D/L^2`$ of the weak link. In the case of a long weak link,wilhelm  $`L\xi _0`$ (or, equivalently, $`E_T\mathrm{\Delta }`$), the spectrum is wide and many energy states contribute to the supercurrent with only a small phase-dependent gap of the order of a few $`E_T`$ at low energies. In the opposite limit, only the states with energy $`E[\mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)|,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ carry supercurrent and between these limits, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ serves as a cutoff for the spectral supercurrent: there may exist some current-carrying states with $`E>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but their contribution vanishes quickly with $`E\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The energy ranges can be understood as follows: In the center of the junction, which is the bottleneck for the supercurrent, both superconductors provide sufficient correlations that a gap in the energy spectrum of a size $`E_g`$ is induced at $`\varphi =0`$, where the size of $`E_g`$ interpolates between $`E_\mathrm{T}`$ (long junction) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (short junction).GolKupr ; Belzig  If now a finite phase difference is applied, the correlations from either side start to interfere more and more destructively leading to a closing of the gap at $`\varphi =\pi `$.Charlat  Hence the lower energy bound, below which no bound states exist, is set by this phase-dependent gap. Above $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the states depend less and less on the superconducting properties, hence their phase dependence is rapidly lost and they also do not contribute to the supercurrent.

### III.1 Short-junction limit $`L\xi _0`$

In the limit when the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is much smaller than the Thouless energy, the supercurrent is carried by states with energies much below $`E_T`$ and we may thus neglect the first term on the right side of Eq. (5). In this case, we get an analytical solution to the differential equations without further approximations,

$`\theta (x)`$ $`=\mathrm{arcosh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^2+1}}{\alpha }}\mathrm{cosh}[j_E\alpha (xx_0)]\right),`$ (20)
$`\chi (x)`$ $`=\chi _0\mathrm{arctan}\{\alpha \mathrm{tanh}[j_E\alpha (xx_0)]\},`$ (21)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`x_0`$ are constants which along with the spectral supercurrent $`j_E`$ are determined from the boundary conditions. In the two-probe case we can choose the origin in the center of the weak link, and assume the functions $`\theta (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ take the bulk values at the NS boundary ($`x=\pm L/2`$). Thus we get $`x_0=0`$ and

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}},`$ (22)
$`j_E`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)}}}\mathrm{arcosh}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)}{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}}\right).`$ (23)
In the real-time calculation of the supercurrent, we are mostly interested in the imaginary part of the spectral supercurrent $`j_E`$. This is

$$\mathrm{Im}(j_E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,E>\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \\ \frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}{\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)}},E[\mathrm{\Delta }\left|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)\right|,\mathrm{\Delta }]\hfill & \\ 0,\left|E\right|<\mathrm{\Delta }\left|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)\right|,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(24)
and $`\mathrm{Im}[j_E(E)]=\mathrm{Im}[j_E(E)]`$. At $`T=0`$, we get the observable supercurrent by simply integrating $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E)`$ over the energy to obtain

$$I_S=\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}{eR_N}\mathrm{artanh}[\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)].$$
(25)
For a finite temperature, we have to multiply this by the distribution function $`\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)`$ and integrate over the energy, which is conveniently done using the Matsubara technique \[i.e., substituting $`E=i\omega _n`$, where $`\omega _n=\pi T(2n+1)`$ are the poles of $`\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)`$ and summing $`\mathrm{Re}(j_E)`$ over $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, see Refs. Pascal,  and review,  for details\], yielding

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_S=& \frac{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }T}{eR_N}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)+\omega _n^2}}\hfill \\ & \times \mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)+\omega _n^2}}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
As expected, Eqs. (25) and (26) are the same as obtained by Kulik and Omel’yanchukkulikomelyanchuk  and in numerical studiesPascal  for the same limit.

In a setup where the distribution function can be controlled by an additional probe coupled to the system via a narrow normal wire (such that the current-carrying states are not essentially deformed), the resulting supercurrent as a function of control voltage $`V`$ at $`T=0`$ reads

$$I_S(V)=\frac{\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)}{2eR_N}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(1+\mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2))}{V+\sqrt{V^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi /2)}}\right]$$
(27)
for $`V[\mathrm{\Delta }\left|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)\right|,\mathrm{\Delta }]`$. Above $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`I_S`$ vanishes, and for $`V\mathrm{\Delta }\left|\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )\right|`$, the supercurrent has the form of Eq. (25), independent of $`V`$.

The spectral supercurrent of Eq. (24) can also be obtained from the diffusive limit of the corresponding quantity derived in Ref. beenakker91, . There, the supercurrent is written as a sum of the contributions from different bound states,

$$I_S=\frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )\underset{p=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\tau _p}{E_p}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_p}{2k_BT}\right),$$
(28)
where the bound-state energies $`E_p`$ depend on the transmission eigenvalues $`\tau _p`$ by $`E_p=\mathrm{\Delta }[1\tau _p\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi /2)]^{1/2}`$. Writing Eq. (28) in the form of an energy integral,

$$I_S=\frac{e\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )𝑑E\underset{p=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\tau _p}{E}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E}{2k_BT}\right)\delta (EE_p),$$
(29)
and averaging the transmission eigenvalues over their diffusive-limit distribution,nazarovsl  $`\rho (\tau )=(\pi /2e^2R_N)(\tau \sqrt{1\tau })^1`$, yields a spectral supercurrent given by Eq. (24) multiplying the distribution function $`\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)`$.

### III.2 Long and intermediate-length junctions

If the length $`L`$ of the weak link is much longer than $`\xi _0`$, the supercurrent is carried by a wide spectrum of energieswilhelm ; yip ; heikkila . At low $`E`$, however, the current-carrying density of states has a phase-dependent minigap reminiscent of the gap in the usual density of states of a SNS sample gwz . Above the gap, $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E)`$ rises sharply, then starts to oscillate with an exponentially decaying envelope. This oscillatory behavior is responsible for the occurrence of the $`\pi `$ state in nonequilibrium-controlled Josephson junctionsbaselmans ; huang  and in ferromagnetic weak links.buzdin ; ryazanov

The spectral supercurrent as a function of energy is plotted for a few values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_T`$ in Fig. 2, the upper figure showing the limit $`E_T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the lower the limit $`E_T\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For a finite ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_T`$, the divergence of the density of states at the superconducting gap edge is reflected as a peak in the spectral supercurrent at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The direction of the peak, positive or negative, is determined by geometric considerations and hence depends on the precise value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_T`$. For $`E_T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the spectral supercurrent $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E)`$ tends towards the short-junction result, Eq. (24), replacing the Thouless gap by the gap of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)`$. Moreover, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/E_T0`$, the width of the peak at $`E=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ tends to zero.

In the limit $`TE_T`$ for a long junction ($`E_T\mathrm{\Delta }`$), the temperature dependence of the obtained observable supercurrent tends to the limits considered by Likharevlikharev76  for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ and by Zaikin and Zharkovzaikin81  for a general $`\mathrm{\Delta }/T`$.

## IV Phase dependence

Originally, the Josephson effect was discovered for insulating weak links in the tunneling regime, i.e., in the limit of a very low tunneling probability. There, the supercurrent is due to an uncorrelated transfer of Cooper pairs through the weak link.FN1  As a result, one obtains the familiar dc Josephson relation $`I_S=I_c\mathrm{sin}(\varphi )`$. However, it has been shown (see, e.g., Refs. ishii,  and kulikomelyanchuk, ) that other kinds of weak links, through which the transmission probability is much above zero, may have a different current-phase relation. Thus we may write in general

$$I_C(\varphi )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_C^n\mathrm{sin}(n\varphi ),$$
(30)
where the amplitudes $`I_C^n`$ are the coefficients of the Fourier sine series of $`I_C(\varphi )`$. For example, in a ballistic weak link where the transmission probability for Cooper pairs is 1, $`I_C^n(1)^n/n`$, yielding a sawtooth form for $`I_C(\varphi )`$.ishii ; vanwees91  The odd parity with respect to $`\varphi `$ (appearance of only sine terms) of this representation reflects the fact that the supercurrent is driven by the spatial asymmetry introduced by the application of the phase: changing the phase to a negative value corresponds to mirroring the structure about the center and hence to a reversal of the current.

The occurrence of higher harmonics in Eq. (30) may be interpreted as a correlated transfer of $`n`$ Cooper pairs through the weak link as a result of the pairing correlations extending through quasiparticle paths containing multiple Andreev reflections. For example, the flux quantum for the $`n`$th harmonic is $`h/2ne`$, i.e., corresponding to a charge $`2ne`$.

In a diffusive weak link considered in this paper, the transmission probabilities for the Cooper pairs are widely distributed between zero and 1.nazarovsl  As a result, one may get contributions from the higher harmonics to the phase dependence. This is shown in Fig. 3 where the amplitudes $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^n)`$ of the first four harmonics of the Fourier sine transformed spectral supercurrent through a long weak link ($`L\xi _0`$) are plotted as a function of energy. Both the amplitude of $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^n)`$ and the effective energy scales decay with a power of $`n`$ suggesting that the observation of the higher harmonics is easiest at low temperatures. The corresponding temperature and voltage dependencies of the critical currents $`I_C^n`$ plotted in Fig. 4 behave analogously. A numerical fit to the obtained critical currents at $`eV=k_BT=0`$ yields roughly $`I_C^n(1)^n/n^2`$ and to the voltage $`V_n^{}`$ where $`I_C^n(V)`$ first changes sign suggests that the effective energy scales behave as $`E_n^{}=E_T(c_1+c_2/n)`$, with some constants $`c_{1,2}`$.

This behavior can be understood by identifying the higher harmonics with the correlated transfer of a cluster of $`n`$ Cooper pairs. Now instead of the phase $`\varphi `$, the cluster has the phase $`n\varphi `$ and since the cycle contains $`2n`$ Andreev reflections, the effective trajectory length is increased from $`L`$ to $`nL`$. In Eq. (18), making these replacements yields the observed result, $`E_n^{}(c_1+c_2/n)`$. In the diffusive limit, the effective trajectory length increases in the second power of the length of the weak link, $`l_{\mathrm{eff}}L^2`$, but since the phase is reset after each traversal through the weak link, we simply get $`l_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{n}}nL^2`$. Hence, similarly to the alternating sign, the scaling of the effective energies with index $`n`$ follows the behavior of the ballistic-limit spectral supercurrent.

Since the crossover voltages $`V_n^{}`$, where $`I_C^n(V_n^{})=0`$, depend on $`n`$, the actual critical current never vanishes at the crossover: it is rather that the current-phase relation changes its form near the crossover voltages. Such a change was observed in Ref. baselmansphase, , where the current-phase relation of a controllable Josephson junction was measured in a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) geometry.

In the short-junction regime $`L\xi _0`$ the contributions of the different harmonics can be derived analytically. A general form for $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^n)`$ would be complicated, but as an example, the first two amplitudes are

$`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^1)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)^2,`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{E^2(2\mathrm{\Delta }^23E^2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}}.`$ (32)
Clearly all the harmonics share the same energy scale, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but as for the case of a long weak link, the amplitude decays also here roughly as $`1/n^2`$. Namely, integrating $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E^n)`$ over the energy, we get for a short weak link

$$I_C^n=\frac{(1)^ne\mathrm{\Delta }}{R_N(2n+1)(2n1)}.$$
(33)
Replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by $`E_T`$ and scaling by a numerical factor close to 33, this form fits the amplitudes of the long-junction harmonics as well but a rigorous proof does not exist.

## V Extra terminals

In order to relate our results to physical observables, we have to evaluate statistical expectation values. In two-probe SNS weak links in equilibrium, most of the experimental observations have been accurately described with the equilibrium Matsubara technique.Pascal  However, one of the recent advances in the research of the Josephson effect has been done in nonequilibrium situations where the distribution function in the weak link has been controlled by coupling one or more normal-metal reservoirs to the weak link by phase-coherent wires.baselmans ; huang  While making it possible to control the occupation of the current-carrying states, these extra wires also affect the form of $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E)`$.yip  In the discussion of these effects, we concentrate on the regime of a long junction, $`L\xi _0`$. There, most notably, the control probes allow for the existence of states with low energies, and therefore the Thouless gap is lifted. Moreover, the existence of the normal reservoirs brings some extra depairing by imposing a vanishing boundary condition for the pairing amplitude $`f=\mathrm{sinh}(\theta )`$ inside the reservoirs. As a result, the amplitude of the spectral supercurrent decreases due to the extra probes. In what follows, we consider the effects of the integrated cross-sectional area $`A_c`$ of the control wires attached to the center of the weak link with cross section $`A_w`$ (note: a similar effect would be present if the control wires and the weak link were made of different materials with normal-state conductivities $`\sigma _{N,c}`$ and $`\sigma _{N,w}`$ — however, here we simply talk about $`A_c`$ and $`A_w`$) and of the length $`L_c`$ of the phase coherent control wires, compared to the length $`L`$ of the weak link. For simplicity, we assume that the widths of the control wires are much smaller than $`L`$, allowing one to treat these wires as quasi-1D structures, connected by the rules of Nazarov’s circuit theorynazarovsl ; nazarovbc . In the language of this circuit theory, the extra normal wires divert some of the spectral current to the normal reservoirs, thus decreasing the pairing correlations between the superconductors.

The spectral supercurrent as a function of energy for different cross sections $`A_c`$ of the control wire is plotted in Fig. 5. Here we have taken the length $`L_c=5LL`$. Already a small $`A_cA_w`$ yields a finite $`\mathrm{Im}(j_E)`$ at low energies, but does not much reduce the total magnitude of the supercurrent. The resulting temperature and voltage dependencies of the total supercurrent $`I_s`$ is plotted in Fig. 6. Except at the very lowest voltages/temperatures of the order of the Thouless gap, the extra probes do not change the voltage/temperature dependence of $`I_s`$ from the two-probe case, but only the overall magnitude is decreased. From the resulting $`I_S(A_c)`$ we obtain

$$I_S(A_w,A_c)=\frac{A_w}{A_w+A_c/2}I_S(A_w,A_c=0),$$
(34)
which holds very well for $`\mathrm{max}(eV,k_BT)E_T`$.

If the length $`L_c`$ of the phase-coherent control wire is larger than $`L`$, the effect of the control wires is independent of the precise value of $`L_c`$. For $`L_c<L`$, the spectral supercurrent is altered for $`E\mathrm{}D/L_c^2`$ such that the overall magnitude is decreased, the observable supercurrent tending towards zero as $`L_c0`$. The spectral supercurrent and the resulting temperature/voltage dependencies for $`A_c=A_w`$ and for three different $`L_c/L`$ are plotted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively.

## VI Nonideal interfaces

Normal-metal — superconductor interfaces with reduced transmissivity can be taken into account by specifying the transmission eigenvalues through the interface and taking them into account as in Eq. (7). Here we consider a typical case described by the distribution of eigenvalues for a “dirty” interface.

Figure 9 shows the spectral supercurrent for a long junction connected to superconductors through a dirty interface with resistance $`R_I`$ (yielding a total resistance $`R_N+2R_I`$ between the superconductors). Due to the additional resistance, the amplitude of the supercurrent decays with $`r_b`$, but also the energy scales decrease since the interface barrier can to certain extent be thought as adding a barrier-equivalent lengthzhou95  to the path length of the quasiparticles. Observing the temperature and voltage dependencies of the resulting supercurrent, plotted in Fig. 10, shows that the amplitude of the supercurrent behaves at $`T=0`$, $`V=0`$ as

$$I_C(R_I,R_N)\frac{I_C(R_I=0)R_N}{R_N+1.6R_I},$$
(35)
i.e., the resistances should not simply be added up but the dirty interface decreases the supercurrent less efficiently than the normal-metal resistance. Furthermore, the effective energy scale $`E^{}`$ found, e.g., from the voltage dependence indicates that it follows the approximate law $`E^{}=E_T(1+0.7R_I/R_N)`$. This kind of a behavior of the critical current and the spectral supercurrent is similar to those found in Ref. kuprianovlukichev,  \[especially, see Eqs. (55) and (56)\] and Ref. yip,  in the case of a tunneling interface.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we have systematically investigated the spectrum of current-carrying states in a phase coherent normal-metal weak link. Taking into account the effect of extra terminals, the characteristic energy scales — the Thouless energy $`E_T`$ and the BCS superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ — and a finite NS interface resistance makes it easier to find a quantitative agreement with the obtained experimental results on the nonequilibrium-controlled supercurrent. We have also been able to derive analytical results in a number of limits. Moreover, we have discussed the underlying microscopic phenomena leading to the $`\pi `$ state and have explained its properties, such as its dependence on energy, and higher harmonics in the phase dependence, by invoking Andreev bound states smeared over a broad distribution of times of flight, and by multiple Andreev cycles tranferring more than one Cooper pair in a single coherent process.

To obtain an optimal voltage control of the supercurrent, the interface resistances should be much smaller than the weak-link wire resistance, the control wire should be slightly longer than the weak link (but not much longer to reduce the inelastic effects on the nonequilibrium distribution function), and as thin as possible compared to the weak link. For the observation of the $`\pi `$ state, the ideal limit is the long-junction limit $`L\xi _0`$, where the spectrum of the current-carrying states is not cut off by the superconducting gap.

In typical experiments, also inelastic scattering neglected here may become important. However, since equilibrium phenomena induced by the superconducting proximity effect have been quantitatively described by the quasiclassical theory without incorporating such effects (see, e.g., Refs. Pascal,  and sillanpaa, ), we expect these inelastic effects to be mostly important in the kinetic equations describing the nonequilibrium distribution functions. In recent experiments,baselmanssquid ; huang  including these inelastic terms into the kinetic equations has lead to good agreement between the theory and the experiments. Therefore our results provide an accurate and independent way of also characterizing such inelastic effects by observing how they affect the supercurrent.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Norman Birge, Fr$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$deric Pierre and Jochem Baselmans for discussions. This work was supported by the Graduate School in Technical Physics at the Helsinki University of Technology.