format: text

text:
# Optimal Encryption of Quantum Bits

## 1 Introduction

We consider informationally secure encryption protocols, where any potential eavesdropper, Eve, will have no information about the original quantum state, even if she manages to steal or intercept the entire encrypted quantum data. This scenario is very different from the well-known scheme of quantum cryptography, which in the usual sense is really a secure expansion of an existing classical key, using a quantum channel and a pre-selected set of quantum states. The resulting secure bits might then be used for an encryption algorithm on classical data. But suppose one is concerned with securing quantum data, as is the case considered in this paper. Extending ideas from QKD (such as testing bits in conjugate bases), one might show that given the test is passed, the quantum bits are also secure. However, this case is ill-suited to data security as opposed to communication security. For the tasks targeted in the paper, we need a method to make sure that even if the eavesdropper takes the quantum data, she will still learn nothing about the quantum information. In this case, the eavesdropper may not care about passing any tests, and may remove the qubits and replace them with junk.

We provide a simple method to get informationally secure encryption of any quantum state using a classical secret key. This could have several interesting applications. For example, if we imagine a scenario where good quantum memories are expensive, one might rent quantum storage. Security in such a public-storage model would be a high priority. We assume the user cannot store quantum data herself, but can store classical data. Methods of using trusted centers for quantum cryptography have been developed. Our method would allow a user to encrypt her quantum data using a classical key and allow a potentially malicious center to store the data, and yet she would know that the center could learn nothing about her stored quantum data. Additionally, the untrusted center could act as a quantum communication provider. Several other applications which involve adaptations of classical cryptographic protocols, such as quantum secret sharing using classical key, are outlined later in the paper.

## 2 Classical Informationally Secure Encryption

If $`M`$ is the random variable for the message, and $`C`$ is the random variable for the ciphertext (i.e., output of the encryption process), then Shannon defined informationally secure cryptography in the following way:

$$I(M;C)=H(C)H(C|M)=0.$$
(1)
The above relationship implies $`p(c|m)=p(c)`$, i.e., that the ciphertext, $`c`$, is independent of the message, $`m`$. Since one must be able to recover the message from the ciphertext given the key, one must also satisfy $`I(M;C|K)=H(M)`$. Hence, the secrecy condition combined with the recoverability condition imply that $`H(K)H(M)`$ and $`H(C)H(M)`$ for informationally secure cryptography.

An example of informationally secure cryptography is the one time pad. The message $`m`$ is compressed to it’s entropy, and then a full-entropy random string of length $`H(M)`$ is chosen and called $`k`$. Then, the ciphertext is $`c=mk`$. Given $`c`$, one knows nothing of $`m`$, but given $`c`$ and $`k`$, one has $`m`$ exactly.

This same one time pad approach may be applied in the quantum case.

## 3 Encryption of Quantum Data

Alice has a quantum state that she intends either to send to Bob, or to store in a quantum memory for later use. Eve may intercept the state during transmission or may access the quantum memory. Alice wants to make sure that even if Eve receives the entire state, she learns nothing. Toward this end, any encryption algorithm must be a unitary operation, or more specifically a set of unitary operations which may be chosen with some distribution. It must be unitary because one must be able to undo the encryption, and any quantum operation that is reversible is unitary.

The most general scheme is to have a set of $`M`$ operations, $`\{U_k\}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$, where each element $`U_k`$ is a $`2^n\times 2^n`$ unitary matrix. This set of unitary operations is assumed to be known to all, but the classical key, $`k`$, which specifies the $`U_k`$ that is applied to the $`n`$-bit quantum state, is secret. The key is chosen with some probability $`p_k`$ and the input quantum state is encrypted by applying the corresponding unitary operation $`U_k`$. In the decryption stage, $`U_k^{}`$ is applied to the quantum state to retrieve the original state.

The input state, $`\rho `$, is called the message state, and the output state, $`\rho _c`$, is called the cipher-state. The protocol is secure if for every input state, $`\rho `$, the output state, $`\rho _c`$, is the totally mixed state:

$$\rho _c=\underset{k}{}p(k)U_k\rho U_k^{}=\frac{1}{2^n}I.$$
(2)
The reason that $`\rho _c`$ must be the totally mixed state is two fold. First, for security all inputs must be mapped to the same output density matrix (because $`\rho _c`$ must be independent of the input). Second, the output must be the totally mixed state because the totally mixed state is clearly mapped to itself by all encryption sets.

To see that this is secure, we note that Eve could prepare an n-bit totally mixed state on her own. Since two processes that output the same density matrices are indistinguishable, anything that can be learned from $`\rho _c`$ can also be learned from the totally mixed state.

The design criterion is to find such a distribution of unitary operations $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$ that will map all inputs to the totally mixed state. A construction of such a map is given next.

## 4 A Quantum One Time Pad

The algorithm is simple: for each qubit, Alice and Bob share two random secret bits. We assume these bits are shared in advance. If the first bit is $`0`$ she does nothing, else she applies $`\sigma _z`$ to the qubit. If the second bit is $`0`$ she does nothing, else she applies $`\sigma _x`$. Now she sends the qubit to Bob. She continues this protocol for the rest of the bits.

We now show that this quantum one time pad protocol is secure. First note that this bit-wise protocol can be expressed in terms of our general quantum encryption setup by choosing $`p_k=1/2^{2n}`$ and $`U_k=X^\alpha Z^\beta `$ ($`\alpha ,\beta \{0,1\}^n`$), where $`X^\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma _x^{\alpha (i)}`$ and $`Z^\beta ={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma _z^{\beta (i)}`$. Thus $`X^\alpha `$ corresponds to applying $`\sigma _x`$ to the bits in positions given by the $`n`$-bit string $`\alpha `$, and similarly for $`Z^\beta `$. Next, define the inner product of two matrices, $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, as $`Tr(M_1M_2^{})`$. If the set of all $`2^n\times 2^n`$ matrices is seen as an inner product space (with respect to the preceding inner product), then one can easily verify that the set of $`2^{2n}`$ unitary matrices $`\{X^\alpha Z^\beta \}`$ forms an orthonormal basis. Expanding any message state, $`\rho `$, in this $`X^\alpha Z^\beta `$ basis gives:

$$\rho =\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}a_{\alpha ,\beta }X^\alpha Z^\beta ,$$
(3)
where $`a_{\alpha ,\beta }=Tr(\rho Z^\beta X^\alpha )/2^n`$. Using this formalism, it is clear that the given choice of $`p_k`$ and $`U_k`$ satisfies eqn. (2), and hence the underlying protocol is secure:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p(k)U_k\rho U_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}X^\gamma Z^\delta \rho Z^\delta X^\gamma `$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}X^\gamma Z^\delta X^\alpha Z^\beta Z^\delta X^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}(1)^{\alpha \delta \gamma \beta }X^\alpha Z^\beta `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{\alpha ,0}\delta _{\beta ,0}X^\alpha Z^\beta `$
$`=`$ $`a_{0,0}I={\displaystyle \frac{Tr(\rho )}{2^n}}I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}I`$
## 5 An Equivalent Problem

Since there are a continuum of valid density matrices, the quantum security criterion (2) can be unwieldy to deal with. Here we introduce a modified condition that is necessary and sufficient for security.

###### Lemma 5.1

An encryption set $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$ satisfies eqn. (2) if and only if it satisfies:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}p(k)U_kX^\alpha Z^\beta U_k^{}=\delta _{\alpha ,0}\delta _{\beta ,0}I.$$
(5)
Proof: To show that the above condition is sufficient, express $`\rho `$ in the $`X^\alpha Z^\beta `$ basis, as was done in eqn. (4) and apply the eqn. (5).

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p(k)U_k\rho U_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p(k)U_k\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }X^\alpha Z^\beta \right)U_k^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p(k)U_kX^\alpha Z^\beta U_k^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}a_{\alpha ,\beta }\delta _{\alpha ,0}\delta _{\beta ,0}I`$
$`=`$ $`a_{0,0}I={\displaystyle \frac{Tr(\rho )}{2^n}}I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}I`$
To show that the modified condition eqn. (5), is necessary is somewhat more involved. First let us introduce some new notations:

$`\rho _i={\displaystyle \frac{I+\sigma _i}{2}}`$ and $`\rho _{mix}={\displaystyle \frac{I}{2}}.`$
The proof may be obtained by induction. Suppose all $`X^\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |k`$ are mapped to zero by the encryption process. Now consider the following product state of $`nk1`$ mixed states, with exactly $`k+1`$ pure states $`\rho _x`$:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{mix}\rho _{mix}\mathrm{}\rho _{mix}\rho _x\rho _x\mathrm{}\rho _x`$
By expanding the above becomes:

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I}{2^n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{2^k1}{}}}X^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}X^{2^{k+1}1}`$
In the above we use decimal numbers where before we defined $`X^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha `$ in binary; hence $`X^3=X^{00\mathrm{}011}`$. When the above $`\rho `$ is encrypted we know that $`\frac{I}{2^n}`$ is mapped to itself. By assumption $`X^\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |k`$ is mapped to zero, hence the sum in the expansion of $`\rho `$ disappears. Since $`\rho `$ must be mapped to $`\frac{I}{2^n}`$, then the last term in the above, which is $`X^\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |=k+1`$, must be mapped to zero. By permuting the initial input states, all $`X^\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |=k+1`$ must be mapped to zero. The case where $`k=1`$ is our base case. By induction all $`X^\alpha `$ are mapped to zero.

If $`x`$ is replaced by $`z`$ in the above, then all $`Z^\beta `$ are mapped to zero also. If $`x`$ is replaced by $`y`$ and using the fact that all $`X^\alpha `$ and $`Z^\beta `$ are mapped to zero, one sees that all $`X^\alpha Z^\beta `$ are mapped to zero, which proves the lemma.

Thus, by using a basis for the set of $`2^n\times 2^n`$ matrices, the condition for security becomes discrete, and only $`2^{2n}`$ equations need to be satisfied by the set $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$. The above lemma will be useful for showing necessary conditions on encryption sets.

## 6 Characterization and Optimality of Quantum One-Time Pads

So far, we have provided one quantum encryption protocol based on bit-wise Pauli rotations, which uses $`2n`$ random classical bits in order to encrypt $`n`$ quantum bits. In this section we explore the following questions: (1) What are some of the other choices of $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$ that can be used to perform quantum encryption? In general, can one precisely characterize all possible valid choices of $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$? and (2) Is the simple quantum one time pad protocol optimal? That is, can one encrypt $`n`$-bit quantum states using less than $`2n`$ random secret classical bits? First, we prove a sufficient condition for choosing a secure encryption protocol, and then provide a corresponding necessary condition as well. In particular, we show that one cannot perform secure encryption of $`n`$-bit quantum states using less than $`2n`$ random classical bits.

###### Lemma 6.1

Any unitary orthonormal basis for the $`2^n\times 2^n`$ matrices uniformly applied encrypts $`n`$ quantum bits.

Proof: We can always write the matrices, $`U_k`$, in terms of the $`X^\alpha Z^\beta `$ basis as

$$U_k=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^kX^\alpha Z^\beta .$$
(6)
Since these $`U_k`$’s form an orthonormal basis, the $`2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}`$ transformation matrix $`C`$, comprising of the transformation coefficients, is a unitary matrix. Hence, the rows and columns of $`C`$ are orthonormal:

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(C_{\gamma ,\delta }^k)^{}=\delta _{\alpha ,\gamma }\delta _{\beta ,\delta }\text{and}\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(C_{\alpha ,\beta }^l)^{}=\delta _{k,l}.$$
(7)
By substitution of $`U_k`$ in (2) the lemma is obtained:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}U_k\rho U_k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^kX^\alpha Z^\beta \right)\rho \left({\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}C_{\gamma ,\delta }^{k}{}_{}{}^{}Z^\delta X^\gamma \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^kC_{\gamma ,\delta }^{k}{}_{}{}^{}X^\alpha Z^\beta \rho Z^\delta X^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}C_{\alpha ,\beta }^kC_{\gamma ,\delta }^{k}{}_{}{}^{}\right)X^\alpha Z^\beta \rho Z^\delta X^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}\delta _{\alpha ,\gamma }\delta _{\beta ,\delta }X^\alpha Z^\beta \rho Z^\delta X^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}X^\alpha Z^\beta \rho Z^\beta X^\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}I`$
###### Lemma 6.2

Given any quantum encryption set, $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$, (i.e.,$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k=1`$, $`U_k`$ is unitary, and eqns. (2) and (5) are satisfied), let $`\stackrel{~}{U_k}=\sqrt{p_k}U_k={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^kX^\alpha Z^\beta ,`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the $`M\times 2^{2n}`$ transformation matrix, comprising of the transformation coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k`$. Then $`M2^{2n}`$, and

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}I_{2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}}.$$

Proof:$`\{p_k,U_k\}`$ satisfies eqns. (2) and (5). Hence, for every $`\mathrm{},m`$ $`\{0,1\}^n`$,

$`\delta _{\mathrm{},0}\delta _{m,0}I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p(k)U_kX^{\mathrm{}}Z^mU_k^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{U_k}X^{\mathrm{}}Z^m\stackrel{~}{U_k}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\gamma ,\delta }^k)^{}X^\alpha Z^\beta X^{\mathrm{}}Z^mZ^\delta X^\gamma `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma ,\delta }{}}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+\gamma (\beta +\delta +m)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\gamma ,\delta }^k)^{}\right)X^{\alpha +\gamma +\mathrm{}}Z^{\beta +\delta +m}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+(p+\mathrm{}+\alpha )q}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha +p+\mathrm{},\beta +q+m}^k)^{}\right)\right)X^pZ^q.`$
Using the linear independence of the $`X^pZ^q`$, only the identity component is non-zero. Hence security implies:

$`\delta _{\mathrm{},0}\delta _{m,0}\delta _{p,0}\delta _{q,0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+\alpha q}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha +p+\mathrm{},\beta +q+m}^k)^{}\right)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+\alpha q}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p+\mathrm{}}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q+m}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\gamma ,\delta }^k)^{}\right)`$
As it will be evident, the second step in the above equation will be used to introduce a linear algebra formulation of the problem. Now, let

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha ,\beta ),(\gamma ,\delta )}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\alpha ,\beta }^k(\stackrel{~}{C}_{\gamma ,\delta }^k)^{},`$
which is the standard inner product of the $`(\alpha ,\beta )^{th}`$ and the $`(\gamma ,\delta )^{th}`$ columns of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ or $`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}\right)_{(\alpha ,\beta ),(\gamma ,\delta )}`$, and let

$`𝐌_{(\mathrm{},m,p,q),(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+\alpha q}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p+\mathrm{}}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q+m}.`$
Eqn. (8) can now be written as a set of $`2^{4n}`$ linear equations: $`𝐌𝚿`$ $`=[\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}0}\mathrm{}0]^T`$, where $`𝚿`$ is the $`2^{4n}\times 1`$ vector consisting of all the possible inner products of pairs of columns of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and $`𝐌`$ is a $`2^{4n}\times 2^{4n}`$ matrix with elements from the set $`1,0,1`$. Next we observe that a matrix $`𝐀`$ is orthogonal if and only if $`_jA_{i,j}A_{i^{},j}=A_i^2\delta _{i,i^{}}`$, where $`A_i`$ is the norm of the $`i^{th}`$ row (which must be greater than zero). One can easily verify that $`𝐌`$ is an orthogonal matrix:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}𝐌_{(\mathrm{},m,p,q),(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}𝐌_{(\mathrm{}^{},m^{},p^{},q^{}),(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}+\alpha q}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p+l}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q+m}(1)^{\beta \mathrm{}^{}+\alpha q^{}}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p^{}+l^{}}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q^{}+m^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}}(1)^{\beta (\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^{})+\alpha (q+q^{})}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p+l}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q+m}\delta _{\gamma ,\alpha +p^{}+l^{}}\delta _{\delta ,\beta +q^{}+m^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}(1)^{\beta (\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^{})+\alpha (q+q^{})}\delta _{p+l,p^{}+l^{}}\delta _{q+m,q^{}+m^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`2^{2n}\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{q,q^{}}\delta _{p+l,p^{}+l^{}}\delta _{q+m,q^{}+m^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`2^{2n}\delta _{l,l^{}}\delta _{q,q^{}}\delta _{p,p^{}}\delta _{m,m^{}}.`$
In showing the above we have also found the inverse of $`𝐌`$. The orthonormality of $`𝐌`$ means that $`\mathrm{𝐌𝐌}^T=2^{2n}I`$, and hence $`𝐌^1=𝐌^T/2^{2n}`$. Therefore, $`𝚿`$ $`=\frac{𝐌^T[\mathrm{1\hspace{0.33em}0}\mathrm{}0]^T}{2^{2n}}`$, which means $`𝚿`$ is the first row of $`𝐌`$ renormalized:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha ,\beta ),(\gamma ,\delta )}=\frac{𝐌_{(0,0,0,0)(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}}{2^{2n}}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}\delta _{\alpha ,\gamma }\delta _{\beta ,\delta }.$$

Since $`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}\right)_{(\alpha ,\beta ),(\gamma ,\delta )}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{(\alpha ,\beta ),(\gamma ,\delta )}`$ we have

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}I_{2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}}.$$

Since $`I_{2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}}`$ is a full rank matrix, then $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ must have at least as many rows as columns. $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has $`2^{2n}`$ columns so $`M2^{2n}`$.

###### Theorem 6.3

Any given quantum encryption set, $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$, (i.e.,$`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}p_k=1`$, $`U_k`$ is unitary, and eqns. (2) and (5) are satisfied) has:

$`H(p_1,\mathrm{},p_M)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p_i\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_i}}2n.`$
Hence, one must use at least $`2n`$ random classical bits for any quantum encryption. Additionally, if $`M=2^{2n}`$, then $`p_k=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}`$ and $`U_k`$’s form an orthonormal basis. Hence, a set $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$ involving only $`2n`$ secret classical bits is a quantum encryption set if and only if the unitary matrix elements form an orthonormal basis, and they are all equally likely.

Proof: By Lemma 6.2 we have that

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}I_{2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}}.$$

Using a singular value decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, we have the following relationships:

$$\stackrel{~}{C}=W\mathrm{\Lambda }V^{},\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}=V(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })V^{},\text{and}\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{}=W(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})W^{},$$

where $`W`$ and $`V`$ are $`M\times M`$ and $`2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}`$ unitary matrices, respectively, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an $`M\times 2^{2n}`$ diagonal rectangular matrix: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(i,j)=\lambda _i\delta _{i,j}`$.Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ are real diagonal matrices and have the same non-zero elements; hence, $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ have the same non-zero eigenvalues. Since $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ has $`2^{2n}`$ repeated eigenvalues ($`=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}`$) and $`M2^{2n}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ has $`2^{2n}`$ repeated eigenvalues ($`=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}`$) and the rest of its $`M2^{2n}`$ eigenvalues are 0. Also note that the diagonal entries of $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{}`$ are the probabilities $`p_k`$’s and hence,

$$p_k=\frac{Tr(\stackrel{~}{U}_k\stackrel{~}{U}_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}{2^n}=(\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{})_{k,k}=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^{2n}}{}}|W_{i,k}|^2\frac{1}{2^{2n}}.$$

The above uses the facts that since $`W`$ is unitary, $`_{i=1}^M|W_{i,k}|^2=1`$ and that $`M2^{2n}`$. Hence,

$$H(p_1,\mathrm{},p_M)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_i\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{p_i}2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}p_i=2n.$$

In the particular case where $`M=2^{2n}`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{C}^{}=\stackrel{~}{C}^{}\stackrel{~}{C}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}}I_{2^{2n}\times 2^{2n}}`$. Hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Tr(\stackrel{~}{U}_k\stackrel{~}{U}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{})}{2^n}}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{k,j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2n}}},`$
which gives $`p_k=\frac{1}{2^{2n}}`$, and that the set $`\{U_k\}`$ necessarily forms an orthonormal basis. The proof is completed by observing that by lemma 6.1 any unitary orthonormal basis applied uniformly is sufficient.

## 7 Encryption vs. Teleportation and Superdense Coding

One of the most interesting results in quantum information theory is the teleportation of quantum bits by shared EPR pairs and classical channels. The quantum one time pad described in Section 4 could be implemented using the usual teleportation scheme by encrypting the classical communications with a one time pad. Hence, teleportation gives one example of a quantum encryption algorithm. In the original teleportation paper a proof that two classical bits are required to teleport is given. The proof is based on a construction that gives superluminal communication if teleportation can be done with less than two bits. This proof however does not imply that all quantum encryption sets require $`2n`$ bits. To do so would require one to prove that all quantum encryption sets correspond to a teleportation protocol. On the other hand, as we show next, all teleportation protocols correspond to a quantum encryption set; hence, Theorem 6.3 provides a new proof of optimality of teleportation.

A general teleportation scheme can be described as follows: Alice and Bob share a pure state comprising $`2n`$ qubits, $`\rho _{AB}`$, such that the traced out $`n`$-bit states of Alice and Bob satisfy: $`\rho _A=\rho _B=\frac{1}{2^n}I`$. Next, Alice receives an unknown $`n`$-bit quantum state $`\rho `$, and performs a joint measurement (i.e., on $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _A`$), which produces one of a fixed set of outcomes $`m_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},M`$, each with probability $`p_k`$. The particular outcome $`m_k`$ is classically communicated to Bob using $`H(p_1,\mathrm{},p_M)`$ bits. Bob performs a corresponding unitary operation $`U_k`$ on his state to retrieve $`\rho `$. Hence, after Alice’s measurement (and before Bob learns the outcome), Bob’s state can be expressed as $`\rho _B=\frac{1}{2^n}I={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}p(k)U_k\rho U_k^{}`$, which is exactly the encrypted state of the message, $`\rho `$, defined in Eqn. (2). Hence, every teleportation scheme corresponds to an encryption protocol $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$. Since we prove that all quantum encryption sets require $`2n`$ classical bits, then all teleportation schemes must also require $`2n`$ classical bits. Note that our proof only relies on the properties of the underlying vector spaces.

Superdense coding also has a connection to quantum encryption. Consider the case where Alice asks Bob to encrypt something and then Alice wishes to learn the key that Bob used to encrypt. In the case of the classical one time pad  $`c=mk`$, and so given a message and it’s accompanying ciphertext, one learns the key: $`k=mc`$. Quantumly, each quantum bit has two classical key bits to learn. Due to Holevo’s theorem it may seem that this implies that there is no way to learn the classical key exactly. This intuition is not correct. Alice can learn Bob’s key in the following way. Alice prepares $`n`$ singlets and gives half of each singlet to Bob. Bob encrypts them using the simple quantum one time pad and returns them to Alice. Alice can learn the key exactly by measuring each former singlet in the bell basis. The outcome would tell Alice exactly which transformation Bob applied. This protocol corresponds exactly to the superdense coding scheme.

Interestingly, some insight is gained as to where the factor of two between the number of classical and quantum bits comes from in both encryption and teleportation. In the case of classical bits, $`\rho `$ is diagonal. A basis for all diagonal matrices is $`Z^\beta `$. Hence, for encryption of classical bits there are only $`2^n`$ equations. In the quantum case, by lemma 5.1, there are $`2^{2n}`$ equations to satisfy, so it is not too surprising that there are twice as many classical bits needed. Equivalently, the $`\mathrm{log}`$ of the size of the space is twice as large quantumly as opposed to classically. The proof given here could be particularized to give a new proof of Shannon’s original result on informationally secure classical encryption.

## 8 Discussion

We have presented an algorithm for using $`2n`$ secret classical bits to secure $`n`$ quantum bits. These encrypted quantum bits may now be held by an untrusted party with no danger that information may be learned from these bits. Any number of applications may be imagined for this algorithm, or class of algorithms $`\{p_k,U_k\}`$. For instance, rather than using random classical data of size $`2n`$, one could use a secret key ciphers or stream ciphers to keep a small finite classical key, for instance 256 bits, to generate pseudo-random bits to encrypt quantum data. In fact, these notions allow for straight-forward generalizations of many classical protocols to quantum data. Quantum secret sharing has been developed that may be used to share quantum secrets. Classical secret sharing schemes are known that are informationally secure. By encrypting a quantum state of $`n`$ bits with $`2n`$ classical bits, and then using classical secret sharing on the $`2n`$ bits, one may use these informationally secure classical methods in the quantum world. This protocol would allow users with only classical resources to perform secret sharing given an untrusted center to store the quantum data. One application independently suggested by Crépeau et. al. is to build quantum bit commitment schemes based on computationally secure classical bit commitment schemes.

## 9 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Tal Mor for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by grants from the Revolutionary Computing group at JPL (contract #961360), and from the DARPA Ultra program (subcontract from Purdue University #530–1415–01)


text:
# Untitled Document

New Einstein Metrics in Dimension Five

Charles P. Boyer Krzysztof Galicki

During the preparation of this work the authors were partially supported by NSF grant DMS-9970904.
Abstract: The purpose of this note is to introduce a new method for proving the existence of Sasakian-Einstein metrics on certain simply connected odd dimensional manifolds. We then apply this method to prove the existence of new Sasakian-Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3`$ and on $`\left(S^2\times S^3\right)\mathrm{\#}\left(S^2\times S^3\right).`$ These give the first known examples of non-regular Sasakian-Einstein 5-manifolds. Our method involves describing the Sasakian-Einstein structures as links of certain isolated hypersurface singularities, and makes use of the recent work of Demailly and Kollár who obtained new examples of Kähler-Einstein del Pezzo surfaces with quotient singularities.

0. Introduction

Since any three dimensional Einstein manifold has constant curvature, the essential study of Sasakian-Einstein manifolds begins in dimension five. Moreover, since a complete Sasakian-Einstein manifold is necessarily spin with finite fundamental group, Smale’s classification \[Sm\] of simply connected compact 5-manifolds with spin applies. If there is no torsion in $`H_2`$ then Smale’s theorem says that any such 5-manifold is diffeomorphic to $`S^5\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$ for some $`k.`$ In the classification of Sasakian-Einstein manifolds it is judicious to distinguish between regular Sasakian-Einstein manifolds and non-regular ones. The compact simply connected five dimensional manifolds admitting a regular Sasakian-Einstein structure have been classified by Friedrich and Kath \[FK\], and it follows from the classification of smooth del Pezzo surfaces admitting Kähler-Einstein metrics due to Tian and Yau \[TY\]. These 5-manifolds are $`S^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$ for $`k=1,3,\mathrm{},8.`$ For $`k=3,\mathrm{},8`$ they are are circle bundles over $`\mathrm{}^2`$ blown up at $`k`$ generic points, whereas for $`k=1`$ this is the homogeneous Stiefel manifold $`V_{4,2}(\mathrm{})`$ which is a circle bundle over $`\mathrm{}^1\times \mathrm{}^1.`$ Notice that $`k=2`$ is missing from this list as are the circle bundles over $`\mathrm{}^2`$ blown-up at one or two points. The reason for this is Matsushima’s well-known obstruction to the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics when the complex automorphism group is not reductive. Thus, any Sasakian-Einstein structure on the connected sum of two copies of $`S^2\times S^3`$ must be non-regular. In this note we prove the existence of such a non-regular Sasakian-Einstein metric thus filling this “$`k=2`$ gap”. It is an interesting question as to whether Sasakian-Einstein structures exist on $`\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$ for $`k>8.`$ Of course, if such structures exist they must be non-regular.

Note Added: The ideas of this paper have been developed much further in \[BGN1,BGN2\] where the existence of infinite families of Sasakian-Einstein metrics on the k-fold connected sum $`k\mathrm{\#}(S^2\times S^3)`$ is proven for $`k=2,\mathrm{},9.`$ The moduli of such structures is also discussed. However, it is still an open question as to whether there are Sasakian-Einstein metrics on $`\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$ for $`k>9.`$

We also prove the existence of two inhomogeneous non-regular Sasakian-Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3.`$ Recently it has been shown that the manifold $`S^2\times S^3`$ admits quite a few Einstein metrics. First Wang and Ziller \[WZ\] proved the existence of a countable number of homogeneous Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3.`$ More recently Böhm \[Böh\] showed the existence of a countable number of cohomogeneity one Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3.`$ Our new Sasakian-Einstein metrics are also inhomogeneous and they are not isometric to any of the Böhm’s examples. Explicitly, we prove

Theorem A: There exists a non-regular Sasakian-Einstein metric on $`(S^2\times S^3)\mathrm{\#}(S^2\times S^3).`$

Theorem B: There exist two inequivalent inhomogeneous Sasakian-Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3.`$ These metrics are inequivalent as Riemannian metrics to the inhomogeneous metrics of Böhm. Hence, $`S^2\times S^3`$ admits at least three distinct Sasakian-Einstein metrics.

A Sasakian structure on a manifold defines several interesting objects. It defines a one-dimensional foliation, a CR-structure, and a contact structure. Indeed, combining all three of these, it defines a Pfaffian structure with a transverse Kähler geometry. Now in each case above the Sasakian-Einstein structure is unique within the CR-structure. Thus, on $`S^2\times S^3`$ we have three distinct CR-structures. It is interesting to ask the question as to whether the three Sasakian-Einstein structures on $`S^2\times S^3`$ belong to distinct contact structures. This is a more subtle question as contact geometry has no local invariants. Perhaps there is a connection between certain link invariants and contact invariants as suggested by Arnold \[Arn\].

Our method of proofs of Theorems A and B is to consider the Sasakian geometry of links of isolated hypersurface singularities defined by weighted homogeneous polynomials. We then make use of a recent result of Demailly and Kollár \[DK\] proving the existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on certain del Pezzo orbifolds given as hypersurfaces in certain weighted projective spaces. The links which can then be represented as the total space of V-bundles over these orbifolds admit Sasakian-Einstein metrics. We then use a well-known algorithm of Milnor and Orlik \[MO\] to compute the characteristic polynomials of the monodromy maps associated to the links. This allows us to determine the second Betti number of the link. Then using a method of Randell \[Ran\] we can show that the links have no torsion, and apply Smale’s classification theorem.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Alex Buium and Michael Nakamaye for helpful discussions. We also want to thank János Kollár for several valuable e-mail communications as well as his interest in our work.

1. The Sasakian Geometry of Links of Weighted Homogeneous Polynomials

In this section we discuss the Sasakian geometry of links of isolated hypersurface singularities defined by weighted homogeneous polynomials. Consider the affine space $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ together with a weighted $`\mathrm{}^{}`$-action given by $`(z_0,\mathrm{},z_n)(\lambda ^{w_0}z_0,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{w_n}z_n),`$ where the weights $`w_j`$ are positive integers. It is convenient to view the weights as the components of a vector $`𝐰(\mathrm{}^+)^{n+1},`$ and we shall assume that $`\mathrm{gcd}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)=1.`$ Let $`f`$ be a quasi-homogeneous polynomial, that is $`f\mathrm{}[z_0,\mathrm{},z_n]`$ and satisfies

$$f(\lambda ^{w_0}z_0,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{w_n}z_n)=\lambda ^df(z_0,\mathrm{},z_n),$$
$`1.1`$
where $`d\mathrm{}^+`$ is the degree of $`f.`$ We are interested in the weighted affine cone $`C_f`$ defined by the equation $`f(z_0,\mathrm{},z_n)=0.`$ We shall assume that the origin in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ is an isolated singularity, in fact the only singularity, of $`f.`$ Then the link $`L_f`$ defined by

$$L_f=C_fS^{2n+1},$$
$`1.2`$
where

$$S^{2n+1}=\{(z_0,\mathrm{},z_n)\mathrm{}^{n+1}|\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}|z_j|^2=1\}$$

is the unit sphere in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1},`$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $`2n1.`$ Furthermore, it is well-known \[Mil\] that the link $`L_f`$ is $`(n2)`$-connected.

On $`S^{2n+1}`$ there is a well-known \[YK\] “weighted” Sasakian structure $`(\xi _𝐰,\eta _𝐰,\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰,g_𝐰)`$ which in the standard coordinates $`\{z_j=x_j+iy_j\}_{j=0}^n`$ on $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}=\mathrm{}^{2n+2}`$ is determined by

$$\eta _𝐰=\frac{\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}(x_idy_iy_idx_i)}{_{i=0}^nw_i(x_i^2+y_i^2)},\xi _𝐰=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}w_i(x_i_{y_i}y_i_{x_i}),$$

and the standard Sasakian structure $`(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },g)`$ on $`S^{2n+1}.`$ Explicitly, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰& =\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\xi _w\eta _w\hfill \\ \hfill g_𝐰& =\frac{1}{\eta (\xi _𝐰)}[g\eta _𝐰\xi _𝐰g\xi _𝐰g\eta _𝐰+g(\xi _𝐰,\xi _𝐰)\eta _𝐰\eta _𝐰]+\eta _𝐰\eta _𝐰.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`1.3`$
Now, by equation 1.1, the $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝐰)`$ action on $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ restricts to an action on $`C_f,`$ and the associated $`S^1`$ action restricts to an action on both $`S^{2n+1}`$ and $`L_f.`$ It follows that $`\xi _𝐰`$ is tangent to the submanifold $`L_f`$ and, by abuse of notation, we shall denote by $`\xi _𝐰,\eta _𝐰,\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰,g_𝐰`$ the corresponding tensor fields on both $`S^{2n+1}`$ and $`L_f.`$ Now $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the contact subbundle $`𝒟`$ on $`S^{2n+1}`$ which defines an integrable almost complex structure on $`𝒟.`$ Moreover, since $`f`$ is a holomorphic function on $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ the Cauchy-Riemann equations imply that for any smooth section $`X`$ of $`𝒟`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰X(f)=0.`$ Thus, $`L_f`$ is an invariant submanifold of $`S^{2n+1}`$ with its weighted Sasakian structure. We have arrived at a theorem given by Takahashi \[Tak, YK\] in the case of Brieskorn-Pham links and we have seen that Takahashi’s proof easily generalizes to the case of arbitrary weighted homogeneous hypersurface singularities.

Theorem 1.4: The quadruple $`(\xi _𝐰,\eta _𝐰,\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰,g_𝐰)`$ gives $`L_f`$ a quasi-regular Sasakian structure.

Actually as with Kähler structures there are many Sasakian structures on a given Sasakian manifold. In fact there are many Sasakian structures which have $`\xi `$ as its characteristic vector field. To see this let $`(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },g)`$ be a Sasakian structure on a smooth manifold (orbifold) $`M,`$ and consider a deformation of this structure by adding to $`\eta `$ a continuous one parameter family of 1-forms $`\zeta _t`$ that are basic with respect to the characteristic foliation. We require that the 1-form $`\eta _t=\eta +\zeta _t`$ satisfy the conditions

$$\eta _0=\eta ,\zeta _0=0,\eta _t(d\eta _t)^n0t[0,1].$$
$`1.5`$
This last non-degeneracy condition implies that $`\eta _t`$ is a contact form on $`M`$ for all $`t[0,1].`$ Then by Gray’s Stability Theorem \[MS\] $`\eta _t`$ belongs to the same contact structure as $`\eta .`$ Moreover, since $`\zeta _t`$ is basic $`\xi `$ is the Reeb (characteristic) vector field associated to $`\eta _t`$ for all $`t.`$ Now let us define

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }_t& =\mathrm{\Phi }\xi \zeta _t\mathrm{\Phi }\hfill \\ \hfill g_t& =g+d\zeta _t(\mathrm{\Phi }\text{id})+\zeta _t\eta +\eta \zeta _t+\zeta _t\zeta _t.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`1.6`$
Note that it is not at all clear from this definition that $`g_t`$ is a Riemannian metric, but we shall check this below. We have

Theorem 1.7: Let $`(M,\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },g)`$ be a Sasakian manifold. Then for all $`t[0,1]`$ and every basic 1-form $`\zeta _t`$ such that $`d\zeta _t`$ is of type $`(1,1)`$ and such that 1.5 holds $`(\xi ,\eta _t,\mathrm{\Phi }_t,g_t)`$ defines a Sasakian structure on $`M`$ belonging to the same underlying contact structure as $`\eta .`$

Proof: The conditions of 1.5 guarantee that $`(\xi ,\eta _t,\mathrm{\Phi }_t,g_t)`$ defines a Pfaffian structure, i.e. a contact structure with a fixed contact 1-form. We need to check that it is a metric contact structure and that it is normal. It is easy to check that the metric $`g_t`$ of 1.6 can be rewritten as

$$g_t=d\eta _t(\mathrm{\Phi }_t\text{id})+\eta _t\eta _t.$$
$`1.8`$
It follows from the fact $`d\eta _t`$ is type $`(1,1)`$ on the contact bundle $`𝒟_t=\text{ker}\eta _t`$ that $`g_t`$ is a symmetric bilinear form and then a straightforward computation checks the compatibility condition

$$g_t(\mathrm{\Phi }_tX,\mathrm{\Phi }_tY)=g_t(X,Y)\eta _t(X)\eta _t(Y).$$

The positive definiteness of $`g_t`$ follows from the positive definiteness of $`g`$ and the non-degeneracy condition in 1.5. Moreover, one easily checks the identity $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t^2=\text{id}+\xi \eta _t.`$ Next we check normality which amounts to checking two conditions, that the almost CR structure defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ on the contact bundle $`𝒟_t`$ is integrable, and that $`\xi `$ is a Killing vector field for the metric $`g_t.`$ The last condition is equivalent to vanishing of the Lie derivative $`_\xi \mathrm{\Phi }_t`$ for all $`t`$ which follows immediately from the first of equations 1.6 and the facts that it holds for $`t=0`$ and that $`\zeta _t`$ is basic. Integrability follows from the fact that the almost CR structure defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`𝒟`$ is integrable, and that the first of equations 1.6 is just the projection of the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ onto $`𝒟_t.`$

In general these structures are inequivalent and the moduli space of Sasakian structures having the same characteristic vector field is infinite dimensional. Indeed since the link of a hypersurface is determined by the $`S^1(𝐰)`$ action we formulate the following:

Definition 1.8: A Sasakian structure $`(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },g)`$ on $`L_f`$ is said to be compatible with the link $`L_f`$ if $`\xi `$ is a generator of the $`S^1`$ action on $`L_f.`$ We say that $`\xi `$ is the standard generator if $`\xi =\xi _𝐰`$, where $`𝐰`$ is the weight vector of $`L_f`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{gcd}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)=1.`$

For every compatible Sasakian structure there is one with a standard generator, and hereafter we shall always choose the standard generator for a compatible Sasakian structure unless otherwise stated. We are interested in the following question:

Problem 1.9: Given a link $`L_f`$ with a given Sasakian structure $`(\xi ,\eta ,\mathrm{\Phi },g),`$ when can we find a 1-form $`\zeta `$ such that the deformed structure $`(\xi ,\eta +\zeta ,\mathrm{\Phi }^{},g^{})`$ is Sasakian-Einstein ?

This is a Sasakian version of the Calabi problem for the link $`L_f`$ which is discussed further in \[BGN1\]. Here we use the fact that the leaf space of the characteristic foliation of a Sasakian structure of a link $`L_f`$ is a compact Kähler orbifold together with recent results of Demailly and Kollár \[DK\] on the existence of Kähler-Einstein orbifold metrics on certain singular del Pezzo surfaces to construct the Sasakian-Einstein metrics on the corresponding link.

2. Kähler-Einstein Orbifolds and Sasakian-Einstein Manifolds

Given a sequence $`𝐰=(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ of positive integers one can form the graded polynomial ring $`S(𝐰)=\mathrm{}[z_0,\mathrm{},z_n]`$, where $`z_i`$ has grading or weight $`w_i.`$ The weighted projective space \[BR, Del, Dol, Fle\] $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)=\mathrm{}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ is defined to be the scheme $`\text{Proj}(S(𝐰)).`$ It is the quotient space $`(\mathrm{}^{n+1}\{0\})/\mathrm{}^{}(𝐰)`$, where $`\mathrm{}^{}(𝐰)`$ is the weighted action defined in section 1. Clearly, $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ is also the quotient of the weighted Sasakian sphere $`S_𝐰^{2n+1}=(S^{2n+1},\xi _𝐰,\eta _𝐰,\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰,g_𝐰)`$ by the weighted circle action $`S^1(𝐰)`$ generated by $`\xi _𝐰.`$ As such $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ is also a compact complex orbifold with an induced Kähler structure. At times it will be important to distinguish between $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ as a complex orbifold and $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ as an algebraic variety.

Now the cone $`C_f`$ in $`\mathrm{}^{n+1}`$ cuts out a hypersurface $`𝒵_f`$ of $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ which is also a compact orbifold with an induced Kähler structure $`\omega _𝐰.`$ So there is a commutative diagram

LfS𝐰2n+1

π

𝒵f(𝐰),\matrix{L_{f}&\hbox to30.0pt{\rightarrowfill}&S^{2n+1}_{\bf w}&\cr\phantom{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\pi}$}}\left\downarrow\vbox{\vskip 15.0pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\pi}$}}\right.&&\phantom{\hbox{$\scriptstyle{}$}}\left\downarrow\vbox{\vskip 15.0pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{}$}}\right.&\cr{\cal Z}_{f}&\hbox to30.0pt{\rightarrowfill}&{\tenmsb P}({\bf w}),&\cr} $`2.1`$
where the horizontal arrows are Sasakian and Kählerian embeddings, respectively, and the vertical arrows are orbifold Riemannian submersions. Furthermore, by the inversion theorem of \[BG1\] $`L_f`$ is the total space of the principal $`S^1`$ V-bundle over the orbifold $`𝒵_f`$ whose first Chern class is $`[\omega _𝐰]H_{orb}^2(𝒵_f,\mathrm{}),`$ and $`\eta _𝐰`$ is the connection in this V-bundle whose curvature is $`\pi ^{}\omega _𝐰.`$ For further discussion of the orbifold cohomology groups we refer the reader to \[Hae\] and \[BG1\].

Now $`H_{orb}^2(𝒵_f,\mathrm{})\mathrm{}H^2(𝒵_f,\mathrm{}),`$ so $`[\omega _𝐰]`$ defines a rational class in the usual cohomology. Thus, by Baily’s \[Bai\] projective embedding theorem for orbifolds, $`𝒵_f`$ is a projective algebraic variety with at most quotient singularities. It follows that as an algebraic variety $`𝒵_f`$ is normal. As with $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ it is important to distinguish between $`𝒵_f`$ as an orbifold and $`𝒵_f`$ as an algebraic variety. For example the singular loci may differ. There are examples where the orbifold singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{orb}(𝒵_f)`$ has codimension one over $`\mathrm{},`$ whereas $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{alg}(𝒵_f)`$ always has codimension $`2`$ by normality. Indeed there are examples with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{orb}(𝒵_f)\mathrm{},`$ but $`𝒵_f`$ is smooth as an algebraic variety. In these cases an orbifold metric is NOT a Riemannian metric in the usual sense.

We are interested in finding Sasakian-Einstein structures $`(\xi _𝐰,\eta _𝐰^{},\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐰^{},g_𝐰^{})`$ on $`L_f`$ with the same Sasakian vector field $`\xi _𝐰`$ as the original Sasakian structure, that is Sasakian-Einstein structures that are compatible with the link $`L_f.`$ Since a Sasakian-Einstein metric necessarily has positive Ricci curvature, we see that a necessary condition for a Sasakian-Einstein metric $`g`$ to exist on $`L_f`$ is that there be an orbifold metric $`h`$ on $`𝒵_f`$ with positive Ricci form $`\rho _h`$ such that $`g=\pi ^{}h+\eta \eta .`$ The positive definiteness of $`\rho _h`$ follows from the relation

$$\pi ^{}\text{Ric}_h=\text{Ric}_g|_{𝒟\times 𝒟}+2g|_{𝒟\times 𝒟}.$$
$`2.2`$
But since $`\rho _h`$ represents the first Chern class $`c_1(K^1)`$ of the anti-canonical line V-bundle $`K^1`$ we see that $`𝒵_f`$ must be a Fano orbifold, i.e., some power of $`K^1`$ is invertible and ample. Here $`K`$ is the canonical line V-bundle of Baily \[Bai\]. By the previous section and the well-known theory of Sasakian-Einstein structures \[BG1\] we have

Theorem 2.3: The link $`L_f`$ has a compatible Sasakian-Einstein structure if and only if the Fano orbifold $`𝒵_f`$ admits a compatible Kähler-Einstein orbifold metric of scalar curvature $`4n(n+1).`$

Of course, if we find a Kähler-Einstein metric of positive scalar curvature on the orbifold $`𝒵_f,`$ we can always rescale the metric so that the scalar curvature in $`4n(n+1).`$

We want conditions that guarantee that the hypersurfaces be Fano, but first we restrict somewhat the hypersurfaces that we treat.

Definition 2.3 \[Fle\]:

(1) A weighted projective space $`\mathrm{}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ is said to be well-formed if

$$\mathrm{gcd}(w_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{w_i},\mathrm{},w_n)=1\text{for all }i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

(2) A hypersurface in a weighted projective space $`\mathrm{}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ is said to be well-formed if in addition it contains no codimension 2 singular stratum of $`\mathrm{}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n),`$

where the hat means delete that element.

In (1) of definition 2.3, we prefer the terminology introduced in \[BR\] for an equivalent condition which seems to have first appeared in \[Dol\]. So if a weighted projective space satisfies (1) of definition 2.3 we say that $`𝐰`$ is normalized. In \[Fle\] it is shown that (2) of definition 2.3 can be formulated solely in terms of the weighted homogeneous polynomial $`f.`$ That is, a general hypersurface in $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ defined by a weighted homogeneous polynomial $`f`$ is well-formed if and only if $`𝐰`$ is normalized and

$$\mathrm{gcd}(w_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{w_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{w_j},\mathrm{},w_n)|d\text{for all distinct }i,j=0,\mathrm{},n.$$
$`2.4`$
In this case we shall also say that the weighted homogeneous polynomial $`f`$ defining the hypersurface is well-formed. The following proposition is essentially an exercise in \[Kol\]:

Proposition 2.5: Let $`f_𝐰`$ be a well-formed weighted homogeneous polynomial with weights $`𝐰`$ and degree $`d.`$ Then the hypersurface $`𝒵_f`$ in $`\mathrm{}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ is Fano if and only if the following condition holds

$`()`$$`d<|𝐰|=_{i=0}^nw_i.`$

Thus if $`𝐰`$ is normalized and satisfies 2.4, a necessary condition for the link $`L_f`$ to admit a compatible Sasakian-Einstein metric is that $`()`$ be satisfied.

Proof: Following \[Mo,BR\] in any weighted projective space $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ we define the Mori-singular locus as follows: Let $`m=\text{lcm}(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ and consider for each prime divisor $`p`$ of $`m`$ the subscheme $`S_p`$ cut out by the ideal $`I_p`$ generated by those indeterminates $`z_i`$ such that $`pw_i,`$ and define the Mori-singular locus by

$$S(𝐰)=_{p|m}S_p,$$

and the Mori-regular locus by

$$\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)=\mathrm{}(𝐰)S(𝐰).$$

Now $`\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)`$ is contained in the smooth locus of $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ but can be a proper subset of it. Thus, $`S(𝐰)`$ contains the singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐰)`$ of $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ but in general is larger. However, when $`𝐰`$ is normalized the local uniformizing groups of the orbifold $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ contain no quasi-reflections as in \[Fle\]. It follows in this case that the singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐰)`$ coincides with the Mori-singular locus $`S(𝐰),`$ and $`\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)`$ is precisely the smooth locus of $`\mathrm{}(𝐰).`$

Now the sheaves $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}(n)`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$ are not in general invertible, but they are reflexive \[BR\]. Moreover, the Mori-regular locus $`\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)`$ is the largest open subset $`U`$ of $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ on which

(1) $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}(1)|U`$ is invertible, and

(2) the natural map $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}(1)^n|U𝒪_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}(n)|U`$ is an isomorphism for each $`n\mathrm{}^+`$ \[Mo\].

Furthermore, if $`𝐰`$ is normalized $`\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)`$ is characterized by condition (1) alone. As an orbifold $`\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ has a canonical V-bundle $`K_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}`$ whose associated sheaf, the dualizing sheaf $`\omega _{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}`$, is isomorphic to $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}(𝐰)}(|𝐰|).`$ Generally the adjunction formula does not hold, but if $`𝐰`$ is normalized we have

$$\omega _{𝒵_f}𝒪_{𝒵_f}(d|𝐰|).$$
$`2.6`$
These sheaves are invertible on $`\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)𝒵_f`$ and we have

$$\omega _{𝒵_f\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)}^1𝒪_{𝒵_f\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)}(|𝐰|d).$$

Moreover, since $`𝒵_f`$ is well-formed, $`𝒵_fS(𝐰)=𝒵_f\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐰)`$ has codimension $`2`$ in $`𝒵_f.`$ It follows by a standard result (cf. \[KMM\] Lemma 0-1-10) that

$$\omega _{𝒵_f}^1=\iota _{}(\omega _{𝒵_f\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)}^1),𝒪_{𝒵_f}(|𝐰|d)=\iota _{}(𝒪_{𝒵_f\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)}(|𝐰|d)),$$

where $`\iota :𝒵_f\mathrm{}^0(𝐰)𝒵_f`$ is the natural inclusion. We then have

$$\omega _{𝒵_f}^1𝒪_{𝒵_f}(|𝐰|d).$$
$`2.7`$
This proves the result.

There are further obstructions to the existence of a Sasakian-Einstein structure on $`L_f,`$ namely those coming from the well-known failure of the zeroth order a priori estimate for solving the Monge-Ampere equation for the Calabi problem on $`𝒵_f.`$ Now the link $`L_f`$ admits a compatible Sasakian-Einstein structure if and only if $`𝒵_f`$ has a Kähler-Einstein structure $`\omega ^{}`$ in the same cohomology class as $`\omega _𝐰.`$ So the well-known obstructions in the Kähler-Einstein case, such as the non-reductiveness of the connected component of the complex automorphism group, or the vanishing of the Futaki invariant become obstructions to the existence of Sasakian-Einstein metrics. The problem of solving the Calabi problem in the positive case has drawn much attention in the last decade \[Sui, Ti1, Ti2, Ti3, TY, DT, Nad\] but still remains open. Here it suffices to consider three examples given recently by Demailly and Kollar \[DK\].

3. The Demailly-Kollár Examples

In a recent preprint Demailly and Kollár \[DK\] give a new derivation of Nadel’s existence criteria for positive Kähler-Einstein metrics \[Nad\] which is valid for orbifolds. Furthermore their method of implementing Nadel’s theorem does not depend on the existence of a large finite group of symmetries, but rather uses intersection inequalities. In this sense it is complementary to the work of Nadel \[Nad\] and others \[Siu, Ti1-Ti4\]. As an application of their method Demailly and Kollár \[DK\] construct three new del Pezzo orbifolds which admit Kähler-Einstein metrics. Explicitly, they prove

Theorem 3.1 \[DK\]: Let $`𝒵_f`$ be a del Pezzo orbifold, and let $`f`$ be given by one of the following three quasi-homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$ whose zero set $`𝒵_f`$ is a surface in the weighted projective space $`\mathrm{}(w_0,w_1,w_2,w_3):`$

(1) $`f=z_0^5z_1+z_0z_2^3+z_1^4+z_3^3`$ with $`𝐰=(9,15,17,20)`$ and $`d=60.`$

(2) $`f=z_0^{17}z_2+z_0z_1^5+z_1z_2^3+z_3^2`$ with $`𝐰=(11,49,69,128)`$ and $`d=256.`$

(3) $`f=z_0^{17}z_1+z_0z_2^3+z_1^5z_2+z_3^2`$ with $`𝐰=(13,35,81,128)`$ and $`d=256.`$

Then $`𝒵_f`$ admits a Kähler-Einstein orbifold metric.

We denote these del Pezzo surfaces by $`𝒵_{60},𝒵_{256}^{(1)},𝒵_{256}^{(2)},`$ respectively. Actually more is true. By a result of Bando and Mabuchi \[BM\] (which also holds in the case of orbifolds) the Kähler-Einstein metric is unique up to complex automorphisms. Let us denote the corresponding links $`L_f`$ of these del Pezzo surfaces by $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(1)},L_{256}^{(1)},`$ respectively. Due to the form of the polynomials as $`f=g+z_3^m,`$ there is a well-known description of both $`𝒵_f`$ and $`L_f`$ in terms of branched covers (cf. \[DuKa\]). We briefly describe this geometry here. $`𝒵_{60}`$ is a 3-fold cover of $`\mathrm{}(9,15,17)`$ branched over the curve $`C_{60}=\{z_0^5z_1+z_0z_2^3+z_1^4=0\}.`$ Similarly, the surfaces $`𝒵_{256}^{(i)}`$ are 2-fold covers of $`\mathrm{}(11,49,69)`$ and $`\mathrm{}(13,35,81),`$ respectively, branched over the curves $`C_{256}^{(1)}=\{z_0^{17}z_2+z_0z_1^5+z_1z_2^3=0\},`$ and $`C_{256}^{(2)}=\{z_0^{17}z_1+z_0z_2^3+z_1^5z_2=0\},`$ respectively. In section 5 we show that in each case the genus of these curves is zero, so they are all $`\mathrm{}^1`$’s (there are no quotient singularities in dimension one). Similarly, $`L_{60}`$ is a 3-fold cyclic cover of $`S^5`$ branched over the Seifert manifold $`K(4,3,5;IV),`$ and $`L_{256}^{(i)}`$ are double covers of $`S^5`$ branched over the Seifert manifolds $`K(17,3,5;V)`$ and $`K(17,5,3;V)`$ for $`i=1,2,`$ respectively. The notation $`K(a_0,a_1,a_2;)`$ is that of Orlik \[Or1\]. These Seifert manifolds are quite complicated. For example, they all have infinite fundamental group, but have finite abelianization $`H_1,`$ and they all are Seifert fibrations over the Riemann sphere. As we shall see shortly the links $`L_{256}^{(1)}`$ and $`L_{256}^{(2)}`$ have the same characteristic polynomial although their Sasakian structures are distinct since their leaf holonomy groups are different. In particular they can be distinguished by their orders \[BG1\]. One easily finds by analyzing the orbifold singularity structure that $`\text{ord}(L_{256}^{(1)})=37191=37^21123,`$ while $`\text{ord}(L_{256}^{(2)})=36855=3^45713.`$ Now combining the Demailly-Kollár Theorem with Theorem 2.3 gives

Theorem 3.2: The simply connected 5-manifolds $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(i)}`$ admit compatible Sasakian-Einstein metrics. Furthermore, these Sasakian-Einstein metrics are unique within the CR structure up to a CR automorphism.

4. Link Invariants and the Milnor Fibration

Recall the well-known construction of Milnor \[Mil\] for isolated hypersurface singularities: There is a fibration of $`(S^{2n+1}L_f)S^1`$ whose fiber $`F`$ is an open manifold that is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of n-spheres $`S^nS^n\mathrm{}S^n.`$ The Milnor number $`\mu `$ of $`L_f`$ is the number of $`S^n`$’s in the bouquet. It is an invariant of the link which can be calculated explicitly in terms of the degree $`d`$ and weights $`(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ by the formula \[MO\]

$$\mu =\mu (L_f)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{d}{w_i}1\right).$$
$`4.1`$
One immediately has

Proposition 4.2: The Milnor numbers of the simply connected Sasakian-Einstein 5-manifolds $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(1)},L_{256}^{(2)}`$ are

$$\mu (L_{60})=86,\mu (L_{256}^{(i)})=255.$$

The closure $`\overline{F}`$ of $`F`$ has the same homotopy type as $`F`$ and is a compact manifold with boundary precisely the link $`L_f.`$ So the reduced homology of $`F`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ is only non-zero in dimension $`n`$ and $`H_n(F,\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^\mu .`$ Using the Wang sequence of the Milnor fibration together with Alexander-Poincare duality gives the exact sequence \[Mil\]

$$0H_n(L_f,\mathrm{})H_n(F,\mathrm{})\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{𝕀}h_{}}{}H_n(F,\mathrm{})H_{n1}(L_f,\mathrm{})0,$$
$`4.3`$
where $`h_{}`$ is the monodromy map (or characteristic map) induced by the $`S_𝐰^1`$ action. From this we see that $`H_n(L_f,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{𝕀}h_{})`$ is a free Abelian group, and $`H_{n1}(L_f,\mathrm{})=\text{coker}(\mathrm{𝕀}h_{})`$ which in general has torsion, but whose free part equals $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{𝕀}h_{}).`$ So the topology of $`L_f`$ is encoded in the monodromy map $`h_{}.`$ There is a well-known algorithm due to Milnor and Orlik \[MO\] for computing the free part of $`H_{n1}(L_f,\mathrm{})`$ in terms of the characteristic polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=det(t\mathrm{𝕀}h_{}),`$ namely the Betti number $`b_n(L_f)=b_{n1}(L_f)`$ equals the number of factors of $`(t1)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t).`$ We now compute the characteristic polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ for our examples.

Proposition 4.4: The characteristic polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ of the simply connected Sasakian-Einstein 5-manifolds $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(1)},L_{256}^{(2)}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=& (t1)^2(t^{14}+t^{13}+\mathrm{}+1)(t^{15}+1)(t^{30}+1)(t^4+t^3+t^2+t+1)\\ & \times (t^5+1)(t^{10}+1)(t^4t^2+1)(t^2t+1)\end{array}$$

for $`L_{60}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=(t1)(t^2+1)(t^4+1)(t^8+1)(t^{16}+1)(t^{32}+1)(t^{64}+1)(t^{128}+1)$$

for $`L_{256}^{(1)}`$ and $`L_{256}^{(2)}.`$

Proof: The Milnor and Orlik \[MO\] algorithm for computing the characteristic polynomial of the monodromy operator for weighted homogeneous polynomials is as follows: First associate to any monic polynomial $`F`$ with roots $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k\mathrm{}^{}`$ its divisor

$$\text{div}F=<\alpha _1>+\mathrm{}+<\alpha _k>$$

as an element of the integral ring $`\mathrm{}[\mathrm{}^{}]`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n=\text{div}(t^n1).`$ The rational weights $`w_i^{}`$ used in \[MO\] are related to our integer weights $`w_i`$ by $`w_i^{}=\frac{d}{w_i},`$ and we write the $`w_i^{}=\frac{u_i}{v_i}`$ in irreducible form. So for the surface of degree $`60`$ we have

$$w_0^{}=\frac{20}{3},w_1^{}=4,w_2^{}=\frac{60}{17},w_3^{}=3.$$

Then by Theorem 4 of \[MO\] the divisor of the characteristic polynomial is

$$\text{div}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{20}}{3}1)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_41)(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{60}}{17}1)(\mathrm{\Lambda }_31).$$

Using the relations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=\mathrm{gcd}(a,b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{lcm(a,b)}`$ we find in this case

$$\text{div}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{60}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{20}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\mathrm{\Lambda }_3+1.$$
$`4.5`$
Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is obtained from the formula

$$\text{div}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=1\frac{s_j}{j}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j$$

yielding

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\frac{(t1)}{(t^j1)^{s_j/j}}.$$

We see from 4.5 that the only nonzero $`s_j`$’s are

$$s_{60}=60,s_{20}=20,s_{12}=12,s_4=4,s_3=3,$$

and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\frac{(t1)(t^{60}1)(t^{20}1)(t^{12}1)}{(t^41)(t^31)}$$

which we see easily reduces the the expression given.

Similar computations for the two surfaces of degree $`256`$ show that

$$\text{div}\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{256}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2+1,$$
$`4.6`$
giving the characteristic polynomial noted above.

5. The Topology of $`L_f`$

Since the multiplicity of the root $`1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ is precisely the second Betti number of $`L_f`$ we have an immediate corollary of Proposition 4.4:

Corollary 5.1: The second Betti numbers of the 5-manifolds $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(i)}`$ are $`b_2(L_{60})=2,`$ and $`b_2(L_{256}^{(i)})=1`$ for $`i=1,2.`$

One can give another proof of this corollary by making use of a formula due to Steenbrink \[Dim\]. One considers the Milnor algebra

$$M(f)=\frac{\mathrm{}[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]}{\theta (f)},$$
$`5.2`$
where $`\theta (f)`$ is the Jacobi ideal. $`M(f)`$ has a natural $`\mathrm{}`$ grading

$$M(f)=_{i0}M(f)_i,$$

and Steenbrink’s formula determines the primitive Hodge numbers

$$h_0^{i,ni1}=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f)_{(i+1)dw}$$
$`5.3`$
of the projective surface $`f=0`$ in the weighted projective space $`\mathrm{}(𝐰).`$ Then $`b_2(L_f)=h_0^{1,1}`$ can be computed by finding a basis of residue classes in $`M(f)_{2d|𝐰|}.`$ Note also that since $`𝒵_f`$ is a del Pezzo surface, we have $`h^{2,0}=h^{0,2}=0.`$

Steenbrink’s formula can also be used to compute the Hirzebruch signature $`\tau `$ of the orbifolds $`𝒵_f`$ as well as the genus of the curves $`C_{60}`$ and $`C_{256}^{(i)}`$ discussed at the end of the last section. We have

Proposition 5.4: The Fano orbifold $`𝒵_{60}`$ has $`\tau =1`$ while the orbifolds $`𝒵_{256}^{(i)}`$ have $`\tau =0.`$ The curves $`C_{60}`$ and $`C_{256}^{(i)}`$ are all isomorphic to the projective line $`\mathrm{}^1.`$

Proof: The formula for the signature is \[Dim\]

$$\tau =1+2\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f)_{d|𝐰|}\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f)_{2d|𝐰|},$$

whereas the genus of the curves is given by

$$g=h_0^{0,1}=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f_0)_{d|𝐰|},$$

where $`f_0`$ is a weighted homogeneous polynomial in $`z_0,z_1,z_2`$ which is related to $`f`$ by $`f=f_0+z_3^{a_3}.`$ Now $`d|𝐰|=1`$ for all the surfaces and $`\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f)_{2d|𝐰|}=h_0^{1,1}=b_2(L_f)`$ which is $`2`$ for $`𝒵_{60}`$ and $`1`$ for $`𝒵_{256}^{(i)}.`$ Now for the curve $`C_{60}`$ we have $`d|𝐰|=19,`$ and one easily sees that $`g=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f_0)_{19}=0.`$ For the curves $`C_{256}^{(i)}`$ we have $`d|𝐰|=127,`$ so $`g=\text{dim}_{\mathrm{}}M(f_0)_{127}.`$ For example, for $`C_{256}^{(1)}`$ one easily checks that there are no monomials of the form $`z_0^az_1^bz_2^c`$ such that $`11a+49b+69c=127.`$ In both cases we find $`g=0.`$

Next we turn to the calculation of the torsion in $`H_2(L_f,\mathrm{}).`$ Actually we show that it is zero. We follow a method due to Randell \[Ran\] for computing the torsion of generalized Brieskorn manifolds (complete intersections of Brieskorn’s) where he verified a conjecture due to Orlik \[Or2\] for this class of manifolds. Randell’s methods apply to our more general weighted homogeneous polynomials case. For any $`xL_f`$ let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ denote the isotropy subgroup of the $`S^1(𝐰)`$-action on $`L_f`$ and by $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_x|`$ its order. Following \[Ran\] for each prime $`p`$ we define the $`p`$-singular set by

$$S_p=\{xL_f|p\text{divides}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_x|\}.$$
$`5.5`$
Then we have

Lemma 5.6: Suppose that for each prime $`p`$ the $`p`$-singular set $`S_p`$ is contained in a submanifold $`S`$ of codimension $`4`$ in $`L_f`$ that is cut out by a hyperplane section of $`𝒵_f.`$ Then the isomorphism holds:

$$\text{Tor}(H_{n1}(L_f,\mathrm{}))\text{Tor}(H_{n3}(S,\mathrm{})).$$
$`5.7`$
In particular, if the corresponding projective hypersurface $`𝒵_f`$ is well-formed, the isomorphism 5.7 holds.

Proof: The first statement is due to Randell \[Ran\]. To prove the second statement we notice that the set $`_pS_p,`$ where the union is over all primes, is precisely the subset of $`L_f`$, where the leaf holonomy groups are non-trivial and its projection to $`𝒵_f`$ is just the orbifold singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{orb}(𝒵_f).`$ Now $`𝒵_f\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ and $`𝐰`$ is normalized, so the fact that $`𝒵_f`$ is well-formed says that the orbifold singular locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{orb}(𝒵_f)`$ has complex codimension at least two in $`𝒵_f;`$ hence, for each prime $`p,`$ $`S_p`$ has real codimension at least four in $`L_f.`$

For the case at hand, $`n=3`$ so Randell’s lemma says that $`H_2(L_f,\mathrm{})`$ is torsion free. Thus, we have arrived at:

Lemma 5.8: Let $`L_f\mathrm{}^4`$ be the link of an isolated singularity defined by a weighted homogeneous polynomial $`f`$ in four complex variables. Suppose further that the del Pezzo surface $`𝒵_f\mathrm{}(𝐰)`$ is well-formed, then $`\text{Tor}(H_2(L_f,\mathrm{}))=0.`$

Now a well-known theorem of Smale \[Sm\] says that any simply connected compact 5-manifold which is spin, and whose second homology group is torsion free, is diffeomorphic to $`S^5\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$ for some non-negative integer $`k.`$ Furthermore, it is known \[BG2,Mor\] that any simply connected Sasakian-Einstein manifold is spin. Combining this with the development above gives

Theorem 5.9: Let $`L_f`$ be the link associated to a well-formed weighted homogeneous polynomial $`f`$ in four complex variables. Suppose also that $`L_f`$ admits a Sasakian-Einstein metric. Then $`L_f`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^5\mathrm{\#}k(S^2\times S^3)`$, where $`k`$ is the multiplicity of the root $`1`$ of the characteristic polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ of $`L_f.`$

Let us now consider the links $`L_{60},L_{256}^{(i)}`$ of Theorem 3.2 which admit Sasakian-Einstein metrics.

Theorem 5.10: The link $`L_{60}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`(S^2\times S^3)\mathrm{\#}(S^2\times S^3)`$ while the links $`L_{256}^{(i)}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ are diffeomorphic to the Stiefel manifold $`S^2\times S^3.`$ In particular, $`S^2\times S^3`$ admits 3 distinct Sasakian-Einstein structures.

Proof: This follows from Smale’s Theorem \[Sm\], Theorems 3.2, 5.9, and Corollary 5.1 as soon as we check that the weighted homogeneous polynomials are well-formed. But this follows easily from the definition and equation 2.4.

6. Proofs of the Main Theorems and Further Discussion

Theorem A of the Introduction now follows immediately from Theorems 3.2 and 5.10. Similarly for Theorem B these two theorems give the existence of Sasakian-Einstein metrics on $`S^2\times S^3.`$ Furthermore, since the Sasakian structures are non-regular the metrics are inhomogeneous. The statement that the Sasakian-Einstein structures are inequivalent follows from the fact that their characteristic foliations are inequivalent (indeed, they have different orders). It remains to show that our Sasakian-Einstein metrics are inequivalent as Riemannian metrics to any of the metrics of Böhm. To see this we notice that for all of Böhm’s metrics on $`S^2\times S^3,`$ the connected component of the isometry group $`\text{I}_0(g)`$ is $`SO(3)\times SO(3)`$ (see \[Böh\] or \[Wa\] Theorem 2.16). But a Theorem of Tanno \[Tan\] says that the connected component of the group of Sasakian automorphisms, $`\text{A}_0(g)`$ coincides with the connected component of the group of isometries $`\text{I}_0(g),`$ and $`\text{A}_0(g)`$ has the form $`\text{G}\times S^1`$, where the $`S^1`$ is generated by the Sasakian vector field $`\xi .`$ Thus, our metrics are not isometric to the any of Böhm’s metrics.

Smale’s Theorem actually says more than we have mentioned. It says that the torsion in $`H_2`$ must be of the form

$$\text{Tor}(H_2(M,\mathrm{}))(\mathrm{}_{q_i}\mathrm{}_{q_i}).$$
$`5.11`$
Thus we have

Theorem 6.1: Let $`M`$ be a complete simply connected Sasakian-Einstein 5-manifold. Then the torsion group $`\text{Tor}(H_2(M,\mathrm{}))`$ must be of the form 5.11. In particular, the number of torsion generators must be even.

It is a very interesting question whether the form of the torsion actually provides an obstruction to the existence of a Sasakian-Einstein structure or whether it is always satisfied. The general form of Randell’s proof suggests that the torsion may always vanish, but we do not yet have a proof of this even in the case of hypersurfaces defined by weighted homogeneous polynomials when we drop the well-formed assumption. If there were an honest obstruction, it would provide a new type of obstruction to the existence of positive Kähler-Einstein metrics on del Pezzo orbifolds.

Finally we mention that many new Sasakian-Einstein structures can be constructed in higher dimension by applying the join construction introduced in \[BG1\] to our new examples. For example,

Proposition 6.2: The joins $`S^3L_{60}`$ and $`S^3L_{256}^{(i)}`$ are all smooth Sasakian-Einstein 7-manifolds. $`S^3L_{60}`$ has the rational cohomology type of $`S^2\times \left((S^2\times S^3)\mathrm{\#}(S^2\times S^3)\right),`$ while $`S^3L_{256}^{(i)}`$ have the rational cohomology type of $`S^3S^3S^3.`$

Proof: By Proposition 4.6 of \[BG1\] these joins are smooth when the Fano indices of the links are one. But it follows from the proof of Proposition 2.5 that $`\omega ^1(L_f)𝒪(|𝐰|d)`$ and in all three cases we have $`|𝐰|d=1.`$ The rational cohomology types can easily be seen from Theorem 5.22 of \[BG1\].

Many other examples can be worked out along the lines of \[BG1\]. However, what is perhaps a more interesting question is, for example, whether $`S^3L_{256}^{(1)},S^3L_{256}^{(2)}`$ and $`S^3S^3S^3`$ have the same integral cohomology type, and if they do, are they homeomorphic (diffeomorphic)? We plan to study these types of questions in the future.

Bibliography

\[Arn\] V.I. Arnold, Some remarks on symplectic monodromy of Milnor fibrations, in Floer Memorial Volume, Progress in Mathematics 133, Birkhäuser, 1995, H. Hofer, C.H. Taubes, A. Weinstein, E. Zehnder Eds.

\[Bai\] W. L. Baily, On the imbedding of V-manifolds in projective space, Amer. J. Math. 79 (1957), 403-430.

\[BG1\] C. P. Boyer and K. Galicki, On Sasakian-Einstein Geometry, Int. J. Math. 11 (2000), 873-909.

\[BG2\] C. P. Boyer and K. Galicki, 3-Sasakian manifolds. Surveys in differential geometry: essays on Einstein manifolds, 123–184, Surv. Differ. Geom., VI, C. LeBrun and M. Wang, Eds., Int. Press, Boston, MA, 1999.

\[BGN1\] C. P. Boyer, K. Galicki, and M. Nakamaye, On the Geometry of Sasakian-Einstein 5-Manifolds, submitted for publication; math.DG/0012041.

\[BGN2\] C. P. Boyer, K. Galicki, and M. Nakamaye, Sasakian-Einstein Structures on $`9\mathrm{\#}\left(S^2\times S^3\right)`$, submitted for publication; math.DG/0102181.

\[BM\] S. Bando and T. Mabuchi, Uniqueness of Einstein Kähler Metrics Modulo Connected Group Actions, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 10 (1987), 11-40.

\[Böh\] C. Böhm, Inhomogeneous Einstein metrics on low dimensional spheres and other low dimensional spaces, Invent. Math. 134 (1998), 145-176.

\[BR\] M. Beltrametti and L. Robbiano Introduction to the theory of weighted projective spaces, Expo. Math. 4 (1986), 111-162.

\[Del\] Ch. Delorme, Espaces projectifs anisotropes, Bull. Soc. Math. France 103 (1975), 203-223.

\[DK\] J.-P. Demailly and J. Kollár, Semi-continuity of complex singularity exponents and Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano orbifolds, preprint AG/9910118.

\[Dim\] A. Dimca, Singularities and Topology of Hypersurfaces, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.

\[DT\] W. Ding and G. Tian, Kähler-Einstein metrics and the generalized Futaki invariants, Invent. Math. 110 (1992), 315-335.

\[Dol\] I. Dolgachev, Weighted projective varieties, in Proceedings, Group Actions and Vector Fields, Vancouver (1981) LNM 956, 34-71.

\[DuKa\] A. Durfee and L. Kauffman, Periodicity of Branched Cyclic Covers, Math. Ann. 218 (1975), 175-189.

\[Fle\] A.R. Fletcher, Working with weighted complete intersections, Preprint MPI/89-95.

\[FK\] Th. Friedrich and I. Kath, Einstein manifolds of dimension five with small first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator, J. Diff. Geom. 29 (1989), 263-279.

\[Hae\] A. Haefliger, Groupoides d’holonomie et classifiants, Astérisque 116 (1984), 70-97.

\[KMM\] Y. Kawamata, K. Matsuda, and K. Matsuki, Introduction to the Minimal Model Problem, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 10 (1987), 283-360.

\[Kol\] J. Kollár, Rational Curves on Algebraic Varieties, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.

\[Mil\] J. Milnor, Singular Points of Complex Hypersurfaces, Ann. of Math. Stud. 61, Princeton Univ. Press, 1968.

\[MO\] J. Milnor and P. Orlik, Isolated singularities defined by weighted homogeneous polynomials, Topology 9 (1970), 385-393.

\[Mo\] S. Mori, On a generalization of complete intersections, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 15-3 (1975), 619-646.

\[Mor\] S. Moroianu, Parallel and Killing spinors on $`\text{Spin}^c`$-manifolds, Commun. Math. Phys. 187 (1997), 417-427.

\[MS\] D. McDuff and D. Salamon, Introduction to Symplectic Topology, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1995.

\[Na\] A.M. Nadel, Multiplier ideal sheaves and existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics of positive scalar curvature, Ann. Math. 138 (1990), 549-596.

\[Or1\] P. Orlik, Weighted homogeneous polynomials and fundamental groups, Topology 9 (1970), 267-273.

\[Or2\] P. Orlik, On the homology of weighted homogeneous manifolds, Proc. 2nd Conf. Transformations Groups I, LNM 298, Springer-Verlag, (1972), 260-269.

\[Ran\] R.C. Randell The homology of generalized Brieskorn manifolds, Topology 14 (1975), 347-355.

\[Siu\] Y.-T. Siu, The existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on manifolds with positive anticanonical line bundle and a suitable finite symmetry group, Ann. Math. 127 (1988), 585-627.

\[Sm\] S. Smale, On the structure of 5-manifolds, Ann. Math. 75 (1962), 38-46.

\[Tak\] T. Takahashi, Deformations of Sasakian structures and its applications to the Brieskorn manifolds, Tohoku Math. J. 30 (1978), 37-43.

\[Tan\] S. Tanno, On the isometry groups of Sasakian manifolds, J. Math. Soc. Japan 22 (1970), 579-590.

\[Ti1\] G. Tian, On Kähler-Einstein metrics on certain Kähler manifolds with $`C_1(M)>0`$, Invent. Math. 89 (1987), 225-246.

\[Ti2\] G. Tian, On Calabi’s Conjecture for complex surfaces with positive first Chern class, Invent. Math. 101 (1990), 101-172.

\[Ti3\] G. Tian, Kähler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature, Invent. Math. 137 (1997), 1-37.

\[TY\] G. Tian and S.-T. Yau, Kähler-Einstein metrics on complex surfaces with $`c_1>0`$, Comm. Math. Phys. 112 (1987), 175-203.

\[Wa\] M. Wang, Einstein Metrics from Symmetry and Bundle Constructions, to appear in Essays on Einstein Manifolds, Surveys in Differential Geometry Vol V, International Press, 2000, C. LeBrun and M. Wang, Eds.

\[WZ\] M. Wang and W. Ziller, Einstein metrics on principal torus bundles, J. Diff. Geom. 31 (1990), 215-248.

\[YK\] K. Yano and M. Kon, Structures on manifolds, Series in Pure Mathematics 3, World Scientific Pub. Co., Singapore, 1984.

Department of Mathematics and Statistics March 2000  University of New Mexico revised September 2001  Albuquerque, NM 87131   email: cboyer@math.unm.edu, galicki@math.unm.edu   web pages: http://www.math.unm.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$cboyer, http://www.math.unm.edu/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$galicki