text:
# Explicit regulator maps on polylogarithmic motivic complexes

## 1 Introduction

1. Regulator maps on the level of complexes. Let $`X`$ be an algebraic variety. Beilinson \[B1\] defined the rational motivic cohomology of $`X`$ via the algebraic K-theory of $`X`$ by the formula

$$H_{Mot}^i(X,(n)):=gr_n^\gamma K_{2ni}(X)$$

Beilinson \[B2\] and Lichtenbaum \[L\] conjectured that the weight $`n`$ motivic cohomology of $`X`$ should appear as cohomology groups of some complexes, called the weight $`n`$ motivic complexes of $`X`$.

If $`X`$ is defined over $``$ Beilinson \[B1\] constructed the regulator map to the Deligne cohomology of $`X`$:

$$H_{Mot}^i(X,(n))H_D^i(X,(n))$$

The regulator map plays key role in the (hypothetical) formulas for special values of $`L`$-functions of motives over number fields \[B1\].

Our point is that the regulator map should be explicitly defined on the level of complexes. So for any algebraic variety over $``$ one should have homomorphisms of complexes

$$\text{weight }n\text{ motivic complex of }X\text{weight }n\text{ Deligne complex of }X$$
(1)
The cone of this map, shifted by $`1`$, defines the Arakelov motivic complex:

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X^𝒜(n):=\mathrm{Cone}\left(\text{the map (}\text{1}\text{)}\right)[1]$$

and so its cohomology should be called the Arakelov motivic cohomology of $`X`$. The group $`H^{2n}(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X^𝒜(n))`$ is canonically isomorphic to the group of codimension $`n`$ Arakelov cycles on $`X()`$ (see s. 3.2). This isomorphism is transparent for a version of the Deligne complex recalled in s. 3.1. Examples are given in the section 3. (When $`X`$ is defined over $``$ we should take the cone of the regulator map to the so called real Deligne cohomology of $`X_{}`$, see s. 3.2).

Motivic complexes are objects of the derived category. Several candidates for motivic complexes are known, each with its own charm. They should be quasiisomorphic. Explicit regulator maps should be defined for each of them.

First of all there are Bloch’s higher Chow complexes (\[Bl\]). They satisfy many of the expected properties of motivic complexes. Explicit regulator maps from these complexes to the Deligne complexes were constructed in \[G4\] using the Chow polylogarithm construction given in \[G3\].

The goal of the present paper is to define regulator maps for another version of motivic complexes, the polylogarithmic complexes (\[G1-2\]). Our regulator maps are defined very explicitly via the classical polylogarithm functions with some funny combinations of Bernoulli numbers serving as the coefficients.

Combining this with Beilinson’s conjecture on regulators we get, as a bonus, a precise conjecture on special values of $`L`$-functions of varieties over number fields. If the variety in question is spectrum of a number field it reduces precisely to Zagier’s conjecture. So our conjecture is in the same relationship to Beilinson’s conjecture as Zagier’s conjecture \[Z\] to the Borel theorem \[Bo\].

The regulator maps for the polylogarithmic complexes of weights $`n3`$ were constructed in \[G1-2\] and played an important role in the proofs of Zagier’s and Deninger’s conjectures on $`\zeta `$-functions at $`s=3`$ (loc. cit., \[G5\]).

2. Polylogarithmic complexes. Let $`F`$ be an arbitrary field. In \[G1-2\] we defined a complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F;n)`$ of the following shape

$$_n\stackrel{\delta }{}_{n1}F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}_{n2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta }{}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n2}F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^nF^{}$$
(2)
called the polylogarithmic complex. Here the group $`_n`$ sits in degree $`1`$, and the differential is of degree $`1`$. We conjectured that this complex is quasiisomorphic to the weight $`n`$ motivic complex of $`\mathrm{Spec}(F)`$, so one should have

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }(F;n))\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}gr_n^\gamma K_{2ni}(F)$$
(3)
There is a good evidence this is so for small weights, see s. 1.3 below.

Now let $`F=(X)`$ be the field of rational functions on a complex algebraic variety $`X`$. Our main results are explicit formulas for the regulator maps from the polylogarithmic complexes to the Deligne complexes of $`\mathrm{Spec}((X))`$, see theorems 2.5 and 2.6. The group $`_n`$ is directly related to the properties of the classical polylogarithms. In particular there is a homomorphism

$$_n()(n1)$$
(4)
given in terms of the classical polylogarithms. Surprisingly its generalization to a homomorphism of complexes is quite complicated.

Our regulator maps enjoy compatibility with the residues property (condition (d) in theorem 2.2), which would guarantee that they can be extended from the generic point of $`X`$ to $`X`$ itself. However there is a serious difficulty in the definition of polylogarithmic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)`$ for a general variety $`X`$ and $`n>3`$, (see p. 240 in \[G1\]). It would be resolved if homotopy invariance of complexes (2) will be known (see conjecture 1.39 in \[G1\]). As a result we have unconditional definition of the polylogarithmic complexes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)`$ only in the following cases:

a) $`X=Spec(F)`$, $`F`$ is an arbitrary field.

b) $`X`$ is an regular curve over any field, and $`n`$ is arbitrary.

c) $`X`$ is an arbitrary regular scheme, but $`n3`$.

Compatibility with the residues provides the regulator map on the level of complexes in all these cases, and it would provide it in general if the mentioned above difficulty will be resolved.

3. Comparison with Beilinson’s regulator map. A homomorphism from the motivic cohomology to $`H^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n))`$ has been constructed in the following cases:

(1) $`F`$ is an arbitrary field, $`n3`$ (\[G1-2,5\]) and $`n=4`$, $`i>1`$ (to appear).

(2) $`X`$ is a curve over a number field, $`n3`$ (\[G5\]) and $`n=4`$, $`i>1`$ (to appear).

In all these cases we proved that this homomorphism followed by the regulator map on polylogarithmic complexes (when $`F=(X)`$ in (1)) coincides with Beilinson’s regulator. This proves the traditionally difficult “surjectivity” property: the image of the regulator map on these polylogarithmic complexes contains the image of Beilinson’s regulator map in the Deligne cohomology.

The results (2) combined with the results of R. de Jeu \[RdJ1-2\] prove that the image of Beilinson’s regulator map in the Deligne cohomology coincides with the image of the regulator map on polylogarithmic complexes in the case (2).

4. Remarks. We give a detailed proof of the main result. It is a rather involved but direct calculation. However the reader may skip it because there exists a completely different, more conceptual, approach to this result. We outline it in s. 2.8 to show the main theorem in a general framework. The details will be published elsewhere. This approach needs quite elaborate and rather sofisticated machinery, so the elementary proof presented in the last section might be the quickest way to check the main theorem.

Acknowledgment. The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the NSF grant DMS-9800998. I am grateful to Spencer Bloch for discussions on Arakelov motivic complexes.

I am delighted to contribute this paper to the volume telated to 20-th anniversary of Spencer Bloch’s Irvine lectures, which always have been a great source of inspiration for me.

## 2 The main result

1. Classical polylogarithms. Recall their definition:

$$Li_1(z):=\mathrm{log}(1z);Li_n(z):=_0^zLi_{n1}(t)\frac{dt}{t},n2.$$

They are multivalued analytic functions, but admit the following single-valued cousins:

$$\widehat{}_n(z):=\pi _n(\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\beta _kLi_{nk}(z)\mathrm{log}^{nk}|z|)$$

where

$$\pi _n(a+ib)=\{\begin{array}{cc}a\hfill & n\text{ odd}\hfill \\ ib\hfill & n\text{ even}.\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\beta _k:=\frac{2^kB_k}{k!},\underset{k0}{}\beta _kt^k=\frac{2t}{e^{2t}1}$$

so $`\beta _{2m+1}=0`$ for $`m1`$, and

$$\beta _0=1,\beta _1=1,\beta _2=\frac{1}{3},\beta _4=\frac{1}{45},\beta _6=\frac{2}{945},\mathrm{}$$

These functions were written by Zagier \[Z\]. Their Hodge-theoretic interpretation was given by Beilinson and Deligne \[BD\]. For example for the dilogarithm it is the Bloch-Wigner function

$$\widehat{}_2(z):=i_2(z):=\pi _2\left(Li_2(z)\right)+i\mathrm{arg}(1z)\mathrm{log}|z|$$

2. The groups $`_n(F)`$ and polylogarithmic complexes(see s.1.4 in \[G2\]). For a set $`X`$ denote by $`[X]`$ the free abelian group generated by symbols $`\{x\}`$ where $`x`$ run through all elements of the set $`X`$. Let $`F`$ be an arbitrary field. We define inductively subgroups $`_n(F)`$ of $`[P_F^1]`$, $`n1`$ and set

$$_n(F):=[P_F^1]/_n(F)$$

By definition $`_1(F):=(\{x\}+\{y\}\{xy\},(x,yF^{});\{0\};\{\mathrm{}\})`$. Then $`_1(F)=F^{}`$. Let $`\{x\}_n`$ be the image of $`\{x\}`$ in $`_n(F)`$. Consider homomorphisms

$`[P_F^1]\stackrel{\delta _n}{}\{\begin{array}{ccc}_{n1}(F)F^{}\hfill & :\hfill & n3\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^2F^{}\hfill & :\hfill & n=2\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`\delta _n:\{x\}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\{x\}_{n1}x\hfill & :\hfill & n3\hfill \\ (1x)x\hfill & :\hfill & n=2\hfill \end{array}\delta _n:\{\mathrm{}\},\{0\},\{1\}0`$ (10)
Set $`𝒜_n(F):=\mathrm{Ker}\delta _n.`$ Any element $`\alpha (t)=\mathrm{\Sigma }n_i\{f_i(t)\}[P_{F(t)}^1]`$ has a specialization $`\alpha (t_0):=\mathrm{\Sigma }n_i\{f_i(t_0)\}[P_F^1]`$ at each point $`t_0P_F^1`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

$`_n(F)`$ is generated by elements $`\{\mathrm{}\},\{0\}`$ and $`\alpha (0)\alpha (1)`$ where $`\alpha (t)`$ runs through all elements of $`𝒜_n(F(t))`$.

Then $`\delta _n(_n(F))=0`$ (\[G1\], 1.16). So we get homomorphisms

$$\delta _n:_n(F)_{n1}(F)F^{},n3;\delta _2:_2(F)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2F^{}$$

and finally the mentioned in the introduction complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F,n)`$:

$$_n\stackrel{\delta }{}_{n1}F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}_{n2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{\delta }{}_2\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n2}F^{}\stackrel{\delta }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^nF^{}$$

where $`\delta :\{x\}_p_{i=1}^{np}y_i\delta _p(\{x\}_p)_{i=1}^{np}y_i`$.

Let $`F=`$. Set $`\widehat{}_n(m_i\{z_i\}_n):=m_i\widehat{}_n(z_i)`$. One can prove that $`\widehat{}_n(_n()))=0`$ (\[G2\], theorem 1.13). So we are getting homomorphism (4).

3. The residue homomorphism for complexes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(F,n)`$ (s. 1.14 in \[G1\]). Let $`F=K`$ be a field with a discrete valuation $`v`$, the residue field $`k_v`$ and the group of units $`U`$. Let $`u\overline{u}`$ be the projection $`Uk_v^{}`$. Choose a uniformizer $`\pi `$. There is a homomorphism $`\theta :\mathrm{\Lambda }^nK^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n1}k_v^{}`$ uniquely defined by the following properties $`(u_iU)`$:

$$\theta (\pi u_1\mathrm{}u_{n1})=\overline{u}_1\mathrm{}\overline{u}_{n1};\theta (u_1\mathrm{}u_n)=0$$

It is clearly independent of $`\pi `$. Define a homomorphism $`s_v:[P_K^1][P_{k_v}^1]`$ by setting $`s_v\{x\}=\{\overline{x}\}\text{ if }x\text{ is a unit}`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. It induces a homomorphism $`s_v:_m(K)_m(k_v)`$. Put

$$_v:=s_v\theta :_m(K)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{nm}K^{}_m(k_v)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{nm1}k_v^{}$$

It defines a morphism of complexes $`_v:\mathrm{\Gamma }(K,n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(k_v,n1)[1]`$.

4. Main result: a preliminary form. Let $`𝒜^i(\eta _X)`$ be the space of real smooth $`i`$-forms at the generic point $`\eta _X:=\mathrm{Spec}(X)`$ of a complex variety $`X`$. Denote by $`X^{(1)}`$ the set of the codimension one closed irreducible subvarieties in $`X`$. Let $`𝒟`$ be the de Rham differential on distributions, and $`d`$ the de Rham differential on $`𝒜^i(\eta _X)`$. A typical example:

$$d(di\mathrm{arg}z)=0;𝒟(di\mathrm{arg}z)=2\pi i\delta (z)$$
(11)
The difference $`𝒟d`$ is the de Rham residue homomorphism. It is defined on distributions smooth at the generic point of $`X()`$. Its value on such a distribution is concentrated on a union of codimension one subvarieties.

###### Theorem 2.2.

There exist a homomorphism of complexes

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_n((X))& \stackrel{\delta }{}& _{n1}((X))(X)^{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& ^n(X)^{}\\ & & & & & & \\ r_n(1)& & r_n(2)& & & & r_n(n)\\ & & & & & & \\ 𝒜^0(\eta _X)(n1)& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒜^1(\eta _X)(n1)& \stackrel{d}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒜^{n1}(\eta _X)(n1)\end{array}$$

such that

(a) $`r_n(1)(\{f\}_n)=\widehat{}_n(f)`$.

(b) $`dr_n(n)(f_1\mathrm{}f_n)+\pi _n(d\mathrm{log}f_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{log}f_n)=0`$.

(c) The differential form $`r_n(m)()`$ defines a distribution on $`X()`$.

(d) The homomorphism $`r_n()`$ is compatible with residues:

$$𝒟r_n(m)r_n(m+1)\delta =2\pi i\underset{YX^{(1)}}{}r_{n1}(m1)_{v_Y},m<n$$

$$𝒟r_n(n)\pi _n(d\mathrm{log}f_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{log}f_n)=2\pi i\underset{YX^{(1)}}{}r_{n1}(n1)_{v_Y}$$

where $`v_Y`$ is the valuation on the field $`(X)`$ defined by a divisor $`Y`$.

Remark. This result has been formulated in \[G4\], see theorem 4.3.

The part (d) means that $`r_n()`$ sends the residue homomorphism $`_{v_Y}`$ to the de Rham residue homomorphism.

Here are two examples. Set

$$\alpha (f,g):=\mathrm{log}|f|d\mathrm{log}|g|+\mathrm{log}|g|d\mathrm{log}|f|$$

Example 1: n=3. Set

$`r_3(2):\{f\}_2g\widehat{}_2(f)di\mathrm{arg}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{log}|g|\alpha (1f,f)`$
Example 2: n=4.

$`r_4(2):\{f\}_3g\widehat{}_3(f)di\mathrm{arg}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{}_2(f)\mathrm{log}|g|d\mathrm{log}|f|`$
$`r_4(3):\{f\}_2g_1g_2+\widehat{}_2(f)di\mathrm{arg}g_1di\mathrm{arg}g_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\alpha (1f,f)`$
$`\left(\mathrm{log}|g_1|di\mathrm{arg}|g_2|\mathrm{log}|g_2|di\mathrm{arg}|g_1|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\widehat{}_2(f)d\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|`$
5. The numbers $`\beta _{k,p}`$. Define for any integers $`p1`$ and $`k0`$ the numbers

$$\beta _{k,p}:=(1)^p(p1)!\underset{0i[\frac{p1}{2}]}{}\frac{1}{(2i+1)!}\beta _{k+p2i}$$

For instance

$$\beta _{k,1}=\beta _{k+1};\beta _{k,2}=\beta _{k+2};\beta _{k,3}=2(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{k+3}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{k+1});$$

$$\beta _{k,4}=3!(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{k+4}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{k+2});\beta _{k,5}=4!(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{k+5}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{k+3}+\frac{1}{5!}\beta _{k+1})$$

One has recursions

$$2p\beta _{k+1,2p}=\beta _{k,2p+1}\frac{1}{2p+1}\beta _{k+1};(2p1)\beta _{k+1,2p1}=\beta _{k,2p}$$
(12)
These recursions together with $`\beta _{k,1}=\beta _{k+1}`$ determine the numbers $`\beta _{k,p}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`m1`$. Then

$$\beta _{0,2m}=\beta _{0,2m+1}=\frac{1}{2m+1}$$
(13)
$$\beta _{1,2m1}=\frac{1}{(2m1)(2m+1)},\beta _{1,2m}=0$$
(14)
Proof. Let us prove formula

$$\beta _{0,2m}:=(2m1)!\left(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{2m}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{2m2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{(2m1)!}\beta _2\right)=\frac{1}{2m+1}$$
(15)
Since $`\beta _0=1`$, $`\beta _1=1`$ and $`\beta _{2m+1}=0`$ for $`m>0`$ this formula, as one easily checks, is equivalent to the following one:

$$\underset{p1}{}\frac{1}{p!}\beta _{2m+1p}=0$$

The left hand side is the coefficient in $`t^{2m+1}`$ of the power series

$$(e^t1)\frac{2t}{e^{2t}1}=\frac{2t}{e^t+1}$$

The right hand side of the last equation is an almost even function in $`t`$: if we denote it by $`F(t)`$ then $`F(t)=F(t)+2t`$.

Formula (15) immediately implies that

$$\beta _{1,2m1}:=(2m2)!\left(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{2m}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{2m2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{(2m1)!}\beta _2\right)=\frac{1}{(2m1)(2m+1)}$$

Using $`\beta _{2m+1}=0`$ for $`m>0`$ and $`\beta _1=1`$ we have

$$\beta _{0,2m+1}=(2m)!\left(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{2m+1}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{2m1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{(2m1)!}\beta _1+\frac{1}{(2m+1)!}\beta _1\right)=\frac{1}{2m+1}$$

and

$$\beta _{1,2m}=(2m1)!\left(\frac{1}{1!}\beta _{2m+1}+\frac{1}{3!}\beta _{2m1}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{(2m1)!}\beta _3\right)=0$$

The lemma is proved.

###### Proposition 2.4.

For any $`p1`$ one has

$$\beta _{n2,p+1}(n1)\beta _{n1,p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}\beta _{k,p}\beta _{nk1}=0$$
(16)
Proof. We will do it by induction on $`p`$ using the recursion relations (12). If $`p=1`$ the formula we need to prove boils down to the identity

$$\underset{k=2}{\overset{n2}{}}\beta _i\beta _{ni}+n\beta _n=0$$
(17)
which is easy to check using the generating functions. Let us denote by $`()_{n,p}`$ the left hand side of (16). Then $`()_{n,p}+()_{n+1,p1}=0`$. Indeed, one has

$$()_{n,p}+()_{n+1,p1}=\beta _{n2,p+1}+(p1)\beta _{n1,p}$$
(18)
$$(n1)\beta _{n1,p}n(p1)\beta _{n,p1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}\beta _{k,p}\beta _{nk1}(p1)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n3}{}}\beta _{k+1,p1}\beta _{nk1}$$

Let us assume first that $`p`$ is even. Using recursions (12) we write (18) as

$$\frac{1}{p+1}\beta _{n1}\beta _{n1,p}(p1)\beta _{n,p1}(p1)\beta _{1,p1}\beta _{n1}$$

To prove that it is zero we use again recursions as well as the first formula in (14). Now let $`p`$ be an odd number. Then the recursion relations show that (18) equals to

$$\beta _{n1,p}(p1)\beta _{n,p1}+\frac{n1}{p}\beta _n+\frac{1}{p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}\beta _{k+1}\beta _{nk1}(p1)\beta _{1,p1}\beta _{n1}$$

Using the identity (18) together with the recursions and the second formula in (14) we see that this expression is also equal to zero. The proposition is proved.

6. Construction of the homomorphism $`r_n()`$. Let us define differential $`1`$-forms $`\widehat{}_{p,q}`$ on $`P^1\backslash \{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ for $`q1`$ as follows:

$$\widehat{}_{p,q}(z):=\widehat{}_p(z)\mathrm{log}^{q1}|z|d\mathrm{log}|z|,p2$$
(19)
$$\widehat{}_{1,q}(z):=\alpha (1z,z)\mathrm{log}^{q1}|z|$$

It provides a distribution on $`P^1`$. Moreover for any rational function $`f`$ on a complex variety $`X`$ the $`1`$-form $`\widehat{}_{p,q}(f)`$ provides a distribution on $`X()`$.

A useful notation. Set

$$𝒜_m\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{i=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}:=$$

$$\mathrm{Alt}_m\left\{\frac{1}{(2p)!(m2p)!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{i=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$

and

$$𝒜_m\left\{\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{i=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}:=$$

$$\mathrm{Alt}_m\left\{\frac{1}{(p1)!(mp)!}\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{i=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$

So $`𝒜_m(F(g_1,..,g_m))`$ is a weighted alternation (we divide by the order of the stabilizer of the term we alternate).

Now we are ready for the precise formulation of our main result.

###### Theorem - Construction 2.5.

Let $`f,g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ be rational functions on a complex variety $`X`$. Then the following formula provides maps satisfying all the properties of theorem 2.2.

$$r_{n+m}(m+1):\{f\}_ng_1\mathrm{}g_m$$

$$\widehat{}_n(f)𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}+$$
(20)
$$\underset{k1}{}\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{k,p}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)𝒜_m\left\{\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(21)
Here are several examples.

Example 1. $`m=1`$, $`n`$ is arbitrary.

$$\{f\}_ng\widehat{}_n(f)di\mathrm{arg}g\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\beta _{k+1}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)\mathrm{log}|g|$$

Example 2. $`m=2`$, $`n`$ is arbitrary.

$$\{f\}_ng_1g_2\widehat{}_n(f)\left\{di\mathrm{arg}g_1di\mathrm{arg}g_2+\frac{1}{3}d\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|\right\}$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\beta _{k+1}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)(\mathrm{log}|g_1|di\mathrm{arg}g_2\mathrm{log}|g_2|di\mathrm{arg}g_1)$$

$$+\underset{k1}{}\beta _{k+2}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)(\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|\mathrm{log}|g_2|d\mathrm{log}|g_1|)$$

Example 3. The homomorphism $`r_5()`$.

$$\{f\}_4g\widehat{}_4(f)di\mathrm{arg}g\frac{1}{3}\widehat{}_3(f)d\mathrm{log}|f|\mathrm{log}|g|+\frac{1}{45}\alpha (1f,f)\mathrm{log}^2|f|\mathrm{log}|g|$$

$$\{f\}_3g_1g_2\widehat{}_3(f)\{di\mathrm{arg}g_1di\mathrm{arg}g_2+\frac{1}{3}d\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|\}$$

$$\frac{1}{3}\widehat{}_2(f)d\mathrm{log}|f|\left(\mathrm{log}|g_1|di\mathrm{arg}g_2\mathrm{log}|g_2|di\mathrm{arg}g_1\right)$$

$$\frac{1}{45}\alpha (1f,f)\mathrm{log}|f|\left(\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|\mathrm{log}|g_2|d\mathrm{log}|g_1|\right)$$

$$\{f\}_2g_1g_2g_3$$

$$\widehat{}_2(f)𝒜_3\left(di\mathrm{arg}g_1di\mathrm{arg}g_2di\mathrm{arg}g_3+\frac{1}{3}d\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|di\mathrm{arg}g_3\right)$$

$$\alpha (1f,f)𝒜_3\left(\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|g_1|di\mathrm{arg}g_2di\mathrm{arg}g_3+\frac{1}{15}\mathrm{log}|g_1|d\mathrm{log}|g_2|d\mathrm{log}|g_3|\right)$$

Remark. The morphism of complexes $`r_n()`$ is not defined uniquely by its properties if $`n>3`$. For example if $`n=4`$ we can have a map homotopic to our regulator map by using the homotopy which is given by the homomorphism

$$_2((X))\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(X)^{}𝒜^0(\eta _X),\{f\}_3g\widehat{}_2(f)\mathrm{log}|f|\mathrm{log}|g|$$

(the other components of the homotopy are zero). Indeed, the residue map for it is zero, and it takes values in $`(2)`$.

7. Theorem 2.5 from the point of view of the Deligne complex. Recall that a $`p`$-distribution on a manifold $`X`$ is a linear continuous functional on the space of $`(dim_{}Xp)`$-forms with compact support. Denote by $`𝒟_X^p`$ the space of all real $`p`$-distributions on $`X`$.

Let $`X`$ be a regular variety over $``$. The $`n`$-th Beilinson-Deligne complex $`\underset{¯}{}_𝒟(n)_X`$ can be defined as a total complex associated with the following bicomplex of sheaves in classical topology on $`X()`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}(𝒟_X^0& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒟_X^1& \stackrel{d}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒟_X^n& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒟_X^{n+1}& \stackrel{d}{}& \mathrm{})(n1)\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \pi _n& & \pi _n& & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \mathrm{\Omega }_{X,\mathrm{log}}^n& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Omega }_{X,\mathrm{log}}^{n+1}& \stackrel{}{}& \end{array}$$

Here $`𝒟_X^0`$ placed in degree 1 and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X,\mathrm{log}}^{},)`$ is the de Rham complex of holomorphic forms with logarithmic singularities at infinity. We will denote by $`\underset{¯}{}_𝒟(n)(U)`$ the complex of the global sections.

Theorem 2.2 can be reformulated as follows

###### Theorem 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a complex algebraic variety. Set $`\stackrel{~}{r}_n(i):=r_n(i)`$ for $`i<n`$ and let

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_n(n):\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(X)^{}𝒜^{n1}(\eta _X)(n1)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{log}}^n(\eta _X)$$

$$f_1\mathrm{}f_nr_n(n)(f_1\mathrm{}f_n)+d\mathrm{log}f_1\mathrm{}d\mathrm{log}f_n$$
(22)
Then we get a homomorphism of complexes

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_n():\mathrm{\Gamma }((X);n)\underset{¯}{}_𝒟(n)(\eta _X)$$
(23)
compatible with the residues as explained in the part (d) of theorem 2.2.

Indeed, condition b) of theorem 2.2 just means that the right hand side of (22) is a cycle in the Deligne complex $`\underset{¯}{}(n)_𝒟(\eta _X)`$.

There is a natural Dolbeault resolution of the complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{log}}^n`$. Using it in the complex of sheaves $`\underset{¯}{}_𝒟(n)_X`$ to replace the subcomplex $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{log}}^n`$ we get a complex $`\underset{¯}{}_𝒟^{}(n)_X`$ of fine sheafs on $`X()`$. The property (d) would allow us to extend the homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{r}_n()`$ to a morphism of complexes

$$\stackrel{~}{r}_n():\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)\underset{¯}{}_𝒟^{}(n)(X())$$

For small weights this was explained in detail in \[G2\].

If $`X`$ is a variety over $``$, then

$$H_𝒟^i(X_{};(n))=H_𝒟^i(X(),(n))^{\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}}$$

where $`\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the de Rham involution, i.e. the composition of the involution $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`X()`$ induced by the complex conjugation with the complex conjugation of coefficients. If $`X`$ is a variety over $``$ then the regulator map is defined as

$$H^i\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)H_𝒟^i(X_{}/_{};(n))$$
(24)
###### Conjecture 2.7.

The image of the regulator map (24) in the Deligne cohomology coincides with the image of Beilinson’s regulator map.

If $`X=\mathrm{Spec}(F)`$ where $`F`$ is a number field then the only nontrivial case is $`i=1`$, and we get a version of Zagier’s conjecture. The next case is when $`X`$ is a curve over number field, and $`i=2`$. Then we come to conjecture 1.5 in \[G5\], see also theorem 4.4 in \[G5\] and s. 7 in \[G7\].

There is a version of conjecture 2.7 expressing the special value of the corresponding $`L`$-function at $`s=n`$ via the regulator map on the polylogarithmic complex. Its specialization for elliptic curves is conjecture 1.10 in \[G7\], see also theorem 4.7 in \[G5\]. For the $`n=2`$ it is a theorem of Bloch for elliptic CM curves and of Beilinson for elliptic curves over $``$, for $`n=3`$ it was conjectured by Deninger and proved by the author in \[G5\] for elliptic curves over $``$, and it is also proved now by the author for $`n=4`$ for elliptic curves over $``$ (to appear).

8. Generalizations. According to the Tannakian formalism the category of mixed $``$-Hodge-Tate structures is equivalent to the category of graded comodules over a certain Lie coalgebra $`_{}()`$ positively graded by the weights. There exists a natural homomorphism of groups

$$_n()_n()$$

provided by the Hodge realization of the polylogarithmic motive. One has a homomorphism of $``$-vector spaces

$$p_n:_n()(n1)$$

called the Lie-period map, see \[D\] for its construction. The composition

$$_n()_n()(n1)$$

coincides with the homomorphism $`\widehat{}_n`$, see \[BD\].

We generalize this picture considering variations of mixed Hodge-Tate structures over complex varieties and working on the level of complexes.

First of all, the category of variations of mixed $``$-Hodge-Tate structures over $`\eta _X=\mathrm{Spec}(X)`$, where $`X`$ is a complex algebraic variety, is equivalent to the category of graded comodules over a Lie coalgebra $`_{}(\eta _X)`$.

The Hodge realization functor provides canonical homomorphism

$$l_n:_n((X))_n(\eta _X)$$
(25)
Applying it componentwise we get a morphism of complexes (\[G1-2\])

$$l_{nk}^kl_1:_{nk}((X))\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(X)^{}_{nk}(\eta _X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^k_1(\eta _X)$$

The vector space on the right is a subspace in $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+1}_{}(\eta _X)\right)_n`$ where the subscript $`n`$ means the weight $`n`$ part. The standard cochain complex of a Lie coalgebra $`_{}`$ looks as follows

$$_{}(\eta _X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_{}(\eta _X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^3_{}(\eta _X)\mathrm{}$$
(26)
It is a complex of graded $``$-vector spaces. We get a morphism of complexes

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_n((X))& \stackrel{\delta }{}& _{n1}((X))(X)^{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& ^n(X)^{}\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & \\ _n(\eta _X)& \stackrel{}{}& \left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_{}(\eta _X)\right)_n& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^n_1(\eta _X)\end{array}$$

The bottom line of this diagram is the degree $`n`$ part of the complex (26).

The Lie-period provides a natural homomorphism of $``$-vector spaces

$$p_n:_n(\eta _X)𝒜^0(\eta _X)(n1)$$
(27)
The following result tells us that it is a beginning of a morphism of complexes.

###### Theorem 2.8.

There exists a morphism of complexes

$$\text{the weight }n\text{ part of (}\text{26}\text{)}\text{the weight }n\text{ Deligne complex }\underset{¯}{}_𝒟(n)(\eta _X)$$
(28)
whose degree $`1`$ component $`_{}(\eta _X)𝒜^0(\eta _X)`$ coincides with the map (27).

A detailed account on this result and related issues would double the size of this paper. We will do it in a different place.

Combining homomorphism (28) with the previous map of complexes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\eta _X;n)\text{the weight }n\text{ part of (}\text{26}\text{)}$$

we get a homomorphism of complexes from theorem 2.6.

## 3 Arakelov motivic complexes: examples

1. Another version of Deligne’s complexes. We need a complex introduced twenty years ago by Deligne and quasiisomorphic to the complex $`\underset{¯}{}_𝒟^{}(n)(X())`$.

Let $`𝒟_X^{p,q}=𝒟^{p,q}`$ be the abelian group of complex valued distributions of type $`(p,q)`$ on $`X()`$. Consider the following cohomological bicomplex, where the group $`𝒟^{0,0}`$ is placed in degree $`1`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & & & & & 𝒟_{cl}^{n,n}\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & 2\overline{}& \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 𝒟^{0,n1}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,n1}& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{n1,n1}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \overline{}& & \overline{}& & & & \overline{}& & \\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \\ \overline{}& & \overline{}& & & & \overline{}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 𝒟^{0,1}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,1}& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{n1,1}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \overline{}& & \overline{}& & & & \overline{}& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 𝒟^{0,0}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,0}& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{n1,0}& & \end{array}$$

Let $`Tot^{}`$ be the total complex of this bicomplex. It is concentrated in degrees $`[1,2n]`$. The complex $`C_𝒟^{}(X;(n))`$ is subcomplex of $`Tot^{}`$ defined as follows. Intersect the part of the complex $`Tot^{}`$ coming from the $`n\times n`$ square in the diagram with the complex of $`(n1)`$-valued distributions. Consider the subgroup $`𝒟_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)𝒟_{cl}^{n,n}`$ of the $`(n)`$-valued distributions of type $`(n,n)`$. They form a subcomplex in $`Tot^{}`$ because $`\overline{}`$ sends $`(n1)`$-valued distributions to $`(n)`$-valued distributions. This is the complex $`C_𝒟^{}(X;(n))`$ with the differential denoted by $`D`$. It is a truncation of the complex considered by Deligne.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The complex $`C_𝒟^{}(X;n)`$ is quasiisomorphic to the truncated Deligne complex $`\tau _{2n}\underset{¯}{}_𝒟^{}(n)(X())`$.

Proof. See \[C\] or \[G3\].

Now if $`X`$ is a variety over $``$, then

$$C_𝒟^{}(X_{};(n)):=C_𝒟^{}(X,n)^{\overline{F}_{\mathrm{}}}H_𝒟^i(X_{};(n))=H^i\left(C_𝒟^{}(X_{};(n))\right)$$

2. The Arakelov motivic complexes. By definition the weight $`n`$ Arakelov motivic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;n)`$ is defined as follows

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X^𝒜(n):=\mathrm{Cone}\left(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{Reg}}{}𝒞_D(X_{},;(n))\right)[1]$$

where $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(n)`$ is the weight $`n`$ motivic complex and $`\mathrm{Reg}`$ is the regulator map. It is an object of the derived category. When $`X`$ is regular scheme over $``$ then

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X_{}^𝒜(n):=\mathrm{Cone}\left(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(n)\stackrel{\mathrm{Reg}}{}𝒞_D(X_{};(n))\right)[1]$$

Remark. For the application to special values of $`L`$-functions we should take a model of $`X`$ over $``$ and have a similar construction for finite primes $`p`$ where it has semistable reduction.

Below we discuss complexes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;n)`$ with the polylogarithmic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)`$ serving as the motivic complex $`\mathrm{R}\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(n)`$. We will abuse notations by writing $`(𝒟^{p,q}𝒟^{q,p})_{}(k)`$ for the subgroup of $`(k)`$-valued currents in $`𝒟^{p,q}𝒟^{q,p}`$. The last groups of the complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;n)`$ look as follows (see also s. 3.6 below):

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathrm{}& _{Y_2X^{(n2)}}K_2(Y_2)& & _{Y_1X^{(n1)}}(Y_1)^{}& & _{YX^{(n)}}\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& r_n(n2)& & r_n(n1)& & r_n(n)\\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}& (𝒟_{}^{n2,n1}𝒟^{n1,n2})_{}(n1)& \stackrel{+\overline{}}{}& 𝒟_{}^{n1,n1}(n1)& \stackrel{2\overline{}}{}& 𝒟_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)\end{array}$$

The $`(2n)`$-th cohomology group of this complex looks as follows:

$$\frac{\{\text{codim. }n\text{ cycle}Y,g𝒟_{cl,}^{n1,n1}(n1)\}\text{such that}2\overline{}g+\delta (Y)=0}{\{\mathrm{div}(f),\mathrm{log}|f|\delta _{Y_1}\},f(Y_1)^{};\{0;u+\overline{}v\}}$$
(29)
where

$$u𝒟^{n2,n1};v𝒟^{n1,n2}$$

This is the group of codimension $`n`$ Arakelov cycles on $`X()`$. To compare with \[S\] notice that

$$dd^{}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\overline{},2\overline{}\mathrm{log}|f|=\delta _{\mathrm{div}(f)}$$

If we modify this definition by replacing the last group $`𝒟_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)`$ by its quotient by smooth forms $`𝒟_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)/𝒜_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)`$ we get the group of codimension $`n`$ Arakelov cycles defined by Gillet and Soulé \[S\]:

$$\frac{\{YX^{(n)},g𝒟_{cl,}^{n1,n1}(n1)\}\text{such that}2\overline{}g+\delta (Y)\text{is smooth}}{\{\mathrm{div}(f),\mathrm{log}|f|\delta _{Y_1}\},f(Y_1)^{};\{0;u+\overline{}v\}}$$
(30)
Such a modification does not seem natural in our context, but it worked well in the Gillet-Soulé theory. The reason to have several versions of Arakelov groups is the desire to have a theory of Chern classes with values in Arakelov motivic cohomology (and finally the higher Riemann-Roch theorem) for various versions of the category of vector bundles with some kind of hermitian metric discussed below.

a) Consider holomorphic vector bundles with flat hermitian metrics. They have Chern classes with values in the groups (29). In particular holomorphic line bundles with flat hermitian metrics form an abelian group under the tensor product, denoted $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Pic}}_0(X)`$, which sits in an exact sequence

$$0^{\pi _0(X())}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Pic}}_0(X)\mathrm{Pic}_0(X)0$$

Indeed, a flat hermitian hermitian metric in a line bundle over a connected manifold is determined up to a constant. There is an isomorphism

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{Pic}}_0(X)\stackrel{=}{}H^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;1)\right)$$

given by the first Chern class as follows. If $`s`$ is a section of a holomorphic line bundle over $`X`$ with a hermitian metric $`||||`$ then the pair $`(\mathrm{log}s,\mathrm{div}(s))`$ provides the corresponding class in $`H^2\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;1)\right)`$. Indeed, according to the Poincaré-Lelong formula for a meromorphic section $`s`$ of any holomorphic line bundle one has

$$2\overline{}\mathrm{log}||s||\delta _{\mathrm{div}(s)}=c_1(L,||||)$$

where on the right is the Chern form related to the hermitian structure on the line bundle, which is zero if and only if the metric is flat.

b) To have Chern classes for holomorphic vector bundles with arbitrary hermitian metrics we are more or less forced to the Gillet-Soulé definition. However in this case the groups of Arakelov cycles are infinite dimensional.

c) Choose a Kahler metric on $`X()`$ and consider only such metrics (harmonic metrics) on holomorphic vector bundles over $`X()`$ whose Chern forms are harmonic with respect to the choosen metric. Then we have Chern classes yet to another modification of the Arakelov group where $`𝒟_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)`$ replaced by its quotient by the image of the following map provided by the Hodge theory:

$$H^{2n}(X(),(n))𝒜_{cl,}^{n,n}(n)$$

3. The weight one. The regulator map on the weight one motivic complex looks as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(X)^{}& & _{YX^{(1)}}\\ & & \\ r_1(1)& & r_1(2)\\ & & \\ 𝒟^{0,0}& \stackrel{2\overline{}}{}& 𝒟_{cl,}^{1,1}(1)\end{array}$$

$$r_1(2):Y_12\pi i\delta _{Y_1},r_1(1):f\mathrm{log}|f|$$

Here the top line is the weight $`1`$ motivic complex, sitting in degrees $`[1,2]`$. Shifting by $`1`$ the total complex associated with this bicomplex we get the weight $`1`$ Arakelov motivic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^𝒜(X;1)`$.

Here are examples of the regulator maps for the weights $`n3`$.

4. The weight two. The regulator map on the weight two motivic complexes looks as follows.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_2((X))& \stackrel{\delta }{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(X)^{}& \stackrel{}{}& _{YX^{(1)}}(Y)^{}& \stackrel{}{}& _{YX^{(2)}}\\ & & & & & & \\ r_2(1)& & r_2(2)& & r_2(3)& & r_2(4)\\ & & & & & & \\ 𝒟_{}^{0,0}(1)& \stackrel{D}{}& (𝒟^{0,1}𝒟^{1,0})_{}(1)& \stackrel{D}{}& 𝒟_{}^{1,1}(1)& \stackrel{2\overline{}}{}& 𝒟^{2,2}(2)_{cl,}\end{array}$$

where we set

$$r_2(4):Y_2(2\pi i)^2\delta _{Y_2}$$

$$r_2(3):(Y_1,f)2\pi i\mathrm{log}|f|\delta _{Y_1}$$

$$r_2(2):fg\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}g+\mathrm{log}|g|di\mathrm{arg}f$$

$$r_2(1):\{f\}_2\widehat{}_2(f)$$

To prove that we get a morphism of complexes we use theorem 2.2. The following argument is needed to check the commutativity of the second square. The de Rham differential of the distribution $`r_2(2)(fg)`$ is

$$𝒟\left(\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}g+\mathrm{log}|g|di\mathrm{arg}f\right)=$$

$$\pi _2(d\mathrm{log}f\mathrm{log}g)+2\pi i(\mathrm{log}|g|\delta (f)\mathrm{log}|f|\delta (g))$$

This does not coincide with $`r_2(3)(fg)`$, but the difference is

$$(𝒟r_2(2)r_2(3))(fg)=\pi _2(d\mathrm{log}f\mathrm{log}g)(𝒟^{0,2}𝒟^{2,0})_{}(1)$$

Defining the differential $`D`$ on the second group of the complex $`𝒞_𝒟(X_{},(2))`$ we take the de Rham differential and throw away from it precisely these components. Therefore the middle square is commutative.

5. The weight three. The weight three motivic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;3)`$ is the total complex of the following bicomplex: (the first group is in degree $`1`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}_3((X))& & _2((X))(X)^{}& & \mathrm{\Lambda }^3(X)^{}\\ & & & & \\ & & _{Y_1X^{(1)}}_2((Y_1))& & _{Y_1X^{(1)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(Y_1)^{}\\ & & & & \\ & & & & _{Y_2X^{(2)}}(Y_2)^{}\\ & & & & \\ & & & & _{Y_3X^{(3)}}(Y_3)^{}\end{array}$$

The Deligne complex $`𝒞_𝒟(X_{},(3))`$ looks as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & & 𝒟_{cl,}^{3,3}(3)\\ & & & & & 2\overline{}& \\ 𝒟^{0,2}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,2}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{2,2}& & \\ \overline{}& & \overline{}& & \overline{}& & \\ 𝒟^{0,1}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,1}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,2}& & \\ \overline{}& & \overline{}& & \overline{}& & \\ 𝒟^{0,0}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{1,0}& \stackrel{}{}& 𝒟^{2,0}& & \end{array}$$

(Recall that the $`3\times 3`$ square in this diagram consists of $`(2)`$-valued distributions). We construct the regulator map from the motivic complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;3)`$ to the Deligne complex $`𝒞_𝒟(X_{},(3))`$ by setting

$$r_3(6):Y_3(2\pi i)^3\delta _{Y_3}$$

$$r_3(5):(Y_2,f)(2\pi i)^2\mathrm{log}|f|\delta _{Y_2}$$

$$r_3(4):(Y_1,fg)2\pi i(\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}g+\mathrm{log}|g|di\mathrm{arg}f)\delta _{Y_1}$$

$$r_3(3):(Y_1,\{f\}_2)2\pi i\widehat{}_2(f)\delta _{Y_1}$$

$$r_3(3):f_1f_2f_3\mathrm{Alt}_3\left(\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{log}|f_1|d\mathrm{log}|f_2|d\mathrm{log}|f_3|+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}|f_1|di\mathrm{arg}f_2di\mathrm{arg}f_3\right)$$

$$r_3(2):\{f\}_2g\widehat{}_2(f)di\mathrm{arg}g\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}|g|\left(\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|+\mathrm{log}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|\right)$$

$$r_3(1):\{f\}_3\widehat{}_3(f)$$

6. The general case. Let $`d:=\mathrm{dim}X`$. Then the complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X;n)`$ is the total complex of the following bicomplex:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }((X);n)_{Y_1X^{(1)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }((Y_1);n1)[1]$$

$$_{Y_2X^{(2)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }((Y_2);n2)[1]\mathrm{}_{Y_dX^{(d)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }((Y_d);nd)[d]$$

where the arrows are provided by the residue maps, see \[G1\], p 239-240.

To define the regulator map from this gadget to the complex $`𝒞_𝒟(X_{};(n))`$ we specify it for each of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }((Y_k);nk)[k]`$ where $`k=0,\mathrm{},d`$. Namely, we take the constructed in theorem (2.5) homomorphism $`r_{nk}()`$ for $`\eta _{Y_k}`$ and multiply it by $`(2\pi i)^{nk}\delta _{Y_{nk}}`$. Notice that the distribution $`\delta _Y`$ depends only on the generic point of a subvariety $`Y`$. Its image in the bicomplex described in the section 3.1 is in

$$𝒟^{p,q};pk,qk,p+qn+k$$

which is the triangle symmetric with respect to the diagonal in the $`n\times n`$ square presented on the picture below.

Compatibility with the differentials is a corollary of theorem 2.5 and the following remark. If we would consider the $`n\times n`$ square in the Deligne complex as a part of the Dolbeault complex then we do not get a morphism of complexes. For $`k<n`$ the descrepency lies in the subgroup

$$𝒟^{k,n+1}𝒟^{n+1,k}$$
(31)
and come from the elements $`(Y_k,f_1\mathrm{}f_{nk})`$. However since the restriction of $`D`$ to the subgroup $`𝒟^{k,n}𝒟^{n,k}`$ equals to the de Rham differential $`𝒟`$ modulo the components (31) this does not create a problem.

## 4 Proofs

1. The differential equation for the function $`_n(z)`$. The following proposition was stated without a proof as formula 1.14 in \[G2\].

###### Proposition 4.1.

The differential equation for $`\widehat{}_n(f)`$ for $`n3`$ is:

$$d\widehat{}_n(f)=\widehat{}_{n1}(f)di\mathrm{arg}z\underset{k=2}{\overset{n1}{}}\beta _k\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)$$
(32)
Proof. Consider the generating series

$$Li(z;t):=\underset{n1}{}Li_n(z)t^{n1};\widehat{}(z;t):=\underset{n1}{}\widehat{}_n(z)t^{n1}$$

###### Lemma 4.2.

Differential equations (32) together with the formulas

$$d\widehat{}_1(z)=d\mathrm{log}|1z|,d\widehat{}_2(z)=\mathrm{log}|1z|di\mathrm{arg}z+\mathrm{log}|z|di\mathrm{arg}(1z)$$
(33)
are equivalent to the formula

$$d\widehat{}(z;t)=d\mathrm{log}|1z|+\mathrm{log}|z|di\mathrm{arg}(1z)t+\widehat{}(z;t)di\mathrm{arg}zt$$
(34)
$$\left\{\frac{2|\mathrm{log}z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}+\mathrm{log}|z|t1\right\}\left(\widehat{}(z;t)\frac{d\mathrm{log}|z|}{\mathrm{log}|z|}+d\mathrm{log}|1z|\right)$$
(35)
Proof. We check directly that the differential equation (33) appears as the coefficients of (35) in $`t^0`$ and $`t^1`$. From now on we will work modulo the monomials $`t^0`$ and $`t^1`$. The second term on the right of (32) (written for $`n3`$) provides the total contribution of

$$\underset{n3}{}\left(\underset{k2}{\overset{n2}{}}\beta _k\widehat{}_{nk}(z)\mathrm{log}^{k1}|z|d\mathrm{log}|z|+\beta _{n1}\alpha (1z,z)\mathrm{log}^{n2}|z|\right)t^{n1}=$$

$$\underset{2k<n}{}\beta _k\widehat{}_{nk}(z)\mathrm{log}^{k1}|z|t^{n1}d\mathrm{log}|z|$$

$$\underset{n3}{}\beta _{n1}\mathrm{log}^{n1}|z|t^{n1}d\mathrm{log}|1z|=$$

$$\left\{\frac{2\mathrm{log}zt}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}+\mathrm{log}|z|t1\right\}\left(\widehat{}(z;t)\frac{d\mathrm{log}|z|}{\mathrm{log}|z|}+d\mathrm{log}|1z|\right)$$

which is precisely (35). The first term on the right of (32) gives the last term in (34). The lemma is proved.

Let us prove formula (34) - (35). One has for $`n2`$:

$$d\pi _n(Li_m(z))=\frac{1}{2}d\left(Li_m(z)+(1)^{n1}\overline{Li_m(z)}\right)=$$

$$\pi _n(Li_{m1}(z))d\mathrm{log}|z|+\pi _{n1}(Li_{m1}(z))di\mathrm{arg}z$$
(36)
Define an operator $`P`$ acting on the generating series for a sequence of holomorphic functions $`f_n(z)`$ by

$$P\left(\underset{n1}{}f_n(z)t^{n1}\right):=\underset{n1}{}\pi _n(f_n)t^{n1}$$

Then

$$\widehat{}(z;t)=P\left\{\underset{0k<n}{}\beta _kLi_{nk}(z)\mathrm{log}^k|z|t^{n1}\right\}=$$

$$P\left\{Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\right\}$$
(37)
One has

$$d\left(\frac{2x}{e^{2x}1}\right)=\left(\frac{2x}{e^{2x}1}\frac{4x^2e^{2x}}{(e^{2x}1)^2}\right)\frac{dx}{x}=\frac{2x}{e^{2x}1}\left(12x\frac{2x}{e^{2x}1}\right)\frac{dx}{x}$$

Thus since the second factor in (37) is a real function we get

$$d\widehat{}(z;t)=d_1P\left(Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\right)$$

$$+P\left\{Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\left(12\mathrm{log}|z|t\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\right)\right\}\frac{d\mathrm{log}|z|}{\mathrm{log}|z|}$$

where $`d_1`$ is the differential applied to $`Li(z;t)`$ only. Since $`\frac{2x}{e^{2x}1}+x1`$ is an even function in $`x`$ we rewrite this as

$$d_1P\left(Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\right)$$
(38)
$$\widehat{}(z;t)\left(\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}+\mathrm{log}|z|t1\right)\frac{d\mathrm{log}|z|}{\mathrm{log}|z|}$$
(39)
$$P\left\{Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}t\right\}d\mathrm{log}|z|$$
(40)
We handle this as follows.

i) (39) matches half of (34).

ii) The $`Li_1`$-part of (38) is

$$d_1P\left(Li_1(z)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}\right)=\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}d\mathrm{log}|1z|$$

It matches the second half of (35) modulo coefficients in $`t^0`$ and $`t^1`$.

iii) The rest of (38) equals to

$$P\left\{Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}d\mathrm{log}zt\right\}=$$
(41)
$$P\left\{\widehat{}(z;t)(z;t)\right\}di\mathrm{arg}zt+P\left\{Li(z;t)\frac{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}{e^{2\mathrm{log}|z|t}1}t\right\}d\mathrm{log}|z|$$
(42)
Thus the first term in (42) matches the right term in (34), and the second is canceled with (40). The proposition is proved.

2. Proof of theorem 2.5. i) Let us show that the map

$$\{f\}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)$$
(43)
provides a group homomorphism $`_n((X))𝒜_\eta ^1(X())`$. The arguments are similar to the proof of theorem 1.15 in \[G2\]. Suppose first that $`nk>1`$. By theorem 1.15 in \[G2\] the map $`\{f\}\widehat{}_n(f)`$ provides a group homomorphism $`_n((X))𝒜_\eta ^0(X())`$. Consider the following map

$$_n((X))_{nk}((X))S^k(X)^{},\{f\}_n\{f\}_{nk}f^k$$
(44)
It can be defined as a composition

$$\{f\}_n\{f\}_{n1}f\{f\}_{n2}ff\mathrm{}\{f\}_{nk}f\mathrm{}f$$

Each of these maps is of type $`\delta id`$ and thus is a homomorphism of abelian groups. The composition followed by the homomorphism

$$_{nk}((X))S^k(X)^{}𝒜_\eta ^1(X())$$

$$\{f\}_{nk}g_1\mathrm{}g_k\widehat{}_{nk}(f)\frac{1}{k}d(\mathrm{log}|g_1|\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}|g_k|)$$

leads to the map (43). In the case $`nk=1`$ we present map (43) as a composition

$$_n((X))\stackrel{(\text{44})}{}_2((X))S^{n2}(X)^{}\stackrel{a}{}𝒜_\eta ^1(X())$$

$$a:\{f\}_2g_1\mathrm{}g_{n2}\alpha (1f,f)\mathrm{log}|g_1|\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}|g_{n2}|$$

and use the fact that $`\{f\}_2\alpha (1f,f)`$ is a group homomorphism.

ii) The properties (a) and (b) in theorem 2.2 are true by the very definitions.

iii) It is very easy to see that the property (d) is also true by the very definitions: it basically reflects the fact that the numerical coefficients in the formula for $`r_{n+m}(m+1)`$ do not depend on $`m`$ and uses formula (11).

iv) It remains to prove that the diagram in theorem 2.2 is commutative. Let us show first that its right square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_2((X))\mathrm{\Lambda }^{n2}(X)^{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^n(X)^{}\\ & & \\ r_n(n1)& & r_n(n)\\ & & \\ 𝒜_\eta ^{n2}(X())& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒜_\eta ^{n1}(X())\end{array}$$

is commutative. We change the numeration by putting $`n:=m+2`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

$$r_{m+2}(m+1):\{f\}_2g_1\mathrm{}g_m$$

$$\widehat{}_2(f)𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$

$$\alpha (1f,f)𝒜_m\left(\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{(2p+1)(2p+3)}\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{2p+1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+2}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right)$$

Proof. It follows immediately from the definition and lemma 2.3:

Let us compute

$$d\left(r_{m+2}(m+1)(\{f\}_2g_1\mathrm{}g_m)\right)$$

Using proposition 4.3 we get

$$\left(\mathrm{log}|1f|di\mathrm{arg}f+\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}(1f)\right)$$
(45)
$$𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$

$$+2d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|$$

$$𝒜_m\left(\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{(2p+1)(2p+3)}\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{2p+1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+2}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right)$$
(46)
$$+\alpha (1f,f)𝒜_m\left(\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p+1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+2}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right)$$
(47)
We can write the differential form $`r_m(g_1\mathrm{}g_m)`$ as follows:

$$𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{2p+1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+2}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(48)
In particular this makes transparent the property

$$dr_m(g_1\mathrm{}g_m)+\pi _m(d\mathrm{log}g_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{log}g_m)=0$$

Now computing

$$dr_{m+2}((1f)fg_1\mathrm{}g_m)$$
(49)
using formula (48) and comparing the result with formulas (45) - (47) we see the following:

1) Formula (45) matches the part of (49) where the contribution of $`(1f)f`$ is given by $`\mathrm{log}|1f|di\mathrm{arg}|f|+\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}|1f|`$.

2) Formula (47) matches the part of (49) where the contribution of $`(1f)f`$ is given by $`\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|+\mathrm{log}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|`$.

Before we continue any further let us note that

$$d\mathrm{log}|1f|di\mathrm{arg}(f)=d\mathrm{log}|f|di\mathrm{arg}(1f)$$
(50)
$$d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|=di\mathrm{arg}(1f)di\mathrm{arg}f$$
(51)
Indeed,

$$0=d\mathrm{log}(1f)d\mathrm{log}f=\left(d\mathrm{log}|1f|+di\mathrm{arg}(1f)\right)\left(d\mathrm{log}|f|+d\mathrm{arg}if\right)$$

Therefore using (50) we see the following:

3) the sum of the terms of (49) where the contribution of $`(1f)f`$ is given either by $`d\mathrm{log}|1f|di\mathrm{arg}|f|`$ or by $`di\mathrm{arg}(1f)fd\mathrm{log}|f|`$ is zero.

4) It remains to show that (46) matches the part of (49) where the contribution of $`(1f)f`$ is given by $`d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|`$ or $`di\mathrm{arg}(1f)fdi\mathrm{arg}f`$.

Let us substitute

$$\frac{2}{(2p+1)(2p+3)}=\frac{1}{2p+1}\frac{1}{2p+3}$$

into (46) and split the formula we get into two parts. The first part, denoted $`(\text{46})_I`$, is the one where the terms appear with the coefficient $`\frac{1}{2p+1}`$. The second part, denoted $`(\text{46})_{II}`$, is the rest. It corresponds to $`\frac{1}{2p+3}`$.

Using (51) to calculate the part of (49) where $`(1f)f`$ contributes via $`di\mathrm{arg}(1f)fdi\mathrm{arg}f`$ we see that it matches with $`(\text{46})_I`$. The other part, $`(\text{46})_{II}`$, matches the part of (49) where $`(1f)f`$ contributes $`d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|`$. So we achieved our goal 4). The commutativity of the last square is proved.

Now let us prove the commutativity of the squares different from the last one, i.e. ($`n>2`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_n((X))\mathrm{\Lambda }^m(X)^{}& \stackrel{\delta }{}& _{n1}((X))\mathrm{\Lambda }^{m+1}(X)^{}\\ & & \\ r_{n+m}(m+1)& & r_{n+m}(m+2)\\ & & \\ 𝒜_\eta ^m(X())& \stackrel{d}{}& 𝒜_\eta ^{m+1}(X())\end{array}$$

One has

$$dr_{n+m}(m+1)(\{f\}_ng_1\mathrm{}g_m)=$$
(52)
$$d\widehat{}_n(f)𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(53)
$$+\underset{k1}{}\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{k,p}d\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)𝒜_m\left\{\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(54)
$$\underset{k1}{}\underset{1pm}{}p\beta _{k,p}\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)𝒜_m\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(55)
Let us compare this expression with

$$r_{n+m}(m+2)(\{f\}_{n1}fg_1\mathrm{}g_m)=(\text{20})_{m+2}+(\text{21})_{m+2}$$
(56)
where $`(\text{20})_{m+2}`$ (resp. $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$) stays for the term similar to $`(\text{20})`$ (resp. $`(\text{21})`$) in the definition of $`r_{n+m}(m+1)`$ (see theorem-construction 2.5).

Observe that a priori $`f`$ can contribute to $`(\text{20})_{m+2}`$ via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$ or $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$, and to $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$, $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$ or $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$. A careful reader should keep track of these five different cases during the proof.

We split the job in two parts:

A) Check that the diagram is commutative if we pay attention only to the terms where $`d\mathrm{log}|1f|`$ or $`di\mathrm{arg}(1f)`$ appears. We call such terms $`A`$-terms.

B) Then we check that the diagram is commutative modulo the terms with $`d\mathrm{log}|1f|`$ or $`di\mathrm{arg}(1f)`$.

Part A). Here is the contribution from (53) - (55). Recall that $`n3`$.

From (53) using (32) we get:

$$\beta _{n1}\mathrm{log}^{n1}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|𝒜_m\left\{\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(57)
From (54):

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n3}{}}\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{k,p}\beta _{nk1}\mathrm{log}^{n2}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|$$
(58)
$$𝒜_m\left\{\mathrm{log}|g_1|\underset{i=2}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(59)
$$+\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{n2,p}di\mathrm{arg}(1f)d\mathrm{log}|f|\mathrm{log}^{n2}|f|(\text{59})$$
(60)
$$\underset{1pm}{}(n1)\beta _{n1,p}d\mathrm{log}|1f|d\mathrm{log}|f|\mathrm{log}^{n2}|f|(\text{59})$$
(61)
From (55):

$$\underset{1pm}{}p\beta _{n1,p}\mathrm{log}^{n1}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|$$
(62)
$$𝒜_m\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(63)
The contribution of $`(\text{20})_{m+2}`$ is zero. The factor $`f`$ from $`\{f\}_{n1}fg_1\mathrm{}g_m`$ can contribute into $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$, $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$ and $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$.

The terms where $`f`$ contributes via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$ are

$$\underset{k1}{}\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{k,p+1}\widehat{}_{n1k,k}(f)\mathrm{log}|f|(\text{63})$$
(64)
Since we are concerned only with the $`A`$-terms, this boils down to

$$\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{n2,p+1}\widehat{}_{1,n2}(f)\mathrm{log}|f|(\text{63})=$$
(65)
$$\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{n2,p+1}\mathrm{log}^{n1}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|(\text{63})$$

Using formulas (12) we see that it matches (57) + (62).

The terms where $`f`$ contributes into $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ via $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$ are

$$\underset{k1}{}\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{k,p}\widehat{}_{n1k,k}(f)di\mathrm{arg}f(\text{59})$$
(66)
Its contribution modulo $`B`$-terms is

$$\underset{1pm}{}\beta _{n2,p}\mathrm{log}^{n2}|f|d\mathrm{log}|1f|di\mathrm{arg}f(\text{59})$$
(67)
Using (50) we see that it matches (60).

Similar considerations for terms where $`f`$ contributes into $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$ minus ((61) + (58)) leads to the left hand side of (16), which is zero according to proposition 2.4. The part A) is proved.

Part B). We will write $`X\stackrel{A}{=}Y`$ if $`XY=0`$ modulo the $`A`$-terms.

a) Notice that the contribution of $`f`$ to $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$ is zero since $`\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)d\mathrm{log}|f|=0`$ modulo $`A`$-terms.

b) The contribution to (53) of the term $`\widehat{}_{n1}(f)di\mathrm{arg}f`$ in formula (32) for $`d\widehat{}_n(f)`$ matches the part of term $`(\text{20})_{m+2}`$ where $`f`$ contributes via $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$.

c) One has

$$d\widehat{}_{nk,k}(f)\stackrel{A}{=}\widehat{}_{nk1,k}(f)di\mathrm{arg}f$$
(68)
Thus (54) matches the part of $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ where $`f`$ contributes via $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$.

d) The contribution to (53) of the other term in $`d\widehat{}_n(f)`$ modulo $`A`$ is

$$\underset{p0}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{n2}{}}\frac{\beta _k}{2p+1}\widehat{}_{nk,k1}(f)$$
(69)
$$𝒜_m\left\{\mathrm{log}|f|\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+1}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(70)
The only other terms in (52) with factor (70) are the terms of (55) where $`k>1`$ and the number of $`d\mathrm{log}|g_i|`$’s is even, i.e.

$$\underset{k1}{}2p\beta _{k,2p}\widehat{}_{nk,k1}(f)(\text{70})$$
(71)
On the other hand, in (56) the terms with factor (70) are

$$\underset{k1}{}\beta _{k,2p+1}\widehat{}_{n1k,k}(f)(\text{70})$$
(72)
which are precisely the terms of $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ where $`f`$ contributes via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$, and $`p`$ in $`\beta _{k,p}`$ is odd.

Thus out of (69), (71) and (72) we see that $`\widehat{}_{nk,k1}(f)(\text{70})`$ appears in our check of the commutativity of the diagram with factor

$$\beta _{k1,2p+1}+\frac{\beta _k}{2p+1}+2p\beta _{k,2p}\stackrel{(\text{12})}{=}0$$

e) The term of $`(\text{20})_{m+2}`$ where $`f`$ contributes via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$, i.e.

$$\underset{p0}{}\frac{1}{2p+1}\widehat{}_{n1}(f)𝒜_{m+1}\left\{d\mathrm{log}|f|\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(73)
matches the term (55) with $`k=1`$, $`p`$: odd, i.e.

$$\underset{p0}{}(2p1)\beta _{1,2p1}\widehat{}_{n1,1}(f)𝒜_m\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(74)
Indeed, according to (14) $`(2p1)\beta _{1,2p1}=\frac{1}{2p+1}`$.

f) All the terms of (55) with $`k=1`$ and even $`p`$ are zero since $`\beta _{1,2p}=0`$ by (14).

g) The terms of (55) with odd $`p`$ and $`k>1`$ look as follows:

$$\underset{p0}{}\underset{k2}{}(2p+1)\beta _{k,2p+1}\widehat{}_{nk,k1}(f)$$
(75)
$$𝒜_{m+1}\left\{\mathrm{log}|f|\underset{i=1}{\overset{2p+1}{}}d\mathrm{log}|g_i|\underset{j=2p+2}{\overset{m}{}}di\mathrm{arg}g_j\right\}$$
(76)
They match with the terms of $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$ where $`f`$ contributes via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$ and $`p`$ is even, see (64).

The the part B) of the commutativity proof is now complete. To double check that we list all the possibilities for contribution of $`f`$ in (56), and indicate for each of them the part of the proof where it was handled.

Contribution of $`f`$ to $`(\text{20})_{m+1}`$:

via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$: see e); via $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$: see b).

Contribution of $`f`$ to $`(\text{21})_{m+2}`$:

via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$, $`p`$ odd: see d); via $`\mathrm{log}|f|`$, $`p`$ even: see g);

via $`d\mathrm{log}|f|`$: see a); via $`di\mathrm{arg}f`$: see c).

Contribution of $`f`$ to (53): see b) and d).

Contribution of $`f`$ to (54): see c).

Contribution of $`f`$ to (55):

$`k=1`$, $`p`$ odd: see e); $`k>1`$, $`p`$ odd: see g);

$`k=1`$, $`p`$ even: see f); $`k>1`$, $`p`$ even: see d).

The main theorem is proved.

Department of mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912. e-mail sasha@math.brown.edu


format: text

text:
# New results of 116Cd double 𝛽 decay study with 116CdWO4 scintillators

## I Introduction

Neutrinoless (0$`\nu `$) double $`\beta `$ decay is forbidden in the Standard Model (SM) since it violates lepton number ($`L`$) conservation. However many extensions of the SM incorporate $`L`$ violating interactions and thus could lead to the 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay . Currently, besides conventional neutrino ($`\nu `$) exchange mechanism, there are many other possibilities to trigger this process . In that sense neutrinoless 2$`\beta `$ decay has a great conceptual importance due to the strong Schechter-Valle theorem  obtained in a gauge theory of the weak interaction that a non-vanishing 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay rate requires neutrino to be massive Majorana particle, independent of which mechanism induces it. Therefore, at present 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay is considered as a very powerful test of new physical effects beyond the SM, and even the absence of this process – at the present level of sensitivity – would help to restrict or narrow this wide choice of theoretical models. At the same time 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay is very important in the light of the measured deficit of the atmospheric neutrinos flux  and the result of the LSND accelerator experiment , which could be explained by means of the neutrino oscillations requiring in turn nonzero neutrino masses ($`m_\nu `$). However oscillation experiments are sensitive to neutrino mass difference, while measured 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay rate can give the absolute value of the $`m_\nu `$ scale, and hence provide a crucial test of $`m_\nu `$ models.

Despite of numerous attempts to observe 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay from 1948 up to present days  this process still remains unobserved. The highest $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$) limits were set in direct experiments with several nuclides: $`T_{1/2}10^{22}`$ yr for 82Se , 100Mo , 116Cd ; $`T_{1/2}10^{23}`$ yr for 130Te  and 136Xe ; and $`T_{1/2}10^{25}`$ yr for 76Ge .

With the aim to enlarge the number of 2$`\beta `$ decay candidate nuclides studied at a sensitivity comparable with that for 76Ge and 136Xe (neutrino mass limit of 0.5–2 eV), cadmium tungstate crystal scintillators, enriched in 116Cd to 83%, were developed and exploited in 116Cd research . The measurements were carried out in the Solotvina Underground Laboratory in a salt mine 430 m underground ($``$1000 m w. e.) . In the first phase of the experiment only one 116CdWO4 crystal (15.2 cm3) was used. It was viewed by a photomultiplier tube (PMT) through a light-guide 51 cm long and placed inside a plastic scintillator ($``$38$`\times `$115 cm) which served as veto counter. A passive shield of high purity (HP) copper (5 cm), lead (23 cm) and polyethylene (16 cm) surrounded the plastic counter. The background rate in the energy range 2.7–2.9 MeV ($`Q_{2\beta }`$=2805 keV ) was equal $``$0.6 counts/yr$``$kg$``$keV. With 19175 h statistics the half-life limit for 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd was set as $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$) $``$ 3.2$`\times `$1$`0^{22}`$ yr (90% C.L.) , which corresponds to the restriction on the neutrino mass $`m_\nu 3.9`$ eV . Limits on 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay with emission of one (M1) or two (M2) Majorons were obtained too: $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) $``$ 1.2$`\times `$1$`0^{21}`$ yr and $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M2) $``$ 2.6$`\times `$1$`0^{20}`$ yr (90% C.L.) .

In the present paper new and advanced results of 116Cd research obtained with the help of an upgraded apparatus are described.

## II New set-up with four 116CdWO4 detectors

### A Set-up and measurements

In order to enhance the sensitivity of the 116Cd experiment, the following improvements were scheduled: increase of the number of 116Cd nuclei, reduction of the background and improvement of the data taking and processing . With this aim the new set-up with four enriched 116CdWO4 crystals (total mass 339 g) has been mounted in the Solotvina Laboratory in August 1998. All materials used in the installation were previously tested and selected for low radioactive impurities in order to reduce their contributions to background.

In the new apparatus, a scheme of which is shown in fig. 1, four enriched crystals are viewed by the PMT (EMI9390) through one light-guide 10 cm in diameter and 55 cm long, which is composed of two glued parts: quartz 25 cm long and plastic scintillator (Bicron BC-412) 30 cm long. The 116CdWO4 crystals are surrounded by an active shield made of 15 natural CdWO4 scintillators of large volume ($``$200 cm3 each) with total mass of 20.6 kg. Due to the high purity of the CdWO4 crystals  and their large density ($``$8 g/cm3) this active shield reduces background effectively. The veto crystals are viewed – by a low background PMT ($``$17 cm) – through an active plastic light-guide ($``$17$`\times `$49 cm). In turn the whole array of CdWO4 counters is placed inside an additional active shield made of polystyrene-based plastic scintillator with dimensions 40$`\times `$40$`\times `$95 cm. Thus, together with both active light-guides (connected with enriched and natural crystals on opposite sides), a complete 4$`\pi `$ active shield of the main 116CdWO4 detectors is provided.

The outer passive shield consists of HP copper (thickness $`3`$$`6`$ cm), lead ($`22.5`$$`30`$ cm) and polyethylene (16 cm). Two plastic scintillators (120$`\times `$130$`\times `$3 cm) are installed above the passive shield to provide a cosmic muons veto. Because air in the Solotvina Laboratory can be contaminated by radon (at the level $``$ 30 Bq/m3) the set-up is isolated carefully against air penetration. All cavities inside the shield are filled up by pieces of plexiglass, and HP Cu shield is sealed with the help of silicon glue and enclosed inside a tight mylar envelope.

The new event-by-event data acquisition is based on two IBM personal computers (PC) and a CAMAC crate with electronic units. For each event the following information is stored on the hard disc of the first computer: the amplitude (energy) of a signal, its arrival time and the following additional tags: the coincidence between different detectors; the signal of radio-noise detection system; triggers for light emitting diode (LED) and pulse shape digitizer. The second computer records the pulse shape of the 116CdWO4 scintillators in the energy range 0.25–5 MeV. This complementary system is developed on the basis of a fast 12 bit ADC (Analog Devices AD9022) and is connected with computer by parallel digital I/O board (PC-DIO-24 from National Instruments) . Two PC-DIO-24 boards are used to link both computers and establish – with the help of proper software – a one-to-one correspondence between the pulse shape data recorded by the second computer and the information stored in the first PC.

The energy scale and resolution of the main detector – four enriched crystals taken as a whole – were determined in the measurements with different sources (22Na, 40K, 60Co, 137Cs, 207Bi, 226Ra, 232Th and 241Am). The energy dependence of the resolution can be expressed (for the energy above 50 keV) as $`FWHM(`$keV) =$`\sqrt{226+\text{1}6.6E+6.42\times 10^3E^2}`$, where energy $`E`$ is in keV. For instance, the resolution ($`FWHM`$) was equal to 14.5% at 1064 keV and 11% at 2615 keV. The full energy peaks are well fitted in the energy region 0.06–2.6 MeV by a Gaussian function with typical value $`\chi ^2`$ = 0.8–1.9. Moreover, the calibration spectra of the 232Th source were simulated with the help of GEANT3.21 package  and event generator DECAY4  (the last defines initial kinematics of the events). The simulated 232Th spectra are in good agreement with the measured ones confirming the assumption of a Gaussian peak shape. In particular for the 2615 keV peak of 208Tl – which is close to the 2$`\beta `$ decay energy of 116Cd – the value of $`\chi ^2`$ =1.3.

Also, the relative light yield for for $`\alpha `$ particles as compared with that for electrons ($`\alpha /\beta `$ ratio) and energy resolution were measured with $`\alpha `$ sources and corrected by using time-amplitude analysis (see below) as following: $`\alpha /\beta `$ = 0.15(1) $`+`$7$`\times `$1$`0^6E_\alpha `$ and $`FWHM_\alpha (`$keV) = $`0.053E_\alpha `$ ($`E_\alpha `$ is in keV). The routine calibration is carried out weekly with a 207Bi source (570, 1064 and 1770 keV) and once per two weeks with 232Th (2615 keV). The dead time of the spectrometer and data acquisition is monitored permanently with the help of an LED optically connected with the main PMT. The actual dead time value is $``$4.2$`\%`$ ($``$3% is owing to random coincidence between the main and shield detectors; $``$1.2% is caused by miscounts of the data acquisition).

The background spectrum measured during 4629 h in the new installation with four 116CdWO4 crystals is given in fig. 2, where the old data obtained with one 116CdWO4 crystal of 121 g are also shown for comparison. As it is visible from this figure, the background is decreased in the whole energy range, except for the $`\beta `$ spectrum of 113Cd ($`Q_\beta `$ = $`316`$ keV), whose abundance in 116CdWO4 crystals is $``$2% . In the energy region $`2.5`$$`3.2`$ MeV – where the peak of 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd is expected – the background rate is reduced to a value of 0.03 counts/yr$``$kg$``$keV (only 4 events in the energy window $`2.5`$$`3.2`$ MeV were detected during 4629 h), twenty times lower than in the previous set-up. It is achieved, first, due to improvement of passive and active shield, and secondly, as a result of data processing advance (time-amplitude and pulse-shape analysis), which are described below.

### B Time-amplitude analysis of the data

The energy and arrival time of each event can be used for analysis and selection of some decay chains in 232Th, 235U and 238U families (see f. e. ref. ). As an example (important in the following for the background rejection in the energy range of 0$`\nu 2\beta `$ decay), we consider here in detail the time-amplitude analysis of the following sequence of $`\alpha `$ decays from 232Th family: 220Rn ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`6.40`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`55.6`$ s) $``$ 216Po ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`6.91`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`0.145`$ s) $``$ 212Pb. Because the energy of $`\alpha `$ particles from 220Rn decay corresponds to $``$1.2 MeV in $`\beta /\gamma `$ scale of 116CdWO4 detector, the events in the energy region $`0.7`$$`1.8`$ MeV were used as triggers. Then all events (within $`0.9`$$`1.9`$ MeV) following the triggers in the time interval $`10`$$`1000`$ ms (containing 94.5% of 216Po decays) were selected. The spectra of the 220Rn and 216Po $`\alpha `$ decays obtained in this way from data – as well as the distribution of the time intervals between the first and second events – are presented in fig. 3. It is evident from this figure that the selected spectra and time distribution are in an excellent agreement with those expected from $`\alpha `$ particles of 220Rn and 216Po. Using these results and taking into account the efficiency of the time-amplitude analysis and the number of accidental coincidences (3 pairs from 218 selected), the determined activity of 228Th (232Th family) inside the 116CdWO4 crystals is as low as 38(3) $`\mu `$Bq/kg.

The same technique was applied to the sequence of $`\alpha `$ decays from the 235U family: 223Ra ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`5.98`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`11.44`$ d) $``$ 219Rn ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`6.95`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`3.96`$ s) $``$ 215Po ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`7.53`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`1.78`$ ms) $``$ 211Pb. For the fast couple (219Rn $``$ 215Po) all events within $`0.8`$$`1.8`$ MeV were used as triggers, while a time interval $`1`$$`10`$ ms (65.7% of 215Po decays) and an energy window 0.9–2.0 MeV were set for the second events. The obtained $`\alpha `$ peaks correspond to an activity of 5.5(14) $`\mu `$Bq/kg for the 227Ac impurity in the crystals.

As regard the 226Ra chain (238U family) the following sequence of $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ decays was analyzed: 214Bi ($`Q_\beta `$ = $`3.27`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`19.9`$ m) $``$ 214Po ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`7.83`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}=164.3`$ $`\mu `$s) $``$ 210Pb. For the first and second events the energy threshold was equal 0.1 MeV, and a time interval of $`100`$$`1000`$ $`\mu `$s (64.1% of 214Po decays) was used. While the obtained spectrum of the first pulses agrees with the model of the $`\beta `$ decay of 214Bi, and the distribution of the time intervals between the first and second events can be fitted by an exponent with $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`140_{20}^{+30}`$ $`\mu `$s (in reasonable agreement with the 214Po half-life value), the spectrum of the second events is continuous, contrary to the anticipated $`\alpha `$ peak of 214Po. Probably, part of this continuous distribution can be explained by 226Ra contamination of the materials neighboring the 116CdWO4 crystals (optical grease, teflon, Mylar, radon in air), while another part is caused by 226Ra decays in the crystals. Under such an assumption activity limits for 226Ra contaminations are derived as $``$0.13(3) Bq/kg for optical grease, $``$8 mBq/kg for teflon, $``$1.8 $`\mu `$Bq/dm2 for Mylar, and $``$ 5 $`\mu `$Bq/kg for 116CdWO$`_4,`$ whose values do not contradict bounds obtained earlier . To prove these assumptions, the events belonging to the 214Bi $``$ 214Po $``$ 210Pb chain were independently searched for in the time window of $`5`$$`88`$ $`\mu `$s (28.9% of 214Po decays) with the help of pulse shape analysis (see below). For both events the energy threshold was $``$0.3 MeV. The result obtained (226Ra activity in the 116CdWO4 crystals $``$ 14 $`\mu `$Bq/kg) is similar to that of the time-amplitude analysis.

Finally, all couples of events found for 232Th, 235U and 238U families as described above were eliminated from the measured data.

### C Pulse-shape discrimination

The pulse shape of the 116CdWO4 scintillators in the energy region of $`0.25`$$`5`$ MeV is digitized by a 12 bit ADC and stored in 2048 channels with 50 ns channel’s width. Due to different shapes of scintillation signal for various kinds of sourcesIt is known, that scintillation efficiency and pulse shape of inorganic crystals depend on the local density of the energy released, hence allowing to identify the incoming radiation (see e. g. ref. ). ($`\alpha `$ particles, protons, $`\gamma `$ quanta and cosmic muons were investigated), the pulse-shape (PS) discrimination method based on the optimal digital filter  was developed and clear discrimination between $`\gamma `$ rays (electrons) and $`\alpha `$ particles was achieved .

The pulse shapes of enriched crystals were measured for $`\alpha `$ particles with an 241Am source and for $`\gamma `$ rays with 60Co, 137Cs, 207Bi and 232Th sources in the special calibration runsBecause $`\gamma `$ rays interact with matter by mean of the energy transfer to electrons, it was assumed that pulse shapes for electrons and $`\gamma `$-s are the same. This statement was proved in the measurement with conversion electrons of 207Bi by using the signal of the thin plastic scintillator (placed between source and detector) as signature of the electron hitting the 116CdWO4 crystal.. To provide an analytic description of the $`\alpha `$ or $`\gamma `$ signals $`f_\alpha (t)`$ and $`f_\gamma (t)`$ the pulse shape resulting from the average of a large number of individual events has been fitted with the sum of three (for $`\alpha `$ particles) or two (for $`\gamma `$-s ) exponents, giving the reference pulse shapes $`\overline{f}_\alpha (t)`$ and $`\overline{f}_\gamma (t)`$ (see for more details ref. ). In the data processing the digital filter is applied to each experimental signal $`f(t)`$ with aim to obtain the numerical characteristic of its shape (shape indicator, $`SI`$) defined as: $`SI=_kf(t_k)P(t_kt_o)`$, where the sum is over all time bins (from $`k`$ = 1 to $`k`$ = 2048), $`f(t_k)`$ is the digitized amplitude of a given signal (normalized to its area) at the time $`t_k`$. The weight function $`P(t_kt_o)`$ is determined as $`P(t)=\{\overline{f}_\alpha (t)\overline{f}_\gamma (t)\}/\{\overline{f}_\alpha (t)+\overline{f}_\gamma (t)\},`$ and $`t_o`$ is the time origin of the signal. The measured with sources $`SI`$ distributions are well described by a Gaussian functions, whose mean values and standard deviations $`\sigma _\alpha `$ and $`\sigma _\gamma `$ have a slight energy dependence§§§For the $`\gamma `$-s (300–3200 keV) $`SI_\gamma `$= 18.09 – (4.5$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{5}E_{\gamma }^{}`$), $`\sigma _\gamma `$= 2.61 – (4.7$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\gamma }^{})+707/E_\gamma `$, while for the $`\alpha `$ particles (4000–6000 keV) $`SI_\alpha `$= 29.0; $`\sigma _\alpha `$= 5.11 – (5.52$`\times `$10$`{}_{}{}^{4}E_{\alpha }^{})+5520/E_\alpha `$. Here all variables are dimensionless ($`E_\gamma `$ and $`E_\alpha `$ are expressed in keV).. For 0.9 MeV $`\gamma `$ quanta $`SI_\gamma `$ = $`18\pm 3`$, while for 4.8 MeV $`\alpha `$ particles $`SI_\alpha `$ = $`29.0\pm 3.6`$. It allows us to determine the efficiency of the PS event selection for the different chosen intervals of $`SI`$ values ($`\pm \sigma `$, $`\pm 2\sigma `$, etc.).

The PS selection technique ensures the very important possibility to discriminate ”illegal” events: double pulses, $`\alpha `$ events, etc., and thus to suppress background. An example of a double pulse is shown in fig. 4a. Value of the shape indicator for the full signal is $`SI=`$$`47`$; for the first pulse $`SI_1`$ = 18.4 (hence it corresponds to $`\gamma `$ or $`\beta `$ particle), for the second pulse $`SI_2`$ = 37.4 ($`\alpha `$ particle). The energy release is 1.97 MeV, and without PS analysis it would be a candidate event for $`2\nu 2\beta `$ decay of 116Cd.

Since the shape indicator characterizes the full signal, it is also useful to examine the pulse front edge. For example, it was found that at least 99% of ”pure” $`\gamma `$ events (measured with calibration 232Th source) satisfy the following restriction on pulse rise time : $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$($`\mu `$s) $``$ 1.24 – 0.5$`E_\gamma `$ \+ 0.078$`E_\gamma ^2`$, where $`E_\gamma `$ is dimensionless variable expressed in MeV. Hence, this filter was applied to the background data, and all events, which do not pass the test, were excluded from the residual $`\beta /\gamma `$ spectrum.

The results of PS analysis of the data are presented in fig. 5. The initial (without PS selection) spectrum of the 116CdWO4 scintillators in the energy region $`1.2`$$`4`$ MeV – collected during 4629 h in anticoincidence with active shield – is depicted in fig. 5a, while the spectrum after PS selection of the $`\beta /\gamma `$ events, whose $`SI`$ lie in the interval $`SI_\gamma 3.0\sigma _\gamma `$ $`SISI_\gamma +2.4\sigma _\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$($`\mu `$s) $``$ 1.24 – 0.5$`E_\gamma `$ \+ 0.078$`E_\gamma ^2`$ (98% of $`\beta /\gamma `$ events), is shown in fig. 5b. From these figures the background reduction due to pulse-shape analysis is evident. Further, fig. 5c represents the difference between spectra in fig. 5a and 5b. These events, at least for the energy above 2 MeV, can be produced by 228Th activity from the intrinsic contamination of the 116CdWO4 crystals (measured by the time-amplitude analysis as described above). Indeed, two decays in the fast chain 212Bi ($`Q_\beta `$ = $`2.25`$ MeV) $``$ 212Po ($`Q_\alpha `$ = $`8.95`$ MeV, $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`0.3`$ $`\mu `$s) $``$ 208Pb can not be time resolved in the CdWO4 scintillator (with an exponential decay time $``$15 $`\mu `$s ) and will result in one event. The example of such an event – recorded by the PS acquisition system – is depicted in fig. 4b. To determine the residual activity of 228Th in the crystals, the response function of 116CdWO4 detectors for the 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb chain was simulated with the help of GEANT3.21 code and event generator DECAY4. The simulated function is shown in fig. 5c, from which one can see that the high energy part of the experimental spectrum is well reproduced ($`\chi ^2`$ = $`1.3`$) by the expected response for 212Bi $`^{212}`$Po $`^{208}`$Pb decaysThe rest of spectrum below 1.9 MeV (fig. 5c) can be explained as high energy tail of the PS selected $`\alpha `$ particles (see fig. 6).. Corresponding activity of 228Th inside the 116CdWO4 crystals, deduced from the fit in the 1.9–3.7 MeV energy region, is 37(4) $`\mu `$Bq/kg, that is in a good agreement with the value determined by the time-amplitude analysis of the chain 220Rn $``$ 216Po $``$ 212Pb. Besides, the front edge analysis of 80 events with the energy $`2.0`$$`4.2`$ MeV ($`SI`$ $`SI_\gamma `$ \+ 2.54$`\sigma _\gamma `$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ $``$ 0.2 $`\mu `$s) was fulfilled and the half-life derived from the average time delay between the first and second part of the signal (see fig. 4b) is $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`0.31(6)`$ $`\mu `$s, in agreement with the 212Po table value $`T_{1/2}`$ = $`0.299(2)`$ $`\mu `$s .

Fig. 6 represents the spectrum after PS selection of the background events, whose $`SI`$ lie in the interval $`SI_\gamma +2.4\sigma _\gamma <`$ $`SI`$ $`<`$ $`SI_\alpha +2.4\sigma _\alpha `$ ($``$90% of $`\alpha `$ events). The obtained distribution with maximum at 0.95 MeV is well reproduced by the model, which includes all $`\alpha `$ particles from chains in 232Th and 238U families. The total $`\alpha `$ activity of the 116CdWO4 crystals deduced from fig. 6 is 1.4(3) mBq/kg. This value can be adjusted with the activities determined by the time-amplitude analysis under usual (for crystals) assumption that secular radioactive equilibriums in some chains of 232Th and 238U families (like, f. e. 230Th $``$ 226Ra chain) are broken.

## III Results and discussion

### A Two-neutrino double beta decay of 116Cd

To determine the half-life of two-neutrino 2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd, the background in the energy interval $`900`$$`2900`$ keV was simulated with the help of GEANT3.21 package and event generator DECAY4. In addition to 116Cd two neutrino 2$`\beta `$ decay distribution, only three components shown in fig. 2 were used to build up the background model: 40K contamination of the enriched and natural CdWO4 scintillators, whose activity limits of less than 4 mBq/kg were established earlier , and external $`\gamma `$ background caused by 232Th and 238U contamination of the PMTs (one PMT for 116CdWO4 crystals; one for CdWO4; two for plastic active shield)The radioactive impurities of all PMTs used in the installation were previously measured by R&D low background set-up as (0.4–2.2) Bq/PMT and (0.1– 0.2) Bq/PMT for 226Ra and 228Th activity, respectively .. This simple background model describes experimental data in the chosen energy interval $`900`$$`2900`$ keV reasonably well ($`\chi ^2`$ =$`1.3`$) and gives the following results: the activities of 40K inside the enriched and natural CdWO4 crystals are equal 0.8(2) and 2.1(3) mBq/kg, respectively; the half-life of two-neutrino 2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd is $`T_{1/2}`$(2$`\nu `$) = 2.6(1)$`\times 10^{19}`$ yr (only statistical uncertainties are given, while systematical errors are pointed below).

Taking advantage of the high statistics in our experiment (approximately 3600 events of 116Cd two neutrino 2$`\beta `$ decay are contained within the interval $`900`$$`2900`$ keV), we can prove our model with the help of experimental $`2\nu 2\beta `$ decay Kurie plot: $`K(\epsilon )=[S(\epsilon )/\left\{(\epsilon ^4+10\epsilon ^3+40\epsilon ^2+60\epsilon +30)\epsilon \right\}]^{1/5}`$, where $`S`$ is the number of events with the energy $`\epsilon `$ (in electron mass units) in the experimental spectrum after background subtraction. For the real $`2\nu 2\beta `$ decay events such a Kurie plot should be the straight line $`K(\epsilon )(Q_{2\beta }\epsilon ),`$ where $`Q_{2\beta }`$ is the 2$`\beta `$ energy release. From fig. 7, where our experimental Kurie plot is depicted, one can see that in the region $`1.1`$$`2.4`$ MeV it is well fitted by the straight line with $`Q_{2\beta }=2790(87)`$ keV (table value is $`Q_{2\beta }=2805(4)`$ keV). To take into account the energy resolution of the detector the experimental spectrum was also fitted by the convolution of the theoretical $`2\nu 2\beta `$ distribution $`\rho (\epsilon )=A\epsilon (\epsilon ^4+10\epsilon ^3+40\epsilon ^2+60\epsilon +30)(Q_{2\beta }\epsilon )^5`$ with the detector resolution function (Gaussian with $`FWHM`$ determined as described above) with $`A`$ and $`Q_{2\beta }`$ values as free parameters. This fit in the energy region $`1.2`$$`2.8`$ MeV yields a very similar value $`Q_{2\beta }=2779(52)`$ keV and an $`A`$ corresponding to $`T_{1/2}`$(2$`\nu )=`$ 2.5(3)$`\times `$1$`0^{19}`$ yr, thus justifying our assumption that experimental data in the region above 1.2 MeV are related mainly with 116Cd two neutrino $`2\beta `$ decay. In fact, a signal to background ratio deduced from our data is 4:1 for the energy interval $`1.2`$$`2.9`$ MeV, and 15:1 for the energy range $`1.6`$$`2.9`$ MeV, which are higher than those reached up-to-date in other $`2\beta `$ decay experiments .

To estimate systematical uncertainties of the measured half-life, different origins of errors were taken into account, whose contributions are listed in Table I. The final value is equal to:

$`T_{1/2}(2\nu )=2.6\pm 0.1`$(stat)$`{}_{}{}^{+0.7}{}_{0.4}{}^{}`$(syst)$`\times `$1$`0^{19}`$ yr.

Our result is in agreement with those measured earlier ($`T_{1/2}(2\nu )=2.6_{0.5}^{+0.9}\times 10^{19}`$ yr  and $`T_{1/2}(2\nu )=2.7_{0.4}^{+0.5}`$(stat)$`{}_{}{}^{+0.9}{}_{0.6}{}^{}`$(syst)$`\times 10^{19}`$ yr ) and disagrees to some extent with the value $`T_{1/2}(2\nu )=3.75\pm 0.35`$(stat)$`\pm 0.21`$(syst)$`\times 10^{19}`$ yr from ref. \**\**\**Note, that in  the quite small detection efficiency ($`1.73\%`$) was calculated by the Monte Carlo method without experimental test, thus perhaps systematical error could be higher than quoted value..

### B New limits for 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd to ground state of 116Sn

To estimate the half-life limit for the neutrinoless decay mode, a simple background model was used. In fact, in the $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay energy region only three background contributions are important: (i) external $`\gamma `$ background from U/Th contamination of the PMTs; (ii) tail of the $`2\nu 2\beta `$ decay spectrum; and (iii) internal background distribution expected from the 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb decay (228Th chain). As it was shown above, two decays in the fast chain 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb really create the background in the region of $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay (see fig. 5c). For the activity of 228Th inside the 116CdWO4 crystals two values were obtained: 38(3) $`\mu `$Bq/kg (time-amplitude method) and 37(4) $`\mu `$Bq/kg (pulse-shape analysis). Hence, in the limit of statistical errors, we do not find an indication of a failure for the rejection of $`\alpha `$ pulses by our PS analysis.

The high energy part of the experimental spectrum of the 116CdWO4 crystals measured in anticoincidence with the shielding detectors and after the time-amplitude and pulse-shape selection is shown in fig. 8. The peak of $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay is absent, thus from the data we obtain a lower limit of the half-life: $`lim`$ $`T_{1/2}=\mathrm{ln}2N\eta t/limS,`$ where $`N=4`$.66$`\times `$1$`0^{23}`$ is number of 116Cd nuclei, $`t`$ is the measuring time ($`t=4629`$ h), $`\eta `$ is the total detection efficiency for $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay, and $`limS`$ is the number of events in the peak which can be excluded with a given confidence level. The value of the detection efficiency $`\eta _{MC}=0.83`$ was calculated by the DECAY4 and GEANT3.21 codes, while the efficiency of the PS analysis $`\eta _{PS}=0.98`$ was determined as described above, thus the total efficiency $`\eta =\eta _{MC}\eta _{PS}=0.81`$. To obtain the value of $`limS,`$ the part of the spectrum in the $`1.9`$$`3.8`$ MeV region was fitted by the sum of the simulated $`0\nu 2\beta `$ peak and three background functions (external $`\gamma `$ rays from PMT-s contamination; contribution from 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb intrinsic chain; and $`2\nu 2\beta `$ decay tail). This fit gives the value of $`S=1.1\pm 1.2`$ counts, which corresponds – in accordance with Feldman-Cousins procedure for results close to the edge of physically accepted area  recommended by the Particle Data Group (PDG)  – to a $`limS=0.9(0.3)`$ counts with 90%(68%) C.L., and subsequently to $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$2$`\beta )1.5(4.6`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{23}`$ yr at 90%(68%) C.L. However, because of the low statistics in the energy range where the effect is expected, the obtained values can be cross-checked in a more simple and explicit way. Indeed, in the energy interval $`2.6`$$`3.1`$ MeV (containing 91% of 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ peak) there is only one measured event, while the background expected on the basis of the GEANT simulation, in the same energy region is 3.2$`{}_{}{}^{+2.1}{}_{1.1}{}^{}`$ counts (1.9$`\pm `$0.7 events from PMT contamination; 0.4$`\pm `$0.1 events from 2$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ distribution; 0.9$`{}_{}{}^{+2}{}_{0.9}{}^{}`$ counts from mentioned 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb chain). Following the PDG recommendation  we can derive from these numbers the excluded limit as $`limS=1.8(0.5)`$ with 90%(68%) C.L., which leads to $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$2$`\beta )0.7(2.5`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{23}`$ yr at 90%(68%) C.L. confirming the previous estimate. Finally, the following values were accepted as conservative half-life limits for neutrinoless $`2\beta `$ decay of 116Cd:

$`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$2$`\beta )0.7(2.5`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{23}`$ yr, 90%(68%) C.L.

Using calculations , one can obtain restrictions on the neutrino mass and right-handed admixtures in the weak interaction: $`m_\nu 3.0`$ eV, $`\eta 3.`$9$`\times `$10-8, $`\lambda 3.`$4$`\times `$1$`0^6`$ at 90% C.L., and neglecting right-handed contribution $`m_\nu 2.6(1.4)`$ eV at 90% (68%) C.L. On the basis of calculations  we get a similar result: $`m_\nu 2.4(1.3)`$ eV at 90%(68%) C.L. In accordance with ref.  the value of the R-parity violating parameter of minimal SUSY standard model is restricted by our $`T_{1/2}`$ limit to $`\epsilon 8.8(6.4`$)$`\times `$1$`0^4`$ at 90%(68%) C.L. (calculations  give more stringent restrictions: $`\epsilon 3.4(2.4`$)$`\times `$1$`0^4`$).

### C The bounds on 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd to excited levels of 116Sn

Not only ground state (g.s.) but also excited levels of 116Sn with $`E_{lev}Q_{2\beta }`$ can be populated in 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd. In this case one or several $`\gamma `$ quanta, conversion electrons and/or e+e- pairs will be emitted in a deexcitation process, in addition to two electrons emitted in 2$`\beta `$ decay. The response functions of 116CdWO4 detectors for $`0\nu 2\beta `$ decay to the first and second excited levels of 116Sn (2$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ with $`E_{lev}=1294`$ keV and 0$`{}_{}{}^{+}{}_{1}{}^{}`$ with $`E_{lev}=1757`$ keV) were simulated with the help of GEANT3.21 and DECAY4 codes. The full absorption of all emitted particles should result in the peak with $`E=Q_{2\beta }`$ (practically the same peak as it is expected for the 0$`\nu 2\beta `$ decay of 116Cd to the g.s. of 116Sn). Calculated full peak efficiencies are: $`\eta (2_1^+)=0.14`$ and $`\eta (0_1^+)=0.07`$. These numbers and the value of $`limS=1.8(0.5)`$ with 90%(68%) C.L. (determined for the g.s.$``$g.s. transition) give the following restrictions on half-lives of 116Cd neutrinoless $`2\beta `$ decay to excited levels of 116Sn:

$`T_{1/2}`$(g.s.$``$ $`2_1^+)1.3(4.8`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{22}`$ yr, 90%(68%) C.L.,

$`T_{1/2}`$(g.s.$``$ $`0_1^+)0.7(2.4`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{22}`$ yr, 90%(68%) C.L.

### D Neutrinoless 2$`\beta `$ decay with Majoron(s) emission

The procedure to obtain half-life limits for 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay with one (two) Majoron(s) emission was carried out in two steps as follows. First, because in the measured spectrum contributions of 40K are negligible above the energy 1.6 MeV, the data were fitted in the energy region 1.6–2.8 MeV for 0$`\nu `$M1 mode (1.6–2.6 MeV for 0$`\nu `$M2) by using only three theoretical distributions: $`\gamma `$ background from measured PMT-s contamination (226Ra and 232Th chains) and two neutrino 2$`\beta `$ decay of 116Cd, as background, and 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay with one (two) Majoron(s) emission, as effect. With this simple model the $`\chi ^2`$ value was equal to 1.1 both for 0$`\nu `$M1 and 0$`\nu `$M2 fits. As a result, the number of events under a theoretical 0$`\nu `$M1 curve was determined as $`9\pm 21`$, giving no statistical evidence for the effect. It leads to an upper limit of 41(26) events at 90%(68%) C.L., that together with an efficiency value $`\eta =0.905`$ corresponds to the half-life limit $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) $`3.7(5.9`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{21}`$ yr. A similar procedure for 0$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay with two Majorons emission gives $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M2) $`5.9(9.4`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{20}`$ yr at 90%(68%) C.L. The part of the experimental spectrum and theoretical 0$`\nu `$M1 and 0$`\nu `$M2 distributions with half-lives equal to these limits are shown in fig. 8. On one hand, the obtained results can be treated as conservative because the accepted background model consists of only two origins, the external background from U/Th contamination of the PMT and 2$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay distribution, while in the energy region of interest some other sources of background, such as the mentioned 212Bi $``$ 212Po $``$ 208Pb chain contribution from the intrinsic impurities of the crystals, could enlarge the 0$`\nu `$M1 and 0$`\nu `$M2 limits. On the other hand, the uncertainty of the 2$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay half-life of 116Cd could lead to the overestimated value of the 0$`\nu `$M1 bound. To avoid the last possibility we have estimated the $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) limit in a more explicit way. With this aim the energy interval 2.5–2.8 MeV – where the tail of 2$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay distribution is practically zero (see fig. 8) – was used as the most sensitive region for the 0$`\nu `$M1 double $`\beta `$ decay search. In this energy interval the number of measured counts is 3, while the expected contribution (in the same energy range) from the PMT contamination is 3.2$`\pm `$1.0 events and from 2$`\nu `$2$`\beta `$ decay is 1.5$`\pm `$0.5 events, thus the total expected background is 4.7$`\pm `$1.1 counts. Following the PDG recommendation  we can derive from these numbers the excluded limit for the effect being sought as 3.0 events with 90% C.L. Taking into account that the interval 2.5–2.8 MeV contains 8.9% of full 0$`\nu `$M1 curve, it yields a limit of $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) $``$4.5$`\times `$1$`0^{21}`$ yr (90% C.L.), confirming the preceding estimate:

$`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) $`3.7(5.9`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{21}`$ yr, 90%(68%) C.L.,

$`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M2) $`5.9(9.4`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{20}`$ yr, 90%(68%) C.L.

Both present half-life limits are more stringent than those established in our previous measurement during 19986 h  and in the NEMO experiment .

The probability of neutrinoless 2$`\beta `$ decay with Majoron emission can be expressed as: $`\left\{T_{1/2}(0\nu M1)\right\}^1`$= $`<g_M>^2`$NME$`^2G,`$ where $`<g_M>`$ is the effective Majoron-neutrino coupling constant, NME is the nuclear matrix element and $`G`$ is the kinematical factor. Using our result $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$M1) $`3.7(5.9`$)$`\times `$1$`0^{21}`$ yr and values of $`G`$ and NME calculated in the QRPA model with proton-neutron pairing  we obtain $`g_M12(9.5`$)$`\times `$1$`0^5`$ ($`g_M6`$.5(5.4)$`\times `$1$`0^5`$ on the basis on calculation ) with 90%(68%) C.L., which is one of the best restriction up-to-date obtained in the direct 2$`\beta `$ decay experiments .

## IV Conclusion

The search for 116Cd double $`\beta `$ decay with enriched 116CdWO4 scintillators has entered in a new phase. The set-up with four 116CdWO4 crystals (339 g) is running since October 1998. Improved passive shield, new active shield made of fifteen CdWO4 crystals (total mass 20.6 kg), as well as time-amplitude and pulse-shape analysis of the data result in the reduction of the background rate in the $`2.5`$$`3.2`$ MeV region to 0.03 counts/yr$``$kg$``$keV. This reduction, together with an about threefold increase in the number of 116Cd nuclei, leads to the substantial sensitivity enhancement of the 116Cd experiment by more than one order of magnitude. Due to that the neutrino mass limit of $`m_\nu 2.6(1.4)`$ eV at 90%(68%) C.L. was set after the first 4629 h run.

In August 1999 one of our 116CdWO4 crystals was annealed at high temperature, and its light output was increased by $``$13%. The PMT of the main 116CdWO4 detectors was changed by the special low background EMI tube (5 inches in diameter) with the RbCs photocathode, whose spectral response better fits the CdWO4 scintillation light. As a result, the spectrometric parameters of four crystals taken as a whole were improved. In particular, the energy resolution of the main detector is now 11.4% at 1064 keV and 8.6% at 2615 keV (comparing with those before this upgrading: 14.5% and 11%). Besides, the PS discrimination ability of the detector was improved too, as it is visible from fig. 9, where the $`SI`$ distribution of the measured background events – before and after the last upgrading – is depicted. It is expected that after approximately 5 years of measurements the half-life limit $`T_{1/2}`$(0$`\nu `$2$`\beta )`$ 4$`\times `$1$`0^{23}`$ yr will be reached which corresponds to $`m_\nu 1.2`$ eV. The bounds on neutrinoless 2$`\beta `$ decay with Majorons emission and 2$`\beta `$ transitions to the excited levels of 116Sn would be improved too.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors express their gratitude to M. Bini and O. Vihliy for their efforts to develop and test new data acquisition system for the experiment.