text:
# References

With nonzero neutrino mass recently reported by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration, it is expected that new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) should soon show up in experiment, a typical example would be the observation of rare processes especially those which are absolutely forbidden in the SM. The amply discussed electron-electron option of the future next linear collider (NLC) is an interesting area for investigating new physics. It provides the prospect for the discovery of Le, Lμ, Lτ lepton-number violation, especially the Dirac versus Majorana nature of neutrinos, their masses and mixing.

While the first question – are neutrinos massless or massive?– is presumably settled, the second question on the neutrinos nature – are they Dirac or Majorana particles ? – remains poorly known. The purpose of this note is to point out that the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ reaction could open a new window to answer the second question, in competition with $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$, the ”gold-plated” neutrinoless double beta decay of nuclei $`(A,Z)(A,Z+2)+e^{}+e^{}`$ frequently discussed in the literature. We show that the two processses $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ and $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ are complementary, each one separately provides distinctive constraints to the Majorana nature of neutrinos, their masses and mixing. Therefore their observations could give two independent informations; both processes when considered together could further amplify our understanding in the nature and origin of neutrino masses, their Dirac or Majorana component. This $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ reaction is independent of $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$, in sharp contrast to the $`e^{}+e^{}`$ W$`{}_{}{}^{}+`$ W- process which is directly related to $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$. It is important to realize that while observation of $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay cannot be directly translated to a value for the neutrino mass, it can certainly be used to infer the existence of a non-vanishing Majorana mass regardless of whatever mechanism causes $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ to occur. Precisely, if $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ is not seen at a certain level, its absence does not imply an upper bound on Majorana neutrino mass, but if it is seen, its presence does imply a nonzero lower bound on neutrino mass. As we will see, these basic facts equally apply to the reaction $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ that we are discussing now.

In the minimal extension of the $`SU(2)_\mathrm{L}\times U(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$ Standard Theory with massive Majorana neutrinos, four Feynman diagrams contribute to the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ scattering in the most general renormalizable $`R_\xi `$ gauge. It is important to note that only massive Majorana neutrinos, but not massive Dirac neutrinos, can give rise to the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ reaction. The box with two left-handed W- gauge bosons exchanged shown in Fig.1 is one graph. The three others not shown here are similar to Fig.1 in which the W- is replaced in all possible ways by the unphysical Goldstone $`\varphi ^{}`$ boson, the one absorbed by the W- to get mass from the Higgs mechanism. Separately each of the four diagrams is $`\xi `$-dependent, only their sum is gauge-independent. The vertices $`\mathrm{}N`$W and $`\mathrm{}N\varphi `$ are given for instance in where $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the electron, muon or down-type quarks and $`N`$ the heavy neutrino fields or up-type quarks. The following identities are useful when dealing with Majorana neutral fermions:

$$\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)N=\overline{N^c}\gamma _\mu (1\pm \gamma _5)\mathrm{}^c\mathrm{and}\overline{\mathrm{}}(1\gamma _5)N=+\overline{N^c}(1\gamma _5)\mathrm{}^c,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}^c`$ and $`N^c`$ are respectively the charge-conjugate of the $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`N`$ fermionic fields, generically denoted by $`\psi `$ with $`\psi ^c=C\overline{\psi }^t`$ and $`C^1\gamma _\mu C=\gamma _\mu ^t`$. For Majorana field $`N_{\mathrm{maj}}`$, one has $`N_{\mathrm{maj}}^c=\eta ^{}N_{\mathrm{maj}}`$ where $`\eta `$ is the phase creation factor of the field $`N_{\mathrm{maj}}`$.

As an illustration, let us explicitly write down the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ amplitude given by the diagram of Fig.1, neglecting the external momenta (see however the remark below) and using the Feynman-’t Hooft $`\xi =1`$ gauge:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}^4\mathrm{k}}{(2\pi )^4}[\overline{\mu }\gamma ^\lambda (1\gamma _5)\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\overline{)k}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{i}}\gamma ^\rho (1+\gamma _5)\mu ^c][\overline{e^c}\gamma _\rho (1+\gamma _5)\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\overline{)k}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{j}}\gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)e]\frac{(\mathrm{i})^2}{(\mathrm{k}^2\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{W}^2)^2},$$
(2)
the factor $`\left(\frac{\mathrm{ig}}{2\sqrt{2}}\right)^4\left(U_{\mu i}U_{ej}^{}\right)^2\eta _i\eta _j^{}`$ is implicitly included. Here $`U_\mathrm{}i`$ denotes the Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (MKS) mixing matrix in the lepton sector, the analog of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) of the quark sector. The neutrino mass is $`M_i`$ and $`g^2/8M_\mathrm{W}^2=G_\mathrm{F}/\sqrt{2}`$ with $`G_\mathrm{F}1.166\times 10^5/`$(GeV)2 being the Fermi coupling constant.

The sum of the four diagrams yields the final result for the $`e^{}(p)+e^{}(p^{})\mu ^{}(P)+\mu ^{}(P^{})`$ amplitude denoted by $`𝒜`$,

$$𝒜=𝒦\frac{G_\mathrm{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{2\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\mathrm{W}}[\overline{u}(P)(1+\gamma _5)v(P^{})+PP^{}][\overline{v}(p)(1\gamma _5)u(p^{})+pp^{}],$$
(3)
where the identity

$$[\overline{u}\gamma ^\lambda \gamma ^\rho (1+\gamma _5)v]\left[\overline{v}\gamma _\rho \gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)u\right]=4\left[\overline{u}(1+\gamma _5)v\right]\left[\overline{v}(1\gamma _5)u\right]$$

has been used.

The coefficient $`𝒦`$ which encapsulates all the dynamics due to virtual Majorana neutrinos in the loops is found to be

$$𝒦=\underset{i,j}{}\eta _i\eta _j^{}\left(U_{\mu i}U_{ej}^{}\right)^2\sqrt{x_ix_j}\left[\left(1+\frac{x_ix_j}{4}\right)F(x_i,x_j)+\frac{G(x_i,x_j)}{2}\right]\mathrm{with}x_{i,j}=\frac{M_{i,j}^2}{M_\mathrm{W}^2},$$
(4)
and

$$F(x,y)=F(y,x)=\frac{1}{xy}\left[\frac{x\mathrm{ln}x}{(x1)^2}\frac{y\mathrm{ln}y}{(y1)^2}+\frac{xy}{(x1)(y1)}\right],$$
(5)
$$G(x,y)=G(y,x)=\frac{1}{xy}\left[\frac{x^2\mathrm{ln}x}{(x1)^2}\frac{y^2\mathrm{ln}y}{(y1)^2}+\frac{xy}{(x1)(y1)}\right].$$
(6)
The typical common factor $`\sqrt{x_ix_j}`$ in (4) which reflects the Majorana neutrino effect comes from the product

$$\left[\gamma ^\lambda (1\gamma _5)\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\overline{)k}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{i}}\gamma ^\rho (1+\gamma _5)\right]\left[\gamma _\rho (1+\gamma _5)\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\overline{)k}\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{j}}\gamma _\lambda (1\gamma _5)\right]$$

in (2). The first term $`F(x_i,x_j)`$ in the bracket of (4) comes from W- W- exchanged in Fig.1, the second term $`x_ix_jF(x_i,x_j)/4`$ from $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}`$ exchange and $`G(x_i,x_j)/2`$ from W$`{}_{}{}^{}\varphi _{}^{}`$ \+ $`\varphi ^{}`$W-. When Majorana neutrinos are involved, note the amusing fact that electron and muon can be described by the unusual spinor $`v`$ rather than the standard spinor $`u`$. Also we have

$$F(x,x)=\frac{(x+1)\mathrm{ln}x2(x1)}{(x1)^3},F(x,0)=\frac{1x+\mathrm{ln}x}{(x1)^2},F(1,1)=\frac{1}{6},F(1,0)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(7)
$$G(x,x)=\frac{1x^2+2x\mathrm{ln}x}{(1x)^3},G(x,0)=\frac{1x+x\mathrm{ln}x}{(x1)^2},G(1,1)=\frac{1}{3},G(1,0)=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(8)
The corresponding cross section is

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma }{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}}=|𝒦|^2\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{8\pi ^3\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{W}}G_\mathrm{F}^2s,\sigma =|𝒦|^2\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2}{4\pi ^3\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _\mathrm{W}}G_\mathrm{F}^2s,$$
(9)
where $`s=4E^2=(p+p^{})^2=(P+P^{})^2`$ is the total energy squared. With identical muons in the final state, the factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is included in the cross section.

Remark- In the box diagram calculation given above, only W boson as well as heavy Majorana neutrino masses are kept, while the external momenta are neglected. This approximation turns out to be not unreasonable for two reasons. First, for nonzero $`p,p^{},P,P^{}`$, explicit calculation can be done as it was performed previously in a different context, resulting in a complicated analytic formula with dilogarithm (Spence function) involved, instead of a simple logarithm in (5), (6). This approximation is equivalent to an expansion of $`𝒦`$ as a serie $`_nc_n(s/M_W^2)^n`$ for $`s<M_W^2`$. The leading term $`c_0`$ is given by (4), the coefficient $`c_1`$ of the first $`s/M_W^2`$ term is easily computed and similar to $`c_0`$ in their analytic expressions. For any fixed $`x_i,x_j`$, with $`\sqrt{s}100`$ GeV, numerically $`𝒦`$ (without the factor $`\eta _i\eta _j^{}(U_{\mu i}U_{ej}^{})^2`$) is damped by a factor of $`1.5`$ compared to (4). For $`\sqrt{s}=3M_W`$, we find numerically that $`|𝒦|`$ in (4) decreases by a factor of six, similarly to the case found in for the same kinematical $`s/M_W^2`$ value.

Second, in contrast to the $`e^{}+e^{}`$ W$`{}_{}{}^{}+`$ W- reaction where $`s>4M_W^2`$ is large, the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ is free of this experimental constraint and $`s`$ can be small so that the expansion in $`s/M_W^2`$ makes sense. Note the important fact that in (9), the linear dependence of the cross section on $`s`$ is simply due to the kinematical factor $`[\overline{u}(P)(1+\gamma _5)v(P^{})+PP^{}][\overline{v}(p)(1\gamma _5)u(p^{})+pp^{}]`$ in (3). This linear $`s`$ dependence of $`\sigma `$ tells us that the signal $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ may be observable at high energies due to kinematics; the dynamics in contained in $`𝒦`$ $``$

For heavy Majorana neutrinos $`x_i1`$, the most important contribution to $`𝒦`$ comes from the $`x^3F(x,x)`$ term due to $`\varphi ^{}\varphi ^{}`$ exchange which illustrates the non decoupling of heavy fermions in electroweak interactions, unlike QED or QCD. With $`x_i1`$ and for not too small mixing, i.e. $`\eta _i\eta _j^{}(U_{\mu i}U_{ej}^{})^2)10^1,10^2`$, the coefficient $`𝒦`$ could be of order $`𝒪(1)`$. The cross section $`\sigma `$ which linearly increases with $`s`$ could get a few femtobarn ($`10^{39}`$ cm2) at $`\sqrt{s}100`$ GeV. This indicates a readily detectable $`L_{e,\mu }`$ violating event in a collider with integrated luminosity of $`10^{33}/`$cm2s for a few months. We also note an important fact that the masses $`M_i`$ and the mixing $`U_\mathrm{}i`$ are in general independent each other. The assumed behaviour $`U_\mathrm{}i(m_{\mathrm{}}/M_i)^k`$ with $`k>0`$, inspired from the empirically observed CKM matrix in the quark sector, is necessarily model-dependent.

As already noted in, the important fact is that unlike the $`e^{}+e^{}`$ W$`{}_{}{}^{}+`$ W- process, the dynamical coefficient $`𝒦`$ in $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ is not directly related to the following relevant quantities in $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay which are either

$$\underset{j}{}\frac{\eta _j|U_{ej}|^2M_j}{q^2}$$
(10)
for light Majorana neutrinos ($`M_j^2q^2`$) where $`q100`$ MeV is the momentum transfer between nuclei, or

$$\underset{j}{}\frac{\eta _j|U_{ej}|^2}{M_j}$$
(11)
for heavy Majorana neutrinos ($`M_j^2q^2)`$.

The lastest neutrinoless double beta decay of 76Ge performed at the Gran Sasso laboratory gives

$$\left|\nu \right|_\mathrm{L}\underset{j}{}\eta _j|U_{ej}|^2M_j<0.2\mathrm{eV},$$
(12)
or

$$\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}\underset{j}{}\frac{\eta _j|U_{ej}|^2}{M_j}<10^5\mathrm{TeV}^1,$$
(13)
where the highly nontrivial nuclear physics matrix element $`\left|q^2\right|`$ is taken into account.

Since the neutrino masses $`M_i`$ and their mixing $`U_\mathrm{}i`$ enter differently in $`𝒦`$ on the one hand and in $`\left|\nu \right|_\mathrm{L}`$, $`\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}`$ on the other hand, the experimental constraints on $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ cannot be of direct use for $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$, contrarily to the $`e^{}+e^{}`$W- \+ W- case. Of course if all the $`M_i,M_j`$ are vanishingly small regardless of the mixing elements $`U_{ej}`$ and $`U_{\mu i}`$, then both $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ and $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ are desperately unobservable. However this scenario unlikely occurs. If the Majorana neutrinos are light, the small $`0.2`$ eV value in $`\left|\nu \right|_\mathrm{L}`$ is presumably due to the cancellation among different terms in (10), each term could have a larger mass and their mixing could have opposite sign.

The second scenario with superheavy Majorana neutrinos is equally possible provided that their masses and mixing satisfy the constraint (13) for $`\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}`$. This happens in grand unified theories and especially in the seesaw mechanism for which neutrinos with vanishingly small masses as reported in oscillation experiments are naturally understood and always accompanied by superheavy Majorana neutrinos. Here again different masses $`M_j`$ ranging from 100 GeV to 10 TeV can accommodate the $`\beta \beta _{o\nu }`$ data due to the cancellation among different terms in $`\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}`$. Within the constraint (13), our coefficient $`𝒦`$ is not negligibly small and could be easily of order $`𝒪(1)`$, for instance with $`M_1100`$ GeV and $`\eta _1U_{e1}^210^2`$ while $`M_21`$TeV and $`\eta _2U_{e2}^210^1`$, just to give a feel for the numbers.

By comparing (4) with (11), we note the crucial point: the combinations of masses and mixing in $`𝒦`$ and in $`\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}`$ are very dissimilar. Moreover the $`U_{\mu i}`$ is lacking in $`\left|\nu ^1\right|_\mathrm{H}`$ and present in $`𝒦`$, therefore while the constraint of $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ severely controls $`e^{}+e^{}`$W- \+ W-, it has little impact on $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$. We have two independent processes $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ and $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$, instead of only one with $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ and $`e^{}+e^{}`$W- \+ W-, the latter is, in some sense, redundant.

Our loop background given in (9) is now compared with the same process $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ governed by the tree diagram bilepton gauge boson $`Y^{}`$ exchange of the $`SU(3)_\mathrm{c}\times SU(3)_\mathrm{L}\times U(1)`$ model. The cross section in this model, denoted by $`\sigma (Y)`$, may be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\sigma (Y)}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}}=\frac{|\rho |^2}{8\pi }\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{W}}{M_Y}\right)^4\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}}{(1s/M_Y^2)^2}G_\mathrm{F}^2s,\sigma (Y)=\frac{|\rho |^2}{3\pi }\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{W}}{M_Y}\right)^4\frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2s}{(1s/M_Y^2)^2}$$
(14)
where $`\rho 1`$ is the electron-muon flavour mixing in the model. The factor $`|\rho |^2\left(\frac{M_\mathrm{W}}{M_Y}\right)^410^5`$ is comparable with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}^2|𝒦|^2/\pi ^2`$ in (9), since $`𝒦𝒪(1)`$ due to superheavy Majorana neutrinos involved. Also we note the difference between (9) and (14) in their $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{cm}}`$ angular distribution and in their $`s`$ dependence.

In conclusion, the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ could be of considerable importance to reveal the Majorana nature of neutrinos since massive Dirac neutrinos cannot give rise to this reaction. It should be therefore considered on the same footing with the neutrinoless double beta decay. Both processes are equally competitive in their probe of the neutrinos nature, masses and mixing. Contrarily to the low energy nuclei $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay where superheavy neutrinos imply $`1/M_j`$ behaviour from (11), the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ is more sensitive to the neutrino mass because of its $`M_j^2\mathrm{ln}(M_j)`$ dependence, as shown by (4) and (7). Paradoxically, unless nontrivial cancellation should occur in $`𝒦`$ between mixing $`U_\mathrm{}i`$ and masses $`M_i`$, the $`e^{}+e^{}\mu ^{}+\mu ^{}`$ cross section could be too large for $`M_iM_\mathrm{W}`$. In any way, our result (9) provides the inevitable background that must be confronted ”new physics” models in the search of lepton-number violation.


format: text

text:
# On symplectic classification of effective 3-forms and Monge-Ampère equations.

## 1. Formulation of the problem

Let $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a symplectic $`2n`$-dimensional vector space over $``$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:VV^{}`$ the isomorphism determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`X_\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)`$ be the unique bivector which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(X_\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V^{})`$ is the exterior power of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ 111We denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(V^{})`$ the space of exterior forms on a vector space $`V`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)`$ the space of differential forms on a manifold $`X`$.

One can introduce the operators $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k2}(V^{})`$, $`\omega i_{X_\mathrm{\Omega }}\omega `$ and $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}(V^{})`$, $`\omega \omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see ). They have the following properties:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}[,](\omega )=(nk)\omega \text{}\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{});\hfill & \\ :\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k2}(V^{})\text{ is into for }kn+1;\hfill & \\ :\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{k+2}(V^{})\text{ is onto for }kn1.\hfill & \end{array}$$

We will say that a $`k`$-form $`\omega `$ is effective if $`\omega =0`$ and we will denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^k(V^{})`$ the vector space of effective $`k`$-forms on $`V`$. When $`k=n`$, $`\omega `$ is effective if and only if $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

The next theorem explains the fundamental role played by the effective forms in the theory of Monge-Ampère operators (see ):

###### THEOREM 1.1 (Hodge-Lepage-Lychagin).

1. Every form $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^k(V^{})`$ can be uniquely decomposed into the finite sum

$$\omega =\omega _0+\omega _1+^2\omega _2+\mathrm{},$$

where all $`\omega _i`$ are effective forms.
2. If two effective $`k`$-forms vanish on the same $`k`$-dimensional isotropic vector subspaces in $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, they are proportional.

Let $`M`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional smooth manifold. Denote by $`J^1M`$ the space of $`1`$-jets of smooth functions on $`M`$. Let $`j^1(f):MJ^1M,x[f]_x^1`$ be the natural section associated with the smooth function $`f`$ on $`M`$. The Monge-Ampère operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega :C^{\mathrm{}}(M)\mathrm{\Omega }^n(M)`$ associated to a differential $`n`$-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^n(J^1M)`$ is the differential operator defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (f)=j_1(f)^{}(\omega )$$

Let $`U`$ be the contact form on $`J^1M`$ and $`X_1`$ be the Reeb’s vector field. Denote $`C(x)=Ker(U_x)`$ for $`xJ^1M`$. Note that $`(C(x),dU_x)`$ is a $`2n`$-dimensional symplectic vector space and

$$T_xJ^1M=C(x)X_{1x}.$$

A solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega =0`$ is a legendrian submanifold $`L^{2n}`$ of $`(J^1M,U)`$ such that $`\omega |_L=0`$. Note that in each point $`xL`$, $`T_xL`$ is a lagrangian subspace of $`(C(x),dU_x)`$. If the projection $`\pi :J^1MM`$ is a local diffeomorphism on $`L`$ then $`L`$ is locally the graph of a section $`j^1(f)`$, where $`f`$ is a regular solution of the equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega (f)=0`$.

We will denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(C^{})`$ the space of differential forms vanishing on $`X_1`$. In each point $`x`$, $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^k(C^{}))_x`$ can be naturally identified with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(C(x)^{})`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^{}(C^{})`$ be the space of forms which are effective on $`(C(x),dU_x)`$ in each point $`xJ^1M`$. The first part of the theorem 1.1 means that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^{}(C^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(J^1M)/I_C,$$

where $`I_C`$ is the Cartan ideal generated by $`U`$ and $`dU`$. The second part means that two differential $`n`$-forms $`\omega `$ and $`\theta `$ on $`J^1M`$ determine the same Monge-Ampère operator if and only if $`\omega \theta I_C`$.

$`Ct(M)`$, the pseudo-group of contact diffeomorphisms on $`J^1M`$, naturally acts on the set of Monge-Ampère operators in the following way

$$F(\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }_{F^{}(\omega )},$$

and the corresponding infinitesimal action is

$$X(\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_X(\omega )}.$$

We are interested in the problem of local classification of Monge-Ampère operators in the dimension $`3`$ with respect to the action of the contact group. More precisely, we are interested in the symplectic operators, i.e., operators which satisfy

$$X_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }_{L_{X_1}(\omega )}=0.$$

Let $`T^{}M`$ be the cotangent space and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the canonical symplectic form on it. Let us consider the projection $`\beta :J^1MT^{}M`$, defined by the following commutative diagram:

Using $`\beta `$, we can naturally identify the space $`\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^{}(C^{}):L_{X_1}\omega =0\}`$ with the space of effective forms on $`(T^{}M,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Therefore, to classify the different orbits of symplectic Monge-Ampère operators on a smooth manifold $`M^n`$ with respect to the contact group, it is sufficient to classify the different orbits of the effective $`n`$-forms on the cotangent space $`T^{}M`$ with respect to the symplectic group.

## 2. Symplectic classification of effective $`3`$-forms in the dimension $`6`$

Let $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a $`2n`$-dimensional symplectic vector space over $``$. We will denote the vectors of $`V`$ by block letters and their images by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by small letters: if $`AV`$ then $`aV^{}`$ is defined by

$$a(B)=\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B).$$

A basis $`(A_1,\mathrm{},A_n,B_1,\mathrm{},B_n)`$ of $`V`$ will be called symplectic if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=a_1b_1+\mathrm{}+a_nb_n.$$

### 2.1. A recursive formula.

Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^n(V^{})`$. Choose two vectors $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B)=1`$ and let $`W`$ be the skew orthogonal to $`AB`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`W`$ and by $`^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ the corresponding operators.

The form $`\omega `$ can be uniquely decomposed in the following way

$$\omega =\omega _0ab+\omega _1a+\omega _2b+\omega _3,$$

with $`\omega _i\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(W^{})`$. Moreover, $`\omega `$ is effective, therefore we obtain:

1. $`^{}\omega _0=^{}\omega _1=^{}\omega _2=0`$
2. $`\omega _3=^{}\omega _0=\omega _0\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$

###### PROPOSITION 2.1.

In the symplectic decomposition $`V=W(AB)`$, $`\omega `$ can be expressed in a unique way:

$$\omega =\omega _0(ab\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+\omega _1a+\omega _2b,$$

where $`\omega _0`$, $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are effective on $`(W,\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$.

From this proposition it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^n(^{2n})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^{n2}(^{2(n1)})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^{n1}(^{2(n1)})\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^{n1}(^{2(n1)}),$$

and in particular,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(^6)=^4\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^2(^4)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^2(^4).$$

Consequently, the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(^6)`$ is $`4+5+5=14`$ . It is worth mentioning that the space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^2(^6)`$ is also $`14`$-dimensional, since it is the euclidean orthogonal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the Lie algebra $`so(6)`$ with respect to the canonical scalar product.

### 2.2. Effective $`2`$-forms in the dimension $`4`$.

The symplectic classification of the effective $`2`$-forms in the dimension $`4`$ is well-known (see for instance ):

###### PROPOSITION 2.2.

Let $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a $`4`$-dimensional symplectic vector space and $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^2(V^{})`$. If $`\omega 0`$ then there exists a symplectic basis $`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)`$ of $`V`$ such that:

1. $`\omega =\mu (a_1a_2b_1b_2)`$, $`\mu ^{}`$, if $`\omega `$ is elliptic, i.e., $`Pf(\omega )>0`$;
2. $`\omega =\mu (a_1a_2+b_1b_2)`$, $`\mu ^{}`$, if $`\omega `$ is hyperbolic, i.e., $`Pf(\omega )<0`$;
3. $`\omega =a_1a_2`$, if $`\omega `$ is parabolic, i.e., $`Pf(\omega )=0`$.

Here the pfaffian $`Pf(\omega )`$ is the symplectic invariant defined by

$$\omega \omega =Pf(\omega )\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Note that this proposition can be immediately deduced from $`(\text{2.1})`$.

### 2.3. Effective $`3`$-forms in the dimension $`6`$.

Now let $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(V^6)`$ be an effective $`3`$-form in the dimension $`6`$.

Following V. Lychagin and V. Roubtsov (), let us associate to $`\omega `$ the quadratic form $`q_\omega S^2(V^{})`$:

$$q_\omega (X)=\frac{1}{4}^2\omega _X^2,$$

with $`\omega _X=i_X\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(V^{})`$.

In fact, this form gives us the roots of the characteristic polynom of $`\omega `$:

$$P_{\omega _X}(\lambda )=\frac{(\omega _X\lambda \mathrm{\Omega })^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }^3}=\lambda (\lambda \sqrt{q_\omega (X)})(\lambda +\sqrt{q_\omega (X)}).$$

Moreover, if $`FSp(6)`$ then one has

$$q_{F^{}\omega }(X)=q_\omega (F^1X).$$

This invariant provides us with some information about the decomposition 2.1 of $`\omega `$. More precisely, if in the symplectic decomposition $`V=W(AB)`$

$$\omega =\omega _0(ab\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+\omega _1a+\omega _2b$$

holds, then

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}q_\omega (A)=\frac{1}{4}^2(\omega _2\omega _2)\hfill & \\ q_\omega (A,B)=\frac{1}{4}^2(\omega _1\omega _2)\hfill & \end{array}$$

(we denote the symmetric bilinear form associated with $`q_\omega `$ also by $`q_\omega `$).

Therefore, one obtains:

(1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}q_\omega (A)=0\text{ }\omega _2\text{ is degenerate on }W\hfill & \\ q_\omega (A,B)=0\omega _1\omega _2=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

Now let us consider two distinct cases: $`q_\omega =0`$ and $`q_\omega 0`$.

#### 2.3.1. $`q_\omega =0`$

###### LEMMA 2.3.

If $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(V^6)`$ satisfies $`\omega \omega _X=0`$ for all $`XV`$, then there exists $`XV\{0\}`$ such that $`\omega _X=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`AV\{0\}`$: $`\omega \omega _A=0`$. This leads to $`\omega _A\omega _A=0`$ and, therefore, $`\omega _A`$ must have the form $`\omega _A=\theta _1\theta _2`$. Consequently, $`dim\{B:\omega _{AB}=0\}4`$ and there exists $`BV`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B)=1`$ and $`\omega _{AB}=0`$. Therefore, in the symplectic decomposition $`V=W(AB)`$ we obtain

$$\omega =\omega _1a+\omega _2b.$$

Moreover, $`q_\omega (B)=0`$, so $`\omega _1\omega _1=0`$ and then $`\omega _1=a_1a_2`$ with $`A_1,A_2W`$. Similarly, $`\omega _2=b_1b_2`$ with $`B_1,B_2W`$. Since both $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are effective, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A_1,A_2)=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_1,B_2)=0`$. We can suppose, for example, that $`A_10`$. If $`\omega _{A_1}=0`$ then the proof is finished. If not, since $`\omega _{A_1}=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_1,A_1)b_2b\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2,A_1)b_1b`$, we can suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B_1,A_1)0`$. Denote then:

$$B_2^{}=B_2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2,A_1)}{\mathrm{\Omega }(B_1,A_2)}B_1$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2^{},A_1)=0`$, $`\omega _{A_1}=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_1,A_1)b_2^{}b`$. Then necessarily $`B_2^{}0`$. Recall that $`\omega \omega _{A_1}=0`$ so we have $`a_1a_2b_2^{}=0`$, i.e. $`B_2^{}=\alpha _1A_1+\alpha _2A_2`$ and then,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2^{},A_1)=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2^{},A_2)=\mathrm{\Omega }(B_2^{},B_1)=0.$$

This implies that $`\omega _{B_2^{}}=0`$. ∎

###### PROPOSITION 2.4.

Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(V^6)`$ with $`q_\omega =0`$ and $`\omega 0`$. Then there exists a symplectic basis $`(A_1,A_2,A_3,B_1,B_2,B_3)`$ of $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ in which

$$\omega =a_1a_2a_3.$$

###### Proof.

For all $`X`$ and $`Y`$, $`^2(\omega _X\omega _Y)=0`$. Consequently, $`X,YV`$, $`^2(\omega _X\omega _Y)=^2\omega _X\omega _Y=0`$. Recall that $`:\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3+i}(V^6)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1+i}(V^6)`$ is into. This leads to the relation

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _X\omega _Y=0,$$

which holds for all $`X,YV`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }\omega _X=\mathrm{\Omega }_X\omega `$ since $`\omega `$ is effective. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X\omega \omega _Y=0`$, for all $`X,YV`$ and $`\omega \omega _Y=0`$ holds for all $`YV`$. Applying lemma 2.3, we can deduce that there exists $`AV\{0\}`$ such that $`\omega _A=0`$. Let then $`BV`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B)=1`$. In the symplectic decomposition $`W(AB)`$ we obtain

$$\omega =\omega _1a,$$

where $`\omega _1`$ is an effective form on $`W`$. Moreover, $`\omega _1`$ is parabolic on $`W`$, since $`q_\omega (B)=0`$. From 2.2 one can conclude that there exists a symplectic basis $`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)`$ of $`W`$ in which

$$\omega _1=a_1a_2.$$

#### 2.3.2. $`q_\omega 0`$.

Consider a non-zero vector $`AV`$ and denote $`E_A=Ker(\omega _A:VV^{})`$.

###### LEMMA 2.5.

If $`q_\omega (A)0`$ then $`dim(E_A)=2`$.

###### Proof.

$`\omega _A`$ is non-degenerate on any subspace $`Z`$ of $`V`$ such that $`V=ZE_A`$. Therefore, $`dim(E_A)`$ must be even. Moreover, $`\omega _A\omega _A\mathrm{\Lambda }^4(Z^{})`$ is not zero, so $`dim(E_A)2`$. Since $`AE_A`$, $`dim(E_A)=2`$. ∎

###### LEMMA 2.6.

If $`q_\omega (A)0`$ then $`E_A`$ is not isotropic.

###### Proof.

Let $`B`$ be a vector satisfying $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B)=1`$ and let $`\omega =\omega _0(ab\mathrm{\Omega }^{})+\omega _1a+\omega _2b`$ be the symplectic decomposition of $`\omega `$ in $`W(AB)`$. If $`CE_A`$ with $`ABC0`$, we can write $`C=D+\alpha A+\beta B`$, $`DW\{0\}`$. Then, if we assume that $`\beta =0`$ for such a $`C`$, it is straightforward to obtain

$$0=i_{AC}\omega =i_C(\omega _0\alpha \omega _2)=\omega _0(D)\alpha i_D\omega _2,$$

and therefore, $`i_D\omega _2=0`$. However, since $`q_\omega (A)0`$, $`\omega _2`$ is non-degenerate on $`W`$ and then $`D=0`$. It is impossible, so we can conclude that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,C)=\beta 0`$. ∎

Choose then $`B_0E_A`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A,B)=1`$ and denote $`B=B_0+tA`$, with $`t=\frac{q_\omega (A,B_0)}{q_\omega (A)}`$. In the symplectic decomposition $`W(AB)`$ we have

$$\omega =\omega _1a+\omega _2b,$$

where $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are effective on $`W`$ and $`\omega _1`$ is non-degenerate. At last, $`q_\omega (A,B)`$ equals to zero and so does $`\omega _1\omega _2`$. All this can be summarized to the following

###### PROPOSITION 2.7.

Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(V^6)`$ such that $`q_\omega 0`$. There exists a symplectic decomposition $`V=W(AB)`$ in which $`\omega `$ can be written as

$$\omega =\omega _1a+\omega _2b$$

Moreover, $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are effective on the symplectic space $`(W,\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$, while $`\omega _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are effective on the symplectic space $`(W,\omega _1)`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is non-degenerate, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is hyperbolic or elliptic on $`(V,\omega _1)`$. $`\omega _2`$ can be hyperbolic, elliptic or parabolic. A careful study of these six cases allows us to obtain all possible orbits. This study is a little bit long and tiresome, so we will only report the details of one case, which is most exemplary 222See () for the others: namely, the case of elliptic $`\omega _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$.

If $`\omega _2`$ is elliptic, then there exists a symplectic basis $`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)`$ of $`(W,\omega _1)`$ in which

$$\omega _2=\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1),\lambda 0.$$

After observing that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\omega _1=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\omega _2=0`$, we can conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=pa_1a_2+qb_1b_2+r(a_1b_2+a_2b_1)+s(a_1b_1a_2b_2).$$

Note that $`pq+r^2+s^2<0`$ since $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is elliptic. In particular, $`q`$ cannot be equal to zero. Let $`A_t`$ and $`B_t`$ be the transformations that depend on the real parameter $`t`$

$$A_t=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& t\\ 0& 1& t& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),B_t=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& t& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& t\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

($`A_t`$ and $`B_t`$ are written in the basis $`(A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2)`$). $`A_t`$ and $`B_t`$ fix $`\omega _1,\omega _2`$ and act on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the following way:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}(p,q,r,s)\stackrel{A_t}{}(pqt^22st,q,r,s+qt)\hfill & \\ (p,q,r,s)\stackrel{B_t}{}(pqt^2+2rt,q,r,rqt)\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let us apply the transformation $`B_u`$ and then the transformation $`A_v`$ with $`u=\frac{r}{q}`$ and $`v=\frac{s}{q}`$. In the new basis we will obtain:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _1=a_1b_1+a_2b_2,\hfill & \\ \omega _2=\lambda (a_1b_2a_2b_1),\hfill & \lambda 0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^{}=pa_1a_2+qb_1b_2,\hfill & pq<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

After applying the next transformation

$$F=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^t& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& e^t& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^t& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& e^t\end{array}\right),$$

with $`e^{4t}=\frac{q}{p}>0`$, we will get the following expression for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mu (a_1a_2b_1b_2)$$

(note that $`F`$ does not change $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$). In the symplectic basis $`(A_1^{}=A,A_2^{}=\mu A_1,A_3^{}=\mu B_1,B_1^{}=B,B_2^{}=A_2,B_3^{}=B_2)`$ of $`(V,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ one obtains

$$\omega =\frac{1}{\mu ^2}a_1^{}a_2^{}a_3^{}a_1^{}b_2^{}b_3^{}\frac{\lambda }{\mu }b_1^{}a_2^{}b_3^{}\frac{\lambda }{\mu }b_1^{}b_2^{}a_3^{}.$$

In the symplectic basis $`(A_1,A_2,A_3,B_1,B_2,B_3)`$, where

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}A_1=\mu A_1^{},\hfill & B_1=\frac{1}{\mu }B_1^{},\hfill \\ A_2=\mu \nu A_2^{},\hfill & B_2=\frac{1}{\mu \nu }B_2^{},\hfill \\ A_3=\nu B_3^{},\hfill & B_3=\frac{1}{\nu }A_3^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\frac{\mu }{\lambda }=\epsilon \nu ^2`$, $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$, we have

$$\omega =b_3a_1a_2b_2a_1a_3+\epsilon b_1a_2a_3\epsilon \nu ^2b_1b_2b_3.$$

Similar results concerning other cases lead us to the

###### THEOREM 2.8.

Let $`(e_1,e_2,e_3,f_1,f_2,f_3)`$ be a symplectic basis of a $`6`$ dimensional symplectic vector space $`V`$. Every effective $`3`$-form on $`V`$ is $`Sp(6)`$-equivalent to one and only one form of the table 1.

Note that we have abandoned the notation *block letters* $`\stackrel{\Gamma }{}`$ *small letters*. In what follows, it is more convenient to work in the dual basis $`(e_1^{},e_2^{},e_3^{},f_1^{},f_2^{},f_3^{})`$. There is an obvious correspondence between these two notations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }(e_i)=f_i^{}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }(f_i)=e_i^{}\hfill & \end{array}$$

## 3. The stabilizers of orbits and their prolongation

### 3.1. Stabilizers of the orbits.

Let us denote $`sp(V)=sp(6)`$ the Lie algebra of $`Sp(V)`$ and consider its action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(V^{})`$, induced by the action of $`Sp(V)`$:

$$X.\omega =L_X\omega $$

We compute here the stabilizers of the most significant orbits. Recall that the stabilizer of a form $`\omega `$ is:

$$𝒥_\omega =\{Xsp(V):L_X\omega =0\}.$$

Our forms have constant coefficients, therefore $`L_X\omega =d(i_X\omega )`$. Straightforward computation (made with help of Maple V) shows the following

###### PROPOSITION 3.1.

The stabilizers of forms $`1`$ to $`5`$ listed in table 1 are:

1. $`\omega =e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}+\gamma f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}`$, $`\gamma 0`$

$$𝒥_\omega =\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& 0\\ 0& B^t\end{array}\right):Bsl(3,)\};$$
2. $`\omega =f_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}+f_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+f_3^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+\nu ^2f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}`$, $`\nu 0`$

$$𝒥_\omega =\{\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \alpha & \beta & \lambda _1& \xi _1& \xi _2\\ \alpha & 0& \gamma & \xi _1& \lambda _2& \xi _3\\ \beta & \gamma & 0& \xi _2& \xi _3& \lambda _3\\ \nu ^2\lambda _1& \nu ^2\xi _1& \nu ^2\xi _2& 0& \alpha & \beta \\ \nu ^2\xi _1& \nu ^2\lambda _2& \nu ^2\xi _3& \alpha & 0& \gamma \\ \nu ^2\xi _2& \nu ^2\xi _3& \nu ^2\lambda _3& \beta & \gamma & 0\end{array}\right):\lambda _1\lambda _2+\lambda _3=0\};$$
3. $`\omega =f_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}f_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+f_3^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}\nu ^2f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}`$, $`\nu 0`$

$$𝒥_\omega =\{\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \alpha & \beta & \lambda _1& \xi _1& \xi _2\\ \alpha & 0& \gamma & \xi _1& \lambda _2& \xi _3\\ \beta & \gamma & 0& \xi _2& \xi _3& \lambda _3\\ \nu ^2\lambda _1& \nu ^2\xi _1& \nu ^2\xi _2& 0& \alpha & \beta \\ \nu ^2\xi _1& \nu ^2\lambda _2& \nu ^2\xi _3& \alpha & 0& \gamma \\ \nu ^2\xi _2& \nu ^2\xi _3& \nu ^2\lambda _3& \beta & \gamma & 0\end{array}\right):\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3=0\};$$
4. $`\omega =f_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}+f_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+f_3^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}`$

$$𝒥_\omega =\{\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \alpha & \beta & \lambda _1& \xi _1& \xi _2\\ \alpha & 0& \gamma & \xi _1& \lambda _2& \xi _3\\ \beta & \gamma & 0& \xi _2& \xi _3& \lambda _3\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha & \beta \\ 0& 0& 0& \alpha & 0& \gamma \\ 0& 0& 0& \beta & \gamma & 0\end{array}\right):\lambda _1\lambda _2+\lambda _3=0\};$$
5. $`\omega =f_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}+f_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}f_3^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}`$

$$𝒥_\omega =\{\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& \alpha & \beta & \lambda _1& \xi _1& \xi _2\\ \alpha & 0& \gamma & \xi _1& \lambda _2& \xi _3\\ \beta & \gamma & 0& \xi _2& \xi _3& \lambda _3\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \alpha & \beta \\ 0& 0& 0& \alpha & 0& \gamma \\ 0& 0& 0& \beta & \gamma & 0\end{array}\right):\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3=0\};$$

### 3.2. Prolongation of stabilizers.

We are interested now in the prolongation of these stabilizers. The prolongation of a linear subspace $`𝒥`$ of $`Hom(V,W)`$ is ():

$$𝒥^{(1)}=\{THom(V,𝒥):Tuv=Tvuu,vV\}=(WS^2(V^{}))(𝒥V^{}).$$

In our case $`V=W`$ and $`𝒥=𝒥_\omega `$ is a subspace of $`sp(V)`$. An element $`\theta 𝒥_\omega V^{}sp(V)V^{}VV^{}V^{}`$ can be described as follows:

$`\theta `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}b_{ij}^ke_ie_j^{}e_k^{}a_{ij}^ke_if_j^{}e_k^{}+c_{ij}^kf_ie_j^{}e_k^{}b_{ji}^kf_if_j^{}e_k^{}`$
$`+b_{ij}^{k+3}e_ie_j^{}f_k^{}a_{ij}^{k+3}e_if_j^{}f_k^{}+c_{ij}^{k+3}f_ie_j^{}f_k^{}b_{ji}^{k+3}f_if_j^{}f_k^{}`$
,
with $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_k& A_k\\ C_k& B_k^t\end{array}\right)𝒥_\omega sp(V)`$ for $`k=1\mathrm{}6`$. Note that $`\theta 𝒥_\omega ^{(1)}`$ if and only if

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\theta (e_j,e_k)=\theta (e_k,e_j),\hfill & \\ \theta (f_j,f_k)=\theta (f_k,f_j),\hfill & \\ \theta (e_j,f_k)=\theta (f_k,e_j).\hfill & \end{array}$$

If we take into account the next four relations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\theta (e_j,e_k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}b_{ij}^ke_i+c_{ij}^kf_i,\hfill & \\ \theta (f_j,f_k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_{ij}^{k+3}e_i+b_{ji}^{k+3}f_i,\hfill & \\ \theta (e_j,f_k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}b_{ij}^{k+3}e_i+c_{ij}^{k+3}f_i,\hfill & \\ \theta (f_k,e_j)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}a_{ik}^je_i+b_{ki}^jf_i,\hfill & \end{array}$$

we can conclude that $`\theta 𝒥_\omega ^{(1)}`$ if and only if for all $`i,j,k=1\mathrm{}3`$ the equalities

$`b_{ij}^k`$ $`=b_{ik}^j,`$
$`c_{ij}^k`$ $`=c_{ik}^j,`$
$`a_{ij}^{k+3}`$ $`=a_{ik}^{j+3},`$
$`b_{ji}^{k+3}`$ $`=b_{ki}^{j+3},`$
$`b_{ij}^{k+3}`$ $`=a_{ik}^j,`$
$`b_{ki}^j`$ $`=c_{ij}^{k+3},`$
are satisfied. This allows us to check that $`𝒥_\omega ^{(1)}=0`$ for the five first forms $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _5`$ listed in the table 1. These results are summed up in the table 2.

In this table we have identified $`sp(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ with $`S^2(V^{})`$ by means of the canonical isomorphism $`hS^2(V^{})X_hsp(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

## 4. Local symplectic classification of special Monge-Ampère equations

Now we are going to establish the conditions under which an effective $`n`$-form $`\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^n(T^{}M)`$ with non-constant coefficients is in the same orbit as an effective $`n`$-form $`\omega _1\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^n(T^{}M)`$ with constant coefficients.

This problem is equivalent to the resolution of the differential equation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }J^1(2n,2n)`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{[F]_q^1:[F^{}\omega _1\omega _2]_q^0=0\text{ and }[F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }]_q^0=0\}.$$

Recall that $`J^1(m,m)`$ is the space of $`1`$-jets of smooth maps $`^m^m`$ with the canonical system of coordinates $`(q,u,p)`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}q_i([F]_q^1)=q_i\hfill & i=1\mathrm{}m;\hfill \\ u_i([F]_q^1)=F_i(q)\hfill & i=1\mathrm{}m;\hfill \\ p_{ij}([F]_q^1)=\frac{F_i}{q_j}(q)\hfill & i,j=1\mathrm{}m;\hfill \end{array}$$

### 4.1. Symbol of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

To simplify the notations, we put $`m=2n`$. One can write

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{L_1=\mathrm{}=L_r=L_{r+1}=\mathrm{}L_{r+s}=0\}J^1(m,m),$$

with

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}[F^{}\omega _1\omega _2]_q^0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑟}{}}L_i([F]_q^1)\alpha _i,\hfill & \{\alpha _i\}_{i=1\mathrm{}r}\text{ basis of }\mathrm{\Lambda }^n(^m)\hfill \\ [F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }]_q^0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑠}{}}L_{r+i}([F]_q^1)\beta _i,\hfill & \{\beta _i\}_{i=1\mathrm{}s}\text{ basis of }\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^m)\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\theta =[F]_{q_0}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The symbol $`g(\theta )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\theta `$ is the set of $`h=(h_{ij})^m^m`$, satisfying the relation

(2)
$$\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}h_{ij}\frac{L_k}{p_{ij}}(\theta )=0$$

for all $`k=1\mathrm{}r+s`$. Let $`hg(\theta )`$. Define $`H:^m^m`$ by

$$H(q)=(\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}h_{1j}(q_jq_j^0),\mathrm{},\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}h_{mj}(q_jq_j^0))$$

and put $`\varphi _t([G]_q^1)=[G+tH]_q^1`$, $`t`$. From $`(\text{2})`$ one can deduce the relations

$$\frac{d}{dt}L_k\varphi _t(\theta )|_{t=0}=0,$$

which hold for $`k=1\mathrm{}r`$. Taking into account that $`F_t=F+tH`$ and $`q_1=F(q_0)`$, we obtain

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{(T_{q_0}F_t)^{}\omega _{1,q_1}\omega _{2,q_0}}{t}=0\hfill & \\ \underset{t0}{lim}\frac{(T_{q_0}F_t)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{q_1}\mathrm{\Omega }_{q_0}}{t}=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

In other words,

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\psi _t^{}\omega _1\psi _0^{}\omega _1}{t}=0\hfill & \\ \underset{t0}{lim}\frac{\psi _t^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _0^{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{t}=0\hfill & \end{array}$$

where the linear map $`\psi _t:^m^m`$ is defined by

$$\psi _{ij}^t=\frac{F_i}{q_j}(q_0)+th_{ij}.$$

Therefore, $`L_X\omega _1=L_X\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ with $`X=(h_{ij})`$. This proves the following

###### PROPOSITION 4.1.

For all $`\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the symbol of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\theta `$ can be naturally identified with the stabilizer of $`\omega _1`$:

$$g(\theta )=𝒥_{\omega _1}$$

###### REMARK 4.2.

Note that the prolongation of the symbol coincides with the prolongation of the Lie subalgebra $`𝒥_{\omega _1}`$:

$$g^{(k)}(\theta )=𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(k)}\text{}k\text{.}$$

### 4.2. The bundle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$.

Let us find the obstructions for the map $`\pi _{k+1,k}:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$ to be surjective. In our case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}`$ is the differential equation

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}=\{[F]_q^{k+1}:[F^{}\omega _1\omega _2]_q^k=0\text{ and }[F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }]_q^k=0\}.$$

Let $`\theta =[F]_{q_0}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$. If we introduce the notation

$$\sigma _k(F)=[\omega _1F^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^k$$

and

$$\sigma _k(\theta )=\sigma _k(F)\text{ modulo }Im(c_k),$$

where $`c_k:S^{k+2}(^m)\mathrm{\Omega }^n(^m)`$ is defined by

$$c_k(h)=L_{X_h}(\omega _1),$$

we can formulate the next

###### PROPOSITION 4.3.

Let $`\theta =[F]_{q_0}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$. The intersection $`\pi _{k+1,k}^1(\theta )\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}`$ is not empty if and only if $`\sigma _k(\theta )=0`$.

###### Proof.

We can assume that $`F`$ is a polynomial map of degree less than $`k`$. Denote $`q_1=F(q_0)`$. We assume first that there exists $`\theta ^{}=[G]_{q_0}^{k+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}`$ such that $`[G]_{q_0}^k=[F]_{q_0}^k`$. Since $`(T_{q_0}G)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`T_{q_0}G`$ is an isomorphism and then $`G:(^m,q_0)(^m,q_1)`$ is a local diffeomorphism. Let $`\eta `$ be defined by

$$\eta =FG^1.$$

Denote $`P=[\eta ]_{q_1}^{k+1}id`$. $`P`$ is a homogeneous polynom of degree $`k+1`$. It is easy to check that for any form $`\omega `$ we have

(3)
$$[\eta ^{}\omega ]_{q_1}^k=[\omega ]_{q_1}^k+L_X[\omega ]_{q_1}^0,$$

where $`X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}P_i\frac{}{q_i}`$. Then, one gets

$`0`$ $`=[\omega _1G^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^k=[\omega _1\eta ^{}\omega _1]_{q_1}^k+[\eta ^{}(\omega _1F^1\omega _2)]_{q_1}^k=`$
$`=L_X(\omega _1)+[\omega _1F^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^k+L_X([\omega _1F^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^0).`$
However, $`[F]_{q_0}^k\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$, so $`[\omega _1F^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^0`$ must be zero. This leads to

$$\sigma _k(F)=L_X\omega _1.$$

Moreover, we have:

$$L_X\mathrm{\Omega }=[\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^k=[G^1F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^k=[[G^1]_{q_1}^{k+1}[F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^k]_{q_1}^k\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Recall that $`F`$ is a polynomial map with $`deg(F)k`$. Therefore,

$$[F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^k=[[F]_{q_0}^{k+1}[\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^k]_{q_0}^k=[[F]_{q_0}^k\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^k=[F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^{k1}=\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Since $`[G]_{q_0}^{k+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}`$, it is easy to check that

$$L_X\mathrm{\Omega }=[G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^k=0.$$

$`X`$ is a hamiltonian vector field with the homogeneous coefficents of degree $`k+1`$. Consequently, there exists $`hS^{k+2}(^m)`$ for which $`X=X_h`$.

Conversely, let us assume that there exists $`X=X_h`$ with $`h`$ in $`S^{k+2}(^m)`$ such that $`\sigma _k(F)=L_X\omega _1`$. Put $`\eta =id+P`$ with $`X=\underset{i=1}{\overset{𝑚}{}}P_i\frac{}{q_i}`$ and $`G=\eta ^1F`$. Similar considerations lead to

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}[\omega _1G^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^k=L_X(\omega _1)+\sigma _k(F)=0\hfill & \\ [\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^k=L_X\mathrm{\Omega }=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Consequently, one can conclude that $`[G]_{q_0}^{k+1}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}`$ and $`[G]_{q_0}^k=[F]_{q_0}^k`$. ∎

###### COROLLARY 4.4.

If $`𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(k)}=0`$ and $`\sigma _k(\theta )=0`$ then $`\pi _{k+1,k}:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k)}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$ is a local diffeomorphism in a neighbourhood of $`\theta _0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(k1)}`$.

###### Proof.

$`\pi _{k+1,k}`$ is surjective. Moreover,

$$Ker(T_{\theta _0}\pi _{k+1,k})=g^{(k)}(\theta )=𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(k)}=0.$$

Therefore, $`\pi _{k+1,k}`$ is a local diffeomorphism. ∎

### 4.3. Integrability of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Let $`\omega _1,\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^3(^6)`$ and suppose that $`\omega _1`$ has constant coefficients and satisfies the equation $`𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(1)}=0`$. Besides, suppose that:

1. for all $`q`$ in a neighbourhood of $`q_0`$, $`\omega _2(q)`$ is in the same orbit as $`\omega _1`$.
2. for all $`\theta `$ in a neighbourhood of $`\theta _0=[F]_{q_0}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\sigma _1(\theta )=0`$.
3. for all $`\theta ^{}`$ in a neighbourhood of $`\theta _0^{}=[F]_{q_0}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$, $`\sigma _2(\theta )=0`$.

It follows from 4.4 that $`\pi _{3,2}:(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)},\theta _0^{\prime \prime })(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)},\theta _0^{})`$ and $`\pi _{2,1}:(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)},\theta _0^{})(\mathrm{\Sigma },\theta _0)`$ are local diffeomorphisms.

Let $`D:\theta C(\theta )T_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ be the restriction of the Cartan distribution on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$. Recall that $`C(\theta )`$ is the vector space generated by the $`T_\theta j_2G`$ where $`[G]_q^2=\theta `$. Let $`\theta =[F]_q^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ be in a neighbourhood of $`\theta _0^{}`$. Choose $`F`$ such that $`[F]_q^3\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$: $`T_\theta j_2FC(\theta )`$. Moreover, $`[F]_q^3\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(2)}`$ if and only if $`T_\theta j_2FT_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$. Therefore,

$$T_\theta j_2FD(\theta ).$$

Let $`G`$ be a map satisfying $`[G]_q^2=\theta `$. For any $`XT_\theta j_2GT_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ there exists $`X_FT_\theta j_2F`$ such that $`XX_FKer(T_\theta \pi _{2,1})`$. However, since $`X,X_FT_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$, we obtain

$$XX_FT_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}Ker(T_\theta \pi _{2,1})=g^{(1)}(\theta )=𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(1)}=0,$$

and then $`XT_\theta j_2F`$.

Finally, for all $`\theta `$ in a neighbourhood of $`\theta _0^{}`$ there exists $`F`$ such that $`D(\theta )=T_\theta j_2(F)`$. Therefore, $`D`$ is completely integrable on $`J^2(6,6)`$ and, according to the Frobenius theorem, it is completely integrable on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$.

Consequently, there exists a submanifold $`L_0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$ which is an integral submanifold of $`D`$ containing $`\theta _0^{}`$. Locally $`L_0=j_2G`$ if and only if $`\pi _{2,0}:L_0^6`$ is a local diffeomorphism. However, there exists $`F_0`$ such that $`T_{\theta _0^{}}L_0=D(\theta _0^{})=T_{\theta _0^{}}j_2F_0`$ and $`T_{\theta _0^{}}\pi _{2,0}:T_{\theta _0^{}}L_0^6`$ is an isomorphism: $`L_0=j_2G`$ locally.

###### PROPOSITION 4.5.

Let $`\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }_\epsilon ^3(^6)`$ be a form with the following local properties:

1. for every $`q`$, $`\omega _2(q)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ^3(^6)`$ belongs to the $`Sp(6)`$-orbit of a form $`\omega _1`$ with constant coefficients, satisfying $`𝒥_{\omega _1}^{(1)}=0`$;
2. $`\sigma _1=\sigma _2=0`$.

Then, locally, $`\omega _2`$ belongs to the orbit of $`\omega _1`$.

### 4.4. Another expression for $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$.

Let $`\theta =[F]_{q_0}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We assume that $`F:(^6,q_0)(^6,q_1)`$ is affine. Denote

$$[\omega _2]_{q_0}^1=\omega _2^0+\omega _2^1,$$

where $`\omega _2^0=\omega _2(q_0)`$ has constant coefficients and $`\omega _2^1=[\omega _2]^1\omega _2(q_0)`$ has linear coefficients.

###### LEMMA 4.6.

$`\sigma _1(\theta )=0`$ if and only if there exists $`hS^3(^6)`$ such that

$$\omega _2^1=L_{X_h}\omega _2^0$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`F`$ satisfies:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}F^{}\omega _1=\omega _2^0\hfill & \\ F^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }\hfill & \end{array}$$

Therefore,

$$\sigma _1(F)=[\omega _1F^1\omega _2]_{q_1}^1=\omega _1[[F^1]_{q_1}^2[\omega _2]_{q_0}^1]_{q_1}^1=\omega _1F^1(\omega _2^0+\omega _2^1)=F^1\omega _2^1$$

and

$$\omega _2^1=F^{}(\sigma _1(F)).$$

After observing that for any form $`\omega `$ the relation

$$F^{}L_Y\omega =L_XF^{}\omega $$

must hold ($`TF(X)=YF`$), we get the result. ∎

Now we can study $`\sigma _2`$. Let $`\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$. Let us choose a linear map $`F:(^6,q_0)(^6,q_1)`$ for which $`[F]_{q_0}^1=\theta `$, and consider the map $`G`$ such that $`[G]_{q_0}^2=\theta `$ and $`G^1`$ is polynomial of degree less than $`2`$:

$$G^1=\eta F^1,$$

where $`\eta =id+Q`$, $`Q`$ is a homogeneous polynom of degree $`2`$. Let us denote

$$V_i(q)=\frac{1}{6}\underset{j,k,l=1}{\overset{6}{}}a_{jkl}^i(q_jq_j^0)(q_kq_k^0)(q_lq_l^0)$$

for $`i=1\mathrm{}6`$, with

$$a_{jkl}^i=\underset{m=1}{\overset{6}{}}\frac{^2Q_i}{q_mq_k}\frac{^2Q_m}{q_jq_l}+\frac{^2Q_i}{q_mq_j}\frac{^2Q_m}{q_kq_l}+\frac{^2Q_i}{q_mq_l}\frac{^2Q_m}{q_jq_k}$$

and put $`U=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}Q_i\frac{}{q_i}`$, $`V=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}V_i\frac{}{q_i}`$. It is not difficult to check that for any form $`\omega _2`$

(4)
$$[\eta ^{}\omega _2]_{q_0}^2[\eta ^{}\omega _2]_{q_0}^1=\omega _2^2+L_U\omega _2^1+\frac{1}{2}(L_UL_U\omega _2^0L_V\omega _2^0).$$

Since $`[G]_{q_0}^2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(1)}`$, $`[\omega ^1G^1\omega _2]_{q_0}^1=[\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]=0`$, i.e., according to $`(\text{3})`$:

$$0=\omega _1F^1([\eta ^{}\omega _2]_{q_0}^1)=\omega _1F^1([\omega ]_{q_0}^1+L_U\omega _2^0)=F^1(\omega _2^1+L_U\omega _2^0)$$

and then $`\omega _2^1=L_U\omega _2^0`$. In a similar way we can check that $`L_U\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$: there exists $`hS^3(^6)`$ such that $`U=X_h`$. Moreover, $`deg(G^1)2`$, so

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }[[G^1]_{q_1}^3[\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^2]_{q_1}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }=[\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^2=0.$$

Therefore,

$$0=[\mathrm{\Omega }G^1\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_1}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }F^1[\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }]_{q_0}^2=\mathrm{\Omega }F^1(\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{2}(L_UL_U\mathrm{\Omega }L_V\mathrm{\Omega }))=F^1L_V\mathrm{\Omega }$$

and $`L_V\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, i.e. there exists $`kS^4(^6)`$ such that $`V=X_k`$. At last, we have checked that

$$\sigma _2(G)=F^1(\omega _2^2\frac{1}{2}(L_UL_U\omega _2^0+L_V\omega _2^0)).$$

###### PROPOSITION 4.7.

$`\sigma _1([G]_{q_0}^1)=\sigma _2([G]_{q_0}^2)=0`$ if and only if there exist $`hS^3`$ and $`kS^4`$ for which

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _2^1=L_{X_h}\omega _2^0\hfill & \\ \omega _2^2=\frac{1}{2}(L_{X_h}\omega _2^1+L_{X_k}\omega _2^0)\hfill & \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Suppose first that $`\sigma _2([G]_{q_0}^2)=0`$. Then there exists $`W=X_k`$ with $`kS^4(^6)`$ such that $`\sigma _2(G)=L_W\omega _1`$. So, one has

$$L_W\omega _0=F^1(\omega _2^2\frac{1}{2}(L_UL_U\omega _2^0+L_V\omega _2^0)).$$

Therefore,

$$\omega _2^2=\frac{1}{2}(L_{U_0}\omega _2^1+L_{V_0}\omega _2^0)$$

with $`U_0=X_h`$, $`hS^3`$, $`V_0=X_k`$, $`kS^4`$ and $`L_{U_0}\omega _2^0=\omega _2^1`$.

Conversely, if there exist $`hS^3`$ and $`kS^4`$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _2^1=L_{U_0}\omega _2^0\hfill & \\ \omega _2^2=\frac{1}{2}(L_{U_0}\omega _2^1+L_{V_0}\omega _2^0)\hfill & \end{array}$$

with $`U_0=X_h`$ and $`V_0=X_k`$, then $`L_U\omega _2^0=L_{U_0}\omega _2^0`$. It means that $`U+U_0𝒥_{\omega _2^0}^{(1)}=0`$ and, therefore,

$$\sigma _2(G)=F^1(\omega _2^2\frac{1}{2}(L_UL_U\omega _2^0+L_V\omega _2^0))=F^1L_{\frac{VV_0}{2}}\omega _2^0=L_W\omega _1$$

with $`W=X_K`$, $`KS^4`$. ∎

###### THEOREM 4.8.

Consider a Monge-Ampère equation in the dimension $`3`$, corresponding to an effective $`3`$-form $`\omega `$, such that locally:

1. for all $`q`$, $`\omega (q)`$ belongs to one of the five first orbits listed in table 1
2. for all $`q`$, the exterior form $`[\omega ]_q^2=\omega ^0+\omega ^1+\omega ^2`$ satisfies

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega ^1=L_{X_h}\omega ^0\hfill & \\ \omega ^2=\frac{1}{2}(L_{X_h}\omega ^1+L_{X_k}\omega ^0)\hfill & \end{array}$$

with $`hS^3(^6)`$ and $`kS^4(^6)`$.

Then this differential equation is locally $`Sp`$-equivalent to one of the following equations:

$$\lambda +\mathrm{hess}(h)=0,\lambda 0$$

$$\frac{^2h}{q_1^2}\frac{^2h}{q_2^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_3^2}+\nu ^2\mathrm{hess}(h)=0,\nu 0$$

$$\frac{^2h}{q_1^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_2^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_3^2}\nu ^2\mathrm{hess}(h)=0,\nu 0$$

$$\frac{^2h}{q_1^2}\frac{^2h}{q_2^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_3^2}=0$$

$$\frac{^2h}{q_1^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_2^2}+\frac{^2h}{q_3^2}=0$$

where $`\mathrm{hess}(h)`$ is the hessian of $`h`$.


text:
# A waveguide atom beamsplitter for laser-cooled neutral atoms

## Abstract

A laser-cooled neutral-atom beam from a low-velocity intense source is split into two beams while guided by a magnetic-field potential. We generate our multimode-beamsplitter potential with two current-carrying wires on a glass substrate combined with an external transverse bias field. The atoms bend around several curves over a $`10`$-cm distance. A maximum integrated flux of $`1.510^5\mathrm{atoms}/\mathrm{s}`$ is achieved with a current density of $`510^4\mathrm{Ampere}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in the 100-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ diameter wires. The initial beam can be split into two beams with a 50/50 splitting ratio.

Like their optical counterpart, atom beamsplitters are the pivotal element of atom-optical interferometers. While the original beamsplitter was perhaps the Stern-Gerlach apparatus , modern free-space beamsplitters are based on mechanical or light-based refractive elements. Such beamsplitters have been used with good success in Mach-Zehnder interferometers to measure the Sagnac-effect with high sensitivity . Free-space beamsplitters are generally characterized by small splitting angles because the effective grating spacing is large compared to the atomic de Broglie wavelength.

A waveguide-based beamsplitter has the potential to provide arbitrary splitting angles. Furthermore, the confining potential of a waveguide also suppresses the beam divergence and gravitational sag to which free-space interferometers are subjected. Several atom-guiding schemes using magnetic forces have been proposed and demonstrated . We recently demonstrated guiding a beam of laser-cooled atoms around a curve  using magnetic forces from photolithographically patterned current-carrying wires. The multimode-atom beamsplitter reported on here is a natural extension of our previously demonstrated guiding scheme. Like its fiber and integrated optical counterparts, our waveguide beamsplitter merges and then diverges two guiding regions.

We guide 87Rb atoms in a weak-field-seeking state along a magnetic-field minimum. This magnetic guide leads atoms around several curves to a beamsplitter region. Our beamsplitter region consists of two such magnetic-field minima that merge to one field minimum and separate again into two minima. A variable fraction of atoms initially launched into one of the two magnetic field minima are guided and transferred into the second magnetic field minimum at the beamsplitter region.

For our atom source we prepare a laser-cooled beam of $`{}_{}{}^{87}\mathrm{Rb}`$ atoms with a modified vapor-cell magneto-optical trap (MOT) . To generate our low-velocity intense source (LVIS) we drill a 500-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ hole in the center of a retro-reflecting mirror placed inside our vacuum chamber \[Fig. 1(d)\]. We couple LVIS atoms into our magnetic guide by positioning the guide opening directly behind the mirror hole. The atom’s internal state and velocity distributions are as measured previously .

We generate our one-dimensional guiding potential by adding an external transverse bias field to the magnetic field generated by a 100$`\times `$100-micron current-carrying wire on a glass substrate . The vector sum of the transverse bias field $`\stackrel{}{B}_{bias}`$ and the wire’s magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}_{wire}`$ becomes zero at a position outside the wire, if the bias field is smaller than the field generated by the wire at its surface \[Fig. 1(a)\]. As the bias field is increased (decreased) the position of the magnetic field minimum moves linearly toward (away from) the wire and the potential depth increases (decreases). Furthermore, when the wire’s magnetic-field maximum is twice the transverse bias field, the magnetic field zero is 50-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ above the current-carrying-wire surface and the field magnitude increases linearly with displacement in the transverse directions. We generate the transverse bias field for the guide with an electromagnet placed near the substrate \[Fig. 1(d)\]. An additional $``$14-G longitudinal bias field is applied to prevent the magnetic-field magnitude from vanishing at the field minimum. As the wire current and bias field are increased proportionally the magnetic-potential depth and gradient increase linearly, but the field-minimum position remains unchanged.

With current only in the wire positioned right behind the mirror hole, wire 1, and a 86-G external bias field applied we guide atoms and measure atom flux versus wire current for different bias fields. In this guiding experiment we run 35-msec-long current pulses of up to 5.5 A at a 1 sec repetition rate through wire 1. We choose short current pulses to prevent the glass substrate from overheating, allowing us to run larger wire currents than a continuous current would allow. After the atoms exit the guide, they are ionized by a hot wire and the subsequent ions are then detected by a channeltron. For each external bias-field value there is an optimum track current that maximizes the guided-atom flux \[Fig. 2(a)\]. For wire currents too large the magnetic-field minimum is shifted far away from the wire resulting in a reduced field gradient. This field-gradient reduction helps to couple atoms into the guide opening, but also leads to guiding losses as atoms can no longer be guided around the curves of the guide. When the track current is too low the generated magnetic-field gradient is sufficient to bend the atoms around the curve, but the field minimum is close to the wire surface and atom-surface interactions as well as a tighter guide opening result in a lower flux. Our guiding flux peaks when the condition for mode matching atoms into the guide opening and maintaining a sufficient gradient to bend atoms around the curves is optimized.

We measure the heating of guided atoms by comparing the transverse velocities before and after the guiding process. At a wire current of 5.0 A and a transverse bias field of $`86`$ G we measure the guided-atoms’ transverse-velocity profile by translating the hot wire transverse to the propagation direction to map out the spatial extent of the atom beam as it diverges from the guide exit \[Fig. 2(b)\]. The 70-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$-diameter hot wire is placed $`2.5`$ cm from the output of the magnetic guide. We calculate that the atoms’ emergence from the confining fields of the guide is almost completely non-adiabatic—the transverse kinetic energy of the emerging beam should thus be a faithful reflection of the transverse kinetic energy in the guide. From the width of the fit in Figure 2(b) we determine that the transverse-velocity distribution of the guided atoms is $`v_t=17.2\pm 3.5\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{sec}`$, in contrast to an initial transverse velocity of $`v_t=10.0\pm 1.5\mathrm{cm}/\mathrm{s}`$ of LVIS. We attribute the observed heating to the non-adiabatic loading of the LVIS atoms into the guide. An atom that enters the guide displaced from the magnetic field minimum experiences a sudden increase in its potential energy because it is not mode-matched to the guide. The additional potential energy increases its total energy inside the guide, which is converted into transverse kinetic energy once the atom leaves the guide. We believe this heating effect can be ameliorated by adiabatically loading the atoms into a tapered guide.

Once atoms are guided along the one-dimensional magnetic-field minimum we turn on our beamsplitter. As we increase the current running through wire 2 we observe that the flux from guide 2 increases and the flux out of guide 1 decreases. Figure 3(a) shows the flux of guided atoms coming out of each guide versus the current ratio between the two wires. As we change this current ratio we can tune the splitting ratio of our beamsplitter. We observe a dynamic range of the splitting ratio from 100/0 to 15/85. A 50/50 beamsplitter is achieved when the current in wire 2 is 85% of the current in wire 1. Aside from the current ratio there are two other parameters that determine the splitting ratio of our beamsplitter. First, as we change the applied transverse bias field we can vary the degree of overlap of the two magnetic field minima. For very large bias fields the two minima remain close to their respective wires and their overlap is small in the beamsplitter region. Second, the curvature of the guides in the beamsplitter region determines the manner in which the two magnetic-field minima merge. In our design the atoms are preferentially switched over into the secondary guide due to the wire curvature in the beamsplitter region. The guides bend with a radius of curvature of $``$30 cm into the splitter region and curve away with a radius of $``$70 cm. A calculation of our potential-minima trajectories shows that for this curvature the field minima follow straight lines that cross (Fig. 4). This means that atoms launched into guide 1, the primary guide of our beamsplitter, are more likely to switch over into guide 2, the secondary guide, than to continue along guide 1. This geometric feature of our beamsplitter is responsible for its bias toward coupling atoms into guide 2. Our experimental data shows that at a current ratio of 0.85 between guide 2 and guide 1 we compensate for the geometric bias of our beamsplitter and achieve 50/50 beamsplitting. As we increase the current in wire 2 to a current larger than in wire 1 the flux out of guide 2 peaks at a current ratio $`I_{wire2}/I_{wire1}=1.1`$ and decreases again beyond this value. This decrease is analogous to the observation in 2(a) where we found a decrease in guided-atom flux for wire currents in a non-optimum $`B_{wire}/B_{bias}`$-ratio regime.

We sum the flux from the output of both guides and find the total flux to remain roughly constant. This observed flux conservation of our beamsplitter as shown in Figure 3(a) is a strong function of the transverse bias field applied. For a current in wire 1 of 5.0 A and a longitudinal bias field of 14 G a transverse bias field of $`86`$ G is necessary to achieve a constant total flux as the current ratio is varied. This is 35% larger than the optimum bias field measured for maximum guiding efficiency when only one wire carries current. We postulate that the increased bias field separates the two magnetic field minima in the beamsplitter region making it easier for atoms to follow guide 1 instead of guide 2.

We model our beamsplitter design with a numerical simulation and find qualitative agreement with our measured data. The simulation calculates the classical trajectories of $`2.5\times 10^6`$ atoms through our beamsplitter potential and records which guide each atom exits \[Fig. 3(b)\]. The test atoms’ spatial initial conditions are spread over a $`100\times 100`$-$`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ aperture centered 60 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ above the wire and their initial velocities match the LVIS-velocity distribution at the guide opening. We use constant bias fields of 100 G in the transverse and 14 G in the longitudinal direction for the simulation shown. In our experiment these values are not constant along the entire guiding region, which limits the accuracy of our simulation. The simulation shows that more atoms are coupled into guide 2 than remain in guide 1 when the currents in both wires are equal, which confirms our idea that the beamsplitter is biased toward guide 2 by its geometric design. Further, a 50/50 beamsplitting is shown at a current ratio of 0.75, which compares well within the errors of the simulation to the measured current ratio of 0.85. Our simulation also shows a decrease in flux out of both guides at the largest current ratios as observed in our experiment.

In summary, we have split a beam of laser-cooled atoms while guided in a magnetic-field potential. We are able to vary the ratio of atoms coupled into the secondary guide from 0 to $``$85$`\%`$ by varying the current in wire 2. We demonstrate that moderate currents give guiding potential depths of several millidegrees Kelvin. In the future the question of coherent beamsplitting will have to be addressed. While coherence has been well established for free-space atom interferometers it has yet to be demonstrated that our waveguide beamsplitter preserves coherence.

The authors would like to thank Carl Wieman and Randal Grow for helpful discussions. This work was made possible by funding from the Office of Naval Research (Grant No. N00014-94-1-0375) and the National Science Foundation (Grant No. Phy-95-12150).