text:
# The 2dF QSO Redshift Survey.

## 1. Introduction

The observational aim of the 2dF QSO Survey is to use the new AAT 2dF fibre-optic coupler to obtain redshifts for 25000 B$`<`$20.85, 0$`<`$z$`<`$3 QSO’s in two $`75\times 5`$deg2 strips of sky in the RA ranges 21h50 - 03h15 at $`\delta `$ = -30 and 09h50 - 14h50 at $`\delta `$ = +00. The 2dF instrument allows spectra for up to 400 QSO candidates to be obtained simultaneously. The input catalogue is based on APM UBR magnitudes for $`7.5\times 10^6`$ stars to B=20.85 on 30 UKST fields. The final QSO catalogue will be an order of magnitude bigger than previous complete QSO surveys. The prime scientific aims of the 2dF QSO survey are:

1. To determine the QSO clustering power spectrum, P(k), in the range of spatial scales, $`0<r<1000h^1Mpc`$.
2. To measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from geometric distortions in clustering.
3. To trace the evolution of QSO clustering in the range, 0$`<`$z$`<`$3, to obtain new limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and QSO bias.

Other aims include determining the evolution of the QSO LF evolution to z=3, cross-correlating the QSO’s with 2dF Galaxy Survey groups to measure $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ via gravitational lensing (cf. Croom & Shanks, 1999a) and constraining $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by finding the sky density of close (6-20′′) lensed QSO pairs.

Previous QSO clustering results have generally been based on the following complete QSO surveys - the Durham/AAT survey of Boyle et al (1988) comprising 392 B$`<`$21 QSO’s, the CFHT survey of Crampton et al (1989) with 215 B$`<`$20.5 QSO’s, the ESO survey of Zitelli et al (1992) with 28 B$`<`$22 QSO’s, the LBQS survey of Hewett et al (1995) with 1053 B$`<`$18.8 QSO’s and the ESO survey of LaFranca et al (1998) with 300 B$`<`$20.5 QSO’s. These have produced results on QSO clustering at small (r$`<10h^1`$ Mpc) scales which are consistent with an r-1.8 power-law with amplitude $`r_06h^1`$Mpc which shows no evolution in comoving coordinates (Shanks et al 1987, Andreani & Cristiani, 1992, Shanks & Boyle, 1994, Georgantopoulos & Shanks, 1994, Croom & Shanks, 1996). At larger scales (10$`<r<1000h^1`$Mpc), no clustering has previously been detected in $`\xi _{qq}`$.

## 2. 2dF QSO Redshift Survey Status and Current Results.

We now have redshifts for $``$6000 QSO’s where 5600 QSO’s have been observed using 2dF itself. A further 400 QSO’s selected from the input catalogue have been observed on different telescopes for associated projects. Observations have included bright 17$`<B<`$18.25 QSO’s using UK Schmidt Telescope FLAIR fibre coupler, radio-loud QSO’s identified in the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) and observed at Keck and finally 30 QSO’s in close pairs ($`<20^{\prime \prime }`$) from the ANU 2.3-m telescope. This makes the 2dF survey already the biggest, complete QSO survey by a factor of $``$6.

From these observations, we know that 53.5% of candidates are QSO’s which means there will be 26000 QSO’s in final survey. The QSO number count, n(B), has been found to be in good agreement with previous surveys. The QSO redshift distribution, n(z), extends to z$``$3 because of our multi-colour UBR selection. In Fig. 1 we show the current Northern and Southern redshift cone plots from the 2dF survey. The rectangles shows the sky distribution of the fields that have already been observed.

We have detected 8 close ($`<20^{\prime \prime }`$) QSO pairs. Only one is a candidate gravitational lens; the separation is $`16^{\prime \prime }`$ (see Fig. 6 of Croom et al., 1999).

The new 2dF results for the QSO Luminosity Function continue to be consistent with Pure Luminosity Evolution models throughout the range 0.35$`<`$z$`<`$2.3 (Boyle et al.,1988,1991,1999a). The luminosity function based on the current $``$6000 QSOs of the 2dF survey combined with $``$1000 LBQS QSOs are shown in Fig. 2. The large sample size makes it possible to define the QSO Luminosity Function in much smaller redshift bins than used previously and the accuracy of pure luminosity evolution as a description of QSO evolution is clear. Indeed, this accuracy is so high that it has prompted a new investigation of pure-luminosity evolution as a physical, as well as a phenomenological, model for QSO evolution. (Done & Shanks, 1999, in prep.)

The most interesting individual QSO that has been discovered from the 2dF QSO survey is UN J1025-0040, a unique, post-starburst radio QSO at z=0.634, identified in the 2dF-NVSS catalogue and followed up spectroscopically at the Keck (Brotherton et al., 1999). As well as broad emission lines, the spectrum also shows strong Balmer absorption lines indicative of a post-starburst galaxy. The starburst component of the spectrum at MB=-24.7 dominates the AGN continuum spectrum by $``$ 2mag. This 2dF-NVSS collaboration has previously also uncovered a new class of radio-loud BAL QSO’s (Brotherton et al., 1998) and clearly has great potential for further exciting discoveries.

Finally, we present a preliminary 2dF QSO correlation function from our most complete subset of 4115 QSO’s. We have taken into account the current incompleteness of the 2dF survey as best we can; however, this process is complicated by the fact that many observed areas still have overlapping 2dF ‘tiles’ as yet unobserved. We show the preliminary correlation function in Fig. 3(a) as a log-log plot and in Fig. 3(b) as a log-linear plot. As can be seen the correlation function is consistent with being a -1.8 power-law with $`r_04h^1`$Mpc and in good agreement with previous results (eg Croom and Shanks, 1996). The QSO correlation function thus appears to be remarkably similar to the correlation function for local, optically selected galaxies and continues to show no evolution in comoving coordinates. This behaviour is consistent with evolution due to gravitational clustering either in a low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ model or in a biased, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$ model. The correlation function is consistently positive out to about 20h-1Mpc at 3$`\sigma `$ and out to about 50h-1Mpc at 1$`\sigma `$, thus giving a hint of power extending to larger scales. At $`r>50h^1`$Mpc the errors in $`\xi `$ are now as low as $`\pm `$0.016. There is also a suggestion of anti-correlation at r$``$100h-1Mpc but still only at 1.5$`\sigma `$ significance. At all scales in the range 100$`<`$r$`<`$1000h-1Mpc the correlation function is within 1$`\sigma `$ of zero.

## 3. Future Results.

We have used mock catalogues drawn from simulations using the Zeldovich approximation to demonstrate the accuracy of P(k) estimates at large scales that will be obtainable from the full survey (Croom et al., in prep.). The results from this simulation show that our estimates of the power spectrum can recover the input spectrum up to scales of several hundreds of Mpc (k$``$0.01hMpc-1) where the power spectrum is expected to turn over to its primordial form (see Boyle et al., 1999b).

We are now using the Hubble Volume N-body simulation from the Virgo Consortium with of order 109 particles to produce mock QSO survey catalogues. We have ‘light cone’ output for a model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=0.7, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=0.3 and $`\sigma _8`$=1.0 to test the potential of the geometric test of Alcock & Paczynski (1979) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ directly in a biased $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model (Hoyle et al., 1999 in prep.). We shall be using these simulations to see how robust the test is against different models for the bias. Constraints on these bias models come from the QSO-galaxy cross-corrrelation function (Ellingson et al., 1991, Smith et al., 1995, Croom & Shanks, 1999b) which suggest radio-quiet QSO’s inhabit similar environments to average galaxies out to z=1.5. We are now extending QSO environment tests out to z$``$2 using the INT Wide Field Camera at B$`<`$26 and the AAT Taurus Tunable Filter (Croom & Shanks, in prep.) and these results will further constrain possible models of QSO bias at high redshift.

## 4. Conclusions

1. The 2dF QSO Survey has obtained redshifts for 6000/26000 B$`<`$20.85, z$`<`$3 QSOs which means it is already the biggest complete QSO survey by a factor of $``$6.
2. Previous surveys detected QSO clustering at 4$`\sigma `$ level for r$`<`$10h-1Mpc where the QSO clustering appears stable when measured in comoving coordinates, suggesting either a low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ model or a biased, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=1 model. Previous surveys detected no significant clustering in $`\xi _{qq}`$ at larger scales.
3. The 2dF QSO survey confirms the accuracy of the PLE model of Boyle et al (1991) for the evolution QSO Luminosity Function for 0$`<`$z$`<`$2.2.
4. The 2dF QSO survey has already detected many individually interesting objects, including a post-starburst QSO and several close QSO pairs.
5. A preliminary 2dF QSO correlation function based on 4115 QSOs shows results consistent with previous surveys and consistent with the correlation function of local, optically selected galaxies but with a hint of extended power to $``$50h-1Mpc.
6. Mock catalogues from the Hubble Volume suggest the 2dF QSO survey will be able to determine QSO power spectrum out to $`>`$1000h-1Mpc and so detect the expected turnover to the primordial, n=1, slope.
7. The potential of 2dF QSO survey to constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from both geometric distortions and gravitational lensing is being tested in the Hubble Volume mock catalogues.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank Fiona Hoyle, Carlton Baugh and Adrian Jenkins for allowing us to use the results from their analyses of the mock catalogues from the Hubble Volume simulation. The Hubble Volume is provided courtesy of the Virgo Consortium.

## References

Alcock, C. & Paczynski, B., 1979, Nature, 281, 358.

Andreani, P. & Cristiani, S., 1992, ApJ, 398, L13.

Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T. & Peterson, B.A., Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 1988, 235, 935.

Boyle, B.J., Jones, L.R., & Shanks, T., 1991. MNRAS, 251 , 482.

Boyle B.J., Shanks, T., Croom, S.M., Smith, R.J., Miller, L., Loaring N. & Heymans, C. 1999a, MNRAS, submitted.

Boyle, B.J., Smith, R.J., Croom, S.M. , Shanks, T. , Miller, L. & Loaring, N., 1999b. Phil. Trans R. Soc. Lond. A., 357, 185.

Brotherton, M.S., Van Breugel, Smith, R.J., Boyle, B.J., Shanks, T., Croom, S.M., Miller, L. & Becker, R.H. 1998, ApJ, 505, L7.

Brotherton, M.S., Van Breugel, W. Stanford, S.A., Smith, R.J., Boyle, B.J., Miller, L., Shanks, T., Croom, S.M. & Filippenko, A.V., 1999, ApJ, 520, L87.

Crampton, D., Cowley, A.P. & Hartwick, F.D.A., 1989, ApJ, 345, 59.

Croom & Shanks, 1996, MNRAS, 281, 893.

Croom, S.M. & Shanks, T., 1999a, MNRAS, 307, L17.

Croom, S.M., Shanks, T. , Boyle, B.J., Smith, R.J., Miller, L. & Loaring, N.S., 1999. In ”Evolution of Large Scale Structure: From Recombination to Garching”, eds. Banday, A.J. & Sheth, R.K. E32.

Croom, S.M. & Shanks, T., 1999b, MNRAS, 303, 4.

Ellingson, E., Yee, H.K.C. & Green, R.F., 1991, ApJ, 371, 49.

Georgantopoulos, I. & Shanks, T., 1994 MNRAS, 271, 773.

Hewett, P.C., Foltz, C.B. & Chaffee, F.H., 1995, AJ, 109, 1498.

La Franca, F., Andreani, P. & Cristiani, S., 1998, ApJ, 497, 529.

Shanks, T., Fong, R., Boyle, B.J. & Peterson, B.A., MNRAS, 1987, 227, 739.

Shanks, T. & Boyle, B.J., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 753.

Smith, R.J., Boyle, B.J., & Maddox, S.J. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 270.

Zitelli, V., Mignoli, M., Zamorani, G., Marano, B. & Boyle, B.J., 1992 MNRAS, 260, 925.


format: text

text:
# Search for New Particles Decaying to 𝑡𝑡̄ in 𝑝𝑝̄ Collisions at √𝑠=1.8 TeV

## Abstract

We use 106 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data collected with the Collider Detector at Fermilab to search for narrow-width, vector particles decaying to a top and an anti-top quark. Model independent upper limits on the cross section for narrow, vector resonances decaying to $`t\overline{t}`$ are presented. At the 95% confidence level, we exclude the existence of a leptophobic $`Z^{}`$ boson in a model of topcolor-assisted technicolor with mass $`M_Z^{}`$ $`<`$ 480 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 0.012 $`M_Z^{}`$, and $`M_Z^{}`$ $`<`$ 780 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 0.04 $`M_Z^{}`$.

PACS numbers: 14.65.Ha, 13.85.Ni, 13.85.Qk

In this letter, we present a model-independent search for narrow, vector resonances decaying to $`t\overline{t}`$. This search is sensitive to, for example, a $`Z^{}`$ predicted by topcolor-assisted technicolor. This model anticipates that the explanation of spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking is related to the observed fermion masses, and that the large value of the top quark mass suggests the introduction of new strong dynamics into the standard model. It accounts for the large top quark mass by predicting the existence of a residual global symmetry SU(3)$`\times `$U(1) at energies below 1 TeV. The SU(3) results in the generation of topgluons which we have searched for previously in the $`b\overline{b}`$ channel. The U(1) gives the $`Z^{}`$ we search for here. In one model, the $`Z^{}`$ decays exclusively to quarks (leptophobic) resulting in a large cross section for $`t\overline{t}`$.

With the $`z`$-axis defined along the proton beam, the Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) coordinate system defines $`\varphi `$ as the azimuthal angle in the transverse plane, $`\theta `$ as the polar angle, and pseudorapidity $`\eta `$ as $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{tan}\frac{\theta }{2})`$. Tracking chambers, immersed in a 1.4-Tesla solenoidal magnetic field, are used for the detection of charged particles and the measurement of their momenta. The precision track reconstruction of the silicon microstrip vertex detector (SVX), located immediately outside the beampipe, is used for the detection of displaced secondary vertices resulting from $`b`$-quark decays. Outside the SVX is the vertex time projection chamber (VTX) which provides further tracking information for $`|\eta |`$ $``$ $`3.25`$. Both the SVX and VTX are housed within the central tracking chamber (CTC), a wire drift chamber used to measure charged particle momenta. Electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, located beyond the CTC and superconducting solenoid, measure energy in segmented $`\eta `$-$`\varphi `$ towers out to $`|\eta |`$ $`<`$ 4.2. Drift chambers used for muon detection reside outside the calorimetry. A more detailed description of the CDF detector can be found elsewhere.

Standard model $`t\overline{t}`$ production in $`p\overline{p}`$ collisions at a center of mass energy of $`\sqrt{s}=1.8`$ TeV is dominated by $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation, while $``$10% is attributable to gluon-gluon fusion. Once a $`t\overline{t}`$ pair is produced, each of the top quarks is expected to decay almost exclusively to $`Wb`$. The search presented here focuses on the $`t\overline{t}`$ event topology in which one $`W`$ boson decays hadronically while the other decays to an electron or muon and its corresponding neutrino. The fragmentation of the $`b`$-quarks, as well as the hadronic daughters of the $`W`$ boson, form jets. Accordingly, $`t\overline{t}`$ candidates in this “lepton + jets” channel are characterized by a single lepton, missing transverse energy, $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ , due to the undetected neutrino, and at least four jets. Furthermore, a jet resulting from a $`b`$-quark can be identified (or “tagged”) as such by the reconstruction of a secondary vertex from the $`b`$ hadron decay using the SVX, or by using the soft lepton tagging (SLT) algorithm to find an additional lepton from a semileptonic $`b`$ decay.

Like the top quark mass measurement, events included in our measurement of the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass spectrum must first contain a lepton candidate in the central detector region ($`|\eta |`$ $`<`$ 1.0). This lepton is required to be either an isolated electron with transverse energy ($`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$) in excess of 20 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ or an isolated muon with transverse momentum ($`\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{T}`$) in excess of 20 $`\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{c}`$. Events must also include at least 20 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ of $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$, attributable to the presence of a neutrino, as well as at least four jets with $`|\eta |`$ $`<`$ 2.0 and raw $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ $`>`$ 15 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$. Raw jet energies are the values which result from clustering signals in the calorimeter towers before any offline jet corrections are applied. To increase the acceptance rate for $`t\overline{t}`$ events, the requirements for the fourth jet are relaxed such that the raw $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ must only be greater than 8 $`\mathrm{GeV}`$ with $`|\eta |`$ $`<`$ 2.4 in events where at least one of the leading three jets is tagged by the SVX or SLT algorithms. All jets in this analysis are formed as clusters of calorimeter towers within cones of fixed radius $`\mathrm{\Delta }R\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }\eta )^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi )^2}=0.4`$. In 106 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data, we observe 83 events which satisfy these requirements.

This method builds upon the techniques developed for the top quark mass measurement by fitting each event to the hypothesis of $`t\overline{t}`$ production followed by decay in the lepton+jets channel:

The four-momenta of these 13 objects fully describe a $`t\overline{t}`$ event. The three-momenta of the charged lepton and four jets are measured directly. To compute the energies of these objects, the $`b`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ quark masses are taken to be 5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, the $`q`$ and $`\overline{q}^{}`$ masses are taken to be 0.5 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, and the charged lepton mass is assigned according to its identification as either an electron or a muon. The components of transverse momentum for the recoiling system, $`\xi `$, are measured directly from extra jets in the event and unclustered energy deposits that are not included in lepton or jet energies. The transverse momentum components of the neutrino are computed by requiring that the total $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ in the event sums to zero. While the neutrino is assumed to be massless, its longitudinal momentum is a free parameter in the kinematic fit in which the $`q\overline{q}^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\nu `$ invariant masses are constrained to equal the $`W`$ boson mass. We perform a kinematic fit to the production and decay of the $`t\overline{t}`$ pair as described by the decay chain shown above. This fitting procedure, which depends on the minimization of a $`\chi ^2`$ expression, allows the lepton energy, the jet energies and the unclustered energy to vary within their respective uncertainties. The fitted results for these values determine the $`t`$ and $`\overline{t}`$ four-momentum, from which the $`t\overline{t}`$ invariant mass ($`M_{t\overline{t}}`$) can be computed. To improve the $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ resolution, we also constrain the two $`Wb`$ invariant masses to 175 GeV/c2, in agreement with the most recent measurement of the top quark mass. We use only the four highest $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ jets, leading to 12 combinations for assigning jets to the $`b`$, $`\overline{b}`$, and hadronic $`W`$ daughters. However, because we measure only the transverse component of the total energy, thereby determining $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$, a two-fold ambiguity in the longitudinal component of the neutrino momentum results in 24 combinations. We further require that jets that are SVX or SLT-tagged be assigned to $`b`$-quarks, thereby reducing the number of combinations.

Electron energies and muon momenta are measured with the calorimeter and tracking chambers, respectively. A set of generic jet corrections is applied to the energies of all the jets in an event to account for absolute energy scale calibration, contributions from the underlying event and multiple interactions, as well as energy losses in cracks between detector components and outside the clustering cone. These corrections are determined from a combination of Monte Carlo simulations and data. The four leading jets in a $`t\overline{t}`$ event undergo an additional energy correction that depends on the type of parton that they are assumed to be in the fit: a light quark, a hadronically decaying $`b`$ quark, or a $`b`$ quark that decayed semileptonically. These parton-specific corrections account for (a) the differences in the expected $`\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{T}`$ distributions of jets from $`t\overline{t}`$ and the shape which was assumed to derive the generic jet corrections mentioned above, and (b) the energy losses from semileptonic $`b`$ and $`c`$-hadron decays. These corrections were derived from a study of $`t\overline{t}`$ events generated with the herwig Monte Carlo program.

Using Monte Carlo simulations of signal and background events, we explored several event selection criteria in an attempt to optimize our discovery potential. Of the 24 possibilities for each event, we select the $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ value which corresponds to the configuration with the lowest $`\chi ^2`$. To reduce the probability of selecting configurations with incorrect parton assignments which tend to yield artificially low values of $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$, we refit each event after releasing the constraint that the $`Wb`$ invariant mass be equal to 175 GeV/c2 and demand that the fit for this particular configuration return a value for the top quark mass between 150 GeV/c2 and 200 GeV/c2. To further reduce incorrect combinations and to increase discovery potential for a new particle decaying to $`t\overline{t}`$, we apply a $`\chi ^2`$ cut. For narrow width $`t\overline{t}`$ resonances, simulation predicts that the width of the $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ spectrum is $`6`$% of the resonance mass for cases in which the correct jet configuration is selected. For resonances with a natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is significantly less than 6% of the nominal mass, the CDF detector resolution will dominate and the resonances will all have approximately the same shape (shown in the inset of Fig. 1 for a mass of 500 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$). At low $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$, the presence of residual events with incorrect parton assignments is evident in this figure.

The selection criteria described above eliminate an additional 20 events from our data sample and the resulting $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ spectrum is shown in Fig. 1, along with the expected standard model $`t\overline{t}`$ and QCD $`W`$+jets background shapes normalized to the data. While the non-$`t\overline{t}`$ background is dominated by $`W`$+jets events, it also includes contributions from multijet $`b\overline{b}`$ events with one jet misidentified as a lepton, $`Z`$+jets events, events with a boson pair, and single-top production. However, it has been shown that the vecbos $`W`$+jets shape alone is sufficient in modeling the entire non-$`t\overline{t}`$ background spectrum. For this analysis, the expected non-$`t\overline{t}`$ background prediction of 31.1 $`\pm `$ 8.5 events is calculated as in Ref. , but accounts for differences in selection criteria. We find that the $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ distribution of 63 data events is consistent with the hypothesis that the spectrum is comprised of standard model $`t\overline{t}`$ production and the predicted rate of non-$`t\overline{t}`$ background events, as shown in Fig. 1.

Because we cannot present evidence for a narrow $`t\overline{t}`$ resonance, we establish upper limits on the production cross-section for a new vector particle, $`X`$, of mass $`M_\text{X}`$ decaying and to $`t\overline{t}`$. For natural widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.012M_\text{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.04M_\text{X}`$, and for each $`M_\text{X}`$ between 400 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ and 1 $`\mathrm{TeV}/c^2`$ in increments of 50 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, we perform a binned-likelihood fit of the data. To determine the likelihood function for a given $`M_\text{X}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we fit the $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ spectrum from the data to the expected Monte Carlo shapes for both the $`t\overline{t}`$ and QCD $`W`$+jets background sources as well as a resonance signal $`Xt\overline{t}`$ which we model using $`Z^{}t\overline{t}`$ in pythia.

Our analysis is subject to several sources of systematic uncertainty on the expected shape of background and signal $`M_{t\overline{t}}`$ spectra and/or the signal acceptance rate. Treating these two types of systematic effect separately, we establish the magnitude of each source through a Monte Carlo procedure which quantifies the effect of varying the source of uncertainty by one standard deviation. We determine the uncertainty contributions due to the jet $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ scale, initial and final state gluon radiation, and the non-$`t\overline{t}`$ background spectrum using methods described in Ref. . The uncertainty in the measurements of the top quark mass and total integrated luminosity are included in our study of systematic effects, as well as the uncertainty due to the choice of parton distribution functions (PDF). The remaining sources of systematic uncertainty considered are all small and include trigger efficiency, lepton identification, tracking efficiency, $`z`$-vertex efficiency, and Monte Carlo statistics. The uncertainties resulting from jet $`\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{T}`$ scale and top quark mass are correlated and we conservatively take this correlation to be 100%.

The percent uncertainty in $`\sigma _\text{X}\text{BR}\{\text{X}t\overline{t}\}`$ is listed in Table I for each of the systematic sources at several different resonance masses. The systematic effect due to uncertainty in the top quark mass ($`M_{top}`$) is dominant at low $`M_\text{X}`$, whereas the effect due to the uncertainty in modeling final state radiation dominates at large $`M_\text{X}`$. To ensure that our estimates are conservative, the systematic uncertainty is taken to be a constant number of pb below the value of $`\sigma _\text{X}\text{BR}\{\text{X}t\overline{t}\}`$ corresponding to the 95% C.L. limit obtained with statistical uncertainties only. That constant is the estimate of the systematic uncertainty at the 95% C.L. limit. Above the same value of $`\sigma _\text{X}\text{BR}\{\text{X}t\overline{t}\}`$, we use a systematic uncertainty that rises with $`\sigma _\text{X}\text{BR}\{\text{X}t\overline{t}\}`$ at the fixed percent rate listed in Table I.

For each resonance mass and width, we convolute the statistical likelihood shape with the Gaussian total systematic uncertainty and extract the 95% C.L. upper limit on $`\sigma _\text{X}\text{BR}\{\text{X}t\overline{t}\}`$ which is listed in Table II and shown in Fig. 2. The systematic uncertainties increase the 95% C.L. upper limit by 27% for $`M_\text{X}`$ = 400 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$, but only 7% (6%) for $`M_\text{X}`$ = 600 (800) $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ because statistical uncertainties dominate the likelihood. Also shown in Fig. 2 are the theoretical predictions for cross-section times branching ratio for a leptophobic $`Z^{}`$ with natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = $`0.012M_Z^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = $`0.04M_Z^{}`$. At 95% confidence, we exclude the existence of a leptophobic topcolor $`Z^{}`$ with mass $`M_Z^{}`$ $`<`$ 480 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for natural width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 0.012 $`M_Z^{}`$, and mass $`M_Z^{}`$ $`<`$ 780 $`\mathrm{GeV}/c^2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 0.04 $`M_Z^{}`$. For larger widths, detector resolution will no longer be the dominant factor in determining the $`Z^{}`$ signal shape, so our limits are no longer applicable.

In conclusion, after investigating 106 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$ of data collected at CDF, we find no evidence for a $`t\overline{t}`$ resonance and establish upper limits on cross-section times branching ratio for narrow resonances. We have used these limits to constrain a model of topcolor assisted technicolor. We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating institutions for their vital contributions. This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation; the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare of Italy; the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan; the National Science Council of the Republic of China; and the A.P. Sloan Foundation.


text:
# Berry’s Phase in the Presence of a Dissipative Medium

## 1 Introduction

The existence of geometric phases in quantum systems, ever since its discovery by Berry , has attracted considerable interest both from the theoretical and experimental viewpoints. Several applications of this phenomenon in different areas of physics have also been studied. Comparatively much less work has been devoted to the question of the dynamical evolution of such systems in the presence of a weakly dissipative medium. Basically the available results can be summarized as follows: nonhermitian operators lead to a modification of Berry’s phase, stochastically evolving magnetic fields produce both energy shift and broadening, phenomenological weakly dissipative Liouvillians alter Berry’s phase by introducing an imaginary correction or causing damping and mixing of the density matrix elements. Ellinas et al.  obtain their results studying the eigenmatrices of the complete Liouvillian superoperator in a time-independent basis, while Gamliel and Freed, find closed formal expressions for the density matrix representation in the instantaneous frame of the hamiltonian in the adiabatic limit, and in the weak dissipation approximation. However, even in this regime the results in the cases studied can only be extracted through approximations (in addition to the adiabatic approximation) or numerical computation.

In the present work, we consider the celebrated example of a spin 1/2 particle coupled to a slowly evolving magnetic field in the presence of a weakly dissipative medium as represented by a Lindblad form superoperator, incorporated in a convenient and physically motivated frame. In the absence of dissipation, a simple geometrical interpretation of the results emerges in terms of both the Bloch’s vector and the phase vector. The geometrical phase appears as a “delay” or an “advance” in the precession period of the Bloch’s vector with respect to the period dictated by the magnetic field’s frequency. The precession of this vector occurs at a fixed angle with respect to a fixed axis about which the external magnetic field precesses, as usual. We will introduce the dissipation via a semi-group type dynamics, such that dissipation does not alter the precession frequency. However, the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ components of Bloch’s vector are altered in different ways by nonunitary effects. In particular, the modulus of Bloch’s vector will shrink. The relation between the reduction of Bloch’s vector modulus and the loss of coherence has been explored by Stodolsky and collaborators. In order to make it explicit, we introduce the linear entropy (or idempotency defect) as a measure of purity loss

$$\delta (t)=1Tr\rho ^2(t)$$
(1)
and write

$$\rho (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+S_z(t)& S_x(t)iS_y(t)\\ S_x(t)+iS_y(t)& 1S_z(t)\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{l}+\stackrel{}{S}(t)\stackrel{}{\sigma }),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{S}(t)`$ is the Bloch’s vector. We get

$$\delta (t)=\frac{1|\stackrel{}{S}(t)|^2}{2},$$
(3)
which confirms that the shrinking of the modulus of $`\stackrel{}{S}(t)`$ is a measure of coherence loss.

In order to discuss dissipative effects on interference patterns due to Berry’s geometrical phase the natural framework is to consider the evolution of the density matrix, which completely characterizes the interference effect due to the different geometric phases acquired by the eigenvectors of the hamiltonian of the system, even in the absence of dissipation. Of course, this time we add a nonunitary Liouville operator contribution to the dynamics.

In section 2 we present the two level quantum system of a spin 1/2 in the presence of an external magnetic field precessing with constant angular velocity around a fixed axis. The master equation of the model is written in what we call the diagonal frame where Lindblad superoperators are introduced to describe the nonunitary part of the Liouville operator. In subsection 2.1 we consider the adiabatic limit of the quantum system in thermal equilibrium with a reservoir of electromagnetic fields and in subsection 2.2 we consider the case of a dephasing process. In both cases, we treat the coupling of the quantum system with its environment in the weak regime. In section 3 we show how the geometric phases and the dissipation effects acts on the $`z`$ component of the magnetization of the spin 1/2 coupled to a reservoir of electromagnetic fields at thermal equilibrium. In section 4 we summarize our conclusions; finally, in appendix A, we present the non-unitary part of the liouvillians of the models under consideration in the instantaneous basis of the hamiltonian.

## 2 The adiabatic limit of the spin 1/2 model in the weak coupling regime

We consider a spin 1/2 variable (two level model) coupled to a time dependent magnetic field precessing around the z-axis. The unitary contribution for this evolution is given by the hamiltonian

$`H_s(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}(t)`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\mu B\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\omega t}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\omega t}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\theta )\end{array}\right),`$
written in the basis of the eigenstates of the $`z`$-component of the spin, where $`B`$ is the norm of the external magnetic field, $`\theta `$ its azimuthal angle, $`\omega `$ the precession frequency and the constant $`\mu =\frac{g\mu _B}{2}`$, being $`g`$ Landé’s factor and $`\mu _B`$ the Bohr magneton. We are using natural units ($`c=\mathrm{}=1`$). For the sake of later calculations, it is convenient to define two unitary transformations: the first one, $`R(\omega ,t)`$, takes us to the rotating frame where the hamiltonian is no longer time dependent; the second one, $`D(B,\theta ,\omega )`$, diagonalizes the effective hamiltonian (time independent) that drives the dynamics of the final matrix representation of the density operator. After the first transformation, $`R(\omega ,t)=e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}\sigma _z}`$, the density matrix and the hamiltonian read

$$\rho _R(t)=e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}\sigma _z}\rho (t)e^{i\frac{\omega t}{2}\sigma _z},$$
(7)
and

$$H_R=\mu B(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\sigma _x+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\sigma _z).$$
(8)
In analogous manner, after the second transformation we get, in the diagonal frame, the density matrix

$$\rho _D(t)=𝐃^T\rho _R(t)𝐃,$$
(9)
and the effective hamiltonian

$`H_D`$ $`=`$ $`𝐃^T(H_R{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}\sigma _z)𝐃`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda _1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill \lambda _1\end{array}\right),`$
where $`\lambda _1=\sqrt{\mu ^2B^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )+(\mu B\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\frac{\omega }{2})^2}`$. The rotation matrix $`𝐃=𝐃^T`$ is equal to

$$𝐃=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\lambda _1}(\mu B\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\frac{\omega }{2})}\sigma _x+\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\lambda _1}(\mu B\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\frac{\omega }{2})}\sigma _z.$$
(13)
One possible way to add dissipative contributions to the above dynamics is to include a Lindblad type superoperator in the evolution equation in the diagonal frame

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _D\left(t\right)=i[\lambda _1\sigma _z,\rho _D\left(t\right)]+k_D\rho _D(t),$$
(14)
where $`k`$ is the dissipation constant. The weak coupling regime is characterized by the condition $`\frac{k}{\lambda _1}1`$.

Our aim is isolating, in the density matrix, the effects of dissipation on interference due to geometric phases. The representation of the density matrix in the diagonal frame is not very enlightening for this purpose. This is better realized in some basis of the instantaneous eigenvectors of hamiltonian (6), as was done by Gamliel and Freed . We define $`\rho _I(t)`$, the matrix density in a basis of the instantaneous eigenvectors of hamiltonian (6). The relation between $`\rho _I(t)`$ and $`\rho _D(t)`$ is

$$\rho _I(t)=𝐕^{}(t)𝐃\rho _D(t)𝐃𝐕(t),$$
(15)
where the matrix $`𝐕(t)`$ is equal to

$$𝐕(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta }{2})e^{\frac{i\omega t}{2}}\end{array}\right).$$
(16)
The time evolution of $`\rho _I(t)`$ is given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _I\left(t\right)=i[\left(\mu B+\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\sigma _z\frac{\omega }{2}\sigma _n(t),\rho _I\left(t\right)]+k_I\rho _I(t)$$
(17a)
where

$$\sigma _n(t)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\omega t}\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\omega t}\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{cos}(\theta )\end{array}\right)$$
(17b)
and $`_I\rho _I(t)`$ is obtained from $`_D\rho _D(t)`$ through a similarity transformation equivalent to (15).

Before we specialize our discussion to any particular liouvillian, we study the adiabatic limit of eqs.(17) for the coupling constant $`k`$ in the weak regime. In this regime, the matrix $`_I\rho _I(t)`$ is written as a linear superposition of the elements $`\rho _{ij}^I(t)`$. We remind that the density matrix of a two level model must satisfy two conditions: i) $`Tr(\rho _I(t))=1`$ and ii) $`\rho _{21}^I(t)=(\rho _{12}^I(t))^{}`$. As a consequence of those conditions, the density matrix has only two independent elements. We take the elements $`\rho _{11}^I(t)`$ and $`\rho _{12}^I(t)`$ as our two independent entries. The general form for the time equations of those two elements in the weak coupling regime is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _{11}^I(t)=a_{11}(\omega ,k;t)\rho _{11}^I(t)+a_{12}(\omega ,k;t)\rho _{12}^I(t)+a_{13}(\omega ,k;t)\rho _{21}^I(t)+b_1(\omega ,k;t)$$
(18a)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\rho _{12}^I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{21}(\omega ,k;t)\rho _{11}^I(t)+(2i\mu B+a_{22}(\omega ,k;t))\rho _{12}^I(t)+a_{23}(\omega ,k;t)\rho _{21}^I(t)+`$ (18b)
$`+b_2(\omega ,k;t).`$
We make the change of variables:

$$\rho _{ij}^I(t)e^{i(E_iE_j)t}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ij}(t)$$
(19a)
with $`E_1=\mu B`$ and $`E_2=\mu B`$. We may disclose the time scale $`T`$ in the differential equations by introducing the following transformation upon the time parameter:

$$s\frac{t}{T},$$
(19b)
where $`T=\frac{2\pi }{\omega }`$.

With the new variables, eqs.(18) become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`Ta_{11}(\omega ,k;s)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)+Ta_{12}(\omega ,k;s)e^{2i\mu BTs}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)+`$ (20a)
$`+`$ $`Ta_{13}(\omega ,k;s)e^{2i\mu BTs}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{21}(s)+Tb_1(\omega ,k;s),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`Ta_{21}(\omega ,k;s)e^{2i\mu BTs}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)+Ta_{22}(\omega ,k;s)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)+`$ (20b)
$`+`$ $`Ta_{23}(\omega ,k;s)e^{4i\mu BTs}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{21}(s)+Tb_2(\omega ,k;s)e^{2i\mu BTs}.`$
We take the differential equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t)`$ to exemplify the discussion of the adiabatic limit of eqs.(20). At this point we will follow closely the references . We point out that the adiabatic approximation is not recovered by an $`\omega `$ expansion of the terms on the r.h.s. of eqs.(20).

The Volterra equation obtained from eq.(20b) is

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(0)+T{\displaystyle _0^s}a_{22}(\omega ,k;s^{})\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s^{})𝑑s^{}+T{\displaystyle _0^s}a_{21}(\omega ,k;s^{})e^{2i\mu BTs^{}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s^{})𝑑s^{}+`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`T{\displaystyle _0^s}a_{23}(\omega ,k;s^{})e^{4i\mu BTs^{}}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{21}(s^{})𝑑s^{}+T{\displaystyle _0^s}b_2(\omega ,k;s^{})e^{2i\mu BTs^{}}𝑑s^{}.`$
In the limit $`T\mathrm{}`$, the Riemann-Lebesgue Theorem  gives that

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^sF(s^{})e^{i\alpha \mu TBs^{}}𝑑s^{}=0,$$
(22)
if $`F(s^{})`$ is a piece-wise continuous function in the interval \[$`0,s`$\] and $`\alpha `$. As a consequence of this theorem the last three terms on the r.h.s. of eq.(21) vanish in the adiabatic limit ($`\frac{\omega }{\mu B}0T\mathrm{}`$).

Integrating by parts eq.(22) we get

$$_0^sF(s^{})e^{i\alpha \mu TBs^{}}ds^{}=\frac{1}{iT}\frac{1}{\alpha \mu B}[F(s)e^{i\alpha \mu TBs}F(0))]\frac{1}{iT}\frac{1}{\alpha \mu B}_0^s\frac{d}{ds^{}}(F(s^{}))e^{i\alpha \mu TBs^{}}ds^{}.$$
(23)
From eqs.(17) and (18b), the coefficients $`a_{2j}`$ and $`b_2`$ have the general dependence on $`\omega `$ and $`k`$:

$`a_{21}(\omega ,k;s)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega a_{21}^{(0)}(s)+k\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_{21}^{(0)}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}A_{21}(s)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}\right)^2\right)\right),`$ (24a)
$`a_{22}(\omega ,k;s)`$ $`=`$ $`i\omega (1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+k\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}^{(0)}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}A_{22}(s)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}\right)^2\right)\right),`$ (24b)
$`a_{23}(\omega ,k;s)`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_{23}^{(0)}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}A_{23}(s)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}\right)^2\right)\right)`$ (24c)
and

$$b_2(\omega ,k;s)=\omega b_2^{(0)}(s)+k\left(\stackrel{~}{b}_2^{(0)}(s)+\frac{\omega }{\mu B}B_2(s)+𝒪\left(\left(\frac{\omega }{\mu B}\right)^2\right)\right).$$
(24d)
The integrands of all integrals on the r.h.s. of eq.(21) which contain the oscillatory function $`e^{i\alpha \mu BTs^{}}`$, with $`\alpha =2`$ or $`4`$, after integration by parts, each of those integrals has its order in T decreased by one unit, and acquires a multiplying constant of value $`\frac{k}{\mu B}`$ or $`\frac{\omega }{\mu B}`$. From the conditions satisfied by the two simultaneous regimes: i) adiabatic limit ($`\frac{\omega }{\mu B}1`$) and ii) weak coupling limit ($`\frac{k}{\mu B}1`$), we can neglect those terms in comparison to the first two terms on the r.h.s. of eq.(21). The two previous inequalities do not impose any constraint to the ratio $`\frac{k}{\omega }`$, though. The differential equation satisfied by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)`$ in the adiabatic limit and weak coupling regime is

$$\frac{d}{ds}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)=T\left[i\omega (1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))+k\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}^{(0)}(s)\right]\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s).$$
(25)
The term proportional to $`A_{22}(s)`$ was dropped, since it is of higher order in $`\left(\frac{\omega }{\mu B}\right)`$. For $`k\omega `$, the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix vanish before the external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}(t)`$ returns to its configuration at $`t=0`$. The other uninteresting situation from the point of view of the appearance of an imaginary correction to the geometric phase is the condition $`k\omega `$ when the dissipation effects can still be neglected after one period. In this work we discuss the case $`k\omega `$ when both terms on the r.h.s. of eq.(25) contribute to the time evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(s)`$.

By a similar discussion we obtain the time equation of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)`$ in the adiabatic and weak coupling regimes,

$$\frac{d}{ds}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)=Tk\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}^{(0)}(s)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{11}(s)+T\left[\omega b_1^{(0)}(s)+k\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{(0)}(s)\right].$$
(26a)
From eqs.(17) we can affirm that

$`a_{11}(\omega ,k;s)`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}^{(0)}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}A_{11}(s)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}\right)^2\right)\right),`$ (26b)
$`b_1(\omega ,k;s)`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{(0)}(s)+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}B_1(s)+𝒪\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mu B}}\right)^2\right)\right).`$ (26c)
In order to verify if we can get imaginary phases from eqs. (25) and (26a) due to the coupling of the quantum system to a dissipative medium, we write the density operator at $`t=0`$ in the instantaneous basis of hamiltonian (6)

$$\rho (0)=\underset{j,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\alpha _{jl}(0)|\varphi _j^0\varphi _l^0|.$$
(27)
We have $`𝐇(0)|\varphi _j^0=E_j(0)|\varphi _j^0`$, $`j=1`$ and $`2`$. Being $`|\varphi _j^0(t)`$ the time evolution of the eigenvector $`|\varphi _j^0`$, we have

$$\rho (t)=\underset{j,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\alpha _{jl}(t)|\varphi _j^0(t)\varphi _l^0(t)|,$$
(28)
where the time evolution of $`|\varphi _j^0(t)`$ is driven by $`𝐇(t)`$. Differently from Gamliel and Freed, we include the phases coming from the unitary evolution and the geometric phase in the dyadic product $`|\varphi _j^0(t)\varphi _l^0(t)|`$. In the adiabatic approximation, we get

$$|\varphi _j^0(t)=e^{i\gamma _j(t)}e^{iE_j(t)t}|\varphi _j;t,$$
(29)
where $`\gamma _j(t)`$ is the geometric phase acquired by the eigenvector $`|\varphi _j^0`$, $`|\varphi _j;t`$ is the instantaneous eigenvector of $`𝐇(t)`$ ( $`𝐇(t)|\varphi _j;t=E_j(t)|\varphi _j;t`$ ) and $`E_j(t)\frac{1}{t}_0^t𝑑t^{}E_j(t^{})`$.

The density operator at any time, in the adiabatic limit is

$$\rho (t)=\underset{j,l=1}{\overset{2}{}}\alpha _{jl}(t)e^{i(\gamma _j(t)\gamma _l(t))}e^{i(E_j(t)E_l(t))t}|\varphi _j;t\varphi _l;t|.$$
(30)
From eq.(30) we recognize that the phase $`e^{i(\gamma _j(t)\gamma _l(t))}`$ in the element $`\rho _{jl}^I(t)`$ is just the difference of the geometric phases of the instantaneous eigenstates $`|\varphi _j;t`$ and $`|\varphi _l;t`$ in the absence of dissipation.

The dynamics of the coefficients $`\alpha _{jl}(t)`$ is ruled by the nonunitary evolution of the quantum system and it is independent of the particular choice for the instantaneous eigenstates of the hamiltonian, up to a multiplicative constant. In the model under consideration (see hamiltonian (6)), the eigenvalues $`E_j(t)`$, $`j=1`$ and $`2`$, are time-independent. It is simple to get the time equations of $`\alpha _{11}(t)`$ and $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ from eqs.(26a) and (25), respectively

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k\left(\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}^{(0)}(t)\alpha _{11}(t)+\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{(0)}(t)\right),`$ (31a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}^{(0)}(t)\alpha _{12}(t).`$ (31b)
The constants $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{11}^{(0)}(t)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_{22}^{(0)}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{(0)}(t)`$ depend on the particular master equation that describes the behaviour of the quantum system interacting with the dissipative medium. In the next sub-sections we consider two particular interactions of the two level model with a reservoir: i) two level model in thermal equilibrium with a reservoir of electromagnetic fields; ii) dephasing process in a two level model.

### 2.1  Adiabatic limit of a two level model in thermal equilibrium

As discussed before, to incorporate the dissipative effects in the two level model we introduce the Lindblad superoperator in the diagonal frame. The master equation of the spin 1/2 model coupled to a reservoir of electromagnetic fields in thermal equilibrium in the diagonal frame is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\rho _D\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i[\lambda _1\sigma _z,\rho _D\left(t\right)]+k\left(\overline{n}+1\right)\left(2\sigma _{}\rho _D\left(t\right)\sigma _+\rho _D\left(t\right)\sigma _+\sigma _{}\sigma _+\sigma _{}\rho _D\left(t\right)\right)+`$ (32)
$`+k\overline{n}\left(2\sigma _+\rho _D\left(t\right)\sigma _{}\rho _D\left(t\right)\sigma _{}\sigma _+\sigma _{}\sigma _+\rho _D\left(t\right)\right),`$
where $`k`$ is the dissipation constant at zero temperature and $`\overline{n}`$ is the average number of excitations of the weakly coupled thermal oscillators at inverse temperature $`\beta `$. An important requirement for the introduction of this Lindblad type superoperator is that it leads asymptotically to a thermal equilibrium. In appendix A we give the master equation of this physical process in the instantaneous basis of hamiltonian (6) for arbitrary value of $`\omega `$.

From the master equation in the instantaneous basis of the hamiltonian we obtain the equations for $`\alpha _{11}(t)`$ and $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$. These equations in the adiabatic and in the weak coupling limits become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2k(1+2\overline{n})\alpha _{11}(t)+2k\overline{n},`$ (33a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k(1+2\overline{n})\alpha _{12}(t).`$ (33b)
The constant $`k`$ does not come up on the r.h.s. of eqs.(33) due to the time variation of any classical parameter that characterizes the reservoir. From its explicit definition it can not be written as: $`f(t)\dot{g}(t)`$, where $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ are two regular time dependent functions. The same is true for $`\overline{n}`$. Therefore the imaginary phase $`\chi (t)`$ defined as: $`\alpha _{12}(t)\alpha _{12}(0)e^{i\chi (t)}`$, with

$$\chi (t)=i_0^tk(1+2\overline{n})𝑑t^{}$$
(34)
is not geometric.

The solution of eq.(33a) is

$$\alpha _{11}(t)=\frac{\overline{n}}{1+2\overline{n}}+\left[\alpha _{11}(0)\frac{\overline{n}}{1+2\overline{n}}\right]e^{2k_0^t(1+2\overline{n})𝑑t^{}}.$$
(35)
The exponential decay on the r.h.s. of eq.(35) means that the population of the instantaneous eigenstates of hamiltonian (6) varies in time and consequently the Adiabatic Theorem is not valid for this dissipation mechanism.

Exactly soluble models are always important checks to approximation schemes. Eq.(32) is exactly solved and the solutions are

$`\rho _{11}^D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{n}+1}}\left[1e^{2k(2\overline{n}+1)t}\right]+\rho _{11}^D(0)e^{2k(2\overline{n}+1)t},`$ (36a)
$`\rho _{12}^D(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{12}^D(0)e^{(2i\lambda _1+k(2\overline{n}+1))t}.`$ (36b)
It is straightforward to obtain the adiabatic and weak coupling limit eqs.(33) from eqs.(36).

### 2.2  Dephasing process in two level system

Another interesting process well studied in the standard textbooks is the phase destroying process which might appear due to elastic collisions. In general, those effects are incorporated in the master equation of the two level model, besides the energy dissipation process studied in subsection 2.1. Since we are studying the coupling of the spin 1/2 to a dissipative medium in the weak coupling limit, the inclusion of the phase destroying process in eq.(32) gives corrections to the coefficients $`a_{ij}(\omega ,k;t)`$ in eqs.(33). Due to the linearity of the equations, the new imaginary phases coming from the dephasing process are added to the ones obtained previously. For the sake of simplicity we study the imaginary phases acquired by the variables $`\alpha _{11}(t)`$ and $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ only due to the dephasing process. The master equation written in the diagonal frame is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _D\left(t\right)=i[\lambda _1\sigma _z,\rho _D\left(t\right)]+\frac{k}{2}\left(\sigma _z\rho _D(t)\sigma _z\rho _D(t)\right).$$
(37)
In appendix A we present the master equation of the spin 1/2 with the dephasing effect included for arbitrary value of the angular velocity $`\omega `$ of the external magnetic field. In this subsection we study the time equations of coefficients $`\alpha _{11}(t)`$ and $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ in the adiabatic and weak coupling regimes. Taking into account our discussion in section 2, eqs.(A.2) and (31) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (38a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\alpha _{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`k\alpha _{12}(t).`$ (38b)
that have the solutions:

$`\alpha _{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{11}(0),`$ (39a)
$`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{12}(0)e^{_0^tk𝑑t^{}}.`$ (39b)
From eq.(39a) we conclude that the Adiabatic Theorem is valid in this process, since the population at each quantum state does not vary along the adiabatic process. By analogous reasons to the ones discussed in subsection 2.1, the phase in eq.(39b) is not geometric but a time dependent imaginary phase that destroys the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix. Eq.(37) is exactly solved. The solutions (39) are easily recovered from the exact solutions when we calculate them in the adiabatic and weak coupling limits.

In order to understand why references - give an imaginary correction to the geometric phase and the models studied here do not, we compare eq.(2.3) of reference  with our eqs.(34) and (39b). The coefficient that multiplies of variable $`C_\lambda (t)`$ in eq.(2.3) of reference  has the form $`\theta (t)|\frac{d}{dt}|\psi (t)`$. Since the vector states depend on a periodic external parameter $`R(t)`$, this coefficient, in the adiabatic approximation, corresponds to a correction to Berry’s phase written as a closed curve in parameter space. The coefficient $`k(1+2\overline{n})`$ that multiplies $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ in eq.(33b) does not arise from any variation of an external parameter. The same is true for the coefficient $`k`$ in eq.(38b). That is the reason that allows us to claim that the exponentials acquired from eqs.(34) and (39b) have no geometric origin, which means that the suppression terms are a function of time instead of some path parameter.

## 3 Contribution of the geometric phase to the <br>magnetization

In order to verify how the geometric phases and the dissipation affect the physical quantities, we return to the spin $`1/2`$ model in the presence of a reservoir of electromagnetic fields in thermal equilibrium. Under the initial condition $`\rho (0)=|\psi (0)\psi (0)|`$, with $`|\psi (0)=\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )|++\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )|`$, in the adiabatic limit and weak coupling limit we end up with

$`\rho _I^{11}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{n}+1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\overline{n}+1}}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta 2\alpha )\right)e^{2k\left(2\overline{n}+1\right)t},`$ (40a)
$`\rho _I^{12}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha \theta )e^{2i\mu Bt}e^{k\left(2\overline{n}+1\right)t}e^{ia\omega (1\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))t}.`$ (40b)
We have introduced the Berry’s phase tracer $`a`$ that helps us identify the contribution of Berry’s phase to physical quantities. At the end, we take the tracer equal to one.

Thus we see that, in this model, dissipation does not affect Berry’s geometrical phase, but only makes it harder to observe their interference effect: such information is contained in the off-diagonal terms of the density matrix in the instantaneous frame, which vanish. By the way, we can observe that the system considered in this contribution is analogous to the case of the classical Foucault pendulum where dissipation diminishes the amplitude, but do not affect the rotation of the oscillation plane.

The definition of the geometrical phase can also be given in terms of a phase vector as in reference, where the discussion is confined to pure states. It is, however, a relatively simple matter to extend the definition of the phase vector for mixed states. In this case we find that the loss of coherence will shorten the phase vector in a manner which is completely analogous to what happens to Bloch’s vector. This norm reduction, as in the present case, reflects the asymptotic vanishing of off-diagonal density matrix elements.

Since we are interested on interference effects due to geometric phases, Bloch’s vector, defined in eq.(2), is suitable to provide a graphic visualization of the density matrix . From eq.(3), we have that these effects are clearly described by Bloch’s vector in the instantaneous frame. In this frame the projection of Bloch’s vector sweeps the $`xy`$ plane and makes an angle smaller than that of the magnetic field by an amount proportional to the solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta )`$, while its length decreases exponentially with a time rate of $`k(2\overline{n}+1)`$. We illustrate in figure 1 the shrinking of the projection of Bloch’s vector in the $`xy`$ plane, due to the presence of dissipation. Even though we have discussed the case $`k\omega `$, we choose $`k/\omega =10`$ in order to show more clearly the decreasing of this projection in an interval $`4\pi /\mu B`$. Shortening in $`z`$ is faster than in the $`xy`$ plane, causing a time dependent azimuthal angle. Figure 2 shows the plot of the time evolution of Bloch’s vector for $`k/\omega =0.2`$. For $`t\mathrm{}`$ Bloch’s vector has only non-zero $`z`$-component and $`S_z(t\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{2\overline{n}+1}`$.

For time $`t`$, such that $`tnT`$ ($`T=2\pi /\omega `$ and $`n`$ is an integer) the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix $`\rho _I(t)`$ depends on the chosen condition satisfied by $`\varphi _i;t|\frac{d}{dt}|\varphi _i;t`$ . For the sake of comparison with experiments it is necessary to calculate dissipation and geometrical phases effects on measurable quantities. In this model the natural candidates are the components of the magnetization vector $`\stackrel{}{m}(t)`$. Let us consider the $`z`$-component of magnetization whose average value has the expression $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho (t)𝐦_𝐳)`$. Since the trace is independent of the particular basis applied to calculate it the result is independent of our particular choice of $`\varphi _i;t|\frac{d}{dt}|\varphi _i;t`$. In the adiabatic approximation and the weak coupling limit, using eqs.(40), we get the Fourier transform of $`m_z(t)`$,

$`\stackrel{}{m}_z(\omega ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\sqrt{2\pi }}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{2\overline{n}+1}}\pi \delta (\omega ^{})i\mathrm{cos}(\theta )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\overline{n}+1}}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta 2\alpha )){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^{}+2ki(2\overline{n}+1)}}+`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\mathrm{sin}(\theta 2\alpha )({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }+ki(2\overline{n}+1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }+ki(2\overline{n}+1)}})],`$
where $`\alpha `$ is given by the initial condition, and the resonant frequency $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }2\mu Ba\omega \mathrm{cos}(\theta ).$$
(41b)
The first term of eq.(LABEL:13) corresponds to the constant component of the magnetic field, and the second one shows the dissipation effects on this field component. The last term on the r.h.s. of the above equation displays a real frequency shift which contains the contribution of the geometrical phase, as can be seen from eq.(41b), due the presence of the tracer $`a`$, and a line broadening caused only by the dissipative evolution. These effects on the magnetization agree with the ones derived in reference  where the path integral formalism was applied.

The expressions for the other components of magnetization are analogous, but somewhat lengthy.

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have presented an analytical solution of the adiabatic limit of a spin $`1/2`$ in a precessing magnetic field embedded in a weakly dissipative medium, introduced phenomenologically. We consider two distinct nonunitary contributions that were accounted for by a Lindblad type superoperator in the diagonal frame. We are able to derive analytical expressions for the geometric and imaginary phases in both cases in the presence of a weak dissipation in the adiabatic limit without further approximations.

From eqs.(34) and (39b) we get that the nature (path dependent or time dependent) of the imaginary phase acquired by $`\alpha _{12}(t)`$ depends on the mechanism that introduces the dissipation in the quantum system. In both cases that we have studied, the dissipation is present due to the two level system being in contact with a reservoir. The constant $`k`$ on the r.h.s. of eq.(34) is associated to the time rate of population and not due to the variation of any external parameter. Consequently the quantum geometric phase for $`k=0`$ is not modified by a complex value. An analogous argument is valid to explain why the imaginary phase acquired by the entry $`\rho _{12}^I(t)`$ in the dephasing process is not geometric, either. In this last model the Adiabatic Theorem continues to be true while it is not true anymore for the spin 1/2 coupled to the electromagnetic fields at thermal equilibrium. Differently from Ellinas et al. in reference we do not call this complex phase as Berry’s phase. We reserve the name of “Berry’s phase” only to phases (real or imaginary) that are path dependent.

Decoherence effects are present and their manifestation is the shortening of the three components of the Bloch’s vector. The fact that the dissipation effect causes the suppression of interference patterns due to the geometric phase is not a particular result for the chosen liouvillian. It is rather general, stemming from the fact that the dissipation mechanism is not related to the variation of any set of external periodic parameters.

## Acknowledgements

The authors are in debt with M.C. Nemes and J.G. Peixoto de Faria for useful discussions. The authors thank the referee for bringing to their attention the interesting model discussed in section 2.2. A.C.A.P. and M.T.T. thank E.V. Corrêa Silva for the careful reading of the manuscript. A.C. Aguiar Pinto thanks CNPq for financial support. M.T. Thomaz thanks CNPq for partial financial support.

## Appendix A: Master equations in the instantaneous basis of the hamiltonian

The master equation (32) in the instantaneous basis of the hamiltonian for arbitrary value of $`\omega `$ is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _I\left(t\right)=i[\left(\mu B+\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\sigma _z\frac{\omega }{2}\sigma _n(t),\rho _I\left(t\right)]+k_I\rho _I(t)$$
(A.1a)
where $`\sigma _n(t)`$ is given by eq.(17b) and

$`_I\rho _I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{n}+1}{2}}\{2\rho _I(t)+(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)[\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t)e^{2i\omega t}\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)`$ (A.1b)
$``$ $`e^{2i\omega t}\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)]+(1+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)[\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)+\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)]`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}[e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)+\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t))+`$
$`+`$ $`e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t)+\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t))]\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\{\rho _I(t),\mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma _n(t)+\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}(e^{i\omega t}\sigma _+(t)+e^{i\omega t}\sigma _{}(t)\}+2\mathrm{\Lambda }[\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)`$
$``$ $`\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)]+\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}[e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t))+`$
$`+`$ $`e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t)\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t))]\}.`$
In eq.(A.1b), we define: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{\lambda _1}\left(\mu B\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\frac{\omega }{2}\right)`$ and

$$\sigma _+(t)=e^{i\omega t}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}{2}\sigma _z+(\mathrm{cos}(\frac{\theta }{2}))^2e^{i\omega t}\sigma _+(\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\theta }{2}))^2e^{i\omega t}\sigma _{}\right]$$
(A.1c)
and $`\sigma _{}(t)\left(\sigma _+(t)\right)^{}`$.

The master equation (37) in the instantaneous basis of the hamiltonian for arbitrary value of $`\omega `$ is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _I\left(t\right)=i[\left(\mu B+\frac{\omega }{2}\right)\sigma _z\frac{\omega }{2}\sigma _n(t),\rho _I\left(t\right)]+\frac{k}{2}_I\rho _I(t)$$
(A.2a)
where

$`_I\rho _I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t)+\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}[e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)+\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t))+`$ (A.2b)
$`+`$ $`e^{i\omega t}(\sigma _n(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)+\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _n(t))]+(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)[e^{2i\omega t}\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)+`$
$`+`$ $`e^{2i\omega t}\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)+\sigma _+(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _{}(t)+\sigma _{}(t)\rho _I(t)\sigma _+(t)]\rho _I(t).`$


text:
# Boundaries of zero scalar curvature in the AdS/CFT Correspondence

## 1. Introduction

In , Witten and Yau consider the AdS/CFT correspondence in the context of a Riemannian Einstein manifold $`M^{n+1}`$ of negative Ricci curvature which admits a conformal compactification (in the sense of Penrose ) with conformal boundary $`N^n`$. As discussed in , a conformal field theory on $`N`$ relevant to this correspondence is stable (with respect to the brane action on $`M`$) if the conformal class of the boundary contains a metric of positive scalar curvature and is unstable if it contains a metric of negative scalar curvature. In the borderline case of zero scalar curvature, the theory may be stable or unstable. Witten and Yau go on to prove that if the conformal class of $`N`$ contains a metric of positive scalar curvature, then $`M`$ and $`N`$ have several desirable properties: (1) $`N`$ is connected, which avoids the difficulty of coupling seemingly independent conformal field theories, (2) the $`n`$th homology of $`\overline{M}`$ vanishes, in particular $`M`$ has no wormholes and (3) at the fundamental group level, the topology of $`M`$ is “bounded by” the topology of $`N`$.

The aim of the present paper is to show that all of these results extend to the case where the conformal class of the boundary contains a metric of nonnegative scalar curvature. By a well known result of Kazdan and Warner , if $`N`$ has a metric of nonnegative scalar curvature, and if the scalar curvature is positive at some point, then N has a conformally related metric of positive scalar curvature. Hence, the essential case handled here is the case in which the conformal class of the boundary contains a metric of zero scalar curvature. The proof method used in this paper is quite different from, and in some sense dual to, that used in . The method of  involves minimizing the co-dimension one brane action on $`M`$, and uses the machinery of geometric measure theory, while the arguments presented here use only geodesic geometry. We proceed to a precise statement of our results.

Let $`M^{n+1}`$ be a complete Riemannian manifold, with metric $`g`$, and suppose $`M`$ admits a conformal compactification, with conformal boundary (or conformal infinity) $`N`$. Thus it is assumed that $`M`$ is the interior of a compact manifold-with-boundary $`\overline{M}^{n+1}`$ and that there exists a smooth function $`r`$ on $`\overline{M}`$ such that (1) $`r>0`$ on $`M`$, (2) $`r=0`$ and $`dr0`$ along $`N=\overline{M}`$, and (3) $`r^2g`$ extends smoothly to a Riemannian metric $`\overline{g}`$ on $`\overline{M}`$. The induced metric $`h=\overline{g}|_{TN}`$ on $`N`$ changes by a conformal factor with a change in the *defining function* $`r`$, and so $`N`$ has a well defined conformal structure. If the conformal class of metrics on $`N`$ contains a metric of positive (resp., nonnegative, zero, etc.) scalar curvature we say that $`N`$ has positive (resp., nonnegative, zero, etc.) scalar curvature.

In , Witten and Yau consider conformally compactified orientable Einstein manifolds $`M^{n+1}`$ which satisfy $`\mathrm{Ric}=ng`$. More generally, their results allow $`\mathrm{Ric}ng`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{Ric}(X,X)ng(X,X)=n`$ for all unit vectors $`X`$) provided $`\mathrm{Ric}ng`$ sufficiently fast as one approaches the conformal boundary $`N`$. (Regarding this fall-off, it is sufficient to require $`\mathrm{Ric}=ng+o(r^2)`$, where $`r`$ is a suitably chosen defining function for the conformal boundary. This is discussed in more detail below.) In this setting they prove that if $`N`$ has a component of positive scalar curvature then (1) $`N`$ is connected, (2) $`H_n(\overline{M},)=0`$, and (3) the map $`i_{}:\mathrm{\Pi }_1(N)\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\overline{M})`$ induced by inclusion $`i:N\overline{M}`$ is onto. The last result says that any loop in $`M`$ can be deformed to a loop in $`N`$. Thus, at the fundamental group level, the topology of $`M`$ can be no more complicated than the topology of $`N`$. In particular, if $`N`$ is simply connected, so is $`M`$. The following theorem generalizes these results by weakening the scalar curvature condition on $`N`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`M^{n+1}`$ be a complete Riemannian manifold which admits a conformal compactification, with conformal boundary $`N^n`$, and suppose the Ricci tensor of $`M`$ satisfies, $`\mathrm{Ric}ng`$, such that $`\mathrm{Ric}ng`$ sufficiently fast on approach to conformal infinity. If $`N`$ has a component of nonnegative scalar curvature then the following properties hold.

1. $`N`$ is connected.
2. If $`M`$ is orientable, the $`n`$th homology of $`\overline{M}`$ vanishes, $`H_n(\overline{M},)=0`$.
3. The map $`i_{}:\mathrm{\Pi }_1(N)\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\overline{M})`$ ($`i`$ = inclusion) is onto.

The essential step in the proof is to establish part (a). Part (c) then follows from part (a) by a covering space argument, as noted in . In turn, as will be shown here, part (b) follows from part (c) via basic homology theory (essentially Poincaré duality; cf. , where similar arguments have been used). In order to give a flavor of the sorts of techniques that will be used to prove part (a), we will first give a proof of the connectedness of $`N`$ in the setting of Witten and Yau ; i.e., under the assumption that $`N`$ has a component of positive scalar curvature.

The result of Witten and Yau on the connectedness of the boundary is easily derived from the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.

Suppose $`M^{n+1}`$ is a complete Riemannian manifold-with-boundary having Ricci curvature greater than or equal to $`n`$. If the boundary $`M`$ is compact and has mean curvature $`H>n`$ then $`M`$ is compact.

By our conventions, $`H=\mathrm{div}_MX`$, where $`X`$ is the outward pointing unit normal along $`M`$. Results similar to Proposition 2 are obtained in  by minimizing the brane action and making use of the machinery of geometric measure theory. Here we give a proof of Proposition 2 using basic techniques in geodesic geometry. These arguments are reminiscent of the kinds of arguments used in the proof of the classical Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems.

Proof of Proposition 2: Suppose $`M`$ is noncompact. Then we can find a point $`qM`$ such that the distance from $`q`$ to $`M`$ is greater than $`\mathrm{coth}^1(1+\delta )`$. Here $`\delta >0`$ is chosen so that the mean curvature $`H`$ of $`M`$ satisfies $`Hn(1+\delta )`$. Let $`p`$ be a point on $`M`$ closest to $`q`$, and let $`\sigma :[0,\mathrm{}]M`$ be a unit speed minimal geodesic from $`p=\sigma (0)`$ to $`q=\sigma (\mathrm{})`$. Let $`\rho :M`$ be the distance function to the boundary,

$`\rho (x)=d(x,M)=\underset{yM}{inf}d(x,y).`$
In general, $`\rho `$ is continuous on $`M`$ and smooth outside the focal cut locus of $`M`$. In particular, since $`\sigma `$ realizes the distance to $`M`$, $`\rho `$ is smooth on an open set $`U`$ containing $`\sigma \{q\}`$.

For $`0s<\mathrm{}`$, let $`H(s)=\mathrm{}\rho (\sigma (s))=\mathrm{div}(\rho )(\sigma (s))`$. Geometrically, $`H(s)`$ is the mean curvature of the slice $`\rho =s`$, with respect to the unit normal $`\rho `$, at the point $`\sigma (s)`$. $`H=H(s)`$ obeys the well known traced Riccati equation ,

(1) $`H^{}=\mathrm{Ric}(\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{})+|B|^2,`$
where $`{}_{}{}^{}=d/ds`$ and $`B(s)=\mathrm{Hess}(\rho )(\sigma (s))=(\rho )(\sigma (s))`$. Since $`H(s)`$ is the trace of $`B(s)`$, the Schwarz inequality implies, $`|B|^2H^2/n`$. Equation 1, taken together with this inequality and the inequalities $`\mathrm{Ric}(\sigma ^{},\sigma ^{})n`$ and $`H(0)=H_M(p)n(1+\delta )`$, implies that $`(s):=H(s)/n`$ satisfies,

$`^{}^21,(0)1+\delta .`$
By comparison with the unique solution to: $`h^{}=h^21`$, $`h(0)=1+\delta `$, we obtain,

$`(s)\mathrm{coth}(as),`$
where $`a=\mathrm{coth}^1(1+\delta )<\mathrm{}=d(q,M)`$. This inequality implies that $`=(s)`$ is unbounded on $`[0,a)`$, which contradicts the fact that it is smooth on $`[0,\mathrm{})`$. Thus, $`M`$ must be compact.

We remark that the rigid version of Proposition 2, in which one assumes the weak inequality, $`Hn`$, holds, has previously been treated in the literature, cf., .

Return to the setting of Theorem 1, but in the case considered by Witten and Yau  in which some component $`N_0`$, say, of $`N`$ has positive scalar curvature. We indicate how the connectedness of $`N`$ in this case follows from Proposition 2. Let $`r`$ be a defining function for the conformal boundary $`N`$, and let $`U`$ be a neighborhood of $`N_0`$ which does not meet any other components of $`N`$. Let $`M_t=M\{xU:r(x)<t\}`$. For $`t`$ sufficiently small, $`M_t`$ is a manifold-with-boundary, with boundary $`M_t`$ diffeomorphic to $`N_0`$, which satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 2. (That the mean curvature of $`M_t`$ satisfies $`H>n`$ uses the assumption of positive scalar curvature on $`N`$. It also uses the fall-off condition on the Ricci curvature; without that, there are simple counter-examples to the Witten-Yau result.) We conclude that $`M_t`$ is compact, from which it follows that $`N`$ has no other components; i.e., $`N=N_0`$, and hence is connected.

We now describe briefly our approach to the proof of part (a) of Theorem 1. The idea, roughly, is as follows: First we show that if there is a sequence of compact hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ in $`M`$ going to infinity in some end such that the mean curvature $`H_k`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ approaches $`n`$ “fast enough” then $`M`$ has only one end. Then we show that this rate is realized if the end admits a conformal compactification such that the conformal class of the boundary has a metric of zero scalar curvature. The first, and main, step is to establish a suitable refinement of Proposition 2.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`M^{n+1}`$ be a complete Riemannian manifold having Ricci curvature greater than or equal to $`n`$. Fix a base point $`oM`$. Suppose there exists a sequence of compact hypersurfaces $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\}`$ satisfying the following conditions.

1. Each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ separates $`M`$. We call the component of $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ containing $`o`$ the inside of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ and the other component the outside.
2. $`d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)\mathrm{}`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$.
3. Denote by $`H_k`$ the mean curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ with respect to the outward normal, and let $`h_k`$ be the smaller of $`\mathrm{min}\{H_k(x):x\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\}`$ and n. Assume that

(2) $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}(nh_k)e^{2d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)}=0.`$

Then $`M`$ has one or two ends. If $`M`$ has two ends then $`M`$ is isometric to $`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with warped product metric $`dr^2+e^{2r}g_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact and $`g_0`$ is a metric of nonnegative Ricci curvature on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

An *end* of $`M`$ is, roughly speaking, an unbounded component of the complement of a sufficiently large compact subset of $`M`$, cf. e.g.,  for a precise definition. If $`M`$ admits a conformal compactification then each of its ends is diffeomorphic to $`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a component of the conformal boundary. In the special case of two ends in the theorem, $`M`$ has a *cusp* at one end, and hence does not admit a conformal compactification. (Regardless of curvature conditions, the ends of a conformally compactified manifold must have positive mean curvature near infinity.)

We recall an example considered in  which satisfies all the hypotheses of Theorem 3 except for the mean curvature decay condition (2). Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },g_0)`$ be any compact negatively curved ($`\mathrm{Ric}=(n1)g`$) Einstein manifold of dimension $`n`$. Then $`M=\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with warped product metric $`g=dr^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2(r)g_0`$ is an Einstein manifold satisfying, $`\mathrm{Ric}=ng`$. The slices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_r=\{r\}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`r>0`$, have mean curvature $`H(r)=n\mathrm{tanh}r`$. Hence $`H(r)n`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, but $`lim_r\mathrm{}e^{2r}(nH(r))=2n`$. This shows that the mean curvature condition in Theorem 3 is in some sense optimal.

In the next section we present the proof of Theorem 3, and in the final section we present the proof of Theorem 1.

## 2. Proof of Theorem 3

The proof of Theorem 3 is similar in spirit to the proof of the Cheeger-Gromoll splitting theorem , and makes use of (generalized) Busemann functions and the method of support functions . The method of support functions provides an elementary way to work with the Laplacian of certain geometrically defined functions, such as Busemann functions, which are in general only $`C^0`$.

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold and let $`fC^0(M)`$ be a continuous function on $`M`$. A *lower support* function for $`f`$ at $`pM`$ is a function $`\varphi `$ defined and continuous on a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ such that $`\varphi f`$ on $`U`$ and $`\varphi (p)=f(p)`$. We say that $`fC^0(M)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}fa`$ ($`a`$) in the *support sense* provided for each $`pM`$ and every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a $`C^2`$ lower support function $`\varphi _{p,ϵ}`$ for $`f`$ at $`p`$ such that $`\mathrm{}\varphi _{p,ϵ}(p)aϵ`$. The Hopf-Calabi maximum principle asserts that if $`M`$ is connected and $`fC^0(M)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}f0`$ in the support sense then $`f`$ cannot attain a maximum unless it is constant. The proof of the Hopf-Calabi maximum principle is completely elementary; a short elegant proof is given in  (cf., also ). We will need to make use of a slightly more general version of the Hopf-Calabi maximum principle.

###### Definition 1.

A function $`fC^0(M)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}fa`$, $`a`$, in the *generalized support sense* provided for each $`pM`$, there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ such that the following conditions hold.

1. There exists a sequence $`\{f_k\}`$, $`f_kC^0(U)`$, such that $`f_kf`$ uniformly on $`U`$.
2. $`\mathrm{}f_ka_k`$ on $`U`$ in the support sense, and $`a_ka`$.

###### Lemma 4.

*(Generalized maximum principle).* Suppose $`M`$ is a connected Riemannian manifold, and $`fC^0(M)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}f0`$ in the generalized support sense. Then, if $`f`$ attains a maximum, it is constant.

###### Proof.

The proof is a simple modification of the proof of the Hopf-Calabi maximum principle given in . We omit the details. ∎

One defines $`\mathrm{}fa`$ in the generalized support sense in a similar way, using $`C^2`$ *upper* support functions. By definition, $`\mathrm{}f=a`$ in the generalized support sense provided $`\mathrm{}fa`$ and $`\mathrm{}fa`$ in the generalized support sense. If $`\mathrm{}f=a`$ in the generalized support sense then $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{}f=a`$ in the usual sense. Indeed, for any small geodesic ball $`B`$, basic elliptic theory  guarantees that the Dirichlet problem: $`\mathrm{}h=a`$, $`h|_B=f|_B`$, has a solution $`hC^{\mathrm{}}(B)C^0(\overline{B})`$. Then $`\mathrm{}(fh)=0`$ on $`B`$ in the generalized support sense, and the generalized maximum principle applied to $`\pm (fh)`$ implies that $`f|_B=h`$.

*Proof of Theorem 3:* Suppose that $`M`$ has more than one end. Then there is a compact set $`K`$ such that $`MK`$ has at least two unbounded components $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, say. Since $`MK`$ has at most finitely many components we may assume without loss of generality that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_kE_1`$ for all $`k`$. We now construct a *line* in $`M`$. (Recall, a line is a complete unit speed geodesic, each segment of which realizes the distance between its endpoints.) Let $`\{q_k\}`$ be a sequence in $`E_2`$ going to infinity, $`d(o,q_k)\mathrm{}`$. Let $`p_k`$ be a point on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ closest to $`q_k`$, and let $`\sigma _k:[a_k,b_k]M`$ be a unit speed minimal geodesic from $`p_k`$ to $`q_k`$. Since $`\sigma _k`$ meets $`K`$, we may parameterize $`\sigma _k`$ so that $`\sigma _k(0)K`$. By passing to a subsequence if necessary we have $`\sigma _k(0)\overline{o}M`$ and $`\sigma _k^{}(0)XT_{\overline{o}}M`$. Let $`\sigma :M`$ be the geodesic satisfying $`\sigma (0)=\overline{o}`$ and $`\sigma ^{}(0)=X`$. As $`\sigma `$ is the limit of minimal segments, it is a line in $`M`$.

We consider two Busemann functions on $`M`$, a Busemann function associated with the sets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ (in the sense decribed in ) and the standard Busemann function associated with the ray (half-line) $`\sigma |_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$. For each $`k`$, let $`\beta _k:M`$ be the function defined by, $`\beta _k(x)=d(\overline{o},\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)d(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)`$. The triangle inequality implies that $`\beta _k`$ is Lipschitz continuous, with Lipschitz constant one, and satisfies $`|\beta _k(x)|d(x,\overline{o})`$. Hence, the family of functions $`\{\beta _k\}`$ is equicontinuous and uniformly bounded on compact subsets. Thus, by Ascoli’s theorem, and passing to a subsequence if necessary, we have that $`\beta _k`$ converges on compact subsets to a continuous function $`\beta :M`$, called the Busemann function associated with $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_k\}`$. We will ultimately show that $`\beta C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ and satisfies $`\mathrm{}\beta =n`$, from which the special form of $`(M,g)`$ in the statement of Theorem 3 will readily follow. The first step is to establish the following.

Claim. *$`\mathrm{}\beta n`$ in the generalized support sense*.

Let $`p`$ be any point in $`M`$ and let $`B=B(p,r)`$ be a small geodesic ball centered at $`p`$ of radius $`r`$. To prove the claim we show that $`\mathrm{}\beta _kn_k`$ on $`B`$ in the support sense, where $`n_kn`$. Given $`qB`$ and $`ϵ>0`$, we construct a support function $`\beta _k^{q,ϵ}`$ for $`\beta _k`$ at $`q`$ as follows. Let $`z`$ be a point on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ closest to $`q`$, and let $`\gamma :[0,\mathrm{}]:M`$ be a unit speed minimal geodesic from $`z=\gamma (0)`$ to $`q=\gamma (\mathrm{})`$. Let $`V`$ be a small neighborhood of $`z`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$. By bending $`V`$ slightly toward the outside of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_k`$ we obtain a smooth hypersurface $`V^{}`$ with the following properties: (1) $`zV^{}`$ is the unique closest point in $`V^{}`$ to $`q`$, (2) the second fundamental form of $`V^{}`$ at $`z`$ (with respect to the outward normal) is strictly less than that of $`V`$, and (3) the mean curvature of $`V^{}`$ at $`z`$ satisfies $`H_V^{}(z)H_V(z)ϵh_kϵ`$. By construction, $`\gamma `$ minimizes the distance from $`q`$ to $`V^{}`$, and there are no focal cut points to $`V^{}`$ on $`\gamma `$ (in particular, $`q`$ is not a focal cut point). Hence the function $`\beta _k^{q,ϵ}(x)=d(\overline{o},\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)d(x,V^{})`$ is a lower support function for $`\beta _k`$ at $`q`$ which is smooth on a neighborhood of $`\gamma `$.

For $`0s\mathrm{}`$, let $`H(s)=\mathrm{}\beta _k^{q,ϵ}(\gamma (s))`$. Arguing as in Proposition 2, $`(s)=H(s)/n`$ satisfies, $`^{}^21`$, $`(0)(h_kϵ)/n`$. Since $`(h_kϵ)/n<1`$, by comparing with the unique solution to $`h^{}=h^21`$, $`h(0)=(h_kϵ)/n`$, we obtain, $`(s)\mathrm{tanh}(as)`$, where $`a=\mathrm{tanh}^1((h_kϵ)/n)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{n+h_kϵ}{nh_k+ϵ})`$. Setting $`s=\mathrm{}`$ in this inequality, we obtain,

$`\mathrm{}\beta _k^{q,ϵ}(q)=H(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`n\mathrm{tanh}(a\mathrm{})=n{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2a}e^2\mathrm{}}{e^{2a}+e^2\mathrm{}}}`$
$`=`$ $`n{\displaystyle \frac{(n+h_kϵ)(nh_k+ϵ)e^2\mathrm{}}{(n+h_kϵ)+(nh_k+ϵ)e^2\mathrm{}}}.`$
Now, by the triangle inequality, $`\mathrm{}=d(q,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)r+d(o,p)+d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)`$, and hence $`e^2\mathrm{}Ce^{2d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)}`$, where $`C=e^{2(r+d(o,p))}`$. Making use of this latter inequality in (2) we conclude that $`\mathrm{}\beta _kn_k`$ on $`B`$ in the support sense, where

(4) $`n_k=n{\displaystyle \frac{(n+h_k)C(nh_k)e^{2d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)}}{(n+h_k)+C(nh_k)e^{2d(o,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)}}}.`$
Invoking the mean curvature condition (2), we see that $`n_kn`$. This yields the claim.

We now consider the standard Busemann function associated to the ray $`\sigma |_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$. For each $`s>0`$, define the function $`b_s:M`$ by, $`b_s(x)=d(\overline{o},\sigma (s))d(x,\sigma (s))=sd(x,\sigma (s))`$. For each $`xM`$, $`b_s(x)`$ is increasing in $`s`$ and bounded by $`d(\overline{o},x)`$. The Busemann function $`b:M`$ of $`\sigma |_{[0,\mathrm{})}`$ is defined to be the limit function, $`b(x)=lim_s\mathrm{}b_s(x)`$. Because the family $`\{b_s\}`$ is equicontinuous, $`b`$ is continuous.

In the present situation in which the Ricci curvature is greater than or equal to $`n`$, it is known that $`\mathrm{}bn`$ in the generalized support sense (in fact, in the support sense, cf. ). As the arguments involved to show this are similar to (but simpler than) the arguments used in the proof of the claim, we make only a few brief comments. The relevant support functions $`b_s^{q,ϵ}`$ for $`b_s`$ are defined as follows. Let $`\gamma :[0,\mathrm{}]M`$ be a unit speed minimal geodesic from $`q`$ to $`\sigma (s)`$. The function $`b_s^{q,ϵ}`$ defined by, $`b_s^{q,ϵ}(x)=s(ϵ+d(x,\gamma (\mathrm{}ϵ))`$ is a lower support function for $`b_s`$ at $`q`$ which is smooth near $`q`$. By standard comparison techniques  like those used above, $`b_s^{q,ϵ}`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}b_s^{q,ϵ}(q)n\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{}ϵ)`$. From this it easily follows that $`\mathrm{}bn`$ in the generalized support sense.

To summarize, we have shown that the Busemann functions $`\beta `$ and $`b`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{}\beta n`$ and $`\mathrm{}bn`$ in the generalized support sense. Hence the sum $`f=\beta +b`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}f0`$ in the generalized support sense. Moreover, $`f`$ satisfies, $`f0`$ on $`M`$. Indeed, we have,

$`\beta (x)+b_s(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}[d(\sigma (0),\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)d(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)]+sd(x,\sigma (s))`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}[d(\sigma _k(0),\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)d(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)]+\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}[sd(x,\sigma _k(s))]`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}[d(\sigma _k(0),\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)+s(d(\sigma _k(s),x)+d(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k))].`$
By the triangle inequality,

(6) $`d(\sigma _k(s),x)+d(x,\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)d(\sigma _k(s),\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)=d(\sigma _k(0),\mathrm{\Sigma }_k)+s.`$
The inequalities (2) and (6) imply $`\beta (x)+b_s(x)0`$. Letting $`s\mathrm{}`$, we obtain $`f=\beta +b0`$. But note that $`f(\overline{0})=\beta (\sigma (0))+b(\sigma (0))=0+0=0`$. Thus, by the generalized maximum principle $`f0`$. Hence, $`\beta =b`$ and so satisfies $`\mathrm{}\beta n`$ in the generalized support sense. Since $`\mathrm{}\beta n`$ in the generalized support sense, as well, we conclude from the discussion after Lemma 4 that $`\beta `$ is smooth and satisfies $`\mathrm{}\beta =n`$ in the usual sense.

It is known that Busemann functions, where differentiable, have unit gradient, and hence $`|\beta |=1`$ everywhere. (Briefly, this follows from the fact that $`\beta `$ satisfies, $`|\beta (q)\beta (p)|d(p,q)`$, with equality holding when $`p`$ and $`q`$ are on an *asymptotic ray*, cf. Lemma 6 in .) This has as well known consequences the fact that $`\beta `$ is a geodesic vector field, i.e. its integral curves are unit speed geodesics, and that $`\beta `$ satisfies (),

(7) $`\beta (\mathrm{}\beta )=\mathrm{Ric}(\beta ,\beta )+|\mathrm{Hess}\beta |^2.`$
(Compare with Equation 1.) Since the left hand side vanishes, we have $`|\mathrm{Hess}\beta |^2=\mathrm{Ric}(\beta ,\beta )n`$. But from the Schwarz inequality, $`|\mathrm{Hess}\beta |^2|\mathrm{}\beta |^2/n=n`$. Hence, equality holds, which implies,

(8) $`\mathrm{Hess}\beta |_\beta ^{}=g|_\beta ^{}\text{ and }\mathrm{Ric}(\beta ,\beta )=n.`$
Exponentiating out from the slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\beta ^1(0)`$ along its normal geodesics ($`=`$ integral curves of $`\beta `$) establishes a global diffeomorphism $`M\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with respect to which $`g`$ takes the form

(9) $`g=dr^2+g_{ij}(r,x)dx^idx^j,`$
where $`/r=\beta `$ and $`g_r=g_{ij}(r,x)dx^idx^j`$ is the induced metric on the slice $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r=\beta ^1(r)\{r\}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^r`$, $`\mathrm{Hess}\beta (_i,_j)=\frac{1}{2}_rg_{ij}=g_{ij}`$ (by the first equation in (8)), which gives,

(10) $`g=dr^2+e^{2r}g_{ij}(0,x)dx^idx^j,`$
as required. The second equation in (8) and a calculation show that $`g_0=g_{ij}(0,x)dx^idx^j`$ is a metric of nonnegative Ricci curvature. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact, otherwise $`M\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has only one end, contrary to assumption. This concludes the proof of Theorem 3.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

Let $`N_0`$ be the component in the statement of the theorem which admits in its conformal class a metric $`h`$ of nonnegative scalar curvature. As discussed in the introduction, we may assume, in fact, that $`h`$ is a metric of zero scalar curvature. Then there is a defining function $`r`$ such that near $`N_0`$, $`M`$ has the form, $`M=[0,r_0)\times N_0`$, with metric $`g`$ of the form,

$`g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\overline{g}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{g}(\overline{}r,\overline{}r)}}dr^2+g_r),`$
where $`g_r`$ is the metric induced on $`N_r=\{r\}\times N_0`$ from $`\overline{g}`$, such that $`g_0=h`$. Assume that $`(M,g)`$ is Einstein, with $`\mathrm{Ric}=ng`$, or more generally that $`(M,g)`$ satisfies, $`\mathrm{Ric}ng`$ such that, as part of our fall-off assumption, the scalar curvature $`S`$ of $`(M,g)`$ satisfies,

$`Sn(n+1)\text{ as }r0.`$
As a computation shows, this implies that $`\overline{g}(\overline{}r,\overline{}r)=1`$ along $`N_0`$. Then as described in  (cf., Lemma 2.1) the defining function $`r`$ can be chosen uniquely in a neighborhood of $`N_0`$ so that $`\overline{g}(\overline{}r,\overline{}r)=1`$ in this neighborhood. Thus, we may assume that in $`[0,r_0)\times N_0`$, $`g`$ has the form,

(11) $`g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(dr^2+g_r).`$
With respect to this distinguished defining function we impose the following fall-off requirement,

(12) $`r^2(Ric+ng)0\text{ uniformly as }r0.`$
This condition is compatible with the fall-off condition considered in . Let us also emphasize that these fall-off conditions are automatically satisfied when $`M`$ is Einstein with $`\mathrm{Ric}=ng`$.

The Gauss equation in $`(M,g)`$ implies,

(13) $`H^2=\widehat{S}S+\mathrm{Ric}(X,X)+|B|^2,`$
where, for each $`r`$, $`\widehat{S}`$, $`B`$ and $`H`$ are, respectively, the scalar curvature, second fundamental form and mean curvature of $`N_r`$, and $`X=r/r`$ is the outward unit normal to $`N_r`$. For each $`r`$, let $`\overline{S}`$ denote the scalar curvature of $`N_r`$ in the metric $`g_r`$; $`\overline{S}`$ and $`\widehat{S}`$ are related by $`\widehat{S}=r^2\overline{S}`$. Using this and the inequality $`|B|^2H^2/n`$, (13) implies the inequality,

(14) $`n^2H^2{\displaystyle \frac{n}{n1}}(r^2\overline{S}+\kappa ),`$
where $`\kappa =2\mathrm{Ric}(X,X)Sn(n1)`$. It follows from (12) that $`r^2\kappa 0`$ uniformly as $`r0`$. Since $`H>0`$ for $`r`$ sufficiently small, we have $`n^2H^2n(nH)`$ at points where $`Hn`$. This, together with (14) implies,

(15) $`r^2(nH){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n1}}(\overline{S}+r^2\kappa )\text{ where }Hn.`$
Pick a sequence $`r_k0`$, and set $`\widehat{N}_k=N_{r_k}`$. Given $`o\widehat{N}_{k_0}`$, we have,

(16) $`e^{d(o,\widehat{N}_k)}=e^{_{r_k}^{r_{k_0}}\frac{1}{r}𝑑r}=r_{k_0}r_k^1.`$
Let $`(r_k,x_k)\widehat{N}_k`$ be a point where the mean curvature of $`\widehat{N}_k`$ achieves a minimum. We may assume this minimum mean curvature $`h_k=H(r_k,x_k)`$ is less than or equal to $`n`$, otherwise by the Witten-Yau result we are done. By passing to a subsequence we may further assume $`(r_k,x_k)(0,x_0)N_0`$. Then, setting $`(r,x)=(r_k,x_k)`$ in (15) we obtain,

(17) $`e^{2d(o,\widehat{N}_k)}(nh_k){\displaystyle \frac{r_{k_0}^2}{n1}}(\overline{S}(r_k,x_k)+r_k^2\kappa (r_k,x_k)).`$
Since, as $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{S}(r_k,x_k)\overline{S}(0,x_0)=0`$ and $`r_k^2\kappa (r_k,x_k)0`$, we have that condition (2) in Theorem 3 is satisfied. Then by Theorem 3 and remarks in the paragraph following its statement, $`M`$ has only one end and hence $`N=N_0`$, i.e., $`N`$ is connected.

This concludes the proof of part (a). Part (c) follows from part (a), just as in the proof of Theorem 3.3 in . One passes to the covering space $`\overline{M}^{}`$ of $`\overline{M}`$ associated with the subgroup $`i_{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_1(N))`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\overline{M})`$. The boundary $`\overline{M}^{}`$ contains a copy of $`N`$ and has more than one component if $`i_{}:\mathrm{\Pi }_1(N)\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\overline{M})`$ is not onto, contradicting part (a) applied to $`\overline{M}^{}`$. Part (b) follows from part (c) by some basic homology theory, as we now describe. Similar arguments have been used in  where related results in the spacetime setting have been obtained.

To prove part (c) consider the relative homology sequence for the pair $`\overline{M}N`$ (all homology is over $``$),

(18) $`\mathrm{}H_1(N)\stackrel{\alpha }{}H_1(\overline{M})\stackrel{\beta }{}H_1(\overline{M},N)\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{H}_0(N)=0.`$
(Here $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0(N)`$ is the reduced zeroth dimensional homology group.) To make use of part (c), we use the fact that the first integral homology of a space is isomorphic to the fundamental group modded out by its commutator subgroup. Hence, modding out by the commutator subgroups of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(\overline{M})`$, we obtain a surjective linear map from $`H_1(N)`$ to $`H_1(\overline{M})`$, i.e., $`\alpha `$ in (18) is onto. Since $`\alpha `$ is onto, $`\mathrm{ker}\beta =\mathrm{im}\alpha =H_1(\overline{M})`$ which implies $`\beta 0`$. Hence $`\mathrm{ker}=\mathrm{im}\beta =0`$, and thus $``$ is injective. This implies that $`H_1(\overline{M},N)=0`$. But by Poincaré duality for manifolds-with-boundary, $`H_1(\overline{M},N)H^n(\overline{M})H_n(\overline{M})`$, where for the second isomorphism we have used the fact that $`H_n(\overline{M})`$ is free (cf., ). We conclude that $`H_n(\overline{M},)=0`$.

If $`M`$ is nonorientable (which, by part (a) and a covering space argument, can happen if and only if $`N`$ is nonorientable), essentially the same argument shows $`H_n(\overline{M},/2)`$ vanishes.