text:
# Projective generation and smoothness of congruences of order 1Mathematical Subject Classification: 14M15, 14J

## 1 About Congruences of Order $`1`$

Let $`\text{IP}^N`$ be the $`N`$–dimensional projective complex space and $`G(r,N)`$ be the Grassmannian of $`r`$–dimensional subspaces in $`\text{IP}^N`$. We begin compiling some basic facts about $`G(r,N)`$ (see  for more details):

It is well known that the cohomology group $`H^i(G(r,N),)`$ is $`0`$ if $`i[0,2(Nr)(r+1)]`$ and the direct sum

$$H^{}(G(r,N),)=\underset{i}{}H^i(G(r,N),)$$

is a graded ring with the cup–product $``$. We can assign the cohomology class $`[X]`$ to each closed subset $`XG(r,N)`$, being satisfied the next properties:

* Two algebraically equivalent subvarieties have the same cohomology class.
* If $`XG(r,N)`$ is irreducible $`((r+1)(Nr)p)`$–dimensional, then $`[X]H^{2p}(G(r,N),)`$.
* For each two subvarieties $`X,YG(r,N)`$, $`[XY]=[X][Y]`$.

Let $`A_0A_1\mathrm{}A_r`$ be a strictly increasing sequence of subspaces of $`\text{IP}^N`$ , $`a_i:=dimA_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},r`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,\mathrm{},A_r)`$ denote the next subvariety of the grassmannian:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,\mathrm{},A_r)=\{\sigma G(r,N)/dim(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )A_i)i,i=0,\mathrm{},r\}$$

Such a subvariety is called a Schubert cycle in $`G(r,N)`$. Regarding $`G(r,N)`$ as a projective variety through the Plücker’s embedding, Schubert cycles can be obtained cutting it with some linear subspaces; for instance, the Schubert cycle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_rG(1,3)`$ parametrizing the lines in $`\text{IP}^3`$ meeting a given one $`r`$ consists of the intersection $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r=G(1,3)T_{G(1,3),[r]}`$.

Given two Schubert cycles $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,\mathrm{},A_r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(B_0,\mathrm{},B_r)`$, they are algebraically equivalent when $`dimA_i=dimBi`$ for every $`i`$; thus the cohomology class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,\mathrm{},A_r)`$ depends only of the integers $`a_i:=dimA_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},r`$, and we denote it by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(a_0,\mathrm{},a_r)`$. They play an important role in the cohomology of $`G(r,N)`$, in fact:

###### Theorem 1.1

$`H^{}(G(r,N),)`$ is a free abelian group with basis

$$\{\mathrm{\Omega }(a_0,\mathrm{},a_r)/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_rN\}.$$

Moreover, each $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A_0,\mathrm{},A_r)`$ is irreducible of dimension $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}(a_ii)`$, so we have the next corollary:

###### Corollary 1.2

For every integer $`p`$, $`H^{2p}(G(r,N),)`$ is a free abelian group generated by the elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }(a_0,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ with $`p=[(r+1)(Nr){\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}}(a_ii)]`$. Each $`H^{2p+1}(G(r,N),)`$ is $`0`$.

###### Example 1.3

By the above, we can calculate the basis of the cohomology groups of codimension $`2`$ and dimension $`2`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}H^{2(Nr)(r+1)4}(G(r,N),)=\mathrm{\Omega }_1:\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1,\mathrm{}r1,r+2),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2:\mathrm{\Omega }(0,1,\mathrm{}r2,r,r+1)\hfill \\ H^4(G(r,N),)=\mathrm{\Omega }^1:\mathrm{\Omega }(Nr2,Nr+1,Nr+2,\mathrm{}N),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2:\mathrm{\Omega }(Nr1,Nr,Nr+2\mathrm{}N)\hfill \end{array}$$

Denoting by $`L^i\text{IP}^n`$ a fixed generic $`i`$–dimensional subspace, the elements above correspond to the classes of the Schubert cycles:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_1=[\{\sigma G(r,N)/L^{r1}\text{IP}(\sigma )L^{r+2}\}]\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }_2=[\{\sigma G(r,N)/L^{r2}\text{IP}(\sigma )L^{r+1}\}]\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^1=[\{\sigma G(r,N)/\text{IP}(\sigma )L^{Nr2}\mathrm{}\}]\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2=[\{\sigma G(r,N)/dim(\text{IP}(\sigma )L^{Nr})1\}]\hfill \end{array}$$

and we can compute the products $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }^j`$ as the classes of the intersections of such Schubert cycles; thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }^j=0`$ if $`ij`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }^j=1`$ if $`i=j`$. Hence the cohomology class of a $`2`$–dimensional irreducible subvariety $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,N)`$ is determined by the number of points of intersection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with a generic Schubert cycle in the class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ (the number of elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ cutting a generic $`(Nr2)`$–dimensional space), and with another one in the class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ (the number of elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ meeting a generic $`(Nr)`$–dimensional space in lines); these numbers are called, respectively, order ($`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) and class ($`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The pair ($`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma },cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$) is called bidegree of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Moreover, regarding $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a projective variety through the Plücker embedding of the grassmannian, the degree of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is exactly $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })+cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

We wish to investigate $`2`$–dimensional families of $`r`$–dimensional subspaces in $`\text{IP}^N`$, called classically congruences. From now on, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will denote a $`2`$–dimensional reduced and irreducible closed subvariety of $`G(r,N)`$ and $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ its projective realization,

(1)
$$V(\mathrm{\Sigma }):=\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\text{IP}^r(\sigma )$$

The objective of this work is the classification of congruences of order $`1`$; by the next lemma we will be reduced to studying the case $`N=r+2`$.

###### Lemma 1.4

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,N)`$ be a congruence. If $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, then there exist a $`(r+2)`$–dimensional projective subspace $`A\text{IP}^N`$ such that $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )A`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Proof: Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is irreducible, $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is irreducible too. Let $`B\text{IP}^N`$ be a generic $`(Nr2)`$–dimensional subspace. As $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$ we have $`BV(\mathrm{\Sigma })=B\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\mathrm{}`$ for only one $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It follows that $`dimV(\mathrm{\Sigma })=r+2`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}V(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$. We finish taking $`A:=V(\mathrm{\Sigma })\text{IP}^{r+2}`$.

According to this lemma, we will only consider $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$, using the next notation for the incidence variety:

###### Definition 1.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence. A point $`P\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ is called fundamental for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if $`dim(p^1(P))1`$. The congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called degenerate iff $`dimV(\mathrm{\Sigma })<r+2`$, that is iff every point in $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is fundamental. For instance, a congruence of order $`1`$ is nondegenerate.

Given a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ and a projective subspace $`L\text{IP}^{r+2}`$, we can obtain a congruence in $`L`$ cutting it with each element of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The next results provide some properties of such sections.

###### Lemma 1.6

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence of order $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`L\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ be a $`(l+2)`$–dimensional generic subspace, $`l1`$; then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not meet $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L:=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/dimL\text{IP}^r(\sigma )l+1\}`$, which is a codimension $`l+2`$ Schubert cycle; thus the projection

$$\rho _L:\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)G(l,L),\pi _L(\sigma ):=[\text{IP}^r(\sigma )L]$$

is regular and has as image a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ such that $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Proof: Consider the incidence variety

$$:=\{(L,\sigma )/dim(L\text{IP}^r(\sigma ))l+1\}G(l+2,r+2)\times \mathrm{\Sigma }$$

with projections $`p_1`$ and $`q_1`$. Given $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`q_1^1(\sigma )\{LG(l+2,r+2)/dim(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )L)l+1\}`$ is a codimension $`l+2`$ Schubert cycle (because its cohomology class is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r1l,\mathrm{},r1,r,r+2)`$), so $`dim=dim\mathrm{\Sigma }+dimq_1^1(\sigma )=2+dimG(l+2,\text{IP}^{r+2})l2=dimG(l+2,\text{IP}^{r+2})1`$. Therefore $`p_1()G(l+2,r+2)`$ is a proper closed subset, and if $`LG(l+2,r+2)p_1()`$, then $`dim(L\text{IP}^r(\sigma ))=l`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It follows that the map $`\rho _L`$ defined above is regular. Furthermore it is birrational: a generic point $`P\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ is contained in a finite number of elements of the congruence, $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma _1),\mathrm{},\text{IP}^r(\sigma _n)`$; a generic $`l`$–dimensional subspace through $`P`$, $`W\text{IP}^r(\sigma _1)`$ will not be contained in another $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma _i)`$; so taking $`L\text{IP}^r(\sigma _1)=:W`$, we will have $`L\text{IP}^r(\sigma _1)=WL\text{IP}^r(\sigma _2),\mathrm{},L\text{IP}^r(\sigma _n)`$; thus $`\rho _L^1(W)=\{\sigma _1\}`$, so $`\mathrm{deg}\rho _L=1`$.

By construction, the equality $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ holds; by the birrationality of $`\rho _L`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and so $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ holds too.

###### Remark 1.7

Furthermore, regarding $`G(r,r+2)`$ and $`G(l,l+2)`$ as projective varieties through the corresponding Plücker embeddings, the map $`\rho _L`$ is easily shown to be the projection from the space generated by the Schubert cycle $`\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/dim(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )L)2\}`$.

###### Lemma 1.8

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a nondegenerate congruence, and $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ its fundamental locus. Then $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })r`$.

Proof: Suppose the lemma were false. We could find an $`(r+1)`$–dimensional irreducible component $`CF(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Considering the restriction $`p^1(C)_\mathrm{\Sigma }C\text{IP}^{r+2}`$, we would have $`dimp^1(C)=r+2`$, and so $`p^1(C)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Consequently $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would be degenerate.

###### Lemma 1.9

Under the hypotheses of (1.6) and with the above notation, it is verified the equality $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })L=F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)`$.

Proof: By construction $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })LF(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)`$. If $`PF(\mathrm{\Sigma })LF(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)`$, $`P`$ would be contained in an irreducible family of elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the same trace on $`L`$. An $`l`$–dimensional subspace contained in infinite elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called fundamental. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is nondegenerate (the degenerate case is trivial). It is sufficient to show that, if $`D`$ is an irreducible component of $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and if $`L`$ is generic, $`DL`$ does not contain fundamental subspaces. On the contrary, suppose $`DL`$ contains fundamental subspaces for all $`L`$; by (1.8) $`dimDr`$, so $`D`$ would be an $`r`$–dimensional projective space whose $`l`$–dimensional subspaces are all fundamental. Considering the incidence variety:

$$𝒥:=\{(l,\sigma )/l\text{IP}^r(\sigma )D\}G(l,D)\times \mathrm{\Sigma }$$

with projections $`p_2`$ and $`q_2`$, we have $`dim𝒥=2+dimq_2^1(\sigma )2+(l+1)(r1l)`$, because $`q_2^1(\sigma )G(1,\text{IP}^r(\sigma )D)`$. Thus $`dim𝒥2+(l+1)(r1l)(l+1)(rl)=dimG(l,D)`$, so either $`p_2`$ is not surjective, or it has generically finite fibers. In both cases, the generic $`l`$–dimensional subspace is not fundamental, a contradiction.

###### Definition 1.10

A point $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is called fixed point of the congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ when $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Remark 1.11

The locus of fixed points of a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a linear subspace that we will denote by $`T(\mathrm{\Sigma })\text{IP}^{r+2}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on the Schubert’s cycle:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{T(\mathrm{\Sigma })}:=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/\text{IP}^r(\sigma )T(\mathrm{\Sigma })\}$$

Being $`L\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ a generic complementary subspace of $`T(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`k+2:=dimL=r+2dimT(\mathrm{\Sigma })1`$, the maps

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _L:\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }_{T(\mathrm{\Sigma })}[\text{IP}^r(\sigma )L]G(k,k+2)\\ \rho ^{T(\mathrm{\Sigma })}:\tau G(k,k+2)[\text{IP}^k(\tau )+T(\mathrm{\Sigma })]\mathrm{\Omega }_{T(\mathrm{\Sigma })}\end{array}$$

provide an isomorphism $`G(k,k+2)\mathrm{\Omega }_{T(\mathrm{\Sigma })}G(r,r+2)`$. Clearly, the congruence $`\rho _L(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points; roughly speaking, $`\rho _L(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the same surface as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ living in a grassmannian of lesser dimension. Therefore it suffices to study congruences without fixed points.

## 2 Focal Locus of a Congruence in $`G(r,r+2)`$

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence. Being $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ smooth, a point $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is called focal if $`(dp)_{(P,\sigma )}`$ is not injective. If $`\mathrm{ker}((dp)_{(P,\sigma )})v`$ for some $`vq^{}T_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }`$, $`v0`$, we say that $`P`$ is focal for the direction $`v`$.

###### Proposition 2.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence. If $`P\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ is a fundamental point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`P`$ is focal for every $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ smooth with $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$. Furthermore, if $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is focal and if $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, then $`P`$ is fundamental.

Proof: Being $`P`$ fundamental, there is an irreducible curve $`C\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`P\sigma `$ for all $`\sigma C`$. Taking a smooth point $`\sigma C`$ and regarding the curve $`\{P\}\times C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have $`p(\{P\}\times C)=P`$. Assuming that $`\sigma `$ is smooth in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we can write $`(dp)_{(P,\sigma )}(T_{\{P\}\times C,(P,s)})=0`$. Therefore $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is focal.

For the second part we use that $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{deg}(p)`$. If $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, the map $`p`$ is dominant and $`p(_\mathrm{\Sigma })=\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ is normal. Hence $`\mathrm{deg}(p)=_{p(x)=P}m_x(p)`$ for every nonfundamental point $`P`$, being $`m_x(p):=dim_{\text{C}\text{ }\text{ }}(𝒪_{_\mathrm{\Sigma },x}/p^{}\text{m}_P)`$ for $`\text{m}_P`$ the maximal ideal of the local ring $`𝒪_{\text{IP}^{r+2},P}`$. Thus, if $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, $`m_x(p)>1`$ forces $`P`$ to be fundamental. The proof is completed with the next lemma.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence and denote $`x:=(P,\sigma )_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. $`x`$ is focal if and only if $`m_x(p)2`$.

Proof: Regarding the diagram

it is easily seen that $`dim_{\text{C}\text{ }\text{ }}(𝒪_{_\mathrm{\Sigma },x}/p^{}\text{m}_P)=dim_{\text{C}\text{ }\text{ }}(\text{m}_x/p^{}\text{m}_P)+1`$. Consider the next diagram:

By Nakayama’s lemma $`p^{}`$ is surjective iff $`(dp)_x^{}`$ is surjective, that is iff $`(dp)_x`$ is injective. Hence, $`x`$ is focal iff $`dim_{\text{C}\text{ }\text{ }}(\text{m}_x/p^{}\text{m}_P)>0m_x(p)>1`$.

We continue with some basic facts about the focal locus of a congruence in $`G(r,r+2)`$; we refer the reader to  for more details in the case $`r=2`$, but the proofs also work for all $`r`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an smooth point. For each $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ there is an isomorphism $`T_{_\mathrm{\Sigma },(P,\sigma )}T_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }T_{\text{IP}^r(\sigma ),P}`$.

The focal locus at $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ can be calculated through the Characteristic Map of Kodaira–Segre–Spencer:

(3)
$$\chi :T_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }H^0(𝒩_{\text{IP}^r(\sigma ),\text{IP}^{r+2}})H^0(𝒪_{\text{IP}^r(\sigma )}(1))H^0(𝒪_{\text{IP}^r(\sigma )}(1))$$

being $`\chi (v)=0`$ the equations of the focal locus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ in the direction $`vT_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }`$. An easy computation shows that:

* The focal locus at $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ in a direction $`v`$ is a projective subspace of dimension $`r2`$ or $`r1`$ and we denote it by $`Z(\chi (v))`$. Taking a base $`\{v_1,v_2\}`$ in $`T_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }`$, whose images through $`\chi `$ are $`(f_{11},f_{12})`$ and $`(f_{21},f_{22})`$ respectively, $`Z(\chi (\lambda v_1+\mu v_2))`$ will be the set of points $`P\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ satisfying the equations:

$$\begin{array}{c}\lambda f_{11}(P)+\mu f_{21}(P)=0\\ \lambda f_{12}(P)+\mu f_{22}(P)=0\end{array}\}$$
* The focal locus at $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is a quadric $`Q(\sigma )=_{vT_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }}Z(\chi (\sigma ))`$, and it is given by the equation

(4)
$$det\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_{11}(P)& f_{21}(P)\\ f_{12}(P)& f_{22}(P)\end{array}\right)=0$$

It is reducible if and only if there exist a direction $`vT_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma }`$ such that $`dimZ(\chi (v))=r1`$. Such directions are called developable, and the number of them is fixed in an open subset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; this number can be $`0`$, $`1`$, $`2`$ (distinct or coincident) or $`\mathrm{}`$ (if all direction is developable).
* If $`Q(\sigma )`$ is irreducible, it contains a $`1`$–dimensional family of $`(r2)`$–dimensional projective subspaces. Therefore $`rankQ(\sigma )4`$ (see for instance , book V, page 100). $`Q(\sigma )`$ will be a cone with vertex a subspace $`C(\sigma )\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ over an smooth conic or an smooth quadric surface. In both cases the focal loci in each direction are subspaces of maximal dimension contained in $`Q(\sigma )`$, and so the intersection of two of them is $`C(\sigma )`$. Hence $`C(\sigma )`$ is the set of points focal for all direction.
* Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(r,r+2)`$ be a reduced and irreducible curve. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a developable system if the focal locus in each $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$, $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ has dimension $`r1`$. Following , $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ parametrizes a family of the next kind: Cone with vertex a subspace $`\text{IP}^k`$ over the family of $`(rk1)`$–osculating spaces to an irreducible curve $`𝒞\text{IP}^{rk+1}`$, $`k=1,0,\mathrm{},r1`$. For instance, a $`1`$–dimensional family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s lying in an $`(r+1)`$–dimensional space is always developable.
* A nondegenerate congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ has reducible generic focal quadric iff by the generic $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

+ is passing $`1`$ developable system, or
    + are passing $`2`$ distinct developable systems, or
    + are passing $`2`$ coincident developable systems, or
    + are passing infinite developable systems.

Being $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$, denote $`F_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ its focal variety, that is, the projective realization of the family of focal quadrics, which is defined in an open set $`U\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`_1(U)U`$. In general, the fundamental locus $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a subvariety of $`F_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (see ). In the case $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, (2.2) clearly forces the equality $`F_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })=F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Moreover, by (1.8) $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })r`$, $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })<dimF_1(U)=r+1`$. The generic focal quadric can be irreducible or not, so either $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is irreducible, or it is the projective realization of two $`2`$–dimensional families of $`\text{IP}^{r1}`$’s, having at least $`2`$ irreducible components.

###### Example 2.4

Let $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ be two irreducible curves in $`\text{IP}^3`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1,C_2)`$ for the set of lines joining points of both curves, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1)`$ the family of secant lines to $`C_1`$. Clearly the focal locus of these congruences contains the base curves (furthermore, they will be exactly the focal locus in some cases). If $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are not coplanar, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1,C_2)`$ is nondegenerate, and if $`C_1`$ is not a plane curve, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1)`$ is nondegenerate. We will show later when these congruences have order $`1`$.

In the next two results we examine the focal locus of a congruence of order $`1`$, concretely its irreducible components and degree.

###### Proposition 2.5

If the focal locus of a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of order $`1`$ is reducible, $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })=C_1C_2`$, then both components have dimension $`r`$ and one of them is linear.

Proof: We have shown that the number of irreducible components of $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is at most two, with dimensions lesser than or equal to $`r`$ by (1.8). Let $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ be the irreducible components of $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. It is sufficient to show that if $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is reducible, its section with the generic $`3`$–dimensional space consists of a line and an irreducible curve. Thus using (1.6) and (1.9), we can suppose $`r=1`$. If $`dimC_i=0`$ for some $`i`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would be the family of lines passing by $`C_i`$, whose focal locus is the point $`C_i`$, so $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are irreducible curves. Every line of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains a point in each curve, so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1,C_2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_2)`$ are closed subsets in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1)`$, then every line of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would contain at least three focal points, two of $`C_1`$ and one of $`C_2`$, so the focal quadric at each line must be the whole line; equivalently, the congruence would be degenerate, so $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$, false.). Being $`K\text{IP}^3`$ a generic plane, it contains $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, none belonging to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_1)`$ nor $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_2)`$. Hence every generator in $`K`$ meets $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ exactly one time. If $`\mathrm{deg}C_1,\mathrm{deg}C_22`$, we could take $`l=P_1P_2`$, $`l^{}=Q_1Q_2`$, $`P_i,Q_iC_i`$, $`P_iQ_i`$. The point $`P=ll^{}`$ could not lie on $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, but as $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, $`P`$ should be fundamental, a contradiction.

###### Proposition 2.6

If the focal locus $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of a congruence of order $`1`$ is irreducible, one of these possibilities is true:

1. $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an $`(r1)`$–dimensional projective space and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s containing $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.
2. $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })=r`$, and then:

1. either $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a projective space,
    2. or $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an irreducible variety of degree $`3`$.

Proof: By hypothesis $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is irreducible, containing the focal quadrics. If $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })r1`$, then $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })=Q(\sigma )\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Therefore $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an $`(r1)`$–dimensional projective space.

Suppose $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })=r`$. Using (1.6) and (1.9) we are reduced to the case $`r=1`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}F(\mathrm{\Sigma })=n>1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(F(\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$: let $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be generic and $`PF(\mathrm{\Sigma })\text{IP}^1(\sigma )\mathrm{}`$; since $`n>1`$, a generic plane $`\pi \text{IP}^1(\sigma )`$ contains another point $`QF(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`QP`$. A $`1`$–dimensional family of lines of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is passing by $`Q`$, forming a cone of degree $`1`$; one of its generators $`\text{IP}^1(\tau )`$ lies on $`\pi `$, cutting $`\text{IP}^1(\sigma )`$ in a fundamental point $`RF(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and $`\text{IP}^1(\sigma )=PR`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(F(\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$, necessarily $`\mathrm{deg}F(\mathrm{\Sigma })3`$ (otherwise, $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ would be planar, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ would be degenerate). Suppose, contrary to our claim, that $`\mathrm{deg}F(\mathrm{\Sigma })4`$. The generic plane $`\pi \text{IP}^3`$ cuts $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in $`n4`$ points such that any $`3`$ of them are not collinear (by the Trisecant Lemma). Taking four of them, the diagonal points of the square they form must be fundamental; that is, they belong to $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$; hence there are $`3`$ collinear points of $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi `$, a contradiction.

We study now the case where $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (irreducible or not) contains a projective space.

###### Lemma 2.7

Let $`\pi `$ be an $`r`$–dimensional projective space and consider the Schubert’s cycle:

(5)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi :=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/dim\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi r1\}G(r,r+2)$$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$ is a cone with vertex $`[\pi ]`$ over a Segre Variety of the form $`\text{IP}^r\times \text{IP}^1\text{IP}^{2r+1}`$

Proof: Regard $`H_\pi =\{[H]\text{IP}_{}^{r+2}{}_{}{}^{}/H\pi \}\text{IP}^1`$ and the projection

(6)
$$\varphi :\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi \{[\pi ]\}\pi ^{}\times H_\pi ,\varphi (\sigma ):=(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi ,\text{IP}^r(\sigma )+\pi )$$

whose fibers are $`\varphi ^1(h,H)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,H}=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/h\text{IP}^r(\sigma )H\}\text{IP}^1`$, and $`[\pi ]\mathrm{\Omega }_{h,H}`$. In this way $`\varphi `$ defines $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$ as a cone.

###### Remark 2.8

Segre variety $`\pi ^{}\times H_\pi `$ can be geometrically thought in the next way: a line $`l\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ disjoint of $`\pi `$ parametrizes the elements of $`H_\pi `$, so the subvariety of the grassmannian $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi \{\sigma /\text{IP}^r(\sigma )l\mathrm{}\}`$ is a Segre variety of the form $`\pi ^{}\times H_\pi `$. Moreover, it is the intersection of two Schubert cycles, one of them not containing $`[\pi ]`$, so it is a hyperplane section of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$.

###### Proposition 2.9

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence and $`\pi \text{IP}^{r+2}`$ be an $`r`$–dimensional projective subspace such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has order $`1`$ if and only if $`\varphi ^1(\pi ^{}\times \{H\})\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a line for all $`HH_\pi `$. Thus the map

(7)
$$\alpha :\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\}H_\pi \text{IP}^1$$

given by $`\alpha (\sigma )=\text{IP}^r(\sigma )+\pi `$ defines $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a rational ruled surface.

Proof: Taking $`HH_\pi `$, $`\alpha ^1(H)=\{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }/\text{IP}^r(\sigma )H\}`$ is $`1`$–dimensional and each one of its irreducible components is a developable family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s (because they are contained in $`H`$), whose focal locus has dimension $`r`$. If $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, then $`dimF(\mathrm{\Sigma })=r`$, and so the focal locus of those families must be $`(r1)`$–dimensional. Equivalently, each one is a family of $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$’s containing an $`(r1)`$–dimensional space in $`H`$; since $`ord(\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$, each $`H\pi `$ can only contain one of such families (otherwise, every point in $`H`$ would be focal). So $`\alpha ^1(H)\text{IP}^1`$. Conversely, a congruence constructed in such way has clearly order $`1`$.

###### Proposition 2.10

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence of order $`1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points, then $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })r`$.

Proof: Consider

(8)
$$\beta :\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\}\stackrel{\varphi }{}\pi ^{}\times H_\pi \stackrel{p}{}\pi ^{}$$

given by $`\beta (\sigma )=\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi `$. In each hyperplane $`H\pi `$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ consists of a pencil of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s contained in $`H`$ (with base a certain $`(r1)`$–dimensional projective space). If $`P\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ is a fixed point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, necessarily $`P\pi `$, and so $`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi ^{}(P)=\{h\pi ^{}/Ph\}\pi ^{}`$ will be degenerate. Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has fixed points iff $`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi ^{}`$ is degenerate. Now, we have two cases:

1. If $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a curve: $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })+1=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{deg}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma }))=\mathrm{\#}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })(h\times H_\pi +\pi ^{}\times H))`$ where $`h\pi ^{}`$ and $`HH_\pi `$. Hence $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })+1=\mathrm{\#}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })(h\times H_\pi ))+\mathrm{\#}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })(\pi ^{}\times H))\mathrm{deg}(\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma }))+1dim(\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma }))+1=r+1`$.
2. If $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a surface: $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })+1=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\mathrm{deg}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$. The map $`p:\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ consists of projecting from a certain $`\pi ^{}\times H`$, that contains exactly one generator of $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Hence $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })+1\mathrm{deg}(\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma }))+2dim\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })1+2=r+1`$.

## 3 Case I: $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is $`r`$–dimensional irreducible of degree $`3`$

First examine the case $`r=1`$: by (2.6) $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a nondegenerate curve of degree $`3`$ in $`\text{IP}^3`$, that is a rational normal cubic, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(F(\mathrm{\Sigma }))`$. Conversely, the congruence of secant lines to a rational normal cubic has clearly order $`1`$. Since a generic plane $`\pi \text{IP}^3`$ cuts $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in three noncollinear points, $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })=3`$, thus $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=4`$. Moreover, the secant lines through a fixed point $`PF(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ form a quadric cone, so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not a ruled surface (the lines in $`G(1,3)`$ parametrize linear pencils of lines through a point). Such a quadric cone is parametrized by an irreducible conic $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ is the family of lines through $`P`$. Given two points $`P,QF(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=[PQ]`$ so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(P),\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)=\mathrm{\Omega }_P+\mathrm{\Omega }_Q=T_{G(1,3),[PQ]}`$ that is $`4`$–dimensional and $`T_{G(1,3),[PQ]}\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(P)\mathrm{\Sigma }(Q)`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is nondegenerate in $`\text{IP}^5=G(1,3)`$. By Del Pezzo’s Theorem (see for instance  page 525), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must be the Veronese surface.

By (1.6), if $`r>1`$, a generic $`3`$–dimensional subspace $`L\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ provide us a projection $`\rho _L:\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_L\text{IP}^5`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ is a Veronese surface by the above. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ is normal and $`\rho _L`$ is regular and birrational, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be a Veronese surface too.

$`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an $`r`$–dimensional irreducible variety of degree $`3`$ in $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$. A description of such varieties can be found in : Such a variety is, in general, a cone with vertex a subspace $`C`$ over a variety of the same degree and codimension in a projective subspace complementary to $`C`$. If it is smooth, then it is a rational normal scroll. Thus it contains a $`1`$–dimensional family of disjoint $`\text{IP}^{r1}`$’s, which is only possible if $`r3`$.

Therefore $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is one of the next varieties:

* the rational normal cubic in $`\text{IP}^3`$ ($`r=1`$),
* the rational normal cubic surface in $`\text{IP}^4`$, projective realization of the Blowing-Up of the plane in a point ($`r=2`$),
* the rational normal cubic $`3`$–fold in $`\text{IP}^5`$, projection of the Blowing-Up of $`\text{IP}^3`$ in a line from one of its points ($`r=3`$),
* a cone with vertex a subspace $`C`$ over one of the varieties described above.

Such varieties are intersection of $`3`$ quadrics, and they contain exactly a $`2`$–dimensional family of $`(r1)`$–dimensional quadrics. These quadrics are smooth iff $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is smooth, othercase they are cones with vertex $`C`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must therefore be the congruence of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s containing such quadrics. Conversely, a congruence constructed in this way has clearly order $`1`$, because cutting it with a $`3`$–dimensional space we obtain the family of secant lines to a irreducible nondegenerate curve of degree $`3`$. Summarizing, we have:

###### Theorem 3.1

Every irreducible subvariety of $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ of degree $`3`$ and codimension $`2`$ contains a $`2`$–dimensional family of $`(r1)`$–dimensional quadrics, and the family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s containing those quadrics is a congruence of order $`1`$ and class $`3`$, parametrized by a Veronese surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lie on the Schubert cycle $`\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/\text{IP}^r(\sigma )V\}`$, being $`V`$ the singular locus of all the quadrics, and $`r2dimVr4`$. Conversely, every congruence of order $`1`$ with nonlinear irreducible focal locus is constructed in this way.

###### Remark 3.2

Thus there are only three cases of congruences in the case II without fixed points, and the rest are cones over one of those; that is, using the isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_CG(rdimC1,rdimC+1)$$

there are only three different embeddings of the Veronese surface in a grassmannian as a congruence of bidegree $`(1,3)`$: in $`G(1,3)`$, in $`G(2,4)`$ and in $`G(3,5)`$.

## 4 Case II: $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is reducible

In this case, for each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the focal quadric in $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$ is reducible, $`Q(\sigma )=\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )\text{IP}_2^{r1}(\sigma )`$, and the components of $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are the projective realizations, $`X`$ and $`\pi `$, of the $`\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )`$’s and of the $`\text{IP}_2^{r1}(\sigma )`$’s, respectively. By (2.5), $`dimX=dim\pi =r`$ and $`\pi `$ is linear.

###### Proposition 4.1

Under the above assumptions, $`X`$ is an $`r`$–dimensional scroll (resp. a curve, for $`r=1`$) such that each one of its generators (resp. points, for $`r=1`$) is contained in exactly one linear pencil of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s of the congruence.

Proof: For $`r=1`$, we have already seen that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(X,\pi )`$ in the proof of (2.5). Being $`PX`$ generic, the lines of the congruence containing $`P`$ lie on the plane $`\pi +P`$, hence they are exactly one linear pencil.

If $`r>1`$, the family of $`\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )`$’s contained in $`X`$ cannot be $`2`$–dimensional; otherwise $`X`$ would be a projective space and, as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is nondegenerate, $`dimX\pi =(r2)`$, so $`X\pi =\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\tau )\text{IP}_2^{r1}(\tau )`$ for all $`\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }`$; but the family of $`\text{IP}^{r1}`$’s in $`X`$ containing $`X\pi `$ is not $`2`$–dimensional, a contradiction. Therefore $`X`$ is a scroll and each one of its generators $`\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )`$ is contained in an infinity of elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, all of them lying in $`\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )+\pi `$; by (2.6) and (2.9) such elements are exactly the linear pencil $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma ),\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )+\pi }=\alpha ^1(\alpha (\sigma ))`$.

###### Example 4.2

The case $`r=1`$: let $`\pi \text{IP}^3`$ be a line, $`X\text{IP}^3`$ an irreducible curve of degree $`n`$ and suppose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$ has order $`1`$. By (2.6), the generic plane $`H\pi `$ contains exactly one point of $`X`$ out of $`\pi `$ (the base point of the pencil of lines of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contained in $`H`$). Thus $`\pi `$ cuts $`X`$ in $`n1`$ points counted with multiplicity, and the projection

$$\gamma :X\{H\text{IP}_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{}/H\pi \}\text{IP}^1$$

given by $`\gamma (x)=x+\pi `$ shows that $`X`$ is rational and smooth out of $`\pi `$. Moreover, if $`H\pi `$ is generic, it cuts $`X`$ in $`n`$ distinct points, no two collinear with $`X\pi `$, so $`H`$ contains exactly $`n`$ lines of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; therefore $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{deg}(X)=n`$.

$`X`$ is a projection of a rational normal curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\text{IP}^n`$ from a space $`Vx_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$ , $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$, disjoint of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. There are two possibilities: either $`X\text{IP}^3`$ is nondegenerate, equivalently $`dimV=n4`$, or $`X`$ is a plane curve, equivalently $`dimV=n3`$. Conversely, if $`X`$ is such a projection of a rational normal curve, and $`\pi `$ is a line containing the projection of $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$, the congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$ has clearly order $`1`$.

###### Remark 4.3

The curve $`X`$ is smooth out of $`\pi `$, but it is not smooth in general. For instance, consider the congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(X,\pi )`$ where $`X`$ is a nodal cubic in a plane $`L`$ and $`\pi `$ is a line meeting $`L`$ in the double point of $`X`$.

###### Example 4.4

The case $`r>1`$: let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence of order $`1`$ in the case II. In (4.1) we have shown how $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is constructed from its focal locus $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })=X\pi `$. According to (1.11), assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points. By each generator $`\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )X`$ passes the linear pencil $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma ),\text{IP}_1^{r1}(\sigma )+\pi }`$. Let us denote $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By (2.6), the projection $`\gamma :X\{H\text{IP}_{}^{r+2}{}_{}{}^{}/H\pi \}\text{IP}^1`$ given by $`\gamma (x)=x+\pi `$ forces $`X`$ to be a rational scroll and smooth out of $`\pi `$. In order to compute $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, take a generic $`3`$–dimensional subspace $`L\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ and consider the section $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$, whose focal locus is $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=(XL)(\pi L)`$. By (1.6) and the above example, we get: $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })=cl(\mathrm{\Sigma }_L)=\mathrm{deg}(XL)=\mathrm{deg}(X)`$.

Being $`\mathrm{deg}X=n`$, $`X`$ is a projection of a rational normal scroll $`R\text{IP}^{n+(r1)}`$ of the same degree. The center $`V`$ of such projection ($`p_V`$) is disjoint of $`R`$, and is contained in the space generated by $`p_V^{}(\pi X)`$. Moreover $`dimV=(n+(r1)dimX1)`$, being $`dimX=r+2`$ or $`r+1`$. Conversely, every $`r`$–dimensional rational normal scroll can be projected to $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ in this way, obtaining the focal scroll of a congruence of order $`1`$ in the case II without fixed points.

The next proposition provides a criterion for the smoothness of a congruence in the case II.

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence in the case II. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a rational ruled surface of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{deg}(X)+1`$ contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi =\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/dim(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi )r1\}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points, by $`[\pi ]`$ are passing at most $`nr`$ generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (exactly $`n1`$ if $`r=1`$) counted with multiplicity. The singular locus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ consists of, at most, $`[\pi ]`$ and the multiple generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ passing by it. Hence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is smooth if and only if $`\pi X`$ contains at most one generator of $`X`$. In particular, if $`nr+1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is always smooth, and if $`r=1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is smooth iff $`n2`$.

Proof: If $`r=1`$, consider $`\gamma :X\{H\text{IP}_{}^{3}{}_{}{}^{}/H\pi \}\text{IP}^1`$ defined in (4.2). It is an isomorphism in $`X\{[\pi ]\}`$ and puts in correspondence the $`n1`$ points (counted with multiplicity) of $`\pi X`$ with the planes by $`\pi `$ containing pencils of lines of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with base point in $`\pi X`$; equivalently $`[\pi ]`$ belongs to those pencils. Thus $`[\pi ]`$ will be contained in $`n1`$ generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ counted with multiplicity.

If $`r>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points, consider the projection $`p_V:RX`$ given in (4.4), whose center $`V`$ is contained in $`p_V^{}(\pi X)`$. Clearly $`p_V^{}(\pi X)HF`$ where $``$ denotes linear equivalence, $`H`$ the hyperplane section of $`R`$ and $`F`$ one of its generators. The generators of $`R`$ contained in $`p_V^{}(\pi X)`$ are in correspondence with the generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ passing by $`[\pi ]`$. Thus, it is enough to show that $`p_V^{}(\pi X)`$ contains at most $`nr`$ generators counted with multiplicity: a hyperplane section $`HR`$ is a divisor of the form $`H=C+F_1+\mathrm{}+F_k`$, where $`F_i`$ are generators and $`C=\overline{_{FF_1,\mathrm{},F_k}(FH)}`$ is an irreducible $`(r1)`$–dimensional scroll with disjoint generators (since $`R`$ is normal); then $`dimC2(r2)+1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(C)codim(CC)+1r1`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}(H)=n`$, $`kn(r1)=nr+1`$, which is our claim.

Being $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_r1`$ integers, $`n=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_r`$, $`r>1`$, let $`R(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)\text{IP}^{n+(r1)}`$ denote the rational normal scroll generated by the rational normal curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_r}`$ in disjoint spaces (given $`r`$ isomorphisms $`\nu _i:\text{IP}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, $`R(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ is the scroll generated by the spaces $`\nu _1(t),\mathrm{},\nu _r(t)`$, with $`t\text{IP}^1`$); $`H`$ denotes its hyperplane section and $`F`$ one of its generators.

###### Proposition 4.6

The rational normal scroll $`R(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ can be projected to $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ providing the focal scroll $`X`$ of a nonsingular congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$. Hence, given $`nr`$, there exist smooth congruences $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of order $`1`$ and class $`n`$ without fixed points. Moreover, if $`nr+2`$ and if $`\mathrm{max}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)3`$, $`R(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ can be projected to $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ providing the focal scroll of a singular congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$. Hence, if $`nr+2`$, there exist singular congruences $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of order $`1`$ and order $`n`$.

Proof: As we have seen in the proof of (4.5), the singularity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$ depends of the number of generators of $`R:=R(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ contained in $`p_V^{}(\pi X)HF`$; we will thus have to choose properly a divisor $`CHF`$ in each case.

For the first part, it is sufficient to show that $`|HF|`$ contains irreducible divisors: the trace of $`|H|`$ over $`F`$ is the complete linear series $`|𝒪_F(HF)|`$, so we have an exact sequence

$$0H^0(𝒪_R(HF))H^0(𝒪_R(H))H^0(𝒪_F(1))0$$

and $`h^0(𝒪_R(HF))=n`$; moreover the trace of $`|HF|`$ over another generator $`F^{}`$ is $`|𝒪_F^{}(HF^{})|`$, so the exact sequence

$$0H^0(𝒪_R(HFF^{}))H^0(𝒪_R(HF))H^0(𝒪_F^{}(1))0$$

provides $`h^0(𝒪_R(HFF^{}))=nr`$. Making $`F^{}`$ vary in $`R`$, the set of reducible elements of $`|HF|`$ has dimension $`nr`$, hence it is a proper closed subset.

For the second part, we will show that $`k=\mathrm{max}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$ is the greatest number of generators of $`R`$ contained in a hyperplane (thus, if $`k3`$, a divisor in $`|HF|`$ can contain $`k12`$ generators of $`R`$): let $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_l`$ be generators of $`R`$, $`F_i=P_i^1,\mathrm{},P_i^r`$, $`P_i^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_j}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$. They are contained in a hyperplane iff $`F_1+\mathrm{}+F_l\text{IP}^{n+r1}`$, iff $`P_1^1,\mathrm{},P_l^1+\mathrm{}+P_1^r,\mathrm{},P_l^r\text{IP}^{n+r1}`$, iff $`ln_j`$ for some $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$, iff $`l\mathrm{max}(n_1,\mathrm{},n_r)`$, which is our claim.

The next proposition deals with the existence of congruences with assigned linearly normal model. We will use the notation of  chapter V §2.

###### Proposition 4.7

Given $`n1`$ and $`1rn`$, there exist congruences without fixed points $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ in the case II of order $`1`$ and class $`n`$, with given invariant $`e`$, $`0en1`$, $`ne1(mod2)`$.

Proof: Let $`X_e`$ be the geometrically ruled surface of invariant $`e`$, $`C_0`$ its minimal directrix ($`C_0^2=e`$) and $`F`$ one of its generators. Suppose $`0en1`$ and $`ne1(mod2)`$ and consider the morphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\psi _1:X_e\text{IP}^1,& \psi _2:X_e\text{IP}^n\end{array}$$

given by the linear systems $`|F|`$ and $`|C_0+(n+e1)/2F|`$, respectively. Since $`(ne1)/2e`$ the second one is base point free, so both maps are regular. Regard the composition

$$\psi :X_e\stackrel{\psi _1\times \psi _2}{}\text{IP}^1\times \text{IP}^n\stackrel{i}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi \text{IP}^{2n+2}$$

where $`\pi \text{IP}^{n+2}`$ is an $`n`$–dimensional subspace, and we use the identification of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi `$ with the cone with vertex $`[\pi ]`$ over the Segre variety given in (2.7). If $`H\text{IP}^{2n+2}`$ is a hyperplane, then $`\psi ^1(H)=C_0+(n+e+1)/2F`$ and $`\psi ^{}(|H|)=|C_0+(n+e+1)/2F|`$. Hence $`\psi (X_e)`$ is a rational normal ruled surface of degree $`n+1`$ and invariant $`e`$. Since $`\psi _1^1(x)F`$, the condition of (2.9) holds, so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has order $`1`$. Each generator $`F\psi (X_e)`$ parametrizes a pencil of $`\text{IP}^n`$’s not containing $`\pi `$, equivalently, their focal locus does not lie on $`\pi `$, so $`\psi (X_e)`$ is in the case II, and it is smooth since $`[\pi ]\psi (X_e)`$.

Moreover, for $`r<n`$ it is sufficient to take the generic projections of $`\psi (X_e)`$ according to (1.6).

###### Remark 4.8

Moreover, every congruence in the case II is expected to be a projection of one of those constructed above, because, as rational surfaces, those are their linearly normal models.

## 5 Case III: $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is an $`r`$-dimensional projective space

$`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the only $`r`$-dimensional projective subspace $`\pi \text{IP}^{r+2}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_\pi =\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/dim\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi r1\}`$. Moreover, in this case, $`2(\text{IP}^{r1}(\sigma )):=2(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi )`$ is the focal quadric of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`\text{IP}^r(\sigma )`$. The fibers of the map

$$\alpha :\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\}H_\pi \text{IP}^1$$

defined in (2.9) parametrize pencils whose base loci lie in $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\pi `$, so they all contain $`[\pi ]`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a rational cone with vertex $`[\pi ]`$. Consider the projection $`\beta :\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\}\pi ^{}`$ defined in (2.10), $`\beta (\sigma )=\text{IP}^r(\sigma )\pi `$: since the fibers of this map are $`\beta ^1(\text{IP}^{r1}(\sigma ))=\alpha ^1(\text{IP}^r(\sigma )+H)`$, $`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a curve. Thus we have a birrational map

(9)
such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\alpha =\beta `$ and so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is characterized by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the next way:

(10)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{H\pi }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(H),H}$$

being $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(H),H}=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }(H)\text{IP}^r(\sigma )H\}`$.

$`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ parametrize a family of hyperplanes in $`\pi `$, hence it is developable, and we can say how it is constructed: suppose $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has no fixed points (otherwise see (1.11)); $`\beta (\sigma )`$ is the family of $`(r1)`$–osculating hyperplanes to a nondegenerate curve $`C\pi `$, which is birrational to $`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Thus we have another birrational map:

that characterizes:

(11)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{H\pi }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{T_{r1,C,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(H)},H}$$

where $`T_{r1,C,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(H)}`$ denotes the $`(r1)`$-osculating hyperplane to $`C`$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(H)`$.

Let $`\varphi `$ ($`=\alpha \times \beta `$) be the map defined in (2.7); $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a cone with vertex $`[\pi ]`$ over the curve $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\})\pi ^{}\times H_\pi `$, which is a hyperplane section of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since this curve is the graph of the map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:H_\pi \pi ^{}`$, $`\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\})`$ is an smooth curve of degree $`n+1`$ (where $`n:=\mathrm{deg}(\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma }))=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(H_\pi ))`$). Thus $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{deg}(\varphi (\mathrm{\Sigma }\{[\pi ]\}))=n+1=\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(H_\pi ))+1`$ and we conclude $`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })=n`$. Moreover the singular locus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is only the vertex $`[\pi ]`$. Summarizing, we have:

###### Theorem 5.1

For every congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ in the case III without fixed points there exist a regular map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:H_\pi \pi ^{}$$

(being $`\pi =F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`H_\pi `$ the pencil of hyperplanes containing $`\pi `$) with nondegenerate image $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(H_\pi )`$ such that:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\underset{H\pi }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(H),H}$$

being $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(H),H}=\{\sigma G(r,r+2)/\mathrm{\Lambda }(H)\text{IP}^r(\sigma )H\}`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a cone of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(H_\pi ))+1`$ ($`cl(\mathrm{\Sigma })=n`$), with vertex $`[\pi ]`$ over an smooth curve. Conversely, a congruence constructed in this way is in the case III.

The curve $`\beta (\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi ^{}`$ is the projection of its normal model $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(\text{IP}^n)^{}`$ from a subspace $`V(\text{IP}^n)^{}`$, hence the map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ factorizes through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. Regard $`\pi \text{IP}^n`$, and everything contained in a projective space $`\text{IP}^{n+2}`$ such that $`\pi `$ is obtained cutting $`\text{IP}^n`$ with the $`(r+2)`$–dimensional space containing the congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (allowing us to identify the hyperplanes in $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$ containing $`\pi `$ with the hyperplanes in $`\text{IP}^{n+2}`$ containing $`\text{IP}^n`$), we will have a map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n:H_{P^n}(\text{IP}^n)^{}`$ providing a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nG(n,\text{IP}^{n+2})`$ whose projection to $`G(r,\text{IP}^{r+2})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Hence we have a commutative diagram

We have thus proved:

###### Theorem 5.2

Being $`n1`$, there exist a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_nG(n,n+2)`$ constructed in the next way: given $`L\text{IP}^{n+2}`$ an $`n`$–dimensional projective space and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\text{IP}^1H_LL^{}`$ a $`n`$–th Veronese embedding, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n:=_{HL}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(H),H}`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ is a rational normal cone of degree $`n+1`$. Every congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of order $`1`$ and class $`n`$ without fixed points in the case III can be obtained cutting $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ with a suitable projective subspace $`\text{IP}^{r+2}`$, that is:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_nG(n,n+2)\stackrel{\rho _{\text{IP}^{r+2}}}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2).$$

## 6 Smoothness of a congruence of order $`1`$

According to (1.11), in order to study the smoothness of congruences of order $`1`$ we only need to consider congruences without fixed points, translating the results to the general case. Summarizing (3.1), (4.5), (4.6) and (5.1), we have the next theorems:

###### Theorem 6.1

Let $`r,s`$ be two integers such that $`r1`$ and $`1sr1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ is a surface of order $`1`$ and class $`n`$ such that $`dim(T(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=s`$, then $`nrs1`$. Furthermore:

* If $`s=r1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a plane.
* For every $`sr2`$, there exist singular surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of bidegree $`(1,n)`$ such that $`dim(T(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=s`$.

If $`s=r2`$, then:

1. If $`n=1,2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not a cone, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is smooth.
2. If $`n4`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is singular.
3. If $`n=3`$, there exist smooth and singular surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of bidegree $`(1,3)`$ such that $`dimT(\mathrm{\Sigma })=s`$.

If $`1sr3`$, then:

* If $`n=rs1`$ or $`n=rs`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not a cone, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is smooth.
* If $`nrs+1`$, there exist smooth and singular surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ of bidegree $`(1,n)`$ such that $`dimT(\mathrm{\Sigma })=s`$.

Proof: Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }G(r,r+2)`$ be a congruence of order $`1`$ and class $`n`$ such that the dimension of its fixed locus is $`dim(T(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=s`$; if $`s=r1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s containing $`T(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, which is parametrized by a plane; in this case $`n=0=rs1`$; suppose now that $`sr2`$. Applying (1.11), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be projected isomorphically to a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}G(rs1,rs+1)`$ without fixed points, having order $`1`$ and class $`n`$; if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is in the case I, then $`n=3`$ and $`rs1\{1,2,3\}`$, and then $`nrs1`$; otherwise (2.10) shows that $`n=cl(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})rs1`$. Moreover for every $`nrs1`$, there exist a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}G(rs1,rs+1)`$ of class $`n`$ in the case III without fixed points (see (5.2)), which is parametrized by a cone. Excepting those congruences, the rest of the theorem is consequence of (4.5) and (3.1) and (4.6).

###### Theorem 6.2

Being $`r1`$, the only smooth surfaces in $`G(r,r+2)`$ of bidegree $`(1,n)`$ are:

1. The plane parametrizing the family of $`\text{IP}^r`$’s containing a fixed $`\text{IP}^{r1}`$ ($`n=0`$).
2. The Veronese surface, described in (3.1), for $`r=1,2,3`$ ($`n=3`$); embedding $`G(1,3)`$, $`G(2,4)`$ or $`G(3,5)`$ through the map given in (1.11), it can be consider in every $`G(r,r+2)`$.
3. The rational ruled surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$ described in Section 4 ($`n=\mathrm{deg}X`$), and verifying that $`\pi `$ contains at most one generator of $`X`$; this condition is always verified for $`n=r,r+1`$.
4. The surfaces described in 2. and 3. embedded in a higher dimension grassmannian $`G(r,r+2)`$ through the isomorphism exposed in (1.11).

Let us finally enumerate the smooth congruences of order $`1`$ in $`G(1,3)`$, recovering a Ziv Ran’s result given in . We remark that, for a congruence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,X)`$ in $`G(1,3)`$, $`\pi `$ is a line cutting the curve $`X`$ in $`n1`$ points; hence, imposing the smoothness condition of (4.5), we have $`n11`$, that is $`\mathrm{deg}X2`$.

###### Corollary 6.3

The only smooth congruences in $`G(1,3)`$ of order $`1`$ are:

1. The plane parametrizing the lines passing by a fixed point (bidegree (1,0)).
2. The Veronese surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)`$ parametrizing the secant lines to a rational normal cubic $`C`$ (bidegree (1,3)).
3. The quadric $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,\pi ^{})`$ parametrizing the lines cutting two given lines $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ (bidegree (1,1)).
4. The rational normal cubic $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\pi ,C)`$ parametrizing the lines cutting a given line $`\pi `$ and a given irreducible conic $`C`$ meeting in a point $`P=\pi C`$ (bidegree (1,2)).

> *Authors’ address:* Departamento de Algebra, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, 15706 Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain. Phone: 34-81563100-ext.13152. Fax: 34-81597054. e-mail: pedreira@zmat.usc.es


format: text

text:
# Recovering Coherence via Conditional Measurements

## I Introduction

Decoherence of non-classical states of a quantum system via coupling to a reservoir is of fundamental interest, as it constitutes the mechanism that yields the classical limit of the system dynamics . Recently it has also become a topic of great applied importance, because it determines the feasibility of quantum information storage, encoding (encrypting) and computing . In numerous current theoretical proposals, the irreversibility of decoherence processes in quantum computing is combatted by two generic means. One is the filtering out of the ensemble portion which has not decohered, i.e., has remained intact. This approach has been suggested for two-mode fields , but not for single-mode cavity fields. The other means is encoding the state (qubit) by means of several ancillas, decoding the result after a certain time, checking the ancillas for error syndromes and correcting them . Although the latter approach is in principle applicable to arbitrary errors, only extremely small error probabilities (per qubit or gate, per time step) can afford fault tolerant quantum computation . Instead of the “high level” unitary transformation approach to error correction in quantum computing—which involves substantial overhead in qubits and gates—the countering of decoherence of stored quantum information, e.g., in between computation steps, may be achieved by a “low level” approach: applying simple physical manipulations to the quantum storage device, which take advantage of its specific physical realization. Such approach has been advocated recently , relying on continuous monitoring of the dissipation channel for quantum jumps, with perfect photodetection efficiency, and on instantaneous feedback for the inversion of their effect.

The nature of quantum computing requires that decoherence be corrected without knowing which state is in error during the computation. There is, however, a simpler but still important problem: how to protect from decoherence the input states, prior to the onset of computation. Here we suggest a non-unitary approach to counter decoherence, which can be used to safely store quantum field states in dissipative cavities, in order to subsequently use them as apriori known input in information processing or in signal transmission. The basic idea is to restore the decohered field state by entangling it with an atom, and then projecting the entangled state onto a superposition of atomic eigenstates, whose phase and amplitudes are specifically tailored for the field state we wish to recreate. Such projection amounts to post-selection of the appropriate atomic state, i.e., to a conditional measurement (CM) . The specific scheme we put forward is based on modification of our optimized CM strategy  for cavity-mode state preparation by resonant interaction with atoms, in the Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model, followed by projection onto selected atomic states. In the present problem we set the initial (unspoilt) superposition of zero-photon up to $`N`$-photon states as our target state, and work in Liouville space instead of Hilbert space, so as to account for the state decoherence. The results demonstrate that a few highly-probable CMs, in this simple model, can drastically reduce even a large error. One of our objectives is to find the optimal tradeoff between the CM probability and the error size, which grows in the course of dissipation.

The ability to approximately restore any mixture to any pure state (in our $`N`$+1-dimensional Hilbert space) is the advantage of our post-selection CM approach, compared to the non-selective measurement (tracing) approach: Mixed states can only evolve into the special “cotangent” and “tangent” pure states by a large number of JC interactions with atoms initially prepared in superposition states (under the atomic excitation-trapping condition) followed by tracing over the atomic states .

## II Decoherence Minimization by Conditional Measurements

We consider a single-mode cavity in which the quantized electromagnetic field is initially prepared in a finite superposition of Fock states,

$$|\psi (0)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}c_n|n.$$
(1)
To model the effect of dissipation we assume the cavity field to be coupled to a zero-temperature heat bath. The master equation describing such coupling, in the interaction picture, is

$$\dot{\rho }__F=\gamma (2\widehat{a}\rho __F\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\rho __F\rho __F\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}),$$
(2)
where $`\rho __F=\rho __F(t)`$ is the density matrix of the cavity field, $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ are the annihilation and creation operators of the field, and $`\gamma `$ is the damping constant of the cavity.

The solution of Eq. (2) after dissipation over time $`\overline{t}>0`$  can be shown to have the form

$`\rho _{n,m}(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\rho _{n+k,m+k}(0)\sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}n+k\\ n\end{array}\right)(e^{2\gamma \overline{t}})^n(1e^{2\gamma \overline{t}})^k}`$ (4)
$`\times \sqrt{\left(\begin{array}{c}m+k\\ m\end{array}\right)(e^{2\gamma \overline{t}})^m(1e^{2\gamma \overline{t}})^k},`$
written here in Fock basis, $`\rho _{n,m}(t)=n|\rho __F(t)|m`$.

In order to recover the original state of the field we propose to apply an optimized CM (or a sequence thereof) to the cavity as follows: Using a classical field we prepare a two-level atom in a chosen superposition

$$|\varphi ^{(i)}=\alpha ^{(i)}|e+\beta ^{(i)}|g$$
(5)
of its ground $`|g`$ and excited $`|e`$ states, and let it interact with the field for a time $`\tau `$ by sending it through the cavity with controlled speed. The field-atom interaction is adequately described by the resonant Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model . We assume the field-atom interaction time $`\tau `$ to be much shorter than the cavity lifetime, $`\gamma \tau 1`$, so that we may neglect dissipation during each CM. Upon exiting the cavity the atom is conditionally measured, using a second classical field, to be in a state

$$|\varphi ^{(f)}=\alpha ^{(f)}|e+\beta ^{(f)}|g,$$
(6)
differing in general from the initial atomic state $`|\varphi ^{(i)}`$. This means that we post-select, using the same setup as in ref. , the atomic superposition state (6) which is correlated to a cavity field state that is as close as possible to the original state (23).

The effect the applied CM has on the cavity field is then calculated as follows: Initially, at the time the atom enters the cavity, the density matrix of the field-atom system is

$$\rho _{_{FA}}(\overline{t})=\rho __F(\overline{t})|\varphi ^{(i)}\varphi ^{(i)}|.$$
(7)
It then evolves unitarily by the JC interaction of duration $`\tau `$ into

$$\rho _{_{FA}}(\overline{t}+\tau )=\widehat{U}(\tau )\rho _{_{FA}}(\overline{t})\widehat{U}^{}(\tau ),$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{U}(\tau )`$ is the interaction picture evolution operator

$`\widehat{U}(\tau )|n|e`$ $`=`$ $`C_n|n|eiS_n|n+1|g`$ (9)
$`\widehat{U}(\tau )|n|g`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n1}|n|giS_{n1}|n1|e,`$ (10)
with $`C_n=\mathrm{cos}\left(\lambda \tau \sqrt{n+1}\right)`$ and $`S_n=\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda \tau \sqrt{n+1}\right)`$, $`\lambda `$ being the field-atom coupling constant (known as the vacuum Rabi frequency). Finally, the conditional measurement of the atom in the state $`|\varphi ^{(f)}`$ results in a density matrix of the field given by

$$\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )=\mathrm{Tr}__A\left[\rho _{_{FA}}(\overline{t}+\tau )|\varphi ^{(f)}\varphi ^{(f)}|\right]/P,$$
(11)
where

$$P=\mathrm{Tr}__F\mathrm{Tr}__A\left[\rho _{_{FA}}(\overline{t}+\tau )|\varphi ^{(f)}\varphi ^{(f)}|\right]$$
(12)
is the success probability of the CM. The explicit expressions for $`\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ and $`P`$ are given in the Appendix for an initial superposition of $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ states.

To nearly recover the original state of the field, we use the dependence of $`\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ on the initial and final atomic states and the field-atom interaction time, choosing optimal parameters $`\alpha ^{(i)}`$, $`\beta ^{(i)}`$, $`\alpha ^{(f)}`$, $`\beta ^{(f)}`$ and $`\tau `$ such that

$$\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )\rho __F(0)$$
(13)
holds (see Appendix for an explicit form of this condition), along with high CM success probability (12). These optimal CM parameters are found by minimizing the cost function

$$G=\frac{d(\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau ),\rho __F(0))}{P^r},$$
(14)
where $`d`$ is a distance function between two density matrices, defined as

$$d(\rho __F^{(1)},\rho __F^{(2)})=\sqrt{\underset{nm}{}(\rho _{nm}^{(1)}\rho _{nm}^{(2)})^2},$$
(15)
$`P`$ is the CM success probability (12), and the adjustable exponent $`r>0`$ determines the relative importance of the two factors in $`G`$. If this CM does not bring us as close to the original state as our experimental accuracy permits, we can repeat the process over and over again, as long as the distance to the original state keeps decreasing, while the CM success probability remains high. The atomic states (5) and (6) are determined by the minimization of (14) at each step. Let us note here that the application of each CM may introduce widening of the photon-number distribution by one photon, and yet the optimized CMs are capable of avoiding this widening and, moreover, of restoring the field to its initial pure state. Eqs. (73-77) in the Appendix exemplify the widening-avoidance requirements which are implicit in condition (13). These requirements amount to an effective control of a large Fock-state subspace.

## III Examples

We illustrate our approach with two examples below, using the $`Q`$-function $`Q_{\rho __F}(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})=\alpha |\rho __F|\alpha `$, $`|\alpha `$ being a coherent state of complex amplitude $`\alpha `$, to visualize the error-correction process:

1) Let us take as the original field state an equal-amplitude superposition of our basis states, e.g.,

$$|\psi (0)=(|0+e^{i\pi /3}|1)/\sqrt{2},$$
(16)
whose $`Q`$-function is shown in Fig. 1(a). Dissipation by $`\gamma \overline{t}=0.3`$ renders the error matrix $`\rho __F(\overline{t})\rho __F(0)`$ of considerable magnitude, as seen in Fig. 1(b). After the application of one CM ($`|\varphi ^{(i)}=\mathrm{cos}(3\pi /8)|e+\mathrm{sin}(3\pi /8)e^{i5\pi /4}|g`$, $`\lambda \tau =37.95`$, $`|\varphi ^{(f)}=\mathrm{cos}(3\pi /8)|e+\mathrm{sin}(3\pi /8)e^{i\pi /4}|g`$), optimized to yield high success probability ($`r=2`$), the remaining error matrix $`\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )\rho __F(0)`$ is roughly 2.5 times smaller than before the correction, as seen in Fig. 1(c). The success probability of the CM is a high 74%. Subsequent CMs can further reduce the distance to $`1/6`$ (one sixth) its original magnitude, with 62% success probability for the full CM sequence (Fig. 3). Stronger error reduction is obtainable at the expense of success probability: the application of 4 CMs optimized for $`r=1`$ (respectively $`r=0`$) yields an error reduction factor of 11 (respectively 28) with sequence probability of 33% (respectively 16%).

2) If the original field state is a strongly unequal superposition of the basis states, such as

$$|\psi (0)=10^1|0+e^{i\pi /3}\sqrt{110^2}|1$$
(17)
(Fig. 2(a)), the error matrix after dissipation by $`\gamma \overline{t}=0.3`$ is again significant (Fig. 2(b)). Successive application of 4 CMs, optimized for $`r=2`$, reduces this error by a factor of 30 (Fig. 2(c)), which means that the recovered state is practically indistinguishable from the original state. The success probability of the total CM sequence, 50%, is markedly high (Fig. 3). If we ignore success probability in Eq. (14) ($`r=0`$) we obtain a higher error-reduction factor of 75, with sequence probability of 28%.

In Fig. 3 we plot the distance $`d_K=d(\rho ^K,\rho __F(0))`$ (Eq. (15)) between the recovered state and the original state and the CM sequence probability $`P_{seq,K}=_{l=1}^KP_l`$, with $`P_l`$ given by (12), as a function of the number of CMs performed. It shows that the first CMs achieve a strong reduction of such a distance, whereas after a few successive CMs saturation sets on, in terms of both distance and success probability.

It is interesting to compare the success probability in our approach with the theoretical probability to find the original state in the dissipation-spoilt state, namely, $`\mathrm{Tr}__F[\rho __F(0)\rho __F(\overline{t})]`$, which we call the filtering probability. In Table I we list the success probability of a sequence of 4 CMs (optimized for $`r=2`$), $`P_{seq,K=4}`$, and the corresponding filtering probability for various values of the dissipation parameter $`\gamma \overline{t}`$, taking as the original state the state (17) of example 2. The probability $`\mathrm{Tr}__F[\rho __F(0)\rho __F^{K=4}]`$ of finding the original state in the recovered state is 0.99 or higher for all entries.

## IV Discussion

In conclusion, we have demonstrated here the effectiveness of simple JC-dynamics CMs as a means of reversing the effect of dissipation on coherent superpositions of Fock-states of a cavity field: the application of a small number of optimized CMs recovers the original state of the field with high success probability, which is comparable or even surpasses the filtering probability. The simplest tactics may employ a single highly-probable trial to achieve nearly-complete error correction. As noted above, although we have only five control parameters at our disposal for each CM, our optimization procedure is able to effectively control the amplitudes in a large Fock-state subspace.

Among the experimental imperfections that can degrade the effectiveness of any CM approach , realistic atomic velocity fluctuations (of 1%) and cavity-temperature effects (below $`1^{}`$K) are relatively unimportant, and especially so in the present scheme which makes use of a single or few CMs so that the effect of experimental imperfections is linear in the input errors. Only atomic detection efficiency is an experimental challenge . Although the detection efficiency is currently low, it is expected to rise considerably in the coming future.

Extensions of this approach to field-atom interaction Hamiltonians with more controllable degrees of freedom  can make a single trial within this correction procedure effective for highly complicated states, encoding many qubits of information. Nevertheless, even in its present form the suggested approach has undoubted merits: (a) it can yield higher success probabilities than the filtering approach; (b) it is not limited to small errors as “high level” unitary-transformation approaches are; (c) it corrects errors after their occurrence, with no reliance on ideal continuous monitoring of the dissipation channel and on instantaneous feedback; and (d) it is realistic in that it can counter combined phase-amplitude errors which arise in cavity dissipation, and is of general applicability—not restricted to specific models of dissipation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The support of the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF) is acknowledged. M.F. thanks the European Economic Community (Human Capital and Mobility programme) for support.

##

The reduced density matrix of the field resulting from its interaction with the atom followed by the conditional measurement on the latter can be found using the formula (Eqs. (7-12))

$`\rho __F`$ $`(`$ $`\overline{t}+\tau )=`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{Tr}__A\left[\widehat{U}(\tau )\rho __F(\overline{t})|\varphi ^{(i)}\varphi ^{(i)}|\widehat{U}^{}(\tau )|\varphi ^{(f)}\varphi ^{(f)}|\right]/P,`$
where the normalization constant $`P`$ is the success probability of the conditional measurement and is given by

$`P=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}__F\mathrm{Tr}__A\left[\widehat{U}(\tau )\rho __F(\overline{t})|\varphi ^{(i)}\varphi ^{(i)}|\widehat{U}^{}(\tau )|\varphi ^{(f)}\varphi ^{(f)}|\right].`$ (21)
In the simple case where the initial field state is a superposition of the vacuum and one-photon states

$$|\psi (0)=c_0|0+c_1|1,\rho __F(0)=|\psi (0)\psi (0)|,$$
(23)
the density matrix resulting from dissipation over time $`\overline{t}`$ is

$`\rho __F(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})|00|+\rho _{01}(\overline{t})|01|+`$ (25)
$`+\rho _{10}(\overline{t})|10|+\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|11|,`$
with

$`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`|c_0|^2+(1e^{2\gamma \overline{t}})|c_1|^2`$ (26)
$`\rho _{01}(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\gamma \overline{t}}c_0c_1^{}`$ (27)
$`\rho _{10}(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\gamma \overline{t}}c_1c_0^{}`$ (28)
$`\rho _{11}(\overline{t})`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\gamma \overline{t}}|c_1|^2.`$ (29)
The explicit expressions for $`\rho __F(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ and the success probability $`P`$ are then

$`\rho __F`$ $`(\overline{t}+\tau )=P^1\{[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2A+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}M+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}C`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2O]|00|+[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2B+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}N+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}D`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2K]|01|+[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2E+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}R+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}H`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2T]|10|+[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2F+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}S+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}I`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2U]|11|+[\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}W+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Y]|20|`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`[\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}G+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Q]|02|+[\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}X`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2J]|21|+[\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}L+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2V]|12|`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Z|22|\},`$ (37)
and

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2(A+F)+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}(M+S)`$ (39)
$`+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}(C+I)+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2(O+U+Z).`$
The coefficients $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ here are given by

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0^2+i\rho _{01}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_0S_0`$ (42)
$`+\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_0^2i\rho _{10}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_0C_0,`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{01}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0C_1i\rho _{11}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_1S_0,`$ (43)
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_0i\rho _{10}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_0,`$ (44)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _{00}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0S_0i\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_0C_0`$ (46)
$`+\rho _{01}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_0^2+\rho _{10}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_0^2,`$
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_1^2,`$ (47)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{11}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_0S_1+i\rho _{01}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0S_1,`$ (48)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{10}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_1,`$ (49)
$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{11}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_1C_0+i\rho _{10}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_1S_0,`$ (50)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _{00}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_0+\rho _{01}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0,`$ (51)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_1S_1,`$ (52)
$`O`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2,`$ (53)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _{01}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_1,`$ (54)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{00}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_0^2i\rho _{01}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}S_0C_0`$ (56)
$`+\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2C_0^2+i\rho _{10}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_0S_0,`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`i\rho _{11}(\overline{t})\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{i})}C_0S_1+\rho _{01}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_0S_1,`$ (57)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{11}(\overline{t})|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{i})}|^2S_1^2,`$ (58)
with the following relations holding between them

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`A^{},B=E^{},C=M^{},D=R^{}`$ (60)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`F^{},G=W^{},H=N^{},I=S^{}`$ (61)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`X^{},O=O^{},K=T^{},Q=Y^{}`$ (62)
$`U`$ $`=`$ $`U^{},V=J^{},Z=Z^{}.`$ (63)
(The coefficients $`K`$ and $`N`$ in this appendix bear no relation to $`K`$ and $`N`$ mentioned in the main text).

The explicit form of condition (13) for recovering the original field state is given by the following list of approximation relations:

$`\rho _{00}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2A+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}M`$ (66)
$`+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}C+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2O]|c_0|^2`$
$`\rho _{01}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2B+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}N`$ (68)
$`+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}D+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2K]c_0c_1^{}`$
$`\rho _{10}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2E+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}R`$ (70)
$`+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}H+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2T]c_1c_0^{}`$
$`\rho _{11}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1[|\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2F+\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}S`$ (72)
$`+\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}I+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2U]|c_1|^2`$
$`\rho _{02}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1\left[\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}G+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Q\right]0`$ (73)
$`\rho _{20}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1\left[\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}W+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Y\right]0`$ (74)
$`\rho _{12}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1\left[\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}L+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2V\right]0`$ (75)
$`\rho _{21}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1\left[\alpha ^{(\mathrm{f})}\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}X+|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2J\right]0`$ (76)
$`\rho _{22}(\overline{t}+\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`P^1\left[|\beta ^{(\mathrm{f})}|^2Z\right]0.`$ (77)