text:
# Output spectrum of a detector measuring quantum oscillations

## I Introduction

The long-standing and still controversial problem of quantum measurements  is gradually becoming a practical issue due to the development of experimental techniques capable of measurements at the quantum border (see, e.g. Refs. ). The renewed interest in this subject is caused by the needs of quantum computing, since the measurement of an entangled and possibly evolving quantum state by a realistic detector in a realistic environment presents a nontrivial problem.

Despite the experimental proof  of the violation of Bell’s inequality  that rejects the idea of hidden variables, the origin of the randomness of a quantum measurement result (the problem known as the “wavefunction collapse”) remains controversial. Important insight into this problem has been provided by the development of the theory of continuous quantum measurement, which generalizes the “orthodox” case  of instantaneous measurement. There are two different theoretical approaches. In the first approach  based on the theory of interaction with a dissipative environment,  the evolution of the density matrix of the measured system is averaged over a complete ensemble of measurements, thus leading to the deterministic equation. This is the best-known approach, at least in the solid-state community, and so can be called “conventional”. The other approach  (more developed in quantum optics) studies the random evolution of the quantum state during a single realization of the measurement, so that this evolution is conditioned on (selected by) the particular measurement result. Recently  the latter approach has been introduced into the context of solid-state physics using the new derivation based on the simple Bayesian analysis of probabilities.

In the present paper this Bayesian formalism is applied to the calculation of the spectral density of the detector current when a two-level quantum system (qubit) is measured continuously. As a particular example, we consider a double-quantum-dot occupied by one electron, the location of which is measured by a quantum point contact nearby. Another example of the setup is a single-Cooper-pair box, being measured by a single-electron transistor. One more possible example is the continuous measurement of two flux states of a SQUID by another inductively coupled SQUID.

We show that in the weak-coupling case when the quantum (Rabi) oscillations of the qubit state are only slightly perturbed by the detector, the corresponding peak in the spectral density of the detector current can be up to 4 times higher than the noise pedestal (see also Ref. ). As the coupling increases, the Quantum Zeno effect  becomes significant leading to the Lorentzian shape of the spectral density centered at zero frequency.

It is important to notice that there should be no difference between the predictions of the conventional approach and the approach of selective evolution unless the measurement result affects the system evolution (for example, via the feedback loop). We prove this equivalence explicitly for the detector spectral density (if there is no feedback). Despite the same final result, the interpretations are different: in the Bayesian formalism a significant contribution to the spectrum comes from the correlation between the detector noise and the system evolution, while this correlation is absent in the conventional approach. In the paper we also discuss the extension of the Bayesian formalism to the case of additional weak interaction of the two-level system with a finite-temperature environment.

## II Bayesian formalism

For a two-level quantum system described by the Hamiltonian

$$_0=\frac{\epsilon }{2}(c_1^{}c_1c_2^{}c_2)+H(c_1^{}c_2+c_2^{}c_1)$$
(1)
(where $`\epsilon `$ is the energy asymmetry and $`H`$ is the tunneling strength) the evolution of its density matrix $`\rho _{ij}`$ due to continuous measurement is given in the conventional approach  by the equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12},\rho _{11}+\rho _{22}=1,`$ (2)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=ı{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}+ı{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{12},`$ (3)
where the dephasing rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ due to measurement depends on the type of the detector used.

Eqs. (2)–(3) describe the averaged evolution. In contrast, to analyze the single measurement process we need the selective (conditional) evolution of $`\rho _{ij}`$ which in the Bayesian formalism is described by equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{11}=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}\text{Im}\rho _{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }I}{S_0}}\rho _{11}\rho _{22}[I(t)I_0],`$ (4)
$`\dot{\rho }_{12}=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}}}\rho _{12}+ı{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{S_0}}(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})[I(t)I_0]\rho _{12}\gamma \rho _{12},`$
where $`I(t)`$ is the detector current, $`I_0=(I_1+I_2)/2`$, $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ are the average currents corresponding to two localized states of the qubit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=I_1I_2`$ (notice the different sign in the definition used in Ref. ), and $`S_0`$ is the low-frequency spectral density of the detector shot noise (which is assumed to be constant in the frequency range of interest and to be practically independent of the qubit state). The detector nonideality is described by the dephasing contribution $`\gamma =\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S_00`$ due to interaction with “pure environment” (which does not affect the detector current). In particular, since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S_0`$ for symmetric quantum point contact (see Refs. ), it represents an ideal detector, $`\eta =1`$, where $`\eta =1\gamma /\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the ideality factor. In contrast, the single-electron transistor in a typical operation point is a significantly nonideal detector, $`\eta 1`$.  (Actually, for the single-electron transistor Eq. (6) can be further improved, however, it does not make a difference for the purposes of the present paper.) The SQUID can be an ideal detector when its sensitivity is quantum-limited.  Since the typical output signal from the SQUID is the voltage (not the current), this requires a minor modification of the formalism; so in this paper we do not consider the SQUID case explicitly even though all the results can be easily translated into SQUID language.

Eqs. (4)–(6) allow us to calculate the evolution of $`\rho _{ij}`$ if the detector output $`I(t)`$ is known from the experiment. In order to simulate the measurement we need the replacement

$$I(t)I_0=\mathrm{\Delta }I(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})/2+\xi (t),$$
(7)
where the random process $`\xi (t)`$ has zero average and “white” spectral density $`S_\xi =S_0`$.

Notice that in order to consider the detector as a device with classical output signal, Eqs. (4)–(6) essentially use the Markov approximation and assume that the typical frequency of the internal detector evolution (on the order of $`S_0/e^2I_0/e`$) is much higher than the typical frequency $`\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of $`\rho _{ij}`$ evolution (here $`\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{4H^2+\epsilon ^2}/\mathrm{}`$ is the frequency of unperturbed quantum oscillations). In particular, this condition requires the detector to be “weakly responding”, $`|\mathrm{\Delta }I|I_0`$, that allows us to use the linear response approximation.

Averaging of Eqs. (4)–(6) over all possible measurement results (i.e. over random contribution $`\xi (t)`$) reduces them to Eqs. (2)–(3). Notice that the stochastic equations are written in Stratonovich form which preserves the usual calculus rules, while averaging would be easier in Itô form.

## III Weak coupling

Using Eqs. (4)–(7) and the Monte-Carlo method (similar to Ref. ) we can calculate in a straightforward way the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ of the detector current $`I(t)`$. Solid lines in Fig. 2 show the results of such calculations for the ideal detector, $`\eta =1`$, and weak coupling between the qubit and the detector, $`\alpha =0.1`$, where $`\alpha \mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/8S_0H`$ ($`\alpha `$ is 8 times less than the parameter $`𝒞`$ introduced in Ref. ). One can see that in the symmetric case, $`\epsilon =0`$, the peak at the frequency of quantum oscillations is 4 times higher than the noise pedestal, $`S_I(\mathrm{\Omega })=5S_0`$ while the peak width is determined by the coupling strength $`\alpha `$ (see Fig. 5 below). In the asymmetric case, $`\epsilon 0`$, the peak height decreases (Fig. 2), while the additional Lorentzian-shape increase of $`S_I(\omega )`$ appears at low frequencies. The origin of this low-frequency feature is the slow fluctuation of the asymmetry of $`\rho _{11}`$ oscillations (Fig. 3). In case $`\epsilon =0`$ the amplitude of $`\rho _{11}`$ oscillations is maximal (see thick line in Fig. 4a), hence there is no such asymmetry and the low-frequency feature is absent, while the spectral peak at the frequency of quantum oscillation is maximally high.

In order to understand the factor 4 for the maximum peak height, let us consider the case $`\alpha 1`$, $`\epsilon =0`$, and $`\eta =1`$. Then the selective evolution can be written as the quantum oscillations with slowly fluctuating phase $`\phi (t)`$:

$`z(t)`$ $`\rho _{11}(t)\rho _{22}(t)=\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t),\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }t+\phi (t),`$ (9)
$`\rho _{12}=(ı/2)\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)`$
(the state becomes pure after an initial transient period since $`\eta =1`$, while the real part of $`\rho _{12}`$ decays because of $`\epsilon =0`$). From Eqs. (4) and (7) we obtain the random phase dynamics:

$$\dot{\phi }=\mathrm{sin}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{S_0}[\mathrm{cos}\varphi \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2}+\xi (t)].$$
(10)
Since $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/2S_0\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we can neglect the first term in the square brackets and average the second contribution over $`\varphi `$ that leads to the white spectrum of $`\dot{\phi }`$: $`S_{\dot{\phi }}(\omega )=(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/2S_0`$. Then the correlation function $`K_z(\tau )z(t)z(t+\tau )`$ can be calculated as $`K_z(\tau )=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (\tau )/2=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2\tau /8S_0]/2`$ and the spectral density $`S_z(\omega )2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}K_z(\tau )\mathrm{exp}(ı\omega \tau )𝑑\tau `$ has a peak in the vicinity of the oscillation frequency, $`|\omega \mathrm{\Omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$S_z(\omega )=\frac{8S_0}{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}\frac{1}{1+[8S_0(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2]^2}.$$
(11)
The detector current is given by Eq. (7), so its spectral density consists of three contributions:

$$S_I(\omega )=S_0+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I^2}{4}S_z(\omega )+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }I}{2}[S_{\xi z}(\omega )+S_{z\xi }(\omega )],$$
(12)
where the last contribution originates from the correlation between $`\rho _{ij}`$ evolution and the detector noise $`\xi (t)`$. To calculate the correlation function $`K_{\xi z}(\tau )\xi (t)z(t+\tau )`$ for $`\tau >0`$, we need to take into account the phase shift $`d\phi =\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{\Delta }IS_0^1\xi (t)dt`$ during even infinitesimally small time duration $`dt`$, since the amplitude of the stochastic function $`\xi (t)`$ grows with the timescale decrease, $`\xi (t)^2dt=S_0/2`$. Using trigonometric formulas and linear expansion in $`d\phi `$ we obtain $`\xi (t)\mathrm{cos}[\varphi (t)+d\varphi +\mathrm{\Omega }\tau +\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (\tau )]=\mathrm{\Delta }IS_0^1\xi (t)^2dt\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)\mathrm{sin}[\varphi (t)+\mathrm{\Omega }\tau ]\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi (\tau )`$ and finally $`K_{\xi z}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Delta }I\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }\tau )\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2\tau /8S_0]/4`$. After the Fourier transformation one finds that the correlation between $`\xi (t)`$ and $`z(t)`$ brings exactly the same contribution to the detector spectral density (see Eq. (12)) as the term due to $`z(t)`$ evolution, so that

$$S_I(\omega )=S_0+\frac{4S_0}{1+[8S_0(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2]^2}.$$
(13)
Thus, the peak corresponding to quantum oscillations is 4 times higher than the noise background, while its full width at half height is equal to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S_0=\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ (the same peak width has been calculated in Ref. ). The integral under the peak,

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}[S(\omega )S_0]\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{4},$$
(14)
has an obvious relation to the average square of the detector current variation due to oscillations in the measured system. Notice, however, that this integral is twice as large as one would expect from the classical harmonic signal, since one half of the peak height comes from nonclassical correlation between the qubit evolution and the detector noise. Classically, Eq. (14) would be easily understood if the signal was not harmonic but rectangular-like, which is obviously not the case. Actually, the detector current shows neither clear harmonic nor rectangular signal distinguishable from the intrinsic noise contribution. Figure 4a shows the simulation of $`\rho _{11}`$ evolution (thick line) together with the detector current $`I(t)`$. Since $`I(t)`$ contains white noise, it necessarily requires some averaging. Thin solid, dotted, and dashed lines show the detector current averaged with different time constants $`\tau _a`$: $`\tau _a\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi =0.3`$, 1, and 3, respectively. For weak averaging the signal is too noisy, while for strong averaging individual oscillation periods cannot be resolved either, so quantum oscillations can never be observed directly by a continuous measurement (although they can be calculated using Eqs. (4)–(6)). This unobservability is revealed in the relatively low peak height of the spectral density of the detector current.

## IV Arbitrary coupling

The situation changes as the coupling between the detector and qubit increases, $`\alpha 1`$. The strong influence of measurement destroys quantum oscillations, and the Quantum Zeno effect  develops, so that for $`\alpha 1`$ the qubit performs random jumps between two localized states (see Fig. 4b). In this case the properly averaged detector current follows pretty well the evolution of the qubit (however, the unsuccessful tunneling “attempts” still cannot be directly resolved), and the spectral density of $`I(t)`$ can be calculated using the classical theory of telegraph noise leading to the Lorentzian shape of $`S_I(\omega )`$. Figure 5a shows the gradual transformation of the spectral density with the increase of the coupling $`\alpha `$ for a symmetric qubit, $`\epsilon =0`$, and an ideal detector, $`\eta =1`$. The results for an asymmetric qubit, $`\epsilon /H=1`$, are shown in Fig. 5b.

The curves in Fig. 5 as well as the dashed curves in Fig. 2 are calculated using the conventional master equation approach which gives the same results for the detector spectral density as the Bayesian formalism (we will prove this later). In the conventional approach we should assume no correlation between the detector noise and the qubit evolution (the last term in Eq. (12) is absent) while the correlation function $`K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )`$ should be calculated considering $`z(t)`$ not as an ordinary function but as an operator. Then the calculation of $`\widehat{z}(t)\widehat{z}(t+\tau )`$ can be essentially interpreted as follows. The first (in time) operator $`\widehat{z}(t)`$ collapses the qubit into one of two eigenstates which correspond to localized states, then during time $`\tau `$ the qubit performs the evolution described by conventional Eqs. (2)–(3), and finally the second operator $`\widehat{z}(t+\tau )`$ gives the probability for the qubit to be measured in one of two localized states. (Of course, this procedure can be done purely formally, without any interpretation.) Notice that there is complete symmetry between states “1” and “2” even for $`\epsilon 0`$ (in particular, in the stationary state $`\rho _{11}=\rho _{22}=1/2`$), so the evolution after the first collapse can be started from any localized state leading to the same contribution to the correlation function. In this way we obviously get $`K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )=\rho _{11}(\tau )\rho _{22}(\tau )`$ where $`\rho _{ii}`$ is the solution of Eqs. (2)–(3) with the initial conditions $`\rho _{11}(0)=1`$ and $`\rho _{12}(0)=0`$.

For the symmetric qubit, $`\epsilon =0`$, these equations can be easily solved analytically, and finally we obtain:

$$S_I(\omega )=S_0+\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\omega ^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\omega ^2},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\eta ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2/4S_0=\alpha \eta ^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This equation obviously transforms into Eq. (13) for $`\eta =1`$ and $`\alpha 1`$. Notice that for weak coupling with a nonideal detector, $`\eta <1`$ and $`\alpha \eta ^11`$, the peak height of $`S_I(\omega )`$ is equal to $`4\eta S_0`$, while the linewidth $`\alpha \eta ^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the peak is $`\eta ^1`$ times wider than for the ideal detector. As the coupling increases, the linewidth grows and the oscillation frequency decreases:  $`\omega _{osc}=\mathrm{\Omega }[1(\alpha /2\eta )^2)^{1/2}]`$. The transition into the overdamped regime occurs at $`\alpha \eta ^1>2`$ while the peak-like feature disappears at $`\alpha \eta ^1>\sqrt{2}`$. For $`\alpha \eta ^1>2`$ the spectral density consists of two Lorentzians \[$`\omega _{1,2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }/2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2/4\mathrm{\Omega }^2)^{1/2}`$\] centered at zero frequency, with the negative sign and the smaller amplitude $`A_2`$ of the second Lorentzian which has higher cutoff frequency, $`A_2/A_1=\omega _1/\omega _2`$. In the case $`\alpha \eta ^11`$, which corresponds to the well developed Quantum Zeno effect, $`S_I(\omega )S_0`$ has purely Lorentzian shape $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2\omega _1/(\omega ^2+\omega _1^2)`$ with $`\omega _1=\mathrm{\Omega }^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }\eta /\alpha `$.

For the asymmetric qubit, $`\epsilon 0`$, the spectral density can in principle also be calculated analytically but the expressions would be too lengthy and it is simpler to use numerical solution of Eqs. (2)–(3). The analytical formula for the weak coupling limit is

$`S_I(\omega )=`$ $`S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta S_0\epsilon ^2/H^2}{1+(\omega \mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2/4H^2\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}}`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\eta S_0(1+\epsilon ^2/2H^2)^1}{1+[(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/\mathrm{\Gamma }(12H^2/\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)]^2}}.`$
The spectral peak and the low-frequency Lorentzian become wider with the coupling increase since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha \eta ^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and for $`|\epsilon /H|<1/\sqrt{2}`$ the overdamped regime starts from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1,2}^2=(\mathrm{\Omega }^2/2a)[b(b^24a)^{1/2}]`$, $`b1/427a^2/4+9a/2`$, $`a\epsilon ^2/(4H^2+\epsilon ^2)`$. At $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ the dynamics formally returns to the underdamped regime, however, the peak linewidth is much larger than the frequency and so $`S_I(\omega )`$ is monotonous. For $`|\epsilon /H|>1/\sqrt{2}`$ the overdamped regime does not occur. In both cases in the limit of large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the spectral density has almost Lorentzian shape with the cutoff frequency $`\omega _1=4H^2/\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

One can check that the spectral densities given by Eqs. (15) and (17) satisfy the integral condition (14), which remains valid for arbitrary parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\epsilon /H`$, and $`\eta `$, because of the equation $`K_I(+0)=(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)^2`$.

## V Equivalence of two approaches

Comparing two derivations of $`S_I(\omega )`$ in the case $`\alpha 1`$, $`\eta =1`$, and $`\epsilon =0`$, we see that $`K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )`$ is twice larger than $`K_z(\tau )`$ because in the conventional approach the evolution always starts from the localized state while in the Bayesian approach it starts from arbitrary phase of quantum oscillations. This difference exactly compensates for the absence of the last term in Eq. (12) in the conventional approach.

Let us prove explicitly that the two approaches give the same result for $`S_I(\omega )`$ in a general case. In order to calculate $`K_{\xi z}(\tau )`$ for $`\tau >0`$ using the Bayesian formalism, let us first average the product $`\xi (t_0)z(t_0+\tau )`$ over random $`\xi (t)`$ during time period $`t_0<t<t_0+\tau `$, fixing the same conditions at $`t=t_0`$. Then we can use conventional Eqs. (2)–(3) \[regarded as Eqs. (4)–(7) averaged over random $`\xi (t)`$\] with the initial condition $`\rho _{ij}(t_0+0)=\rho _{ij}(t_0)+d\rho _{ij}`$ where

$`dz=\mathrm{\Delta }IS_0^1[1z^2(t_0)]\xi (t_0)dt,`$ (18)
$`d\rho _{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }IS_0^1z(t_0)\rho _{12}(t_0)\xi (t_0)dt`$ (19)
(for simplicity we will refer to $`z\rho _{11}\rho _{22}`$ as a component of $`\rho _{ij}`$). Since the sign of $`\xi (t_0)`$ is arbitrary and averaged evolution equations are linear, we need only the fluctuating contribution to $`\rho _{ij}(t_0+0)`$ and, hence, can formally assume that the evolution starts from $`\rho _{ij}(t_0+0)=d\rho _{ij}`$ (notice that we can forget the condition $`\rho _{11}+\rho _{22}=1`$ and use only $`z`$ and $`\rho _{12}`$). Using the relation $`\xi (t_0)^2dt=S_0/2`$ and the evolution linearity, we can formally write

$$K_{\xi z}(\tau )=(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0+\tau ),$$
(20)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ij}`$ satisfies Eqs. (2)–(3) with $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1z(t_0)^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=z(t_0)\rho _{12}(t_0)`$, and the averaging over the initial conditions at $`t=t_0`$ should still be done later. Before that let us do a similar formal trick for $`K_z(\tau )`$ representing it as $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0+\tau )`$ where the evolution starts from $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=z(t_0)^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=z(t_0)\rho _{12}(t_0)`$. Now combining two terms in the detector current correlation function $`K_I(\tau )I(t_0)I(t_0+\tau )I^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)^2K_z(\tau )+(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)K_{\xi z}(\tau )`$ (here $`\tau >0`$), we see that it can be written as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)^2\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0+\tau )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=0`$. Thus we have exactly arrived at the expression of the conventional approach, in which the evolution always starts from the localized state, regardless of the actual quantum state at $`t=t_0`$. This proof is obviously valid for arbitrary $`\alpha `$, $`\eta `$, and $`\epsilon /H`$. Despite the same result in two approaches, the interpretations are quite different since the Bayesian approach allows us to follow the qubit evolution during the measurement process, while the conventional approach gives only the average characteristics.

## VI Finite-temperature environment

In this section we will discuss how to introduce the finite-temperature environment into Eqs. (4)–(7) of the Bayesian formalism. Notice that so far there has been complete symmetry between the states “1” and “2” even for finite energy difference $`\epsilon `$, while the finite temperature effects would be expected to lead to different average populations of these states. Such symmetry requires an implicit assumption that the typical energy in the detector (voltage or temperature) is much larger than the energies involved in the qubit dynamics. So, the absence of temperature in the formalism does not mean that it is zero or very large, it just means that the temperature effects are not important. Now let us assume that besides the detector, the qubit is coupled to an additional finite-temperature environment, which creates an asymmetry between states “1” and “2” when $`\epsilon 0`$.

While the case of finite coupling of a two-level system with an environment presents a really difficult problem, the weak coupling limit can be treated in a simple way. In the standard method  it is described by the equations

$`\dot{\rho }_{++}=\gamma _1(\rho _{++}p_{st}),\rho _{++}+\rho _{}=1,`$ (21)
$`\dot{\rho }_+=ı\mathrm{\Omega }\rho _+\gamma _2\rho _+,`$ (22)
which are written in the diagonal basis (“+” corresponds to the ground state). The temperature $`T`$ determines the stationary occupation $`p_{st}=[1+\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }/T)]^1`$ of the ground state, and the relaxation rates obey inequality  $`\gamma _1/2\gamma _2\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

If the coupling of the qubit with the detector is also weak, $`\alpha \eta ^11`$, the evolution due to extra finite-temperature environment can be simply added to the evolution due to measurement. For this purpose Eqs. (21)–(22) should be translated into the basis of localized states, so the terms

$`(A^2\gamma _1+B^2\gamma _2)(\rho _{11}1/2)\gamma _1A(1/2p_{st})`$ (23)
$`+AB(\gamma _1\gamma _2)\text{Re}\rho _{12},`$ (24)
$`\text{where}A\epsilon /\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega },B2H/\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (25)
should be added into Eq. (4) for $`\dot{\rho }_{11}`$ and the terms

$`(A^2\gamma _2+B^2\gamma _1)\text{Re}\rho _{12}+AB(\rho _{11}\rho _{22})(\gamma _1\gamma _2)/2`$ (26)
$`+\gamma _1B(1/2p_{st})ı\gamma _2\text{Im}\rho _{12}`$ (27)
should be added into Eq. (6) for $`\dot{\rho }_{12}`$. The same terms should obviously be added into Eqs. (2)–(3) for the conventional approach. (Of course, this generalization is purely phenomenological and is limited to the weak coupling regime, so the effect of Eqs. (24)–(27) can be considered only at the timescale longer than oscillation period.)

In the generalized case it is still possible to prove that the results of the Bayesian formalism for the detector current spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ exactly coincide with the results of the conventional approach. The essential difference from the proof above is nonzero stationary solution ($`z_{st},\rho _{12,st}`$) of modified Eqs. (2)–(3) when $`p_{st}1/2`$. It is convenient to consider homogeneous evolution equations (with $`p_{st}=1/2`$) simply shifting $`z(t)`$ and $`\rho _{12}(t)`$ by the stationary values. Using the same idea as in the proof above we can show that in the Bayesian approach $`K_I(\tau )`$ for $`\tau >0`$ can be written as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)^2\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0+\tau )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{ij}`$ satisfies homogeneous modified Eqs. (2)–(3) with $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=12z_{st}z(t_0)+z_{st}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=z(t_0)\rho _{12,st}z_{st}\rho _{12}(t_0)+z_{st}\rho _{12,st}`$. After the averaging over initial states these initial conditions can be replaced with $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1z_{st}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=z_{st}\rho _{12,st}`$.

Now let us show that we get the same $`K_I(\tau )`$ in the conventional approach. With the probability $`(1+z_{st})/2`$ the first operator $`\widehat{z}(t_0)`$ localizes the qubit into the state “1”. Then the initial state for the homogeneous equations is $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1z_{st}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=\rho _{12,st}`$. With the probability $`(1z_{st})/2`$ the evolution starts from the state “2”, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1z_{st}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=\rho _{12,st}`$. Adding two contributions with opposite signs we see again that for $`\tau >0`$, $`K_I(\tau )=(\mathrm{\Delta }I/2)^2\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0+\tau )`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ can be found as a solution of Eqs. (2)–(3) modified by Eqs. (24)–(27) without inhomogeneous terms, with the initial condition $`\stackrel{~}{z}(t_0)=1z_{st}^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{12}(t_0)=z_{st}\rho _{12,st}`$. Thus, the correlation function $`K_I(\tau )`$ and, hence, the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ coincide in the two approaches.

It is technically simpler to consider the averaged evolution in the diagonal basis rather than in the basis of localized states \[for this purpose we need to translate the term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho _{12}`$ from Eq. (3) into the diagonal basis and add it into Eqs. (21)–(22)\]. So, to calculate the correlation function $`K_{\widehat{z}}(\tau )`$ analytically, we start the evolution from one of the localized states, then consider the averaged evolution in the diagonal basis (neglecting the rapidly oscillating terms due to measurement), and make the second projection onto localized states at $`t=\tau `$. Finally we obtain the result

$`S_I(\omega )=`$ $`S_0+{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2}{W_t}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}z_{st}^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(w/W_t)^2}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{\Delta }I)^2H^2}{W_0\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+[(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })/W_0]^2}}`$
where

$`z_{st}={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+4H^2\mathrm{\Gamma }/\gamma _1\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2T}}),`$ (30)
$`W_t=\gamma _1+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Gamma }H^2}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}},`$ (31)
$`W_0=\gamma _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{\mathrm{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}).`$ (32)
Let us emphasize that the effect of finite-temperature environment is not generally equivalent to the nonideality of the detector described by finite $`\gamma `$ in Eq. (6). As an example, in the case of extra environment the right hand part of Eq. (14) should be multiplied by the factor $`1z_{st}^2`$ which disappears ($`z_{st}=0`$) only if $`T=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\epsilon =0`$.

Comparing Eqs. (29) and (17) one can see that within the accuracy of weak coupling approximation the change of $`S_I(\omega )`$ due to extra environment can be reduced to the detector nonideality, $`\eta <1`$, in two cases. If $`|\epsilon /H|1`$, then Eqs. (29) and (17) coincide at arbitrary temperature $`T`$ for $`\eta =(1+2\gamma _2/\alpha \mathrm{\Omega })^1`$. For asymmetric qubit, $`|\epsilon /H|1`$, the equivalence is possible only at high temperatures, $`T\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and requires conditions

$`\gamma _2=\gamma _1(1+\epsilon ^2/2H^2)/2,`$ (33)
$`\eta ^1=1+(1+\epsilon ^2/4H^2)^{3/2}\gamma _1/\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (34)
Figure 6 shows the numerically calculated spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ of the detector current for a nonideal detector, $`\eta =0.5`$ (dashed lines) and for an ideal detector but extra coupling of the qubit to the environment at temperature $`T=H`$ (solid lines). The rates $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are chosen according to Eqs. (33) and (34). For the symmetric qubit, $`\epsilon =0`$, the results of two models practically coincide. In contrast, the solid and dashed lines for $`\epsilon =2H`$ significantly differ from each other at low frequencies, while the spectral peak at $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ is fitted quite well.

## VII Conclusion

Using both Bayesian and conventional approaches, we have calculated the spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ of the detector current when a two-level quantum system (qubit) is measured continuously. Depending on the coupling strength, there is a gradual transition from quantum oscillations to quantum jumps. This results in a transition from the peak-like spectral density to the Lorentzian shape of $`S_I(\omega )`$. The maximal height of the peak at the frequency of quantum oscillation is shown to be 4 times the shot noise pedestal (see also Ref. ).

In the simple case of weak coupling between a symmetric qubit and an ideal detector, the height of the spectral peak is twice as high as the classical result for a harmonic signal. In the Bayesian approach this is explained by the significant correlation between the detector noise and the further evolution of the measured system due to quantum back-action. In contrast, in the conventional approach this fact is the consequence of discrete eigenvalues of $`\widehat{z}`$ operator, which corresponds to the magnitude measured by the detector. (In other words, this operator “collapses” the system into one of two eigenstates, and that is why the averaged product of two operators is twice as large as that for a classical harmonic signal.) So, even though the results for $`S_I(\omega )`$ coincide in two approaches, the interpretations are significantly different since the “abrupt” collapse is replaced in the Bayesian approach by the “continuous” collapse related to the noisy detector output.

It is important to notice that the Bayesian formalism allows us to monitor continuously the phase of quantum oscillations. This makes it possible to tune the phase using the feedback control of the qubit parameters. If the real-time calculations using Eqs. (4)–(6) and fast feedback loop were available in an experiment (the typical bandwidth should be larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) then the random diffusion of the oscillation phase could be eliminated and the qubit could “stay fresh” for a very long time. The suppression of qubit dephasing using the feedback control of the tunneling strength $`H`$ has been confirmed by the Monte-Carlo simulations. The elimination of the phase diffusion gives rise to the $`\delta `$-function peak in the detector spectral density $`S_I(\omega )`$ at the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A detailed analysis of this situation is beyond the scope of the present paper.

The author thanks D. V. Averin, J. E. Lukens, and K. K. Likharev for fruitful discussions. The work was partly supported by AFOSR.


format: text

text:
# THE b-u SKEWED PARTON DISTRIBUTIONS

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A good theoretical understanding of the $`B\pi `$ transition form factors are of utmost interest. Accurate predictions of these form factors would permit a determination of the less well-known Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`V_{\mathrm{ub}}`$ from experimental rates of semi-leptonic $`B\pi `$ transitions. The $`B\pi `$ form factors also form an important ingredient of the calculation of $`B\pi \pi `$ decay rates; the factorization hypothesis relates the form factors at maximum recoil to the decay rates. Thus, not surprisingly, the $`B\pi `$ and other heavy-to-light form factors, attracted the attention of many theoreticians. In several of these approaches two distinct dynamical mechanism are considered which build up the $`B\pi `$ form factors: The $`B\pi `$ resonances which control the form factors at small recoil and the overlap of the meson wave functions that dominates at large recoil. Other mechanisms, like the perturbative one, provide only small and often negligible corrections. The crucial questions are how to match these two prominent contributions at intermediate recoil and how to avoid double counting. In a recent article , on which I am going to report here, we proposed to start from skewed parton distributions . The SPDs allow an unambigous superposition of $`B\pi `$ resonances and the overlap contribution.

## 2 $`\mathrm{b}`$-$`\mathrm{u}`$ SKEWED PARTON DISTRIBUTIONS

To be specific let us consider the semi-leptonic decay $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_l`$. Instead of the usual form factors, $`F_+`$ and $`F_0`$, (see e.g. ) it is more appropriate here to use the definition

$$\pi ^+;p^{}|\overline{\mathrm{u}}(0)\gamma _\mu \mathrm{b}(0)|\overline{B}^0;p=F^{(1)}(q^2)p_\mu ^{}+F^{(2)}(q^2)\left(q_\mu \frac{q^2}{M_B^2}p_\mu \right),$$
(1)
where $`q=pp^{}`$ and $`M_B`$ ($`M_\pi `$) is the $`B`$ ($`\pi `$) mass. A convenient frame of reference is a generalized Breit frame in which the mesons move collinearly. In this frame the momentum transfer is given by

$$q^2=\zeta M_B^2\left(1\frac{M_\pi ^2}{M_B^2(1\zeta )}\right),$$
(2)
where the so-called skewedness parameter, $`\zeta `$, is defined by the ratio of light-cone plus components

$$\zeta =\frac{q^+}{p^+}=1\frac{p^+}{p^+}.$$
(3)
The skewedness parameter $`\zeta `$ covers the interval $`[0,1M_\pi /M_B]`$ in parallel with the variation of the momentum transfer from zero (the lepton mass is neglected) to $`q_{\mathrm{max}}^2=(M_BM_\pi )^2`$ in the physical region of the $`B\pi `$ transitions. The pion mass is neglected in the calculation of SPDs and form factors. The advantage of the generalized Breit frame is that the $`B\pi `$ matrix element of the current’s plus component is related to the form factor $`F^{(1)}`$ solely while that of the minus component is related to $`F^{(2)}`$. The matrix elements of the transverse currents are zero.

The flavour non-diagonal $`\mathrm{b}`$-$`\mathrm{u}`$ SPDs $`\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(i)}`$, $`i=1,2`$ are defined by the $`B\pi `$ matrix elements of bilocal products of quark field operators, e.g.

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}z^{}}{2\pi }e^{ixp^+z^{}}\pi ^+;p^{}|\overline{\mathrm{u}}(0)\gamma ^+\mathrm{b}(z^{})|\overline{B}^0;p=(1\zeta )\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(1)}(x,q^2).$$
(4)
$`x=k^+/p^+`$ is the usual fraction of plus-components of the $`\mathrm{b}`$-quark and $`B`$-meson momenta. The second SPD, $`\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(2)}`$, is analogously defined with $`\gamma ^+`$ being replaced by $`\gamma ^{}`$. The variable $`q^2`$ is redundant in the generalized Breit frame, see Eq. (2). Integration of (4) over $`x`$ reduces the bilocal operator product to the local one that defines the form factors, see (1). Hence, one has the reduction formula

$$F^{(i)}(q^2)=_{1+\zeta }^1dx\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(i)}(x)$$
(5)
for $`i=1,2`$.

Depending on the value of $`x`$, the SPDs describe different physical situations:
i) For $`1x\zeta `$ a $`\mathrm{b}`$-quark with momentum fraction $`x`$ is emitted from the $`B`$-meson and a $`\mathrm{u}`$-quark carrying a momentum fraction $`x^{}=k^+{}_{}{}^{}/p^+^{}`$ is absorbed, turning the $`B`$-meson into a pion. This part of the SPDs can be modelled as overlaps of $`B`$ and $`\pi `$ light-cone wave functions. For the valence Fock states, for instance, the overlap reads

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{ove}}^{(1)}(x)=\frac{2}{1\zeta }\frac{\mathrm{d}^2𝐤_{}}{16\pi ^3}\mathrm{\Psi }_\pi ^{}(x^{}=\frac{x\zeta }{1\zeta },𝐤_{})\mathrm{\Psi }_B(x,𝐤_{}),$$
(6)
where $`𝐤_{}`$ is the intrinsic transverse momentum of the $`\mathrm{b}`$ ($`\mathrm{u}`$) quark with respect to the $`B`$ ($`\pi `$)-meson momentum.
ii) For $`0x<\zeta `$ the fraction $`x^{}`$ is negative. Interpreting a parton with a negative momentum fraction as an antiparton with a positive fraction, one sees that the physical situation is now the emission of a $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{u}}`$ pair from $`B`$-meson and the formation of the pion from the remaining partons. This contribution can be desribed by overlaps for $`N+2N`$ parton processes; it is found to be very small numerically. $`B\pi `$ resonances contribute to the SPDs in that region as well . The contribution of the most important resonance, the $`B^{}`$ vector meson, reads

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{res}}^{(1)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^{}g_{BB^{}\pi }}{M_B^{}}}\left(M_B^{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\zeta M_B^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _B^{}(x/\zeta )}{M_B^{}^2\zeta M_B^2}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{res}}^{(2)}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_B^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_B^{}g_{BB^{}\pi }}{M_B^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _B^{}(x/\zeta )}{M_B^{}^2\zeta M_B^2}},`$ (7)
where $`\varphi _B^{}(y)`$ is the valence Fock state distribution amplitude of the $`B^{}`$-meson. The argument of the $`B^{}`$ distribution amplitude, $`x/\zeta `$, equals the momentum fraction, $`k_+/q_+`$, which the $`\mathrm{b}`$-quarks carries w.r.t. the $`B^{}`$-meson.
iii) For $`1+\zeta x<0`$ where $`x^{}`$ is negative too, the SPDs describe the emission of a $`\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$-quark and the absorption of a $`\overline{\mathrm{u}}`$ one. Since the probability of finding a $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ sea-quark pair in the $`B`$-meson is practically zero, $`\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(i)}(x)0`$ in this region.

Combining all these contributions, one finds for the $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}`$ SPDs the superposition

$$\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(i)}(x)=\theta (x\zeta )\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{ove}}^{(i)}(x)+\theta (\zeta x)\theta (x)\left[\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{ann}}^{(i)}(x)+\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{res}}^{(i)}(x)\right].$$
(8)
The relative importance of the overlap contribution to the SPDs on the one side and the sum of annihilation and resonance one on the other side, change with the momentum transfer as a consequence of the relation (2). At large recoil, $`q^20`$, the annihilation and resonance parts do not contribute while they dominate at small recoil, $`q^2q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$. The superposition (8) is controlled by the skewedness parameter $`\zeta `$ in an unambiguous way, i.e. there is no danger of double counting.

For the numerical estimate of the overlap contribution a simple Gaussian wave function is used to describe the pion’s valence Fock state

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pi (x,𝐤_{})=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{f_\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{8\pi ^2f_\pi ^2}\frac{𝐤_{}^2}{x(1x)}\right].$$
(9)
$`f_\pi `$ (=132 MeV) is the usual pion decay constant. The wave function (9) has been tested against experiment and found to work satisfactorily in many exclusive reactions involving pions (e.g. ). It is also supported by theoretical studies, e.g. .

For the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{d}}`$ wave function of the $`B`$ meson a slightly modified version of the Bauer-Stech-Wirbel (BSW) function  is used

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_B(x,𝐤_{})f_Bx(1x)\mathrm{exp}\left[a_B^2[M_B^2\left(xx_0\right)^2+𝐤_{}^2]\right].$$
(10)
$`m_\mathrm{b}`$ is taken to be 4.8 GeV, $`a_B=1.51\mathrm{GeV}^1`$, $`f_B=180\mathrm{MeV}`$ and the wave function is normalized to unity. The distribution amplitude exhibits a pronounced peak, its position is approximately at $`xx_0=m_\mathrm{b}/M_B`$.

In principle, the overlap parts of the SPDs receive contributions from all Fock states. The generalization of the overlap representation (6) to higher Fock states is a straightforward application of the methods outlined in . Using suitably generalized $`N`$-particle wave functions, one can show that the higher Fock state contributions to the SPD $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\zeta \mathrm{ove}}^{(1)}`$ are very small and can be neglected; they represent power corrections $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B)^{n(N)}`$.

In order to estimate the resonance contribution the same ansatz as for the $`B`$-meson is employed for the $`B^{}`$-meson distribution amplitude. Its explicit form is however irrelevant for the transition form factors. The product of the $`B^{}`$ decay constant, $`f_B^{}`$ and the $`BB^{}\pi `$ coupling constant is taken to be $`20f_B`$ .

The numerical results for the $`\mathrm{b}`$-$`\mathrm{u}`$ SPD $`\stackrel{~}{}_\zeta ^{(1)}`$ are shown in Fig. 1. Both the contributions exhibit charcteristic bumps which are generated by the pronounced peaks in the $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ distribution amplitudes.

## 3 $`B`$-$`\pi `$ FORM FACTORS

The $`B\pi `$ form factors $`F^{(i)}`$ can be evaluated form the SPDs through the reduction formula (5). Since the form factors $`F_+`$ and $`F_0`$, being linearly related to the $`F^{(i)}`$, are more suitable in applications to decay processes, I only present results for them. In addition to the overlap and resonance contributions the form factors also receive contributions from perturbative QCD where a hard gluon, with a virtuality of the order of $`M_B^2`$, is exchanged between the struck and the spectator quark. In Ref.  the perturbative contributions have been evaluated at large recoil within the modified perturbative approach and one can make use of these results. At small recoil the perturbative contributions cease to be reliable because of the small virtualities some of the internal off-shell quarks and gluons acquire in this region.

Numerical results for the form factors are displayed in Fig. 2. In the case of the form factor $`F_+`$ one sees the dominance of the overlap contribution at large recoil while the resonance contribution takes the lead at small recoil (cf. Eq. (8)). The perturbative contribution provides a correction to $`F_+`$ of the order of $`10\%`$ at large recoil and can be neglected at small recoil. The sum of the three contributions to $`F_+`$ is in fair agreement with lattice QCD results . Due to the absence of the $`B^{}`$ pole the form factor $`F_0`$ behaves differently; it is rather flat over the entire range of momentum transfer. The perturbative contribution makes up a substantial fraction of the total result for $`F_0`$ at intermediate momentum transfer. Since, as is mentioned above, it becomes unreliable for $`q^2\stackrel{>}{}18\mathrm{GeV}^2`$ $`F_0`$ cannot reliably be predicted at large $`q^2`$. A calculation of $`F_0`$ in that region would also require a detailed investigation of the scalar $`B\pi `$ resonances of which not much is known at present. Despite of this drawback the results for this form factor are also in fair agreement with the lattice QCD results  and, in tendency, seem to extrapolate to the $`B`$-sector analogue of the Callan-Treiman value.

An assessment of the theoretical uncertainties of the predictions for the $`B\pi `$ transition form factors leads to an uncertainty of about $`2025\%`$. It includes estimates of: Sudakov suppressions in the end-point region ($`x1`$), contributions from two-particle twist-three wave functionss, deviations from the asymptotic form of the pion distribution amplitude, uncertainties of the input parameters ($`g_{BB^{}\pi }`$,$`f_B`$, $`f_B^{}`$, $`m_\mathrm{b}`$) and from the order $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$ corrections, In particular for the form factors at maximum recoil, $`F_+(0)=F_0(0)`$ a value of $`0.22\pm 0.05`$ is obtained.

With the form factors at hand one can evaluate the semi-leptonic decay rates $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\mathrm{}^{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$. For the branching ratio of the light-lepton modes one finds

$$[\overline{B}^0\pi ^+e\overline{\nu }_e][\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu ]=1.910^4\left(\frac{|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|}{0.0035}\right)^2.$$
(11)
The theoretical uncertainty of this prediction, dominated by that of the overlap contribution, amounts to about $`30\%`$. This result is to be compared with the CLEO measurement : $`(1.8\pm 0.4\pm 0.3\pm 0.2)10^4`$. For the $`\tau `$ channel one obtains a value of $`1.510^4`$ for the branching ratio ($`|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|=0.0035`$).

The exclusive $`B`$-decays into pairs of pions are usually calculated on the basis of a factorization hypothesis according to which the decay amplitudes can be written as a product of two weak current matrix elements

$$=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{\mathrm{ud}}^{}V_{\mathrm{ub}}\pi ^{};q|J_W^\mu |0\pi ^+;p^{}|J_\mu ^W|\overline{B}^0;p.$$
(12)
The first matrix element defines the usual pion decay constant ($`f_\pi q^\mu `$) while the second one defines the $`B\pi `$ transition form factors (1). The factorizing contribution alone leads to the following branching ratio

$$(\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{})=10.510^6\left(\frac{|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|}{0.0035}\right)^2\left|\frac{F_+(0)}{0.33}\right|^2.$$
(13)
Ignoring the short-distance corrections which seem to amount to about $`1020\%`$ , and choosing $`|V_{\mathrm{ub}}|=0.0035`$, one finds agreement between the prediction for $`F_+(0)`$ from the SPD approach and the recent CLEO measurement  for the $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ branching ratio of $`(4.3{}_{1.4}{}^{+1.6}\pm 0.5)10^6`$. The experimental value is much smaller than expected (based on $`F_+(0)0.30.33`$) and a revision of the theoretical analysis of exclusive $`B`$-decays seems to be required.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

The $`\mathrm{b}`$-$`\mathrm{u}`$ SPDs are calculated from light-cone wave function overlaps and a contribution from the $`B^{}`$ resonance. The chief advantage of the SPD approach is that the skewedness parameter clearly separates the overlap from the resonance contribution and both the contributions can be added unambigously. The $`B\pi `$ transition form factors are calculated from the $`\mathrm{b}\mathrm{u}`$ SPDs by means of reduction formulas. $`F_+`$ is obtained in the entire range of momentum transfer and $`F_0`$ up to about 18 GeV2. In particular, a value of $`0.22\pm 0.05`$ is found for the form factors at maximum recoil. This value appears to be in agreement with the recent CLEO measurement  of $`B\pi \pi `$ decays (if the latter process is analysed on the basis of the factorization hypothesis). The prediction for the total decay for the process $`\overline{B}^0\pi ^+e\overline{\nu }_e`$ is also in agreement with a CLEO measurement . In both the cases, the $`\pi \pi `$ and the semi-leptonic decay, a value of 0.0035 is used for the CKM matrix element $`V_{\mathrm{ub}}`$.


text:
# BAND DESCRIPTION OF KNOTS AND VASSILIEV INVARIANTS

> Abstract
>
> In 1993 K. Habiro defined $`C_k`$-move of oriented links and around 1994 he proved that two oriented knots are transformed into each other by $`C_k`$-moves if and only if they have the same Vassiliev invariants of order $`k1`$. In this paper we define Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$, and show that, for $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$, two oriented knots are transformed into each other by $`C_k`$-moves if and only if they have the same Vassiliev invariants of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$. We introduce a concept ‘band description of knots’ and give a diagram-oriented proof of this theorem. When $`k_1=\mathrm{}=k_l=1`$, the Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ coincides with the Vassiliev invariant of order $`l1`$ in the usual sense. As a special case, we have Habiro’s theorem stated above.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 57M25Keywords and Phrases: knot, $`C_n`$-move, Vassiliev invariant, finite type invariant, band description

Introduction

In 1993 K. Habiro defined $`C_k`$-move of oriented links for each natural number $`k`$ . A $`C_k`$-move is a kind of local move of oriented links. Around 1994 he proved that two oriented knots have the same Vassiliev invariants of order $`k1`$ if and only if they are transformed into each other by $`C_k`$-moves. Thus he has succeeded in deducing a geometric conclusion from an algebraic condition. However this theorem appears only in his recent paper . In  he develops his original clasper theory and obtains the theorem as a consequence of clasper theory. We note that the ‘if’ part of the theorem is also shown in , ,  and , and in  T. Stanford gives another characterization of knots with the same Vassiliev invariants of order $`k1`$.

In this paper we define Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$, and show that, for $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$, two oriented knots are transformed into each other by $`C_k`$-moves if and only if they have the same Vassiliev invariants of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$. When $`k_1=\mathrm{}=k_l=1`$, the Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ coincides with the Vassiliev invariant of order $`l1`$ in the usual sense. As a special case, we have Habiro’s theorem. We use a concept ‘band description of knots’ and give a diagram-oriented proof of the theorem. The proof is elementary and completely self-contained. Note that the prototypes of band description appear in ,  and . In particular in  the second author showed that any knot can be expressed as a band sum of a trivial knot and some Borromean rings. The concept of band description is a development of this fact. More generally the authors defined ‘band description of spatial graphs’ in . The concept of Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ is defined in . A related result to the case $`k_1=\mathrm{}=k_l=2`$ is shown in .

1. Definitions and Main Result

Throughout this paper we work in the piecewise linear category.

A tangle $`T`$ is a disjoint union of properly embedded arcs in the unit $`3`$-ball $`B^3`$. A tangle $`T`$ is trivial if there exists a properly embedded disk in $`B^3`$ that contains $`T`$. A local move is a pair of trivial tangles $`(T_1,T_2)`$ with $`T_1=T_2`$ such that for each component $`t`$ of $`T_1`$ there exists a component $`u`$ of $`T_2`$ with $`t=u`$. Such a pair of components is called a corresponding pair. Two local moves $`(T_1,T_2)`$ and $`(U_1,U_2)`$ are equivalent, denoted by $`(T_1,T_2)(U_1,U_2)`$, if there is an orientation preserving self-homeomorphism $`\psi :B^3B^3`$ such that $`\psi (T_i)`$ and $`U_i`$ are ambient isotopic in $`B^3`$ relative to $`B^3`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Here $`\psi (T_i)`$ and $`U_i`$ are ambient isotopic in $`B^3`$ relative to $`B^3`$ if $`\psi (T_i)`$ is deformed to $`U_i`$ by an ambient isotopy of $`B^3`$ that is pointwisely fixed on $`B^3`$.

Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a local move, $`t_1`$ a component of $`T_1`$ and $`t_2`$ a component of $`T_2`$ with $`t_1=t_2`$. Let $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ be regular neighbourhoods of $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ in $`(B^3T_1)t_1`$ and $`(B^3T_2)t_2`$ respectively such that $`N_1B^3=N_2B^3`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a disjoint union of properly embedded arcs in $`B^2\times [0,1]`$ as illustrated in Fig. 1.1. Let $`\psi _i:B^2\times [0,1]N_i`$ be a homeomorphism with $`\psi _i(B^2\times \{0,1\})=N_iB^3`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Suppose that $`\psi _1(\alpha )=\psi _2(\alpha )`$ and $`\psi _1(\alpha )`$ and $`\psi _2(\alpha )`$ are ambient isotopic in $`B^3`$ relative to $`B^3`$. Then we say that a local move $`((T_1t_1)\psi _1(\alpha ),(T_2t_2)\psi _2(\alpha ))`$ is a double of $`(T_1,T_2)`$ with respect to the components $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. Note that a double of $`(T_1,T_2)`$ with respect to $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ is well-defined up to equivalence.

Fig. 1.1

A $`C_1`$-move is a local move $`(T_1,T_2)`$ as illustrated in Fig. 1.2. A double of a $`C_k`$-move is called a $`C_{k+1}`$-move. Note that for each natural number $`k`$ there are only finitely many $`C_k`$-moves up to equivalence. We note that by the definition a $`C_k`$-move is Brunnian. That is, if $`(T_1,T_2)`$ is a $`C_k`$-move and $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$ components of $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ respectively with $`t_1=t_2`$, then the tangles $`T_1t_1`$ and $`T_2t_2`$ are ambient isotopic in $`B^3`$ relative to $`B^3`$.

Fig. 1.2

Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a local move. Then $`(T_2,T_1)`$ is also a local move. We call $`(T_2,T_1)`$ the inverse of $`(T_1,T_2)`$. It is easy to see that the inverse of a $`C_1`$-move is equivalent to itself. Then it follows inductively that the inverse of a $`C_n`$-move is equivalent to a $`C_n`$-move (but possibly not equivalent to itself).

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be oriented knots in the oriented three-sphere $`S^3`$. We say that $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are related by a local move $`(T_1,T_2)`$ if there is an orientation preserving embedding $`h:B^3S^3`$ such that $`K_ih(B^3)=h(T_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`K_1h(B^3)=K_2h(B^3)`$ together with orientations. Then we also say that $`K_2`$ is obtained from $`K_1`$ by an application of $`(T_1,T_2)`$. Two oriented knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent if $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are related by a finite sequence of $`C_k`$-moves and ambient isotopies. This relation is an equivalence relation on knots. It is known that $`C_k`$-equivalence implies $`C_{k1}`$-equivalence , see Remark 2.4.

Let $`l`$ be a positive integer and $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ positive integers. Suppose that for each $`P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ an oriented knot $`K_P`$ in $`S^3`$ is assigned. Suppose that there are orientation preserving embeddings $`h_i:B^3S^3`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$ such that
(1) $`h_i(B^3)h_j(B^3)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$,
(2) $`K_P_{i=1}^lh_i(B^3)=K_P^{}_{i=1}^lh_i(B^3)`$ together with orientation for any subsets $`P,P^{}\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$,
(3) $`(h_i^1(K_{\mathrm{}}),h_i^1(K_{\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}))`$ is a $`C_{k_i}`$-move $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$, and
(4) $`K_Ph_i(B^3)=\{\begin{array}{cc}K_{\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}h_i(B^3)\hfill & \text{if }iP,\hfill \\ K_{\mathrm{}}h_i(B^3)\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Then we call the set of knots $`\{K_P|P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\}`$ a singular knot of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$. Let $`𝒦`$ be the set of all oriented knot types in $`S^3`$ and $`𝒦`$ the free abelian group generated by $`𝒦`$. We sometimes identify a knot and its knot type without explicite mention. For a singular knot $`K=\{K_P|P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\}`$ of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$, we define an element $`\kappa (K)`$ of $`𝒦`$ by

$$\kappa (K)=\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}K_P.$$

Let $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ be the subgroup of $`𝒦`$ generated by all $`\kappa (K)`$ where $`K`$ varies over all singular knots of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$.

Let $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2`$ be the composite knot of two knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$. Then $`K_1\mathrm{\#}K_2K_1K_2𝒦`$ is called a composite relator following Stanford . Let $`_\mathrm{\#}`$ be the subgroup of $`𝒦`$ generated by all composite relators.

Let $`\iota :𝒦𝒦`$ be the natural inclusion map. Let $`\pi _{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}:𝒦𝒦/𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ and $`\lambda _{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}:𝒦/𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)𝒦/(𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)+_\mathrm{\#})`$ be the quotient homomorphisms. Then the composite maps $`\pi _{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}\iota :𝒦𝒦/𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ and $`\lambda _{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}\pi _{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}\iota :𝒦𝒦/(𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)+_\mathrm{\#})`$ are called the universal Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ and the universal additive Vassiliev invariant of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ respectively. We denote them by $`v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}`$ and $`w_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}`$ respectively.

Since a $`C_1`$-move is a crossing change we have that a singlar knot of type $`(\underset{l}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},1}})`$ is essentially the same as a singlar knot with $`l`$ crossing vertices in the usual sense. Therefore we have that $`v_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}`$ is the universal Vassiliev invariant of order $`l1`$ and $`w_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}`$ is the universal additive Vassiliev invariant of order $`l1`$. Note that $`v_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}(K_1)=v_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}(K_2)`$ if and only if $`v(K_1)=v(K_2)`$ for any Vassiliev invariant $`v`$ of order $`l1`$. Similarly $`w_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}(K_1)=w_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}(K_2)`$ if and only if $`w(K_1)=w(K_2)`$ for any additive Vassiliev invariant $`w`$ of order $`l1`$. We also note that $`v_{(2,\mathrm{},2)}`$ is essentially same as that defined in , . In  the authors defined a finite type invariant of order $`(k;n)`$, that is essentially same as $`v_{(\underset{k+1}{\underset{}{n1,\mathrm{},n1}})}`$.

Now we state our main results.

Theorem 1.1. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ be positive integers and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. Then $`𝒱(k)𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$.

Theorem 1.2. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ be positive integers and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. Then $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#}`$.

By Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 1.3. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ be positive integers and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. Then $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)+_\mathrm{\#}=𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following theorem was proved by Habiro , and the authors gave a proof by using band description . In section 3, we give the same proof as in  for the convenience of the reader.

Theorem 1.4. (Habiro ) The $`C_k`$-equivalence classes of oriented knots in $`S^3`$ forms an abelian group under connected sum of oriented knots.

We denote this group by $`𝒦/C_k`$.

Theorem 1.5. Let $`\eta _k:𝒦/C_k𝒦/(𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#})`$ be a map induced by the inclusion $`\iota `$. Then $`\eta _k`$ is an isomorphism.

Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be oriented knots and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. If $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent, then by Theorem 1.1, $`K_1K_2𝒱(k)𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$. Therefore we have $`v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_1)=v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_2)`$. On the other hand, if $`v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_1)=v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_2)`$, then $`w_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_1)=w_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_2)`$. Then by Corollary 1.3, $`K_1K_2𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#}`$. Then by Theorem 1.5 we have that $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent. Hence we have the following theorem.

Theorem 1.6. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ be positive integers and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. Let $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ be oriented knots in $`S^3`$. Then the following conditions are mutually equivalent.

(1) $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent,

(2) $`v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_1)=v_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_2)`$,

(3) $`w_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_1)=w_{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)}(K_2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a special case of Theorem 1.6 we have the following theorem.

Theorem 1.7. (Habiro ) Two oriented knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent if and only if their values of the universal (additive) Vassiliev invariant of order $`k1`$ are equal. $`\mathrm{}`$

The remainder of this paper, we prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5. We give a proof of Theorem 1.1 in section 2 and proofs of Theorems 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 in section 3. The reader who wishes may change the order of sections 2 and 3 since they are independent except for Remark 2.4.

2. $`C_k`$-moves

A graph is called a tree if it is connected and simply connected as a topological space. A graph is uni-trivalent if each vertex has degree one or three. Let $`G`$ be a uni-trivalent tree embedded on the unit disk $`D^2`$ such that $`GD^2`$ is exactly the set of degree-one vertices $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_{k+1}\}`$ of $`G`$. Suppose that an edge $`e`$ of $`G`$ is specified. We will assign a $`C_k`$-move to $`G`$ with respest to $`e`$ and a pair of corresponding components of it to each $`v_i`$ as follows. If $`G`$ is a tree with just two vertices $`v_1,v_2`$ and one edge $`e`$ joining them then we assign a diagram of a $`C_1`$-move as illustrated in Fig. 2.1. Suppose that for each uni-trivalent tree on $`k`$ vertices with a specified edge, a diagram of a $`C_{k1}`$-move is assigned. Suppose that $`v_k`$ and $`v_{k+1}`$ are degree-one vertices of $`G`$ such that there is a degree-three vertex $`u`$ of $`G`$ that is adjacent to both of $`v_k`$ and $`v_{k+1}`$. Suppose that neither $`uv_k`$ nor $`uv_{k+1}`$ is a specified edge $`e`$. Let $`G^{}`$ be a uni-trivalent tree obtained from $`G`$ by deleting $`v_{k+1}`$ and the edge $`uv_{k+1}`$ and forgetting $`u`$. Let $`𝒟^{}`$ be a diagram of a $`C_{k1}`$-move assigned to $`G^{}`$ with respect to $`e`$. Let $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ be a pair of corresponding components assigned to $`v_k`$. Then we replace their parts in $`D^{}`$ as the diagram illustrated in Fig. 2.2. We assign the new pairs of corresponding components to $`v_k`$ and $`v_{k+1}`$ respecting the cyclic order of them on $`D^2`$. Thus we have assigned a $`C_k`$-move to $`G`$ with respect to the specified edge. See for example Fig. 2.3. Note that any $`C_k`$-move is assigned to a uni-trivalent tree with respect to a specified edge up to equivalence of local moves.

Fig. 2.1

Fig. 2.2

Fig. 2.3

Lemma 2.1. Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a $`C_k`$-move assigned to a uni-trivalent tree $`G`$ with respect to a specified edge $`e`$. Suppose that an edge $`e^{}`$ is incident to $`e`$. Then there is a re-embedding $`f:GD^2`$ such that the $`C_k`$-move assigned to $`f(G)`$ with respect to $`f(e^{})`$ is equivalent to $`(T_1,T_2)`$.

Proof. Let $`v`$ be the common vertex of $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$. First suppose that only $`v`$ is the degree-three vertex of $`G`$. Then we have the result by the deformation illustrated in Fig. 2.4. By taking appropriate doubles we have the general case. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 2.4

A path of $`G`$ is a subgraph of $`G`$ homeomorphic to a closed interval. Let $`\sigma (G)`$ be the maximal of the number of the edges of a path of $`G`$ and call it the diameter of $`G`$. We say that a $`C_k`$-move $`(T_1,T_2)`$ is one-branched if it is assigned to a uni-trivalent tree of diameter $`k`$. Note that if $`G`$ is a uni-trivalent tree with $`k+1`$ degree-one vertices and $`\sigma (G)=k`$, then all of the degree-three vertices lie on the path with $`k`$ edges.

Let $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ be tangles. We say that $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are related by a local move $`(T_1,T_2)`$ if there is an orientation preserving embedding $`h:B^3\mathrm{int}B^3`$ such that $`S_ih(B^3)=h(T_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`S_1h(B^3)=S_2h(B^3)`$. Then we say that $`S_2`$ is obtained from $`S_1`$ by an application of $`(T_1,T_2)`$.

The following result was shown by Habiro . Since the article  is written in Japanese, we give a proof by using our terms.

Lemma 2.2. (Habiro ) Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a $`C_k`$-move. Then $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are related by a finite sequence of one-branched $`C_k`$-moves and ambient isotopies relative to $`B^3`$.

Proof. Suppose that $`(T_1,T_2)`$ is assigned to a uni-trivalent tree $`G`$. If $`\sigma (G)=k`$ then $`(T_1,T_2)`$ itself is a one-branched $`C_k`$-move. Therefore we may suppose that $`\sigma (G)<k`$. It is sufficient to show that $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are related by $`C_k`$-moves each of which is assigned to a uni-trivalent tree of diameter $`\sigma (G)+1`$. Let $`P`$ be a path of $`G`$ containing $`\sigma (G)`$ edges. Since $`\sigma (G)<k`$, there are degree-three vertices of $`G`$ that are not on $`P`$. Let $`v`$ be one of them such that $`v`$ is adjacent to a vertex $`w`$ on $`P`$. Let $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ be the vertices on $`P`$ adjacent to $`w`$. Let $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ be the other vertices adjacent to $`v`$. By Lemma 2.1 we may assume that the specified edge is $`ww_1`$. We temporarily forget the embedding of $`G`$ into $`D^2`$ and define two abstract graphs $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ from $`G`$ as follows. Let $`G_i`$ be a uni-trivalent tree obtained from $`G`$ by deleting the edge $`vv_i`$, forgetting $`v`$, adding a vertex $`u`$ on $`ww_2`$ and adding an edge $`uv_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. Then we have $`\sigma (G_1)=\sigma (G_2)=\sigma (G)+1`$. We will show that $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are related by a $`C_k`$-move assigned to some embedding of $`G_1`$ and a $`C_k`$-move assigned to some embedding of $`G_2`$. In the following we consider the simplest case illustrated in Fig. 2.5. General cases follow immediately by taking appropriate doubles. The $`C_k`$-move of Fig. 2.5 is assigned to the graph of Fig. 2.5 with respect to $`ww_1`$. Note that the $`C_k`$-move of Fig. 2.5 is equivalent to a local move of Fig. 2.6. Then it is realized by two local moves Fig. 2.7 (a) and (b). Then each of them is equivalent to a desired $`C_k`$-move. Fig. 2.8 indicates it for the case (a). The case (b) is similar and we omit it. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 2.5

Fig. 2.6

Fig. 2.7

Fig. 2.8

Corollary 2.3. (Habiro ) Two oriented knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent if and only if they are related by a finite sequence of one-branched $`C_k`$-moves and ambient isotopies. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`T_0`$ be a $`j`$-component tangle. Let $`𝒯(T_0)`$ be the set of the tangles each element of which is homotopic to $`T_0`$ relative to $`B^3`$. Let $`𝒯(T_0)`$ be the free abelian group generated by $`𝒯(T_0)`$. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ be natural numbers. We define a singular tangle of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ and a subgroup $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)(T_0)`$ of $`𝒯(T_0)`$ as follows. Suppose that for each $`P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ a tangle $`T_P𝒯(T_0)`$ is assigned. Suppose that there are orientation preserving embeddings $`h_i:B^3\mathrm{int}B^3`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$ such that
(1) $`h_i(B^3)h_j(B^3)\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$,
(2) $`T_P_{i=1}^lh_i(B^3)=T_P^{}_{i=1}^lh_i(B^3)`$ for any subsets $`P,P^{}\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$,
(3) $`(h_i^1(T_{\mathrm{}}),h_i^1(T_{\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}))`$ is a $`C_{k_i}`$-move $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$, and
(4) $`T_Ph_i(B^3)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_{\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}h_i(B^3)\hfill & \text{if }iP,\hfill \\ T_{\mathrm{}}h_i(B^3)\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Then we call the set of tangles $`\{T_P|P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\}`$ a singular tangle of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$. For a singular tangle $`T=\{T_P|P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\}`$ of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$, we define an element $`\kappa (T)`$ of $`𝒯(T_0)`$ by

$$\kappa (T)=\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}T_P.$$

Let $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)(T_0)`$ be the subgroup of $`𝒯(T_0)`$ generated by all $`\kappa (T)`$ where $`T`$ varies over all singular tangles of type $`(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. By Corollary 2.3 it is sufficient to show that if $`(T_1,T_2)`$ is a one-branched $`C_k`$-move, then $`T_1T_2𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)(T_1)`$. We first show that $`T_1T_2𝒱(kk_l,k_l)(T_1)`$. By Lemma 2.1 we have that any one-branched $`C_k`$-move is equivalent to a move illustrated in Fig. 2.9 (a) or (b). Therefore we may assume that $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are as illustrated in Fig. 2.9 (a) or (b). Suppose that $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are as in Fig. 2.9 (a) (resp. (b)). Let $`T_3,T_4,T_5`$ and $`T_6`$ be tangles as illustrated in Fig. 2.10 (a) (resp. (b)). Note that $`T_3`$ and $`T_4`$ are ambient isotopic relative to $`B^3`$. Then we have that $`T_1T_2=(T_1T_5T_3+T_6)+(T_5T_2T_6+T_4)`$. Note that $`T_1`$ and $`T_3`$, $`T_2`$ and $`T_4`$, and $`T_5`$ and $`T_6`$ are related by a (one-branched) $`C_{k_l}`$-move. Similarly $`T_1`$ and $`T_5`$, $`T_3`$ and $`T_6`$, $`T_5`$ and $`T_2`$, and $`T_6`$ and $`T_4`$ are related by a one-branched $`C_{kk_l}`$-move. It is not hard to see that both $`T=\{T_1,T_5,T_3,T_6\}`$ and $`T^{}=\{T_5,T_2,T_6,T_4\}`$ are singular tangles of type $`(kk_l,k_l)`$ and that $`\epsilon \kappa (T)=T_1T_5T_3+T_6`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}\kappa (T^{})=T_5T_2T_6+T_4`$, where $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$, and $`\epsilon ^{}=\pm 1`$. Thus $`T_1T_2𝒱(kk_l,k_l)(T_1)`$.

Similarly we have that if $`(T_1^{},T_2^{})`$ is a one-branched $`C_{kk_l}`$-move, then $`T_1^{}T_2^{}𝒱(kk_lk_{l1},k_{l1})(T_1)`$. By substituting this to one-branched $`C_{kk_l}`$-moves in $`B^3`$ with respect to $`T_1`$ and $`T_5`$, $`T_3`$ and $`T_6`$, $`T_5`$ and $`T_2`$, and $`T_6`$ and $`T_4`$, we have that $`T_1T_2𝒱(kk_lk_{l1},k_{l1},k_l)(T_1)`$. Repeating this argument we finally have the desired conclusion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 2.9

Fig. 2.10

Remark 2.4. In Proof of Theorem 1.1, since $`T_1`$ and $`T_5`$, and $`T_5`$ and $`T_2`$ are related by a one-branched $`C_{kk_l}`$-move, a one-branced $`C_k`$-move is realized by twice applications of one-branched $`C_{kk_l}`$-moves. By Lemma 2.2, for any positive integer $`k,k^{}`$ $`(k^{}<k)`$, a $`C_k`$-move is realized by finitely many $`C_k^{}`$-moves. Hence $`C_k`$-equivalence implies $`C_k^{}`$-equivalence.

3. Band description

A $`C_1`$-link model is a pair $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ where $`\alpha `$ is a disjoint union of properly embedded arcs in $`B^3`$ and $`\beta `$ is a disjoint union of arcs on $`B^3`$ with $`\alpha =\beta `$ as illustrated in Fig. 3.1. Suppose that a $`C_k`$-link model $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is defined where $`\alpha `$ is a disjoint union of $`k+1`$ properly embedded arcs in $`B^3`$ and $`\beta `$ is a disjoint union of $`k+1`$ arcs on $`B^3`$ with $`\alpha =\beta `$ such that $`\alpha \beta `$ is a disjoint union of $`k+1`$ circles. Let $`\gamma `$ be a component of $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`W`$ a regular neighbourhood of $`\gamma `$ in $`(B^3(\alpha \beta ))\gamma `$. Let $`V`$ be an oriented solid torus, $`D`$ a disk in $`V`$, $`\alpha _0`$ properly embedded arcs in $`V`$ and $`\beta _0`$ arcs on $`D`$ as illustrated in Fig. 3.2. Let $`\psi :VW`$ be an orientation preserving homeomorphism such that $`\psi (D)=WB^3`$ and $`\psi (\alpha _0\beta _0)`$ bounds disjoint disks in $`B^3`$. Then we call the pair $`((\alpha \gamma )\psi (\alpha _0),(\beta \gamma )\psi (\beta _0))`$ a $`C_{k+1}`$-link model. We also say that the pair $`((\alpha \gamma )\psi (\alpha _0),(\beta \gamma )\psi (\beta _0))`$ is a double of $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ with respect to the component $`\gamma `$. A link model is a $`C_k`$-link model for some $`k`$.

Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Let $`(\alpha _1,\beta _1),\mathrm{},(\alpha _l,\beta _l)`$ be link models. Let $`K`$ be an oriented knot (resp. a tangle). Let $`\psi _i:B^3S^3`$ (resp. $`\psi _i:B^3\mathrm{int}B^3`$) be an orientation preserving embedding for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ and $`b_{1,1},b_{1,2},\mathrm{},b_{1,\rho (1)},b_{2,1},b_{2,2},\mathrm{},b_{2,\rho (2)},\mathrm{},b_{l,1},b_{l,2},\mathrm{},b_{l,\rho (l)}`$ mutually disjoint disks embedded in $`S^3`$ (resp. $`B^3`$). Suppose that they satisfy the following conditions;
(1) $`\psi _i(B^3)\psi _j(B^3)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`ij`$,
(2) $`\psi _i(B^3)K=\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i`$,
(3) $`b_{i,k}K=b_{i,k}K`$ is an arc for each $`i,k`$,
(4) $`b_{i,k}(_{j=1}^l\psi _j(B^3))=b_{i,k}\psi _i(B^3)`$ is a component of $`\psi _i(\beta _i)`$ for each $`i,k`$,
(5) ($`_{k=1}^{\rho (i)}b_{i,k})\psi _i(B^3)=\psi _i(\beta _i)`$ for each $`i`$.
Let $`J`$ be an oriented knot (resp. a tangle) defined by

$$J=K(\underset{i,k}{}b_{i,k})(\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}\psi _i(\alpha _i))\underset{i,k}{}\mathrm{int}(b_{i,k}K)\underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}\psi _i(\mathrm{int}\beta _i),$$

where the orientation of $`J`$ coincides that of $`K`$ on $`K_{i,k}b_{i,k}`$ if $`K`$ is oriented. Then we say that $`J`$ is a band sum of $`K`$ and link models $`(\alpha _1,\beta _1),\mathrm{},(\alpha _l,\beta _l)`$. We call each $`b_{i,k}`$ a band. Each image $`\psi _i(B^3)`$ is called a link ball. In particular if $`(\alpha _i,\beta _i)`$ is a $`C_k`$-link model then $`b_{i,k}`$ is called a $`C_k`$-band and $`\psi _i(B^3)`$ is called a $`C_k`$-link ball. We set $`_i=((\alpha _i,\beta _i),\psi _i,\{b_{i,1},\mathrm{},b_{i,\rho (i)}\})`$ and call $`_i`$ a chord. In particular $`_i`$ is called a $`C_k`$-chord when $`(\alpha _i,\beta _i)`$ is a $`C_k`$-link model. We denote $`J`$ by $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l\})`$ and call it a band description of $`J`$. We also say that $`J`$ is a band sum of $`K`$ and chords $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$.

Sublemma 3.1. Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a $`C_k`$-move. Then there is a $`C_k`$-link model $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ such that $`(T_1,T_2)(\alpha ,\widehat{\beta })`$ where $`\widehat{\beta }`$ is a slight push in of $`\beta `$.

Proof. It is clearly true for $`k=1`$. Suppose that $`(T_1,T_2)`$ is a double of a $`C_{k1}`$-move $`(U_1,U_2)`$ with respect to the components $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ and $`(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$ is a $`C_{k1}`$-link model such that $`(U_1,U_2)(\alpha ^{},\widehat{\beta ^{}})`$. Then by the deformation illustrated in Fig. 3.3, we have that there is a double $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ of $`(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$ with respect to the component which corresponds to $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ such that $`(\alpha ,\widehat{\beta })`$ is equivalent to a double of $`(\alpha ^{},\widehat{\beta ^{}})`$ and therefore equivalent to $`(T_1,T_2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.3 indicates that for a double $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ of $`(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$, $`(\alpha ,\widehat{\beta })`$ is equivalent to a double of $`(\alpha ^{},\widehat{\beta ^{}})`$. Thus we have

Sublemma 3.2. If $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is a $`C_k`$-link model, then $`(\alpha ,\widehat{\beta })`$ is equivalent to a $`C_k`$-move. $`\mathrm{}`$

Sublemma 3.3. Let $`(T_1,T_2)`$ be a $`C_k`$-move. Then there is a $`C_k`$-link model $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ such that a band sum of $`T_1`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is ambient isotopic to $`T_2`$ relative to $`B^3`$.

Proof. Since the inverse $`(T_2,T_1)`$ is also a $`C_k`$-move we have by Sublemma 3.1 that there is a $`C_k`$-link model $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ such that $`(T_2,T_1)(\alpha ,\widehat{\beta })`$. It is easy to see that $`\alpha `$ is a band sum of $`\widehat{\beta }`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ up to ambient isotopy relative to $`B^3`$. Therefore we have the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

From now on we consider knots up to ambient isotopy of $`S^3`$ and tangles up to ambient isotopy of $`B^3`$ relative to $`B^3`$ without explicit mention. As an immeditate consequence of Sublemmas 3.2 and 3.3 we have

Sublemma 3.4. Let $`K`$ and $`J`$ be oriented knots. Then $`K`$ and $`J`$ are related by a $`C_k`$-move if and only if $`J`$ is a band sum of $`K`$ and a $`C_k`$-link model. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`K`$ be a knot and $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l\})`$ a band sum of $`K`$ and $`C_{k_i}`$-chords $`_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$. We define an element $`\kappa (J)`$ of $`𝒦`$ by

$$\kappa (J)=\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\underset{iP}{}\{_i\}).$$

By Subemmas 3.2 and 3.3 we have that the subgroup $`𝒱(k_1,\mathrm{},k_l)`$ of $`𝒦`$ is generated by all $`\kappa (J)`$ where $`J`$ varies over all band sums of knots and $`C_{k_i}`$-chords $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$.

Sublemma 3.5. Let $`K`$, $`J`$ and $`I`$ be oriented knots. Suppose that $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l\})`$ for some chords $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ and $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }(J;\{\})`$ for some $`C_k`$-chord $``$. Then there is a $`C_k`$-chord $`^{}`$ such that $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,^{}\})`$. Moreover, if there is a subset $`P`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ such that the link ball and the bands of $``$ intersect neither the link ball nor the bands of $`_j`$ for any $`j\{1,\mathrm{},l\}P`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Omega }(K;_{iP}\{_i\});\{\})=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;(_{iP}\{_i\})\{^{}\})`$.

Proof. If the bands and the link ball of $``$ are disjoint from those of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ then we have that $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,\})`$. If not then we deform $`I`$ up to ambient isotopy as follows. First we thin and shrink the bands and the link ball of $``$ so that they are thin enough and small enough respectively. If the link ball of $``$ intersects the bands and the link balls of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ then we move the link ball of $``$ so that they does not intersect. Then we slide the bands of $``$ along $`J`$ so that the intersection of the bands with $`J`$ is disjoint from the bands and the link balls of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$. Then we sweep the bands of $``$ out of the link balls of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$. Note that this is always possible since the tangles are trivial. Finally we sweep the intersection of the bands of $``$ and the bands of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ out of the intersection of the bands of $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ and $`K`$. Let $`^{}`$ be the result of the deformation of $``$ described above. Then it is not hard to see that $`^{}`$ is a desired chord. $`\mathrm{}`$

By repeated applications of Sublemmas 3.4 and 3.5 we immediately have the following lemma.

Lemma 3.6. Let $`k`$ be a positive integer and let $`K`$ and $`J`$ be oriented knots. Then $`K`$ and $`J`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent if and only if $`J`$ is a band sum of $`K`$ and some $`C_k`$-link models. $`\mathrm{}`$

As in the definition of $`C_k`$-move we define iteratedly doubled strings as follows. A $`0`$-double pattern is $`\{𝐨\}\times [0,1]`$ in $`B^2\times [0,1]`$ where $`𝐨`$ is the center of $`B^2`$. Suppose that a $`k`$-double pattern $`A`$ in $`B^2\times [0,1]`$ is defined. Let $`N`$ be a regular neighbourhood of a component $`\gamma `$ of $`A`$ in $`(B^2\times [0,1]A)\gamma `$ such that $`N(B^2\times [0,1])=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\psi :B^2\times [0,1]N`$ be a homeomorphism with $`\psi (B^2\times \{0,1\})=N(B^2\times \{0,1\})`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a disjoint union of properly embedded arcs in $`B^2\times [0,1]`$ as illustrated in Fig. 1.1. Then $`(A\gamma )\psi (\alpha )`$ is called a $`(k+1)`$-double pattern. Let $`N`$ be a regular neighbourhood of a properly embedded arc in $`B^3`$. Let $`\psi :B^2\times [0,1]N`$ be a homeomorphism. Then the image $`\psi (A)`$ of a $`k`$-double pattern $`A`$ is called a $`k`$-double string. Note that a ‘crossing change’ between $`k`$-double strng and $`j`$-double string is equivalent to a $`C_{k+j+1}`$-move.

Sublemma 3.7. Let $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ be a $`C_k`$-link model and $`\gamma `$ a component of $`\alpha \beta `$. Let $`D`$ be a disk in $`B^3`$ such that $`D=\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{int}DB^3=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\delta `$ be a properly embedded unknotted arc in $`B^3`$ that intersects $`D`$ transversally at one point in $`\mathrm{int}D`$. Let $`N`$ be a regular neighbourhood of $`\delta `$ in $`B^3\gamma `$. Then there exist a $`(k1)`$-double string $`𝒟`$ in $`N`$ and an orientation preserving homeomorphism $`\phi :B^3B^3`$ such that $`\phi |_{\gamma \beta }=\mathrm{id}|_{\gamma \beta }`$, and $`\phi (\alpha \gamma )=𝒟\gamma `$.

In the lemma above, we note that $`𝒟(\alpha \gamma )`$ is a $`k`$-double string.

Proof. The case $`k=1`$ is clear. Suppose that it is shown for $`k1`$. Let $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ be a double of a $`C_{k1}`$-link model $`(\alpha ^{},\beta ^{})`$ with respect to the component $`\gamma ^{}`$ of $`\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$.

If $`\gamma `$ is already a component of $`\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$, then by the deformation of $`\alpha `$ in a regular neighbourhood of $`\gamma ^{}`$ as illustrated in Fig. 3.4 and by the assumption, we have the result.

Next suppose that $`\gamma `$ is not a component of $`\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$. In other words $`\gamma `$ is contained in a regular neighbourhood $`W`$ of $`\gamma ^{}`$. Let $`D^{}`$ be a disk in $`B^3`$ such that $`D^{}=\gamma ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{int}D^{}B^3=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\delta ^{}`$ be a properly embedded unknotted arc in $`B^3`$ that intersects $`D^{}`$ transversally at one point in $`\mathrm{int}D^{}`$. Let $`N^{}`$ be a regular neighbourhood of $`\delta ^{}`$ in $`B^3\gamma ^{}`$. Then by the assuption there is a $`(k2)`$-double string $`𝒟^{}`$ in $`N^{}`$ and an orientation preserving homeomorphism $`\phi ^{}:B^3B^3`$ such that $`\phi ^{}|_{\gamma ^{}\beta ^{}}=\mathrm{id}|_{\gamma ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ and $`\phi ^{}(\alpha ^{}\gamma ^{})=𝒟^{}\gamma ^{}`$. By modifying $`\phi ^{}`$ if necessary we may suppose that $`\phi ^{}|_{WB^3}=\mathrm{id}|_{WB^3}`$. Then we have that $`\phi ^{}(\alpha \gamma )`$ is as illustrated in Fig. 3.5 (a). Then by the deformation illustrated in Fig. 3.5 we have the result. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 3.5

Lemma 3.8. Let $`K`$, $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,_0\})`$ and $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,_0^{}\})`$ be oriented knots, where $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ are chords and $`_0,_0^{}`$ are $`C_k`$-chords. Suppose that $`J`$ and $`I`$ differ locally as illustrated in Fig $`3.6`$ (a), (b), i.e., $`I`$ is obtained from $`J`$ by a crossing change between $`K`$ and a band of $`_0`$. Then $`J`$ and $`I`$ are related by a $`C_{k+1}`$-move. Moreover, there is a $`C_{k+1}`$-chord $``$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(K;(_{iP}\{_i\})\{_0\})=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;(_{iP}\{_i\})\{_0^{},\})`$ for any subset $`P`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$.

Proof. By shrinking the band and pulling the link ball as illustrated in Fig. 3.6 it is sufficient to show the case that $`K`$ is near the link ball. Then by Sublemma 3.7 we deform the strings in the link ball without disturbing a neighbourhood of the band. Then the crossing change is realized by a $`C_{k+1}`$-move. See Fig. 3.7. In Fig. 3.7, there is a $`3`$-ball $`B`$ in $`S^3`$ and a homeomorphism $`h:BB^3`$ such that $`(h(J),h(I))`$ is a $`C_{k+1}`$-move and $`B`$ is disjoint from the link ball and the bands of any chord $`_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$. Thus by Sublemmas 3.3 and 3.5, we have the latter assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 3.6

Fig. 3.7

Lemma 3.9. Let $`K`$, $`J=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,_{0j},_{0k}\})`$ and $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;\{_1,\mathrm{},_l,_{0j}^{},_{0k}^{}\})`$ be oriented knots, where $`_1,\mathrm{},_l`$ are chords and $`_{0j},_{0j}^{}`$ $`(`$resp. $`_{0k},_{0k}^{})`$ are $`C_j`$-chords $`(`$resp. $`C_k`$-chords$`)`$. Suppose that $`J`$ and $`I`$ differ locally as illustrated in Fig. 3.8. Then $`J`$ and $`I`$ are related by a $`C_{j+k}`$-move. Moreover, there is a $`C_{j+k}`$-chord $``$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(K;(_{iP}\{_i\})\{_{0j},_{0k}\})=\mathrm{\Omega }(K;(_{iP}\{_i\})\{_{0j}^{},_{0k}^{},\})`$ for any subset $`P`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$.

We call the change from $`J`$ to $`I`$ in Lemma 3.9 a band exchange.

Fig. 3.8

Proof. First we deform the strings in the link balls as stated in Sublemma 3.7 then we slide one of the two bands along the other band and then perform a $`C_{j+k}`$-move. See Fig. 3.9. In Fig. 3.9, there is a $`3`$-ball $`B`$ in $`S^3`$ and a homeomorphism $`h:BB^3`$ such that $`(h(J),h(I))`$ is a $`C_{j+k}`$-move and $`B`$ is disjoint from the link ball and the bands of any chord $`_i`$ $`(i=1,\mathrm{},l)`$. Thus by Sublemmas 3.3 and 3.5, we have the latter assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 3.9

Proof of Theorem 1.2. Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_l`$ $`(l2)`$ be positive integer and $`k=k_1+\mathrm{}+k_l`$. Let $`K_0`$ be a knot and $`K_1`$ a band sum of $`K_0`$ and $`C_{k_j}`$-chords $`_{k_j,j}`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{},l)`$. It is sufficient to show that

$$\mu _k\left(\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{jP}{}\{_{k_j,j}\})\right)=0𝒦/(𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#}),$$

where $`\mu _k:𝒦𝒦/(𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#})`$ is the quotient homomorphism.

Set

$$K_P=\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{jP}{}\{_{k_j,j}\}).$$

In the following we consider knots up to $`C_k`$-equivalence and by a symbol $`K_1`$ $`(`$resp. $`K_P)`$ we express a knot that is $`C_k`$-equivalent to $`K_1`$ $`(`$resp. $`K_P)`$. We will deform the form of band description of $`K_1`$ step by step. At each step $`K_1`$ is expressed as a band sum of $`K_0`$ and some chords such that each $`K_P`$ is a band sum of $`K_0`$ and some subset of the chords of $`K_1`$. To be more precise

$$K_1=\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{i,j}{}\{_{i,j}\})$$

at each step where $`_{i,j}`$ is a $`C_i`$-chord for some $`i`$ with $`1i<k`$ and it has an associated subset $`\omega (_{i,j})\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$ with $`_{t\omega (_{i,j})}k_ti`$ such that for each $`P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$

$$()K_P=\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{\omega (_{i,j})P}{}\{_{i,j}\}).$$

A chord $`_{i,j}`$ is called a local chord if there is a 3-ball $`B`$ such that $`B`$ contains all of the bands and the link ball of $`_{i,j}`$, $`B`$ does not intersect any other bands and link balls, and that $`(B,BK_0)`$ is a trivial ball-arc pair. Such a local chord $`_{ij}`$ represents a knot $`K_{ij}`$ connected summed to $`K_0`$. The final goal of the step by step deformation is a band sum of $`K_0`$ and some local chords $`_{ij}`$’s so that $`K_1`$ is a connected sum of $`K_0`$ and $`K_{ij}`$’s. Since $`\mu _k(K\mathrm{\#}K^{})=\mu _k(K+K^{})𝒦/(𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#})`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mu _k\left(\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{\omega (_{i,j})P}{}\{_{i,j}\})\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mu _k\left(\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}\left(K_0+\underset{\omega (_{i,j})P}{}K_{i,j}\right)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mu _k\left(\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}K_0+\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}}{}(1)^{|P|}\left(\underset{\omega (_{i,j})P}{}K_{i,j}\right)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mu _k\left(0+\underset{i,j}{}\left(\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\},\omega (_{i,j})P}{}(1)^{|P|}K_{i,j}\right)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

We consider the coefficient of $`K_{i,j}`$. Since $`_{t\omega (_{i,j})}k_t<k`$, $`\omega (_{i,j})`$ is a proper subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. We may assume that $`\omega (_{i,j})`$ does not contain $`a\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. Then we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\},\omega (_{i,j})P}{}(1)^{|P|}=& \underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\{a\},\omega (_{i,j})P}{}(1)^{|P|}\hfill \\ & +\underset{P\{1,\mathrm{},l\}\{a\},\omega (_{i,j})P}{}(1)^{|P\{a\}|}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, we have the conclusion if we can get a desired band description.

Now we will deform the band description of $`K_1`$ into a desired form. We first set $`\omega (_{k_j,j})=\{j\}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},l`$. Then we have $`_{t\omega (_{k_j,j})}k_t=k_j`$ and

$$K_P=\mathrm{\Omega }(K_0;\underset{\omega (_{k_j,j})P}{}\{_{k_j,j}\}).$$

Note that a crossing change between bands or a self-crossing change of a band can be realized by crossing changes between $`K_0`$ and a band as illustrated in Fig. 3.10. Therefore we can deform each chord into a local chord by band exchanges and crossing changes between $`K_0`$ and bands.

When we perform a crossing change between $`K_0`$ and a $`C_p`$-band of a $`C_p`$-chord $`_{p,q}`$ with $`pk2`$ we introduce a new $`C_{p+1}`$-chord $`_{p+1,r}`$ and we set $`\omega (_{p+1,r})=\omega (_{p,q})`$ so that the condition $`()`$ still holds for all subset $`P`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. To do this we use Lemma 3.8. When we perform a band exchange between a $`C_p`$-chord $`_{p,q}`$ and a $`C_r`$-chord $`_{r,s}`$ with $`p+rk1`$ we introduce a new $`C_{p+r}`$-chord $`_{p+r,n}`$ and set $`\omega (_{p+r,n})=\omega (_{p,q})\omega (_{r,s})`$ so that the condition $`()`$ still holds for all subset $`P`$ of $`\{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$. To do this we use Lemma 3.9. Note that the condition $`_{t\omega (_{i,j})}k_ti`$ still holds for all chords.

By Lemma 3.8, a crossing change between $`K_0`$ and a $`C_{k1}`$-band is realized by a $`C_k`$-move and therefore does not change the $`C_k`$-equivalence class. Similarly, by Lemma 3.9, a band exchange between a $`C_p`$-chord $`_{p,q}`$ and a $`C_r`$-chord $`_{r,s}`$ with $`p+rk`$ is realized by a $`C_{p+r}`$-move. Therefore, by Remark 2.4, it also does not change the $`C_k`$-equivalence class.

We note that the process definitely ends at last because a deformation of a $`C_p`$-chords does not produces $`C_q`$-chords for $`qp`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Fig. 3.10

Proof of Theorem 1.4. It is clear that if $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent and if $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent then the connected sums $`K_1\mathrm{\#}J_1`$ and $`K_2\mathrm{\#}J_2`$ are $`C_k`$-equivalent. Thus the binary operation is well-defined. We note that the ambient isotopy classes of oriented knots forms a commutative monoid under connected sum of knots with unit element a trivial knot. Therefore it is sufficient to show the existence of the inverse element. Let $`K`$ be an oriented knot. First we note that $`K`$ itself is $`C_1`$-equivalent to a trivial knot. Suppose that there is an oriented knot $`J`$ such that $`K\mathrm{\#}J`$ is $`C_{k1}`$-equivalent to a trivial knot $`O`$. Then by Lemma 3.6 we have that $`O`$ is a band sum of $`K\mathrm{\#}J`$ and some $`C_{k1}`$-link models. We choose a 3-ball $`B`$ in $`S^3`$ such that $`BK\mathrm{\#}J`$ is an unknotted arc in $`B`$. By an ambient isotopy we deform the link balls into $`B`$ and slide the ends of bands into $`B`$. Then using Lemma 3.8 we deform $`O`$ up to $`C_k`$-equivalence so that the whole of the bands are contained in $`B`$. Then we have that the result is a connected sum of $`K\mathrm{\#}J`$ and some knot $`L`$. Namely $`K\mathrm{\#}J\mathrm{\#}L`$ is $`C_k`$-equivalent to $`O`$. Thus $`J\mathrm{\#}L`$ is the desired knot. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 1.5. Let $`\xi _k:𝒦/(𝒱(k)+_\mathrm{\#})𝒦/C_k`$ be a homomorphism defined by $`\xi _k(K)=[K]_{C_k}`$ for $`K𝒦`$ where $`[K]_{C_k}`$ denote the $`C_k`$-equivalence class of $`K`$. It follows from Theorem 1.4 that both $`\eta _k`$ and $`\xi _k`$ are well-defined homomorphisms. Then it is clear that both $`\xi _k\eta _k`$ and $`\eta _k\xi _k`$ are identities. Therefore both $`\eta _k`$ and $`\xi _k`$ are isomorphisms. $`\mathrm{}`$